'^'/ 
 
 Vl..^^' 
 
 
 ^r'^ 7f. 
 
 // 7 ■• - 
 
 ^♦^^^•3^^^*^ 
 
 ItIIEOLOGICzVL SEMINARY. I 
 
 princelon, N. J- 
 
 « 
 
 Divisjon ,. y 
 
 I 
 
 © 
 
 Sec 
 
 N*. 
 
 
 S'CC 
 
 \/. z. 
 
\ 
 
Antipcedobaptifm Examined : 
 
 o s, 
 
 A STRICT AND IMPARTIAL 
 
 I N Q^ U I R Y 
 
 I N T O T H K 
 
 NATURE, AND DESIGN, SUBJEC TS, and MODE 
 
 o r 
 
 BAPTISM. 
 
 INCLUDING, ALSO 
 
 An INVESTIGATION or the NATURE or 
 
 POSITIVE INSTITUTIONS 
 
 IN GENERAL, AND 
 
 OCCASIONAL STRICTURES on HUMAN 
 
 CEREMONIES in MATTERS of RELIGION. 
 
 Containing, in particular, 
 A FULL REPLY to 
 
 Mr. BooTH^s Poedobaptifm Examined. 
 
 By EDWARD WILLIAMS. 
 
 When i had waited — i said, i will answer also my 
 
 PART, I ALSO WILL SHEW MINE OPINION. ELIHU. 
 
 VOL. XL 
 
 SHREWSBURY: 
 
 Printed and sold by J. and W. Eddowes : 
 
 Sold also by T. Longman and J. Buckland, Pater. 
 
 koster-row, C. Dilly, in the Poultry, London j 
 
 AND W, Browne, Bristol. 
 
 MDCCLXXXIX, 
 
ANTIPiEDOBAPTISM 
 
 EXAMINED. 
 
 C H A P. IV, 
 
 Concerning the fignificatlon of the terms 
 BAPTIZE, and BAPTISM ; wherein is 
 particularly fhewn, that at leaft when 
 ceremonially or facramentally ufed, they 
 are generic terms, comprehending dif- 
 ferent fpecific modes of purification and 
 cleanfing* 
 
 § I. Of the point In quejllon, §'2— 10. That 
 ihefe words are generic lerms^ and not con- 
 fijied to the fpecific mode of dippings appears (I. ) 
 From a comparative view of their different ren^ 
 deringSy and an invejiigation of their primary 
 meaning* § 11 — 22. (II.) From a view of 
 fome of ihofe pajfages where the terms refer tt 
 other modes rather than that of dipping, § 23 
 — • 29. ( III. ) From the verdiSi of eminent au^ •V 
 ihors* § 30 — 42, (IV.) From the conceffwns 
 of opponents, § 43. Corollaries. ( i ) The mode 
 variable, § 44. ( 2 ) The practice of the 
 Greek Church of no importance, as the mode is 
 free. § 45. (3) The prifnitive cufiom^ ivere -j- 
 it invariable, would not fupport the essentia- 
 lity of dipping, § 4O. (4) That tho' the 
 
 Vol. II. B Defign 
 
2 Of the Signification of the Cli. 4. 
 
 Defign of baptlfm were more fully expreJJ'ed by 
 "^ immerfon^ than by pouring or fprlnkUng^ yet 
 would not immerfton be proved efjential^ nor any 
 way fervlceable to the caufe of our opponents, 
 § 47'— 49. 'The fuppofed reafonsy rife and pro- 
 grefs of pouring or fprlnkllng^ injlead of iminer- 
 fion — retorted, 
 
 § I. npHE prefent queftion is not, whether 
 X the terms baptise and baptlfn^ when 
 they occur in profane writers, moft commonly 
 fignify to Immerfe and immerfion\ but whether 
 thefe terms, when they occur in the New Tef- 
 tament, convey the idea of immerfion exclufively ; 
 or, whether thefe a6tions are effentlally included 
 in the terms, when ufed in a ceremonial and 
 facramental fenfe ? 
 
 Again: The queftion is not, which of fe- 
 veral modes is the mofi eligible \ but whether 
 any mode whatever, befides immerfion, is valld\ 
 and in fhort, whether the terms baptizing and 
 plunging are fynonymous^ in reference to th'e 
 baptifmal ordinance ?— We have therefore no 
 immediate controverfy with our brethren, the 
 Baptifls, about their preferring plunging to fprink- 
 jing or any other mode of ufing water. Our 
 principle, the confirmation of which I am now 
 engaged in, makes no diredl attack upon the 
 pra^ice of the Baptifts, however univerfal, any 
 more than on the rubrick of the church of 
 England, or the cuflom of the Greek church; 
 but upon that fcntiment which maintains, that 
 the prevailing pradlice of their opponents in 
 
 pouring 
 
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Baptif?n, 3 
 
 pouring or fprinkling water on the fubje6l, is a 
 mere nullity. Were their attack upon us about 
 a pra6tice which they think is lefs proper than 
 their own, yet not invalid and null^ the ftate 
 of the controverfy would be eflfentially ahered. 
 Confequently, our oppofers' appeal to the cu/iom 
 of any churches ancient or modern, as uling 
 immerlion, in favour of their practice, is not 
 to the queftion. To anfwer their purpofe, thefe 
 ought to be brought tedifying, that dipping is 
 ejfential to the ordinance, The Baptifts won't 
 allow that there is the leaft affinity between 
 baptizing and fprinkling ; nay, that fprinkling, 
 pouring, and all fuch modes of applying water 
 to the fubjedi:, are diametrically oppofite to bap- 
 tifm : fo that neither by a fynecdoche, an allow- 
 able catechrefis, or any other figure of fpeech, 
 according to them, can fprinkling, &c. be cal- 
 led baptifm. But if we appeal to the language 
 and conceffions of thofe very perfons and 
 churches who are fummoned to witnefs againfl 
 us, and particularly the ancients, on this juft 
 and proper ftate of the queftion, we ftiall find 
 them unanimous in their decifions againjl our 
 brethren. For they call baptifm by many names 
 that have no relation at all to the adion of 
 dipping any more than fprinkling; fuch as, the 
 grace^ the gift^ regeneration^ illumination^ abfolution^ 
 the unSiion^ falvation^ the myjlerious facrament^ the 
 feal^ the mark of the Lordy tin^iony /aver of rege- 
 neration^ the great circumcifiony the initiation^ con^ 
 fecration^ confummationy the facred fymbol^ ^c, ^c* 
 
 B 2 We 
 
 • See Bingham's Antiquities of the Chriftian Church, B. xi. ch. i* 
 
4 Of the Slgmfication of the Ch. 4. 
 
 ,We are as much againft confining the term Bcfm^^u 
 to either or both of the fpecific anions of 
 fprinkling or pouring as to that of dipping. 
 
 When therefore Mr. B. exprefles himfelf in 
 the following language, what does he better than 
 yield the caufe ? " N. B. To obviate miftakes, 
 « the reader is defired to obferve, that many of 
 « the following quotations are to be confidered 
 « as conceflions, made by thefe learned authors j 
 " fio inconftderable part of them asserting, not- 
 « withftanding what they here fay, that the word 
 « baptifm fignifies pouring and fprinkling as 
 <* WELL AS immerfionf." And again: " N. B* 
 « Candour demands we (hould here acknow- 
 *' ledge, tliat tho' thefe numerous and learned 
 *< authors have expreiled themfelv^s in the fol- 
 «' lowing manner ; yet many of them inftji upon 
 « it, as highly probable, that the apoftles did 
 « fometimes adminifter baptifm by pouring or 
 ti fprinkling %,'' How many^ Mr. B. does not in- 
 form us. But his quoting any^ who fprinkle the 
 fubjed and pronounce him baptized^ can anfwer 
 no other purpofe than to amufe and dazzle 
 " the eye of a fuperficial obferver." When our 
 opponents, then, " produce inftances, where 
 ^a7/l.?c. fignifies to dip^ they take pains to prove, 
 I what we never denied ; viz. that dipping is not 
 ' excluded from the fignification of the original 
 word; and many voluminous treatifes they have 
 thrown away upon this needlefs fubjeft. But, 
 if they intend that their reafoning (hould 
 
 amount 
 
 •^ Padob, Eiam, p. 16. % Ibid, p. 78. 
 
Cb. 4. Terms Baptize and Bapti/m, 5 
 
 amount to conclufive argument, and that their 
 fentiment (hould keep pace with their avowed 
 pradice, they ought to prove, that the contro- 
 verted word fignifies to dip only ; and by a 
 total immerfion : that the facrament is invalidated 
 by every other mode of applying the baptifmal 
 water— and that the authors, they produce as 
 countenancing their ^ fentiments, never acknov/- 
 ledge, that other modes of facramental walhing, 
 are equally valid with that of dipping. Till 
 they prove thefe particulars, they prove no- 
 thing*." 
 
 In one of his reunions on the fignification 
 of the terms baptize and bapti/m^ Mr. B. fays : 
 " By the numerous quotations here produced 
 from learned Poedobaptifts, we are plainly taught. 
 That immerfion, plunging, or dipping, is the 
 radical J primary^ and proper meaning of the word 
 haptlfm, — Such is the purport of what the moft 
 learned Poedobaptifts acknowledge and aflert, con- 
 cerning the word in difpute; which, whether it 
 be in favour of our [the plunging] practice, I 
 leave the reader to judge f" One of his readers, 
 at leaft, judges, that what he has produced 
 from Pcedobaptift writers as conceflions, " no 
 more regard the leading point in difpute than— • 
 ( I was going to fay ) the firft verfe of the firft 
 book of Chronicles, Adam, Sheth, EnofnP' 
 For the immediate queftion is not, What is the 
 " radical^ primary^ and proper meaning of the word 
 bapti/my" . in a philological or etymological fenfe ; 
 
 B 3 but 
 
 * Mr. Djc Courcy's Rejoind. p. 143. f Pa^ob. Exam, p. 30, 3J. 
 
 'J^ 
 
6 Of ike Signification of the Ch. 4. 
 
 but, Whether the legal, the ceremonial^ ox facra- 
 mental fenfe of the word excludes, abfolutely ex^ 
 eludes^ every other idea but immerfion ? No con- 
 celTion (hort of this is of any real fervice to our 
 opponents' caufe. If it be faid, that fuch con- 
 ceffions favour their " praclice,'' let the unwary 
 know, that this is only fubftituting a mean 
 fcphifm in the room of folid argument. For if 
 they only prefer^ for reafons that appear to them 
 conclufive, their plunging to our pouring or 
 fprinkling, they are cordially welcome to adhere 
 to that praftice, as the Greek church does j 
 but let them not uncharitably condemn and 
 nullify the baptifmal pradice of all Chriftendorn 
 befides. I fay, they are cordially welco7m\ for 
 tho' no human ait, as formerly obferved, in its 
 particular and fmgular nature, fecundum indivi^ 
 duim^ terminating in a6tual exigence, and at- 
 tended with all its circumftances, can be morally 
 indifferent ; yet it may be fo fecundum fpeciem : 
 therefore we regard the queftion, Which mode 
 s of adminiftering the ordinance fhall I adopt, that 
 I of plunging or that of fprinkling, fecundum fpe- 
 ciem^ INDIFFERENT. If, then, by " our prac^ 
 tice" Mr. B. means that he and his brethren 
 adminifter by plunging, from mere preference^ 
 without nullifying the ordinance when any other 
 mode of ufmg water is adopted ; his numerous 
 quotations are nothing better than vain parade, 
 that does not at all affea the essentiality 
 of dippings which, and which aione, is the point 
 
 in 
 
 # 
 
Ch. 4' T^rms Baptize and Baptifm, 7 
 
 in conteft*. But if by " our praSflce" be 
 intended, the plunging of thofe perfons, who had 
 been before fprinkled in the name of the facred 
 Trinity, under pretence that the latter was no 
 haptifm ; the fophiftical infinuation, that " this 
 practice" is countenanced by the venerable lift 
 of Pcedobaptifts which he quotes, deferves a fe- 
 vere reprehenlion ; as it has no foundation in 
 TRUTH, — as it tends to impeach, not only the 
 confiflency, but the chriflian lincerity of thefe 
 eminent charaders, — and as it tends to miilead 
 the incautious reader. I confefs that fuch a 
 condu6l appears to me no lefs difingenuous and 
 unreafonable, than that of a perfon, who, at 
 any rate to gain his point, Ihoukl rummage a 
 great number of epifcopalian writers in fearch of 
 CQncefJio7is^ importing that " the radical, primary, 
 and proper meaning" of the word prayer, fa- 
 vours the extemporaneous mode of praying 5 and , 
 thence inferring, that this extemporaneous mode \ 
 is ejfential to all acceptable prayer, — that he JL. 
 who reads a form, however devout his difpofi- '> 
 tion, and however earneft his fupplications, does 
 not pray \ — and then fhould appeal to fifty or 
 fixty authors, in vindication of his ill-grounded 
 dogma^ that he who reads a prayer can't be faid 
 to pray^ as if all thofe authors were on his 
 fide. 
 
 B 4 § 2. What 
 
 • " If Anabaptifts were content with maintaining their particular I 
 " modef only as the favorite badge of their party, without infift-- -V 
 " ing on it as the ejfence of the facrament; our controverfy / 
 "would be inftantaneoufly at an end." Mr, Ds Courc y '3 Rs* 
 joind, p. J26. 
 
S Of the S'lgnificathn of the. Ch. 4, 
 
 § 2. What' I afTert, and intend to demon- 
 ftate, is, that ^ocrfu^nv and ^<x,7rlia-{j.og are not fyno- 
 nymous with to plunge and plunging j but are 
 GENERIC TERMS, not Confined to the fpecific 
 mode of dipping ; and therefore that they include 
 other modes of purification, as by pouring, fprink- 
 ling, &c. But previous to the dire£l proof of 
 this pofition let the following things be noted 
 as pojiulata, 
 
 1. That the biblical fenfe alone of thefe 
 terms fhould ultimately decide in the prefent 
 controverfy. 
 
 2. That it is by no means neceffary that ' 
 this biblical fenfe fhouid be the fame as the 
 clajfical^ or that which is commonly found in 
 profane authors* ; as might be inftanced in many 
 other fcripture terms. 
 
 3. That it is not neceffary (as before ob- 
 ferved concerning /xaS»j1eyw ) that the primary phi^ 
 hlogical or etymological fenfe of thefe terms (hould 
 
 be 
 
 ♦ ** Nothing is more common, than for the fame worJs, in the 
 •« mouths of different nations, to have dtfe rent fignijications^ In this 
 «* cafe to confult your diElionary would be a certain means to put 
 « you wrong as to the literal fenfe of an author. — It often happens 
 ♦« that one author ufes a word yi a different fenfe from that of 
 *' another — the facred writers of the New Teftament forming 
 *' their fiyk upon the Hebrew and Septuagint Ferjiotty often give 
 " a particular meaning to the Crreek words. If therefore we were 
 *< to render fuch words by their mofi ufuai fjgnification, we fhould 
 ** indeed render them according to the letter ^ but at the fame 
 «' time ihould be far from exprcffing the ideas annexed to them 
 <* by the author." Bbausobre and L'ENJ•A^'T's introduaioa 
 to the reading of the Holy bcriptures. ap. Bp. Watson's 
 CoUca. of Theol. Trafts. Vol. iii. p, 103, 
 
 wm * I m m^ 
 
Ch. 4, Terms Baptize and Baptt/m. q 
 
 be the legal one ; as the remark, refpeding other 
 terms, may be made abundantly evident from 
 the laws of God and men. 
 
 4. That, therefore, that bids faireft to be 
 the facramental fenfe, or legiflative force of 
 theie terms, which moft unexceptionably agrees 
 with all thofe paflages in the New Teftament 
 where thefe words are found. 
 
 Accordingly, in proof of our general po- 
 fition, we appeal , 
 
 § 3. ( I. ) To a comparative view of different 
 renderings of ail thofe paiTages in the New Tef- 
 tament where the words in queftion occur. A 
 partial fpecimen of this method of inveftigatioa 
 we are furnifhed with by (Vlr. B. himfelf, where 
 he obferv^s : " While our brethren maintain, 
 that the term haptlfm^ when relating to the in- 
 ftitution fo called, means any thing fhort of 
 immerjion ; it behoves them to inform us, which 
 of our Englifh words is competent to exprefs 
 its adequate idea. Is it ixiajhing ? If fo, we may 
 confider that word as a proper tranllation of 
 it, and a complete fubftitute for it, wherever 
 the ordinance before us is mentioned by the 
 facred writers. Let us make the experiment 
 on Ti few paiTages. — Is it pouring? Is it fpr ink- 
 lings &c. *? " Let us improve the hint, and 
 purfue the plan. But firft obferve, that we do 
 not confider any Englifh word as a " proper tranf- 
 lation of thefe Greek terms, or a ccfnpkte fub« 
 
 B 5 iiitut* 
 
 * P«dob, £xam« ?• 36, 57, 
 
fw- 
 
 10 Of the SignificaUon of the Ch. 4, 
 
 ftitute" for them, tho' our opponents do. And 
 yet, with this difadvantage, I am inclined to 
 believe, they will have no great caufe to tri- 
 umph. But what Englifli term (hall we adopt? 
 Shall it be either of thofe already mentioned by 
 Mr. B.? Nay, thefe I would as much obje£l to 
 as himfelf, nearly; for the obvious reafon, that 
 they are fpecific terms, the one excluding the 
 other, contrary to the general thefis. If we 
 adopt either of thefe, the inconvenience will 
 foon appear; and we fuppofe a fimilar inconve- 
 nience will arife from adopting the Englifh 
 term plunging^ and for a like reafon. I infift, 
 then, that a generic term, fuch as purification^ 
 ;>( dedication^ cmfecration^ feparation^ initiation^ or the 
 like, comes nearer the facramental fenfe of hap- 
 tifm^ than iminerfton. Let us try the experiment 
 with the words purify and purification, 
 for want of fome flill nearer to the import of 
 the expreflive original. 
 
 Matt. iii. 6, 7. And were purified 
 (plunged) of him (ev) in (or, at) Jordan §. — 
 
 When 
 
 § To be baptized, that is purified, in Jordan (leaving the 
 mode of purifying out of the queftion ) j proves no more than they 
 were in the channel, or between the banks of the river; for 
 thus the apoftle Paul fays; '* And were all baptized [purified, 
 initiated] unto Mofes — «v T>j GaAa^-crrj, in the fea,''* i Cor. 
 3t. 2i that is, in the dry channel of the fea. And of the fame 
 it is faid ; ** The children of Ifrael went lU f^i^ov t*j? ^ocXotcra-rji 
 (Sept.) INTO the midji ef the fea\ that is of the channel. — And, 
 indeed, to call the channel of the waters, or the whole cavity 
 between the two banks of a river, metonymicalJy the rivers is 
 pcifeftly conformable to the common modes of fpeech. So that 
 
 the 
 
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Bapiijm, 1 1 
 
 When he faw many — come to his purifica- 
 tion (plunging ) he faid unto them, v, 11. I 
 PURIFY (plunge) you witli water — but he fhall 
 PURIFY (plunge) you with the Holy Ghoft 
 
 B 6 and 
 
 the queftion remains injiatu quo, as to any decifive froof deduced 
 from the phrafes into and in the river. Nor does it appear to 
 me fo probable (caet. par.) that fuch a fituation was appointed or 
 preferred on account of the a^ of dipping, as that it was fub- 
 fervient to other important purpofes. For if, as we are told, pri- 
 vate batbi were numerous in that country j and if fuch numbers 
 were fo well afFe£led to John as to be immerftd by himj it is 
 manifefl: he could be at no lofs for baptijicries, Befides, if the 
 confeiTion of fins, and profeflion of repentance, were perfonaly as 
 our oppofeis infinuate, how much more commodious muft have 
 been thofe retired baths ^ Not to fay, that the much iifater of 
 Jordan or Enon appears as unnecejfary for immerfion, in Judea,, 
 as the much water of the Thames, in London. Or if it muft 
 be in a more open fituation, the little ivater of any running 
 brook might be made, in a few hours, as convenient for im- 
 n-.erfion as any part of Jordan, Therefore netejfity here muft be 
 difcardcd. But if we confider John's baptifm as a general pu- 
 rification of the Jews, as a prelude to the Mefliah's appearance j 
 and if we confider the vaji multitudei that reforted to him on 
 that occafion } the eligtbknefs of the fituation, nay, the neccjfity of 
 a large current of \vater, '\% manifeft. Such a place, then, as 
 the verge of Jordan or Enon, on the principles I maintain — that 
 is, when we join the- ideas of a general and national confeflion 
 of fin, and purification or ceremonial fanftification thereupon, and. 
 the great concourfe of people whofe refrclhment and comfort were 
 confulted (not to mention the watering of their beafts, on which 
 probably many of them rode) — was not only expedient tut 
 highly necejfary j whereas on the contrafted hypothefis of our 
 opponents, who fuppofa none were baptized by John but fuch as 
 he deemed penitent and pious, from their perfonal converfe with 
 him* fuch a fituation appears totally unneceJJ'ary, In the on cafe 
 we can difcover either the prudence of John in chocfing, or the 
 wifdom and goodncfs of God in appointing, thofe fituations j but 
 in the other cafe, whether titter is difcoverable, let the. impartial- 
 judge.. 
 
12 Of the Signification of the Ch. 4. 
 
 and with firef. v, 13—16. Then cometh 
 
 Jefus 
 
 •f- In Mai, iii. i. We have a prophecy of John the Bap- 
 ^ftj •* Behold, I will fend my MefTenger, and he fhall prepare 
 tht way before me," Then (ver. 2.) of Chrift it is faid j ** He 
 is like a refiner's JirCf and like fuller's fope/* And then (ver. 
 3.) it is added J ** He fhall fit as a refiner and purifier of fil- 
 ver : and he fliall purify the fons of Levi j and purge them aS 
 gold and filver.*' In perfeft conformity to this prophetic paf- 
 fage, and, it fhould feem, with a defigned and direft reference to 
 k, (fee Mark i. 2 — 4,) that very meffenger fays of his Lord whofe 
 way he was preparing — ** He fhall baptize [i.e. PURirvjyou 
 with (iv, in, by, or by means of) fire. Hence we may gather 
 that John's primary idea under the word baptize was not to plunge 
 bnt to PURIFY. But fhould it be faid, that the gold or filver in 
 a ciucible is immerf?^ in the iire in order to be purified, it is 
 nothing to the prefent point, except it be a giving of it up. 
 For if to purify be the primary idea, to plunge mufl be only a 
 fecondary one, but no way ejfential; and if in any cafe necejjaryp 
 it is fo by accident* And therefore to plunge and to baptize are 
 Jiot fynonymoui, which is the point in difpute. Again : tho' pu- 
 rification may be performed by plunging, yet they are far from 
 being fynonymous j elfe we may fay — that the phrafes ** npuri^ 
 fier of filver," and ** he fhall purify the fons of Levi," may be 
 equally read, " di plunger of filver!" and "he ihzW plunge the fons 
 of Levi !'* And let it be remembered, that as our Lord is likened 
 to f)pe as well as to fire in his operation j fo to cleanfe by means 
 cf fope, and to purify by means of fre, are different reprefenta- 
 tions of the fame thing. Therefore, as the term baptize is made 
 fynonymous with purify, by John j by the fame rule we are 
 taught to regard baptize as fynonymous with cleanfe^ in this con« 
 ne£lion. And, as it would be ridiculous to denominate a refinev 
 or purifier of filver, " a plunger or dipper of filver j" I fuppofe 
 it would not be much lefs fo, to call one who cleanfei by means 
 of fope, or (according to Malachi, in the pafTage jufl referred to) 
 a fuller, ** a plunger or dipper in fope!" Which^ if I miflake 
 not, clearly fhews, that tho' the refiner or fuller may employ the 
 ipecific aft ion of dipping to effeft the end propofed, yet thij 
 aftfon, properly fpeaking, is only a mode of effefting the primary 
 ■^ign. To thefe remarks we may not improperly add what the 
 
 iearuei 
 
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Baptlfm, 13 
 
 Jefus— to be purified* (plunged) of him. — I 
 have need to be purified (plunged) of thee, 
 i — Jefus when he was purified (plunged) went 
 up ftraightway. Chap. xx. 22, 23. Are ye 
 
 able 
 
 learned Dr. John Owen faysj viz, that 0x<7rli^u " no •where 
 ** l^gnifies to dip, but as denoting a mode of, and in order ta 
 ** WASHING [or cleansing]} and that it fignifies to w^ [or 
 ** cleanfe'] in all good authors," See Dr Owen's Complete Col- 
 leftion of Sermons, p. 580, 581. And Dr. Ridgele y's Body 
 of Divinity, Vol. ii. p. 416, 
 
 ♦ It has been fhewn before, that John's Baptlfm was one of 
 the Jewifli purifications j (fee chap, iii, § 37. and chap. ii. § 12.) 
 but here it may be afked. How can the idea 0^ purification be 
 applied to Chrift? I anfwer — With the fame propriety as to any 
 other Hebrew. For, as it would be no degradation of his moral 
 and divine character to fuppofe him capable of ceremonial impu- 
 xities as well as any other Jew, fuch as followed the touch of a 
 corps, a bone, &c. (fee Numb, xix.)j fo it would be no im- 
 propriety to allow, that he might be purified. And, indeed^ 
 feeing he condefcended to inhabit a polluted world, and became a 
 Phyfician to publicans and linners, embracing all proper opportunities 
 for promoting the corporal as well as the fpiritual welfare of the 
 children of men ; what itnit more natural can we aflign to his- 
 baptlfm, than that of 2i general purification? He became fubjeft to 
 the ceremonial as well as the moral law, as appears from his 
 eircumcifion and other confideratlons j but fince it does not appear 
 probable that he did on the one hand fcrupuloufly attend to the 
 purifying pofitive rites which were ** made for man," fo on the 
 other hand> when he fays, ** Thus it behoveth us to fulfil all 
 righteoufnefs/* it is highly probable that he, as the Lard of cere- 
 monieSf (as well as of the Sabbath,) fhould appoint and fubmit to- 
 one baptifm, as a general Jubfiitute for all ceremonial purifications. 
 Thus a cumberfome yoke was taken away and only an eafy one- 
 appointed which might anfwer every purpofe, as fuited to the 
 more fimple yet foblime genius of the Mefliah's kingdom. To 
 which we may add, tliat the idea of Jeparation or dedication to 
 God, may be alfo conveyed here by the term baptixedy as well, 
 as that of puri&catioo^^ aiid indeed ceiemoi^ial purification does it- 
 
 f«lf 
 
t 
 
 J A Of the Signification of the Ch. 4. 
 
 able to-be purified* with the purification ~ 
 that I am purified {plunged with iht plunging 
 that I am plunged) with? -Ye (hall indeed— 
 be purified with the purification that I 
 am purified [plunged with the plunging I am 
 plunged) with. Chap. xxi. 25. The purifica- 
 tion (plunging) of John whence was it ? Chap, 
 xxviii. 19. Go ye therefore and teach all nations 
 purifying^ (plt^nging) them. 
 
 Mark i. 4, 5- John did purify (plunge) 
 in the wildernefs, and preached the purifica- 
 TioN (plunging) of repentance. — And were all 
 purified (plunged) of him(") in [or at] the 
 
 river of Jordan. — 'z;. 8, 9- ^ '^"^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^" 
 RIFIED (plunged) you with water; but he (hall 
 purify (plunge) you with the Holy Ghoft. 
 And was purified (plunged) of John (e»?§) 
 
 in 
 
 fcif imply a (cparatlon from any relative impurity, for entering 
 into a clofer and more fpecial degree of relative holinefs : which 
 ▼cry well agrees with our Lord's entrance on his public minif- 
 try, immediately after hii baptifm, 
 
 • HcBi feems to be implied the idti of initiation as of pro- 
 fclytes, as alfo the ftcondary idea of being tried, or put to the 
 proof, attending fomc kinds of purification, as of metals by the fire, 
 doth by the fulling mill, &c. See Job xxiii. 10, Pfa. xii. 6. 
 IxTi. 10, II. Zech. xiii. 9. and efpccially Dan. xii. 10. i Pet, i. 
 6 7. Prov. xvij. 3. ** In nomine ^<:/>///w/ ratio metaphorjE apte 
 ** conftat. Scimus cnim baptifmo ad fui abnegationem, ad ve- 
 *« terem nominem crucifigendum, dcniquc ad crucis tolerantiam 
 *' initiari fidcles." Calt. in loc, 
 
 t Separaiing them from the world, dedicating them to me, 
 and initiating them into my church, by the purification of 
 
 water. 
 
 ^ For t*, by an eoallagc; as Matt, ii. 23. He dwelt 
 
Ch. 4. Ter?tis Baptize and Baptlfm. 15 
 
 in [or atl Jordan. Chap. vii. 4, And when 
 they come* from the market, except they puri- 
 fy (plunge) they eat not.— The purifying ( 
 (plunging) of cups and pots, of brazen velTels 
 and tables. Chap. xi. 30. The purification 
 (plunging) of John, was it from heaven ? Chap, 
 xvi. 16. — He that beheveth and is purifiedjI 
 (plunged) (hall be faved. 
 
 LuKE iii. 3. — Preaching the purification 
 (plunging) of repentance^, v, 7. Then faid he 
 to the multitude that came forth to be puri- 
 fied (plunged) of him. v, 12. Then came alfo 
 
 publicans 
 
 tlq TToXiv in (or at) a city called Nazareth, Mark ii. i. Tha^ 
 he was iU oIkov, in the boufe, Ai£ls iv. 5, (Gr.) il<; U^aaccXYt^^ 
 at (or in) Jerufalcm, Matt, xii. 41. They repented lU y.vjfvyfxoi, 
 at (or, Tvitbf by means ofy in 'virtue of) the preaching of Jonas. 
 John ix. 7. Go, wafh il<; }toXvfjL^if]Qfa,Vt in (or, at the brink of) 
 the pool of Siloam, In reference to this laft inftance, the follow- 
 ing words from an acute and mafterly writer deferve infertion: 
 *' To infer always a plunging of the whole body in water, becaufe 
 ** the word in for £»?J occurs in the narrative, would in many 
 ** inftances be equally falfe as abfurd. For inftance j our Lord 
 ** commands the young man born blind to wafh in the pool of 
 ** Siloam,' — But that his whole body was not immerfed in it >8 
 «* plain J becaufe only his eyes were aftefted, and only this part was 
 ** to have been wafhedj in doing which there was no immerfion 
 «* at all." Mr, Dz CouRcy's Rejoind. p. 232. 
 
 J Ceremonial cleanjingy which was effefted by various modti^ as 
 pouring, fprinkling, rinfing, bathings or any kind of ivajhing, 
 
 Jl Devoted to me, 
 
 ^ Which led to, and laid the fubjefts under ftrong obligations 
 of repentance and the fruits of righteoufnefs j and as a ground of 
 encouragement and motive thereto, the remifTion of fin, and the 
 bleflings of the Meffiah's kingdom were conftantly exhibited. 
 
,5 Of the Slgmfication of the Ch. 4. 
 
 publicans to be PURIFIED (plunged). ^.16 I 
 
 ;",tlhe l^all PURIFY (plunge) you with tne 
 HolyGhoft and with fire {.c. ^v^.). v, 21, 
 r2 Now when all the people were purified 
 T.'luLd) it came to pafs that Jefus r.fo being 
 tZ^'L* (Plunged) and prayin, the h^ven 
 was opened, and the Holy Gnoft defcended la 
 . bod-ay (hape. Chap. vii. 29, 30. All the peo- 
 pie-being purified with the purification 
 (plunged with the plunging) of John. But the 
 Pharifees and Lawyers rejeaed the counlel of 
 God againft themfdves, being not purified 
 (plunged) of him. Chap. xi. 38. And when , 
 the Pharifee faw it, he marvelled that he had 
 not firft purified t (plunged) before dmner. 
 Chap. xii. 50. But I have a purification 
 to be PURIFIED t (plunging to h^ plunged) with. 
 Chap. XX. 4. The purification (plunging) of 
 
 John. 
 
 John i. 25,26. Why purifiest|| (plungeji) 
 thou then?— I purify (plunge) with water. 
 V. 28. Thefe things were done— where John 
 
 was 
 
 • Including, rrobably, his being explicitly initiated into his public 
 iriniftry, warfare, and bloody trials. « Chriftus vero ad proedi- 
 candum evangcli^^m fe jccingcns, tarn baptifmo iniiiatui eft in mu- 
 nus fiitim, quam fpiritu banfto inftruftus,'* Calv. in loc, 
 
 + Wajhtd bit hands, (Mark vii. 2^ 3.) as a mode of ceremonial 
 ileanfng .-mong the Jews. 
 
 X Intirnating alfo that he was to be fevercly tried and afBi£led> 
 as befdte obfcived, 
 
 I Why doft thou Jtt a^art the people, to a higher degree of 
 
 relative 
 
Ch. 4. Terms Baptixe and Bap'ifm, 17 
 
 was PURIFYING (plunging), V. 31. — That he 
 fhould be made manifeft to Ifrael, therefore am 
 I come PURIFYING (plunging) with water. 
 V, 23' He that fent me to purify (plunge) 
 with water— the fame is he which purifieth 
 (plungeth) with the Holy Ghoit. Chap. iii. 22, 
 23. After thefe things came Jefus — and puri- 
 fied (plunged). And John alfo was purify- 
 ing (plunging) m [or ai^ Enon. — ^And they 
 came and were purified (plunged), v, 26. Be- 
 hold the fame purifieth (plungeth) and all 
 men come to him. Chap. iv. i, 2. — That 
 Jefus made and purified (plunged) more di- 
 iciples than John (tho* Jefus himfelf purified 
 (plunged) not, but his difciples. Chap. x. 40^ 
 Where John at firft purified (plunged)^ 
 
 § 4, ACT5 
 
 relative holinefs than ufual, by this purification cf water, ** if tho« 
 be not that Chrift V The Pharifees lock it for granted that fo 
 general a purifying and fanftifying of the people, was a ijgnal of 
 fome great approaching change among them, and what might be 
 •well e^pfeiled at the coming of the Mefliah j nay, they feem to 
 take it ftrange that any fhould undertake the work but the Mef- 
 fiah. Now \i plunging was the mode of Johsi's purifying rite, is 
 it probable that thefe Pharifees, fond as they were of ceremonies, 
 and addidled as they were to baptijmi in particular, fliould afliga 
 to fuch a Mefliah as they expe£ted — tha arduous taHc of i<lunging 
 the inhabitants of Jerufalem, of all Judea, and of all the regions 
 round about Jordan ? To fuppofe that even the Pharifees, who could 
 occafionally fwallow a camel, conne£led fuch an amphibious idea 
 with the fplendid regal character of the cxpe£leJ Dtliverer, is litcls 
 fhort of fuppofing them to have been as deftitute of commoa 
 fenfe, as they were of real godlinef&. And even independent of 
 fuch a ftrange fuppofed coalition of ideas, " How — one adminif- 
 " trator could plunge head-ovcr-ears fuch \n immenfe and pro- 
 
 " mifcuoua 
 
2 8 Of the Sign'ification of the Ch. 4. 
 
 § 4. Acts i. 5. For John truly purified 
 (plunged) with water {v^o!]i) ; but ye fhall be pu- 
 rified* (plunged) (iv) with [or hyl the Holy 
 Ghoft not many days hence, v,. 22. Beginning 
 from the purification (plunging) of John. 
 Chap. ii. 38. Then Peter faid unto them, Re- 
 pent and be pURiriEDf (plunged) every one of 
 you. V. 41. Then they that.- gladly received his 
 word were purified (plunged). Chap. viii. 12, 
 13. — They were purified (plunged) both men 
 and women (comp. Jofliua viii. 25, 26.) Then 
 Simon himfelf believed alfo ; and when he was 
 purified (plunged) he continued with Philip.' 
 V, 16. For as yet he [the Holy Ghoft] was 
 fallen uponX none of them; only they were pu- 
 rified (plunged) m the name ot the Lord Jefus. 
 V. 36. And the Eunuch faid, See, here is 
 water; what doth hinder me to be purified || 
 (phmged)}—v. 38. And they went down both 
 into (».'? ad^ vel /«, to, or towards ** ) the water, 
 
 both 
 
 •' mifcuous multitude — will ctct, to candour and common fenfe, 
 ** appear either as abfolute miracle or romance," Mr, Di Courcy's 
 Rejoind. p. 235. 
 
 • Separated and fet apart for higher and fpecial fervice, by the 
 imparted influence of the Holy Spirit, 
 
 •\ Devoted to Chrift, and initiated into his church. 
 
 J i. e. had baptis^edf Afts xi, 15, 16, 
 
 j) Dedicated to the Son of God, and initiated into his vifiblc 
 chuich. 
 
 •* ** "Zl^ •— generally marks the motion toivardi fome term or 
 
 «' objeft to which the thing tends as towards its end." Mef- 
 
 feun De Port Royal's Primitives of the Greek Tongue, by 
 
 Nugent 
 
Ch. 4. Therms Baptize and Baptifm, 19 
 
 both Philip and the Eunuch, and he purified 
 {plunged) him. Cliap. ix. 18. And he received 
 fight forthwith, and arofe and was purified 
 {plunged). Chap. x. 37. — After the purifica- 
 tion [plunging) which John preached, v. 47, 
 48. Can any man forbid water, that thefe fhould 
 not be Purified [plunged?} — And he com- 
 manded them to be purified [plunged) in the 
 name of the Lord. Chap. xi. 16. John indeed 
 purified [plunged) with water {^v^a}^) ; but ye 
 Ihall be purified [plunged) [zv] with [or hyl 
 the Holy Ghoft. Chap. xiii. 24. — When John 
 had firfl preached before his coming, the pu- 
 rification [plunging) of repentance to all the 
 people of Ifrael. Chap. xvi. 15, And when fhe 
 •was purified [plunged)^ and her houfhold, 
 fhe befought us, &c. v, 33. And he took them 
 the fame hour of the night, and wafhed their 
 ftripes ; and was purified [plunged) j he and 
 all his ftraightway. Ciiap. xviii. 8. — And many 
 of the Corinthians hearing, believed, and were 
 purified [plunged), v. 25. He fpake and 
 taught diligently the things of the Lord, know- 
 ing only the purification [plunging) of John. 
 Chap. xix. 3 — 5. And he faid unto them, L'n- 
 to what [lU riy 'To zuhat end^ for what purpofe^ 
 to what doSlrine ) then v^ere ye purified f 
 
 (plunged) 
 
 Nugent, p, 296. The ufe of the particle in the above 
 paffaee feems parallel with Matt, xvii, 27. Go thou stj ^'i*' 
 fia^.afro-av, to (or, to tbejide of) the fea, and caft an hook. 
 •(■ Set apart by a folemn ceremony, 
 
20 Of the Signification of thi Ch. 4. 
 
 (plunged)} And they faid, Unto John's puri- 
 fication* {plunging). Then faid Paul, John 
 verily purified with the purification {plunged 
 with the plunging) of repentance. — When they 
 heard this, they were purified {plunged) in the 
 name of the Lord Jefus. Chap. xii. 16. And 
 now why tarrieft thou? arife and be purified- 
 {plunged), and walh away thy fins. 
 
 Rom. vi. 3, 4. Know ye not, that fo many 
 of us as were purified f {plunged) (t*? r<7, /or, 
 into a union with) Jefus Chrift, were purifi- 
 ed {plunged) into {^U to the defign of) his 
 death || ? Therefore we are buried with him by 
 (^Va, thro\on account of) purification § {plung- 
 ing) Into {i\<; for the purpofe of) death;}:, i Cor. 
 .1. 13 — 17. Were ye purified** {plunged) in 
 the name (ek rl orof^ce, to hear the name^ to the 
 honour and fervice) of Paul ? I fhank. God that 
 I purified {plunged) none of you, but Crifpus 
 and Gaius ; left any fhould fay, that I had 
 purified {plunged) in' mine own name. And 
 
 I 
 
 • To the preparatory and fubfervient purpofes of John's puri- 
 fying rite. 
 
 "f- Solemnly Jet apart, 
 
 H i. e. the crucifixion, death and burial of £n« 
 
 § This obligatory feparation, 
 
 J i. c, a ftatc of death in regard of attachment to (in j that 
 as Chrift died on account of fin, his baptized people, or chrillians, 
 mtglt to be, are under peculiar obligatiois to become dead at ti 
 tit fra&ice and tkt Icrve of fin, or any fellowfhip with it* 
 
 •• Initiated into tlie church. 
 
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Bapttfm, 21 
 
 I PURIFIED (plunged) alfo the houfehold of 
 Stephanas j befides, I know not whether I pu- 
 RiFiED (plunged) any other 3 for Chrift fent 
 me not to purify (plunge)^ but to preach the 
 gofpel. Chap. x. 2. And were all purified [||j 
 (plunged) unto Mofes in (e» by^ with^ by means 
 of the cloud, and in (e* by^ withy by means of*) 
 the fea. Chap. xii. 13. For by one Spirit we 
 are all purified f (plunged) into (tU) one body. 
 Chap. XV. 29. Elfe what (hall they do, that 
 are purified (plunged) for (^fr^X) ^^^ dead? 
 Why are they then purified (plunged) for 
 the dead ? Gal. iii. 27. For as many of 
 
 you 
 
 IJI Separated, devoted, initiated. E»^ rli MuavrTfo tbe conduB, 
 difcipUJhipt kgijlation, or difpenfation of Mofes. Or, according to 
 fome eminent expofitors, by Mojet, by tbe minijiry of Mofa^ So 
 Beza, for inftance, per M<^en, But that ufe of the particle «>( 
 is fomewhat uncommon, nor does the intended analogy between 
 the Chriftian and Mofaic difpenfations, and the profefied fubjeftioa 
 to their refpeftive founders, appear to me fo ftriking, as by the 
 Other interpretation. 
 
 * It is difficult to fay whether the exaft reference here is, 
 to place, in j to time, ivhile in j or to inftrumentality, by means 
 rfj nor is it very material: what the ^poftle principally refers 
 to is the faSi, that all the father.?, all the Ifr^ elites, old and 
 young, as the vifible church, were baptized — i. e. by that folemn 
 tranfa€lion feparated from the idolatrous Egyptians, and initiattd 
 into a ftate of higher relative holinefs than they were in before — 
 as well as the chriftians ; who were now growing too fecure in 
 their diftinguiffied privileges j and particularly their fpecial relation 
 to God by means of their ftanding in the church, and partici- 
 pation of the chriftian riCes of baptifm, and the Lord's Supper. 
 
 ■f- Initiated, 
 
 X In Jiead «f ; i« e> to fill up their place' in the church militant. 
 
22 Of the Sigfiif cation of the Ch. 4. 
 
 you as h^ve been purified || f plunged J into 
 (£k) Chrift, have put on Chrift. Eph. iv. 5. 
 One PURIFICATION {plunging f J, Col. ii. 12. 
 Buried with him in (or, hy^ ty) purification 
 (plunging)^ wherein alfo ye are rifen with him. 
 Heb. vi. 2. The dodrine of purifications 
 (plungings). Chap. ix. 10. Which flood only 
 in meats, and drinks, and divers purifica- 
 tions (plungings), I Pet. iii. 21. The Hke 
 figure whereunto, even purification (plunge 
 ing) doth alfo now fave us. 
 
 § 5. On this comparative rendering I would 
 make the following reflections. 
 
 I. I AM far from fuppofing that any two 
 words in the Englifh language are adequate to 
 exprefs the exacl idea of the Greek words, 
 ^aiPiitu and /?a7r!t3-p,05 ; yet I appeal to any un- 
 prejudiced reader, whether fome words of lati- 
 tude, and general import, as purification^ dedica- 
 tion, confccration^ feparation to God, or the like, 
 do not convey an idea more conformable to 
 ,that intended by the original terms, than any 
 which the contra6rtd fpecific ones, fo much 
 boafted of by our opponents, as " compe- 
 tent to exprefs the adequate idea" of kip- 
 
 I ///'//;, fuch as plunging^ dippings or immerfion^ 
 are capable of conveying? According to them, 
 the baptifin of the Spirit^ is, the plunging or 
 
 I dipping of the Spirit ; the bcptifm of fire^ is, 
 the plunging or dipping of fire \ the baptifm of 
 watcr^ is, the plunging or di'pmg of waiir \ the 
 
 baptifm 
 1} Dcdicattd, 
 
Ch. 4, Terms Baptize and Baptifm. 23 
 
 haptifm of bloody is, the plunging or dipping of 
 blood. How uncouth fuch a rendering ! And 
 yet how common with the moft approved au- 
 thors thefe phrafes, baptifmus flaminis (vel Spi- 
 ritus) i baptifmus flu minis (vel aques) \ baptif- 
 mus SANGUINIS (vel martyrii)? Is it not fuf- 
 ficiently manifeft, that the grating impropriety 
 of the former rendering, is owing intirely to 
 the making of baptifn and dipping or plunging 
 fynonymous ? If inftead of the pofleflive cafe 
 we employ a prepoftilon^ and be that what it 
 may, by^ withy in, or any other, the impropriety 
 in fome cafes will not be leflened but increafed. 
 Plunging or dipping wiihy by, In^ or into the 
 Spirit ; how irreverent an idea ! Dipping or 
 plunging byy tvithy in^ or into blood j how pre- 
 pofterous the fuppofition ! And yet, if our op- 
 ponents are in the right, the mofl eminent au^ 
 thors both ancient and modern are chargeable 
 with this irreverent and prepollerous conduc^t, 
 this unparalleled abufe of language. 
 
 § 6. 2. The reader muft have obferved, not 
 only how inadequate, but how abfurdy fome of 
 the paflages above quoted are made to appear, 
 by the renderings our opponents plead for. For 
 inftance, it is repeatedly faid, that the difciples 
 (hould be baptized with [iv) the Holy Ghofl, 
 Now, if dipping be the idea, it muft read ei- 
 ther, — dipped withy or by the Holy Ghoft; or 
 in the Holy Ghoft : the former is nonfenfe; 
 the latter too grofs and forced an idea to be 
 admitted' without the higheft neceffity for it. 
 
 Again : 
 
24 Of {he Stgnijicat'ion of the Ch. 4« 
 
 Again : their hypothefis is abfolutely indefenfi- 
 ble without renouncing our public verfion. For 
 how often do we read, — I baptize with water; 
 but if dipping and baptizing are fynonymous, 
 we may fay, I dip or plunge with water. 
 Which is, in effcdl, to make our verfion ridi- 
 culous, and the tranflators, near fifty in number, 
 a fet of dunciads. In like manner, Are ye able 
 to be baptized with the baptifm that I am bap- 
 tized with ? baptifmate quo ego baptizor^ baptizari ? 
 To be plunged with a plunging ! — To be a- 
 nointed with an undtion ; to be purified with 
 a purification ; to be feparated with a fepara* 
 tion, &c. are, cum gram falis^ very pafTable : but 
 what allowance can be made for — 'dipped tviih 
 a dipping ? Moreover : how forced and impro- 
 bable the idea, — plunging or immerfing all na- 
 tiom? That a nation, and even all nations^ fhould 
 in time be feparated for God^ minifterially dedi~ . 
 cated to Chri/l, by this or the other mode of 
 the chriftian purification, are ideas both natural 
 and defirable ; but that of immerfing all nations, 
 is neither. Not natural \ it feems abhorrent 
 from the whole afpedl of the gofpel difpenfation, 
 and is nearly as improbable to be Chrifl's real 
 meaning, as another idea, which may not im- 
 properly be called it's counterpart, Go, and dip 
 all nations in a flame ! For ( in juftification 
 of fo abfurd a meaning) with equal propriety 
 might an adminiftrator have urged, " Was it not 
 faid and promifed by Chrift's venerable harbinger, 
 He, (but he did not baptize except by his cc?n» 
 
 miffioned 
 
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Baptijm. 25 
 
 mjfioned fervants) he {^^.Ttlicri^) Jhall plunge you 
 in fire! — Not deftrahle; for the moil: obvious 
 idea of pUmging or totally immerfing all the 
 nations, founds but little (hort of, a general ca- 
 taclyfm:, a fearful judgment, and not a feal of 
 the covenant ; while, one would be led to think, 
 the commiiTioned difciples would appear as the 
 miniilers of wrath, and not the mefTengers of 
 peace ; efpecially when we confider that " pofi- 
 tive laws imply their negative ;" v/hich maxim 
 fatally excludes all hope of being raifed agal^ 
 by the commilTioned plungers. When we hear 
 the prophet fay, " So (hall he fprlnkle many 
 nations,'* we are naturally led to conclude that 
 many other nations, in the time of the Meiriah, 
 fhould be purified^ as well as the Jews ; that ig, 
 externally cleanfed from their idols and fepa- 
 rated for God ; but had the prophet faid, So 
 (hall he plunge or immerfe^ totally dip or over- 
 whelm^ all nations, — would there not have been 
 the jufteft ground for fear and trembling, left 
 God were about to repeal his covenant to Noah 
 and all fleOi ? 
 
 We alfo meet with, on our opponents* hy- j 
 pothefis, fuch phrafes as thefe— John preached 
 thQ plunging of repentance — the plunging of John 
 
 he (hall plunge you in fire — he marvelled 
 
 that he had not firft plunged before dinner — ye 
 (hall be plunged ui (bv) the Holy Ghoft — know- 
 ing only the plunging of John — into (?;?) vjhat I 
 were ye plunged P Into John's plunging*. 
 Vol. II. C plunged 
 
 * Skb Mr, B.'s remarks on the particle iU, p. 4,6, Note* Nov* 
 
 W ■ 
 
 •"*»-, 
 
26 Of the Signification of the Ch. 4. 
 
 plunged into Jefus Chr'iA -^ plunged into Mofes — 
 plunged into one body — one Lord, one faith, 
 one plunging! — iNf which [plunging] ye are 
 risen! — Is not this mode of tranflating, ef- 
 poufed by our adverfaries, more like a burlefquc 
 upon the facred oracles, than a faithful repre- 
 fentation of the infpired meaning ? Whereas if 
 we underhand by the original terms an idea 
 fomewhat compounded of purification, dedication, 
 
 feparation 
 
 \i plunging or dipping be the idea conveyed by the term ^otTrlscr^tt 
 in this pafiage, (A£ts xix.) if would puzzle the fubtle genius of 
 an A<iUiKAS to make any tolerable fenfe of it. If in that early 
 period of the church they underftood by the term baptifm nothing 
 lefs than dippings and the particle tt? being here connctfled not 
 with a perfon (as £»? lAua-n* ) but a /£>/«/, eJ? ri j and if that 
 be alfo conne£led with dipping; would not Paul's queflion na- 
 turally import, Into xvhat were ye plunged? — the fea or a- 
 rjver, Jordan or Enon ? But the anfwer ihcws, except we 
 make it a very ridiculous and unmeaning one, that they un- 
 derftood the qiieftion in no fuch light j and confequently that the 
 idea of dipping was not what they had been ufed to zf^^x to 
 John's baptifm. They fay that they had teen haptixtd into his 
 haptifm j but that could not pofijbly be, dipped into his dippings 
 without dripping them of common fenle, as fome have done of 
 ' the fiifl rudiments of religious knowledge. 
 
 ■\ Shovld itnot rather ht after which? Would it not be worth 
 our cppcnents' while to rummage Greek authors and Lexicons in 
 fearch of an acceptation of the particle iv which implies a pojie- 
 ritrity of time. And, fhould that fearch prove fruitlefs, would it 
 not be defirable, for the fake of confiftency and common fenfe, 
 and fcr the credit of infpired laiiguage, that they fliould abate a 
 little cf their confidence when they maintam that immirjien, pkng. 
 ing, or dipping .re competent to exprcfs the original idea ? If they 
 grant th<it the otUr idea of being raifcd is implied, we arc glad 
 to fee them la fo fair a way,— -the way of cenfeguence ! 
 
Ch. 4. ^erms Baptize and Bapiijm, 2f 
 
 feparation^ initiation^ or the like, according to 
 the connedtion in which it ftands, we have de- 
 cent, proper language, and an important mean- 
 ing. Yet, be it underftood as before fhewn, 
 that tho' we contend it is abfurd to make dip- 
 ping and baptizing fynonymous, the former nc- 
 verthelefs may be a mode of the latter. For 
 we are not now inquiring profefledly, whether 
 John or any New Tedament miniilers did, i?i 
 fa£f^ dip any of their converts ; but what is the 
 genuine fenfe of the terms of the inftitution? 
 
 § 7. 3. Tho* I beHeve the word purification 
 has a better claim to be a fubftitute for the 
 facramental fenfe of the word baptifm in the 
 New Teftament than plunging, dipping, or im- 
 merfion; yet I fully acquiefce in Beza*s opi- 
 nion, viz. That the words baptize and baptifm 
 in the facramental fenfe of them, ought not t» 
 be changed for any other. He fays of thofe per- 
 fons (at the head of whom he places Sebas- 
 tian Castellio) who raftily afFe(5!: to chan'^^c 
 thefe terms for better, as for lavoy ahluo^ lotio 
 &c. while the others were to be rejeded and 
 baniftied — " Deli cat i certe homines t** " They are 
 jurely men of excejjirje delicacy f '* 
 
 This able critic obferves : " Signi/icat autem 
 To ^anlitiiv tingere^,** To baptize CignifiQs to dyr 
 or tinge. And again: " Neque vero to /JaTrl.fni/ 
 iignificat lavare, nifi a confequenti : nam proprie 
 declarat tingendi cauja immergere*.*' ' Nor in- 
 deed does ^aTrlifi,!/ Signify to xvajh^ except by con- 
 
 C 2 fequence 
 
 D Ccmmcnt. in Matt iil. ir. * Id, in Mar?, vii. 4. 
 
;jg OJ the'Sigmfication of the Ch. 4. 
 
 fequence: for, properly^ it fignifies to immcrfe 
 FOR THE SAKE of dyings'' or tinging. Here it 
 is obfervable, that this great man (in common 
 with many other firft rate critics) does not he- 
 fitate about the primary philological fignification, 
 tho' he feverely cenfures thofe as over delicate 
 and ra(h who pretend to fubftitute another word 
 as a proper tranflation of the pri?nary legal or 
 facramental meaning. " Baptijm^' fays Mr. B. 
 " is a Greek word, with an Englifh termina- 
 " tion; concerning which Mr. Lewis fays (Hift. 
 « of Eng. Tranil. p. 317, 326. Edit. 2d.) " Our 
 " laft tranilators were directed by the King to 
 " retain the old ecclefiaftical words," of which 
 ^» baptifm was onef.'* Query: Would Mr. B. 
 have thefe words, baptize and baptifm^ difcarded, 
 provided our prefent verfion were to be changed 
 for another new-furbi(hed, and fome Englijh 
 words introduced, " competent to exprefs their 
 adequate idea?" If he meant hereby to infi- 
 nuate that our verfion is lefs' perfed for retain- 
 ing thefe words ; it is a reflc6lion that affe£ts 
 not ours only but alfo nearly all other tranfla- 
 tions. And fmce they have been adopted by 
 the fncred writers to exprefs a diyine ordinance ; 
 and they have been, for fo many ages after, 
 appropriated to this one ordinance, by the filent 
 confent of all churches ; fo that they have alfo 
 paflTed into the vulgar idioms of ahnoft all na- 
 tions : may not Beza. be acquitted from the 
 charge of fcverity when he fays : " Baptixandi 
 
 verbum 
 
 \ Poedob. Exam. p. 36. 
 
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Baptifm, 29 
 
 ¥erbjum — audent tamen temere inimutare*?" 
 
 § 8. But feeing. Mr. B. lays fo much ftrefs 
 on " the radical^ primary^ and proper meaning 
 of the word" ^^^rliffc;, as if the legal meaning 
 were neceflariiy the philological y let us inquire 
 a. little, tho* not eflential to my argument, whe- 
 ther he is fo triumphantly fecure in the pof- 
 feffion of this primary meaning as he would 
 fain perfuade us ? And- whether the following 
 declarations of Dr. Owen are not founded in 
 ti'uth ; viz. " No one inftance can be given in 
 " fcripture, wherein ^ufiPutw doth neceil'arily fig- 
 " nify either to dip or plunge. — It doth not 
 " fignify properly to dip or plunge^ for tliat in 
 " Greek is, s[y.^x7r]u and si^.^ccTfu^u -^It no whers 
 " figriifies to dip^ but as a mode of, and in 
 " order to waihing," wetting, dying f ? Here ob- 
 ferve, 
 
 (i) That the term primary is. capable of 
 twO' fenfes J it rnay either fignify a priority of 
 defign^ or a priority of execution \ it may refer 
 to the end^ or to the means. Now v^hat I- deny 
 is, that the principal end or defign conveyed by 
 the word is to immerfe ; tho' immerfion may 
 be a common mode of attaining that end ; and in 
 that fenfe, which I prelume. can't be Mr. B.'s 
 meining, being a very improper one, it may be 
 allowed, that often^ but not univerfally, the pri- 
 mary fignification of 0a,7rlil^n» is to immerfe : 
 that i%y tho' Iq/i in defign, it is frjl in execu- 
 
 C 3 tion. 
 
 *" Ut fupria in Matt, iii, 1 1. f, Collet, of Scrm. and TraiSls, p, j8j* 
 
30 Of the ' Signification of the Ch. 4. 
 
 tion. On the contrary, what I affirm, with 
 becoming deference to the learned, is this: That 
 the primary fignification of ^ccjfiu and ^ccifh^u^ 
 fought from the principal and ultimate deftgn of 
 ihe agent, or the main end in his view, is, to 
 tinge^ to dye\ to bring the fubje6l into a Jiate 
 of being wet, or coloured : and when the fub- 
 je£l is made wet^ or dycd^ the end is anfwered, 
 fey whatever means effected. But feeing that 
 among dyers, wafhers, &c. the mod ujiial mode 
 of efteding this end is by putting in the thing 
 to be impregnated with the moifture and the 
 different hue, lience the fecondary idea it has 
 acquired of plunging, immerfing. And that this 
 is reaily a fecondary idea, and by no means ef- 
 jential to it, one would think may be decided 
 by an impartial inquirer, by duly attending to 
 this queftion : Seeing it is univerfally agreed upon 
 among the learned, that thefe words are, ety- 
 mologically, or according to the radical, pri- 
 mary and proper meaning, juftly rendered by 
 the words, tingOy or mergo j to tiitgc^ or plunge ; 
 Which is mofl likely to be the primary fig- 
 nification, that the fubjed): is plunged for the 
 fake of being tinged, moiftened, wetted, or dyedj 
 or t\{Qj that it is dyed, wetted, &c. for the fake 
 of plunging ? Beza, Leigh, Owen, and in- 
 numerable other great names are decifive in fa- 
 vour of the former idea ; yes, many of thofe 
 names that adorn Mr. B.'s pages ; and, if I 
 miftake not, a critic fuperior to them all-'f^w- 
 mm fenfe^ decides. For if it be faid, that a 
 
 being 
 
 
Ch. 4. Ter?ns Baptize and Baptifm, 31 
 
 being dyed, or wet, is only a confequence of 
 being plunged; it is only a mere fhuffling and 
 changing the ftate of the queftion. For the 
 queftion is not, when a thing is wetted or 
 dyed by plunging it, which is fir/} in the order 
 of time, the plunging or the dying ? But 
 whether the plunging be not entirely fubfervient 
 to the other purpofe ? So entirely fubfervient, 
 that were the propofed end as well attainable any 
 ather way, the plunging of it {coet, par.) would 
 be a matter of perfect indifference ; and were 
 it better anfwered any other way, the necefTity 
 of that plunging would have no exiftence ? And 
 that this is rc:illy the cafe, that a thing or 
 perfon may be tinged^ i. e. baptized^ without 
 being immerfed, will appear from another ob- 
 fervation, viz. 
 
 § 9. (2) That the word tlngo^ which cor- 
 refponds with the primary meaning of baptize'^ ^ 
 is a GEiVERic term; that is, the radical, pri- 
 mary, proper meaning of it is, not any fpecific 
 a<5t, as to immerfe, to fprinkle, or the like, but 
 to effecl the purpofe, or to produce a Jiate^ of 
 being dyed, ftained, wetted, &c. by any waf 
 whatever^ as may beft anfwer the end in view. 
 Thus we read, for iniiance, in Persius: ^' Tinc- 
 TA vencnOy^ infedted v^\\S\ poifon ; ^-^ Ti 'SG at olus 
 ficcum miiriay^ wet^ or jparingly imbue^ his gar- 
 den-ftufi with fauce^ or any liquid to give it a 
 reli(h; ^^ Sepe oculos memini tingebam parvus 
 
 C 4 oliv9 
 
 • Here it is obfervable, that the heft latin writers both antient and. 
 modern, ufe the words tiH^9 and baptixf promifcuoufly, m tefereocc XA 
 
 :hB chriltian ordinance. 
 
32 ^f ^^^. Signification of the Ch. 4. 
 
 olivQ ; ** I remember that when a boy I anointed 
 my eyes with clive-oil, Virgil: ^^ Mujio tinge 
 crura ;" y/^/« your legs with new wine, i. e. in 
 treading out the grapes. '•^ Ar^os-^ Oceani metuentes 
 crquore TiNGi ;" the bears that cautioufly fhun 
 being wetted in, or touched tvith, the water of 
 the Ocean. And again, " Oceano proper ent fe 
 TiKGEREfoIes.** Of the Cyclops he fays j " Stri^ 
 dcfitia TiNGENT yEra lacu\" the fiery bars in 
 hifTmg water cooL'' Horace: '-^ Fejiis tincta 
 cocco \* a garment 4'^^ ^^-i ox tinged with, purple. 
 And again, " Lance niurice tinct^." And in 
 his addrefs to Virgil he fays: ^^ Non ego te 
 meis immunem meditor tinge RE poculis;*' I do not 
 defign to wet you, if you come empty-handed, 
 with my feiiive bowls. Martial : " Tinge- 
 re r.ardo 3" to anoint with fpikenard. 
 
 From thefe few fpecimens of the ufe of this 
 word— a word which Mr. B. mufr acknowledge 
 " is competent to exprefs the adequate idea" of 
 0x7r%l^uy as he never fails that I reco]le6t to ren- 
 der it, when found in his Poedobaptifl quota- 
 tions, to dip it appears, that the primary fig- 
 
 nification is, to bring the fubjecl: into that ^ate 
 which is impregnated or affected with colour, 
 wet, Sec But in a fecondary fenfe it is ufed 
 for dipping, fprinkling, &:c. for thefe are only 
 certain jnrxics whereby the intended effe6l may 
 be produced, llius, for example, a vejlure may 
 be tinged {$c^a,ixnt*it. Rev. xix. 13.) wit!i blood, 
 by dipping it, by pouring ,. blood on it, or by 
 fprinkling it with blood, (lightly or plentifully. 
 
 Bu 
 
 C^ 
 
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Bdpii/m* 31 
 
 "^^t neither of thefe fpecifications can be the 
 prhnaiy meaning, except all of them could be. 
 fo, which is abfard. No on© has an exclufwe 
 claim for effeffcing the primary intention. The 
 mode of tinging^ therefore^ as appears from the 
 above few examples out of many, is various ; 
 and the difference of the aSilon muft depend on 
 the nature of the cafe. 
 
 Dr. S. indeed urges the ipfe dixit of Vossius 
 in oppofition to what I have been contending 
 for, whofe tranllation and comment here fol- 
 low : " Thtf' ^cifrlcj and iSaTrlnJy are ufed to be 
 tranjlated^ to dipy cr plunge^ and then to dye [turn 
 mergOy vel mergitOy turn tingo]; yet the word pro- 
 perly ftgnifies to dip [mergo]^ and only by a meta- 
 kpfis to dye \tingo']y that is, (fays the Dr.) as 
 dying implies or ^fuppofes dipping*." But I fee 
 no reafon why thi§ flrange afTertion of Vos- 
 sius fhould have any more weight than th« 
 declaration of Beza, who ailerts the contrary, 
 viz. That the leading fignification of ^»vr%^uv, as. 
 well as ^airlnvy is tingere ; while he reprefents 
 mergers as only a mode or accident of ting- 
 XNGf. And now the queftion returns, fince 
 the one ipfe dixit annihilates the other, and the 
 matter is left in that refpedt in Jiatu quo^ which 
 of thefe aflertions has reafon and truth to fup- 
 port it? As dying [tingo] i?nplies or fuppofes dip- 
 ping. But if this be the real meaning of Vos- 
 .sius, does he not contradict himfelf? For 
 
 C 5 tinggi 
 
 * Remarks on the Chriftian Min. Reaf. p. 57. 
 t Commenti in Matt, iii, n. 
 
34 Of the Bign'ijicaUon of the Ch. 4, 
 
 tingo does not rmply or fuppofe plunging, as 
 we have feen; except we fay, that a thing has 
 no exiftence without it poflefles alfo what is 
 merely accidental, which is abfurd and contra- 
 dictory. With the very fame propriety we may 
 fay, that " thigo implies or fuppofes anointing," 
 for tinging is effefted by anointing, as before 
 ihevvn, as well as by dipping. I think I may 
 fay with greater propriety, " Tho* t'mgo is ufed 
 to be tranflated to dip or plunge^ as well as to 
 tije [by Dr. S. Mr. B. and others,] yet the 
 word properly fignifies to dye, ftain, tinge, in 
 general, and only by a metalepfis to dip ; that 
 is, as dipping rmpWes or fuppofes tinging,'* dying,, 
 Gaining, or wetting : and fo does wa(hing, and 
 fprinkling, and pouring; nay, alfo, fwUHng and^ 
 painting ! 
 
 § 10. ( 3 ) Let us now advance a ftep fur- 
 tlier, in fearch of " the radical^ primary^ and 
 proper meaning of the word ^«7rl»^a;.'* I be- 
 lieve it is generally allowed, that if there be any 
 Hebrew word in the Old Teftamcnt that an- 
 fwers to the Greek word in queftion, it is the 
 verb tahal. BaTrli^w, " if you- regard the word 
 *' itfelf (fays Beza) anfwers to the Hebrew 
 " iahhal rather than rachatz*,'* And the gene- 
 ral run of Lexicographers render it by the fame 
 latin words, as they do the Greek term. The 
 learned Castellus, for inftance, renders it by,, 
 
 «^ Tinxit^ 
 
 * " Quod [Tcil. baptixandi %erbum] quidera, it vocabulum ip- 
 ftim fpeOer. tefpondet Hcbr»o tattaf, potius quam racbafXt'^ Cora- 
 r>ent. in LU't, Hi, 11, 
 
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Baptifm. ^^ 
 
 " Ti fixity Intlnxltt demerftt^ Immerfit^ baptizavit.'* 
 And BuxTORF, " Tlnxtty Intlnxlt, demerfity Im- 
 merfitj** St<>CKIUs: " ^linxlty httlnxlt, Immerjtt^ 
 demerfjty 0»7r%v, ^*9r7t^£iv." L51GH : '* Tlnxlt^ in- 
 ilnxity merfity Immerjtt -, tingendi aut abluendi 
 gratia, demerjit — baptizavit." It is needJefs 
 to multiply inftanc^s in fo plain a cafe. Hav- 
 ing premifed thus much, I (hall now lay dowa 
 another propofition, and produce the evidence 
 for it ; viz. 
 
 T^hat the Hebrew word tahaJ, as ufed In tlie 
 Old Teftament, is a generic tjsrm 5 or is a 
 term of latitude^ and confequently, that the 
 " radical^ primary^ and proper meaning*' of it is 
 neither to plunge, to pour, to fprinkle, or any 
 other fpecific adion or ?node of application what- 
 ever, but to tingey to wet j and that to plunge. 
 is but a fecondary fignification, by a metalepils > 
 as what is plunged (or fprlnkled) may be faid 
 to be tinged, but not vice verfa. Let us ex- 
 amine the following pafTages. 
 
 Gen. xxxvii. 31. " And they took Jcfeph's 
 
 Goat, and killed a kid of the goats and tlngea 
 
 (or Jialnedy .daubed*) the coat in (or, uith) 
 
 —-•"■' C6 the 
 
 * The Septuagint does not render it iQcc-\ccv but «^(ihvv:^i 
 *' tov ^(iiciiva, ru ui^atli, injuinarunt, they ^ai'md or he/mean J 
 ** the garment, &:c» Eefides, indeed reafon concurs in cftablifh- 
 " ing this tranflationj for, furely, it is not to be fuppofed, that 
 ** Jofeph's brethren would immerge ox overwhelm his garment 
 " in the blood 5 fince that very circumftance would manifeflly 
 •* tend to deteft their orime, and to make their ftory about Jo- 
 " feph's being deftroyed. by a wild beaft, to wear the appearance 
 " not only of improbahilityj but of palpable falftood." Mr, Dk, 
 Coukcy's Rejoind. p, 163, 
 
36 Of the' Signijication of the Ch. 4. 
 
 ; the blood. Lev. iv. 6. " And the pried (hall 
 , tinge (or, W£t) his finger in (or, with) the 
 / blood, and fprinkle of the blood, &:c. ver. 17. 
 ^ " And the prieft Ihall tinge (or, wet) his fin- 
 ger of (or, by means of fromj the blood," (min 
 haddam^ DE fanguine). Chap. ix. 9. " And the 
 fon of Aaron brought the blood unto him ; 
 j and he tinged (or, wetted) his finger in (or 
 i with) the blood, and put it upon the horns of 
 j the altar.'/ Chap. xiv. 6. As for the living 
 ^ bird, he (hall take it and the cedar wood, 
 nd the fcarlet [wool, or fiufF], and the hyf- 
 fop, and fliall tinge them, and the living birdy 
 in (or, with) the blood of the bird that 
 was killed over the running A'ater (comp. v, 
 51.) ver. 16. " And the prieft (hall tinge (or, 
 wet) his right finger in fmin hajhmen^ ex oleo-i 
 frcjuy of) the oil that is in his left hand," or 
 in the palm of his left hand (ver. 15.) Numb. 
 ) xix. 18. " And a clean perfon (liali take hyflbp 
 ! and tiyige (wet^ impregnate) it in (or, imth) the 
 I water, and fprinkle it upon the tent.'* Deut. 
 xxxiii. 24. *' And of Afher he faid — let him 
 be acceptable to his brethren, and let him tinge 
 (anoint) his foot in (or, with) oil." (fee Luke 
 vii. 46.) JoOi. iii. 15, " And as they that bare 
 the ark were come unto Jordan, and the feet 
 of the priefts that bare the ark were tinged 
 j (wetted) in the brim, (or, with the very edge) 
 of the water, &c." Ruth ii. 14. " And Boaz 
 faid unto her, At meal time come thou hither, 
 ajid eat of the bread and tinge (wety moiflen^ 
 
 feafon 
 
Gh. 4» Terms Baptize and Baptifm, 37 
 
 fsafon) thy morfel in (or, with) the vinegar." /' 
 
 1 Sam. xiv. 27. " But Jonathan — put forth 1 
 the end of the rod that was in his hand and 
 tinged (or, dipped for the fake of tinging^ wettings \ 
 hefmearing) it in an honeycomb, and put his ( 
 hand to his mouth :" i. e. I apprehend, col- ( 
 leded the honey from the befmeared part of 
 the rod, with his hand ; and then turned his 
 hand to his mouth, or thus ate the honey. , 
 
 2 Kings V. 10, 12--14. " And Elifha fent a 
 meflenger unto him, faying, Go, and wafh (Targ, 
 Jo N ATM. utehol\ tinge^ yel intinge) in Jordan 
 feven times. — Abana and Pharpar — may 1 not 
 wafli (Targ. etebboh, tinxeroy vel intinxero) in 
 them and be clean? — Wafh (Targ. ut fupra^) 
 and be clean. Then went he down [to the river] ; 
 and tingedy (wajhed^ purified) himfelf i^ytn times 
 in Jordan." Job ix. 30, 31. " If I wafh my-. 
 felf with fnow water, and make my hands never 
 fo cleans yet fhalt thou tinge (befmear^ bedauby 
 defile) me in the ditch, (or, with corruptiouy 
 
 filth) and mine own clothes fhall abhor me," 
 Ezek. xxiii. 15. " Girded with gii'dles upon 
 their loins, exceeding in -tinged (dyedy coloured) 
 attire upon their heads." 
 
 I NOW appeal to impartial criticks, and to 
 common fenfe, whether the Hebrew word tabal ' 
 is or is not a generic terniy wliofe " radicaly 
 primary y and proper meaning" is, to tingCy to dycy 
 to wety or the like; which primary defign is 
 efFe(Sted by different modes of application? The 
 mode whereby the fubject is afFeded with the 
 liquid is various \ either, by applying the fubjefl 
 
 to 
 
38 Of the Signification of the Ch. 4. 
 
 to the liquid, which is by dipping, immerfing, 
 
 overwhelming; — or, by applying the liquid to 
 
 the fubjei^, which is by afperfion, afFufion, &c. 
 
 Now in regard of this fecondary fignifi cation,. 
 
 . it is not denied, that the mofi common fpecific 
 mode of application is, by the motion of the 
 fubje£l to the fluid, whereby it is tinged, or 
 wetted, in whole or in part, rather than by the 
 motion of the fluid to the fubjecft ; but not the 
 only, exclufive mode, and therefore an accident 
 onlv. By confulting the above paflTages we may 
 obferve, that fame refer to that mode of appli- 
 cation, which mbft naturally requires the move- 
 
 ^ mcnt of the fubje6t towards the tindure, &c. 
 
 1 that fame leave the mode of application in a 
 great meafure indifferent -y and that fome afl!brd 
 irrefragable evidence that the tinging liquid, &c; 
 was moved and applied to the fubjeit, as Lev. 
 iv. 17. xiv. 16. and others make it probabk 
 that this laft mode was ufed. 
 
 Upon the whole, it is indifputable that the 
 primary meaning of the Hebrew word is to- 
 tinge \ now, for any one to contend that this 
 tinging is fynonymous with dipping univerfally, 
 as well as ufed fynonymoufly, is no lefs falfe 
 and abfurd than that I (hould thus infift: "The 
 human body is moji coinrnonly washed (efpeci- 
 ally in hot countries) by plunging and bathing 
 in water ; therefore^ the body of neither man 
 ror child can be wcfjhed or anointed^ without 
 immersion! Bcfid'es, the mofl common mode of 
 DYING, tinging and ftaining, is, and ever has 
 
 been 
 
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Baptif?^. 3^ 
 
 been, by immerfing the thing to be dyed, &c. 
 in the tingcnt hquid ; therefore all the antient 
 Britons, who dyed or ftained their bodies, muft 
 have PLUNGED themfelves over head and ears 
 into the juice of woad^ to effect that purpofe 1'* 
 At this rate, a dyer (^a^Bv^^ tInSJorJ is nothing 
 elfe but a plunger ! A wajher of clothes, accor- 
 ding to Mr. B.'s notion of the prwiary mean- 
 ing of terms, is a plunger of clothes ! And who 
 can tell but fome happy genius of this inven- 
 tive age may find out a method of white-wajh- 
 ing the ceiling of our rooms, or the walls of 
 our houfes, by iinmerfmg them in the wafhing 
 liquid ? and then he may be termed the plunger 
 of our houfes 1 Nay, reader, if the principles 
 and reafonings of fome people on this fubjedt be 
 right, the antient Britons— but who could have 
 expected an argument in their favour from fuch 
 a quarter, and from fo curious a topick ? — the 
 antient Britons were all Baptifts (tho* not An- 
 tipcedobaptifts) ! for, " Britanni tinxeruNt (i.e. 
 baptizaverunt) fe glafto." 
 
 § II. Having finifhed the firft argument 
 in fupport of the general propofition, — that 
 ^cctfli^u in its primary meaning is a generic term 
 that does not neceflarily or efientially include 
 immerlion — " from a comparative view of dif- 
 ferent renderings," — let us proceed to the next 
 argument, deduced in favour of the fame po- 
 fition 
 
 ''II.) From a view of fbme of thofe pafTages 
 
 where 
 
49 Of the Signification of the Ch. 4... 
 
 where the terms ^«w1w and ^«W]»fw refer to other 
 modes rather than dipping. 
 
 Mr. Parkhurst juftly remarks, " That the 
 " writers of the New Teftament — or rather, 
 " with reverence be it fpoken, the Holy Spirit, 
 " whofe penmen they were — wifely chofe, in 
 " expreffmg evangelical notions, to employ fuch 
 *' Greek terms as had been long before ufed for the 
 " fame purpofes by the Greek tranflators of the 
 " Old Teliamcnt : And thus the Septuagint 
 ** verfion — became, in this refpe<a, not to the 
 ** hrft age of the church only, but alfo to all 
 " fucceeding generations, the connecting link he- 
 " tween the language of the Old and of the 
 " New Teftament, and will oe regarded in 
 " this view as long as found judgment and 
 " real learning fhali continue among men*." 
 This remark, being indifputably founded on truthy 
 fliews clearly, that the Septuagint verfion ought 
 not to be overlooked in our inquiries after the 
 genuine force of Greek terms in the New 
 'I eftament. Nay, it muft (Irike every fenfible 
 
 perfon 
 
 • Greek and Engliih Lex. pref. p« 6, 7, This verfion " is very 
 •* rxceflary for the uoderfVandiog of the New Teftament, there 
 •* being feveral exjreflions theiein, which could not be well un- 
 •* detflood, was that fcnfe to be put upon them, which they 
 '* commonly bear in Greek j^uthcrs, and not that which they 
 •* have in the Septuagint. They thcreiore that are dcfirous of 
 *< underAanding the true meaning of th« books of the New 
 •* Teftament cannot be too often advifed carefully and diligently 
 ** to perufc the Septuagint vctfion." Introd. to the reading of the 
 Holy Scritpt. by MefTis. BEAUtonm and L'Enpant, ap. Bp, 
 Watso's CoUcft. of Thcol. Trafts. VcU iii. p. 252, Sec aJfo 
 TATLot^aKcy to the Apo^hc Writings, § 3»^. 
 
CIi. 4. Terms Baptize and BaptifjJt, 41 
 
 perfon, one would think, that this fountain of 
 matter and expreflion from which the facred 
 penmen of the New Teflament conftantly drew, 
 is. of far greater confequence than the complete 
 body of profane writers put together. Nor is it 
 to the purpofe to cite paflages, as Dr. Gale 
 and others have done, where the mode of dip- 
 ping any- thing in queftion is included in con- 
 nection with the truly " radical^ primary and 
 proper meaning" of the term, whicli is to tingc^ 
 to vjei^ &c. as before fliewn ; for that condacl: 
 fophiftically transfers the true ftate of the quef- 
 tion from the eJJentiaUty to tiie greater propriety 
 of immerfion ; which queAions are totally dif- 
 tincSl : and he that does not allow this deferves 
 not to be reafoned with. The former concerns 
 the very e>:ijUnce of what we deem valid j the 
 latter only the preference due to one mode ra- 
 ther than another*. 
 
 " Inf 
 
 * " I cannot but obferve the prepofterous way which the An* 
 " tipoedobaptifts take in filling feveial pages with quotations out 
 " Q^ ficular authors, where the word ^ctTrlitiJ is taken for fuch 
 " wafhing as is by dipping the thing waflied into water, — 
 " There are none of the i'oedobaptifts but what do grant and ^ 
 «< own at the firft word, that it is often ufed in that fenfe. And 
 " I think iroft of us do own that it is oftmr found ufed fo, 
 «« than in any other ienfe of wafhing ; that icay [or moJt] of 
 « wafhing being ufed in the cafe of n-^oft things that happen to 
 «* be fpoken of. Now when a debate ftands i'o, that both fides 
 *« do agree, that in fecular books a word is often ufed for 'wajking 
 <' by dipping, and there is no queftion made of that; but the 
 " only queftion between them is this, .That one fide afBrms, but 
 a the other. denies, that it is fometimes ufed for other ivays of 
 «« wafhing, as pouring, or rwbbing water, &c, (to lump the matter 
 
42 * Cff the, Significaiion of the Ch. 4. 
 
 " Iw the Septuagint verfion of the Old Tef- 
 " tament and the Apocryplia, which I have 
 ** carefully examined," fays Dr. S. " the words 
 •* occur twenty-five [he might have faid twenty- 
 *^ fix] times. In eighteen of thofe tnftances^ Dr. 
 ** Gale fays ; I think he might have faid 
 '' twenty, they undoubtedly mean to dip. As to 
 •' the remaining five, two of them refpeil Ne- 
 ** buchadnezzar, whofe cafe we have confidcred. 
 ** 7'hat in Ifaiah xxi. 4. clearly fignifies to over^ 
 " ivhelm. That in 2 Mac. i. 21. is beft un- 
 " derf^ood, and I think can only be properly 
 " underilood, by referring to the primary idea 
 •* of dipping. And that, Ecclefiafticus xxxiv^ 
 " 25. as it rerpe61:s the Jewifli purifications, caa 
 *' by no means be proved, as lia^h already beea 
 " (hewn, to exclude the notion of plunging,^* 
 Carefully as Dr. S. hath examined the paflages 
 he refers to, I cannot help thinking but that 
 they will admit of re-examination ; and that tiie 
 true account will be found different from the 
 above ftaiement. Towards a fair inveftigation, 
 let us obferve, 
 
 § 12. I. That of thefe twenty-fix inftances 
 only four are inflexions of the verb ^uiP.i^u ; tii'f 
 o( which are found in the Septuagi?2ty and two 
 i-n the Apocrypha, 2 Kings v. 14. Then went 
 
 he 
 
 ** by g'ltfs fay, 3, coo tiircs it be found iifed for this way, and 
 ** i,oco times for the other ways] ; what an idle thing is it, 
 «* for thefe dciiiers to bring tnflanci.s of that which is confcfTcd by 
 ** both /iJes, iiiflcad of overthrowing or confuting the inftances 
 ♦* brought by the others for tbofe other ways ?'' Waii.** Pr- 
 fcnte, in anfsver to Oale, p, 97, gS. 
 
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Bapttfin, 43 
 
 he down [i. e. to the water fide] and ej9*7r7*^a70 
 tinged (wajhed^ purified) hiir.fcif in Jordan. liaiah 
 xxi. 4. My heart panted, fearfuhiefs ^avoyncf. ini- 
 quity] /3«7rlif£i tir/ges me (dyes, with its influence 
 and power impregnates^ as a ^^ftuid when it enters 
 the pores). Judith xii. 7. Thus (he abode in 
 the camp three days, and went out in the night 
 into the valley of Bethulia, and i^cc-.TV^-:\o ti?iged 
 (cleanfed^ purified^ probably in a religious fenfe, 
 xvajhsd) herfelf (or was baptized^ cleavfed^ &:c. 
 perhaps by an attendant) in a fountain of water 
 
 by the camp, [zv ri? 'Trcc^s^.^oTKri £7rt T>5^ 'TTY^yric, r« 
 vaxToq, at the fountain of water within the 
 camp.) Ecclefiafticus xxxiv. 25. -o ^ccTpiticixB^o^^ He 
 that fingetb (purificth^ cleanfeth^ feparatcth cere- 
 monially) himfelf after the touching of a dead 
 body, if he touch it again, what availcth bi& 
 wafhing? (fee Num. xix.) 
 
 Now it is evident upon infpe6lion, that each. 
 one of thefe four texts is perfectly confitlent 
 with what I maintain is the primary meaning 
 of the word /3«7r1ifc.; ; and therefore it is totally 
 wrong to confine it, without the' leaft neceifity, 
 to only one mode of that primary meaning : ef- 
 pecially when we confider, that fome, if not all, 
 of thefe pafiages are far more naturally reduced 
 to other modes of application, than to that of 
 plunging, (f.) 2 Kings v. 14. This is the only 
 paiTage of the four, and indeed in the whole 
 bible, where ^wrfli^u is rendered to dip,. And 
 how improbable it is that Naaman did in fia6l 
 PLUNGE hinifeif in the river, let the following: 
 
 remark* 
 
44 Oj the Signification of the- Ch. 4. 
 
 remarks of a fenfible writer be confidered : " Na- 
 **• aman, it is plain, expelled that the prophet 
 " /hould have come and Jircked his hand over 
 " THE PLACE, and recovered the leper, fee 
 '^ ^^ II. Inftead of this i:e bids him — Go, 
 ** and walh in Jordan seven times, ver. 10.— It 
 " is now inquired — Whether he plunged himfelf 
 " all over ieven times ? Or, whether he only 
 *■'• fprlnkled or poured water feven times upon 
 " [ and thus zvetttrly and rubht-d his hand overj 
 *' the Itprous place f' —ThtvQ h nothing in the 
 " ^^p^^ifion^ by which the command is given, 
 *' y^>iaaL\ zvajh^ to determine it j for this may be • 
 ** alike underilood either of a toiali or a par- 
 " /.W*, wadiingj but there is a remarkable 
 " circuniflance which feemi to give it ftrongly 
 '' for the latter ; which is this. The prophet 
 *^ in commanding him to wadi seven times,. 
 " alludes, no doubt, to the inanne.r of clean- 
 " fing the leper, appointed by the Jewiih law, 
 " Now there were two ways of applying water 
 " to the leper's body, injoined by that law; 
 " botli alike commanded, and necelTary to his 
 ** clcanfirig, viz. Bathing [or wajling the body 
 
 ^'' v.'ith 
 
 • Ik pri of if what our author Htc aflerts, confult the follow^ 
 mg pdfl..g.^s where, the //w* 'word is ufed as EhHja employs \\hea 
 Kt deliiers the divijie mandate — '* Go and ivajb." Exod. xxx. 
 J8, 20. and vfir. i>, 21. Gen, xli'i. 24, 31, Ex. xxix. 17. 
 J Kings xxji 38. Job xxix. 6. Ezek xvi. 4, Here one might 
 a/k. What it the vtt^ijc oi •u<ajkwg a rew-bcrn child? Or is a 
 chariot pfur.gtd in a pool when it is lu.ajked? Or when Job- 
 fays " I rvafiicd my ftcps with fcutler,'' is it lutur^ to lay he 
 tmmerj'id tbcjij ia it. ... 
 
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Baptifm. a^ 
 
 " with water] 2ii\d fpr ink ling : The former, bath- 
 
 J^ « ing^ to be ufed but once ; the hUtr fprinJtling^ 
 
 " to be done /even times, _ See Lev. xiv. 7 8. 
 
 " When, therefore, the prophet bids him ' 
 
 " wafi SEVEN TIMES, it is much mo?'e natural 
 " to undcrf^and it of fprinkling^ or pouring water 
 "seven times upon the leprous part^ over 
 ^' which he expe6i:cd the prophet fhould have 
 ^^ Jlroked his haiid^ than of. dipping his whole 
 *' body feven ti?nes ; of which kind of wajhing 
 " [dipping] there is not the leaft footflep nor 
 " fhadow in the law*." To which we may- 
 add — that it is not hkely Naaman (hould do 
 more than the prophet required^ lince he was 
 fo relu6^ant to make any compliance ; which 
 he muft have done on fuppofition that he im- 
 merjed himfelf^ fince the command was only to 
 Ajuajh \ and this^ every one knows may be, and 
 daily is, eafily and commodioully done without 
 immerfion. When we confider alfo the nature 
 of his diforder, and, as he could not be igno- 
 rant, the apparent unfuitablenefs, phyfically, of 
 the prefcription ; it is not probable that he 
 fhould go and plunge himfeif in deep water, 
 fince a gentle afFufion was fully anfwerable to 
 the requifition. Again : it is exprefsly faid, that 
 'what he did was '' according to the faying of 
 the man of God;" i. e. he wajhed in (or ufed 
 the water of) Jordan, tho' with haughty re- 
 luctance. But there is no fmgle circumftance, 
 
 without 
 
 * Tow noon's Dipping not the only Scriptural and primitive 
 manner of Baptizing, P* 19* 
 
4^ Of the Zigmfication of the Ch. 4. 
 
 without begging the queftion in debate, but fa^ 
 vours the application of water to the leprous 
 part^ rather than the appUcation of that to the 
 water. Not to mention the Vulgate verfion, 
 and the renderings of tlie Syriac and Arabic 
 Verfions, which read lavit fe^ which is by no 
 means fynonymous with dipping. 
 
 (2) Isaiah xxi. 4. Inftead of, " fearfulnefs 
 affrighted me," the Septuagint verfion reads, 
 h avofxix fjLt ^ccTrli^'ci, iniquity baptises me. This 
 rendering is very (ingular, and the paiTage is 
 evidently metaphorical ; the queftion is, to what 
 does it allude? It (hould feem the lamentation 
 is made by the king of Babylon ; and the paf- 
 lage, as Mr. Henry obferves, " was literally 
 ^' fulfilled in Behhazzar : for that very night 
 " in which his city was taken and himfclf flain, 
 *' upon the fight of a hand, writing myftick cha- 
 " racters upon the wall, his countenance changed^ 
 ^ and HIS THOUGHTS TROUBLED HlM^ fo that 
 '* the joints of his hihs were loofed^ and his knees 
 *'*' fmote one againji another^ Dan. v. 6. — And 
 " thofe words, The night of my pleafure hath he 
 *' turned into fear to nie^ plainly refer to that 
 " aggravating circumftance of Belfhazzar's fall, 
 " that he was flain on that night when he was 
 " in the height of his niirth and jollity, with 
 " his cups and concubines about him, and a 
 *' thoufand of his Lords revelling with him ; 
 " that night of his pleafure, when he promifed 
 " himfelf an undillurbed, unailayed enjoyment of 
 " the cnoft exquifitc gratifications of fcnfe, with 
 
Ch. 4. Termi Baptize and Baptifm* 4/ 
 
 ** a particular defiance of God and rel'gion 
 " the profanation of the temple vefTels ; that 
 '* was the night that was turned into all this 
 ^^fear-\" I fuppofe few or none will deny 
 the propriety of thefe remarks ; and the ma- 
 nifeft allufion is to the dirtr-iled and affrighted 
 condition BelQiazzar found himfelf in, owing to 
 the difpleafure and judgement of God. Now 
 the remaining inquiry is, What is the moft 
 likely mode of producing this efFe6l ? Iniquity 
 (i. e. by a metonymy, the vengeance due to 
 it ) baptizes me^ is the fame as / am baptized 
 with iniquity^ (or the divine difpleafure as the 
 penal efFe6t of it.) Now there is no figure 
 more familiar, more eafy, more awfully beau- 
 tiful and ftriking in the prophetic writings, when 
 the doom of enemies and daring offenders is 
 defcribed, than that of God's pouring out 
 his indignation^ Pf. Ixix. 24. —his wrath^ Pf. Ixxix. 
 6. — his y«ry, Jer. x. 25. — men's wickednefs (i, 
 €. the punijhment of it) upon them, chap. xiv. 
 16. — Thus alfo Ezek. vii. 8. " Now will I 
 (hortly POUR out my fury upon thee, and ac- 
 complilh mine anger upon thee: and I will 
 judge thee according to thy ways, and will re^ 
 compenfe thee for all thine abominations.'* If. 
 xlii, 25. " Therefore he hath poured upon 
 him the fury of his anger. Lam. ii. 4. " He 
 POURED out his /wry like fire/* Dan. ix* 11. 
 " Therefore the curfe is poured upon us,** &c. 
 ^c.'— The cup of God's fury^ therefore, being 
 
 poured 
 
 \ Comment, in Ik» 
 
# 
 
 ^S Of the Signification of the Ch. 4. 
 
 poured out without mixture upon the impious 
 monarch, may be confidttred as the m'-Ji ufual^ 
 natural^ and exprejfive mode of bringing his mind 
 into the condition defcribed ; '' my heart panted ; 
 fearfulnefs affrighted me*." To which we may 
 add — that an influx or communication from 
 God, of a confolatory and merciful nature, is 
 expreGly ftyled " a haptijm ;'' fee Matt. iii. ii. 
 kc. and Ails xi, 15, 16. Now if the pour- 
 ing OUT of God's merciful influence be pro- 
 perly called baptizing with that influence ; for 
 the like reafon it muft be equally proper to 
 call the POURING out of his punitory and 
 avenging influence, a hapiizitig with that influ- 
 ence. Whereas, for irtiquity^ or vengeance, to 
 plunge the offender into a fomnhing not expreffed^ 
 as the contrary opinion fuppofes, is an idea 
 equally inelegant, confufed, and unufual in the 
 facred writings. 
 
 § 13. (3) Judith xii. 7. Independent of the 
 force of the word in queflion, we have here 
 ftveral important circumjlances that render it highly 
 improbable that immerfion is intended ; and as 
 thefe circumfiances are concifely and properly 
 put together by Mr. Towgood, I fhall give 
 them in his own words. " It is faid — She 
 " ivent out^ in the nighty into the njalky of Be- 
 " thulia and WASHI-D, xat t^aifh^Clo and was 
 " baptized, in a fountain of water by the 
 " cajnp. Did file dip her whole body in this 
 ^* fountain of water ? Yes, fome earnefliy con- 
 ". tend. But Utterly without reafon and againfl 
 
 « all 
 
 • Compare the following exclamation of the roman Orator : 
 *' Dii iiTjmortales, qui me horror fttfudit I Cic, 
 
Ch. 4. ^Tc'?'ms Baptize ami Bc*pttf}n. 49 
 
 " all pj'obabiUty, For as there appears to have 
 " been but this fingle fountain in the valley of 
 " Bethulia, at, clofe by, or around which (etti 
 " Tj;? vr.yY.qy chap. vil. 3.) an army of above 
 " tivo hundred thcufand foldicrs lay incamped, it 
 " is the height of abfurdity \^c<st, par.] to ima- 
 " gine that Judith, in the night, could with 
 *' any convenience or modefty unclothe herlelf 
 '' and plioige her whole body therein : Or, if flie 
 " could; in a country where water was both 
 " fo much needed and lb fcarce ; and fo prodi- 
 " gious an army, with its infinite multitude of 
 " attendants and cattle^ were to be continually 
 " fupplied from it. When therefore it is faid, 
 '' {he, — was baptized in the carnpy at the fountain 
 " of ivater (this is the exaft rendering) it may 
 " be left to any one to judge -«- Whether flic 
 '' was totally im7nerfed^ or had the water applied 
 "-only to a part of her body. This, then, mufl 
 " be accounted another very clear and inconief- 
 '' tible injlance^ where a perfon is faid to be bap- 
 " tized^ without being overwhelmed'^,*^ After 
 all, fuppofing, without granting, that the luafi- 
 ing here mentioned, whether for phyfical or 
 ceremonial cleanfmg, was the whole body, 
 that does by no means tend to confine the 
 mode of it to dippifig ; for nothing can be plainer 
 than that her cleanfmg^ and not i?7i?nerfion for 
 immerfion fake, w^as her pri?nary bufinefs at the 
 fountain ; nor is it lefs evident that tho' the 
 wafhing were totals p'^^'nging would be fo far 
 
 D from 
 
 * Ut JuprOf p. 17, iS, 
 
eo Of the Signification of the Ch. 4. 
 
 from being efjential to it, that it is at bed 
 only one fpeciiic ?node of vvafhing the body, or 
 rather a very unimportant circumjiance attending 
 it. Again ; is it probable that Judith, a woman 
 of rank and beauty, and in fo critical a fitua- 
 tion, was not attended with the waiting woman 
 that flie took with her to the camp of Holo- 
 femes (fee chap. viii. 33. x. 5, 6.) as well 
 for company, the excurlion being in the gloom 
 of night, as for afliftance in the luftration? 
 Now let common fenfe determine, wliat was 
 the moft natural^ fafe^ and eafy method (for 
 necefftty is out of the queftion) of efFeding the, 
 main and only purpofe for which the mode ft 
 females went to the guarded fountain, (chap, 
 vii. 7.) 
 
 (a) EcCLESIASTICUS XXxiv. 25. O ^uTrii^ofJiBio? 
 
 xira »£xp« — He that is baptized from [the pol- 
 lution of] the dead. Here let it be obferved, 
 
 1. That the writer's aliufton is, it (hould 
 feem, to the ceremonial purification enjoined 
 Num. xix. after touching, or being any how 
 polluted with a dead body. 
 
 2. That it does not appear from the facred 
 rubrick, that the purified in this cafe had his 
 purification effedled by any other inode^ than by 
 SPRINKLING the water of feparation upon him 
 by another perfon. For I have never feen it 
 proved, nor am I convinced that it can be proved, 
 that the command to " wafh his clothes and 
 bathe himfelf in water" extends to any other 
 than the fprinkler^ Num. xix. 19, 21. The 
 water of feparation is exprefsly termed {v. 9.) 
 
 " a pv- 
 
Ch. 4.. 'Terms Baptize and Baptifm, 51 
 
 " a PURIFICATION for fin." And again, {v. 
 17.) it is faid — " he (hall purify himfeif 
 with it," and " he (hall be clean*." 
 
 3. On fuppofition that the fprinkled as well 
 as the Jprinkler^ was enjoined to wa(h his clothes ^ 
 and bathe himfeif, it would be as improper 
 (cat, par.) nay al^furd, to make that bathing 
 fynonymous with dippings as with ruhbing ; for 
 the former is no more included in ablution^ with 
 reference to the human body, than the latter. 
 And the word ^a-jrli^oiAsvoi;, if the queftion be 
 not meanly begged, fliould be no more ren- 
 dered by he that dippeth, than by he that 
 
 RUBEETH I 
 
 4. From the premifes it appears mofi probable 
 that the word ^aTrltfo^arvaj is here ufed fynony. 
 mouily with purified or cleavfed\ and that the 
 primary idea is not the fpecific tnode of puri- 
 
 D 2 fying 
 
 • It is very plain on the face of the hiflory, that the p», 
 Rij-iCATioN was effedled by sprinxlikg j which Mr. Tow- 
 0000 thus erpreffes : '* This fully appears from verjei 13, 20, 
 *• where the perfon, who had negle£led this ceremonial purifi- 
 *« cation, is threatened to be cut off. For what ? For not hav- 
 <* ing bathed hii body S Nothing like it. No, but in each diftinft 
 *« threatening, bis guilt is exprefsly made to confift, in his not 
 ** having the watkr of purikication strinkleu npoa 
 " him. And the apoftle, it is obfervable, fpeaking of this very 
 " fame purificaiion, makes the efficacy of the ceremony to confift 
 "entirely in the sprinkling j without the leaft mention of 
 «« the bathing. Heb. ix. 13. For if the blood of bulk and goatt, 
 " and the afbes of an heifer ^ (with which this ivater of pur if i- 
 " CATION was made) sprinkling the unclean, fanEiifeth to the 
 *^ purifying of the FLESh [i. c. (o far fanftffied the polluted, a| 
 " externally and ceremonially to purify or cleanCj him] how irycK 
 " more, &c*'* TowGcoa's Tjeatife, ut fupta, p. 17, 
 
52 Of the Signification cf the Ch. 4. 
 
 fying, whether fprinkling or waihing, ( to pluyig- 
 ing it could . not refer, if the allufion be to 
 Numb. xix. fince the law of purification no 
 more includes that, than it does at moft any 
 other 77iere circumjlatice of bathing) but to the 
 •purification itfilf Therefore it is a generic 
 TERM, expreffive of cere?nomal purification; and 
 the exaa import feems to be—" i/<? that^ is 
 PURIFIED fro7n [the pollution ofj the dead," 
 
 § 14. Having now examined all the paf- 
 fages in the Old Teftament and Apocrypha, 
 where the term ^a^rlifa; occurs, I would here 
 make one general remark, viz. That in no one 
 paiTage out of the four is the word fynony- 
 mous, or even ufed fynonymoully, with immer-- 
 /d?». — One of them is confefledly metaphorical, 
 and alludes as we have feen, to that ftate of 
 mind which is the efFe^, according to the 
 common language of fcripture, of God's pour- 
 ing out his indignation and wrath on the guilty. 
 The other three are evidently founded in the 
 Jewifn purifications, Naaman was a leper, and 
 the mean of his cure, tho' not in all things 
 conformable to the prefcribed law of leprofy, 
 was no other than a purifying rite; and his 
 baptizing himfelf feven times in Jordan (tho* 
 this mode of fpeaking by no means excludes 
 the adual afliftance of an attendant), amounts 
 to neither more nor lefs than that he cere- 
 monially WASHED, ckanfed or purified himfelf 
 feven times iv rco lop^'avri in [or, by tneans of^ 
 the Jordan -, which ivajhing no more required 
 that he Ihould plunge himfelf, than that he 
 
 ihould 
 
Cli. 4. Ter?ns Baptize and Baptifm, 53 
 
 ihould rub himfelf, or fwhi in the river. And 
 fhould an objeclor ftill urge, that when the 
 hiftorian fays he baptized himfelf, he meant that 
 he immerfed himfelf, and that this may be faid 
 to be " according to the faying of the man of 
 God^""' becaiife it ifnplies the wafhing command- 
 ed ; in reply to this iuffice it to obferve — that 
 it is in vain for him to beg what will never be 
 granted him, that the " primary, radical, and 
 proper meaning" of the Hebrew or Greek 
 terms here ufed is to i?nni€rfe^ v/hich is a fpecific 
 acl:, rather than to tinge, which is a generic 
 term — and, that nearly with the fame plaufi- 
 billty another may infiii, that what the hiftorian 
 meant by the controverted term was — Naaman's 
 wetting J or rubbing himfelf with water ; his fvim^ 
 ?ningy or putting himfelf to foak in the river ; 
 for each one of thefe implies the v^afhing com- 
 manded. And, if it pleafes him, he may go a 
 ftep further, and with undaunted coniidence 
 iniilf upon it, that Naaman put himfelf in Jor- 
 dan to SOAK, head and all, feven times — but 
 how long he continued there, is a queflioa 
 which he will not perhaps choofe to be confi- 
 dent in, but rather refer us to inference and 
 analogy ! 
 
 Again: When we confider the liablenefs of 
 Judith to be ceremonially polluted every day, 
 during her refidence in an idolatrous camp, 
 what more probable than that her going nightly 
 to the fountain to baptize herfelf or to be bap^ 
 tizedy Vti^as of the nature of a ceremonial purifica- 
 
 D" 3 t:3n? 
 
54 Of the Signification af the Ch. 4.. 
 
 tlon? She went, therefore, to the fountain to 
 be purified^ or cleanfed from the ceremonial pol- 
 Jution contraaed in the day; which no more 
 required plunging than fwimming : and to fay thatj 
 in thofe circumftances, fhe went fupra Jiaiutum^ 
 merely becaufe it is faid (he was baptized^ is to 
 facrifice common fenfe to an indefenfible hypothens ; 
 and to impute immodejl folly to the wifeft woman in 
 Ifrael, without producing one fmgle argument, 
 or one ray of evidence, in fupport of the charge 
 — except it be that noble argument, that trufty 
 foundation which has been the fole fupport of 
 niany a huge controverfial fabrick, — petitio prhi"' 
 cipii ! i. e. " baptizing IS plunging!" 
 
 § 15. 2. The ofFspring, ^cc^Pul^co, having been 
 examined, and found totally filent about the 
 eU'entlality of immerfion ; let us nov/ proceed 
 to examine the parent, ^a,7fl(-. And here it is 
 obfervable, That of the tivo and twenty inftances 
 where ibis word is found, not one is inconfift- 
 ent with its being, in its primary meaning, a 
 generic term^ fignifying to tinge; Vv'hereas in 
 fix inilances at leaft, if I am not much mif- 
 taken, the fpccific notion of immerfion is ex- 
 dueled. 
 
 It is well known that in v^hatever language 
 prepofitions are ufed, they have no fmall influ- 
 ence in determining the meaning of thofe words 
 with which they are connecTted ; and in many 
 cafes are quite decifive. For inftance, were the 
 fubject of inquiry, liow general and extenfive, or 
 how particxdar and confined, is the meaning ot 
 
 any 
 
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Bapfifm. 55 
 
 any word? the ufe of the prepofitions conne£led 
 with it will often decide. Suppofe, for illuf- 
 tratioil' fake, we fix upon the Englilh word t9 
 move : now in order to know that this is a 
 generic term I need only obferve — That prepo- 
 fitions of various and even contrary influence and 
 tendency may be confidently conne6led with it; 
 as to move ;//, with^ by, from, to. For a 
 thing may be rnaved from as well as to or 
 towards another. But let any other word which 
 is only a fpccies of the genus to ??iove be 
 adopted, as advance, proceed, withdraiv, recede, 
 ^c. its fpecilic nature is eafily difcovered by the 
 ufe of the prepofitions. If, for example, ws find 
 the words tuithdravj and from connected, the 
 motion is fpecified as retrograde ; but the words 
 MOVE from do not fpecify it. Again, if we 
 find the words advance and to connected, the 
 motion is fpecified as progreJTwe ; but the v/ordv 
 MOVE to (\q not fpecify it. — Let us apply thefe 
 remarks to the word in difpute. If prepofitions 
 of oppofite and contrary tendency are found con- 
 nected with it, this demonftrates that the genu- 
 ine meaning cannot be that which is necefla* 
 rily confned to only one uniform tendency, viz. 
 That of the fubjecl towards the fluid, li the 
 particles employed, and the circumftances at-' 
 tending, convey to us the idea — That the fubje<Sl 
 baptized is brought to that baptized Jiate, fome- 
 times by the application of the fluid to the lubjecl, 
 and fometimes by the application of the fabjewt to 
 the fluid, it follows — that the radical^ and pri- 
 
 D 4 mary 
 
56 Of the Signification of the Ch. 4. 
 
 mary meaning is that which is cstnimn to both. 
 The terms to dlp^ plunge^ im?nerfe^ and the like, 
 are expreffive only of that confined and fpeciiic 
 act which implies the motion and application 
 of the fubject to the fiuld ; confequently, they 
 are inadequate to exprefs the primary idea, be- 
 ing too partial and contracted. 
 
 If the moft eminent Lexicographers are right, 
 when they tell us that the priinary and proper 
 meaning oi ^a.Ti\u is to tinge; and if our op- 
 ponents are alfo right, when they aflure us that 
 its primary and proper meaning is to iimnerfe ; 
 it follows that tinging and immerfing are per- ■ 
 fe6tly fynonymous. But every one knov>'s that 
 immerfion is only a 7nGde of tinging, as before 
 Ihewn ; therefore, if the premifes be true, the 
 mode and the thing rnodified are perfectly the 
 [aim I Or you are favoured, reader, with ano- 
 ther curious but legitimate confequence — A per- 
 fon or thing may be faid, properly and ftri6lly, 
 to be dipped when only fpri}ikl£d^ paifited^ or any 
 how coloured! — It is in vain to urge, that be- 
 caufe dipping is the ?noft vjual way of tinging, 
 therefore it may be termed the primary meaning ; 
 for with the fame propriety may a fophiil ex- 
 claim : " The primary meaning of MOTiox is 
 " progrejfr.n. Ye boalted men of fcience, who 
 " have faid fo much about motion, ye are all 
 *' deceived, and quite out in your definitions \ 
 " for if \ou behold the planets in their courfes, 
 " they all proceed \ and fo do the rivers of wa- 
 '' ter frocfed in their channels j man on his 
 
 " journey 
 
 -li^ 
 
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Baptijhu S7 
 
 *' journey advances forward ; the whole vegeta- 
 *' ble and animal creation obferves the fame 
 '' plan; therefore — retrogrejjlon is no motion.'* 
 Equally abfurd is the conclufion, that the fre- 
 quency of one mode of tinging annihilates all others. 
 § 16. In Exod. xii. 22. we read ; Kai ^cc^avlsq 
 
 AnO ra ctif^ccloq. Lev. iv. IJ. Kai ^si-^n ItfEv; 
 TQv ^cckIvT^ov AnO ra aifjLccioq. xiv. 1 6. Kai ^x^n 
 Tov ^a-^vMti TO? ^£|»6v Alio T» EAata. Dan. IV. 30. 
 Kcti AnO T>?j ^focra ra a^ava to crwf/ta aJla t^aipv I 
 
 and the fame verbatim, chap. v. 21. And in Pfalm 
 ixviii. 23. we find : " That thy foot may be 
 tinged in [or, with] the blood of thine enemies, 
 and the tongue of thy dogs [may be tinged'\ 
 
 IIAP' aJJa (fiil* Ui^.x\o<;,) 
 
 Now let impartiality itfelf determine, whether 
 thefe prepofitions, or the latin ones correfpond- 
 ing, <?, ab^ de^ or ex^ are any way compatible 
 with that mode of tinging which our opponents 
 make ejjential to true baptifm ? And whether 
 they do not demonjlrate that the primary fig^ 
 nification of the controverted word is not to 
 plunge ; but to tinge^ wety Jlain^ or the like ? 
 And tho' immerfion may be found the moft 
 common^ becaufe the moft eafy and commodious 
 mode ^i tinging a variety of things, fuch as a 
 finger^ the one end of a bunch of hyffop^ or the 
 ind of a rod; but when the feet are faid to be 
 tinged at the brim (eiSa^jjo-av £14; |i*ipo?*) of overflow- 
 ing Jordan — when thefe as well as the head^ 
 
 D 5 thr(/ 
 
 * The Welfh tranflation is very emphatical : " A gtvlychu o draed 
 yr offeiriaid, oedd yn dwyn yv arcl*, ynghwrr y dyfroedd." Jof^ 
 
58 Of the Sigmficaticn of ihi Ch. 40 
 
 thro* the abundance of oil, are to be anointed^, 
 •—the mode of appFication becomes more ambi- 
 guous as to the fa^^ becaufe more difficult to 
 determine about the natural propriety of the ac- 
 tion. If again the queftion be put— What is 
 the moft natural and the moft commrn mode 
 whereby the garments of a warrior are tinged? 
 We can be at no lofs for a reply. The jnode^ 
 therefore, of accomplifhing the primary thing 
 fignified, varies according to the nature of the 
 cafe. 
 
 § 17, One thing more deferves particular no- 
 tice, refpeding the ufe of ^oe.'ii\b) in the Septuagint 
 and Apocrypha, There are, if I remember right, 
 but tiuo pajjages in all thefe writings where a 
 HUMAN BODY or PERSON is faid to be tinged 
 (^«7rl£^0at) and both refer to Nebuchadnezzar, 
 and are exprefled in the very fame words*. It 
 Ihould feem, then, that this cafe is of confider- 
 able importance, being the only one in pointy as 
 to the fubje6l baptized, within the limits of our 
 prefent inquiry. Now the queftion is, what is 
 the primary fignification of the word iQucpY, here 
 ufed ? Is it any one fpecific a6l of immerfing in 
 water, putting under water, fprinkling, or pour- 
 ing water upon the fubjedt I Or does it not 
 rather refer to a Jiate of wetnefs in which the 
 body of the metamorphofed monarch was ? Let 
 Dr. S. reply: " The word iQx(p7) is not ufed to 
 ** defcribe the aSlion of the dew as dijlilling or 
 ^^ fallings but to exprefs the STATE of Nebu- 
 
 " chadnezzar's 
 
 * Dan. iv. 3S, r, 21. 
 
Clr. 4. Terms Baptize and Baptifm, 59 
 
 " chadnezzar's bodyf." This I verily believe 
 is the proper, radical, primary meaning of the 
 controverted term ; of which this pafTage is a 
 flriking proof. " Not the action but the 
 STATE." If any aSiion at all, it would be the 
 diftilling or falling of the dew, for there was no 
 other; but it " defcribes the ftate Nebuchad- 
 nezzar was in," which has nothing to do im- 
 mediately with any aSiion ; and confequently the 
 word tQct^rt does not, cannot defcribe immerfion^ 
 which is as much an atlion as the falling of 
 the dew. It is in vain for Dr. S. to foift in 
 the falvo, " as it were." *' Which was, os it 
 were^ dipped or plunged in dew." For this was 
 not a figurative baptifm : it was a real fa^» 
 His body was aSfually in a baptized Jiate, It 
 v/as tinged or wetted^ and therefore as truly hap^ 
 tized as any thing of which we read. 
 
 The queftion now returns : By what means 
 came the degraded monarch's body into this 
 flate? It muft be owned this is only 2. fee on- 
 dary confideration ; the primary is the y?^/f, no 
 matter how efFe(5led. Yet it is necefiary that this 
 ftate fliould be introduced by fome mode of ap^ 
 plication. It mull: needs be that either the tin- 
 gent liquid was applied to him^ or he to it. It 
 could not be the latter; for there is no motion 
 of his body from, one pofition to another fup- 
 pofed, as is felf-evident \ nor was the baptifm 
 efFe6led by his being put in a river^ a pool-^ or 
 a bath which is equally clears no, nor yet his 
 
 D 6 bein^ 
 
 f Remarks on the Chriftian Min. Reaf, f. 45. 
 
^O Of the Higyjificatzon cf the Ch. 4» 
 
 being put in the dew, for the Jiate was ef- 
 fe6t:ed Ano rY,<^ o^otb, from the dew^ or by the 
 a6tion of the dew upon him. Confequently, 
 the tingent Hquid was applied to hi?n ; and a 
 MODE of baptiffn this, as oppofne and contrary to 
 Yipping^ as the points of Eaft and Weft, or the 
 ideas of aclion and re-a6lion, can be. Thus, I 
 think^ it is " fatisfaclorily proved (if demonftra- 
 tion will fatisfy) that in tills one inftance (and 
 the only one which refers to a human perfon 
 complexly under the word ^x'rflu) in the Septua- 
 gint verfion or the Apocryphal writings ) the idea 
 of dipping is EXCLUDED from the word.'* 
 
 But Dr. S. ftill objeds : " Now (fays he) it 
 <' is very remarkable, as Dr. Gale has largely 
 " fliewn In his anfwer to Mr. Wall, that the 
 " original Chaldee word (if/labbang)^ which is 
 " here rendered by t'^u^v), necejfarily implies dip- 
 '' ping, as appears by the conjiant ufe of the 
 " word ; and that it is by this Chaldee word 
 *' the Jerufalem Targum renders the Hebrew 
 " (tabbal) Lev. iv. 6. which alfo iinquejlionably 
 " fignifies to dip." And, he might have added, 
 — which unquefrionably fignifies to tinge ; which 
 laft as unqnejlionahly differs from plunging^ as Dr. 
 S.'s mode of baptizing differs from that of his 
 opponents.— I think it has been fufficiently prov- 
 ed already that the pri?nary meaning of the He- 
 brew word is not to immerfe^ but to iinge^ to 
 hring to a Jiate of wetnefs^ of colour^ &c. in whole 
 or in part; and becaufe this principal end was 
 more commonly accomplifhed by the mode of 
 
 dipping 
 
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Baptifin* - 61 
 
 dipping, hence that fecondary idea became more 
 prevalent than any other. But I may venture 
 to fay, That it never fxgniiies to immerfe for 
 the fake of immerfion in all the facred writings ; 
 but the immerfion is always for the fake of a 
 higher end\ and therefore is only a mode^ how- 
 ever common, of effecting that primary purpofe. 
 Nay, I will venture a flep further, and affirm 
 —That in fame of thofe places where the word 
 occurs, immerfion appears a ujelefs mode of an- 
 fwering the main intention, fince another would 
 anfwer letter^ as in the cafe o{ fi dning Jofeph's 
 coat, &c. and that in other places a mode di- 
 ametrically oppofite to immerfion is plainly fug- 
 geflcd by the prepofition annexed, as before 
 nolkvd; tho', as to the nature of the thing 
 intended, it might have been done either way.— • 
 Therefore, that the Chaldee word in queftion 
 (hould be rendered by the Hebrew iabha\ is fo 
 far Irom proving the point intended, that it is 
 evidently agairift it. 
 
 § 18. Respecting the Chaldee word— " that 
 it neceffarily implies dipping, as appears by its 
 conftant ufe" — we deny the fa6l. Nor has Dr. 
 Gale, or any one elfe, proved the pofition now 
 mentioned. The general if not the univerfal 
 fufFrage of Lexicographers of the firfl note, and 
 Criticks of the higheft reputation, is againft him ; 
 the verdidl of the moft eminent verftons is a- 
 gainft him -, and the nature of the fuhje6ls where 
 the word occurs is againft him. 
 
 Among 
 
62 ^f ^^^ Signification of the Chs 4. 
 
 Among others, do not Castellus, whofe 
 eulogy was that of hterary greatnefs, pronounced 
 by an able judge*; N. Fuller, fo renowned 
 for his critical refearches; Pagninus, ftiled by 
 one not inferior to himfelf, " A man moft fkil- 
 ful in the eaftern languages fi" Buxtorf, 
 whofe very name refle6ts honour on Jewifh li- 
 terature ; to which we may add, Leigh, Stock- 
 lus, &c. do not thefe, I fay, concur to pro- 
 nounce and prove the word in queftion, both 
 in the Hebrew and Chaldee form, to be a ce- 
 KERic TERM, by rendering it tingere and colo- 
 ran? Is not tinxit the primary meaning? And 
 is not this as different from immerfion as ge- 
 nus from fpecies^ or ejfence from mode ? 
 
 Mr. Parkhurst in his Lexicon under the, 
 word, fuppofes, indeed, the primary fenfe of the 
 Hebrew root to be — " To form longijh lines^ or 
 ^^ Jlreaks^ or fuch as are longer than they arc 
 " broad, (q. d. ohlongare) ox to be of an oh- 
 " long Jhape,'*^ Hence he fuppofes that " as a 
 ** noun (cjlabbang) it fignifies a finger or toe^ 
 " from its longijh or oblong form.*' That " as 
 •* a noun or participle paffive it denotes Tijlripe 
 ** oxjlriped^ Judg. v, 30." As a participial noun, 
 
 * The Hyana^ fo called from the dark flripes 
 
 * ox Jlreaks with which his colour is variegated." 
 
 When. 
 
 • Bp, "Walton, in his pref. to the Polyglot: *' Virum inr 
 •* quo eruditio fumnTa magnaquc animi modcftia convencrc." 
 
 ■f- J. BuxTORj- in Epift. Dcd. to his Hcb. Lcr, ** Vir Lin* 
 •* fcuarum Orientalium peritiiHiKus.'* 
 
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Bapttpn, 6j 
 
 When he confiders the word in the Chaldes/ 
 form he obferves: " In Aph. To ivet^ molften^ 
 Imhue^ Dan. iv. 22. In Ith. — To he ivetted. 
 Dan. iv. 12. v. 21. So the Vulg. render it by 
 tlngi^ infundi^ infici^ and the LXX. in the laA 
 palTage by et'^^jj." 
 
 The Assembly's Annotator on Jer. xii. g. 
 obferves : " The word here ufed, and not tMt^- 
 " where found, cometh from a root, which tho' 
 " no where ufed in the Hebrew text of Scrip- 
 *' ture, yet is found in the Syriack of Daniel, 
 " Dan. iv, 15, 23, 33. and v. 21. as alfo in 
 *' the Syriack and Arabick verfions of the New 
 " Teftament. Matt. xx. 23. Luke vii. 38/* 
 Now this laft paflage abfolutely excludes immer- 
 fion from the nature of the a(5lion ; and as to 
 the text in Matthew, the hteral interpretation of 
 the Arabick verfion is — " tin^nrat mea tlngemtni''' 
 While the Syriack Interpreter keeps to the 
 Greek terms latinized : " Baptifmate quo ego 
 iaptizory baptizabi7nim,^^ — As to Dan. iv. 15. 
 MoNTANUs's interlineary verfion and the Vul- 
 gate, render it by tingo-y the Syriack verfion 
 is interpreted by inthigo, ver, 23. is rendered 
 by Mont ANUS : " Ex rore coelorum te tingen- 
 tes." The Vulgate: " £t rore coeii infun- 
 deris." The Syriack, as before, by int'mgo ; 
 " Rore coeli intingeris." ver. 33. Mont. " De 
 rore ccxilorum corpus ejus tingebatur." Vulg: 
 " Rore coeli corpus ejus infe(5tum efl." Syr. 
 Interp. "Rore cceli intingendum." Sept. lite- 
 ral Tranfiation: " De rore coeU corpus ^jus in. 
 
 feclum 
 
m 
 
 ^. Of the Signification of the Ch. 4,. 
 
 feaumeft.'* Arab. Interp. " Perfufum fuit cor- 
 pus ejus rore cceli.'* And as to Dan. v. 21. 
 Mont. " E rore coelorum corpus ejus tinctum 
 fuit." VuLG. as in the pafTage laft mentioned. 
 Syr. " Rore coeli corpus ejus intinclum.'* 
 Sept. Verbatim as in the laft paflage. Arab. 
 " Perfufum eft corpus ejus rore coeli," — Let the 
 reader now judge, whether the " Chaldee word 
 necejjarily implies dippings as appears by its con- 
 J: ant uft ! 
 
 It is well known that from this root is de- 
 rived, as before obferved, the participle, or par- 
 ticipial noun (tfabuang) which is rendered in our 
 prefent verfion ^^ fpeckled.^' And perhaps there 
 is not a word within the compafs of facred li- 
 terature, about the meaning of which there have 
 been more critical conjedures among the learn- 
 ed. And yet among thefe endlefs conjectures I 
 do not recollect one tliat conveys the idea of 
 neceffary immerfion*. 
 
 Once 
 
 * SoMi, as before hinted, and particularly Bochart ( De 
 jinlmalibui Sac, Scrip. Lib. iii. ii.) would, after the Septuagint^ 
 render the phrafe vhich we read *' fpeckltd birdy' ~—^ *' byanuy'' 
 or variegated luild btajl. But of thef- there were two kinds, 
 one a quadruped very much hke a wolf, only Jpotted\ and the 
 ether a "fcrpent fptckkd under the belly ; ce»ctri$, or ferpens milt' 
 grius. Others confider the word (eitb) with which it is con- 
 »e<£led, and which is agreeable to our verfion, as meaning flriftly 
 a hirdi and accordingly they exprefs the force of the participle 
 as agreeing with anjis in fome fuch terms aj thefe ; tinElOy coIo' 
 rata, piEia, variegata, difiolor, varicolor^ •vtrficilor y rubefaOoy fanguine 
 infcfla, cruentay cruentata j injolita, fylvejirii j digitata, praJongii utt' 
 guikui proidita, pradatriXf rapax, fera^ carni-vtra, &c. And were 
 
 It* 
 
Ch. 4. Terms B.iptize and Bapt'ifm. 65 
 
 Once more; it may be remarked, that the 
 ufe of the Hebrew derivative, Judg. v. ?o. which 
 is rendered by the Sept. by a derivative from 
 ^ciTrico^ is not at all favourable to our opponents' 
 hypothefis ; — " To Sifera a prey of aru::rs co- 
 Icurs (tfchaim /Sajf./^ola.j',) a prey of diver s colours 
 (as before) of need!e-work, a prey of divers 
 colours ftjebay ^siy.y.xicc) of needle-work on both 
 fides." But how would this paffage read on the 
 phinging plan ? " To Sifera a prey of piano-- 
 ••'•o-'j ^ P^^y ^f pLungings of needle-work, a 
 prey of pluiiglngs of needle-work on both fides 
 [qv^ more literally, a plimguig of double em» 
 
 broidery!)" And here it is obfervabie that 
 
 'while iMoNT. ^w^ the Vulg, render the v^ord 
 by color and diverfus color ; and the trandations 
 of the SspT\ and Syr. by itntluras ti\e Chal- 
 dee Faraphrail, retaining the fame word, In the 
 Chaldee form, (tjiheonvi) is rendered by the latin. 
 verfion ^^ color, '^ " Prcedam polymitarum colorum." 
 That is, if the Doctors Stennett and Gale 
 are right in faying, that the word " vecejfarily 
 implies dipping," — " A prey of the embroideries of 
 dippings !" 
 
 It 
 
 I to throw my mite of conje£lure into the heap, it Hiould be 
 " avis NOTATA," which, in my apprthenfion, txhibits the moft 
 fcafible and eafy connedlion between the very diflimilar derivatives; 
 the one importing "Color,'"'' cr " tinEiurOy* and the other *' di" 
 gitu%y — Who knows but in this age of difcoveries it may be 
 •' largely fhewn " and demonitrated, that the b'lrd in queftion \% 
 neither a hawk, a kite, an e^gle or a peacock, ( as fome have 
 conjecliued) tut av'.i immersa — a ^' ducky "" which is literally 
 *he dipping ^ or dipped) bird, from the Dutch " dncken" to dip * 
 
66 Of the Sigytificatkn of' the Ch. 4. 
 
 It is not denied that the Chaldee word an- 
 fwcrs to ^avlecj ; but what we infift is that the 
 primary meaning of neither is to immerfe. — 
 Sir £i>WARD Leigh, after giving the import 
 of tl\e word thus : " Thixit, iutinxit, colore vel 
 humore i/uhuit feu infec'it^ coloravk, lavit^ made- 
 fccity rigavitj baptizavit^ i mmerf i'' — ohicrvcs from 
 Fuller: " The word among the Syrians, 
 " primarily and properly figniries ^ocirliiv j that 
 " is, either irnmergere or tingere ; and becaufe v;hat 
 " is flained with any colour is made fuch />/z- 
 " mergendo five tingendc^ hence alfo it denotes 
 " colorare; juft as ^aTpmf and tingere among the 
 " Greeks and Latins, comprize both meanmgs''-^^''* 
 Now if a word fignifies to tinge and to iin- 
 mcrfe^ it is demonftrable from the cafe itfelf, 
 that the former is the Uading and primary 
 fenfe ; for to immerfe is a ?r2ode of tinging, but 
 tinging cannot be called a mode of immerfing, 
 To deny this, is to deny that the genus pompre- 
 bends the fpecics, or that the whole compre- 
 hends the parts.— What Fuller fuggefls, that te 
 colour is a confcqumt meaning, because effected 
 BY plungi?jg or tinging, docs not afreet the 
 qucfiion ; otherwife the idea itfelf is controver- 
 tible. For, if fome better reafon be not af- 
 figncd, he might as well have faid j " Travel- 
 ling is a confideration confequent to walking or 
 riding, because that is effdUd by thefe,'' That 
 is. The thing itfelf is a confideration confequent 
 Xd tlie fpccifc mode or manner of elie(Sling it ! 
 
 But 
 
 • Crit Sacr, 
 
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Baptifm, 67 
 
 But before I leave this branch of the fub- 
 ]tc\^ I would obferve, That the above remarks 
 and reafonings on the controverted words, in 
 proof that they are generic ter?ns^ mufl be in 
 ail reafon confidered in reference to tiie time, 
 place and occafion of ufing them. For there is 
 2 great deal of difference between the accepta- 
 tion of words at one time, place or occafion, 
 and others. Therefore, no objediiion that may- 
 be formed againft what I have faid will affeil 
 it, tho' it were proved (what yet remains to be 
 done) that the fpecific notion of dipping was 
 of ?nore early date^ as conveyed by thefe terms, 
 than the generic one of tinging ; except it be 
 alfo proved that the more general fignification 
 did not exift at the time and place of \ifmg the 
 words. Whatever is done fhort of this will 
 be juftly deemed inconclufive, and mere logo- 
 machy. 
 
 § 19. Having taken rtotice already of all 
 thofe pafTages in the New Tefi:ament, where 
 the word ^xttI-.^u) occurs, it will be needlefs as 
 well as tedious to enter into a minute exa- 
 mination of them all. Inftead of this it will 
 be fufHcient, and perhaps more proper, to make 
 the following obfervations upon them, in con^- 
 nedion with what has been already laid. 
 
 I. Tho' I have, according to our opponents' 
 conftant wiili, made /SstTr/o;, as well as i5«7r?tfa;, 
 the fubjeifl: of inquiry ; yet as the former is 
 never, but conftantly the latter is ufed in the 
 New Teftament when the facred rite is in 
 
 queftionj 
 
XZ Cf the Signification of the Gh. 4. 
 
 queftion, it is but reafonable to fuppofe that 
 this uniformity is owing not to accident but 
 tlefign ; and if to deftgn^ it is- equally reafonable 
 to conclude that both terms, at leaft in th& 
 legijlc.tive fenfe, are not fynonymous, 
 
 1. This being the cafe, it is but reafonable 
 to infer, that the \ife of the word ^ocrfi.i^j,} in 
 the Sept. and Apocrypha, rather than ^onrlu^, 
 fhould be regarded in afcertaining the {tn{(i 
 of the former in the New Teftament. 
 
 3. Inasmuch as every i7i/iance where the 
 word occurs in thefe writings (Ifa. xxi. 4. ex- 
 cepted, which is evidently figurative,) is a fpecies' 
 of ceremonial purification*, as before obfer- 
 ved i and feeing to purijy and to baptize are 
 vifed fynonymoufly, Mai. iii. 3. and Mark i. 8. 
 — ap.d when we add to this, the nature and 
 dcfign ci the inftitution ; the greater confiftency 
 of tlie rendering, of which let the impartial 
 judge; — ! think it natural to infer, That the 
 real legi dative and facramental force of the term 
 is of a general nature^ and by no means con- 
 lined to one fpecific action j and that the 
 words purification and purifiy^ tho' not perfedly 
 adequate, have a better claim on adequatenefs 
 to exprefs the meaning of the original than im* 
 merfiion and immerfic^ or any that convey the fame 
 idea. 
 
 § 20. If we inquire by what mode this pu- 
 rification by water is beft effected ? I beg leave 
 to reply in general — By the application of water 
 to the body, rather than by applying the body 
 
 of 
 
Ch. 4. ' Terms Baptize and Baptifm, 69 
 
 of the fubjedt to the water. My reafons are 
 as follows : 
 
 I. Because, S ^aTrltfo/Atvo?, the purified perfon^ 
 all along from Mofes to Ckriji *, was ceremo- 
 nially cleanfed or purified^ at leaft principally, 
 by that mode. Numb. xix. 12. "He fhall pu- 
 rify himielf with iT."--ver. 33. " Becaufe the 
 water of reparation was not fprinkled upon him^ 
 he fhall be unclean,^* ver, 20. "The water of 
 reparation hath not been fprinkled upon him^ 
 he is unclean.''* Nor is there any evidence, 
 that the bathings or wajhing the body with 
 water, referred to any but the adminifira- 
 tor of the rit^l and the rather becaufe he 
 had no other mode of purification left but this, 
 whereas the other was clean by fprinkling. It is 
 confefTedly clear, that he who fprinkled or even 
 touched the water of feparation^ was thereby 
 rendered unclean ; now if fprinkling was necef- 
 fary for his cleanfmg, it muft be equally fo for 
 his fprinkler, and fo on, which is abfurd. There- 
 fore, the ablution was necefjary for him, but not 
 neceffary for the other, sny more than the te^it^ 
 &c. after being fprinkled. And indeed fuppofmg 
 (without granting) that both bathed themfelves, 
 it ftill follows that the application of water to 
 the fubjedl for cleanfing, conflituted the leading 
 and principal part of the adlion. 
 
 2. Because the ^ia,(po^oi ^ccTflia-ixoi, the divers 
 
 purl- 
 
 * Be it obferved, that evtry person who was legally purified 
 from the touch of a dead body, &c during that long period^ 
 was bapti^ned. How cotnn.on a thing, then, muft kapiifm be amon^ 
 the JewSf as a facred rite! 
 
no Of the Signtfication of the Ch. 4. 
 
 purficatlcns, which were in force font Mofes U 
 ChnfU were performed at leaft principally by this 
 mode.' On this phrafe ( Heb. ix. 10.) Dr. S. 
 has the following very fingular obfervation : 
 " As prophecy, teaching, ruling, &c. are the dif- 
 ^' ferent fpecies of tlie genus gifts-, fo the van- 
 " cus plungings of priefts, Levites, and people, 
 « for confecration, defilement, &c. are the dif- 
 « ferent fpecies of the genus dippings or bath- 
 " in^^s." In fupport of this remark, fo un- 
 worthy of Dr. S. we are referred to Spencer, 
 Grotius, and Whitby. But the fentiment 
 muil: be untenable indeed if it has no better de- 
 fence than what thefe authors CTcrd. Nay, the 
 very references are plump again/l it. For not 
 only do they imply that the priefts, Levites, and 
 Ifraelites were different fuhjc^s^ but alfo that the 
 wajhings {^w^l^iAOi) were different (^ta^opot) ; and, 
 indeed, elfe they could not pofTibly be excul- 
 pated from palming on the Apoftle a contradic- 
 tion in terms, as we (hall prefently fee. The 
 piefls had one mode of purification by water, 
 Kxod. xxix. 4. " And Aaron and his fons thou 
 (halt bring unto the door of the tabernacle of 
 the congregation, and thou /halt w^ash , them 
 ivith water.'^ The. Levites liad another inode^ 
 Numb. viii. 5 — 7* " And the Lord fpake unto 
 Mofes, faying. Take the Levites from among the 
 children of Ifrael, and charfe them. And thus 
 flialt thou do unto them to cleanfe them: 
 Sprinkle vjatcr cf purifying upon them.^* And 
 
 the 
 
Ch. 4. Terms Bapiize and Baptijm. 71 
 
 the people when defiled had another mode^ Lev. 
 XV. 5 — 8, 16. Here the unclean is commanded 
 to " bathe himfelf in water," or to wajh himfelf^. 
 The words of Spencefc are: " Alia enim erat 
 Pontificis et facerdotum lotio^ alia Levitarura, 
 Ifraelitarum alia^ ^'c.'' (De Leg. Heb. Lib. 
 iii. Diflert. 3.) And thofe of Grotius: " Fa^ 
 rias lotiones nominat, (Heb. ix. 10.) quia lotia 
 alia erat facerdotum, alia Levitarum, &c.'* And 
 Dr. Whitby upon the place refers to the 
 above texts in proof of the waflnngs being di^ 
 vers, But^ how can thefe authorities or thefe 
 facred texts contribute in the leaft degree to 
 cftablifh Dr. S.'s unaccountably ftrange notion 
 of genus and fpecies ; when he fays that " the 
 various plungings of priefts, Levites, &c. are the 
 different fpecies of the genus dippings or bath- 
 ings." As this dodrine, peculiar to a tottering 
 hypothefis, ftands already confuted and juflly ex- 
 pofed in a publication which Mr. B. has cau- 
 iioujly overlooked (perhaps out of tendernefs for 
 himfelf and his caufe)-, and to which Dr. S. 
 has thought proper to make no reply (we fup- 
 pofe for a very fubjiantial reafon ) ; I beg leave 
 to prefent the reader with the following flridlures 
 from that unanjwered performance : ^' Accord- 
 ing to the Dr. dippings are the different fpecies 
 of the genus dippings, — Small as my acquaint- 
 ance 
 
 * ** They had tvajhlngs alfo — of the ir\wards, Ex. xxxx, ij, and 
 ** of the burnt-offerings peculiarly, Ezek. xl. 3S. of the hands and 
 " feet of the priefts, Ex. xxx. 18. and of the Leper, xiv. 9. — ^ 
 
72 Of the Signification of the Ch. 4. 
 
 *' ance is vith the docSlrine of genus and fpe- 
 " aVj. yet I know there is between the feveral 
 " fpecies contained in the genus, what logicians 
 '* call differentia, 'Tiius a Jrian and a brute are 
 " different fpecies of the genus ariimah, and 
 " that which conftitutes the difference betv/een 
 '' thefe fpecies is rationality. But where is the 
 " logical differentia between plunging s and dip- 
 *' pings? unlefs the Dr. will contend that a va- 
 *' nation in ter?ns makes it. Indeed he feemed 
 *' aware, that to affirm, dip')ings are the fpecies 
 '' of dippingSy would incur manifeft abfurdity, 
 " and therefore he artfully varied his phrafeo- 
 " logy. But fuch little artifices as thefe are 
 " eafily fecn through, and help to deted the 
 *' fallacy and evafion which frequently lurk un- 
 '' der them. 
 
 " Let us fee how he applies his reafoning 
 " to the ufe of the word in Rom. xii. 6. Men- 
 *■*■ tion is made there of differing gifts ^ ^iu(pc^.a, 
 " ;'C«f"^/^-*'*» ^^^ thofe gifts are fpeciiied ; fuch 
 *' as prophecy^ exhortation^ ruling^ Sec. Upon 
 " this the Dr. argues thus: '^ We might with 
 '' good reafon argue analogically from this other 
 " pafiage in Romans, and fay, that as prophecy^ 
 *' rulings &c, are the different fpecies of the 
 " genus gifts J fo the various plungings are, S:c.'' 
 
 « But 
 
 ** Ba'TUC"/xo? is ary kwd of -juajhirgf whether by dipping or fpiink- 
 " ling J putting the thi:ig to be waflicd into the water, or ap- 
 ** plyirg tie luater iinto the thing iifelf to be uafhed. Of thefe 
 ** waihings there vcre various /crts or iitiJs under the lavr," 
 Dr, OwzVf in tec. Vol. iii. p. 351, 352, 
 
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Baptif?n, y^ 
 
 " But, according to our author's mode of rea- 
 " foning, the analogy is dejlroyed. — If, according 
 " to the Doctor, ^»a(popoi /SaTrlKj/xot fignlfy clean- 
 " fmg of different perfons', then, in order to pre- 
 '' ferve a juft analogy^ ha<pc^cc y^oc^ia-uc^a ought 
 " Ukewife to mean gifts difpenfed to different 
 ^^^perfons. But the abfurdity of inference in the 
 " latter cafe, clearly expofes the fallacy of con- 
 " clufion in the former. x>xpȣr/xala gifts are the 
 " genus ; whofe /pedes are, prophecy^ ridings Sec, 
 " Each of thefe is a fpecies ; each is different 
 " from the other ; and both are contained in 
 " the genus. But according to our author's 
 " do£lrine of genus and fpecies, if only one of 
 " thefe (prophecy for inftance) had been given 
 « to " various perfons^' to the paftors, deacons, 
 " people ; ftill x*p*'^/^*^'=^ g'fts would have been 
 " the genus, and one of thefe gifts conferred 
 " on " various perfons'' would have .been the 
 " fpecies : and thus prophecies would have been 
 *' the fpecies of prophecies^ without any dif^ 
 " ference whatever ! for the difference would 
 " refpe6t the perfons on whom they were be* 
 *' flowed, and not the things given. 
 
 " Another inflance vnW expofe it flill more. 
 " In Lev. xix. 19. the Lord commands his 
 « people not to fow their fields with mingled 
 " feed^ a KoJao-TrEptK ^ixpopov, diverfo femine ( Lat. 
 " Vulg. *) The Greek word is the fame here 
 Vol. H. E " ?s 
 
 * Other latin verfions have it, dl'verfi fpeciebus, ex dualus fpe- 
 debus, commlxtione Jemimim, mijlionibus, &c« 
 
74- ^f '^•'^ Signification of the Ch. 4. 
 
 *' as in Hebrews and Romans^ and fignifies a 
 " difference in the fpecies of feed ; a mingling 
 " of which was prohibited under the law. 
 " But, by our author's mode of accomtnoda- 
 '* ting the doctrine of genus and fpecies, tho* 
 « the Jews had ufed one unmingled feed, yet if 
 " they depofited it in various fields or upon 
 " various " occafions," they would have equally 
 " violated the divine injundion; becaufc, al- 
 " though there was not the leaft difference be- 
 " tween the pure feed fown in one piece of 
 " ground, and the fame depofited in another ; 
 *' yet, according to the Dodor's idea, there 
 ** would have fubfifled a difference between thefe 
 " fpecies of feeds, only becaufe of the different 
 ^^ fields to which they had been committed. 
 " After the fame abfurd manner does he rea- 
 " fon about the divers baptifms under the law, 
 " The priefts, he fays, were dipped in water, the 
 " Levites were dipped^ and the people were dip^ 
 " ped. And where is the difference between dip^ 
 ^^ ping in watery ^nd-^ dipping in water P " O, 
 " but different perfons were dipped!'* But how 
 " does a difference in the perfons conftitute a 
 '' difference in the things when [on the fuppo- 
 '' fition] the mode of applying the water was 
 '' the very fame to priefls, Levites and -people ? 
 " I need not inform the judicious reader, that 
 " the whole of the Do(Si:or's reafoning, which 
 " feems perfedly new, amounts to this, viz. 
 *' That a genus may have different fpecies, 
 
 " and 
 
Ch, 4. Terms Baptize and Baptifm, 75 
 
 *' and that there may be ns teal difference at 
 " all between thefe different fpecies [or even 
 " between the gefius and /pedes'] (which is a 
 " contradidlion in terms) no more than between 
 " plungings and plungings */ " 
 
 But wonders never ceafe. Who could think 
 it? from this very phrafe, " divers wafhings,'* 
 Dr. Gill fetches an argument, (or '^ dipping ! 
 " Called divers^ fays the Dodtor, becaufe of the 
 " different perfjns and things waflied or dipped, 
 " as the fame Grotius obfervesj and not 
 *' becaufe of different forts of wafliing, for there 
 " is but one way! of wafhing, and that is by 
 *' dipping!'' But Grotius obferves no fuch 
 thing, as his words declare. And whether the 
 other parts of this curious piece of dogmatifm 
 be not either already refuted in the refutation 
 of Dr. S. or tl^Q too palpably grofs and un- 
 guarded to impofe on any one pofTefTed of com- 
 mon fenfe, let the intelligent reader judge. 
 
 I KNOW it has been fuggeiled " that tho' 
 thefe wafhings were divers, they were not di- 
 verfeJ" But whether this Englifh criticifm be 
 not merely fuch, and totally unfupported by the 
 original, may appear, in addition to what has 
 been faid, by the following remarks from no 
 mean writer : " All, who underftand the origi- 
 " nal, know, that the words do and mvjl mean 
 " DIVERSE SORTS of baptifms^ or baptifms of 
 *' different fpecies or ki?ws. It is not faid 
 
 * Mr. De Courcy's Rejoind. p. 204, 305, &C, See alfo 
 Ik EMUS, Ar.tiq, Hebr. Pa r. I, Cap, xviij. § 0, 
 
'^S ^f l^he Signification cf the Ch. 4. 
 
 " TToXXot? 7na7ij^ nor 7ro»x.tXoK 'various,, but ^la^ofoi? 
 " DIVERSE, or DIFFERING SORTS. The only 
 " place, in the New Teftament, where the word 
 " (^»a^opog) is ufed, befides this, is Rom. xii. 6. 
 " Where by ^^aipop x'^'^"^/^-*'* differing or di- 
 " VERSE gijtsj is indifputably meant leveral dif~ 
 ^^ fering KINDS of gifts y as the words following 
 « demonftrate, viz. Prophecy, Teachings Ruling^ 
 
 « 5jc, Should, then, a perfon now fay — That 
 
 " there is no baptifm but by dipping^^hc would 
 " moft plainly and undeniably contradict 
 " the apojile; for he would hereby affirm, that 
 " there is but one kind of baptifm; whereas 
 " the apoftle declares there are more kinds 
 a than one*» — Yea, that the apoftle has, in this 
 « place a more particular regard to the Jewifli 
 ^'' fprinklings^ than dippings^ feems highly pro- 
 *' bable (to fay the leaft) from his exprefs 
 " mention of the fprinklings (ver. 13.) as fome 
 " of the principal of thofe legal purifica- 
 " TIONS, or differing baptifms^ concerning which 
 " he had fpoken (ver. 10.)— If any (hall imagine 
 " that the baptizing of cups, pots, tables, hmnan 
 
 " bodies^ 
 
 • ** Concerning the fcnfe of the word dia^opo; dl'verfe^ fee alfo 
 " "Wifd. vii. 10. ^0,(^0^0,% (^vluv Diverfities, or diverse sorts, 
 <» of plants. Dan. vii. 19. 6»p»o» ^iu(pQfov vet^u Ttuv Qcfiov^ 
 «* a beajl of a KIND (or species) nirrERENT from all ether 
 '< becfis. So the word ^ia,^o^o\ifo<i is twice ufed, in this fame 
 *« epiftle. Heb. i, 4. and viii, 6. [the only places in the New 
 ** Teftanient where it is fcund] in both which place?, it fighi- 
 *' fies of a very different kind: a name^ of a very ciffcrent 
 " kind'f and a minijlry of a very differ er.t kind (rem theirs." 
 
Ch. 4. ^erms Baptize a?ld Baptifm, 77 
 
 " bodies^ Sec. is meant by thefe diverfe baptlf?ns ; 
 " the reply is obvious. Thefe (if they mull be 
 " all dipt in order to their being baptized) can 
 *' with no truth or propriety be called diverfe 
 " or differing kinds of baptifms; for they are 
 " then but one and the fame baptifii of differ- 
 '' ing things. • 
 
 " Here, then, is FULL PROOF that the 
 ^ fcripture ufes the word ^aTrUa-uoi baptijm^ in 
 ^* fp GENERAL and large a knk., as evidently 
 ." to comprehend fpririKling^ if not chiefly to 
 " intend it. Sprinklings then, in the judgfnent 
 " of an infpired writer^ is an authentic and 
 
 *' DIVINELY INSTITUTED MANNER of baptiz- 
 
 " ing*,'* To this I will add, That it is with 
 confummate prudence our opponents, while con- 
 fiilting the. fafety and reputation of their caufe 
 —-the ESSENTIALITY of dipping — (lightly pafs 
 over, or at leaft very tenderly touch, this paf- 
 
 fege. 
 
 § 21. 3. Proceed we now to a third realon 
 aflignable in favour of applying water to the fub- 
 jedt, rather than putting the fubje6l in the water j 
 viz. Becaufe this mode preferves the moll flrik- 
 ing conformity to the mode of application in 
 the baptifn of the Spirit^ i^f which water bap- 
 tifm is but the external fign. For whether we 
 confider the divine influences in a miraculoias 
 or fan6lifying view ; whether we refer to the 
 mode of conferring gifts or graces; it is both 
 
 E 3 fcriptural 
 
 * Tow good's Dipping not the only Scriptural and Piiiriititrc 
 manner of Baptizing, p. 6, ,7, 8. 
 
78 Of the S'lgnif cation of the Ch. 4. 
 
 fcriptural and rational, and fup ported by ««/- 
 verfal analogy^ That man^ (if he be allowed to 
 be at all the fubje6t of fupernatural influences) 
 ihould be regarded as the recipient or paiTive 
 fubjeSt, There is no alternative. The appiica^ 
 tiori^ if there be any at all, muft be either from 
 heaven to earth, or from earth to heaven. 
 But the new birth is fro?n above [ocvu^ty) ; the 
 gift of the Spirit was poured out en the Gen- 
 tiles] the difciples were endued with divine 
 power from on high (eI v-^8<^)» " As the apoftle 
 " Peter fays, that the Gentiles were baptized 
 " when the Holy Ghoft fell en them ; fo, we 
 " alTert, that water poured out or falling upon 
 " the perfon to be baptized, conftitutes a real 
 " baptifm ; and that the terms therefore admit 
 ** a fynonymous analogy : And the fame mode 
 " of analogical reafoning we adopt, from the 
 " words of the prophet Joel ii. 28, quoted by 
 " Peter in A(3;s ii. and compared with verfe 33 
 " of that chapter. The Lord promifes by the 
 " prophet that he would " pour out his Spirit 
 ^ on all flefh." The fulfilment of this promife 
 " is atteded by the apo/lle ; who ufes the very 
 •* fame word, to exprefs the baptifm of the dif- 
 " ciples on the day of pentecofl:. If ever there- 
 " fore the force of analogical argument be al- 
 *' lowed, furely it ought in the prefent ftriking 
 " inftance. And if it be admitted, then the 
 •' following argument, in favour of baptizing 
 * by effufion of water is irrefragable, viz. If ac- 
 •*' cording to the correfpondent teftimonies of 
 
 '' JoeI> 
 
Ch. 4* T<irms Baptize and Bapti/m. 7^ 
 
 " Joel and Peter, the apoftles were baptized by 
 " the pouring out of the Spirit; then perfons 
 " may, with fcriptural propriety, be baptized 
 " by the pouring out of water f.*' 
 
 On the other hand : tho' we allow immier- 
 fion to be a mode of baptizing, yet we afiert 
 that in this very important particular it has no 
 countenance frona the principal thing fignified. 
 The principal thing iignified in baptifm, as be- 
 fore (hewn (chap, ii.) is the communicated in- 
 fluence of the Spirit of grace ; but the mode 
 of immerfion is a very inadequate and unfuit- 
 able reprefentation thereof. Again ; if we make 
 dipping any thing elfe than a mode of ceremo- 
 nial cleanfing, that is, of baptifm, and m.ain- 
 tain, as our opponents do, that the very ejfence 
 of the rite confifts in the a^ of dipping ; we 
 neceflarily deprive the baptifmal element of every 
 degree of analogical fignification. For on that 
 iuppofition, what muft the watery element figni- 
 fy ? If the nature of the ordinance be a burial^ 
 the water reprefents " the heart of the 
 EARTH;"— the dull grave. Here is, then, no- 
 thing left to reprefent the co?nmunicaiion of in^ 
 fluencesy or the appUcaticn of grace to the perfon. 
 Here is no analogical reference to the blood 
 and merits of Chrift. But can any one, who 
 is in the leaft acquainted with the language of 
 infpiration, hefitate a moment to determine, 
 whether the water does not more fitly and 
 fcripturally reprefent the blood and Spirit 
 
 E 4 of 
 
 •f Mr, De CoviiCY*8 Rejoind, p. t47» 
 
8o Of the Signification of the Ch. 4» 
 
 of Chrift-j than his grave? And if the y^r- 
 me?-^ we appeal to every principle of fcripture 
 analogy and common fenfe, as v/ell as to the 
 nature and defign of this ordinance, Whether 
 that mode of applying the fignificant purifying 
 element for which I contend be not tlie mofi 
 exprejjive ? But if any object, that fpr ink ling 
 or pourings or any mode of applying water to 
 only a part of the body is an infufficient em- 
 blem of a complete purification y he would only 
 cavil againft divine appointments, being wife a- 
 bove what is written. For the blood of Chrift 
 fprinkled en the heart reprefents a complete puf'i- 
 fication. And both men and things have been 
 pronounced ceremonially clean when oi\\y fpr ink* 
 led; and this very mode was inftituted by wif- 
 dom itfelf to reprefent moral purification. 
 
 The trite and frivolous objection, " That 
 there was no rite under the Mofaic ceconomy 
 which enjoined the fprinkling of pure waier^* 
 hardly deferves an anfv/er. For we have no 
 difpute about the aw/z/;-^ of the element ; tliis 
 the records of the Ivlew Tcjl?.ment iix withoiU 
 controverfy: our analogical allulion, therefore, is 
 not to the ptirifing liquid^ whether ivatcr pure 
 or mixed, or //^^V, or 5//*.^ &;c. but to the 
 
 inode 
 
 * Chrifl's being baptized vith naater, reprcfentecl his being 
 feaptized with the Spmt, in an e<traordinary manner j which totk. 
 place when the heavens we:e opened unto John, ** and he faw 
 •* the • Spirit of Cod dtfcending hke a dove, and lighting upon 
 ** J^f^^*^^ ■^"'^ this baptifm of the Sp'rit is iikevvife called his 
 
 ANOINTING 
 
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Baptifm, 8 1 
 
 mode of application. To which we may add, 
 Ezek. xxxvi. 25. " Then [under the reign of 
 " the Mefliah] will I sprinkle clean wa- 
 " TER upon you, and ye fhall be clean : from 
 " all your iilthinefs, and from all your idols, 
 " will I CLEANSE you.'* 
 
 § 22. 4. There is no paflage In the New 
 Teftament, I will not fay that confines the mode 
 of purifying to immerfion, but from which it 
 can be fairly deduced {ccet. par,) that immer- 
 fion was at all ufed. In addition to what has 
 been faid already, I would only obferve ; That 
 if any pafTage in the New Teilament gives 
 countenance to the notion, that dipping was 
 the apoftolic pra6lice, it is Rom. iv, 4. (ta 
 which is added Col. ii. 12.) 
 
 Now to fuppofe tiiat the apoflle alludes to 
 the manner of difpenfing the ordinance, is to 
 enervate his argument, and in fa6t to make it 
 no argument at all. For how could the cir- 
 cumftance of their being plunged^ oblige them 
 to a holy life, which is the fcope of the paf- 
 fage ? Or how can a fuppofed tranfient con- 
 formity to the pofition of our Lord's body 
 in the grave, or, indeed, any other corporal 
 pofture, oblige to mortify fui and cultivate ho- 
 
 E 5 linefs ? 
 
 A^coiNTiNG, pr. XIV, 7, " God, thy God, hath anointed 
 ** thee with the oit of'gladnefs above thy fellows,'* And this 
 anointing was done "by poufinc the oil, ExoJ, xxix. 7, "Then 
 Aalt thou take the. an-jinting oil and jcur it u^on hi: bead^ and 
 fnoint blmt'' 
 
Sa Of the Signification of the Ch. 4* 
 
 linefs ? — If it be faid, that the putting of the' 
 body in water, in Qonformity to the putting of 
 Chrifl's body in the eave, obliges in virtue of a 
 divine appointment ; it is- but meanly to beg 
 the queftion. We deny that there is any evi- 
 dence for fuch an appointment, in preference 
 to every other mode of application. Our op- 
 ponents muft make the apoftle argue to this. 
 eiFe6t: **' Your bodies^ brethren, in baptifm,. 
 muft have been in the fame pofture as the- 
 body of Chrift in the grave, therefore let your- 
 old man be buried ; for this has put you under 
 a ftrong obligation fo to do." How trifling the 
 fuppofition ! 
 
 Again: The true anti thefts of the pafTage is. 
 deftroyed by the other interpretation.. That, 
 being buried with him, we may walk in new- 
 nefs of life, as Chrift was buried and raifed up^ 
 by the glory of the Father. Now " to walk. 
 in newnefs of life" is a moral concern, anfwer- 
 ing to the refurre<Slion and afcenfion. of Chrift j. 
 confequently, if there be any propriety in 
 the antithefis, " to be buried with Chrift in. 
 baptifm" muft be a moral concern, anfwering 
 to the death and burial of Chrift. Here arc 
 two things alluded to, which are both, alike 
 external circumftances of our Lord's Perfon; 
 with what propriety, therefore, muft the allufion. 
 in the apoftolick argument be different F Why 
 Ihould his rifng reprefent a fpiritual newnefs 
 of life 5 but his burial reprefent a corporal pof- 
 ture in the water? 
 
 Be$id£s: 
 
Cii. 4. Terms Baptize and Baptifm, 83 
 
 Besides: if there be not this uniformity 
 maintained, there is no compleatnefs in the apo- 
 i^'^s argument, but it is evidently defecSbive on 
 this account ; That we are not obliged " to 
 newnefs of life" in virtue of union to the rifen 
 Saviour^ but in virtue of conformity to the 
 buried Surety. Now who does not fee the de- 
 feat and glaring impropriety of fuch an argu- 
 ment ? For, on the fuppofition, plunging is 
 ixclujively the all of baptifm ; the raifmg of 
 the body being an a£lion of a contrary nature. 
 For baptifm mufl: flgnify either dipping atid 
 raijing again^ or it muft fignify dipping folely 
 and exciufively. If the former^ the main part 
 of the controverfy is given up ; for then l3<tv%^i, 
 is not fynonymous with dipping, plunging^ im- 
 merftng, or the like : if the latter, then accor- 
 ding to Mr. B.'s excluding maxim, the fub- 
 jesSl dipped fhould not be raifed ; for the term 
 fignifies neither more nor lefs than to dip, and 
 *' pofitive laws exclude their negative;" nor 
 (hould we in any part of a politive inftitute 
 venture " fupra Jiatutunu" 
 
 Moreover: if the di<5lates of ' the law of 
 nature be excluded from this ordinance, and if 
 baptifm be nothing more nor lels than plung- 
 ing, baptizing muft be in many cafes tanta- 
 mount to drowning ! However our oppofei's 
 afFe6t to difcard inference and analogy from 
 pofitive inftitutions, is it not well, reader, for 
 numbers, that the baptizer adheres in praBict. 
 
 E 6 t* 
 
$4 ^f ^^^ Signification of the Ch. 4^ 
 
 to what he renounces in fpeculation ? Is not 
 this the reafon perhaps that you, if you have 
 been plunged in baptifm, fee the Hght of day, 
 and enjoy the bleffings of protracted hfe ? For 
 your baptizer, on his own principles^ might have 
 fafely left you in the watery grave, and thus 
 juftify his proceeding: "^ I am certain that to 
 " baptize is to dip, all over in water, but am 
 " not fure that it ever fignifies to raife up ; it 
 " is therefore better to keep to the furer fide, 
 " left I ihould be guilty of will worflii-p, or 
 " be wife above what is written. Befides, the , 
 " apoftle exprefsly declares w^e are " buried 
 " into death^^ furely he cannot be guilty of abu- 
 " fing language, and infulting logick, in fuch a 
 " manner, when fpeaking of death and burial 
 " in the fame fentence, as to refer the term 
 '' death" to the y^«/, but the term " buried" 
 " to the hody. Therefore, if the burial be liu- 
 " ral^ why not the death ?" 
 
 Once more : the being buried into death, 
 and planted in the likenefs of his death ; are 
 oppofed to zualking in newnefs of life.^ and be--- 
 ing in the likenefs of his refurreclion : and they 
 are not only oppofed, but confequentially con- 
 ne£led. If we have been planted^ zue shall 
 BE raifed. That is, on plunging principles, if 
 we have been i?nmerfed^ we /hall be raifed in. 
 newnefs of life ; in the likenefs of Chrift's re- 
 furre£tion. And fo this interpretation brings us 
 at length to the Popifh tenet — That facraments 
 
 have 
 
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Bapiifi/r* ^f^. 
 
 have a faving influence, ex opere operate^ from 
 bare performance ! But how different from 
 the apoftle's real defign, which was to urge 
 the mortiiication and burial of fin from the 
 do6lrine of myftical union to- Chrift and. com- 
 munion v/ith him ; which union, in its moit 
 general and extenfive nature, is reprefented in 
 baptifm ? Now this union extends to his in- 
 carnation^ lifey crucifixian^ Szc, as well, as to his 
 death and burial, refurre6tion and afcenfion ; 
 but the reafon why the apoftle inftances the: 
 latter was, not that baptifm did not exhibit the 
 other part of the Surety's undertaking, an union- 
 to which is equally the believer's privilege, but 
 hecaufe the renunciation of fm and the profe- 
 cution of holinefs, reprefented in that connexion 
 and form of fpeech., better fubferved the - moral 
 purpofes he had in view^\ 
 
 §' 23. 
 
 * Thus Dr. Ow«N on this fubjeft, who was no fuperjicial 
 expofitor of the facred oracles on other fubje£ls ; " The apcft'e- 
 " Rom, vi, 3> 4> 5. is dehorting from fin, exhorting to holinefs 
 '• and new obedience, and gives this argument from the neceflity, 
 " of it, and our ability for it, both taken from our initiation 
 " into the virtue of the death and life of Chrift expreiled in 
 " our baptifm ; that by virtue of the death and burial of Chrift 
 ** we fhould be dead unto fin, (^in being flain thereby 3 and by^ 
 ** virtue of the refurreftion of Chrift, we fhould be quickened 
 •* unto newnefs of life, as Peter declares, i Pet, ili. 21. Our 
 ** being buried with him, and our being planted together in the 
 " likenefs of his death, and iikenefs" of his refurredlion, is the 
 ** fame with our old man being erudjied ivith bifKy ver. 6. and 
 ** the deftroying of the body of fin, and our being raifed from 
 ** the dead with him j which is all that is intended in the 
 *' place — There is not one word, nor one ex-prefllon, thaf men- 
 
 " tions any refemblance between dipping under water, and the 
 
 ♦* death 
 
g6 Of the Signification of the Ch. 4. 
 
 & 23. ( in ) We now proceed to inquire whe- 
 ther the verdict of very eminent literary cha- 
 ra6lers does not corroborate the doilrine con- 
 tained in our general theds, viz. That baptize 
 and baptifm^ at leaft when facramentally ufed, 
 are generic terms- 
 
 r. WiTsius: 
 
 ** death and burial of Ckrlfl', nor one word that mentions a re- 
 ** femblance between our rifing out of the water and the re-- 
 «' furreflion of Chrift. Our being buried with him by bap- 
 « tifm into death, ver. 4. is our being planted together in th». 
 ** likenefs of his deaths ver, 5, Our being planted together in 
 <* the likenefs of his death, is not our being dipped under water,, 
 «* but the crucifying of the old man, ver. 6, Our being raifcd 
 " up with Chrift from the dead, is not our rifing from under 
 " the water, but our walking in ncwnefs of life, ver, 4. by vir- 
 « tue of the refurreftion of Chrift. i Pet, iii. 21. — That bap- 
 «« tifm is not a fign of the death, burial, and refarreftion of 
 ** Chrift, is clear from hence } becaufe an inftituted fign is a fign 
 «* of the goffei gm" participated^ or to bt pardcipated. If dip- 
 ** ping be a fign of the burial of Chrift, it is not a fign of a 
 *« cofpcl grace participated j for it may be where there is none, 
 «< nor any exhibited." — Again :. ** That interpretation which would 
 " ennervate the apoftle's argument and defign, our comfort and 
 «' duty, is not to be admitted. But this interpretation that bap- 
 ** tifm is mentioned here as the fign of Chrift's burial, would 
 *f ennervate the apoftle's argument and defign, our comfort and 
 <* duty. And therefore it is not to be admitted. The minor \t 
 *♦• thus proved ; the argument and defign of the apoftle, as was 
 •* before declared, is to exhort and encourage unto mortifitation 
 ** of fin and new obedience, by virtue of power received from 
 ** the death and life of Chrift, whereof a pledge is given us in 
 ** our baptifm. But thif is taken away by this interpretation;. 
 *' for we may be fo buried with Chrift, and planted into tlie 
 ** death of Chrift by dipping,, and yet have no power derived 
 •* fiom Chrift for the crucifying of fin, and for the quickening 
 ** of us to obedience." Dr. Owkn's Tra£l, on Infant Baptifs» 
 afid Dipping. Ap. Colle£l. of Scrsn* p. 5S1. 
 
Ch. 4^. Terms Baptize and Baptif?n, 8^ 
 
 I. WiTsius : "Thefacred rite confifts, i. In. 
 the application of the water to the body of the 
 perfon to be baptized. 2. la pronouncing a. 
 certain form of words. — We are not to fup- 
 pofe that immerfioa is fa neceflary to baptifm, 
 as that it cannot be duly performed by t>erfu^ 
 fion or ajperfton. For both pouring and fprink- 
 ling are defenftble,. And tho' we could find out 
 for certain that the apoftles^ dipped, it does not 
 thence follow that they always obferved this 
 method. It is more probable^ that the three 
 thoufand who were baptized in one day, (Ads 
 ii. 41.) had the water poured or fprinkled on 
 them, than that they were dipped. For it is 
 not likely that men fo much employed in 
 preaching the word as the apoflles were, could 
 have leifure for fo tedious and troublefome a 
 work as the immerfion of fo many thoufands. 
 Nor is it probable that Cornelius, and Lydia, 
 and the Jailor, who, with their families, were 
 baptized in private, houfes, had baptifteries ^t 
 hand, in which they could be totally immer- 
 fed. Vossius (Difput. i, De Baptif. Th. ix.) 
 produces injlances of perfufion from antiquity. 
 — /JaTrlifitv — is more generally ufed for any kind 
 of ablution ; as Luke xi. 38. Dominicus a 
 so TO, therefore, (Diftin£l. iii. Queil. un. Art» 
 7.) fays well : In baptifm there is fomething that 
 concerns the ESSENCE of it^. as ablution, ^c- 
 eording to Eph. v. 26. where the apojlk calk 
 BAPTISM the WASHING OF V7 A^ I^R. I but fom^^ 
 
 thing 
 
g3. Of the Signification of the Ch. 4. 
 
 thing is ACCIDENTAL, to ivit, that the ablution 
 he done BY this OR THE other mqde/^ 
 CEcon. Feed. L. iv. Cap. xvi. § 12, 14. 
 
 2. Calvin : " Whether he who is baptized 
 ^ (qui tingitur)^ be dipt, and that thrice or once, or 
 
 whether he be only fprinkled with water poured 
 on him, it matters not in the leaji, — Then the 
 minifter pours (effundit) water on the child, 
 faying, N. I haptixe thee, &c." Inftitut. Chrift.. 
 Relig. L. iv. Cap. xv. § 19. Tract. Theol. 
 De Form. Sacram. Adminift. in ufum Eccles. 
 Genev. Oper. Tom. viii. p. 34. Ed. AmlleL 
 
 1667. 
 
 3. Limborch: " It may here be afked, whe- 
 ther immerfion be fo neceffary, as that there is 
 no baptifm without it? Anfw. It does ?iot feem 
 to be fo neceflary.— Baptifm is duly adminifiered 
 h fprinkling only.. — There are not wanting ar- 
 guments to prove that baptifm was, even in the 
 firfl ages of chriftianity, adminiflered by fprink- 
 ling. For, as fome argue, 'tis not at all. un^ 
 likely but that among the three thoufand con- 
 verted and baptizedj A6ls ii. 41^ there were 
 fome women ; and the promifcuous dipping of 
 them into water with the men would have been 
 againft the rules of decency and modefly :. 
 therefore, it is ?7iore probable^ that they were 
 baptized by fprinkling or pouring on of water, 
 than, that tiiey were immerfed or dipped into 
 it. Befules, fay they, 'tis incredible, that there 
 fliould be in Jerufalem, efpecially in the place 
 Vi^here Peter preached, fuch a quantity of water 
 
 at 
 
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Bapti/m. S9 
 
 at hand, as was fufficient for the immerfing of 
 fo great a number of converts. Let this be as 
 it will, baptifm we fay is duty administer- 
 ed BY SPRINKLING only.'* Compleat Syft. 
 of Div. B. V. chap. xxii. Sect. ii. Mr. Jones's 
 Tranflation, 
 
 4r TuRRETTiNus : " Thc term haptJf?n is 
 of greek origin, deduced from the word iSa^U-, 
 which is to ti?2^e and imbue ; iSccvlil^Biv, to dye-y 
 and to i??imerfe, --But becaufe almoll every thing 
 is wont to be dipped and tinged^ that it may he 
 WASHED, and they who are immerfed are wont 
 to be cleanfed\ hence it comes to pafs, that, as 
 among the Hebrews tahal^ which the feventy 
 tranflate baptize 2 Kings v. 14. is alfo taken 
 for rachatZy which is to ivajh : fo among the 
 Greeks the word ^«7rl»Jjsv by a nietalepHs, is 
 taken for tlie fame [to wcJJ:]^ Mark vii. 4. TFhen 
 the Jews come from the market^ they eat not» 
 except they wafn^ i^v f^r, (3cc'frli^uvl<^f Nor ought 
 we otherwife to underdand the baptifms of cups, 
 of. pots, and of beds, in ufe among the Jews. 
 And the divers baptifms enjoined upon them,, 
 Heb. ix. 10. and the fupcrftitious iv^p-Angs re- 
 reived from the tradition of the eiders, Mark 
 vii. 4, 5. Hence the Pharifees o,n that account 
 are called by Justin, haptifis'' Inftlt. Theol. 
 Loc. xix. Quoefl:. xi. § 4. 
 
 § 24. 5. Dr. Owen : ^' /oaTrli^^ {ignifics to waf)\. 
 as inftances out of all authors may be given ; 
 SuiDAs, Hesychius, Julius Pollux, Pha- 
 YORInus, and Eustachius. — No one inftance 
 
 can 
 
00 Of the Signification of the QX\. 4, 
 
 can be given in the fcrlpttire^ wherein ^otTrli^a} 
 doth nccejfarily fignify either to dip or plunge* 
 ^Ai^\t,oi may be confidered either as to its ori- 
 ginal, natural fcnfe ; or as to its myftical ufe in 
 the ordinance. This dijiinclion muft be ob- 
 served concerning many other words in the 
 New Teftament, as t^K^Tjo-ta, xetplovta, and others^ 
 which have a peculiar fenfe in their myftical ufe, 
 —Wherefore in this fenfe, as the word is ap- 
 plied unto the ordinance, the fenjfe of [the ef- 
 ientlality of] dipping is utterly excluded. And 
 tho' as a mere external mode it may be ufed,. 
 provided the perfon dipped be naked; yet to 
 urge it as necejjary^ overthrows the nature of 
 the facrament. — For the original and natural 
 fignification of it, it fignifies, ta dtpy to plunge^ 
 to die^ to wajh^ to cleanfe, — I have not all thofe. 
 [authors] quoted to the contrary. In the quo- 
 tations of them whom I have, if it be intend- 
 ed, that they fay,, it fignifies to dip and not ta 
 V7a(h, or to dip only, there is neither truth 
 nor honefty in them by whom they are quoted. 
 Scapula is one, a common book; and he 
 gives it the fenfe of lavo^ abluo ; to ivajhy 
 and wc.Jh away, Stephanus is another, and 
 he exprefsly in fundry places afTigns lavo and 
 abluo to be alfo the fenfe of it.. In Suidas, 
 the great trealury of the greek tongue, it is 
 rendered by madefaclo^ lavo^ ahluoy purgoy munda, 
 — I muft fay, and will make it good, that no 
 hoaeft man who, underftands the greek tongue, 
 
 carA 
 
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Baptijm, 9 1 
 
 can deny the word to fignify to wa/h^ as well 
 as to dip,'* Compleat Colle6l. of Serin, and 
 Trads, p. 580, 581. 
 
 6. Lightfoot: " The apphcation of water 
 is neceflary for the ejfence of baptifm ; but the 
 application in this or that mode indicates a a>- 
 cumjlance^^l^o denote this ablution by a fa- 
 cramental (ign, the fprinkUng of water is equally 
 fufficient as immerfion itito water^ fince the for- 
 tner in reality argues an ablution and purifica- 
 tion AS WELL AS the latter,'^ Hor. Hebr. in 
 Matth. iii. 6. 
 
 7. Vossius : " But from the other importy 
 whereby /SaTrJifen' fignifies ahluere [to wap^ or pu^ 
 rify\ it is transferred to the gift of the Holy 
 Spirit ; that is to fay, becaufe, that He might 
 wajh [or purify] the foul, He is poured out oa 
 it, as water is poured ; even as Joel fpeaks, chap, 
 ii. 28. and from thence Peter, h^s ii. 17^ 
 likewife Paul, Tit. iii. 6./' De Baptif. Difput. 
 
 I. p. 344- 
 
 8. Beza :. « The reality of haptifniy is the 
 fprlnkling of the blood of Jefus Chrill: for the re- 
 
 milTion of fins and the imputation of his righ- 
 teoufnefs, which are as it were difplayed before- 
 our eyes in the fign of outiuard fprinkiing.—^ArQ. 
 they therefore improperly baptized, who are 
 fprinkled with water only eaft on them ? No :. 
 What is, in that a6lion [of baptizing] merely 
 fubjianiialy [or ftri6lly eflential,] to wit, the ab- 
 lution of water, is rightjy obferved bv tiie church 
 
 [by 
 
^2 Of the 'Signification of the Ch. 4, 
 
 [by fprlnkling]. — But ^aTrlifuv fignifies tingere^ 
 to dye^ ox Jlain^ feeing it comes immediately froni 
 ^uTrlnv ; and — fmce tingenda ih^ things to be dyed 
 or flained 2.rt [commonly] dipped — it iGgnifies to 
 make wet and to dip. — BaTrltro^at, Vulg, bap- 
 iizentur ; which Erasmus hath defervedly chang- 
 ed for loti fuerint : fmce here it is not treated 
 concerning that folemn ablution, to which, as 
 before mentioned, the term baptifinusy baptifm^ 
 has been long appropriated and confecrated by 
 the ufage of all churches." Tra6l. Theolog. 
 Vol. i. p. 28. Vol. iii. p. 195. Annot. in 
 Matth. iiL 11. et Mark vii, 4.. 
 
 9. Ti LEXUS 1 " Altho' inimernon might have 
 been formerly more cuftomary than afperfion, 
 efpecially in Judea and other warm countries ;. 
 yet fince the circwnfance of immcrfion does not 
 belong to the fubflance of baptifm, the analogy 
 Of the fttcrament may be retained, no Icfs by 
 fprinkling than by dipping. — Here, in an efpe- 
 cial manner, are exhibited to us, the remiflioa 
 of fms by the blood of Chrid, and fandlifica- 
 tion by his Spirit. — Baptifm, if we regard the 
 etymology of th«e word, fignifies immerfion, and 
 alfo afperfion, in which fenfe it is ufed Mark. 
 vii. 4; and by confequence wadiing. — Baptifm 
 in general fignifies either immerfion, or ablu- 
 tion, or perfufjon. De Bapt. Difp. I. Thef.. 
 ii. XV. Syntag. de Bapt. i. Thef.. x. Theol, 
 Syil. p. 1077. 
 
 10. Pasor : " BaTrlw — is derived from ?>au.\_ 
 for which is ufed /Saoo;, from the Hebrew ba 
 
 [fignifying^ 
 
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Baptifm, 93 
 
 [fignifying viotlon^ going or coming] — ^xttIoixoh, 
 to ^z/>, imbue, infeSi ; Rev. xix. 3. a garment 
 tinged or ftained with blood. ^a.(pr,a-oiJicci tingar 
 Lev. xi. 32. ^a(p%c-{\ui e»; t-'^wp. Hi £ RON. tinge^ 
 tur aqua^ (hall be clcanfed^ or purified, by wa- 
 ter*. /5a7r)jfy to i?nmerfe, to w^y7j, to baptize, 
 Matth. iii. ir. ^^ttIIJ.; v//.a? ev i/'^alt; baptizo vds 
 aqna^ I baptize you it;//Z? water ; ej^, being an 
 hebraifm, is here redundant." Lexic. Lond. 
 1644. 
 
 11. Casaubon : *' Immerfion is not nccejary 
 to baptifm, fince the force and efficacy of this 
 inyftery does not confift therein. — It was not 
 without fome ground of plea that fome have 
 long ago infixed on immerfing the whole body 
 in the ceremony of baptifm ; urging the word 
 ^aTriifst)/. But their opinion has been dcfervedly 
 long fince exploded ; for the force and energy 
 of this m.yftery confifl not in that circumflance.'* 
 In Matth. iii. 6. 
 
 12. Cr/>dock: " In baptifm there are two 
 parts, I. The outward, 2. The inward. In the 
 ndward part there are three things confiderable 
 — The outward element, water \ the a£iion of 
 applying the water, by sprinkling or dip- 
 ping; x\\t form of adminiflering or applying 
 the v/ater, viz. in the name, &c. — Sprinlding is 
 as fignificant, as to the main ends of baptifm, 
 as dipping. Therefore the blood of Chriil, 
 
 which 
 
 * See alfo Dr. Pococxr, who was not behind the chief of 
 the Rabbles in Hebrew literature, Not, MifccH. Cap. ix. p. 388, 
 
04 Of the Significaiton of the Ch. 4. 
 
 •which is fignified by baptifm, is called the 
 blood of fprinkling, Heb. xii. 24. I Pet. i. 2. 
 And fprinkling comes nearer the baptifm men- 
 tioned in the Old Teftament, than dipping doth. 
 I Cor. X. 2. Surely the children of Ifrael 
 were not dipped in the cloud ; but only fprlnkled 
 with it, that is, with fome drops that fell from 
 it. Nor dipped in the red fea, — but only touch^ 
 ed it with their feet, or elfe poflibly fome drops 
 from the waves of it might be blown by the 
 wind. — Befides, [fuppofmg the apoftolick mode 
 were immerfion] we do not find that our Sa- 
 viour and the apoftles [any more than the Jews] 
 continued every circwnjiance that was in ufe m 
 the firft inftitution of the facrament of the pafs- 
 Qrj^r. — Therefore fome circumftances may be 
 varied according to chrifltan prudence^ provided 
 we keep clofe to the main of the inftitution, and 
 the ends of it. To conclude this particular, hap- 
 
 thing is ANY KIND OF RELIGIOUS WASHING, 
 
 or SPRINKLING, in the name, &c. duly per- 
 formed by a perfon rightly qualified for it. — 
 The inward part of baptifm, or the fpiritual 
 myflerics ilicrein fignified, are thefe two ; the 
 blood of Chriji fpriiikled upon the joul for the 
 waDVing away the guilt of fin ; the grace of Chrijl 
 poured into the foul, purging out the power and 
 dominion of fin, by regeneration and fan6tifica- 
 tion." Knov^l. and Pra(51:. Supplem. p. 11 1. 
 
 § 25. 13. Usher: " The word baptifm in 
 general fignifieth any wajlnng. — What is the fe- 
 cond facram.cntal action ? The aclion of wajl:)- 
 
 ijig 
 
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Baptifm» 95 
 
 ing ; that is, of applying the facra mental water 
 unto the party to be baptized : diving or dip- 
 ping him into it, or fprinkling him with it, in 
 the name^ &c. — Neither dipping is ejfmtial to 
 the facrament of baptifm, or fprinkling ; but 
 only wafhing and applying water to the body, 
 as a cleanfer of the filth thereof." Body of 
 Div. p. 411, 412, 413. 
 
 14. WiNDELiNUs : " Baptifm is the firft 
 facrament of the New Teftament, wherein they 
 who are in the covenant of God, are — Jprink- 
 led^ and [thereby, in the religious or ceremonial 
 fenfe of the word] w«y^^</. -— The matter of 
 which baptifm confifts, is, i. Water \ 2. hnmer" 
 
 /ton or ajperfion.*^ Chrift. Theol. Lib« I. Cap. 
 xxii. Thef. iv. p. 358, 363. 
 
 15. Wal^eus and Mich^elis a Gogh : 
 " ^octP,u) and ^a-Trlii^w, from whence comes ^a^- 
 ^l<s■/xo?, fignify, properly, to tinge^ and to wa/h, 
 — The ritual or ceremonial fign in this facra- 
 ment, is a baptization or wajhing in the name 
 of the Father," ho., as Chrift has exprefsly 
 commanded, Matth. xxviii. and Mark, xvi.— 
 But there is no exprefs command left us, whe- 
 ther we fhoujd ufe immerfion or afperfion ; 
 and exa7r,phs of afperfion no lefs than immerfion 
 may be difcovered in the fcriptures." Synops. 
 Purior. Theol. Difput, xliv. Thef. iii. xviii. 
 
 16. Chemnitz: " Paul, that infallible inter- 
 preter, fays, that to baptize is to cleanfe^ or pu- 
 rify, hy the zvajhing of water thro' the word. 
 Eph. v. Tit. iii. Acls ii. Whether the appli- 
 cation 
 
c)6 Of the Stgnijicatton of the Ch. 4. 
 
 cation of the water be made by dippings ii^g^^^t 
 pourings or fpr inklings it is a baptization; 
 for it is a cleanfmg or ablution by the wafliing 
 of water: and immerfioh under water is not ne- 
 ceflarily required to waJlmig.—-^\\^ command 
 of Chrifl therefore is, that there fhould be in 
 baptifm an ablution hy the wajhing of water. 
 But by what mode that (hould be done, whe- 
 ther by dipping, tipging, perfufion, or afperfion, 
 Chr'ifi hath not prefcribed,'' Exam. Concil. Tri- 
 dent. P. ii. p. 122. 
 
 17. LiTURGiA TiGURiNA : *' The godmother 
 eoeth near the miniller, and holdeth the child 
 over the font, and the minifter poureth three 
 handfuls of water upon the child's forehead, 
 faying; N. N. I baptize thee in the name 
 of God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy 
 Ghoft. Amen." The form of Com. Prayers 
 praciifed in all the churches of the City and 
 Canton of Zurick in Switzerland ; and in fome 
 other adjacent Countries, p. 89. Lond. 1693. 
 
 18. English Kubrick : " Then the prieft 
 (hall take the child into his hands, and fhall 
 fay to the godfathers and godmothers, Name this 
 child: and then, naming it after them, (if they 
 Dial! certify him that the child may well en- 
 dure it) he fhall dip it in the water difcreetly 
 and warily, faying, N, I baptize thee^ in the 
 narne^ he. But if they certify that the child 
 is weak, it fhall fuffice to pour water upon it, 
 faying the forefaid words, A^. / baptize thee\^ 
 Sec." The Book of Com. Prayer. 
 
 19. Markius : 
 
^h. 4. ^erms Baptize and Baptif?n, 9.7 
 
 ig. Markius : " B apt if m ongin^iWy denotes 
 wajhing^ Mark vii. 3, 4. as it is alfo otherwile 
 called the waflnng of vjaier^ and of regeneration^ 
 Eph. V. 26. Tit. iii. 5. — The chrutian bap- 
 tifm of water is defined ; The firft facra.aent 
 of the New Teftament in which, by tfie ablu^ 
 tion of the body^ by me^.ns of iiximeriion, infu- 
 iion, or afperfion of water, performed by a mi- 
 nifter of the gofpel, the fpiriiual ablution [or 
 wajhing^ from the ftain and guilt of fm by 
 the fpirit and blood of Chrift, is (ig lified and 
 fealed, &c. — The aoiion to be perfornied by 
 water is ablution ; whether by the immerlion of 
 the whole body,-— or by fprinlding, or pour- 
 ing J fince the word baptize is a general term 
 denoting a wa/hing ; and thus [by the modes 
 laft mentioned] the apoftles alfo ft em to have 
 fometimes baptized, A6^s ii. 41. x. 48. xvi. 3J." 
 Chrift. Theol. Medulla. Cap. xxx. § 9. 
 
 20. PiCTETUs : " The word baptifm is de- 
 rived from (3ci7r%iv, which is to tinge, and to 
 imbue •, and becaufe the hebrew word tabal, which 
 the feventy render by /J^Trufeiv, 2 Kings v 14. 
 is ufed for rochatz, which fignifies to wajh^ 
 hence /oi-Triifgjv is taken for fimpiy to wafo^ Mark 
 vii. 4. and from thence diverfe vsajhings are 
 mentioned by Paul, heb. ix. 10. — The word 
 ^aTfucTjxct; does not lefs denote fprinkling than 
 immerfion. - The Pv.ufccvites err, vsho tench 
 that immeriion is of the efTn'-e ot baptilm ; 
 and thofe Greeks, who, in the cuuncii of I'lo^ 
 Vol. II. p rence, 
 
qS Of the Signification of the Ch. 4. 
 
 rence, called the^ Latins unhaptized, w^re deli- 
 rious.'* Theol. Chrift. Lib. xiv. Cap. iv. § 6. 
 
 § 26. 21. Cornelius [biftiop of Rome, 
 about A. D. 254.J : " Novatian, having fallen 
 into a dangerous diforder, and as was thought 
 very like to die, was baptized in the bed where 
 he lay by perfufion {7rcfixv^u<;) ; if it may be cal- 
 led a baptifm which he received, fmce he did 
 not obtain after his recovery what was necef- 
 fary according to the canon of the church, viz. 
 confirmation by the bifhop's hands." Epift. ad 
 Fabium Antioch. ap. Eufeb. Lib. vi. cap, 
 xliii. 
 
 22. Cyprian : " In baptifm (facramento falu^ 
 iari) the contagious fpots of fin are not waihed 
 away as the filth of the fkin and body in a 
 carnal and fecular bath; as if there were need 
 of wafh-balls^ a baihing-vejfel^ or a capacious pool^ 
 and any other conveniencies, whereby the body 
 is waflied and cleanfed. In a different manner 
 is the heart of a believer wafhed ; the human 
 mind^ by the merits of Chrift, is otherwije pu- 
 rified. In the facraments of falvation, when 
 neceffity urges, and thro* the indulgence of 
 God, the , divine abridgments [divina compen- 
 dia^ i. e. fuch ablutions as did not remove the 
 filth of the fiefh, yet were divinely infiiiuted 
 fymbols of compleat purification ;] convey the 
 whole benefit to the faithful. Nor let any one 
 think, it ftrange that the fick, when they are 
 haptixedy are only fprinkUd or perfufed^ fince the 
 
 holy 
 
€h. 4. Terms Baptize and Baptif?n» 99 
 
 holy fcrlpture fays by the prophet Ezekiel (ch. 
 xxxvi. 25, 26. ) " I will fprinkle clean water 
 upon you, and ye (hall be clean ; from all your 
 filthinefs, and from all your idols will I ckanfe 
 you. A new heart alfo will I give you, and 
 a new fpirit will I put within you." It is alfo 
 faid in Numbers (ch. xix. 19, 2j.) &c. — And 
 again the Lord fpake to JVIofes (Numb, viii, 6, 
 7.) Take the Levites from among the children 
 of Ifrael, and cleanfe them. And thus fhalt 
 thou do unto them to cleanfe them ; Jprinkle 
 water of purifying upon them. And again, the 
 water of afperfion is purification. From vv hence 
 it appears — That fprinkling is funicient inftead 
 of immerfion. Or if any one fliall think that 
 they are not at all benefited, who are only be^ 
 fprinkled with the water of falvation ; Itt them not 
 be impofed upon ; and if they recover, let them 
 be baptized ! But if they cannot be baptized, 
 as having been already fandified with the ec- 
 clefiaftical baptifm^ why are they diilreiTed with 
 fcruples?" Epift. Ixix. p. 1863 l^j. Ed. Oxon. 
 1682. 
 
 23. Origen: " Whence had you the per- 
 fuafion [Pharifees], that Elias, when he ihould 
 come, would baptize ? who did not, in /xhab's 
 time, baptize the wood upon the altar, which 
 required a wafhing, in order that, on tht Lord's 
 appearing by fire, it might be burnt? or he 
 gives orders to the priefts to perform a.at.— 
 He therefore who did not hinJ-lf then baptize^ 
 but afTigned that work to otiiers, fi KinL,s xviii. 
 33. Fill four barrels of water, and pour it 
 
 E 2 on 
 
lOO Of the Signification of the Ch. 4. 
 
 ON the burnt facrifice, and on the wood-,] how 
 was it likely that he, who was to come accor- 
 ding to Malachi's predi6lion, fhould bapti%e?'* 
 Comment, in Joan. Oper. Tom. vii. p. 116. 
 Ed. 1668. 
 
 24. Frider, Spanhemius F. " The form 
 of baptifm in ufe (cent, ii.) was immerfion, or 
 (xala^yo-i?) the plunging of the naked body in 
 water, whether men, or women, or infants ; 
 and indeed thrice "^in reference to the holy 
 Trinity ; a cuftom ftill in ufe among the ori- 
 entals. Due regard was had for female modefty 
 in baptifm, by the appointed deaconeiTes. And 
 the very putting ofF their clothes, and naked- 
 nefs, hadj with them, a moral fignification. 
 Neverthelefs, the infirm, or fuch as were con- 
 fined to their beds, were fprinkied there ^ which 
 baptifm was termed weptpct^rK, perfufton. And 
 this, it (hould feem, was ufed in the church of 
 Jerufalem, when the multitude of the perfons to 
 be baptized amounted to three thonjand^ and 
 prefently after to five thoufand^ A6^s ii. iv. for 
 there was no river to put them in." Kiftor. 
 Chrift. Secnl. II. Seft. iv. De Bapt. Oper. p. 
 622. Ed. Lugd. 1701. 
 
 § 27. 25. Mr. John Wesley: " The w^r- 
 ier of this facrament is water; which as it has 
 a natural power of cleanfing, is the more fit 
 for this fymbolical ufe. Baptifm is performed 
 by wafl"iing, dipping, or fprinkling, the perfon, 
 in the name, &c. I fay, by wajhing^ dippings 
 OR fprinkling j becaufe it is not determined in 
 
 fcripture. 
 
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Baptifm* 10 1 
 
 fcripture, in which of thefe ways it (hall be 
 done, neither by any exprefs praept^ nor by 
 any fuch example as dearly pr^j/es it; nor by 
 the force and meaning of tae word Baptise, 
 That there is no exprefs precept^ aii caUn men 
 allow : neither is there any conclulive example, 
 John's baptifm in fome things agreed with 
 Chrift's, in others differs from ir. ijut it can- 
 not be certainly proved from Iciipture, fiat even 
 John's was perfoni'ed by dipping. — iNor can 
 it be proved, that the b«iptifm of our Saviour, 
 or that adminidered by his diiciplcs, wai> by im- 
 merfion: no, nor that of the Lunuch baptized 
 by i^hilip, tho' they both '•'' w^nt ciown into 
 the water/' for that gohig down may relate to 
 the chariot, and implies no detcrrainate depth '-■«. 
 of water : it riiight be up to tlieir knees, or 
 not be above their ancles. And as nothing can 
 be determined irom fcripture precept or exam- 
 ple, fo neither from the force or meaning of 
 the word : for the words baptize and baptifm do 
 not neceffarily imply dipping, but are ufed in 
 other fenfes in feveral places. — 1 hat wafhing 
 or cleanfing; — is the true meanina; of the word 
 baptise, is tei^ified by the greateit fcholars and v 
 moft proper judges in this matter." Works 
 Vol. xix.. p. 275. 
 
 26. J. FoRBEsius: " With refpefl to the 
 facrament of baptifm, by whatever mode it be 
 adminiftered, both the ancient fathers, and thofe 
 who fucceeded them, agreed that it is not necef* 
 fary there Ihould be a real ablution of the fdth 
 
 F 3 of 
 
joZ Of the Sigmfication of the Ch. 4. 
 
 of the Jlejh ; but what is commonly called a 
 wajh'ingy by the conta£l or application of water 
 to the body by another, who is a qualified 
 minifter; and that by this application lawfully 
 made, is reprefented the fpiritual contail or ap- 
 plication of the blood of Chrift to the baptized 
 fubjed ; by which fpiritual contadl or appli- 
 cation a perfon is truly wafhed and cleanfed 
 from his fins. Hence that faying of Austin : 
 " Whence has water fuch virtue, that it fhould 
 touch the body, and wajh the heart?" ( Trail. 
 Ixx5^. in Evang. Johan.) " Nor is it necefTary 
 (faith ScoTUs) that there fliould be an ablution^ 
 as that is contradiftinguillied from wafhtng^ and 
 inc]ud<;s the removal of filth from the body 
 by the conta£lion of water : but a wajhing of the 
 body, fo called in general^ by water a6ting 
 vipon it to another purpofe, is fufHcient \ which 
 implies [nothing Q!\{t but that it is necefTary a 
 contafiion of the body by means of water (hould 
 be effected by another caufmg that conta6l:,'* 
 (Scot, in iv. Sent. Dift. iii. (^ 3.) But unU 
 verfal afjiquity hath given its fuffrage, that this 
 coiitaft may be done either by immerfion or 
 ly fprhiklhg. But the dipping even of infants, 
 v/as more ufual down to the times of Gre- 
 gory and Isidore." InOruft. Hift. Iheol. 
 Lib. X, Cap. ix. § 57. p. 504. Gen. 1680. 
 
 27. Dr. Featly : " ^ocrrli^u — is put gene- 
 rally for zva/hingy Luke xi. 38. Heb. ix. lOr 
 Mark vii. 4. /SATrl.ffc-;)**, they baptized themfelves. 
 
 Chrift 
 
Ch. 4. Terms Baptise and Bapiifm, 1 03 
 
 Chrift no where requireth dipping but only 
 baptizing: which word (as Kesychius, Sca- 
 pula, and BuDEUs, the great mafters of the 
 greek tongue, make good by very many inftan- 
 ces and allegations out of clafilc writers) im- 
 porteth no more than ablution^ or wajlnng, 
 BocTrli^eo (fay they in their lexicons and commen- 
 taries) iavo ; ^wrfha-f/.ccy lavatio^ ablutio^ which may 
 be done without dipping." In Leigh's Crit, 
 Sacra. 
 
 28. Peter Martyr: " But \.\\\s purification, 
 whether we are dipped, or perfufed, or fprinkled, 
 or by whatever mode we are wafhed vvith water, 
 is very sppofitely reprefented in baptifm." In 
 I Cor. X. 
 
 29. Zanchius: *' Baptifm is the wafning of 
 ivattT by the word, in the name of the Father, 
 Src. for thus the apoftle fpeaks when he calls 
 it " the wafhing of water by the word:" fay- 
 ing, that the church is fandtified by Chrift, 
 and purified^ or cleanfed, with the wafhing of 
 water by the word (Eph. v. 26.). The matter 
 is water ; the form is the word : and the word 
 added to the element makes the facrament. — 
 Wherefore the apoftie joins both, the water and 
 the word. Nor does he fay fimply with water, 
 but with ihe wajhing of water : teaching us, that 
 the mere water is not the facrament of bap- 
 tifm ; but the adminiHration of water j that is, 
 that facred adion whereby the body is wafhed 
 with external water. — In what manner baptifm 
 is to be adminiftered, whether the perfons , 
 
 F 4. ihould 
 
104- Of the Signification of the (Jh. 4, 
 
 fhould be dipped in zvater^ or only their heads 
 fprinkled with water ^ Chrift hath no where de- 
 termined. —This word fignifies as well to tinge^ 
 
 and fimply to waJJ:)^ as to dip. In A6ls ii. 
 
 fince we read of three thoufand being baptized 
 by Peter, it feems probable, that their heads 
 were fprinkled with a little water, The apoftles, 
 as far as we can collefl from their writings, 
 had no certain (vafa) vefiels or receptacles in- 
 ftituted and determined for that purpoie : but 
 the churches had free permiffion to baptize by 
 what method they chofe. Neverthelefs, after^ 
 wards^ there were in the church velTels ap- 
 pointed, made in the form of a tom.b in which 
 infants were immerfed ; and hence they were 
 called laptijieries. — And altho' bapiifni be^ re- 
 ceived by rhofe of the church of Rome, it 
 ought not to be repeated-, becaufe it is admi- 
 niftered w'ith the true element^ and \w the name of 
 the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." Oper. 
 Tom. iv. Cap. xvi. De Cuitu Dei Exter. Ar- 
 tie. De Fapc. p. 440, 486, 493. Tom. vii. 
 JViifcel. p. £6. 
 
 30. pARisus: " Bapiifm among the Greeks is 
 any kind of v/alhing or ablu ion, whether it be by 
 immerfion or afperiion." In Heb. ix. 10. 
 
 31. MuscuLus: *^^ As to the immerfioti of 
 the infant to be bapiized, we judge that this 
 is not fo iiecefiary, as that tiie churches were 
 not free to baptize either by dipping or fprink- 
 ling. Tl.ac this liberty was prcferved in the 
 churches we may fee in August in (Oe Ec- 
 
 clef. 
 
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Baptifm, 105 
 
 clef. Dogmat. Cap. Ixxiv.) " The perfon to be 
 baptized (faith Augustin) — is t'lther Jprinkled 
 with water, or dipped in it. And Cyprian 
 '(Lib. iv. Epift. vii. ad Magnum) defends the 
 ufe of fprinkJing in baptifm.'* Loci Comm. de 
 Bapt. 
 
 § 28. 32. Ursikus : " The word haptif?n. 
 iignifieth a dipping in water, or fprinkling with 
 water. Thofe of the eaji church were dipped 
 their whole body in the water ; thofe of the 
 north^ in colder countries, are only fprinkled with 
 water. I'his circumjiance is of no moment or 
 weight. For wafhing may be either by dipping 
 or fprinkling ; and baptifm is a wajhing. The 
 catechifm definition is ; " Baptifm is an out- 
 ward wafning with water, commanded by Chrift,. 
 &c. " Sum of Chrift. Relig. Tranflated by 
 Parrie. Part. ii. Q. 69. p. 695. 
 
 33. Dr. Watts : " The greek word bap^ 
 tizo fignifies to tvaJJj any thing, properly by 
 water coming over it. Now tbere are feverai 
 ways of fjch wafhing, viz. fprinkling water ' on 
 It in fmall quantity, pouring water on it in 
 larger quantity, or dipping it under water, ei- 
 ther in part or in v/hole. And fince thii: ieems 
 to be left undetermined in fcriptv.re to one parti- 
 cular mode^ therefore any of thefe ways of waili- 
 ing may be fufficieiU to aniwer the purpoi'e of 
 this ordmanccv ISow that the grecii v/ord fig- 
 nities wapiiig a thing in general by water com- 
 ing over it, and not always dipping, is argued 
 by learned men, not only from antient gre&k 
 authors, but from the New Teftament itfelf, 
 
 F 5 ^c. 
 
I©6 Of the Signification of the Ch. 4. 
 
 &c." Berry-ftreet Sermons. Ser. xxxvii. Vol. 
 ii. p. 156. Ed. 1757. Alfo his Works, Vo). i. 
 p. 820. 
 
 34. Lactantius: " When Jefus was grown 
 up, he was baptized (tin^Ius eji) by the pro- 
 phet John in the river Jordan ; not that he 
 might wa(h away his own fins by the fpiritual 
 laver, for he had none ; but for an external 
 purification : that as he had faved the Jews by 
 circumcifion, fo alfo he might fave the gentiles 
 by baptif?n^ that is, (purijici roris perfufone) by 
 the perfufton of the purifying water.'* Divin. In- 
 fl:it. Lib. iv. § 15. p. 354, 365. Ed. Oxon. 1684, 
 
 35. Perkins: " Baptifm is a facrament, by 
 which fuch as are within the covenant are wajh^ 
 ed with water^ in the name of the Father, &c. 
 Matth. xxviii. 19. " Go, teach all nations^ 
 haptixing them." — Touching the name^ it is 
 taken fix ways. Firft, it fignifies the fuperfti- 
 tious wafliings of the Pharifees, who bound 
 themfelves to the baptifms^ or wajhings of cups 
 and pots, Mark vii. 4. Secondly, it fignifies 
 the wajhings appointed by God in the ceremo- 
 nial law, Heb. ix. 10. Thirdly, it fignifies that 
 wajhing by water which ferves to feal the co- 
 venant of the New Teflament, Matth. xxviii. 
 l^. Fourtlily, it fignifies by a metaphor, any 
 grievous crofs or calamity. Thus the paffion of 
 Chrift is called his baptifm^ Luke xii. 50. Fifth- 
 ly, it fignifies the be/lowing of extraordinary gifts 
 of the Holy Ghofi-, and that by impofition of 
 hands of the apoflles, Ads i. 5* and xi. 16. 
 
 Lafily, 
 
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Bapiifm. IQJ^ 
 
 » 
 Laftly, it fignifies the whole eccleiiaftical minif" 
 
 try—^Kdi^ xviii. 25. And it muft be re- 
 membered that baptizing fignifies not only that 
 wafliing which is by diving of the body, but 
 alfo that which is by fpr inkling. — Many of our 
 anceilors heretofore have been baptized by Mafs- 
 priefts, and never received any baptifm but in 
 the church of Rome : Now the demand is. 
 Whether that baptifm were fufficient or no I 
 and whether they muft be re- baptized? I an» 
 fwer thus : The Romi(h prieft is no minifter of 
 God and Chrift, but of antichrift, in that he 
 offers Chrift a real facrifice for the quick and 
 the dead, wherein chiefly (lands his office : yet 
 becaufe he hath been and is defigned by men 
 to baptize, and ftands in the room of a law- 
 ful minifter, his a^ion is not void. For tho' 
 he be not a minifter lawfully called to baptize, 
 yet is he not a mere private man ; but he is 
 between both, that is, one called, tho* amifs, 
 thro' ignorance and overfight of men : and con- 
 fequently, ftands in the room of a right and 
 lawful minifter.— In things done there be two 
 kinds of faults; one in the work, another in the 
 worker. A fault in the work^ is when the ac- 
 tion itfelf is done amifs : and it may be done 
 amifs vci fuljlance^ or in cit cumjiance \ and if the 
 fault be in the fuhflance thereof, it is indeed a 
 nullity, and muft be reputed as not done. The 
 fault of the zvorker is, when an adion oi 
 a lawful calling is don^ by one that is not 
 called lawfully. Now then, when the fault of 
 an action is not done in the work itfelf, but 
 
 F 6 ia 
 
lo8 Of the Signification of the Ch* 4, 
 
 in the perfon that v/orketh it, it is not to be 
 reputed a nullity, neither to be reverfed as no- 
 thing. As for example, on^ called lawfully 
 to the miniftry, baptizeth infants in the name, 
 of the Father and the virgin Mary : Here is a 
 fault in the a5lioii done, and that in the fuh^ 
 fiance of baptifm, and therefore here is no bap- 
 tifm, but rather a prophanation of the ordinance 
 of God. Now put the cafe further, that bap- 
 tifm is adminiftered by a man that is called, 
 tho' not lawfully ; I fay if there be no [effen- 
 tial] fault in the adion, but only in the man, , 
 that baptifm is not to be reputed a nullity.— 
 Whofoever denieth this ground of truth, over- 
 turns the regiment of kingdoms, churches, ftates, 
 and focieties whatfoever." Works, Vol. i. p. 73. 
 765. Vol. ii. 256. N. B. This eminent pro- 
 teftant divine, who feldom fpared any pillar or 
 part of popery when it flood in his way, was 
 clearly of opinion (and the judgment of fo 
 iearned a polemic, and fo venerable a cafuift 
 tlaims at leaft a tribute of refpe6^) that neither 
 tne unworthinefs of the adminiitrator, nor the 
 fpecific mode of ufmg the element, could juf- 
 tify a found proteftant in rejecting the popifh 
 baptifm as a nullity ; while he takes into the 
 account for this purpofe, the force of the term 
 baptifm^ the na'ure and deCgn of the inftitution, 
 the analogy of faith, and the principles of right 
 reafon. 
 
 36. Wilson: " Baptifm', dipping into water^ 
 •r waJIAng with water, i Pet, iii. 21, " Where- 
 of 
 
Gh. 4. Terms Baptize and Baptifm, 109 
 
 of baptifm, &c. — Pouring out, or Jheddi?ig a- 
 broad, the gifts of the Spirit, A6ls xi. 16, 
 « Ye (hall be baptized with the Holy Ghoft." 
 Mat, iii. II. A6ts. i. 5. To baptize with the 
 Spirit, is to hejiow the graces of the Spirit.— 
 To baptize \ to dip into water — To fpr inkle or 
 wajh one's body facramentally. Thus the minif- 
 ter baptizeth. Matt. iii. 11. "I baptize you 
 "whh water," that is, outward facramental wafh- 
 ing. — The minifter baptizeth by fprinkling 
 with water, God baptizeth by beilowing the 
 gifts of his Spirit." Chrift. Diet. 
 
 37. Synod of dort : " We believe and con* 
 fefs that Jefus Chrift — having abo3i(hcd circum- 
 cifion — hath inftituted the facrament of baptifm 
 in the room of it ; whereby we are received 
 into the church of God, and are feparated from 
 all other nations^ and from all other foreign 
 or falfe religions ; that we may be confecrated 
 or devoted to him alone, whofe chara6ler and 
 mark we bear. And hereby we have a tefti- 
 mony, that he will be always our God and 
 propitious Father. Wherefore he hath com- 
 manded that all who are his (hould be bap- 
 tized, to wit, with pure water, in the name of 
 the Father, and of the Son, and of the Iloiy 
 Spirit; to fignify, that as watei (in nos effufa) 
 poured upon uSy and to be feen 04 1 the body of 
 the baptized, and fpiinklmg it, waihes the filth 
 off the body ; fo alfo the blood of V^hrilt per- 
 forms the fame internally in the foul by the 
 Holy, Spirit, fprinkling it, and cleanfmg it from its 
 
 fms. 
 
no Of the Stgntfication of the Ch. 4^ 
 
 fins, and regenerating us from children of wrath, 
 to be children of God. We believe that we 
 ought to be baptized but once, with that one 
 baptifm, which is not to be repeated in fii- 
 ture ; fince we cannot be born twice. Nor is 
 this baptifm ferviceable only when water is 
 poured upon us and received by us, fince the 
 ufe of it extends itfelf to the whole courie of 
 our life. Wherefore we deteft the error of the 
 Anabaptifts; who are not content with one 
 baptifm once received, and who moreover con- 
 demn the baptifm of infants born of chriflian 
 parents." Corp. Confefs. Acta Synodi Dor- 
 drecht. § xxxiv. p. 143. 
 
 38. CONFESSIO ET ExPOSITIO FiDEI CHRIS- 
 TIAN -ffi : '•• Baptifm was inftituted and confe- 
 crated by God ; and John iirft baptized " qui 
 Chriftum aqua in Jordane tinxit," who tinged, 
 i. e. baptized, Chrift with water in Jordan. 
 From him it deicended to the apoftles, who 
 alfo themfelves baptized with water. The Lord 
 manifeftly commanded them to preach the gof- 
 pel, and to baptize in the name ot the r a- 
 ther, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoft. 
 And Peter in anfwer to the Jews, inquiring 
 what they ought to do ? faid, in the Ads, Let 
 every one of you be baptized in the name of 
 Jefus Chrid, for the remiffion of fins, and ye 
 (hall receive the gift of the Holy GholL 
 Wherefore baptifm is called by fome, the ini- 
 tial fign of God's people, in as much as by 
 this they were initiated to God, as his chofea. 
 
 There 
 
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Baptl/m. m 
 
 There is only one baptifm in the church of 
 God, and it is enough to be once baptized, 
 or initiated to God. But baptifm once receiv- 
 ed, continues all our life time, and is a per- 
 petual feal of our adoption. — We are internally 
 regenerated, purified and renovated by God 
 thro* the Holy Spirit ; but externally we re- 
 ceive the feal of thefe very great ble/Tmgs in 
 the water, by which thofe very benefits are re- 
 prefented, and as it were exhibited before our 
 eyes. Wheri:fore, we are baptized, that is, 
 wajhed or fprinkled with vifible water*. More- 
 over i God feparates us^ by the fymbol of bap- 
 tifm, from all ftrange religions and people, and 
 confecrates us to himfelf, as his peculiar pof- 
 feffion.'* Corp. Confefs. p. 46. N. B. " Sub- 
 fcripferunt omnes omnium ecclefiarum Chrifti in 
 Helvetia miniftri, qui funt Tiguri, Bernae, Gla- 
 ronae, Bafileae, Scaphufii, Abbatilcellae, Sangalli, 
 Curi.TB Rhetorum, & apud confaederatos, in ec- 
 clefiis Evangelium profitentibus cis et ultra Al- 
 pes, Milhufii item et Biennae, quibus adjunxe-- 
 runt fe et miniftri ecclefise, quas ell Genevae, 
 ct Neocomi, &c.'* Pref. 
 
 39. PococKE : " In the firft place the word 
 haptifm does not necefTarily denote an immer- 
 iion of the whole body in water, even when 
 ufed to exprels (Tebilah) the more folemn de- 
 gree of wafning j fince it is fpoken of him who 
 only intmges even his hand^ according to the 
 frequent ule of Jewifh tradition and difcipline. 
 
 Secondly, 
 
 * Ideoque baptizamur, id eft, abluimur, aut afpergimur aquu 
 vifibili. 
 
112 Of the Signification of the - Ch. 4» 
 
 Secondly, the fame word is fometimes ufed for 
 that {lighter degree of wafliing, which is per- 
 formed by the affufion of water, and it indiffe* 
 rently belongs to both. Which perhaps it may 
 be ufeful to obferve againft thofe who morofely 
 and over fcriipuloufly urge the force of the 
 word, when difpu'dng about the facrament of 
 baptifm." Not. Mifcell. in Port. Mofis. cap. 
 ix. 
 
 40 Leigh : " BxTfli^u, Baptizo. Mr. Lau- 
 rence in his treatife of baptifm, the fifth 
 part, faith, The word /5a7ruf<y fignifies properly 
 mergOy immergo^ that is to drown! or fink in 
 the water, to dip, to overwhehn, to plunge ; fo 
 Chamier fays, that immerfion expreffeth the 
 force ra ^ocrfli^nv : it fignifies alfo tingo, to dye 
 or colour, quod fit immergendo ; which is to he done 
 by dipping into the colour, ovepA'helming and 
 drowning in it*. So Walrus, a learned pro- 
 feffor of thefe parts, fays, That the ancient La- 
 tines exprefled the word ^oe.'nWt^iiv per tinfiionem 
 Ct inundationem ; inundatio is overflowing. This 
 therefore is the material force of the word. So 
 he." To which Mr. Leigh replies: " I can 
 
 find 
 
 • JFhicb is t9 be done — that is, if any thing to the purpofe, 
 nothing can be tinged or coloured without immerfing it. Some- 
 thing like Dr. Gii.L, when he fiflerts, *' There is but one "May 
 of wafhing ; and that is by dipping!" No^. reader, you cannot 
 wafliyouryrt« but you tc\w^ dip \\\ Meirrs. Laurikce ao4 Gill 
 might hav2 as well infifted. That the only ivay to cut ofF a 
 nan's hair from his he^d u. To lever the hed from the body. 
 Or, that there is no ether iv^y to kill a man, than by the fpe-^ 
 *\hc mode of fahbingt 
 
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Baptifm, 113 
 
 find nothing at all in Chamier favouring your 
 opinion of immerfion. Walrus De Baptifnio 
 faith, " ^ccirlo] and ^ccttH^u properly fignifies la^ 
 vare or hitingerej as Mark vii. 4. and Luke xi. 
 38. It is indicated that it is indifferent whether 
 v/e baptize by fprinkling or immerfion, becaufe 
 examples of both are found in fcripture." I 
 fuppofe that which I have quoted in my Cr/- 
 tica out of the beft lexicographers, and that I 
 here quote in the margent, out of two learned 
 dodtors [PococKE and Ligbtfoot] may fuf- 
 iice to take off what is obje£red by Mr. Lau- 
 rence from the force of the word. Schmi- 
 Dius on Matt. iii. 6. faith, ^c(,7r%v is to tinge, 
 from whence ^cctPu^cj. Any one, therefore, faith 
 he, may baptize, altho' he iliould not immerfe 
 in water; but fhould only tinge with water, by 
 whatever convenient mode." Crit. Sacr. oup- 
 plem. Ed. 1662. 
 
 § 29. It would be eafy to colIe£i: a large 
 volume of palTages to the fame import, from 
 lexicographers, criticks, and commentators i ma- 
 ny of Vv'hich L purfjofely omit, froai tiie lole 
 motive of not fwelling the preient work and 
 being tedious to the reader. Now I venture to 
 appeal to the perufer of the foregoing piges, 
 whether tlie verdict of many very emiricnt lite- 
 rary charadlers does not corroborate the doc« 
 trine contained in our general thefis, viz. That 
 baptize and bapiifm^ at lead when lacramentally 
 ufed, or in their Nev/ Teibment legijJathue mean- 
 ing and force, are generic terms f '^ it will be 
 
 allowed 
 
114 Ofjhe Signijjcation of the Ch. 4. 
 
 allowed, I think, by every competent and im- 
 partial judg;e, that many of the authors from 
 whofe writings thefe quotations are made, may 
 be juftly numbered among the firft literary cha- 
 rafters that any age has produced ; and, tliere- 
 fore, as likely to know the true meaning of a 
 greek Term, as any of our late oppofers:" and 
 they are unanimpufly of opinion, that the 
 term baf-iifm agrees to different fpecific modes^ 
 fuch as immerfion and fprinkling; confequently 
 cannot be immerlion exclufwely^ but is of courfe 
 a general term. 
 
 " Can it be fuppofcd, fays Mr. B. without 
 impeaching the wifdom or goodnefs of Chrift, that 
 he enabled a law relating to his own worfhip, 
 the principal term in which is ohfcure and ambigu- 
 ous ? Can it be imagined, that he intended an 
 ambiguity fo great in the term baptifm, which 
 prefcribes the duty to be performed, as to war* 
 rant the ufe of immerfion^ or of pourings or of 
 jprinkling^ which are three different actions ? — 
 " Why not ? What inconvenience follows ? If 
 a fovereign enacl that all his "^ loving fubjc-fls 
 {hould rejort to feme place of worlhip every 
 Lord's day ; would he be blameable for not fpe- 
 tifying the Jhode of reforting, or would his fab- 
 je(Sts have any juft ground of complaint for not 
 determining whether all were bound to the fame 
 manner of performing the general mandate ? 
 Nay, is it not evident, that the greater the la- 
 titude of fignification, the lefs danger there is 
 ef miflake, and in reality the lefs room for 
 
 cavil I 
 
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Bapti/tn, 11% 
 
 cavil ? If the generic Idea of a word be deter- 
 minate, there is little reafon to complain oi 
 the variety of fpecific ones contained under it. 
 What could we think of a foldier who ihould 
 quarrel with his officer becaufe when he gave 
 a general order to kill *, to Jlay^ or \o put to death 
 the common enemy without quarter, and with- 
 out exception, he had not withal fpecifiedj whe- 
 ther he muft do it by cutting off the head, by 
 dabbing, or by any other one method exclufively ? 
 When God faid, " Whofo (heddeth man's blood, 
 by man fliall his blood be Ihed" (Gen. ix. 6.) ; 
 is there any juft ground of refiedion on the 
 conduct of the divine Legiliator that the man- 
 ner^ or fpecific mode, of executing the fentence 
 was not precifely determined ? Would it be- 
 come any of our Lord's profeiTed followers, to 
 indulge the irreverent humour of cavilling, and 
 charging his legiilative authority with imperfec- 
 tion, becaufe he has not precifely determined 
 the quantity and quality of the bread and wine 
 in his fupper ; whether the wafhing of the dif- 
 ciples' feet, anointing the (icic with oil, the ob- 
 fervance of the feventh day as a fabbath, and 
 the feafts of charity, are or are not of perpetual 
 
 obligaiion i 
 
 * ** KVding a man with a fwmd or a hatchet, ave Jroked on 
 ** as no /pedes of adlion: but if the point cf the fword firft 
 ** enter the body, it pafles for a diftuift fpecies, where it his a 
 *' diftiL^l name J as in England, in whcTe language it is called 
 *' J}ahbing : But in another country, where it has not har>pened to 
 " be fieofied under a peculiar name, it pafles not for a dift.nft 
 " fpecies." Locice's Eilay on Hum. Under. B. III. Cha.»* 
 
Ii6 Of the Signification of the Ch. 4. 
 
 obligation? If a mafter orders his fervant to 
 go, to a certain place on his bufmefs, leaving 
 it as a matter quite indifferent, becaufe unim- 
 portant, by zvhat road out of feveral the jour- 
 ney may be performed and the bufmefs done; 
 would it not betray the want of good fenfe, as 
 well as^ a rebellious cavil, for the fervant to charge 
 the mafler with " either weaknefs or wickednefs" 
 becaufe he had not pofitively and abfolutely 
 fpecified which of thefe different roads mufl be 
 taken to the exdufion of all others ? In fhort, 
 to find fault a pnori, as Mr. 3. does, with the 
 idea, that our Lord (hould enact a law by a 
 term of Intitude^ is to find fault with divine 
 wifdom for granting; to man any degree of //- 
 beriy of choice in his aclions. Why ihould any 
 wifi) a re<lri£Hcn of that principle, tlie exercife 
 of ^Ahich " is the difiinguiQiing privilege of our 
 nature, v/hen, on the fuppofition, no advantage 
 to man or glory to God can enfue therefrom? 
 Why covet fetters every way unprofitable? 
 Why defire fuch an a£i of uniformity in the cafe 
 of baptifm, to the exclusion of every degree of 
 liberty, while the ground and exiflence of all 
 pofitive inflitutions depend on the good plea- 
 fure of the inf\i tutor, and on that aloiie ? 
 
 § 30. (IV.) The truth of what 1 contend 
 for will further appear, From the concejfions of 
 Antipocdobaptids.. 
 
 Concessions may be made by a^ioiis as 
 well as by words. And when any v-ho pro- 
 fefTediy renounce the praclice of infant baptifm, 
 
 adiuit 
 
Gh. 4. Ter?jis Baptize and Bapt'ifm» 117 
 
 admit perfons to the higheft degree of chrif- 
 tian communion, when baptized only by fprink- 
 ling, whiJe themfelves notwithftanding pradif^ 
 immerfion, does it not amount to a concejjwi 
 that baptizing by affiifwn or fprinkling is equally 
 valid with their own ? And does it not amount 
 to a concefTion that the bapuzing of infants is 
 not a nullity ? If it be faid, that Antipoedo- 
 baptift congregations allow free communion to 
 Pafdobaptifts as unbaptizedi we afk, what evi- 
 dence is there for fuch an afTertion ? The 
 practice of adult baptifm in the fame congre- 
 gation only (liews, that Ibme from confcientious 
 fcruples prefer adult immerfion, as in their ap- 
 prehenfion more fcriptural and folema. Which 
 is the mofl: charitable conftruction of their con- 
 du6l in this matter, to fay, that they judge in- 
 fant-baptifm to be valid^ and therefore admit 
 their pcedobaptift brethren to full communion ; 
 or elfe, that they admit thofe whom they deem 
 unbaptized? Mr. B, adopts the latter; however 
 deftitute it may feem both of evidence and 
 of brotherly candor. " Tho' I look upon the 
 former [Pcedobaptift brethren] as under a mif- 
 take, in regard to baptifm ; I confider them as 
 acting, not only confcientioufly but con(i':lently 
 with their own principles in refpeil: of that or- 
 dinance : while I view the coaduit of the lat- 
 ter iprofefTed Baptilfs, who admit Poedobaptifis 
 to their churches and communion] not only as 
 contrary to the order of the primitive chri;tian 
 churches, but as inconfflent ivith their own 
 
 avowed 
 
Ii8 Of f^f Signification of the Ch. 4. 
 
 avowed fe nil ments^.^* It is pretty manifeft from 
 this paflage, and many others in the fame per- 
 formance, that Mr. B. takes it for granted, 
 thofe Baptifts he oppofes maintain the nullity 
 of infant baptifm. But the fa^ of mixed com- 
 munion implies no fuch thing. It therefore 
 follows, that nothing fhort of explicit declara- 
 tions of their receiving their brethren as un- 
 baptized^ or as regarding their baptifm as a mere 
 nullity^ can juftify Mr. B.'s charge of inconfift- 
 ency. All that can be fairly gathered from 
 their condu6i: in this cafe is, that they admit 
 the validity of infant fprinkling, tho' for their 
 own part, they give the preference to adult 
 plunging. They confider, I prefume, the points 
 of difference in the light of circuTriftantiah^ or 
 nonSfjentiah^ of baptifm ; tho' in their own />n- 
 vate judgment^ they apprehend the immerfion of 
 adults more confor?nable to their Lord's plea- 
 fure. 
 
 Again: As far as we are authorifed to form 
 a judgment on the conduct of the free Bap- 
 tifts, they refer thefe points of difference about 
 baptifm to the private judgment of the fubjedt. 
 For when a communicant is difTatisfied with 
 his infant baptifm, the minifter and the church 
 admit him to the bath according to their own 
 cuftom of baptizing; which otherwife they could 
 not do, v^ithout deferving the name of Ana^ 
 baptifi. But if he is fatisfied without it, 
 they liberally acknowledge, that they h^ve no 
 
 right 
 
 * Mr. Booth's Apology for the Baptifts, p» 19, 
 
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Baptif?n. ti% 
 
 right to impofs thofe drcumjiances of baptifm 
 which Chrift has left free. And that thofe 
 Baptiil minifters and churches who prailife free 
 communion, and who are confiderabJy numer- 
 ous, as they are ah'b on account of their learn- 
 ing and piety not lefs refpectable than their 
 brethren, do regard baptifm^ tho' not immerfisny 
 as an eflential prerequifite for chriliian commu- 
 nion, appears hence : if any are propofed to 
 ftri6t fellowfliip, who, according to their own 
 judgment and profefTion, were never baptizedy as 
 are the children born of Antiposdobaptift parents, 
 they are never admitted, if I miftake not, with- 
 out previous baptifm. I do not pretend to fay, 
 that every part of their conduct in thefe mat- 
 ters is right ; but it is fufficient for me to in- 
 fer thence, what appears fairly inferible^ That 
 their aSiions and habitual condud: concede my 
 principle. 
 
 § 31. It is alfo faft, that fome Antipoedo- 
 baptifts reje<5i: immerfion, on convi6lion of the 
 preference of afperfion or affuiion, from a ftrict 
 examination of fcripture evidence. Not to men- 
 tion the Antipoedobaptifts of Holland, of whom 
 it is faid, that they " commonly ufe affufton j'* I 
 (hall prefent the reader not only with the opU 
 nion but alfo the reafoning of an Antipaedobap- 
 tift, who has lately publi(hed on this fubjeit. 
 " It feems to me that baptifm was adminif- 
 tered both by John and the apoftles of Chrif^, 
 by fpr inkling or pourings and not by ifnmerfton, 
 A river does not feem to have been chofen for 
 the purpofe of baptifm, as if no other place 
 
 was 
 
120 Qfj^^ Signification cf the Ch. 4. 
 
 was proper for it. The three thoufand bap- 
 tized, and added to the church the fame day, 
 (fee A(Sts ii.) feem rather, in my opinion, to 
 have been baptized in houfes. — Saul of Tarfus 
 " in the houfe of Judas," Ads ix. Likewife 
 the Jailor and his family were, I conceive, bap- 
 tized at home, A6ls xvi. — Cornelius alfo and 
 his believing friends, were probably baptized in 
 the centurion's own houfe, A6ls x. and the 
 words of Peter on that occahon, "Can any 
 one forbid water?" feem to imply that water 
 was to be brought to them, and not that the 
 perfons to be baptized were let out to fome 
 •other place for the conveniency of immerfion, 
 as no hint of that kind is there given us, — Per- 
 fons may very properly be faid to go down 
 into a water or river, and come up out of it, 
 v/ithout going into fuch a depth as is neceiTary 
 for the purpofe of immerfion \ nor do I remem- 
 ber it is any where faid, that the perfon bap- 
 tized was covered with water^ or put under it ; 
 and had this been the cafe, I can hardly think 
 the fcripture would have been entirely filent 
 about it, but in fome place or other it would 
 have been exprefsly mentioned ; efpecially, if it 
 be a circumf«ance of fuch importance^ as fome 
 perfons l\;ppofe, and conVend for. — Nor does 
 the fcnpturc, any where that I can find, repre- 
 fent the n cde of baptifm as a refemblance of 
 the bun;! I and reluirediion of Chrift. 1 am 
 fure the words cf I aul, Rom. vi. 3, 4. Col. ii. 
 12^ do not exptcfiy declare it. Neither does 
 
 the 
 
CIi. 4. Therms Baptize ami Bap'tifm, 12 1 
 
 the pafTage John iii. 23. plainly tell us, that 
 John baptized in Enon becaufe of the depth of 
 water in that place, for the fake of hnmerfion ; fo 
 that the arguments raifed from fuch pafTages as 
 thefe,' to prove immerfion the true mode of 
 fcripture baptifm, amount, in my opinion, to no- 
 thing more than hare fuppofitiotiy without con- 
 taining any certain proof of the point in queflion. 
 —The evangelifl [Mat. iii. 6.] does not fay 
 they went in it, in order tQ he haptized hy im^ 
 merfon ; this therefore amounts to no more 
 than mere conje^urey or hare affertion of the 
 learned Doctor [Gill]. We, on the other 
 hand, may as reafonably fuppofe,. and affirm, 
 that they went into the water to be baptized by 
 fprinkling^ and not by immerfion, for any thing 
 this text fays to the contrary. — Had John been 
 fent only to give them to drink of the water 
 of Jordan, it would have been more convenient 
 for the people to come down to him unto the 
 river for that purpofe, tho' it might have been 
 given them fome other way : So iikewife if he 
 baptized by fprinkUng or pourings it would have 
 been highly inconvenient for him to have bap- 
 tized them with the waters of Jordan, but at 
 or in the river itfelf. — Had he baptized after 
 the manner of the prefent advocates for im- 
 merfion, it is fcarce credible how John alone^ 
 in any reafonable time, could have baptized the 
 vaft numbers that rcforted to him : but every 
 difficulty is removed on the fuppofition of their 
 coming to him unto or into the water, that he 
 
 G might 
 
122 Of the Signification of the Ch. 4. 
 
 might, with the greater eafe and convenience, 
 fprinkle or four water upon them. — A« tne 
 Doaor lays a ftrefs on the words out of, I ob- 
 ferve that Matt. iii. 16. may be literally tranf- 
 lated thus, " Jefus when he was baptized went 
 immediately up from the water j"- which words . 
 are fo far from being a nueffary proof ot lus 
 being baptized by immerfion, that they do not 
 necefTarily declare that he was at all m the 
 water: confequently what the Doctor terms a 
 « neceffary proof,'' amounts to no more than 
 mere fuppofition ; and to me it feems highly 
 probable that Chrift was not under the water 
 at all for there is not the lead hmt of his 
 ri/inz'up, or of John's raifmg h\m from a flate 
 Jf immerfion, wl.ich muft neceifarily l^^ve fol- 
 lowed his being immened, before he cou.d be 
 faid to come out of it. But as the text fays, 
 immediately upon his being baptized, he went 
 up out of or (as the prepofition may more pro- 
 perly be rendered) from the water, it feems to 
 nie that Chrift only ftood in or at the brmk 
 of Jordan when John baptized him. And as 
 bis being baptized by John ^z% Jiraightway foU 
 lowed by that of the Holy Spirit, which de- 
 fcended from heaven upon him, (which bap- 
 tifm of the Spirit being, as I conceive, that 
 \vhich was eminently fignified by John's baptifm 
 with water) it feems to me more congruous and 
 reafonable to fuppofe, that the 7nanner of both 
 was precifely the fame, viz. that of fpnnklmg 
 or pouring, --l marvel that a man of Dr. Gill's 
 '^ learning 
 
Ch. 4. %crms Baptize and B{Tpttf7n, 123 
 
 learning and difcernment, fhould lay fo great a 
 ftrefs as he does on Mark's ufing the particle 
 e^, which it IS well known often fignifies the 
 fame as £", in^ and fo Mark evidently ufes them 
 as fynonymous in the paflage referred to, Mark 
 i. 5, 8, 9. And here I obferve alfo, that it 
 is as proper to fay a perfon was fprinkled with 
 water, as that he was plunged into water. But 
 it is further rrianifeft from A6ls viii. 38. that 
 the particle ti^ is not intended to exprefs a per- 
 fon's being immerfed or put under water, for we 
 there read that they went down «s- into or unto 
 the water, both Philip and the Eunuch; yet 
 furely Philip himfelf did not go under the wa* 
 ter. But if it be true that fuch an exprelTion 
 as iU will not fuit, as the Do6lor fays it will 
 not, with any other mode but immerfion, it 
 muft necelTarily follow that both Philip and the 
 Eunuch were immerfed together \ and as it after- 
 wards follows, " He (Philip) baptized him,'* 
 the Eunuch^ according to the Dodlor's reafoa- 
 ing, muft have been twice immerfsd,—'Ev like- 
 wife, in the cafe of baptifm, not only can^ but 
 I think ought to be rendered with or by; for 
 tho' it would be aukward to fay John bap- 
 tized zuith or by Jordan; yet, as Dr. Gill 
 rightly obferves [on his hypothefisj, he did not 
 baptize into the banks of Jordan, but iato the 
 zvaters of Jordan ; and there is no more im- 
 propriety in faying that John fpri ikled them 
 with or by the waters of Jordan, than in fay- 
 
 G 2 
 
 i^i 
 
124- Q/* ^^^ Signification of the Ch. 4. 
 
 ing h& dipped them in or iijto the waters of Jor- 
 dan. — 2k alfo, which is ufed indifferently with 
 f*, may be rendered by in this cafe, as it is in 
 Matt. V, 34, 35. where thefe particles are ufed 
 together, as in the cafe of baptifm. " Neither 
 flialt thou fwear ev by heaven, nor £v by the 
 earth, nor e»5 by Jerufalem. — It does not ap- 
 pear from this paflage [John iii. 23. J that the 
 evangelift intended to reprefent the mode of bap- 
 tifm in any way or manner whatever, as the 
 Dodor here fuppofes. — As it is not faid John 
 was baptizing in Enon becaufe the water was 
 deep in that place, or becaufe there was much 
 water for the conveniency of immerfion^ the Doc- 
 tor's inference [in favour of immerfion] in my 
 opinion is ?nere hypothefs, — The holy waters 
 which Ezekiel faw iffuing from the fanduary 
 were not little but much -, yet when the angel had 
 meafured a thoufand cubits from the place 
 whence they ifTued, and caufed the prophet to 
 pafs thro' them, they were only up to the 
 ankles, -^V^t read alfo that John removed from 
 place to place, for the purpofe of baptizing ; 
 and it feems to me probable that one of his 
 reafons for it was, becaufe in fome places, the 
 water failed and was dried up 5 and perhaps 
 this was his reafon for going to Enon, becaufe, 
 as the Greek expreffes it, there were ?nany wa^ 
 tersy or divers flrenms^ which were not lb apt 
 to fail him, and become dry as in fome other 
 places. — Upon the whole, That John baptized 
 in Enon by immerfon^ cannot be proved from 
 
 this 
 
Ch, 4. Terms Baptize and Baptifnu t25 
 
 this place^ becaufe the evangelift is entirely filent 
 about it. — Whatever, then, was the reafon of 
 
 ' John's going to Enon to baptize, nothing can 
 thence be inferred with certainty, that John 
 baptized by ii>imer{ion ; there being not a word 
 in all the pqjptge^ either about the depth of 
 thefe waters, or the mode of baptifm. — The 
 Do6lor's glofs on this text [Rom, vi. 4.] feems 
 to me unzvarrantable and erroneous, — It is ob- 
 fervable that the apoftle thro' the whole paflage 
 does not fo much as once mention our being bap- 
 tized into Chrift's burial^ nor into his refurrec- 
 tion — but he fays again and again, baptized 
 into his death. •^'No mode of baptifm, then, can 
 "With certainty be inferred from thefe w^ords — 
 for he mentions our havino; been buried and 
 raifed with Chrift only as the efFe6l, or in con^ 
 Jcquence of our being dead with Chrift, by being 
 baptized into his death \ therefore the apoftic 
 only infers that we are buried with Chrift. How ? 
 by being baptized into his burial ? No 5 but by 
 being baptized into his death. — AvA I humbly 
 conceive the apoftle would have faid not his 
 death but burial^ if he had intended to defcribe 
 baptifm as a refemblance of Chrift's burial in 
 the mode of it, but he feems to me carefully to 
 avoid it. — Thus I have endeavoured to ftiew 
 that the New Teftament does not p! Inly declare 
 baptifm to have been adminiftered by immer- 
 fjon from any circumjiances attending the admi- 
 
 *'niftration of it; fo that, for any thing the fcrip- 
 
 G 3 ture 
 
226 Of the Signif cation of the Ch. 4. 
 
 ture faith to the contrary, it might have been 
 adminiflered by fprinhling or pouring, 
 
 § 32. " The point in difpute entirely hinges 
 
 on this, IN WHAT SENSE ttlC SCRIPTURE VlfeS 
 
 this word J whether to dip a perfon in and un- 
 der water ^ or to waflj him vAth zvaier. — ls it 
 not then impertinent for any one flill to urge, 
 in Homer, Plutarch, Sec. it fignifies to dip^ 
 or plunge \ for who denies it? — The point in 
 difpute hinges on this ; has it always that fenfe, 
 and no other P for t\(Q it proves nothing againft 
 us : — efpecially if this be not its corjlant mean^ 
 ing throughout //^^ SCRIPTURE. Nor indeed 
 is its idea of dipping fufficient to juftify the Bap- 
 tifis in their pradiice; for if they are in the 
 right, it mufl: fignify not barely to dip^ but to 
 dip under water. 
 
 " Mr. Parkkurst — after having mentioned 
 the word bapiizo as fignifying to dip or plunge, 
 rdds, " But the New Tejiament does not v.fi itjiri^ly 
 in this fenfe^ unlcfs, &c.'* And afterwards citing 
 I Cor. X. 2. he fays, " Bapii-zed by Jpr inkling,'* 
 — GouLDMAN on the word baptizoj fays, " To 
 wajhj to waier^ to fprinkle^ &c.'* Ainsworth 
 on tlie word lavo fays, " To wajhy to bathe^ 
 to he/prinkle!'* 
 
 "But further, the infpired writers of the Old 
 and New Teflaments — do no where, in my 
 opinion, intend by the word baptizo to exprefs 
 7nerely^ or chiefly^ an a6l of i7?i?7icrfiony or dip- 
 ping, and much lefs to dip under ivater , but ra- 
 ther 
 
Ch. 4, Terms Baptize and Baptifm* 12 j 
 
 ther that of wafhing or fprinkling; — and this 
 I hope to make appear from the following con- 
 fiderations : 
 
 " First, becaufe in feveral places they ule 
 the word hapto for the a6t of dipping — but they 
 do not fo much as once ufe this word to 
 fignify the ordinance of baptifm, but always its 
 derivative haptixo. — Now if they had meant 
 by the word baptizo to fignify a proper dip- 
 ping, it is, I think, hard to conceive why the 
 word bapto v/as never ufed by them to exprefs 
 that ordinance. — I fuppofe, therefore, the facred 
 writers do not mean by the word baptizo a 
 dipping of the body under water. — The Bap- 
 tifts indeed tell us immerfion, or dipping a 
 perfon under water, is ejfential to baptifm ; but 
 the fcripture, in my opinion, lays the whole 
 firefs on a perfon's being wafied^ and not at 
 all on his being dipped. Some indeed aifinn 
 there is no wafhing but by dipping ; but this 
 I think is rajhly fpoken^ for it is contradiited 
 by every one's daily experience; for men may, 
 and generally do wafh their face every day 
 without dipping it. And tho* they dip their 
 hands in water, in order to wafh them, yet the 
 face is as completely wafhed without dipping it, 
 as the hands are by dipping them. 
 
 " Secondly, the apoftle, Heb. ix. 10. fpeaks 
 of divers wafhings (Grejk, different baptijtm). 
 His words are not " divers perfons^ or things 
 baptized," but ^io/po^oK; ^xTrlia-iA-oi^ diverfe baptifms* 
 They were not only diver Sy manyy but they 
 
 G 4 were 
 
JlS Of the S'lgmficat'ion of the Ch. 4. 
 
 were alfo dlverfe^ different. The latin dlverfus is 
 ambiguous, but ^Kx.(pofo<; not ; for I find it no 
 ■where ufed to fignify many, but as it properly 
 means, to denote a diverfity or difference ^ and 
 thence an excellency of one perfon, or thing above 
 another, — And whoever carefully attends, with 
 a mind unbiaiTed, to the fcope of the paflage, 
 (Heb, ix.) will, I think, be led to. under- 
 fland the apoftle ds fpeaking of every fort of 
 wajhing for purification under the law (the 
 chief of which was that of fpri?ikHng) ; for elfe, 
 I conceive, to prevent his being mifunderftood, 
 he would have fpecified the particular mode he 
 intended by it. And as he does not fo much 
 as name that mode of wafhing fometimes ren- 
 dered bathing, but he again and again mentions 
 that mode, and that only^ which v^^as by fprink^ 
 ling ; I fuppofe the apoftle, in the paiTage under 
 CO nfi deration, eminently refers to that mode of 
 baptifm or wafhing which was by fprinkling ; 
 confequcntly, the fprinkUngs under the law were 
 haptifms, and are here fo termed by the apoftle. 
 Mr. Jenkins indeed fays (as Dr. Gill had 
 done before him), " The fprinkling (mentioned 
 Numb, xix.) only fan5lificd ov fcparated for the 
 purifying, from whence it is called the water of 
 feparation. Numb. xix. 9. but the purification 
 itfelf was performed by wajlnng the whole body 
 in water, ver. 19." So fays Mr, Jenkins. 
 But I read of no command given by Mofes, in 
 any part of the chapter, that the unclean lliould 
 wafh his whole body j and therefore we have 
 
 no 
 
Ch. 4» Tenns Baptize and Baptijm, 129 
 
 no fcripture warrant to fay that he did fo.— ^ 
 But Mr. Jenkins i? I think very bold, in that 
 he further adds, " The apoftle's argumerkt lofes 
 all its force without this explication ; for his 
 (the apoftle's) meaning is, that if the fprinkling 
 before mentioned did not even purify the flefb, 
 but only feparate for that purification^ how much 
 more, &c.'* Here again the apoftle is made to 
 7ncan what he doth not plainly fay ; and for what 
 reafon I know not, except it be this, that the 
 apoftle's words have a plain tendency to dif- 
 prove the notion of corporal immerfon being ef- 
 lential to baptifm. But Mr. Jenkins, in my 
 opinion, has quite miflaken both Mofes and the 
 apojile -y for — the water fprinkled^ is again and 
 again called a purification for fin^ and is faid to 
 purify the unclean by its being fprinkled on 
 him J but his wajhing himfelf is not fo much as 
 once faid to clean fe^ or purify from fin, — But 
 though Mr. Jenkins has ventured to aflert, 
 that, " Without his explanation the apol1Ie*s 
 argument is weak, and lofes all its force ;" I 
 for my part think quite the reverfe ; for the 
 apoftle's argument fcems to me clear, ftrong, 
 and conclufive, from his own words, and much 
 better without Mr. Jenkins's explanation than 
 with it. For the apoftle is not, in that place^ 
 telling the Jews, what the law and its ordinan- 
 ces could not do, but what it could do for them, 
 as pertaining to thefe/h.'-^Tho. apoflle argues from 
 the lefs to the greater, and his reafoning is in* 
 tended, to perfuade the bJieving Jews to con^ 
 G 5 tinue 
 
130 0/ the Signification of the Ch. 4. 
 
 thiue in the faith -, as alfo to encourage finners 
 'at large, however guilty and defiled in them- 
 felves^ to come to Chrift that their fins may be 
 pardoned and purged through faith in his blood, 
 and by him to draw near unto God with full 
 aiTurance of faith, not doubting but he will 
 graciouily accept them, thro' the death and me- 
 diation of his own fon, even Jefus Chrift, who 
 once fuffered for fms, the Juft for the unjuil:, 
 that he might bring us to God. This I think 
 is the plain fcope and fenfe of the paflage ; 
 for if, fays the apoftle, the blood of calves and 
 of goats, and the afhes of an heifer fprinkling 
 the unclean fandtifieth unto the purifying of 
 the flefh; " how much more (hall the blood of 
 ChrilT, who thro' the Eternal Spirit offered him- 
 felf vvithout fpot to God, purge your confcience 
 from dead works to ferve the Living God?" 
 
 § 33. " Thirdly, God having raifed up 
 find fent his fervant Mofes, to be the deliverer 
 of his people from Egyptian bondage, and to 
 lead them thro' the v;ildernefs to the borders 
 of Canaan; the children of Ifrael are faid to 
 have been baptized unto Mofes (as their leader 
 and commander to follov/ him) in or hy the 
 cloud, and by the fea, i Cor. x. 2. But that 
 they were properly in neither is manifefl, for 
 they walked on dry ground thro' the midft of 
 the fea, and the cloud was high above them; 
 therefore they were all baptized by fprinkling -^^ 
 unlefs you can fuppofe perfons to be baptized 
 by water, when they do not fo much as touch the 
 
 element j 
 
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Baptifm, I3f 
 
 element ; which fuppofition, in my opinion, is 
 highly unreafonahle and abfurd. It is faid, indeed, ^ 
 by fome : " Here is an allufion to the cuftom 
 of immerlion, the Ifraelites being, as it were, 
 covered by the cloud over^ and the waters on 
 each fide of them.*' But this is barely ajjertedy 
 without producing any fcripture in fupport of 
 it, or giving any good reafon for it. — Befides, 
 the apoftle as if forefeeing fuch kind of evafions^ 
 and to guard us againft being deceived by them, 
 changes the prepofition fTro, which he ufed in 
 the firft claufe of the fentence, into £> in the 
 next ; which he needed not have done, but 
 would, I conceive, have more properly retained 
 it, had he intended to fpeak of tiie manner 
 of their baptifm, as reprefenting the mode of 
 immerfion: for he fays they were all wwo under 
 the cloud, and then immediately adds, were all 
 baptized unto Mofes, not vrro under^ or hy being 
 wider the cloudy but iv by or with tlie cloud, 
 and with the fea, that is, with the waters of 
 both fprinkled upon them. This I think is 
 the moft proper and natural fenfe of the paf- 
 fage. 
 
 " Fourthly, as in the law of Mofes, fa 
 in the writings of the prophets, who lived many 
 ages after, the fame fpiritual benefits — are by 
 the7n alfo reprefented and faid to be given and 
 applied to us, in a way of pouring or f^rinkling ; 
 but no wliere, that I can find, by a mode of 
 dipping or immerfion.. " I, fauh God, will pour 
 water upon him that is ilurily j I v.ill pour 
 my /pint upon thy feed," Ifai. xliv, 3. and again^ 
 G 6 ^' he 
 
132, Of the Signification of the Ch. 4. 
 
 *' he {hzWfprinkle many nations ;" Ifa. Ivii. 15. and 
 again " I will Jprinkle clean water upon you, and 
 ye (hall be clean-, from all your filthinefs and 
 from all your idols will I cleanfe you, &c. I 
 will -put my fpirit within you, &c.'* Ezek. xxxvl. 
 25 — 27. — We are here exprcfsly told, that 
 God would cleanfe his people from all their un- 
 cleannefs by fprinkUng clean water upon them. 
 Thofe, then, whom God fo ckanfes^ "^ are clean 
 every whit," and need not to be immerfed^ but 
 fprinkled only. — Do not thofe perfons, then, 
 greatly err, who venture to aflert there is ne- 
 voajhing but by dippings and fpeak of fprinkling, 
 as a religious mode of wa(hing, by way of deri^ 
 fan ; though God hath exprefsly declared, that 
 he would wajh or cleanfe his people from all 
 their uncleannefs by fprinkling clean water upon 
 them ? 
 
 § 34. " Fifthly, Baptizo m the New Tef- 
 tament, as I conceive, fignifies to waJh or pu- 
 rify ^ by fpr inkling or pouring. So I think it 
 means Acts i. 5. " John truly baptized with 
 water, but ye Ihall be baptized with the Holy 
 Spirit.'* The word baptize hath undoubtedly 
 the fame meaning in both parts of the verfe 
 — to fay immerfion is implied in the word, is 
 legging the qiiefiion. Now it is certain that 
 believers were baptized with the Spirit, by its 
 being poured upon them ; and as John's man- 
 ner of baptizing is exprefled by the fame word^ 
 it feems to me neceflarily to follow, that the 
 mode was the fame in both ; efpecially as John's 
 baptizing with water feems to have been ^ ftgn 
 
 or 
 
Ch. 4. Tenns Baptize and Baptifm, 13 j 
 
 i>v emblem of Chrift's baptizing with the Holy 
 Spirit. — This, in my humble opinion, gives us 
 the true idea^ and fixes the fenfe of the word 
 haptizo^ as it was ufed, and intended to be un- 
 derllood, by the infpired apojiles and evangelijls. 
 And all that the advocates for immerfion have 
 faid, or urged to the contrary, from Matt. iii» 
 16. John iii. 23.. A6ls viii. 38. Rom. vi. 
 3 — 5. or any other part of fcripture, amounts^ 
 in my opinion, to no more than mere hypo^ 
 thejis. 
 
 " It is faid, indeed, by way of objeciion^ " that 
 the pouring of the Spirit on the apoftles is cal- 
 led baptifm by way of allufion to that of immer" 
 /ton ; becaufe the houfe, in which the apoflles 
 were then alTembled, was filled with it" But 
 how doth the obje6lor know that this is the 
 reafon why it is called baptifm? The fcripture 
 no where gives this as a reafon for it ; con- 
 fequently, we have no warrant from fcripture to 
 fay or believe it. — The apoftles were in the 
 houfe before the Spirit filled it, fo that there 
 was nothing like dipping in the cafe; but in 
 immerfion the place is firfi filled with water, 
 before the perfon is put into it. But further ; 
 the apoftle Peter, being one of the twelve who 
 were baptized with the Spirit, on the day of 
 Pentecoft, has I think plainly fliewed there was 
 no reference to any mode of baptifm but that 
 of pouring. For fpeaking to the people on that 
 very occafion, he fays, " This is that which 
 was fpoken of by the prophet Joel s and it (hall 
 
 come 
 
134 Q^ i^^ Sigmfication of the Q\\, 4, 
 
 come to pafs in the lafl days, faith God, I 
 will pour cut my fp'irit upon all fleOi — and upon 
 my fervants, and upon my handmaids, will I 
 pour out of my Spirit^ ASts ii. 17, 18. confe- 
 quently, the pouring of the Spirit on the7n^ 
 was their being baptized with the Spirit, tvithout 
 any refpeSI to the place in tvhich they were^ whe- 
 ther in a houfe^ or in the open fields. — Now I 
 have examined and confidered thofe texts on 
 which our opponents lay the greateft ftrefs, and 
 it does not appear to me that immerfion is 
 plainly declared in any one of them ; or that it • 
 can be inferred with certainty from circumjlances 
 or from any of the prepofitions there made ufe 
 of, that it has in thofe paflages the fenfe of 
 dipping under water* 
 
 "Had indeed the fcrlpture dirc£led, or given 
 a command for this manner of dipping, they 
 that do it would be juftified in the pra6l:ice 
 of it ; but I do not find that the fcripture 
 any where warrants the pradice either by pre- 
 cept or example. — Is not this manner of dippings 
 then, a mere human invention^ or acl of wilt 
 worjhip^ in adminiHering the ordinance of bap- 
 tifm ? 
 
 " I BELIEVE the Baptifls themfelves are altoge- 
 ther at a lofs to point out the manner of Joim's 
 baptizing thofe who came to him for that pur- 
 pofe, whether with or without a covering. Ncr 
 can they, as I fuppofe, afTign any good reafon, 
 why the fcripture fliould be totally filent about 
 it, but this only ; that he baptized not by /w- 
 
 7ncrfion 
 
Ch. 4» Terim Baptize and Baptlfm, 135^ 
 
 merfton but by fprmkling : for the Jews were well 
 acquainted with the Latter^ and often read of it 
 in their fcriptures, but of the former^ I conceive, 
 they were totally ignorant; it not being prac- 
 tifed or commanded in their law. — Thofe Eap- 
 tifts alfo, with whom I have converfcd on this 
 particular, are divided in their opinions about it. 
 None of them believe that a proper bathing 
 drefs was provided for them, on the occafion ; 
 but fome have told me they fuppofed them to 
 have been baptized in their orainary apparel \ 
 others, without any covering at all. But, furel)^, 
 as decency muft forbid the latter-, fo I think 
 their health and fafety will flrongly militate a- 
 gainft the former. Now the filence of fcripture 
 in this point is eafily, and I think rationally 
 accounted for, and every difficulty removed, oa 
 the fuppofition that John baptized not by dip- 
 ping them under water, but by fprinkUng water 
 upon them. As, then, the pouring of the Spirit 
 on a believer is baptifm with the Spirit, pouring 
 of water on him muft, I think, of neceffity be 
 baptifm with water f ." There is little need of 
 an apology (at leaft to Mr. B.) for the quan^ 
 tity of quotation here produced ; as the arguments 
 urged by this Antiposdobaptiji writer are, perhaps, 
 no lefs weighty and pertinent than aJl Mr. B.'s 
 boafted concejfions put together. 
 
 § 35. Dr. Gale juftly remarks; " Oi\q 
 
 would 
 
 f Mr, ^tHOT's Dipping not Baptising, Chap, II, fajjinit 
 
X o 5 Of the Signification of the Ch. 4. 
 
 would wonder a thing of this nature fhould be 
 capable of fo much difpute : for if it is not in- 
 /litutedy it ought not to be pra5iifed\ and if it 
 he inftituted, it fhould feein impojfible for any 
 not to fee it. — We are confident he has declared 
 his will to us, in this and all other articles of 
 like confequence, with all neceffary evidence \ and 
 what he hath not taught us with a fufficient 
 clearnefs^ he never defigned for the obje6l of obe- 
 dience*." It therefore follows, that in propor- 
 tion as we can extend our charitable opinion 
 to the integrity^ chrifiian honefiy^ and moderate ■ 
 capacity of the numerous lift of authors lately 
 quoted ; our Lord " never defigned for the ob- 
 ]e(5l of our obedience," the ■plunging any under 
 water^ for the purpofe of chriftian baptifm, who 
 had been before folemnly admitted into the vi- 
 fible church of Chrift by having pure water 
 poured on them, whereby they were tinged^ wajh^ 
 ed^ or ceremonially purified^ that is, baptizedy in 
 the name of Father, Son, and Spirit. 
 
 The fame author has the following remark- 
 able declaration : ^' The word BwrfW^u^ perhaps, 
 '' does not fo neceflarily exprefs the a^ion of 
 " putting under water, as in general the thing's 
 " being in that condition^ no matter how it 
 •' comes fo, whether it is put into the water, 
 " or the water comes over it ; tho' indeed to 
 " put it into the water is the mojl natural and 
 " the mofi common^ and is therefore ufually and 
 " pretty conftantly, but it may be not ncceffarjly^ 
 
 " implied 
 
 • Rcfledlions on WAiLVHiftory, pt 9T« 
 
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Bapfifm, 1 37 
 
 *' implied*." This judicious refle6tion was oc- 
 casioned by a palTage in Aristotle (De Mi- 
 rabil. Aufcult.) " They relate [fays he] of the 
 " Phoenicians, who inhabit a place called Ga- 
 deb'a [or Cadiz]^ that failing beyond the pillars 
 of Hercules, with an eaft wind four days, they 
 came to certain defert places full of bulruOies 
 and fea-weeds : which, when it is at ebb, (^n 
 /Sa7r]if£5-6«») are fiot iuei ; but when it is flow- 
 ing tide, (jialaxAyfEo-fiai) are overwhebncd.^^ How 
 pertinent the above reflediion, as founded on 
 this palTage ! The word does not exprefs the aSfion 
 hut condition* IVo matter hoiu it comes fo. To put 
 Q thing into the watir^ when baptized^ not necef- 
 farily implied. But on the following claufe we 
 muft diftinguifh. " To put a thing into the 
 water is the mofl natural and the mod commony 
 and is therefore nfually and pretty conjlantly im- 
 plied.'* If not always implied, who is to de- 
 cide that it is requiftte in the chriftian ordi- 
 nance ? It is neither natural nor common for a 
 coaft to be plunged into the fea. The queflion 
 then returns ; fmce the application of the thing 
 to the water^ or the application of the wcner to 
 the things depends on the nature and circum- 
 flances of the thing itfelf^ which of thefe modes 
 of application is tlie moft natural, common, and 
 convenient, in reference to a human pcrjon ? 
 Impartiality replies : Both modes are natural, and 
 both are common, for different purpofes. A 
 nurfe, for inftance, wajhes a child without im- 
 
 merfiOn ; 
 
 ♦ Reflections, p. 117, 
 
1 3^ Qf'^^^^ Signijjcation of the Ch. 4, 
 
 merfion ; but for medical purpofes brings it into 
 a /iatj of zuetncfsj by immerfion. Hie fame may 
 be ofcferved of adults, the ?node is natural and . 
 common according to the end propofed, whe- 
 ther for mere pleafure, for cleanfmg, for medi- 
 cal purpofes, or for moral ends^ &c. But the 
 application, in chriliian baptifm, being for moral 
 aids^ the quedion comes now clofer. What 
 mode of application is the moft natural, and 
 iiioir commodious, and therefore ought to be 
 the mod common? We anfv\er; That which 
 mofi fitly reprefents the principal thing iignified 
 thereby. And this being the imparted influences 
 of the Spint, the mode of applying the figni- 
 ficant element to the fuhje5t is moil: proper. 
 
 § 36. But the Dodor ftill cbjecls : " /?aw- 
 T.^ea-^cii being ufed here to fjgnify the land wa» 
 under water, by the waters corning In upon //, 
 and not by its being put into the water^ fome 
 perhaps may think it a confiderable objedion : 
 but it will be found of no advantage to our 
 adverfaries, if it be obferved, that it here necef- 
 farily and unvoidably imports to be under wa* 
 ter^ or to be overwhelmed or covered with 
 water*." I think not. For Aristotle only 
 fays, " The places were not baptized 'y'' which we 
 are fure jneans not^ plunged^ or dipped \ v^hich , 
 we are equally fure does mean vjct^ as oppofed 
 to dry ; but have no grounds to fay it means 
 " to be under ivater.^** without begging the quef- 
 tion. 
 
 But 
 
 * Rcfleftion*, p. lid 
 
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Baptifm, 139 
 
 But how fhall we reconcile the foregoing 
 concefTion, with the followino- bold afTertion ? 
 " I can't fee but the word baptize necejjarity 
 includes dipping in its fignilication f." Now, 
 dipping is ejfential\ before, dipping was not ne^ 
 cejfarily implied. What contradicSlion ! In the 
 following words the defiance becomes more 
 flrong and loud : " I may challenge any man 
 to (hew a ftngle injlance of it, except in fome 
 ecclefiaftical writers of the latter corrupt times, 
 who retaining the words of the infTitution, and 
 altering the thing, do, in this cafe indeed, but 
 no other, extend the word into a luidtr feiife : 
 but profane authors, who lay under no fuch biafs, 
 have made no fuch alteration, 'Tis evideT:»t 
 from i.bemy the primary meaning is uniply to dip^ 
 not only into water, but any matter^," But 
 what is this elfe than to build with one hand, 
 and to pull dov^^n with another? Was not 
 Aristotle a profane Author? And does not 
 he ufe the word, in a plain narration^ where it 
 would have been ahfurd to fpeak by an extra- 
 vagant figure^ in a fenfe which excludes dip- 
 ping ? Whereas, if we confider the word 0a.7fii(^u 
 as a geno'ic term here, as we have (liewn it to 
 be in the Septuagint, Apocrypha, and New 
 Teflament, the fenfe is natural and plain Witli- 
 out a figure ? *' The places were not wet at lov/ 
 water." But would any hijiorian or pbilofopher^ 
 much lefs an Aristotle, fay, " The places 
 were not plunged I at low water?" Dipping is 
 
 aa 
 
 t Ih. p, 94, * lb. p. 94, 9S» 
 
140 Of the Signification of the Ch. 4. 
 
 an aBion\ and if the term does not necefTarily 
 cxprefs the aHion of putting under water, it 
 xloes not necefTarily exprefs dipping. Befides, 
 '' a thing's being in general in the condition of 
 being under water, no matter how it comes 
 io^^ makes the term »to be evidently general-^ 
 as what is intended by it may be effecl:ed by 
 different modes^ fuch as affafion, perfufion, im- 
 merfion, inundation, &c. 
 
 But " the primary meaning is fimply to 
 dip," By what evidence is this aflertion fup- 
 ported ? ^od ?nere afferiur^ mere negari fufficit, 
 A bare dental is fufficient to a mere ailcrtion. 
 What is the faireft and moft equitable rule 
 for deciding this matter? Muft not that be 
 properly and truly the primary meaning of a 
 term, to which all the various acceptations of 
 it in approved authors ultimately and mofl natu^ 
 rally refer, as the branches of a tree to one 
 common ftock, or the feveral fpecies to a com- 
 mon genus ? And if two or m.ore meanings be 
 fet up as competitors for that primarinefs, hov^r 
 (hall their refpe^liive claims be afcertained, but 
 by appealing to authors where the term is w{ti^ 
 and to the common fenfe of capable judges? 
 If all the inftances produced, or that may be 
 produced, refer to the Qfie in a plain and eafy 
 manner, but many of them cannot refer to the 
 other without the fuppofitlon of extravagant fi* 
 gures znd elliptical fupplies, common fenfe de- 
 termines that the former has the moli equitable 
 cbim. \^^hich ever (lands ckarejl of all juJI 
 
 e^iception. 
 
Ch. 4. Terms Baptlzg and Baptlfm. 141 
 
 exception that may be brought againft it from 
 approved authors, when duly examined and 
 compared, muft needs have the beft title to the 
 prijnary meaning. 
 
 Now I alfo in my turn " challenge any man 
 to (hew a fingie injiance'* which is not plainly 
 and naturally compatible with what I have all 
 along infifted on as the primary . meaning of 
 ^ccTrli^w, VIZ, facramentally, to purify, and philo- 
 logically, to tinge^ weij (iain^ to impregnate with 
 a different fubflance or quality, &c. in both 
 cafes the word is a genusy and confequently 
 cannot be dipping, which is a fpecific aSiion. 
 To produce inftances where dipping is implied, 
 does not affedt my dotSh^ine j for 1 maintain, 
 in perfect confiilency with it, that dipping is a 
 Jecondary meaning : and, therefore, wherever it 
 is ufed for dipping, it is ufed in a fecondary 
 fenfe. But this fecondary acceptation never de- 
 flroys or offers violence to the primary, but 
 implies it. Now the meaning which Dr. Gale 
 fets up as a candidate for primarinefs, needs no 
 other evidence to lay afide its pretendons than 
 feveral of thofe very inflances which he himfelf 
 has produced in fupport of what he patronizes. 
 And in proportion as thefe inflances, to v/hich 
 he appeals as the fupporters of his hypothelis, 
 are incompatible with it ; while at the fame 
 time they perfe6Wy agree with that for which 
 I contend; they may be not improperly ranked 
 among the concejjlons of our opponents. 
 
 § 37. The following inftance, from Homer, 
 
 will 
 
142 Of the Slgiufication of the Ch. 4. 
 
 will (hew that the idea of dipping is abfolutely 
 excluded from the term, which for that reafon 
 cannot poffibly be the primary meaning of it. 
 In his hatracho7nyomachia^ or the ludicrous mock- 
 heroic poem of the Battle of the mice and frogSy 
 he reprefents one of the croaking champions 
 ftruclc with a panic, and fallen into the lake. 
 Then one of the 7iibbUng heroes gave him a 
 deadly wound ; " He ceafed to breathe, (e^aTrlilo 
 y aii^ccli xi//.>*-) and the lake was tmged with 
 blood*." Dr. Gale takes no fmall pains to 
 make this paiTage tally with his hypothefis. 
 But it is "''labour in vain." He begins with 
 Ivppofmg what fl"iould have been proved. " The 
 phrafe we muft confider, is borrowed from the 
 dyers^ who colour things by dipping them in 
 their dve : and to this the poet plainly alludes.^* 
 Pray how did the Dr. know that the phrafe 
 is " borrowed from the dyers ?^^ Had he any 
 r\o\\i or reafon in faying this ? Was not the 
 natural or accidental Jtaining equally open to 
 the poet, as the artificial one ? And why muft 
 he go fuch an unnatural round to borrow of 
 the dyer, what his own beloved ftorehoufe, 
 nature, contained in greater perfe6:ion? Or if 
 borrowed from art^ in oppofition to nature, 
 why may not another fay: " 7 he phrafe, we 
 
 muft 
 
 * It is rbfervable that Dr. Gale himfelf renders the word 
 licie tinged 'j and Mr. FARNtLL, correfted by Mr. Pope, thus; 
 <* Gafpirig he rolls, a purple ftream of Mood 
 " Dijiaim the i'uiface of the iilver flood." 
 
 B HI. 1. 47. 
 
Ch. 4, Ter?ns Baptize and BaptifjK, 143 
 
 muft conlider, is borrowed from the Jlainers or 
 painters^ who colour things without dipping them, 
 but lay the varnifh, (lain, or colour on : and 
 to this the poet plainly alludes ?" 
 
 " Dyers colour things by dipping them In their 
 dye,'''' What things ? Let us not confound things. 
 The queftion is not how they colour wool,, chth^ 
 Sec. but how their water in the vat is coloured 
 by the ^uixiacc, tlie materia finSforia ? If it be 
 abfurd to fay, that they dip the water to make 
 it red, purple, &c. it muft be equally i^^ to 
 fuppofe the word refers to that fpecific mode 
 of tinging which is by dipping. In this paf- 
 fage the colouring matter is the gafping croaker's 
 bloody which turns the colour of the lake as 
 the dyer's ingredients do the water in the vat; 
 if there be any allufion at all to the artr 
 
 " Not that the lake was actually dip- 
 ped in blood,, but deeply Jiained,^^ Here is a fair 
 concelfion of my point. For the lake was~ 
 aSfuaHy tinged or ftained, but ?iot dipped at all. 
 Having thus yielded .the caufe which he un- 
 dertook to defend, in the plaineft terms, our 
 author fhuffles again by adding : " To heighten 
 our idea, he exprelTes it, with the ufuai liberty 
 of poets, by a word which fignifies more than 
 what is ftrifcly true, which is the nature of 
 all hyperboles,'^ 71iat there is an hyperbole in 
 the defcription 1 grant ; bjt deny that any part 
 of the figure is contained in the wor-d t^ccTrlslo, 
 For, fhat fo trifling a quantity of blood as 
 could ilTae from the wound of a /rog^ (hould 
 
 be 
 
144 Of ih€ Signification of the Ch. 4. 
 
 be fuppofed to tinge a whole lake^ is extremely 
 hyperbolical of itfelf; and to fuppofe that the 
 poet involves in the fame phrafe another hyper- 
 bole of the moft unnatural and extravagant 
 kind, without any neceffity (cat» par*) is to de- 
 mand a licence in criticifm which the moll li« 
 centious poet would be afliamed to * require.— 
 Thus the literal fenfe is, The lake was tinged 
 with blood \ but the figure confifts in afcribing 
 fo prodigious an effed: to fo fmall a caufe. 
 
 *' But wcTTTip, ucruvsty &c. are to be underflood 
 here to qualify the feeming extravagance of the 
 cxprefiion." Indeed were the extravagance only a 
 feeming one, fome relief may be had from fuch 
 auxiliaries ; but w hat licenfe can juftify a real 
 extravagance ? Is it pofiible or congruous in na- 
 ture for a lake to be dipped f' If not, the fup- 
 pofition of " as it were^^ or " as if it had 
 been^'' has no tendency at all to mend the mat- 
 ter. Or is it natural^ on fuppofition of a me- 
 taphor, to compare the lake to the dyer's cloth 
 or wool, rather than his vat? Whereas if we 
 fuppofe an allufion to the latter^ the idea will be 
 clear and frriking, tbo' highly metaphorical, thus : 
 The whole water of the lake was fo greatly co- 
 loured with the croaker's blood, as if it had 
 been the water in a dyer's copper, ftrongly 
 impregnated with an ingredient deeply red. 
 
 On the whole it appears, that Homer (for 
 the poem is generally afcribed to him) ufes the 
 word ^oLTtlu in this place in the fenfe which I 
 call primary without any figure at all, viz. to 
 
 tingcy 
 
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Baptifms 145 
 
 to tinge^ to impregnate with humidity, colour, 
 &c. by this or the other mode, according to 
 circumftances and as the nature of the cafe 
 requires. But whenever ^cttPioi fignifies to dip 
 or plunge, " it continues to fignify the famt 
 things in fome refpedt or other;'* for in that 
 cafe we may fay, that the allufion is not only 
 to the dying itfelf, but alfo to the ufual mode 
 of impregnating cloth, wool, &c. with the in- 
 tended colour ; and, which deferves peculiar no- 
 tice, the term never fignifies to dip for its 
 own fakfy but always as a mean or mode of 
 effecting fomething elfe, even as dipping is in 
 order to dye, 
 
 § 38. Aristophanes (itt^ek, AS:, I. Seen, 
 iii.) obferves that Magnes, an old comedian 
 of Athens, ufed to (have the face, and (0xv%^ 
 /xew? ^a]fa;)(;noK) ^^ Jiain it with tawny colours." 
 On which paiTage Dr. Gale thus reflects r 
 " He fpeaks of the homely entertainments of 
 the ancient theatre, where the adtors daubed 
 themfelves with lees of wine, and any odd co- 
 lours, before Eschylus reformed it, and in- 
 troduced the ufe of maiks and vifors. Aris* 
 
 TOPHANES exprelTeS this by /So- -rlo/xcvo? /3a']fa;^£toK ; 
 
 not that he fuppojes they dipped their faces in- 
 to the colour y but rather smeared the colour 
 on their faces.'' Having thus yielded his caufe, 
 by wliat expedient does our author attempt to 
 recover it ? — Here is a manifeji allvfon to the art 
 of dying. To whom is it manifeft ? It is not 
 felf-evident, and the Doctor offers not the leaft 
 Vol. II. H hint 
 
IA$ Of the Signification of the Ch. 4.* 
 
 hint to prove it ; nor does there appear to me 
 any fufficient reafon affignable for the alTertion. 
 But I have this reafon again/} the aflertion. It 
 is not fair, nor agreeable to the juft rules of 
 criticifm, to interpret the words of an author 
 allufively, improperly and metaphorically, ex- 
 cept when plain necejjity urges. But here is no 
 necefTity, even pretended, but what arifes from 
 a begging of the queftion in difpute. What 
 a round about way is it, nay, how abfurd, to 
 make the writer in relating a flain fa£i^ ufe a 
 language fo highly metaphorical, without any 
 manner of neceffity? To fay that the old co- 
 median Jiained^ tinged^ befmeared his face, or the 
 like, is plain and dire<£l ; what need then of fup- 
 poling that it was fo befmeared as if it had 
 been dyed^ which dying as an art is ufually, 
 (tho* not neceflarily) performed by the means 
 or mode of dipping ? Were it indeed once al- 
 lowed that the word literally fignifies to dip, the 
 laws of criticifm would require a metaphorical 
 interpretation ; for, as it is well known, the 
 improper and figurative ufe of terms does not 
 filter the literal fenfe, otherwife the very foun- 
 dation of figures and allufions would be deflroy- 
 ed. But this I will not allow, without further 
 evidence. On the contrary, I infift that it lite- 
 rally fignifies to tinge^ or the like, and that in 
 the place under confideration the word is ufed 
 in its literal import. 
 
 Again, Aristotle fays (Hift, Animal. Lib. 
 Y. cap. 15.) : *' But when prefled (&at,v\ti Ka% 
 
Ch. 4. 7erms Baptize and Bapttfm* 1^ 
 
 «t»9»^e» rriv x^^f^) i^ tinges the hand and gives it 
 a florid colour." If the word in fuch places^ to 
 borrow the Doctor's language, « fignifies literally 
 nothing but to dip^ &c. the fenfe, if it muft be 
 fuppofed there can be any, will be abfurd, as 
 well as moll grofsly falfe. For, indeed, what 
 can be more ridiculous, than for a man feri- 
 oufly to talk, of dipping a lake or river, &c. in 
 blood ? or of a lady's dipping her face in Ver- 
 million, when fhe adorns it with artificial co- 
 lour? which, on the contrary, 'tis known mufl 
 be more artfully laid on ?" Or, to fay that a 
 man's hand muft needs be dipped^ elfe it cannot 
 be tinged when it prefles or fqueezes a juicy 
 fubftance? " I readily grant," adds our author, 
 '' the words as they ftand in the paffages re- 
 ferred to, are not literally true. And if it could 
 be imagined the authors intended they Jhould be 
 literally underjlood^ they would appear very ridi' 
 cidous^ and deferve the utmoft contempt" True, 
 on his hypothefis, but not on mine. For what 
 can be a more natural and confpicuous mean- 
 ing, than that a lake is tinged with blood j the 
 face or hand Jiained with any tingent liquid ? 
 For a man ferioujly to talk of dipping in fuch 
 cafes is ridiculous. But Aristotle talks of x 
 matter of faci:, and that with his ufual philofo- 
 phic ferioufncfs ; therefore, to afcribe to the Sta- 
 girite fo figurative a language as " it plunges, 
 or dips the hand," for " it ftains, or colours 
 the hand" is (ceet, par.) highly abfurd. 
 " There is another paflage in Arigtopha- 
 
 H 2 NES 
 
148 ^f t^^ SlgniJicaUcn of the Ch." 4. 
 
 NEs (fays the Dodor) very Jlrong to the fame 
 purpofe, [i. e in favour of the eflentiality of 
 dipping] which however fome perhaps may fan- 
 cy favours the contrary : 'tis in his Parliament 
 of women.'^ And pray what is this boafted 
 pafTage, which is fo Jlrong againft us ? \A' hy 
 the poet obferves : " Firft (;2a7r7tfo-») they wajh 
 the wool in warm water, according to the old 
 cuftom." And what has the Refledlor to fay 
 on it ? You (ball hear. " Here the word im - 
 plies wajhing^ as Mr. Wall would have it ; 
 and— SuiDAS and Phavorinus interpret it by 
 irAt;»tf<r», which Pliny on another occafion ren- 
 ders eluunt^ i. e. they waJh out; and Stephens 
 lays, it fignifies lavo.'* Was not Mr. Wall, 
 and are not his other opponents, highly obliged 
 to him for this concejfwn ? No doubt. But 
 the merit of the deed, notwithftanding, is not 
 great. For he endeavours to retake what he 
 fo freely gave Nay, he thinks to gain ad- 
 vantage by it: " Tnftead of prejudicing, fays he, 
 this will be found greatly to confirm my caufe ; 
 for in wafhing^ wool is and muft be dipped and 
 put into the water." But let us not forget, 
 that the waftAn^ here implied, allowedly and in- 
 conteftibly, fie;nifies the cleanfing of the wool ; 
 and it is equally clear, that fuch cleanfing is 
 not imHied in the dipping of it, or that the 
 fcouring intended is not the nccejfary effe£i of 
 dippine*. wonfequently, that dipping is inadequate 
 to exprefs the meaning. Wajhing^ implies more 
 than dipping, denoting fomething over and above 
 
 that. 
 
Ch, 4. Terms Baptize a'fid Baptifn, 149 
 
 that. We would, therefore, fain know, if ^Airlsv^ 
 fignifies Hterally neither more nor lefs than they 
 dip^ by what figure of fpeech, and by what ca- 
 non of criticifm, it comes to fignify and Ihould 
 be rendered lavo^ eliio^ to zvajh^ to wajh cut f 
 When this is done, we^ in our turn, v^^ill en- 
 gage, on the fame principles, to fhew, that Ea7r1a» 
 is a generic term. 
 
 But wool is and mujl be dipped in order t9 
 waJh it. Were Dr. Gill's dodlrine true, " that 
 there is no waihing but by dipping ;" this 
 would be an eafy confequence. But this flrange 
 ipfe dixit need no other argument to confront 
 it than a clean face. However, " wool muJl he 
 dipped,"*^ If the meaning be,, "it is ahfolutely 
 necsjfary for its being cleanfed by water," xo dip 
 it in; I deny the alTertion. And on the con- 
 trary infift, that plain ocular demonftration lies 
 againft it. Whereas all cleanfing by water im- 
 plies, neceffarily, what I maintain is the primary 
 meaning of ^aTrlo/. 
 
 § 39. Marcus Antoninus: (Lib. iii. § 4.) 
 Speaking of a man of real worth, fays : " He 
 is one {^hy.'uxoa-vyn ^s0cc[j(,[y.,ivov £»j /SaSoj,) ju/iitia peni" 
 tus imhutum thoroughly jeafoned or imbued with 
 juftice." Again (Lib. v. § 16.) he fays: "Your 
 mind will be filch as the things you moil often 
 think of; for the foul (^»9r;il«t) is imbued^ or 
 tin^iured^ by the thoughts. Therefore, {^a7r%) 
 imbife^ tin^ure^ or feafon it with frequent thoughts 
 of this kind, 6cc," Once more, (Lib, vi. § 30.) 
 
 H 3 " See 
 
150 Of the Signification of the Ch. 4. 
 
 *' See that you be not conformed to the Cae- 
 fars, {i^n 0a(pn<;) left you be J}ained^ or infec- 
 ted,'* Of this Jaft inftance Dr Gale acknow- 
 ledges, ** That the period [that is, on Ins hy- 
 pothefis] is extremely elliptical, and ftands in 
 need of fupplements to make out the fenfe in 
 another language, wherein that defedivc form is 
 not in ufe." But whether it ftands in need of 
 his fuppiementary aid, as it were dip'd^ let the 
 following annotation of the very learned Ga- 
 TAKER on the place teftity: " Ne tingaris^ ne 
 inficiaris : ne mores aulici genuinum animi can- 
 dcrem obfufcent : quod, inquii: amentum combibere^ 
 Septimius dixit, (De Speclac. c. 14.)" He 
 then refers to Homer, II. iv. 141. as an illuf- 
 tration. 
 
 Also to Virgil, JEn. xii. 67. 
 Indum fanguineo veluti violaverit oflro 
 
 Si quis ebur, % 
 
 And 
 
 ♦ *' As when fome ilately trappings are decreed 
 
 To grace a monarch on his boundvrg fleed, 
 
 A nymph in Caria or iVIaonia bred, 
 
 Stains the pure iv'ry with a lively red ; 
 
 W'th equal luftre various colours vie. 
 
 The inning whiteneff, and tiie Tyrian dye: 
 
 So, great Atr.de s ! fhow'd thy facred blood. 
 
 As dovk'n thy fnowy thigh diftjU'd the ftreaming flood. 
 
 PoPi, 
 Wz may learn from hence (fays Mr. Popk) that the Lydians 
 and Carians viere famous in the firft times for their Jiaining in 
 purp e, and that the women excelled in works of ivwiy." 
 "X With pity touch'd, the fair Lavinia hears 
 Her mother's cries, and anfwcrs with her tears. 
 
 A 
 
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and' Baptifm, l$i 
 
 And afterwards fabjoins : " Qaod nos dlcere- 
 mus, That you be not stained : nam quod Grseci 
 f/.niiniv et /a^TrlfiH', nos dicimus to stain.** 
 
 Plato, (De Repub. Lib. iv.) compares the 
 method of training up foldiers, to the method 
 of giving wool the beil dye ; and tho' the paf- 
 fage be fomewhat long, yet the word's occur- 
 ring, in different forms, feven or eight times, 
 may be a fufficient apology for tranfcribing it: 
 " Know ye not, faid I, that the (^x^pa^) dyers 
 [Mass. fullone^']^ when they wi(h (/3^t^}/a^ inficere) 
 to Jiain^ i^^g^y or tinSiure wool, that it may 
 be of a purple hue, chufe, in preference to 
 all other colours, the whiteft of the fleece : 
 Then they prepare and work it with immenfe 
 pains, that it may take the bloom in the bed 
 manner ; and fo at length (/JawJao-i they Jlain^ 
 or give the dye to it. And (to ^a^6) v/hat is 
 dyedy or tin6iured^ becomes unalterably fo, when 
 thus {I3ci(pvi) tinged y nor can any wafhing either 
 by fair water, or any preparations for the pur- 
 pofe, difcharge the blooming colour. But what 
 has not been thus prepared, you know how it 
 turns out; for whether one (/SaTrJj?) put on^ im" 
 pregnate it with^ that, this, or any other colour, 
 it never looks well. I know, faid he, x\\2X fuch 
 colours are eafily wafhed out, and have at befl 
 
 H 4 but 
 
 A lovely blufh the modeft virgin warms, 
 Glo%vs in her cheek, and lights up all her charms. 
 So looks the beauteous iv'ry, Jlained with red j 
 So rofcs mixt with lilies in the bed, 
 Blend their rich hues— ~»'— 
 
 Pitt* 
 
I^ Of the SignificatloJi of the Gh. 4. 
 
 but a fordid appearance.— Reflecft", then, that 
 when we chufe foldiers, and inftrua them in 
 mufic and the gymnaftic art, it is our wi(h, 
 as far as in us lies, to efFeft fomewhat fimilar. 
 We aim at nothing elfc but to prepare them, 
 in the bed manner pofiible, to receive the laws, 
 which are as it were (/S^f-cv) a clye\ that fo 
 their opinion of things, whether direful or other- 
 wife, may be properly and unalterably fixed i 
 and that, being thus formed by a proper dif- 
 cipline, their (^ct(pr^y) t'rnSJure may not be wafh- 
 ed out by any thing of the moft powerfully ex- 
 pelling nature, whether pleafure, &c." The 
 Dodor in refle^ing on this pafTage refers to 
 Gataker*s learned note on Marc. Anton. 
 Lib. iii. § 4. as tending to illuflrate his ajer" 
 tioni what aflertion he refers to I know not; 
 but if he intends what he aflerted at the be- 
 ginning of his quotations, (p, 94..) " That the 
 word baptize neceflarily includes dipping in its 
 fignification,*' I venture to affirm the note has 
 no fuch tendency ; nor is there one quotatioiv 
 which does not perfe6tly agree with my general 
 pofition. 
 
 § 40. Let the foregoing examples, out of 
 many, fuffice for the primitive. But what the 
 Do6tor grants concerning BocttW^u is, if neceffary, 
 ftill more in our favour: " Befides, fays he, 
 the word ^ccrfli^u, perhaps, does not To neceflarily 
 exprefs the action of putting under water, as in 
 general a thing's being in that condition, no 
 matter how it comes fo, whether it is put in- 
 to 
 
Ch. 4» Terms Baptize and Baptifm. 153 
 
 to the water, or the water comes over it ; 
 tho* indeed to put it into the water is the 
 moft natural way and the moft common, and 
 is therefore ufually and pretty conftantly, but it 
 may be not neceflarily impUed." The pafFage 
 in Aristotle, which extorted this conceffion, 
 where he fays, that " the fliore was not bap^ 
 iized at ebb," we have before confidered, to 
 which the reader is referred (fee § 35, 36.) Other 
 inftances will juftify the foregoing conceffion. 
 
 Homer (II. xvi. 333.) defcribes Ajax kil- 
 ling Cleobulus, thus: « He ftruck him acrofs 
 the neck with his heavy fword ; (tt^v ^' virt^if^a.vQ'n 
 |Kpo? at/*al») and the whole fword became warm 
 with the blood." Homer's vra^E^iA.a.v^v^ is ex- 
 plained by PsEUDo-DiDYMUs, by eiSa7rJto-S»j, with 
 a view to (hew how much the fword was i7n^ 
 bued^ Jiained^ or wetted with the reeking blood. 
 And DioNYs. Halicarn. (Concerning the 
 poetry of Homer, § 7.) obferves : " That in 
 this phrafe there is a peculiar emphafis, which 
 confifts in this, that the fword was fo (/SatTrlto-Sfvlo?) 
 wetted^ or Jiained^ as even to be warmed'* 
 with the gulhing blood> 
 
 Strabo, fpeaking of Alexander leading his 
 army by a narrow pafs between mount Climax 
 and the fea, obferves : " The foldiers marched a 
 whole day in the water i^^ot.ii\\lp^Am\i) being wet-, 
 ted up to the wafte." 
 
 Heraclides Ponticus, when moralizing 
 the fable which reprefents Mars as taken in 
 a net by Vulcan, obferves; " Neptune is 
 
 H 5 inge- 
 
154 Of the Signification of the Ch. 4. 
 
 ingcnioufly fuppofed to be refcuing Mars from 
 Vulcan; becaufe, when a piece of iron 
 thoroughly heated is taken from the forge - 
 men, {lloi\\, (SuttHI^bIxi) it i^ cooled with water; 
 and the thing forced to a heat, from its own 
 nature, (v^ocli Kxiota^ta^iv) when it has been ex^ 
 tinguijhed by water, is reftored to reft ;'* i. e. the 
 fire heating the irony has it in its cuftody ; but 
 water applied to it in any manner ^ weakens 
 the captivating power of the fire, and, as it 
 were, fets the iron at liberty. 
 
 Plutarch, in his Treatife of Education, 
 compares the method of inftru6ling children to 
 that of -watering plants. " For as plants are 
 nourifhed by moderate waterings, but pine away 
 if thefe are too frequent j in hke manner the 
 mind, by well proportioned labours, is improved, 
 but when thefe are more than enough (/?«ir];f«7a») 
 it is drenched'^ The comparifon is evidently 
 introduced, as appears by the connection, to 
 fhew the impropriety of teaching children toa 
 many things at once. 
 
 If this pafiage fhould feem a little ohfcurej 
 fays Dr. Gale, I muft refer you. Sir, to what 
 I have faid before." I do not wonder that 
 this place appeared obfcure to the DocSlor, while 
 viewing it thro* the medium of his hypothefis ; 
 but while an impartial eye views it thro' any 
 other medium, it appears fufficiently perfpicuous. 
 The intelligent reader will eafily perceive, that 
 all the obfcurity confifts in Pujtarch's com- 
 paring the baptizing of children's minds, while 
 
 their 
 
Ch. 4, Terms Baptize and Baptlfrn. 155 
 
 their teachers inftil various inftru£lions into them, 
 to a gardener*s pouring water upon his plants ! 
 
 The laft mentioned author, (Paral. Gr?ec. 
 Rom.) fpeaking ot a Roman general a little be- 
 fore he died of his wound, fays: " He fet up 
 a trophy, and, (/JaVIiya?) wettings ox Jialning his 
 hand in the blood, he wrote this infcrip- 
 tion, &c." 
 
 The only apology I fhall make for dwel- 
 ling fo long on a fubjecl, which to fome read- 
 ers may appear prolix, is one drawn up for 
 another purpole, yet perfectly fuited to my 
 defign: " A thing of this nature, and fo evi- 
 dent, did not indeed need to have been fo 
 largely treated as it has already been: but the 
 unaccountable tenacity of our antagoniUs have 
 made it neceifary to be very particular*." 
 
 To conclude; this branch oi evidence from 
 profane writers, produced by Dr. Gale in fup- 
 port of his own hypotl^fis, with his remark- 
 able conceflions, may be pertinently cloied with 
 his concluding fentence a little improved. " I 
 know (fays he) it [/3a5r1if«J figniiies to ivajh as 
 a confequence of dipping ; but (o likewife it does 
 to wet, colour, dye, &c." l^he improvement, 
 as the juft refult of the preceding exammation, 
 ftands- thus.: I know it fignifies to dipj as a 
 mode of wajhingy fo likewiie it does of wetting,. 
 colourir.g,. dying, &c. 
 
 § 41. Before i difmifs this opponent, I 
 
 lauH not omit an examination of his appeal to 
 
 H 6 the 
 
 • Dr, GAXiK's Refleiaions, p» iiz. 
 
156 Of the SigJiiJication of the Ch. 4. 
 
 the do£lrln.e of genus and fpecies^ which, if I 
 am not in a great miflake, amounts to a fair 
 concejjlon in favour of my principle. " I need 
 not, fays he, repeat the obfervations of logici- 
 ans about their genera and Jpecies ; yet give me 
 leave only to tranfcribe one canon from Aris- 
 totle. (Topic. Lib. iv. cap. i.) " The 
 fpecies includes the definition of the genus^ and 
 all that is in it, but not vice verfa.^* Dipping 
 includes walhing, but wafliing does not include 
 dipping ; for there may be a wafhing by pour- 
 ing, &c. f." To this may be added the fol- 
 lowing words of Mr. Jenkins, in a fmall 
 pamphlet lately publilhed: " There is a remark 
 which I wonder is not more attended to by 
 the writers on baptifm, becaufe I think it may 
 be depended on as a canon of criticifm^ and 
 would reduce the difpute about the meaning of 
 this word [baptize] into a very fmall compafs; 
 I mean, that " Where a word is ufed in 
 ^' a primary and fecondary fenfe, the fcondary 
 *' fenfe can never contradi6t the primary^ 
 " but mull carry in it that leadmg idea ; 
 '*^ as in natural hiftory, every fpecies mufl 
 *' carry in it the leading idea of the genus 
 " that comprehends it.'*— The contrary fuppo. 
 fition involves an abfurdity, and renders the 
 meaning of words totally fceptical. — P'or my own 
 part (adds the iame author) I am confident alfo, 
 that without maintaining this remark the Bap- 
 tift minifters will never be able to eflablhh im- 
 
 merfion 
 
Ch. 4t Terms Baptize and Baptifn. 157 
 
 merfioa as the exclufive meaning of the word; 
 for tho' it may be admitted, that in fo?ne cafes 
 it fignifies to dip, it will be as ilrenuouily in- 
 lifted, that in other cafes it figniaes to fprinkle, 
 and that this mode is as good as the. other*.*' 
 
 It may well appear wonderful to any thought- 
 ful perfon, that our opponents fhouid attempt 
 to explain and defend their caufe by the aids of 
 thefe logical diftindUons. For, on their hypo- 
 thefis, the diftindtioa of genera and fpecies is 
 abfolutely precluded. If dipping be a genusy 
 what is the fpecies F If it be faid, dipping ; this 
 makes both to be one and the lame thing, 
 which is abfurd. If they fay, wajhing^ or wet- 
 ting, colouring, dying, &c. are fpecies, this is 
 equally abfurd i and directly contradidory to the 
 canon referred to. For Aristotle, and com- 
 mon fenfe, declare, " that the fpecies paHake of 
 or neceffarily imply^ the genera, but not the 
 contrary j" as white is a colour^ a lion is an 
 animaly an angel is a creature^ but not vice 
 verfa, Confequently, according to the canon 
 and on the fuppofition, to wajh is to dip^ to 
 wet is to dipy to colour is to dip^ &c. Which 
 is juft as true, as To fprinkle is to dip-, for 
 there may be wetting without dipping as well 
 as fprinkling without dipping. Now it is a mere 
 evafton to fay that walhing, wetting, &c. may 
 be done hy dipping ; for if there be any wafh^ 
 ingy any wettings kc, which does not include 
 
 dipping, 
 
 * Beauty of Believers* Baptifm, p. 6, Note, 
 
158 Of the Signification of the Ch. 4. 
 
 dipping, wafhlng and wetting cannot be a fpe- 
 cies of dipping. For, as Aristotle obferves 
 (Topic. Lib. iv. cap. i. § 2.) we fhould con- 
 fider, El Tn/o? /x») KsclrjyQ^c^aci, whether there be any 
 fpecies to which the genus is not apphcable ? 
 Thus, to borrow the Stagirite's illuilration^ 
 if we fay that good is the genus of pleafure^ 
 we fhould inquire, whether there be any pleafure 
 which is not i??ipHed in good; tor then, it is- 
 manifeft, good is not the genusi of pleafure, be- 
 caufe the genus is predicabie by all the /pedes 
 contained under it. Then we fhould confider^ 
 that if any tiling may be-, or may not be, 
 applied to the fuppofed genus, that fuppofed 
 genus is but an accident. For inftance, if it 
 be predicated of any thing that it is white, and 
 not white, white cannot be the genus, but aa 
 accident ; becaufe we call that an accident which 
 may or may not be in a thing* In like man- 
 ner, if we fay that wetting is by dipping, and 
 without dipping, it follows that dipping is not a 
 genus but an accia^nt^ or mode of wetting. Jjr. 
 Gill fcemed to be aware of thcfe abfurd con* 
 fequences, when, to avoid them, he ventured on 
 this aflertion, which is fairly confuted, to oc- 
 cular demonilraiion, ten thoufand times every 
 day, " That there is no wadiing but by dip- 
 ping V* Defperaie indeed niuft be the caufe 
 t"hat requires fuch aids 1 
 
 Again i if our opponents fix upon dipping 
 for a genus, they would do well to demonjlratey 
 
 that 
 
 * Vid. Akjstot. Topic, Lik, iv, cap. i* § 4. 
 
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Bapttfin. 159 
 
 that what they call a genus is pofTefTed of any 
 /pedes whatever ; for it cannot be that what par- 
 takes of no fpecies, may partake of a genus ^." 
 But that dipping is poffeiTed of any fpecies, or 
 confequently is at all a genus, is I fuppofe, 
 what no one will deliberately ufidertake to fhew, 
 at leaft will be able to prove, while the logical 
 world Hands. 
 
 " Dipping includes wajhing, hut wajhing does 
 not include dipping** This is to fay, That dip~ 
 ping is a fpecies, and wajhing is the genus. 
 Then it follows, if ^A7f\i'C,u be a generic term, 
 as we have abundantly proved it is, or be in 
 fome cafes applied where dipping is not necefla- 
 rily included, as Dr. Gale grants, — That dip- 
 ping is only a jpecies of baptizing ; and confe- 
 quently, that there may be a baptizing without 
 dipping : which was to be demonftrated. 
 
 § 42. " We may venture to aiTert, fays Mr, 
 B. that the word baptifm certainly ligniiies im- 
 merfion, whatever meaning it may have he/ides'^ 
 confequently, both candour and prudence re- 
 quire us to embrace that acceptation, in pre^ 
 ference to any other." Very true; they muft 
 be rather uncandid, and perhaps imprudent, who 
 deny immerfion to be a fpecies of baptizing r 
 for that evidently includes wetting, tinging, a 
 conta6tion of the perfon and the element, &c. 
 And, for the fame reafon, we can have na 
 high opinion either of the candour or prudence 
 of thofe who deny that water poured^ or fprink- 
 
 led, 
 
 ♦ Ibid, Lib, ir, c»p. t, § 8. ct paflirrt. 
 
l6o Of the Signification of the Ch. 4t 
 
 kd, on a perfon {coet, par,) are fpecies of bap- 
 tizing : for either of thefe includes wetting, ting- 
 ing, &c. and that not lefs certainly than the 
 other. Do candour and prudence, feem to re- 
 quire any to adopt tne mode of immerfing the 
 fubje6t, in preference to any other I far be it 
 from us to condemn as a nullity what our bre- 
 thren confcientioufly believe proceeds from fo 
 refpectable an authority, and which we are fatis- 
 fied is one mode of baptizing. But do thefe 
 amiable virtues require any to condemn as a 
 nullity what other brethren (may I add, without 
 offence, equally confcientious ? ) believe to be moft 
 agreeable to the divine Legiflator's meaning ? 
 Is there any virtue in making that the badge 
 of parties and carnal divifions in the church, 
 •which was gracioufly intended as a bond of 
 general union ? Is it probable, is it poffible, 
 that the Head of his church (hould require that 
 as the condition of memberfhip, which numbers, 
 who truly love him, and who adore his autho- 
 rity, can fee no evidence for, after laborious and 
 prayerful inquiries ? Was that cenfure of honeft 
 Mr. BuNYAN, who was himfelf a Baptifi:, too 
 fevere? " In my fimple opmion your rigid and 
 church difquieting principles, are not fit for any 
 age and flate of the church. — I fay they are 
 babes, and carnal, that attempt to break, 
 the peace and communion of churches, tho' 
 upon no better pretences than water -^—l am 
 ilill of that mind, and ihall be, fo long as I 
 
 fee 
 
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Bapfiffn. l5l 
 
 fee the efFeds that follow, viz. the breach of 
 LOVE, taking off chriilians from the more 
 weighty things of God, and to make them 
 quarrel and have heart-burnings one againfl 
 another*." It muft be allowed that Mr. B. 
 hath far furpaiTed his predeceflbrs, and there- 
 fore deferves the palm^ in the glorious contell 
 of ^^ fetting the Pcedobapttjis together by the ears \ ;*' 
 but how happy fhould I be if my humble at- 
 tempt (hould procure me the lefs fplendid ho- 
 nour oi peace-maker among brethren^ children of 
 the fame family, and alike beloved of their 
 heavenly Father in all other refpedts, yet, oa 
 account of baptifm, falling out by the way I 
 
 § 43. From the preceding inveftigarion we 
 may draw the following obvious corollaries, 
 
 (i) CorolL If the terms baptize and baptifm 
 be generic terms, comprehending different fpe- 
 cilic modes of ceremonial purification, *' thft 
 " mode is variable according to circum- 
 ftances." Now where a pofitive divine law is 
 not exprefsy or where any latitude is implied in 
 the terms of it, the law of nature^ the principles 
 of right reafon^ of chriftian prudence^ and co??!" 
 mon fenfcy " require us to embrace that accep- 
 tation, in preference to any other," which is lead 
 burdenfome and inconvenient. The part of the 
 globe in which we live, the civil cuftoms of a 
 country, the conduSi of our Lord and his apof- 
 tles in reference to thefe things, and many 
 
 other 
 
 • Works, vol. i. p, 151, 153. f See Monthly Rev, vol, Ixxxi, 
 
l62 Of Jhe Signljicatton of the Ch. 4. 
 
 other circumjlances^ " require us to embrace*' 
 what is mo(} conformable to national decency 
 and propriety, — when no divim laiv^ on the 
 fuppofition, enjoins one circumftance of an adion 
 in preference to another. 
 
 § 44. (2) Coroll. Since the mode is free and 
 variable. The pra£lice of the Greek churchy 
 which our opponents lb often remind us of, is 
 of no importance when urged againil usf. Nor 
 do we fuppofe that another circumfance of bap- 
 tifm obiervcd by them, the trine immerfeon^ 
 which is undoubtedly of considerable antiquity, 
 is fufficient to nullify the ordinance. Tho' our 
 opponents may find it, perhaps, as difficult to 
 reconcile three immerfions and one dipping (Eph. 
 iv. 5.) as their immerfion and our baptifm. 
 
 § 4-5' (3) CorolL From the premifes it alfo 
 follows, that The primitive cuftom, tho* it 
 were dipping invariably, ^vill not fupport the 
 effentiality of dipping*. " A Queftion this, fays 
 Mr. B. which regards ho\\i faSl and right,'* 
 That I deny ; for tho* it were proved to be faSf^ 
 it would not follow that it was exclujively right. 
 If it be meant that the praftice of John and 
 the apoflles was valid^ he has no opponents ; 
 in that fenfe^ therefore, the practice was right. 
 But theirs being right or valid, does not prove 
 that ours is wrong, or invalid, fuppofing (with- 
 out granting) that their mode and ours were 
 differ enty if, as we have proved, baptifm is a ge- 
 neric 
 
 rf- See Poedob, Exam. chap. v. pajfm. • See Pcedob, Exam, 
 
 chap, iv, paffim^ 
 
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Baptlfm, 163 
 
 nenc terin comprehending thofe fuppofed differ- 
 ent modes. " They had too much knowledge 
 and too much integrity to adminifter this branch 
 of holy worfliip in a wrong way.'* Granted, 
 Yet fuppofing them to have invariably baptized 
 by immerfion (v/hich I do not believe was the 
 fa6l), it only proves that they adopted a mode 
 which in their circumftances was eligible, tho* 
 not exclufively binding. But " they were not 
 ignorant that their praSike was to be viewed 
 as a pattern^ and to be confidered as a law.''* 
 What, every part of their pra6i:ice ? if not, which 
 I fuppofc no one will be inadvertent enough 
 to affirm, why the mode of baptizing, any more 
 than the mode of preaching, praying, fmging, 
 •keeping the fabbath, &c. ?" 
 
 Mr. B. thinks it " flrange to aflonifhment," 
 and " a wonderful phenomenon in the religious 
 world," that a number of authors he refers to, 
 " (hould all unite in one atteftation, refpe6ling 
 the primitive mode of adminiflering this 
 ordinance, even while they oppofed the Bap- 
 tills, for confidering immerfion as abfolutely ne^ 
 cejfary to a compliance with the divine com- 
 mand*." On the contrary, 1 think it a phoe- 
 nomenon neither Jlrange^ ajionijhing^ nor looft'- 
 derful J but conlider it as what might very na- 
 turally and rationally be expedted, and very 
 tolerably confiftent with the dignity of their 
 character as men of learning and religion. If 
 they concluded, as they had fufficient reafon 
 
 to 
 
164 Of the Signification of the Ch. 4. 
 
 to conclude, that the legal primary fignification 
 of the word baptize in the New Teftament was 
 generaly io general at leaft as not to be confined 
 to one mode ; fo general as to admit dijferent 
 modes without pronouncing, or fuppofing the 
 divine Lawgiver to pronounce, either of them 
 invalid: yet allowing that one particular mode, 
 fuppofe dipping, prevailed in the primitive church, 
 which mode is not necefjarily implied in the 
 law itfelf, tho' eligible in their circumftances ; 
 if, I fay, they proceeded on thefe principles, 
 what is there fo " ftrange" in their oppofing. 
 the Baptiib *' for confidering immerfion as ab- 
 solutely NECESSARY ?" Had they indeed, 
 cppcfed for merely preferring immerfion in water 
 to affufion or afperlion v/ith water, their oppo- 
 fition would hardly be juftifiable, except, perhaps, 
 on this principle, viz. That it is wrong to 
 differ from our more numerous brethren in 
 the fame country, neighbourhood, and religious 
 ientiments, thereby occafioning endlefs fcruples 
 
 and diifentions without a divine warrant. 
 
 But when the Baptifts infift upon immerfion as 
 " ahfolutely necejjhry to a compliance with the 
 divine command ;" is it any thing " aftonljhlng^* 
 that thofe who profejpdly maintain the contrary 
 (hould oppofe it ? Is it a " wonderful phcenome- 
 non^^ that they fliould poffefs fo much courage 
 as to fpeak and puhlifh thefe things ? If I al- 
 low, that the primitive mode of public worfl^.ip 
 was without a prayer-book and pulpit notes, 
 can I be candid or juft in maintaining that my 
 
 godly 
 
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Baptijm, 165 
 
 godly brethren who adopt this mode cannot 
 be faid to pray and peach ; but what they 
 think to be important duties are mere nullities^ 
 and always unacceptable to Chrift, becaufe not 
 according to apoftolick. pra .tice ? 1 dare not fay 
 or think fo, " Vvhen rhey unite m declaring 
 their views of the apoftohck pattern, they have 
 clear, ftrong indubitable evidence — each of them 
 feels the ground on which he treads. Hence 
 their wiion ; and here they agree with us." 
 But is it not equally evident that they " feel 
 the ground on which they tread" when they 
 unite with immovable iirmnefs, in teftifying the 
 validity of different inodes^ after all that has been 
 faid againft them by their antagonifts ? If union 
 be any proof, in the prelent cafe, they all unite 
 againft the neceffity of immerlion for the efTencc 
 of baptifm. Fray, then, what do their conceffwns 
 amount to ? Not that they defert the truth ; 
 not that they a£t inconftjhntly \ not that they 
 are imprudent or uncandidy not that they are 
 bigot ted and narrow-minded ; but that they con- 
 fid er the words as generic termsy admitting di- 
 verfe modes ; and that tho' the more common 
 import of the terms, in their opinion, convey 
 the idea of immerfion, yet in the facramental 
 fenfe, at leaft, they are to be underftood with 
 greater latitude. 
 
 " When our divine Lord, addrefTmg his dif- 
 ciples in a pofitive command, fays, " It Jhall 
 be fo ;" or when fpeaking by an apoftolick ex- 
 ample, he declares, " It is thus," all our own 
 
 reafonings 
 
l66 Of the Signification of the Ch. 4, 
 
 reafonings about fitnefs, expediency or utility, 
 itiufl: hide their impertinent heads." Very true; 
 but what Jkall be fo ? or, what is thus ? For 
 the queilion is not about our Lord's right to 
 command, and our duty to obey, but about his 
 meaning. And again, the queftion is not whe- 
 ther the one mode be confefTedly valid, but 
 whether the other be invalid 5 which laft we 
 deny. 
 
 " It muft, indeed, be acknowledged, that tho* 
 the numerous and learned authors juft pro- 
 duced, confider immerfion as generally pradlifed 
 by the apollles ; yet many of them think it 
 highly probable, that pouring, or fprinkling, was 
 ufed on fome occafions, in thofe primitive times." 
 Confequently they muft have confidered the 
 legal force of the word baptijm^ as a general 
 term, including diverfe modes of application. 
 
 " That plunging, pouring and fprinkling, arc 
 three different a£ts, will not admit of a doubt. 
 Or, does our Lord, in the fame ena<51:ing term, 
 of the fame law, warrant all thofe different 
 modes?" The apoftle Paul (Heb. ix. 10.) ex- 
 prefsly aiTerts, agreeable to what I plead for, 
 that the Jewifn haptijms were different or di^ 
 verfe. And this muft be, not as plunging dif- 
 fers from plunging, but as purification by fprink- 
 ling difi^rs from purification by pouring, &c. 
 Kor do we hefitate to fay, " that our Lord 
 warrants plunging, pouring and fprinkling," if 
 
 he warrants baptizing, 
 
 a If 
 
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Baptifm. ibj 
 
 " If pouring, or iprinkling, be naturally Infer- 
 rible from our Lord's command — and if the 
 apoftles, or the primitive church, ever pradlifed 
 the one or the other; it is hard to imagine, 
 how they came to ufe immerfion at all: ei- 
 ther of the former, confidered fimply in itfelf, 
 being more eafy and more agreeable to human 
 feelings, both in regard to the adminilirator and 
 the candidate." What ! needs Mr. B. the in- 
 formation, that the human mind is ever prone 
 to over- rate the externals of religion ; and that 
 fuperftitious feverities in external religious points 
 have generally kept pace with the decline of 
 vital piety ? With what eafe and force may 
 the above argument be retorted by innumerable 
 inftances out of the Jewilh and chriftian hiflo- 
 ries ? More agreeable to human feelings! Yes, 
 we may eafily fee how much, or rather how 
 little, perfons under the charming influence of 
 fuperftition confult their eafe and delicate feel- 
 ings, from the hiftory of certain felf-denyin<y 
 and mortified prophets, (i Kings xviii. 28.) 
 " who cut themfelves, after their manner, with 
 knives, and lancets, till the blood gufhed out 
 upon them.'* From the account we have 
 (Mark vii. 3, 4.) of the " Pharifees and all the 
 Jews ;" for, " When they came from the mar- 
 ket, except they baptized^ they ate not." And 
 Dr. Gill, out of Maimonides, aflures us, 
 that, " if any man dips himfelf all oyer ex- 
 cept the tip of his little finger, he is ftill in his 
 uncleannefs, according to them/' And a little 
 
 after 
 
1 68 Of the Signification of the Ch, 4, 
 
 after he fays: " Scaliger from the Jews ob- 
 ferves, That the more fuperjiitious part of them, 
 every day before they fat down to meat, dip- 
 ped the whole body. Here we may obferve, 
 if thefe bapcifms were not by immerfion, the 
 argument from the univerfal ufe of the term 
 is given up ; and if they were by immerfion, 
 as here aflerted, Mr. B.'s argument from hu^ 
 man feelings falls irrecoverably. For it will 
 not be prefumed that thefe fuperftitious and 
 troublefome ceremonies had any better ori- 
 gin than religious zeal exerting itfelf in will- 
 worfhip. To which we may add; if there be 
 any force in our author's argument in favour 
 of immerfion, it equally juftifies popijh mortify 
 cations ! 
 
 " If the credit of fprinkling cannot be fup- 
 ported without burlefquing the lacred hiftory, 
 and expofing one of the moft exalted human 
 characters to the ridicule of infidels in this 
 manner, it ought for ever to fink in oblivion." 
 From this warm and ftrong language the read- 
 er may be led to think, that fomething very 
 impious and horrid has been imputed to John 
 the Baptift. Nothing lefs : it is only Mr. 
 John Wesley's following note on Matt. iii. 
 6. " It feems, therefore, that they flood in 
 ranks on the edge of the river, and that John 
 pafllng along, before them, caft water on their 
 heads and faces ; by which means he might bap- 
 tize many thoufands in a day." This, reader, 
 is what Mr. B. calls *' a very fanciful and 
 
 ludicrous 
 
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Baptifm. 16^ 
 
 ludicrous reprefentation j" and further adds, 
 " While I wonder at that fertility of in- 
 vention which appears in this note of the an- 
 notator, 1 cannot but deteft the puerile and 
 farcical turn, which he has given to the con- 
 du(5l of our Lord's Harbinger." Burlfquing 
 the facred hi/lory I Expofing "John to the ridi^ 
 cule of infdeh! Nay, let infidels themfelves 
 judge, as well as the impartial faithful, whe- 
 ther Mr. B.'s hypothefis has not a greater 
 tendency to burlefque the facred hiflory, and 
 excite ridicule. The one mode of purifying 
 men and things was conftantly pra6tifed in the 
 church of God, Numb. xix. 18. " And a clean 
 perfon fhall take hyflbp, and dip it in the 
 water, and fprinkle it upon the tent, and upon 
 all the vefiels, and upon the perfons that were 
 there, &c.'* Of the other, we have not one 
 fingle inftance, of one perfon's dipping another 
 in water, within the facred annals of four thou- 
 fand years. And heathen writers, to which in- 
 fidels are (o partial, are not at all confidered 
 as debafing the dignity of heroic verfe by a 
 fimilar defcription. For inftance, thus Virgil: 
 " Idem ter focios pura circumtulit unda 
 " Spargens rore levi et ramo felicis olivae : 
 " Lu/iravitque viros dixitque noviiTima verba." 
 
 i^n. vi. 229, 
 " A verdant branch of olive in his hands, 
 " He moved around, and purified the bands -, 
 I " Slow 
 
170 0/ the Signification of the Ch. 4. 
 
 " Slow as he pafTed, the luftral waters flied, 
 " Then clofed the rites, and thrice invoked 
 the dead." 
 
 Pitt. 
 I now venture to aflc, which has the greateft 
 tendency to excite the ridicule of infidels, the 
 idea Mr. B. oppofes with fo much warmth, 
 or his own hypothefis ; which reprefents John 
 as an amphibious animal, living fo great a part 
 of his time up to his middle in water ? 
 
 That we may further fee how little deferv- 
 ing of the " ridicule of infidels," and that of 
 Mr. B. is the circumftance of fprinkling alluded 
 to in the above-mentioned note, I fhall tranf- 
 fcribe another note. It will, indeed, detrad^ 
 from the fertility of that annotator's invention 
 to whom Mr. B. afcribes it; and belongs to 
 one who was never, I believe, charged with 
 *' burlefquing" the facred fcriptures, by any 
 writer living or dead (Mr. B. excepted), or 
 fufpeftcd, by any of his writings, to afford a 
 juft handle of ridicule to infidels. The au- 
 thor I mean is, the judicious Dr. Guyse. 
 And his whole note, tho* fomewhat long, very 
 well deferves infertion in this place. " I can- 
 not think (fays he) that fuch prodigious num- 
 bers, as came to John, could be baptized in 
 the way of immerfing their whole bodies 
 under water ; or that they were provided with 
 change of raiment for it, which is no where 
 intimated, nor feems to have been pra^icabU 
 
 for 
 
Ch. 4. Terjns Baptize and Baptifm, 171 
 
 for fuch vaft multitudes ^ and yet they could 
 not be baptized 7iaked with modefty, nor in 
 their wearing apparel with fafety. It feems 
 therefore to me that the people Jiood in ranks^ near 
 io^ or juj} within, the edge of the river ; and 
 yohn pajfmg along before them^ caji water upon 
 their heads or faces with his hands, or fame pro^ 
 per injirumenty by vjhich means he might eafily 
 baptize many thoufands in a day. And this 
 way of pouring water upon them moll natural- 
 ly Cgnified Chrift's baptizing them with the 
 Holy Ghoft, and with fire, which John fpoke 
 of as prefigured by his baptizing with water, 
 (ver. II. and Mark i. 8. Luke iii. 16. John 
 j. 33.) and which was eminently fulfilled when 
 the Holy Ghoft fat in the appearance of cloven 
 tongues like fire ; and this is exprefsly called 
 " baptizing them with the Holy Ghoft " in 
 oppofition to John's " baptizing with water" 
 and is fpoken of as the Holy Ghoft coming upon 
 them, and as God's pouring out his Spirit j and 
 Jhedding him forth upon them, A6ts i. 5, 8, &c. 
 And with a dire£t reference hereunto, when the 
 Holy Ghoft fell on Cornelius, and his friends, 
 Peter faid, " Then remembered I the word of 
 the Lord, how he faid, John indeed baptized 
 with water; but " ye ftiall be baptized with 
 the Holy Ghofi:' (A6b xi. 15, 16.) The 
 apoftle Paul likewife, in a manifeft allufion to 
 baptifm, fpeaks of God faving us by the wadi- 
 ing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy 
 Ghoft, which he Jhed on us abundantly thro* 
 
 I 2 Jefus 
 
3^Z Of the Signification of the Ch. 4. 
 
 Jefus Chrift our Saviour. (Tit. iii. 5, 6.) Now 
 whether plunging the body into water, or pour- 
 ing water upon it, was the likelieft emblem of 
 this efFufion of the Spirit, let t. e reader judge; 
 efpecially fince (/3<»7rl»^«) the word coaflantly 
 ufed for baptizing, fignifies any fort of wajhing^ 
 and often fp-inkiing ; not being retrained to 
 dipping, as its primitive {fiv.Tf\u) is, [which 
 needed not be allowed ;] but this laft word is 
 jiever ufed to exprefs baptizing*." Reader, is 
 there any thing puerile or farcical in this lan- 
 guage ? Is it, in the eye of impartiality un- 
 worthy of a grave divine, or judicious com- 
 mentator ? Now I will fay, " If the credit of 
 immerfion cannot be fupported without burlef- 
 quing the facred hiQory," by fuppofing the mul- 
 titudes plunged over head, either naked or in 
 their wearing apparel^ and in the fight of all, 
 " and expofmg one of the moft exalted hu- 
 man charaders to the ridicule of infidels in 
 this manner," by fuppofing him to be cm- 
 ployed in purifying " Jerufalem and all Judea, 
 and all the regions round about Jordan," up 
 to his wafte in water, a work equally unna- 
 tural and unprecedented, — " it ought for ever 
 to fmk in oblivion." No; they are not the 
 
 infidels^ 
 
 • Note on Matt. iii. 6. Which he paraphrafes thus; " And 
 they were fo far affefted with his dofttine that they miide a 
 public profeflion of repentance, and were baptized by him in the 
 river Jordan, both he and they according to the cuftom of the 
 country, g<-'^ng a httle way into the water, either barefoot or 
 with fundus, for the greater convenience and expedition in b?p- 
 ^cing them.'* 
 
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Baptlf?n, 1 73 
 
 infidels^ who ridicule baptizing by afFufion, but 
 our brethren the Bapfflls ! 
 
 Mr. Matt. Henry had faid : " To bap- 
 tize naked or next to naked, (which is fuppof- 
 ed, and generally pra^tifed in immerfion) is 
 againft the law of modefty : and to do fuch a 
 thing in public folemn aflemblies, is fo far 
 from being tolerable, that it is abominable to 
 every chafte (oul : and cfpecially to baptize wo- 
 men in this manner*.*' At this Mr. B. thinks 
 the " reader has reafon to be furprized, of- 
 fended, ihocked." I (hall not attempt to vin- 
 dicate the paffage altogether ; but does not Mr. 
 B. exceed in his cenfure ? Will he venture to 
 deny, that the candidates who were baptized 
 by immerfion, in the primitive church, were 
 immerfed naked? The learned Bingham, af- 
 ter producing palTages from Chrysostom, Cy- 
 ril of Jerufaletn^ Leno Veronenfts^ Athana- 
 sius, &c. adds: " All which are manifeft 
 proofs that perfons were baptized naked^ either 
 in imitation of Adam in Paradife, or our Sa- 
 viour upon the crofs^ or to fignify their putting 
 off the body of fm, and the old man with 
 his deeds. — And this practice was then fo ge^ 
 neraly that we find no exception made, either 
 with refpe6t to the tendernefs of infants, of 
 the bajhfulnefs of the female fex^ fave only where 
 the cafe of ficknefs or difability made it necef- 
 fary to vary from the ufual cuftomf," Will 
 
 1 3 Mr. 
 
 • Treat, rit Eaptifm, 13S, 139, f Antiquities of the Ciuif- 
 tian Churcl^^ B, xi. ch, xi. -^ x, »• 
 
174 Of' the Signification of the Ch. 4. 
 
 Mr. B. fay it is required. \^ divine law, that 
 baptifm be admlniftered to perfons as naked as 
 Adam in Paradife ? If not, here is another 
 ftrjkirg proof how much the joint -influence of 
 xeal and fupsrftition confuks human feelings I 
 if it be faid, that what was then jnodeji is now 
 cihominahle^ it follows that local cuiloms and 
 national decency are not to be overlooked even 
 in pofitive inftitutions. And in proportion as 
 thefe antient baptizers were blameable for lead- 
 ing the modefl: daughters of Eve to the facred 
 font in their birth-day habits ; fo far, at leafl, 
 we have a proof that the ancient manner of 
 baptizing is no model for modern times ; and we 
 further infift, in connexion with the foregoing 
 pages, that the cuftom of plunging the fubje6t 
 was a matter of mere choice and preference^ as well 
 as the circumftance of nakednefs^ in diftinilion from 
 any binding authority of the Lawgiver, or any 
 abfolute obligation on the adminidrator's part. 
 
 § 46. (4) CoroU. From what has been faid 
 it alio follows, That tho' the defign of bap- 
 tifm were more fully expreiled by immerfion, 
 than by pouring or fprinkling, yet would not 
 immerlion be proved efjhitial^ nor any way fer- 
 viceable to the caufe of our opponents*. But 
 I abfolutely deny the facl, that plunging does 
 more fully exprefs the defign of baptifm, which 
 is principally to reprefent the communication of 
 divine influences, as before ihewn ; and yet 
 were the contrary admitted, nothing more would 
 
 follow 
 
 • Sec Paddb. Ixam, chap. v. fajp.m. 
 
Ch. 4. Tmns Baptize and Baptifm, 1 75 
 
 follow, than that a preference is due to the 
 immerfing mode, while what is necefTary and 
 eiTential is not afFe<5tedr Here I am flopped 
 with an alarming queftion, '^ Is it commend- 
 able, is it juftifiable, is it rational^ that the pro- 
 fefled followers of Jefus Chrift, fhould ftudy to 
 find out the exact boundaries of ejfence^ in a 
 pofitive inftitution ; that they may be able to 
 determine with precifion, hozv far they may 
 vary from the natural import of our Lord's 
 command, &c. —without intrenching on what 
 is ejjential to the appointment V To which 
 I return this calm reply. Yes, it is far more 
 commendable, juilifiable, and rational, that we 
 fhould ftudy the exa(Sl boundaries of ejfence^ 
 and pronounce accordingly ; than rartily to pro- 
 nounce that^ of two modes, a nullity^ a priori^ 
 without inveftigation, and efpecially in regard of 
 a pofitive inftitution, from the mere prefump- 
 tive plea, that the one is comparatively better 
 and furer than the other. For, furely, it mud 
 be palpably irrational to infer, that becaufe one 
 mode is not fo good as another, therefore it is 
 good for nothing ! It is, undoubtedly, every one's 
 duty and intereft to ferve Chrifl perfe<£lly; but 
 fiiall we therefore conclude, that no fervice is 
 an act of obedience to him, but what is per- 
 fect ? If one preaches the gofpel better than 
 another, does that imply the other does not 
 preach it zuelly or evea at all? If one bap- 
 tizes by a total immerfion, and another by ^ 
 dipping /hort of that, is it juftifiable to contendj, 
 
 I 4 that. 
 
176. Of 'the Stgnijicat'ion of the Ch. 4, 
 
 that the latter is no immerfion ? In like man- 
 ner, if the fcriptural baptifm be purification by 
 'iVater^ does it follow, that to pufify by water 
 jfprinkled or poured, is no baptifm ? " Let 
 candour, let common fenfe determine.'* 
 
 § 47. Before we conclude this part of our 
 fubjecl, it may be proper to examine the force 
 of Mr. B.'s fcvertth chapter, " Concerning the 
 reafons, rife and prevalence of pouring, or fprink.- 
 ling, inllead of immerfion.'' 
 
 Our author will have it that the praclice he 
 oppofes, " was introduced with the errors of 
 popery ;" but with greater force of truth may 
 we urge, that the confining of its elTence, as 
 well as mode, to total immerfion, is genuinely 
 popifh. — Our pradice, according to him, feems 
 to have taken its rife " under the combined 
 operation of different errors." On the con- 
 trary, we believe, and tlierefore fpeak, that the 
 doctrine of the ejfentiality of dippings was firft 
 planted by a pharifaic hand, as an improvement 
 on the original plan > and has been ever fince 
 "watered by the hand of bigotted fingularity. 
 He further obferves, that " perfufion was not 
 Xhouzhx p€rfie6l^ fjhmn^ 6cc,'* But what coun- 
 tenance can his caufe derive from fuch con- 
 fiderations, except withal it ^ was rejefled as aS^ 
 foluiely null? '1 he cafe of Novatian, from 
 KusEBius, is very pariially reprefented by our 
 author, as if the whole fcruple about his bap- 
 tifm was owing to the mode ; whereas nothing 
 can be more evident than that the . hirtorian 
 
 fpeaks 
 
Ch . 4. Ttrmr Bhptiz e und Baptijm, 177 
 
 (peaks of his baptifm degradingly on fevered 
 ether accounts, " Now forwards I will orderly 
 declare [fays Cornelius bifhop of Rome, in 
 a letter to Fabius bifhop of Antioch, preferVed 
 by EusEBius] by what means and by what 
 trade of life, he purchafed unto himfelf the 
 title of a bifhop. Think you that it was be- 
 caufe of his converfation in the church from 
 the beginning? or, becaufe he endured many 
 fkirmilhes and confii6ls for his name ? orj that 
 he ftood in manifold and great perils for pie- 
 ty's fake? None of all thefe was true in him. 
 The occafion of believing he took of Satan, 
 which entered into him, and made there long 
 abode. When he was delivered by the exor- 
 cifts, he fell into a dangerous difeafe; and be» 
 'laitfe he was very like to die^ was baptized \n 
 the bed where he lay, if it may be termed a 
 fcaptifm which he received ; for he obtained not 
 after his recovery that which he fhould have 
 done according unto the caiion of the church, 
 to wit, confirmation by the hands of the bifhop, 
 Infomuch then as he obtained not that^ how 
 came he 'by the Holy Ghofl ?" Again: " This 
 good man I forfook the church of God, wherein, 
 he was baptized, and where alfo he took prieft- 
 hood upon him — tho' all the clergy, yea and^ 
 many of the laity, withflood it, becaufe it was, 
 not lawful to admit into the clergy any that 
 had been baptized in bed as he was*." It has 
 been moreover obferved of this Herefiarch, that 
 
 I 5 he 
 
 ^ EvsEB. B, -V), chap, 42« Loqd, 1636, 
 
178 Of the Signijication of the Ch. j^ 
 
 ' lie had feveral defects in his perfon, which ex- » 
 eluded him from the dignity of bifhop, even fup- 
 pofing the eIe6iion had not been fchifmatical ; 
 this, added to his having been a demoniac, 
 cxorcifed by the churchy baptized while he lay 
 fick and in danger of dyings and his never hav- 
 ing been confirmed by the biihop, might be 
 "well deemed capital irregularities, as being to- 
 tally repugnant to the ecclefiaftical canons, in- 
 dependent on the mode of his baptifm. Nay,, 
 the principal reafon for obje6ling to the clinics 
 being honoured with the clerical office, feems 
 to have been the prefumed imperfe6tion of 
 their chriftianity, and the fufpedled light in. 
 which their motives' for commencing chriftians 
 muft have appeared^ while they folicited bap- 
 tifm only in the face of apprehended death. 
 Therefore^ Vales i us on the above paffage in 
 EusEBius, n>ight well fay: " This baptifm w?s 
 thought imperfef^, and not fblemn for feveral 
 reafom*^^ And if " it was a formal and fo- 
 lemn queftion, made by Magnus to Cy- 
 prian, Whether they are to be efteemed 
 right chriftians, who were only fprinkled with 
 water, and not walhcd, or dipped /' we may 
 fairly refer the ground of the fcruple to a want 
 of conformity to the authoritative ecclefiaftical 
 rules, and' the fuppofed more perfe6l^ folemn^ felf-^ 
 denying pratftice- which then prevailed of having 
 the candidates firft ftripped naked^ whether men, 
 women or children^ and then, immerfed three 
 timtu For all thefe particulars, according to 
 
 them 
 
Gh. 4« Terms Baptize and Bapttfm, 179 
 
 them, were full of edifying myfleries. And by 
 the fame rule of interpretation, that they main- 
 tained the being buried with Chriji by baptifm^ 
 .and being baptized into his deaths fignified im- 
 merfion j they alfo found, that putting off the 
 body of the ftns of the fejh^ (CoL ii. li, 12.) 
 denoted the delicate and inflruiStive pradlice of 
 divejling the candidates before their ghoftly bu- 
 rial. 
 
 We are further told : " That this clinic 
 baptifm had no exiftence in the apojlolick times." 
 Nor any that I know of in thefe prefent times. 
 It had no exiftence, if we confider " the er- 
 roneous foundation on which it refts [the ne- 
 celFity of baptifm for falvation], and the total 
 filence of the New Teftament concerning it." 
 We retort; that the efjentiality of dipping had 
 no exiftence in the apoftolick times, we are led 
 to conclude, by confidering the erroneous foun- 
 dation on which it refts, and the total lilence 
 of the New Teftament concerning it. — It is 
 again pleaded, that the neceflity of baptifm has, 
 in fome inftances, " operated fo far as intirely to 
 exclude water from any concern in the ordi,- 
 nance." And fo may the neceflity of immer^- 
 fion ; for our difpute is not about the element 
 but the mode of application. We hold, as well 
 as our opponents, that water is eflential to the 
 chriftian purification, becaufe plainly afterted ; 
 and we equally difcard the neceflity, of it to 
 falvation: but yet maintain, that to exclude 
 fprinkling or pouring as a nuiUiy, comes little 
 
 I 6 Ihort 
 
iSo Of the Signification of the Ch. 4» 
 
 <Tiort of the unclwritable rigor, and unwarrant- 
 able zeal, of thole who hold that neceflity. 
 And it may be juftly queftioned, whether the 
 one has greater reafon to make dipping necef- 
 fary for baptifm, than the other to make bap- 
 tifm itfelf neceffary to falvation. — " Nicephorus 
 informs us, our author obferves, that a certairt 
 Jew was fprinkled thrice with fand inftead of 
 water." Is it not a wonder, then, if in thofe 
 early times immerfion^ in allufion to our Lord's 
 burial, was thought fo effential to baptifm^ that . 
 thefe zealots did not plead the neceflity of his 
 being fomehotu buried^ if not in water. Might 
 not the ill-informed and frightened convert (for 
 he was fuddenly feized with a dangerous illnefs) 
 have been made to lie down in a hollow bed 
 of fand, covered over with the fame, and then 
 be told, Now you are buried with Chrift in 
 baptifm, being hereby baptized into his death ; 
 for it is no matter how you come to this 
 Jiate of immerfion, whether you are put into 
 this fubftitute for water, or it is brought any 
 how over youP — " Our brethren, who prac- 
 tife free communion,'* fays Mr. B. " frequently 
 plead that thefe perfons whofe claim to the 
 holy fupper is under difpute, confider themfelves 
 as really baptized, and on that ground (hould 
 be admitted to the Lord's table. Query, Would 
 they receive a candidate for communion, who 
 fmcerely believes he has been baptized, merely 
 becaufe he has been fprinkled with fand-^ as in 
 the cafe of this Jew?" An important query 
 
 ( this 
 
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Baptif?H, i$x 
 
 this, and highly complimental to his brethren f 
 But it will be time enough to anfwer it, when 
 tiie Querift condefceiids to inform us, whether 
 any cafe can occur, on the plunging plan, clog- 
 ged with far greater difficulties ? (3ne would 
 be induced to think, at firfl, that his hypothe- 
 cs is fubjedt to no embarrairment ; but is not 
 the quality of the clement, into which a fub- 
 jtSt is immerfed, liable to fcruples far more 
 difficult to be determined ? And will not the 
 degree of dipping often prove, on our opponents' 
 principles, a puzzling point? " Such confider 
 not with due attention, the confequences of 
 their opinion, fays Mr. Towgood ; nor obferve 
 how this precifenefs as to ritual matters naturally 
 genders ftrife, and miniflers occafion to/ end- 
 kfs, contemptible, and fooli(h debates. For if 
 overwhelming the perfon be of the effence of 
 chriftian baptilm, hence obvioufly fprings a doubt 
 — What if the perfon, when Jaying beneath 
 the water, fhould lift up a hand^ fo as to be 
 not quite covered with the element; Is the per- 
 fon, neverthelefs, truly baptized P Or, fuppofe 
 in the great hurry which fuch an operation 
 may occafion, both the hands, or even the 
 arms, fhould be fo incautioufly extended as 
 not to be overwhelmed i I a:Tc, is that baptifnt 
 good? Or again. If thra' the bulk of the bap^ 
 tized, and the weaknefs of the baptizer, fome part 
 even of the face or head fhould be uncovered j 
 what is to be pronounced concerniiig fuch a 
 baptifm ? Is it valid^ or not? — Suppofe the per- 
 fon 
 
rS-a Of the Signi/jcaijon of the CIi. 4. 
 
 fon whofe hands, or part of whofe face, was nc* 
 quite overwlielmed, fhould be dedred by the ad- 
 miniftrator 10 fubmit to Tifecond dippings becaufe 
 the firft being not totals he thinks not to be 
 fttfficient \ and either himfdf, or fome attend- 
 ing friends, Ihould fteadily refufe ; alledging the 
 defeat to be not material ; and the baptifm was 
 vahd — Would there not arife a very important 
 debate ; perhaps an a£tual feparation^ or rent in 
 that church? Some infifting, that the perfoa 
 be received to full communion, as a truly bap^ , 
 ti-zed brother : Others ftrenuoufly oppofmg, and 
 refufing communion with him as not being 
 baptized, becaufe not totally overwhelmed,. — How 
 much to the edification and honour- of the 
 chriftian world would fuch a conteft appear ! 
 What matter of ridicule would it furnilh to 
 unbelievers ! And how naturally draw con- 
 tempt; not upon baptifm only, as a folemn 
 trifle, but upon chriftianity itfeif, as nrtiniriering 
 occafion to fuch frivolous dtbates ! And yet, 
 really, to this iiTue does the making immerfion 
 effential to chriftian baptifm, naturally and di- 
 rectly tend. If it does not, in fa6t^ gender fuch 
 debates, it is becaufe thofe, who avow the 
 principle, do" not follow it in all its confe- 
 quences, nor clofely adhere to it in every emer^ 
 gence of this kind. — And, if wajhing the wholt 
 body be of fuch moment in chriftian baptifm, as 
 our brethren reprefent; they ought, furely, to 
 confider, that the^ dipping a ckthed budy feems not 
 
 a 
 
•Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Baptlfm, 183: 
 
 a ftrictly juft or adequate performance of it*." 
 
 § 48. Mr. B. on this occafion honours the 
 reafons of his Poedobaptift brethren for pouring 
 and fprinkling, by comparing them with the 
 arguments of Roman Catholics, in defence of 
 withholding the cup from the people. I hope 
 our opponent will take it in good part if we 
 return the compliment. Do the votaries of 
 Rome, then, maintain that baptifm is imperfe^ 
 without the chrifm^ compofed of two ingredients, 
 oil and balfamj the one reprefenting the hu- 
 man nature of Jefus Chriil, the other his di- 
 vine nature ? So do our Baptift friends deem 
 the chriftian purification by pouring or fprink- 
 ling water imperfe^^ and, which is more, inva^ 
 Vid^ except it be by the fpecific mode of im- 
 merfion. Is it required of every true catholic 
 that he acknowledge the fupremacy of the pope, 
 and that falyation is confined to the holy Ro- 
 man church ? In like manner, on the princi- 
 ples I oppofe,. no one fhould be deemed a 
 baptized chrijliati^ who is not initiated by the 
 diftingui(hing mode of a fe(5l ; nor admitted — 
 however folemn his profeflion- of impartial in- 
 quiry, however unexceptionable his religious itn- 
 timents in every other refpe61:, however orna- 
 mental his condu6t,. devout his temper, and 
 ufeful his labours — nor admitted, I fay, into 
 chriftian fellow/hip for the purpofe of commem- 
 morating the dying love of their common Lord 
 
 and 
 
 . * Towcood's Dipping not the onJy fcriptural and. primitive 
 manner of Baptizing, p. 31, 32, 
 
184 Of the Signljjcatiofi of the Cli. 4. 
 
 and Saviour. Does the fame intolerant chur(Ji 
 hold the neceflity of epifcopal ordination for the 
 validity of miniflerial acls ? So do the rigid 
 votaries of plunging hold the neceflity of a 
 dipping purification for the validity of a true 
 chriftian church- memberfhip. Do the former 
 contend, that fo plain a thing as common 
 bread is infufficient for the eucharift? So do 
 the latter^ that no wajhing of watery with the 
 word, is valid, but that which is precifely in 
 their dijlinguijhing way. Do Proteftants urge on , 
 Catholics the neceflity of firi£ily adhering to, 
 the original inftitution of tiie fupper ? So do. 
 Y/e on the Baptifl:s, wlx> impofe what the Infti,- 
 tutor has left free, and unwarrantably fcrew. 
 the initiating rite in the vice of bigotry in de- 
 fiance of thofe limitations, to which alone the 
 original inftitution obliges. 
 
 It is further added : " Suppofing an equal 
 degree of benefit, refulting from each mode of 
 adminiftration ; yet there is not, there cannot 
 be, the fame degree of humble obedience to Je- 
 fus Chrift.'* An argument this worthy of the 
 painful pilgrims to Jerafalem and Rome !' But 
 again : " The pradlice of afperjion is calculated 
 to embarrafs Proteftants in their difputes with 
 Pcedobaptifts j and Non-conformifts in their 
 controverfies with Epifcopalians." Not at all ; 
 but the very reverfe is true : The practice of 
 our opponents is calculated to embarrafs them 
 in their difputes witli Papifts and Nonconform- 
 
 ifts; 
 
Ch. 4' Terms Baptize and Baptifm. 185 
 
 ifts ; inafinuch as they impofe as necejfary what 
 tlie divine Legiflator has left indifferent. More- 
 over : " Suppofing there were both difficulty and 
 danger attending the performance of our Lord's 
 pofitive commands ~ we muft fubmit without 
 repining and without hefitation." True ; fo did 
 Abraham. But we deny that to baptize only 
 by dipping is a pofitive command ; and there- 
 fore to fubmit to difEcuhy and danger, when 
 net required^ is no better than will-worihip and 
 voluntary humility unprefcribed. " Circumci- 
 fion was dangerous, yet not to be difpenfed 
 with." Right; for //;./ was made neccflary by 
 a plain command, but no dangerous mode of 
 baptizing is enjoined. Quotations alfo from 
 Charnock, Secker, Towgood, Owen, Sau- 
 RiN, Chardin, Maimonides, R. Nathan, 
 Calvin, P\ Fabricius, &c. are to no pur- 
 pofe ; not affe6ling the ' point in difpute. Once 
 more : Our author talks of our " altering a 
 pofitive appointment.'* But we think that this 
 alteration work is rather chargeable on thofe who 
 claim a power to annul what our Lord iiimfelf 
 has ordained, as v/e believe our baptifm is. 
 
 We are next impeached for " difpenfmg witk 
 divine laws, or mitigating their feverity." Let 
 us be (hewn what is divine law, and we obey ; 
 but we reckon the effentiality of dipping not as 
 the meaning of divine law, but the offspring of 
 pharifaic zeal— As to the hint, that our prac- 
 tice proceeds on the principle of—" fpare thy^ 
 4elf;'* we may a(k ; Should not we fparc 
 
 where 
 
I S6 Of the Slgnijication cf the CIi, 4, 
 
 where God does ? If not, we can do nothing 
 better than cut or fcourge ourfelves, or cru- 
 cify one another ! Finally : it is urged, that 
 " dipping was in ufe for thirteen hundred 
 years ;" i. e. thro' the darkeft times of popery ! 
 what a mighty recommendation ! But that it 
 was the exchifwe mode, at leaft, in the apoflo- 
 hc!'C age is neither granted, nor admitted that 
 it can be proved. 
 
 § 49. The genuine reafons, rife, and preva- 
 lence of immerfion in baptifm, in my apprchen- 
 fion, may probably appear from the following 
 remarks. 
 
 I. The word baptize being a general term, 
 denoting, in a ceremonial izn^ty to purify^ it is 
 probable that different modes of ablution were 
 ufed, even in the apoftolick age, according to 
 circumftances. Sometimes, the whole body might 
 be wajhed %vith pure vjater ; fometimes, tvafljed 
 in a more partial manner, as Paul and Silas 
 were wajhed {txaa-iv) on another occafion, and 
 probably thus the Jailor was, &c. when bap^ 
 tizedy A6ts xvi. 33 j fometimes, the water might 
 be /hed more abundantly on them while ftanding 
 in a river or any other convenient place. But 
 if at any time, fo early as the apoftolick age, 
 the fubje6t was led into fuch a depth of water 
 as might be neceflary for immerfion, and was 
 a6lually immerfed (which yet remains to be 
 proved ) ; ftill the ftrefs was laid on the ablutiony 
 and not the mode of it. " Arife and be puri^ 
 fied^ and wajh away X\i^ fins," A6ts x?cii. i6« . 
 
 2. After 
 
Ch, 4. Terms Baptize and Baptifm, 1S.7 
 
 2. After a while Paul's words, Rom. vi. 
 3~6. and Col. ii. 11. began to be perverted 
 in favour of immerfim ; as if this were coun- 
 tenanced by him allulively ; and without conii- 
 dering that the fame infpired writer alludes 
 to fprinkUng^ pourings pjcdd'vig. The following 
 thought might appear very plaufible \ " If the 
 chriftian purification be a chanfing^ the more 
 general and complete the better ; therefore a total 
 wafhing, and even the putting of the fubje£l: 
 under water muft be mere complete and expref- 
 five." But however plaufible this may feem, 
 it is buiit upon a fallacy^ viz. That there is a 
 natural beyond an injVituted conneclion between 
 ablution and the thing fignified. But were 
 this fallacious fancy purfued to its juft confe- 
 quences, where could we flop ? Shall we not 
 be in danger of charging the ancient divine ab- 
 lutions with a defe6l of fymboiic fitnefs ? And 
 of placing the excellency of the rite in " wa(h- 
 ing away the filth of the fleili?" Or, perhaps, 
 of commencing Hemerobaptifts, &c. ? Having 
 made this proficiency, that a total ablution is 
 a more perfeSl refemblance of the moral clean- 
 fing fignified, and that this might beft be ef- 
 fected by dipping ; which moreover was twice 
 alluded to by St. Paul ; it was eafy to ad- 
 vance, ' 
 
 3. To another improving thought, viz. That 
 as chriftians were under the ftrongefi: obliga- 
 tions to cultivate umverfal and complete purity, 
 it was beneath their hieh calling not to equal. 
 
 If 
 
l88 Of {he Signification of the Ch. 4. 
 
 if not furpafs, the zealous Jews or any others 
 who ufed ablution as a fymbol of moral pu- 
 rity. And it appears to me moft probable, 
 that this fuperftitious emulation about the com- 
 fleteriefs of tl)eir ablutions, gave rife to the 
 great flrefs laid upon immerfion among the 
 Jews and primitive chriflians. The former with 
 our opponents, made a total immerfion ejfential^ 
 (for if a finger's end was not immerfed, the 
 rite was not valid ;) and the latter -^ foon after 
 the apoflolick age, from the fame emulous mo- 
 tive, foitered by a well-meaning but injudici- 
 ous zeal for purity, gave it the fandion of ge- 
 neral cujicm^ tho' not ahjolutely necejfary^ as 
 appears from the records of thofe times. 
 
 4. In the primitive times, numbers flocked 
 into the church from the polluted embraces of 
 heathenifm ; it is therefore very conceivable that 
 many would urge a fetal ahlutionj and for greater 
 certainty the plunging of the convert, that no 
 part, no not a finger's end, might remain con- 
 taminated with their former idolatry. And 
 furely if the baptifmal water was th^; fw^;, the 
 water of life^ as Justin Martyr exprefTes it, 
 it was but charitable to make ufe of it copi- 
 oufly, and to apply it to every part. Hence, 
 
 5. From the fame principle, joined with that 
 of zeal for fuperftitious felf-denial and mortifi- 
 cation in unprefcribed ceremonies, arofe the 
 pra6lice of baptizing naked. For how could 
 perfeSi purity^ the neiv birtk^ &C, be fully re- 
 prcfented without it/ 
 
 6. Ac- 
 
Ch. 4» Therms Baptize and Eaptifm, 1^9 
 
 6. Accordingly, dipping continued during 
 tbofe ages when, and becaufe, externals made 
 nearly the whole of religion ; and ftill continues 
 in- the Greek Church, there is reafon to fear, 
 from a fimilar cauie. 
 
 7 Ro /.£, indeed, at length, tho' abundantly 
 fuperiiitious in other refpcds, began to relax 
 this line of bigotry long before the reformation. 
 And whether an attempt to eftabiifh the doc- 
 trine of dipping as essential to chriftian bap- 
 tifm, be not an attempt to re-eftablilh, aud to 
 improve upon, what was v;orthy of the darkeft 
 ages of the church, I leave to be confidered by 
 them whom it concerns. 
 
 S. At the Reformation from Popery, when 
 the doiSlrines of the facraments were minutely 
 and rigidly examined, the honoured champions, 
 who appeared on that occafion with undaunted 
 courage in the caufe of liberty and of truth, 
 were fo far from charging the gradual alteration 
 that had been introduced in the churches of 
 France, Italy, Germany, and others, as to the 
 mode of baptifm, as heretical and invalidating^ 
 that, on the contrary, they gave it the juftefl: 
 * tribute of acknowledgment, as a prior part of 
 reformation, by embracing it themfelves. 
 
 But how little weight there, is in the above 
 confiderations, as the ancient mod plaufible rea- 
 fons for the efTentiality of immerfion; and in 
 what is pleaded by our opponents from the 
 force of the word baptifm^ &c. is now fubmitted 
 to the impartial public. 
 
 CHAP. 
 
[ ^90 ] 
 
 CHAP. V. 
 
 Containing anfwers to the mofl capital 
 OBJECTIONS and evasions of Antipoedo- 
 baptifts. 
 
 § I. ObjeSiion (i) That the conduSl of Protejiants 
 in their management of the Popijh controverfy 
 is inimical to Pcedobaptifm — anfwered, § 2, 
 (2) That there is no exprefs precept^ or pre^ 
 cedenty in the New Tejiament for Poedobaptifm 
 — anfwered. % 3-- 6. {3) That there is no 
 evidence of Pcedobaptifm^ before the loiter end of 
 the fecondy or the beginning of the third century 
 '^anfwered, § 7. (4) The grounds of Poedo- 
 baptifm as pra^ijed by the ancients ^~ anfwered* 
 § 8' (5) ^^^ dif agreement of the moderns con^ 
 cerning the grounds of Poedobaptifm — anfwered, 
 ^ ^ — 12. (6) If Infants have a right to bap- 
 tifm^ they ynujl have a right to the [acred flip- 
 per — anfwered. § 13. (7) If baptifm feals 
 mly a bare exhibition of fpiritual blejfmgs^ what 
 benefit can that be to infants? — anfwered* §14. 
 (8) If there be a fuitablenefs in infants^ as fuch^ 
 to the infUtution of baptifm^ by what rule fhall 
 we determine what children to baptize^ and 
 what not?'-' anfwered, § 15. (9) If we bap- 
 tize all our infants^ then we [hall have no 
 adults to baptize— -anfwered* 
 
Gh. 5. Objections and Evafions of l^c, igi 
 
 § I. TT has been often obje<Sted, and is par- 
 X ticularly urged by Mr. B. in effedl, 
 (1) " That the conducl of Proteftants in 
 *' their management of the popifli controverfy, is 
 " inimical to Pcedobaptifm -, becaufe they have 
 " always juftified their renunciation of thofe 
 " objedtionable particulars that the Romifh hie- 
 ** rarchy obtrudes upon its vafTals, for want of 
 " fcripture authority for them ; while the Anti- 
 " poedobaptifts, in their turn, juftify their con- 
 *' du6l on the fame principle*." And, indeed, 
 this feems one of the moft popular and plauli- 
 ,ble objedlions they ever urge j but there is nei- 
 their truth nor fairnefs in the fuppofed parallel : 
 For, 
 
 1. When any thing is urged by Papifts or 
 others as neceflary to falvation, or an indifpen- 
 fible term of chriftian communion, which the 
 infpired volume neither exprefsly aflerts, nor 
 plainly fuppofes ; what is there more reafonable 
 or proper than a demand of their warrant for 
 fuch conduct and fentiments ? But, 
 
 2. Do Poedobaptifts maintain, or do their 
 principles or practice imply, that a being bap- 
 tized in infancy, rather than when adult, is a 
 neceflary qualification for chriftian communion? 
 It is too well known to need explanation, that 
 we regard infant baptifm^ and adult baptif7n^ not 
 as two ordinances of a different nature, but as 
 one and the fame, differing only in the cir- 
 cumftance of time* We lay no ftrefs on the 
 
 time 
 
 • Pcedoh Exam. f45— 154 174 — 178, ti^—zif, 310, 473. 
 
 V 
 
I02 OhjeSiions and Evafions Ch. 5. 
 
 time whm-f as a neceflary ingredient of valid 
 baptifm ; and, therefore, let a perfon be bap- 
 tized at fouifcore, and we admit him to id^ 
 lowfhip (ccet. par,) with the fame readinefs as 
 if baptized in infancy. With what candour 
 or fairnefs, then, are Pcedobaptifts compared 
 with Papifts ? 
 
 3. We cannot he^ regarding the invidious 
 comparifon as totally inapplicable on another ac- 
 count, viz. Becaufe it proceeds on a fuppofition, 
 that divine revelation gives no more counte- 
 nance to the baptizing of infants, than to the 
 farrago of Popifti will-worfliip. When we re- 
 flect on the godly and learned labours of Pce- 
 dobaptift worthies, in pleading the caufe of 
 infants and expofmg the fuperftitions of Rome, 
 we are grieved, we are painfully wounded, to 
 find their praSilcal judg?nent treated in fo uncaa- 
 did and fevere a manner. Muft we regard their 
 tears of joy and gratitude, which as parents 
 *nd minifters they have copioufly Ihed, while in 
 this ordinance devoting their infant children to 
 Jehovah, mingled with the tears of enthufiaftic 
 devotees, whofe paffions are excited by mere 
 fuperftitious ignorance ? — Judge nothing before the 
 time. 
 
 4. Protestants, and Proteftant DiiTenters, 
 forcibly objeil to the church of Rome, or any 
 other, arrogating to itfelf a power, jure divino, 
 to decree and impofe rites and ceremonies, for 
 ■which it produces no authority from fcripture^ 
 the law of nature, or any other law, except 
 
 that 
 
Ch. 5» AnUpcedohapttJh anfjjcred, 1^3 
 
 that of ITS OWN- SOVEREIGK V/ILL AND PLEA- 
 SURE. Whereas we, as Foedobaptifts, appeal 
 to the revealed nature and dengn of the infti- ' 
 tution; and for its application to our infant 
 children, in common with ourfelves, to the dic- 
 tates of nature J to every fuccelTive difpenfation 
 of true religion from Adam to Chriil ; to the 
 language of prophecy in reference to gofpei 
 times ; to New Teflament palTages ; and to the 
 almoil univerfal pradlice of the chriftian church. 
 We indft, in Ihort, that the baptizing of our 
 children, being fuitaUe Juhje6is of the gofpei 
 difpenfation, and of baptifm its initiatory rite, 
 not contravened by fcripture evidence, but ra- 
 ther included in the general commiiTion, is a 
 reafonable fervice^ which is corroborated by many 
 important topics. Therefore vve need not fcru- 
 pie to fay, that when any man or body of men 
 adhibit arguments of a pnilar iiature^ and equaliy 
 fcrcihle as thefe^ in favour of Koman (or any 
 other) rites and ceremonies, we ftand engac^ed 
 to approve, and with all fubmiffion to pradtife 
 them. 
 
 § 2. (2) Mr. B. objects, and employs a 
 ■ whole chapter in fupportiiig the objedlion, *' rhat 
 there is no exprefs precept, or precedent, in the 
 Nejw Teftament for Pcrdobaptifm*;" On this 
 I would pro^Kjfe the following obfcrvations 5 
 and 
 
 I. This mode of objecting to our practice 
 feems admirably calculated to confound two 
 Vol. [1. K things 
 
 * Pcedob. Exam, chap. viii. pafftm. 
 
1^4- Ohjeilio7is and Evafions of Ch. 5» 
 
 things that are perfe6lly diftindt:, viz. nominal 
 
 and real differences. For the objedion tends 
 
 to lead the unwary to fuppofe, that the baptifm 
 
 of infants is another baptifm than what the Anti- 
 
 tipoedobaptifts ufe ; whereas it is plain to any 
 
 that properly diftinguifh between names and 
 
 things, that if we baptize an infant, we do not 
 
 ufe another ordinance differing effentially from 
 
 adult baptifm, as theirs is, but only differ in 
 
 judgment refpe<3:ing the qualifications of the fub- 
 
 je6ts. We fhould therefore be no more led 
 
 away by fuch infinuations, than we fhould by 
 
 being told that the baptifms of believers^ of 
 
 hypocrites^ of deaf and of dumb perfons, were all 
 
 of them ejfentially different from one another. 
 
 Or by being told, that the circumcifions of 
 
 adults and infants, of Ifraelites and profelytes, 
 
 were inf^itutions of a quite different nature. 
 
 2. If precepts and precedents are to be inter- 
 preted by the properefl rules, nay the only 
 rules which the cafe fairly admits, we infifl, 
 that the New Tertament contains both pre- 
 cepts and precedents in our favour. Thefe 
 rules we lay are, not the bare letter, or mere 
 expreffions of fcripture, but thefe in connec- 
 tion with prior divine Jlatutes and difpenjations. 
 If, with thefe rules in mind, we attend to the 
 revealed account of the nature and manife/l 
 deficrn of the ordinance, we can no more, in 
 equity, interpret the precepts and precedents re- 
 lative to it, to the exclufion of infants, than 
 we can interpret a general invitation from a 
 
 fovereign 
 
Ch. 5. Antipxdobapttfts anfwered, 195 
 
 fovereign addrefTed to his fubjedts, importing a 
 defire that they (liould quit their native foil on 
 ternfS infinitely advantageous, while himfelf leads 
 the way, to the exclusion of their wives and 
 infant children. Is it reafonable, is it fcriptu- 
 ral, is it confiftent with common fenfe, or was 
 it ever inftanced from the birth of time, that 
 the child was juftly debarred from any of the 
 parents' privileges of which it was a capable 
 fubjedt? This being the cafe, all precepts 
 and precedents are to be interpreted on fup- 
 pofition that this is an eftablilhed and well au- 
 thenticated fa6l, which is not to be given up 
 but by the moft unequivocal contravention. 
 Therefore, 
 
 3. We retort, and more confidently plead, 
 that our opponents have neither precept nor pre^ 
 cedent for their conduct. They exclude where 
 the /aiv does not exclude, and where neither 
 right reafon nor common fenfe require it. 
 
 " That the facred writings are our on/y rule 
 of dodrine and worfliip, was the grand princi- 
 ple of the reformation — The bible only is the 
 religion of Protejiants.'^ True; the bible only^ 
 in oppofition to the bible and tradition: but 
 not in oppofition to natural dictates uncontroul- 
 led by revelation. Our only rule of dodlrine 
 and vjorjhip ; that is, fuch do6trine and worfhip 
 as can be urged oii men's confciences muft 
 not contradict this rule, but be countenanced by 
 it. A rule^ not abfolutely and extenfively in 
 every pundtilio and circumllance, but politively 
 
 K 2 and 
 
Iq6 Gbjec^isns and Evafiom of Ch. 5. 
 
 and correclively, as far as it goes.— If nothing 
 is to be confidered as tiie will of Chrift, even 
 in religious worfhip, but what is exprefsly and 
 circumftantially defcribed, then our opponents 
 muft feel, equally feel, the embarrafTment with 
 ourfelvcs, not only in other matters but alfo in 
 the prefent controverfy. The perpetual cry^ 
 therefore, about fcripture exprefs precepts and 
 precedents as alone decifive in the debate, is of 
 little moment with impartial inquirers after 
 truth, till it is previoudy determined that the 
 fcriptures v/ere defigned by the Fountain of all 
 truth as our only guide abfolutely and exten- 
 fively, in this matter. " The holy fcriptures," 
 as the judicious Hooker, well obferves, " arc 
 " all-fuHicient unto that end for which they 
 " were given. Therefore, accordingly, we do 
 " receive them ; we do not think that in them 
 " God hath omitted any thing needful unto 
 *' his purpofe, and left his intent to be ac- 
 '' comp'iifhed by our devifmgs. What the fcrip- 
 " ture purpofeth^ the fame in all points it doth 
 *' perform. HoY*'beit, that here we fvverve not in 
 <« judgment, one thing efpecially we muft ob- 
 *^ ferve, namely, that the abfolute perfection of 
 " Icripture is feen by relation unto that end 
 « whereunto it tendeth. ' — And elfev;herc he 
 fays : " Saint Augustine was refolute in points 
 ^' of chriftianity to credit none, how godly ai^d 
 '' learned (ocver they were, unlefs he confirmed 
 '* bis fentence by the fcriptures, or by fome rea^ 
 ^^ Jon not contrary to them. Let them therefore 
 
 " with 
 
Ch. 5. Ant'iposdohapUjh anfwered, igj 
 
 " with St. Agustine reje6l and condemn that 
 *' which is not grounded either on the fcripture, 
 " or on fome reafon not contrary to fcripture, and 
 *' we are ready to give them our hands in 
 ** token of friendly confent, with them *." 
 
 But other fathers^ we are given to under- 
 ftand, are peremptory; as Basil: " It is a 
 manifeft mi flake in regard of faith, and a clear 
 evidence of pride, either to rejeSi any of thofe 
 things which the fcripture contains ; or to in- 
 troduce any thing that is not written in the 
 facred page." Ambrose : " Where tlie fcrip- 
 ture \s fdenty who ihzWfpeakr^ Tertullian: 
 •' The fcripture forbids what it does not meri'* 
 //^«."— But thefe and fimilar maxims muft ei- 
 ther be taken with U?mtation^ or elfe muft ftand 
 convi6ted of inconclufive weaknefs. '^ To urge 
 *' any thing upon the church, requiring thereunto 
 " that religious aflent of chriftian belief, where- 
 " with the words of the holy prophets are re- 
 " ceived ; to urge any thing as part of that 
 *' fupernatural and celeHially revealed truth which 
 " God hath taught, and not to (liew it in 
 " fcripture, this did the ancient. Fathers ever- 
 " more think unlawful, impious, execrable. And 
 " thqs as their fpeeches were meant, fo by us 
 ^ they muft be re/Irained-f.'- 
 
 It is further urged, that *' the fdencey ot 
 
 fcripture is a fufficient ground of rejecting the 
 
 y%,7 of the crojs^ exorc'ijm^ &c. — becaufe thofe 
 
 tilings 7iot being written in tlie facred volume, 
 
 K 3 are 
 
 * Ecclcs. Polit, B, II § 8, 4, f ib. § S, 
 
198 ObjeSfiom and Evafjons of Ch. 5. 
 
 are therefore condeinneL^^ Granted ; for being 
 fupported by no antecedent principle of reafon, 
 and not enjoined by pofitive authority, they are 
 condemned defervedly. But x\\q ftknce of fcrip- 
 ture is not the formal ground of rejedting them ; 
 for it is filent about many other things con- 
 fefledly right; but rather becaufe not recom-r 
 mended by any law whatever, either natural or 
 revealed. And when any thing is urged as ne- 
 cefiary, which has no juft pretenfions for fuch 
 neceflity but fcripture evidence, then the filencc 
 of fcripture concludes againft it, being indeed, 
 on the fuppofition, the only remaining rule 
 wheieby its pretenfions can be tried. 
 
 Our author is very fond of introducing Dr, 
 Ov/EN among thofe who, he fuppofes, condemn 
 themfelves. For the Dr. had faid : "When 
 once a perfon maintains it allowable to pafs 
 over the limits of the divine command^ there 
 is nothing to hinder him from running 
 the moft extravagant lengths*." And again: 
 *' All worfhip is obedience; obedience refpeds 
 authority ; and authority exerts itfelf in com- 
 mands.— It is the authority of God alone, that 
 can make any worfhip to be religious ; or the 
 performance of it to be an acSl of obedience to 
 hi?n-\.'' One might be led to think from Mr. 
 B.'s manner of introducing thefe quotations, 
 that the celebrated Dr. Owen has deferted the 
 caufe of Poedobaptifm, if it be but granted 
 
 withal 
 
 • Thcologoumena L, v, c. xv, § a, f Expofition on 
 
 Hebrews i, 6, Vol, I, p. 99» 
 
Ch. 5. Anttpcedohaptifls anfwered* 1 99 
 
 withal that the fame cafe is not exprefsly coun- 
 tenanced, and incontrovertibly enjoined in 
 holy writ. But let the reader obferve, that the 
 following remarks are contained under the very 
 fame head of difcourfe. " The command of 
 " God is the ground and reafon of all religi- 
 " ous worlhip. — Now the command of God is 
 '' twofold i formal and vocal — real and interpret 
 " tativei confining in an impreffion of the 
 *' mind and will of God upon the nature of 
 " his creatures, with refpedt unto that obedi- 
 " ence which their ftate, condition, and de- 
 *' pendance on him requireth. The very na^ 
 " ture of an inteile6lual creature made for the 
 *' glory of God, and placed in a moral de- 
 *' pendance upon him, and fubjeclion unto him, 
 " hath in it the force of a command^ as to the 
 *' worfhip and fervice that God requireth at 
 *' their hands*." Therefore, on fuppofition that 
 nothing fhort of a command can authorize a re- 
 ligious aci:ion, the Dr. is clear that commands 
 are not only formal and vocal^ but alfo real 
 and interpretative. The former fort of com- 
 mands is founded on the infufficiency of in- 
 formation which man pofiefTes prior to their 
 being enadted, as to thofe particular i enjoined \ 
 the latter fort continues of equal force with the 
 other, as far as the information goes. 
 
 The Poedobaptifts are clafTed by Mr. B. 
 with Fisher the Jefuit in their conclufions, 
 who when vindicating the worfhip of images 
 
 K 4 fays; 
 
 * lb, p. 9?, 
 
-2.00 OhjeSilons and Eva/tons of ' Ch. 5. 
 
 fays: " In the fcripture there is no exprefs 
 pra£^ice nor precept of worfhipping the image 
 of Chrift : yet there be principles which, the 
 light of nature fuppofed, convince adoration to 
 be lawful." But this we overturn two ivays 
 moft efFeduallyj without being beholden to Mr. 
 B.'s fallacious mode of arguing from the fJence 
 of fcripture, as if it were a rule of undiftin- 
 guifhed and univerfal application. Firft, pofi- 
 tive interdi<Slions arc dire£l]y oppofed to it; 
 (Exod. XX. otc.) and fecondly, the principles ai 
 right reafon give it no countenance, nay, rather^ 
 from the fame principles image worfhip is de- 
 
 monftrably abiurd. How far the alTertion, 
 
 " that there is no exprefs precept, he.'* is con- 
 
 . fiftent with iruth.^ the reader may judge from 
 
 perufmg the former volume, (Chap. iii. § 36 — 
 
 54-) 
 
 § 3* fs) ^T Js again obje<5ved, " That there 
 is no evidence of Pcedobaptifm before the lat- 
 ter end of the Jlcond or the beginning of the 
 third century*." To which I reply, 
 
 1. If it be the iiiH of Chrijl to baptize in- 
 fants, which I think has been demonfirated, the 
 fuppofed filence of antiquity is of little mo- 
 ment. 
 
 2. The very objeclion, as f^ated by Mr. B. 
 himfelf, implies, that, " towards the latter end 
 of the fccond^ or the beginning of the third cen^ 
 tury^'* i. e. about one hundred years aUcr the 
 
 death 
 
 ♦ See Pcedob. Ejcanri, Chap, ix. faJJ-m, 
 
^Ch. 5» Antlpcedoh<iptiJis anjwered, 201 
 
 death of the apollle John, Poedobaptifm incon* 
 teftibly exifted. 
 
 3. The comparative filence of near a century 
 after the apoftoHck age, by no means implies 
 that the practice of baptizing children was not 
 then in ufe. If the practice be a part of chrif- 
 tian duty, as v^e maintain, it is more charita- 
 ble to fuppofe they did adhere to it, than the 
 contrary, where we are not determined by po- 
 fitive evidence either way. And 
 
 4. Supposing it was actually oppofed by 
 fome foon after the apoftolick age, (which does 
 not yet appear,) e^en this, of itfelf, would no 
 more prove it wrong:, than the oppoiitions made 
 to other now acknowleds^ed truths proved them 
 fo. 
 
 5. To which I may add in the language o£ 
 Mr. TowGooD : " If any thhik it ftrange, that 
 we have no more exprefs teftimonies to this 
 practice of the church, in the writings of thefe 
 fathers, let him coniider— That the far greater 
 part of their writings are loftj- and that it is 
 little more than their names and a few pieces 
 of their work^ efpecially as to the firjl age, 
 that are tranfmitted down to us.— And alfo [pro- 
 bably] that the baptifm of infants being then 
 univerjdlly praciijcd^ and no doubts or djfpute 
 having ever been moved about it j and it being 
 like.wife the conftant ever-prevaiiing cuHoin of 
 all the enemies of chriiliani'y, both Jews and 
 Pagans^ to admit infants to a participation of 
 their religious ceremonies and rites together with 
 
 K 5 tf^eir 
 
202 Obji5itons and Eva/tons of Ch. 5, 
 
 their parents, Thefe things confidered, it will not 
 appear ftrange that this point is io rarely touch- T^^^ 
 ed on in the writings of thofe times. There 
 are a thoufand religious books written in the 
 prejent age^ in which the leaji hint is not to be 
 found about baptizing of infants, tho' the point 
 has now been fo long and fo warmly contro- 
 verted amongft us : much lefs, then, fhould one 
 cxpe6l to find any thing but a few allufions 
 and hints as to this matter, in the books of 
 thofe early times*." 
 
 § 4. The firft authorities produced by Mr. 
 B. to fupport his pofition are Salmasius and 
 SuiCERUS, who aflert, that " In the tzuo firjl 
 centuries, no one was baptized, except, being 
 inftruded in the faith, and acquainted with 
 the dodrine of Chrift, he was able to profefs 
 himfelf a believer ; becaufe of thofe words, He 
 that believeth and is baptized.'' But to confront 
 their authority, let the following obfervations of 
 the learned Mr. Bingham, whofe refearches 
 into Ecclefiaftical Antiquities are well known to 
 be very great, be well confidered : " Infants were 
 of two forts, either fuch as were born of chrif- 
 tian parents, or fuch as were born of Heathens, 
 but by fome providential means became the 
 pofTeffion and property, as I may call it, of the 
 chriftian church : Neither of which fort were 
 excluded from baptifm, when fufficient fponfors 
 could be provided for them. This is fo evi- 
 dent 
 
 * The Baptifm of Infants a Rcafonable Service, p, 31, iz% 
 
Ch. 5. jint'iposdobaptl/is anfwered. 203 
 
 dent from the ancient records of the church, 
 that it is to be wondered how fome learned 
 perfo.iS could run into the contrary opinion, and 
 offer reafons from antiquity in prejudice of the 
 church's conftant praftice. Mr. Wall in his 
 elaborate Difcourle of Infant Baptifm, has juftly 
 refledled upon abundance of thefe men, who 
 by their unwary conceffions, have given too 
 great advantage to the Anabaptirts of this age. 
 There are fome others alfo, which he had not 
 feen, who advance as unworthy notions of the 
 ancient pradice : For Salmasius, and Suice- 
 Rus out of him, (Thefaur. Eccles. Tom. ii. 
 p. 1 136.) deliver it as authentick hiftory, that 
 for the two firft ages no one received baptifm, 
 who was not firft inftru6led in the faith and. 
 do(5trine of Chrift, fo as to be able to anfwer 
 for himfelf, that he believed^ becaufe of thofe. 
 words, He that bdieveth and is baptized. Which 
 in efFeft is to fay, that no infant for the two 
 firft ages was ever admitted to chriftian bap- 
 tifm. But afterwards they own Pcedobaptifm 
 came in, upon the opinion, that baptifm was 
 neceffary to falvation. Now I fhall not think 
 myfelf obliged to^ be very prolix in refuting this 
 opinion, together with the falje Juppofttion which 
 is made the foundation of it, lince that has fo 
 often, and fo fubflantially been done by Vos- 
 sius*. Dr. FoRB£st, Dr. Hammond ||, Mr. 
 Walker J, and efpecially Mr. Wall**, who 
 
 K 6 '; has 
 
 * De B^pt. D.fp. xiv, f InflruG, Kjft. Theol, Lib. x. cap. <;. 
 11 Dcf, of Infant-Eapt. ch, 4. X Plea for Infant- J-^apt. ch. xivii. &c, 
 *» Hift. of inf. BApt, Part I. chap, i, &c, 
 
204 Ohjaftlons and EvajJons of Ch. 5. 
 
 has exa£lly confidered the teftimany and authority 
 of aimofi every ancient venter that has faid any 
 thing upon this fubjec^. — In all ordinary cafes, 
 where water baptifm might be had, they [the 
 moft ancient fathers] concluded as generally for 
 the necejfity of it, from that alTertion of our Sa- 
 viour, Except cue be born of water and the Spi' 
 rifi J?e cannot enter into the kingdo?n of God, 
 This was not only a do6lrine of thc^ third or 
 fourth ages, as Salmasius and Suicerus rc- 
 prefent, but the doclrine of the very firjl ages, 
 immediately fucceeding the apoftles. For we 
 fee Hermes Pastor [Lib. I. Vif. iii. cap. 3. 
 Lib. in. Simil. ix, n. 16.] who lived in the 
 apoftolical age, founds tlie general necefTity of 
 baptifm upon that very faying of cur Saviour. 
 And therefore they who reprefent this do£lrine 
 of the necefTity of baptifm, as a novelty or an 
 error firft introduced into the church in the 
 age of Saint Austin againft the Pelagian 
 hereticks, do manifeft wrong both to the doc- 
 trine itfelf, and to Saint Austin, and to the 
 ancients, who embraced and delivered the fame 
 before him. And it gives an unnecejjhry ad- 
 vantage to the Antipcedobaptif.s, which a right 
 undcrjranding of this matter abfolutely takes 
 from them. I thought it therefore of fome 
 ufe to obferve this againft Salmasius and SU- 
 ICERUS, and to add it to the obfervations 
 which Mr. Wall has made upon Hermes 
 
 Pastor *." 
 
 It 
 
 * £in£jiam'» Origin. Ecclefiaft. D. xi, C. i?, § 5, 6. 
 
Oh. '$. Atit'iposdobapf'iJIs anfiuered, 205 
 
 It is well known to the learned that Jus* 
 TIN IVlARTi'R wrote and flourifhed Toon a.r'ter 
 the apoftoiick age : for his converfion happened 
 about the fixteenth )ear of Trajan^ that is, 
 A D. 132 — Tiiat the apology which he pre- 
 fented to Antoi-^inus i-'ius, and the young 
 C^jars^ being the firjl he wrote, was cornpored 
 about A. D. 150.— And that he fuffered mar- 
 tyrdom about the fecond year of Marcus An- 
 toninus, Ar D. i6d, or according to Baro- 
 Nius A. D. 165. Now Justin plainly fays, 
 in the apology juA referred to, commonly cal- 
 led the fecond, akho' in reality it be the firfl, 
 js OupiN obferves, that there were in his 
 time, " Several men and women of fixty or 
 feventy y-ears old, z\ ly. vcn^uf tfA.u&rp,ivhsrcu> ru XQirv 
 who from infants had been difcipled^ profelyted, 
 or devoted to Chrift^^" Here he ufes the very 
 word of the commiiTion, (xu^iolivaj^ with which 
 baptifm is fo ftridily and infeparabJy connected. 
 Dijciple all nations bapti-zing them (Matt, xxviii. 
 19.) Now if any were chjc'iphd^ profelyted, or 
 devoted to Chrift (which we have (hewn to 
 be the legillative force of the word, chap. iii. 
 § 45 — 47.) from their vifancy^ sk wa»^u;v, they 
 muft have been baptized from their infancy like- 
 wife, according to the commiffion, and while 
 feme of the apoftles were yet living. 
 
 The author of the Recognitions^ who was co- 
 temporary with Justin Martyr, and fup- 
 pofed by fome to be Bardesanes. Syrus, 
 fpeaks of the nec^ffity of baptifm thus : ''' The 
 
 weaknefs 
 
 * JvsTiK, ApcJ, lit p. 62, 
 
206 Ohje£fions a7id Evaftons of Ch. 5. 
 
 weaknefs of the firft nativity, which comes to 
 you by man, is lopt off when you are (^egeyie- 
 rato ex aqua) regenerated of water, and renewed 
 to God ; and thus you may arrive at falvation, 
 "which otherwife is not attainable. For thus 
 the true prophet [Jefus Chrilt] hath aflured us 
 with a folemn affeveration, faying. Verily I fay 
 unto you except one be born again of water he 
 fhall not enter the kingdom of heaven'^:* Now 
 fmce this author holds the neceffity of baptifm 
 to purge away original fin (we do not jufhfy 
 his dwinity\ and for an entrance into the king- 
 dom of heaven, is it not highly probable that 
 he in fail baptized infants? Inconteftible evi^ 
 dence and certainty that he did is not neceffary, 
 for the nature of the cafe only requires, that, 
 in connection with all preceding accounts of 
 xight and fa£i^ it was more probable infants were 
 admitted to thefe apprehended bleflings by bap- 
 tifm, than the con.rary. Ard if it be right to 
 baptize infants, charity conllrains us to fuppofe 
 that this matter of right was reduced to fa^y if 
 we are not prevented by fome counter-proof. 
 
 *' Here then we have another author within 
 the compafs of the two firft ages, direcl;]y con- 
 fronting that aflcrtion of Salmasius and Sui- 
 CERUs, 1 hat the doaiine of the neceffity of 
 baptifm to falvation, was not the dodrine of 
 the two firji ages^ but only an opinion taken up 
 afterwards, upon which foundation the pradtice of 
 infant baptifm was introduced into the church. 
 For no one can, or ever did, declare himfelf 
 
 plainer 
 • Recognit. Lib. vi, n. 9, Ap. CoTetER. Tom. i. p. 55i» 
 
Ch. 5. Ant'ipcedohaptiJJs anfwered. 20 J 
 
 plainer for the neceffity of baptifm to falvation, 
 than this author does, from the words of our 
 Saviour Chrift, which he interprets, as all the 
 ancients both before and after him did, of the 
 ordinary neceffity of water-baptifm to falvation. 
 So that if infant baptifm was founded, as Sal- 
 ma si us pleads, upon the opinion of the ne- 
 ceffity of baptifm to falvation ; this author 
 mull be an aflertor of mfant baptifm, becaufe 
 he was undeniably an aflertor of the general 
 neceffity of baptifm to falvation*." 
 
 Iren-^bus, who according to Dr. Cave, and 
 Mr. DoDWELL, was born about A. D. 97, while- 
 the apoiile John was yet living, fays^ " For 
 Chrift came to fave all perfons by himfelfj alJ 
 I fay, qui per eum renascuntur in Dewn:^ 
 who by him are regenerated unto God, In- 
 fants and little ones, and children, and youths, 
 and elder perfons f." Now what is meant by 
 reiiafcuntur we may learn from himfelf when, ia 
 a parallel place, (Lib. i. cap. 18.) he fays, " ra 
 
 ^a7rlto-/.calo5 t»j? ei? ©eo» <x.v(x,ytvr(i<Tiu<^'i baptifm-^ which is 
 
 our regeneration unto God, or, the baptifm of 
 regeneration to God." And that Iren^us is 
 not fingular in calling baptifm regeneration^ nay 
 that all the ancients commonly do the fame_, 
 SuicERUs himfelf owns|. 
 
 Mr. B. objects to this pafTage by obferving : 
 " If thefe expreliions, zvho by him are rege- 
 nerated 
 
 * Bingham ut fupra, § 8. •\ Iren Lib. ii, cap. 39. 
 
 J T^efaur Ecdesi Voce uvctySiVvr,aU* See alfo Wall's Hif- 
 tory, and Anlwer to Gal£« 
 
20$ Qhje^Silons and Evafions cf Ch. 5. 
 
 NERATJED to Goiy fignify the fame as being 
 Baptized; they convey the idea of our Lord 
 hnnfelf baptizing perfons of different ages. But 
 this wc know was far from being a faci; for 
 Jefus himfcif baptized not^ John iv. 2/' But 
 the author is not fpeaking of Chrift's coming 
 to fave ail perfons who per cum had been bap- 
 tized, but all vjho are j which puts Chrift's 
 bodily prefence abfohitely out of the queftion. 
 Therefore, whether we underftand by the word, 
 renafcnntur^ baptifm, or a fpiritual change, the 
 phrafe per eum is equally proper : the former being 
 effected by his grace^ the other by his authcrity. 
 If iRENiEUs, therefore, intends by the pafTage, 
 what was cojnmcnly meant by the term in quef- 
 tion in thofe early times, namely baptifm, as 
 Mr. Wall in his Hifto)-y, and in his . an- 
 fwer to Gale's Refiedlions, has abundantly 
 proved, the meaning is, " Chrill: came to fave 
 all^ infants, &c. who are, thro' him (his medi- 
 ation, his name, in virtue of his authority,) 
 haptixedy i. e. feparated to God by the chnftiaa 
 purification." But this *' repreients our Lord 
 as coming into the vvorld to fave thofe only 
 ■who are baptized ; an imagination (adds Mr, 
 B.) which is abhorrent from truth, and ought 
 not without the cleared evidtnce to be charged 
 on tlic venerable ancient," In tiie firft place, 
 our prefent inquiry is not about theological but 
 hijhrical truth. And, if any one is difpofed 
 to fupport tl:e credit of thefe " venerable anci- 
 ents" by d^;nying plam feels (of which the 
 
 writings 
 
Ch* 5. jintipoedobapiijls anfwefed, 209 
 
 writings of Hermes, Justin Martyr, the 
 Reccg7iitions of Bardesanes Syrus, Iren^eus, 
 Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullian, Am- 
 brose, Chrysostom, Gregory Nyssen, &c, 
 are ilandmg monuments) let him, for me, in- 
 dulge the fancy, and enjoy the profits. — la 
 fhorr, IrentEUs's real meaning appears to me - 
 to be this, That it was our Lord's avowed ex- 
 plicit defign, by becoming incarnate, and going, 
 pr ornnem tstateniy thro' the feveral ftages of 
 life, to make an exhibitory grant of falvation to 
 all the baptized ; that the falvation was intended^ 
 according to the tenor of its external difpenfa- 
 tion, for all, infants, &c. devoted to God, by 
 baptifm, thro' Chrift, and not for Jome only. 
 He is not fpeaking of the internal application 
 of falvation (according to the hidden purpofe 
 of Heaven) but of its external exhibition ; not 
 the fecret things which belong unto the Lord, 
 but thofe things which are revealed^ that belong 
 to us and cur children for ever ; that Jefus 
 Chrift came into ihe world to fave fmners; 
 that it is his exprefs v/ill and pleafure, no ont^ 
 fet apart to God by tiic initiatory rite, (hould 
 perifh for want of a Saviour and Juitable meam 
 cf Salvation ; that Chrift and his falvation are 
 fo far defigned for them, that nothing but their 
 criminal reje^ion of the merciful grant can de- 
 prive them of it. But for any to be made 
 zuilimg in the day of Chrift's power; to ha\'e 
 the light of truth fhining in the mind, by the 
 efficiency of him who commanded the primi- 
 tive 
 
210 Ohje^ions afid Evafions of Ch. 
 
 tive natural light to fhine out of darknefs ; 
 to be adlually reftored to the favour and image 
 of God, and made happy with the enjoyment 
 of his falvation, muft be referred, not to the 
 mere exercife of the juftice and equity of moral 
 government, but to the juft and equitable ex- 
 ercife of fovereign grace. Without attending 
 to this plain and neceffary diflinaion, not only 
 the writings of the fathers, but a great part of 
 the holy fcriptures will be involved in obfcurity 
 and feeming contradidions 
 
 Clemens Alexandrinus, who flouriflied to- 
 wards the clofe of the fecond century, has thefe 
 remarkable words : " If any one be a fiQier- 
 
 man, ATro^c^a fjLf^'jYtO-iloa y.sci ruiv af v^cclog avAC'nu^iiivujt 
 
 9rat^;a;y, let him think of an apoftle and the 
 children taken out of the water *^" On which 
 palTage Gentianus Hervetus has this com- 
 ment: " if there be engraven in 'a feah-ring 
 the pi<5lure of a fi(hei-man [or rather as Cle- 
 ment's own words are, If a fifherman will 
 have an engraving on his feal] let him think 
 of St. Peter, whom Chrift made a fifher of 
 men; and of the children which, when bap- 
 tized, are drawn out of a laver of water, as 
 out of a fifli-pondf." The father '^ is in 
 this chapter^ fays Mr. Wall, giving direcHon 
 to chriftian men and women concerning the 
 gravity and modefty to be ufcd in their appa- 
 rel 
 
 • Picdagog. Lib. iii. C, II. f See Wall's Defence of 
 Hift, Inf, Bapt. Appendix, p. 9, \q^ 
 
Ch, 5. Ant'ipoedohaptijls avfzvered, 711 
 
 rel and ornaments. And among other things 
 fpeaks of the rings then ufually worn on their 
 fingers, and the feals engraven on them. He 
 earneftly forbids all idolatrous and lafcivious 
 pi6lures or engravings ; and advifes to fuch as 
 are innocent, modeft and ufeful ; and fays thus, 
 Let your feal be a dove, or a fifh, or a (hip 
 under fail, or a harp, as was that of Poly cra- 
 tes ; or an anchor, which Seleucus made his 
 choice. jind if any one he a Jijher?nan^ ccc — 
 As the emblem of an anchor, or of a (hip 
 under fail, ufed for the imprefs of a fail ring, 
 does fuppofe thofe things to be commonly feen, 
 known, and ufed; fo St. Clement's advifing the 
 emblem of an cpojlle baptizing an infant^ to be 
 ufed by the chriftians in his time (which was 
 but about ninety yean after the apoftles) for 
 the fculpture of their feals, does fuppofe it com- 
 monly known by them that the apoftles did 
 perform that office. 
 
 This paffage has not efcaped Mr. B.*s no- 
 tice, and he takes no hnall pains to evade the 
 force of it. But the fum total of what he 
 fays, amounts only to this. That the term 
 vat^iot¥ is fometimes applied to ycung converts 
 to chriftianity as well as infants ; which no one 
 denies. But it (hould not be forgotten that in 
 this branch of our fubje6l we adt on the de^ 
 fenfvsy and therefore that a demonf ration of the 
 negative is unnecelTary ; and if the -balance of 
 probability turns in our favour, our advantage is 
 abundant. Whether the term, vrm^wy be " ex- 
 
 prelTive 
 
212 Ohjeci'iGns and Evafions of .Ch. 5. 
 
 preffive of young converts to chriftianity," or to 
 little children literally, let the learned reader judge 
 for himfelf. For my own part, 1 cannot help 
 thinking, but that the above Comment of Gen- 
 TiANus Hervetus, in connection with the 
 «xprefs defjgn of Clement in this chapter^ i« 
 the mojl probable meaning, notwithitanding the 
 wnited efforts of Mr. B. and Barker to (hew 
 the contrary. 
 
 § 5. As for Tertullian, who was cotem- 
 porary with Clement, Mr. B. allows that he 
 " fpcaks exprefsly of infant baptifm." The fol-, 
 lowing paffage is found in his treatife De Bap^ 
 iifmo (cap. xviii.): " According to every per- 
 fon's condition and dijpofition^ and even their 
 oge^ the delay of baptifm is more ufefuhy but 
 cfpecialiy with regard to Utile children. For 
 v/hat nccefTity is there, that the fponfors alfo 
 fhouid be brought to danger. Becaufe either by 
 death they may break their promifes, or qI'lq 
 may be deceived by a future wicked difpofition. 
 Our Lord indeed fays. Do not forbid the?n to 
 tome unto me. Therefore, let them. co?ne pro- 
 vided they grow up ; let them come provided 
 they learn; provided they are taught whither 
 they come : let them be made chnllians, pro- 
 vided they can know Chrift. Why does this in- 
 nocent age make hafte to the r^mifjlou cf fins 
 [i. e. biiptfm'] ? In worldly affairs men act more 
 CuWtioufly, tlian to entruft ' him with a divine 
 treafure, to wliom earthly fubftance is not cn- 
 trulied. Let them know how to afk faivation, 
 
 that 
 
Ch. 5. Antipa^dobaptijh anjwered, 2r> 
 
 that you may appear to have given it to one 
 that afketh. For no lefs reafon unmarried perfom ! 
 alfo fhoLiId be delayed, who are expofed to 
 temptation; as well as virgins by reafon of ma- 
 turity, as widows by being deiiitute of a con- 
 fort; until they either marry, or be confirmed 
 in continence." From this paffage Mr. B. ga- 
 thers that infant baptifm " was then a novel 
 pra£lice, was juft commencing, and approved by 
 very few^^ becaufe Tertulliaw oppofes it; 
 *' had it been otherwife, fays he, there is no ^ 
 reafon to imagine that the celebrated African 
 Father would have treated it as he did.'* But 
 that he had no good reafon for fo treating it 
 may appear from his own account, for it is the 
 like reafon with that wliich he urges for pro- 
 craftinating the baptifm of unmarried vjomen ! 
 which Mr. B. I prefume mud efteem fufficiently 
 whimfical and ablurd.— y/ novel practice jufl com^ 
 mmcing^ approved by very few I If this be a 
 fair inference, we are authorized, from the fame 
 premifes, to conclude, that " to baptize un- 
 married women, who are furrounded v/ith temp- 
 tations, as well virgins as widov/s, was a novel 
 prdSfice^ juji cojmnencing^ approved by very fdw! 
 — 'I he Truth is, Tertullian entertaine(f 
 unfcriptural and fupedlitious notions about the 
 nature and importance of baptifm, vvhich made 
 him add to the above palTage the following 
 words : '' They who underitand, the importance 
 of baptifm \%i]l rather be afraid to receive if|' 
 than to put it off,'* He thought that fm after 
 
 baptifm 
 
21 A. ObJeSfions and Eva/tons of Ch. 5. 
 
 baptifm, was fomething vaftly different from fia 
 hefore bzpud-n, if at all pardonable. Readmits 
 the FACT that little children were baptized ; and 
 that fponfors undertook for them, (probably he 
 refers to children of heathen parents come to 
 the poffeffion of chriftians, when he fpeaks of 
 /ponjors, and if fo that the advice of delaying 
 baptifm refers only to them) but he does not 
 attempt to (liew that it was " a novel pra^ice, 
 juji commencing, approved by very few^ With 
 far greater propriety we may fay, that his fu- 
 tile mode of reafoning on the fubjed, founded on, 
 fuperftition, (for which he was remarkable in 
 many other refpeas, as his works teftify) was 
 a " novel pra^ice, juJi commencing, and approved 
 
 by very few."*^ 
 
 « That this ancient writer, fays Mr. B. 
 had a high regard for traditional rites in the 
 affairs of religion, is plain beyond a doubt, from 
 what he fays when profefTediy handling that 
 very fubjecl. His words, as given us by an 
 eminent Pcedobaptifl [Wall's Hifl. Part II. 
 chap, ix.] are as follow:-" To begin with 
 baptifm— When we are taken up out of the 
 water, we tafle a mixture of milk and honey ; 
 and from that day we abftain a whole week 
 from bathing ourfelves, which otherwife we ufe 
 every day. -At every fetting out, or entry on 
 bufmers ; whenever we co-ne in, or go out from 
 any place ; when we drefs for a journey j when 
 we go into a bath; when we go to meat; 
 when the candles are brought in j when we lie 
 
 down J 
 
Cfi. 5. Antipoedohaptijls anfwered, 215 
 
 down, or fit down, &c. whatever bufinefs we 
 have, we make on our foreheads the lign of the 
 crofs. If you fearch in the fcriptures for any 
 command for thefe and fuch hke ufages, you 
 ihaJl find none. Tradiiion will ^ be urged to 
 you, as the ground of them ; cuftom as the 
 confirmer of them ; and our religion teaches to 
 obferve them." Next follows Air. B.'s very 
 fingular remark: " Hence it appears, fays he, 
 with fuperior evidence! that this ancient author 
 confidered infant baptifm as a novel invention." 
 How, in the name of Logic, does this conclu- 
 iion follow from the premifes ; He fubjoins, 
 " As a pradicc, that was neither injoined by 
 divine command, nor warranted by publick 
 examples, nor yet recommended by the poor pre- 
 tence of tradition, nor even countenanced by 
 prevailing cullom." If you are dim-fighted, 
 reader, have reccurfe to your glafTes, and wipe 
 them clean, and the conclufion, no doubt, will 
 appear with fuperior evidence. Yes : becaufe 
 Tertullian does not mention infant baptifm 
 among the unwritten traditions and cuftoms of 
 the church, therefore it was neither injoined by 
 divine command, nor warranted by apoftolick 
 examples ! But, fmce the Pcedobaptifts are fond 
 of truih without evidence^ it may be more pleaf- 
 ing to fome of them to view the following 
 darker conclufion, vi/.. inafmuch as this ancient 
 author does not diiluade from the pracSlice of 
 baptizing infants hecauj- ii was a novel inven- 
 tion, it is incredible that it was fuch ; for if 
 
 he 
 
2i6 OhjeSfions a?id Evofiom of Ch. 5. 
 
 he believed it to be an- innovation, why does 
 he not reje6l it upon that ground, which would 
 have been, on the- fuppofition, an eflential to- 
 pic of diffuafion ? Moreover ; his mentioning 
 thofe words of our Lord, Nol'ite illos frohibere 
 ad me venire^ Do not forbid iheh^^ to come unto 
 me^ in the form of an objeSiion againft his ad- 
 vice to dejer their baptifm ; ftrongly intimates, 
 that the pra£lice ilfelf was wont to be urged, 
 and thought valid, from thofe memorable and 
 gracious words; and which TertuLLIAN op- 
 pofes with the fame reafon and fuccefs as the 
 dfciples^ when they forbad the Utile children to 
 he brought to Chriji. For with equal propriety 
 might they have expoftulated with the prohi- 
 bited children's parents ; " Let them come when 
 they are grown up ; let them come when they 
 can learn; when they are taught whither it is 
 they come; let them be made chriftians, when 
 they are capable of knowing Chrift." That is 
 a goodly mode of anfwering an objecSlion, which 
 confifts in repeating the very things objedted 
 to! Let not the children be brouglit now^ fay 
 the difciples; Nay " fuffer them to come and 
 forbid them not," fays Chrift; Sufcr them to 
 come^ fays the catholic church, on Chrift's au- 
 thority ; No^ fays the African Innovator (except 
 where there is danger of death) ; No^ fay the 
 Antipocdobaptifts, let not the children be 
 brought novj, but let them be better qualified. 
 On the whole; if Mr. B.'s account of the 
 
 above cexbrated palTage be compared with the 
 
 Qri7inaly 
 
Ch. 5. Antipoedohaptifls anfwered* T^iJ 
 
 original^ it will foon appear with what jufticc 
 thof^ acute criticks, the Monthly Review- 
 ers, pronounced it " partial /' and faid that 
 he " hath not prefented the reader with the 
 whoUy nor the exadi fenfe of the ancient Fa- 
 ther." And I flatter myfelf it will alfo appear, 
 from the prefent attempt^ that what they further 
 add, is equally juft ; " When the otnijfton is fup- 
 plied, and a fair tranflation given, the paflage 
 will bear a different ajpe£i*" 
 
 Or I GEN, who flourilhed in the beginning of 
 the third century, has various paflagcs that tend 
 to illuftrate and confirm the antiquity of infant 
 baptifm; " fome of which paflages, fays Mr. B. 
 it muft be allowed, are plain and exprefs to 
 the point." A few here follow. " What is the 
 reafon, why the baptifm of the church, conferred 
 for the remiffion of fins, is alfo adminiftered 
 to infants F Since, were there nothing in in- 
 fants that required forgivenefs and mercy, the 
 grace of baptifm might feem fuperfluousf." 
 And again : " Infants are baptized for the re- 
 miffion of fins. Of what fins ? Or when have 
 they finned ? Or how, in the cafe of little 
 children, can any reafon of the laver [i. e. bap- 
 tifm] hold good; except according t© the fenfe 
 before mentioned ? No one is free from pol- 
 lution, tho' his life upon earth were but the 
 length of one day. And, becaufe by the facra- 
 ment of baptifm our native pollutions are put 
 away, therefore it is that infants are baptized. 
 Vol. II. L For 
 
 * Monthly Keview> Vol. j.xxi, p. 213, -f Horn, viii, on LcTJt* 
 
21 8 Obj^Siims and Evafions of Gh. 5. 
 
 For except a man be bom of water and the 
 fpirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of hea- 
 venj." And elfewhere: " The church hath 
 received the tradition from the apoftles, that 
 baptifm ought to be adminiftered to infants. 
 For they to whom the divine myfteries were 
 committed know that there were in all, thofe 
 natural defilements which muft be wafhed away 
 by water" and the fpirit*." 
 
 To thefe ftriking teftimonies Mr. B. excepts : 
 ^^ It ought, however, to be obferved, that thofe 
 quotations are made, not from the Greek of 
 that celebrated Father, but from fuch Latin 
 verfions of his works as are very corrupt, and 
 confequently render it quite uncertain what was 
 his opinion in reference to that affair." In an- 
 fwer to which, let the following remarks of 
 Dr. Wall fuffice: " If there were found in 
 thefe tranflations of Origen but one or two 
 places, and thofe in Rufinus alone, that did 
 fpeak of infant baptifm ; there might have been 
 fufpicion of their being interpolations. But 
 when there are fo many of them, brought in 
 on feveral occafions, in tranflations made by fe- 
 veral men, who were of feveral parties and ene- 
 mies to one another, as St. Hierom and Ru- 
 finus were, and upon no temptation (for it is 
 certain that in their time there was no difpute 
 about infant baptifm) that they fhould be all 
 v/ilhout any reafon forged, is ahfurd to think. 
 Efpecially if we confider that thefe tranflators 
 
 lived 
 X Horn, xiv, in Lev, * Or ic, Comment, in Rom. Lib. v. cap. 6# 
 
Ch. 5* Antlpcedohaptifls anfwered, 219 
 
 lived not much more than an hundred years af- 
 ter Origen's time; and the chriftians then 
 muft know whether Infants had been ufed to 
 be baptized in Origen's time, or not; the 
 very tradition from father to fon muft have 
 carried a memory of it for fo fhort a time. 
 And then, for them to make Or i gen fpeak 
 of a thing which all the world knew was not 
 in ufe in his time, muft have made them ri- 
 diculous. And befides; in the Greek remains 
 there are fentences and expreflions fo like and 
 parallel — that they do confirm thefe to hQ genu- 
 ine tranflations*." To this I fhall fubjoin the 
 following remark, as not very foreign to the 
 fubje(tl: " What Mr. Booth fays of Rufinus 
 makes but little againft the teftimony of Ori- 
 GEN ; which, by the way, is not confined to 
 thofe books that wei-e tranilated by Rufinus. 
 But if there were interpolations, why muft thofe 
 parages be the interpolated ones ? Where is 
 the mark of their fpurious birth f?" St. Je- 
 rome, if his own plain teftimony is to be cre- 
 dited, tranilated the Homilies on St. Luke with- 
 out alteration, and in a manner literally exadt. 
 But the pallage already quoted from this part 
 of Or I gen's works, is ahfolutely decifive^ that 
 INFANTS, as well as adults, were admitted 
 into the church of Chrift by baptism in his 
 time. And in proportion as Rufinus's tranf- 
 
 L 2 lation 
 
 • Wail's Defence, Appendix, p. u. alfo Hlftory, Pait J. 
 chap, V. § 4, 4-c. 
 
 t Monthly Rev, Vol, ixxi. p, -14, 
 
220 ObjcSfions and Evafiom of Ch, 5. 
 
 lation is to be depended upon, it was the apof- 
 ties* praSiice^ and was continued in the catholic 
 church by their exprefs order. And we may 
 venture to appeal to any difpalTionate inquirer, 
 and impartial -judge upon the cafe, on fup- 
 pofition that this Tranflator did take liberties 
 ia fome points, whether it is not highly impro^ 
 table that thefe liberties ihould be taken, by any 
 man pofleffed of a few grains of common 
 fenfe, in a matter of faSfy of fuch publick noto- 
 rieiy ? I^^ matters of mere opinion it is reafon- 
 able to fuppofe he might have indulged confi- 
 derable freedom ; fuch as, about the final punijh^ 
 ?nent of the wickedy &c. but fuppofe him as ex- 
 ceptionable a tranflator as Mr. B. would have 
 him; nay, fuppofe him guilty of interpolations 
 in fome fpeculative points ; ftill, it is utterly in- 
 credible he (hould venture to interpolate where 
 a notorious faSl was concerned ; and foift a falfe- 
 hood into the works of Or i gen under the eye 
 of Jerome, of whom he muft have been jea- 
 lous, and, indeed, in the face of the whole 
 chriftian world, without any apparent reafon for 
 fo doing. He that can believe it, let him. 
 
 & 6. As to Cyprian, who flouriflied about 
 an hundred and fifty years after the apoftles, his 
 writings are fo decifively clear and full to the 
 point, that neither fophifm, nor the fond love 
 of hypothefis, have had the courage to difpute 
 his verdi6l concerning the exiftence and wide 
 extent of Pcedobaptifm. He, therefore, and the 
 following Fathers of the church are generally 
 
 given 
 
Ch. 5. AntipoedGhaptiJis anfwered* 21 1 
 
 given up, as incontejlihle. And fince Mr. B.'s 
 ohjeSi'ion does not extend to any of the chrif- 
 tian Fathers fubfequent to the time of Ori- 
 GEN, (tho* by the bye, he died but about 
 Jrjur years before Cyprian, the latter in A. D. 
 258, and the former about A, D. 254,) it is 
 not necelTary to produce their teftimonies. Suf- 
 fice it only to hint, for the fake of the lefs 
 inforiXied reader of thefe pages, that St. Cy- 
 prian gives us an account of a Council he'd 
 at Carthage A.-D. 253, where sixty-six bifh- 
 ops were convened ; that it was propofed to 
 this venerable afTembly, whether infants were to 
 be kept from baptifm till they were eight days 
 cldy as in the cafe of circumcifion, or might be 
 baptized fooner ? Without one diffenting voice, 
 a decretive anfwer was returned — That no in^ 
 fant is to be prohibited from the benefit of 
 baptifm, tho' but just born. Not the lead 
 demur appears to have been made about the 
 lawful nefs, duty or propriety of baptizing infants^ 
 but about the precife time of it as a (landing 
 cuftom ; which feems to have originated with 
 the fcrupulous Fidus, a country bifhop, when 
 thinking of the initiatory rite in the immediately 
 preceding difpenfation. About an hundred and 
 ftxty years after this council, a warm difput© 
 took place about original fm^ between St. Aus- 
 tin and Pelagius, which occafioned fomc 
 remarkable declarations concerning the baptizing 
 of infants, that otherwife might have never come 
 to light. Pelagius was pufhed hard by this 
 
 L 3 queftion 
 
222 OhjeSllons and ^vafiom of Ch. 5. 
 
 queftion of Austin — " Why _ are infants bap- 
 tized for the remiffion of fins, if they have 
 none?" The former is confounded; he knows 
 not what to fay. But inftead of attempting to 
 difcard Poedobaptifm as unfcriptural, unapoftoli- 
 ca], or an unwarrantable innovation, which he 
 could not have failed to have done had it been 
 in his power ; he declares, " That he never 
 had heard, even any impious heretick, who 
 ftiould affert, that infants are not to be bap- 
 tized." And again: " Who can be lb impious 
 as to hinder infants from being baptized:" 
 And Austin fcruples not to fay, " That he 
 did not remember to have ever read of any, 
 not only in the catholic church but even in any 
 herefy or fch'ifm whatfoever, who maintained that 
 baptifm ought to be denied to infants. This 
 the church has always pofTeiTed, has always main- 
 tained." No, the bold Innovator on the ca- 
 tholic pradice, Tertullian, did not hold 
 that they were incapable^ or even unfmtable fab- 
 jecls, fo far as to render their baptifm a nuU 
 Uty, He only advifed to delay it, from the no- 
 tion that fin after baptifm was hardly pardon- 
 able ; and that the facred laver waihed away all 
 antecedent crimes. 
 
 Thus I think the objection is fairly folved : 
 If Pcedobaptifm be a matter of fight^ as before 
 prtved^ it is both charitable and reafonable to 
 conclude (cat. par.}- that the pureft antiquity 
 praSlifcd it ; and as nothing but the cleareft evi- 
 dence to the contrary flvould make us alter this 
 
 judgment. 
 
Ch. 5» jintipcedobaptifis anfwered* 223 
 
 judgment, fo every degree of probability that it 
 was in fa£i obferved, is proportionably an evi- 
 dence, ex abundantiy over and above what is 
 ftridlly neceflary, in our favour. 
 
 § 7. (4) Mr. B. has a chapter on, " The 
 high opinion of the Fathers, concerning the uti- 
 lity of Baptifm, and the grounds on which they 
 proceeded in adminiftering that ordinance to in- 
 fants, when Pcedobaptifm became the prevail- 
 ing practice;" v/hich may be conlidered as one 
 of his capital obje^iions. But as the main force 
 of it, (if force it has,) is already weakened by 
 what has been advanced in anfwer to the lafl 
 objection, our reply may be the more concife. 
 
 Our author obferves, that the earlier Fathers 
 had learned either to call baptifm " The water 
 of life — or had afcribed to it an illuminating 
 power^ and connefted adoption^ perfe£iion^ and /w- 
 mortality^ with it — or had pronounced it a di^ 
 vine b/effingj which afcertains the abolition of fin^ 
 and is attended with a fanStifying energy J"^ I 
 then afk, Is it reafonable to think, is it credi- 
 ble, is i: not abfolutely incredible^ that JusTil* 
 Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertul- 
 LiAN, an<l others, who ufed this language, did 
 a£iually and out of choice fufFer fuch children 
 as were at their difpofal, to die unbaptized \ 
 The juftnefs of their motive is now out of the 
 queftion ; we inquire after the mofl probable 
 fact. Befides, not influenced by our oppo- 
 nents' maxim, " that pofitive laws imply their 
 negative,'* in reference to fome parts of their 
 
 L 4 chrifli a n 
 
224 Ohjeiiions and Evafmis of Ch. 5, 
 
 chriftian worfhip, what could reftrain them from 
 applying that to the youngeji of mankind^ v;hich 
 they apprehended to be fo falutary and requi- 
 fite for ALL ? 
 
 " The baptifm of infants was introduced and 
 prevailed, on the fuppofition of its being a nc'^ 
 cejjary mean of human happinefs : and — this 
 weak furmife was founded on a mifcake of our 
 Lord's meaning, in John iii. 5." It cannot be 
 denied, that " The ancient chriftian church, 
 from the highefl antiquity after the apoftolick 
 times, as Vitringa obferves, appears generally 
 to have thought, that baptifm is ahfoluiely necef- 
 fary for all that would be faved by the grace 
 of Jefus Chrift*j" but I deny that Pcedobap- 
 tifm arofe from that miftaken notion ; and 
 think it amounts to little fhort of demonftra- 
 tion, that the chriflian church ^^ from the higheji 
 antiquity'* adminiftered baptifm to the infant 
 part of the human race. But admitting this 
 opinion to be a miftaken one, in defence of 
 which John iii. 5. has been generally produced, 
 a queftion of confiderable moment arifes, viz. 
 How are we to account for fo extraordinary a 
 facl ? How came thefe venerable ancients, im- 
 mediately after the apoftolick times, thus to agree 
 in an interpretation of fo interefting a part of 
 holy writ, which is now exploded as indefenfi- 
 ble and abfurd ? On Antipcedobaptift principles, 
 I believe this muft appear an inexplicable pa- 
 radox. However, towards accounting for this 
 
 fmgular 
 
 * Obferv. Sac. Tom. J. Lib II. cap, vi, § 9, 
 
Ch. S* jfntlpasdobaptlfis anfwered, 225 
 
 fingular phoenomenon ia the chriftian church, 
 I would fubmit to conlideration the following 
 remarks. 
 
 I. If John the Baptlft, our Lord, his difci- 
 ples and apoftles, did a^ually admit infants, and 
 dependent children, along with their parents, 
 to their baptifms j it is comparatively eafy to 
 account for the mifinterpretation : for then it 
 will be, at moft, only affigning an inadequate 
 caufe to an acknowledged fa£i. That is to fay, 
 either, one eflential reafon why^ according to 
 them, any under the gofpel difpenfation enter 
 into the kingdom, is, becaufe they are baptized 
 with water: Or elfe, one reajon of Pcedobap- 
 tifm is, its necejjity to falvation, according to 
 John iii. 5. Suppofmg, then, that the primi- 
 tive chriftians were all Pcedobaptifts, they would 
 probably thus refle6l : " We obferve that all 
 ** chriftian families, and every member, both old 
 *' and young, male and female, are devoted to 
 " Father, Son, and Spirit, by baptifm ; this is 
 '^ a ftanding univerjal fa£i^ but what is the 
 '' principal caufe of it ? For, tho' fupported by 
 " precept and precedent^ tho* enjoined by the 
 " highejl authority,^ yet it muft be founded on 
 " fome important reajons. And feeing it is fo 
 univerfally adminiftered, may we not infer that 
 *' among other reafons afTignable for it, we arc 
 " to confider it as a necejfary mean of human 
 ** happinefs ; efpecially fince our Lord fays. Ex* 
 *' cept one be born of water and the Spirit^ be 
 '^ cannot eritsr into the kingdom of heavgn," On 
 
 L 5 the 
 
 C( 
 
226 ObjeSimis and Evafions of Ch. 5. 
 
 the other hand, fuppofing thefe ancients afled 
 on Antipoedobaptift principles, how (hall we 
 account for the Jluhhorn fa£i ? Would they not 
 rcafon to this effe6l ? " We lay this down as 
 a certain principle, becaufe plainly aflerted by 
 our Lord, that without being horn of water^ 
 that is, baptized, no one can enter into hea^ 
 ven under the prefent oeconomy. Therefore, 
 all our infant offspring, and children under age, 
 who are fummoned to eternity before they 
 make a perfonal application for the falutary 
 baptifmal rite, are inevitably— gloomy thought, 
 iiorrid fuppofition — are inevitably, and eternally 
 Joft ! Is this appointed by the God of Abra- 
 ham ? Is this authorized by the benevolent 
 Jefus ? ImpoiTible." But fhould it be faid, 
 that Antipoedobaptift principles have a direct 
 tendency to prevent the interpretation in quef- 
 tion. We reply, How, then, came it to be ac- 
 tually and fo univerfally embraced, immediately 
 after the apoftles' time ? It is but the effence 
 of folly to fet up mere hypothefis againft plain 
 fa6l. Nor can it be faid againft my argument 
 that Poedobaptifm was the genuine parent, but 
 the innocent occafion, of the erroneous fentiment 
 in queftion. For we, as well as our opponents, 
 dKcard and confiftently explode the latter. The 
 adminiftration of baptifm to infants as well as 
 adults, may afford the occafion, but is not the 
 real caufey why it may be thought of univerfal 
 neceflity. 
 2. The exa£l leading idea in the contro- 
 verted 
 
Ch. 5« ji7JtlpcedobapttJ}s anfwered. 227 
 
 verted text, appears to me to be this : '' Some^ 
 thing more than water baptifm^ is neceflary for 
 the happy enjoyment of the fpiritual bleflings 
 and glories of my kingdom ; and that is a fpi- 
 ritual baptifm^ or the renewing influences and 
 efFeds of the Holy Spirit, which may be termed 
 a fupernatural birth." Let it be obferved, that 
 at this very time John's extraordinary purifica^ 
 tion muft have made a great noife in Jerufa- 
 lem ; and what it fignified^ muft have been a 
 common topick of converfation. It cannot alfo 
 be reafonably doubted, that Nicodemus wi(hed 
 to procure a particular account of thofe things 
 about which men were fo much divided in 
 their opinions: for, as Dr. Doddridge ob- 
 ferves, " Our Lord's anfwer intimates, that he 
 either exprefsly made, or fecretly intended fuch 
 an inquiry : and it is impoflible to enter into 
 the beauty of this difcourfe, without confider- 
 ing it in this view*.'' And accordingly, this in- 
 quifitive Pharifee is given to uriderftand, that 
 the much talked of purification by water^ tho' 
 divinely appointed and fo univerfally adminif- 
 tered, was not fufficient to conftitute a fubje6t of 
 his kingdom in the fpiritual and moft fublime 
 import of it. " Your being born within the 
 pale of the Jewifh church, as if he had faid, 
 conftituted you formerly, and this initiation by 
 water befpeaks you now, '^ the children of the 
 kingdom "in an external fenfe ; but fuper added 
 to this, and infinitely more important is the 
 
 L 6 ' confiderationj^ 
 
 * Fam, Expof. in hi. Vol, i. Seft, 45, 
 
228 ; 0})je£i'ions and Eva/tons of Ch 5. 
 
 confideration, you muft be the renovated fub- 
 jea of divine influences, before you can enter 
 as fubjeds of my inviftble kingdom. Ceremonial 
 obfervances may admit in the former fenfe, but 
 fandifying grace alone infures the latter privi- 
 lege." The paflage, therefore, is elliptical \ " Z7«- 
 lefs a man he horn not only of water ^ but also 
 ef the Spirit^ he cannot enter into the kingdom of 
 God:' The former claufe only implies, by way 
 of conceffion^ that water baptifm is very well 
 in its place ; but the emphafis of necejfity in 
 regard of the higher and fpiritual import of the 
 term kingdom, belongs only to the latter claufe, 
 with which the other is not fo much connedted 
 as contrafled. 
 
 Hence it appears, that this ancient opinion 
 is eaftly accounted for comparatively, if they did 
 baptize their children in the apoftolick age; by 
 their fuppofing the ja5i of Poedobaptifm to be 
 in a great meafure founded on the necejfity of 
 baptifm to falvation, which was rather ftrength- 
 ened than generated by a mifunderftanding of 
 this elliptical paflage. On the contrary^, fo early 
 a prevalence of this notion, if they did not 
 baptize their children, is incredible, and morally 
 impojftble-y becaufe connected with the moft gloo- 
 my and horrid idea; i. e. That all their bu- 
 ried infants were ^unavoidably lodged in endlefs 
 woe! And hence it alfo appears, that what 
 Mr. B. has advanced as a plaufible objedion 
 to- Poedobaptifm, proves a flrong argument in 
 fjtVQur of its , apoftolical antiquity. 
 
 § 8. (5) Ano- 
 
Ch. 5. Antlpcedohaptijli anfivered, 22() 
 
 § 8. (5) Another objection, of which Mr. 
 B. often avails himfelf, is, " The diiagreement 
 of the modems concerning the grounds of Poe- 
 dobaptifm." In general, we reply; that the- 
 prefuraptive and probable reafons and grounds 
 for the pradice, have been always thought fo 
 numerous^ that it was difficult out of many to 
 fix upon the moji ftriking and folid. And this 
 is a natural confequence, arifing from the very 
 number of the mediums of proof. For it is 
 ever more difficult to chufe one out of many 
 things alike, than one out of a few. This alfo, 
 in a good meafure, accounts for the firmnefs 
 with which the condufton has been held by per- 
 fons who have difagreed about the coqiparative 
 importance of different arguments in this con- 
 troverfy. Each writer would be induced to 
 magnify and extol an argument which appeared 
 to him, viewed in certain conm£lions^ with fupe- 
 rior force ; and then by being difproportionately. 
 enamoured with the one convincing topick, might 
 be tempted to difcard all others as ufelefs. 
 Thus the famous Descartes, on a fubje(51: of 
 more awful importance, when he difcovered a 
 peculiar force in the argument for the Exijiencg 
 9f God which is founded on our idea of ^ifelf^ 
 exijlent Beings feemed to regard as ufelefs all 
 other demonftrations againft Atheifm. And yet 
 this very argument, which he thought rendered 
 all others unnecefTary, was renounced by other 
 writers on the fame fubje6i:, as in its turn un- 
 necefTary alfo, while notwithftanding the fame 
 
 concliifidK 
 
23<5 OhjeSfions and Eva/ions of Ch, 5. 
 
 conclufion was firmly and properly held. Bat 
 more particularly, 
 
 J. Some have laid confulerable flrefs on 
 
 « Jewijh Profelyte bapufm^:' But Mr. B. fays, 
 
 " There is no appearance, in the New Tefta- 
 
 ment, of this profelyte baptifm, but ftrong pre- 
 
 fumptive proof to the contrary." Not to enter 
 
 far into this inquiry, How foon did the profelyte 
 
 baptifm take place ? I would only fay, in the 
 
 language of Dr. Doddridge, who exactly ex- 
 
 prefles my thoughts -, " It is ftrange to me, 
 
 that any fhould doubt whether Profelytes were 
 
 admitted into the Jewifh church by baptifm, 
 
 that is, by ^vajhing-, when it is plain from ex- 
 
 prefs paflages in the Jewifh law, that no Jew, 
 
 who had lived hke a Gentile for one fmgle 
 
 day, could be reftored to the communion of 
 
 their church without it. Compare Numb. xix. 
 
 ici, 20. and many other precepts relating to 
 
 ceremonial pollutions ; by which the Jews were 
 
 rendered incapable of appearing before God in 
 
 the tabernacle or temple, till they were wajhedy 
 
 cither by bathing or fprinkling \ J*' And even 
 
 Dr. Gill allows that there Were baptifms among 
 
 the Jews for ceremonial wicleannefs -, and was 
 
 particularly uled in the cafe of fuch as had been 
 
 newly profelyted from heathenifm^ before they 
 
 could eat of the pafTover. He then adds : " Be- 
 
 fides, this baptijm — was not on account of pro- 
 
 felytifm, but was common to, and obligatory 
 
 upon 
 
 ♦ Pcedobi Exam, chap, xi. Seft. L J>apm, \ Fain. Expof* 
 Vol. i. Seft. 25, 
 
Ch, 5» Antiposdohapulis anjwend, 271 
 
 upon, a clrcumcifed Ifrieuti, in order to eat 
 of the paflbver ; as is avrknowledged by all'j:." 
 And again: " There v^re divers bathings, bap- 
 tifms — incumbent on the Ilraehtes, and (b upon 
 fuch Profelytes who were upon an equal tooting 
 with them, and equallv under obligation to obey 
 the ceremonial law; which confifted of divers 
 wafhings, baptiims, — yet none of them for Pro* 
 felytifm ; but for purification from one unciean- 
 nefs or another, in a ceremonial fenfe*/' So 
 then, it is an acknowledged fadl that baptifmal 
 purification was familiarly known to the Jews, 
 "when John the Baptift made his appearance, 
 and for many ages before. Should a doubt of 
 this fa6l ftill remain, Dr. Gale ftands readj 
 to remove it ; " That the Jews, fays he, on 
 account of feveral kinds of pollution, ufed to 
 purify themfelves by wajhing^ can not be quef- 
 tioned ; the diverfe wajhings [Gr. haptifms\ men- 
 tioned in the epiftle to the Hebrews (chap, ix, 
 10.), make it inconteftible. And it is plain 
 enough, that upon fome fuch notion, they were 
 wafhed after the fore of circumcifion was heal- 
 ed f." Therefore it appears with fuperior evi* 
 dence, from the teftimony of thefe competent 
 and unexceptionable witnefles, that baptifm was 
 well known, as a ceremonial, purifying rite, pri- 
 or to the chriftian sera ; confequently.- our Lord 
 appointed a ceremony which was in ufe before^ 
 
 as . 
 
 X Body of Div, Vol. iii. p. 47 J« * lb. p. 4$i« 
 •f Refleftions on Wali., p« 328. 
 
Ch. 5. ObjeSi'ions and Eva/tans of 232 
 
 as 2L/eal of the covenant to be applied to all 
 who are initiated into his church. Now it is 
 evident that thefe two things were of long 
 {landing, and by divine authority, among the 
 Jews, viz. Profelytifm and Baptifm, But they 
 were not conne6ledy fay our opponents; well, 
 fuppoHng they were not (which yet admits of 
 debate), is it reafonable to conclude {cat, par,) 
 that infants are not to be admitted profelytes, 
 lecaufe the ceremony of initiation is changed? 
 Infants were always admitted to the church 
 with their parents ; and we infift, that the an- 
 cient cuftom, as to the fubjeSfs^ is neither ex^ 
 pre/sly nor virtually altered in the New Tefta- 
 ment ; and therefore fhould be ftill admitted. 
 The ceremony of admiffion into the church is 
 indeed altered by our Lord's pofitive authority, 
 Profelyte all nations baptizing them-, and to 
 this we fincerely fubmit. Nor Jet our oppof- 
 jng brethren, we intreat them, call our fmce- 
 rity in queftion for their own fake, (Matt, 
 vii. I, 2.) 
 
 2. Others have ftrongly urged " external 
 covenant relation*,^' Mr. B. takes great pains 
 to fhew how various and inconfiflent are the 
 accounts given us by different Poedobaptift au- 
 thors ; but he feems fomewhat cautious, how he 
 denies the exiftence of an external covenant. No, 
 wc infift it is not in his power to deny, and 
 to fupport the denial, that it does not exift. 
 1 think it would be no hard matter to (hew, 
 that fuch a covenant as may be properly cal- 
 led 
 
 ♦ Padob. ExaxM, Chap, xi, Sc£t, II, ^ajim. 
 
Ch. 5. Antlpcedohaptffh anfwered,. 233 
 
 Jed an external one, exifting in the prefent day, 
 is no lefs truly and demonftrably connected with 
 the Old and New Teftament, than Euclid's 
 Ql E. D. is fo conneaed with his Theorem. 
 " If, fays our author — we confider the offspring 
 of believers as interefted, not in the efficacy^ 
 but in the adminift ration of the covenant — 
 where is that mighty difference, between the 
 ftate and prerogatives o'i fuch infants, and thofe 
 of children in common, who are brought up 
 where the means of religious inflruclion are en- 
 joyed ?" We retort ; Where is the mighty dif-^ 
 ference between baptized and unbaptized adults* 
 And do we ever deny, that the children of Antipce- 
 dobaptifts are in the adminijlratlon of the covenant ? 
 But this we are forry to add, that they are un- 
 jujily deprived ot the fed of that adminiflration, 
 " What is the external adminiftration of the 
 covenant, but the benign condudl of Providence, 
 in affording a written revelation, a gofpel mi- 
 niftry, and other means of fpiritual informa- 
 tion ?" True, and confequently baptifm. God*s 
 covenant to man, as before (hewn at large, is 
 z grant of mercy to him as a finner deferving 
 eternal woe. The grant, which baptifm feals, 
 is extenfive as the gofpel found, on the part of 
 God; but man's fubjective, participated interejl 
 therein, muft have its denomination, its kind 
 and degree, according to the reception and treat* 
 ment God's covenant grant meets with. A fpi- 
 ritual reception, (efTedted by fovereign grace) 
 infures a fpiritual fubjedtive, or aduaily partici- 
 pated 
 
234 Olje^ions and Evafwns of Ch, 5. 
 
 pated, intereft. A profejjtonal reception, infures 
 an external intereft. The nature and degree 
 of the reception or treatment the grant meets 
 vith, infallibly afcertains the nature and degree 
 of the poffejfion. Now the things that are re- 
 vealed^ particularly God's covenant, and if the 
 covenant, the feal annexed to it, belong to us 
 and to our children for ever. ( Deut. xxix» 
 29.) Our children as Vvell as ourfelves are 
 the obje^s of this grant ; their paffroe reception, 
 or 7wn-refjlance of the exhibited Itnercy, fliews 
 they have not forfeited the grant ; therefore, to 
 deem the grant theirs is but right; to allow 
 that the covenant belongs^ or is directed to them^ 
 is but according to truth j and therefore, it ir- 
 rcfragably follows, the feal is theirs. For the 
 feal is given in confirmation of the promife, or 
 external grants and not the internal pojfeffwn of 
 covenant mercy. Confequently, a parent who 
 takes the feal to himfelf, and withholds it from 
 his child, who is equally «n object of the 
 grant and whatever confirms it, when no per- 
 fonal forfeiture is fuppofed, is guilty of ir^juf-^ 
 tlce. 
 
 3. Some have pleaded in favour of Pcedobap- 
 tifm '' Jew'iJ}} circumcfon'^.^* How far the 
 topick of Circumcficn may be pertinently and 
 conclufively pleaded in this debate, has been 
 incidentally mentioned before; (chap, ii, § 32. 
 35. chap. iii. § 5, &c.) nor does it now re- 
 quire many wordo. For thus much is felf- 
 
 evident, 
 
 • Pffdobt Exam, chap. xi. Seft, III, pagrn^ 
 
Ch. 5» Antipcedohaptijls anjwered, 235 
 
 evident, (and it is fufficient for my purpofe,) 
 that Infants, during the long period from 
 Abraham to Chrift, were suitable objects 
 of a covenant grant; and capable subjects 
 of a covenant feal. And I may add, the grant 
 fealcd was " the rlghteoufnefs of faith," a fpU 
 ritual blefling; no lefs fpiritual than is now 
 exhibited under the gofpel, being, in fait, 
 virtually the fame as what Peter calls a pro- 
 mife^ when he fays. Ads ii. 39, The promife is 
 unto you^ and to your children ; not becaufe you 
 repent, but as your, encouragement to repent. 
 The Lord proclaims himfelf our God^ and gives 
 us his covenant and the feal of it, that we — 
 being drawn by thefe cords of love, and con- 
 defcenfion to human weaknefs, in a rational 
 and fuitable manner— might be induced to be- 
 come his people. To this end is infant cir- 
 cumcifion, and to this end is infant baptifm, 
 eminently fubfervient. To fay that baptifm is 
 a fuccedaneum for, or comes in the room of 
 circumcifion, is, perhaps, an exceptionable way 
 of dating the matter. But this we muft main- 
 tain, that what circumcifion eminently fealed^ 
 under the law^ baptifm feah under the go/pel-, 
 and this appears from a comparative view of 
 fcripture teflimonies concerning the nature and 
 defign of each. 
 
 § 9- (6) It is again objeded, ^« If infants 
 have a right to baptifm, they muft have a right 
 to the facred fupper ; and if they are admitted 
 to the former, they ought to be admitted to 
 
 the 
 
236 Obje^ions and Evafions of Ch. 5, 
 
 the latter, if we would preferve confiftency*." 
 That this is an obje6tion of very great mo- 
 ment in Mr. B/s efleem, appears not only 
 from the frequent mention he makes of it, in 
 different parts of his publication, but alfo from 
 his devoting a whole chapter to urge it. There- 
 fore a becoming refpecSt for my opponent, de- 
 mands from me a particular examination of 
 its force. Not to fay, that Dr. Priestley 
 has written profefTedly in favour of " Giving 
 the Lord's Supper to children," which may be 
 deemed by fome, independent of his reafonlng^ 
 a mighty argument in favour of the practice — 
 the following bold challenge is alone fuihcient 
 to juftify a clofe and impartial inquiry into 
 this matter: " The tenour of his argumea- 
 tation," fays Mr. B. when fpeaking of--Mr. 
 Peirce's publication on the fubje6i:, " is fuch^ as 
 may fnfely ch-alknge the united efforts of our 
 oppofers fairly to confute it, without fapping 
 the foundations of infant baptifm. Nor, indeed, 
 have I as yet heard of any profelTed anfwer 
 that was ever attempted ; tho' the caufe of Poe- 
 dobaptifm feems to require it, and tho* tlie 
 character of Mr. Peirce, for learning and parts, 
 may be juftly confidered as a motive to fuch 
 an attempt. For as the learned author grafts 
 infant communion on the principles of infant 
 baptifm, and in a mafterly way infifts upon it, 
 that thofe principles infer the Jormer as well as 
 the latter ; our opponents cannot be infenfible^ 
 
 that 
 
 * Sec Pcedob. Exam, chap, xii, pajm. 
 
Ch. 5« Aniipcedobaptijis anfwered* 237 
 
 that a thorough confutation of his Ejfay would 
 be of great importance to tlieir caufe, when 
 difputing with us. Were we to behold the 
 Pcedobaptift hypothecs fairly and intirely divorced 
 from its old allbciate, Infant communion ; that being 
 confirmed, while thh is confuted ; one great im- 
 pediment would be removed out of the way of 
 our commencing Poedobaptifts. — Now, to what an 
 extent analogical reafoning and inferential proof 
 may be purfued, in regard to pofitive inftitutions, 
 and for the fupport of error^ Mr. Peirce has given 
 us a ftriking inftance — fuch an inftance, that 
 we defpair of feeing his arguments really an- 
 fwered, on any principles but thofe of a Bap- 
 tift. If our opponents, however, be otherwife 
 minded, we (hould be glad to fee a trial of 
 their ftrength, by labouring to confute him on 
 the principles of Poedobaptifm*." This chal- 
 lenge I accept on Pcedobaptift principles. And 
 the rather, becaufe if I fucceed in refuting the 
 arguments of Mr. Peirce, I fhall by the fame 
 means anfwer the ohjeBlon of Mr. B. and what 
 is more, " one great impediment will be re- 
 moved out of the way of his commencing a 
 Pcedobaptift!'' 
 
 Let it be premifed, that Mr. B.'s objection 
 in efFeifl, confifts of two parts ; the firji refers 
 to the fuppofed inconfiftency of the Poedobap- 
 tifts, as to their own condu£i:, while adopting 
 the one practice and reje6ting the other.; and 
 the fecond refers to the impertinence of thofe who 
 
 tipd 
 
 • P«dob, Exam. p« 438, 442, 4431 
 
23^ OhjeSfions and Evajions of Ch. 5, 
 
 find fault with the Antipcedobaptifts for not 
 baptizing infants, while they do not give the eu- 
 charift to their own when baptized. Accord- 
 ing to the former^ we diftinguifh where there 
 is no difference, and act without reafon ; in 
 virtue of tl^ latter^ we juftify the conduct of 
 our opponents. The diredt reply, therefore, to 
 the firft part is, that we do not diftinguifli 
 without reafon ; and as to the fecond, that fup- 
 pofing our condu6t to be wrongs it does not 
 follow theirs is right. For fuppofe we both 
 were in the wrong? Befides, Mr. B.'s rejec- 
 tion of infant baptifm, and my rejedion of in- 
 fant communion, are not parallel cafes ; for the 
 queftion is, in what refpecSls, and to what de- 
 gree, do we reje6l them refpedively ? Mr. B. 
 rejeds the former as a nullity-y I reject the lat- 
 ter only as an impropriety. Were he, therefore, 
 to grant as much in favour of infant baptifm, 
 as I am willing to grant in favour of infant 
 communion, our controverfy would be at an end. 
 The ftate of the queftion would then be tranf- 
 ferred from what is effential^ to what is merely 
 preferable. It only remains, then, that we clear 
 ourfelves from the charge of inconffiency \ v^hich 
 I fl^all attempt to do in anfwer to the argu- 
 ments of Mr. P£iRC£, as tranfcribed by Mr. 
 ^ B*. 
 S>§ 10. His lirft argument, as a general in- 
 trodudtion, is taken from antiquity^ thus : " The 
 practice of giving the euchanft to children is 
 
 .at 
 
 • lb. p. 4*7—43 ^» 
 
Ch. 5. Antiposdohaptijls anjiv^red, ^39 
 
 at this day, and has been for many ages pajly 
 ufed in the Greek: churches, which are not of 
 the Roman communion. — 'Tis highly probable 
 this had been the practice of the chriftian 
 church from the apoftles' time — We have no 
 account of the rife of this cuftom — The very 
 filence of antiquity is a ftrong argument, they 
 admitted infants to the Lord's fupper as well 
 as to baptifm." We will admit thefe afTertions 
 without further examination ; and grant, by the 
 way, that from this very account, Ccat, par.) 
 there is more to be urged in favour of infant 
 communion, than againfi infant baptifm. 
 
 But the argument from antiquity, in either 
 cafe, can operate no further, in fl:ridl:nefs, than 
 to confirm a faSi-^ and not to prove a rights 
 The mere ex'iftence of a rite or cuftom, even 
 from the apoftles' time, can of itfelf conclude 
 nothing, Theiefore, our appeal to antiquity, 
 in the cafe of bapnfm, is not to eftablilh pofi'- 
 the proofs but by way oi f elf -defence. We there- 
 by (hew that our practice is not fo deftitute of 
 ancient precedents as our antagonifts pretend ; 
 and, being confirmed to be according to the 
 will and intention of Chrift from other confi- 
 derations, we ought to conclude that it was 
 the univerfal pradlice, where no pofitive coun- 
 ter-evidence appears. Our author's proving, that 
 infants have be£n^ or now are^ admitted to the 
 facred fupper, is no proof that they ought to be. 
 Lfit us, then, come to his formal linethod of 
 proving, 
 
 '' The 
 
240 ObjeSfioni and Evafmis of Ch. 5. 
 
 « The baptiftn and communion of infants, 
 fays he, (land upon the fame foot-, and there- 
 fore they who admit the one, ought to admit the 
 other alfo. For the confirming of this argu- 
 ment I will (hew, Firft, that the fame reafom 
 which are brought for infant baptifm, are m 
 like manner applicable to infant communion. 
 Secondly, That the ohjeaiom againft infant 
 communion will admit of the fame anfwers, as 
 thofe againft infant baptifm." Let us now ex- 
 amine his particular arguments. 
 
 I. The firft is founded on the relative holt- 
 nefs of infants. " One ftrong argument for in- 
 fant-baptifm is taken from the words of the 
 apoftle, I Cor. vii. 14.— But I defire only a 
 reafon, why this will not as well prove infants' 
 right to the eucharift, as to baptifm." In an- 
 fwer to this let it be obferved, 
 
 (i) That relative holinefs admits o£ degrees y 
 for being founded on relation, it muft be fought 
 from the degree of that relation. To be the 
 objeas of a covenant grant, as the gentile 
 world at large; as thofe to whom the word 
 of falvation is adually fent ; as the family of a 
 chriftian houfeholder ; as a baptized perfon; as 
 an aaual member of a chriftian congregation, 
 &c. all denote different degrees of relative ho- 
 
 f^ lincfs. Now, . , 
 
 (2) What both the ordinances in queltion 
 require, as a qualification in their refpeaive can- 
 dididates, is that degree of relative holinefs 
 ^hich is necelTary and fukabU to their refpec- 
 live nature and defigns. 
 
 (3) Bap- 
 
Ch. 5. Jntlpcedobaptt/is anfwered* 241 
 
 (3) Baptism ftands related to the body of 
 vifible chriftians at large. Now that infants are 
 fuitably qualified for this relation has been 
 proved, and is demonjlrahle from their former 
 actual church memberlhip and circumcifion, by 
 the appointment of unerring wifdom. But 
 
 (4) The euchari/iic rite is applicable to thofe 
 
 mly who may be deemed proper fubjedls of 
 
 a particular churchy or chriftian congregation. 
 
 They ought to be firji baptized, it is true ; 
 
 but this alone is not a fufficient qualification. 
 
 For as Dr. Gill well obferves: " Baptifm — 
 
 is not a church-ordinance ; I mean it is not 
 
 an ordinance adminiftered in the churchy but 
 
 cut of it, and in order to admifTion into it, and 
 
 communion with it ; it is preparatory to it, and 
 
 a qualification for it ; it does not make a perfon 
 
 a member of a church, or admit him into 2 
 
 vifible church ; perfons muft firft be baptized, 
 
 and then added to the church, as the three 
 
 thoufand converts were; a church has nothing 
 
 to do with the baptifm of any, but to be fa- 
 
 tisficd they are to be baptized before they are 
 
 admitted into communion with it. AdmifTion 
 
 to baptifm lies folely in the breail of the admi- 
 
 niflrator, who is the only judge of qualifications 
 
 for it, and has the folc power of receiving to 
 
 it, and of rejefling from it ; if not fatisfied, he 
 
 may rejecl a perfon thought fit by a church, 
 
 and admit a perfon to baptifm not thought fit 
 
 by a church. — Saul, when converted, was im- 
 
 M mediately 
 
242 Obje^ltons and Evaftons of Ch. 5. 
 
 mediately baptized by Ananias, without any 
 previous knowledge and confent of the church ; 
 and it was many days after this, that he pro- 
 pofed to join himfelf to the difciples, and was 
 received, A6ts ix. 18, 19, 23, 26 — 28*.'* From 
 thefe obvious and neceflary diftinflions, about 
 admiflion to baptifm, and admifTion to particu- 
 lar church-memberfliip, it follows that perfons 
 before baptifm, ftand in one degree of relation to 
 Chrift, or relative holinefs ; that the fame perfons 
 after baptifm, fland in another degree ; and. that 
 the very fame when admitted into adlual church- 
 memberfhip, ftand yet in another. Now I f^y, 
 that infants are capMe of the two former de- 
 grees, and therefore ought to be baptized ; but 
 are not capable of the latter, that is, do not 
 anfwer its nature and defign, and therefore 
 ought not to be admitted to it. For 
 
 (5) Though the ground of right to baptifm 
 and the eucharift be the fame, in a fcederal 
 fenfe, yet the capability^ qualijication^ and fuitable- 
 nefs^ are different; arifing from the different na- 
 ture and defign of the two ordinances. Thus 
 if a parent prefent himfelf and his infant child 
 to baptifm^ which " a church," as Dr. Gill 
 obferves, " has nothing to do with," we main- 
 tain it is the minifler's duty to baptize both» 
 Why? Becaufe the covenant right is the 
 fame to parent and child ; and the nature of the 
 ordinance is a feal of the firji promife^ or a con- 
 firming token of initiation into that ftate where- 
 in 
 
 • Body of Div, Vol, iii, p. 311, 31*. 
 
Ch. 5. Jntipcedohaptljh anjwered,, 243 
 
 in we may fay, the Lord is our God, and we 
 are his people;'* and of this ftate the child is 
 equally capable as the parent. Thus far they 
 are on a level ; the fubjeSfive fuitabknefs being 
 found in each alike. But let the fame parent 
 and infant apply to a particular churchy and the 
 cafe itfelf alters j the fundamental ground of ad- 
 miffion is different 'y there is a de'^ree of relative 
 holinefs of which the parent is capable, and of 
 which the child is incapable, neceffary for fuch 
 admifRon. The reafon why the parent is admit- 
 ted, is not merely becaufe it is baptized^ nor yet 
 becaufe it has a covenant right to all gofpel 
 privileges as baptized \ but becaufe it pofTeffes, 
 over and above the fcederal and ceremonial, a 
 NATURAL fuitabknefs to enter on this higheft 
 degree of relation. When, therefore, the infant 
 is rejected, it is not for want of a fcederal and 
 ceremonial qualification, but for a natural incapacity^ 
 a perfonal unfuitablenefs^ to anfwer the nature and 
 principal end of a particular church member.— 
 Wherein this unfuitablenefs irr^mediately confifts, 
 muft be fought from the^4i^ture and defign of 
 a particular church, and which will be fhewn, 
 in anfwer to the following argument urged by 
 Mr. Peirce. 
 
 2. " I SEE no reafon why infants' right to 
 the eucharift may not, as well as their right 
 to baptifm, be pleaded, from their being mem- 
 bers of the vifible church, -^JJipon. what rea- 
 fon are feme of the members of the vifible 
 church, without any fault on their part, excJud- 
 
 M 2 cd 
 
244 OhjeSflons and Eva/ions of Ch. 5, 
 
 ed from any of the privileges and advantages 
 which God has granted to his church in com- 
 mon ?" On which I obferve, 
 
 (i) That the divine grant of privileges and 
 advantages to each member of the vifible church, 
 is not limited, except by its capacity of enjoying 
 the fame. Now becaufe an infant is entitled^ 
 in virtue of the grant, to every privilege, to- 
 gether with its parent ; does it thence follow, 
 that it is capable of all the privileges granted ? 
 The truth is, it is capable of jome of them, 
 but not of others. It is qualified to enjoy the 
 benefit of baptifm, but not the eucharift. Thus 
 an infant may be entitled to an eftate, but is 
 not qualified to take perfonal poffeflion and ma- 
 nagement. Or, a fcholar may be entitled to all 
 the privileges and advantages of a fchool ; but 
 does it thence follow that he is qualified for 
 the privilege of being in the higheft clafs? 
 When a Jewifh infant was circumcifed, he was 
 entitled to all the privileges of an Ifraelite ; but 
 was he, when only a few weeks old, capable of 
 enjoying them all? In fail, we overlook the 
 nature of privileges, if we conclude, that be- 
 caufe any thing is a privilege to one, it muft 
 be fo to another J for if there be no anfwer^ 
 able qualification^ no fubjecSlive fuitablenefs^ no ca- 
 pacity of poflefling, it can be in thoje circum" 
 Jlances NO privilege. In like manner, tho' bap- 
 tifm be a privilege to an infant, being capable 
 of the benefit, as before fhewn at large; yet 
 the eucharift is no privilege^ for want of meet- 
 
 nefs 
 
Ch. 5. Ant'ipcedobaptljls anjwered. 245 
 
 nefs to po/Tefs it. Now the queftion returns, 
 "wherein lies this want of meeinefs F In anfwering 
 this queflion, we are led to another obferva- 
 tion, viz. 
 
 (2) That the very nature and end of a 
 chriftian fociety, or particular church, to which 
 alone the eucharift ftands related, requires mutual 
 .cmjent and ajfijlance among the members. Its 
 very exiftence, properly fpeaking, arifes from the 
 need there is of mutual ajjlftance for edification, 
 to the glory of God, And> that fociety alone 
 anfwers the nature and main end of a particu- 
 lar church of Chrift, where this mutual affift- 
 ance is a5iually afforded. But infants are capa- 
 ble neither of perjonal confent^ nor perfonal af- 
 Jijlance ; and therefore are not fit for church- 
 memberfliip. The very light of nature teaches 
 that man is defigned for fociety ; and the nature 
 of that fociety is afcertained from the end pro- 
 pofed by it. Now revelation Ihews that the 
 end of a chr'tftian fociety is mutual chriftian edi- 
 fication in faith and love, holinefs and ufeful- 
 nefs; but the light of nature, as well as that 
 of revelation, makes it evident, that infants are 
 not capacitated for this end. 
 
 (3) That the eucharifiic ordinance belongs to 
 fuch a fociety, is almofl: felf-evident ; this the 
 names by which it is called, fupper^ communion^ 
 Sec, (hew ; this the very words of the inftitu- 
 tion confirm. Matt. xxvi. 26 — 28. Mark xiv» 
 22 — 24. Luke xxii. 19, 20. i Cor. xi. 20 — 
 34. and this the original celebration of it tends 
 
 M 3 t® 
 
246 Ohj colons and Evaftons of Ch. 5. 
 
 to corroborate. The fupper was adminiftered 
 to a feleSf company only^ and not to all the bap- 
 tized. Jefus gave the elements only to thofe 
 who might be called a particular church, of 
 which he himfelf was the condefcending Paftor ; 
 whereas there were numbers who had been ad- 
 mitted into the general vifible church who ne- 
 ver partook of them. 
 
 " The end for which our Lord infiituted this 
 duty," fays Bp. Hoadley, " was the remembrance 
 of himfelf ; that the breads to be taken and eaten, 
 was appointed to be the memorial of his body 
 broken ; and the wine to be drank, was ordained 
 to be the manorial of his blood (bed : or, according 
 to the exprefs words of St. Paul, that the one 
 was to be eaten, and the other to be drank, 
 in REMEMBRANCE cf Chrift J and this to be 
 continued, until He, who was once prefent with 
 his difciples, and is now abfent^ fhall come again. 
 
 — This remembrance is exprefsly mentioned, in 
 the original inftitution, by St. Luke ; and more 
 remarkably by St. Paul, as a part of the i/ifti- 
 futiony received by him from our Lord himfelf : 
 and ronfequently, it is this remembrance which 
 conftitutes the very nature of this holy rite 
 
 — without which, this part of chriftian fervice 
 ceafes to be what it was defigned to be by its 
 great Infhtutor : And indeed, v/e fo long only 
 keep to the original inllitution, whilft v;e con- 
 fider it as a rite to be ferioufly performed 
 IN remembrance of an abfent Saviour. 
 — Whoever therefore, in a ferious and reli- 
 gious 
 
Cfi. 5. ^fitipcedobapiijis anfwered. 247 
 
 gious fenfe of his relation to Chrift, as his 
 difciple PERFORMS THESE ACTIONS of eating 
 bread and drinking wine, in remembrance of 
 Chriil, as of a Perfon corporally abfent from his 
 difciples, moft certainly performs them agreeably 
 to the end of the inftitution declared by Chrift 
 . himfelf, and his immediate difciples*." Wherefore, 
 (4) It is requifite that the chriftian com- 
 municant perforin an aSlion, Except he be fo 
 far a^ive as to eat bread and drink wine in 
 remembrance of Chrift, he does not anfwer the 
 nature and end of the inftitution. This is not 
 a mere circumjiance^ which is required of fome 
 and not of others, but an univerfal requifition. 
 On the contrary, it is plain that in baptifm 
 the adminiftrator alone is required to be adlively 
 engaged; however qualified the fubjedi: may be, 
 he is not, in the ordinance itfelf, required to 
 perform an a^lion^ but is wholly pajfive. Hence 
 It appears, that an infant of a day is equally 
 capable with an adult of receiving baptifm, where- 
 in he is pajfive ; but not fo with regard to the 
 eucharift, wherein he is required to perform an 
 aSlion, The one may be illuftrated by the rite 
 of circumcifion^ the other by that of the paJJ'over, 
 In the bloody rite, which was, like baptifm, an 
 ordinance of dedication^ and whereby the fubjecSfc 
 Vvas laid under obligations without his own 
 confent^ the receiver of the covenant fign, whe- 
 ther infant or adult, was only paffive; whereas 
 
 M 4 in 
 
 * Plain Account of the nature and end of the Lord's Supper, 
 F* 23, 28. 
 
248 ObjeSikm and Evafiom of Ch, 5. 
 
 in the pafTover, which was an euchariftic ordi- 
 nance, or a rite eftablilh'ed in thankful remem-^ 
 hrance of a fa6l, the parties were to perform an 
 a^ion. And this di(lin6lion arifes from the ve^^ 
 ry nature and end of each. — From thefe confi- 
 derations it appears, that there is a good rea- 
 fcn aflignabie, why fame of the members of the 
 vifible church, without any fault on their part,, 
 are not admitted to the holy fupper. For to 
 be naturally unqualified, is no fault -^ znd to be 
 admitted to thatj for which we are not natu- 
 rally and properly qualified, would be, in h^y 
 no privilege, 
 
 3. Our author's next argument is founded 
 on covenant inter ejl : " Another plea for infant 
 baptifm, is their having an intereft in the new- 
 covenant. — And if their part in the covenant 
 will infer their right to one fealy why not to 
 the ether ? There is great need her£ of fome 
 very nice diJlin^ion\ or I cannot fee how we 
 ihall be able to urge the fame argument y 
 when 'tis brought to prove their right to one 
 facrament, and anfwer it when 'tis urged to 
 prove their right to partake of the other." I 
 care not about a diftin£tion being nicty pro- 
 vided it be a jujl one. And whether the fol- 
 lowing has not a claim on the latter charafler, 
 let the reader judge for himfelf. 
 
 The baptifinal feal, being a reprefentation of 
 a prefent and future good, certificth that God, 
 objectively, becomes to us a God ; in order that 
 we may become to him a people, of which 
 
 relation 
 
Ch. 5* Antlpcedohapttfls anfwered* 249 
 
 relation and obligation infants are fuitable fub- 
 je6ls : But the euchariftic feal, as a memorial of 
 an qbfeJit Saviour, and a paji wonderful tranfac-^ 
 iiony ceri'ifieth the truth of that tranfa6tion 5 in 
 $rder that the receiver, in his facial capacity, or 
 as a church member, may be edified in faith 
 and love, by his aSfual remembrance, of Chrift> 
 crucified for him, and by his aSiual performance 
 of the prefcribed duty ; and therefore infants are 
 not fuitable communicants. And yet, be it re- 
 membered, the bar of prohibition is not a 
 defcul of the foederal right, or ceremonial title, 
 but fuch a natural incapacity as renders what 
 is a privilege to others, no privilege to them. 
 
 4. Another argument is urged from " The 
 harfo and injurious treatment, of infants, implied 
 in their being refufed the facrament." But we 
 anfwer, that there is neither injury nor harjh^^ 
 nefi implied in our refufing to give them what 
 
 , they are naturally unqualified to receive,, and 
 what, therefore, is no privilege to them.. Where* 
 as, when we admit them to baptifm, they have 
 not only a feeder al right ^ but alfo a .. natural 
 fuitablenefe to the nature and defign of the in- 
 ilitution, pleadable and decifive in their favour. 
 
 5. Another argument is; ," Infants are ca- 
 pable of falvation, and therefore may receive 
 baptifm which is t\iQ. means of . falvation. And 
 why does not this - confequence as well hold to 
 their receiving the Lord's fupper, which is as 
 much a means of falvation, as baptifm V To 
 pray and ftng with the Spirit and the under- 
 
 M 5 Jlanding^ 
 
250 ObjeSfkm and Eva/tons of Ch. ^. 
 
 Jiandlng^ are means of grace ; yes, a$ much the 
 means of falvation as the eucharift : And why 
 are not infants admitted to enjoy thefe means 
 and privileges of falvation, to fmg and pray with 
 the fpirit and the underjlanding? The reafon 
 is evident ; they are not capable ; for the pri- 
 vilege requires the performance of a duty. In 
 like manner, to eat the Lord^s Jupper, implies 
 the performance of a religious duty, with the 
 exercife of the underftanding, judgment, and 
 memor}^, of which an infant is not capable. 
 
 6. " Another plea, adds our author, made, 
 life of for infant baptifm is, That fuch may 
 be devoted to God. And certainly, this is as 
 good a reafon for their partaking of the Lord s 
 fupper, as of baptifm ; fmce the one is as pro- 
 perly a devoting perfons to God^ as the other." 
 Surely this is inadvertently fpoken. A partake 
 ing of the euchar'ifi^ is a devoting perfons to God, 
 Pray, tvho devotes ? Is it the communicant him- 
 felf? Every worthy communicant, it is allowed, 
 does give up himfelf to his God and Saviour, 
 conftrained thereto at the remembrance of dying 
 love. But can an infant devote itfelf? Per- 
 haps it will be faid, the parent devotes his 
 infant child. 1 hat every truly chriftian parent 
 gives up his child to God, none can queliion ; 
 he gives him his own with gratitude, and with 
 becoming confidence in his promife. He gives 
 him up in his own praifes and prayers ; and 
 (may I at length add ?) ought ^ at leaft, to give 
 him to be ft apart to God, by the ordinance 
 
 of 
 
Ch. 5. AnU-poedohapttJls anjwered, 251 
 
 of baptifm. But what idea can we form of 
 a parent devoting his infant child, in the very 
 a£i and reJpeSl of its own eating bread and 
 drinking wine in remembrance of Chrift, for its 
 prefent edification and comfort ! That a parent 
 fhould infi:ru(ft, direct, and encourage his child 
 to do his duty^ or embrace his privilege^ when it 
 appears that the euchariftic ordinance would be 
 really fuch to him, is both reafonable and 
 right. But how an infant's partaking of the 
 Lord's fupper fhould be the parent's devoting 
 it to God is, to me, inconceivable. Nor will 
 it mend the matter to. fay, that the minijier 
 does ; for what is there in the fetting apart or 
 in the diftribution of the elements, like devot- 
 ing the partaker Q^ them to God? Can the 
 miniiler do more than fend up his devout 
 wiflies to the Father of mercies for his gracious, 
 prefence and blefling to himfelf and. fellow com- 
 municants ; and fuggeft to them fuch confider- 
 ations, by a ferious addrefs, as may affift them 
 to difcliarge their own duty in a profitable man- 
 ner? And yet we are told it is " as properly 
 fo as baptifm." On the contrary, I infift that ' 
 properly it is Jio devoting ordinance at all. Its. 
 proper nature is, an ordinance of thankful re-- 
 membrane e ; and to fay that this may be done, 
 by an infatit is grofsly abfurd ; and again, to fay 
 that a parent may properly devote his- infant 
 child in fuch an ordinance, is the fame as to 
 fay, that he can properly perform impOflibilities 
 and contradidions. It is making one perfon's 
 
 M 6 ow?i 
 
252 ObjeSfions and Evajions of Ch. 5. 
 
 own a5i and deed^ the ai5i and deed of another. 
 It is making an infant's eating bread and drink'^ 
 ing wine in remembrance of Chrijiy to be the 
 fame thing as the parent's wijhing it to do fo. 
 It is a making of the communicant a^ive and 
 pajfwey at the fame time^ and in the fame re- 
 fpeSf, It is a parent's doing that for the child,, 
 v.'hich, on the fuppofition^ the latter does for 
 itfelf; which at the fame time, in reality, it 
 neither does nor can do. In fhort, it is a 
 pretending to perform impojjihilities by proxy! 
 
 But how different the nature of the bap- 
 tlfmal ordinance! Is not this properly an ordi^ 
 nance of dedication ? Does it not neceilkrily im- 
 ply, the ceding of what we have a natural right 
 to ? Is it not a transferring of the fubjedl 
 from one relative ftate to another ? And is not 
 this applicable to an infant ; may he not be. 
 devoted by another as properly as. an adult? — 
 But as this is granted by Mr* Pjeirce, it needs 
 here no further proof. 
 
 7. " It has been argued, [from Luke xviii, 
 15, 16.] That Chrift is willing little children 
 (hould come to him ; that he is pleafed when 
 infants, who are not able to come themfelvcs, 
 are brought by others to him, that he may blefs 
 them. And who has been able to afTure thofe 
 who make ufe of this argument, that Chrift is 
 only willing to have them brought to him in 
 laptifm^ and not in the Lord* s fupper ? Is not 
 the giving them the eucharift, as folemn a way 
 of bringing them to Chrill, as the baptizing 
 
 them?" 
 
Cli. 5* Antipoedohapttfti anfwtred, 25^ 
 
 them ?*' It is fufficient to reply, That Chrift 
 is neither pleafed nor willing that parents fhould. 
 attempt what is properly i?npra£iicabU^. And. 
 furely an inaccejfible way^ cannot be an encou' 
 raging way, nor can a way. which implies fo. 
 many ahfurditlesy have any jufl: claim on y3/^»?« 
 nity. The obftru£tion primarily lies in- the «^- 
 iure of the things and therefore it argues neither 
 breach of duty in parents, nor reflects on the 
 will and pleafure of Chrift, not to bring them 
 to the Lord's Supper. But no fuch oblirudion 
 lies in their way to baptiCm, as before demon- 
 ftrated; (chap iii. § 5 — 10, &c.) and the fata 
 of circumcifion, inftituted by Jehovah, is an, 
 impregnable bulwark agaihft all arguments de- 
 duced from the natural incapacity of. infants, in 
 reference to their being hr ought and devoted to 
 God. 
 
 8. Finally: « 'Tis frequently alleged, fays 
 Mr. Peirce, that infants are difciples^ A<5ts 
 XV. 10. and therefore they ought, by baptifm, 
 to be inrolled as fuch, and to be folemnly in^ 
 itiated to his difcipline. And certainly their re- 
 ceiving the^ Lord's fupptt* is as proper a tefti- 
 mony of tlieir continuing^ as their baptifm was 
 of their being initiated to. be his difciples." 
 Strange aflertion of fo refpedable a writer! 
 Might he not have as wellfaid, that becaufe a 
 child is initiated into a fchool, before he knows 
 the very letters of his mother tongue, his making 
 gmk mrcife is « as proper a teftimony of his 
 
 (ontmutng. 
 
2C4 OhjeSllons and Evafiom of Ch. 5. 
 
 continuing^ as his entrance was of his being 
 initiated to be a fcholar !'' 
 
 § 12. " The ohje5liom againft infant com- 
 munion will admit of the fame anf-Wers" pro- 
 ceeds our author, "as thofe againft infant 
 baptifm." Let us not, however, take his bare 
 aflbrtion, but examine his evidence. 
 
 " The only objeitions which carry any ap- 
 pearance of weight in them, are taken from 
 their incapacity to perform fome a£ls wliich are 
 required in the adult communicants ; fuch as 
 remembering Chrift, dlfcerning the Lord's body,, 
 and previoufly examining the?nfelves. And juft 
 fuch, arguments may be and are alleged againft 
 infant baptifm. Infants are not capable of that 
 repentance and faith^ which are required in the 
 adult when they are baptized. And the fanu 
 kind of anfwer will ferve in both cafes." Then 
 I am exceedingly miftaken. One. remark, how- 
 ever, might be^fficient to fhew, that our author 
 was not free of midake in the matter j viz. 
 That the incapacity^ in the one cafe, is an ef 
 feyjtial bar, a defeat which admits of no ade- 
 quate remedy ; but that the mcapacity^ in the 
 other cafe, is no real incapacity, is only a 7neye 
 circumjlancc^ and, therefore wants no remedial 
 aid. Our opponent does not pxelend that the 
 want of faith and repentance is a juft reafon of 
 excluding infants from baptifm ; whereby he al- 
 lows, that it is not the very nature of baptifra 
 that requires thefe qualifications, but merely 
 the Qtraumflantkl dijference of the fubjecl. On 
 
 the 
 
Chi 5» Ant'tpoedohaptyis anfwered. 255 
 
 the contrary, I maintain, that the very nature 
 of the eucharift requires eating bread and drink- 
 ing wine in rememhrance of Chriji -, that remem^ 
 hering Chrift, difcerning the Lord's body, and 
 -previous felf-examination^ are effential quahfications 
 of a worthy communicant, of which an infant 
 is incapable. 
 
 " I SHOULD be glad to know of thofe Pcedo^ 
 baptifts, who go on the contrary fuppofition, 
 zvhat communion they admit infants to,, when they 
 baptize them ? What one privilege in the cliurch 
 do they admit them ta?" I anfwer j Into the 
 jhme communion as that into which John the 
 Baptift, our Lord and his difciples, admitted 
 thofe multitudes they baptized- And I fuppofe 
 it will not be faid, that their baptifm was no 
 privilege becaufe they were not admitted to. ccr 
 Jebrate the holy fupper. What communion ? 
 Purely not into any one particular chriflian fo- 
 ciety, which is founded on mutual engage- 
 ments. Such a church, as Dr. Gill well ob- 
 ferves, '*• has nothing to do with the baptifm of 
 any 5" nor has baptifm any thing to do with 
 it. The communion^ then, is that of the whole 
 chriflian church at large, as diftinguifh^jd from 
 Jews, Mahometans, Heathens, &qr What pri- 
 vilege ? 1 anfwer, ia the words of Paul, " Much, 
 every way; chiefly, becaufe that unto them are 
 committed the oracles of God. For what if 
 fome do not believe ; fhall their unbelief make 
 the faith of God without efFecSi: ? God forbid." 
 The promife is their's} liwii^ in covenant right-^ 
 
 EVERY 
 
2$^ ObjeSiions and Eva/ions of Ch. 5, 
 
 E.V'ERY PRIVILEGE thereunto belonging, of which 
 they are capable and fuitable fubjedts. " The 
 PROMISE, then, fays Dr. Owen, as it hath 
 the nature of a covenant^ including the grace 
 that God would fhew unto linners in the MefTiah, 
 and the obedience that he required from them, 
 was from the firft giving of it, the foundation 
 of the churchy and the whole worfliip of God 
 ♦therein. Unto thii churchy fo founded and 
 built on this covenant- — were all the following 
 fronufes and the privileges exhibited in them, 
 given and annexed. Neither hath, or ever had , 
 any individual perfon, any fpiritual right unto 
 — thofe promifes or privileges, whatever his 
 outward condition were, but only by virtue of 
 his memherjhip in the church built on the cove-^ 
 nant, whereunto, as we faid, they do all ap- 
 pertain. — Wherefoever this covenant is, and with 
 whomfoever it is eftablilhed, with th^m is ths 
 churchy unto whom all th^ promifes and privileges 
 of the church do belong. Hence it was, that 
 at the coming of the Meffiah there was not one 
 church taken away, and another fet up in the • 
 room thereof— The Chriflian church is not ano-^ 
 ther church, but the very fame that was before 
 the coming of Chrift. — TliQ promifes of the Old 
 Teftament are all made unto the church. No 
 individual perfon hath any intereft in them, but 
 by virtue of his memherjhip therewith.- — And 
 among thofe promifes this is one,, that. God will 
 be A God unto them and their seed for 
 EVER*." Thefe remarks, with a little expla- 
 nation, 
 ♦ Dr, Ow£N on the Heb» Vol, I, p. 54—574 
 
CIl. 5. Jntipcsdobaptl/fs anfivered, 257 
 
 nation, exprefs my meaning with regard to the 
 church communion^ and the church privileges^ to 
 which infants are introduced by baptifm. I 
 would not be underftood to mean, that \hQ firji 
 promife^ or gofpel grant, is not addrefled to any 
 until they become members of the gofpel church, 
 whereas it muft be in virtue of this promifi 
 that any who are afar ojf have a rational induce- 
 ment, and folid foundation, for joining themfelves- 
 unto the church. And yet, all the fubfequent 
 pro?nifes and annexed privilegeSy can belong im- 
 mediately to none but the oBual members of the 
 . church. And there is not any privilege, really 
 fuch, which does not fcederally belong to bap- 
 tized infants ; and if we do not admit fuch to 
 the facred fupper, it is becaufe that would be 
 no real privilege to them, which their baptifm. 
 demonflrably is. 
 
 Thus I have accepted Mr. B.'s challenge, 
 and attempted " fairly to confute" the arguments 
 and ohjeaions of Tvlr. Peirce, " without fap- 
 ping the foundations of Infant baptifm ;" and 
 while thefe (land fecurely firm. How far this 
 is done with, fuccefs^ whofe arguments wxigh 
 heavieji in the fcales of impartiality, I chearfully 
 refer to thofe who are pofleiTed of thofe inva- 
 luable fcales. 
 
 % 13, It may be obje(?l:ed, " If baptifm feals 
 " nothing more than a bare exhibition of fpi- 
 " ritual bleflings, what benefit can that be to 
 « infants ?" In reply to this let it be ob- 
 ferved, 
 
 I. That 
 
258 Ohjecilons and Ewfions of Ch. 5. " 
 
 1. That the fealing of baptlfm is of the 
 fayne nature with the gofpel itfelf, which, it is 
 allowed, is the annunciation, or hare exhibition 
 of mercy and grace. — Therefore, if the gofpel 
 be a mercy, baptifm muft be fo ; and the de-^ 
 gree of the fuppofed benefit, is in proportion to 
 that of a feal fuperadded to a legal inflrument. 
 The former witliout the latter is of no ufe ; 
 but when added to it, increafes its value: not 
 as importing fomething different ; but certifying 
 more llrongly the fame thing. And' as the moil 
 glorious difplays of falvation do not, of them- 
 felves, give to any a fuhjcSiive certainty, where^ 
 by tliey may conclude themfelves perfonally 
 pofltfTed of it j but only an objective ground of 
 afTurance, whereby they are encouraged to accept 
 * of it, as defigned for their ufe : So is the nature 
 of the fealing. Confequenlly, if the melTage of 
 falvation be a bleliing, the fealing of that mef- 
 fage is an additional bleffing. 
 
 2. If the gofpel and the means of grace in 
 their bare exhibition, be any benefit to nations 
 and families, they muft be fo to infants as a part 
 of them ; and, for the fame reafon, baptifm 
 too. For if the glad tidings of falvation, in a 
 fettled minifiry, be a benefit, fo is God's fuper- 
 added fealing of thofe tidings. 
 
 3. As the miniftry of reconciliation is a blef- 
 fing, independent of our cflimation of it, fo is 
 tlie confirming token of that minifiry. For who 
 thinks to meafure the benevolent conduct of 
 the Deity, and the merciful dcfigns of his pro« 
 
 vidence, 
 
Ch. 5. Jniiposdohaptifis anfvjered, 259 
 
 vidence, by their reception and improvement 
 among men ? 
 
 4. If the external {landing evidences of chrtf- 
 tianity be a benefit, in their bare exhibition, 
 baptifm muft be fo likewife \ as it may be juft- 
 ly ranked among thofe evidences. 
 
 5. Whatever tends to explain the nature 
 and to enforce the authority of gofpel truths, 
 muft be a benefit in its mere exhibition; but 
 this baptifm does from its very nature to every 
 capable fubjea-, and therefore is a benefit to 
 baptised infants, who, it is demonllrable, are 
 fuch. 
 
 6. Whatever has a juft claim on the 
 grateful acknowledgments of adults, for what 
 they enjoyed in infancy, muft be a benefit; 
 but what well-informed perfon is not thankful 
 that he was born under a difpenfation of mercy; 
 under the chriftian in preference to any other ; 
 in a country, and efpecially in a family, where 
 true religion was knov/n, praflifed and incul- 
 cated? But if this be true, who fees not that 
 baptifm, fince it is God's confirming- feal to 
 the truth and contents of the gofpel, is a 
 benefit, on fuppofition that it only exhibits the 
 bleflings reprefented by it*. 
 
 § 14. It may be objeaed, « If there be a 
 " fuitablenefs in infants, as fuch^ to the rite of 
 " baptifm, (carnal defcent making no difference 
 « in their moral ftate) by what rule (hall we 
 
 " determine 
 
 ♦ See Edwards on Original Sin, p, 441. and Dr. Taylor's 
 Scripture Doariiie of Original Sjii, p» 72, 73. Supplement, 
 
26o Ohjc6iions and Eva/tons of Ch. 5. 
 
 '*• determine, what chlUren to baptize and what 
 " not? Or rather, if it be a benefit to all 
 " thofe who are capable, and all infants are 
 '' fuppofed fuch, therefore it would be a great 
 *' charity in miniflers to baptize all they can ; 
 " and, inftead of condemning Roman miflio- 
 '' naries for their attempts to chrillianize the 
 " Heathens by baptizing them, parents and 
 " children, when fuppofed unqualified, Ihould 
 " we not commend their pious and charitable 
 " zeal ?" To this I anfwer, by obferving 
 
 I. That the law of nature is not to be 
 violated, nor the rights of nature, infringed^ 
 without a pojitlve divine command. But were ~ 
 miniOers, in the difcharge of their high com- 
 miflion, to preach the gofpel, to baptize, &C. 
 to adopt cQ??ipulfivi or fraudulent means ; this 
 law would be violated, and thefe rights infnng- 
 cd, while, on the fuppofition, they have no po- , 
 fitive injunction for fo doing. That the preach- 
 ing of the gofpel^ and its eliablifliment among a 
 people, is a benefit to them, no chriftian I fup- 
 pofe will deny; but yet, lie wlio employs for 
 this purpofe compulfion and fraud, is a detefted 
 violator of the facred dictates of the Law of 
 Nature and of Nations. And as to that text 
 (Luke xiv. 23.) wliich has been urged as a. 
 pofitive command for fuch proceedings, we anfwer 
 it in the fame mamier as we do the Antipoedo- 
 baptifts ; pofitive duties^ when brought to counter^- 
 mand natural and moral ones, are no duties any 
 further than they arife from divine authority 
 
 '' plainly 
 
Ch. 5» Antipcedohaptifis anfiuered. 26 1 
 
 " plainly binding and ftrongly commanding." 
 So that this pretended pofttive command is a 
 mere nihility^ becaufe we are not bound to take 
 the word compel as denoting external force^ 
 tho' it were urged that the literal and primary 
 meaning favours that interpretation. 
 
 2. From what has been faid it follows, that 
 our influence over others, whether adults or in- 
 fants, can be no further than the Jaw of Na- 
 ture and of Nations admit of when no pofitivc 
 injun6lion is fuppofed. It is evident that by 
 a divine conftitution, parents have a right or 
 limited dominion over their children ; which 
 dominion they receive from God as a facred 
 depofit, or an important talent to be improved 
 for their good. Nor is it in the power of any 
 man lawfully, to ufurp the parents* ^\2iQ^agatnJi 
 his confent {cat, par ) but this parental autho- 
 rity is capable of being transferred to another 
 than a real parent, by feveral ways. Whea 
 this transfer is jujlly and truly made, whether 
 explicitly or implicitly (for there are many af- 
 fignable inftances in which the latter cafe may 
 happen) then the adopter, guardian, truftee, &c, 
 of the child becomes, by univerfal confent, pof- 
 fefled of the fuppofed rights to be exercifed for 
 the benefit of his ward. And it is worthy of 
 remark, that this authority, wherever veft:ed, is 
 gradually dimin'ift)ed by the age, improvement, 
 &c. of the child, till it becomes nearly or in- 
 tirely extinSL 
 
 To illuftrate this matter, let us fuppofe a 
 perfon, ftanding in different relations to others, 
 
 is 
 
262 Objeclions and Evafions of Ch. 5. 
 
 is come to a refolution of leaving: his na- 
 tive country, for the purpofe of colonizing ano- 
 ther far diftant. We will fuppofe, moreover) 
 that the country whither he is going abounds 
 with incomparably greater advantages and privi- 
 leges than what he leaves behind. Now the 
 queftion arifes, Whom fliall he take with him, 
 and whom fhall he leave behind ? In tliis cafe, 
 nature immediately dictates that, as he ought 
 not forcibly to compel his adult children and 
 fervants, or any other relations and dependants ; 
 fo he ought to take fuch as were in a ftate 
 of dependence on his determination, and efpe- 
 cially his infant children. He muft a6t an un- 
 natural part not to embrace fuch an, opportu- 
 nity of benefiting his child f ; and his conduct 
 muft be equally unnatural and culpable '1^ for- 
 cibly compelling others, in proportion as they 
 were in a capacity to judge for themf^lves*. 
 Perfe6ily analogous to this dictate of nature, 
 
 was 
 
 t 5ee X Tim. v. 8, 
 
 * ** In fevcral countries, in Spain and Portugal particularly, 
 their [the Jews'j children have been taken from them by order 
 of the government, to be educated in tlie Popifh religion. The 
 fourth council of Idedo ordered, that all their children fhould be 
 taken fnm them for fear they fhould partake cf their errors, 
 and that »hey ihould be fliut up in monafteries, to be inftrufted 
 in the chnlban truths. And vhen they were banifted from Tor- 
 tugal^ ** the king, fays Mariana, ordered all their children* 
 under fourteen years of age, to be taken from tliem and haptixed : 
 % practice not at all juftifiable," adds the h ftorian, " becaufe 
 none ought to be forced to become chriftians, nor ch Idren to be 
 taken from their parents," Bp, NiwTON'i Differt. on Pxophec. 
 Vol, 1. p. J04, 
 
Ciu 5» AnUpoedohapi'iJis answered, 263 
 
 was the divine law concerning Profelytes to the 
 Jewifh religion ; and fince it is the voice of 
 nature and of nature's God, it behoves an ob- 
 jector to produce an exprefs undoubted contra- 
 vention from heaven, to influence chriflians to 
 a different pradice, when difcipling all nations 
 to chriftianity. 
 
 § 15. It has been objected, " If we bap- 
 " tize all our infants, then we (hall have no 
 " adults to b'aptize." 
 
 But this objection amounts to no real force 
 at all, as it is evidently parallel with the fol- 
 lowing, which -iW muft allow is fufficiently 
 weak ; viz. '^ If we inculcate the principles of 
 ^* chriftianity on the rifmg generation, we (hall 
 *' have no idolaters to convert j" for it is no- 
 torious, that the greateft part of chriftian con- 
 verts in the apoftolick age came to Chrift from 
 the bofom of idolatry. — However, we reply 
 more dire6lly, by obferving, that the objection 
 is grounded on a falfe fuppofition, viz. That 
 there is foraething more excellent in adult bap- 
 tifm than infant baptifm ; or more conformable 
 to the Inftitutor's intention. But what is this 
 clfe than to fuppofe that true which is difputed P 
 And as to the former branch of the fuppofkion, 
 be it obferved, 
 
 I. That we are under no obligation to ad- 
 mit this fuppofed fuperior excellency till we are 
 informed wherein its pretenfions confift. Is it 
 becaufe baptifm is to a baptized believer a feal 
 of the righteoufnefs of faith? So it is to a 
 
 baptized 
 
264 Ohje£fJof2S afid Evafons of Ch. 5c 
 
 baptized infant; and we are bold to afRrm as 
 7nuch fo as to any believer that ever was bap- 
 tized. (See Lhap. II.) Is it bccaufe a be- 
 liever is, after baptifm, under folemn obliga- 
 tions ? So is every infant ? and, all things con* 
 f^dered, not lefs fo than any believer whatever. 
 On the contrary we infift, that the fooner a 
 benefit is enjoyed, the higher the obligation j 
 and this wc confider as more than equivalent 
 to any other fuppofed fuperior advantage what- 
 ever, which may be pleaded by our opponents. 
 2. Baptism being a feal of the covenant, 
 in the fame fenfe as circumcifion ; (Sec chap* 
 II.) were there any weight in the objection, it 
 would follow, that (fuppofing the pofitivenefs of 
 the command out of the queftion) adult circum- 
 cifion was more excellent and advantageous than 
 infant circumcifion. But will any affirm, except to 
 fupport a tottering caufe, that the moral and fpiritual 
 ufes of that inftruclive rite were better anfwer- 
 ed when fubmitted to by adult profelyres, than 
 when applied to infants? It is true there were, 
 in the former cafe, fome advantageous circum^ 
 Jlances, The adult had an opportunity of tejii^ 
 fying his aflent, belief, and fubmiflion. He had 
 the advantage of devout preparatlc7j^ by prayer 
 and fafting. And on the folemn occafion of 
 performing the duty, he was capable of rejieifiing 
 on its nature, defign and obligations. And, in 
 {hort, all his life after he could no lefs than 
 recoiled his perfonal engagements. But thefe 
 circumftances of partial advantage, were more 
 
 than 
 
 1 
 
Ch. 5. AntipoedGhaptifls anfuuereif* 265 
 
 than counterbalanced by others appertaining to 
 infants. The latter, for inflance, had the im- 
 portant privilege of being much longer (their 
 age being equaF)^ vifibly, -related to God and 
 his people : And from infancy, had a legal 
 right to all the other church privileges as they 
 grew capable of them. To which we may add, 
 That initiatory rites, from their very nature, are 
 <3e{igned to influence every fuhfequent moment of 
 life, as well as the time of celebration f . 
 
 These things, therefore, duly confidered, we 
 are fo far from thinking the univerfal preva- 
 lency of applying baptifm to infants, in a chrif- 
 tian country, is a deviation from the real de- 
 fign of the divine Inftitutor ; that we cannot 
 help believing the commiflion he gave " to dif- 
 ciple all nations'* is eminently fulfilled therein. 
 And inftead of labouring to introduce an alter- 
 atioji in this refpe<5^, we cannot forbear earneftly 
 praying, that every fuch attempt may be fruf- 
 trated\ that miflionaries among the Heathens 
 may ever baptize their infant children with the 
 parents ; and that every nation on the face of 
 the globe may be thus difcipled *. 
 Vol. II. N Coroll. 
 
 "f See Pcedobaptifmus VinJxatus, p. 19. 
 
 ♦ Agrkeable to this was the folemn dying wi/h of that 
 eiTiinently favoured fervant of Chrift, the Rev. Mr. Richard 
 Mather. This Gentleman and his family, being barbarou/ly 
 haunted by the daemon of pcrfecution in Old England^ after a 
 moft remarkable deJiveranre on the mighty waters, arrived in 
 Afw England, A. D. 163?, and the year following fixed at Dcr- 
 ibejlsr^ ** Being thus aga»n fettled in tlie Lord's woik, he therein 
 
 continued 
 
266 ObjeSJions and Evafions of^ bfc, Ch. 5* 
 
 CorolL From the whole, we may infer, How 
 
 anreafonable and wrong it is for any particular 
 
 church to refufe memberfhip to any perfon merely 
 
 becaufe he was baptized in infancy^ or is a Poedo- 
 
 haptijl in principle; as alfo, becaufe one was 
 
 not plunged when he received the chriftian />«- 
 
 rification, 
 
 CHAP. 
 
 ^inued to his dying day ; the Lord making him an eminent 
 blefling, not only to Dorcbejiery but to all the churches and plan- 
 tations round about him, for the fpace of almoft four and thirty 
 
 years. He did not fpeak much in his laft ficknefs, either to 
 
 friends that vifited him, or to his own children^ only his Son, 
 Mr. Samuel Mather, who was then a preacher in Bofion—- 
 coming to vifit his father, faid unto him. Sir, If there be any 
 fptcial thing which you would have me to do, in cafe the Lord 
 ^ould fpare me upon the earth after you are in heaven, 1 would 
 entreat you to exprefs itg At which his father, making a little 
 paufe, and lifting up his eyes and hands towards heaven, replied: 
 ♦* A (pedal thing which I would commend to you, is care con- 
 ** cerning the rifing generation in this country, that they be 
 »* brought under the government of Chrift in his church 5 and that 
 ** when they ate grown up and qualified, they have haptifmfor their 
 « childrenC^ That Is, that the children be baftisudy in virtue of the 
 parents^ profeffion. He wifhed that fome care and difcipline fhould 
 be cxercifed towards the children of prcfejforst and that thofe chil- 
 dren when they grew up and made a profeflion, fhould in con- 
 fequence thereof have their infant feed baptized^ and fo in fuc- 
 cefTion. See Dr. Gix,lies*8 Hiftorical CoUeftions, Vol. I. p. 241. 
 Neai.*8 Hiftory of New-Eng/and, Vol. p. 353, 354, 385, 
 
[ 26; ] 
 
 CHAP. VI. • 
 
 Pradical Refledions ; containing a rational 
 and devout improvement of chriftiaa 
 baptifm, and particularly Infant Bap^ 
 
 TISM, 
 
 § IntroduSilon* § 2. PraSiical ReJleSiiom, (i) From 
 the confideration of our being baptized perfons^ 
 as to ^ 3» !• Faith. § 4. 2. Gratitude, § 5. 
 3. Repe?itance, § 6. 4. Self-dedication, § 7, 
 5. Univerfal holinefs, § 8. 6. Exemplary dili» 
 gence, § 9, (2) i^r<lw //?^ confideration of- our 
 being baptized in infancy, as to § lO. I. 
 Faith, § II. 2v Gratitude, § 12. 3. Repent- 
 ance, § 13. 4. Self-dedication, § 14. 5, Univer" 
 fal holinefs, § 15. 6. Exemplary diligence, § 16 
 
 — 23. (3) y/i PARENTS. § 24 — 29 (4) ^J 
 MINISTERS. § 30—36, (5j As SPECTATORS. 
 
 § 37, Recapitulation. 
 
 § I. '"T^HE gofpel contains good tidings of 
 A great joy, which (hall be unto all 
 people. And the legacy, the ineftimable trea- 
 fure, bequeathed to us by the laft will and tef- 
 tament of our Divine Saviour, he Jeals not only 
 \\ith his blood to fatisfy Juftice, but alfo by 
 liis tnfitutions for our inftru6lion and comfort. 
 He condefcends to teach us, in a fenfe, after 
 
 N 2 the 
 
268 PraSflcal Reflealons. Ch. 5. 
 
 the manner of men ; while at the fame time, Iiis 
 method of teaching bears the ftamp of infinite 
 wifdom and tranfcendent love. In thefe inftitutions 
 we difcover the loving -kindnefs of the Lord adap- 
 ting itfelf to human weaknefs, and human wants ; 
 hereby every faculty is addrefled, every affedtion 
 folicited, every fin difcountenanced, and every 
 chriftian grace, pious difpofition, and divine vir- 
 tue, encouraged. And as this is the character 
 of gofpel inftitutions in general, fo it is particu- 
 larly of bapitfrn in an eminent degree. Whe- 
 ther we confider ourfelves as baptized perfons — 
 as baptized in infancy — as parents — as minijiers 
 — and as fpeSiators of this ordinance, the practi- 
 cal and devout confideration of it will be at- 
 tended with peculiar advantages. 
 
 § 2. (i) From the general confideration of 
 our being baptized peifons, without any re- 
 ference to the time when, we may gather many 
 profitable reflections for the important purpofes 
 of encouraging our faitb — provoking our gratis 
 fn^g — furthering our repentance — engaging our 
 felf'dedtcation — advancing our hoUneJs — and of 
 exciting our diligence, 
 
 § 3. I. Is baptifm a feal? What an objec- 
 tive ground of faith does it exhibit! 
 
 Am I a baptized pQrfon ? Then I have not only 
 his word of promife, and his folemn oath, to en- 
 courage my faith in his gofpel, but alfo this 
 ftanding inftitution which was applied to me 
 for that purpofe. As an oath puts an end to 
 all ftrife, fo does the legal fealing of an inftru- 
 
 ment. 
 
Ch. 6. PraBical RefleSilons, 269 
 
 ment. And can I any longer doubt that the 
 proinire is for ?ny ufe ? Surely the bare word 
 of the God of truth, who cannot lie, were 
 enough to fupprefs every rliing doubt, refpe£ling 
 the matter teftiiied ; but when he confirms the 
 teftimony with an oath^ he feems willing more 
 abundantly to encourage my faith. And yet, as 
 if this were not fufficient, he puts the matter 
 fo far out of doubt as to point me out by 
 name. He hath put his own name upon me : 
 and his languige, in effect is, I will be thy God^ 
 thy father, thy everlafting portion 3 how Jono- 
 wilt thou be faithlefs ? Can faith, the moil ra- 
 tional faith, require any more ? Lord, let me 
 never be guilty of the impious crime of dif- 
 believing the freenefs of thy grace, thy willin<y- 
 nefs to fave me, even me^ however opprefTed 
 with guilt, and defiled with pollution. I can 
 never diftruft myfelf too much ; but is it pofUble 
 to put too much trufl in the Lord? To put 
 too much confidence in my Divine Shepherd \ 
 Does he call me by my name ? Has he fet 
 me apart for himfelf? Wherefore fhould I 
 doubt, or what polTible plea has unbelief to 
 urge ? 
 
 Faith fhould refpect a divine tejiimony. But 
 what is the teftimony of God ? That God cf* 
 fers^ nay gives unto me eternal life, and this 
 life is in his Son. Is it on. condition of future 
 amendment and a virtuous condu£l ? No ; the 
 encouraging grant is fufpended on no condition 
 whatever. My pojpjfton of the mercy, fealed by 
 
 N 3 my 
 
270 Pfaalcal Refie^ions, Ch. 6. 
 
 my baptifm, is to be enjoyed by faith-, and 
 this faith of the operation of God purifies the 
 heart, pacifies the confcience, works by love, 
 difpels every guilty fear, and is produ61ive of 
 the fruits of righteoufnefs to the glory of God. 
 Docs diffidence obje6t : " Why beHcve that the 
 promife is to yoii^ tho* baptized ?" Nay, rather, 
 why not to me ? Am I not a finner, under 
 the found of the gofpel, and fet apart to its 
 privileges ? And is not this one of them, that 
 Jefus Chrifl is willing to faye me from fm and 
 he]], and from the hand of all that hate me ? 
 That I may by fakh enter into reft, by faith be 
 juitiiied from all things, have peace with God 
 thro' our Lord Jefus Chrift-, receive reconciliation 
 and atonement, have my iniquities fubdued, and 
 my foul everlaftingly faved? If I may not receive 
 thefe bleffings by faith^ without the previous 
 condition of my performing works of righteouf- 
 nefs, what would become of me as a dying 
 fmner ? How, otherwife, could the gofpel be 
 good tidings to fmners on the verge of eternity, 
 as^well as to thofe who may live to manifeft 
 their faith by their works ? 
 
 Will difcouragement again urge: " Faith 
 is the gift of God, and therefore is not in my 
 own power?" If it be the gift of God, as it 
 certainly is, let me make the greater fpeed in 
 making my application to hini for it. And 
 even this is a privilege to which I am admit- 
 ted. Nor does faith being the gift of God, 
 hinder believing to be my duty. Nor yet does 
 
 my 
 
Ch. 5*- Fra5ilcal Ref.eSftom. ' 2-71'^ 
 
 xny attempting to difcharge a duty, any way pre- 
 vent the duty itfelf difcharged being a fuper^ 
 natural effe£f. Is it not ray duty to attempt to 
 love God, to love him for the fake of his in- 
 finite worthinefs, as well as his ftupendous love 
 to a perifhing world, in the gift of his Son ? 
 And yet if I am a true lover of God, I dare ' 
 not afcribe the attainment to any thing fhort 
 of fovereign diftinguifhing grace. Is^ the divine 
 nature., as pofTefTed of all pofTible perfe£tions and* 
 excellencies, of all that is amiable afid lovely, 
 merciful and gracious, the proper objeci and ra- 
 tional ground of divine love ; fo is the promife 
 of God, confirmed by> his oath and feal, the 
 proper object and rational ground, of divine. 
 . faith. The promife, fealed by my baptifm, as 
 a golden chain let down from heaven, is my 
 only ground of hope as a perifliing finner. And 
 as a finner does the promife "^regard me j under 
 that character it addrefTes nie. O charming 
 news, O glorious difcovery ! Here is a, remedy 
 prefented to me,- placed full before niy eyes, 
 equally free and efficacious. Is it prefumptioh 
 to receive it, wben I am afllired by the mef- 
 fenger who brings it. That not to receive the 
 bounteous donation, under the pretence that it 
 belongs not to me a fmner^ is in eff^edl to 
 charge the Promifer, the God of truth, with 
 infincerity and falfehood ? What greater evidence 
 can fcrupulofity itfelf wi(h for, that the grant 
 of mercy is defigned for mef What in the 
 whole compafs of the nature of things can be 
 
 N 4 imagined 
 
272 'PrcMlcal Reflea'tonu Ch. 6. 
 
 imagined as a proof to me, a finfiil creature, 
 that the divine profnife is intended for my ufe^ 
 than that it fhould be directed to me by name, 
 accompanied with the oath and feal of Jehovah ? 
 Will not the blood and the water, will not 
 heaven and earth be fwift witneffes againft me 
 it unbelief flill prevails ? 
 
 I AM not required to believe what is either 
 umeafonable or untrue. For what is more rea- 
 fonalle than to hclievi what the All -wife, Al- 
 mighty, and gracious God teftifies j and teflifies 
 \i\ juch a manner? And it would be impious 
 to fuppofe that Kc requires me to believe any, 
 thing which is not ftricily true. His teflmony 
 is not concerning my goodnefs^ my attalnmentSy 
 my a5fual poJfefpQn of grace, of faith, of holinefs, 
 tic, but concerning his own exceeding great and 
 precious protniles, that by these i may be- 
 come 3 partaker of a holy nature, with every 
 new covenant blefling thro' time and eternity. 
 Let my baptiftii then not only remind, but 
 alio affure me, that with God there is mercy 
 held forth for me ; tliat even I, however un- 
 deferving and condemnable in myfelf, may have 
 free accefs to a throne of grace, may obtain 
 mercy, and find grace to help in time of need. 
 
 § 4. 2. Does baptifm exhibit important blef^ 
 fings? Then how fhould the confideration of 
 it provoke my gratitude ! 
 
 A M I a baptized perfon ? Then to me is held 
 forth the remiffon of all myjins. The very inftitu- 
 tion itfelf is a faithful zuitfjcfs for the God of grace, 
 
 that 
 
Ch. 6. PraSflcal ReJleSiions, 273 
 
 that he (lands ready to pardon. O glorious privi- 
 lege, to have to do with the King of Kings and 
 Lord of Lords, who, tho' 1 have highly offen- 
 ded him with my fins, holds in his gracious 
 hand a free^ fall, and everlafting pardon ! Am 
 I placed in his church by baptifm ? With ad- 
 ditional evidence, therefore, may I confider the 
 following wonderful words addrefled to fjie, 
 " The Lord, the Lord God, merciful and 
 gracious, long-fuffering and abundant in goodnefs 
 and truth, keeping mercy for thoufands, forgiv- 
 ing iniquity and tranfgrelHon and fin." (Exod. 
 xxxiv. 6, 7.) And as thefe words were pro- 
 claimed for the ufe of the guilty and alarmed 
 Ifraelites, after the two firji tables of ftone were 
 l)roken, occafioned by their idolatry and folly; 
 fo are they directed to me now after all niy 
 pad follies and provocations. Even to me are 
 the following words dire6ted, " Thou haft 
 made me to ferve with thy fins, thou haft wea- 
 ried me with thine iniquities. I> (O wonder- 
 ful retaliation ! ) even I am he who blotteth 
 out thy tranfgreffions for mine own fake, and 
 will not remember thy fins. Put me in re- 
 membrance ; let us plead together : declare thou^ 
 that thou mayeft be juftified," (Ifa. xliii. 24 
 — 26.) Lord, this is not the manner of men : 
 thou giveft liberally without upbraiding. In 
 grateful wonder I would reply, " Who is a 
 God like unto thee, that pardoneth iniquity, 
 and pafiTeth by the tranfgreffion of the remnant 
 of his heritage ? He retaineth not his anger for 
 
 N 5 ever 
 
 
274 Pra^ical RefleSiiom. Ch. 6. 
 
 ever, becaufe he delighteth in mercy. He will 
 turn again, he will have compaflion upon us; 
 he will fubdue our inic^uities ; and thou wilt 
 caft all my fins into the depths of the fea. 
 Thou wilt perform the truth to Jacob, and the 
 mercy to Abraham, which thou haft fworn to 
 our fathers from the days of old/' Micah vii. 
 18 — 20. 
 
 Am 'I a baptized perfon ? Then ftill greater 
 hkjjings are yet granted and fealed to me. For 
 hereby I am ajjured that Jalvation from the ma^ 
 lady of fin, the dominioa of lufts, the malice 
 of fatan, and the pains of hell, is exhibited and 
 prefented to me. And as this invaluable blef- , 
 iing is directed to me by name^ ever fmce I 
 have borne the name of my Saviour, received 
 at my baptifm, fo it comes as a free gift, and 
 without charge. Stand ftill, therefore, and fee,, 
 in faith and affe61:ionate gratitude, the falvatlon 
 of the Lord, I am invited to the wells of fal- 
 vation, without money and without price. How 
 €an I doubt either his power or willingnefs 
 to fave me to the uttermoft ? Is not this the 
 voice of my Sovereign and Saviour ? " Look 
 unto me and be thou faved?^' And fhall not 
 gratitude, unfeigned gratitude, have a peaceful 
 aljode in my favoured foul ? Yes y ^' Blefs the 
 Lord, O my foul j and all that is within me 
 blefs his holy name. Blefs the Lord, O my 
 foul, and forget not aU his benefits j who for- 
 giveth all thine iniquities; who healeth all thy 
 difeafesj who redeemeth thy life froni deftruc- 
 
 tion J 
 
Ch. 6i Praiiical Reflexions, ay 5 
 
 tion ; who crowneth thee with loving kind- 
 nefs and tender mercies.*' (Pfalm ciii. 1—4.) 
 In Chrifl my Saviour I have a propitiation for 
 my fins, and a robe of confummate righteouf- 
 nefs. If taught of God to underjland the things 
 thus freely given me out of the unfearchable 
 riches of his grace ; if my heart is opened^ like 
 that of Lydia, to receive thefe ineftimable bene- 
 fits, I may. further add, " I will greatly rejoice in 
 the Lord, my foul fhall be joyful in my God : for 
 he hath clothed me with the garments of faf- 
 vation, he hath covered me with the robe of 
 righteoufnefs, as a bridegroom decketh. himfelf 
 with ornaments, and as a bride adorneth herfelf 
 with her jewels. For as the earth bringeth. 
 forth her bud, and as the garden caufeth the 
 things that are fown in it to fpring forth ; io 
 the Lord God will caufe righteoufnefs and 
 praife to fpring forth before all the nations, 
 (L^a. Ixi. 10, II.) 
 
 Do I frill complain of fplritual dulnefs^ im- 
 potency and ingratitude ? Let me further con- 
 fider the ample contents of the promifes, and 
 fee whether ingratitude itfelf will not. be con- 
 founded at the rehearfal of them.. For does 
 not Jehovah fay to me, as well as to Abra- 
 ham, I am thy ftiield, and thine exceeding great 
 reward ? Does he not, in effect, invite, me to 
 take a view of a fpiritual inheritance, incor* 
 ruptible, undefiled, and unfading, as he did to 
 Abraham, concerning the terreftrial Canaan, who 
 had nothing to truft in, more than myfelf 
 
 N 6. or 
 
276 Pra5lical Reflexions, Ch. 6. 
 
 or any other linful defcendant of Adam, but 
 the righteoufnefs of faith which was fignified and 
 fealed to him, as it is to me, by a divine or- 
 dinance — " Lift up now thine eyes, and look 
 from the place where thou art, northward, and 
 fouthward, and eaftward, and weftward. For all 
 the heavenly land which thou feeft, to thee will 
 I give it — Arife, walk thro' the promifcd land 
 in the length of it, and in the breadth of it : 
 for / will give it unto thee. *' May I not ap- 
 propriate the words of Mofes to Ifracl with a 
 little variitJon ? " He is thy Praife, and he is 
 ,thy God, that hath done for thee thefe great 
 ^nd marveloujly gracious things which thine eyes 
 have i^^n.'*'' And how reafonable the following 
 inference? . " Therefore, thou llialt love the 
 Lord thy God, and (as the bell expreflion of 
 thy gratitude) keep his charge, and his ftatutes, 
 and his judgments, and his commandments, al- 
 v/ay." May I not, without prefumption, ap- 
 propriate the words of Amafai to David, " Peace, 
 peace be unto thee, and peace be to thine 
 helpers j for thy Gc4> helpeth thee.'* But am £ 
 afraid to admit this language, becaufe only al- 
 lufive ? Then let me attend to declarations 
 more direilly defigned for the ufe of the church 
 in all ages, and ^Htrefore for mine^ as a mem- 
 ber of it. " Fear thou not, for I am with 
 thee ; be not difmaycd, for I am thy God 5 I 
 will firengthen thee ; yea, I will help thee 5 yea, 
 1 will uphold thee with the right Ifand of my 
 righteoufnefs— For I the Lord thy Qod will 
 
 hold 
 
Ch. 6. PraSfkal ReJleSlions. 277 
 
 hold thy right hand, faying unto thee. Fear not, 
 I will help thee— 1 will help thee faith the 
 Lord, and thy Redeeivier, the Holy One of 
 Ifrael. — Thou (halt fan thy fpiritual enemies^ and 
 the wind fhall carry them away, and the whirl- 
 wind (hall fcatter them : and thou flialt rejoice 
 in the Lord, and fhalt glory in the Holy One 
 of Ifrael." And left a difcouraging furmife 
 Hiould have room to intervene, he adds : " VVhen 
 the poor and needy feek water" to refrefli their 
 ibuls, " and there is none" in the whole com- 
 pafs of mere nature fuited to their cafe, " and 
 their tongue faileth for thirft, I the Lord will 
 hear them, I the God of Ifrael will not for- 
 fake them. I will open rivers in high places, 
 and fountains in. the midft of the valleys." 
 (Ifa. xli. 10 — 18.) 
 
 Am I a baptized perfon? Then I have the 
 enlightening, inftru6ling, and comforting influ- 
 ences of the Spirit of promife, exhibited for 
 my ufe^ with fuperadded evidence and certainty. 
 If earthly parents,, who are evil, know how to 
 give good gifts unto their children, how much 
 more Ihall my Father v/ho is in heaven give 
 good things, even the greateft of bleffings, his Holy 
 Spirit, to them that afk him ? And why not 
 to me ? Have I any fcriptural, or any rational 
 ground of fufpicion? Yes, the fame Lord who 
 inftituted water-baptifm, is ready to baptize me 
 with the Holy Ghoil and with fire. He will 
 take of the thmgs of Chrift and (hew them 
 unto me. He is ready to guide me into all 
 
 necelTary 
 
%yS PraSftcal RefleSflons*.. Cfi. 6# 
 
 neceflary truth ; to comfort me iri every trou- 
 ble i to (bed abroad the love of the Father in 
 my foul; to reprove me of every fin; to help 
 my infirmities; to give me wifdom, and that 
 liberally, without upbraiding ; to teach me the. 
 Vv'ay of peace, holinefs, and fruitful living to 
 the glory of God. O my foul, what wouldeft 
 thou have more ? Doft thou complain o£ 
 hardnefs of heart, fo that thef© and the like 
 precious promifes do not afFedt thee ? Them 
 remember that he will take away the flony 
 heart, and will b.eftow an heart of flefhi Plead 
 this piomife ; and that which foilo/;s: " This 
 is the covenant that I will make with the houfe 
 of Ifrael (of which houfe thou art, as a believer.^ 
 in Jefus) after thofe day% faith ths Lord: I 
 will put my laws into their mind, and write 
 them in their hearts ; and I will be unlo them 
 a Godj and they- fliall be to me a people. 
 And they Ihali not teach every man his neigh- 
 bour, and every man his brother, faying, Know 
 the Lord : for all ftiall know me, from the 
 lead to the greateft. For I will be merciful 
 to their unrighteoufnefs, and their fms and their 
 iniquities will I remember no more." (Hcb. 
 viii. 10 — 12.) When I confider, therefore, that 
 thefe promifes, grace and glory, and every good 
 things are exhibited and fealed by my baptifm ; 
 how (hould the confideration of it operate as 
 a powerful incentive to inceffant gratitude and 
 thankfgiving ! And 
 
 § 5, 3. What 
 
Ch.. 6» PraSikal RefleSitons, 2y^ 
 
 § 5. 3. What a call to repentance does the 
 devout confideration of baptifm afford ? 
 
 Am I a baf'tized perfon ? Then under v/hat 
 folemn, what inconceivably ftrong obligations have 
 the above benefits laid me? For the greater 
 the benefits, the greater the obligations. Are 
 the blefTings fealed by baptifm, great, glorious^ 
 infinite, eternal realities ? The love of the Fa- 
 ther, the atonement and grace of the Son, the 
 influences and fellowfhip of the Spirit? Pre- 
 fent peace and future glory ? Prefent pardon, 
 and everlafling life ? Then, have I given thefe 
 bleffmgs held forth in the promife, and fealed 
 to me by baptifm, a Juitable reception ? Tho' 
 directed and fent to me by name^ confirmed by 
 the oath and feal of God, how often have they 
 been difregarded? How has the mofl infigni* 
 ficant objedl:, the mofl trifling circumftance, the 
 mofl uninterefting occurrence, or the mofr in- 
 fipid tale, engrolTed my attention, while the 
 faithful and merciful record of Jehovah has 
 found no welcome ? The gracious mefTage from 
 heaven, tho' worthy of all acceptation, has long 
 found me carelefs, perhaps wilfully ignorant,, 
 hard-hearte3, in love with folly, in league with 
 lin and hell. What fhall I fay ? A prodigal 
 fon, bent on my own ruin, and lifting up the 
 heel of rebellion againfl a gracious God. Oh, 
 that my head were waters, and mine eyes a 
 fountain of ^tears, that I might weep at the re- 
 membrance of thefe things I How do I dfeferve 
 to be fed with the bread of tears, and to have 
 
 tears 
 
aSo PraSlkal Refienlom, Cli. 6. 
 
 tears to drink in great meafure; for breaking 
 thefe bands afunder, and cafting away thefe 
 cords of obligation far from me? Nay, if I 
 fpeak of demerit, how do I delerve to be caft 
 into the hotteft hell, to fufFer everlaftingly, for 
 the mifimprovement of fuch aftonifhing love 
 and mercy ? Would not my damnation be 
 juji? If the means of grace are enjoyed, and 
 the grace cf the means exhibited, what have I 
 to fay againft the unfavourable fentence of ray 
 righteous Governor and Judge ? Am I not an 
 unprofitable fcrvant? Have I not buried my 
 talent in tlte earth? May not the Lord ap- 
 peal to heaven and earth againft my ingrati- 
 tude, as he once did againft Ifrael? " Hear, 
 O heavens ; and give ear, O earth ; for the 
 Lord hath fpoken : I have nouriflied and brought 
 vp a chikly and he has rebelled againft me." 
 
 But am I fo fmful, laden with iniquity, evil 
 and corrupt; have I fo forfaken the Lord, pro- 
 voked the Holy One of Ifrael unto anger, and 
 gone away backward, that there is no hope ? 
 No; for his mercy endureth for ever. Even 
 now am I told, that tho' my fms be as fcar- 
 kt, they ftiall be as white as fnow; tho' they 
 be red like crimfon, they ftiall be as wool. 
 Behold, nozv is the accepted time; behold, now 
 is the day of falvation. O the riches of divine 
 grace, the unfearchable riches of Chrift ! Tho' 
 my fms be great, thy pardoning love is greater. 
 Tho' my crimes rife high, thy mercy is high- 
 er. O the wonderful efficacy of the Redeemer's 
 
 merits ! 
 
W' 
 
 Ch. 6. PraSIlcal Reflections, 281 
 
 merits ! The blood of Jefus Chrift cleanfetli 
 from all fin. This my baptifin fealed unto 
 me. And is it poiTible that my hard heart 
 fhoLiId ftill remain unmelted, under the hot 
 beams of divine unchanging love? Does not 
 ' every v/eapon drop from my rebellious hand ? 
 Does not evangelical forrow pierce my very 
 foul ? Behold a debt of ten thoufand talents 
 freely forgiven ! Tho' with my (ins I have 
 pierced the Lord of glory, yet looking to him, 
 by faith in his blood, he removes my guilt, 
 takes away all iniquity, loves freely, pours into 
 my foul peace with God, and leads me to refl 
 and refreihing joys for his name's fake. Thefe 
 blefTmgs, fealed by baptifrn, mud needs either 
 aggravate my guilt and mifery, or elfe promote 
 genuine repentance. O that they may anfv/er 
 the purpofes of grace, and not of avenging Juf- 
 tice ! O my foul, defpifeii thou the riches c^ 
 his goodnefs, and forbearance, and long fuffer- 
 ing; not knowing that the gocdnefs of God 
 leadeth thee to repentance F 
 
 Mr. Matthew Henry well obferves : "Our 
 baptifm engageth us, not only to the firft re- 
 pentance from dead works, but to an a/te7- re- 
 pentance, as there is occafion. Our firft wafh- 
 ing in the laver of baptifm, obligeth us every 
 day t(^ wajh our feet (John xiii. 10.) from the 
 pollutions we contra6l*.** And as there is on 
 every one baptized an oUlgation to repent, fo 
 he has the moft abundant encouragetncnts for it. 
 
 For 
 
 * Trcatifc on Bapt, p. 195, 
 
aSz RraSilcal RefleBionu Ch. 6*. 
 
 P'or what is more defirable to the guilty,, than 
 pardon, free, full and everlafting ? This was 
 the encouragement Peter gave to the guilty 
 Jews (Ads iii. 19.) " Repent ye therefore," 
 (tho* ye delivered up Jefus, and denied him in 
 the prefence of Pilate ; tho' ye denied the Holy 
 One, and the Juft, and defired a murderer to 
 be granted uu,to you; and killed the Prince of 
 life, whom God hath raifed from the dead) re- 
 pent, " and be converted, that your fins may he 
 blotted out J when the time of refrediing (hall 
 come from the prefence of the Lord." " While 
 the hue and cry is out againft the malefa6lor, 
 he flies, but the proclamation of pardon brings 
 him in. This Kingdom of God (Matt, iv, . 
 17.) is come nigh unto us ; it was in baptifm 
 applied is us in particular^ that the encourage-^ 
 ment might be paft difputef," 
 
 § 6. 4. The devout confideration of bap- 
 tifm is a powerful inducement to felf-dedica-' 
 cation. If I am a baptized chriftian, I have been 
 dedicated to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, by. 
 his minifler ; for this is neceflarily implied in 
 baptifm. Was this rights or was it not ? Nay, 
 was it not a high privilege ? If fo, it muft be 
 right to approve of it, and to be thankful for it. 
 Now in what way can this be done y^ proper 
 as by felf'dedication F- Rather, can a thankful 
 approbation of the baptifmal favour exift at all 
 without it ?. Is not the withholding of this 
 
 tribute 
 
 f, lb.. p. igS^ 
 
Ch. 6. . PraSikal ReJkSf'iQns. 283. 
 
 tribute a virtual denial of its being a privi- 
 lege ? But if the gofpel be a privilege to fallen 
 man, its diredion to me in particular^ figned, 
 fealed, and delivered, muft be a moft lingular 
 blefling. I blefs thy glorious Name, O Lord, 
 that a covenant of mercy was ever announced 
 to any of mankind i to Adam, to Abel, to 
 Enoch, to Noah, to Abraliam, &c. but what 
 fiiall I render unto thee, that this covenant has 
 been, by a gracious providence, dire£led unto 
 me P Has terminated upon w^, fo undeferv- 
 ing and finful ? Was there any thing in me 
 that called for fuch difcrimination? What am 
 I, or my father's houfe, that 1 (liould be thus 
 privileged ? It is owing to a fovereign provi- 
 dence that my lot is not caft among Americari 
 Indians, or the Savages of Africa ; and it is 
 owing to foVereign grace that England is illu- 
 minated with the Sun of Righteoufnefs. When 
 I think on thefe things,, and the numberlefs 
 bleffings therewith Gonne6ted ; when I confider 
 that I have been minifterially dedicated to the 
 only living and true God, and Saviour of men, 
 according to his will\ I iky again, what fhall 
 I render unto the Lord ? What have 1 which 
 I have not received ? What tribute can my 
 grateful heart bring unto the Lord, which is 
 not his own already? Yet he will not de- 
 fpife what I bring him of his own. By the 
 mercies of God, I will and do prefent, not 
 only my body^ but my foul alfo, a living facri- 
 fice unto God, which is my reafonable fervice* 
 
 Am 
 
284 Pra^ical Reflexions, Ch. 6> 
 
 Am 1 not his in all refpeiSls ? Not to give up 
 myfelf to him then, is to commit robbery and 
 facrJIege. I am not only the v.'ork of his 
 hand, and the fheep of his pafture, but alfo am. 
 redeermd^ not with corruptible things, as filver 
 and gold, but with the precious blood of Chrift. 
 How reafonable and juft, therefore, a voluntaiy 
 and affeftionate furrender of myfelf, to my God 
 and Saviour ? And what exercife can equal it, 
 either in pkafure or profit ? Is it a phafure to 
 the honeft mind to pay a jufl debt ? Or to 
 the generous mind to make refLituticn ? Un- 
 fpeakably more is the pleafure and fails faction 
 I liave in giving up myfelf, without fear or 
 referve, to the God of love and grace. How 
 delightful the thought, that I am not my own ! 
 I am bought with a price; I have been de- 
 livered up to my proper owner ; and now, 
 with inexpreflible complacency, I acknowledge 
 my being the rightful property of my Redeemer, 
 Oh tliat I may be found, while I Iiave breath 
 or being, glorifying God in my body, and ia 
 my fpirit, which are God's ! And, furely, as 
 it is delightful, fo it is prof.tahle. While I re- 
 fign all, I obtain all ; but while I kept myfelf 
 to myfelf, I had neither pleafure nor profit. I 
 was then a ftranger to my beft intereft. Now 
 appears, with peculiar force and beauty, the;,, 
 wife man's paradox : " There is tJiat fcatterc-th,. 
 and yet increafeth; and there is tliat withhold- 
 eth more than is meet, but it tendeth to po- 
 verty." And again : " There is that maketh 
 
 himfelf 
 
Ch. 6. Pra^fkal Reflexions, 285 
 
 himfelf rich, yet hath nothing ; there is that 
 maketh himfelf poor, yet hath great riches." 
 (Prov. xi. 24. xiii. 7.) 
 
 Do I ftill find refervednefs or (loth, fpread- 
 ing their baneful influence over my foul? Am 
 I flill waiting for more powerful inducements? 
 Behold ! another inducement prefents itfelf — ■ 
 one that may well fill me with everlafting 
 wonder. The AU-fufficient God, (how fhall I 
 exprefs myfelf ?) Jehovah gives himfelf to me. 
 Aftonilhing conveyance ! I will be thy God, 
 fays he ! He confirms it with his oath, and 
 ratifies it with his feal. Does the Lord, by a 
 covenant grant, make over his glorious felf to 
 me as my portion ? This is furely an irrefif- 
 tible motive. What fort of a grant is it ? 
 Not an imaginary or a feigned, but a real and 
 fmcere grant. I may venture, I would venture ten 
 thoufand fouls, were they mine, on the fincerity 
 and truth of it. If it be not a truth, that I as 
 a baptized perfon am privileged with this cove- 
 nant grant, I will be thy God; then I may 
 queftion whether the fun ever fiione upon Bri- 
 tain on a fummer's day. Lord, in return take 
 fole pofTeffion of me ! Make me thy living 
 temple ; let my favoured heart be th-e throne of 
 thy reigning grace; let it be my fweet employ, 
 thro' time and eternity, to behold, with open 
 face, as in a glafs—the gofpel mirror— the 
 glory of the Lord, as my covenant portion ; 
 that I may be changed into his lovely image, 
 
 froni 
 
3:86 PraSfical RefieSl'iom. Ch. 6. 
 
 from glory to glory, as by the Spirit of the 
 Lord. 
 
 § 7. 5. The devout confideration of baptifm 
 is a fuitable and ftrong motive to univerfal ho- 
 linefi. To be baptized^ is to be devoted to a 
 conformity with Chrift. Which con{?fts in the 
 deftru6tion of the body of fm, and a life of 
 purity, heavenly-mindednefs, and fpiritual Hberty. 
 By this ordinance of initiation, methinks, the 
 Lord fays, with peculiar ^mphafis, " Be ye 
 holy, for I am holy." To the chriftian church 
 fet apart to himfelf by the initiating rite, he 
 in effect fays, " Ye are a chofen generation, a 
 royal priefthood, an holy nation, a peculiar 
 people : that ye Ihould fhew forth the praifes of 
 him who hath called you out of darknefs into 
 his marvellous light : which in time pall were 
 not a people, but are now the people of God : 
 which had not obtained mercy, but now have 
 obtained mercy. Dearly beloved, as Grangers 
 and pilgrims, abftain from flefhly lufts, which 
 war againft the foul , that all around you may, 
 by your good works which they fliall behold, 
 glorify God in the day of vifitation." (i Pet. 
 ii. 9—12.) What is the end of our holy relU 
 gloHy of which baptifm is the badge? Is it 
 not, " that we fhould be holy and without 
 blame before cz/r heavenly Father m love?" That 
 we may be prefented " holy and unblameable, 
 and unreproveable in his fight r" That we 
 (hould be " faved from our fins," and " re- 
 deemed from all iniquity ?" Let me, there- 
 fore, 
 
Ch, 6. PraSlical ^eJieHlons, 287 
 
 fore, " gird up the loins of my mind, be fo- 
 ber and hope to the end for the grace that is 
 to be brought unto me at the revelation of 
 Jefus Chrift ; as an obedient child, not fa(hion- 
 ing myfelf according to the former lufts in my 
 ignorance : But as he who hath called me is 
 holy, fo may I be holy in all manner of con- 
 verfation, Becaufe it is written. Be ye holy, 
 for I am holy." (i Pet. i. 13—16.) 
 
 *' We are by our baptifmal covenant," fays 
 Mr. Henry, " obliged to mortify fin, and in 
 baptifm receive the promife of the Holy Ghoil 
 for that purpofe. We are hurled by baptifjn^ 
 i. e. we are, in profefTion and obligation^ quite 
 feparated and cut off from fm ; as thofe who 
 are not only dead, but buried, are quite parted 
 from the living, and have no more any inter- 
 courfe, correfpondence or fellowfhip with them. 
 We are likewife rifen again to another fort of 
 life. Not as the widow's fon, and Lazarus, 
 were raifed, to live juft fuch a life as they lived 
 before, but as Chrifl: was raifed j who, tho' he 
 continued on earth forty days after his refur- 
 re<S^ion, did not fhew himfelf openly, nor con- 
 verfe with this world as he had done ; but his 
 life was altogether heavenly, and no more in 
 the world. Thus our baptifm, obliging us to 
 die to {in, and live to righteoufnefs, we may 
 be faid therein to be buried, and rifen with 
 Jefus Chrift. A chriftian, therefore, who is by 
 baptifm buried with l hrift, and yet lives in 
 fm, is like a walking gho/l -, or the frightful 
 
 motion 
 
288 Practical ReJieSllons, Chi 6.-:^^ 
 
 motion of a dead body. We fliould often re-\" 
 member, that we are huriedy i. e. cut oft fron\ 
 a life of fm; and rifen, i. e. entered upon' a 
 life of holinefs. We fliould therefore fee it, 
 (faith the excellent Davenant,) that what is 
 done once facramentally, in baptifm, Jhould he 
 always done really, in the life*.'* Lord, grant 
 me the prevailing aids of thy Holy Spirit, that I 
 may reckon myfelf to be dead indeed unto fin, 
 but alive unto God thro' Jefus Chrift our Lord. 
 That fm may never reign in my mortal body, 
 that I (hould obey it in the lufts thereof. 
 May I never yield my members as inflruments 
 of unrighteoufnefs unto fm ; but may I yield 
 myfelf unto God, as one alive from the dead, 
 and my members as inftruments of righteouf- 
 nefs unto God— fervants to righteoufnefs, unto 
 holinefs. That now being made free from fm, 
 and become a fervant to God, I may have my 
 fruit unto holinefs, and the end everlafting life. 
 
 (Rom. vi.) 
 
 § 8. 6. Baptism may be improved as a pro- 
 per incitement to exemplary diligence. 
 
 Am I a baptized perfon ? Then let me an- 
 fwer the great ends of my baptifm, to fight 
 the good fight of faith — not uncertainly as one 
 beating the air, but with zeal according to 
 knowledge— run the race fet before me; prefs 
 toward the mark of my high calling of God 
 in Chrift; redeem the time; work while it is 
 day, for the night cometh when no man can 
 
 work ; 
 
 * Treatifc on Baptifm, p. 174, 175. 
 
Ch. 6. PraSiical RefieHions, 2S9 
 
 work ; be diJigent in bufinefs, fervent in fpirit, 
 ferving the Lord. May he into whofe fervice 
 I am cnJifted, into whofe vineyard I am fent, 
 and to whom I am accountable, caufe me to 
 *' abound in faith and all diligence,'' Oh that 
 I may " (hew growing diligence to the fuJI af- 
 furance of hope unto the end ; that I be not 
 flothful, but a follower of them who thro' faith 
 and patience inherit the promifes/' (Heb. vi. 
 II, 12.) " Baptifm is a talent," fays Mr. Hen- 
 ry, " which muft be traded with, and accounted 
 for. It is a price put into the hand to get 
 wifdom: and with this, as with other talents, 
 Ihe charge is, Occupy till I co?ne. By working 
 upon our fouls a fenfe of the obligations we 
 are laid under by our baptifm, we put this ta- 
 lent into the bank^ and, if we were not wanting 
 to ourfelves, might receive from it the blefTed 
 ufury of a great deal of comfort and holinefs*." 
 To further my holy diligence in thofe works 
 and ways, to which my baptjifm was defio;ned 
 to lead me, let me often recoiled, and be de'eply 
 impreiTed by thefe truly wif^ maxims : « He 
 becometh poor trat dealeth with a flack hand ; 
 but the hand of the diligent maketh rich. He 
 that gathereth in fummer is a wife fon ; but hs 
 that fleepeth in hai-veft^M^ harvejl of his chriji 
 tian profeffion — is a fon that caufeth fhame " 
 (Prov. X. 4, 5.) 
 
 Alas ! how many ignorant and flothful pro- 
 fefTors muft one day take up this bitter la- 
 ^'^^•"- O mentation; 
 
 * Tieati'c on Baptifm, p. 161. 
 
2Q0 PraSlual Rejiecl'iom* Ch. 6. 
 
 mentation ; " The harveft is paft, the fummer 
 is ended, and we are not faved.'* (Jer. viii. 
 20.) Often have we been exhorted to give all 
 diligence to make our calling and ele(3:ion fure : 
 But we ftood againft every call, carelefs and 
 unmoved. V/e Mattered ourfelves that we pof- 
 feJTed a talent, while • yet it lay unimproved. 
 " How many baptized perfons are there,*' as 
 Mr. Henry juftly obferves, " who are altoge- 
 ther grangers to the covenants of promife ? 
 Who look upon baptifm only as a thing of 
 courfe ; nothing more than the cuftom of the 
 country? No wonder they do not improve 
 that which they do not undtrjiand, Baptifm 
 being the badge of our profeflion, to underftand 
 that is to underftand our holy religion ; the na- 
 ture, duties, privileges, and defigns of it ; to all 
 of which our baptifm doth fome way or other 
 rfefer. It is fad to confider, what ignorance of 
 thefe, reigns, even in the chriftian world j and 
 how many are little better than baptized hea- 
 thens f-" Neverthelefs, " The Lord hath done 
 great things for us, whereof we are glad. 
 Turn again our captivity, O Lord, as the 
 ftreams in the fouth." (rfa. cxxvi. 3,4.) Some 
 who are called by thy name underftand, 
 and gratefully acknowledge, the great things 
 thou haft done for them, and the ineftimable 
 privileges conferred upon them ; but others con- 
 tinue the deluded captives of fin and Satan. 
 Oh that thy Spirit may be poured upon all 
 
 fiefli ! 
 
 f lb. p. X67, 168. 
 
Ch. 6. Fraaical Reflealons, 291 
 
 flefhf Then (hall the wildernefs be turned 
 into landing water, and dry ground into water- 
 fprings. (Pla. cvii. 35.) " Then the eyes of the 
 blind (hall be opened, and the ears of the deaf 
 fhall be unftopped. Then (hall the lame man leap 
 as an hart, and the tongue of the dumb fing; 
 for in the wildernefs fhall waters break out 
 and ftreams in the defert." (Pfa. xxxv. 5, 6.) 
 Then fhall our fruit be holinefs to the Lord ; and 
 it fhall be found, " fome an hundred-fold, fome 
 fixty-fold, fome thirty-fold," to the praife and 
 glory of God; and the end everlafling; life. 
 
 § 9. (2) Let us now proceed to a devout 
 and rational improvement of baptifm as received 
 in INFANCY. One very jufily obferves, "When ' 
 an ordinance .comes to be dijputed — it is com- 
 monly neglecled^ or llightly attended, by the ge- 
 nerahty of people; and lies between them like 
 a ^ controverted ejiate^ concerning which fome- 
 thing is dom to maintain the /i///, but little to 
 manure and improve the lana. Men think it 
 a fufficient plea for their fmful neglecls in fuch 
 cafes, That it is a difputable thing, and till all 
 be agreed upon the point, they hope tliey may 
 be allowed to fit flill and look on, and then 
 engage when they fee what fide will prevail. 
 Thus difputes about the minijiry^ have made 
 the ways of Zion to mourn, for the fewnefs 
 
 of thofe that come to the folemn affemblies. 
 
 This is, generally, the cafe of the ordinance of 
 baptifm — people have had it commonly buzzed 
 in their ears that feeing the Infant-fubjeds of 
 ^ 2 that 
 
2Cj2 PraSfical RefieSllons. Ch. 6. 
 
 that adminiftration are incapable of undcrflanding 
 it, and making prefent a6lual improvement, there 
 is little reafon to retain the practice of that, 
 which feems fo barren, and unprofitable. But 
 holy men, who have made it their fludy to 
 dive into the nature and ufe of all ordinances, 
 and to work upon their own hearts by them, 
 have, for many ages no doubt, drawn abun- 
 dance of fandifying influence from it, and the 
 principles and grounds upon which it hath 
 been adminiftered ; and thofe of this age who 
 have had the holy wifdom to turn matters of 
 dijpute into praSiice^ have been able to fay by 
 their experience, in a manner, as the man born 
 blind, in the difpute between him and the Pha- 
 rifees concerning Chril>, " It is a marvellous 
 thing That ye know not from whence he is, and 
 yet he hath opened mine eyes," (John ix. 30.) 
 So they wonder it (hould ever enter into a 
 difpute, V. hether infant baptifm be of God, 
 or no ? feeing it hath been, by the fan6tifying 
 influence of the Spirit of God, a conduit of 
 abundance of gracious fupplies to them, for 
 which they have had caufe to^ blefs God the 
 longeft day of their lives. And the very ex- 
 perience of this — is no fmall encouragement 
 to them to own and value it; feeing it can- 
 not eafily enter into their hearts, that God 
 fhould convey fan5lifying influences^ for fo many 
 years, by a miftaken and mifappLed ordinance; 
 e-Tpecially when the main efficacy of that ordi- 
 nance, in order to the mentioned efFedls, depeiids 
 
 upon 
 
Ch. 6. PraP.ical RefleSllons^ 293 
 
 upon that very circurnftance of age wherein it 
 is charged to be mifapplied. For the' it may 
 in fome cafes be granted, that an ordinance 
 adminiftered with fome confiderable circumftan- 
 tial irregularities may fan6lify ; yet that thofe 
 irregularities thcmjelves fliould be the channels 
 of fan£l:ifying grace, is not eafily imaginable. 
 Now this is the cafe of infant baptifm. Many 
 holy men, of many ages, have found their 
 hearts warmed, and quickened, in the exercife 
 of faith, repentance, love, thankfulnefs— by the 
 confideration, not only of baptifm and the per- 
 fonal covenant therein fealed, but alfo baptifm 
 under the circurnftance of infant adminiftration. 
 — And, indeed, that the Spirit of truth fhould 
 di;^ate, and the God of truth anfwer thofe 
 prayers, wlxich are offered up on fo grofsly 
 miftaken grounds as thofe of will-worJJnp^ (the 
 crime generally charged on infant baptifm,) feems 
 moft abfurd*." 
 
 But is not this gentleman fingulat in his 
 opinion ? Is not the fuppofed advantage more 
 in [peculation than reality? Let the following 
 language, uttered from the deliberate judgment of 
 one whole abilities as a divine, and whofe rationa^ 
 and fincere devotion as a chriftian, fe^v will qusf- 
 tion, determine : " There w^ould not be io much 
 quarrelling about infant baptifm^ if there were 
 but more care to make that practical improve- 
 ment of it which is required. It is owing to 
 
 O 3 a 
 
 * Ford's Dialogue conceraing the Prafticai Ufe of Infant- 
 Bapt, Epift, Dedicat. 
 
294 Przi£fical Rtfie6imis, Ch. 6. 
 
 a carnal hearty that the benefit of it is not ob- 
 tained, and then the thing itfelf is tlifputed. 
 In this circle many a poor foul hath been 
 made giddy ; infant baptifm is queftioned, be- 
 eaufe it is not improved \ and then it is not im- 
 proved becaufe it is quef/ioned. If any 'man fet 
 himfelf ferioufly to do his will in this matter, 
 by a diligent and confcientious improvement of 
 his baptifm, *' he fhall know of the doclrine, 
 whether it be of God, or whether we fpeak of 
 ourfelves," (John vii. 17.) — There are many 
 iiumble ferious chriftians, who can experimen- 
 tally fpcak of the benefits of it. — For my own 
 part, I cannot but take this occafion, to exprefs 
 my gratitude to God for m.y infant baptifm^ 
 not only as it was an early admlffion into the 
 vifible body of Chrift, but as it furnifhed my 
 pious parents with a good argument, (and 1 truft 
 thro' grace, a prevailing argument,) for an early 
 dedication of my own felf to God in my child- 
 hood. If God has wrought any good 
 WORK UPON MY SOUL, I dcfue with humble 
 thankfulnels to acknowledge, the moral in- 
 fluence OF MY INFANT BAPTISM UpOn it*." 
 § 10. I. Was I baptized in infancy? Then 
 I have an additional encouragement to exercife 
 FAITH upon the promife. Were I baptized but 
 this day^ there would be an encouraging ground of 
 faith, that the promife is unto me^ figned, fealed, 
 and delivered i but when I confider that this foun- 
 dation of taith, the exhibited promile, has been 
 
 laid, 
 * HiNRY*s Treat, on Bapt. p, 155, 156, and p. Ii?. 
 
Ch. 6. Pra£lical Rsfletiions. 295 
 
 laid, and appropriated for my ufe, in infancy ; that 
 the charter or conveyance has been inconteftibly 
 fealed^ almoft as fcon as I came to exijimce^ it 
 is a fuperadded encourageinent. " Baptifm feals 
 the promife of God's being to me a God, fays 
 Mr. Henry, and that is greatly encouraging ; 
 but infant baptifm encreafcth the encouragement, 
 as it ajfures me of God's being the God of 
 my fathers, and the God of my infancy. — 
 Shall I queftion the kindnefs of one who is 
 my own friend, and my father's friend ? The 
 faithfulnefs of one, who was in covenant with 
 my fathers, and always true to them ? It is 
 a great fupport to faith, to confider, not only 
 that God is my God, but that he was fo be- 
 times, — He who took me when I was brought^ 
 furely will not caft me off v>rhen I come my- 
 felf, tho' weak and trembling and unv>7orthy.— 
 He who began in ways of love and mercy to 
 me fo early^ will not now be wanting to me, 
 or backward to do me good. — Loving-kind- 
 nefles, which have been ever of old,, mull needs^ 
 be very favourable to faith and hope*." The 
 nature of the gofpel grant is fuch, that the 
 longer it Jiands as a matter of record, in fa- 
 vour of the party baptized^ the ftronger and 
 more indubitable becomes his title to the thiiigs 
 granted ; wherefore, the confideration of my be- 
 ing baptized in my infancy is a circumftance 
 of encouragement to faith. Is it " ufual to 
 infert in the king's grants, that they are made, 
 
 O 4 not 
 
 * lb, p. 201, 303, 
 
296 Pra£ilcal RefePJoni, Ch. 6. 
 
 not at the fuit of the grantee, but ex fpeciali 
 gratia^ ccrta fc'tentia^ et mero motu regis ; and 
 then they have a inore liberal conftrudion?" 
 But on the contrary, is it equity, and legal 
 prudence — That " a grant made by the king, 
 at the fuit of the grantee^ fhall be taken mod 
 beneficially for the king, and againji the par- 
 ty f?'* Let this illulxrate the fuperior advanta- 
 'j;es of the grant being made in my infancy^ and 
 * caled by bapiifm, compared with what was ob- 
 tamed at the fuit of the grantee. It is true, 
 the encouragement to faith is abundant every 
 moment, to a returning finner, from the gra- 
 cious tejlimony^ the faithful record of Jehovah ; 
 but it is more abundant in proportion to the 
 early date when the title was figned and fealed. 
 Lord, didft thou find me out, in the courfe 
 of thy gracious providence, and caufe thine ex- 
 ceeding great and precious promife of mercy, 
 forgivenefs and righteoufnefs, thy good Spirit 
 and eternal life, to terminate on my infancy? 
 l^idft thou thus find me out without my (eek- 
 ing or deferving ? How free and (overeign thy 
 mercy ! Didd thou confer a legal right to 
 thefe fpiritual and everlafiing bleflings, by a deed 
 ef glft^ directed, figned, fealed, and delivered to 
 7ne^ for my ufe and fcrvice, when 1 deierved 
 no pity? Nay, when I deferved to be caft out 
 in the open field to the loathing of my per- 
 fon, to be pafled by and left polluted in my 
 own blood, even then, in my tender infancy, in 
 
 my 
 
 f Bi ACKST, Comment, Vol, II, B, 11, chap, xxi, § 2, 
 
Ch. 6. P radical Reflections, 297 
 
 helplefs and wretched ftate, thou haft had corn- 
 pa (lion upon me. Oh, the covenant care^ the 
 unparalleled kindnefs, of my heavenly Father! 
 Let me take the account from his own lips : 
 " When I pafTed by thee, and faw thee pol- 
 luted in thine own blood, I faid unto thee 
 when thou waft in thy blood, Livej yea, I 
 faid unto unto thee when thou waft in thy 
 blood, Live— Now when I paiTed by thee, and 
 looked upon thee, behold, thy time was the 
 time of love : and I fpread my (kirt over thee, 
 and covered thy nakednefs : yea, I fware unto 
 thee, and entered into a covenant, faith the 
 Lord God, and thou becameft mine. Then 
 wafhed I thee with water." (Ezek. xvi. 6, 8, 
 9.) Aftoniihing favour! And tho' I have not 
 cone up to my privileges, and " have not re- 
 membered the days of my youth, but have fret- 
 ted the Lord in all thefe things, and defpifed 
 the oath in breaking the covenant," he ftill 
 adds, " Neverthelefs, I will remember my cove- 
 nant with thee, in the days of thy youth, and 
 I will eftablifti unto thee an everlafting covenant. 
 Then thou ftialt remember thy ways and be 
 afhamed-rAnd 1 will eftablifh my covenant with 
 thee; and thou ftialt know that I am the 
 Lord; that thou mayeft remember and be con- 
 founded, and never open thy mouth any more 
 becaufe of thy ftiame, when I am pacified to- 
 waid thee for all that thou haft done, faith the 
 Lord God." (Ezek. xvi. 60—63.) 
 
 One well obferves : " The faints are many 
 O 5 times 
 
298 PraSfical Reflexions % Ch. 6. 
 
 times fain to appeal from conditional promifes 
 and comforts to abfolute^ viz. The freenefs of— 
 juftifying and renewing grace in the refpedtive 
 declarations and offers of them ; upon the fame 
 reafon may they have recourfe to infant bap- 
 tifm; the mofi lively repreientation and obfig- 
 nation of both thefe. — I'his therefore being 
 their refuge, if God's feal add^ as it doth un- 
 doubtedly to us^ any certainty to his word ; 
 then, furely, for fuch perfons to reflect upon 
 the feal of baptifm adminiftered to them in in- 
 fancy, muft needs fortify them in that refuge. — 
 1 nov/ treat, not of confiderations prevailing 
 with God, but confiderations working upon us; 
 not fuch as further him in point of faithjuU 
 nefs^ but fuch as further us in point of faith. 
 Now fuch things may be of precious ufe to 
 «5, as are not of a like influence upon God. 
 All the arguments we urge in prayer do not 
 at all move God, but only fortify our faith to 
 depend upon him. So here, tho' God have a 
 like reafon in himfelf to move him to take 
 care of a foul that became one of his family 
 but yejierdayy as of one that hath been in his 
 family forty years cr upwards ; yet it muft needs 
 be a more rational encouragement to us to depend 
 upon him, mw that we have been related fo 
 long to hmi, than it would be to have begun 
 a relation but yefterday*," 7^his early relation 
 was a peculiar encouragement to David's faith, 
 when he faid, " I'hou art he that took me 
 
 out 
 
 * Ford's Dialogues, ut fu^ra, p. 39, 40, 43. 
 
Gh. 6. FraSftcal RefleSiions. 295 
 
 out of the womb ; thou didft make me liope, 
 when I was upon my mother's breafls. I was 
 caft upon thee from the womb : thou art my 
 God from my mother's belly. Be not far 
 from me, for trouble is near : for there is none 
 to help." (Pfa. xxii. 9 — 11.) " Tho' every 
 one that is a child of a believer, had formerly, 
 and ftlll hath, a covenant right to God before 
 circumcifion and baptifm ; and fo every fuch 
 perfon circumcifed or uncircumcifed, baptized or 
 unbaptized, at leaft as long as the neglect is 
 not his own fault, hath the fa?ne plea which 
 we have been fpeaking of, yet he hath it not 
 to urge with the fame evidence and ground of 
 ajfurancey as he, that can plead the covenant, 
 with the fealy hath — otherwife, it muft needs 
 follow, that the facraments add nothing at all 
 to the covenant in point of certainty and evi^ 
 dence^ which I think no fober chriftian will af- 
 firm*." 
 
 § II. 2. Was I baptized in infancy? Then 
 I have an additional incentive to gratitude » How 
 highly have I been honoured, how greatly be- 
 nefited ? For from that early period has the 
 pardon of fm, free falvation, eternal life, with 
 every new covenant bleiling, been fealed to me. 
 Had every circumcifed Ifraeiite, when grown up, 
 fpecial caufe of gratitude for the particular cir- 
 cumrtance of infant circumcifion f So have X 
 for my infant baptifm. What a vifible relation 
 was then conlUtuted between me and. God in 
 
 O 6 Chrift [ 
 
 * lb. p. 49.. - 
 
300 Practical Rejie^tons* Ch. 6. 
 
 Chriil [ Was I then incapable of underftanding 
 the nature and force of the obligations under 
 which I was laid ? So was a circumcifed in- 
 fant ; but the obligation was firm notwithftand- 
 ing. He became from that time forth addi- 
 tionally boundy in duty and in gratitude, to the 
 Lord. O my foul, art thou ever difpofed 
 to undervalue this privilege ? Blufh at thy in- 
 gratitude. If to be dedicated to God in bap- 
 tifm when an infant, was not a privilege, what 
 was ? I may fafely challenge ingratitude itfelf 
 to (hew, that any benefit greater than this was 
 or could be ever conferred upon me by my 
 parents. When my ungrateful heart is ready 
 to fay, What profit is there in infant baptifm ? 
 Let it again refieil:. What profit is there in adtdt 
 baptifm which is not more than counterbalanced 
 by the former ? I fay it again, to be baptized, 
 when an infant, is the greatcjl external privilege of 
 which infancy is capable. And if at any time 
 this is queftionedj let me inquire what is a 
 frreater ? If a greater there is, let it be pro- 
 iluced, and it (hall fuffice. If not, let deferved 
 gratitude glow in my breaft for the diftinguilhing 
 favour* I was then added to the church, that 
 J might be faved, I was then confiituted a 
 vifible member of Chrifi, that / might be con- 
 jormed to him. I was then put in the way I 
 (hould go, that, when grown up, / 7night not depart 
 from it. I was then vifibly ingrafted into Chrift, 
 that I might bring forth much fruity and thus be 
 found his approved difciple. Are not thefe high 
 privileges? A'nd efpecially when I confider that 
 
 there 
 
Ch. 6. PraSitcal RefleSilons, 30 1 
 
 there was in me nothing meritorious to demand, 
 nothing amiable to foHcit thefe privileges. This 
 time of my efpoufals, was indeed a time of 
 unmerited, unfolicited love. From a ftate of 
 diftance 1 was brought near. From a ftranger 
 I was made a fellow 'Cit'fz.en with the faints, 
 and of the houfehold of God. Not lefs fo than 
 any circumcifed Ifraelite. All thefe privileges, 
 let me not forget that, are of the nature of 
 means. May I therefore not only cultivate a 
 grateful fpirit, at the remembrance of all thy 
 benefits, O Lord my God, but alfo be careful 
 to exprefs my gratitude by a proper ufe of 
 thefe beneficial means ; that I may apprehend 
 that for which I was apprehended of Chrift 
 Jefus. 
 
 § 12.3. Was I baptized in infancy? Surely, 
 then, my mifcomings, tranfgreffions, and back- 
 flidings, are levelled at a circumftance of di- 
 vine goodnefs that makes the call to repentance 
 much louder. The goodnefs of God leadeth 
 to repentance. Fvery cord of obligation tliat 
 is broken, enhances guilt. The fins of a perfon 
 greatly privileged are crying fins. Every time, and 
 in every inftance, that I have a6ied unworthy 
 of my baptifm, I have been guilty of breaking 
 a cord of divine kindaefs. So far have I 
 fhaken off the yoke, the eafy yoke of Chrii% 
 from my neck. 
 
 Nov/ that Infant baptifm has the advantage 
 over adult baptifm, in promoting repentance^ or 
 godly forrow for fin, I think appears from the 
 
 following 
 
902 PraSfkal Reflexions, Ch. 6. 
 
 following cxtraci:s on the fubje(5l : " When God 
 aggravates the fin of his people Ifrael (Ezek. xvi.) 
 under the fimilitude of a child taken into his 
 fpecial care from the very womb, he lays a fuffi- 
 cient ground for the deducing of this conclufion ; 
 That for any perfon or people, fo related to 
 God from infancy^ as he there exprefleth, to 
 depart from God by fmning againft him, is a 
 very great aggravation of fin. — Suppofe God 
 therefore pleading againft any fmner of the Jews' 
 nation in the ftrain of that chapter, and you wilf 
 fee it yield as great aggravations of perfonal fins 
 as national. Thou — in the day in which thoii 
 waft born waft naked, and in thy blood, utterly 
 naked and deftitute of original righteoufnefs, and 
 defiled with the ftain and guilt of original fm, 
 an object of loathing and abhorrency to a pure 
 and holy God as I am; yet when 1 pafTed by 
 thee, and faw thee polluted in thine own blood, 
 I faid unto thee, when thou waft in thy blood, 
 Live ; yea, I faid unto thee, when thou waft in 
 thy blood, Live. When I pafTed by thee and 
 looked upon thee, behold! (and wonder at my 
 goodnefs therein) thy time (even that time) was 
 a time of love, and I fpread my fkirt over thee, 
 and ct vered thy nakednefs ; yea, I fware to 
 thee, in circumcifion^ and entered into covenant 
 with thee, faith the Lcnl^ and thou becameft 
 mine, and 1 wafhed thee with water, 5cc. and 
 bred thee at my coft, under my o" dinances^ from 
 that day, yet l-aft thou forgotten all this kind- 
 ness, and rebelled againft me. Alter the word 
 cinumci/iGn into baptifm^ and make the applica- 
 tion 
 
Ch. 6. PraSiical RefleSl'iom- 303 
 
 tion to yourfelf, and tlien fee whether it doth 
 not afford a cutting aggravation of fin. Ana- 
 baptifm yields no fuch aggravation of fin, for 
 it allows no man any fpecial relation to God, 
 no covenant, no engaging ordinance, no peculiar 
 covenant mercy, till adual faith, i. e. till years 
 of difcretion*." 
 
 Another *' ground of humiUation from in- 
 fant baptifm, is from the cunfideration of the 
 apojlacy tha% upon that account, is in the bowels 
 of every fuch perfon's fin, as was then admitted 
 into covenant with God. And methinks I may 
 to very good purpofe write bitter things againft 
 ftns of youth upon this ground. Ah wretch? 
 did God enter thee in his fchool, nay, adjiiit 
 thee into his family from a child ; did he in 
 much mercy make thee a covenanter with him- 
 felf ? — And yet, for all this, thou haft no fooner 
 been able to fpeak or go, but thou haft fpoken 
 lies againft him, and gone aiiray from him. 
 Yea, fince thou haft been capable of under- 
 ftandlng thy way, thou haft, contrary to the 
 duty 'of thy natural allegiance, entered into a 
 contrary covenant, and confederacy with the 
 devil and death, and thine own lufts ; and 
 maintained a war with this God, with abun- 
 dance of youthful heat and activity. — O fin- 
 ner ! remember from whence thou art fallen, 
 and repent, and renew thy covenant with God^ 
 before, by moie ri vetted and aggravatvjd apofta- 
 cies, thou provoke him to — deal witli thee, as 
 
 thou 
 
 * FoRD*s Di.Iogue, utfu^rOf p, 49 — 5i» 
 
^04 Pra^ical Refefiions, Ch. 6, 
 
 thou haft dealt with him.— Luther tells us a 
 {lory of a virgin that was wont to rcfift temp- 
 tations with this anfwer, Baptlzata Jum^. I am 
 baptized^ Satan, aid bein^ luajhedy fiall I with 
 the fow wallow in the mire again? I confefs 
 this is a prevalent cauiion from the general 
 confideration of baptifm ; but I am much mif- 
 taken if it conclude not more forcibly^ when 
 ftrengthened with this fpedal circumftance of 
 the time of the adminiftration which we are 
 now handling. Thus: Shall I fm againft an 
 ancient friend, mine and my faHier's God? 
 Shall I fell the inheritance of my fathers? (r 
 Kings xxi. 3, 4.) Forfake my father's friend? 
 (Prov. xxvii. 1.0.) — ShaU I now forfake my 
 mafter in whofe houfe I was born, and admit- 
 ted to the privileges of his family as foon as I 
 was born ? Shall I now be reconciled to fm, 
 to which I was a fworn enemy from my mo- 
 ther's breaft? God did me the greateft [exter- 
 nal] kindnefs I was capable of in my infancy, 
 and what wrong hath he done me (ince that 
 time, that I (hould now entertam a motion of 
 unfaithfulnefs to him? God hath been my 
 mafter thefe fourfcore years (faid old Poly car- 
 pus) and he hath all this while done me no 
 hurt, and ftiall I forfake him now? Surely all 
 the arrows in the quiver of Anabaptilm will 
 not pierce fo deep into the heait of a tempta- 
 tion as tills will I." 
 
 " Can 1 do otlierwife than melt into tears of 
 
 godly 
 X lb. p. 51, £2, 54, 55. 
 
Ch. 6. Praalcal RefleSfions, 305 
 
 godly forrow, fays the pious Air. Henry, whea 
 
 1 reflect that I was baptized in infancy? 
 For if fo, then, by fin I have ill requited God's 
 early kindnefs to me. I have offended my God, 
 and the God of my fathers, who, upon my 
 father's account, dealt fo favourably with me. 
 It is often mentioned as an aggravation cf fm, 
 that it is againft the God of our fathers : thus 
 
 2 Chron. vii. 22. " Becaufe they have forfaken 
 the God of their fathers." So, 2 Chron. xxviii. 
 6. — Loved when a child, and yet revoking, and 
 dealing treacheroufly ! When we were polluted 
 and expofed, then regarded, pitied, taken up, 
 wafhed, adornt-d, taken into covenant, adopted 
 into a good family ; and was not that a time 
 of love? love fealed, love enfured, preventing 
 love, unmerited love ? What ! and yet defpife 
 fuch rich love, fpurn at fuch bowels ! Do ye 
 thus requite the Lord? Is this thy kindncfi to 
 thy friend? How fliould we charge this home 
 upon our fouls in our repentance, and bki(h 
 for our ingratitude ? Nouripjed^ and brought up^ 
 and yet rebflLng I — Born in his houfe, brought 
 up in his family, brought betimes under his 
 jaw, and yet (leaking oiT the yoke, and burfting 
 the bop.ds ! Did God take me into covenant 
 with himielf, when I was a child^ ai.d look 
 upon me ever fmce as a covenanter ; and yet 
 no fooner have I been able to go, than I have 
 gone from him ? to Ipeak, than I have fpoken 
 to his ditlionour ? — Ihofe who are not bap- 
 tized till years of difcretion, have no fuch con- 
 
 fiderations; 
 
306 Traakal RefleSlions. Ch. 6. 
 
 fiderations, to humble them for the finful va- 
 nities of childhood and youth, as they have, 
 who were baptized in thdr infancy. Let this 
 therefore break our heart for the fuis of our 
 youth*." 
 
 § 13. 4. Was I baptized in infayuy ? Then 
 I have a fuperadd.d inducement to dedicate my^ 
 felf X.0 the Lord. 1 vNas dedicated by my pa- 
 rents, and by thy niiniilerir-g fervant, Lord, 
 and now I would teftify my approbation of 
 what they did on my behalf, by giving up my- 
 felf^ which is my realonable fervice, to thee as 
 my Lord and my God, So far am I from 
 queftioning the natural right of my parents over 
 me, or the propriety of their giving up that 
 right to thee, as the God of grace^ that I blefs 
 thy name for giving them the opportunity and 
 inclination fo to do. 1 would be thankful, that 
 a minifter was applied to on the occai^on ; that 
 be complied; that what was thus done on 
 earth, was confirmed in heaven ; that my lot 
 was caft among chriftians, to whom are com- 
 mitted the oracles of God; and that my un- 
 profitable lire is thus prolonged. What method 
 fliall L adopt to exprefs my grateful feelings ? 
 I will take the cup of falvation, and call upon 
 the name of the Lord. I will pay my obliga- 
 tions to the moft High, by the aids of his 
 grace, in the beft manner I am able. O Lord 
 my God, '' I blefs thee for my creation, pre- 
 fervation, and all the blefllngs of this life; but 
 
 above 
 
 ♦ Treat,, on Bapt, p. 197—199. 
 
Ch. 6. Praaical Refie£iions, 307 
 
 above all, for thine ineftimable love in the re- 
 demption of the world by our Lord Jefus Chrift ; 
 for the means of grace," and particularly my 
 infant haptifm^ by which I was dedicated to thy 
 mercy, protection, and fervice, " and for the 
 liope of glory. And I befeech thee give me 
 that due {&x\\^ of all thy mercies," and efT:>eci- 
 ally that holy ordinance whereby i was initiated 
 as a meniber of thy church, '^ that my heart 
 may be unfeignedly thankful'; and that I may 
 ftiew forth thy praife, not only with my lips, 
 but in my life; by giving up myfelf to thy fer- 
 vice, and by walking before thee in holinefs 
 and righteoufnefs all my days, thro' Jeius Chrift 
 my Lord." 
 
 § 14. 5. Was I baptized in infancy? What 
 an additional obligation and motive to cultivate 
 univcrfal hoitnefs ! Shall I embrace and cherhh 
 now, what was fo long ago and ever fince pro- 
 hibited? Shall I not " renounce the devil and 
 all his works, the pomps and vanities of this 
 wicked world, and all the finful lufts oif the 
 flelh," feemg tiiefe things are contrary to the 
 order, peace, and harmony of the houfe in 
 which I was brought up ? Have I from a 
 child borne the name of Chrift ? Is not this 
 a great ho?iourP Let me then deteft every 
 thing which has the leaft tendency to difcredit 
 fo honourable a connexion. Having been brought 
 up m the houfe of God, fliall I forget that 
 holinefs becometh it for ever ? Having been 
 brought up in a palace, the church of the 
 
 living 
 
308 'PrrMlcal RtfleS^ions, Ch. 6. 
 
 living God, which he hath built for the houfe 
 of his kingdom, by the might of his unrivalled 
 power, and for the honour of his glorious ma- 
 jefty ; and ihall I embrace dunghills t Was I 
 pointed out by name, while an infant, as an 
 intended fervant cf the King of Glory; and 
 (hall I now reft fatii,fied with a ftate of bon- 
 dage to iin and Satan ? Was I then, {o be- 
 times, cal'.ed to holinefs j and fhall I continue 
 ftill under this dellrudive vafTalage ? Was I, 
 when an helplels infant, guilty and polluted, 
 adopted by n>y heavenly father, to the intent ^ 
 that fin might not have dominion over me; 
 that I might be m the way of holinefs and 
 happincfs ; and fhall not this be a motive for 
 me to perfeSI holinefs in the fear of God? 
 
 " Is Iftael a fervant? is he a home-born 
 flave ? why is lie ipoiled ?" Am I a child, 
 brought up in God's houfe ; why then am I 
 fo deftitute of holinefs ? Where is the robe of 
 right eoufnefs, the 8;arment of falvation, and the 
 beauty of holinefs ? This is the proper drefs 
 of the family. W^hence carne I, then, to be 
 "•' wretched, and miferable, and poor, and blaid, 
 and naked ?" This is not the fault of my hea- 
 venly father, and his houfe is well furnifl.ed 
 with every needful fupply. O my foul, " haft 
 thou not procured this unto thyfelf, in that 
 thou haft forfaken the Lord thy God, when he 
 Jed thee by the way? — Thine own wickednefs 
 fhall correct thee, and thy backflidings fliall 
 reprove thee : know therefore and fee, that it 
 
 is 
 
^^^' 6- PraSfical R^fiealons. 309 
 
 is an evil thing and bitter that thou haft for- 
 faken the Lord thy God, and that my fear is 
 not in thee, faith the Lord God of Hofts. 
 For of eld time I have broken thy yoke, and 
 burft thy bands. I had planted thee a noble 
 vine, wholly a right feed : how then art thou 
 turned into the degenerate plant of a ftrange vine 
 unto me," faith the Lord ? " How canft thou 
 fay, I am not polluted ?^ Wilt thou not from 
 this time ciy unto me. My Father, thou art 
 the guide of my youth ?^ Turn, O backflidin^ 
 children, faith the Lord, for I am married unto 
 you." lurn, O my fouJ, from the forbidden 
 and dangerous paths of fin, to the King's high- 
 road of hoiiriefs i and the rather, becaufe there 
 thou haft been placed, and oughteft to have 
 walked, from the beginning. Return, O prodi- 
 gal, to the hoiy rules and precious privileges of 
 thy Father's houfe; and the rather, becauje it is 
 the houfe of thy infancy. The Holy God, is 
 the God of thy infancy J the Holy Saviour' is 
 the Saviour of thy infancy; the hoiy church, is 
 the houfe of thy infancy ; the holy angels, are 
 the guards of thy infancy ; and thy . holy bap, 
 tifm was a folemn and exprefs entrance on all 
 thefe hoJy relations and conneaions. Where- 
 fore, let holinefs to the Lord be my motto, refult- 
 ing from my baptifm ; and let the confidera- 
 tion of my infant baptifm give it a peculiar em- 
 phafis and powerful influence on my mind. 
 
 § 15. 6. Was I privileged with chriftian bap- 
 tifm m my infancy ? Then let me improve 
 
 my 
 
3IO PraSfical RefleSi'mis, Ch. 6. 
 
 my privilege for more exemplary diligence. ''As 
 we are chnftians, we have not only temptations 
 to be refified, and fins to be avoided, but 
 work, to be done ; great and neceffary work, tor 
 God and our fouls, and eternity. — Now nothing 
 can more quicken us to that work, than a 
 lively fenfe of our relation to the Lord Jefus 
 Chrift as his fervants ; truly I am thy Jervant, 
 (Pfa. cxxi. 1 6.) To maintain that fenfe, and to 
 excite us to an anfwerable diligence in our duty, 
 we Ihould frequently confider our baptifm ; ef- 
 pecially our infant baptifm. — Our baptifm as ad- 
 miniltered in infancy, doth very much ftrengthen - 
 the engagement \ and may help to quicken our 
 dulnefs, and put us forward, when we begin 
 to loiter. — If our engagements to him had been 
 only the refult of our own choice, we might 
 have been tempted to think, that a recantation 
 would diiTolve the obligation : but we are the 
 Lord's by a Jcrmer dedication*''' — God is our 
 kind mafter. " Kind indeed, who would take 
 us into his fam.iiy, and admit us to the pro- 
 teflion, provifion, and privileges of his family, 
 when we were incapable of doing him any ac- 
 tual fervice. Being now gro\^n up, this conn- 
 deration (hould quicken us to a double dili^ 
 gence : that we may redeem the time loft when 
 we were children, and make fome gratetul re- 
 turns to our generous Mafter, for the early 
 tokens of his good will. IVhen Ifrael was a 
 CHILD, then I loved him: (Hof. xi. i.) and 
 (hall not we then ftudy what we fhall render 
 
 for 
 
Ch. 6. Pra6lical Refe^ions, 31 1 
 
 for that love*?" How long have I been in 
 my divine Aiafter's houie and lervice, and yet 
 how iittie have, I iaipro\eG my invaluable 
 privileges, and how iinperteStly dilcharged 
 incumbent duty? May tiie quaatity of time 
 lort, make me the more careful of the re- 
 mainder. May the coniideraTion of the length 
 of road which I have travelled in departing 
 from Godj make me the more diligent now 1 
 am brought back to the King's highway, 
 
 § ^^' (3) 'iHE baptifn of infants may af- 
 ford us, coniidered as parents, many devout 
 and profitable refle61:ions. Am I a parent? 
 Then Jet me improve baptifm — to increafe my 
 thankfulnejs to God, for admitting my children 
 to partake of it with myfelf— to teftify my 
 deftre of benefiting my children— to influence my 
 prayers for them- to afiilt me in promoting their 
 falvation^ their knowledge of that gofpel which 
 baptifm feals, their faith and repentance, holi- 
 nefs and happinefs— to inculcate on them chrif- 
 tian /^//i/)^ri -relative ^«^^/>j— and a converfation 
 becoming the golpel of Chrift. 
 
 § 17. I. Is my child admitted to bap- 
 tifm ? Then let me improve the happy occa- 
 fion to increafe my thankfulnefs to God. Is 
 the Lord a covenant God, thro' a Mediator, 
 to any of the children of men ? This i^ a fub- 
 jea of pleafing wonder. But is he a covenant 
 God to me? This calls for my warmeft returns 
 of faith, love and thankfgiving. faith in the 
 
 covenant 
 
 * HtNRv's Treat, on Bapt. p. 189, ,91, ,55,, 
 
2i2 PraSikal Rejie^iojis. Ch. 6. 
 
 covenant promile, love to the Divine Pfomifer, 
 and thanklgiving for the invaluable contents. 
 Yet this wonderful condelcenfion, great as it 
 is, does not exprcfs the whole of the divine 
 hberality. My covenant God is alfo the God 
 of my children, I will be a God to thee and 
 to thy feed. I will be a God to thee fays 
 Jehovah. " Wonder at his condefcending good- 
 nefs. Whence is this to me ! a worthlefs worm 
 of the earth ? fo rr^ean, fo vile, and yet taken 
 into covenant with God ! interelled in the 
 Lord of Glory ; his attributes, his promifes ! 
 Who am /, O Lord God! (2 Sam. vii. i8.) 
 That God (hould take any notice of me, fhould 
 {hew me any token for good, is wonderful ! 
 confidering how undeferving, how ill- deferving, 
 I am; but that he fhould communicate his 
 favours in a covenant way ; inteipofe himfelf for 
 fecurity; n.ake himfelf a debtor to his own 
 truth ; is fuch a paradox of love, as challengeth 
 everlafting wonder and praife.-Let this be the 
 burden of every fong of praife. To perform the 
 mercy promifed, and tc remember his holy covenant, 
 (Luke i. 72.)* The fame infallible lips fur- 
 ther add, " I will be a God to thy feed,'* 
 W^ere thefe words written for the fake of the 
 Jewilh church only, or for the chriftian church 
 alfo? Doubtlefs for the chrillian church, and 
 for the chriftian parent alfo. How can I avoid 
 being thankful for the divire grant, as extend- 
 ing t^o ir.y ^hild with m)fclf ? I cannot help re- 
 garding 
 
 • HeNRY's Ticatife en Bapt. p, 133, 434 
 
Ch. 6. P radical Refeaiom. 313 
 
 garding what is a privilege to tins, as matter 
 of thankful praife from me on its behalf. How 
 can It be otberwife? for my child is a part of 
 myfelF, not only in the eflimation of a fond 
 parent, but by the laws of God and men; 
 by the concurrent fuffrage of nature and of 
 nations. Excellent are the following remarks 
 of Mr. Henry, for the tranfcribing of which 
 there needs no apology to the reader ; " Much 
 of the mercy of having children lies in this, 
 that we have them to devote to God : not only a 
 feed to be accounted to us, but to be accounted 
 to the Lord for a generation (Pfalm xxii. 30.) 
 Not only to honour us, and to bear up our 
 names, but to honour God, and to bear up 
 his name in the world. What is an eftate, or 
 office, good for, but to glonfy God with it, 
 and that we may have fomething to lay out 
 and ufe for his honour? Blefs God that he 
 hatli not only given you a child, but that he 
 haih invited and encouraged you to give it to 
 him again, and is pleafed to accept of it. Be 
 thankful that you have a child, admit- 
 ted, from its birth, into the bofom of the 
 church, and under the wing of the divine Ma- 
 je%.~ Hannah had been long barren, and it was 
 her great grief; at length God gave her a 
 Samuel ; but it doth not appear that his birth 
 was fo much the matter of her praife, as his 
 dedication to the Lord. When fhe had brought 
 him, in his infancy, to the tabernacle, then 
 It was that fhe faid, My foul rejoiccth in the 
 
 ^oL. n. P ^^^^^^ 
 
21 A, Pra^tcal RefleSiions, Ch. 6. 
 
 Lord, (i Sam. i. 28. and ii. I.) You have 
 more reafon to be thankful that you have a 
 child born to inherit the privileges of the cove^ 
 nont^ than if you had a child born to inherit 
 the largeft eftate. — Blefs God that he hath 
 creeled his tabernacle, and fanduary, in the 
 inidft of us ; and hath not left himfelf without 
 witnefs, nor us without the means of grace 
 and falvation. He hath not dealt fo with 
 many other nations (they and theirs are afar 
 eff) ; and (hould not this make us very thank- 
 ful ? — Rightly underftand the nature and inten- 
 tion of the ordinance, and you will fay with 
 wonder and praife, This is no other than the 
 houfe of God^ and the gate of heaven : this gate 
 of the Lord into which the righteous Jhall enter. 
 Enter into it therefore with thankfgiving^ and 
 into his courts with praife, — Your children are 
 polluted, but blefs God that there is a foun- 
 tain openedy Rot only for the houfe of David, 
 but for the inhabitants of Jerufalem (Zech. 
 xiii. I.) Draw water therefore with joy out of 
 thefe wells of falvation. Rejoice that there is 
 fuch a covenant, which you can, thro' grace, 
 lay any claim to. The expreflions of joy, and 
 rejoicing, at the baptifm of a child, fliould be 
 turned into this channel; and (hould terminate 
 in God, and in the new covenant f/' 
 
 Is mv child baptized ? O what (hall I ren- 
 der to tlie Lord or the feal of his covenant 
 to me and mine? To us are given, to us are 
 
 fealed 
 t lb. p. 225, 23^» *3^» 
 
Ch. 6. Pra6lical ReJicSiiom. 315 
 
 fealed, exceeding great and precious promifes* 
 " The hearts of parents, in that aciion^ fliould 
 be affected," one obferves, " with abundance of 
 joy and comfort ; looking upon that day, as a 
 day of their children's efpoufals to Jefus Chrift; 
 and by confequence, a day that fhouM be 
 iViore joyful to a godly parent, than the day of 
 their marriage to the befl. earthly matches that 
 can pofTibly be defired. If a parent fhould hve 
 to fee all his children well married, he would 
 fay, and well he might, (as to the outward 
 condition of his pofterityj What an happy 
 man am I that have lived long enough, to fee 
 all my children fo well difpofed of ! But I 
 tell all parents that fear God, that the days in 
 which their children are baptized^ are far joy- 
 fuller days, than the days of their marriage (if 
 it might fo come to pafs) to fo many of the 
 moft potent and mighty princes in the world. 
 And thou that haft feen all thy children bap- 
 tized, haft lived long enough to fee them ten 
 thoufand times better beftowed. Thou haft ef- 
 poufed them to Chrift, and he hath made them 
 a jointure beyond the abilities of all the mo- 
 narchs in the world ; and therefore write down 
 the days of your children's baptifm^ as their 
 wedding-day Sy and as often as you have occa- 
 fion to remember them, remember it is your 
 duty to rejoice in the Lord, and blefs him on 
 that account*." 
 
 § 18. 2. As a parent^ let me ufe and im- 
 P 2 prove 
 
 • Ford's Dialogue, ut Jupra, Part II. p, 92. 
 
31 6 Pt;aoflcal RefleSilotts» Ch. 6. 
 
 prove the chriftian ordinance of baptifm, to 
 tefiify my deftre of benefiting my infant child. 
 I would confider baptifm in the light of a 
 benefit conferred^ rather than that of a duty per- 
 formed. To think otherwife, would lead me to 
 a radical miflake. Nor fliould I confider the 
 baptifm of an adult in any other liglit. The 
 baptifm even of fuch^ properly confidered, is a 
 privilege received, not a debt difcharged. If is our 
 duty to receive a gift^ only in an in Ure5l fenfe ; 
 but it is dire£lly our privilege. It would be 
 the duty of my child, were he adult, to receive 
 any advantageous offer, remotely ; but his privi- 
 lege, in the moft dire£i fenfe : confequenily, bap- 
 tifm, which in its proper nature is, demonrtra- 
 bly, a blejjingy or benefit, has nothing to do 
 with the duty of the fubjecl: of it dircSily, but 
 remotely. For, as he may be benefited by an 
 eftate, or legacy, without any fuppofition of du- 
 tiful co?npliance, becaufe fuch an act of benefiting 
 has no immediate concern with duty ; in hke 
 manner he may be benefited by baptifm, as a 
 divine grant. And yet the very fame thing, 
 which in its own nature is a beneficial grant, 
 be it what it may, does not require of an in- 
 fant any dutiful compliance, but of an adult 
 does require it. Which (hewi, that compliance 
 or fubmifTion, in reference to a beneficial grant, 
 is but a mere accident of the fubje6t, but not 
 an effential qualification; but ftill, when any 
 who have a liberty and right of choofing, 
 embrace what is in itfelf beneficial, they a6l 
 
 dutifully^ 
 
Ch. 6. P radical RefieSltons, 317 
 
 dutifully^ and vice verja. Thus it was, for in- 
 ftance, with refpeil to circumcilion. 
 
 If the direct notion of baprifm be that of a 
 ienefit granted by Jehovah to me and mine^ Uke 
 the precious promife it feals 5 it clearly follows, 
 that their want of underftanding, and voluntary 
 acceptance, is no juft bar to its application. 
 Wherefore, how can I difcharge the duty of 
 a parent, who impartially confults the welfare 
 of his child, if I withhold from it what is di- 
 vinely bequeathed to it in common with my- 
 felf? I am defired to confult the good of my 
 children, by bringing them up in the nurture 
 ana admonition of the Lora\ this fhews that the 
 means of this nurture and admonition, the rules 
 . of chriftian difcipline and inftrudtion, the facred 
 oracles, are intended for their ufe. How, then, 
 can I, in juftice to my truft, appropriate to 
 them the contents of the intruftment fealed, 
 but withhold from them, without any forfei- 
 ture on their part, the feal^ of which they are 
 as capable as myfelf ? Does God ever fay, 
 Baptifm is not to your infant children, tho' 
 the promife is to them ? If he does not tear 
 off the feal from his will concerning them, 
 nor requires me to do it, why fhould I do it? 
 Inftead of puttmg my fancy to the rack for 
 fome excepting claufe, whereby they may be 
 deprived of the baptifmal benefit ; let me thank- 
 fully acknowledge the loving- kindnefs of the 
 Lord in putting fuch a painful difcovery out 
 of my power, and even out of the power of 
 
 P 3 aU 
 
2i8 PrjiSilcal JlefleSfions, Ch. 6. 
 
 all tliofc who mofl: zealoufly attempt it. Let 
 me not be alhamed to do this a<5l of kindnefs 
 to my child, even in the great congregation, if 
 thought moft convenient. God is not afliamed 
 to be called its God \ Chrilt is not afliamed to 
 fay. Suffer it to come, or to be brought tome, 
 and forbid it not ; and (hall I be alhamed or 
 backward to ovv^n that honourable relation, 
 that advantageous approach ? Is Chrift willing 
 to take it as a lamb to his fold, a member to 
 his church j and fliall I to whom it is a 
 fecond-felf, of whom it is, as it were, a part — 
 fhall I alone negative the gracious motion? I 
 cannot, and, without an authority which I have 
 not difcovered, I will not. But will fay, encou- 
 raged by fo many rational, fcriptural, irrefifti- 
 ble motives, before the world, before the church, 
 and in the prefence of profefTed oppofers — Be- 
 hold, Lord, here I am, and the child, or chil- 
 dren, thou haft giacioufly given me. What 
 thou granteft to my offspring, I defire as a 
 faithful fleward not to deprive them of, but 
 faithfully and chearfuJly to appropriate for the 
 intended ufe. 
 
 § iq. 3. Am I the parent of a baptized child, 
 or children ? How (hould their vifible rela- 
 tion to Chriil: and his church, influence my 
 prayers for them ? Tho' morally polluted, yet 
 relatively they are not unclean but holy» Ac- 
 cording to the will of Chrift, I have given up 
 my natural right in them, and over them, to 
 the God of grace. They are dedicated to Fa- 
 ther, 
 
Ch. 6. PraSiical RefleSilons, 319 
 
 ther. Son, and Spirit, that they may be in 
 every refpe£i what chriliianity requires them ta 
 be. They are fuch as the Lord my God hath 
 called i and their calhng is a high and holy cal- 
 ling. May I command nothing, require no- 
 thing, endure nothing, and do nothing unwor- 
 thy of fuch a relation and holy calling! Lord, 
 teach and affift me to bring them up as chrlf^ 
 tiam^ in thy nurture and admonition. They 
 having been difcipled and baptized, may I be 
 found diligent and fuccefsful in teaching them to 
 ohferve all things whatjoever thou haji commanded 
 us. O what precious promifes are fealed to 
 them 1 May they have an early and faving ac- 
 quaintance with thefe promifes! O that they 
 may fpeedily know the things freely given them 
 of our covenant God ! May no backwardnefs 
 or negle<5l on my part, keep them in ignorance 
 of the things fealed to them, or fofter a cri- 
 minal indifference ! Various and important 
 are the bleffings and obligations exhibited ia 
 baptifm, as we have feen, (chap. ii. § 15 — 21.) 
 O that every one of thefe bleflings were actually 
 polTeffed, and every obligation, according to their 
 capacities, were difcharged, by my dear children ! 
 Mighty Saviour, I would make my fupplication 
 unto thee, in behalf of every child thou haft 
 gracioufly given me, with the faith and impor- 
 tunity of the woman of Canaan (Matt, xv.) 
 in behalf of her daughter, faying, Have mercy 
 on me, O Lord, thou Son of David, my child 
 (this child and the other) labours under the 
 
 P 4 g^^il^ 
 
320 PraSlical Reflexions, Ch. 6. 
 
 guilt, pollution, difeafe and tyranny of fin, with- 
 out thy help. Lord, help me. I cannot doubt 
 of thy power.y nor while thy word, thy oath, tliy 
 facred feal ftand uncancelled, can 1 doubt of 
 thy wiilingnefs to lave to the uttermort all 
 that come to thee. I do not ground my fup- 
 plications on the worthinefs of myfeif or mine, 
 but on thy free grant of covenant favours. 
 This my faith would reft upon. Were I to 
 admit and plead this free grant actually made 
 to my children, and yet not baptize them, I 
 fliould be guilty of a criminal fo'cecifm in my 
 chriftian profelTion. I Hiould then mutilate the 
 gift of God, and zvithhold more than is meety 
 which would tend to i?npoveyiJh the legatees, 
 the church of Chrift, and probably my own 
 foul. 1 have therefore admitted thy covenant 
 gift in its full extent ; and received both the 
 inftrument and the feal in faith. Now, Lord, 
 help me to make them acquainted with their 
 privileges and obligations. By thy Holy Spirit 
 blefs my endeavours, and command fuccefs. 
 Are we the objects of the promife, the rich 
 bleffings of the new covenant, and yet neither 
 fxQ.t^ holy, nor happy, but the reverfe ? Surely, 
 then, we are not ftraitened in Chrift, nor in 
 his gofpel, but we are ftraitened in our own 
 bowels. O that, for a recom pence in the fame, 
 we, as the children of the covenant, may be 
 alfo enlarged! (2 Cor. w\. 11 — 13.) Compani- 
 onate Saviour, 1 bring my children unto thee, 
 who haft faid, Suffer the httle chidren to come 
 
 unto 
 
Ch. 6. Pta6lical ReJleSfions* 32 1 
 
 unto me, and forbid them not ; for of fuch is 
 the kingdom oi God. Take tliem up in thy 
 arms of mercy, and blefs them. Thine they 
 were, thou gaveft them me, and haft made 
 them partakers of the covenant means of grace; 
 O receive them under thy fpecial proteition and 
 guidance, make them the fubjects of the grace 
 of thefe means, which it • is thy will they fhould 
 enjoy ! 
 
 " The fealing of the covenant in general, as 
 a token of God's good will to our feed, is a 
 fufiicient handle for faith to take hold on, in 
 praying for our children. I fee not how thofe 
 parents can with equal confidence pray for 
 their children, who deny them to be in cove- 
 nant, and fo fet them upon even ground 
 with tlie children of infidels*." No prayer for 
 a bleiTing io acceptable, but the prayer o^ faith \ 
 no hlejjing can be prayed for in faith, but what 
 is promifed 'y to have a promife is to have a 
 covenant grant; wherefore, I can confftently pray 
 for my children in faithy no further than I 
 allow them an intereft in the gofpel covenant 
 that is to fay, that the adminiftration and oeco- 
 nomical privileges of mercy appertain to them, 
 and confequently baptifm ; nor (hould any thing 
 be deemed a bar to the enjoyment of them 
 but incapability or a criminal rejeftion, But 
 they neither criminally reject, nor are incapable; 
 confequently, the covenant and its feal termi- 
 nate and reft upon them, and in warding off 
 any part of what was thus intended for their 
 
 P5 ure,' 
 
 * Treat, o« Bapt. p, 241, 
 
321 PraSiical Refle6lions* Ch. 6. 
 
 ufe, I muft be blame-worthy. How can I plead 
 in faith promifed mercy, while I deny to them 
 the tokm of mercy ? If baptifm, the token^ be 
 not theirs, neither is promifed mercy theirs ; and 
 if the latter be not theirs, faith has no foun- 
 dation, in reference to their happinefs. Hidden 
 counfels^ do not tefify or afTert any particular 
 truth to me concerning my child. Through 
 grace, I can think, with adoring complacency, 
 of myfelf and mine being in the hand of a 
 fovereign God ; but the fovereignty of God, pre- 
 dejlination^ eternal covenant intereft, particular re- " 
 demption, and the diflinguijlnng application of 
 grace, are not the objeds of gofpel faith, pro- 
 perly and dire6tly. As far indeed as they are 
 iejltfied of in revelation as fa5ls^ which are only, 
 general^ fo far, and no farther, faith regards 
 them. While unexplained, and therefore in the 
 clafs oi fecret things^ they belong to God\ where- 
 as the things which are revealed^ and thefe onlyy 
 belong to me and my children. The arcana 
 of the divine government, neither are, nor in 
 the nature of things can be, either the ohjeSls 
 of my faithn^ or the rules of my duty. In fhort 
 they are not, they cannot be, the foundation 
 of the PRAYER OF FAITH. Take away the 
 plea of covenant interefl^ and faith is ftruck 
 dumb. Take away covenant promifes^ and faith 
 is ftruck blind. Take away covenant faithful^ 
 nefs^ and faith has no Jianding. But blefled 
 be thy name, O Lord my God, my children's 
 covenant intereji is founded on thy tejiimony^ 
 
 and 
 
Ch. 6. Practical Refie6liom, 323- 
 
 and remaias indifputable, therefore I can plead in 
 fattn j rhv precious promifes are dire6led to each 
 by name, as a covenantee, and therefore I may 
 vieiv in faith thy merciful defigns towards them; 
 thy faithjulnefs was never known to fail, it 
 cannot fail, and therefore the heirs of promife 
 may have ftrong confolation, faith having two 
 immutable things to ftand upon, the promife 
 and the oath of that God who cannot lie. 
 Lord, increafe my faith ! And blefs my chil- 
 dren with the faving knowledge of thy co- 
 . venant. Amen. 
 
 § 20. 4. Am I the parent of baptized chil- 
 dren ? Let me improve their baptifm for their 
 converfwn and falvation. That baptifm may be 
 confidered as a moral mean of converiion, faith 
 and repentance, is evident hence ; If the gofpel 
 be fo, baptifn is — except we maintain a i^iU 
 evident abfurdity, that the heavenly charter has 
 one ufe and tendency, and the feal of that char- 
 ter another. And with refpect to infants^ it is 
 as much fo, at leafl, as any other part of the 
 gofpel difpenfation can be. If falvation being 
 come to a houfe, lays all the members of the 
 family under obligations of receiving that falvati- 
 on, as they are, or become capable ; that exhibited 
 falvation may be juftly termed a mean of conver- 
 fion. In like manner, the feal which authenti- 
 cates that falvation in the moft unequivocal 
 form, muft be equally entitled to the fame 
 if not a fuperior rank. Not to fay, that it 
 is matter of faa^ that infant baptifm has been 
 frequently fo owned. And, indeed, it appears 
 
 P 6 to 
 
324 Pi'a^kal RefieElions, Ch. 6. 
 
 to me that it would be unaccountably flrange 
 if otherwife. . If the injirmnent fealed be de- 
 ferving of credit, or a mean of faith ; muft 
 not the feal itfelf^ the broad feal of heaven, be 
 confidered in the fame light ? Here obferve, 
 
 (i) Our children, as the children of the co- 
 venant, and baptized, have a peculiar right to 
 the MEANS of converfion. To illuftrate and 
 confirm this point, let the following remarks 
 be confidered : " The oracles of God were (om^ 
 initted to the Jews, and this upon the account 
 of circumcifion. They were a people, that were 
 folemnly and facramentally the Lord's, and God 
 commits his oracles to them. He permitted 
 them to others providentially ; but he commit- 
 ted them to the Jews fosderally^ as the law of 
 the kingdom he would govern them by. They 
 owed their bible to circumcifion. God's co- 
 venant was in their flefh, and therefore God 
 inftru6led them with the inftrument in which it 
 was drawn up. — It is clear, that the oracles of 
 God (that pure law, which, as David faith, 
 converts the foul, Pfa. xix. 7.) are the portion of 
 a people in covenant with God. Our infants, 
 ►therefore, being, according to our principles, in 
 covenant with God, are intitled to the bible, 
 and all the contents thereof. — Add to this, the 
 minijlers^ the difpenfers of this word, are, upon 
 the account of church-memberjhip^ tbeirs, with 
 all their gifts, graces, and labours. Paftors and 
 teachers are fet up in the churchy (i Cor. xii. 
 28.) and given to them as a peculiar fruit of 
 Chrift's afcenfion, (Eph. iv. 12.)— God's huf- 
 
 bandmen 
 
Ch. 6. P radical Reflexions, 325 
 
 band men are fet over his own inch fur e^ his 
 fhepherds over his own fiock^ and his builders 
 over his own building. If any perfons t herefor 
 be aliens to the common wealth of Ifrael^ no nnem- 
 bers of the church, lye common with the reft 
 of the world, (hut out of this enclofure, be not 
 (heep of this fold, no ftones in this building — 
 however God may providentially extend the be- 
 nefit of his minifters' labours to fuch perfons, 
 yet, — they can claim no covenant right or title 
 to any fpiritual advantage from them. — But our 
 children even from infancy, by our principles, 
 are entitled by a covenant right to all thofe pre- 
 cious emoluments which accrue therefrom.— To 
 which I may add, private means of converlion, 
 to which there are promifes made. That j/a9eo-ta 
 Kypa, the nurture of the Lord^ of which the apof- 
 tle fpeaks, infiruciion and corretlion^ as ordi- 
 nances of God, and all the promifes made 
 unto them, are not to be extended beyond the 
 church, as to the benefit that may be expeded 
 from them. 
 
 "But may not a godly parent of an y\na- 
 baptiftical judgment — obtain that ble/fing upon 
 his labours in the education of his child— whe- 
 ther his child be [deemed] in covenant with him 
 or no, bap:ized or unbaptized ?— I deny not but 
 he may. For the mercy of God to his people, is 
 many times, larger than their faith or prayers. 
 So that God uiay look upon thofe children as 
 in covenant with him, and deal with them as 
 fuch, whom their parents deny him a [viiiWe] 
 title to. — ^God may, and I doubt not doth 
 
 many 
 
226 P ra£f leal ReJleSf Ions, Ch. 6. 
 
 many times, remejuher the covenant which they 
 finfully i or get \ and does them good upon the 
 account thereof, when they never plead it. 
 
 " But — can it be fuppofed, that ordinances 
 fhould be fo vifibly ineffectual upon fuch num- 
 bers of thofe, to whom they and the blefTmg 
 of them do peculiarly belong ? No wonder at 
 all that it fhould be fo. The apoftle anfwers 
 this very objedion, in my judgment, in the 
 cafe of the Jews, and their ordinances, Rom. 
 iii. 3. When he had fpoken concerning the 
 peculiar right of the Jews to the oracles of " 
 God, (V, 2.) he forefaw the objection that 
 might thence be ftarted : But how came it to 
 pafs that fo many of them were never the 
 better for them?— The apoftle anfwers this ob- 
 jediion thus : What if fome did not believe ? fiall 
 their unbelief make the faith of God of none effe5l ? 
 — The privilege of the Jew, in the enjoyment 
 of ordinances, was continued to the church by 
 God's faithfulnefs. — So that tho' divers of 
 them periffied under them thro' unbelief yet 
 God's covenant in the vouchfafement of them 
 was entire and unbroken notwithftanding. — In 
 like manner I may fay concerning the chil- 
 dren of Pcedobapti/h^ their privilege in the pecu- 
 liar right they have to converting ordinances is 
 not at all impaired by the ineflicacy of thofe 
 ordinances, upon any, or any number of them. 
 It is their privilege to enjoy them, and it will 
 be the aggravation of their guilty that tficy do 
 not improve them. And although they have a 
 
 peculiar 
 
Ch. 6i PraSilcal RefleSlions, 327 
 
 peculiar right to the bleffing of ordinances, as 
 well as the ordinances themfclves, yet bccaufe 
 this right is, as the covenant is that derives it, 
 external^ it becomes inefteftual to many, thro' 
 their own neglect of feeking to God in his 
 own way for the obtaining thereof. Befides, 
 to the fhame of many of us it may be fpoken, 
 'divers parents atnong us do not underjiand^ and 
 others, out of diflatisfadtion as to their cove- 
 nant intereft, dare not, or through fmful neg- 
 Ie6l do not plead with God for their children 
 [and with their children for GodJ as they liavc 
 fufficient warrant to do. 
 
 " And here I fhall afk you a queftion . 
 
 concerning promifes of cojiverjion — To whom 
 think you do fuch promifes belong ? To thofe 
 within the church, or thofe that are without 
 it ? — An alien from the commonwealth of 
 Ifrael, is alfo a ftrangcr to the covenants of 
 promife, Eph, ii. 12. and fo no promife of the 
 covenant belongs to any one, that is not a church 
 member. — Be then yourfelf judge, whether the 
 , principles that exclude infants of believing [i. e. 
 chriftian] parents, out of covenant with God 
 and out of all church relation ; or thofe thatt 
 admit them to both, give the more comfortable 
 hopes of converfion to them. We fay that they 
 are not only under a providential capacity of 
 converfion, as mere heathens are, but they are 
 under a covenant capacity^ becaufe within that 
 number to whom the promifes of renewing 
 grace belong. 
 
 " But 
 
328 PraSlical RefieSiionu Ch. 6. 
 
 " But — are there not promifes of converting 
 grace made to the heathen world ? — How then 
 can it be true—that promifes of converting grace 
 belong only to church members? Very vi^\\\ 
 except you can make it appear that thofe 
 fcriptures — come under the proper notion of pro^ 
 mifes^ made to them who are the perfons men- 
 tioned in them. For my part, 1 look on them 
 rather as prophecies of the converfion of the gen- 
 tiles, than promifes; or, if promifes at all, yet 
 promifes direifted to the Jews concerning the 
 gentiles. 
 
 " I HAVE fomething more to fay— concern- 
 ing the prayers of the church. Are the prayers 
 of the church— any means tending to the further- 
 ance of converjiun^ or no"* Yes, undoubtedly. 
 For if the effectual prayer of one righteous man 
 avail much, if it be fervent, as James faith, 
 furely the prayers of many righteous men, af- 
 fembled in Chriffs name^ muft needs be far more 
 prevalent, — Altho' the church — pray for all men^ 
 according to the command, (i Tim. ii. i.) yet 
 thofe that are moji upon their hearts in tleir 
 prayers, are thofe of the fame flock and fold 
 with themielves. — Accordingly, 1 make no qutf- 
 tion, but that in the inmoft def.res of ail true 
 chrifiians, the converfion of thofe that are nearcfl 
 related, whether in natural or chriflian bonds, 
 is moft paflionately wifhed for ; and, by cunfe- 
 quence, the little ones born in the church, the 
 hope of the d--rivation of Chrift's kino;dom to 
 fucceeding generations. So that thofe pnnciples, 
 
 that 
 
C h . 6 . Pra5lical R eJleSIlons. "329 
 
 that will not allow fuch perfons a franding in 
 the church, do what they can to difintereil the>n 
 in the very cream and mai-row of the whole 
 church's prayers*." 
 
 On the whole, I would obferve concerning 
 the external means of converfion^ that there is a 
 certain order of means divinely inftituted, where- 
 by our dcfires and our endeavours ought to be 
 regulated. By a prefumptuous difregard of this 
 order^ we are in danger of tempting God. For 
 inftance : If the convcrfion of the heathen be the 
 fubject, order requires, that the Jirji /iep in our 
 prayers and attempts (liould be, rhat God by 
 his providence would open an entrance, an ef- 
 fe6tual door, for his gofpel to be fent to them, 
 in purity and power. That the Lord would 
 convert them, by fending them firft the means 
 of converfion. A fccond Jiep in order is, that 
 a difpenfation of mercy may be e/lablijhed among 
 them ; that they may be brought inro a church 
 ftate, and have the minillration of the word 
 and ordinances as a people. A t.ird gradation 
 which divinely inftiruted order requires, is, that 
 we dcfire the grace of the means may be 
 communicated, and that fouls may be converted 
 to God, made to receive Chrift, juftified and 
 fanclified in the name of the Lord Jefus 
 and by the fpirit of our God. This order is 
 beautifully defcribed by St. Paul : " Whofoever 
 fhall call upon the naine of the Lord fliall be 
 faved. How then (hall they call on him in 
 
 whom 
 ♦ Ford's Dial, Part, II, p. j8 — 49, 
 
330 Pra^ical Reflccfions, Ch. 6. 
 
 "whom they have not believed? and how fi^iall 
 they believe in him of whom they have not - 
 heard? and how (hall they hear without a 
 preacher? and how Ihall they preach except; 
 they ht fent ?'' (Rom. x. 13 — 15.) He does 
 not, I appreliend, argue the abfolute impolFibi- 
 lity of falvarion to any but in this exa'5l mode, 
 but he fliews which is the appointed plan of means^ 
 \\hich we are to regard. — In hke manner: If 
 the converfion of our children be the fubjeci:, or- 
 * der requires, that v^'e fliould jirjt delire, and ufe 
 our influence in bringing them into a church 
 Jlate, They are born under a difpenfation of ^ 
 grace ; in that rcfpeoi they are not imclean^ but 
 holy-y nothing but our avowed rejection of chrif- 
 tianity can deprive them of that privilege. But 
 none can be deemed of the vifihle churchy regu-. 
 larly, without initiation by baptifm. This is 
 the inftituted porch to the temple of means. 
 To defire and make ufe of fubjequent means., 
 while that which is initiatory is not ufed, is 
 irregular and prefumptuous. A fecond Jlep in 
 the divine plan is, that I fhould feek from the 
 God of means a blelling in their iife\ the con- 
 verfion of my children as partaken of the means 
 and not without them. For me to defire 
 grace for my child for converfion, and yet 
 deny him any of the means of grace of which 
 he is a capable fubje6l, is unfcriptural, difor- 
 derly, and prepoflerous. As, therefore, I delire 
 his converfion^ let me obferve the order of mdans 
 leading thereto j and O that I may never be 
 
 foiHid 
 
Ch. 6. PraJfical Reflcciions, 331 
 
 found remifs, while nfmg the means, in fecking 
 their end» And that the important end of con^ 
 verfton may be regularly fought, and is pecu- 
 liarly favoured by, infant baptifm^ will further 
 appear, if we obferve, 
 
 § 21. (2) That the practice of baptizing 
 hifants, (cat, par.) may furnifh a parent with 
 many convincing conliderations and arguments, 
 in pleading with his child, with a view to his con- 
 verfion, which otherwife he could not fo well urge. 
 
 " My- dear child, may he fay, thou art a fm- 
 " ner from thy birth, guilty and polluted, 
 " This thy baptifm teaches. In baptifm, God 
 ^' (hews and teftifies that he will forgive fms ; 
 " and this is one reafon why thou haft been 
 " baptized, becaufe thou art a fmner, ftanding 
 "in need of fpiritual wafhing. Thou art not; 
 " to think that the water of baptifm take3 
 " away fin, that is, pardons and makes thee 
 " pure in foul ; no, no, it only fhews thee 
 '' plainly that thcu xvanteji this pardon and 
 " purity i and it alfo fl^iews, that God is mer- 
 *' ciful and willing to give thee every good 
 " thing in this life and in the world to come 
 *' on thy coming to him. He fays in his wordy 
 " that he will give grace and glory ; that thofe 
 " who feek him early, that is, when young as 
 " thou art, fliall find him^ and Chrift fays he 
 " will in no way caft out any poor {inner that 
 " Cometh to him. But thy baptifm Ihews 
 "y?/7/ 7nore tlainly^ that thou art guilty, and 
 "that God is merciful— That thou art im- 
 
 « pure 
 
- 33^ PraSlkal Reflexions, Ch. 6. 
 
 " pure, that is, unfit to go to heaven, but 
 ** that God is willing, on thy coming to him, 
 '' to cleanfe thee and to make thee meet for 
 " heaven My dear child, learn this, and ftrive 
 *' to underftand it without delay. If tiiou dicft 
 *' without repentance — how ihall 1 fpeak it? — 
 " thou muft perirti for ever. No one goes to 
 " heaven without pardon, and thou muft not ex- 
 *' peil to go there without rtpentance. And O 
 " remcinber that not only the bible, the fab- 
 " baths, the fermons, the prayers, and the ad- 
 " vices thou haft from me and others, will rife 
 " up againft thee, if thou continueft impeni- 
 " tent, but alfo thy baptifm^ in the day of 
 " judgment. 
 
 " Observe again, my dear child; tho' you 
 " go with me to worfnip the great and "good 
 " God, to his houfe of prayer on the Lord's 
 " Day ; and tho' you are always prefent at our , 
 *' family devotion ;— tho' you never take the 
 " holy name of God in vain, as many 
 " naughty children do ; nor do of a fabbath 
 " day as they do ; yet this is not enough to 
 " give you a title to heaven. This is very 
 " good in its place ; as alfo to honour your 
 *' parents. To behave properly to your fupe- 
 " riors, fchool -mates, and all people. *' To 
 *' render yourlelf lowly and reverently to all 
 " your betters. To hurt no body in word or 
 " deed. To be true and juft in all your deal- 
 " ings. 7'o bear no malice, nor hatred in your 
 ** heart. To keep your hands from picking 
 
 " and 
 
cc 
 
 Ch. 6. PraSfical Rejie5lions, 393 
 
 and ftealing; and your tongue from evil fpeak- 
 ing, lying and flandering." Thefe things, I 
 fay, are very right. Lut the beft of men do 
 " them very imperfectly ; and except we have 
 " a better title to heaven than this, we can by 
 " no means be laved. Now, obferve, becaufe 
 " we could not keep God's holy law perfectly, 
 " he fent his Son, Jefus Chrift, into the world 
 " to keep it perfectly in our rtead, that by our 
 " believing in him we Ihould not perifh but 
 " have everlafting life. This your baptifm 
 " teaches ; for St. raul fays, that to be bap- 
 " tized into Chrift, fignifies to ^ut on Chrift; 
 " that is, that he is our worthinefs, our per- 
 '' fe6lion, our righteoufnefs. This is one of 
 " thofe very important truths that your bap- 
 " tifm teftifies and feals. O then, my dear 
 " child, bring thy poor, peii(hing k\i to Jefus ^ 
 " Chrift. He will not put thee off, for he has 
 " declared he wont. He went thro' every ftate, 
 " from infancy to manhood ; and having been 
 " a child himfelf, when in the world, he re- 
 " ceives children. O the happinefs he has to 
 " give ! He will not only keep thee from hell, 
 " but at death take thee to heaven. He alone 
 " can make thee truly good ; I cannot. No- 
 "body on earth can. But Jefus Chrift, being 
 " himfelf divinely good and gracious, can make 
 " us good ; yes, he can and will make thee 
 " fo, on coming to him with all thy heart. 
 " This thou mayeft be as fure of as that thou art 
 " baptized. For baptifm according to the will 
 
 "of 
 
124 'Pra5lical RejieBiom, Ch. 6. 
 
 " of Chrift is a feal for confirmation. You 
 *' know, my dear, that what an honejl man con- 
 " firms hy fealing it, he will fland by. Much 
 " more fo will our gracious Lord and Saviour. 
 " Senfible of thy fmful and helplefs condition, 
 " with the affiftance of divine grace, and v^ith 
 " a contrite heart, pray unto this merciful re- 
 " deemer in fome fuch words as thefe: " O 
 " Lord God, who alone canft fave me from 
 " fm and the wrath to come, accept the prayers 
 " and the cries of a helplefs child. No one on 
 " earth or in heaven but thyfelf, O Lord moft 
 " merciful, can help me. I am deftroyed by 
 " fin, the fm of my heart efpecially, but my 
 " help is from thee. Accept me in Chrift, 
 " whofe nature and life were perfectly holy, and 
 " who is made wifdom, righteoufnefs, fandtifica- 
 " tion and redemption, to all thy children. O 
 " that as I have been baptized with water, I 
 " may alfo be baptized with the Holy Ghoft. 
 " And as this was fignified and fealed by my 
 '^ baptifm, grant it me, O Lord God, for 
 « ChrilVs fake. Amen." 
 
 § 22. 5. Am I the parent of baptized chil- 
 dren ? Then let me improve their baptifm, for 
 the purpofe of inculcating upon them chriftian 
 tempers. Let me remind them, that to anfwer 
 the great ends of our baptifm, is the fame as 
 to be true chrifians ; to have that mind which 
 was in Chrift Jefus, a difinterefted, humble, 
 loving and liberal difpofition ; to live and walk 
 as he would have them, by faith and not by 
 
 fenfe. 
 
Ch. 6. PraSlical RefeSfions, 33 r 
 
 fenfe. Baptifm, like chrifiianity itfelf, points 
 them to a penitent frame of mind ; to a refo- 
 lute oppofuion, by grace, to youthful lufts and 
 the whole body of fm ; to heavenly-mindednefs 
 and firm attachment to Chrift. (See chap, ii 
 § i8~2i.) 
 
 § 23. 6, As a paretit let me improve the 
 baptifm of my children for. the purpofe of pro- 
 moting in them a due regard to relative du- 
 ties. As their baptifm introduces them into a 
 ftate of new relation/hip^ it requires anfwerable 
 duties. As baptized ones, as chrifhans in name 
 and calling, let me often remind them of the 
 apoftolick exhortations, which are often founded 
 on the fam.e confideration. Let them be ex- 
 horted to be meek and peaceable, and even to 
 follow peace with all men, as well as holinefs j 
 to do good to all as they have opportunity, 
 and efpecially the mofl ferious and deferving. 
 And Oh, with the bowels of a parent, with 
 the integrity, watchfulnefs, concern and impar- 
 tiality of a chriftian, let me look diligently, as 
 far as in me lies, « l^'^t any of the/n fail of 
 the grace of God, left any root of bitternefs, 
 fpringing up, breed trouble and defile others." 
 Left there be any revengeful Cain, immodeft: 
 Ham, profane tfau, or proud Abfalom. And 
 let me enforce all duties, and efpecially relative 
 ones, from the apoftle Paul's grand confidera- 
 tion, (Heb. xii. 22-25.) ^^hat, in vifibiJity and 
 covenant relation^ « They are come unto mount 
 Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the 
 
 heavenly 
 
336 FraSlical RefieHiom^ Ch. 6. 
 
 heavenly Jerufalem, and to an innumerable 
 company of angels, to the general ajjembly and 
 church of the firft born, which are written in 
 heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to 
 [the fame general relation with] the fpirits of 
 juft: men made perfecf, and to Jefus the Me- 
 diator of the new covenant, and to the blood 
 of fprinkling that fpeaketh better things than 
 the blood of Abel." In a word, may I im- 
 prove their baptvfm to promote a converfation 
 becoming the gofpel of Chrifl. 
 
 § 24. (4) Am I a MINISTER of the gof- 
 pel? How fhould I dread the thoughts of 
 withholding water from thofe whom Chrift owns 
 as the fubjedis of his kingdom. — How ready to 
 berefir thole who are fo capable and fuirable 
 fubje£^s of fuch a benefit — With what Jolenmity 
 dilcharge this branch of miniflerial commilfion — 
 Vvith vhat clojenejs^ plainnefs and fidelity ad- 
 drefs, on this cccafion, the parents of the bap- 
 tized child — How, in improving infant baptifm, 
 concur with parents, for the aforementioned pur- 
 pofeSj in private and publick ! 
 
 § 25. I. How (hould I dread the thoughts 
 of withholding waier froiri thofe whom Chrift 
 owns as the fuVjeds of his Kingdom ! Let me 
 rtmember, that Chrift fevtrely rehukca his difci- 
 ples for their keepmg off little children from 
 being brought to him. Are they not as capable 
 of the nain end of bapnfm, as the Jewifti in- 
 fants were cf the prmcipal defign of circum- 
 cificn ? Do they not anlvNcr the fcriptural re- 
 
 quifition 
 
Ch. 6. PralVical RefieSltom, 337 
 
 quifition of necefTary .qualifications, fuch as are 
 perfectly fultahle to the nature and deii^n of 
 chriftian baptifm ? If fo, I am not guiJtlefs 
 while I keep out of Chrift's fold, as far as in 
 me lies, thofe whom he is willing to receive as 
 the lambs of his vifible flock*. 
 
 § 26. 2. How ready fliould I be to benefit 
 thofe who are thus qualified, by chearfully obey- 
 ing the call to baptize them. When I receive 
 a child into the vifible church, I am not only 
 executing the will and pleafure of Chrift, but 
 imitating his tender compafTion towards chil- 
 dren, whom he ever treated as church members. 
 What readinefs fhould I difcover in gatherin-:' 
 the lambs with my arms, in bringing them to 
 the arms of my Saviour, and their Saviour, who 
 has promifed to carry them in his bofom. 
 Delightful tafk ! not only « to rear the tender 
 mind and teach the young idea how to Oioot '* 
 but alfo to enter the infant mind into the 
 fchool of Him who can qualify the youn^refl 
 child that breathes for heavenly and fublime en- 
 joyments. Pleafing thought ! that every time I 
 baptize a child, I am adding to the number of 
 ^^^L' i^- Q. Chrift's 
 
 • «* Some pious perfons profcfTdly decLire thit they dare not 
 «' bapt-2C an infant upon a dogmatical f^iirh in the parents, and 
 *' I cannot but proftfs that being fairly called to it, I ftouM 
 «* tremble at the guilt of refuHnp it I fliooM as foon be brought 
 " to ftrip them of their Ivujh, or {rhentar.ces, devolved upon 
 " them frnm Uich parents, to talce the bread out of their mouths, 
 <* as to debar ;hem of this their hnth-prix'ik^tr' Mr. 7tiomaj 
 Blake, in a Preface to Dr. Ford's DiaK gues concerning the 
 Pradlical Ui'c of Infant Bsptifm, 
 
238 P radical Reflealois. Ch, 6. 
 
 Chrift's vifible fubjecls, many of whom, no 
 doubt, are taken to his heavenly kingdom, 
 where alone they can have an opportunity of 
 acknowledging the rnercy and faithfulnefs of 
 their covenant God, and the compaiTionate care 
 of their divine Shepherd. And if many of 
 them growing up will probably defpife their 
 birthright, like profane Efau ; or betray (in a 
 fenfe) their Lord and Marter, like ungrateful 
 Judas J or at leaft wound him in the houfe of 
 his friends by their difobedience ; yet fome, I 
 may chearfully hope, will be fpared, and gra- 
 cioufty difpofed, to fpeak of the goodnefs of - 
 their heavenly Friend and Lord in the land of 
 the living. 
 
 § 27. 3. Am I as a goipel mbi'ifler called 
 to baptize infants ? With what concern and 
 folemnity ought I to difcharge this branch of 
 my minifterial commifllon ! They are no lefs 
 the purchafe of my Saviour's blood than adults. 
 His behaviour, in taking up infants in his arms 
 to blefs them, was marked with folemnity and 
 holy reverence, no lefs than in preaching the 
 gofpel, or even raifing the dead. They are no 
 lefs the objects of the father's everlafting love, 
 or the fubjeils of his merciful difpeniations, 
 than adults. The life and liberty, the mifery and 
 happinefs, the lofs or gain, the privileges and 
 the reverfe, of the Infant part of mankind, are 
 not lefs momentous than thofe of the adult, by 
 the laws of heaven and earth. Why fhould 
 not the chriilian diviney as well as the civil 
 
 magiftrate. 
 
Ch. 6. PraSiical ReJieSJions, 339 
 
 magiflrate, the' lawyer or the judge, efpoufe the 
 caufe and tranfa^t the intereftin^ bufinefs of in • 
 fants with equal concern and folernniry as thofe 
 of adults ? Where the temporal welfare of a 
 child is concerned, men do not fay, " It is 
 but the life or death, the property or privilege 
 of an infant^ therefore it is no matter how 
 the bufmefs is done." Wherefore let me 
 regard the covenant privileges of infants as 
 truly important^ and their baptifmal dedication 
 to God, who condefcends to be prefent, fealing 
 to them his deed of gift, a Jolemn fervice, 
 
 § 28. 4. Am I called to officiate, on fuch 
 an occafion, as a ininijier ? With what clofe^ 
 nefs^ plainnefs and fidelity, fhould I addrefs the 
 fpeclators of the ordinance, in general, old and 
 young ; and the parents of the baptized child 
 in particular. What an opportunity is here 
 afforded me of making a practical ufe of the 
 fcriptural and interefling doctrines of original fin 
 — covenant mercy thro' Chrill:— juftifying, rege- 
 nerating, and cleanfing grace — our abfolute need 
 of Chrifl, and the Holy Spirit's influence — the 
 privilege of adoption into the family of the 
 great and gracious God — every covenant blef- 
 iing therein exhibited, and every obligation 
 thence refulting. What a favourable opportunity 
 of exhorting the parents to bring them up for 
 God,'^ in the nurture and admonition of the 
 Lord ; to pray for them, and devote them to him 
 conjiantly ; to provide for their welfare, not only 
 their temporal but alio their eternal welfare, as 
 0.2 God, 
 
34^ PraPAcal Reficciions, Ch. 6. 
 
 God, even their God, evidently has provided, 
 by bis providence and covenant ; to improve, 
 in behalf of their children, as well as for them- 
 felves, thofe means of grace to which baptifm 
 is an inftituted and explicit introduciion ; to 
 fland prepared to refign them, if foon called 
 for by death, without repining ; to confider 
 themfelves as under teachers in the fchool of 
 Chrift, whofe pupils are their own children ; to 
 watch over them and ftudy their proficiency, 
 that they may be qualified betimes for the 
 higher clafs of congregational fellowfhip. ^ 
 
 § 29. 5. As a chriftian minyier^ let me em- 
 brace favourable opportunities to concur with the 
 parents of baptized children in improving their 
 baptifm, in publick and private. And is there 
 not a preffing call to this on account of the 
 great ignorance of many chriftian parents re- 
 fpecling the very nature and defign, blefiings 
 and obligations of this chriftian rite ? I cannot 
 help thinking that were it rightly underjiood few 
 or none would part with it from a confcUn- 
 iious fcruple J or make fo little ufe of it as a 
 moral mean of promoting real chriftianity. Are 
 not chriftian families and focieties in as great 
 dan2er of lofing fight of the true end of bap- 
 tifm, as Jewilh ones v/ere in regard of circum- 
 cifion, and other external rites ? Let me there- 
 fore endeavour to inform the judgments, and 
 direct the pious efforts of all as 1 have oppor- 
 tunity, and efpeciaily thofe heads of families 
 
 with 
 
Ch 6. PraSllcd Reflet iotis, 341 
 
 with which I am conne6ledj that require rnofl 
 affirtance. 
 
 § 30* (5) -As a SPECTAROR of infant bap- 
 tifm, let me not mock left my bands be made 
 ftrong — but rather admire the divine goodnefs 
 towards infants — cordially ajf-nt to the folemn 
 obligations my own (if the fubje6k of it) has 
 laid me under— regard the occafion as a folemn 
 and feafonable memento — wonder at the condudl 
 of fuch as tear off the feal from the divine char- 
 ter — confider how hlejfed thofe are who partake 
 of the things fignified. 
 
 § 3Ji I. Let me beware of all appearance of 
 irreverence, indecency, and much more of mock- 
 £ry, " Now therefore be ye not mockers," faith 
 the Lord God of Hofts, " left your bands be 
 made ftrong," (Ifa. xxviii. 22.) None h\xi fools 
 can be guilty of fuch things. Nor is the cau- 
 tion ufelefs, feeing it is foretold, that the pro^ 
 feffors of the lajl times Jhould he mockers, (Jude 
 18.) Such need no other evidence of their 
 being the children of the bond-woman, (See 
 Gen. xxi. 9, 10.) " Whifpering, and laughing, 
 and other irreverences of behaviour, at this or- 
 dinance, are a provocation to God, an affront 
 to the inftitution, a difturbance to others, and 
 a bad fign of a vain and carnal mind*," 
 
 § 32. 2. Let me admire the divine goodnejt 
 towards infants. How illuftrioufly do tht fove- 
 reignty of his love, the freenefs of his grace, 
 the all-fujffciency of the Redeemer's righteoufnefs 
 
 Q_^ 3 without 
 
 * Henrt's Treat, p, 263, 
 
342 PraSlical Reflexions, Ch, 6. 
 
 wit he lit works^ appear in tha baptifm of infants I 
 What can they bring to Chrift for acceptance ? 
 and yet they are received. Kow helplefs, and 
 yet accepted ! What an emblem is this child, of 
 weaknefs, want, and unworthinefs ; and yet di- 
 vine goodnefs does not overlook, nay, the arms 
 of mercy embrace it. How is human merit 
 for ever dilcountenanced ! Far greater love 
 and compafTion does Jefus pofleis towards that 
 tender babe, than its joyous and fond parents. 
 
 § 33. 3. Am I a fpeclator of this rite? fo 
 e,\prdfive of human indigence, and divine 
 bounty? fo firiking a difplay of the creature's 
 iibfolute dependance, and high privilege? Let 
 me cordially ajjint to the important benefits and 
 folemn obligations, which my own (if the fa- 
 voured fubjedl of it) has laid me under. Whe- 
 ther I aflent or no, the vows of God are 
 upon me. God's juft requifitions are more 
 binding than all the vows in the world be- 
 
 fide. 
 
 § 34. 4. Am I a fpeclator of this ordinance? 
 How fliould every fuch occafion be a folemn 
 and feafonable memento^ refpecting human un- 
 worthinefs and fovereign grace. O my foul, 
 -what haft thou to boaft of? Remember the 
 rock from whence thou art hewn : how humb- 
 'ling the thought of thy original! No fooner 
 did I breatlie the vital air, than " the feeds of 
 fin fprung up for death." Naturally helplefs, 
 (more fo than moft animals) and morally de- 
 filed, is the moft diftinguiftied of mortals. 
 
 Roval 
 
Ch. 6. PraSlical Reflexions, 343 
 
 Royal blood is contaminated with fin ; all 
 the care and attendance of a palace have no 
 tendency to remove the guilt and pollution 
 even of its infant inhabitant. But O the be- 
 nignity and rich grace of that God, whofe 
 mercy bsams forth not lefs on the poor cot- 
 tage, than the fumptuous palace ! " Who is like 
 unto the Lord our God who dwelleth on high I 
 Who humbleth himfelf to behold the things 
 that are in heaven, and in the earth ! He 
 raifeth up the poor out of the duft, and lifteth 
 the needy out of the dunghill ; that he may 
 fet him vv^ith princes, even the princes of his 
 people. He maketh the barren woman to keep 
 houfe, and to be a joyful mother of children, 
 Praife ye the Lord." (Pfa. cxiii. 5 — g.) 
 
 In beholding that infant let me be reminded, 
 how the kingdom of heaven is to be received. 
 As a free gift beftowed on the undeferving. If 
 ever I be admitted into the kingdom of glory, I 
 mud enter firft into the kingdom of grace. And 
 as the fubje(5t of grace I am pa [five in the 
 hand of mercy. How juft and holy the /equi" 
 fitions of the fupreme Governor \ and yet how 
 beholden to the fovereignty of grace if received 
 to celeftial blifs. Let me not be ignorant or 
 forgetful of this myftery, " left I be wife in 
 my own conceit.*' O the depth of the riches 
 both of the wifdom and knowledge of God ! 
 How unfearchable are his judgments, and his 
 ways of mercy paft finding out ! ~ Who hath 
 firft given to him, and it ftiall be recompenfed 
 
 0,4 tg> 
 
344 PraSi'ical Rtfieaions, Ch. 6. 
 
 to him again ? For of him, thro* him, and 
 to him, are all things. To whom be glory 
 for ever. Amen." (Rom. xi.) 
 
 § 35. 5. How do they mutilate the defign 
 of chriftianity who tear off the fcal from the 
 divine charter. What ! do any begrudge to 
 their children and pofterity, the external evi- 
 dences with which chriftianity is recommended ? 
 God condefcends to confirm his charter with 
 his Tea!, as an additional evidence to every fubject ' 
 of his kingdom — that he is and will be true 
 and faithful to his word of promife j as a 
 perpetual motive and encouragement to turn to " 
 God and live. Let nie, therefore, never, with- 
 out a divine ir.juntcion, imitate a conduct 
 which mtiiilaisi the motives to faith, to repent- 
 ance, to happinefs in a covenant God, as that 
 which denies bapiitm to children dots. Are 
 the following words, in reference to this con- 
 duct, too flrorig ? " If any fliould fet upon a 
 defign to undo all^ that by commifTion from 
 Ciirifr in many nations of the v/orld is hap- 
 pily done, there could not I believe a more 
 ready way than this be found to effect it ; tho* 
 thofe that take it in hand, are far from any 
 fuch defign in it*." O'n the contrary, 1 can- 
 not help thinking that trie following words of 
 Dr. Owen, concerning a IVcekly day of holy rcjl^ 
 (miiiotis miUandis,) rriay be fitly applied to 
 the practice of hifani baptifm : " Amongft all 
 the outward means of convey mg to the prejcm 
 
 generation^ 
 t • Blakk's \'\tU to Dr. Ford's DijJ. 
 
Ch. 6* PraSficat RejteSitonu 34.5 
 
 generat'ion^ that religion which was at firft taught 
 and delivered unta men by Jefus Chrift and 
 his apoflles, there hath been none more effec- 
 tual, than the catholick uninterrupted obferva- 
 tion of fuch a" — r/V^*. 
 
 § 36. 6. How hlejfed are thofe who partici- 
 pate of the things fignified by this ordinance ! 
 They are born, not only of water^ but alfo of 
 the Spirit, They are juftified freely by grace, 
 and purified by the blood of Chrift, They 
 have the wadiing of regeneration, and renew- 
 ing of the Holy Ghoft. The covenant of grace, 
 not only in its external adminiitration, but in 
 its internal efficacy, has found them out, and 
 made them the favoured recipients of xhtfubjec^ 
 five love of the Father, grace of the Son, and 
 fellowfliip of the Spirit. To have the light of 
 gofpel day, and glorious truths exhibited to 
 view, mull needs be ineftimable privileges j but 
 to receive from the fame beneficent, everlafting 
 fource of good, e\es to behold, ears to hear, 
 hands to receive, and a heart to improve thefe 
 bkirmgs, how inconceivably great the privilege ! 
 O Lord, " What is man that thou art thus 
 mindful of him ? and the fon of man that thou 
 thus vifiteft him I" How defirable then the 
 Baptism of the Holy Ghost. O that I 
 may be found the happy, happy fubjeit of it, 
 according to the promife, *^ He Jhall hapti'z.e 
 y&u with the Holy Gho/h**-— M^y I conflantly 
 bieathe after this bleffing, until tlie apoftolick 
 
 Q.5 prayer 
 
 * Exercitations on the Sabbath, Fnftce^ 
 
346 Praalcal Refle£Jions, Ch. 6. 
 
 prayer be anfwered in me, (Eph. iii. i6 — 19.) 
 " That he would grant me," and all his chil- 
 dren, " according to the riches 6f his glory, 
 to be ftrengthened with might by his Spirit in 
 the inner man ; that Chrift may dwell in my 
 heart by faiti> j that I, being rooted and ground- 
 ed in love" — love to God who lirfl: loved me, 
 and the unfeigned love of the brethren, as well 
 as unlimited benevolence to all mankind — "may 
 be able to comprehend, with all faints, what is 
 the breadth, and length, and depth and height ; 
 and to know the love of Chrift, which paf- 
 feth knowledge; that I might be filled with 
 
 ALL THE FULNESS OF GoD." Jmen. 
 
 § 37. Thus have we attempted to (hew — 
 (Chap. I.) That the notion of Mr. B. and 
 other Antipcedobaptifis concerning pofttive Injll- 
 iutions and inferential reafoning^ when applied to 
 the ordinance of haptifm^ is untenable — (Chap. 
 U.) That the general nature and ufe of bap- 
 tifm is to exhibit and confirtn the bleflings of 
 the covenant, as the feal of God, affixed to 
 his own merciful grant— (Chap. III.) That it 
 is the 'ijuill of ChriJ}^ that the infants of be- 
 lieving, or chriftian parents, fhould be baptized 
 *— (Chap, IV.) That the words baptize and 
 lapiifm are generic terms^ comprehending different 
 fpecific modes of application — (Chap. V.) We 
 have alfo anfwered the mofk capital ohje^iom and 
 evafiom of our opponents — and (Chap. VI.) 
 Endeavoured to point out fome important prac- 
 tical ufes of Pcedobaptifm. — From the whole 
 
 I 
 
Ch. 6. Practical ReJle£fions. ^47 
 
 I venture to deduce this concluding corol- 
 lary, viz. 
 
 Coroll. That infant baptifm is not only 
 agreeable to the Will of Chrift, but alfo is, ia 
 its own nature, of a very ufeful^ praiJical tendency. 
 
 As this work was not undertaken or profe- 
 cuted, with a view to fofler a party fpirit^ but 
 to promote the union of <:hri/iians ; not fo much 
 to maintain a tenet^ as to inveftigate truth -, not 
 to promote the honour of a particular deno- 
 mination, but to fubferve, with his blefling, 
 the glory of God our Saviour ; I now humbly 
 dedicate the whole to the Divine Inst i tu- 
 tor, being firmly perfuaded that he will accept 
 it, however imperfect, as a Defence of Truth— ^ 
 *' a work of faith and labour of love." 
 
 0.6 AP- 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 CONTAINING 
 
 An examination of SOME OBJECTIONS 
 
 ADVANCED 
 
 By Mr. booth. 
 
 The second EDITION o f 
 
 His 
 PCEDOBAPTISM EXAMINED. 
 
[ 351 ] 
 
 Contents of the Appendix. 
 
 § I. Introduaion, (I.) The firji chfs of ohjec- 
 tians about the mode. § 2. Pajfages ohje£ied 
 to, § 3. Mr, B's Exordium^ retorted, § 4. 
 His feeming denial^ that learned men are di- 
 vided in their judgme?2t about the term bapiiffn^ 
 unreafonable and contrary to plain fa£f, § 5— 
 15. ObjedVions^ anfwered, § 16 — 30. (II.) The 
 fecond clafs of obje^ions about the subjects an- 
 fwered, 
 
 § i.Q OME time after Mr. B. publifhed his firj} 
 O edition of Pcedobaptifm examined, I pub- 
 lifhed a new edition of Mr. Morr ice's " Social 
 Religion Exemf lified," with Notes ; in which notes 
 I dropped a few remarks, as occafion offered, 
 on the fubjeds and mode of baptifm, and took 
 notice, with due refped, of Mx. B.'s publica- 
 tion. In his fecond edition, greatly enlarged, be 
 takes particular notice of my obfervations. Now, 
 tho' I think he has not brought one objec- 
 tion of plaufibJe force, which is not virtually 
 and fairly anfwered in the preceding pages, yet 
 fince he has honoured my remarks, with a pretty 
 clofe attention, and at fome length, it may be 
 cxpeded that a more exprefs and direct reply be 
 made to his principal exceptions. 
 
 It 
 
352 Appendix, 
 
 It may be necelTary alfo to obferve, that 
 the Rev. Mr. John Horsey had publilhed, 
 after Mr. B.'s firjl edition came out, a Sermon, 
 intitled, " Infant Baptifm Hated and defended.'* 
 This Difcourfe and one of my Notes, contain- 
 ing exprelTions of a fimilar tendency, Mr. B. 
 takes occafion to introduce us together, like 
 brother tradefmen of the fame firm^ thus : 
 '* Meffrs. Williams and Horsey," or " MefTrs. 
 Horsey and Williams*." His firft ciafs of 
 objeftions refers to the mode, 
 
 § 2. (I.) I HAD exprefTed myfelf (Social Re- 
 lig. p. 131) as follows: " As the moil eminent 
 criticks, commentators and lexicograpLers are 
 divided in their verdic>, refpe£ling the accepta- 
 tion of the verb Baptizo^ and confequently the 
 intention of our Saviour's command to baptize ; 
 and as tiie prentice of the dilciples, whence we 
 fhould gather in whit fenfe they underftood it, 
 k attended with confiderabie difficulty, when 
 reduced ta any one invariable method — we 
 fhouid vary it according to ci re urn fiances, and 
 in proportion as demonllrable evidence is want- 
 ing, refer the mode to the private judgment of 
 the perfon or perfons concerned." Mr. Hor- 
 sey had obfcived (Inf. Bapt. Stated and Def. 
 p. 15, 16, 17. Kd. 2d.) : 'i'hat the word bap- 
 tij?n is *V ''^^^ equivocal, open, general term." — 
 That nothing is determined by it further than 
 this, " that water ihould be applied to the fub- 
 jedt in forne form or other" — That " the mode 
 
 of 
 
 • PaJob. Ixam, Vul» I. p, ic.^, 105, &c. 
 
Jppendix, 353 
 
 ©f ufc," is '' only the ceremonial part of a 
 pofitive inftitute j juft as in the fupper of our 
 Lord, the time of day, the number and pof- 
 ture of communicants, the quality and quantity 
 of bread and wine, are circumflances not ac- 
 counted eflential by any party of chriftians"— 
 That " fprinkling, pouring, and plunging are 
 perfeclly equivalent, equally valid — And, that 
 " if our Lord had defigned to conline his fol- 
 lowers to a particular mode, exclufive of all 
 others,'* he would hardly have ufed " an open 
 general term (B^Trlfa;)," but " a word decided 
 and limited in its import." He adds, " The 
 Greek language would have furniihed him with 
 terms indifputably precifc and exa61:. Of this 
 kind have been reckoned, and I think properly, 
 
 fay ^v'ttIu and /S^Qifw." This was what we ho- 
 neflly expofed to the public eye, and Mr. B. 
 employs his plaulible pen for about forty pages 
 in depreciating our commodity. 
 
 § 3« In general, by way of exordium, he re- 
 prefents them as Jircmge things, " Such are the 
 " views," fays our opponent, " and fuch is the 
 " language of Meflrs. Williams and Horsey; 
 " to whom I may fay, as the Athenians to 
 " Paul, Tou bring certain strange things to 
 '' our ears^ zve would therefore knozv luhat thcfe 
 " things meanX,'' In reply to this, in genera!, 
 we chearfully inform our Querift, and all whom 
 it concerns, that, with Paul, we care not iiovv 
 
 fining. 3 
 
354 ' Appendix, 
 
 Jlrange thefe things may found in the ears of 
 — our oppofers, provided they be true thiags. 
 We moreover add, in the language of that 
 noble champion with whom we are honourably 
 clafied, mutatis mutandh^ " Ye Ard'tpoidobaptijis^ we 
 perceive that in all thefe things ye are too fuper- 
 Aitious.*' However, let us proceed to particulars. 
 § 4. I HAD afferted : " That the moft emi- 
 nent Vvriters are divided about the acceptation 
 of tlie term baptixo.'' This pofition Mr» B, 
 Teems not to allow. But is it not truly afta* 
 nifhing, that this adept in baptifmal refearches, 
 makes the leaft hefitation refpecSting a fad fo 
 notorious that he who runs may read it ! If 
 my pofition be not jud, it muft be owing to 
 either of thefe two things — that Mr. B. on 
 behalf of himfelf and fraternity, rejedts the com- 
 pliment therein defigned them, as being in the 
 number of the ?no/i eminent writers; — or t\(ty 
 that " the greateft men that ever filled the 
 profefTor's chair, or adorned the Proteftant pul- 
 pit," are a i^t of ignoramufes or downright hy- 
 pocrites. If he does not choofe to abide by 
 either of thefe confequences, he is obliged to 
 admit the force of my pofition. For what can 
 be more evident, on the one hand, than that 
 Mr. B. the Do6tors Stennett, Gill, Gale, 
 &c. contend that the term in queftion fignifies 
 only and excluftvdy to dip ; and, on the other, 
 that a far greater number of the moft eminent 
 Poedobaptills ftrenuoufly affirm, that a fubjeci: 
 on whom water is poured or fprinkled is pro- 
 perly 
 
Appendix, 355 
 
 perly baptized. Is not this a divided opinion ? 
 Nay, can any two propofitions be more contra- 
 didory than thefe f A fubjedi: fprinkled is bap- 
 tized ; and, a fubject fprinkled is not baptized. 
 The one party contends that - baptifm is a ge^ 
 neric term, the otlier that it is a fpecific term. 
 Now thofe who hold the term to be a gcnusy 
 denoting a ceremonial purification by water, 
 muft of courfe allow thit dipping agrees with 
 their definition. And fo does affufion. And 
 what is the inference ? That a great number 
 of the mod eminent writers, and not a few of 
 thofe produced by Mr. B. in favour of his hypo- 
 thefis, differ ejentiaily from all the patrons of the 
 ejjentiality of dippmg in baptifm. 
 
 Our Author's moji weighty objeclions, as they 
 appear to me, may be arranged in the follow- 
 ing manner. 
 
 § 5. (i) His firft obje^aon is, that our ac- 
 count of the word Baptizo^ if true, " would 
 greatly impeach the legiflative charadler of Je- 
 fus Chrid*.'* To this I reply, That fuch methods 
 of vindicating the legiflative character of Jefus 
 Chrift, that difcover fo fond a predjlecrion for 
 hypothefis as to fly in the face o{ Jlubbom fatis^ 
 feem more officious than folid, and better adapt- 
 ed to make and confirm infidels, than to re- 
 flect honour on the Legiflator. The " amhi'^ 
 guiiy we fpeak of" v\'e apprehend to h^ fa^ \ 
 and whatever our Lord enacted in fafl, is ac- 
 knowledged to have been from defign\ and 
 
 whatever 
 
 * Ibid. p. 105. 
 
2 $6 , Jfpeiidix, 
 
 whatever he defigned therein, muft be holy, juft 
 and good; as all his laws are. It therefore fol- 
 lows, that our aynhlguity (if this term muft be 
 palmed upon us) is fucli as excludes all real 
 defcSl, But let Mr. B. know, thai we do not 
 fuppofe, nor will admit, that there is nothing 
 certain to be gathered from the term. And let 
 him further know, that all the uncertainty we 
 acknowledge, begins precifely at tlie point where 
 he and we differ. Our worthy friend muft al- 
 low, that to baptize imports a religious ufe of 
 water \ fo far we agree. But he goes further^ 
 and contends that plunging in water is ejfential 
 to the term ; in this we differ. 
 
 In hopes of narrowing rather than widening 
 the difference between us and our brethren, I 
 propofed, ** to vary the method according to 
 circumftances.'' For inftance, if any through a 
 confcientious fcruple preferred immerfion for their 
 children, or for themfelves, if not baptized be- 
 fore, that for peace* fake, we comply. This 
 was propofed from a principle of tendernefs to 
 well-meaning perfons who thought for themfelves. 
 And it was alfo fuggefted as a way of manifefting 
 a liberal impartiality. But this well-meant con- 
 ciliating plan feems to have excited my opponent's 
 peculiar difpleafure. The manner in which this 
 idea has been leceived, makes me, though re- 
 luctant, to hifer, that the more moderate and 
 candid our attempts are for a friendly accommo- 
 dation, the more fliall we be refilled, except the 
 converfion be complete. 
 
 § 6. (2) Ou/ 
 
Appendix, ^c- 
 
 § 6. (2) Our author again obje6ls : Our Lord 
 " gave a command to baptize ; by which it is 
 univerfally underftood, that he defigned the per- 
 formance of a fingle aSiion ; for nobody fuppofes 
 that fprinkling, pouring, and plunging, muft all 
 be united to conftitute baptifm*/' But who does 
 not fee that this is a mere quibble ? Now in 
 what Jenfe does this law require a fingle a£l of 
 obedience? It feems in this — that fprinklin'^', 
 pouring, and plunging, are not all united to con- 
 ftitute baptifm, but muft be ufed fingly. But 
 does my opponent mean to fubftitute this fophif- 
 tical fhuffling of terms for argument ? Does 
 not every generic term necejjhrily terminate in a 
 fingle a^ion^ as the terms to purify^ to a?ioint^ 
 to confecrate^ to fanSiify^ to projeiyte^ to teach^ to 
 wajh^ &c. ? Yet no one will fay, that fuch a 
 term is fpecifically limited to one action, fo that 
 it is the only atflion that could have been ufed. 
 The objection has no force but in proportion as 
 the objedtor begs the queilion in debate, viz. 
 That the command to baptize requires a fingle aSi 
 of obedience in fuch a fenfe, that it could not have 
 terminated upon any other fpecifically different. 
 It -is therefore incumbent on him to prove, if he 
 can, (for this he has not done hitherto) that BocTili^it 
 excludes every idea but that of dipping, in its 
 legiflative meaning. Nor is he thereby called to 
 prove a negative ; for the queftion being about 
 the acceptation of a word, and eight out of ten 
 criticks, to fpeak within moderate bounds, are 
 
 againi^ 
 
 • Ibid, p. 107, 
 
0^8 ' Appendix* 
 
 ao-ainfl lum ; It remains for him to prove them 
 either incompetent judges^ or abandoned rebels againft 
 the authority of Chrift, before his point can be 
 eftablifhed. 
 
 § 7. (3) Another objedliion is, " That to fup- 
 pofe baptifm to be a general term, is to impute 
 to the divine command fuch obfcurity as is in- 
 compatible with the general principles of law ; 
 cfpecially a pofitive law." Hence we are remind- 
 ed, That " a law defignedly ■ ohfcure is fitted for 
 nothing fo much as to multiply crimes and punifh- 
 ments. Such a law is unjuft and cruel \ con- 
 fequently, could not proceed from our divine 
 fovereign*." To this we reply, 
 
 1. That a law defignedly obfcure^ without 
 any penal fan£lion, is the moft innocent thing 
 in the world. If it argues any thing bad in 
 the legiflator, it is folly^ not cruelty and injuftice. 
 
 2. Our opponent muft allow, that it is not 
 only pollible, but a real faSI^ that the beft of 
 laws, human and divine, are indeterminate or 
 cbfcnre (if you pleafe) in feme refpeSfs^ while they 
 are fufficiently explicit in others. What a wife 
 legiflator intends (hould be underrtood and com- 
 plied with, he will make fufficiently clear and 
 determinate ; but what is not fo, does not, 
 properly fpeaking, make a part of the ftatute. 
 And this is eminently the cafe in thofe laws that 
 are called pofetive. 
 
 In perfect confidence with this remark, we 
 regard the law of baptifm. AVe are certain it 
 
 implies 
 
 • Ibid p, io6. 
 
Apfcndix, OCA 
 
 implies a ceremonial purification by water \ but Tec 
 no reafon to conclude, that it fignifies im?nerfion 
 £xclufively. While then we confider the lail idea 
 as uncertain^ or rather very obfcure^ it is no part 
 of our duty to comply with it. As far as the 
 law is plain, it claims obedience ; but as far as 
 it is indeterminate, it leaves the fubje^l free. 
 Therefore, as far as the ejjentiallty of dipping 
 does not appear in the divine mandate, we are 
 right in oppofmg this baptifl principle as a fpecies 
 of will-woriliip. Let any ufe dipping, and that 
 invariably, in preference to any other mode, but 
 do not make that ejfential to the ordinance, and 
 we have no con trover iy with them. We have to 
 do only with thofe who make that a part oi bind- 
 ing authority, which our Lord has left defignedly 
 sbfcure, A wife legiflator, in proportion as he 
 would have his laws underftood and obeyed, will 
 enacl them in a plain and determinate manner • 
 Jefus Chrifc is fuch a lawgiver ; but as iMr. B.'s 
 import of the term appears to by far the 
 greateft number of competent judges very obfcure 
 the inference is plain, — the eflentiality of dipping 
 in baptizing was never intended by Chrift to be 
 a part of his law. We do not fay, " that fuch 
 a law Ihould be exploded as ohfolete \' but that 
 " in regard to us it -never %vas promulgcdj" For 
 " can it be fuppofed that our Lord would give 
 a pofitive law of divine worihip ; a law that is 
 obligatory on the moft illiterate of his real difci- 
 ples, in the very firft ftage of their chriflian 
 profelhon j and yet exprefs it in fuch ambiguous 
 
 Ian2;ua2;c 
 
360 / Appendix, 
 
 lanouage, that the moft wife and eminent o^ all 
 his followers cannot now underftand it." He 
 that can believe it, let him. 
 
 § 8. Aristotle well obferves. That " thofc 
 things 2X0, probable that appear fo to all^ to the moji^ 
 or to the wife ; and to all thefe, to mojl of them, 
 or to thofe who are beft known, and repu- 
 table*." If this be a true criterion^ may we 
 not venture to fay, that probably our Lord never 
 enaBed what Mr. B. contends for, viz. That 
 every idea but that of immerfion is excluded from 
 the Chriftian rite in queftion 5 or if he did in- 
 tend it, that it is left very cbfcure. Again : 
 " Baron Montesquieu obferves. The ftile [of 
 laws] (hould be plain and ftmple\ a direct ex- 
 prefiion being always better underftood than an 
 indirect one. — It is an eiTential article that the 
 words of the laws fhould [be adapted to] ex- 
 cite in every body the fame ideas f." If thefe 
 remarks be conformable to the true fpirit of laws^ 
 we again infili, that Mr. B.'s hypotheHs was 
 never divinely injoined. " For to what pur- 
 pofe is a law confidered as obligatory, when 
 the moft learned, fagacious, and impartial cannot 
 underlland it ?'* It is plain, " no pofitive law is 
 obligatory till promulged : in other words, it is 
 not a laiu. For what is meant by the term laii\ 
 
 but 
 
 Lib. L Cap. i. § 7. 
 
 •f- Spirit of Laws, B. xxi^, Ch. xtI. and Pcedob* Exam. Vol, I. p« 105. 
 
Appendix, 361 
 
 but a rule of aSilon prefer ibed by fovereign au- 
 thority ? It cannot however be a rule of action, 
 any further than it is made known.'* Agreeable 
 to this, is the following language of Sir Wil« 
 LIAM Blackstone ; " A bare refolution con-" 
 " fined in the bread of the legiflator, without 
 " manifefting itfelf by fome external fign, can 
 " never be properly a law. It is requifite that 
 " this refolution be notified to the people who 
 " are to obey it*." Hence it follows, by 
 Aristotle's rule, that the ejjentiality of dipping 
 in chriflian baptlfm has not, with regard to us, 
 been promulged. " If the trumpet gives an 
 uncertain found, it is all one as if it were not 
 founded,'* But we intreat of Mr. B. not to for- 
 get, that we fpeak of a want of clearnefs^ and 
 confequently non-obligation^ only with refpe^l to 
 that very point wherein he and we, and I may 
 add, he and mofl of his Pcedobaptift witnefTes 
 differ^ viz. That i5a7r7»Jy in the New Teflament, 
 that is, in the ceremonial and facramental {q\\{^ 
 of it, ahfolutely excludes all other modes of purifi- 
 cation but that of immerfion. 
 
 § 9. (4) It is again urged,^ " That fuppofing 
 the word haptlpn^ in different connections, is 
 ufed in various acceptations ; fuch as immerfony 
 wajhing^ pouring, and fprinkling ; yet that is not 
 a fufFiCient reafon for pronouncing the word equi^ 
 vocaL Otherwife we fhall find comparatively 
 but few terms in any language that are not 
 
 R equivocal 
 
 * Comment. Vol. I, Introd. Se£l: ii. and Pcedob. Exam. Vol. I, 
 p, 106, 107. 
 
362 appendix, 
 
 equivocal and of dubious meaning." On this 
 I would obferve, 
 
 That all generic terms in the laws of God 
 and men muft necejfarily be equivocal and du- 
 bious, fo far as we contend with refped to the 
 term baptifm, viz. That they do not fix the 
 mode of action ; as contradiftinguifhed from thofe 
 of determinate fpecification. Terms being, redu- 
 cible to this twofold diftribution, it is evident 
 that a wife legiflator will ufe one or the other 
 fort according to the defign he has in view. If 
 he means to require of his fubje£ls the perfor- 
 mance of a duty in a certain fpecific manner^ he 
 will employ fpecific tenns. Thus if our Lord's 
 defign had been, in the cafe before us, to enjoin 
 the chriftian purification by water in the way of 
 fpr inkling exclufively^ we (hould have had a word 
 conveying that idea ; or perfufion exclufively^ the 
 term would have been accordingly ; or plunging 
 exclufively^ the expreffion would have been fuch 
 as could agree, in the connexion where found, 
 with no other adion. If the language in which 
 the law is promulged does not afford fuch a word 
 as abfolutely confines the fubjecSl to one fpecific 
 action, the remedy lies eafy in a circumlocution, 
 or an explanatory claufe. If the duty, in general^ 
 be required, without fpecifying the manner of 
 performance, it is evident that the fubje(51: is 
 defignedly left at liberty to adopt any manner 
 in which the general duty may be performed. 
 And pofitive duties being no further enjoined 
 than they are made known, it is plain that the 
 
 law 
 
jfppendix, 063 
 
 law of nature^ or fomepmr revelation is our guide, 
 where the former is not excludingly reftriaive. 
 
 Let us fuppofe, for illuftration' fake, that God, 
 by one of his prophets, fliould of old enacSt, 
 That all the priefts in the holy land were to 
 PURIFY bywater all the families of Ifrael, on a 
 certain day, as preparatory to fome folemn tranf- 
 adlion. The mandate goes forth, and the ad- 
 vantages conneded with compliance are clearly 
 fignified. Accordingly, the obedient priefts and 
 tribes obferve the divhie fignal ; and immedi- 
 ately turn their attention to the manner of doing 
 what is thus indefinitely commanded. Some 
 obferve that the manner is very immaterial^ for 
 this plain reafon, that no particular mode of 
 purification by water was fpecified. They alfo 
 obferve, that religious purification by water was 
 wont to be performed either by wajhing the whole 
 hody^ or by fprinkling it only. Some therefore 
 are purified by one mode^ and fome by another-^ 
 the defign of the law is equally anfwered by each, 
 and the lawgiver is well pleafed. But there are 
 fome in the land who take it into their heads, that 
 by the phrafe purify by water is meant fpiritual 
 purity, and rejeft the idea of material water. 
 Others, who fixed upon the mode of wa/hing 
 the whole body in fome river or bath, reckoned 
 their neighbours, who adopted that oi fprinkling 
 water on the body^ or tl part of the body, yet un. 
 clean-, and thus argued, « This purification is 
 an emblem of moral purity, which Jehovah re- 
 quires in all that approach him 5 now that purity 
 
 R 2 mufV 
 
364 . Jppendix, 
 
 muft be either partial or complete. Not the 
 former, our neighbours themfelves being judges. 
 It muft, therefoi-e, he the latter. Of perfed pu- 
 rity, then, this purification is either an exprejfive 
 emblem, or it is not. if not, why fuch a ritual 
 fervice appointed in preference to any other that 
 might have exhibited the blefling in a far more 
 ftriking point of light. Befides, the command 
 to purijy by water muft intend the performance 
 of a fingle aSiion \ and to fuppofe it means either 
 this^ that^ or the other ^ muft proceed from the 
 deftgned obfcurity of the law itfeif j and fuch a 
 law is fitted for nothing fo much as to multiply 
 crimes and puniftiments ; nay, fuch a law is un- 
 juft and cruel \ confequently, could not proceed 
 from our divine Sovereign." The others reply: 
 " We admit yours to be valid, and only claim 
 from you the fame indulgence; you know that 
 loth modes have been long in ufe, and the law 
 does not fpecify either. Had your mode been 
 ejjeniialy or had it been exclufively defigned by 
 our Great Sovereign, he would have taken care 
 to inform us of it. But fince he has not, we 
 are uyireajonahly compelled by your a6l of uni- 
 formity, hefides, Jehovah himfelf has appointed 
 the mode ot fprinkling as an emblem of moral 
 parjfymg, and pronounces the perfons fo puri- 
 rified, " clean,''* I afk common fenfe, whether 
 there is any thing unreafonable in fuch a law ? 
 And whether the conduct of the former party be 
 not ftrongly marked with rigid, unreafonable An- 
 gularity, 
 
jfppendix» 365 
 
 gularity, notwithftanding their pretence of ho- 
 nouring the authority of the lawgiver? 
 
 § 10. (5) We are again afked : "In the name 
 of common fenfe and common impartiality— 
 Why fliould that emphatical and enading term 
 ^ccttI^^u, be fmgled out as remarkably equivocal f 
 Why reprefented as ohfcure to fuch a degree, " that 
 the moft eminent criticks, commentators and 
 lexicographers are divided in their- verdift about'* 
 — what? Its primary meaning? far from it. 
 Here we thi^^k Mr. Williams is under a grofs 
 mirtake." In anfwer, I obferve, 
 
 I. That the epithets equivocal and ohfcure are 
 none of mine. Mr. Horsey indeed fays that 
 the word baptifm is " an equivocal^ open, general 
 term ;" nor is he fmgular in ufmg the firft of 
 thefe three: for he might plead in his defence 
 precedents of no mean rank. Two of thefe at 
 prefent occur to remembrance, which I fhall 
 here infert. The firft comes from the pen of 
 Dr. John Owen, one of the greateft divines the 
 lad century produced. Having quoted Mark i. 8. 
 John i. 33. and Adis i. 5. he obferves : " In 
 every place it [the term ^a,Tr\i^a\ either fignifies 
 to pQur^ or the expreffion is equivocal*.'* 
 The other example comes recommended by fuch 
 a company of literary criticks as ftand in a high 
 rank among the literati of the prefent age. The 
 Monthly Reviewers, who cannot be fuf- 
 pe6ted of prejudice againft immerfion, as appears 
 from their Literary Journals^ much lels can they be 
 
 R 3 charged 
 
 ♦ Traft on Inf. Bapt. and Dipping, Ap. Colledl, of Serm. p. j8i. 
 
 \ 
 
3^6 Appendix. 
 
 charged with notorious incapacity to form a 
 judgment on the meaning of a Greek word, 
 write thus : " We cannot wholly fubfcribe to 
 this opinion ; [i. e. that there muft be an im- 
 merfion to conftitute baptifm, whether that im- 
 merfion be total or partial;] though we acknow- 
 ledge there are many authorities to fupport it 
 among the antients. The word baptize doth 
 certainly iignify immerfion, abfolute and total 
 immerfion, in Josephus, and other Greek wri- 
 ters. But this word is in fome degree EQUI- 
 VOCAL ; and there are fome eminent Greek 
 fiholars who have alTerted that immerfion is not 
 necejfarily included in baptifm." After having 
 made fome critical obfervations they add thefe 
 remarkable words : " V/e have not yet feeii 
 any thing on this fubjeci: that hath thoroughly 
 Jatisfied us*." Whether the prefent publication, 
 if they ftiall tliink proper to read it, wUl contri- 
 bute any thing towards their " thorough fatis- 
 faiSlion," is to me uncertain. — Again, 
 
 2. Supposing I had faid, that the mofl emi- 
 nent writers are divided about the primary mean- 
 ing of the controverted term, i deny the charge 
 of having been under a grofs miftake ; in fupport 
 of which denial it would be eafy to produce 
 numerous inftances. But to avoid repetitions, 
 (vid. Chap. iv. pajjirri) I would only remark, that 
 Mn B. and fome others, on the one hand, 
 confider the primary meaning to be dippings or 
 putting in water, &c. ; and many of the firft 
 rate criticks, on the other hand, confider the 
 
 primary^ 
 • Monthly Review, Vol, LXX, p. 396. 
 
Appendix, 36'; 
 
 primary^ obvious, natural import to be generaly 
 as to tinge^ to wet^ to wajh^ &c. And that this 
 is the real fignification of it, even in a primary 
 philological fenfe, I think, has been fully proved. 
 I fay, " primary philological," becaufe 
 
 3. There is a manifefl and important dif- 
 ference between a primary philological or etymo-' 
 logical, and a primary /^^^/ meaning. The one 
 by no means implies the other. On the con- 
 trary, we are fully of opinion with the learned 
 GussETius, who, when fpeaking of the two 
 Hebrew roots Mul and Namal^ very properly 
 {hews, and we think beyond all contradi(iion, 
 that the divine Legiflator in enacSting his laws 
 has adtually deviated from that very rule which 
 Mr. B. would have us believe is invariably ob- 
 ferved and inviolably facred. And this in the 
 matter of a pofttive law ; yes, that very law 
 which enjoins the obfervance of what St. faul 
 ftiles " a feal of the righteoufnefs of faith.*' 
 With the alTiftance of a certain ingenious writer, 
 let us hear him fpeak in English, concerning 
 thefe two Hebrew roots, thus : " Though they 
 do not occur in the conjugation Kal, except iii 
 the facrarnental or typical fignification of circum- 
 cifing J yet this is not to be confidered as theif 
 primary^ but only as a fpecies of their general 
 fignification of cutting ; which, therefore, is their 
 proper meaning — The genuine, general fignifi- 
 cation is to be fetched from Pfalm xc. 6. and. 
 cxviii. 10.*" R 4 Aff 
 
 * Comment. Ebraicae, fub Rad. MuU aci Pcrdob, Exanx. Vol, I» 
 p. 1151 Z16. 
 
368 Jppendix, 
 
 As a proof, that it is not necefTary the 
 words of a divine law fhould be interpreted 
 according to their pri?na?y acceptation, we may 
 further, obferve, with the tranflator of the 
 above parage, That the word " Jrelah is ufed 
 for the fore/kin ; but its general and leading idea 
 is, as Dr. 7'aylor informs us, a fuperfuous 
 incumbrance \ and Mr. Julius Bate fays its 
 PRIMARY meaning is, the top^ or protuberance* " 
 To which we may add Mr. Locke's remark; 
 " What v>rords are there not ufed with great 
 latitude^ and with fome deviation from their 
 /iri^ and prefer fignifications J," even in divine 
 laws ? It does not, then, follow, as Mr. B. 
 infinuates, that the primary and legal meaning 
 muft be the fame ; for thefe inftances demolilh 
 the fuppofition. Suppofing therefore, without 
 granting, that the primary acceptation of /3a7r]t^e*» 
 is to dip^ does it thence follow, that the facra^ 
 menial import muft be fo too ? No ; for ^Jr. 
 B. himfelf has furnilhed us with inconteftible 
 inftances to the contrary. Let us then remem- 
 ber, that the primary etymological acceptation of 
 a term, is no certain rule to determine its pri- 
 mary legal force. What then muft determine ? 
 We anfwer — The meaning is to be fought from 
 the mofl probable defign of the Legiflator, col- 
 levied from former rtatutes, or the apparent 
 nature and intention of the thing enjoined, that 
 is, from the circumjiances of the cafe, 
 
 § II. (6) We 
 
 * Tb. p, 116. 
 X Eflky on Human Underft. B. II. Chap, xxxii. § i« 
 
Appendix^ 369 
 
 § II. (6) We are moreover told, " That 
 the manner of ufing water, when baptifm is ad- 
 miniftered, » not a mere c'lrcumftance^ but hap- 
 iifm itfelf\ for no minifter of Chriii can confi- 
 der his performance of fprinkUng, of pouring, 
 or of plunging, in the fublimeft of all names, 
 as any thing but the very a5i of baptizing. 
 If the manner of ufing water be a circumjiance 
 of baptifm, what in the world can baptifm //- 
 felf be ? Now as according to Mr. Horsey, 
 the manner of ufmg water is only a circum" 
 Jiance of baptifm — and as according to Mr, 
 Williams, the mod eminent authors are di-^ 
 vided in their verdict about what our Lord 
 meant by it ; all we can learn concerning the 
 ordinance is this : Baptifm is an unknown fome^ 
 things which has a connection with water *.'^ 
 To this I reply, 
 
 I. That our account of baptifm is fufficiently 
 intelligible at leafl to any who confider it im- 
 partially. If not, fad is my cafe that I have 
 talcen fo much pains in Hiewing what baptifm 
 is, and after all, my readers may perhaps mif- 
 take it for Leviathan I which alfo is an un* 
 known fomething that has a conneSfion with water. 
 We fay that baptifm is a chriftian ordinance, 
 which implies a ceremonial purification by water. 
 The proximate genus is purification^ the fpecific 
 difference is, that it is a purification by a cere^ 
 menial or religious ufe of water. And I main- 
 tain that the proper facramental import of the 
 
 R 5 word 
 
 * Pcedoht Exam, p» i»6— lag^ 
 
370 ' Jppendix, 
 
 word /3a7rlKr/xo?, in the New Teftament is ex- 
 haujied by this definition, without defcending 
 lower in the differentia ; nor are we to wonder 
 that there is not in our language any one word 
 of the fame import; for as Mr. Locke well 
 remarks : It is " obvious to oSferve great Jlore 
 of words in one language, which have not any 
 that anfwer them in another. Which plainly 
 fhews, that thofe of one country, by their cuf- 
 toms and manner of life, have found occafion 
 to make feveral complex ideas, and give names 
 to them, which others never collected into fpc- 
 cific ideas. The terms of our law which are 
 not empty founds, will hardly find wards that 
 anfwer them in the Spanijh or Italian^ no fcan- 
 ty languages ; much lefs, I think, could any 
 one tranflate them into the Caribee or Wejloe 
 tongues. — Nay, if we look a little more nearly 
 into this matter, and exadly compare different 
 languages, we (hail find, that tho' they have 
 words which in tranflations and dictionaries are 
 fuppofed to anfwer one another, yet there is 
 fcarce one of ten amongft the names of complex 
 ideasj efpecially of mixed modes, that ftands 
 for the fame precife idea, v>^hich the word does 
 that in didionaries it is rendered by*." What 
 confirms the propriety of applying thefe obfer- 
 yations of Mr. Locke to the term in contro- 
 Terfy, is this. That moft tranflators of the ori- 
 ginal fcriptures into other languages found it 
 aecefTary to preferve in their tranilations the 
 
 words 
 * EiTay on Human Underft» Br III. Chap. t. § S. 
 
Appendix. 371 
 
 words $xir\iJ^u and $»'7r\i^(ji.o<;y only giving them 
 a different termination, as baptifmuSy hapiifm^ 
 hapteme^ &c. Indeed the Britifli words bedyddio 
 and bedyddy ufed in that verfion, form a re- 
 markable exception ; I fay remarkable, becaufe 
 they are neither the original words themfelves 
 with a different terrninationj nor yet are ever 
 ufed to denote exclufively any one fpecific ac- 
 tion whatever, as plunging, perfufion, fprink- 
 ling, or the like. They are generic terms that 
 fignify, more exad^ly than any others I know, 
 the ideas conveyed by the original terms, as 
 we have defined them. — I again remark, 
 
 2. That what our opponent himfelf fays on 
 this head, will help if neceffary to explain our 
 meaning. For thus he writes j " That various 
 particulars relating to baptifm are merely cir- 
 cumftantial, we readily allow — But it is quite 
 other wife, as to the folemn ufe of zvater. For if 
 that be omitted, baptifm ttfelf is wanting f/* 
 It is a rule with logicians, that the definition 
 and the thing defined are convertible. Here 
 Mr. B. calls baptifm^ " The folemn ufe of 
 water;" and again, thisy he fays, is " baptifm 
 itfelf." We cannot help wifhing that he will 
 always abide by this definition, in hopes that 
 it might help to introduce an amicable union. 
 
 If it be again afked. What mode of this 
 folemn ufe of water ^ is preferable ? We reply. 
 Such a mode as was already ejiablijhect in the 
 churchy for ceremonial purification, in connec- 
 
 R 6 tkjn 
 
 t ? n^ 
 
37^ ' appendix, 
 
 tion with the fcriptural defign of the ordi- 
 nance. And TuRRETiNUs affures us, " that 
 in the time of Chrift, it was not poflible for 
 any Jew either to /peak of jSaTrlifetj/, in reference 
 to a facred rite, or to underjiand it when fpoken 
 of, any otherwife than concerning the a6t of 
 wajhing^ immerfion^ or affufion'^,^^ As to Mr. B.*s 
 ludicrous fuppofition, that water may be applied, 
 on our principles, to the forehead, the eyes, the 
 ears, the nofe, the mouth, &c. we think it an 
 anfwer better than it deferves, when we fay, 
 TVe have no fuch cujlom^ nor the churches of 
 God. 
 
 3. When our Examiner, fays, " that im- 
 merfion, pouring, and fprinkling, are not mere 
 lircurnflances of the appointment under difpute,'* 
 we partly believe him, and partly difbelieve him. 
 For if we confider the term " circum/iance'* 
 with regard to the one particular manner of 
 obfervance which is adually adopted, then we 
 may fay that this a£i is not a circumftance, 
 but an eflential part of the hapt'ijm itjelf\ but 
 if we confider it in reference to a different ?nan^ 
 ner^ which, on the fuppofition, might have been 
 adopted; then the ufmg of one mode in pre- 
 ference to another, muft needs be a circumjlance. 
 For the mode actually declined makes no part 
 of the fervice, and yet, on the fuppofition, 
 
 might 
 
 * " Alia vero temports, quo vivebat Chriftus ; quo ^otTrli^nv 
 de ritu facro neque dicere, neque di£lum intelligere quifquam Ju- 
 stus aliter poterat, quam de tin£iioniiy immtrjioniif aut affuftohis 
 aftu," Theol, Loc, XIX. Quaeft. xviii. § 4, 
 
Appendix, o^-* 
 
 might have made a part. What I here defend 
 is not the ftri£l propriety of the word " cir- 
 cumftance," but the idea evidently intended by 
 it as now explained. If we only fubftitute the 
 term « fpecies^' and all Tvlr. B.'s reafoning on 
 the expreffion " mere circumjiance^" as " con- 
 trary to fcripture, to fadi:, and to common 
 fenfe," is quite difarmed. 
 
 But " the Roman Catholics have been con- 
 ftantly told by Proteftants, that a participation 
 of wine at the Lord's table is not a " mere 
 circumftance/' but an effential part of the jnfti- 
 tution; yet not more fo, fays iVir. B. than 
 THE USE OF WATER in baptifm, let the mode - 
 of ufe be what it may." Here we think our 
 opponent fails entirely in ferving his own caufe. 
 He compares a participation of wine^ to the ufe 
 of water ^ as is very natural : and when we re- 
 ject the USE OF WATER, then, we will fubmit 
 to the charge of Popifh mutilation. 
 
 § 12. (7) " If plunging, pouring, and fprink- 
 ling, be equally valid^ it muft be becaufe they 
 are equally enjoined by divine law. But they are 
 three different anions — How then (hall a fmgie 
 term, uadei-ftood in its proper and primary knky 
 equally refpecl three difierent actions ? — Before 
 Mr Horsey pretends to evince that this word 
 Bowrrli^u) has this plenitude of fignification ; we 
 wi(h him to prove, that any term, in any lan- 
 guage, either doe^ or can equally or natural- 
 ly fignify three different ail:ions. — l\heoiogians 
 and civilians have feldom taken it into tlieir 
 
 heads 
 
374 jlppendix, 
 
 heads to contend, whether the legislator had 
 three meanings or only one^ in any cnading 
 claufe." In anfwer to this obje6lion, obferve, 
 
 1. That thefe adtions being different^ does 
 not hinder their being equally enjoined^ and 
 therefore equally valid» The different a61ions 
 are only different means of attaining a propofed 
 end. This end is purification by ivater, to which 
 either of the mentioned means equally lead. For 
 each is included in the general term ; where- 
 fore, either of them muft needs be valid, 
 
 2. Our meaning is greatly mifreprefented in- 
 the objection. An unwary reader may be ready 
 to think, that the prefent queftion is, Whether 
 the enacting term has three primary meanings ? 
 And Mr. B.'s reafoning derives all its force 
 from the fuppofition. I know not that ever it 
 was difputed, and probably never will be, whe- 
 ther any enading term has three primary figni- 
 fications. We maintain, as well as the worthy 
 author, that there can be but one primary le- 
 gal fignification j but infift, notwithftanding, that 
 if the word be general^ and defignedly chofen 
 as fuch, it is not only capable of two or more 
 different modes of obfervance, but muft necejfarily 
 agiee in meaning with as many modes, as there 
 are fpeciesy or different manners of difcharging 
 the general duty; and thefe perfectly equi- 
 valent, EQUALLY VALID. 
 
 Considering, therefore, the general import 
 of the term — confidcring the perfons to whom 
 the command was firft given — the religious ufe 
 
 of 
 
Jppendlx, 275 
 
 of water to wbich they had been accujlomed-^ the 
 perpetual and univerfally extenfive obligation of 
 the Jaw, in every age and every climate — the 
 various ways in which men eminently qualified 
 to judge, have performed the duty required, 
 with the lincereft proteftations of impartiality — 
 I am convinced more and more, as an account- 
 able creature, in the awful prefence of my Law- 
 giver and Judge, that of two minifters, one 
 fprinkling and the other dipping proper fubje6ls, 
 t neither of them effeniially deviates from the 
 import of the law; nay that they are perfealy 
 equivalent^ equally valid. And if each anfwer the 
 Legiflator's requifition, what pity they, and 
 their refpedive partizans, fall out by the way I 
 " The honour of our Mafter, and zeal for 
 his more important caufe, forbid it }" I am 
 fully of opinion with Turretinus in this 
 matter; who, when difcuffing this queftion, 
 " Whether, in the church of Rome, the true 
 dodrine of baptifm is retained," diftinguifhes 
 thus : « The truth of the dodrine of baptifm 
 fhould be confidered with refpecl either to its 
 ejfence^ or to its accidents^ fuch as the rites 
 and ceremonies ufed therein. In the former 
 fenfe we acknowledge that, thro' a fingular di- 
 vine providence, the true dodrine of baptifm 
 remains in the church of Rome; becaufe the 
 matter of true baptifm, water, is retained in 
 it, alfo the formula prefcribed by Chrift, ac- 
 cording to which it is adminiftered in the nam€ 
 of the holy Trinity; for which reafon, the 
 
 baptifm 
 
2^6 ' Appendix, 
 
 baptifm adminiftered in that church is thought 
 VALID, and not to be repeated*.*" Again, 
 
 3. What we contend for, is very common 
 in laws human and divine. This we hold 
 againft the objedtion, and the following remark- 
 able paflage, which is of the fame cart:. " If 
 Mr. Horsey be right, the law of baptifm is a 
 leaden rule, that will bend and take any form : 
 rather it is no law — it is Jio rule; and with 
 regard to the ufe of water, every one may do 
 that whiclv fbems right in his own eyes. But 
 as it is abfurd to fuppofe, that the primary fenfe 
 =of the fame word will equally .apply to three 
 different objeds j fo it muft be incongruous for 
 any to imagine that the fame enadting claufe 
 -or term of a law, can equally require three 
 different actions, and at the fame time be com- 
 pletely fatisfied with any one^ Qt them. Before 
 Mr. Horsey had inadvertently fixed an impu- 
 tation of this kind on a poficive Jaw of 
 Jefus Chrift, lie fhould have well confidered, 
 whether the whole hiftory of legiilation (facred, 
 civil, or eccle(iaftical) could have furn^ifhtd him 
 ■with ^Jingle injiance of fuch a facl. That many 
 tyrants and fools have given laws to fecular 
 JLing<loms, and have even prcfumed to kgiflate 
 ■for Jefus Chrift hiinfelf, is a fa<St; that foine of 
 their laws have been marked with tyrannical 
 fubtilty, and others wiih egregious folly, is alfo 
 a fact; but that any of them ever were fo 
 -crafty, as to contrive a Jaw which, by a iingle 
 
 enadting 
 
 • Inftit. Theol. Loc 'XIX. Quaeft, xvui, § i. 
 
Appendix, 377 
 
 enacting term, equally required three different 
 a<Sls of obedience j and yet were fo compliant 
 as to ht\ themfelves perfecitly fat^stied with hav- 
 ing any one of thofe a6ts performed, I do not 
 believe f." Aftonifhing language from a BritiHi 
 divine, a Proteftant Diflenter ! " Abfurd to fup- 
 pofe that the primary fenfc of the fame word 
 will equally apply to different obje<Sls ? — lncon» 
 gruoui to imagine that the fame term equally 
 requires three different anions, and at the fame 
 time be completely fatisfied with any one of 
 them ? Not a Jingle injlance of fuch a fav5t ? 
 Such a law beneath the craft of tyrants and 
 fools ?'^ In the name of common fenfe, in the 
 name of common and llatute law, what can 
 Mr. B. mean by fuch language ? 
 
 We fuppofe there is hardly a fingle a£l of 
 the Bntifli Parliament, contained in the ftatutes 
 at large, but would furniih ample fufficiency to 
 confront and entirely enervate the force of this 
 paiTage. And this muft be inevitably the cafe, 
 when a generic term is made ufe of, and left 
 without reftri6lion. Is not this the cafe when 
 fuch words as thefe occur —to indi^y to try^ 
 to execute ; recruitings enlifling^ marching \ confe^ 
 cration^ ordination, indu<^ion ; and innumerable 
 Others ? Are not fuch words commonly found in 
 our laws, without their enumerating the complex 
 ideas contained under them in the fame ftatute ? 
 Nor can it be otherwife, except we fay, that 
 
 a 
 
 t P- >33» 
 
37^ / appendix* 
 
 a ftatute ought to be a diSiionary as well as a 
 rule of a^loTu 
 
 § 13. For inftance ; \i a law enjoin, that 
 the fubjecfts of Great Britain (hould resort to 
 their refpedive parilh churches, or fome other 
 lawful place of worfl-aip, on the Lord's day ; a 
 formal explanation of the word refort^ and the 
 particular mode of reforting, when that mode 
 was, on the fuppofition, indifferent, would be 
 needlefs and impertinent. Obedient fubjeds, 
 unbiafled by fubtle diftindtions and a cavilling 
 humour, immediately comply, without perplex- 
 ing themfelves or others, whether they mull 
 walk or ride? Others, of a contrary turn, lay 
 great ftrefs on the manner of reforting ; and 
 fpeak in a decifive tone in favour of walk- 
 ing as the moft primitive^ fimple, felf-denying 
 mode. And feeing infants and young children 
 cannot walk to church, they (hould be left at 
 home till they are able to perform this mod 
 excellent method of reforting, Befides, " the 
 word refort, it might be urged, cannot equally 
 apply to different objects, as walking and riding^ 
 and at the fame time be completely fatisfied 
 with any one of them." 
 
 If a fovereign caufe a general fafi to be pro- 
 claimed, it is not to be expe6led that the fpe- 
 cific ideas contained under that term be at the 
 fame time explained. Some overfcrupulous per- 
 fons may puzzle themfelves about the manner 
 of obferving the royal mandate. It is not 
 enough, they hy^ that we obferve a religious 
 
 humiliaiian 
 
appendix, 37^ 
 
 hu?niliation ia general, but we mufl: take the word 
 faji in its primary acceptation, and that is ab- 
 Jiinence from food^ which ought not to be par- 
 tial but complete. This is not fufficient, fays 
 another, we muft follow fcriptural precedents^ and 
 put on fackcJoth. Nay, fays a third, this is 
 not enough neither, w^e cannot keep an accepi 
 table faft without extending our abftinence fur- 
 ther; for thus the fcripture fays: " Let neither 
 man nor beajt^ herd nor flock, tafte any thing; 
 let them not feed nor drink water.'* Hold your 
 peace, fays a fourth, ye know nothing at all ; this 
 royal order, is a pofitive command^ and in fuch 
 cafes it is not only unlawful to go contra Jiatutum^ 
 but alfo fupra Jlatutum\ for podtive commands 
 imply their negatives. The principal enadling 
 term has no obfcurity, is not equivocal ; and 
 our fovereign being neither a fool nor a tyrant, 
 being neither crafty, weak, nor wicked, what 
 can be plainer than that he means, his loving^ 
 obedient^ dutiful fubje6ts fhould abjiain from food 
 all that day. All Jhort of this, beyond this, all 
 different from this, is wrong. And what can 
 be clearer, than that infants^ and young chil- 
 dren, zrt excluded^ becaufe not exprefsly men- 
 tioned in the pofitive mandate. 
 
 Among the Romans, the folemn rite of mar^ 
 riage might be effe<Sled by three different ways, 
 and at the fame time the law was completely 
 fatisfied with any one of them. *' We mufl: note, 
 fays GoDWYN, that three manner of ways a 
 woman became a man*s lawful wife ; ufu^ con-- 
 
 farreatione^ 
 
3^0 , Jppendlx, 
 
 farreaiione^ coejnptione* ,'^ That is, either of thefe 
 three ways were perfectly equivalent, 
 
 EQUALLY VALID. 
 
 An ecclefiaiiick is hidu^ed into a benefice 
 by different rnodes^ perfectly equivalent, 
 EQUALLY VALID. " Induction is performed by 
 a mandate from the bifhop to the arch-deacon, 
 who ufually iflues out a precept to other clergy- 
 men to perform it for him. It is done by 
 giving the clerk corporal pcjfcffion of the church j 
 as by holding the ring of the door, tolling a 
 bell, or the like ; and is a form required by law^ 
 with intent to give all the parilhioners due no- 
 tice, and fufficient certainty of their new minif- 
 ter, to whom their tithes are to be paid. — He 
 is then and not before, in full and complete 
 pofTelTion, and is called in law perfona imperfo^ 
 nata^ or parfon imparfonee f ." 
 
 When a general gives orders to his officers 
 to march from one ftation to |nother, it is not 
 neceflary that he explain to them what he means 
 by the word to march^ being already well known. 
 And how ridiculous would it be for any to con- 
 tend that becaufe the word primarily fignifies 
 " to walk in a grave, deliberate, or ftately man- 
 ner/' the command is not to be extended to 
 the cavalry^ or if it does, that they are not to 
 ride but walk and lead their horfes. But the 
 legal force of the word is of a more general na- 
 ture, implying, '* to move in military form ;" 
 
 and 
 
 • Rem, AntJq, Lib. II. Seft. ii, cap. ao. And Kenn«tt'* 
 AntHj. Part. II. B. v. chap, 9. 
 f Blackst. Comment. Vol, I. B, I. Ch, xi» 5. 
 
Appendix, ^Sl 
 
 and includes many fpecific ideas, well known by 
 cuftom. 
 
 But what need multiplying examples in fo 
 plain a cafe ? Tlie reader may ealily furnifh 
 himlelf with inflances innumerable. All laws, 
 whether civil or facred, in eve:y age and every - 
 country, from the very nature of things, fup^ 
 pofe a previous knowledge of fome parts, terms, 
 &c of what is enacted, and it is our wifdom, 
 inftead of raifing a duft about what laws ought 
 to he, efpecially the laws of our Maker, to 
 employ the moft proper criteria for diftinguifli. 
 ing the true meaning of what is enacted for 
 our obfervance. And to this end, the follow- 
 ing moji judicious remarks, as applicable to all 
 laws, may be ferviceable. " The faireft and 
 moft rational method to interpret the %mll of 
 the legillator, is by exploring his intentions at 
 the time when the law was niade, by figns the 
 moft natural and probable. And thefe figns 
 are either the words, the context, the fubjedl 
 matter, the effeds and confequence, or the fpi- 
 rit and reafon of the \zvi . -- JVords are generally 
 to be underftood in their ufual and moft known 
 fignification ; not fo much regarding the pro- 
 priety of grammar, as their general and popu^ 
 lar ufe, — If words happen to be ftill dubious^ 
 we may eftablifti their meaning from the con- 
 text\ with which it may be of fingular ufe to 
 compare a word or a fentence, whenever they 
 are ambiguous^ equivocal^ or intricate. — Of the 
 fame nature and ufe is the comparifon of a law 
 
 with 
 
3S2 ' Appendix^ 
 
 with other lawsy that are made by the fame 
 legijlator^ that have fome affinity with the fub- 
 jc6t, or that exprefsly relate to the fame point. 
 —As to the fubjecSt matter, words are always 
 to be underftood as having a regard thereto ; 
 for that is always fuppofed to be in the eye 
 of the legiflator, and all his expreflions dire6ted 
 to that end. — As to the efFe«5ts and confequence, 
 the rule is, that where words bear either none, 
 or a very abfurd fignification, if literally under- 
 ftood, we muft a little deviate from the received 
 fenfe of them.— But, laftly, the moft univerfal 
 and efFe£tual way of difcovering the true mean- 
 ing of a law, wlien the words are dubious^ is by 
 confidering the reafon and fpirit ; or the caufe 
 which moved the legiflator to enacSt it. For 
 when this reafon ceafes, the law itfelf ought 
 likewife to ceafe with it." This is the lan- 
 guage of good fenfe, of found judgment, and 
 is of univerfal ufe in its application. And whe- 
 ther it be not more favourable to that inter- 
 pretation of the law of baptifm, which I am 
 defending, than the contrary, let the reader 
 judge. 
 
 § 14. Dr. Samuel Johnson, as every one 
 knows, cuts no mean figure in the annals of 
 Englilh literature, and ftands eminently confpi. 
 cuous as a lexicographer j one would expert, 
 therefore, he could not fundamentally and ejfen^ 
 ttally miftake as to the primary acceptation of 
 a word, than which hardly any his famous dic- 
 tionary contains had been more controverted. 
 
 And 
 
Appendix* ^Sj 
 
 And yet this celebrated author has actually er- 
 red in that manner, if our opponents are in the 
 right. He confiders the word baptifmy and we 
 believe with great propriety, not as confined 
 to any one fpecific adion, as to fprinkle^ to dip^ 
 or the like j but as a term of latitude^ according 
 to its biblical and facramental ufe j and this he 
 might naturally fuppofe from the nature of the 
 ordinance to which it refers. « To baptize^'' 
 fays he, " is to chr'ijien -, to adminifler the fa- 
 crament of baptifm to one. — Baptijm\ an ex- 
 ternal ablution of the body, with a certain form 
 of words." But left it fhould be fuppofed 
 that this account fprung from popular preju- 
 dice in favour of the general pra^ice, and 
 againft our brethren's diftinguiftiing mode, the 
 fufpicion is immediately removed, if we confult 
 him on the word dippings where he quotes thus : 
 " The perfon to be baptized may be dipped in 
 water ; and fuch an immerfion or dipping ought 
 to be made thrice, according to the canon." 
 Now, if our martyrs and divines were mirtaken, 
 in darker or more improved ages, muft we pro- 
 nounce Johnson, fo much the honour of a na- 
 tion enlightened with fcienCe; Johnson, with 
 regard to philology, his favourite branch; and 
 with regard to a term fo long and fiercely con- 
 troverted ; muft we pronounce him in this affair, 
 (whatever he was in fome others) — " A being 
 darkly wife and rudely great ?" 
 
 § ^5- (8) Great advantages have been boaft- 
 ed of from another confideration, viz. « That 
 
 as 
 
284 ' Appendix* 
 
 as we allow dipping to 'be proper baptifm, our 
 opponents muft be right, whether fprinkling be 
 valid or not." But if this matter be fairly ex- 
 amined, our opponents will have little caufe of 
 triumph, as it is evidently againft them. For 
 when we admit dipping to be baptifm, it is be- 
 caufe that is a m§de of purification by water \ 
 though neither fo eligible, for its own fake, fo 
 exprelFive of the things fignified, or fo confor- 
 mable to the genius of judaifm or chriftianity, as 
 the mode of affufion. We have, I fuppofe, at 
 leaA eight out of ten of the moft eminent wri- 
 ters on our fide. Admitting the fufFrage of 
 thefe numerous voices, who have undoubtedly 
 a right to be heard about the meaning of a 
 term, to have a preponderation of evidence, 
 we are probably right in whatever fcriptural 
 way we ufe water : but admitting further our 
 principle to be true refpefling the legal im- 
 port of the term, we have the Jullefl certainty 
 that we are in the right. Not fo Mr B. For 
 while he holds the ejjentiality of dipping, render- 
 ing null and void every other mode of ufing 
 water, it is incumbent on him to prove all the 
 Pcsdobaptifts who hold the former principle, 
 and among them an illuflrious .troop of thofe 
 who adbrn his pages, either incompetent or 
 abandoned \ but this is incompatible with what 
 he fays of them, that they are among " the 
 moft eminent that ever filled the profefTor's 
 chair, or adorned the Proteftant pulpit." And 
 it is Worthy of remark, that by how much the 
 
 more 
 
Appendix, 38^; 
 
 more he fwells his catalogue, and the more 
 eminent the writers, proportionably will his con- 
 tracted principles be condemned. It is impof- 
 fible to evade this confequence but by proving 
 them either weak or wicked \ which alio he can- 
 not do without contradiding himfelf. 
 
 Mr, B. needs not to be informed how il- 
 milar his inference from our concellion is, to 
 that of the Romanifts, when they conclude, that 
 they muft furely be on the fafejl fide of the 
 queftion ; becaufe we charitably grant, there may 
 be falvation to them in their communion, while 
 they deny any to us in ours. And this con- 
 demning of Proteftants, while the latter are not 
 fo peremptory and prefumptuous in condemning 
 . them, is what Chill cngv^orth calls " their 
 
 ONLY GREAT ARGUMENT f." 
 
 I THINK we may at length afk, « If the 
 term baptifm do not determinately fignify what 
 we contend for, ceremonial purification^ we fliould 
 be glad of information what other exprelTion could 
 have conveyed that idea ?" 
 
 Before I conclude this part, give me leave 
 to introduce the following judicious remarks of 
 Mr. Locke : " Sure I am, that the fignifica- 
 tion of words in all languages, depending very 
 much upon the thoughts, notions, and ideas of 
 him that ufes them, muft unavoidably be of 
 great uncertainty to men of the fame language 
 and country. — But when to this natural diffi- 
 culty in every country, there fliall be added 
 Vol. II. S different 
 
 t Religion of Proteft, Dedicat. to the King, 
 
386 , Jppendix. 
 
 different countries and remote ages, wherein the 
 fpeakers and writers had very different notions, 
 tempers, cuftoms, ornaments, and figures of 
 fpeech, &c. every one of which influenced the 
 lignification of their words then, tho' to us 
 now they are loft and unknown; it tvould he^ 
 come us to be charitable one to another in our in- 
 terpretations or mif under ft andings of thofe ancient 
 writings : which tho' of great concernment to 
 be underftood, are hable to the unavoidable 
 difficulties of fpeech, which (if we except the 
 names of ftmple ideas^ and fome very obvious 
 things) is not capable, without a conftant de- 
 fining the terms, of conveying the fenfe and in- 
 tention of the fpeaker, without any manner of 
 doubt and uncertainty to the hearer. And in dif- 
 courfes of religion, law, and morality, as they are 
 matters of the higheft concernment, fo there will 
 be the great e^ difficulty. The volumes of inter- 
 preters and commentators on the Old and New 
 Teftament, are but too manifeft proofs of this. 
 Tho' every thing faid in the text be infallibly true^ 
 yet the reader may be, nay cannot chufe but be 
 very fallible in the undenknding of it. Nor is 
 it to be wondered, that the will of God^ when 
 clothed in words^ fhould be liable to that 
 doubt and uncertainty, which unavoidably attends 
 that fort of conveyance; when even his SON, 
 whilft clothed in fiejh^ was fubje6t to all the frail- 
 ties and inconveniences of human nature, fin 
 excepted. — Methinks it would become us to be 
 
 -lefs 
 
Appendix, ogy 
 
 — lefs magifterial, pofitive, and imperious, in im- 
 pofing^ our own fenfe and interpretations *." 
 
 § i6. (II.) We come now to examine fome 
 of Mr. B.'s ftri6lures, contained in his fecond 
 volume, relative to the subjects of baptifm. 
 In a note on Social Religion I had exprefled 
 myfelf as follows : " Whatever there may be 
 in the ordinance of baptifm of a pofitive con- 
 fideration, there is nothing relative to the fub^ 
 jeSls of it fo merely pofitive as to be indepen- 
 dent on all moral grounds ; — nay further, what- 
 ever relates to the qualification of the fubje6ls, 
 is of a nature entirely moral, — and to fay other- 
 wife muft imply a contradiction. Baptifm, there- 
 fore, is an ordinance of a mixed nature, partly 
 pofitive and partly moral. As far as this or 
 any fuch ordinance, partakes of a moral nature, 
 the reafon and defign of the law, or if you 
 pleafe iht fpirit of it, is our rule of duty;— and 
 only fo far as it partakes of a pofitive nature 
 is the letter of the law our rule. As what 
 relates to the qualification of the fubje(5ts is of 
 moral confideration, we are neceflltaied to feek 
 in them the reafon and intention of the com- 
 mand ; but infants partaking of the great pri- 
 mary qualification, which the evident defign of 
 the ordinance requires, ought to be baptized ; 
 and it muft imply a breach of duty in a minifter 
 to decline it. To argue on this principle — 
 Baptifm IS a pofitive rite^ and therefore OUGHT 
 to be exprefs, full and circumftantial — is, on 
 
 S 2 the 
 
 • EfTay on Human Underft. B. III. Chap. ix. § a2, 23. 
 
388 ' Appendix, 
 
 the principles, conceflions and pra6lice of Anti- 
 poedobaptifts, demonftrably fallacious. For the 
 law of baptifm is evidently, in fact, not cir- 
 cumftantial and determinate ; and therefore is 
 not, cannot be an inftitution entirely pofitive." 
 I had alfo faid ; " fhould any afk me why, as 
 a chriftian minifter, I baptize an infant? I 
 can truly anfwcr, that I have the very fame rea^ 
 fon for doing it that John the Baptift had for 
 baptizing penitent finners m Jordan and _non; 
 the fame reafon that Jefus, by the miniliry of 
 his difciples, had, for baptizing a .ill greater 
 multitude ; and, finally, the lame reafon that 
 our Baptift brethren have, or ought to have, 
 and which they profefs to have in the general 
 tenor of their practice, for baptizing adults.' 
 This is the briefs now let us hear council. 
 Mr. B. thus begins : 
 
 & 17. " Baptism then, according to Mr. 
 Williams, is of a mixed nature j an ordi- 
 nance partly moral, and partly pofitive. This 
 to me is a new idea: for, of ali the writers 
 quoted in this work, of all the authors I have 
 peiufed, not one occurs to remembrance who 
 has thus reprefented baptifm.'' He very pro- 
 perly adds, " if, however, the evidence pro- 
 duced be vaiid^ the novelty of his notion is 
 not material. His principal reafon in favour 
 of the pofition is; Whatever belongs to the qua^ 
 lifications of the fubjeSis is entirely moral. But 
 will this prove," adds he, " that baptifm is not 
 ftridly fpeaking, a poiitive inftitute? Will it 
 
 not 
 
Appendix. 389 
 
 not apply with all its force to the Lord's fup- 
 per? On this principle, we have no ordinance 
 entirely pojitive under the New GEconomy; be- 
 caufe it is plain the qualifications for that 
 appointment are all of the moral kind." In 
 anfwer let me obferve, 
 
 I, That the two lafl confequences are ad- 
 mitted ; The pofition will apply with all its 
 force to the Lord's Supper ; and, We have no 
 ordinance entirely pofitive under the New CEco- 
 nomy. My opponent feems to regard thefe con- 
 fequences as diflionourable to chnftianity, or fome- 
 how a defeat; on the contrary, I confider them 
 as reflecting honour on it, being real excellen- 
 cies. My reafons are affigned elfewhere, (See 
 Chap. I. § 31—34.) 
 
 2. The firft queftion, " Will this prove that 
 baptifm is not ftridly fpeaking a pofitive infti- 
 tution?" This queftion, I fay, which implies 
 a denial of my pofition, I (hall now fairly ex- 
 amine. And towards folving it, and proving 
 the confequence — " baptifm is therefore an or- 
 dinance of a tnixed nature" — I fhall firft take 
 notice of fome particulars wherein we agree -y and » 
 then inveftigate Mr. B's chief argument againfl 
 my principle. 
 
 We agree then in our definition of a pofitive 
 inflitute ; " A pofitive inftitute is that,' the rea- 
 fon of which we do not fee, prior to external 
 command, but which originates entirely in the 
 fovereign will of the l^gillator." To this idea, 
 I apprehend Mr. B. can have no objeaion. 
 
 S 3 My 
 
390 ^ uippendix. 
 
 My opponent, moreover, accedes to my ante- 
 cedent, viz. " Whatever belongs to the quali- 
 fications of the fubje<Sls is entirely moral.'* 
 But as to tliis latter agreement, perhaps it is 
 more in words than ideas, ' By moral qualift- 
 cations I underftand, " thofe qualifications which 
 God, as the moral Governor and Judge of 
 the world, requires of all mankind, indifcrimi- 
 natelv, confidered as immortal and accountable 
 creatures, according to their various circumftan- 
 ces, independent of pofitive authority, and which 
 are not meajurable hy any pofitive rule,^* And 
 I accede to the following declaration, a little 
 qualified : " To conftitute any branch of re- 
 ligious worOiip purely pofitive, it is enough 
 that the rite itfelf, the manner of performing it, 
 the qualifications of the fubjecl, the end to be an- 
 fwered by it, and the term of its continuance, 
 depend entirely on the fovereign pleafure of our 
 divine Legillator;" in proportion as that fovereign 
 pleafure is made known, and determinable by a 
 pofitive Jiandard. Thefe things I hold as per- 
 fectly confiftent with my principle. And, thus 
 far, we feem to travel the fame road. 
 
 § 1 8. Mr. B/s objedions are now to be 
 confidered. " Many," he tells us, " are thofe 
 theological writers who have more or lefs treated 
 on pofitive inftitutions ; fome of whofe books I 
 have feen and peruled with care. But I do not 
 recollect any author, who fo defines or de- 
 fcribes a religious appointment merely pofitive, 
 as to exclude every idea of what is moral from 
 
 the 
 
Appendix, 39 1 
 
 the qualifications of its proper fubjeifls.'* Very 
 probably ; but that does not affedt- my pofition. 
 What follows is more direcStly to the point. 
 " The nature of the qualifications, whether mo- 
 ral or not, makes no part of thofe criteria by 
 which the definition of a pofitive rite fliould be 
 directed." If this, in the view it is urged, be 
 a true aflertion (for we have nothing elfe) my 
 confequence, as fuch, fails ; if not, it ftands firm 
 againft the attack. But, be it remembered, that 
 the propofition itfelf, " Baptifm is an ordinance 
 of a mixed nature," is demonftrable from other 
 premifes, (as the reader may fee. Chap. L) in- 
 dependent of this Argument. However, it is my 
 prefent bufmefs to (hew, that the nature of the 
 qualifications of the fubjecfts, in the prefent cafe, 
 does make a part of thofe criteria by which the 
 definition of this pofiiive rite (liould be dire(Sted. 
 And to this end obferve, 
 
 1. If the nature of the qualifications required 
 be fuch as do not, nor poffibly can, admit of 
 a pofitive Jlandard to determine them, it is ab- 
 furd to fay, that the qualifications themfelves, 
 be they what they may, make any part of the 
 pofitivenefs oi an inftitution. But all moral qua- 
 lifications are fuch. 
 
 2. If the qualifications required be fuch in 
 their nature, as are infinitely variable^ according 
 to the infinitely variable circumftances in which 
 the fubjedl may be, it would follow, that none 
 could be proper adminiftrators of baptifm, on 
 our author's principles, but fudi as polTefTed in* 
 
 S 4 finiti^ 
 
392 ' Appendix. 
 
 finite knowUdge I But the moral qualifications 
 of faith, repentance, knowledge, &c. which our 
 opponents contend for, are fuch: Therefore, 
 thp qualifications cannot be ranked as any part 
 of a poiitive inftitute, but upon this fuppofiti- 
 on, that God communicates to the adminiftrators 
 what is incommunicable, which is an exadt 
 knowledge of the moral ftate of their fellow crea- 
 tures In circumftances infinitely variable, which 
 is abfurd. 
 
 § 19. If Mr. B. thinks to evade this by 
 faying, " It is fuiHcient to conflitute an infti- 
 tution merely pofitive, that thofe qualifications, 
 tho' entirely moral, are ahfolutely dependent on the 
 fovereign pleafure of God \^ the evafion is of no 
 fervice : for it is in efFe£l to fay, If it be the 
 fovereign pleafure of God, he can appoint im- 
 poflibilities and contradictions. The evafive ob- 
 je6lion fuppofes, that tho' the qualifications be 
 moral, yet the appointment oi fame moral qua- 
 lities rather than others, for inftance faith and 
 repentance^ is a pofitive confideration. That is, 
 it is not the yiature but the appointment of fuch 
 qualifications which conflitutes them pofitive. But 
 is there any propriety in calling that a pofitive 
 appointment which neither has, nor can have a 
 pofitive rule f nay, whofe rule mufi: be necefi"a* 
 rily infinitely variable in its application ? For 
 fuppofing, without granting, the qualifications of 
 faith, repentance, &:c. to be alone entitled to bap- 
 tifm ; or that the abfence of a credible pro- 
 feflion of thefe, debars from the ordinance \ yet 
 
 even 
 
Appendix, 393 
 
 even then, fuch a demur enfues, or liablenefs 
 to miftake, as is abfolutely incompatible with 
 an appointment merely pofitive^ as to fubje6l and 
 mode. It is impoffible for Mr. B. in virtue of 
 any pojitive appointment^ properly fo called, to 
 determine the qualifications of the fubje61:s, in 
 aflignable inftances of cafes ad infinitum', and 
 when innumerable perfons affignable are a(Sl:ually 
 baptized, to determine, whether they are duly 
 baptized or not. And while my opponent holds 
 that as a facred rule^ which never was, nor can 
 have exiftence, as appears from his own con- 
 ceJ/ion—*'^thQ qualifications of the fubjeds are en- 
 tirely moral'* — it is no wonder that he holds 
 all the Poedobaptifls in Chrillendom as unbap^ 
 iized. And be it further noticed, that if my 
 principle be not admitted, in oppofition to his, 
 nothmg would hinder, but Atheiils, Deifis, or 
 blafphemers might be thQ proper fubjecls of the 
 MeiTiah's kingdom, as contradiftingui(hed from 
 believers and penitents, antecede?7t to the infiitu- 
 tion. And whether this juft confequence be not 
 fufficiently abfurd^ and of courfe the principle 
 from which it is deduced, needs no proof, 
 
 § 20. The truth is ; Jefus Chrift, as the 
 fupreme Head of his Church, gave to his rai- 
 nifters a commiflion to difciple all nations ; to 
 bring all the worlds by all lawful means, and 
 efpecially by preaching the gofpel, under his go- 
 vernment. The nature of his kingdom had been 
 clearly afcertained before ; partly, from his own 
 mouth, and partly, by the light of preceding 
 
 S 5 difpenfations. 
 
394 Jppendix» 
 
 difpenfations. His merely explaining to them 
 the nature and extent of his kingdom, affords 
 no pofttive rule of condu6t ; but it opens and 
 afcertains new relations^ whence arife fredi ob- 
 ligations of moral difpofitions and obedience. 
 The extent to which their commiflion reached, 
 implied a dijjolution of a former pofitive reftric- 
 tion, and gave them an unlimited fcope in their 
 work. This argued fovereign authority^ for no 
 other could repeal what was before enabled by 
 divine law. The known nature of his kingdom, 
 was a fufficient directory, without any pofitive 
 ruky refpetSting the preparatory qualifications of 
 his fubje<Sls. 1 he do£lrine of projelytifim was 
 well known to the parties, which they could no 
 otherwife than obferve, as far as it was confift- 
 tnt with the defign of the Meffiah's kingdom, 
 if not countermanded. Common fenfe, common 
 prudence, former ceconomies of the covenant, in 
 connection with the genius of chriftianity, fur- 
 nilhed them with ample means of information 
 about who fhould be admitted into this exten- 
 five kingdom, independent of all pofitive injunc- 
 tion. Confequently, it follows, from the very 
 definition of pofitive law, that the qualification of 
 the fubjeds formed no part of the pofitivenefs of 
 the law of baptifm, That is evidently founded 
 on the revealed nature of the gofpel church, 
 and eafily afcertained without the fuppofition of 
 external command \ and therefore is not reducible 
 to the clafs of pofitives. To purify by water^ 
 in the name of the Father, and fo on, was 
 
 of 
 
Appendix i. 395 
 
 of a pofTtive nature; but what kind of moral 
 qualifications (and no other are fuppofed) were 
 fuitable, for a participation of the ordinance, 
 needed no pofitiv* ftandard to determine. Or 
 were they in danger of rejeSiing the humble and 
 obedient, and of receiving and cafeffing blaf- 
 phemers as the moft proper? To fay that the 
 believing and penitent are noticed, as thofe who 
 ought to be baptized, no more argues that thefe 
 excliifively are to be baptized, than that thefe 
 exclufively are to be admitted to heaven ; and 
 therefore make no part of the pofitivenefs of 
 the law of baptifm. A moral duty may be 
 pofttively enjoined, but that alone will not con- 
 ftitute a pofttive injiitutey according to the defi-. 
 nition ; elfe the love of God and our neigh- 
 bour, may be forced into the fame rank. So nei- 
 ther v/ill it follow, that becaufe believers and 
 penitents are reprefented as fuitable fubje^ls of 
 the Redeemer's Kingdom, therefore no other part- 
 of the human race are to be fo reckoned. 
 
 § 21. From the premifes it follows; that 
 " whatever relates to the qualifications of the 
 fubjetSls, is of a nature entirely moral— -that the 
 law of baptifm aflford.s no pofttive rule for de- 
 termining who are proper fubje6ls-r-confequently, 
 that the ordinance of baptifm is of a mixed: 
 nature, when we comprehend under the terii^ 
 ordinance^ the fubjeSfs as well as the purification 
 itfelf. 
 
 Now that the reader may fee, that the charge 
 of no.velty upon my principles, as c^ueilioning. 
 
 5 ^ th€> 
 
2^6 j^ppendlx, 
 
 the abfolute pofitivenefs of the law of baptifm ; 
 or my calling it a " mixed ordinance/* becaufe 
 the qualifications of the fubjedls make no part 
 of its pofitive nature, is of little weight ; may 
 eafily appear from the following excellent re- 
 marks of Dr. John Owen: " There are two 
 forts of laws whereby God requires the obedi- 
 ence of his rational creatures, which are com- 
 monly called moral and pofitive: it is greatly 
 queftioned and difputed, to whether of thefe forts 
 doth belong the command of a fabbatical reft. 
 Pofitive laws are taken to be fuch, as have 
 no reafon for them in themfelves, nothing of 
 the matter of them is taken from the things 
 themfelves commanded, but do depend merely 
 zndfolely on the fovereign will and pleafure of God. 
 Moral laws are fuch as have the reafons of them 
 taken from the nature of the things themfelves 
 required in them. For they are good from their 
 refpe6l to the nature of God himfelf, and from 
 that nature and order of all things, which he 
 hath placed in the creation. So that this fort 
 of laws is but declarative of the abfolute good- 
 nefs of what they do require; the other is con^ 
 Jiitutive of it, as unto fome certain ends. Laws 
 pofitive^ as they are occafionaliy given, fo they 
 are efteemed alterable at pleafure. Being fixed 
 by mere will and prerogative, without refpeft to 
 any thing that fhould make them necefTary an- 
 tecedent to their giving, they may by the fame 
 authority at any time be taken away and abo- 
 lifhed. Such I fay are they in their own na- 
 
 ture, 
 
Appendix* 3gy 
 
 ture, and as to any fir?nitude that they have 
 from their own fubjeca matter. But with re- 
 fpedl unto God's determination^ pofitive divine 
 laws, may become eventually unalterable. And this 
 difference is there between legal and evangelical 
 inftitutions. The laws of both are pofitive only, 
 equally proceeding from fovereign will and plea- 
 fure, and in their own natures equally alterable. 
 But to the former^ God had in his purpofe 
 fixed a deterfjiinate time and feafon^ wherein they 
 fliouid expire, or be altered by his authority ; 
 the latter he hath fixed a perpetuity and un- 
 changeablenefs unto, during the ftate and con- 
 dition of his church in this world. The other 
 fort of laws are perpetual and unalterable in them- 
 felves, fo far as they are of that fort, that is 
 moral. For altho' a law of that kind, may 
 have an efpecial injun^ion with fuch circum- 
 ftances as may be changed and varied, (as had 
 the whole Decalogue in the commonwealth of 
 Ifrael) yet fo far as it is moral, that is, that 
 its commands and prohibitions are necejfary emer- 
 gencies^ or expreffions of the good or evil of the 
 thing it commands or forbids, it is invariable. 
 — It is pleaded by fome, that thefe kinds of 
 laws are contradijlin^-, fo that a law of one 
 kind, can in no fenfe be a law in the other. 
 And this dbubtlefs is true reduplicatively^ be- 
 caufe they have efpecial formal realbns. Js fary 
 and wherein^ any laws are pofitive^ they are not 
 moral; and as far as they are purely moral, 
 they are not formally pofitive, tho' given after 
 the manner of pofitive commands. Howbeit, 
 
 this 
 
^gS Appendix, 
 
 this hinders not but that fome do judge, that 
 there may be and are divine laws of a JVl I X T 
 NAIURE. For there may be in a divine 
 law, • a foundation in, and refpecl unto fome- 
 what that is moral, which yet may ftand 'in 
 need of the fuperaddition of a pofitive command 
 for its due obfervation unto its proper end. 
 Yea, the moral reafons of tiie things command- 
 ed which arife out of a due natural refpecl un- 
 to God, and the order of the univerfe, may 
 be (o deep and hidden, as that God, who 
 would make the way of his creatures plain and 
 eafy, gives out exprefs pofitive commands for 
 the obfervance of what is antecedently neceflary 
 by the law of our creation. Hence a law may 
 partake of both thefe confiderations^ and both of 
 them have an equal influence into its obliga- 
 tory power. And by this means, fundry dutieSy 
 fome morale fome pojltive^ are as it were C O M- 
 POUNDED in one obfervance. Hence the 
 whole law of that obfervance becomes of a 
 MIXT NATURE, which yet God can fepa- 
 rate at his pleafure, and taking away that which 
 is pofitive, leave only tiiat which is abfolutely 
 moral in force. And this kind of laws, which 
 have their foundation in the nature of things 
 thenjfelves, which yet ftand in need of further 
 direiftion for their due obfervation, which is 
 added unto them by pofitive inftitution, fome 
 call MORAL POSITIVE*." Mr. B. and 
 efpecially Dr. S. who, if I am rightly informed, 
 
 is 
 
 » On the Sabb. Exerclt. lU. § 2, 3. 
 
Appendix^ 299 
 
 is a feventh day Baptift, with thofe of the fame 
 mind, would do well to confider thefe diftincSli- 
 ons thoroughly^ in reference to the Caufes of the 
 Sabbath^ and the Poedobaptift controverfy. 
 
 § 22. Mr. B. objeas next againfl the moral 
 qualification of children, which I had afTerted : 
 " But how (hould an infant of a few days, or 
 of a month old, be a partaker of fuch qualifi- 
 cations, to render it a proper fubje^ of baptifm ?" 
 One would be tempted to think, from the con- 
 temptuous light in which our brethren place infants, 
 that they make no part of the human fpecies ; 
 agreeing with a certain profeiTor of logic and 
 philofophy who defined a human being, « A 
 creature that could draw an inference y** and as 
 infants cannot draw an inference, they are not 
 human beings. But as the pupils of the fame 
 profefTor, when applying their mafier's rule to 
 a limner^ who declared he could not draw an 
 Inference^ did not make him lefs than human -^ 
 and a^ain, when applying the fame rule to an 
 able horfe^ which, his owner had aflured them, 
 could draw any thing in reafon^ they did not 
 make him any thing but a brute \ fo, I be- 
 lieve it will never be in the power of Anti- 
 pcedobaptifis, with all their inferences againfi: 
 infants, to make them otherwife than fubje^s 
 of moral obligation. To deny them this charac- 
 ter, it is incumbent on our oppofers to Ihew, 
 that they are not affeaed with original fin, nor 
 are even capable of it ; for this implies, at 
 leaft, a privation of fome 7nQral quality which 
 
 they 
 
400 Appendix* 
 
 they ought to poflefs, and therefore argues them 
 the fubje6ts of a moral ftate, and of courfe of 
 moral obligation. Again, if no infants are the 
 fubje6ls of what may " with propriety be termed 
 mora^^ then no infants are the fubjeits of grace^ 
 which is a moral quality. Moreover, if not fub- 
 je£ls of moral obligation, they are not account^ 
 able creatures ; are not capable of being judged \ 
 of being condemned or acquitted, of moral hap- 
 pinefs or mifery in a future ftate. 
 
 § 23. And what is Mr. B.'s reafon for pro- 
 nouncing infants incapable of moral obligation and 
 moral qualifications P He replies : Becaufe " not 
 capable of moral agency j" becaufe " morality, 
 in all its branches, is nothing but the difcharge 
 of moral obligation ; or a conformity of heart 
 and of life to the rule of duty/' And then 
 adds ; " Parents may have the requifite moral 
 qualifications for the ordinance ; but I cannot 
 conceive how their new born offspring, for 
 whom our author pleads as proper fubjeds of 
 the rite, fhould be fo qualified." 
 
 It is readily granted, that natural incapacity 
 excufes from fuch aSfs as would otherwife be 
 incumbent on the fubje(51: ; for this obvious rea- 
 fon, that natural impolFibilities make no part of 
 the divine requifitions, and confequently of the 
 creature's duty. But here obferve, 
 
 That a natural incapacity for moral agency^ 
 by no means excufes from all moral obligation ; 
 for that would be the fame as to fay, Children 
 are incapable of fm and grace, blifs or woe ; 
 
 need 
 
Jppendix, 40 1 
 
 need no imputed righteoufnefs to (kreen them 
 from the latter, or to entitle them to the former. 
 For the imputing of a Redeemer's righteouf- 
 nefs, by an a6l of mercy ^ fuppofes demands from 
 juftice ; and fuch demands being always equit- 
 able, and never requiring what is not neceffary, 
 it follows, that the infant of a day, if made 
 the fubje6t of it, was under fome obligation to 
 juftice, which I prefume no one will deny is 
 moral obligation. (See Mark x. 15. and Luke 
 xviii. 16, 17.) 
 
 § 24. But the moft plaufible obje6lion is: 
 " Suppofing fuch qualifications to exift, by what 
 means are they to be difcovered ? What is 
 there difcernihk^ that can with propriety be cal- 
 led morale in one that is not capable of moral 
 agency?" I had faid. Infants partake of the 
 great primary qualification ivhich the defign of the 
 ordinance requires^ and therefore jhould he bapti- 
 zed. On which my opponent exclaims : " //?- 
 fants^'whzt, in general? Of all mankind? He 
 will not, I prefume, aflert it. —I take it for 
 granted, however, that he means the infants 
 of profefTed believers. But there is no more 
 of a moral temper, or of a moral condu61:, in 
 the mere infant of a real chriftian, than there 
 is in that of a Jew, or of a Turk." 
 
 It is allowed, there is no difcriminating mo- 
 ral qualification difcovered in one infant more 
 than another; nothing difcernible of a moral 
 difference between the children of profeflbrs and 
 of profane, Mr. B. therefore is miftaken in 
 
 his 
 
402 ' u4ppendix, 
 
 liis conjecture, that I mean, the children of 
 profefled believers only are pojfejfed of the moral 
 qualification I fpeak of. But is nearer the truth 
 when he fays ; " Our Author's pofition requires 
 that the int'ants the?nfelves poflefs moral quali- 
 fications, to render them the fubjects of bap- 
 tifm." 
 
 What I maintain as alone eflential to the 
 fubje(Sls of baptifm, is a moral fuitabknejs to the 
 nature and defign of the inftitution. What falls 
 fhort of this, is defective ; what amounts to 
 this, quite fufficient. It is evident, on the leaft 
 refle(S^ion, that criminal ignorance, impenitence, 
 unbelief, and the like, are excluded from all 
 claim to fuch a moral fuitablenefs ; for how can 
 they be proper fubjecls, who are profefTed re- 
 bels againft the government of the King of 
 Zion ? On the other hand, when we confi- 
 der the baptifmal rite as a seal of God's ap- 
 pointment, exhibiting to the fubjedb the blef- 
 fmgs of the New Covenant, and thereby laying 
 him under correfponding obligations of duty, 
 (in confirmation of which fee Chap. II. § 22. 
 &c.) the rite mufl: be applicable to infants 
 equally with penitents and believers ; that is, 
 they have all the qualification that is effential 
 to proper fubjecls. As the moral qualities of 
 faith, repentance, and the like, are efiential to 
 falvation in certain circumjlances only of human 
 life, fo in certain circumftances only are the 
 fuppofed exigence of thefe qualifications efiential 
 to baptif?n» 
 
 § 25. According 
 
Appendix, 403 
 
 § 25 " According to him," fays my oppo- 
 nent, " nothing is plain, determinate, or certain, 
 relating to either the mode or the fubje»5l." He 
 might have almoft as well laid — that there are 
 no certain, determinate, and plain properties of 
 a triangle in general^ becaufe the precife dimen^ 
 /tons are not afcertained. Aristotle's Edita 
 quajt non edita^ therefore, is impertinently applied 
 in the prefent cafe. 
 
 I HAD faid. The law of baptifm is emdently 
 and in fad not circumftantial and detenmnate, 
 and therefore cannot be an in/iitution entirely 
 pofttive. That is, as the conne6lion fliews, it 
 does not bear the ftgns of a mere pofitive law ; 
 the qualifications of the fubjects being reducible 
 . to no pofitive flandard. Even as the command 
 to " preach the gofpel to every creature," is 
 not fo determinate and circumftantial, as not to 
 require for its due execution, the aids of moral 
 inference and analogy. And now with refpecl 
 to the command of " preaching the gofpel," I 
 would afk, whether that be not a part of the 
 divine ftatute ? If not a part of pofitive law, by 
 what criterion fliall we diliinguiih ? If it be, 
 it is either wholly or partially ; if the latter, by 
 what rule (hall we difcriminate ? if the former, 
 how comes it to pafs that the Antipoedobap- 
 tifts, perhaps more than any other denomina- 
 tion" of chriftians, are at this day fo much di- 
 vided about the import of this command, " G9 
 — preach the Gofpel to every creature f " Not to 
 mention the perpetual clafhing of opinions, about 
 
 JFhat 
 
404 / Appendix, 
 
 ^TVhat the Gofpel is, and what is implied in 
 preaching it ? 
 
 I 'AM far from thinking, however, that this 
 affords the leaft room for the infidel to tri- 
 umph with impunity, or that an infallible head 
 on earth fhould be fought : on the contrary, I 
 am perfuaded that the more firmly we adhere to 
 the merely pofitive fcheme, rigidly infifting that 
 every punBiUo relative to gofpel order is to be 
 adjufted according to a pofitive Jiandard^ the 
 greater handle is given to watchful infidelity^ 
 and the greater the pretended need of an infal- 
 lible pafior, falfely fo called. 
 
 Our Author imagines he fees a contradi£lion. 
 between the above declaration, and another I 
 had advanced elfewhere, viz. " Nothing fhould 
 be confidered as an eflablifhed principle of faith, 
 which is not in fome part of fcripture deli- 
 vered with perfpicuity," (Social Religion, p. 368.) 
 To apply this lafl axioTu to the fubjccl: before 
 us. As the fcripture delivers with perfpicuity^ 
 that thofe in all nations who are deemed by the 
 commifTioned minifiers of Chrift Juitable fuhjeSls 
 fhould be dedicated in the name of the Fa- 
 ther, and fo on, by the folemn ufe of water, 
 it fhould be confidered as an efiablifhed princi- 
 ple of faith. But as it is fo obfcure with re- 
 fpe6t to the ejjentiality of dipping, teaching, 
 faith, repentance, &c. that only IVir. B. and a 
 few more geniufes fuperior in penetration to 
 many of the mofi: eminent " that ever filled the 
 
 profelTor's chair, or adorned the Proteftant pul- 
 pit, 
 
Appendix* 40c 
 
 pit," can difcover the latent myflery — it fhould 
 not be confidered as an eftabliihed principle of 
 faith, or of practice. 
 
 § 26. Our Author is very fond, on feveral 
 occafions, of charging thofe who plead and prac- 
 life contrary to his peculiar principles, as guilty 
 of fymbolizing with the Jt^apifts. Among others 
 I am honoured in this way. " Tho' I take it 
 for granted, fays he, that Mr. Williams is 
 not a rtranger to the popiih controverfy, relating 
 to pofitive ordinances of holy worfhip j yet I 
 cannot help thinking that he quite overlooked 
 it, when penning his Notes concerning baptifm : 
 becaufe that want of perfpicuity and of precifion 
 which he charges on a pofitive law, is much 
 more becoming the creed of a Papifly than that 
 of a Proreftant DifTenter." 
 
 Since party names do not operate on my mind, 
 as bugbears and hobgoblins do on the minds of 
 children, I take this from my worthy antagonift 
 with perfedi: good humour. As to the fai^t he 
 takes for granted, 1 (hall only fay ; " Many are 
 thofe writers who have treated on this fubje(5l 
 of controverfy ; fome of whofe books I have 
 feen and perufed with care." With refpedt to 
 the other part of the ftridure, tho' I readily 
 excufe the freedom of the language, 1 mufi: 
 protejl againft the charge of fymbolizing with 
 Rome, as totally ill-founded and unjuft ; if there- 
 by be meant a delertion of thoie grand prin- 
 ciples by which our fore- fathers were juftifiable 
 in withdrawing from that communion. 
 
 Want 
 
406 ' Appendix, 
 
 Want of pcrfpiciiity and precifton in a pofttive 
 law^ is popijh, I anfwer with Chilling worth : 
 " It is requifite to a rule, so far as it is a 
 RULE, to be evident j otherwife indeed it is no 
 rule^ becaufe it cannot ferve for diredion." 
 And again, " Tho* Proteftants, being warranted 
 by fome of the Fathers, have called fcripture 
 the judge of controverftes : — yet to fpeak pro- 
 perly, as men fhould fpeak when they write of 
 controverfies in religion, the fcripture is not a 
 judge of controverfies, but a rule only, and the 
 only rule for Chriftians to judge them by. 
 Every man is to judge for himfelf with the 
 judgment of difcretion, — Now the fcripture, we 
 pretend, in things neceffary^ is plain and per- 
 fect. — If God's will had been we Ihould have • 
 underflood him more certainly^ he would have 
 fpoken more plainly *.'* 
 
 One principal fruit of my attention to the 
 Popilh controverfy is this, That I difcovered, 
 or thought that I difcovered, this maxim as 
 the quinteffence of popery — That one party of pro- 
 feffing chriflians ?nake thofe things to be terms of 
 chrijUan communion^ and of true religion^ which 
 Chriji hath not made fo. Hence the necejfity of 
 feven facraments ; the neceffity of tradition ; the 
 necejfity of an infallible interpreter, &c. and the 
 necejfity of believing and complying with all, as 
 terms of communion. And their bigoted, in- 
 tolerant principles are maintained by an appeal 
 to Chrill's pofitive injunctions. 
 
 The 
 
 * Relig. of Protel, Chap, ii. § 6, |i, 84, 
 
Appendix, 40 7 
 
 l^he Want of perfpicuity and precifion in pofitive 
 laiv^ becomes the creed of a Papiji, He might 
 have faid, the creed of an infidel ! For what 
 is a pofitive law ? Is it any thing elfe, can it 
 be any thing elfe, than a law delivered with 
 perfpicuity and precifion^ founded on the fove- 
 reign pleafure, and enforced by the mere autho- 
 rity of the Legiflator ? « If you would have 
 more light added to the Sun," to ufe the words 
 of Chillingworth, « anfwer me then to thefe 
 queftions." Can that be a law msrely pofitive^ 
 which does not polTefs any fuch properties, as 
 all the world allows to be neceiTary for that 
 purpofe ? Or can any portion of fcripture pof- 
 fefs them, in that fenfe which fome thoufands 
 of the moft eminent charaders for learning, 
 for grace, for a difinterefted freedom of inquiry, 
 that ever the chriftian world beheld, proclaim by 
 their immortal writings and their confcientious 
 practice, they do not and cannot difcover ? Yes, 
 ye Proteftant Champions now in glory, who 
 have (haken the foundation of St. Peter's by 
 your zealous efforts in favour of chriftian pu- 
 rity of dodrine and wordiip, ye were all un- 
 baptized we are aflured. And ye living Pce- 
 dobaptifts far and near, hear it, and let your 
 ears tingle, ye are more corrupt^ refpeding the 
 introdu6tory ordinance to your holy religion as 
 chriftians, than your fore-fathers or yourfelves 
 ever thought the Mother of harlots to be ! 
 " He that can believe it, let him believe it." 
 One might be led to think from Mr. B.'s 
 
 infinuations 
 
4o8 ' Jppendix, 
 
 infinuations and language, that his principles are 
 admirably calculated to ftem the torrent of papal 
 fuperflition ; but on clofer examination, we have 
 reafon to fear, that if one be Scyiiay the other 
 is Charybdis', the remedy is little better than the 
 difcafe. His hypothefis, indeed, may cut off 
 the excrejfence of fuperftition, but inftead of heal- 
 ing the wound, it would leave behind, as the 
 inevitable effect, tYie gangrene of bigotry. 
 
 If the fcripture be only a rule^ who is to be 
 the judge of controverted fubjeds ? I anfwer— 
 not the pope as an infallible interpreter, nor any 
 other man, who having " a pope in his belly," 
 (in Luther's homely phrafe,) would determine 
 for others ; not any church on earth, however 
 infallible or pofttive its pretenfions; hm — each 
 man for himfelf^ as he would anfwer for his 
 dccifion and condud before the eternal Judge. 
 Duly weighing the difference between " a mo- 
 ment and eternity," between the authority of 
 Chrift and will-wor(hip, let him cautioufly judge, 
 and boldly a6l, as a man, — an imtmrtai man — 
 and as a chriftian, looking into the perfect law 
 of evangelical liberty. 
 
 § 27. I AM further told, " I muft aft upon 
 a conjedture extremely (hrewd and uncommonly 
 hapf y, if at any time I really baptize an infant 
 for the very Jajne reafon that John or the Apof- 
 tles baptized multitudes ot penitent linners — 
 except 1 can prove, thai a coininanci to ifn- 
 merje penitents^ is equally an older 10 jprinkle 
 injanu:' Nay, this is no fair conclufioni tor it 
 
it is enough that I Ihould prove, (which I thinfe 
 is now done,) that infants are equally qualified^ 
 for baptifm and equally intended as penitent fin- 
 ners ; and that the word baptifm is a generic 
 term alike applicable to afFufion as immerfion. 
 Befides, Mr. B. himfelf being judge, when I dip 
 an infant, I baptize it. For, however he may be 
 difpleafed with my charitable effort to lejfen ra- 
 ther than increafe the difference between us, I 
 am not fo bigoted but I occafionally " vary 
 the mode of adminiftration, according to clr- 
 cumftances.*' If, therefore, baptizing be neither 
 more nor lefs than dippings I have the certainty 
 of at leaft fometimes baptizing infants. And if 
 fuch are dipped a fecond time, all the world mufl 
 know they will be Anabaptists. 
 
 Surely it can be no matter of furprife, that 
 " our grand reafon for baptizing infants (hould 
 be the very fame which is given by our oppo- 
 nents for immerfing penitent finners." For can 
 they have, or defire to have, a better reafoa 
 than that they acSt in obedience to the w^ill 
 OF Christ? Now if Poedobaptifm be accord- 
 ing to our divine Legislator's will, which 
 I have attempted to demonftrate, who hes 
 not, that the grand reafon is the very fame as 
 what they aflign. In proportion as our pra^Stice 
 is right^ we fulfil the royal pleafure of our com- 
 mon Lord, that is, we can truly fay, our grsnd 
 reafon, than which it is needkfs to feek a better, 
 is precifely the fame with what our friends urge 
 for their own practice. 
 Vol. IL T § 28./' Ir 
 
4* Of- ' Appendix, 
 
 § 28. " If Mr. Williams, however, Ihould 
 at any time write profefledly againft the Bap- 
 tifts, it may be expeiSled (unlefs he gives up 
 this point) that his grand reafon for fprinkling 
 infants, will be the very fame which is given 
 by us for immerfmg penitent finners : and then 
 the author of a certain Apology for Clerical Con- 
 formity [Rev. Mr. Newton] will have an 
 humble imitator *.'* 
 
 Well, in one refpe^l I am much obliged 
 to my antagonill, that he has not put me in 
 worfe company^ nay that he has coupled mc 
 with'fo worthy a charadler (as before with my 
 §^)od friend Mr. Horsey) with whom I have 
 the pleafure to agree in the moft important- 
 concerns. I cannot help thinking, hoj/vever, but 
 that, with regard to the merit of our refpec- 
 tive fubjeits as controvertifts, we are unequally 
 yoked. It is of little moment in how many 
 things I agree with the Apologift, but it would 
 be eafy to (hew, wherein my method of de- 
 fending Pcedobaptifm differs ejfetitially from his, 
 in apologizing for his minifterial conformity, 
 
 ' Mr. B. obferves in a note : " If the apolo- 
 gift's reafons for clerical conformity be folid, 
 thofe minifters that were ejeded in the year 
 fixteen hundred and fixty-two muft be confi- 
 dered as a fet of maniacs,'* It is undeniable 
 that moft of thofe who fwell the Bartholomew 
 lift, were men who adled on principle; the real 
 as well as the oftenfible reafon of their non- 
 conformity was, they could not conform with a 
 
 good 
 ♦ Pcedob, Exam. Vol, II, p. 67. 
 
Appendix, 41 1 
 
 good confcience. Every one knows, they not only 
 infifted on the impropriety of one party of chrif- 
 tians impofmg on all others in a nation, a fyf- 
 tern of uniformity under pain of excommuni- 
 cation, fines, and imprifonments, but alfo point- 
 ed out thofe particular parts of the fyrtem that 
 gave them offence. It is evident, the baptizing 
 of infants makes a part of the fyftem ; and it 
 is equally evident, that this part of it was not 
 objeded to, by the greatefl luminaries for learn- 
 ing and piety among them. Now I afk ; If 
 Mr. B.'s hypothefis be true, " that infant bap- 
 tifm is unfcriptural, fuperftitious, abfurd, a daring 
 impeachment of Chrift's legiHative authority, &c." 
 can we look upon thefe miniflers in a much 
 better light than as a " fet of maniacs?" 
 What, could they be in their right mind, to 
 quarrel with fuch comparative trifles as a furplicc, 
 a gown, or a band 5 and yet embrace, pra6life, 
 defend, a " pillar and part of popery ?" But, 
 , " being loth to impeach the intellects of about 
 two thoufand perfons, who fufFered fo much for 
 the fake of a good confcience, I cannot forbear 
 , fufpedling that Mr. B.'s pofitions are an infult 
 on the underllandings of Pcedobaptifts." ^ 
 
 § 29. Among Mr. B.'s concluding Remarks, 
 we have the following which deferves notice : 
 ** I will here prefent the reader with a plain 
 popular argument. — We affert, that pofitive in- 
 ftitutions depend entirely on the fovereign will 
 of God. It is true, fay our Poedobaptifl Bre- 
 thren, and cenfure the Papijis for prefuming to 
 
 T 2 ' alter 
 
j^J2 , Jfppendix, 
 
 alter them.— We maintain, that the term bap- 
 tifm properly fignifies immerfion. It is true, 
 fay they, but, many of them add, it aljo figni- 
 iies wajhing^ where there is no immerfion.— 
 We maintain, that there is no exprefs com- 
 mand, nor plain example, for infant baptifm 
 in the facred fcripture. It is true, fay they ; 
 but it may be inferred^ &c. — Finally : Do we 
 folemnly immerfe thole who profefs faith in 
 the Son of God ? they cannot, they dare not 
 deny that we have divine authority for it. The 
 reader will now judge, from the foregoing pa- 
 ges, whether this be a fair ftate of the cafe ; 
 and if it be, 1 appeal to him, whether ours be 
 not the fafer ftde of the queftion*." This is % 
 pipiilar argument. We lieartily pity thofe peo- 
 ple who will fuffer fuch language to pafs for 
 argument. I rt^all eafe myfelf of the- trouble of 
 confuting It, by transferring the tafk to a tri- 
 umvirate wlio are perfectly qualified to retort 
 \3pon Mr. B. in his own way. The firft is a 
 iSoctman : " We aflert, that Jefus Chrift is pro. 
 pcrly a man. It is true, fay you who boaft 
 of fuperior orthodoxy, and cenfure the Gnojiics^ 
 J^poHinarlans^ &c. for prefuming to deny it. 
 iJut not fatisfied with this, you make him 
 to be God alfi. You allow with us, that 
 he is an excellent example, and has taught 
 many fublime truths, but you muft moreover 
 make his death meritorious. I appeal to your- 
 felvcs, whether ours be not the fafer ftde of 
 
 the 
 • ^b. 5*7, 528. 
 
appendix, 41:3^ 
 
 the queftion.'* The fecond is a Jew : " You 
 Mr. B. are a chriftian; you therefore beUevc 
 with us, that the God of Abraham is the true 
 God ; but you afcribe divine honours to one 
 who was igiiominioufly crucified. The writings 
 of Mofes and the prophets are the word of 
 the Lord. Tt is true, fay you ; but there is 
 another volume which you fay muft be added 
 to the former, which you call the New Tefta- 
 ment. Now every one fhould choofe the fafer 
 Jide, and we are right by your own confellion, 
 in wo'rlhipping the God of Abraham, and ad- 
 mitting the infpiration of the Old Teftament." 
 The third is a Deij^ : " You Jews and chrif- 
 . tians are all wrong ; and this appears from your 
 own conceiTions. We maintain, that there is 
 one Godj who made and governs the world, 
 and who has given man the diftinguilhed and 
 excellent faculty of reafon, as a guide to truth 
 and a rule of a6lions. It is true, fay you; and 
 yet you muil, forfooth, add to this acknow- 
 ledged rule another^ which you call divine reve- 
 lation. To which I may add, that many of 
 you chriftians, you Mr. B. in particular, are 
 not content with a creed that only avows one 
 divine Being, but contend, often from the for- 
 mula of baptifm, that this divine Being fubfifts 
 in three perfonalities, Father, Son, and Spirit— 
 perfe^lly equal. Now, furely, from your own con,- 
 ceflion we have the fafcr fide.'** 
 
 If this method of talking be conclufive agai/ift 
 .our theological principles, then, and not till then, 
 
 T 3 wa][ 
 
414 ^Appendix. 
 
 •will Mr. B.*s popular argument be a conclufivr 
 one. 
 
 § 30. " According to modem cuftom, the 
 principal part was paffed over in filence." That 
 is, on our principles, there is no room left for 
 adult baptifm. He might have mentioned ano- 
 ther inftance of deviation from apoftolick prac- 
 tice, viz. That we form our churches of thofe 
 who are brought up in the bofom of chriftia- 
 nity, and not of heathen idolaters converted to 
 the faith : Tho* I believe our oppofers would 
 hardly wifh a complete conformity in this matter. 
 It is fufiicient that we imitate the apoftles and 
 cvangelifts when providence calls us to ftmilar 
 circuTrJlances, When our miffionaries among tlic 
 'Heathen, for inftance, eflablilh churches, their 
 immediate concern is with adults. And were it 
 not that fome of thefe keep profefledly exact 
 journals of their proceedings, and particularly 
 tlie number of perfons baptized from time to 
 lime, we (hould not probably have heard of 
 infants and children as baptized fubjecls. To 
 fatisfy himfelf on this head, the reader may con- 
 {\ilt, among others, the Life and Journals of 
 Mr. David Bra i nerd, which at the fame 
 time may afford him more important informa- 
 tion and advantages. And now I have men- 
 tioned this excellent perfon and his journal, I 
 6eg leave to make two remarks upon them, in 
 ^t^ference to the fubje6t in hand. 
 
 i. Particular as the account in this jour- 
 nal t^y no one can Je:irn from it the mode of 
 
 baptizing 
 
Appendix* i^\K 
 
 baptizing he ufed. The only way to determine 
 this appears to be, to kam his connections in 
 the chriftian church. The words baptize or bap- 
 iifm throw no light on the point. In like man- 
 ner v^ fhould confider the religious connedlions 
 and cuftoms of the apofties and evangelifts a4 
 Jews, and the nature of what were called their 
 laptifms, 
 
 2. CoNSiEJERiNG the religlous charaSfer of 
 this fervant of Chrift, who, in proportion to his 
 ftanding in religion and the miniftry, had few 
 equals on the other or this fide the Atlantic^ 
 in that which conftitutes the chief glory of a 
 chriftian minifter ; confidering this, I fay, is not 
 his conduit, in baptizing the infants of Indian 
 converts, perfectly unaccountable, on the principles 
 of our oppofmg brethren ? For on thefe principles^ 
 the aSi of baptizing infants is unfcriptural, abfurd^ 
 antichriftian, &c. Now that a man of this charac- 
 ter, fo much of a pilgrim and flranger on earth, 
 fo confcienrioufly attentive to the will of Chrlfi^ 
 fo prayerful, fo watchful over the motives of his 
 practice in the minuteft things, and fo won- 
 derfully owned by his Lord and i\4after ;— that 
 fuch a perfon (hould be guilty of a thing evl^ 
 dently wicked as, we are told, the baptizing of 
 infants is ; (hould dehberately fly in the face of 
 the Lawgiver to affront him, after wreftling and 
 agonizing like Jacob for hours for the exatfl 
 -knowledge of his will and univerfaj fubmifHon 
 to It — this, I confels, appears to me fomewhat 
 incredible. 
 
 That 
 
^l6 Jppendix, 
 
 That faints on earth (I mean fuch as are 
 not perfect) (hould differ about fmaller matters, 
 is not to be wondered at ; that Mr. B. for in- 
 ftance, Ihonld be fo ;ar mfluenced by confclen- 
 tious fcruples as to omit baptizing children, is a 
 yery poiilble and accountable cafe \ and that fuch 
 chara6lers as Mr. Br a i nerd, or his celebrated 
 Biographei Mr. Jonathan Edwards, that 
 profeffors Witsius and Turretinus, Do6lors 
 QvvEN and Manton, Eifhops Latimer and 
 Leighton, Reformers Luther and Calvin, 
 and a thoufand more of the fame fpirit, fhould 
 baptize infants, is not Vv'onderful, on our prin- 
 ciples : but that fuch perfons as thefe fhould be 
 guilty of an enormous cr'ime^ a praclice fo evi^ 
 dently ahjurd^ that he who runs may read it-— 
 deliberately, habitually, in their mojl ferious mo- 
 ments, and for a long feries of years to their 
 dying day — is what I cannot digefl. But he 
 that can^ let him. 
 
 We are fometimes informed by our friends, 
 that they have received light to difcover the path 
 of duty in reje6i:ing their infant baptifm, and 
 adopting adult plunging as ejfential to the ordi- 
 nance. What this bright convincing light is, I 
 cannot pretend to fay, it having not yet enlight- 
 ened my darknefs ; but this I may venture to 
 affirm, that it is a light by no means neceffa- 
 rily attendant on found learning, genuine grace, 
 the indwelling prefence and influence of the 
 Holy Spirit, great tendernefs of confcience, a di- 
 ligent inquiry into the whole of chriflian daty, 
 
 in 
 
Appendix, 4x7 
 
 in fliort, great eminence in real religion. Where- 
 fore, being a light that often times fubfifls with- 
 tut thefe excellencies, rooft clearly it does not 
 derive its being from them j tho*, it muft be 
 owned, they do not always exclude its illumi- 
 nating rays. This being the cafe, it is but 
 fair to propofe a Qviery : Is this wonderful fa- 
 vour, fo partially conferred upon the childre^i of 
 the fame family, and fo much boafted of by 
 the recipients, any thing elfe but — evidena 
 without truth? or, peradventure, light without 
 evidence ? 
 
 My dear Friend and Brother — in bonds in- 
 finitely more precious than thofe of water bap- 
 tifm — farewell. 
 
 The end. 
 
Lately publijhed^ price 3J. tn hoards^ 
 
 SOCIAL RELIGION 
 
 EXEMPLIFIED, 
 
 In ten DIALOGUES: 
 
 By Matthias Morrice. 
 
 Rcvifecl^ with Notes^ the Author*: Lij% ^c. 
 
 By Edward Williams. 
 
 ■ ■ ■ i-^:-gMHBiftaR?Syiy?'?" 
 
 Jan. I, 1789. 
 
 This Day is publifhed, 
 The firji and fecond Folumes^ Price 6s, eachy in 
 Boards, of 
 A SHORT AND PLAIN 
 
 EXPOSITION 
 
 OF THE 
 
 OLD TESTAMENT, 
 
 V.' : T H 
 
 DEVOTIONAL AND PRACTICAL 
 
 REFLECTIONS, 
 
 FOR THE 
 
 USE OF F A M I L I E S. 
 
 BV THE , LATE REVEREND JOB O R T O N, S. T, P. 
 
 Publijlied frvm the Author's Manu/cripts, 
 Ey R. G E N T L E M A N. 
 N. B. A Volume of this Work will be publlfhed every 
 fix Months till the whole is compleated, which is intende* 
 rr^ Ko done in fix Volum'»-