ry- : m *^:^^% ^^^ :^ *W,". ^ ^ C3 a. 1 .§• CC 1 /? Q. ; ^ JO ^■^ IE 1 ^ »-3 CL ' ^ : *S^ }z; "^ ' o 5 i ^ g a; c 1 ^ o bj) CN i 1 S i 3 i izi E .«0 1 <*> M t j "sI 1 ^ Pi CO "^ s ^ Ot 1 % 1 c s ^ 0) 1 V) CL ^ 1 I^^Hk^ AN APOLOGY FOR THE Rite of Infant Baptifm, AND FOR THE USUAL MODES OF BAPTIZING. IN WHICH, An attempt is made to ftate fairly and clearly the Arguments in proof of thefe doctrines ; and al- fo to refute the objedions and reafonings alleged againft them, by the Rev, Daniel Merrill, and by the Baptifts in general. By J O H N '"R E E D, d. d. Paftor of a Church and Congregation in Bridgewater. Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jc- fus Chrift. For the promife is to you and to your children.' - Acts ad — 38, sg. Then will I fprinkle .dean water upon you ; and ye fliall be clean. Ezek. 36th — 25. So fhall he fprinkle many nations. Isaiah ^ad — 15. PROVIDENCE: PRINTED BY HEATON &WILLIAMS. ADVERTISEMENT. SOME pe^fon^ acquainted with my defign^ announced in a puhlick Ncws-Papfr. in the he- ginning of the lajl fummer^ my intention to pub- lipi a Treatife on the Siihje^s and Modes of Baptifm. The work was then commenced^ but its completion and publication have been greatly retarded by the prevalence of Sicknefs and Mor- tali-y* within the limits cf the Parifh with which I am conncBed. Dtjlri^ of MaJfachufetfSi to wit : BE it remembered, that on the Twenty-flxth day of Marck in the thirtieth Year of the Independence of the United States of America, John Reed, of the faid Diftiicfb, hath de- pofited in this Office rhe Title of a Book the Right whereof he claims as Author in the words following, to wit ; " An Apol- *' ogj* for the Rite of Infant Baptifm. and for the ufual modes " ox Baptifmg — in which an attem.pt is made to ftate fairly " and clearly the arguments in proof oi thefe doArincs ; and " alfo to refute the objedions and reafonlngs alleged againft " them by the Rev. Daniel Merrill and by the Baptlfts in gen- *' eral. By John Reed, D. D. Paftor of a Church and Con- " gregatioB in Eridgcwater " In conformity to the A&. of the Congrefs «f the United States, entitled " An AS. for the encouragement of Learning, " by fecuring the copies of Maps, Charts and Books, to the " Authors and Proprietors of luch copies, during the time* " therein mentioned ;" and alfo to an AA entitled, " An Av5t " fupplementary to an A6t, entitled an A&. for the encourage- " nient of Learning, by fecuring the copies of Maps, Charts " and Books, to the Authors and Propriettrs of furh copies *' during th« tiines therein mentioned ; and extending the ben- " eSts thereof to the arts of defigning, engraving and etching '* hiiiorical and other prints." N. GOOBALE, Clerk of the Diftri<5l of Maffach^ifetts. A true copy of Record. Attefl, N. GGODALE, Clerk. INTRODUCTION. IN compl'Lince \\'iib the r-fqueft of many refpt'Rable Friends and Acquaintance, I now prcfent the Publick with an Apol gy for the Ritf of ir.fant Bapiifm, and for the itfnal 7}i)des of baprizing. My iniention is to fhow, that thefc DoBrines. v^hich have been fo drenuoufly oopofed. or wholly neg- le61ed by fome, are of great importance, and cleurly authori fed in the f.cred fcriptures. Although the undri ftar. dint; ought alsvays to control and regulate the paffijns, yet in common experience, we often fee the re- vcrfe. We fee reafon dethroned aiid en- (lavcd. The paffions predominate and draw afide rational creatures into fuch opinions and practices as arc unreafonable and im- moral. Many perfons, who profefs a regard for moral obligation, and the grea-. duti-es of morality, are ready to imagine that they may with the utmoft fafety and propriety, treat with indifference or contempt, thofe iuRitutions of Heaven, which are of a pcH- tive and facramental nature. We leadily admit that a competent de- gree of evidence is requifi^e, in oider to convince us rationally, that an external Rite oi Sacram.nt is of divine appoint- IT INTRODUCTION. ment; but voluntary ignorance or unbe- lief, through inattention, prejudice, pride, or any other criminal defect or caufe, will never excufe us from guilt. A fincere and prevailing difpofition to know the will of God, and to obey his re- quirements, whether of a pofitive or moral nature, is eflential to true holinefs. That perfon, therefore, who cbnfiders and treats pofitive inditutions, in a contemptuous or negligent manner, commits a crime of the moft heinous and daring nature. He im- pioufly arraigns the Wifdom, Goodnefs, and Authority, of Almighty God. " Sacraments are pofitive Rites, and in *' themfelves different from moral virtues; " but a difpofition to obey God and Chrift, " is a moral virtue, and there can be no mo- '' rality without it. To obey the divine " Commands, is a^ moral excellency, al- " though that obedience may confift in a '• conformity to pofitive Rites." Abraham was commanded to facrifice his Son. This was an unnatural and pofi- tive order; but his obedience to that hard command, was a moral virtue of a mod ex- alted and excellent nature. The Ifraelites were commanded to fprinkle the blood of the pafchal Lamb, upon the polls of their doors. This was a pofitive order, and not in itfelf neceffary to their prefervation ; but it was made the indifpeafable condition of INTRODUCTION. . V being fpared. They who neg]c61ed to com- ply, were expofed to the fatal and inevita- ble ftroke of the deflroying Angel. Inftitutes of a pofiiive nature are evi- dently important; and to pbferve them, is our incumbent duty. The ChriPiian Bap- tifm is an ordinance of great importance ; inftituted by Chrift himfelf, and confliiuted the difcriminating Token of regalar admif- fion into his vifiblc Kingdom. Chriftians of every denomination, will allow that our Saviour exprefjily command- ed his Apoftlcs to baptize ; and that bap- tifm was adminiftered by them, and by their fucccfiors, in the times of primitive Chrif- tianiry. The Quakers are the only fe-61 who pre- tend that the ordinances of Water Baptifm and of the Lord's Supper, ought to be dif- conlinued. Their principles and pra6li:e in thefe refpefcls are fingular and iirang'^, but not unaccountable ; for they hold tlidt the Spirit of God is of higher authority than his Word, and a fuperior rule of faiih and pfa6lice. I have not, however, in the followi; g Apology, undertaken to confute the Qaa- ker fyftem. My fole objc;6l has been, lo vindicate the doclrine o{ infanc haptijm^d.vA the ufaal modes of baptizing, by endeavouririg to ftate in a fair and confpicu us manner, the arguments in favour of thefe praBices • A 2 Vt iNtRODUCTION. and by attempting to anfwer and confute the obje6lions and reafonings alleged a- gainft them, by Mr. Merrill, and the prin- cipal Baptift writers. The Work is divided into four principal parts. The id Part has reference to the fubjeds of Baptifm. The 2d Part has reference to the Modes of Baptizing. The 3d Part is a brief account of the evi- dence refuhing from hiftory, and efpecially in proof of the right, of the infant children of believing parents, to baptifm. The 4th Part is anx^ppendix, confifting of familiar queftions and anfwers, adapted to perfons of different prejudices and capaci- ties, and fuited to the prefent (late and cir- cumftances of the controverfy. In executing this plan, I have exprefTed my thbughts with refped to three of the former parts, in a feries of letters addreffed to the Rev. Danmel Merrill, now the Pallor of a Bapiift Church in Sedgwick. I have preferred the epidolary method of writing, fuppofing it would be the molt in- tcrelting and intelligible. 1 have addreffed thefe letters to Mr. Merrill, becaufe that gentleman, having been a Congregational Miniiter for fcveral >ears, has of late alter- ed his principles and praclice, and has pub- lilhed a number of lermons. Sec. againil the INTRODUCTION. VII lawfulnefs and validity of infant baptifm, and in favour of imraerfion, as being the only lawful and valid mode of baptizing; which publications are circulating in vari- ous parts of the country, and particularly in this vicinity, and therefore merit a par- ticular reply. I have not, however, had an exclufive refpeQ to this Author. It has been my conftant aim to refute the objec- tions of the Baptifts in general ; and to manage the arguments in fuch a manner, as would effectuate the moft extenfive and laPiing utility ; and prove equally inftruc- tive and beneficial, even to thofe who have not feen Mr. Merrill's Difcourfes. The intelligent and well informed reader will perhaps feel difgufted with the frequent occurrence of repetition, prolixity, and old arguments. My only excufe is this, that I have uniformly endeavoured to avoid ob- fcuritv, and to write as intelligibly as was poffible — in fuch a manner, as to be under- ftood, even by the weak and ignorant. I have accordingly ftudied perfpicuity, more than comprebenfive brevity, and plainncfs of fpeech, more than elegance ofdi8ion. The coiiclurivenefs of various arguments adduced in o.der to prove any particular docltine, is ofien very evident, when we properly confider their confiftency, con- nection, and uni;ed ftrength. Truth dreads noihing [o much as the ignorance, inatlcn- VIII IMTRODUCTION. lion, and bigotry of mankind. It folicits enquiry, and a careful unprejudiced invef- tigation. Let me then invite the reader to perufe the following Apology with care,wiih candour and with impartiality. I afk this as a duty, which you owe io your/elf, and to that Being to whom, both the Reader and the Author^ are equally accountable. And now, my Friend, mdij yoit and / be willing to adopt, individually, the Poet's Prayer, and fay fincerely; *' Father of all ! whofe cares extend " To earth's remoteft fhore; ** If I am right, thy grace impart, '* Still in the right to flay ; " If I am wrong, O teach my heart " To find thai better way." AN > A P O L Q-G Y FOR. INFANT BAPTISM. Y LETTER SIR, OUR Sermons on Baptifm, having been put into my hands, I have endeavoured to perufe them with attention and impartiali- ty ; but have found no new argument, ei- ther againft the praftice oF baptizing the infants of profefled Believers, or in favour of immerfion, as being the only valid Mode of Baptizing. The fubjeQ is, perhaps, on both fides the queftion, nearly or quite ex- haufted. It may, however, in (ome inftan- ce.s, be poffible to (late the old arguments more intelligibly, and illuftrate them more clearly. Your cafe, as it appears from common report, and from what you have publiOied, is, in fome refpefts, fomewhat fingular ; and the fingalarity has excited the curiofity 10 AN APOLOGY ?0X of individuals, and has occafioned a coifid- erable demand for your publications. You are, Sir, an entire Granger to me. I have no knowledge of your perfon, nor of your charaBer. but from your Vvritings. You certaiiily feem ferious and fincere in what you have pub'ifhed to the world. I have no reafon nor inclinafion to quedion your fincerirv ; but we ought to remember, that Mankind are liable to be fincerely wrong, as well as fincerely right. I be- lieve. Sir, that your prefent feniiments are, in fome refpe6is, erroneous, with regard to the ordinance of the Chriftian Bapiifm ; and, if if were in my power, I w^ould. in the Spirit of Mteknefs, convince and reclaim you ; but an event of this kind, is proba- bly not to be expe8ed from any quarter. Experience and obfervation have taught me, that when perfons become profelyies to any religious fed, they feldom return. This, 1 believe, is generally true, not only with regard to the Baptifts. but alfo with regard to Se61aries of every denomination. If the following letters addreffed to you, fhould not produce the defired efirc6l on your mind, they may have a tendency to prevent others from falling into the fame fuppofed error. Having mentioned your Text, you pro- ceed to ftate '' feveral propofitions and '' plain truths, and to quote various paffa- INFANT BAPTlSJi. 11 « ges of Scripture, which have fome refer- " ence to Baptifm ;" but, Sir, all this proves nothing, pro or contra. Thefe propofitions might have been Rated and paffages quoted, with equal propriety, by a writer on the op- pofite fide. The queilion between us (lill remains undecided. Indeed it is not fo much as Rated, and yet you conclude your firft fermon by faying, " We fee that every " thing looks as though immerfion saight be " the mode, and as for fprinkling, there is, *' to fay the leaft, nothing that looks like it." An aflertion of this nature ought to have been fubftantially and clearly proved, but you have exhibited no argument or proof, from which this pretended inference can fairly be drawn. The quedion between us, is not, which of thefe two modes, whether fprinkling, or immerfion, be the only right mode of bap- tizing. We admit that immerfion is Bap- tifm, and we believe that Sprinkling is alfo Bapiifm ; but you pretend that immerfion is the only valid mode, and '' that fprink- ling does not even look like Baptifm." In this, Sir, we diflPer in opinion, and the dif- ference ought to have been candidly and plainly reprefented. Your criticifm on the Greek word baptizo^ &c. and other arguments in fupport of im- merfion, as being the only acceptable mode, I will attend to hereafter, if God peimii -, 12 AN APOLOGY FOR but propofe, in the firft place, to confider the Subjeds of Baptifm, as this method is moil agreeable to my manner of thinking and writing. I am, Sec. LETTER II. SIR, HE paffage of facred Scripture, you have chofen for your Text, you very juft- ly ftyle the Commiflion which our Saviour gave to his Apoftles. This commifTion was evidently given them to be the Warrant and rule of their official duty and conduct. In order to underftand fully and correBly any ancient Rule briefly exprefled, it is of great importance, and often neceffary, to be acquainted with the hiftory of the nation and times, in which, and for which, the rule was primarily given. Many things, concerning which the people were then well informed, and to which they were habitually accuftomed, are frequently taken for granted and not explicitly meniioned and enjoined in the Rule. The Commiflion, which our Saviour gave his Apoftles, is extremely concife and com- prehenfive. Their official duties are com- iNFANT BAPTISM. ^ I3 prized in very few words. Some have doubted, whether the command to teach (or make difciples of) all nahcns, (as the o- riginal word fignifiesj extended to infants, or have fuppofed that it had reference on- ly to adult perfons. In order to remove doubts and miflakes of any kind, relative to this queftion, it would be proper for us to inform ourfelves as to the common cuftom of thofe times, and if poffible, afcertain what v/as the prac- tice of the Jews with refpeQ to Baptifm, in our Saviour's day; and alfo how the Apof- tles and primitive Minifters of the Gofpel underftood and executed their commiffion. If the Saviour, inilead of directing his Apoftles to baptize, had direQed them to make Difciples of all Nations, circuincifing them &c. I prefume every one would fup- pofe that he meant to enjoin infant circum- cifion. The cafes are fimilar ; for infant Baptifm was probably as common among the Gentile Profelytes, as infant circumcifion. Dr. Wall, who pubiiTned in London the third edition of his hiflory of infant Baptifm,' in 1720, has always been efteemed by the belt judges, a very learned,.judicious, and impartial hillorian ; and in his introduction, fird volume, he has abundantly proved horn good authorities, that, v. henever the Gentiles became Profelytes to the Jewifii Religion, their infant children were bapti- B 14 AK APOLOGY FOR zed. " This," he fays, " was their conflant *• pra8ice from the time of Mofes until our " Saviour's time, and from that period to •' the prefent day." We need not at pref. ent fhow, on what fcripture this pra6lice v;as founded. It is fufficient for our pur- pofe, that the pra6lice did obtain, and that it was never condemned, or difapproved by Chrift. We are fometimes afked, Is there any command to baptize infants ? The quef- tion, in my apprehenfion, is not properly put : it ought to be enquired, is there any command not to baptize infants ? For an eftablidied and approved pra8ice. is equiv- alent to a command, until that pra61ice be prohibited. It was expe6led that, when the MefTiah fhould come, and when the Elias his fore- runner fhould appear, thefe great Proph- ets would baptize, not only Gentile Prof- elytes, but Jews. According])', when John was adminiilering the ordinance of Baptifm in the land of Judea, " The ]t\isfcnt PrieJIs and Levitts from Jeriifalcm^ to ajk hivi^ Who art thou ? And when he confejfed I am not the Chrijl ; what then, art thou Elias ? he anjiver- cd no.'' They had reference to the very identical Elias, or Elijah, who had been iranflated : he therefore anfwered no. '• Why then, /aid they^ haptizejl thou P" They did not exped that their own Nation would be INTAMT BAPTISM. I5 baptized until the Elias or MefTirih came. But as we have obferved, they were in the conflrint habit of baptizing Gentile Profe- lytes, and there was no objeBioii to this praBice. "Whenever Gentiles were pro^elyied (o *' the belief of the }ewifh Religion, they *' were initiated by circumci{i()n, the offor- '' ing of racrificcs, and bapti'm. They wer::^ " all baptized, males and females, adults " and infants. ' The rites of circumcifion and facriGccs are annulled ; but Baprifm is conii.>ued, being lefs grievous and expenfive, and fuitable to both fexes, and more congenial to the milder difpenfadon of the go'pel. The Ifraeiiies, men, women and chil^ dren, were all baptized unto Mofcs^ in the cloud and in thefea. The Gentile pro felytes ^ere alfo baptized, men, women and chil- dren, in the ordinary motle ; and as the ordinance of Baptifm has not been laid a- fide, but continued, and without mention of any alteration as to the fubjt^ls, it is therefore of courfe dill to be adminiftercd to Believers and to their Children : That is, to all fuch as fhall be profelyted to the Chriftian Religion, whether Jews or Gen> tiles, together wiih their infant Children. A belief in revelation always was, and ftill is required, in order to the Baptifm of Adults ; but it is no naore necedary in or- l6 AN APOLOGY FOR der to the Baptifm of Infants, under the Gofpel of Chrift, than it was under the -Law of Mofes. I am ready to acknowledge, that, if a Bap- tift Miniiler were to be fent forth by a Miffionary Society of the Baptifi Denomi- nation, to preach and adminifter the ordi- nances of (he Gofpel in a remote country, it would be unneceffary to forbid him to^ baptize the Infants of Believers. The pro- hibition v/ould be implied, and a thing of- courfe. So on the other hand, if a Congregational Minifler were to be fent forth by the Con- gregational Miirionary Society, now eftab- liflied in the State of Miffachufetfs, to preach the Gofpel and adminifter its ordi- nances in aur frontier fetflcments, it would be equally unnecefTary to enjoin the B^ap- tifm of Infants; for this w^ould be implied in the Commifiion, and cxpeQed as a thing of courfe. The Apoftles previoufly to our Saviour's crucifixion, appear to have baptized per- fons without any particular orders or direc- tions. Their praB-ice, in this refpeft, was undoubtedly founded on the approved ex- ample of John and cuftom of thofe times. And with equal propriety, and by the fame authority, when their commiffion was en- larged, they might baptize the Infants of Eelieversc, whether Jews or Gentiles. INFANT BAPTISM. I7 Our Saviour, during his publick minif- tration, repeatedly fent forth his Difciples to preach the GoTpel to the Jews. In thefe inftances, he reftriQed ihem to the " lofl Jheep of the hovfe of If rati ^ and exprefly ^'forbid their going into the way of the Gentiles^ " or cities of the Samaritans," Their in- ftru61ions and orders were very particular and explicit in many refpeRs; but there v/as not one word faid to them about Bap- tifm, and yet they undoubtedly did bap'ize vail numbers. We are told, that '' they " made and baptized more Difciples than John.'' Their pra6lice, in this refpetl, was autho- rized by eftablifhed precedents, and ap- proved cuftom of the country. After the refurreQion of Chri(i, the wall of feparation and diftinfticn between Jews and Gentiles, was removed and the ccm- miflion of the Apoftles accordingly enlar- ged. They were now directed to make Dfciples of all Nations', baptizing thcm^ ScQ. And as it had ever been the culiom to in- clude children with their parents in all covenant tranfa6tions, and as the 'children of believing profelytes had always been baptized, the pradice of baptizing infants and young children of Believers, would be continued as a thing of courfe, unlefs pro- hibited ; and certainly there is no fuch pro- hibition. B2 l8 AN APOLOGY FOR Their commiffion was worded in the moffi general terms. It comprehended all na- tions — Believers and their children of every nation, Jews and Gentiles. I do not, Sir, confider the cuftom of baptizing the Gentile profelytes, as being the main argument in favour of infant Bap- tifm, under the Gofpel difpenfation. But as this ancient pra6tice has been well au- thenticated by Dr. Wall and other hiftori- ans, it certainly merits our impartial con- fideration. Dr. Prideaux, in his connexion of the hiftory of the old and new Teftament, part 2d, book 5, page 436, obferves, " That *' the Jews, in our Saviour's time, were very «• fedulous to profelyte the Gentiles to their " religion ; and when thus profelyted, they «' were initiated by Baptifm, Sacrifice and «• Circumcifion ; and then admitted to all '• the rites and privileges of the natural «« Jews." The ordinance of Baptifm, it feems, had been omitted among the Jews, from the days of Mofes till the time of Chrift, but was then re-eftabliflied and adminiftered to them, as well as to the Gentiles. To this the Saviour undoubtedly alluded, when he faid to Nicodemus, " Excepl a man (any one) '' he born cf Water and the Spirit^ he cannot " enter into the Kingdom of God,'' The Jew- \ INFANT BAPTISM. I9 ifh Ruler, inftead of coming fecretly hy nighty muft come by day, and be baptized. It is certain that no perfon can belong to the invifible Kingdom of God. unlefs born of the Spirit^ that is, renewed hy th^ Bcly Ghoft; and it is equally certain that no Of-e can regularly belong to the vifible Kingdom of God, unlefs horn of Wafer, that is, biprized. And yet our Saviour faid, •• Suffer Utile chil- '' dren to covie unto me, and forbid thcvi not^ ^* for of fitch IS the Kingdom cf God.'' Now, \{ his Kiiigdom, whether vifible or invifible, does confift of little children^ of infants, they certainly have a right to the external fign and token of member fliip, which is Baptifm, the wafliing of regeneration, I am^ Sir, Sec, H LETTER III, SIR, AVING5 in live preceding Letter, at- tempted to elucidate the queftion under confidera'ion. by pointing out the way and method in which the Gentile profelytes were publicly initiated ifito the jewifh re- ligion and covenant. I am now prepared to confider your objeftions and arguments againft the practice of infant Baptifm. I 20 AN APOLOGY TO* hope, Sir, you will not be offended, if I fhculd difcover and corre61 fome miftakes and (ophiftry, in your mode of reafoning and manner of treating the fubje8;. We are agreed that the word mathetenfatey which is tranflated teach^ means (difcipk) all nations. The voluntary confeni of adult perfons is neceffary, in order to their be- coming the Difciples of Chrifl. A profef- fion of faith is required of them in order to Baptifm. It is therefore requifite, that they fhould be previoufly taught and inftrufted. Faith and repentance were equally ne- ceffary under the Law of Mofes, in order to the circumcjfion of adult Jews, and m order to the circumcifion and Baptifm of the adult Gentiles, but not required of their infant children. In your fixth Difcourfe, you make this fuppofirion, " Suppofe I, inftrumentally, ^' difciple the Father of a Chridiefs Family, " do I, as a neceffary confequence, make •• Chrinians of all his houfe ? Do I make " vifible difciples of all his family ? his " wife, his fervants, his children ?" I, Sir, will venture to anfwer thefe qaef. tions in the negative, and am not a little furprized to find, that you (hould have been for fo long a time in favour of the affirma- tive fide. Who, excepting yourfelf, in this enlight- ened country, ever (uppofed, that the faith INFANT BAPTISM. 21 of the hufb^nd entitled his wife, or that the faith of the father entitled his adult chil- dren and fervants, to Baptifm ? It is cer- tainly nnnecefTary to confute opinions \vhich every body among us. at prefent^ difavows. You proceed, fourthly, to (late a nu-n- ber of frightful confequences ''asfollov/- '' ing upon fuppofition the fabje8s of Bap- " tifm are to be determined from the fub- *• je8s of circumcifion. That every man '• who is converted tx) the Chriftian religion *' muft be baptized, and all his houfehold, " although he may have three hundred and '* feventeen foldiers, born in his own houfe^ " together with their wives and children, " and all other fervants. A thoufand infi- ^* dels are to be baptized, becaufe their *' mafter is chrii'iianized. All thefe are to " be conlidered and treated as Church '• Members, and then alTc, could fuch a ^' communion be called the communion of " faints ? — One great and good m.an, with " hundreds of unconverted fervants." I very much wonder, Sir, that your fruit- ful imagination did not add to this formida- ble lift, one more " great and good man." with his feven hundred wives and three hundred concubines, and numerous retinue of troops and attendants. The cafe you have ftated is not fup- pofable under the difpenfation of the 2 2 AN APOLOGY r OR Gofpel. The covenant of grace and church of Chrift have been fubftaniial- ly the fame in all ages; but the privileges and duties of its men^bers have been con- flantly varying, as their circumflances al- tered. Who ever riippofed that ihe " fub- je6is of Baptifm," without any allowance for the difference of circuniftances under the Gofpel '• were to be determined by '• the fiibjecls of circumcifion under the *' law ?"' In the patriarchal age, and under the Mofaic difpenfarion, p('lygamy and (Id- very were in fome fenfe tolerated. '• Mo- '* fcs/or ihe hardncfs of their hearts fnffered " them. At the times cf this ignorance God " winked^ but nozo commands all vien every ** xvhere to repent.'' The Gofpel does not authorize the prac- tice of holding (laves, or of having a plural- ity of wives ; bat it allows every man to have his own wife^ and every woman her own hvjhand ^ and believing parents, to devote themfelves and their infant children to God, in Bap- tifm. " They who believe are blejfed with ^'faithful Abraham. Believers^ whether Jews ** or Gentile s, are counted for his feed, and (he ^* promije is made to them and their children.'' You tell us " that the promifes were ^* made to Abraham and his feed while \r, ^' uncircumcifion.'' This is true ; " and that ^^ the covenant which was confirmed of God to INFANT BAPTISM. 23 " him in Chrijl^ was about twenty- four years '» before the covenant of circumcifion." We all know that Abraham believed God^ and it was reckoned to him for righieoufjiefs. The promife or covenant was made before he was circumcifed ; but ftill circumcifion was afterward affixed as an external vifible token of this gracious covenant, and for other purpofes. We are exprefsly told in the fourth chap- ter of Romans, eleventh verfe, " That A- braham received the Jign of circumcifion^ the ^^fcalofthe ri, had^ yet bei 'ghteovfiufs oj the Jaith^ -which he ing uncircumcijtd ; that he might " be the Father of all them that believe." Thus, the Gofpelzuas preached to Abraham. That is, the Gofpel covenant, and the feal was af- fixed to him and his feed. It is readily admitted that the Abrahamic covenant was complicated with the cere- monial law. This ceremonial or Sinai law, which was not made until the Ifraelites left Egypt, has been repealed or fuperfeded by the Gofpel ; but the Apoftle informs us, in the third chapter to the Galatians, and fev- enteenth verfe, that the " Covenant that was *' confrmed before of God in Chrifi^ the Law '^ which was four hundred and thirty years after ^ '' cannot difannul^ that itfiould make the prcm- ^^ ife of none effcEl^ It is acknowledged with refpe6l to adult perfons, that faith was always pre requifite^ 24 AN APOLOGY FOR. in order to the circumcifion of themfelves and of their children ; but the Jews were ready to imagine that they had a natural and abfolute right and title to the inheri- tance and bleffing of their Father Abraham. It was this miftake which our Saviour and his Apoftles endeavoured to corred. Saint Paul obferves, " Now to Abraham " and his feed were the promifcs inade. He ^' faith not to feeds as of many ;" meaning all the natural defcendants of Abraham, ^' but '• as of ojify and to thy Seed which is Chrifl,'* In this placcj Chrift is mentioned colle6live- ly, as being the head and reprefentative of Chriflians, or Believers; for Believers^ whe- ther Jews or Gentiles, are counted for his Seed. Accordingly, the fame Apoftle adds, '• Chrifl hath redeemed us froyn the curfe of the ^ lazvy that the bkffing of Abraham might come •* on the Gentiles.'" As believing Ifaac and Jacob inherited the blelTing, v;hich iflimael and Efau forfeited and loft by unbelief, ib the believing Gen- tiles inherit that blefling of Abraham, whicli the unbelieving Jews have forfeited and loft. They are broken off from the olive tree^ from the covenant of grace by unbelief andy^ are grafed in and fiand by faith. The blefling of Abraham is promifed to all believing Jews and to their children^ and to thofe who are afar off^ meaning the Gen- tiles, when they fiiall become believers, INFANT BAPTISM. 2^ and of courfe to their children, even to as many as the Lord our God JJiall call ; that is, to thofe of every nation, who fhall become believers, and of confcquence, to their children. The Abrahan-.ic covenant has feveral times been renewed, and is therefore fome- t-imes called a new covenant^ in diflinclion from its former editions ; but it has never been elTentially altered. The Mofaic law was always a different thing. This law, the Apoftle tells us, was " not againft the promifes of God, but added " hecaufe of tranfgr^Jfions until Chrijl jliould *« covie.''' It was annexed, with all its rites and fervices. as an appendage, in order to be fubfervient to the covenant, until the gofpel difpenfation fhould commence. Ac- cordingly, when the gofpel commenced, this law, which had ferved as an appendage to the Abrahamic covenant, having be- come old and ufelefs, ceafed ; but the proyn- ife of God, or covenant, w^as not annulled thereby, or rendered inefFe61uaI. The ex- ternal token of the covenant, by divine appointment, was altered from circumci- fion to Baptifm ; but we have no account of any alteration as to the fubjeds. A covenant implies mutnal engagem.ents and promifes. on fome condition, exprefTed or under'tood, between two or more par- tics. So far as a covenant is abfolute it C 26 AN APOLOGY FOR partakes the nature of a promife ; and fo far as a promife is conditional, it partakes the nature of a covenant. The promife, which God made to Abra- ham and his feed, and the covenant eftab- lifhed between him and them, were one and the fame thing, in fubftance. It is not effential to the nature of a cove- nant, that there fliould be any external feal or token ; accordingly, Abraham was in covenant with God feveral years before the external feal was appointed. When an external feal or token is ap- pointed, it is not effential to the nature of a covenant, that the token fhould be ex- tended to all the members; accordingly, circumcifion, or the external token of the Abrahamic covenant, was, by divine ap- pointment, affixed to the malcvS only ; but the females were as really included, after the token was affixed to the males, as Abra- ham was included, before the token was appointed. The fign is often put for the thing figni- fied ; accordingly, we find that circumci- fion is fometimes called the token of the covenant, and fometimes the covenant itfelf. In the feventeenth chapter of Genefis, Cod fays, " / will make a covenant between " me and thee : and J will eJlahliJJi my covenant " between me and thee ; and thy feed after thte; " to be a God unto thee^ and to thy feed after INFANT BAPTISM. 27 •' thee. This is my covenant which ye Jhall '' keep hetzveen me and vo^i^ and thy feed after *' thee. Every vian child among you Jliall he '• circumciftd ; and it /hall be a token of the " covenant bHween me and you.'' The children of Abraham were certainly included with him in the covenant. It is impoflible that words fhoiild be more ex- plicit. Thus Mofcs, and Jolhua, and the Prophets, UTiderftood this covenant in their day, and praclifed accord^in.i^ly ; as it ap- pears from Deut. xxix.io, ^' Ye ft and this day '• before the Lo^'d — all the men of Ifrael: your " lit fie onc5^ and your zuives^ that thou //wuld/l *' enler into covenant, that he may be unto thee " a God, as he hath fcuorn to Abraham.'' E- zekiel xvi — 7, '• / entered into covenant with *' thee, and thoubecarnef} mine." And in'^b^ 20ih verfe, he complains thus, " Thou haft '• taken thy fons and thy daughters, nhich tkou '• haf born unto me, and thefe thou hafl facri- ^* feed. Thou hafl flain my children.'' It is readily granted that the Abrahaitiic covenant included temporal bieffings. In this refpeB, the Ifraeliies once enjoyed pe- culiar advantages ; but they were princi- pally diftinguifhed by religious and fpiritu- al privileges. Thus it is under the Gofpel. Godlinefs has the promfe of the life which now is, and efpecially of that which is to come. 28 AN APOLOGY FOR Circumcifion was principally a Teal of fpiritual blefTngs, and fo is Baptifm. The ceremonies are different, but the ends pro- pofed are fimilar. They both fignify the neceflity of inward renovation and fanclifi- cation by the word and fpirit of God, and of juftification by the blood of Chrift. Thefe different riles were conflituted the externa] tokens of initiation into the cov- enant — a badge of diflinftion, and an obli- gation to obey God's requirements. Baptifm has evidently fuperceded cir- cumcifion, and rendered it unneceffary. Thus the Apoftle reafoned in his Epiflle to the ColoflTians, when he found the jewifli converts endeavouring to enforce circum- cifrjn on the believing Gentiles, with an in- tention to make ufe of it as a plea for in- corporating with chriflianity the whole ce- remonial law, as being effential to juflifica- tion and falvaiion. He faw their objeft and refu fed to com- ply. Although he had, for prudential rca- fons, circumcifed Timothy^ he would not con- fent to circumcife Titus j but informed them, that Baptifm was the chrijlian circimicijion^ and that being already baptized they were ofcourfe circumcifed to all intents and purpofes. '• Beware lejl any vian fp'il you " through phikfophy and^ain deceit, after the " rudiments of the -worlds and not after Chrif} ; ^'for yc arc complete in him^ in u-hom ye are IxNFANT BAPTISM. 29 " circiimcifed with the circuw.cijion of Chriji^ " being buried with him in Baptifm.'' Sec. The Teal is changed, bat the covensnt is cfTentially the fame Saint Peter, when ad- dreffi ng the J?ws, favs ** Ye are the children " of the prophets') and of the covenant^ which " God ynade with our fathers^ f^y^^'^E ^'^^^ ^" '' brahaiUi and in thy feedfJiall all the kindreds ^'* of the earth be hlefjed ; or, in thee^ and in " thy feed^ fiall alljamilies of the earth be blejfed. The bleffing here prornifed is not mere- ly a perfonal, but a family bleffing ; and as believers are children of the promife, the bleffing extends to their natural feed, in the fame fenfe, that it extended to the nat- ural feed of faithful Abraham. As the children of Abraham had a right to circum- cifion, the former appointed feal, {o the infant children of chriftian parents have now a right to Bapiifm, the prefent ap- pointed feal of the fame covenant. 1 am, &c. I LETTER IV. SIR, N the former jfcetier, I endeavoured to fhow, that the covenant made with A- braham, of which circumcifion was the C 2 30 AN APOLOGY F©R feal, was properly the covenant of grace. The alterations which have taken place under the New-Teftament difpenfation, are merely circumflantial. The covenant re- mains fubftaniially the fame ; but ir is of the greateft importance, to diftingiiifh cor- re611y, between its outward admiuillration in Chrift's vifible kingdom, and its inward efficacy and fan^lifying effeds, upon the hearts and lives of its menbers. It is e- qually necefifary to apprehend rightly the nature and import of the promife, or blef- fing pnomifed, in this gracious covenant. Mifapprehenfions, in thefe particulars, have already occafioned a ftrange coi.Tu- (ion of ideas, and difficulties which are al- moft infuperable. '• I uill be a God to thee and thy fud.'* There is nothing in this promife, which im- plies abfoluie and unconditional falvation. The bleffi'iig promised is not unfuitable to the age and capacity of chiidren. The promife might therefore be made to them, with as much propriety as to their believ- ing parents. '• / will be a God to thee and to thy feed" • That is, 1 will be and do. in the way of mercy and grace, all that, to and for thee and thy feed, which a Being of in- finite power, and wifiom, and goodnefs, can be and do^ conlinflp^ly with my cha- racter as moral Governor of the moral world. The faving benefit of thofe blef- IMP ANT BAPTISM. 3i fings here promifed and beftowed, depends ul'.imately upon their being rightly ufed and improved. We have, under the covenant of grace, various talents and privileges, intrufted to our care and management ; and we are commanded to occupy and improve ihefe blellings and privileges, until our Lord come and reckon with us. If we fuitably and profitribly ufe and improve thefe blef- fings, we fhall be accepted and rewarded accordingly: but if we negleft and abufe them, we fhall be juftly punifhed for our neg'igence and wickednefs. It has always been God's method, in all his covenant dealings and tranfaQions, to include children with their parents. Thus he conduced in the covenant made with our firft parents ; in the covenant made with Noah ; in the covenant made with Abraham, and in the feveral renewals of this covenant, under the various fubfe- quent difpenfations. We very often read of God's blefifing families, houfes, and hotifeholds. The If- raelites were bleffed on the account ofAbra- ham, Ifaac, and Jacob, and other pious anceltors; and the Apoftle tells us that they are ftill hdovecl for their Father s Jake, '• The '' Pfalmill lays, Wk mercy of the Lord is from '• evfrla/l/ng to ever lafli7ig, upon them that fear ^' hiin. and his righteoitfn^ unto children's chiU 32 AN APOLOGY FOR *' dren^ to fuch as keep his covenant^ and rt- *' member his comrdandments to do them'' When Zaccheus became a true believer and penitent, Chrift laid to him, " This day, *' is falvation come to this honfe. Jorafavch as " he alfo is the fon of Abraham.'' When the jailer enquired what he (hould do to be faved, Pe-er replied, " Believe on the Lord " J^fi^^ C/^r?/2j and thou Jhalt be favcd. and ^^thyhoufer In the allegory of the Olive Tree, which reprefents the church and covenant of God, Jome of the natural branches, meaning the unbelieving Jews, were broken cjf ; but others remained, and the believingGeniiles, who originally belonged to the wild Olive, were grafted in amo7ig the7n and partook of its fatnefs. Now, fays the Apoftle, if the root (he evidently meant the ancient Patriarch) be holy, fo art the branches, whether natural or ingrafted. The holinefs here referred to, is certain- ly a federal or covenant holinefs, which is as applicable to children as to their parents. Thus, " The bltffng of Abraham, that falva- '' tion which was of the Jeios^, is come upon the " Gentiles. They who are of faith arc the chil " dren of Abraham, and bkffed with faithful " Abraham^ They are his adopted chil- dren ; and if children, Hkn heirs to all the bleflings and privileges of the covenant. INFANT BAPTISM. 33 Thty art the feed of the hhffed^ and their off- spring with thein. The duBrine of incladi.ig children wiih their parents in the covenant, is perft^8Jy natural and congenial to our own proper fentiment and feelings. If you Ihould meet with the child of a near relaiion a'td dear friend, would not your affe8ion and regard for the parent, immediately expand and em- brace his child ? Would yen not notice it with particular attention, and treat it wiih peculiar kindnefs. for the fake, and on the account of its beloved parent? Such be- nevolence would be natural and right, and undoubtedly correfpondent to the nature of that Being from whom it was derived. Believers are the children of God, as well as of Abraham. They are his friends and favourites; and his friendfhip for them extends and embraces their natural chil- dren ; and according to his promife, he bleffes them with his richefl mercies, tem- poral and fpiritual ; but, as we. have ob- ferved, the faving benefit of thefc bleflings and privileges, under Providence, depends upon their own right ufe and improvement. It does not appear from precept, or ex- ample, or fair implication, that the cove- nant made with x^braham and his pofterity, has ever been repealed or fet alide ; or that any alterations have taken place,, ex- cepting fach as are m.crely circumflaniiaL .^4 AN APOLOGY FOR The children of parents in the chriftian church, are as capable of being meaibers of the covenant, and of having the requi- fite qaalificaiions, and things fignified by Bapcifm, as the infants of Abraham and his jDofterity were, of being included in the covenant made wiih them. . The Abrahamic covenant, or covenant of circumcifion. as it is fometimes called, we are exprefsly told, was made with the houjtof Jfrael. The renewals of this covenant, or the new covenant^ as it is fometimes called, on account of greater prisMieges, we are exprefsiy told, is made with the hoiife of IJratl. The. covenant and fubjecls thereof^ making fuitable allowance for the differ- ence of circumftances, are the fame under the new as under tke old Tefiament. Bap- lifm is the chrijlian circumcijion ; and this appointed feal of the covenant, it appears highly probable, was affixed by the Apof- tles and primitive minifters of Chrift, to the children of believing parents. There is nothing contraryto this opinion afTerted or intimated in the New Teftament. Neither women, nor infants are particu- larly mentioned, in the account v^e have of Baptifm, during the miniltration of John and of our Saviour; but mere filence. in this cafe, is no proof that they were not bap- tized. When our Saviour had afcended, Peter, at the feaft of Pentecoft, exhorted INFAMt BAPTISM. 35 his hearers to faith and repentance, faying, *' The prcmife is to you and your children;" and we are 10 Id '^ That thy who gladly re- " ceived his word, were hap-ized ; and the fame '' day there were added zinto them^ about three *' thoufandfoyh." It is not likely, that thole perfons who lived at a diftance, brought their chirdren with them on this occafion ; but the citizens of Jerufalem v.'ho believ- ed, might devote their infant children with themfelves, to God in Baprifm. Thofe a- dult perfons who ^'* receive l the word gladly were baptized ;'' and it is further obieivcd, '' that three thoufand fouls were added unto the7nJ^ It is not faid tl;rec thoufand men and wo- men, but three thoufand fouls ^ an expreffion of the nioft indefinite nature, and which, according to i'SComi!>on ufnge in fcripture, includes perfons of both fexes and of eve- ry age. We are In other places informed con- cernini» the Raptiim of whole houfehoids, when the parent became a believer. Thus " Lydia and her houfhold ivere baptized; — Ste- " phanas and his hotif hold were baptized; — the '^jailer and allhis^ were baptized^ fir aightzc ay,'* The infpired writers have not told us whether thefe children were males or fe- males. They have not mentioned the age and name of each child; but the account is as pariicular as we could expect in a 36 AN APOLOGY FOR narrative of fa8;s, fo extremely concife as the hiilory of the A6ls of the Apoftles. It is poffible that forne of ihefe children were old enough to aQ for ihemfelves ; but it appears to me, much more probable, that fome, if not all of ihem. were fo young as to have been baptized on the account of their parents. The meaning feems to be fo plain and obvious^ as'not to need any comment ; efpecially when we confider that infant children have never been pre- cluded from Baptifm, the prefent appointed token; and that under former difpenfa- tions, they always ,were admiued with iheir parents into covenant wi'h God. Another very conclufive argument in fa- vour of infa?n Baptifm, v;e have recorded in ihe firft epiflle to the Corinthians vii. 14. It feems that fome peiTons vvbo had been converted to the chriftian religion, were connc6led with unbelieving yoke-fellows, and that the lawfulnefs of their cohabiting with them was doubted. They began to imagine that a feparation was necefTary, left the offspring .of fuch marriages flivmld be deemed im.pure, and unfit to be taken into covenant with God. Under the law of Mofes, the Ifraelites were forbidden to marry with unprofelyted Gentiles ; and in the days of Ezra and Ne- hemiah^ they were exprefsly required to put away th'fe Jiran^e wives^ whom they had iU INFANT BAPTISM. 37 licitly married, together uith their children. But the cafe, we find, is different under the Gofpel. The Gentiles are now to be con- fidered as clcanfed^ and no longer to be '* cal- led common and unclean.''' The dar!ger of beiijg corrupted by an un. believing panner, is not fo great as it was under the former difpenfation. There is a fair profpecl that the heluvir^g hvfband will be in ft rumen tal in Javing his uift ; and that the believing zui/e will be inftrumental infaving her hujhand: and further, the Apoftle tells us, *' That the imhtheving hujhand is fanciijied by the '* wife^ and the nnbtlieving wife is JanBificd by *^ the hvjband ; elfe weri your children unclean^ *' but now art thty holy.''' Among tne Ifraelites, many things and perfons were confidered as legally unclean, and vifibly unholy ; and on this account, were interdiBed. Accordingly, the Ifrael- ites were prohibited the ufe of various kinds of food. They were not allowed to affoci- ate with the unprofelyied Gentiles, in their religious afTemblies, or intermix wiih ihem in mairiages; and children born of fuch pa- rents, were confidered as unclean and unho- ly, and as not having a right to covenant privileges. - • Again : thofe perfons and things, which were confecrated aiid fct apart for facred and reiioious ul'es, are ii\ led clean ar.d holy. Thus the Ifraelites are denominated a holy people, and their fi /I born Lly t9 the Lord, b 38 AN APOLOGY FOR Their children were alfo denominated hcly^ as being the branches of a holy root — ihe ofF- fpring of God's covenant people ; and of confequence, had a right to the appointed token. And thus it is under the Gofpel : the children of believers, by divine appoint- ment, are to be confidered and treated as federally holy, and confequently as being the proper fubjeQs of Baptifm. Indeed the privileges of children, in this refped, are now much greater than they were under former difpenfations ; for on fuppofi- tion the father or mother fhould happen to! be an unbeliever, this circumftance is not allowed to infringe their claim. The cha- racter of children is denominated from the believing parent ; and their right to Baptifni is the fame that it would have been, if both parents were believers. For the Apoftle fa)-S5 '' The unhdieving hi'Jhand is fanBiJied by '• (or to, as it might have been rendered; the " believing wife^ nnd the unbclievivg xvife is fane- ''• tijied by (or to) the believing hufuand^ elfe were ^* your children unclean^ but now are th(y holy" Perfons and things are faid to h^ JanWjitd^ when rendered fubfervient to the end pro- pofed. The Sabbath is faid to be fanEiJied by God, becaufe fet apart and bleifed by him for holy purpofes. The food we eat h JanBiJied^ when bleffed to the nourifhment of our bodies. AfRi8ions 2iTC fanciijied, when blcfied to our religious and moral improve- ment. Accordingly, the unbelieving huf^ INFANT BAPTISM. 39 band or wife, is faiiBificd to the believing companion. The conne8ion is approved and blefTed to the ends propofed, and efpe- daily as it refpecis their pofteriiy. Perfons and things are fometimes repre- fented 2.% JanHijied. by means of their relation to, and connexion vvi'h, other things^ which are termed holy. The gold \s> fpoken of by our Saviour, as ^/zf^^^i ft/ -^j)' the Temple^ wiih v.'hich it was connected, and for which it was intended as ornaments or inenfils. The gift is mentioned, 2iS fanHified by the altar, with which it was conneBed,. and upon which it was offered ; and thus ih^ unbelieviijg huf- b ind or wife, being married to a believer, is become one fl^Jli^ and, hv means oS. this uiiion, r.iay be con fide red as fanEifi(d^ or blelTcd by God to the ufe and benefit of the believing partner : " elfe were your children unclean ;" that is, in the fame fenfe. difquilified for Baptifm, as if both their parents were unbelievers or heathens; '^ hut now are they holy;' that is, qualified, as really for a regular admiflion into Chrift's vifibloi covenant or kingdom, as if both their parents had been profefied be- iievers. The children here fpoken of, are not adult perfons, but infants or minors ; and this re- puted holinefs, which eniiiles them to cove- nant privileges, and in particular to Baptifm. the vifible token of initiation, is evidently different in its fignification from the fan8i- ficaiion of the unbeUeving hufbind or wife. 40 AN APOLOCY FOR The adult unbeliever may be induced to believe the GofpeU or may be inherently and \'B.v'ing\y fan^i/ied by means of the believ- ing confort^ and of courfe have an undoubt- ed perfonal right to Baptifm, but cannot de- rive this right from the faith of any other perfon. But we find, in the fcriptnre, that all crea- tures, relations, and enjoyments, are faid to ht fanBiJied to believers. *' To the pure^' fays the Apoftlf, ^'^ all things are pure. Every crea- " ture of God is good^ and nothing to be refufed^ " if it be received with thanksgiving : for it is '^ fantlifi^d by the word of God and prayer. '' And thus the unbelieving hufbj.nd or v;ife h fane- iifi':d to the lawful ufe of the believer, fo far as concerns their cohabitation, their cotiju- gal fociety, and the federal holinefs of their posterity. We do not pretend that the inward quali- ty of real holinefs can be transferred from parents to children; but external privileges, covenant piivileges, may be and have been tranfmitied : the children of believers are therefore denominated hofy, as having a via- ble right to thefe covenant bleffings. You have not told us, Sir, how you under- (land the paffage of fcripture we have been confiderit^.g. 1 will therefore juft notice the explanaiion as given by Dr. Gill and other Baptilt writers. They tell us that the " Apof- tle means a matrimonial holinefs. That the unbelieving hufband is married or efpoufed INFANT BAPTISM. 4I to the wife, and the unbelieving wife married to the hufband : elfe were your children baf- tards, but now arc ihey legitiiiiate." This conftruclion appears to be far-fetch- ed, very unnatural, and even palpably ab- furd. The infpired writers Vvcre never in the habit of expn-fliiig the idea of being mar- ried, by the word (anctified ; nor the idea of hiflardy^ by the word unclean; nor the idea of legitimacy, by the word holy. The Corinthian converts knew, as well as Saint Paul could tell them, that they were married, and that they had trafifgreffcd no law by thus marrying. They never doubted the legality of their marriage, or the legitima- cy of their children. How very unreafona- ble then, to fuppofe that the Apoftle meant to inform them that they were married, and that their children were not baftard , but le- gitimate; and in language too, entirely fo- reign to the fubjeft ? In the days of primitive chriPtianiiy, it fre- quently happened that one of the partners in marriage, the hiifbind or the wife, embraced the chriPiian religion, while the other re- mained in a ftate of infiJeli:y; and when we coijfider that the law of Mo!es forbade the Ifraelites to marry with the unpro.'elyted Gen- tiles, and that in iome inllances, in v;hich ►marriage had t iken place, they were aftijally required to put away thJr heathen wives and children, it mighi very naturally become a quellion among the Gentile converts, whe- D 2 42 AN APOLOGY FOR ther the matrimonial connexion, between ^ believer and unbeliever, (hould be continu- ed or difTolved ; and how their children, in fuch cafes, would be viewed and treated. The Apoflle's anfwer to thefe queftions, as we have explained it, is periinent and perfeBly fatisfdBory. He has folved their doubts in a inaRerly and unanfwerable manner. On the other hand, how weak and infigni- ficant is the apoftle's reafoning, according to Dr. Gill and others? '* Elfe were your chil- " dren baftiirds, but now are they legiii- " mate." This is mentioned as an inference; and what are the premifes ? " The unbe- '* lieving hufband or wife is married to the *'• believer, otherwife your children would " have been baftards but now are they legiti- '• mate." It is certainly true that children begotten and born of unmarried parents, are baftards; and it is certainly true that children begotten and born of married parents, are legitimate; it is alfo equally certain, that one and one are two, and that two and two are four; but who ever difputed thefe truths ? and '^Sat infnired prophet or apoftle ever ferioufly undertook to prove them ? If the difpute had been concerning the marriage of thef^.' perfons, or the legiiimacy of their chil- dren, they would undoubtedly have applied to the office oFthe town clerk, or to the pub- lic records, for a folution of the queflion ; and not to a chriftian caiuiil, who refided in the remote city of Philippi. INFANT BAPTISM. 43 It Is a circumftance worthy our particular notice that the Apoflle had repeatedly ftyled thefe perfons, hufband and wife; and cer- tainly no man can be a hufband, unlefs he have a wife, on woman who is married to him> and no woman can be a wife, unlefs (he have a hufband, or man who is married to her. It feems St. Paul had taken it for granted^ and had repeatedly and explicitly acknow- ledged that they were married; and would he, after all this, be fo tautological, as to fay again, that the unbelieving hufband is mar- ried to the wife, and the unbelieving wife is married to the hufband ? And v/ould he, in- llead of ufing the common word married^ which every body underflood, have (ubfli- tuted the word fauHified^ which was never before or fince, ufed in this fenfe by an in- fpired writer ? But, we are told that *• marriage or ef- " poufal, is fometimes expreffed in the Jew- '• ifh writing-, by a word in their language, '• which fignifies to fanQify." And if true, whatsis it to the purpofe ? The Apoflle was not wriiing to the Jews, in their language, but to the Greeks, and in the Greek lan- guage ; and you will again permit me to ob- lerve, that this is a novel fenfe, in which the '• Hebrew word Kadajh^ and the Greek word " agiazo^ which fignify to fanftiFy, were '• never ufed in the facred fcripttjres." As to the Greek word Agios, which is here 44 AN APOLOGY FOR tranflated holy, I believe no perfon has pre- tended, that any author, unlefs on the pre- fent occafion, ever ufed it to fignify legiti- mate. The conflruQion is not even plaufi- ble. Our tranflation is undoubtedly cor- re6l. The queftion was not refpefting the legitimacy of their children, but concerning their right to Bapufn); which the ApoPtle has anlwered affirmaiively. If the unbeliever (hould be difpofed to forfake the believing confort, let him or her depart. The beiiever, in this cafe, is not permitted to renounce his religion, in order to prevent a fepara'ion. But if the unbe- liever be defirous of remaining with his or her believing companion, the believer is not allowed to feparate. Thofe reafons, which cxifted under the Mofaic difpenfation, for feparating in fuch cafes, do not exifl under the Gofpel of Chrift, either with refped to the believing parent or the children; The danger of being corrupted by the un- believer — of being feduced to a ftate of un- belief and idolatry, is lefs than it was ; while the probability is much greater, of reclaim- ing the unbeliever, and of training up the children in the nurture and admonition c/ the Lord. Perhaps ma?!* thou mayejl fave thy wife ; or perhaps woman ^ thou raajeji Jave thy hufoand. The marriage is approved and confirmed ; and as thofe meats which were anciently prohibited as unclean, are now faid to be INFANT BAPTISM. 4^5 dea7ifed znd fanHified ; To the vrihcUeving hiif- hand or wife is fanciijicd by or to ihe ufe of the believer. The children are therefore not to be confidered unchan^ or unfit f)r dedica- tion to God, as would have been ihe cafe under the Mofaic difpenfation, but as hrly ; that is, in the fan^ie {&Ti{Q holy, or vifibiy qvialified for the ar>pointed token of the covenant, as if both the parents had been Ifraelites under the law ot Mofes, or both believers under the Gofpel of Chrift. This argument, founded on the reafonins of St. Paul, appears to be conclufive in fa- vour of infant Baptifm. Its force can never be evaded or furmounted. I wifh, dear Sir, that you would review and confider it, witb- attention and impartiality. 1 am, Sir, &:c,. I LETTER V. SIR, HAVE re-affumed my pen, in order to ftate other arguments in favour of infant Baptifm. It is a fa6l well known, that our Saviour and his Apoftles, pra6lifed blefTing authoritatively thofe perfons who were qualified to receive the bleffing. One form of pronouncing this bleffing was in the fol- lowing words; " Peace he to^ or with you^ from. 46 AN APOLOGY FOR G?d ike Father and from the Lord J ejus Chrijt^ &c." In conformity to this praftice our Sa- viour repeatedly bieded his difciples. ^'Peace " heivith you — wy peace I give unto you — my peace ^* / leave \ithyou^ 6?c." We are not told in what form of words, the Prince of Peace bleffed thofe infant chil- dren, who were pre'ented to him by their beli. ving parents, for the piirpofe of receiv- ing his bieiling ; liiit.'when he fent forth his difciples to preach the Go{Dft\^ St. Matthew informs vis, that he exprefsly ordered them, upon entering '• a houfe^ to falute it ; and if " the knife be zuorthy^ let your peace come upon it^ " but if it he not worthy^ lei your peace return to ^^ you/' Saint Luke has explained to U5, what this wortldnefs of the hovfe is, which in- titles the koifchold to the blefTing. '• If ike " Son of Peace be there ^ your peace fhall reji upc% " it J ifnot^ it fhall return to you again.'' Ob- ferve the emphatical words. — If the Son of Peace be there ; if the parent or head of the fam- ily be a believer, or friend to me and my doc- trine, pronouce the apoftolical benediftion. It is obfervable that our Saviour ufes the v;ord Son^ in the fmgular number, as if he meant to preclude all cavil, and all uncer- tainty as to his meaning. If the Son of Peace he there. If but one of the parents be a be- liever, deliver your mefTage. Blefs not only the believing parent^ but the children — blefs ^\\^ half e in my name. And if children are intitled to the covenant bkfiing of Abraham, INI ANT BAPTISM. ^J vn account of their believing parent, they certainly have a right to the vidble initiating token of the. covenant. It is admitted that our Saviour did not baptize ihofe children, who were brought to him for a bleffing. He never adminiftered the ordinance of Baptifm, on any occafion, to any perfon, adult or infant ; but his Apof- ties were in the conftant pradice of bapti- zing; and as has been already fhown, we have abundant reafon to think that they baptized, as well as blefTed, the houfeholds of believ- ers ; but if they did not baptize, they cer- tainly blefTed them, as having a right to the family or covenant bleffing of faithful Abra- ham ; and on this the argument in favour of infant Baptifm depends. The ark was a remarkable type of the covenant of grace, and efpecially as it proNcd the means of temporal falvanon not only to Noah, but to his family. The Apoftle tells lis, in his Epiftie to the Hebrews, xi, 7, *• that Noah* by faith^ being warned of God of *' things not feen as jet, moved with fear^ prs^ ^' pared an ark to the Javing of his houfeJ" No- ah believed God, and was influenced by his faith to provide an ark, into which, by divine appointment, his houfehold was admitted; and by means of which, his family, his chil- dren, as well as himfelf, were faved alive ; when all mankind befides, were overwhelm- ed and deftroyed by the univerfal deluge. 4S AN APOLOGY TOK Alluding to this wonderful prefervation of Noah's family, and on the account of his faiih. Saint Peter, in his fiift Epiflle, iii, 20, 21, fpeaking of the ark, fays, '• Wherein few^ '* that is^ eight folds zi ere faved by water " Both the Apoftles are very particular, in mention- ing not only the prefervation of Noah, but of his household, and by means of the ark which floated upon the water. " In like Ji- ^ gure whereunto Baptijm doth alfo now fave us ;" and truly the likenefs of the figure is very remarkable ; for as Noah by faith prepared an ark, into which his houfehold was admit- ted with himfelf and faved ; fo the children, the houfehold of believers, are vifibly and regularly initiated with their parents, by Baptifm, into ihe covenant of grace. This reli^^ious tranfaftion muft be per- formed in faith, andin a fincere confcieniious manner. It is not, as the Apoftle obferves, the putting a -ray the flth cf the fl{Jh ; thai is, the mere external ceremony of Baptifm, which faves us, but the anfjjcr of a good con- fcievxe toward God. Some have fuppofed that this laft claufe invalidates the argument with reference to infant Baptifm ; but it is a miftake. The argument inftead of being weakened, is ftrengihened aiid confirmed; for the like- nefs of the figure, ^^hich the Apoille'exprefs- Jy mentioned, and which we are not allowed to overlook, appears chiefly, if not wholly, in the ordinance of Baptifm, as it rcfpetts INFANT BAPTISM. 49 rnTants. It was on the account of Noah's faith and righteoufnefs, that his family was fpared, when all others were dellroyed, as Ave find recorded in the fixth and feventh chapters of Genefis. And the Lord f aid mito Noah, come thou, and all thy hoiife, into the ark ; and with thee, will I ejlahlijh viy covenant, for thee have- Ifeen righteous he/ore me in this generation, Noah fincerely obeyed the divine command. He a6led agreeably to the diftaies of a good confcience. Under the influence of faith he built the ark — he entered the ark, and in- troduced his houfehold ; and thus the be- lieving parent a6ls uprightly and confcien- tioufly in devoting himfelf and children to God in Baptifm. No peribn can perform acceptably any duty or fervice, eiiher for himfelf or for another, unlefs influenced by faith and a good confcience. It evidently appears that our falvation by Baptifm was typified by the remarkable pre- fervation of Noah's family by means of water; and efpecially when we confiderthat the children of believers are vifibly admitted with their parents, by this difcriminating token, into the gofpel covenant, as the chil- dren of Noah were included wiih their father in the covenant God made with him, and on his account and for hi^ fake, were admitted into the ark. Another argument in favour of infant Baptifm, we find in the firft Epifde Po ihe E ^O AN APOLOGY FOR Corinthians, x, 2. In which place the A- poftle, fpeaking of the Ifraelites who left Egypt, fays, " They were all baptized unto Mofts " in the cloud and in the fca.'' We are often told by the Baptift, that there is no example in facred fcripiure, in favour of infant Bap- lifm. This declaration is incorre6l. Saint Paul tells us, that " thy were all baptized^ un- " to or into Mofes» in the cloud and in the fea i' or by the cloud and by the fea, as the original words might with great propriety have been tranflated. Here then was infant Baptifm 5 not only men and women were baptized, but children, fucking children, in the arms of their parents. It is true this happened in the lime of Mofes ; but Saint Paul quotes the pafTage and applies it exprefsly to the Chriftian Baptifm. The Baptifts, themfelves, acknowledge it alludes to the Chriftian Bap- tifm. The argument is therefore as conclu- five in favour of infant Baptifm, as if the event had taken place in the days of the Apoilles, The Jewifli writers particularly mention, that the " Ifraelites were baptized in the " wiidernefs and admitted into covenant '' with God before the law was given ;" and accordingly, as we have obferved, the Gen- tiles when profeh ted to their religion, were initiated by Baptifm. All the males were circumcifed, and all the males ar.d females, adults and infants, were baptized; and it fecms from what the Jews faid to John, that they adually expe8ed the ordinance of Bap- INFANT BAPTISM. 5I lifm would be agiin adminiftrated to the people of their own nation, whenever the JSIeffiah. or the Eiias his forerunner, fhould appear. Thev undoubtedly expelled that infants as well as adult perfons would then be baptized, agreeably to what had happen- ed to ihem in the wiidernefs, and in con- formity to iheir common praBice, as it ref- pecled the Gentile profeiytes. According- Iv. Saint Paai, in a v^ery emohatical nian*:ier, and with exprefs reference to the Cbri'^ian Baptifm, mentions that they w-ere all bap- tized. The v.?ord alL, certainly comprehends per- fons of both fexes, and of every age, infants and adults; and It is very remarkable, how frequently and how emphatically he men- tions tV.is univerfal term. The word all is FCpcaLed no lefs than fix times, as if with de- fign to prevent all pofTibiliiy of being niifun- derdood. '^ They n of the text, and to have precluded ii in the moft tffjc- tual manner. He has exprefs v ir>forrned us at what time, and in what place, this old cov- enant was m-ade. In order, if poUible, to prevent mirapprehenfi }ns of every kind, he has fpecified the very day, as we fi.:d record- ed in the o<\\ and oth verity; which I muit E'2 54 AN APOLOGY FOR finccrely wilh you would perufe^vith impar- tial attention. " Behold the days come, faith '* the Lord, when I will make a new cove- " nant with the houfe of Ifrael and Jiidah, not *' according to the covenant which I made with '' their fathers, in the day, when 1 took them hy " the hand, to lead them out of the land of Egypt.'' You will obferve, this old covenant was ratified under the adminiftration of Mofes, and at the time when the Ifraelites left Egypt. How then could it be the covenant of cir- cumcifion, which was given to Abraham, more than four hundred years before the commencement of that memorable period ? When, I took them hy the hand, fays God, to lead them out of the land of Egypt. However, in order to make it appear, that circumcifion was part of the law of Mofes, you further quote the 23d verfe of the 7th chapter of John. ^^ If 0. 7nan, on the Sabbath " day, receive circumcifion, that the law of Mofes ^'^ Jhould not be broken,'' Sec. I wifh, Sir, you had alfo quoted the preceding verfe ; for the Saviour is very careful to remind us that this covenant was not derived, originally, from Mofes, but from the Patriarchs; meaning A- braham, Ifaac and Jacob. " Mofes therefore," fays he ''gave unto you circumcfion, not becaufe «• it is 0/ Mofis, but of the fathers." Circumcifion was annexed to the law of Mofes, and exprefsiy enforced by his autho- rity ; or eUe, as the ApoQle intimates, this law was added to the covenant of circumcifion INFANT BAPTISM. 55 becaufe of tranfgrejjions^ until Chrijl Jliould come» The Mofaic law is accordingly fuperfeded; but we are told, that it cannot difannul the covenant which was he/ore confirmed of God in Chrijl. and make the promife of no efftB, The Apoftle undoubtedly meant the promife made to Abraham and his feed, in the covenant of circumcifion. You tell us exprefsly " that the covenant " of circumcifion was more than 1700 years " ago, decaying, waxing old, and ready to '' vanifli away." But the Apoftle does not denominate this the " covenant of circumci- fion." He ftyles it the covenant xjchich God made with the Ifraelites^ in the day zvhen he took them by the hand to lead thein out of the land of Egypt. The covenant of circumcifion was eftablifhed more than four hundred years previous to this event. Our Saviour, as we have obferved, informs us, that circumcifion, although enjoined by Mofes as a law-giver and ruler of the people, was not '^fromhim^ hut from the fathers,'' It was as early as the d lys of Abraham ; and certainly the covenant^ of which circumcifion was the token, could not be of a later date. The ceremonial law, or Sinai and Horcb covenant, has wax- ed old, and has ceafed ; but it has not ren- dered of no effcB the much older covenant of circumcifion. Ycm again proceed to obferve '• that cir- cumcifioa" (meaning, as I fuppofe, the cov- enant of circumcifion as you hadlermed it 5^ AN APOLOGY FOR in the previous fentence) " is evidently a «' very important part of that law which is '• dilannulled. for faith Paul to the Gabiians, «■• chapter v, 2 — 3, if ye be circumcifed Chrifl: '• fnall profit you 7ioihi7ig For I teP.ify '•'agaia to every man thai is circmncifid that '• he is a debtor to do the whole la^v." C.\n yo J pOiTi'o'.y fa opofe, that Saint Paa!,^ in this place, inietided to be underfiood lit- erally? Did the Apoille ima^^ine, that by circumcifing Timothy, he fhoald deprive him of all the b nefits of redemption, and thereby oblige liim to obferve all the ri'.es and ceremonies of the Mofaic difpenfaiion ? No, Sir. How cfien has he told us that cir- eiimcifion was a thing of no importance? ** For in CJviJl Jefiis^ n-:ither circumcifion avail ■ '• cih any things nor undrcumcif,on^ but a new " creature'' And a^^ain, " circuracifion is '• notJiing and lincircnmcifi en is nothings hut keep- *• ing the commandments of God " Circumcifion being fuperfeded by Bap-, tifm. Saint Paul confidered it in the light of the moft pcrfeQ indifference, both as it re- fpefted the Law of Mofes, and as it refpeH- ed juftification ar,d faivation by Jefus Chrift. Viewing circumcifion in this light, he be- lieved it might b:^ wiih propriety omitteld or praBifed, as prudence or policy fnould re- quire ; accoidingly the pra6iice was for fome time continued among the Jewifh converts, and difcoftinued among the Gentile con- verts. But the opinion and practice of St. Paul INFANT BAPTISM. 57 feeing mifreprefented, the believing Jews at Jerufalem, were greatly alarmed, as it ap- pears from the Acls of the Ap:)fties, 21ft chapter, 20fh, 21ft and 22d verfes, Sec, «• Thou feed brother, how via^iy thoufands of ^^ the Jews there are -which bdicve ; and ihey '' are all zealous of the law; and they are in- ''^formed of thee^ that thou teachejl all the JewSy '' which are among the Gentiles, to forfake " Mofes, faying^ that they ought not to circumafe " their childrc7i, neither to walk after the cuf- " toms. Do therefore this that we fay unto- " thee ; we have four men which have a vow " on them ; take them and purify thyfelf " wiih them, and be at charges with them, " that they may (have their heads, and that " all may know that thofe things whereof they are " informed concerning thee are nothings but that " thou thy f If alfo^ walkejl orderly and kcepefthe '• lazo. As touching the Gentiles which believe^ '' we have written, and ccncludtd that they obftrve " no fuch things &:c." The believing Jews confidered circum- cifion as an unfpeakable privilege. The believing Gentiles confidered it as a griev- ous and intolerable burden. The Apoftle confidered Baptifm, as being to all intents and purpofes, fu|^cient without circumci- fion. He fuppofed that the rite of circum- cifion was unneceffary, but not unlawful. — That it was neither required, nor prohibited under the Gofpel difpenfation ; and there- fore expedient and proper, that both Jewsi .^§ AN APOLOGY FOR. and Gentiles (hould be gratified, although iheir wifhes in"',this particular, were direftly oppofite to each other. Saint Peter, who preached principal- ly to the jews, was denominated the minijler of the circumcijion ; and Saint Paul, who preached principally to the Gentiles, was de- noiTiinated the min'Jler of the uncircumcijion. But it Teems that fome of thofe believing Jews, who were ftrongly prejudiced in fa- vour of circumcifion, and very ftrenuous, infilled that the Gentiles who believed, fl^ould he circumcifed. Paul and Barnabas were deputed as meflengers to Jerufalem concerning this qfieftion. A convention of Elders and Apoftles was called. They de- liberated, and decided agreeably to the opin- ion and praftice of Saint Paul; and the dc- eifion v/as exceedingly gratifying to the Gen- tile converts. The convention appear to have confider-. ed the cafe before them, principally, as a queftion of expediency. They did not pro- hibit the Jev;s from continuing the practice of circumcifion; but thought it highly im» proper and impolitic, to impofe this unnecef- fary burden on the believing Gentiles, it be- ing very grievous and contrary to their incli- nation. A relpeQable committee was there- fore appointed to make the communication^ and to inform the Gentiles who believed, that thofe perfons, who had troubled them about the necefTity of circumcifion, had a61ed) INFANT BAFTIS^M. 59 in ibis particular, \\'holly without apoftolic orders and authority. You will find the whole affair very minute- ly related in the fifteenth chapter of the A6ls of the Apoliles. But notwiihftanding the re- fult of this infpired and venerable council, Saint Paul tells the Galatians, in the fecond chapter, and 4ih verfe, that certain ^^falft '' brethren had been brought in unaivarts^ who " came privily to [py out our liberty^ which we *' have in Chrijl Jejus*^ that they inight bring its <« into bondage.''' And in the 6th chapter, 12th and i3tb verfes, he acquaints thcnij that thefe falfe and hypocritical brethren *' conjlrain you to be circumcijcd* left thty Jliould ^'' fuffer perfecution for the crofs of Chrijl ; and '' that they may glory inyour fleJJiS' They pre- tended that circumcifion was abfolutely ef- fential to falvation, and that this rite bound and obliged perfons to keep the whole law of Mofes. Saint Paul was an acute reafoner. He fometimes reafoned from the principles of natural and revealed religion, and fometimes from the conceffions and opinions of his ad- verfaries. For the fake of argument, he fometimes admitted their erroneous princi- ples, as was the cafe m thoie paflages you have quoted ; and this, I imagine, occahon- ed your miftake as to the meaning. It was the opinion of that troublefome feO:, and not ftriQly the opinion of Saint Paul, " That every man who was drcimcifed^ '60 AN APOLOeV FOR *' was thereby become a debtor to do the whole *• law,*' It was literally true upon their prin- ciples, but not upon his^ that if the Galatians had been «' circimicifed^ChriJl Jefus would have ^^ profited them nothing" For they held and endeavoured to perfuade the Gentiles, " That '* unlefs they were circiinicifed, and kept the law oj " Mofesj they could not befaved.'' — " That juftifi- " cation and falvation were to be expefted *« and obtained upon this condition." This the Apoftle calls a fiibverficn of the Go/pel of Chrijl ; and obferves in the fourth verfe, which immediately follows your quotation, '' That Chrifi is become of no e^eB ; whofoever *' of you are jiijlified by the law^ ye are fallen ^^ from grace " ' Thus, as you have done, thefe hypocritical teachers, confidered " the covenant of cir- *' cumcifion, as an important part of the law '« of Mofes ;" and as that part which bound and obliged thofe perfons who were circura- cifed to conform to all its other parts. This falfe and dangerous conilru6lion greatly alarmed St. Paul. Although he had circiimcifed his beloved Ti7nothy, whofe moth- er was a Jewefs, " he would not be co7npelled ** to circumcife Titus^ who luas a Greek'' But, independently of this erroneous opin- ion, the Apoftle evidently conCdered cir- cumcifion merely as the former token of the Abrahamic covenant, and of no importance, one way or the other, as it refpe6led the juf- tificaiion ^nd falvation of believers. He INFANT BAPTISM. 6l accordingly adds, in the 6ih verfe of the fame chapter, '• For in Jejus Chrijl^ neither circumcijion availeth any things nor imcircumci- Jion^ hut faith that -worktth by love,'' The laft argument, which you adduce in order to ihow that the covenant of circumci- fion is difannuiled, is taken from the 3d chap- ter of Galatians, 17th verfe. " You tell us, <« that the covenant, which cannot be made " void, was four hundred and thirty years <' before the law, whereas the covenant of *^ circumcifion was about four hundred and ** fix years before the law •, and confequent- *' ly, that the covenant which was confirm- *' ed of God to Abraham in Chrifl, was ^' while he was in uncircumcifion, and about *' twenty-four years before the covenant of " circumcifion was given." If we admit this calculation to be corre6l5 it will afford no argument in favour of your opinion. You have indeed afferted that God made two diftincl covenants with Abra- ham. This was necelfary in order to fup- port your hypothefis ; but you have not proved the affertion, nor even attempted to produce any proof in its vindication. You have not pointed out the diftin6lion or differ- ence between thefe two covenants, or told us of any bleffing llipulated in the firft, that was not included in the lafl. I have fnown, in a preceding letter, that a covenant may be made, and may exiftjwithout any external, vifible token 3 that a tokea F 62 AN APOLOGY FOR may be affixed, at the very time when the covenant is made, or in any fucceeding peri- od; and that the token of the covenant is, by a figure, fometimes put for the covenant itfelf. You muft allow, that circumcifion was the token o^ a covenant j and how does it appear, that it was not the token of that very fame covenants, which you fay was made with Abraham twenty-four years before this token was appointed ? The only queflion of any importance, in the prefent cafe, is this t Was the covenant of circumcfion^ ftriQly fpeak- ing, a new and diftinB; covenant, or was it the former covenant renewed ? In order to folve this queftion rightly, we muft attend to the articles of ftipulation, and fee if they agree in both cafes ; or at leaft, fee if there was any privilege ftipulated to Abraham and his feed, in the firft covenant, which was not implied in the laft. In the i2th chapter of Genefis, ift, 2d, 3d and 7th verfes, we find Abraham command- ed to leave his country, and kindred, and fath- er's houfe, and to remove into an unknown land. "God pro mi fed, I willhlefs thee and make '' thee a hlejfing ; and in thee and in thy feed fhall " 2.]] families of the earth he hleffed ; and I tuill *' make of thee a great nation^ and unto thy feed " will I give this land.'' This promife was ex- prefsly renewed with Abraham, about the time that Lot was feparated from him. In the 15th chapter we find Abraham complaining becaufe he had no children. rNFANT BAPTISM. €^ God again promifed •' that he fhould have a " numerous pofterity, and that his feed " fhould pofTe fs the land. Abraham^'' we htq told, '' belifvid God, and it uas covjitedio him for righteoufnefs.'' On this occafion, for the firft lime, the promife was denominated a cove- nant, as is particularly recorded in the 17th verfe. '* In that fame day the Lo7'd made a " covenant with Abraham* Jayiyig^ unto thy feed " have I given this land^from the river of E^ypt^ " to the great river, the river Euphrates,'''' It was undoubtedly a number of years after the promife was made, before God con- firmed it to Abraham in the form of a cove- nant; for he had, in the mean time, acquired great pofiTedions. ap.d a numerous houfehold. In the 17th chapter we have an account of the appointment of circumcifion. I fhall not fpecify any particular verfe; for the whole chapter has reference to the impor- tant and foiiemn tranfaflion, and merits our unprejudiced attention. When •• Abraham xjcas ninety and nine yean " old^ the Lord appeared to h.m and f aid, I am the ** Almighty God, walk btfore me and be thou per - ^^ feH'i and I will make my covenant bctwet^i ms " and thee,'' &c. The blcfling of this covenant, as we have obferved, was promifed to Abraham, wheD about feventy and five years old. This promife we have (hown was afterward de- nominated a covenant ; but ftill there was no token appointed to this covenant, either on 64 AN APOLOGY FOR God's part, or on Abraham's. The defign' of the prefent interview wa», to confirm the covenant, by appointing thefe external to- kens. God therefore faid, " As for 7ne, my '' covenant is with thee ; neither Jliall thy name " any more be called Ahram ; but thy oiamc /hall *' be Abraham ; for a father of many nations have ^^ I made thee.'' Here the covenant was put for the token. This alteration of the name was the token of the covenant, on God's part. " And God faid unto Abraham, thou (halt *' therefore keep my covenant, thou and '' thy feed after thee in their generations.. " This is my covenant which ye (hall keep ^» between me and you, and thy feed afier " thee, every man child among you, (liall " be circumcifed." Here again the covenant^ by a very common figure, is put for the token^ .as appears undeniably from the very next words; " And ye fhali circiimcife the fie:n> " of your forefkin^ and ii (hall be a token of " ihc Covenant,"betwixt me and you." As the alteration of Abram's name v/as the vifible token of the covenant on God's part, fo circumcifion was the vifible token of the covenant on Abraham's part. It will ftill appear more clearly, that this is the fame covenant, which had been previ- oufly ratified, by confidering and comparing the articles of (lipulation. For on this, and on all the former occafions, we find that the blefTmg proraifed to Abraham was fubftan- INFANT BAPTISM. 65 tially the fame. It is now, however, as might have been expefted, more particularly de- fined. In this 17th chapter of Genefis, which relates wholly to that covenant, of which circumcifion was now appointed the token, " God promifed Ab?aham a numerous " pojlcrity and the land of Canaan for a pofjef- ^^ fion ;' which blcffing had been already repeatedly mentioned. He alfo now prom- ifed, " to he a God to him^ and to his feed after ^' him ;" which comprehenfive promife in- cluded every bleffing, temporal and fpiritu- al. But to be more particular, God now promifed for the firft time, that this covenant fhould be everkfling — " That Sarah fliall hear *^ thee a Son^ and thoufhalt call his name Ifaac ; " and I will efablifh my covenant uithhimfor an " everlafling covenant^ and with his fetd after ^^ him:' In the 22d chapter, 1,5th, i6ih and lyih verfes, we find this fame covenant again re- newed and confirmed with the greateft fo- lemnity conceivable. " By myfelf have I ^' fworn^ faith the Lord ; for becaufe thou haft '« done this thing, and haft not withheld thy '« fon, thine only fon ; that io bleffing, I will «* blefs thee, and in multiplying, I will mul- " tiply thy feed as the ftars of heaven, and *5 as the fand which is upon the fea fliore; <« and thy feed fliall pofirefs the gates of their " enemies; and in thy feed, fhall all families " of the earth be bleffed, becaufe thou haft " obeyed mv voice,'- F2 66 AN APOLOGY FOR Thus you obferve the procefs ; and it ex- hibits a mod ftriking, beautiful climax. In the firfl: inftance, we fee the bleffing confirmed to Abraham and his feed by promife. Secondly, this promifed bleffing is con- firmed by covenant. Thirdly, this covenanted bleffing is con- firmed by annexing the token of circumcifion ; and fourthly, by the oath of Almighty God. We have faid, that fo far as any promife is conditional, it partakes the nature . of a covenant. The promife made to Abraham, and the covenant of which circumcifion was the token, appear to be fubftantially the fame; this covenant therefore, has not been aboiifhed as you fuppofed, but is confirmed and eftablifhed. This truth may be further demonftrated, by pointing out the occafion of your mif- take. You have told us "that the covenant " which cannot be made void, was 430 '• years before the law." By fixing the date of the covenant, at the very time when the promife was firfl made to Abraham, it evidently appears that you mufl mean the fame thing by the covenant^ which St. Paul meant by the promife. And although, as we have obferved, the promife^ and the cove- nant, were fubftantially the fame • yet the Apoftle, in order 10 guard againft miftakes, very carefully retains the nominal and cir- cumilaniial diflintlion; and accordingly rNFANT BAPTISM. 6j fpeaks of the covenant^ which cannot be difdn*- nulled, and of the promiJe'eezooman^ and of their children^ which he calls an allegory^ fays, " Ahrahain had two fons^ one '• by a bondmaid^ and the other by a free zvoman; '• and he who was of the bond woman^ zcas born of " ter the flejli'' But, Sir, how does this alle- gorical reprefentation prove, that the chil- dren of believing parents ^^ art born after the flejh?'' If the Apoftle had reprefented be- lievers, as having like Iflima^l, defcended from Hagar, your conclufion would have been perfe6lly juft ; and it would be right to reje6l their children, as the Ifhmaelites were- rcj^ed, from being God's covenant people. But on the other hand, what will become of your argument againtt infant Bapiifm ? For we are told, that believers are not children of the bond woman^ but of the free. Sarah is the mother of us rt//;,and we are heirs of the blef- INFANT BAPTISM. ^1 . £ng, even as Ifaac, who was horn of promife^ and after the Spirit, As this promife extended lo the pofterity of Ifaac, fo it extends to the children of beh'evers. It is fpoken of as be- ing a pYQcious birthright^ and we are folcmn- ly cautioned not to defpife and fell it, as profane Efau, (he fon of Ifaac, did. In the language of prophecy, which is ac- cording to the foreknowledge of God, Jacob and his pofterity are reprefented as having been chofen to be God's covenant people, and Efau and his pofterity, as having been reje6lcd, even before " they had done either " good or evil." All things are knoivn unto ■God from the beginning to the end. He fees intuitively the thoughts and hearts of men afar off. But fiich knowledge is too wonderful for us. We certainly need Tome external, vifible rule, in order to dire8: our judgment and our conduft. It is abfolutely neceffary for us, to confider the covenant, and its members, and their requifite qualification, and mode of initiation, in a light that is vifible to our finite capacity. Accordingly, Ifhmael was vifibly in cove-^ nant, as truly as Ifaac, until his unbelief ap- peared, and he was caft out, for mocking and perfecuting his brother. Efau was vifi- bly in covenant, as truly as Jacob, until his unbelief appeared, and he was reje6led for defpifing and felling his birthright. Thofe Ifraelites, whofe carcafes fell in the wilder- nefs, were vifibly and truly in covenant^ yS AN APOLOGY FOR until their unbelief appeared, and they were rejeded and deftroyed for their wickednefs. The ten tribes were truly and vifibly in covenant, until they became unbelievers, who fuller- ed martyrdom on his account. — The barba- rous Herod facrificed ihoufands— ^' ^// ^Ae '' children in Bethlehem^ under the age of <^ two years." Young cliildren were the firil who fang hofanna to the Son of David, blejfed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord, hofanna in the highef.'' «' It was predicted, " that his praifes ihould ht perfected by the «' mouth of babes and fucklings." No won- der that the Saviour fl}ould feel a very fpe- cial regard for infants — for little children ;.— > 88 AN APOLOGY FOR that he fhould provide for them a place in his gracious covenant; — that he fhoiild or- der their names to be enrolled, and Baptifm^ the appointed token ofadmiffion, to be affix- ed ; hereby binding their parents by a pub- lick and lolemn engagement, to difcipline and train them up for him, as his difciples or fcholars, regularly initiated into his vifible kingdom and fchool, for the fake of religious inllruQion and education. Solomon fays, " train up a child in the way '*'* he fliould go, and when he is old he fhall not '• depart from it." One great and leading de- ^'^gn^ in the appointment of infant circumci- fion, and of infant Baptifm, was to fecure, fo far as is poffible, the religious education of children. The faithful and exemplary char- acter of Abraham, as the head of a numerous family, was a principal reafon, why he was fo remarkably diftinguifhed. — '' I know him-, i* lays God^ that he will command his children '' and his hovfthold after him, and they fhall " keep the way of the Lord, to do juflice and "judgment; that the Lord may biing upon *• Abraham, that which he hath fpoken of " him." By devoting our infant children to God — to Chrift, we are reminded that they belong to him — that they are his by creation, and by redemption, and by dedication — that he actually claims them as his peculiar proper- ty, and exprefsly requires us to inftrud and INFANT BAPTISM. 89 educate them in the ways of religion and virtue. In order to accomplifh this important pur- pofe, the Ifraelites were commanded to em- brace ail fuitable occafions, and to adopt every proper method. " Hear, O Ifrael; " the Lord our God is one Lord ; and thou *' (halt love the Lord thy God, wiih all thine *' heart, and with all thy foul, and with all *' thy might. And thefe words, which I *' command thee this day, (hall be in thine *' heart. And thou Jlialt teach them diligently to *' thy children, and Jlialt talk of them zvh n thou '^ Jittejl in thine houfe. and when thou walkejl by " the xuay^ and when thou liejl down, and when '' thou rijeft up. And thou [halt hind them as a ^^ Jign upon thine hand, and they JJi all he as front- '• lets between thine eyes. And thou /halt write '* them upon the pofis cf thine houfc^ and en t'y «« gales." We are apt to negle8: ihi^ important d-ity until it is too late. But infant Bapiifm teach- es us, that children are the proper obj?6h of our religious care and auention as loon as born — that we ought without delay to pray for them, and dedicate them to God, and whenever they are capable of being inftruft- ed, afford (hem all necefTary and ufeful in- ftru6tion. — The prophet lldiah enquires thus. *' whom JJiall we teach knon ledge ? and whom ^^ Jhall we make to underfland dcElrine F' And anfwers, " thern that are weaned from the milk *' and drawn from the hrecfls. For line mifl be II 2 9© AN APOLOGY FOR " Upon line^ line upon line ; precept upon precept^ " precept upon precept ; here a little and there a « littler David tells us that God « efiabliJJied a tejli- *' mony in Jacob and appointed a law in Ifracl^ " which he commanded our fathers that they Jhouli, '' make them known to their children ; that the " generation to come might know them^ even the " children which JJiould be born ; whoJJwuld arife *^ and declare them to their children ; that they " might fet their hope in God, and not forget the " works of God, but keep his command^nents.'' The great Jehovah claims a fpecial right in the children of thofe parents who have devoted and given up themfelves to him, ac- cording to the tenor of his gracious cove- nant. " In the fcriptures, God ftyles them " 7ny children" — " Children whom thou hajl born *« unto meJ" " Thty are denominated the «' heritage of the Lord.'' " All fouls,'' fays God^ " are mine, as the foul of the father, fo alfo the ^^ foul of the fon is mine," And the Saviour exprefsly commands us, " to render unto God " the thincrs which are Gods" How natural, and how reafonable is it then, for us to dedi- cate ourfelves and our children to him. The dedication of ourfelves is firft, in the order of nature, and of propriety. We are told that " God had rtfpeB unto Abtl, and then '* unto his offering" One principal thing implied in Baptifm, is the dedication of the perfon baptized, to God the Father^ Son^ and Holy Giioft, Every aduh IN RANT BAPTISM. ^f perfon to whom the gofpel or covenant of grace is published and offered, is under obli- gations to fubfcribe with his own hand to the Lord. — He is required to dedicate himfelf fincerely and truly to God, and to his fervice. And as children are, in fome fenfe, the peculiar property^ and even a part of parents, it is alfo equally proper, and their incumbent dutyy to dedicate them to God in the way and method of his appointment. The praQice has been clearly authorized, by the unrevoked mandate of heaven, and by the approved example of pious parents. In the covenant made with Abraham, God exprefsly required, that every male child,, when eight days old^ fliouldhe circwnciftd. Cir- cumcifionwas a religious dedication of thefe little children to God ; on which occafion, a form of folemn and appropriate words was ufed and prayers were offered up to him in their behalf. The Ifraelites were alfo commanded to J->■ <^-. -c^s-, <-c>-i ■-<:>^ '-'i*^ ■-'T^^-" ^-<£*^ ^-ca-i - PART II. ON THE MODE OF BAPTIZING. LETTER X, SIR, A: .S was propofed, I have attempted to vin- dicate the rite o^ infant Baptifm^ and am now ready to confider the different modes of baptizing, and fhow the propriety of admin- iftcring this religious ordinance to the proper fubjefts, according to the ufual praftice of applying or fprinkling water upon them, in the name of the Father^ and of the Sen, and of the Holy Ghofl. But before we proceed, let it be premifed, that you and 1 are agreed in the lawfulnefs and validity of Baptifm, when adminiftered by immerfion. There is therefore no con- troverfy between us upon this point. But you pretend that immerfion is the only lawful and valid mode; that all other modes of baptizing are unlawful and invalid ; and in order to fupport this opinion you have quoted the greater part, if not all, thofe paf- fages of fciipture, which relate to Baptifm, 1 2 102 AN APOLOGY FOR and then conclude your firft fermon, by ob- ferving, " We fee that every thing looks as *^ though immerfion might be the mode, and *• as for fprinkling, there is, to fay the leaft, ^' nothing that looks like it." To me. Sir, it appears unaccountable, and even impoffible, that fo many great and good men (yourfelf among the reft) fhould, for fo long a time, remain in the belief and praftice of a certain m,ode of baptizing, when they could, and can find nothing, in the facred volume, " that even looks like it.'^ It feems, however, that you have, of late, altered your opinion, and now fee with diffe- rent eyes ; but your brethren in the miniftry have not altered theirs. They ftill confider the pra6lice of fprinkling, pouring, &c. as fufficiently and clearly warranted in the holy fcriptures; and that thofe " threefcore pafTages," mentioned by you, as favouring the mode of plunging, might have been cited as properly and as conclufively, by any other perfon, even in favour of the more ufual modes of baptizing. The publick nov/ have, before them, your affertion and mine ; but all unprejudiced peiTons of lenfe will think that we ought to produce better reafons for their belief. You tell us, in your fecond fermon, " that *' to baptize^ fignifies to plunge under water, " to dip, or wafh ihe body all over." " That '' Baptilm fignifies to dip, plunge, immerfe, " or wafh the body all over in water," And INFANT BAPTIS-^. IC3 for proof appeal to Schrevelius' Lexicon, Butterworih's Cor^cordance, Entick's and Bailey's DiQionaries ; and alfo to three no- ted witneffes, viz. Calvin, Zanchius, and good Dr. Owen. You appear to place the greateft ftrefs conceivable, upon your afore- faid definitions of Baptifm and to baptize^ Sec. and alfo upon the meaning of the origi- nal words, Baptifma and baptizo. Having confulted your Greek Lexicon, Concordance and Diftionaries, you inform us, in fermon v, page 69, " The evidence " produced from their united teftimony was " in (hort the following : That the plain, lit- " eral, and common, if not iiniverfal, fignifi- " cation of the words Baptifm and to baptize^ " is immerfion and to immerfe, bury in water, " to dip, or to plunge a perfon all over in " water." I believe, Sir, that no one will difpute what thefe men have teftified We all are willing to acknovv'ledge, that perfons may be lawfully baptized, by dipping or immerfion ; and that this mode is agreeable to the '* plain, " literal, and common fignification of the " word Baptifm and to baptize.''' Thofe authors, whom you have inftanced as authorities, in the prefent cafe, according to your own confcflion, have not faid nor intimated, that to dip or immerfe, was the " univerfal" and only '• fignificaiion of the word, to baptize." The words, '' plain^ lite- rali and common^'' are adjeclivesj and admit 104 ^^ APOLOGY FOR of differen; degrees of compariTon. Dfp- ping may be a " plain^ lit^raU and common''* fignification of the word Baptifm, and yet there may be, and undoubtedly are, other fignifications, more or lefs plain, literal, and common, according to the different views and apprehenfions of different p@rfoBs. This, I am fenfible, is not your fentiment. Ac- cording to your opinion, to baptize^ fignifics to dip^ or immerfc in water, exclafively of all other fignijications — to dip and nothing elfe j and, confequently, that all other modes of baptizing are unlawful and invalid — a mere nullity or mockery. This is the ground on which you {land. It has not perhaps been explicitly avowed. But it is abfolutely necef- fary, that the quellion between us fhould be correctly and intelligibly (lated. Let us now examine more critically the Lexicons and Dictionaries. Schreveiius, that great mafter and critick in the Greek tongue, when defining the verb Baptize^ gives three definitions, viz. Baptizo^ mergo, lavo. But what does his firft definition, hap- ^/zo, mean? Why has he, inftead of tranfla- ting, as in other cafes, tranfcnbed, the origi- nal word, and transferred it into the Latin language ? Undoubtedly becaufe he confid- ered the word as having feveral fignifica- lions ; and that it ought not, when applied to the Chridian Baptifm, to be reflrided to any one mode of baptizing. The Latin word mergo, 1 admit, fignifies to plunge. The word INFANT BAPTISM. 10- lavo^ is of various fignifications, one of which is, according to Young's Latin DiBionary, to oejprinkle. Cole's Latin Di^ionary, as you have cbferved, when tranflaiing ihe word laptizo^. mentions, to jpyviUt^ as being one of its fignifications. One definition of Baptifm, in Ainfworth's Latin DiQionary, is alfo to fprinkle water (afpergere aquam.) Let us now enquire how Schrevelius de- fines the Greek fubftantives. Baptismos and BapUfma. Bo.ptis7no5* he tranfiates into the Latin w^ord Lotio, which fignifies bathing, or any kind of wafhing, without being reftrided to the mode. But the Greek word Baptis- 71105, I believe, is never once made ufe of by the Apoflles, in the new Teftament, with ref- erence to the Chrifiian Baptifm. They have, for this purpofe, invariably ufed the word Baptijma^ which Schrevelius, in his Lexicon, defines thus, if it can be called a definition. Baptifma, Bapufma, Baptifm, He has not pre fumed to t ran (late the word, but with re- doubled caution, has twace tranfcribed it ; in the firft place, literally, for the Latin lan- guage, and in the fecond place, with only the omiffion of the laft letter, for the Englifh lan- guage. He did not fuppofe that the origi- nal word was reflriBed to one fignification exclufively, or to one mode of baptizing, and therefore chofe to leave it undecided, as Chrifl; and his Apoflles had left it. Our tranflators of the Greek Teflament kave proceeded with the fanae religious caii-^ loS AN APGLOGY FOR Jion. In all the Latin Teftaments that Ihave feen, the original words are not Latinized, but tranfcribed ; and thus it is in our Englifh Teflaments. The original words, when they relate to the ordinance of Baptifm, are not Englifiied, as in other cafes, but tranfcribed,. Baptize and Baptifm are neither Latin nor Englifh, but Greek words, tranfcribed from the Greek Teftament. As the infpired writers have not defined the (enfe. in w^hich the original words fhould be ufed, thofe learned Divines, who trarifia- ted the new Teftament, refufed to define them, bv fubftituting the Ensliih words^ ipriiikling, or dipping. An attempt to ref- tri6l the meaning to any particular mode of baptizing, they viewed as ioipious — like the prefumptuous conduQ of Uzzah, who offi- cioufly flit forth his hand to fleady the ark cf God. Perry's Dictionary is equally cautious. — "Baptize, is defined to chrflen. Baptifm, (j ^'^ facrammt -which admits into the church, Bap- ** tifi, he zoho adminiflers Baptifm. Baptiflory, . " the place -where perfons o.re baptized" Let us now fee what the great Dr. John- fon's Di8ionary fays, which excels all others,- in the accurate definition of words. « Bap- ^' tifm ; Baptfm is given by water ^ and that pre- ^'^ f crip t form of words^ which the church ofChriJl ^^ doth ufe. Baptize ; to chrifien ; to adminifler " the facrament of Baptfm, Baptift; he that ^ admin flers Baptifm". And even Entick INFANT BAPTISM. lOj defines Baptifm, as being ^^ a facrament that ^« admits into the church,'' How cauiioufly have thefe great criticks avoided faying any thing about the mode of adminiftering the Chriilian Baptifm. They confidered the pe- culiarity of the mode, whether it be fprink- ling, pouring, dipping, &c. as not being fpecified by the pen of infpiration, and con- fequently, as not being effential to the ordi- nance of Baptifm. This kind of criticifm is, in my opinion^ of very confiderabie importance; and I won- der that you could fo entirely overlook it. Let us now attend to what your three wit- neffes fay. You tell us, " that Calvin, a very ^' warm oppofer of the Eaptift, as a witnefs, " fhall come firll ; his teftimony is, howbeii^ •^' the very word of baptizing, fgnijies to dip.'' '• Zanchius fays, baptize^ is to imjuerfe^ ^' plunge under^ overwhelm in water." " Dr. Owen fays, the original (ignification " of baptizo^ is to dip. to plunge.''' Thefe men, Sir, have alTerted v/hat no per- fon denies ; for every one will readily allov/ that, baptizo, fignifies to dip. Your witnc-fies have not faid, nor intimated, that to dip, was the 07ily fignification of the word baptize. This was not their opinion, nor did they in- tend or expe6l5 to be thus underftood. Calvin, in particular, was a zealous advocate for the mode of pouring or fprinkling. In his inftitutes, he fays, " the difference is of ^* no moment, whether he who is baptized^ tc8 AN APOLOGY FOIL ^« be dipped all over, and if fo, whetlier ^* thrice or once, or whether he be only wet- " ted by the water poured on him." '' So *' little difference in ceremony ought not to '• be confidered by us of fuch importance, " as on that account to rend the church, or ^' trouble it v;ith broils." Dr. Owen, alfo* exprefsly fays, as Mr. Booth himfelf ac- -knowledges, " that the original and natural " fignificauon of bapiizo, imports to dip, to ^^ plunge, to dye ; yet ii alio fignifies, to wa/Ii " or cleanfe.'' You further inform us, " that you could « bring forward a multitude of witnefles, and <' all from our own order, the Poedobaptifts, «' to prove ihe fame point, but in the mouth *' of two or three witnefTes, if they be good *' ones, every word fhall be ettabliflied." I am fenfible that you might, inftead of fele6ling three, have named the whole num- ber of eighty-two, mentioned by Mr. Booth. But, Sir, we ought to remember that thefe -faithful witneff-s, were not volunteers. They have been preffed into your fervice. even {ince they were dead, and deprived of an opportunity to vindicate themfelves. — Their teftimony ought to have been confidered and reported with the utmoft impartiality and fairn efs. The various quotaiiejns of Mr. Booth, re- lative to pofiiive ir.ftitutions, and to general rules for underftanding and interpreting fcripture, would be, I prefume, much more INFANT BAPTISM. 10$ intelligible and inftruftive to many of his readers, if they were but acquainted with the particular cafes, for which thole learned and refpeBable authors intended, and to which they applied them. The application which has been made by Mr. Booth and yourfeif, efpecially with rerpe6t to the mode of Bap- tifm, does not appear to be fo candid as could be wifhed, nor fo judicious and con- clufive as you and that gentleman feem to have imagined. I am ready to allow that fome perfons, v;ho believe in infant Baptifm, as being of di- vine appointment, have been in the habit of dipping infants as well as adults. This has been, and ftill is the pradice of the Greek churches. Others alfo, who are in the habit of adminiftering Baptifm by pouring or fprinkling, have, for various reafons, wifhed that the mode of dipping might obtain. Some have fuppofed dipping to be the mod an- cient and fignificant mode ; and have, on thefe accounts, wifhed it to prevail; and feme have wifhed it. for the fake of uniformity, being wearied out with a very unpleafantand unprofitable coniroverfy. But probably, not one of thofe men, whofe names have been mentioned, did believe that the mode of dipping, was effential to the ordinance of Baptifm. It was their opinion, rhat perfons might be baptized lawfully, by having water poured or fprinkled upon them ; and that iheie mode's of haotizing were agreeable t© k' 110 ^ AN APOLOGY FOR the fignification of the original word haptizo. Thus this cloud of witnefles, inftead of tefti- fying in favour of the Baptif! principle, ref- pe6ling the neajfity of dipping, have general- ly and decidedly teflified aganit it. Mr. Booth, as he fays, '^ in order to pre- " vent miftakes," has defned the reader to obferve, that no inconfiderable part of thefe learned authors have afftrtcd^ that the word Baptifm^ {\gm^QS pouring or fprmklwg^ as well as immerfion. He and you have told us, what each individual faid concerning dipping ; but have not been fo impartial as to infofui us, what ihey individually faid, concerning pouring and fpr inkling. It is certainly incum- bent on witnelTes, and equally incumbent on thofe who report their teftimony, to relate ike zuhok truths as well as nothing but the truth. Before we difmifs this argument, let us fpend a moment in examining the teftimony of the Quakers, which appears to be confid- ered, by fome perfons, as of peculiar impor- tance in the prefent controverfy. Mr. Booth ftyles them " the impartial, difintereft- '• ed friends of the Baptift." — and tells us, *' that they defpife infant fprinkling." Some learned Quakers, it feem^, have fuppofed that dipping was the primitive mode of bap- tizing ; and that the original word baplizo, fignifies to dip^ io plunge. And their opinion in this relpe8: is thought to be of the greateft weight and authority, becaufe they " are the INFANT BAPTISM. Ill impartial^ dijinterejled friends of" the Baptift." But how does their impaniality appear ? In denying and in reje8.ing all water Bapiifm. And how does their difinterefted friendfhip appear? "In defpifing infant fprinkling," and in advocating the mode of dipping, in which they feem to have no intereft. The truth, however, is this : the Quakers are 'as much oppofed to plunging, as ihey are to fprinkling, and to adult Baptifm, as they are to iiifant Baptifm ; but they are, compara- tively, a fmall fett. like the Baptiil; and nothing is more coiimon, than for different ^^Ei^^ of the mod unfriendly and oppofite fentimentSv to unire harmoinoufly, in order to divide and deflrov a more numerous and powerful fociety of men. The Quakers confider the Baptift, as approaching nearefl to their religious fydem. and are ready to hope and expeft, that, if by joining with them, they fhould be able to overthrow the doc- trine of infant Baptifm, which they view as the principal barrier, adult plunging or Baptifm would foon be renounced as a thing ofcourfe. This is the Quaker policy. They are not lefs partial to their cfwn principles, nor lefs defirous of making profelytes, than -chridians of other denominations. Thus, the fuppofed argument in favour of immerfion exdiifively^'Tt^wVAng from the '• dif- '• interefted friendfliip of the Quakers." ap- pears to be miferably weak — entirely without foundation. And certainly they did not 112 AN APOLeCY FOR excel in Greek criticifrn ; nor ever pretendy that to dip, orimmerfe, was the only fignifica- tion of the original word baptizo. Among the numerous and various autho^ rities that have been produced, there is not SI fingle inftance of direft and pofitive tefti- mony; nor the lead degree of evidence, to prove that the original word baptizo^ (ignifies to dip or immerfe, and nothing elfe ; or that the original word Baptifma'i fignifies dipping or immerfion, and nothing elfe. Indeed, I never yet found this fentiment openly and explicitly avowed, by any learned writer, or critick in the Greek language. But on the other hand, a very large num- ber of the moft refpeBable and critical Au- thors, ProfefTors, and Expofitors, have ex- prefsly afferted that the word Baptizo^ accord- ing to its true and original meaning, has va- rious fignifications ; — that it fignifies to wet with water, partially^ as well as totally, and hy fpr inkling ox pourings S^c. as well as by dipping or immerfion. This is what Mr. Booth has acknowledged, and none can de- ny it. I will, however, mention a few in- {lances, extraded chiefly from Mr. Walker's very learned treatife on the doBrine of Baptifms. '•Leigh, in his Critica Sacra, fays, that « Bapiifm is fuch a kind of wafhing, as is by " plunging, and yet it is taken more largely, « for any kind of wafhing^ rinfingorcleanfing, t' even where there is no dipping at alW INFANT BAPTISM. II3 <« Chrifl," fays he, '• no where requires dip- " ping, but baptizing" — " to fprinkle or wafh '' one's body, facramentally." '• Zelenus, that learned man, faith, Bap- << lifm, if you confider the etymology of the " word, fignifies dipping, and alfo fprink- ^' ling." — '-He fays, that dipping was formerly •^ more ufed, efpecially in the hot countries " of Judea," '^ but not that this mode was u- *' niverfally praftifed or effer^ial to the ordi- *• nance of Baptifm." — " He exprefsly ap- " proves of fprinkling as valid Baptifm." Beza fays, " they are rightly baptized, who " are baptized by fprinkling." J. WicklifF fays, " it matters not whether " they were dipped once or three times, or " whether water were poured upon their " heads." — •' That every one might acl ac- *• cording to the cuftom of the place." — '• He •• did not believe that total immerfion was " neceffary." Dr. " Hammond no where fays, that Bap- '• tifmos fignifies immerfion and nothing elfe." " He viewed it as extending to other modes " of wafliing," — " He never held that all " modes of baptizing, except by immerfion, " were unlawful and invalid." Dr. Gill, a Baptift, tells us, '• that the na- " live and proper {ignificafion of the origi- '• nal word baptizo, is to dip into water, or «' to plunge under water;" and Cafaubon, Bulinger, and Zanchy,are cited, fromLeigh's Criiica Sacra, as agreeing to this opinion ; K 2 1 14 AN APOLOCY FOR but be witbbolds from us wbat tbat critical autbor bad previoufly obferved, viz. " Al- " thougb tbe word baptize^ be derived from *' hapto^ tingo^ to dip^ or plunge into tbe wa- " ter, and fignifies, primarily, fucb a kind of '' wafbing as is ufed in bucks, wbere linnen " is plunged and dipped ; yet it is taken, *' more largely, for any kind of wafbing, rin- " fing or cleanfing, even where there is no " dipping at all ;'* and quotes Dr. Featly, as faying, " Cbrift nowhere requireth dipping, *« but only baptizing; which word (Hefy- " chius, Stephanus, Scapula, and Budaeas, " tbofe great mafters of tbe Greek tongue, '^ make good by very many inftances and al- " legations, out of tbe clafTic writer's.) im- " portetb no more than ablution, or wafbing.'* " Whitaker fays, the word bapiizo, figni- " fies not only to dip, but alfo to tinge or " wet." " Lightfoot fay?, the word Baptifm, doe* ** not always denote immerfion, but fome- •' times wafliing only, or even fprinkling." '• Maiiricht fays, it fignifies waQiing either •' by fprinkling or dipping." The fame opinion has been fincerely em- braced and well defended by many of the moft learned and eminent divines of our own nativ>n, viz. the Rev. Peter Clark, Dr. Mo- fcs Hemmenway, Dr. Samuel Hopkins, Dr. Jofeph Laibrop, and others; whofe abilities and chara6lers are extenfively known and uaiverfaily edeemed, and whofe writings may INFANT BAPTISM* 1 I5 be eafily obtained, by any perfon who wifhes to read them. Dr. Hopkins exprefsly obferves, " that « the mode of Baptifm, and the form and " manner of applying and uiing water, in this " ordinance, does not appear to be decided- " ly fixed in fcripture." — " That plunging, " pouring, and fprinkling, have been embra- " ced and praBifed by different churches." " That when the fcriptures are carefully ex= " amined, it will noi appear that plunging " was inftituted by Chrift, or pra6iired by " the Apoflles ; or that the original word, " tranflated Baptifm, or to baptize, invaria- " bly fignifies plunging the whole body under " water." — This he fays, «^has been partic- " ularly confidered and proved, over and o- " ver again, by writers upon the fubje6^, *^ Therefore, their opinion and praBice feem " moft agreeable to fcripture, who think no " particular form of applying water in Bap- *• tifm is there prefcribed, either by precept " or example, or by any thing faid on this " point." — " Confeqjently, every church is *' left to adopt that particular mode which '' appears to them moft decent and conveni- " ent; or, that different perfons may be re- " ally baptized, by the application of water, *' in different ways, Sec, Dr. Wall, in the appendix of his reply to Dr. Gale, mentions a remarkable inllance, in which the mode of wetting or of ap- plying water was certainly that oPpouring Il6 AN APOLOGY FOR and not that of dipping. It is as follows :— St. Ori^en, when commenting on the Bap- lifm of John, enquires thus of the Pharifees; " how could you think that Elias, when he *^ fhould come, would baptize^ who did not '' in Ahab's time baptize the wood upon the " altar, which was to be wafhed before it was " burnt by the Lord's appearing in fire ? But ^* he ordered the priefts to do that ; not once " only, but he fays, do it the fecond time; " and they did it the fecond time. And do *« it the third time ; and they did it the third " lime. Therefore, how could h be likely *' that this man, who did not then baptize^ " but afiigned that work to others, would w \\\v[i[t\^ baptize^ when he fhould, according *^ to the prophecy of Malachi, again appear ^' here on earth ?' We find in the firft book of Kings, xviir. 33, that the order given by Elijah was to fill four barrels with water, and pourxi on the wood and on the burnt offering. This^owr-. ing of uatcr^ Origen, that accurate fcholar, who lived in the fecond century, and was well acquainted with the Greek clafTics, and Greek Teflament. calls baptiz^ing In the very fame fentence, he makes ute of the Greek word Baplizo four times; twice with exprefs reference to the Bapdjm o{ John; and twice with exprefs reference to that Bap- tifm which took place in the days of the Prophet Elijah ; which Bapiifm, we are ex- prefsly told, was not performed by dipping INFANT BAPTISM. 1 1^ the wood and facrifice into water, but by pouring water upon thera. It is alfo evident, even from the frequent ufe of the word baptizo, by heathen authors, that it does not always (ignify a total immer- fion. Mr. Walker tells us, '• ihat Porphy- '• rie mentions a river in India, into which '' if an offender enters, or attempts to pafs '• through it, he is immediately baptized, up to '' his head ;" (baptizetai mcchn KephaUs.) Here a perfon is faid to be baptized, although his head did not go under, but remained above the water. This certainly was not a total immerfion. «' He alfo inftances a cafe from Mr. Syden- " ham, as delivered by the oracle (viz. afkos ** baptiziy dunai detoi on tkemis ejli.'") In which inftance, if ^ww^i fignifies to plunge wholly under water, as it certainly does, then baptize muft fignify fomething lefs than a total im- merfion. " Baptize him as a bottk, but it is not *' lawful to plunge him wholly under the water," The baptifm here defcribed, refembles that of a blown bladder or bottle of leather, which when put into the water, will not fink to the bottom, but fwim upon the top. The fame critical author mentions an in- ftance from Schrevelius' and Robertfon's Lexicons, 19th chapter, in which cafe, the primitive word bapto fignifies a wetting with water, that was certainly lefs, and very dif- ferent from a total dipping or immerfion.. The fentence is this j '(" Baptei men ajkon^ Il8 AN APOLOGY FOR " uddr de ngron duneipote ) He indeed baptizeth *' a bladder or bottle^ but it never goeth under iht *' liquid u:ater,'^ To thefe inftanccs, «we might add a well known cafe, taken from a poem attributed to Homer, called the battle of the frogs and the mice, in which the lake is faid to be baptized by the blood of a frog. (Ebapteto de aimai limiu porphuno.) This lake was not dipped into the blood of a frog ;" it was only befpattered and tinged therevviih. We could eafily multiply authorities if it were neceffary. It appears undeniably evi- dent from the Greek clafficks, and from learned writers and commentators, both an- cient and modern, that the word baptizb has other fignification^ bclides that of a total dipping or immerlion. The moil celebrated and refpeBable Lex- icographers and criticks have often tranf- lated baptizo into the following Latin words,. viz. baptizoNFANT BAPTISM. I27" Eaptoh the primitive word, and we have fhown from cuftomary ufage in the facred fcriptures, that it moft commonly fignifies to dip. Baptizo \s\is derivative, terminating in zo, and therefore, according to grammarian?:, is a daninittive^ and frequently ufed to exprefs a mode of wetting, lefs than total immerfion or dipping. This inference is fairly drawn from the etpnology of ihe word, and it will appear ftiH more evident, when we fhall attend to thofe feveral places in the New Teftament, where laptizo is ufed by the Apoftle^. I am. Sir, &c. LETTER XIL . SIR, At is well known, that the word BiUe^ now fignifies, and is, by common confent and ufage, reJlriHed in its fignificaticn, to the Book of Infpiration. The word Jcripture is alfo now applicable fokly to the writings of in- fpired men. But, as thefe words originally fignified, and were applied to any other book, or writing whatfoever, fo the original words baptize and haptijm^ which are now appropri- ated exclufiv^ely to a chriftian ordinance, formerly fignified, and were freqacntly ufed, even by the Apoftles, to exprcls other wet- 128 AN APOLCTgY for tings and wafhings of various kinds. This appears, not from the Englifh Teftament, but from the original Greek. For example. The wafhing of hands — the wafhing of houfe- hold utenfils and furniture — and the various wafhings and purifications of the Jews, are fometimes exprefled in the Greek Teftament, by the words haptizo and baptijmos. Thefe Wafhings, in the orig'nal language, are flyled haptifnih ; and undoubtedly the modes of ap- plying and ufing water in baptizing, or wafh- ing thefe different articles, were as various formerly, as they are at the prefent day. It is faid in the 7th chapter of Mark, " that " the Pharifees, when they faw fome of his ^' difciples eat bread with defiled (that is to ** fay, with unwa/hen) hands, they found fault ; " for the Pharifees and all the jews, except " they wafh their hands oft, eat not; and *' when they come from the market, except ** they wa/h (in the original, except they are " baptized) they eat not." It is alfo faid in Luke, xi. 37, " that a certain Pharifee aflied '• Jefus to dine with him. And he went in " and fat down tameat. And when the Phari- «* fee faw it, he marveled that he had not firft *^ wa/Jied before dinner." The fame word is made ufeofin the original, which has been noticed in the preceding paffage. " The " Pharifee marveled that he had not been " baptized before dinner." I am fenfible that you, and fome other Baptift writers, pretend, " that the baptifm or INFANT BAPTISM^ I2f " waffling here referred to, was performed by " bathing or by dipping the whole body into •' water, and that this was the mode, in whicb ^ the Jews were baptized or wafhed, efpecially '• when they came from the market, as thfy " were then fuppofed to be more than ordi- " narily defiled." But, Sir, this pretence proves nothing, iin- lefs it be the great flraits and difficulties, to which the Baptiftsare reduced, in attempting to defend their principles. It is not inti- mated that our Saviour or his difciples had' been to, or that they came from the market; nor is it any where faid or intimated, in the old or new Teftament, that the Jews did pra6llfe bathing, or dipping their whole bodies into water, before they dined, or eat bread. Befides, a pra61ice of this kind would have been, in many inftances, very inconvenient, and even irapraciicable. Dr. Pococke, thai .very learned divine, has fhown clearly, from the writings of Maimon- ides and ocher Rabbies, that the Jews never had fuch a cuftom. But they ufed to wafh their hands; and he exprei'sly tells us, that the mode of wafhing, was by having water drawn or poured upon them. This account agrees with what is faid in 2 Kings iii. 11, EliJJia poured water upon the hands cf Elijah. It alfo agrees well with the original word^ which is not ufed in the a8ive, but in the pajfive voice; a circumftance, which feems loiudicate that the water was applied to their 130 AN APOLOGY FOR. hands by fome other perfon ; or elfe that it was drawn out upon them, by means oF fome contrivance, provided for that purpofe. This opinion is farther corroborated by xht form and conflru8ion of thofe water pots which were made for the purpofes of their various purifications — We are told, " there '• were fet at a certain nvarriage in Cana of ■'• Galilee. Cix water pots, according to the ^* manner of the purifying of the Jews." Thefe water-pois being filled with water, which was afterward in a miraculous manner turned into wine by our Saviour, he ordered them to draw it off, and bear it to the gov- ernour. He did not dire6l them to dip it out, but to draw it ofF. Thefe large pots or pitchers were not intended as baths, to plunge or bathe the whole bady in, but for the cuftomary waf])ings and purifications of the Jews; and in particular, for the purpofe of wafhing their hands; and perhaps occa- fionally their faces and their feet; and it feems thefe pots were provided with cocks,. or with fome fuitable contrivance, in order to draw or pour ofF the water upon their bands, or into foirje frnallcr veiTel for the common ufes of purifying. The learned compilers of the Di61ionary of Bible, inform us, " that the Hebrews had '• an infinite number of purifications. For ^' example, they did not fo much as eat, nor *' even fit down to a table, till after they had IMTANT BAPTISM. I3I ^« wafhed their hands, hy pouring water from «' their fingers' ends up to their elbows." The pharifees did not find fault with the difciples, and marvel at thj^aviour, becaufe they refufed to dip themfeWes, or to be dip- ped all over u-nder water, before dinner; it ^vas becaufe tbev neglected to be baptized — n?gle6led to walh^y^eir hands. For the phar- ifees and all the Jezvs^ except they wafli their hands oft^ eat not. Accordingly, in the lan- guage of the new Teftament, a man is faid to be baptized, when only a fmall part of his body is walhed. It is alfo obfervable, that the word (bap- tizo) is further explained by another Greek word (nipto) which is here ufed in the fame fenfe, and is certainly reilrifted, in its figni- fication, to the wafhing of the hands. It therefore appears, that thofe perfons, who were thus wafhed, by dipping their hands in- to water, or by having water poured upon their hands, agreeably to the Jewifn cuitom, are faid, in the original, to be baptized ; which plainly fhows, that the Greek word baptize, as ufed in this place by the i^pof- iles, does not (ignify to immerfe or plunge the whole body under water. Saint Mark further obferves, «' that many " other things there be, which ihey have re- " ceived to hold, as ihe wafhings (in the o- « riginal it is Baptifms) of cups and pors, and " brazen vefTels and tables." Thefe fuper- ftiuous wafhings are twice expreffed by the '^:^^ AN APOLOGY FOU ~ ^Greek word (Bapiifmous) Baptifms. But we have no evidence ihat thefe wafliings were performed by dipping. The fmal! cups might probably have been dipped, partly or v;holIy under water ; but it would be very inconvenient, and even im- proper, to wafh large pots and kettles, or brazen veffels and tables, in this way.^ The common method of wafhing fuch articles, in all ages and countries, has beerr, and ftill is, by pouring water into or upon them, and by making ufe of friction, rubbing them with the hand or with a wet cloth. St. Mark and St. Luke have informed us, ^' that the pharifees and all the Jews were " very careful to be baptized, before they ^' dined, and when they came from the " market ;" and as careful to have their houfehold utenfils baptized; but they have not told us in what manner thefe Baptifms were performed. Tire mode was probably various. And as our tranflaiors have tranf- cribed the original word, v/henever it had reference to the ordinance of the Chrijlian Baptifm^ fo on thfe prefent occafion, they have, vtry properly tranjlcted it into the En- glifh word, waJJiing^ which is equally indefi- nite ; forit is not reftri6led, in its fignifica- tion, to any one method of applying and u- fing water, but is ftriclly applicable to af- peifion, affufion, or immerfion. As this argument is of confiderable weight-, we will now fee how you and other Bi^p- INFANT BAPTISM. 1 3 3 tift writers have confidered and explained ihe aforefaid pafTages of fcripture. You tell us, that thofe baptifins., viz. " ehaptijlhe^ in *' Luke, and haptifmom^ in Mark, have refer- " ence to, and mean acerenioniaija reiigiou?, ^- or rather, as may be more properly called " in thefe inftances, a fuperllitious wafhing;" and then fay, that " what is meant by a cere- " monial wafliing, may be f'een by looking •« into the ceremonial law." But, Sir, we wifh to know what is meant by thofe wafliings, which you havejuftly ftyled fuperjlitious. Ii appears to me very ftrange and unaccountable, that you and Dr. Gale fhould refer your readers to the law of Mo- {ts^ if! order to prove in what manner the Jews performed certain baptijms or wafhings, which the law of Mofes had never required. The Saviour fays, with exprefs reference to thefe wafhings, that the Jews, laying afidt ihe cojumandrnents of God^ held to the traditions of yyien ; and yet you and Dr. Gaie have point- ed us to a divine inftitution, in order to (how how that fuperftitious people waflied themfelvesj their hands, their brazen veflelsj tables, &c. Thefe haptifiiu^ or wafliiDg^, were evidently unauihorized. The palTdges which you and Dr. Gale have quoted are therefore totally inapplicable. We will nor, hcwever, paU them over entirely unnoticed. Your fiiil: quotation is taken from Num. xix. 13. •' And the z\fd.n y^txion^hdiW fpr inkle 134 **»^N APOLOGY FOR *' Upon the unclean on the third day, and on " the feventh day; and on the feventh day " he fhall purify himfelf, and wa(h his clothes, *' and fhall bathe himfelf in water, and fnall " be clean at even." This purification was appointed for thofe perions who had been polluted by touching a dead body, or fome unclean thing. The very text that you have cited, enjoins JprinkUng as well as bathing ; and if you had looked into the verfes immediately preceding and facceeding ii, you would have found JprinkUng repeatedly and exprelsly required, as being abfolutely eilential to their purifica- tion. The words of Mofes are as follow — '• and a clean perfon fliali take hvffop and dip *• it in the water, and ^dW fprinkk it upon the " tcnt- der the gofpel of Chrift, h«^ fsp, there is but one Bapiiff*^ Under the law of xViofes, the objeFiso? Baptifm were numercus and different — mankind^ and a mullitude of other things. Under the gofpel, there is but one chjeH — the human Jpc cits. Under the law^, the water made ufe of was minghd with various ingredients — with blood and the ajhes oj an heifer^ for the purpofe o^ fpr inkling the uncUan. Under the gofpel, the water to be applied in Baptifm, is iinmixcd and pure. — The prophet Ezekiel, INFANT BAPTISM. l^l perfonating the Saviour, bath prcdi8ed this very circumCtance, — Then will I fp'' inkle clean water, vpon you^ and ye fliall be clean; from all your filchiiufsy and from all your iduls ivill I cleanfe you. Thus the divrjity of Baptifrns under the law ferves to explain and illuQrate the fiin- ph'city and onenefs of Bapiifm, under the Gof- peh Thofe diverfe Baptifms were fornetimes repeated ; but the one Baptirm under the gofpel does not admit of repeiition. 1 know that fome of the Baptifts pretend, that the one Baptifoh " means one mode of " baptizing, to the exclufion of all others; " which mode is thai of dipping." But it appears from what has been faid. that this, was not St. Paul's meaning. Baptifrn^ and the Tnode of baptizing, are dif- tind things. The Apoftle does not fay there u but on" mode of baptizing. — There is only o?2e Baptifm ; but there are, ur;doubtediy9 feveral valid modes of admiiiiilering this or- dinance. Under the law of Mofes, two difFerent modes of Baptifm, or of facramental purifi- cation, bathing and fprinkling, v/ere panicu- larly pointed out, and exprefsiy enjoined. Under the gofpel of Chrifl, no particular mode is exclufively fpecified. " Chrift no ^^here requires dipping, but only baptizing." We have largely proved, that the original word has various frgnifications. It cannot be confidered as reflrifting Chriftians to any 1-42 AN APOLOGY FOR one particular mode, in the application and- uTe of water, in this religious ordinance. This one Bapiifm, of which we have been fpeaking, is the rn/)^ appointed token of regu- lar admiflPion into the vifible church of Chrift. St. Paul therefore mentions it, and urges it, among other confiderations of a fimilar na- ture, as a good reafon why chriflians of dif- ferent opinions (hould exercife miiiual ''/or- " hear mice and love^ endeavouring to keep the " unity of the f pint in the bond of peace.'" After the fame manner, he alfo reafons in his firfl Epiftle to the Corinthians,. i2ih chapter. " Now, there are diverjities o^ gifts^ but the ^•' fame fpirit — differences o^ admimjlration^^ but ^' the fame Lord — diverjities o^ operaticnsyhui ^' the fame God, which workeih all in all : " For by one fpirit are we all baptized into one " body^ whether roe be Jews or Gentiles^ whether ^' we be bend or free^ and have been all made to *^ drink into, one fpirit.'* I am, Sir, Sec, LETTER XIIL XT appears evidently from the preceding letter, \\\2ii perfons are faid in the original \.o be baptized^ when only ihtw hands were wafii- ftd, and probably by having water drawn or INFANT BAPTISM. I45 poured upon them. It appears alfo, that the wqfhings of houfehold utenfils and furniture, fuch as brazen vejftls and tables^ are ftyled in the original, haptifms. Thefe articles were undoubtedly wafhed by having water poured into, or upon them ; for the mode of dip- ping would have been very inconvenient and improper. Befides, the law of Mofes did not require that fuch things fhould be put into the watcr^ but that the water o\ Jepa- ration (hould be poured or Jprinkled upon them. It further appears, that the divcrfe, or different purifications of the Jews are called bapcifms in the Greek Teftament; which baptifms^ according to the Apoftle's own ac = count, were generally performed by fprink- ]ing» Indeed, this is the only mode of puri- fying, or of baptizing, which he has particu- larly mentioned. We therefore infer, that a total immerfion is not elTential to the fignifi- cation of baptifm ; but that a perfon or thing may be baptized by pouring or fprinkling, as well as by dipping, according to the orig- inal meaning of the word, as ufed by the in- fpired wriiers. In order to evade the force of the afore- faid arguments, " you and the Baptifts affert, '• that thofe purifications, called baptif?ns^ were *• bathings and not fprinkling^." This how- ever is mere afTenion — not even rendered plaufible, by any kind of evidence. VS e have admitted that the Jewifh purifica- tions or baptifms were performed in two -144 ^"N APOLOGY FOR dilFerent modes, namely, by afFufion and bathing. But it is not faid, that thefe waih- ings or bathings v;ere performed by total immerfion. The Jews were not required, in any part of their religious fervice, to dip or immerfe themfelves wholly under water, or to be thus totally immerfed by any body In fome inftances, the law of Mofes re- quired that individuals fhould be wafhed by other perfons ; and in fome cafes, that they fhould bathe themfelves ; but whether thefe bathings and wafhings were total or partial, or in what manner they were performed, no one can determine with abfolute certainty. There is however the greatefl probability that thefe bathings were not always total, and that they v/ere performed in a method, as different from the prefent mode of dippingj as from that of fprinkling. Thofe various purifications, by bathing, rinfing, and fpriiikling, which we have been confidering, appear to have been principally intended for particular cafes of occafional and local defilements. But in addition to thefe purifications, God ordered Mofes to make a lover of hi af^ and to place it between the tabernacle and the altar^ and to 'put water therein^ for the purpofes of pub- lick and official wafliings ; as we find record^ ed in Exod. xxix. 4, and in Levit. viii. 4 — 6. And thou Jl: alt bring Aaron and his fons to the door of the tabernacle^ and uajli thtm uiih INFANT BAPTISM. 1^^ water. And Mofes gathered all the congregation 'together^ at the door of the tabernacle ; and brought Aaron and his fons. and wa/Jied them zvith water. He did not dip them into water, but wafhed them with water. The laver was not a concealed bath, but placed in the moft confpicuous fituation ; and this wafhing was performed on the moft pub- lick occafion. We have no reafon to think that thefe perfons were wafhed, by being in- flantaneoufly dipped, with their clothes on ; and certainly they were not dipped naked. We have no reafon to think that Mofes wafh- ed their whole bodies, but only thofe parts which, according to the Hebrew cuftom, v;ere commonly not covered. This laver, which God commanded Mofes to make, and to fill wiih water, we are exprefsly inform- ed, was placed between the tabernacle and the aliay<) for Aaron and his Jons to woJJi their hands and feet thereat^ not therein, but there- ^t, or therefrom, as the original word fig- nifies. Exod. xxx — ig. We alfo find in the 40th chapter and 3ifl verfe of the fame book, that Mofes* and Aaron, and hisfons he came with his parents to Jerufalem to ob- ferve the pafTover. And when about thirty years old,, he was baptized. Although he defcended from the tribe of Judah, and ex- pe6led to be a prieft, after the order of MeU chizedek, he would not undertake the facer- dotal office until inaugurated by baptifm, as the Levitical law required. As the Jewifh purifications are denominat- ed baptifms^ by the Apoftle, fo that baptifm^ which Chrift inftituted, is properly the chrif tian purification. As the word (Loud) is commonly made ufe of in the old Teftament by the feventy for bathing or wafhing, fo it is fuppofed to be fometimes ufed in the New Teftament, for the Chrifiian Baptifm; and on this circumftance, you and the Baptift ap- pear to lay much ftrefs, as if it were a very' powerful argument in proof of the neceffity of to?al immerfion. We have already fhown that the ceremo- nial wafhings of the Jews were various ; and that they were performed by fprinkling, and bathing, and rubbing with the hand. The word Loiio^ is generally made ufe of to exprefs that kind of bathing, or wafhing, which is performed by fridion or rubbing> INFANT BAPTISM. I5I But Loub is very feldom if ever ufed for the Chriftian Baptifm. There are but four in- fiances, in which it is pretended that thi* word is thus ufed ; and in thefe, it is conneft- ed wiih, and explained by, the word Jprinh ling. The Apoftle,in his Epiftle to the Hebrews, X. 22, fays, " Let us draw near, having our ^^ hearts fprinkUd from an evil ccnfcience, and " our bodies zva/hed with pure water." Titus, iii. 5, «' He hatJi faved us by the zua/hing of " regeneration and renewing of the Holy " Ghoft, which he hath /hed,'' or poured '• on " us.'* — Eph. v. 26. " That he might fandify " it, having cleanfed it (meaning the church) '• with the wafhing of water by the word.** ift Cor. vi. 11, " But ye a7'e vjajli-d^ hut ye " are JanBiJied. Now the " Blood of Chrift which cleanfeth « from all fin," is ftyled the blood of fprink- ling. The fanQifying influences of God's fpirit are reprefented as '• being Jhtd^ or ^^ poured out like rain on the mown grafs, and " like (bowers that water the earth." St. Paul tells us, that fprinkling fauBiJitth to the purifying of the ftejh, — Be baptized and wajit azvay your fins, — Be baptized for the remiffion of fins. This external mater baptifm very natu- rally reprefents the deanfng effficacy of Chrifl's Hood and fpirit ; whofe blood is faid to be fprinkhd^ and whofe fpirii fs faid to be poured out upon us. 153^ AN APOLOGY FOR' ¥/e are faid to be " vqPied from our fins *^ in the blood of Chrift;" but the applica- tion of his blood is exptefTed hy fpr inkling, Chriftians are ftyled '' Elefl, according to ** the foreknov/le^ge of God, through fan6li- " fication of the fpirit unto obedience, and *• the fprinkling of the blood of Chrift." ^' Ye are come to jefus, the mediator of the " new covenant, and to the blood o\ [prink- " ling^ &c. 1 have often heard the Bapt'ft fay, with an air of triumph, i\\2ii fprinkling is not wafhing ; and with equal propriety, we might add, that dipping h not wafhing; for who ever fup- pofed any thing wafbed, by being only dipped into water, efpecially if that thing were, at the fame time, covered v;ith fomething elfe. The ufual mode of wafhing, in order to cleanfe any perfon or thing from dirt and fihh, I will venture to fay, is as different from the modern method o^ dippings as from that of Jp ■■inkling. But, Sir, the purification under confideration, is of an external and fpiritual nature, and does not depend upon the quan- tity of water, or manner of r.pplying it. In- deed, the whole ocean would be inadequate. But the fprinkling of Chrift's blood is fuffi- cient ; and the fprinkling of water is a fuffi- cient and very fuitable fymbol to reprefent his fprinkkd " blood, which cleanfeih from " all fiD." I am, Sir, &c. INFANT BAPTISM. 1^^ LETTER XIV. SIRy A FIMD the Greek word 3^/?^zzt^, bn t twice- ufed in the Septuagint. The firft inPiance is in the fecond book of Kings, v. 14. The pafTage has reference to Naa:Tian's wafhing himfelf in Jordan; which v/afhing is four times mentioned in this chapter ; once in the command of the Prophet; once in Naaman's refufal ; once in the advice of his ferv'ant ; and once in his aQual compliance. In the three firft inftances, it is expreiTed by loud, and in the lad, by bapiizo. We have already obferved, thai /owo has reference to that kind of wafhing which is commonly per- formed by rubbing, wiih a defign to make clean the perfon or thing thus wafhed. The idea or notion of a61ual cleanfing is there- fore radical, and feems eiTential to the figni- fication of the word loud. For example, Mofes was di reeled to xvajh the Levites. This waj}nng is afterward exprelTed by ckaiijing^ and the manner in '' which he fhould ckanfe '' them was by fpr inkling the uater of purifying ** upon them,'" Thus David prayed in the 51(1 Pfalm, " xva/Ji me thoroughly from mine in- '' iquity, and ckanfe mt from my fin." Which pafTage is thus explained, in the feventh verfe : '' Purge me, (or, as it is in the Greeks ^^fprinklc mej with hyfTop, and I fhall be 1^4 ^^ APOLCfCY FOR ^ clean ; wa/k me, and I (hall be whiter than " fnow." Naamanwas commanded towafh orcleanfe himfelf in or at Jordan ; and the manner of cleanfing is particularly defcribed in Levit. XIV — J. "And he fnall fprinkle upon him *' that is to be cleanfed from the leprofy feven '• times^ and fliall pronounce him chan^ &:c." Naaman was undoubtedly acquainted wiih the law of Mofes ; and expe^^ed to be clean- fed conformably to the mode of fprinkling therein provided ; for, we are told, he veri- ly " thought the prophet would come out to " hinj — and flrike his hand over the place^ and: ^•^ recover the leper." But the Syrian cap- tain v»7as difappointed, and the difoppoint- ment greatly enraged him. Elifha ordered him to go and it*^ ,, c r c 1 e a n fe ^ ^'^J^lf'^ ^^ J^ ^* dan; and, v^^e are told, that he finally went,, and aBually baptized himfdf Jeven iimes^ accord- ing to the faying of the man of God. The law required,, that the leper (hould be fprinkled feven times over running zvater^ which was the reafon why he was fent to the river Jordan. Naam.an aBualiy baptized himfelf feven times. Ij^ it not very natural to fup- pofe, that he took water in his hand^ and ap- plied it feven time.< to his own body, or at lead to that ^^/-^ which was It^prous ? For it feems the leprofy wa> not univerfal. This- i^ the only inftance, in which our tranflators- have uTed the word dipped. In the older E.ngli(h bibles, the place is rendered, he mafli- IN? ANT BAPTISM. 1.^5 e td himfelf in Jordan, There is, however, th greateii probability, that Naaman ^2.s f prink - led; for it is faid, in the Sepluagint, that he " baptized himftif feven times^ according to the ^'faying of the man of God ;" and we cannot beli«. ve that this man of God would have or- dered difcvenfold dippings in a particular cafe, where the lav of God exprefsly required a feven fold fprirkling. The other inftance oc- curs in liaiah xxi — 4, and has reference to a fenfe of God"s ang r. which is often repre- fenced ir. the fcriprures, as ht\r\g poured out upon a ptrion ; but as the word baptizo is here ufed figuratively, I do not confider the paflage of niiich importance in the prefent difpute. We have obfervcd that the primitive word baplo^ as ufed by the infpired writers* moft commonly Ggnifies io dip ; but yet there is cue very remarkable indance in the Old Teftament, in which iu fignifica ion is very different from that of dipping or immerfio'n — I have reference to the cafe of Nebuchad- nezzar ; w^here ic is laid, '^ that he was net " with the dew cf heaven.'' This inftai^ce is the more remarkable, as the word baptd is twice meniioned with refpe6l to the very fame effecf, as you will find in the book of Daniel, 4th chap. 33d verfe; and 5th chap. 21ft verfe. Dr. Gale and Mr. Booth have told us mar- velous {lories, about the wondeiful great dews, that fometimes faliin thofe hot eaftern 156 AN APOLOGY FOR countries, fo that poor Nebuchadnezzarj «' was, as it were, overwhelmed.'* But, Sirj I can fee nothing in all this, that even looks like dipping. The fa6l is, that Nebuchad- nezzar was not dipped or plunged into the dew of heaven, but the dew dijlilled from heaven, and fell upon him in fmall and fre- quent drops. He was* fp7^inkled^ and in that way, wet — baptized mih lis dijiillation. Hence =we infer, that as baptize h derived from bapto its theme^ it fairly admits of this fame fignifi- -cation. You feem to allow the premifes, but deny the confequence ; and tell us^ " that the argument is of the fame weight *' with the following ; your father believes " in fprinkling, as being Baptlfm ; you are " his offspriirg, and canfeqoently you be- <« lieve the fame ; when the faQ is, you are <^ largely convinced it is no fuch thing," Sir, I am incapable of feeing the analogy between the etymology ofa^reek word, and the derivation of a degenerate fon, and fhall therefore make no reply. But you will permit me to obferve, that \[ hapto. the primi- tive word, iome times 13gnify /a wet hy f prink' ling^ as it certainly does, then we may fairly and jiiftiy conclude, that baptizo, its deriva- tive, will alfo very naturally and commonly fignify lojprinkle. 1 am, Sir, Sec, INT ANT BAPTUSM. 1 ^J LETTER XV. A HE next argument, which I {hall men- tion, will be deduced from the Baptifm of the Ifraelites, when pafling under the cloud and through the Red Sea. The circumfLances and mode of this Baptifm are remarkably important, and merit our particular confid- eraiion. The importance appears from the very manner in which the Apoftle introduces and relates the affair; as you will find in the firft Epiftle to the Corinthians^ x — i, 2. " Moreover, brethren, / would not that yt ^^Jliould be ignorant^ \iO\^ that a// our fathers ^' were under the cloud; and all pafTed ^' through the fea; and were all baptized ULio " Mofes, in the cloud and in the fea." ChriRians of all denominations have ad- mitted, and will admit, thai this was a true and proper water Baptifm, although exfraor- d'.nary and miraculous — all will alfo admit, that the whole congregation, infants as well as adults, were then baptized. The only quef- tion therefore, at prefent, is refpe6ling the mode or manner in w-hich the water was ap- plied. Now, it is plain, that the Ifraeli'es were not dipped into the cl'-.^ud. Infpiration exprefsly fays, they were under tht cloud — not in it. — They were not dipped into ihe fea, nor did they wade into its waiersf for ia^ O 158 AN APOLO GY FOR fpiration exprefsly fays, that they paffed through on dry land. Although our tranflators have made ufe of the Englifh word z?z, (in the cloud, and in the fea) yet it is worthy your notice, that the dative cafe in the Greek language, is com- monly and properly ufed inftrumentally after the prepofition fen; ) as in Matthew, xii. 27. " If I by Beelzebub (en Beclzcboul) caft out " devils, by whom (en tini) do your children " cad them out ?" In this fhort fentence, the i/^/zt'd cafe, is twice rightly ufed as the inftru- ment, after the prepofition (in ;) and it mighty with the greateft propriety, have been thus tranflated in the pafiage we have been con- fidering. The cloud commonly preceded the If- raelites, in order todireB: their courfe. But at the Red Sea, we are told that ** it -went from " before their Jace^ andjlood be hind them — between *' their camp^ and the camp of the Egyptians^ In thus going from the front to the rear of their encampment, it probably paffed over their heads ; for St. Paul exprefsly tells us, that they all were under the cloud ; and were all baptized by the cloud. They were undoubted- ly fprinkled and wet with or by the drops of rain, which defcended and fell upon them from the cloud. This conftruBion is the mod natural and obvious that can be imagin- ed, aMTici therefore preferable to any other. To 'this Baptifm, holy David feems to allude in the 68th Pfalm. » O God, when INFANT BAPTiSM. ^59 "thou wenteft forth before thy people — ^' when thou didll march through the wilder- ** ncfs, Selah — the earth fliook — the heav- " en^, 2i\Co, dropped at the prefence of God. — '• Thou. O God. didft fend a. plentiful rain, " whereby thou didft coiifi'-m thine inheritance ''• when it was zveary.'' \Vhile they marched through the Tea, we are told that '• the w'aters ^' wQrc congealed inio a heap, and ft )od as " a wall unio them, on the right hand and on " the left." The waters being thus divided, the paffage was dry. It is exprefsly faid, in F.^ur different places, •* that [he ground — that *• the land^ on wbicn they zvalked, was dry.'' But drops of rain undoubtedly fell upon them from the cloud; and /prays of water were dafhcd or blown upon them from the furface of the fea. This was a real and literal baptifm, adminiftered in the iiiode oF affufion ox Jpr ink- lings and by the unerring hand of God him- fclf. You have not attempted to explain this unpropitious paffage. Oiber Baptift writers have tried in vain to prove that the Ifraelites were dipped Dr. Giil. who was not eafily woriied, could neither untie nor cut the knot. Having done his utmoft, all he pretended, was a jeeming immerfion. They had the waters, he tells us, on each fide of them, and the cloud over them, fo that they zcere as per- fons immerfed. Speaking of their defcent into the fea, he fays " they fee7ned as though they ^' were buried in the waters of it; and their l6o AN APOLOGY FOR " afcent again out of it on the fhore, has a ^' great agreement io baptifm hy irrmerfion." What ftrange language ! *' They were as per- *• fons immerfed " " They feemed^ as though- '• they were hMntdi in the waters." ^* A great '• agrrement to baptifm by immerfion." Ac- cording to the Do6lor's own account, there was no reality in the cafe — noihi ng but niere appearance. '' Theyfeemed as though iheyzcere *' buried, in the waters. — Thev feemed as though *• ihey were baptized." For you and the Baptifts tell us there can be no ?Ytz/ baptifm,, vi'hout a real arJ total \\r\mQx^\on — that it is abfolutcly neceffary to have the whole body equally dipped^ and wet^ and wajhtd thereby, in water. The Fcid is, Mofes and Paul, have guarded this important national baptifm, with fuch uncommon caution, that we cannot very eafily evade or mifreprefent its mean- ing, either wi?h refpe6t to the fubje^ls, or mode, in which they were baptized. The fuhjcB.y of biptifm were the whole na'ion, adults arid infants ; and the mode was certain- ly that oi off '.ifi on or fpr inkling. As wc have obferved-, God fent them a plentiful rain^ whereby he di:i conjinn his inheritance v;hen it was wea-y. Thefe words of the Pfalmift are remarkably applicable. " The Ifraelites being feparated from all other nations, for religious purpofes, are frequently called the heritage and inheritance of God. Having, fled in hafte from Egypt, and being purfued bv their enesnies, thev were undoubtedly^ INFANT BAPTISM, 161 v[\\iq\\ fatigued. Nothing .could be more de- (irable than a xt^Tt^hing JJiower ; efpecially when we confider their weaned condition, in a hot^ dry country, where it very feldom rained. By this rain^ the Pfalmill fays, they were con- finned. He ufes the very iame term, which is repeatedly appHed by others, and even by himfelf, to the Abraham.ic promife and cove- nant. '• Be ye mindful always of his cove- '• nant ; the word which he commanded to a " thoufand generations ; even the covenant " which he mads with Abraham, and his oath "unto Ifaac; and hath confirmed ihQ fame '* unto Jacob for a lax'^ and unto Ifrael, for '• an everlafiing covenant,'' This is that cove- nant, which, the Apoftle telis us, '• was con- ''firmed of God in ChriR." It was confirmed by the token of circumjciGon — con finned by the oath of God, and confirmed by baptifm. The whole nation was baptized. No lefs than Gx hundred thoafand efFedive men, be- (ides aged msn, women and children, were baptized in a miraculous manner, by God himfelf. It is wonhy our particular notice, that baptifm. the ancient confirviation of the Abra- hamic covenant, has commonly been applied to the Gentile profelytes, even from the days of Moles to the prefent time. Thofe Gen- tiles who embraced the Jewifh religion, males and females, together with their in- fant children, we have abundant reafon to believe, were baptized, even before our O 2 162 AN A?OLOCY FOR Sariour*s incarnation ; and fincc that period, the fame praftice has generally obtained, and is ftill continued, among profefling chrif- tians. Thus this baptifin of the Ifraelites, con- cerniiig which the Apoftle is not willing that wejhoiild remain ignorant^ \s evidently a very important and inftruBive event. It was typical of the Chriftian Baptifm ; and points US', not only to adults^ h\x\. alfo to infants^ as the proper fuhjcHs ; and to fprinklmg, as a proper mode of baptizing. But, Sir, upon your principles, this impor- tant, national baptifm, appears perfedly in- explicable and unintelligible. You cannot fay, wnth St Paul, that they all were baptized, for this would imply in/anl baptifm. You can- not fay, that even the adults waded into the fea, and were baptized^ according to the Bap- tifl mvode of dipping. The Egyptians were overwhelmed ; but infpiration exprefsly fays, that the IfraeUtcs went through on dry dry laad^ and dryjhod. It is certain they were not dipped. You cannot fay that the\ were bap- tized vviih rain from the cloud, and with [prays fiom the fea; for this would be affvjivn or Jprinkling. All th^it ) ou can poffibly fay is, that It fetmed like baptifm. This manner of cxpr-v ffion, however, does not even feem to agree with .hat St. Paul has faid. He does not fpeak o^ 3.fee7ni?2g, but of a real baptifm. He explicitly declare^?, " that they all were ** under the cloud, and all palfed t.hrough the hNFANT BAPTISM-. 1^3 *< Tea ; and were all baptized in, or rather by^ «« the cloud, and ^jv the Tea." His language is of the moft general and pofitive nature. But I can difcover nothing, according to the baptift principles, that even looks h'ke a rtal baptifm. A feeviing immerfion or burial, without being wel in the leaft degree thereby — without having fo much 2iS one drop of water touch them, is neither conformabfe to the meaning of the word baptifm, nor to any mode of baptizing. Dr. Hemenway juftly obferves, " that if a perfon could be baptized, *^ without being wet, merely by having water *^ round him, then, the dry hold of a fhip '* would anfwer the purpofe, as well as Jor- *' dan." It is very eafy to fee where the difficulty, on your fide of the queftion, lies. For, if it fhould once be admitted, that the Ifrael- ites were baptized, by being aBua^lly wet with water, every body would fuppofe the mode was that of afFufion or fprinkling. It is therefore deemed neceffary, by feme, to fupprefs the very idea of wetting — an idra, or notion^ abfolutely ejftntial to every valid mode of baptizing. We are often told, that fprinkling is not baptifm; " that a few drops of water ^ poured '' or fprinkled on a perfon's face, is a mere *'• nullity ;" that a total wetting and wafliiiig, by dippings is indifpenfably reqoifite, in or- der to baptifm ; and yet thefe very people fcem to believe, that a whole nation was bap- 164 AN APOLOcr FOR' tized, while pafTing through the Tea, by a feeming immerf.on^ without being v;et at aU thereby ; without having a fingle drop of its water touch them. You will perhaps think, that I have dwelt too long upon this argument. But, Sir, re- member, St. Paul confidered the baptifm of the Ifraelites. ^^ the cloud andly the fea^ as an event of great importance, and was very anxious to have it rightly underftood. I am. Sir, Sec, LETTER XVI. SIR, 1 jET us now attend to that remarkable ex- preffion of our Saviour, Luke xii— 50. '' / " have a baptifm^ to be baptized zuiih^ and how '• am I Jlraightened. till it he accovipli/Jied /" As my opinion, relative to this and fimilar paf- fages, accords with Dr. Hemmenway's, I fhall exprefs it, in his language, he being an au- thority of great weight. " Chrid," the Dr. fays, " here calls his fufferings a baptifm. '• But it feems to me, that commentators have " miffed the true interpretation of thefe «• words. They fuppofe the baptifm here '' fpoken of, is to be taken in a metaphori- «' cal, and not in a literal fenfe. Hence, feme '' have argued in favour of the mode of dip- INFANT BAPTISM. 165: " ping, as moft fitly expreflive of ibe fuffer- *' ings of Chrift, who was plunged and funk. '• in anguifh and diftiefs. Oihers argue as •' well and as fairly in favour of the mode of '' affufion, as expreffive of the pourificr out '• the curfe of God, and the vials of his *' wrath, due to our fins, upon Chtifl, the '• atoning facrifice. Thus people, expl-iin « the fuppofed metaphor, according to their "different views. But rnethink^ the plain,. " literal fenfe is more apt and natural, rhaa " either or thefe farfetched interpretations. '- The facred body of the bleffed Jefus was " truly and literally, baptized. He was wet •• and bathed in his own tears, and fweat. and *• blood, while in his agony in the garden,. " when fcourged, and when nailed to the " crofs. He was baptizt d and "anftified by '• the blood of the covenant, Keb. x — 2^ — " that is, by his own blood ; even as the '• Jewifh high priefts '.vere baptized, fan6lifi-^ *' ed, and confecra^ed, with water and the " blood of beafts, as types of Chrift; And " accordingly, it was a common exprefiTion oT " the ancient fathers, concerning the martyrs "who had fhed their blood in bearing wit^ '' nefs to the chriflian faith ; that they were *^ baptized with their own blood. Here is " (hen, I think, an other good proof, that- " dipping is no ways elFcntial to baptifm : " Foi Chrift was not dipped, and his martyrs- *^ wer-fe not dipped, in their bloody baptifm; **-but he was wet, and tinged, and bathed, ia; l66 AN APOLOGY FOR ^' his own fweat and blood, iffaing- froni his •* pores and veins. Our Saviour told the two Tons of Zebedee, '* that they Jhould be baptized with the baptifm " that he was baptized zvith." It is worthy our notice, that this prediBion was literally fulfilled. Thefe difciples were literally bap- tized, though in different modes ; one by af- fufion, and the other by immerfiori. James was beheaded, and in that way baptized with the affufion of his own blood. J<"^bn was cariied to Rome,, and thrre plunged into boiling oi', but miracuouflv preferved from injur)', and afterward banilhc^d to the ifle of Patmos. Although the fufferings of Chrift were all antecedent, and preparatory to his death, yet his facred body, that facrifice of himfelf, which he offered up to God, was alfo literal- ly baptized with the blood and water that iffued from his pierced Tide. St. John informs us, that he was prefent and a fpedator of the fcene. He repeatedly mentions it as an e- vent of great iniporiance. He tells us, that '• he Jaw one of the foldiers pierce his fide with a ^^ Jpear^ and forthwith came thereout hlocd and " water,'' In his firll Epiftle, 5th chapter, 6th and"8ih vrrfes, he feveral times alludes to this very event, and obferve.*^, '^ this is he ** that came by water end bloody even Jejus Chrifl^ ^' not by water only^ but by water and blood.'' He adds further, ^Hhere are three^ who beat' INFANT BAPTISM. l6j " witnefs in earthy the fpirit^ and the water ^ and <' the blood ; and thefe three agree in one»^ At the time of our Saviour's baptifmal in- auguration, he was baptized by the Holy Ghoft. '• The Spirit defcended vifibly in the ^' form of a dove and lighted upon him^ and tef " tified with an audible voice^ this is my beloved *• Son^ &c." And whenhe had fini/hed his work, and was a6lually dead, both the blood and the -water, with which his body was bap- lizcd, exhibited their tefiimony, in proof of the farae truth. The Apoflle exprefsly tells uf. that a will or teflamtnt cannot efFeQually exift, or have d.ny J} rengch, zchile the tefiator is alive ; but the very moinent his death takes place, it is in full force. Every thing which happened relative to our blelTed Saviour, previoufly to his death, were events under the old te (lament or cov- enant. The blood and water, which iflued from his fide, were events after his death, and therefore under the new teftament or covenant. The piercing of our Saviour's fide was an event of importance, it being the fulfilment of a remarkable prophecy. The iffuing of blood and water, thus feparated, were impor- tant events, becaufe they afforded the mod publick and certain evidence ihat be was ac- tually dead. They were alfo very important, becaufe his death, and his baptifn with blood, and with water, were the antitypes, acccmplijli- l58 AN APOLCfCY FOU ment and end^ of all thofe bloody facrifice^Ss and of all thofe purifications or haptifms, which had been fo often, and for fo long a time, performed by the fprinklvig of mixtd blood and wate?-^ under the Mofaic difpenfa- tion. Thus, the fpirit^ the water^ and the bloody agree in one point, Fhefe three wit- nefles unite their teftimony, in vindicating the Mcffiahfhip of Jefus Chrift. The 9th and loth chapters to the Hebrews merit our particular attention. " The high " prieft, under the law, did not enter the holy ^' place of the temple, without the blood of *' faciifices, which he offered for himfelf, and *' for the errors of the people, once every *' year (on the great day of expiation.) But «' Chrift, not by the blcod of goats and calves, ^ but by bis own bloody hath entered, once for '' j//, into the holy place not made with " hands; and hath procured redemption for '^ us. For this caufe, he is the mediator of " the New Tejlamtnt, For where a it /lament <« e5, there mtifi of neceffiiy be the death of " the tefiator. For a tejlament is o^ force after «' men are dead^ but has no flrength at all, «' while the tejlator livtth. Whereupon the f fird tejlamcnt was not dedicated without ^^ blood. For when Mofes had fpoken every <• precept to all the people, according to ;he '* law, he took \.\\€ blood of goats and calves, '• with zvater* and fcailet wool, and by (Top, ^' and fprinkled both the book and all the <• people 5 faying, this is the biod of the I-NFANT BAPTISM. 169 ^ tcjlament which God hath enjoined unto *« you. Moreover like wife, he fprinkled with « blood both the tabernacle and all the veffels " of the miniftry ; and almoft all things are, *' by the law, purged with blood. Sec, It <* was therefore neceffary, that the patterns of " things in the heavens, (hould be purified ^' with thefe ; but the heavenly things them- ^^ f elves i with better facrifices than thefe^' &c. &c. Thofe various purifications of the Jews, and efpecially that eminently great and ex- piatory purification, which was adminiftered by the hand of Mofeshimfelf, and afterward by the hand of the high prieft, once every year, was performed by i\\q, fprinkling of blood and water, Thefe purifications, which were effjded by the fpri7ikling of blood and vuater^ the Apoltie exprcfsly calls baptifms^ as we haVe largely fhown. But Chrift, whofe death was reprefented and prefigured by all the Jcwijii offerings^ and whofe bloody ba'ptifm was typifitd by all their baptifms or fprinkling<^ of blood and water ^ was himfelf purified " with " better facrifices than thfe." He ^d^s fprink- led^ was baptized with the blood and water that ifTued from the pores of his own body — from his naikd hands and pet^ and from his pierced fide. Tills was emphaiicaliy " the blood of '• the nev itftanficnt and covenant^ whereby he was ^* faadified^^' and confecrated an acceptable faciifice to God. We have no difpofiiion to invalidate the mode of baprizing bv immerfion. The va- P 170 AN APOLOGY FOR lidity of one particular mode does not nuU lify, or prove the invalidity of another, as the baptifts imagine. Nor is the metaphor- ical interpretation of Chrift's bloody bap- tifm inconfiftent with its literal and natural meaning. In the figurative language of the old teftament, waters, and floods, and waves, and billows, whether they come over a perfon, or whether ht Jinks into them, are fometimes made ufe of to exprefs great afflidions and fufferings. Accordingly, David fays, Pfalm Ixix — 1, 2, " The waters are come into my foul ; " / Jink in deep mire ; I am come into deep " waters'' And in the 42d Pfalm, " All thy '' waves and billows are gone over me^ &:c." By ihefe exprefTions, the Pfalmift had undoubt- edly a primary reference to himfelf. But if it fliould be fuppofed, as fome baptifl wri- ters tell us, " that fuch paflages are alfo '• prophetical, and have refpe6l to the laft *' baptifmal fufferings ofCbrift5and therefore «' favour the mode of baptizing by immer- «• fion ;" ftill there is nothing in this fuppofi- tion, which dilproves, or even appears unfa- vourable to the mode of affufion or fprink- ling ; efpecially when we confider that great fufferings are frequently reprefented in the fcriptures by pourings as well as by plunging. It is faid, in the 22d Pfalm, 14th verfe, with particular reference to the fufferings ofChrift, '' J am poured out like water,'' And in Daniel ix — 1 1,27. " The curfe is poured out upon us^" and that 'f the confummation is poured upon thi INFANT BAPTISM. I7I " defolatey The very fame word is here ufed which the Apoflle applies to the crucifixion of Chrift. " He was made a curfe for us, as '• it is written* curfed is every one that hang- '• eth on a tree." — '• The anger and fury of ^' Almighty God, and -vials of his wrath, are '• reprefented as being poured out upon na- •• lions and individuals." Thefe metaphors are in feme refpeQs ap- plicable to the fufferings and baptifm of Ciirill; but the liceral Tenfe appears to me much the moft natural, fignificanf, and im- portant. Chrift, by being literally baptized wiih the blood and xvater that ifTued from his own body, hath literally fulfilled, and put an end to, all the bloody rites, facrifices, and baptifms of the old teftament. Under the new teftament, the baptifmal water is not to be mingled with blood or the aJJies of a facrificed heifer. All compofitions and mixtures are to be laid afide. " I will Jprinkle^' fays Chrift, «' dean water upon you, " and you (hall be clean*' — '« So Jhall he " fprinkk many nations,'" 1 am, Sir, head. I perceive that you have adopted a lan- gt^ige, firr.r'ar to ,that of Dr. Gill and Mr. Boo'h. Whenever perfons are baptized by an affufirn of dcrv^ or rain, or of the Holy Spi- rit, \[ i> of courre thought to be fo abundant, £s to "look cop.fiderably like immeiHon." But, Sir, after all that lias b.^en faid, there is 2n iinpottant difPrence. betvv'cen a " feem- Jiig inimeifion," and a real aflufjon. INFANT BAPTISM. 1 75 TTiere is another thing which I have fre- quently noted. Formerly, the baptifts, with whom I have been acquainted, commonly ufed the word dipping ; after a whi'e, they in- trodiiced plunging ; ih^n. imynerjion ; and lat- terly, overwhelming^ which is evidently a word of very indefinite meaning, and as different ia iis Signification from dipping*, as it is from pouring. You could not fay that the Apoftles were dipped into the Holy Ghoft. This language would have been intolerably uncouth. You therefore tell us, that they were overwhehned, I fuppofe yoir mean by a plentiful affufion. Let us examine this matter a little further^ and fee how the facred fcriptures explain it.. Baptifmy by water, is an emblem of bap- tifm by the Holy Spirit. The infpired w-ri- ters have therefore repeatedly aflociated thefe baptifms, even in the fame fentence, as if they w^ere nearly related. John, the Bapti- zer, exprefsly declares, as in Matt, iii — ii.. Mark i, 8. Luke iii. 1 6. John i 33. <' J, indeed,- '• baptize you -with water, but he (hall baptize *'• you zoiih the Holy Ghoft." Sc. Matthew and Luke have both added the word Jire, " He fhall baptize )0J with the Holy Ghoft^ '• and with fire,'' This remarkable predic- tion is mentioned by each of the four Evan- gelifti : And in the AHs of the Apoftles, it is twice applied, by Chrift himfelf, to \\\& pour- ing out of God's Spirit; as in the ift chap- ter and 5th v^rfe. " For John truly baptized 176 AN APOLOGY FOR " with water ; but ye fhall be baptized with the " Holy Gho/lj not many days hence." And in the 11th chapter, 16th verfe — "Then re- " mennbered I the word of the Lord, how " that he faid, Jfohn indeed baptized with vater^ " but yt fhall be baptized v.ith the Holy Ghojl,'* In the original language, the Greek words are en iidati, with water ; en pneumati agio^ with the Holy Ghoft ; kai puri, and with fire. Thefe words are Gorre6lly tranflated. I have already obferved, that the dative cafe, in the Greek language, when it follows and is gov- erned by the prepofition en, is commonly and properly ufed inftrumentally. The water^ the Holy Ghoji, and the Jire, are accordingly mentioned as the injlniments, by which they were baptized. This criticifm is juft and important; and it ferves to elucidate the mode or manner, in which bapiifm was ad- miniftered. It would be proper to fay, I fprinkle you zyzVA water; or, I baptize you with water, by afFufion. But it would be improper to fay, I dip you with water; 3.nd jiiji as improper, to fay, 1 baptize you with water, if the raode of baptizing were that o^ dipping. If a perfon be plwnged or dipped, he is then baptized in water. Bat if a perfon be fprinkled, or has the baptifmal element applied to him in any mode whatfoever. he is then baptized by or with water. And thus, when perions are faid to be baptized tt/zVA the Holy Ghoft, the ex- preffion has particular reference to the affii- INFANT BAPTISM. I'jf Jion or pouring out of God's Spirit. For this k the viode^^ according to fcripture language^ by which his influences are communicated to mankind. St. Peter, that very Apoflle who preach- ed, and who was an eye and an ear witnefs^; of thofe wonderful events, which happened' at :he feafl of Penticoft, obferves, A61s ii — 17, 33, that this was the fulfilment of the prophecy of Joel. " It fnall come to pafs in " the laft days, faith God, I will pour out of my '' fpirit upon all flefh," &c.— '• That Chrift '* being by the right hand of God e>alted, and " having received of the Faiher the promife " of the Holy Ghoft, he hath fned forth this. " W'hich ye now fee and hear." This man- ner of expreffion alludes to the mode^ in which they were baptized hy the Holy Ghoji. It was not by dipping. The Spirit was Jhtd forth^ and poured out upon them. All hough this was the moft copious and extraordinary afFufion that ever happened, i^ is never expreffed by the word dipped.^ plunged^ immei'Jed^ or over- zvhelmed. Indeed, ihefe words are no where ufed in the facred volume, relatively to bap- tifm, either with water or with the Holy GhoJl-. I believe we may fafely truft and adopt the language of infpiration, which fays, the Holy S^Arh v/as/hed forth and poitred out upon them. The fame and fimilar language is made ufe of on common and more ordinary occafions, as- we read in A6ls x — 44. " While Peter yet " fpake thefe words, the Holy Ghoft fell. oUi 178 AN APOLOGY FOR " all them which heard the word." xi — 15. '' And as he began to fpeak, the Holy Ghoft " /e// on thevi as on us at the beginning." Which exprefifion is conformable to A61s i — 8—" Ye fhall receive power, after that the " Holy Ghoft is cojne upon you.'' This com- munication or bapiifm of God's Spirit is rep- refented " by the dew'' — '• hy the rain" — «« ly ^^ fiioxers'' " He fhall come down like rain ^' upon the moion grafs^ and like Jlioxvers that " water the earth." " / will pour^ faith God, " waters on the thirjly, and Jloods on the dry " ground j I will pour my Spirit on thy feed, and " my hlejfing on thine offspring" '• It is called " an unBion fro7n the II. ly One ;" which is an allufion to the ancient cuftom of pouring on the head, the confecrating oil. The Spirit is faid to come upon — to fall upon them — to befJicd forth — and to be poured upon them. This language is perfeftly familiar and in- telligible to Jews and Chriftians; and has therefore been adopted by the Prophets and Apoftle^. It correfponds with their ufual modes of purif;;ing, and of baptizing with water. The fanftifying and comforting in- fluences of God's Spirit are often aptly rep- refented in the facred fcriptures by the em- blem of water. The comn)unication of thefe influences is emblematically reprefented by the affufion and fprinkiing of water in the ordinance of baptifm. '* I indeed baptize you " zvith water." I pour and fprinkle water upon you ; " but he Jhall baptize you with the INFANT BAPTISM, 179 " Holy Ghojlr—n^ fhall Jhed forth and pour out upon you his bleffed Spirit, and fprinkk your hearts and. confciences thereby, and purify them from the guilty ftain of fin, I think, Sir, that the good Mr. Cleaveland has no reafon to be afh?med of the argument, upon which, you fay, " he lays fo much " ftrefs." Who can reafonably doubt the validity of baptifm by affiijion, when he finds baptizing^ JJiedding Jorth^ pouring-) fpr inklings and anointings fo frequently ufed by the pen of infpiration, in the fame fenfe, as words of the fame, or fimilar fignificalion ? I am. Sir, &€. LETTER XVIII. SIRy -L-jET us now enquire after the true mean- ing of that well known paffage, recorded in Romans, vi. 4. '• Therefore we are buried " with hi7n, hy baptifm^ into deaths'' Sec. A fimilar expreflion occurs in Coloflians, ii. 12. Some perfons fuppofe the word buried, as here ufed by the Apoftle, is to be underftood literally^ as having reference to the mode of bapiizing by immerfon. Others fuppofe it is to be underftood figuratively, as having reference to the burial offin^ which the Apof- tle here calls the body of fin — our old 7nan, We iSo AN APOLOGY FOA fee plainly in what the difference of opiniofi confifts. Now, is the literal, or is the figura- tive fenfe, to be preferred ? This is the quef- tion. It is a fa6l univerfally acknowledged, that the infpired writers have fometimes ufed particular words, literally, and fometimes, figuratively. But it will not be fafe and proper, for every individual to adopt either the figurative, or the literal fenfe of words, as fhall befl fuit his principles and prejudices in other refpeds. This pra6lice would cer- tainly be very fallacious and even dange- rous. We evidently need fome eflabliflied rule, in order to aflift and dire8; our judg- ment in this matter. The following rule, I believe, has been generally approved by ju- dicious and impartial chriftians, of all de- nominations, viz. That the literal fenfe ought always to be preferred, when it is a- greeable to the context — to the general tenoitr of the fcriptures, and to the common ufe of the word by infpired writers. But if oiher- wife, we are bound to givQ the preference to a figurative fenfe ^ which is not inconjijlent with the context, or with the real fenfe of fcrip- ture in general^ or with that particular fenfe^ in which the word is commonly ufed. We find, in ihe facred fcriptures, very fre- quent accounts of burying the dead. The cir- cumftance^ of their burial are repeatedly men- tioned. But the word burial is never made ufe of, in a literal kn^e, with refpea to the liviiig. When our Saviour commiffioned his INFANT BAPTISM. l8l ■- Apoftles to adminifter the ordinance of bap- tifm, he did not command them to biny per- fons under water; or to baptize them b^ a burial. We have many inftances on facred record of perfons, to whom the ordinance of baptifm was adminiftercd; but it is not faid nor intimated, that a fingle individual was buried in the water, or baptized by a buriaL This word, in its literal ufe and fignification, appears to be appropriated, exclufively, to the dead. I believe there is not fo much as one inflance, either in the old or new tefta- menr, of its being uTed h'terally with refer- ence to any perfon alive^ or with reference to the mode of baptizing. It is evident from the context, that our being '• buried zvith Chriji into death^'' as men- tioned in the 4th verfe ; and our being « planted together in the likenefs of his death^'' as mentioned in the 5th verfe; and our be- ing *' crucified -with him," as mentioned in the 6th verfe, are phrafes of the fame or fimilar (ignificancy. How then (hall we explain and underftand thefe parallel expreflions ? Shall we underftand one of thefe expreiTions literally, and the other two figuratively, as may be mod agreeable to our particular no- tions ? This would not be impartial and right. We ougl t to underiland all of them literally, or all figuratively. Now. it is olain that all thefe expreffions may, with great propriety, be underftood according to the figurative interpretation ; but it is inipofiTible O ^ i82 AN APOLOGY FOR to underfland each one according to its lit- eral meaning. The A poll le fays, *' our old man is crucijiei « with Chriftr And in Gal. ii— 20. " 1 am " crucijied with Chrift." And in the 5th chap- ter, 24th verfe. " They that are Chrifl's have " crucijied the flefh. &c." No perfon, I pre- fume, fuppofes that we muft, by baptilm, be literally crucified ; that we muft b^ aftually nailed to the crofs, and there fuffer the ig- nominious and painful death of crucifixion. Every one will admit, that thefe paflages are to be underftood figuratively. — " It is the old *' man — the body o/Jin' — our vicious difpofi- tions and lufts, that are to be mortified and flain. '' Know ye not," fays the Apoftle, " that «' fo many of us, as were baptized into Jefus '' Chrift, were baptized into his death ? '^ Therefore we are buried with him, by bap- ^' tifm, into death; that like as Chrift was '« raifed up from the dead by the glory of '« the Father, even fo we alfo fliould walk in *' newnefs of life. For if we have been " planted together in the likenefsof his death, *' we (hall be alfo in the likenefs of his ref- « urreftion, &c." Now, to be buried with Chrijl, by baptifm. into death ; and to be plant- ed together^ in the likenefs of his death; arc certainly fynonimous expreffions. But. Sir, where is the likenefs^ where is the r 'fem- blance, between a burial in water, a dipping, as Dr. Gill calls it, and the death of Chrift ? INFANT BAPTISM. 183 — the crucifixion of Chrift ? For he died on the crofs. Mr. Simeon Snow, a ferious and fenfible writer, having been a baptift minifter,in this country, for many years, and who has latter- ly altered his fentiments, very juftly obferves, " That he could not fee the lead likenefs or *' refemblance, between the death of Chrift, " as reprefented by the four Evangelifts, and " baptifm by immerfion. If Chrift had died " by being drowned^ there would have been '^ a likenefs." The mode of dipping would then refemble the manner of his dying. But a literal burial in water diicovers no refem- blance to the death of the crofs, or to the place and manner in which his dead body was buried. The land of Judea abounded wiih large rocks, -which were partly above the furface of the ground. In thefe,. the rich prepared tombs, which were called feptilchres on high. Accordingly, we read in Ifaiah, xxii — 16, " What haft thou here ? And whom haft ihoa " here, that thou haft hewed thee out a fe- ^^ pidchre here, as he that heiveth^him out a fe- '* pulchre on^ high ?" Thus the prophet re- proved Shebna, who was a poor perfon, for his extravagant andexpenfive pride and van- ity. The common people, when dead, were buried in the ground. But the rich provi- ded for themfelvesy^j^z^/cAr^s on high. In one of ihefe fepulchral monuments, our Saviour was entombed. The prophet fays, ^^he made his 184 AN APOLOGY FOR " grave with the wicked^ and with the rich, his " high places.'' For Jofeph, we are told, be- ing a rich 7nan, " laid the body of Chrijl in his '* own new tomh^ which he had hewn out in the '* rockr Dr. Lathrop obferves, '' that plunging no ** more refenables Chrift's entombment, than *• rprinkling does. If there were any cir- *' cumftance in his burial, which baptifm can " refemble, it muft be his embalmment. For ^' it is faid, that Nicodemus brought Simixture '' cf myrrh and aloes, and wound the body of Je- ^'fus in linen clothes with the f pices, as the man- '• ner of the Jews is to bury. And after this, '• the women prepared [pices and ointments and '' came to anoint his body. Accordingly, be- " fore his death, when the woman poured ^' the precious ointment on his head, he faid, *' in that JJie poured it on my head, fn.e did it to ^* my burial. She is come to anoint my body to the '' burying. Her pouring it on his head, he ^ calls pouring it on his body' — anointing his body to the burying. Thus, Sir, you fee that we can difcover nothing in the bapiifts' mode of dippings which refembles either the crucifixion or burial of Chrift. Where then fnall we find that important likenefs, which St. Paul fo particularly mentions ? It is not to be found in the literal fignification of the word buried or planted ; we muft therefore look for it in the figurative meaning. We have already gbferved that the word buried^ in its literal INFANT BAPTWM, 1 85 ufe, is never applied to bapiifm^ or to perfons while alive, bat to the dead. We now ob- ferve, that the word to plants has a primary and literal reference to vegetables, and vines, and trees, and their various feeds. Thefe are fowed and planted literally. Bat in ^l fig- urative {^n^Q^ the Apoftle informs us, that " they who are baptized into Jefus Chrift " are baonzed into his death." They are, hy haptifm^ figuratively crucified v;ith himj^/^/r^- ^J with him, and buried vvi(h him. We have feveral times obferved, that the dative cafe^ in the Greek language, when it follows, and is governed by the prepofition en^ is frequently and grammancally uTed as the infirument. Our tranOators have often rendered the word m, in fuch a manner, ?,s to exprefs its inftrumentality. But they have fometimes, perhaps without fufRcient reafon, adopted a different language, as in Colof- fians ii — 12. Perfons are there faid to be " buried with Chrifl inhaptijm'' The Greek prepofition is en^ and it might have been irandited correcliy into the Eng'ifh word ^y, or with : and then this paiTage would have correfponded jexa6lly to the parallel text in Romans. The Apoftle here fays, "that we *^ are buried with him,^ haptijm^ into death." Baptifm, in this place, is not mentioned as being a burial^ or as being an ailufion to a burial. It is mentioned as the infirmnmtal eaufe of our being, in ^ figurative Jtnjt. buried with Chrirt, planted with Chrift, and crucified l86 AN APOLCfGY FOR \vitb Chrift. By haptijm^ we have engaged to mortify and bury our fins ; it is confequently urged as an argument for newnefs of life. The baptifts feem to have taken it for granted, that baptifm is here called a burial ; which is a very great mijiake. Dr. Gill tells us, "that baptifm is called a burial, a burial '• with Chrift, a reprefentation or refemblance ••of his, which it cannot be, unlefs it be ad- *^ miniftered by dipping.'' We have jfhown, that there is no refem- blance between the baptifts' mode of dippings and the manner in which our Saviour died^ or the manner in which his body was depojited in \\itfepulchre. And now. Sir, let me requeftyou to obferve, that baptifm is not called a burial by the Apojile ; nor in any part of the bible ; nor are we informed by any infpired writer, that it was inftituted in order to be, literally, a refemblance of Chrifl's death or burial. B^iptifm, it is true, has particular reference to Chrifl. It is a facrament of the new tefta- ment or covenant, which is founded in his death ; and it fitly fignifies and reprefents the cleanfing and fanBifying efficacy of his word, and b'ood, and fpiiit. It alfo con- firms and reprefents, publickly. our obliga- tions to conform to the death, and burial, and refurreclion of Chrift, by mortifying and burying our fins, and by ualking in newnefs of life, 1 am feiifible, that feme perfons have im- agined that Si. Paul, in the paflages we have been confidering, had a particular and ex- INFANT BAPTISM. ifff clufive reference to an internal and fpiritual baptifm; but this opinion is neither neceffa- ry nor well foanded. For the external bap- tifm by water is emblematical of the internal baptifm by the influences of God's Spirit; and (he thing figitified and reprefented by the emblem is, in the judgment of charity, fup- pofed to be implied, and connected with it. I wifh, Sir, that you would review, with attention and impartiality, the 6th chapter to the Romans, and (he fecond and third chap- ters to the Colofli ins. You will find that St, Paul was not endeavouring to fpecify dip- ping, as the only lawful and valid mode of baptizing. His great and conftant defign evidently was, to enforce the necelTi y of gen- uine repentance, and of a holy life and con- verfation, in oppofiiion to the licentious principles and immoral pra6lices of the an- linomian and Judaizing Gnofticks, who were a very troubleTjme and mifchievous feE^^ in the days of primitive chriftianity. Every verfe, and every line was written with this intention and tendency. " What /hall we fay *' then ? Shall we continue in Jin that grace may ^* abound? God forbid.'' He reje8:s the im- pious thought wiih abhorrence. " Howjhall " xjue^ that are dead to Jin, live any longer there- " in .?" And then introduces baptifm as a principal argument. " Know ye not, that as '• many of us, ds were baptized into Jfus Chrijl, *' were baptized into his death ?" By baptifm, we have profelTed publickly our faith in him 1&8 AN APOLOGY FOR. as being the true Meffiih — our belir flrh the^ doQrines and truths which he inculcated— We have, by bapiifm, been admitted inio his vifible kingdom, and have promifed to be fubmifiTive and obedient; and are therefore bound to obey biai as our acknowledged Lord and Mafter. We are alfo baptized into his 'kath as well as life. By baptTfm^ we pro- fefs our belief that Chrift a8u 'lly fufFcred and died on the crofs^, to redeem and fave finners — not merely from the condemning guilt of fin, but alfo from its reigning power and dominion ; from all our unlawful incli- nations, and vicious habits and praBices. By baptifm, we acknowledge ourfelves '• crucified ^ with Chrijl, that the body of fin might be def- " troyed'' — that we are obligated hereby to tnortify our flefhly appetites and worldly lufts, our irregular pa (lions and finful deeds of the bodv. Having become dead tofin^ as Chrifi died for fin ; having, in conformity to his deaih, criicrfied our old man^ the next thing of court'e iv% to bury ^^ this body of fin'' The Apoftle accordingly obferves : '•''Therefore we " a'-e^ by bal)nfuu buried with Chrifi^ He be- gins I he verfe with the word there fore<. which fhows that this paffage is connefted, as an inference, with fomething that preceded it. We are bapiized into the life of Chrift, into the death of Chrift, and. confequently. into the burial of Cnrift. To be buried with Chrifi by baptifn^ is to be baptized into his burial. INFANT BAPTISM. 1 B9 This is evidently the import and fenfe of the expreflion. Baptifin is always accompanied, either with an implicit, or explicit confeflion of faith. As we profefs to believe that Chrift aftually lived and died, fo v;e profefs to believe that his dead body was laid in a tomb, where it remained three days and three nights. And as we are bound, by baptifm, to conform to Chrift's death in the crucifixion and mortifi- cation of our fins, fo we are alfo bound to become conformable to his burial, in bury- ing fin. We mull renounce fin utterly, and bury it out of our fight, as if it were a dead corpfe, or loathfome carcafe. It is in this figurative fenfe^lhdii St. Paul ufed the word buried. It does not appear that he had refer- ence to the literal burial of our bodies, by dipping them in water. As the death and burial of Chrift, prepared the way for his refurreftion and glorious ex- altation, fo the death and burial of fin are pre-reqaifite, in order to a holy and virtuous life. The Apoftle therefore adds, '* that '* like as Chrift was raifed up from the dead, *' bv the glory of the Father, even fo we alfo «• fhould walk in newnefs of life." Every word, according to this con{tru6lion, is in- telligible and inftru8ive. But if we attempt to underftand the paftage literally, we imme- diately meet with infuperable difficulties. The Apoftle ftyles baptifm a circumcifion, more direQly than he calls it a burial. He 190 -^N APOLOGY FOU endeavours to fatisfy the Coloflians, that they were fufficiently circumcifed, being, by the " circumcijion of ChriJ}., buried with him in *^ baptiim." But the baptifts do not pretend^ that the mode of baptifm literally refembles circumcifion. The fame Apoftle alfo tells us, that we are by baptifm buried with him in- to death. But the baptifts do not under- ftand the word deaths as here mentioned, lit- erally. They do not fuppofe, that the per- fon baptized^ muft be literally buried under water, until literally dead. Why then fhould we underftand the word buried literally ? No good reafon can be affigned. We are com- pelled to adopt the figurative interpretation. We are, by baptifm, bound to mortify and bury our fins, and arife from this (late of fpiritual death, to a new and fpiritual life. This is evidently the Apcftle's meaning. He further illuftrates this dodrine, by fay- ing, '• For if we have been planted together " in the likenefs of his death, we fhall alfo «« be in the likenefs of his refurreBion." It appears that we are as truly baptized into the crucijixion and rffurreBion of Chrift, as in- to his burial. If we are planted together in the likenefs of his deaths that is, baptized into his crucifixion and burial, '' wefhall olfobe in the " likenefs of his refurredion.'' By baptifm. we profefs to believe thatChrift, having died, and being laid in the tomb, on the third day, a- rofe from the dead, as the firfi fruits of them thatfle^t. IJJFANT BAPTISM. 1^1 The word planted, according to its confi- mon and literal ufe, has reference to the feeds of vegetables. When corn or grain is planted or fovved, it dies and rots in the ground, and then the blade fprings up and bears fruit. The Apodie, therefore, has re- peatedly made ufe of this figure, in order to reprefent the death and refurreftion of man- kind. We are already raifed, by the refur- re6lion of Jefus Chrift from the dead, to the profpeftand hop-e of life and immoriality be- yond the grave. We are bound, by our bap- tifmal engagements, to arife imm^diaiely from a ftate of fpiriiual deaths and become alive in the caufe of religion and virtue. '' ^J y^ " he rifen with Chrifi,'' fays ilie Apoftle, "/eel ^' thofe things which are ahove^ whtre Chrift Jit- " ttth at the right hand of God. Set your affcc- ^' tions on things above, and not on things on the '' earth ; and when Chrijl. who is our life, /kail *' appear^ then Jliall ye alfo apptar with him in ^' glory."" In the church of England, the ordinance of baptilm is adminiftered with the fign cf the crofs^ as being a refemblance of Ch rift's ^f^^A, or crucifixion. The Baptifts adminifler this ordinance by immerjion^ which they fuppofe refembles the burial of Chrift. The Prefby- terians and Congregationaiifts in general, (though not ftrenuous as to the modej com- monly adminifter baptifm by affvfion orfprink- ling, which method they consider as having a fuitable allufion to the pouring out of God's 192 AN APOLOGY FOR Spirit^ and fprinkling of Chrijl's llocd^ which are faid to ran6lifv and ckanfe us from oil fin. But \\\2ii figurative likenefs^ which the Apoftle particularly menijons, is of a moral nature, and evidently alliides to the crucifixion^ and burial^ and refurreHion of Ch rift. As Ch rift was, literally, crucified, To we are faid, by baptifm (in figurative language) to have cru- cified our old man — our fins. And as Chrift was, literally, buried, {o we are faid, by bap- tifm fin figurative language) to have buried our fins. And as Chrift arofe, literally, from the dead, fo we are faid, by baptifm (in fig- urative language) to ari(e from the death of fin, to a new and fpiri(ual life. The whole reprefentation, acrordij:g to the Apoftle, is figurative. It is a continued metaphor — an inftruBive, ftriking allegory^ happily calcu- lated to teach us the necelTuy of a genuine renovation, in our temper and behaviour. If, Sir, after all that has been faid, you fhouid fuppofi that dipping was pra61ifed in the days of the Apoftles, and that St. Paul had probably a reference to this mode of baptizing, your fnppofition will not prove the point, but take it, wiihout proof, for granted. So far as we have any account from hiftory, the mode of baptizing has been various (and there might have been different modes, even in the apoftolick age.) How- ever in thofe times and places, where dipping anciently prevailed moft, it was never deem- ed effeniial. "1-NFANT BAPTISM. I93 I will conclude thefe remarks, by obferv- ing, that alliijions^ in favour of baptizing by affiijion or fprinkling^ are numerous and for- cible. The blood of Chrift is called the blood nffprinkling. The fanftifying influences of God's Spirit are faid to be poured out upon 21s, Our hearts are faid to h'<: fpr inkle d — our confciences are faid to be fprinkkd. The prophet^ fays, / will fprinkle clean water upon you and ye piall he clean — andfoJJiall he fprinkle many nations^ &c. Sec, Now, Sir, on fuppofition the word dipped^ had been ufed in all thefe, and in fimilar places, would notthe baptifls have told us, that they alluded eicprefsly to their mode of bap- tifm ? If Ezekiel, when perfonating the Mefli- ah, had declared, " then will I dip you in clean " water andye JJiall be cleari ; and from all your *' fihhinefs and from all your idols, will I " cleanfe you;" — if Ifaiah, when prophefy- ing concerning Chrift, had faid, " fo fhall "" my fervant dip many nations;" fhould you not think that thefe expreffions were flrong argum.ents in proof of dippings as being the gofpel mode of baptizing ? All I afK is this, that they may now be confidered as argu- ments equally ftrong and conclufive, in fa- vour o^ fpnnkling, I am. Sir, &:c, R 1^4 ^^ APOLOGY FOR LETTER XIX. SIR, VV E are informed by the Evangelifts, *' that John* the forerunner of Chrift, was '* called a Baptifl^ and that he baptized per- '' fons in the river Jordan^ and in Enon, be- '• caufe there was much water there,'' Thefe circumftances, which attended the miniftry and baptifm of John, are confidered by you, as being very powerful arguments in favour of immerfion, even to the utter exclufion of all other modes of baptizing. We will en- deavour to examine them with fuitable care and impartiality. But let it be premifed, that John did not baptize perfons, '' in the «• 7iame of the Father^ and of the Scn^ and of the " Holy GhoJlJ" His baptifm was a religious rite, which he adminiftered under the Mofaic inftitution. It cannoi, therefore, be thought an indifpenfable rule, in all relpe^^s, for chriftians under the new tejlament iifptnfaiion ; which, the Apoille exprefsly informs us, was not in force until the death of J ejus Chrif}^ ths tefator. John was the lafl; and greateft prophet un- der the law. He obferved all the requifi- .tions of that rigorous inftitution, with the ftri6ieft; aufterity of manners. It was pre- diQed, that this mefjenger of Chrif fliould go be- fore him^ in the fpirit and power of Elias ; uho^ in the days of khzh^fled into the wildernefs. INFANT BAPTISM. I95 and was there fed by the ravens. We are accordingly told,, " that John came neither eating " bread, nor drinking wine, and the Jews/aid he '• hath a devil. — The fon of man came eating and '■• drinking;, and they faid, behold a glutton and ^' wine-bibber ; a friend of pulUcans and fcnners,"' It is evident that the praQice of John, in private hf;_^ and in his official character, was never intended as an example, which we are bound implicitly to imitate. John, previouf- Jy to his undertaking the facerdotal office, lived the folitary life of a hermit, in the wil- dernefs. Are w^e obii^^ed to quit the fociety of men, and live fequeftered from all our f.'iends and cannexions, in fome lonely, 6cQ2Lxy defer'. ?^ — " John was clothed with '^ camel's hair, and had a leathern girdieabout '' his loins ; his meat alfo was locuft and wild "^ honey." Are we under obligations to re- linquifh the Gomforts and conveniences of this life, and live as he lived, on the fame kind of food, and drefs as he dreffed. with the fame kind of clothing ? Jobn made no ufe of the temple or fynag'ogues, where the Jews always reforted for public worffiip and inftruftion^ but preached in the field, at a diftance from the city, and from the habita- tions of mankind ; and undoubtedly on the bmk of Jordan, or fome other natural ftream or fountain ; for it was abfolutely impoffible for him, and his hearers to fubfift without water. But fhall we forfake oi^r dweiling- houfes — our meeting houfes, confecrated to 196 AN APOLOGY POR the fervices of religion, and become field- preachers ? Shall we leave our homes, and encamp in fome grove, on the brink of Tome river or pond, and invite the people, from ail the neighbouring and remote towns and parifhes, to aflemble at faid place, for the pur- pofe of being religioufiy inftruQed and bap- tized. I am perfuaded, you do not fuppofe, that we are obligated to imitate the example of John, in every particular. You do not be- lieve, that we are bound to live in the wilder- nefs as he lived, and drefs as he dreffed, and preach as be conftantly preached, in the field, on the bank of fome river. What rea- fon have you then to fuppofe, that we are indifpenfably obliged to imitate him, with" refpetl to the place and mode of baptifm ? I mean, on fuppofition it could be fairly proved, that he actually baptized perfons, by, dipping them in Jordan. We live under a milder difpenfation. None of Chrijis " ccm- *• mandments are grievous. His yoke is eafy^ and •• his burden is Ught,'' efpecially when com- pared with the Jeivifli ritual. If it fliould be admitted that John baptized by immerfion, it will not follow that this is the only lawful and valid mode of haplifm^ under the gofpel. For it is evident^ that chriftian* are not required to imitate the praftice of John, in all refpe61s. You cannot therefore infer, merely from his example, that they are bound to adopt the fame mode of baptizing. INFANT BAPTISM. 197 I do not, however, mean to concede that John baptized by imrnerfion. There is not a perfon living, who knows, certainly, in what mode he adminiflered the ordinance of baptifai. It will, I think, appear highly probable, when the fubjett is properly in- veftigdted, that John aClaaily baptized by affafion or fprinkling. Bill it is faid, that John baptized in the riv- er Jordan^ A queftion immediately arifes, viz. Does the word in, as here mentioned, refer to the mode of baptizing, or to the place, where the ordinance was adminiftered. Let us compare this exprellion w^ith other paffa- ges, which have reference to the fame bap- lifm. It is faid in Maik i, 4, " that he bap- ^' tized in the wildernef^^." And in ]ohrv i, 28, "That be baptized in Bethabara* beyond " Jordan." And \x\ the 3d chapter, 23d verfe, " that he baptized in Enon," which was not the name of a river, but of a tra6l of land, that lay between Jordan and Salem. Now it is unqueftionably plain, that the word in^ as ufed in thefe three different pafl^.ges, hasexprefs reference to Vat place, where John baptized, and not to the mode of adminiiler- ing the ordinance. Ki John was in the wi dernefs — in Beihabara — and in Enon, when he baptized .; fo he was, en anoiher oc- cafion, in or at Jordan. The prepondon in, may have reference to the place, where John was, when he adminiliered the ordi- nance of baptifm, and not to the mode in R 2 198 AN APOLOGY FOa which he baptized. It is probable, being at a diftance from any houfe, and having no fuitable vefTel, which could be conveniently ufed, that they fometimes went to the river itfelf ; and perhaps a few fteps into the water, in order to adminifter the ordinance of bap- tifm. But this does not determine the mode. It does not prove that he plunged them. He might notwithftanding, take up the water in his hand, and fprinkle or pour it on their heads. Befides, there is no necefiify of fup- pofing^ that they did fo much as ftep into the edge of the river. For you well know, that the Greek prepofition en^ very commonly fignifies at^ by, with, Sec, In the five firft books of the new teftament, according to Mr. Chaplin's account, whofe (latement is un- doubtedly correft, this very uord is rendered at, by our tranflators, no lefs than 53 times. It is rendered ^ji;, 44 times; Siud with, 42 times, Sec. Now, if the original word m, had been tranflated into the Englifh word at^ the meaning would have correfponded e>a8:- ]y with the fenfe of thofe other palTages, we juil now cited. It would have been expref- five of the place, where John baptized. For the places, at which he adminiflered baptifm, were the wildernefs, Bethabai'a, Jordan, and E- non. John baptized in, or at the river Jor- dan. This is mentioned, as being one of tho'e places, where he preached, and where he adminiftered ihe ordinance of bapiifra. I-NFAN7 BA?TIS!.f. lg§ It is, however, very evident, that John did not commence his miniftrat.ions at Jor- dan, nor at Enon. We are informed in John X, 40, '• Thai; he at ftrjl baptized heycnd Jordan'' HdiVing fpent a life of folitude, for many years, \n the wildernefs of Beihabara, be- yond Jordan, there he began to preach and baptize. We have no account of rivers or ftreams of v/ater, in that country. It wa5, probably, a dry and barren place. Accord- ingly, when his fame had fpread abroad, and the inhabitants of " Jtrujalem^ and all Judea^ " and all the region round about Jordan^' had aflfembled to attend on his miniftry, they were but poorly accommodated. John, it feems, removed to ^orJ^;?, and afterward to Enon,. hecaufe there was much n-ater there^ or as it is in the original (polla itdata) many waters, that is, many rivulets and fprings. Much v;ater was certainly needed, in that fultry climate, for the ref"re(hment and various ufes of fuch an immenfe concourfe of people, collcded in the open neld, at a great diftance from home^ with their horfes, and mules, and affes, and camels. Some v;ere, undoubtedly, going a- way, an-d others conftantly coming. But the encampment, probably, lafted more than a year. Every perfon of reflexion muft be convinced, that the fituation, which John made choice of, was very convenient and neceffary for their accommodation, even if the mode of baptizing were that of fprink'ing. 200 ^^ APOLOGY r©R MJnifters, who no^V baptize by afFafion or fprinkling, have no occafion of going to a river; yet if they were circumftanced as John was, in a hot, rocky country, alnrioft deftitute of wells ; if they had vaft congre- gations, and no meeting-houfes ; and were about to encamp in the field a number of months, with their people, for the purpofe of preaching and of adminiftering the ordinan- ces of the gofpel — they would, undoubtedly, choofe a place, fimilar to that of Jordan or Enon. We cannot therefore infer, from the circumflances of the place, where John was ftationed and preached, that he baptized by immerfion. The truth of the foregoing remarks may be further illuftrated, by attending to the praBice of ChriJI^s difciples, previoufly to his crucifixion. For while John was preaching,- and adminiftering the ordinance of baptifm, in the country of Enon, they were preaching and baptizing in the land of Judea; as we read in John iii, 22 " After thefe thing^^ came '' Jefus and his difcipks into the land of Jiideay *' and there he tarried -with them.^ and baptized.''^ It was told John, that Chrift baptized, and that all men came to him. He mujl increafe^ replied John, but I mujl dccreafe. John iv, 1, 2. '• When, therefore, the Lord knew how the '^ Pharifees had heard ihat Jefus made andbap- " tized more difcipks than John (Though Jefus *' himfelf baptized not, but his difciples) he «• left Judea, and departed again into Galilee." INT-ANT BAPTISM. 201 It is undeniably evident, that the difciples of Chrift, previoufly to his crucifixion, bap- tized a vajl number of people. But, Sir, we do not find a fingle word faid, about Enon, or Jordan^ or any other river^ or brook^ or pond of water. It is not even intimated, that: they ever dipped di perfon, or that they ever went to a natural Jlream or fountain ofwater^ for the purpofe of baptizing. What can be the reafon ? Why do we hear fo much faid at the prefent day, concerning th-e baptifm of John, and fo liitle concerning the baptifm of Chriil ? (John was a few months older than Chrili, and began his miniftry a little fooner; but they v;ere contemporaries, and both employed in preaching, and in bap- tizing, at the fame time, and among the fame people.) We have already. anticipated the reafon. The difciples of Chrifl were not £eid preachers. They were itinerant preach- ers. Chrift fent them forth, repeatedly, two and two, Ke ordered them to go from houfe to houje ; and from city to ci;y. They, preached in private houfes and fynagogaes; and where they preached, there they un- doubtedly baptized. Accordingly, if John had been an itinerant or travelling preacher, we fhould never have heard of his baptizing people at Jordan, or Enon. This Incident, on v/hich the baptifts lay fo much (Irefs, feems to have been wholly owing to the pe- culiarities of his education in the wildernefs,. and of his circumftances as a field preacher. 202 AN APOLOGY FOR There appears to have been a perfeB: con- fiftency throughout the whole of John's cha- ra61er and conduB. He refided in the wil- deniefs, and there he commenced his miniftra- tions — in Bethahara^ beyond Jordan. But when his audience became vaftly numerous, and a more convenient ftation was necefTary, he fix- ed his ftand on the banks of Jordan, and a- mong the fmaller ftreamsoF Enon. Wherev- er he lived, there he preached ; and where he preached, there be baptized. It v/ould have been as unnatural for him, to have left the encam^pment, and have gone to a fyna- gogue or dwelling-houfe, in order to baptize per Tons, as it would be for us, to leave the meeting-houre, and go to the field, for that purpofe. The difciples of Chrift conduced with the fame confillency and propriety. We have no account of their going to a. river^ in or- der to adminiiter the ordinance of baptifm. Where they preached, there they baptized. And if miniftersof the gofpel, at the prefent day, would be equally confident, they muft either baptize in the meeting-houfes, where they preach, or elfe they muft become field- preachers, and encamp and preach in the fieldj where they baptize. I am^ Sir, Sec A INFANT BAPTISM, 203 LETTER XX. SIR, S was propofed, we have examined the places where John adminiftered baptifm. We can find no circurnftance, from which it ap- pears, that he did baptize, by dipping per- fons under the water. It is not faid that he dipped them. It is not intimated that any preparations were made for the change of drefs, or that fuitable accommodations were provided for the different fexes. The num- ber baptized, wasprodigioufly great. We arc told, that Jeriifakm^ the metropolis of the nation, and that all Judta^ and all the region round about Jordan^ went out to him, and were baptized by him, in or at Jordan. Now it fecms fcarcely fuppofable, that one man fhould have had fufficient ftrength — that he fhould have been able to (land in the water day afrer day, and long enough at a time, to dip fuch an amazing multitude of people, without deftroying his own health and life. I do not fay that the thing was abfolutely im- pra6ticable ; but it certainly feems almoft in- credible, upon natural principles ; and we have no reafon to think, that John was favoured \i\\\\ fupernatural afliftance ; for it is exprefsly faid, concerning him, " that he did no miracle.'' On the other fide, John has told us, " that «' he was fent to baptize with water." " I « indeed baptize you with water, but he ihall ^04 ^ AN APOLOGY FdR "baptize you mth the Holy Ghofl: and wM "'fire." This manner of expreffion. as we have already obferved, indicates that the water was ufed as the inftrumental element; and applied by the hand of John to the per- fons baptized. Bapiifm with water, is here mentioned, as an emblem of baptifm with the Holy Ghofl; : The fanHifying influences of God's Spirit, are reprefented in the language of fcripture, as htiugjlied forth and poured out upon mankind^ like rain. This common rep- refentaiion is ftriBly and ft;rikingly applica- ble to the pra6lice of bapiizing with water, according to the ufual mode of affufion or fprinkling. Although John adminiftered baptifm, m or at the river Jordan, and at Enon, neverthe- lefs he baptized them zoith water — with the water of Jordan and Enon — or with the river Jordan^ as that paffage might have been tranf- lated ; and then the different padages would have correfponded. For, according to our tranflation, it is faid, no lefs than four times, that " John baptized with (en) water." We have obferved, that the original prepofition en^ which is often rendered in and at^ is alfo frequently tranfiated into the Englifh words by and with. The words by and wiih^ are com- monly ufed in the fame fenfe, and denote the inftrumentality of the fucceeding word. In order to evince the trath of this obferva- tion, on a former occafion, I quoted a cer- tain pafTage of fcripture, about the fenfe of INFANT BAPTISM, 205 Which there is no difpute. You and I, and every body elfe, are entirely agreed as to its meaning. Now as one fuch paifage is of more importance in the prefent controverfy, than a thouiand doubtful or difputable paf- fages, I will again recite it. The Jews faid, « that our Saviour caft out devils by (en) i i ^* which began from Galilee^ after the laptijm ■ " which John prr ached' ; how God anointed " J^fi^^ Chrijl of Nazareth^ with the Holy Ghoj% " and with power.'" Although Chrifl: was not a Levite by birth, bat born of the royal tribe of Judah, and a* prieft after the order of Melchizedek, his baptifmal confecration was indifpenfabiy nec- efTary. The Apoftle, to the Hebrews, in the 5^h chapter, 4th verfe, obferve.s with particr ular reference to Chrift, '• No man taketh this " honour to himfelf but he that is called of God^ " as was Aaron,'' As Aaron lived under the law of Mofes, fo did Chrift. This law did not allow the Levites to undertake the facer- dotal office, till they had arrived at the age of twenty-five years ar.d upward. Chrift, thereforc,VY'aited until he was about thirty years old. The law of Mofes exprefsly required, that the Levites fhould be publickly inaugu- rated and confecrated to the fervices of the fanftuary, by a folemn rite of purification. Accordingly, Mofes, as he was commanded, took Aaron and his fons and wafhed, or bap- tized them, before the afTembled nation. In conformity to this Leviticai law, our Saviour was baptized by John, in the prefence of many witneffes. John, at firft, hefnated. Chrift explained the command, faying, " thus ^ // bccometh us to fidjii all righteoujnefs ; and " then he fuffered hinu' Chrift had reference to ail the inftituted rites, and religious cere- monies of the Mofaic law. *'• Thus it be- 3^12 AN APOLOGY FOB: 5« comcih us to fulfil all ligbleoufnefs." He fpeaks in the plural number, including John with himfelf. They both lived under the fame law. ' The kingdom of heaven — the gofpel inftitution, ?:t."^5 at hand ; but it had not com- inenced. Chrifl was therefore baptized, in obedience to a religious rite of the Mofaic difpenfation, which was not yet abrogated, but dill in full force. When an infant, he was circumciled ; and being the firft-born, he was dedicated to God in his temple. When twelve years old, he obfervcd the paflbver. This v/as probably the firft time ; and he would not negle6i the lait opportuni- ty, although it happened on the very nigh^, in which he was berrayed to death. Thus uniformly and ftridly, he obferved every ritual^ as v/ell as moral precepr, of Gcd^s law. The various purifications, which Mofes performed and required, w^e have fhown, are exprefslv called haptipm^ by the Apodle, in the original. When Mofes baptized Aaron and his fons, he faid, in the prefcnce of the whole congregation, " Thh is the things xvhich " the Lord hath commanded to he done,'" It is likely, that John ufed the fame prefcript form of folemn words, when he baptized Cbrift, The baptifm of Aaron and his (ons was inau- gural. So was the baptifm of Ghrift. It was his confecration and indu61ion to publick of- fice. He was, hereby, \Q2,^\\y called of God — anointed and auihorizedj as was Aarouj to un- INFANT BAPTISM. 2 I3 dertake his ofEcial miniftrations. And now. Sir, if you will take your bible in hand, and turn to the 8th chapter of the book of Num- bers, you will there find in what modcy or man- ner, this baptifm was adminif^ered. The chap- ter, in general, relates to the confecra:ion of ihe Levites; but the 5th, 6ih, and ^ih verfes have an explicit and particular reference to the mode^ in which Mofes was exprefsly commanded to apply and ufe the confec rating water. " And the Lord fpake " unto Mofes, faying^ take the Levites from a* •* mong ihe children of Ijrael, and ckanfe them ; '' and thusjhalt thou do unto them^io ckanfe them; " fprinkle water of purifying upon- them'' — Sprin^ kle water of purifying upon them. Szc, It is true, ihat the Levites were ordered to wajh; their clothes and make themfclves cl'an ; and on all fucceeding occafions, before they enter- ed the tabernacle or inner court of God's houfe, they were exprefsly required to xva/ti their hands and feet at the laver. But that wafhing, or purification, or cleanfing, or hap- tifn, which was the f acred rite of confer ati on ^. and which Mofes adminiftered vjith his oun hand, was performed fv fprinkling the water of purifying upon them. This argument, in con- nexion wiih others, I think, fufficienily proves, that Jefus Chrift was baptized by af- fufion or fprinkling. The law did not require dipping. It exprefsly required fprinkling, ^^ Chrifi did not come to defroy the law and the ^^ prophets, but to fidfl them in every iota and. 214 AN APOLOGY FOR '• tittle,'" He was baptized with water, and at the fame time with the Holy Ghoft. The Spirit of God defcended viGbly, and lighted upon him^ in the form of a dove, and ratified, wiih an audible voice, that folemn tranfaftioHo I am. Sir, <&:c. LETTER XXr, SIR, X HAVE juft hinted that the baptifm of John was a reh'gioas rite under the Mofaic difpenfation. This difpenraiion lafted until the death of Chrift. Our Lord having arifen from the dead, inftiiuted the chriftian bap- tifm. He comnriiiTioned and commanded the Apoftles. to difciple^ and baptize all nations^ in the najne of the Father. ^ and of the- Son, and of ike Holy Ghnfi. The fubje6ts of baptifm are here expreffed in the moft general and com- prehenfive terms, which evidently include perfons ofall ages and of both fexes. We have endeavoured to (how that the word baptize fignifles to wet or wafli. fac ram en tal- ly, without being reftri8ed in its meaning, to any particular mode of applying or ufing the water. But you fay, that there can be no true and valid bapiifm, without a total dip. ping or immerfion ; — that all oiher modes^ of baptizing area mere nullitVj although adr INFANT BAPTISM. £1K miniftered by difuitahle perfon, and to a proper fubje6t5 and in the name of the Holy Trinity, Sentiments of fuch nature and tendency need the cleared and moft unqueftionable proof. We have, in vain, fearched for this proof in the baptifin of John. Let us now examine the feveral inftances recorded in the new teftament, fince the inflitution of the chriRian baptifm ; and fee if we can find any certain and indubitable evidence, that the Apoftles did always dip, or immerfe totally under \vater, thofe perfons whom they baptized. The firft inftance of baptifm, that occurs, happened at the feaft of Pentecoft, ten days after the afcenfion of Jefus Chrift, On this occafion, the Apoftles preached their firft fer- mons; and on the fame day adminiftered baotifm to three thoufand perfons. Some fuppofe they were dipped. Oihers believe they were probably baptized by afFufion or fprinkling. The infpired writers have not told us in what mode the ordinance of bap- tifm was adminiftered. We have nothing to d from. This is a truth beyond difpute, and well known to ev- ery one who is acquainted with the Greek. The Greek prepofiiion eis^ fignifies io, and iintOi as well as i'liio. We read in John xx, 4, 5, ''That the other difciple did out-run " Peter, and came hrft to (eis) the fepulchre, ^' yet went net in.'' Every perfon perceives^ that the word eis^ in this place, is rightly tranflated. For if our tranflators had fubfti- tuted the prepofition m/o, in the room of ^a, it would have occafioned the mod palpable abfurdity and contradiction. Although the Greek prepofition cz5, is moll commonly tranflated intOi yet it is very frequently ren- dered to and unto; and no lefs than 285 times, in the five firft books of the new tef- ^^ AN APOLObY rem tament, as Mr. Chaplin informs us ; and even in this very chapter^ which has reference to the baptifm of the Eunuch, it is rendered Y& and unto,Jix tinties, and into only once ; a cir- cumftance that is very remarkable. Again, the Greek prepoiiiion ek^ which is here ren- dered oiU o/", is moft commonly and properly tranflated ff^om. It is rendered from 102 times, and out oj but 77 rimes, in the five firft books of the new teftament. Rivers and ponds always lie in vallies. According- ly, when converfing or writing about them, we naturally accommodate our language to their fituation. We always defcend or go dozun^ when approaching toward a natural ftream or fountain of water ; and always af- cend or come up^ when we return from them. But nothing can be more trifling, than to in- fer the mode of baptifm from the fignifica- tion of ihe words into and out of as here ren- dered by our trariOators. I do not mean, Sir, to tax you with thus trifling, for the a- forefaid inference has never been fo much as once hinted at, in your feven fermons. It will, perhaps, be enquired, why the Eunuch did not ftop at fome private houfe for the purpofe of bting baptized ? There could be no need of this. Befides, the Ea- nuch was at a great di (lance from home— among ftrangers, who were probably, at that time, ignorant of the chriftian religion, or €lfe its inveterate enemies and oppo.'ers. It is not however certain, that he paflfed by I^NFANT BAPTISM. 22^ any houfe, while in company with Philip; for the country,, between Jerufalem and Ga- za, is exprefsly called defcrt. But why did not the Eunuch omit being baptized until he had reached his own houfe ? Becaufe he lived in a remote, heathen land, where there was no Apoftle or perfon authorized to ad- minifter the facrament of baptifm. Philip evidently conduced with the ftrideft pro- priety. It does not appear that he went out of his way a (ingle rod, in order to obtain water for the purpofe of baptizing; but a8:- cd, in this refpeft, as all his predecefTors had done. He baptized the Eunuch upon the road, by the fide of his chariot, in which he had been journeying and preaching ; and thus any prudent minifter would do, in fimi- lar circumftances, at the preient day, even if the mode of adminillering baptifm were that of fprinkling. Sixthly and lajlly. We are informed, in A6is, i6th chapter, that Lydia and her houFe- hold were baptized in the very place, where Paul had been preaching ; which was a pub- lick building, erefted near the river, for the purpofe of prayer and religious exercifes. The Jews had theirj^'^^^^^^t^jand i\\t\T profeu- dies. Their fynagogues were commonly built in cities and villages. ThGir profeuches were generally ere6\ed at a little diRance from oilier hoafes, being intended for private as well as public devotion. We are told, that cur Saviour continued all night in prayer tc Ged. TJ 230 AN APOLOGY FOR The original is, " he continued all night in a '' profeuche of God." We read, that Paul and Timothy " went oat of the city on the fab- '' bath day, by a river's fide, xjuhere prayer was " wont to be made,'' According to the origin- al Greek, " they went out of the city to a ^^ profeuche on (he river's fide." It was a hoiife of player, ereded for the worfliip and fervice of God. It was in this building, that Paul fpake to the women who rejorted thither. Here Lydia believed; and here JJie and her hoiifehold were baptized. We often meet with ignorant, prejudiced people, who are ready to imagine, that St. Paul delivered the aforefaid exhortation in the open field — on the brink of the river, in which they fuppofe perfons had been pre- vioufly and frequently dipped; and, confe- quently, that prayer was wont to be made at faid place. This is a great miilake. Philip- pi v^diS not a Jewifh, but Grecian city — the capital of Macedonia, and at a great diftance from Jerufalem. St. Paul was the firft Apof- tle who ever preached in that city; and the inftance, we have mentioned, was very foon after his firft arrival, and probably the firil difcourfe that he delivered. Lydia was un- doubtedly the firft convert, and the very firft perfon, to whom the chriftian baptifm was ever adminiftered in that place. Philippi being a place of bufinefs, a num- ber of Jews and profelytes refided there, for the fake of trade. J aft without the limits of IMFANT BAPTISM. 23I the city, near a river, ihey ere6led a pro- feuche^ orhoufeof prayer; to which, it feems, a number of women reforted for religious Vv'orfhip. Here Paul and Timothy difcourf- ed — here Lydia heard them — here fhe be- lieved — and here fhe and her houfehold were baptized. It is not intimated that they were dipped, or that they went from the boufe for that purpofe. We read of baptifms in various places and OH different occafions; but there is no ac- count that any perfon ever v;ent from the place where he had been hearing the gofpel preached, in order to be baptized at a foun- tain or river. }ol • lived many years in the wildernefsj before he began his publick mir.if- trations. There he preached ; and there he baptized ; and when the multitude, who at- tended on his miniftry, became vaftly nu- merous, he removed the encampment, for the fake of better accommodations, to Jor* dan and Enon. But the difciples of Chrift, who lived un- der the fame difpenfation, were preachers of a different defcription. They did not en- camp in the open field, but travelled from city to city, and from houfe to houfe. Wliere they preached, there they baptized* Since the refurredion of Chrift, and the eftablifhment of the chriftian baptifm, we have but one inftance mentioned in the new leftament, ofa perfon's being baptized at a ftream or fountain. This we have fhown 232 AN APOLOGY FOR was the Ethiopian Eunuch — a very lingular and extraordinary cafe ; and fo circum- ftanced, as to render his baptifm, upon the road, expedient and proper; and more con- venient than it would have been in any other place, even if the mode of baptizing him; were that of fprinkling. We have examined every pafTage of fcrip- ture, from which any light might be expedi. ed, relative to the mode of baptifm. Inftead of finding that the Apoftles always baptized, by dipping perfons wholly under water, as the baptifts pretend, there is no certainty that they ever dipped a fingle perfon, on any occafion. Some things are clearly revealed, and others, for the fame wife and benevolent purpofe, are hidden from our eyes. " As *' Mofes went up to mount Ncbo^ and died " there; and as the Lord buried him, and *' concealed the place of his hirial^ {o that no *' man, to this day? ever knew where his fcpuU " chre was ;" thus the primitive mode of bap- tifm is withheld from our knowledge. We have no certain evidence, in what manner the Apoilles did adminifter the facrament of baptifm ; or that they were invariably con- fined to feme one particular mode of bap- tizing. It does, however, appear highly probable, from the different circumftances in which, baptifm was then adminiftered, and from the various allufions of fcripture to the chrifcian. b^ptifm> and from the frequent ufe INFANT BAPTISM. 233 and fignification of the word baptifm, that they did originally baptize according to the prefent ufuai modes of afFufion or fprinkling. But whether this was their pra6lice or not, baptifm is exprefsly enjoined, while the mode is neither required nor fpecified. The mode of baptifm is therefore a circimjiance^ concerning which, we are left at liberty to choofe and a61 according to the di6tates of our own underflanding and confciences. Dr. Hemmenway obferves, " that if any <* fhould imagine that dipping was the mode, «< in which the Apoilles commonly adminif- " tered baptifm, this would not evince, that " they difapproved of fprinkling, any more " than the common praBice of fprinkling *• among us proves that we difallow of dip- *• ping. The Apoftles might have good rea- *' fons, in compliance wiih the cuftom or dif- " pofition of the firft converts, to adminifter ^' baptifm in fuch a mode as is neither necef- ^' fary nor expedient for us." Mr. Clark fays, " if it were certain (as it ^ is not) that dipping was the moft common " mode of baptizing, in the Apoftles' times, *' yet it will by no means follow, that this is " the only lawful mode. For the inftitution " requiring baptifm. has not determined the " mode of adminiftration, but left that as a " matter of indifFerency. Therefore, in Ju- *' dea, and other warmer countries, where *' bathings were fo frequent and cuftomary, ^* perfons might, in conformity to their own U2 434 AN A.PC10CY F0!% " inclination, have received baptifrn by dip* " ping. But then, what authority has the <' choice and practice of fome, in a matter of " liberty, to bind others." Other chriftians have,, undoubtedly, the fame right of choof- inga different mode, that may be more fuit- able to their condition. In thefe refpe6ts, the gofpel allows of greater liberty and lati- tude than former inftitutions. Under the old teftament difpenfations^ their religious rites, with all the formalities attending them, were particularly pointed out, and exprefsly enjoined. Thus it was with refpeft to the paflover. " The pafchal *' lamb mud be killed in the firfl: month at '* evening — a male of the firft ytar, and wiih- *' out blemifh. He muft be roafted, and " eaten the fame night, with his head, legs^ " and purtenance — with unleavened bread *^ and bitter herbs — in hafte, with their loins " girded, with fhoes on their feeU and with '- ftaves in their hands." But under the gof- pel of Chrift, v.^e have no fuch particular di- redions and injunftions refpeding the Lord'^ fupper. — We have no command, concerning the quantity or quality of the bread or wine, or concerning the time, place, and manner of communion. Accordingly, the pra6lice of chriflians has been, and ftill is, very vari- ous. Some churches partake once or twice in a year — others much oftener. Some par- take kneeling ; fome fetting in their refpec- tive fears; and others feated around a table^ INFANT BAPTISM, 235 provided and furnifhed for that purpofe : fome at noon, and others much later in the day. But thefe circumftances, being nei- ther required nor prohibited, are therefore noteflential or important. In former limes,, the ancient rite of cir- cumcifion was not only appointed, but the mode of circumcifing was alfo explicitly de- fined and commanded. The mode was there- fore abfolutely effential and indifputable ;: and the praQice has, of courfe, been uni- form, even from the days of Abraham to the prefent time. But, under the gofpel, the mode of baptizing has not been fpecified or commanded. The mode is therefore not ef- fential. The pra6lice has confequently been different ; varying according to the variatiou. of times, and places, and circumftances. I am, Sir, Sec, >-C>-.>-C>v PART III. ON THE HISTORY OF BAPTISM. LETTER XXIL. SIRy JLiET us now fpend a few moments in ex- amining hiftory, and fee if it will not afford^ us fome additional and ufeful information^ relative to the modes and fubje6ls of baptifm. You teli us, in fermon 3, page 40, " that " Mofheim, a very noted church hiftorian, " and not very friendly to the baptifls, bears " direB tefiimony, that John. Ghrifl's fore- ^' runner, and the church, in the firft ages " of chriftianity, praBifed immerfion as the ** mode of baptizing." But how does it ap- pear, that this celebrated hiftorian was un-- friendly to the baptifts ? His hiftory has gen- erally been cfteemed for irs impartiality and corre6lnefs. With refpe6t to the mode of baptifm. he feems to favour immerfion ; but with refpeB to the fubjePis, he firm.ly believ- ed that the right of baptifm belonged to the infant children of believers, as well as to their parents -, and that this riglft was confirmedi 23S AN APOLOGY FOR by apoftolick example and the uniform prac- tice of the primiiive churches. I hope you will give the hiftorian as much credit, with regard to the fubjeSls of baptifm, as you have done with refpedi to the mode of baptizing. But what has he faid ? " That John initiated " perfons into the kingdom of the Redeem-. " er, by immerfion or haptijm.'' — By immer- fion or haptijm I Why has he added the word haptifm ? Undoubtedly in order to qualify the word immerfion. For he was not w^il- ling to fubftitute imriurfion^ a word o{ Jixed and dejinite meaning, in the room and place of baptifm, t:fAzc/2, according to common u- fage, is not refcricied to one and the fame figni- fication. It was probably his opinion, that the primitive chriftians coimnonly baptized by immerfion; but he does not intimate, that this was their pra6tice wiiverfally. or that this mode of baptizing was deemed ejfential to the ordinance of baptifm. Again, you tell us, " that John Calvin, in *' his inflitution.s book 4, chapter 15. feBion " ig, fays, it is certain that the manner of '• dipping was ufed of the old church." You proceed — " Calvin, the celebrated Reform- " t:r, of Geneva, obferves, in his expofition '' of A8s viii, 38, '• We fee here what was " the baptiimal rite among the ancients, for " they plunged the whole body in water. " Now it is the cuftom for the minifter ta " fprinkle only the body or hea'd." '' And INFANT BAPTISM. 239 ^* he too excufes this fprinkling, but how, I " cannot tell, not having his book at hand." Yourconclufions generally comprife much more than their premifes. " Calvin," you tell us, fays, «• it is certain that the manner " of dipping was ufed by the old church." He alfo declares, " that now it is the cuf- " torn for the minifter to fprinkle water on *• the head." Thefe different expreffions of Calvin ferve well to illuftrate and explain each other. For as dipping was fometimes praQifed in the days of Calvin, although it was then cuftomary for minifters to bap- tize by fprinkling; fo fprinkling was fome- times pra6iifed in the ancient church, al- though it was then ufual to baptize by dipping. This is a true ftate of* fa6ls5 and thus Calvin undoubtedly expe6led to have been underftood. It is impoffible for us to afcertain, in what mode or modes the A- poftles and the firft preachers of the gofpel adminiftered bapiifm. We do however know, that dipping and fprinkling were both praftifed in the fecond century ; and each practice hath been continued, from that pe- riod to the prefent time. Sometimes, and in feme places, dipping has been prevalent ; and fometimes, and in {ome countries, fprink- ling has prevailed. But in ancient times, the mode of dipping was not confidered as eflential, nor was it confined to adult believ- ers. The perfons baptized in this way were principally infant children. ^40 AN APOLOGY FOR Calvin was an advocate for the mode of fprinkling. But as you have not favoured us with any of his reafons, I will here fub- join a few lines, which immediately follow your quotation. After having added, " that " the common cuftom is now for the minifter " to ufe afpcrfion," he obferves, " Never- « thele fs, fo fmall a difference of ceremony <* ought not to be of fo great account with ^ us, that we fhould, for that caufe, rend the *' church, or difturb it, with our contentions '« and controverfics." And further, he fays, " that nothing of the fubftance of baptifm is " wanting, while the fymbol of water is made " ufe of, for the ends which Chrift hath ap- '^ pointed. The fubftance being retained, ^' the church from the beginning enjoyed a '• liberty of ufing fomewhat different rites. " And therefore, we ought not to be unrea- *' fonably (tiiF, in things unneceffary or un- ^* commanded." In the next place, you produce Dr. Cave^ and tell us, your author lays, this great fearch- er into antiquity faid, " that the party bap- *' tized, was wholly immerfed, or put under *' water, which was the cofnmon, C07iflant,^ and '' imiverfal cuftom of thofe times, &:c." This mutilated quotation, according to your own account, was taken from a quotation, printed almoft a hundred years ago, in a publication of ten letters, addrefted to Bifhop Hoadly. You have not told us the author's name. He was probably one of thole writers, who INFANT BAPTISM. 241 preferred a fi6litious fignature. To the quo- tations or this anonymous, antiquated book, which has been anFwered and confuted again and again, you have applied for witnelTesj in order to prove a dodririe which they never believed. Dr. Cave is mentioned as faying, " that immerfion was the common, conftant, " and univerfal cuftom of thofe ancient *« times." In anfwer to this very quotation, Mr. Walker^ who publiftied his treatife on the do6lrine of baptifms, more than eighty years lince, has favoured us with the following re- marks : " Dr. Cave was no baptift — nor op- ^« pofed to the mode of fprinkling as bap- " lifm. He doth not fay that immerging was ** the conjlant^ and imiverfal cuftom of thofe " times, but expreffes himfelf with a reftnc- " tion almojl^ which is a clear acknowledg- " ment that there were other modes of bap- " tizing then in ufe." The teftimony of your witneffes, when im- partially confidered. is decidedly againft you. They have told us, that immerfion was an- ciently praclifed ; but not one of ihem^ has faid or meant, that the pradice was univer- fal. You further tell us, "that all the church- *' es in Europe, Afia, and Africa, ever have '^ done, and do now, praQife immerfion, fave " thofe who are now or have been under " the jurifdiclion of the Pontic's of Rome.'' I wifh you had added a f^ew words mor^, and told the public k, ihac thefe churches alv/ays have and (lill do vvdiEii^c in/ant baptiCm, This W 242 AN APOLOGY FOR information would have been very accepta- ble to many of your readers. For while fome ignorantly fuppofe, that the mode of dipping has always been confined to the a- dults, others, like yourfelf, inconfiderately and very abufively, afcribe the praftice of in- fant baptifm *' to the mother of harlots and " S^^^Py ^¥^^ of Rome:' Having felefted your favourite extrads from the afore faid Ten Letters, "you tell us, ^' that Dr. Laihrop implicitly confefles them '• to be both true and genuine." Let the Dr. fpeak for himfelf. His words are, ^^ The " truth is — the manner of baptizing among " the ancients was looked upon circumftan- •• cial, and no way effential to the ordinance. " In the times near to the Apoftles, immer- •♦ fion was much pra^ifed, but never afferted •• to be neceffary. Far from this ; fprinkling *' was exprefsly allowed, and frequently ufed, " efpecially in cafes of infirmity, or hafte, or *• want of water, or other conveniences. '• This, the author of the letters hirifef concedes^ '• 'that from the Apoftles' times, for thirteen '• hundred years, i'prinkiing was permitted " on extraordinary occafions.' Cyprian, '• (who wrote within about 150 years of the '• Apoftles) fpeaking of fprinkling, fays, ' In «• the facrament of falvaiion, (meaning bap- '• tifm) when neceflity compels, the ftiorteft " ways of tranfaBing divine matters do. by " God's grace, confer the whole benefit.' '• And it may not be impertinent to obferve, INFANT BAPTISM. 243 « thai the ancients who pra^Vifed immerfion " did ufually, after the body had been " plunged, apply water to the face. So far *• therefore as the pra6lice of the ancients is "ofweighr, it proves all that we contend '• for. We don't fay that imnaerfion is un- '« lawful, or a mere nullity. We fay it is *• not neceflary — that afFufion is fufficienf, '^ and agreeable to the divine word ; and fo '• faid the ancient church." According to Dr. Lathrop. your celebrated author was To candid as to acknowledge that fprinkling, on extraordinary occafions, was permitted, even from ihe days of theApoftles. Dr. Wall, in his hiftory of infant baptifm, mentions feveral cafes, wherein perfons had been baptized by affufion or fprinkling, which happened about the middle of the fec- ond century ; as in vol. 2, page 356. " St, " Lawrence^ a little while before he fufFered *' martyrdom,, baptized wiih a pitcher of *« water one of his executioners, a foldier, <• who had been converted to the chriftian " religion." This inftance appears very {im- ilar to the cafe of St. Paul, who baptized the jailer and. his houfehold in prifon the fame hour of the night in which he believed, '' Ba- ^^Jilides \s 2i\[o mentioned by Eiifebiiis, as hav- '' ing been baptized in prifon." Page 353. '' Novatian became a chriftian << about one hundred years after the Apof- " lies, when, being vifited with ficknefs, he " requefied to be baptized ; and, according 24^ AN APOLOGY FOR; '• to the cuftom of thofe times, baptifm was " adminiftered to him in his bed, by afFufion " or fprinkling." The circumftances, which attended this particalar cafe, were fuch as have rendered it very notorious, and have left no doubt with refpeB to the mode in which he was baptized. For Novatian^ hav- ing recovered his health, was afterward ap- pointed bifhop of Rome. His appointment fo this office occafioned a very ferious con- troverfy ; an account of which has been pre- ferved even to the prefent day. The law- fulnefs and validity of his baptifm were not denied or difputed. But we are informed, '' that all the clergy, and a great many of ^' the laity, were againft his being ordained ^' prefbyter, becaufe it was not lawful (they '* feidj for any one who had been baptized '• in his bed, in time of ficknefs, to be ad- •• mitted to any clerical office." Now the reafon of their objeftion is very obvious. Baptifm, in that age of the world, expofed perfons to the mod dreadful perfecutionsj efpecialiy if they undertook the work of the gofpel miniftry. If therefore any perfon neg- leded to be baptized, while in health, or un- til vifited with ficknefs, this negle6l of duty rendered his chara6ler liable to fufpicion. They were ready to fufpeft, that, while well, he was influenced by the fear of reproach and fuffisring; and when fick, that he atted under the impreffion of a fright ; and, con- fequentiy, that there would be danger of hia INFANT BAPTISM. J^45 apoftacy, iF placed in a Htuation of fevere trial and temptation. Accordingly, the council of Neocasfarea^ held about eighty years after this time, ef- tablifhed the follovi^ing regulation, viz* "that *' he who is baptized when fick ought not *' to be made a priefl (for his coming to the " faiih is not voluntary, but from neceffityj *' unlefs his diligence and fidelity do after- " ward prove commendable, or the fcarcity '• of men fit for the office do require it." About this lime one Magnus wrote to Sf, Cyprian, de firing to be fatisfied in fome mat- ters relating to the aforefaid drfpufe. To his requeft St. Cyprian replied. *• I would life " fo much modefty and humility, as not to " prefcribe fo pofitively, but that every one ** fhould have the freedom of his oun <' thoughts, and do as he thinks beR."— *^ For " the contagion of fin is not, in the facra- ** ment of falvation, wafhed off, by the fame *• meafurcs as the dirt of the fkin and of the '• body is waflied away."- — ** There is no nc- " cefllity of foap, or of a large pool, or fifh- " pond. It \s in another way, that the breail '' of a believer is wadied ; after another fafli- '• ion, that ihe mind of man is by faiih clean- " fed." And then adds the quotaiion that you have taken from Dr. Lathrop, viz. " In '• the facraments of falvation, when neceffity ^* compels the fiiortert ways of tranfaQing " the divine matiers do, by God's gracious ^' dirpenfatioD, confer the whole benefi:,' — ^^S AN APOLOGY FOR He further proceeds — " No man need there- " fore think otherwife,becaufe thefe fickpeo- " pie, when they receive the grace of our " Lord, have nothing but an affufion or " fprinkling; whereas the holy fcripture, by *' the prophet Ezekiel, fays, I will fpr inkle dean " water uponyou^i andyejhall he clean" Sec, Dr. Wall dates " the aforefaid inftances '• as fome of the moft ancient now extant on " record; but obferves, as we proceed fur- '' ther in reading the hiftory of the following " times, cafes of fprinkling are more fre- " quently mentioned; and that, in the fifth " century, baptifm was adminiftercd in " France, indifferently, by immerfion and " afperfion." The truth is — previoufly to the third cen- tury^ or before Conftantine the Emperour^. embraced chriftianity, chriftians were con- ftantiy oppofed and perfecuted by the rulers and philofophers of this world. This gene- ral oppofiiion and perfecution prevented in* ternal differences, and difpofed them to u* nite harmonioufly againft the common ene^ my, and in defence of their common religion. They have accordingly written and tranfmit- led to pofteriiy but very little, concerning gofpel ordinances ; and, in particular, con- cerning the facrament of baptifm ; and have commonly expreffed them (elves in fuch a manner as does not fpecify the modcj in which it wac> adminiiiered. INFANT BAPTISM. 247 When we confider the peculiar circum- ftances of thofe limes ; that the art of print- ing was not then known ; that but very few perfons were capable of writing ; that a dreadful ftorm of perfecution raged without control; that chriftians were every moment liable to be deprived of their property, their liberty, their relations and friends, and even of their own life — it could not be expe6led, in this (ituation of extreme danger, anxiety, and diftrefs, that they would be able to pre= ferve a regifter of their proceedings — an ex- a6t account of their numerous baptifms, and of the mode in which they baptized ; and yet we find various inftances of baptifm admin- iftered by fprinkling, fo early as in the fec» ond century. This is a faB clearly afcer- tained, and univerfally acknowledged. It is allowed even by the baptifts. The author of Ten Letters, whom you have fo often quo- ted as an authority, concedes, " that fprink- " ling was pra^ifed, on extraordinary occa- " fions, in the early ages of chriftianity." It was praftifcd, occafionally, with general con- fent, with univcrfal approbation. It does not appear that there was one fingle church in all chriltendom, for more {han a ihoufand years, that objefted, or even fufpefted, that fprinkliDg was not a lawful and valid mode of baptizing. You fell us, " the reafons alledged, why '• fpririkling may be fubfliiuied for immer- « lionjarcj the want of health, coldnefs of 248 an: apology FOR « climate, Sec, and that here isi»a filent ac- " knowledgment, that it is not the inftirution, " the permiflion of Chrift, but mere acciden- " tal and local circumftances, which make it *' lawful to lay by the command of Chrifi, " and receive in its ftead the precepts and " commandments of men." Is this a fair and candid reprefentation of the cafe ? Who. among the ancients or mod- erns, that have pra8ifed fprinkling, general- ly or occafionaliy, ever fuppofed that Chrif^ commanded dipping ? It has certainly been their conftant opinion, that the mode of bap- tizing was not fpecified or required byChrift ; that afperfion, afFufion, and immerfion, were equally valid. We are fometimes told, «* that the priml- " tive chriftians were all baptifts." But it feems they did not fuppofe that the mode of fprinkling was a mere mockery or nullity ; or that a total dipping or immerfion was ab- folutely edential to the facrament of baptifm. None of the ancient fathers, many of whom were learned men, and underflood the origi- nal language perfeBly well, ever believed, or even fufpeded, that the Greek word baptizo^ always fignified to dip. The validity of bap- lifm was fometimes queftioned, when admin- iftered by, or to, an improper fubje^l, but not on the account of the mode of adminiftration. The prefent charaQeridick principles of the modern baptills v/ere evidently unknown to the ancients. They never refufed to com- INrANT BAPTISM. 249 mune with perfons, merely becaufe they had not been dipped ; but readily admitted to their communion fiich as v/ere baptized by afFcfion or fprinkling. You fay, page 74, " It was an early error " in the church, that baptifm was necelTary " to falvaiion. Hence, when ii was judged " that life would be endangered by immer- " fion, the perfon muft either lofe his- life by " baptifm, or lofe his foul for the want of " being baptized, or fome other mode muft " be invented." — "Under thefe circumftan- " ces, man's fruitful imagination devifed " fprinkling, as a fubdituie for baptifm. — " Here is the origin of fprinkling as the an- " cients have told us." This, Sir, is an in- ference of your own- — an inference which the ancients never avowed. St. Cyprian, who flourifhed about one hundred and fifty years after the Apofties, and to whofe wri- tings you have exprefsly referred, in order to prove the aforefaid aflertion, was certainly of a very different opinion. He fully be- lieved that fprinkling was as truly baptifm as immerfion. This we have clearly fhown from his own unequivocal declarations. It is true, the primitive chriftians did not un- dervalue baptifm. They did not defpife and negle6t this facred ordinance, as many do at the prefent day ; but confidered all fuch unnecefiTary and wilful negleOs as im- moral and highly criminal. They viewed baptifm as an incumbent duty of great im- 250 AN APOLOGY FOR portance — equally important and neceffary for the fickly and infirm, as for the healthy and robuft — equally neceffary in winter as in fummer — in cold as in warm climates — in dry feafons and countries, as in places a- bounding with fountains and ftreams of wa- ter. Accordingly, they adopted, on various occafions, the mode of fprinkling ; and ef- pecialiy in thofe cafes where dipping was impraBicable, unfafe, or inconvenient. The ancients never fufpe8ed, that the mode of baptizing was defined by Chrifl, or erijoined by him. They well knew that fome of the principal purifications, under the Mo- faic difpenfation, %v'ere performed by fprink-- ling, and that thefe fprinklings were exprefs- iy called baptifms, in the new teftament. The prophet had foretold, that perfons (hould be fprinkled with clean water. This predic- tion they applied to the chriftian baptifm. Indeed it is applicable to no other inflitution. Thefe were evidently fome of the principal arguments, which influenced the ancient chriftians ; and, in addition to thefe and fim- ilar confiderations, they probably had good reafons to fuppofe, that the mode of fprink- ling was agreeable to the praQice or fenti- ment of the Apo'lles. I have already granted, and am flill ready to grant, that fome of the primitive chrif- tians put too much dependence upon the or- di nance of baptifm. They Teemed to fup- pofe, ihat baptifm would enfure their falva- INFANT BAPTISM. 25! tiori) and that none would be faved without it. The ancients enjoyed but very fmall ad- vantages for acq-uiring religious and ufeful knowledge. But few could read. They had no public fchools or printed books. They were of courfe, generally, very igno- rant and fuperftitious. According to your opinion, they were influenced by fuperftition 10 adopt the mode of fprinkling, when fickj and when deftitute of the requifites and con- veniences for dipping, With equal, if not greater, propriety, I might relort and faV) it was Tuperftiiion that difpofed fo many of them to adopt the mode of dipping, on oth- er occaiians. For ihey were firongly difpo- fed to overdo, with refocQ to the external rites and ceremonies of religion. But, Sir, with all their fuperftition, ihey were never fo fuperftitious as to believe that the mode of baptizing was abfolutely eflential to the or- dinance ofbaptifm. Th^y n^wzv rc-baptizcd on this account 3 but believed that fprink* ling was a proper and valid mode of bapti- zing, and perfectly agreeable to the original intention of Chrift and nature of the inlii tution. Mai. kind are very apt to be in one ex- treme or the other. Superftition was cha- raderiftick of the ancients. The ancient Jews and profelytes were too fuperfiiiiaus. The religious riles and ceremonies of the Mofaic difpenfation were expenlive, burden- fome, and grievous ; but ihey never com,- 252 AN APOLOGY FOR plained — they were willing to do tnore, in thefe refpeOs, than their law required — were ready to offer the moft coftly facrifices, and even their own children — their firjl- born for their tranfgrejfion^ and the fruit of their bodies for the fins of thtir fouls. When the Saviour was here on earth, they were careful to tithe the moft trifling articles — anise and cummin^ and all manner of herbs. With the fame ftrid- nefs, they obferved their fabbaths, fafts and feftivals. This exaBnefs, with reference to the inftituted rites of their religion, frequent- ly difpoTed them to encroach upon the great- er duties of morality. For while they {o fcrupuloufly " ftrained at a gnat, in one <« cafe, they often fwallowed a camel, in the <« other." The primitive chriftians were not fo im- inoral, but they were extremely fuperftitious. When Chrift wafhed his diFciples' feet, Peter, in the firft pla<:e, obje8ed ; but being told that wafhing was necclfary, he immediately embraced the oppofite extreme. He was then anxious to be wafned all over; not his feet only, but his hands a?id his head. The fame Apoftle underftood his commiflion fo imper- fe6i!y, that he needed a miracle, in order to convince him that it was lawFul to preach the gofpel unto the uncirciimcfd gentiles. We are told that many ihoufands of Jews and profelytes bdieved in Chrift. But the 2ift chapter of Afts informs us, "that they ^' all were zealous of the law." They had INFANT BAPTISM. 253 been baptized, but would not confent to re- linquifh a (ingle article of the Mofaic inditu- tion — not even the painful rite of circumci- fion. How greatly alarmed and difpleafed, when they heard that falfe report concerning St. Paul, viz. " that he taught the Jews, who *• lived among the Gentiles, to forfakc Mo- ^' les, faying, they ought not to circumcife " their children, neither walk according to ** the cuftoms ?" Let us now enquire how Chrift and his Apoftles conducted toward this fuperftitious people. The enquiry will refleO; fome ufe- ful light upon the fubjeft we have been con- fidering. It is evident they were not allow- ed in any kind of immoralityo But they were treated with the greateft indulgence and tendernefs conceivable, relauvely to the external modes and forms of their infti- tuted rites and religious ceremonies; and with refped to fuch other praQices as are not in themfelves finful. Each one was per- mitted to enjoy his own opinion, and con- form to his own habitual cuftoms, without being molefted or cenfured. The firft infpired preachers of the gofpel w^ere peculiarly careful not to offend tither Jew, or Greek-, or the Church 0/ God, Our Saviour told the Jews " l/iai mercy was be/ore "facrtfice' — " ihat David and they luho were •• with him^ when hungry^ laafiilly ate theJJicw- *' bread'' — " that the Sabbath was made for man, " and not inan for the Sabbath,'' Thefc and X 254 A^' APOLOGY r^R fimilar obfervations are equally applicable to the chriftian bapiifm. On another occa- fion, he obferved to his difciples, ^^ I have " many things to fay unto you^ hut ye cannot hear *' them now,'' He was unwilling to difturb their minds, and fliock their faith, with fuch doQrines and truths as they were not prepa- red to receive and entertain. He, therefore, waited for the abatement of their prejudices, and the arrival of a more convenient oppor- tunity. Again, although Chrifl knev/ that the Ro- mans had no equitable right to demand trib- ute of the Jews; yet, rather than cccafion of- ftnce^ he procured, in an extraordinary man- ner, a piece of filver, in order to defray the taxes affeffed on himfelF and Peter. The holyApoftles conducted with the fame prudent, peaceable caution. Tiie Jews who believed, efteemed circumcifion and the Mo- faic cttftoms as an unfpeakab'e privilege, and wifhed to have them continued. They were accordingly graufied. Nay, in order to re- move fufpicion, Sr. Paul circumcifed Timo- thy with his own hand. In compliance with the advice of the other Apoftles, he ihaved bis own head and purified himfelf, as the law ofMofes required. This happened about 27 years after that law was annulled or fu- perfeded by the gofpel difpenfation. The believing genriles confidered thefe Jewifh rites as great grievances, and requeft- •d to be excufcd. Thev alfo were freely in- INFANT BAPTISM. 255 dalg'^d. The apoftolick language was, " we '• that are ftrong, ought to bear the infirmi- '• ties of the weak, and not to pleafe ourfelves. " Let every one of us pleafe his neighbour, ^' for his good to edification. For even '• Chriil pleafed not him^^elf, &c."— '• For " tho'igh I be free from all men, yet have I '• nriade myfelf fervant un^o all, that I might '' gain the more. To the Jews I became as '' a Jew, that I might gain the Jews -, to them " that are under tl>e law, as uncier the law, ''• that I might gain them that are under the '• law ; to them that are without law, as with- ^' out law, beiiig not wiihout law to God^ ^' but under the law to Chrin:, that I might ^' gain them that are without law. To the *' weak, I became as weak, that I might gain ^ the v/eak. 1 am made all things to all men, " that by all means, I might fave fome." This, Sir, is chriilian candour and condef- cenfion. Thus, the Apoiiies yielded to the ignorance^ weaknefs, prejudices, bigotry, and fuperftition of mankind; in order to prevent unnecefTary diflentions and fepara- lions, and keep the itnily of the Spirit in the bond cf peace — that the gofpel of Chrifl might noi be fruftrated or hindered^ hut have free courfe and be glorified. When therefore we reafon from analogy^ inference, or fair implication, it is natural to fuppofe, that Chrift meant to leave the mode of bapjifm .undecided, that his Apoftles and. miniltersj in ail fucceeding generations? %^6 AN APOLOISY FOR might be at liberty to apply the baptifmal water, in fuch a manner as fhould be moft ex- pedient, in their various circumftances. In this very refpeft, we difcover the wifdom and kindnefs of our common Lord. For as chriftianity was defigned to be an univcrfal religion, it was proper that the rite of publick initiation {l:iould be of fuch a nature as might be accommodated to the condition and incli* nation of perfons, in all ages, and naiionsj.. and climates, and feafons. I am, Sir, Sec, LETTER XXIIt. SIR, I PERCEIVE, in your letters addrefTed to Mr. JnJer/on, on open communion, that you. define a baptift as being •« one who holds im- '' merfion only to be baptifm, and vifible be- " lievers the only fubjefts." But, Sir, how could you, confidently wiih this definition, aflert fo pofitively, " that during the firft ** century, the chriftians were all regular bap- " tifts ?^ — and that the origin oJ'the psedobap- '• tifts is at once traced to about the middle " of the fecond century ?" Unhappilv? for the uninformed, prejudiced, and credulous part of mankind, fuch pedantick, pofitive aiTeriions, unaccompanied wiih any evidence;. • >N^FANT BAPTISM, ^57 often prove more effeftual than the foundeft reafons and mod conclufive arguments ! It appears, however, that a modern baptifl, with refped to the fubjefts, holds that infant bap- lifm is always unlawful and invalid, even when adminiftered by dipping. A baptiil, with refpeft to the mode, is one who holds that a total immerfion or dipping is abfolute- ly neceOTary, in order to render the admin- iftration of the ordinance lawFuI and valid. He confequently refufes to commune with thofe perfons. who have received baptifm in any other mode, although they were adult believers, at the time of being baptized. According to this defcription of a baptid, I have not been able, after the m^oft laborious and careful examination of hidory, to fir:d a finole church or minifter of that denomina- lion, before the twelfth ceniurv. Eaptifa:), I have [liown,.was praBifed by fprinkling, oc- cafionaily, without oppofiiion, in ihe fecond century. This ftrongly indicates, that the practice was handed down, even from the A- pollles; efpeciaily when v/e confider that there is'no evidence to the contrary. Mere filence, wiih refpecl to infant baptifm, or the mode of baptizing, during the firft cen- tury, will not prove that ihofe chriftians were baptifts. The deprelTed, perfecuted chrif- lians of that age were conftantly engaged in other matters of areater importance, (ufificient to occupy all their time and all (heir talents-; X 2- 25^ AN APOLOGY FOR I am ready to admit, that the Greek church, and various other churches at the prefent day, who ftill believe in the rite of infant baptifm, commonly praftice dipping. The church of England alfo, according to their Rubrick, on ordinary occafions, for- merly praftifed dipping; but they were not reftrifted to that mode, nor was it ever con- fidered by them as effentiai. It is a very common thing, in fome places, even in this country, for thofe minifters to baptize, occafionally, by dipping, who ufual- ly adminifter baptifm by fprinkling. A very refpeftable minifter, in the town of Provi- dence, more than thirty years ago, baptized three perfons, on the fame occafion, in three different modes, by their own particular de- fire. The firjl was fprinkled in the meeting- houfe. The congregation then proceeded to the river, at which the fecond had water poured upon her head, and in which the third was dipped. Similar inftances have fre- quently happened in latter times. Thefe brothers and fillers, baptized in different modes, fome while infants, and others when rdulis, like ibe primitive chriflians, commune togeth ri;i love and feliowfhip, at the fame table of their common Lord and Mafter. Agreeably (o what I have obferved, Mr. Worcejlcr^ of Salem, in a late publication, {ays, '• It is a well lupponed hf!\^ that in the *• firfl ages of chriflianity, and for about '• twelve or hfiecn hundred years, bapti'mj INFANT BAPTISM. 259 " by fprinkling or afFufion, was univerfally *' allowed to be fcriptural and valid. Even ** ihofc} who, in ordinary cafes, baptized by *« infimerfion, did not deny, but admitted, the " validity of baptifnv by fprinkling or af- « fufion." The mode of fprinkling was alfo counten- anced and well defended by Luther, and Calvin, and Melan6lhon, and other great re- formers from popery; and has generally been praftifed by proteftants, from that period to the prefent day. If the primitive chriftians had believed that the mode of dipping was abfolutely requifite to the validity of bap- tifm, no confideration could have induced them, on any occafion, to fubftitute fprink- ling. But, viewing the mode as not fixed by Chrift, and as not being effential, the prac- tice of fprinkling was perfe6lly confiftent with their fentiments. The fame opinion and praftices ftill prevail in thofe churches where the right of infant baptifm is not denied. It is very remarkable, that in thofe ag^s and countries, where the mode of dipping has been, or ftill is, the moil prevalent^ there in- fant baptifm has been the moft generally prac- tifed, and there the mode of baptizing has not been deemed efieniial. Inftead, therefore, of finding all ihefe people baptifts, but vc^y few, if any ^ of that denomination, are to be fjund among them. Dr. Wall, who was himfelf an advocate for dippingjtells us, '-that <• all chriilians in the world, luho never owned zSo AN APOLOGY FOR.' ^ the pope's authority, do now, and ever did, " dip their infants, in the ordinary ufe.'* They always baptized their infants ; and, or- dinarily, by dipping, but not univerfally, for they, occafionally, fprinkled them. The mode of dipping was of ordinary ufe ; but the praftice ofinfant baptifm,in thofe church- es who were never under the influence of popery^- appears to have been univerfal^ both in an- cient and modern times. We do not pretend to reft the proof of in- fants' right to baptifm upon hiftorical evi- dence, relative to the ancient praftice of the' church in this refpeft. However, ific fhould' appear, th^at the churches, foon afier the A- poftles, did admit the infant children of be- lieving parents to baptifm-— if no account can be produced, of any church that reje6l> ed them — if no individual can be named, who^ pretended that the praBice was unlawful, or' an innovation — ihefe fafts will certainly fur- nifh a very weighty argument in favour of' the aforefaid doftrine. Baptifm is an important tranfa6iion of a- pubiick nature. Thofe chriftians, who lived- and wrote in the earlieft tnnes after the Apof- tles, muft have known what thfir pra^ice was, with reference to the infant children of believers. The teftimony of thefe ancient' writers, as hiftorians or witneOes, rerpe6ling' this plain matter of fa8, juftly claims our moft^ impartial and attentive confideration. It is notj however, my intention to write a qoe»- INFANT BAPTISM. 26i plete hiflory of infant baptifm. A hiftory of this kind has been written a century ago, by Dr, Wall, a very correft and judicious hiRo- rian. This hiftory is highly approved and recommended by the beft judges, as being a work of great merit, candour and impartiality. On February 9th, 1 705? the clergy of Eng- land, afifembled in general convention. '• or- *' dercd^ that the thanks of this houfe be giv- " en to Mr, Wall, vicar of Shoreham in Kent, *' for the learned and excellent bock he hath " lately written concerning infant baptifm ; " and that a committee be appointed tt> ac- " quaint him with the fame." Dr. Atterbu- ry, a leading member in faid conveniioni fays, '* that the hiRory of infant baptifm was *' a book, for which the auihor deferved the " thanks, not of the Englifh clergy alone, but '' of all the chriftian churches." Mr. Whijlon al fo, a very learned man, well acquainted with the writings of the Fathers of the four firft centuries, and a profeffed b to infant baptifm, a few of which I (hall produce, as authorities on the prefent oc* cafion. Jujl'in Martyr^ who wrote about 40 years after the apoltoHck age, fays, " We have not '• received ihe carnal but fpiritual circumci- '• fion. by baptifnn. And it is enjoined oa '• ai! perfons to receive it in the fdme w^ay.'^ He here evidently confiders baptifm as being in the place of circunQcifion, and,confequent- }y. like ih:\t ancient riie. defigned for infants as Vt'ell as for adults. In one of his apolo-. gies for the cbriftians, he obfcrves, " Seve- ^» ral perfoni among us, of 60 or 70 years '* old, who were made difciples to Chnft " from their childhood, do continue uncor- " rupt."— -T^^Ao -were made difciples. — Take no- !ict; for he makes ufe of the very fame word that was ufed in the commiflion given to the Apoftles. Difciple all natiom^ baptizing iherti. Sec. Now, if infant children were made difciples, they were undoubtedly baptized. Jufiin wrote about IC5 years after the afcen- fion of Chrift. Thofe perfons whom he men- tions were then 70 years old ; and ^confe- quently born and made difciples, in the times gf the Apoftles. Irenceus,^ who wrote about 67 years after the Apoftles, and was then an aged man, fays, concerning Chrift, " he came to fave all per- *^{pns who by him are regenerated (or bap- INFANT BAPTISM. 263 " tizedj unto God, infants^ little ones, youths " and elderly perfons." He fpeaks o{ infants and little ones as being regenerated. It is evident from his own words that he had reference to their baptifm ; for he tells us, *« When Chrift gave his Apoftles the com- " mand of regenerating unto God, he faid. go " and teach all nations baptizing them." The ancient Fathers as cuftomarily ufed the word regeneration for baptifm, as the church of England now ufe the word chrifl- ening. Jullin Martyr, whofe name and tefti- mony we have already mentioned, fpeaking of fome particular perfons who had b^en baptized, fays, " they are regenerated !n the '• fame way of regenera'ion, in which we '' have been regenerated, for they are wa/Iied " with water in the name of the Father, and « of the Son, and of the Holy Ghojir In this fhort fentence, the word regeneration or re- generated is put for baptifm no lefs than three times. It is a matter o^ no importance in the prefent difpute, whether the primitive F^ihtrs ufed the aforefaid word properly or improperly. We certainly know in what fenfe they did ufe it, and this is all the information needed. I would however repeat a former obferva- tion, viz. that by a common figure, the thing fignified is often fubftituted for the fign, and the fign for the thing fignified. Thus, the Abrahamic covenant is fomelimes put, by God himfelf, for circumci|on; and 264 AN AFOLOGY FOR circumcifion, the fign and token thereof, is fomeiirnes put for the covenant. Accord- ingly, baptifm has been put for regeneration^ and regeneration, for baptifm. We have already fhown, that the Jews were in the habit of baptizing the Gentile profelytes, even before the time of Johnand x)f Chrift. They confidered thefe profelytes as being, by bapiirm, born the children of Abraham ; and therefore expreffed their baptifm, by regeneration. Accordingly, Chrift and his Apoftles, on fome particular occafions, adopted a fimilar language. Our Saviour faid to Nicodem-us, except one he horn again — (xcept he he horn of water and of the fpirit^ he cannot enter the kingdom of God, By this new birth, Chrift evidently had refer- ence to water baptifm, as truly as to the renewing of the Holy Ghoft. The Apoftle Paul ftyles baptifm, the waJJiing of regenera- tion. The ancients commonly expreifed bapiifm with water, by regeneration ; for they confidered this external facrament as a fign of internal, fpiriiual renovation and purification. Irengeus exprefsly calls bap- tifm regeneration, and fays that infants were Regenerated^ that is. baptized. His teftimony is plain and full ; and cannot be doubted by any perfon acquainted wiih the phraieology and wriiinss of the Fathers. He mentions not only old perfons and youths, but al fo little ones, and even z??/^n^j. This Irenseus was bifliop of Lyons in France. AccordiiJg INFANT BAPTISM. 265 to Mr. Dodwcll^ he Was born before the death of St. John — was brought up in Afia, where that Apoflle had lived and died. He was acquainted with Polycarp ; and in his young- er years, had often heard him preach. Poly- Carp was John's difciple, had been chofen by him to be bifhop of Smyrna — and probably that Angel of the Church, fo highly com- mended in the 2d chapter of Rev. Irenaeus and thofe chriftians who lived in an age fo near the Apoftles, and in a place where one of them had fo lately refided, could not be ignorant—- they mud have known what the apoftolick practice was, with refpe6l to infant bapiifm — a matter of the moft notorious and Ipiibiick nature. Dr. Lathrop obferves, *« that Tertullian^ who flourifhed about one hundred years af- ter the Apoflles, gives a plain teftimony, that the church admitted infants to baptifm in his lime. It is true, he advifes to delay fheir baptifm ; not becaufe it was unlawful^ for he allows of it in cafes of neceflity; but becaufe the fponfors were often brought into a fnare ; and becaufe he imagined that (ins, committed after baptifm^ were next to unpardonable. He accordingly advifes that unmarried per- fons be kept from this ordinance, until they either marry or are confirmed in continence. His advifing to a delay, fuppofes thai infant bdpiifm was pra8ifed, for oiherwife there would have bten no room for the advice* He does not f-eak of it ss an innovaiioru Y 266 AN APOLOCY FOR wViich he would certainly have done, had it begun to have been praBifed in his tinie. His words rather imply the contrary. His {peaking o{ fponfors^ who engaged for the ed- li cation of the infants that were bapti^ied, fhows that there had been (uch a cuftom. And his afking, " why that innocent age " madefuch haft e to baptiim," fuppofts that in- fants had ufually been baptized, foon after their birth. So that he fully enough witneffes to the/flf?, that it had been the pratlice of the church to baptize infants. And his ad- vice to delay their bap'ifm, till they were grown up and married, was one of thofe odd and fingular notions for which this faiher was very remarkable." This quotation agrees well wiih the ac- count given of Tertullian^ by Dr. Wall and other approved writer.^?. TertuUian was evi- dently a man of abilities and learning, ^.\-\A in fome refpeQs an ufeful writer. His integrity and veracity were never queftioned. But as has been hinted, he held to fome ftrange and peculiar notions. He was not deemed perfeftly orthodox by the ancient chriflians. Being a perfon of warm imagination, he ex- preffed himfelf, very ftrongly, on difFerent fubje^s, at different times ; and fome have thought, in a manner that was not confiftent. Some of the later baptilts have even pretend- ed that he denied infant baptifm. But thefe confideraiions do riot difqaalify him as a Vvix- INFANT BAPTISM. 267 nefs in the prefent cafe. Inftead of invali- dating, they ferve to confirm his teftimony. Dr. Gill faysj that Tertullian is the firft man who vientions infant biptirni, and fpeaks againft it ; and infers that it had not come in- to ufe before his time. To this, Mr. Clarke In his anfwcr, replies, •' So he is the fiift man, '* I fuppofe, that mentions the bapiifm of un- " married people, virgins, and widows, and '• fpeaks ag iinft it, and as earneilly pleads for '* its delay till the danger of temptation is '* pad ; till marriage, or the abatement of '' iuft. But will it thence follow, that the *"• bapiifm of fuch unmarried perfons did not '- obtain in the charch till Tertullian s time ? '' Oi that it then firil: began to be in ufe ^ ''• Our author might as reafonably have in- '• ferred the latter opinion, as the former. '• But the very words, iu which he exprefTes «• his advice againft baptizing infants, plainly *• imj-'y that it was a common pradice. Af- '• ter all, what is it that Tertullian has faid '• agiinft infant baptifm ? He has given it as " his judgment, that it would be more profita- " ble to defer their baptifm, until they come ^* to riper > ears, and were able to underfland '' fomething of its nature and defign ; but he '' does not, like the anti-paedobaptifts, con- " demn it as unlawful; which he would have '* done, if it had been a novel praBice — an '• innovation, contrary to the rule of fcrip- '' lure, or wiihout the approbation or direc» " tion of the ApoIli.es. On the contraryj he 268 AN APOLOGY FOR- "allows it in cafe of neceffii)^ of ficknefs, '• and danger of death. Dr. Gill, inftead of '' faying, that Tertuliian was the firft man, "who mentioned infant baptifm, and fpoke '' again ft it, ought to have faid, that he was '' -i\\Q only many in all antiquity, whofe wri- " tings have come down to us, who has faid '•' any thing at all againfl the pra61ice of bap- " tizing infants." The very advice, however, which he gave, plainly (hows, that ^ifant bap- tifm was then commonly pra6lifed. He does not intimate, that the praQice was of human invention, or not authorized by the Apoftles. His private opinion, wiih refpe^l to the ex- peftency of delaying baptifm in feveral ca- fe», and the reafons which he offered, are nothing to us. \¥e have only cited him as a voucher at the eighth day? appointed to be ob^ «' ferved in the jewilh circumcifion, was a " type going before in a fFiadow or refem- «^ blance, but on Chrin's coming was fulfilled «• in the Rib fiance 3 for becauCe the eighth *' day, that is the next after the fabbaih, was <' to be the day on which the Lord was to '' rife from the dead, and quicken us, and «' give us the fpiritual circurricifion. This " eighth day, that is, the next to ihe fabbath, '' or the Lord's day, went before in the type, '' which type ceafed when the fubflance *^ came, and the fpiritual circumcifion was " given to us. So that we judge, no perfon " is to be hindered from obtaining the grace, '• (that is ofhaptijm) by the law which is now " edablifiied ; and that the fpiritual circum- " cifion ought not to be reftrained by the " circumcifion which was according to ihe '' flefli ; but that all are to be admitted to the " grace of Chrid ; fmce Peter, fpeaking irr " the A6ts of the Apoftles, fays, the Lord " hath Jlioian me that no perfon is to be called " common or unclean. This, therefore, dear " brother, was our opinion in the aCembly, " that it is not for us to hinder any perfon " from baptifm, and from the grace of God, " who is merciful, and kind, and afFcBionate *' to all. Which rule, as it holds for all, fo S.'jS AxV APOLOGY FOR ^' we think it is more efpecially to be ob- " ferved in reference to infants, and thofe " that are newly born, to whom pur help and *' the divine mercy is rather to be granted, " becaufe by their weeping and wailing at " their firft entrance into the world, they do *' intimate nothing fo much as that they im- *' plore compafTion," &c. I pre fume, Sir, that you never read the refult of this council; for your pretended ^information, it feems, was derived from an " ancient dialogue revifed." How ftrange- ly have the plaineft matters offa6l been mif- underflood and mifreprefentedl — The coun- cil at Carthage was not defigned to eftablifh the praBice of infant baptifm, or to confider and decide the queftion of their right to the ordinance; concerning this they entertained no doubt. That infants ought to be bap- tized, was taken for granted both by Fidus^ and by Cyprian^ and by the council of 6S bifliops. It is true Fidus^ who propofed the cafe, fuppofed that their baptifm could not be adminiflered with propriety, before the eighth day, to v;hich circumcifion had been reftriBed. But the council were unanimoufly of a different opinion^^ as it appears from, their decifioh. The proceedir gs of the aforefaid council are particularly ftated by Saint Cy- prian, in an cpifllt which he wrote about 150 years after the Apoftles. And, '• there is no *• piece, fays Dr. Wall, in all mliquity, that can INFANT BAPTISM, 277 " he proved more certainly to he genuine^ than « thisr It is impoflible that infant baptifm fhould have been an innovation. The fuppofition is utterly incredible. There was not, we are exprefsly told, one man in that afTcmbly, who fuppofed it neceflary that baptifm fhould be omitted until the eighth day; and cer- tainly none could think it ought not to be adminiftered to infants at all. It was an unanimous vote, that infants might be bap. tized lawfully and properly, even on the fecond or third day after their birth. This general confent fufficiently proves, that the right of infant baptifm had been eftabHfhed and approved by long cuftom. Befides, many of thefe minifters were probably 60 or 70 years old, and had been baptized in their infancy. — -Their parents or grand parents undoubtedly lived in the firft century, and, it is likely, were well acquainted with the pradice of the Apoftles themfelves. Saint Ambrofe^ who wrote about 274 years after the Apoftles, declares exprefsly, ^' that infant baptifm was pra6tifed in his " time, and in the time of the Apoftles." Saint Chryjojlom obferves " that perfons '' may be baptized either in their infancy, in '* middle age, or in old age." — He tells us, '' infants were baptized, although they had '' no fin; and that the fign of the crofs was " made upon their foreheads at baptifm." — S^int Hierome fays, •• if infants be no: bap- Z 278 AN APOLOGY FOR " tized, the fin of omitting their baptifm is " laid to the parent's charge." — Saint Aujiin^ who wrote at the fame time, about 280 years after the Apoftles, fpeaks " of infant baptifm " as one of thofe praftices which was not " injlituted by any council but had ahvays been " in ufe. The whole church of Chrijl^ he in- " forms us, hadb conjlantly held that infants " were baptized for the forgivenefs of fin." — '' That he had never read or heard of any " Chrijlian. Catholic ox SeBary^v^ho held other- " wife." — " That no chriftian, of any fort, '^ ever denied it to be ufeful or neceffary." " If any one," faith he, " fhould afk for di- *« vine authority in this matter, though that, « which the whole church praBifes, and « which has not been inftituted by councils, «' but was ever in ufe, may be believed, very '' reafonably, to be a thing delivered or or- " dered by the Apoftles, yet we may, be- " fides, take a true eftimate, how much the " facrament of baptifm does avail infants, by " the circumcifion which God's former peo- '•• pie received." No one of thefe ancient Fathers ever wrote direftly in favour of, or againft, infant baptifm. In their various difcourfes and writings, they often mention it, occafionally and tranfienlly, when difcourfing on fome other fubjed. — They mention it as a general praBice of univerfal notoriety, about which there, was no controverfy, in order to con- fute fome prevailing herefy, or eftablilh cer- INFANT BAPTISM. 279 tain doftrines, that were then difputed. Similar teftimonies might eafily be produced from the writings of many other ancient witnefTes, but this would unnecedarily add to the prolixity of the prefent work. I will therefore conclude, by ftating very briefly, the inconteftible and conclufive evidence in proof of infant baptifm, arifing out of the well known Pelagian controverfy refpe^ling original (in, which happened about 300 years after the Apoftles. Pelagius held, that infants were born free from anv nainral and finful defilements. The chief cppofers of him and his adherente were Saint Hieroyne, and Saint Aiijlin^ who conAanily urged,, very clofely, in all their writings upon the fubjecl, the following ar- gument, viz. ''That infants are^ hy all chrif- ^ tians\ acknnzvleJged tojlandin need ojhaptijm^ " which mujl be in them for original fin,, fince " they have no other," '* If ihey have no fin, " why are they then baptized, according to " the rule of the church, y^?' the forgivenefs of ^'fns P Why are they wafied in the laver of re- " generation, if they have no polliition T' Pcla^ gins, and alfo Celeflius, one of his principal abettors, were extremely puzzled and em- barrafTed wiih this argument. They knew not how to evade or furmount its force, but by involving themfelves in greater abfurdi- ties and difficulties. Some perfons aggra- vated the i^'uppofed error, by charging upon them the denial of infant baptifm, as a confer- 280 AN APOLOGY FOR qiience that followed from their tenet. Ft- lagius difclaimed the flanderous imputation with abhorrence, declaring that he was ac- cafed falfely. In the confefiion of faith, Pelagius then exhibited, which Dr. Wall has recited, he owns, " thai haptijm ought to *"' he adminiftered to infants^ with the fame facra- " mental zuords which are iifed in the cafe of adult ^* perfons" — He vindicates himfelf in the ftrongeft terms, faying, " that men Jlander *• hiyn as if he denied the facrament ofhaptifm to •• infants^ and did promife the kingdom of heaven *' to any perfon without the redemption cf Chrifl; '• and afffirms that he never heard of any, not *• even the mofl impious heretick, that zcculd fay '"'fitch a thing of infants.'' Now thefe diffi- calties would have been inftantly removed, and ihe battery, whicl} fo greatly annoyed thein, been demoliihed at once, by only de- nying that infants were to be baptized. But they did not fuggeft or entertain any doubt at all refpe6iing this do61rine. Pelagius readily avowed, in the moft explicit manner, the in- contefted right, and the eftabliCied immemo- rial praBice of infant baptifm. Cclefius alfc confeffed, " that infants were to be baptized " according to the rule of the univerfal church,'" One of thefe men was born and educated in Britain, and the other in Ireland. They both lived a long time at Rome, the centre of the world and place to which all people reforted. Celefius fettled at Jerufalem, and Pelagius travelled over all the principal IMTANT BAPTISM. 8i churches of Europe, Afia and Africa. If there had been any nun^bcrof churches, or a fingle church, in any part of the world, not only in that, but in the two preceding ages,» who denied the baptifm of infants, thefe learned, fagacious perfons muft have known or heard of it; and certainly they would have mentioned it, in order to check the triumph of their opponents, and to wrefl: from them that argument, by which, above all others, they were mod grievoufly preffed; It is evident there was no fociety of baptifls then in the world, nor had there been any of that denomination, within the memory of man. The confefiTion of Pelagius and Ce- leftius amounts almoft to demonftration. It proves, beyond all reafonable doubt, that in- fant baptifm had univerfally obtained, and had always been praBifed among chriflians, even from the apoftoiick limes. Dr. Wall, who enjoyed the bell: advan- tages for being acquainted with the hiiicry of infant baptifm, and who made this the- principal fubjeft of his (iudiesand enquiries^ briefly fums up the evidence on both ride5, in the following words: '* Ladiy, for the '• firft four hundred yearf, there appears *-* only one man, Tertullian. who advi fed the ^ delay of infant baptifm in fome cafes, and '* one Gregory^ \^jho did pej'haps pra8ife fucff " delay in the cafe of his own children; but *• no fociety of men fo thinking or fo prac- <* lifing ; or any one man faying it was un^ Z 2 282 AN' APOLOGY FOR. '' lawful to baptize infants. So in the next '< feven hundred years, there is not fo much '« as one man to be found, who either fpoke « for orpraQifed any fuch delay f. but all the " contrary. And when about the year one " thoufand one hundred and thirty, one fe6: " among the Waldenfes or Albigenfes de- ''• clared againft the baptizing of infants, as " being incapable ofjalvation^ the main body of " that people rejefted their opinion ; and " they of them who held that opinion, quick- <* ly dwindled away and difappeared, there '• being no more perfans heard of, holding " that tenet, until the rifing of the German ^ anti-paedobaptifts in the year 1522." 1 am, Sir, Sec, LETTER XXIV. SIR, I HAVE had occafion. feveral times, to mention the vague and indefinite manner in which you have ufed the word bapiifis. But in your •' fniniaiure hiftory" you have adopt- ed a fenfe entirely new, which I never read or hcrird of before. You tell us from Dr, Mo/hi i7n^ " that the true fource of all the *' peculiarities now to be found in the re- " iigious do61rii)e and difcipline of the Men- " noLiics (or baptills in the north or Europe) INFANT BAPTISM. 2 8^ "is to be found in the following maxim, viz. " that the kingdom of Chrijl^ or vijibk church,^ '' which he had eJlahUpied on earthy was an ajfem- " hly offaintS'i and ought therefore to be inaccejfi- " hie to the wicked and unrighteous^ and alfo ex- '' empt from all thofe inftitucions^ zvhich himian '^ prudence fugge/ls to oppofe the progrefs of ini- " quitys or correH and reform tranfgrejfors.'' From the aforefaid maxim, different per- fons have deduced different principles and prafclices. Moflieim does not intin:"iate, as you have afferted, that all thofe perfons who adopted this maxim, were bcptifls. He does not pretend, as you have done, that the Waldenfes, and Wicklijttes, and Huffitis, were baptifts. He knew they never had denied the right of infant baptifm, or held to the neceflity of dipping. And thus it is with many at the preient day, who have embraced the fame maxim, or fentiments of a fimllar nature. They flill continue confcienuoufly in the praQice of bapiizing infants. But Dr. Moflieim fays, " that the diftinguifhing " principles of the Mennonites at this day, flow " from the aforefaid doQrine concerning the '' church."—" That it is in confequence of *' thisdoQrine (or maxim) ihai they admit none " to the facrament of baptifni'^ but perfons who are '* com^: to the full ufe of reafon," — That " it is *' in confequence of the (ame do6lrine, that " they neither admit civil rulers into their com- " munion, nor allow any of their members to * ' p^ rform the f u n c\ i o n s of magijl ra cy ; f o r 2^4 AN APOLOGY FOR- «<• where there are no malefaftors, inagiftrates " are ufelefs. Hence alfo they pretend to *' deny the laxvfidnefs of repelling force hy force^ " and confider war^ in all its Jhapes^ as imchrif " tian and unjuji. For as thofe who are per- " feftly holy can neither be provoked by "injuries, nor commit them, they do not " need the force of arms, either for the " purpofe of refentment or defence." — Ac- " cording to this principle, there are no iranf- " greffions in the kingdom of Chrift, and " confeqaentfy no occafion for the aathori- " ty of the judge." — " The members of a " holy church can neither diflemble nor " deceive ; they accordingly refufe to confir^ii " their teflimony by oath" &c. Thefe inferences, which, we are told, the" Mennonites admitted, were difavowcd by the Waldenfes in general. It is true, Mofbeim tells us, " that the Mennonites are notentire- " ly miftaken, when they boaft their defcent '' from the Waldenfes, Petrobruffians, and " other ancient feQs, who are ufually con- '• fidered as xxdtncfjls of the truths in the times " of univerfal darknefs and fuperftition." But if the Mennonites, who were baptifts, defcended from the Waldenfes, this does not prove that the Waldenfes were baptifts. If the inhabitants of Sedgzuick are baptifts, this will not prove that the people of New-Eng- land, from whom they defcended, are uni- verfaliy or generally of the fame denomina- tion. The account given by Dr. Mofheinnt INFANT BAPTISM. 285 is perfe6lly confiftent v;ith what Dr. Wall has obferved, viz. " that there was one ^e^ " of the Waldenfes who declared ag.inft the ** baptizing of infaius, but the main body of ** that people rejefted their opinion." How could you reprefent " Dr. MoQieim, " Dr. Maclain, and Prefident Edwards, as <* teftifying that the Waldenfes, HafTites, and " Wickiiffites, were efTentially the fame wiih " the baptifts of latter times ; or that they all *' were what we call baptifts." The affertion is wholly without foundation. Thofe learn- ed men whom you have named, never faid nor intimated that thefe ancient witnejfes of the truth denied infant baptifm, or held to the necefTiiy of dipping. — But they were haptifiS, forfooth, according to your new fangled definition of the word, becaufe they adopted a certain rriaxim^ refpe8ing the puri- ty of the church, which. Dr. Mofiieim fays, difpofed the Mcnnonites to admit none but adults to the facrament of baptifm. Strange- fophiftry 1 It \s true, Prefident Edwards fuppofed that the Waldenfes derived their name from the vallies of Piedmont; ai^d that this was the place, from Vv-hence they originated. But he never faid nor fafpeBed, that the an- cient inhabitants of thofe vallies were bap- tifts. He confidered them as holding the primitive doBrines of chriftianity ; and in his hiftory of redemption, mentions Mr^ Toplady as being of the fame opinion. He 286 AN APOLOGY FORT points out very particularly from an old con- feffion of faith, and other authentic teflimo- nies, their leading and peculiar fentiments^ and efpecially as they differed from the opinion and praftice of the Romifh church. But this great and learned man does not in- timate that they denied or neglefted infant baptifm. He found no fuch article in their erecd. Dr. Wall fays, exprefsly, " that the prefent " Waldenfes, or Vandois in Piedmont, do •• pra6life infant baptifm, and ibey were ^* found in the praBice of it, when the pro- " teftants of Luther's reformation, fent to *' know their ftate and do6lrine, and to con- " fer with them; and they themfelves do " fay that their fathers never praftifed oiher- " wife ; and this they prove from an old book " of theirs called the Spiritual Almanack, in " which infant baptifm is owned. And Peririj " their hiftorian, mentions the reafon of the " contrary report, viz. Tkat their ancejlors^ be- " ing ccvjlrained for feveral hundred years to fiif- ^^ Jer their children to he baptized^ by the priejis of '• the church of Rome^4hey deferred their baptifm '' as long as they could^ hccaufe they had in detefa- *' lion thofc human inventions that were added to " thefacrament, which they held to he a pollution ^^ thereof And forafmuch^ as their oun pajlors ^* were many tinus abroad, employed in the fer- ^ vice of their churches, they could not have bap- '• tifm adminiflered to their children by their own " rninfiers. For this caife they kept them long INFANT BAPTISM. 287 ■^^ from haptifm^ which the popi/Ii priejls perceiv- " ing, took notice of, and charged ihtni with the *' aforefaid Jlander,'' " There are many other confeffions of «« theirs,*' fays Dr. Wall, " of like import, <• produced by Perin^ Baxter^ Wills, Sec, « This is the account the Waldenfes give of " themfelves, fome of which feem to have *' been publifhed about 200 years ago." — which would be 300 years from the prefent time. — Hiftory of Infant Baptifm, 2d voU page 221. Hiftorians are not agreed as to tbe reafon or occafion, why this people have been call- ed Waldenfes. It is. however, not very material in the prefent difpute, whether they derived their name from Waldo or Waldusj the {uppofed founder of that fe6l, according to Mofheim and others, or from the vallies of Piedmont, the place where it is pretended they lived, and from which, fome fay, they originated. You tell us that Dr. Mofheim fays, '« the *« true origin of that fe6l, which acquired the « denominaiion of anabaptilts by adminiRer- <• ing anew the ordinance of baptifm to thofe *' who came over to their communion, and *' derived that of Mennonites from the fa- *' mous man to whom they owe the greateft " part of their prefent felicity, is hid in the *« remote depths of antiquity, and is of con- ^ fequence extremely difficult to be afcer- « tained." Here you flop, in the very midft 288 AN A^pLOGY FOU of a fentence, and obferve, " Dr. Mofheim, " as learned ati hiftorian, though not fo can- ^' did a one, as the fcience of letters can " boaft, bears pofiiive teftimony that the '<* origin of the baptifts is hidden in the re- «• n^ote depths of antiquity." I wifh, Sir, you had been candid enough to have ftated the reafons of the afore faid difficuhy and uncer- tainty, with refpeft to the origin of the ana- baptills, as meruipned by that learned hifto- rian, in the very words which immediately follow your quotation. — He fays, " this un- *^ certainty will not appear fur prizing^ when it *' isconfidered, that this fed ftarted up, all of " a fudden, in feveral countries at the fame "point of time, under leaders of different «' talents and different intentions^ and at the ^' very time when the firft contefts of the re- *' formers wif.h the Roman Pontiffs, drew the " attention of the worlds and employed the pent of *' the learned in fuch a manner^ as to render all *' other objeEls and incidents almofl matters of in^ " difference,'^ The anabaptids concerning whom Mo- flieim is here fpeaking, were not thofe who appeared in the twelfth century and foon dif- appeared. He had particular reference to the German anabapiids, who made their ap- pearance in the fixteenth century. The un- certainty, which he mentions, refpefting the origin of this [t^^ does not relate to the ti^ne when, but to the place zihere they firft INFANT BAPTISM. 289 made their appearance, and to the people from whom they defcended. Again, " It is difficult," he fays, " to de- " termine, with certainty, the particular fpot *' that gave birth to that feditious and pefli- *' lential feQ of anabaptifts, whofe tumultu- ^' ous and defperate attempts were equally *' pernicious to the caufe of religion and *' civil interefts of mankind. Whether they *« firft arofe in Switzerland^ Germany^ or the " Netherlands, is, as yet, a matter of debate, ** whofe decifion is of no great importance. " It is mod probable, that feveral perfons of «^ this odious clafs made their appearance at *' the fame time, in different countries; and *' we mdiy fix this period foon after the dawn *' of the reformation in Germany, when *' Luther arofe to fet bounds to the ambition <• of Rome," &c. Dr. Mofheim does not pretend, as you have infinuated, " that the feft of the bap- ^' tifts exifted before the days of Luther and " Calvin, and that they lay concealed in al- " moft all the countries of Europe," See, This, Sir, is a grofs mifreprefentation, pur- fuant to your new fangled definition of a baptifl. x\ccording to that learned hiftori- an, as w^e have already obferved, " there ex* *• ifted before the days of Luther and Calvin, *' many perfons who adhered tenacioufly to ** a certain do6lrine or maxim," relative to the purify of ihe church. Some of thefe perfons, he informs us, became baptifts, at Aa 290 AN APOLOGY FCH the very commencement of the reformation, but, in general, they did not deny infant bap- tifm ; but have continued in the belief and pra6lice of it, even to the prefent day. It appears from your own conceffions, that if there were any baptifts before the days of I'Luiher and Calvin, they lay clofely conceal- ed in their hiding places — fecreted in inacceffi- lie vallies^ behind impaffahle 7nountains. And you tell us, " When the conteft between the " Romanifts, and Luther, and his aflociates, '• firft drew the attention of the world, the " baptifts came out of their hiding places." Such poiitive adertions need pofitive proof; but you have produced none. You have not named a fingle church, or minifter, or private individual of that denomination. Your pretended evidence is merely conjec- tural, or of the negative kind. It would not be admitted, in any other cafe, even by your*- felf ; and in the prefent, it proves nothing but the extreme ftraits and difSculties, to which you are reduced. If is much more likely that thofe perfons fuddenly altered their opinion, and commenced baptifts at the very time when they made their appearance. We could eafily mention inftances, even in our own country, of large numbers — the greatcjl part of a parifii or town, who have been as fuddenly converted, fometimes to the methodifts' and fometimes to the baptifts* principles. INFANT BAPTISM. 29I Again, you tell us, '• tha,t ihe Lutherans •^ and Baptilts. as'might have been expeBed, " fell out by the way, and Calvin, if not Lu- " ther, warmly oppofed theni." It is proba- bly true, as vou have (laied, " that the bap- '' tifts were difappointed in Luiher." But you are greatly miftaken, in fuppofing, " that '• the baptifts were favoured with clearer '• gofpel light, and wiflied to carry the refor- ^- maiion further than Luther was appointed " to accomplifli." Luther and CaKin plain- ly forefaw the dreadful cxcc(T>ts into which the baptifls were about to. p!«inge, and faith- fully warned them of the danger- and happy, happy for that people, if they had barkened to their prudeai arid fuend.y advice, Tliis would hdve prevented them from commit- ting tbofe vile and fnocking enormities, which fixed an everlafting liigma on the mad men of Munfter, ai^d deluged Germany with blood. I do not, however, conlider the modern baptifts implicated in tbofe atrocious lranfa8ions, but view them as innocent. My only intention is, to corre6t your miflake, and repel your defamatory infinuations, with refpecl to Luther and Calvin, thofe an- cient reformers, who are not here to fpeak in their own defence. " Again, '• we are told," you fay, <« in the *• Appendix to Mofheim's Church Hidory, " that one of the remarkable things which " took place in the fecond century, was the " baptizing of infants, ii being never known 292 AN APOLOGY FOR <' before as a chriftian ordinance for them." I have examined the aforefaid Appendix, and can find no fuch afTertion, nor even im- plication. You have ftrangely and very un- accountably mifapprehended and mifrepre- fented the real ftate of fa6ls. The learned authors of the Appendix have not faid nor intimated, that the baptizing of infants was then inflituted, or introduced, or " that it "then took place ; or that it was never *' before known as a chriftian ordinance for '' them." They diftinguifhed very carefully and properly between thofe things which were known to have been introduced or ejlab- lifiied in the fecond century, and thofe things which were known to have been ufed or prac- /f/e^ in that century. As for example, ihey fay " the cuftom of praying toward the eaft '^ was introduced in the fecond century." But '' that infant baptifm and fponfers were ufed '- in this century." If infant baptifm was ufcd'm the fecond century, it was undoubted- ly ufed in ihejirjl, for fome of the Apoftles lived until the fecond century. Befides, feveral of the ancient fathefs exprefsly affert,. «' that the baptifm of infants never was in- *• troduced or eftablifhed by any council or '^ human authority, but had always been in " ufe." Origen, Ambrofe, and Auftin, " af- " firm that the baptizing of infants was or- " dered by the Apoftles, and praftifed in «• their time." There is no account of any cKurch or fociety of men, who ever denied INFANT BAPTISM, ^93 the right of infant baptifm, before the twelfth century. *' About the year eleven hundred ^' and thirly, one feQ of the Albigenres de- " clared againfl: the baptizing of infants, a^ " being incapable of f^lvation; but the main " body of that people, and alfo the Waldeu- " [qs^ properly fo called, reje6>ed that opin- " ion ; and thofe of then) who held that o- " pinion, foon dwindled away and difappear- '• ed ; there being no more heard of hold- " ing that opinion, till the lifing of the Ger- *• man baptiits in the year 1522." Again, you tell us, *• that the Mennoniies " were baptift^." But ihis iQCi, who derived their name from Msnnon^ a famous leader a- mong them, did not appear before the fix- leenth century. You aifo tell us, '• thai the '• Petrobfuilians were baptifls.'" This peo- ple, who derived iheir r.ame from Peter Bruis, the foundtr and leader of the Petro- bruflians, appeared in the twelfth century, and were that f^^ci of the Albigenfes, whom- we have juit niemioned. The various arguments and objeQions, Vv'hich have been alleged, in order to dif- prove the afore faid hiiiorical faBs, appear to be very trivial and incoocluhve. Some have objected to the afoiefaid quotations from Oiigen, becaufe they are taken out of a Latin tranfldtion, the original Greek not being extant. But how uttrearons^ble and frivolous thus to objeB to a iranfiaiion, which . Las all proper evidence of genuiiienefs, v.iik- Aa 2 294 AN APOLOGY FOR' out being able to confront it ^\'itb the origi- nal ? It has been pretended that the opinions and obfervations of the ancient fathers, con- cerning infant baptifm, feem to be, in fon^e inftances, very (Irange and weak ; but the peculiarities of honeft men can never invali- date their teftimony refpefting plain matters of faft. Some have fuppofed that the DoU' atifts were baptifts, merely becaufe they re- baptized in certain cafes ; but, upon inqui- ry, it has been found this people praftifed infant baptifm, and only re-baptized thofe who had been baptized in the church of Rome, efteeraing that church fo corrupt as to render their baptifm invalid. Several other fe6ls have, occafionally, adopted the fame, or a fimilar pradice. In fome inftan> ces the Manichees or Quakers have been taken for the bapiifts. Mr. Siennet recites a paffage from the learned Dr. Allix^ concern- ing one " Gundulphus and his followers, " who being examined by the BiOiop of " Cambray,at a fynod in the year 1025, de- *' nied that baptifm was profitable to inflints, " and dated their reafons againft baptizing '* iheni." Here he flopped, omitting that pa^i of their confeffion which did not fuit his purpofe, viz. «' Thefe men, at the fame *'• examinaiion, being further interrogated, *• confeffed that they thought water baptifm " of no ufe or importance to any one, infant *• or adult." Dr. Wall corre61ed this unfair- ncii. and paniaiity of Mr. Stennet. But ftill INFANT BAPTISM. 295 Dr. Gill, as Mr. Clark informs us, perfifted in repealing the fanne mutilated quotation ; and in the following vaunting manner, viz. *' So we have teftimonies, that paedobaptifm " was oppofed 500 years before the affair of " Munfter." — Five hundred years before the affair of Munfter 1 That is, in the elev- enth century. And by whom was infant baptifm then oppofed ? Not by the baptiftsj it feems, but by the quakers, who renounced and derided all water-bapiifm. Some of the ancient writers have not dif- tinguifhed, with fufficient accuracy, the fev- eral fefts, who entertained different opinions concerning the rite of baptifm. The qua- kers, who denied the ufe of water-baptifm, with refpeB to adults as well as infants, and ihofe fe6ls who re-baptized in certain cafes, although they did not deny or negle6l infant baptifm, have fometimes been incautioufly called by the common name of anabaptifts. Some learned men have, accordingly, fup- pofed that the PetroKruflians were Manichees or Quakers; and that they never avowed the prefent baptifts' principles. This how- ever is a matter of but little importance. The Petrobruflians w^ere a fmall, inconfider- able feQ, They foon dwindled and difap- peared. Again, Dr. Gill and fome other bapiift writers very earneftly contend, that the an- cient Waldenfes baptized adults and denied infant baptifm. This opinion has been de- £^6 AN APOLOGY TOR dared to be a mere " chimera or groiindleri '• fiQion," by Mr. Clark, formerly of Salem, and Mr. Dickinfon, formerly Preftdeni of New-Jerfey College, even after they had ex- amined the hiftory of that people \vith the greateft care and diligence. Prefident Ed- wards, alfo, explored the vallies of Piedmont with the utmoft fcrutiny, but found no bap- tifts there. Dr. Wall fays, " no perfon who ** has written the hiftory of the Waldenfes " hath reprefented them as denying infant •' bapiifm." We have already hinied at the occafion of the aforefaid miftake. The Wal- denfes were very zealoufly oppofed to the corruptions and fuperftitious ceremonies of the Romifh Church, and unwilling to have their children baptized by a popifh prieftc The papids, of courfe, became their ene- mies ; and fome of their writers reprefented them as being hereiicks, and among oiher things charged them with the herefy of de- nying infant baptifm. But the Waldenfes, who were certainly heft acquainted with their own principles and praftice, have difclaimed the charge in the moft unequivocal manner; declaring that they did baptize their infants, and proving from ancient records, thai their forefathers had always praBifed infant bap- tifm. It is pretended, that fome great and learn- ed men, who were in the practice of bapti- zing infants, have had their doubts with ref- peQ to the propriety of infant bapiifm. If INFANT BAPTISM. 297 this be true, it is a circumftance of very lit- tle importance in the prefent diTpute. Eve- ry doQrine of the gofpel has been doubted or denied by individuals; but other perfons, who were better informed, have believed them fully, even without any doubling at all. Mr. Whijlon and a few others were ready to Imagine, that the ancient fathers, when fpeaking concerning the baptizing of infants, had not reference to infants in days or years, but to infants in knowledge and faith. This pretended dlfcovery appears to be the refult of inextricable difficulty. Thefe men felt the dilemma in which they were invol- ved ; and were convinced that their notions of baptifm mud be relinquifhed, unlefs they could find out, that all the fathers, in the primitive ages, ufed the word infants in a metapliorical fenfe ; meaning thereby young people, or ignorant old people. This abfurd opinion appears to have been their only al- ternative ; and yet the abfurdity is fo evi- dent ihar, inftead of difproving the right of infant baptifm, it affords a very ftrong, pre- fumptive argument in its favour. Confult the ancient fathers ; confult ecclefiaflical hiftory, and you will find full and clear proof that infant baptifm was pra6lifed from the beginning of chriftianity; and that the pra6lice did continue in the univerfal church without interruption or exception, until a- bout the year eleven hundred and thirty af- ter Chrift, It might pofiibly have been op- 298 AN APOLOGY FOR pofed by a few individuals; but previous to the aforefaid period, we have no evidence from the writings and monuments of antiqui- ty, that any body of profefTed chriftians or church, ever did deny the validity or law- fulnefs of infant baptiim. That fed called Petrobruffians was not numerous. Their number, we have fhown, foon diminifli«,d, and ihe> became extinB; fo that there was really no great, lafting oppofiiion to infant baptilm, b-fore the fixteenth century. You will now luffer me to propofe a fe\v queftions, for your impartial confideration. You have faid, " that the highly interefling '' conieniion, at the prefeni, is, who Ihall '* reigf) over us, and v;ho fliail give us laws,. '• Chrid or Aniichriit ?" Our pra8ice, with refpeft to bapiifm, you tell us, *' is an ordi- nance of Antichrilt, derived from ghoflly Popa^ ajod the moiher of harlots" — and rep- refent thofe minifters, who attempt to pre- vent the baptifts from making divifions and feparaiions among the people of their charge, by warning them of their danger, " as afting '' in this matter the part, of the oJd fcribes, V pharifees, and hypocrites, who would not *^ enter the kingdom of heaven themfelves, ^' but hindered thofe who were entering." You feem, however, to be aware, that thq fentence is fomewbat fevere, and therefore endeavour to qualify the expreflion by lay- ing, "I by no means fuppole, that all who ^> have done thus are indeed hypocrites, favc? 1NFA3SJT BAPTISM, 99 <- in this parlicular." But, Sir, is not he zvho xvilfully offends in one point guilty of all ? Are the aforefaid and finrilar declarations confift- ent with civility or even decency ? Are they confiftent with that candour and charity which become a profefTed chriftian and efpe- cially a chriftian minifter ? Who art thou that judgcji another mans fervant ? Why dojl thou judge^ and why dofl thoufet at naught thy brother ? 1 will not undertake to anfwer thefe quef- tions, but fubmit them to your own reflec- tions. Does not our common Lord and Maf- ter claim the exclufive right of judging his own fervants ? I will therefore clofe with ihofe awful words, wirh which you concluded your exhortation to your fathers and breth- ren in the miniftry, Szc. « I pray you re- member on^ thing; with what judgment ye judge ye fhall be judged." Yours, fincerely, JOHN REED, APPENDIX. Q UESTION. Can any good reafon he given^ why the mode of baptizing Jhould not have been decided and fixed by Chriji ? Anfxver. The reafon undoubtedly was this, that individuals might be at liberty to adopt fuch a mode as would be moft agreea- ble to their wifiies, and beft fuited to their circumftances. The indulgence, therefore, appears to difcover great wifdom and good- nefs; efpecially when we confider the differ- ent conditions and prejudices of mankind — and ihat baptifm was praclifed before our Saviour's time as well as fince. in feveral wodes and forms, both by Jews and Gen- tiles. Quefiion. Can we fuppofe that if Chrijl and his Apijlies had approved of fpr inkling as- being a lawful and valid viode of baptizing, any of the p'-imitive converts to chriflianity vjould have pre- ferred a total dipping ? Anfzver. The fuppofition is perfectly natu- ral, if we confider the ignorance and fuper- (lition of ancient times. It was not in the power of die Apoftles to perluade the be- lieving Jews to \^.y afide the g/ievous rite of Bb 302 APPENDIX. circumcifion, and burdenfome cuftoms of Mofes. Our Saviour faid to his difciples, I have many things to fay unto you^ hut ye cannot hear them now. Some perfons, in every age and country, have been difpofed to defpife fmall things — and fuch as could be obtained without any expenfe or difficulty. If Elifha had bidden the Syrian Leper to- do fome great and expenfive thing, he would have done it with the utmoft readinefs. But he difdained the cheap and eafy remedy pro- pofed, and was greatly difpleafed with the prophet. When our Saviour wafhed hisdif- ciple's feet, Peter, at firft, refufed ; but being told that wafhing was indifpenfably requifite, he infifted upon being wafiied all over; — not my feet only^ but my hands and my head, — And thus fome perfons would probably have thought in. rerpe6l to the chriftian bapiifm ; - — that there was not fufficient fignlficancy or validity in fprinkling or pouring a few drops of water ; and confequently, that a total immerfion appeared to be neceffary, or at leaft the moft eligible mode of baptizing. Ouejlion. Was not Chrijl baptized by ivimer- Jion ? and is it not a duty incumbent on us all to deny our/elves, and take up the crofs, and follow him whitherfoever he goeth^ even into the watery grave ? An fiver. We have already fhown, tbat Cli rift's bapfifm was his confecration to the fac^^rdotal office, and not intended as an ex- ample. It was, however, undoubtedly per- APPENDIX, 303 formed by fprinkling, as the law of Mofes exprefsly required. We are no where told he went into the water; and although it is once laid in our tranflation that Chrift came up 6ut of the water ^ this manner of exprelTion does not prove he was dipped. Befides, we have fhown that the original vvord^j/?/?, 'which is here rendered M^^'c/^iTtorc • properly and commonly (igni fie sy*row, our tranflators thcni- Jelves being judges. For in the five firft books oi the New Teftament, they have iranflaied the Greek, word apo., into the Englifh 'word Jrom^ 93. tii^nes oftencr ihan .they have tranf- lated It into the Engiifli words oji,' cf. This wonderful argument in favour of immerfion, when weighed- in the balance of truth is foand wanting— lighter than vanity. How (Irange that it fhould ever influence any per- fons to be dipped, and efpecially from among thofe who have bcien baptized, in the name of the facred Trinity, by affufion or fprink- ling I And ftill more llrange, that baptift miniftersv.themfelves, fliould appear to place fo much ftrefs upon it !— And always men- lion it on baptizing occafions ! 1 hope ihey are. actuated by better motives than the con- fideraiion of its being popular and effica- cious. . Quejiion, Bui is not the mode oj flungivg^ a arofs — an injlance of great Jtlf denial with which wc ought to comphrin obedience to the aitthcrity of Chrifi ? 304 APPENDIX. Anfwer, Chrift has required baptifm, but not dipping. The mode oF baptizing, we have (hown, is left unde'cided. If any per- fon, who has never been bap;ized, ihould prefer being dipped, we do not objeQ. Our objeftion lies againft the pra8ice of re-bap- tizing, Gr of^ making the mode efTential to the ordinance of naLMiriP. This we view as the effe6t of fuperftition, and noC of religion. Chrift has required us to deny ourjtlves of all ungcdlinefs^ and of every worldly lu/l^ and take up the crofs daily. But every crofs is not the crofs of Chrift. There are many inftances cf felf denial which he has not required. The worfhippers of Baal denied themfelve.', when they cryed aloud and leaped upon the allar^ cutting their flejli with knives and lancets^ from morning till evening. The fuperftitious pa- pifts deny themfelves when they turn nuns and hermits; and in enduring and fufFer- iog a great variety of penance and bodi- ly mortifications. Such kind of fervices,. the Apoftle tells us in Colof. 2d chap. 18th and 33d verfes, have indeed a fhew of lAiifdora in will worfJiip^ and a volnntary humility^ and negleHing the body ; or (as it might have been rendered) in puniftiing or not fparing the body. But thefe are inftances of feif- denial which Chrift has not required. There is therefore no obedience or virtue in them. Quejlion. Are not thofe perfons who praElife hapuzing in the mode of fprinkling^ ranlifs. m APPhNDlX. 305 the Jamcftnfc that they arc bapfJJls that piaaife dipping ? Anfcier. They who praQife fprinkling are rantijls, in the fame fell fe thai thofe peiToas are di'ptijls, who praQife dipping; for the Englifh woid dip^ is derived from the Greek word dupto^ which figaifi'^s to dip and noth- ing elfe. Que/lion, ' Why did not our tranjlators render the original word rantizo^ 7'antize. as they kav€ rendered the original ward baptize^ baptize ? An/ever. Rantizo fignifiei to fprinkle, ex- clufively. Oar tranflators have therefore done right ia trariflating it. Bat the word baplizoj admits of various fignificaiions ; it was accordingly proper, that they fiiouid tranfcribe it. It belongs to expofitors, and not to tranflators, to afcertain and fix the meaning of doabifal words. QiLcfiion. Do not the Greek churches p'aclife , dipping ; anJ is it not reafonable to fuppcfc that ih^y bejl itnderjiand their own language ? Anfwer. The Greek churches univ^erfally praBife infant baptifm ; ar.d ihey commonly dip their infants, but noi iu variably, for the mode of baptizing is not confidercd by them aseflential. Befides, ihe ancient Grt^k lan- guage has for a long time been a dead lan- guage. Although underfiood by the learn- ed of all nations, there is no particular lia- tion, at ihe prcfent day, that undcrlia.idi and ufcb it* • •. B L 2 306 APPENDIX. Quefiion. Is not the mt)de of baptizing hy of- Jufion or fprinkling. preferred and adopttd by fame perfons^ on the account of its being mojl con- venient ? Anjwtr. Baptifm is but a ritual inftitution of a ceremonial kind. St. Paul thanked God that he had baptized fo few ; Jor Chrijl did not fend him to baptize^ but to preach; which was a bufinefs of more importance. Too much ftrefs may certainly be laid upon the mode of baptifm, and even upon the ordi nance itfelf. But ftill the ordinance is very important, and muft not be defpifed and neg- le6ied^by any. The conveniency of pour- ing and fprinkling is certainly no objeBion. It muft be confidered as a very good argu- ment in their favour; efpecially when com- pared with dipping which, in fome cafes, cannot be praclifed, and in many others would be very inconvenient and difficult. Chrift haih no where reftrifted us to the mode of dipping. A reftriQion, therefore, of this nature appears to be as unreafonabie as it is unfcripiural. Why fliould that liberty be retrenched which hath been allowed us by our common Saviour ? Why fhould that bapiifm be con- fidered and treated as a mere nullity or mockery, which God has fo often owned and bleffcd ? Why deprive weak, (ick, dying fhriiiians, of that mercy which hath been in- dulged them by their Creator and Redeem- er ? is CO allowance tc be made for coun- APPENDIX. 307 tries and climates — for places, and times, and feafons, and conditions ? 1 know it is pretended by fome that dipping is always ikfe — that it never endangers the health or life, however difordered the perfon, or fee- ble his conftitution, or cold the feafon. It is always proper to truft God. But thou JJi alt not tempt tht Lord thy God, Thou (halt not ca/l thyfelf dozvn from the pinnacle of the temple^ expcEling that he will give his angels charge to bear thee up in their hands, and prevent all harm. Befides, in ihofe northern regions, where bathing is feldom praQifed, baptifm by immerfion frequently appears fliocking to perfons of a timorous make, and efpecially to females. We are exhorted to attend upon the Lord without dijlraciicn. But is it in the power of every perfon to receive baptifm by immerfion, " without having his thoughts <' deranged, his mind agitated, and his fpirits «^ fluttered fo as to render him incapable of *' thofe fedate and devotional exercifes, '• which ought always to accompany ihis «' folemn ordinance ?" — Shall the opinion and praftice of the baptifts be made a rule and meafure for every one ? And muft all the churches and all the chriftiaiis in the world, who cannot conform with them here- in, be unchurched and excomm.unicated, for their non-conformity ? It is undeniably evi- dent that many inltances will occur on the account of ficknefs. the inclemency of the weather and fcarcity of water, in which bap- 308 APPENDIX, tifai by immerfion would be impra6licable of dangerous; and of courfe, a variety of doubtful, perplexing cafes. Who can tell \fhat kind of diforder — .what degree of in- firmity — what feverity of weather would af- ford a fufficient excufe for neglefting the ordinance of baptifm ? How long may a perfon wait for the perfe6l reftoraiion of health — for a warm feafon — for a pleafant' day — for rain in a dry time, to raife the ftreams ? Or how far may an individual or a congregation lawfully go upon the fabbath, in order to find a place of water, fuitable for baptifm, according to the prefent mode of dipping ? Thefe and fimilar queftions will frequently happen, which the moft Toilful phyfician or cafuift can never folve. We plainly fee the goodnefs and wifdom of God, in leaving the mode of baptizing undeter- mined. V/e may fay of baptifm, as our Sa- viour faid concerning the fabbath, it was made for man, and not man for baptifm. The Old Teftament yoke was grievous and heavy, but Ckriji's yoke is eafy and his biirdtn light. He prefers mercy to the moft coftly and painful facrifices; and has accordingly allowed us to adept that mode of baptizing, which convenience, expediency, or the emergency of the cafe might diBate, pro- vided this religious {^twict bt performed de- cently and in order, Ouejlion. In what Jtnfe do baptized infants or diildrcn hdong to tht Church of Chriji ? AFPEN^DIX. 309 Anfvjer, BeFore any queRion can be in- telligibly folved, it muft be correBly under- ftood. It is therefore neceffary, in the firft place, to afcertain, accurately, what is here meant by the Church ; for this word is fre- quently ufed in different fenfes — fometimes it is called the invifibk church — fometimes-thc univerfaL catholick or general churchy and fome- times a church. By the invifihk church is intended all ihofe perfons who now are, or fliali be hereafter, fanftified, juftified and glorified, whether in- fants or adults, baptized or unbaptized — the whole family of Chrift — an innumerable com- pany of angels and men. This is the invili- ble church of ihe firft born. But fecret ihinas belong to God. No being, but the omnifcient Tehovah>, knows, certainly what individuals belong 10 his invifible church. Again, by the catholick or general churchy we m.ean thofe perlons in all nations and a, wciu up every year to Jerufalem, •* rii ilie fcd?l of the paffAvtrr ■ aidv^h-ri \z Cc 314 APPENDIX. " was twclvt yean old^ they went up (with himj '^ ajttr the, cujlom ofthefeoji'' It is not faid nor intimated, that their fon ever attended before. This was undoubtedly the firft time. Being now twelve years old, he accompanied his parents to the feftival, in conformity to the ufual cuftom. — At this age, many are certainly capable of underftanding the na- ture and defign of the Lord's fupper, and of being benefitted by that facrainent. We ought however to recolleQ that the pafTover was one of the Mofaic rites, and appointed more than four hundred years after the Abra« hamic covenant ; and although this ancient rite is fuperfeded by the Gofpel, it has not difannulkd the cQ;ucnant» Infant children are flill capable of being members of the cove- nanf, ov general church of Chrijl^ although not qualified to participate in the difcipline and communion of a particular church. Quejlion. Do not the fcriptwes require faithy and repentance, and the anfwer of a good con- fcience, as requifite to haptifm ? Are not infants incapable of thefe chriftian graces,, and confequcnt- ly dif qualified for that ordinance ? Anfwer, I have heard much faid con- cerning believer s baptifm — believe and he bap- tized. &c, but never happened to fee thefe expreffions in the facred fcriptures. Our Saviour faid to his difciples, he that believeth and is baptized fJiall he faved. Here faith is placed before baptifm, and both are mention- ed conjointly as requifite to falvation. Our APPENDIX, 315 Saviour faid to Nicodemu?, except a man he horn of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. Here baphjvi is placed heforc faith, and both mentioned conjointly as re- quifite For admifTion into Chrift's kingdom. A proFefTion of faith, See. was certainly re- quired, by the Apoftles, of adults^ in order 10 their bapiifin, and is ftill reqiiifite, and was equally neceH'arv^ for the circunricihon and bapiifm ofadulc perfons or prO'^elytes, under the Abrahamic covenant and Mofaic dirpenfation. With rf^fpe^ to this matter, there is no difpute. We and the baptifls are entirely agreed. Various inflances are re- corded, in the new teflamen*, of persons who profeded their faiih and were baptized. But a thoufand fuch examples of adult baptifm can never difprove the right of infant bap- tifm, or furnifh a fingle argument againfl it. Cannot adult believers be admitted unlefs infants are rejeQed ? Is there not room e- nough in God's gracious covenant and, gen- eral church for both ? for believing parents and their children ? The aforefaid objec- tion, like a vapour beheld at a didance, looks as if there might be fomething in it, but upon a nearer view, is found to be wholly deftiiute of folidity and fubflance, as we have already fhown, and fliall have occafion to fhow more fully hereafter. Quflion. Is not an exprefs command, cr ex- flicit example necejjary^ in ordtr to give ptr-^ 3^6 APPENDIX. fons^ whether adults or infants^ a right to injli- tutions of a fofitivs nature ? AnJ'Luer, Sufficient evidence of their right is necefifary. But \i is immaterial, whether this evidence arife from precept, example^ or fair implication. Mankind are too apt to limit the Holy One of Jfrael^ by fpecifying ihe kind and degree of evidence that would fuit and fatisfy them. The fcribes and pha- rifees difregarded and defpifed all the evi- dence which our Saviour exhibited in vin- dication of his divine miffion, while they con- flantly demanded fome fign in proof of his> Meffiahfliip. At the time of his crucifixion?, their language was, if Jefus zuill coyne doivn from the crofs^ we will helicve on him, but not otherwife. It is a common but jufl obfer- vaiion, that fuch arguments as prove too much, prove nothing. Thofe premifes or principles mufl: not be admitted, which will produce inadmixTible confequences. It is "sindoubtediy the duty of women to commune at the Lord's table ; but there is no explicit command or example for female communion. It is the duty of chriftians to obferve, in a religious mianner, the firft day of the week, but there is no explicit warrant for changing the Sabbath from the feventh day to the firft. If the Apoftles obferved the firft day of the week, this does not prove that they negle6led the feventh. Some of the baptill; denomination f^ill think themfelve.s bound, according to their principles, to obfeive the APPENDIX. 317 fevenih day, and are caWed feven-day haptifls, A quaker would fay, " there was no explic- '^ it warrant under the gofpel inftitution for *• water -baptifm ; that John baptized with *• water^ but Chnjl baptized with the Holy •* Ghojl ; — that he commilTior^ed his Apoftles " to adminifter bapiifm, but did not order " them to ufc water ; and that it is no where " faid they did baptize with water.'' At the houfe of Cornelias, Peter afked, '• can any ''one forbid water ihdii thefe fhould not be ^* baptized ?" But it is not faid that any w^atcr was brought, or ufed, Philip and the Eu- nuch went dowH' to, or into the water, and came up from, or out of the v;ater, but it is not faid that he baptized him in thp water or with the water ; and thefe two arc the only inftances, in which the word water is even mentioned. I know this manner of reafon- ing is fophiftical and fallacious, b'ji it ap- pears to me that the bapriits, in ihjir zeal to overthrow the do8:rine oF infant baptifm, have given up fto ^^ their good friends the " quakers") the only tenable ground — the only fure defence of water baptifm ;. and in- flead of founding their principles upon the baptifm of Chrifl, they have attempted to found them upon the baptilm of John, and have accordingly called themfelves hapiifos. a name derived from John the Bapiifi, who, the quakers acknowledge, baptized with water. John^ as we have obferved, was ihe laft and grcatejl prophet under the Mofaic C c 2 35B APPENDIX. aifpenfation; hut the leaji in the kingdom of Chrift is greater than he. We have endeav- 013 red to fhow from (he fcripturcs, and from the \vri(ings of the ancient Fathers, that the infant children of chriRian parents have z right to be admitted, by baptifm, into the vifible church, or kingdom, or covenant of God. In the Abrahamic covenant, God granted the right of church memberfhip to infants, and commanded that they fhould be admitted by a viGble token. This church xnemberfliip of infants has never been {tl afrde, either by the authority of God, or of infpired men. It therefore continues in full- force, under the fanBion of heaven, even at the prefent day. "In the old teftament " tliere is an explicit precept for the obferv- " ance of the fabbath, and alfo an explicit " precept for the application of the feal of the '• covenant to the infant feed of fuch parents '• as are vifible members; and as the change <' of the fabbath, under the prefent difpenfa- '' tion. from the fevenih to the firft day of the ^' Vs'eek, is not to be confidered as a repeal of " the original precept, refpePiing the fab- '• bath ; fo neither is the change of the feal *'• of the covenant, from circumcifion to ^* baptifm, to be confidered as a repeal of " the original precept refpe8ing the feal." The church or covenant, and fubjeBs there- of, are the fame ; and alihough the feal is varied as to its form, being changed from circumcifion to b^piifl"? it is Itili of the fame APPENDIX. 319 import, and applicable to the fame fubjeQs, Faith was required in order to the circum- ciiion of adults, but it was not requifite in order to the circumcifion of infants. Accord- ingly, a profeffion of the chriftian faith is ftill required, in order to the baptifm of adults, but it is not requifite in order to the baptifm of infants. — The Apoftle fays, if any uould not zoork. neither Jhould he eat. This faying is ap- plicable to thofe adults, who are favoured with health and ftrength, becaufe they are capable of working, but it mud not be ap- plied to the aged and infirm, or to infants, for they are incapable of work. Thus the Saviour fays, he that helicveth and is baptized^ Jhall befaved^ but he -who believeih not, JJiall be damned; and is condemned already. 71iis and fimilar expreflions, are applicable to thofe adults who live in a chriftian land, becaufe they are capable of believing the gofpel. But fuch pafiages of fcrif ture muft not be applied to infants, for they are incapable of exercifing this belief. — It does not follow, becaufe faith is necefTary in order to the baptifm and falvation of adult perfons. thaf infant children, who are incapable of faith; muft not be baptized and cannot be faved. The cafes are very different, and their right to the token of the covenant depends on circumftances which are entirely difUn8. The adult perfon is required to believe, and prefent himfelf. The believing parent is re* quired to prefent himfelf and his children to 320 APPENDIX. God, and receive the external feal and token of the covenant. An exprefs com- mand was not rcquifitc in order to the con- tinuance oFanoldj approved, and eftablifhed' cuftom. But if any cafe can be conceived, in which an explicit and pofitive precept was indifpenfably neceflary, it was cer- tainly needed, in order to annul a divine and pofitive institute, which had been repeated- ly renewed, and made the rule of conftant praBice, for two thoufand years. Faithful Abraham wasexprefsly conftituted intfaihtr of all them who believe. Believers^ of every nation, are counted for his fced^ even as Ifaac was; and eonfequently ihey and their chil- dren have the fame right to bapiifm. the prefent feal of the Abrahamic covenant, which Ifaac and hi^ children had to circum- cifion. Chrift did no^ come to revoke, but to ^ow/irw and extend \.\\t privileges of the original charter. It was foretold concerning him, that he fhould be '• a light to lighten the ^' Gentiles, and the glory of his people If- *• rael; to perform the mercy promifed unto '' the Fathers and to remcniher the holy cove- <; nantr—" Behold," fays God, " 1 will lift '' up my hand to the Gentiles, and fet up my '• (land.ird to the people; and thcyjliall bring " rA)! Jons in their arms, and thy daughttrsJiLall ^^ be carried upon their piouldtrsy Thefe and fimilar predi8ions have been remarkably fulfilled. Thoufands of infant children have been brought in the arms of their be- APPENDIX* 321 licving parents to Chrift ; and nave been dedicated to him in bapiifm. Qurftio?i, Were not thofe little children* con- cernivig -whom our Saviour faid^ " ofjuch is the '' kingdom of God^'* like them uho Jung hofanna in his temple^ more properly adults than injants ? Anfwer. They were fo fmall as to be brought by their parents — Ghrift aBually took them into his arms ; and they are exprefs- ly called infants. Thofe little children, who fang hofanna to the Son of David ^ were perhaps partly influenced by the example of the mul> titude that attended Chrift as he rode in triumph to Jerufnlem : for it feems, they were fo young, that the fcribes, though much dif pleafedif did not think themfelves authorized to reprove and filence them. They there- fore came to Chrift, in derifion, faying, hear- ejl thou XV hat thefe fay P Chrift replied, yea ; have ye 7ievcr rcad^ out of the mouth of babes and fuckUngs thou hafl perftBed praife ? He did not endeavour to fhow, as fome do at the prefent day, that ihofe children had come to years of difcretion ; but quoted and applied a paffage of fcripture which exprefsly men- tioned babes and fucklings — that is, fucking babes. Now, if the praifes of Chnft are perfe6led hy fucking babes — if infant children belong to his kingdom, they certainly have a right to baptifm, the vifible fign and token of memberftiip. 322 APPENDIX. Qjipjlion, The Apoftks have told W5, they hap- tized women as well a:^ men — -jc.hy did they not as cxprefsly mention the baptifm of children ? An/ever, We have already fliown, that children are as plainly mentioned, as could be expe^ed. IF the Apoftles had faid, that men, women, and children, were baptized, we fhould probably have been told, as on other occafions, that thefe children were ten or twelve years old. There was not, how- ever, the fame occafian or neceffirv for men- tioning exprefsly the bapiifm of children. For as women under former difpenfations had been confidered anti treated as members of the covenant, and entitled to all i:s privi- leges, without receiving the external token OT iTiemberfhip, it was neceffary under the gofpel inftitution, that their baptifm fliould be explicitly mentioned, in order to remove all doubts, and fhow that perfons of both fexes were now alike the proper fubjefts of this ordinance. But there could be no quellion refpefting infants ; for every one knew that the^^di/of the covenant had always been applied to them, and was dill their rights by an exprefs and unrevoked inftitu- tion. Befides, it is worthy of our particular notice, that the words men and women, are often ufed in order to diftinguilh the fexes, without reference to their age. We fome- times call a female infant or child, a woman ; and a male child, we call a man. Our Sa- viour fays, ** when a woman is in travail, APPENDIX. 323 <* fhe hath forrovv, becaufe her hour is come, *' but as foon as (he is delivered, fhe remem- '• bereth no more her forrow, for joy that a '• 7nan is born into the world." Here a new- born infant is exprefsly called a man. In another place he obferves, " if a man^ on *• the fabbath day, received circumcifion, «« that the law of Mofes might not be broken," Sec. Here again the word man means an in- fant ei^hi days old. The law of Mofes did not require, that adults fhould be circum- cifed on the Sabbath ; but in the Abrahamic covenant, infant circumcifion was exprefsly refl:ri6ted to the 8th day. The 8th day would fometiraes happen upon the fabbaih : In which cafe, Mofes ordained that the law of the fabbath fhould yield to the law of cir- cumcifion. As circumcifion. the original feal of the covenant, was affixed to the males only, the Apoflles were v^ry careful to in- form us, that baptifra, the prefent feal of the fame covenant, is to be affixed to perfons of both fexes. St. Paul tells us, in Gal. iii, 27, 28, 29, that there is no longer any difference or exception. " For as many of you as " have been baptized into Chrift, have put on " Chrift. There is neither male nor femak^ " ye are all one in Chrift. And ijyt he Chrijl\ " then are ye Abrahavi s feed and heirs accord- " ing to the promife.'' Thus, in the aforefaid pafl'age, inftead of ufing the words men and women, the Apoftle has cautioufly ufed the ^^4. APPENDIX. words male and female, which are equally applicable to adults and infants. Qiiefiion. Did any of thofe adult perfons^ uhom the Apofiles and ancient Fathers baptized^ defccnd from chrijlian parents ? Anfwer, Some children were undoubted- ly adults, when their parents believed. Thefe of courfe were not baptized in their infancy. Some, perhaps, as at the prefent day, who did believe, negle6led to be baptized. And it is poflible, that a few who were baptized, refufed to prefent their infant children to God in baptifm. But .we have no account that the Apoftles ever baptized a fingle adultj who was born of chriftian parents. We have, in the new leftament, the hiilory of their proceedings, for thirty years after the afcen- fion of Chrift, during which period, there is not one inftance of baptifm, that in the lead degree favours the baptid's principles. Thofe very adults, whom the Apoiiles and ancient fathers baptized, were undoubtedly converts from among the unbelieving Jews and hea- thens ; and confequenily were not entitled to baptifm in their infancy-^-nor indeed un- til they had made a profefTion of faith. Con- cerning the baptifm of fuch perfons, there is no difpute. We are all agreed in opinion and pra8ice. But v/p.at is to be done with the infant children of thefe believing profe* lytes ? This is the queflion. Are the infant children of believers to be baptized? The baptifts fay no ! — That ihcir bapiifm umfl be APPENDIX. 325 omitted until they become adults and make a perfonal profeflion of their faith. But where, my baptift friends, is your " explicit *• warrant or pofuive precept" for this ? I have never feen it. Your boafted argument from fcripture ''precedents and examples" will not apply in the prefent cafe ; and this is the real point of controverfy between us. On the other fide, we have fhown that in- fants, purfuant to an exprefs precept, were admitted as rightful members, into the Abra- hamic covenant, and received the external token of memberihip — that this covenant has never been dtfannulled ; nor any alteration been made refpeCling the original right of infants to its external feal and privileges — that the infant children of believers now have the fame right to baptifm, which infants formerly had to circumcifion — that the Apof- iles and ancient fathers did accordingly bap- tize believing parents and their houfeholds. Sl. Paul circumcifed Timothy when an adult, but he did noi baptize him. He was proba- bly baptized in his infancy or early chiid- hond, for his mother was a believer. Thofe ijiliances of adali bapiifm, fo often mention- ed by the oppofers of infant baptifin, are to- tally inrtpplicable. Thefe adults were not the offspring of b;iliever?, but of. infidels — perfons who had been converted from Ju- daifm and heathenifm to the belief and pro- feflion of chriftianifv. 326 APPENDIX, Quejlio)!. Is it certain that infant laptijm teas pracli fed among the Jews before the time of John and of Chrif ? Anfzuer, We have already {hown, that this was the jewifh praQice, in rerpe6l to ihofe Gentile profelytes who embraced their reli- gion. This fa6l5 I believe, is exprefsly Ra- ted by all learned hiflorians and commenta- tors, who have written upon the religious rites and cuftoms of that people. Dr. Wall and Dr. Prideaux have been quoted as au- thorities. The fame pra6lice is exprefsly mentioned, when treating of profelytes, by Selden, Ainfivorth^ Lighfoot. Havimcnd^ Poole^ Siackhoufe^ Cruden^ and by the authors of the Diftionary of the Bible, &:c. Mr. Echard^ in his ecclcfiaftical hiftory, fays, " the ufuai '• way in which the Jews made profelytes, '"• was by circumcifion, bapiifm and facrifice, " '\{ they were males; and by baptifm and " facrifice, if they were females, as Maimo- '• nides and the chief of the Rabbins affure '• us. Baptifm was an ancient cuftom among '• the Jews. It was in ufe many ages before '• our Saviour's incarnation. As circumci- '* fion was applied to the children of the '• Jews, fo was baptifm alfo to the children '• and infants of the profelytes." Some of the aforefaid authors are more particular than others. They mention not only males, but females and infants, as well as adults. Seve- ral of ihefe writers obferve, that children, under twelve years of age, were baptized APPENDIX. 327 orj account (jf their parents ; and that this pra8ice of infant baj^iifm has been in ufe among the jews from the days of Mofes even to the prefeni lime. The Jews con- fidered themfelves as nationally baptized into the religion of Mofes, hy the cloud and hy the fed ; and as there was to be bat one law for the firangcr and for thofe of their azim naiion^ they ininated profelvtes, a.dalts and infant::, by baptifm, &c. Being thus admitted into the Jewifh charch, they had a right to all the religious privileges of nanve citizens. Qjiejlion. Was the baptfn which John the Baptij} adminiflsred^ the chrijlian haptfm ? Anfwer. The new teftament^ or gofpel dif- penfation^ did not take place, until the death of the t^fitor. John was not an Abofle of Chrift, but his forerunner— -hh rueffenger. — Bei-^g the lafl^ and greaiefl prophet under the Mofaic law, he came to prepare the ivay of the Lord^ and riiike his pa-hs flraight. He told his hearers that the kingdom of heaven zcas at hand^ but it had not commenced. The sniniftration and baptifm of John were pre- paratory to the minidra'ion and bapiifm of the Apoftles. Accordingly, it appears from A8:s xix. 2, 3, 4, 5, that thofe perfons to whom he adminiftered baptifm, were after- wards baptized into the iiarac of the Father^ Son, aid Holy Ghofl* This was the chriftian baptifm, as inftituted by Ghrif> himfelf. Que/iion, Did John baptize infants ? 328 APPENDIX. Anjwtr, The infpired writers are entire- ly filent refpefting this matter. We muft therefore reafon from other circumftances > for it cannot be inferred from riitre fiknce^ that he did, or did not baptize them. It is no where faid or intimated that John bap- tized any females^ and yet he probably did baptize zuomen as well as men, and infants as well as adahs. For the jews were in the pra61ice of baptizing their Gentile profelyies, whether male or female, adult or infant; and they expeQed, when the Mefliah or his mef- fenger fhould come, that the people of iheir own nation, of both fexes and of all ages, would be again baptized, as had been the cafe at the Red Sea. Befides, we ought to remember, that it was exnrefsly foretold concerning the forerunner of Chrift — '^ That " he fiiould turn the heart of the fathers to th^ '• children^ and the heart of the children to their '^ fathers^ left I come and fmite the earth iinth a '• curfe'' — Mai. iv. 6. When we cbnfider the habits and circumftances of the Jews, nothing can be more natural, than to ruppofe they brought their children with ihem to the baptifm of Jchn. There is, to fay the leaf^, as much evidence that he baptized infants, as that he baptized women. Qiteflion, Did the difciples of Chrif. before our Saviour s crucifixion^ baptize infants ? ,. Anfwer, They certainly did baptize a vaft number of perfons. But die thing is very {lightly mentioned — in the mod general APPENDIX. 329 terms, and by bul one of the Evangeiifts. — Not a fingle man, woman, or child, is named or fpecified. We may iberefor^ fairly con- clude, that they baptized perfons of both fexes and of all ages, according to she ex- pe6lation and cuitom of the Jews on other occafions; efpecially when we confide r that ihefe itinerant difciples of Ghrift were very numerous, — Befides the twelve Apoflles, he fent forth' feveniy at a lirn?, dire^ling theai to go from city to city, and from houfb tci houfe — in order \o jetk and favc the hjl jhcep of the houfe of Ifrad — fuch as couid noi con- veniently attend on the minifl rauori and baptifm of John, at a great diR. ^nce fro;o home, in the wjlderiiers, and • in ihe open field. It appear:* highly probable from ihefe circumflances, that the difciples of Chnit bapiiz-d a greater propor-ion of women, and particularly of children, \h^.n Juhn; efpecij!- iy when we coniider that ihey were exprefNly ordered, upon e-.tering a houie, if the Son of Peace fnould be there^ to blef^ the hou1e. Now, if the houfehold — the ciiildren, had a right to the bleiring of Chriil or of his gra- cious covenant, on account of iliC believing parent, they certainly had a right to baptifm, the feal and confirmaiion ot the promiicd or covenanted blefTing. Qjirjlion. Did the Apcfihs ofer the rtfarrec- tton rf Chr'fl, and after the chrijtian baphfm zvas inftititttd^ baptize the infant children f btUeving tarenls ? D d 2 330 APPENDIX. Anfwer, Infants were not excepted in the commifiTion which Chrifl gave to his Apof- tles, nor is it any where faid or even inti- mated, that they \fere not baptized. The terms ufed in the apollolick commiflion are of the mod general and comprehenfive na- ture. Infants conftitute a confiderable part of every nation. Thev are capable of being taught by Chrili, arid of being enrolled as difciples or fcholars in his fchool, for the purpofe of fecuring to them a religious and virtuous education. On the day ofPente- coft, we are told, they who gladly received the uvrd were baptized.- — It is further obfcrved — and the fame day. there uere added untj) ihon about three thoufand fouls. The word foiilsi is a general term, and as applicable to infanis as lo adults. Some perfons who believed and were baptized, had no children; but others who were blefled with children, undoubted- ly prefented ihem to the Lord in baptifm. Accordinojy, when Lydia believed, /he and her hoi ft hold \K^ re bapiized. — V^-hen Scepha- nus believed, he and his hoi f hold were bap- tized. — When the jailer believed, he a?id all his were baptized^ flraighticay. I know it is pretended by fome, that ihefe children were probably old enough to believe, and to be bapiized on the account of their own f^iih. But this is mere conje8ure. We are in- formed thvi parenis believed, but it is not faid their children believed, and we have r.o right to be wfc above zvJiat is wriUen, APPENDIX. 331 Qiiejlion, But has not Saint Paul tcldiis that the houfehold of Stephamis^ tuhc7n he baptized^ " have addiHed ihanf elves to the viinijlry of the ^^Sainth?'' And do a not this imply they were cjults andbtlievers ? Anfrjoer, It is faidjin ihefirfl Epiftle ?oihe Corinthians, xvi. 15, that they have additled them/elves to the viinijlry of the Saints; but then this Epiflle was wrJLten in the 56ih year of Chrift, which was undoubtedly 20 years or more, after Saint Paul had baptized the houfehold of Stephanos; for we are exprefs- ly told that this houfe was the firjl fruits (f Achaia — the very firft, who had been bap- tized in that province or country, of which Corinth was the capita!. The objefiion, therefore, inftead of invalidating, confirms the argument in favour of infant bapiifm. For on fuppufirion they received bapiifm in their infancy or early childhood, the interval between the time in which the ApoRle bap- tized thefe children, a^nd ihe iimein which he wrote the aforefaid Epiille. was fsifiicienily long' for than to mature in-age and.dfcretion^ and become addiEied to the minifi>y of the Saints, Ouefiion. Did not the houfthold of the Jailtr believe before th^y u ere baptized ? Is it not ex- pre/sly /aid that he rejoiced, believing in God, with all his houje ? Anfdjer. The feeming ambiguity of ihe aforefaid words would have been in a great meafure prevented, if our iranHators had 332 APPENDIX-. placed them according to the original order. The Greek is — Kai egalliajatc panaiki pep:fu\>- k6s id Thcb. And he rejoiced with (or in) aU his houfe, believing in God. Mr. Henry, xvl his annotaiion on this paffage, fays, it mig};t have been rendered thus : " Having believ- *^ ed in God, he rejoiced his houfe all over *' — in every apartment." The original word ufed, is not JunpanoikU bat panoikU an ad- verb, and by Dr. Hemmenway and various critical writers, is rendered domcjiwaliy. He rejoiced domeftically, or ail his houfe over — he 'went from room to room, rejoicing in evefv apartmenr. It is highly probable, tr.at his fam-lv participated with him in this nev^ and unufual joy. This circum.fiance. how* ever, is not exprefTed in the Greek. Both words are ufed in the fingylar nwriiber. The jailer hdicvcd — the jailer rejoiced. But it is faid, the Apoiiles preached the word to him, to all fhat were in his houfe ! The prifon- ers and domeiiicks \vere, undoubtedly, all prefent. When the jailer er quired uhat he pioidd do to he faved^ Paul and Silas replied, bdicve on the Lord Jtjus Chrift,- and thou JJiali b& favtd^, arid thy hoiifs. Thefe words agree ex- aclly with what our Saviour faid to Zncche- us. This day i^ falvation come to this houfe^fcr- as much as ht aljo is the [on cj AbrahcVfi. The promife made to Abraham WnS, / will be a God to thee and thy feed. Peter therefore laid to hi^ hearers, rcpnit and he baptized-^ for the i}ronvfe is to yc:i and your children. The jai- APPENDIX. 333 ]et was a Gentile ; but upon bis believing the gofpel be and his children became enti- tled to thsii fahai ion zvhich zvas of the Jews — to that family or houfehold bieffing nhich was promifed io faithful Abraham and his feed. Accordingly, he and all his were baptized flraightway. Qiifiion. Is it certain, that infant baptifin was praHfed in ike age zchich iinmediately foL lowed the Apoflles ? Anfojer, We have already fnown from hiftory, that infant baptifm was certainly praftifed in the fecond and in the third cen- turies. In the beginning of the fourth cen- tury, Conftaniine declared in favour of chriRianity. Perfecution ceafed. More books were accordingly written, than in any preceding age. All doubts and difj^utes a- bout infant baptifm are now entirely remo- ved. The teftimonies of writers are very numerous, full and undeniable ; and Dr. V/all tells us, " that not one of them fpeaks '^ of it as new ; or as a thing which needed '' proof; but as a practice fuppofed and ordi- " narily known. It was never enatlsd by ** the authority or enjoined by the canoris «« of any council ; becaufe no church or fe6l <* of chriRians had ever denied ir. On the '• contrary, they occafionaily mention infant ^' baptifm as a cuflomary rite, that had always ^' been praBifed." Oii^ftion. If it fiould he admitted-^ that infant hdpififi was thus pradifed in the fcond^ ihird 334 APPENDIX. 4ind fourth centuries, xuill it folloiv that the prac- tice had been hapJ.^d doiun to them even Jrom the times of the Apojlles ? AnJ'xtr. The proofamounts to the clear- eft demonriration. The primitive churches throughout the world were undoubtedly farmed by the Apoflles upon one and the fame plan. The apoftoh'ck age continued until about the twa of the firfl century. Thoie cbriilians, who lived in the fecond, third, and even fourth century, mull have known perfectly, infallibly, and univerfally, how the Apofties praftifed. They couid not poflibly be ignorani ormiftaken refpe6ting a praQice of fuch general concern and notoriety. It is now almoft two hvindrcd years fince our forefathers landed in Plymouth. Every per- fon of information among us knowfjjbat the iirft fetilers of this country generally believ-. ed in (he do8rine of infant baptifm. as being a divine inftiiution. The commencement of the fourth century v;as but about two hun- dred years after the Apoftles. Thofe ancient chriftians certainly knew how the xApoftles praclifed, in this refpetl ; and undoubtedly adhered clofely to the example which they had fet them. Q^uejlion, If infant haptifm were praclifedhy tlu Apnflks^ during the ffirjl century^ and by the ancient chriftians in thefaond and third centuries^ zvhy have they not mentioned it more frequently and rxpUcitly in their z:^ri rings P APPENDIX. 335 An/wer. The reafons are very obvious. A pra8ice which has obtained and become univerfal, which meets with no oppofition, and about which there is no difpute, needs no arguments or advocates for its defence. There is no occafion why it (hould be even mentioned by any writer, unlefs for the fake of illuftrating or eftablifhing fome other point that may be difputed. Thus it w^as with reiped to infant circumcifion. This ancient rite was conftantly ufed from the in- fancy of Ifaac tiii the time of Mofes, a term of more than four hundred years, and yet it is not once hinted during that long period. After Mofes, there is not one exaniple men- tioned of infant circumcifion in all tlie old teftament, although it was daily pra^tifed for the fpace of fifteen hundred years. ^Ve ought alfo to confider, thai in ancient times the art of printing wa;s not underftood. But few books were written; and thofe few in the moft conc;fe manner. Some of thefe books have been loft, and fome deflro) ed by the enemies of chriftianixy. But ftill, as has been obferved, infant baptifm is mentioned by a number of the moft refpeQabie fathers, who lived in the fecond and third centuries. It is mentioned as a univerfal, incontciiable practice, authorized by the Apoftles them- felv'es. In every inftance. it is mentioned, cc- cajionallj^^ and as an indifputahh fa8, in order to confute fome herefy, or prove fom.e doc- trine that was then difputed. The hiftorical 33^ AP?ENfT3IX. evidence, in proof of infant baptifm, appears to be conclufi ve, and of fuch a nature as might have been reafonably expelled. In the fourth century, it is fo full and forcible, the bap- tifts themfelves allow, that the infant children ofprofefied believers were then generally baptized. Qiieflion. Did none of the ancic^it fathers op- pofe infant haptifm ? Arfzver, Tcrtullian, of ihe third century, a man of odd and lingular notions, is the on- ly perfon who objeBed or advifed to delay the baptizing of infants. His teftimony, however, affords an unanfwerable argument in favour of the antiquity and authenticity of this decline. For he acknowledged that the praftice did prevail. He did not pre- tend that it was unlawful, a nullity, or an in- novation. It is not at all ftrange, that a chrifHan ordinance fhou'd be oppofed by one or two perfons, in the courfe of feveral hundred years ; but very remarkable, that the number of oppoftrs fhould be fo fmall and inconfjdcrable. There was no church, nor any feci: of chriftians, who held to water- baptifm, and denied infant baptifm, before the twelfth certury. Ic is impoiTible to account for the early, the general, and confTantpraciice of infant baptifm, upon bapiifts' principles. We are obliged to believe, thai the Apoftles did bap- tize infants. Every argument from the a- forefaid ftatement of facls. from analogy, At»PENlSlX. 3J7 and from experience, favours this opinfon. "The baptifls tell us, that all the primitive and aRcient churches were of their denom- ination. Such general, indefinite affertions are more eafily made than proved. Why ^o they not mention fome particular minijle^ or church ; and let us know in what nation or country they exifted ? This has never been done nor attempted. New cuftoms and prac- tices are commonly introduced by flow de- grees, and not without much difficulty. The founder or leader of any new fe6l or party becomes notorious. The age and place in which he lived are known. His peculiar fentiments are warmly difputed and oppofed, being contrary to the eftablifhed "habits and prejudices of the people. But no p erf on can be named who brought in the fuppofed herefy of infant baplifm. No time Br country can be fixed upon, in which it had its origin. How then is it conceivable that fo great a change with refpcft to an article of fundamental importance, which deftroyed the "very being of the church, could commence, and prevail, and become uaiverfal, without the aid of any authority, civil or ecclefiaflic- al, and wichout oppofiiion. Qiieflzon, Have not many great corruptions^ fuch as ima^e worfhip^ tranfuhftantiation^ &c, imiverfaUy prevailed among chriftians 9 Anftver. Thefe and fimilar corruptions never did become general. Befidcs, they were conftantly oppofed by numerous indi- Ee 338 AVrZKVlX. viduals and fynods, while the arm of civil and military power was ftrenuoufly exerted to eftablifh and fupport them. Hiftory in- forms us concerning the rife and progrefs of error or herefy in general — the ways and means by which it has been introduced and fupported — that innovations have always met with oppofition — that nuniberlefs books have been written in order to confute and fup- prefs them. But not one of the ancient Fathers — no chriftian author for fifteen hun- dred years, has favoured the world with a fingle pamphlet againft the do£lrine of infai>t bapiifm. If the praftice of baptizing infants had been contrary to the example and injundion of the Apoftles, oppofers would have rifen up againft it, in every part of Chriftendom. But we read of no fuch oppofition. The practice univerfally prevailed, not only a- mong the orthodox chriftians, but alfo among feftaries of every defcripiionjeven of the mofl dil'cordant and unfriendly fentiments, while cngagedin angry contentions, It prevailed in the earlieft and pureliages of chriftianity, be- fore popery exifted, and in thofe countries where its influence never extended; through- out all the churches in Afia and Africa, as well as in Europe. So that not a fingle baptift church has been or can be found fgr more than eleven hundred years after Chrift, and but one fmall fociety of that denomination, previoufly to the fixteenth century. APPENDIX, 359 From thefe fa£ls5 fully and ftrongly 5ttefl.- eead of th^ rea4 ka