j;:::^- 
 
 
^ PRINCETON, N. J. <J> 
 
 Presented by Mr. Samuel Agnew of Philadelphia, Pa. 
 
 Agnnv Coll. on Baptism, No. 
 
 SDSY 
 
 'i^ilbi.. 
 
'^'' 
 
PETER EDWARDS'S 
 
 CANDID REASONS 
 
 EXAMINED, 
 AND ANSWERED. 
 
 BY DAVID *iONES, A. M. 
 
 Pastor of the Baptist Church, at the Great Valley, Chester County. 
 
 lor the leaders of this people cause them to err. Is A l am. 
 
 TuU well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep 
 voxvc own tradition. Mahk, 
 
 PHILADELPHIA; 
 
 ^'rinted for the Author by Dennis Ileartt 
 I81I, 
 
jAf^gg^ 
 
 
 <^v^^0 .. 
 
 ".t 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 All clu'istians profess to i*eceive the holy 
 scriptures as a dii'ectorj in faith and prac- 
 tice, and to believe that the mind of God is 
 plainly revealed; or otherwise, there is no 
 revelation at aU; for if our duty to God, and 
 obedience to Christ, is not plainly expressed, 
 but left to analogy and inference, then all is 
 left to the ingenuity or imagination of man, 
 which varies according to education and inte- 
 rest, or erroneous principles embraced. 
 
 To me the subjects and modes of baptism, 
 are as plain as language or example can make 
 them; yet for more than one hundi^ed years 
 volumes have been written on this subject; 
 and yet the dispute continues. I never either 
 wished or expected to appear in public on 
 this subject; but some years ago a pamphlet 
 was reprinted in America written by Peter 
 Edwards in England, and spread with un- 
 common zeal, as if it was unanswerable. I 
 was frequently asked, if I had read it. My 
 answer was no: I neither wished to read it nor 
 any other on the subject; for I had the scrip- 
 
IV 
 
 tui*es, which pointed out our duty so plainly, 
 that I had not one doubt on the subject. At 
 last a friend put it into my hand; and I read 
 it over several times, and told my friend, I 
 found nothing unanswerable in the pamphlet. 
 The author seemed very abusive and spite- 
 ful; but he had said nothing but the old story 
 dressed up in a new form, in which he had 
 used more sophistry than common. My 
 friend declined answering it, as his duty in 
 his present station would not afford time to 
 be consumed that way. He urged me to 
 undertake an answer, with which I reluc- 
 tantly complied. And after some progress^ 
 I was afflicted with the loss of my wife, 
 which affected me so, that nothing was done 
 on the subject for a long time; and I believe 
 I should have dropped the work, only, in my 
 travels, I often heard Peter Edwards repre- 
 sented as unequalled and unanswerable. I 
 Iiave now concluded my work and offer it to 
 the public for their consideration. 
 
 My plan is altogether new; and it is my 
 own. If I am wrong, no blame is to be at- 
 tached to my society; for I know not whether 
 I shall meet their universal approbation. I 
 have denied that the Jews, consisting of men, 
 women and children, were ever called a 
 church. 1 have denied that the Greek word 
 EjtJtAvja-ifit, which means the out-called, or such 
 as are called by grace, can possibly be appli- 
 ed to a nation or kingdom. I can iind no ap- 
 
plication of the word to that purpose. I find 
 the word used hy heathens for assemblies, 
 called together by a crier, resembling our 
 courts; but it always meant a voluntary as- 
 sembly. No doubt the Hebrews have a word 
 or words for an assembly; but nothing exist- 
 ed among them like a gospel church: the 
 meaning of the word must be fixed in the 
 New Testament. And to the eternal honourof 
 George Campbell of Aberdeen, D. D. he has 
 unanswerably fixed the meaning of the word, 
 in his short Ecclesiastical History. 
 
 Peter Edwards's great strength lies in 
 two propositions, viz. 1. That infants were 
 once the members of the church. 2. That 
 their membership was never excluded by any 
 law either of God or man, ^c. 
 
 From what I have said, it will appear that 
 all that can be said about membership, is 
 only hollow talk; for the word membership 
 or member is not found in the Old Testa- 
 ment, nor any thing like it. The male chil- 
 dren were circumcised by the command of 
 God, as a token of the covenant made with 
 Abraham about the land of Canaan, and was 
 a national mark of distinction till the Mes- 
 siah should come; but none thereby were 
 entered into any church; for no such thing 
 did then exist, nor could formally exist. 
 
 I have carefully searched every passage 
 in Genesis, to learn when and where any 
 such thing was formed; but found no traces 
 
VI 
 
 of it ill scripture. I found it existed only in 
 Judaizers' brains, fabricated to support a su- 
 perstition, wbich can receive no aid from 
 scripture, utility or common sense. 
 
 I know my theory is as new in religion as 
 .sir Isaac Newton's was in philosophy; and 1 
 flatter myself that m}^ sentiments will gain 
 ground daily, with all who are in searcli of 
 truth. And should any person be disposed to 
 oppose my system, I am ready on all occa- 
 sions to vindicate it. I have seen proper to 
 change the expressions formerly used on 
 the subject; instead of psedobaptist I use the 
 phrase psedorantist, without any intention to 
 give ofience to my brethren, who differ in 
 opinion from me; nor is there any cause of 
 offence; for the word used by me is the truth 
 and nothing but the truth; the word Rantize, 
 signifying to sprinkle. 
 
 Several publications have appeared in 
 America and Ena^land a2;ainst Peter Ed- 
 wards; but mine will interfere with none of 
 them; as my plan is altogether new. 
 
 An answer to my publication must be 
 made on new ground, as the old fort is erased 
 to the ground. 
 
 I have more Grreek than what was com- 
 mon on the subject. This was sometimes 
 occasioned by our author so frequently using 
 that language, as if other people were ignor- 
 ant on the subject; and in some places it 
 was necessary to expose his abuse of the 
 
vu 
 
 language, designed to bovilder or mislead 
 the unlearned. 
 
 On the mode of baptism, I have corrected 
 Peter Edwards's abuse of the Greek so plainly 
 and fuHy, that none will be under the temp- 
 tation to follow him any more. The cause of 
 Christ is t^ be maintained by simple honesty, 
 and not by Jesuitical cunning, evasions and 
 sophisms. And wliat can be a greater evasion 
 than never to fix on the meaning of (^aTrnt^u^ 
 but instead of that to say, without proof, it 
 means, to wash, pour, or sprinkle? 
 
 Perhaps some of my brethern may blame 
 me for some severity of language used. I 
 shall make no other apology than, Let them 
 read Peter Edwards; and they will see it 
 was next to impossible to avoid it altogether; 
 for he so often lost truth and modesty, that 
 a corrective became necessary to him, but I 
 hope to no other man. As truth was my ob- 
 ject, I have used very plain language, as best 
 suited for the most of readers. I am willing 
 to submit this publication to him, who said, 
 '• What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye 
 in light; and what ye hear in the ear, that 
 speak ye on the house-tops." Matt. x. 27. 
 To his blessing, I commit this pamplilet, 
 and remain an aged servant of the church of 
 Christ. 
 
 DAVID J0NE8. 
 
 March 4, 1811, 
 
"Vf?^ 
 
 CANDID REASONS 
 EXAMINED AND ANSWERED. 
 
 It was never my wish to write on the subject 
 of Baptism, as it always appeared to me very plain 
 in the New Testament; but as Jude exhorts to 
 contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to 
 the saints, I thought it my duty to comply. I conclude 
 that all, we should believe or do, is so plainly 
 contained in the Holy Scriptures that we can 
 understand the whole counsel of God, as far as 
 affects our salvation, without recurrence to the sub- 
 tilties of Aristotle, or the quibbles of logical syl- 
 logisms. As the greater part of christians are 
 unacquainted with the science of logic, we must 
 suppose that the Great Head of the church deli- 
 vered his mind so plainly to his apostles that they 
 could not misunderstand him, especially when we 
 remember, that they^ were infallibly inspired by the 
 Holy Ghost, in writing the New Testament. There- 
 fore we may safely believe, that they obeyed the 
 solemn injunction of their Lord, to teach the dis- 
 ciples to observe all things, whatsoever he had 
 
■■2 CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 
 
 commanded them. Therefore, when we find any 
 person using vain and perplexing disputations, and 
 handling the word of God deceitfully, we may con- 
 clude that truth is not the object in view; but, first 
 having embraced an error, this method is used to 
 baffle antagonists, and mislead uninformed persons, 
 who are not aware of such sophisms. 
 
 I have read many pamphlets on the subject of 
 baptism; but I never met with any, who has so 
 abused the scriptures as Peter Edwards, in his 
 pamphlet called Candid Reasons. There is so little 
 candor in it, and so much abuse, that it is scarcely 
 possible to read it without a disagreeable impression 
 on the mind; but as scurrility and abuse have no 
 argument in them, I wish to avoid them as far as 
 possible, and consider the subject in a christian 
 temper. I purpose chiefly to confine myself to 
 scripture language, and arguments deduced from 
 it. I shall be under the necessity to make use of 
 some other writings. I will allow Peter Edwards, or 
 any other person, to use analogy and inference; but, 
 at tlie same time, I must assert that both may be 
 greatly abused, and used to support a bad cause, 
 by giving the appearance of truth, when at the same 
 time it is only a gilded falsehood. 
 
 In my remarks on Peter Edwards, I do not in- 
 tend to travel page for page; for this would swell 
 my pamphlet to the size of the New Testament, 
 and render it too costly for the household of faith, 
 xvho <ire in poor circumstances. I shall therefore 
 
CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 3 
 
 consider, what he deems his principal arguments, and 
 by refuting them, the rest will fall of course. 
 
 Some phrases, used by both sides, I shall omit; 
 because it is an abuse of language, and the baptists 
 have used them by condescension, or inatt^tion. 
 Such are the terms paedobaptism, and paedobaptist&. 
 Instead of these, I shall use psedorantism, &c. If I 
 was writing against the Greek communion, I would 
 use paedobaptism; then the word would be used 
 with propriety, for it is well known when they 
 baptize their children, they dip them not only once, 
 but three times, which was the custom in most 
 churches in the fourth and fifth centuries, as is well 
 known by all who are acquainted with the history 
 of those times. Very few either in England or 
 America dip their children in baptism; therefore 
 there are no paedobaptists with us: they are psedo- 
 rantists. There is the greatest propriety in the term 
 which I shall use in this pamphlet; nor can it justly 
 give any offence to my brethren, who differ from 
 me on this subject; for I can assure them it is not 
 done out of any disrespect; for many of them are 
 highly esteemed by me for their piety and christian 
 deportment. I look on them as brethren under a 
 mistake on the subject of baptism; and, I am not 
 without hopes, they may yet see their mistake, and 
 drop their old traditions to follow our Lord and 
 Saviour Jesus Christ more perfectly. I have travel- 
 led through Virginia and Kentucky; and in these 
 states I have been admitted as freely into their 
 
4 CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 
 
 pulpits, as if I belonged to their society. Bigotry is 
 on the decline, yet there is too much of it remain- 
 ing; for in some places in Pennsylvania, where 
 priestcraft too much prevails, I have not been ad- 
 mitted. Wherever the preaching of the gospel is 
 become a trade, the ministers are afraid of losing 
 sheep. The citizens of the United States have been 
 much enlightened respecting the rights of man, 
 since the revolution; and why may we not hope to 
 see an impartial inquiry into spiritual things? I ac- 
 knowledge that every branch of antichrist must be 
 consumed by the Spirit of God; and when the 
 happy time comes, there will be no dispute about 
 the subjects of baptism, nor the mode of it. While 
 matters are as they are, we should learn moderation 
 towards them, who are not of our opinion; but this 
 should not relax our search after truth: for every 
 part of truth should be highly esteemed by us; but 
 it should never be carried so far as to have a spite- 
 ful hatred to them that dissent from us. 
 
 The method that I purpose to use, in considering 
 this subject, is the following. 
 
 1. I will consider what is meant by Church under 
 the gospel dispensation; for under the Jewish econo- 
 my, the word could not be properly used, as the 
 Jews were never called a church. 
 
 2. I shall examine the meaning of the word Bap- 
 tism. 
 
 3. 'Draw some inferences from the subjects thus 
 considered. 
 
CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 5 
 
 My plan is new, and it is my own: if it fails 
 the blame must be cast on me, and not on my 
 society; but I am as fully satisfied that I am right 
 as I am that there is a sun in the firmament; and 
 the more I think on it, I am the more astonished, 
 why it has not been embraced, especially by all 
 baptists. In prosecuting the subject, perhaps I 
 will use inference and analogy; for I never knew a 
 baptist to deny the proper use of them; neverthe- 
 less, they are not the best methods to come to the 
 knowledge of our duty: it is much better to have 
 Thus saith the Lord, or a plain example in all our 
 religious obedience. If our duty is not plainly re- 
 vealed in the New Testament, but left to inference, 
 then the gospel dispensation is more defective than 
 the Jewish economy. The scripture says, '* Moses 
 was faithful in his house;" but Christ was not faith- 
 ful in his house according to this sentiment. Should 
 we examine this subject, and neglect precept or 
 example, but have recourse to inference to find our 
 duty, we shall cast a severe reflection on Christ, 
 who left things respecting our duty so dark, that 
 none can understand them without the assistance 
 of analogy and logical infiercnce. What says Paul 
 on the subject? " Moses was verily faithful as a 
 servant, over his house; but Christ as a son over 
 his own house, whose house are we." Heb. iii. 5, 6. 
 The truth from this passage is, that the Jewish 
 nation was Moses's house; and he was as a servant 
 faithful to God, in delivering the whole mind of 
 
6 CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 
 
 God plainly, without any thing to be made out by 
 inference or logical reasoning. God would not trust 
 his cause to the reasoning of Moses, who emphati- 
 cally is called the servant of God; he therefore said, 
 " Look that thou make them, after the pattern which 
 was showed thee in the mount." Ex. xxv. 40. Moses 
 delivered the whole will of God as a servant, and 
 shall we not conclude that Christ as son was as 
 faithful in his house by delivering all that the father 
 had commanded him? What says Christ on this 
 subject? " I have given unto them the words which 
 thou gavest me; and they have received them." 
 John xvii. 8. It cannot be doubted but every part of 
 duty was plainly revealed by Christ, and nothing 
 left to the apostles' inferences. Paul said, " He had 
 not shunned to declare all the counsel of God." Acts 
 20. XX. 
 
 Several passages of scripture will demonstrate 
 that inference is uncertain, and not to be depended 
 on. I shall select a few out of many. I will begin 
 early, even as early as our old mother, who drew a 
 false inference respecting the forbidden fruit. There 
 was no doubt about the command of God, that she 
 should not eat of tlie tree that was in the midst of 
 the garden; but the doctrine of inference takes place 
 and makes void the command of God. We will 
 transcribe the passage. " And when the woman saw 
 that the tree was good for food, and that it was 
 pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make 
 one wise, she took of the fruit thereof and did eat." 
 
CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 7 
 
 Gen. iii. 6. We feel the effects of her wrong m- 
 ference to this very day. It is never good to draw 
 any inference contrary to the positive command of 
 God. Again, when an angel appeared to Manoah 
 and his wife, and disappeared when he offered a kid. 
 Manoah inferred that they should surely die. Here 
 Manoah's inference was wrong; but his wife drew 
 a contrary inference, and she was right. Judges iii. 
 22. The apostles drew a wrong inference respecting 
 John, from Christ's saying, " If I will that he tarry 
 till I come, what is that to thee?" John xxi. 22. 
 The disciples inferred that John should not die. 
 The doctrine of tran substantiation is by inference. 
 How often are contrary inferences drawn from the 
 same text? This will be exemplified in this pamphlet, 
 as my inference will be opposite to Peter Edwaixls's. 
 Peter Edwards has ^vritten more than one hundred 
 and twenty- seven pages to prove that infants were 
 fit subjects for baptism. In page- thirty-one, he first 
 used the word Church; and from that to page one 
 hundred and twenty- eight, he uses the word, if I am 
 correct, two hundred and eighteen times. Should 
 the word Church and membership be taken out of 
 his pamphlet, it would be reduced to a much smal- 
 ler size. Observing the word Church so often used, 
 I resolved to begin by explaining the word Church 
 under the gospel dispensation, the only proper place 
 to find the true meaning of it; for notwithstanding it 
 is used in the Septuagint, we cannot suppose they had 
 the same idea of it as under the gospel: as no such body 
 did exist under the Jewish economy. Should I make 
 
y CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 
 
 it appear that the Jews, as a nation, never were called 
 a church, then Peter Edwards's arguments, to use 
 his own phrase, will go to perdition; for he supported 
 his cause by bold assertions, and new sophisms. He 
 took a wrong road in setting out; for first he ought to 
 have proved that the Jewish nation were called a 
 church; but Peter Edwards takes for granted what 
 I ^vill not grant to any man. I am determined to 
 contend eaniestly for the faith once delivered to the 
 saints, and receive nothing without plain proof from 
 the holy scriptures. If Peter Edwards, or any other 
 man, can show me, that children are, or were mem- 
 bers of any thing properly called a church of Christ, 
 I ^vill acknowledge that something is done which 
 never has yet been done, and I believe never can be 
 done. This subject shall be further considered in 
 this pamphlet. I will therefore prosecute the plan 
 proposed, which was to make appear what is the 
 meaning of the word Church under the gospel dis- 
 pensation; and to do justice to the subject I must 
 consider the meaning of the w^ord in the Greek 
 language. 
 
 The W'Ord rendered Church in English is tKuhtjcrioiy 
 in Greek. This word is a compound of the Greek 
 preposition £>t, that is out of, and Kothio^ that is to 
 call. The word Eicy.AncKX. means the out called, I 
 know of no word in the English, which comprehends 
 fully the meaning in the original. In the Latin lan- 
 guage, the word Evocatio is nearly the true meaning. 
 This word is a compound of ^ and voco,to cally sothat 
 
CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. $ 
 
 it means that which is called out. This is exactly 
 the meaning of the word E>t>tA>)(r«» in the New Testa- 
 ment. 
 
 I wish no person to take my say so, for proof; 
 let us therefore consult lexicons and see what they 
 say on the subject; to which I will add the defi- 
 nitions of learned gentlemen; and if their judgments 
 and mine agree, it must be granted as a strong 
 argument in my favour. I have consulted several 
 lexicons; and they all agree on the subject. I have 
 only two present, viz. Schre villus and Parkhurst. 
 Sclirevilius renders the word in the Latin Concio 
 and Ccetus: that is, an assembly, a meeting, a multi- 
 tude, a flock. He says the word is derived from 
 EjcjcosAso, in Latin evoco, which means to call out. 
 Parkhurst says the word E>c)tA}j(n* is derived from 
 EKJCfltAgjv, to call out; he further adds that it means in 
 the New Testament a church of God, that is an 
 assembly or society of men, called out of mankind 
 by the word of God. He says also it means a parti- 
 cular or single congregation of christians. He then 
 refers to many passages in the New Testament, 
 where it is so used. 
 
 Cruden, in his Concordance on the word Church, 
 says it means " a religious assembly, selected and 
 called out of the world, by the doctrine of the gospel, 
 to worship the true God in Christ according to his 
 word;" and he adds, " all the elect of God, of what 
 nation soever, from the beginning to the end of the 
 
 c 
 
10 CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 
 
 world, which make but one body, whereof Christ 
 is the head." 
 
 Locke, on Toleration, defines a church thus, viz. 
 " A church then I take to be a voluntary society of 
 men, joining themselves together of their own ac- 
 cord, in order to the public worshipping of God, 
 in such a manner, as they judge acceptable to him 
 and effectual to the salvation of their souls. I say 
 it is a free and voluntary society."* 
 
 Doctor Owens defines a church thus, viz. " The 
 church is a voluntary society." He then illustrates 
 it by saying, " Persons otherwise absolutely free, as 
 unto all the rules, laws and ends of such a society, 
 do of their own wills and free choice coalesce into 
 it. This is the origin of all churches." 
 
 I have seen a publication under the name of a 
 Christian Magazine, written by Mr. Mason of New 
 York: he pretends to find Hebrew words of the 
 same meaning with the Greek word EKxhyjirioe> in the 
 New Testament. Should any person examine the 
 texts to which he refers, it will apj^ear that the simi- 
 larit}- between the Hebrew words Cahal and 
 gheda and Ex.)cA€<rj«, existed in his own brains, and 
 not in matters of fact. However bis definition of 
 the word 'EKKhy^a-ioi is just, as far as it goes. He says, 
 it means " an assembly, especially one convened by 
 invitation or appointment."! This definition retains 
 
 * Locke on Toleration, page l7. Owen, on h Gospel Church, 
 page 74. 
 
 f (/bristian Magazine, pag'e 55. 
 
CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. H 
 
 the meaning of the word sxKoiAgo. I shall now give 
 the definition of a chiu-ch according to the notion of 
 Peter Edwards, And as he is a singular genius, 
 his definition is like no other man's, viz. " A church 
 is a society that stands in special relation to God, 
 being instituted for religious purposes." I have 
 met with none, who agree with Peter; for he has 
 left out the etymology of the word. If he understands 
 the Greek language, he must have plainly seen, that 
 nothing in that language would favour his design: 
 he therefore gives a definition singular from every 
 other man; and his design was to quibble on the 
 subject, that, finally, baby membership might be in- 
 troduced. 
 
 I shall now give my definition of the word 
 Church, viz. A particular church, in the New Tes- 
 tament, means, a voluntary assembly or society of 
 persons called by grace out of a state of nature into 
 a state of grace, and voluntarily formed into a reli- 
 gious body, in order to maintain the worship of God, 
 and promote their own sanctification. The word is 
 not always confined to a religious assembly; but it 
 always means in the New Testament a voluntary 
 assembly. 
 
 The term is in Acts xix. 32, 39, 41. and as it did 
 not mean a church of Christ, it is rendered assem- 
 bly, but meant a voluntary one. I shall take at pre- 
 sent no further notice of what Mr. Mason has said 
 on the subject from the Hebrew Cahal and gheda^ 
 only if the gentleman had never heard of John Cal- 
 
12 CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 
 
 vin, we should have never heard of John Mason's 
 definition. Let this gentleman refute that great and 
 worthy man, Dr. Campbell of Aberdeen; and we will 
 give more attention to the display of his erudition. 
 Notwithstanding his good opinion of his explanation, 
 perhaps men, of as good sense and as good learning 
 as himself, will be of opinion that the very texts 
 which he quotes are far from a decisive proof on the 
 subject. As for my own part, I profess I can find 
 neither argument, nor scripture, to authorize any 
 man to call the Jews a church. They are often call- 
 ed the congregation of the Lord; and the Septuagint 
 in some places have used Ex.x,A>j(r/at, but more com- 
 monly l.vvxyw'yy;^ which properly signifies a con- 
 gregation; but certainly the Greek preposition iw 
 and iK are of a contrary meaning in the Greek lan- 
 guage. The Jews never called themselves a church. 
 The word cannot without violence be applied to a 
 nation; for hitherto there has been no nation of saints; 
 and whoever will read the scriptures will find that 
 the Jews, as a body, had no claim to the term. 
 
 In short calling the Jews a church, consisting of 
 men, women and children, cannot be supported by 
 scripture nor common sense; for a church is a volun- 
 tary society; and if we consider the, use of the word 
 in the New Testament, we cannot mi^s the mean- 
 ing, if we are not under the influence of the wine of 
 the whore of Babylon. 
 
 The word is used only by one Evangelist, and in 
 that only twice. Matt. xvi. 17, .18. Our Lord said 
 
CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 13 
 
 to Peter, " On this rock I will build my church, 
 and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." In 
 this place Christ means all that shall be called by 
 grace to the end of the world. Sometimes it means 
 the elect of God, of which Chri&t is the head, from 
 the beginning of the world to the end of it. Eph. i, 
 22. The next place where it is used is Matt, xviii. 
 17, where it is said, " tell it to the church." It is 
 very plain tiiat Clirist meant b}^ church, what is cal- 
 led a particular church. Nothing but blindness 
 through tradition could induce any man to apply 
 this passage to the rulers of the church. It is well 
 known that the body of the church judged their 
 brethern till the latter end of the second century; but 
 when pride and ambition began to prevail, the rulers 
 wrenched the power from the body of the people, 
 and arrogantly took it into their own hands. Mo- 
 sheim is candid on this subject, and deserves some 
 credit, seeing he wrote contrary to his own con- 
 duct.* 
 
 By this passage, it is evident that children were 
 no part of that body, which is called a church; for 
 children, who know not their right hand from their 
 left, have no qualifications to judge of the conduct 
 of their brethren. This church should remain a mo- 
 del for the churches of Christ in all ages, and would 
 have remained so, had not avarice, pride and ambi- 
 tion eclipsed the glory and simplicity of the churches. 
 
 * Mosheim, vol. i. page 98. 
 
14 CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 
 
 Such churches as these, are the ground and pillar of 
 the truth, and not a composition of men and babies. 
 The next passage where tlie word is used is in Acts 
 ii. 47. " And the Lord added to the church daily 
 such as should be saved." This was the first church 
 that ever was formed on earth; and if we understood 
 the nature of this, we would understand the meaning 
 of the word EKKAy]<rix thi'oughout the New Testament; 
 but as there is nothing in the nature of the church 
 of Christ to support the pride, avarice and ambition 
 of men, they prostitute their learning and acquire- 
 ments to find out a meaning for the word Church, 
 which was never intended by the Holy Ghost. The 
 scripture must be twisted and tormented to support 
 the superstitions and traditions of men: it is made 
 like a nose of wax, capable of sitting to any side. 
 After all, we shall find die text under consideration 
 pretty plain, and so obstinate, that it will not bend 
 to the whim or interest of e\^er}^ one. We learn from 
 the passage that the word iKzAi^a-ia means something 
 distinct and different from any thing that was ever 
 known among the Jews. This will appear, if we con- 
 sider from ^vhence this addition was made. It was 
 made from the Jews and perhaps proselytes. It is 
 plain that those, who were added to the church, were 
 out of it previous to their addition. Had the Je^^s 
 been in a church state, they must have been in the 
 church before the day of Pentecost; but it is plain 
 they were not: no, they were never deemed a church 
 by either God or man. The church was something- 
 
CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 15 
 
 altogether new: new materials and a new form. New 
 wine must be put into new bottles; for notwithstand- 
 mg God had on earth the materials of a church, be- 
 fore the flood, and after it, yet there was none for- 
 mally, nor could there be, under that economy. From 
 this passage, it is evident, that a gospel church was 
 made of persons called out from the Jewish nation 
 and voluntarily formed into a religious society for 
 the worship of God, and to spread the gospel among 
 all nations; and such materials were the pillar and 
 ground of the truth. It is very plain this text can- 
 not include infants. 
 
 I w411 now consider Acts viii. 3. Here it is said 
 Saul made havock of the church, entering into every 
 house, and haling men and women, committed 
 them to prison! 
 
 Here the church consisted of men and women, 
 not one word said about children being any part of 
 the church. In the first verse, it is said, there was a 
 great persecution against the church which was at 
 Jerusalem. This must mean against the disciples of 
 Christ, who were called to be saints. The Jews had 
 not heard that it was the Jewish church in a new- 
 dress. This discovery has been made by the saga- 
 cious Peter Edwards. The devil makes mistakes 
 sometimes, for by persecuting, he sent Philip to Sa- 
 maria, who there preached the gospel with success; 
 therefore it is said, " When they believed Philip 
 preaching the things concerning the kingdom of 
 God, and the name of Jesus Christ, tl;iey v/ere hap- 
 
16 CANDID REASONS EXAxMINED. 
 
 tized, both men and women:" Acts viii. 12. meri 
 and women, that is all. What a fair opportunity tC) 
 have added children, but silent is the Holy Ghost on 
 this subject. It doth not appear that Philip had 
 formed them into a church before Peter and John 
 came. It is probable they were then formed into a 
 church; for a thousand baptized believers would not 
 constitute a church, without a voluntary compact. 
 Here I must correct one of Peter Edwards's mis- 
 takes, which he repeats often, which is that persons 
 became members of a church by baptism. Here 
 was no church formed as we know of; baptism 
 was therefore only a necessary prerequisite for 
 membership. A similar instance we have in this 
 chapter, verse 28. Philip baptized the eunuch; but 
 we have no account of his church membership. I 
 am rather of opiriion that Peter Edwards could not 
 name one to which he belonged. I find every pas- 
 sage corresponds exactly with my definition of a 
 church: hence it is said after Paul's conversion, Acts 
 ix. 31, " Then had the churches rest throughout all 
 Judea, and Galilee, and Samaria, and were edified, 
 and walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the com- 
 fort of the Holy Ghost were multiplied." This ac- 
 count will not agree with infant membership; for 
 they cannot be said to be edified, nor that such -^^alk 
 in the fear of the Lord, and comfort of the Holy 
 Ghost. The phrases are only applicable to persons 
 come to the vears of understandins^. The doctrine of 
 
CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 17 
 
 analogy, implication and inference can have no place 
 here, 
 
 I will only cite one text more from the Acts, and 
 pass on to the epistles, viz. " Take heed therefore 
 unto yourselves and to all the flock over which the 
 Holy Ghost hath made you overseers to feed the 
 church of God," &c. Acts xx. 28. The word 
 Church used here, must mean them at Ephesus, who 
 were called and professed to be saints; for it was the 
 duty of the bishops of the Ephesian church, to feed 
 the flock, over which they presided. I never under- 
 stood, by reading the scriptures, that it was the duty 
 of bishops to feed babies; for tlieir mothers were 
 competent to that business at that time, and I be- 
 lieve they remain qualined, at present, for the same 
 duty. To feed the church of God cannot be misun- 
 derstood; for every one must know that they were 
 to be fed with the sincere milk of the Avord, that they 
 might grow in grace, &c. Christ said to Peter, 
 " Feed my lambs, feed my sheep," by which, we 
 must understand his spiritual ministrations, suited 
 to the conditions of the various classes of his dis- 
 ciples. 
 
 Paul gives two reasons for the advice gi^en to 
 the Ephesian bishops, viz. 1. That after his depar- 
 ture grievous wolves would enter in among them, 
 &c. 2. That of their own selves shall men arise, speak- 
 ing perverse things, to draw away disciples after 
 them. Of this sort, it is probable, the apostle speaks. 
 Gal. vi. 12. where he says, " as many as desire to 
 
18 CANDID REASONS EXx\MINED. • 
 
 make a fair show in the flesh constrain you to be 
 circumcised." 
 
 These Judaizing Galatians M'ere for puting new 
 wine into old bottles, contrary to the directions of 
 Christ. It is granted the present Judaizers do not 
 insist on circumcision, because they have found out 
 a substitute, viz. Baptism. But of this substitute, 
 neither Paul nor Barnabas knew any thing. 
 What a pity that none thought of this fine con- 
 ceit, that baptism 'came in the room of circum- 
 cision! This would have decided the whole dispute 
 at Antioch, without Paul and Barnabas travelling to 
 Jerusalem, to receive advice from the apostles, elders 
 and church there. I am astonished at the psedoran- 
 tists in our day, that they can read Acts xv. and 
 not be convinced that the church, at that time, had 
 never heard that baptism came in the room of cir- 
 cumcision; but it is hard to convince a man of a 
 very profitable mistake: a change of sentiments on 
 this subject might hazard loaves and fishes. What 
 a pity it is that among all the inspired apostles, not 
 one of them understood the subject as well as Peter 
 Jldwards! Had he been at Jerusalem, he would un - 
 bhishingly have pronounced them a set of ignorant 
 men, who knew not that baptism came in room of 
 circumcision; and therefore, logically reasoning, cir- 
 cumcision was at an end. But so it happened that 
 the scriptures were finished, without Peter's assist- 
 ance; and we must be contented with them as they 
 are; and as they are, the}^ never will inform us that 
 
CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 19 
 
 baptism came in the room of circumcision, with all 
 the help of Peter Edwards's analogy, inference and 
 sophisms. 
 
 We will now proceed to examine the use of the 
 word EkkAyio-ioi, in some of the epistles. The word is 
 not used in the epistle to the Romans; but the address 
 contains the materials of a church, and perhaps they 
 were one, when the apostle ^vro15e, chap. i. v. 7. it is 
 said, " to all that be at Rome, beloved of God, 
 called to be saints." The true character of a gospel 
 church; but in the 1st and 2d epistles to the Corinthi- 
 ans, they are expressly called a church. I will trans- 
 cribe the words and make some remarks. " Unto the 
 church of God which is at Corinth, to them that 
 are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, 
 \^7th all that in every place call upon the name of Je- 
 sus Christ our Lord." 1 Cor. i. 2. The 2d epistle is 
 similar, viz. " Unto the church of God which is at 
 Corinth, with all the saints which are in ail Achaia." 
 verse 1. These epistles were not confined to the 
 church at Corinth; for the first epistle expressly ex- 
 tends to all that in every place call upon the name of 
 Jesus Christ our Lord. The second is still more ex- 
 plicit, if possible, viz. " with ail the saints which are 
 in all Achaia." From Paul's address to these 
 churches, (for he includes more than Corinth) it is 
 evident he gives us the true character of ail gospel 
 churches in his time, viz. they were called to be 
 saints; for the nonsense of calling some saints by 
 way of eminence, as St. Matthew, &c. was not 
 
20 CANDID REASONS EXAMINED 
 
 known in the apostle's day. Priestcraft introduced 
 this distinction, with no good design. They were in 
 the apostle's days all saints by profession; and of this 
 sort alone were the churches formed. It is not a lit- 
 tle surprising to see a man prostituting his talents by 
 asserting there were more churches in Corinth than 
 one, when Paul wrote; and all his proof is 1 Cor. 
 xiv. 34. " Let your women keep silence in the 
 churches." Let this gentleman look back and 
 blush at his crude productions, fabricated to support 
 a cause, that with all the assistance that bigotry can 
 give, cannot be supported: the epistles extended to 
 all the saints in all Achaia. 
 
 Were we to cite all the epistles to the churches, 
 we should find, they were all called to be saints; and 
 W'hat the apostles predicted respecting the materials 
 of a gospel church are iiiconsistent with the state of 
 babes. After all my care in examining the scriptures,, 
 both in Greek and English, I do not find any foun- 
 dation for baby membership. I still remain surprised, 
 w^hy it has now any advocates. Formerly, when su- 
 perstition and error prevailed, they had some sort of 
 argument for infant baptism, because they held it 
 washed away original sin; but very few are of that 
 opinion now, at least they will not generally openl\ 
 avow it. Peter Edwards on that subject has been 
 more candid than any author I have yet met ^vith; 
 and yet common sense Avould induce every man to 
 make the concession; but pride, prejudice or obsti- 
 nacy will not allow tliem. Peter Edv^ards has on 
 
CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 2i 
 
 this subject done himself some honour; but I doubt 
 he did not consider the consequence; and I suspect 
 he has gi-anted more than some of his bretliren will 
 like. He says, " I do not suppose that infants, pro- 
 perly speaking, receive any present benefit by being 
 baptized;* an honest concession; but allowing this 
 concession to be true, he mis:ht have saved himself 
 the trouble of writing more than fifty pages, and that 
 would have saved me the trouble of reading such un- 
 profitable writings. It is granted ihat infants, pro- 
 perly speaking, receive no present benefit from bap- 
 tism. I will make appear, that, in future it may be 
 a great disadvantage to them. When I touch on that 
 subject, the reader may weigh my reasons. That 
 any should be members in a society in which they 
 can be of no use, nor receive any real benefit from 
 their membership, is so foolish in itself, that nothing 
 but intoxication, by the wine of mystery Babylon, 
 could induce a reasonable man to try to support 
 such a cause; but as light appears, this with other 
 superstitions will die a natural death. 
 
 In many other places in the New Testament, the 
 Greek word iKKht^a-tcc is used, and rendered by the 
 translators. Church. Dr. George Campbell of Aber- 
 deen expressly asserts that the word EKuXyis-ioi has in 
 the holy scriptures only two meanings: one is a sin- 
 gle congregation; the other is all the cliristian com- 
 munity. By my examination of the Greek, it appear-s 
 
 * Candid Reasons, page 156. 
 
22 * ' CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 
 
 to me, to mean the whole elect, redeemed by the 
 blood of Christ, or those, secondly, who are renew- 
 ed by the Holy Ghost, called to be saints. I have 
 met with some authors that have fancied that in the 
 Old Testament in the Hebrew, there is a word cor- 
 responding to the Greek word EnKKyjc-itx.; but from 
 the very passages, to which they refer, I am fully 
 convinced they fail of proof. Nothing but custom, 
 without any examination, could induce any one to 
 call the Jews, consisting of men, women and chil- 
 dren, a church. No word in the English language 
 has been, and still continues more to be abused than 
 church. It is now common to call a place of wor- 
 ship a church; when at the same time, the scripture 
 gives no authority for such language. This is such 
 nonsense that nothing but custom could reconcile 
 any christians to such impropriety of language. 
 
 It is granted that in some places, the word 
 ExJtAjjtTia is used in the Septuagint; but for the most 
 part it means an assembly called together, or a 
 voluntary assembly. The common appellation of 
 the Jews is, 'Zwayuyi^, which properl}^ means a 
 congregation. And even the word Congi'cgation is 
 not applied to the Jews for more than 400 years after 
 the circumcision of Abraham. But I find pasdoran- 
 tists are not agreed when the figment of a Jewish 
 church began. Seme, as Peter Edwards, begin it 
 with Abraham; others, with some more sense, begin 
 it with Moses. Although the Septuagint has used 
 the word, it was impossible, they could have the 
 
CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 2S 
 
 same idea which the word conveys in tlie gospel 
 dispensation; for no such body then existed as a gos- 
 pel church. They could mean nothing but an as- 
 sembly called together; but a gospel church is a 
 church when they are not convened. When John 
 wrote to the seven churches, are we to think they 
 were convnened together? No, they became churches 
 by voluntary confederation. They gave themselves 
 to the Lord, and by voluntary compact became a dis- 
 tinct religious body, invested with all the power 
 Christ has left on earth. One text I have omitted, 
 which may be brought in favour of calling the Jew- 
 ish nation a church. Acts vii. 38. " This is he that 
 was in the church in the wilderness, with the angel 
 which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our 
 fathers, who received the lively oracles to give unto 
 us." In this passage, the church is distinct from 
 the phrase, " and with our fathers." To under- 
 stand this text rightly, it must be remembered that 
 my system is, that God in all ages had an EKKhy^a-ioi, 
 or a people called by grace to be saints, from Abel 
 to Moses, and from Moses to Christ; but they were 
 not formed into a body from the world; and although 
 they were essentially, they were not formally a 
 church; and indeed no nation can be, with any pro- 
 priety of language, called a church, without los- 
 ing the meaning of the word EKnAri^nx. Before I 
 close my pamphlet, this verse shall be more fully 
 considered. , 
 
 The paedorantists always amuse people with mys- 
 
24 CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 
 
 terious wonders about the patriarch Abraham. 
 There, they, for the most part, begin their imagin- 
 ary church, and expatiate htrgeiy about a covenant 
 made with him, he. When I hear this kind of talk, 
 I think of the Lady of Loretta, so much ti-mcd by 
 the papists; but when the French came to the place, 
 they stripped her of her splendid apparel, and found 
 the wonderful lady only a chunk of wood finely 
 dressed, by which the devotees had been deceived 
 for ages; just so will the event be when Abraham's 
 covenant is properly examined, it will be found no- 
 thing to the purpose for which Peter Edwards brings 
 it, when he said infants were once members of the 
 church of God, and never have been cast out, &c. Let 
 vis freely examine the whole history on this subject, 
 and we shall find no foundation for infant member- 
 ship in any church at that time, nor at any other time. 
 This will bring us back to the xii. of Gen. 1, 2 & 3d 
 verses, viz. " Now the Lord had said to Abram, 
 get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, 
 and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will 
 show thee. And I will make thee a great nation, and 
 I will bless thee, and make thy name great; ai^id thou 
 shalt be a blessing. And I will bless them that bless 
 thee; and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee 
 shall all families of the earth be blessed." In Gen. 
 xxii. 18. it is said, " And in thy seed shall ail the 
 nations of the earth be blessed." Abram obeyed 
 God, and the pron:iise of giving the land of Canaan 
 was renewed, in v. 7. it is said, " unto thy seed 
 
CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. ^ 
 
 will I give this land; and there builded he an altar 
 unto the Lord, who appeared unto him." The Holy- 
 Ghost has been very particular in expressing what 
 God promised to Abraham. A spiritual improvement 
 on the subject, and the literal meaning of what God 
 promised, are a very different things; so the natural 
 meaning of s^ed, and the mystical improvement of 
 that phrase, are very different. Paol explains the seed 
 to mean Christ. Gal. lii. 16. Now to Abraham and 
 his seed were the promises made. He saith not, and 
 to seeds^ as of many; but as of one, and to thy seed, 
 which is Clii'ist. We see that in a literal sense the 
 promise refers to the land of Canaan; and the seed 
 were Abraham's descendants or posterity; some of 
 which should possess that land; and in fulness of 
 time, they were put in possession of it. This dis- 
 tinction being preserved, it is easy to answer all the 
 jargon we hear on this subject. Abraham had a 
 seed, in a literal sense; and he had a seed, in a spiri- 
 tual sense; and in this sense, Christ and all the elect 
 are his spiritual seed. This is so plain in scripture, 
 that any man must be wilfully blind who doth not 
 see it. Never was any subject more perverted than 
 this, with a view to establish the traditions of men 
 and priestcraft. 
 
 To do justice to this subject we will now con- 
 sider what is said in Gen. xvii. which is very much 
 used by all paedorantist authors, yea w^onders are to 
 be found here; but the greatest wonder is, why pae- 
 dorantists ai'e so fond of it, seeing that it v/ill ne\er 
 
 E 
 
^ CANl^ID REASONS EXAMINED. 
 
 prove that the Jews were, or any nation can be, cal- 
 led a church, agreeably to the meaning of the Greek 
 
 word EstJcAtjCiot. 
 
 Peter Edwards would have his readers believe 
 he finds a congregational church in this chapter; and 
 therefore he says, " all we know of the church is, 
 that its members consisted of adults and infants, 
 who were initiated by the same rite; that sacrifices 
 were offered; and it is probable, that the father of 
 the family, or some respectable person, did officiate 
 in their assemblies, as a priest. Here is a congrega- 
 tional church, a simple worship, and some creditable 
 officiating priest.* Here the reader will observe, 
 that Peter Edwards seems in some difficulty about his 
 imagimiry church, when he descends to make such 
 an humble acknowledgment, "that all we know about 
 it is, that it consisted of adults and infants." Pray, 
 Peter, who taught you to call Abraliam's family a 
 church? Surely the God of heaven never did. What 
 if a man is a worshipper of God, must we suppose 
 there is a church? Preposterous nonsense! were 
 there not godly families before and after the flood? 
 Where is Enoch? where is Noah? where is Job? 
 where is Melchisideck, priest of the most high God? 
 are he and his worshippers called a church? We 
 know the design of this sort of talk is, to afford some 
 ground for the childish doctrine of infant member- 
 siiip under the gospel dispensation; but this will 
 
 * Candid Reasons, p. 87. 
 
CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 27 
 
 have no weight, but with the superstitious, who 
 wish to have it so. Can Peter Edwards or any other 
 man prove that Abraham and his family ever assem. 
 bled for worship? No change took place, as we read 
 of, in Abraham's conduct after circumcision more 
 than before. It was his custom before it, to offer sa- 
 crifices; it was his custom afterward; and so it was 
 the custom of Job, and of all pious people before and 
 after the flood. To me it is astonishing that wise and 
 learned men can try to support such a system; but 
 education can do wonders, and make wise men act 
 as children. 
 
 I am now considering the 17th chapter of Gene- 
 sis. This is supposed to contain the magazine, from 
 whence unanswerable arguments are brought to sup- 
 port infant church membership. I will first trans- 
 cribe all the verses in it, relative to the subject, and 
 candidly consider the whole; and I am fully persuad- 
 ed, it contains not one argument for calling the Jews 
 a church, or the descendants of Abraham church 
 members. I will quote the whole before I make any 
 remarks, v. 2. *' I will make my covenant between 
 thee and me, and I will multiply thee exceedingly. 
 V. 4. As for me, behold my covenant is with thee; 
 and thou shalt be a father of many nations, v. 5. For 
 a father of many nations have I made thee. v. 6. 
 And I will make thee exceedmg fruitful, and I will 
 make nations of thee, v. 7. And I will establish my 
 covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after 
 thee, in their generations, for an everlasting coven- 
 
28 CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 
 
 ant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after 
 thee. V. 8. And I will give unto thee, and to thy 
 seed after thee, all the land a\ herein thou art a stran- 
 ger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting pos- 
 session, and I will be their God. v. 9. Thou shalt 
 keep my covenant therefore, thou and thy seed after 
 thee, in their generations, v. 10. This is my coven- 
 ant which thou shalt keep, between me and you, and 
 thy seed after thee, every man child among you shall 
 be circumcised, v. 11. And ye shall circumcise the 
 flesh of yoi;r ioreskin, and it shall be a token of the 
 covenant between me and you. v. 12. And he that 
 is eight days shall be circumcised among you, every 
 man child in your generations." Circumcision is 
 mentioned in some other verses in the chapter; but 
 as they are. not relative to the subject, they are 
 omitted. 
 
 For two reasons, I have transcribed these verses. 
 The first is, that the whole may be seen without turn- 
 ing to the Bible; but tht second and great reason 
 is, that it is pretended, some where in them, we shall 
 find infant church membership. I wish them to be 
 well examined, and the plainer it will appear that 
 infant church membership is a vam and groundless 
 fancy, fabricated to support an antichristian super- 
 stition. To do justice to the verses, I propose to ob- 
 serve the following method: 
 
 1. To give the meaning of the word Covenant, 
 
 2. Point out what God promised to give to 
 Abraliam and his seed. 
 
CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 29 
 
 3. Demonstrate who are meant by Abraham's 
 seed, in a literal sense, in these verses, with some 
 remarks to prove who are Abraham's seed in a spi- 
 ritual sense. 
 
 4. Make some remarks respecting circi-mcision 
 as a token of the covenasit. This appeared to me, 
 the best way to end this dispute, for it will brhig 
 us to explain the terms used; otherwise, we may do 
 as Peter Edwards has done, when he pretended to 
 explain Acts ii. 39. After wasting about ten psges, 
 he never condescended to tell the reader wnat was 
 promised. I shall hereafter make some remarks on 
 that passage. To pursue my plan I will, 
 
 1. Give the meaning of the word Covenant. 
 
 The word in scripture means the same it doth 
 in common language, viz. an agreement betwen two 
 parties. So David and Jonathan made an agreement, 
 which is called a covenant. Abraham made an agree- 
 ment with Abimelech and liis posterity, which is 
 called a covenant. This agi-eement is sometimes con- 
 ditional, and other times unconditional. God pro- 
 mised absolutely to give to Abraham and to his 
 seed, the land of Canaan. This was an unconditional 
 agreement, by which God bound himself to confer 
 the blessings promised; but their continuance in that 
 land was conditional; and they broke that covenant, 
 and God rejected them from being his people. At 
 Horeb, God said, " Now if you will cbej my voice 
 indeed, and keep my covenant, then } e c^hall be a 
 peculiar treasure unto me, above all people; for all 
 
30 CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 
 
 the earth is mine." Gen. xxi. 32. Exod. xix. 5, 6^- 
 We can be at no loss respecting this covenant, if we 
 read Deut. v. 23. when God made a gracious pro- 
 mise to Noah, that he would not destroy the earth by 
 a second flood, as will appear by reading Gen. ix. 9. 
 11. he calls it a covenant. In this unconditional 
 sense, the term covenant js to be understood in the 
 promises made to Abraham. We proceed to the se- 
 cond thing proposed, which was to point out what 
 God promised to give to Abraham and his seed. 
 
 The only way to come to the true meanmg, is to 
 recite all passages on this subject; for here some- 
 where, all the Judaizers found their infant member- 
 ship under the gospel dispensation; yet upon a fair 
 and candid examination, we shall not find one text 
 favourable to that mistaken sentiment. We will be- 
 gin at the xii. chap, of Genesis, and follow the sa- 
 cred historian; and truth will open plainly to our un- 
 derstandings. V. 1. " Now the Lord said to Abram, 
 get thee out of thy country — unto a land that I will 
 show thee. v. 3. And in thee shall all the families of 
 the earth be blessed. Abram obeyed God, and went 
 into the land of Canaan, v. 7. There God appeared to 
 him, and said unto thy seed will I give this land. Chap, 
 xiii. v. 15. God said, all the land which thou seest, 
 to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever. And 
 I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth. Chap. 
 XV. V. 7. I am the Lord, that brought thee out of 
 Ur of the Chaldees to give thee this land to inherit. 
 V. 18. That same day God made a covenant with 
 
CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. $1 
 
 Abram, saying, unto thy seed have I given this land, 
 from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the 
 river Euphrates." The reader will please to observe 
 that all the promises, contained in this covenant, were 
 made to Abraham fifteen years before his circumci- 
 sion; yet it was neither a duty nor privilege to be 
 circumcised; and witliout a divine command, it would 
 never have been his duty. Circumcision was a mark 
 in the flesh, and a token of that covenant made with 
 Abraham in his uncircumcised state. This will ap- 
 pear more fully, when we consider the subject par- 
 ticularly. Abraliam received the promises and was 
 justified before his circumcision. Paul improves 
 this, Rom. iv. 3, 10, 11. The Jews depended much 
 on their circumcision, which was works, and that 
 not their own, but of others; but Paul proved that 
 we are justified by faith, and not by works, and ex- 
 emplified the subject by referring to Abraham, there- 
 fore he said, " For we say, that faith was reckoned 
 to Abraham for righteousness." How then was it 
 reckoned? when in circumcision or in uncircumci- 
 sion? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. 
 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of 
 the righteousness of the faith, which he had, being 
 uncircumcised. This passage shall be hereafter con- 
 sidered more fully. 
 
 The xvii. of Genesis has been brought to coun. 
 tenance infant membership; but, upon a fair investi- 
 gation, we shall not find one argument for it; but on 
 tlie other liand, we shall see, that all the promises 
 
,32 CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 
 
 mentioned there, literally refer to the land of Canaan, 
 and God's faithful engagement to preserve them into 
 the possession of it. We grant that these promises 
 may be considered in a spiritual sense; but in that 
 sense, we must understand Seed to mean the Lord 
 Jesus Chi'ist and his whole elect, and not Abraham's 
 natural posterity. The reason why this subject has 
 been enveloped in darkness, is for want of explana- 
 tion; and the reason why it has not been explained 
 honestly and rationally is because this would effectu- 
 ally ruin the whole system. When men set out 
 wrong, pride of heart, combined with traditional 
 blindness, prevents their embracing the truth. They 
 are driven to the shifts of analogy, inference or im- 
 plication, to torture the scripture to give a sense, 
 which was never designed by the Holy Ghost. It 
 will appear by reading the promises, contained in 
 this and the preceeding chapters, that God promised 
 nothing more literally to Abraham and his natural 
 posterity, than the sure possession of the land of. 
 Canaan; also that his , posterity should be very 
 numerous; and that kmgs should descend from him; 
 and as he had promised to be the God of Abraham 
 and his seed, this was literally fulfilled in bringing 
 Israel into the land of Canaan, and. preserving them 
 there', till their sins rendered it necessary for him to 
 disDOssess them. 
 
 X 
 
 How God has fulfilled all these promises literally, 
 if any thing more is meant in these promises, it must 
 be understood in a spiritual sense. And no baptist 
 
CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 33 
 
 has ever denied the sph'itual improvement. All this 
 is the literal meaning of the following verses, viz. 
 5, 6, 7", 8. " Neither shall thy name any more be 
 called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for 
 a father of many nations have I made thee. And I 
 will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I vi^ill make 
 nations of thee; and kings shall come out of thee. 
 And I will establish my covenant between me and 
 thee, and thy seed after thee in their generations, for 
 an everlasting covenant; to be a God unto thee and 
 thy seed after thee. And I will give unto thee, and 
 to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou ait a 
 stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting 
 possession; and I will be their God." Now every 
 man who will exercise reason must see that all these 
 promises are of a temporary nature literally, but they 
 are capable of a spiritual improvement; and this v\Aill 
 appear, when we consider the third head, which is to 
 show, who are meant by the seed. 1. Negatively, 
 not all Abraham's natural posterity; for neither Ish- 
 mael, nor the six sons of Keturah were included. 
 Gen. XXV. 6. And Paul said, they are not all Israel, 
 which are of Israel. Rom. ix. 6. And it is added, 
 ^* Neither because they are the seed of Abraham, 
 are they called children, but in Isaac shall thy seed 
 be called; that is, they which are the children of the 
 flesh, these are not the children of God; but the 
 children of the promise are counted for the seed." 
 Rom ix. 7, 8. .These texts put the subject beyond 
 all reasonable contradictign: that the promises, made 
 
34 CANDID REASONS EXAMINED, 
 
 to Abraham, did not refer to all his natural descend- 
 ents; neither did God engage to confer any spiritual 
 blessings on all the natural posterity of this patriarchs 
 From the passages cited, it is plain that the pro- 
 mises are to be understood in a natural and in a spi- 
 ritual sense. Now if we consider the providence of 
 God, in bringing Israel out of Egypt, with a high 
 hand; his power displayed at the Red Sea; his feed- 
 ing them miraculously in the wilderness forty years; 
 his discomfiting all nations before them, and abso- 
 lutely giving them the land of promise; we see God's 
 promise fulfilled, when he said " I will be a God 
 unto thee and unto thy seed after thee." It is plaip 
 that the promise is to be taken temporally and spi-^ 
 ritually, or the great apostle Paul made an egregious 
 mistake on the subject. Gal. iii. 16. We will just 
 cite the words, " Now to Abraliam and his seed 
 were the promises made; he saith not and to seedsy 
 as of many; but as of one, and to thy seed, which 
 is Christ." This text stares Peter Edwards sternly 
 in the face, and accuses him of handling the word of 
 God deceitfully; for in all that he has said, he never 
 informed the reader, that in a spiritual sense, the 
 word seed meant Christ and his elect. We have 
 proved that God has fulfilled his promise to Abra- 
 ham and his seed, in a literal sense; and as Christ, 
 In his humiliation, was the seed in a spiritual sense, 
 he fulfilled his promise to him. It is said, " I have 
 cail(.a thee in righteousness, and will- hold thy hand, 
 and will keep thee, and will give thee for a covcnajit 
 
CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 35 
 
 of the people, for a light of the Gentiles." Isaiah xlii. 
 6. And again it is said, " He shall see his seed, and 
 the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand." 
 lasiah liii. 10. From these texts, and many simi- 
 lar, we see Christ has a seed, which is his elect, who 
 shall hear his voice and follow him. We are inform- 
 ed how we are made partakers of Christ, with all his 
 benefits; and that is by the operations of his Holy 
 Spirit working m us a living faith in Jesus Christ. 
 " For ye are all the children of God, by faith in 
 Christ Jesus." Gal. iii, 26. And again in the 29th 
 verse, " And if ye are Christ's, then are ye Abra- 
 ham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." I 
 shall touch on this subject again, when I shall con- 
 sider Peter Edwai^ds's abuse of the apostle Peter's 
 words in Acts ii. 39. The reason why I have been 
 so particular on this subject, as truth is my object, 
 was to find out the origin of Peter Edwards's church 
 of God; but I have as yet found nothing like a 
 church fornially; nor can I find when it was formed 
 or constituted; nor can I guess what verse he has 
 fixed on for the formation of his church. I think it 
 may be with propriety said, it existed only in the 
 brains of pasdorantists, and its essence and exist- 
 ence totally invisible. When I come more fully to 
 explain the word E}cx,A>j(r<ct, I will demonstrate that 
 God had a people called by grace, near two thou- 
 sand years before Abraham was born, and in every 
 age of the world; but they were not formally a 
 church, tliat is a voluntary society, before the gospel 
 
36 CANDID REASCWS i:.XAi\lllNLU 
 
 dispensation. I cannot find when Peter's imaginary 
 . church was formed; nor do I know, any more than th& 
 pen in my hand, what verse he has fixed on. I 
 would be glad to know how long this church ex- 
 isted before circumcision took place; for common 
 sense would inform us that no man can enter into a 
 house before it is built; and a church must neces- 
 sai'ily exist, before any person can be initiated into 
 it. I rather think, Peter never thought on the sub- 
 ject, or he would have said less about his initiating 
 institute. I would thank Peter or any other to tell me 
 what were the names of the members of the church. 
 Sarah, that good old woman, was excluded, because 
 of her natural incompetency. A pitiful church in- 
 deed, that excluded one half of the nation for no 
 other fault, only because they were females. Can 
 this be what Peter Edwards means by the best 
 church in the world?* I am still in search for Pe- 
 ter's best church; but my success is likely to be as 
 a certain society looking for the widow'3 son. Peter 
 Edwards has used the word Church at least 130 
 times, neverthdeas I cannot find it. As I have no- 
 thing but truth in view, I must try again; and I find 
 Peter says, " the relation between God and this so- 
 ciety, is formed by God himself, by declaring he is, 
 and will be their God. " i It must be remembered that 
 this promise was made to Abraham before circumci- 
 sion: how then, with common sense, can it be said, 
 that he entered into it by circumcision? For he must 
 
 * Candid Reasons, I-''- r Candid Keasnnp. S'^. 
 
CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 3-7 
 
 be out of it, before he could be initiated. What re- 
 ligious jargon men can write! Pray, in what part of 
 scripture do we find God calling a promise a church? 
 If a promise makes a church, Noah had a very nu- 
 merous one; for it included all the beasts of the 
 earth. We know this fictitious chimera is formed 
 to lay a foundation for p^dorantism; but if we ex- 
 amine the subject, we shall find the fancies of men 
 erecting that which never existed. This sort of talk 
 will never affect the baptist cause. 
 
 I shall make a few remarks on circumcision and 
 proceed on the subject. 
 
 I take nothing secondhanded. I will give scrip- 
 ture to prove my arguments. This will bring me 
 back to the xvii. chapter of Genesis, where we shall 
 find the command for this institute in the 1 1th verse. 
 ^' And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your fore- 
 skin, and it shall be a tolcen of the covenant between 
 me and you." This command was given to Abra- 
 ham about twenty years after God had appeared to 
 him, and gave him the promises in his uncireumcised 
 state; and this institute was neither a privilege nor 
 a duty all that time. And what made it a duty now? 
 The command of God, and not the promise. Here 
 we see what the literal meaning of the rite was, viz. 
 a token of the covenant between God and Abraham. 
 God calls the rainbow a token, a token of the co- 
 venant between him and the earth. And in every 
 place, it is used for a sign; it means the same thing. 
 This mark in the flesh of all Abraham's posterity ,, 
 
38 CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 
 
 was a sign of the covenant, which God made with 
 Abraham, ^vherein he had promised to give the land 
 of Canaan to him and his seed. And nothing else is 
 literally contained in it. 
 
 Notwithstanding all the noise we hear about it, 
 the word is often abused; for it meant nothing but a 
 sign of the covenant, which served to bring to re- 
 membrance that God had promised the land of Ca- 
 naan to Abraham and his descendents. This was no 
 appendage to circumcision, as Peter Edwards 
 groundlessly asserted; for it was promised before 
 circumcision, consequently could not be an append- 
 age added to it. I often hear paedorantists, by ana- 
 logy or inference, strain this subject beyond truth 
 and decency, by calling baptism and the Lord's 
 supper sealing ordinances, and the seals of the co- 
 venant. The word Seal is not used to any person, 
 only to Abraham; in Rom. iv. 11. it is said, " He 
 received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righ- 
 teousness of the faith, which he had, being uncir- 
 cumcised." But it is never said to be a seal to any 
 of his posterity; nor could it be said of them; for 
 they were circumcised when they knew nothing 
 about such faith as Abraham had. Paul, instead of 
 using the word token, calls it a sign; and this was a 
 seal, or confirmation of the righteousness of the faith, 
 which he had before he was circumcised. Surely 
 circumcision was no seal of the righteousness of 
 faith to Ishmael, who was an ungodly youth. 
 
 To tlie descendents of Abraliam, circumcision 
 
CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 39 
 
 was only a token, that they were the seed of Abra- 
 ham, to whom God had promised to give the land 
 of Canaan. All that is contained more in the promise 
 was fulfilled in God's preserving, multiplying and 
 protecting them in the possession of the land. If 
 any thing spiritual was designed, wheii God said he, 
 would be a God unto Abraham and his seed; and if 
 by seed is meant every descendent; then every indi- 
 vidual must be saved, if God has fulfilled his pro- 
 mise; but the Jews were not a nation of saints, but 
 the very reverse generally. The whole history of 
 them shows them to be, a wicked, rebellious and 
 idolatrous people. 
 
 Peter Edwards never tells us where to find his 
 feest church in the world. All I can say after my 
 best endeavours to find it, is that it is totally invisi- 
 ble; yet Peter gives his definition of it, viz. " A 
 church is a society that stands in special relation to 
 God, being instituted for religious purposes."* Pray, 
 when and where was it instituted? I cannot find any 
 trace of it, nor any scriptural authority to call the 
 Jewish nation a church. All talk about a Jewish 
 church, without telling us, when, where, and how, 
 it was instituted, is merely childish prattle, calcu- 
 lated to amuse the simple. Must there be a church 
 instituted, because God made promises to Abraham, 
 literally, only of a temporary nature, and command- 
 ed to circumcise himself, and his posterity? By no 
 
 * Candid Reasons^ page 3n. 
 
40 CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 
 
 means. Melchisecleck was the priest of the most 
 high God; and he must have had some rehgious 
 rites, or how could he officiate as a priest? and yet 
 we read nothing about his church; and we would 
 hear as little about the Abrahamic church, if some 
 pbject was not in view, besides truth, and the edifi- 
 cation of the body of Christ. Peter Edwards seems 
 not very well suited ^with Mr. Booth's definition of 
 the Jewish economy, when he called it, an ecclesi- 
 astico-political constitution.* I acknowledge that 
 Mr. Booth was not quite correct in this passage; for 
 there was nothins; ecclesiastical in the Jewish eco- 
 nomy. It was merely a civil government, with some 
 form of religious worship, and religious rites, which 
 were shadows of good things to come. Surely if a 
 nation can be called a church, then there can be no 
 world in that nation; all is church. Had Peter Ed- 
 vvards considered the phrase used by Mr. Booth, he 
 would have passed over the passage without any re- 
 marks; but his ignorance would not permit him; 
 therefore he said in the same page, that Mr. Booth 
 " had confounded the church and state; the one 
 being a kingdom of this world, the other the king- 
 dom of Christ." If Peter is disposed to call the un- 
 godly Jews, the kingdom of Christ, it will be attend- 
 ed with this disadvantage: it will represent John the 
 Baptist proclaiming nonsense, when he said the 
 kingdom of Heaven is at hand. Matt. iii. 2. Here 
 
 * Candid Reasons, pag'e 131. 
 
CANDID ^REASONS EXAMINED. 41 
 
 Peter may consult his own lexicon, and if his is not 
 different from all others, he will find that the phrase, 
 ** Is at hand," in Greek, means approach. Now if 
 the Jewish economy could be called the kingdom of 
 Christ, how could John say that now it approached 
 or drew nigh? The apostles were commanded to say, 
 *' The kingdom of heaven is at hand." Matt. x. 7. 
 The seventy disciples were commanded to say, 
 *' The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you." 
 Luke X. 9. If we were to understand the phrase, the 
 kingdom of God, as Peter explains it, we must read 
 it, the church is come nigh unto you, implying that 
 it did not exist before. But I believe, as I shall make 
 appear hereafter, that by these phrases is meant the 
 gospel dispensation, and Christ's spiritual reign 
 in it. 
 
 Peter Edwards finds every thing about his im- 
 aginary church rather inveloped in darkness, there- 
 fore he is obliged to descend from his positive tone, 
 to humbly acknowledge " all we know about the 
 church is, that its members consisted of adults and 
 infants, who were initiated by the same rite; that sac- 
 rifices were ofiered; and, it is probable, that the father 
 of the family, or some respectable person, did offici- 
 ate in their assemblies as a priest. Here is a congre- 
 gational church, a simple worship, and some credit- 
 able officiating priest."* Pray where did this church 
 exist? w^hen did it begin? Not one woi'd is to be 
 found about it in Genesis, nor any otlier part, oi^ 
 
 * Carrdrd Reasons, p. 37 
 
 G 
 
42 CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 
 
 scripture. It was made by paedorantists and existed 
 only in cloudy heads. Who was the first officiating 
 priest? Abraham is never called a priest. Before his 
 circumcision, he sacrificed; and after it, he did the 
 same; and so did all godly men before and after the 
 flood. In those days every man was his own priest. 
 Where shall we find their assemblies? Not one is 
 mentioned in the scriptures. Can such ravings be 
 called Candid Reasons? If we pursue the subject we 
 shall find Isaac and Jacob sacrificing, but nothing else. 
 I will consider the succeednig generations, to find 
 this officiating priest and congregational church; and 
 we Avill find it a vain fancy and nothing else. Shall 
 we find piety among Jacob's sons, excepting Joseph? 
 Not one word can be said in their favour. Reuben, the 
 incestuous villain, defiled his father's concubine. Gen. 
 XXXV. 22. and when Israel knew it, there was no- 
 thing done in way of dicipline to punish a flagitious 
 \vretch. A fine church, a church without discipline. I 
 suppose Peter will not admit him to be an officiating 
 priest. And what can be said of the rest of Jacob's 
 children, who made their father believe a lie about 
 Joseph? And when they saw the deep sorro^v and an- 
 guish of soul, which afflicted their father on the sub- 
 ject, not one of them had virtue or goodness enough 
 to undeceive him. Their characters badly agree with 
 officiating priests. 
 
 We will now follow them into Egypt, where 
 they became idolaters, and worshipped the gods oi" 
 Egypt. Josh. xxiv. 14. There they became so igno- 
 
CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 43 
 
 rant and such strangers to divine worship, that they 
 had even forgotten his name; therefore when Moses 
 was ordered by God to go into Egypt, he said, when 
 he would come to the childi'en of Israel and say unto 
 them, " The God of your fathers hath sent me unto 
 you; and they shall say to me, what is his name? what 
 shall I say unto them?" Exod. iii. 13. Where now 
 are the creditable priests? So innnersed in Egyptian 
 idolatry, not one of them knew even the name of the 
 object of worship. Fie for shame! can any man of 
 conscience call this the church of God? He that is 
 capable of doing this, can, \vith equal ease, call 
 light, darkness, and good for evil. I have no doubt,, 
 but even then, God had reserved witnesses among 
 them; but one reason why I have pursued this 
 method is, to demonstrate that when God promised 
 to be a God to Abraham and his seed, no spiritual 
 blessings were included to all his natural seed. No- 
 thing but temporalities were included in the promise 
 literally. Wlien the promise extends farther, it must 
 be considered spiritually; and in this sense, it is not 
 denied by the baptists. God never called them the 
 church of Israel, but the children of Israel. Even the 
 word 'Zwoiycoyyi^ that is congregation, was never ap- 
 plied to them before they came into the wilderness< 
 Now we ai*e got into the wilderness, let us examine 
 their character and conduct, and we will find them 
 a wicked, hardhearted and rebellious generation. 
 Moses, the servant of God, had not been more than 
 forty days from them, before the very leader of them 
 
44 CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 
 
 made a golden calf, and sacrificed to it. Exod. 
 Xxxii. And why a calf? An ox was the idol of 
 Egypt; and no doubt, they were well acquainted 
 with the idolatry of Egypt; yes, so long that they lost 
 the name of the God who ought to have been wor- 
 shipped. This is a very bad set-out for this officiat- 
 ing priest. Not a few lives were lost on this occa- 
 sion: and whoever will read tlie travels of the Chil- 
 dren of Israel in the wilderness, will find them to 
 be generally a hardhearted, unbelieving and rebel- 
 lious generation in general; so bad that the earth 
 swallowed up Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, and all 
 their company, as unworthy to live on earth, or die 
 the common death of man. And what shall I say 
 more to prove that God never called them a church, 
 nor treated them as such? Peter Edwards tells us 
 often, that they were initiated into this church by 
 circumcision, fee. If this was the way they became 
 members, not more than one half of the nation be- 
 longed to it, for the single reason they were females. 
 And after 400 years, the church had increased only 
 one person. Abraham was the first; and when they 
 came to possess the land of Canaan, the church con- 
 sisted of Caleb and Joshua, and no more; for none 
 were circumcised but them. If time would permit, 
 I would have traced the subject through all the suc- 
 ceeding generations to the birth of Christ; and if 
 whoremongers, idolaters, adulterers and sodomites 
 were a church of God, he had one with a witness. 
 I must not be understood, diat in all these genera-. 
 
CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 45 
 
 hons, God had none called to be saints, which is the 
 meaning of the word ^KxK-^ffKH or Church. But they 
 were not formed into a church. God had his people 
 in all ages; but they were not a church formally. I 
 have already touched on the only text, in the New 
 Testament, where the word Church is used, with 
 reference to the children of Israel. Acts vii. 38. 
 *' This is he that was in the church, in the wilder- 
 ness, with the angel which spake to him in the mount 
 Sina, aiid with our fathers; who received the lively 
 oracles to give unto us." The grammatical con- 
 struction of these words obliges us to make a dis- 
 tinction between the church, and our fathers. This 
 will appear if we leave out the middle clause, and 
 read the words thus, viz. " This is he that was in 
 the church in the wilderness, and with our fathers." 
 By the church is meant, them who were called 
 to be saints; and by our fathers, the rest of the na- 
 tion; for Moses acted as a temporal mediator be- 
 tween God and the Israelites, except in such cases 
 as the mind of God was otherwise, as in the case of 
 Korah, Dathan and Abiram, who were swallowed 
 up by the earth. If we admit that God had a church 
 materially, but not formally, in all ages of the world, 
 before the flood as well as after, then all the diffi- 
 culty vanishes immediately. To the honour of Mr. 
 Mason this is granted by him, wliich is a demon- 
 , , stration that he has thought more on the subject, 
 than, what is common among divines. 
 
 We w-ould be under no difficulties on tliis sub- 
 
46 CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 
 
 ject, was it not for custom aixl education. We hav£ 
 from our infancy heard the word Church misap- 
 plied; hence the nonsense of church of Rome, church 
 of England, church of Scotland, has become fami- 
 liar to us; but Dr. Campbell has made appear that 
 the scripture never uses the word in that sense; and 
 it IS as void of sense to talk about the Jewish church, 
 but custom has made it familiar. Dr. George Camp- 
 bell has explained the word l.KKAyi<rioc> translated 
 church, so unansvverably, that to any man who 
 wishes information on the subject, I would recom- 
 mend his lectures as the best that I ever saw. It is 
 true that some superstitious bigots will be very 
 much displeased with him, because he has told the 
 truth, and they are unable to refute him; and I would 
 have transcribed many passages from him, but it 
 would have swelled my pampiilet too much.* 
 
 In the first manuscript of this pamphlet, I con- 
 sidered the history of the Jews, from the days of 
 Joshua to the birth of Christ, as far as recorded in 
 the holy scriptures; and notwithstanding that this 
 history afforded unanswerable arguments against 
 calling them a church, I found my pamphlet so large 
 that I have been obliged to curtail it very much, or 
 
 * Eccl. Lee. p. Philad. Ed. " We speak now, indeed, of the 
 Gallatian church, the Greek church, the church of England and of Scot- 
 land, as of societies independent and complete in themselves." Such a 
 phraseology was never adopted in the days of the apostles. They did not 
 s'ay, the church of Asia, or the church of Macedonia, or the church of 
 Achaia; but the churches of God in Asia, ?4C. Tlic plural number is i^i- 
 variably used. 
 
CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 47 
 
 it could not be so generally circulated. Let the 
 reader attend to the history, and if he is not blinded 
 by education, he will be astonislied that ever such a 
 nation could be called a church. Indeed the term is 
 perfect nonsense, when it is applied to any nation, 
 consisting of men, women and children, or the word 
 l.AK\t](ri» has no meaning; but it means them who 
 are called by grace. 
 
 I come now to the New Testament; and the first 
 thing which I shall consider, are the a<3dresses of 
 Christ to the Jews, by which it will appear very 
 plain, he did not consider them as the church of 
 God. But before I proceed, I must premise that 
 there is a distinction to be observed, viz. The 
 church is never called the world; nor is the world, 
 ever called the church. The system, that annihilates 
 the world and transforms it into church, cannot be 
 of God; but must be a branch of antichrist. Ac- 
 cording to the psedorantists' system, there was no 
 world among the Jews. 
 
 2. The Jews were as good and religious, when 
 John began to preach repentance to them, as they 
 were in preceding ages, if not much better. After 
 the return from the Babylonish captivity, the Levites 
 were to read the law and give the sense to the peo- 
 ple, and cause them to understand the reading. Neh. 
 viii. 8. This is supposed to be 445 years before 
 the birth of Christ. Malachi is supposed to have 
 finished his prophecies about 48 years afterwards; 
 which finished the Old Testament, From that time 
 
48 CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 
 
 to the birth of Christ, which it is supposed was 397 
 years, the Jews, for ought we know, lived as well as 
 common, which was never very well. Some time 
 after their return, synagogues were erected, in which 
 the law and the prophets were read every sabbath, 
 which continued to be the practice in the time Clirist 
 was on earth. When Christ began his ministry, the 
 Jews were divided into two classes: one was called 
 Pharisees, the other Sadducees. The Sadducees 
 were Epiririans, believing in no future state of ex- 
 istence, angel or spirit. What kind of religion they 
 had, the reader may guess; but one thing is very 
 evident, it had no reference to eternity, which proves 
 a very important point on this subject, viz. that if 
 the Jews could be called a church, it required no 
 mental or religious qualifications to become a mem- 
 ber, and remain so; and this is perfectly consonant 
 with the pasdorantists' system. Among the Jews 
 cutting off the prepuce of a child made him a com- 
 plete member; and although afterwards, he declared 
 that he neither believed that there was either heaven 
 or hell, he remained still a member. Is this the best 
 church in the world? But the truth is, that circum- 
 cision was only a mark that the person descended of 
 Abraham, and belonged to the Jewish nation. The 
 word INIember is not used in all the Old Testament. 
 This term has been introduced to support infant 
 membership. 
 
 The other sect among the Jews, were called Pha- 
 risees, who at first, it is probable, were the most rcr 
 
CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 4^ 
 
 iigious people among the Jews; but when Christ 
 came, they were a superstitious set of hypocrites, 
 who had made void the commands of God by their 
 traditions, and were the most spiteful enemies 
 which Christ had, and finally by wicked hands cru- 
 cified him.- 
 
 We will consider, first, how he addressed the 
 scribes and pharisees, who were the leaders of the 
 Jews. Now if Christ addi'essed them in language 
 quite contrary to the language used when addres- 
 sing his church, then it must follow that he did not 
 consider them the church of God. He charged them 
 with making the command of God of none efiect by 
 then' traditions of men. Mark vii. 8, 9. He calls them 
 hypocrites eight times in one chapter. Matt, xxiii. 
 He calls them in the same chapter five times blind 
 guides. He calls them serpents, a generation of vi- 
 pers, v/ith the severe interrogative *' How can ye 
 escape the damnation of hell?" Matt, xxiii. 33. He 
 pronounces a wo against them eight times in the 
 same chapter. Is this the language which he uses 
 when he addresses his church? The very reverse, as 
 will appear. He also calls them an evil and an adulter- 
 ous generation. Matt. ix. 39. He told them plainly, 
 they were of the devil their father. John viii. 44, 
 He considered them under the character of the world, 
 the contrast of his church. In addressing his disci- 
 ples, he says, " If the world hate you, ye know that 
 it hated me before it hated you. If 3"e were of the 
 world, the world would lovo his own; but becnuse 
 
50 CANDID REASOlSiS EXAMINED. 
 
 ye are not of the world; but I have chosen you out 
 of the world, therefore the world hateth you." John 
 XV. 18, 19. Can any thing be plainer than that 
 Christ considered the Jews in the common state of 
 man, without any relation to him? Only observe the 
 manner in which he addresses the members of his 
 church at ail times: He says they were not blind 
 as the world is. " Blessed are your eyes, for they 
 see; and your ears, for they hear." Matt. xiii. 16. 
 He calls them the salt of the earth, the light of the 
 world. And to crown all he said, " My sheep hear 
 my voice, and I know them, and they follow me; 
 and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall 
 never perish, neither shall any pluck them out of my 
 hand." John x. 27, 28. Can any man in his senses 
 read Christ's addresses to the scribes and pharisees, 
 and believe that he considered them as members of 
 his church, the church of God, and the best church 
 in the world? No, there is not a man on earth can 
 believe such jargon. 
 
 Now if circumcision constituted membership, 
 they must be considered all as members. That cir- 
 cumcision constituted membership, is the faith of 
 all pajdorantists, with whom I have been acquainted. 
 From what has been said, the conclusion is irre- 
 fragable, that the covenant made with Abraham con- 
 stituted no church formally; and that the Jews ne- 
 ver called themselves so; nor could such materials 
 bear the name with any propriety of language. If 
 they were a'church before the gospel dispensation. 
 
CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 5i 
 
 they are one to this very day. For if circumcision ini- 
 tiated them into membership, they still continue the 
 rite, and must be a church to the end of time, if 
 they perform the operation; and this will forever 
 continue their membership according to Peter Ed- 
 wards's system. What is that thing, which is meant 
 by the church, or EK>cA>j(ria? The Greeks meant by 
 it an assembly called together.* The Jews may have 
 used the Hebrew words Cahal and gheda; but they 
 could mean nothing more than the Greeks did by 
 ExjtAjjo-iaf, which was an assembly called together. 
 But it was impossible for them to have the same idea 
 of the word, as we have under the gospel dispensa- 
 tion; for no such body did then exist. The Jews 
 were so far from being saints, that many of them 
 were gross idolaters, adulterers, fornicators, and 
 even sodomites. To call such materials a church of 
 God, or of Christ, is as great an insult on him, as to 
 spit in his face, as the soldiers did in the days erf his 
 humiliation. 
 
 Peter Edwards's killing argument is, that chil- 
 dren were once, by God's appointment, members 
 of the church; and they have never been cast out 
 either by God or man.f This argument has no force, 
 if the Jewish nation were never called a church, 
 which is the system that I espouse; but in any point 
 of view, this argument is false. If by children, we 
 are to understand the descendents of Abraham, they 
 
 * Archaeo. Atticje, lib. 3. cap. 2. wx-itten by Tliomas Godwin» B. D 
 f Candid Reasons, p. fj. 
 
S2 CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 
 
 were not all included in that covenant. For the chil- 
 dren of Ishmael, and the sons of Keturah with Esau, 
 were excluded. At best only the males were in this 
 Cycloptic thing called a church; and perhaps that 
 was not one half of the nation. A bad cause will 
 force men to use shameful and deceitful argu- 
 ments! 
 
 Peter Edwards pursues his subject by quoting 
 Matt. xi. 43. " Therefore I say unto you, the king- 
 dom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a 
 nation bringing forth the fruits thereof," Now what 
 is this to the purpose? There is no mention made of 
 infant membership. That is true, but every thing is 
 to be proved by inference: that's the thing that can 
 do wonders, which were never contemplated in the 
 scriptures. Therefore Peter tells us " The plain 
 meaning of this passage, is, that as in time past, the 
 church of God, which is his kingdom, was limited 
 to Judea, so in the future, he would have a church 
 in the Gentile world. The taking the kingdom of 
 God from the Jews, and giving it to the Gentiles de- 
 notes, 1. The ceasing of a regular church state 
 among the Jews," &.c. I know not in what part of 
 scripture, Peter can find the church called the king- 
 dom of God. If he has found it in the talmud or 
 koran, it is nothing to the purpose. It is not meant 
 in Matt. xxi. 43. for in this passage the gospel dis- 
 pensation is meant, as will appear by considering 
 the plxrase. The kingdom of God and the kingdom 
 of heaven are used to the same purpose; and either 
 
 y 
 
CANDIP REASONS EXAMINED. 53 
 
 means a state of glory hereafter, or the gospel dis- 
 pensation on earth. A few passages of scripture will 
 settle this point. When John made his appearance, 
 he said, " Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at 
 hand." Matt. iii. 2. In the same sense it is used, 
 Matt. xii. 28. " But if I cast out devils by the Spi- 
 rit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unco 
 you." And what was come unto them? The dispen- 
 sation of the gospel, which is the power of God, 
 unto every one that belie^'^eth; for the kingdom of 
 God is not meat and drink but righteousness and 
 peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. When Christ 
 sent his seventy disciples to preach, he commanded 
 them to say, " The kingdom of God is come nigh 
 unto you." Luke x. 9. What was come nigh unto 
 them? The gospel dispensation. Our Lord tells us, 
 '^' that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye 
 of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the 
 kingdom of God." Matt. xix. 24. In this p^issage 
 it must mean a state of glory, and cannot mean the 
 church on earth; for matters of fact demonstrate that 
 rich men gain admittance into the church rather ea- 
 sier than the poor. In a large sense the whole 
 world is called the kingdom of heaven. Matt. xiii. 
 24. over which Christ reigns; for all power in hea- 
 ^ en and earth is delivered into his hand; and he must 
 reign till all his enemies are put under his feet. In 
 this sense, we are to understand the phrase in the 
 parable of the tares. It is quite preposterous to un- 
 derstand this parable as a picture of Christ's church, 
 
54 CANDID REASONS EXAMINED, 
 
 because that is never called the world. This point 
 is decided by him who was never mistaken. And 
 he says, " The field is the world." Mark that, 
 not the church. " The good seed is the children of 
 the kingdom, but the tares are the children of the 
 wicked one." Matt. xiii. 38. Both must grow to- 
 gether till Christ comes; and then he will receive his 
 seed home to himself. It must excite pity, to see a 
 learned gentleman apply this passage to the church 
 of Christ; whereas it plainly refers to his general 
 government of the whole world, and is descriptive 
 of the state of matters under the gospel dispen- 
 sation. 
 
 From my remarks, it plainly follows, that the 
 gospel dispensation is that which was taken from the 
 Jews and given unto the Gentiles; but the name 
 Jew did not become extinct by the Gentiles becom- 
 ing the most numerous, as Peter has falsely asserted; 
 for at an early period of Christianity the disciples 
 were called christians at Antioch. This is supposed 
 to have taken place, A. D. 42. and at that time, 
 there is no evidence that the Gentiles were the most 
 numerous; for ecclesiastical history proves that the 
 Jews were numerous for a century, and became 
 very troublesome to the churches by their attach- 
 ment to the Jewish customs, and in particular their 
 attachment to circumcision. For the dream, that bap- 
 tism came in the room of circumcision, was not 
 known at that time. Under the gospel dispensation, 
 God concluded ail under sin. If they were circum- 
 
CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 55 
 
 cised, they were not the better; if they were not, 
 they were nothing worse. 
 
 We will follow Peter Edwards to another me- 
 taphorical text. Pasdorantists are very fond of meta- 
 phors. Perhaps the reason is, there is not one text 
 that will establish their childish infant membershipj 
 but metaphors are like a nose of wax; it may be, by 
 art, fitted to either side. Men make them say what best 
 suits their system, be it what it may. On Rom. xi, 
 23, 24. Peter Edwards expatiates, and says, " The 
 olive tree is to denote a visible church state."* 
 I answer, the word, visible, when applied to and con- 
 nected with church is nonsense; for what is visible 
 can be seen by all who have eyes; but it is not by 
 aid of my optics that I know a church or church 
 members. I might see a thousand people in one 
 day in a city; but by this vision, I know nothing 
 about their church membership. The knowledge 
 of that is obtained by information, not by sight. 
 The very phrase has been fabricated without sense, 
 and for a bad purpose. Christ's church never was 
 visible, nor ever will be. They are his church by 
 profession; and that is enough. The scripture ne- 
 ver used the term; but wise men can help it out, 
 where it has been a little defective. Some men 
 would have us 'to believe what they do not believe 
 themselves. 
 
 Can any man believe that the scriptures contain 
 
 * Candid Reasons, page 40. 
 
56 CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 
 
 the credenda and agenda^ i. e. all that we should 
 believe and do, and the same still helping the Holy 
 Ghost, by men's inventions? 
 
 Now I will proceed to consider the olive tree'; 
 but I do not agree with Peter calling it a visible 
 church state; but on the other hand the church. 
 But w'hcit is meant by it? I answer tliat church that 
 was iormed at Jerusalem out of the nation of the 
 Jews at first, and for that reason is called their own 
 olive tree. And if ever the Jews become christians, 
 they will be grafted into the church, which Christ 
 formed at first out of Jews at Jerusalem; which, as 
 it was at first composed of Jews called by grace, is 
 called theii' own olive tree. Into this, the Gentiles, 
 who were called by grace, were grafted in among 
 the Jews; the church being composed of believing 
 Jews and believing Gentiles. This statement harmo- 
 nizes with the word used in the original, E5C}cA)j(r<(3f, 
 meaning such as are called by grace. In Acts ii. 47. 
 it is said, " The Lord added to the church daily such 
 as should be saved." From whence did he add 
 them? From the Jewish nation, but not from the 
 Jewish church; for no such thing did ever exist, as 
 will appear by the remarks which I have made. Pe- 
 ter Edwards's pert fancy of the church being the 
 same thing dressed up in new clothes, is a conceit 
 of his own; but whether he took it from the koran 
 or the talmud, or it is the production of his own 
 brains, he has not told us plainly. But one thing 
 is evident: that is, that in a very cai'eful search, I 
 
CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 57 
 
 could not find it. Between the church of Christ, and 
 Peter Edwards's imaginary church, there is a dif- 
 ference in the qualifications to become members. 
 All under the Jewish economy, were necessarily, to 
 descend from Abraham by natural generation, and 
 to be circumcised to initiate them conxpletely a3 
 members; but the church of Christ at Jerusalem 
 was established on another plan; for faith and repen- 
 tance were always required, as prerequisites to bap- 
 tism. Hence may be observed, the apostle's address 
 to the convinced Jews. " Repent, and be baptized 
 every one of you, in the name of Jesus Clirist." 
 This was not a singular case, but the uniform prac- 
 tice. It is said, " When they believed Philip preach- 
 ing the things concerning the kingdom of God, and 
 the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized both 
 men and women." Acts viii. 12. We see here both 
 men and women, when they believed, were bap- 
 tized; but not a word about infants or their fitness 
 for baptism. All the fitness a baby can have is to 
 Ijave a body; and if this constitutes fitness, then all 
 animals which have bodies are fit subjects. All that 
 has been said on this subject is such a jargon of 
 nonsense, that I did not think it worthy of any re- 
 marks. 
 
 Were v/e to search the whole New Testament, 
 we shall find none baptized, but such as possessed 
 faith and repentance. This constitutes an essentia] 
 distinction between the church of Christ and the 
 Jewish economy, and finally proves that the apostle 
 
58 CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 
 
 meant by the olive tree, the New Testament church, 
 which is the only thing that, with any propriety; 
 can be called a church. 
 
 The church at Jerusalem were a separate body 
 from the Jews, called by grace to be the disciples of^ 
 Christ, and were as such persecuted by the Jews. 
 What a pity the poor Jews had no psedorantists 
 among them, to let them know, it was the identical 
 same old church, which they had ever since the days 
 of Abraham! But the Jews had never heard of this 
 jargon: it was not then invented. Nor had the 
 christians ever heard of it. Nor was it invented for 
 ages afterwards. It is the creature of ignorance and 
 superstition, invented by christians, who are become 
 Judaizers, who wish to make things under the gos- 
 pel dispensation agree with the peculiarities of the 
 Jewish nation, who never called themselves an 
 EKKKt;ffKx> TOO 9-sov, but thcy were called the congrega- 
 tion of the Lord, i. e. i:vvxyuyYi rov kv^iov. 
 
 Should the Jews ever be converted, which seems 
 probable from Rom. xii. they will return to the 
 New Testament church, which was first formed at 
 Jerusalem, out of Jews called to be saints. And as 
 this church was first made up of Jews by nature, 
 the returning Jews may be well said, to be grafted 
 into their own olive tree. The inference, that I would 
 draw from the arguments advanced, is, that Jews 
 and christians were distinct bodies; and that being a 
 Jew did not give any right to be received into the 
 church of Christ as a christian. The gospel con- 
 
CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 59 
 
 siders all men in the same state, withcw.it any refer* 
 ence to one nation more than another. Hence the 
 apostle said, " What then? are we better than they? 
 He answers, "no, in no wise; for we have before prov- 
 ed both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin." 
 Rom. iii. 9. When Paul wrote to the Corinthian^, 
 he gave us the character of the apostles, viz. Not 
 walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God 
 deceitfully. I suspect in considering Eph. ii. 14, 
 Peter forgot to imitate the apostles; for his whole 
 reasoning carries great appearance of craft, and hand- 
 ling .the word of God deceitfully. The text speaks 
 of a partition between Jews and Gentiles, or in other 
 words, all nations. 2, That this partition was broken 
 down in Paul's time. 3. That the end in view was 
 to make one new man out of Jews and Gentiles; 
 not to dress an old man in new clothes, v. 15th. 
 Here I justly remark, had Peter Edwards wished 
 to avoid deceit and craft, he would have informed 
 the reader, what the partition was between Jew and 
 Gentile, which separated them; but not one word 
 is said on the subject. All is left to the guess of the 
 reader. Such pretended comments may suit bigots, 
 who are like young robins, that open their mouths 
 to receive any thing, whether it be a cherry or a 
 cherry-stone; but such designed omissions and eva- 
 sions will not be well received by such as wish sin. 
 cerely to know the truth. 
 
 The partition wall, between Jew and Gentile, 
 was ciixumcision, which was a national mark, and 
 
QO CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 
 
 designed to distinguish them from all other nations. 
 It is well known with what contempt the Jews 
 looked on all other nations, calling them emphatically 
 tfncircumcised; and it was as natural for all nations 
 to despise the Jews. This fixed the enmity, together 
 with the other Jewish ceremonies, which appears from 
 verse 15th, where it is said, " Having abolished in 
 his flesh the enmity^ even the law of commandments 
 contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of 
 twain one new man, so making peace." Not an,€ild 
 man new dressed. Moses incorporated circumci* 
 sion \nih his laws, though it existed from At^ra- 
 liam's time as a national mark of distinction. This, 
 and others, were called carnal ordinances im- 
 posed on the Jews, till the. time of reformation. Heb. 
 ix. 10. The gospel dispensation was the time of re- 
 formation. Christ having abolished the enmity, i. e. 
 the cause of it, to form a church unto himself ori- 
 ginally made of Jews; but the Gentiles afterwards 
 were joined with them. The text says, for to make 
 in himself of twain one new man, not an old man 
 dressed up in new clothes. This whim originated 
 in Peter's fruitful imagination; for I never heard of 
 it before. Indeed the change is so great, that very 
 few can believe it to be the old man. The scrip- 
 tures say the Lord added to the church daily such 
 as should be saved. From whence was this addition 
 made? The answer is plain: from the Jewish nation, 
 who were never called a church; for it is evident, 
 
CANDID REASOI>lS EXAMINED. Ql 
 
 that the church is something different and distinct 
 from any thing the Jews were before. 
 
 2. In Paul's time the middle wall of partition 
 was broken down. Who broke down this wall? The 
 text says Christ, " Who hath made both one, and 
 hath broken down the middle wall of paitition be- 
 tween us." V. 14. How disingenuous was it for Peter 
 Edwards to draw this conclusion, viz. " That the 
 Gentiles w^re not formed into a new church."* By 
 which it is insinuated that the baptists held that senti- 
 ment, or their system led to it. If Peter did not 
 know better, he certainly never understood the bap- 
 tists' system; for they believe that the gospel church 
 had no existence before that dispensation, and at 
 first was formed out of the Jewish nation; but after 
 the ascension of Christ, the gospel extended to all 
 nations, Gentiles as well as Jews; and when any be- 
 lieved, they were baptized, and afterwards joined 
 the church, by their free choice, and voluntary act. 
 For baptism makes none a member of the church 
 of Christ. It is a subsequent act. One thing may be 
 remarked in Peter Edwards: he never pretends to 
 give us one text, to show us any example of bap- 
 tizing children. This is to be done by inference or 
 analogy; and why? Because he knew there was not 
 one text in the scripture to support his practice. 
 Volumes have been Avritten on the subject; but not 
 H single text can be produced for the superstitious 
 
 * Csjidid Reasons, page 46, 
 
62 CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 
 
 practice. I could refute every argument used on the 
 text under consideration; but as it would be only 
 wast of time and paper, I will only give Peter a 
 scrap of Latin and pass on. " Vox et prater ea ni- 
 hil, i. e. Tush! A voice and nothing else. 
 
 I pass to make some remarks on the texts, which 
 refer to children; for if the term child, or children is 
 used, the common class of pasdorantists look imme- 
 diately for baptism, although the text has no refer- 
 ence to the subject. Peter produces two texts out 
 of the evangelists; but not one of them has any re- 
 ference to baptism, neither explicitly, nor implicitly; 
 first, Luke ix. 47, 48. *' And Jesus took a child, and 
 set him by him; and (when he had taken him in his 
 arms, Mai'k ix. 36.) he said unto them, whosoever 
 shall receive this child, in my name, receiveth me: 
 and whosoever shall receive me, receiveth him that 
 sent me; for he that is least among you all, the same 
 shall be great." There is something extremely dis- 
 honest and unfair in Peter Edwards, when he pre- 
 tends to quote scripture; for I do not remember his 
 giving a fair statement of the subject. His conduct 
 seems like to Ananias: he keeps back part and pre- 
 tends to give the whole. To do justice and act ho- 
 nourably, every text, and the occasion of its being 
 spoken, should be considered. I will therefore first 
 give the texts, and then make my comments. I will 
 begin with Mark ix. but I find it necessar}^ to begin 
 at the 33d verse and transcribe five verses. " And 
 he came to Capernaum; and being in the house, he 
 
CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 63 
 
 asked them, what was it that ye disputed among 
 yourselves by the way? But they held their peace; 
 for by the way they had disputed among themselves, 
 who should be the greatest. And he sat down and 
 called the twelve, and saith unto them, if any man 
 desire to be first, the same shall be last of all, and 
 servant of all. And he took a child, and set him in 
 the midst of them; and when he had taken him in 
 his arms, he said unto them, whosoever shall receive 
 one of such children in my name, receiveth me; and 
 whosoever shall receive me, receiveth not me, but 
 him that sent me." This is Mark's account of the 
 subject. 
 
 The statement of Luke is very similar. Luke ix. 
 46, 47, 48. " Then there arose a reasoning among 
 them, which of them should be the greatest. And 
 Jesus perceiving the thought of their heart, took a 
 child and set him by him, and said unto them, who- 
 soever shall receive this child in my name, receiv- 
 eth me; and whosoever shall receive me, receiveth 
 him that sent me; for he that is least among you all, 
 the same shall be great." 
 
 Let us now see what the evangelist Matthew 
 says on the subject. We will first transcribe six 
 verses, beginning at chap, xviii. and first verse. 
 " At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, 
 saying, who is the gi'eatest in the kingdom of 
 heaven? And Jesus called a little child unto him, 
 and set him in the midst of them, and said, verily 
 I say unto you, except ye be converted, and become 
 
64- CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 
 
 as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom 
 of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble him- 
 self as this little child, the same is greatest in the 
 kingdom of heaven. And whoso shall receive one 
 such little child in my name, receiveth me. And 
 whoso shall offend one of these little ones, which be- 
 lieve in me, it were better for him that a millstone 
 were hanged about his neck, and that he were 
 drowned in the depth of the sea." I will give the 
 subject fair play; therefore I will transcribe Matt, 
 xix. 13, 14, 15. " And there were brought unto 
 him little children, that he should put his hands on 
 them and pray; and the disciples rebuked them. 
 But Jesus said, suffer little children, and forbid 
 them not to come unto me, for of such is the king- 
 dom of heaven. And he laid his hands on them and 
 departed." Two passages yet remain in the evan- 
 gelists; and I think that will finish the subject of 
 children, viz. Mark x. 13, 14, 15, 16. " And they 
 brought young children to him, that he should touch 
 them; and his disciples rebuked those that brought 
 them; but when Jesus saw it, he was much dis- 
 pleased, and said unto them, suffer the little chil- 
 dren to come unto me, and forbid them not; for of 
 such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, 
 v/hosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as 
 a little child, he shall not enter therein. And he took 
 them up in his arms, put his hands upon them and 
 blessed them." The last passage is in Luke xviii. 
 15, 16, 17. " And they brought unto him also in- 
 
CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 65 
 
 faiits, that he would touch them; but when his dis- 
 ciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called 
 them unto him, and said, suffer little children to 
 come unto me, and forbid them not; for of such is 
 the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, who- 
 soever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a 
 little child, shall in no wise enter therein." 
 
 My reason for transcribing all these passages 
 fully, was because by this statement, it will appear 
 the design of Clirist was to check the aspiring dis- 
 position of his disciples; for they had been disputing 
 who should be the greatest. Matt, xviii. 1. " Who is 
 the greatest in the kingdom oi heaven?" Mark ix. 
 33, 34. " By the way they had been disputing among 
 themselves, who should be the .greatest." Luke ix. 
 46. " Then there arose a reasoning among them, 
 which of them should be the greatest." There were 
 no papists among Christ's disciples, or they would 
 all have pointedto Peter, and very submissively kissed 
 his toe. The three evangelists state the occasion of 
 Christ's remarks and reference to . hildren. It was 
 to check their pride and ambition. And could this 
 end be answered by telling them that infants were 
 church members? No man can refrain from smiling 
 at such nonsense. Is this the unanswerable casuist 
 about infant membership? Peter Edwards; in his 
 Candid Reasons, means by ciie kingdoii> of God, the 
 church;* and in these passages under consideration > 
 
 * Candid Rea«^on?. va^c 3S. 
 
^6 CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 
 
 he means the same. I have refuted this sentiment 
 already, in my remarks on his explanation of Mat- 
 thew xxi. 43. The words are, " Therefore say I unto 
 you, the kingdom of Giod shall be taken from you, 
 and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits 
 thereof*" I would refer the reader to what is said 
 there, only that the most of readers are forgetful, and 
 cannot retain the subject, except it is immediately 
 before their eyes. I hope this will be accepted as an 
 apology for the many tautologies in this pamphlet. 
 
 The evangelist Matthew uses the phrase, " The 
 kingdom of heaven." Mark uses " the kingdom of 
 God." I believe it is generally agreed, they mean the 
 same thing. We will explain what is meant by the 
 kingdom of heaven, or the kin'gdom, and then con- 
 sider the necessary qualifications to enter into that 
 kingdom. I cannot find that either of the evange- 
 lists, strictly speaking, means the church. These 
 phrases in the evangelists generally mean the gospel 
 dispensation, or the gospel itself, or the state of 
 things under the gospel dispensation. Sometimes 
 the phrase means the dominion of Christ over the 
 whole world; as, all power in heaven and earth is de- 
 livered in his hand by the Father; but generally it 
 means a state of grace or a state of glory. Peter 
 Edwards, in his pamphlet, will have us understand 
 by the kingdom of God, or of heaven, the church; 
 nor do I remember a passage in which it is used in 
 any other sense by him. In this, 1 conceive, he is 
 quite mistaken. The kingdonfi of God, or hea\ en, 
 
CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 57 
 
 was never applied to the Jewish economy, which, ac- 
 -cording to his own system, affords a presumptive ar- 
 gument that the Jews were never considered as a 
 church, formally. The phrase is peculiar to the 
 New Testament; for there was no such society as a 
 church before the gospel day. No nation can be 
 called a church without the abuse of the word. 
 John the Baptist is the first who used the phrase, 
 " The kingdom of heaven is at hand." If Peter Ed- 
 wards is the Greek scholar, which he would wish to 
 pass for, he knows what the Greek word means, 
 " Is at hand." Were we to take the words as Peter 
 would have us, then it means the church is at hand. 
 That w^ould suppose, that it did not exist before: a 
 sentiment not pleasing to pcedorantists. The plain 
 and easy truth is, that the gospel dispensation was 
 at hand, or drew nigh. Perhaps some will say, Peter 
 did not mention this text. Very true, he never men- 
 tions a text that will not suit him. Let us try, Mark 
 X. 15. " Verily I say unto you, whosoever shall not 
 receive the kingdom of God, as a little child, he shall 
 not enter therein." Peter's sense would oblige us 
 to understand the text thus, " Whosoever shall not 
 receive the church, as a little child, he shall not en- 
 ter therein." Whether this is the meaning oy not, 
 the reader may judge. Again we will try another 
 passage, in which the kingdom of God is mentioned. 
 Matt. xix. 24. *' It is easier for a camel to go 
 through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to 
 enter into the kingdom of God." If we imdei> 
 
68 CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 
 
 stand this passage to mean the church, they had 
 hard work then to get into the church. Sed tempo- 
 ra mutantur, i e. Times are changed in favour 
 of the rich of this world. Let us hear what Christ 
 said to Nicodemus " Except a man be born again, 
 he camiot see the kingdom of God," that is the church 
 of God. The reader will be at no loss, to know 
 what is meant by the kingdom of God here; for it 
 means a state of glory in heaven, into which none 
 can enter without regeneration. 
 
 I will now consider the necessary quahiications 
 to enter into the kingdom of God. The evangelist 
 Matthew gives the qualifications thus, " Except ye 
 be converted, and become as little children, ye shall 
 not enter into the kingdom of heaven." Matt, xviii. 
 3. Our Lord teaches us, in this passage, that con- 
 version is a necessary qualification for the kingdom 
 of heaven, in the sense in which he uses the word, 
 which demonstrates that he means a state of glory, 
 into which none can be admitted without regenera- 
 tion. In Luke we have the qualifications in these 
 words, " Verily I say unto you, whosoever shall not 
 receive the kingdom of God as a little child, shall 
 in no wise enter therein." Peter Edwards did not 
 know what was meant by the kingdom of heaven, 
 and the kingdom of God, or he designedly perverted 
 the meaning to support his fallacious system. We 
 shall see further the qualifications, by observing 
 what he has said on the Greek tuv tojoutwv.* Peter 
 
 * Candid Reasons, page 55. 
 
CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 69 
 
 Edwards asserted, " That this construction had no- 
 thing to support it." What! nothing to support it? 
 I will make appear that it hath both scripture and 
 common sense to support it; but indeed he treats 
 both as if they were nothing. What must we then 
 depend on? His bold assertion, without scripture or 
 sense. I know not how far his word m England 
 may pass as currency; but with me it is no better 
 than the old continental paper money, in its last dying- 
 gasp. The phrase, which he said, had nothing to 
 support it, was the meaning which some baptist had 
 fixed on the Greek tuv ioiovtwv. The baptists affirmed 
 that " Of suchlike," meant adults of a child-like dis- 
 position. This is the construction which our Solo- 
 mon says, has nothing to support it; but I will make 
 it appear that it has both scripture and common 
 sense, and liis construction has neither to support it. 
 In the first place, there is no dispute about what 
 is meant by little children; for perhaps some of them 
 were a year or two old, or younger; but the whole 
 dispute is about the application of the transaction 
 meant by the phrase " Of such, or such like:" whe- 
 ther it refers to the size of their bodies, or the qua 
 lities of the mind. The baptists assert the latter. 
 The psedorants pretend to believe the former. Well 
 let us try " of such is the kingdom of God," and ap- 
 ply it to the age and size of children. Peter Ed- 
 wards tells us the kingdom of God means the church 
 of God; then we must understand it as if it had 
 been said, " Of such is the church in toto,^'' It wilif 
 
70 CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 
 
 not do to say it means part of the church; for it is 
 said, " Of such is the kingdom of God." A fine 
 church, which would require more nurses than 
 bishops. If the church is composed t?t toto of in- 
 fants, then Peter Edwards can have no place in iti 
 for I never knew an infant that understood Greek. 
 It is granted that after some time, they can say, 
 mammy and daddy. This observation will make 
 Peter wince and try to avoid the dilemma, and try 
 to squeeze in by quibble a small amendment, and 
 say, of such is part of the church. Stop, that will 
 not do; for the text is, " Of such is the kingdom of 
 God." We used to think that church was a volun- 
 tary assembly formed to maintain divine worship; 
 but Peter by dressing up an old man in new clothes, 
 has made the foolishest assembly in the world, con- 
 sisting of babies. There never was such a society as 
 this; what, a society of babies literally! Nonsense 
 seems confined to the church of God, where infants 
 are supposed to be the materials. This account badly 
 agrees with Paul's description given of a church. 
 When he wrote to Timothy, he said, " But if I tarry 
 long, that thou maycst know how thou oughtest to 
 behave thyself in the house of God, which is the 
 church of the living God, the pillar and the ground 
 of the truth." 1 Tim. iii. 15. Pray what ai-guments 
 can infants bring to support the truth? Perhaps they 
 can say mammy or daddy, and that is all. Of such, 
 or like unto these is the kingdom of God. Now the 
 likeness must refer to the age and size of the body» 
 
CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 71 
 
 or to the qualities of the mind. I have demonstrated 
 the impossiblity of the likeness referring to the cor- 
 poral size of an infant; and I am rather of opinion 
 that Peter Edwards himself, who is a wonderful 
 man, will not attempt to maintain that meaning. We 
 are compelled by scripture and common sense, to 
 have recourse to some other meaning; and it ap- 
 pears plainly, that the likeness did not consist in the 
 age or size of the body; but in the qualities of the 
 soul, viz. unambitious, meek and lowly in heart, 
 whether old or young, I despise the phrase adult, as 
 no way expressive of the faith of a baptist; for we 
 never limit baptism to the age of a person, but to 
 his qualifications, profession and confession. " If 
 thou belie vest with all thine heart, thou mayest," is 
 our faith and practice, without reference to age. For 
 with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, 
 and with the mouth confession is made unto salva- 
 tion. Were we to examine every text where rm 
 TOJovTwv, that is, " of such, or such like" is used, we 
 would find that it referred to the qualities of the 
 mind, and not to the size of the body. Mark said, 
 " Verily I say unto you, whosoever shall not receive 
 the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not 
 enter therein." Mark x. 15. The gospel is to be re- 
 ceived by a humble mind. The very same senti- 
 ment i^ inforced by Luke. " Verily 1 say unto you, 
 whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as 
 a little child, shall in no wise enter therein." Luke 
 xviii. 17, Taking the passages in this meaning, and 
 
72 CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 
 
 they cannot mean any other, they come with force 
 to reprove the aspiring ambition of the disciples who 
 had been disputing who should be the greatest; but 
 if we suppose he told them that infants belonged to 
 the church, the argument has in it no suitableness 
 to reprove their ambition. How many will be finally 
 disappointed, who have enjoyed large salaries on 
 earth, and lived in pride and pomp, and fared sump- 
 tuously every day! But it will remain an eternal 
 truth, that blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is 
 the kingdom of heaven. I fear I shall tire the pa- 
 tience of the reader with my remarks on the phrase, 
 of such^ or such like; but as these passages are 
 for ever brought to prove infants' right to baptism, 
 though they have in fact, no more reference to that 
 subject than the first chapter of Genesis, I must 
 make a . few more remarks, to make still plainer, if 
 plainer can be, that the words refer to the qualities 
 of the mind, and not to the size of bodies, or age 
 of the persons. 
 
 Our Lord said, in Matt, xviii. 3. " Verily 
 I say unto you, except ye be converted and be- 
 come as little children, ye shall not enter into 
 the kingdom of heaven." The gate is strait and the 
 way narrow that leads to life, and few there be that 
 find it. We see children presented as patterns of 
 humility, to the professed followers of Christ. This 
 is evident from v. 4. " Whosoever shall humble him- 
 self as diis little child, the same is the greatest in the 
 kingdom of heaven." The man who has the greatest 
 
CANDID REA^NS EXAMINED. 73 
 
 degree of humility on earth, will shine the brightest 
 in glory. Our Lord still illustrates the case farther 
 by saying, whoso shall receive one such, tccciSiqv 
 TOiouTov, little child in my name, receiveth me. Our 
 Lord is speaking nothing about babies here; but 
 of them that were converted and became like them 
 (To;oi/ra>v); and this likeness consisted in the quali- 
 ties of their minds, not in the size or age. v. 5. And 
 in v. 6. he adds, " Whoso shall offend one of these 
 little ones, which believe in me," &c. Here are the 
 little ones to which Christ improves the transaction; 
 the little ones were his humble disciples, who believed 
 in him. And he adds in Matt. x. 4,2. " Whosoever 
 sliall give to drink unto one of these little ones, a 
 cup of cold water only, in the name of a disciple, 
 verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his 
 reward." Here it is evident, that by little ones he 
 means his humble folio v/ers or disciples. When 
 Christ mentions receiving little children, he cannot 
 mean them who were so in age; but them w1k> 
 were of a child-like disposition, lowly in mind, as 
 young converts are. And this is evident from what 
 Matthew said, when he recorded the words of Christ.. 
 *' But whoso shall offend one of these little ones 
 which believe in me," &c. Matt, xviii. 6. Can Peter 
 Edwards suppose that infants believe in Christ? If 
 they are capable of exercising the grace of faith, they 
 are capable of exercising unbelief; and as they can 
 profess nothing, how will Peter come to the know- 
 ledge of their states? I think it must be guess-work« 
 
 f, 
 
74 CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 
 
 But perhaps I am a little too fast; I had almost for- 
 gotten that Peter asserted that union to Clirist was 
 visible; for Visible is one of Peter's hocus pocus 
 words. As the sentiment is new, I will transcribe 
 it; but it ought not to have been printed. The words 
 are, " To receive a person in the name of a disciple 
 of Christ, is to treat him as one belonging to Christ, 
 as one in visible union with him."* Peter Edwards 
 is a singular man; for I never heard before that union 
 to Christ was a thing visible. The baptists do not 
 pretend to be so eagle-eyed as this. No, they only 
 judge charitably of the profession made; whether the 
 person has any spiritual union to Christ or not, they 
 leave to a better judge. It must be a bad cause, 
 which tempts, in trymg to support it, to use unscrip- 
 tural phi'ases, which being properly examined ap- 
 pear mere nonsense. The Holy Ghost has said no- 
 thing about visible union to Christ, or visible church: 
 these are the creatures of men's brains, and have no 
 foundation in the religion of Christ. These terms 
 have been fabricated for evil purposes; and custom 
 makes them familiar without examination; just as 
 people foolishly by custom call a place of worship a 
 church. 
 
 Peter Edwards is no respecter of persons; for 
 ■when he thinks it would help his system, he is not 
 afraid to charge even the apostles with wilfully sin- 
 ning contrary to their own knovviedge. His charge 
 
 * Caaiclid Kcaaons, page 53'. 
 
CANDID REASO^JS EXAMINED, 75 
 
 against them is contained expressly in these words, 
 viz. " For in that they acted contrary to a known 
 principle they knew, in keeping those, who belonged 
 to the church, from the church's head."* I rather 
 think Peter doth not expect to meet with the apos- 
 tles very soon; for if they now have the temper of 
 Paul and Barnabas, the quarrel between them and 
 Peter would be very great. 
 
 What a dreadful charge! sinning against know- 
 ledge; and this charge remains on earth recorded by 
 the great Peter Edwards! I rather think something 
 may be said in their favour. It was the first time 
 that children had been brought to Christ to lay his 
 hands on them, and pray for them, and bless tihenj^ 
 It was a novelty; and they might have escaped if 
 they had not fell into Peter Edwards's hands. Be- 
 sides, they- may plead that they had never heard of 
 baby members in the gospel church; and they could 
 learn nothing from the Jewish economy; for there is 
 not even the phrase membership in the Old Testa- 
 ment, I think, upon the whole, a less censure would 
 ha\'e been more decent. 
 
 To conclude this subject, the reader may judge 
 whether I have not unanswerably proved, that in the 
 passages, where the phrases, " of such or such," are 
 used, they do not refer to infants in age; but the humble 
 disciples of Christ of whatever age they might be, of 
 an humble mind subjected to the obedience of faith. 
 
 * /..'nndid Reasong) pag'e 57 ■ 
 
76 Candid reasons examined. 
 
 I shall therefore proceed to consider the next pas-^ 
 sage, in which Peter displays his ignorance or his 
 craftiness in handling the word of God dishonestly. 
 Acts ii, 38th and 39th verses are to be considered. 
 One thing is evident in the writings of Peter Ed- 
 wards: he can find a meaning for a text, that not one 
 in a thousand could have thought of. The words are 
 *' Repent and be baptized every one of you, in the 
 name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and 
 ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the 
 promise is to you and your children, and to all that 
 are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall 
 calL" 
 
 Peter Edwards has filled ten pages of his pam- 
 phlet on this passage, and used the word promise 
 fifty-four times; but very craftily avoided giving the 
 reader any information concerning what was pro- 
 mised. In that he handled the word of God deceit- 
 fully, and designedly so. If Peter was an ignorant 
 man, such perversion of scripture might be excused. 
 Hearing the word Promise so often repeated without 
 letting the reader know what was promised, brought 
 to my mind the papists' prayer to the lady Mary; 
 in which they use the words, ora pro nobis, forty- 
 four times, but never inform the good lady what they 
 want, only ora pro nobis., i. e. pray for us. The pro, 
 mise, the promise is repeated again and again; but 
 \x& never informs the reader what is that which is 
 promised. Had he done this, the dispute would have 
 been ended; for it would have appeared plainly that 
 
CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 77 
 
 infants were not designed by the term children. I 
 would request the reader to turn back and read the 
 verses over, and he will see that the Holy Ghost is 
 that which was promised; " And ye shall receive 
 the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is to 
 you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, 
 even as many as the Lord our God shall call." 
 These words were used by the prophet Joel, chap, 
 ii. V. 32. the very words of the apostle referred to, 
 as appears by reading from the 16th to the 22d 
 verse inclusive of this chapter. On the very subject 
 of the out-pouring of the Holy Ghost, the apostle 
 was speaking. On the very day of pentecost, when 
 the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit appeared. Now, 
 says the text, when this was noised abroad, the mul- 
 titude came together, and were amazed; but some 
 said they were filled with new wine. The apostle's 
 sermon was to convince them, that they were mis- 
 taken about wine; but on the other hand, it was the 
 fulfilment of a prophecy recorded in Joel, which he 
 repeated, according to the Septuagint. In this pro- 
 mise it it is said, " I will pour out of my spirit upon 
 all fleshy and your sons and your daughters shall 
 prophesy." We cannot suppose that the prophet 
 meant by sons and daughters little infants; for be- 
 fore they could prophesy, they must learn to speak. 
 By sons and daughters in the text, is meant what 
 the apostle calls your children. Children are children 
 as v/ell when they are old, as when they are young. 
 This is a point which bears no dispute.; but men 
 
78 CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 
 
 may quibble without any fouiKiation for ai-gument. 
 After several other things said by Joel, he concludes 
 the promise by saying, " For in mount Zion and in 
 Jerusalem shall be deliverance, and in the remnant, 
 whom the Lord shall call." The apostle renders it, 
 even as many as the Lord our God shall call. 
 
 Let any man, not intoxicated with the wiii^e of 
 the whore of Babylon, read the whole promise in 
 Joel, and the apostle's reasoning on it, in the Acts, 
 second chapter; and 1^ must plainly see that by 
 children is meant, what Joel called, sons and daugh- 
 ters; and that the thing promised was the Holy Ghost 
 in his gospel work, both as a spirit of sanctification 
 with the extraordinary gifts, and as a Comforter. 
 Under the latter character he is promised to all be- 
 lievers, and is made good to this very day. As the 
 text has it, " And ye shall receive the gift of the 
 Holy Ghost." Perhaps it may be asked, how did 
 the apostle know that believers should receive the 
 gift of the Holy Ghost? The answer is plain: be- 
 cause the promise is to you and your children, called 
 in Joel, sons and daughters, and to all that are afar 
 off; by which the Gentiles may be intended. Tlie pro- 
 mise of the gift of the Holy Ghost, is limited, 
 whether Jew or Gentile, to as many as the Lord our 
 God shall call; which is descriptive of a gospel 
 church, who profess to be called by grace. 
 
 To real christians the Holy Ghost is promised in 
 the character of a comforter. John xiv. 16, 17. and 
 xvi. 7. 13. 
 
CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 79 
 
 Sometimes it surprises me, why this passage is 
 brought forward in this dispute; but it is as good as 
 any other; for there is no scripture for receiving in- 
 fants as members of the church. The thing in itself 
 is perfectly absurd. A church should be an intelli- 
 gent society: it cannot be composed of members, 
 who know not their right hand from the left. 
 
 What has been said might serve for a complete 
 answer to all the glosses of Peter Edwards on this 
 passage;, but if notice is not taken of his pretended 
 reasoning, it might be consti'ued, that it was be- 
 cause we could make no reply. Peter Edwards has 
 confined himself to three conclusions.* 
 
 1. That the phrase extends to adults and infants. 
 
 2. That this promise must comprehend adults 
 and infants, wherever it comes, even as long as God 
 shall continue his word to us. 
 
 . 3. That infants are placed in the same relation 
 to baptism, as they were of old to circumcision. 
 
 Sometimes the baptists are so idly employed as 
 to take a lexicon in their hand, and even a Latin 
 dictionary. I could ndt find the ^^ord adult in the 
 holy scriptures. I concluded it must be introduced 
 in this dispute to answer some purpose not found in 
 the scriptures. I found in my Latin dictionary the 
 Vvord adultiis; and the meaning was a person of full 
 growth. I supposed that to be as large as ever they 
 uill be. This seemed to embarrass me; for the 
 
 '' Candid l?*ea"ons, puirc 59y 
 
80 CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 
 
 greater part of mankind, are in an intermediate state, 
 between infancy and maturity, and are left out of 
 Peter Edwards's classes; for they are neither in one 
 state or the other. If I may use our author's lan- 
 guage, I would say, can any living creature tell how 
 Peter Edwatds came to know, that any of the apos- 
 tles' hearers left infants at home? This must be a 
 guess of his, or a presumption of his own, for which 
 he so freely censures Mr. Booth. I will not dispute 
 much about the Greek term, nwcx,. But it is well 
 known by linguists that it often means posterity, 
 whether old or young; but 7va,i$i<x,^ is generally used 
 when infants are intended. Let us hear our author's 
 proof, that the passage under consideration means 
 adults and infants. Before I make, formally, a reply, 
 I will give him a sylogism, which he may refute at 
 his leisure, viz. The promise intends adults and in- 
 fants; but persons from six to eighteen cannot be 
 v:iiled adults or infants; therefore persons from six 
 to eighteen are not included in the promise. Our 
 author in his wisdom leaves out a large number, 
 who cannot be said to be adults or infants. In fu- 
 ture I wish pasdorantists to know that baptists never 
 inquire into the age of the candidate for baptism: 
 they satisfy themselves by knowing their confession. 
 " If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest," 
 is their practice, whether old or young. The plirase 
 adult I despise, as no wise expressive of our faith or 
 practice; nor is it found in the scriptures. Let us 
 now attend to our author's proof, and \ve find it. 
 
CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. gl 
 
 It. in the resemblance between this promise, and thai 
 of Genesis xvii. 7. This I have fully explained al- 
 ready, to which I would refer the reader. Well, let 
 Peter go on: " To be a God unto thee and unto thy 
 seed after thee." No man can be so deceived as to 
 suppose that there is any reference to the promise 
 recorded in Gen. xvii. 7. in the promise under con- 
 sideration. Could I really believe that Peter Ed- 
 wards thought so, I would form a better opinion of 
 him than what I have at present. This is said to try 
 to baffle the baptists; but he will find himself mis- 
 taken. I ha\^e already unanswerably demonstrated 
 that the promise to which the apostle refers, is found 
 ijTkJoel, and mentioned by him as an explanation 
 of what happened at Jerusalem on the day of pen- 
 tecost. In all the Acts of the apostles, no mention 
 is made of Gen. xvii. 7. It is remarkable that p^do- 
 rantists can do nothing without Abraham at the be- 
 ginning or ending of their tale. But he will afford them 
 no more assistance than he did to the rich man in hell. 
 We will proceed to consider the argument, and what 
 resemblance is there between God promising the Holy 
 Ghost to as many as he shall call, and God promis- 
 ing to Abraham to be a God unto him and unto his 
 seed after him, which God had fulfilled long before 
 the day of pentecost; but the promise in Joel was 
 not fulfilled before. When God mentioned seed, did 
 he mean infants? By no means: he meant his pos- 
 terity; and the promise referred totally to the land 
 of Canaan, and his providential care in bringing Is* 
 
 M 
 
32 CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 
 
 rael into that land. Seed is seed, whetlier old oi 
 young; and which is meant must be understood by 
 circumstances. But as this promise refers to Joel, 
 all that is said about any other promise is merely 
 quibbling and wresting the holy scriptures, and tor- 
 menting them to speak what never was designed by 
 the Holy Ghost. Gen. xvii. I have already fully ex- 
 plained. I have proved that promise is not under 
 consideration at present. It is very strange to me 
 that Peter Edwards cannot consider any text with- 
 out asserting broad falsehoods: and a greater one 
 never was asserted than that an ordinance of God is 
 founded on any promise of God. Did Abraham cir- 
 cumcise himself or his seed, because God had pro- 
 mised to be a God unto him and his seed after him? 
 By no means: for God had made that promise long 
 before he was circumcised; and it was neither a 
 duty nor privilege till God commanded him. Gen. 
 xvii. 9, 10. Did the apostles baptize, because our 
 Lord had said, *' Lo, I am with you alway, even to 
 the end of the world?" Matt, xxviii. 20. No, they 
 baptized because he commanded them so to do in a 
 preceding verse. If they had presumed to baptize 
 without his command, he would have asked them, 
 who hath required this at your hand? 
 
 Peter Edwards set out under mistakes; and he tries 
 to support his falsehoods. We are on all occasions, 
 entertained with the words Church and church mem- 
 bership, which have no foundation in scripture or 
 sense, when applied to the Jews or any other nation. 
 
CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. g.l 
 
 Not all the paedorantists on earth can show us 
 when this church was made. I confess, the baptists 
 have been a little to blame on this subject, as they 
 have without any examination used the phrase; 
 but I hope I have rectified that mistake; and for the 
 future, Judaizers must take other ground. I have in 
 this pamphlet again and again explained all God's 
 promises made to Abraham and his seed. I have 
 proved that they literally meant not all his natural seed. 
 I have made appear that when seed was taken in a 
 spiritual sense, it meant Christ and his elect; that, 
 literally, the promise intended only the land of Ca- 
 naan; and that God saying he would be a God to 
 him and his seed after him, meant no more than that 
 he would guard and preserve some of his seed into 
 the possession of Canaan. All these promises God 
 has fulfilled. I have proved that circumcision was 
 not founded on any promise, but on a positive com- 
 mand. Gen. xvii. 9, 10. 
 
 Peter Edwards appears to be as much mistaken 
 about baptism as circumcision; for in all his argu- 
 ments, he represents it founded on a promise; and 
 that it is an entrance into the church; which is alto- 
 gether a mistake, not founded on any passage of 
 scripture. Baptism necessarily precedes the very 
 existence of a church. If children are admitted 
 members, I will form a syllogism which must be 
 admitted as an unavoidable consequence, viz. Every 
 member of a church, free from immorality, ought 
 to be admitted to the Lord's supper; children are 
 
84 CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 
 
 free from immorality; therefore children ought to 
 be admitted to the Lard's supper. This was the 
 practice towards the close (^f the fourth century. 
 There is as good reason for the one as for the other. 
 This has been a digression; but it arose from Peter 
 Edwards's reasoning on the passage of scripture 
 under consideration. I shall add a few words, and 
 pass to the next thing to be considered. 
 
 In my opinion, I have proved, beyond reasonable 
 contradiction, that the thing promised is the Holy 
 Ghost, in his work under the gospel dispensation. 
 And then the words would read thus, viz. The pro- 
 mise of the gift of the Holy Ghost is to you; for 
 God said, in the latter day he would pour out of his 
 Spirit on all flesh. And the promise of the Holy 
 Ghost is to your children; for your sons and your 
 daughters shall prophesy. And the promise of the 
 Holy Ghost is to all that are afar off, even as many 
 as the Lord our God shall call. Why Peter Ed- 
 wards went to the xvii. of Genesis, no mortal can 
 see, except it was to blind the reader, and niislead 
 him in his inquiries on the subject. Were I to cor- 
 rect every mistake of Peter Edwards on this pas- 
 sage, I should be obliged to correct almost every 
 sentence in eight pages. We pass to the next pas- 
 sages considered by our author, viz. the households, 
 who were baptized. 
 
 The instances of this kind are three: ^ the family 
 
 * candid Re^asons, page ^0- 
 
CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 95 
 
 of Lydia, Acts xvi. 15. the family of the jailer, 
 Acts xvi. 33. and that of Stephaniis, 1 Cor. i. 16. 
 Our author mentioned three instances of households 
 being baptized. We might have expected some re- 
 marks on each instance, especially as he proposed 
 to have truth for his object; but in this the reader 
 is disappointed; for not even the texts are presented 
 ^o view, except that of the jailer, and that in a mu- 
 tilated form. No doubt he had his reasons for this 
 omission. Our author is crafty; for when the pas- 
 sage, if transcribed, would stare him in the face, and 
 convict him of handling the word of God deceitfully^ 
 he can slily pass it by, without ceremony. I will 
 first transcribe the passages, as they are recorded in 
 the scriptures. And the case of Lydia and her houses 
 hold comes first under consideration. " And a cer- 
 tain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the 
 city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us; 
 tvhose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto 
 the things which were spoken of Paul. And when 
 she was baptized, anjd her household, she besought 
 us, saying, if ye have judged me to be faithful to 
 the Lord, come into my house, and abide there." 
 Acts xvi. 14, 15. Before any argument from this 
 passage can be drawn in favour of infant sprinklings 
 it is first necessary to determine whether she was a 
 married woman or not. The text is not favourable 
 to the sentiment; for she said, come into my house. 
 This is not the language of married women: they 
 would ^ay, come into our house* This shows she 
 
86 CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 
 
 was the proprietor of it. If she had a husband it 
 might have been expected, to hear something of his 
 conduct on the occasion; but all is silent as the 
 grave. All in this passage is decidedly against Peter's 
 system; and therefore he artfully passed it by, with- 
 out any criticism on the Greek. 
 
 We will now consider the passage, which Peter 
 Edwai'ds thought he could gloss over, so as to blind 
 and mislead the incautious reader. First let us see 
 his defective statement, viz. " And he took them 
 the same hour of the night, and washed their 
 stripes, and was baptized, he and all his, straight- 
 way. And when he had brought them into his 
 house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, be- 
 lieving in God, with all his house." Before I make 
 any, comment on this passage, I will transcribe the 
 whole account. Had he done this, his system would 
 have been ruined. The account begins at the 30th 
 verse and includes the 34th. " And said, sirs, what 
 must I do to be saved? And they said, believe on 
 the Lord Jesus Clirist, and thou shalt be saved, and 
 thy house. And they spake unto him ihe word of 
 the Lord, cirA to all that were in his house. And he 
 took them the same hour of the night, and washed 
 their stripes, and was baptized, he and all his, 
 straightway. And when he had brought them into 
 his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, be- 
 lieving in God, with all his house." From this, we 
 see Peter Edwards left out part of the 30th, all the 
 31stj o2d, and 33d verses; and why? Because he 
 
CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 37 
 
 knew, had these been transcribed, his plan would 
 have been ruined. The reader will please to observe 
 that in the 31st, it is said, " Believe on the Lord 
 Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy 
 house." This was obeying the command of Christ, 
 *' Teach all nations." 32d. " And they spake unto 
 him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in the 
 house." Peter Edwards very well knew, had he 
 transcribed the whole passage, every reader would 
 have seen, there were no infants in this house; for 
 they spake the word of the Lord to him, and to all 
 that were in the house. The apostles never tried to 
 teach infants, who know not the right hand from the 
 left. This syllogism follows naturally from this pas- 
 sage, viz. The apostle spake the word of the Lord 
 to the jailer and to all that were in his house; but 
 the apostles never spake the word of the Lord to 
 infants; therefore there were no infants in the jailer's 
 house. Let Peter Edwards refute this syllogism at 
 his leisure. The apostles understood their master, as 
 baptists do, that none should be baptized before 
 they were instructed; therefore we read of teaching 
 always preceding baptism; as for instance. Acts ii. 
 41. " Then they that gladly received his word were 
 baptized." 
 
 Peter Edwards has an inventive genius; there- 
 fore he sometimes amuses his readers with presump- 
 tive arguments. One is taken from no mention be- 
 ing made about change of raiment in order to im- 
 merse. This is to operate against that mode of bap- 
 
88 CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 
 
 tism.* I will pay him in his own coin, and amuse 
 the reader about the jailer and his house. I will 
 grant, what never can be proved, that the jailer had 
 a wife and eight chidren: the eldest was fifteen, the 
 youngest about six months old, at the breast. The 
 first thing that would strike us is, that the jailer 
 went into the bed room, and addressed his wife in 
 this manner; Rise up, my dear, and be baptized; and 
 bring all the children with you, &c. What might 
 we suppose would be the answer of the wife? Why 
 something after this sort: My love, I am ready to 
 obey you in every thing possible to be complied 
 with; but your request at present cannot be complied 
 with; for you know that Dick, Tom and Harry, are 
 up stairs; Martha and Tabitha are in the bed room; 
 here is one at my breast; and there in the trundle 
 bed are the rest. If I was to attempt to awake these 
 children in the dead of the night, there would be 
 such an uproar I could not pacify them in two hours. 
 This is an argument of the presumptive kind, and 
 weighs something against infants being in the jailer's 
 house. But what I have said before irrefragably de- 
 termines the point, viz. " They spake the word of 
 the Lord unto him, and all that were in his house." 
 Peter Edwards is very fond of displaying his 
 profound knowledge in the Greek language; there- 
 fore he could not pass over the Greek adverb, 
 -Tctvotjcj, without correcting the translation; he sub- 
 
 * Candid Be.TSQns, page 13T 
 
CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 89 
 
 stitutes as a translation of ttocvoiki, domesticalli/. His 
 translation must excite a smile in every man ac- 
 quainted with the Greek language, and cannot he 
 justified by any lexicon on earth; except Peter has 
 one of his own. I have. by me Schrevilius and Park- 
 hurst: the latter is Greek and English; the other is 
 Greek and Latin. Schrevilius explains the word 
 7r*vo<x.<, q. d. ffyjv TTiXVT* o«x,w; in Latin, cum tota domo, 
 that is, with all the house. Parkhurst says an adv. 
 from TTccv, all, and oixo? q. d. (cuv tt^vt* o»t«) with 
 one's house or family; and refers to the passage 
 under consideration, and one out of Josephus* Had 
 Peter Edwards been as well acquainted with the 
 Septuagint as he pretends, he must have felt the 
 force of Dr. Jenkins's remarks on Exod. i. 1. where 
 the adverb is used and translated, " Every man and 
 his household.''^ It must be acknowledged that Pe- 
 ter is a man of invention; and as he knew, he could not 
 form from Greek, the word Domestically; he was 
 obliged therefore to have recourse to the Latin 
 word, domesticus: that is, a domestic or house ser^ 
 v':ant. In wandering away from Greek to Latin, he 
 was obliged to leave out, Tret?, in Greek, all, and in 
 Latin, o7nnis, (all.) If he was above being restrained 
 by the Greek adverb, which is justly translated, 
 with all his house, why did he not give us some- 
 thing corresponding? If he had done that, then the 
 passage read, " With all his domestics;" but as chil- 
 dren are never termed domestics, he thought this 
 would ruin liis whole plan of infant baptism- 
 
90 CANDID REASON$ EXAMINED. 
 
 From my remarks, it appears that psedorantisni 
 has neither scripture nor example to support it. This 
 practice is founded on mere supposition and super- 
 stition; and, notwithstanding it is so pleasing to su- 
 perstitious minds, it must be as displeasing to God 
 as to sacrifice a dog under the Jewish economy. It 
 is ver}^ surprising that men of learning and piety 
 would try to support a practice born in ignorance 
 and nursed in superstition. How dangerous it is to 
 even sip of the wine of the whore of Babylon? When 
 our author had quibbled a long time about the bap- 
 tism of households, he said, " This may serve as a 
 primitive practice, he and all his were baptized."* 
 
 If the narrative, respecting the jailer and his 
 househould being baptized, serves as a pattern of 
 primitive practice, then the whole is contrary to 
 your plan, and affords not one argument to support 
 your dying system; for I have made it appear, un- 
 answerably appear, that the subjects were all taught 
 before they were baptized- " And they spake unto 
 him the word of the Lord." Very good, is there no 
 more in the verse? Yes, " And to all that were in 
 the house." 32d verse. They were all taught be- 
 fore they were baptized. If this is a pattern, it is 
 one against our author's plan, and staring him in the 
 face, amuses him with a broad falsehood. Therefore 
 to infer there were some in the house, who were 
 not taught, and did not believe, and nevertheless 
 
 * Cfindid Itcasons, pa.aro ?•':■ 
 
CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 9i 
 
 were baptized, is a groundless fancy, which has no- 
 thing to support it in fact, or circumstances. Before 
 I proceed further on this subject, I will form a syl- 
 logism,^ viz. All who are qualified to have the word 
 of the Lord spoken to them, are qualified to believe 
 it; but all the jailer's household were qualified to 
 have the word of the Lord spoken to them; there- 
 fore all the jailer's house were qualified to believe it. 
 The 32d verse will prove this, " They spake to him 
 the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his 
 house." This verse was prudently left out by Peter, 
 as not suitable to his system. Our author, after all 
 his omissions and perversions of this passage, is not 
 satisfied with the form he has given it. Therefore 
 he said, " he did not consider this historical ac- 
 count, as having force enough of itself to evince the 
 baptism of infants."* What he added afterwards 
 shall be considered hereafter. But from my obser- 
 vations, this historical account has force enough to 
 prove there were no infants in the jailer's house. 
 But let Peter alone, he will work it out some way. 
 He will therefore come to agreement with that prac- 
 tice in which we are sure infants were included. 
 Circumcision was founded on this promise of God: 
 " I will be a God to thee and thy seed."t Stop, Pe- 
 ter, not so fast. If you ai'C right now, your assertion 
 in the 20th page was a falsehood. There it is said, 
 '• that infants v/cre circumcised, is a fact; that 
 
 * i.'siidid KeascTis, pag'e 7^ ^ Candi'l Kc;isona, p:ig'e 7'i. 
 
/ 
 ^ CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 
 
 ttiey were circumcised by the express comrndnd of 
 God, is a proof of right." Here are words and sen- 
 timeiUs, as contrary, the one to the other, as light to 
 darkness. But our author is subject to change: once 
 he was a baptist; now he is a violent paedorantist 
 What he will be next, I know not. The most cha 
 ritable conclusion, that I can make, is that he had 
 forgotten what he had said in the 20th page, or he 
 would have avoided committing himself by such a 
 blunder. And even in the 20th page, he has not told 
 the truth, and nothing but the truth; for even that 
 sentence carries in it a fallacy. There he says, infants 
 were circumcised, &:c. By this phrase, the reader 
 would be led to believe all the Jews' infants were 
 circumcised, which is not true; perhaps not more 
 than one half of them. For the command in Gen. 
 xvii. 10. is limited to a manchild. God could ful- 
 fil all his promises to Abraham without circumci- 
 sion; but he commanded him so to do, to distin- 
 guish his descendents from other nations; and there- 
 fore he said it should be a token of the covenant 
 made with him. I will form this syllogism on the 
 subject, viz. All divine institutes are founded on a 
 command of God; but a promise of God is not a 
 command; therefore a divine institute is not founded 
 on a promise. I defy him to overthrow this syllogism. 
 Ishmael, the sons of Keturah, and Abraham's ser- 
 vants, were circumcised; and they were not inclu- 
 ded in the promise. Why were they circumcised? 
 Because God commanded it A command of God 
 
CANDID REASONS EXAMINEU. 95 
 
 constitutes a divine institute; and without a com- 
 mand, it is only will-worship, and must be an abo- 
 mination to the God of heaven. It is a marvelous 
 thing that Peter Edwards should be acquainted with 
 heathen authors, and at the same tim^e so excessively 
 ignorant of his own bible. He supposes himself, as 
 the Jews did, to be a guide of the blind, a light of 
 them which are in darkness, an instructer of the 
 foolish, a teacher of babes; but we find him com- 
 prehended in the character of the blmd who led 
 the blind; and both will fall into the ditch. One er- 
 ror leads to another; and this will appear if we ob- 
 serve our author's sentiments about baptism. One 
 would be tempted to think he had never read the 
 scriptures, or he could not have said circumcision 
 was founded on this promise of God: *' I will be a 
 God to thee and thy seed." " Baptism proceeds on 
 this, that the promise is to you and to your chii, 
 dren."* It is not easy to understand, when he says, 
 " Baptism proceeds," &c. for he speaks of baptism 
 as if it had been an intelligent being; but what he 
 has said of circumcision explains the passage, viz. 
 *' Circumcision was founded on this promise of 
 God," &c. Then it must follow, the meaning is this: 
 '' The reason why any are baptized, is, because it is 
 said the promise is to you and to your children." Is 
 this the reason why John baptized? Was he left to 
 ijifcr his duty from a promise? or was he sent? This 
 
 "* Candid Reasons, page 71- 
 
94 CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 
 
 is the account he gives himself, on the subject: 
 *' He that sent me to baptize," &c. Did the apostles 
 infer their duty from a promise? No: their master 
 commanded them to teach and baptize. Matt, xxviii. 
 19. We see that inference is a poor foundation for a 
 gospel ordinance; but it is good enough for paedo- 
 tism. 
 
 By my arguments, Peter Edwards's system is 
 laid prostrate; therefore what he has further said de- 
 serves no answer; only a few remarks, where he col- 
 lects his whole force on the subject. And the whale 
 force consists in this: " 1. That God did constitute 
 ip his church the membership of infants, and admit- 
 ted them to it by religious ordinance. 2. That the 
 right of infants to church membership was never 
 taken away."* There is a fallacy in this statement; 
 for admitting, what is not true, that the Jews were a 
 church, the statement should have been, that God 
 did constitute in his church the membership of male 
 infants, and admitted them to it by a religious ordi- 
 nance. But, instead of this, infants are spoken of 
 without any distinction, just as if all the Jewish chil- 
 dren were members; whereas the females were not 
 intended, if they were to be admitted by circumci- 
 sion; but of this, scripture is silent. Throughout our 
 author's pamphlet, we are continually amused with 
 the word Church, just as if suchva thing formally 
 existed among the Jews. Never did the freemasons 
 
 "* Candid liessoi^s, pag-c 72. 
 
CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. ^5 
 
 search more diligently for the widow's son, than I 
 have for this phantom; but hitherto I can find no 
 traces of it. I ust conclude it is a nonentity^ and 
 exists only in imagination, and has been used with- 
 out examination. I have already said, I wish to know, 
 when and where this Jewish church was made. If we 
 read all Genesis, we shall find not the least hint of it. 
 We can find that God made many promises to Abra- 
 ham; and what of all that? Doth promises constitute 
 a church? Then we find Noah's church; and a very 
 numerous one; for it included the brute creation^ 
 We might find Sarah's church, because God said 
 he would bless her and make her the mother of na- 
 tions, &c. Gen. xvii. 16. Were we to suppose that 
 niakinga covenant, with any one, constitutes a church, 
 we shall find a large number of churches, existing 
 only in the brains of men. It is to be wished that 
 writers would be more explicit on this subject, and 
 refer us to the passage that authorizes us to call a 
 nation a church. In the New Testament, the word 
 in Greek, E>txA>;(r<«., means a voluntary assembly; and 
 in this sense the heathens atid the Septuagint use it; 
 but they could not have, the same idea of it, that 
 Christ and' the apostles had, when it was applied to 
 such as were called by grace out of the world. 
 
 Nothing need be said about the right of infants 
 being taken away; for Jewish infants never had any 
 membership in the church; as none did then exist 
 formally; as I have fully proved. And notwithstand- 
 ing all the Jioise that is m.ade about it, the very term 
 
p 
 
 96 CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 
 
 is not found in the Old Testament. It is a term pe- 
 culiar to the New Testament; where church mem- 
 bership has some sense, and points out the relation 
 to Christ, who is head, and they are the body, in 
 whom all the building, fitly framed together, grow- 
 eth unto an holy temple in the Lord. I hope Peter 
 Edwards will not charge me as being a church mur- 
 derer, as he did Mr. Booth;* for I could find none 
 to lay violent hands on. I found it a mere phantom, 
 that vanished as I approached. Peta* Edwards says, 
 ** According to the principles of the baptists God had 
 no church in this world, at least for fifteen hundred 
 years."! And what of that? Doth this prove the bap- 
 tists to be wrong? By no means; for God had no 
 church formally for inore than two thousand years 
 preceding Abraham's time. And if he could do with- 
 out one more than two thousand years, why might 
 he not do without one fifteen hundred years? I think 
 it would have been better to have continued longer 
 without one, than to have one made up in part of 
 idolaters, whoremongers, adulterers, and even so- 
 domites, and without any form of discipline for four 
 hundred and thirty year*. And even after Moses's 
 time, they were guilty of sacrificing their children, 
 worshipping Baal Peor, and shameful wickedness, 
 that can be scarcely mentioned witli decency. Let 
 the reader peruse Judges, Sam.uel and the" Kings, 
 
 f Candiil KeusoDS, pa^^c 122. F.r.'ksiscidc meniis -a church mur- 
 derer. 
 
 * Candid Reasons, pajre 120 
 
CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 97 
 
 and he will see, that to call such a people a church 
 of the blessed God, is such a vile prostitution of lan- 
 guag-e, that no man, who has considered the subject, 
 can use. Yet at this time, and all preceding ages, 
 God had saints on etirth; but they were not formed 
 into a church formally. But I defy any one to prove 
 that the Jews, consisting of good and bad, male and 
 female, old and young, were ever called a church 
 formally. And this is all I insist on; and which I have 
 irrefragably proved. To talk of corresponding words 
 in the Hebrew, is nonsense; for nothing existed at 
 that time like to the word Church in the New Tes- 
 tament. The Jews had a word for an assembly, and 
 so had the heathens: they used it for such assemblies 
 as our courts; but instead of a bell, they called to- 
 gether by a crier. 
 
 I would say no more till I come to the mode of 
 baptism, only Peter Edw^ards has used much sophis^ 
 try about female communion, which shall not pass 
 unnoticed. Our author triumphs on this subject, as 
 if he had found an argument to ruin the baptist sys- 
 tem. It is not necessary to fix on any page on this 
 subject; for it makes a large portion of his pamphlet. 
 The reader may look over many places; and in page 
 95 he will find him saying, " According to the prin- 
 ciples and reasonings of the baptists, a Vv'oman, how- 
 ever qualified, can have no right to the Lord's table." 
 This subject is repeated again, as if now the baptists 
 are ruined forever. Stop, Peter, you have not yet heard 
 all that can be said on the subject. Your assertion, 
 
s. 
 
 98 CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 
 
 if true, amounts only to this: the baptists do one 
 thing without an example or command; doth it fol- 
 low that paedorantists may do another without com- 
 mand or example in scripture: to wit, they mayran- 
 tize a child and call it baptism. If this way of infer- 
 ring proves any thing, it proves tacitly that there is 
 neither scripture nor example for sprinkling children; 
 and this is the truth. Our author ought to have re- 
 membered that two wrongs do not make one right. 
 I will give the subject a fair hearing; and we will 
 find as good authority for the communion of women 
 as for men. Yea, I will assert it positively, we have 
 as good authority for one as the other; if men are 
 commanded so are women commanded. The fair 
 way to come at the truth is to examine the institu- 
 tion itself. And we have a full account of it in Matt. 
 xxvi. 26. viz, " And as they were eating, Jesus took 
 bread and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the 
 disciples, and said, take, eat; this is my body." Luke 
 adds, " This do in remembrance of me." xxii. 19. 
 Mark to whom this command was given. The text 
 says it was to his disciples. Was this command 
 binding on them only? or doth it include ail disci- 
 ples? This point admits of no dispute; the command 
 was obligatory on all disciples' of every description to 
 the end of the world. Here the point is proved; for 
 women are expressly called disciples; and here is as 
 explicitly a command for the female as the male. 
 Take this syllogism on the subject, viz. Christ com- 
 manded his disciples to do this m remembrance of 
 
CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 99 
 
 him; but women are his disciples; therefore he com- 
 manded women to do this in remembrance of him. 
 Here we have the command. Let our learned author 
 try his logic on this syllogism; and he will find no 
 more in the conclusion than in the premises. It can- 
 not be denied, that women are included in the term 
 disciple as well as men, and are expressly called so, 
 in Acts ix. 36. The words are, " Now there was at 
 Joppa a certain disciple named Tabitha." Now 
 what can Peter say? He must hide his blushing face. 
 Is there not as good authority for the communion of 
 women as men? The very same. The command is 
 extended to the one as well as to the other; and is as 
 binding on one as the other. There is no way to 
 avoid the force of the argument, but to turn quaker, 
 and say it was binding on neither. Was I to say no 
 more, to prove that women have an equal right to be 
 admitted to the Lord's Supper, as men; I should 
 think, except the person has parted with truth and 
 modesty at once, we should never hear Peter's 
 quibble mentioned any more. 
 
 I would suppose, if Peter Edwards has not alto- 
 gether departed from truth and modesty at the same 
 time, we shall never hear him say again, as he has 
 done, " Can the right of women to the Lord's table 
 be proved from any express law or example in the 
 holy scriptures? Answer. Here Mr. Booth affurms, 
 and I deny^"* 
 
 • Candid Reasons, page 100. 
 
100 Candid reasons examined. 
 
 If any command of Christ can be called a law, 
 here is one before us, and is an express law for fe- 
 male communion. This is authority sufficient, and 
 so express that both the apostles and all christians 
 in succeeding ages understood it so to mean, and 
 practised accordingly. When Paul received his in- 
 structions from heaven, it was so understood; and 
 he delivered to the Corinthian church, consisting of 
 male and female, the very command he had received 
 of the Lord. This will bring us to consider the 
 statement made in 1 Cor. xi. in particular, 28 verse. 
 " Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of 
 that bread, and drink of that cup." What Mr, Booth 
 said on this chapter, has given great offence; against 
 whom Peter has vented his rage by a 'volley of such 
 abusive language, that, if I had not been otherwise 
 informed, I should have concluded Mr. Booth was 
 a man void of either a religious or moral character. 
 I never read Mr. Booth on the subject in my life: I 
 must therefore depend on Peter Edwards's state- 
 ment, which I find is not always to be depended on, 
 as containing the whole truth, and nothing but the 
 truth. His words are thus, giving Mr. Booth's state- 
 ment, viz. " 1. Does not the term avS-^wTroc, there 
 used, often stand as a name of our species, without 
 any regard to sex? 2. Have we not the authority of 
 lexicographers, and what is incomparably more, the 
 sanction of common sense, for understanding it thus, 
 in this passage?" We might have expected from 
 any other man but Peter Edwards, a refutation of 
 
CANDID REASONS EXAMrNED. 101 
 
 Booth's sentiments, which were that uvB-^corrog stands 
 often for a name of our species, and we have the au« 
 thority of lexicographers on the subject. Now is not 
 this all true? No man who can read Greek will deny 
 it. I do not remember that the vaporing Peter Ed- 
 wards has really denied it; but he has quoted nine- 
 teen places, where it is not used, pointing out our 
 species. And is that any refutation of Mr. Booth? 
 And what of that? Mr. Booth never said it always 
 meant our species. His very m.ode of stating the 
 question implies otherwise. Does not tlie term av- 
 S-^wTToc, there used, often stand, &c? He never said 
 it always stood for a name of our species. Doth 
 Peter Edwards act as a fair disputant, when he ne- 
 ver attempts to refute the sentiment; but on the 
 other hand, artfully tries to draw away the reader's 
 attention by reflections on Mr. Booth's talents? Pe- 
 ter tells us of nineteen places, where the word is 
 otherwise used. Granted. And what of that? I have 
 proved, from the institution of the aupper, that the 
 command included women as well as men. I form- 
 ed a syllogism on the subject, which cannot fairly be 
 answered. And now I have unanswerably proved 
 that tlfs directions in vv^hat manner this ordinance 
 should be attended on, included male and female. I 
 might therefore dismiss the subject, and leave the ju- 
 dicious reader to judge, was it not for one sen- 
 tence used against Mr. Booth by Peter Edwards, 
 viz. " I know no jnore than the pen in my hand, 
 
102 CANDID REASONS EXAMINED, 
 
 what command it is he drives at."* I can tell you 
 what command he drives at. The command which 
 the Son of God gave to the apostle, and to which he 
 refers when he said, *' For I have received of the 
 Lord, that which also I delivered unto you," verse 
 23. What did Paul receive of the Lord? He receiv- 
 ed a command, respecting the continuance of the 
 Lord's supper. What did he deliver to the church of 
 Corinth, consisting of males and females? That very 
 command which he had received and nothing else, 
 if he told the truth; and no one has convicted him 
 yet of any falsehood. 
 
 Now I hope we shall hear no more about an 
 explicit warrant for female communion; for 
 there is the same authority for one as there is for 
 the other: and if there is none for females, there is 
 none for males; there is an end of the argument. 
 
 For the honour of Peter Edwards, if he should 
 be disposed to give the world another edition of his 
 pamphlet, I would advise him to leave out the sub- 
 ject of female communion, especially where he was 
 so confident and ignorant as to say on the subject, 
 *' But as to express law, or example, there is no 
 such thing in the scripture."! I convicted him of a 
 broad falsehood on the subject; and he may shift for 
 himself the best way he can, and hide his face for 
 shame. 
 
 When I hear so much said about infant mem^ 
 
 * Candid Reasons, page 107. f Candid Reasons, page 8 
 
CANDID REASONS EXA?vIINED. 103 
 
 bership, it brings to mind a curious anecdote of the 
 Rev. George Whitefield, which he used to repeat, 
 when he wished to expose superstition. He said 
 when he was young, he and a young catholic went 
 on a mountain to hunt some game: in the mean 
 time, a thu*ider- storm arose; and they saw a cottage 
 on the side of the mountain, to which they repaired. 
 The cottager was going to dine on a piece of bacon. 
 It happened to be lent; but the Roman catholic being 
 hungry, sat down to partake, and put a piece on his 
 fork, and raised it towards his mouth. At that mo- 
 ment there came a tremendous clap of thunder; the 
 catholic dropped his knife and fork, and cried out. 
 Good Lord, what a noise about a piece of bacon!" 
 He concluded the clap came because of his going to 
 eat meat in time of lent. When I hear so much 
 said in vindication of infant membership, I am in- 
 duced to say. Good Lord, what a noise about baby 
 membership! I have read and heard a great deal 
 about infant membership; but I have met with only 
 two persons, who told me what they expected from 
 infant baptism: one was a Mohawk squaw at Fort- 
 Pitt, in 1772, who came to me by an interpreter, to 
 have her child baptized. I asked her, what disad- 
 vantage she supposed it M^ould be to the child, if it 
 was not done? She told me it would go to hell. I 
 informed her that was a mistake; we were saved by 
 the blood of Christ, and not by baptism. After 
 some arguments, she appeared satisfied. I found 
 
104 CANDID REASONS EXAINIINED. 
 
 this superstition had been taught her by papist 
 priests. 
 
 The second instance happened the same season, 
 when I was exploring the Ohio lands, under the 
 Indiana company, and came with my fellow travel- 
 lers to a house of one Hon-ly B-k-z, a D^itchman on 
 Wheeling. The woman appealed much pleased at 
 my arrival at her cabin; for she had two children not 
 baptized. I asked her what disadvantage she thought 
 the children laboured under for want of baptism? 
 She replied, that she was taught they would not 
 grow well without it. I called Mr. Clarke in, and 
 asked him, if he thought the children would grow 
 without baptism, provided the good woman could 
 get mush and miik plentifully for them? Mr. Clarke 
 ^.nswcrtd, she need not be concerned on the subject, 
 provided she could get plenty of victuals. She said 
 she began to think there was not so much in it; for, 
 pointing to one of them, she said, he was as hearty 
 a child as any she had. This woman wanted her 
 children baptized to make them grow; but in com- 
 mon what is expected, none .can tell. 
 
 Peter Edwards and I do not much differ on this 
 subject; for by inattention, sometimes he speaks the 
 truth. In page tl56, he lias let one truth slip out. 
 He said, " I do not suppose that infants, properly 
 speaking, receive any present benefit by being bap- 
 tized." Very well said, Peter; this is a truth, and 
 from this yoii can never recede. Well, what is it 
 done for? for it is as plain as tv/o and three make 
 
CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 105 
 
 five, God never commanded it, or some one would 
 find out either a command or example for it. Why- 
 wonderful to be told, " This is designed the more 
 to engage the attention of parents and others to the 
 rising generation." Strange it is to act as a stimulus, 
 to excite neglectful parents. And pray, Peter, can 
 you in conscience say it has that good effect? or ai-e 
 the paedorantists naturally more neglectful of poste-- 
 rity than others? If natural affection will not influ- 
 ence us to train up our children in the nurture and 
 admonition of the Lord, not all that can be done by 
 rantizing children, will have any effect on parents. 
 If by paying attention to the rising generation, is to 
 teach them bigotry and hatred to other christians, 
 none are more successful than the quakers, who ne- 
 ver baptize old nor young; for they will not suffer 
 their children to go to other places of worship, nor 
 -are they chargeable with greater immoralities than 
 what is common in the world. As far as the subject 
 came under my notice, none are worse, in language 
 or practice, than descendents of paedorantists. If 
 frolicking, dancing and card-playing, are immorali- 
 ties, these vices abound among pasdorantists as much 
 as any other people in our land, if not ratker more. 
 What I have said has effectually excluded all Peter 
 Edwai'ds's mistaken consequences, which he vainly 
 imagined arose out of the baptists* system. I will 
 therefore dismiss this head, and consider the mode 
 of baptism. 
 
 p 
 
106 CANDID REASONS EXAMINED, 
 
 OF THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 ON this subject I am soiTy to say, Peter Ed- 
 wards has exceeded the bounds of truth and mo- 
 desty, beyond any man, who has ever written on the 
 subject before. He has, in a very arrogant and un- 
 principled manner, abused and per\^erted the Greek 
 language most pitifully, in order to baffle the honest 
 inquirer, and establish an antichristian superstition, 
 which is falling swiftly, notwithstanding all the at- 
 tempts of its votaries to support it. I should not be 
 mistaken, if his Candid Reasons should change the 
 sentiments of learned gentlemen every where, when 
 they observe the quibbling sophistry used on the sub- 
 ject. I hope, if any should deem it necessary to write 
 again on the subject, that the gentleman may not 
 part with truth, modesty, and a good conscience to 
 support the dying cause. Truth is great and will 
 prevail. 
 
 It is a grand reflection on the wisdom and good- 
 ness of Christ, that in this holy ordinance, he should 
 use a word so ambiguous and uncertain in its mean- 
 ing, that should render it impossible for us to know 
 what he meant, or what he would have us to do; 
 but I hope to make appear, to all who wish to fol- 
 low Christ in this ordinance, that the whole account 
 is plain and easy to be understood; that no one can 
 be at a loss to determine duty, except the mind is 
 bewildered by craft, tradition, or superstition. " The 
 
CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 107 
 
 inhabitants of the earth were made drunk with the 
 wine of her fornication." Revelations. 
 
 Peter Edwards tells us, p. 128. " That all our, 
 knowledge of the manner of baptizing must be col- 
 lected from the word Baptize, the circumstances of 
 baptism, and the allusions of scripture to that ordi- 
 nance. These three I will endeavour to examine im- 
 partially, confining myself to the scripture, and the 
 word made use of in the institute." Very good: this 
 looks like a fair set out. I shall follow you closely; 
 but I will not solely confine myself to the scripture; 
 neither has Peter Edwards, notwithstanding this pro- 
 mise. We shall find him using heathen authors to 
 help him out; and I will mention some christian au- 
 thors full as good as heathens. 
 
 Peter Edwards on this subject uses three terms^ 
 washing, sprinkling, and affusion; by the last term 
 he must mean pouring. This does not carry in the 
 face of it simple honesty, nor does it look like the 
 conduct of a man who has nothing more than truth 
 in view. Had he an intention of investigating truth, 
 he would have fixed on some one of these terms: he 
 would have said, I maintain that baptism means 
 washing, or sprinkling, or afiusion; then I would 
 have proved that it did not properly mean the term 
 on which he had fixed. Peter is a crafty disputant: 
 he keeps three strings to his bow. A back door may 
 be very useful on some occasions, to avoid the pur« 
 suer. I now call on him to fix on either of these 
 terms, and I pledge myself to prove that ^eiTrrt^ca, or 
 
108 CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 
 
 ^AfrriiTfXQg doth not mean it. However, as it is, let us 
 see what he can do by sophistry; for he can do no- 
 thing by fair argument. He considers the word 
 |3*7rTw;* but he makes some apology for using it, as 
 it is not used respecting the ordinance. No one ever 
 said it was; but lexicographers have said that |3<»7r- 
 T<^<w is derived from it; and Peter Edwards cannot 
 convict them of any mistake on the subject. Schre- 
 vilius says, ^ccTm^w is derived from ^ot,'7tru)^ in Latin 
 mergo; and Peter Edwards must know that mergo 
 in Latin signifies to dip. Parkhurst says, ^<»7rTi^a' 
 from i3o47rTw, to dip. We see the best authors in the 
 Greek language render the Greek word (ixTrru to dip; 
 but Peter would have us to believe these gentle- 
 men knew nothing on the subject; but he himself is 
 as wise as Solomon, and has a lexicon of his own, 
 in which he studies ^xtttu^ and can at pleasure make 
 it change like a chamelion, into any colour. 
 
 It must not be a little diverting to the reader to 
 observe the profound knowledge of Peter on this 
 subject. He says the term ^uTr-Toi then is used to 
 express, 
 
 1. Throwing of a person hito the mire. Job ix- 
 31. Before I make any remarks on the sagacity of 
 Peter Edwards, I will present the reader with the 
 verse as in our translation, and the preceding verse, 
 " If I wash myself with snow water, and make my 
 hands never so clean; yet thou shalt plunge me in the. 
 
 * Cu'nJid Reasons, page 1^29 
 
CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 109 
 
 ditch," &c. In the Septuagint it is, Ev ^qttu ^l 
 «^^<x<v|.fl6<,-." Here Peter uses without sense or au- 
 thority, baptize. Now, Peter, this is a weak sophism; 
 for if we are to understand by |3ot7rTw, either to sprin- 
 kle or wash, then the reading would be thus: thou 
 shalt 7vash me in the ditch, or thou shalt sprinkle 
 me in the ditch. I defy Peter Edwards to evade the 
 force of this reading, if we are to believe his mean- 
 ing of it; but, the idea arising from this way of 
 handling the scripture is. Thou wilt make me foul 
 by washing or sprinkling me in the ditch. What a 
 noble cause must it be, that requires such perversion 
 of sense and truth! 
 
 2. Instance is in Matt. xxvi. 23. where i[A^x^ 
 ^'ccg, according to Peter, must be translated, bap- 
 tizeth. Stop, Peter, not so fast; for according to your 
 meaning, the reading must be, "He that washeth 
 or sprinkleth his hand with me in the dish." Can 
 we suppose the hand was washed in the food? 
 
 3. A stained garment. Rev. xix. 13. The pre- 
 sent translation renders, with much propriety, " And 
 he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood." 
 Pray, who told Peter that (Bi(^oi^iJ(,ivov meant stained? 
 I am of opinion he got this out of his own lexicon; 
 for it is in no other. But according to Peter's ex- 
 planation, the text would read thus, "He was cloth- 
 ed in a vesture washed in blood." This doth not 
 read very well; for we never wash garments in blood. 
 The word therefore appears to have been properly 
 transcribed, dipped in blood. Ail these three texts 
 
1X0 CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 
 
 Stare Peter in the face, and convict him of handling 
 the word of God deceitfully, and trying to deceive 
 or confuse the unlearned. A very unworthy object 
 for a scholar! 
 
 4. This instance respects Nebuchadnezzer. 
 which our translators render, '' And his body was 
 wet with the dew of heaven." There is nothing in 
 this reading improper, if we understand the word 
 i^flt^g to mean itnmersed or overwhelmed. By no 
 fair argument from this passage, are we obliged to 
 depait from the original meaning of the word (^coTrrw; 
 for certainly if the dew was all round him, he was 
 immersed in it.* Any remarks on the three heathen 
 authors might be omitted, for they can only convict 
 Peter of departing from his word; for he said, he 
 would confine himself to the scriptures; and heathen 
 writings make no part of them; neither have I the 
 authors all by me, and I can place no confidence in 
 any quotation which I cannot examine. 
 
 It is surprising to hear any man, pretending to 
 religion, conscience, or learning, draw such infer- 
 ence from the instances under consideration. We 
 see plainly that (iaTrTco means originally, immersion, 
 dipping, or overwhelming; and yet contrary to lexi- 
 cons and common sense, one man in England could 
 be found, who has the hardihood to despise all other 
 men as fools, and say, without any foundation in 
 truth or fact, " So various is the use of the term 
 
 * Candid Reasons, p-ije ISS. 
 
CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. m 
 
 ^i^TTTw, that we can only view it as meaning onlt/ to 
 wet or stain." Hoc est mirabile auditu. Pray, Peter 
 Edwards, wliat word in the Greek language should 
 be used if the intention was to signify to dip, or 
 dipping, or immersion, or plunging? I defy you 
 to show any other word in the language than ^oLivtw 
 and ^xTrri^u, and their compounds. Pray what word 
 is used in 2 Kings, v. 14. respecting Naaman the 
 Syrian? It is said, " Then he went down, and dip- 
 ped himself seven times in Jordan." What did he 
 do? What word is there used to express the action? 
 Look and see, and blush, if you are not beyond 
 feeling. I leave you to God, who can give you a bet- 
 ter conscience than to handle the word of God de- 
 ceitfully, and abuse what knov/ledge you have of 
 Greek. But I will add some more proofs that ^oc-nrai 
 signifies to dip, that Peter may stand before all men 
 of learning, convicted of ignorance or intentional de- 
 ception. Parkhurst, in his Greek and English lexi- 
 con, directs to four places in the Gentleman's Ma- 
 .gazine, as vouchers fpr the meaning of the word, 
 and afterwards explains the word ^xttto) in the fol- 
 lowing manner, viz. " To dip, plunge, immerse, 
 occurs, John xiii. 26. Rev. xix. 13. Luke xvi. 24» 
 where observe that ^okitTnv vSix-rag is a good Greek 
 phrase for dipping in water." He also quotes several 
 passages out of Homer, where ^aTrru means to dip 
 or immerse; nor does Homer use any other word, 
 to signify to dip or immerse but ^xtttu, ^ex^TTTi^u or 
 their compounds. 11" scripture will not support Pe- 
 
112 CANDID REASONS EXAMINED, 
 
 ter Edwards and his dying cause, neidier will heaths 
 en authors. He has been pleased to mention three, 
 viz. Horner^ Aristophanes, and Aristotle; and if he is 
 to be believed, not one of them meant the same 
 thing by the word. Homer means the colouring a 
 lake with the blood of 2ifrog;* Aristophanes the 
 smearing a face with colours; and Aristotle, staining 
 the hand.f 
 
 Mr. Gale, near gne hundred years ago, in the 
 3d, 4th and 5th chapters, in his reflections on 
 Mr. Wall's History of Infant Baptism, has consi- 
 dered all these authors, and many more; and has 
 unanswerably proved that (ixrrco and Bonm^u mean 
 immerse. The book is in few hands, but may be 
 had by any gentleman, who wishes information on the 
 subject. Indeed it is so masterly and decisive, that 
 I think no other book need be printed on that 
 subject. 
 
 As Peter presents us with a frog, which he 
 would have us to believe had coloured a lake, which 
 he says Homer mentioned. The first idea that struck 
 me, was that the frog was very large, or the lake 
 was very small. I made diligent search for Peter's 
 frog; but I could not find it, being under this dis- 
 advantage, Peter did not tell m what part of Homer's 
 works the passage was recorded; but by reading 
 Gale's reflections, page 96, I met with a passage 
 something like to Peter's in some respects, only 
 
 • Candid Beasonsi page 129. t Candid Reasons, pag'e 130. 
 
CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 113 
 
 with this variation, that Homer was not speaking 
 about a frog, but of a champion slain by a lake, 
 says, " He breathless fell and the lake was i^oiirmo 
 with blood."* Here Homer uses the word i'^oiTrnro 
 by which he must mean, in a figurative sense, the 
 lake was tinged or covered over with blood. The 
 expression is a hyperbole, and is not strictly true; 
 but if the lake was covered over with blood, the 
 idea that it was as it were immersed in it, or over- 
 whelmed with blood, is very natural. Take it as you 
 may, it cannot mean to wash, or sprinkle; conse- 
 quently it is nothing to Peter Edwards's purpose. 
 Mr. Gale produces many instances in which Homer 
 uses the word in its literal meaning: one of which I 
 will select and pass on, viz. Homer, speaking of put- 
 ting out Polyphemus's eye with a burning brand, 
 says, " As when a smith to harden a hatchet, or a 
 massy pole-ax, dips them in cold water. "f No man 
 can dispute that Homer here meant by (da^Trrii, dip; 
 for every boy knows that smiths harden their tools 
 by dipping them in cold water. Mr. Gale produces 
 many passages in the writings of Homer where he 
 uses the word in its natural sense; and in every place, 
 it means to dip, but never to sprinkle or wash, ex- 
 cept such kind of washing as is done by dipping. 
 
 The next heathen author, produced by Peter Ed- 
 wards, is Aristophanes. As I have none of his wri- 
 tings by me, I must depend on others, as well ac- 
 
 * Bptrachomyomochia, V. 51^. f Odess. 1. v- "92. 
 
114 CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 
 
 quaiiited with his writings as our author. Mr. Gale, 
 page 101, says, Aristophanes has used the word 
 several times. I have marked down fourteen, which 
 I believe are all the places where it occurs; and 
 none of them in the least favour Mr. Wall's pre 
 tences, but, on the contrary, make very strongly ftv. 
 the opinion I advance. Mr. Gale quotes the ver} 
 sentence, where Magnes is represented colouring his 
 face with some sort of tawny washes.* Here the 
 verb is used; but how he coloured his face is not 
 mentioned: whether by dipping it in the wash, or 
 spreading it over his face, we cannot tell. We kno\v 
 it was possible to dip it; and it might be laid on the 
 face. At all events it could not mean either wash, 
 or sprinkle; for by washing, we understand cleansing 
 the face, but never making it foul. Besides, the 
 words are a metaphor, and cannot be produced to 
 pro\'e that ^aTnu doth not naturally mean to dip. 
 Seeing Aristophanes has used the word fourteen 
 times; why doth Peter Edwards fix on this meta- 
 phorical passage, and not on some otlicr passage 
 where the word is used in its natural meaning? It is 
 plain, he wished to fix on a passage, which would 
 afford quibbling and evasion; but this is a poor de- 
 monstration that truth is his object. Why are not the 
 other passages used where Aristophanes is not so 
 metaphorical? I will produce some of them, and let 
 the candid reader judge, v/ho has truth as his object. 
 
 * Uinpeis, act 1 . scene 3, p;i2:f 30- 
 
CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. X 15 
 
 Mr. Gale, page 106, says, " It is very pertinent to 
 this purpose, what the scholiast, on a passage of Aris- 
 tophanes,""* says, which is literally thus: least I 
 (/3*4/w) dip you into a Sardinian, i. e. a scarlet dye. 
 Again, " He first melts a piece of wax, and then 
 taking the flea, he dipped, ivi(^(!c\\^yiv, two of its feet 
 into it.f Many places are quoted by Mr. Gale where 
 the word must be understood to mean dip. Where 
 he mentions dipping a torch, he uses, c^/BavJ^oi; and 
 women dipping wool in warm water, he uses the 
 word (^oi^TTTova-r, but I leave Aristophanes, and come 
 to Peter Edwards's next heathen, which he pro- 
 duces to prove that ^ooTrrw doth not mean to dip 
 only. Aristotle is to do the business: well, let us see 
 what he can do. But in doing this, common hones- 
 ty would influence a searcher after truth, to examine 
 every passage where the word was used; but has 
 Peter done this? The very reverse. He has referred 
 only to one passage, and that altogether metaphori- 
 cal: the most improper to come at the meaning of 
 the word. I do not dispute, but the word is to be 
 found in the WTitings of Aristotle, as Peter has 
 stated; but I cannot find the passages; and it is plain 
 from several passages that Aristotle used the word 
 properly to signify to dip. Take the following 
 instances. In his treatise of the soul. I^ib. 3. cap. 
 12. he says, " If a man dips {(im^it), any thing into 
 wax, as far as it is dipped [i^oi^y]) it is moved." 
 
 ^ Acharn. act 1, scene 3. f Nephel. actl, scene 2. 
 
116 CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 
 
 Speaking of a certain sort of fish, he sa)'s, they can* 
 not bear any great alterations, for example, to be 
 dipped in colder water in summer (^a7rrov<riv. Hist. 
 Animal. 1. 8. c. 2. fin. Again he says elephants are 
 cured of the flux by giving them warm water to 
 drink, and hay dipped (^aTTTovng) in honey to eat. 
 Hist. Animal. 1. 8. c. 26. If it was necessary I could 
 produce many more instances wherein Aristotle 
 uses the word; but these are sufficient to prove that 
 Peter Edwards drew a most unjustifiable infer- 
 ence, when he had the assurance to say, before a 
 learned world, " that we can 07ilt/ view it, as mean- 
 ing to wet or stain." This is a broad falsehood, 
 which no man ever asserted before him. Our trans- 
 lators in John xiii. 26. thought it meant dip, and so 
 translated, and Luke xvii. 24. The verse says, 
 *' That he may dip the tip of his finger in water." 
 Why did not Peter Edwards try his skill ,on these 
 texts? A very sufficient reason determined his con- 
 duct. He knew truth would stare him too plainly in 
 the face. From what has been said, we see that (iccTTTU) 
 has a fixed meaning in the Greek language, not only 
 in the scriptures, but also in the ancient Greek au- 
 thors, though sometimes, it is used figuratively; and 
 these passages will never be produced as a proof of 
 its native meaning. 
 
 I now come to consider Peter's glosses on (Bxtt^ 
 Ti^6i, which all lexicons agree that it is derived from 
 ^ocTtTU). In Candid Reasons, page 130, Peter Edwards 
 says,, he will considei" the word, by setting down 
 
CANDID REA5iONS EXAMINED. 117 
 
 those places where it is used as a verb or noun, 
 when the ordmance is not intended. He mentions 
 three, viz. Heb. ix. 10. Mark vii. 4. and Luke ix. 
 38. Then, Peter in his superlative modesty, says^ the 
 word in these instances, is used, 
 
 1. For those various ablutions among the Jews, 
 by sprinkling, pouring, &c. As Peter never travels 
 the common road, I was first obliged to look into 
 Bailey's English Dictionary for the word Ablution, 
 and I found it explained, *' A purgation, or washing, 
 in use among the popish priests." This rendered 
 Peter's meaning darker; as Peter has not yet pro- 
 fessed popery; but I cannot tell how soon he may; 
 and I think it would suit him much better than to 
 profess himself a dissenter. But as he mentioned 
 the Jews, and in the next page directs to the bible, 
 to read the account of the Jewish service, Sec. this 
 led me to look in the bible, supposing he meant by 
 ablutions, the Jewish purifications; but as he did not 
 inform us, where we should find the passages, I 
 found I might look any where. The first passage 
 that I examined, was Numb. xix. 7. 8. " Then the 
 priest shall wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in 
 water." The law referred to the burning a red hei- 
 fer; and in verse eighth^ it is said, " And he that 
 burneth her, shall bathe liis flesh in water." Here I 
 found the manner of purification was by bathing the 
 flesh in w^ater, and this bathing always means immer- 
 sion. This passage can afford no reason why we 
 should understan,d the words mean, pouring or 
 
118 CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 
 
 sprinkling. Quite the reverse; for none on earth ever 
 thought that pouring or sprinkling was any mode of 
 dipping. Here the scripture fails Peter. We will 
 consider another passage, to see if he has better suc- 
 cess. We will consider the purifying of the leper. 
 Lev. xiv. 9. " And he shall wash his clothes, also 
 he shall wash his flesh in water, and he shall be 
 clean." The commands of Moses, respecting various 
 purifications, are mentioned, Lev. xv. 5. And who- 
 soever toucheth his bed, shall wash his clothes, and 
 bathe himself in water. And in verses, 6, 7, 8, 10, 
 11, 13, 16, 18, 21, 22, 27. Here in this chapter 
 only, eleven times bathing in ^vater is enjoined in 
 the Jewish purifications. Numb. xix. 7. " And the 
 priest shall wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in 
 water." Could any man suppose, that any person who 
 ever read his bible could say, that Aiat^o^oj? /S^tt- 
 Tic-jwoif was used for the various ablutions among 
 the Jews? How were these ablutions made? If any 
 man can believe Peter Edwards, " by sprinkling, 
 pouring," &c. But sprinkling or pouring never 
 means ^cc7m<Ty^oc. If the word was rendered immer- 
 sions, it would make sense, and exhibit the truth; 
 for this is the meaning of bathing the flesh, the body, 
 or himself. I find this passage considered by that 
 great man Grotius, who says on this passage, " Fa- 
 rias lotiottes noininat^ quia lotio alia erat sacerdotum. 
 Exod. xxix. 4, Alia Levitaruin, alia Israelitaruni 
 post impuritatem co7itracta?n. And he quotes seve- 
 ral of the passages above mentioned, which the 
 
CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. ug 
 
 reader may examine at his leisure. If Peter Ed- 
 wards produces any passage where ^a,Ttri<Ty.Qg and 
 oavTicr^o? are used for the same thing, then his gloss, 
 or rather his bold assertion, w^ould have some foun- 
 dation; but as he cannot do this, I must conclude 
 that gloss is a groundless imagination, fabricated in 
 his own fancy, and calculated to bewilder the reader 
 as far as possible. Indeed, as far as I can see, his 
 whole study is to deceive and mislead: this is evi- 
 dent in his treatment of this passage under conside- 
 ration, and the other two texts following. In our 
 translation, the word (icc7rri<riAoig is rendered washings. 
 Why does not Peter give some translation? Why 
 did he not say divers sprinklings? He dare not; for 
 he can produce no place where ^(x.7r no- iA.og means 
 sprinkling. Here he is pinched to the very heart; and 
 to escape as well as he can, he is obliged to say, it is 
 used for those various ablutions among the Jews, by 
 sprinkling, pouring, &c. Among the Jews, we 
 know that sprinkling was one mode of purification; 
 but (boiTrria-fxog is never used on such occasions. No 
 people is now on earth, nor ever was, that consider- 
 ed sprinkling as any mode of washing. It is the cus- 
 tom of our women to wash before they sprinkle 
 their garments; and words in the Greek language 
 are as particular in their meaning as in English. 
 
 As far as my observation extends, the learned 
 generally understand this passage of divers immer- 
 sions. It is evident it doth not mean simply wash- 
 
120 CANDID REASONS EXAMINED, 
 
 ing, for viTrru means washing, as every man ac- 
 quainted with Greek knows. 
 
 The second instance of using the word, is Mark 
 vii. 4. which is thus translated, " And when they 
 come from the market, except they wash, they eat 
 hot." ^ocTfric-uvrcni is rendered wash. But certainly 
 StocTTTi^io here means something more than v^tttw used 
 in the third verse; why is vi^l^mrai used in the pre- 
 ceding verse, where it is meant only to wash the 
 hands? And even hands are washed commonly by 
 dipping them in water and rubbing them together. 
 It was an unfounded fancy in Peter Edwards to 
 amuse his reader by the possibility of washing at a 
 cock; whereas he knows not whether there were 
 cocks in use at that time; and in that whimsical case, 
 the hands would be covered all over, and then 
 something would have been done more than sprink= 
 ling them. 
 
 Peter is artful: sometimes, no creature living can 
 tell, what |3ot7rT«^w means; at other times, it means 
 every thing, viz. washing, immersion, pouring and 
 even sprinkling. Washing, he says, page 131, is the 
 end, and dipping a mean to that end. Pray, Peter, 
 what word in the Greek language means dip? If 
 (S-xTTTO) or /3ot7rT<(fw do not mean to dip, I know not 
 any word which means Dip in Greek. I cannot tell 
 how Peter can dip any thing. But I have wasted 
 too much paper, in making remarks on the whims 
 of a man who can say any thing, without the least 
 
CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 121 
 
 check of conscience, as far as appears to me; I shall 
 therefore consider the passage. 
 
 Peter says it is used for a custom among the 
 pharisees, of washing before meals. Now can any 
 living creature tell what they did? Yes, I suppose 
 the Jews can tell. Let us hear what they say. I am 
 of opinion, what they say will not please Peter. As 
 I am not acquainted with Hebrew, I must depend 
 on the honour and virtue of them who were well 
 acquainted with rabbinical writings; and I have met 
 with none who appear to be better acquainted with 
 Jewish authors, than doctor John Gill, whose works 
 are well known in England and America. In his ex- 
 position of the text, he says, on this passage, " The 
 scribes and pharisees, when they came from market,, 
 or from any court of judicature, immersed them- 
 selves all over in water," according to the true sense 
 of the word ^acTrn^u, here used; *' For if the phari- 
 sees touched but the garments of the common peo- 
 ple, they were defiled, all one as if they had touched 
 a profluvious person, and needed immersion, and 
 were obliged to it."* Hence when they walked in 
 the streets, they walked on the sides of the way, 
 that they might not be defiled, by touching the com- 
 mon people, t Except they xvash they eat not, or im- 
 merse themselves in water, as well as used immer» 
 sion of the hands, or washing the hands by immer- 
 sion, and which, if only intended, is sufficient to 
 
 * Maimon. In misn. chagiga. c. 2. § 7. 
 t lb. hilch. abat. tumact. c. 13. § 8. 
 
122 CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 
 
 support the primary sense of the word jSctTrr/^a;. 
 And many other things there be, which they have 
 received to hold, as the washing of cups and pots, 
 and brazen vessels, and of tables. And here the word 
 ^£C7rTtirfxo<;, is rightly used in its proper* and primary 
 signification; for all these things were, according to 
 the tradition of the eiders, washed by immersion. 
 In a laver, they say,* which holds forty seahs of wa- 
 ter, which are not drawn, every defiled man dips 
 himself, except a profluvious man; they dip all un- 
 clean vessels, as cups, pots, and brazen vessels. 
 Very particularly, brazen vessels are mentioned, be- 
 cause earthen ones that were unclean, were to be 
 broken,! which were all washed' before eaten in, 
 even on the sabbath day, and that by dipping. | 
 
 Doctor Gill is very extensive on this subject. It 
 would be too prolix to quote all his authorities: I 
 would refer the reader to his exposition on the place. 
 Only I shall quote Giii on the word k.A/vov, which 
 Peter by mistake renders y.Mvoii. This may have 
 been the fault of the printer. Doctor Gill considers 
 the word kAivov, and says, the Syriac, Persic and 
 Ethiopic versions, favour the idea that the couches 
 on which they lay, when eating, might be meant. 
 He shows how these might be defiled, and the way 
 by which they were washed. The Jewish canons 
 run thus, " Abed that is wholly defiled, if he dips 
 
 * lb. hilch. mikvaot. c 9. § 5. 
 
 fl^Iaimon. liilch. mikvaot. c. 1. § 3. 
 
 ^ T. bi.b. sabbat. fol IIB. 1- vld, Mximcn. hilch sabbat. c. 23 7 
 
CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 123 
 
 it part by part, it is pure.* Again,! if he dips the 
 bed in it (the pool of water), although its feet arc 
 plunged into the thick clay (at the bottom of the 
 pool), it is clean." He proves that the bolsters and 
 pillows are all cleansed by dipping; and finally adds, 
 *' In short it is a rule with the Jews, that whereso- 
 ever, in the law, washing of the flesh, or of clothes, 
 is mentioned, it means nothing else than the dip- 
 ping of the whole body in water; for if any man 
 wash himself all over, except the top of his little fin- 
 ger, he is still in his uncleanness."J The doctor then 
 draws his conclusion from this passage of scripture, 
 and says, so that the evangelist uses the words ^(X7r- 
 T/^w and ^ctTrTicTjwof, most properly, without depart- 
 ing from their primary and literal sense; nor could 
 he have used words more apposite and fit. Various 
 rules, concerning these things, may be seen in the 
 treatise Celwi and Mikvaot. Hence it appears, with 
 what little show of reason, and to what vain purpose, 
 this passage is so often appealed to, to lessen the 
 sense of the word |3<3t7rT<(^w: as if it did not signify to 
 dip, but a sort of washing, short of dipping; though 
 what that washing is, is not easy to say, since ves- 
 sels and clothes are in common washed by putting 
 them into the water, and covering them with it: this 
 passage therefore is of no service to those that plead 
 for sprinklino', or pouring water in baptism, in oppo- 
 
 * Maimon. hilch. celim. c 26. § 14. f MJsn mikyaot. c. 7- $ 7- 
 i Maimnn. c. 1. § 2. liilrhot mikvaot. 
 
J24 CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 
 
 sition to immersion; nor of any disservice, but of 
 real use to those, who practise immersion, and must 
 confirm them in it. 
 
 Peter Edwards concludes, page 133, these things 
 were washed; but how they were, as Peter says, 
 baptizedy that is washed, no living creature can de- 
 termine. Peter is more artful than appears, at first 
 sight: he says no creature living can determine. That 
 is, Maimonides is dead; and so is doctoirOill. But 
 this sophism will not bear out Peter; for their writ- 
 ings are yet living, and bear witness against Peter; 
 and their testimony convicts Peter of ignorance, im- 
 pudence or falsehood. Upon the whole I think Peter 
 treats the great Head of the church with more con- 
 tempt than Thomas Paine; for if Peter's statement 
 was true, the commands and examples of Christ are. 
 such that no creature living can determine what 
 they were. Consequently, we are left as if nothing 
 was written; for every thing in regard to baptism is 
 so intricate, so dark, perplexed and obscure, that 
 neither revelation nor example is of any use. If 
 paedorantism leads to such consequences as these, 
 from such sentiments and systems, good Lord de- 
 liver us! 
 
 The baptists have this consolation: if they are 
 wrong, so were all christians for many centuries; for 
 no man, acquainted with the writings of such as are 
 called the Fathers, will say that they baptized any 
 other way than by immersion; except the case of 
 Clinics in the fourth century, when their super- 
 
CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 125 
 
 stition made baptism essential to salvation. And to 
 this day the Greek communion immerse, not only 
 once, but three times. This is well known was the 
 case in Africa, and many other places. Nor was ever 
 sprinkling used instead of immersion before the 
 eighth century began, excepting in cases of supposed 
 necessity. Vide Robinson's History of Baptism, 
 page 283. As I mentioned Robinson, I will say, no 
 man has taken more care to examine every thing re- 
 lative to baptism, than himself. I will quote a passage 
 out of him, which fully accounts for changing the 
 mode of baptism from immersion, to pouring water 
 out of a cup on the hand or the head of a child, in 
 case of necessity, and calling it baptism. The history 
 of the transactions may be found in page 428, 429 
 and 430. 
 
 Pope Stephen III. in seven hundred and fifty- 
 three, in distress, fled from Rome toPepm the king of 
 France to implore his aid against the Lombards. His 
 holiness brought a letter from St. Peter from heaven, 
 wi'itten to Pepin, to persuade him to assist the church. 
 Stephen remained all winter in France: he gained 
 acquaintance with the monks, who were perplexed 
 about the baptism of children; for till that time bap- 
 tism had been administered by immersing the sub- 
 ject once or three times in water. They proposed 
 nineteen questions to the pope: one of which respect- 
 ed baptism, and is allowed to be the first authentic 
 law for administering baptism by pouring, which in 
 time was interpreted to signify sprinklingo The ques- 
 
126 CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 
 
 tion proposed was, Whether in case of necessity^ oc- 
 casioned by the illness of an infant, it were lawful 
 to baptize by pouring water out of the hand, or a cup, 
 on the head of an infant? His holiness answered, if 
 such baptism were performed, in such case of ne-- 
 ccssity^ in the name of the Holy Trinity, it should 
 be held valid. The Latin, in which the pope wrote, 
 seems to intimate something more than what is 
 translated; for he says, " hoc modo renatus particeps 
 Dei regni efficiatury I shall say more on this 
 subject hereafter; therefore I return to make some 
 remarks on Peter's craft, in trying to bewilder the 
 rea|der, and unsettle every thing respecting this or- 
 dinknce; yet the subject is plain and easy, were it not 
 for me traditions of men. 
 
 Before I proceed^ I think it my duty to take 
 notice of a mean piece of conduct in Peter Edwards, 
 in misquoting Mr. Booth. He says, " Mr. Booth 
 himself will grant, in his answer to Dr. Williams, 
 for the sake of argument, that the apostle uses the 
 term Baptisms to denote pouring and sprinkling as 
 well as immersion," &c.* This is a false statement of 
 Mr. Booth's words; for he said, " Were it granted, 
 for the sake of argument, that in this text, the word 
 Baptism is used to denote pouring or sprinkling, as 
 well as immersion, it would not follow that the chris- 
 tian institute, under our notice, may be duly admin 
 i.itered by performing either one or another of- those 
 
 * Candid Reasons, page 74 
 
CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 127 
 
 three different actions." It is plain, therefore, that he 
 did not grant it; no, not even for the sake of argu- 
 ment. Let the world judge of such conduct, which 
 no man of principle could be guilty of. And imme- 
 diately he adds, " And indeed a man must be very 
 defective, in point of modesty, who will even at- 
 tempt to deny this." WeJJ said, Peter. I will re- 
 verse the sentence, and say, a man must be very de- 
 fective, not only in modesty, but also in knowledge, 
 who dare say that the passages, referred to, mean 
 pouring or sprinkling as well as immersion. This 
 will appear in all the passages quoted, and the obser- 
 vations which I ha-s'e made on them. Peter Ed- 
 wards says, " The apostle speaks of the Jewish ser- 
 vice, and says, it stood in divers baptisms." I ask 
 whether the immersion was any part of that service?* 
 J have proved in many instances the body was bath- 
 ed in water. The reader should turn back and ex- 
 amine the places in scripture, and passages quoted 
 from other authors; and he will soon be convinced, 
 that no man, with any knowledge of the scriptures 
 and possessed of common honesty, would have ask- 
 ed the question. 
 
 Peter Edwards wastes time and paper for near 
 iive pages in ridiculous quibbles, which could be 
 easily exposed to the scorn of every honest man; 
 but what he has said without any foundation in 
 truthjt I will consider, viz. " It cannot be proved 
 
 * C£.ndicl R'»a;--ons, page 331. f Candid Reasons, page^tSP 
 
128 CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 
 
 with certainty, that even those, who were baptized 
 at Jordan, Enon, &c. were, I will not say totally 
 immersed, but that they were so much as in the wa- 
 ter at all." It IS very strange that Peter cannot quote 
 one passage of scripture fairly. There is no text 
 says any person was ever baptized at Jordan. The 
 scripture say in Jordan; but Peter neither regards 
 God or man. Such a statement represents the trans- 
 lators as an ignorant pack of boobies, who were cal- 
 culated only to mislead; but I believe their character 
 is much better than Peter Edwards's. Peter expects 
 to shield himself under the uncertainty of the Greek 
 prepositions; and therefore says, " whoever is ac- 
 quainted with the indeterminate sense of the prepo- 
 sitions ev, s»f, 6;c, and a^Trw, on which the proof must 
 depend, will be very sensible of this." I am ac- 
 quainted with these prepositions, perhaps almost as 
 well as Peter; and yet I am not sensible of their 
 meaning being so doubtful as Peter would insinuate. 
 I think it very easy to determine their sense from 
 the passages in which they occur. 
 
 We will begin with the first instance where iv 
 is used, Matt. iii. 6. where iv tw lo^Sdvvi, in Jordan, 
 is used. Here Peter says zv means not only m, but 
 7iigh^ neai% at^ by^ &c. This obliged me to examine 
 my lexicons: none of them favoured Peter's asser- 
 tion. They may have several meanings; but none 
 of them said it meant nigh^ near^ at, by, &c. Peter 
 Edwards seems to have a lexicon of his own, in 
 which he studies the meaning of (ioiTrntu) and (iarr. 
 
CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 129 
 
 Tjfl-|Uo - but there is something very unhappy on this 
 subject, that his lexicon is different from all others 
 extant. Had he condescended to inform us, where 
 the word was so used, it would have saved us the 
 trouble of searching all the New Testament, to fiad 
 *he nlace or places, where it was so used. This au- 
 thor would have us to believe that he is the most 
 accomplished Greek scholai' in the world; but with 
 all his superlative knowledge, one thing of impor- 
 tance seems to have escaped his notice; and that is 
 this, that wherever the Greek preposition .gv refers 
 to a PLACE, where any thing is transacted, there it 
 must be understood to mean, in, and nothing else, 
 as far as I have observed. I will give some exam- 
 ples on the subject. I have examined the evangelist 
 Matthew; and if I have counted correctly, the pre- 
 position £v is used one hundred and eighty-four 
 times; and in none of these places can it be translated, 
 7iigh^ 7iear, at, hy. This kind of jargon is only to be 
 found in Peter's lexicon of his own making, which 
 he intends perhaps to publish to confirm the faitli of 
 paedorantists on this subject. If Peter should be dis- 
 posed to write another learned piece on the subject, 
 I would thank him to point out where the word is 
 used one hundred and eighty-four times, for nighy 
 near, at, hy, &c. I w^ould refer the reader to the texts 
 where baptism is said to have been performed. 
 Matt. iii. 6. it is [vi ru lo^^^xvjj) in Jordan: this is 
 the place where it was performed. Mark relates the 
 same history, and says, chap. i. 5. sv tw lo^^ccvij 
 
 s 
 
130 CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 
 
 TOTdfAu i. e. in the river Jordan. John was baptizing 
 iv AiVMv: here it must mean that Enon was the 
 place where this transaction took place, because 
 there was much water there. John iii. 23. I shall 
 have this passage under consideration hereafter. The. 
 Jews said Christ should be born in Bethlehem, 
 Matt. ii. 5. Here gv is used; and as far as I have ob- 
 served, it will stand good, that where the preposi- 
 tion refers to the place, in which any event has taken 
 place, or any thing has been transacted, there the 
 tvord is to be understood to mean in. After David 
 slew Goliath, he cut of his head with his sword, 
 wherein Goliath trusted. Peter Edwards seems to 
 glory in his Greek; I conclude he is prostrate on the 
 ground by his own weapon. 
 
 To use Peter's phrase to his second text, viz. 
 Acts viii. 38. They went down both {ng to v^u^) 
 into the water: but Peter says, (sk) besides, into, 
 often means, towards, near, &c. Peter is badly 
 pinched: he must have recourse to more quibbling. 
 It must be a miserable cause, which drives a man 
 to such pitiful shifts, to support it. There is not a 
 word in the Greek language with a more fixed and 
 determinate meaning than nr, which will appear to 
 every candid reader, before I dismiss the subject. 
 The word is used about one hundred and nine times 
 in the evangelist Matthew; and in none of these 
 places will it bear to be translated, towards, near^ 
 &c. There is not another word in the Greek used, 
 when we must understand into to be meant. I can 
 
CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 131 
 
 guess at the few passages, which Peter referred to, 
 if he had any in view. I have seen that subject fully 
 discussed by Dr. Gill; and I should have thought 
 that any man, who has read him, would not expose 
 his Cause by mentioning the preposition £<i, as having 
 an indeterminate meaning. 
 
 If this quibble was true, it would favour one 
 kind of universalists; for if w will not take a man 
 to hell, he cannot get there, for it is £<? yawoiv in 
 every place, where into hell is mentioned in the New 
 Testament. It is the faith of christians that sinners 
 go, not towards, near, but into hell. Another bad 
 consequence, by rendering the word indeterminate, 
 is, without it means into, we must not believe that 
 Clirist did not ascend into heaven; for the Greek is 
 g«? Tov ov'^avov. Mark xvi. 19. We will consider 
 the passage referred to, Acts viii. 28. But a word 
 on the 26th verse, where we are informed, they came 
 to a certain water; the Greek is stt* ti utTo/^. You 
 see here that Philip and the eunuch came to (£7r<) 
 a certain water, but this word did not brmg them 
 into it; but after the eunuch confessed his faith, the 
 scripture says positively, they went both down into 
 the water and he baptized him. Now observe, they 
 came to this water before they went down into it. 
 Notwithstanding, if we take it in Peter's way, it reads, 
 they went both towards the water, or they went 
 near it, when they were at it before. This is turn, 
 ing the scripture into nonsense, to support an insi- 
 pid superstition. This preposition, in some places, 
 
152 CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 
 
 may be rendered in some respects, in a different 
 meaning besides into; but none of them will support 
 Peter Edwarjds's purpose. I have examined one hun> 
 dred and nine places in Matthew, wherein the word 
 signifies intOy and must be so understood; and it was 
 so understood by the translators, or why did they use 
 it? It is granted Peter Edwards doth not say it doth 
 not mean into, only. This would be too barefaced; but 
 he says, it often means, toxvards, near, &c. Why 
 did he not point out the passages, that we might 
 examine them? No: he sneaks off, with his bare S2cy- 
 so. Poor authority indeed! Doth this suit a man 
 whose object is truth alone? We come now to airo-. 
 I have observed that the preposition gv is used in 
 Matthew eighty-four times, always signifying in; now 
 if Christ was baptized in Jordan, octvq must have 
 brought hmi out of it, or he remains there still. I 
 did not think it necessary to read one of the evan- 
 gelists through; but I have examined several places 
 which mean out of; but in some of them, it is trans- 
 lated y/'owz, which means out of; and it is a matter 
 of indifference, which of the words are used; because 
 fro7n means out of as is evident from Mark i. 9. 
 Jesus came otTro, out of, Na^ci^sT rij? yuxlAonx?. If 
 it is granted that Jesus lived in Nazareth, he certain- 
 ly came out of it. Matthew, chap. iii. and xiii. uses 
 the same phrcise; where also it must mean out of 
 Can it be supposed that Mark, chap. i. and ix. uses 
 etTTo for coming out of Galilee, and in the next 
 verse <x.7ro rov v^oiTo? should mean a different thing^ 
 
CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 133 
 
 Can any man believe this, but such as wish to have 
 it so? See also Matt. xiv. 29. out of the ship («7ro 
 Tou ttKoiov). And oiTTo Tov o^ouc, cliap. viii. 1. might 
 be justly translated Out of the mountain. A moun- 
 tain has a boundary, when this is passed you go 
 into the mountain; and when you descend, you 
 come out of the mountain. Verse 11. out of the 
 east {ciTTo uvcuToAcov). Chap. ii. 1. The wise men 
 came («7ro ccvcctoAuv) out of the east; for so the mean- 
 ing is; for they lived in the east; and when they left 
 their country, they came out of it. In the English 
 language yro;?2 means out of. Should a man meet a 
 gentleman, and ask him, " Pray sir, where did you 
 come from?" He would answer " from England." 
 Should he ask him, were you in England? he would 
 answer "no." If he should ask a third question, "Did 
 not you say, you came from England?" his reply 
 would be " yes; but from^ doth not mean out qf^ it 
 only means the verge of a place: I saw England, but 
 I never was in it." What would you think of the 
 man? Would you not think he was a mean quibbler? 
 Just such a quibbler is the great Peter Edv/ards, 
 however his party may think otherwise. We come 
 now to consider the preposition ex.. Peter has coup- 
 led this with otTTo, and only says, they very often 
 signify " from." Had he condescended to point out 
 the places, it would have carried a greater appear- 
 ance of honesty. After my observations on ti<;^ one 
 hundred and nine times used in Matthew, and ev, one 
 hundred and eighty.four times used in the same 
 
136 CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 
 
 evangelist, I do not intend to spend much time 
 on iK. 
 
 Parkhurst gives one rule, which will determine 
 the dispute: he says, " Governing a genitive, it de. 
 notes motion from a place, out of." The place re* 
 ferred to is in the genitive case, (gx, tou v^otroc) 
 therefore, according to Parkhurst's rule, it means out 
 of. And from my observation, the word always sig- 
 nifies out oj] where the sense will admit of that 
 meaning. Will it prove any thing, that because the 
 word is used in places where the sense will not ad- 
 mit of it meaning out of^ that in the passage under 
 consideration, where the genitive case is used, and 
 it may be used with propriety, to mean om? o/J that 
 because pasdorantists not wishing it so to be under- 
 stood, it doth not mean it here? This is like Peter 
 Edwards's logic: a mere sophism. I will close my 
 observations by referring the reader to some texts, 
 which he may consider at his leisure. Matt. viii. 
 28. Coming out of (ex, -xm fxv^iunuv) the tombs. 
 Matt. ii. 6. Out of thee (sjc a-ov). Matt. iii. 9. ex, rwv 
 A<9-wv. Mark i. 29. When they were come out of 
 (£>c Tvj? a-vvayooyf^g) the synagoguc» Rev. vii. 14. 
 These are they which came out of great (sx, T)jf 
 B-Ai^iujg) ti-ibulation. I would refer the reader to 
 Matt. xiii. 34, 35. Mark xiii. 15. Luke xix. 22. 
 Acts xxviii. 3. 2 Cor. ii. 4. viii. 11. 2 Tim. ii. 26. 
 James iii. 10. Time would fail me to mention all 
 places where iK means out of. 
 
 In all Peter Edwards's writings on this subject, 
 
CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 137 
 
 he shows himself to be an unfair disputant. In the 
 first he has fixed on no sense, by which we might 
 confine him; whentreatingof jS^tttw, ^ct7rTKTf/,oc^ or ioaTrl 
 T«^w, three terms are used, wash, pour, sprinkle; but 
 as we have no determination which of these we muy 
 fix on, we may use which we please. Just so is his 
 quibbling on the prepositions: iv means nigh, near, 
 at^ by; ng often towards, near; cctto and ix very 
 often signify yroOT. Now can any living creature fix 
 an idea on words used in this manner? I know his 
 object was to bewilder, blind, mislead, and baffle the 
 reader, that in the end, he might embrace his super, 
 stitious system. Our blessed Lord said, all that ever 
 came before me are thieves and robbers; but the 
 sheep did not hear them. John x. 8. Peter Edwards 
 thinks to rob us of a gospel ordinance by his cun- 
 ning; but as Christ's sheep did not hear the old 
 thieves and robbers, neither will his sheep now be 
 deceived by his quibbles to embrace the traditions of 
 men. 
 
 As Peter Edwards has not fixed on any term 
 certainly to signify baptism, I will fix on the word 
 pour; for this is a favourite term with him; and see 
 whether he regarded truth when he drew his reference 
 from his attempts on the prepositions, and said, " so 
 that where it is read in our translations — in Jordan, 
 into the water, out of the water, it will read as well, 
 in the Greek, at Jordan, to the water, from the water. 
 And what exceeds ail boundsof truth, he adds, " This 
 is a truth beyond all disputes, and well known to 
 
138 CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 
 
 every one, who is at all conversant with the Greek.'* 
 In Mark i. 9. that Jesus came from Nazareth oi 
 Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan. The 
 
 Greek is, Kot<e (iaTTTKr^-y; Ctto ""Icoavvov ng tov lo^^avr,v. 
 
 Now, according to Peter's knowledge on the sub- 
 ject, we should read, and was poured of John, 
 towards, near Jordan. This reading to me makes no 
 sense; but the way the baptists read it makes very 
 good sense, c;?f/ xvas dipped of John into Jordan. I 
 have proved that the Greek word £<? in Matt, one 
 hundred and nine times signifies mto; nor do I know 
 another word m the Greek that is used for into. I 
 confess I have not seen Peter Edwards's Greek 
 lexicon, in which he studies, and finds the transla- 
 tors knew nothing on the subject. 
 
 The scriptures say that John baptized in Jordan, 
 Matt. iii. 6, where it is in Greek sv tw lo^^^avij. 
 Mark says they were baptized, chap. i. 5. (ev -vZ 
 \q^^xv\] TTWTot^w) in the river of Jordan. John says-j 
 ill. 23. John was baptizing in Enon, Greek, av a<- 
 \m. Peter Edwards would have us read it " nigh^ 
 near, at, by:" this is a mere quibble; which of these 
 terms must we use? After all we must change the 
 scriptures, because Peter Edwards says so: which 
 proves nothing so much as that this man is possessed 
 of an uacommon degree of assurance. Why did he not 
 point out the places where it would bear this read- 
 ing? I iiave asserted that in Matthew alone, the word 
 is used one hundred and eighty-four times, in which 
 it means in; and wh\- not so here? No reason v'^nn be 
 
CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 139 
 
 given, but it doth not suit the practice of paedoran- 
 tism. The evangelist John assigns a reason why he was 
 baptizing in Enon near (in Greek, eyyof) to Salem: 
 because there was much water there. Why doth he 
 change the word, if gv meant near? why doth he 
 use the adverb zyy^q for near? A very good rea- 
 son: John knew the language of his country; and 
 when he meant nigh^ he used the proper phrase to 
 express his meaning. Every advantage istakenby pas- 
 dorantists, if possible, to render the subject obscure; 
 hence the very reason wliich John gives why he was 
 baptizing in Enon is cavilled at. The Greek {y^oi^-rcb 
 t:oKK(x) in the plural, many waters. Whenever the 
 scriptures would impress our minds with the idea, 
 of a great abundance of ^vater, the plural number is 
 used. I find this to be the case both in the Old and New 
 Testament. I never found the phrase (ttoAAov JiiTw^) in 
 the singular number; but where abundance of water 
 is meant, the word is in the plural as in Rev. i. 15. 
 where the awful voice of the Son of God is spoken 
 of, it is said, " and his voice as the sound of many 
 waters." Here is something very grand indeed; but if 
 we understand it to mean, his voice as the sounds of 
 many rivulets, the grandeur of the idea dwindles to 
 nothing. Mr. Robinson* says, Enon was a large 
 fountain called the Dove's Eye. And to corroborate 
 his sentiments, he quotes the Syriac, Persic, Arabic 
 and iEthiopic versions, which all render it a foun- 
 
 * History of Baptisir , page 14. 
 
 T 
 
140 CANDID REASONS EXAMINED, 
 
 tain. Enon meant a place that John baptized in, be- 
 cause there was much water there, suitable to im- 
 merse the candidates. At all events, much water 
 never could mean a little water; consequently, this 
 passage can be of no advantage to rantists; who do 
 not use five gallons of water in a year, nor perhaps 
 in five years. I am a little acquainted, or as Peter has 
 it, conversant with Greek; and by my observations 
 on his performance, I hope it will appear to every im- 
 partial reader, that his attempts to pervert the Greek 
 ai'e clearly refuted. I will pursue the subject a little 
 further; but I confess the ridiculous manner, in 
 which he has treated it, might be justly passed over 
 in silence, as unworthy of notice. I shall not attend 
 to all his vain babbling; but only select a few pas- 
 sages. 
 
 Peter Edwards, page 139, treats of the allusions to 
 baptism, where he says, *' the reader will find this 
 in Rom. vi. 4. ' Therefore, we are buried with him 
 by baptism into death,' &c. A similar phrase occurs 
 in Col. ii. 12. The baptists think there is an allu- 
 sion in those words, to the manner of baptizing; and 
 as the apostle speaks of being buried with, they con- 
 clude the mode to have been immersion." Here Peter 
 has given one fair statement of the baptists' senti- 
 ments, which is a wonder. Now pray, Peter, ai-e the 
 baptists alone in this sentiment? Have not all gentle- 
 men of learning in all ages and among all nations, 
 been of the same sentiment*? I know of none that 
 have not expounded these passages as the baptists 
 
CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 14^ 
 
 do. Were we to begin at what is called the apostolic 
 constitutions,* we will find it said, " Baptism is a 
 representation of Christ's death; the water is that 
 wherein we are buried; and a little after, it is said, 
 the immersion is the dying; and emersion up from 
 under the water, represents the resurrection," It is 
 agreed, by all acquainted with ancient writings, that 
 this book was written in early ages, though not by 
 the apostles themselves, which has been made evi- 
 dent by men acquainted with antiquity. One thing is 
 evident, that at that time baptism was administered 
 by immersion; and that was called being buried with 
 Clirist. TertuUian says, we die symbolically, in bap- 
 tism; upon which Regaltius remarks J " we are immers- 
 ed as if we suffered death, and rise up out of the water, 
 as reviving again." Mr. Gale says, it is worth while 
 to transcribe a passage from St. Chrysostom, where he 
 saysj " To be dipped and plunged into the water, and 
 then to rise out of it again, is a symbol of our descent 
 into the grave, and of our ascent out of it; and there- 
 fore Paul calls baptism a burial, when he says, we 
 are therefore buried with him by baptism into death.'* 
 I could bring many more quotations from the fathers, 
 in which they all agree that Rom. vi. 4. where it 
 is said, we are buried with him by baptism into 
 
 * Lib. 3. cap. 17. 
 
 t De ResuiTectione pag'. 354. per nimulamim enim morimur in baptis- 
 mate. 
 
 \ IVIergimus quasi mortem subeamus, emergimus us revivascentes, 
 § Horn. 40. in 1 Cor. Tom. 3. pag'. 514-. 
 
142 CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 
 
 death, refers to the mode of baptism, which at that 
 time, and to this day, is performed in the Greek com- 
 munion, by immersion. Were we to trace, in suc- 
 ceeding ages, the sentiments of the greatest men in 
 every age, we should find them agree on the sense of 
 this passage. Grotius and Calvin are explicit on 
 the subject. All the learned bishops of England, who 
 hare written on the subject, are unanimous in their ex- 
 positions of this passage. I question whether there 
 can be found a man of character m Europe, besides 
 Peter Edwards, who would risk his character by 
 giving his sentiments in support of such evasions as 
 Peter does. Was I to quote every man of eminence 
 in England, who agreed exactly on this subject, I 
 would be obliged to fill up a page with their names. 
 I have a pamphlet before me, published by James 
 Dore, being an answer to Peter Edwards, printed 
 in London, 1795, in which he gives the exposition 
 of James Alting, who, I suppose, was a clergyman 
 of the established church in England. I cannot do 
 him full justice, because he has used Hebrew, and I 
 cannot read that language. He says on this passage: 
 *' Washings, the apostle calls ^ioi(po^ovg ^acTrrta-uovg^ 
 divers baptisms; that is, various immersions. For 
 ^oc7rria-[jt,og is immersion, when the whole body is 
 immersed: but the term is never used concerning 
 aspersion; [Mark that). The Seventy used (^octttu^ or 
 jSaTTTi^o, for he dipped, he dipped into, he immersed, 
 whence ^ccTfrnruog, with the Hebrews is called — 
 
CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 143 
 
 (here a Hebrew word is used, which I cannot t?'ans- 
 cribe.J the verb, — (another Hebrew word,) he 
 sprinkled, they never translate /3ot7rT«(^w, because it 
 signifies more than is expressed by that Hebrew 
 term; but instead of it, they use, (^oi<vw, ae^s^^cKvw, 
 ^flivrji^w, 7r£^£^^c4VTi^«) to sprinkle. The verb, — (here 
 Hebrexu is used) he washed, is frequently used, ei- 
 ther alone, or in conjunction with the Avord jlesh, 
 which is baptism of the whole flesh. It is often used 
 in connexion with the washing of the clothes; 
 whence the Jews observe, that whenever a com- 
 mand occurs for washing the clothes, the washing 
 of the whole body is either added or understood. 
 
 Further: the Jewish washings were manifold: as 
 of the high priest; Lev. xvi. 4. of the priests at their 
 consecration; Exod. xxix. 4. Lev. viii. 6. and of 
 the I^evites, when appointed to their oflice; Numb. 
 viii. 7, 21. of all Israel, when the covenant was to 
 be promulgated; Exod. xix. 10, 14. especially of 
 those that were defiled by the carcass of an unclean 
 animal; Lev. xi. by the leprosy; Lev. xiv. or by 
 touching things that were so defiled; Lev. xv. Many 
 other passages he refers to, which plainly show the 
 meaning of the word S>o!,7rr tc-uog is immersion only; 
 and that being established, it cannot be doubted, 
 that being buried with him in immersion, refers to 
 the mode of baptism; and if this is the truth, then we' 
 see that Peter Edwards's whimsical fancies all stand 
 for nothing: and worse than nothing; the}^ are a 
 shameful trifling with holy things. 
 
144 CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 
 
 What Peter Edwards says, respecting change of 
 garments not being mentioned, is a ridiculous fan- 
 cy, which would not be mentioned by any man of 
 superior talents to himself; for all he says is built on 
 the supposition that the people in Judea knew notwhat 
 was necessary for their own convenience in obeying 
 the Lord. John baptized at Bethabara; and, in Ro- 
 binson's History of Baptism, it is made appear that 
 Bethabara means the passage house, or as we call it 
 a ferry house, where accommodations could be had, 
 to prepare for the administration of baptism. Be- 
 sides, in this warm country, very little clothing was 
 necessaiy; and if we believe the writings of early 
 ages, they baptized next to naked, and some of them 
 say altogether naked; but others that they had gar- 
 ments from their middle to the knees or thereabouts. 
 Any thing said on this subject proves only the ig- 
 norance of the person in ancient history. And of all 
 people on this subject, such as are forever talking 
 about circumcision should be silent, if they would 
 only consider the nature of that operation, and that it 
 must be done before witnesses. Let them figure to 
 themselves the whole process, and lay their hands 
 on their mouths. God's institutions are not to be 
 trifled with. God commanded; and it was the duty of 
 Jews and all proselytes to submit to it. Christ has 
 instituted immersion, and submitted himself to it; 
 that is enough, without using profane speeches 
 about changing of clothes. 
 
 Peter Edwards, in page 142, seems well pleased 
 
CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 145 
 
 with his own fancy about planting. I call it his own 
 fancy, because I never met with any other person, 
 who ever thought that passage favourable to rantism; 
 but Peter is a surprising man, and must entertain us 
 with something new. The words are, " For if we 
 have been planted together in the likeness of his 
 death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resur- 
 rection." Now can any living creature see what ad- 
 vantage this text can be to a psedorantist? Peter 
 says, page 142, " that whereas baptism is no where 
 called a burial, it is in this place plainly called a 
 planting." Planting is a phrase not often used in the 
 New Testament, and in no place in reference to bap- 
 tism, except it is so used here. Paul uses it for 
 preaching the gospel, 1 Cor. iii. 6. " I have planted, 
 Apollos watered." The gospel here is compared to a 
 seed sown. This agrees to the parable of the sower, 
 in Matt. xiii. 19. " Catcheth away that which was 
 sown in the heart." The gospel was the seed Paul 
 planted at Corinth, and Apollos watered it. "Here 
 take notice that Paul compares the gospel to a seed 
 sown; he planted. Who told Peter Edwards that in 
 Rom. vi. 5. he used the word, not having any refer- 
 ence to seeds? This he must have found in his own 
 lexicon; for it is no where else. He says, " that as 
 the apostle calls baptism a planting, he must allude 
 to the mode in which that ordinance was adminis- 
 tered: and every one, who is at all acquainted with 
 the art of planting, will easily guess, what kind of 
 mode that must be, to which it alludes." Well, I 
 
146 CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 
 
 am as well acquainted with planting, for sixty years, 
 as the most of my neighbours, and I will tell you all 
 about the art of planting. In the first place, prepare 
 the ground well, then open it with a plough or a hoe; 
 put the seed in the ground; then cover it well all 
 over. This is the mode we plant Indian corn, pota- 
 toes or peas. We never sprinkle earth on the seeds, 
 but cover them well all over; and we raise very good 
 crops this way. But perhaps Peter would tell me, 
 the term don't refer to seeds, but to planting trees. 
 Who told you this? It is at best a guess; for you 
 cannot prove it. It is not very probable: if you read 
 the parable of the sower, and 1 Cor. iii. 6. perhaps 
 you will think otherwise. I am well acquainted with 
 planting trees; and I am no ways afraid of Goliath on 
 that head. The mode I plant trees is, first, I dig a 
 hole; and after putting the roots of the tree in the 
 hole, I carefully with a hoe draw the earth all over 
 the roots a suitable depth; but I never sprinkle 
 earth on the top; for when we plant trees, we never 
 mean that we plant the top. Now, Peter, I have not 
 guessed at the mode of planting seeds and trees; but 
 I do not belie\'e the term refers to trees; but take it 
 which way you wiU, it gives no assistance to Peter's 
 cause; for every thing that is planted is covered all 
 over. So in planting us in the likeness of Christ's 
 death, we are covered all over in the water. Peter 
 committed a blunder in using this text; for it is like 
 all the rest: it will not support his cause. The phrase 
 appears to me, to be metaphorical; and metaphors 
 
CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 147 
 
 will not agree in every point. The argument seems 
 to me to be this; for if we have been, by baptism, 
 planted together in the likeness of his death, and our 
 old man vi^as buried with him; we should live ia 
 newness of life, that is in the likeness of his resur* 
 rection. Hence saith the apostle, " if ye be risen with 
 Christ, seek those things which are above." Col. iii, 
 1. How careful should every baptized person be to 
 live in newness of life. Dead indeed unto sm, but 
 alive unto God, through our Lord Jesus Christ. 
 
 Leaving the whimsical interpretation of Peter 
 on his planting to himself; for I think no other per- 
 son will receive it; I come to consider him on the 
 baptism of the Holy Ghost. And here I must ac* 
 knowledge, I do not know distinctly what he means,. 
 It is a shameful thing to distort any man's meaning 
 to suit our purpose. I think, if I do understand 
 him, he means regeneration, and the extraordinary 
 gifts of the Holy Spirit. And if this is his meaning, 
 he is, in my opinion, very wrong: but he is not 
 alone; because the subject has not been properly in- 
 vestigated; and therefore it is only too common, to 
 call regeneration the baptism of the Holy Ghost. 
 My reasons, why we are not to understand, by bap- 
 tism of the Holy Ghost, regeneration, is, first, the 
 Holy Ghost was not come on the disciples before 
 the day of pentecost; and we arc sore they were re- 
 generated before; for Christ said, '" And ye are 
 clean, but not all; for he knew who should betray 
 him; therefore he said. Ye are not all clean.^- 
 
 17 
 
14g CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 
 
 John xiii. 10, 11. None can, in a religious sense, be 
 said to be clean, who are not washed with the wash- 
 ing of regeneration; but the disciples were said to 
 be clean; therefore they were regenerated before the 
 day of pentecost. Regeneration is essential to salva- 
 tion; but if the baptism of the Holy Ghost meant rege- 
 neration, then all who died before that day of pente- 
 cost, died unregenerated; consequently they all per- 
 ished. Now can any living creature believe this? I 
 think not; consequently the baptism of the Holy Ghost 
 doth not mean regeneration, or even sanctification. 
 There is but one passage that countenances the senti- 
 ment: and that is not sufficient when no other passage 
 establishes it; because no scripture is of private inter- 
 pretation. 1 Cor. xii. 13. Here this passage maybe 
 considered as putting the effect for the cause; and I 
 think this, or something like it, is the meaning of the 
 passage. There are two other passages similar to 
 this, which we will consider. Rom. vi. 3. " Know 
 ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Je- 
 sus Christ," he. Here I think it will be scarcely 
 disputed that by being baptized into Jesus Christ, 
 is meant that in their baptism they, by that act, pub- 
 licly professed themselves belonging to that body, of 
 which Christ is the head. They put on a profession 
 of Christ., The other passage is similar. Gal. iii. 27. 
 For as many of you as have been baptized into 
 Christ, have put on Christ, that is, professed to be- 
 long to Christ, in contradistinction to Jewism or 
 Heathenism. The words 1 Cor, xii. 13. " Bv one 
 
CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 149 
 
 spirit they were fitted for baptism, and were baptized 
 into that one body of which Christ is head." It ap- 
 pears to me, that in this place, baptism is used in its 
 literal sense for immersion in water, and cannot mean 
 the baptism of the Holy Ghost, as I have made evi- 
 dent that that did not mean regeneration, because the 
 disciples were regenerated before the day of pente- 
 cost, but were not baptized with the Holy Ghost 
 till that time. 
 
 2. With respect to the second exception of the 
 word, it is a general opinion that the baptism of the 
 Holy Ghost meant the miraculous gifts of the Holy 
 Spirit. This carries more appearance of truth than the 
 other; and yet I do not think it is clear; because most 
 of these gifts were conferred on the disciples before 
 that day of pentecost, yet they were not baptized with 
 the Holy Ghost. This appeai-s, Matt. x. 1. " And when 
 he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave 
 them power over unclean spirits, to cast them out, 
 and to heal all manner of sickness, and all manner 
 of disease." Now what appeared, in respect to gifts, 
 more than they possessed before, on the day of pen- 
 tecost, except speaking with tongues? And was 
 this the baptism of the Holy Ghost? It is certain none 
 have it now, nor do we read of any before; but be- 
 fore they began to speak with tongues, it is said, 
 they were all Jilled with the Holy Ghost; which I take 
 to be distinct from the immersion of the Holy Ghost, 
 which has appeared to me, for many years past, to 
 mean something external and nothing internal. 
 
J50 CANDID REASONS EXAxMlNED. 
 
 Peter Edwards seems to dislike any quotation from 
 a quaker; but I would as soon receive the truth Trom 
 a quaker as from any other man. I will transcribe the 
 opinion of Thomas Elwood, in his Sacred History, 
 vol. 3. page 344, 345. He says on the passage, '* This 
 was a thorough baptism. They were now baptized 
 with the Holy Ghost indeed; and that in the spirit an^ 
 ]proper sense of the word baptize, which signifies to 
 dip, plunge or put under; for they were truly dipped, 
 or plunged into the Holy Ghost. They were brought 
 wholly under it, and into complete subjection to it, 
 so that it was not only in them, but over, and did 
 cover them throughout." This quaker is honest; 
 and decides, without being interested in the dispute, 
 that to baptize is to dip or plunge, or cover over; 
 that they were covered externally with the Holy 
 Ghost. It has been my opinion for some years, that 
 the baptism of the Holy Ghost was external; and that 
 in the fourth verse, '^ filled with the HolyGhost," was 
 something superior and distinct from the baptism of 
 the Holy Ghost. The statement in Acts ii. always 
 struck me that it was something external that filled 
 all the house. Peter Edwards has much abused the 
 knowledge he has in Greek, by his ridiculous re- 
 marks on ^;^of. The word is used but a few times 
 in the New Testament. I have observed it in three 
 |>laces; and in two of them it means properly sound, 
 ytX.tr Edwards doth not know that that word was 
 then used for reverberating noise. It is very shame- 
 ful for 3By maj) to treat the holy scripture with such. 
 
CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 151 
 
 levity and vanity as he does. This sound had some- 
 thing that made it, and that was the power of the 
 Holy Ghost, (wfTTTg^) like as a rushing mighty rush- 
 ing, and that is what filled all the house. The pronoun 
 it is not in the Greek; and the words read as well, 
 " and filled all the house." Now if the house was 
 filled, and they were in the house, surrounded with the 
 influence of the Holy Ghost, they were immersed in 
 him; and this will appear to every serious mind, not- 
 withstanding all the attempts of Peter Edwards, to 
 render the scriptures ridiculous. The phrase upon 
 seems to denote something external. Acts xi. 15. the 
 Holy Ghost fell on them. The Greek preposition 
 «7ri is here used, which properly signifies upouy but 
 seldom, or never into; but I said, it was my opinion 
 that the phrase, *' filled with the Holy Ghost, signified 
 something distinct from the baptism of the Holy 
 Ghost, My reasons are that that phrase was used be- 
 fore the day of pentecost. Luke i. 41. " Elizabeth 
 was filled with the Holy Ghost." And in v. 67. " and 
 his Father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, 
 and prophesied." Acts iv. 31. " And they were all 
 filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word 
 of God with boldness." I believe there is no instance, 
 where it is said the same persons were said to be 
 twice baptized with the Holy Ghost, and the conse* 
 quence was, they spake the word of God, with bold- 
 ness, and Zacharias prophesied. And to this day, 
 when we are in a right condition to preach, we 
 are filled with the Spirit. Eph. v. 18. vi. 18. Mr. 
 
152 CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 
 
 Booth bringing the electric fluid as an illustration is 
 extremely suitable, nor has Peter Edwards made it 
 to appear otherwise. 
 
 I must not dismiss this subject, without some re- 
 marks on Peter Edwards's attempt to mislead, deceive 
 and impose upon the unlearned reader, by reading 
 every passage referring to the baptism in an unwar- 
 ranted manner, page 153, 154. In page 136, that ev 
 means not only m, but nigh, near, at, by. In page^ 
 136, it suited him, in order to quibble about the place 
 in which baptism was performed, to say, that «v 
 meant not only m, but nigh, near, at, by. He knows 
 very well, that the same preposition (ev) is used in 
 every place where the baptism of the Holy Ghost 
 is mentioned. Matt. iii. 11. gv 7Tvivy,(x,ri dyiu. Seven 
 more places are selected; and in all these the preposi- 
 tion €v is used; but in none of them does it mean 
 properly zvith; the preposition cw in Greek, is used 
 for with, and not gv. It is true the translators, to 
 favour the common practice, have rendered it so; but 
 this is not the primary meaning, which is plain to 
 all who are acquainted with Greek. Quibblers ought 
 to have good memories. Inpage 136, in order to evade 
 the evidence in favour of immersion, in the instance 
 of the place where they baptized, (sv tw la^Scivvi) in 
 Jordan. Here gv means not only in, but nigh, near, 
 at, by. Peter must not think to pass with impunity, 
 when he makes a nose of wax of the preposition €v, 
 and when it suits him to baffle the truth, it must sig- 
 nify -with. Stop, Peter, scripture is not to be twisted as 
 
CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 153 
 
 it suits you. That you may feel remorse and shame, 
 we will try how the scripture will read corrected ac- 
 cording to your mind; and in order to do this, we 
 will consider each passage. I will first give my trans- 
 lation; and I am not afraid but every Greek scholar 
 will acknowledge that the Greek will bear my trans- 
 lation. Matt. iii. 11. I indeed immerse you m water, 
 same v. He shall immerse you in the Holy Ghost. 
 Peter's correction: I indeed baptize you, nigh, near, 
 at, by water. Perhaps he used no water in baptism; for 
 Robinson says the Irish used milk formerly. Mark i. 
 8. I indeed have immersed you in water; but he shall 
 Immerse you in the Holy Ghost. Peter's correction: 
 I baptize you, nigh, near, at, by water; but he shall 
 baptize you, nigh, near, at, by the Holy Ghost. Now 
 had he graciously condescended to tell us what /3»7r- 
 T<^« meant, we could translate the scripture nearer 
 to his new correction. But here he dare not fix; he 
 therefore says, it signifies to wash, pour, or sprinkle. 
 Another nose of wax; it may be twisted to any shape. 
 We will try it this way, I indeed wash, pour, sprinkle 
 you, nigh, near, at, by water. He shall wash, pour, 
 vsprinkle you, nigh, near, at, by the Holy Ghost. For 
 berevity's sake, I will omit my translation, which is 
 correct in every place; and only give Peter Edwards's. 
 Luke. iii. 16. I irxdeed, wash, pour, sprinkle you, 
 nigh, near, at, by water. Same verse. He shall wash, 
 pour, sprinkle you, nigh, near, at, by, the Holy Ghost. 
 The remaining part of the eight passages may be read 
 the same wav; thev are therefore omitted. The reader 
 
154 CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 
 
 may apply Peter's new mode of reading the scrip, 
 tures, and see how much the world is indebted to him 
 for a new method of translation. Peter goes on, in 
 page 134, to make his improvement of the eight 
 passages above mentioned. 
 
 He now says, as if he had acted honestly, ** the 
 question is, to what mode of baptism will the pre- 
 position with, which is used in these eight places, 
 agree? Stop, Peter, you are a little too fast: the pre- 
 position with is not used in any of the eight places. 
 The preposition gv is used in every place; which, 
 you say, besides m, means nigh^ near^ at, by. The, 
 Greek preposition, which properly means with, is 
 tf-uv; which is not used in any one of these places. By 
 taking the paragraph, the question is to what mode of 
 pouring wull the preposition ev, i, e. in, which is used 
 in these eight places, agree? Peter has followed our 
 present translation, where with is used to accom- 
 modate the translation to the superstitious practice 
 of England, at that time; but in the Greek it is not 
 with, but 171. And I have made it evident that ev is 
 used to mean m one hundred and eighty -four times 
 in the evangelist Matthew; yet Peter Edwards has 
 the superlative modesty to impose on the unlearned 
 by perverting the Greek, by trying to deceive them 
 by the preposition with, which is not there to be 
 found in the Greek. What a miserable cause must 
 that be, which tempts men to use such mean shifts! 
 The judicious reader will easily see how to answer 
 the remaining part of this page. I proceed to consider 
 
CANDID REASONS KXAMINED. 155 
 
 page 155. where he says, '' there is one subterfuge, 
 which I must guard against, that the baptists may^ 
 be left entirely defenceless. They coritend, that the 
 Greek preposition sv is used in most of these passages, 
 and should have been translated in cr ■hito.'''' Here are 
 two little mistakes in this representation of the bap- 
 tists' sentiments. Stop, Peter, I will put you right. 
 The baptists say in all ihese places the Greek prepo- 
 sition iv is used, and should have been translated in; 
 but the baptists understand Greek too well to say ev 
 should be translated into; for when into is intended, 
 the Greeks use ng. Those observations convict Peter 
 of two broad falsehoods; for the baptists do not sa}^ 
 in most of these passages, the preposition iv is used; 
 but thev say in all it is used; and should have been 
 translated in, and not into. Peter is going to leave 
 the baptists entirely defenceless, and I suppose ruin 
 their cause foreA^er, Peter says, he has two small ob- 
 jections, (i. e.) to the way the baptists understand 
 iv in the passages above mentioned. Well let us hear 
 them: " It would make the passages ridiculous; and 
 be repugnant to the word of God." These are high 
 charges: let us see how he will prove them. 1. Ridi- 
 culous. Matt. iii. 11. I baptize you ev vSccri in or 
 into water. — Stop, I must put you right; the baptists 
 never say ev means i?ito, but in. Go on. — But he shall 
 baptize sv 7rvgu^«.T< in or into the Ploiy Ghost. Now 
 as Peter has corrected all that ever went before him, 
 w^e will read the words accordirjp- to Peter's new 
 
 o 
 
 m.ode of reading, viz. I wash, pour, sprinkle you^ 
 
T 
 
 156 CANDID ilL:ASONS EXAMINED. 
 
 nigh, near, at, by, water; but he shall vrash, pour, 
 sprinkle you, nigh, near, at, by tlie Holy Ghost. 
 Now, honest reader, which of these wa}s of reading 
 looks most ridiculous? I'he baptists' w^ay of read- 
 ing is, ''I immerse 3'ou in ^vater; but he shall im- 
 merse you in the Holy Ghost." \A^hen I used the 
 words nigh, n«ar, at, by, I do not mean the reader 
 should use the four words; but he ma}' select which 
 he pleases, and abide by it. Neither do I mean thai 
 he should use, wash, pour, sprinkle, only any one, 
 and abide by that word, and not fly about from one 
 term to another, as may suit his turn best. 
 
 What argument has he used to sho'w that the 
 way in which the baptists understood the Greek 
 preposition ev is wrong? A very short argument: he 
 says ridiculous enough! Is this all the argument that 
 this unparalleled Grecian, this superlative logician, 
 could brinsr? I think this is ridiculous enous:h. 
 
 Let us hear him on the second objection, which is, 
 that our way of understanding the preposition, " is re- 
 pugnant to the word of God." I should think this 
 to be a very weighty objection; but Peter perhaps 
 is so used to give expositions evidently repugnant 
 to the word of God, that it is but a small thing with 
 him. However it will do him no harm to remember, 
 that it is said, for every idle word that men shall 
 speak, they shall give account thereof in the da}- of 
 judgment. But w^hat makes our sense of ev so re- 
 pugnant? Why, because the scripture says, when 
 ipeaking of the Holy Ghost, he fell on them. Then 
 
CANDID REASOinS EXAMINED.. 157 
 
 we should read the scripture according to this new 
 mode, — viz. baptize you on water; but you shall be 
 baptized on the Holy Ghost. Ridiculous enough! 
 
 To close this subject, and speak a little more 
 serious: I think nothing should be said to be ridicu- 
 lous, or repugnant to the word of God, when it is 
 explicitly contained in the holy scriptures. I am 
 son-}' that Peter Edwards pays so little regard to the 
 holy scriptures, and uses so much sophistry to be- 
 wilder the lambs of Christ, and make the hearts of 
 those sad, which the Lord would not have made sad. 
 U Peter Edwards w^ouid read the following texts, in 
 which the very phrase is used, perhaps he would 
 not ever be so ready hereafter to pronounce the idea 
 ridiculous. John iv. 24. "God is a Spirit, and they 
 that worsliip him, must worship him (sv 7rvsu^uaT<) 
 in spirit and in truth." Rom. xiv. 17. "The king- 
 dom of God is not meat and drink; but ris;hteous- 
 ness and peace, and joy ('gv nvauwair; dytu) in the 
 Holy Ghost." Rev. i. 10. " I was in the Spirit, (ev 
 rvivf^ioiri) on the Lord's day. Chap. iv. 2. And imme- 
 diately, I was (sv 7rv2up«Ti) in the Spirit." Let this suf- 
 fice to make it evident that "in the Spirit" is a scrip- 
 tural phrase; nor is there any thing unscriptural, nor 
 ridiculous, in saying the disciples were immersed in 
 the Spirit on the day of pentecost. 
 
 Peter Edwards has only one sentence mere on 
 the mode of baptism; and it would have been much 
 better for hini that he had never written it; for he 
 closes his subject with a falsehood. I will transcribe 
 
153 (-^ -'^ N DID R i: ASO .\ S EX A M i N KD . 
 
 the passage, and then show the falsehood, viz. " To 
 remove that which is ridiculous, and repugnant, 
 tlicre is one desperate shift for a fahing system — 
 what is that? It is this: iv joined to water, must 
 be ??i or mfo; iv joined to Spirit must be with. 
 Desperate shift indeed! This is a wretched prop for 
 a ruined system. Only such can need it."* Peter 
 Edwards represents the baptists in England, to be a 
 set of ignorant people, scarcely knowing any thing. 
 Indeed they seem as pliant as wax; they can be 
 t\^'isted any wa}-, which suits Peter's wishes. After 
 all, I question v.hether he can produce a baptist au- 
 thor in England, who ever said, ev joined to water, 
 must be 7?ito. No, the baptists say it must be ren- 
 dered /;/, in itself, not i/ito: they know the preposi- 
 tion £<? is rendered tJito, in one hundred and nine places 
 in Matthew"; and that «v in the same evangelist, in 
 one hundred and eighty-four places is rendered /';/, 
 plainly i?i. 2. I question whether Peter Edwards can 
 produce one author in England, who ever said, that 
 iv, joined with spirit, nuist be luith. They know bet- 
 ter; they know the word ivit/i is not in the Greek. 
 Ev ,was rendered xuith, designedly to favour paedo- 
 rantism; and for the same reason ficcTrncrfxoc and /3«7r- 
 Tt^oo have not been translated into our language; but 
 in other languages, where translators were left to 
 their own judgment, the word is translated dip or 
 immerse. I have seen the translations of three lan- 
 
 * Candid Ileasons, pnge 156. 
 
CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 159 
 
 giuiges, in which the word is rendered d'lp^ viz. the 
 High Dutch, the Low Dutch, and the Welsh. In 
 Matt, xxviii. 19. the Welsh word bedijddio^ and in 
 Mark i. 5. w^here it is said, " And were baptized," 
 tlie Welsh is bedyddioxvyd. I have conversed with 
 man}- good judges in the Welsh language, who say 
 the term means dip. And all know it means so in 
 the High and Low Dutch. 
 
 Peter Edwards closes the subject by saying, " A. 
 desperate shift indeed! This is a wretched prop for 
 a ruined system. Only such can need it."*" Wretched 
 prop as it may be, it is one that was never used by 
 the baptists; at least I never knew it to be used. I 
 believed it to be a designed misstatement, fabricated 
 in Peter Edwards's own brains. Must not that be a 
 ruined systeni, which forces men to prevarication, 
 and false statements of their antagonists' sentiments? 
 Only such can need it; and only such will use it. 
 Should the pasdorantists wish to ruin the baptists' 
 system, it would be prudent in them to fix on some 
 person, more like a christian and a gentleman than 
 Peter Edwiirds; for he has treated the holy scrip 
 tures in such a vain manner, the serious reader must 
 see, that the cause of Christ could never require 
 such means to support it. I informed a presbyterian 
 minister, who is a worthy friend of mine, that I in 
 tended to answer Peter Edwards. He advised me 
 not to catch his spirit. I am afraid he will think I 
 
 ' Caiuiid Ker.sons, page I'C 
 
 # 
 
160 CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 
 
 have not kept altogether clear. I confess! have co- 
 pied some of his language to pay him m his own 
 coin. 
 
 If Peter Edwards's pamphlet doth not induce 
 some of the learned to embrace the baptists' senti- 
 ments, I must conclude the prejudices of education 
 are almost invincible. But as paedorantism is a pan 
 and pillar of antichrist, it is not in the power of man 
 utterly to destroy it; for this is to be done by the 
 powerful v/ork of the Holy Ghost, according to 
 2 Thess. ii. 8. Were men to lay aside vain jangling, 
 and apply to the God of heaven, to be taught by him 
 and led into all truth, all controversies on this subject 
 Vv'ould soon be at an end, and all Christ's disciples 
 would come into the unity of the faith; and churches 
 of Christ would be formed of such materials as the 
 apostle Peter described, when he said, " Ye also, as 
 lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy 
 priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable 
 to God by Jesus Christ." 1 Pet. ii. 5. 
 
 I am astonished why there is so much noise 
 about infant membership, and infant baptism, when 
 at the same time no one treats them as members. 
 They treat them as the world in common, and 
 no better. I never knew any church discipline to 
 use them as church members. It appears to me very 
 like quakers' sentiments. They are born members; 
 and I believe some kind of discipline exercised on 
 them, if they marry out of meeting. It is a capital 
 crime amonj; them; for which they must be excluded. 
 
CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 161 
 
 Tlie presbyterians are liberal on this subject: they 
 allow their young people to make their own choice 
 without any censure: in this they act becoming; 
 christians; but nevertheless baby sprinkling is a 
 ereat something with the most of them. What g-ood 
 it doth, they do not tell us: vv^e want scripture for it. 
 We are put off with an old tale about Abraham cir- 
 cumcising himself and children. If v/e tell them that 
 is nothing to the purpose, for God commanded him 
 so to do; but where is the command to baptize 
 children? the most learned boggle, and can find 
 none. Ail we can get are unjust inferences. 
 
 After all Peter Edwards's vaporing on the sub- 
 ject, he condescends to tell some truth on the sub- 
 ject; therefore he says, " I do not suppose that in- 
 fants, properly speaking, receive any present benefit 
 by being baptized. But that this is designed the 
 more to engage the attention of parents and others to 
 the rising generation.""^ But all pasdorantists are not 
 of this opinion; for too many seem to believe it 
 contains some kind of a religious charm ^ and binds 
 God to do what he otherwise would not liave done, 
 only for this charm. If this is not the opinion of the 
 Rev. Samuel Stanhope Smith, D. D. or something 
 worse, I am mistaken. He says, when speaking on 
 the subject of infant baptism, " You behold its ori- 
 ginal guilt covered by the merit of the atonement, "f 
 Again he says, in a note at the bottom of the next 
 
 "' Criridi'l T?ensrKi=. rar*" J-56 | Sprir.on on Baptism, pjge 31. 
 
162 CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 
 
 page, " Yet I scruple not to say, that original guilt 
 is so covered by the blood of the atonement symbol- 
 ized in this ordinance, that its condemning power, 
 at least with regard to baptized infants, dying in 
 infancy, is destroyed by the grace of the new cove- 
 nant." Can any man in his senses reconcile the jar- 
 ring opinions of these two men? Peter Edwards 
 said, " I do not suppose that infants, properly speak- 
 ing, receive any present benefit by being baptized." 
 But the other learned gentleman, a doctor of di^'i- 
 nity, conceives the present benefits swelling beyond 
 all truth and decency, ^'iz. " Yet I scruple not to 
 say, that original guilt is so covered by the 
 blood of atonement." Had this been written by a 
 Jesuit priest, I would not have been surprised; but 
 to come from a presbyterian minister, a president of 
 a college, is mipardonable. Could Baronius or Bellar- 
 mine have said more? If this is passed over by pres- 
 byterians, they had better at once return to the whore 
 of Babylon; for transubstantiation is not more abo- 
 minable than this sentiment. I hope, for the honour 
 of the society, it originated in Mr. Smith's own 
 brains; and it is a pity it had not remained there. 
 If I keep in the same mind, which I now have, this 
 gentleman shall hear from me on the subject. 
 
 I now return to Peter Edwards: he assigns what 
 he supposes to be a reason of christening infants, 
 although they receive no present benefit. And a 
 ciu'ious reason it is, " This is designed the more 
 
CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 163 
 
 to engage the attention of parents, and others to the 
 rismg generation." 
 
 By this statement, it seems the scriptures con- 
 nected with natural affections are not sufficient to 
 engage the stupid parents to discharge their duty; 
 but pouring a little water in a child's face, without 
 any authority from scripture, has a mighty influence 
 on the parents, to engage them to discharge their 
 duty, in bringing up the chidren in the fear, nurture, 
 and admonition of the Lord. But what is a little ex- 
 traordinary, the parents often are the servants of sin 
 themselves; and thus engaging affairs makes no 
 change on them. Well how is it with the children, 
 who are rantized? Are they better than their neigh- 
 bours in their morals? Facts say they are not. Pas- 
 dorantists' children, and baptists' children are all the 
 servants of sin, till changed by sovereign grace, 
 neither limited nor directed by water. It is good to 
 train up a child in the way he should go; for it often 
 prevents a profligate life, but not always; for good 
 parents frequently have bad children. I will venture 
 to affirm, that if directions from scripture, combined 
 with the powerful influence of natural affections, do 
 not engage parents to perform their duty, not all the 
 waters in Jordan will do it, used in what manner you 
 please. Perhaps I will make it appeajr, before I 
 finally dismiss the subject, that sprinkling children 
 can be attended with no good, and sometimes with 
 very bad consequences. But I now return to finish 
 niy remarks on Peter EdwJtrds's attempts to evade 
 
164 CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 
 
 and pervert the truth. After wasting a page and a 
 half, he considers the commission. Matt, xxviii. 19.* 
 Here it seems the translators not understanding the 
 Greek word f^oc^yiTiva-xn rendered it, " Teach all 
 nations." Our author thought this seemed too fa- 
 vourable to the baptists, who teach before they bap- 
 tize, therefore it must be rendered *' Disciple all 
 nations." His object was to give an opportunity to 
 display his learning and art of criticising, by show- 
 ing persons may be, somehow, made disciples, 
 without teaching, and so include babies. One re- 
 mark, before I proceed to investigate, I beg leave 
 to make, viz. I defy Peter Edwards or any other 
 man to produce one instance in the scriptures, or in 
 the ancient fathers, or in heathen authors, in which 
 disciples were made any other way, than by teach- 
 ing or instruction. 
 
 The word always implies teaching or instruc- 
 tion. And though inadvertently, this he has owned 
 himself, when he said, " The apostles are to make 
 disciples," that is all fxuBryjiva-an means. f But 
 doth not the word always imply teaching? If it is 
 used otherwise, I would thank any one to point out 
 the place; for I never met with it yet. Peter imme- 
 diately adds a sentence, which will effectually ruin 
 his system for ever, viz, " But still the question is, 
 how are they to make them? I answer by teaching; 
 for neither adult or infant can be made a disciple 
 
 * Csndid Ileas(His, page 158. f Candid Reasons, page 160. 
 
CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. j[65 
 
 "ivithout." Well said, Peter. I will form a syllogism 
 on the subject, viz. None can be made disciples 
 without teaching; infants, who know not any lan- 
 guage, cannot be taught; therefore infants cannot 
 be made disciples. Peter, in displaying his superla- 
 tive knowledge in logic, did not consider that his 
 antagonists might use the same weapon and cut him 
 to the very bone. Let him try to refute this syllo- 
 gism, or as an honest man give up the system which 
 he has ruined himself. Peter tries somehow to keep 
 his countenance on the subject; therefore we are 
 amused by considering infants as being entered into 
 a school by baptism. This whim is ridiculous 
 enough, not substantiated by any example in the 
 world, or in the church. 
 
 I would not have investigated this subject so 
 largely, had it not been, that many writers endea- 
 vour to pervert this passage somehow to support 
 their dying cause. I have only two lexicons by me: 
 and both agree, that jtAot9-j)Tguw, means to teach or in- 
 struct. Schrevilius says, it means doceo; and all who 
 are acquainted with Latin, know, that doceo means 
 to teach. Parkhurst in his Greek and English, says, 
 y,oi,^Y\ri'oca is derived from fx»B-}^Ty]g, which is derived 
 from the obsolete verb [A-oiB-tico, which means to learn. 
 When jWfl49->)T£uw governs a dative, it means to be a 
 disciple to, or follower of another's doctrine. It oc- 
 curs in Matt, xxvii. 57. He says, Plutarch has 
 used it in the same sense. He adds, when it governs 
 an accusative, it means to make a disciple: in this 
 
166 CANDID REASONS EXAMINED- 
 
 sense he says it occurs in Matt, xxviii. 19. and Acts 
 xiv. 21. The first is the very passage in dispute. 
 The second, Acts xiv. 21. I will transcribe, " And 
 when they had preached the gospel to that city, and 
 taught many." The word translated taught, is in 
 Greek |U.oi9-j;Teu(r5tvTgf. And they, who were taught, 
 are in the next verse called disciples. " Confirming 
 the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to 
 continue in the faith." This passage is in point, and 
 cannot be made plainer by comment. That is, disci- 
 ples meant them only who were taught. In Matt. 
 xxvii. 57. it is said of Joseph, who also himself was 
 Jesus's disciple. The Greek SjwaS-jjTgyo-g is here trans- 
 lated as a noun substantive, which cannot be easily 
 translated into English; but it is easy to see that Jo- 
 seph was so taught by Jesus as to become his fol- 
 lower. 2. I am to produce examples in scripture 
 where the word is used to signify to teach. In Matt. 
 V. 1. it is said, " And when he was set, his disci- 
 ples came unto him, v. 2. and he opened his mouth 
 and taught them." Here it is very plain, that those 
 who are called disciples were capable of being taught, 
 or instructed. " He opened his mouth and taught 
 them." This passage cannot be applied to little in- 
 fants. In Matt. X. 1. it is said, " And when he had 
 called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them 
 power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and 
 to heal all manner of sickness," &c. In this passage 
 no dispute can arise about the meaning of the word 
 Disciple. It meant them who had been taught by 
 
CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 167 
 
 Christ and became his followers; as in the 24th 
 verse, " The disciple is not above his master." 
 Matt. xi. 2. It is said, " John sent two of his 
 disciples." Who were his disciples? They that 
 were taught by him. And in John iv. 1, 2. we 
 hare a text in point. " When therefore the Lord 
 knew, how the pharisees had heard, that Jesus made 
 imd baptized more disciples than John." Two things 
 are unanswerably clear from this passage, viz. That 
 Jesus made disciples before they were baptized; and 
 this corresponded with the commission, " Go teach 
 all nations;" and then the order was to baptize^ 
 None in the apostles' days ever heard of the prepos- 
 terous nonsense of making disciples by baptism. 2. 
 That in Christ's time the disciples were qualified to 
 baptize. Apply this to infants, and nothing can be 
 more absurd. See Acts vi. 1. and xiv. 22. I now 
 challenge any one to produce one passage in the New- 
 Testament, where the word Disciple is used, where 
 the person was not previously taught. It is an out- 
 rage on common sense for any to affirm that a child 
 can be made a disciple, not directly, but indirectly, 
 as Peter Edwards has said;* for the nature of in- 
 struction admits of no substitute, no more than we 
 can admit another to eat as a substitute for us. It is 
 certain that christians in the first ages of Christianity 
 never heard of the doctrine of making disciples indi- 
 rectly, I will give a few instances. I have carefully 
 
 ' randid Reasons, page 60. 
 
168 CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 
 
 examined ecclesiastical history on this subject; and I 
 find the primitive christians, for several centuries, had 
 schools, in which candidates for baptism were care- 
 fully instructed in the principles of the christian re- 
 ligion, before their baptism. The candidates were 
 called catechumens. These are often mentioned in 
 Mosheim's ecclesiastical historj-. I will select a few 
 instances, out of many, of persons being catechu- 
 mens, who were the children, not only of christians, 
 but even children of bishops. The father of Gregory 
 Nazianzen, was a bishop of a church of Nazianzum, 
 a little city in Cappadocia, anno 325. His father 
 gave him an excellent education at Athens and An- 
 tioch. While he was at Athens, he w'as a catechu- 
 men, and after his return was baptized, being near 
 thirty years old.* He became afterwards archbishop 
 of Constantinople. His successor, Nectarius, was a 
 catechumen, and not of the best character, and was 
 absolutely elected bishop, before he was baptized.f 
 John Clirysostom, who is deemed one of the greatest 
 among the fathers, was born of christian parents: he 
 was well educated, and after being some time a ca- 
 techumen, was baptized, being twenty -eight years 
 of age.f So says Montfaucon. Joannes xxviii. annos 
 natus haptizatus fuit . The same author says, natus 
 autem esse putatur a?ino 347. We have the time of 
 his birth, and the time of his baptism. The great 
 
 * Robinson's History of Baptism, page 68. 
 f Robinson's History of Baptism, page 69. 
 i Robinson's History of Baptism, page 69, 
 
CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 159 
 
 John Chrysostom had never heard that any one could 
 be made a disciple indirectly by baptism; he there- 
 fore was carefully instructed tliree years by Meletius, 
 bishop of Antioch, previous to his baptism. I might 
 produce many more instances to prove that people 
 descending from christian parents were catechumens 
 for years previous to baptism; but I shall only add 
 one, who was of note among the ancients. That is 
 the great Basil. He was born about 329. descend- 
 ed from opulent families, who were zealous chris- 
 tians for several generations previous to his birth. 
 Some of them had suffered martyrdom. Basil re- 
 ceived a liberal education, and was carefully in- 
 structed in the principles of Christianity, by Dianius, 
 bishop of Caesarea, and baptized in the 28th year of 
 his age, by Dianius.* I would have given all the 
 authors quoted by Mr. Robinson; but this would 
 have enlarged my pamphlet to an improper size. 
 Some gentlemen may say, they have never seen the 
 History. This may be the case; but among others, 
 Dr. Staughton, pastor of the first baptist church in 
 Philadelphia, has one copy; and I am persuaded, he 
 will not refuse the reading of it to any gentleman. 
 
 The reader will pardon this digression, as it was 
 produced only, to prove that the ancients knew no- 
 thing of making disciples indirectly. No, they had 
 their catechumens instructed many years before their 
 baptism. Even the emperor Constantine was a ca- 
 
 * Robinson's History of Bapti sm, page 70, 
 
170 CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 
 
 techumen many years before his baptism, which was 
 administered near his death.* 
 
 I shall now return to the subject, which I was 
 considering, which was to demonstrate that the an- 
 jcient fathers used the word jWotS-jjrguw in its various 
 terminations, to signify teaching. Origen uses the 
 word to signify to teach in several places, f The 
 txposition of Faith, attributed' to Justin, J uses the 
 word in the same sense. I find the same word used 
 by Eusebius; and what is called the apostolical con- 
 stitutions, though not written by the apostles, yet 
 they are allowed to be of considerable antiquity, as 
 well as Epiphanius, all use the word to signify to 
 teach. I have all the quotations in full before me, 
 which I would have transcribed, only it would have 
 rendered my pamphlet too voluminovis. 
 
 The Latin fathers use the word docete, that is to 
 teach previous to baptism. So Tertullian uses it.§ 
 Many more might be produced; but I will close this 
 subject by saying, all writings of the ancients, that 
 I have met with, are unanimous in their sentiments, 
 that the word in dispute means to teach; and I am 
 of opinion that no man can show us where it is used, 
 when infants are spoken of. 
 
 Should any reader wish a fuller investigation of 
 the subject, let him read Dr. Gale's reflections on 
 
 * Mosheim, 1 vol. Ecclesiastical History, 314. 
 
 I Comment on Matthew, page 225, and contra Celsum. lib. 2, p. 84. 
 
 -i^ Expos. Fidej, pag;e 579. 
 
 f Tertiill. prsr scrip, hceretic cap. 8. and cap. 20. 
 
CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 171 
 
 Dr. Wall's History of Infant Baptism, especially his 
 eighth chapter, in which this point is put beyond 
 any reasonable objection. 
 
 Dr. Gale has considered the writings of all the 
 fathers, both Greek and Latin, and has put it be- 
 yond dispute, that the word juot^»jT?u(rotTg used in the 
 commission, means teach; not as Peter says indi- 
 rectly/, but directly; and is only used and applied to 
 persons capable of being taught. I do not believe 
 the word w^as ever used, but it meant or implied 
 teaching. Since I began to write this pamphlet, I 
 have taken particular notice of its use in scripture; 
 and in every passage, it is self evident, it means 
 teaching. Christ's disciples were they that were 
 taught by him, so as to become his followers. John's 
 disciples were his followers. In this sense it has been 
 used in all languages, where the scriptures have 
 been translated. Men must be in great difficulties 
 before they would use such poor shifts to support 
 their sentiments. I have been surprised to see pres- 
 byterians of undoubted piety, learning and talents, 
 labour hard to support a cause, which cannot be 
 supported by divine revelation, nor common sense. 
 
 It may be that my publication will give offence 
 to some of my presbyterian brethren, who share 
 largely in my esteem. I cannot help it; for my ta- 
 lent is to preach or write pointedly. No man can 
 strike fire with a feather. Great plamness of speech 
 should be used on this subject, if possible, to open 
 the eyes of our brethren. If some severity of laii- 
 
 z 
 
 u 
 
172 CANDID REASOJ^rS EXAMINED. 
 
 guage has been used against Peter Edwards, he may 
 thank himself for it; for he has not written either be- 
 coming a christian or a gentleman; therefore it was 
 almost impossible to avoid some severity, which 
 should not have been used against a man of piety 
 and decency; neither of which appears in his 
 writings. 
 
 I know there are men of learning and piety, who 
 are not of my sentiments. Should my pamphlet have 
 the good effect on them, to induce them candidly to 
 lexamine the subject, I doubt not but some prose- 
 lyte> may be made in America, as well as lately in 
 Scotland, where men begin to think for themselves. 
 Truth is great, and will finally prevail. Should we 
 ask men of what use is it to sprinkle or dip chil- 
 dren? Their answers seldom agree. Some say they 
 are made members of the church. This carries some- 
 thing pleasing to weak minds; but the worst of all 
 is, they who use it do not believe it. If they do, why 
 do they not administer the Lord's supper to them? 
 Every person, acquainted with ecclesiastical history, 
 knows that when children began at first to be bap- 
 tized, the supper was administered to them; and to 
 support their practice, they brought John vi. 53. 
 The text says, " Verily, verily, I say unto you, ex- 
 cept ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and di'ink his 
 blood, ye have no life in you." These holy fathers 
 taught that baptism and the Lord's supper were both 
 essential to salvation. What an age this was! If the 
 blind lead the blind, they will both fall into the ditch. 
 
 ■H-i 
 
CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 173 
 
 Seeing that infant baptism and infant communion 
 came into practice about the same time, why is one 
 dropped and the other continued? Or can we sup- 
 pose that neither faith nor repentance is necessary 
 for one, but it is for the other? The Baptists believe 
 that one ordinance of Christ is as holy as the other, 
 and requires the same qualifications. In this they 
 have the unanimous voice of the holy scriptures, rea- 
 son, and the nature of things. 
 
 I shall close this pamphlet by giving my objec- 
 tions against infant rantism, or infant baptism; for 
 one is no better than the other. Both are without 
 scripture, and attended with very pernicious conse- 
 quences. I have many objections against infants' 
 church membership, but shall only mention a few. 
 
 1. It lays a foundation for what is foolishly and 
 falsely called national churches, which is a mere chi- 
 mera, fabricated by avaricious, proud, t3Tannical 
 clergymen, to aggrandize themselves, and enable 
 them to live in idleness, pomp and vanity. Some of 
 these religious, spiritual merchants, receive twenty 
 thousand pounds per annum, in England, v/hen at 
 the same time, their poor slaves have scarcely bread 
 sufficient to support nature. All this is accomplished 
 by psedorantism; but it was no better when they 
 used psedobaptism, which was the practice before the 
 reformation. They use often the word church, and 
 our church, to amuse the people; but never let the 
 people know the meaning of the word. In the New 
 Testament it means such as are called to be saints. 
 
^.^ 
 
 174 CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 
 
 or the whole number, who have been, are, or shall 
 be called, and shall be saved through the atoning 
 blood of the great Head of the church. In a few in- 
 stances, it is used for a voluntary assembly, without 
 any reference to religion. Acts xixi 40, 41. 
 
 Ecclesiastical establishments have been one of 
 the greatest curses attending Christianity from the 
 fourth century to this day. It is well known what 
 mischief it has done in America, and some of the 
 baleful dregs remain in New England to this day. 
 Ecclesiastical establishments have laid a foundation 
 for persecution and bloodshed, wherever they have 
 prevailed; therefore it is said, " In her was found the 
 blood of prophets, and of saints, and of ail that were 
 slain upon the earth." Rev. xviii. 24. Where is this 
 blood found? I answer in ecclesiastical establish- 
 ments, and no where else. This is the main support 
 of antichrist; and must not that be a great evil, 
 which supports antichrist? And infant membership 
 is that evil thing that supports antichrist. In vain are 
 prayers made for the downfal of antichrist, while in- 
 fant sprinkling is in practice. I have made it so evi* 
 dent that this practice supports worldly ecclesiastical 
 establishments, that none will be so bold as to deny 
 it; but they will say, we have none in America. 
 Thank God, it is the case, that we have none, only 
 the dregs in New England, where priestcraft pre- 
 vails to the great injury of the United States, which 
 is only too evident in the present day. Nevertheless 
 it operates in a different manner, so as to promote 
 
CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 175 
 
 the craft. It is certain, that the minds of common 
 people are impressed with the notion, that somehow 
 or another it is of great use, hence nothing can be 
 more offensive than to say any tking against it. This 
 superstition has a powerful effect on the mind of 
 common people. Men reason in tVus way: God 
 knows I have not much religion myselfj but I must 
 not leave my children to the uncovenanted mtrcy of 
 God: they must be baptized. What follows now? 
 We must have a minister to administer it. What fol- 
 lows then? The minister must have a salarj^ I am a 
 friend to supporting a gospel preacher in a comfort- 
 able state; but I am not a friend to making the gos- 
 pel a trade to live in pomp and vanity. The minister 
 must have four hundred or five hundred dollars ^ 
 year; but the people give it freely, if they are able, 
 because this good man puts their children in a much 
 better state than they were left in by the first Adam. 
 This is an error which cannot be supported by scrip- 
 ture, and is attended with a bad consequence, which 
 brings me to give my 2d reason or objection against 
 infant membership: which is this, viz. It prevents 
 the salvation of the subject as far as it is in the pow- 
 er of man. Yes, instead of promoting, it impedes 
 the salvation of the subject. If the child should 
 grow up to years of understanding, it must believe 
 that it w^as made a christian in infancy; how then 
 can the person be convinced of his lost state? He 
 cannot, till the Holy Ghost first overtlirows all his 
 notions about any good done by pasdorantism. Grace 
 
# 
 
 176 CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 
 
 often prevails over superstition; but when it pre- 
 vails, there is often a gredt noise about renouncing 
 their baptism, as if it vas next to the sin against the 
 Holy Ghost. And this frequently impedes and em- 
 barrasses sincere souls; and it is very probable, 
 some are even prevented giving obedience to an holy 
 ordinance of Jesus Christ. How often have I been 
 surprised by hearing ministers preach to their hear- 
 ers the necessity of regeneration and a work of grace, 
 when at the same time, they had some years before 
 made little christians of them! What has become 
 of all the good done by baptism? It is ail gone. 
 They talk now like a baptist, and tell them plainly, 
 they must be born again. Is it possible for them to 
 reconcile this preposterous jargon? Why do they 
 not learn to preach consistently? 
 
 It is attended with profaneness and presumptuous 
 addresses to the God of heaven, in which I have 
 heard them pray to God to ratify in heaven what they 
 had done on earth. And what was done on earth? 
 Nothing but a child sprinkled without any authority 
 from God. If they have any authority, why do they 
 not show it, and not amuse mankind with analogy 
 and inference? It is well that God is a God of pa- 
 tience, who can bear with the infirmities and follies 
 of mankmd. Nay, I have heard them go so far, as to 
 pray to God to sanctify such a portion of the water 
 as might be used on that occasion. I have always 
 heard of papists making holy water; but it seems 
 protestants can do it where it suits them. 
 
-H 
 
 CANDID REASONS EXAMINED. 177 
 
 My last and gi*eat objection is that this practice 
 has a direct tendency to give a legal cast of mmd 
 to all, who are concerned with it. It has a most un- 
 happy influence to preach a crippled gospel attended 
 with conditions. And often another phrase is used, 
 viz. to comply with the terms of the gospel, and 
 these are faith, repentance, and sincere obedience, 
 changing the gospel into a new law. We expect no- 
 thing better from professed Arminians; but to hear 
 this from others, whose confession of faith is the re- 
 verse, is deplorable. But this is the natural fruit of 
 the system. On this subject, the baptists have no 
 embarrasments: they consider all men in the state in 
 which they were left by the first Adam, without 
 God, and without Christ, till they are renewed by 
 the Holy Ghost; and when they profess their faith, 
 they baptize them; but not with any view to save 
 them, nor put them in a better state than that in 
 which the first Adam left them. Grace translates 
 into the kingdom of Christ; and their obedience 
 flows from faith that worketh by love. That the time 
 may come, when there shall be only one faith, one 
 Lord, and one baptism, is the fervent desire and sin- 
 cere wish of an aged servant of the church of Christ, 
 
 THE AUTHORe 
 
m- 
 
 -'# 
 
REVIEW 
 
 OF 
 
 MR. JOHN P. CAMPBELL'S 
 
 SERMON, 
 
 SAID TO HAVE BEEN PREACHED AT STONERMOtjTH 
 MEETINGHOUSE, OCTOBER 28, 1810, 
 
 ' CONTAINING 
 
 His Opinion on the Subjects and Mode of 
 Baptism, ^c. ^'c. 
 
 In a letter submitted for tliat gentleman's consideration, 
 
 BY DAVID JONES, 
 
 Pastor of the Baptist Church, at the Great Valle}', 
 Chester County, Pennsylvania. 
 
 The leaders of the people cause them to err, and they that are led af 
 them aj-e destroyed. Isatah. 
 
 f'H/■.rsJSJ^r^J^^.y^«^f^> 9\»^rv 
 
 PHILADELPHIA: 
 
 Printed for the Author by Dennis Hearl ■ 
 i8!l. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 I KNOW neitlier the person nor character of 
 Mr. Campbell. A gentleman from Kentucky 
 put his sermon into tlie hand of a friend of 
 mine, who requested me to make some stric- 
 tures on it. and fix it as an appendix to my 
 pamphlet against Peter Edwards. For the 
 most part, Mr. Campbell's arguments are 
 therein considered. Sliould the gentleman 
 think proper to make a further display of his 
 polemical knowledge, I wish he would be 
 concise and very explicit; for I am now very 
 aged and wish to be employed on more im- 
 portant subjects than controversies about 
 the externals of religion. Wishing the reader 
 grace and wisdom from God to understand 
 and do his will, I subscribe my name, 
 
 DAVID JOKES. 
 
TO Mr. JOHN P. CAMPBELL. 
 
 Sir, 
 
 IN your preface, you exculpate a certain wor- 
 thy gentleman, I suppose in Kentucky, from giving 
 any assistance in composing your sermon; but you 
 might have saved yourself from the remark; for no 
 gentleman w^ell acquainted with antiquity, would be 
 concerned in such a publication, so contrary to the 
 sentiments of learned men, and truth itself. I am 
 sorry, sir, you wrote on a subject, with which you 
 seem so little acquainted. I suppose you have been 
 led astray, by authors, who were not fully informed 
 on the subject. Had you read Dr. John Gill on the 
 subject, in his dissertation concerning the baptism 
 of Jewish proselytes,* I am persuaded, your sermon 
 would never have appeared. I believe, sir, it is ge- 
 nerally acknowledged, that no man in Europe was 
 better acquainted vvith rabbinical writings, and all the 
 customs of the Jews, than Dr. Gill; and he has un- 
 answerably proved, that no such custom was ever 
 known among the Jews, before John's time, nor af- 
 terwards, for many centuries. The earliest writings 
 of the Jews is the Misnah, which was written about 
 
 This pamphlet was published in London, anno ir71. 
 
one hundred and fifty years after the destruction of 
 the temple; but there is not one word of proselyte 
 baptism in it. The Jews have two Talmuds, viz. the 
 Jerusalem and Babylonian, in which there is mention 
 made of immersions; but it was on account of cere- 
 monial uncleanness. When were these Talmuds writ- 
 ten? Some Jews say, that the Jerusalem Talmud was 
 written near one hundred years after the Misnah. It 
 is supposed the Babylonian Talmud was finished 
 about A. D. 500. Any thing said in these wi'itings 
 is of too late a date to prove what was the custom in 
 John's time. We must determine this point by what 
 is said in the holy scriptures, that neither our faith 
 or practice should stand in the traditions of men. '-'' 
 Before I proceed, it is proper to correct a small 
 mistake which you have made, in a note at the bot- 
 tom of page 6. You take for granted that disciple 
 and proselyte are synonymous terms. This, sir, is 
 not true; for proselyte means a person who em- 
 braces the Jewish system; but it is never applied to 
 one who professed Christianity, whether Jew or 
 Greek. Therefore, to render |Woti>>jT«u(r«.T£ to prose- 
 lyte, is an unwarranted translation, which none can 
 approve of, who are acquainted with the Greek lan- 
 guage. The phrase is not often used in the New 
 Testament. We read of, Acts vi. 5. Nicholas, a prose- 
 lyte of Antioch, who was not a native Jew, but a 
 proselyte to that religion, previous to his embracing 
 Christianity. For after that all were called, not pro- 
 selytes, but disciples, till the appellation was changed 
 
at Antioch. Your motive in using the phrase was, 
 I presume, to aid a dying cause; but if it cannot be 
 supported without having recourse to such mea- 
 sures, it ought to die a natural death. If you wish 
 to see the Greek verb, //aS-jjTsuo-otTg explained, I 
 would refer you to my pamphlet on the subject, in 
 my refutation of Peter Edwards's Candid Reasons, 
 where the subject is fully and fairly discussed. I 
 would add also, that in that pamphlet, you will find 
 your arguments answered, except your singular no- 
 tions about John and his baptism. To this subject 
 I must call your attention a few moments. In page 
 7, " You say John was really nothing else but a 
 Jewish prophet." Pray, sir, who told you so? I am 
 of opinion no man before you, ever presumed to 
 say so. That he was a Jew by nation, none disputes; 
 but that was not the reason why he baptized. Be- 
 sides, sir, I put you to your defiance to prove that 
 any Jewish prophet ever baptized any person. There 
 were many washings and immersions used among 
 the Jews in their purifications;* but the persons were 
 the agents themselves, and not another. The case is 
 quite different with John; he is the administrator of 
 this ordinance; and other persons are the subjects. 
 In Matt. iii. 5, 6. we are informed, that the inhabi- 
 tants of Jerusalem and the region round about Jor- 
 dan, went out to John, and were baptized of him 
 in Jordan. John was the baptizer. And did he do it 
 
 * It is not my design to include the consecration of priests. 
 
8 
 
 of his own accord? The scripture says otherwise, 
 " There was a man sent from God." John i. 6. 
 What was he sent to do? He answers the question 
 himself. " He was sent to baptize in water." See 
 33d verse. I render the phrase sv v^octi in water as 
 a just translation, because that preposition must 
 mean in, when it is used to point out a place, i?i 
 -which a transaction has taken place. It was rendered 
 with to favour psedorantism. 
 
 The evangelist is explicit on the subject, and 
 plainly proves that the legal dispensation ended, 
 when John was sent to preach and baptize. In what 
 other point of view can we understand the Son of 
 God, when he said, " the law and the prophets 
 were until John: since that time the kingdom of 
 God is preached, and every man presseth into it." 
 Luke xvi. 16. See also Mark i. 1. By the kingdom 
 of God in this place is meant the gospel dispensa- 
 tion, and even the gospel itself. If these sentiments 
 are correct, then the gospel dispensation began, when 
 John was sent to baptize; and then the legal dispen- 
 sation ended. For my part, I can see no other mean- 
 ing in the words of our Lord, and master, when he 
 said, " The law and the prophets were until John." 
 Be so good, sir, as to take notice of that phrase, 
 " until John," then a crisis came, in which the dispen- 
 sation was changed. Observe what follows, " Since 
 that time the kingdom of God is preached;" by 
 which we must understand the gospel dispensation; 
 for the legal dispensation is never caUed the king- 
 
dom of God; nor have I met with any author who 
 has presumed to embrace your system. 
 
 My deal' sir, I pity you in my very heart; for 
 you appear to have drunk too freely of the wine of 
 the whore of Babylon, which is of such an intoxi- 
 cating nature as to derange the mind, and introduce 
 strange imaginations. Rev. xvii. 2. I hope, sir, 
 in cool reflections, you will correct your mistakes, 
 and condemn that unhappy sentence, which thought- 
 lessly dropped from your pen, in page 8, where you 
 said, when speaking of John baptizing, " It appears 
 to have been nothmg more, than every Jewish pro- 
 phet was expected to perform." Pray, sir, who ever 
 expected a Jewish prophet to baptize? Surely no 
 Jew: they deny the sentiment — nor any christian; for 
 scripture is silent on the subject. Must I tell you 
 again that all the washings among the Jews were 
 performed by themselves,* and not by another; but 
 John was the administrator of this institution and 
 not the subject. Your knowledge of antiquity will 
 fail you on this subject. Your authors were second- 
 handed, and not equal to the task. Every text which 
 you touch fails you, and staring you in the face, 
 f-onvicts you of attempting to wrest the scripture, 
 to support an antichristian superstition, which must 
 fall sooner or later. 
 
 Your gloss on the question of the priests and 
 Levites sent to John, is an imagination of your own, 
 
 * Except the consecration of priests. 
 
 2b 
 
10 
 
 und foreign from the truth. " And they asked him, 
 and said unto him, why baptizest thou then, if thou 
 be not that Christ, nor Elias, nor that prophet?" 
 It is asserted by good authority, that the Jews ex- 
 pected that when the Messiah should appear, or Ehas, 
 or that prophet, by \vhich is meant that prophet 
 mentioned, Deut. xviii. 18. which was the Messiah 
 himself; that then a change Avould take place, and 
 baptism would be admmistered. When John said he 
 was neither of these persons, they asked him why he 
 baptized. If John had ever heard of proselyte bap- 
 tism, he could have easily said, I do no more than 
 other prophets do. You know all the prophets bap- 
 tized; but nt:ither John, nor thiC priests, nor Levites, 
 had ever heard of this tradition. It was not born at 
 that time; and it never can be made appear that it 
 was. 
 
 John was authorized from heaven to baptize: 
 which is plain from Matt. xxi. 25. " The baptism 
 of John, whence was it? From heaven, or of men?" 
 Had the chief priests and elders been as wise as Mr. 
 Campbell, they could easily, and with safety, have 
 answered this question, and said boldly of men; but 
 this they neither did, nor dared say, for fear of the 
 resentment of the people; for the people believed he 
 was authorized from heaven to baptize. Neither the 
 chief priests nor elders had ever heard of the tradi- 
 tion of prosel3'te baptism. I'hey were silent there- 
 fore on the subject, which could not have been the 
 case if proselyte baptism had been then practised. 
 
11 
 
 Should the people of Kentucky wish to see the sub- 
 ject unanswerably handled, they had better reprint 
 Dr. John Gill on the subject. No man will have the 
 hardihood to say that there is any liint of such a cus- 
 tom in the Old Testament. It is a dangerous thing 
 to endeavour to pervert the scriptures, in order to 
 tempt men to embrace human traditions. This is 
 one of the greatest evils which prevails among the 
 psedorantists. They are at their wits' end to know 
 what to do. The scriptures will not support their 
 cause; for after they are fairly beat out of all their 
 strong holds, yet through interest, or the prejudice 
 of education, they will not give up their mistakes. 
 Your bold assertions, respecting the baptism of 
 Christ, are such as demonstrate your irreverence of 
 the Son of God. Do you think, sir, there is another 
 man hi the United Suites w^ould dare to say, '' Even 
 the baptism of Christ, upon which the baptists build 
 so much, was nothing more than a formal compliance 
 with an important regulation of the Jewish ritual.'* 
 page 10. This is your own, and is worthy of you; 
 for I hope no man will adopt such an unsuitable sen- 
 timent. Pray, sir, on Avhat passage of scripture is 
 this sentiment founded? I would be glad to know; 
 for I have been near fifty years in the ministry, and 
 have carefully examined the holy scriptures in that 
 time; but I have not met with any passage, that would 
 countenance such a shocking assertion. Nothing, 
 sir, but your ignorance can prevent your blushing 
 on this occasion. It was some time before I could 
 
12 
 
 fix on any passage of scripture to which you re- 
 ferred. At last, with the help of your popish plirases, 
 inauguration and install I concluded you referred 
 to the consecration of Aaron and his sons to the 
 priesthood. Exod. xxix. 4. viz. " And Aaron and 
 his sons shalt thou bring unto the door of the taber- 
 nacle of the congregation, and shall wash them with 
 water." Can you suppose, sir, that Christ was bap- 
 tized in order to comply with the order observed 
 by Aaron and his son, in being set apart to the priest- 
 hood? Surely, sir, if this is the case, that true say- 
 ing is applicable to you, " If the blind lead the blind, 
 both will fall into the ditch." You will please to ob- 
 serve, sir, this rite was never performed, but in con- 
 secrating the priests to the priesthood; and never 
 repeated; for afterwards they only washed their hands 
 and feet, when they went into the sanctuary. Exod. 
 XXX. 19. How could Clirist be a priest, when he 
 was a descendent of Judah, according to the flesh? 
 Did you wish him killed? for by the law of Moses 
 that was to take place in case of any other tribe as- 
 suming the priesthood. 
 
 Your logic runs thus: Moses washed Aaron, 
 when he consecrated him to the priesthood; John 
 baptized Christ without any authority to consecrate 
 him for the work of the ministry. The passage re- 
 ferred to, cannot be applied to any but to the priest- 
 hood. And to appl}^ it to any other, is not to explain 
 scripture, but to pervert it. I grant that Christ was 
 and is a priest forever; but John did not consecrate 
 
13 
 
 him one. God consecrated him and made him a 
 priest forever after the order of Melchisedec. Psalms 
 ex. 4. Heb. vii. 17. Young men ought to be not 
 so positive as you have been, when you asserted, 
 ^^ To fulfil all righteousness can refer to nothhig 
 else, than obedience to the ordinances of the Mosaic 
 law." page 10. But, sir, baptism was no part of the 
 Mosaic law. If such a thing was then existing, it 
 was but the invention of men, a mere human tradi- 
 tion. And will you, dare you, call a compliance witli 
 the traditions of men, fuUfiling all righteousness? Sir, 
 I am ashamed of such daring and crude productions. 
 1 am heartily willing that you should support psedo- 
 rantism, if you can; but I am sorry your mistakes 
 force you to make use of such improper means. The 
 Son of God plainly asserted, by implication, that the 
 baptism of John was from heaven; but you endea- 
 vour to convict him of a mistake, and represent him 
 complying with a ceremony, which w^as only appli- 
 cable to the Aaronic priesthood. If you can find no 
 better method than this to support your cause, your 
 church must be composed of old wives and babies; 
 for men of sense and candor Avill forsake you. 
 
 It is my opinion, that Christ's disciples baptized, 
 and John also, before the resurrection of Christ, 
 without using the name of the trinity; and what of 
 that? Was there any difference in the mode of the 
 ordinance? No, by no means: all the difference was, 
 the name of the trinity was superadded. This did 
 not alter the commission in the least. The disciples 
 
14 
 
 baptized before the resurrection, by divine authority: 
 they baptized after the resurrection by the same au- 
 thority, without limitation. " Go ye therefore and 
 teach all nations, baptizing them," &c. I care not 
 whether the verb is rendered teach, or make disci- 
 ples, since none can be made disciples only by teach- 
 ing. For a full investigation of this subject, I would 
 refer you to my pamphlet. Why do you call John's 
 baptism that of repentance? Did not the apostles re- 
 quire faith and repentance after the resurrection, as 
 qualifications for baptism? Acts ii. 38. One was to 
 repent and believe on him that was to come; the 
 Other to repent and believe on him that was come. 
 Your remarks on the baptism of Christ, to say 
 no worse, are impertinent and very unbecoming any 
 man in the character of a teacher. Had not the head 
 of the church a right to leave an example for his 
 disciples in after ages? Was he not possessed of 
 every qualification, and being holy, harmless, and 
 undefiled with human depravity, had no need of re- 
 pentance? Because repentance was required of every 
 natural descendent of Adam, which was a holy qua- 
 lification for this gospel ordinance, shall not he be bap- 
 tized, who is rectitude itself? No just reason can be 
 assigned why he should not. The dignity of his per- 
 son, and the spotless purity of his nature qualified 
 him for every part of his duty in his mediatory ca- 
 pacity. He came down from heaven to do his will, 
 who sent him; and in doing this will, he fulfilled all 
 righteousness. The righteousness was the doing the 
 
15 
 
 Avill of his Father. One part of the will of his Father 
 was that he should be an example to his flock as 
 the great Shepherd of Israel. All you have said will 
 not prevent the baptists from taking the baptism of 
 Chi'ist as an example worthy of their imitation. All 
 your authorities about Jewish baptism are com- 
 pletely refuted by Dr. Gill on that subject. I have 
 the pamphlet; but no man ever presumed to answer 
 it. Every author you have mentioned, and many 
 more, are considered, and the mistakes corrected; 
 and the point is given up by men of the best ac- 
 quaintance with the Jewish writings, as affording no 
 argument that can be depended on. Dr. Gill gives 
 you the exact time, or thereabouts, in which 
 every author lived. And surely Maimonides, who 
 lived in the twelfth century, could know nothing on 
 the subject, only what he collected from the Talmuds 
 and other Jewish writings. And I think it rather 
 lost time to spend much on the subject, whereas the 
 holy scriptures are the only rule of our faith and obe- 
 dience. Isaiah said, " To the law and to the testi- 
 mony, if they speak not according to this word, it is 
 because there is no light in them." 
 
 There is a capital fault in all discussions of pas- 
 dorantists, on the subject of baptism: that is, they 
 try to bewilder the honest readers, who are searching 
 after truth. This is done by finding fault with lexi- 
 cographers, and the translation of the holy scrip- 
 tures, if possible to blind the reader to embrace pee- 
 dorantism. ?>lucb dependence is placed on infer- 
 
16 
 
 ence; but thi. is a very uncertain method of coming 
 at the truth; for a papist draws a very different infer- 
 ence from the same text, to what a protestant would. 
 He can find his text for transubstantiation, and Peter 
 being Christ's vicar; but you would draw a very dif- 
 ferent inference from the same passages. And as for 
 zeal they beat all others; for one of them told me, 
 that if God from heaven would tell him that he was 
 wrong, he would not believe him. 
 
 I have read your sermon. I find it the old story 
 in a different dress. Your criticism on the Greek 
 cannot be justified. I have considered every text, 
 and endeavoured to do justice before God; and I am 
 willing to be examined at the day of judgment for 
 the rectitude of my views. One thing is a common 
 fault in all peedorantists: they dare not fix on any 
 precise meaning of the word /^ot^Tj^w and /3a7rT<(r/>to?. 
 They all veil themselves under different terms: such 
 as w^ash, pour, or sprinkle. Come forward, sir, and 
 fix on any one of these terms, and I will prove that 
 the words do not mean that; but you dare not do 
 it. You are not suited with the translation of £)t and 
 ug. The texts you produce will not bear you out. I 
 will now try your skill in Greek. Produce a passage 
 where the Greek preposition can possibly mean mtOf 
 and try if it must not mean into. Pray, sir, is there 
 any other word in Greek to signify i?itoF Is it not 
 used when we mean into heaven or heii, or any 
 other place? What is this v an quibbling for? I 
 know your design is to try to support your antichris- 
 
17 
 
 tian superstition. But, sir, it will not do; for your 
 cause is foiling, and it must foil, when men thro-v\' 
 aside superstition, received by tradition. 
 
 You say you can never be a baptist.* I believe 
 while your present enmity continues, you cannot; 
 but, sir, your implacable hatred is not greater against 
 the baptists, than Paul's was against the christians; 
 and yet afterw^ards, God made him a christian. The 
 same God can make you a baptist; and except he 
 makes you one, I do not wish you to be one. The 
 reason you assign that you cannot be a baptist, is 
 founded in ignorance of the world. You say " I can 
 never denounce the baptism of the greatest pait of 
 the christian world as false and antichristian." This 
 is a mistake; for the greatest part use immersion even 
 trine immersion. For instance, ail Russia, and all 
 the Greek communion in all places. Armenians, 
 Mmgrelians, Persians, and all to the east, who never 
 submitted to the pope of Rome. Ail these use im- 
 mersion; so that by far the greatest part use immer- 
 sion to this very day; but where the pope's power 
 has prevailed, there, after the first part of the eighth 
 century, rantism has prevailed. For your further sa- 
 tisfaction, read my refutation of Peter Edwards, to 
 which this is an appendix; which will oblige you and 
 all others to take new gi'ound on the subject of bap- 
 tism. 
 
 I come now, sir, to notice your treatment of Mr, 
 Merrii; and I do not think you have used him with 
 
 • Page 97. 
 
 2 c 
 
18 
 
 suitable candor. Mr. Merril appears to me to be an 
 honest christian; and his researches on the subject 
 arose from conscience, and not any acquaintance 
 with the baptist society. I am not sure you are 
 correct in your quotations; but I will take for grant- 
 ed you are; for nothing is meaner tlian to mistake 
 the sentiments of an author. Your view seems to be 
 to correct Mr. Merril's mistakes. The first is his 
 quotation from Schrevilius, who says ^aTrrKry^og is 
 /otio. Very well. But this is not very accurate; for 
 it is not the primary sense of the word; for Schre- 
 vilius renders the primary sense of (iocTrn^co, to be 
 mergo, which all Greek scholars know means to im- 
 merse; and (oacTTTco he renders, intmgo, mergo and lavo 
 as the third meaning. What says Parkhurst on the 
 subject? BaTTri^a from (^xtttco, to dip. Sense first: to 
 dip, immerse or plunge in water; and in his second 
 and third sense, he preserves the meaning to be pri- 
 marily immersion. You say, does not /otio denote 
 washing in any form of applying the water, and even 
 by sprinkling? No, sir, it does not; nor can you 
 prove that lotio or iavo ever is used for sprinkling. 
 Both Greek and Latin have their distinct words for 
 sprinkling. The Latin uses spargo, conspergo and 
 aspergo, for sprinkling, and not lavo. The paido- 
 rantists use a cant on this subject, which cannot be 
 honestly justified, viz. When speaking of washing, 
 they always use the phrase of applying water to the 
 subject, and not the subject to the water. This is 
 
19 
 
 their cunning to baffle the honest reader. It is grant- 
 ed you may wash your hands by pouring water on 
 them; but not by sprinkling them. Our wash-wo- 
 men dip clothes into water in washing them; and 
 after they are washed, they sprinkle them; tliey ne- 
 ver call sprinkling washing. When I wash my 
 hands, I dip them in the water; and I believe Mr. 
 Campbell does so too. 
 
 Your next remark respects John's baptizing di 
 Jordan; which you wish to evade, by saying, " But if 
 we translate the passage thus, were baptized of him 
 at Jordan, what becomes of immersion?" Page 104. 
 But, sir, you cannot justly translate it so, because 
 the Greek preposition gv, when it means a place in 
 which any thing is transacted, always means in. You 
 may read my remarks on this subject in refuting 
 Peter Edwards, who uses the same quibble, and 
 your bubble will be dissolved totall}-. I have read 
 over the evangelist Matthew, and find the word used 
 in it near two hundred times; and in all these places 
 it means in. 
 
 Your next remark is in the same page, viz. 
 " John was baptizmg in Enon, near to Salem, be- 
 cause there was much water there." John iii. 23. 
 You render ttqkka vSa^rot, many streams. Here you 
 discover your deficiency of knowledge, both of his- 
 tory and Greek; for Enon was a large fountain, and 
 had only one stream. The Greeks have not two 
 words, one for much and another for many. Neithef 
 
20 
 
 ife ttoXaoi' v^u}^ ever used by them, when describing 
 much water. They always use the plural. Uohhoe, 
 vi^oiTx, is in the Revelation, i. 15. xiv. 2. xix. 6. 
 Matt. viii. 32. Mark ix. 22. Now, sir, you will 
 find that your knowledge in the Greek language is 
 not quite correct. Crude productions always expose 
 their author. 
 
 Sir, in your review of Mr. Merril's seven ser- 
 mons, page 107, you have mentioned several lexico- 
 graphers; but for what purpose I know not; for they 
 guA'e the primary sense of Qccttti^ui in favour of the 
 baptists. I should have remained totally ignorant of 
 your design in quoting the above mentioned authors, 
 had you not made a display of your superlative 
 knowledge at the bottom of the page, which de- 
 mands a few remarks. Your ignorance mduces you 
 to say, " The truth is that most lexicographers and 
 grammarians, m givbig the meaning of words, have 
 been more influenced by Jewish tradition, and what 
 they saw practised in the church, than by fact, and 
 the truth of things. They have too often confounded 
 its sacred with its common signification, and inter- 
 preted its meaning in the New Testament, by the 
 sense put upon it by Jewish and heathen writers, or 
 by that of the christian fathers, who began too early 
 to corrupt the simplicity of christian baptism by 
 various hurtful additions!" Now, sir, you have the 
 honour to be the first man, who ever insinuated that 
 the Jews and Greeks did not understand their own 
 
21 
 
 languages; the Greeks did not know that /SaTT^rjuoc, 
 meant sprnikhng; poor fools, they thought it meant 
 immersion; and so did the silly Jews; and the chris- 
 tian fathers were just as great fools as they; for they 
 used dipping, and called it baptism. By this jargon, 
 it is acknowledged by the great man, John P. Camp- 
 bell, of Kentucky, that the Jews, Greeks, and the 
 christian fathers, understood baptism to mean im- 
 mersion. The truth is, it would require more igno- 
 rance and impudence, than Mr. Campbell is posses- 
 sed of to deny this. But, sir, you have your salvo 
 on this subject, viz. they confounded its sacred with 
 its common signification. The common significa- 
 tion with Jews and Greeks was immersion; but the 
 sacred meaning was rantism or sprinkling. What, 
 sir, did Christ and his apostles change the meaning 
 of words, from what was meant in the nation? No, 
 sir, you have perverted and changed the meaning, 
 to support the superstition of pasdorantism. 
 
 Did not men in the first, second and third cen- 
 turies understand their own language? Mr. Camp- 
 bell would persuade men they did not. Or did not 
 these poor blunderers know that the common use of 
 words were changed into an exact contrary meaning 
 when used about religion, to what they meant in 
 common conversation? No: they thought religion 
 was never designed to change the meaning of words 
 in a nation. They knew no better than a baptist now. 
 They thought that jSctTrrw and |3i*7rT<f« meant to im- 
 
22 
 
 mersc or dip, and practised accordingly, just as the 
 baptists iiow do. is it not extraordinary that a man 
 in the eighteenth century is possessed of such a su- 
 perlative knowledge, as to inform the world that 
 words have two meanings: one common; the other 
 sacred. And what is as extraordinary, one mean- 
 ing is exactly contrary to the other. L^a-Trri^a meant, 
 by the best linguists in the nation, to dip; but in a 
 sacred sense, it meant to sprinkle. What could be 
 your motive, sir, to publish such nonsense? Could 
 5-0U think, sir, the world was ripe to be so shame- 
 fully imposed or? If you did, sir, you are very 
 much mistaken. Your attempt to deceive must be 
 despised by gentlemen of learning, even of your own 
 denomination. 
 
 The pasdorantists have a cant phrase, often used 
 in vour sermon, which has no foundation in truth or 
 fact. I mean the word Seal, applied for the purpose 
 for which they use it. They say circumcision was 
 the seal of the covenant, &c. By what authority, sir, 
 is this phrase used? None, sir; for the text in Ro- 
 mans will not support it. Rom. iv. 11. Here it is 
 said of Abraham, " He received the sign of circum- 
 cision, a seal of the righteousness of l\\it faith, which 
 he had, yet being uncircumcised." Pray, sir, ob- 
 serye here it is not called the seal of the covenant, 
 but a seal of the righteousness of the faith, which he 
 had before circumcision. Abrahdra was just like a 
 baptist; he beheved unto righteousness, and then was 
 
23 
 
 circumcised. But circumcision is never called a seal 
 of the righteousness of faith to any of his posterity; 
 for surely, sir, a Jewish infant had no more righte- 
 ousness of faith than any other intant; nor was it re- 
 quired. The child was circumcised, because God 
 commanded this national distinction. It is called a 
 token of the covenant, but never a seal to any but 
 Abraham himself. 
 
 Your calling baptism and the Lord's supper, 
 sealing ordinances, is only priestcraft, to deceive 
 your hearers, and in the issue, increase your own 
 salaries. Can you suppose that by your watery 
 hocus pocus, you put a child in a better state than 
 Adam left it in? If so, it cannot be saved by grace; 
 for none can be saved by grace, but such as are lost. 
 Or do you think that by this superstition, you bind 
 God to do, what he otherwise would not do? We 
 ought never to make an ordinance more than what 
 we are authorized by scripture. Baptism is the an- 
 swer of a good conscience, and a sign of our fellow- 
 ship with Christ m his death, burial and resurrection. 
 
 I suppose, sir, your conscience told you, that 
 you had in your sermon used the baptists not 
 quite like a gentleman; therefore you attempt to 
 wheedle them in the end, by professing you love 
 such baptists as Bunyan the dreamer, or Carey the 
 missionary. We understand you, sir: Bunyan is 
 dead, and can do you no harm; and Carey is so far 
 off, that you cannot receive any injury from hrni; 
 
24 
 
 but if he was near, your love would soon be as cold 
 as the frigid zone. You may rest composed on this 
 subject^ for the baptists expect no love from you, 
 while you use such measures to support a part and 
 pillar of popery. Wishing you a better heart and 
 head, I subscribe myself your new correspondent, 
 
 DAVID JONES. 
 John P. Ca^ipbeli.. 
 
 -ierS&tji,<iSI^V' iiiliu.;; 
 
I 
 
t* \>- -^^