\, 
 
► 
 
 SERMONS, 
 
 CM THE . ' 
 
 MODE AND SUBJECTS 
 
 O F 
 
 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 on AN ATTEMPT TO SHEW 
 
 THAT POURING OR SPRINKLING^ 
 
 is A SCktPTURAL M O D Ej 
 
 And the INFANTS of believsrs are proper SUBJECTS 
 Of the BAPTISM inftitutcd by CHRIST^ 
 
 WITH AN KXAMINATIdN of 
 VARIOUS OBJECTIONS 
 
 Particularly those contaii^ed in a course of anonymous 
 Letters to Bishop Hoadly. 
 
 mm. III ' i« ! « II ' 1 1 I ' l I III II I »j— » 
 
 BY JOSEPH L A T H R O F, D. D. 
 
 Paftor of the firft Church in Weft-Springfield. 
 
 TO WHICH IS ADDED, 
 
 anAPPENDIX, 
 
 Containing the history of the origi* of the AnaeapTist^^ 
 IN FOUR Letters, 
 
 BY NATHAN P E R K I N S, A. M. 
 
 Paftor of a Church in Haiiford. 
 
 PPvINTED AT BOSTOh\ 
 
 BY PETER EDES for I. THOMAS and E. T. ANDREW?, 
 
 Sold at their Book.llof«, No. 45, Newhury- Street, and by faid Thornnu fa 
 
 Worcr jier. 
 
 MPCCX'CJH. 
 
i 
 
SERMONS, &c. 
 
 E P H E S I A N S IV. 5. 
 
 ONE BAPTISM. 
 DISCOURSE I. 
 
 To perfaadc the Ephefians to keep the unity of the Tpirit in the 
 bond of peace, the Apoftle urges this, among other argumentt, 
 that they had received cne Baptifm. If this ene Baptlfm was defigned 
 to be a bond of peace and unity among chriflians, honr unhappy it is, 
 that it (hould become an occafion of divifion and feparation ? Sons 
 will fay, * Ic is not one baptifm, but diffeunt baptifms that caufe divi- 
 fions.' It is true, baptifm is adminiftered in different modes, and 
 to dWexttitfuhjeas ; but Hill, I hope, it will appear to be one baptifm ; 
 9nd if fo, then this difference is no judreafon for difunion. 
 
 You are fenfible, my brethren, that I have not been wont to brine 
 controverfies into the pulpit. I have purpcfely avoided the controverfy 
 ccncerning baptifm in years part, and (hould have done fo llill, had it 
 rot been lately revived among you. — It is not any prejudice againft 
 our brethren who differ from us, but a regard to your prefent cir- 
 cumftances, and to the dcfire of rnany among you, that now induces 
 me to enter upon it : and I hope to handle it in fuch a manner, as, at 
 leaft, not to offend, if 1 fliould jiot convince. I (hall not call in quef. 
 tion the validity of the baptifm of our brethren : I only aim to vin» 
 dicate our oivn. And furely when we are charged with having effen- 
 tially changed a divine inftitution— -when we are reprefented as being 
 in an unbaptized lUte— when we are treated as unfit for ehriHian com* 
 inunian, we have a right to plead in ouf defeace. 
 
 Thcrf 
 
[ 4 ] 
 
 There if X Ittc pamphle', which <Biny of yen have jtz^, wfiiien 
 by vfc'ay of Letters \^ Bijhcp K:ad!y, rhe rfuiHor of u-hlch labours to 
 difp''o<^ the validity bo>lh of yyr;;/i///rg-, md of infant Lapti/m^ and 
 l/cau them boih with grcac coiuempt. — I fHaM pay » particular ac- 
 teAiijQ to ihii piec, and take notice of every thing thiit i) maictrial 
 in it. 
 
 The quellions before us arc t*o ; ^\^t'>.h(^T /pr inkling is a fcriptural 
 mode ; aod whether injanti crc proper fubjefts of bapii(xii ? Thcfc 
 qaeftions have *o nectfTary ^er^n^\ion with each other. But as the 
 validity of o«^r bafptifm is din^d oh account of the mtdt io which it 
 was adminiftcred, as well as of the age at which we received it, I fmll 
 diHinftiy confider both tjucftiorj i and (hall begia with the forpicr. 
 
 iflnarT-y.1 
 
 PART I. 
 
 WE will firft enquire. What is the true fcripiural mod* of Bap- 
 tifoi ? 
 There axe two ways, in which this ordinance is adminiftercd ; one 
 j$ h/MjerfiJa, or plunging the whole body into water : ^I'he other ii 
 affiiftan, which is pouriDg or fprinkling water upon the perfon.— -Wj^ 
 do not deny ihe 'valiJuj of imcnerfion ; we ooly deny the nt:ejfity of 
 it: But cur brethren (^t leall many of them) deny the validity of 
 ij'.ijlzn, and reprefcnt it a6 no baptifno, to whomfoever adminiilcrcd. 
 It is therefc-.e of forne injportaace that wc enquire, whether there be 
 not fuchcvidei>ce, that i>jj-'fion is af:riptural mode, as may judify cur 
 Lfcof it, an^l filief,^ iHofc who have received baptifm in this manner. 
 I fliall ^fA examirij the import of the Gr/;f word ufed for baptifm — 
 then conf:dcr the ufcsr of baptifm and the allufion; of fcripture to thefe 
 ufcj — next enquire, what was the apofiolic praflice— and laftly take 
 fjmc notice of the ufagc of the church after the ajcftolic age. 
 
 I. V/< will exauiinc the i.-nport of the word BxtTj^w, which is the 
 i/uji, if not the oil)' word by wl.iLh the writers of the N«w Tellament 
 eiprefi the chriflian orujnancr of baptifm. 
 
 Iti» agreed, thai the word B;xt1»^w fignifics toi^fijhhy the applies* 
 tion of water : Eut then. Low the water i' to be applied, whether by 
 plunging the fubjewti i/i/j water, or by pouring or fprinUling water 
 uptn th* fubjcd. i$ the qjellion. This will bell be determined by con- 
 iieJcring, bow the word is ufcd upon ccrn.'non occafions. 
 
 1 be 
 
[ i J 
 
 The author of the Letters to Biihop Hoadl^' tells us , * That the 
 writers of ihe New Teftamcnt borrowed their phrafes from the Greek; 
 tranflaiion of the Old Teftamcnt, called the Ssptuagint,* He refers 
 us to this, for thefenfe of the words, which they have ufed for baptifm. 
 He allows rhat * B<X7rIi^w is the offspring o/BaTrlw ;* and confcquen-l/ 
 may be taken in the famx: fenfe. Zealous as he is for immerfion, he 
 is conftrained to acknowledge, that * BsnPiu is never ufed in the Sfp- 
 tuagint for the rPte ofwafiiing a perfon's w^o/V body :' But, on the 
 contrary, is fometimes ufed for wetting the body h'j fprinkling ; as in 
 pan. 4. 33. and chap. 5. i\. where Ncbuchaeine^:car\ body is faid to 
 be ivtt 'With the de^w of bewvtn. Ndw he fays, * We all know, that a 
 
 * pcrfon is wet with dew, not by immerfion into it, but by its di.'HIla- 
 ' tion in gentle drops ; wc are fprinkled with it.' And i( BaTrju is 
 jrever ufed for plunging the whole body, but fometimes for fprinkling 
 it, probably Bfii7r1i^w, * its offipring,' is generally ufed in the fame 
 fenfe. Accordingly this author concedes that * the word BccttJi^w, h 
 
 * never hut ones ufed, in thofe very numerous places of the Old Tefta- 
 ' ment, where bi^^king the pcrfon is commanded.* The one inftance 
 he mentions is in 2 King. 5. 14. where Naaman is faid to have dipped 
 (or baptized) himfelf/S'ven times in Jordan, for the cure of his leprofy. 
 But this 6ne inllance, at beft, is but a doubtful one ; for the law pre- 
 scribed that the leper fhould he fprinkled fcven times for his clpanfmg, 
 Ths Prophet fays, nv!jjh fe'vcn times and thou Jl^ alt h( clean. If the 
 Prophet had any refpsfl to the law, as it feems he had, by his enjoin- 
 ing him to wa(h_/fv^^ times, then by ivafiing he mci'-^ni/prir.kliKg ; fj 
 that this example will by no means prove, that the word Bjs^'Ii^w^ 
 {ignites to plunge. We have tlicn »<? inOancc of B:J:7rKxi^ and but one 
 (and that a very doubtful irJancc) of E^.Trlt^co, uled in all the Old 
 Teftament for immerfion or bathing the body : But fome inftances of 
 tl? former's being ufed for fprinkling. Thus the matter Hands ac- 
 cording to the conceffions of this writct. 
 
 Let us nqw confult the New Teftamcnt. There we fhall find clear 
 ^nd dircdcvidencs, that the word Ba7r1i^<^, ugnifies \o piur or j'frin- 
 
 le. 
 
 It is faid, in the beginning of the yth chap, of Mark, That tie 
 Fhari/ees, ivhen they fiviv fome of t he di/ci pies ent bread ttsitb def lid (ibaf 
 is to fay, K'fnh unwajhen) hands, found fauh ; fur the Pharifecs and all 
 the Jezvs, e^to'pt tf/ey wafh their hand? «//. *tf/ ''<?/• y^rd ivhen tley 
 come f-om the market, except they wa(h, {}^'\ ^^^ paTrV^owvlaj, tx- 
 
 €epi ihey are l.sptized J ih'y tat not* What in ifce lurmer clank, ij 
 
 '' ■ ..... ^^^^^^ 
 
C « ] 
 
 •illcd 'U30jh'ni the bantis, is here called hting hgpiiztd. The ufual 
 Bianncr of walhlng hancii among the y^i*-'-'. we learn from 2 Kings 3. 
 
 I I. where it is faii, EHjha poured leater on the hards cf Elijah. Here 
 then you ffe. perfons arc (aid to be baptized^ when only a part of the 
 hody is wafhed by xht pouring on cf water. It is added, Many other 
 thin^i there are, nxhuh they have received to hold, as the iL-aJhingt 
 ((3aTl»(r,wou>, baptifms) cf brazen ifjfels and fables, or beds, i. e. the 
 tratson which they ufcd to recline at meals, which were fo large, that 
 ihey could not be warticd only by pouring water on thera. 
 
 Itiifaid, Luk. 11. 37- A certain Pharifee ajhedji/us to dine luith 
 him. And he ivtnt in and fat dc-jjn to meat. And rjihen the Phari/ee 
 fa'-jj it, he mar-uelledt that he had not Jirjl <wajhed bifcre dinner : Not 
 wafhed his 'vchtle body, but only his hands, accorcTing to the Jeivip 
 cuftom mentioned in the before cited palTige in Mark. And this is 
 cxprcll'cd by the lame word, frhich is ulVd \ot baptizing. He marvel- 
 ltd that he had not been baptized £ca7rIiT9)i, before dinr.er. 
 
 The Jews, by divine appointment, obferved divers kinds of purifi- 
 cations, iLe greater part of which vttrc fprinklmgs. And thcl'e are 
 cxprefsly called baptifms. The Apodle, in the Qih chap: 10 Heb. lorh 
 vcrj>, (peaking of the Jc^'ifij ritual, fays. It flood only in meats and 
 drinks and divers luajhifigs. (^loc^opoig (3a7r1i(r//0K, divers ba/- 
 ttj'ns ) i>y ibcfe divers baptifms, he plainly means the various cere- 
 monies cfy/Tz/ri-//;;^ ; for lb he explains ihcm in the fj'lowing v-rfes. 
 Titf blood of bulls and of goats, and the ajhes of an heifer fprinkiing the 
 uncUan,fanSlif^th to tin purifying of the fejh. Mofes took the blood of 
 rnlves and gcafs ^JL'ith r^a'tr-^ind fpriokled the book and ail the people. 
 JJ^ ipnnii\c\^ ld-eiv'ji( vjifh blood both the tabernacle and all the vrffils of 
 ihemintjUy. And a'.'ncf .ill tlu»gs are, by tie lanv, purged iv^th blood, 
 j. e. wiih the /j.rinkli/'g of blood. Now as the Apollle fpeaks cf di- 
 vers hupirjms, and then immediately il'.uilrates them by divers Jprink- 
 liift, and tr.eniions no other purifications, but fprinklings, as inllanc- 
 c» of ihrO divprs baptifms, it ii evident, that, if the facred writer un- 
 (Jeidotxl Crerk, fprinkiing is brtpiifm. 
 
 And finit the word, whcrev* r it is ufed in fcripture for anything 
 heftdr* the chrillian ordinance, p-ainl, fignifies pouring or fprinkiing, 
 except in «hc z/'/^/*' inftance cf .V/»jmaa's dipping himfclf in Jordan, 
 %hi<h at moll i» p vc-y d)ubi(ul cne, we muU naiura ly fupp.'(c. it is 
 •»>«! ia the faqBe fcnfc, when it is applied 10 the chrillian ordinance. 
 Thi» conciotioii way huve the more wei/rht, becanfc it is deduced from 
 
 II t crcriljon) of a criiical writer no the other lide of the queftion. 
 Tl'cr.' i> anotUcr Greek word. Ayjy, fuppol'ed to be fomciimes ufed 
 
 f f S....M n . .,« ,v ich ihc guvnor ol the Itctcrs lays mjrc weight ; for, 
 
 ' This 
 
[ 7 ] 
 
 '» This, he tells us is almoft the conflant word of the Septuagintt JQ 
 • ihofe very numerous places where bathing, cr walhing ihe -whole body^ 
 ' is commandedr' 
 
 This word is indeed frcquenily ufed for walhing the body ; fomctimes 
 for walhing ihe *whole body ; And if this were the conllant and onLj 
 word for baptifm in the New Tcilament, here would be a plaufible 
 argument for wafhing the whole body in baptifm. — But it fhould be 
 obferved, that this word is very feldom, if ever ufed for baptifm. The 
 author of the letters has cited ^hoMi Jlxty paffages in the New Ttfla- 
 menr, as fpeakingof baptifm : Among all thefc, there are but four 
 where this word is ufed. It is not certali;i,^hat baptifm is the thing; 
 Sntcnded in theft : But if it ij, yet no argument can be drawn from 
 them in favour of immerilon ; but perhaps the contrary. Let us confii* 
 cr them. 
 
 One is in Heb. lO. 23. Let us ^ra^zo near^ hai'in^ our body fjjajh- 
 ed, (^XriXovfxBuoi <rwjwa, being waftied in the body) nvith pure I'.'a* 
 ter. Now a perfon is walhed in his body, though water be poured 
 only on a part of it. Thus when the woman poured ointment on Chrid'i 
 head, (he is faid to have anointed his ^<7^. And this walhing is, in 
 the preceding claufe, cxpreKed by J'pri filling. Ha'ving our hearts ipnnk,-' 
 led /rem an evil confcience, and our body walhed luith pure ivater. 
 
 Another paflage is in Titus 3.5. He hath faved us {^ioc AcJJpsi) 
 by the ^wafhing of regeneration ^ and reneiving of the Holy Ghofy nuhich 
 he hath Jhed, or poured <?« us. — Now if baptifm is here intended by 
 the "juajhing of regenerationy this text affords a plain argument for 
 affufion or pouring in baptifm : For this wafhing denotes the rene-xing 
 tfthe holy Ghojf, which is poured on us ; and therefore, that there may 
 be fomc refemblance between the fign and the thing fignified, bap- 
 tifm Ihould be performed hy pouring. The p]nr&(e of the peurirg cf 
 thefpirit is an allufion to the pouring of ivater in baptifm. 
 
 A third paflage is in Eph. 5. 26. That be might fanQify it (the 
 church) ha'ving clean fed it 'with the luafjing of luater by the r.vord. Now 
 af baptifm be here intended by ivajhing, then the church is faid to be 
 fanftified and cleanfed by the baptifmal wafhing : But how this waAi- 
 ing is performed, whether by fprinkling or plunging, is Hill the quef- 
 tion. The Apoftle fays,* SprinkUng-^fanSifeth to the purifying of the 
 fiep. If then we will allow the Apoftle to interpret his own phrafef, 
 it \% fprinkling that fanftifies and cleanfes the flcfh, and confequentiv 
 is the nuajhing intended, when the church is faid to be famSlifed and 
 cleanfed by the njoafhing of nuater. In the 51ft Pfal. 2d stt{t, the 
 Pfalmiil praySf Wajh me thoroughly from mine iniquity and cleanft mrfron 
 
 r.n. 
 
 • Hcb. ,. ,j. 
 
[ 8 ] 
 
 jf«. He adis vir. 7. P^r^e me, (in the Qm\ It \% fprinkU mej ttfj 
 IJhuU h clear/tJ. What in ihc 2d ver. is called 'v^ajbiiig thoroughly, i« 
 in ihc jih ver. ^^\\t^ fpr inkling ; and the Uitcr is faid to cleamft, a« 
 |veUa» ihc forracr. The other paiTage is io 1 Cor. 6. 11. .ffx// ^# 
 mrfji-hj/ed, hut ye are jancijied, &c. This is Co nearly parallel to the 
 formci-, that ihc lame remarks arc applicable to both, and ikcrcforp 
 ■othing furihcr needs to be added. — It appears, I thirk, that the word, 
 •khich our auihor chieily depends on 10 prove immcrfion entirely fail* 
 him, and finally determines in favoiir of a^ufion. 
 
 'J'hii now is the reCult of our enquiry. The word Bctyj*^w, is ti4 
 emct and perhaps ng^jtr ul'cd in all the Old TeQanent, where bath- 
 ing the body is commanded. It is often ufed, in the New Teftament^ 
 for fprixk'.irg or pourivg. This is the ujualt if not the o/ily word for bap* 
 lilm. It is ufcJ, to be furc, in ne.ir fixty pifTiges. The word, Aouw, 
 is fomclimes uftd for bathing the body, but nevar ctrtainly uCed -for 
 baptirm : There arc but four palFagcs, where it is pretended to be fo 
 utcd ; .And even here it is plainly fynonymous w'wh pouri/ig or fpr ink* 
 Hug, 
 
 It is indeed very remarkable, that the writers of the New TcHa- 
 tncnt, when they fpeak of the chriftian ordinance cf baptifm , have gen- 
 erally (if not aiwa>5) avoided that word, which in the Septuag:at is 
 ufed for bathinf^ the body ; and chofcn a word of a more general fig- 
 nihcaiion ; and if ibey have ever ufed the former, they have joinr^ 
 %vith \t Jprinkiiiig or ^ouring^ as if it were on pcrpofe to teach us, that 
 |,Iunging the v.hole body is a ceremony not required under the goi(- 
 
 Jl. I apprehend we may obtain fomc f-itisfad on in the point be* 
 lore us, if we attend to thofe paflages of fcupture, in which the ufes of 
 baptifm are manifclliy alluded to. 
 
 I. One ufe of it is to reprefcnt the fanftifyinginfiuer.ee of the 
 fpiric. Chriftians are faid to be hern cf lAsaur and of tie Spirit ; and 
 to be favcd hj the *-jufljhir.g cf rtgenfratim ci:d re/:etving of tbt ho^ 
 Chfjf. Pettr fays to the convi^'led Je-a^s, Be loptixea and yi Jhall rtteiie 
 the gift of tbt holy Ghcfi.* The influence o^ the Spirit rrprcfcnted in 
 baptifm, is ofien expreffcd by pouring ^'cx^ fprinkU ng ; as in the b©* 
 fore cited ps^iTages to Tttus, and to ihc Hihreivs. — The rer.e*ujing of the 
 holyCUji t 'whici? he huth ponitd en us. — Halving the heart fprink'e^ 
 fiom an eutl tonfittt(e» Tnii pouring tut of the Spirit is called, be* 
 if»g bapti;.ed with it. 1 hat promife, ?V /t-. // he hfiptized nvitb tht ho- 
 Jj Gheji, is fftid lo h«vc been fulhlled when ChtiSi /bed or p0ut*d fktth 
 the Spirit, t f. .Bapnfai 
 
 '• * ^ ^ I Aa. T. 5. auc! di, I. 33. 
 
t 9 3 
 
 2. Baptifm-rcprcfents the forglvenefs of iiai. Hence thefc direc- 
 tions. Be bapti%ed^-for the remijjion of fins, -^Be baptized and rjvap 
 aiuay thy fins.* Our fins are wafncd away in Chrift's blood. The 
 blood ofCbrifi cleanfiih from all fin. He hath ivajhtd us from our fin s in 
 his oivn b/oed.f And this application of Chrift's blood is exprtifed by 
 ffrinkling. Yf are cGme-^to Jefus the mediator of the new covenant and 
 to the ^y^o^^/* fpr inkling. Eledi according to iheforeknonxjledge of Gcd^ 
 through fanSificatiou ofthefpirii »«/«— fprinkling cf the blood of Chrifi J 
 
 3. Baptiffii with clean water may denote ihtfimplicitj^ixkit Goipcl 
 difpenfationi 
 
 The writer of the letters fays, ' There does not appear, in all the 
 
 * five books oi Mofes, any rice of fprinkling ««tf(?r water, but it was wa- 
 
 * ter mixed with blood, afhes, &c.* The Mojaic inlliiuiion was of a 
 thixed nature : It confifted both of tnoral and ceremonial prccepu. And 
 the rices of purification were of a piece with the difpeniation itfeif ; 
 for they were performed by water mixed wich other ingredients. But 
 
 .the Gofpel difpenfation is pure and fimple, charged with few external 
 rites, and thefe plain and cafy. Thus, Ezek. 36. 25. God, fore- 
 telling the happinefs of , his people in the Go.pel times, fays, Tbeii 
 *will I fprinkle clean <water upon you and ye pall be clean. * This ex- 
 preiTion,' fays the author before mentioned, ' alludes to feme watry 
 purification in the law of Mofes. ^ But he fays, * There was no cere- 
 mony of unmixed water.* He thinks, *it alludes to the water of fcp- 
 aration.' And yec he fays, * This was a compofition of various ingre- 
 dients.' 
 
 The meaning of the pr.iTage then muft be this. In the latter timei 
 I will give you Si pure and fpintual di{pen(&lioti, not burdened with 
 foch rites and ccren-ionies as the prefent. The fimple nature and fplr- 
 itual defign of i: ^hall be reprefented by the great rite cf initiation; 
 which ihail be the fprinkling of pure water, and not the application of 
 fuch mixtdcompofitions as are new in ufe^ 
 
 Obferve here : Sprinkling is faid to cleanfe the perfon. / 'will (pt'ia- 
 kle clean water upon yoti and ye fi:all be clean, and from all your fiUhi* 
 fiefs <will /cleanfe you. So walhing Peter's feet only, was wudiing 
 him. Peter fays, Ihou fiyalt ne^ver ivafi? my feet. Jefus replies. If 
 Inuafi? thee noty thou hafi no part in me. When he moved, that hia 
 bands and headm\^\. be wafhed too, Chrift anfwcred, Heihut is nuafi- 
 
 edneed not fai;e towajh his feet, but is clean every whit.§ 
 
 It 
 
 • A£l. z. 38. and Chap. 22. 16. f i Joh. 1. 7- an^ Rev. 1. >. 
 
 X Heb. xa. 34. i P«t. |. ». § John xj. 8, 9> ^°' 
 
 B 
 
i; 10 ] 
 
 Ti hai been faid, ' A minifter may as wc!I wafh the hands o^ fejf, 
 
 * as fprinklc ihe face ofa pcrfon, in the nartic of the Trinity, and call 
 
 * it baptlfm.* I am far from afiTerting, that the validity of bapiifal 
 Jependi upon the part to which the water is applied. There is, ho.v- 
 ever^ an obvious propriety in applying it to the hea.i. This is the 
 trincif'al part cf the body. It is the part which is nfually unccrjerti ; 
 and the water doubtlcfs ftlould be applied to the pirfcn^ rather than to 
 his ck'Jxs. The ceremony oi beneJidion was performed by laying tht 
 hands on the head. Undion was performed by pour'nig oil on the head^ 
 Vihich w«s called anointing the body. The Holy Ghoft was communi- 
 cated by the impcfitlon of the Apoftles hands : And they who had the 
 Spirit communicated to them, were faid to be baptiz.e^ with it ; which 
 mikes it highly probable that baplifm, the token of this coramunica- 
 ticn, was performed by putting water on \\it heads of the perfons bap- 
 tized. Accordingly, the Apollle to ihc Hcbrc'us fpczki of the do^Tn'ng 
 c/ haptijms and laying on of hands. * 
 
 4. The Apoftle, in i Cor. 10. (peaking of the Jeius who came 
 out of ^gypt* fay* ^^^y '^^'^^^ ^^^ baptized unto Mofcs in the cloud 
 and in the fea. The Apollle here undoubtedly alludes to chriil- 
 ian baptifm, and therefore we may fappofc there was fome rc- 
 femhlance between baptifm unto Chriji, and that ancient baptifm sin- 
 to ^!o/'gs. — Now how were tncy baptized in thedouj and fea ? Surely 
 not by being plunged all over in water ; for they uy7/ over dry Jhod ; but 
 only by being//ir//;/f/V^with fome fprays of the fea, and drops from the 
 cloud. This appears to me the mod natural fenfe of the expreflion. 
 The author of the letters indeed ridicules fuch an interpretation, and 
 fays, * Here is an allufion to the cuftom oi immtrfsont the Ifraelitis be- 
 
 * ing covered by the cloud sv^r, and by the water on each fide of them.* 
 But I think he has not mended the matter ; for though the waters fur- 
 rounded them, yet (as he would have it underftood) not even a fpray 
 touched them, nor a drop fell on them ; for then they would have been 
 
 fprinkled. It was a ^ry baptifm : A b-aptifm without water. Jonah 
 might as well hav« been faid, to be baptized in allufion to immtrfisn, 
 when he went down into the fides of the Ihip, and there lay, while a 
 a ftorm hung ever him. 
 
 9. Baptism fignifies our obligation to rencuncciCn and put on the 
 charidterof ChrilK 
 
 The Apollle fayi, Rom. 6. 4. IFe an buried nvitb Cbrifi by baptifm 
 W.I9 h:s death. And Col. 2. 12. Buried niith him in baptifm. The 
 plain meaning is ; by baptifm we arc bound to die to fin, and walk in 
 ■cwnefs of life, in conformity to the dca;h and rcfurre^ion of Chrift. 
 
 Our 
 • Chap. 6, >. 
 
[ 1= J 
 
 Our brethren imagine, thefc two pafTagss afford a (Ironw argumftni 
 for immerfion. They tell v.s, ' The phrafe of being lun'e^ iviih Chrijl. 
 in haptifm, allodes tp the manner of baptifm, which was a burial in the 
 water; for i|" (here, were nothing like a burial, the phrafe would b«r 
 very improper*^*. Butas^wcll mi^ht they fay, * The mode 0/ baptifni 
 mu:l refemblerhis crucifixion ; for in the fanoe paffage the Apoftic fays, 
 II e are baptised ipqhis death, planted tcgether iu the lilcenefs of hit 
 death'^ouroldman.i^t cruci)6ed w//^ him. Uut I am wiFling their ar. 
 gument (hould have its full weight ; for if they think ir.vierfion cz^x 
 be proved from thefe tv^o pafiages, where our conformity to Chrift i$ 
 exprefled by our being buried with him in bapti/m, they mult, if they 
 will be confident wich themfelves, allow th:it /pr in. Uing can be more 
 cjezrly proved from thofe ««;z:fr^«; paffagcs, where our juftificatiort 
 through ChriU's blood is expreffed by ihe/pr inkling 0/ his blood ; and 
 
 our fanftification is exprefled by the Jpritpkling of clean ivater by the 
 
 hearths being fprinkled — by \\it fpirit'' s being poured on us, kc. The 
 conclufion then from this argument will be, that both modes were ad- 
 mitted by the Apoftles — both are valid and agreeable to the inftitu- 
 tion. Let us no longer contend. This argument bids fo fair to rec- 
 cncile our brethren to our practice, that I could willingly leave them 
 in full poffeiTjon of it,r— I wi(h it good fuccefs.— But if it be attended 
 to, I am afraid, it will appear to have little weight. 
 
 How was Chrift buried ? Not as the dead are ufually buried among 
 us, but as rich men were among the Jews^ in an apartment cut out in 
 a fide of a rock. Such tombs were csLl.Gd/epuhhref on kigh ;• becaqfe 
 they were made above ground. Lazarus's grave was of this fort ; 
 and he was laid in it in fuch a pofirion, that, upon his revival, he cam* 
 forth, wW\\t\\ew2iS bound hand and foot ; but he could not ^.valkt till 
 he was loofcd. * Loofe him and let him go.'f Plunging then no 
 more refembles Chrift's entombment than fprinkling does. If there 
 were any circumftances in his burial, which baptlfm can refemblc, ic 
 muft ht hh embalmment. It is faid, Nicodcmus brought ci mixture cf 
 myrrh and aloes, andivound the body ofjefusinlinen do! bet luiih the/pices^ 
 as the manner cf the Jexvs istolury.l And afier this, the luomen pre- 
 pared/pices and ein/ments and came to anoint his body. The expreflioa 
 of being buried ivith Chriji in baptifn^ may allude to his body's being 
 anointed with aromatic ointments at the time of his burial ; and this 
 was done by pouring and rubbing them on the body. Accordingly 
 when the woman /o^r^^ the precious ointment on Chrift's head. He 
 fays. In that Jhe poured it on m^ body, Jhe did it to my burial. She is 
 come to anoint my body to the burying.^ Obferve ; her pouring it only 
 
 on 
 < Ifi. 22. 16. t joh. II. 4^. \ Joh. 19. 4-0. § Mat. 26. 7. 
 
[ I* ] 
 
 PD 111! heaJf he ca!!s pouring it on his body ; is on another occafion, a 
 woman's dropping her tears on his feet, he calls ivajhing his feet ; ajid 
 ivafliing Pcicr's/<r// was wafhing him. Now in allufion to this manner of 
 anointing, chrillians are faid, to be anointed nxith the Spirit ^ 2.n^ to have 
 an ufulion Jrom the Holy OnCt ivhich teacheth them of all thing:. ^ What 
 ii clfewhere called \\\t ponring of the fpirit on them ; and being hapiix- 
 /^wich the (pirit ; is here exprcflfcd by the anointing of the fpirit, in 
 aliunon to the manner of anointing \>yf pouring o\\ on the head. 
 
 III. It is time that we proceed to enquire, in what manner baptifca 
 f^as acminidcred in the times ofour Saviour and his Apoftles. 
 
 Our brethren, and particularly the gentleman before mentioned, 
 think it \txy manifeft, that imjaerfion was the mode praftifed in ihofe 
 times, bccaufe the perfons baptized are* in one or two inftanccs, faid 
 to go into, and ccme out cf the water ; becaufe feme were baptized m 
 a river ; And becaufe places abounding with water were chofen for bap- 
 tizing. 
 
 Bui Ift us not be carried away by the mccr found of words without 
 examining their fenfe. 
 
 It is fai'i. Mat. 3. i6. Je/us being hapti'x.ed came up o\itof the <water. 
 The G.cek phrafe TaTro xjaxTogJ properly fignities, from the 'water ; 
 and therefore implies no more than that he wen: down to it ; which 
 he might properly be faid to do in whatever mode he was baptized. 
 And as all natural colleflions cf water arc in low places, fo the mo- 
 tions to and /rem them, mud be dejcending and afcending^ which is 
 fufiicient to account for the expreflion. He rxiettt up from the 'water. 
 
 As. Chrift was without fin, his baptifm could not be in token of re. 
 pcntance and forgivenefs ; and, as he came to John after all the peo- 
 j)le were baptized, it could not be for an cx3inple of baptifm to them : 
 but it was evidently his public confecration to the miniftry, on which 
 he was now entering. He chofe this ceremony of confecration, in 
 conformity to the law of God, which had inlHtuted a fimilar form for 
 the feparationcf the high prieft to his office. And therefore he fays, 
 ^lut it becjmeth vs tofulfl all righteoufn^s. 
 
 The pricfts under the law, were to enter on the public fcrvice of 
 God at the age of thirty years ; Chrid, tuivn he began to he about thirty 
 start ef age^ was baptized. They were confccrated to their office by 
 .K.ofi3ing ivith 'water, and by anointing ivith oil : He was publicly in- 
 augurated into his miniflry, by baptifm and the uftciicn cf the Holy 
 Ghofi. God fays to Molci ; Aaron and his fans Jkalt thou bring to tbc 
 door of the tabernacU, and ftialt ivajh them ivith avater ; — and thou fhalt 
 four the anointing oil en his head. Tijau Jhali make a la'ver of brafs and 
 put "ojattr thtrtin \ for jlaron and his fans fall nvuf'y thiir hands and 
 
 their 
 • X Cor. I. 21. ir.d 1 ^•:Y.. 1. 1-. 5-. 
 
t ^3 I 
 
 their feet therein. And Mofes brought Aaron and his fons and *wa/h^ 
 td them <with 'water, and he poured the anointing oil on Aaron" i head^ and 
 anointed him tojan^iify him,^ 
 
 The priefts were wafhed, not by the immcrfion of their bodies into 
 2 fountain, but by the application of water to their hands a.n6/eet from 
 a laver ; they were anointed by oil poured on their heads ; thus they 
 were publicly inflated in their office. Chrift was baptized at Jordan ; 
 after his baptifoj he was anointed with the Holy Ghoft, which vifibl/ 
 defcended upon him ; and then he was declared from heaven to be the 
 Son of God, and the people were commanded to hear him. Alluding 
 to the manner, in which the priefts were confecrated, the prophet, in 
 the pcrfon of Chrift, fays, The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, becauje he 
 hath ZTidXTiitd me to preach the go/pel. f Peter, ("peaking of the word 
 which God fent to Ifrael by Chrift, fays. That ivordye knonu, ivhich 
 legan from Galilee, after the baptifm ^^hich John preached, hoiv God 
 anointed Jfefus of Nazareth luith the Holy GhoJ}, and ^juith pciver. 
 
 Now as in the account given by the Evangelilis concerning Chrift's 
 baptifm there is nothing which neceffarily imports an immerfion ; as 
 his baptifm was in compliance with the inftituted ufage of confecrai- 
 sng the ancient priefts ; and as there is no mention of their total im- 
 merfion, but cxprefs mention of their partial wafhing ; we may, with 
 great probability, conclude, that his bu.piifm was by the application 
 of water to a /^zr/ of his body. 
 
 But though he had been waftied by immerfion, this would no oiher* 
 wife be an argument for immerfion now, than as an inftance of the ufc 
 of the word baptize, becaufe his baptifm was a dii^eren': thing from 
 that which he afterwards inftituted. And as it appears highly proba- 
 ^blc, that his baptifm was z partial waiting, it was an example in fa- 
 vor of our opinion, that baptifm does not fignify a total immerfion ; but 
 jnay properly be performed by pouring or fprinkling water on a part 
 pf th^ body. 
 
 Again, Adl. 8. 38. They (Philip and the Eunuch) ivent dozvn loth 
 into the ^juater, and he baptized him, and they came up cut of the ivater. 
 This paflTage is thought to favor immerfion : But it no more prove* 
 that the Eunuch was centered with water, than that Philip was ; fur 
 one is faid to go into the wa er, as much as the other. They 
 nsight be faid to go into the water, if they only ftept into the edge of 
 it. The words do not neceiTarily imply even {o much a? that ', for the 
 particles rendered into and out of, very often fignify no more than to 
 2,n^from ; as where Chrill bids Peter, go to the fea and caji his hock — 
 
 and 
 ♦ Exod. 29. 4, &:. Clup. 30. 15, &c. Lc7. 8. 6, }z. 
 t l\\\\. 61. X, 
 
r '4 T 
 
 and where the J^;//» of the South is faid to comg from t^^ utmofi parts of 
 the (urtb. Now no man fuppofcs, that Pcier plunged \i\m{z\i into \\\^ 
 ' fra ; or that the Qjccn of the South crept ouryViJTx wiicr ground ; 
 and yet the Greelc particles here rendered to unAfiom are the fame, 
 f^hich in the cafe of the Eunuch are rendered /;/ro and out cf. All there- 
 fore than we can conclude from this pafTage is, that they went dowa 
 frora the chariot to the water, there Philip baptized him, and ihea 
 they returned : But in what manner he baptized him, we can no more 
 Jearn from this padage, than from any other in the bible. But if the 
 recounts cf aocient and modern writers are true, he could baptize 
 him only by fc-jring or /prickling water on him ; for they fay, that in 
 the place here mentioned, nothing more than a fmall fpring can be 
 found. 
 
 It is faid, Mark i. 5. They were baptized of John ir: the river of 
 Jordan. Hence fome have concluded tliat they were plunged in th» 
 river. But this is ay<j;w^ concluf>on. Chrift fays to the blind man, 
 whofe eyes he had anointed with clay, Co rvajh in the pool of Siloam* 
 Here the phrafe of walliing in the podt intends no more than waOiing 
 h'5 eyes with the water of the pool. And with equal propriety John*s 
 hearers may be faid to be baptized in Jordan fif only feme of the 
 ua'er of the river was foured on thc\r facer. 
 
 We read John 3. 23. that John hapiized in Encn hecaufe thire nvas 
 rtuch iL'jier there. It is aflcfd, * Why fhoald he chufe a place abound- 
 jog with water to baptize in, if he did not baptize by immerfion ?* 
 J aoCwer, Tnefe words ^TO>J>.a iSxrxJ rendered mu:h ivaier, properlj 
 fignify many I'.aters, and may be underllood of various /ivoleis cr 
 fpring?, which, travellers fay, are the only waters there to bo found, 
 and no: any large coIle(flior»6 convenient fjr immerfion. If jJjn 
 baptized only hy'fij'afon, a confiderab'e quantity of water would be 
 recefTury to baptize fuch multitudes, as went out to him from J^ifu- 
 fj»m, and all Judta, and all the region rou-id about J ordan. Yea, 
 ihocgh ever {^ few of them had been baptized, there was good «:afon 
 «<^hy he fhould chufe a place to preach in, that was well fupplied with 
 water ; for the muliitudcs that attended on his preaching, in the wif- 
 c^«rnifj, at a diftance from their homes, would need much water for 
 iheir refrefhment. It is by no means fuppofcable, thatyi/rii» numbers 
 ccu'.d. here in the dcfart, be provided with change of apparel proper 
 for imn\ernon ; and forely, in fuch a r.umercu^ and m.xcd afTcmbly, 
 ihry m,rre not bapiizrd naked. The circumllances of the cafe there- 
 fore leadu* 10 fuppofc, they were baptized by dfufean. 
 
 Wc 
 
I ^5 ] 
 
 We read, AEi. 2. Of three thu/anJbzptiied, i^ only part tf a Jayg 
 iat the feali of pentecoft. It cannot rationally be thought, that /i6^ 
 were plunged. There does not feem to have been time for it ; nor is 
 it likely they had change of raiment, as they came to the feaft wich* 
 out any expeftation of fuch an qccafion ; nor is it probable, they could 
 be accommodated there with any convenient place for immerfion. If 
 there were baths fufficient for the purpofe in the temple, yet it is very 
 incredible, that the priefts and officers of the temple fhould be ivilling 
 to accommodate the Apoilles with ihern, in order to initiate thefo 
 converts into a religion, which they were endeavoring by all means to 
 fcpprcfs. 
 
 When we read of whole families baptized in their houfes, particular- 
 ly of the Jaylor and his iamily baptized at heme, and at midnight 
 too, in the fame hour in which he believed, we cannot think, that a 
 fulficiency of water, and other conveniences for a decent immerfion, 
 could be procured on fo fudden an occafion. 
 
 When Cornelius and his friends received the gofpcl, Peter aflcs, not 
 whether any man could hinder them from going to a fountain or river ; 
 hut IV l)ei I er a/iy ma» could forbid ^jjater, i. e. hinder water from being 
 provided, that ihey Jhould not be baptized ?* 
 
 Paul feems to have been baptized in the houfe ol 'Judas. There 
 Ananias found him, delivered his mefTage to him, and laid his hand! 
 dri him ; And he recei'ved fight forthnjuith and arofe and njoas baptized, f 
 
 It is w6rthy to be remarked, that thfiugh we read of baptifras in va* 
 Hous places, yet We haVe no account of any perfon^s going from the 
 place where he was, in order to be baptized in a fountain or nw. 
 er. They who were baptized in Hreams and natural collcdions of 
 water, are fuch as were found abroad, cither in the wildernels, or on 
 the road, when they firft difcovered their delire to be baptized. 
 
 IV. It now remains, that we confidcr, what was the ufageof the 
 primitive Church, upon which our brethren lay great weight in this 
 controverfy. 
 
 The author of the letters fays, * The whole chriftian church, fo*- 
 ' 1300 years fuccellively from the time of the Apoilles, undertlood 
 • by baptifm, immerficn, and fo praflifed ; Sprinkling" being only per" 
 ' mitted on extraordinary occaf.ons.^ This argument*he often repeats, 
 and depends much upon, as do moft-of the advocates for immerfion ; 
 for they reckon, that the early pradlice of the Church in this matter 
 may (hew, what was the pradice of the Apoftles, becaufe it is not like- 
 ly, the apoftoHc praclice would be early and generally departed frcra. 
 
 The 
 
 • Aa. 10. 4-. t Aa. 9. is- 
 
C i5 ] 
 
 The truth is, The manocr of baptizing among the ancients was 
 Jookcd upoQ circumftantial, and no way effential to the validity of the 
 ordinance. Jn the times near the Apoftles, immerfion was much prac- 
 ticed, but never afTcrtcd to be neceflary : Far from this ; fnrinkling 
 was exprefsly allowed, and frequently ufed, cfpccialiy in cafes of in- 
 firmity, hafte, or want of water or other conveniences. This the Au- 
 thor himfelf concedes, that from the Apoftles times for 1300 years, 
 * fprinkling was permitted on extraordinary occafions.' Cyprian, 
 (who wrote within about 1 50 years of the Apoftles) fpeaking of fprinlc- 
 iJng, f^ys* * ^^ the facrament of falvation (i.e. baptifm) when necefli- 
 ty compels, the Jhortcji ways of tranfadling divine matters, do, bjT 
 God's grace, confer the whole benefit.' And it may not be imperti- 
 nent to obferve, that the ancients, who pradlifed immerfion, did ufu» 
 ally, after the body had been plunged, apply water to the face. So 
 far therefore as the piailice of the ancients is of weight, it proves all 
 that we contend for. V/e don't fay, immerfion is unlawful, or a meer 
 nullity : Wc fay, it is not ncccffary, but afFufion is fufficient and 
 agreeable to the divine word. And fo faid the ancient church. 
 
 I hope what has been offered i? fufficient to juftify the mode ofbaptifni 
 admitted incur churches, and tofatisfy all who have received baptifm 
 in this mode that they have no need to feek immerfion. The quef- 
 tion concerning the mode is really of fmall importance in itfelf, and 
 nothing but the controverfy about it has made it othcrwife. If our 
 baptifm is treated as a nullity it is of importance to fatisfy our 
 minds: And if any have beea thrown into doubts, I hope, the coft* 
 fideraiion of what has been faid, will give them fatisfadlion. 
 
 PART 
 
i ^7 1 
 
 PART II. 
 
 DISCOURSE II. 
 
 I COME now to the fecond part of my defigo, which is {o vindicate 
 the right of Infants to Eapcifm. 
 
 The mechod in which 1 (hall proceed is as follows. I (hall firfl 
 confider the ulual objcdions againfl infant- baptirtn. — Next produce 
 our arguments in vindication of it. — Then briefly touch upon iho 
 reafonablenefs and ufefulnefs of it. — After which I (hall give a fhort 
 view of the praflice of ths church foon after the Apoftles. — And thea 
 by way of conclufion ftiall (hew the aSl'ardity of feparacious in churches 
 en account of differences rcfpefting baptifm. — The unwarrantable- 
 aefs of rebaptiaation, &c. 
 
 I. I will dillinftly confider all the material objeflioos of our brcth- 
 ten agai^ft infant baptifm, as 1 colled them from their writers, and 
 {>articularly from the author of the letters before mentioned. 
 
 I. It is faidj * Chrift ha,s fully and plainly declared his mind about 
 ^ baptifm and becaufe he has not commandtd the baptifm of infants, h« 
 * has virtually/or^/V-^c'^ it.* 
 
 Now though it Ihould be allawedi that there is no exprefs command^ 
 yet if we can find a •virtual, conjeaiuntial command for it, that, 1 truft, 
 will be a fuiHcient warrant : Ocherwife what warrant fliall we have to 
 admit females tp the Lord's fuppcr \ To obfervc the firft day of the 
 week a.s holy ? To maintain public worfhip ? 'Theft and many other 
 things, are no where enjoined, in fo many words, but yet can cJearly 
 be fhewn to be agreeable to the will of God. What command have our 
 brethren to juftify their praftice ? Where is the paiTage, that tells us, 
 that baptifm mu(l be confined to the adult ; and infants, though for- 
 merly admitted to the feal cf the covenant, muft now be admitted nd 
 more .? They can find nothing of this fort. But, I truft, it will ap- 
 pear, that there is what may properly be called a command for our 
 praaice. If that pafTage in Ijaiah, Lo, I have jh th:c for a Ight to 
 the Gentiles, was a command to the ApoHles, to go fend preach to the 
 
 Q Gentiles^ 
 
C is ] 
 
 Gcniile?, as it is Tald Lo br ;• then the dircciion given io J hraham 
 our Father, to affix the token of the corenant to his infant-feed ; the 
 CommifGon given to the Apoftlcs to difciple all nauons baptizing 
 them ; and the exhortation of Peter, be kaftixed^for the promife is to 
 you and your ch.ldrtn, are commands to admit infants to baptifm ; a$ 
 we (hiJl endeavor to (hew hereafter. 
 
 2. It is objcfted, 'that in all the hiftory of the New Teftament 
 • ihcre is no ex^mpU of infant- bapti I'm ; but the bapiifms we have ail 
 ' account of, are the baptifms of profcfled believers.' 
 
 But if there is no exprefs mention of infant-baptifm, yet we cannot 
 hence conclude, it *as never pradifcd ; any more than we can con- 
 clude, that fome whole churches were formed without any baptifm at 
 all, becaufe it is no where faid, they were baptized. If a plain diref^ 
 example be infilled upon, our brethren muft certainly give up their no- 
 tion of baptifm ; for they can find no example in their favor, whatever 
 cvr can * as will be evident, if we only confider what is the queftion 
 between us. It is not, whether adult prwfclytes Ihould be baptized ? 
 But whether the infants of profeffed believers (hould be baptized ? 
 There axe, it is true, inftances enough of the baptifm of adults, who 
 had been converted from Judaifm or Pagauifm : But thefc are nothing 
 to the point ; for we allow baptifm to all adult believers, who have 
 not been baptized in infancy. And the Apoftles' baptizing fucb is 
 no argument that they did not baptize iff ants, any more than our 
 miiTionaries' baptizing adults a.mong the natives, is an argument, 
 that thiy dj not baptize infants. The queftion is meerly this ; arc 
 ftic i^ifants of baptized believers to be admitted to baptifm ? Or to be 
 rejew^cd ? If you fay,, they muft be rejected and fuffcred to grow up be- 
 fore they are baptized ; I afK, Wh'ere is your example ? Did the 
 Apoflles refufe to baptize fuch ? Or among the adults which they bap- 
 lited, do you find any that were born of chriftian parents ? The hi/lo- 
 t^ cf the Aifls contains a period of above 30 years, and the New Tef- 
 tament, a much longer period. There was time enoui^h for two or 
 three generations of infants to grow up to adult age. We have all 
 along accounts cf baptifm. Sut it is rema^Lable, that in all this 
 time, there is no intimation, that any one of the children of the 
 early bclicwrs was baptized after he grew up ; or that any one of 
 ihofe adulis whom the Apo!l!es baptized, was born of believing parent*. 
 It is plain ih-^n. there is not one example, that, in the Icall, favoura 
 the opinion of our brcthreR, whkh is this, That the children of believ- 
 ers myji be left to y^row up lrf:rt they are baptized. They afk ; * U 
 
 it 
 • Aft. 13. 4C. 
 
C '9 ] 
 
 it not allitle Urange, that we no luhere find children mentioned, if Tt 
 were the Apoftles' cuOom to babtize tham with their parents ?' And 
 I afk ; is it not very ftrange, that we no where find the children of 
 believers baptized after they grew up, if it was the Apoftlcs* cuftom 
 to leave theni unbaptized till they grew up ? There is no example 
 of this kind. But, we think, we have examples, and juft fuch exam- 
 ples in favour of our practice, as we (Iwuld have, upon fuppofitioo, 
 the ApoHJes did baptize children with their parents. 
 
 Let us fuppofe infants were baptized : And what account fhould 
 we have of it? Would the hiftory tell us, fuch au infant by name of 
 fuch an age, and fuch an one of fuch an age, was baptized? No . 
 This minutenefs could not be expeded concerning infants, who are 
 feldom known, by their names or ages, out of the families, to 
 which they belong. All we could expeft to be told is this ; fuch 
 a man was baptized and his family — fuch a woman and her houlhold. 
 And fhis we are told ; Siepkanas^s houlhold, Lydia and her houfliold, 
 the jfaylor and all his were baptized ; which are plain examples ef 
 families baptized upon the faith of their rcfpe^ive heads ; as 1 fr.all 
 fhew more f^slly hereafter. 
 
 3. It is argued, * that faiih and repentance are the conditions of 
 baptifm ; infants are not capable of thefe, and tjierefore not capable 
 ©f baptifm.* 
 
 But as well might our brethren fay. Faith and repentance are con- 
 ditions of falvation, and therefore infants, being incapable of thefe, 
 cannot be-feved. It is exprefsly faid. He that btlieveih not fimli kt 
 damneJ. It is no where faid. He that believeth not, or repentelh 
 not, Ihall not be baptized. Faith and repentance are required on 
 feveral particular occafions, when baptifm was to be adminiftcred to 
 ^dult perfons ; but we find no general rale given to exclude from bap. 
 tifm fuch as are incapable of faith and repentance. Our brethren 
 will not exclude infants from falvation, upon the authority of thofc 
 texts, which make faith the condition of it ; and, furcly, if they will 
 be confirtent with themfelves, they cannot exclude them from bapiifm, 
 upon the authority of thofe texts, which make faith the condition of 
 that ; efpecially fince thefe te^cs plainly refpe(5l adult profelytcs. 
 That7«r/^ muft profefs their faith we allow. But the apoftolic prac- 
 tice (hews, that upon their profefiion not only thfy but their houjholds 
 alfo (hould be baptized ; as under the ancient difpenfation, when a 
 Gentile became a profelyte, not ocly be himfcif, but all his male chil- 
 dren were circumciled. 
 
 The 
 
C ao ] 
 
 The inftmccs in which faith, or repentance is enjoined prevloufly 
 to baptifm, are only ^hen adult pcrfons enquired what was ncceirary 
 for thtmjdvts. 1 he quciion was not concerning the qualification for 
 bapiifm in gentral \ but what was rcquifitc in their o^jju cafe. * What 
 (hall WE do?* — 'What hinders m k to be baptized?' The Apoftles 
 anf*er ihc qucftton, as it rcfpc(^cd thofc who propofed it. Repent ye 
 and be bap :iz.ed-~lf thou belie'vejl» thou mayfl be baptized* Thcfe direc- 
 tions on»y prove, that a profeflion of faiih and repentance is neccfTary 
 to the baptifm of adults, which none deny ; but, in no degree, afFcd 
 the ri^ht of infants. 
 
 Faith was as much required under the Old Tellament in order to 
 circumcifion, as it is under the new in order to baptifm ; but ftill 
 infants were circumcifed. The gentile profelyic was not admitted 
 to this rice, till he profelTcd his faith in the God of Ifrael; neither 
 was the adult Jew. During the forty years that circumcifion was 
 intermitted in the wildcrnefs, a new generation came on the ftage, 
 Thcfe were circumcifed foon after they paflTed over Jordan.* But 
 previoufly to this, they had folemnly avouched the Lord to be their 
 God. Now brcaufc faith was a prc-rcquifite to the circumcifion of 
 adults, (hall we conclude that no infants were circumcifed? This 
 would be contrary to kno-vn fad\. But this conclufion would be as 
 jult as the other, which determines againll the baptifm of infants, be- 
 caufe a profefTion of faith was required in profelytcs. The truth is, 
 all arguments drawn from fpecia! and particular cafes, arc imperti- 
 nent to an enquiry concerning a general rule of pradice. 
 
 The author of the letters lays particular weight upon that pafiage, 
 I Pet. 3-21. The like fgure 'whereunlo, even bnpti/m, dcth nciv Jem 
 vif not the putting aivay the flth of ihe firjh, hut the anhvfr of a good 
 (orjcience to-jcards Gs'd. * lierc,* hc fays, * fucC| a condition of bap- 
 
 * tifm is reqaired, as infants arc not capable of. The filth of their 
 ' ficfh may be put away : But how fhall they anf^er the good con- 
 
 • (cience ?* But it (hould be obftrrved, that the anfwer o\ a good con- 
 fcience is made the condition of falvation : Not of baptifm. He 
 niipht therefoi^ rather havefaid, fuch a condition of falvatirn is re- 
 quired as infants arc not capable of. 7 bis is a condition of falvation 
 end baptifm too in adults, but of neither in infants, who arc not yet 
 moral agents. The Apoflle fiyf, Circumcifion is that of the heart ; 
 but furely he did not mean, that JfMt were incapable of the fleihly 
 ^i'cumcifion, until they were capable ofprofcfllng the circumcifion 
 of the heart. Baptifm, which is externally tie putting aiKJOf the flth 
 tftht fiefit fignifies car obligation to avfrxer a geed co^fdcnce toiward. 
 
 • Joih. J. 
 
C CI ] 
 
 Qcd. This obligation Immediately takes place with rcfpeft to all, 
 «vho are moral agents, and with refpefl to infants, when they become 
 fuch. Here is then no argument againji the baptifm of infants. 
 
 Let us fee if there be not a plain argament/or it. The Apoftle is 
 here fpeaking of the prefervation of Noah and his family in the flood 
 by means of the ark. The Apoftle to the Hdrezvs fays ; By faith 
 
 Noah prepared an ark to the faving of his houfe. It was by Nouh'% 
 
 faith, that his family was brought into the ark, and prefervcd in the 
 flood. The like figure 'whefHutitOy even baptifm, doth no^^Ja^oe us. Where 
 is the likenefs ? Plainly here. As Noah by faith prepared an ark, by 
 which his houfe was faved ; fo the faith of the chrifiian parent brings 
 his family within the privileges of thf covenant. Salvation came to 
 Zaccheus's houfe, in confequence of /^/j believing. Thej enjoyed fome 
 fpecial privileges on account of his faith, 
 
 4. We read. Ad. 8. 5. that ivhsn the Samaritans bslie'ved Philip, 
 jireachtJig the things concerning the kingdom efGoJ, they ivere hapti-^ed 
 hath men and nMomen. Upon this our authpr observes, * The hiftory 
 
 * is fo particular as to mention both men and ^Moment but there Hops. — 
 
 * Had the facred hiftorian been a little more explicit and faid, men, 
 
 * iMomen and children, if the fa£l were really fo ; it would have pre- 
 5 vented much doubt and controverfy.' 
 
 In anfwer to this, it is fufHcient to fay ; as the feal of the covenant 
 under former difpenfations had been affixed only to males, fo there 
 was good reaibn, why the hiftorian Should be fo particular, as to men- 
 tion both OT£;z and cc'jw^«, i. e. males and females, (for thefe terms 
 are in fcripture applied to perfons of all ages) that it might appear, 
 that the covenant-feal was, for the future, to be affixed to perfons of 
 b(3th y^AT^/. But as the feal had al^jcays been applied to children, there 
 was no occafion for his being fo explicit, as to fay, men, ^vomen and 
 ihildren, if the faft were really f ; for children's right to the cove- 
 nant-token ha4 not then been made a queftion ; and they who knew 
 the immemorial and univerfal Bfage of admitting Je'wijh in. ants by 
 prcumcifion, and the infants oi Gintile profelytes by baptifm. did not 
 nerd to be inftruaed, that infants were entitled to baptifm under the 
 .^hriilian difpenfaticn. They muft naturally foppofe ic uniefs cx- 
 prcfsly told the contrary. 
 
 5. It is urged by feme. ' that Jefus Chriil, who came tc> be our 
 
 • example, was bapii/ed at a-cult a^e, and that we ought to imitate 
 
 * him herein.' 
 
 But his example is no more an argument againft irtfatit b»pt>fm. 
 than againft all baptifm under the age of thirty years ; for this was 
 hii ^ge, rthen he yyas baptized, though he was certainly capable of 
 
 uiideiAaadiDg 
 
t C2 ] 
 
 •ndernandlng the nature of bapiifm before he vj^% ttuelvt. Do oar 
 brechren think, that all arc bound, in imitation of Chriil, to live, un- 
 bapiized, twenty years after ihcy arrive to the age of underftanding ? 
 
 The obje^lion before us is founded in the fuppofition, that the 
 bapllfm which Chrirt received, was the fame, in its nature and 
 defigD, with that wliich he hin>relf after^vards appoiraed. If it was a 
 cfifferent thing, no argument can be drawn from it in the prefenc 
 qocftioo. If it was the fame, then it at once, removes the principal 
 objcflion agaioft the baptifm of infants, taUen from their incapacity 
 for faith and repentance. For Jefus was as incapable of faich in a 
 mediator and repentance cf iin, as infants arc ; though from a difFer- 
 ent caufc. 
 
 But, as I have before fhewn, Chrift^s baptifm was hi« pui>lic in- 
 auguration into his miniftry, and therefore is impertinently adduc- 
 ed to difprovc the baptifm of infants ; when we art uCced, why 
 ChrifJ was not baptized in his infancy, it is fufficient to ar.fwer, be- 
 caufc he did not take on him his public miniilry in his infancy. To 
 argue, that becaufc Chrift was publicly confecrated to his pri^fthood 
 at the age of thirty years, therefore none fhoald be given to God by 
 baptifm in their childhood, is an inconclufjve way of reafoning. 
 
 Let it, however, be obfcrved, that, though he was not bapti'z.td In 
 infancy, yet he was dtdicaud to God, by fuch rites as were then in 
 ufc. He was circufnci/cd on the eighth day ; and on the fortieth day, 
 he was brought by his parents into the temple, and there prefenied to 
 Oiod, according to the law, which required, that every firft-born maiff 
 fliould be holy to the Lord. This example (hews, that parents oj^ht 
 'publicly to dedicate thfir children to God in his appointed way ; and, 
 fmce baptifm is now tr>e appointed ceiemony of dedication, it Ihcws, 
 tiiat they llwuld prcfcnt th*ir children to him in baptifm. • 
 
 6. The 
 
 • If it could be puoved, which ccrtainly'll never can, that Jvihn baptized 
 omly adults, yet no argument comM hence be deduced againrt the li^bt of in- 
 fanls to baptifm under the gofpel dtr|)cnfation ; for tli# baptifm which John 
 admioillcrcd, was not properly chrirtian bapiidii. 
 
 Though belorc ChrilVb time, baptilm was in uf: among the Je\vs, yet it 
 vras not mndc the only initialing fcal of the covenant, until after his rcfur- 
 ir^tcn. 
 
 John wa» fcnt to preach (he baptilm of repentance tor tlie remiffion of fin», 
 and thus to prrpaie men for that new difpcnfanon of God's kingdom, which 
 was not yet co"n»e, but was tlicn at land. Ckrift inUituted his baptifm after 
 ihii difV'nUtinn wat come. John's li^ptifm materially diircr<'d from this. 
 The baptV', ^^lli«.h Clniil ii.iViiuica \*a5, in the 't.mi of tfe Fath;r, cf tht 
 
 Son, 
 
t ^3 1 
 
 6. The incapacity of children for the ends of baptifm or for any 
 benefit from it, is often urged as an argument agaioft their being 
 baptized. But 
 
 Son, anJ oj the Holy Ghcft. John did not baptize in the name ©f iht Holy 
 Ghoji ; for (ovjyt who Iwd received his bapiifm, confeiTcd that ibcy tad not ft 
 much as beards nvheiher there 'uoereany Holy Ghoft. He did not baptize \n 
 the nnme of the Son, or into the faith, that Jefus avas the Chriji j but nvhb 
 the baptifm of repentance, faying to the people that theyjhould beliet'e on him, 
 ivbo Jhould come after him '^ that is, on Jefus Chrif^ Nor did he baptize 
 into Chrifs death, for this event had not then taken plate. Had John taught 
 that Je^lis of Nazareth was the Chrift, and baptized the people in his name, and 
 into this faith, they would not have mufed in their hearts, ^whether John ^uurg 
 the Chrif j nor have afked him, Why baptizefl thou, if thou art not the Chriji ? 
 Nor would Jefus have cautioned his difciples, to tell no mtui, that heivasthe 
 Chriji, till after his refurredion, John's baptifm was defjgned to prepaie 
 men for the faith in Chrift, when he fhould be made manifeft to Ifrael. 
 
 But what is decifive in the cafe is, that they who had received John's bap^ 
 tifra, were afterward baptized in the name of the Lord Jefus. 
 
 Among the many thoufands/rc7« all Judea andjervfalem, to whom Peter 
 preached on the day of pentecoft, it cannot be doubted, that there were mul- 
 titudes, who had been baptized by John j for there ivent out to him all th^ 
 land of Judea, and they of Jerufalem, and all the region rou7id about Jordan, 
 and were baptized of him. And yet Peter fays to them, without diftinction. 
 Repent and be baptizexi^ every one of you, in the name of Jefu^ Chrift. 
 
 An inftance (fill more plain we have in the beginning of the 19th Ch. of 
 A^s. Paul finding at Ephefus twelve difciple?, faid to them, Ha^je ye re^ 
 ceived the Hsly Ghofi fnce ye helienjed ? And they faid to him, We hanje not 
 fo much ifs heard, whether there be any Holy Ghofl. And he faid to ilieiu. 
 Unto to what then were ye baptised? And they faid. Unto Johns hoptifii. 
 Then faid Paul, John eerily baptized with the baptifm of repentance, faying 
 unto the people, that they Jhould belie-ve on him, who Jhould come after htm, 
 that is, on Jefus Chrift. When they heard this, they ^^vere baptized in the namr 
 of the Lord Jefus. And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Ckoji 
 ca?ne upon them, Sic, 
 
 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jefus, 
 Themoiining cannot be, that wheu the people heard John^ they weje by line 
 baptized in the 7: am e of the Lord Jefus ; becnufe then it will follow, th.^t 
 Paul laid his hands on all the people wkom John baptized ; for ilicy, w^f> 
 are here faid to be baptized, are evidently the perfons on whom Paul laid ha 
 bauds. But the fenfe muft be, that when thcfe twelve difciples who haJ 
 been baptized by John, now heard Paul, they were baptized by him. It 
 follows then that John's baptifm, being neither in the name of Chrift, nor of 
 the Holy Ghoft, was different from that which Chrift inftitulcd ; and no ar- 
 guments can be drawn from the former, to determine the mode, or fubjvda 
 (>f the latter ; nor can ths repetition of chriftian brptifm be juftified fiom tfc^-« 
 example of Paul, 
 
. But really the qacfJon is. Whether there be any divine ^TarrinHof* 
 ttcir baptifin r If there is, it becomes os to pr^ClUe accordingly, 
 and not to arraign the wifdom of God. Thar there arc forac ration- 
 al ends to be aniwcrcd by infant baptifm, and that it is a gracious 
 and beneficial inlUiuticn, 1 trud, will appcaj under another head, 
 ' uhcre this objeftion will receive a full apf^i^.^ In the mean linlc 
 it may fufficc to obfcrve, that infants jirc nowr^af capable of the ends 
 of baptifm, a$ they were anciently of the cnd;i of circDmcifion. They 
 may be brought into covenant with God — may have privileges made 
 over to them — may receive the fcal and token of privileges — may be 
 laid under obligations to obey tho gofpel, as the ju'wijh infants by 
 circumcifion becanje debtors tocbey the law — and may become fub- 
 jefls cf that jultification through Chrill's blood, that renovation of 
 the Spirit, and title to eterr.al life, which arc fignified and rcprcfenicd 
 in bapiifm. 
 
 I have now given you a view of all the material arguments, which 
 are brought to difprove infant b-iptiftn. And what has been faid in 
 anfwcr to them is, I think, fufficient to Ihew, that they have no 
 real weight. The way is now prepared to bring forward cur argu- 
 ments in vindication of this point, which was the fccond thing 
 propofed. 
 
 U. We win here take a diftinft view of the principal arguments in 
 defence of the right of believers' infants to baptifm, and endeavour 
 to clUblifh them againd the cavils of our opponents, and particularly 
 the author of the letters before mentioned. 
 
 I. Ojr firll argument (hall be taken from the Abrahamic coTenant 
 togethtr with the Apoftle*s explanation of it. 
 
 In the 17th chap, of Gen. we find, that God made a covenant with 
 Abraham and his feed, into which his infants were exprefsly taken, to- 
 gether v^th himfclf, by the fame rite and token. This covenant 
 comprehended not only his natural feed, but the llranger who was 
 not of his foed. It was 7k Jpiritual covenant. The capital promife 
 of it was, / "Mill be a God to tkce and thy feed after thte. — This was llie 
 fame covenant, which now fubfilb, and which we are now ander, in 
 ihis gofpcl-agc, as the Apolllc exprcfsly teaches us, in the 4th chap, 
 to Rom. and 3d chap, to Gal. where he argues from the covenant with 
 Abraham, to Ihew the nature and extent of the gofpel-covcnant. He 
 teftifies, that all believers under the gofpcl, whether yricv or Gtntilts, 
 t^xt the fpiritual feed of Abraham, and confequently htin cf thi promiji 
 made to him— that the covenant made with Abraham was confrmed of 
 C$d in Cbrij} — that the law which was given afterward did not difan- 
 nul tl»c covenant, or vacate the proaiifc— ihit the gofpcl was preached 
 
 10 
 
to Abraham, in t}iat promife of the covenant with hira. In thet ftsali 
 all nations be blejfed — that the bleffing of Abraham is come upon the 
 Gentiles through Chrift — that the promife made to Abraham is fore to 
 ai] the feed, not only to that which is of the law, but to that aifo which 
 Ss of the faith oi Abraham, who is the father of us all> as it is written, 
 I have made thee a father of many nations — that they who are of faith 
 are the children q{ Abraham, and to Abraham and his feed were the 
 promifes made — and much more to the fame purpofe. 
 
 Now if we are the feed oi Abrahar^, for whom the covenant with 
 him was eftablifhed, and are ftill under the fclf-fame covenant, tfcea 
 the fame privileges that were herein granted to him, belong to us. 
 dne grant of that covenant was, that infants fhould be received with 
 their parents by the fame fign and feal ; and therefore we, as the feed 
 of Abraham, may claim this privilege for bur infants. Yea, God not 
 only allowed, hot commanded, that the appointed token of the cove- 
 nant ihould be affixed to every male child that was not under eight 
 days old. Here then is a plain command given to Abraham our fath- 
 er, and confequently to us his children, to apply the token of this 
 very covenant, which we are now underi to our infant-feed. The 
 only qucftion is^ whether there b* now any token of the covenant ? 
 Had circumcifion been continued, none could doubt but infants were 
 ftill fubje<^s of it by virtue of the command given to Abraham^ unlefs 
 they would expunge the 4th chap, to Rom. and 3d to Gal. Circum- 
 cifion has ceafed. But has Ghrift appointed any token of the gofpel 
 covenant ? Baptifm is certainly fuch. ^his then \% to be applied to 
 the fame lubjedls as that was. If there was an exprefs command to 
 affix the covenant feal to infants in Abraham's time, and the cotehanc 
 ftlll remains ; then thecovenant-feal, what ever it is, ought to be af. 
 fixed to infants now; unlefs the command has been repealed. The 
 thange of ihc feal makes no change of ihefubje^^. There muft be a 
 command to warrant our rejeding the oldfubjefi, as well as to jullify 
 oiir dropping the old feal. If our brethren afk, Why wc have difcon- 
 tinued circumcifion, and iibw make ufc of bapiifm t Wc infwer, Chrift 
 fcas fo commanded. Let them produce as good authority for affixing 
 this «^^l» feal of the fame covenant to believers only, and net to their 
 children, and we will comply rith them. Wc demand of them to 
 ihew us fome plain, pofuivc ord^ of ChriH to deny the fcal of the 
 covenant to thole fubjcfts, to whom is was fufl ordered to be applied*^. 
 Until fuch order appears, we boldly affirm, that the old comtnand re- 
 mains, and to aft in difobedience to it is prefumption. 
 
 To evade the force of this argarticnt, our brethren affert, that ' the 
 * chriflian church is an inftitution entirely new ; a ftruflurc crctHcd on 
 D ' 'a 
 
[ "-6 ] 
 
 ' a new foandaijon, dlftln«f^ from, and unconnected with the founda- 
 
 * lion of the patriarchal andjewilh church ;' for they cafily fee, ihat 
 if the chrirtian church is the ancient church, continued under the fame 
 covenant which was niadc in ancient tirae3, then the admiflion of 
 children with their parents into this church, will ftand I'ecure on the 
 foot of the former inlliiution. It may not therefore be improper to 
 pnrfuc oar prefcnt argument a little farther. 
 
 The foundation of the ancient church is, the Ji/fovery of Czd's mercy 
 io fallen men thrcugh a redeemer. This difcovcry was firll made to Adam 
 in the fcntencc on the tempter ; and afterward more fully to Abraham 
 in the promifc already mentioned. This God exprcfsly calls his evtr- 
 lafirg covenant. This is always confidcred by Mofes and the pro- 
 phets, as the ground on which the faith and hope of the Jewifh church 
 rerted. Mofes fays,* * Yc Hand all of you before the Lord, your 
 '-jjizet and Hide ones^ that thou fliouldft enter into covenant wiih 
 him, that he may be a God to thee, as he ha:h fjjorn to Abraham. Trte 
 prophet Jeremiah, f foretelling the gofpel difpenfation, cicfcribes it 
 by an allufion to the covenant with Abraham, which he dillinguiiliea 
 from th* covenant of peculiarity made with the Jews at Sinai, when 
 they came cut of Egypt. The apcflle to the Hebrews, J applies the 
 prophet's description to the gofpel-ftatc. The old covenant, which, 
 he fays, was decayed and ready to vanilh, is not the covenant with 
 Ahraham\ for //-'./ he calls the covenant which God would make in 
 the latter days, or would explicitly renew in the gofpsl time, prom- 
 ifinp, / -vjill be their God : but the old covenant, which was to vanilh 
 away, no more to be renewed, is the ceremonial covenant, or that which 
 GoJ made with the Jews, 'ivhcn he brought them out of Egypt. 
 
 When the prophets foreicl the call of the gentile?, they (peak of 
 them as joining therafelves to the church then fubfifting. In the 49;h 
 chap, oi ifaiah, God comforts Sion, the Jewifh church, in her <ic(^ 
 pondcncy, with a promifc that he will never fjrfake her, but her walls 
 Ihall be continually before him. ' Lift up ihine eves roundabout/ 
 fayt her God, * and behold ! Ail ihefc gather ihemfe'.ves together, 
 ' and com-j unto T H E f. The children, which thou (hat have after 
 ' thou haft loft the other, (hall fay. The place is toofiraic for me.— • 
 
 * Then (halt ihou fay, Who hath begotten me thcfe. feeing I have loil 
 ' my other children ? Thuj faith the Lord, Behold, I will lift up my 
 
 • hand to the Geniilrs — and ihey (hail bring thy fons, in their arms 
 
 • and thy da^ighten (hai: be c\7r\cd en their (houlders.'— The child- 
 ren of thefc Gentile profrlytes are called the fons and dau-hters of 
 the church. They xre brought in the ar.ns of their parents to the 
 
 church 
 • Dcut. *9. -} Chip. 31. 3r. J Chsp. «. 
 
L ^7 ] 
 
 church * to be nurfed at her fide.' No words can more plainly de. 
 ffiribe the admifliOQ of geniile profclytes into the very charch which 
 was then in being, and the folemn dedication of their children, as 
 members of the church with them. Similar reprefcntation* are frc* 
 quent in the prophetic writings. 
 
 The words of our Saviour, in loth chap, of John, are fall toourpgr. 
 pofe. * Other (heap I have which arc not of this fold ; them alfo I 
 muft bring.' I mult bring them into this fold, the Je*i/h church - 
 for what other fold was there then exifting ? ' And they fhall hear ir»y 
 
 * voice ; and there Ihall be one fold, and one (hepherd.' 
 
 The apollle Pecer, * exhorting the Jews to repentance, points 
 them to the Saviour, whom the prophets foretold, and fays, ' Ye are 
 
 * the children of the prophets, and of the covenant, wh.ch God mads 
 
 * with our fathers, faying, In thy feed f? all all of the families of the earth 
 
 * be hleffed : unto you firll God hath raifed up his Con, and fent h;m to 
 bltfs you.* 
 
 Paul, in the epift'e to the Ephefians, treats explicitly on this fub- 
 je£t. He fays, * Ye were once afar off, without Chrift, aliens from 
 'the Commonwealth of Ifrael, and itrangers from the covenants of 
 
 * promife. But now in Chrift ye are made nigh. Chrift ij cur 
 
 * peac-» who hath made loth one ;* i. e. hath united both Jev»s and 
 Gentiles. Now therefore ye are * no more ftrangers and foreigners, 
 ' h\i\.fello~JU- citizens <ivith the faint s, and of the houfjold of God ; and are- 
 « built on the foundaiion of the apofiles and prophets y Jefjs Chrift him- 
 ' felf being the chief corner ftone.* The prophets and apoftles laid 
 the fame foundation. The prophets fo;etold a Saviour to come ; the 
 apoftles preached this Saviour already come. The predidlions of the 
 f. rmer, and the doflrines of the latter arc the fame foundation, the 
 corner-ftone of which is Chrift himfelf. The apoftle adds, * Ye have 
 heard of the difpenfation of the grace of God, that the gentiles fhould 
 
 * h^ felioiv heirs i and oi the fame body and partakers cf his promife in 
 
 * Chrift by the gofpel,' 
 
 The Jews, who were baptized on the d:yof pentecoft, believed 
 that Jefus was Lord and Chrift, on evidence derived from the pro- 
 phets ; and were admitted tobaptifm on the foot of the pvomfe made 
 \.QiX,\t\r fathers. The fame promife, which was, the foundation of the 
 ancient church, and of which circumcifion was the fcal, is alledged 
 by the apoftle, as a reafon for the baptifm of ihcfe Chriftian jews 
 and their children, and as many as God (hould call from among the 
 gentiles. The chrift an church here ftands on the old foundaiion ; 
 arid (o this church were addfd tho^e who afierwird were bu-ptized. 
 
t ^« ] 
 
 In the mh chap, to ihc Romans the iportlc cxprcfily doclatM, 
 that ihc gentile believers are grafted into tbt Jamc cli<ve-tree from 
 wh'.chyon^ of the Jc*vs, the natural branches, were broken off by un- 
 belief. * If fonic of the branches, were broken off, and thou, being 
 ' a^wilJ olive, wert grafted in among them,' the branches that re- 
 « mained, * and with them partakeft of the root and tfatnefs of the olivc- 
 « tree, boaft not againft the branches ; for thou bcareft not the root, 
 
 • but the root thee. They were broken off by unbelief* and thou ftand- 
 
 • ell by faith.' It is the fame root^ which bcareih the natural, and 
 the ingrafted branches. So7m of the natural branches were broken 
 off^not all.— The bclicv^ngjewscontinucd ftill in the fame old flock, 
 5n which they had before ftood, and in which believing gentiles were 
 ingrafted. The gentiles were not infcrtcd into a neiu (lock, a tree 
 lately grown up ; nor were believing Jews lopt off from the old tree 
 10 be infcrted with gentiles into a new one : but the former remained 
 ir* the old (lock, and the latter were grafted in among them, to partake 
 nxjith them of the root and fatnefs of \.\ic/ame oli've, which had former- 
 ly nouriftied them. And it is obfervable, that thefe Jews, who imme- 
 diately and readily fubmitted to the gofpel, on its being propofcd to 
 them, fccm not generally, if in any inftance, to have received chrxf- 
 tian baptifm. Heathens and Samaritans, who were no: of the church 
 of God, and thofc Jews, who by obftinatc unbelief, and open oppofi- 
 fion to the gofpel, had broken themfelvcs off from the church, were, 
 on their proftffdd repentance, baptized. The other continued in 
 God's covenant and church. This thought we fhall have occafion tp 
 rcfume hereafter. When the unbelieving Jews (hall, in the latter 
 day?, turn to the Lord, they (hall be grafted again — in'.o what ? — an- 
 other tree ? — no ; into their own olive-tree ; for the covenant 
 which God made with their fathers, \i the fame, which he will make 
 ^ith then In the latter days, when he (hall tike away their fins. 
 
 We have now an obvious anfvver to a quedion, which our brethren 
 f^fteq put to us. ' If ihc children of believers are rubje(as of the co- 
 venint-ical under the gofpel, as ihcy were under former difpenfations, 
 why have we not fomedirefl, pofuivc inllitution, which might havo 
 prevented all controvcrly ?* 
 
 Tnc fa^ is, the gofpel found the children of God's people already 
 in covenant by virtue of the ancient inlVitution : and a new inftitution 
 of that, which had been plainly inllitu:ed before, and was not then fo 
 much as queftioned, would have been fuperflaous ; not to fay, abfurd. 
 'Xne gofpel has made it as plain as language can make any thing, 
 thai ibc ancient covenant with Abraham is ilill continued : and if 
 cliiJrcu were, I)y divine c^m.T»ind, to receive ;hc fcal of the cove- 
 ts nf 
 
[=9 ] 
 
 fi»ttt formerly, ihcy are to receive it ffill, linlefs the coasmand is foinei. 
 where in the gofpel, cxprefsly revoked. We need no new inftiiution 
 to warrant our applying the feal to them ; but we evidently need t 
 new inftitution to juftify our excluding them from i:. 
 
 Infant haptifrii ftands on the fame ground as the chriftian fab. 
 bath. Ifitbeaflced, why the gofpei has not, in fo many words, in- 
 Hituted a weekly fabbath, the anfwer is, it found a weekly fabbath al- 
 ready inflicuced ; and a formallnftitucion of that, which had been in- 
 fiituted before, was wholly unnectflary. The apoftles took the fab- 
 bath as they found it, only bbfefving a different day, after Chrift's re- 
 furreflion, in memory of that glorious event. So they continued the 
 ancient ufage of applying the feal of GodU covenant to children, as 
 well as parents ; only they changed the external form of the feal, 
 fgbftituting baptifm for circumcifion. The ancient inftiiution unre- 
 voked, if we had nothing more, would be fufficicnt to juftify the ap- 
 plication of the feal to infants. But we have ftill farther warrant. 
 
 Let us view the argument in another light. 
 
 2. Circumcifion was of old, by divine command, applied to In- 
 fants : And if baptifm Hands now in the place of circumcifion, thea 
 this is alfo to be applied to the fame fubjecls. The confequence is 
 plain and undeniable. The only queftiou is. Whether baptifrn does 
 now Hand in the place oCcircqmcifion ? This is the point to be prov* 
 
 That circumcifion was the feal of the covenant with Ahraharriy ani 
 was, by divine appointment, adminiftered to infants, is well known — 
 that the Abrahamic covenant ftill fubfifts, and is the fame as the Gofpel 
 covenant, the Apoftle plainly tcaches---tbat_ baptifm is now the ap- 
 pointed token of the gofpel covenant, none will deny : The confe- 
 quence is obvious j baptifm now ftands in the place of circumcifion, 
 for it is the initiating feal of that stty covenant, of which circumci- 
 fion was the feal formerly. 
 
 Again. The Apoftle fays, Rom. 4. 1 1. Abraham receizeJ the jign ef 
 circumcifion^ a feal of ths right eoufref of faith. It is plain from this paf- 
 fage, that circumcifion was a fign of fpiiitual bleftings, the blefliogs of 
 the covenant of grace : And not (as fome abfurdly pretend) mecrly 
 a fign of worldly privileges, fuch as a right to the land o{ Canaan, a 
 numeroos iffae, &c. There were, it is true, trnporal bleflings prom- 
 ifed to Abraham and his feed. But to argue from hence, that the cov- 
 enant with him was a meer temporal covenant, and that circumcifion 
 was only a feal of it as fuch, is as abfurd, as it would be 10 fay, The 
 g-ofpel is a mscr worldly inftitu:ioD, bccaufe i; has the promifc of the 
 
 life 
 
[ 30 1 
 
 life that now IS and of that which is to come. The Apof^lc, io ihh 
 paffjgc, reprefcnts circumcifion in quite a difFcreni li^hr, as cfpecial- 
 ly aud eminently z (c^\ of //>/r:tuai blefHngs. — That /tf/ft/5» ij fuch, 
 all allow : And therefore it comes in the room of circu.-ncifion, and 
 ftands in the place io v^Jilch that once ftood. 
 
 Farther ; Thefc two rites, though different in their outward formg 
 arc the/ame in their fpiritualufc and fignificancy. Circumcifion fig- 
 xiificd our native corruption : fo does baptifm. Circumcifion pointed 
 out the nccefTity of inward purity and fpiricual renovation : fo doe* 
 bap'.ifzn. That repre(cniftd our juftificaiirm by the b!o3d of Chrift ; 
 ib docs this. "-That was a ceremony cf admiffion into God*» church : 
 fo is this. That denoted men's relation to God and obligation to 
 obey his law. 'Thts alfa denores cur relation to Chrift and obligation 
 10 obey his gofpel. 
 
 But the Apoftlc puts this matter out of all doubt, when he calls ha^^ 
 trjm the circumcifion of Chrijl, and urges chrillians being baptized, as a 
 f eafon why they need not be circumcifedi 
 
 He fay<. Col. 2. ji. 12. Te are complete ^. him, (in Chrifl) /« 
 Kihcm ye cdfo are circumciftd ivith the circumcifon made nxithout hands , in 
 futting off the body of the fins oftheficjh by the circmcifion ofChriJi, buried 
 •'.x;:th htm in baptifm. The apoftle here calls baptifm, the circumcifion of 
 Chrifi, or the chriftian circumcifion. But he calls it by this name 
 without any propriety, unlefs it ftands in the place of circumcifion. 
 
 The author, whom I have fcvcral times mentioned, labours much to 
 evade the force of this pafTage. He fays. By the circutncifion of Chrifi 
 \% meant, • ihey/»;>//aa/ circumcifion,* or renovation of the heart* ia 
 diSir^clion from * the Itieral circumcifion.' B-t this cannot be the 
 meaning of the phrafe : For the inward fpiritual circumcifion is men- 
 tioned ift'ihc preceding branch of the fentence, under the name ai the 
 (ircumcifion made tvifhsu.' hands. And if we take borh phrafcs to fig- 
 nify xhcfame ; then we (hall make the words to run thus. Tc are dr- 
 iuiKcijed tuith the fpiritual circumcifion, in being circunci/ed by the fpirit- 
 ual circumcfion. Such an unmeaning repetition never dropt from the 
 Apt.ftle. 
 
 The writer fay«, * That to guard ihe ColofTian? againft th; danger 
 cf being fci^uccd to the obfervance of circumcifion, the ApcRle lelli 
 ihcnn.* 'They had received the //)^''/■/l♦^l/ circumcifion — and ihere- 
 Jjrc ihe l.tcral circumcifion was not ncccffiry.* B it how did this 
 ipifitual circumcifion or internal renovation prove, that the literal cir- 
 camcifioQ was no: neceffary ? Circumcifion \i\*:^ to be neceffary for 
 {'.ood men : Why not now ? According to this interpretation, ex- 
 lernal ordinances ars not needful for t:ae chrilHins, but only for fin- 
 
 ncrs. 
 
r 3x 1 
 
 ncrs. Thofe among the ColoiTians, who were not Aire they had receiv- 
 ed the/piruualcircumciiio'n, could no: apply ihis argument ; and there- 
 fore, according to oar author, rauil Hill obfervf .the ///^rd/circumcifion, 
 Befides ; the fanne argument would prove, that they need not be bap. 
 tired ; for if they had received the fpiritual waftiing of fandificatioo, 
 tvhat occafion was there for the literal wafhing of baptifm ? And yet, 
 according to him, none mud be baptized, but actual believers ; fo 
 that, if we admit his conilrudion of the paffage, wc mull difallow of 
 all baptifm. 
 
 Our author fays, * lo the Apoftles days, the chriftians converted 
 
 * from Judaifm were zealous to incorporate circumcifion with chrift- 
 
 * ianity. — Do the Apoft'es inftru(5l them, that they need not be (o tc- 
 
 * nacious oi onerighty fince another is appointed in itsjlead ? Such an 
 ' obfervation would have been much to the purpofe — but nothing caa 
 
 * be found of it in their reafonings to diffuade chriftian* from circum- 
 ' cifion.' 
 
 But the gentleman is under a great miftake. The Jeroijh converts 
 were zealous to incorporate, not meerly circumcifion, bat the whole 
 ceremonial law, with chriftianity. They contended for circumcifion 
 as a rite binding to the obfervancc of the whole law, without which, 
 they imagined, chriftianity weald be incomplete. From this noiion 
 P^z«/ labors to bring them ciF. He does not cppofe circumcifion /zw//y ; 
 if he had, he would not have circumcifed Timothy ; but he oppofed it, 
 in the Je'wijh fenfe, as binding men to keep the ceremonial law ia 
 order to acceptance with God. Though he had, upon prudential 
 reafons, circumcifed Timoihy, yet he gave no place to thofe who woald 
 compel Titus to be circnmcifed, that they might briug him and cthcra 
 into bondage to the law. Now what argument docs he ofc to diffuade 
 them from circumcision, and the obfervance of the law ? It is this ; 
 They had received oaptifm^ the chrifti^n circumcifion, and were now- 
 bound to obey the gofpel ; which being a complete inltitotion, had 
 fuperceded the law. Thus he reafons with the Colcjtans in the place 
 before referred to. Be-juare lejl any man fpoil you through phihfcphy c^d 
 'vain deceit, after the rudiments of tJn tv'orld and not after ChtTfi^-for %t 
 tire complete in him, and fo need not add the ritual law to his gofpel ; 
 in r.vhom ye are circumcijcd — ^Mith the circumcifion of Chrij}, or chrilliai 
 circumcifion, being buried luith him in baptifm. -^Wherefore if ye hi 
 dead ^with Chriji from the rudiments of the iMorld ; if by baprifm into 
 his death ye are freed Uova the rites of the mofaic difpenfaiion, tvty, 
 as though living in the -Ji<or!dyOr under that difpenfation , are ye fuhjtS 
 to ordinance^? You fee, that the Apoftie urges their baptifm into 
 Chrift, as a reafon why they fhould no more be fubjcfl to circcmcifion 
 
 AJli 
 
[ 3^ i 
 
 a.n<3 the ritci of ihe ceremonial law. He ufei the very argument .tc> 
 difTuade ihcm from circumeifion, which this author fays, he would ufe, 
 ifbaptifm came ia its place : And therefore, by his own conceffion, 
 baptifm does come in its place. And if fo, then it is undeniably to 
 be administered to the fame fubjedls, even the infants of believing par- 
 ents. 
 
 We arc told,* that fome of the believing j^e'ws at 'Jerufahm were 
 much difplcafcd, when they heard that Pa^/ laught the ^rrt/, who 
 were among the Gentiles, that they ought not to circurkcifc their child' 
 ten. Would it have fatiisfied (4ich zealous contenders for infant cir« 
 tumcifion, to have told them, baptiica now came in the place of that 
 ancient ceremony, but yet muftnot be applied to their children ? Thit 
 would but have provoked them the more. Had it not been the ufagc 
 of the apoftles to admit children with their parents into covenant by 
 baptifm, certainly the Jen^;s, among other objedions againft the gof-* 
 pel, would have urged this, that it excluded their children from cove- 
 nant privileges. They were apt enough to make objedlions, and fincc 
 wc find none of this fort, we miy conclude, there Was no room for any. 
 
 Th::t infants, under the patriarchal ^nd »jr/flrV difpenfations, werd 
 admitted into covenant by a particular token, is certain. Itisevi- 
 <Icnt, this was confidercd ds a privilege. It is allowed, that the gof- 
 pel confers greater privileges than former difpenfations : Bat if child- 
 ren are now fhut out of covenant, then the gofpel, inftead of enlarge 
 i/)g, has in this rcfpeft diminifhed our privileges. 
 
 But fays our autTior, * The infallibility of the Roman church may bft 
 
 • proved in the fame manner ; as thus : The people of God under the 
 
 • Old-Teftament enjoyed the benefit of infallibility. The high 
 
 • Priefl had the Urim and Thumraim, by which the mind of God 
 
 • was known, &c. confcquently there muft be infallibility in the chrill- 
 
 • ian church ; otherwife the lefj perfeft dlfpcnfatiofl oi Mo/es will have 
 ' a great privilege beyond the chrljiian.* 
 
 The truth is. The chrijlian difpenfation has this privilege far 
 beyond the mofaic. The additional revelation of the gofpel difcov- 
 ers the raind of Goi as infallibly, and far more fjlly and extenfively 
 than ever it was difcove^-ed by Urim and Thummim.—Such Dccafien- 
 c/difcoveries now arc not needed, fince we have a ctmplete, ftandtni 
 reveiatioo. 
 
 The author of the letters tells as. that circcmcifion, ' that Old Teft- 
 
 • anient rite, was a uftUfs, burthenfome , mjuncut ceremony, and trcat- 
 
 • ed as fuch by the Aponies.' And hence he concludes, baptifm can- 
 not come in its room to be adminiftered to infants, as that was. But 
 
 wkcre 
 
 • Aa. %t. n. 
 
r 53 1 
 
 >frhfre dt) the Apoftles treat tircumcifion in this manner ? The ce}4^ 
 honial laiv indeed is confidered as a yoke of bondage ; as burthen^ 
 fomej not injuriousy for it would ill become llie te.ichers of religion ta 
 reprefent God as injuring his people by his inftitutions : Dut circuM' 
 <i-/fon, confidered as a token of the covenant, is treated as a great 
 privilege.* What advantage hath the'Jenxt? And ivhat prof.t js then 
 of circumcijion ? Much e'very <\vAy. It was a greac privilege for the 
 children oijcxvs \o have God for their God, in fuch a fcnfc as he tvas 
 not the God o^ he at he k rhildren ; to be born td the enjoynicat of ihe 
 oracles and ordinances of God ; and to be under the care of parents, 
 who were lolemn.'y bound to bring ihrnt up in the knowl(?dge and fer- 
 vice of the God oi Ij'rael. And if the proht of drcumcifion was muc^ 
 evsry^^'^y* th^n the Icis by its abolition is much every ivaj^ unlcfi ihcci 
 be fomeihing appointed in its room. 
 
 It is often faid,^ Circumcifion was applied only to maJes : EapiifaA 
 « is defigned for both fexes, therefore they are not parallel ordi- 
 • Dances, nor can we argue from the one to the other.* 
 
 But it is certain, they are parallel in th(^ir muin defign, as initiat- 
 ing feals of the fanie covenant. And/emal'es were admitted into cov- 
 enant, as well as males, though no vifible token was appointed for 
 therti. Every frJ^'Sorn maile was to be publicly prefchted to God in 
 token of the obligation of the '•jsholefamily to be holy to^iini ; for if 
 the firfi fruits he holy, fo is the lump. So the parent's dedicating his 
 fndles to God by CircUmcifion, was a token that all hh children be 
 longed to God. Accordingly God ee[ual!y claims an intereP. in child- 
 reti of both kxQ$, by virtue of the covenant relation of their parents. 
 God fays to the J^w//^ church, Ezfk. \6. 7. I entered into cozenani 
 nvtth thee, and thou hscamej} mine. And then he complains, ver. 20, 
 Thou hafl taken thy fons and thy daughters, 'which thou hafl tern u n to 
 M E , and thefe thou haji facrijicecl. Thou ho ft fain my children. 
 So Deut. 29. 10. Ye ft and this day before the Lord — all tie men oflfra^ 
 el, your little ones, eoid your wives, that thoufhouldft enter into covenant, 
 that he may be unto thee a Cod — as he hath fxoorn to Abraham. The/ 
 were all admr.ied into covenant, though the male: only received the 
 vifible token. But under th^ gofpel there is no diftinili'on of mdlc 
 and female, but all are one in Chriff, the vifible fcal being affixed tc* 
 one as well as the other. In this refpcft the gofpel difpen/ation i» 
 more large and free than the former, that it makes no dininflion of 
 nation ox f ex . And Ihall we think it was intended to be coniradcd \^ 
 another refpeft, by cafticiing ^?//<-/^/A//y.';, who a<e more than half 
 cf mankind } Tb^ 
 
 E 
 ^ J^om. 3. f. 
 
r o4 1 
 
 "^he author before mcnt'oRcd tells us, that ' children were admitted 
 :o the paflbver ; and hence wc may infer their fight to the Lord's Tap- 
 per ; as wc!l as from their circumctficn infer their right to bapiifm.' 
 It fcemi probable, that perfons of all ages partook of ihe /r^ pafl% 
 over mentioned Exod. 12. which was in fomc refpcds fingular, and 
 difTercnt from fuccecding psfT'jvers. Bui it appears from Luke 2. 42. 
 that ic was not the eujiom of the feajl^ for parents to bring their child- 
 ren to it, until they were about i'welve years old ; at which age, they 
 inighr be able to enquire of their parents. What meanye by this fir- 
 *vice ? And at this age, no doubt, many are capable of undcrftanding 
 the nature and end of the Lord's fupper.* But 
 
 • < Children at the age of 12 years, were brought by their parents to the 
 ' temple : And from that time they began to eat of the pafTover and oihtr 
 « facrifices. Hyrcanus in Jofcphus, B. 12. Chap. 4. (ays, The Jewifli law 
 ^forbids the fon to cat of the facrifices, before he has come to the temple, 
 
 * and there himfclf prefentcd an offering to God.* (Pol. Synop. in Exod, 
 11. 26 ) 
 
 The law prcfcrlbed, that when the Jews were come into the land, which 
 God would give them, all their males fliould appear before him every year 
 at the pafTover, in the j»lacc which he appointed. But it is added, 7 bey /hail 
 not appear before me empty y but e^-jcry one according to tbe gft of bis band, 
 (Dcut. 16. 16. and alibi, vide. Marg.) 
 
 The male, or men children, who were to appear before God, In their ap- 
 pointed plJce, JO eat of the palTover, were only fuch as could bring a gift in 
 their hand j or prefcnt an offering for themfclves. I'his probably is the 
 law to which Hyreanus alludes. Bp. Patrick, who was very leained in the 
 Jewifh laws and cuftoms, fays, « When children were 12 years old, their pa- 
 
 * rents were bound to bring them to ilie temple, at the pafTover, where, ^^c- 
 < ing what was done in this feflivai, they would be ltd K) enquire what mean 
 
 * ye by this fervicc ?' (Comment, in Exod. ij.) 
 
 Ai the end of the padovci- was to perpetuate the memory of the deliverance 
 from Kgypr, and as the exprefs reafcn why children were to attend it in the 
 appointed place, was that they might be inflruRed in that wonderful dcl:?er- 
 ance, i)arcnts could not view themfclves as bound to bring their children to 
 the folemniiy, before they were capable of enquiring and iinderflanding whit 
 was meant by it. Luke tells us, (Chap, 2. 42.) that the parents of Jefut 
 went up eveiy year to Jcfufalem at the feart of the pafTover : and wl)cn he 
 was IX years cU, they went up a/ler the cuJlom of the feaji. Their going 
 after tie cxtjlom of the feaf, doubtlcfs intends their taking their fon with 
 tliem, who wis now 1 z yea: s old : for it appears that he accom^^anied ihcin ; 
 and ihi^. it the firfl lime wc hear of his going to the feftival. It miy alfo be 
 obleived, that xhz males only were required to appear b.fore G^d at the 
 pafTover i and none c«n ima^;ine, that infants and fucklings were taken 
 from their mothers arms to be carried to, and detained at the temple, during 
 tUc c !.t nmnce of fo long a fi/lemnity. 
 
[ 35 ] 
 
 But if infants had been ufually admitted to the paffover, it wou^d 
 rot in the leall weaken our argument from circumcifion ; for the paff- 
 over was not a feal of the Ahrahamlc covenant (it being appointed 
 xno»e than 400 years after that covenant was made) but ore of the 
 mofaic rites. Now the ritual law is fuperfeded by the gofpcl ; bi^ 
 the -r^i^z-^-^/zw/V covenant remains. The Lord's fopper is a commemo- 
 rative fign, intended to Ihew forth Chrift's death and bring him to 
 our remembrance. Cot baptilm is a token of admiifjon to the via- 
 ble privileges of God's people ; and therefore infants are capable of 
 ihisy though not of the other. 
 
 Some perhaps will afl:. How could baptifm come in place cf 
 ciiC'jmcifion, when ic appears to have been in trfe before circumcifiott 
 ceafed ? Let me afk ano her queftlon. How could Solomon reign id 
 
 the place of Da<vi^ ^s his fuccefTor, when he began to rtign before 
 Daviii W!is dead ? There is no more difficulty in one qucftion, than in 
 the other. Though baptifm was in ufe, yet it was not made the pe- 
 culiar initiating feal of the gofpel-covenant until after Chrifl's refur- 
 je«^ion. 
 
 It has been enquired, 'If baptifm fucceeds circumcifion, why were 
 « thofe baptized, who had already been circumcifed ?' We anfwcr, 
 
 1. We think i^ has been proved, that both thefe ordinances were 
 inftituted as feals of the fame gracious covenant ; and therefore the 
 right of infants to baptifm will not at all depend on the «foluiion of 
 this queflion: 
 
 2. It does not appear to be a fa^, that circumcifed believers were 
 uni^erfally baptized. That the firfl difciples were baptized, we have 
 no evidence. That the fjjel've partook of the firft fupper, before 
 chrillian baptifm was fo much as inftituted^ is undeniable ; for it is 
 evident from Ads 19. 5. and the author of the letters himfelf con- 
 cedes, that John's baptifm was not chrijlian baptifm. Now if circum- 
 cifion was, in the cafe of the difciples, fufficient for their admiflion to 
 the great gofpel-ordinance of the fupper, then certainly it was a ftal 
 of the golpel-covenant ; and therefore the baptifm of believers, al- 
 ready circumcifed, was a matter, not of univerfal neceflity, but only 
 pf particular expedience. It feems to have taken place chltfly in the 
 safe of the Jews, who, after Chrill's rcfarreaion, had fur a time open- 
 ly oppof:rd the gofpel, and the fuperior evidence which then attended 
 ID. Now, 
 
 3. There was a manifeft propriety in baptizingyflw^ who had beea 
 
 circumcifed, although baptifm and circumcifion arc fuppofcd to be feals 
 
 \ii the fame covenant. _ 
 
 The 
 
t 3C J 
 
 The long expelled MefTuh had now appeared ; a clearer difpenf^- 
 (ion of ihc covenant of grace, attended with larger prcmifes and more 
 liberal pnvilrges, v^as now introduced ; ihe way was opened for the 
 •dmiiTiDn of all natio'^-s into the church of God ; and bapiiTm was in- 
 ilitutcd to be a feai ot the covenant, and a badge of diftlnftion be- 
 tween the . hurch and the unbelieving world. Though circumcifioti 
 had been, and ftiU might be a mark of direrlrnlnaiion bi.nv»ecn ih« 
 wor(hipp<Jrs of the true God and idolatrous heathens, yet, alter the in- 
 ilituiion of baptifro, the former rite would not focleaily difcriroinate 
 between chriftians and unbelievers in geueral ; for unbelieving Jews 
 \»ould llili ufe circumciuon. It v>i2i therefore proper, that the cir- 
 cumcifed Jew, when he embraced the gof pel, efpeciaily If he had be. 
 fore openly oppofed it, fnould lubrail to baptifm, to leftify his belief 
 that JeCus of Nazareth, whom he had rcjedled, was tl.e prurriifed Mef- 
 fiah ; that the dodrine preached by the apollles, in his name, was di- 
 vine ; and that the ancient diliindiion of J-w and Gentile, male and 
 female, was abolilhed, and all were to be;ome one in ChrilK Had Ko;;e 
 of the believing Jews been baptized, there might have remained too 
 great an appearance of a diltinftion between ihm and ge/iule believ- 
 ers ; a diliindion which, after all, many of the Jewifli chrillians were 
 Urongly inclined to preferve, and which the apollles were no lefs fo- 
 licitoui to extinquifn. It was Chriit's defign, that his chorch fhould 
 be, and appear to be one ; that, while it was dillinguifhed from the 
 world, it (hou!d harmon zc with itl'elf, and keep a unity of fpirit in 
 the bond of peace. 
 
 Suppofc a prince, who had appointed a particular uniform for his 
 folJiers, Ihould think proper, on the introduQion of a new difcipline, 
 and the atquiktion of new fubje^ls, to appoint for thtj'e another uni- 
 form ; might we not expcd^, that he would allow, and in cafe of a re- 
 bellion raifcdon this occafion, would require many of his /brwrr fub- 
 jclIs to ailqp* the fame, that there might be no diftindion kept up be- 
 tween old fubjcds and new, but ail might become one harmanious bo- 
 dy ? And would any man, in this cafe, imagine that the new livery 
 came rot in the place of the old ? Or that the one had not been, as 
 the o.hcr wai now, a badge and token of allegiance ? — No more 
 can we, on this grJunJ, pretend, that baptifm fuccceds not in the place 
 of circumcihon. 
 
 It will perhaps be aCced ; * Vv'hy then ought not baptifm to be x^- 
 * miniftered en the eighth day according to the law of cir;umci- 
 
 • fion r 
 
 We anfwer ; It was not rffcntial io \\ie <v alt ditj of circumcifion 
 z\zK it fliould be adminiftcrtd on the eighth diiy. It was not to be 
 
 delayed 
 
C 37 ] 
 
 Relayed beyond that day without occafion ; nor ought we, without oc- 
 cafion, to delay baptifm. But where circumftances admitted not fci 
 early an application of the fcal, the delay was not faulty then, nor 
 would it be now. Circumciflon, indeed, might not be performed 
 earlier than the eighth day : but fo-r this delay there were particular 
 reafons, not applicable to baptiun* One rcafon might be the ten- 
 dernefs of the infant, and the weaknefs of the mother, which would 
 render an immediate operation of this kind dangerous to both. But 
 the principal rcafon was the legal impurity of the mother, and the 
 confequent impurity of the child for the firll feven days. This rcafoa 
 is exprefsly ailigned in the divine law ;* If a iv$man han^e bora a man^ 
 (hiUyJ/:ie Jlyali be unclean ffutn days-'-*-and sn tke'eighth day he Jhali be cir* 
 cumcifed^ But as the legal impurities have ceaieJ under the gofpel, 
 there is no fuch reafon for the delay of baptifm. 
 
 Thus, I think, it undeniably appears, that baptifm ftands in tha 
 place of circumcifion, and that the arguments to the contrary, are fu- 
 tile and impertinent. And if it ftands in the fame pl^ce, it is cer- 
 tainly to be applied to the fame fubjefts, the infants of God's pcOy 
 ple.«— I proceed to another argument. 
 
 "^SSSSIS^^ 
 
 PISCOURSE III. 
 
 ^.' I ^HE light of infants to baptifm may be clearly inferred froi 
 JL the words of our Saviour, Mark lo. 14. compared wii 
 
 fron) 
 ifh 
 
 thofe, John 3.5. •S'^^r little children to cane to me-'-for of fuch is the 
 kingdom of God. — And, Except a man [iccv ^l t;j, except any one) 
 he born of ivater and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 
 By the kingdom of God muft be underftood either the Church, God's 
 vifible kingdom on earth ; dx liea^jen, his invlfible kingdom above. 
 Into the former we arc admitted by baptifm, which is the fign of that 
 fplritual renovation, by which we are prepared ("or the latmr. Theie 
 li:tle children are called infants ; they were brought to Chrill ; were 
 taken up in his arms ; doubtlefs therefore they were upder the age of 
 difcretion. They who brought them were /r//>: ^rs ; ouierwife they 
 would not have fought a ble/JI-g from Chrift for them. The phraje 
 being born cf 'water ^ llgnifies being baptized : So the author of the 
 
 IctLfrs 
 
 * Levit. 12. I. s. 
 
C 38 ] 
 
 letters anderftands it, aad numbers it among the pafTages that fpeal^ 
 
 ofbaptifm.* 
 
 Now if", by the kingdom of God t we nnderftand the church, then here 
 b an exprefs declaration^ that infants belong to the church, are 
 Chrift's difciples and vifjble members of his body : And conreqocat- 
 J» have a right to /^/>///'//», the only inftiiuted fign of admiirico into 
 this kingdom. Except any one he born oftuatery ht cannot enter inta 
 ibis kingdom. Hence the chrillian church 13 faid to be cleanjed hy tht 
 tiua'hing of -water f If by the kingdom of God, we underlland mc in* 
 tvijible kingdom above, then here is a plain declaration, thai infants 
 belong to that, and confequently may be born of the Jpirtt ; fjr except 
 snt bi born of the /pint, be cannot enter into that kingdom, wh ch fJclh 
 and Wood do not inherit. And if they may be Lorn of the Jpirit, 
 doubtlefs they may be born of ^watery or baptized. As the church 
 is x\ic gate of heaven, fo baptifin is i\\efign of regeneration. And if 
 they m^y be admitted into heaven by regeneration, they may be ad- 
 mitted into the Q\\u\Q.\i by baptifm. U the things fignifed belo'g tq 
 them, the ^gn and token mull be foppofed to belong to them. The 
 Apoftle Peter.X plainly teaches us, that they, to whom the promife of 
 the fpirit pertains, have a right to baptlfm, the fj^n of the promiCc. 
 In whatever fenfc therefore we underftand the kingdom of God, the con^ 
 dufion is the fame. That infants are fubjedls of baptifia. 
 
 It cannot reafonably be faid, that the words — of Juch — intend only 
 perfons of a childlike difpofiiion : For then how would this be a rea- 
 fon why little children ihould be brought to Chrid, and why he (hould 
 be difplcafed wiih his difciples for endeavoring to hinder them ? This 
 makes our Lord's argument run thus. Suffer infants to be brought to 
 me, for my kingdom confiftethtf/j/y of adult perfons rcfembling child- 
 ren in their difpofition. He elfcwhere makes Law^j and /^o-i;// em- 
 blems of a chrillian temper ; and according to this interpretation, he 
 wight as well have faid, Suffer Lambs and Dorjis to come to me, for 
 of fuch it the kingdom of God ; i. e. it confiiU of perfons cf a larah- 
 l.kc and dove-like temper. Well, 
 
 • The author of the letters fays, * Chriftianbaptifm was not yet inftifut- 
 ♦d.* This i> doiihtlcfs true : but John preached, faying, The kingdom of 
 Cod is at hand ; and he biptizcd with the baptifm of re|)entancc to prepare 
 ihc people for this kinj^dom. It was therefore very feafonablc for Chnit nowr 
 Jo iniUurt Sicodemns, thai baptifm, or being born of ivatery was foon to be 
 the riie of admiflion into his kingdom. But whelh r we underfland tho 
 phrafe, of outivard baptifm, or inward lanflificaticn, our argument from it 
 Tvill be equally conclufjve. 
 
 + %h. 5. a6. I Aa. 1. 38. 
 
t 51 ! 
 
 Well, 'but itie cKriftian rite of baptifm was not given to tliefccliiTw 
 *dren, they were bro't to Chrift for his blcffing and prayers, accom* 
 * panied uith impofition of hands.* Troe : But our Saviour declares, 
 that fach, i. e. the infants of believers, belong to this kingdom, into 
 which none are admitted, but by being hm of ivater ; fo that here 
 IS a plain declaration, that infants were to be introduced into this 
 church by baptifm. And by taking them into his arms, praying for 
 them, and bleifing them, he fhewed ihaty«f/& arc capable {ubje«^s of 
 the influence and bleffing of the Spirit, which are the things reprefent- 
 ed in baptifm. He did not pour water on them ; but he performed 
 a cereiBony quite as facred and folemn, and thus (hewed, that infants 
 are meet fubjedls of that external rite, which denotes the conveyance 
 of fpiritual bleffings, and fuch a rite is the ordinance of baptifm. 
 
 4 The baptifmal commiflion. Mat. 28. 19. gives a plain warrant for 
 admitting infants to baptifm. It runs thus. Go, and teach all naticm, 
 baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghojly teaching 
 them to ob/ernje, ccc. • 
 
 Some will fay, ■* Infants are not exprefsly mentioned here.* True : 
 neither are Adults. But Chrift ufes the word, nations, which is a col- 
 Icdiv€ terra, and muft naturally be underftood as including both. 
 And had he intended to teacli his Apoftles, that perfons of every age 
 muft be admitted to baptifm, he could not have chofen any finglc 
 word to exprefs it better. Baptize all nations. The chrillian church is 
 called a nation, 2i people y becaufe it confifts of perfons of every age.* 
 
 But it is objefted ; * Teaching is required previous to baptifm, whick 
 infants are not capable of.' 
 
 Here let it beobferved, that the word /uaOrru^'itTf rendered T^ach, 
 is not the fame which \s commonly ufed for teachings but of a more 
 general fignification. The proper import of it is, to profelyte or make 
 difciples. The commiflion then is this. Ga, dijciple all nations, baptiz- 
 ing them — teaching them to shfewe all things y &c. Here are two words 
 in the commiflion rendered, Teaching. The latter ^KTao-goj/Tf;, fignifics 
 10 indoSlrinate ; the other is more general, and fignifies 10 make dif 
 ciples, which may be done by introdudion into a fchool in order to 
 future teaching. 
 
 Now if we can Ih^w, that Infants are ever confidered as dijciples — as 
 belonging to ChriJIy then it will appear that they come within the com- 
 miflion, Difciple all nations, baptizing them. Wc arc told Mat. 18. 5. 
 That Jcfu? haying fet a little child be/ore him, faid, Hljofe-jer Jhall re^ 
 <ii've one fuch little cbild i^ my n^tn^ rcceivefh me. To icccive one iVr 
 
 Chnf'j 
 • I Pef. z. 9. 
 
f ^* 1 
 
 ^hrlji\ nomt^ is to receive him as being Cbriji^j difdple and as hdofi''^^ 
 10 him. So ihcphrafc is explained, Mark 9 41. Whrfoccer fijall gvjt 
 jou a cup o/njuater in my Name, becaufe ye belong to Chrift. And Mat. 
 XO. 42. H'Hojoeijer Jhail gi've to one of ihe/e title on?, a cup of nx: titer only ill 
 the name of a dilciplc y^tf//»o/ lofe his rewnrd, 1: is plain here ihal 
 infants, who are to be received in Chixfi's name may Le hU diftipUs and 
 belong to him f to his church and kingdom. Accordingly ihey who con- 
 tended, ihat perfons under the gofpel oughi 10 be circumcifed after 
 ihc manner of Mofes^ arc faid to tetnpt God to put a yoke on the necks of 
 the difciples, Adl. 15. 10. Infants were to be circumcifed after the 
 xnanner of Mcfes, and therefore are comprehended among the dijciples^ 
 on whom the yoke would be laid. The commifljon then muft refpeft 
 infanti as well as others. The Apoftles had before been inlUudicd 
 to receive nol only adults, but alfo little children in Chrif's name* 
 and as his dfiples. Now a pariicalar rite is appointed, by which 
 ihey fhould receive or difciple them in his name. Dijciple all nations^ 
 laptizif^ them in the name of the Father ^ and ef the Son, t^fc. 
 
 But the author of the letiera fays, * The difciples of Chrift, during 
 
 * his miniftry en earth, a? wdl as the difciples of John, were well ac« 
 
 * quainied wiih the inftitution of baptifm, for they baptized great 
 
 * multitudes ; but th;y adrainiilercd a baptifm in which infants had 
 
 * no part. When therefore our Lord inllituted bis facrament of bap- 
 
 * tifm, if infants were to be received into it, it cannot be dotbteci 
 ' but he declared this ; oiherwife men, who had been ufed to exclude 
 
 * infants, would no: think of thera as coming within this frcfh com- 
 
 * million.' 
 
 He exprefsly allows, that the Apoftles would be deter.iiined very 
 iiuch by former ufages, in judging whether infants came within this 
 coramiffion. Wheiher the difciples of John and of Chrill had been 
 Wont to baptize infants, it is not exprefsly faid. And therefore to 
 judge how the Apofllcs would underlland their commiflion, we muft 
 go farther back than to Jchn\ niiniilry. Thefe Apoflles were jc^'s. 
 They had been educated in the yrat//^ religion. They knew, that 
 from the days of Abraham, and all along through the msfaic difpenfa- 
 lion, jnfanti had been taken into covencnt with their parents by the 
 f-me iniiiatiug rite. — They knew this had ever been cftcemed a great 
 privilege; and they would naturally fiippofe, the privilege was ftill to 
 continue, as the Abrchamic covenant was yet in force. They knew it 
 had been the conftant immemorial prad^ite of the fevjijh church, to 
 receive ^rn'//r profciytes and their infant children with them by bap- 
 fifm. Tbi» the anciert Jt\K'iJh writers teflify. Baptifm, we know; 
 WW no i»ew thing 10 ^cbn'\ time. The J'rTcj appear to have becrt 
 
 irolJ 
 
[ 4t j 
 
 vtfll ficquainted wttri it. Tbey don't afk hJm, What meaneft than t>^ 
 this ne'vo ceremony ? But ivhy haptixeji thou, if thou art not the £hrijt^ 
 nor Eliasy nor that PrcpJ*cl ? Their quellion implies, that the Prophet: 
 had been wont to baptize, and ihey expe(npd Chrtjl and Elias would do 
 the fame. John ^roh^hXy took up baptifm, as he found it pradlifed ia 
 the ^f'-u?/^^ church, whc.>-e it had brcn conHantly adminiftered to ihe 
 f>/^i?/j of^^*///V profelyte^. Ani it is, not only without proof, but 
 againrt probability, that this author aflerts, * Infants had no part in 
 Johns baptifm.' Farther, thefe Apcltlcs had been taught to lock 
 upon infants as hehn^iff^ to Chrijiy ^nd to trca'' them as his difciples. 
 They had heard Cbrift pronounce them fubjefts of his kingdom, and 
 give direftions, that they Aiould be brought to him. They had beea 
 reprimanded for attempting to hinder infants from being brought. 
 ^hey knew, that Chrift came not to IcflTen the privileges of tfee 
 church, (of which the admiifion of infants was one) but to enlarge 
 tliem ; and that i^a/?/y>f? wa^ now the r//f of admifTjon unto it. Under 
 thefe circumftsnce*, how muft they underltand their* comniffion ? 
 Certainly, upon this author's principles, they muft fuppofc it to 
 include infants; for he allbws they would underftand it according 
 to former ufage. We may then retort his argument. When Chrill 
 jnftituted his facrameni of baptifm^ if infants were net to be received 
 to it, it cannot be doubted, but he fuffic'enily dedartd this ; other- 
 wife men, who had always been ufed to fe*e infants admitted into the 
 church of God by the fame token with their parents, would conlidef 
 them as coming within this frefa commlfiion, Go^ difcipk all nati$ns, 
 hapti%ing thcm» 
 
 Befidc-s When they faw the doors of the chorch now enlarged to 
 admit neiv fubjeds, even all nations, they would not imagine, that 
 the fubjedls, who had ever been admitted, were in future to be exclud- 
 ed. The commiffion therefore muft be underftood as a virtual com- 
 ttiand to baptise infants. 
 
 5. Childrens right to baptifm is very, clearly taught, in thcfd 
 words of Pettr lo the awakened Jc^vs, Aft. 2. 3.3. Rtptnt and be Lip^ 
 tized e'very one of you, in the name cfjefus ChriJ} , for the remificn offins\ 
 and ye Jh all recr've the gift of the Holy GhaJI, for the promife tj to ycu 
 and to your children. He don't fay. The promife ;/ to you, and 'will be 
 to your children when they become believers; but it is to both, to 
 you and the children which ycu nsci' have : /Ittd to all them that art 
 ■afar f>ff~, as many as the Lord our God Jhall call, i. e. whtfcver GoA 
 fends the gofpel to call the Gentries, it carries this promiff, which i» 
 in like manner to thefn and /Mr children. The promife being made 
 to thfm is urged as a reafon why thy fhotild be baptbcd. And the 
 
t 4^ 1 
 
 fame rtai'on hoUi few i^t baptifm of all tbwliom the promlTs belongs ^ 
 and coiiicqicnily for ihe baptifm of thtir chiUren, for the promifc is 
 to them. Be bapti-zed-^for the promife is to you cuid to your children. The 
 fealon affigned for baplifm is fuch as equally takcj place wiih refpcct 
 to both. If the psfrcnts iarcreft in the promifc is a rcafoo why he fhould 
 be baptized, his chiidrens intertft in it, ii jull as good a rcafon, why 
 fkey fhould be baptized. To fuppofcthis promife is a juft ground for 
 the baptifm of //iVi//r/, bnt not for the baptifm of thtir ehildrtn, is to 
 make the apoftle talk thus ablurdly and incohefcntly. The promife 
 is to you, therefore be yc baptized— and the fame promifc is equally 
 to your children, yet they mud not be baptized. 
 
 Well, but our brethren fay, * You and your children is nothing 
 ' more than you and your poltcrity,' or your children when they be- 
 come adult. 
 
 But a little attention will convince us, this cannot be the meaning. 
 This is contrary to the narural conftruclion of the words — The promifc 
 is — to your children ; not JhaJt hi to them^ when they become believeri. 
 The people to whom thefc words were fpokcfl, were Jei^js and Pro/e^ 
 lytes, who had always been ufed to fee infants comprehended with their 
 |>arents in covenant tranfaflions, and therefore would naturally fup- 
 t>ofe, their infants to be intended. To fuppofe that hy your children, 
 the Apoftle meant only their adult defcendants, is to make him fpealc 
 ftonfenfe ; for then he muft be underflood thus, * The promife w to 
 you and ycur children, but not as your children, or as being related to 
 you, any more than if they were children of Fagans ; but if they 
 fhould live to adult age, (houJd be called by the gofpel, and fhouli 
 believe, then the promife iiuill he to them, as it is now to you.* 
 
 Now why are children joined with their parents, as joint partaker^ 
 of the fame promife, if they derive no benefit from this relatiou, but 
 are tA (land upon prccifely the fame footing with the children of hea- 
 thtns and infidels ? Farther ; it fhould be remembered, that the great 
 promife of the y^^ra/^iiOT// covenant, which probably is here xtft^x^A 
 to, and called by way em.inenc^, the rROMisE, viz. I ^.vi'.l lea 
 God t» you and ytur feed \ this promife, I fay, did certainly belong to 
 the infant children of jibraham, and of hh fpiritual (ced ; and the fcal 
 of this promife was cxprefsly ordered to be applied to fuch. But our 
 brethren generally fay, ' The promif* here intended is the promife of 
 the fpitii. contained in the foregoing words, Tefjall recei've the gift of 
 iheUoly Ghr>ji,* Be it fo. If then it appears that the promife of the 
 Spirit is in faft made, not only u> believers, but aJfo to their child- 
 ren, even to infanti; the rcafon will hold, why thej fliould be baprii:. 
 
 cd 
 
[ 43 ] 
 
 ed. It Is cxprefsly promifed, Ifai. 44.3. I ^joill four tny Sfiht upon 
 thy feed, and my blejjing upon tJAne offspring \ i.e. thy liitle ones, 39 the 
 following words (hew ; and they (thine offspring) y^«// SPRING UP 
 «s among the gfafs and as nuilloivs hy the nuater-cowfes. They (hall 
 grow up under the influences of my Spirit and bleflingsof my cove- 
 nant, as grafs under the kindly failes of heaven, and as willows by 
 the fertile banks of rivers. 
 
 There can be no doubt with any one who believRs the fo/iptures, 
 but the divine Spirit often has great influence in forming the mind 
 into a preparation for virtue and ufefulnefs, even in its infant ftate. 
 "John was filled with the Holy Ghoft from his mothei-'s womb. Ifaiak 
 was called and formed from the womb. Jeremiah was fanftified from 
 the womb. Samuel grew up before ^e Lord. 1 queflion not bux all, 
 who are born and educated under the gofpel covenant, haVe, even ia 
 early childhood, feme g«ntle excitations to virtue from the Spirit of 
 grace, as a froii cf this promife to believers anjd their children. Now 
 fincc the promife of the Spirit does in fai5l belong to little children, 
 ba^tifm, the fign of the promife, belongs to them alfo. Let them he 
 haptized-'-for the promife is to them. Note here ; their receiving tbc 
 Spirit was not a conduiont but a confequence of their baptifm. Be bat" 
 //zf<^ and ye fhall receive, &c. So upon the Samaritans mtuxiov^td, 
 A£l. 8. the Spirit was poured out after they were baptized : So that 
 children are to be baptized upon this general promife, even before 
 they can, by a holy life, give evidence of their having adually re- 
 ceived the Spirit. That in the gofpel-age, as weJl as in former dif- 
 penfations, children fhould be received into covenant together with, 
 and upon the faith of their parents, is plainly foretold, Ifai. 65. 22. 
 They are the feed of the blejfed ofths Lerd, and their offspring 'with them* 
 And chap. 49. 18. 22. They (the gentiles) fh all gather them/elves tO' 
 gether, and come to thee — And they fhall bring thy fans in their arms, and 
 thy daughters fhall be carried o« their ftioulders. 
 
 6. The accounts we haveeffome whole familiM l^eing baptized, 
 upon the faith of their refpeflivc heads, afford an argument of con- 
 fijerable weight, that the Apoftles underftood their commiflion ai 
 extending to infants, and praftifed accordingly. 
 
 If infants were baptized, it is by no means probable, we fliould be 
 informed of their namts or ages ; we could cxpeft only to be told in 
 general, that fuch perfens were baptized and ibcir families : And 
 fo much we arc pld* Paal baptized the houChoid cf Stephanas, i Cor. 
 I. 16. Lydia, when the Lord opetjed her heart to receive the word, 
 was baptized and her houfiold, kCi. 16. 15. The Jaylor, upon hi« 
 believing was baptized, he and all hli. vcr. 33. Thi? 
 
t 44 ] 
 
 Tnis Ljdi^ W45 in tiic ci:y of Thyatira ; but (he now dwelt ^t 
 fb:Uppi ; here fhs had a hoale, in which ihe lc4jed the ApolUea 
 for fornc time, aod ihe had a houlhold with her. Whether they were 
 children or lervants, or boib, and what their cxaft ages were, it is 
 cotfaiJ, nor ii it material. Tne ftory reprcfents thsm baptized upon 
 htr faith \ and this is all that is to the purpofe. It will be fugget\ed 
 perhaps, that they might be baptized upon their or.vn faith. But the 
 hory gives no intimation of any one's believing, biic Lydia. Take 
 the account as Luh has left it, and iht:y were bap.izv -1 upon htr bcin^ 
 Judged faithful to the Lord. 
 
 The flory of the Jaylor is to the fame purpofe. He enquired of 
 the ApoHIes, ^djat mujl I do to be faised ? They fay, Belle-i't on the 
 Lard, and thou Jbalt be faved and thine hou/e. In the fame fcnfc, fal- 
 vation is faid to come to the hoafe of Z<^ccheiis, becaufe hg was a fon of 
 Abraham^ i. c. a believer. So fuch as are added to the church are 
 called, I'LeJiTued. There were doubtlefs fome prefeni on this occafion 
 befides \\\t Jaylor'^s family ; and fome of his family might be aduki j 
 and therefore it is faid, I'hey /pake theivord to him, and to all that lutri 
 ifj his hou/e. It is added. He zvas bapti::^ed, |ie and afl his /raifway^ 
 It is not faid. All that weie in his hou/e were baptized ; but he and all 
 his, i. e. fuch as were at his difpofa!'— under his government — fub- 
 jed to his command. Thcfe were properly /->//. No mention is yet 
 made of any one's believing, but the J^tylor himfclf. But don't the 
 n*.xt words, Hs rejoiced belie-i'ing in God^juith a.l hishou/e^ import, that 
 f II his family beliered as well as he .? I think not. The grec4c words 
 i7y;s>i>>i3<T£?tTO :r;tvoj:it 7r£7ri?£ux'-oj TW 0£W are literally rendered ihu?, 
 lit rejoiced in all his hou/e, ha<vivg believed God. The idea conveyed is 
 this : After he had believed God, he rejoiced and gave thanks iji th« 
 pieftncc, and in behalf of his whole family. 
 
 Now as it had been the ancient univerfal praftlce, to re;:eive infanti 
 with their parents into the church of God, they who (hould read 
 thefc accounts ofhoufholJs baptized, would naturally conclude, tha; 
 infants (if there were fuch) were b.iptlzcd as well as ethers. If a 
 Miflionary Tent frero this country, where infant baptiim is generally 
 pradifed, to gorpclize the heathen, (hould ^ritc back an accoanc of 
 his fuccefs ; and therein ihculd fay, he ha^ baptized lo mai.y hundreds, 
 and amongll the rell, fuch a noted perfon and his hoaJheld-^Cach an one 
 ard all' hij ; who would doubt, but there were fome children, under the 
 anc of difcrttion, which he meant to include ' But ifan Anup.xdobap- 
 ilft Mifljcnary fliould publilh an account of the houfholds he had bap- 
 tizedi he would nataially except infants, to prevent milliikes. 
 
 7. The 
 
[ 45 ] 
 
 ?. The riglit of infants to bapiifna is farther confirmed by (evtrzl 
 particular j •Hfagt-s of fcripture. 
 
 It may he inferred from thofe words of the Apoftle, Rom. n. i6. 
 Xy. If the root be holy tfo are the branches. And if fame of the branchs 
 (:he Jews) be broken ojf, and thou (a Gentile) being a ^ild clinje, ixert 
 graffed in among them, and ^joith them partahji of the root andjatncf of 
 the oU-'Ve-tree, bo oft noty ^c. 
 
 The eli--ue-(n'e is the church of God, built on the covenant made 
 with Abraham^ Of this tree the Je-jcs were the natural ; the Gaiiiles, 
 the /«^rtf/}a^ branches. The root -^indfatnefs of the tree, ace the priv- 
 ileges and bkfilngs of the covenant. It was one priviK« e of the cov- 
 enant, that children fhoul-d be admitted intq the church with their 
 parents and confccraied to God as his children. Therefore if the 
 Gentiles are graj^ed inio the fame ftock, fron^ which fome of the Je^<vs 
 are broken off, arrd w;>/& them wha remain, partake of the root and fat- 
 fiefs, they certainly partake of this privilege of having their children 
 grafFed with them. Agcordingly the Gemihs are declared to be/^//(?u>- 
 heirs with the Jc-^s — to be ofthc^^:*^ body — to hz joint-partakers oi 
 the promife. God proraifed, that be would be a God to Abraham and 
 Ms feedf. And is he a God of the Jcixs only ? And not cf the Gen- 
 iiles P Doubti:efs of the Gentiles alfo. God appointed a f.oken of thii 
 promife to be applied to Abraham^ infants, and to the infants of his 
 ktd : And if we ftan-d ia the faaie pla^e as his natural fee J, and ar« 
 partakers with th^m of the fame privileges, then the token cf ihe 
 promife is to be applied to our infants. 
 
 To this paffage we may add that remarkable one, in i Cor. 7. 14. 
 The unbelieving hvfjand is fandiified by the rxife, and the unbelieving 'wf$ 
 is fan,S2ifed by the hujband', elfe <vjrreyour children unclean , but nozo an 
 they holy. It is plain here, that the children oi belie'vers are, in fomc 
 ien.fe or other, hdy w faints by virtue of their parents faith. They 
 are dillinguifhed from the children of unbelu'vers, which are called un- 
 clean, in the fame manner ars chrifians are diftinguiilied from heathens. 
 Now what is thij i-nfant-holinefs, which refulcs from the parents' faith ? 
 Ic canno: be legitimacy, as fom» pretend; for furcly theapofllc did not 
 mean to baf^ardi^e al! children born of heathen parents. It ctnnot 
 be real, inherent hoiinefs \ for in this fcrid, thry are bom, not of blcod, 
 nor of the ilhU of innn, but of God. It can tlreu be do ether, than rcUi- 
 (I've or cc -Jtk. 1 Ki hoVinds. The children of believers are holy, as all 
 ,xhe people of Ifracl were holy, by a fperial C'^^venani-relaticn to Gr-d. 
 The chriilian church is called a holy nrji-^n and in-niUar people, in the 
 fair.e ferife. They are holy, as a!I the finl bom under fhs law are ho- 
 ly, by a iclecin dedicttiw-n to God in his ie*:iple. in alUnon tu the 
 
 dcdickfion 
 
[ 46 ] 
 
 dedication of the fir ft born infants, the chriftlan church is called. The 
 church of firji -born perj'ons. They arc holy, 2f being dad' s children ^ 
 Lorn to Z'/OTof hiiown covenant-people. Now if they are in this fenfc 
 holy, by what rite or ceremony are they declared {oy but by the wa(h- 
 iog of baptifm ? The church is citan/ed fy the xuajhing of rjoater. If ihey 
 arc holy as being Gotf s children ^ and within his covtnant, they are cer- 
 tainly enciiUd to the war-i of his children and the /o^m of his covenant, 
 which is baptifna. 
 
 The manner in which the author of the letters endeavours to evade 
 thefc pafTagcs, (hevvs that he felt himfclf embarrafTed with ihem. 1 am 
 • rery willing, fays he, that children fliould be as holy as the moft 
 'benevolent perfon can wirti them. 1 have no inclination to lay a 
 ' ftain upon ih^t innocent age.— Sut here is not a word about their 
 baptifm.* The gentleman doubtlefs knew how we argue from thefc 
 texts to prove infant baptifm. \V^y has he not (hewn, that they mull 
 or may be taken in fome other fenfe ? Why has he nt>t told us, how 
 the branches are holy by the holinefs of the root : how children are 
 holy by their parents faith, in fome other fenfe than as being intitled 
 to the privileges and Teal of the covenant ? How the Gentiles can be 
 partakers of the fame promife, and of the fame root and fatnefs with 
 Abraham's natural feed, and yet not be admitted to the fam« privi- 
 leges ? The troth is, the argument from thefc terts is unanfAW- 
 2ble.* Again. 
 
 • To evade t)»e argument from this paiTage, fame have Aid, * The fame 
 'bolincGi, which is alcribcd to the f^i7^r^« of the believer, is alfo afcrib- 
 
 • ed to the unbelie'ving partner, who is faid to be fanSiijiedy as svcli a« 
 ' ihe otFspiing fanJ to be holy. Why then is not the unbelieving hufband, 
 
 • or tvife, a member of the church by virtue of the faith of the correlate, as 
 ' as w.ell as the children, by virtue of the faith of the parent ? 
 
 In arfwer to this I vrouM obferve j Infants, under the Old Teftamcnt, had 
 ever httn received as members of Qod's chur«h. But when the Jews, in the 
 time of Erra, had, contrary lo an expref$ law, mirricd (1 range wives, by whom 
 children were born to them, it was ordered that fhefe children, w4th their he«- 
 then parenw>, fliottld be put away, as uuclean ; and the men, who refufed to 
 jiot away their flrange- wives, were themfelvct to be feparaled from the con« 
 gregatvon. 
 
 In the Corirvlhi^n chuich a doubt had arifen, whether a believer might 
 continue wiih «n unbelieving correlate, lliii quellian the apoflie arfwcrs 
 in tbe affirmative. For though he advife* chrirtian* to marry only in the 
 Lord, yet a marriage, contraried when both the parties were unbelierers, is 
 rot dilTolved by the fobfcqurnt faith of one of ih«m. But it might farther 
 \t* enqiiiicil, whrthtr chilHieu born of parenta, of wl)«oi one was a heatlien, 
 otigh: rot to be excluded t.om the cbufcch vriA the unclean or hcaibcn parent, 
 
 as 
 
[ 47 1 
 
 Again. The Apoftlc, in the 4th chap, to Gal. tcili us, that t/au 
 ^as born after the Spirit, and born by promife. ^^f ihis he illuftfaict 
 the gofpel- covenant i an.d faysj ^z IjAac was , /o are "jjt tbg chiUrem 
 
 Ss had been determined In the tlmf of Ezra ? To this the apoftle anfwcrs la 
 the negative. If a brother ha^j£ a 'wfe %vho b^He^JCth not, and /be be fieafed 
 to J^zvell'wiib hiniy let bim not put her aivay, and fo of the wife- who hath aa 
 unbelieving hufband. For the unbelievi/tg hvjband is^ or hath bccn,ya«^;-' 
 fed by the ivifc ; or rather, fanSl'tfed in, or to the nx'ife ; and the unbeUtt-in^ 
 'wfe hath keen fanBfediny or to the hufaiid. TIj^ unbelieving i« fan<5\ifieil 
 "in refpedl of, and in relation to the believing party, io that the latter h« a 
 lawful ule and enjoyment of the former. For, as the aptjftle fays clfewherr, 
 to the pure all things are pure : and e'very creature of God is gocsf, for it u 
 fan3ified by the iiutrd of God and prayer. Elfe "were your children uncltac. 
 If ths unbelieving partner were not fanilificd to the ufe of the believer, both 
 the parents muft be rejc6\ed from the church, the former *s a hcaiheu ani 
 unclean, thelatter a? crjmioally living in cohabitation with a heathen j as, in 
 the time of Ezra, thofe who refufed to put away the ftrange wives, whom 
 they had unlawfully taken, were to be feparated from the congregation. Con- 
 fcquently the children would be unclean, becaufe both the parents wouW be 
 io. But fince the unbeliever is fanflified In relation to the unbeliever, the 
 ■children are holy, and fo to be accounted members of the churcli. 
 
 The unbeliever is here faid to be fan6\ified, not in relation <o God, birt 
 «nly in relation to his, or heif yokefellow. But the children are faid to be 
 bolyt in oppofition to the nnclean, or to heathcH. A perfor/s being fanclifreJ 
 in a particular refpcft, or for a certain purpofe, as the unbeliever is liere faii 
 to be fan6\ified only in relation to the hufband, or the wife, does not dencre- 
 inatc him a holy one, which is, in fcrlpture, the approp: late title of thofc who 
 belong to tiie church. Therefore, though children are members of the church, 
 as defcendod from, and under the care and government of a beHcvlng parent, 
 yet a heathen becomes not a member of the church by marriage with a be- 
 liever. The words of the apoftie can convey no fuch idea. For he calls 
 children holy in oppofition to the unclean \ but he exprefsjy defines and liir.irs 
 the fcnfe, in which the iinbelieTer is fauiflificd. It is merely in refjicSl cT, 
 and in relation to the believing correlate. 
 
 The fcr.fe which we have given of the phrafe./^jv^///^ by, cr !• t^e io.v>, 
 ks approved by critical expofitors, particularly by If^/^itby, who fays, it is the 
 ftuCt given by the Cr-eei interpreters ; and it is certainly agreeable to the pl*;-3ic 
 in tlie original. The apoAle cannot inteud, tl*at the unbeliever is c-jni'trted 
 to the faith hy 'Wit believer j for this fanflification i* foir.ething *vliich had 
 already taken place, while the fubjefl was an unbeliever. The conyci£on of 
 the unbeliever- by the influence of the believing correlate, the apoftlc afterwanl 
 meations, as an additional reafon for cohabitation ; but he fpeaks of it :js a 
 chapge which hopefully may, not as what already has, or certMnly ^yt/7 taic* 
 place. Ul^at kaoiufji thou, O xvife, ivhelher thou fait fa<ve thy hvfb^rJ? 
 jAkI hoxv knov.'ef theu, man^ lyletter thAi fait fa'vt thy i' t/eP 
 
[ 43 1 
 
 Ift^e promife : i. f . we are lorn cli'Mren of the promir*?, a? ^cing 
 born of covenanted parcot5. Accordingly ihe Apoftic to the Hebreivs 
 rpeaks of the privileges of the covenant, as being the Birth-right of 
 ch?ifliar,>, ar.d cautions them, that they df DOt profanely fell thif 
 -birih-righr, as £,:7a did Z;/;. '-.' 
 
 y And it is worthy to be noted,. that the fanieiUks ^f which chriJI^ 
 tens are diflingulfhed from hcathcnsy arc rxpr«I*ly applied to the 
 <-;6i/irr/f of converted parents. Are chriftians aWtdjc.ivts ? So are 
 their children. • Are i^y called </^'^/a/*sSo arc their children, f 
 Do they belong to Gad's kingdom ? So xlo their chjidre».| Arc :hcy 
 called belie'vtri ? So diriftjaa families, which were fopported by a 
 common flock, in which Infari^s were inciudcd, are called the mttititua't 
 §f them ihat bc}it:ve.\ , _ A,pd, ^^^f '^ .("peaks of thofc little ones which 
 hclifve m him \\ Are chriftians called \)\t cbiUren o/Cod ? So are 
 the infants of profcfTors..^ , They that belong to the church arc called 
 ihe/aved'j To falvaiion comes to the houfe oi \\i^ believer. || Who, 
 that confiders, how thefe titles are promifcuonQy given to adult chM' 
 ians and their children, can doubt, but tha: children arc brought into 
 covenant with their parents in the gofpel-time, as they ufcd to be- 
 fore, and confeqoently are fubjcfts of baptifm, the only initiating feal I 
 S. I ihall add to the preceding argumsots. One more taken fron 
 I C^r. 10. 2. The Apcftle here, fpcaking of the Je'u.-s who came 
 out of £'^y//, fays, 77vj i^-ere all baptized unto Mofes in tht cloud and 
 in ihe/ea. 
 
 'That this paHage alludes to chrlHian bpptifm, our brethren,, partit 
 cuiarly the author of the letter?, aI!ovv» The Apoftlc plainly confidert 
 their bapiifm into M^/cs as typical o^ our bapiifm into Chrijf-, for he 
 adJs , Thc\ did all drink of the jame fpiritual drink ; for they drank of the 
 rock, ixshich followed them y and that rock is Chrifl or a type of Chrift. — 
 All theje things happened tb then for cnfafnplttt or types, and are iJirittcH 
 for cur admonition. The Jnvijk writers fay; * The people were bap- 
 * tj^cd in thi; defart and admitted into covenant with God before the 
 ' law wns given.' Now if the Apolllc has any refpcft to chrifl ian 
 baftifm. as it is plain he ha«, here is an undeniable proof of the 
 right of infants to haptifm. For he fay, Tht'y all, the nrhcle congrc- 
 paiion, of which infants then in their parents arms were a great psrt, 
 ehry all 'were haptifzed itito Mofff. All 'luere itnder the cloud. All f^rf'd 
 through the/ea^ f<c. lie repeats the univerfal term nil becaufe it is 
 tnpbatical httt. Now if this baptifm into Mofcs, was a type and 
 
 written 
 
 • : Cor. 7. H. 
 
 i Aa. IS. ;c. 
 
 J Mark lo. 14. 
 
 t, Aa.4. ::». 
 
 i; Mat. iS. 6. 
 tl Luke 1^ 9- 
 
 f, Erck. 16. ;>i 
 
t 49 ] 
 
 Written for our admonition, it typically admonifhcs us, that we dH 
 ilhould be baptized into ChriH, not helteven bkIj, but iheir children. 
 alfo. 
 
 As the whole tongregaticn were baptiied and admitted into cove- 
 nant at the fca, when Mo/es took th? command of thcih, (o this cove- 
 rant was again renewed with all, both men, women and linle oAf/, ju^ 
 before he left them. Dcut. 7X). lo, Te Jiandy ell oj you hef ore the Lord 
 your Cody your Eldcr8, your little ones, your wives, that thou Jhouldeji 
 enter into co'venant 'ixith the Lord, that he may epahliffi thee for a peofile 
 unts him/elf, and may he unto thie a God, c<s he hathf-juorn to thy Father, 
 to Abraham, &c. This covenant with Ahrohem, Which is fo cxprefsly 
 renewed with Uttls onts, is defcended to us and our children. 
 
 I fhall now briefly recapitulate the arguments that have been cffer- 
 cd, and prefcnt them in one vie\V. 
 
 The covenant, which God made with Ahrahartt and his feed, ex'prcfs- 
 ly included /«/i?«// ; and the feal thereof was, by God's command; 
 {applied to them. We, believing Gentiles, are the feed for whom ihe 
 covenant with Abraham was made ; and therefore our infants as well as 
 hii, are entitled to the privileges of the covenant, and fubjefts f.f the 
 feal of it, by virtue of the original grant to Abraham, in as much as 
 that grant has never been recalled. This covenant was renewed ic 
 the red fea—^VidL again in the plains of Moab, and fliil infants are 
 cxprefsly included. —All along under the Oid Tellament, children 
 arc coniprehended with parents in all covenant-tranfadliohs betweca 
 God and his people, and the token of the covenant is ftill applied to 
 theflk The Prophets often foretell, that the cafe would be the fame 
 in the gofpel time ; that Chrift Ihould gather the lambs with his 
 arms-— that Go^ wculd pour his Spirit upon the "ffipring of his peopie, 
 who (hould be the feed of the bieffed of the Lord, and thfeir cffsfrirg 
 rjjith thsrn. In the Jeivijh church, it was a cullom, long before our 
 Saviour's appearance, to rsctive gentile profelyics ivith their chiUren, 
 by baptifra as well as circomcifion. Chrifi alfo himfelf took infants 
 into his arms and blcfftd them, and direded tb^t they fliould be 
 brought to him, becaufe of fuch was his kingdom, that kingdom into 
 fvhich perfons were to be admitted by being born of water. He or- 
 dered his Apoftles to receive them in his name, arid treat them as his 
 4ifciples, When he gave the bapiifmal commiffion, he cxpreff d it 
 in fuch univerfal terms, as mull naturaly include infants: And the 
 Apoftles, knowing what had been the conftant ufigc concerning in- 
 fants, and how Chrift had ever t.-catcd them, muft andcrftand thrf 
 Commiffion as Extending to fach. Accordingly, foon after, when 
 G they 
 
[ 50 ] 
 
 (hey infitcd the conviflcd yMt/ to baptifm, they placed their rigM 
 to it upon the foo: of a protnife, which equally belongcvl to them and 
 their children. When they baptized the head of any family in his 
 own houfe, they baptized his family with him. They comlantly 
 taught, tliat the covenant with Abrahw/t, of which circumcifioo was 
 the Teal, is the fame which we arc now under, and tliat the bleflings 
 of it are come upon us GsntiUs — that the GinttUs are griffed into the 
 fame ftock, from which the Je^s were brdken off— that children are 
 holy by virtue of their parents faith — that bJiptifm is the chriilian 
 cirramcifion, and therefore they who are baptized into Chrill, arc 
 frred from the literal circumcifioa, and all oiher^ ancient rltea — that 
 circumcifion, as a fcal of the Abrahamic covenant, was a great privi- 
 lege ; but the gofpsl-difpenfation confers greater— They iliuftraie the 
 gofpel-covenant by ^ncifenrc txlXn^^titif covenant -tranfa6\ions, in 
 which infants were included ; by thfe cafe of I/aaCf who was born after 
 the promife, by Noah\ ark, in which Ki-s whole family were faved in 
 confequence of ^// faith, the like figure whereunto even bapiifm novv 
 favej u! ; and by the baptifm of the vohofc congregation, infants and 
 all, at the red fea, which was a type, and written for our admonition. 
 When we confider thefe things, we think the evidence abundaiitly 
 clear, that the infants of believers arc entitled to baptifm. 
 
 DISCOURSE IV. 
 
 HAVING laid before you the arguments by which the right tA 
 infants to bapiifm is vindicated, I fiiall now, as I propofcd, 
 
 III. Shew you the rational ends and mora! ufcs of infant baptifm. 
 
 If baptifm be a divine inftitution for the infants of believers, it 
 cughi to be applied to them, whether we can fee the ufes of it or not ; 
 But Aill rt may giveuj fome faiisfaflioo, to underlland what good ends 
 It can anfwcr. 
 
 We are often afkcd, * What gced can baptifm do to infants ?' It 
 inighc fuHice to reply. As much good as circumcifion could do to them 
 formerly ; or at much ai the public prefentation of firll-born infants to 
 God could do them. The ApolUe fays. The profit cf ^ircumcijion, 
 (which was ufuilly adminidered to iofantO was much every way. 
 The profit ^i infant hcptifrnm^y be as much. — Particularly, 
 
 I. It u evident, that God treats infants as finncrs for Adarn^ tranf- 
 grelTjon. In confequence of ha apoflacy, thty fuffcr a fad variety of 
 
 pains 
 
[ 51 3 
 
 p^ins and difeafes, which often iffue in early deaih. And from that 
 bias and inclination to evii, which they foon difcover, there is reafort 
 tofoppofe, they are infe^ed with fome moraJ difcrder, which needs lo 
 be removed in order to their entrance into the world of glory. By otu 
 ma::, fays the ^'po^X^, fin entered into the ivorU, and death by fin y aij 
 /» death pafiii u>pon all min^i for that all ban: e finned. — By one man's of^ 
 
 fence, judgment came upon nil to condemnation.-^ J.-i Adam all die By 
 
 his offence many are made fmmri^ la this language, he fpcalis in the 
 5th chap, to the RoraafticJ ais oxiv? 
 
 Now thegofpel aflures u3Vitlifat Chrift has obtained redemption from, 
 the condemnation of fin, and that in this redeiuption, all who believe, 
 are unfailingly interefted. JBut we fee, that a very great part of the 
 h^man race are cut off in iofapcy, while they are incapable of adlual 
 faith. What becomes of them P h any provifion made for their fal- 
 Vyition ? Or muft they perilh and be lofl for ever ? This is a natural 
 enquiry. Now to comfo.^t our minds concerning y«c;6, God has feen 
 fir to afTure as, that they may become partakers of redemption by 
 Chri/l, and be made heirs of the kingdom above, notwichftanding 
 their incapacity for an «i.7;<«/ compliance with thofe terms which are 
 propofed to the adult. And to conftrm 9ur faith and hope in his 
 promife, he has appointed, that they (hall be received with their be- 
 lieving parents into his vifible kingdom, the church, and have the 
 feal of his covenant afHxed to them. 
 
 The great promife of the covenant is, that God v.ill be a God to 
 believers and their feed. This promife is often explained in fcripture 
 to import the happinefs of the life to come. And God's appointing 
 the feal of this promife to be applied to our infant feed, is a moft com- 
 fortable ground of our faith and hope, that if they fhould be removed 
 by an early death, they will be tranfplanted into that happy clime, 
 where they will fpring up in everlalting life.* God 
 
 * The children of believing parents may be faid to he lorn in covenant, as 
 they are born under that promife of the covenant, / nuill be a God to thee and 
 toihyfeed. Accordingly God calls ihem His chiWren, born to him. T« 
 thofe who dis in infancy this promife may he undeiHood as impoiiing a rcfur- 
 re6>ion to eternal life. At the Apoltle argues concerning the patri.utlis, 
 (Hcb. II.) (b we may reaibn concerning ihefe; lince they enjoy no diftin- 
 guiJhing favw in this wcrld, there murtbe Tome good reftivcd for them in 
 another; ejic the promife fails. Therefore God is not ajhamed to be called 
 THEIR God, /or ke hath prepared for them a city. To thofe who arrive to 
 moral agency, the promife may import, no* only the enjoyment of the exter- 
 nal means of religion, but the attendant infli)ences of the divine (pirlt. The 
 Apofti'e telh uj, that among the many advantages cf circumcifiun, this i? 
 
 one 
 
[ 52 ] 
 
 God 19 fiid to have eflablilbed bis covenant wui» the cattk lod the 
 fowli, when be engaged no more to drown the carih with a flood ; 
 and as a token ofihis covenant, he appointed his bow in the cloud. 
 And furcly he may, in as juft ahd rational a fcoCe, eflabiiCx the covs- 
 ntat of grac2 with infants, engaging to pour his {pirit and bleffiog 
 Ufon ihcm, and appointing the feal of this covenant to be affixtd to 
 them, in token of bis faithfuliiefs to fulfil his gracious promiis. 
 
 2. The parent, by dedicating his chi^dr€n to God in bapiifm, fo- 
 lemnly binds himfelf to give them a religious and chriftian educatiro, 
 and to ufe his influence, that they i^iall keep the way of the i.ord, and 
 rot pot thcmfelves out of that covenant, into which they have been 
 thus vifibly introduced. Now if it is any privilege for children to 
 have a religious educatioa> it is a P^vjiege that fuch an education 
 ftiould hejkure^ to them ; and ccnfequently a privilege that the par- 
 ent, by this public tranfaftion, fnould coijenant and tngage to bring 
 them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. 
 
 It may be aflced perhaps, How a parent can covenant for his child- 
 ren ? Eut the anfwer is obvious. He can covenant for himfelf \q ^xi- 
 charge fuch and fuch duties to them, and can commend them to God, 
 in hope of iLe divine blelBng upon his pious endeavours. In this 
 fenfe may z'itx'i religious parent, as Joft^ua did, covenant for his 
 houfe. As for rm and my houfe zue ivi/lfer've the Ltrd. 
 
 3. As the parent, who dedicates his children, fliould confidcr him- 
 felf bound, by his own acl, to educate them religioufly ; fo c^Idrea 
 
 thus 
 
 one of ti)e chief, ihat to tham are committed the cracks •* God. (Rom. 3.1.) 
 And God expicfsiy promil'cs to Jacob his fervant, and to Ifrael >*^hcm he 
 has chofcp, / ijcitlpour ntyfpirit on thy feedt and my bhffing qn thine offsprings 
 and they JhaU fpri.igup as among the grafs^ and as 'uji/lo-ws by thenvater- 
 courfes. (Ifai. 44.. 3.) Their intercft in this promife, as the children of God's 
 fervants, is one ground of ihcir admilTion to baptifm, the token of God's, 
 faithfulnefs, and of their obligation to ferve him. But then it is by baptilin, 
 thai they are decl^rt'd to be wiihin tbp church, and entitled to ih-: 'vifib/c piiv- 
 ileges ot it. Perfons may be lirtuallj w covenant by their ox^n, or their 
 farenii faith i but they arc not 'vifhiy and prcfejfedly in cotenant, or in church, 
 t«il they have p.>fl"cJ »nder the appointad ceremony. V/hen we fpeak of per - 
 funs being admiiied into ihe chuich by b.»piil'm, we mean not, that this con- 
 veys the right of adu.l.Tion j fui it prcfuppofts the right and ihe quaUfcatiou, 
 or relation, in which the right, by divine inditu'ion, is founded : but that 
 it declares the vigV» ar.d thus introduces to 'vj/ii/tf privileges. God fays, 
 « The uncircomciied nian-child fiull be cut off from among his people, he 
 « haih broken my covenant.' He was previoufly in covenant, elfc he cotild »ot 
 be faid to break it by his uncircumcifion. So alfo the unbaptired perfcu ii 
 to be cut oiT, ox excluded from the piiviUgrs of the chrifiian church. 
 
I S3 -] 
 
 lius dedicated, when jh«y come to the age of reflection, fliouM rea}'a& 
 that, having been given to God, they are noc r/jiir o-wrt, bat /»// • 
 and arc bound to live, not to themjelvest but lo him whofe they are ; 
 and that a wicked',' irreligious life is a praflical renunciation of their 
 biptiffli, and difivowil of their relation to the God of their Path-' 
 iti, >::5V03 ::.:j ! ^t; 
 
 \i \\it Je^jjifty pareljt, by fcifturaciring his children, bound them 
 to own and {^x\^ the^G^d of' /j?aeI:-^U the vow of Sam/on's parents 
 boaud hiftt to be a Nazattte for fiyet-^lf Hannah's vow bound Samuel 19 
 attccd upon God in the fandloary ; as well may the ad of the chnJiiaK 
 parent, in bringing his children to baptirm, bind them to fervt the 
 God and Father of our Lord jefus Chriflr. The religious parent may 
 urge his children to a godly life by this argament, that he has given 
 them to God. Thus the mother of king Z,;.7/«f/ expoftulates with 
 him.* Whatmyfon? And 'Vi3hat^i^hj''an of my rMovib ? And ^juhat tit 
 fan of my vows ? And this argument will have weight with children 
 of an ingenuous temper. Thus the Pfalmift rcafons with himCclf.t 
 / tuill nivalk before the Lord. I tvill call on hit nat:^.e. I nx: ill fay my 
 'vovus in theprefer.ee of his t>cople, O Lord, truly I am thy fer'vant , I dJK 
 ihyfertanty the fon of thy handmaid.- ^i pals on, 
 
 IV. To confider the praflicc of the chrillian church wi:h ref^^^ 
 to infants immediately after the ApofoUc age. 
 
 The author pf the letters fay, • It isof fmall importance to chrirt- 
 
 * ians, •to know what the many writers upon this iabjecl, fince the 
 
 • lime of the Evangelifts and Apofiles, have affirmed.' But yet to 
 know what they have affirmed concerning the mode cf bapt-fm, he 
 thinks to be of no fmall importance. 
 
 He afferts, upon their authority, that the church for 1300 ye^rs 
 ^rz^iicdi immerjion ; though indeed he allows, iUzifprinklm^ was prac- 
 tifcd too in extraordinar; cafes. \Jpon the fame authority it may be 
 afferted, that the church, for many hundreds of year*, praflifed .v?/'ia//r 
 haptifm ; and not ^ f^g!e pcrfon, much lefs a church, can Le produced 
 which denied the la-ivfulr.efs of it. And the praaicc of the church i» 
 as good an evidence in favoor ofinfaKt l-aptifm, as it would have been 
 in favour onmmsrficn, in cafe that alor^ hac' been praillifed. — This 
 gentleman himfelf (perhaps inadvcrtenil) ) allows the early, copflmt. 
 uniyre'fal pradice of admitting infants 10 bapifiu. Tor he adopts 
 this pafTage from Dr. If'all, • X' chri.^isr.s i« the world, vho rcvrr 
 ' owned the Pope's authority, do now, and ever did, dip their nifana 
 ' \n \\i& ordinary ufe.' (Not ur^ivcrfally, but ordinarily dipt them ) 
 If they, ^-e'/// infants, they haptixed tbem. This pradUcc- is cf much 
 
 v-.^tv.' ' more 
 
[ 54 ] 
 
 more weight to ptovt infants are i\\t fuhjedj, than to prove dipping is 
 the mode of baptifm ; becaufc dipping was but the crdincny ufe, where- 
 a* infant bap'.ifrr., for ought that appears, was the uni-verfal practice 
 )6fthc ancient church, except in cafes o{ prcfelyli/m. 
 
 We ^0 not pretend to rell the proof of iwfanta iffght to baptifm up- 
 on the pra6^ice of the church, but upon the authoricy of i'cripiuje. 
 However, if it appeari, that the church, foon after the Aioflies, did 
 admit them, and there is no account of any chiirch that rojeded iheoi, 
 or any perfon who denied the la'wfulnefi of the praftice, or pretended, 
 xKac it was an inns'vationt this will be an argument of conlidcrable 
 weight, that it was derived from the Apoftle's : For the early chiill- 
 jans, they who lived In the ag^s nc^t after the Apoftles, muH have 
 known, what tleir pra£lice was in fuch a matter as this, which was of 
 a moft public nature, and concerned the very being of the churcft. 
 What the ufage of the church was, in tKe earlieft times after the Apof- 
 llei, we can Icarn only from the ancient writers, who are here pro- 
 duced, not as examples, but only as h'-jloriansy or witnefTes to a plaia 
 matter of faft. 
 
 Jujiin Martyr^ who wrote about 40 years after the apoftolic age, 
 fays, * We have not received the carnal, but the fpiritual circumcifion 
 ' by baptifm — And it is enjoined to all pcrfons to receive it in the 
 
 • fame way.* Here he plainly confiders baptifm as fuccecding ia 
 rhe place of circumcifion, and confcquently as being dcfigned for in- 
 fants as that was ; which opinion he could not er.fily have fallen into, 
 if the Apoftles had univerfally, both in do(f\rine and prafticc, rejefted 
 infant5. In one of his apologies for the chriftians, he fays, * Several 
 
 • perfons among us, of 60 a.id 70 years old, who were made dijciples ta 
 
 • Ckrijl from their childhood, do continue uncorrupt.' Made difcipUs, 
 He ufes the fame word which is ufed in the commiffion ; Difciple all 
 naticns baptixing them. If they were made difciples^ they were doubt- 
 lefs baptized. 
 
 Irei.rus, wlvo wrote about 67 years sftcr the Apoftles, and was born 
 it h fald, before the death of St. Jchn^ and was acquainted with 
 Pcljearp^ who v^as Joh>i's difciple, fays concerning Chrift, * He came 
 ' to fave all perfon? by himfeif, who by him are regenerated (i. e. 
 ' baptized) unto God, infants, Htt'c ones, youths and elderly peribns.' 
 ihat IreniTus ufcd the word regenerated to fignify L.iptixed, is plain 
 from his own words where he fays, * When Chrift gave his difciples 
 ' the command of re>yn':rafitg unto God, he faid. Go &nd teach all 
 
 • natiors hu:.::x.:ttg them, ftc* 
 
 Tirtullin»t, who floorilhed about 100 years after the Apoftles, gives 
 a plain teiUijjony, that the chjrch admiiied infants to baptifm in 
 
 bis 
 
X 55 1 
 
 hii time. It is true he advifes to cielay their baptifm ; not becaufi 18 
 was unlaiofult for he allows of it in cafes of ncceffuy ; nor mierly 
 upon the foot of their infancy^ for he advifes alfo, that mnnarried per- 
 fons be kept fronv this ordinance, nniil the/ either marry or are con- 
 firmed in continence ; but becauft the Sponfcn were often brought 
 into a fnare ; and becaufe, he imagined, fins committed after baptrjm 
 were next to unpardonable. But his advifing to delay it, fuppofes it 
 to have been the praftice j for othcrwife there would have been no 
 room for the advice. H'» does not fpeak ol i: as an inno'vaiiont which 
 certainly he would have done, had it hegun to be praflifed in his lime. 
 His words rather imply the contrary. His fpeaking of Spanjors, who 
 engaged fur the education of ihe infants that were baptized, fliews 
 that there had been fuch a cuftom. Apd his aflcing, Why that inno- 
 cent a;re madej'uch h&Jie to baptjfm, fuppofes that infants had ufually 
 been bapiizcd foon after their birth. So that he fully enough witnef- 
 fes to the/43t7, that it had been the pra<5lice of the church to baptize 
 infants. And his advice, to delay their baptlTm till they were grown 
 up and married, was one of thofs odd and fingular notions, for which 
 this Father was very remarkable. 
 
 Origen, who was contemporary with I'ertuUian, exprefily declares 
 infant-baptifm to have been the conflant ufage of the church from the 
 Apoftles. Hz fays, * The baptifm of the church is given for the for- 
 
 * givenefs of fins : But why are infants, by the ufage of the church, 
 
 * baptized, if there is nothing in them that needs forgivcnefs V 
 
 Further he fays, ' Infants are baptized for the remifiion of fins ; for 
 
 * none is free from pollution, though his life be hut the length of one 
 
 * day upon earth. And ?t is for that reafon, becaufe by baptifm the 
 
 * pollution of our birth is taken away, that infants are baptized.* 
 
 Again he obferves, * The church had from the Apol^les an order to 
 'give baptifm to infants ; for they, 10 whom the divine myileries 
 ' were committed, knew that there was in all perfons the natural pol- 
 
 * lution of fin, which mu(l be done away by water and the Spirit.* 
 
 Now as Origin, in thefe paiJages, argues from infant-baptifm to 
 prove original fin, ws may conclude, it was an uncontrovertcd ufage 
 of the church ; for otherwife he could not, with propriety, have ufcd 
 it as an argument to edablidi another point. 
 
 Cyprian, who wrote about 150 years after the Apodles, gives a full- 
 er teftimony to this fafl. In thia time a qaeaion was fiarted by one 
 Fidus, (not whether infants might be baptized, but) vvhcther baptifm 
 ought not to be given them on the eighth day, according to the law of 
 circumcifion ? This quefiion was propnfcd to a council of 65 Bifhops 
 convened at Carthage^ who unanimoufly refolvrd, that ihe baptifm of 
 
 infanti 
 
infants ought not to ht ueferrcd to the eighth day, but might be givch 
 them at aoy time before. And a Itirge letter to t'lis purpofe, contain- 
 jog the reafons of the rcfolve, wis written and ijgncd by Cyprisn, in 
 ihe name of the council. 
 
 Now in this afTcmbly of Minlfters, doubtlets there wire forac 60 or 
 »-o years old, whocouli reoiember within \tii t^an ico years of the 
 Apoftles. And therefore, if infant-ba'ptifm ha^ been a ufagc lately 
 introduced, hmeov all oi them mud have knoA-n it. — And if fo, it is 
 very ftrangc that not one of them intimated a\iy fcruple about it. 
 Whether infants (hould be baptized, fecms not to have been at all 
 aqueftion, but only whether their bapiifm needed to be deferred 10 
 the 8th day, which without hcfitancy, was determined in the neg- 
 ative. 
 
 A little more than 100 yt^ars afjtr this timCj Gregory Na:ii arisen 
 taught, * that infants (hould be bapttzed to confecrate them to Chrift 
 « in their infancy,* Jmhrofe, * that the baptifai of infants had been 
 
 * the praclice of the Apoftles and of the church till that time.* Cbry^ 
 ^ fojlom, * that baptifm had no determinate time, as circumcifiDn had, 
 
 * but one in the beginning of life, or one in the middle of it, or onf 
 
 * in old age might receive it.* 
 
 But not to maltiply citations ; I fhall add bi:t one ir.orc, Auf.in, 
 about 3C0 years after the Apcftles, had a controvcrfy with Pelmgius 
 &bout original fia ; and to prove it, he frequently urges infant-bap- 
 tifm, demanding, Why infants are baptized for the remiflion of fms^ 
 if they have none ? Pdcgius though greatly puzzled with the argu- 
 ment, yet never pretends, that infant-baptifm was ^n unfcriptural in- 
 fiGvatiot:, or zpariisil ufage in the church ; which, had it been true; 
 a man of his very extsnfive acquaintance with the world, muft have 
 known ; ani had he known it, he doubtlefa would have faid it, whcrt 
 }.e fojnd himTelf embarrafTed with the argument. But far from in- 
 timating any fuch thing, when fome charged upon him the denial of 
 infant-baptifm, as a confvquence of his opinion, he difavows the con- 
 i'eqncncc and coff^plains, that h: had been fanderouf^y rtprrfentsd as der.y* 
 ir.g baptijtn to infants. He aCc.^, ' Who can be fo impious as to hinder 
 ' infants from being baptised and born again in Chrift ?' And 
 citing ihcfe words, Exctp: one he horn cf ii^attr and the fpirit, he cannet 
 enter into the krigdom •fGoJ» he fays, * Who can be fa impious as tQ 
 
 * ft^\i^c to an infint, of whatever age, the common redemption of roan- 
 
 * kind .'• And many other exprelTionD he uj'cs, which plainly fuppofe, 
 
 that infant-hiptifm had been pruJlifcd unircr^Vily, and time out of 
 
 znJnd. 
 
 And 
 
t 57 3 
 
 And from this time, till the year 1522, (as Dr. IVall, upon a moft 
 Carefttl enqairy, affures us) thtrc is noi fo much as a man 10 be fv)und, 
 who has fpoken againft, or even pleaded for the delay of the bapiifm of 
 infant?, except a ftnall number in France, in ihe 12th cencury, who 
 denied the polfibiiity of their falvation, and confequently th^ir right 
 to baptifm. But this fed foon disappeared. 
 
 Now if all the firft churches were every where eftablilhed by 'he 
 Apoftlcs, upon the plan only of adult bapiimi. and chiidr^n were every 
 where left unbaptized, how could infant-bapulm Wp; n {o eirlv, and 
 rpread fo cxtcnfively as it feems to have donr ? Ho«v could fuch a 
 rpeedy and total alteration take place in a matter of fuch public no^ 
 lice and great importance, and yet no noife be made ab-^ut it ; no op- 
 podtion raifcd againft it ? Such a thing would be abfurd ro imagine. 
 Thcearly and oniverfal ufage of the church is then an argument of 
 ^ety conGderable weight, that infant baptifm was an Apoflolic prac* 
 ticc. 
 
 To invalidate this argument our brethren alledge, that many c - 
 fttptioos were early admitted into the chridian church under prcteucc 
 i^\ Apojlolic traditions, and prevailed without oppofition ; fuch as Infant^ 
 Communion, Exorcifm, Trine'ImmerJtftn, Vndion after baptifm t tic. 
 But fuppofing thefe had prevailed as early and univerfally, as we fiud 
 infant baptifm to have done (which truly was not the cafe) ye: there is 
 this mighty difterence. Thefe were but circumllantial errors, which 
 did not deftroy thebeingof the church, or nullify men's chriiUanicy, 
 and therefore it is no wonder, that we have no account of any warm 
 controverfy about them. But infant baptifm, in the opinion n>' our 
 brethren, does, fo far as it prevails, unchurch the church cf Chri!? : 
 iFor they look upon thofe, who have received no other baptifm, a' be- 
 ing unbaptized, and unfit for chriftian cotnraunion. Now if the firft 
 chrillians had viewed it in this light, would they have fat filcnt, when 
 they faw it get footing, and prevail ? Would not feme, alarmed at the 
 dangerous innovation, have born their tcllimony againft it ? Would 
 there not have been fome churches, which prefcrvcd the primitive 
 ufage, and renounced communion with fuch as had fa clTcniially de- 
 parted from it ? The different fcfls of chriftians were often inflamed 
 againft each other by fmaller differences. It is therefore utterly an- 
 accountable, that there Ihould be nodifpute, when this fuppcfcd/««^- 
 amental innovation was introduced, nor the Icaft remains cf any con- 
 troverfy about it, until within thefe two or three centuries. 
 
 There were indeed foitte great corruptions intr-'duced into the 
 church, which in time ccnfidcrably prevailed, foch z% Image i^-orfrip, 
 Tranftibffantiatiertt 5cc, But thefe never prevailed fo univerfally, fo 
 
[ S3 ] 
 
 ekrJy, nor fo ivithout oppojition, as we have feen i.i/unt baptifrjt muH h^ve 
 done. A great part of the chriftian church has always rejeftcd them 
 and protertcd againfl them. Many Synods and Councils have public- 
 ly condemned them. And in the limes when, and places where they 
 jAoH prevailed, it was by the protcdiion and fuppon uf civil and mili- 
 tary power ; which cannot be pretended in the cafe of infant baptifra. 
 
 It is lime that wc draw to a conclufion. I have only to lay before 
 you a few deduAions from what has been ofFered. 
 
 It has, I think, been proved, that our- baptifm is one with that of 
 
 Cur brethren^ and that we have neither changed the baptifm inftituted 
 
 by Chrift into another rite, nor introduced a ne-w fct Qi/ubje£ii. And 
 
 therefore, 
 
 I. I beg leave ferioufly to enquire. Whether our brethren have any 
 
 juft occafion to withdraw themfelves from our communion ? Surely 
 the candid among tf\eni will acknowledge, that our opinion is not io 
 wholly without foundation, but that it may confiH with an honefl and 
 good heart. And can it be for the intereft of chriftianiiy, which wc 
 on both fides profefs to regard, that wc fhould renounce fellowlhip 
 with each other on account of this difference ? We are willing they 
 Jhould commune with us, and yet enjoy the liberty of acting agreeably 
 to their own principles. Though we with they might think with us, 
 yet we would by no means conflrain them to bring their infants to 
 baptifm contrary to their confcienccs. And, I apprehend, few min- 
 iftcrs would fcruple to adminifter baptifm by immerfion to any fuita- 
 bly qualified, who chufe fo to receive it. For though they think af- 
 fufian warranted by fcripture, yet they are far from denying the va- 
 lidity of immerfion. Since therefore our brethren may enjoy iheir 
 own principles with us, what occafion can they have to feparate froju 
 us? 
 
 Perhaps fome will fay. We cannot commune with you, becaufe, in 
 our opinion, you are unbapiized ; nor can we receive baptifm from 
 your rainillcrs, becaufe they have received no other than infant baptifm, 
 which is a nullity : And fince they hare not been regularly baptized 
 themfelves. they cannot adminifler valid baptifm to others. 
 
 It were to be wilhed, that perfons of fuch narrow fentiments would 
 realize the confcqacncc. Infant baptifm was undoubtedly the univer- 
 fal prafticc of the chriftian church for many hundreds of years to- 
 gether. Hiftory does not inform us, when it firft began to be praftif- 
 cd ; but we have particular accounts when it was firft oppofcd. 
 And if it be a nullity, there is not, nor can be again, any regular 
 baptifm in the world ; for thert is not the leaft ground to pretend to a 
 fucceflion of aduU baptifms. If we trace Svlult baptifms back, we 
 
 muft 
 
[ 59 3 
 
 mull come to the time when they were admlnlflered by thofe wka 
 v.'ere baptized in infancy, and who, upon the principles above mei»- 
 tioned, could not adminifter valid baptifm. Our brethren therefore, 
 by nullifying our baplifm, nullify their o-.vn ; and by unchurching us, 
 unchurch themfslves. Yea, upon thefe principles, there were no au- 
 thorized miniftcf's, nor regular churches, nor baptized chriflians, for 
 many centuries together,, cor arc there now, nor ever will be again, 
 without a new commiflion from heaven. How then has Chrift fulfilled 
 his promifes, that he will be.wiih his miniflers always to the end qf 
 the world, and that tfhc gates, pf hell /hall not prevail againft his 
 church ? We may refi affured, that thefe promifes have not been for- 
 gotten, and confequently, th^t baptifm.did no: ceafc, nor the ^hurch 
 fail, when infant baplifm became fo much the general pra<ftlce, that a 
 fucceflion of adult baptifms wa/j nowhere pref^rved. Ourbrethren 
 jthen mart allow, that baptifro, a'S-aaminifteredin our churches, is va- 
 lid, and confcquentl/, that the abo\x mentioned pica, for declining 
 communion with us, is of no weight. 
 
 And indeed many among them, thongh they think infant baptifm, 
 efpecially when performed by fprinkling, not regular, yet ^o fo far 
 allow the validity of it, that they fcruplc not to hold communion uith 
 us. Some baptift churches in £«^/^W arc founded on this catholic 
 plan. The church, of which the late celebrated Dr. Fcjlcr was mln- 
 il^er, received to her communion fuch as were baptized in infancy, 
 without requiring them to be rebaptized. The famous Mr. ^''hijlcn 
 was admitted to the communion of this church, after leaving the 
 church of Englami, without rebaptizacion, which he never would fub- 
 mit to ; for though he pronounced baptifm in infancy, and by fprink- 
 ling, to be wrong, yet he declared it to be * fo far real baptifm, that 
 it ought not to be repeated.'* V/ere our brethren all (as indeed many 
 of them are) of the fame generous fe.'^iiments, we (hould hardly need to 
 be known as different fefts ; to be fure there would be no occafion fcr 
 dividing communions upon our diilcrent opinions. 
 
 With thofe of Icfs generous feptiments, 1 beg leave ferioudy to ex- 
 poftulate. That you have the fame right as U'c have, to judge what 
 are the divine inftiiutions, and to prafiice aciCordingly, none will de- 
 ry. But to differ in fentiment and pradicc, i) one thing ; to renounce 
 communion on account of this difference is another. To jufli/y this 
 flep, it is not fufficient to prove, that you may be in the right : It is 
 neceiTary to prove, that we .vv«/? he fundament all j in the wrong. You 
 fuppofe us to be in an error. But is this error, in your opinion, fo 
 njanifcft, and fo grofs, that none who embrace it can be honefl chrirt- 
 
 ians ? 
 * • Clark's Defence, pagf 34., 
 
t 60 3 
 
 i§ns ?— Can you dcmonnrate, that the feil of the covenant of grace 
 was mv^r appointed fur the children of believers ; or, if fuch an ap- 
 peinimFOi was once made, ii has fince bean revoked ? that bapiifm «/- 
 nc\7jf figriifies immerfiott, and that this mod? was itt^ariaUy ufcd by 
 l^capoUics? Tnat the age and manner of adrniffion into the church, 
 io u c among you, is fo cITv-niial, that the leaft deviation nullifies our 
 cor ftiunity f— Will you pretend, that there are no real chriftians in 
 uir c^urchvs ? That the word and ordinances adminiHered in them, 
 h*ve never been bN(rrd to men's conversion afi^ i^lvatioa \ That there 
 wa» nothing of the p »^vcr of godlioeft, in ind after the time of re- 
 formation ? No true religion among our fathers, and in the churches 
 founded by them ? That 'here have been no revivali of piety in thcfc 
 churches fince they were planted ? That God has never owned them 
 by providential proteftions, or by tbe ^ffufions of his fpirit ? Hat 
 there never been any real godlinefs,. but what was confined to your 
 denomination ; and none at sll in tbat long period, when your fefl 
 did nocexift ? Thefe things, I know, you will not pretend. Nay, I 
 Yvill enquire farther ; do not mnny of you date yoar own cocverfion at 
 a time when ycu were in fentiment and in communion with our church- 
 es ? Did not God beftow this great mercy upon you, while you at- 
 tended on the miniflration of his word and ordinances among us? 
 This, 1 know, fome of you profcfs. You believe then, that God has 
 owned, and Hill owns thcfe as his churches : and yfiWXyou difown them ? 
 Will you, rejed that which God receives ? If you think it moft con- 
 venicnt to wcrlhip and commune ordinarily with thofe of your cvvn 
 frntimcnts ; yet why need you renounce fellowlhip with us ? Are you 
 doing God fervice, when yoa caufe divifions and offences in his 
 churches, contrary to the doclrine of peace and unity, that we have 
 received ? Let us not, r.y brethren, rend the body of Chrift by our 
 divifions ; but wiih united zeal build up his kingdom in the world. 
 
 2. The preceding difcourfcs teach us the unwarrantablenefs of re- 
 baptization. It is agreed on both fides that baptifm is not to be re- 
 peated. If then our baptifm is valid, a repetition of it is contrary to 
 the ivill of God. In the baptifm of an infant there is the application 
 of water in th^ name of the Trinity, as well as in the baptifm of an 
 adult. If this baptifm be not valid, it is only becaufc the fuhje(5l had 
 not faith, and did not a^ually confent to the baptifmal obligations. 
 No".v if the baptifm of an infant is a nullity for want of thefe qualifica- 
 tions, tha want of ibea a'III equally nullify an adult baptifm ; but yet, 
 I prcfume, none of our brethren will carry the matter to this length. 
 Let uj put a cafe (and fjch a one it doubtlcfs fomciimes happens.) 
 An adalt perfon tr-ikes a crofcflior. of faith and obedience, ar.d is bap- 
 tized. 
 
[ C' 1 
 
 tixsd. It ioon appears from the wickcdncfs of hi* life and the ccr- 
 Tuptnefs cf his principles, that he had no faich in any rational fcnfe, 
 and never confented to the baptifmal obligations, but was irfluenced 
 ooly by carnal views. The man afterward comes to repentance, con- 
 feffes his hypocrify in ihi^ affair, and owns he had no religious views 
 in the whole craAfadion. He now give? fatisfaftory proofs, that he ii 
 become a real penitent and believer. Ought this perfon to be rebap- 
 tiz-^d ? Every one will Ci^yt No 7 becaufc he has been baptized, and 
 his baptifm will fave him, a^ he has notu the anfwer of a good con- 
 fciencc toward God. When ^'^cn the forcerer, who had been bap- 
 tized bv Pbilipt difcovercd the- vile hypacrify of his heart, /*f/^r 
 dircfts him co icpent, that his fin might tje forgiven ; but fay; roih- 
 ingof his being baptized agsin : VVhereai te fays to the unbaptized 
 'JtviSy Repent^ and be baptized for the rsmijft^n effiiis Bac there is juft 
 the fame rrafon, why this hyp^crit£ ^:^\i\d be baprizcd again upon hit 
 repentance, as why the infant fbouJd ; becaufe he no more had faith 
 before baptifm, and no more coofented to any religious obiigatior, 
 whe:i hf was baptized, than an infant. If a profcllioo of reptntaiiCtf 
 is all ihat isneccfTary to our receiving this baptized hypocriiC, a pi»^- 
 feCi^n of faith and obedience, at adult age, is all that is necelfdry to 
 our receiving one baptized in childhood. So that rebaprizacion ix 
 unwarrantable and finful even upon the principles of our breihrta 
 themfelves ; and much more upon fuppoCtion of infants right to bnp- 
 ^ifm, which, I think, has been abundantly proved. Further, 
 
 3. If children are the proper fubjeds of bap ifm, then it is the hn^ 
 difpcRfibie duly of parents to prefent 'hem to Gad in this ordinance, 
 and there muftbe an InexcufAblc negieft in tJiofe parents, who, though 
 convinced of their chiidrens right to baptif(% delay to procure it for 
 them. 
 
 Some will fay perhaps, * Though we difpute not their right to ir, 
 yet it appears to us to be a matter of very little confequence.' 
 
 But certainly it is a matter of ^r^w/ coafeqiicnce, that you compi/ 
 with a divine inftitution. Ke that breaks the leall command fnall be 
 called leaft in the kingdom of heaven. 
 
 Perhaps you will fay, * We can't foppofe the happint- .'s cf ocr cbi'd- 
 itxi at ail depends upon t!=!eir baptifm, fincc i: is a thing oui of iluxr 
 power/ Be it fo : Yec if it be a duty incumbent on )Outobiing 
 them to b2ptifm,'_y<7«rhappiner3 may depend on youx compliance wuh 
 this as well as any other duty. But how arc you (arc that ihe:r welfare 
 no way depends upon it ? Their welfare much Jep-nds on their being 
 jeiigiojfly educated-— their cdjcatlcQ will chitflv lie wiih )0u— by 
 
 ltc;r 
 
[ 62 ] 
 
 their bapiifcn you engage to give them a religious education — and if 
 your bringing yourfclves under public folemn obligations, jvill beany 
 motive with you to educate them religioully, then their welfare, in 
 fome degree, depends on their baptifm. You wi^ll fay^ * You can d» 
 your doty as well without fuch a promife aawjt^ it,* With equal 
 reafon might you fay, you can live a rcliglou* li/« without cvtr mak- 
 ing a profeflion of religion, as well as if you tjld. ■ But God has re- 
 oQircd you to make a profeflion, becaufe this- will be a proper motive 
 and ioddcement to you to live a religious liic-.; it i? a fuiiable means 
 of Hrcngthening your obligations'and keeping fhem in your remem- 
 brance. And your dedicating your children to Gad in baptiira is 
 founded on the fame reafon. It is a promifc which you take on your- 
 fdlves, and a means of reminding you of your obligations, to educate 
 them reiigioufiy. And this will be an argument, which you may ufe 
 to good advantage in your add I'enVs to^them. 
 
 With xefpeft to cnbaptizcd infants, we may be afiured, God will 
 do them no wrong. But if he has made their baptifm a condition 
 of {he bcflowmenl of forae undeferved favours, who can fay, this is 
 unjufl ? It would be prcfumption to affert, that all w4i3 die unbaptizcd 
 are loft. God*s tender mercies arc ever all his work?. But thc/ro- 
 mif'e is to believers, and their children. And iTiouId we fuppofc, that , 
 the baptized infants of believers, have forae advantages above other 
 infants in another (late, this could not be called abfurd : For it is 
 cert&inly a part of the fchcme of Gid's moral government, that fome 
 n.ould be benefited by the piety of others. All interceflion is found- 
 ed in this principle. You doubtlefs fomctimcs pray for your infant 
 children. If you fee them in danger of death, you pray, not only 
 that ihcir lives may be fparcs', but alfo that their fouls might be fav- 
 ed. But why do you pray for them, if you imagine no good can 
 redotmd to them from your faith and piety ? How often did Chrirt ex- 
 crcife his healing mrfcy toward the fic'k on account of the faith of 
 others? IIjvv often did he grant cures to children upon the earned 
 petitions cf their parents ? It would then be extremely ra(h to con- 
 clude, your infants canno: be benefited by your dedicating them to 
 <iod- Thofc believers, who brought infants to our Saviour, that he 
 Ihould blefs them an.i pray for them, entertained another fentisient. 
 They thought the j^ood ofthefc children, in fome mcafure, depended 
 on /6.'/r bringing thfin to Cluift. And Cbrift commended their pie- 
 ly, and direflrd oiheri to do likewife. 
 
 Some perhjps will fay, • We believe that infants are fubjefls of 
 baptif.iJ, but we ijueftion OJr own right to give them up to God th^re- 
 
 iQ.» 
 
I 63 ] 
 
 in.' Bat if you qucftion your own right, k mnft be, bccaufe- yo4 
 queilion whether ^rou have any religion. And can you be content- 
 ed fo ? 
 
 Whatever the difHcuIty is, which lies in your way, it fhould be your 
 immediate concetn to remove it. Is it not your intention to live a life 
 of religion ? Is It not your dcfirc that your children fhould grow up 
 before the Lord ? Is it not your refolution to bring them up for Wim ? 
 If it is, then fay fo, by a pnblic dedication of yourfclves and your chil- 
 dren to God. If it is not, then tremble at the thought of your own 
 impiety and careleffoefs. If you have nogood purpofcs and defires, 
 you cannot confidently profefs any ; jf you have good defirei and 
 purpofes, ftrengthen and confirin them by bringing yourfelvcs under 
 explicit obligations to a^ agreeable to them.. 
 
 Finally. Let fuch as have . de/iicai^d their children to God, aft 
 under a fenfe of the vows that are upon them. 
 
 If your children are removed by an early death, quicily fubmit to 
 the will of that fovercign Lord, whofe property you have acknow- 
 ledged them to be, and entertain no anxious thoughts about the man- 
 ner in which he has difpofed of them. When you gave them to him 
 in baptifm, you prcfciTed your faith in his mercy toward them. If 
 you cannot truft him to difpofe of them, why did you dedicate theia 
 to him ? If you can, why arc you anxious about them now fincc he 
 iias taken them into his own hands ? 
 
 If your children live, then bring them up in the nurture and ad- 
 monition of the Lord. If your worldly circumftances make it nc- 
 ceflary, that you fhould commit them to the care of others, fee that 
 you put them into families where you have reafon to think, they will 
 be religioufly educated. If you keep them under your own imme- 
 diate care, train them up in the way in which they fliould go ; and 
 commend rhem to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able 
 to build them up, lod to give them an inheritance among the Saint: 
 
 AN 
 
AN 
 
 APPENDIX, 
 
 CONTAINING THE HISTORY OF THE ORI6IK OF THE ANA* 
 
 baptists: in rouR lettbks to a, friend, who ha> 
 
 SOME SCRUPLES CONCERNING TUB DIVItiB RIGHT O* 
 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 prritfrn by phrticUtaf reauefi. 
 
 BY NATHAN PERKINS, a.m. 
 
 Pastor of a Church in Hartford, 
 
 LET TE R I. 
 
 Sir, 
 
 You have been blefTcd with the adv^intagcs of i public liberal 
 education, for which, you fay, you can never be adequately thankful. 
 Much of your tirrc, fince you received the honors of the univerfity, 
 has been devoted to reading and thought. And what has given mc no 
 fmall fatisfaiflion, is that you are extrcraely folicitous to forni juft no- 
 lions of the great fubjeft of Religion in general, and to derive your 
 lentimcnts, concerning any du<flrines or rites in particuhr, purely and 
 folely from the infpired volume, the foatcs of celellial wij'dom. 
 
 In ourlafl interview, the topic of our converfation, you will rtf- 
 colIe(ft, was the prailicc of our churches, in difpenfing the ordinance 
 of bapiifm to infants. 
 
 la the courle of our reafoning, I informed you that I had, of Uie, 
 been particularly attentive to the rife of the feft, who are ccmmonly 
 diftingoifhfd among us, by the name of baptiib. I have found ic 
 more difficult to invcfligatc their origin, than I expctled, when I 
 firft examined the lubjcd. With great care and pains, have I endea* 
 voured, li^r the fatiifadion of candid minds, to afceriain the time, 
 manner and cccafion of their rife : — have aimed at a true, faithful 
 honcft account, exlra<flcd from a number of very learned authori, 
 wiiofc names will be mentioned in their proper place. Brevity and 
 candor have been ftudicd : a large volume might have cafily bcea 
 compicd. 
 
 I would applaud your purpo(c to abide by the truth, let it malc« 
 for or againll you, let in)C on which Ude of the litigated queftion it 
 may. — Happy f:r the world ! happy for the church 1 and happy for 
 
 individuals \ 
 
I JsJ 
 
 IhdivTduats TIT all, "wMliavc rcrupTes^'upon tBcTr tnrnd^T a^iout Hie 
 validicy of irifanit baplifm, were equally candid, moderace and unpre- 
 judiced. If it be not a fcripture pradlice, I would be among the 
 mod zealous to explode it. In the mean time, I would treat our hon- 
 eft, but erring aniipsdobaptiftical brethren, with tcndernefs. Beyond 
 a doubt the -aim of «any of them is pdre ; and their wi(h to pre- 
 fcrvc the ordinances from pollution, and the gofpe! from mixtures of 
 human inventions and traditions, deferves conamendation. But per- 
 sons, who a£l from the beil motives, may labour under many and 
 grcfs errors. — The following hiftory of the krii appearing and behav- 
 iour of the fe£l, called a&abapUft$> is certainly interefling to all : 
 I flatter isyfelf will be pleating to you, and may tend to throw light 
 on what has been involved in adcgrcc of obfcurity. 
 
 The queftion before U8, now is, when did-th* ikft, who deny bap- 
 tifm to the infant feed of believers^ arife in the church of Chrifl ? 
 Did the church, in its earlieft and pureft ages, univerfally receive the 
 children of chriftian parents to the holy facrament of baptifm ?— 
 They undoubtedly did.— And the following ancient writers 
 arc cited and appealed to, as witneiTes of this faft, (viz ) the admiflion 
 of the infants of believing parents to baptifm, in the primitive 
 church. Whether they were admitted or not, is a thing which could 
 not but be publicly and perfectly known, in the times near to the 
 Apoilles. Ic is impoflibley in the nature of the cafe, that chriftians* 
 in the iirft ages, fhould be deceived or miftaken in this matter 
 concerning the praflice of the churches, which were formed 
 by the Apoftles, throughout the world. And, if infant baptifm 
 were not the practice of the Apoftles and Evaogelifts, it is utterly 
 unaccountable, how it came fo foon to be adopted, as we find, by 
 uhcontrolable teftimonie«, it was. 
 
 To invalidate this evidence of the ancient fathers, thofe who op- 
 pofe infant baptifm, tell us, * They were weak men : held foolifa 
 i^and abfurd opinions : interpreted fcripiure flrangely and whimfi- 
 • cally : and, after all, fay but little about infant bapiifn:.' We do 
 not appeal to them, in any other light, than as witnefies to a public 
 ftanding fad, of which they could not but be competent Judges, and 
 w^lch they muft abfolutely know, — muft know, as fully and clearly, 
 as whether the fan in the firmament rofc and let, in their times, as 
 wc kno«f it ^oes in ours. — Juftin Martyr,' who wrote only forty 
 ♦ears after the Apoftolic age, in his fecond apology, mentions, 
 ^ * chriftians wdo in their infancy had been pro/fly feJ to Chrlft.* Pro- 
 JetyttJ they could not be, without baptifm ; for all knowr, that the 
 
C 65 3 
 
 cnly way of being pro/elytes to the chriftian religion, 13 by bip- 
 tifm. — IrenaEJs, who wrote fixty-fcven years after the Apoftlcs, and 
 vas born before the death of St. John, in his third book dgainll 
 heretics, thirty-ninth chapter, fays, that • Chrift came to fave all 
 
 * pcrfons by himfclf ; all, I mean, who are baptizld unto God, 
 
 * I nfa:iT£, and little ones, and youths, and elder perfons.' — Ter- 
 tuliian, who flourifhed about an hundred years after the Apollles, is 
 the only pcrfon among the ancients, who advifes, to * defer the bap- 
 
 • tifm of infants, except in cafes of necefiity or in danger of death.* 
 Piece on baptifm, eighteenth chapter.— Origen, who lived one hun- 
 dred and ten years after the Apoftles, in his 8 homily on Levit. 
 12. fpeaking of the pollution which cleaves to infants, fays, ' befides 
 ' this ; alfo let it be confidered, what is the reafon, that whereas the 
 ' baptifm of the church is given for forgivencfs, infants alfo, by 
 
 * the ufage of thechurch, are baptized : when if there were nothing ia 
 
 * infants, which wanted forgivenefs and mercy, the grace of bapcifoi 
 
 • would be needlefs to them.' — And, again j * i n pants are baptized 
 
 • for the remiffion of fin. Of what fin } Or when have they finned ? 
 ' Or how can any reafon of the layer hold good in their cafe ? But, 
 
 * according to that fenfe before mentioned, none is free from pollution, 
 
 • though his life be but the length of one day upon the earth. And 
 
 • it is for that reafon, that infants arc baptized, becaufe by the 
 ' facraraent of baptifm the pollution of our birth is taken away.* 
 In another treatifc he fays, that the ' church had from the Apof- 
 ' ties a tradition or command to give baptifm to infants.*— 
 This teftimony from O^igca is a full proof, that the baptifm of 
 infants was the ftanding cullom of his day ; and he was born but 
 eighty-five years after the age of the Apoftles. He was prefident of 
 the fchool at Alexandria in Egypt, where he principally lived. He 
 was acquainted with the mod noted churches in all the world. 
 
 Doflor Gale, a learned anabaptifl, has ventured to difpute the above 
 authorities, but prefumes not to conteft thofe which follow from Cy> 
 prian and Auftin. — Doftor j ohn Gill, of London, alfo, here I may re- 
 mark, allows Origen's leftimony and that of Cyprian and Audin. Cy- 
 prian , who wrote 150 years after, what is called the Apollolic age, 
 gives a mod indubitable tcdimony to this {\^, (viz.) that the baptifm 
 of 1 NF A NTS was the univcrfal, cftablifried pradice of the church, in 
 his day. 
 
 In the year 2^3, a council of 66 BifhopJ convened at Carthage in 
 Africa, where Cyprian was Bifhop or Minider, to confidcr this quef- 
 ticn, whether baptifm txiight lawfully be adminida^Cd to infants, till 
 they were eight days old, according to the law of circuracirion.--Thc 
 
 council 
 
[ ^7 ] 
 
 council unaniraoufly decreed, rhat the baptifm of infants was not to he 
 delayed till the eighth day. The occafion of that famous council's be- 
 ing convened, was thi^ ; Fidus, a country Bifhep, doubted whether in- 
 fants might lawfully be baptized, till eight days old. The time of the 
 fitting of this ccclefiaftical council was only an hundred and fifcy year* 
 after the Apoflolic age, aodfomc of the members who compofed if, may 
 reafonably be fuppofed, fevcnty or eighty years old ; and if they* were 
 baptized in their infancy, as they undoubtedly ivere, it carries up 
 thepraaiceof receiving INFANTS to the facrament cf baptifm, to 
 within eighty years of the Apoflles themfelves : and, at the time of 
 their infancy, there were many alive, who were born in the very agp 
 of the Apoflles ; and muft infallibly know, what the Apoftlcs praflicc 
 and appointment were. The Clementine conftitutions, a book thought 
 by fome to be of great antiquity, and acknowledged by all, to be ex- 
 tant io the fourth or fifth century, and to contain a good account of 
 the ancient difcipline and praftices of the church, have this exprcfa 
 command :—' Baptize your infants and bring them up in the nurture 
 ' and admonition of the Lord ; for, he fays, fufFer little children to 
 * come unto me, and forbid them net.* — There are fcvcral other tcf- 
 
 timonies from Clemens Alexandrinus — Gregory Nazianzcn — Bafil 
 
 Arabrofe — Chryro{lom~-and Jerom, mod full to the purpofq, but too. 
 long to be here infertcd. I (hall clofe this view of the witncfTcs from 
 ancient monuments and records, by inflancing a very fin^^ular one 
 from the writings of Auflin and Pelagius, about 300 years after the 
 Apoftles. I adduce it, to demonftrate to all unprejudiced acd candid 
 perfons in the world, that b a ptizi ng infants was praftjfcd from 
 the firft fetting up of the chriftian religion. — Auttin and Fcligius, all 
 will own, were two very able and fubcle difputants. The firmer. In 
 his controverfy with the latter about the dodrinc of origingl fin, to 
 prove infants afFedled wich it, frequently and with great triumph, 
 urges their baptifm, demanding, ' why infants are baptized for the 
 remiffion of fin, if they have none.' The acute Pelagius ii exceed- 
 ingly embarrafTed by the argument. All fee how much it concerned 
 him to deny the baptifm of infants, if there had been any polUble 
 ground for it, ant/io do all that in him lay, to invalidate and difprovc 
 it. Had it been an innovation, a d e r a rtur e from toe Apof- 
 tolic prafticc, as the modern anabaptllls pretend, though againil all 
 antiquity, it is impclTible but fo very learned and acute a inan, as 
 Pelagius, who lived fo near the Apoftle?, and had been pcrfonally ac- 
 quainted with fome of the moft noted churches in Europe, Afia and 
 Africa, muft have been able to difcovcr it, and both to have, and to 
 |ive fome Ilrong fafpicion of it. But docs this wife and ftron^-fightcd 
 
 difpatanc 
 
[ 68 ] 
 
 di/pafant lUerrpt any thing of this kind ? So far from it, tbit (otna 
 of his adverfaries having drawn, as a confequence of his opinion, that 
 infants are not to be baptized, he warmly difclaims it, and, with in- 
 dignation, complains that he had been flanderoufly reprefentcd by 
 men, as denying the f-cramcnt of baptifm to infants, and promifing 
 fhe kingdom of heaven to any, without the redcnapiion of Chrift ; 
 and adds, * that he never heard, no not any impioQi herclic, who 
 
 * would fay, that which he had mentioned, (viz.) that unbaptizcd 
 
 * infants are not liable to the condenination of the firft man, and that 
 « they are no: to be clcanfed by the regeneration of baptifm.' — He 
 then proceeds, * who is (o ignorant of that which is read in the gof- 
 
 * pel, as I do not fay, boldly to affirm, but even lightly to fuggeft, or 
 
 * wen to imagine fuch a thing ;* *, in a word who can be fo impioas, 
 •as to hinder INFANTS from being baptized, and born again in 
 
 * Chrid, and fo make them mifs of the kingdom of God ?' AuAin on 
 original Hn. 
 
 Such clear, abundant, full proof Is there, that infant? were baptis- 
 ed from the beginning of chridianity, and is not a novel praAice, in- 
 troduced by the corruptions of religion, and by lordly cede fi allies, to 
 fcrve a turn. 
 
 I am. Sir, with thcgrcateft edeem, 
 
 your's in thegofpcl. 
 Dscta:her 3, 1788. 
 
 L E T T E R IL 
 
 Six, 
 
 1 GO on with the hiftory propofed, coocernicg which, ypu 
 fcf m ib anxious. All fober and honcft enquirers after troth muft be 
 equally anxious, en a poiat fo material in thcdifputc abov:t the validity 
 of infant bapiilrn. Well then, all the churche: throughout all coun- 
 tries, tipcn the firft tctting up of chriftianity, were, it is moft certain, 
 forroei upon the fajne model, and either admitted infants to, or rc- 
 jcdlcd them from, the facrament of baptifm. And how the Apoflics 
 and Kvamgclifts organized ^t churches, all the members ofthrm 
 perfcdiy knew. The church at Corinth — at Ephefus — at Thefl"aia- 
 nica — at Rome — at Colofs — and Galatia, certainly knew, whether 
 Paul and his companions, when he baptised them, baptized alfo their 
 JRfant5, or excluded them from the covenant. In the next age, there 
 could bs'no niiilake or ignorance as to this fa6t, whether infants were 
 oj were not adwiiicd to baptifm. It was fo plain a fafl, and of fuch 
 
 a 
 
a nature, as mnfl be known by every chrllUan then living on tbc 
 earth. If the ApoftJes did not admit them, we cannot conceive, hovr 
 they fhould gain admiflion fo early, lb extenfively. To univerfaliy, as 
 we find, by full evidence, they aflually did. And, fuppofc they did 
 not admit thert, how would thofe, who firft attempted to bring them 
 forward, be rCcitfived ^ Would not all cry out agaioft fuch innovation ; 
 and demand * by what authority they a£led ? Do we not know they 
 "^ ought to -be excluded ? Look into all the churches throughout the 
 'world : into Syria, Paleftfhc, Egypt, Greece, Italy, Africa, Spaio» 
 
 * and you will' find there nevef' was fuch a thing known nor heard of 
 
 * among chriltians, asBAETiziNc an infant.* What, I greatly 
 wonder, could the firft baptizers of infants polTibly reply ? 
 
 Doflor Gill of London, who was one of the moil vehement af- 
 ferlers of adult baptifm only, that ever appealed, owns that infant 
 baptifm was the pradlice of the church univcrfally, from the third to 
 the eleventh century ; but contends, with all his might, that the 
 Piedmontefe chriftians rejefted it, and prad^ifed on the plan of adult 
 baptifm only. — To this we (hall come direftiy. Here, however, 
 though a digreflion, it may be proper to mention the famous William 
 V/hifton, who forfook the epifcopal eftablilhment, and wtnt over to 
 the fmall fcft of anabaptiib in England. He was a very learned man, 
 a great aftronoraer, and well verfed in the ancient fathers. In his ad- 
 drefs to the communion of the baptifts, he declares, • that Dr. Wall's 
 f hiftory of infant baptifm, as to the fafls, appeared to him, moft ac- 
 « curately done, and might be depended on by the baptifts themfclvcs.* 
 Memoirs of his life, part IL page 461. This gentleman, in a piece 
 intitled Prim-iti-vc Infant Baptifm Revived , notwithllanding the above 
 declaration, pretends lo 2i great and ne-iv difca very {v\% ) tha? when 
 the ancient fathers fpeak of infants being baptized, they mean rot 
 infants in years, but in knowledge ; and fays, he communicated th'tf 
 difcovery to the learned men, Biftiop Hoadly, and Dr. Clark ; ani 
 they confented to it as julV ; and a! fo to vhe great Sir Ifaac Nc*ton, 
 defiring his opinion upon it. The anfwcr returned was, that they 
 both had njade the difcovery before. — I am not obliged to clear Mr. 
 Whifton from his inconfiftence. As to his pretended ^nat dfo'-jny, 
 it deferves only the fmilc of contempt. Let the fathers fppak for 
 themfelves. I am fenfible that ibmc vrry eminent f a^dobaptills have 
 c.^prefTcd fome doubt about the ancient pr3(J\ire of the church, in the 
 ages near the Apoflles, as to baptizing of infants, which may be Teen 
 in Mr. Rutherford's invalidity of infant baptifm. He mentions Doilof 
 Da Veil, Hammond, Bi(hop Taylor, Groiius, rnJ fcvcral oihcrr. 
 Bat the eyidencc is not the Icfs clear, bccaufe feme have not iir:)»vrd 
 
 it 
 
I 73 3 
 
 Jc fo be foil. It would be Orange indeed, if fonflc who had not ftudi«d 
 th2 matter, fhould exprcfs doubts. But, of ail pretended dis- 
 coveries, ihat of Whifton's above named, is moft abi'urd, and ap- 
 pears to be ibe refulr ol a dreadful neceflity. He felt the dilemma io 
 Hfhich he was invoived. He muft either give up aialt bapiiiir., and 
 change hia religion agarn, or find out that all the fathers, in ihe 
 primitive ages, when they ufcd the word infants^ meant young peo- 
 ple, or ignorant old people, metaphorical infants. Gonial: the 
 
 fathers; confult all ecclefiaftical hiftory, and you will find ihc va- 
 lidity and lawfulnefs of infant bapiifm, were never denied by 
 any body of chrirtians, or churches, till about eleven h u n.- 
 BR.ED AND THIRTY ycars after Chrift. And then only bv one 
 Peter de Bruis in France, with his followers, a fmali fed, who 
 held that no infants were faved, and many oiher ftrsnge and £.b. 
 furd tenets. This fmall feft foon dwindled to nothing. After this, 
 there cannot be found any well vouched inilance of a church or 
 auv number of chriftians, who denied infant bapcifm, uoiefs 
 they denied all water-baptifm and external adminiilratioBS, tiil 
 the rifing of the German anabapiiils. Do^lor Wall in his hiftory of 
 infant baptifra, a moft learned and judicions work, and which Mr. 
 WhiiloD, the iiioll learned of the enemies of infant bapiilm, al- 
 lows, as above remarked, to be good and genuiuc, has this pafifage — 
 Part If. chap. jo. fe61. 1. " For the fiffl four hundred ycars, there 
 •appears only one man, Tertullian, that advifed the delay of infant 
 
 • baptifm, in fome cafes ; and one Gregory, that did, perhaps, prac- 
 
 • ti.''e fuch delay in the cafe of his children : bat no focieiy fo thinking, . 
 
 • or fo praflifmg, nor no one man fo frying, that it was unlawful to 
 « baptize infants. In the next seven hundred years, there is 
 
 • not {a much as one man to be found, that cither fpoke for or prac- 
 
 • lifed fuch delay, but all on the contrary. And when, about the 
 
 • year eleven hundred and thirty, one iecl among the 
 
 • VValdeofes declared againfl the baptizing of infants, as being inca- 
 
 • pablc of falvation ; the main body of that people rejedcd their 
 
 • opinion. And they of ihcra that held that opinion, cjuickly dwin- 
 
 • died away and difappeared.' And there were no more heard of who 
 held ihat tenet, &c. till the riUng of the German anabapiirts, about 
 4C0 ycars after, or in 15Z2. 
 
 This Is the origin, according to the bfft authenticated hiilorics of 
 the feit, vi Igarly ca KJ among us, baptirts. 
 
 And to this the bapii^s can oppofc nothing worthy of credit, except 
 fome au;hors, who tell about baptizing adtilts, which is nothing to 
 the pvrp>»fc : bfcaufe all agree that unbap'.ized adults, as well a?, in- 
 fant, arc :he fubjcth of ihc ordinance cf bap'.ifm. Some 
 
C 7« J 
 
 Some alfo have fpoken againft baptifm of Infants, who lilye!>€ea 
 agaJnll all water baptiira ; and held that there are no outward otdi* 
 nances. Mr, Dickinion, in a well written dialogue, page 7, fays. 
 * You cinnot pretend that the pra<^ice of baptizing infants, was ever 
 called in queftioii, or made matter of debate in the ctKirch, till itm 
 aiad men in MitnstE'R, who v^cre the fcanda! of the reformaiion, (et 
 thenifclves againft this pracflice, as well as the other ordinances of tie 
 gofpel. You muft allow therefore^ that from the fourth century to th» 
 fixteenrh, is more than eleven hundred year^ ; now during this Icog 
 period, what became of our blelTed Saviour's promife to be with hi« 
 minifters alnvays in the adminiftration of this ordinance ? I now de- 
 mand of yoa an anfwer, if any can be given, to this qucliion, was our 
 blefied Saviour with his minifters, in the adminiliration of baptiici, 
 during this period, or was he not ? If you acfwer in the affirmative, 
 you acknowlege infant baptifm to be his inftituiion ; if you anfAcr 
 in the negative, you call his veracity and faiihfulnefs in queUion.* 
 
 Mr. Clark, in his anfwer to Dr. Gil), who attacked the above- 
 mentioned dialogue with great fury, feems to have deeply ftudied the 
 controverfy, and did honor to hlmfelf and the caufe ; he coincides witb 
 the learned writer, and proves to the fatisfaftion of the candid, ihat ic 
 is, at lea'ft, fomewhat doubtful, whether that fe<fl among the Waldcnfes, 
 who, it is pretended, denied infant baptifm, upon this ground, that 
 they were incapable of falvation, did deny it or not. For it is mat- 
 ter of fa<ft, that the whole body of that people, known by the name of 
 Waldenfes, were greatly flandered by their popifh opponents, who en- 
 deavored to fix upon them all the horrible tenets they could. And, 
 perhaps, charging them with a denial of infant baptifm was, among 
 other things, a falfe charge. It is impoiiible to look intot^t dark 
 age, and know the exa^ truth. 
 
 Mr. Clark, after a long and labored confutation of Do6or Gill, 
 thus exprelTes himfelf^* Nor is there any account for the firfl^co 
 
 * years after Chrift, nor any (hadow of proof, that there was any fed 
 
 * of chrillians, or body of men, that may be called a church, owning 
 
 * chriftian baptifm, that denied it to infants — Nor any one man. in 
 ' that period, that objedled againfl it, except Tertulllao, nor did he 
 
 * condemn it, as unlawful, but only advifing the delay of it, as more 
 ' profitable. Nor is there any evidence at all, that it was oppofcd by 
 ' any one man, for the fpace of fix or feven hundred years from that 
 
 * period ; but the prat^lice continued, in the univerfal church, without 
 
 * interruption or exception, fo far as can be known ^om the wric- 
 
 * ings and monuments of antiquity, till Peter Bruis and his followers 
 
 * ia France, in the 12th century, arc faid to renounce :r. a ie(\ that 
 
 * ccn tinted 
 
f 1^ 1 
 
 •-coritinoed biit a ftori time, a»»d dwindled away ; whcretf yet t!la^e \s 
 •but probable evidence, at beft. And, is to the Waldenfes, Lntiicf*s 
 
 • forerunners, iheir oppbfing irifaivt ba^Jtifrtr,: :^nd b«iog^ Yound- onlj 
 
 • in the praftice of adaU baptifm, for ali-thai^lias hl«M«rio speared, 
 ♦"deferx-es no better name, than that of'a chfiiitf^a of gfOundlefs fic- 
 tion,* pages 179, 180. But allawinifthe ttioft,^<fcefe u ih> account, 
 in hiftory, of any who rejedled irfar.t •bfljj'iirm YiH -1 130. A few 
 wHd and fanatical individuals among it4>cfoHbw€?s"<)f Waldo, and 
 fhofe called Petrobrufians, from Peter Bruis, pcrhaf>l did rejedl in- 
 /iahfs. becaufe they held that^*rt>y ctm^d not befavcd. The body of 
 the Wald«nfe8 and Albigenfesrhfldl^lnfaftl bapiifta. Wall's hiao- 
 rjr, part II. chap. 7.^*-I- flatted 1117- Letter with this account, and 
 referve for the fubjefl of (hcnntfli tbc^fiiig of ibc GermaB anabap* 
 liiisaod iheif condiid^^ -• r<in/*^v Vvj rtv"^^ 
 
 ,1,. iiBW— — — WW 
 
 LETTER IIL 
 
 Sin, 
 
 In my laft, we looked back for a remote rife of the (t&. of an* 
 fibaprin?, but could find no hint of it, till thtf year eleven bun- 
 i>RE!> AND THIRTY, whctt a fe w appeared for a time amang the 
 Petrobrofians.— We come now to a more remarkable period. 
 
 Doftor Robertfon, in his hirtory of Charles V. givei a very live- 
 ly and aff*e£ting defcripiion of the fcdillons and difturbances, occa- 
 fioned by them in Germany, in 15^5 ; and is of the opinion that they 
 then FIRST arofe. See his hiftory of Charles V. vol. II. from page 
 268 to 276. 'f,if)i<;sm li'n ) y 
 
 :\Djdor Mo(hiem is cf the opioion, that their origin is obfcurcand 
 lies concealed in the remote depths of antiquity ; but after aticntiyr- 
 ly. <vcighing all the writers, on both fides, and all they have flid, 
 thinks it by far the mod probable, that the anabaptifts and Meno- 
 niies are the offspring of the Petrobrufian?, and that they firft arofc in 
 the i-ih century, as proved in my laft letter. Sec his ecclefiallical 
 hlftory, a juftly celebrated work, under the head of the hiUorf of l|ic 
 Anabapiills orMcnonites, page 134, 135, vol. IV. 2d edition. He 
 /ixes the period of!.iheir rile in.- Germany Toon after ihedawpof^c 
 reformation, wbev^Latbtr aroie to fet bounds to the amhicioa^f^ 
 Rome. - • '"^ v'»^, *' v'»^< »M . »'•••. . ■•■» y, 
 
[ 73 ] 
 
 A little before the feformation, which was in the beginhlfig ofihi 
 i6th century, there were great difconicnts and murmurings among 
 the Boors, or country pesfants in Germany, wiio were very grievoufl*^ 
 opprefled by their, iyrannical princes and opulent landlordi. Whea 
 Lutner fet on foot his reformation in the year 15 17, which foon tnade 
 a prodigious noiie and awakened general attention, there arofe feve- 
 ral fanatical teachers, who, talcing advantage of the ferments and 
 commotions of the people, began to diffeminatc among them th^ mcft 
 feditious opinion*. 
 
 The mod diftinguilhed of thefe teachers, were Nicholas Storck 5 
 Mark Stuben> and Thomas Monizer. They made their public ap- 
 pearance about the year 1-521, dnd divulged anftong the difcontented 
 people, feveral very pernicious .doftrin^s,, among which were ihsle : 
 t^at c^njfians zvere free from all fuhjeSiofi to frlntiSt'^ihat then ought 
 to be a community of goods — and an equal dtfri Nation of properly . B/ 
 means of fuch do*^rines, which were highly plcafing in ihofe times of 
 oppreflion and difcont?rlt, th^fe teachers were able foon to colleft an 
 immcnfe number of followers. Lu:her, in ih? year 1520, publKhcd 
 his book of chriflian liberty, in which he afferted and rhaintained the 
 right of all chriftians, to enjoy a freedom from that cruel yoke of pa- 
 pal tyranny, and that galling burden of hiiman inventions and arbi- 
 trary uperftitions, with which men's confcience had long been loaded ; 
 though, at the fame time, he inculcated obedience and fubjcdlioo tcj 
 princes and magidrates, iu things of a civil and temporal nature. 
 But thefe fanatical teachers, impioufly pretending to inspiration 
 and SECRET converse with the deity, complained, tha: 
 Luther had flopped (hort of the truth ; and they extended his codlrinc 
 of liberty t<S things temporal, as wc!l as fpiriiual. They taught 
 their followers, not only to renounce the Romifh tyranny, but to dc- 
 fpifs the authority of the civil magiftrate* 
 
 Muntzer the chief leader of the party, publicly anrdunced him- 
 felf a man divinely raifed up to chaftile and depcfe wicked princes, 
 affuming this odd and fantaftic title: the sword of the Lord 
 AND OF Gideon. He loudly and vehemently declaimed againfl: 
 the government of the princes, as cruel and tyrannical, ard no long- 
 er to be endured by chrillians, who are called to liberty and bound 
 to Hand fall therein. And, having the multitude anacbcd to hl» 
 perfon and principles, he boldly inculcated on them j that fil! thinrs 
 ^wtrt hy nature fee and comnon to ell : that in tkc kingdom of Chriji, 
 thin ought to he no difiiniiion of rich and poor, great andfmnll, but a 
 firftSi equality : and that they rjjere bound to fhn \t cjf the dominion of 
 
 I fnnce: 
 
t 74 J 
 
 priHces .\ni ih$ txaPAng tf landlords » as vuell at the tjrannj c/ the Pa^i, 
 and reduce thi/igs to a righteous level. 
 
 Infpirei wiih thefc levelling priaciplcs, the multitude grew more 
 lod more tumultuous, and went on, under ihc'ir tnthufuftic leader, 
 committing the moll horrible diforders, dcpofinjg^ipagiftraLea, rifling 
 mpnaftcrics, pillaging private houfes, plundering gOQds, and difp«fing 
 of property, according to their own wanton plcafurc. 
 
 I^untzcr, having fetout on feditiou5 prjnciplcit^gaiuft the govern- 
 ment, ivas not 10 be reflrained by the *at,oiugspt Luther and other 
 proteHant reformers, who fpared no p.^icu to reclaim him ; but in- 
 veighing againft Luther's reforraauoc^aj? clT^nually defective, he be- 
 gan now to confult wiih his accompUces, abflut renewing ihc church 
 to a more /)ure and perfeSl mdd. J^^Csiii occaGon, they came to a re/-, 
 oluiion tobaptize anew all tbofi^ wj^pjfifned their party, thinking ibi%. 
 a proper expedient^ lo ftcuce,,|l)em Jq ^b^eir intereft; and left any 
 fcruples ofconfcience, on account of former baptifm, (hould provc.au 
 obllacle to the defign, they declaimed ajainft infant baptiim, as a nul- 
 lity, both ufclefs and unlawful, becaufe infaiits were not capable of un- 
 dcrftmding the nature and defign of that facrament. They urged 
 that the adults only, who were able to judge and cbufe for ihcmfelves, 
 ought to be admitted to it ; and therefore baptifra in infancy, being 
 a nullity, could be no reafon againft receiving baptifm at adult 
 
 This notion took and fprcad mightily, in that ignorant andenihu- 
 fiallic period ; efpecially among thofc, who, inflamed with political 
 rage, wifhed to call in the aid of religion, to fecond their nefarious pur- 
 pofcs. In a fhort time, Muntzer and his aflbciatcs alTembled a ncofider- 
 able army, folcmrly bound to each other, by thisfacramental rite. At 
 the head of this army, he went on, committing all iheenormous crimes 
 and ridiculous follies, which the moll, pervcrfe and infernal imagina-^ 
 lion could fuggcll, till he was defeated by the eledlorof Saxony, aodf* 
 fome other princes, he himfelf taken and put to death, and his deluded 
 followers fcattercd in various parts. ^ 
 
 This defeat however did not terminate the delufion. After this, 
 many who were infefled with the fame fadicus and enthufiaAic diforder, 
 and who had been afl'^iciatcs with Muntzer, wandered about in divert 
 parts of Germany, fowing the feeds of error and fedition. They 
 gathered congregations in fcveral places, and predicted, under pre- 
 tence of n I VI N F. COM MUN ic ATiONs, thc approaching downfall of 
 princes, and deftruftion cf civil magiftracy : and, by*thcir inflama- 
 tory difcourfe*, often excitcd the ignorant multitude to tomulti aid 
 rebellion ; and provoked againft ihcrofelvcs the tengrance of the 
 civil authority. Among 
 
[ 7J ] 
 
 Among the inforriflions of this fcfl, one of tne mofl remarkable 
 was, in the year I53J> ^^^^^ ^ y^^" after Muntzer's defeat. A hand- 
 ful of mertj who' had gotten into their heads the vifiooary notion of 
 a new and fpiritSi kingdom, f^on to bs edablifhed in an extraor- 
 <JiQ2ry manber,*^formtd themfelves into a fociety, under the guidance 
 of a few iTIifet^tc'Icy^h; '^hofch out of the populace. And they 
 perfuaded, not only tH^ ignorant makitade, but even feveral among 
 the learned, that Munfter Wat to be the feat of this new and hea. 
 VENLY JsR XT SALEM, whofe*"ghofl!y dominion was to be propagated 
 thence to all the ends of the earth. The ringleaders of this furious 
 tribe, were John Matthias j John Soccold, a Taylor of Leydcn, Ber- 
 nard Cnipperdoling, a citizen of rank and fortune, and Rothman, 
 a zealous proteftant preacher in the city, with fome others, whom the 
 Klind rage of cnthufiafm, or th^ 'ftill more culpable principles of fe- 
 cfition, had embarked in this extravagant and defperate caufe. Thev 
 made themfelves maftcrs of the city of Munftcr, depofed magillraies, 
 end did every thing that can ihock the human mind. John Boccold was 
 proclaimed king and legiflaior of this new Hierarchy : married 
 eleven wives (all of whom he had at once) to prove the lawfulnefs of 
 polygamy ; and cut off the head of one with his own hands, becaufe (he 
 doubted his heavenly call — behaved with the moft ftiocking impiety 
 and tyranny— committed all manner of wickednefs, liceniioufnefs, 
 and debauchery, under pretence of civil and chriflian liberty.— 
 But his reign was rranfitcry, and his end deplorable. For the 
 city ofMunfter was, in the year 1536, retakten, after a long fiegc, 
 by its bifhop and fovereign. Count Waldeck : the new Jerusalem 
 of the anabaptifts dedroyed, and its mock-monarch puniihed ^ith a 
 noil painful and igominious death. The diforders occafioned by the 
 anabaptifts at this period, not only in Wcftphaiia, but alfo in other 
 places, {hewed too plainly, to wfiai horrid lengths, the pernicious doc- 
 trines of this wron^headed feft were adapted to lead the inconfideraie 
 and unwary ; and therefore, it is not at all to be wondered at, that the 
 freular arm employed rigorous meafures to extirpate a fatftion which was 
 the ocafion, nay, the fource of unfpeakable calamities in fo many coun> 
 tries. Thefe fanatics, thus ofien defeated and difperfed by the powers 
 which they infujied, diiTrfminalcd their :enets in various parts, whither 
 they fled to efcape punilhment. And probably their fufferings, as well 
 as feeming zeal in religion, excited fome prejudices in their faveur, 
 among thofe who heard more of their TufFcrings than of their crimes ; 
 and thus contributed to their fucccfs in making profely tcs. I acknowjegc 
 our brethren are not anfwerab'c for the extravagances committed above 
 ZOO years ago. Many of them, I know, condemn foch irregularitici 
 
 ai 
 
[ 76 ] 
 
 {;3 mtich'ss wf do ; and fdnieof oor own denomination havetfallsQ-in* 
 to as wild exceflesEs any of them. I have mentioned this piece of 
 hiftury, not to caft an odium on the fe6l, but merely to (howhEhe lime 
 and manner of its rife. The difagreeaLble circ«n)ibincei attending the 
 rife would not have been introduced, if thcy\;hati nc^beeo'ib inlerwo-'^fr 
 vcn with '.he m&in thread of the narrativc,':^at Unjy cbuld not be en- • 
 tircly feparatrd. I have cauiioufly avoided all reproachful and fevere 
 epithets : I full well knoV^ that one {flan^^Us^f igOdd a v»|ilic Co think 
 for himfelf in matters of relig^ion,^a» aftmhefr- '-• ; ! ^ - ■ 
 
 In the ic view 6fthishifkrry,.^oa'f«tllie6c«a{K)n Jind'groandf, fis well 
 as time of the rife bf the fefl. — A psf'ttEtfeE to a more neak.-- 
 int:macv with ThE-DEiTV ^hano-phers ekjoy : secret** 
 caitiMUNiCAtldi^sii'WlJfJH^rft-^an'i^isiMil.g- WORLD : visions^I 
 
 dreams, REVBLATlO:K,AKDTBaLDCL.AIMS TO IMMEDIATE 
 
 iKSPiRATiON, lead in afl feparatioiW or fadions in religion. If- 
 you challenge any part of the above hitl(jry^ you are invited to exam<^^ 
 ine all the fathers, and other writers quoted : after this, you will ' 
 be obliged to own the iruih of what is above laid down. Candor, 
 Sir, and faithfulnefs, and a meek difpofuion fhould guide every con- 
 troverfial pen. Whether mine has been under this guidance, is Icfc 
 for you to decide. The above compilation wzb a laborious talk, fmall 
 and inconfiderable, as it may feem to any. — I will not trefpafs any fur- 
 iher, dear Sir, upon your patience, and conclude, with wiftiing yoo 
 cftablifiimcnt in the truth, and every happinefs. — Adieu. 
 
 LETTER IV. 
 
 IR 
 
 (^ : . '• r^"l5Up aril . '• -^ri' 
 
 Our correfpondencc. on the;fubjc3 o-f ibc Ris? of the J^nji^ 
 bapiirts hath for fome time been difcontinued^ I would now refuatjr^ 
 it, and {rouble you fo far aj to aflc you to peruke one letter more. Th« 
 time is now happily arrived, in which religious contrcverfies are dif- 
 cuffed with more candor a;id good tenipcr than formerly. When we 
 turn over the page of polemic diyiuity, we ire difguftcd as well &i 
 grieved to find fo pyucVlJiiici-i^fi^, jntollerance and evil fpcajciog, ia 
 ihofc who profef; t# be honcjl cn^uireri after truth and duty ; to h/g 
 meek follo^eri, of a Jowly Redc,enicr i ?aci to feel the pov*'er of his rpij^ 
 ligion, which is t feti^ioacf j^^iccapd^opcj-will, of forbearaucc^a^. 
 ::vc, cf geqilcnefs and |jpasfc|sity. ^hi r^gku cf man and ;hc righ^, 
 
 of 
 
[' 77 ] 
 
 of coftfciBflcc, civil liberty and religious freedom, are ably pletded b / 
 the prefent day ; and it is hoped, in das time, by the favor of an in*r. 
 dalgcnt Heaven^ th«9pf0grefs of free enquiry, the empire cf rcalon^ r{ 
 and infla£atte©f -gr<iciei;'wiU be univerfiilly di^ufed. Happy era, if ail 
 the human lace-ftlight iijcgin to tafte the fiveetsof civil liberty and ; 
 equal gover^m^t^ and ZQ>i(^ht beliold the dawnfal of tyranny and f(i«v 
 perftition-!? h'^.l-.Bf.-io'j-i llg b'^fo-jr •••"k. ■ • n- > v'-iij 
 
 Refolaiionaliila BwHtiplyeu^Qitw aihapowid^ innovations areevfry . 
 where taking place; former prt^tTe^End opinions are exploded mere-"", 
 ly, in fomc inftance* it is -,|q?vbe i^ired, be^auie- ancient, and new 
 ones adopted only becaufe a§v^.? Xl^e^ n)ind-Qf pl»ilofophic bencvoT.^ 
 Icnce ardently wifhesjibafc iiOi /fiiVpl»U^JV<5rii««vovafio* might lakf^ 
 place, but what may fubferv-ft ithftgejifir|ilrtr>«?wlU of fociety aod h*jr- 
 man happinefs, of purereli^ODaostEcabiciencci A vvife and difcreet: 
 man will never difconiinneian^ftcieai prailice in the things of reli*- 
 gion, till fully convinced ih^at ic-i» wrong-, nor begin a ntw om ^ 
 till there be a plenitude of evidence in its favor. , *r 
 
 Perhaps the very title of thefe letters may difguft our brethren on 
 the other fide of the queftion. The felf-confidcni and uninformed may. 
 feel an indignation and contempt at the very idea of fuppofmg their 
 difcriminating praftice and feniimeais not coeval wiih chriftianity it. 
 felf, or not fanftioned by apoflolic example and divine precept. Bat 
 wc conceive we have an adequate proof, that their exc'ufion 
 of the infant feed of believers from the ordinance ofbaptifm, is 
 in one fcnfe povel, and not warranted by any apoi.olic precept cr ex,-" 
 ample. 
 
 I cfe the term Analaptifi not by wty of reproach, but diflinftion ; 
 for I am fenfiblcthat the AntipsiobapiiRj allow not of rebaptlzation, 
 4iny more than we do, where baptifm has once been adminiftered la 
 the right way and to the qualified fubjads, according to their OKyn 
 ideas. And they have as good a right to believe and to praflice n« 
 they i?o, as we hsve to believe and pradice as I'^c do. No man hss a 
 right to interfere by com pulfion io the religion of another. Rcafor^ 
 fair enquiry, and the oracles of truth, Ciould bear imperial f^vay aad 
 command eur firiil obfervance. 
 
 An author has lately been put into my handi-, who has ccne .^or- 
 fvard as a champion in the field of .A.nt'px' Johapiil>.i, and carried on 
 his auack in a manner fomcwhac divcrfe from /;ny that have gcr.r be- 
 fore liim, and with great fpirit ar.d addrfkV 1*is real acd.i.rdor 
 agiinftthe right of the infant feed of belicv/rrro baptifm, and sgaiuft 
 fprtnkting as a fcriptcrc fnode of difpcnfirg of cr.^inar.ccs, arc excccd«rd 
 by few er cone. His confidence is cqea! to hi:, ardor, crd thf; p'j- 
 
 lii/ 
 
t r» 1 
 
 ally go together. His art and management, if poinbic, are fuperier 
 to his 2cal. His diligence, affiduity and unwearied pains, to plead 
 thecaufe in which he has embarked, challenge the gratitude of his 
 brethren. His imagination is lively ; and he poffefles the dcfcrip- 
 tire talents in a pretty high degree, of which Se often avails himfelf 
 in the progrefs of his work. His reading on thc.liiigatcd queftion is 
 cxtenflve ; and he has, in the opinion (rf lome/d^one more to defend 
 his caufe than all who have gone before him : ]i\\ performance, accord- 
 ingly, moft be reckoned a real icquifition to the Antipsedobaptillical 
 fniertf\. His admirers mud look^^ upon him as an able difputant, and 
 the impartial as a high- colouring and artful writer. The author to 
 whom I refer, is the Rev. Mr. Abraham Booth, pallor of a Baptill 
 church in Goodmanfields, in London, 
 
 At the famd time, he appears to pofTcfs real piety, and to be anxious 
 to prefcrve chriRiaaity from human mixtures, ufelefs ceremonies, un« 
 authorifed rites and forms^ and vain tradition : in this he merits the 
 cAecm and love of all the friends of pure religion, of whatever com« 
 munion they may be. 
 
 His grand objcft is to dlfprove Paedobaptifm by the conccflions of 
 the moH eminent PasJobaptift authors. He took his hint, as he in- 
 forms us, from an able writer againil the Roman Catholic faith in a 
 piece intitled. Popery cenfuted By PapiJIs. Mr. Booth's labored per- 
 f»rn1ance of 800 pages, in two refpeflable volumes, is made up almoft 
 entirely of quotations from an infinite number of learned paedobaptifl 
 authors of the various communions of Lutherans, Bpifcopalians, and 
 Prefbytirians. He has cited all their conceffions on the feveral^cM/x 
 ^nd texts which refpeil the controverfy. By thefe conceffions he ex- 
 ^loJes all the texts which are brought to vindicate the admifHon of 
 the infant feed of believers to the ordinance of baptifm ; and has the 
 art and management to make the psdobaptifls confute themfelves. 
 And all along he has not failed to bring in the verdifl of bis hinejf and 
 impartial friends y as he calls them, the queikers. They, it is well 
 koown, treat all external ordinances, and among the rei^, fprinkling 
 as the mode, and the infant-feed of believers, as lawful fubjcfls of 
 baptifm, wi:h reproachful fcorn. But it is one thing to fpcak con- 
 temptuouny of a doflrine or pra'ftlce, and another to confute it. We 
 are all aware that ihefc honed and impartial qviakers rcjcdl with fove- 
 ifign contempt all external ordinances ; and I believe very few 
 chriilian communions would chufc to abide their vrrdift. We ap- 
 peal f:om their judgment 10 thrinfpircd vulume, the only fiandard of 
 faith and praclice^ and bid Mr. Booth a cordial welcome to aU the 
 tid which he is able (o derive to his caufe, from qj;AKiR%iM«: 
 
 Mr. 
 
[ 79 1 
 
 Mr. Bootb*« firftobjcAis tofettkthis point, that pefitueinftitu- 
 tions arc unalterable but by the will ofihe inflitutor. 
 
 * Thofe arc caUed pofuive inftitutions or precepts which arc not 
 
 * founded upon'auyjcaions known to thofc to whom they are given or 
 
 * difcoverable b^jjAera, but ^hich arc obferved merely bccaufe feme 
 
 * fuperior has commanded them.* An hoft of authors is adduced, wha 
 unanimoufly vouch the fame great truth. We ail give oar full coa- 
 fent, moftcheiarfuily, to this iaijportaiJt truth.— No confident proicft- 
 ant can rcfufe to adniit it. . J^ / 
 
 The facrament of baptifm istuxfhy our author confideredas a pofi, 
 tive inflituiion, and a multitude of writers quoted to prove it. Im 
 THIS, we perfcdly agree with him, and thcia. So far there mj,jl 
 perfeft coincidence of opinion. 
 
 The Tiixt pofition advanced^y burltitWis, that baptism u 
 
 PRECISELY AND E SS E N T 1 A L L V T H E S A M E AS PLUNGING. 
 
 He contends that this is the original, firft and only proper fejjfc 
 of the term : that plunging the body all over in water is not a mode 
 of the ordinance, but th^ very ordinance itfelf; and that whenever 
 B*7rl*^« is ufed in any other fecfe, it is figurative and metaphorical. 
 To prove this he quotes all the authors, lexicographers, and critics to 
 whom he had accefs. Here we moft diflfcnt from the laborious and in- 
 defatigable Mr. Booth. We contend that baptifm direftly means 
 fprinkling as well as plunging.* The truth is, all that ever was, or 
 can be proved relative to the meaning of the word laptize, U, that 
 it denotes WASHING by the application of water, but 
 whether by fprinkling water upon or plunging the fubjeft all over in 
 water, muft be decided by the ufe which the infpired writers make of 
 the word.—The only juft way to learn the meaning of any word or 
 phrafe in fcripture, is \o find out how the facrcd writers ufe it. They 
 hadoccafion to fpeak of things, which the heathen had not, and ac- 
 cordingly mufl ufe words frequently in a fenfe different from the GreeJc 
 orators, hiftorian^, and poets. And as the^i ufe words fo 'zve arc to 
 underftand them. Ba^/i^w is perhaps the only word by which they 
 exprefs the chriftian ordinance of baptifm. And it is ufed in its fcv- 
 eral variations, if my computation be exaft, and I believe it is, ia. 
 about fixty paffages. — And the numerous sprinklings among the \ 
 Jews, the Apodle, in fo many words, calls divers bapti/ms ; if he un- 
 derftood himftlf the confequence will follow that spr inkling i» 
 baptism. The word, whenever it is ufed in fcripture but for the 
 
 chriftian 
 
 '^ For fatlsfaflion on this point, tlie reader is referred to the firft part of 
 the fore^oinj treatif?, 
 
[ io 3 
 
 tHrift'sn ordinance, Cfrtainly fignifies pouring or sfrinklik's j 
 tnd why not when ufcd for ihc ordinance of baplifm ? — But not to 
 criiicifc here. 
 
 Two obfervations will be fufHcient, I apprchenJ, to remove the pre* 
 pofTeflions u'.ich may be made upon the mind, by the many conccf- 
 fions of the moft learned paedobaptift writers, which Mr. Booth has 
 been at the pains to quote and comment upon. 
 
 I. The firftis, that no fyftem of do^rincs or pra<fllcc is refponCblo 
 for the injudicious or unjuft conceflions, or weak defence of its friends. 
 Certainly Mr. Booth has cited the conccffions of fome of the moil learn- 
 ed men that ever lived, that ever filled the profeffor's chair, or that 
 ever adorned the proteftant pulpit : but it ought to be particularly 
 remembered, that thefe conccflions were made mortly, when the au- 
 thors were difcuffing other fubjt^s, and not profeffcdly treating o^ 
 baptifni, and confequently ffight be inadvertant, or not (o much upon 
 their guard as they ought to have been. Mr. Booth has made it ap- 
 pear, too, that the antipasdobaptift caufc may have much faid about 
 it and for it ; for he himfelf has travelled through nearly 900 pages, 
 the greater part of which conftlh of the conccffions of the friends of 
 infant baptifm. 
 
 If a doftrine or praftice be anfwerable for the unwife conceflions of 
 its friends, it may be affirmed thrjt no dodlrine, or truth, or duty, caa 
 be fupporled.— For example, on this ground, which our author has 
 been plcafed to take, the fcripiures themfelvcs muft be given up ; To 
 muft that great firll principle of all religion, the being of a Goo. — 
 And even moral virtue, the inviolability of truth* and obligations of 
 juflice. No lubjefl in morals, religion, or philofophy, but has beea 
 written upon either weakly or injudicioudy. Popery may be confut- 
 ed by papill! — epifcopalianifm by epifcopalians-* proteftantifm by pro- 
 teflants — quakcrifm by qa:;kcrs — and antipsdobapal'm by anlip xdo- 
 baptills, as well as psiobaptifm by psdobaptifts. 
 
 Let a man of Mr. Booth's reading, ingenuity, art, and vivacity of 
 imagination, in a large ccurfc of reading, fet down the conceflions or 
 weak defence of chriftian wri:ers in favor ofchriflianity, and we IhoulJ 
 have no chriftianity left. Soame Jennyns, for inftance, a writer in fa- 
 vor of chriftianity, much admired and celebrated, has conceded fo 
 much that we muft, upon his plan, give up the whole. But are we 
 to confiderhli conceflions as the teftimony of an enemy to the caufc 
 of infidelity, as Mr. Rooth does the conceflions of the pa:dobaptifti, 
 unwillingly and reluflantly, overpowered with the pondercns load of 
 
 evidence, bearing witnefs to antipacdobaptifra and immcrfion ? 
 
 We 
 
Wenliy make 8 pompous parade of concenjons, and affume airs of 
 triumph : but the faft is, they arc no proof at all, onlcfs it be of the 
 imperfcdlion of humaa reafon. Scripture and argument arc to decide 
 thcpoim in c^ifpUtrfC All the tedious and prolix, and numerous quo- 
 tations prefled bp^n as' by Mr. Booth, we are to fct down for nought. 
 They weigh Ji/le or nothing with the thinking mind. Their tenden- 
 cy is rather to cmbarrafs than to convince. 
 
 II. The fecond rehiark is, that our author has cnfnared himfclf, 
 and is anfcrtunaiely (lain by hh own conccffions. For he gcncroufly 
 allows (and how could he helpr it) that many or the mod of all ihefc 
 'great and learned charadlers, as learned as ever the tvorld faw, held as 
 Urongly to the validity, fufHcicncy, and apoftolic praaicfe bf fprink- 
 ling as afcripturcmodc, and the infant feed of bclieVera as the proper 
 ' fubjefts of baptifm, as they candidly conceded that immerficn is fig- 
 nified by the word BaTrlt^ey. The amo'ant of all is therefore fimply 
 this, the moft pious, the moft candid, the moil critical, the mofl learn- 
 ed men the world ever faw, after a careful and honed inveftigaiion of 
 the fcriptures and writingsof the chriftlan fathers, Latin and Greek, 
 believe that immerfion &tid/frink/:'ng are both fcripture ways of dif- 
 penfing the ordinance of baptifm : — that the believing adult is to be 
 baptized— and that the infant feed of believing parents are to be 
 brought with the parents, into a covenant relation to God^ and to re« 
 ceivc the token of the covenant — and that a very confiderable part of 
 the chriftian world pradlife immtrfion. This is all Mr. Booth has 
 gained by his laborious refearches. No new llrength has he added to 
 the argument for the cxclufion of infants and the neccfTity of immer- 
 fion. The litigated fubjed Hands where it did before ; where hs 
 found it. Men will difpute : they will differ. This is an imperfeft 
 world. We fee but in part, we know but in part. Let us never re- 
 proach one another ; but always live and move under the influence 
 of chriftian candor and benevolence. 
 
 With refpedl to the hiftory above given in thefe letters, you will 
 iiave the fatisfa/^Ion to find it coincide with what Mr. Booth has faid, 
 under the head q\ Apofldk tradition^ except his rcje^ing or rather lay- 
 ing no weight upon the tcftimony of Origen, bccaafe he affirms that 
 his works have been bafely corrupted. It is only ntcdrul to remark 
 further, that Mr. Booth makes a mighty noife about tradition, and 
 treats with proud difdain all arguments derived from {o precari- 
 ous a fource, precarious in his view. •' Till therefore,' fays he, * it 
 be fairly proved that infant baptifm is warranted, either by precept 
 or example in the New Tedament, we need not be much cOncernei 
 about the precife time when it was introduced, but may fafcly Iheltcr 
 
 K cur 
 
[ 8^- 1 
 
 our cajfe under the wings of that divine oracle from the beginning 
 it lijas not fo. If however our opponents will pledge theniielves to 
 inform us wiih precifion when the Jewiili profelyte baptifm commenc- 
 ed, or when ififint communion firll came into the church ; we will 
 engage in our turn to inform them with equal punfluality, when in* 
 fant baptifm was firil pradifed. The condudl of our oppofers in ar- 
 guing for pxdobaptifm from tradition, reminds me of an old faying, 
 with which I will conclude] this chapter ; cum leonina non fi'JJtceret, 
 pellcm 'vulpinam ejfd njfuendam.^ 
 
 Mr. Booth, to ealc and confole him, may be told> we lay no ftrcfs 
 at all upon tradition mcrtJy, Oar only end is to prove from the tefti- 
 monies of early writers what was the Apoftolic pradicc. Let thefe 
 teftimonics weigh what they will weigh. We hold to the fufficicncy 
 cf fcripturc ; and by it alone ultimately muft every controvcrfy be de- 
 ciied. V/e contend that we have what amounts to precept and exam- 
 ple. — I have now done with Mr. Booth, and conceive that fueh an an- 
 fwer is fufncient. To follow him through all his tedious quotations,— 
 and remarks upon them, would be to fpin out as many pages as ho 
 did. And I fhculd here finilh this letter, already protradlcd, per- 
 haps, to an immoderate length, were it not for gratifying your wifhss, 
 in ilaiing the number of the antipsedobaptifls in the United Confed- 
 eracy of A.merica. They areas follows. 
 
 Ministers 
 
 States 
 
 Churches 
 
 ordained 
 
 licenj'ed 
 
 Members 
 
 New Hampftiire 
 
 32 
 
 23 
 
 »7 
 
 1732 
 
 MaflTachufeits 
 
 107 
 
 95 
 
 3» 
 
 7116 
 
 Rhode Ifland 
 
 38 
 
 37 
 
 39 
 
 3502 
 
 ConneflicUt 
 
 55 
 
 44 
 
 2 I 
 
 5214 
 
 Vermont 
 
 34 
 
 21 
 
 15 
 
 1610 
 
 New York 
 
 57 
 
 53 
 
 30 
 
 3987 
 
 New Jcrfey 
 
 26 
 
 20 
 
 9 
 
 22-9 
 
 pcnnlylvania 
 
 28 
 
 26 
 
 7 
 
 1231 
 
 Delaware 
 
 7 
 
 9 
 
 I 
 
 409 
 
 Maryland 
 
 12 
 
 8 
 
 3 
 
 77^^ 
 
 Virginia 
 
 207 
 
 IS7 
 
 109 
 
 20IC7 
 
 K'-ntuclcy 
 
 42 
 
 40 
 
 21 
 
 3105 
 
 Territory S. of Ohio 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 3^ 
 
 North Carolina 
 
 94 
 
 81 
 
 76 
 
 7742 
 
 Dcceded rcrritory 
 
 18 
 
 15 
 
 6 
 
 8S9 
 
 South Carolina 
 
 6g 
 
 4^ 
 
 2S 
 
 4012 
 
 Georgia 
 
 42 
 
 33 
 
 -10 
 
 39 
 
 3«84 
 
 Tela! 
 
 86S 
 
 ^49: >• 
 
 
 
 
 
 Of 
 
[ 83 3 
 
 Of ihefc ihere ire Ministers 
 
 Assoc. Chh's. ordained licenfid Me?./, 
 
 Six principle baptiftj i 18 26 4 ^^^9 
 
 Open Communioi^Do. i 15 1^ 4 jyi^ 
 
 General ProvifiooDo. 3 30 26 19 ip^S 
 
 Seventh Day Da. 10 13 3 887 
 
 Regular or Particular Do. 30 795 632 392 58827 
 
 Total 35 868 710 422 64975 
 
 You will fee, according to tkis enumeration, which I believe 
 is accurate,* that there are 264 more preachers than churches, 
 and not quite 60 members to a preacher. The fmall number of 
 pcrfons in proportion to the preachers, will ftrike you with pe- 
 culiar force. The number of baptifls is rifing of fixiy-four ihou- 
 fand, and the whole people in America about four millions in round 
 numbers. How furprifing that the number fcattered all over the Unit- 
 ed States fliould not be greater, about as many as would make fevcniy 
 large parifhes. This computation is for the year 1790. I iruft this 
 intelligence will be plcafing to you and the public. All the informa- 
 tion we can get refpeiling the different perfuafions of chriftians is in- 
 terefting. And, indeed, nothing that concerns religion can be un- 
 important. Adieu. 
 
 Auguji 23, 1792. 
 
 • The above account was taken by Mr. Afplond, a preacher of the bap- 
 tift denomination, who travcHcd tlirough the United States for the purpofe. 
 
 
 -wmm 
 
 '9 '^ 
 
 
I 
 
I' 
 
J?^ 
 
 «•<■>*,