f 
 
 CL 
 
 
 •«^ 
 
 
 .5 
 
 
 i? 
 
 
 Ir: 
 jQ. 
 
 
 4 
 
 
 0) 
 T3 
 _r3 
 
 
 *^ 
 
 
 1c 
 
 
 —^ 
 
 »-i 
 
 Q. 
 
 
 # W 
 
 
 
 
 *■£> 
 
 fe 
 
 o 
 
 
 Jg 
 
 
 $ 
 
 
 
 fe 
 
 <u 
 
 
 5 
 
 c 
 
 
 «* 
 
 O 
 
 bfl 
 
 p^ 
 
 »2$ 
 
 Eh 
 
 <t 
 
 ^ 
 
 fc3) 
 
 O 
 
 "Hi 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 fe 
 
 £ 
 
 .£} 
 
 •o 
 
 M 
 
 to 
 
 ^ 
 
 *g* 
 
 P4 
 
 CO 
 
 "^ 
 
 
 Pn 
 
 I." 
 
 2 
 
 ^ 
 oq 
 *» 
 
 O 
 
 
 J3 
 
 
 % 
 
 
 T3 
 
 0) 
 
 c 
 
 8 
 
 £ 
 
 a> 
 
 0) 
 
 i 
 
 V> 
 
 dl 
 
 1 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
E 
 
Publijbed by the fame Author^ 
 
 1. Remarks on the Chriflian Minifter's Reafons 
 for adminiftring Baptifm by Sprinkling or 
 Pouring of Water. 
 
 2. Difcourfes on Perfonal Religion, in 2 vols, 
 i2mo, 2d Edit. 
 
 3. Occafional Sermons, &c. 
 
 Printed for J. Buckland, inPater-nofter-Row; 
 G.Keith, in Grace-chufch-Street} W, Harris, 
 No. 70, St, Paul's-church-yard, 
 
A N 
 
 ANSWER 
 
 T O 
 
 The Chriftian Minifter's Reafons 
 
 FOR 
 
 BAPTIZING INFANTS. 
 
 I N 
 
 A Series of Letters to a Friend. 
 By SAMUEL STENNETT, D.D. 
 
 Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in 
 the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the 
 Holy Gbojl. Matt, xxviii. 19. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 Printed for J. B u c k l a n d, in Pater-nofter-Row 
 G. Keith, in Grace-church-Street; W. Har r 1 » 
 No. 70. St. Paul's-church-yard. 
 
 MDCCLXXV. 
 
[ iii ] 
 
 ADVERTISEMENT. 
 
 TH E time which has elapfed 
 fince the publication of Mr. 
 Addington's Treatife upon Baptifm, 
 makes it neceffary to apologize for 
 the late appearance of the following 
 Reply to the fecond part of that book. 
 The Remarks on the firft part, which 
 refpecls the Mode of the Inftitution, 
 were defigned to have been quickly 
 followed with thefe on the Subjects 
 of it : but, fome other important affairs 
 calling off the author's attention from 
 this matter for a considerable time, 
 he began to think of laying afide his 
 A 2 defign. 
 
[ iv ] 
 
 defign. Having, however, in the courfe 
 of the laft year been perfuaded by his 
 friends, for reafons which he judges 
 fufficiently important, to refume his 
 intention -, he now begs leave to fub- 
 mit to the Publick the following An- 
 fwer to The Chrifiian Minifters Reafons 
 for baptizing Infants: which he wifhes 
 could have been comprized, confident- 
 ly with the juftice due to the fubjedT:, 
 in a narrower compafs. 
 
 THE 
 
c*m 
 
 
 THE 
 
 G ON T E N T S 
 
 LETTER I. 
 CT* H E kind of Evidence required in this De- 
 bate, ? a g e I 
 LETTER II. 
 
 In what fenfe Infants are included in the Covenant. 
 —The Covenant confidered as abfolute. 9 
 
 LETTER III, 
 
 The Covenant cGnfidered as conditional , 2 7 
 
 LETTER IV. 
 
 A brief Review of the preceding Arguments*— F } af- 
 fages from the Old Teflament examined, 41 
 
 LETTER V. 
 
 Pajfages from the New Tejiament examined, — • 
 Matt. xix. 13 — 15. Suffer little children^ &c. 
 confidered. 53 
 
 LETTER VI. 
 
 A&S ii. 39. The Promife is unto you, &c. — 
 Rom. xi. 16. If the Fir/?- fruit be holy, the 
 Lump, Sec, — 1 Cor. vii. 14. The unbelieving 
 Hujband is fanclified, Sic, confidered. 71 
 
 LETTER VII. 
 
 The Abrahamick Covenant confidered. 91 
 
 3 LET- 
 
[ vi ] 
 
 LETTER VIII. 
 
 Right to the Seal of the Covenant confidered. 103 
 
 LETTER IX. 
 
 Tin Argument from Circumcifon cpnfidered. 1 1 x 
 
 LETTER X. 
 
 Our Lord's Commiffon to the Apcflles, &c. con- 
 fidered. 130 
 LETTER XI. 
 Mr.A.'s Replies to Objections •, confidered. 153 
 
 LETTER XII. 
 
 Mr. A.'s Replies to Objections, confidered. 168 
 
 LETTER XIII. 
 
 The Baptifm of Jetuijh-Profelytes confidered. 183 
 
 LETTER XIV. 
 
 The Argument from Households confidered. 202 
 
 LETTER XV. 
 
 The Argument from Antiquity confidered. 213 
 
 LETTER XVI. 
 
 An Inquiry into the Origin tf/Infant-Baptifm. 231 
 
 LETTER XVII. 
 
 The Argument from Universality confidered. 250 
 
 LETTER XVIII. 
 
 Mr. A.'s Reflections on the Baptijh confidered.—* 
 Conclusion. 273 
 
 L E T- 
 
L E 
 
 T T E R 
 
 I. 
 
 Dear Sir, 
 
 Jttf^J J£ "^ Am happy in the very favourable re- 
 t M ception you have given the Remarks 
 **} I fent you on The Chrijlian Minifter's 
 Reafons for admtnijiering Baptifm, by 
 fprinkling or pouring of water. We proceed now, 
 to confider his Reafons for baptizing Infants. 
 
 feJUU 
 
 Mr. Jddington fets out with expreiling his 
 wonder, that there mould be " fo univerfal a 
 <c connection, as he finds there is in England, 
 " of the two diftincl: tenets of immerfion and 
 <c immerfing the adult:" This Arrange cir- 
 cumftance he is^ at a lofs to account for ; and 
 of confequence, I fuppofe, to account for that 
 other as ftrange circumflance, the connection of 
 the two oppofite tenets of fprinkling, and the 
 fprinkling infants. But there appears to me, 
 I acknowledge, nothing at all furprifmg in either 
 B cafe, 
 
2 *£he kind of Evidence 
 
 cafe. As the two points refpect the fame infli- 
 tuticn, fo he who confiders the one can fcarce 
 avoid confidering the other. And, as they are 
 both clearly laid down in Scripture, I cannot 
 wonder that he who concludes from our Saviour's 
 commiffion and the fa£ts recorded in the New 
 Teftament, that the adult only who profefs their 
 faith in Chrift are to be baptized j fhould alfo 
 conclude from the fame commiffion, and the fame 
 facts, that fuch perfons are only properly bap- 
 tized by immerfion. Nor do I at all wonder, 
 on the other hand, as we commonly fee one error 
 leads on to another, that they who, upon a 
 miftaken notion of Baptifm's being necefTary to 
 falvation, had admitted their children to it with- 
 out any authority from the Bible ; mould, in a 
 courfe of time, contrary to the fenfe of Scripture, 
 fubftitute fprinkling in the room of immerfion : 
 a change to which the gradual difufe of bathing, 
 and the fond apprehenfions of parents for their 
 children, might naturally prompt them. 
 
 But there is, I confefs, one thing that does 
 furprize me, and that is, that the practice of 
 baptizing infants mould furvive that of giving 
 them the Eucharift : which latter cuftom very 
 early obtained in the church, and was introduced 
 upon the very fame principle that gave rife, as 
 we have good reafon to apprehend, to the former, 
 I mean its being thought necefTary to falvation. 
 
 3 This 
 
required in this Debate. 3 
 
 This partial reformation will, however, feem 
 the lefs ftrange, when we reflecl:, that the prin- 
 ciple juft mentioned from whence thefe abufes 
 fprung, hath not even yet fully fpent its force, 
 but on the contrary hath a very powerful and 
 general influence, though it be not openly ac- 
 knowledged : nay the fpirit of it is very often to 
 be perceived where one mould little expect it, 
 and where the principle itfelf is abfolutely dis- 
 avowed. 
 
 But not to detain youj Sir, any longer with 
 this Speculation ; I haften to our Author's grand 
 object, which is to prove, that u Chriftians 
 * c ought to give up their little ones to the Lord 
 " in this ordinance*:" that is, that they are in 
 duty bound to baptize them. 
 
 Previous to an examination of Mr. rfs. argu- 
 
 to 
 
 ments in fupport of this proportion, it may be 
 proper to inquire by what kind of proof we are 
 to be determined in this controverfy. Here I 
 would obferve then, that all pofitive inftitutions 
 depend folely upon the will of the Inftitutor, 
 and that therefore in every queftion relating to 
 them, we muft be guided by his exprefs declara- 
 tions, or by thofe of perfons he has duly autho- 
 rized to Signify his will. Nor is it to be doubted 
 that a wife Legiflator will, in all matters of this 
 fgrt, take care to exprefs his mind in the mod 
 * Page 61. 
 
 B 2 plain 
 
4 *Ihe kind of Evidence 
 
 plain and intelligible manner. For if he were to 
 leave perfons to reafon from analogy, that is, 
 from a refemblance between what he is fuppofed 
 to enjoin and other previous inftitutions, there 
 would be no end to men's inventions : fo that 
 amidft the wildnefs of imagination, and the ob- 
 fcurity which generally attends a long train of 
 deductions and confequences, very few would be 
 able to frame any precife accurate idea of his 
 meaning ; and of courfe their obligations to the 
 matter required would be greatly weakened, if 
 not abfolutely fuperfeded, 
 
 Doctor Hoadly, the late Bifhop of Win- 
 chester, felt the force of this reafoning, which 
 I think every one muft upon the leaft reflection, 
 and therefore afTerts, in his Plain Account of the 
 Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, that <c all 
 " pofitive duties , or duties made fuch by injlitution 
 " alone r depend entirely upon the will and declaration 
 iC of the per/on ivho^ injlitutes or ordains them, with 
 " refpecl to the real defign or end of them; and, 
 <c confequently, to the due manner of performing 
 
 Now Baptifm is a pofitive inftitution of 
 Chrift : ?nd, agreeably to his infinite wifdom 
 and goodnefs, he has expreffed himfelf in the 
 moft clear and explicit manner refpecling both 
 the mode and the fubject of it. That this is the 
 3 cafe 
 
required in this Debate. 5 
 
 cafe with refpecl: to the mode, has I hope been 
 fatisfactorily fhewn in my remarks upon that part 
 of Mr. J.'s book. The queftion now is, To whom 
 this ordinance is to be adminiftered ? A queftion 
 doubtlefs of equal importance with the former, 
 and upon which therefore it is natural to fuppofe 
 our Lord mould be equally explicit. This we 
 think he has been, and that therefore the ifiue of 
 this inquiry, as well as the other, ought to be 
 refted alone upon his own exprefs declarations, 
 and thofe of his Apoftles and nrft Minifters. 
 
 Doctor Samuel Clarke, fenfible, as it fnould 
 feem, that Infant-Baptifm has not the fupport 
 of any exprefs declaration of Chrift or his 
 Apoftles, very frankly acknowledges, in one of 
 his Sermons*, that " by analogy drawn from the 
 " rite of circumcifon, it has, for many ages, been 
 " the general praclice in the Chrijlian church to 
 tc receive infants by Baptifm into the obligations of 
 " faith and obedience to the gofpel-, and to make 
 <c profejjion for them, what they are to believe and 
 " obey," And he adds, feeling this ground to be 
 indefenfible and yet not willing totally to abandon 
 it, " whether this analogy be rightly drawn, or no ; 
 <c and be a fufficient and adequate foundation for 
 ** what has been built upon it, is a controverfv." 
 It cannot however be doubted, that if Dr. Clarke 
 
 * Serm. 38. Vol.1, edit. foL 
 
 B 3 had 
 
6 Tii H*4 tf Evidence 
 
 had been (peaking of poihive i:. s in 
 
 general, and not directly of Infant-Baptifm, 
 rich, as he was in the practice of it, it con- 
 
 d him at leait not abiblutelv to condemn) 
 he would have readily acknowledged, \ 
 Lord of Winchefter, that their authority depends 
 • the will and declaration of the 
 perfon who inltitutes or ordains them. The 
 principle therefore I have been eftablifhin_. 
 the ground of our inquiries upon the fubject 
 before us, can fcarce fail of being afTented to by 
 
 • fober and confiderate perfon. 
 
 Now this principle granted, I very 
 
 properlv be excufed confidering the much 
 part of Mr. J.'s book, which conflils of that 
 kind of analogical reafoning juit. now referred 
 to ; and which, whether it has or has not any 
 force in it, methinks cannot fatisfy a fober 
 inquirer in a matter of this importance, and 
 which in its own nature requires an exprefs 
 pofitive declaration. Bv a long train of de- 
 ductions Mr. J. proceeds to the confequence 
 he wilhes to eitablifh, viz. " The right of the 
 ■J infant children of pious parents to Baptiftn.'* 
 In his way to this confequence he leads us 
 through fuch a variety of (not to fay here de- 
 fective) reafoning, as cannot fail of confounding 
 the moft attentive reader, and leaving his mind, 
 if he be impartial, perfectly chlatisned. You 
 
 will 
 
required in this Delate, J 
 
 will give me leave, Sir, to lay before you at the 
 outfet a general fcheme of Mr. A.'s reafoning, 
 and then appeal to you, upon the very face of it, 
 Whether, if it was our Saviour's meaning that 
 infants mould be baptized, it is imaginable he 
 would have left a queftion of fuch importance 
 upon fuch an ifTue ? For upon an ifTue of this 
 kind it muft have been left, if there is no pofitive 
 declaration to authorize the admitting them to 
 Baptifm, which we aflert there is not. Mr. A. 
 if I do not miftake him, reafons thus — " God 
 " has made a covenant with all pious Chriftians 
 cc — all the feed of fuch pious Chriftians, as he 
 " infers from various confiderations, are included 
 " with them in that covenant — being included 
 " in it they have a right to the feals of it-— 
 cc Baptifm is a feal of the covenant — therefore 
 " all the feed of pious Chriftians mould be bap- 
 " tized." Now, I afk, do you think, Sir, that 
 our Lord would have left the right of perfons to 
 this inftitution upon fp uncertain and precarious 
 an ifTue, to fay the beft of it, when all doubt of 
 the matter might have been precluded by thefe 
 few plain words, " Let all who believe and 
 " repent be baptized, and their infant children 
 " alfo?" 
 
 But I do not mean, upon the general ground 
 
 of the unfatisfa&orinefs of fuch analogical and 
 
 confequential reafoning in the matter of a pofitive 
 
 B 4 infti^ 
 
8 The kind of Evidence, &c. 
 
 inftitution, to excufe myfelf of the trouble of 
 following our Author through his difcuffton of 
 thefe propofitions. The ftrefs which, through 
 prejudice and for want of better evidence, fome 
 perfons may be apt to lay upon it, makes it 
 necefTary to expofe the fallacy and weaknefs of 
 it : and this, I think I may add without the im- 
 putation of rafhnefs, may be pretty eafily done. 
 In the mean time, give me leave to obferve, that 
 if but one of thefe propofitions is difproved, the 
 confequence Mr. A. wifhes to eftablifh, " That 
 " infants have a right to Baptifm," is as effectu- 
 ally deftroyed, as if they were all difproved : 
 cne link of the chain broke, the whole drops. 
 But I am much miftaken, if, upon examination, 
 each of thefe proportions will not be found to be 
 defective, except the firfh. 
 
 I am, Sir, 
 
 Your humble fervant, 
 
 S. S. 
 
 LET- 
 
C 9 ] 
 
 LETTER II. 
 
 Dear Sir, 
 
 IT is readily agreed that God has made a Co- 
 venant with his people. The firft point 
 therefore to be confidered is, " Whether," as 
 Mr. A. afferts, " the children of pious parents 
 " are in the Chriftian Covenant, or included 
 " with them in it* r" 
 
 Now here it was natural to expect our Author 
 would have given us a clear and precife idea of 
 what he means by the Covenant, and by children's 
 being included with their parents in it. This, 
 however, he has not done. It is necefTary therefore, 
 in order to difcern the force or weaknefs of his 
 reafoning, to lay down all the poflible fenfes in 
 which peribns may be faid to be in a covenant, 
 to apply thefe fenfes to the queftion before us of 
 the children of pious parents being in the Cove- 
 nant, and to examine Mr. vf.'s arguments in re- 
 ference to each of them : for as I am often totally 
 at a lofs, either through my own dulnefs or his 
 want of perfpicuity, to comprehend the precife 
 point he means to prove, I hold myfelf obliged 
 * P. 61, 62, 87, 101, &c, 
 
 B 5 t« 
 
10 In what fenfe Infants 
 
 to this method of confidering his arguments, te- 
 dious as it may be, in order to efcape the blame 
 cf doing them any the leaft injuftice. 
 
 Now the phrafe of being in a covenant, or be- 
 ing included in it, can only be underflood either, 
 £rft, of a perfon's being a contracting party in 
 a covenant -, or, fecondly, of his being intitled 
 to certain advantages through the mutual {tipu- 
 laticns of others on his behalf. In the former 
 cafe it is not only necefTary that a man mould 
 exift, but that he mould be capable of judging 
 and acting for himfelf : in the latter, he may be 
 concerned, though he is net fid juris, or is not 
 even in exigence. 
 
 FIRST, A perfon mav be faid to be in a co- 
 venant who is a contracting party in it. Now 
 this may be afErmed of him who enters into fo- 
 lemn covenant-engagements with God in any 
 religious duty, more efpecially Baptifm, which 
 is evidently adapted to exprefs the furrender of 
 ©urfelves to God, and our refolution, m a humble 
 dependance on his grace, to be the difciples o£ 
 Chriit. But, in this fenfe of the phrafe, it will 
 be acknowledged on all hands, that children can- 
 not poiUhh' b: in .: with God, fince they 
 are net capable of any fuch transaction. I am 
 excufed therefore confidering Mr. J.'s arguments 
 as directed, any of them to this point, and may 
 
 conclude 
 
included in the Covenant. 1 1 
 
 conclude he agrees with me that infants cannot, 
 upon the ground of any perfonal engagements 
 of their own, be intitled to Baptifm. 
 
 Here you will give me leave to obferve, that 
 the neceflity of fomething of this fort, previous 
 to Baptifm, is manifeftly acknowledged by the 
 practice which obtains in the church of England 
 and other churches, of admitting fponfors in 
 Baptifm. Children cannot promife or vow for 
 themfelves, and therefore others are required to 
 do it for them, or Baptifm is denied. The un- 
 reafonablenefs and pernicious tendency of this 
 Guftom I fhall not flay here to confider and ex- 
 pofe, as it is not a matter in debate between" 
 Mr. A. and me. Nor need I tell you, Sir, that 
 there is no foundation for it in Scripture, any 
 more than for many other abfurd and danger . 
 ous practices, which the church of Rome hath 
 obtruded on the world *. To proceed, 
 
 SE- 
 
 * Mr. Wall, in his Hiftory of Infant-Baptifm, takes 
 pains to prove that this cuftom, which obtained in an 
 early age of the church, originated from a fimilar cuftom 
 which, he infifts, was in life among the Jews at the ad» 
 miffion of Infant-Profelytes to the profeflion of their reli- 
 gion. " Either the father of the infant, he tells us, or 
 " elfe the confillory of the place, or at leaft three grave 
 " perfons, were required to anfwer or undertake for him 
 " that he mould renounce Idolatry, &c." He then goes 
 on to trace up to the fame fource the other ceremonies 
 which were pra&ifed in the fame early age of the church,, 
 B 6 o£ 
 
12 In what fen fe Infants 
 
 SECONDLY, A perfon may be faid to be 
 in a covenant, or included in it, who is intitled 
 
 to 
 
 of giving infants milk and honey, and anointing them 
 with a fort of precious ointment at their Baptifm *. Now 
 I do not mean to enter here into the queftion refpecting 
 Profelyte-Baptifm, as it will be confidered more particu- 
 larly hereafter. It is natural, however, in this place to 
 cbferve, that, admitting it to have prevailed in our Savi- 
 our's time, the refting Chriftian Baptifm upon this foun- 
 dation will draw after it confequences which perfons are 
 not perhaps at firft aware of. Mr. Aldington, a diffenting 
 Pcedo-baptift minifter, will tell us (if he may be fuppofed 
 to have made the opinions of authors he has quoted p. 169, 
 170. his own)- I fay, he will tell us, " It is true, there is 
 ** no exprefs mention in the New-Teitament of baptizing 
 " infants j but, as that was a- common ufage among the. 
 " Jews when our Lord inftituted Baptifm, He no doubt 
 M meant that Infants mould be baptized."" Mr. Wall^ 
 a divine of the church of England, will fay, " Mr. A'. 
 " you reafon well. But why flop here? The practice of 
 '« admitting Sponfors, as well as baptizing infants, was 
 " in ufe among the Jews, why then mould you object to 
 " this laudable cuftom amongft us ?" A divine of the 
 church of Rome will ftcp in and fay, " Gentlemen, you 
 " are both right fo far as ycu go. But why mould you 
 " object to Chrifm, and thofe other ceremonies in ufe 
 " r.naongft us, fince they have alfo antiquity, as well as 
 '* the authority of o\ir church, to recommend them ?" 
 How the matter would be fettled amongft thefe difputants 
 I will not pretend to fay. But I know what a Baptifl 
 minifter would fay, if he might be allowed to give his opi- 
 nion. He would modeftly, and yet with a firmnefs in- 
 fpiied by a becoming veneration fcr the facred oracles, fay, 
 
 * Wall's Hift. p. 59, 61. 
 
 » Sirs, 
 
included in the Covenant. i j 
 
 to certain advantages through the mutual engage- 
 ments of others on his behalf. In this fenfe it 
 is acknowledged that not only infants, but thofe 
 who do not yet exift, may be included in a co- 
 venant. And it is, I fuppofe, in this fenfe 
 Mr. A. confiders the children of pious parents 
 as included with them in the Chriftian Covenant. 
 Here then let us conftder the ftate of fuch child- 
 ren, 
 
 I. In reference to the Covenant between God 
 the Father and our Lord Jefus Chrift on the 
 behalf of finners ; and 
 
 II. In reference to any covenant-engagements 
 fubfifting immediately between God and their 
 parents, 
 
 I. We are to confider the ftate of the children 
 of pious parents in reference to the Covenant be- 
 tween God the Father and the Lord Jefus Chrift 
 on the behalf of finners. Now this Covenant is 
 
 " Sirs, you are all wrong to reft your opinions concerning 
 " Baptifm upon Jewifh authorities, or thofe of the primi- 
 " tive church in an adulterated ftate, when it ftands to 
 " reafcn that the Mode and Subjects of this Chriftian in- 
 u ftitution mufthave been, and it is a fact that they really 
 ° are, clearly laid down in the New-Teftament. — To the 
 " la-iv and the teftimony — The Bible is our religion. If 
 u Infant- Baptifm is to be found there, practice it 5 if not, 
 1* reject it." 
 
 either 
 
|4 the Covenant 
 
 either ahfolute or conditional^ I mean in refpeel 
 of the perfons benefited by it* 
 
 FIRST, If it be abfolute, then whoever is in it 
 will be infallibly faved ; and of confequence the 
 children of pious parents, if they are in it, will 
 moft certainly be faved* 
 
 That Mr. A, confiders the Covenant as abfo- 
 lute, I will not pofitively affirm : yet, as his 
 readers will, fome of them, be apt to affix this 
 idea to the account he gives us of it; I fear. 
 I (hall be charged with doing him injuftice,, 
 if I do not treat his arguments, at leaft fome 
 of them, as directed to this point. His account 
 of the Covenant is this : " God has engaged, 
 " in the covenant of grace, to beflow on his peo- 
 * c pie all the bleffings of his love both here and 
 " hereafter f." And the ftate of the children 
 of his people in refpect of the Covenant is thus 
 reprefented : " The promifes" (which he ex- 
 prefsly explains of fpiritual, temporal and eter- 
 nal bleffings) " are made alike to Believers, 
 ** whether Jews or Gentiles, and to their child- 
 f* ren, in both Teftaments %" Again, dif- 
 courfing of Peter's words to the converted 
 Jews, he fays, " If no more was meant by 
 
 t P. i« % P. ioo. 
 
 « the 
 
conjidered as ahfohte tg 
 
 « the promife, than that their defendants 
 *< fhould inherit the promifed blefiing when; 
 * c called by divine grace, it was very little in- 
 H deed. It was no intimation of mercy at all 
 " concerning their children as theirs. He might 
 ** have faid this of the children of unconverted 
 « c heathens, as well as of the offspring of 
 V Chriftians* If 37'our children, when grown 
 M up, become Chriftians, they (hall enjoy the 
 * c privileges of the Chriftian covenant ; but the 
 " Apoftle joins them here with their parents, 
 " as admitted, in confequence of their relation 
 " to them, into covenant with God, &c *." And, 
 in another place, he fpeaks of "Chriftian parents 
 " putting in their claim to thofe new-covenant 
 " bleflings which are promifed to their child- 
 " ren f." From thefe paffages fome may per- 
 haps conclude Mr. A. means to fay, that the 
 children of pious Chriftians are included with 
 them in the Covenant abfolutely confidered. 
 
 Now if this be our Author's meaning, it 
 lies upon him to prove that all of them are 
 in the Covenant ; or to point out, upon fcrip- 
 tural and authentick authority, which of 
 them are in it : for, if one or other of thefe 
 be not done, the general indefinite idea of fome 
 pf them being in the Covenant will not, upon 
 
 * P. 121, 122* -j- P, J79. 
 
 his 
 
1 6 Fbe Covenant 
 
 his own ground of reasoning, intitle any of them 
 to Baptifm. 
 
 I. Are ALL the children of pious parents in- 
 this covenant ? No, they are not : for we have 
 the cleareft evidence that they will not all be 
 faved. Scripture furnifhes numerous inftances 
 of pious perfons who had profligate children, 
 and inftances of this fort too frequently occur in 
 every age. So that they who will maintain this 
 flrange pofition, that they are all in the Cove- 
 nant, mull likewife maintain, either that fuch 
 profligate children will, notwithstanding their 
 profligacy, be finally faved, or that their parents- 
 are not pious perfons. But thefe affertions are 
 followed with confequences fo glaringly ab- 
 furd and dangerous, that the bare mention of 
 them is fumcient to their refutation. Nay 
 Mr.i. himfelf acknowledges, that " there are, 
 u he fears, many of thofe who prove fuch fons 
 " of Belial as to caft off the yoke ;" — and that 
 *< the promifes of God to the children of his 
 *' people are by no means a fecurity to thofe 
 ** who live to rejecl his authority*. " The nu- 
 merous pafTages therefore which he has cited, 
 to prove the peculiar regards of God the Father 
 and of Chrift to. the offspring of Believers, and 
 by confequence their being in the Covenant 
 (which pafTages we fhall confider in their proper 
 place) thefe numerous pafTages, I fay, do not, 
 
 • P. 64. 
 
 cannot r 
 
conjidered as ahfolale. 1 7 
 
 cannot, prove them all to be in the Covenant. 
 As then they are not all of them in the Cove- 
 nant, it lies upon Mr. A. 
 
 2. To point out, by fome authentick fcriptura] 
 criterion, which of them are in the Covenant. 
 Here it will be faid, 
 
 1.) That fuch children of pious parents as die 
 in their infancy are in the Covenant. To which 
 proportion I heartily a/Tent, provided it be ex- 
 tended to the children of bad as well as good men. 
 The Scriptures are not indeed very explicit upon 
 this matter : yet I think our Author's arguments, 
 in the latitude juft infilled on, are pertinent. 
 His arguments I {hall be at the pains to collect:, 
 and the rather as a review of them will enable 
 me to refcue fome texts from a mifapplication, 
 to which they are liable through Mr. y/.'s pro- 
 mifcuous and confufed manner of citing them. 
 For it will be found upon examination, that he 
 has produced pafTages in proof of God's peculiar 
 affection to the children of good men, and (as 
 fome will be apt to conftrue them) in favour of 
 fuch children indifcriminately, whether dying 
 or furviving ; which yet are only pertinently to 
 be applied to the fact as I have ftated it. 
 
 His reafoning from " the children of pious 
 <c parents being expofed to fufferings and death, 
 
 " as 
 
1 8 The Covenant 
 
 " as descending from the firrr. Adam, to their 
 *' deriving fome peculiar advantages from the 
 " fecond*," I feel the force of j but muft beg 
 leave to extend this probable argument to all the 
 defendants of Adam dying in their infancy. 
 And fo I mofi: heartily join Mr. A, in hoping, 
 that, as " through the offence of one many die 
 cc who have not finned after the fimilitude of 
 <c Adam's tranfgreiTion ; fo the grace of God, 
 " and his unfpeakable gift of eternal life, mall, 
 <c through Jefus Chrift, abound to many," — 
 not only the dying infant-children of Believers, 
 but of all mankind. Nor am I difpofed to think, 
 any more than Mr. A. " that the feed t>f God r s 
 " fervants," and I will add of any other men, 
 cc mould be called into being merely to fpend a 
 " few ufelefs and miferable moments upon earth, 
 <c and then to be blotted out of exigence, or 
 " configned over to everlafting mifery f ." Fur- 
 ther, •* the tender care which a watchful Pro- 
 " vidence extends over children in the helplefs 
 " ftate of infancy," lam moft fincerely willing 
 to improve into an argument of " the bleiTed 
 <c God's being mindful of their fpiritual an4 
 " eternal interefts." And as " infants," who- 
 ever their parents may be, " are unquestionably 
 ** of more value than many fparrows," fo " be- 
 f< ing removed hence by the divine appointment 
 " in their infancy," I rejoice in the hope and 
 confidence that " our Father is their Father^ 
 
 *P.6z. fP*6 3 . 
 
 " and 
 
confidtred as abfolute. 19 
 
 u and our God their God *." The companion 
 a merciful God was pleafed to exprefs towards 
 a vaft number of infants, Mr. J. refers to, who 
 were the offspring of Heathens and Jews, Nine- 
 vites and Ifraelites, will likewife admit of a very 
 pleafing probable inference in favour of the happy 
 ftate of all children dying in their infancy. 
 But I forbear reciting all the paflages wherein 
 children are mentioned, as many of them are 
 not to our prefent purpofe ; and as in others in- 
 fants are not intended, but the defcendants or 
 poflerity of thofe referred to. 
 
 I mull not, however, here pafs over the inftance 
 of our Saviour's taking little children, infants, 
 into his arms and bleffing them ; as I am happy 
 in thinking that a very good argument arifes 
 from thence in favour of the point we would 
 gladly eftablim. While we hear our Lord, in 
 this pleafing attitude, pronouncing thofe graci 
 ous words, of fuch is the kingdom of heaven y pa- 
 rental affection, methinks, cannot fail of preju- 
 dicing us in favour of this interpretation of them t 
 that, dying in their infancy, God of his mercy 
 receives them to Himfelf, and makes them happy 
 with Him in his kingdom above. Nor do I know 
 any inconvenience that can arife from this inter- 
 pretation. But the particular confideration of 
 this paflage I {hall refer to another opportunity. 
 In the mean time I would juft obferve, that here 
 
 * P. 67, 
 
 is 
 
2o The Covenant 
 
 is no exclufive right, in favour of the children 
 of pious parents, to the kingdom of heaven. 
 If it may be inferred from the words, that any 
 of them dying in their infancy will be faved, it 
 may that all. In this opinion I prefume Mr. A, 
 will agree with me : though his reafoning is a 
 little unfavourable to it, fince he feems to think 
 that the children of Believers only mould be 
 prefented to Chrift by Baptifm, as the proper 
 fubje&s of. his kingdom ; for, endeavouring to 
 account for it how thofe children that v/ere 
 brought to Chrift came not to be baptized by 
 Him, he fays, " Poflibly their parents had not 
 " yet entered themfelves among the followers of 
 " Chrift *." 
 
 It is admitted then that fuch children of pious 
 parents as die in their infancy are in the Covenant* 
 But this conceflion avails Mr. A. nothing in the 
 prefent difpute : for he muft firft know that fuch 
 and fuch children will die, before he can pro- 
 nounce them in the Covenant, and fo intitled to 
 Baptifm. But is there, 
 
 2.) Any other medium by which we may frame 
 a judgment of children, whilft in their infancy, 
 that they are in the Covenant ? There is not, 
 there cannot be one, unlefs God was Himfelf to 
 point them out by fome preternatural and extra- 
 ordinary mark of his favour. We muft wait 
 
 * P. 77- 
 
 then 
 
confidered as abfolute. 2 1 
 
 then till they grow up, and give credible proof 
 themfelves, by their own per fo rial faith and 
 repentance, that they are in the Covenant. 
 
 Thus have we proved that axl the children of 
 pious parents are not in the Covenant abfolutely 
 confidered ; and, admitting that fome of them 
 are in it, that there are no diftinguifhing marks 
 or characterifticks upon any of them, during their 
 infancy, by which it can be known or credibly 
 apprehended which of them are in it. Where- 
 fore it clearly follows, that they can none of 
 them have a right to the feals of the Covenant, 
 even though it be allowed that a perfon's being 
 in the Covenant gives him a title to them, which 
 point we fhall confider in its proper place. 
 
 Before we proceed to confider the Covenant in 
 the other view of it as conditional, let me ex- 
 postulate a few moments with thofe who hold it 
 to be abfolute, upon the great abfurdity and very 
 pernicious tendency of aflerting, that the children 
 of Believers indifcriminately are in it. 
 
 By the abfurdity of holding this kind of lan- 
 guage I mean not only that the propofition is not 
 conformable to truth, which I think I have clearly 
 fhewn, but that it contradicts itfelf. When we 
 fay that the Covenant is abfolute, we mean that 
 God the Father has ftipulated or agreed with his 
 
 Son 
 
22 ^ e Covenant 
 
 Son the Lord Jefus Chrift for the redemption and 
 falvation of a certain number of the finful race of 
 men ; that of his free and fovereign mercy he has 
 chofen them to eternal life, irrefpective of any 
 confiderations of natural relation or confarigui- 
 liity ; and that this Covenant is eternal, un- 
 changeable and irrevocable. But how incon- 
 fiftent with this account of the Covenant is it to 
 fay, that the children of pious parents cc are ad- 
 €i mitted in consequence of their rela- 
 <c tion to them, into covenant with God — 
 " that as fuch, it is reafonable to expect they 
 <c mould derive fome peculiar advantages from 
 44 the fecond Adam — that as fuch they are au- 
 44 thorized to expecl that God will pour out his 
 " Spirit uJDon them — and that as fuch they have 
 46 a claim to New-covenant bleflings, and their 
 cc parents may put in their claim for them ?" 
 Can this language be any way made to agree with 
 the freenefs and fovereignty of divine grace — the 
 profefTed fentiment of many who talk it, if not 
 Mr. A? Nay, what is it better than a contra- 
 diction in terms, to reafon thus from the relation 
 which children ftand in to pious parents, to their 
 intereft in the Covenant; and at the fame time to 
 maintain that thofe who are admitted to the grand 
 privilege of it, that of becoming the fons of God y 
 are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flejh y 
 nor of the will of 7?um, but of God * ? 
 * John i. 12, 13. 
 
 But 
 
confidered as abfolute. 2 3 
 
 But this reafoning is not only abfurd, but very 
 carnal and vain-glorious, and therefore utterly un- 
 worthy of thofe who fo loudly difclaim the moft 
 diflant pretences to merit before God. It is a kind 
 of language not unlike that held by the Pharifees 
 and Saducees who came to John's Baptifm j and 
 if it proceed, which God forbid ! from that 
 temper with which they flood chargeable, it will 
 no doubt receive the fame check they met with, 
 Think not to fay within y our • [elves, We have Abraham 
 to our Father : for I fay unto you, that God is able 
 of thefe ft ones to raife up children unto Abraham *. 
 But, feparate from the confideration of the irre- 
 concileablenefs of this reafoning with the idea of 
 the Covenant as abfolute, I would afk any ferious 
 thoughtful perfon, Whether it would not (hock 
 his reafon and faith too to be told, that we are to 
 conceive of the great bleffings of religion much 
 after the fame manner we do of a temporal inhe- 
 ritance, which defcends in a line to a man's lateft 
 poflerity, unlefs fome fpendthrift arifes and cuts 
 off the entail, and fo reduces the family to beg- 
 gary ? And yet this unaccountable reafoning 
 from confanguinity and the natural ties of flefh 
 and blood, in matters of fpiritual concernment, 
 gives too much countenance to fuch a comparifon. 
 
 The inconfiftency alfo of this ftrange tenet 
 with the doctrine of the faints final perfeverance, 
 muft needs ftrike every one at firfl view. For if 
 
 * Matt. iii. 9. 
 
 the 
 
24 The Covenant 
 
 the children of pious parents are in the Covenant, 
 and fo intitled to the promife of the Holy Spirit, 
 and all the bleffings of God's love both here ancf 
 hereafter, how can they any of them fail of falva- 
 tion ? And yet it has been proved that they will 
 not all of them be faved. Wherefore to fay that 
 they are in the Covenant, is to fay that the Cove- 
 nant is, and that it is not, unchangeable and ir- 
 revocable. Mr. A . indeed thinks that their being 
 in the Covenant and living afterwards to renounce 
 it, may connft with the perfeverance of the 
 faithful *. But he can no otherwife maintain 
 this fentiment than by denying that the Cove- 
 nant is abfolute. This may perhaps be his mean- 
 ing, and if fo, all that we are to underftand by 
 the phrafes of their being in the Chriflian Cove- 
 nant — in the Covenant their parents are in, and 
 in the promifes of which it was God's deiign to in- 
 clude them — and of God's having engaged to pour 
 out his fpirit upon them ; all I fay we are to un- 
 derftand by thefe phrafes is, " that they are ad- 
 u mitted," as heexprefles it in the next fentence, 
 " by virtue of a divine appointment, to certain 
 << privileges in their infancy." But, whatever 
 may be Mr. J.'s opinion, which I have no 
 authority to pronounce upon, they who hold 
 that the Covenant of grace is abfolute and uncon- 
 ditional, do, by faying that the children of Be- 
 lievers are in it, in efrecl: deny the doctrine of 
 perfeverance. 
 
 * P. 64. 
 
 Nor 
 
amjidered as abfolule. 25 
 
 Nor is this language, of the children of pious 
 Chriflians being in the Covenant, lefs pernicious 
 in its tendency, than it is inconfiirent with the 
 profefTed fentiments of thofe who hold it. For 
 it cannot fail, wherever it is inculcated, of be- 
 getting in the minds of young perfons a more 
 favourable idea of their ftate than the Scriptures 
 Warrant; the ill effeS: of which to promote in- 
 difference to the interefting concerns of religion 
 muft be very confiderable. Mr. y£, appreh.n- 
 five of this, tells us, " The gofpel does not by 
 <c anv means encourage the defcendants of yooJ 
 * c men to truft to the religion of their parents in 
 c< fuch a manner as to neglect, it themfelves *." 
 True. But, if children are told they are In the 
 Covenant, how can they do otherwife than look 
 upon their ftate, as to another world, fafe ? 
 Nay, the very language Mr. A. himfelf ufes in 
 his expofition of the words of Peter in the Act?, 
 though in the warmth of controverfy he might 
 not advert to the unhappy tendency of it, can 
 fcarce fail of producing in young minds reafonings 
 the moft unfavourable to the interefts of real re- 
 ligion. Only fuppofe him addreffing a circle of 
 young people after this manner — The premife is 
 to you, children. If the Apojlle meant no more than 
 that you Jhould inherit the promt fed hlcjfmg, vjhen 
 you are called by divine grace, it were very little in- 
 deed. It were no intimation of mercy at all concern- 
 ing you as the children of pious parents. He might 
 * P. 6 S . 
 
 C • have 
 
26 The Covenant, &c. 
 
 have fa id this of the children of unconverted heathens , 
 as well as of ycu the offspring of Chrijiians. But 
 he joins you here with your parents, as admitted, in 
 confequence of your relation to them, into covenant 
 tvith God, and proper fubjecls of Baptifm, as the 
 feal of that covenant * . Suppofe him, I lay, thus 
 addreffing a company of young folks, and then 
 judge you v/hether they would not be apt to flat- 
 ter themfelves with a vain notion, that they flood 
 higher in the favour of God than others. They 
 certainly would : and the ill effect, of this to 
 lull them afleep in carnal fecurity, every one who 
 is at all acquainted with the human heart muft 
 clearly perceive. 
 
 I am, Sir, 
 
 Yours, 
 
 P. 121, 122. 
 
 LET- 
 
[ 27 ] 
 
 LETTER III, 
 
 Dear Sir, 
 
 WE proceed now to confider the (late 
 of the -children of pious parents in re- 
 ference, 
 
 SECONDLY, To the Covenant taken cpn- 
 dltionally. The tenor of the Covenant, in this 
 view of it, is, that God of his mercy engages, 
 for Chrift's fake, to pardon and fave thofe who 
 repent and believe the gofpel. Now, properly 
 fpeaking, they only are in the Covenant, thus 
 confidered, who comply with the terms of it. 
 But admitting that, previous to their repenting 
 and believing, perfons may be faid to be in the 
 Covenant, as it is a declaration of God's mercy- 
 to all indefinitely, and fuppofes all capable of 
 Salvation ; yet it cannot be faid of the children 
 of pious parents exclufively, that they are in the 
 Covenant. They are no otherwife in it thaa 
 the reft of mankind to whom the gofpel is 
 publifL.d, it being equally true of them all, 
 that if they repent and believe they fhall be faved. 
 If therefore the right of the children of Believers 
 C 2 to 
 
2$ The Covenant 
 
 to Baptifm be inferred purely from the confide- 
 ration of their being thus conditionally in the 
 Covenant, the right of others to Baptifm may be 
 inferred, likewife from the fame confideration ; 
 and fo, upon this ground, whether men do or 
 do not repent and believe, they are intitled to 
 this facred ordinance. 
 
 But upon .what principle, I all;, can the idea 
 of their being in the Covenant conditionally in- 
 title any perfons to Baptifm ? If indeed Baptifm 
 be itfclf a condition of falvation, or if it be the 
 appointed mean of attaining faith and repentance, 
 and fo is a condition of a condition, then the 
 being in the Covenant does properly intitle per- 
 fons to it. For this general declaration of God's 
 merciful difpofition to fave men, and of his re- 
 quifition of faith and repentance to that end, 
 manifestly implies in it a right on their part to 
 what He may have appointed as a condition of 
 falvation, or as a mean of attaining that faith 
 and repentance which are necefTary to it. If He 
 has faid, " Whoever is baptized fhall be faved," 
 then every one has a right to Baptifm. Or if 
 He has faid, " I require all to repent and believe, 
 < c and appoint Baptifm as a mean to that end," 
 then ought all to be baptized. It lies upon 
 Mr. A. therefore to prove one or other of thefe 
 points — that Baptifm is a condition of falvation — 
 or that it is an appointed mean of attaining faith 
 and repentance : if he fails here, his afferting that 
 
 the 
 
considered as conditional. 29 
 
 the children of pious parents are in the.Covenant 
 conditionally, will be to no manner of purpofe 
 at all. Let us begin with the firfh 
 
 o* 
 
 1. Is Baptifm a condition of falvation ? 
 Mr. A. no-where, as I remember, undertakes 
 to prove this pofition. Yet, as it is held by 
 fame, and as in early times it was maintained 
 with warmth, and feems to have been the 
 ground upon which Infant-Baptifm firft got foot- 
 ing in the church, it will be proper here to in- 
 veftigate this queftion. 
 
 There are only three pafTages, as I recollect, 
 that can be fuppofed to give any fanction to this 
 opinion, viz. The words of our Saviour to Ni- 
 codemus, John iii. 5. Except a man be born cf 
 water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into i/<e 
 kingdom of God.— The words immediately follow- 
 ing his commiflion to the Apoftles to preach the 
 gofpel to every creature, Mark xvi. 16. He 
 that believeth and is baptized, Jhall be faved; but 
 he that believeth not, /kail be damned. — And the' 
 words of Ananias to Saul, A£ts xxii. 16, Arife, 
 mid be baptized, and wfrjh azvay thy fens, calling 
 the name of the Lord. 
 
 on 
 
 As to the firft of thefe pafTages, it has been 
 
 often urged in proof of the neceliity of Baptifm 
 
 to falvation, and with the greater confidence, 
 
 C 3 though 
 
30 The Covenant 
 
 though not the mere reafon, as it was fo under- 
 stood by fome of the Fathers. St. ChryfcfTome, 
 fpeaking of thofe who " depart without illumina- 
 tion ( r*c v«yp/5 9Cl?ii7uclI& tfT?p^c//€i'»?) by which 
 it is well known the antient Fathers meant Bap 
 tifm * ; fays, that " they are without the palace, 
 u among the feat enced, among the condemned. For 
 " verily" adds he, " t Jay unto you, Except a 
 " man he horn of water and of the Spirit, he fail 
 " in no zcife enter into the kingdom of heaven f ." 
 I the rather mention the opinion of the Fathers 
 upon this matter, as we ihall have occafion here* 
 after to apply this obfervation to a very import- 
 ant purpoie, 
 
 But the abfurdity of this interpretation of our 
 Saviour's words, will clearly appear upon a little 
 
 * That the term ilhrnination is tvfed in this foife by the 
 Fathers, is evident from the words of Juftin Martyr, who, 
 fpeaking of Baptifm, fays, " This laver is called illumi- 
 " nation, as thofe whole minds have learned thefe things 
 '* are illuminated, h^xhtm $* tkts to \«T/>oy paf-r/syxoc, #( 
 <pu\t£ouiteev t»v SidLViidu tctv naxiTet. ^aAiQayorTfty. Apol. 2» 
 p. 94. Edit. Pa- if. 1636. 
 
 ■f- — t£a t»v <&*<j:i\Hcev etri fs.tl* re»v ku] ah x.uv, fxClt. rot/ 
 xet]a.r>&7Ui\c«y. A/unv ya.f \f)a> v(xu t nxv /j.n T« ytvuSn, Sec, 
 Horn. 3. in Ep. ad Philip, p. 20. And this Father elf. - 
 where fays, that " without Baptifm it is impbffible to o!>- 
 " tain the kingdom — and without it 'tis impoffible to be 
 if faved." Ava> QxnTvrtA.at©' oL/u»%a.*ov &*.9-thHxt tirnu- 
 %eu — x<Puv*1qy pa ;t*p'c (Jujt* ctaBmoUk HomiJ. 3. in Epiih 
 ad Cor. p. 25c & 257. Edit. Eton. 
 
 re- 
 
confidered as conditional. 3 1 
 
 reflection. The indefinite particle t/*, in the 
 connection it here ftands, I am willing to ac- 
 knowledge amounts to an univerfal negative : 
 wherefore, if Baptifm is meant by the phrafe of 
 being born of water, it follows that without Bap- 
 tifm children cannot be faved any more than 
 grown perfons. But can any one imagine, that 
 an infinitely merciful God would fufpend the 
 final falvation and happinefs of infants, upon 
 a contingency no way fubject to their own con- 
 troul, nor, in fome cafes, to that of their pa- 
 rents neither ? Another interpretation therefore 
 of the phrafe, born of water and the Spirit, muft 
 be fought for : and what fo natural as that of 
 the internal wajhing of regeneration, fpoken of 
 Tit. iii. 5. ? For the term water being often 
 uftd in Scripture to fignify the falsifying ope- 
 rations of the Holy Spirit, it is extremely proper 
 to underftand water here, in its connection with 
 fpirit, of fpiritual water. This at once clears 
 the paflage of every difficulty, and makes our 
 Saviour fay, what we muft all admit, that none 
 can enter into the kingdom of heaven unlefs 
 prepared for it by the fanctifying influence of the 
 Holy Spirit, of which children are capable as 
 well as grown perfons. 
 
 In the next paiTage referred to, and which 
 
 fome have confidered as a proof that Baptifm is 
 
 a condition of falvation and neceffary to it, it 
 
 C 4 is 
 
1 1 "The Covenant 
 
 is obfcrvable our Saviour connects it with faith t 
 He that believeth and is baptized \ flail be faverh 
 So that if it be a condition of falvation, it is 
 only fuch to thofe who are capable of believing,, 
 as well as of being baptized. Wherefore infants 
 can have no concern here : for though they may 
 be fanctified, that is, wrought upon by the in- 
 ilucnce of another; yet they cannot believe, 
 iliat is, exert an act which the mind in that flate 
 is not capable of* But it is not a condition of 
 ialvalion to the adult neither; for if it were, 
 though a man believed, yet not being baptized, 
 (which is more than a pofiible cafe, it having 
 femetimes happened through unavoidable caufes) 
 that man would fail of falvation. 
 
 Why then, it may be afked, does our Saviour 
 here connect Baptifm with faith, which is on all 
 hands acknowledged to be necefiary to falvation? 
 The anfwer is extremely natural, becaufe in his. 
 infinite wifdom He has judged this a proper way 
 of profefiing our faith in Him, and laying our- 
 feives under voluntary engagements of obedience 
 to Him. And this view of the matter very 
 flrikinglymews the importanceof Baptifm, though 
 not in itfclf necefiary to falvation : for it teaches 
 us that, if a non-compliance with this command 
 of his proceeds from a contempt of his autho- 
 rity, or a wilful indifference to it, we really do 
 not believe to the falvation of the foul. To 
 
 which 
 
ccrtfidered as conditional. 2>3 
 
 •which I would add, that as by thus connecting it 
 with faith in the former claufe of the verfe, our 
 Lord has framped importance upon theinilitution, 
 and bid us neglect it at the peril of his dif- 
 pleafure ; fo, by dropping it in the latter claufe, 
 He has plainly intimated that faith only, with 
 what is efiential to it, is neceflary to falvation ; 
 and that if perfons, through confcientious fcru- 
 pies about their duty, or any other unavoidable 
 impediments, are held back from Baptifm, they 
 fhall notwithstanding be faved. 
 
 As to the words of Ananias to Saul, Arife ? 
 and be baptized, and wajh away thy fins ; they can 
 never mean that there is a real efficacy in Bap- 
 tifm to cleanfe us from fins. For this notion, be- 
 fides the abfurdity of it, deflroys the idea of Bap- 
 tifm as a fign or figure, which is moft unquef- 
 tionably its true and proper nature, and the light 
 in which the Scriptures reprefcnt it. Bread, in 
 the other facrament, is a figure of the body of 
 Chrift; and water, in this, of the fanclifying 
 operations of the Holy Spirit. Wherefore as 
 bread can only be faid to feed and nourish the 
 foul in the reference it hath to the facrifice of 
 Chrift, or the doctrine of the crofs ; fo Baptifm 
 can only be faid to wafh away our fins in the re- 
 ference it hath to the purifying influences of the 
 Holy Spirit. It is the type or emblem of the 
 internal wafhing of regeneration - } and therefore 
 C 5 can 
 
34 ¥he Covenant 
 
 can have no natural or proper efficacy in itfelf 
 to that end : and of confequence its being faid 
 to warn away fin, will by no means prove that 
 it is a condition of falvation, and therefore ne- 
 ceffary to it. — As then there is no foundation in 
 Scripture or Reaforr for making Baptifm a con- 
 dition of falvation, it remains to be inquired, 
 
 2. Whether Baptifm is a mean of faith and 
 repentance, which it is agreed on all hands are 
 nece/Tary to falvation ? If it be, they who are 
 conditionally in the Covenant, as I have ex- 
 plained the phrafe, muft doubtlefs have a right 
 to it. This queftion I take to be the main hinge 
 upon which the difpute between us and" the Ptedo- 
 baptifb turns, and therefore deferves our parti- 
 cular confederation.. 
 
 Now I deny that Baptifm is a mean of ac- 
 quiring faith and repentance : for there does not 
 appear to me to be any the 1'eaft fitnefs in it to 
 that end, nor have we any proof from- Scripture 
 that it was inftituted to that end. I can eafily 
 conceive how inftruclring perfons in the princi- 
 ples of the gofpel, and reafoning with them up- 
 on the evidence of it, may be a mean of their 
 becoming believers of it; and how the laying 
 before them their condition as loft miferable fin- 
 ners, and the reprefenting to them the mercy of 
 God through Jefus Chriit, may be a mean of threif 
 
 be- 
 
conftdered as conditional. 3 5 
 
 becoming truly penitent. But how their being 
 baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and 
 Holy Spirit, fhould be a mean of their acquiring 
 faith In Chrift, and repentance for their fins, I 
 cannot divine. 
 
 As to the adult, who have not been baptized 
 in their infancy, I fuppofe mofl people would 
 think it ftrange were they admitted to this or- 
 dinance, previous to their having believed ami 
 repented, or their having made a perfonal pro- 
 feflion of faith and repentance : yet if Baptifm 
 is a mean to thefe ends, they otght certainlv, 
 with thefe views, to be admitted to it. But 
 what would a Pagan fay, if our Millenaries were 
 to tell him, " You are to repent and believe the 
 gofpel in order to your being Caved 5 but nrft oC 
 all you mud be baptized in the name of the 
 Trinity ?" He would no doubt of it fay, 
 " Then you mean to convert us, not by inform- 
 ing our understandings, and convincing our 
 judgments, but by baptizing us." And whe- 
 ther this manner of treating Pagans would be 
 likely to give them a favourable idea of Chrifti- 
 anity, I leave any one to determine. 
 
 But, if Baptifm is not to be adminiftered to 
 the adult in order to their converfion, may it 
 not to infants, in order to theirs when they 
 grow up into life I No. For there is no greater 
 fitnefs in it to that end in regard of them, than 
 C 6 of 
 
36 The Covenant 
 
 of thofe jufl mentioned. It will be faid perhaps, 
 that a recollection of their Baptifm will lead 
 them into a knowledge of the great truths figni- 
 fied by it, fuch as the neceffrty of dying to fin 
 and living to righteoufnefs, and of the warning 
 of regeneration to that end. Bat is not a know- 
 ledge of theft truths more naturally and properly 
 acquired by inftruclioii from the word of God, 
 than by a reference back to a ceremony perform- 
 ed on them, of which they can themfelves have 
 no remembrance ? 
 
 But if it be further urged, which is the main 
 confederation, that a recollection of their having 
 been baptized, bv the imprefhon it will make 
 upon their minds of the folemn obligations they 
 were thereby laid under to God and their dutv, 
 be a powerful-motive to excite them to faith 
 and repentance; I reply by denying the fact, 
 that their having been baptized does lay them 
 under any perfonal obligations to faith and re- 
 pentance. Fcr, fuppofing Baptifm were a figo 
 or token of his refolution who voluntarily fub- 
 mits to it to believe and repent (which yet is an 
 abfurd and unfcrlptural account of the intent 
 of the institution) it vet would not, it could not, 
 oblige children to repent and believe when they 
 grow up, becaufe it is no iign or token to them 
 of their refolution to believe and repent, they 
 not having voluntarily fubmitted to it. 
 
 What 
 
conftdered as conditional 37 
 
 What then becomes of all this reafoning from 
 the advantage of perfons recollecting the folemn 
 engagements they are laid under by their having 
 been baptized in their infancy ? a kind of lan- 
 guage which has a mew of piety in it, but not 
 one principle in Scripture or Reafon to fupport it. 
 " You was baptized a few days after you was 
 born, therefore you are bound to repent and be- 
 lieve the gofpel." Is it imaginable that a child, 
 poiieiled of any tolerable underftanding, can be 
 at all influenced by fuch reafoning, if indeed it 
 deferves the name of reafoning ? He muft in- 
 ftantly perceive the abfurdity of it, and inftead 
 of being difpofed by it to believe and repent, 
 rather feel himfelf prejudiced againft faith and 
 repentance. There is then no fitnefs in Baptifra. 
 itfelf to the end for which it is administered to 
 children : wherefore it cannot be argued from 
 thence that it is a mean of faith and repent- 
 ance. 
 
 But whatever fancied utility there may be In 
 baptizing infants to difpofe them in their riper 
 years to take the yoke of Chrift upon them ; as 
 Baptifm is a pofitive inftitution, it cannot have 
 fuch util'ty in it, unlefs appointed to that end; 
 or, in other words, it cannot be a mean of h !h 
 and repentance, unlefs the Scriptures have de- 
 clared it to be fuch, which they have no where 
 done. 
 
 Thus 
 
3$ The Covenant 
 
 Thus we have proved that Baptifm is not it- 
 felf a condition of falvation, nor vet an ap- 
 pointed mean of acquiring faith and repentance, 
 and fo the condition of a condition. And from 
 hence it clearly follows, that the beino- in the 
 Covenant conditionally, or, in other words, the 
 being included in God's general declaration of 
 mercy, that whoever believes and repents mail 
 be faved, does not, cannot intitle any one to 
 Baptifm, previous to a profefiion of faith and 
 repentance. 
 
 Having confidered the ftate of the children ©1* 
 pious parents in reference to the Covenant of 
 grace taken abfolutely and conditionally j we 
 come now to confider it, 
 
 II. In reference to any covenant-engagements 
 fubfifting immediately between God and their 
 parents. 
 
 When perfons firft become religious, it is rea- 
 dily acknowledged, they enter into covenant 
 with God. He in his mercy becoming their God 
 through Jefus Chrifr, they on their part folemn- 
 ]y devote themfelves, their families, their fub- 
 ftance, and their all to God and his fervice. 
 Now the quefcion is, Whether children, in vir- 
 tue of thefe tranfaclions of their parents, may 
 be faid to be included with them in covenant 
 5 with 
 
'conjidered as conditional. 39 
 
 with God ? To enable us to decide this que- 
 ftion, it will be neceflary to inquire a moment 
 into the tenor or purport of thefe covenant- 
 engagements of parents on behalf of their child- 
 ren ; and confider what are the true and proper 
 benefits and obligations which refult thence to 
 them. The language of this folemn furrender 
 cf their children to God, is no other than a fer- 
 vent and devout wiih that God would blefs them ; 
 a firm refolution, fo far as lies in their power, 
 to promote their beil interefts ; and an humble 
 acquiescence in the pleafure of God concerning 
 them. And from thefe tempers and engage- 
 ments, it is readily admitted, there do arife 
 many advantages to their children. Their pious 
 wifhes and prayers, proceeding from a lively 
 fenfe of the infinite importance of religion, may 
 afford a happy omen, though not a certain af~ 
 furance, of the future fpiritual good their child- 
 ren may enjoy. And their folemn refolution, 
 in the ftrength of God, to difcharge their duty 
 towards their children, will doubtlefs have an 
 effect, upon the education they give them. And 
 thefe benefits, which children partake of in con~ 
 fequence of thefe covenant-tranfaCaions of their 
 parents with God, do unqueftionably lay them 
 under fpecial obligations of duty and obedience ; 
 fo that if they precipitate themfelves into fin, 
 their guilt is more aggravated than that of 
 others* 
 
 Nov/ 
 
40 The Covenant ionfidered y &c. 
 
 Now from this view of the advantages which 
 children derive from their connection with pious 
 parents, it is natural to conclude that they are 
 in a fituation more favourable to the interefts of 
 religion than other children : and to this idea of 
 their fituation are to be referred thofe paffages 
 Mr. A. has cited, which exprefs the peculiar re- 
 gards of the bleffed God towards fuch children ; 
 which paffages we mall confidcr more particu- 
 larly by and by. But to infer from their being 
 thus benefited by the piety of their parents, and 
 from the texts which illuflrate this idea, that 
 they are in covenant with God ; nay more than 
 this, to talk, as our Author fomewhere does, of 
 <c parents introducing their children into the 
 1C covenant of God *," is furely moft unreason- 
 able and unfcriptural. No. If religion be a 
 perfonal thing, as it moft certainly is, he who 
 is in covenant with God can only be fo in vir- 
 tue of his own perfonal and voluntary engage- 
 ments. — Upon the whole then, whatever advan- 
 tages accrue to children from their parents per- 
 fonal covenant-tranfaclions with God, children 
 cannot on account "of fuch tran factions be faid 
 to be in covenant with God, and of confequence 
 all claim to pofitive inftitutions on this ground 
 fails, 
 
 I am. Sir, 
 
 Yours. 
 * P. 183. 
 
 LET- 
 
£ 4i ] 
 
 LETTER IV. 
 
 Dear Sir, 
 
 BE F O Pv E we proceed to examine the true 
 import of the pafrages Mr. A. has produced 
 from Scripture, in fupport of his general pro- 
 portion, " that the children of pious parents 
 " are included with them in the Chriftian Cove- 
 " nant" (which paffoges we have only hitherto 
 occasionally touched upon) as alfo to develope 
 his arguments drawn from the Abrahamick Cove- 
 nant; it will be proper to take a brief review of 
 the fact, as we have ftatcd it, reflecting fuch 
 children. 
 
 We have confidered the two only poffible fenfes 
 in which perfons can be laid to be in a covenant, 
 viz. jthat of their being contracting parties in a 
 covenant, and that of their being intitled to cer- 
 tain advantages through the mutual ftipulations 
 of others on their behalf. Thefe fenfes we have 
 applied to the proportion Mr. A. withes to efla- 
 bliili. And here we have fhewn, that the child- 
 ren of pious parents cannot be in the Chriftian 
 Covenant, firfi of all, as being themfelves con* 
 
 trading 
 
42 A brief Review 
 
 tracing parties in it, for of that they are in- 
 capable. Wherefore, if they are in it at all, it 
 miifl be, fecondly, as {landing intitlcd to certain 
 advantages through the ftipulations of others on 
 their behalf. This has led us to confider their 
 frate in reference to the Covenant between God 
 the Father and our Lord Jefus Chrift, and in 
 reference to covenant-tranfattions more imme- 
 diately between God and their parents. As to 
 the former, the Covenant of grace; it is either 
 abfolute or conditional. If abfolute, then all who 
 are in it will be faved : but all the children of 
 pious parents will not be faved : wherefore all 
 of them are not in the Covenant. Nor can it 
 be known, in their infancy, which of them are 
 in the Covenant, fince there are no difcriminat- 
 ing marks upon any of them from whence their 
 intereft in it may be inferred : and without a 
 credible proof of their being in the Covenant, 
 they furely can have no claim to the peculiar 
 privileges of it. If the Covenant be conditional, 
 they cannot properly be faid, in this acceptation 
 of it, to be in it, till they have complied with 
 the conditions of it : but they are not capable in 
 their infancy of complying with the conditions 
 of it, and fo, not being in it, are not on this 
 ground intitled to the privileges of it. If it be 
 faid, they are conditionally in the Covenant, as 
 it is a general declaration of God's mercy through 
 Chrift to all who repent and believe the gofpel ; 
 
 yet 
 
tf the preceding Arguments. 43 
 
 yet they are, in this general idea of the Cove- 
 nant, no ctherwife in it than are all others to 
 whom this declaration of mercy is made. And 
 if it be further faid, that their being thus in it 
 implies a right to what God may have appointed 
 as a condition or mean of falvation ; yet, as 
 Baptifm is not itfelf a condition of falvation, 
 nor an inftituted mean of faith and repentance 
 which are nccciTary to falvation, they are not 
 upon this ground intitled to Baptifm. — We have 
 farther considered their ftate in reference to thofe 
 engagements which their parents may have en- 
 tered into with God on their behalf. Numerous 
 advantages, it is acknowledged, they reap from 
 thefe engagements, in all the care and attention 
 which their parents hereby become religioully 
 bound to pay to their education : but thefe en- 
 gagements do not bring children themfelves per- 
 sonally into covenant with God. "Wherefore 
 on this ground they csn have no right to a pofi- 
 tive inftitution, unlefs there was an exprefs com- 
 mand for their admiffion to it. 
 
 And now, upon this view of the matter, I leave 
 you, Sir, to judge with what propriety Mr. A. 
 has afTerted, " that the children of pious parents 
 ■" are included with them in the Chriftian Co- 
 " venant." But I do not mean to difmifs the 
 qucllion without confidering the palTages he has 
 produced in fupport of it. Though, if the rea- 
 
 foliing 
 
44 T tiff ages from the 
 
 foning of the preceding pages be jufl, you will 
 fcarce expect much from thefe paffages. Indeed, 
 in that cafe, it will be impofiible for them to 
 prove Mr. J.'s propofition in the natural and 
 proper fenfe of it, or in any fenfe of it which 
 will juftify his conclufion, that fuch infants 
 have a right to Baptifm. We fhall begin, 
 
 I. With thofe texts our Author has cited 
 from the Old Teftament. 
 
 And here the firft he has mentioned is from 
 the Pfalms : Children are an heritage of the Lord ||. 
 This text he expounds thus, " The Lord gives 
 " them as a heritage to the church, and to their 
 " parents; and, through the riches of his grace 
 <c in Chrift Jefus, mercifully considers them as 
 " an heritage to Himfelf * "-— that is, in other 
 words, God of his mercy includes them with 
 their parents in the Chriftian Covenant. But 
 will this expofition, will this reafoning, fatiefy 
 a confiderate reader ? The plain meaning of the 
 words is, in my opinion, this, " As protection 
 and fuccefs in worldly affairs (of which the 
 Pfalmift had been juft fpeaking) are the gifts of 
 Providence, fo are alfo a numerous offspring. 
 Men receive them from God, as they do a patri- 
 mony from their anceftors, freely and without 
 price or labour." So Jacob fpeaks of the child- 
 ren which God had gracioufly given him f. 
 || Pf. cxxvii. 3. * P. 67, 63. f Gen. xxxiii. 5. 
 
 Or 
 
Old 7 'eft 'amen t examined. 45 
 
 Or if the Pfalmift meant to convey a fur- 
 ther idea t>f the intereft which God hath 
 in them ; it is readily acknowledged, that He 
 hath a property in all children, and particularly 
 in the Ifraelitifh children (who may perhaps be 
 more immediately intended here) as they were 
 feparated by Him from the reft of the world to 
 the enjoyment of peculiar temporal privileges. 
 But what, I befeech you, has this to do with 
 the children of Believers being in covenant with. 
 God ? 
 
 Mr. A. proceeds — cc The word of God fur- 
 <c nifhes many convincing teftimonies of this 
 " truth, viz. that God through Chrift confiders 
 <c the children of Believers" (for of them he is 
 ("peaking) " as an heritage toHimfelf *." Well. 
 And what are thofe teftimonies ? By his im^- 
 mediately mentioning the cafe of the Ninevitifh 
 children, one mould fuppofe he meant this for one 
 teftimony. But furely he does not confider thefe 
 as children of Believers : if not, how is God's 
 mercifully fparing them from the calamity threat- 
 ened the Ninevites, an argument that the feed 
 of Believers are included with them in the 
 Chriftian Covenant ? It may indeed be a good 
 argument to prove God's " peculiar regard for 
 " the children of his own people" in the like 
 circumftances : for if He had pity on the child- 
 ren of infidels in a time of publick danger, no 
 * P. 68. 
 
 doubt 
 1 
 
46 Vaffages from the 
 
 doubt He would have had pity on the children 
 of them that truly feared Him. But more than 
 this it would not prove. 
 
 In this view, as expremve of the attention of 
 Divine Providence to the temporal interefts of 
 the Ifraelites, the paflages next cited are very 
 pertinent. Becaufe He loved their fathers, fays 
 Mofes, therefore He chofe their feed after them * ; 
 that is, feparated them to the enjoyment of great 
 temporal bleffings, which are immediately re- 
 cited, fuch as his bringing them out of Egypt, 
 ■driving out nations before them, and giving them 
 the land of the Heathen for an inheritance. 
 But furely Mofes did not mean, by God's chuf- 
 ing their feed after them, his admitting their 
 infant-children into the Covenant of grace with 
 them. 
 
 In like manner the favour of God exprefTed to 
 Noah, it is acknowledged, was extended to ALJ. 
 His house. The Lord blej/ed him, and his sons^ 
 end ejiablijhcd his covenant with them and THEIR 
 seed after them f : that is, He faved Noah and 
 his family from the general deluge, blefled them 
 with the promife of fruitfulnefs, and aflured them 
 that He would no more deftroy the world by 
 water. Wherefore this inftance, and that of 
 God's promifing to ejiablijh the kingdom to Da- 
 vid and his feed after him %, are no doubt pro- 
 
 * Dt-r. iv. Gen. ix. i, 9. | i Sam. vii. 12. 
 
 per 
 
OU-'Teftament examined. 47 
 
 per illustrations of the obfervation Mr. A. had 
 juft made, " that the children of the righte- 
 *' ous are included by God in many Covenant- 
 w engagements which he entered into with their 
 u parents *," provided thofe engagements are 
 underflood to refer to temporal bleflings. But 
 they furnifh not the fhadow of a proof, that fuch 
 children are included in the Chriftian Covenant. 
 Mr. J. might therefore have faved himfelf the 
 trouble of marking the words, all his houfe, bis 
 fons, and their feed, with capitals, unlefs he 
 meant to miflead his readers with the appearance 
 of an argument, where there is really none. 
 
 The next paflage is likewife in point to prove 
 God's merciful regard to the temporal interefts 
 of the children of good men, efpecially under 
 the Jewifh Difpenfation : Blejfed is the man that 
 fearcth the Lord, his feed Jhall be mighty upon the 
 earth, the generation of the upright Jhall be blej/edf. 
 But no one furely ever dreamt of making this 
 paflage fay any more, than that rewards of a 
 temporal kind were very largely diftributed a- 
 mong the families df pious Ifraelites, by that 
 extraordinary Providence which prefided over 
 them ; and that in every age the piety of goot 
 men, accompanied with prudence and induftry 
 will be likely to fecure worldly profperity an 
 happinefs to their children. 
 
 • P. 68. f Pf. cxii. 1, a. 
 
 M 
 
'■^% Pajfages from the 
 
 Mr.jf., aware of thefe objections to the paffagcf 
 already remarked upon, takes upon him to prove 
 " that the bleffings which the children of them 
 < c that feared the Lord as fuch inherited, were 
 " not merely natural and temporary *." But 
 here too he fails : for, unhappily for him, 
 though the texts he cites do refer to fpiritual 
 bleffings, they do not infure thofe bleffings to 
 the immediate defcendants of pious anceftors. 
 The election, or remnant of the Jews in the 
 latter day, of whom the Apoftle fpeaks as beloved, 
 for the fathers fakes f , that is, the Patriarchal 
 Fathers ; are not furely the immediate children 
 of thofe' Fathers. .Wherefore their being in- 
 cluded in the Covenant of grace with Abraham, 
 Ifaac and Jacob, is no proof that the immediate 
 offspring of individual Chriftians are included 
 with them in the Chriftian Covenant, and be- 
 loved of God for their fathers fakes. Again, 
 The Father of mercies, it is true, has engaged to 
 pur his Spirit upon the feed pi Jacob, and his blejfng 
 upon his offspring % j but by what rules of logick 
 Mr. A. makes Jacob to mean individual Chriftian 
 parents I am at a lofs to conceive. 'Tis pro- 
 phecied alfo that the children of Jacob, or the 
 pofterity of Jacob, Jhall be as aforetime ; that they 
 Jhall be the people of God, and he will be their God; 
 and that they Jhall ferve the Lord their God, and 
 David their King |, that is, be under the fpiritual 
 
 • P. 69. f Rom. ii. 28. % Ift- xliv. 3. 
 
 \\ Jcr. xxx. 20, 22, 9. 
 
 govern- 
 
Old tfeftament examined. 49 
 
 government of Chrift the Mefliah. But what in 
 the world mould induce Mr. A. to interpret 
 children here of infants, and the infant-offspring 
 of Chriftians ? when he cannot buf know that 
 the term children in this, and man^y other pro- , 
 phecies of the like nature wherein the blellings 
 of the gofpel are foretold, manifeftly intends, 
 either the natural defcendants of Ifrael in fome 
 future diflant period who fhould be converted, 
 or the fpiritual feed of Ifrael in general. 
 
 And now has our Author from thefe paffages 
 
 proved his affertion, u that the children of pious 
 
 " men inherited, as their children, blellings not 
 
 " merely natural and temporary, but," as he 
 
 doubtlefs means, " fpiritual and eternal r *" He 
 
 thinks he has : for he tells us, that, " encou- 
 
 " raged by fuch declarations of mercy, the 
 
 " pious patriarchs not only committed their off- 
 
 ** fpring to God by faith in prayer, but like- 
 
 " wife folemnly blefied them in the name of 
 
 44 the Lord f ." So then they firmly believed, 
 
 that their children, grandchildren, iffc. &c. were 
 
 in covenant with God, and heirs of eternal hap- 
 
 pinefs. Credai Judtzus Abclla ! Nor do I make 
 
 Mr. y/.'s conclufion ftronger than his premifes, 
 
 had they been admitted in the knfe he lays them 
 
 down, would warrant. For if the pafTages he 
 
 has cited do refer to fpiritual bleffings, which I 
 
 readily acknowledge they do ; and if the indivi- 
 
 * P. 63. f P- 70. 
 
 D dual 
 
5 ° JPaffages from the 
 
 dual perfons to whom the promife of thefeblefl- 
 ings is made, are the infant-offspring of pious 
 parents, which is what he doubtlefs means to 
 prove : then he muft certainly confider the pious 
 patriarchs as firmly believing their children to 
 be included with them in the Covenant of grace, 
 and upon this ground authorized folemnly to 
 blefs them in the name of the Lord. — Nay fur- 
 ther, he infifts, " that the feed of pious men, 
 " thus included in the promifes made to their 
 " fathers" (promifes he mull here mean of fpi- 
 ritual bleffings, for of thefe he had been /peak- 
 ing) " are exprefsly claimed by God as his 
 ■" own *." And fo he makes the prophet Ezekiel 
 to mean, when he tells the Jews that their fons 
 and their daughters were borne unto God 5 
 and were his children f, that they were his as 
 included in the Covenant of grace. Whereas 
 the plain meaning is, that they were his in re- 
 gard of that covenant which fubfifted .between 
 Him and the Jews as a nation. 
 
 The whole then to be collected from the paf- 
 fages Mr. A. has cited from the Old Teftament 
 is this : Some of thefe pafTages do indeed fpeak 
 of the infant-feed of good men, but then they 
 refer entirely to civil matters ; and therefore do 
 jiot prove fuch infant-children of pious parents 
 are included with them in the Chrifrian Cove- 
 nant, And the remaining pafTages do indeed 
 
 * P. 70. f Ezek. xvi. 20, 21. 
 
 refer 
 
Old Teftament examined. 5 1 
 
 refer to fpiritual bleflings, but then by the child- 
 ren or feed of Jacob, to whom thofe bleffings 
 are promifed, are evidently meant, either the 
 proper defcendants or pofterity of the Jews in 
 fome future age, or the feed of Jacob in a fpi- 
 ritual fenfe : and therefore they do not prove 
 that the children of pious parents are included 
 with them in the Chriftian Covenant. 
 
 And now I afk, Sir, Whether you think. 
 Mr. A. has any mighty reafon, in this nr(t ftage 
 of the controverfy, to exult over his brethren 
 the Baptifts with that indignant air he does in 
 the following fentences ? <c Let us not dare to* 
 " keep back from God that which is his own. 
 " A feeble infant may, indeed, feem to fome 
 " an offering unworthy of his acceptance, and 
 " below his notice; but his thoughts are not 
 " as our thoughts, nor are his ways as our ways. 
 " The tender parent has, on this account, rea- 
 " fon to rejoice that they are not*." But why 
 fhould Mr. A. put himfelf thus out of humour ? 
 What caufe have the Baptifts given him. for 
 thefe fevere reflections ? And to what purpofe are 
 they to be thus held up to the world, in one fen- 
 tence, as guilty of facrilege, robbing God of his 
 right, or at leaft withholding it from Him ? In 
 the next, as looking upon infants in a contempt- 
 ible light, as unworthy the acceptance and even 
 the notice of God » ? And, in the laft, as void 
 
 •P. 71. 
 
 D 2 of 
 
$2 P of ages front, tec. 
 
 of parental tendernefs and affection ? His un- 
 kind idea of them is not furely founded upon 
 facts, nor does it arife out of their doctrine. 
 If however Mr. A. would infinuate the latter, 
 it muft be owned he has pofleffed his reader, 
 provided he could prove it, of an infinitely better 
 .argument againft their doctrine, than any he has 
 yet advanced, and I may venture to add, ever 
 will. But I would charitably impute this little 
 fally of the paflions, rather to the uneafinefs 
 he feels from the weaknefs of his arguments, 
 than to natural temper, or the want of ChrifKan 
 charity. 
 
 I am 3 Sir, 
 
 Yours. 
 
 h E Tj 
 
C 53 J 
 
 LETTER V. 
 
 Dear Sir, 
 
 WE have ken by what kind of reafoning 
 Mr. A. has attempted to prove, from 
 the Old Teftament, his leading propofition in 
 this difpute about Infant-Baptifm, " that the- 
 u children of pious parents are included with 
 "- them in the Chriftian covenant." Let us 
 now fee whether he has fucceeded any better in 
 his reafoning, 
 
 2. From the New Teftament r 
 
 The two nrft pafTages our Author here pro- 
 duces, relate to the kind and condefcending no- 
 tice our Saviour took of little children in the 
 days of his flefh. And I would here obferve, 
 before we proceed to an examination > of them, 
 that I am moft fincerely difpofed to collect every 
 poffible idea from them that is favourable to the 
 real interefts of children. Nay I carry the mat- 
 ter further than Mr.^., and infift that our Lord, 
 by taking infants in his arms and bleiling them,-- 
 meant to exprefs his regards, not only to the 
 D 3 infant- 
 
54 Pajfogts from the 
 
 infant-feed of Believers, but to all infants ; and 
 that by faying, Of fuch is the kingdom of heaven , 
 I think it highly probable He meant to fay, 
 that all who die in their infancy are admitted to 
 heaven. If therefore I cannot with Mr. A. in- 
 fer from thek paflages, that the children of pious 
 parents, as fuch, and whether they live or die, 
 are included with them in the Chriftian Cove- 
 nant, I hope I fhall not fall under thofe cenfures 
 v/hich he has fo freely bellowed on the Baptifts, 
 and which v/ere taken notice of at the clofe of 
 my laft letter. 
 
 You will allow me alfo further to obferve, 
 that I have no objection to his accommodation 
 of the pleafing defcription given us in. one of the 
 prophets of our Saviour, as gathering the lambs- 
 in his arms, and carrying them in his bofom \ to his 
 accommodation, I fay, of this defcription to the 
 paflages before us : fince you fee I admit that all 
 children who die in their infancy, and thofe too 
 who furviving infancy difcover early fymptoms 
 of piety, belong to the fold of the good Shepherd, 
 and are in the Chriftian Covenant. Though I 
 fuppofe molt will agree with me, that by the 
 lambs of the flock, in the prophecy referred to, 
 are meant perfons in the firft ftage of religion, 
 whatever their age may be in regard of natural 
 life. Let us now then, 
 
 I.) 
 
New T eft ameni examined. 55 
 
 r. ) Confider the ftory Mr. A. refers to, Mat- 
 thew xviii. 1 — 6. The difciples, it feems, came 
 unto Jefus, faying. Who is the greateji in the king- 
 dom of heaven ? And Jefus called a little child un- 
 to Him, and fet him in the midft of them, and f aid, 
 Verily I fay unto you, Except ye be converted, and 
 become as little children, ye /hall not enter into the 
 kingdom of heaven. JVhofoevcr therefore /hall hum- 
 ble himfelf as this little child, the fame is greateji in 
 the kingdom of heaven. And ivhofo /hall receive one 
 fuch little child in my na?ne, receiveth Me. But 
 whofo fiall offend one of thcfe little ones which believe 
 in Me, it were better for him that a mil/lone iverc 
 hanged about his neck, and thai he were drowned in 
 the depth of the fca. 
 
 And now what is Mr. A.'s reafoning from 
 this ftory ? It is, if I miftake not, this : " The 
 children of pious parents belong to Chrift, that 
 is, are in the Covenant, and fo difciples truly 
 dear to Him : wherefore if we do not receive 
 them in his name, as belonging to Him, and as 
 his difciples, and if we in any wife offend them, 
 we are accurfed *." What then will become of 
 thofe who difpute Mr. A.'s proportion, that the 
 children of pious parents indifcriminately are 
 included with them in the Chriftian Covenant? 
 
 But this reafoning will be found, upon a mo- 
 ment's reflection, to be totally foreign to the 
 
 D 4 pur- 
 
5 6 PaJJages from the 
 
 purpofe of the ftory. The plain meaning of it, 
 if indeed it can be made plainer than the Evan- 
 gelift has made it, is this : The difciples, out 
 of a vain curiofity and a carnal afpiring temper, 
 wrfh to know of our Lord, who is the greateft 
 in the kingdom of heaven. Our Lord can's a 
 little child to Him, and placing him in the midft 
 of the circle where they were {landing, bids them 
 look upon it, and obferve the meeknefs, humi- 
 lity, and teachablenefs there was in its counte- 
 nance j afTuring them, that except they were 
 converted and became as little children, they 
 mould not enter into heaven at all ; but who- 
 ever of them humbled himfelf as this little child", 
 he mould be the greatest in the kingdom of hea- 
 ven. And He then goes on to inftrucl them 
 how to behave towards fuch perfons as refemble 
 children in thofe tempers He had been recom- 
 mending, which perfons He defcribes as little 
 ones which believe in Him ; that they mould 
 receive them in his name, as belonging to Him, 
 and as his difciples, and that they mould take 
 care, at the peril of his difpleafure, that they 
 did not offend them, weak as they might be in 
 the faith. 
 
 From this view of the ftory it is plain, what- 
 ever tendernefs our Saviour moil certainly had 
 for little children, He did not mean to fay, 
 that the offspring of pious parents are in the 
 
 Cove- 
 
New Teftament examined. 57- 
 
 Govenant, or indeed to decide at all upon the 
 queftion refpe&ing the ftate of any children j 
 but only to perfuade the difciples to imitate the 
 fimplicity ufually obfervable in young children, 
 and perhaps peculiarly remarkable in the coun- 
 tenance of this child. Mr. d.'s miftake lies in 
 underftanding the phrafe of receiving onefuch little 
 child in ChriJVs name, of receiving children in 
 the literal fenfe of the term. But even admit- 
 ting that this was our Saviour's meaning, our 
 Author is to remember, that the little ones we 
 are commanded to receive, and not effend, are 
 exprefsly defcribed as believing in Chrijl : which 
 cuts off all pretence in favour of his general ar- 
 gument. This leads us 3 
 
 2. ) To the other flory refpecting children "in 
 Matt. xix. 13 — 15. which is more to the pur- 
 pofe of the prefent a^eftion than the former, 
 as it feems to have been our Lord's grand object, 
 in this whole bufinefs, to give all around Him 
 an idea of the tender affection He bore to infants. 
 I fhall relate the ftory from the Evangelift jufr. 
 referred to, with the additional circumftances 
 mentioned by Mark and Luke, fome of which 
 Mr. A. has omitted. Then were there brought 
 unto Him little children (young children, infants), 
 that He JJoould put his hands on them, and pray* 
 (that He mould touch them) : and the difciples. 
 rebuked (thofe that brought) them. But Jefus- 
 D 5 (called 
 
5§ Matt. xix. 13 — 15. Suffer 
 
 (called them unto Him, and was much dif- 
 pleafed, and) /aid. Suffer little children, and for- 
 hid them not, to come unto Me : for of fucb is the 
 kingdom of heaven ( of God ) . And He ( took them 
 up in his arms) laid his hands on them (and bleffed 
 them). (And He f aid, Verily I fay unto you, Who- 
 mever Jhall not receive the kingdom of God as a little 
 child, Jhall in no wife enter therein.) 
 
 Mr. A., at the clofe of his remarks on this 
 ftory, fays, that " all he wifhes to prove from 
 ' c it is, that Chrift meant to warn his difciples 
 " of the guilt of defpifing little children, and 
 iC to enjoin it upon them that they be prefented to 
 to Him as the proper fubjecls of his kingdom *." 
 
 As to the guilt of defpifing little children, 
 if our Author means to fix an imputation of this 
 fort on our Lord's immediate difciples, I mult 
 put in my exception, having a far better opi- 
 nion of thofe men of God, than to fuppofe them 
 capable of an evil which very few of the moft 
 profligate among mankind are chargeable with. 
 It is true our Saviour was difpleafed at their 
 conduct ; but his difpleafure was occafioned by 
 their imprudence and inconfideration, not by 
 any inhumanity or cruelty in their tempers : 
 and it was exprefied with the greater warmth, 
 in order the more deeply to imprefs the minds 
 «f fpectators with the exceeding great tendernefs 
 * P. 78, 
 3 He 
 
little children* &x. confidcred. 59 
 
 He felt for little children. And I imagine it 
 Was chiefly with a view to mark this diftinguifhing 
 feature of benevolence in our Lord's character, 
 and to inftruct us in the duty we owe to our 
 children, that the Evangelifts have fo particu- 
 larly related this pleafing ftory. But I am very 
 much miftaken if Mr. A. has not the Baptifts 
 chiefly in his eye, whilft he is magnifying our 
 Saviour's indignation againft the Apoftles. They 
 are the people he means to charge with the guilt 
 of defpifing Utile children : and with fo hearty a 
 good will does he ,fet about chaftifing them for 
 their inhumanity, that he has neither time nor 
 patience to put in a healing word on behalf of 
 the difciples. But, whatever ill opinion Mr. A. 
 may have of the Baptifts, if they are accuftomed 
 to bring their children to Chrift for his bleffing 
 in the way they think He has authorized, they 
 can fcarce be fuppofed to have forfeited all claim 
 to parental tendernefs. If, however, he will in- 
 fill, that to refufe baptizing little children is to 
 defpife them, I fancy we mail quickly, fee that 
 fome of this guilt lies at his door. 
 
 But the main thing our Author wiiTies to prove 
 from this ftory is, " that our Lord meant to en- 
 " join it upon his difciples to prefent -little child- 
 " ren to Him as the proper fubjecls of his king- 
 " dom." By little children here, he means the 
 little children of pious parents — by their being 
 D 6 the 
 
6o Matt. xix. 13 — 15. Suffer 
 
 the proper fubje&s of Chrift's kingdom, theif 
 being included with their parents in the Chriftian 
 Covenant — and by prefenting them to Chrift, 
 baptizing them. Now I would afk, 
 
 I. What there is in this ftory that limits our 
 Saviour's regards to the children of pious or 
 profeffing Chriftians ? That I do not mifrepre- 
 fent Mr. A. when I fay, he would have thofe 
 only prefented to Chrift as the proper fubjects 
 of his kingdom, a moment's reflection will fuffi- 
 ciently mew. It is well known that the gene- 
 rality of his brethren do not admit any to Bap- 
 tifm but the children of Believers. And that 
 he is of this opinion is plain from his fuppoiing 
 that our Lord did not baptize thefe infants, be- 
 caufe " poflibly their parents had not yet entered 
 " themfelves among his followers * ;" and from, 
 his confining his admonition refpedting the bap- 
 tizing their children, at the clofe of his remarks 
 on this ftory, to " fuch Chriftian parents as are 
 4C in covenant with God themfelvesf." Now by 
 prefenting children to Chrift he means baptizing, 
 them ; for this furely muft be his fenfe of the 
 fimilar phrafe of " fuffering them to come to 
 " Him," where he tells us, that " Chrift has 
 * c laid it down as a ftanding rule in his church, 
 <c that little children fhould be fufFered to come 
 " to Kim t." It follows then, that Mr. A. would 
 have the children of profeffing Chriftians, and 
 
 * P. 77 . f P. 7 2. % P. 76, 77. 
 
 Pf 
 
little children^ Sec, confidered. 61 
 
 of none others, prefented to Chrift as the fub- 
 je6ts of his kingdom. 
 
 But what ground, I afk again, is there irr 
 this ftory for fo unreafonable a partiality in fa- 
 vour of this clafs of children ? The piety of" 
 thofe who brought their children to Chrift I am 
 by no means inclined to difpute :. but does our 
 Lord fay, " Of the children of fuch parents, fucb 
 pious perfons as thefe, is the kingdom of heaven ?" 
 No. But, Of fucb little children, little children 
 in general. And pray, why, if by the kingdom 
 of heaven is meant the world of glory, are not 
 the dying infants of unbelievers, or men of doubt- 
 ful religion, as proper fubje&s of it as the ked' 
 of the pious ? Or, if by the kingdom of hea- 
 ven is meant the church of Chrift here on earth, 
 pray why are not the former kind of children 
 as fit members of it as the latter ? And how 
 can Mr. A\ confidently with reafon, with cha- 
 rity, and with the fpirit of this ftory, difcourage 
 all, except fuch Chrijlian parents as are in co- 
 venant with God themfelveSy from prefenting their 
 children to Chrift as the proper fubjects of his 
 kingdom h Suppofe fome affectionate parents, 
 who come not within his defcription,were to bring- 
 their children to Mr. A, for Baptifra, and he 
 were to refufe them, telling them that he could' 
 net in confeience comply with their requeft, 
 they not having entered themfelves among the fol- 
 lowers 
 
6i Matt. xix. 13 — 15. Suffer 
 
 lowers of Chriji : would not the difappointed af- 
 flicted parents be apt to reply ? " Take heed, 
 <c Sir, how you defpife little children. Your 
 " Mafter hath faid, Suffer them to come unto 
 " Me, and forbid them not : and you yourfelf 
 <* have told us, that He was moved with grief 
 *f and indignation at the unbecoming fpirit of 
 " his difciples, when they would have kept them 
 " at a diftance." What would Mr. A. fay in 
 return ? I know not how he could appeafe them, 
 but by telling them that there are other ways of 
 prefenting their children to Chrift, befides this 
 of baptizing them. Though by this fort of re- 
 ply he would perhaps run the rifk of making 
 them Antipcedobaptifts. But, to infift no longer 
 on this partiality of our Author in favour of a 
 particular clafs of children, let us proceed to 
 the main inquiry, and that is, . 
 
 2. How it appears from this ftory, that the 
 children of pious parents are " the proper fub- 
 jects of Chrift's kingdom ?" That they are fo 
 he concludes from our Saviour's words, Of fuch 
 is the kingdom of heaven. Now if you afk him 
 what he underftands by the kingdom of heaven 
 or of God, his reply is, that " it matters little, 
 " in the prefent inquiry, whether the church 
 M of Chrift in this or a future ftate was prin- 
 " cipally intended here; a ftate of grace and 
 " glory being fo connected, that a title to 
 " the latter prefuppofeth an intereft in the for- 
 
little children^ Sec. confidered. 63 
 
 " mer *." Mr. A. then concludes from ourr 
 Lord's words, that they are the proper fubjecls 
 of Chrift's kingdom in this and in a future ftate, 
 the kingdom of grace and glory. 
 
 We will begin with the latter, the kingdom of 
 glory. In what fenfe does Mr. A. eonfider them 
 as the proper fubjects of that kingdom? His own 
 words beft explain his meaning : it is this, that 
 they have a title to it ; " a title," fays he, " to the 
 M latter, that is, a ftate of glory, prefuppofeth an 
 " intereft in the former, that is, a ftate of grace." 
 But will Mr. A. affirm it to be our Saviour's 
 meaning, that all the children of pious parents 
 have a title to heaven ? No furely. If he fays 
 thofe of them who die in their infancy have a 
 title to it, I readily agree with him, pfovided 
 he adds to the number all little children who die 
 in their infancy. And this I take to be our 
 Lord's meaning, Offueh, of little children pac- 
 ing out of life in their infancy, is the kingdom . 
 of heaven. And confidering v/hat prodigious 
 numbers, ' out of all kindreds, nations, and 
 tongues, are removed hence at that early period, 
 heaven may very properly be faid, a great part 
 of it, to confift of them. But though the title 
 of fuch children to the kingdom of heaven does 
 imply in it that " they are capable, as Mr. A. 
 exprefles it, of being born of water and the Spirit," 
 that is, as I have (hewn, of fpiritual water ; nay 
 
 * P. 75- 
 
 more, 
 
64. Matt. xix. 13—15. Suffer' 
 
 more, that they actually are fitted for heaven"' 
 by the Holy Spirit, ere they are admitted to it : 
 yet the children of pious parents can have no 
 right in virtue thereof to the pofitive inftitutions 
 of Chrift *, becaufe there is no way by which it 
 can be credibly known which -of them do pofTefs 
 fuch title to the kingdom of heaven, till they die, , 
 If this therefore be the plea on which the child- 
 ren of pious parents are admitted to Baptifm, 
 you fee it refts upon a prefumption of their dy- 
 ing, and is common to all little children as well^ 
 as thofe of pious parents. 
 
 But, to proceed, Are the children of pious pa- 
 rents the proper fubjecls of Chrift's kingdom here- 
 on earth? This Mr. A. afferts. But upon what' 
 ground ? Is it the fenfe of our Saviour's words ? * 
 He does not chufe to fay, or at leaft to fay it 
 roundly. " It matters little," fays he, ""in the 
 w prefent inquiry, whether the church of Chrift 
 " in this or a future ftate was principally in- 
 " tended here." But I am much miftaken, 
 if Chrift has not Himfelf decided the queftion, 
 and told us that He does not mean his church 
 on earth : and the fixing the (enk of the phrafe 
 will be found prefently to be of very great im- 
 portance. Now that He means the world of' 
 glory, and not his kingdom on earth, appears 
 plain to me from the words immediately follow- 
 ing, as reported by Luke, Whcfoever /hall not 
 
 * P. 75. 
 
 receive 
 
link children, &c. confidered. 65 
 
 receive the kingdom of God as a little child, /hall in 
 no wife enter therein* ', that is, Whofoever mall not 
 receive the gofpel with the fimplicity and teach- 
 ablenefs of a little child, he fhall in no wife enter 
 into the world of glory — not furely he fhaM in 
 no wife enter into the vifible church, for into 
 that fome of the vileft hypocrites have entered. 
 By the phrafe then, Offuch is the kingdom of hea- 
 ven, our Lord does not mean that the children 
 of pious parents are the proper fubjecls of his 
 kingdom, or church on earth. 
 
 Upon what ground then does Mr. y/.'s afTer- 
 tion ftand ? Why purely upon a confequence, 
 which confequence too, if admitted, will avail 
 him nothing: " a title," fays he, " to a ftate 
 " of glory prefuppofes an intereft in a ftate of 
 u grace," or, as it is exprefTed jufr. before, 
 " in the church of Chrift in this ftate." I will 
 not here enter into the queftion, whether a right 
 to the kingdom of heaven does in every inftance 
 give perfons a right to fellowship with the vifible' 
 church here on earth; becaufe the difproving it is 
 not ncceiTary to the invalidating Mr. ASs plea, 
 and would lead me too- far from my fubjecl:. We 
 will therefore admit his confequence. And what 
 has he gained ? Why, as I faid, nothing. For 
 how can the right of fome of the children of pious 
 parents to the kingdom of heaven (for the right, as 
 we have feen, is in fome of them only) give arighs 
 # Luks xviii. 17. 
 
 to 
 
66 Matt. xix. 13 — 15. Suffer 
 
 to them all to become members of ChrifVs vifible 
 church on earth ? Or indeed how can it give 
 a right to any of them, fince there is no way of 
 knowing or framing any probable conjecture 
 whick of them is pofTelTed of this right to the 
 kingdom of heaven ? 
 
 But, fuppofing the children of pious parents 
 were, every one of them, proper fubjects of 
 Chrift's kingdom here on earth, and fo intitled' 
 toBaptifm, would they not, upon the very fame 
 principle, be intitled to the other Sacrament, 
 the Lord's Supper ? Mr. A. himfelf tells us, 
 <c that they are admitted by Chrift to the honours 
 " and privileges of his kingdom * ;" and this, 
 no doubt of it, is one. Why then does he deny 
 them a place at the table of the Lord ? If he 
 fays they are not proper fubjecls.of the inftitu- 
 tion, as they cannot difcern the Lord's body; 
 fo we fay, they are not proper fubjeclis of Bap- 
 tifm, as they cannot therein pro fefs faith and 
 repentance. And how ftrange is it, fince the 
 abfurdity of the former practice is fo generally 
 acknowledged, that that of the latter is not ac- 
 knowledged too! And I will add, how flill 
 more ftrange is it, that perfons of underftanding 
 fhould confider the teftimony of the Fathers in 
 favour of Infant-Baptifm as any mighty advan- 
 tage to the argument, when they know thofe 
 very Fathers held this practice of. giving the 
 
 . * P- 77. 
 
 Euchariit 
 
little children, &c. confidered. by 
 
 Eucharift to children, which Pcedobaptifts now 
 {o generally reject ! — But fo it is. Men, yea 
 good men; the Fathers, yea the wifer Sons of the 
 Fathers ; are liable to err ! 
 
 Maxima pars qjatum (pater, & jwvenes patre digni) 
 Decipimur fpecie recli : ■ ■■ 
 
 Thus have we feen how unhappily Mr. A. has 
 failed in his attempt to prove from this {lory, 
 ** that the children of pious parents are the pro- 
 u per fubjects of ChrifVs kingdom," or, as he 
 has exprefied it in his general leading proportion, 
 " that they are included with them in the Chrif- 
 *■' tian Covenant." Let us now inquire, 
 
 3. Whether there is any pofitive direction, 
 or even diftant intimation, given us in this ftory, 
 that it is our Lord's will that children mould 
 be prefented to Him by Baptifm? " Chrift has 
 " laid it down," fays our Author, " as a ftand- 
 * c ingrule in his church, that they mould be fuf- 
 " fered to come unto Him *," that is^ that they 
 mould be baptized, as his readers will no doubt 
 of it underftand him. But how does it appear 
 that our Saviour had Baptifm in his eye at all ? 
 No more can be concluded refpedring our duty, 
 from his faying, Suffer little children to come to Me, 
 than that we ought upon all occafions humbly 
 to commend them to Him by faith and prayer 
 for his blefTing. Not a word is faid about Bap- 
 
 * P> ?*, 77- 
 
 tjlm, 
 
68 Matt. xix. 13 — 15. Suffer 
 
 tifm, unlefs the above phrafe is fo to be inter- 
 preted : and who fhall object to fuch liberties ? 
 
 Nee verbum verbo curabh redder e Jjdus 
 Interpres— 
 
 He took thefe infants in his arms, laid his hands 
 on them, and blefled them ; but did not baptize 
 them. And indeed, if we had not been elfe- 
 where told, that Jvfus. baptized not *, it might, 
 I think, be naturally enough apprehended from 
 this ftory, that it was neither his nor his dif- 
 ciples practice to baptize little children : for 
 if it had, it is fcarce likely a company of fond 
 parents, crouding around Him with their child- 
 ren, would have received the check they did 
 from the Apoftles. 
 
 But enough has been faid, I perfuade myfelfi- 
 to convince you, Sir, that our Author has got 
 no fupport from this ftory to the propofition we 
 are confidering about the Covenant, or to the 
 general argument refpe&ing Baptifm. All my* 
 fear is, left this very particular inveftigation of 
 his reafoning mould have taken off your attention, 
 from the narrative itfelf, and left you in any* 
 doubt about the ends the facred hiftorian pro- 
 pofed in relating it. I muft therefore intreat 
 your patience while I give you a fhort view, 
 of this whole affair, and the inftruction it was 
 
 * John iv. 2. 
 
 intendeds 
 
little children, &c. considered. 69 
 
 intended to afford us. So will you lofe fight 
 for a while of a fubject that has already tired you, 
 I mean Infant-Baptifm, it having no connection 
 at all with the paffage before us. 
 
 " Laying hands upon perfons, particularly 
 •children, and blefling them, was a very ancient 
 practice, and has been more or lefs ufed in all 
 ages. The people, in the neighbourhood where 
 Chrift now was, hearing of the mighty works 
 He had done, and conceiving a high veneration 
 for his exalted character, bring their children to 
 Him to receive his blefling. The difciples, 
 thinking 'tis probable that the people's crouding 
 about Him with their children might be trouble- 
 fome to Him, bid them keep back, and not prefs 
 upon Him. Our Lord, perceiving it, fharply 
 rebukes them for their imprudence and inconfi- 
 deration, faying, Suffer little children to come 
 unto 'Me, for of fuch is the kingdom of God. 
 As if He had faid, Do not forbid thefe infants 
 to be brought to Me for my bleffing, for my 
 Father hath great tendernefs for fuch little child-; 
 ren : multitudes of them are removed at this 
 .early age, and He fails not of his mercy to receive 
 them to Himfelf, and make them happy with 
 Him in his kingdom above. And this opportu- 
 nity I take to remind you, as I have done on 
 another occafion, that whofoever fhall not re- 
 ceive my doctrine with the fimplicity, teachable- 
 
 nefs, 
 
yo Matt. xix. 13 — 15. Suffer, &c. 
 
 nefs and humility of little children, fhall in no 
 wife enter into that happy world to which they 
 are thus admitted." And now can any one be at 
 a lofs what inftrucHon we are to gather from this 
 very pleafing ftory ? We learn from it, that 
 Chrift hath great tendernefs and companion for 
 little children — that fuch of them as die in their 
 infancy are moft probably happy with Him in hea- 
 ven — that it is the duty of parents to prefent them 
 to God by prayer for his bleffing — and that we 
 ought all of us, if we would be the difciples 
 of Chrift, to diveft ourfelves of the violent paf- 
 fions and fecular purfuits of riper years, and 
 copy after the mecknefs and iimplicity of child- 
 ren. 
 
 I am, Sir, 
 
 Yours* 
 
 LET. 
 
[ 7» ] 
 
 BETTER VI. 
 
 Dear Sir, 
 
 THE proportion on which Mr. A. grounds 
 the right of the children of pious parents 
 to Baptifm, you will recollect, is this; That 
 they are included with the??i in the ChrijVian Cove- 
 nant. This proportion we have confidered at 
 large, and fhewn that, in fome views of it, it 
 is abfolutely erroneous ; in others, manifestly 
 improper - 3 and that it can, in no admiflable fenfe 
 whatever, allow of an inference in favour of the 
 right of children to the pofitive inftitutions of 
 "Chrifc. Our Author's miftaken reafonings from 
 Several paflages of Scripture, in fupport of this 
 general aflertion, we have laid open ; and pro- 
 ceed now to examine what he has advanced upon 
 the words of Peter to the Jews. 
 
 Acts ii. 39. The promife is unto you, and to your 
 children, and to all that are afar off, even as many 
 as the Lord our God foall call. This text does not 
 indeed immediately follow the paflage lafl confi- 
 dered, but is introduced in Mr./'s fecond chap- 
 ter, under the head of " Reafons for administering 
 *« Baptifm as a feal of the Christian Covenant." 
 
 I chufe, 
 
72 A&s ii. 39. "The Promife 
 
 I chufe, however, to take it up here, as he tells 
 us, " it expreffes the Apoftle Peter's fenfe of the 
 * c nature and extent of the Chriftian Covenant *," 
 that is, that the children of pious parents are 
 included with them in it. 
 
 Now there are two inquiries which arife upon 
 thefe words ; the one, What is the import of 
 the promife here fpokenof ? and the other, Who 
 are the perfons to whom this promife of right 
 belongs ? As to the former, I am willing to 
 admit that the promife intends, as Mr. A. ex- 
 preffes it, " the facred engagement of the Cove- 
 " nant of grace ; and that it includes in it par- 
 " don, grace, and glory +." The queftion, there- 
 fore, which remains to be confidered is, To 
 whom the promife of thefe bleflings belongs ? 
 To this queftion the Apoftle replies, It is to you, 
 and to your children, and to all that are afar off, 
 even as many as the Lord our God jhall call: that is, 
 The promife is to you, whom the Lord our God 
 hath called ; to your children, whom the Lord 
 our God mail call ; and to all that are afar off, 
 whom the Lord our God fhall call. Mr. A., 
 however, will not admit that the reftricl:ive 
 ciaufe at the clofe of the verfe has any reference 
 to children ; but infifts that the promife is made 
 indefinitely to the immediate offspring of con- 
 verted Jews and Gentiles, without any regard 
 <o the phrafe of God's calling them. And fo 
 * P. 116, 117. -f P. 120. 
 
 3 the 
 
is unto you, &c. confidered. 73 
 
 the doctrine he grounds upon this paflage is, 
 that " God hath promifed pardon, grace, and 
 " glory, and fecured the continued fuccefftcn 
 " of thefe bleilings to the feed of his people to 
 " the end of time *." 
 
 But can any fober man believe that this was 
 the Apoftle's meaning ? The promife muft be 
 taken either absolutely or conditionally. If abfo- 
 lutely, then our Author makes the ApofHe aiTert 
 what is contrary to fact : for, admitting that 
 the children of pious parents who die in their 
 infancy are faved, it is certain that multitudes 
 of them who grow up are profligate, and conti- 
 nue fo all their days. How then can it be faid 
 that God hath promifed pardon, grace, and glory, 
 and fecured the continued fucceiHon of thefe 
 bleffings to the feed of his people to the end of 
 time? But if Mr. A. confiders the prcmife here 
 conditionally, he in effect admits what he is la- 
 bouring to difprove, that the reilriclive claufe 
 does refer to children : for what difference is 
 there between his faying, in his own words, 
 pardon, grace, and glory, are promifed to fuch 
 as repent and return unto the Lord ; and my 
 faying, in the Apoftle's words, The promife is 
 to fuch children as the Lord our God fhall call? 
 
 But let us confider a little more particularly 
 what Mr, A. has to object to the interpretation 
 * P. iao. 
 
 £ I have 
 
74 Ads ii. 39. The Promife 
 
 1 have given the text. He tells us, cc if this was 
 *< all the Apoftle meant," that is, that their de- 
 pendents fhould inherit the promifed blefling 
 when called by divine grace, " it was very little 
 " indeed -■*." Strange ! Is it very little indeed 
 which is promifed the pofterity of good men, 
 when God afiures them that if they repent and 
 believe, as their parents have before them, they 
 fhall be pardoned and faved ? Such language one 
 fhould fcarce expect, from a Chriftian mini- 
 fter. But what would Mr. A. have the Apo- 
 ille fay more ? Why, that God hath mercy on 
 the children of his people " as their •children," 
 and that they are admitted, " in confequence of 
 u their relation to them," into covenant with 
 God. So then we are to confider God as 
 having refpe6t, in the difpcnfation of fpiritual 
 bleffings, to confanguinity and the ties of flefh 
 and blood ; and to conceive of grace as defend- 
 ing in a lineal fucceflion from father to fon. 
 But how inconfiflent this doctrine is -with reafort, 
 Scripture, and fact, I need not fay. Nor can I 
 think there was a whit more vanity in the pre- 
 tence of the Pharifees, JVe have Abraham to our 
 feiher" than there would be in that of young 
 perfons who fhould take upon them to fay in 
 Mr. A.'s words, " If the ApoiHe did not mean 
 44 that the promife is to us, as the children of 
 44 pious parents, he meant very little indeed : he 
 <4 has done no more than put us upon a footing 
 
 * P. 122, 
 
 " with 
 
is unto you, &c. confidered. y$ 
 
 u with the children of unconverted Heathens." 
 Nay, I am perfuaded, fuch language from their 
 lips would not fail to fhock Mr. i. himfelf, 
 however he may have unhappily taught them to 
 fpeak it. 
 
 Our Author has yet another objection to the 
 interpretation I have given of the paiTage, an 
 objection indeed fuggefted only by implication j 
 and that is, that the construction of the words 
 will not bear it, CT This is," fays he, fpeaking 
 of his own expofition of the text, " the only knic 
 " which the construction of the words will bear if," 
 and of confequence mine is, in his opinion, 
 forced and unnatural, if not ungrammatical. 
 Now I appeal to Grammarians, and thofe who 
 are acquainted with language and ftile, whether 
 fuch a conftruclion is not very frequently ad- 
 miflable, and in many inflances absolutely ne- 
 cefTary ? 
 
 But fuppofing, after all, the reitricliye claufc, 
 even as many as the Lord our God fnali call, is not 
 referable to children, ftill Mr. A. has not proved 
 his point. The word ratvon, here rendered 
 children, very properly fignirles fojlerity. Now, 
 this fenfe of the word admitted, how does the 
 Apoflle's faying, The promife is to you Jews 
 and your pofterity, prove that their immediate 
 infant-offspring were included with them in the 
 || P. »i. 
 
 E 2 Chriftian 
 
j 6 A&s ii. 39. The Promife 
 
 Chriflian Covenant ? Nothing could be more 
 natural than for the Apoftle, when he was fpeak- 
 ing of God's merciful regards for them, to aflure 
 them of his regards for their pofterity alfo, of 
 whofe converfion St. Paul fo largely treats in 
 his epiftle to the Romans. And this was the 
 more natural, as in the next claufe of the verfe 
 he informs them of the defigns of Heaven refpc£t- 
 ing the Gentiles. How unreafonable then is it 
 to build upon this paflage the right of the im- 
 mediate dependents of pious parents to the pe- 
 culiar privileges of the Chriflian Covenant ! 
 Thofe two learned Pcedobaptifts, the Doclors 
 Hammond and Whitby, fenfible of the force of 
 this objection, have ingenuoufly acknowledged 
 the mi (take of laying any ftrefs upon the words 
 in favour of Infant-Baptifm *. 
 
 As to the long quotation our Author has given 
 us from Mr. Boftwick, every thing material in 
 it, refpecting the point we are here difcufling, 
 >as been already fufficiently replied to. I would 
 however juft obferve, that his laying a ftrefs 
 upon the Apoftle's faying in the prefent tenfe, 
 the promife is to you and your children, as if 
 that were a fufScient proof of the right of thefe 
 •children in their prefent infant ftate to the pri- 
 vileges of the Chriftian Covenant, is very weak 
 indeed ; fmce the Apoftle fpeaks alike in the 
 
 * See Dr. Hammond* $ Queries, and Dr. Wbithy in loo 
 
 pre- 
 
is unto you \ Sec. confrdered. yf 
 
 prefent tenfe refpecling the Gentiles, who were 
 confeffedly at that time afar off, and could not 
 have a right to thefe privileges till they were 
 called. And then as to Mr. y/.'s and his friends 
 reafoning from this fuppoied truth of children's 
 being in the Covenant to the obligations lying 
 upon their parents to baptize them; as alfo from 
 the connection of the verfe we have been con- 
 fidering with the preceding, wherein the Apoftle 
 exhorts the Jews to repent and be baptized every 
 one of them ; I fay; their reaibnings from thefe 
 topicks we fhall examine in their proper place. 
 
 Let us now proceed to the paftage our Author 
 has cited from Rom. xi. 16. If the fa j} fruit be 
 holy, the lump is alfo holy; and if the root he holy, fo 
 are the branches. This text Mr,/ has intro- 
 duced under the head of The children of Believers 
 reprcfented as Holy * : but, unhappily for our Au- 
 thor, it does not relate to the immediate offspring 
 of Believers, and therefore is not an inftance of 
 their being even called holy. The Apoftle had 
 been treating of the rejection of the Jews through 
 their own unbelief : he takes occafion therefore 
 from this difpenfation, tremendous as it was, 
 to provoke at leaft fome of his countrymen to 
 emulation, that they might be faved -, and to 
 caution the converted Gentiles, to whom he was 
 fent as an Apoftle, againft vain-glory. To thefe 
 gurpofes he obferves, that however the cafting 
 
 * P. 78. 
 
 E 3 away 
 
7 8 Rom. xi. 16. If the Firft- fruit 
 
 away of the Jews had became the occafion of 
 reconciling the Gentiles, and therefore was to 
 the former, the Jews, a very humbling and a- 
 wakening providence ; yet the latter, the Gen- 
 tiles, fhould not vain-glorioufly triumph over 
 them, fince it was the merciful defign of God 
 in time to come to call them by his grace, and 
 the receiving them would be life from the dead. 
 In this connection comes in the paflage we are 
 confidering: ForifthefirJl-fruitbeholy y the lump 
 is alfo holy; and if the root be holy, fo are the branches. 
 If the firft-fruit (alluding to the offering of firft- 
 fruits) be holy, feparated to the ufe and fervice 
 of God, the lump from whence it was taken is 
 not to be deemed vile and contemptible : and if 
 the root be holy, fo are the branches too, though 
 fome of them may be dead and broken off; nay, 
 even thofe branches that are broken off ought not 
 to be defpifed, fince fome of them may be graffed 
 into their own oiive-tree, and partake of the root 
 and fatncfs of it. The fenfe of all which is 
 manifeftly this, that however God had caft off 
 the Jews in general for their impiety and un- 
 belief, yet as He had had a people among them, 
 and was refolved in future time to extend his 
 mercy to very many more, the believing Gentiles 
 fhould not treat them with contempt as utterly 
 accurfed; nor fhould thofe among them, who 
 were difpofed to repent and turn unto God, con- 
 fider their cafe as defperate. 
 
 And 
 
be hotyy the Lumpy &c. confidered, 79 
 
 And now what is there, you will fay, in all 
 this to the matter in debate? Mr. / thinks 
 there is a great deal in it; and th2t he can prove 
 from this pafTage, at leaft by analogy, that the 
 children of pious Chriftians are holy; and holy, 
 as included with them in the Covenant of grace, 
 " The Chriftian," fays he, " is to his or her 
 u family as the root of thefe branches : and up- 
 " on the principles here laid down, he or (he 
 " being holy, fo are they*." But, if our Au- 
 thor's argument fucceeds, he muft fir ft make it 
 appear, that by the root and the branches here are 
 meant individual Jewifh parents and their own 
 proper immediate offspring. And when he has fo 
 done,, he mull: prove that the children of thefe Jew- 
 ifh parents are here ftiled holy, as included with 
 them in. the Covenant of grace. But by the root 
 and branches here, as appears from the views we 
 have taken of the Apoftle's reafoning, are not 
 intended individual Jewifh parents and their im- 
 mediate offspring. Wherefore it does not follow, 
 by analogy from this pafTage, that the children 
 of Chriftian parents are holy. Admitting, how- 
 ever, that the immediate children of pious Jewifh 
 parents were intended ; yet fuch children were 
 not holy as included with them in the Covenant 
 of grace, but only as feparated by Divine Pro- 
 vidence, in confequence of their relation to them, 
 to the enjoyment of many external religious pri- 
 vileges. On this account, and this only, they 
 
 * P. So. 
 
 E , 4 might 
 
So i Cor.vii. 14. The unbelieving Hufband 
 
 might be laid, in comparifon with the children 
 of Heathens, to be holy. Wherefore it does not 
 follow, by analogy, that the children of pious 
 Chriitian parents are holy, as included with them 
 in the Covenant of grace, but only, as feparated 
 by Divine Providence, in confequence of their 
 relation to them, to the enjoyment of many ex- 
 ternal religious privileges. On this account, 
 and this only, they too may be faid, in compa- 
 rifon with the children of irreligious and profli- 
 gate parents, to be holy. And here I would 
 further obferve, that whatever pofitive inftitu- 
 tions the one or the other may be fuppofed to 
 have a right to, that right muft, in the nature 
 of the thing, be founded not merely in their re- 
 lation to Jewifh or Chriflian parents, but in the 
 exprefs command of God. Wherefore to reafon 
 from Circumcifion to Baptifm, even upon the 
 ground of analogy, is to reafon falfely; unlefs 
 it Cc;n be proved that there is an exprefs au- 
 thority for the latter as well as the former. 
 But of this we mail have occafion to treat more 
 particularly hereafter. 
 
 We now come to the pafTage, 1 Cor. vii. 14. 
 The unbelieving hufband is fanclified by the wife y 
 and the unbelieving wife is fanclified by the hufband; 
 elfe were your children unclean ; but now are they 
 holy. This Mr. A. calls the " celebrated paf- 
 \* fagc a " to exprefs, I fuppofe, his firm perfua- 
 
 jiom 
 
is fanffijied, &c. confidered: &v 
 
 flon, that, however fome may think the texts' 
 already produced do not fatisfac"toriIy prove his* 
 general proportion, " that the children of pious 
 w parents are included with them in the Chriftian- 
 u Covenant ;" yet this proves ittoademonftration,. 
 So that we are to confider it as the meet-anchor 
 of the caufe, the main ground on which the right 
 of children to Baptifm ftands. Now I readily 
 admit that the children of Believers, or of pa- 
 rents, one of whom only is a Believer, are here 
 ftiled holy. But then I infift, that fuch children 
 are in no other {en(e holy, than is the unbeliev- 
 ing parent alfo. For the Apoftle as exprefsly 
 alTerts that the unbelieving hufband is fan&ified 
 or made holy (nyi<L<rcu) by the wife, and the un- 
 believing wife fanclified. or made holy by the 
 hufband, as that the children of fuch parents 
 are holy (±yia). But Mr. i. has prudently 
 taken no notice of the former part of the verfe, 
 left the holding it up to view mould difturb the 
 fenfe he has thought fit to afnx to the latter part 
 of it : 
 
 — c t qttts 
 
 Defperat traftata nitefcere foffe, rcllnquit. ' 
 
 He muft, however, give me leave to confider 
 the words in the connection they ftand :- and. 
 thus confidered, it will follow, that if the holi- 
 nefs of the children, whatever be the (enk of 
 the word here, is to be admitted as a proof that 
 E 5' they.. 
 
82 i Cor. vii. 1 4. The unbelieving Hufband 
 
 they are included in the Chriftian Covenant, 
 the holinefs of the unbelieving parent is to be 
 admitted as a proof that fuch parent is included 
 in the Chriftian Covenant alfo. And, if upon 
 this ground the former have a right to the pofi- 
 tive inftitutions of Chrift, upon the fame ground 
 the latter has alfo. But, though the unbeliev- 
 ing hufband or wife is faid to be holy, Mr. J, 
 will not on that account allow that he or fhe is 
 in the Covenant, and intitled to the peculiar 
 privileges of it : why then does he infift that the 
 children, becaufe they are faid to be holy, are 
 in the Covenant, and have a title to the peculiar 
 privileges of it ? On this ground I might very 
 iafely and properly reft the merits of the queftion, : 
 refpecling the inference to be drawn from this 
 pafTage in favour of Pcedobaptifm. 
 
 But I do not mean to difmifs the fubjecT: with- 
 out inquiring what the Apoftle intends by fane- 
 tification and holinefs in this place. It may be 
 difficult to fix his precife meaning; hut if we. 
 will make reafon, Scripture, and fact our guide,, 
 it cannot be difficult to determine upon fome of 
 the fenfes given, that they are not his meaning.. 
 Perfonal internal holinefs, for inftance, cannot 
 be here intended.. In this Mr. A. agrees with 
 me, though he has exprelTed himfelf upon it a. 
 little more cautioufly than he need have done. 
 M The Apoftle does not so muck mean*" fays 
 
 he v 
 
is fdnffifiedi See. confiderecL 83 
 
 he, " that fpiritual fanctity of heart and life 
 *' which is required as a meetnefs for heaven, 
 " and to which the promifes of falvation are 
 " made in the gofpel *." 
 
 I am likewife of opinion with Mr. A. that 
 legitimacy is not here intended. Indeed Dr. Dod- 
 dridge, to whofe character for learning, candour, 
 and piety I pay great deference, has fo exprefTed 
 himfelf in his paraphrafe on this paffage, as very 
 naturally to convey this idea, though in his note 
 he oppofes the fentiment. How to reconcile 
 him with himfelf I am at a lofs : nor mail I 
 indeed attempt it f. Of his paraphrafe, however, 
 
 Ifliali 
 
 * P. 81. 
 
 f Mr.i. finds very great fault with a certain anony- 
 mous writer for having, in' a pamphlet intituled, Eufebes - 
 to Philetus, made a partial and dijbonourable quotation from 
 Dr. Doddridge's paraphrafe on this text, meaning thereby 
 to impofe this fenfe c/Megitimacy upon his readers as that 
 which the Doftor intended to give of the pajfage. I do not 
 wilh to become an advocate for any man who fhall wilfully 
 mifquote or mifreprefent an author: but rtill I muft think 
 Mr. A. has a little too feverely reprehended the writer he 
 here animadverts upon. The Doctor's words do feem to 
 me to convey the idea of legitimacy; though, -as I have 
 obferved above, in his note he exprefles himfelf otherwife, 
 I fhould have been glad if the writer referred tO'had given 
 his reader the whole of what the Doctor has faid on the 
 fubjecl, and pointed out the inconfiftency between the para- 
 phrafe and the note. Reprehenfible however as his omiiTion 
 may be, it is not every one that is a fit reprover of -others 
 E.6 fan 
 
84 i Cor. vit. 14. ?be unbelieving Hujband 
 
 I fhall take fome aotice. M T'^ unbelieving buf- 
 " band" fays he, is fo fanSfified to the wife^ and 
 
 f o • faults of this kind. Suppofe a perfon, eagerly fet up- 
 on eftabliming a difputable point, fhould cite a pafTage in 
 fupport of it from a book, whofe very title pronounces it 
 fpurious, taking no notice at the fame time of his autho- 
 rity; would not that perfon, I aflc, be very ill qualified to 
 call another to account for defalcation in his quotations ? 
 Surely he would. Yet this, Mr. A. will forgive me if I. 
 fay, he has done. Speaking, in the former part of his 
 work, of our Saviour's Baptifm in Jordan, in order to fup- 
 ply the want of proof from Scripture that it was performed 
 by fprinkling or pouring water, he tells his reader in a* 
 r.ote, that " An ancient Eaftern hiftory of Chrift, written 
 " in Perfic, fpeaks of this his Baptifm as follows ; " The 
 " Lord J ef us Chrift entered into the fea, and John, with 
 u all humility, baptized Him nvith his hand, and nvaflied 
 '" Him, by cajling water on his head.'"' So fingular a 
 ftory, and, if true, fo decifive in the controverfy reflect- 
 ing the mode of Baptifm, ought to have been well authen- 
 ticated, or not to have been mentioned at all. As how- 
 ever Mr. A. l\as omitted giving us hjs authority, I will, 
 undertake this office for him: in order " to. undeceive fuch" 
 (to ufe Mr. A-"s own words) " as have been impofed upon. 
 " by this dishonourable quotation. 1 ' His authority, T 
 take it, is Geronimo Xavier, a Jefuit, who about the 
 year 1595 was feat from Goa to Agr2 > at the requeft- 
 v.f Spkan Akbar the Great Mogol, to explain to him the 
 Chriilian religion. This Xavier, having been at the pains 
 to learn the Perfian language, wrote two books in it. 
 The firft cf them was this hiitory of Jefus, collected for 
 tfie mod part out of the Romifh Legends, which he in- 
 t^ivded to fubfritute among the Mohammedans, inftead of 
 
is fanclified^ &c confidered. 0*5. 
 
 tc the. unbelieving wife is fo fa?iclified to the hujband r 
 " that their' matrimonial converfe is as lazuful as if 
 "• they were both of the fame faith ." But if one 
 party's being a Believer makes cohabitation law- 
 ful, it mould feem to fellow as a natural con- 
 fequence, that where neither is a Believer co- 
 habitation is unlawful; which is a proportion 
 no one will maintain. But let us examine the 
 queftion refpe&ing legitimacy a little more at- 
 
 the gofpel. A copy of this book, with a Latin translation. 
 of it, was afterwards publifhed, with a view to expofe the 
 iniquitous practices of thefe Jefuits ; and the title-page of 
 it informs the reader that this ancient hiftory is fpurious 
 {coniaminata). Now if Mr. A took his quotations from 
 this copy, and was really acquainted with thefe facts, his 
 difingenuity, in obtruding this ftory upon the .publick,. 
 would deferve the fevereft cenfure ; nor can any one be at 
 a lofs a moment to determine which is the greateft evil, 
 whether to relate a ftory as true, and at the fame time 
 fupprefs that part of the title-page of the book whence it 
 is taken, which fays the whole book is fpurious; or ta 
 quote an Author's paraphrafe upon a difputable paffap-e 
 of Scripture, and to fay nothing at the fame time of a note 
 at the bottom of the page. But if our Author, igno- 
 rant of thefe facts, took the parage otit of this copy 
 of Xavier's book without looking at the title, or took it 
 from fome other Author who had quoted it, without in- 
 quiring into that Author's authority; whilft I feel myfelf 
 happy in acquitting him of the charge of difingenuity, I 
 nvuft neverthelefs blame his imprudence for reporting a 
 ftory fo much to his purpofe, and not at the fame time 
 tilting hia reader he would not be anfwerable for the truth 
 %i it. 
 
 tentivcly. 
 
26 1C0r.vii.14. The unbelieving Hujband 
 
 tentively. The Apoftle's object in this context 
 was, no doubt, to difTuade thofe Christians who 
 were married to unbelievers from any thoughts 
 of a feparation. And the confideration of their, 
 having been lawfully married was moft certainly 
 a good argument to enforce fuch. advice ; and 
 the rather, as a divorce would be likely to bring 
 •difhonour on their offspring, in the opinion of 
 thofe who might not know the true caufe of it.. 
 But if he meant to urge this argument, it is 
 fcarce imaginable he would defcribe the lawful- 
 ness of the marriage-contract by the phrafe of. 
 the unbelieving hujband's being fanclified by the wife r . 
 and the unbelieving wife by the hujband ; fince the 
 validity of the marriage did not, could not, in 
 the nature of the thing, depend upon one party's 
 being a Believer. Whether he or fhe were or 
 were not a Believer, the marriage would have 
 been good; nor would a feparation, upon pre- 
 tence of their not being of the fame faith, have 
 made the children illegitimate. 
 
 And as thus legitimacy feems not to be in- 
 tended, fo neither can it be apprehended, with 
 any appearance of reafon or confiftency with 
 Scripture, that the holinefs refulting to either 
 party from the faith of the other, and of confe- 
 rence to the ifTue of both, can intend intereft 
 in the Covenant of grace. Whoever calmly 
 sonfiders the nature, fpirit, and tenor of the 
 
 Chriftian. 
 
tsfanftifiedy &c. confi'dered. 87 
 
 Chriftian Covenant, whether he underftands it 
 as abfolute or conditional,, will not methinks 
 hefitate a moment to pronounce it both abfurd 
 and unfcriptural to fuppofe, that the wife or the 
 children can be fo fanctified or made holy by the 
 faith of the hufband, as in confequence thereof 
 to be included with him in that Covenant, and: 
 become intitled to the peculiar privileges of it. 
 
 We are obliged therefore to look out for another 
 fenfe of the terms fanftification and holinefs. And^ 
 if Mr. A. will but give up his general proportion, 
 in thofe exceptionable fenfes of it to which 
 I have all along objected, we mail perhaps be 
 able to compromife the matter upon this text 
 without much difficulty.. I agree then that there 
 is a fenfe in which every good man may be faid 
 to fandtify his wife and his children.. He devotes 
 them by faith and prayer to God, he feparates 
 them, as far as his influence reaches, to the fear 
 and fervice of Heaven, and they derive from their 
 connection with him fuch external advantages of 
 
 to 
 
 a religious kind, as often prove the happy means 
 of their converfion and falvation. This knCc 
 of the terms in debate well agrees with the ufe 
 of them in many pafTages I might mention *.; 
 And if it be admitted here, we are to confiderthe 
 
 * Thus Job is faid to \ia.ve fanSified his children, ch.i. 5.. 
 And every creature of God is faid to be good, being fa?jfli- 
 fi*d by the word of God and prayer. 1 Tim, iv. 4-, 5. 
 
 Apoftle, 
 
S3 i Cor. vii. 1 4. The unbelieving HufbancF 
 
 Apoftle as reafoning thus — " I give it- as mf 
 opinion, that you who believe, dp by no means- 
 feparate from your hufband or wife, who as yet, , 
 is not a Believer : for you have by prayer fo- 
 lemnly devoted him or her to God, and laid 
 yourfelf under a voluntary obligation to attempt,, 
 at leaft, his converfion : and who knows but 
 you may fucceed ? Wlxit knowejt thou y wife, 
 whether thou jh alt fave thy hufband ? or how know eft 
 thou, O man, whether thou Jhalt fave thy wife ? 
 v. 16. It fhould be remembered too that by 
 thus devoting your hufband or wife to God, 
 you have in effect devoted your offspring to him 
 alfo, and are therefore become equally obliged 
 to concern yourfelf for their fpiritual welfare. 
 But by departing from your hufband or wife,, 
 under a pretence that he or me is an Heathen, and 
 ou^ht to be treated in the fame manner you. 
 formerly treated the Gentiles as common or un- 
 clean ; by fo doing you in effect caff off your 
 children too as common and unclean, and deprive 
 them of the benefit of a godly education, the evil 
 of which conduct is very great. But by (till 
 continuing with your hufband or wife, you act 
 no-reeable not only to the dictate of nature but 
 of piety, thereby exprefilng your affectionate 
 regard to parent and children, and your concern 
 for their falvation, as having devoted them to 
 God and his fervice," 
 
 % This- 
 
is fanftified) &c. confidered. 8cjt 
 
 This paraphrafe may perhaps not fatisfy, nor 
 do I lay any great ftrefs upon ft. The phrafes 
 here ufed, though doubtlefs well underftood by 
 the Corinthians, are as to us become obfolete, 
 and very difficult to be explained, for want of 
 knowing perhaps fome cufloms and modes of 
 fpeech frequent in thofe early times. But, difficult 
 as it may be to fix the precife meaning of thefe 
 phrafes, we may furely with confidence pro- 
 nounce upon any fuch interpretation of them a* 
 contradicts reafon, Scripture, and fac% that it can- 
 not be genuine. And of this kind, if there be 
 any force in the reafoning of the preceding 
 Letters, is that interpretation which makes thefe 
 phrafes fay, that the children of a Chriftian parent 
 are included with him in the Chriftian Cove- 
 nant; and not only they but the unbelieving 
 hufband or wife too. And after all, if we could 
 be perfuaded to admit even this abfurd fenfe of 
 the paflage, the confequence, I mean the right 
 of fuch children to Baptifm, would not fo clearly 
 follow as our opponents feem to apprehend. For 
 it did not follow from the children of Jewifh 
 parents being in Covenant, or included in the 
 national Covenant, with God, and fo being in 
 a fenfe holy, that they were to be circumcifed ; 
 but becaufe God had exprefly required they 
 mould. In like manner, could it be proved that 
 the children of Chriftian parents are included 
 with them in the Chriftian Covenant, and on 
 
 that. 
 
jo i Cor. vii. 14. The unbelieving. Sec. 
 
 that account holy ; it would not follow that 
 therefore they mould be baptifed : their right ta 
 Baptifm muft depend, and depend alone, upon 
 the direct exprefs coipmand of the Inftitutor ; 
 for it is abfurd to talk of analogy and confe- 
 quence in the matter of pofitive inftitution, as I 
 have already fhewn* 
 
 I am, Sir, 
 
 Yours, 
 
 L E T* 
 
[ 9< 1 
 
 LETTER VII. 
 
 Dear Sir, 
 
 IT remains that we now confider Mr. ASs laft 
 argument in fupport of his general propor- 
 tion, that " God hath included the children of 
 " his people in the promifes of the Chriftian 
 " Covenant." It is taken from <c the famenefs 
 * c of the Abrahamick and Chriftian Covenants J* 
 from whence, he thinks, it follows, that as the 
 feed of Abraham were included with him, fo the 
 feed of Chriftians are included with them, in 
 the Covenant of grace. In order, therefore, 
 to prove that the Abrahamick and Chriftian 
 Covenants are the fame, having firft given us 
 what he ftiles " a comprehenfive fummary of 
 u the Covenant of God with Abraham," he 
 proceeds to eftablifh thefe three propositions, 
 
 First, " That the promifes to Abraham in 
 M the Old Teftament, and thofe to Chriftians in 
 " the New, appear to engage for the same 
 " fpiritual, temporal and eternal bleffings;" 
 
 Secondly, " That they are made alike to. 
 M Believers, whether Jews or Gentiles, and to 
 M their children in both Teftaments;" and 
 
 Thirdly,, 
 
«)2 The' Ahrahamick 
 
 Thirdly, " That not only Abraham, hat 
 " all his chosen seed were admitted to the 
 * ' peculiar privileges of the Covenant in the fame 
 " way in which Chriftians are taught to expccT: 
 <c them;" that is, through the fame Mediator*. 
 The terms of thefe three proportions are very 
 plain, except the phrafe in the laft of his cbofen 
 feed) which is fomewhat equivocal. Taking it 
 however for granted, that by the chofen feed of 
 Abraham Mr. A. here means, agreeable to the 
 general tenor of his argument, his defcendents 
 according to the flefh ; I muft except to each of 
 his propofitions as not conformable to truth. 
 Let us begin with the firnV 
 
 First, It is not true that the promifes to Abra- 
 ham in theOldTeftament, and thofe to Chriftians- 
 in the New, engage for the fame fpiritual, temporal 
 and eternal bleffings. 
 
 This will very clearly appear, if our Author- 
 will allow me to give a little more comprehenftve 
 fummary of the Covenant of God with Abraham 
 than he has thought fit to give us. The feventh 
 verfe of the feventeenth chapter of Genefis he has 
 faithfully tranferibed, but has given us no hint at 
 all about the eighth. V. 7. I will ejlablijh mycove2 
 nant between ?ne and thee, and thy feed after thee in 
 their generations, for an everlajling covenant , , to be 
 * God unto thee, and to thy feed after thee. V. 8, 
 
 * P. ICO, ioi. 
 
 And 
 
Covenant confide-red. 93 
 
 Jtnd I will give unto thee, and to thy feed after thee, 
 ihe land wherein thou art a Jlr anger, all the land of 
 Canaan, for an everlajling pofejfion, and I will be 
 their God. Is not this 8th verfe, I afk, a part of 
 the Covenant of God with Abraham, as well as 
 the 7th ? And if fo, will Mr. A. fay, God has 
 promifed the fame te?nporal blefiings to Chriftians 
 he did to Abraham ? Has he faid he will give 
 them the land of Canaan for a .pofleffion, and 
 that he will be their God in that fenfe wherein 
 he here evidently meant to fay he would be the 
 God of the natural defcendents of Abraham, 
 that is, their immediate civil Governour and 
 King ? No, he has not. 
 
 The truth is, the Covenant which God made 
 with Abraham was twofold, and had refpect to 
 him both in a religious capacity, as the father 
 of the faithful ; and in a civil capacity, as the 
 progenitor of a numerous people feparated by 
 Providence to the enjoyment of peculiar national 
 bleflings. Wherefore the bleflings promifed 
 him in the firft of thefe characters as a good man 
 and a Believer, fuch as the pardon of fin, the 
 renewing influences of the Holy Spirit, every 
 needful good thing of the prefent life, and ever- 
 lafting happinefs in the world to come, are the 
 fame as God hath promifed to all real Chriftians. 
 Thefe bleflings, I readily agree with our Author, 
 are comprehended in the afTurance that God 
 would be his God, and in the like afTurance to 
 
 the 
 
94 The Abrahamick 
 
 the pious under the Patriarchal, Jewifh, and 
 Chriftian Difpenfations. Nor do I know who 
 they are of whom Mr. A. complains as " repeat- 
 " edly urging it as an objection agalnft fuppof- 
 " ing the Abrahamick and Chriftian Covenant 
 <c the fame, that the former contains promifes of 
 * c temporal enjoyments only, and the latter only 
 " of fpiritual *." If there are fuch, I am furc 
 they are very little acquainted with their Bibles. 
 
 But, to proceed, the blemngs promifed to 
 Abraham in his other character, that is, as the 
 iiead of a family and the father of a numerous 
 people the Jews, were peculiar to him and them, 
 and common to none befides. We, indeed, as 
 Chriftians are greatly benefited by the temporal 
 advantages the Ifraelitifh nation enjoyed, as 
 through that channel the ineftimable bleHing of 
 the gofpel was communicated to us : for by the 
 feparation of that people from the reft of the 
 world, and the eftablifhment of a peculiar civil 
 and religious government among them, the great 
 events of the coming of the Mefiiah, and the 
 erection of his fpiritual kingdom were fecured, 
 and fo the promife made to Abraham, that in 
 him all the families of the earth mould be bleffed, 
 was happily accomplifhed. But the temporal 
 blemngs themfelves, which by this Covenant 
 with the Patriarch were afTured to his own 
 
 * P. 89. 
 
 proper 
 
Covenant confiderecL 95 
 
 proper pofterity, we as Chriftians have no con- 
 cern with : they were limited to the Jews, and 
 forfeited by their difobedience at the commence-* 
 inent of this New Difpenfation. 
 
 Now this d inunction between the bleflings 
 promifed to Abraham in the two different rela- 
 tions wherein we have confidered him, is natural 
 and neceflary, and clearly founded both in the 
 tferms of the Covenant itfelf as explained in the 
 New Teftament, and in the confcquent facts.. 
 God promifes Abraham, as a good man and a 
 Believer, that he will be his God and the God 
 of his fpiritual feed, that is, as the Apoftles ex- 
 plain it, that he will pardon, accept and fave 
 them. And then again, he promifes Abraham 
 and his feed according to the flefh, that he will 
 give them the land of Canaan, and make them 
 a numerous and profperous people. But thefe 
 two diftincl: ftipulations of the Abrahamick Cove- 
 nant Mr. A. induftrioufly confounds, reprefent- 
 ing the right which Abraham and his pofterity 
 had to the land of Canaan, as flowing from their 
 intereft in the Covenant of grace, in the fame 
 manner as the right of Chriftians to every need- 
 ful temporal good flows from their intereft in 
 the fame Covenant. " The facred word," fays 
 he, " in both covenants," that is, the Abra- 
 hamick and Chriftian, " engages for every real 
 " good with refpecl: to the body, and his people's 
 " fubiiftence in the prefent world. In this view," 
 3 adds 
 
tfi The Abrahamick 
 
 udds he, that is, in this view of the Abrahamick 
 Covenant as being the fame with the Chriftian, 
 4< Canaan was promifed by God to the feed of 
 " his fervant Abraham, and every neceffary 
 u fupport by the way. So fays our Apoftle Paul, 
 " Godlinefs has (till promife of the life that 
 " now is, as well as of that which is to come**" 
 But Mr. A. fhould have remembered, that the 
 grant of Canaan to the feed of Abraham was, as 
 we have feen, an affair totally independent of 
 the intereft which any of them might have in 
 the Covenant of grace. Wherefore it clearly 
 follows, that the temporal blejjings here promifed 
 to Abraham are not the fame which are promifed 
 to Chriftians, and that this part of the Covenant 
 of God with that Patriarch is not the fame with 
 the Chriftian. But it is time we proceed to his 
 
 Second Proportion, which is indeed the 
 main thing to be confidered, that " Thepromifes 
 " of fpiritual, temporal and eternal bleffings, 
 " are made alike to Believers, whether Jews or 
 " Gentiles, and to their children in both 
 " Teftaments." Now I readily agree with 
 Mr. A. that thefe great bleffings are promifed 
 alike to Believers, whether Jews or Gentiles ; 
 and therefore need not follow him through his 
 proofs of thefe points. But how does it appear 
 that they are promifed to the children of believing 
 Jews and Gentiles ? 
 
 * P. 88. 
 
 Before 
 
"Covenant confide red. 07 
 
 Before we proceed to confider our Author's 
 anfwer to this inquiry, you will give me leave 
 to obferve what I have had frequent occafion to 
 take notice of before, I mean his predilection in 
 favour of the children of Believers. The pro- 
 mifes it feems are made to them in common with 
 their parents, but not to other children : for 
 from his manner of exprefTing himfelf one would 
 fuppofe they are excluded. And yet, a little 
 afterwards, he fpeaks of the application of this 
 promife, / will be a God to thee, and to thy feed 
 after thee, to the infant pofterity of Abraham in 
 general, whether their immediate parents were 
 or were not Believers ; for he tells us " that 
 "" circumcifion, which God inftituted as a token 
 '" of it, was exprefly required to be adminiftered 
 cl to them, to all the p^pilerity of Abraham, at 
 " eight days old *." So inconfiftent is Mr. A. 
 with himfelf ! 
 
 But to return, How does it appear that the 
 peculiar bleflings of the Covenant of grace are 
 promifed to the children of believing Jews and 
 Gentiles ? Why, by analogy, thus, ** They 
 were promifed to the children of Abraham, he 
 being a Believer ; in like manner they are pro- 
 mifed to the children of all pious Jews and 
 Chriftians, they being Believers." " Forafmuch," 
 -fays Mr. A, " as the bleffing pronounced upon 
 "" Abraham extended to his feed, if Believers are 
 P. 95. 
 
 F £ blefled 
 
g8 the Abrahamick 
 
 " blefTed as he was, it muft he both in them- 
 46 felves and their offspring *. The paflage 
 referred to is that before cited, / will be a 
 God unto thee ', and to thy feed after thee f„ The 
 import of this promife our Author has already 
 fettled : it includes in it, he fays, the bleffings 
 of pardon, fan edification, and eternal life. The 
 queftion then to be determined is, Whether by 
 the feed of Abraham here is meant, his natural 
 feed, that is, his children after the ikfh ; or his 
 fpiritual feed, that is, the children of Abraham's 
 faith, cr thofe who mould be Believers as he 
 was r Mr. A. maintains the former, I the latter. 
 Let us fee which of thefe fenfes ftands beft fup- 
 ported by reafon, Scripture, and fact, 
 
 i. If by the feed of Abraham here, are meant 
 bis children according to the flefh, then fuch 
 children were intitled to the bleflings of pardon, 
 fanctification, and eternal life ; and not only 
 they, but their children alfo, and fo on to the 
 end of time. For as the bleiTing pronounced on 
 Abraham is fuppofed to have devolved on his 
 immediate children in virtue of his faith, fo, 
 by parity of reafon, it muft have devolved on 
 their children in virtue of their faith, and thus 
 from one generation to another in perpetual 
 fuccefTion. But, that this is not the fac~t is 
 evident beyond a doubt. To this perhaps Mr. J. 
 will reply, that though he confiders the promife 
 * P. 92. f Gen. xvii. 7. 
 
Covenant confute red. 99 
 
 to Abraham as abfolute, yet he confiders it to 
 his children as only conditional, that is, that 
 God would be a God to them, provided they 
 believed as Abraham did. But will Mr. A. fay, 
 that God has not promifed to be a God to them 
 that believe, if they be not the children of 
 Abraham, or the children of fuch Jews or 
 Chriitians who believe ? He will not. I aik 
 then, What there is in this promife peculiar to 
 the children of Believers ? Surely then all who 
 believe, whether defcended from Jews or Chrif- 
 tians, Believers or Unbelievers, may with pro-* 
 priety be ftiled the feed of Abraham., that is, 
 
 2. His fpiritual offspring, or the children of 
 his faith. If Mr. A. will admit this fenfe, foe 
 will have the clear fupport of the New Tefla- 
 ment, and find himfelf at once relieved of the 
 embarraffments and indeed abfurdities, which 
 attend the limiting the phrafe of his feed here to 
 his offspring according to the fie-fh. Our Saviour 
 .and his Apoftles very frequently explain the 
 ph rales, the feed of Abraham, and the feed of Ifrael y 
 of perfons refembling them in faith and piety, 
 though not defcended from them ; nay, more 
 .than this, they affure the carnal -unbelieving 
 Jews that they were not the children of Abra- 
 ham, or the feed of Ifrael. Thus St. Paul fays, 
 They are . not all Ifrael^ which are of Ifrael : 
 neither becaufe they, are the feed of Abraham are they 
 F 2 ' all 
 
 t\ 
 
I oo The Abrahamick 
 
 nil children * : And t>ur Lord in his dilcourfe 
 with the Jews, having admitted that they were 
 the feed of Abraham according to the fkih, tells 
 them, If they were Abraham's children^ that i?, 
 his children in a fpiritual fenfe, they would do the 
 werfo of Abraham \. And the Apoftle, fpeaking 
 of this very matter of Abraham's believing God, 
 raid of his having been hie/Ted by Him, fays, 
 Know ye therefore thai they which are of faith , the 
 fame are the children of Jbraham +. Can any thing' 
 therefore be plainer than that by the feed of 
 Abraham, when the peculiar bleilings of the new 
 Covenant arc promifed to hi ch perfons, his 
 fpiritual feed are intended ? Nor is there any 
 real force in the objection, that to interpret the 
 fame phrafe of the feed of Abraham, of his fpiri- 
 ritual feed in one verfe and of his natural feed in 
 the other, is to create a confufion of language 
 not to be admitted in the facred writings ; fince 
 the different kinds of blemngs granted in the 
 one and the other, fufncienily alcertaln the diffe- 
 rent characters of thofe to whom fuch diftincf. 
 blemngs are promifed. And now little need be 
 faid refpec~ting Mr. A's 
 
 ■ 
 Third Proportion, to prove the Abrahamick 
 
 and Chriftian Covenants the fame : viz. <{ That 
 
 *' the blemngs are promifed freely in both 
 
 * Rom. ix. 6, 7. f John viii. 39. \ Gal. iii. 7. 
 j ** through 
 
Covenant confidered. 10 
 
 f through the fame Mediator." I readily grant 
 that fo far as thefe two Covenants are the fame* 
 the blemngs promifed in each are communicated; 
 in the fame way. But till fuch time as our 
 Author has proved, that the children of God's 
 people were included in the Abrahamkk Cove- 
 nant, confidered in its reference to fpirkual and 
 eternal bleflings, his inference will not follow 
 that they cannot be excluded from the Chriftian. 
 
 Upon die whole, it clearly appears that, in 
 the Covenant God made with Abraham, many 
 bleflings were promifed to him and his natural 
 feed the Israelites, which belong not toChriftians; 
 and many ble&ngs were promifed to him and 
 his fpiritual feed, that is, Believers, which be- 
 longed not to multitudes of his natural offspring 
 the Ifraelites. From whence it follows, that 
 t it Ahrahamick and ChrijTian Covenants are not y in 
 iome very material refpscts of them, the jam:. 
 An J of confequence the argument Mr. A. de- 
 duces from their fuppofed famenefs in fupport 
 of his general prcpofition, " that God hath in 
 " eluded the children of his people in the pro- 
 
 " mifes of the Chriflian Covenant/' manifestly 
 fails : that is to lay, it is mod abfurd to infer 
 from the natural Cecd of Abraham being in- 
 cluded with him in that Covenant^ which pro- 
 mifed them great temporal profperity • that the 
 F 3 natural 
 
102 tfhe Abrahamick^ &c. 
 
 natural feed of Chriftians are included with their 
 parents in that Covenant, which promifes them 
 as Believers- pardon, fan&ifkation. and eternal 
 
 ike, 
 
 I am, Sir, 
 
 Yours. . 
 
 IS E T: 
 
C *°3 ) 
 
 LETTER VIIJ. 
 
 Dear Sir, 
 
 YO U are fenfible that pofitive inflitutions- 
 depend entirely upon the will of the Infti- 
 tutor, and that therefore in every doubtful 
 queftion refpecting them, we are to be determined 
 by nothing fhort of his exprefs declarations. 
 This being the cafe, I might have been excufed 
 the trouble of confidering Mr. yf.'s analogical 
 reafoning in favour of Infant-Baptifm, which 
 makes up the principal part of his book ; and 
 might have immediately proceeded to demand of 
 him what direct, pofitive authority he has for 
 this practice in the New Teflament. His reafon- 
 ing I have, however, propofed to examine, that 
 fo our Author, driven from this fubterfuge, may 
 be obliged to meet me upon that ground upon 
 which alone difputes of thi& kind can be fatis- 
 factorily ifTued. The fum of his reafoning,. if I 
 do not miftake him, is this : " God has made a 
 Covenant with all pious ChrifHans — their feed 
 are included with them in this Covenant — being 
 included in it they have a right to the feals of 
 it — Baptiirn is the fcal of the Covenant — there 
 F 4 face 
 
104 Right to tht Seal of 
 
 fore the feed of pious Christians ought to- be 
 baptized." Now if either of thefe proportions 
 fails, the confequence muft fail alfo : one link 
 of the chain broken, the whole falls. But I am. 
 much miilaken, if each of thefe proportions, 
 except the firft, is not defe£Hye.. The nr{l > 
 ^ c That God has made a Covenant with all pious. 
 ChriiHans," I admit. To the fecond, u That, 
 their feed are included with them in this Cove- 
 nant," I object. Here I have laid down all the 
 poffible fenfes in which perfons may be faid to be 
 in a Covenant, or included with others in ft, 
 and applied them to the quefticn before us. In 
 feme of thefe fenfes I have fhewn, it is abfolutely 
 impomble that children fhould be in the Cove- 
 nant. In others, though it is poffible they may 
 be in it, yet there is no medium by which to form 
 a credible judgment whether they really are in it. 
 And as to the remaining fenfes in which perfons 
 may be faid to be in a Covenant, they are in- 
 direct and improper fenfes of the phrafe : ad- 
 mitting, however, that in thefe fenfes the chil- 
 dren of pious Chriftians are in the Chriftian 
 Covenant, it is clear to a demonltration that 
 their being thus in it can give them no right, 
 unlefs there be an exprefs authority for it, to 
 the intentions of it. Mr. A.'t arguments I have 
 particularly confidered, and you are to judge, 
 Sir, whether \hij have not in every inftarice 
 failed, 
 
 And, 
 
the Covenant' c&nffderecT.- 105 
 
 And now the two following proportions, 
 " That, being included in. the Covenant, they 
 have a right to the feals of it;" and, " That 
 Baptifm is a feal of the Covenant •" will be very 
 quickly difpatched. In the mean time give me- 
 leave again to remind you, that whatever be the 
 fate of thefe two proportions, if my reafoning 
 upon that already difcuffed be jufly Mr. A.''$ 
 confequence, that the children of pious parents 
 ought to be baptized, mutt fail.. 
 
 The notion, " that intereft in a Covenant 
 gives perfons a right to the feals of it," has 
 perhaps been too nattily taken for granted in this 
 controverfy. It will be worth our while there- 
 fore to inquire a little into the merits of this 
 quefHon. 
 
 The. practice of affixing feals to Covenants 
 is of very early date. The ufe and intent 
 of it is, to bind the parties contracting to the 
 fulfilment of the conditions agreed on between 
 them ; and to preferve, to that end, an authen- 
 tick proof of the tranfadlion. In antient times,, 
 and when writing was not fo generally ufed as 
 it is now, Covenants were only fealed and not 
 fubfcribed. And the perfons who fealed were 
 of three denominations, the contracting parties, 
 the witnefTes of the tranfaftion, and the ma- . 
 giftrate or prefiding officer in the court where a 
 copy of the inflrument was lodged,. 
 
 F 5 Now 
 
106 Right to the Seal of 
 
 Now if this be the practice alluded to, there 
 is an impropriety in the phrafe itfelf, of perfons 
 having a right to the feal of the Covenant : for if 
 fealing be, as you have fee n, a matter rather of 
 duty than of right, to ufe this kind of language 
 is much the fame as to fay, that perfons have a 
 right to do their duty. But what I have princi- 
 pally to obferve is, that it follows from this 
 account of the ufage of fealing, that intereft in 
 a Covenant does not in all instances give perfons- 
 a right to the feal of it, or, in other words, 
 make it their duty to affix their feal to it. A man 
 may be included in a Covenant or benefited by 
 it, who is no way a party to it, and who fe 
 iignature therefore is not at all requifite. Chil- 
 dren, for inftance, frequently derive advantages 
 from Covenants which, with all the authentic!*? 
 forms of tfrem,, exifted long- before they were 
 born. 
 
 But it will be faid, " As the infant pofterity 
 of Abraham were-ordered to be circumcifed, and. 
 as circumcifion is exprefly ftiled a feal of the. 
 fight ecufnefs of faith , fo we have here an inftance 
 of perfons who, though only included in a Cove- 
 nant and not parties to it, yet were admitted ta- 
 ttle feal of it." But the miftake of this reafoning 
 will appear upon a . Jidering the paflage referred 
 to, the only one, as I recollect,, in which cir- 
 cumcifion is fpqken of as a feal. The words 
 
 are 
 
the Covenant confide red. 107 
 
 are in Rom. iv. n. And he received the fign of 
 circumcifion, a feal of the righteoufnefs of the faith 
 which he had yet being uncircumcifed. Abraham 
 believed in the prom-ifcof God refpe&ing the 
 Mefliah,. and by voluntarily fubmitting to cir- 
 cumcifion in, obedience to the divine command, 
 he gave clear evidence of his faith ; and fo cir- 
 cumcifion became, in regard of him, a feal or 
 authentick proof of his justification : it was a 
 feal affixed by Abraham himfelf to the Covenant, 
 and an atteftation, on the part of God, to his 
 intereft in the bleffings of it. And in the fame 
 light it might be confidered in regard of others, 
 who fubmitted to it in riper years, and upon the 
 conviction of their judgment. It was an ex- 
 preffion of their free afTent and confent to the 
 Covenant, and fo a feal affixed by them to it *. 
 And it was on the part of God (to fpeak with 
 reverence) a feal affixed by him to the Covenant, 
 that is, a gracious afTurance, with refpecT: to 
 thofe who thus in faith fubmitted to it, that he 
 would pardon, accept and fave them.. 
 
 * Spencer in his treatife de legibus Hebrseorum,, 
 {peaking of circumcifion under the notion of a feal, as 
 diftinguifhed from a fign, or token, thus expreffes himfelf, 
 " Omnes enim Circumcifioni sponte fubjecti ad legem 
 " obfervandam fe obftrinxerunt, et renunciatis idoiis, 
 " Dei folius cultui fe folide manciparunt." Spencer, de 
 Leg. Heb. Lib. i. cap. 4. de Cirumcif. p< 34. Edit, 
 ferur.d. 
 
 F & But. 
 
108 Right to the Seat of 
 
 But in neither of thefe views could circum- 
 cifion properly be confidered, in regard of in- 
 fants, as a feal of the righteoufnefs of faith. It 
 was not a feal affixed by them to the Covenant,. 
 Jbr they were wholly incapable of declaring their 
 afTent and confent. Nor could it be truly 
 affirmed, that God^ by requiring circumcifion 
 to be adminiftered to the infant feed of Abraham, 
 did afTure them of intereft in the fpiritual 
 bleffings of the New Teftament. But though L 
 object to the idea of circumcifion's being a feaL 
 of the Covenant, at leaft in regard of infants,, 
 and underftand the pafTage juffc referred to as 
 only faying,, that it became to Abraham, and 
 by confequence to all others who believed, a feal 
 ©r atteftation to their justification ; yet I readily 
 admit, that it was a fign or token of the Cove- 
 nant between God and Abraham in all who 
 were circumcifed, and mail have an opportunity 
 by and by to mew with what propriety it is fo 
 reprefented, and what were the true reafons and 
 ends for which it was adminiftered to infants. 
 
 Having thus (hewn that intereft in a Covenant, 
 does not in all inftances give perfons a right to- 
 the feals of it, and that circumcifion, though it 
 became a feal of the righteoufnefs of faith to 
 Abraham, could not be a feal to his infant pofte— 
 rity, at leaft in the fame fenfe it was to him; it 
 remains that we now take fome notice of the 
 
 fourth 
 
the Covenant conTidered. 109 
 
 fourth proportion, in this chain of reafoning on. 
 which the right of infants to Baptifm depends,, 
 and that is, " That Baptifm is a feal of the 
 Covenant." 
 
 I do not recollect any paffage of Scripture 
 wherein it is thus reprefented : I have no ob- 
 jection, however, to the idea of its being a feal of 
 his justification who fubmits to it, as Abraham 
 did to cireumcifion T in faith. There appears to 
 me a propriety in faying, that the fign or. token 
 of Baptifm is to fuCh a perfon a feal of the rio-h— 
 teoufnefs of the faith which he had yet beino-. 
 unbaptized. And there can be no doubt that 
 we are to confider it as a fblemn teft, whereby 
 we voluntarily bind ourfelves to new obedience ; 
 for fuch is the reafoning of the Apoftle in the 
 fixth of the Romans, and in thofe other paffages 
 wherein he reminds Chriftians of their having 
 put on Chrift by Baptifm, and their being rifen 
 with him. But it is eafy to fee that Baptifm 
 cannot be a feal of the righteoufnefs of faith", 
 that is, of their juftification, to infants, they not 
 having faith : nor can it be in regard of them 
 a teft of new obedience, they not voluntarily 
 fubinitting to it. 
 
 But it will be faid, that as infants, notwith- 
 ftanding their being incapable of affixing any 
 feal to the Covenant, or of entering into any 
 
 perfonaL 
 
no Right to the, Seal, &c. 
 
 perfonal engagements for themfelves, were ad- 
 mitted to circumcifion i in like manner may the 
 infant children of Believers,, though they lie 
 under the fame incapacity with refpetf: to the 
 Chriftian Covenant, be admitted to Baptifm. 
 This argument, which,, you fee, proceeds en- 
 tirely on the ground of analogy, we mall confider 
 more particularly in the next Letter, and mew 
 that the two cafes widely differ, and that there 
 were obvious reafons for adminiftering circum- 
 cifion to the male offspring of Abraham, which 
 reafons do not hold good with, refpecl to the 
 baptizing the children of Believers. In the 
 mean time I would again obferve, what has 
 been often mentioned and ought never to be loft 
 fight of in this debate, that though the analogy 
 were ever fo juft, yet it would not authorize the 
 practice of baptizing infants, unlefs there were 
 an exprefs command for it : for furely nothing 
 can be more abfurd than to fuppofe, that a wife 
 Legiflator would fuffer a pofitive duty to ftand 
 fplely upon the ground of a mere confequence. 
 
 I am, Sir, 
 
 Yours, 
 
 t E T~ 
 
£ in ] 
 
 LETTER IX, 
 
 Dear Sir,, 
 
 IT is time we now proceed to confider parti- 
 cularly the argument by analogy from Cir- 
 cumcifion to Baptifm. The reafoning, if I mif- 
 take not, is this : — Circumcifion and Baptifm 
 are figns or tokens of the fame Covenant, and 
 inftituted to the fame end — Circumcifion, after 
 a courfe of time, was by divine command laid 
 afide, and Bap.ifm fubftituted in the room of it 
 —Wherefore, as Circumcifion was adminiftered 
 to the infant-feed of Abraham who was a Be- 
 liever, Baptifm ought alfo to be adminiftered to 
 the infant-feed of Chriftians. 
 
 Now in or^er to point out the great miftake 
 of this reafoning, plaufible as it may feem at firfl 
 view, I fhall lay down and eftablifh the follow- 
 ing pofitions : 
 
 First, That Circumcifion and Baptifm 
 differ very widely in their nature and intend- 
 ment; from whence will appear the great 
 propriety of infants being admitted to the former 
 inftitution, and of their being held back from 
 the latter.. 
 
 Secondly^ 
 
n z TFe Argument from 
 
 Secondly, That there is no fcriptu- 
 r-ai authority for affirming that Baptifm is fubfti- 
 tuted in the room of Circumcifion, but good 
 prefumptive evidence to the contrary.. And„ 
 
 Thirdly, That the reafoning by analogy 
 from the one inflitution to the other, if admitted,, 
 would prove too much, and fo deflroy ItfelE 
 
 First, Circumcifion and Baptifm differ very 
 widely in their nature and intendment. In order 
 to prove this, I beg leave to confider them fe— 
 parately, and then to compare them with each- 
 other. 
 
 I. As to Circumcifion, it was a token of the 
 Covenant betivcen God and Abraham *. — A pofitive 
 arbitrary f.gn inftituted by God to bring to re- 
 membrance that tranfa£tion, in the fame manner 
 as the bow in the heavens was appointed by God, ; 
 as a token of the tranfaction between Him and 
 Noah f. But what was the purport of that 
 tranfaction between God and Abraham ? I rea- 
 dily agree that the grand objecr, of it was the 
 coming of the Meffiah, and our redemption by 
 Him ; on which account the gofpel is faid to 
 have been preached unto Abraham. But this 
 furely was not the only object of it. Many 
 events were to intervene (and in fubfervience too 
 to this great defign) wherein the religious and 
 * Gea, xvii, u, f Gen. ix. 12—17. 
 
 civil: 
 
Circumci/lon confiderecl* 113 
 
 civil interefts of the posterity of Abraham were 
 intimately concerned. In his family was to be 
 preferved the profession of the true religion,, in 
 oppofition to the idolatrous worfhip which gene- 
 rally prevailed. His dependents, in reward of 
 his piety, were to become as numerous as the 
 ftars of heaven, and to enjoy great temporal 
 wealth and profperity. Thofe of them who 
 mould fpring from Ifaac and Jacob were to be 
 formed into a diftinct body, after fome hundreds 
 of years were to be put into poneffion of the land 
 of Canaan, and to have a peculiar kind of civil 
 and ecclefiaftical polity eftabliihed among them; 
 by which means a general expectation of the 
 coming of the Meffiah was to be kept alive in 
 the world, his genealogy was to be afcertained, 
 and t'ne v/ay opened for erecting a new kind of 
 kingdom totally different from the former, a. 
 kingdom built upon foundations and ftippoitid 
 by means purely rational and fpiritual. All 
 thefe matters were included, either directly or 
 indirectly, in this Covenant of God with Abra«* 
 ham. 
 
 Now it was fit that fome rite fhould be [nj&i- 
 tuted, as a iign or memorial of this extraordinary 
 tranfadtion : and as this tranfaclrion had for its 
 objecl: the civil and political interefts of all the 
 defcendents of Abraham,, as well as the fpiritual 
 welfare of thofe among them who fhould be truly 
 pious,, it was lit that his male offspring .mould, be 
 
1 1.4 %he Argument from 
 
 the fubjecls of fuch rite. And what rite couM 
 be better adapted to this end than Circumcifion f* 
 It had a natural and direct influence on all the 
 particulars jufr. mentioned. It was, very pofli- 
 bly, one means of their prodigious and fpeedy 
 increafe : or at leaft it was a pledge of the fulfil- 
 ment of the divine promife which allured them 
 of fuch increafe. It wa3 an obftruclion to their 
 contracting marriage with neighbouring nations, 
 and an hindrance to their joining in the lafci- 
 vious feftivities of the idolatrous Heathens. 
 And by thefe efFec*rs of it, as well as by the ve- 
 neration it cherifhed in their breafts for the me- 
 mory of their renowned Anceftor, it had a mighty 
 influence to unite them among themfelves, and 
 to prevent their mingling with any other people : 
 a matter this of the greater! importance to the 
 accomplifhment of the defigns of Providence 
 refpe&ing the Meffiah *, And as it perpe- 
 tually 
 * St. Jerome, in Epift. ad Galat. c. 3. fays, " Quia ex 
 " femine Abrahae erat Chriftus oriundus, & ab Abrahsmo 
 ** ufque ad Chriftum multa erant fecula tranfitura; provi- 
 •' dens Deus, ne foboles dilec~ti Abraham) caeteris natio- 
 " nibus mifceretur, & paulatim familia ejus fieret incerta, 
 *' gregem Ilraeliticum quodam circumcilionis cauterio an- 
 *« notavit." AndSt.Ch?yfoftome,fpeakingofCircnmcifiorr, 
 fays, " Q&c s-cpicti AtcrweT*, ts-ax «tT»f Ta>y jlhWoytmy ttri- 
 * l Sou to uriKst rnt yvu/utff, tctt.Ba.7rtp ^«x<vov t/v« it/t/Sh?, 
 f* &c Vide iapientiam Domini, quomodo cum fciret im- 
 *' perfeftas & pravas eorum (Judaeorum) nitrites fuluras, 
 u lignum Circumcifionis quafi fraenum quoddam impofulr 
 " ad -indomiios eorum impetus cohibendos, utnegentibua 
 
 ** com.- 
 
Circumcifion conjidered. 115 
 
 funlly reminded them of the exemplary piety 
 of Abraham, which drew down upon them the 
 bleffings of increafe, protection, and happinefs, 
 and of the fure promife of God whereby they 
 were encouraged to expect the continuance of all 
 this temporal good j fo it clearly taught them 
 their obligations to preferve inviolable their na- 
 tional profeifion of the true religion in oppofition 
 to idolatry, and to demean themfelves as good 
 citizens under the extraordinary kind of govern- 
 ment they lived, and by which they were diftin- 
 guifhed from all the other nations of the world. 
 
 And then, as to thofe among them who truly 
 feared God, it held up to their view, in a lively 
 manner, the promife of the Meffiah, and of all 
 thofe fpiritual bleffings which his peculiar peo- 
 ple, whether Jews or Gentiles, were to enjoy: 
 and fo it nourifhed their faith and hope in a courfe 
 of fincere and acceptable obedience. In fhort, 
 it was capable of being improved, and was im- 
 proved by their prophets, to the important pur- 
 pofe of teaching and enforcing the great utility 
 and abfolute neceffity of internal purity, or, as 
 they were ufed to exprefs it, of men's hearts be- 
 
 " comthifflereiitiir^ Homil. in Gen. xxxix. p. 567. It is 
 remarkable that Tacitus the Roman Hiftorian, fpeaking. of 
 the Jews, gives this reafon for the practice of Circurocihon, 
 " Circumcidere genitalia inftituere, ut diverfitate nolcan- 
 « tur," Lib. 5. Hift. fub init. 
 
1 1 6 The Ar% 
 
 circumcifed to love, fear, a 
 God. 
 
 Such was t 
 rite of Crrcumcifion : of which n: 
 given the larg .in order the 
 
 to point out, not only the ac 
 the inititution itfdtf to the end 
 the true grounds and reafons c : 
 niftered to all the male infant-poik: 
 ham. And I am well 
 fiders that the Covenant, of wh 
 had particular refpect to a numerous boo. 
 people who were to fubfilr, for a 1< 
 
 \ common fociety, feparate from al{ 
 the reft of mankind, under a national eitablifh- 
 ment partly civil and :al; will 
 
 5t once be itrucic with rr. 
 
 w i fdem of God in th i eers 
 
 of his peculiar m, and at 
 
 this fign or token of his authority over :• 
 and fpecial regard for them. And now Ife 
 take a view, 
 
 2. Of Baptifm, an' 
 ture and intendment of thi- New-Teftament in- 
 
 fH tut ion. It is a iign or m 
 burial, and refurrecrion c. 
 
 >wfhip with Him therein. T 
 from thole paflages which ip 
 
 . 
 
Circumcifion confidered. 117 
 
 baptized into bis death ; and our being buried zvith 
 Hun in Baptifn, and alfo raifed with Him *. 
 And the end of the inftitution is evidently this, 
 that perfons may by fubmitting to it publick- 
 ly and folcmnly profefs their faith in Chrifr, 
 and their having refolved, upon the conviction 
 of their "judgment and confcience, and with 
 the confent of their will, to become his fol- 
 lowers and to conform to his precepts. This 
 appears from an acknowledgment of their faith 
 in Chrift the Son of God being demanded of 
 perfons at their Baptifm, as in the inftance of 
 the Eunuch ; If thou believejl with all thy hearty 
 thou may]} be baptized f — from Baptifm's being 
 fpoken of as the an fiver of a good confeience towards 
 God % — from the baptized being faid to have put 
 en Chrijl || — and from the Apoftle's urging Chri- 
 ftians to obedience from a recollection of the 
 iblemn engagements they entered into at their 
 Baptifm : Therefore we are buried with Him by 
 Baptifm into death, thai like as Chrijl was raifed 
 up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even fo 
 ive alfo jboidd walk in newmefs of life. For if we 
 have been planted together in the likenefs of his death, 
 we jhall be alfo in the likenefs of his refurrcc" 
 tion §. Such was the nature and intent of •Bap- 
 tifm. 
 
 * Rom. vi. 3. Col. ii. 12. f A&s viii. 37. 
 
 % 1 Pet. iii. 21. || Gal. iiu 27. § Rom. vi, 
 
 No^v 
 
1 1 8 The Argument from 
 
 Now upon a review of the two institutions, 
 placed in a comparative light, it will be found 
 that there is little or no analogy between them, 
 at leaft no fuch analogy as will warrant the ufual 
 conclufion in favour of Infant-Bap tifm. I ad- 
 mit, indeed, that they have both a reference to 
 Chrifr, but after a very different manner : the 
 one remotely, /as a fign or token of that Cove- 
 nant wherein the coming of the Mefliah was 
 promifed; the other directly, as a memorial and 
 a plain figurative rcprefentation of the important 
 facts of his burial and refurreclion, upon which 
 the whole fuperftru&ure of Chriftianity Hands. 
 But what is moll to our purpofe to be obferved 
 here is, that thofe matters in the Covenant be- 
 tween God and Abraham, which feem to have 
 been the chief, if not the only, ground or reafon 
 of Circumcifion, and which that rite was pecu- 
 liarly adapted to exprefs, are matters to which 
 Baptifm : hath no reference at all ; fuch as the 
 afiurances given Abraham that his iced fliould be 
 very numerous, that many nations mould fpring 
 frombiro? $ty} ^ Q Y fliould be mighty, wealthy 
 and profperous, that a great body of his de- 
 pendents fliould inherit the land of Canaan, 
 and that of them the Meffiah fliould come. It 
 was to confirm the promife refpecting thefe events 
 that Circumcifion was inftituted * : but thefe 
 
 are 
 
 * This will appear, if we attentively confider the parti- 
 culars en which God is .r^eafed to -infill in ha difcourfe 
 
 with 
 
Circumcifion confidered. 1 1 9 
 
 are matters which Baptifm is not at all converfant 
 about. 
 
 And then as to the intent of the two inflitu- 
 tk>ns, the difference is too remarkable to efcape 
 obfervation. Circumcifion v/as adapted to pur- 
 poles civil and political, as well as moral and 
 religious : Baptifm to purpofes of the latter kind 
 only. By Circumcifion the numerous depend- 
 ents of one common Anceftor were to be fepa- 
 rated from the reft of mankind to the enjoyment 
 of great temporal profperity; and a conliderable 
 part of them to be formed into one body, and to 
 be continued, for a long courfe of years, in that 
 connection, in order to bring about the defigns 
 of Providence refpecling events the moft intereft- 
 ing to the world in general. By Baptifm, on 
 the other hand, truly pious perfons, without re- 
 fpedl: to country, birth, or any natural or civil 
 connections whatever, were to be feparated from 
 the unbelieving and irreligious world, under one 
 Head the Lord Jefus Chrift, not to the enjoy- 
 ment of temporal immunities, but privileges pure- 
 ly fpiritual and divine. In fhort, Circumcifion and 
 Baptifm were the means or inftruments of two 
 kingdoms totally different, in reeard of their 
 frame and constitution, of the fubjecls of which 
 they were to be compofed, and the ends of their 
 
 -%vith Abraham, on orcafion of his infti hating this rite, 
 <3xn. xvii. i— 14. 
 
 eftabliih- 
 
120 Tbe Argument from 
 
 cftablifiiment ; the one. worldly and temporary,, 
 the other fpiritual, and to continue to the end 
 of time. 
 
 And it is very remarkable that the fanclions, 
 -annexed to the two inftitutions, were clearly 
 charac~T.eriftick of the difference between the two 
 difpenfations. The great God, confulting up- 
 t>n the whole the temporal interefts of thofe over 
 whom He refolved to prefide as their immediate 
 Sovereign, enjoins Circumcifion upon pain of 
 lieath. Chrift, in the character of a fpi ritual 
 Prince, enjoins Baptiim on his fubjecls upon the 
 pain, not indeed of death, or the lofs of their 
 worldly fubftance, "but, of his difpleafure, and 
 the injury of the peace and comfort of their 
 minds : He that believeth and is baptized fiall be 
 faved *■. 
 
 Now from this comparative view of the two 
 inftitutions, I prefume, it appears plain (even 
 •upon the ground of analogy, and without refpect 
 *o pofitive appointment) that it was highly tit 
 and neceilary that Circumcifion mould be ad- 
 ministered to the infant-pofterity of Abraham in 
 •general ; and as fit and neceflary that Baptifrn 
 mould be limited to tho adult, to perfons capable 
 of profeffing their faith in Chriftj and their fub- 
 jection to his fpiritual dominion as their Lord and 
 King. And from hence, I hope, Mr. J. will be 
 * Markxvi. 16. 
 
 ■con- 
 
Circumcifion cmfidend. in 
 
 convinced of his miflake in reflecting upon thofc 
 as guilty of temerity, if not infolence, " who 
 cc cail it an abfurdity, or cenfure it as in any 
 " view weak or improper, to apply a token of 
 " the Covenant of grace to little children *. M 
 
 But the matter does not reft here: as the right 
 of infants to Circumcifion did not depend on the 
 fuppoied fitnefs, in the eye of human prudence, 
 of their being admitted to that inftitution, but 
 purely on the divine appointment ; fo the right 
 of infants to Baptifm does not depend upon the 
 fitnefs of their being admitted to that pofitive 
 inftitution, in the apprehenfion of fome wife and 
 good men, but purely upon the divine appoint- 
 ment. Let us proceed therefore to the 
 
 Second Queflion, Whether there is any fcrip- 
 tural authority for affirming that Baptifm is fub- 
 ftituted in the room of Circumcifion ? To this 
 I anfwer, there is not, Mr. A. however thinks 
 otherwife. But what is his proof? The whole 
 amount of it is this : " Circumcifion was a type 
 of Baptifm j therefore it was intended to take 
 place of it." But how does it appear that Cir- 
 cumcifion was a type of Baptifm ? Thus, " It 
 was fit the two pofitive inftitutions of Chrifti- 
 anity mould have their types. As to the Lord's 
 
 ; ?. 104. 
 
 G Sup- 
 
122 The Argument from 
 
 Supper, we are told that Chrijl cur Paffiver Is fa- 
 crifcedfor us }| 5 therefore the PaiTover was a. type 
 of that institution. And though we have no 
 expreUion lb much to the purpofe refpecring Cir- 
 cumeifion and Baptifm, yet as there is a finking 
 refemblance between the two inftitutions, as they 
 are both fpoken of in the near connection of two 
 verfes % and as there was no ancient rite by 
 which Baptifm was prefigured, if not by Cir- 
 cumcifion ; fo no doubt this was a type of that, 
 as well as the PaiTover of the Lord's Supper." 
 And now having, as he thinks, proved his me- 
 dium, " that Circumciiion is the type, and Bap- 
 '*' tifm the antitype," Mr. A'% confequences fol- 
 low apace — cc confequently Baptifm fucceeded to 
 * c Circumcifion — confequently Baptifm ought to 
 *' be adminiftered to infants — and confequently 
 4 * the right of children to Baptifm is eftablimed 
 ** on a divine appointment." Thus hath our 
 •Author toiled through the whole length of ana- 
 logy, implication, fuppolition, prtfiguration, and 
 confequence; and who (hall venture to difpute 
 •with him his conclufi-on r " Let a fingle text," 
 fays he, " be produced, clearly and exprefsly 
 ** regaling this act of God in favour of infants, 
 *' and we will give up their title f." 
 
 But not quite (o fad, Sir ! to talk of repeal- 
 ing a ftatute before it is enacted is a little ftrange. 
 
 ]j 1 Cor. y. 7. * Col. ii. si, 12. f P. 109, no. 
 
 And 
 
Circumcifwn cor.ficlered* 123 
 
 And fure I am, no law among; men ever (rood 
 upon fuch a precarious foundation, as Mr. An, 
 has placed this fuppofed divine law. If I were 
 to let about proving to a foreigner, by fi.:ch kind 
 of reafoning as this, that every freeholder in this 
 country is obliged to pav a tax to the King on 
 his eftate, he would no doubt conclude that 
 there really is no fuch law, or that I was moff 
 egregioufly trifling with him. But, in ad mi-liable 
 as this kind of reafoning is in all matters refpeit- 
 ing pofitive inilitutions, and excufed as I might 
 very well be, upon this ground, from payino; 
 any attention to it ; I am yet willing to be at 
 the pains, if you will not, Sir, think me te- 
 dious, to fhew you that the reafoning itfelf is 
 defective and inconclufive. 
 
 What neceflity is there for Atppofing, that 
 Chriftian ordinances mull have been prefigured 
 by Jewifh types ? Not to fay how very un- 
 gracefully this aflertion proceeds from the fame 
 pen that complains, and very juftly too, of 
 the fancifulnefs and abfurdity of " finding ty- 
 " pical myfleries in all the feveral materials, 
 " forms, and utenfils, of the ancient tabernacle; 
 "and moil: momentous gofpel doctrines, not 
 " only in the Jewifh High-Pneft himfelf, but in 
 " every hue and form and fold of his garments ||." 
 Nor can I conceive how it fhould be a greater 
 weaknefs " to trace refemblances between Oid- 
 
 .jl P. 106. 
 
 G 2 " Telia- 
 
124 &be Argument from 
 
 u ' Teftament rites and New-Teftament doc- 
 " trines," than between Old and New Tefta- 
 ment rites themielves, " where none were intend- 
 ** ed*." It is true we are told that Chrljl our 
 Paffover was facrificed for us : but, though we 
 Irarn from other fcriptures befides this that the 
 Pafchal- lamb was a type of 'ChrUt, is it certain- 
 ly to be concluded, from the occafional ufe of 
 this alluftve language when the Apoftle was 
 {peaking of .the Lord's Supper, that the Paflbver 
 was defigned itfelf to be a figure of that inftitu- 
 tion ? Or if it is, does it thence follow that 
 Circumcifion was a figure of Baptifm ? Or if 
 this were the cafe, is there any more reafon to 
 infer from thence the right of children to Bap- 
 tifm, than from the PafTover their right to the 
 Lord's S upper j 
 
 *' But there is, in fome refpe&s, a finking 
 4< refemblan.ee between the two institutions fl" 
 But may not men who " indulge their fancies" 
 find " a refemblance where none was intended ?" 
 JHaye nat JRomanifts, upon this pretence, ob- 
 truded on the world Innumerable fooleries under 
 the notion of divine rites ? And if Mr. A. will 
 have it that there is, in some respects, a ftriking 
 refemblance between Circumcifion and Baptifm, 
 and from thence conclude that the latter wa9 
 fubflituted in the room of the former ; may not 
 I with equal truth afnrm, that there is, in other 
 * P. 106. f P. jo 7 . 
 
 respects 
 
Circumafion confidertd. \%% 
 
 respects, a ftriking diflimilarity between them> 
 and that therefore Baptifm was not fubflitutcd 
 in the room of Circumcilion ? 
 
 " But the Apoftle tells the Coloflians, that 
 iC in Chr'ifi they were circumcifed -with the circutn- 
 " cifeon made without hands , in putting off the body 
 " of the fins ofthefiejh, by the circumcijicn ofChrijl- 
 " and adds in the next verfe, Buried with Him 
 M in baptifm ; wherein alfo you are rif>n with Him 
 tc through the faith of the operation of God^ who 
 u hath raifed Him from the dead f." But does the 
 Apoftle here call Baptifm, as Mr. A. would per- 
 fuade us, " the Chriftian Circumcifion :" or does 
 he tell us that it was " fubftituted in the room of 
 the Jewifh Circumcifion || t" By no means. The 
 Circumcifion of which he fpeaks is exprefsly faid 
 to be made without hands : and howftrange to 
 make him fay that Baptifm, which is made with 
 hands, was fubftituted in the room of that which 
 was made without hands * ! The truth is r 
 
 tiiere 
 
 f Col. ii. n, rz. If P. 108. 
 
 * Mr. A. underilanding this phrafe of the circumcifion 
 made without hands to refer to Baptifm, is at pains, in a 
 note, to juftify the idea of Baptifm's being made without 
 hands. To this end. he tells us of " a learned writer,'* 
 who fays that " Baptifm is here called the circumcijicn made 
 " without hands, as appointed to remain to the end of tKe 
 " world." He has not told us who this learned writer is r 
 the cnticifm therefore muft ftand or fall by its own weight,. 
 Q 3 It 
 
"12 6 *Tbe Argument from 
 
 there is not one word faid of Baptifm's being fubS 
 frituted in the room of Circumcifion. All that 
 the Apoftle means to fay is, " That in Chrifv, 
 or by the influence of his doctrine upon their 
 hearts, the;- were after a fpiritual manner cir- 
 cumcited to love and fear God ; and that they 
 were buried with Chrift in Baptifm, bv which 
 infritution was exprciTed, in a- very livciv man- 
 ner, their refurreciion, through a divine faith, 
 to newnefs of life," Ke gives us no intimation 
 at :.'!, that he even means to draw a parallel be- 
 n Circumcifion and Baptifm; much iefs 
 that he means to fay this was prefigured by that v 
 and defigned to take place of it. To aftert the 
 contrary is not only to give that indulgence to 
 fancy which Mr. A. had jufc. before condemned, 
 but to ofTr violence to the plainer! rules of in- 
 terpretation. — Thus have we confidered all our 
 Author has to fay in fupport of this favourite 
 point, 
 
 And now, though I am not obliged to prove 
 a negative, vet I will mention a circumftancc 
 
 It feems to me, however, pretty extraordinary, that what 
 is mr.terisl fhould be called immaterial to exprefs its long 
 duration, which yet might have been as eahly exprelTed by 
 a word directly to the purpofe. To fuch fljifts are men 
 tfcriyen to soajnUip a favourite hypothecs '. 
 
 which 
 
Circumcifion confidered. 127 
 
 which methinks cannot fail to put it beyond 
 difpute with a fober inquirer, that Baptifm was 
 not fubftituted in the room of Circumcifion : 
 and that is the Apoftle's not having urged this 
 ccnfideration with Judaizing Chriftians, to dif- 
 fuade them from their violent attachment to this 
 Old-Teflament rite — their not having urged it, 
 upon occafions v/hich would have naturally, if 
 not neccflarily, led them to it. Is it imaginable, 
 for initancc, that it would have efcaped them, 
 when they were iblemnly convened at Jerufalem 
 to decide upon the great queftion refpedting the 
 ufe or difufe of Circumcifion ? Could they have 
 forborne to reafon thus ? — " Circumcifion was 
 anciently instituted as a feal of the Covenant ; 
 Baptifm is now fubftituted in the room of it : 
 it is fit therefore that Circumcifion ihould be laid 
 afide. Nor have you any reafon to complain 
 of the change, fince this New-Teftament rite, 
 f4 which that was a type or fhadow, is a lefs irk- 
 fome and painful one than that, and is as au- 
 thentic 1 * a fcal of the Covenant as ever that 
 could poflibly be." Such reasoning would, no- 
 doubt, have infiaiitly removed all their objections. 
 And there was the greater occafion for the Apo- 
 flies to infift upon this point, if there were either 
 truth or reafon in it, as the practice of thefe 
 Jewiih converts, in adhering to Circumcifion 
 and Baptifm too, plainly (hewed that they were- 
 G 4 utter 
 
128 * ^ht Argument from 
 
 utter ftangers to it. But not a word of this fort 
 is faid either on this or any other occafion. How 
 natural then the conclufion, from the filence of 
 the Apoftles refpe&ing this matter, that Baptifm 
 bears no fuch relation to Circumcifion as our 
 friends the Pcedobaptifts pretend !— And now it 
 remains that I make good my 
 
 Third And laft pofkion, That the reafonin* 
 by analogy from the one inftitution to the other 
 would, if admitted,, prove too much^ and fo de*- 
 ftroy itfelf. Mr. A. maintains that, Baptifm 
 being fubitituted in the room of Circumcifion', 
 as infants were commanded to be circumcifed*, 
 fo infants ought to be baptized. And, upon 
 the fame ground of analogy, ought he not to 
 infill that, as only the male children of Abra^ 
 ham were, circumcifed, fo only the male child- 
 ren of Believers fhoukL be b_aptized ? — that as 
 .the former were circumcifed on the eighth day,, 
 fo the latter mould be baptized on that day? 
 and I may add, that the fanction annexed te> 
 Circumcifion * ought to remain in force with 
 refpeel to Baptifm, and every man-child who is 
 not baptized be cut off f rem his people ? But as 
 we know Mr, A, would not allow this fcope to 
 th* argument by analogy, by what authority, 
 1 afk, of reafon or Scripture, does he allow it 
 
 * Gen. xvii. 14. 
 
 any 
 
Circumcifion- considered. 129- 
 
 any fcope at all ? His good-nature would not 
 fuffer him to eftablifh Infant-Baptifm by penal 
 laws : nor mould his good-fenfe fuffer him to 
 bind it upon men's conferences by the flendcr. 
 ties of inference and analogy. 
 
 lam, Sir, 
 
 Yours,. 
 
 LEI 
 
I •?» I 
 
 LETTER X. 
 
 Dear Sir* 
 
 1 Congratulate you and myfelf upon having at. 
 length arrived at the ground* upon which 
 alone the right of infants toBaptifm ought to be 
 >tned and determined, I mean the exprefs autho- 
 rity of Scripture. For whoever confiders the- 
 .uature of pofkive inftitutions, will quickly be 
 convinced that to expect fatisfaction upon this 
 point from analogical reafoning, which as you. 
 have feen hath no other fupport than mere con- 
 jecture, is vain and foolifh. We are agreed 
 that Baptifm is an inflitution of Chrifh Now 
 is it imaginable that our Saviour would exprefe 
 himfelf ambiguoufly upon fo important aqueftion, 
 as that refpecting tlie perfons to be admitted to 
 this inflitution ; or that he would leave us to 
 fpell out his will by framing a compaf ifon be- 
 tween Baptifm and Circumcifion* and that too 
 without giving us the leaft intimation that thefe 
 two rites bear any relation to each other? He 
 that can fuppofe this does no honour furely to 
 the infinite wifdom. and: goodnefs of our divine 
 1 Maiter* 
 
Our Lord's Commijficn, "&c. 131 
 
 Mafter. But the matter is quite otherwife. Hi 
 has declared -his will in the plainer!: manner; 
 nor is there an inftanee to be met with in the 
 New Teftament of any one infant's having been 
 baptized. Let us then appeal, in the flrft place,, 
 to the words of the inftitution, which no doubt 
 are exprerled, as all laws ought to be, in fo clear 
 a manner as that he who runs may read. 
 
 Matt, xxv iii. 19, 20. Go ye therefore and teach 
 ell nation s, baptizing them in the na?)ie of the Fa- 
 ther, and of the &», and of the Holy Ghojl r 
 teaching them to vhferve all ili>:gs whatfoever I have 
 icmwanded y.o:i : audio, J am with you ahvay, eve* 
 unto the end of the ivcrld. — /uu*&f]&V?tf)s 'wa.i^Ja, to, 
 
 Now it is agreed on. all hands, that this ccm-- 
 mifiion of our Saviour's to his Apoftles,. in the 
 firft leading idea of it, has refpeel: to the adult, 
 and that it clearly expreiTes his will that thev 
 mould not be baptized till they are firft taught. 
 The Pcedobaptiiis therefore, admit grown per- 
 fons as well as children to Baptifm, at the fam2 
 time holding themfelves obliged by the words of 
 the inftitution to rejecl {rich as have not been 
 jnitructed in the Chriftian faith *. And front 
 
 hence, 
 
 * To thrs effect we are told in the Catechifm of the 
 
 Chusch of England, that of perfons to be baptized, mean- 
 
 G 6 isg 
 
t$f Our Tcrd's Commijion 
 
 "hence, by the way, it appears that our opponents 
 are not againft limiting the general phrafe of all 
 nations ta a particular and qualified meaning*. 
 So far then we are agreed. 
 
 The queftion which remains to be debated is 
 this, Whether the words of the inftitution are 
 capable of fuch a construction as will authorize 
 the Baptifm of infants ? Now I deny that they 
 are ; and further maintain,, that our Saviour 
 has fo expreffed himfelf as, by the plaineft rules 
 of interpretation, clearly and fully to preclude 
 infants from a right to Baptifm. Here then let 
 us inquire, Firft, What our Lord requires his 
 Apoftles and Minifters to do? — to teach, and 
 to baptize. Secondly, In. what order he requires 
 them to fulfill thefe his injunctions ? — They are 
 TIRST to teach, then to baptize. And, Thirdly, 
 Whom they are thus- to teach and baptize?— 
 All nations. 
 
 FIRST, What is the duty he requires of his 
 Minifters ? It is to teach and to baptize. 
 Now here it is to be obferved that the two actions 
 refpecl the fame fubjecl. The all nations, who are 
 to be taught, are to be baptized ; and the all nations 
 who ^re to be baptized, are to be fuch as have 
 
 »g the adult, are required " repentance, whereby they 
 •' forfake fin ; and faith, whereby they ftedfaftly belisv« 
 " the promifes of God, fcc." 
 
 j bees> 
 
to the ApoftUs, GV. confidered. 133 
 
 been taught. To preclude all doubt about this,, 
 they are mentioned immediately after the verb 
 teach, and marked again diftinctly after the 
 participle baptizing by the relative twrm : it is 
 not only faid, "Teach and baptize all nations ; n 
 but " Teach all nations, baptizing them. 1 * 
 And both thefe particulars are equally binding 
 upon Minifters, fo that if either of them is 
 omitted the command is violated. Now teach- 
 ing evidently implies in the perfons taught 3 
 capacity of receiving inftruclion. But infants- 
 are not capable of being taught. Therefore it 
 Was- not* it could not be, our Saviour's meaning 
 to require his Minifters to teach and baptize 
 them. The argument is fo plain it muft fir ike 
 svery one.. 
 
 To evade, however, the force of this plain 
 argument, we are told our Tranflators have not- 
 given us the proper rendering of the word 
 fMLQ»Ttv<ra.T$. " It does not fo properly fignify 
 " to teacfr,'* fays Mr. J. "as to profelyte or 
 " make difciples *," that is, " 'Tis capable of 
 a fenfe which may without impropriety be ap- 
 plied to infants, and that fenfe is profelyting or 
 difcipling." But is it proper to fay of perfons! 
 that they may be profelyted or difcipled without 
 any previous inftruction, conviction or perfua- 
 fion r" for- if infants are difcipled, it muft be. 
 without either. He, it is true, who becomes 
 * P. 112. 
 
 adif- 
 
1^4 Our Lord*s Commiffion 
 
 a difciple to another is not fuppofed at his en- 
 trance to be mailer of what he aims to be taught : 
 but his becoming a difciple or a fcholar furely 
 implies his being capable of being taught, nay 
 more than this, his having fome idea of what 
 he is going about, and his giving fome conlent 
 to the buiinefs. But I do not mean to reft the 
 matter barely upon the impropriety of applying 
 the term difciple to infants. We infift that the 
 word truly and properly fignifies to teach ; or 
 if our opponents will have it that it fignifies alfo to 
 difciple^ that it means such discipling only as- 
 is by teaching : which lair, fenfe of it evidently 
 flrengthens the former, and renders the applica^ 
 tion of it to infants ftill more improper ; for fo 
 it exprefTes not only teaching, but the effect of 
 teaching, teaching fuccefs fully fo as to prevail. 
 That this is always the fignification of the word 
 fjaQimw, and particularly in the place under 
 confederation, Dr. Gale, in his reflections on 
 Mr. Wall's Hiftory of Infant- Baptifm, has 
 fhewn at large, from the etymology and fenfe of 
 the Greek word, from the authority of the 
 feveral verfions, from the opinions of the Fathers, 
 and from the Scriptures themfelves and the 
 practice of the Apoftles* To that book there- 
 fore I refer you, Sir. 
 
 But before I proceed to confidcr what Mr. A. 
 kas to fay in fupport of his opinion, " that the 
 
 44 word 
 
to the Apoftles, &c. confidered. 135 
 
 * c word does not fo properly flgnify to teach* 
 M as to profelyte or make difciples f I beg 
 leave to cite a few teftimonies to the contrary* 
 among a vaft many others that might be men- 
 tioned* Tertullian fpeaks of it as the bufinefs 
 of the Apoftles frfl to preachy and afterwards to 
 dip or baptize *. And St. Jerome, defcribing the 
 duty of Minifters, fays, Fir/? they teach all na- 
 tions, and then dip them that are taught in water f . 
 Erafmus in his annotation on Mat. xxvii. 57. 
 refers to the pafTage before us, as an inflance in, 
 which the word is ufed tranfitivcly, and fignifies 
 To TEACH; and accordingly renders it dccete, teach 
 all nations. And in his paraphrafe on the pafTage 
 itfelf gives it that fenfe. Turretine fays, that 
 infants " are no mere capable of faith , than they 
 " are of that in/lruclion, with which the adult 
 " are taught and made difciples of Chrift" 
 Mat. xviii. 19 J- Conftantine, though he thinks 
 the word does fometimes fignify to b J e; or to make 
 difciples , yet fays its primary and more genuine 
 fenfe is, doceo, jf /JWkw, to teach ; and for this 
 refers to the pafTage before us as an unqueftion- 
 
 *— Piius eft pnedicare, pofterius tinguere. TertuL 
 de Bapt. cap. 14. 
 
 ■f Primum docent omnes Gentes, deinde dottas in- 
 tingunt aqua. In Matt, xxviii. 19. 
 
 X — Cujus non magis capaces funt, quam illius inftitu- 
 tionis, qua decentur adulti, et difci^uli Chrifti £unt r 
 Mat. xxviii. 19. Inftiuit. Theolog, Par. II. p. 64.0. § 9. 
 
 able 
 
x$6 Our Lord's' CommiJJion' 
 
 able inftance*. In like manner Stephens tell* 
 us it iignifies docco, to. teach,, confirming it. by. the 
 fame inftance f , 
 
 Biihop Burnet, in his Expofition of the 
 Articles, fays, " By the firji Teaching or 
 " making difciples, that mujl go before Baptifm, 
 ** is to be meant the convincing the world, that 
 ** Jefus is the Chrifl, the true Mejfias, anointed' 
 <c of God with fulnefs of grace, a? id of the Spirit 
 '* without men Jure , and fent to be the Saviour and 
 " Redeemer of the world. And when any were 
 ** brought to acknowledge this, then they were to bap- 
 <c tixe them,&Q. J" Dr. Whitby, in his notes on 
 this pafiage^fays, u tAct&nliveiv here is to preach the 
 *' itfpd tQ a M nations,., and to engage them to believe 
 *' it in order to their profejjion of that faith by 
 ** Baptifm ; as feems apparent, I ) from the pa- 
 " raJlel commijpon, Mark xvi. 15. Go preach the 
 ** gofpel to every creature ; he that believeth, and it 
 «« baptized, jhall be faved : And 2) from the 
 5< fcripture notion of a difciple, that bei??g Jlill the 
 ii fame as a Believer :" which he at large proves. 
 And then adds, " If here it Jhoidd be /aid that I 
 *< yielded too much to the Antipcedobaptijls, by faying , 
 *< that to be made difciple s, is to be taught to believe 
 ** in Chrifl, that fo they might be his difciples ; 
 " / defire any one~to tell me how the Apoflles could 
 ** fAd.Qi(lzv&v make a difciple of an Heathen or un- 
 *' believing Jew, without being jaslQh1<m or 'Teachers 
 
 . * Lisic. ad Voc. f Xhefaur, adVoc. J P. 300. 
 
 •«■•/■ 
 
to the Apoflks, &c. confidered. i^T 
 
 ;f of them, £sV. ?" And afterwards obferves,. 
 ■*■ thai it needs not be ajferied that infants are made 
 *' difciplesy any ?nore than that they are made believers- 
 " by Baptifm, &c. * 
 
 But what ought to have the principal weight 
 with us in determining the true fcnle of the 
 word, is the opinion of the ApouTes,, which is 
 clearly to be gathered from their practice, and 
 what is affirmed concerning them in. the Acts-. 
 If then it is a fact, that wherever they came, they 
 
 firft TAUGHT Or MADE DISCIPLES BY TEACHING 
 
 before they baptized, it is paft a doubt that this was 
 the fenfe they affixed to the word 'fjLdSuTWf'iurt : 
 and the fact every one knows who has read his 
 New Teftament. Nay it is particularly related 
 of Paul and Barnabas, when they had departed 
 to Derbe,. that they had preached the gofpel to thai 
 city^ and (udLfatfsuijavjit mdvvt) hadiaughi many\\ 
 herein conforming themfelves to the commimon 
 in Matthew, and to the fenfe given us of it in 
 the parallel paflage by Mark, Go ye into all the 
 world, and preach the gofpel to every creature £. 
 To which Luke alfo refers, when he fays, that 
 repentance and remiffion, of fins faould. be preached in 
 kis name among all nations ||. 
 
 Now all" this evidence one would think fhould 
 be fufficient to convince a reafonable man, that 
 
 * Whitby in Mat. xxviii. 19. f A&s xiv. ir. 
 
 £ Ch, xvi. 15. J! Ch. xxiv. 4.7-. * 
 
 the 
 
138 Our Herd's Commijfion 
 
 the word in debate properly fignifies to TEACH, or 
 
 TO DISCIPLE BY TEACHING. But .Mr. A. will 
 
 have it that it may fignify to profelyte or difciple, 
 without a reference to any previous inftrii&ion. 
 But what proof has he given us that the word is 
 -any where fo ufed ? Why, he tells us, " that 
 •" Mofes's difciples was a term familiar to the 
 *' Apoftles, and that the defcendents of Abra- 
 *' ham were entered among his difciples by cir- 
 " cumcifion *,*' But are the infant children of 
 the Jews any where filled the difciples of Mofes? 
 er are they any where faid to be difcipled or made 
 difciples by circumcifion ? This our Author does 
 not venture to affirm in fo many words ; but 
 tells us, M that there feems no more impropriety 
 <c in calling them difciples of Chrifr, than 
 M fervants of God, as in Lev. xxv. 41, 42." 
 But that paflage is flrained when it is made to 
 fpeafc this fenfe : it fays that a Hebrew fer- 
 Yant and his children with him, fhall at the 
 year of Jubilee return unto his own family and 
 the poffeffion of his fathers ; afligning this reafon 
 for it, that they, all fuch fervants and their 
 children, are God's fervants which he brought 
 forth out cf the land of Egypt, — " But infants 
 feem at leafl included, if not principally referred 
 to, in the term (difciples) Ac~ts xv. 10." Here 
 alfo Mr. A. fails. For the difciples, upon whofe 
 neck the Judaizing teachers are cenfured for 
 attempting to put a yoke, were Gentile converts, 
 
 * P. in. 
 
 and 
 
to the Apoftles, GV. confidered. 1 39 
 
 and are exprefly faid in the preceding verfe to 
 have had their hearts purified by faith K Here is no 
 reference to their children, if thev had anv. 
 How unjuftinable then, from a mere fuppofitioiv 
 that thev are included, to infer that they are 
 called disciples, and that therefore this term 
 may be properly applied to infants ! — Such is 
 the proof, and the whole of it, which our 
 Author brings in fupport of his proposition, 
 that fj.3.§i)}ivu> fignines to diiciple or to make 
 difciples without regard to any previous u in- 
 $rue~tion. 
 
 I prefume then it has been dearly made ap- 
 pear, that the two commands of teaching and 
 baptizing refpecl: the fame fubjecls, that the 
 word fjL&Qii] hut a}* properly and only fignines to 
 teach, or to difciple by teaching, and that there- 
 fore, as infants are incapable of being taught or 
 being difcipled by teaching, they are not the 
 -fubjects of either command, and fo are not to 
 be baptized. This reafbning is further con- 
 firmed, 
 
 SECONDLY, By the order in which the 
 words are placed. Go teach ail 'nations •, baptizing 
 than. I do not indeed lay any great flrcfs upon 
 this. Yet, when two actions are commanded, the 
 former of which mull in the nature of the thing 
 precede the latter (as has been fliewn to be the 
 
 cafe 
 
14© Our Lord's CommiJJicfr 
 
 cafe here) any one would be apt to fuppofe, that 
 m placing them thus there is a regard had to 
 the order of nature.. Mr. A. however treats this 
 as a very trifling obfervatien, telling us, " that 
 *-' if we are always to lay fo- much on the order 
 4t in which things are mentioned, we muft be- 
 ** lieve, on the other hand, that John baptized 
 *' before he preached, as his preaching is men- 
 <c tioned after his baptizing *." Be it fo then, 
 that a ftrefs is not always to be laid upon the 
 order in. which things are mentioned :. yet if, in 
 the inftance cited, the impropriety of fuppofing 
 John baptized before he preached flares our Au- 
 thor fo full, in. the face,, that he is willing to 
 acknowledge the order is inverted ; why fhould 
 he hefitate at acknowledging that the words 
 fland in their proper order, when our Saviour 
 commands his Apoftles to teach and baptize f 
 And I mean no more by this obfervatron than, 
 to- fay, that the order of the words exactly ac^- 
 cords with the purport of my reafoning under 
 the former head : that is, fuppofing it to have 
 been our Lord's v/ill that we fhould teach per- 
 fons before we baptize them, his meaning would 
 be more naturally and clearly ex prefied by his 
 faying, Go teach all nations baptizing them, than 
 by the other mode,. Go baptize all nations teaching 
 them.. 
 
 * P..UJ,, 112. Mark i. 4. 
 
 But 
 
to th-e rfpoJlleSi ilc. confidcred. 141 
 
 But we are told, " that the duty recommended 
 ** in the word uAQ>(]<iv<rct}c, whatever it be, is no- 
 " thing diftinct from Baptifm,miich lefs previous 
 " to it;. that the Apoflles are not required todifci- 
 " pie and baptize, but by or in baptizing; and 
 ■" that there is not the leafl hint of any previ- 
 M ous qualifications for the ordinance *." But 
 will Mr. J.'s friends thank him for thefe bold af- 
 fcrtions ? I am perfuaded -his feruGble and learned 
 friends will not. The ableft advocates forPcedo- 
 baptifm have admitted that in thefe two words our 
 Lord has plainly enjoined two difti-n& duties, that 
 of inftrucling the Heathen world, and then bap- 
 tizing them. Bifhop Burnet and Doctor Whitby 
 in the pafiages jufl quoted, and many befides, 
 have cxpreiTed themfelves as clearly upon the 
 matter as can be wiflied. And indeed the Evan- 
 gelift Mark, in the parallel place, has fo ex- 
 plained this text in Matthew, as to put the 
 queftion reflecting our Lord's meaning (if in- 
 deed it could be a queftion) beyond a doubt. 
 Go ye into all the ivorld, and f reach the go/pel to 
 every creature. He that believeth and is baptized 
 fiall be faved ; and he that believeth not Jhall be 
 damned \. How then, I appeal to common fenfc, 
 can our Author venture to affeit, that here is 
 but one duty enjoined, and not the leaft hint of 
 any previous qualification for Baptifm ? This, 
 however, afferted, we cannot wonder to hear him 
 further afferting, in the next page, " that we 
 * Ibid. * Mark x-vi. 15, 16. 
 
 M "have 
 
142 Our Lcrd^s Commijfion 
 
 <c have no authority from hence to baptize Be- 
 " Iievers, for they are not mentioned ;" and 
 that M there is not, as he remembers, one ex- 
 *' prefs command, either of Chrift or his Apo- 
 *' files, to baptize Believers, in all the New 
 •< Teftament ||." If Mr, A. will call: his eye back 
 upon the paffage jufl quoted from Mark, he will 
 fee fomething, however, that looks like a com- 
 mand to baptize Believers ; and if Philip told 
 the Eunuch that, provided he believed with all 
 his heart, he might be baptized, moil people 
 will fuppofe he did in other words tell him, 
 that Chrift had commanded him to baptize fuch. 
 But Mr. /'s afTertion is much like his who 
 complained that he could not find, from the be- 
 ginning of his Bible to the end of it, one paffage 
 wherein it is plainly and exprefsly affirmed, that 
 there is fuch a thing as religion. 
 
 - But to return: had Mr. J. candidly acknow- 
 ledged, that (jt.a.Q-ATivcrdL'Ti, in its refpecT: to adult 
 Heathens and Jews, is indeed expremve of a-tluty 
 diftincl: from Baptifm ; but further infilled that 
 in its reference to infants, they being incapable 
 of inftruclion, the whole meaning of it is to be 
 abforbed ifi ^d^i^o/li^^ his readers would per- 
 haps have been better difpofed to give him credit* 
 But, perceiving the dilemma to which this would 
 reduce him, he boldly afferts that the word hath 
 nothing at all to do with teaching or inftruclion; 
 
 J| P. 113, 114. 
 
 and 
 
to the ApoftleS) &c. confidered. 143 
 
 and fo fufFcrs himfeif to be deferted by his mod 
 learned and able fupporters. 
 
 But let us, for a moment, confider our Author's 
 pretence for refoiving the two duties into one. 
 It is purely this, the different infle6tion of the two 
 words teach and baptize, the one being in 
 the imperative mood, and the other a participle. 
 It is not faid, Go teach, and baptize; but, Go 
 teach baptizing : from whence Mr. A. concludes 
 our Saviour meant to fay, Go teach or difciple 
 by or in baptizing. But this furely is a very 
 weak pretence to ground fo important a pro- 
 portion upon, as Xi that the duty recommended 
 " in the word paQmivo-aii is nothing diflinct 
 " from'Baptifm." Mr. A. muft know that it 
 is a kind of conftruction very common in the 
 Greek language, and that it often occurs in the 
 New Teftament, v/here two actions or duties 
 of a very different nature are required : as where 
 the Apoftle fays, See that ye walk circnmfpeftly, 
 redeeming the tune — Be filled with the Spirit, /peak- 
 ing to yourfelvcs in pfalms and hymns — Take ihejword 
 of the Spirit, praying always *. Now apply our 
 Author's criticifm to thefe and many other in- 
 ftances of the like kind, and what will be the 
 effect ? Why, that walking circumfpe£tly, is 
 nothing diftinft from redeeming the time ; that 
 being filled with the Spirit, is nothing diflinft 
 * Eph. v. 15, j 6, 18, 19. and ch. vi. 17, xS. 
 
 from 
 
144- Our Lord's CommiJJlon 
 
 from fpeaking to ourfelves in pfalms and hvmns/> 
 and that taking the fword of the Spirit, is nothing 
 diftincl: from prayer. 
 
 But it Is further objected, " If any regard is 
 " to be paid to the order in which the words 
 " are placed, teaching is to follow Baptifm — for 
 <c after enjoining that, our Lord adds, teaching 
 <c them *." But is there no difference between 
 ; perfons being taught the elements of a fcience, 
 and their being inftru&ed more fully in the 
 ■fcience itfeif? Or can any one doubt the pro- 
 priety of our being -fir ft grounded in the principles 
 4)f the doftrine of Gbrifl % to ufe the language of 
 the writer to the Hebrews, and then, having been 
 baptized, going on unto perfection f f This is evi- 
 dently our Lord's meaning. And though Mr. A^ 
 and I are fo unhappy as to differ here too, yet 
 ■I have the comfort to find many of his learned 
 Pcedobaptift friends agreeing with me. I will 
 give you the comments, that I may not be tedi- 
 ous, of only two of them upon the paflage under 
 confideration : I mean the celebrated Grotius, 
 and the ingenious and pious Dr. Doddridge. 
 The former fays, " As there is a twofold kind 
 " of teachings the one by zuay of initiation into 
 " the firfl principle s^ the other by way of more perfect 
 " injhuftion" (for that he plainly means by 
 <<//</W>cstA#<2f, as oppofed to ro/p^ei^si/fc^) • M t] ie 
 ** former feems to be intended by the word (/.aBmiv&ir, 
 * P. xi 3- t Hcb. vi. i. 
 
 « for 
 
to the Jpoftks, &?V. confidcred. 145 
 
 c< for that is as it were to initiate into difcipline, 
 *' and is to go before Baptifm : the latter feems in- 
 " tended by the word //JWx«p, which is here placed 
 " after Baptifm *." Dr. Doddridge fays, " / 
 u render the word paQiiTevo'&l*, profelyte, that it 
 " may be duly dijlinguijhed from <Ptf*rx.ovltf, teach- 
 w fog, (in the next verfe) with which our verfion 
 " confounds it. The former feems to import in- 
 M Jlruclion in the effentials of religion, which it 
 u was ncceffary adult perfons Jhould know and fub- 
 a mit to, before they could regularly be admitted t§ 
 " Baptifrn \ the latter may relate to thofe more par- 
 " ticular admonitions, in regard to Chrijllan faith 
 cc and practice, which were to be built upon that 
 " foundation" Thus clearly do thefe two learn- 
 ed Pcedobaptifts exprefs themfelvcs reflecting the 
 diitin&ion, fo natural and obvious, between the 
 teaching our Lord requires before, and that He 
 enjoins after Baptifm : and thus have they put 
 out of countenance this little futile objection of 
 our Author, which can have no other effec~r, at 
 moft, titan to entangle weak minds. 
 
 And now, having considered at large the true 
 import of the word //aBimixraT?, and taken no- 
 
 * Cum duplex fit docendi ratio, alia per modum Ezra. 
 ymyits *m 2tc /;£««//«**, alia per modum A«T«*x4att»r, 
 prior fupra videtur indicari verbo pa.Q*ltvHv f id enim eft 
 veluti in difciplinam initiare, & Baptifmo prseponitur : 
 pofterior verbo JifxTK»v } quod hie port Baptifmum loca- 
 tur. Grot, in loc. 
 
 H ticc 
 
146 Our Lord's CommiJJion 
 
 tice of the order in which our Lord requires his 
 Apoftles to fulfil the two duties of teaching 
 and baptizing, it remains that we inquire, 
 
 THIRDLY, Whom they are thus to teach 
 and baptize ? — all nations. Now if the word 
 fjLtQnTzva truly and properly Signifies to teach, or 
 to difciple by teaching, as I hope has been fatis- 
 factorily fhewn, it follows that, whoever are in- 
 tended by the phrafe all nations, infants are 
 not, becaufe they are incapable of being taught, 
 or being difcipled by teaching. The queftion here 
 therefore is, Whether the phrafe is necejfarily to be 
 underftood of infants, as well as the adult ? If it is, 
 then, either I have given a wrong account of the 
 word //a0)i75u6), or our Saviour has required an 
 impofiibility. But if, on the contrary, the phrafe 
 all nations is not neceflarily to be underftood of 
 infants, then there is no reafon in the defcription 
 thus given us of the perfons to be baptized, 
 to oblige us to recede from that fenfe of the word 
 |/.tt8»mu0'rt7«, which our Translators have given 
 us and we have eftablifhed. I maintain then 
 that the phrafe is not neceflarily to be underftood 
 of infants ; and I hope to make it appear, not 
 only that I have reafon and the generally re- 
 ceived rules of interpretation on my fide, but 
 that the concemons which the Pcedobaptifts 
 themfelves make, and are obliged to make, do 
 abundantly confirm my pofition. 
 
 ] *Jow 
 
to the Jpojtles, &V. confidered. 147 
 
 Now here it is to be obferved, that our Savi- 
 our's miniftry and that of his Apoftles having 
 been confined, during his flay on earth, to the 
 Jews, and it being the will of God that the gofpel 
 fhould afterwards be publifhed to the whole world ; 
 there was the greater 1 : propriety in his exprefling 
 himfelf after this manner. Nor yet does He fay 
 all of all nations, which would have made a very 
 considerable difference; but, all nations, that is, 
 the people of all nations, or mankind in general. 
 So that his meaning is plainly this : " Go teach 
 " the people of all countries, whether Jews, or 
 " Gentiles ; Romans, or Barbarians : and when 
 " you have fo taught them as effectually to per- 
 " fuade them to become my difciples, then bap- 
 " tize them." And fuch we find was the prac- 
 tice of the Apoftles and primitive Minifters. 
 
 Forthefenfe of this phrafe of all nations, or 
 the people of all nations, that it does not neceffa- 
 rily, nay that it feldom, if ever, includes in it 
 every .individual, I might. appeal to the ufual 
 modes of fpeech in all languages, to the writings 
 of the beft authors, and to the Scriptures them- 
 felves. But I mail content myfelf, to avoid 
 being tedious, with one plain inftance of this kind 
 of phrafeology, from among many others, in the 
 New Teftament. Jerufalem and all JuDJEA^and 
 all the region round about for dan, are {\xAi§ 
 have been baptized of John; and yet we are im- 
 H 2 me- 
 
148 Our Lord's Commiffiou, 
 
 mediately after told, that the Pharifees and Sa- 
 ducees, who came to his Baptifm, were rejected 
 by him *. 
 
 But it will be faid, Though every indivi- 
 dual may not be included in the phrafe of all 
 nations, yet furely children muft, cc fince they 
 * c make," as Mr. A. exprefles it, " very confide- 
 <c rable parts of all nations f ." But if there are 
 other very confiderable parts of all nations, whom 
 our Author would not admit to Baptifm, and 
 whom no man in his fenfes can believe our Lord 
 has commiffioned his Ministers to baptize, fuch 
 as infidels, profligate perfons, madmen, and ideots; 
 Why fhould we be fuppofed to offer violence to 
 the general terms of all nations, becaufe 
 we affert that infants are not included therein ? 
 Nor muft I omit to obferve here, that, general as 
 the phrafes are in the paffage juft cited, by which 
 St. Matthew defcribes the people who were bap- 
 tized by John, even all Judaea, and all the 
 Region round about Jordan ; it is a plain fact that 
 he did not mean to include infants in thofe phrafes, 
 though they were fuch confiderable parts of thofe 
 countries : for he exprefsly tells us, that the 
 people were baptized, confejjing their fins, of which 
 infants are, no doubt, incapable. — But Mr. A. 
 infifts that " theexpreffion elfewhere, in the word 
 *' of God, includes children ; as when it is laid, 
 
 * Matt. iii. 5, 6, 7, fP.i 14. 
 
 I " In 
 
to the Jjpqftlesy &V. considered. 149 
 
 ** In thy Seed ftall all the nations of the earth he 
 " blejftd*" But though I admit, which I am 
 very ready to do, that all children who die ia 
 their infancy are blefled in or through Chrift the 
 promifed Meffiah, yet our Author will not furely 
 after t that even here the phrafe means all of 
 all nations. Or if it did, it would not follow 
 from thence, that the phrafe, wherever it is u fed, 
 mull necejptrily include all the people of all na- 
 tions, whether young or old : I fay necejfarily^ 
 for this it lies upon him to prove, in order to fet 
 afide our reafoning from the application of the 
 word peLtyvTc.wjtt'Ti, that infants are not here in- 
 cluded in the phrafe all nations- 
 
 There is yet one other argument Mr. A, ufes, 
 to perfuade us that infants mufl be here intend- 
 ed ; and that is oddly drawn from the old un- 
 tenable topick of analogy. " The Apoftles, 
 he fuppofes, were fully inftrucled in his idea of 
 the Covenant, viz. that children are included 
 in it with their parents, and fo intitled to the 
 feal of it; and that Circurhcifion and Baptifm 
 are, as it were, convertible terms : they could 
 not therefore but underftand the phrafe all na- 
 tions to extend to infants. Thoroughly ground- 
 ed in his doctrine and reafoning, it was as na- 
 tural for them to fuppofe our Lord meant infants 
 when He faid, Go, baptize all nations, as it 
 would have been to fuppofe He meant them, 
 * P. 114. Gen. xxii. 18. 
 
 H 7 had 
 
1^6 Our Lord y s CommiJJlon 
 
 had He commanded them to go circumclfe al! 
 nations. Nay, there was no occafion at all to 
 mention them exprefsly ; on the contrary, if 
 He had defigned they fhould not be baptized, 
 it would have been abfolutely necefTary to have 
 inferted an exclufive claufe to that purpofe *.'* 
 This reafoning of our Author from Circum- 
 cifion to Baptifm has been already fo largely 
 confidered, and fo fatisfac"torily, I hope, con- 
 futed, that I muft not enter into it again here r 
 nor does Mr. J.'s prefuming that the Apoftles 
 were of the fame opinion with him, add any 
 Weight at all to it, fince he has not given us 
 any proof of that fac~t. I muft, however, ob- 
 ferve, that his winding up the argument with 
 telling us, that if we are right, there mould 
 have been an exclufive claufe inferred in the 
 commiflion, opens him a large field for de- 
 clamation on the idea of " our dear little ones 
 " being denied the feal of the Covenant, fhut 
 «< out from the bleffing of the feed of Abraham, 
 " and refufed to be numbered among the fub- 
 " je&s of Chrift's kingdom f." Juft as if thofe 
 who are of opinion that there is no warrant for 
 baptizing infants were guilty, if not defignedly, 
 yet by necefTary confequence, of the greatefr. 
 imaginable cruelty to their children. But I 
 have no other concern with thefe appeals to 
 the paffions, than gently to reprove our Author 
 for the unkind reflections infinuated in them, 
 * P. 115. t p - ".5> Jl6 « 
 
 and 
 
to the Apofihs* &c. confidered. 151 
 
 and fmcerely to pity the weak well-meaning 
 people who mifrake them for arguments. 
 
 And now, Sir, I muft beg your excufe for 
 having drawn out this Letter to fo unufual a 
 length. You are fenfible that the fettling the 
 true meaning of the words of the inftitution, is 
 the main thing in this debate; and that this 
 could not be done in the compafs of two or 
 three pages. I will, however, comfort myfelf 
 with the firm perfuafion, that you have not the 
 fhadow of a doubt left, that f/.etQimv<rem truly 
 and properly fignifies to teach, or to disciple 
 by teaching ; that, as infants are incapable of 
 both the one and the other, it could not be our 
 Lord's intention to include them in the terms 
 ALL nations ; and further, that the order in 
 which the words are placed, and the common ufage 
 of fuch general phrafes* perfectly well agree with 
 this reafoning. How will you wonder then to 
 hear our Author fay ! — " Let fuch as feek a 
 " precept for baptizing children ftudy well 
 " thefe inftructicns of their divine Mailer, and 
 " they will find it here : a precept as exprcfs 
 ,c for baptizing infants as for baptizing the 
 " adult ; and on the authority of which the 
 •* ordinance is to be adminiftered to both (that 
 " is, if the latter have never been baptized be- 
 u fore) or adminiftered to neither*." But your 
 
 * P. 116. 
 
 H 4 won- 
 
1 52 Our Lord's Commijfion^ &c. 
 
 wonder, Sir, will abate, when you recoiled, 
 that the fame pen, which thus expreffes itfelf 
 here, has more than once in the courfe of this 
 book aflerted, " that there is not one text in 
 <c the whole Bible, or however that it has not 
 ** met with one, in which Chrift commanded 
 " his minifters to baptize Believers, much lefs 
 44 Believers only *." 
 
 * P. 114, 176. 
 
 I am, Sir, 
 
 Yours* 
 
 LET- 
 
[ 153 1 
 
 LETTER XI. 
 
 Dear Sir, 
 
 YO U have feen in the preceding Letter how 
 clearly our Saviour has defcribed, in the 
 words of the inftitution^ the perfons w r hom he 
 would have his Apoftles and Minifters baptize : 
 they are fuch as have been taught^ or prevailed 
 upon by teaching to become his difciplcs. And 
 thus has he not only authorized their baptizing 
 the adult, but in effect plainly prohibited the 
 baptizing infants, as they are incapable of being 
 taught. You have feen alio that the phrafe of 
 all nations does not neceflarily include in it in- 
 fants, and therefote furnifhes no fufHcient argu- 
 ment to fet afide the fenfe given of the word 
 lxa.Bi)Tzv(Tct7i ;. yea, more than this, that its plain 
 and obvious meaning very well accords with 
 our Saviour's exprefs limitation of Baptifm to 
 fuch only as have been taught. 
 
 And now the queftion is, Whether our Lord 
 has any where elfe, either himfelf, or by his 
 Apollles,. required the baptizing infants ? If the 
 reafoning from the words of the inflitution be 
 juft ;i we may be allured he has not, for he can- 
 H £ not: 
 
154 Mr. A^s Replies to 
 
 not contradict himfelf. The fa& therefore we 
 affert, that he has not -, and call upon our oppo- 
 nents to produce any one inftance in the New 
 Teftament. This Mr. A. wifhes to do, and to 
 that end prefTes into his fervice the words of the 
 ApoftJe Peter — Repent^ and be baptized every one 
 of you In the name of J e fas Chrijl*. Upon which 
 he obferves in a note, " Some have remarked 
 *' the change obfervable in the Apoftle's phra- 
 ** feology, from the plural (ait avow art, repent 
 u ye, to the fmgular disjunctive, (ZcfTrTtaBma 
 u ikatos vfjieoVf let every one of you, or every 
 ** one belonging to you, be baptized f." So 
 that, according to our Author, we are to under- 
 hand the Apoftle here as commanding infants 
 to be baptized. But the words skas-os v\xov 
 muft furely intend thofe to whom the Apoflle 
 addrefles himfelf, and thofe only. Now thefe 
 are fo defcribed, as to put it beyond a doubt 
 that infants were not of the number : they were 
 the Jews to whom he had been preaching, who 
 had heard him, who were pricked in their heart, 
 and had faid to him and the reft of the Apoftles, 
 Men and Brethren, what mail we do f To thefe 
 he fays, Repent^ and be baptized every one of 
 you. Were their infant children pricked in the 
 heart ? Did they cry out, Men and Brethren, 
 what mail we do ? Or can the Apoftle be fup- 
 pofed to have exhorted them to repent ? By what 
 
 •' Afts ii. 38. f P. 126. Note. 
 
 rules 
 
ObjettionS) confidered. 155 
 
 rules of interpretation then, can he be underftood 
 to mean them when he adds, And be baptized 
 every one of you? But Mr. A. concludes from 
 what follows in the next verfe, that their chil- 
 dren muft. have been included in the inftruclions 
 here given refpecting Baptifm : For the promifc is 
 unto you, and to your children, and to all that are 
 afar off, even as many as the Lord our God Jh all 
 call. But if the fenfe of thefe words is, as I hope 
 hath been fatisfadtorily proved in my remarks on 
 this pafTage *, that " the promife v/as to their 
 " children or pofterity, as many of them as the 
 €< Lord their God fhould call, and to them that 
 M were afar off whom the Lord mould alfo 
 M call :" if, I fay, this is the fenfe of the word?, 
 it is without the leaft pretence of reafon that 
 Mr. A. draws an argument from them to prove, 
 that the infant children of thefe converted Jews 
 were included in the Apoftle's exhortation, Be 
 baptized every one of you. 
 
 And now as Mr. A. does not pretend that 
 there is any other command in the New Tefta- 
 ment to authorize the baptizing infants, I mould 
 proceed to confider what he has to fay refpe£ting 
 the practice of the Apoftles. I muft, however, 
 in the mean time animadvert a little upon his 
 third chapter, in which he ftates the objections 
 of the Baptifts to Infant-Baptifm, and replies 
 to them. 
 
 f See Let. VI. p. 71, &c. - 
 
 H*6 Here 
 
156 Mr. A?s Replies to 
 
 Here I muft remind you, Sir, of what you 
 have no doubt often remarked, that it is mighty 
 common for difputants to ftate each others ob- 
 jections inaccurately, if not unfairly, and thereby 
 enable themfelves to fay many plaufible things 
 which yet are not at all to the purpofe. This,, 
 ©ur Author has done. So that you will not 
 wonder at his gravely aiTerting fome things in 
 the courfe of this chapter, which we have no. 
 more doubt about than himfelf, and at his ad- 
 vancing many others which are quite foreign to 
 the point. Thefe excrefcencies however taken 
 ofT, the weaknefs and futility of his replies to- 
 the real objections of the Baptifts will fo clearly 
 Appear, as to require little animadverfion of 
 mine upon them. 
 
 The objections of the Baptifts to Infant-Bap- 
 tifm are confidered in three diftinct feclions, 
 under the general defcription of — The incapacity, 
 §f infants for faith and repentance — The fuppofed 
 lad tendency of Infant -Baptifm— And % our Saviour' s 
 not having more clearly revealed andexprefly enjoined 
 it. Let us begin with the 
 
 FIRST of thefe objections, which Mr. J. has 
 more largely flated in the text thus ; " The 
 " Apoftles, and' John before them, required rc- 
 M pe-ntance and faith of thofe they baptized : 
 1 * and as infants can neither repent nor believe, 
 
 " there-. 
 
Oljeftions, confidered. 157 
 
 t( therefore, fays the Antipcedobaptift, they are 
 " not the proper fubjecls for this ordinance*." 
 
 But the objection is not ftated either truly, or 
 logically. Not truly ; for the Baptifts do not 
 fay that John and the Apoftles required repen- 
 tance and faith of thofe they baptized, but that 
 they required a profession of repentance and 
 faith of thofe they baptized. Nor is it ftated 
 Jogically; for the terms in the conclufion are 
 not contained in the premifes — " John and the 
 Apoftles required repentance and faith of thofe 
 they baptized : infants can neither repent nor 
 believe : therefore — What ? — They are not the 
 proper fubjects for this ordinance." What right 
 Mr. A. had to put fuch a fyllogifm into the 
 mouth of the Antipcedobaptift I know not ; nor 
 what was his end in. fo doing, unlefs to make his 
 opponent appear ridiculous, or to enable himfelf 
 to caft a mift before the eyes of his readers. 
 The objection truly ftated is this — There is no 
 inftance of either John or the Apoftles having 
 baptized any, but upon a profeffion of faith and 
 repentance : infants are not capable of profeffing 
 faith and repentance ; therefore, there is no 
 inftance of either John or the Apoftles having 
 baptized infants. 
 
 You will excufe, Sir, my taking all thefe 
 pains to reduce the objection Mr. A. ftarts to its 
 
 * P. 127. 
 
 due 
 
158 Mr. A's Replies to 
 
 due form, as we mall hereby be enabled to find 
 our way quickly through the maze of ten or 
 a dozen pages : a maze I call it, for I am fure 
 it muft have ftruck you as well as me, that his 
 reafoning is as confufed and irregular, as is his 
 manner of flating the objection. Nor is it eafy 
 many times to devif© what he would be at, 
 except in general to perfuade his readers, with- 
 out attending to the objection he had ftarted, 
 that Infant-Baptifm is a very good thing, and 
 that they are very cruel people who do not 
 practice it. But let us hold our Author to the 
 objection as it has been truly ftated, and fee 
 whether he has made a fufHcient reply, or indeed 
 any reply at all. We will take the three propo- 
 rtions in their order. 
 
 1. There is no inftance of either John or the 
 Apoftles having baptized any, but upon a pro- 
 feffion of faith and repentance. Now the only 
 way of encountering this proportion is, by pro- 
 ducing inftances of perfons baptized without a 
 profeffion of faith and repentance. Mr. A, may 
 indeed, if he pleafes, tell us, that it does not 
 follow from the Apoftles baptizing fome upon 
 a profeffion, that therefore they baptized none 
 without it. He may add with an air of triumph, 
 " Produce an inftance in which they refufed to 
 baptize the child of a Chriftian upon this confi- 
 deration, and we will acknowledge it a cafe in 
 
 point." 
 
ObjeBionS) confidered. 159 
 
 point*." He may infift, that the cafes of the 
 offspring of Chriftian parents, and of adult- 
 converts from heathenifm or the Jewifh law are 
 very different; that though it might be proper 
 to require a profeifion of the former, yet it might 
 not of the latter. He may further tell us that 
 infants are capable of being included in cove- 
 nants, that being in the Covenant of grace 
 with their parents they have a right to the fign 
 of it, and that they are as fit to be enrolled 
 among the fubjedts of Chrift's kingdom by Bap- 
 tifm now, as they were by Circumcifion for- 
 merly. In a word, he may pretend, that, in 
 examining our Lord's general commimon to his 
 Minifters, he does not find him authorizing 
 them to require faith and repentance of all they 
 baptized f. But this reafoning is not at all to the 
 purpofe of fetting afide a plain matter of fact 
 afferted by the Baptifts, That there is no inflance 
 of either John or the ApofHes having baptized 
 any, but upon a profeilion of faith and repen- 
 tance. He mutt, as I faid, produce infrances 
 to the contrary. Now what inliances has he 
 produced ? 
 
 The firfr. he mentions is that of our Saviour J 9 
 who to be fure could not profefs repentance, as 
 he had no fins to repent of. But, as Mr. A % 
 knows the objection refpects mere finful men 
 only, I am at a lofs what end he could propofe 
 
 * P. 127, 12.8, t P » Il8 > X2 9- X p - J 30. 
 
 by 
 
160 Mr. A's Replies to- 
 
 by holding our Lord up to view, except that of 
 confounding or at leaf! amufing his readers. As 
 to Simon the forcerer *, it is acknowledged that 
 he had neither faving faith nor genuine repen- 
 tance. But will our Author fay that he did not 
 profess both the one and the other, for that is the 
 true ftate of the queftion ? He will not : on the 
 contrary, he himfelf admits " that Simon was 
 iC baptized on making a profeffion of faith in 
 " Chrift \" And having admitted this, there is 
 as little reafon as there is decency in the re- 
 flection that immediately follows,. " a notable au~ 
 " thority for Believer's Baptifm!"' Indeedhadthis 
 language dropt from fome lips, I mould have 
 confidered it as a defigned infult upon the Apoftle 
 Peter himfelf. But this is not Mr. A.'s mean- 
 ing. All he intends is to fet his readers a fmiling 
 at the idea of Believer's Baptism. To return, 
 as Chrift did not repent, nor Simon truly be- 
 lieve, he afks with an air of triumph, — " Will 
 " any yet tell us, none but thofe that repent 
 <c and believe mould be baptized ?"' Yes, I will 
 prefume, among many others, to tell him that 
 none ought to offer themfelves to Baptifm who 
 do not repent and believe ; and that Minifters 
 ought to baptize none, but upon a credible pro- 
 femon of repentance and faith. But he miift be a 
 poor reafoner indeed, who mall conclude from 
 one or two Scripture-inftances of infincere per-, 
 fons having been baptized upon fuch profeffiony 
 * P. 130. f Ibid. 
 
 that- 
 
Objections, confidered. 16 1 
 
 that therefore faith and repentance are not the 
 proper qualifications for Baptifm, and that Mi- 
 xiifters are authorized to baptize thofe whom 
 they clearly apprehend to be deflitute of thefe 
 qualifications, or whofe early age render them 
 incapable of them. 
 
 Mr. A. proceeds, " Thofe that plead John's 
 " authority would, perhaps, be at a lofs to tell 
 " us what confeflion of faith he required of any 
 " who came to be baptized of him*." Not at 
 all. They were baptized of him confejfing their 
 fins 1 and if no more had been told us concerning 
 them, it would be natural enough to infer from 
 thence that they profefled faith in the doctrine 
 of remiflion of fins. But we are exprefly afiured, 
 that John did preach this doctrine to them, that 
 he declared he was the forerunner of the Memah, 
 that the kingdom of heaven was at hand, and 
 that Chrift would baptize them with the Holy 
 Ghoft. Can any one then be at a lofs, except 
 Mr. A., what confeflion of faith John required, 
 or the penitent Jews made ? 
 
 He further infifts that, " as to the Apoftles, 
 <c they did not always require both faith and 
 " repentance : for if they had, they would not 
 " have baptized the impenitent Simon f." But 
 why mould Mr. A. oblige us again to remind 
 him of what he has himfelf admitted, that Simon 
 * P. 130. f P. 131. 
 
 was 
 
1 62 Mr. A?s Replies to 
 
 was baptized on making a profession of his 
 faith ? This is the true ftate of the queftion, and 
 till this fact refpe&ing Simon is difproved, the in- 
 stance is not at all to the purpofe of refuting the 
 objection here under confideration. He is there- 
 fore only amufing or rather confounding his 
 readers, by telling them over and over again, 
 that Simon had not faving faith, and that there- 
 fore perfons may be baptized who have it not. 
 
 But he infinuates, which is indeed more to the 
 purpofe, could it be proved, " that Simon's pro- 
 v< feflion was not credible*." What authority he 
 has for this infinuation I cannot conceive : I am 
 fure there is none in the flory. It is true he turned 
 out a bad man, as Judas Ifcariot had before him.; 
 but did it thence follow that the one or the other 
 did not make a credible profemon ? or that 
 Philip was chargeable with rafhnefs and impru- 
 dence for baptizing Simon, any more than our 
 Saviour for admitting Judas among his difciples 
 and Apoftles ? But, to what purpofe is Mr. A. 
 fo fond of perfuading his readers, at the expence 
 of Philip's reputation, that Simon's profeffion 
 was not credible ; to what purpofe, I fay, ex- 
 cept it be to infer from thence that the claim of 
 the children of Chriftian parents to Baptifm, is 
 as good, if not better, than Simon's \ " If a 
 " profdlion," fays he, " is all that is required, 
 " then why infift upon that from fuch as were 
 
 * P. izt. 
 
 " bom 
 
J0bjeftions 9 confidered. 163 
 
 " born of Chriftian parents, and have profefTed 
 " Chriftianity all their lives*?" But a profeflion 
 is not all that is required : it muft be a credible 
 profeflion. And till he has proved that Simon's 
 was not credible, his inference will have no 
 weight at all with a confiderate reader. Mr. J. 9 
 however, calls upon us to prove that a credible 
 profeflion is neceflary f . To which it is fufncient 
 to reply, that if the Apoftles were ufed to re- 
 quire a profeflion, it muft have been a credible 
 one ; for otherwife the requifition would have 
 been to no purpofe at all. Philip tells the 
 Eunuch, if he believed with all his heart he might 
 be baptized X • from whence it is moft natural to 
 infer that, if it could have been proved by any 
 one inftance in his conduct, that he fpoke a wil- 
 ful untruth when he faid he believed with all his 
 heart, or in other words, if it could have been 
 proved that his profeflion was not credible, the 
 Evangelift would not have baptized him. 
 
 The credibility of men's profeflions in thofe 
 days, as weji as now, was to be determined by 
 fuch external circumftances attending them, as 
 were obvious to perfons in general as well as 
 the Apoftles. This was the ground upon which 
 claims to the pofitive inftitutions of Chrift were 
 to be tried : nor do we ever find the Apoftles 
 over-ruling or fetting afide fuch claims, by any 
 judicial fentence of their own on men's cha- 
 
 * P. 131. f P. 13a. % A&Sviii. 37. 
 
 rafters, 
 
164 Mr. A?s Replies to 
 
 rafters, merely in virtue of that difcernment of 
 fpirits with which in fome inftances they might 
 be endowed. So that the dilemma to which 
 Mr. A. would reduce us, viz. that Simon's pro- 
 feflion was not a credible one, or that Philip was 
 miferably impofed upon, is totally groundlefs. 
 As to his caution to Minifters to be careful who 
 they admit to Baptifm*, it is in general a very 
 good one : I muft, however, tell him, that the 
 line of duty our Saviour has drawn for them is 
 fo plain, that they need not be intimidated from 
 it by the poflibility of fome, yea of many perfons 
 being infincere in their profeffion : nor is there 
 a fhadow of reafon in this confideration to in- 
 duce us to conclude, that a profefiion of faith is 
 an improper, precarious, or inefficient ground 
 of admifiion to the pofitive institutions of Chrift. 
 
 Our Author having thus failed in the inftances 
 of the Jews, and of Simon the forcerer, men- 
 tions thofe of Lydia'shoufhold — " We do not 
 " find," fays he, " that they made any con- 
 *' feflion of their faith before they were bap- 
 " tizedf." But is it faid they did not ? No, 
 Or is there any thing in the flory that frrourd 
 lead us to fuppofe they did not ? If there is not, 
 their confeflion not having been particularly re- 
 ported by the Hiftorian, is no proof that they 
 did not make one j but the contrary is with 
 
 * P. 131. I P. 132. A&sxvi. i4> 1 S' 
 
 good 
 
OhjettionS) confidered. 165 
 
 good reafon to be presumed, fince there are Co 
 many inftances of its having been required, and 
 its having been given. I acknowledge indeed, 
 if it could be proved that there were infant chil- 
 dren in the houfhold of Lydia, and that they 
 were baptized, it would follow that a profeffion 
 of faith was in fome inftances difpenfed with, 
 as infants are not capable of making a profefiion. 
 But it cannot be proved, nor has Mr. A. at- 
 tempted it in this place *. Here therefore he 
 fails. 
 
 And now all Mr. A. has further to reply to 
 this objection of the Baptifls is, " that thofe 
 c< cafes in which a profeffion was required were 
 " of a peculiar nature," that is, as he explains 
 himfelf, they were cafes of perfons who " had 
 " been bred up Jews or Heathens -j-." Admitted : 
 but does it thence follow, that the offspring of 
 thefe converted Jews or Heathens were baptized 
 without a profeffion ? Mr. A. may apprehend it 
 very fit they mould. But that is not the queftion. 
 The queftion is about the fact, Whether they 
 actually were baptized without a profeflion ? 
 Till he has proved this from plain Scripture 
 authority, the objection of the Baptifts remains 
 
 * What Mr. A. obferves concerning houjholds in the 
 Jequel of his diicourle will be confidered in its order. 
 
 in 
 
1 66 Mr. A*s Replies to 
 
 in its full force, That there is no inftance of 
 either John or the Apoftles having baptized 
 any, but upon a profeffion of faith and re- 
 pentance. And now, 
 
 ' 2. It will fcarce be denied by any one in his 
 fenfes. That infants are incapable of profelling 
 faith and repentance. Mr. A., however, has fpent 
 no lefs than four or five pages in difcourfing of 
 the capacities of infants, and enumerating texts 
 of Scripture wherein infants are mentioned. But, 
 has he proved that they are capable of profeiling 
 faith and repentance ? If not, to what purpofe 
 is he at all this pains to convince us of what 
 We are as well fatisfied about as he can be, that 
 infants are capable of deriving benefits from the 
 new Covenant, of receiving divine impreffions, 
 and of being happy in the world to come ? 
 Thefe are matters utterly foreign to the prefent 
 queftion. If, however, he means to poffefs his 
 reader with a notion that we have our doubts about 
 thefe things, and that this is the true ground of 
 our not admitting infants to Baptifm, he muft 
 give me leave to tell him that he does us great 
 injuflice. And now having made good the 
 objection of the Baptifts, as I have truly ftated 
 it, That there is no inftance of either John or 
 the Apoftles having baptized any, but upon 
 a -profeifion of faith and repentance j and, that 
 
 infants 
 
Oljeftions^ confidered. 167 
 
 infants are incapable of faith and repentance j 
 the conclufion follows of courfe, 
 
 3. Therefore, there is no inftance of either 
 John or the Apoftles having baptized infants. 
 
 I am, Sir, 
 
 Yours, 
 
 LET- 
 
[ 168 ] 
 
 LETTER XII. 
 
 Dear Sir, 
 
 LE T us now proceed to confider the fecond 
 objection our Author has put into the lips 
 of his opponents, and his reply to it. It is, 
 
 SECONDLY, The bad tendency of Infant- 
 Baptifm. In order to give this objection its 
 proper weight, Mr. A % will permit me to obferve, 
 
 I. That what is performed as an act. of wor- 
 fhip, or a religious duty, if it has not the au- 
 thority of Scripture, is finful and of a bad tend- 
 ency. This, no doubt, as a Proteflant DifTenter, 
 he will readily admit. TVhatfoever is not of faith , 
 is fin *. Upon this ground he rejects the fign 
 of the crofs in Baptifm, and many other cere- 
 monies, which the church of England, as well 
 as Rome, has thought fit, upon its own autho- 
 rity, to enjoin. Can he wonder then that they 
 who object to Infant-Baptifm as unfcriptural, 
 fhould confider it, for that rcafon, as unlawful 
 and of very pernicious tendency? So they murt 
 
 * Rom. xiv, 23. 
 
 Con- 
 
Mr. A's Replies to, &c. 169 
 
 confides* it, upon Mr. A.'s own principles, till 
 Inch time as he has convinced them that it has 
 the authority of the Bible, which he has not 
 yet done. 
 
 Here I cannot help expressing my concern, 
 that fo many wife and good men, in the com- 
 munion of the Eftablifhed Church, ihould not 
 perceive the reafonablenefs and importance of 
 this principle, common to all Prctefbint Dif- 
 fenters. Hence it is that they fpeak of Pcedo- 
 baptifm, when obliged to acknowledge its divine 
 authority doubtful, as a mighty innocent harm- 
 lefs thing. But Proteftant DifTenters are utterly 
 precluded from this argument. It is therefore 
 as unreafonable as it is unkind in them to reflect 
 upon their brethren the Baptifte, as guilty of 
 petulance, narrownefs, and bigotry, for main- 
 taining with nrmnef?, and zeal, that a practice 
 which they deem unlawful is therefore of a bad 
 tendency. Which leads me to confidcr their 
 objection, 
 
 2. In the light Mr. A. has more particularly 
 ftatsd it. " Infant-Baptiim," fay they, " is 
 *' hurtful both to children and their parents, 
 " as it tends to encourage in both a falfe hope, 
 " and an unwarranted dependence on a vain ce- 
 " remony *." 
 
 * P. 140. 
 
 I Now 
 
170 Mr. A?s Replies to 
 
 Now furely they who are in this practice do 
 expect fome advantage from it : but if Infant- 
 Baptifm is unfcriptural, it muft be a vain cere- 
 mony; and whatever the propofed advantage 
 may be, the hope and dependence it creates 
 muft be falfe and unwarranted. There are va- 
 rious apprehenfions concerning its utility and 
 importance. Some look upon it as neceftary to 
 folvation; and their number, I fear, is not fmall. 
 Mr. A., however, heartily agrees with me in ex- 
 ploding this opinion, as moft abfurd and perni- 
 cious : but then he infifts that this abufe of 
 Infant-Baptifm does not difprove the divine 
 authority of it. I agree it does not. Yet, as 
 he has intimated that Adult-Baptifm is liable to 
 the fame abufe, he muft give me leave to affirm, 
 that there is not the like danger of fuch abufe in 
 the latter cafe as in the former. 
 
 My reafon is this : There are certain qualifi- 
 cations required of the adult, previous to their 
 admiffion to Baptifm, which qualifications, as* 
 they are generally underftood by the Baptifts, do 
 clearly preclude a dependence upon external ob- 
 fervances. But as no previous qualifications are 
 required of Infants, (as indeed in the nature of 
 the thing they cannot be) it is eafy to conceive 
 how parents may come to think, that Baptifm 
 has an influence on the falvation of their child- 
 ren independent of other confiderations, and is 
 
 there- 
 
Objections ', confiderecl. 171 
 
 therefore of no fmall coniequence in order to 
 the iecuring their future happy flute. And the 
 fact correfponds exactly with the reafoning : 
 vail numbers of people, who are in the practice 
 of Infant-Baptifm, do thus conceive of its im- 
 portance j whereas few, I believe, who are in 
 the practice of Adult-Baptifm, lay any fuch ftrefe 
 upon it. Whether a prefumptive evidence is to 
 be drawn hence to the prejudice of the former, 
 and in favour of the latter, I leave you, Sir, to 
 determine. However of this I am very fure, 
 that every real Chriftian cannot but wjfh, that 
 an error big with fuch deflruclive con'fequences 
 to mankind, whether it has or has not any real 
 fupport in Pcedobaptifm, were utterly driven out 
 of the world. 
 
 But though this dangerous error is disavowed 
 by Mr. A. and his brethren, yet I think it mud 
 frrike' every one upon a little reflection, that the 
 kind of reafoning which he and they ufe to 
 
 authenticate Infant-Baptifm, has a direct and 
 natural tendency to beget in the minds both of 
 parents and their children zfitfe hope, and an un- 
 warranted dependence. If parents are told that, 
 bein* themfelves Believers, their children are in- 
 eluded with them in the Chriftian Covenant, and 
 ftand intitled in virtue of fuch relation to the ble(T- 
 ings of it ; and that by being baptized they arc 
 entered into the Covenant, and claim is laid on 
 T 2 their 
 
}jz . Mr, A?s Replies to 
 
 their behalf to the promifes of it ; if, I fay, they 
 are told this, and do implicitly believe it, who 
 iTiall blame them for concluding that their child- 
 ren are upon a different footing from other child- 
 ren, and have a fairer and better profpecl: of falva- 
 tion than they ? Nay, fond parents who believe 
 all this, had need of a great command of their 
 paflions, and a very happy talent at diftinguim- 
 ing, to fecure them from a full perfuafion, that 
 their children who grow up, as well as thofe 
 who die in their infancy, fhall moft certainly be 
 faved. And the effect of fuch hopes and de- 
 pendences to betray them infrnnbly into a remiiT- 
 nefs about their education, and to give occaflon 
 afterwards, if their children turn out ill, to 
 many fad fufpicions as to the genuinenefs of their 
 own piety, may be eafily imagined. To which 
 I mu ft add, that it is far from being improbable 
 that children, bred up in the notion that they 
 are included with their parents in the Covenant, 
 and that fomething extraordinary was done for 
 them in their infancy, mould be tempted to 
 prefume upon the fafety of their future ftate, 
 to the neglect of a ferious attention to peribnal 
 religion. Such then, in the apprehenfion of 
 
 
 
 the Baptifts, is the bad tendency of Infant 
 Baptifm. Let us now fee what Mr. A. has to 
 fav, by way of reply, to all this. 
 
 " It feems ftrange," fays he, " that any mould 
 
 " fpeak of it as hurtful to be early entered into 
 
 5 " the 
 
Objections* confidered. 173 
 
 " the lchool and kingdom of Chrift ; to be com- 
 " mi tied to his teaching and government, his 
 " protection and blefling as his difciples and 
 ** his iubjects ; and to be laid under peculiarly 
 " folcmn obligations to ferve the Lord frcni 
 " our youth *." But who are the unnatural, 
 cruel, profane people that fpeak thus ? There 
 is no Baptift, who fears God, but rejoices with 
 his whole heart at the idea of thefe great bleffing3 
 being conferred on his children in early life ; 
 and who does not conflder himfelf obliged to do 
 his utrnoit, by his inftructions, influence, ex- 
 ample, and prayers, to promote their everlafting 
 falvation. But if our Author means that it is 
 in the power of parents to initiate their infant- 
 children into the kingdom of Chrift, that they 
 may do this by baptizing them, and that the 
 folemnities of Infant-Baptifm lay them under 
 peculiar obligations to ferve the Lord ; he mull 
 give me leave to demand of him his authorities 
 for t#efe pofitions. And until he has produced 
 them, no fenfible man will wonder that the 
 Baptifts fhould pronounce fuch pofitions not 
 only erroneous, but, for the reafons juft nw 
 mentioned, hurtful, and of a very dangerous 
 tendency. 
 
 But, in order to remove the prejudices which 
 fome may have entertained concerning the Pocdo- 
 baptifts, as if they laid an undue ftrefs upon 
 * P. 140. 
 
 I 3 this 
 
174 $&y A?s Replies to 
 
 this ceremony, Mr. A. tells us, at large, what 
 pains he and his brethren are at to difcourage a 
 fuperftitious attachment to external modes and 
 forms, and to remind parents and others, at 
 thefe folemnities, that circumcihon availeth no- 
 thing, nor uncircumcifion, but a new crea- 
 ture. All tliis is extremely proper. But I fear 
 thefe cautions and exhortations will have little 
 tffe&y fo long as thofe who give them fail not 
 to counteract them, by their own confufed and 
 miftaken reafonings relpe cling the joint interest 
 of parents and their children in the Covenant, 
 upon which the whole fuperftmc~t,ure of Infant- 
 Baptiim fcands. What pity then our brethren 
 w T ill not yield to the force of this plain truth, 
 that pofitive infiitutlons mult, in their own na- 
 ture derive their authority, not from the un- 
 certain deductions of analogy, but, from the 
 clear and exprefs declarations of God's word \ 
 Yielding to this proportion, they would at onc« 
 find themfelves obliged to lay afide Infant- 
 Baptifm : and fo thofe evils of which w r e have 
 been complaining, and to which the mifappli- 
 c^tion of that rite affords fuch ample fupport, 
 would in a good meafure, if not entirely, ceafe. 
 — Evils, I will add, which do materially affecl: 
 the tempers and practice of prodigious multi- 
 tudes, and which our brethren cannot but be 
 fenfible, it is out of the power of all their cau- 
 tions and warnings to prevent. 
 
 But 
 
Objections, confidered. 175 
 
 But though Mr. A. feels the occaflon there is 
 for cautioning perfons againft. thefe evils, yet lie 
 will have it " that there is nothing in this fo- 
 " lemnity to do our children hurt, or to en-' 
 44 courage, either in their parents then, or in 
 -" them afterwards, an unfcriptural hope and 
 " confidence |j." The reverfe of this has, 1 think, 
 been clearly fhewn. It will, however, be na- 
 tural here to afk, What there is in it to do our 
 children good, or to encourage a fcriptural hope 
 and confidence ? If there be any thing in it to 
 thefe ends, it muft have been itfelf commanded 
 by God, and muft have had fome promife of good 
 annexed to it. But where is fuch command, 
 where is fuch promife to be met with ? All the 
 reply we can obtain to this is, " that God or- 
 ** dered his people of old to circumcife their 
 " children at eight days, and added that it 
 w mould be a token of the Covenant betwixt 
 " Him and them % :" from whence it is fuppofed 
 the divine authority of Infant-Baptifm, as a to- 
 ken of the Chriftian Covenant, may with fufH- 
 cient clearnefs be inferred. Thus the matter is 
 refted upon the ground of analogy ; and the re- 
 .monftrances of the Baptifts againft the evil of 
 misapplying a fcriptural rite, are thought to be 
 fufficiently over-ruled by a kind of anfwer, truly 
 ftrange ; but which I fubmit to the cenfure or 
 approbation of your judgment and heart, Sir, 
 Without any further comment of mine, viz. 
 
 fl P. 14-z. % P. i 43 . 
 
 Jaa I 4 " If 
 
ij6 Air. A's Replies to 
 
 V If Infant-Baptifm is a vain ceremony, znd 
 " gives encouragement to a groundlefs deceitful 
 * c hope, the reflection falls upon the Almighty 
 " Himfelf, and He deceived his own people 
 " when He ordered them to circumcife their 
 "• children at eight days ; and added, it mall be 
 u a token of the Covenant betwixt Me and 
 44 you*." It remains that we now conflder the 
 
 THIRD And :laft objection of the Baptifts, 
 as our Author has ftated it, and his reply there- 
 to : " If Infant-Baptifm be the will of Chrift, 
 u why d.'d He not more clearly reveal and ex- 
 v prefsly enjoin it f ?*' or as the Baptilts, if they 
 may be allowed to fpeak for themfelves, would 
 cbufe to put it, " If it be the will of Chrift, 
 why did Ke not reveal and enjoin it in any way 
 at all r" 
 
 To this objection Mr. A. replies by afTerting, 
 " that the Scriptures do fay enough concerning 
 u it to give fatisfaclion to the honeft, diligent, 
 *' and unprejudiced inquirer." If this be true, 
 his opponents muft be miferably defective in 
 honefty, diligence, and impartiality, at leaft in 
 one or other of thefe virtues. But what do the 
 Scriptures fay to give us this abundant fatis- 
 fa6tion ? Mr. A. refers us to what he has of- 
 fered in the preceding chapters of his book, 
 efpecially the fecond. You, Sir, have read thofe 
 
 * P. 143. f Ibid. ' 
 
 chap- 
 
Objefiions, confidered. 177 
 
 chapters and your Bible too, and yet remain un- 
 satisfied. I am, however, inclined to hope, did 
 our Author know you, he would except you 
 from die number of dimoneft, Superficial, pre- 
 judiced inquirers. Indeed I am of opinion that 
 fcarce any, even of Mr. A.'s own perfuafion, 
 have read his treatife attentively, without wifh- 
 ing for fome further fatisfa<9:ion upon the point, 
 that Chrift has clearly revealed and exprefsly 
 enjoined Infant-Baptifm. I cannot but hope, 
 therefore, that a perfect Satisfaction to the con-' 
 trary will be the refult of an impartial confider- 
 ajtion of the preceding Letters, efpecially the, 
 tenth, to which I beg leave to refer them. 
 
 But " if any mould fay, continues Mr. A. 
 " that no paflages are produced in which Chrift 
 " has required in fo many words. Baptize In- 
 " fonts, we anfwer partly by referring to what 
 " is offered, Chap. 2. § 2." To which I re- 
 ply by referring you alfo to Letter the tenth. 
 " And we anfwer partly," adds he, " by afk- 
 " ing the objector, whether he does not think 
 " himfelf fufftciently authorized to keep the 
 " Chriftian Sabbath, though Chrift has no 
 " where faid in fo many words, Remember the 
 u firji day of the week to hep it holy *." There is, 
 I acknowledge, fome weight in this objection : 
 and all I can fay to it is, that not having yet 
 met with any paiTage in the New-Teftament 
 * P. 143. 
 
 I 5 that 
 
178 Mr. J.'s Replies to 
 
 that appears to me to have repealed the fourth 
 commandment, and to have required the ob- 
 fervation of the firft day, I cannot think myfelf 
 fufRciently authorized to renounce that, and to 
 keep this. 
 
 He again afks the objector, " Does not he 
 €i admit women to the Lord's table, though his 
 4< divine Lord has no where faid, Let women, 
 K< as well as men, do this in remembrance of Me *.'■' 
 This kind of reply has fuch an air of trifling 
 in it, as cannot fail, I think, of difgufting ra- 
 ther than fatisfying a fober inquirer. If, how- 
 ever, Mr. A. expects a direct anfwer to his que- 
 ftion, he will give me leave to tell him, that 
 Chrntian women are commanded to partake of 
 the Lord's Supper. The Apoftle, in 1 Cor. xi. 
 20 — ult., where he deliver* what he had received 
 from Chrift refpe&ing this inftitution, is evi- 
 dently addrefling them as well as the men ; for 
 of them, and of their deportment in their reli- 
 gious aflemblies, he had been particularly dif- 
 courfing in the preceding verfes. And when, 
 in the courfe of that pafTage, he fays, Let a 
 man examine himfelf, and fo let him eat, &c. f he 
 ufes the word &$f9#@t[ which, being of the 
 common gender, includes women as well as 
 men. 
 
 f P. 144. t v - *s. 
 
 Mr. 
 
Objections^ confidered. 179 
 
 Mr. A. goes on, " Does he baptize Believers 
 " only? Where has Jefus faid, Baptize Be- 
 " licvers only*?" Chrift hath faid, Go teach 
 all nations, baptizing them ; adding, He that 
 believeth and is baptized frail be faved\. And" 
 the Apoftle?, who no doubt underftood the com- 
 miifton they received from their Mafter, required 
 a prefemon of faith from thofe whom they bap- 
 tized. The Baptifts, therefore, in obedience 
 to Chrift, and in conformity to the practice of 
 tne Apoftles, admit none to Baptiim but upon 
 a profeflion of their faith. 
 
 Our Author, pleafed with this Laconick way 
 of reafoning, proceeds, " Does he baptize thofe 
 4C again, who have been baptized in their in- 
 " fancy? Where is the facred oracle that fays, 
 <c Baptize the adult, though they have been bap-* 
 " tized in their infancy %?" The Baptift does 
 not baptize thofe again who have been baptized 
 in their infancy : nor does he afTert that the 
 facred oracie any where requires him fo to do. 
 He does, indeed, fometimes baptize thofe who 
 have been fprinkled in their infancy : but then 
 he denies, as Mr. A. is fenfible, that fprinkling 
 is baptizing ; infifting, as he thinks upon the 
 cleareft evidence, that the word {Zevzli£*> Signifies, 
 and only fignifies, to immerfe, or to warn by 
 immerfion. The charge therefore of Anabaptifm> 
 or of baptizing perfons again, he utterly denies. 
 
 * P. 144. + Matt, xxviii. 19. Mark xvi. 16. 
 
 X P. 144. 
 
 I 6 Once 
 
i8o Mr. A's Reply to 
 
 Once more, Sir, and you will get to the end 
 of this catechetical lecture. " Does he require," 
 afks Mr. A. " the immerfion of the whole body, 
 *' and renounce Baptifm adminiftered in any 
 *' other form ? Let him produce his Mailer's 
 ■* authority requiring of his fervant, Thou Jh alt 
 M baptize only by plunging *." If to baptize 
 perlons fignifies no more nor lefs than to 
 plunge or dip them in water, for the truth of 
 which the Baptifts appeal to thofe who under- 
 Hand the original language, and to the Scripture 
 inftances of Baptifm; then our Saviour, by com- 
 manding his Apoftles and Minifters to baptize, 
 has commanded them to baptize only by plung- 
 ing. And Mr. A. might, in the apprehenfion 
 of the Baptifts, with equal propriety have afked, 
 *' Do perfons bathe themfelves by plunging,, or 
 by fprinkling ¥' 
 
 Mr. A., flattering himfelf that he has fo ma- 
 naged his queftiens, that the Baptifts cannot 
 give a dire£t anfwer to them, or that they mufb 
 have recourfe to femething fhort of an exprefs 
 command, to warrant the duties he has queftioned 
 them upon ; tells his reader, with a kind of eclat, 
 that, if they have authority for thefe things 
 equal to an exprefs command, he has the fame 
 for Infant-Baptifm. That queftion mufl be 
 fubmitted. I am pleafed, however, that there 
 is a mixture of diffidence with all that con- 
 
 * P. H4- 
 
 f.dence 
 
Objections, confidered. iti 
 
 fidence our Author has exprefTed upon the mat- 
 ter; for he appears to me to admit, that there is 
 not an exprefs command for baptizing child- 
 ren. 
 
 What follows is a repetition of the old argu- 
 ments from the Covenant, Circumcifion, and 
 other points which have been already difcufTed 
 (except that of households, which will be 
 confidered hereafter). All thefe arguments-, 
 Mr. A. thinks, are fufficient to preclude any 
 reafonable difpute about the divine authority of 
 Infant-Baptifm. Whether they are fo cr not, 
 is a queftion I am molt heartily willing to fub- 
 mit to the decifion of that fort of perfons our 
 Author has defcribed above, I mean, " honeft, 
 M diligent, and unprejudiced inquirers. " 
 
 It now only remains, before we quit this 
 chapter, to take a little notice of Mr. A.*s re- 
 ply to their difficulty, " who would have ex- 
 " peeled to find more on the fubjecl: both in 
 " the difcourfes and writings of the ApofMes*." 
 That there is any thing at all in their writings 
 on the fubjecl: of Infant-Baptifm, I may venture 
 to affirm, has not yet been proved : and as to 
 thofe of their writings which are not conveyed 
 down to us, I can f:.y nothing of them. I agree 
 with Mr. A., " that it is probable the Apoftles 
 " inffted moll on iabkets of the greater! import- 
 
182 Mr. A?s Replies to, &C. 
 
 " ance, and on fuch as were moft generally 
 " talked of and difputed in their day." But, 
 as he fuppofes " that none ever doubted then 
 " of the propriety of Infant-Baptifm, and that 
 u therefore it is not to be wondered at, that 
 M they faid no more upon the fubject f ;" I am 
 it equal liberty to fuppofe, and I think upon 
 much better grounds, that none ever had an idea 
 then of baptizing infants, and that therefore it 
 is not to be wondered at, that they faid no- 
 thing at all upon the fubjecl. 
 
 I am, Sir, 
 
 Yours. 
 
 t P. MS- 
 
 LEI 
 
t 183 ] 
 
 LETTER XIII. 
 
 Dear Sir, 
 
 I Fear the two laft Letters, in which are conM- 
 dered Mr. A?s replies to the objections of 
 Baptifls, have fomewhat difktrbed the thread of 
 the argument : it will be necefTary therefore to 
 recall your attention a moment to the ftate in 
 which we left it at the clofe of the tenth Letter, 
 or rather a little way on in the eleventh. 
 
 Having, in the former part of thefe Letters, 
 examined at large our Author's reafoning from 
 the Covenant, Circumcifion, and thofe other 
 points which at beft can only be confidered as 
 prefumptive and indirect proofs of the right of 
 children to Baptifm ; and having fhewn, I hope 
 to your fatisfaction, that the reafoning, even 
 from thofe topicks, is totally defective and in- 
 fumcient ; we at length were fo happy as to 
 arrive at the ground on which alone debates of 
 this kind are to be tried and determined, I mean, 
 the exprefs pofitive authority of Scripture. And 
 I think it may be affirmed without hefitation, 
 that, in that ftage of the debate to which I wifh 
 
 5 to 
 
1 84 Infant- B apt if m not 
 
 to recall your attention, viz. the beginning of the 
 eleventh Letter, we left our Author in poiieiTion 
 of no one pafTage of the New Teftamcnt which 
 can be faid, with any appearance of. reafon, to 
 command or enjoin Infant-Baptifm. 
 
 Mr./, however, frill appeals to Scripture, if 
 not for a command, yet for examples to authorize 
 this practice. I am moil heartily willing to 
 join him in this appeal 3 and if it can be fatis- 
 facloriiy proved, that the Apcftles did indeed 
 baptize infants, I will admit that fuch proof 
 will fupply the defect of an exprefs command. 
 In order thus to bring together all" our Author 
 means to fay from Scripture, I mufl beg you to 
 turn to the third fection of his fourth chapter, 
 pairing over, for the prefent, his inquiry into the 
 practice of the church £ nee the times of the 
 Apoftles, which we mall confider afterwards. 
 There you will find him faying, " The practice 
 " of the church in baptizing infants, is founded 
 " on the authority of the Apoftlts themfdves ; 
 " and, as a church, it is herein formed upon 
 " their model * :" that is, in other words, in- 
 fants arc initiated by Baptifm into the Chriftian 
 church, and 10 become members of it, agreeable 
 to the model of the church which the ApohMes 
 laid down, and to their own practice which was 
 exactly conformable to it. This then he is " to 
 " endeavour to prove. " 
 
 * P. 168. 
 
 Now 
 
authorized by the Apoftles. 1 £5 
 
 Now if this propofition were true, it would 
 furely be very natural to expect fome plain 
 directions refpecting thefe matters in the Acts of 
 the Apoftles, and ibme clear inftances of thefe 
 firfl Minifters baptizing infants, and admitting 
 them into the church. Whether Mr. J. felt 
 a fufpicion that he might pofEbly fail in .his 
 proofs, is not for me to fay. He has, however, 
 provided beforehand, in the beft manner he could^ 
 againft the difappointment which fuch a failure 
 would occafion, by telling his reader, " It was 
 " needlefs for the Apoftles to infift largely on 
 " thefe matters, the propriety of Infant-Baptifm 
 " not having been difputed in their time *. J ' But 
 would not Mr. A. confider himfelf as very egre- 
 gioufly trifled with, if having, for inftance, de- 
 manded of an advocate for the eftablifhed church, 
 what proofs there are in the New Teftament 
 that the feafts and falls now ufed in the church, 
 were obferved in thole times, his opponent 
 fhould tell him, " Why, truly, it was needlefs 
 for tf;e Apoftles to infift largely on thefe matters, 
 the propriety of fuch feafts and fails not having 
 been then queftioncd V 1 
 
 He adds, as a further fuccedaneum to any 
 defect of evidence that might be complained of, 
 " Children had been admitted to the feal of the 
 " Covenant for two thoufand vears :" And what 
 then f " Therefore it was needlefs . for the 
 
 * P. 16S, 169. 
 
 « Apoftles 
 
1 86 the Baptifm cf 
 
 " Apoftles to infift largely upon their right to 
 " it*," that is, toBaptifm. Or, in other word?, 
 infants had been circumcifed for two thoufand 
 years, therefore no doubt near two thoufand 
 years ago they were baptized. But Mr. A. can 
 fearce expect this reafoning will fatisfy an un- 
 prejudiced inquirer, till fuch time as he has 
 proved that Circumcifion and Baptifm are one 
 and the fame thing, or at leail that they are fo 
 nearly allied in nature and obligation, as that 
 the repealing the former muft necefTarily be 
 interpreted to mean the enacting the latter. 
 
 But the main intent of thefe obfervations of 
 Mr. A.'s, is to make way for another apology 
 (and a more plaufible one than the former) for 
 the ApofHes having faid fo little about Infant- 
 Baptifm; and that is, " Its having been a com- 
 " mon practice among the Jews, time immemo- 
 *' rial, to initiate their children into the Cove- 
 M nant by Baptifm, and not only them but pro- 
 ( * felytes to their religion, and their children 
 <c alfo." So that we are to confider Chriftian. 
 Baptifm as fucceeding of courfe to Jewiih Bap- 
 tifm j and, having been told that our Saviour 
 has adopted it into his plan as a New Teftament 
 ordinance, we are not to wonder that there are 
 no particular directions given us who are to be 
 baptized, nor any particular mention made of 
 infants in the hiltories of Baptifm. This feems 
 
 * P. 169. 
 
 to 
 
Jewijh Profelytes confidered. 1S7 
 
 to be the fenfe of the paflage Mr. A. has given 
 us from Dr. Lightfoot : " There ?ieeded no ?nen~ 
 " tion," fays he, " of baptizing infants in the 
 " New Tejiament, as it had been as ordinarily ufed 
 <c in the church of the Jezvs, as ever it hath been in 
 " the Chriftian church. It zvas enough to mention 
 " that Chrift cjlablijhed Baptifm for an ord'mance 
 " under the gofpel, and then it zvas well enough 
 " known who Jhould be baptized by the ufe of this 
 " ordinance of old f." And this feems to be Dr. 
 Hammond's view of the matter, who tells ue, 
 " // (s little needful to defend the Baptifm cf 
 " Chriftian infant s, from the law cf circumcijing 
 " infants among the Jews, the foundation being 
 " FAR MORE FITLY laid in that other cf 
 u Jewijh Baptifm, a ceremony sf 'initiation for all \ 
 " efpecially for profelytes, as well as that, and 
 " whereas that of circumcifion belonged only to one 7 
 " this other being common to both f exes *. 
 
 Now I do not v/onder that the friends of 
 Infant-Eaptifm fhould pay great deference to the 
 opinion and reafonings of two fitch refpectable 
 authorities, as the Doctors Lightfoot and Ham- 
 mond ; efpecially in a matter which may be 
 thought to bear an afpeel: fomewhat favourable 
 to their caufe. Nor do I mean rafhly to aflert, 
 that thefe great men had no foundation at all for 
 what they fay concerning Jewifh Baptifm. But 
 
 f P. 169, 170. * Dr. Hammond's works, 
 
 Qvere IV. p. 610. fol. edit. 2d. 
 
 ftui, 
 
1 88 'The Baptifm of 
 
 ftill, I may furely be allowed to affirm, that, 
 eminent as they were for learning, integrity, and 
 piety, it is not impofiible that they might con- 
 flder this matter in too ftrong a light, and raife 
 a fuperdrucluce upon it which it will not fup- 
 port. Nay, that they actually did fo, I hope 
 clearly to make appear in the fequel. 
 
 The authorities upon which their opinion is 
 grounded, are thofe of Maimonides, Rabbi 
 Solomon, and the compilers of the Babylonifh . 
 and Jerufalem Talmud?. Now the general cha- 
 racter of the Jewiih Rabbins and Talmudifts for 
 ignorance, fancifulnefs, and want of integrity, is 
 notorious almcft to a proverb. Their books 
 abound with fenfelefs tales, fcandalous falfe- 
 hoods, and mod abominable blafphemies ; which 
 is well known to be true in an efpecial manner of 
 the Talmuds juft mentioned, from whence Dr. 
 Hammond and others cite their principal tefti- 
 monies in favour of Profelyte-Baptifm *. I am 
 
 ready, 
 
 * For the character I have given of the Jewiih Rabbins 
 and Talmudifts, I might appeal to the judgment and tefti- 
 mony of very many learned men, fuch as Scaliger, Le 
 Clerc, Buxtorf, and others. But, for the fake of brevity, 
 I will content myfelf with giving you only Dr. Lighrfcot's 
 account of them, the Author Mr. A. has cited in favour 
 of Profelyte-Baptifm. Speaking of the miftake of thefc 
 who think the Old Teftament was pointed by the wife 
 men of Tiberias, he fays,' " I do not wender at the imp-i- 
 
 " deuce 
 
JiwiJB Profclytes confidered. 189 
 ready, however, to grant that the accounts which 
 Jewiih writers give us of cuftoms and cere- 
 monies, actually in ufe among them at the times 
 in which they feverally lived, are deferving of 
 credit : for of fuch facts they were no doubt 
 competent witneiles, and cannot be fuppofed, 
 whilft occafionally relating them, to have been 
 under any temptation to deceive. But then their 
 reafonings upon -fuch cuftoras and ceremonies, 
 and the traditions they pretend to have received 
 from former ages relative to them, will furely 
 have little weight with thofe who not only con- 
 fider thefe Authors in the light they have been 
 reprefented, but reflect a moment that it was 
 
 " dence cf the Jews, --vho invented the ftory ; but I wonder 
 ■« at the credulity of Chriftians who applaud it. Recollect, 
 " I befeech you, the names of the Rabbins of Tiberias> 
 " from the firit fituation of the university there, to the 
 " time that it expired ; and what, at' length/ do you find, 
 " but a kind of men mad with Phariiaiiin, bewitching 
 " with traditions, and bewitched, blind, guileful, doting, 
 " they mult pardon me if I fay magical and monfhous ? 
 x( Men, how unrit, how unable, how fooliih for the 
 " undertaking fd divine ! Read over the Jerufalem Talmud, 
 " and fee there howR. Judah, R. Chaninah, Sec. and the 
 " refl of the grand Doctors among the Rabbins of Tibe- 
 " rias behave themfelves ; hew earneftly they do nothing; 
 " how childimly they handle ferious matters 5 how much 
 " of fophiftry, froth, poifon, fmoke, nothing at all there 
 " is in their difputes ! And if you can believe the Bible 
 " was pointed in fuch a fchopl, believe alfo all that the 
 11 Talmudifts write. Vol.11, p. 73. 
 
 their 
 
190 The Baptifm of 
 
 their interefl to add every embellifhment to their 
 religious rites and ufages which their fruitful 
 imagination could fuggeft. By the aid of this 
 diftin&ion we fhall be enabled to draw the line 
 between what is clear and certain, and what i* 
 at beft doubtful and precarious, reflecting the 
 matter in debate. 
 
 It is plain then, I think, that the Jews were 
 accuftomed, a long time fince, to baptize or 
 ivajh pcrfons In water after they had circumcifed 
 them. This was their practice about 1160 years 
 after Chrift, when Maimonides and Rabbi 
 Solomon flourifhcd. This was their practice 
 the latter end of the fifth century, about which 
 time the Babylonifh Talmud was compiled. 
 And this too might be their practice in the third 
 century, about the middle of which the Jeru- 
 falem Talmud is generally fuppofed to have 
 teen finifhed *. But beyond that period there 
 
 * Buxtorf fixes it at the year 230. Vid. Buxt. Synag. 
 Judaic, c. 3. p. 60. Edit. Bafil. 1661. Mr. Whifton, 
 however, places it in the year 369. -See Cbronolog. Tables, 
 Cent. 19. Scaliger in 370. Vid. Seal, de emend. Temp. 
 1. 7. p. 323. And others in 422. Vid. Wolfii Pra-fat. ad 
 Bibliothec. Heb. p. 28. With thefe laft Dr. Gill agrees, 
 vvhofe ikill in Rabbinical learning is well known, and 
 whofe Differtation on this fubjeft of Jewifti Profelyte- 
 Baptifm I would recommend to thofe who wim to fee this 
 ^ueftion more largely difcuflcd. 
 
 is 
 
Jewiflj Profelytes confidered. 191 
 
 is no evidence of any Jewifti writer having laid 
 any thing at all about the matter. 
 
 Let us now inquire what is to be gathered 
 from the authorities- juft referred to, concerning 
 their own opinions of this ceremony, as to the 
 nature and quality of it, the fubjects of it, and 
 its obligation. And I am inclined to think it 
 will be found upon examination, that little more 
 is to be colkeu.i v. 1th certainty from their ac- 
 counts, than will warrant the general fact that 
 has been admitted. As to the nature and quality 
 of. this ceremony, whether they confidered it as 
 a mere appendage to Circumcifion, or as an 
 initiatory rite diftindt from it, will admit of 
 doubt. From the Talmud it mould feem plain 
 that the latter was the light in which they confi- 
 dered it*; and yet from fome circumftances, it 
 may with good reafon be conjectured, that they 
 looked upon it only as a warning prefcribed by 
 their ciders to purify from the pollution occa- 
 fioned by the wound of Circumcifion : for they 
 confidered the blood of Circumcilion as caufing 
 pollution, and this warning was ordered to be 
 ufed after the fore of Circumcifion was healed f. 
 
 Again, 
 
 * " The Profelytes entered not into Covenant but by 
 " Circumcifion, Baptifm, and fprinkling of Blood." Ge- 
 mara Babylon, ad tit. Cherithoth, c. 2. 
 
 •f The Talmudifts, Maimonides, &c. fpeak of Baptifm 
 as following Circumcifion, and after the party is cured of 
 
 the 
 
1 9 '2 Tbe Baptifm of 
 
 Again, as to the fubjeifts of this ceremony 
 whether they baptized their natural born chil- 
 
 the wound. Maimonides Ifuri Bin, c. 13, 14.. and 
 Talmud Bab. Mafs. Jev. fol. 47. " It is plain enough/' 
 fays Dr. Gale, " that upon ibme fuch notion/ 1 (that is, 
 of cleanfmg from pollution) " they were wafted after the 
 44 fere of Circumcifion was healed, as are alfo the Maho- 
 " metans to this day from them. And this pollution 
 " feems to have been contracted from the blood of Circum- 
 " cinon j for thus the Chaldee paraphrafe which goe* 
 44 under the name of Jonathan's, interprets the words, 
 *' Ezek. xvi. 6. of the blood of Circumcifion, from which, 
 *' 4 v. 9. God fays, he wafhed and cleanfed them : and the 
 ** Jews in their fecond benediction after Circumcifion 
 44 apply ; the words in the fame manner. And therefore it 
 44 is obfervabie, even all natural-born Jews were wafhed 
 44 with this Baptifm, except only Females," as Dr. Hyde 
 likewife notes (in Not. 39. adBobov. Trail, de Turcarum 
 Liturgia,- p. -2.2.) " who not being circumcifed, were not 
 44 warned till they had contracted pollution feme other 
 44 wry : and this plainly intimates that there was a Baptifm 
 44 thought neceffary on account of Circumciiion, or ibme 
 44 pollution contracted thereby ; otherwife perfons who 
 44 had been circumcifed would not have been obliged to a 
 44 Baptifm, from which others who could not be circum- 
 44 cifed were excufed. Why then,*' adds the Doctor, 
 44 may not the Talmud be underfrood to mean only this 
 '* waJhing for pollution by Circumcifion ? This was to be 
 44 dene'. as foon as the cure of the fore was accomplifhed, 
 44 and fo was that fpoken of in the Talmud : they are the 
 44 fame therefore in refpect to time, and I do not tinder- 
 11 fland how a perfon could be wafhed with two different 
 44 warnings at one and the fame time." Dr. Gale's Re- 
 flections on Mr. Wall's Hiftory of Infant- Baptifm, p. 328, 
 329. 
 
 dreiij 
 
Jewijh Prcfelytes confidered. 193 
 
 dren, or Only profelytes and their children, is 
 not fufficiently clear from their accounts. Their 
 reafoning in regard of this cuftom, together with 
 -that of facrifking, from Numb. xv. 15. As. you 
 are^ fo Jball the fir -anger be*; would induce one 
 to conclude that the former was their practice 5 
 as Dr. Hammond, if not Dr, Lightfoot, feems 
 to have apprehended f-. On the contrary, their 
 generally fpeaking of Baptifm in reference to 
 their profelytes, would lead one to fuppofe k 
 was a ceremony peculiar to them ; as was the 
 opinion, I think, of the great Selden, And 
 *then, as to their idea of the obligation of this 
 cuftom, it is manifeft they thought differently. 
 Some maintained, if a perfon was circumcifed 
 only it was fufficient, and others that he could 
 not be a perfect Jew unlefs he was both circum- 
 cifed and baptized J. 
 
 In 
 
 * Maimon. Ifuri Bia, c. 13. 
 
 f See the pafiages already cited from Lightfoot and 
 Hammond, p. 1&7. particularly that of Dr. Hammond, 
 which ipeaks of " Jewifh-Baptifm as being a ceremony of 
 ** initiation for all, efpecially for profelytes-." 
 
 X Thus, in the Babyionifh Talmud, we find two Rabbim 
 -debating the matter after thr* manner j " Of him that 
 ■*' was circumcifed, and not baptized, Rabbi Eliezer fair 1 , 
 " that he was a profelyte. Becaufe, faid he, we firrd 
 *' of out Fathers (Abraham, Ifaac, &c.) that they were 
 " circumcifed, but not baptized. And of him that was 
 *< -bajpuzed and not circumcifed, Rabbi Joftiua faid, that 
 
-it) 4 ' tt* Baptifm of 
 
 In fuch a ftate of uncertainty are we left 
 upon all thefe queftions, by thofe very authorities 
 which are ufually appealed to in fupport of the 
 opinion, that Jewifh initiatory-Baptifm gene- 
 rally obtained in the time of our Saviour. It is 
 alfo further to be obferred here, that fome of 
 the Jewifh Rabbins plainly intimate they neither 
 knew nor allowed of fuch an initiatory rite ; 
 ridiculing Chriftian Baptifm as a novel cere- 
 mony, not founded in reafon, but mere fancy- 
 Several pafiages to this purpofe Dr. Gale has 
 cited in his Reflections on Mr. Wall's Hrftory of 
 Infant-Baptifm 5 to which book, Sir, I refer 
 you*. 
 
 Let us now fee whether there are any other 
 Authors who fpcak of this cuftom, Dr. Ham- 
 mond cites a pafTage from Arrian the philofopher 
 of Nicomedia, which fpeaks of thofe who are 
 accounted right Jews, as SiCdLfjLL>Ai>y,s, diptf . But 
 whoever confiders that Arrian did not live till 
 550 years after Chrrft, that what he fays may 
 refer x to the frequent warnings in ufc among the 
 
 ft he was a profelyte. Becaufe, fold he, we find of our 
 " mothers, that they were baptized, and not circum- 
 il cifed. But the wife men pronounced, that till he 
 * were both baptized and circumcifed, he was not apro- 
 *' fely$e.^ Gemara ad tit. jevamoth, c. 4.. 
 
 * See Gale^ Reflexions on Mr. Wail's Hiilory, p. 329 
 —333* 
 
 *f- Diflert. in Epi&et. I. 2. c. 9. 
 
 Jews, 
 
yewiffh Profelyles confidered. icj£ 
 
 .Jews, for purification from legal pollutions, and 
 that it is well known the Pagan writers were 
 ufed to confound the Jews and Chrifiians toge- 
 ther, very commonly fpeaking of the latter 
 under the denomination of the former, of which, 
 inftance.s might be produced from Suetonius, 
 Tacitus, and others ; whoever, I fay, confiders 
 thefe things will be convinced, that this pafFage 
 is by no means in point to prove, that Baptifm, 
 tls an initiatory rite, obtained in the time of our 
 Saviour and his Apoflles *. 
 
 . It remains now to be dbferved, that there is 
 tio mention made of this practice of Profelyte- 
 Baptifm, by the earlieft Jewifh writers, fuch as 
 Philo, who flourifhed in the iirft century; or 
 
 P Dr. Owen thinks Arrian is here very evidently fpeak* 
 ing cf Chriftians, and that therefore this paflage will not 
 furriifh a proof in favour of Profelyte-Baptifm. His words 
 are, " Quern locum fruftra quidem adducunt, ut probent 
 '.' Judseos ritu Baptifmi uti folitos fuifle, cum apertiilime 
 " deCkriftianisloquatul•Philofophus. , ' , Owen.Theologou- 
 jnen. 1. i. c. 9. p. 109. And Dr. Jennings, in his Jew- 
 ifh Antiquities, fays, " It is moft likely that Arrian meant 
 " Chriftians, in the place alledged, becaufe in his time 
 " many perfon-s became Profelytes to Chriftianity, but few 
 " or none to Judaifm. — Befides, if he had fpoken of Pro- 
 ** felytes to. Judaifm, it is highly probable lie would have 
 " mentioned their Circumcifion, for which the Heathens 
 •'* derided them, rather than their Baptifm, which was not 
 ** fo very foreign to fome of the Heathen rites of purifica- 
 *< lion." Vol. I. c. 3. p. 138. 
 
 K 2 Jo- 
 
i$5 The Baptifm of 
 
 Jofephus, who the fame century wrote his hiftory 
 of that people, and had frequent occaf.ons to 
 mention this ceremony, if it had obtained among 
 them. Nor is it mentioned in the Mifhna, 
 which was compiled about the year 219 after 
 Chiifr. * ; or in the Targums or ChalJee Para- 
 phrafes. Nor is there, in fine, a word about it 
 in the New-Teftament, the Apocryhal books, 
 or the Old-Teftament. And whoever reflects 
 how natural it is to fuppofe that moft of thefe 
 writings, if not all of them, would have taken 
 ijotice of this practice, had it obtained in the 
 early age our opponents aiTert it did; will fureiy 
 admit that their iilencc upon the matter affords 
 a ftrong prefumptive proof to the contrary, 
 that no fuch initiatory ceremony did prevail in 
 our Saviour's time. And if no fuch ceremony 
 <lid prevail in that age, or there is not fufficient 
 evidence of the fa<5t, all the reafoning from it 
 in favour of Chriflian Pcedobaptifm of courfe 
 
 fails f. 
 
 But, 
 
 * "Vide Buxtorf. Synag. Judaic, cap. 3. p. 52. Mr. 
 \Vall fays, it is net only mentioned in the Gemara, 
 but in the text <f the Mifhna itfelf. Dr. Gill has 
 "however, feswn fie miilake of this in his Difiertation on 
 the Bpptifm r.f Jewf'i Prbfely'ces, p. 37. 
 
 -f Dr. lennyags, in his Jewiih Antiquities, fays, 
 " After ... ; it i\ : mains to . • proved, net only that 
 rt Chiiftiaji-Baj>ti/fn was inlh.- .^d in the rco\ ot Pro- 
 *« ielyte-E Stifir. . but tin :. the Jews had any fuch .'J:.rtlihi 
 
 ';• In 
 
Jewijh Prcfelytes confidered. 197 
 
 But, admitting that this cuftom did obtain 
 £b early as is pretended, it is neverthelefs agreed 
 on all hands that it was not of divine authority, 
 But only one of thofe traditions of the elders, 
 which are fo frequently fpoken of in Scripture 
 with difapprobation and contempt ; and is it 
 probable that our Lord would make a ceremony, 
 which originated in ignorance and foperftition^ 
 the ground or model of a Chriftian inftitutioii ? 
 or that He would by fuch. means wi'fh to ac ] 
 commodate Himfelf to the bigbtted Jews, at the 
 very time He was feverely cenfuring their leaders 
 for their bold innovations in religion, and their 
 teaching for doctrines the commandments of men ? 
 
 Befides, if Jewifh Baptifm was the model or 
 exemplar of Chriftian Baptifm, the natural and 
 
 " in our Saviour's time : the earlieil accounts we have of 
 fc it, are in the Mifnrra and Gemara." Indeed as to the 
 Mifhna, Dr. Gill has iatisfaclorily fhewn that there is 
 no account of it there. Dr. Jennings further fays, 
 * ( There wants more evidence of its being as ancient as 
 t( our Saviour's time, than I apprehend can be produced 
 u to ground an argument upon it, in relation to Chriftian, 
 " Baptifm." Vol. I. p. 136, 138. Dr. Owen alio afferts, 
 " The inilitution of the rite of Baptifm is no where men- 
 " tioned in the Old Teftament ; no example is extant ; 
 " nor during the Jewifh clfurch was it ever ufed in the au- 
 tl miffion of Profelytes; no mention of it is to be met with 
 M in Philo, Jofephus, nor in Jefus the fon of Syrach ; nor 
 in the Evangelical Hiitory." Vide Tlieologoumen. 1. 5. 
 DigrefT. 1. p. 447. 
 
 K 3 o&- 
 
prove 
 
 *9& The Baptifm of 
 
 obvious confequence of this pofition will 
 unfavourable to the caufe our opponents v\ ifli 
 to eitablifb. For, admitting there was fuch a 
 cuftom, it mure have either extended to the 
 children of native Jews, as well as profelytes 
 and their children, or have been confined. to the 
 latter ? If it extended to all of them, then 
 ChrifHan Baptifm came In the room of Jewifh 
 Baptifm, and not of Circumcifion,. as the Pcedo- 
 baptifes commonly with great earneflnefs main- 
 tain :. and fo ths argument from that topick is 
 fet afide, unlefs it be faid that this one rite was 
 to take place of two rites. And if it was con- 
 fined to Jewifh profelytes and their children, 
 then the confequence which fome have drawn 
 4eems very natural, that ChrifHan Baptifm was 
 dtfigned to be adminiftered only to the firft pro- 
 felytes to ChrifHanity and their children, or at 
 moft to fuch perfons and their offspring drifv 
 who in any age or country mould firir. receivt 
 and profefs the gofpeh But thefe confequences, 
 however natural, Mr. A. I perfuade myfclf, 
 will not approve. As therefore this argument,, 
 if admitted, of ChrifHan Baptifm's being found- 
 ed oil Jewiih Baptifm, proves more than our 
 Author would wifh to have proved, and fo 
 proves nothing at all to his purpofe j it would 
 certainly be bis wifdom totally to abandon it, 
 And indeed the manner of his expreffing him- 
 felf, in the beginning of his treatife *, upon 
 
 *p.j. 
 
 this 
 
Jewi/h Profelytes confkierecL 199 
 
 this very matter, looks as if he laid very little 
 if any ftrefs upon it : " Some," fays he, Ci "have* 
 " fuppofcd that Baptifm was adopted by Chrift,. 
 " and practifed by his Apoltlcs, as a temporary 
 *' accommodation to the genius and cufroms of 
 " the Jews, who had been ufed to Profelyte- 
 " Baptifm, and many other warnings, in and 
 **. before the time of our Saviour. But if fo, 
 ft they would, moft probably, have confined it 
 <c to Jcwifh converts/' 
 
 Mr. J. will therefore, it is probable, fay that 
 the only ufe he wifhes to make of_thc argument 
 from Jewiih-Baptifm is, that if fuch a cuftom 
 wat at that time known to prevail among the 
 Jews, it is not to be thought ftrange, that no 
 particular mention was made of infants by our 
 »Saviour in his commifllon to the Apoftles, fince 
 from the notoriety of the practice they would 
 naturally fuppoic Him to mean infants as well as 
 others. But this reafoning proceeds, at leaft in 
 a degree, on the principle I have jufl fhewn the 
 great miftake of, that our Lord meant to con- 
 form to the ufages of the Jews. Befides, if there 
 was no occafion to mention infants, that matter 
 being to be underftood of courfe ; what occafion 
 to give a particular commiffion about baptizing 
 at all ? might not that have been underftood of 
 courfe likewife ? But, if it was thought fit for- 
 mally to inftitute Baptifm, was it not natural to- 
 K 4 ex~ 
 
200 The Baptifm of 
 
 expect that the proper fubjects of it mould be 
 defcribed with the fame precifion, that the ordi- 
 nance itfelf is defcribed ? Or, if fome prior cuf- 
 tom was Jufiicient to direct in the queftion con- 
 cerning the proper fubjects, was it not more 
 natural to fuppofe the Apoilles would take John's 
 Baptifm for their guide, than that of the Jew? ? 
 and it is clear, I thrink, beyond a doubt, that 
 John did not baptize Infants. 
 
 To which I would further add, that if, as our 
 Opponents reafon, the prevalence of this cere- 
 mony among the Jews would have made it ne- 
 veMiiry for our Saviour to exprefsly forbid the 
 baptizing children, if it was his meaning that they 
 ijiould not be baptized;. I afk, would it not have 
 been alike yea more neceffary for Him to have 
 expr.efsly prohibited their partaking of the Lord's 
 Supper, fince that is fuppofed to have ccmc in 
 the room of the PafTover, and children were ad- 
 mitted to it as well as the. reft of the family? 
 
 Thus have we feen that the proof adduced in 
 Support of the fuppofed fact, that Jewiih initia- 
 tory Baptifm obtained in our Saviour's time, is 
 defective and infufficient ; that there are ftrong 
 nrefumptive proofs to the contrary; that, admit- 
 ting the Jews were at that time accuflomed to 
 wain their children in. water after they had cir- 
 e.umcifed them y it is plain they had no divine 
 
 aijtho» 
 
Jewijh Prcfelytes confidered. 201 
 
 authority for fuch a practice ; that it is highly 
 unreafonable to fuppofe our Lord would make a 
 traditionary ufage the ground or exemplar of a 
 Chriftian institution ; and, in a word, that as 
 He judged it fit formally to inflitute Baptifm, 
 it is natural to fuppofe He would defcribe the 
 proper fubjec~ts of the ordinance with the fame 
 precifion He has the ordinance itfelf. And thus 
 I perfuade myfelf you are convinced, Sir, that 
 the reafoning from Jewifh to Chriftian Baptifm 
 utterly fails.. 
 
 lam, Sir , 
 
 Yours, 
 
 K 5 L E T. 
 
[ 20* ] 
 
 LETTER XIV; 
 
 Dear Sir, 
 
 JU S T as we were entering, m the M Letter, 
 upon Mr, Ji 9 i hiftorical proofs from the 
 New Teftament in. favour of Infant-Baptifnv 
 our attention was diverted to another matter, 
 I mean Jewifh Profelyte-Baptifm, which feems 
 to have been thrown out as an apology for our 
 Saviour and his Apoftles not having faid fa 
 much, refpec~ting the right of infants to this 
 Chriftian inftitution, as he could have wifhed : 
 they had done. That queftion we have difpofed: 
 of, and you are convinced that our Author's 
 apfoloey is lnlumcient. 
 
 JVir. A. proceeds : cc Yet the New-Teftament 
 fe is not filent upon this head *." Not filent ! 
 If the fact really is, as he had a little before af- 
 ierted, "that the practice of the church in bap- 
 " tizing infants is founded on the authority of 
 *' theApoilles; and that, as a church, it is herein. 
 ** formed upon their model :" I fay, if this were 
 >he facl:, inftead of the New Teftament's not 
 
 *.P. jje*. 
 
 being 
 
The Argument from, &c. 203, 
 
 fceing filent upon the matter, one would expect 
 to hear frequently of it, particularly in the Acts 
 of the Apoftles. But the cafe is quite otherwife. 
 As to paflages requiring the practice, fcarce any 
 are pretended to be produced. Such, however, 
 as have been produced to that purpofe, contain, 
 as we have feen, rather a prohibition of the 
 practice, than a command enforcing it. And 
 as to examples of Infant-Baptifm ; whether 
 there are any fuch in the New Teftament,. is t£> 
 be the fubject of our prefent inquiry .. 
 
 Now here, Sir, I would again remind you- 
 of what Mr. A. ftands engaged' to prove, vm» 
 That this practice is " founded on the authority 
 " of the Apoftles," and that " the church is- 
 ** herein formed on their model." His proofs^ 
 therefore ought to be clear, direct, and positive.. 
 It is not enough to tell us that the Apoftles 
 poiTibly might, or that they probably did, bap- 
 tize infants.. Conjectures wHl not in this cafe 
 do : if our Author's proofs ftand upon this 
 ground only, they are infumcient, and muft ut- 
 terly fail of giving his readers that fatisfaction 
 he has thus led- them to expect,. 
 
 What then are his proofs ? They are drawn 
 
 from paflages wherein the Apoftles are faid to 
 
 have baptized households; as in the cafes of 
 
 Lydia 3; Stephanas, and' the Jailor. Now if it 
 
 K 6 can 
 
204 The Argument from 
 
 can be proved that the term household necef- 
 farily includes in it infants, and that the phrafe of 
 baptizing houfeholds muft neceiTarily mean the 
 baptizing every individual therein ; or if it can 
 be proved, from the circumftances of the parti- 
 cular cafes referred to, that there muft have been 
 infants in thofe families, and that it is abfurd 
 to fuppofe they were not baptized y I fay, if 
 thefe, or either of thefe propofitions,. are proved, 
 Mr. A. has made good his engagement, and he 
 may plead the authority of the Apoftles for this 
 practice, and aflert that the church is herein; 
 '\>iinded on. their model. But if neither of thefe 
 propofitions are proved, and efpecially if the re- 
 verfe of them mall appear upon good ground to 
 be the facl, his plea of apoftolick authority fails 
 of courfe, 
 
 Now as to the firft of thefe propofitions, no- 
 man of common fenfc will affirm that every 
 household muft have infants in it. We very 
 well know there are many families, which confift 
 only of the matter or miftrefs and their fcrvants ; 
 and many others in which,, though there may be 
 children, yet they are of an age beyond infancy.: 
 and fuch families are upon the whole more 
 numerous, I fuppofe, than thofe that have in- 
 fants in them. Befides, the general term house- 
 hold is often ufed, when only the greater part 
 oi it is intended. So we are told, that Elkanah 
 
 end* 
 
Households tonftdtred. zd$ 
 
 mid ALL his house went up to Sbikh to offer 
 unto the Lord the yearly facrifice, and his vow * ; 
 and yet we learn from what follows, that Han* 
 nah and the child Samuel Jiaid at home. 
 
 It is plain then, that, though there are many 
 houfeholds in which there are infants ; and 
 though, when houfeholds are fpoken of, all tlv 
 individuals of which they are compofed ar< . 
 fometimes intended ; yet, on the contrary, then* 
 are many houfeholds in which there are no in- 
 fants, and houfeholds are fometimes fpoken of 
 when only parts of fuch houfehold are intended. 
 Judge you then, Sir, what truth there is in 
 Mr. d.'s afTertion, " When it is faid the Apo- 
 " files baptized houfeholds, it is faying, in 
 " other words, that they baptized children J. 
 
 Let us now fee whether there are any circum- 
 
 ftances in the cafes our Author has produced, 
 
 from whence it may be certainly inferred there 
 
 were infants in thofe families, and that it is ab- 
 
 furd to fuppofe they were not baptized. The 
 
 cafe of Lydia is firfl mentioned, and as the ftory- 
 
 is-'fhort we will recite the whole of it : And a 
 
 certain woman named Lydia, a feller of purple, 
 
 of the city of T'hyatira, which worjhipped God, 
 
 heard us : whofe heart the Lord ope?ied, that fix 
 
 extended unto the things which were fpoken of Paul. 
 
 • 
 * i Sam. i. zu J P. i74» 
 
& o 5 'The Argument from 
 
 And when /he was baptized, and her houfehold± 
 foe befought us, faying, If ye have judged me 
 to be faithful to the Lord, come into my houfe, 
 and abide the're. And foe conf rained us *. Now 
 if what has been juft faid concerning house- 
 holds be admitted, the ufe of that general term 
 here will not prove that Lydia had infants ia 
 her family, and that they were baptized.. 
 
 Mr. A. indeed afks, '• Of what was herhoufe 
 %l hold compofed, if fhe had no children % V*' 
 The anfwcr is very natural, Of fervants, and. 
 perfons employed in her bufinefs under her.. 
 But is there any other circumftance, you will 
 inquire, to induce a fuppofition. that fhe had; 
 infants in her family? None at all. On the 
 contrary, there are circumftances which natu- 
 rally lead to the oppofite conclufion. It is moft 
 probable fhe was a fingle woman, for there is 
 not only no mention made of her hufband, but 
 the bufinefs and houfehold are faid to he her's. 
 And as fhe was of the ciiy cf Thy at ir a, it looks 
 as if fhe was only a fojourner at Philippi f : 
 and if fo, it is very unlikely, even though we- 
 
 * A<fts xvi. 14., 15. % P. 17 1. 
 
 •f Wolfius, in his Cura^-Philolog. fays, — f Cur nonr 
 ** credamus, earn more mercanuum, Judseis imprimis re- 
 * { cepto, mcrcatus cauia varias terras obiifTe, propriami 
 ** vero rerum fuarum fedem fixam habuifte Tbyatiris, ex 
 fi alia ceterocpin regione oriuadam?" Wolf Philolog. in. 
 
 46ci 
 
 admit 
 
Households conjidered. 207 
 
 ichnit fhe had children, that fhe fhould bring 
 them with her acrofs the iEgean fea from fo re- 
 mote a diftancc. We cannot indeed be certain 
 «pon thefe queftions, yet furely the probabilities 
 are rather againft her having infant-children, 
 than for her having them. 
 
 Here t muft juft obferve, that as Mr. A % 
 Would perfuade us that her houfehold was bap- 
 tized upon her faith, he takes care to place her 
 eonverfion and Baptifm in a connection as fa- 
 vourable as he could to that idea, making but 
 one fentence of the whole, "When her heart 
 M was opened to receive the word, me was bap- 
 " tized and her houfehold ||." Whereas her eon- 
 verfion is related in the 14th verfe; and the 
 other matter,, v. 15th, in a different connection, 
 And when Jhe was baptized^ and her houfehold, Jhe 
 hefought us y &c. 
 
 Nor will the objection Mr. A. throws out, 
 of the faith of her. houfehold not being particu- 
 larly recorded, have any weight with thofe who 
 confider, in how concife a manner the Evan- 
 gel ifts are ufed to relate facts of this nature*. 
 Dr. Whitby, who was himfelf a Pcedobaptifr, 
 was fo far from making any account of this cir- 
 cumftance, that he thus paraphrafes the paffage; 
 w And when Jhe, and thofe of her houfehold, zvere 
 u injlrucled in the Chrijlian faith, and in the nature 
 
 a P. »Z* 
 
 ** of 
 
^o% The Argument from 
 
 4C of the Baptifm required by it, Jhe was baptixea* 
 * c and her houfehold; then Jhe befought us. See." 
 
 The next inftance Mr. A. mentions is that 
 of the koufehold of Stephanas, which the Apo- 
 ftle Paul tells us he had himfelf baptized'*". 
 He, however, fpeaks of them in the clofe of 
 the epiftle, as. having addicled themfelves to the 
 miniftry of the faints f : from whence it is reafon- 
 able to conclude, that they were not infants at 
 the time of his baptizing them. All Mr. A % 
 has to object to this natural account of the mat- 
 ter is, that, as they were the firft-fruits of 
 Achaia, they might be children at their Bap- 
 tifm, and be grown to a fufficient age, at the 
 time of St. Paul's writing this epiftle, to minifter 
 unto the faints. But, befides the consideration 
 that their being fpoken of as the fruits of the 
 ApoftleV miniftry, would lead one to fuppofe 
 that they, as well as Stephanas himfelf, were 
 of an age to be inftructed and converted ; if we 
 reflect on the fhort diftance of time there was 
 between the Apoftles firft preaching in Achaia 
 and his writing this epiftle, which could not be, 
 I think, at moft more than five years, and his 
 here fpeaking of, them as haying addicted 
 themselves to the miniftry, which mufl.be. 
 underftood of their temper and engagements for 
 at leaft fome time paft; if, I fay, we take all 
 
 * i Cor.i. 16. I Ch. xvi. 15. 
 
 thefe 
 
Households cenjidertd. 209 
 
 thefe circumftances Into the account, we {hall, 
 I am perfuaded, fee little force in our Author's 
 objection. And after all, if we can do no more 
 than conjecture on either fide, I am heartily 
 willing to leave it to any impartial reader to 
 determine, where the ftroiigeft probabilities lie. 
 
 The laft inftance Mr. A. produces is that of 
 the Jailor at Philippi, of whom it is faid, that 
 he was baptized \ and all his *, that is, as we fay, 
 all his who had heard the word and believed, 
 whether they were children, fervants, depend- 
 ents, or relations. And, in fupport of this ex- 
 pofition of the pafTage, we cite the verfe preced- 
 ing the text, and that following it. In the for- 
 mer it is faid, that Paul and Silas /pake unto him 
 the word cf the Lord, and to all that were in his 
 houfe : and in the latter it is added, that he re- 
 jetted, lelieving in God with all his houfe. Now, 
 upon this view of the words in the connection 
 ?hey frand, rnethinks every unprejudiced Reader, 
 without any further remark, would inftantly 
 conclude that our expofition is moft juft and 
 natural. 
 
 But Mr. A. will have it that there were infant- 
 children in the Jailor's family, and that they 
 were baptized. He, however, brings no other 
 direct argument in fupport of his opinion, than 
 
 * A£ls xvi. 33. 
 
 Wnat 
 
1 1 o fhe Argument from 
 
 what is taken from the import of the general 
 terms household and all his house, which 
 argument has been already confidered and an- 
 fwered. As to the reafoning of the Baptifts 
 from the verfes preceding and following the text, 
 he prudently pafles over the former in filence ; 
 aware, it is probable, that his reader would be- 
 apt to fay, If the phrafe of all his, or all his 
 house, in the one verfe is neceflfarily to be 
 underftood of infants, it is fo to be underflood 
 in the other ; and then the fenfe will be, that 
 the Apoftles fpake the" word of the Lord to the 
 Jailor, and to all his infants. This verfe there- 
 fore, as I faid, he pafles over in filence. But 
 as to that following the text, he dwells particu- 
 eularly upon it, in hopes by the aid of a criti- 
 cifm to abate the force of the argument we draw 
 from it, if not to improve it to his own purpofe, 
 YlinifivKcou having believed, is, I admit, in the 
 fimnilar number, and therefore to be referred to 
 the Jailor: but by what authority he makes 
 tr&vomi fignify over bis boufe, rather than with 
 his houfe *, I do not know. I maintain then 
 that the proper rendering is, He y having believed 
 ivith all his houfe, rejoiced. And fo the fentiment, 
 though fomewhat differently exprelTed in the 
 original, is the fame with that of Crifpus, the 
 chief ruler of the fynagogue, believing on the Lord 
 
 * n*>o/x/, Adv. cum tota domo, cura tota familia. 
 lipdqdi&i Lex, 
 
 with 
 
Households co-njtdered, 2 1 r 
 
 iwtb all his honfe jj . The argument therefore from 
 the one text and the other, has confiderable force 
 in it to prove, that of whomfoever thefe houfe- 
 holds confifted, they were fuch as believed, and 
 fo were qualified to be admitted to Baptifm. 
 
 But admitting our Author's criticifm, that 
 the words fhould be rendered, He, having believed^ 
 'rejoiced over all his houfe ; frill it does not amount 
 to a proof that there were infants in the Jailor's 
 family, or that if there were they were baptized. 
 And as to his conjecture that the Jailor's faith 
 in God refpecls his trufting or committing his 
 children to God, and his inferring from thence 
 that they were baptized upon the faith of their 
 parent ; lam fatisfied the conjecture itfelf, and 
 the doctrine built upon it, will not be miftaken 
 for proof by any confiderate perfon, 
 
 Thus hath Mr. A. utterly failed in every in- 
 fbnee he has produced in fupport of his afTertion, 
 " that the practice of the church in baptizing 
 " Infants is founded on the authority of the 
 ** Apoftles ; and that, as a church, it is herein 
 * c formed upon their model." How unhappy 
 would it be for the churches which are in the 
 fame practice with him, if, in other matters, 
 they did not more fenfibly feel the apoftoliclc 
 authority on .which they are founded, and could 
 not more clearly trace the divine model after 
 
 A A&s xviii. S. 
 
 which 
 
2 1 2 The Argument from, &c 
 
 which they are formed, than they do, or poflihly 
 can, in this particular of Infant-Baptifm I 
 
 I have only to add, before we difmifs this Sub- 
 ject, that if infants were baptized in the time 
 of the Apoftles, it feems ftrange that, however 
 the particular mention of them might be omitted 
 in the ftories juit considered, they fhould be 
 pafTed over in filence in the account given us of 
 the Baptifin of the Samaritans. For the Hifto- 
 rian having in that narrative thought fit to fpe- 
 cify men and women [they were baptized, fays he, 
 loth ?aen and women*) how natural" would it 
 have been for him to add children ! and the ra- 
 ther, as children are mentioned in this connection, 
 \vhen a matter of a different kind is related. 
 I refer to the account of our Saviour's miracle 
 of the five loaves and two fifties, in which we 
 are told, that they that had eaten were about five 
 thoufand men, befide wo?nen and children \. 
 
 I am. Sir, 
 
 Yours, 
 
 A&s viiL it. ' f Matt. xiv. 21, 
 
 LETi 
 
t 2I 2 ] 
 
 LETTER XV. 
 
 Dear Sir, 
 
 HAVING carefully weighed all Mr. j£ 
 pretends to alledge from Scripture in fa- 
 vour of Infant-Baptifm, it clearly appears that 
 <there is neither precept nor example for this prac- 
 tice in the facred oracles. Here therefore we 
 might fafely reft the matter in debate, Yet 
 I am willing to try the force of the two popular 
 pleas our Author has adopted, of Antiquity 
 and Universality ; pkas which the Papifts 
 fo fuccefsfully ufe to profelyte unthinking people 
 to their communion. 
 
 Nor have I any apprehenflon that this trial 
 will at all injure the caufe I am defending : on 
 .the contrary, I am well perfuaded it will ferve ir. 
 It is the part of error, not of truth, to elude in- 
 quiry: and he who would eftablifh a point in 
 debate, if he is fatisfied of the goodnels of his 
 caufe, will know how even to avail himfdf of 
 the objections of his opponents. Truth is al- 
 ways perfectly confident with itfelf : and how- 
 ever collateral circumftances may be fodifguifed, 
 I or 
 
«2 1 4 T'he Argument from 
 
 or placed in fuch a point of light by fkilful ma- 
 nagement, as, for a time, to weaken and con- 
 found the plainer! evidence of a real fact ; yet, 
 when thofe circumftances come to be thoroughly 
 looked into, they will not only ceafe to have 
 their effect, but will corroborate and brighten 
 that evidence to which they before proved fo un- 
 friendly. For thefe reafons, Sir, I am heartily 
 difpofed, as I faid, to give a fair trial to our 
 Author's pleas .of Antiquity and Universa- 
 lity. • 
 
 As to Antiquity, Mr. A. boldly afTerts that 
 Infant-Baptifm was praclifed in the firft ages of 
 Chriftianity. " It was received," fays he, "in 
 • 4< all ages *." Now, before we proceed, I beg 
 leave to premife that, admitting our Author 
 could produce two or three inftances fo early as 
 the firft or fecond century, which yet I am well 
 fatisfied he cannot, it would not from -thence 
 follow that our Saviour or his Apoftles had en- 
 joined this practice ; unlefs it be faid, that it is 
 morally impoffible fuch a corruption of the in- 
 stitution fhould take place in fo early an age. 
 I allow indeed it is fcarce probable it mould ; 
 but no one furely will afTert it is impoffible, 
 who confiders that grofs errors did prevail even 
 in the times of the Apoftles ; and that it is by 
 no means inconceivable, that men might lay 
 
 * P. i74. 
 
 fuch 
 
A n TJt^u i t y . conjidered. 2 1 5 
 
 fuch a ftrefs en this ordinance as to prove an 
 occafion, in a fhort courie of years, of fo un- 
 fcriptural an innovation. All the effect, there- 
 fore, which the clear proof of this fair, would 
 •produce upon a considerate and unprejudiced 
 perfon, v/ould be to put him upon rc-examinincr 
 the doctrine and hiftory of Baptifm, as laid down 
 in the New-Teftament : and being ftiil perfuaded 
 that our Saviour meant to confine the inftituiion 
 to thofe only who profefs faith and repentance, 
 iie would feel himfelf obliged, as a Proteibnt, 
 inftantly to rejec"t Infant-Baptifm, though ftampt 
 with the venerable authority of the earlieil age. 
 But there is little occafion for this reafoni rig, 
 as it will be found, upon inquiry, that the fup- 
 pofed fact is totally deftitute of evidence to fup- 
 port it. 
 
 If then I can clearly make it appear, Firft, 
 That there is no proof of Infant-Baptifm having 
 obtained in the firft or even the fecond century; 
 Secondly, That at what time it did obtain, a 
 very probable account is to be given of the fource 
 whence it originated ; and I hirdly, That to 
 fuppofe the Chriftian church, in fo eariy an age 
 as the third century, capable of thus adulterating 
 an inftitution of Chrifr, is by no means incredi- 
 ble, but perfectly confident with the character 
 of thofe times : if thefe things can be made ap- 
 pear, this beaded argument of Antiquity, 
 l which 
 
2i6 The Argument from 
 
 which has fo mighty an effect on weak and fupef* 
 ftitious minds, will lofe all its force, and the 
 inveftigation of it will throw further light upon 
 the truth, and add ftrength to the evidence al- 
 ready adduced. 
 
 FIRST, There rs no proof of Infant- 
 Baptifm having obtained in the two flrft cen- 
 turies. 
 
 It is not pretended that the earlieft Fathers 
 of the church fay any thing about it, fuch a*, 
 Barnabas, Clemens Romanus, Ignatius, Poly- 
 carp, or Hermas. The firft authority therefore 
 Mr. A. cites is Juftin Martyr, who flourished 
 about the year of Chrift 140. The paflage he 
 gives us is taken from this Father's Apology, 
 addreffed to the Emperor Antoninus Pius, which 
 was not written till after the year 150. Now 
 this pafiage, inftead of ferving our Author, is, 
 I think, clearly againfr him. Juftin's view> in 
 his Apology, was to vindicate the Chriftians of 
 thofe tjmes from the cruel reproaches of their 
 enemies, and, among the reft, the horrid one of 
 murdering their infants^ and making an impious 
 ufe of their blood in their afTemblies. When 
 therefore he proceeds to give an account of their 
 .manner of folemnizing Baptifm, how natural 
 to expect he would fpeak of infants, if it had been 
 the practice to baptize them - 3 and efpecially as 
 
 he 
 
Antiquity tonfidcred. 217 
 
 he introduces his account with aiTuring the Em- 
 peror, that he meant, by defcribing this folemnity, 
 to avoid the charge of feeming to deal unfairly in 
 feme part of his apology! But not a hint is given 
 about infants, or any ceremony relating to them. 
 
 Juftin Martyr's words are thefe : ** As many 
 
 <c as are perfuaded and do believe, that thofe things 
 
 " which are taught and fpoken by us are true, and 
 
 " engage to live accordingly, are injlrucled to pray^ 
 
 * c and implore of God with fctjling the for given cfs 
 cc - of their pajl fins, vje praying and fajlitig together 
 
 " with them. They are then led by us to a placs 
 
 tc where there is water, and they are regenerated 
 
 cc with the fame kind of regeneration with which 
 
 c< we wert regenerated. For in the name of God 
 
 " the Father and Lord of all, and of our Saviour 
 
 " 7 e f us thrift, and of the Holy Spirit, they are 
 
 " then wajhed in the water. For alfo Chriji hath 
 
 " faid, Except ye be regenerated, ye cannot enter 
 
 " into the kingdom of heaven," &c. * 
 
 * Ofol AV crHSari km tfirtuoeriv atX&Sw tojJI* ret v:' n/uut 
 fifxa-K.oy.tv*. km \iToy.i*& «v«>> km /Zitt «r*c JuyolSj vrrty- 
 vavrcuy (v^aBux rt km cureiv yarsfpyrsc •'&(*■&■ fn Qjs rat 
 <&gfn/u.a.pr>t/u,iYav aiiTtY «TiJWxovra/, njuuv cuvtv^cuttav xu 
 ruviirtvulav mj]ou. EtthIa aMm up' v.fxw ey-9* uSctp tri $ 
 km Tyroi *y*5m»<rea>? ov km hyett autoi em; *v\»dii t ufyj t 
 ctvetrwoe/lM. Ett* cvojucLl& ytp tx Uxlgc< ruv o\av km 
 Atazrolx Qm, km th 2a>7»£;c n/xm Ij»<tk K^itx, km Tlrtu* 
 (**]<&' etna, to iv Tee vfttlt Tolt *fc7£?» tsro/Kv7»<. Km yap 
 KpjtTOi ftTm, 'Ay fxn ctvxfav»8/}t k /um a<Ti\Qylt et; tmv 
 @o.aiXH&v Tcev x&tiw. Sec Juftin. Mart. Apolog. I. p. 88, 
 89. Edit. Thirlb. Lond. 1722. 
 
 L Thus 
 
2 1 8 The Argument from 
 
 Thus you fee the words Mr. A. has quoted, 
 viz. " They are regenerated by the fame vjay or man- 
 <c ner of regeneration as we our fives were regejie~ 
 " rated," refer to the Adult, whofe folemn pre- 
 paration for Baptifm the Martyr had juftdefcribcd ; 
 and not to Infants, as perhaps Mr. yf.'s readers may 
 have fuppofed, from the abrupt manner in which 
 he has introduced this partial quotation, telling 
 M us, thatjuftin, fpeaking- of the baptized, fays 
 4< they are regenerated, &c." Some indeed may 
 be apt to conclude from this pafTage, that our 
 Saviour's words, Except a man be born of water 
 md the Spirit, &c. were in that early age under- 
 stood to refer to Baptifm; and that even then 
 Baptifm, which is the fymbol of regeneration, 
 began to be confidered in a too important point 
 of light, if not as abfolutely neceflary to fal- 
 vation. But, admitting this, the inference is 
 rather favourable to the caufe I am defending 
 than otherwife. For, on the one hand, we are 
 from thence enabled to give a probable account 
 of the introduction, in a courfe of time, of 
 Infant-Baptifm, as I mail fhew by and by more 
 particularly : whilft, on the other hand, it is 
 natural to conclude from no mention being made 
 of the Baptifm of Infants on thisoccafion, (when, 
 as I have fhewn, it could fcarce have been omit- 
 ted without the charge of prevarication) it is 
 natural, I fay, to conclude, that the reafoning 
 leading to it had not then produced its effect. 
 
 There 
 
Antiquity confidered. 119 
 
 There is another pafTage, in the fame piece 
 of Juftin's, " from which our Author thinks it 
 " probable that Baptifm was applied to child- 
 " ren in obedience to our Saviour's command, 
 " £xat6nT«v<r«tT5, &t, difciple all nations, bap- 
 " tizing them j viz. That wherein he fpeaks of 
 u fome who tx Ttouluv spaeflltTfvVcef' rco Xe/r<y, 
 " from children were difcipled to Chrifl *." 
 The word w*8*iTst/« we have largely confidered, 
 and proved that its true and proper meaning is, 
 to teach, or to difciple by teaching f. There can 
 be no doubt therefore that the paflage before us 
 ought to be thus translated, They were taught or 
 injlrucled in Chrifl from their childhood : ju ft as 
 Timothy is faid to have known the Holy Scriptures 
 from a child J. But what man in his ienfes will 
 from hence conclude, that Infants in Juftin's 
 time were baptized \ It is true, the fame word 
 is ufed here as in the commiffion : but this proves 
 no more than what we readily grant, viz. that 
 fuch as are inflrucled in Chrift, or are difcipled 
 to Chrifl: by teaching, be they ever fo young, 
 are to be baptized. — Thus our Author utterly 
 fails in his attempt to produce any authority for 
 Infant-Baptifm, for the firft 150 years of the 
 Chriftian aera. 
 
 The next authority Mt. A. quotes, in order of 
 time, is Irenaeus, who is fuppofed to have written 
 
 * P.. 167. f See Let. X. \ % Tin;, iii. I5 . 
 
 L 2 that 
 
220 The Argument from 
 
 that book of his againft Herefies, from whence 
 the paffage in queftion is taken, about 180 years 
 after Chriit. Speaking of Chrifl as cc fanclifying 
 " every age by that likenefs zvhich it bore to Himfelf," 
 he adds, " For He came of Him f elf to fave all: 
 iC ally 1 fay, who by Him are born again to God', 
 " infants, and little ones, and children, and young 
 " ?nen, and old men. Therefore He went through 
 " each age : and was made an infant for infants, 
 iC JanStifying infants: for little ones a little one, 
 *•' fancHifyirig thofe of that age-," &c. * 
 
 Now it muft flrike every one, I think, as 
 very ftrange, that fo early a writer as Irenseus 
 fhould afTert thatChrift " pajfed through every age" 
 that is, that He lived to be an old man. He 
 muft, one mould fuppofe, have known other- 
 wife. Who can forbear therefore fufpe£ting 
 that this paflage is not genuine ? Nay, the 
 whole chapter from which it is taken is liable to 
 ihe fame fufpicion : for the writer, whoever he 
 Was, by fixing, in the beginning of it, our Sa- 
 
 * " — omnem setarem fan&ifkans per illam qua? ad 
 
 V ipfum erat fimilitudinem. Omnes enim venit per Semet- 
 " ipfum falvare : omnes, inquam, qui per Eum renaf- 
 Ci cuntur in Dtum ; infantes, & parvulos, & pueros, & 
 *' juvenes, & feniores. Ideo per omnem venit aetatem : 
 * 8c infantibns infans faclus, fan6lificans infantes : in 
 
 V parvulis parv\ilus, fanclirlcans hanc ipfam habentes aeta- 
 u tern : &C/ 1 Iren. adv. Hseref. 1. 2. c. 39. 
 
 viour's 
 
Antiquity confidered. 221 
 
 viour's Baptifm at about thirty, and mentioning 
 three PafTovers as intervening between that and 
 his death - } and, at the clcfe, affirming that He 
 lived till above fifty, evidently contradicts him- 
 {t\t\ Thefe mift-akes therefore, of which it may 
 be thought this venerable Father could have 
 fcarce been guilty, have led fome learned men, , 
 Pcedobaptifts as well as of our perfuafion, actu- 
 ally to pronounce that fentence upon this whole 
 chapter of which we have fuppofed it deferving. 
 
 It has alfo been obferved by Dr. Gale and 
 others, that, as we have not the whole original 
 work of Irenaeus, but only a tranflation ; fo, by 
 comparing fome parts of the tranflation with 
 fome remaining fragments of the Greek, it ap- 
 pears that the Tranflator has taken very fcandal- 
 ous liberties with the original : and therefore 
 we cannot be fure, even though the chapter be 
 not abfolutely fpurious, that he has given the Au- 
 thor's real fenfe in the paiTage before us. Now 
 who, that confiders thefe things, would be dif- 
 pofed to lay any great ltrefs upon this authority, 
 which yet is deemed the molt confiderable of any 
 in the fecond century in favour of Infant- 
 Baptifm * ? 
 
 But, 
 
 * The learned Cave feems to have apprehended the paff- 
 
 age in debate genuine ; but he acknowledges Irenseus to have 
 
 been in an erroj, which he iuppofes he was betrayed into, 
 
 L $ " partly 
 
*^% Ihe Argument from 
 
 But, waving the queflion refpecling the au- 
 thenticity of the pafTage ; in order to its ferving 
 the caufe of our opponents, it mult be proved 
 that by being born again is meant being baptized. 
 And even then the idea of Infant -Baptifm 
 would be oddly conveyed — " Chrift. came to fave 
 *' all who by Him are baptized unto God ; in- 
 4 fants, and little ones, &c." But the evidence 
 Air. A. has brought to prove that Baptifm is here 
 meant by regeneration, is infufficient. For thofe 
 other words of Irenaeus which he cites to this 
 purpofe, viz. " IVhen He gave them the ccm?niJJion 
 €i of regenerating unto God, He fa id unto them^ 
 " Go, teach all nations, baptizing them" &c. * 
 thefe words, I fay, do not prove the point : for 
 why may not the phrafe here, of regenerating 
 unto God, be understood in reference to teach- 
 ing, and the eflecl: of it upon the hearts of mert> 
 
 ** partly from a miftaken report, which he had fomewho* 
 ** picked up — and partly out of oppofition to his adverfa- 
 1 ries, who maintained that our Saviour ftaid no longer 
 " upon earth than till the 31ft year of his age; againft 
 " whom the eagemefs of difputation tempted him to make 
 '•< good his afTertion from any plaufible pretence." Life of 
 Iren. § X. p. 170. And if this were the fa6t, we ftill fee 
 how little ftrefs is to be laid upon a paflage, which is thus 
 judged to have proceeded from credulity, and to have beea 
 written in the heat of controverfy. 
 
 * " — pcteftatem regenerationis in Deum demandans 
 «* difcipulis, dicebat eis, &c." Iren. adv. Bseief. 1. J* 
 t, 15. 
 
 as 
 

 Antiquity conftdered. 223 
 
 as well as to baptizing ? Nay this is the moft 
 natural fenfe of the two. 
 
 And as to the paffage wherem, according to 
 Mr. y/., he f peaks of Baptifm as the regeneration 
 unto God, the proper rendering of it is, the Bap- 
 tifm of the regeneration unto God *, that is, Bap- 
 tifm which is the fymbol or reprefentation of re- 
 generation, or, as the Apoftle exprelTes it, the 
 wafhing of regeneration f. And who would un- 
 derstand either Irenaeus or the Apoftle to mean, 
 by thefe phrafes, that Baptifm and regeneration 
 are one and the fame thing r Our Author might 
 as well fay, that the Baptism of repentance 
 means the Baptism which is repentance. 
 If then regeneration is to be underftood here 
 in its proper fenfe, and as we commonly under- 
 ftand it, what does this paflage afiert ? No more 
 than what the Baptifts are willing to admit, 
 viz. " that Chrift came to fave all who by Him 
 " are regenerated, whether infants or grown 
 <c perfons :" for infants are capable of being re- 
 newed, though not of repenting and believing. 
 — Thus Mr. A. fails in his authorities for Infant- 
 Baptifm for 180 years after Chrift. 
 
 The next our Author mentions, as fucceeding 
 immediately to Irenaeus, is Tertullian, who did 
 
 * " — «c t%*pn<rtv t« fiatl {?{**] & tw? «f ©loir amity**-- 
 •« <rtus> Ktx &c." 1. 1. c. iS. 
 f Tit. iii. 5. 
 
 L 4 not 
 
224 The Argument from 
 
 net write till about the beginning of the third 
 century. The pafTage he refers to, and which 
 
 I (hall give a little more largely than he has 
 clone, is this : c * According to every one's condl- 
 " tion and difpofttion, and age too, the delay of 
 " Baptifm is more profitable, efpecially as to little 
 *' children. For what neceffity is there thai the 
 " fponfirs alfo Jhould he brought into danger? be- 
 " caufe either they may by death be prevented fulfil- 
 ** ling their promifes, or be deceived by a child's 
 •* proving of a bad difpofition. Our Lord indeed 
 *' f a y s i Do not forbid them to come unto Me % 
 " Therefore let them come ivhen they grow up, let 
 w them come when they learn, when they are in- 
 M JhuSled whither to come. Let them become 
 M Chrifttam when they are able to know Chrifi, 
 " Why does thai innocent age hajlen to the remijfion 
 
 II c ffi ns ? M en a H more cautioufiy in fecular mat- 
 u ters : for they will not intrujl worldly fubjlance 
 " to fitch as are, in this cafe, intrujled with di- 
 " vine ireafure. Let them know how to afk fal- 
 " Vat ion, that you may appear to have given to him 
 ** thai afketh. For no lefs reafan ought unmarried 
 " perfons to be put off ivho are likely to come into 
 " temptation -, &c." * 
 
 Now 
 
 * " — pro cujufque perfonae conditlone ac difpofitione., 
 <« etiam aerate, cunclatio baptifmi utilior eft; praecipue ta- 
 " men circa parvulos. Quid enim necefTe eft fponfor.es 
 *' etiam pcriculo ingeri ? quia & ipfi per mortal itatem dc- 
 
 " ftituerc 
 
Ajvtiqcity eonjidered. 225 
 
 Now the conclufion Mr. A. draws from this 
 paflage is, cc that infants were usually bap- 
 " tized in Tertullian's days." But if {"cr^ and; 
 if this had been the conusant and univerfal prac- 
 tice from the beginning, is it probable that 
 Tertullian would have fet himfelf to oppofe it ? 
 Or if he had, would he not have fpent more 
 time and pains in justifying fo bold an innova- 
 tion, as this mint have been, of the delaying the 
 Bnptifm of Infants ? The conclufion therefore 
 I draw from the paflage is, that fome perfons 
 did about this time baptize their children ; but 
 that the practice was not general. And this 
 ftate cf the fact very well accounts for this Fa- 
 ther's taking up the matter and reafoning about 
 it in the manner he does. But Air. A. objects, 
 u that one might infer from his words, that 
 " Baptifm was denied to all unmarried, as juft- 
 " ly, as that it was denied to Infants *.'* This 
 
 " ftituere promifTior.es funs pofTunt, & proventu mala; in- 
 •' dolis falli. Ait qtiidem Doininus, Nolite illos pro- 
 *< hibere ad me venire. Veniant ergo dum adolefcunt, 
 ** veniant dum difcimt, dum quo veniant docentur: fiant 
 " Chriftiani quum Chrifium nolle potuerint. Quid feftinat 
 "' innocens cetas ad rerniffionem peccatorum ? Cautius 
 •« agetur in fecularibus 5 ut cui' fubilantia terrena non cre- 
 * f dl:-cr, divina credatur. Ncrint petere falutem, ut pe~ 
 ** tenti dedifle videaris. Non minori de caufa innupti quo- 
 " que procraftinandi, in quibus tentatio pra?paraia eft j 
 '« &c." Tertul. de Eaptifmo, 1. 2. c. 18. 
 * P. 164., 165. 
 
 L 5 how- 
 
126 The- Argument from 
 
 however is a miftake r for there is a clear differ- 
 ence in the reafbning in the one caie and the 
 other. He fpealcs of infants as being neither in 
 need or Baptifm nor fit for it, and therefore to 
 he held back from it; a reafon equally applica- 
 ble to all infants. But the reafon he afligns for 
 unmarried perfons delaying Baptifm, is their 
 being likely to come into- temptation ; which 
 might be peculiarly applicable to fome in the 
 unmarried ftate, but not to' all.. 
 
 As to Mr. AW conjecture, **' that Tertullian- 
 M refers merely to the offspring of Heathens, 
 " in all that he fays concerning the procrafti- 
 *•* nation of Infant-Baptifm *j" I can- fee no 
 ground at all for it* For though he does elfe- 
 where fpeak of " the children of the faithful as 
 M deftgned for fanttification^ and by that for faha- 
 M iion f ;" it does not appear that by fan&ifica^ 
 tlon he means Baptifm : and whatever he means 
 by it, he fpeaks of fuch children- only as dejig- 
 natos. But there are paffages in this writer 
 which mew, as Dr. Gale has obferved, that his 
 idea of Baptifm was fuch as could not be applied- 
 to the Baptifm of Infants : viz. where he fays, 
 ** The foul is fanttified not by wajhing, but by 
 
 * P. 165. 
 
 -f- " Quafi defignatcs tamen fan&itati, ac per hoc 
 u etiam faluti intelligi volens fidelium filios:. &c." Tcr- 
 tul. de-Ariima, c. 39, 40. 
 
 an- 
 
Antiquity confidered. 2 if 
 
 " anfwer * ; alluding, it is probable, to the 
 anfwer given by candidates for Baptifm to the 
 queftions put to them : or to the Apoftle Peter's 
 account of a fubmimon to this institution, as 
 being the anfwer of a good confeience towards God f. 
 And again he fays, cc Baptifm is the feal of faith, 
 u which faith is begun and approved by the faith 
 " of irpenia?ice. Therefore we are not wajhed, 
 ** that we may leave off finning, but becaufe zue 
 °* have already left it off: becaufe 'now we are become 
 " pure in heart t.# 
 
 Thus have we feen that there is no proof of 
 any one Infant having been baptized till the be- 
 ginning of the third century : and even then it 
 does not appear that the practice generally pre- 
 vailed' ) but, on the contrary, from this pallage 
 in Tertullian, it looks as if it was beginning 
 to get ground in the church. 
 
 Origen, the next in order of time to Tertul- 
 lian, flourifhed about the year 230. " This 
 
 * " Anima non lavatione fed refponfione faiicitur. 1 '' 
 Tertul. de Refurre&ione, c. 48. 
 
 f 1 Pet. iii. 21. 
 
 X " Lavacrum illud obfignatio eft fidei, qu?e fides a 
 
 H penitentiae fide incipitur & commendatur. Non ideo 
 
 '* abluimur, ut delinquere definamus, led quia desumus : 
 
 4 * quoniam jam corde loti fumus. Tertul. de Poenitentiu, 
 
 L 6 " Fa- 
 
2 2 8 The Argument frm 
 
 " Father," Mr. A. tells us, " fp:aking of little 
 " children as under the guardianfhip of angels, 
 " (as mentioned Matt, xviii. io.) queries, whe- 
 " ther that their guardianship of them com- 
 " menced from their Baptifm, or even their 
 " birth *." A pafTage in point, as a common 
 reader would fuppofe. But if our Author, re- 
 ccllec~ting the reproof he had given Mr, Brown 
 a few pages before f, had thought fit to give us 
 the whole fentence from Origen, his reader 
 would have clearly feen, that not little ones 
 in regard of age, but persons resembling 
 little ones are here intended, and that the 
 Father has fo expreffed himfelf as to put this (qhCq 
 of the word beyond a doubt. 
 
 The fentence runs thus : " If again any one 
 " Jhculd inquire , when it is ibe angels fpoken of 
 are fet ever thofe little ones Jignified by our Sa- 
 viour P whether they take the care and manage- 
 ment of them from the time, when they by the 
 wafhing of regeneration, whereby they were new 
 " botfly do, AS new-born babes desire the 
 " sincere milk cf the word, and are no- 
 ** longer in fubjedlion to any evil power ? or from 
 " their birth, according to the foreknowledge of 
 %' God } &c. j" Their defiring the fincere milk 
 
 of 
 * P. 162. -f See p. 152, note. 
 
 } " "Eilx ' <&<t\n f«T»a«:y <tv t/c, <woTi tuv fenivvfAHeey 
 
Antiquity confidered. 229 
 
 of the word, you fee, clearly fhews that they 
 could not be infants in age; but infants, or little 
 ones, as having been newly regenerated by the 
 grace of God. So that this pafiage does not 
 
 furnifh fo much as the fhadcw of a Droof in 
 
 1 
 
 favour of Poedobaptifm. 
 
 The other paflages our Author quotes from 
 Origen are indeed full to the purpofe : but then 
 the queftion is, Whether they really are Origen's ? 
 They are not taken from the original Greek, 
 which are the only authentick pieces of that 
 Father, but from the translations of Ruffinus. 
 In order, however, to give thefe tranflations an 
 authority nearly equal to the original, Mr. A. 
 allures us, " that Ruffinus lived in the third 
 " century*," the fame with Origen himfelf; 
 and, " that his knowledge or integrity have ne- 
 " ver been doubted j." But our Author is 
 miftaken in both thefe facts. Ruffinus' lived 
 and wrote the latter end of the fourth century, 
 more than a hundred years after Origen. And 
 his knowledge and integrity have been more than 
 once doubted. Not only St. Jerome, who was 
 
 " T9i I TSroJifOV i'i^dLfJ^JOl Till CtXCIC/UlCtV -Grig/ euSlxs flOIHHV 
 
 ■* *<p fc $t*.h*flf* GrdLXiyfivurus, u tTivvubniavy cat ctfltftwhlA 
 
 *' 0pttH TO XoflKOV K) Ctfol.OV yxKO. «7r;^-c6»(T/, KM flMZiVt 
 
 «' wrroKotjufyoi <&ovi>gft tivi fuvz/uei ; » A7ro yt\tytetc, Kclot 
 «« T»» rx QtK mrpofvoertv, &c." Comment, in Matt. Tom. 13* 
 p. 331. ed. Huet. 
 
 * P. 163. f Ibid. 
 
 his 
 
2 30 Tbe Argument from, Sec. 
 
 his cotemporary, and had a quarrel with him, but 
 fevcral modern writers, as Dr. Gale obferves, han- 
 dle him very roughly. Scaliger, fpeaking of one 
 of St. Irenaeus's pieces againft Hercfies, fays, 
 cc The Trcmjlator was an afs, and was more illiterate 
 " than even Ruffnus* ." Mr. Daille obferves, that 
 ** Ruffnus has fo filthily mangled, and fo licentiouf- 
 " ly confounded^ the writings of Origen, &c. which 
 tc he has tranfiated into Latin, that you will hardly 
 ** find a page where he has not retrenched ', or added, 
 " or altered fomething f J* Mr. Du Pin fays, 
 " they are tranfiated with fo much liberty , that it us 
 u a diffcult rnaiter to difcern what is Origerfs own, 
 44 from what has been foijled in by the Interpreter £.-" 
 And Huetius fpeaks of the remains of Origen, 
 as " deformed by wretched tranfiations ||." What 
 dependence then is to be placed upon a teftimony 
 conveyed down to us through fuch hands ? 
 
 Thus you fee, Sir, that for the two firfr cen- 
 turies and a half, there is no one clear proof 
 of Infant-Baptifm having prevailed in the 
 Chriftian church. 
 
 I am, Sir, Yours. 
 
 * Scaligerana, p. 213. " I/Interprete d'Irenee eft bien 
 •* afne, il eft plus indo6le encore que Ruffin." 
 f De Ufu Patrum, 1. 1. c. 4. 
 X Hift. Eccief. Vol. I. p. j 17. 
 J) Origenian. 1. 3. c. 2. Se£t. 3. § 1. 
 
 L.E T 
 
I 231 I 
 
 LETTER XVT. 
 
 Dear Sir, 
 
 I Am willing to admit that there is proof" of 
 Infant-Baptifm's having obtained in Africa 
 about the middle of the third century. I pro- 
 ceed therefore now, 
 
 SECONDLY, To give you, as was propofed, 
 a probable account of the fource whence this 
 innovation originated,, and the manner in which 
 it was introduced. 
 
 I fay probable account, becaufe this is all 
 that can be reafonably expected of us in a matter 
 of this nature. For furely it is abfiird to infinV 
 that unlefs we can fix with certainty the exact 
 time when the firft infant was Baptized, point 
 out with unqueftionble precifion the true motives 
 and caufes leading to it, and trace this practice 
 through its gradual' progrefs to the period when 
 it generally obtained in the church ; that unlefs 
 we can do all this, it is to be prefumed from its 
 having prevailed in the third century, that it is 
 no innovation, but of divine original. 
 
 To> 
 
232 An Inquiry into the 
 
 To (hew the miflake of this reafoning, let us 
 for a moment apply it to the other cafe of the 
 admiflion of children to the Lord's Supper. 
 
 Suppofe then an advocate for infant-commu- 
 nion was to fay to Mr. y/., Unlefs you can fix 
 with certainty the exact, time when the firft in- 
 fant was admitted to the Eucharift ; unlefs you 
 can point out with precifion the caufes leading 
 to this practice ■> and unlefs you can trace this 
 practice through its gradual progrefs to the pe- 
 riod in which it became general : unlefs you can 
 do all this, it is to be prefumed from its having 
 prevailed in the third century, that it is no in- 
 novation, but of divine original. What would 
 be Mr. A.'s reply ? He w T ould not hefitate a 
 moment. There is no authority for it, he would 
 fay, in Scripture. And as to what you require 
 of me, k is unreasonable : all you can expect is, 
 a probable account of the rife of this corruption > 
 and that I am ready to give you. In like man- 
 ner I reply to Mr. A. upon the matter before us. 
 There is no authority for Infant-Baptifm in 
 Scripture. All you can reafonably expect, from 
 me is, a probable account of the fource whence 
 this innovation originated, and the manner in 
 w^hich it was introduced ; and this I am ready 
 to give you. Yea, I will go further and add, 
 that perhaps we may be able to interfperfe fome 
 few hiflorical notes which will render our ac- 
 7 count 
 
Origin of Infant-Baptifm. 233 
 
 count more than probable, I had almoft faid, 
 certain. 
 
 I fuppofe, Sir, it will be admitted that in- 
 novations in religion, of the moft abfurd kind 
 and pernicious tendency, are very poflible. No 
 one can doubt it, who confiders that many fuch 
 innovations do actually exift in the church of 
 Rome. It is certain alfo that fome innovations 
 have arifen very imperceptibly ; imperceptibly, 
 at leaf!, to us, who live in a late period of 
 Chriftianity : for, with all the lights which 
 hiftory furniihes, it is out of our power to fix 
 precifely the origin of fome of thofe ceremonies 
 which yet Proteftants generally acknowledge to 
 be unfcriptural. And it is further certain, that 
 fome innovations have made a very rapid progrefs 
 in a fhort time ; fo that what was fcarce known 
 in the beginning of one century, has obtained 
 through a whole country by the middle of it. 
 This is the facr. with refpecl: to the mode of 
 Baptifm in this country: for in the courfe of 
 about fifty years immerfion was wholly laid afide, 
 and fprinkling fubftituted in its room ; without 
 the allowance of the Inftitutor, as Dr. Whitby 
 acknowledges ; contrary to the determination of 
 a fynod, under Kenwolfe king of the Mercians, 
 in the year 816 ; and contrary too to the exprefs 
 words of the Rubrick of the Church of England 
 as it now ftands. • It is not ftrange, therefore, 
 
 that 
 
234 ^ n Inquiry into the 
 
 that Infant-Baptifm, abfurd and unfcriptural as 
 we conceive it is, mould find its way into the 
 church : nor would it have certainly followed 
 from our not being able to point out the fource 
 whence it originated, that, becaufe it prevailed 
 in the third century, it was no corruption. A 
 probable account, however, is to be given of 
 the matter. 
 
 A mifunderftanding of onr Saviour's words to 
 Nicodemus, Except a man be born of zuater and 
 the Spirit^ be cannot enter into the kingdom of God |j, 
 feems to have been the ground upon which 
 Infant-Baptifm was introduced. Yet there is 
 good reafon to apprehend, that the words were 
 BY degrees perverted to that grofs (tn(e which 
 the Fathers of the fourth century affixed to it, 
 about which time this innovation pretty general- 
 ly prevailed. Juftin Martyr, the middle of the 
 fecond century, mentions this pafTage, as we 
 have feen *, in the account he gives the Empe- 
 ror Antoninus Pius of Chriftian Baptifm. And 
 from the connection in which he introduces the 
 words, it is probable he underftood our Saviour 
 here as fpeaking of Baptifm, But it is alfo na- 
 tural to conclude from his very particular de- 
 fcription of thofe who were admitted to Baptifm, 
 as well as from his total filence about infants, 
 that he confidered this inftitution merely as the 
 j| John iii. 5. * Seep. ziy. 
 
 fymbol 
 
Origin of Infant-Baptifm. 235 
 
 fymbol of regeneration, and thofe only who were 
 regenerated in the proper fenfe of the word as 
 the fit fubjects of it. Upon this fenfe, however, 
 of the pafTage, from whomfoever it originated, 
 it is eafy to conceive how people might come to 
 look upon Baptifm in a very important light 
 with refpect to the adult ; and, in time, to con- 
 fider Regeneration and Baptifm as convertible 
 terms. And from this flep the tranfition was 
 extremely natural to that of interpreting tk of 
 any one or all kinds of perfons : and fo the con- 
 clufion necefTarily followed, that, unlefs children 
 as well as grown perfons were baptized, they 
 could not be faved. 
 
 This interpretation of our Saviour's words ob- 
 taining, fond parents, no doubt, became eager 
 to have their children baptized : and confidered 
 our Lord as allowing, if not commanding, their 
 Baptifm, when He faid, Suffer little children to 
 come unto Me *. And accordingly we find thefe 
 words were commonly ufed at that time, as a plea 
 in fupport of this innovation. Yet here a diffi- 
 culty feems to have arifen, from the manifefr, 
 impropriety of admitting fuch to Baptifm, as 
 are incapable of making a previous profeffion. 
 This difficulty, however, is over-ruled by allow- 
 ing fponfors in their room to anfwer for them : 
 which practice, as appears by the pafTage we 
 
 * Matt. xix. 14* 
 
 have 
 
236 An Inquiry into the 
 
 have quoted from Tertullian, prevailed about 
 this time. And now fome people, it is proba- 
 ble, in Africa, where this bufinefs was agitated, 
 baptized their children. Tertullian, however, 
 protefls againft it, infixing " that infants fhould 
 " not be baptized, till they were grown up; 
 " that they fhould not come, till they had 
 <c learned, and were inftru&ed whither to come; 
 " that they fhould not become Chriftians by 
 " profcmon, till they were able to know Chrift: 
 " and that even the adult, who were likely to 
 <c fall into temptation, fhould rather delay Bap- 
 " tifm, than be forward to fubmit to it *." But 
 thefe remonftrances have little effect. The idea 
 of the indifpenfible neceffity of Baptifm to fal- 
 vation prevails : infomuch that the falvation of 
 fuch martyrs as died, not having been baptized, 
 is put upon the ground of what they called Bap- 
 tifmum fanguinis, which they confidered as equi- 
 valent to water-baptifm. 
 
 And now, Is it at all ftrange, that at the di- 
 
 ftance of an hundred years from Juitin Martyr, 
 
 and when the fenfe of our Saviour's words to 
 
 Nicodemus was fixed in the manner I have re- 
 
 prefented, we fhould hear of a queftion propofed, 
 
 at an afTembly of Bifhops at Carthage, whether 
 
 infants ought to be baptized on the eighth day, 
 
 in conformity to the practice among the Jews 
 
 of circumcifing on that day, or whether it might 
 
 * See p. 224.. 
 
 not 
 
Origin cf Infant-Baptifm. 237 
 
 not be dangerous to delay Baptifm even until 
 that time? Not at all. And though I admit, 
 the propofmg this queftion and the opinion given 
 upon it, furnim a proof (and it is the firft clear 
 proof we have) that Infant-Baptifm prevailed at 
 that period j yet it does not certainly follow 
 from thence, that the practice then univerfally 
 obtained even in Africa, much lefs throughout 
 the Chriftian church. 
 
 On the contrary, there is good ground to ap- 
 prehend that the Greek churches were of a dif- 
 ferent opinion from the African council : for 
 Dionyfius, Bifhop of Alexandria,-who flourifhed 
 about this time, fpeaking of Novatian as rejefl- 
 ing holy Baptifm, further defcribes him as fub- 
 verting the faith, and profejfton ivhich goes before 
 it *. So that his idea of Baptifm was, that faith 
 and a profeflion went before it. Arid what is 
 more directly to our purpofe j Vanfleb, a Domi- 
 nican friar, in his hiftory of the church of Ale- 
 xandria, allures us (and he gives us his autho- 
 rity) that " in the firft ages, none but fuch as were 
 cc thirty years of age were baptized there, and that 
 " fome time after permijfon zvas given to baptize 
 " the children of Chriftian s f." 
 
 How 
 
 * To x*Tfo* etQtTxvTi th ctnov, x*x mv <ti <ar& eu>lu <o-t- 
 Tiv km ey-oxoficLV ettalpt7rorlt. Eufeb. Hift. Ecclef. 1. 7. c. 8. 
 
 f See VanMeb. Hift. de l'Eglife cTAlexand. Part. I. 0.23. 
 His authority was, it feeras, Amba Macaire, Bifhop of 
 
 JMemphis, 
 
2%% An Inquiry into the 
 
 How this corruption, from its thus fpringing 
 up in Africa, might in a courfe of time fpread 
 yet further, till it became general in the Chrifti- 
 an church, is cafy to be imagined. I mail not 
 therefore tire you, Sir, with following Mr. A. 
 through his tcfVimonies from the fourth and fifth 
 centuries, &c. but leave him in the quiet pof- 
 feffion of thofe authorities. To fhew you, how- 
 ever, that I am not fingular in my conjecture^ 
 concerning the rife of Infant-Baptifm, it may 
 be proper to give you here the opinion of fome 
 learned men, and Pcedobaptifls too, upon the 
 queftion. 
 
 Rigaltius, in his notes on the Epiflle of Cy- 
 prian to Fidus, fays, " As faith fprings from af- 
 " fent, it is not difcerned in man till he arrives at 
 " years capable of under/landing and wifdom. And 
 <c therefore we read in the Acls cf the Apoflles y 
 u that men and women were baptised when they had 
 ** believed Philip preaching the gofpel, but no men- 
 " tion is made of infants. So that from the age 
 w of the Apojlles to the times of Tertullian the mat- 
 <c ter remained doubtful. And there were thofe who 
 " took occafton from that word of our Lord, Suffer 
 " little children to come unto Me (to whom yet our 
 ic Lord commanded not water to be adminiflered) to 
 U baptize even new-born infants. And, as if fome 
 
 Memphis, who was fecretary to Cofmus the third, their 
 58th Patriarch, and lived A.D. 756. 
 
 " fecular 
 
Origin cf Tnfant-Baptifm. 239 
 
 iC fecular bujinefs were travfacled with God, they 
 <c offered fponfers to Ckrijt^ or perfons who Jhould 
 M beco?ne fureties for them, that when adult they 
 " Jhould not depart from the Chrijii an faith : which 
 <c indeed dif plea fed Tertullian ■* ." 
 
 Curcellaeus acknowledges, " Infant- Baptifm 
 " was unknown the two firjl ages after Chriji ; in 
 " the third and fourth it vjas approved by a few^ 
 " till at length in the fifth and following ages it be- 
 u gan to obtain in divers places \ arid therefore this 
 " rite is indeed obferved by us as an ancient cujlom^ 
 " but not as an apojlolical tradition f ." And in 
 
 * " Fides, cum ex affenfu veniat, in homine non de- 
 " prehenditur, ante annos intellects & fapientiae capaces. 
 " Adeoque in Actis Apoftoloium legimus, cum credidif- 
 " fent Philippo evangelizanti, baptizatos fuiffe vires & 
 M mulieres, mtntione infantium nulla. Itaque ab aevo 
 M Apoftolorum ufque ad Tertulliani tempora res in ambi- 
 " guo manfit. Et fuere, qui occafione verbi Domini, 
 " Sinite paiTulos venire ad Me, quibus tamen aquas mi- 
 " niftrari non juflit Dominus, etiam recens natos infantes 
 M baptizaverint. Et quafi feculare aliquod negotium cum 
 " Deo tranfigeretur, fponfores & fidejufTores Chrifto dede- 
 ** rint adultos a fide Chriftiana non recefiuros, quod fane 
 " difplicuit Tertulliano. ,, Rigalt. Not. in Cyprian! Epift. 
 ad Fidum. 
 
 f " Pcedobaptifmus — qui duobus primis a Chrifto nato 
 11 feculis fuit incognitus, in tertio vero & quarto a paucis 
 *' eft approbatus, in quinto demum Sc fequentibus palfim 
 •"' obtinere coepit — et prcinde hie ritus a nobis quidem ut 
 " antiqua confuetudo, fed non ut apoftolica traditio ob- 
 " fervatur." Curcelbei Rel. Chrift. Inft. 1. i. c. 12. 
 
 7 an- 
 
240 An Inquiry into the 
 
 another place he fays, " That the cujlotn of bap~ 
 <c , tiding infants did not begin before the third age 
 '" after Chrifi : but in the two former ages there 
 " appears not any trace of it *." 
 
 Suicerus to the fame purpofe declares, " That 
 <c in the two firfl ages no one received Baptifni, but 
 <( - he who, having been injirucled in the faith, and 
 f* imbued with the doclrine of Chrijl, was able to 
 £i ie ft' l fy that he believed ; becaufe of thofe words, 
 <c He that believeth and is baptized. Therefore it 
 f* was firfl required to believe 3 hence the order of 
 ** catechumens in the church. It was then alfo a 
 <c con/l ant cuflom always obferved, to give the cate- 
 ** chum ens the Eucharifl immediately after Baptif?n ; 
 <c afterwards an opinion prevailed, that no one could 
 u be faved, unlefs he had been baptized - } and there- 
 " fore, becaufe the Eucharijl was before given to 
 " the adult catechumens, asfoon as they were wajhed 
 " by holy Baptifm ; this alfo was appointed to be done 
 " in regard of infants, after the introduclion of 
 " Pcedobaptifm \" 
 
 But 
 
 # ** Morem infantes baptizandi non coepifTe ante ter- 
 " tium a Chrifto nato feculum : in duobus vero prioribus 
 " nullum ejus veftigium apparere." Cured. Diflert. fe- 
 cunda de peccat. orig. feci. 56. 
 
 f " Primis duobus feculis nemo Baptifmum accipiebat, 
 (C nifi qui, in fide inftruclus, Sc dochina Chrifli imbutus, 
 il teftari poffet, fe credere : propter ilia verba, Qui credi- 
 (i derit & baptizatus fuerlt. Ergo prius erat credere; 
 
 « inde 
 
Origin of Infant-Baptifm. 241 
 
 But it will, perhaps, be objected, that it is" 
 fcarce credible the Chriftian church fhould be 
 capable, at fo early a period, of falling into fo 
 grofs an error as this muft have been, if it waS 
 any error at all. To obviate this difficulty I gd 
 on to mew, 
 
 THIRDLY, That the true character of the 
 early ages of Chriftianity, puts the credibility 
 of this matter beyond a reafonable doubt. 
 
 Some may, perhaps, have been ufed to con- 
 ceive fo highly of the knowledge . and pru- . 
 dence, as well as the fimplicity and piety, of 
 the primitive Fathers, as to fuppqfe it very im- 
 probable that they fhould corrupt and adulterate 
 the inftitutions of Chrift ; and the rather as they 
 lived fo near the times of the Apofdes, and muft 
 have been well informed what were the cuftoms 
 and ufages which prevailed in thofe days. But 
 the miftake of this will appear upon a little re- 
 flection. They were, it is true, pious men; 
 
 " hide ordo catechumenorum in eccleficC Mcs etiam turn 
 «* perpetuus conftanter obfervatus fv.it, ut fecundum Bap-- 
 «' tifmum catechurnenis illls ftatim daretur Euchariftia ; 
 ° poftea opinio invaluit, nerainem falvari ppiTe, nifi qui 
 " baptizatus fuifiet ; quia autem catechurnenis 'adultis 
 " olim firaul ac loti fulfient facro Bapti filiate, daoatur 
 " Euchariftia ; hoc etiam in ihflntibus ut Kent inilitutum 
 " poft Poedobaptifmum intfoau&um.* 1 Suicen Theiaur. 
 Ec. £ub voce 2«>u*|/c. 
 
 M but 
 
442 'dn Inquiry Into the 
 
 but they were, moil of them, very weak, in- 
 judicious, and credulous, miferable interpreters 
 of Scripture, and very ill informed as to many 
 tran factions before their own times. 
 
 Could any thing be more filly than Juftin 
 Martyr's comparing the human body to the crofs ? 
 telling us, " The human form differs only from 
 *} that of other creatures, as it is erecl, extends its 
 <c arms, and has a nofe projecting from the forehead, 
 " through which refpiration is made \ all which 
 " Jbews nothing elfe but the figure of the crofs. 
 " And thus it is fpoken by the Prophet, Chriji the 
 *' Lord is the breath before our face *." 
 
 How very ignorant and credulous muft Ire- 
 nrcus have been, (if the pauage referred to in the 
 laft Letter be really his) to aflert that our Lord 
 pafled through every age ; and that he had this 
 by tradition from the Apofties : notwithftanding 
 the facred hiftory of the New Teftament is di- 
 rectly againft him, and he had certain means 
 befides of knowing otherwife, if he had duly at- 
 tended to them ! 
 
 * " To Si tt*9p«7r&tv %»fAdt, ahvt ttWt* ray &\cfcv fa'*r 
 *.< fixQtfH, » to) opQo\1t avcu text (k]u.<ti¥ X^ w t X eiv > Kau '* 
 
 «< Ttt i&pOVUTTU tt7T0 TK /UilteTTlX TllffJUlVOV T0» M^idf/OV fA.lt- 
 
 * f ZovImqcl VifHV, St'tt nit avsL7rtOH e<n ice %en» 9 kcu xftv «\\« 
 f * fewwaiv » <r» %»/u* t« <Ttwp%. Kcu ft*, vx vrpoipnlit cT« 
 «* tKixQti *fl»f Xlviv/uit tvpo t&pocrtoTrx »/ULav t X/>iS"ej Kug/oc.'* 
 ApoL. I. p. S2. Edit. Tliiilb. Lond. ijzz, 
 
 Caa 
 
Origin of Infant- Baptifm. 243 
 
 Can anyone forbear pitying the weaknefs of 
 good St. Cyprian, when he hears him reafoning 
 (in his Epiftle to Fidus concerning the famous 
 council at Carthage) from the prophet Elima's 
 ftretching himfelf on the Shunamite's child, to 
 an equality of grace given to infants and adult 
 perfons ? and further telling us, that " in ihat 
 " place a fpiritual equality, and fuch as is in the 
 ** ejkcm of God, is intimated to us * f " 
 
 Instances of this kind of weak reafoning, and 
 mifraken interpretation of Scripture, are innu- 
 merable. Nor were the Fathers of the fourth 
 centurv, who fo readily went into the practice 
 of Infant-Baptifm, a whit wifer than their pre- 
 deceffors, who by their faife reasoning had laid 
 a foundation for it : as furficiently appears from 
 the writings of St. Epiphanius, who, amidft a 
 multitude of other wild conceits, argues bv ana- 
 
 * <* — effe apud oranes, five infantes, five majores r.atu, 
 " vrnam divini muneris squalitatem declarat nobis divine 
 " fcripturae fides. Htlilams iuper infanienj Sunamitidii 
 * : viduae filium qui mortuus jacebat, iia fe Deuin deprecans 
 " iuperftravit, ut capiti caput, & faciei fades applicaretur, 
 fi tz fuperfuii Helifsei membra fmgulis parvidi membris, 
 «•' & pedes pedibus jungerentuf. Qok res n iccundum 
 '* nativitatis noftrae & corporis qualitatern cogitelur, auultcy 
 " & proveclo inians non polTet aequari, nee coJuerere & 
 " rufficere poffent membra parva )najoribus. Sed illiC 
 " aequalitas divina 8c fpiritualis exprimitur, <§:c." Cy- 
 priaui Epift. 64.. ad Fidum. Edit. Oxon. p. 160. 
 
 M 2 logy 
 
244 sin Inquiry into the 
 
 logy " from our Saviour's being called the Lion 
 oi the tribe of Judah, and confequently the 
 Virgin Mary's being a Lionefs, to her having 
 borne no more children after Him *" ^ 
 
 Now, is it to be wondered that men of fuch 
 a cair, however Honeft and pious, mould in the 
 hi'ft iiilumce mifapply the words of our Saviour 
 to Nicodemus, to Baptifm ? mould then infift 
 that the adult, who died unbaptized, could none 
 of them be faved, except in extraordinary cafes ? 
 from thence proceed to aflert, that even infants, 
 dying without Baptifm, could not enter into the 
 kingdom of heaven? and fo not only yield to 
 tin's innovation, but propagate it with all their 
 might? 
 
 It is further to be obferved, that we hear of 
 fponfors in Baptifm, of the fign of the crofs, 
 of anointing the baptized, and giving them milk 
 and honey, as early f , and of admitting infants 
 to the Lord's Supper very near as early J, as we 
 hear of Infant-Baptifm itfelf. And is it in- 
 
 * {< AiOAVH fi S~iv7t&t fc ytVil'JU XV»TIC' Ct&t CVKiTl KVilC-tt 
 
 fl oitev » Mapix' VKtli <rui,u.$ei v o-a/uxjav n ctfut nstfQsvsr." 
 St.Epiph. Oper. adv. Haeref. Tom. I. 1. 3. t. 2. p. 1045. Edit. 
 Colon. 
 
 f Tertul. de Baptifm. 1. 2. c. 18. and c. 7. and, dc 
 Corona, c. 3. 
 
 \ Cypr. de Lapfis, p. 175. 
 
 credible, 
 
Origin of Infant-Baptifm. 245 
 
 credible, or indeed at all flrange, that the men 
 who introduced the four former ufages into the 
 church, which Mr. A. has no doubt are un- 
 fcriptural, mould -be capable of introducing the 
 latter ? It is alio certain that the chief cor- 
 ruptions of Popery, fuch as prayers for the 
 dead * 3 the worfhip of relicks f ; the invocation 
 of faints {'5 and the institution ,of monkery !| ; 
 were either actually introduced, or rifmg into 
 exifcencc, in the third, fourth, and fifth centu- 
 ries, and fome of them earlier. No lefs than 
 ninety herefies are faid to have fpfung up in the 
 three firfl centuries. And Fpurious books with- 
 out number were forged under the names of 
 Chfift and his Apoitles, and the apoltolical 
 writers; and, what is remarkable, many of them 
 cited by the primitive Fathers as genuine. 
 
 To all which I will add a fhort account from 
 St. Cyprian himfelf, of the miferable defection 
 of thofe times, I mean about A.D. 250, the sera 
 in which we have the firft clear proof, as hath 
 been fhewn, cf the prevalence of Infant-Baptifm, 
 This Father tells us, and he was an eye-v/itnefs 
 of what he reports, that the difcipline of the 
 church was corrupted, and its faith almoPc loft, 
 
 * Tertul. de Monogam. X. p. 6S2. 
 
 f Chryfoft. Op. T. 2. p. 555. Ed. Bened. 
 
 t Hieron. Tom. IV. par. 2. p. 2S5, 2S6. Ed. Bened. 
 
 11 Id. p. 7S0. 
 
 M 3 by 
 
246 An Inquiry Into the 
 
 by the long tranquility it had then enjoyed. 
 M Each cue" he complains, " Jludied how to in- 
 ** crcajc his patrimony ; and forgetting what the 
 44 faithful had done in apcjl click times, or what 
 44 they ought always to do, their grand paffion was 
 44 an infatiable defre of enlarging their fortunes. 
 44 There was no real religion in their priefls, nt 
 44 found faith in their miniflers, no mercy in their 
 44 works, no d'fcipline in their manners. The men 
 M disfgured their beards, and the women abufed 
 their faces by fatfe arts. Their eyes, fajlnoned 
 by the hand of God, zvere adulterated^ and their 
 hair Jhiined with other colours. Fraudulent 
 fh ernes were praclijed, to deceive the fmple and 
 to circumvent the brethren. It was v.fual to join 
 in marriage with infdcls, and to projlitute the 
 44 numbers of Chrijl to the Gentiles: not only to 
 fwear rajhly, but to be guilty of perjury : to 
 treat thofe who were fet over them with info- 
 leni contempt, to reproach them with abufive lan- 
 guage, and to fall out among themf elves with 
 44 objlinaie r ef cniments. It was common for a great 
 44 many bijhops, whofe duty it was to be both in- 
 44 Jhuttors and examples to the re/?, having defpifed 
 44 their divine Jlcwardfoip, to become Jietvards of 
 " fecular affairs ; and, having left their Jlaiion in 
 44 the church and deferted their people, to wander 
 44 about into the provinces of others, and feck out 
 44 the market of gainful traffek. Nor were they 
 14 difpeied to relieve their hungry brethren in the 
 
 44 churchy 
 
Origin of Infant-Baptifm. 247 
 
 M church , to ^^r to lay up a great deal of money 9 
 
 " tofeize eftates by treachery and fraud, and to in- 
 
 *' creafe their ftoc.k by exorbitant inter eft. JVhat do 
 
 " w^ not defer ve to fuffer" adds he, "for thefe 
 
 " heinous fins? &cl"# 
 
 And now, upon the view we have taken of 
 the weak reafonings of the primitive Fathers, 
 the fuperftitious prejudices of the people, and 
 
 * lt Studebant augendo patrimonii) finguli ; & obliti 
 '< quid credentes, aut fub Apoftolis ante fecifferit, aut 
 " temper f'acere deberent, infatlabili ciipiditatis afdofje 
 " ampliandis facultatibus mcHbabant. Nori in facerdcti- 
 ** bus rejigio devota, non in miniftrie fides Integra, nan 
 " in operibus mifericordia, non in moribus difciplina. 
 •' Corrupta barba in viris, in feminis forma f'ueata. 
 " Adulterati pod Dei mamis ocidi, capilli meacfaclo co- 
 «' Jorati. Ad detTpieada coraa ilmpiitiuin <-n'!Y,v £rau>- 
 ** des, circumveniendis fratribus fubdebe voiuntn.rcs. JuVi- 
 *« gcre cum inrldebbus vinculum matrimonii prcflituere 
 '1 gentilibus membra Clirifti : ncn jurare tan. turn temerj, 
 *' led adhuc ctiam pejerare : pnvpolltos fuptrbo tuniore 
 tc contemnere, venenato iibi ore maledicere, odiis perti- 
 " nacibus invicem diiTIdere. Epii'copi plurimi, quo^ & 
 *< hortamento eiTe oportet caeteris 8c exemplo, divma pro- 
 '* curatione contemta, procurators rcium iecuiariuMi 
 ,( fieri, derelicta cathedra, plebe deierca, pfcr alienas pro- 
 " vincias oberrantes. negotiations quadluofae nundinal 
 «* aucupari. Eiurientibus in ecelefia fratiibus ncn rub- 
 rt venire, habere argen turn largiter velle, fundos iniidioiis. 
 " fraudibus rapere, ulifrls multiplicamibus i'enus atagere. 
 <« Quid non pcrpeti tales pro peccatis ejufittodi mmmm ? 
 •' &c. ,-> Cyp. Oper. de Lapiis, p. 123, 124. Edit. Oxoiu 
 
 M 4 the 
 
248 jfn Inquiry into the 
 
 the general defection of the times, will any one, 
 can any one, think it ftrange that Infant-Baptifm, 
 .amidft the numerous errors and abufes that pre- 
 vailed, mould find its way into the church ? 
 
 Thus have I made good my three proportions 
 — That there is no proof of Infant-Baptifm 
 having obtained the two firft centuries — That 
 at what time it did obtain, a probable account 
 is to be given of the fource from whence it ori- 
 ginated—and, That to fuppofe the Chriftian 
 church, in that early age, capable of thus adul- 
 terating an institution of Chrifr, is by no means 
 incredible, but perfectly confident with the cha- 
 r of thole times. 
 
 And now, Sir, I leave you to judge, whether 
 Mr. A. has truth on his fide when he affirms, 
 <c that Infant-Baptifm was received in all ages^ 
 tc — that its authority was not difputed in the 
 c * early ages of Chriftianity;— and that of all 
 " the (lets into which the church was divided, 
 " in the third and fourth centuries, not one 
 cc ever upbraided the other with baptizing in- 
 " fants as an innovation; but all agreed in it |[." 
 What then becomes of his argument from Anti- 
 quity ? Will a confiderate man lay any ftrefs 
 upon it ? On the contrary, will not the inquiry 
 we have made confirm his fufpicion, that the 
 
 II P. 175- 
 
 bap- 
 
Origin of Infant-Baptifm. 249 
 
 baptizing infants is an innovation? or, at lead,. 
 convince him of the feafonablenefs and import- 
 ance of this truly-proteftant maxim, that in all 
 matters of this nature, the Scriptures, arui thofe 
 alone, are to be our authority r 
 
 I am, Sir, 
 
 Yours, 
 
 M 5- tET- 
 
[ 2 5 ] 
 
 LETTER XVII, 
 
 Dear Sir, 
 
 WE have considered Mr. J.'s argument 
 from Antiquity, and proceed now to that 
 of Universality. 
 
 u Infant-Baptifm," he affirms, " has been uni- 
 4< verfaily received and preferved in all parts *," 
 as well as in all ages. A bold aflertion this ! And 
 an aflertion fcarce reconcileable with an opinion 
 he had before quoted from Mr. Wall, and, I fup- 
 pofc, adopted as his own. " The learned Wall," 
 fays he, " informs us, that from the year of our 
 " Lord 400 to 1 1 50, no fociety of men, in all 
 " that period of feven hundred years, ever pre- 
 " tended to fay it was unlawful to baptize in- 
 " fants f." So that we are to underftand 
 Mr. Wall and Mr. A. as faying, that, before 
 and after thofe periods, there might be focieties 
 of men who held the unlawfulnefs of baptizing 
 infants. And if fo, how is it our Author here 
 aflerts, " that Infant-Baptifm has been uni- 
 " versally received and preferved in all 
 
 * P. 175. t P. 154. 
 
The Argument from y &c. 251 
 
 <c parts, and in all ages V We will take, 
 however, the line Mr. A. has drawn, by the 
 amftance of Mr. Wall, for our guide in our 
 inquiries upon the quefticn ot the Universa- 
 lity of Infant-Baptifm. And, 
 
 1. As to the firft four hundred years from. 
 Chrift. It is fo far from being true tc that it 
 " was univerfally received and prefervcd in all 
 " parts, through that period ; J> that there is no 
 proof, as we have feen, of any one infant's 
 having been baptized during the former half of 
 that time : and though, towards the end of the 
 third century, it might pretty generally obtain 
 in Africa; it has been proved that it did not ob- 
 tain throughout the ChriiHan church, particu- 
 larly the Greek. So that the argument from 
 Universality, hath evidently thus far failed. 
 But how ftands the fadt, you will afk, 
 
 2. With regard to the fix or feven following 
 centuries? To this, I acknowledge, it is diffi- 
 cult to reply with precinon, fur want of iufil- 
 cient hiitorical lights. For it ib well known 
 that, during thoft ages, learning, as well as re- 
 ligion, was at a very low ebb : infomueh that, 
 during the incurfions of the barbarous nation?-, 
 and, in a courfe of time, the enormous ufurru 
 tions of the church of Rome, both the one an^ 
 the other were almoft extinguifbed and loft. So 
 M w tii.it 
 
fcgfc The Argument from 
 
 that if we had had no account, in all that period", 
 of focieties of men that held it unlawful to bap- 
 tize infant?, it would not be ftrange; nor would 
 it from thence follow, there were actually 
 no such societies. I hope, however, to make 
 it appear that we are not left wholly in the dark 
 upon the matter. 
 
 The ancient Vaudois or Vallenfes, fo callecf 
 from the place dr their abode, the valleys of Pied- 
 mont * ; are upon good grounds apprehended to 
 have efcaped the errors and corruptions of Popery 
 in the word of times, to have maintained the 
 doctrines and institutions of Chriflianity in their 
 primitive purity, and to have been of apoftolical 
 inal f. From them the Waldenfes of the 
 twelfth century, who made fo confiderable a figure 
 in the fouthern parts of France, and fpread them- 
 felves into Bohemia and Germany, derived their 
 name.; and not, as is commonly fuppofed, from 
 Peter Waldo of Lyons, who arofe about 
 
 * " The name Walknfes cr Vauclois," fays Dr. Allix, 
 '* war given them from the place of their abode, which 
 *' tlic inhabitants called, tes Vaus de Lucerne and An- 
 u - g ro g ne > f rom whffliae came the Latin name Vallenfts, 
 " which was afterward* changed to Valdenfes, &C. 1 ' See 
 his Remarks on the ancient churches of Piedmont, p. 17^. 
 
 f This is the opinion of Beza, Dr. Allix, and other 
 writers of note. ' And it is maintained by Dr. Maclaine, 
 tiie learned Tranfiator of MofheinVs Ecclehaftical Hiftory, 
 as we fcatt fee in a note further ca. 
 
 A. IX 
 
Universality conjidered. 253 
 
 A.D. 1159. * Now thefe Waldenfes, or Albi- 
 genfcs as they are otherwife called, did, many 
 
 though 
 
 * " It fcems evident from the beft records," fays 
 Dr. Maclaine in his notes on Mofheim, " that Valdus ,r 
 (by whom he means this Peter Waldo of Lyons, of whom 
 Mofheim had been fpeaking) " derived his name from 
 " the true Val den fes of Piedmont, whofe doctrines he ad- 
 " opted, and who were known by the names of Vaudois 
 " and Valdenfes, before he or his immediate followers 
 " exifced. If the Valdenfes or Waldenfes had derived 
 " their name from any eminent teacher, it would pro- 
 " bably have been from Valdo, who was remarkable for 
 *' the purity of his doctrine in the IXth century, and was 
 (t the cotemporary and chief counfellor of Berengarius. 
 '" But the truth is, that they derive their name from their 
 " vallies in Piedmont, which in their language are called 
 " Vaux, hence Vaudois, their true name ; hence Peter or 
 *•' (as others call him) John of Lyons, was called in Latin 
 " Valdus, becaufe he had adopted their doctrine j and 
 "- hence the term Valdenfes and Waldenfes ufed by thofe, 
 tl who write in Englifh or Latin, in the place of Vaudois. 
 " The bloody Inquiiitor Reinerus Sacco, who exerted 
 *j fuch a furious zeal for the deftru6lion of the Waldenfes, 
 " liyed but about eighty years after Valdus of Lyons, and 
 " mull therefore be fuppofed to knew whether or not he 
 " was the real founder of the Valdenfes or Leoniits ; and 
 " yet it is remarkable that he fpeaks of the Lccnifts (men- 
 " tioned by Dr. Mofheim as fynonimous with Waldenfes) 
 " as a feci: that had flourifhed above 500 years ; nay men- 
 " tions authors of note, who make their antiquity remount 
 " to the apoftolick age.. See the account given of Sacco> 
 4 < book by the Jeiuit Gretler, in the Bibliotheca Patrum. 
 *< I know not upon what principle Dr. Mofheim maintains-, 
 w that the inhabitants of the Vallies of Piedmont are to.be 
 
 «« care- 
 
254 ^e Argument from 
 
 though perhaps not all of them, deny Infant 
 and practice Adult Baptifm *. It is natural, 
 
 there- 
 
 i( carefully diftinguifhed from the Waldenfes ; and I am- 
 " perfuaded, that whoever will be at the pains to read at- 
 tc tentively the 2d, 25th, 26th, and 27th chapters of the 
 << rirft book of Leger's Hiftoire Generale des Eglifes Vau- 
 " cloifes,. will find this di(tin6lion entirely groundlefs.-— 
 " When the Papifts afk us where our religion --was before 
 <l Luther ? we generally anfwer, in the Bible ; and we an- 
 €l fwer well. But to gratify their tafte For tradition and 
 " human authority, we may add to this anlwer, and in the 
 " rallies of Piedmont r Mofhcim's Ecclef. Hilt. Cent. XII.. 
 Part II. note g, p. 452. 
 
 * I fay many and not all, becaufe there were fome in the 
 XHth century to whom the general names of Waldenfes 
 and Albigeniis were given (" under which names'* 
 Dr. Mofheim obferves, " the Latins comprehended all the 
 " adverfaries cf the Roman Pontif/' Ecclef. Hiit. Vol. II. 
 p. 441.) who rejected, all Baptifm. For my aflertion, 
 however, that the greater! part of the Albigeois and Vau- 
 dois denied infant, and practifed adult, Baptifm 5 I appeal 
 to Chaffanion a French writer, who, in his hi fiery of thtfe 
 people, declares this to be his opinion. His hiitory, he 
 tells us, he collected from two ancient manufcripts, one 
 of which was written in the Languedoc tongue, and the 
 other in old French. The pafiage referred to I f*;nll tranf- 
 fcribe from my grandfather's translation of it, in his an- 
 lwer to RufTen, p. Si. " Some writers,"" fays Chaffanion, 
 u have affirmed, that the' Albigeois approved not of the 
 " Baptifm of infants ; others that they entirely flighted 
 *< this holy facramen'., as if it was* of no ufe either to great 
 " or fmall. The fame has been faid of the Vaudois, 
 * though forae affirm that they have always baptized their 
 
Universality confidered. 255 
 
 therefore, to conclude that they derived this their 
 opinion and practice from the ancient Vaudois 
 
 or 
 
 '* children : this difference of authors kept me for fome- 
 *' time in fufpence, before I could come to be refolved on 
 
 • which iide the truth lay. At tall, confidering what 
 u St. Bernard fays of this matter in his fixty-lixth Homily 
 ** on the lecond chapter of The Song offings, and the rea- 
 " fon he brings to refute this error; and alio what he wrote 
 u ad HiUefonfum comite?n fancli Egidii j I cannot deny 
 
 * that the Albigeois for the greatell part were of that opi- 
 " nion. And that which confirms me yet more in the 
 " belief of it, is, that in the hillory of the city of Treves, 
 11 which I have mentioned before at the end of the fourth 
 " chapter, it is faid that at Ivoi, in the diocefe of Treves, 
 fl there were fome who denied that the facrament of Bap- 
 * c tifm was available to the falvation of infants. And one 
 " Catherine Saube, who was burnt at Montpelier in the 
 4i year 141 7 for being of the mind of the Albigeois in not 
 " believing the traditions of the Romilh church, had the 
 " fame thoughts concerning Infant-Baptifm ; as it is record- 
 " ed in the regiller of the Town-houfe of the faid city of 
 " Montpelier, of which we mail fpeak at the end of the fourth 
 " book. The truth is, they did not reject this facrament, 
 " or fay it was ufelefs ; but only counted it unnecelTary 
 '< to infants, becaufe they are not of age to believe,, or 
 M capable of giving evidence of their faith. That which 
 «« induced them (as I fuppofe) to entertain this opinion, 
 «' is what our Lord fays, that He that belie r vetb and is bap - 
 *' tized /hall be faved, but he that belteveth not Jball be 
 'I damned." Aucuns ont efcrit que les Albigeois n'ap- 
 prouvoient point le Bapteme des petit -enfans. D'autres 
 qu'ils deprilbient entierement ce faint facrament, &c» 
 Chalfanion. Hill, des Albigeois Imprim. Tan. 1595.— 
 
 Among 
 
 7 
 
2 $6 'The Argument from 
 
 or Vallenfes. So that the Baptifts may, I think, 
 with good reafon reply to thofe who afk them, 
 Where their doctrine was before the Reforma- 
 tion ? aye, and before the twelfth century too ? 
 
 It Was IN THE VALLIES OF PlEDMONT. A re- 
 ply which, as we have feen in the note below, 
 Dr. Maclaine wiflies the Lutherans to give the 
 Papifts, to gratify their tafte for tradition and 
 human authority. And now let us come down, 
 
 3. To the year 1150, about which time 
 Mr. Wall admits, though very unwillingly, 
 there might be focieties of Baptifts. 
 
 It mould, however, be obferved, that, more 
 than a century before this,, we find Deodwinus,. 
 
 Among the feveral fects which prevailed in the Xllth cen- 
 tury, to whom the general names of Waldenfes and Albi- 
 genfes were given, there were fome, as I obferved before, 
 who denied all Baptifm, and others who denied it to infants 
 only. This even Mr. Wall acknowledges. See his Hiftory 
 of Infant- Baptifm, p. 394, 400. And this I mention, to 
 account for the difputes that have arifen refpecting the 
 Waldenfes, whether they were, or were not proper Baptifts. 
 But furely it does not follow from fome of the fe6ls of this 
 century having denied all Baptifm, that the ancient Wal- 
 denfts were not of the opinion cf thofe who denied Baptifm 
 to infants only: but the contrary is the natural inference, 
 if regard be paid to the teftimony of ChafTanion jufc cited, 
 and to Dr. Madame 1 s opinion, which is fo well fupported, 
 that the Waldenfes of the Xllth century derived their name 
 from the ancient Vaudois or Yaldenfes, who had flouri'med 
 above 500 years before. 
 
 Bimop 
 
Universality conjidsred. 257 
 
 Bifnop of Liege, complaining in a letter to 
 Henry the Firft of France, that a report was 
 fprcad through all Germany, that Bruno Bifhop 
 of Angers, and Berengarius Archdeacon of the 
 fame church, did all that in them lay to overthrow 
 the Baptifm of Infants *. It is indeed thought 
 by feme, that no more was meant by this ex- 
 preilion, than that they held tenets which tended 
 to the deflru&ion of Infant-Baptifm. This 
 however admitted, it is natural to infer from 
 Deodwinus's jealoufy for the fa'fety of Pcedo- 
 baptifm, that it had had its oppofers, and that 
 the contrary doctrine was not a novel idea at that 
 time. But what I mean to obferve as remark- 
 able is, that in the next century the Archbifhop 
 of Triers is faid to have expelled the Bercngai ian 
 fe£t out of his diocefe, among whom there were 
 fome who confefTed their opinion to be, that 
 Baptifm docs no good to infants for their falv at ion f, 
 
 * Mr. Wall, from whom I take this fa£, tells us, that 
 the Letter referred to " was written by (Durandus Bifhop 
 " of Liege, as Baronius and the Editors of the Bib. Patr. 
 " had fuppofed ; but as Bifhop Ufher (7) and F. Mabil- 
 " Ion (8) have fully proved, by) Deodwinus Bifhop of 
 " Liege, to Henry I. King of France. 
 
 (7) De Succeff. Ecclef. p. 196. 
 
 (8) Analeft. T. 4. p. 396. The Letter is to be met with in 
 
 Bib.Patr.-T.il. Ed. Col. 161S. Durandi Epiu Wall's Hi& 
 
 p. 384. 
 
 t See Wall's Iliflory, p. 386. 
 
 Now 
 
258 *The Argument from 
 
 Now as Mr. Wall thinks thefe were a fort of 
 people that have been fince called Waldenfes, 
 and that it is probable there were thofe among 
 the people fo called who denied Infant-Baptrfmj 
 it is not unlikely that the Berengarians were 
 properly fpeaking Antipj^dobaptifts, 
 
 I might mention others, not long after Bercn- 
 ger, who were charged with having been un- 
 found in their judgment about the facrament 
 of the altar, and lnfant-Baptifm. But I fhall 
 confine myfelf to thofe two famous Reformers, 
 Peter de Bruys and Henry his fuccefTor, from 
 whom the PetrobrufTians and Henericians took 
 their name. Dr. Mofheim has given us a par- 
 ticular account of them both, and his words 
 I {hall tranferibe. Having fpokeii of fomc other 
 fedls, he proceeds : 
 
 " A much more rational feSf was that which was 
 cc founded about the year 11 10, in Langucdoc and 
 €x Provence, by Peter de Bruys, who made the mofi 
 " laudable attempts to reform the abufes and to re- 
 <c move the fuperJlitio7is that disfigured the beaut if it! 
 46 fimplicity of the go [pel ; and after having engaged 
 <c in his caufe a great number of followers, during 
 <c a laborious miniflry of twenty years continuance, 
 ic was burnt at St. Giles's, in the year 11 30, by 
 ic an enraged populace, fet on by the clergy, whofe 
 u traffic was in danger from the enterprizing fpirit 
 
 " of 
 
Universality cotijidered. 259 
 <e of this new reformer. The whole fy fern of doe- 
 €< trine, which this unhappy martyr, whofe zeal was 
 * c not without a conjiderable mixture of fanaticifm, 
 *' taught to the Petrobruffians his difciples, is riot 
 V knnun ; it is however certain, that the five fof- 
 u lowing tenets made a part of his fyfiem : I. That 
 *' no perfons whatever, were to be baptized before 
 •' they were come to the full vfe of their reafin. 
 ic 2. That it ivas an idle ftp eijiition to build churches 
 " for the firvice of God, who will accept of a fin- 
 \\ cere worjhip wherever it is offered-, and that 
 " therefore fuch churches as had already been ereclcd 
 ft were to be pulled down and defrayed. 3. That 
 li the crucifixes, as injhuments of fuperftition, de- 
 •' ferved the fame fate, 4. That the real.bodv and 
 <£ blood of Chrijl ivere not exhibited in tbe Eu char if, 
 * c but were merely reprefnted, in that holy ordinance, 
 " by their figures and fymbols. 5. And hfily, 
 <c That the oblations, prayers, and good works of 
 cc the living, could be in no refpeff advantageous 
 «' to the dead *." 
 
 Dr. Mofheim then goes on to give an account 
 of Henry his fucceflbr, and an Italian by birth. 
 " It was," fays he, " no doubt a rare thing to fee 
 * l a per f on, who was at the fame time monk and 
 
 * MoftieinrTs authorities are, Petri Venerab. Lib. contra 
 PetrobruiT. in Biblioth. Clunienh, p.1117. — Mabillon. An- 
 nul. Benedict. Tom. VI. p. 346. — Baihage, Hi ftp ire des 
 Eglifes Reformees, period IV. p. 140, 
 
 " hermit y 
 
260 The Argument from 
 
 '" hermit, undertaking to reform the fv.pcrflltions 
 <c of the times \ yet fuch was the eafe of Henry, 
 <c who having Laufanne, a city in Switzerland ', 
 cc travelled to Mans, and being banifoed thence re- 
 Ci moved fuccefjively to Poicliers, Bourdeaux, and 
 <c the countries adjacent, and at length to Thouloufe 
 cc in the year 1147, exercifmg his fniniflerial func- 
 " tion in all thefe places, with the uimojl applaufe 
 Cl from the people, and declaiming, with the greateji 
 " vehemence and fervor, agabijx the vices of the 
 V clergy, and the fuperfliiions they had introduced 
 M into the Chriftian church. At Thouloufe he was 
 " warmly oppofed by St. Bernard, by wh of e influence 
 c ' he was overpowered, notwithfanding his popu- 
 cc larity, and obliged to fave himf elf by fight. But 
 Ci being fixed in his retreat, by a certain bijhop, 
 " he was carried before pope Eugenius I I Id, who 
 " preftded in per f on at a council then offembled at 
 " Rhei?ns, and who, in confluence of the accufa- 
 " tions brought againfl Henry, committed him, in 
 " 1148, to a clofe prifon, where, in a little time 
 K< after this, he ended his days *. We have no ac- 
 ** curate account of the doclrines of this reformer 
 <c tranfmitted to our times. All we know of that 
 
 * Mofheim's authorities are, Gefta Epifcoporum Ceno- 
 manens inMabillon, Analett. veter. ?evi, p. 315. Ed. nov.. 
 — Gaufridi Epift. in Lib. VI. Vitae S. Bernardi, Tom. II. 
 Opp. Bernhard. p. 1207.— Matth. Hiftor. Major, p. 71. 
 — Mabillon, Fraef. ad opera Bernhardi, § VI. & Annal. 
 Benedict. Tom. VI. p. 346, 420, 434. 
 
 " matter 
 
Universality conjidered. 261 
 
 <c matter is, that he rejected the baptifm of infants \ 
 
 <c cenfured with feverity the corrupt and licentious 
 
 " manners of the clergy ; treated the fefivals and 
 
 <c ceremonies of the church with the utmoj'l contempt; 
 
 " and held clandejline ajfemblies, in which he ex~ 
 
 <i plained and inculcated the novehies he taught *." - 
 
 Befldes thefe illuftrious reformers and martyrs 
 for the truth, I might mention feveral others 
 who with the like £rmnefs eppofrd the cor- 
 ruptions of. the church of Rome, and among 
 the reft that of Infant-Baptifm. But I forbear 
 entering into particulars, as I mean not to write 
 a hiftory of the Baptifts. It muft, however, be 
 obferved, that many of the Waldenfcs were driv- 
 en, by the perfecution they fuffered in the fouth- 
 ern parts of France, into various countries ; 
 and no doubt carried with them their opinion 
 and practice refpecting Baptifm. Dr. Allix fpeaks 
 of a colony of them in Bohemia, of their having 
 continued there feveral years, of the flate of 
 their churches, and of their being charged, 
 among other matters, with being in an error 
 concerning Infant-Baptifm f. And there is a 
 letter written to Erafmus out of Bohemia in the 
 year 15 19, in which an account is given of a 
 
 * Mofheirns Ecclef. Hift. Vol.11. Cent. XII. Part II. 
 Ch. V. p. 446—448. 
 
 f Dr. AUix's Remarks on the ancient churches of Pied- 
 miont, p. 211, 214, 221, 223. 
 
 fe£fc 
 
■i6i The A'gnwcut from 
 
 feci then in being, and which had been in that 
 country for above ninety years ; whole practice 
 is thus defcribed : " Such as come over to their feci 
 k \ mu ft every one be baptized anew in mere water : 
 tc they make no bleffing of fait, nor of the water y 
 <s HPT make any vfe of con fe crated oil*." Now 
 it is molt natural to conclude, that thefe were 
 the V/aklenfes of whom Dr. Allix fpeaks. To 
 which I would juit add, from Dr. Mofheim, 
 that in the fifteenth century " The JValdcafes Jlill 
 fubfyle-d in feveral European provinces, more e- 
 /pecia/Iy in Pomcrania, Brandenburg, the diflricJ 
 of Magckburg and Thnringia, where they had a 
 crrfidcrable number of friends and followers. It 
 <£ appears however ," continues he, " by authen- 
 iC tick records, which are not yet publifbed, that a 
 44 great part of the adherents of this unfortunate feci, 
 44 in the countries now mentioned, were difcovcred 
 44 by the inquifitors, and delivered over by them t& 
 4< the civil magijlraics, who cormniited them to the 
 44 flames f." 
 
 From this fhort detail of facts down to the 
 fifteenth century you will judge, Sir, what truth 
 
 * Coloraeiins's Collection of Letters of men of note, 
 Ep. 30. This paiTage Mr. David Rees cites in his anfwer 
 to Mr. Fowler Walker's Defence of Infant-Baptiim, p. 201. 
 and from him I take it. 
 
 f Momeim's Ecclef. Kift. Cent. XV. Part II. Ch. V. 
 Vol. III. p. 27*. 
 
 there 
 
Universality ccnfidered. 26$ 
 
 there is in Mr. J.'s aftertion, " that Infant- 
 *-} Baptifm has been univerfally received and 
 << preferred in all parts, and in all ages." I 
 muit, however, do him the juftice to obferve, 
 that he is willing to admii, and that without 
 any great reluctance, an exception to his uni- 
 versal proportion, in the next century. The 
 Anabaptifts in Germany, that numerous and 
 powerful ! — that wild and wicked faction ! mult 
 not be pafi'ed over in filence, left the caufe of 
 Ptedobaptifm mould fuffer by the omiiuon : an 
 omiffion, of which, it muft be acknowledged, 
 fev/ declaimers againft the Baptifts have been 
 guilty. The fad ftory, therefore, our Author 
 muft in faithfulnefs relate, though " it is fo un- 
 " pleafing a fcene," that he cannot reconcile 
 himfelf " to enter particularly into it*." Thus 
 forced into the painful fervice, he fpends no 
 more than a page and a half in diueminatino- 
 the opinions and practices of thefe mad ad- 
 venturers: opinions which, he is himfelf fenfible, 
 are, in every inftance mentioned except that of 
 Baptifm, as different from ours, as they are from 
 his : and practices which, he alfo knows, the 
 Baptifts hold in as great abhorrence as he him- 
 felf does, and have given as convincing proofs 
 thereof, as any denomination of Chriftians 
 whatever. 
 
 *P. 155. 
 
 But 
 
264 The Argument from 
 
 But if Mr. A. had recollected his own rcafon- 
 ing a little before, and duly profited by it, he 
 would have faved himfelf the trouble of giving 
 us this " unpleafing " narrative, and efcaped 
 the cenfure which this impotent attempt to pre- 
 judice his readers againft the Baptifts, will be 
 apt to draw upon him from, confidcrate and im- 
 partial people. " We pay no regard," fays he 
 in the paffage I refer to, " to the authority of 
 " the church of Rome ; yet we cannot think 
 u Protectants are obliged to reject Infant-Uap- 
 < c tifm merely becaufe Papifls pra£tife.it, any 
 " more than they are obliged to difown the 
 " being of a God, the divine miiKon of Chrift, 
 " and the reality of a future (late, becaufe thefe 
 " doctrines are received in the Romifh church. 
 " We are to diftinguifh between the principles 
 " which they entertain in common with Chrifii- 
 " ans in general, and fuch as are the tenets of 
 <c their peculiar fyftem *." In this reafoning 
 I readily agree with Mr. A. ; and would there- 
 fore afk him, Whether he thinks I fhould have 
 at all ferved the caufe I am defending, had I fpent 
 my time in painting the rivers of blood through 
 which Romifh Pcedobaptifts have waded, in their 
 way to that height of power they have acquired 
 throughout Chriflendom ? He will, no doubt, 
 tell me, I fhould not. Will then, I afk> the dif- 
 pafTionate friends of that caufe he is defending, 
 
 * P. 147. 
 
 give 
 
Universality conjidtrei. 265 
 
 give him their thanks for drawing up the men 
 of Munfter in battle-array, in order to frighten 
 unthinking people into an abhorrence of c < Ami- 
 u pcedobaptift principles ;" and to aid him in 
 his hitherto unfucceisful attempts to extirpate 
 c f the great and many evils" he complains of f 
 as refulting from thofe principles * ? 
 
 But before we difmifs this ce ufipleafmg fcenc," 
 I muft do the foreign Baptifts the jufticc to ob- 
 ferve, that it is well known great multitudes of 
 them had no concern in thefe extravagancies. 
 
 Nor can I forbear adding, though I would not 
 be unde: flood to recriminate, that there were 
 many Pcedobaptills among thefe German in fur- 
 gents. Indeed it is eafy to imagine, that a 
 hiftory of times, wherein there was a combina- 
 tion of events fo flrangely perplexed, and con- 
 veyed down to us through the hands of PapHlsf, 
 or of Protectants that were inimical to Baptifts ; 
 muft be clouded with more or left obfeurity. 
 The truth, however, I take to be this f : At 
 the beginning of the Reformation there were 
 popular tumults in many cities, parriculrriy 
 thofe where images were broken down. In 
 Munfter thefe tumults prevailed to the turning 
 the Rornifh priefls out of the churches, and put- 
 
 * P. 177. 
 f SeeSpanhem.Hift.Anabap. p. it. Hook's Apol. p. n. 
 and Sleidan. 
 
 N 
 
 tins 
 
266 The Argument from 
 
 ting the Proteftant minifters in their room. 
 The former left the city, and complained to 
 the Bimop, defiring him to block up the place. 
 Upon this, Rotman, a minifter of the Lutheran 
 perfuafion, who had publickly oppofcd Infant- 
 Baptifm, at the head of a eonfiderable party, 
 joined the Anabaptifls, and thereby increafed 
 their number and reputation. So thefe wild 
 people, exafperated by the fevere perfecutions 
 they had fuffered, and ftirred up by fome ill men, 
 who knew how to take advantage of the general 
 confufion of the times ; proceeded to thofe vio- 
 lences which all fober people of every profefnon 
 juftly condemn in the higheft degree. 
 
 In the confequences of thefe confufions the 
 innocent, as it often happens, were involved 
 with the guilty : and thofe among the reformed, 
 who were zealoufly attached to Infant-Baptifm, 
 failed not to take advantage, from this bufinefs, 
 to fix the moll reproachful character upon the 
 Baptifts in general. I might, however, produce 
 teflimonies enough from Erafmus, Beza, Caf- 
 •fander, Bayle, and others, to prove that the 
 principles and practices of vafl numbers of them, 
 who were perfecuted even to death, bore no re- 
 femblance to thofe of the men of Munfter, ex- 
 cept in the point of Baptifmj that they were 
 fober, honeft and pious, and were never concerned 
 in any infurre&ions againft the ftate. 
 
 \ Indeed 
 
Universality conjidered. 267 
 
 Indeed the account Mr. Rees has given us of 
 their fufferings, from Brandt's Hiftory of the 
 Reformation, fufnciently fhews what kind of 
 people they were, and will ftamp an indelible 
 infamy upon the memory of their perfecutoiT, 
 whether Papifts' or Proteftants. K / have care- 
 " fully told ever,'" fays Mr. Rees, " five hundred 
 " and feventy-odd perfons (all Anabaptijls) who 
 li iv ere put to death merely on account of religion \ 
 " exclufive of and in contradijlinclion to, any who 
 " fi'ff ere d 6* chargeable zvith treafon, rebellion, fe- 
 " anion, Sec. nor have I reckoned into the number, 
 " a whole affembly of thefe people, which zuas be- 
 " t rayed at Rotterdam in the year 1554 -, for I could 
 " not make an ejlimate of them : but all that were 
 " caught of them were executed." Mr. Rees then 
 affirms, " Upon a fair computation, this fcantling 
 " of Anabaptijls, who fujfered abroad in and about 
 " the Low-countries for their religious principles, 
 ?' amounts confiderably to above the higheft number 
 " of thofe, of whatever denominations, ivho were 
 <c put to death in England on account of the Re- 
 " formation *." 
 
 To mew you alfo, Sir, what was their cha- 
 racter for patience and conftancy in fuffering, 
 even in the opinion of their enemies, I will cite 
 the teftimony of Cardinal Hofius who prefided at 
 
 * Rces's Anfwer to Walker, p. 220. 
 
 N 2 the 
 
26 8 The Argument from 
 
 the council of Trent : "If the truth of rcTi- 
 " gtotjy" fays the Cardinal, " were to be judged 
 Cc °f h rf ;e readinefs and chearfulnefs which a man 
 ** of any feSf Jhews in fujfering, then the opinion 
 ci and psrfudjten of no feel can be truer than that 
 <c of the "Anaaapttfls - x fnce there have been neve, 
 ir - for thefe twelve hundred years pajl, that have been 
 *' more frievoujly pun.ijhf(( 9 or that have more chetir- 
 cl fdty and jiedfi/rly undergone , and even offered 
 tC ihemfelves to, the mojl cruel forts of puniJJmrcnts^ 
 <* than theje people *." 
 
 And now, Sir, if we look into our own coun- 
 try, we fhall find that it can fcarce be fa-id with 
 propriety, that " Infant-Baptifm has been uni- 
 46 verfallv, and in all ages, received and pre- 
 <c ferved " here. There were Baptifts in Eno-_ 
 land as far back as Harrv the Eighth's time : 
 for Brandt tells us, that, in the year 1539, one 
 and ihirtv of them, that fled from hence, were 
 put to death at Delft ; the men beheaded, and 
 the women drowned f. And in Edward the 
 Sixth's reign, the fame Hiftorian informs us, 
 there was a congregation of foreign Baptifts 
 gathered at London, which, upon the demife of 
 that excellent young Prince, was difperfed by 
 
 * See Anaoi . on Brandt's third book of Hill, of Reform. 
 
 v4. 1. 
 
 •j Brur.dt's Hift. Rfcf. Vol. I. b. III. p. 77? 
 
 Queen 
 
Universality ccnjtdered. 2.69 
 
 Queen Mary * r The different orders of Dif- 
 fenters, under the denomination of Prefbyterians, 
 Independents,, and Baptifts, you are fenfible, did 
 not rife into exigence till fome time' after the 
 Reformation. But, as I am not writing a Hi-, 
 ftory, the queftion, refpecting their precedency 
 to one another in order of time, I mall not here 
 inquire into; which yet, from Mr. Neale's ac- 
 count, appears to have been not very confider- 
 able : nor thall I trace the Baptifts down to the 
 prefent period. 
 
 I muff, however, here take notice, which is 
 more to the purport of the prefent Letter, of 
 Mr. d.'s afFected indifference towards the Bap- 
 tists, in point of number. " The number," 
 fays he, " in the prefent day of thofe that refuie 
 " Baptifm to Infants, whatever it may feem in 
 u here and there a particular neighbourhood, 
 " is very fmall even in Great-Britain ; and 
 •* hardly worth mentioning, in companion of 
 ct the many churches in all Chriftian countries 
 " in which the ordinance is adminiftered to 
 " them f." It is, I admit, true, that the Bap- 
 tifts of this and other countries are not to be 
 compared, in regard of numbers, with the many 
 profefling Chriftians of a different perfuafion : 
 they are, no doubt of it, the minority. Yet, 
 inconfiderable as they may appear in our Author's 
 * Brands Hift.Ref. Vol. I. b. IV. p. I04 . f P. 146. 
 N 3 eye, 
 
270 The Argument from 
 
 eye, I hope I fhall not be understood to boaf<; 
 when I fry, that if they are no more than were 
 baptized unto Mofes in the Tea, their number is 
 not contemptible. I can, however, afTure M. A. 
 upon good authority, that the Baptifts in this 
 country, to fay nothing of thole in other parts 
 of Europe and in America, are more than one 
 third of the three denominations of Diflenters. 
 
 But to what purpofe do we talk of number?, 
 as if Universality were an infeparable pro- 
 perty and mark of the true church ? Our op- 
 ponents, Sir, to apply Archbifhop Tillotfon's 
 words, when fpeaking of the Papifls, to thc 
 piefent debate, " never flout at" Antipcedobap- 
 tiiin tc - ivith fo good a grace among the Ignorant 
 iC people, as when they are bragging of their num^- 
 * c ben* and defpiftng" the true Chriflian Baptifm,. 
 <c becaufe embraced by fo few. This pejl'i lent Ger- 
 u man Isercj) (as fome of them fcornfully . call it ) 
 M is enter taincdy it feems, only in this cold and 
 £i cloudy corner of the world) by a company of dull 
 lt fl lipid people , that can neither penetrate into the. 
 11 proof nor the" reafonablenefs of Infant-Bap- 
 t i An. — <4 But we will not ft and upon" any " ad- 
 " vantage" we may have of numbers beyond 
 what they may care to allow us. " Suppofe" 
 I fay with the Archbifnop, <c we were by much 
 M the fewer. So hath the true church of God often. 
 " been y without any the haft prejudice to the truth 
 
 " °f 
 
Universality conjidered. 27 1 
 
 H of their religion. What think we of the chureh 
 " in Abraham's time, which J for aught %ue knotu, 
 " was confned to one family , and one fmall king- 
 c dom* that of Melchize deck king of Salem? What 
 " think %v e of it in Mofes's time, when it was 
 " confined to one -people wandering in a wildemcfs? 
 " What of it in Elijah's time, zvhen bcfdes the 
 " two tribes, that worjhipped at Jerufalem, there 
 <c were in the other ten but feven thoufand that had 
 " not bowed the knee to Baal? What in our Sa- 
 " viour's time, when the whole Chrijiian church 
 " confifled of twelve apoflles and feventy difciples y 
 " and fome few followers befide ? How would 
 " Bdlarmine have defpifed this little flock, becaufe 
 " // wanted one of his goodiiejl friar ks of the true 
 " church, univerfality and fplendor ? And what 
 " think we of the Chrijiian church in the height 
 " of Arianifm and Pelagianifm, when a great part 
 " of Chrijlendom zvas over-run with errors, and 
 " the number of the Orthodox ivas inccnjlderable 
 <s in comparifon with Hcreticks? But what need - 
 " / urge thefe inflames ? as if the truth of a reli- 
 " gion were to be ejtt 'mated and carried by the 
 cc major votes ; which as it can be an argument 
 " to none but fools, fo I dare fay no hcnejl and 
 wife man ever made ufe of it for a folid proof of 
 the truth and goodnefs of any church or religion. 
 If multitude be an argument thai men are in the 
 right, in vain then hath Scripture faid, "Then 
 ' /halt not follozv a multitude to do evil : for if this 
 N 4 " argu- 
 
a jz The Argument from 9 &c. 
 
 " argu?nent be of any force ^ the greater number 
 
 t( never go wrong *.." 
 
 * Tillctfori's works, fol. edit 9th, p. 450, 251, 
 
 I am, Sir, 
 
 Yours. 
 
 LET. 
 
[ ^73 J 
 
 LETTER XVIII. 
 
 D ear Sir, 
 
 IF you had not read Mr. A.'s Book, you would- 
 be apt to conclude, from the length to which 
 thefe Letters are drawn out, that I muft by this 
 time have confidered all his arguments in favour 
 of Infant-Baptiim, and all his objections to that; 
 for which we contend. But I allure you this is 
 not the cafe : our Author's heavy artillery, with 
 which he is to do the main execution, is It- ill in, 
 referve ; at leaft we have hitherto been only now 
 and then alarmed with it. Nor need we be 
 under any apprchenfions from this quarter ; for 
 though the unkind reflections Mr. A. has thrown 
 out, may pais with fome kind of readers for very 
 convincing arguments, and fix a deep impremon 
 upon their minds to the prejudice of the B'aptiits j 
 yet I am confident, from a kind of fatality that 
 ufually attends this fort of reafoning, they will, 
 in the opinion of confiderate and impartial peo- 
 ple, rather ferve than injure the caufe they are 
 meant to defiroy.. 
 
 N 5 n The 
 
274 Mr. d.'s Reflexions on 
 
 " The evils of Antipcedobaptifl principles," 
 Mr. A. tells us, " are great and many *."' 
 That is to fay, Great and many evils refult 
 from their principles: or, Their principles are 
 of a very bad tendency. No one, I believe, 
 will charge me with doing our Author injuftice 
 in this expofition of his words. 
 
 Now I mould not have blamed Mr. A. if, fe- 
 rioufly believing this proportion, he had pro- 
 ceeded to point out the great and many evils, 
 natural, moral, and political, which refult from 
 the doctrine of Baptifm, as held by the people 
 he is writing againfl. He has certainly a right 
 to lay open to the whole world the ill tendency 
 of any religious opinions he confiders as falfe 
 :md heretical. And if he could have fairly 
 proved that ours, in the matter of Baptifm,. 
 tends to produce any one real evil, except that 
 of drawing upon us the unkind cenfures and 
 cruel abufe of ignorant bigotted people, I mould 
 have thought myfelf obliged to cancel what I 
 have written upon the fubjecT:, as in that cafe 
 there mull have been fome efiential miftake at 
 the bottom of all myreafoning. 
 
 But inftead of this, our Author, as if confeious 
 that he had afierted what he could not prove, 
 
 * P. 177. 
 
 and 
 
the Baptifts confidered. 1JS 
 
 and fearful left he mould be thought to fpeak 
 under the influence of animofity and refentment, 
 and yet unwilling to recede, adds, ct We are far: 
 " from charging all thofe improprieties and dif- 
 *f orders, which fome perfons of that denomina- 
 " tion have cccafioned, upon thofe diftinguifh- 
 " ing principles *" 
 
 But does he mean to charge any improprieties 
 and diforders upon thofe principles ? If he does, 
 why are they not mentioned ; and their origina- 
 tion from this fource clearly pointed out and 
 afcertained ? That there may have been igno- 
 rant, ill-natured, factious, and I will add wild 
 people too, who may have taken it into their 
 heads to reject. Infant-Baptifm, I am by no 
 means difpofed to deny. Moil denominations 
 of Christians, Mr. vf.'s not excepted, have had 
 fome fuch fort of folks among them. But, do 
 the peculiar principles of Antipcedobaptifls, any 
 more than thofe of Independents, Prefbyterians, 
 or Churchmen, make people ignorant and bar- 
 barous, ill-natured and factious ? Why then 
 mult we be reduced to the cruel alternative, 
 of either aflerting that the men of Munfter did 
 wrong to deny Baptifm to their children ; or 
 of acknowledging that we defcend in a right line 
 from them, and are the inheritors of their prin«. 
 ciples, and their tempers too ? 
 
 # P- .177. 
 
 N 6 If, 
 
276 Air. A's Reflexions on 
 
 If, on the contrary, Mr. A, means to charge 
 none of the improprieties and diforders, of which 
 feme of the Baptifts may have been guilty, upon 
 their diftinguiihing principle ; to what purpofe, 
 that is candid and generous, docs he, in this 
 connection, hold up to the view of his readers 
 the improprieties and diforders of any of them ? 
 It appears to me, therefore, that his intent is 
 to charge the irregularities he refers to, whatever 
 they may be> in part at leaf}, to the principles of 
 the Baptifts. And is this fair I — But the German 
 frory had, perhaps, fo deeply imprefTed our Au- 
 thor's imagination, and fo unhappily clouded- his 
 rcafon, that he fcarce knew how to feparate the 
 ideas of Baptifm and faction ; plunging in water, 
 and forming of towns ; a Heady adherence to 
 what is believed to be an inftitution of Chrift r 
 .uid an obftinate attachment to peculiarities. 
 
 The charge, however, he had exhibited againft 
 
 fome cf the Baptifts, without telling us who 
 
 they are, gives him an opportunity of gratifying 
 
 the noble paflion he feels for doing others among 
 
 them all the juftice which lies in his power. 
 
 " We have the pleafure," fays he, amidft all 
 
 the pain he fuffers for being obliged to fpeak 
 
 difrefpec~r.fully of any of them, " to know fome, 
 
 « s that profefs thefe principles, who are of a fpi- 
 
 ** lit verv unlike that from wheh thofe evils, in 
 
 «« other inftances, have arifen *" I fincerely 
 
 * P. tj 7 , 
 
 thank 
 
the Baptifts confidered. 277 
 
 thank Mr. A. for thefe good tidings ; and know 
 not how better to contribute to the increafe of 
 this pleafure he fo fenfibly feels y than by re- 
 commending it to him to lay afide his prejudices 
 againft the Baptifts, and to become better ac- 
 quainted with them. 
 
 Rut to wim our Author to become intimate 
 with Arminians and Antinomians, may be rather 
 unfriendly i for fuch, it feems, is his idea of 
 many, if not all of them. cc We muft confefs," 
 fays he, c< it feems fomewhat furprifing, that ib 
 " many of them mould run into one or other 
 " of the two wide extremes of Arminianifm or 
 c< Antinomianifm *." Mr. A.'s hitherto im 
 perfect acquaintance with the Baptifts,. may be 
 fome excufe for his miftaken idea of the fact re- 
 flecting their principles. Be that, however, as 
 it may, if the two herefies he charges many of 
 them with are directly oppofite to each other, 
 it would be more than " furprifing" did their 
 peculiar tenet of Baptifm incline them to both 
 thofe herefies : it may be charitably hoped there- 
 fore, that it bears no afpect, as is really the cafe, 
 to either. And having thus' fettled the matter, 
 I flatter myfelf this bar to a friendly correfpond- 
 ence with them is removed. 
 
 But Mr. A. ftill has his difficulties ; and they 
 are fuch, it muft be acknowledged, as ought to 
 
 prove^ 
 
278 Mr. A?s Reflexions on 
 
 prove, unlefs they can be obviated, unfurmount- 
 able obftructions to an union, not only between 
 him and them', but between them and every 
 good man. " They are, many of them, it 
 feems, in this as well as the laft age, vio- 
 lently attached to their peculiarities ; and 
 more zealous to eflablifh a favourite mode 
 and party, than to eftablifh the kingdom of 
 Chrift. They employ that time in difputing 
 about Baptifm, which they ought to fpend 
 in endeavouring to' acquire a more accurate 
 and thorough acquaintance with the gofpel, 
 and in cultivating, in themfelves and others, 
 a fpirit of candour, humility, integrity, and 
 benevolence. And fo are the occafions, by 
 their conduct, difcourfes and writings, of 
 many evils *." Thefe, Sir, are high charges; 
 and though not laid to them all, yet will be 
 confidcred by moft, as deftgned to give us the 
 complexion of the fcGt in general. But does 
 Mr. A. expecl: his readers will implicitly believe 
 him ? They who know the Baptifts will not. 
 And they who do not know them, willfufpecl: 
 an Author v/ho mall take thefe liberties, at the 
 fame time producing no evidence in fupport of 
 what he alledges, of a failure in point of can- 
 dour, if not integrity too. But the Baptifts will, 
 I hope, forgive Mr. A. the injury he has done 
 them, and thereby difprove at leaft fome of the 
 
 * P. 177, i-S. 
 
 charges 
 
the Baptifts confidered. 279 
 
 charges he has thus exhibited againft them. 
 And to difpofe them the more readily to forgive 
 him, I think I can find a way to leiTen his fault, 
 though not abfolutely to exculpate him. I ve- 
 rily believe, Sir, this acrimony is not the efFeel: 
 of natural temper; but of an unhappy fer- 
 ment into which his fpirits have been thrown, 
 by an apprehenflon that this mifchievous tenet 
 is getting ground ; and, perhaps, a jealoufy that 
 his arguments may be infufficient to check the 
 progrefs of it. 
 
 But let us enter a little more particularly into 
 the evils themfelves charged upon the Baptifts. 
 This I look upon myfelf in duty obliged to do, 
 as it is not a few only that are concerned, but 
 many, " many in this and the last age." 
 The denomination in general, as I obferved be- 
 fore, moft people will fuppcfe are intended : for 
 it is not eaiy to conceive what material purpofe 
 our Author could propofe, in a'difpute of this 
 nature, by holding up a few obfcure individuals 
 to publick view. But what are the evils they 
 are guilty of? They are " violently attached," 
 it feems, " to peculiarities." If by peculiarities 
 Mr. A. means Arminianifm and Antinomianifm, 
 of which he had been juft fpeaking, he muft 
 know that neither of thefe is the characteriftick 
 diftin&ion of the Baptifts, any more than of the 
 Independent- or Congregational denomination, 
 5 «o 
 
2$o Mr. A?s Refiefiioris en 
 
 to which he belongs* But if Baptifm is meant, 
 though it may be fo defcribed in the innocent, 
 yet furely it ought not in the obnoxious fenfe 
 of the term; unlefs it be faid, that all opinions 
 held by the minority, however fit and true, are 
 to be ridiculed as peculiarities. 
 
 But the criminality, meant to be charged upon 
 the Baptifts, lies in their " violent attachment"" 
 to this peculiarity. Now, Sir, to adhere fleadi- 
 ly to what in their consciences they believe to be 
 the truth, pubiickly to profefs it, by found rea- 
 foning to defend it, and by all decent and pro- 
 per means to fpread it ; this furely no fenfible 
 man will fay is wrong. Such an attachment 
 will intitle them to the applaufe, inftead of the 
 cenfure, of all wife and good people. I know 
 indeed it is a mighty common thing for perfons, 
 when they have taken pains to fet afide an opi- 
 nion or practice they happen to be prejudiced 
 againft, and have fitted in the attempt, to fpeak 
 of the point in debate as a trifling matter, and' 
 to reprefent their opponents in the ridiculous 
 light of people who are obftinately fet upon 
 contending for a mere nothing. In this manner 
 the fubjecl before us has been too often treated, 
 to the injury, I fear, of religion, as well as in 
 violation of right reafon, 
 
 But what fenfe, Sir, is there in faying that 
 truth and error are indifferent ? Of no. two 
 
 pro- 
 
the Baptijls confidered. 2S1 
 
 proportions that are oppofite to each other can 
 this with propriety be affirmed. I am fenfible, 
 indeed, that between truths themfelves there is 
 a very great difference, in point of importance : 
 and am as willing to apply this obfervation to 
 the matters which Mr. A. has thought fit to con- 
 trail to each other, as ever he can be. No doubt 
 this peculiarity of ours, as he terms it, is of far 
 lefs confequence than the gofpel itfelf : no doubt 
 a favourite mode, however fcriptural and divine, 
 ought not to be an object of the like zeal with 
 the eftablifhment of the kingdom of Chrifl : no 
 doubt, I will add with him, the obfervation of 
 Baptifm is of trifling confideration, in compari- 
 fon with the cultivation of candour, humility, 
 integrity, and benevolence. But furely, if the 
 idea of truth is applicable to matters on one fide 
 of the contrafl as well as the other, indifference 
 is not to be admitted as to either. 
 
 But I will go further, Sir, and affert, that 
 as the inflitutions of the gofpel derive their au- 
 thority from Chrift, fo to treat them as matters 
 of little confequence, and to confider it as a 
 weak, officious, ufelefs kind of zeal, to main- 
 tain them in their primitive fimplicity, becaufe 
 they are not of the fame important confideration 
 with thofe other matters juft mentioned; is grofs- 
 ly to affront the fupreme Head of the church. 
 Befides, pofitive inflitutions are not mere arbi- 
 trary 
 
2 82 Mr. A's Reflections on 
 
 trary figns of Subjection to the authority of our 
 divine Mafler, in which light, however, their 
 importance is confiderable j but they are wife- 
 ly adapted to the great purpofe of promot- 
 ing practical religion : wherefore, the treating 
 them with indifference, has a manifefr. and direct 
 tendency to injure thofe other more noble truths" 
 and duties which, I readily agree, juftly demand 
 our fuperior zeal. To which I will add, if, 
 upon this popular ground of the trifling import- 
 ance of pofitive inffitutions, every attempt to 
 refcue Baptifm from human innovation is to be 
 Conquered as the fruit of violent attachment to 
 peculiarities, and a criminal zeal for a -favourite 
 mode and party; I know not upon what fuffi- 
 cient plea our firft Reformers are to be juftined, 
 in their warm and fteady opposition to the cor- 
 ruptions of popery; or their fucceilors the Puri- 
 tans, in their diflent from the eftablifhed. church. 
 
 Thus it clearly appears, that indifference to 
 pofitive precepts is criminal, and that a zeal for 
 the prefervation of them in their original purity 
 is highly commendable. I am, however, very 
 ready to admit, that men's zeal in thefe matters 
 may be intemperate ; and fo defeat the noble 
 and important ends of vital and practical reli- 
 gion, to which it ought to be invariable/ direct- 
 ed. Let us here then inquire, What are the 
 genuine characterifticks of fuch a fpurious and 
 
 per- 
 
the Baptifts confidered. 283 
 
 pernicious zeal ; and whether the Baptifts, as a 
 body, are juftly chargeable with it? In this in- 
 quiry I fhall be guided by the criterions Mr. A, 
 has laid down, which I heartily approve, how- 
 ever I differ from him in his mistaken applica- 
 tion of them, 
 
 When zeal, in queftions of this nature, de- 
 bates into " violence," and indecent reflec- 
 and reproachful language arc deemed fit 
 ons to be ufed in the defence of^truth; 
 f ferious thoughtful man will, no. doubt, 
 enter his proteit : he will not fail to pronounce 
 fuch a temper and conduct; unworthy of men, 
 much more of Chriitians ? But are the Bap- 
 tifts chargeable with this guilt ? I hope not. 
 Is this the cait, the complexion, of the Deno- 
 mination ? Their Apologies, written, many of 
 them, under provocations of the mo ft fhamefiil 
 invective and abufe, will fufEciently exculpate 
 them! Mr. vf., who, amidft all his profeilions 
 of candour, has fo feverely treated them in the 
 chapter I am animadverting upon ; and, which 
 is frill more aiHicting, who has ceh'fured their 
 Baptifm (ftampt as they verily believe it to be 
 with the all-commanding authority of the Son 
 of God) as fcarce rec le with decency * j 
 
 Mr. J., I fay, has received no opprobrious lan- 
 guage in return. Be it fo then, that they are 
 attached to their peculiarities : their attachment 
 
 * P. ih u, 
 
 is 
 
284 Mr. A.'s Reflexions on 
 
 is not, however, violent in thefe criminal fenfes 
 of it. Further, 
 
 " To be more zealous to eftablifn a favourite 
 " mode and party, than to eftablifn the kingdom 
 " of Chrifr," is net only unworthy, but finful 
 in a very high degree. They who are of this 
 character are a difgrace to any denomination, 
 and will not fail to endure the frowns of their 
 Judge on the great day of account. But why 
 are the Baptifts to be thus reprefented ? Do 
 they affirm that the kingdom of Chrifr. is con- 
 fined to them ? that they only have the true re- 
 ligion amoncr them? and that, unlefs men are of 
 
 too ' 
 
 their party, they will not be faved ? Do they 
 wifh fuccefs to none that are employed in the 
 vineyard, but themfclves ? or fay of others, en- 
 gaged in the fame common caufe, Matter, forbid 
 them, becaufe they follow not with us ? On the 
 contrary, do they not profefs a warm efleem and 
 affection for all thofe, of whatever communion,, 
 who love the Lord Jefus Chrift, and aim to 
 promote his caufe in the world ? and do they not 
 give proof of this, by holding a friendly corre- 
 fpondence with them as opportunities offer; and 
 by cordially joining them in occafional exercifes 
 of publick worfhip ? It is not, Sir, the diflin- 
 guifhing tenet of Baptifm, how much foever they 
 wifh it to prevail, that is the main band that 
 knits them in affection to one another : it is the 
 
 inn- 
 
the Baptijls confidered. 285 
 
 infinitely nobler confideration of the relation 
 they {land in to Chrift as his difciples. They 
 hope, therefore, to be believed when they de- 
 clare, what was before affirmed, that they mofl 
 cordially embrace in. the arms of Chriftian love 
 the friends cf Jefus, who differ from them in 
 this point; and to be further believed when they 
 add, that they hold the temper and conduct of 
 the furious zealot- for Baptifm, who fails in his 
 allegiance to Chrift, and in the charity he owes 
 his fellow Chriftians, in fovereign contempt. 
 Again, 
 
 I agree with Mr. J. in condemning the great 
 evil cf employing that time in difputing about 
 Baptifm, which ought to be fpent in acquiring 
 an accurate and thorough acquaintance with the 
 gofpel, and in cultivating a fpirit of candour, 
 humility, integrity, and benevolence. But is it 
 a fait that the Baptifts are guilty of this great 
 evil ? Are they ever talking, preaching, and 
 writing upon this fubjeel ? It is true, they judge 
 it the:r*duty, at the adminiftration of this ordi- 
 nance, to give the reafons of their practice. 
 But will any one fay, becaufe thefe occafions 
 may frequently return, that this is indecent ? 
 Is it the ufual topick of their publick difcourfes ? 
 Or, if they now and then, much againft their 
 inclination, ftate their cafe to the view of the 
 world, in the manner I have now done, are they 
 
 deferving 
 
2% 6 Mr. A.*s Reflexions on 
 
 deferving of blame ? or if they are, mould not 
 thofe who by their publications againfc them 
 draw thefe defences from them, be willing to 
 take a fhare of the blame with them ? Are the 
 friends of \Pcedobaptifm only to be permitted to 
 fpeak ; and thofe on the other fide to be required, 
 at the peril of that little reputation they may 
 have for " candour, humility, integrity, and 
 " benevolence," to hold their peace ? This, 
 Sir, is very hard ! 
 
 But, " if they would have done difputing 
 about Baptifm, thofe evils, Mr. A. thinks, 
 would be prevented which are occafioned by 
 their co.nduc~t, difcourfes, and writings * ?" If 
 by thefe evils are meant the fpread of what they 
 take to be the truth, Mr. A. can fcarce expedt, 
 till he has convinced them that they are in an 
 error, to perfuade them by this argument to be 
 filent. The beft means that I know of to im- 
 pofe filence upon them, is to forbear entering 
 into difputes with them : for I am well fatisfied 
 it will appear, upon an inquiry into the hiftory 
 of this controverfy, that by far the greater part 
 of what has been faid by them upon this fubjecl, 
 has been by way of reply to their opponents. 
 As to any other confequences which may be ap- 
 prehended from thefe difputes, whilft the Bap- 
 tifts perfevere in modeftly and firmly defending 
 the truth, making the ftudy of the gofpel and 
 
 * P. 177, 178. 
 
 the 
 
the Baptifts confidered. 287 
 
 the cultivation of the Christian temper their 
 grand objects, they will not be chargeable with 
 thofe confequences, be they what they may. 
 
 Mr. A. now goes on to enumerate the evils, 
 which, in his opinion, do immediately refult 
 from Antipcedobaptifm. In general, he tells us, 
 <c the caufe of Chrifl and the riling generation 
 <c are injured thereby * ;" and then proceeds to 
 particulars, which I (hall here recite, with few 
 if any remarks of my own, perfuaded that a 
 fenfible and difpamonate reader, after what has 
 been fo largely faid upon thefe matters, will 
 clearly perceive our Author's miftake in every 
 inftance. 
 
 " The minifters and difciples of Chrift," fays 
 he, " are herein now repeating a conduct, on 
 " account of which Jefus was highly difpleafed 
 " with his firil followers." 
 
 " They are rejecting thofe as common and 
 ic unclean, which a Chriftian Apoftle has pro- 
 " nounced holy; and treat thofe as mere out- 
 " carts and fubjects of Satan's kingdom, con- 
 <c cerning whom our Lord has declared, Offuch 
 <c is the kingdom of heaven.'''' 
 
 " They go before God in repealing an act of 
 
 <c grace which He has not repealed but efta- 
 
 " blifhed ; and reflect: upon an inftitution of 
 
 " the great Head of the church in which his 
 
 <c people rejoiced through many generations." 
 
 * P. 178. 
 
 " They 
 
2 38 Mr. A?s Reflections on 
 
 " They difpute the authority of the only Bap- 
 " tifm ufed in the Chriftian church for many 
 " hundred years, and reduce all that are thus 
 " taken into covenant with God, to the ftate of 
 " unbaptized heathens.'' 
 
 " The grant of the gofpel of grace is hereby 
 " reprefentcd as lefs merciful and extenfive than 
 " that of the law of Mofes, which admitted the 
 " children of God's people into his covenant." 
 
 " Hereby Chriftian parents are difcouraged 
 " from putting in their claim to thofe new- 
 " covenant bleirings which are promifed to their 
 <c children, and are deprived of a powerful mo- 
 <c tive to prayer and a Chriftian education." 
 
 Children themfelves may, alio, in other 
 
 refpecis, fufFer more from the neglect than 
 " many are aware, in confequence of the affront 
 " offered even by thofe who profefs themfelves 
 <c the people of God, both to his covenant and 
 " the feal of it ; and as they are denied a valu- 
 " able prefervative from fin and folly, as well 
 " as encouraged to flight the honour and privi- 
 <c lege of a godly parentage." 
 
 " In confequence of thefe principles, many 
 c< that are born of Chriftian parents live Ions; in 
 " a Chriftian country before the very initiating 
 " ordinance of the gofpel is adminiftered to 
 " them ; and to fome it is never adminiftered at 
 " all : while, on the other hand, not a few are 
 " wafhed a fecond time, (with all the folemnity 
 7 " of 
 
 it 
 
the Baptifts confidered. 289 
 
 " of a Chriflian inftitution) without the lead 
 * 6 authority from Chrift, or his Apoftles, and 
 " contrary to the very nature and defign of 
 " Chriftian Baptifm *." 
 
 This long catalogue of evils makes, I acknow- 
 ledge, a very formidable appearance : nor fhould 
 I at all wonder, if it produces in their minds, 
 who are not accuftomed to think for themfelves, 
 the effect our Author propofes, viz. an abhor- 
 rence of Antipoedobaptift principles. The force 
 of education is great : people, in general, have 
 little leifure, and lefs inclination, to enter into 
 queftions of this nature : and the anfwer is na- 
 tural, to thofe who would perfuade them that 
 this and the other cuilom derived from their an- 
 ceftors may pofiibly be ill-founded, " Sequimur 
 " major es nojiros qui f elicit er fuos \ " We follow 
 " our forefathers who happily followed theirs." 
 As it may be thought, therefore, unkind in me 
 any further to difturb their repofe ; I ihall not 
 attempt to counteract; the fee:ning force of what 
 Mr. A. has juit faid, by a fimilar addrefs to the 
 pamons; but fubmit it to the reader, upon a re- 
 view of the reafoning of the preceding Letters, 
 Whether the evils, of which our Author fo loud- 
 ly complains, have any other exiftence than in 
 his own imagination \ 
 
 * p. 178, 179, 180, 
 
 O Mr. 
 
$9° "Aft, ^.\f Reflexions on 
 
 Mr. ^/. now proceeds to fentence; I mean not 
 himfelf to pafs fentence on the Baptifts, but to 
 remind them of what they may expe£t, if they 
 -perfevere in denying Baptifm to their Infant- 
 children. cc As a very awful punifhment," 
 fays he, " was, by the exprefs command of God, 
 t; to be inflicted upon every one of the feed of 
 <c Abraham to whom the ordinance of circum- 
 " cifion was not duly adminiftered in infancy, 
 " That foul, fays the Almighty, jhall be cut off 
 cc from his people, he hath broken my covenant * - y 
 " Chriftian minifters and parents would do well 
 " to take heed of refuting or neglecting to apply 
 (< this ordinance of Baptifm to their children ; 
 " which is, as we have before proved, the Cir- 
 " cumcifion of Chrift f." To which I (hall 
 only reply, that the Baptifts have firm confidence 
 in their jufl Judge, that He will not condemn, 
 but applaud, their confeientious attachment to 
 what they are perfuaded, upon the cleareft 
 grounds, is his will. 
 
 Mr. A. now goes on, as is extremely natural, 
 to hold up to his reader's view the benefits rcfult- 
 ing from InfanuBaptifm. " It lays a founda- 
 tion, he tells us, for addrefhng many valuable in- 
 ductions, exhortations, cautions, admonitions, 
 and encouragements to children as they grow 
 lip ;— it obliges parents to train them up in 
 
 * Gen. xvii. 14. -\ P. 180, 
 
 the 
 
the Baptifts confidered. 29T 
 
 the nurture and admonition of the Lord;— 
 it gives minifters an opportunity of addreffing 
 parents upon their duty} — the recollection of 
 this folemnity becomes a powerful relrraint 
 againft temptation, and an argument to walk 
 in newnefs of life ; — and it tends to cheriili in 
 children a peculiar esteem and affection for 
 their parents, as thofe by whom they were 
 introduced into the covenant of God ; and to 
 animate parents to their duty, and to encou- 
 rage their hopes refpe&ing their children V' 
 
 Now, Sir, if thcil- advantages, which no doubt 
 are very great and HBportant, were the natural 
 and proper effects of the application of liaptihn 
 to infants; or if the ceremony were appointed 
 by God to thefe ends ; or jf the omiflion of it 
 did at all leffen the objigations of parents to take 
 care of the education of their children, or of 
 children to make ail iuitable returns to their pa- 
 rents and to demean themfelves well in life, or 
 of minifters to inftruct and exhort them both to 
 their feveral duties : if this were the cafe, I ac- 
 knowledge it would be both cruel and impious 
 to deny Baptifm to children. But is Infant- 
 Baptifm a duty the light of nature and reafon 
 teaches ? This finely will net be pretended. 
 Is it then a pofitive duty? If fo, when, where, 
 how, has it been enjoined by God ? If, in do 
 * P. 181 — 1?3. 
 
 O 2 fault 
 
2$2 Conclusion. 
 
 fault of direct proof of this, it be faid that thofe- 
 many good ufes to which it may be applied, fur- 
 nifh a prefumptive proof that it is of divine in- 
 ftitution ; I anfwer, prefumptive proofs are in- 
 fufrlcient to eftablifh duties of a pofitive kind. 
 And how very /lender even this prefumptive proof 
 in favour of Infant-Baptifm is, will clearlyenough 
 appear, if it be confidered, that the obligations 
 of minifters, parents and children to the duties 
 mentioned are jure the fame, and occafions of 
 urging them equally favourable, whether infants 
 ke or be not baptized. And, having faid all this, 
 I ne^d add no more to convince you, Sir, that 
 the Baptifts are as fenfible as others of the great 
 importance of looking well to the education of 
 their children ; and that to infer the Contrary, 
 from their diftinguiming opinion refpe&ingBap- 
 tifm, is very unreafonable. 
 
 I have now finifhed my anfwer to The Chris- 
 tian Minister's Reasons for baptizing 
 Infants : and am happy in the opportunity he 
 has given me, at the clofe of this debate, of 
 thanking him for the many pious exhortations, 
 aJdrefled to parents and children in the follow- 
 ing chapter, with which his book concludes. 
 But before I take my leave of you, Sir, allow me 
 in a few words to fum up the argument which 
 has been fo largely difculfed in the preceding 
 Letters. 
 
 As 
 
Conclusion. 293 
 
 As pofitive duties depend folely upon the will 
 of the Inftitutor, every queftion refpect-ing them 
 ought in reafon to be decided by his expreis de- 
 clarations ; which declarations, if he be a wile 
 Legiflator, will no doubt be clear and explicit. 
 Baptifm is a pofitive institution ofChriit; it is 
 fit therefore we mould be determined in the two 
 important queftions, refpec~ting the manner in 
 which it is to be admin iftered, and the persons 
 on whom it is enjoined, by his exprefs declara- 
 tions alone, which we fay are plain, and eafy 
 to be underftood. The Pcedobaptifts, however, 
 (I mean thofe of them with whom we are chiefly 
 concerned in this debate) not willing to put the 
 queftion wholly on this ifTue, infift, " That the 
 u children of pious parents are included with 
 " them in the Covenant — That, being included 
 " in it, they have a right to the feais of it — 
 " That Baptifm is a feal of it — And that there- 
 " fore they have a right to Baptifm." Thefe 
 proportions we have confidered. All the poili- 
 ble fenfes in which perfens may be faid to be in 
 a covenant have been laid down, and applied to 
 the queftion before us.. In fome of thefe fenfes, 
 we have feen, it is abfolutcly impoffible children 
 mould be in the Covenant : in others, though 
 poffible, yet there is no medium whereby to form 
 a credible judgment whether they really are in it : 
 and as to the remaining fenfes, (which yet are 
 indirect and improper fenfes of the phrafe) ad- 
 
294. Conclusion'. 
 
 mining that infants are in the Covenant, it is 
 evident that their being thus in it can give them- 
 no right to Baptifm, without the concurrence 
 of an exprcts command. It has been further 
 ihewn, that intcreil: in a covenant does not al- 
 ways give perfons a right to the feals of it; and 
 that Baptifm, whether it be or be not a Teal of 
 the Covenant, is no where thus defcribed in 
 Scripture. The reafoning alio from Circum- 
 cifion has heen considered, and proved to be de~ 
 fective. And thus the argument from analog;/ 
 failing, we have been brought back to the only 
 proper ground on which quelHons refpec"ting po- 
 fitive inflitutions can be latisfacWily iflued, I 
 mean the exprefs authority of the New Tene- 
 ment. 
 
 To the words of the inftitution we have ap- 
 pealed, and have fhewn that, as they exprefsly 
 require the baptizing thofe who have been firfi 
 taught, or who are become difciples by teaching; 
 fo they in effecT: clearly forbid the baptizing in- 
 fants. With this plain and natural expofition 
 of the words of the commimon, we have found the 
 practice of the Apoftles uniformly harmonizing : 
 fo that we have met with neither precept nor ex- 
 ample, throughout the New Teftament, to autho- 
 rize Infant-Baptifm. The queftion refpecling the 
 Baptifm of Jewifh Profelytes has been examined : 
 and, as there is no authentick proof of its having 
 
 obtained 
 
Conclusion. 295 
 
 obtained in our Savour's time; fo neither, if it 
 •could :be proved, would this argument avail in de- 
 fault of a pofitive command. 
 
 The pleas of Antiquity and Univerfality, 
 urged againft us, have alfo been confidered : 
 and, though we wifh not to reft the iftue of the 
 debate upon any other ground than that juft 
 ftated, of the exprefs authority of Scripture ; 
 yet we have made it appear, that there is no 
 proof of any one infant having been baptized 
 during the two nrft centuries ; have given a 
 probable account of the origin and introduction 
 of Pcedobaptifm ; and fhewn, from the character 
 of the times in which we fuppofe it was intro- 
 duced, that it is by no means incredible that in- 
 novations of this kind mould obtain. In the 
 vallies of Piedmont we have found an afylum for 
 the pure doctrines and ordinances of Chrift, 
 amidft the thick darknefs and barbarifrn of the 
 middle age. And from thence we have traced 
 the truth for which we contend, amidft the no- 
 ble teftimonies of renowned martyrs and confef- 
 fors in favour of it, fome hundred years before 
 the Reformation, down to the prefent times. 
 
 And now, Sir, I appeal to you, to every man 
 of fenfe, candour, and piety, Whether the Bap- 
 tifts ought not to be believed when they affirm, 
 that they are not influenced in this matter by a 
 
 fondnefs 
 
296 Conclusion. 
 
 fondnefs for Angularity, but by confederations 
 of confcicnce ? Whether they ought not to 
 have a patient hearing given them, when called 
 upon, by the miflaken reafonings and the un- 
 kind reflections of their opponents, to defend 
 themfelves ? Whether, if their arguments are 
 Xiot thought weighty enough to convince, their 
 motives ought not to be applauded as good ? 
 Whether, if they are in an error, they fhould 
 not rather be pitied than blamed ? And, as they 
 are heartily difpofed to embrace their brethren 
 who differ from them in the arms of Chriftian 
 charily, whether they may not reafonably expect 
 the like friendly treatment in return ? 
 
 I am, Sir, 
 
 Your humble Servant, 
 
 is. s. 
 
 THE END,