BAP 
 

 PRINCETON, N. J. 
 
 Presented by Mr Samuel Agnew of Philadelphia, Pa. 
 
 
 Agnew Coll. on Baptism, No. 
 
CATHOLIC BAPTISM 
 
 EXAMINED: 
 
 O R, 
 
 THOUGHTS on the GROUND, 
 And EXTENT, 
 
 O F 
 
 Baptismal Administration; 
 
 Wherein -Mr. Booth's Publications on 
 BAPTISM are noticed, so far as deemed ma- 
 terial to the Object of Inquiry in this Work, 
 
 * ■ - . ""• r~? 
 
 By WILLIAMS-MILLER. 
 
 Let every Man be fully perfwaded in his own Mind, 
 Prove all Things > hold fast that which is good, 
 
 Paul, 
 
 HIGH-WYCOMBE: 
 Printed for the AUTHOR, 
 
 SOLD BY S. CAVE, PRINTER J AND BY M. TRAF^ 
 PATERNOSTER-ROW, LONDON* 
 
 "93* 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 
 in 2011 with funding from 
 
 Princeton Theological Seminary Library 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/catholicbaptismeOOmill 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 
 INTRODUCTORY PREFACE. 
 
 Chapter I. 
 
 Page. 
 r\F the privileged State of all Nations under 
 
 the 'limes of the Glorious Meffiah 1. — 14* 
 
 Chaper II. 
 
 Comprehending an Inquiry into the right Rule 
 of Adminijlering the Baptifmal Ordinance; 
 zuho are the proper Subjects of it ; and an 
 Examination of Scripture Accounts f d'Jigned 
 to df cover their Agreement or Difagreement 
 with, their Confirmation or Refutation of 
 the Author i views of Bapiifm 15 — 1 35 
 
 Chapter 
 
iv CONTENTS. 
 
 Pa©i, 
 Chapter III. 
 
 Brief Olfervations, ferving to explain^ enforce 
 and recommend Catholic Baptifm, * 3 7 «~* 
 
 INTRO 
 

 I 
 
 INTRODUCTORY FREFACE. 
 
 Y^ APTISM is an Ordinance of the Netf 
 JD Teftament, Which has occafioned con* 
 fiderable Controverfy. Numerous publica- 
 tions of Paedobaptifls and Antipaedobaptifts, 
 have made their appearance in behalf of their 
 refpective opinions. After all that has been 
 advanced, Unanimity is far from being the 
 Boaft of Profeflbrs on the Subjecl. Some, 
 every now and then, feel themfelves obliga- 
 ted, or induced, for one reafon or another, 
 to come forward as Writers thereon. It is 
 owing to this, that hitherto there has been, 
 and yet is likely to be, a fucceffion of Books 
 on this controverted article of the Chrif- 
 tian Faith. Well, be it fo : tl-ere can be 
 no doubt, but Benefit will accrue to th; 
 Truth, and the World, eventually, there- 
 by. Controverfial Writings, however 
 much to be regreted on fome accounts, 
 will, it may be expe&ed, prove effeauai, 
 
 ac~ 
 
vi PREFACE 
 
 accompanied with the guidance of the 
 Holy Spirit, to bring about that unity of 
 the Faith which is defuable. Nor can it be 
 juftly queftioned, I conceive, on a Subject, 
 of this kind, nor pet haps on any other, but 
 an alteration, at leafi in fome degree, in the 
 Statement and mode of Argument, hitherto 
 u fed in its fupport, may introduce Uniform 
 mity of fentiment and practice. 
 
 Until I had feen the works of Mr. 
 Booth, and Dr. Williams, I entertained 
 no thoughts of becoming a public Advo- 
 cate for Catholic Baptilm. However, after 
 a careful perufal of both, various conft- 
 derations which are here fubmitted to the 
 Reader, occurred in favor of this enlarged 
 Baptiimal plan. They are publifhed, to 
 borrow the language of Dr. Jortin on ano- 
 theroccafion, •'for the fervice of Truth 
 " by One, who would be glad to attend, 
 " and grace her Tiiumphs ; as a Soldier : 
 " If he has had the honour to ferve 
 u fuccefsfully under her banner : or, as her 
 " Captive, tied to her Chariot Wheels, if 
 " he has, though undej?gnedly 9 committed 
 «* any offence againfl her." 
 
 Every 
 
PREFACE. vii 
 
 Every Reader of Mr. Booth's Work, 
 entitled, Pa^dohaptifm examined, on the 
 principles, conceflions, and rea'onings of 
 the moQ learned Paedobaptifts, will difco- 
 v ?r and commend the Author forconfider- 
 able pains and labor. On the utility 
 of it, in vanous points of view, I venture 
 with equal confidence to pronounce, though 
 it is prolefledly, and in fome parts of it 
 violently, written againft the caufe of 
 Paedobaptifm. The Index ro his quotations 
 naturally leads us to view him furrounded 
 with numerous volumes : and amonijtheni 
 herefemble^ the indufltious bee in a gar- 
 den, collecting from every flower ; yet 
 for p^dobaptists, he is not without a 
 Sting. The defign of his employ is, to 
 fhew the inconfiftency of the pious, and 
 mofl: learned of the denomination juft 
 mentioned, in practifmg Infant-Baptifm on 
 their principles and concefhons. And in- 
 deed Mr. B — -'s reafoning and reprefenta- 
 tion run to fueh an extent, that if others 
 are like-minded with myfelf, they will join 
 me in the opinion, that fuch palpable 
 inconfiflency as this Author would load 
 
 their 
 
viii PREFACE. 
 
 their memory and writings with, is with 
 difficulty indeed reconciled to their being 
 men of eminence in literature, or even 
 integrity. A work fimilar to Mr. B — 's, 
 as to its general defign was, I think, very 
 much to be wifhed for : but whether we 
 confider a Paedo, or Anti-paedobapiift thus 
 engaged, it has a delicacy peculiar to it, a- 
 rifing from the nature of the Subject, and 
 the number and character of thofe who 
 hold different opinions upon it, that re- 
 quires impartiality and moderation, liberal- 
 ity and judgement in executing it. Truth 
 demands the acknowledgment, in a general 
 way, that Mr. B. has had too much reafon 
 to avail himfelf, in many inftances, of the 
 Works he has ranfacked. Not with ft an ding, 
 if I may offer my opinion, the Caufe he op- 
 pofes, will receive benefit by his publi- 
 cation, as it gives us a collection of what 
 are confidered as Inconfiftencies in Paedo- 
 baptifts : while there can be no doubt of 
 the Author's taking every advantage he can, 
 to fink the reputation of their caufe. If 
 the Reader has Pcedobnpiifm Examined, &c. 
 at hand, he may at once fee Quotations 
 
 gathered 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 IX 
 
 gathered from eaft, weft, north and fouth. 
 -The prudent and confident Perufer will 
 not fail to make a difference between a 
 great deal that will apply as Common 
 Property to one fide as well as the other, 
 and that which ftrictly belongs to his own. 
 He will not forget the arrangement (not 
 to fpeak of the Quotations them/elves) was 
 optional and lay with the Author and may 
 give too ftrong a colouring. He will dif- 
 tinguifh between the Quotations ferving as 
 a Text, and the Remarks and Enlargement 
 thereon. When this is done, a fmall Part 
 of Mr. B — 's Work, compared with the bulk 
 of the Whole, can be confidered as immediate- 
 ly to the purpofe, and adapted to the caufe 
 he would defend, or againil the caufe he 
 would oppofe. Therefore, while I cannot 
 but think, truth will ftand indebted to 
 Paedobaptifm examined, I am equally ap- 
 prehenhve, its Author will be difappointed. 
 One effect of his work appears in Anti- 
 paedobaptifm examined ; or a (Iricl: and im- 
 partial inquiry into the nature and defign, 
 fubjects and mode of Baptifm, &c. by Dr. 
 Williams. Acknowledged, as this work has 
 
 b been 
 
x PREFACE. 
 
 been, to pofTefs confiderable merit, Mr. B. in 
 a late performance of his, affe£ts to treat it 
 with the greateft indignity. He tells us by 
 the pen of another,that "he would not have 
 ** thought it worth while to have anfwered 
 " the performance of his opponent, but for 
 " the clamorous confidence of fome people, 
 " who reckon a book unanfwerable when no 
 " reply is made to it." What provocation 
 fhould we think a perfon has received, who 
 in his preface exprefles himfelf thus : "Yes, 
 " I have made fome exertions in order to 
 
 * prove, that I am not enamoured with Anti- 
 " pasdobaptifm examined — that I am no more 
 
 * convinced by the force of my Opponent's 
 " arguments, than I am charmed with the 
 " modejiy of his pretenfions, the conjijlency 
 " of his fentiments 5 ^r/^z'aa'(y of his mean- 
 " ing, the accuracy of his language, or the 
 " elegance of his compofition." Will not 
 the Reader feel furprize at fuch language as 
 this, when he learns the caufe in the fuc- 
 ceeding fentence ? " On all which, I have 
 <l made fome animadverfions that would 
 ,e certainly have been fpared, even though 
 " I had thought proper to write a defence, 
 
 « if 
 
PREFACE x 
 
 " if he had not confidered me as capti- 
 ■" vated with his performance." What 
 unpleafant intelligence did this Author's 
 correfpondent in the country convey to 
 him ! Surely, that gentleman did not fore- 
 fee the effects of it, or he would n©t 
 have contributed to fo unfavorable an im- 
 preflion on the temper of Mr. B. by com- 
 municating what he obtained "from a 
 <s friendly interview that he had with Mr. 
 " (now Dr.) Edward Williams." Here- 
 after, let Psedobaptifts relinquifh every 
 idea of captivating Mr. B. with a produc- 
 tion in favor of their diftingui filing fenti- 
 ments. Let them take warning for the fu- 
 ture and defift from the attempt, on pain 
 of having every overfight in language 
 marked bv his Italics — a collection made 
 of the fir ft perfon pronoun and other ex- 
 preftions, from different parts of the book 5 
 to ftarnp and fix the character of the Egotilt 
 Upon the Author — the charge of apparent 
 ^confiftency, when, if one part is taken 
 with another, paffagesare reconcilable. Is it 
 credible, that it is the fame Author who writes 
 in his preface to his former work, every one 
 
 b 2 mull 
 
vii PREFACE. 
 
 muft confefs, that the wrath of man worketh 
 not the righteoufnefs of God, and that the 
 caufe he pleads requires not fuch meanto' 
 defence ? How unhappy the exchange o 
 ** a few ftrokes of pleafantry in the courfe 
 €t of his reflections on the language and ar- 
 *' guments of fome Peedobaptifls, 5 ' in that 
 work, 'for notorious ftrokes of il liberality 
 and unkindnefs in his Animadverfions 
 on this of Dr. Williams's. — Much room is 
 there for enlargement, but even thefe hints 
 would have been fpared, was not injuflice 
 done to the character of a refpeclable Wri- 
 ter and much-valued friend. 
 
 Notice is taken of the three pieces alrea- 
 dy mentioned, quotations from them ac- 
 knowledged, and references given at the 
 end of this Work. I lie under a great mif- 
 take, if the caufe here pleaded, does not 
 gain advantage from them all, objections 
 to, and difficulties attending on a more con- 
 fined plan being avoided herein. Circum- 
 flanced as the ftate of the controverfy be- 
 tween our Authors is, it occurred that the 
 time and purpofe well agree, for offering 
 thefe Thoughts, &c. after Mr. B — s De- 
 fence, 
 
PREFACE. xiii 
 
 fence, and before the reply, which Time 
 may, perhaps, produce, on the part of 
 his Antagonift. 
 
 The firft chapter might have been en- 
 larged, but only fo much is inferted as was 
 deemed fufficient to lay a foundation for the 
 fucceeding ones. Particular attention is 
 paid in the fecond chapter to our Lord's 
 CommifTion, and the hiftorical accounts 
 relating to Baptifm in the New Teftament, 
 becaufe the neglett of a clofe invefligation, 
 the want of diftin6t and particular obferva- 
 tions here, would neceffarily entail miftaken 
 views of the whole. 
 
 Whatever opinions, different Readers may 
 entertain concerning the plan and ex- 
 ecution of this work, it is hoped, no im- 
 proper Spirit, no unbecoming language 
 will be found to hinder its acceptance. 
 It is the Author's wifh to improve daily in 
 a conformity of fpirit and fpeech to the 
 Apoftolic maxim of f peaking the truth in 
 love. So far as the fentiments contained 
 here bear the criteria and facred image of 
 truth, the bleEing of God is implored, and 
 expecled on them, Perfonal confederati- 
 ons 
 
xiv PREFACE. 
 
 ons refpe&ing the Author, are thrown a- 
 fide: his only concern is, that the Re- 
 deemer's Intereft and Glory may be pro- 
 moted ; and as a Friend of the Bridegroom, 
 he will heartily rejoice at his increafe, 
 and the fpread of the Gofpel always. 
 
( 1 ) 
 
 «a>in in am iiiiiiiii»mii 
 
 Catholic Baptifm examined. 
 
 Chapter I. 
 
 Of the privileged State of all Nations un- 
 der the Times of the glorious MeJJiak. 
 
 KNOWN unto God arc all bis Works from 
 the beginning of the World, We, there- 
 fore, conclude from the wifdom, goodnefs, and 
 veracity of the divine being, that Prophecies and 
 Promifcs, which are intended to reveal the State 
 and Events of future times, may be depended 
 upon, as containing a true and faithful Account. 
 From the perfect agreement of ancient prophe- 
 cies and promifes with the times they refpeft:, 
 * their Evidence," as a valuable Writer obferves p 
 ** in its own nature is direct and pertinent ; and 
 " when its meaning is afcertained, its verdift 
 ** (cateris paribus) is indifputable,'' As to paft 
 
 . 
 
( 2 J 
 
 over thefe, would be todifregard eligible means 
 of information on the Subject in hand, it be- 
 hoves us to avail ourfelves of their affiftance. 
 
 Old Teflament Prophecies and Promifes, ftand 
 as facred Eminences in Scripture, whence we 
 may take a Survey of a widening Profpecl, 
 extending through the lapfe of ages, down to the 
 confummation of all Things. Hence the Pa- 
 triarch Abraham forefaw the Redeemer's day, 
 and was glad. His heart gladened at the fcenes, 
 the bright fcenes, opening to his view from fhofe 
 enlarged declarations, In thee Jli all all the fa- 
 milies of the earth be blejfed. Gen. chap. is. 
 v. 3. And again, in thyjeedjhall all the nati- 
 ons of the earth be blejjcd. Gen. chap. 22. 
 v. 18. The feed here intended, upon the tefti- 
 monyofan infpired Apoftle, is Christ. GaU 
 chap. 3. v. 16. All nations without exception 
 are the privileged fubjecls of the promife j and 
 the exact pofition in which we behold them, is 
 blejfed. O joyful Tidings! O glorious Period! — 
 Bleffing, which, like a River, ran in the nar- 
 row channel of the Jewifh nation for feveral 
 ages,, at length fpreads itfelf far and wide; and 
 like the Sea which grafps in all the fhore, compre- 
 hends every part of the habitable Globe — Exult, 
 ye nations, at the thought! To interpret thefe 
 paflages without a manifeft neceffity, fo as to ex- 
 clude the greater part of the nations, muft be do- 
 ing 
 
( 3 ) 
 
 ing injuftice to the force of the language, the par- 
 ties intcrefted, and the liberal grant of the pro- 
 inifer. Their natural import teems to he, that 
 universal blessing M fane important fenfc, 
 fhall abound under the Redeemer's gentle reign. 
 Like a diftant voice, they proclaim m our ears, a 
 change in the relative Jiate of all nations, with re- 
 gard to gofpel privileges. Countries known and 
 unknown, polifhed and barbarous, even thofe 
 ignorant of the gofpel, as well as thofe acquainted 
 with it. are, compared with their former llaie, be- 
 nefited in this refpea, upon the commencement 
 of the days of Median. 
 
 Equally aufpicious to the world at large, is that 
 paffage. So fhall He fprinkle many natio-s. 
 Ifaiah 52. 15. This, like the former, is fpoken of 
 gofpel times, and only a varied form of exprcifmg 
 the fame thing. It contains the ailurance of 
 fome benefits, which the nations at large (hall 
 be made partakers'of under Chrift. "The ob- 
 u vious aiid natural acceptation of the term, jprin- 
 " kle y in this connection,'' fays the author of Anti- 
 " Paedobaptifm examined," is that o£ purifying; 
 ,c and it undoubtedly alludes to thofe ceremonial 
 tf purifications, which were performed by iprink- 
 w Hng perfons and things.-?' Vol. 1. p. 264. See- 
 ing in every fenfe in which the word, fprinkle, can 
 betaken, it denotes a benefit ; and the benefit, be 
 it what it may, refpeCls nations as fuch, there is 
 
 A 2 good 
 
( 4 ) 
 
 good reafon for obferving wi;h the afore-cited 
 author, " the prediction, properly and dire&ly 
 intends external Holinefs," that hoiinefs, whereby 
 nations, now, are diltinguifhed from nations be- 
 fore the corning of Chriit. 
 
 In furveying thefe, and fimilar pafiages of the 
 old teftament, what a wonderfully conftituted 
 itate of grace a^d privilege arifes to our view. 
 Virgil, in his paitoral, entitled Pollio, kindle^ into 
 rapture on describing the golden age of the world- 
 Aided by prophecy and promife, is there not much 
 greater occaiion, in reference to gofpel times, to 
 break out in the language of that Heathen Poet» 
 "Afpice venturo laetentur ut omnia feclo," obferve 
 how all things rejoice at the coming age — Well 
 might Simeon embrace his Saviour, in his wither- 
 ed arms, on feeing Him in the temple, and pathe- 
 tically add, Now letteft thou thy fervant depart in 
 peace, for mine eyes have feen thy ialvation. 
 
 To new Teftament Hiftory we next appeal. 
 Undoubtedly, this accords with former prophecies 
 and promifes. Prophecy is but the account, be- 
 forehand, of times ; hiftory, of times, when come; 
 and to be true, they muft agree with the times, 
 and with one another. It may be further ex- 
 pected, that hiftory and prophecy fhouldrecipro- 
 cally throw light upon each other; fo that by the 
 diftinft information of both, wc may afcertain in 
 the cleared manner, the ftate of the times they 
 reprefent. Thc 
 
( 5 ) 
 
 The hiftory of the new teftament, comes in aid 
 of the privileged ftate already mentioned, with 
 the fulleft evidence. Jews and Gentiles, as they 
 formerly differed in this refpect, arc herein oppo- 
 fed to each other. A line appears drawn around 
 the former, while the latter are excluded : with- 
 in this facred enclofure, they arc called Children, 
 and the Gentiles without, were for ages as dogs* 
 and outcajis, without Chriit, aliens from the com- 
 monwealth of Ifrael, ftrangers from the covenants 
 of promife, having no hope, and without God in 
 the world. Eph. chap. 2. v. 12. Sad pitiable 
 ftate ! how defirable an alteration ! This Abraham 
 faw attendant upon the day of Chriit. God's 
 promife to Him imported fo much ; and new 
 Teftament Hiftory abundantly confirms it. 
 
 Prejudices, like to thofe which influence the 
 minds of too many ftill, and which prevent their 
 viewing the world in fo favorable a light as to ex- 
 ternal gofpel privileges, as they ought, prevailed 
 in the breafts of the Apoflles. To deftrov them 
 in Peter, was the defign of that extraordinary vi~ 
 fion related, Acls chap. 10. He faw heaven open- 
 ed, anda cert ain veffel defcending unto him, a.s 
 it had been a great ftieet, knit at the four corners, 
 and let down to the earth, wherein were all man- 
 ner of four-footed beafts of the earth, and wild 
 beads, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. 
 And there came a voice to him. Rife, Peter, 
 
 kill 
 
( 6 ) 
 
 kill and eat. But Peter faid, not fo Lord, for I 
 have never eaten any thing that is common or un- 
 clean. And the voice fpake unto him again the, 
 fecond time, what God hath clean fed, that call 
 not thou common. This was done thrice, and the 
 vefTel was received up again into heaven. V. 11. — 
 16. Peter doubting in himfelfwhat this fhould 
 mean, Providence becomes interpreter. The 
 fequel of the ftory (hews, the deiign was, to pre- 
 pare Peter for an embaffy among the Gentiles ; to 
 teach that fervant of God the long exifting dif- 
 tin&ion, between Jews and Gentiles was no 
 more ; that the latter flood upon equal footing 
 with the former under a difpenfation wherein all 
 are One; to difpoffefs him of opinions and preju- 
 dices to the contrary, and to excite that liberal 
 fpirit in him, which fuitedthe Genius of thegof- 
 pel, and upon which depended the difcharge of 
 thecommiffion he had received, — -Go and difciple 
 all nations. Peter, like Paul in another cafe, was 
 not difobedient to the heavenly vifion. Happily, 
 no nation fince, as it was before the fetting up of 
 the kingdom of Mefiiah, is debarred from the 
 privileges of the gofpel. Adieu, for ever adieu 
 to language, once in ufe, and confining Salvation, 
 i. e. the means of Salvation, to Ifrael. God's will 
 and declaration of it rendered Abraham's pofter- 
 ity fole poffefTors of it. All befides were as na- 
 tions whom God knew not, as unclean. But, glo- 
 ry to God, times are changed. Gentiles at large, 
 
 contrafted 
 
( 7 ) 
 
 < ontrafted with their former (late, are, by God's 
 full and abfolute declarations of mercy to be rec- 
 koned, clean, relatively holy ; and, confequently, 
 are in as fit a capacity for external privileges, as 
 the Jews before them were from their relative 
 fanctity. 
 
 A blefling of this nature mould not be held in 
 low eftimation by creatures, who arelefs than the 
 leaft of all God's mercies. It is a bleffing to all 
 to whom the promife and prophecy convey it ; fo 
 that nations, even ignorant of the gofpel, being, 
 neverthelefs, i mere (led in the conftitution of the 
 gofpel, as well as thofe acquainted with it, are be- 
 nefited. To be fituated as gentiles once were, 
 would be an evil, the abfence thereof muft be a 
 good. 
 
 Pertinent to this part of the fubjecl, requifite 
 for its further explanation, and introductory to 
 the fequel, are the remarks which have been made 
 on the terms, unclean and holy — •' It is gen- 
 c* erally agreed, fays the pious and learned Mr. 
 •* Baxter, that the mod common ufe of the word 
 " holy, if not the only, both in fcripture andpro- 
 c< fane writers, is to fignify a thing feperated to 
 " God — Omne San&um eft Deo fanftum ; what- 
 •' foever is holy, is holy to God. — Now as holi- 
 " nefs thus fignifieth a fcpe ration to God, fo 
 « e it may be diftinguifhed thus; a perfon or thing 
 " may be holy or feperated to God either in ftatc 
 
 ♦'■and 
 
( 8 ) 
 
 ct and (landing relation, or elfe only for Ionic 
 * { particular act, or ufe, whether for ihorter time, 
 " or a longer. This fenfe of the term, he ob- 
 '* ferves, is tiled in fcripture, near fix hundred 
 u times. Baxter's plain fcripture proof, pages 
 80 and 82. — The rule for determining the 
 fituation of the gentiles, in the above fenfe, clean 
 or holy, is, in all equity, and upon fcripture war- 
 rant, to confider the itate of the Jewifh nation, to 
 which they (land oppofed. Now the origin, 
 of Ifrael's feperation from the rell of the world> 
 was God's prornife to Abraham and his feed. To 
 put them in remembrance of this, was God made 
 known to that people fo often, as the God of Abra- 
 ham. Exodus, chap. iii. v. 6. 15. 16. chap. iv. 
 v. 5. Hence the privileges they poffefled. Shall 
 any nation, (and none is excepted) be declared 
 clean or holy as the Jews, upon the free and un- 
 incumbered prornife of Jehovah, and not at leaft 
 have, de jure, correfpondent privileges accom- 
 panying a fimilar flate of relative holinefs ? Is it 
 conceivable, Abraham in the forefight of the fu- 
 ture ftate of the nations under Chrift, guided by 
 the prornife made concerning them, would view 
 them in any other light ? — Thus ran the divine 
 declarations, as they immediately refpefted himfelf 
 and posterity. I will make of thee a great 
 nation, and I will blefs thee, and thou (halt 
 be a blessing. Gen P 12. 2. chap, 22. 17. 
 Whence was Abraham to judge of the manner 
 
 and 
 
f 9 ) 
 
 and extent in whichCnRisT the promised seee* 
 in fame important ft nfc, would be a bleffii g toail 
 nations, unlcfs from the manner and extent in 
 which he himlVif was to be a bleffincr ? — This Pa- 
 triarch was a bleffing to the whole Jewifli Nation 
 by the promife of Jehovah, comprehending him- 
 felf and defcendants : furely, it was natural for 
 Abraham to conclude that to the fame extent, 
 Christ would be a blefling to all nations ?-— 
 To Abraham and his feed appertained divers ex- 
 ternal privileges : could he conceive the nations 
 under Christ, would not have what was tanta- 
 mount to them?— With fuch profpecis before him 3 
 his believing foul might well rejoice; and like the 
 wife men upon feeing the ftar, with exceeding 
 great joy. 
 
 If Abraham had fo much reafon to apprehend 
 the. nations would be privileged after this man- 
 ner at that diftance of time, and from fuch grounds 
 of inference, much more does the hiftorical and 
 doctrinal language of the New-teflament, warrant 
 us to believe this fame /Tate \s the unalienable Inherit 
 tance of the nations, till time mail be no more. 
 Two palfage.s in proof of this, deferve remark* 
 One is, Rom. chap. 11. v. 16. if the fir (l- fruit 
 be holy, the lump is alfo holy, and if the root be holy\ 
 fo art the brandies* Having in the preceding ob« 
 fervatio'nsafceiuined the fenfe of the term, holy t it 
 
 B only 
 
f «o ) 
 
 only remains to enquire, to whom the observation 
 of theApoftle is applicable, and in what way it is 
 true, if the firft-fruit be holy, the lump is holy, 
 &c. — If we attend to the connexion and drift of 
 the Chapter, the pafiage is plainly meant to re- 
 fer both to Jews and Gemiies. Is it inquired, 
 upon what ground h is true of them ? I anfwer, 
 upon the ground of the promise, which confti- 
 tutesboth Jews and Gentiles eo.ual alike holy 
 in a relative fenfe. Interna! holinefs cannot be 
 meant, for it does not follow, if the root uat 
 holy in that fenfe, the branches would be fo 
 too. No promifc fecures internal holinefs b) 
 way of invariable fucceflion from Anceftors to' 
 poftenty. , Herein progenitors and defcendants 
 may differ. The impoilibility of applying the 
 A polite s obfetvations in this way, ptoves him to 
 have a different meaning. Examine it by the 
 interpretation of relative holinefs, it will admit of 
 the moil universal application, {kfl to Jews and 
 then to Gentiles under the gofpel difpenfation. 
 The Generations of the Jews in fucceUiort 
 from Abraham to Chilfl were, uniformly, umver- 
 /ally and e^udlly huly t relatively conjilered ; and the 
 Gentiles under the g< fpel are fo too. Divide the 
 largeft bodies of people into anal!, and thefe in- 
 to (till lefs, it will hold true, if the firft-fruit of a 
 nation, city, town, village, family, be holy, the 
 lump is ; becaufe the piomiie which gives birth 
 
 CO 
 
( A ) 
 
 to this relative holinefs, fince it comprehends the 
 whole, mud of courfe, the parts. 
 
 The other pafiage, claiming our notice, is 
 l. Cor. chap. 7. v. 14. for the unbelieving hit/band 
 isfanclifitd by the wife, and the unbelieving tvtfe is fanc- 
 tified by the hufhand : e'fe mere your child' en unclean, 
 but now are they holy. So our tranfluors have ren- 
 dered the original; and accordingly our Expoiitors 
 comment upon it. In reference to the fubject in 
 hand, it has been flrangely bandied about bv 
 a!! parties; and both fides feem to feel themlelves 
 bound to abide by the Englith verfiftn of the paf- 
 fage. Drs. Doddridge, Stennet, Williams, and 
 Mr. Booth, apparently regard the order of the 
 Englim. text as true. The author of Anti-Paedo- 
 baptifm examined, propofes confidering, in this 
 pafiage, the import of the phrafe, anfwering to 
 the word* in EngUQi, Jantl'Jied by. By fo doing, 
 a coalition or partnerfhip, takes place between 
 two words in the pafLge which, in the ori- 
 ginal are quite fcparalc, and if I miftake not, 
 need not, from grammatical conftrueiion, or 
 from the defi^n of the A pottle, be joined toge- 
 ther. The Greek may be thus read, The hujband 
 vjho is not a believer with or as the wife, hath 
 
 BEEN SANCTIFIED OR MADE H O I. Y, and the Wife 
 
 who is not a believer with or as the hvjb and*, hath 
 
 BEEN SANCTIFIED OR MADE HOLY. The 
 
 learned Mr, f col, in his Annotations, on the 
 
 B 2, eleventh 
 
( 12 ) 
 
 eleventh vcrlc of this chapter, marks an overfight 
 of our tranflators, in rendering a, verb paffive in 
 the active form. The like is oblervabie in the paf- 
 fage before us : for the Verb, which is the pre- 
 terperfeft tenfe, paffive, of the indicative mood, 
 and ought to have been rendered, "hath been fane- 
 tified," is on the contrary tranflated, <; is lanclified'' 
 which is the indicative mood, prefent tenfe, paf- 
 five. It is as extraordinary that fun dry words in 
 the Greek,which immediately and naturally follow 
 one another, mould be difplaced. Schrevelius 
 obferves, the prepofition here uled has the force 
 and conPrufction of all the prepofitions, [q that no 
 objection can be made to its being conrtrued with, 
 or as. No fuch thing, therefore, is intended as our 
 tranilation would import, namely, that an unbe- 
 lieving hufband is fan&ified by his wife, or that the 
 unbelieving wife, is fan&ified by her hufband. The 
 idea fuggeited, is quite different, that though th e 
 hufband is not a believer as the wife is, yet he 
 hath, net'erthelefs, been fandiHed, i. e. made rela- 
 tively holy; and that the wife, though not a believ- 
 er as her hufband, has been the fame. Not that in 
 either cafe, the one is fanftified by the other : the 
 Unbelieving party is not made better in any relative 
 fenfe by the believing The marriage ftate does 
 in no view arreft or alter the relative holinefs of 
 either hufband or wife ; and both are declared, 
 nowithflanding they may be unbelievers, Hill holy 
 
 Is 
 
( »3 ) 
 
 Is it afl^d, upon what ground ? — The anfwcr 
 is, by virtue of the difpenlation they live under, 
 which conflitutes every one relatively holy, inde- 
 pendent; of faith, and unbelief. 
 
 The difficulties of afcertaining in what fenfe the 
 unbelieving party could be fanftified by the oppo- 
 Cue, and which have occafioned fuch variety of 
 opinions, are upon this view of the paflage, done 
 away; and appear entirely groundlefs. Thus un- 
 derstanding it, we admit with vaft force and advan- 
 tage Mr. Booth's remarks, wheiein he obferves, 
 M On this term, fanciified, the inlpired writer, 
 " manifeflly lays a peculiar emphafis ; fuch an 
 " emphafis, that itfeemsto be the governing word 
 " of the whole fentence, and a key to its true 
 " meaning." It is, indeed, a word of vaft impor- 
 portance : the whole paffage refts upon it, as its 
 bafis: all befides this word in each claufe, denotes, 
 and diftinguifhes the perfon fpoken of; this dc- 
 fcribes his or her relative flate. The Apoftle's con- 
 clusion concerning their offspring is natural, and 
 the reafon of it obvious. The promife on which 
 the relative holinefs of the parents Hands, equally 
 includes the children ; and thus coincides thai 
 other paffage, if the root be holy, fo are the 
 branches — What farther tends to recommend this 
 explanation of the text, is, that it anfwers the de- 
 fign of the Apoftle, which appears from the con- 
 text, to be the reconciling of the believing party 
 
 to 
 
( H ) 
 
 to dwell with the unbelieving : it being Tup- 
 pofed, that after their marriage, either the huf- 
 band, or the wife, had been converted. The 
 Apoftle's words are to this effeci, as addreiTed to 
 the believer on either fide, * 1 ho* the Grace of 
 
 • God, hath made fo great a change in you, that, 
 
 • your partner by marriage is juft the reverfe to 
 
 • yourfelf, remaining in a ftate of unbelief, yet 
 
 • notwithftanding, you are to regard him, under 
 
 • the privileged ftate of the gofpel, as relatively 
 
 • hoiy, and your children equally fo. Think not 
 
 • then of departing from him, O Wife, for what 
 
 • knowefl thou (and relative holme's is an en- 
 
 • couragement to hope it may be fo in the ufe of 
 
 • means) whether thou fhalt fave thy hufband ? 
 No key can better fit the wards of a lock, than 
 this Interpretation feems to correfpond with 
 the drift and fcope of the Apoflle. It confe- 
 quently bids the fairer to be the one intended. 
 
 Upon the whole then, it appears on the fuffrage 
 of Old-teftament predictions and promifes, and 
 New-teftament accounts, that there is the greateft 
 reafon to regard all the nations of the earth, indif- 
 criminately, under an advantagious relative change 
 of ftate, for which they are indebted to the Lord 
 Jesus Christ. Well might a Multitude of the 
 heavenly hoft at the birth of foextenfive a Mer- 
 cy, blefs and praife God, faying, glory to God in 
 the highefl, peace upon earth, good will toward* meiu 
 
 Chap. 
 
( *5 ) 
 
 Chapter II. 
 
 Comprehending an Inquiry into the Fight 
 Rule of adminiflering the Bapti final Or- 
 dinance ; who are the proper Subjects of it; 
 and an Examination of ' cripiure Accounts 
 deft/rued to Difcover their Agreement, or 
 Difagreement with, their Confirmation or 
 Refutation, of the Author s viezos of Bap- 
 tifm. 
 
 THE defign of this work being profefledly to 
 afcertain who are the proper subjects of 
 Baptifm under the gofpel difpenfation, and what 
 the regulating principle to be obferved as 
 to admini Bering the Ordinance, this is the proper 
 place to Jay before the Reader, the author's fenti- 
 ments, together with thofe upon the fubjecl to 
 which he objech. 
 
 Inthe judgment of Anti-Paedobaptifts, the on- 
 ly proper fubjeGsof Baptifm, a?e perfons deemed 
 genuine believers oh a credible pro- 
 fession of faith. According to this fentiment ft 
 ill infants ana the greater part of adults, are ex- 
 cluded from the ordinance. — The opinion of the 
 Author of this wot k h, that, the right, and rule 
 if admitiiftering the baptifmal ordinance, which 
 
 confeffedl;- 
 
( »6 ) 
 
 confeffedly lies with a minifter, ftands on a differi 
 ent footing; that true faith does not effentiaiiy 
 eonftitute a proper fubjecl: of baptifm ; that how- 
 ever it may, or it may not be in the baptized, or 
 however the faving advantage of this, as of all 
 other ordinances depends upon faith, (which is 
 granted) that fcripture holds forth ether tenable 
 ground than this, on which perfons may be ad- 
 mitted to that facred rite. 
 
 Of thefe two fentiments that, be it which it may, 
 muft be the true and fcnptural one, which hath 
 the leaft real inconveniencies attending it ; is mod 
 fuited to the Genius of the gofpel ; maintains the 
 harmony in ihe feveral parts of fcripture; and to 
 which things apparently contradiclory, may be 
 moft fafely andeafily reduced. 
 
 Among other difficulties, the following lie in 
 the way of embracing the Anti-Paedobaptift plan. 
 
 1. On the part of the adminiftrator of the or- 
 dinance. "Admiffion to baptifm, fays Dr. Gill, 
 •' lies folely in the breaft of the adminiftrator, 
 " who is the only judge of the qualifications for 
 " it; and has the file power for receiving to it 
 *' and rejecting from it; if not fan&ified, he may 
 *' rejeel a perfon thought fit by a church and ad- 
 M mit a perfon to baptifm not thought fit by a 
 " chprch. Body of Divinity. Vol. p. 312. What 
 M an arduous talk devolves in this cafe upon a 
 aminifter of Christ! Every minifter, isoflici- 
 
 alljr 
 
( 17 ) 
 
 ally, to decide upon the merit, or demerit of the 
 candidate ; and this depends upon his faith or 
 unbelief, as the credibility and the incredibility 
 of profeffion will make it manifeft. Credible 
 profession! how vague the term! how varying 
 and claming as to what conftitutes it } may be the 
 ideas of different minifters. Who is to afcertain 
 what degree of knowledge, &c. what kind of 
 practice, or length of time, are neceffary to make 
 a profession credible ? After all is done to 
 difcover the fincerity of the heart, who can take 
 upon him to affirm, the perfon may not deceive 
 himfelf, or elfe, impofe upon others ? A credible 
 profeffion being made the itandard of adminfter- 
 ing the ordinance to Adults, it is neceffarily an 
 uncertain rule, and liable to vary, as minifters 
 entertain different opinions about it. A candi- 
 date may be qualified in the judgment of one 
 minifter,who is not foin the judgment of another; 
 and the latter may have an equal right to deter- 
 mine unfavourably, as the former may, to do 
 the contrary. Is it reafonable to imagine, that 
 ever this was, can, or ought to be, the determin- 
 ing rule of adminiftration? A rule which may be 
 multiplied into as many rules, and differing from 
 one another, as adminiftrators agree or difagree 
 about the nature of a credible profeffion ? Is it 
 likely, that Chrift would impower his minifters 
 (olely to baptize, each upon his own judgment ? 
 
 Q According 
 
( i8 ) 
 
 According to the judicious remarks of Dr. Gill, 
 it is allowed, the ordinance of baptifm lies folety 
 with a minifter, and that he is fole-judge of the 
 qualifications for it. — -But, thefe admitted, it is 
 highly deferable for the fake of the baptizer, and 
 candidate, yea, indifpenfably requisite, there 
 fhould be fonie more determinate rule of guidance 
 than credible profeffion. This is to be fought 
 upon a plan where it is not pofiible to miflake. 
 This we offer in lieu of the other, by proposing 
 relative hoJinefs ; or, in other words, we would 
 exchange that which is fubject to fuch un- 
 certainty, difficulty, and inconvenience, for that 
 relative Mate arifirg from the abfolute and gra- 
 cious Will of God. 
 
 2« The term "all nations" ufed in Chrift's 
 commiflion, and in other parts of Scripture, de- 
 fcriptive of the gofpel-difpenfation, are, upon the 
 Amipsedo-baptift plan, indefenfible. Exceptions 
 unavoidably follow it, to the exclufion of, by far, 
 very far, the greater part of the nations. A few, 
 very few comparatively deemed credible profeflbrs^ 
 and, all nations, are terms fynonymousf Can 
 Scripture give countenance to fuch notorious im- 
 proprieties ? Can the oracles of heaven tolerate 
 fuch an abufe of words ? 
 
 Free of fuch embarraflments, confident with 
 the nature of the baptifmal ordinance, comporting 
 with the general ftrain of the gofpel, the follow- 
 ing 
 
{ *9 ) 
 
 ing ground of adminiftration is urged, in the room 
 of the other exceptionable plan. 
 
 The relative state of' the nations 
 under the gospel, is in itself a suf- 
 ficient title to baptism, and is the a- 
 l o n e invariable, cle a r , a n d c e ¥. t a i n' 
 rule of direction in ad m i n i st £ r i n g the 
 or din ance. 
 
 It appears to me, the two ordinances of preach- 
 ing and baptizing, in a particular manner depend 
 on this relative flate : it became necefTary, there- 
 fore, toinhit thereon in the lirft chapter; and hav- 
 ing pointed it out in Jeveral palfages, to examine 
 its merit and ufe as to baptifm. Such is the defign 
 of the prefent chapter. 
 
 The prophetical, promifory, hiftoricai and doc- 
 trinal parts of fcripturej juftify the idea of a 
 change, greatly in favor of the world at large, 
 taking place on the coming of Chrili. It is now 
 for us to enquire, whether, upon that ground, the 
 Nations may be baptized, as well as preached unto, 
 iNDiscRiMi n atel y. Objections to this idea, If 
 any, are to be found — either in the nature of tn'e 
 relative flate and baptifm. difagreeihg in them- 
 felves — or fomething repugnant to it in fomc di- 
 vine order refpetiing baptifm — in accounts of the 
 adminiftration of it, or eli'e in paffages addrefled to 
 perfons, as y or about to be baptized. Thei'e in the 
 following pages, will be diftin8.lv examined : . 
 
 C a tr&& 
 
( 20 ) 
 
 truft, it will be fhewn, that on a fuitably clofc and 
 impartial inveftigation, nothing like an infupera- 
 ble objection arifes from either of them. On the 
 contrary, it is prefumed, they will appear rccon- 
 cileable to the right afferted in behalf of the na- 
 tions, and in various points of view, confirming 
 them in it. 
 
 I. To begin with the relative change, (or that 
 holinefs whereof it confifts as a benefit) and 
 the ordinance of baptifm itfelf. A Superftruc- 
 ture requires its foundation to be equal to it- 
 felf, or it cannot (land thereon: an anfwerable con- 
 fiftency and fuitablenefs between the relative flate 
 and baptifm is difcernible, or the argument from 
 it muft be abandoned and given up. — What is 
 there in baptifm, that will not allow us to attach 
 it to the nations as conftituted relatively holy under 
 the gofpel ? "I am led, fays Dr. Williams, by an 
 •' attentive and impartial furvey of thofe facred 
 •• paffages that have any reference 10 the baptif- 
 •* mal right, to confider it in its mod general na- 
 * c ture t as the inflituted ordinance of a regular 
 •' admiffion into the vifible kingdom of Chrift, or 
 * c as it is fometimes called, the kingdom of hea- 
 " ven; wherein the minister folemnly recog- 
 ,c nizes the fitnefs of the baptized to be a fubject 
 u of that kingdom." As to the things reprefent- 
 " ed by it," the fame author obferves. ■ " Paf- 
 " fages of information relating to this particular, 
 
 "arc 
 
( 21 ) 
 
 • arc very numerous ; but, if I miftake not, 
 " there is not one but is naturally reducible to 
 M thefe two heads, viz. biejfings exhibited by it, 
 ** and obligations refulting from it." — Under thefc 
 two diftinft. branches, there is the Following enu- 
 meration. Bleffings exhibited in the ordi- 
 nance of the Chriftian Baptifm are — w Remifiion 
 * ; of fins. Afcls ii. 38 — Salvation thro* Christ, 
 *' JVlark xvi. 16. 1 Peter iii. 21. — Union and 
 " communion with Chrift and with his bodv tr.e 
 '• church. 1 Cor. xii. '13. Rom. vi 3. 4. Szc. 
 " Colof. ii. 11. — 13. — Chrift as our Spiritual 
 " covering and complete righteoumefs. Ga!. iii. 
 fc 27. — The down-pouring of the Holy Spirit 
 " Matth. iii. 11. Acts i. 5. — Regeneration. John 
 " iii. 5. Tit. iii. 5. — Sanclification. 1 Cor. vi. 
 «' u. Eph. v. 26. God all fufficient" — I; ruler 
 the lift of obligations, refulting from baptifm, are 
 " obligations to Repentance. Acts xxii. 16. to 
 " deftroy the body of fin. Rom. vi. 3. 4. — New- 
 " nefs of life and heavenly-mindednefs. Rom. vi. 
 M 4. 8. 11. 13. 19. &c. the anfwer of a good 
 « f confeience towards God. 1 Peter iii. 21. filing 
 " up the place of departed chriftians. Rom. xv. 
 M 29.— Waiting for the promife of the f'pirit. 
 " Adsii. 38. 39. chap. 8. 12.— 17.— Devoted- 
 ,{ nefs to the grace and fovereign Will of God, 
 " father, son, and holy-ghost. Matth. xxviii. 
 " 1 9-" — Anti-Pasdobaptifm examined, vol. 1. 
 chap. 2. The nature of the ordinance being 
 
 fought 
 
( 22 ) 
 
 fought for in the above particulars, and havin . 
 twofold afpect, exhihitory and obligatory > what dis- 
 agreement is there between baptifm and relative 
 holinefs ? It is only a vifible Jign of that ftate of 
 privilege into which the nations are brought un- 
 der Chrift. It is a vifiok mean, as well as preach- 
 ing, of holding forth the fame bleQ>ngs r and lay- 
 ing under the fame obligations. Inftead then, of 
 any contradi&ion, there is an entire confiftency 
 between relative holinefs and the baptifmal ordi- 
 nance. — There is no further bar in the wav of 
 any being baptized, than of their Being preached 
 unto, fo far as can be gathered from its na- 
 ture. — What confirms this tenement, is, that 
 both preaching and baptizing are claffed 
 together in the fame general commiffion. Matth. 
 xvviii. 19. Both ordinances evidently grow up 
 out of the fame root, the implied relative ftate. 
 So far as the nature of an ordinance, in itfelf con- 
 fidered,can determine its ufe, and proper fubje£ls» 
 there is every reafon to view it of the fame extent 
 as preaching with which it is coupled : and the 
 objecls of the latter, are all nations. 
 
 There is not a (ingle difficulty more, in the wav 
 of preaching to all indiscriminately, than of bap* 
 tizing them, from the general nature of the or^ 
 dinance. All that is required for preaching, is 
 mere natural confent, from men as men, indepen- 
 dent of their being unbelievers, or the contrary* 
 
 Chrift 
 
, ( 2 3 ) 
 
 Chrifl hath invefted his mini Iters with full a«- 
 thority to preach, and the nations with a right to 
 the privilege of hearing, virtually in the very 
 commiflion. Some indeed, cannot be addrefled as 
 infants and perfons labouring under the infirmity 
 of deafnefs to a great degree : not that, as parts 
 of the nations, they have not an equal right, but 
 natural incapacity forbids the full benefit 
 thereof. With refpecl to others, they have a na- 
 tural capacity for preaching ; are fit objects in 
 that refpecl : Mill however, their common con- 
 fent is requifite, but this raoft effentially differs 
 from' true faith ; and it is evident, perfons may 
 attend preaching, and yet be unbelievers. — Vio- 
 lence is not to be offered, in any branch of the 
 miniflry to the common law of nature, fo that 
 men mould be forced to it, contrary to their 
 will. A difregard of this principle hath occafion*. 
 ed the perfecution which hath ftained Chiirch- 
 Hiftory with fo much human blood. Chrift in- 
 tends and enjoins in no fhape, compuljive violence. 
 Common con fen t, (notwithjlanding which perfons 
 may be unbelievers) is alone requifite on the a- 
 fore-mentioned reafon for minifters to feel 
 themfelves at liberty to preach to any ; in like- 
 manner, we obferve, fo far as the argument re- 
 fpecis the nature of the ordinance and its connec- 
 tion with preaching in the commiflion, nothing 
 giore than natural acquies£nce is needful 
 
 fop 
 
( =4 ) 
 
 for baptifm. Perfons may be baptized on barely 
 not objecting to it, as they may be preached unto, 
 for ought that appears to the contrary from the 
 cxiiibitory andobligatory defign of the ordinance. 
 It is, in tiuth, a joint-mean with preaching, of 
 exhibiting and obliging to the fame things, belie- 
 "vers and unbelievers, indiscriminately. 
 
 Befides : ordinances having always been attach- 
 ed to relative holinefs, in point of right or fa&, a- 
 mong Abraham's feed, it is natural to fuppofe 
 the like to be the cafe, as to relative holinefs under 
 the golpel. It is notorious, that circumcifion wai 
 inftituted, on purpofe to be a fign and feal of Abra- 
 ham and his pollerity's external relationfhip to 
 God. — Its general nature and ufe correfpond to 
 baptifm. Ifrael was not only preached unto, but 
 circumcised. The foundation of thefe diftin. 
 guifhing privileges, was their relative holinefs. 
 And is the JdJ-fame thing unequal under the dif- 
 penlation of the gofpel ? Has it no outward, vifible 
 general fign annexed to it? Baptifm, iurely, if 
 we confider its general nature ; if we view it by 
 way of analogy with circumcifion, looks likely to 
 be an infepaiable attendant upon it, and I dare 
 not hefitate to fay, it is. K 
 
 Dr. Doddridge in his Family expofitor, deli- 
 vers his fentiments on 1 Cor. vii. 14. which was 
 noticed in the former chapter, after this manner. 
 c * On the matureit and moll impartial confidera* 
 
 tioft 
 
C 25 ) 
 
 f< tton, I mull judge it to refer to infant baptifm, 
 M nothing can be more apparent than that the word 
 *' holy, fignifies perfcns who might be ad.nitted to 
 •' partake of the diJUngui/hikg rites of God's people. 
 " Compare Exod. xix. 6. Deut. vii. 6. chap. 
 ,{ xiv. 2. chip, xxvi, 19. chap, xxxiii. 3. Ezra 
 '* ix. 2. with Ifaiahxxxv. 8. chap. lii. 1. Acls 
 " x. 28. Szc. And for the interpretation which 
 " fo many of our brethren the Baptifts have con- 
 " tended for, that holy fignifies legitimate, and 
 '• unclean illegitimate (not to urge that this feems 
 rf an un-fcriptural fenfe of the word) nothing can 
 '•' be more evident, than that the argument will 
 Mi by no means bear it." In the. preceding re- 
 marks on this pafTage, it hath been fhewn, that 
 on a due rendering of the words, and affixing the 
 mofi natural meaning to them, the unbelieving 
 party as weli as the oppofite, is relatively holy. 
 " Nothing is more apparent, Dr. Doddridge ob- 
 " ferves, than that all who are fo, are to be 
 " admitted to partake of the rites of God's peo- 
 " pie.*' It follows, that the unbeliever being 
 equally holy in a relative fenfe, with the believer, 
 hath an equal rite to baptifm The whole paf- 
 fage therefore, ferves to illuftrate and confirm 
 vhat we affert, that baptifm is infeparably joined 
 to relative holinefs, and tnat the latter, is a fuf- 
 -£cient tide to the former. 
 
 J) U. Whether 
 
( 25 ) 
 
 U. Whether that divine order. Matth. xxviii. 
 19. will oblige us to depart from the groundwe 
 have chofen, comes next to be examined. 
 
 " It is, fays Dr. Williams, an acknowledged 
 " fa cV that baptifmal purification was familiarly 
 t; known to the Jews, when John the Baptift 
 c ' made his appearance, and many ages before. 
 " Should a doubt of this fact ftill remain, Dr. 
 " Gale (lands ready to remove it ; that the Jews, 
 '•' fays he, on account of feveral kinds of pollu- 
 " tion, ufed to purify themfelves by wa/Jiing, can 
 ft not be queftioned ; the diverje .bapiifms or wojh- 
 " ings mentioned in the Epiftle to the Hebrews, 
 tl (chap. ix. 10.) make it inconteftible. It.ap- 
 " pears with fuperior evidence, from the teftimony 
 if of competent and unexceptionable witneffes that 
 " baptism was well known as a ceremonial, .pu- 
 " rif) ing rite, prior to the chrifiian aera : con- 
 ■" fequently, our Lord appointed a ceremony 
 " which was in ufe before" — Anti-paed. vol. 2. 
 p. 231. Baptifm then being no novelty, Chrift 
 plainly affumed to himfelf, as was the cafe with 
 John before him, an ufual mode of purification. 
 It is introduced as making part of the work of his 
 difciples. John iv. 2. j ejus himfelf baptized not, 
 lut'kis Difciples. The original inflitution of the 
 -ordinance is no where noticed, only the fa£t of 
 (Thrift's Difciples baptizing, (and dcubtlefs by his 
 authority) is recorded. Baptifm as ufed and fanc~ 
 
 tioncd 
 
 
(.27 ) 
 
 Honed by Chrift in the firft inftance, impercep- 
 ;/ and unawares, comes forward fo our view. 
 In truth, the formal primary inftitution of baptifm 
 by Chrift, is only to be inferred, for it is no where 
 declared. With regard to the paffage under im- 
 mediate conficleration, it is manifestly not inflitu- 
 tive, but merely directive as to the baptifsnal or- 
 dinance; and the latter, in only one fingle point 
 of view. Well acquainted already with the na- 
 ture, fubjects, and mode of baptifm, the Apoftles 
 needed no inftru&ion concerning them : wherein 
 their ignorance required it, it is informing to them, 
 and that is, as their minittry was to extend to all 
 n axiom s. To expecl: all that precifion in this order 
 as though it was the inftitution of baptifm, or no- 
 thing was left us to learn aboutit, from other parts 
 of fcripture, is to ftretch our expectations beyond 
 their due bounds. The Apoftles, finely, needed 
 not to be taught things they could not but know 
 before upon the fubject ; and their fucceffbrs have 
 no reafon to complain, unlels it be unreafcnahly in- 
 fitted upon, that the whole of duty mud be con- 
 tinued in a fingle paflagc ; or that fufficient in- 
 formation is not to be received from other paf- 
 iages. Mr. Booth's words are unguardedly (hong, 
 when he obferves, 'Tf we annex the idea ofobfeu- 
 " rity to a pafTage of this fort, we either fink the 
 * f idea of obligation to regard ity or impeach the 
 I c wifdom, or goodnefs, or the equity of the divine 
 
 D 2 legislator 
 
( 2§ ) 
 
 €i legiflator." There is nothing, the language and 
 circumltances confidered, to give it the ihape of 
 an inftitution : it is only preceptive as to what had 
 before been* inftituted. The paflage fe<n in this 
 point of view, I proceed to make the following 
 remarks with a view to elucidate its meaning and 
 
 ,n fe. 
 
 (1) This commiffion implies what we have be- 
 fore afferted, viz. ajecret constitution in favor cf'its 
 cbjeBs, prior to the words, and originating in the 
 Will of ChriJ} i and his Father who fent him. It was 
 the will of the latter, agreeable to what he had 
 pfbmifed to Abraham, that in his feed, Christ, 
 all the nations of the eanhfhould be bitlTed. I 
 afk, whether it does not look likely from the very 
 face of our Lord's commiffion, that he delivered it 
 With a view to the performance of that intftimably 
 precious promife ? It is beyond all reafonable 
 doubt that this commiffion refpe£ts the divine 
 Will, by which all nations are more favor- 
 ably fuuated, than before. Purfuant to it, the 
 Apoftles travelled to and fro, preaching the gof- 
 pel of the kingdom. Infpired with a genuine 
 zeal for the Lord of Holts, with a glowing con- 
 cern for the falvation of fouls, ChrilVs mmifiers 
 may itinerate to all parts of the editb, with the 
 cverlafting gofpel in their hand ; wherever they 
 go, they have this commiffion to produce, 
 at once to mew the right ot ail nations to be 
 preached unto, and their right to prtach t j them. 
 
 AiJ 
 
( 29 ) 
 
 Ail that is requifite for the nations having the 
 full enjoyment of their right, is natural cox- 
 sent, for they mud not be compelled by 
 violence. Historical accounts of gofpel-mif- 
 fionaries are agreeable to thefe remarks. — i hejfe 
 going on the benevolent clefign of introducing the 
 gofpel where it was unknown, have undertaker} 
 the voyage or journey, under the notion of the 
 inhabitants having a previous right to the Gofpel. 
 The idea of their being believers or unbelievers, 
 is on luch occafions out of the queftion. All which 
 minilters want, as the firft. Hep to an eftablifhment 
 of the g'>lpel, is liberty to preach : common 
 conftnt, is enough to fecure them this, and is 
 compatible with a [Lie of unbelief in the pt.rlbns 
 giving it. N )W the queftion is, whether baptifra is 
 not to be adminifte led on the fame footing. Hav- 
 ing this enquiry in view, I proceed to obferve, 
 
 (2) T here is nothing in the nature of bap- 
 tifm in itlelf, which forbids its immediate coniunc- 
 tion with the o?her branch of the miniflry, wr, 
 preaching. From ought that appears as to itsufe. it 
 may be ciaffed and performed as a joint-mean with 
 preaching to anfwer the fame ends. What has 
 been before advanced concerning the nature of 
 baptifm, it is prefumed, abundantly evinces this. 
 Its nature, then, allowing us to confider preaching 
 and baptizing, as the names of feveral perfons 
 under a firm, who yet are equal in the part 
 
 re: fhip 
 
( 3<> ) 
 
 nerfhip, it is plain, as far as the natu . r •! 
 dinance is a guide, it may be ai ,.' 
 the fame ground — As minifters are T i 
 
 preach to peopie, upon obtaining thei ) 
 
 jointly with this part of their \ / 
 
 baptize them, becaufe there is an c r 
 
 doing the one as the other. 
 
 o 
 
 Here a proper place prefents 
 bapti f m as a m i x e d o r d . 
 and partly moral. So the itithoi I 
 amined, reprefents it with g it d 
 
 force of evidence. Whethei it b< das po- 
 
 fitive, or moral, or wh rein rt it 
 
 conceived > it appears in, advdnta- 
 
 geoufl; fo, as it is made pa preaichJng. 
 
 " A pofitive inftitute, is th , t a on of which' 
 
 ' we do not fee, prior to extern command, hut 
 " which entirely originates in the fovereigri Will 
 " of the legiflator." Such is Dr. Will ams\s de- 
 fcription of a pofitive inftiUitidn, and he fuppofes, 
 his opponent, Mr. Booth, will not object to it. 
 If this be its nature, /ome dbfcurity, is to be ex- 
 pected in acommiffion including the bapiiimal rite: 
 it is no further plain, than as it is plainly the fover- 
 eign will of the I egiflator. Not to notice how 
 much it behoves Mr. Booth, to allow a certain 
 proper obfcurity in Chrilt's CQmmiffion to baptize, 
 if it be pofitive, I afkin what poCnion its pnjiuve na- 
 ture mofl appears ? As following, teaching, and 
 
 certain 
 
( 31 ) 
 
 certain qualifications in the fuij eels, according to the 
 baptilt plan? Or, as we place it, parallel with 
 preaching and fepaiable from ii ? Baptifm as ad- 
 miniftered to an adult, without a previous procefs 
 of teaching and certain effects required, hath a 
 more confident appearance as a positive insti- 
 tute, than under any orher circumftances of ad- 
 miniftiation. It has, on this footing, the afpe6l of 
 independency, and the sovereign will of 
 the institutor is at ence conspicuous 
 and striking. 
 
 It is however true, that it is partly moral, not as 
 requiring moral qualifications in the fubje&s be- 
 fore-hand, but as denoting and obliging to moral 
 ufe?, and ends in them, when baptized.— So far 
 then as the nature of baptifm, whether pofitive or 
 moral is confidertd, it is reducible with the great- 
 eft advantage to the bafis of a fovereign conftitu- 
 tion, favorable to all nations. 
 
 Baptilm further confidered as an ordinance out 
 ef the church, is a proper afibciate with preaching, 
 and both refpett the kingdom of heaven, or the 
 difpenfation of the gofpel,:as it includes the world 
 at large. 
 
 3. To the remarks already made towards eluci- 
 dating the paffage in hand, I add, the due render- 
 ii of the original muft be fettled ; and when that 
 is done, its jult and genuine meaning alfo. Here 
 it mould be remembered. " Nothing is capable 
 £ or firing the exa£t legiflative force of a word, 
 
 or 
 
ee or phrafe, but a careful and impartial atten- 
 * J tion to ar cum fiances. — That mud needs be the 
 « f molt mbwr&l fignificarion^ which refutes from a 
 fc due weighing of allcihmmftanttsi'* 
 
 It is admitted mat either, teach, or ni scir ljl 
 all nations is a proper tramlation of the ori- 
 ginal. If number, piety and learning ca-i efta- 
 b.iih the jw-efce'nfions of the Greek word to be ren« 
 dered, di/ap'e, be it known, it has all thefe in fup- 
 port of it. Dr. Williams tells us, it would be 
 eafy to produce a long lilt of eminent authors, an- 
 cient and modern, who render the original word 
 by, to -projelytc, to dtfcip'e, or to make difciples, as well 
 as by, to teach', — Authorities of not lefs weight 
 than the following are producible, Bullinger, 
 Dutch-Annotators, Pool's Continuators, Dod- 
 dridge, Turretine, Stock ius, Beza, Gataker, 
 Lightfoot, Hammond, Witfius; and this bit might 
 be increafed by the names of many more. 
 
 The term difc>pte, as the fane Greek word is 
 englifhed elfewhere, often appears infcripture, in 
 the fubftamive form. Perfons are faid to be 
 difciples ; thus we read of Mofes's difciples; and 
 fuch, it is notorious, were infants and adults, be- 
 ing initiated by circumcifion. "Some" fays Dr. _ 
 Addington"may think it improper to call children 
 difciples ; but there feems no more improprie- 
 ty in calling them difciples of Chrift, than fer- 
 vants of God, as in Lev. xxv. 41. 42. And 
 
 they 
 
( 33 ) 
 
 they feem at lead included, if not principally re- 
 ferred to, in the term in Aclsxv. 10. where the de- 
 fign of the judaizing teachers, which is mentioned, 
 Acts xxi. 21. as thefcheme for circumdfing their 
 children, is cenfured as an attempt to put a yoke 
 upon the neck of the disciples." The learned 
 and judicious Turretine remarks, "the word, 
 which Chrilt here ufes, does not fo properly figni- 
 fy to teach by preaching, as make disciples, which 
 may be done by the ad mini {trad on of baptifm, it 
 being a Sacrament of initiation. Thus John iv. 
 l. Mathetas poiein [the Greek i?i EngliJJi Characters) 
 is not Jimply to teach, but to make disciples 
 and to introduce into a profeffional ftate of dis- 
 cipline, as among the Jews, perfons were often 
 made difciples, not as already taught, but in or- 
 der to be taught. Thus a Gentile addref- 
 fed Hillel, make a profelyte of me, that thou may eft 
 teach vie. And that the word is fo to be undedtood 
 here, is demonltrable from the word afterwards, 
 rendered teaching, which appears tautological, un- 
 lefs the rirll word refers to fometbing more than 
 that." Turretini Theologia.— - What was the 
 judgment of Juiiin Martyr concerning the con- 
 troverted word in the commiffion, as well as 
 what was the practice of his time, which was 
 very early in the fecond century, appears 
 from one of his apologies : wherein he obferves, 
 there were in his day, " fcveral men and 
 E, women 
 
( 34 ) 
 
 women fixfy or feventy years old, who from in- 
 fants, had been difcipkd to Chrift." "Here," "fays 
 Dr. Williams, noticing this paffage," he ufes 
 the very word of commiffion, with which Bap- 
 tifm is fo ftriftly and infeparabiy connected,'' 
 Ignatius in hi> Xl. p i fl 1 e to the Romans, fpeaks of 
 his being discipi.ed by his fufferings from his 
 perfecutors. The ufe of the fame Greek word' 
 in connection with fufferings, which are figu- 
 ratively ftiled bapiifms in fcripture, favors, at 
 leaft remotely, a more general ienfe of the term, 
 then mere teaching ; and furely does not contra- 
 dict the idea of baptifm as a mode of difcipling. 
 Having examined fuch paffages where the term, 
 disciple, either as a Subllantive, or elfe as a Verb 
 occurs, I have not been able to perceive in 
 one of them, any thing to eftablifh its limited 
 meaning teach. The propriety of rendering 
 the \ r EKE t difciple, is acknowledged in tranflat- 
 ing the substantive after that manner. Then 
 why are they not invariably fo enghfhed ? How 
 comes it to pafs, that the fame Greek word is one. 
 while, and uniformly, as a Subftantive rendered 
 disciple, anon, as a verb, teach ? I anfwer, that 
 in many palfages, it would be manifefily harfli and 
 improper to render the fubftantive by teach, though 
 it is fo ftriftly urged, and contended for, to be the 
 meaning of the verb in the commiffion. How 
 uncouthly would the following paffages run. 
 
 When 
 
( 35 ) 
 
 When he had made an end of commanding his 
 taught. — Matth. xi. 1. Teach us to pray as 
 John taught his taught. Luke xi. 1. If any 
 man come to me, and hate not his father, and mo- 
 ther, wife, and children, and brethren and Ji/le>'S, 
 yea and his own life alfo, he cannot be my taught, 
 Luke xiv. 26. If necefiity. or conveniency, in- 
 troduced the translation of the fubitantive, by 
 difciple, it had been better to have retained it on all 
 occahons. This, however, is no where the cafe* 
 when the Verb is ufed ; and the variation, from 
 what is evidently the occafion of it, coun- 
 tenances the idea of the original word, being of 
 greater latitude than fome are willing to allow 
 it. Befides, teach occurs twice over in the 
 commiffion according to the common render- 
 ing. But if the fame thing is meant, why not the 
 fame Greek word ufed in both places ? Why a 
 needlefs tautology of fenfe, and fuperfiuous variety 
 of language ? — If the lad word rendered teach- 
 ing is explanatory of the fir it, properly tranf- 
 lated difapte, baptizing which immediately follows 
 it, may be referred to it alio. If it be quite 
 dijlincl, then it follows, perfons may be dilciples 
 without teaching. Ii teaching and baptizing are 
 referable to the firll word, then difcipie iUnds as 
 
 a 8ENIRAL TERM, 
 
 E a Mr. 
 
( 35 ) 
 
 Mr. Booth feems to think the Apoftle Paul has 
 helped Mm to a declaration much to his purpofe, 
 and quite inconfifient with the idea of its being an 
 apoftolic duty to make perfons difciples by baptiz- 
 ing them. Chrift fait me not to baptize, hut to preach 
 the gofpel. i Cor. i. 17. Mr. Booth remarks, 
 '* on the fuppofition of its being an apoftolic duty 
 " to make perfons difciples by baptizing them, 
 11 either the Apoftle Paul received a commiffion 
 " from his divine Lord e{Tentially different from 
 " the words under confederation, Matth. xxviii. 
 " 19. or, he failed to a great degree in the 
 ei execution of it, efpecially among the Corin- 
 u thians. Our opponents at every turn inlift 
 ?' that the great Law-giver ordered his eleven 
 " Apoftles to difciple all nations by baptizing 
 " them ; while he who laboured more abun- 
 * ; dantly then they all, tells us, that he was not 
 il fent, comparatively fpeaking, to baptize even 
 #> thofe that believed. Consequently, 'he was not 
 " fent to make difciples, in that way for which 
 " our opponents plead, is clear from the copy of 
 rt it, which Luke has recorded. Nay, fo far from 
 " thinking it would have been his happinefs to 
 •' have made a multitude of the Corinthians dif- 
 " ciples by baptizing them, that he thanks God 
 " he has baptized but very few : and this he does, 
 " while claiming the honour of having been the 
 " favoured inftrument of converting a great part 
 
 " of 
 
( S7 ) 
 
 ** nf thofe that were Taints in the city of Corinth/* 
 Thus far Mr. Booth: anr! notwithftanding his view 
 of the paffage. I cannot help thinking, it requires 
 a different comment and conclufion. Mr. B. will 
 not himfelf prefume to deny (for how can any 
 one ?) that part of Paul's bulinefs was bdptizipg ; 
 and that he a£ted under this genera! commiffion 
 msde to the eleven Apoftles. If baptifm was a 
 branch of minitterial duty, or a benefit conferred 
 on the fubjecl of it, could i aul, confidently ei- 
 ther with truth or charity, thank God abfoiutely, 
 thai-he did not baptize, or was hot lent for that 
 work ? ImpoITibie. Paul intends no fuch thing . 
 but it is evidently an expteflion, which the parti- 
 cular circumftances of the Corinthians prompted 
 him to ufe. There were divifions in the church : 
 they were fplit into parties, and each had its head 
 or mailer. One faid I am of Paul, another, I am 
 of ^polios, Sec. Whence is this? The Apotlle in 
 effecl: afks, by proceeding thus : IsChrifl divided ? 
 was Paul crucified for you, or were you baptized 
 in the name of Paul ? You have no pretence, as 
 it happens, for what you do in fetting me up as 
 your matter, from my baptizing you. And how- 
 ever it is my work and delight to baptize as well 
 as to preach, I thank God, under your divided 
 circumftances, that you have it not in your power, 
 from any part that I took in adminiftering that 
 ordinance for you, to fay, I baptized you in my 
 
 name, 
 
( 38 ) 
 
 name, or made] you, in a fort difciples of mine. 
 They were baptized, and many of them too, a* 
 appears from Acts xviii. 8. Confequently, theie 
 was a baptizer befides Paul, at Corinth, and in 
 reference to that providence of God, which pro- 
 vided him with an auxilian jn that part of his work, 
 and not to his general commiffion, he adds, God 
 fent me not to baptize, but to preach the gofpel 
 among you. If thefe remarks fubjoined to Mr. 
 Booth's, are deemed more natural and preferable 
 than his by the impartial reader, the paflnge a- 
 greesto the idea of its being an apoitolic dury to 
 make perfons difciples by baptizing them, and 
 ftrongly confirms it, if any force be allowed to 
 the Apoftle'sreafoning. 
 
 In A6ls xiv. 21. it is related concerning Paul 
 and Barnabas at Derbe, that -when they had 
 preached the Gojpel to, [literally according to the 
 Greek) evangelized that city, and taught 
 [Greek,) discipled m an y, they returned again to 
 Ly/lra. In this paifoge we have all that is pre- 
 ferved of the hiftory of this place, as it relates 
 to the minittry of thofe two faithful fervants of 
 Chrift there. The confequence of their coming 
 to it, and opening their commiffion, was, they 
 cangelized the place. They minifterially recog- 
 nized the whole city by preaching in it, as within 
 the compafs of the commifiion by which they 
 a&ed. — They dijtipled many in it. — It is manifellly 
 
 a very 
 
( 39 ) 
 
 a very fummary account that is contained in this 
 latter claufe. Did they only teach many ? Did 
 they noi baptize them ? Doubtlcfs they did j but 
 all, the hiftory tells us, is, they were disci pl- 
 ed. — Surely then, this phrafe is proper to exprefs, 
 and represent them, as both baptized and taught : 
 their hapr.fm is not barely inferable from it, but 
 included in the common term. — It is obfervable, 
 that the word, difaple, is not introduced in Scrip- 
 ture, as adopted by Chrilt, nor applied to particu- 
 lar perfons, till there is good reafon to conclude 
 they were baptized. Chriil is even faid to teach 
 multitudes, and they are faid to follow Him ; who 
 nevertheless, feem diftinguifhed from Difciples. 
 Mattb. v. i &c. It is true there is an entire filence 
 obferved concerning the baptifm of the twelve dif- 
 ciples, but doubtiefs as bapfizers of others, they 
 were baptized thendelves, tho' the faft of their be- 
 ing fo, is not recorded. The firlt time, New-tefta-. 
 ment hiitory makes mention of perfons being 
 made difciples, is, when they are faid to have been 
 baptized. — The pafiage alluded to, is John iv. 1. 
 On this Mr. Booth obferv.es, " To make difci- 
 •' pies and to baptize one or another, are plainly 
 " reprefented as different actions : foi Jems made 
 M more difciples than John, though He baptized. 
 " not any of them." The purpofe for which, 
 this Author makes the obfervation, is very plain, 
 
 but 
 
( 40 ) 
 
 but it is by no means fo clear, that the paflagc will 
 juuify it. Itmuft be allowed to be of importance:, 
 to regard the cifcumftances of a text, in order to 
 determine the deGgn of it, and after what man- 
 ner, the Phrafeology is to be underftood. Now 
 the ciTcuinJianct and language controverted in 
 this text are evidently introduced, merely to 
 account for the departure of (Thrift from Judaea. 
 The increafe of his Difciples had excited the 
 jealoufy of the PhariJeer., and he retreated to 
 Galilee, to efcaDe the confecuences of it. The 
 Hiftorian with a view to account for the removal 
 of (Thrift to this latter place, relates the rumour 
 which had reached the ears of the Pharifees con- 
 cerning him. That which rendered (Thrift ob- 
 noxious to this feci was, making difeiples, and this 
 in general, would be naturally reported to them, 
 and the other claufe, "and baptized" 10 confirm 
 the former, as aflerting a general facl. There is 
 no room, therefore, whether we confider it as a 
 matter which iorne reported to the Pharifees, or as 
 related by John, to conceive, either the one or the 
 other meant, to reprefent the aclions of making dif- 
 ciples and baptizing fo diftinft, as Mr. B. ima- 
 gines. The difciples baptizing is nothing to the 
 purpofe, for it was the fame, done by his. authori- 
 ty, as if Chrift did it himfelf : and accordingly 
 he is faid to have baptized. — Nor is it likely, 
 
 that 
 
( 4t ) 
 
 that the Pharifees, to whom the report was carried, 
 and in reference to whom this hiftorical circum- 
 (lance is mentioned, confidered making difciples, 
 and baptizing, different and diftincl: a&ions. 
 What ! the Pharifees, fo apt to boaft themfelves 
 the difciples of Mofes, among whom they were 
 entered by circumcifion ! 
 
 u To make difciples, and to baptize one or 
 another, are plainly reprefented as different acti- 
 ons, for Jesus made more difciples than John* 
 though He baptized them not" — If baptizing and 
 viaking (lifcipks } be [o very diftincl, and it is evident 
 the making difciples, was the obnoxious circunv 
 fiance to tbe Pharifees, what occafion for adding 
 any thing about baptifm, or for the Historian's en- 
 larging upon it ? If it be fo very diftincl;, was it 
 not immaterial, neither here nor there, whether 
 it was mentioned or not? But the Hiftorian 
 takes pains to inform us, that Jesus baptized not, 
 but his difciples. — Is not this belt accounted for, 
 I beg leave to afk, by thus confidering the drift 
 of the paffage in quefiion, ' Jefus made, and for 
 that purpofe, baptized more difciples than John, 
 by mean* of his twelve difciples,' Mr. B. very 
 well knows, that and in the paffage, is exegrtical, 
 as well as copulative, and aniwers, in fenfe to 
 even, when it follows fome general defign or fact 
 mentioned, and fomething is introduced, which is 
 a branch or mode thereof. The claufe tlfen* 
 and f or evm baptized, feems particularly noticed, as 
 
 F |mt( 
 
 ■■ 
 
 - V 
 
( 4* ) 
 
 fart of the report made to the Pharifee?, which 
 as a branch of Chrift's work by his difciples, 
 would certify the ciicumltance fo offenhve to 
 them of his making disciples. — It may be ob- 
 ferved, that it is with little propriety, Mr. B. 
 raifes the distinctions, which he does upon this 
 paflage, after the account given in the preceding 
 chapter, by fome of John's difciples, concerning 
 Chrift. Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, 
 to whom thon bareji witnefs, behold the same 
 
 BAPTIZETH, and ALL MEN COME TO HIM. So 
 
 far from discarding baptizing, as no part of mak- 
 ing difciples, thefe paffages may be added to 
 others in fupport of the contrary. 
 
 Mr. B. well aware of the importance of limi- 
 ting the fenfe of difciple all nations to teach, in 
 fupport of his caufe, labors hard to eftablifh it to 
 the e.xclufion of any thing befides. — But after all, 
 that he hath faid, and all which he produces from 
 others, there is one thing, on which I think, I 
 may venture to challenge him. Namely, to pro- 
 duce a paflage, where the original word in 
 the conimiflion is ufed, and applied to perfon or 
 character, under the name of difciple, or difci- 
 pled, and Baptifm may not fairly and eafily be con- 
 fidered as included in its general import. 
 
 Till this is done, all befide is labor loft.-r-If 
 it cannot be done, but on the contrary, Scripture 
 ufes it as a general term in other places, there is no 
 
 reafon 
 
( 43 ) 
 
 reafon,but what predilection for a particular hy- 
 pothecs fuggefts, to regard it in its limited fenfe, 
 teach. — To adopt the words of * Dr. Guyfe, 
 in a note upon Chrift's commiffion. Upon the 
 above grounds, to me it ieem.% " That, dijciple all 
 ** nations, relates to the whole defign of Chnlt's 
 •' conrmiflion, for making difciplcs to him, and 
 '* that baptizing and teachings are mentioned as 
 " particular branches of that general defign, the 
 '* order of which, was to be determined by the 
 " circumftances of things." — See his Para- 
 ph rafe, 
 
 Difcipk ail nations thus underftood, the latter 
 phrafe, ail nations, will bear a confident fenfe, as 
 it denotes one great whole, confiding of ever 
 fo many parts. Upon Mr. Booth's and the Bap- 
 lift interpretation of it, confining it to teach, in- 
 cluding therein its particular effects it cer- 
 tainly dwindles into a very final] number. " Ac- 
 M cording to the principles of our opponents, 
 11 the term, Nation, muft have, a very fingular 
 " acceptation indeed, for in the firft place, they 
 <: muft exclude from it, all infants and young 
 M children, arid in the next place, they would e>:- 
 *' elude from it all adults, the few, comparatively 
 " very few excepted., who are deemed by them tit 
 " fubjett> for bap: i I'm . Well, when they have 
 •' taught them, few as they may be, the nation 
 M is difcipledl" So Dr. Williams remarks, and 
 
 F 2 .if 
 
( 44 ) 
 
 if fuch be the natural confequence, is it not 
 enough to render their limited fenfe fufpected ? 
 And the more fo by Mr. Booth, who infills, 
 that this law is moftexprefsand unequivocal. 
 
 How Mr. B. would get rid of the arguments 
 taken from the objects of the commiffion all na- 
 tions, in combating with a Pzedobaptift, the follow- 
 ing extracl will fhew. u All nations are to be 
 u difcipled. Infants are part of the nations. 
 u therefore, fay Mr. Henry and others, infants 
 " mull be difcipled by being baptized. As if 
 " whenever we find any thing mentioned in the 
 <f new Teftament, refpecting all nations, we were 
 " obliged to confider millions of infants, as im- 
 " mediately interefted in it ? But whether this 
 " be a facr., let the following examples declare. 
 " Matth. xxiv. 9. 14. Rom. xvi. 26. Mark, 
 " xi. 17. Rev. xiv. 8. xv. 4. xviii, 23. Rom. 
 " xv. 11. Pfalm, lxxii. 11. 17. lxxxvi. 9. cxvii. 
 w 118. 16. Zech. xiv. 2. Mai. iii. 12. Now 
 " as in thefe and other pafTages, the terms, nation, 
 " all nations, are ufed without any reference to 
 11 infants ; the arguments formed upon them, by 
 *' our oppofers mult be quite futile." Confident 
 as our remarker may be, that thefe pafTages are 
 ufed without any reference to infants, truth 
 will juftify the obfervation, they may, every one 
 of them, have a reference, in a very confident 
 fenfe ; and if fo, why fhould they be excepted. 
 
 Mr* 
 
( 45 ) 
 
 If Mr. B. is unfortunate in his lift of fpeci- 
 mens, the argument formed upon the terms, 
 nations, and all nations, from ought that appears 
 to the contrary in the texts produced, is valid. 
 After a dole examination of thofe paffages, 
 where the terms in queftion occur, I venture on a 
 publication of the following remark : namely, 
 that where they are ufed, as large collective bo- 
 dies, and things are defer ibed as done to, or per- 
 formed by a nation, or nations as fuck, indivi- 
 duals of all fexes and ages, are included, as hav- 
 ing one common interelt therein. Now if the 
 idea of inter eft is transferred to our Lord's 
 commilHon, which hath exprefsly for its obje&s all 
 nations, it is but maintaining an uniformity of in- 
 terpretation in the facred Scriptures, and efia- 
 bliflies the interelt of all, indiscriminately, in the 
 branches of the commiflion, baptizing and teach- 
 ing. 
 
 Millions of infants, as acknowledged in the laft 
 quotation from Mr. B's work — and it may be 
 added, millions of adults alfo, are not a little con- 
 cerned in the juft fenfe of this leading text; 
 for as that is determined, thev are all either ex- 
 eluded from, or admitted to participate, de jure* 
 i. e. m point of right, the benefit of .the commiflion. 
 That fcheme which impoverifhes the phrafe, all 
 nations, by millions and millions of infants and 
 adults, may well be fufpecled to be wrong, as 
 
 repugnant 
 
( 46 ) 
 
 repugnant to propriety of exprefiion, and the 
 feelings of humanity alfo. By what authority 
 is fuch an unnatural, unprecedented dilmember- 
 ment of the objective term, made ? Is it out of 
 conveniency to the term, teach, aliened to be the 
 ftrict and only meaning of the verb, rendered 
 properly Difciple ? That fenfe, which will not 
 admit of a compromife "between the two terms, 
 but if maintained as to either, will offer vio- 
 lence to both in turn, mutt certainly be illegiti- 
 mate. This is the unavoidable confeduence of 
 the baptift rigid interpretation, therefore let it be 
 cafhiered- 1 — and that which will be more accom- 
 modating between the feeming oppofites, teach 
 and all nations, be adopted. The fenfe, defcrving 
 of accepiance on this 'ground, is, (even if the firft 
 word be rendered teach) that which has been juft 
 hinted, undcrthe idea ofc'&fntfion "inter eft; and maybe 
 feen under the following obfervations upon Mark 
 xvi. 15. — -To this pafTage, I immediately proceed, 
 becaufe it is a parallel one and, as Mr. 
 Booth ft lies it, another copv of the enacting 
 Itatute refpefting baptifm. And he [aid unto them , 
 Go ye into all the World, and preach the Gofpel, 
 to every creature. He that believelh and is baptiz- 
 ed, fiiall be faved, but he that beiievcih not, jhall 
 be damned. 
 
 On making the flighted comparifon between 
 the two, a difparity is at once peiceivable; and 
 
 of 
 
( 47 ) 
 
 of the two copies, that in Matthew is found 
 the mod perfect — In this, recorded by Mark, 
 preaching only is noticed in the preceptive part, 
 Baptifm makes its appearance in the character 
 drawn afterwards of one who (ball be faved. 
 The difference which appears incontroverti- 
 bly, in thefe two copies, though relating 
 to the fame objeel, and where our oppo- 
 nents feem to expect language the mod exprefs, 
 is not a little extraordinary. If it be maintained 
 (as fome do according to Matthew's commif- 
 fion) there is a teaching previous to baptifm, 
 and a teaching after, expreiTed by two different 
 Greek words — it is natural to afk, to which does 
 Mark's copy anfwer. To the fir ft or to the laft ? 
 if to thej£r/?, there is in that cafe an omiffion, 
 or filence, as to baptifm and fubfequent teach- 
 ing, as fuppofed in Matthew's account — If to 
 the lad, it is then mod likely to be, as we con- 
 fider it in Matthew, a branch of the general 
 defign, as contained in the firff word, and 
 properly rendered, difciple. 
 
 Of the two cafes, there can be little hefita- 
 tion, in pronouncing, which claims the prefer- 
 ence — for, admitting the firft, Mark's copy 
 ftrangeiy fails fhort or Matthew's. If the laft, 
 the firft word in Matthew's, unlefs it be a general 
 term, mud be fuperfluous. This by the wav, 
 is a pre/uirptive argument of its partaking of a 
 
 preaier 
 
 i 
 
( 4» ) 
 
 greater latitude, at the head of the Paflage, 
 and that baptizing and teaching, are the modes 
 of it, — 
 
 Preach ihs go/pel to every creature. If I miftake 
 not, there is juft and flrong ground to con- 
 clude the fenfe of this claufe, expreffed in words 
 to the following effe6t. Minifters are authori- 
 sed to look upon all, young and old, in- 
 clufively, as teachable de jure, i. e. in point 
 of right. Not one is under any disqualifying hin- 
 drance from the commiffion itfelf. This, as a 
 legal inftrument, conveys and fecures to the 
 World at large, a grant and light which they 
 had not before. The miniftry of the Apoftles, 
 was confined heretofore, to the Jews, by a pro- 
 hibitory claufe. Matth. x. 5. Confequently, till 
 their commiffion is enlarged, Gentiles, adults and 
 infants, were de jure, in point of right, un- 
 teachable. Since the commiffion before us, 
 all are to be regarded as fit objecls for mini- 
 fterial teaching, not from any qualifying circum- 
 ftances in themfelves, but in the Redeemer's 
 authoritative grant and conftitution. It, it a 
 matter of inquiry why the gofpel is preached 
 to any, the anfwer is, becaufe our Lord im- 
 powers his minifters to confider them teacha- 
 ble. — But how ? — As grown to year? of matu- 
 rity or understanding ? No, tor it is evident, 
 that prior to this enlargement of the miniiterial 
 
 commiffion, 
 
( 49 ) 
 
 com million, the Gentiles, in point of capacity, were 
 teachable, when they were not fo, in point of 
 right — Infants and adults, flood upon an equal 
 footing, for want of this commiffion, however 
 different as to age and capacity, &c. Under the 
 commiffion, their cafe is ju(t the reverfe, the de- 
 fign of our Lord being to eftablifh a genera* 
 right : and what, from circumftances is lo evi- 
 dently the fpirit of the pafTage, ought, in all rea- 
 fon, to regulate our interpretation of the letter of 
 it. — Was every perfon's capacity made the mca- 
 Jure of our Lord's commiffion, and the Jlandard 
 of a right to preaching, what abfurdities would 
 follow ? The deaf among adults, as well as in- 
 fants, mull, for that incidental infirmity, be fet 
 afide, as not concerned in this commiffion. Per- 
 fons at different times, under different circum- 
 ftances, are interefted and not interefted. Inter- 
 eft (ftrange to tell!) will, in this cafe, be fufpen- 
 ded on hearing, or the lofs of it. Yet, if the 
 deaf are not blind alfo, the ufe of God's word 
 by their eye-fight, proves, they are juft as much 
 interefted, in refpect of right, as if they had the 
 ufe of their ears, as well as their eyes. 
 
 To underftand the general commiffion in the two 
 copies without the above latitude, would it not feem 
 to be an impeachment of Chrift's wifdom, — dero- 
 gatory to his authority — and virtually fubverfive 
 of the miniftry of the gofpel ? It' when he fays, 
 
 G preach 
 
( 5° ) 
 
 'Preach the gofpel to every creature,* &c. He 
 li '1 no defign to eftabhfli a certain univerfal 
 ri^ii^ or intereft therein, would not other lan- 
 guage have beeivchofen, more adapted to the 
 i.-nnations jnd exceptions, with which .the words- 
 are incumbered on the £ ntipsedobaptift plan ? If r 
 to give an univerfal interclt, be the object he ha* 
 in view, it at once comports with his wifdom, 
 dignity, and authority, by fixing, 'every Crea- 
 ture,' 'ail Nation^' in a preaching, teachable, bap- 
 tizable State ; rifing above, and not regarding, 
 as an hindrance to their constituted ca- 
 pacity, any natural incapacity from age, infir- 
 mity, &c — If this commifllon be weakened, will 
 not the Miniltry which (lands upon it as a Bafts,, 
 totter? Is it not owing to the fanction of this 
 commifiion, that Minifters preach the gofpel to 
 any — and if to any, then to all, de jure, but if their 
 official right to preach to all, be denied, it is- 
 In effect, denying a right to preach to any. 
 
 No.v, all who are confidered teachable in right 
 o'f the Grant, are baptizable. Adults and Infant* 
 are conltituent parts of all nations ; teaching a-nd 
 baotizing, arc parts o£ the commiffion, common 
 to both parts of the nations, Infants and Adults. 
 Natural capacity from age, Sec. a fpirilual ca- 
 pacity including believing, Sec. are onl) feeondary 
 things, mere circumttances. — A constituted 
 
 CAPACITY A CIVSN INDISCRIMINATE RIGHT, 
 
 iti 
 
f Si ) 
 
 *\ I conceive, the principal thing in the com- 
 >ussioN,as such — Minilters are to preach to 
 Adults, not only for their fakes per Tonally, but 
 virtually recognizing the given right of all their 
 Fellow-creatures to the fame. Baptifm, is to he 
 admriniftered as declarative to the fame ex- 
 tent. 
 
 M Every Creature, all Nations" viewed through 
 the medium of our Lord's Grant, are upon an 
 equality. — In the execution of this commiifion, 
 Fidelity to their Matter demand* of Minifters, 
 that all be treated as equal. Which wa\ is this 
 to be done ? Is it not by baptizing Infants, who 
 are in pofleffion of the right, and are capaol^ 
 iubjectsof the ordinance ? Incapable of actual 
 preaching, (to which, neverthelefs, they have 
 a right) there is the greater reafon, that they 
 iliould be baptized, to which the grant and 
 natural Capacity concur ; that thereby the whole 
 of the Coaimiffjon, and their Right to baptifm and 
 teaching, may be acknowledgea in the adaiinu 
 ftration. of one ordinance. 
 
 Adults are equal in refpec! of this commtf- 
 fion. To recur to what has been faid, I afk 5 
 why are they teachable? I anfwer, from a given 
 right, independent of undemanding, &c. Why 
 bapi'zabie ? The reply is the fame. The in- 
 tervention of particular effects of the miniftry, 
 producing a credible profciTion of faith, as con- 
 
 G 9 jtituiinff 
 
( 5* ) 
 
 ftituting a right to baptifm, appears to me totally 
 unauthorized by the commiffion. Baptizing and 
 teaching, as branches of Chrift's genera! defign, 
 are afibciated ; they are, de jure, of equal ex- 
 tent, which is the thing to be regarded ; and 
 therefore, adults are, indifcrhninatefy entitled 
 to preaching as well as baptizing, to bap- 
 tizing as well as preaching. Particular quali- 
 fications, fuch as are fuppofed on the plan of 
 Antipaedobaptifts, are not within the compafs 
 of a ccmmiifion to minifters, as fuch. Believ- 
 ing, repenting, Sec. are things which may be 
 brought about, and doubtlefs are, by the mi- 
 niftry : both ordinances are appointed for thefc 
 ends ; and the Lord may, and often does render 
 them effeBual. But is not the diftinclion juft, 
 necefiary, and manifeft, between, Efletis flow- 
 ing from the immediate Agency of the Holy 
 Spirit, and baptizing and teaching, as commit- 
 ted to minifters. What would the Apoftles 
 have had reafon to fay, when the commiffion 
 was jufi iffued, or minifters fiill, as acting un- 
 der it, if we are to confider, difciplc all nations, 
 Teach all nations, as fynonymous with, make them 
 true believers, real penitents. Though, it is granted, 
 Faith, Repentance, and Salvation, are the 
 defigncd ends of the miniftry, on the part of 
 Chrift, yet, it is impofTible, that difcipling, 
 teaching, baptizing, fhculd be a law to minifters, 
 
 but 
 
( 53 ) 
 
 but as means — Repentance and Faith are effect^ 
 for which no human Being is, or can be fine- 
 ly, either equal or refponfible. The trust, 
 as afligned in the commiflion, hath refponfibility 
 and capacity attached to it; and who muft 
 not perceive, that thefe can only relate to the ex- 
 ternal work of teaching and baptizing. Let im- 
 partiality judge then, whether it is not reafon- 
 able to conclude that the Nations have a right 
 to baptizing and teaching, according to the 
 (late in which the commiflion becomes a law 
 to minifters. Is it a law to minifters, only as 
 it relates to external teaching and baptizing ? 
 What is the conclufion, with refpe6t to 
 the nations, but that, in the moment, tha t 
 minifters are in a foliation, externally to teach 
 them, they are at the fame time, in a folia- 
 tion, as warranted by the commiflion, to bap- 
 tize them. If this be true, Believing and Re- 
 penting, are not to be taken into the account, 
 but under the notion of prcrequijites to baptifm, 
 to be difcarded, as they are in regard to 
 preaching, whatever ufe they may be of, on o- 
 ther accounts, under both ordinances. 
 
 But is not, Mark xvi. 16. inimical to the 
 point contended for, where it is faid. He thai 
 belicveth and is baptized, Jhall he faved. He that 
 believeth not, fliall be damned. Often as this text 
 is cited by Mr. B. and Others, as containing 
 
 an 
 
( 54 ) 
 
 an indifpenfable qualification for baptifm, I 
 fufpetl, it will not anfwer the purpofe intended. 
 If baptifm refls on a credible profcflion of faith, 
 which is the fentimenl of our opponents ; to 
 countenance it, the phrafeology oug'.t to be ve- 
 ry different, and the words run after the fol- 
 lowing manner, He that credibly prof effeth to believe. 
 To this variation from the letter of the text, the 
 declaration which follows, fliall be foved, is to- 
 tally repugnant. — Saved ! confequently, a gen- 
 uine believer, fo that if we find a rule 
 here, our conduct mult anfwer to this principle, 
 Genuine believers only are to be baptized. A judg- 
 ment of charity will, in this cafe, not be fufficient 
 to determine, who is a proper Candidate : no- 
 thing lefs than a judgment of certainty will do. 
 But, alas ! the latter is not to be had ; and if 
 a judgment of charity is propofed in lieu, it 
 is evidently deviating from the text in quef- 
 tion ; and not only fo, but lies open to the charge 
 of an uncertain rule, varying as the temper, or 
 views of the adminiftrator, may differ. As 
 »' He that believeth and is baptized," cannot 
 ierve as a rule, fo it is plain, it was not in- 
 tended to do fo ; otherwife, we mould have 
 found L in the preceptive part of the verfe be- 
 fore, whereas in the place in which it Hands, it is 
 a defcription of the saved, and with its op- 
 pofite, of the damned accoiding to charetters 
 
 exifting 
 
( 55 ) 
 
 exifting under the gofpel-difpenfation. By the 
 un be li ever, of whom nothing is faid concerning 
 baptifm, is it not reafonable to underftand him, 
 as an Infidel, or one who profefTeth to believe, 
 and is baptized, and yet void of true faith. 
 Common fenfe requires, that the order of 
 the words fhould be eonfidered in reference 
 to the design of the whole, which is not to 
 /hew, how we are to proceed as to baptizing 
 but who mall be faved and perim. He that 
 bcUeveth, is the elfential part of the character, 
 to which Salvation appertains ; and is baptized, 
 follows merely as an attendant on it, which with 
 >efpect to the Perfon, might either be before, 
 or after, without or with genuine faith. 
 
 One thing more is defcrving of our notice, 
 concerning teaching, as part of our Lord's com- 
 miflion, namely, that it has a positive as- 
 pect. — To teach one another, is agreeable to 
 the law of nature, but that law was counter- 
 acted, when the Redeemer delivered that pofitive 
 precept to the contrary. Matth. x. 5. Theft 
 twelve, Jefv-* fent jorth % and commanded* faying* 
 £0 not into the vjcy of the gentiles* &c. Here 
 was a pofitive embargo laid upon mini Iters, not 
 to flir beyond the Jews ; and had it continued 
 in force, the conlequence mult have been, a 
 reftriclion of labours to the circle prefcribed. 
 Who or what can take it off? Only he 
 
 v-ho. 
 
( 56 ) 
 
 who laid it on, and by the fame manner, a 
 positive precept, fuch as we have in the text. 
 Thus the Law of Natuie returns to its old courfe; 
 all which flopped its current, is taken away, 
 and teach, in the commifTion, is a joint-pofitive 
 branch of it with baptizing. Confequently, 'dif- 
 ciple itfelf' is pofitive too. 
 
 Let partis baptifm then, as maintained by the 
 Baptifis on one hand, infant and adult Baptifm, 
 as avowed in this work on the other, be balanced 
 together ; will not the fcale turn in favor of the 
 latter ? If the obfervations be true, which have 
 been produced, the Commifiion commands the 
 Baptifm of infants and adults, indifcriminately. 
 It gives no fanciion to the partial principles, 
 and practices, of our differing Brethren. " In 
 " religious matters, and efpecially in the 
 '* worfhip of God, it is not only finful to go 
 " contra Statutum, (againft a flatute) but to go 
 {< Supra Statutum (above a ftatute) or to fpeak 
 " home in the cafe, acting Jupra flatutum, is all 
 " one with acting contra Statutum. Therein 
 " God's requiring is equivalent to forbidding ; 
 " and doing more than he commandeth, to 
 « c doing contrary to it." As thefe are Senti- 
 ments which have obtained Mr. B's approba- 
 tion, being part of a quotation found in his 
 work, may I not venture to afk, in what light 
 are we to confide r, doing lefs than the Statute ? 
 
 U 
 
( 57 ) 
 
 Is there not evil annexed to acting Infra StatiUum 9 
 (beneath the Statute)? If fo, and the preceding 
 pages do not bear falfe witnefs, there is no lit- 
 tle blame imputable to the principles and prac- 
 tices of Antipaedobaptifts. The commiflion is 
 very large, their fcheme very narrow ; all the 
 difference there is between both, will determine 
 the degree of enormity chargeable on the Au- 
 thors of it. — Befides : upon the prefumption that 
 what is urged is true, it may be retorted upon 
 our Brethren in their ufual (train, No precept 
 for what you do ! — The detail of ftrange con- 
 fluences may be yet further increafed by ob- 
 ferving, that, if teach all nations be underftood 
 as our opponents do, of that teaching % which is 
 followed with Baptifm, and includes in it 
 particular effects ; then, to maintain confitency, 
 they fliould preach or teach no more than they 
 do, or, than they are fure, they mall baptize, 
 for the commiflion in this fenfe, requires, that 
 wnom they teach, the fame they baptize. As 
 fi rare are folitary woes," fo rare are folitary ab- 
 furdities j one begets another. For inftance, this 
 abfurdity will accompany the former. Minifters 
 can only be Teachers to fuch who are fo taught, as 
 in the judgment of Antipaedobaptifts are fit 
 fubjccts for the bapti final ordinance. They 
 may be Preachers according to Mark's copy, but 
 not Teachers according to Matthew's, Alas I 
 
( 5» ) 
 
 for my aged Fathers, and beloved Brethren 
 in the Miniftry, if this be true Doctrine. To 
 difprove it to be a natural confequence from the 
 views of our opponents, as well as the reft men- 
 tioned, will, I conceive, be a difficult tafk to 
 perform. 
 
 Judge then, Reader, judge for yourfelf, after 
 attentively weighing the commiffion, and what 
 has been advanced upon it, whether there be 
 not good reafon to confider Baptifm, and 
 Teaching, as pofitive branches, (at large, mo- 
 ral-pofitive) of Difcipling the Nations found- 
 ed upon fome pofnively favored State, which 
 can be no other than Relative Holinefs, — to 
 which ftate, while the Jews enjoyed it, external 
 privileges appertained. 
 
 III. The Invefligaiion of the principal hif- 
 torical accounts of Baptifm in the New Tefla- 
 ment, next demands our attention. 
 
 The object of the inquiry, it fhould be re- 
 membered, is, to afcertain the agreement or dif- 
 agreement of thefe accounts with the author** 
 principles, or thofe of Antipaedobaptifts, con- 
 cerning Baptifm. In tracing this object, I 
 remark on the leading hiftorical cafes recorded, 
 as follows : 
 
 (1) That Preaching, Teaching, or what a- 
 mounts to it, introduces to baptifm, and that the 
 Baptifmal Ordinance was adminiftered very foon. 
 
 Ho* 
 
( 59 ) 
 
 How this mode of procedure, this difpatch in 
 baptizing, is accounted for ; and its confiftency 
 with the avowed principle and defign of this 
 work, the fequel will make to appear. When 
 our Redeemer delivered the commiffion already 
 confidered, He, doubtlefs, did not mean himielf 
 to regard the Nations; or that the Nations mould 
 be regarded, as if they were a collection of ir- 
 rational Beings. He did not defign to give a 
 fan&ion to the principle or practice of unnatu- 
 ral compulfion. He did not intend palling an 
 act in favor of criminal violence in a holy 
 caufe. While we cannot but conclude this 
 was far from his defign, Minifters are not to 
 act. in reference to the commiffion, towards their 
 Fellow-creatures, but as perfons having a natural 
 unalienable right to acl for themlelves in reli- 
 gious concerns. Two views of the Nations 
 ought to be diftin&ly taken and confidered 
 in connection with our Lord's words — One is, 
 that view of them but jult mentioned, as ra- 
 tional creatures — the other is, that which imme- 
 diately prefents ilfelf from the body of the 
 commiffion as they are the objeQs of it. — Un- 
 lets tnis diftintlion be aliowed and regarded, 
 violence and perfecution by thofe who affume 
 the difcharge of the commiffion, will meet with 
 a patronage, to which one cannot forbear fay- 
 ing as Abraham, That be far Jrom thee to do 
 H 2 after 
 
( 6° ) 
 
 tifterthh manner. It is a propofition therefore, 
 which, I conceive, may be laid down, as Ariel- 
 ly true, that any profefling to aft under the 
 commiffion of Chrift, either as to baptizing or 
 teaching, and therein offers violence to the law of 
 Nature, deviates from the defign of the Legifla- 
 tor, mifconftrues his words, and practically ca- 
 lumniates his bleiTed religion. 
 
 Upon this principle, all inftances of Baptifm, 
 however, by whom, or upon whomfoever per- 
 formed, infringing upon the Law of Nature, 
 demand the fevereft cenfure. As Baptifms of 
 this caft, we regard thofe adminiftered by the 
 Aliffionaries of the Church of Rome upon the 
 Indians j concerning which, Millar in his hiftory 
 of the propagation of Chriftianity gives us the 
 following intelligence. " 'Tis (fays He) report- 
 " ed of twelve Franciscan Friars, that each of 
 " them baptized an hundred thoufand Indians, 
 " and one of them four times that number, 
 " afking no more, but, what is your Name ? 
 " Yea, they baptized vaft multitudes all at 
 ,c once, without any previous care, fo as that 
 " thefe pretended Profelytes did not know whe- 
 " ther they were baptized or not." To this 
 Paragraph may be added Mr. Ramfay's Story, 
 related by Mr. Booth. " The abfent Owner 
 " of a Plantation, [in the Weft-Indies] fent 
 t( out pofuive ftanding inftruclions to his Ma- 
 
 " nager 
 
( 6i ) 
 
 •* nager to have his Slaves carefully inftruBed 
 " in the Chriftian Religion, and baptized. He 
 " [the Clergyman that was employed] came to 
 f: a Plantation on a Sunday afternoon, and de- 
 " fired the manager to collect eight or ten 
 " Slaves to be baptized. They were brought 
 " before him. He began to repeat the office of 
 " Baptifm. When he had read as far as that 
 fc part of the Service where he was to fprinkle 
 " them with water, if their former name plea- 
 " fed him, he baptized them by it, but if he 
 " thought it not fit to call a Chriftian by, as 
 " was his opinion of Quamina, Bungee, and the 
 " like, he gave them the flrfl Chriftian Name 
 " that occurred to his memory. — Some of the 
 " baptized would mutter and fay, they defired, 
 " not the Parfon to throw water in their face, 
 \* which was all they knew of the matter, and 
 " therefore were loth to fuflfer them (elves to be 
 *• fo dealt with.'' This is the Story : Mr. Booth's 
 Remarks upon it fnaii next come forward. " Now 
 " this \s genuine Difciplejhip by baptifm, for here 
 tl is not the leaft appearance of profeffing Faith, 
 '< nor of inftru&ion previous to the ufe of wa- 
 " ter. A firfe illuftration this of what our Lord 
 " meant by Matheteufate ! — Nor is it of any 
 «' force againft this method of making Difciples^ 
 11 that thefe poor Negroes muttered, and knew 
 « { not what to make of the parfon's conduct. 
 
 « For 
 
( & ) 
 
 ** For, if it be the command of our Lord tt 
 •' make Difciples without inftru&ion, and mere- 
 1t \y by baptizing them, the Work is done, 
 " the difciplefhip is effefted by barely admini- 
 •' (iering the Rite/* 
 
 Having laid this ftrange Weft- Indian Cafe be- 
 fore the Reader, and Mr. B — 's Remarks up- 
 oi it, I hope, I may be permitted to fubjoin 
 a few of my own. " The glaffes need not to 
 * s be wiped very clean" (to adopt a borrowed 
 Phrafe in Mr. B — 's Work) nor be ufed very 
 long, to fee that Author's defign in introducing thi« 
 fury, and commencing a Remarker on it. Wai 
 it with a view to ftrengthen his Argument in 
 fupport of his favorite rendering of Matheteufate 
 by teach ? Was it to entail ridicule and ab- 
 horrence upon principles as to the Ad rniniftration 
 of the Baptifmal Ordinance more wide and li- 
 beral than his own ? If fuch were the objeQa 
 Mr. B. had in view, I am happy to fay, He 
 has undertaken a bad caufe, and has no oc- 
 casion to triumph. Such a courfe as was pur- 
 fued in the Weft-Indies^ receives no counte- 
 nance from the diftinguifhing Sentiments of 
 P2edobaptifts > or from the Author's ftill larger 
 plan in this publication. The Relation of it, 
 creates not a little difguft, fo abhorrent are our 
 principles from fuch practices. And fome withal, 
 at Mr. B — 's infinuations to the contrary. 
 
 That 
 
( 6 3 ) 
 
 That the cafe held up to [public notice, as \ 
 jiine illustration of what our Loid meant 
 
 by MATH ETE US ATE AS GENUINE DISCIPLE- 
 
 ship— does not make it neceffary that, the Greek 
 fliould be rendered teach, and fo throw any 
 advantage into the caufe of our Opponents, I 
 vould endeavour to prove thus — I afk, did 
 Chrift or did He not mean, to authorize 
 his Minifters to force or compel any by an 
 unnatural violence, or infringement on the Law 
 of Nature, to be baptized and taught, under 
 the commiffion ? If it be anfwered in the ne- 
 gative, which it mull, the Apoftles had one 
 obvious ftep to take, which was to addrefs 
 themfelves to the People, that they might 
 obtain their confent. The commiffion at 
 large is pofitive in part, reding on the fover- 
 *ign and gracious Will of its Author — intruded 
 to Men to execute among their Fellow-crea- 
 Uires. From the very nature of things, even 
 if it were admitted that the firft word in the 
 •ommiffi >n required teaching, who does not 
 perceive, there mud be a teaching due to the 
 Law of Nature, to the natural liberty of Adultc 
 before that. Accordingly, there mult not be lefs 
 than a firft, fecond, and third teaching : the 
 two firft before ; the laft after Baptilm. — The 
 Nations muft be previously told, alias, 
 % aught, whai.wnmtJfiQn is about to be executed 
 
 among 
 
( «4 ) 
 
 among them, what it confifts of, and according 
 to the approved rendering among the Baptifts 
 
 thefe are, teach t baptizing t teaching Befides, 
 
 it is a quite unprecedented thing for a pofitive 
 Ordinance which is to be administered by men 
 among men, to be done without previous con- 
 fent among Adults. Adminiftrators are obliged 
 by the unreftrained Law of Nature, to treat ihe 
 Subjects of their Adminiftration as rational 
 Beings, be they of what age they may. 
 
 Abraham upon receiving command from God, 
 to circumcife every one born in his houfe, 
 and bought with money, took every male and 
 circumcifed the flefh. of their forefkin on the 
 felf-fame day. What means did Abraham pur- 
 fiie ? Violence made no part of them by com- 
 pelling, contrary to their confent, the men of 
 Abraham's houfe to be circumcifed. Would 
 he not make a declaration of this pofitive Or- 
 der, the nature, and ends of it ? Doubtlefs — 
 The Law of Nature requires fo much : the 
 divine Order though pofitive, did not exclude 
 it, and fo authorize a violent courfe. The Na- 
 ture of an Ordinance as pofitive, is not necef- 
 farily hoftile to thele ideas ; for let the definition 
 of fuch an Ordinance be given (as it ought) 
 to diftinguifh it from moral ones, the Or- 
 dinance as pofitive, muft have a certain Ji~ 
 iiiation ; and it is a thing entirely new for it 
 
 to 
 
( 65 ) 
 
 to have either fuch a fituation or direction as 
 to infringe upon natural liberty from the con- 
 duct of the Adminiftrator. — When it was men- 
 tioned under a former Head, that the prohibitory 
 claufe, Mattb. x. 5. counteracted the Law of 
 Nature, my meaning was merely with regard 
 to the Gofpel-rniniftratiop. The Gofpel-mini- 
 ftry being a matter of pofitive Inftitucion and 
 limited to the Jewifh Nation, though as Men, it 
 was agreeable to the Law of Nature that the 
 Apoftles mould teach the World at large, yet 
 as Minilters, they had no right for want of an 
 enlarged commiflion. Thus the Law of Nature 
 received a check, but entirely in reference to 
 the Golpel. As far as the commHfion went, under 
 which the Apoftles acled at firft, which was to 
 the Jews, the Law of Mature had no reftraint. 
 Under this new enlarged glorious commiflion to 
 all Nations, there is room for it to atl ftill ; 
 and thus it becomes an honored auxiliary to 
 Chrift's Minifters in the execution of it. 
 If there be any force in thefe remarks, 
 which are fubmitted to the Reader's coufi- 
 deration, it is plain that the plan here pro- 
 pofed for enquiry allows no fuch procedure 
 as Mr. Ramfay's Story difcovers. — They make 
 for the rendering of the term in queftion by 
 Difciple, rather then teach, as upon the lat- 
 ter there will be quite a fuperfluity of it — and 
 
 I there 
 
( 66 ) 
 
 there it no occafion for fetting it up under 
 the idea that difcipling by baptizing lies 
 open to the making of fuch Difciples as the 
 Clergyman afore-mentioned, becaufe confent be- 
 ing requifne to prevent any infringement on 
 tie Law of Nature, fomething tantamount to 
 teaching, preachings muft ordinarily precede it. 
 To diiciple by baptizing, {lands clear of thofc 
 incongruities which Mr. B. would annex to it, 
 by having recourfe to what has been faid. 
 Here, let it be obferved, that the cemmiffion, 
 as we have feen, including Infants as well as 
 Adults, the Law of Nature receives no infringe- 
 ment fiom difcipling them, [it being their right) 
 provided it is dune with the confent of thofe 
 who have from natural Relation their difpofal. 
 
 Mr. B. animadverting on Mr. Horfey's fer- 
 mon on InfanuBaptifm inferts the following 
 Note. " Regularly admitted into the difpenfation 
 
 * of the Chriflian Religion, by being baptized, 
 " While I cannot but queftion the truth of 
 " this pofition, yet, I freely allow it the merit 
 " of originality. For though many have talk- 
 <c ed of baptifm admitting into the vifiblc 
 
 * Church; yet Mr. Horfey is the only Author 
 M whom I have obferved, that fpeaks of it 
 " admitting into the Chriflian Difpenfation. 
 " To live under the Chriflian Difpenfation, to 
 ^ enjoy the privileges of the Chriflian difpen- 
 
 fation. 
 
( 6 7 ) 
 
 u fation, and fuch like phrafes, arc commonly 
 * ufed, but regularly admitted into the Difpen- 
 " fation of the Chriftian Religion, and that by 
 " Baptifm, is both uncommon and improper." 
 Thus finding fault with the expreffion He pro- 
 ceeds. " To convicl it of impropriety." Then 
 follows a fet of queftions, which as they belong 
 to the fubje£t in hand, I will beg leave to 
 confider myfelf as Catechumen, and anfwer. 
 Does Mr. B. inquire, c; Is it a fad that nei- 
 " ther Jews nor Gentiles had any regular In- 
 " tereft in the Chriftian Difpenfation till they 
 iC were baptized" ? I anfwer, it is a faci they 
 had no vifible regular intereft in the Chriltiau 
 Dilpenfation, till they were baptized. " Was 
 " not the Gofpel, by divine order, preached to 
 u them, and w r as it not quite regular for 
 " them to hear it, prior to their being baptized ?•* 
 Preached to them, and regular for them to 
 hear it in an unbaptized ftate, only upon the 
 afore-mentioned end of obtaining confent. 
 The divine order to which Mr. B. refers, 
 and which has been confidered under the fe- 
 cond general Divifion, it is apprehended, re- 
 quires no more. " Might not both Jews and 
 Gentiles, while unbaptized, attend the Apofto- 
 lic Miniftry, in all branches of moral Wor- 
 (hip, without the lead inegularity''? The Wor- 
 fhip uiider the Gofpel is an evangelically-infti- 
 
 I • tuted 
 
( 68 ) 
 
 tuted, moral-pofitive Worfhip. — And premifmg 
 this, I reply, without heiitation. There is no 
 impropriety, but the contrary in the Jews and 
 Gentiles attending the public miniftry, till bap- 
 tized. But before Mr. B. can obtain any ad- 
 vantage to his caufe either from the quefiion 
 or the anfwer, it behoves him to fhevv, that Jews 
 and Gentiles did attend on all the branches of 
 moral Worfhip in an unbaptized flate. For 
 want of precept and precedent to eftablifh the 
 fa£t, there would be no fmall irregularity in 
 fuch a conducl. To become fpeclatois of fuch 
 a fcene, as the queflion fupp>>fes, we mull 
 repair to the congregations of pro felled Baptifts : 
 the eje will quickly difjover feme who twenty, 
 thirty years, &c. have attended on the branches 
 of moral Worfhip, as Mr. B. calls them, and 
 notwithstanding unbaptized. Where will Mr. B. 
 find a precedent for this in all the New Tcf- 
 tament — ? " Might they not ftudy the Scriptures, 
 ** converfe with chriflians about their Souls, and 
 " folemnly pray in the Name of Jefus, with- 
 u out being fufpecied of irregularity, except 
 " they were baptized?" What. J iludy the 
 Scriptures, converfe with Chriflians, pray in the 
 Name of Jefus, and be unbaptized ! Has Mr, 
 B. no fufpicion of irregularity here ? Does he 
 carry rys notions of credible profejfion fo much 
 further, that he will not baptize pcrfons who 
 
 amit 
 
( 6 9 ) 
 
 admit of fuch a defcription ? " From what 
 " branch of moral worfhip are unbaptized per- 
 *■ fons debarred by any rite of Chrift, or the 
 " cuftom of the Apoftolic Churches?" No 
 Rule of Chrift, no cuftcm of the Apoftles, 
 debars perfons as unbaptized from moral 
 Worfhip as fuch. — But, be it remembered, both 
 tbe rule of Chiift and the cuftom of the Apof- 
 tles and Apoftolic Churches require, that mo- 
 ral Worfhip fhould be made evangelical, ac- 
 cording to the inftitu:ion and Genius of the 
 Gofpel. And heie our Opponents are greatly 
 to blame, who lay Humbling blocks in tbe way 
 of its being fo. 
 
 It is now time for me in turn to interrogate. 
 From the practice of the Apoftles as recorded, 
 is there no reafon to confider them afting a- 
 greeable to the above views ? Do we not mark 
 the fpecd with which they proceeded to the ad- 
 miniftration of baptifm? and a foil d reafon for 
 it likewife ? May we not here obtain a light to 
 difcover emphafis and weight in fuch language, 
 as, Why tarried thou, arife and be baptized ? In 
 fuch accounts as, He and all his were baptized 
 Straitxvay ? Laying afide this view of the cafe, 
 and fuppofing for the moment, the Apoftles had 
 confidered the import of the firft leading term in 
 the commiflion to imply very particular effects, 
 they might have allowed themfelves more time. 
 
 after 
 
( 70 ) 
 
 after the example of certain perfons amongft 
 us now-a-days ; they might have gone on teach- 
 ing and jldl teaching. But the King's bufinefs 
 demanded hade. The commiffion is admirably- 
 framed to expedite ; the pattern drawn therein 
 the Apoftles manifeftly followed and f<p general- 
 ly, that a reference to the whole of their con- 
 duel is enough. 
 
 Through an overfight of the exaB #cJ~Uicn } and 
 regard which the commiflion of Chriit bears to 
 the law of nature, which, as the Will of 
 Chrift, forbids any part of Chrili's pofuive 
 Commiflion to be executed without a certain 
 previous confent obtained, it is, I fufpect that 
 our differing Brethren have infilled fo flrenu- 
 oufly for their rendering Matheteufate : not dif- 
 tinguiming between what is done in reference to 
 the commiflion, and what is performed under 
 it. To the fame circumftance, if I miftake not, 
 Mr. B. may confider himfelf indebted for fome 
 obfervations, which he regards as coneeflion* 
 of Paedobuptifls. A Reader may perceive in 
 feveral of the quotations produced in Mr. B — *« 
 ■work under Matth. xxviii. 19. That the Au- 
 thors are imprefled with the expediency of 
 teaching of fume fort previous to the baptifmal 
 Ordinance. This is particularly to be obfer- 
 vedin the Specimens given from Dr. Doddridge, 
 Grotius, Hoombcekius, Di. Ridgley, Poole's 
 
 Continuators, 
 
( 7i ) 
 
 Contimnton, Beckmannu-?, Epifcopiui.— - .The 
 TelHmonv of Beckmanus is not a little ftrik- 
 ing. " That the word Matketeuein according to 
 its etymology fignifies to make disciples, is 
 readily allowed by all" — Still however, thefe 
 Authors feem to confider inftru&ion, as belong- 
 ing to it, which is mod readily granted, as a gen- 
 eral term, including baptizing and teaching— 
 This placing teaching in the commiffion after 
 baptizing rather than before, if the order in 
 which they are reprefented is tenacioufly fol- 
 lowed, and at the fame time, the circumftance 
 of natural confent being over-looked, led them 
 to fuch accounts of Matheteufate, which are 
 inconfiilent with themfelves, and if admitted, 
 would over-load the commiffion, with a Juper- 
 ttbundance cj teachings as before remarked. — 
 
 (2) I proceed to notice the language 
 which the New Teflament-Eaptizers ufe as to 
 their preaching and bajviz.ng, having their great 
 conimiffion before them. Whle under the for- 
 mer head of fubdivifion obfervations have 
 been made, intended to account for the Apof- 
 tles* baptizing with fuch celerity — namely, that 
 the parties might with all fpeed be vifibly dat- 
 ed under the commiffion — this particular lead* 
 us to examine, whether a credible profejfion of 
 £aUh entitles to Baptifm. is a fentiraent which 
 
 Scripture 
 
( 7* ) 
 
 Scripture-Precedents of Baptifm warrant. It is 
 natural to expect, that the language ufed by 
 administrators fhou'd affi!t us herein. Let us, 
 therefore, examine it with care and impartiali- 
 ty. 
 
 The Miniftry of John, the venerable Fore- 
 runner of our Lord, confifted of preaching and 
 baptizing. What was the fubftance and fcope 
 of his preaching? Repentance, and the Baptifm 
 o( Repentance. — Matth. iii. 2. Mark, i. 4. 
 What Repentance ? Doubtlefs, fincere and un- 
 feigned. The very word Repent, means the effential 
 of Repentance, as it refpe&s the Heart ; not in- 
 deed to the exclufion of the form and fruits of 
 it, but this is rather implied than expreffed. 
 If the Tree be good, the Fruit will be fo alfo. 
 But if John preached true unfeigned Repen- 
 tance, and we are to make his preaching the 
 rule of baptizing, and fo true Repentance a pre- 
 requifite to baptifm, it follows none but real peni- 
 tents ought to be baptized. — John, we are 
 given to underftand, preached alfo the Baptifm 
 of Repentance. A mode of reprefenting the 
 Ordinance that ftrongly befriends the idea of 
 Baptifm as txhibitory of, obligatory and helpful 
 to Repentance; and the conclufion, that it is a 
 
 joint- 
 
( 73 ) 
 
 joint-mean with preaching to bring about Re- 
 pentance where not, and aid it where it is. / 
 baptize yju with water onto repentance. The 
 prepodtion ufed appears in that remarkable paf- 
 fage concerning JXrael at large where it is 
 faid, they were all baptized unto Mofes, in the 
 Cloud and the Sea. i. Cor. x. 2. Turretine 
 underilands the phrafe, unto moses, Metony- 
 miczlly,q. d. unto the Doctrine and Difpenfationof 
 Mofes. Not to notice that here we have an 
 : .ance of Baptifm, wherein, uvquejlicnably, In- 
 fants and Aduks promifcuoufiy are included* 
 I afk is it not Scriptural, in the paffage juft ad- 
 duced, to regard the phrafe, unto Repentance, 
 in a fenfe not to the exception of Infants or 
 Adults, as making Repentance an efiential prc- 
 requifite to Baptifm ? Is not Repentance, as 
 here reprefented, rather held forth as a terminus 
 ad que?n } an end for whieb, than terminus a qv*o, a 
 ground on which, it was administered ? 
 
 Among the number who repaired to John's 
 Baotilm were many of the Pharifees and Sad- 
 ducees. Upon feeing them, headdrefled them in 
 Language, which befpeaks faithfulnefs, but no re- 
 fufal. The contrary to a denial is intimated 
 in v. 11. where in a fpeech immediately directed 
 to them, he fays in the words before noticed, 
 I indeed baptize you witli wateri^o Re- 
 pentance. C«n language more expreSve of 
 
 K con- 
 
( 74 ) 
 
 content, or of aclual adminiftration on the pari; 
 of a pcrfon baptizing be ufed ? He, however, 
 accompanies what he does, and which thefe Pha- 
 rifees and Scribes came for, with reafonable and 
 fuitable advice, that as perfons fubmittrng to 
 the Ordinance of Baptifm, they would bring forth 
 fruits in their future lives meet for, or becom- 
 ing the nature, d fign, and obligations of the 
 Baptifmal Ordinance. — To this efreS, is that lan- 
 guage, Bring foith therefore Fruits meet for Repen- 
 tance. The Pharifees and Lawyers, whom our 
 Lord reprefents as rejecting the counfel of 
 God againft themfelvcs being not baptized of 
 him, were certainly not thefe perfons, for the 
 fa& difproves it — Mr. B. allows Baptifm in the 
 paffage here alluded to (Luke, vii. 30.) to be call- 
 ed the Counfel of God. — counsel! How con- 
 gruous fuch an account to the idea of its be- 
 ing an ordained mean with preaching, of ad- 
 vifing, obliging, and being helpful to Repen- 
 tance. This Ordinance, the Pharifees and Law- 
 yers rejected againft themfqlv.es. The many faid 
 to come to John's Baptifm, mull in all reafon 
 be excepted — and where lies the difference be- 
 tween thofe two cJaifes of Pharifees ? — The one 
 came to John's Baptifm i. e. to be baptized ; 
 the other rejected it and did not come. What 
 conclufion then, is warranted by a comparative 
 view of our Lord's charge ugainll the Pharifees as 
 
 re- 
 
( 75 ) 
 
 rejeclers of John's Baptifm ? Of the Pharifees 
 as coming to John's Baptifm ? I anfwer, that 
 thofe that did come, were baptized ; that it was 
 the fault of the others for want of a profeffed 
 willingnefs, that they were not baptized-*-that 
 if Repentance had been urged as a prerecjuifite 
 for Baptifm, our Lord would have blamed them 
 in the firit inftance, for non-repenting. But if 
 upon the confeffiort of Mr. B. Baptifm and the 
 Counfel of God be ftriclly fynonymous, Chriit 
 fo exprefTes himfelf as to make their criminality 
 to lie in their rejecting John's Baptifm, the 
 oppofite to which is confenting. — John's grand 
 argument for what he did, was. The Kingdom of 
 Heaven is at Hand.-?— The period was drawing 
 near, when the adorable Mefliah would enter 
 on his public Miniitry, and introduce the mod 
 illuftrious dtfpeniatida of Grace, which mould 
 continue till Time would be no more. What the 
 morning Star is to the riling Sun, fuch was John's 
 Miniftry to our Lord. He therefore comes for- 
 ward, faying, Repent, tor thk kingdom oi 
 hlav£.n is at hand. — He publilhei a call to 
 Repentance, and announces Baptifm, as we 
 have feen, a joint-mean with preaching, to bring 
 the nation to Repentance. A fuitabienefs of 
 State to the Difpcniation coming on, feems to 
 be one general idea intended. — Repentance 
 may be conceived in a two-fold view, either 
 K t. as 
 
( 7« ) 
 
 as it refpects the thing itself — or as the 
 ind of a gospel ministry — In either cale, 
 1 fee no reafon why Infants fhould be excepted 
 from a certain intere't in this general call. To 
 deny their capacity for that which is tantamount 
 to Repentance in Adults, brings along with it 
 one or other of tbefe confequences — cither that 
 they were not born in Sin contrary to the tefti- 
 mony of Scripture — or a denial of their Salva- 
 tion as incapable of what is effential thereunto — 
 If Repentance be confidered as the end of a 
 Gofpel call, and Infants, as I think muit be allow- 
 ed, are proper fubjects cf certain obligation; it 
 is unnatural to confider thein as not interefted 
 in a call which reds on the obligation of 
 the objects of it, to the tiling it fpecifies* 
 namely, Repentance. — Other teftimony of 
 Scripture favors thefe ideas as to a general call. 
 Thus, when Jonah received a commifiion to go 
 and preach to Nineveh, more than fix fcore 
 thoufand perfons that could not difcern between 
 their right hand and left, alias Children, were 
 interefted in the preaching of that prophet — A* 
 far as children were capable of an external State 
 of Repentance, they were put into it by wear* 
 ing fackcloth. Making Scripture our guide 
 from the cafe of Nineveh, what is more natural 
 than to view Infants as well as Adults, indif- 
 vriminattly involved in the call to Repentance, 
 
 un- 
 
( 77 ) 
 
 under John's Miniftry ; and Baptifm being 
 as fuitable to the people on his preaching as cou- 
 wring with fackcloth was. to Nineveh on Jonah's, 
 Infants in the one cafe, might be fo fituated, 
 as to anfwer to the Infants in the other. 
 
 Befides : if the Kingdom of Heaven being at 
 hand was a reafon of J' .m's ■Niiniltry, then both 
 branches of it, calling to Repentance and bap- 
 tizing, mud apply to all under the Kingdom 
 of Heaven ; and it feesns fair to confuk*r 
 that interpretation of the paiTages in queiticn, 
 as not the true and genuine one, which mikes 
 the matter of John's call, repenting and bap- 
 tizing, unequal to it. — But the Kingdom 
 of Heaven, is a glorious Difpenfaiion of wide 
 extent — it includes Infants and Adults pro- 
 mifcuoufly. Concerning the former, Chrift was 
 pleafed to declare. Matth. xix, 14. Suffer little 
 Children to come unto w<r, (or to be brought, as 
 they are faid to have been carried, and taken 
 up in Chr ill's arms) for of fuch is the Kingdom of 
 Heaven. — Befide the gracious afiurance expreiled 
 in thefe words on behalf of Infants without 
 exception, it is obvious, that Chrift fpeaks of 
 that aft: of parents or friends bringing ' chil- 
 dren to him as if their own aft of coming, 
 though from the circumitances related, we know 
 it was not. — Are Adults included under the 
 Kingdom of Heaven ? Few, very few, ac- 
 cording 
 
( 7* ) 
 
 Cording to the practice and principles of our 
 Antipjedobaptift friends, but, furely, our Lord 
 V-is of a different way of thinking, when He 
 dictated, Maith. xiii. 47. The Kingdom 0; Heaven 
 i$ like unto a net that was cajl into the Sea, and 
 gathered of every kind both good and bad. The 
 commiffion of (Thrift before confidered, is doubt- 
 lefs this net, in the execution of which, Mini- 
 Ikrs are to gather ; the Sea the World, where 
 perfons, indifcriminately. are to be gathered by 
 the two parts of the commiffion, baptising and 
 teaching.-— Minifters officially confidered may 
 throw the net into the fea, or execute their 
 commiffion in the World, without diliinction of 
 parts, places or perfons. — AM in relpecl of the 
 commiffion, are allowed to be in a ftate to be 
 gathered. — Such feems to be the drfciipticn of 
 the Kingdom of Heaven, as pictured in the afore- 
 cited parable — Now was it on the eve of the com- 
 mencement of this glorious conftitution, that the 
 New Teflament Elm appeared ? Was his Mi- 
 niltry owing to its fpeedy approach ? Surely, 
 all included in the Kingdom of Heaven, were 
 intereited in the joint-branches of his Miniftry 
 Conlequently, Infants and Adults promifcuoufiy. 
 If other circumftances, then, fhould not arife 
 in the account of John's Bapiilm repugnant to 
 the general right of all indilcriminately, it is 
 prefumed, the language John made ufe of as t© 
 
 preaching 
 
( 79 ) 
 
 preaching and baptizing, is not difcouraging t& 
 the object of this work. 
 
 A&s, ii. 28. 39. Then Peter [aid unto them, Re* 
 pent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of 
 Jefus Chrifl, for the remijfwn of Sins, and ye fhal\ 
 receive the gift of the Holy Ghofi. For the promifc 
 is unto you and your children, and to all that are 
 ajar off [e v e n] as many as the Lord our God 
 Jhall call. Here, and in the cafe with which 
 thefe pafTages are connected is a fort of colossus 
 among baptismal precedents. The more 
 attention is due to it on that account. How- 
 far Peter's addrefs as now before us, will fup- 
 port the principle of our Opponents, baptizing 
 on a credible profeffion of Faith, I fhall at- 
 tempt to fcrutinize, and to this end notice thofe 
 things in the texts, whence they derive their 
 argument, and confider them as conclufive in 
 their favor. — To fecure themfelves in pof- 
 feflion of this part of Scripture, Repent ye and 
 he baptized, or the order of the Word), the 
 promifc mentioned as meaning that of Joel's 
 Prophecy, the term Children as denoting fuck on- 
 ly -who are the diflinguifhcl Subjects of divine Grace, 
 the Call as fpoken of God's Spirit, art each of them 
 injifled upon. Of each of thefe, I (hall taUe no- 
 tice in the Sequel.— The arrangement of the 
 
 ords' 
 

 ( &> ) 
 
 words, repent ye and he baptized, is and can 
 be of no (ervice to the caufe of Antipaedobap- 
 tifts, in my apprebenfion, unlefs two things can 
 be fhewn, namely, that the Apoftle. by "Repent 
 ye,'' means any thing le^s than genuine Repentance^ 
 and that a credible projejjion of Repentance is 
 the fame thing as genuine Repentance. De- 
 fp airing of the poflibility of thefe things, 
 I cannot but confider an argument in favor of 
 the diftinguiming fentiments I oppofe taken 
 fiorn the mere words of Peter or their order 
 to be futile. For the difference is, or may be 
 as much as betvveen the fhadow and the fubftance. 
 Credibly profefs Repentance and be baptized ! No, if 
 the mere order of the words is to decide, and the 
 moft natural fenfe of the call, " Repent ye'' be 
 confidered, truly and unfeicnedly re- 
 pent AT HEART AND Bl BAPTIZED, is Peter's 
 
 language conftruttively. I fcrupie not to affirm 
 if this was the Repentance urged along with 
 baptifm by Peter, and as an essential pre- 
 requisite to baptifm, it was out of his pow- 
 er, and it is out of any man's, to acl according 
 to it, without a difcernment of fpirits. Re- 
 fpeCting Repentance as required in the text in 
 queftion, and profeflion of Repentance which 
 may be deemed, credible, as required by our 
 differing brethren, a peifon may come up to 
 the latter, and fall Jhort of the former. To 
 
 cite 
 
f 8' ) 
 
 cite Peter's Language, which is exprefs and un- 
 equivocal, demanding true Repentance as afford- 
 ing a Rule, when the main thing in that Rule, (if 
 Baptifm reds on profeflion merely) may be want- 
 ing, is, to fay the leaft of it, ftrange indeed. 
 Yet this is the conduct, and way of reafoning on 
 the part of our Opponents. — Allow to the ca\\ Re- 
 pent ye t but its natural genuine sense, 
 and the Worm at the bottom of Jonah's gourd 
 did not render that more ufelefs to him, than this 
 fenfe will the mere order of this paffage to the 
 caufe it is urged to defend. — The defign of the 
 Apoftle being beyond all reafonable doubt to 
 prefs true Repentance, how iuitable fuch lan- 
 guage, fpeaking as he was to perfons who were 
 unexpectedly wrought upon and evidently 
 the fubje£ts of fome compunction. Repent ye 
 and be baptized, are both parts of the Minifterial 
 Call, and as one mud unavoidably precede the 
 other, how pertinent and proper that the end, Re- 
 pentance, to which baptizing and preaching ire 
 fubfervient, fhould be mentioned j£r/2. " Pofuive 
 Inftitutions " fays Bifhop Butler, " I fuppofe all 
 •' thofe which Chriftiani'y enjoins, are means to 
 '■ a moral end, and the end mult be acknowledged 
 " more excellent than the means." Agreeable to 
 this remark, if it cannot be denied but Baptifm 
 is a mean to repentance, is it at all to be w T ondered 
 at, that %i Repent ye," fhould precede " a*d hi 
 
 L baptized." 
 
( « ) 
 
 baptized." — Impartiality mull, I think, acknow- 
 ledge, that the words in Peter's addrefs, do not 
 necejjaniy draw along with them the fenfe, which 
 would make Repentance an indifpenfible prere- 
 quifitc. They may admit, perfectly confillent 
 vith the Phrafeology, a very different meaning. 
 Now fuppofe Peter's call, capable of two diffe-* 
 rent conftruQions. It, in this cafe, refembles a 
 p-j ; r of fcales in equilibrio. or equally balanced. 
 Drily as both fides can produce folid arguments 
 for their own and againil the oppofite opinion, 
 can they expect the fcale to preponderate in their 
 favor. What is there on the Antipjedobaptift 
 fide of the queftion ? Nothing from the nature of 
 the Ordinance. Nothing from Chrift's commif- 
 fion, both which we have corndered. I add 
 by way of anticipation, nothing from the 
 yromife by which Peter backs this Call. So far 
 as I can fee, the mere order, without any re- 
 gard to the ftricl and natural fenfe of the paffage, 
 is fet up. To fay the mod of it, an apparent fenfe 
 of Scripture is brought forward as a candidate 
 for acceptance, though fuch confequences would 
 follow from the admifTion of it, as to render it 
 of no fervice, even to thofe who contend for it— 
 for true Repentance is the requifition and 
 the requifition can alone be the Rule or Pre- 
 cedent. 
 
 The 
 
( 83 ) 
 
 The Promife in the book of Joel quoted by 
 Peter exprefsly, as mentioned in the former part 
 of the chapter, is infilled upon to be the promife 
 meant by Peter in the pafiage under confederation. 
 In oppofition to this, others ftep forward in be- 
 half of the Abrakamic promise. Mr. Boit- 
 wick in his fermon on this controverted text, ar- 
 gues againft the former and for the latter in the 
 following manner. " Some fuppofe'* (fays he) 
 <J that by this promife the Apoftle only intends 
 1* that of Joel's prophecy which he had quoted 
 *• in the preceeding fermon from the 16. to the 
 <; 22. v. But let any one read that prophecy of 
 " Joel as quoted by the Apoftle in thefe verfes, 
 <c and he mud be immediately convinced, that the 
 e< extraordinary and miraculous gifts of the Holy 
 :i Ghofl; are there intended ; confequeniiy that 
 " the promife, contained in this prophecy, could 
 " never here be urged as a ground or motive 
 • to baptifm ; for extraordinary and miraculous 
 " gifts were neither required as the ground of 
 * f iiaptifm, nor numbered among the hleffings 
 J! that ufually attend or flow from it. Nor is 
 " there the lead intimation given in this hitlory, 
 9 that the three thoufand here baptized did le- 
 <f ceive thefe miraculous gifts. If therefore this 
 " was the promife the Apoftle fpeaks of to them 
 " and their children, it will follow that the 
 " promife was not made good ; for neither they 
 
 L 2 M nor 
 
( 84 ) 
 
 " nor their children, (that we read of) were 
 " ever poffeffed of thefe extraordinary gifts. — ■- 
 * Befides, the promife in Joel had already its 
 " accomplifhment in that extraordinary effufion 
 *' of the Spirit upon the. Apottles. This Saint 
 " Perer declares, and quotes the promife on pur- 
 f< pofe to prove his declaration. It is plain then 
 " he can have no reference to this in the Promife 
 " here mentioned.'' As to the Promife he con- 
 ceives to be meant, the fame Author obferves, 
 " It is notorious that the covenant with 
 " Abraham was well-known and often empha- 
 '• tically called the promise without any other 
 " Characteriftic or note of Diftinction. But to 
 " conclude the point, the Apoftle himfelf has 
 " plain'y informed us in another place, what he 
 u here intend* by the Promife.- See Ads iii. 25. 
 " where urging much the same exhortation 
 " upon his Jewifh Hearers as he does here, he 
 " enforces it with this argument : Ye are the chil- 
 " dren of the Covenant, -which God made with our 
 " Fathers, faying unto Abraham t and in thy seed 
 
 '* SHALL ALL THE KINDREDS OF THE EARTH 
 
 n be blessed." It would be eafy to (hew that 
 this worthy Author is not fiiigular in his views or 
 reafonings by producing other quotations. But 
 to proceed : let the Promife be what it may, one 
 thing mud, I think, be granted that it is intro- 
 duced as the gfound of the Apo file's addrefs in 
 
 the 
 
( «5 ) 
 
 the verfe immediately preceding it. It is remark- 
 able, that our Lord's commifiion, notwithstanding 
 the capital figure it makes, was noJL either in this 
 cafe or any other we read of, pleaded, the promise, 
 whatever it be, doubtlefs of ancient date compa- 
 red with the commifiion,is brought forward. Now 
 does not the Apofile's mention of the one, and 
 the filence about the other, when one would have 
 expected, the commifiion of Chrill might have 
 been urged as the fole bafis of his condu6l and 
 their compliance, befpeak, that Chrift, when he 
 made the commifiion, had refpeCt to the ancient 
 promife, agreeable to what has appeared in this 
 work already ? Peter directs their views to the 
 promife, as that whence they may derive encou- 
 ragement as to repentance, baptifm, remiffion 
 of fin and the receiving of the Spirit. — I he 
 Commifiion under which Peter a£ted, he feems to 
 confider more immediately as the Rule to Chrift's 
 Minifters, who are the executors of it. The 
 Promife, as that which refpefts the people, as the 
 objects included in the commifficn. Thus both 
 the commifiion and promife have a mutual afpeci 
 to each other. By the One, Minifters as the 
 fmaller body, are warranted to perform their part, 
 the large Body of the Nations is prompted to 
 their's on the ground of the promife. If the pro- 
 mife be allowed to be the encouraging matter to 
 the people, to Repentance, Baptifm, <&c. and as 
 
 fuch 
 
f 85 ) 
 
 fuch urged by the Apoftle, it appears to come to 
 the fame thing whether, the promife be under- 
 stood of that in Joel — or of the other mentioned, 
 Acts, iii, 25 — Both the promiles refpect the fame 
 period of time, the commencement of the Gofpei 
 Difpenfation. Of the two promifes, that in Joel 
 being much later, and yet refp«tting the lame pe- 
 riod, requires to be confidered, as fubordinait to, 
 or virtually in the older co nprehenfive pro- 
 mife. The promife is manifeftly urged to inforce 
 a compliance with the Grand Gall of the Miniftry 
 and its objects. How could it be mentioned by 
 Peter, or fo underftood by the people, unlefs ob- 
 jectively exhibiting Bleflings. — I will pcur out of 
 my Spirit on all FleJJi. — In thy Seedjhall all the Na- 
 tions of the earth beblcjfed. — Having their views di- 
 rected by the joint affitfance of the commiffum and 
 of fuch promifory language, what greater encou- 
 ragement could the Apoftles or the People have ? 
 all flesh, all nations, on the authority 
 and exhibitory Grace of the commiffion and pro- 
 mife may be minifterially called. How confirm- 
 ing this to the leading idea of' this work, namely 
 the privileged Mate of the World at large f 
 
 The Promife is to you, and your children' . — 
 The term children in this claufe, undergoes a 
 ftrange limitation, both from Pardobaptifts and 
 AntipaeJobaptifts. Infants are underftood to the 
 exception of Adults, as it is fu i poled to refpett 
 
 the 
 
( §7 
 
 \ 
 
 the Qrdjnance of Baptifm by one party, and only 
 vifibly prpfeffing children are regarded by the 
 other, and fo all Adults betide, and Infants as well, 
 thrutt out of the term. "Some of our learned oppo- 
 fers indeed (lays Mr. Booth) contend for the in- 
 definite fenfe of the term, children. Thus for ex- 
 ample, Vossius: To you and to your children 
 was the promife made. Now mention is made of 
 children fimply, without difference of age. Hei- 
 df.ggerus : The promife was made to their chil- 
 dren indefinitely without difference of age. 
 Witsius : Mention is made of children fimply 
 without difference of age." Not a little plealed 
 with the fanclion of fuch a learned Triumvirate 
 to my own opinion*, I am not at all afraid of Mr. 
 h — 's confequences. No, I admit his " confe- 
 " quently, all the children of the Apoftles' a- 
 " wakened auditors, whether Infants or Aduks 
 " were without exception to be baptized." 
 
 To nil that are afar off\ whether jew or gem- 
 tile. General and indiscriminate as the objec^ 
 tive terms are ; calculated, as they (cem to be to 
 give us an idea oi^the extenfive latitude, or com- 
 pafs belonging to the promife ; natural as it was 
 for Peter's Jewijh hearers to conftder it in that 
 light, yet the ialt claufe of all, if Mr. B. be 
 right, has the fame effect upon the foregoing terms 
 as fome baneful Froft on a free laden with Fruit. 
 Thus he obferv„$, m /h many as the Lord ep.r 
 
 Cod 
 
f 85 ) 
 
 Jhallcall, is as plainly as poflible a limiting claufe, 
 and extends a reftri&ive force to the term children, 
 the pronoun you, or to that defcriptive language all 
 that are afar off." Thefe Remarks may be con- 
 fronted with the following of Dr. Williams's, 
 Which ferve to fhew, that Mr. B. confounds what 
 ought to be diftinguiflied ; and that while it is 
 unnatural, fo it is unnecelfary to mutilate the for- 
 mer parts of the pafiage by reafon of the Iaft. 
 *' Here we mould carefully difiinguifh between 
 God's call and men's compliance with it. The latter 
 of thefe ideas is out of the prefent queftion; being 
 excluded by the nature of the fabjecl, and the 
 proper force of the term. Nor fhould we con- 
 found the call of the go/pel, with God's jecret 
 choice of individuals, or his efficacious drawing of 
 them to himfelf to love and ferve him in fpirit 
 and in truth. Thefe things belong to a fove- 
 reign invifible difpenfation ; a difpenfation of 
 quite a different nature from what our apoflie 
 mainly intends. And indeed, with regard to 
 what is termed effectual calling, which Mr. B. 
 feems to take for granted is 4iere intended, the 
 tall muft not be confounded with the effects of it. 
 In my apprehenfion, the fecret and efficacious 
 influence of God on the finner's mind, whereby 
 it is difpoled to receive the truth, is very impro- 
 perly termed God's call. For his calling of them* 
 ptoperly fpeaking, is by his word, his will revealed, 
 
 the 
 
( 8g ) 
 
 the minijlry of reconciliation, Sec. but what ren- 
 ders this calling effectual, is the imparted in- 
 fluence or powerful operation of the Spirit on 
 the mind, and thereby a difpofition, inclination, 
 or moral ability, is produced, to comply with the 
 call. Hence many are called, but few are cho* 
 fen*. 
 
 Besides : The promife, or go fpel grant, is not 
 any bleffing conferred in consequence of effec* 
 tual calling, but in fubferviency to it. For the 
 promife is the foundation of our accefs to God, 
 and our encouragement to repentance, and not 
 a blefling confequent upon either. Repenting, 
 complying, coming to God, &c. are our acts 
 and exerciles ; but without a promife they have 
 no ground, no motive, no exiftence. Perfons, 
 families, and nations, are called that they 
 may comply, and the promife is given them 
 as the inducement. When any actually comply 
 with the purport of the call, we are taught and 
 obliged to afcribe that efficiency, not to our own 
 diftinguifhing worthinefs and ability, but to the 
 power of God, executing the plan of fovereign 
 diflinguifhing love. Thus God calls, but man, 
 through the ftupifying effect of fin, refufes j yet 
 when God works in us both to will and to do 
 cf his good pleafurc, who can let ? Neverihelefs-,, 
 
 M the 
 
 &»tt| (K, 16. gxti, j +. 
 
f 90 ) 
 
 the bleffings promifed, or exhibited in the pro- 
 mife. become actually ours in confequence of our 
 ranfwering the divine requifuion ot call. 
 
 Oil the whole: As the Apoftle has no reference 
 to the internal power of grace, we are conftra'ned 
 to feck his meaning in the external call of the 
 gofpel. Unto whatever part'of the gentile world, 
 as if he had faid, the cloud of divine providence 
 moves, from henceforth, the miniftry of recon- 
 ciliation, or God's call to men by the Gofpel, is 
 defigned to follow it. Our call has no limita- 
 tion but what arifes in the courfe of providential 
 conduct. If all the gentile nations are not ac- 
 tually evangelized, fuch confinement and feeming 
 partiality is not owing to any limiting claufe in 
 our commiffion, but to the all-wife conducl; of 
 providence, while it opens a door of entrance 
 to fome nations, and leaves others for a time 
 lhut. But no fooner is a peifon, a family, a 
 nation or a people, evangelized, or addrefled by 
 a gofpel miniftry, than we can aiTure them, that 
 the promife is to them and theirs. If they reject 
 the call, they rejecl alfo the promife ; and if they 
 reject the promife, grant, or covenant, they have 
 no right to the fcal; for the inflrument and the 
 feal mull net be ieparated. External compliance 
 is fiifficient to fecure whatever is in the covenant 
 of an external nature ; and baptifm, the initiating 
 feal, being fuch } by that compliance it is fecured. 
 
 But 
 
( 9i ) 
 
 .But an internal and fpiritual compliance, and that 
 alone, fecures to us whatever is in the covenant 
 of an internal, and fpiritubl nature. And whence 
 the ability to comply, as before obferved, belongs 
 to another queftion, and flows from the cove- 
 nant of redemption, well o^deied in all things 
 and I'A'.q, in its internal form." 
 
 Ir Minifters, as they ought to be, are confi- 
 dered as the Perfons to whom God has intruded 
 the call, then the limiting 'tlcmfe^s Mr. B. (tiles 
 it, is quite the reverfe. So far as our Lord's 
 commiffion is made the rule of adminiftering it, 
 Miuifiers are authorized to preach the Gofpel to 
 every creature. We have before feen, there is 
 no nation under Heaven, nor any part of each 
 which is under any disqualification or excepted, 
 in refpeft of the commiffion itfetf. A Minifter's 
 addrefs mould comport, and ought to have that 
 fenfe affixed to it, which will make it harmo- 
 nious to the liberal and genuine Spirit of the 
 comm;{iion. Peter, though acting in the inftance 
 before us under ir, fupports the call by the 
 Promife. The latter is prefented as a g'al's in 
 which the objects of it might difcern their fa- 
 vored and advantageous liiuation. Whether it 
 be that taken ou; of Jojl, or thai made to Abra- 
 ham, the Itate is fuch, of all flem, all nations, as 
 fuifers none to confider themfelves, or to be 
 confidered, as excluded from the Spirit or bleffins. 
 
( 92 ) 
 
 it is abfolute, unconditional, a general revealed 
 exhibition of mercy. While on the bafis of the 
 commiflion in refpect of himfelf as a Minifter, 
 Peter, on the bafis of the promife in refpeQ 
 of his hearers, acldrefied them, laying, Re- 
 pent ye, &c. The inherent power of the crea- 
 ture being juftly difcarded, the requifition con- 
 tained in the call turns not upon what the 
 creature has not, but what he has. This is 
 the free unlimited promise. GurLord's 
 commiffion is fubordinate to the promife, as the 
 nature and date of both evince, Miniflers are 
 encouraged to the execution of the former, be- 
 caufe of the pojjibihty as well as neceffity of Re- 
 pentance, appearing from the latter. In other 
 words, the minilterial call is made in reference 
 to the favored ftate of mankind depicted in the 
 promife, (hewing itfelf through the medium of 
 our Lord's commiffion. From the very nature 
 of the cafe therefore, rcptnt ye., which denotes 
 a ftate of real Repentance, cannot be urged as 
 an indifpenfible prerequifue to the Baptilinal Or- 
 dinance, for as the fecret intention of God can 
 be no rule of administration, {o the fecret Work 
 of God's Spirit can be none. Repentance, con- 
 fidered as to its effence, is feated in the heart, 
 and nothing lefs than fuch a Repentance never to 
 be repented of, agreeing to the call, it is not to 
 be fuppofed, that the Apolllc meant to propofe 
 
 as 
 
( 93 ) 
 
 as a ground of administration, that qualifica- 
 tion which neither he nor any other, is com- 
 petent to determine with a certainty that a per- 
 ion pofleffes. Some other view of the call then 
 muft be the juil one, which frees it of any fuch 
 embarraffment. And a due attention to its lan- 
 guage as it relates to, and is fupported by the 
 promife, muft, I think, convince us, that Re- 
 pentance as contained in the call, is notacoN- 
 BiTioN in reference to the promife, but as an 
 end, and fo, Repentance is propofed not as 
 that which leads to, but proceeds from it. 
 
 Confidering the relation of the call to the 
 promife, the objecls of the latter fpecified under 
 the pronoun, you, meaning thole whom Peter ad- 
 dreffed, children indifcriminately, and all whom 
 the Lord our God (hall call by his Minifters (and 
 none are excluded in refpeft of the commiifion 
 or promife, but quite the contrary) — the exkibitory 
 import of the promife, and the nature of the call, 
 " repent ye '' correfpondent to it, what light more 
 pertinent and natural, to fee Peter's language in, 
 than as a call to a state of repentance, ari- 
 fing from the necefiry and poffibility of being in 
 it under the Gofpel ? What hinders, that it mould 
 not be underflood as a call to all virtually — not 
 in reference to their prefent /late, however that 
 be of penitence or the contrary, but what ought, 
 to be the ftate of all under the Gofpel ? God 
 
 now 
 
( 94 ) 
 
 now commandeth all men every where to re- 
 pent. Acls, xvii. 30. The call to repentance be- 
 ing adapted to the nature of Gofpel-timcs, and 
 urged as in Peter's cafe, in fuch a manner, as to 
 fuit a mixture of characters, penitent and impeni- 
 tent, and confequently relating to the Rate of 
 Repentance, rather than perfons, fo it is natural 
 to con hde r the other pa: t of Peter's call, namely, 
 to the Ordinance of Baptifm. — Is it an evangeli- 
 cal ground for Repentance that it is a bleffing 
 exhibited? By parity of reafon, Baptifm is an ex- 
 hibited Ordinance in reference to that flate of 
 Repentance, and fo all mould be baptized. To 
 this mode of reafoning, the paflage literally ren- 
 dered, well agrees. Repent ye , and let every 
 
 ONE OF YOU, EVERY ON E BELONGING TO YOU 
 
 be baptized. "Some," fays Dr. Addington, "have 
 remarked the change obfervable in the Apollle's 
 phrafeology from the plural, repent ye, to the 
 lingular disjunctive, let every one of you, &c." — It 
 is added, jor the remijfion of fins. Without r e- 
 pentange no f o rg i v e n e ss, is an evangelical 
 axiom. In the order of the paflage before 
 us, Baptifm intervenes between "Repent \e,'' 
 and remifiion of fins. I f an argument is taken from 
 the literal arrangement, we mav as well infer on 
 that ground, that Baptifm precedes remifiion, ne- 
 cejfarily y and is of efkntial importance to it, for 
 the words run, Repent ye and be baptized, every one 
 
 of 
 
( 95 ) 
 
 of you. for the rtmiffion of fin. No fuch thing in 
 regard to Baptifm can be jujlly inferred ; from 
 the MANMrit of the Apoftle's phrafeology, and 
 and its place too, forming a call to Baptifm, there 
 is every appearance of its being connected with 
 that ftate of Repentance, which is the object of 
 the Goipei-miniitry ; and the fenle of the whole 
 to be this, Repent ye, and or but, let every one of 
 you. every one belonging to you, be baptized, as 
 
 A MEAN TO THAT STATi. 
 
 Pricked, as feme of Peter's auditory are faid to 
 have been, in their hear is, whereby the feiious in- 
 quiry was extorted from them, men and brethren 
 what fhall we do ? The Apoft^e plainly replies to 
 them in a manner fuitable to rhe oppflte charac- 
 ters, of which the whole afTcmDy might confili. 
 lie informs them, one and all, that ihey mull re- 
 peat, D;-i he mean to inhnuate, they were alt 
 impenitent ? This cannot be imagined with refpeci 
 to the led part of his auditory, whofe 
 
 inte- r) he immediately refolvesi If he h?d 
 
 reafon to con'Gder them as awakened, doubilefs he 
 mud confider ihem as the fubjects of Repentance 
 begun. Pel .: iage then, immediately ad- 
 
 dreffed to fuch lion of perfons, and inter- 
 
 preted confidently with an application to the cir- 
 cumftances they were apparently in, leads us to 
 confider him, not as requ ring Repentance of them, 
 in order to be baptized, for why demand that, 
 
 which 
 
( 96 ) 
 
 which as awakened hearers, he had reafon 
 to imagine they already had. But a real Jlate of 
 repentance is inlifted on and urged, independent o* 
 the char after of Peter's hearers ; and if fo, it can- 
 not be as a prerequisite to Baptifm, becaufe 
 that which is not plain and evident in this cafe 
 can be no rule. It is far more natural to confi- 
 der that (late as an end, to which preaching and 
 baptizing are fubfervient. And agreeable to this 
 lalt idea, the fubjoined claufe, feems to partake 
 of the nature of a. parenthefis, and or but let every 
 one of you, every one belonging to you, he baptized. 
 
 Such views of this leading paffage of Scripture 
 have the advantage and claim of rendering the 
 exhortatory and promijory parts of Peter's ad- 
 drefs, natural, harmonious, and conclufive, and 
 that fenfe, which has fuch effect, is likely to be 
 the defigned and legitimate one. In fupport of 
 the lentiments of our Baptift friends, the order of 
 the words is in vain prefled into the fervice, and 
 with the mo ft evident fenfe of the call, repent ye, 
 will not anfwer the end they wifh. An unnatural 
 conftruclicn and limitation is made of the term 
 children. That which ought to be diilinguifhed, 
 is confounded in refpc6l of the call. The pro- 
 mi fe itfelf is mifapplied. That interpretation 
 which offers fuch violence to a text, can never 
 be juflly admitted. The inference in regard to 
 the fubjeft in queftion, mult be derived from a 
 
 DIFFER- 
 
( 97 ) 
 
 DIFFERENT, AND MORE CONSISTENT EXPLANA- 
 TION. If the preceding pages offer fuch, as I 
 cannot help thinking they do, it is plainly in 
 favor of the indifcriminatety privileged Hate of 
 the world under the Gofpel, of the general ufe of 
 baptifmas a joint-mean with preaching, of call- 
 ing the Nations to a date of Repentance. 
 
 What meaning are we to affix to Philip's reply 
 to the Eunuch, if thou believed with all thy heart 
 thou mayeft, upon the latter obferving, See, here 
 is water, what doth hinder me to be baptized ? Acts, 
 viii. 36. 37. The nature of that Faith which 
 is here required, is genuine, faving Faith. If Phi- 
 lip's reply be made a guide in adminiflering the 
 baptifmal Ordinance, then it follows, that no- 
 thing lefs than genuine Faith poffeffing the heart, 
 can qualify for the baptifmal Ordinance; and 
 Philip could not confidently with his enforcing 
 Faith, as an indifpenfible pre-requifite to baptifm, 
 adminider the Ordinance but on evidence demon* 
 Jlrative of it. Philip had before baptized Simon 
 Magus, whom, whatever his profeflion might be, 
 Peter declared to be in the gall of bitternefs and 
 the bonds of iniquity. Unlefs Philip was incon- 
 fiftent with himfelf, and did baptize Simon on a 
 different ground, than he would the Eunuch, no- 
 thing, (if words have any true and genuine mean- 
 
 N iI! S) 
 
(S» ) 
 
 ~ng) but demonftrative evidence of his pofTefling 
 true Faith would fuffice. If he had demonftrativc 
 evidence, how came he fo much to miftake Simon'* 
 character ? If he did not require it in one cafe* 
 how comes he to be made by an improper inter- 
 pretation to require it in his reply to the Eunuch? 
 Whence fuch a demand — as if thou believefl 
 with all thy heart — thou mayeft be baptized ? 
 The only natural and confident way of revolv- 
 ing this matter, is, by taking into account, what 
 there is fo much reafon to apprehend, the views 
 at large of the Eunuch were when he afked the 
 queftion. It is highly probable that fome conver- 
 fation had pafTed between them, relating to the 
 Ordinance. No doubt the nature of the Ordi- 
 nance and its ufe, of Faith and its ufe, would be 
 noticed by Philip who expounded to him Jefus. 
 Anfwerable to the ideas, the Eunuch had, or 
 which Philip might confider his new Convert to 
 have, he replied, If thou believefl with ail thine heart* 
 thou may eft be baptized with the viofl encouraging 
 hopes of Salvation. So much is implied., and fo in 
 effect afierted, for the nature of the Faith urged 3 
 is faving P'a'th, nothing lefs. What is more na- 
 tural therefore, than to confider it here in rela- 
 tion to its end, Salvation, and baptifm being one 
 mean, which as every other Ordinance, derives 
 its efficacy from true Faith, Philip preffes it in 
 that view. Confequently, the reply of Philip, 
 
 con- 
 
( 99 ) 
 
 concurs with our Lord's general obfervat* 
 (before noticed), He that believeth and is bapti. 
 JJiall be faved. It is a reply modelled accord 
 to the views of the inquirer, deligned to (hew 
 with what Faith he might expect, any faving ad- 
 vantages from it. If Philip was not fatUfied 
 with his being a proper (abject forbaptifm before> 
 and meant to lay down faving Faith as an indif- 
 penfible pre-requifite to baptifm and his ad- 
 ministration of it, it is not credible, a mere verbal 
 declaration, falling fhort too of that which he in- 
 fixed on, believing with all the heart, could make 
 his path of duty clear. However he commanded 
 the Chariot to ftand ftili : and they went down 
 into the water, both Pnilip and the Eunuch, 
 and he baptized him. — It is in my apprehenfion, 
 a palpable miftake to confider true Faith here 
 required otherwife, than as a perfonai thing effen- 
 tial to Salvation. — It is one thing to require it in 
 this view, as it relates to the subject of an Ordi- 
 nance. It is another, to require it as a Rule of 
 administering it. Every Ordinance requires true 
 Faith with refpect. to its faving ufe, yet not for its 
 adminiftration. 
 
 A 61s, xxii. 16. And now why tarriejl thou ? 
 arife and be baptized, and wajh away thy Jins, calling 
 en the name of the Lord. So fpake Ananias to 
 
 X 2 Paui 
 
Paul immediately upon his receiving fight in the 
 houfe of Judas. It is to be remembered here, as 
 in other hiftorical accounts, that what is extraor- 
 dinary in the Apoflle's cafe, either as confined 
 to thofe early times, or peculiar in fome refpe&s 
 to Paul himfelf, fhould be diftinguifhed from that 
 which is ordinary. Paul's converfion is marked 
 with ftrong and lingular proofs. Ananias could 
 not poffibly confider him in any other light, but 
 on a denial of the heavenly vifion he had feen, and 
 the exprefs intimations he then received in favor 
 of Paul. Paul, accompanied with peculiar proofs 
 of a converted (late can not be drawn into a 
 precedent, in relation to the queftion, who is a 
 proper fubjecl of Baptifm ? There was no room 
 to be dubious as to the genuinefs of the change. 
 Ordinary profeffion among us is the only criterion 
 for us to judge a perfon by, and far from being an 
 infallible one. — Our judgment can rife no further 
 than a judgment of charity. It will not do to 
 make a perfon concerning whom, as in Paul's 
 cafe, Ananias might judge of with certainty, a 
 precedent to one, whom at mod you can only 
 form a judgment of charity about. Now that 
 which makes the difference between Paul and 
 others as to the ordinary courfe of things, forbids 
 our making him a Precedent entirely. He was 
 certainly a converted man, but was unbaptized. 
 In the felf-fame hour (fuch was the hafte) that 
 
 he 
 
( ioi ) 
 
 he receives his fight by the hands of Ananias, he 
 fays to him, arife and be baptized, &c. The waft- 
 ing away fin, can, I conceive, be properly under- 
 (lood only as it is connected in this cafe with 
 baptifm, and as that Ordinance may be confi- 
 dered as a mean to it. Ananias does not aim 
 to infinuate, Paul to be in an unfanctified and un- 
 pardoned (late, for how could he with fuch fu- 
 perabundant evidence to the contrary. It is 
 far from being a juft inference from this addrefs, 
 that only fuch as Paul, including all circumftances 
 of his cafe, is to be baptized. The nature of 
 the cafe therefore, requires us to confider Ana- 
 nias's addrefs, as it refpects Paul as a converted 
 perfon, and the Ordinance of Baptifm enjoined 
 and reprefented in it. The inference from the 
 former is, that a perfon unbaptized, and in a 
 converted ftate as Paul was, fhould be baptiz- 
 ed. The matter of this inference is denied by 
 none who allow of Baptifm at all. The addrefs 
 is next to be confidered refpefting the Ordinance 
 of Baptifm it/elf Arife and be baptized, and 
 wa/h away thy fins, — i. e, by Baptifm, and here 
 being evidently exegetical The prominent idea 
 of Baptifm taken from this account, is of its 
 being a mean to the purpofe mentioned. Paul 
 doubtlefs was viewed as one truly penitent, and 
 pardoned ; this however, does not fuperfede the 
 propriety of his being baptized, under the 
 
 ordinary 
 
C 102 ) 
 
 ordinary and Handing idea of its JacramentaUf 
 warning away fin. So far then, or in whatever 
 fenfe, Baptifm is held forth as an Ordinance in 
 ■which there may be a warning of fin, and its an- 
 fwering this purpofe, is given as a reafon for its 
 adminiftration, it will apply to a mixture of cha- 
 racters, penitent and impenitent. The idea en- 
 tirly congruous to this ufe of Baptifm is, that, 
 jointly with preaching, of its exhibiting Repen- 
 tance, laying under obligations to it where it is 
 not, and to perfifting in it where it is begun- 
 Arife and be baptized, Sec. fays Ananias, calling 
 on the name of the Lord y i. e. fuitably to the nature, 
 and obligations of a baptized ftate. The adjuncts 
 and properties of this calling, enjoined on Paul, 
 are thofe of fiheerity and truth, of which as a con- 
 verted perfon he was capable ; but if this be made 
 a pre-requifite to Baptifm in that fenfe which 
 every truely converted perfon, alone, can perform 
 it, it is plain, a Minifter cannot upon this prin- 
 ciple adminider an Ordinance but upon an in- 
 fallible knowledge of a perlbn's capacity coming 
 up to this ftandard. Alas, to admit this prin- 
 ciple would be actually to annihilate the Ordi- 
 nance itfelf as to practice. To conclude : if 
 we feparate from this cafe of Paul's what mould 
 be feparated, and wherein alone it can be a 
 rule or precedent to the ordinary adminiftration 
 of Baptifm, it in no wife difcountenances what 
 
 is 
 
( 10 3 ) 
 
 i* contended for in this work, but coincides with 
 all the reft in giving its fanclion to it. 
 
 In A&s, x. we have Peter opening his mouth 
 at the houfe of Cornelius, and while he yet fpake, 
 the Holy Ghoft fell on all them that heard the 
 word ; and they of the circumcifion which belie- 
 ved, were aftonifhed, as many as came with Peter, 
 becaufc that on the Gentiles alfo was poured out 
 the gift of the Holy Ghoft. For they heard them 
 fpeak with tongues and magnify God. Then 
 anfwered Peter, Can any man Jorbid water, that 
 thefefhould not be baptized, which have received the Ho- 
 ly Ghoft as well as we? This addrefs compared with 
 Aas,viii. 16. As yet he (i. e. the Holy Ghoft) was 
 fallen upon none of them, only they were baptized in 
 the name of Jefus, leads us to obferve— that if the 
 Holy Ghoft had not fallen upon thefe perfons, 
 they would, notwithftanding, have been proper 
 Subjects of Baptifmal Adminiftration — that per- 
 fons may be baptized on other more radical 
 ground than that apparently mentioned in fome 
 accounts. That it may with as much juftice be 
 inferred from this account, that receiving the 
 Holy Ghoft in a miraculous manner is eflential 
 to Baptifm as fome pretend to make believing 
 eflential to Baptifm from its being faid, they that 
 believed were baptized.— -But of this more 
 particularly under the ne*t fubdivifion. 
 
 (3) The 
 
( i<>4 ) 
 
 (3) The fubje&s of Baptifm appear to have 
 been numerous in fome cafes — Houfholdi,&c. In 
 fome accounts, likewife, confefling of fin, believ- 
 ing, receiving the word gladly, are attributed to 
 the party baptized. 
 
 Mr. B. animadverting on Dr. W — 's re- 
 prefentation of the numbers baptized by John, 
 thus exclaims. " How numerous ! Not quite fo 
 " numerous, perhaps, as he thinks proper to 
 " infinuate in this place." With equal eafe 
 mav it be retorted in reference to Mr. B. who in- 
 clines to the oppofite way of thinking. — Not near 
 fo few perhaps as Mr. B. thinks proper to in- 
 finuate. Curious is the reafoning which the laft 
 mentioned author adopts to diminifh the num- 
 bers baptized by John. " If (fays he) fuch mill* 
 « titudes as Dr. W. feems to think, had been 
 " baptized by that venerable man, it would be 
 '< impoflible to conceive of our Lord baptizing 
 "JIM more, except we were to fuppofe either 
 c: that a great majority of the whole nation partly 
 " by John, and partly by Chrilt was baptized, or 
 4t that many of John's difciples were by the or- 
 •« der of Chrift re-baptized, but of thefe things, 
 " there is not the kajl appearance, that I perceive 
 » in the New Tenement." With refpeQ to 
 the laft fuppofuion that "many of John's difci- 
 ples were by the order of Chrift re-baptized," 
 what is there to foibid the idea ? So far from 
 
 fome- 
 
( i°5 ) 
 
 fomething to forb'd, A£ts, xix. 5. oilers much 
 to countenance it. While Apollos, (of whom it is 
 iaid in the preceding chapter, he knew only the 
 Baptifm of John), was at Coring, Paul having 
 paifed through the upper coafts and finding cer- 
 tain Difciples, faid unto them, Have ye re- 
 ceived the Holy Ghoft fince ye believed ? And 
 they faid, we have not fo much as heard whether 
 there be any Holy Ghoft. Upon this, the Apof- 
 tle immediately afks. — Unto what then were ye 
 baptized ? No fuch thing as any being difcipkd with- 
 out Baptifm. The anfwer returned, was, Unto 
 John's Baptifm. Then faid Paul, John verily 
 baptized with the Baptifm of Repentance, faying 
 unto the people (agreeable to the nature, Sefign and 
 obligations of his Minifl>y) that they should (truly 
 and un f eigne dly) believe on him which fhould 
 come after him, thai is, on Chrift Jefus. When 
 they heard this, they were baptized in the name of 
 'he Lord Jefus. Having furnifned Mr. B. with 
 this paffage, will he be at a lofs to perceive tke 
 New Teftament favourable to the idea of re-bap- 
 tizing John's Difciples? Can it be pretended, or 
 urged, that what happened new, was not done be- 
 fore ? He (Chrift) mufl increafe, and I mvji dt- 
 creafe, is John's own account of our Lord's 
 Miniftry — and does it not comport, to fay 
 the leaft of it, with the above fentiment ? Air. 
 B. proceeds : »* The Apoltolic Pen is very far 
 
 O f: from 
 
( io6 ) 
 
 " from teaching us that the Difciples of Chrift, 
 c< before his afcenfion, werevery numerous. No'i 
 *' is there anyjuft foundation for us to conclude, 
 " that the generality of thofe nominal Difciples 
 " who forfook the Miuiftry of our Lord (John 
 <c vi. 66.) had been baptized." The general 
 hiftory of the New Teftament will not fupport 
 ihefe obfervations. The claufe, A£ts, i. 15. 
 plainly refpecls the number gathered in one place, 
 upon that occafion. On the evidence already 
 given, there is no ground to conceive there 
 was any difciphng, but baptizing made part of it. 
 And unlefs thofe, whom Mr. B. calls nominal 
 Difciples were baptized, how is it pofiible to con- 
 ceive, that Jefus did what is related of him — 
 make , and, or even baptize mors imsciples than 
 John. 
 
 Be the party baptized by John more or lefs, 
 they were evidently fo many, that if their number, 
 the time, place, and defign of John's Miniftry be 
 duly confidered, it will be an arduous tafk indeed 
 to mew that John proceeded upon a fimilar prin- 
 ciple to Antipzedobaptifts. Not forgetting that 
 a credible profeflion of Repentance is their prin- 
 ciple, and taking along with u?, t "fohcr reafon" Mr. 
 B — 's. approved companion, let us examine the 
 account. Then went cut to him Jerufalcm and all 
 Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, Matth. 
 iii. 5. Consequently a vail many. Mr. B. 
 
 accedes- 
 
( *°7 ) 
 
 accedes to the high probability that John was 
 jole Adminiftrator. On him, therefore, it of 
 courfe devolved, if their Baptifm depended 
 Upon it, to receive their confeffion. As the com- 
 mon circumftances of time, place, and manner, 
 muft be allowed in this cafe, it is a natural in T 
 quiry, when, where, and how. was this -conferring 
 performed. In the hiftorical paiTages where it is 
 recorded, there is a junction of it with the Bap- 
 tifmal Ordinance. Baptized in Jordan, confejjing 
 their fins. This, however, (efpeciajly if the mode 
 of adminiftration was immedion) was very u«t 
 likely to be the cafe j yet, fuppoling it a fad, it 
 cannot afford a competent Argument in fupport 
 cf a credible projejjion being required. Was a 
 verbal confeffion received by John in the inftant 
 of adminiftering the Ordinance, when both the 
 Baptizer and Candidate are fuppofed to be in the 
 water? Is it not abfolntely inadmiffible, that a 
 confeffion taken under fuch circumftances, and 
 from fuch numbers could be deemed credible 
 by John ? A previous knowledge of all the par- 
 ties muft: be at lead admitted to fuppofe an 
 inftantaneous confeffion plauhble: he mould have 
 demanded more time, further acquaintance, but 
 of thefe things or any thing like them, we per- 
 ceive not the fmalleft appearance in the hif- 
 tory. Did this momentous circumftance of 
 conferring happen any leng.h of time before 
 
 O 2 adm iniftratioa P 
 
( io8 ) 
 
 adminiftration ? How comes it to be fo clofely 
 joined to the Ordinance, and if the order of the 
 words have any ftrefs laid on it, to follow it ? Or 
 "where could the Baptift engaged as he was, have 
 an opportunity of obtaining that knowledge of 
 their perfons, conduct, as well as ccnfeifion, to 
 give it the air of being credible ; and fo free him 
 from the charge of acting hajlily and without judg- 
 ment ? Had this venerable man waited, with re- 
 fpecl to the multitude he baptized, a length of 
 time to have feen the fruits meet for repentance 
 brought forth, the time of his miniftry muft have 
 elapfed. Though he came to manifeft Mefiiah to 
 Ifrael by baptizing, he muft have adminiftered 
 the Ordinance to next to none comparatively with 
 the number he did, and it is natural to fuppofe,hc 
 would baptize, confidering his errand. I knew 
 him (Christ) not, but that he should 
 be made manifest unto israel, there- 
 fore am i come baptizing with water. 
 It is very improbable that this being the avowed 
 defign of John's baptizing, the miniltration mould 
 have reftcd on f'uch a credible profeflion of Re- 
 pentance, that even Mr. B, being judge and 
 confiftent with himfelf, requires much more time 
 and evidence, than John had of one, or could 
 allow for the other. 
 
 Be the confeffion what it may, it is neither faid, 
 how it was made, nor to whom. Neither is credibility 
 
 mentioned 
 
( 10 9 ) 
 
 mentioned as appertaining to, or required in it, 
 and circumftances confidered, there is no reaibn 
 to think that either one or the other was the cafe 
 in refpecl of the multitude baptized. The requifi- 
 tion in John's preaching was nothing lefs than Re- 
 pentance. The ground on which fome would re- 
 prefent them baptized, is confeffion of fin. How 
 will thefe agree, unlefs as before obferved, it can 
 be fhewn that confefTion of Sin and Repentance 
 is the same thing. If John meant to require 
 real Repentance in order to Baptifm, he devia- 
 ted from his own principle, by baptizing on that 
 which does not come up to it. The inference 
 from Jerufalem, Sec. confefling, if it be refer- 
 red to and judged by John's preaching real Re- 
 pentance, is, that it is a circumftance, at moft 
 fuitable, not eflential ; for that only which is 
 demonjirative of the thing required can be juft- 
 ly deemed ejfentiali but if true Repentance was 
 abfolutely required, then for want of a certa.n 
 infallible rule of judgment, no one with certainty 
 or fafety could be baptized, much lefs fuch a 
 number as this hi (lory records. 
 
 Again : It is worthy of remark, that John's 
 Baptifm being a Baptifm of, or unto a date of 
 Repentance the very aft of administration 
 muft be virtually a confefTion of fin. Baptifm 
 itfelf is virtually a confefTion of Tin. 
 
 The circumftance of confefling Tin, if the very 
 
 nature 
 
( no ) 
 
 nature of the Ordinance be taken into account* 
 renders the paffage under confideration, no more 
 inapplicable to Infants and Adults, then what the 
 Apoftle obferves of Ifrael, when he fays, They 
 were baptized unto ; or virtually, both Infants 
 and Adults, confeffed Mofes in the cloud and the 
 fea. Of the perfons baptized by John we hav§ 
 only an account in the aggregate. The great 
 number reforting to him, was one reafon 
 for his ftation near Jordan. Is it poffible to 
 exclude the idea of children making part of this 
 vaft company ? It is true, if confeffion of fin be 
 confidered as univerfally implying a verbal de- 
 claration of it, no argument can be drawn from 
 it in favor of Infant Baptifm whatever number, 
 might be prefent. But before this can be ad- 
 mitted, it muft be (hewn to be antifcriptural 
 to annex the idea of conJlruBive fpcaking to every 
 Ordinance according to its nature and defign 
 when adminiftered ; or that in general confeffions, 
 fuch as this was, we are not warranted to confi- 
 der all virtually confeffing, though not indivi- 
 dually making it with their tongues. It is plain, 
 that the paffage alluded to, of the Ifraelites paf- 
 fing through the red fea, muft refpect more the 
 defign of the paffage itfelf, than the capacity or 
 intention of thofe as a body, who trod this 
 intermarine path. It is natural to join with 
 the Ordinance in queftion, whenever it is perform- 
 ed 
 
( 1" ) 
 
 cd, fome idea of conreiling from the very na- 
 ture of it; and hence it becomes exhibitory 
 of, and obligatory to, a correfpondent Hate 
 of Reuentance. What hinders our viewing the 
 hiftory as it relates to John's baptizing in this 
 point of view? Is there any thing contradictory, 
 abi'urd, unnatural, or antilcriptural in fo doing? 
 It is prefumed, neither. And if fo, it well com- 
 ports with the idea of the promifcuous adminiftra- 
 tion of Baptifm as it relates to penitents or 
 impenitent^, children and adults. 
 
 Before I can accede to the opinion of our dif- 
 fering brethren from any thing that a paffage of 
 this nature may allow, not only the remarks al- 
 ready made mud be (hewn to be futile, but fome 
 further queftions and matters mud be refolved. 
 If it is adrriifLble, that of the great number John 
 baptized, there was a -mixture of impenitents and 
 penitents in refpeCi of their internal ftate, is it 
 not natural to conclude this cenfeffion comports 
 with fuch a difference of (late ? If virtual, then 
 it fuits all ages. If verbal, then it fuits all 
 characters, and it follows from the general 
 exprefiion in the text, that it is a circum- 
 ftance fuitable, not efiential. To affume it as 
 evidence for eflablifhing a credible profeffion of 
 Repentance, when not a word is faid about its 
 credibility, and other circumftances, is a fort of 
 facrilegc committed upon Scripture. Is Dr. 
 
 Williams'* 
 
f 112 ) 
 
 Williams's axiom approved by Mr. B. ? "As 
 ft nothing fhould be confidered as an efiablifhed 
 <c principle of Faith, which is not in fomc part of 
 * c Scripture, delivered with perfpicuity : fo that 
 " perfpicuity fhould be fought for principally 
 " where the point in queftion is moft profeucd- 
 '* \y handled." Admitting this axiom, if the 
 queftion be allied in relation to John's Baptilm 
 whether a credible profession of repen- 
 tance was an eflential pre-requifite in the bap- 
 tized ? I anfwer, No, unlefs we are at liberty to 
 f iy, that is eflential which is not mentioned ; to 
 interpolate Scripture by ideas of our own ; and 
 to infer, that to be a pre-requifite, which from the 
 hiftory there is no room to think, was, or could 
 be had. The paflage fo far as perfpicuous leads 
 to this conclufion ; it becomes ambiguous and 
 encumbered with difficulties only as it is ufed to 
 fupport the caufe of our opponents. Now inaf- 
 much as where the point is profeffedly handled, 
 perfpicuity fhould be fought for principally, that 
 fentiment which renders the paflage, circum- 
 ftances confidered, moft natural, eafy and per- 
 fpicuous, is deducible from it. 
 
 In vain, therefore, is a plain example of a cre- 
 dible profession, even fuch as the author of 
 Paedobaptifm examined would lead us to confider 
 neceffary to a pofitive right, fought here. The 
 formal inflitution of John's Baptifm, we have 
 
 not 
 
- (t«3 ) 
 
 not; only a general account of its being f om 
 Heaven. The part of the narrative molt 
 likely to give us an infight relpecling the 
 point in queltion, is where the Hillorian re- 
 lates the fubftance of John's preaching. This 
 has been confidered. The hiftorical lummary 
 of Jerufalem. Judei, Sec. being baptiztd 
 fuppofes a prior rvlt to which it may be re- 
 ferred. Now John's requiring true repen'ance s 
 (on the fuppolition he did ii as an indi r pc>fible pre- 
 requifite to Baptiimal Adminiilration) and the 
 hiftorical account of the baptized confcjfing their 
 fins, being laid together, what is the In- 
 ference ? I anfwer, One, which though natu- 
 rally drawn from the premifes, can never be ad- 
 mitted. All whom John baptized were true 
 penitents, for they confeffed their fins. With 
 the utmoft ftretch of charity, the former part uf 
 the conclufion will not, I conceive, obtain crecit; 
 and the latter is equally object : -.>P: ble in proof of 
 true Repentance. Mr. B. would introduce to otr 
 notice Mr. Baxter's reafoningon this part of ire 
 fubject. <: If any mould fay, that it is only cor.-» 
 11 feffion that is required, which is no lign of 
 " true Repentance : I anfwer, wben John fait! , 
 " if we confefs our fins, he is faithful and ju/i to for- 
 " give us cur fins, he took that confeffion to be a 
 ** fign of true Repentance." How could tne 
 Apollle do otnerwife than confidef a coukilion of 
 
 p fin 
 
( "4 ) 
 
 fin to be a fign of true Repentance, with which 
 he connects the aclual remiffion of fin ? But 
 before the mouth can make confeffion unto Sal- 
 votion, man muft believe with the heart unto 
 righteoufnefs, Rom. x. 10. Mr. Baxter's ac- 
 count of himfelf as an author, will prevent the 
 reader's furprize at finding inadvertency and in- 
 coherency in this part, and much more of the quo- 
 tation produced by Mr. Booth. The good man 
 makes this honeft declaration: u I fcarce ever 
 " wrote one fheet twice over, or flayed to make 
 " any blots or interlinings, but was fain to let it 
 " go, as it was fir ft conceived." Choofing f 
 from refpecl to fo worthy and learned a perfon to 
 make him a critic upon himfelf, let us advert to 
 the idea of taking confefiion to be a fign of 
 true Repentance. 
 
 One thing is granted, that confeffion of fin, be 
 it made, how, when, or to whom it will, is a 
 fign of true Repentance as requifite for a finful 
 creature, and under the gofpel poJfible t and de- 
 manded. Any confeffion is a fign of this, but 
 not of true Repentance poffeffed. Wherefore, 
 after all that has been advanced, tending to prove 
 the want of evidence in fupport. of a cre- 
 dible profeffion of Repentance in the baptized 
 multitude — fince the confeffing of fin is con- 
 joined with the acl or undergoing of baptifm — 
 I afk, is it not a natural and legitimate idea that 
 
 avir- 
 
! 
 
 ( "5 ) 
 
 a virtual confeflion is partly and primarily in- 
 tended ? A virtual confeflion involved in the very 
 nature of the Ordinance itfelf, derived partly 
 from the a& of adminiilring and under-going it, 
 and accordingly fo reprefented in the detail of 
 the whole pail tranfa6tion. Analagous to this, 
 is the account in John, iii. 23. And John alfo 
 was baptizing in Enon> near to Salim, becaufe there 
 was much water there: and they came, and 
 were baptized. It is impofible to feparate 
 from the Baptifrnal act. itfelf, the idea of a virtual 
 confeflion, and inafmuch as we have feen John's 
 preaching was a call to a (late of Repentance ; 
 his Baptifm unto that (late as an end; and a con- 
 feflion of fin any how, is becoming a fallen crea- 
 ture, contained in the Baptifrnal a£t itfelf, here 
 is a reafon why all fliould indifcriminately be 
 baptized, and a way to account, confidently and 
 fcripturally, how, Jerufalem and all Judea, and 
 the Region round about Jordan were baptized; 
 confejfing their Jins. Baptifm, as a pofuive rite 
 and adminiftered by John, {o far as its nature and 
 manner are determined, appears to include in it 
 a ftate of Repentance as the defigned end, a con- 
 feflion of fin involved in the act. itfelf; and 
 thus the circumftance recorded, confeffing their 
 fins, as it follows the verb baptized, feems natu- 
 rally connected with, and to anfe from, the per- 
 fons under a baptized ftate. Very far therefore 
 
 P 2 is 
 
( ii6 ) 
 
 it from being a pre-requifue, or giving a fanc- 
 tion to the diftinguifhing fentiment or practice of 
 our opponents in regard of credible profeffion. 
 
 We are informed in the hi (lory of the Acls^ 
 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized. 
 Acts ii. 41. — When they (the Samaritan*) beueved 
 Philip, preaching the things concerning the kingdom 
 of God, and the name of J ejus Chnjl t they -were 
 baptized, both men and women. Acts. viii. 12. — 
 Many of the Corinthians t hearing, believed, and were 
 baptized. Acts, xviii. 8. That thefe paffages de- 
 termine fomething about the Baptifmai Ordinance 
 is un-queftionable, but the queftion for confider- 
 ation is, what ? Is the language here ufed 
 concerning the baptized party, merely defcriptive 
 of perfons who were de JaBo, in point of fact, 
 baptized? Or, is it definitive and decijive of chara- 
 cters who have a fole exclufive right to its ad- 
 miniflration? It is eafy to perceive thefe questions 
 to be very different, and that nearly the fame 
 ftile of expieflion might be adopted, where one 
 and not the other, of thefe ideas is intended. The 
 following reafons, along with the arguments in 
 general urged on this fubje£t, incline me to 
 embrace the opinion, that thefe paffages are de- 
 fcriptive of perfons who were baptized. So far 
 »s they appear to draw the line between the bap- 
 tized 
 
( "7 ) 
 
 tized aud unbaptized, is there not Scripture-Au- 
 thority for regarding the characters in oppofuion 
 to thofe baptized, to be fuch who abfolutely re- 
 jected the miniftrations of the Gofpel ? Is not 
 the contraft given us after this manner, Acls, 
 xvii. 4 ? Some believed and comforted with Paul, and 
 Silas, &c. But the Jews which hchnjcdnot, mrvei 
 zvnh envy, took unto them certain lewd, Je.llows of the 
 hafcr fort, and gathered a company and fet the city 
 en an uproar. Other inftances might be produced 
 to the fame effect. In the pafiage juft mention- 
 ed, is not the difaffettion of the unbelie- 
 vers, to the Gofpel-miniitry at large, evident ? 
 They had an equal right to it in refpett of 
 Chrift's commiflion with others, but they wilful- 
 ly difclaimed it. By believers, on the other 
 hand to whom they are oppofed, that defcrip- 
 tion of perfons who might believe with the heart, 
 and thofe who only pro felled faith, is promifcu- 
 oufly intended. Simon Magus was an inftance 
 of the laft clafs ; and though the hiftorian was 
 about to record, that Peter pronounced him in 
 the gall of bitternefs, and the bonds of iniquity, 
 yet he previoufly tells us, Then did Simon believe alfo. 
 Whatever internal difference appears between 
 thefe two claffes, there was one thing in which 
 they vifibly agreed, namely a profeffion of faith. 
 One thing further, they refembled each other 
 in, mentally, and that was willingnefs or confent. 
 
 However 
 
( n8 ) 
 
 However profeffion -of faith could not be receiv- 
 ed as demonftrative of true faith in pofTeffion, 
 it might be juftly admitted in full proof of con- 
 fent. That this is the leading circumfiance to be 
 regarded in the hiftory of believers-Baptifm 
 is plain to me, becaufe wherein thefe two forts 
 of them may be fuppofed to agree, there the 
 difference of unbelievers contrafted with them 
 begins. The line df diftinclion lies between con- 
 senting and non-con fcnting. While there can be 
 no reafonable doubt entertained of the exiftence 
 of thefe three claffes mentioned, two of believers 
 and one of unbelievers, the two firft are involv- 
 ed in one defcription. And, it is as true, as 
 it is remarkable, that New Teftament hiftory 
 affords no cafe in contradiction to the above 
 remarks. There is no account of perfons who 
 appear to have confented to an attendance on 
 the Gofpel-miniftry, whom we have reafon to 
 confider remaining in an unbaptized ftate. In 
 the pa Mages, then, cited at the head of this pa- 
 ragraph, it mould appear, we have language 
 not chara&eriftic of baptized perfons in reference 
 to a ground of right, but of fuch who were in 
 point of fd£t baptized, profe fling and manifefting 
 that confent, which, unlefs the law of nature has 
 violence offered to it, mud be obtained, before 
 Chrift's Minifters can execute their commiflion. 
 No impediment lies in the way of a moreextenfive 
 
 Baptifmal 
 
I 
 
 ( "9 ) 
 
 Baptifmal Adminiftration than Antipaedobaptifts 
 practice from texts of this fort. Their contents 
 weigh in the fcale as merely hiftorical fatls. 
 Their phrafeology does not neceffarily or na- 
 turally convey the idea that would confine Bap- 
 tifm to what is called a credible profeflion. It 
 is therefore made to have a meaning foreign to 
 the form and defign of the language ufed. And 
 a credible profeflion, as the diftinguifhing fenti- 
 ment of a party, ufurps a place which does not 
 belong to it. 
 
 Of houfehoid Bapiifms, there are feveral inftan- 
 ces exprefsly mentioned in the New Teftament 
 hiftory. Mr. B. examining thefe from Acts, 
 .\vi. 15. xvi. 33. 1 Cor. i. 16. remarks: 
 " It is not uncommon for the facred writers to 
 " affert this or the other concerning a houfe- 
 '•' hold, without any exprefs limitation, which is 
 " manifeftly meant of only the greater part : and 
 " in other places the fame form of fpeaking is 
 " ufed, where none but Adults can be intended, 
 " A few examples may fuffice. Thus it is 
 " writen, all the house of Jofcph, and his 
 " Brethren, and his Father's honfe, went up to bury 
 ** Jacob; only their little Ones they left in the land of 
 " Goflien. E I kcrnah and all his house went up 
 " to offer unto the Lord, the yearly facrtfee, yet 
 '* we are told in the following verfe, that Han- 
 « nah and the child Samuel, went not up:' 
 
 Strange 
 
( 12 ° ) 
 
 Strange ! that inftances fo ill-adapted to the Au- 
 thor's wants and views, fliould make their ap- 
 pearance. Have we not an express exception 
 of Infants and Children in thefe pannes ? Is not 
 this exprefs exception made — not upon a princi- 
 ple that will render them of ufe to Mr. B — 
 not becaufe thele children were incompetent to 
 the atl ipecified, or the defign thereof? Are we 
 not told that they were left at home? Other- 
 wife, the phrafe, all the houfe, fo naturally includes 
 the idea of a family as fuch, that fo far as 
 thefe pafiages manifeft, were it not for an ex- 
 prefs exception, we had no bufinefs to prefume 
 on the common topic of Antipsedobap'.ifts in 
 other parts of Scripture ; and conclude, they 
 were not involved in thefe a&s ? 
 
 " In the New Teftament, fays Mr. B. the 
 " word houfe or houfehold is repeatedly ufed in 
 " fuch a manner as to exclude Infants. Thus, for 
 " inftance, we are informed, that a man's foes 
 " (hall be they of his own houfehold ; thai a no- 
 " bleman at Capernaum believed and his whole 
 " houfe ; that Cornelius feared God with all 
 " his houfe ; that unruly talkers fubvert whole 
 " houfes ; that Paul and his companion fpake 
 < c the word of the Lord to the Philippian Jai- 
 " lor and to all that were in his houfe ; that he 
 '* rejoiced, believing in God with all his houfe, 
 <c and that the houfe of Stephanas addicted them- 
 
 " felvei 
 
( 12! ) 
 
 " felves to the miniftry of the Saints, in all which 
 
 " examples Infants muft be excepted." The pur- 
 
 port, for which thefe accounts are urged, is by no 
 
 means fatisfaclory ; becaufe there is ground to con«> 
 
 ceive the design-, and therefore the meaning 
 
 of them, to be fortign to the life they are app'ied 
 
 to by Mr. B — Can it be imagined, that what is 
 
 here related, of a man's foes being thole of his 
 
 own houfehold : of a nobleman believing with 
 
 all his houfe, and of the reft mentioned in the 
 
 quotation, was ever meant to infinuate, Infants 
 
 made no part of their houfeholds ? If fuch was 
 
 not the defign of the hiftory, is it not bold, (to 
 
 exprefs my felf moderately) to interpret them as 
 
 if every idea of Infants was to be excluded 
 
 from thefe families, when it is unnatural to con- 
 
 t 
 
 ceiveof them without fuch members ? Is it not 
 far more confident and proper to .confider the 
 line of distinction in reference to thofe who be- 
 lieved, to he drawn, not between the different 
 ages and capacities in the fame family, but be- 
 tween them and others ? Purfuing this clue, 
 may they not be underftood to the following 
 effect ? When Chrift obferves, a man's foes 
 fhall be thofe of his own houfehold, he would 
 reprefent his houfehold in fuch an hoftile Hate, 
 that from the actual conduct of its adult members, 
 and the infa tile ftate of the reft, he cannot 
 confider himlclf as having a friend in his own 
 
 Q houfe. 
 
( 122 ) 
 
 houfe* Anfrverable to this, is the view given us, in 
 my apprehenfion, of the Nobleman and his houfe, 
 Cornelius, and his houfe, 8zc. There were none 
 who, in the judgment of charity, ought to be re- 
 garded, as unbelieving irreligious perfons. The 
 language of thefe p-dfages is not defcriptive of 
 families, as d'vided among themfelves into In- 
 fancv and riper age, but in reference to others 
 promifcuoufly coniidered. There is no ground, 
 I apprehend, to confider in the facred writings, 
 the believing character, ever oppofed to Infancy, 
 but to maturer age. As the circumftance of be- 
 lievers compofing a "greater or fmaller part of 
 a houfehold, is no proof, there are not Infants 
 in it ; fo, as far as Infants are noticed in Scrip- 
 ture, it is totally unwarrantable to put them on a 
 level with unbelievers. Again : when we read 
 of unruly talkers fubverting whole houfes; if it is 
 not to be fuppofed, there were no Infants among 
 them, query, are they not involved in the fub- 
 verfion ? Will the plea be urged, thefe houfes 
 were fubverted by talking ? What is that to the 
 purpofe, while a blow at the root may change 
 the (late, not of the flock only, but alfo of the 
 branches. 
 
 As to Lydia, whether flie was a married wo- 
 man or fingle, (and Mr. B. imagines the latter 
 moft likely from the phrafe, her houfehold) it is not 
 very material. " But fuppofing her to have had 
 
 a hufbanti 
 
( 123 ) 
 
 w a hufband, as Philippi where fhe was merchant 
 '* dizing, does not feem to have been the place 
 <c of her ftated rtfidence, but Thyatira. A6ls 
 *' xvi. 14. it is the more unlikely if fhe had any 
 ** children, that Infants made a pat ofihe houfe- 
 ** hold at the time to which ihe text refeis." 
 Thus Mr. B; and is there net fomething extraor- 
 dinaiy in this paragraph ? On the fiippofition 
 that fhe was a married woman, and Thyatira was 
 her place of Rated refidence, the phrafe, her 
 honjeholdy leads us to confider her at this time a- 
 part from her hufband. Of whom, then, is it 
 probable that her houfehold confuted ? Suppofing 
 that as a married woman fne might have chil- 
 dren, and that Philippi, for a feafofi at leaft, 
 was a place of her abode, is it not far more 
 likely, that thefe were with the mother at this 
 city, than with the father, at Fhyatira ? Cuftom, 
 if heard, will reply in the affirmative. — Leaving 
 thele things as minutiae which would have been 
 unnoticed, had not the work I am examining re- 
 quired it, let us attend to Lydja*s cafe. — When 
 the Lord had opened her heart, that (he attended 
 to the things fpoken of by Pa, tl 3 the next thing re- 
 lated is, theBaptifm of herself and ker house- 
 hold. A total (Hence \s obferved concerning 
 their number, age, or character. The ba,-e faft 
 of their Baptifm is recorded^ Here then, is a 
 precedent; aiU it is that of a household 
 
 Q 2 not 
 
( 124 ) 
 
 ftot as a farmly of credible believers, for there i's 
 not one word whence we may conclude they were 
 fo: no, not from v. 40. where Paul and Silas, be- 
 ino- liberated from prifon. are (aid to enter into the 
 houfe of Lydia, and when they had fern the brethren, 
 they comforted them and departed. u Perhaps thefe 
 " Brethren were not of the houfehold. It might 
 € < be fo. I find however, nore but brethren in 
 " the houfe. When you are able to prove that 
 * Lydia had any children, I will pay uncommon 
 e; attention to the offspring of that amiable wo- 
 " man.'* So writes Mr. Martin in his letters to 
 Mr. Horfey. According to this mede of iea- 
 foning, Lydia may as well be fuppofed to have 
 no females in her houfehold, for fays Mr. M. 
 Very fagacioufly, "I find none but brethren in the 
 houfe." Whether we coi.fider her as a fingle 
 woman or married, a houfekeeper, or in bufinefs^ 
 this was very unlikely, and too improper to be 
 true. Befides : are we at liberty to infer, that 
 Paul and Silas had no brethren in the city beyond 
 the limits of Lydia* s family ? There is Ibong 
 reafon to believe the contrary, as the perufal of 
 the chapter, and of the Epiftle addreffed by Paul 
 and bearing the name of Philippians, will evince. 
 The paffage cited fo far from meaning to deter- 
 mine who were the members of Lydia's houfe- 
 hold, plainly points out Lydia's houfe, where fhe 
 had contained Paul and Silas to abide, to be 
 
 tht 
 
( 12 5 ) 
 
 the place where the brethren met for the purrofc 
 
 of an interview with Paul and Silas before th -y 
 
 departed. 
 
 In the fame chapter that we read of Lydia, an 
 
 account is given us of the Jailor. Several things 
 in his cafe require fome attention. One is, the 
 Apoftle's reply on his afking, what fhall I do 
 to be faved ? Believe in the Lord Jefus Chrijl, and 
 thou JJialt he faved, and thy houfe. Here, if I mis- 
 take not, Ls a confirmation and inftance, how 
 Paul, did, and minifters ought, to declare the 
 Gofpel as it refpe&s perfons promifcuoufly, whe- 
 ther Adults or Children. He informs 1 him of 
 the way of Salvation for himfelf, and his houfe, 
 of whomfoever they might confift. And is it not 
 the doclrine contained in the bofom of his anfwer, 
 that none can be eternally faved under the Gof- 
 pel-difpenfation, without faith in the habit or 
 the act ? — It is next obferved of Paul, and 
 Silas, that they [poke the word to him, (the Jailor) 
 and oil that were in his houfe. If, what is common 
 upon much fmaller occafions may be fupnofed to 
 take place here, the alarm which fo great, an 
 earthquake as then happened, muft occafion, 
 would, when it was over, caufe fome to re fort to 
 that fpot. This idea is offered, not without fome 
 evidence in its favour from v. 35. And when it 
 was day, the Magiflrates Jent the Sergeants, faying, 
 Let thefe men go. They appear to have been 
 acquainted with what had happened, and to have 
 
 aiTembied 
 
( ™6 ) 
 
 aflembled for confultation, and early to have dif- 
 patched meiTengers to the priibn to have Paul 
 and Silas difcharged. The All in the Jailor's 
 houfe, it is highly probable, were a mixed num- 
 ber, confifting of thofe whom the circumftance 
 of the earthquake had brought there, befides the 
 Jailor's family. All, whatever difference of age 
 might be among them, had, on this occafion of 
 Paul's preaching, the given right to be preached 
 unto, recognized. — The jailor and all his 
 were baptized Jlraightway. " It is certain to a Jew, 
 " (fays Dr. PrieUley, whom Mr. B. occafion- 
 " ally quotes) fuch phrafes would convey the 
 " idea of the Children, at leaft, if not of 
 €t domeftic flaves, having been baptized as 
 " well as the head of a family. From the 
 " very firfl promulgation of Christianity, it 
 " could not but be manifelt that perfons were in- 
 " terefted in it, as individuals, and not as mem- 
 " bers of families or focietics. I make no doubt 
 " but that in general, if there were Adults, Chil- 
 '* dren or Slaves in a family, at the time that the 
 " Mafter profeffed himfelf a clinician, they were 
 " not baptized without their own conlent, but 
 " no confideration that can be fuppofedto have 
 " occurred to Jews, could have led them to make 
 " the fame exception in favor of Infants." Here 
 then is another precedent of household 
 baptism. Mr. Blake did not write inconfider- 
 
 ately 
 
( * 2 7 ) 
 
 ately when he fays, "We have examples not to be 
 ,( contemned of baptizing wholf households, 
 M and whether Infants were there or no, as it is 
 " not certain, though probable, so it is not 
 " material. The precedent is an ho u s e hold. 
 " He that followeth the precedent, muft baptize 
 " houfeholds. It appears not that any wife was 
 " there ; yet he that followeth the precedent, 
 " muft baptize wives, and fo I may fay, /er- 
 t( vants, if they be of the houfehold." — It is 
 added, according toourEngiifh tranflation : when 
 he had brought them into his hafe t he Jet meat before 
 them, and rejoiced bdievvng in God with all his 
 houfe. The original anfwering to the words with 
 all his Iwufe, is but one, and that word an ad- 
 verb, immediately following the verb, rejoiced. 
 *' Adverbs are added to verbs to denote fome 
 '•' modification or circumUance of an action." 
 lowth — Was the- Greek rendered literally and 
 adverbially, the Englifh would run thus, he 
 (the Jailor) rejoiced housely. Certain it is, 
 that in the paflage, of which this is a claufe, the 
 Jailor himfelf is immediately brought forward. 
 He let meat before them and rejoiced — then fol- 
 lows the adverb, to denote fome modification or 
 circumitance, of his rejoicing. So the Seventy 
 feem to have underftood the fame word, by their 
 tranfla'ing that paflage in the Old Testament, 
 $jM theft arc the navies of the children of Jjrael t 
 
 which 
 
( 128 ) 
 
 which came into Egypt, every man [panoki) wuh 
 his houjehold, or according to the Greek houfely t 
 came wit fr Jacob. Every man houfely came! In- 
 fants and all together. The verb, came, exprefles 
 the mental difpofition, and local movement of 
 the Head of the family — not to the exclufion of 
 Adults who were willing and able to move — not 
 to the exception of Infants, who mud from their age 
 be paffive in this removal. In like manner, when 
 it is related of the jailor, that he rejoiced houfe- 
 ly, will not the fame mode of interpretation ap- 
 ply ? Is it not evident, there was occafion for 
 joy throughout the family ? The Jailor, there- 
 fore rejoiced houfely — in relation to himfdf and 
 his. The Adults of his houfehold rejoiced alfo. 
 This admitted; yet the hiftory tells us he re- 
 joiced houfely — not to the exclufion of Infants 
 if any ; though as was obferved on the verb, 
 came, in the other paffage, it requires a dif- 
 ference of application to a ftate of age and 
 infanay. The general ideas are, conformable to 
 what is common, when a man with his family 
 and as the head of it is faid to rejoice houfely, 
 after a houfely manner, — all have occafion for 
 joy— the Adults in it are joyous — Infants 
 as interefted in every matter of rejoicing to 
 a family, are involved with the reft. This con- 
 ftru&ion obtains a fan£tion from common fenfe, 
 and common cuilom, as well a* from the Scrip- 
 ture 
 
( 12 9 ) 
 
 ture-inftance produced before, and cited by Mr. B. 
 though for a different purpofe. — Not One word 
 is faid of the Faith of any of the Jailor's 
 houfehold, but of his own. The literal tranflation 
 of the pafiagi according to the order of the words, 
 is, he rejoiced houfely, having believed in God* 
 Wnerher Infants or Adults, or both, compofed 
 the Jailor's family, they were all baptized. To in- 
 fer, that true Faith is required in order to Baptifm 
 from fuch an hiltorical cafe as this, when it is im- 
 mediately and only made indifpenfible to Salva* 
 tion — That the Jailor was baptized, becaujthc be- 
 lieved, when if the order of thehittory be regar- 
 ded, he is not characterized as a believer, till we 
 are informed of his being a baptized perfon — 
 that his family were baptized on a credible pro- 
 feflion of faith, when not a word is faid about 
 their believing — would be ftrange Logic indeed. 
 Let only this kind of arguing be abandoned, and 
 the cafe (lands plainly a natural precedent to 
 houfehold-baptifm as fuch ; and Paul a jjaptizer. 
 
 Of them INDISCRIMINATELY. 
 
 What has been advanced, unlefs the reafoning 
 can be overthrown, goes to prove' the injustice 
 and futility of the ufual plea, Jilence of fcripture^— 
 No precedent — againft Paedo"baptifts. What! Scrip- 
 ture f i lent concerning children, when our Lord 
 
 P> ha 3 
 
( *3° ) 
 
 •has fo gracioufly and expreGly pronourced them 
 of the kingdom of heaven, included then* under 
 the gofpel-ftate. Silent! when they are as natural- 
 ly underftood by the term nations^ the objefts of 
 the commifnon, as Adults. Silent, when they are 
 diftinfctly and exprefsly mentioned in the promife 
 urged by Peter, on the famous day of Pentecoft, 
 and that in connection with Baptifm. Silent t when 
 houfeholds are faid to have been baptized, in fome 
 of whom there is no account of theffaith but of an 
 individual ; and when there is fuch realon to con- 
 sider believing among Adults in a family not op- 
 pofed to the Infants thereof, but to the family- 
 Jlate of others. If we are not fat&sfie d with thefc 
 things, what greater precifion have we a light 
 to expect ? 
 
 It is certainly a miftake, if there is weight m 
 the preceding reprefentations, to confi der Faith in 
 reference to the Baptifmal Ordina nee, in any 
 other light, than as a mean whereby t he fubjeft of 
 it becomes, not intitled^bnx. rather dij t pofed, to let 
 the Apoftle*, according to the come niflion, dif- 
 ciple thernby baptizing. PcrfecU ly confident 
 with this idea, are thofe hiftorical ; paffages, Acts 
 ii. 41. — xvi 34. — xviiu 8. 
 
 I am greatly miltaken if the ufuc tl plea of no 
 precedent, as well as no precept, may not be retor- 
 ted on the oppofite party. Be it obf erved, it is an 
 eafy thing to fancy ourfelves in 1 ^ofleflion of a 
 
 precedent 
 
( *Q1 ) 
 
 precedent from Jome refemblance. Precedents 
 can only be viewed as a fort of fecond Rules; they 
 involve in themfelves, both principles and actions ; 
 and unlets there is a conformity to both > it is 
 only a partial deceiving imitation. This ap- 
 pears to me to be the cafe with Antipaedobaptifts, 
 wfeen they engrofsto themfelves Scripture-prece- 
 dents, as they refpeft Adults. Allowing their- 
 Baptifm of perfons on what is deemed a cre- 
 dible profeffion, to be valid, yet, error is in- 
 feparable from it. Examined by the principles 
 and practices of New Teftament baptizers, both 
 which muft be taken into account under the term 
 precedent t they have none for their diftingui/hing 
 fentiments and practice. There is good reafon 
 to believej that all who confented a,nd all who did 
 not diffent, were baptized. There is no inltance 
 to the contrary ; but much otherwife. Where 
 do we fmd perfons attending on the mini ft ry in 
 an unhaptized ftate, from any objection to ad- 
 minifter the Ordinance on the part of the of- 
 ficiating minifter ? Judging of principles by con- 
 duct, is it not likely, that the Baptizers recorded 
 in the New Teftament, afted upon very differ- 
 ent ones from Antipaedobaptifls ? Hence their 
 difpatch, their numerous Adminiftrations. Judge 
 of their eonduH by their principles and from the 
 tenor of their preaching, it is not to be won- 
 dered at, that they afted with more fpeed, and 
 
 R a baptised 
 
C *3* ) 
 
 baptized greater numbers, than our differing 
 friends, confiftently with their principles could 
 have done. 
 
 The utmoft after all, which Mr. B^ feems to 
 reft his caufe upon, is — the plea of its be- 
 ing implied in the fcripture. For, when Dr. 
 Addington alks and anfwers, " Is there no ex- 
 9( prefs command of Chrift to baptize believers ? 
 «' Not one in all the New Teftament,"Mr. B. 
 fubjoins, "If by an exprefs cojxmand, he mean thofe 
 « very words, baptize believers, it is allowed. 
 " but what is that to the purpofe, while the ideas 
 •* are as plainly and ftrongly exprefled as if the 
 " identical words had been repeatedly ufed." 
 No expreji command in fo many words for baptiz- 
 ing believers! Even Mr. B. concedes. The 
 bafis on which the caufe of Catholic Baptifm 
 depends, is, a divine order to difciple all na- 
 tions, or baptize and teach them under our 
 Lord's commiffion. The identical words " bap- 
 *' tize believers," and the hiftorical accounts 
 wherein we read of Belie vers-baptifm are very 
 different things. The one is an order, the o- 
 ther relates to an hiftorical fa£t. 
 
 Upon the ftrength of what has been advanced 
 concerning Baptifmal precedents, including prin- 
 ciples and actions, I conclude, that the Apoftles 
 of Chrift treated the nations as having a given 
 right to an evangelically-inftituted ftate, that 
 
 Bap- 
 
( m ) 
 
 3aptifm was adminiftered as appertaining to 
 the general difpenfation of the Gofpel, and per- 
 sons promifcuoufly made partakers of it. 
 
 IV. Thofe paffage s require fome notice where- 
 in perfons are addreffed as baptized. Of thefe, 
 the following ,by way of fpecimen, will be fuffici- 
 cnt. Know ye not that fo many of us as were 
 baptized into Jefus Chrift were baptized into 
 his death ? Therefore we are buried with him 
 by Baptifm into death : that like as Chrift was 
 raifed up from the dead by the Glory of the 
 Father, even fo alfo we mould walk in newnefs 
 of life. Rom. vi. 3. 4. By one Spirit are we 
 all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews 
 or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free ; and 
 have been all made to drink into one fpirit. 
 i Cor. xii. 13. For as many of you as have 
 been baptized into Chrilt, have put on Chrift. 
 Gal. iii. 27. Buried with Him in Baptifm, where- 
 in alfo ye are rifen with Him. ColofT. ii. 12. 
 
 The fituation in which the perfons addreffed in 
 thefe paffages are immediately placed, is, that 
 of perfons baptized. The expreffions found in 
 them, are plainly taken from the natute, defign. 
 and ufe of the Ordinance itlelf. What is there 
 in thefe reprefentations, to contradict the idea of 
 Baptifm acceffible by, as well as incumbent upon, 
 all indifcriminately ? Should not every one 
 pjut on Chrift, fo far as this can be done by 
 
 the 
 
( '34 ) 
 
 the adminiflration of the Ordinance ? Should 
 they not be baptized in his death, that like as 
 Chrift was raifcd from the dead, they mould 
 walk in newnefs of life ? Is Baptifm expreflive 
 of the general incorporation of Jews and Gen- 
 tiles, how fuitable to fuch a defign is the extenfive 
 adminiftration of it contended for in this work ? 
 
 That children and fervants fhould not have their 
 Baptifm formally and exprefsly pleaded and ur- 
 ged as a ground of obligation in the Epiftles, is 
 a circumftance very ftrange to Mr. B. on the 
 fuppofition they were to be baptized upon the Pac- 
 dobaptift-plan. But where was the neceffity for it 
 in Epiftles addrefled to parents and mailers di- 
 rectly ? Does not a gardener by watering the 
 root, water the branches of a tree alfo ? It is 
 fufficient to have children and fervants noticed 
 in fuch a manner, as befpeaks them regarded by 
 the Apoftles under an evangelically-inftituted 
 ftate. 
 
 Thus I clofe this chapter, pleading the variety 
 and importance of its contents to the fubjeft in 
 view, for its length. It was begun with declaring 
 the relative privileged ftate of the nations under 
 the gofpel, to contain a fufficient title to the Bap- 
 tifmal Ordinance, and to be a rule of direction in 
 adminillering it. Objections to this idea have not 
 been fhunned, but fought for, in feveral quarters 
 where mod likely to be found. Nothing like an 
 
 infuperable 
 
( *35 ) 
 
 infuperable difficulty arifes on examining, the re- 
 lative change and the Bapt'fmal-ordinance itfelf — 
 our Lord's great commiffion — accounts of Bap- 
 tifmal Adminili ration — or paflages addrefled to 
 perfons as or about to be baptized On the con- 
 trary, it is the Author's opinion, and fubmitted to 
 the candid and impartial Reader for his judgment 
 thereon, that every one of thefe four leading 
 Divifions of this chapter, in various points of 
 view, confirms the caufe of Catholic Baptifm on 
 the ground of a general right to it. 
 
 Chapter 
 
( '36 ) 
 
 Chapter III. 
 
 Brief Objervations, Jerving to explain, en- 
 force, and recommend Catholic Baptifm. 
 
 HAVING in the preceding pages offered rea- 
 fons for thinking that baptizing enters into 
 the compofition of a difcipled ftate, difciple being 
 accordingly to be underftood in our Lord's 
 commifiion, is 3 confequentIy, a general term. 
 ft The far greateft part of the words that make all 
 " languages are general terms, originating in rea- 
 «' fon and necefluy." Doubtlefs our Lord's 
 ufe of them is to be traced to fuch an origin, 
 Any other mode of expreffing himfelf would not 
 have fuitedthe extenfive plan of his Grace, his 
 high Authority, and therefore his Wifdom adop- 
 ted it. To the former obfervation of Mr. Locke, 
 the following may be added as a guide in the ufe 
 of general terms. Ci Words, fays he, become 
 u general [and therefore to be treated fo] by 
 4« feparating from them the circumftances of 
 «< 1 ime and Place, and any other things that may 
 «' determine them to this or that particular ex- 
 f « iftence." Anfwerable to this account, fome one 
 
 general 
 
( *37 ) 
 
 genera 1 idea is conveyed by this capital word in 
 the Commiffion : the force and the fpirit of the 
 whole centers here. 
 
 Pertinent are Dr. Williams's obfervations on 
 the fame terms in reference to the word baptize, 
 if fuhje&ed to certain alterations. His words 
 altered to our purpofe are : all general terms in 
 the laws of God and man do not fix the mode as 
 contra-diftinguifhed from thofe of determinate 
 Specification. Terms being reducible to this 
 two-fold diftribution, it is evident, that a wife 
 Legiflator will ufe one or the other fort according 
 to the defign he has in view. If he means to 
 dire 61 his Minifters to the performance of a duty 
 in a certain fpecific manner, he will employ fpe- 
 cific terms. Thus if our Lord's defign had bee", 
 in the cafe before us, to enjoin teaching only or 
 effentially, we fliould have a word conveying 
 that idea, whereas it has been (hewn that the ori- 
 ginal word properly rendered, difcipie y does not. 
 Jf the language in which the law is oromulged 
 does not afford fuch a word as abfolutely confines 
 a Minifter to one thing, the remedy lies eafy in 
 a circumlocution or an explanatory caufe. This 
 remedy, the Legiflator has gracioufiv be flowed 
 upon us in the fubiequent parts of the Comm if- 
 fion, for thus it runs, "Go ye and difciple all na- 
 tions." The general duty required in this legifla- 
 live language is to difciple : the manner in which 
 
 S it 
 
( 138 ) 
 
 it is to be performed, is to be fought in the it 
 quel, baptizing, teaching. It is the Will of Chrift, 
 as here revealed, that all nations fhould be difci- 
 pled. He utters a gracious loyal mandate, that 
 all nations, jewifii and gentile, fhould be baptized, 
 taught, or in other words, be minifterially fixed 
 and recognized in an evangelically-inftituted, mo- 
 ral-pofuive Hate of Wcrfh'p. The term, difd- 
 ple, is open but exprefs. Well might an order 
 of fuch extenfive grace and authority be intro- 
 duced by the augufl declaration, all power is 
 
 GIVE" UNTO ME IN HEAVEN AND EARTH. It 
 
 demands our moft grateful admiration ; and the 
 Tongue of Zachar'as exhibits a pattern for our 
 pFalfe. Luke, i. 67. 
 
 The true doctrine of pofittoe infiitutes is, con- 
 feMTedly, a matter of moment in this controverfy. 
 lAr. B. therefore has very liberally fupplied his 
 Readers with twenty quotations from Fccdobap- 
 tifts, containing, as he is pleafed to exprefs 
 himfelf, cr the grand principles of legitimate rea- 
 foning" on the fubjecl. On a deliberate perufal 
 of them, and weighing them one with another, 
 I am prepared to affirm, there is not one of them 
 which is not perfectly confident with what has 
 been advanced relating to, and in fupport of, 
 Catholic Baptifm. The moft leading principles 
 in regard of pofitive infiitutes are the following: 
 <{ As they derive their whole Being from the 
 
 fovereign 
 
ireign pleafure of ( 6 i alecl 
 
 ; Will mult have given them their sxirte 
 
 every difpenfation of true reifgioni C 
 ently, v/e cannot know any thing al 
 :'.■■: precife nature, their true defign, the 
 «' per fubji fts of them, or the right rxit 
 Si miniftration, further ftia'n the Scriptures tea 
 " Theyaredete I by ne inllitution as u 
 
 " their ma .:', figniricaiiori.- -Ti : c 
 
 " ligation tc abferve them, anfes not frorii the 
 <c goodnefs of the rings themfelves but from 
 cc the authority of God. — Our obligation to c ■ 
 M ferve them, docs not re'fuft from our feeing 
 et reafofts of hem but from the coratr.an ) c " 
 " Gcd. 5 ' Th miffion of thefe p. :: 
 
 not hazardous to the cau'fe vindicated in [hi 
 work. — On the contrary, io far as divine Rev 
 lation is fubrhitted to, as determining the ex S 
 ■t ion, or f dilation , as well as the tfkture, mtn- 
 ner and figniflcatic >f BapHfm, it is imagined, 
 that the fituatiori it .as been reprefc;uerl to cccv- 
 ov in regard to ou Lord's com,/ n, ' . _; 
 finis a view cf it fo far as a pofitttie A i 
 han on the plan gf Antipaedobaptifts. 
 
 While it is admitted", chat a pofitive 
 depends upori the divine authority, Caution be- 
 comes us, that we do not make the £les*s£"d g - 
 act arbitrarily refpecling it. For, as one of the 
 writers whom Mr. B quotes, obferves, " the 
 
 ict - 
 
( H° ) 
 
 " idea of arbitrary, implies a weaknefs incom- 
 
 " patibletothe divine nature ; whofe perfection 
 
 " it is, to do nothing but for fome wife reafon, 
 
 " and for fome good end." A very laudable 
 
 circumfpection of the fame kind appears in the 
 
 worthy Author of Anti-paedobaptifm examined, 
 
 as the following paragraph evinces. " When 
 
 " I fay that the obligation of pofitive lawsrefts 
 
 u on the mere authority of the Legiflatcr, let the 
 
 " Reader obferve, that this is not to be confound- 
 
 " ed with an arbitrary difpojition in the Deity. 
 
 * This diftin&ion is well defcribed by an elegant 
 
 ,r and philofophic pen : " When fome fpeak of 
 
 " the Will of God, as the rule of duty, they do not 
 
 " mean a blind arbitrary principle of a&ion, but 
 
 " fuch a principle as is diretled by reafon, and 
 
 " governed by wifdom, or a regard to certain 
 
 " ends in ptejerence toothers. Unlefs we fup- 
 
 u pofe fome principle in the Deity analogous to 
 
 " our fenfe of obligation, fome antecedent affec- 
 
 " tion, or determination of his nature, to prefer 
 
 " fome ends before others, we cannot affign any 
 
 fI fufficient, or indeed any poflible reafon, why 
 
 " he fhould will one thing more than another, or 
 
 " have any election at all. Whatever therefore, 
 
 " isthe ground of his choice or will muft 
 
 " be the ground of obligation, and not 
 
 " the choice or will itfelf. — That this is fo, ap- 
 
 " pears further from the common ci!tin£Hon 
 
 " which 
 
( Mi ) 
 
 •* which Divines and Philofophers make between 
 " moral and pojitive commands and duties. 
 " The former they think obligatory, antecedent to 
 " will, or at leaft to any declaration of it; the 
 " latter obligatory only in confequence of a po- 
 " fitive appointment of the divine will. But 
 " what foundation can there be for this diftinc- 
 " tion, if all duty and obligation be equally the 
 " refill t of mere will ?'' 
 
 If there is no pofitive inititute in the appoint- 
 ment of which, it is not reafonable to fuppofe the 
 Divine Being is fwayed by reafons-, if the revealed 
 ends of fuch an Ordinance may be numbered a- 
 mong thofe reafons, which I think muft be allow- 
 ed, two things follow in the way of juft conclu- 
 lion. One is, what Dr. Williams contends 
 for, that there is no entirely pofitive Ordinance. 
 The other is, that the application or life of a po- 
 fitive ordinance cannot contradict or clajh with 
 its revealed ends. To fuppofe a contradiction 
 between the Nature and Ends of an ordinance 
 and the Ufe or Application, would be in effeft an 
 impeachment of the Wifdom of Deity. Whe- 
 ther, therefore, Dr. W — s's fentiment on Baptifm 
 astf mixed ordinance, parth moral and partly pofitive, 
 be admitted, or whether we fay with Mr. B. 
 " To constitute any branch of religious duty 
 " purely pojitive, it is enough that the Rite it- 
 " felf, the manner of performing it, the quali- 
 
 " fications 
 
( : ft 2 
 
 \ 
 
 ie ficattcnsof the fubje£l, the end to be arvfwered 
 5 by it, and the term of its continuance, de- 
 ** pend entirely on the fovereign pleafure of 
 * our divine Legiflator," — \t appears to me, that 
 in either cafe, a regard to the divine Character 
 making known the ends of the baptifmal Rite, 
 jufiifies an extenfive Latitude of adminiftration 
 on this topic of argument, which our opponents 
 cannot objeel to without begginr '.he ci:eMion.* 
 External Hohnefs is a principle to which I r. 
 B. profefles himfelf averfe. Were fach conTe- 
 quences, as this Writer intimates, neceffarily ap- 
 pertaining _o it, every Reader who has a jufl 
 
 idea 
 
 * It is natural to concei.e, of a positive institu.: ;.Kf:a V7.'5. 
 joid manner One is, to view and de r ne it in the abftraft, 01 apart frorf 
 any one particular Oidinance of that nature. The other, is , . 
 
 only a poiittve inftitute in the ab. 1 - . re 
 
 :n the Bible. ffott, i: it net plain an I cafy to per: Ive the r. • irt 
 et a po'.itive inftitoje will var> accoiding to this dil inttion i: 
 Anfwerable to the former, which may be celled it; ?•.-..-- 
 it is naturally defined to be, an institute, the reafons of which we do 
 aot fee, prior to the appointment an i revelation of u, retting cr. ti. j I _• .3 
 AUTHORtTv of the Iniiitutor. In the other, or sue jar i view of i:, 
 in refpeft of any particular pofitivc i ite, the whole of what is rev. 
 mud be taken into account, 3nd makes part of the di finition. The d n- 
 icquence is, that according to its rev- ah d ufts and ends- it inoulu be d:- 
 
 fciibid ; and th refoic of a mixed nature. The quotations of Mr. B 's 
 
 firft chapter fiom I'r.uobaptif. VVi iters, conUining their accounts and iiz~ 
 fonings on the dof.rine of pofitive infit utej, appear to me to il :..ide th: - 
 two-fold dt-f.nition However, then, the charge of novelty is a.lixed 
 to I>r W— 'a reprefen ation of a pofitive inllitute by FT.: opponent, I 
 cannot help thinking, it obtains the fahfiioll of theft: learned Authors, V ' - 
 Involve in their acccunticf pofitive iuftitutious at large, the dUtinoioB 
 above-mentioned r 
 
( H3 ) 
 
 idea of the Cofpcl-difpenfation, muft explode 
 it from its incompatibility with the genius of it. 
 I may offer my opinion, the whole force 
 of Mr, P. — \s obrjeftions depends upon confound- 
 i;ig things which are diilinguifhable. To ex- 
 plain myfeif: the general idea conveyed by the 
 term holy, in the Scriptures, is, a separation, as 
 numerous Authors are at hand to tcftify, and 
 er,al exprefsly in Mr. B — 's work. The Ori- 
 gin of this ieparstion. is to be traced to the 
 
 W I S E A N D GRACIOUS Y/1LL OF COD. Ye JJldll 
 
 be tome aho!y nation. Exod. xix. 6. ckc. Rites 
 and Ordinances are but difTereni ntfetia by which' 
 Holing': as externa', fbe»vs itfdf. Tncfe vary 
 according to different dTpenfations. It does not 
 therefore follow as a char confequence, that i>e- 
 caufe c.'./c, ' maintained ui der the 
 
 Goi-cbxiipenhition, the Rites of the jewifh 
 CEconomy are to be continued, in tyhj&b idea, 
 lie the bulk and weight of Mr. B— -'s objecti •... 
 Both as fcijipttjra] m d iiatm ?< 1; it is delenfible. 
 to affirm, that external ^loliijefs, in rcfpetl of 
 the thing itfeif, is not a jewiih peculiarity, 
 but coiYimon to alljw^q f;v- n God's i 
 V, ::■,, may be CQjtfi lerfcd as the p . ; >f a Rand' 
 
 exhibition of mcv ••/, Ordaii ■■' fuitable to 
 
 the genius of ( . , ' ' : ■ B p mi Rue, 
 v.ihich, rcafons and e\ hi, ,■ dS hive been cifered in 
 - lis work fo. j.: a ir.zcn jointly with 
 
 the 
 
( *44 ) 
 
 the Ordinance of preaching, and alike expreflive 
 of the relatively Holy State of mankind at Urge. 
 What has been advanced on that famous paf- 
 fage, i Cor. vii. 14. in my firft chapter deferves 
 particular regard. The unbelieving party is there- 
 in unqueliionably reprefented in pofTeffion of a 
 JanBity. I cannot forbear remarking, how im- 
 probable it is at any rate, that Mr. B. rightly 
 underftands that text, when the fenfe he puts up- 
 on it, extorts this confeflion, " There is not an 
 M inftance in all the bible, that I recollect, of the 
 " word fanclihed being ufed precifely as it is in 
 "• this paffage. For where, I demand, where is it 
 " employed in the whole facred Code, to exprefs 
 " that a£l or engagement between a man and a 
 " woman, which renders it lawful for them to 
 " cohabit as hufband and wife ?" Then, furely, 
 that fenfe is not very likely to be the proper one, 
 which this Author gives it, even upon his own 
 confeflion. An eligible one, it certainly is not, 
 unlefs he deviates from his own approved 
 rule of interpretation. This we learn, when 
 he quotes, in another part of his work with 
 marked approbation, Dr. Doddridge as writing 
 thus : " I chofe to follow the plainejl and mofl 
 *' obvious and common interpretation, which indeed 
 '* I generally think the bejl. As it is certain that 
 " arke[_ the Greek word'] has not always that fignifi- 
 u cation for which fome contend, I judge it fafe 
 u to give what is more commonly the fenfe of it." 
 
 Thus 
 
C M5 ) 
 
 Thus Mr. Booth may be left to fettle the merit and 
 pretenfions of his interpretation of the term, holy 
 on his own acknowledgment. — However, I would 
 accompany him further, when he obferves, " It 
 " is highly probable, that the Apoflle is here 
 " fpeakiog of two Gentiles ; one of them convert- 
 " ed, the oiher an idolater, whom he forbids to 
 ' ; feparate on account of the ChrilHan Faith : 
 ,c while, on the contrary, the Jews were com. 
 '• inanded to put away their heaihenifk Wives, 
 u even after having had iffue by fiich mar- 
 '* riages. Then the unbelieving party was, con- 
 fequently, not to be reckoned heathenifh, but 
 holy. Now this Holinefs confided in a fepara- 
 tion to God which the Heathen were without, 
 and on this ground the Ifraelites were called up- 
 on to put away a wife taken from among them. 
 What, our Author advances as highly probable, 
 <oincides, upon his own illuftration, for ought that 
 I perceive, with the idea of a general fanclity 
 among all nations under the Gofpel, which did 
 not e x i it before. 
 
 That the Apoflle is performing the wotk of a 
 Cafuift, is piai», but in Mr. B — 's opinion, 
 (i The very doubt which Paul refolves, affords a 
 " ftrong prefumptive argument, that it was not the 
 l< cuftom for Apoftblic Miniftets to baptize chil- 
 «• dren ; fuch, ar leafl, v. hofe parents were not both 
 ,: converted. The defign of Paul was to evince, 
 
 T u that 
 
( 14« ) 
 
 « e that fuch converts as were married to unbc— 
 <c lievers fiiould reje£t every thought of a fepara- 
 u tion on account of the Chriftian faith; becaufe 
 ' that Faith was far from difTolving the matrimo- 
 u nial bond, and equally far from rendering their 
 " cohabitation unlawful : for it feems that a doubt 
 *' of this kind was then entertained by fome who 
 " were members of the Church at Corinth. But 
 1 with what appearance of reafon fuch a query 
 " could have arifen, if it had been ufual in thofe 
 " times to baptize the Infants of parents in this 
 " predicament, we leave our oppofers to fliew. 
 «' For had that been a prevailing practice, there 
 Ci would not have been the leaft fhadow of reafon 
 " for it; becaufe on the principles adopted by ma- 
 * ny oppofers, a practice of that kind would have 
 «■ been an open avowal of fuch a marriage as valid, 
 <( and as obliging to all the tender duties of the 
 ** conjugal Mate." In anfwer to thefe remarks, it 
 may be demanded, whether Mr. B — 's right to 
 derive hence an argument againft the practice of 
 Infant-baptifm in thofe times, may not be juftly 
 litigated and fufpecled, when the term fanfiificd, 
 which he calls in one place the governing word of 
 the fentence, obtains a fenfe in his reprefentation 
 of it, which is peculiar to this pailage. Is it very 
 confident, to fuppofe the ground of the doubt 
 to be fomething common, and the Apoftle's refa- 
 ction of it to be in language never ufed to that 
 
 fame 
 
( H7 ) 
 
 •Tame prccife purpofe before as we read of in the 
 Bible? The odds in favor of a different fenfe 
 from Mr. B — 's,is at lead six hundred to one. 
 The reafons being fo numerous and ftrong 
 againft his view of the paffage, for which the 
 reader is referred to Dr. Williams's work in re- 
 ply, the prefumptive argument fought for againft 
 Pasdobaptifm, comes to nothing that way. But 
 if his i'en^Q and view of the paffage be allowed? 
 it feems to me, that his conclufion againft Infant- 
 Baptifm hence is not natural, but ftrained : for 
 when he afks, with what appearance of reafon fuch 
 a query could have arifen, if it had been ufual 
 to baptize in thofe times the infants of parents in 
 this predicament ? Need I inform our Inquirer, 
 of what frequently happens among profelTors, 
 namely, the exiftence of iinreafonabJe fcruples, e- 
 ven when they are in pqffeffion of circumllances 
 fufficient to remove them. Thefe, it becomes 
 Miniiters to attempt to obviate where-ever and 
 whenfoever they arife : and is it fo very extia- 
 ordinary, that Joms (fuppoiing them recently- 
 converted Gentiles) in the Church at CorintJ* 
 and we have no written account of anv others. 
 mould have fcruples of this fort, in refpecl < f 
 their unbelieving Partners, to employ the Apoftle 
 as a Cafuift after this manner? — But if we ad- 
 vance a ftep further, and in turn, alTume a pre- 
 fumptive argument in favor of Pasdobaptifm, it 
 
 T 2 may 
 
( '48 ) 
 
 may be done with as good and better a grace, than 
 Mr. B. finds one againd it. For it is left to our 
 oppofer to fhew, what there is in the nature, drift 
 and phrafeology of the paffage, that forbids our 
 confidering the claufe, " elfe were your children 
 u unclean but now are they holy,'' as a Circumftance 
 to which the Apoftle appeals, to convince 
 the by the believn g party, how groundlefs was 
 his or her fcruple about dwelling with the un- 
 believing. The obje6l of the doubt entertained, 
 was the unbelieving adult. The offspring 
 feem to be noticed collaterally in the refolution 
 of the fcruple. If then any regard is due to 
 what has been advanced on the connection be- 
 tween external holinefs, and the Baptifmal 
 Rite in the former pages of this work, does not 
 this claufe concerning children afford a pre- 
 emptive argument in favor of Infant-Baptifm ? 
 The Apoftle declares them holy, and it fhould 
 appear he has recourfe to what was, would, or 
 might be readily acknowledged of the offspring, 
 to fhew the fanclity of the unbelieving parent, 
 and the unreafonablenefs of the believer's think- 
 ing to leave the oppofite character on that ac- 
 count. — Though, for argument fake, the pre- 
 ceding remarks have been made conformable 
 to our common order of the paflage in Englifh ; 
 yet it is proper to remind the reader, the 
 tthcr rendering ^xo^ofecl at the beginning of this 
 
 work 
 
( *49 ) 
 
 work I lee no reafon to relinquifh c from any in- 
 quiry made, or information obtained on the fubje£t 
 fmce. — Befides : fome of Mr. B — 's obfervati- 
 ons on this controverted paflage entirely co- 
 incide with the ideas I have fuggefted, and the 
 ufe to which it has been applied. P'or inftance : 
 '* The infpired Writer fpeaks in the preterperfeft 
 ** tenfe, hath been fanBifed ; exprefling an act 
 M completely past." Again: ''it is frequent- 
 <r ly maintained by our oppofers, on the authority 
 te of this paffage, that the unbelieving hufbandis in 
 " a relative fenfeholy, in virtue of his converted 
 '* wife, and it is plain, from the text, that as is the 
 " holinefs of the children, fuch is the janbl if cation of 
 " the unbelieving parent. How comes it, then, that 
 " the latter does not qualify the fubj eel of it for 
 w Baptifm, as well as the former ?" How indeed! 
 Let Paedobaptifts to whom this remark will apply, 
 ward off the blow, as they are able ; fuffice it to 
 obferve, it is favourable to the idea avowed in 
 this work, and -with other remarks , inclines me to 
 be of opinion, that fhould Mr. B. ever difmifs 
 his prefent diftinguifhing fentiment, it will be ex- 
 changed for one not lefs extenfive, than that of 
 Catholic Baptifm. — Till fomething further is faid 
 to difprove what has been urged, for Mr. B. in 
 his defence waves a particular examination of 
 v;hat Dr. Williams fays on the texts produced, 
 leaving them as they are found in the fecond 
 
 volume 
 
( 15° ) 
 
 volume oF Paedobaptifm examined, neither this 
 paflage before us, nor others already noticed, can 
 be relinquifhed as untenable ports. For, re- 
 fpe&ing " the courfe of argument on particular 
 " paflages of the New Tefiament" to ufe Mr. 
 B — 's language, there is nothing in the way of 
 objection but what has been or will be " directly 
 c< anfwered, or implicitly obviated." 
 
 When infilling on Infant-Raptifm, and JnJ ant- 
 Communion at the Lord's fupper, Mr. B. makes 
 this declaration. " Were we, '• he fays," to 
 " behold Paedobaptifm fairly and entirely divor- 
 " ced from its old aiTociate, Infant- communion ; 
 ** that being confirmed, while this is confuted ; 
 " one great impediment would be removed out of 
 ** the way of our commencing Pcedobaptifts.'' 
 Psedobaptifm is included in Catholic Baptifm, and 
 it is fubmitted, whether on the great principles 
 and arguments urged in the courfe of our ex- 
 amination in favor of Infant and Adult Baptifm, 
 this divorce is not fairly and entirely effected. — 
 It cannot reafonably admit of a doubt, that 
 no pofitive inftitute, as it refpects the administra- 
 tor and fubject, has been fo enjoined, as to be 
 done by the former at the expence of infringing 
 the natural liberty of the latter. It is to be re- 
 membered, there is a material difference between 
 the two Ordinances in queftion as to their nature, 
 fituation, and way of admiflion. A difference, 
 
 is 
 
( '5i ) 
 
 is fufficiently, for our prefent purpofe, pointed 
 out in the following words, the greater part of 
 which is the language of an eminent Paedobaptift. 
 " The eucharijiic rite is applicable to tho/e only 
 •* who may be deemed proper fubje&s of a par- 
 " ticular church t or chriftian congregation. 
 " They ought to be jirji baptized, it is true; 
 " but this alone is not a fufficient qualification ■.. 
 <c For as Dr. Gill well obferves : " Baptifm 
 c< isnot a church-ordinance j I mean it is not an 
 " ordinance administered in the churchy but out of 
 " it, and in order to admiflion into it, and com- 
 " munion with it; it is preparatory to it, and a 
 " qualification for it ; it does not make a perfon a 
 t( member of a churchy or admit him into a vifi- 
 " ble church ; perfons mu.1 firfl be baptized, 
 " and then added to the church, as the three 
 " thoufand converts were i a church has nothing 
 " to do with the baptifm of any, but to be fa- 
 ■f tisfied they are to be baptized before they are 
 " admitted into communion with it. Admiflion 
 " to baptifm lies Jolcly m the bread of the ad- 
 ■' miniftrator, who is the only judge of qualifica- 
 'f ticns for it, and has the fole power of re- 
 w ceiving to it, and of rejecting from it ; if not 
 " fatiificd, he may rejecl a perfon thought fit by a. 
 ,r church, and admit a perfon to baptifm not 
 " thought fit by a church — Saul, when convert- 
 * ed was immediately baptized by Ananias 
 
 without 
 
( *5 2 ) 
 
 without any previous knowledge and con- 
 
 ' fent of the Church, and it was many days 
 
 n after this, that he propofed to join himfelf 
 
 tc to the difciples, and was received. Acts ix. 18, 
 
 « 19,23,26—28." 
 
 Is it, then, admiflible, that Baptifm is not a 
 church-ordinance ? Is it maintained, that admif- 
 fion to it lies folely in the breaft of the admini- 
 ftrator, that if not fatisfied, he may rejeft a 
 perfon thought fit by the church, and admit a 
 perfon to baptifm not thought fit by a church ? 
 Enough is granted in the above account to 
 fliew that a participation of the Baptifmal Rite, 
 and of the Lord's fupper, are very diftinct. things; 
 and that thole who are recorded, Acts ii. 41. as 
 baptized and are faid to have believed, might not 
 have been added to the church, though believers 
 in thejudgment of Peter, and actually baptized 
 bv him. What in this cafe would hinder ? I 
 anfwer the consent witholden of the Mem- 
 bers of that particular church, as not deeming 
 the baptized party a proper candidate for their 
 church-memberfhip. Baptifm is a perfonal mat- 
 ter, in truth, whereas the Lord's fupper being 
 an Ordinance more directly focial, the admini- 
 ftration of it depending on an actual incorpora- 
 tion with a particular church, it would be infring-, 
 iiig the law of nature and all order, not to 
 allow a choice to the confederated body, as to 
 
 the 
 
( 153 ) 
 
 the reception of its members. — Here it will be 
 perhaps afked by way of objection — Are particu- 
 lar churches to aft asthey pleafe, to exclude from 
 their focieties or admit into them whom they will ? 
 To this it may be anfwered— The word is their 
 rule, but then, where does it appear that it is 
 the Will of Christ, that Infants and Adults pro* 
 mifcuoufly fhould be admitted to the Lord's 
 table ? There is fuch a diftinclion obfervable in 
 the Scripture-account of the two Ordinances, 
 that to proceed to the fame extent in the one, as 
 what we contend for in the other, would be in* 
 deed, to aft, in regard of the Lord's Supper, 
 without precept or precedent. That procedure, 
 which in refpecl of admiflion to the Lord's Sup* 
 per, is requifite to fecure to a profeffing Chrif- f 
 tian fociety, the exercile of their right in the 
 choice of their members, is both rational and 
 fcriptural : hence recourfe is to be had to projef- 
 fion on the pare of the candidate. The church 
 is guided by a judgment of charity, in forming 
 which, a.i the medium of admiffion, they have 
 refpeft to two thing? — the general ends of Church- 
 memberfnip, — and the anjweralle capacity and 
 prcmying appearances of the candidate in refpeft 
 of them. A relation commences on the favour- 
 able judgment of thole who have a given right to 
 ndmit, but it is after ail conditional ; if occa- 
 sion for a different opinion of the perfon ad- 
 
 U mitted 
 
( '54 ) 
 
 mitted is given, the Church has an acknowledged 
 right to cut him off. — A perfon once baptized 
 cannot be thrown back into an anbaptized Jlatc. 
 To avoid prolixity : I obferve that on juft the 
 fame grounai on which Infants are admitted to the 
 Baptifmal Ordinance under the wing of Catholic 
 Baptifm, they are to be debarred from the 
 Lord's Supper. Here then, Infant-communion 
 is confuted on thofe very principles, by which In- 
 fant-Baptifm is confirmed. 
 
 Further, it is deferving of our notice, that 
 what has been faid in fupport of Catholic Bap- 
 tifm does not militate againft the real neceflity 
 of divine, precious Faith, as to the faving 
 vfe of every Ordinance. Inftead of making it 
 void, this Plan abundantly eftablifhes it, for Ca- 
 tholic Baptifm is brought forward as a joint- 
 mesn with preaching, immediately tending to this, 
 as fche Stai guided to Bethlehem. — The believing 
 Parent in the baptizing of his houfehold, has here 
 room to exerciie faith in that glorious promife, 
 
 H I WILL BE AGODTOTHEE AND THY SEED 
 
 " after thee." Adults derive from the exten- 
 five adminiftration of this right, an additional 
 exhibition of, and obligations to, the blefiings 
 and ends connected with it. Whence I am 
 led to remark, 
 
 That our Lord's Commiflion favouring Catho- 
 lic Baptifm as we have feen, is dirtUive to Minif- 
 ies, promulging the Gofpel among a People 
 
 unacquainted 
 
( *55 ) 
 
 unacquainted with it. Ye, to whom this high corn- 
 million is given ! permit me to engage your atten. 
 tion to the view taken of it in this work. It. is 
 
 YOUR GREAT PASSPORT ALL THE WORLD OVER > 
 
 Ye may proclaim in the ears of all that are 
 afar off, your Redeemer's grant, by which 
 they have a right to be difcipled, or in other 
 words, baptized and taught, the aclual enjoy- 
 ment of which nothing can deprive them of, but 
 their own wilful and unrealonable difient. How 
 wide your fphere of action ! Earth, where-ever 
 tenanted by Man, makes part of thatvaft Diocefe 
 in which you are warranted to move. Hail, ye 
 
 HON OUR ED. ITINERA NTS OF THE MOST HIGH, 
 
 by whatever diltinclions known among men • 
 As ye refemble the Angel flying in the midft of 
 heaven in refpecr. of your movements, let it be 
 manifeft, that like Him, you have the Redeemer's 
 glorious comrniiTion, the everlafting gofpel in vour 
 hand. Shew, that you have never before you, tl'at 
 you would direct every eye to it, and gather the, 
 whole earth under its banner. — How perfever- 
 ingly fiijuld the Mini Iters of Ghrifi remind the 
 difcipled according to his ccmmiffiorj,of the advan- 
 tages and obligations thence arifing. Was the 
 general adminiftration of Baptifm fallowed with 
 that indruclion in private and public on the part 
 of adminiftrators anfwerable to the opportunities 
 they have for it, the Redeemer's commifiion would 
 
 U 2 be 
 
( 156 ) 
 
 be more faithfully executed, perfons receive grea- 
 tei benefit, and an additional argument, conse- 
 quently be derivable from its experienced and 
 acknowledged u:iiity. 
 
 Once more : all that is requifite to fupport 
 Catholic Baptifm, is the ufe of allowed principles 
 and rules of interpreting the facred Scriptures. 
 It will pafs the Ordeal of the following — 
 " The Bible only is the Religion of Proteftanls." 
 Chilli ngworth. " It is a manifeft miftake. in 
 " regard to Faith, and a clear evidence of pride, 
 tc either to reject any of thefe things which the 
 " Scripture contains; or to introduce any thing 
 " that is not written in the Sacred page." Basil. 
 " Where the Scripture is filent, who mall 
 " fpeak ?'* Ambrose. — There is but one gen- 
 " uine fenfe of a text." Chamier. " If it [the 
 " Scripture]] have not every where one proper 
 " determinate fenfe, it has none at all." Owen. 
 '* The true meaning of Scripture, is not eve- 
 * c ry fenfe the words will bear, and perhaps may 
 " excite in the Reader's mind ; nor yet every Jenfe 
 •' that is true in itfelf ; but that which was really 
 <4 intended by the holy Writer.'* Werenfel- 
 " si us. — " It is a principle with me, that the true 
 a fenfe of any phrafe in the New Teftament, is 
 '* what may be called its Handing fenfe ; that 
 £• which will be the firjl to occur to common peo- 
 ple of every country and every age." Dr. 
 
 Horsley. — 
 
( '57 ) 
 
 Horsley. — " I am more and more convinced, 
 " that the vulgar fenfe of the New Teftament^ 
 u that is, the fenfe in which an honefl man of 
 " plain fenfe would take it on his firjl reading the 
 
 " ORIGINAL, OR ANY GOOD TRANSLATION, IS al- 
 
 ' mod every-where the true genera! {enle of any 
 ** paflage." Dr. Doddridge. Thefe and fuch 
 like principles and rules of interpreting Scripture, 
 borrowed from the hand of our copious and la- 
 borious collector, Mr. B, have not been deferted 
 in the profecution of this work, neither are they 
 dreaded, for, it is conceived, the Caufe afferted 
 will ftand their fevereft fcrutiny, and come off 
 with honour. 
 
 In refpett of Catholic Baptifm, as here defend- 
 ed, I have attempted to bear in mind the fenti- 
 ments contained in that excellent paragraph of 
 Dr. Williams's in his letter to Dr. Prieftley. 
 " my data, then, are divine revelation, 
 " and that only, and the whole of it. And it 
 " appears to me, on the matured reflection, that 
 « if Divine revelation felf -compared doth not an- 
 " fwer that purpofe, nothing elfe will ; and that 
 ts whatever elfe is fet up for that purpofe, is 
 " demonftrably fallacious. The pofitive evidence 
 '* of fcripture (as I have obferved elfewhere) 
 •• holds the fame rank in theology, as experiment 
 M ted evidence does in reference to any hypo- 
 • f thefis in philofophy. As, in the latter cafe, 
 
 ** there 
 
( 155 ) 
 
 « T there is no difputing in favour of a fyftem 
 u againjl Jacls, phenomena, and experiments? fo, 
 < c in the former cafe, no reafoning can be valid in 
 *' oppofition to pofitive evidence, or exprefs dif- 
 ct cernible authority. Common fenfe, right rea- 
 " fon, the opinions of the good and great, 
 « l &c. have their ufe and an important ufe, 
 11 in their proper places, but they are no data 
 " in Chriftianity. As to the order of in- 
 " veftigation, preceding revelations, and Divine- 
 '* ly authenticated fafts, are the only fafe ruh 
 ** by which we ought to examine any particular 
 " part of fcripture. Every foregoing difpenfa- 
 *' tion of religion, and indeed, every revealed 
 «' fa£l is, I may fay, a torch lighted in heaven, 
 •■ to illuminate thofe that follow, until we 
 " come to the fealing of prophecy, or the end 
 «« of the canon; and every fuceeeding one, to 
 •« the laft, refleBs a ftill more abundant light 
 " on all that went before. Wherefore, let all 
 " that revere the authority of Heaven, all the 
 " friends of revelation and rational inquiry, 
 « attend more to this light, that fhineth in a 
 « dark place, and not (I mean as the principal, 
 « and only fafe means) not to the falfe lights 
 « of human opinions (early or late) in the 
 « church, by following which we expofa our- 
 « felves to wandering and danger every ftep 
 « of our road, while in purfuit of truth and 
 
 " ^PP inefs < Having 
 
( *59 ) 
 
 Having fuggefted thefe obfervations, it will, 
 I truft, be attributed to perfonal conviction 
 only, if I put a clofc to this volume, by obfer- 
 ving — That as a given Point whereon to ftand, 
 was all Archimedes required to move the 
 
 World j fo, ON THE BASIS OF THE PRIVI- 
 LEGED STATE UNDER THE GOSPEL, THE MI- 
 NISTERS OF CHRIST MAY GO, DISCIPLE, BAP- 
 TIZE AND TEACH ALL THE NATIONS OF IT. 
 
 FINIS. 
 
INDEX to the QUOTATIONS. 
 
 N. B. The Numbers enclofed, refer to the Pages 
 of this Volume, the other to the Works quoted* 
 V. Hands for Volume, P. for Page. 
 
 ALDINGTON'S Chriftian MinjfterVReafons, &c. 
 
 (p. 32) p. in. — (p. 94.) p. 126. 
 
 Baxter's plain Scripture-proof, (p. 7.) p. 80. 
 
 Booth's PxloHaptifm Examined. (Preface, p. xi.) 
 Preface p. xi. — (pre. p. xii). pre. p. x.- — (p. 13) v. 2' 
 p. 402. (p. 27.) v. i. p. 24 — (p. 36.) yql. 2. p. 30I. 
 (p. 39) v. 2. 29S.— (p. 44). v. 2. p. 2;,6.— (p. 56) 
 v. 2. p. i g — (p. 60). v. 2. p. 303. — (p. 66.) v. 2. p. 
 501. Note.-- v / 'p. 87J. p. 356 — (p. 119) v. 2. p. 362— 
 (p. 120) v. 2. p. 362.— (p. 122 } v. 2. p. 363,— [p.127] 
 v. 2. p. 565 — [ p 132.] v. 2. p. 69— [p 13S] v. 1. 
 
 p. 43-— lP- *3 8 ' T 39]- v - i- P; U J- i8.— [p. 139]. v. 1. 
 p. 1 5.— [p. 14).] v. 2 p. 4.10— [p. 144}. v. 1 p. 74—, 
 [p. 145J v. 2 p. 385— [p. 145J v. 2 p. 401, 422— [p. 
 149] v. 2 p. 398— -[p. 149] v. 2 p. 397— [p. 150] v. z 
 463— [p. 15&] v - .1 p- 2.2, yi> 72, 74. 
 
 Booth's Defence of Padobiptilrij Examined : or 
 
 Animadversions on Dr. Williams's AntipreJcbaptifm 
 .Examined. [Preface, p. x] Pre. p. iv. — [Pre. p. x.] 
 Pre. p. v.—[Pre.p. xi.J Pre. p. in.— [p. 104]. p. 447, 
 
INDEX. 
 
 448.— [p. 105] p. 448— [p. 1 1«]. p. 443~ CP- *4*3 
 
 p. 165— [p. 150]. p. 467. 
 
 Boftwick's Sermon on Infant Baptifm. [p. 83]. p. 
 8.9. 
 
 Butler's Analogy, [p. 81] p. 
 
 Doddridge's Family Expofitor. [p. 24] vide 1 Cor. 
 vii. 14. 
 
 Gill's Body of Divinity, [p 16. 151.] vol. 3. P312, 
 
 Guyfe's Paraphrafe on the New Teftament. [p 43] 
 vide Matth. 28. 19. Note. 
 
 Jortin's Remarks on Ecclefiaftical Hiftory. [pre. p. 
 6.] pre. vol. 1. 
 
 Locke's Eftay on the human Underftanding. [p : 
 136] v. 2. Book, 3. Chap 3. p. 8. 9 
 
 Lovvth's Introduction to Grammar, [p. 127] p. 93; 
 
 Martin's Letters to Horfey. [p. 124] p. 95: 
 
 Millar's Hiftory of the Propagation of Chiiftianity. 
 [,.. 00] v. 2. p. 362. 
 
 Prieftley's Hiftory of the Corruptions ofChriftianity. 
 [p. 126] On Baptifm. 
 
 Polycarpi et Ignatii Epis. [p. 34] Vide Epis. ad Ro- 
 rnanos. 
 
 Sylvefter's Life of Baxter, [p. 114] p. 124. 
 Turrettini Theologia. — [p. 33.) De Baptifmo. Qiices 
 xx. § vi. 
 
 Virgil, (p. 4.) Eclogue, iv, line 52: 
 
 Williams's Anti-paedobaptifm Examined, Sec. (p 1) 
 v. 1 p. 260 — (p. 2-) v. 1. p. 264. — (p. 4) v. 1. p. 264; 
 jfp. ii.)v t t p. 380 — fp. 20. 21). v. 1. p. 120, 121, 
 
 123, SCO. (p. 26) V. 2. p. 23I. (p. 30 .) V. 2: p ; 
 
 3 8 9-— (?• 3*-) v. 1. p. 318— (-p. 32; v. p. 325— t{p. 34> 
 v. 2. p. 205— «(p. 88> v. 1: p. 344. 345. 346. 347.— 
 
INDEX. 
 
 <{p. i37-3» v. 2; p. 362. <(p. 140^ v: 1 : p: 23: note, p; 
 
 <fp. 141. >V. . I p. 33 ((p; 151 > v 2. 24I. 
 
 Williams's Abridgement of Dr: Owen's Expofition of 
 the Hebrews, ^p. 1 57.3* vide Letter to Dr. Prieftley, 
 ?• 343' 
 
H 
 
 Publi/hed. 
 
 ISTORICAL and FAMILIAR ESSAYS, 
 on the Scriptures of the Old Teilament ; 
 By JOHN COLLIE!, Efq. 
 
 Late of Charter-Houfe Square, London ; now of 
 
 High- Wycombe, Bucks. 
 In Two Vols. Price, 10s. 6d. Sold by S. Cavx. 
 
 I. God manifejl in the Flejli. A Sermon on 
 Chriftmas-Day, 1791. 
 
 II. The Prodigal Son. A Sermon preached at 
 High-Wycombe, Jan. 1792. 
 
 III. The good Samaritan. A Sermon preached 
 and publifhed for the Benefit of the French Refugee 
 Clergy, on Sunday, 2d. June, 1793. 
 
 By the Rev. W.WILLIAMS, A. B. 
 
 Curate of High-Wy combe, Bucks. 
 
 SOLD by the Printer, S. CAVE ; R. F.FDKS, High-\Vvcom.bc;W F. and 
 C. RIV1NGTOV, St; Ptul's Church-Yard; DEIGHTOM, Holbvn ; 
 ASH, Moorfklds ; M. TRAP, Paterncftei-Row ; PRIDDEN, Fleet- 
 Street; MATTHEWS, Stiand; DEBRETT, Piccadilly, London; ani 
 J COOKE, Oxford; 
 
 I. The A%ed Saint in Life and Death. A Sermon 
 occafioncd by the Death of Mr. Matthew Miller; 
 and preached at Rof's, Herefordfhire. Price 6d. 
 
 II. Hymns and other Pieces of Poetry on various 
 Suhjetl*. Price is. 6d. 
 
 III. Our appointed Time confidcred. A Sermon 
 occafioned by the Death of Mrs. Catharine 
 Watkins, preached at High-Wycombe, Bucks. 
 Piice 6d. 
 
 By the Rev. WILLIAM MILLER. 
 
 %* To be had at the fame Places as this Work. 
 
Sefide a few trifling errors in orthography and punc- 
 tuation, the following require correction. Page 10 
 line 24 before relatively read radically and p 11 
 1. 29, after learned, read continuator of p. 43, 1 3 
 after adopt, read part ]y, p. 151, 1, 4. for pa'julapy 
 Tead anti^a^olaptijf, 
 
\ 
 
\