Itiieolcgical seminakyJ

Ij Princeton, N. J. |

■^ : .S'A<>//; Sect,,.; . ___]^

I //oo/i-, N», 7|

v. /

v/

V-V ^

Antipoedobaptifm Examined :

O R,
A STRICT AKI) IMPARTIAL

I N Q^ U I R Y

INTO THE

NATURE AND DESIGN, SUBJECTS and MODE

O F

B A P T I S M.

INCLUDING, ALSO,
An investigation of the NATURE op

POSITIVE INSTITUTIONS

IN GENERAL, AND

OCCASIONAL STRICTURES on HUMAN
CEREMONIES in MATTERS of RELIGION.

CONTAINING, IN PARTICULAR,

A FULL REPLY TO

Mr. Booth's Poedobaptifm Examined.
By EDWARD 'WILLIAMS.

When i had waited — i said, i will answer also my

PART, I ALSO WILL SHEW MINE OPINION. ELIHU.

VOL. I.

SHREWSBURY:
Printed and sold by J. and W. Eddowes;
Sold also by T. Longman and J. Buckland, Pater-
noster-row ; C. DiLLY, IN THE PoULTRy, LoNDQN

AND W. Browne, Bristol.

MDCCLXXXIX.

PREFACE.

'T'^HE following work is not intended merely
-"- as an anfwer to Mr. Booth's Pcedobap-
iifm Examined -y the author, as occafion offered,
has taken notice of what appeared to him the
moft plaufible arguments and objeftions contain-
ed in Dr. Stennett's Anfwer to Dr. Adding-
TON, Dr. Gale's ReflecStions on Dr. Wall's
Hiftory, and fome others; and therefore, he
has ventured to give the refult of his inqui-
ries the title of AntipoedobapUfm Examined ; not
fo much as a counter-title to that of Mr.
Booth's publication, as that the Jntipcedobap-
tiji Syjiem at large, is made the fubjedl of in-
quiry. This extent of defign will, in fome
meafure, account for the largenefs of the work ;
to which I muft add another reafon, viz. That
I was defirous my principles may be thoroughly
underftood by every reader, if poflible, without
hazard of miftake ; and this appeared the moft
effeftual method — to fet them in different po-
fitions — and to (hew their connexion with the
feveral branches of difpute, and their genuine
practical tendency. Whence arifes, eventually,
A 2 a

iv PREFACE.

a double advantage to the inquifitiv'e reader ; he
not only muft needs perceive clearly what the
principles are, but aifo has an opportunity to
judge of tlieir .truth., by obferving the univer-
sality of their applicaticwi.

At different intervals of relaxation from more
important engagements, the fubjedl of thefe vo-
lumes .had attracted the Author's attention for
ibme years; but he did not refolve to write
and -publiOi, till fome time after Mr. Booth's
F.tsdobaptifm Examined made its appearance : nor
was it his defign, when he began to write, to
handle the f^veral branches of controverfy in fo
^Ateniivc a manner. But, in his progrcls, the
more he confidered his leading ideas, in their
various application to the different parts, the
more he was induced to extend his plan.

When I read Mr. Booth's Preface to the
fecond edition of his work, which came out af-
ter the former part of mine was fent into the
prefs, my curiofity was not a little gratified with
the following paragraph : " Should this ex-
amination of Poedobaptifm have the honour of
being regarded as deferring an anfwer, and
fliould any of our oppolers write againft me,
it will not avail to refute fome particular parts
of the work, detached from the general princi-
ples

PREFACE. V

pies on which I proceed. No; the data^ the
principal grounds of reafoning, which are adopted
from Pcedobaptifts themfelves, muft be conftantly
kept in view; or nothing to the honour of in-
fant fprinkling will be effeded. For as the
grand principles on which my argumentation
proceeds, and whence my general conclufions
are drawn, are thofe of Proteftants when con-
tending with Papifts, and thofe of Non -conform-
ifts when difputing with Englilh Epifcopalians j
it will be incumbent on fuch oppofer to fhew,
either that the principles themfelves are falfe^ or
that my reafoning upon them is inconcluftve.
Now as I do not perceive how any Proteftant
can give up thofe principles, without virtually
admitting the fuperftitions of Popery ; nor how
they can be deferted by any Diflenter, without
implicitly renouncing his Non-conformity ; fo
I conclude, that the whole force of any oppo-
nent muft be employed in endeavouring ^o
prove, that I have reafoned inconfequentially
from thofe principles. That this might be eafijy
proved, I am not at prefent convinced : and
whether any of our Poedobaptift Brethren will
confider this publication as of fufficient import-
ance to excite fuch an attempt, is to me un-
certain*." A 3 ■

Thg
• p. 19, 20,

vi PREFACE.

*rhe data-y the prittcipal grounds of reajoning muji
he kept in view. Well, I refle(Sl:ed, here is my
tafk fairly pointed out ; and I am not a little
pleafed to obferve, that what is here prefcribed
is precifely the fame as what I had from the
firft impofed upon myfelf: that is, not to nib-
ble at fome of the branches of his ftately tree,
but to lay the axe of oppofite principles to the
root of it ; not to uncover a little here and
there of his building, to find a few faults in
quotations, translations, and the like, but to un-
dermine the foundation. The principal grounds
of reafoning I have endeavoured conftantly to
keep in view; and my aim is throughout to
fhew that the principles of Proteftants and Non-
conformiils, taken in their only true fenfe and
force, are either mifunderftood or mifreprefented
by my opponent, and confequently his reafon-
ing upon them, which derives all its plaufibi-
lity from that miireprefentation, is inconcluftve.
Kis conduct in applying their maxims to his
caufe, may be compared to that of a Judge
who (hould produce, from the beft writers, de-
fnitions of Juftice in the abftrad, and then ar-
bitrarily tack thefe to any caufe, right or wrong,
according to his humour. But will fuch an
arbitrary application of a definition, formed ab-

ftradedly,

P R E F A C E. vii

ftracledly, make a caufe more or lefs juft in
itfelf ? Should not the circuaiftances of the point
in litigation be lirfi: attended to, and the fails
be accurately afcertained, in order to infer the
quantum of juftice or injuftice in the whole ag-
gregate? So far were the moft eminent of the
Proteftants and Non-conformifts from difcarding
the life of right reafon and fcripture analogy in
their inveAigations of gofpel worftiip and infti-
tutions, that fometimes tliey were not a little of-
fended with infinuations to the contrary. The
following words of Dr. John Owen may be
fairly deemed a proper fpecimen of their thoughts
upon the matter : " I have of late been much
furpnfed with the plea of fome for the ufe of
reajon in religion and facred things ; not at all
that fuch a plea is injlfied on, but that it is
by them built exprefsly on a fuppofition, that it
is by others, whom they refletft upon, denied y
whereas feme, probably intended in thofe reflec-
tions, have pleaded for it againji the Papijis (to
fpeak within the bounds of fobriety) with as
much reafon, and no lefs effedually, than any
amongft themfelves*."

In fad, the chriftian church has been Shame-
fully abufed by extravagant opinions and fuper-

Aitious
* On the Sabbath, Exerclt. I. § 8.

viii I> R E F A C E.

ftitious ceremoniesj which may well raife the in-
dignation of a mind in love with the facred
authority of fcripture, and rational devotion ;
and this has occafioned fome, in the height of
their antipathy and pious zeal, to fly into the
cppofite extreme of adhering to the mere letter
of divine laws, to the negle^Sl of their true fpirit.
But this is not all ; what was defigned as a
preventive to the former difeafe, becomes itfelf,
in common with it, the occafion (or, fliall I fay,
the culpable caufe?) of a malady far more dan-
gerous. " Among other prejudices," — fays a
fhrewd obferver, who, hiding himfelf behind the
fcene, attentively watched their motions — "among
other prejudices there is one of a particular na-
ture, which you muft have obferved to be one
of the greateft caufes of modern irreligion.—
Whilft fome opinions and rites are carried to
fuch an immoderate height^ as expofes the ab-
furdity of them to the view of almoft every body
but them who raife them, not only gentlemen
of the belles lettres^ but even men of common
fenfe, many times fee thro' them ; and then out
of indignation and an excelRve renitence, not fe-
farating that which is true from that which is
falfe, they come to deny both, and fall back
into the contrary extreme, a contempt of all
religion in general *."

* WoLLAST. Relig, of Nat. p. 60, 61, Edit. 1725.

PREFACE. ix

I SHOULD be very forry if what is advanced
in the following Examination, fhould in any
meafure violate the facred bond of chriftian cha-
rity and friendfliip that fubfifts between me and,
in this inftance, my differing brethren j with fe-
veral of whom I wifti to preferve and cultivate
a fraternal afre<5lion. And thofe of them who
bear the minifterial chara<£ter, with whom I agree
in weightier points of evangelical truth, are wel-
come to my pulpit, my houfe, and my heart j
and none would be more fo, according to my
prefent views, than the author of the Reign of
Grace, and Poedobaptifm Examined.

I NOW fubmit the performance to the impartial
judgment of the candid public, and implore the
bleiling of God on every grain of truth con-
tained in it, for the reader's real benefit ; ear-
naflly wifliing that evangelical knowledge may
inereafe, and that all our acquaintance wi'.h
God"s word, covenant, inftitutions, and all the
means of grace, may be reduced to experience
and ufeful pracSlice, to the glory of God, the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Gholl. Amen,

Oswestry, Dec. 9, 1788.

ERRATA.

Vol. I. p.

Vol. II.

7 1

tine 1. Note,

for Treatife on, rej

id, Hiftory of.

89

10

(§ ),

(§ 4«)

95

29

negatives

negative

137

26

Rom.

1 Cor.

184

4

CorroUary

corollary

198

ult.

corolaries

corollaries

200

23

ftiall

fliould

217

8

promifor

promifer

224

12

fants

infants

283

J7

were

wheie

—

ult.

Grotlus

Grotium.

286

15

dele as

298

2 Note,

fiate

^appinefs

311

II

31

39

356

33

9r«]^a»

7ra7ptst

386

penult.

their

your

395

penult.

dele had

3

17

catechrefis

catachrefis

63

18

tinfturat

tinftura

J20

13

let

led

199

I

cafe

caufe

210

25

7r«»^ta»

TTOH^Utt

211

12

fail

feal

213

4

dele as after w

ill

—

major

magis

268

28

his word

God's word

288

4

fee it

fee to it.

382

18 * Bla

ckft. Comm. Introd,

, §2.

CONTENTS.

Volume the First,

Introduction. Containing fame preliminary Re^
Tnarks ■ ■ ■ ■ p* i — 20

Chap. I. Of pofttive Injlitutiom and analogical
Reafoning • p. 2i — 98

Chap. II. Of the nature and defign of Bap-
tifm /. 99—197

Chap. III. Of the proper fubjeSls of Baptifm

p. 198'— 4I2~

Volume the Second.

Chap. IV. Of the fgnif cation of the terms bap-
tize and baptifm — — p. i — 189

Chap. V. ObjeSfiom and Evafiom of Antipcedo-
baptifis anfwered — — p. 190-— 266

Chap. VI. Praaical Reflexions p. 267—350
Appendix . p, 351—417

Intended to be publijhed, as foon as the Juihot''s
other Engageinents will permity
A N

E S S A Y

ON THE

EQUITY OF DIVINE GOVERNMENT,

AND THE

SOVEREIGNTY of divine GRACE.

Wherein, particularly, The

LATITUDINARIAN HYPOTHESIS or INDETERMINATE

REDEMPTION,

AND THE

A'NTINOMIAN NOTION of the DIVINE DECREES
being the rule of minifterial conduft, are
carefully examined.

By EDWARD WILLIAMS.

Shai.1, not the Judge of all the earth do right? Gen.
xviiu 25.

And he doth according to his will in the army of Hea-
ven, and among the inhabitants of the earth. Dan. iv. 35.

Why doth he yet find fault ? for wha hath refifted his
will ? Nay but, O man, who art thou that replleft againlt
God ? Shall the thing formed' fay unto him that formed it,
Why hafl thou made me thus ? Rom. ix. 19, 20.

The fecret things belong to the Lord our Ood ; but
thofe things which are revealed belong unto us and to our
children for ever. Deut. xxix. 29.

ANTIPiEDOBAPTISM
E X A M I N E D. ^

INTRODUCTION,

Containing fome Preliminary Remarks,

§ I. The importance of the fuhjeSf. §2. TJje ad^
vantages of a flriSt and impartial inquiry into it,
§ 3. Preliminary Remarks. § 4« (i) Of the
kind of evidence required in this debate. § 5. (2)
Concerning the main hinge of the controverfy, § 6.
(3) Of defining and explaining the principal terms,
§ 7* (4) Of hutnan authority and opinion.

§ I. rry hat the fubje<a inveftigated in the
X following pages is of a nature con-
fiderably important, will hardly be queflioned by
any who refledt, that no perfon profeffing chrifti-
anity can lawfully exempt himfelf from paying it
at leaft a pra6lical attention; for, if he imagine
(as the ^akers^ and fome of the followers of
SociNus doj that he is under no obligation to
B efpoufe

2 Introduction, containing

cfpoufa the pradice of water baptifm, as 2l Jland-
ing ordinance in the chriftian church, furely he
ought to have fubflantial reafons for that deter-
mination, or elfe muft incur the cenfure of pre-
cipitate raflinefs and irreligion. It concerns him
impartially to judge, whether or not the arguments
adduced in favour of this chriftian pradice be of
fnperior force to thofe infifted on to juftify an
abfolute neglect of it. If the ordinance be from
heaven, a law once enafled by the Great Head
of the church ; is our evidence for its repeal
ftronger than any we have for its continuance?
If not, the negleil muft be highly criminal, as
implying an impeachment of the divine wifdom,
and a contempt of the divine authority*. But
if it be an evident truth, that this ordinance is
of perpetual obligation, no fmcere chriftian can
hefitate a moment from inferring, that it is 6f
fome importance to know, how he may bejt dif-
charge any duty that relates to it? To fay, that
it is of no confequence who is baptized, or im-
material how the rite is to be performed, ivithout

due

• The notion, " that this inftitutlon doth not extend to the
iefcei.dants of profefling chriftiansj being neither Aiitable fo their
circumftances, nor intended to bind them," is juftly ftiJed, by
X Gentleman who has lately publiflied on the fubjeft, a r:nu idea
concerning bapti&n, as appropriate Ka frijtnt times \ which he refutes
by fhewing — that there is nothing in the nature of any particular
tommand, or any circumjlance in the injunflion that renders it pecu-
liarly proper, or any ways limits it to the perfons and times then
prefent, or which immediately fucceeded — and that there is nothing
in the rite of baptifm. In its meaning and dejign, that indicates its
being founded on partial confidcratlons. See Tevi,MiM'« Effity tn
Baptifm, fajf.m.

Preliminary Remarks* j

due examination, is incompatible with chrlftian
fincerity. Whatever bears the flamp of divine
authority has an undifputed claim on our reve-
rential regards. I may further add ; the confider-
ation of its frequent occurrence — that moft gof-
pel minifters have reiterated calls to determine
about the fubjeds and circumftances of it — that
there are innumerable families who have re-
peated occafions to decide upon the cafe — and,
in a word, that no parent of a living child in
the whole chriftian world, ought to reckon this
ordinance as a matter of mere indifference — thefe
confiderations, I fay, and others that might be
mentioned, are concurring reafons at once to
juftify a ftridt and impartial inquiry into this
controverted fubjedl, and thereby an attempt to
afcertain its comparative importance.

Thus far, therefore, I have the pleafure to
agree with the refpedtable Author whofe publi-
cation I more profefledly examine, when he fays,
** Some perfons affeil to reprefent all difputes
about the mode and fubjedls of baptifm as not
only ftale and unimportant, but as unworthy the
character of any who profefs a warm regard for
the Perfon, the atonement, and the grace of Jefus
Chrift. It muft, indeed, be acknowledged, that
church order, pofitive rites, and external forms
of worfhip, are not of equal importance with
tliofe doctrines which immediately refpecl: the
objecSt: of our worftiip, as rational creatures; the
ground of our hope, as criminals deferving to
periftii or the fource of our bleilednefs, as in-
B 2 tended

MoAk^iiiMi

4 Introduction, containing

tended for an immortal exiftence. — But is this a
fufficient reafon for treating the law of baptifm
as if it were of little or no importance — as if
it were obfolete^ or as if our Great Legiflator
had no meaning when he enaded it ? — Are we
not required to contend earneJlJy^ but with vir-
tuous difpofitions, for every branch of that faith
which was once delivered to the faints? If, there-
fore, infants be folemnly fprinkled by divine
right, it muft be the indifpenfible duty of Paedo-
baptifts to contend for it*" — efpeclally when at-
tacked. To this I would add, if the baptizing of
infants be at all a duty, it tnufl be an important
one, for it is to be obfer\'ed, as Bp. Butler
has done before, " That all chriftians are com-
manded to contribute, by their profeflion of
chriftianity, . to preferve it in the world; for it
is the very fcheme of the gofpel that each
chriftian (hould, in his degree, contribute towards
continuing and carrying it on; all by uniting in
the publick profeflion and external pradice of
chriftianity f ," which cannot properly be done
without duly attending to the introdusSlory rite
to fuch a profeflion.

§ 2. A FAIR inveftigation of the fubjed be-
fore us, in its full extent, and the general prin~
ciplcs on which the weight of the controverfy
depends, may be attended alfo with fome con-
fidtrablc advantages. A liberal, yet modeft, in-
quiry after truth, efpecially in matters of duty

and

• Mr. Bootk'j Paidobaptifm Examined. Preface, p. 7.
f £vm:it'c Analogy, Put JI, Ch. I, p. 219. 2d. Edit.

Preliminary Remarks, 5

and pra<ftlce, cannot fail of being Immediately
advantageous to the inquirer, and, when attended
with fuccefs, muft be greatly beneficial in its
confequences. For, to difcover trutli, and the
evidence of truth, muft needs afford more fub-
ftantial profit, and a more generous pleafure,
than can be expeded in the mazes of falfehood
-and error, ignorance and prejudice. We may reft
afTured that the valuable gem, Truth, will
lofe nothing of its luftre or worth by a thorough
examination. If what has appeared to us, in the
femblance of a precious jewel, turn out on a
clofer fearch to be no better than a worthlefs
pebble, it muft be weak and prepofterous flill to
retain and prize it as moft valuable. But if
long efteemed as of real worth, and pronounced
genuine by many able judges, proportionable
caution is neceflary; we (hould turn and view it
on every fide, avail ourfelves of the beft light,
and every proper advantage, left, gulled by tho
artful, ourfelves and our families fuftain an im-
portant lofs. If Paedobaptifm be in reality what
its oppofers of the prefent day pronounce it to
be, namely, " abfurdzn(i unjcriptural'*,'" to refign
it will be no lofs, but real gain. But if it
be of God, it is a truth', and if it be a truth,
there is attainable evidence for its being fo i for,
I confefs, I have no high opinion of what Mr.
B. . calls a wonderful fecret — truth without evi^
dence-^ tho' it were difcovered by a right re-
B 3 verend

* Stbmmxt*! Aofwer to Adoihgton^ p. S34«

6 Introduction, contaimng

verend prelate f . But I would not have Mr. B.
be tranfported with joy at the idea of his pof-
feffing " greatly preponderating evidence on his
fide," till he has better juftified the principles on
which he argues j left while he is endeavouring
to demolifh the labours of others, and pleafed,

" greatly

•f Bp. Tav ton's Liberty of Prophefying. This prelate, whom
Mr. B. fo often quotes, wrote the treatife here referred to in the
I times of the rebellion in England j in which he undertake* to
ftew, with a view to moderate the rigor of the parliamentarian party,
bcw much might be faid of two forts of Diflenters, the AntJp«do-
baptifts and the Papifts, — And in his plea for the former, tho' he
there declares himfelf well fatisfied with the principles of Px-
dobaptifm, of which he gives a fummary account, and fays, that he
takes the other opinion to be an (rror j yet under pretence of reciting
what may be faid for this error, he draws tip fo elaborate a fyflcm
of arguments againft infant baptifm, and fets them forth to fuch
advantage, that he is judged to have faid move for the Antipaedobaptifti
than they were ever before able to fay for themfelves. And Dr. Ham-
mond fays (Six Queries. Infant Baptifm, § 49.) It is the moll
diligent colleftion and the moft exaft fcheme of the- argument!
■gainft Infant Baptifm that he had ever met with. Therefore the
Dr. wrote an anfwer to this piece, folving each objeflion particularly;
towards the conciufion of which (§ J 3 9.) he obl'erves, " I have
" pafTed thro' all the feveral heads of arguments that are here propofed,
«' and confidered them as nicely as I could, fo as not to let fall one
*• word that feemed to me to have any fhew of validity in it, or in
" the confcquence of it, and muft confent to the truth of the author*!
** [the Bilhop's] obfervations, " that the Anabaptifts have been en-
" couraged in their error more by the accidental advantages given them
** by the weaknefs of thofe arguments that have been brought againft
" them, than by any truth of their caufe." And afterwards Bp,
Taylok himfelf, having premifed thjt he was forry if any one had
been fo weak as to be mifled by fuch objeftions, and that he
counted it great condefcenfion in Dr. Hammond to beftovyr an anfwer
crt them, wrote alfo his own anfwers to his own objections, and in-
ferted thcrt in a latter cdiUoa of the faid treatife, (Sec Wall's

Treatife

Preliminary Remarh, y

** greatly pleafed," with the thought, his own
foundation be undermined. Nor would I have
him be fo " greatly difcouraged," as he profefles
to be, in refpe£l of an iflue to the prefent con-
troverfy, while he thinks that the Baptifts alone
" will plead preponderating evidence, and firmly
infift upon it as a maxim of logical prudence,
that our ajpnt (hould always be proportioned to
the degree of evidence." Sir, let not this dif-
courage you; furely the Psedobaptifts will think
better of it than to reject fo excellent a i-ule ia
pleading their caufe. For my own part, I have
the pleafure to afTure you, that I feel no re-
ludance at all to appeal, on every occafion, to
fo equitable a maxim, be the confequence what
it may. " Nor have I any apprehenfion (to
borrow the words of an oppofite writer) that
this trial will at all injure the caufe I am de-
fendii^i on the contrary, I am well perfuaded
B 4 it

Treatife on Infant Baptifm, Part 11. Qhap, 2. § 6,)— After all, tho'
there be nothing which we can pronounce to be truth without fuitable
evidence, yet in a qualified fcnfe I queftion whether the Bi/hop's re-
mark— •* I think there is fo much to be pretended againft that [Pat*
dobaptifm] which I believe to be the truth, that there is much more
truth than evidence on our fide" — deferve* all that feveiity of fatire
vh'ch Mr. B. beftows on it. For by evidttice, I prefume, he intend*
a particular kind of evidence, an exprefs command, totidem i;trbit, or,
demonftrable fcriptural example : and by truth, a condufion fairly
drawn from other premifes. Nor will Mr. B, deny, that there are
many things of a religious nature demonftrably true, or in matters
of praftice abfolutc dut^, the evidence whereof does not arife from
exprefs revelation. Whether this remark will apply to the fubjeft
ia queftion, will be further examined.

S Introduction, containing

it will ferve it. It is the part of error, not of
truth, to elude inquiry: and he who would e-
ilablifli a point in debate, if he is fatisfied of
the goodnefs of his caufe, will know how even
to avail himfelf of the objedtions of his oppo-
nents. Truth is always perfedly confiftent with
itfelf: and however collateral circumftances may
be fo difguifed, or placed in fuch a point of
light by fkilful management, as, for a time, to
weaken and confound the plaineft evidence of
a real fad ; yet, when thofe circumftances come
to be thoroughly looked into, they will not
only ccafe to have their efFeft, but will cor-
roborate and brighten that evidence to which
they before proved fo unfriendly.*"

§ 3. It is no uncommon thing in controver-
fial matters for the contending parties to mifun-
derftand one another on their firft fetting out;
either fome ambiguous terms are not explained,
on which, notwithftanding, confiderable ftrefs is
laid ; or fomething is much infifted on which
has only a remote reference, but is far from
being eflential, to the fubjeft in hand; or a
multitude of arguments are produced in proof
of a point, when mofl, if not all, would have not
the leaft plaufibility but from begging the queftion
in debate. This method may, indeed, dazzle
and confound the weak, but is ill calculated to
convince the judicious. This being the cafe, and
perhaps never more fo than in difputes about

baptifm,

* StskViet's Anfwer to A, p. 213,

Preliminary Remarks, 9

baptifm, It may be proper to make a few Pre^
Uminary Remarks.

§ 4. (i) I BEGIN then, with a pertinent ob-
fervation of an ingenious Antipaedobaptift, which
he afterwards exprefsly applies to baptifm. " No
theological fubje6t (fays he) requires more ac-
curate inveftigation than the article of evidence.
Evidence is that which demonftrates. Now there
are various kinds and degrees of evidence, and it
w^ould very much contribute to clear a point ia
debate, were difputants firft of all to agree on cer-
tain data, or what (hould be allowed evidence in
the cafe in queftion. In law this is a matter of
great confequence, and when divines proceed in
the methods ufed in our courts ctf law, they gain
infinite advantage — They do, as it were, fwear
the witneffes before they admit them as evi-
dence*."

It is ftrongly infmuated by Mr. B. that what-
ever has been faid in vindication of Paedobaptifm
is fit only to deceive " fuperficial obfervers.'*
Take his own words. " It is manifeft that
nothwithftanding the number of evidences ufually
fubpcenaed againft us, when the validity of infant
fprinkling is to be puhlickly tried; and notwith-
ftanding the formidable appearance they frequent-
ly make, in the eye of a fuperficial obferverj
yet, when thefe very evidences are impartially
examined by Psedobaptiils in private^ without
being perplexed with captious queries, they have
not a word to fay for infant fprinkling j but all
B 5 their

* RoBiNtON*4 Notes ooC|.AVDX*ȣflay, Voli 11, p. X47t

l6 IktrobvctioiJj containing

their depofitions are dire^lcd to prove dotSblncj '
and fads of a quite different nature f." Surely
this is very aftonifliing if true. What! are all
the conclufions of every Psedobaptift difputant fo
naked, fo arbitrary, fo irrational, that not one
principle is found which, as a faithful evidence,
and unfuborned, will fland uniform in its depo-
Ittions, unmoved, and unawed by crofs-examin-
ation? I would now only beg of the reader to
iadmit, that it is at leaft pojpble Mr. B. is milled
by too hafty and partial a judgment. Is he fure,
has he demonjirated^ not only that the witnefles
give evidence in his favour, but that, in Mr.
Robinson's phrafe, they are " fworn before they
are admitted?" I am not a little fufpicious that
his principal witnefs, nay the only one in which
he feems to place any confidence, is not legally
introduced.

To be a little more explicit ; I apprehend the
Antipaedobaptifts build on the following fup-^
pofition as their chief corner ftone, confide in it
as their great palladium, and refer to it as the
ftandard of all their arguments, namely, " That
the law of baptifm in the New Teftament is of
a nature intirely pofitive^ as to the fubje<5l and
mode of it;" and, if I underftand them right,
they are willing that their caufe (hould fiand or
fell with it. Thus Mr. B. when animadverting
on the conduiSl: of one of his brethren for oc-
bafionally quitting that fort, " Except it be
inuintained, that pofitive ordinances are to be

intirely
f- Wem p, 449»

Preliminary Remarks. II

intlrcly governed by pofitlve law and primitive
e^cample, it is hnpoffible for him to ftand his ground
hy fair argument in various cafes, when difputing
with Pardobaptifts as fuch *." " All who pre-
tend, (fays a Gentleman before quoted) to defend
infant fprinkling, do but trifle, except they go
to the true ground of the debate, and either prove
—that infant fprinkling is fomewhere appointed
by Chrift our Legiflator — or that the authority
of Chrift is not neceflary to the eftabhfhment of
z pofitlve Injlltute — or that feme perfon has fmce
appeared vefted with fuch authority as Chrift
himfelf exercifed t«" A dire dilemma ! But,
upon recolle<Sl:ion, to cafe myfelf a httle of this
tripple perplexity, I beg leave to return the
third part of the difficulty to the author himfelf
and the pretended fucceffors of St. Peter, to be
amicably fettled between them. The two former
I ftiall not trifie with, but fhall endeavour fairly
to anfwer them. For as our opponents feem
willing to hazard the reputation and exiftenc^
of their caufe with the ftrength of the afore-
faid maxim, " Baptifm is a merely positive
rite;" — and concluding it to be divine., they in
their turn, " in the language of felf-gratulation,
repeat the old tffixa of Archimedes, / havf
found It! J have found ?V/"— it will be neceflary,
and it fhall be the leading part of this work, to
examine its pretenfions with ftridnefs. Thus I,
alfo, fhall attempt, on proper occafions, to aicer-
tain the kinds and degrees of evidence, and
B 6 " fwear

* p. 46a« f Robin9oh'» Notes, Vol. lit p. 4134

12 Introduction, containing '

"Jfwear the witnefTes." Nor am I difcouraged
at the profpecSl of " proving, that infant baptifm
IS SOMEWHERE appointed by Chrift our Legifla-
tor."

§ 5. (2) I PROCEED to obferve, that it appears
to me extremely defirable, in controverfial de-
bates, that the difputants fliould be peculiarly
felicitous to fix upon the main hi^ige of the
difference between them, as that not only tends
to reduce it in bulk, but would alfo fuperfede
much impertinence, altercation, and falfe reafon-
ing; hereby a fairer opportunity would be
afforded for a clofe encounter, the combatants
would fland, as it were, upon even ground, and
thus we may hope the one party might avoid
the charge laid againft it by the other, viz. That
it no fooner fixes upon a fpot for the engage-
ment, than it finds it neceffary or expedient to
quit that for another.

But how (hall a man know what this turning
point is? Mr. Robinson afTures us that "Abra-
ham's covenant, greek particles, and a thoufand
more fuch topicks, no more regard the fubje6t
than the firft verfe of the firfl book of Chronicles,
Adam, Sheth, Enoni*!" Dreadful fcythe ! And
no mean mower, to cut fo much at one flroke !
Dr. S. with more moderation, expreffes
himfelf as follows, " This queflion, fays he, —

WHETHER BAPTISM IS A MEAN OF FAITH AND

REPENTANCE? — I take to be the main hinge
Upon which the difpute between us and the Pse-

dobaptifls

• Notts on CiAurz, Vol, 11. p, 4231*

Preltmlnary Remarh, I J

dobaptlfts turns f." I am at a lofs, however,
how to reconcile this declaration with what he
fays elfewhere; for inftance, where he reprefents
the fuppofed " joint interest of parents

AND THEIR CHILDREN IN THE COVENANT, aS

that upon which the whole fuperjiru£iure of in-
fant baptifm ftands," adding, " What pity then
our brethren will not yield to the force of this
plain truth, that pofitive inftitutions muft in
their own nature derive their authority, not
from the uncertain deductions of analogy, but,
fiom the clear and exprefs declarations of God's
word!" And what would follow? Why, " yield-
ing to this propofition, tliey would at once find
themfelves obliged to lay afide infant baptifm*."
Certainly then, the faid proportion muft be no
mean hinge, if not the main one. But has the
Dr. or any one elfe, fairly proved not only that
the propofition itfelf is true, but alfo applicable to
the ordinance of baptifm, and confequently that
this " Yielding" is our duty. Ah, hie labsr^ hoc opus
£/?, this, this is the main difficulty. What a pity
the Paedobaptifts fhould be fo importuned to yield
xvithout evidence} — I alfo will fliew mine opinion
refpedting the queftion to be decided, and it is
tbis,WHETHER IT IS THE WILL OF CHRIST
THAT THE INFANTS OF BELIEVING PARENTS

SHOULD BE BAPTIZED? It Certainly is his will
that all who are proper fubjedls of baptifm (hould
be baptized; we contend that the infants of be-
lieving parents are fuch; and therefore fliould

be

•f Anfwcr to A, p, 34, • Idem p. I74»

14 Introduction, containing

be baptized. If they are proved to be proper
fubje£ls, that is, fuch as come within Chrift's
intention when he inftituted the ordinance, it
muft follow that it is his will and pleafure
they fliould be baptized. — I fay the infants of
believing parents, for it is not effential to the
controverfy to inchide any others; what may
be faid of others is only a circumftance which
does not afFe6t the argument. For the Antipae-
dobaptifts' arguments are intended to conclude
asainft all children alike, and it muft be as con-
clufive againft their fyftem to prove it to be the
will of Chrijl that any one infant whatever {hould
be baptized, as if all were included in the rea-
foning.

Hence another queftion arifes, namely, How

MAY WE KNOW WHAT IS THE WILL OF ChRIST

IN THIS MATTER? Mr. B. replies; " Seeing
baptifm is as really and intirely a pofitive in-
ftitution, as any that were given to the chofen
tribes; we cannot with fafety infer either the
mode or the fubje6l of it, from any thing fhort
of a precept^ or a precedenty recorded in fcripture,
and relating to that very ordinance ||." He
frequently exprefles himfelf to the fame purpofe,
as do all the writers of note on that fide of the
queftion. We fee that Mr. B. intends that this
declaration ftiould be applied not only to the
mode but alfo to the fubjeSi of baptifm, that is,
in other words, to this queftion, " Who is to
be baptized?" Now, iadeptndent of the/^<f?, that

the

Preliminary Remark!. re.

the right of infants is or is not fupported by a
revealed exprefs precept or precedent, nay, on
fuppofttion that there is in fcripture neither^ I
maintain that the infants of believers are intitled
to the ordinance, and of courfe that the rule
he works by is a falfe one. It proves too much,
and is reducible, on his own principles, to a
downright contradi£tion. This aflertion I hope
to make good againft our author in the following
pages, notwithftanding what he fays about " pofi-
tive laws implying their negatives f ."

What our oppofing friends fay about pofitive
ritcs^ precept Sy precedentSy " and a thoufand more
fuch topicks," are to no good purpofe, until they
demonftrate that the faithful diilates of the law
of our nature, of right reafon and common fenfe,
ate no part of Christ's will to his people
and minifters, when thefe di<Slates are not exprefsly
controuled and fupprefled.

It is not a little furprifing to obferve how
ftrenuoufly they oppofe moral and analogical
reafonings on this one fubjeSl of baptifm, while
they juftly aflume the fame liberty with us on
other fubjecSts equally pofitive. I do not wifh to
fee any, whom Chrift has made free, wear the
galling yoke of thofe ceremonies which he did
not ivtend (liould continue, tho' commanded by
himfelf, and pra6lifed by his primitive difciples.
Therefore, this liberty, I fay, they jiijlly take in
all New Teftament inftitutions, this of baptifm
akne excepted; and this liberty we aflert is the

right

t p. »87.

i6 Introduction, ««/fl/«/«^

right of us <7//, and without exception of any
inftitution. The Antipaedobaptifts are guilty of a
great piece of inconjijience in making fuch a dif-
tindion where there is no apparent ground of
difference, and fo in pronouncing judgment
•without fuitable evidence \ but we confiftently claim
a right of appealing to reafon, analogy, and
common fenfe, in connexion with the naturt and
dcfign of the inftitution, and the moft apparent
intention of our Lawgiver. Nor is it in their
power to maintain the perpetiuty of this ordi-
nance, againft the Quakers and others, the obli.
gation of minifters to baptize thofe who are
taught^ &c. but by thofe very aids which they
would fain deny us.

§ 6. (3) Inauspicious to this controverfy,
above moft: others, terms of ambiguous import,
and unexplained, have been bandied about by
both parties, on which, however, conftderable
ftrefs has been laid; and thus, much confufion
and little profit have often attended very labour-
ed arguments. For inftance, the term Infant
SPRINKLING has been fubftituted for infant
baptifm^ not indeed always by way of contempt,
but often improperly, becaufe thereby is con-
veyed the fecondary idea of a neceflary connexion
between the mode fprinkling and the baptifm
of an infant. Whereas thoufands are dipped in
infancy as well as fprinkled, in the chriftian
world, and fome even in England. So that, upon
our opponents' own principles, thofe infants who

are

Preliminafy Remarks* ly

are dipped in the name of the Sacred Three,
by a Minifter of Chrift, in obedience to his
WILL, ought to be reckoned as baptized: for
fince they maintain that baptizing and dipping
are fynonymous terms, it follows that thofe are
baptized who are thus dipped. Not to infift
upon the abfurd confequenccr of fubftituting the
one term for the other j for then it would alfo
follow, that there are many baptifms to vrhich
the fame perfon ought often to fubjnit for his
health's fakej that as often as a child is dipped
it is baptized 5 that as often as any perfon in
the world, Chriftian, Jew, Turk, or Heathen, is
plunged, on any occafion whatever, he is bap-
tized J yea, that as often as any thing is plunged,
according to them, it is baptized j whereas I
know of no Paedobaptifts who wilh to make
fprinkling, or indeed any other particular mode
of ufing water, fynonymous with baptifm.

Besides, the queftion is not, whether fcripture
cxprefbly enjoins infant baptifm, by a dire6l fpeci-
fication, but whether it enjoins baptifm to all
proper fubje£ts, and whether the adminiftrator,
who has a difcretionary right of judging about
qualifications, has fufficient reafons to conclude,
or fuch evidence as the nature of the cafe re-
quires, that infants are fuch as are included
within our Lord's intention, when he inftituted
the ordinance. If infants poflefs, as I am per-
fuaded they do, the eflcntial qualifications of
proper fubjeds, then it was not only needlefs

but

l8 Introduction, containing

but would have been impertinent to fpecify them.
When therefore I fpeak of the mode, it is on
fuppofition of agreement about the fubje£l; and
when I fpeak of the fubjedl, it is on fuppofition
of agreement about the mode.

The remark already made on the abufe of
terms, is notorioufly exemplified in the word
COVENANT, without adding any more inftances.
It muft be acknowledged that many Piedobaptift
writers have been extremely unguarded in this
particular, which has afforded no fmall handle to
the oppofite party. But our opponents are not
free of blame on this head, and I am not a
little furpnfed to find a perfon of Dr. S.'s cir-
cumfpe6tion and polemical acumen prolong an
argument to above thirty pages, which has no
force at all but in proportion as the word
covenant is taken in a fenfe which, I am per-
fuaded, moft Paedobaptifls reje£t. And this con-
duit is the lefs excufeable in this ingenious and
worthy writer, becaufe he profefTedly " lays
down all the pojjihle fenfe s in which perfons may
be faid to be in a covenant*." The Do(5lor,
furely, need but to be reminded of this matter,
for his own fagacity muft have informed him
how inconclulive his reafoning is, had he
taken all the poffible fenfes of being in a cove-
nant.

§ 7. (4) The numerous quotations in Mr.
B.'s Padobaptifm Examined make, indeed, a for-
midable
^ • Anfwer to A, Letter II, and III,

Preliminary Retnarh, l'^

mldable appearance^ and the rather becaufe there
are among them, as he juftly obferves, " fome
of the moft eminent Pa?dobaptifts that ever filled
the profeflbr's chair, or that ever adorned the
proteftant pulpit." But my judgment intirely
fails me if a very great nianber of thefe quota-
tions are not perfedly conjijient with the pra6tice
of the perfons quoted, and therefore improperly
introduced as evidences againft themfelves.

But fuppofmg that all the paffages our author
employs were diredly in his favour, and unex-
ceptionably tranfcribed or tranllated; nay, were
they an hundred times more numerous and large,
and ftill more favourable to the caufe for which
he pleads, it is evident from his own declara-
tion, that he ought not to confider " either the
number or weight of fuch quotations, as con-
ftituting any part of the ground on which the
diftinguifhing conducSl of the party proceeds," or
on which the caufe depends. That many great
and learned men have entertained different and
even contradictory fentiments on the fubje(SV,
does not affe<5l it. That one Ihould give up a
topick in the debate, which another thought
valid, is immaterial. It is of little confeq lence,
in point of argument in the prefent cafe, to urge
what is the opinion of good and wife men upon
the matter i whereas it is of efiential importance
to inquire whether what is pleaded for be de-
fenfible or indefenfible. Amicus Socrates^ amicus
Plato if(d major arnica Veritas. It is certainly

very

to Introduction; &c."

very becoming, that the fentiments and tefti-
monies of refpe6lable authors fhould be treated
with modefty and decorum, but I muft beg leave
to difcard all human authority, or human opinion,
fmgly or collectively taken, from bearing any
part cf the principal evidence j for I would ap-
peal to the cafe itfelf, and not to the number or
manner of its defenders or oppofers.

?r

CHAP.

Of Ptjttive In/lltutUnSy iSc, 2x

CHAP. I.

Of the nature and obligation of pofitive
laws and inftitutions in general, together
with the ufe of inferential and analogical
reafoning, with relation to the ordinance
of baptifm.

§ I. Of law in general. § 2. Pofttive laws and
inflitutions defined and explained. § 3. Pofitive
precepts difinguijhed from moral ones. § a.
Their comparative obligations. § 5. The impor~
tance of pofitive infiitutions. § 6. They are
neceffarily of an external nature. § ']. They
prfuppofe the dilates oj reafon and revelation,
§ 8- J^il the infiitutions of chrifiianity are of a
mixed nature. ^ g. Js appears {1) from the falfe
principle on which the contrary opinion is founded,
^10. (2) From the concejfions of opponents^ as
io the nature of pofttive inftitutions. §11 — i j..
(3) From inconteftible faSfs. § 15. How to
determine what is pofitive and what is moral in a
mixed Iciw. § lb. The importance of analogical
reafontng. § 17, 18. To deny the ufe of it in
tier inquiries about baptifm^ leads to abfurd confix
quences. ( 1 ) lyithout ity we can know nothing
about the ordinance. § ig — 22. (2) Our opponents
cannot prove their authority t» adminifier, and the

validity

'22 Of Pifittve Injfttuttms Cli. i.

validity of the eiiien, §23 — 26. (3) Nor ta
determine whs is a proper fuhjeii. § 27. (4)
Other ridiculous anfequences. § 28, 29. (5)
TranfubJIantiation retorted. § 30. Extremes of
different kinds. § 31 — 34. ObjeSlians enfwered,
§ 35. Recapitulation.

§ I. T AW, in its mofl general and com-
A...J prehenfive import, fignifies a rule of
eiiion^ didtated by fome fuperior. And man,
confidered as a creature, muft neceflarily be fub-
je<Sl to the Laws of his Creator, as to difpofi-
tion and condu£l; and is bound, from the very
idea of his abfolutc dependence, to regulate his
aclions and behaviour according to the intima-
tions of his fovereign pleafure. — The will of
God is the grand law of our nature. But this
will is difcoverable principally two ways ; either
by human fcigacity — including that intuitive per-
ception whereby we difcem what is moft: condu-
cive to our own welfare, which welfare the will
of our Maker ever fuppofes, and the exertions
of right reafon — or by dire^ revelation. " If our
reafon (fays an eminent writer) were always as
in our firfl: ancerior before his tranfgrefiion, clear
and perfedl:, unrufBed by palTions, unclouded by
prejudice, unimpaired by difeafe and intempe-
rance, the tafk of difcovering what the law of
nature directs in evei;y circumflance of life would
be pleafant and eafy ; we fhould need no other
guide but this. But every man now finds the
contrary in his own experience j that his reafon

is

Ch. I. and Jnalogical Reafonln^. '2J

is corrupt, and his underftanding full of Jgaorancc
and error. This has given manifold oocafion for
the benign interpofition of divine providence ;
which, in compaflion to the frailty, the imper-
fection, and the blindnefs of human reafon, hath
been pleafed, at fundry times and in divers man-
ners, to difcover and enforce its laws by an
immediate and direft revelation. The dodrines
thus delivered, we call the revealed or divine law,
and they are to be found only in the holy fcrip-
tures. Thefe precepts when revealed, are found
upon comparifoR to be really a part of the original
law of nature, as they tend in their confequences
to man's felicity*."

It is to be carefully noticed, that revelation, as
referring to human anions, performs a double
part ; it either renders more authentick and indu-
bitable, what human fagacity perceived as proba-
ble, or elfe enjoins duties which mere reafon
could never have difcovered. Hence arifes the
obvious diftindlion of moral and pofitive laws.

§ 2. By pofitive taws I underftand, fuch laws
as do not appear to us obligatory, except upon
the mere authority \ of the Divine Legiflator. And

for

* Blackstoke's Commentaries, Vol. T. Introd, § a,

•f- Whin I fay that the obhgation of pofitive laws refts upon
the mere authority of the Legiflator, let the reader obferve, that
this it not to be confounded with an ariitraty difpofiiion in the
Deity. This diftiniSiion is well defcribed by an elegant and phi>
lofophic pen : *' When fome fpeak of the JVill of Cod at the
*« Rule of Duty, they do not certainly mean a blind arbitrary
" principle of aflioiif but fuch a principle as i) dirtlftd by res-

54 Of Po/ttiV4 Injfttutloni Gh. I.

this ' Jhority is fufficiently and abfolutely binding
from the confideration of our being previoufly
aflured of the wifdom, juflice, and goodnefs of
God, who ena£ls the law. Pofitive injiitutions,
llridlly taken, are a fpecies of pofitive laws, and
differ as a law differs from an injiitution. The
former may be tranfient, but the latter is, at leaft
for a term, of {landing obligation. The command
given Abraham to facrifice his fon, was a pofitive
la>w^ but not properly fpeaking an inftitution;
and the right of circumcifion was a pofitive
in/iitution as well as a law. Jefus commanding
Peter to walk on the water, was a tranfient law,
but his command to go and baptize proper fub-
jedls of all nations, is a permanent inftitution.
" And altho' no laws but pofitive be mutable, yet
all are not mutable which be pofitive. Pofitive
laws are either permanent or elfe changeable, ac-
cording -

•* fon, and governed by wifdom, or a regard to certain ends in pnferenct
** to others. Unlefs we fuppofe fome principle in the Deity analogous
*• to our fenfe of obligation, feme antecedent afi'eilion, or deteroii-
•• nation of his nature, to prefer fome ends before others, we
••cannot afilgn any fufficient, oi indeed any pofTible reafon, why he
•• fhould will one thing more than another, or have any election
" at all. Whatever therefore is the ground i:ii his choke or will
*' inuft be the ground of obligation, and not the choice or will
*• itfelf. — That this is fo, appears farther from the common dif-
" tinftion which divines and philofophers make between moral
" and pofiti-ve commands and duties. The former they think ebli-
*' gatory, antecedent to will, or at leaft to any declaration of itj
•* the latter obligatory only in confequence of a pofitive appoint-
" ment of the divine will. But what foundation can there be for
«» this diftinftien, if all duty and obligation be equally the refult
«« of mere wili f" FoRBTCz's Elements of Moral Pbilofapby,
B. I, S«ft. 3,

Ch. 1. £ind Jnalogkal Reafoning. 25

cording as the matter itfelf is, concerning which
they were firft made f."

§ 3. It is evident, upon the leaft reflexion,

that pofitive laws are no further binding than the

authority by which they are enjoined is dlfccrm-

ble. And it is equally evident, that there is

no poflible method of difcerning the Lawgiver's

authority and wiU, relative to thefe laws, but

by his own exprefs declarations ; for if they

are difcermble any other way, they are no longer

pofitive. The difference.^ therefore, between po-

fitive and moral commands is clear and obvious.

" Moral precepts, (as Bilhop Butler well ob-

fcrves) are precepts the reafons of which we fee :

politive precepts, are precepts, the reafons of

which we do not fee." But I would further

obfen^e, with the fame fagacious author, that

" this is the diftinclion between moral and po--

Utive precept?, confidered refpeilively as fuch.'-—

Moral and pofitive precepts are in fome refpe<5ts

alike, in other refpeds different. So far as they

are alike, we difcern the reafons of both: fo far

as they are different, we difcern the reafons of

the form.er, but not of the latter. And, moral

duties arife out of the nature of the cafe itfelf,

prior to external command : pofitive duties do

not arife out of the nature of the cafe, but

from external command: nor would they be

duties at all, were it not for fuch command,

received from him whofe creatures and fubjedts

we are.— -Care, then, is to be taken, when %

C comparifon

X Hookir's Eccles, Polit, F, I. § 15,

26 Of Pojitive Injiitut'ions Ch. 1.

comparifon is made between pofitive and moral
duties, that they be compared no farther than
they are different: no farther than as the former
are pofitive, or arife out of mere external com-
mand, the reafons of which we are not acquaint-
ed with; and as the latter are moral, or arife
out of the apparent reafon of the cafe, without
fuch external command. Unlefs this caution be
obferved^ we Jl:>all run to endlefs confufion *.'*
Whether Mr. B. is fuffieiently cautious in ob-
ferving this neceflaiy diftinclion, will appear, I
prefume, in the fecjuel of this treatife.
..§,4. The following remarks from the above
mentioned author, concerning our comparative
it ligations to obey pofitive and moral commands,
appear jull and pertinent. " Suppofe two Hand-
ing precepts injoined by the fame authority;
that, in certain conjunctions, it is impollible to
chey both; that the former is moral, i. e. a pre-
cept of which we fee the reafons, and that they
hold in the particular cafe before us ; but that
the latter is pofitive, i. e. a precept of which we
do not fee the reafons; it is indifputable that
our obligations are to obey t\\Q fortner-y becaufe
there is an apparent reafon for this preference,
and none againft it. Farther, pofitive Inftituti-
ons,^ I fuppofe all thofe which chriftianity enjoins,
are 7}jeans to a moral end; and the end mull be
acknowledged more excellent than the means.
Nor is the obfervance of thefe inftitutions any
religious obedience at all, or of any value, other-
wife

t Butler's Analogy, Part II, Chap, I. p. 227,

CIi. r. end jinaloglcal Reafoning, 27

wife than as it proceeds from a moral principle.
I add, that the whole moral law is as much
matter of revealed command as pofitive inflitu-
tions are; for the fcripture injoins every moral
virtue. In this refpeil then they are both upon
a level. But the moral law is, moreover, writ-
ten upon our hearts; intei-woven into our very
nature. And this is a plain intimation of the
author of it, which is to be preferred when they
interfere. — — Upon occafion of mentioning toge-
ther pofitive and moral duties, the fcripture always
puts the ftrefs of religion upon the latter, and
never upon the former: which, tho* no fort of
allowance to negle61: the former, when they do
not interfere with the latter; yet is a plain inti-
mation, that when they do, the latter are to be
preferred. — Our Lord himfelf, from whofe com-
mand alone the obligation of pofitive inftitutions
arifes, has taken occafion to make the comparifon
between them and moral precepts; when the
Pharifees cenfured him, for eathtg zvith puhUcam
and finners', and alfo when they cenfured his dif-
ciples, for plucking the ears of corn on the fab.,
bath day. Upon this comparifon he has deter*
mined exprefsly, and in form, which fliall have
the preference when tliey interfere. And by
delivering his authoritative determination in a
proverbial manner of exprcffion, he has made it
general : / will have mercy and not facrifice. For
the fenfe and the very literal words of our Lord's
anfwer, are as applicable to ayiy other inflitution,
on u companion between pofitive and moral
C 2 dutie?,-

23 Of Pofit'ive Injlltutmn Cli. r.

duties, as ta this upon which they were fpoken.
It is remarkable too, that, as the words are a
quotation from the Old Teftament, they are
introduced, on botli the forementioned occafions,
with a declaration, that the Pharifees did not
underftand the meaning of them. This, I fay,
is very remarkable. For fince it is fcarce pofll-
ble, for the mod: ignorant perfon, not to under-
ftand tlie literal fenfe of the paflage in the
prophet; (Hof. vi.) and fmce underftanding the
Irtcral fenfe would not hava prevented their con-
deimiing the guiltlcj's\ (Mat. xii. 7.) it can hardly
be doubted, that the thing which our Lord
really intended in that declaration, was, that the
Pharifees had not learnt from it, as they might,
wherein the general fpirit of religion confifts. —
Yet it is highly necelTary that we remind ourfelves,
how great prefumption it is to make light of any
infthutions of divine appointment; that our obli-
gation to obey all God's commands whatever,
are abiblute and indifpenfible: and that com-
mands merely pofitive, admitted to be [fuch,
and] from him, lay us under a moral obligation
to obey them : aji obligation moral in the flrideft
and mofi: proper fenfe *."

It may here be obje61:ed, " Was not Abraham
commendable for obeying a pofitive command at
the expenfe of a moral one?" I anfwcr, Abraham
did well to obey the command to facrifice his
fon, for it was in perfect confidence with the
?norality of the fixth command. Which only

implies
• BuTtEh's Analogy, ui fupra. p. 230 — 234.

Ch. r. and Analogical Reofoning, 2^

implies that one man has no right to take away
the hfe of another unjujlly^ but by no means
intends that God has no right to take away the
forfeited life of a finful creature, which is abfo-
lutely at his difpofal, by what. methods he picafcs.
Whatever excellence there was in Abraham's
obedience, muft fpring from a difpofition regard-
ing God's abfolute dominion, power, wifdom,
&c. And his facrificing Ifaac was no duty any
further than he was certain God commanded it.
Had he been more forward or particular in that
bufmefs than the command v/as exprefs and cir-
cumftantial, he muft have been in that proportion
guilty of a prefumptuous crime; inafmuch as
the pofitive command required him to offer vio-
lence to the natural feelings of humanity. Dr.
GitosvEKOR well obferves, " Where the evidence
is not fo clear, the obligation is weakened in
proportion; but where the terms are plainly bind-
ing, and ftrongly commanding, there the obliga^
tion is not to be evaded. — When we fee the
broad feal of heaven, where there is the divine
v/arrant, Thus faith the Lords it is worfe than
trifling, to cavil and fay. It is but an external
rite." — But we ihould not forget, that tho' all
pofitive duties are above the reach of mere reafon,
fome may be more remote than others; and the
nearer thofe duties approach to our natural noti-
ons of congruity and expediency, the lefs is the
(evidence of pofitive authority, and therefore a
fmaller degree of it is propordo.iably binding.
C 3 § 5. Not-

30 Of Poftthe Injiltuttons Ch. i,

§ 5. Notwithstanding the indlfputable
fuperiority of laws natural and moral to thofe of
a pofitive nature, whenever they come in compe-
tition, the latter are of very great ufe and con-
fequence. " The very notion of a vifible church
implies pofitive inflitutions, for the vifibilhy of the
church confijis in them. Take away every thing
of this kind, and you lofe the very notion itfelf.
So that if a vifible church and an inftituted me-
thod of education, are advantages, the reafon and
importance of pofitive inflitutions in general is
moft obvious, fince without them thefe advan-
tages could not be fecured to the world f."

§ 6. All ads of religious worfhip are either
internal or external. All internal a£ls are of
uioral confideration as refulting from certain rela-
tions. As foon as thefe relations are difcovered,
whether by the di61:ates of reafon or pure reve*
laticn it matters not, the obligation of duty na-
turally arifes from them, independent of any
external command to inforce the fame. The pro-
priety of this diftinilion will eafily api^ear when
we obferve, that no internal adl of religion can
le our duty but what fprings from relative con-
fiderations, and fince no relation fubfifting be-
tween moral agents can be afcertained^ but we
are immediately, from the nature of the cafe,
laid under every obligation poffibly aflignablc.
Hence it follows, that whatever precepts and
duties deferve the name of pofitive^ muft be of
an external nature. Indeed " a dlfpofition to obey.

divine

^ Idem, f. 216, 217,

Ch. I. and Analogical Reafoning, 31

divine orders, either pofitive or moral, (as Dr.
Grosvenor juftly obferves) is part of that ho-
Unefs without which no man Jhall fee the Loid.^*
But then it is equally true, that this very diC-
pofxtion is, in the propereft fenfe, of moral obli-
gation prior to any external command, and,
therefore, is perfeftly diftin<St in its nature from
the pofitivemfs of thofe divine orders. But not-
withftanding all pofitive duties be in their own
nature external^ it does not follow, that all ex-
ternal ads of religious wor(hip are alfo pofitive.
To elucidate this matter a little I w^ould offer
thefe two remarks :

I. That God is to be worflilpped in general^
tvtnm fame external form, is of ?y7(j;W obligation.
For, as the obligation of internal worfhip arifes
from the relation we {land in to God, without a
pofitive command, fo it is clear, from the nature
of the cafe, this internal worrtiip, reverence,- gra-
titude, &c. ought to be externally manifejled in
a manner fuited to thcfe emotions. Nor can it
be doubted, that there is a natural congruity
between fuch internal emotions and certain moda
of exprefiing them in preference to others as lefs
proper; for there are, doubtlefs, jome pojiures
and geftures of the body, independent of na-
tional cuftom, or the like circumftances, that may
with more propriety than others be termed, reve-
rent, humble, modeft, decent, devout, &:c. and
we are under a moral obligation to prefer the
moft becoming, whenever this is not determined
by pofitive command.

C 4 2» That

32 Of Pofitive Injlltutlont Ch. i.

2. That any particular external mode of wor-
fhip is enjoined to men, the leafon and propriety
of which dods not appear prior to the externa^
command, is of pofitive confideration. Pofitive
precepts, may be confidered as certain exceptions
from a general rule, but as a general rule and
common analogy ought to be quitted only where
they are incompatible with the exception, and
precifely in that degree ^ fo we are to recede from
moral and analogical reafoning, in our inquiries
after the path of duty, only when obliged by a
pofitive precept as fuch^ or exadly in the propor-
tion it is fo, and no further. For to do other-
wife would be to quit a common rule without
any apparent neceffity ; and to deviate from a
way, which is at leaft: probably the right one,
to another which is abfolutely uncertain. To
this I would add, that the circumflances of an
avStion being Jiaturally cc-nvenietd^ may and ought
to have conliderable influence in determining
what is or is not our duty, in thofe circum-
Aances of it that are indeterminate; for this
plain reafon, that we are fure the law of felf-
prefervation is the law of God in all thofe
cafes where he has not (hewn us the contrary.
Whatever, therefore, appears to militate againft
life, health, and comfort, without any revealed
warrant, may and ought to be avoided, on the
principles of natural law and obligation. This
is applicable to all the unprefcribed circumftances
of pofitive duties, as well as to thofe of a moral
kind. " Tliis law of nature, (as Sir William

Black..

Ch. I. and Analogical Reafoning. 33

Blackstone obferves) being coeval with man-
kind and di(5lated by God himfelf, is of courfe
fuperior in obligation to any other. It is bind-
ing over all the Globe, in all countries, and at
all times*," when not exprefsly countermanded
by pofitive interpofition.

§ 7. From what has been faid we may fur-
ther conclude, that a pofitive inftitution is a kind
of 'ingrafture^ fo to fpeak, upon the law of our
nature; the former is the fcyon, the latter is the
ftock. The choice of the inftitution depends
upon the fovereign pleafure of God. But when
this is determined, the law of nature written in
our hearts, the principles of reafon and com-
mon fenfe, or fome revealed law, are prcfup'
pofcd^ and may be compared to the flock upon
which the ingrafture is made. For as the fcrip-
ture itfelf flieweth not with certainty what books
are divine; as all acceptable obedience to divine
commands prefuppofes a fuitable difpofition ; as
all arts and fciences have their pracognlta^ and
every branch of abftrufe learning prefuppofes firft
principles, and even the mofl infallible geome-
trical demonftration its axioms and poftulates;
fo all pofitive Jaws and inftitutions . take fome
principles for granted.

§ 8. Another confequence that follows na-
turally from the preceding confidcrations is this:
That there are no precepts now in force, at leaft,
of a nature tmrely pofitive. None, I mean,
wherein all the minutla of circumflances neceffai-y
C 5 for

34 Of Pofittve Inftitutions Ch. I.

for the difcharge of the duty commanded are
fpecified by the Lawgiver; and therefore thofe
inftitutions of chriftianity which are commonly
termed pofitive are but partially fo. The necef-
fity of afcertaining this difference in the prefent
controverfy is very apparent; and yet it has
fomehow hitherto been ftrangely overlooked, by
both contending parties. The Paedobaptifts in
general have tamely fubmitted to this pofition,
*' Baptlfm and the Lord's Supper are pofitive infli-
itttions" in its moft abfolute and undiftinguiflied
fenfe, as a maxim not to be controverted; and
the Antipaedobaptifts are, doubtlefs, much obliged
to us for this piece of complaifance, as it is
evidently the main pillar of their caufe, and the
armour in which they truft. Pertinent to our pre-
fent purpofc is the following remark of Bp. War-
burton ; " When two parties go upon different
[principles] they naturally begin with examining
one another's, whereby the true being at length
fettled or difcovered, by its aid the controverfy is
timely determined; but where a f^lfe principle
has the luck (as his Lordihip expreffes it) to be
embraced by both fide s^ they may wrangle for ever,
and be, after all, but farther from the truth*."
But it may be afked, if we refign the good old
maxim, " that the two ftanding ordinances of
chriilianity, Baptifm and the Lord's Supper, are
fofitiv£ inftitutions, and ahfolutcly fo," and allow
that they are of a mixed nature, or partly pofitive
and partly moral ; how are we to draw the line

of

* Bp, Warbur ton's Alliance, B, I. Seil, i«

Ch. r. and Analogical Reafontng% 35

of diftiiKflion ? If moral and pofitive precepts thus
run into each other, like the fhades of a painted
figure, or the colours of the rainbow, how can
we afcribe to all their due, or determine where
the one ends and the other begins? I'owards
folving this difficulty I beg leave to propofe the
following obfervations.

§ 9. (i) It is utterly abhorrent from found
divinity, as well as logical precifion, not to fay
chriftian modefty, to determine, a priori^ with
what degree of evidence any given particular
inftitution ought to have been delivered by the
divine Legiflator, any more than what the infti-
tution itjelf fliould be.

For, as Bp. Butler obferves, " our prin-
cipal obligation of fearching the fcripture, and
to what all our inquiries ought to be direiled,
is, in order to fee what the fcheme of revelation
really is, inftead of determining before hand from
reafon, what the reafon of it mu/l be *.'* To
invejligate the degree of evidence from the fail of
the inftitution, and to infer the degree of the
obligation from the evidence found, is our pro-
vince j but to determine what the nature and
degree of the evidence -mujl be, is the exclufive
prerogative of the Inftitutor himfelf, whofe will
and authority muft be the fole and exclufive
ground of the inftitution.

I AM, therefore, not a little furprifed to find
the gentleman, whofe work I am more immedi-
ately examining, and for whofe abilities and 'dif-
C 6 pofition

• BuTtEa's Analogy, ut fu^rat,

36 Of Poftt'ive Injlltktlons Ch. r."

pofitlon I have a real efteem, exprefling himfelf
as follows : " Pofitive inftitiitions originate in the
divine pleafure, and derive their whole being
from the fovereign will of God. — We cannot
kno-w any thing about their precife nature, their
true defign, the proper fubje6ls of them, or the
right mode of tlieir adminift ration further than
the fcriptures teach. — It does not appear from the
records of the Old Teftament, that, when Je-
hovah appointed any branch of ritual worfhip, he
left either the fubjefl: of it, or the mode of ad-
miniftration, to be inferred by the people, either
from the relation in which they ftood to himfeif j
or from general moral precepts ; or from any
branch of his moral worihip ; nor yet from any
other well known pofitive rite: but he gave them
fpecial diredioiis relating to the very cafe.
For as nothing but the divine will can oblige
the confcience, and as thai will cannot be knoxvn^
unhfs revealed-^ fo when made known, whether
in reference to moral or pofitive duties, it mud
oblige. Consequently, seeing baptism is as

REALLY AND INTIRELY A POSITIVE INSTITU-
TION AS ANY THAT WERE GIVEN TO THE

CHOSEN TRIBES, wc cannot with fafety infer
either the mode or the fubje^l: of it, from anv
tiding fliort of a precept or precedent, recorded
jn fcriptyre, and relating to that very ordinance.
It feems natural hence to infer:, that our fovereio:n
Lord MUST HAVE REVEALED HIS WILL Con-
cerning' the ordinance of baptifm in a manner
'fnporticnal to its obligation and importance.

For,

Ch. I. and Analogical Reafoning. ^7

For, as an appointment of Chrirt:, it orlguiated
in his will, and from a revelation of that will
the whole of its obligation refults. In propor-
tion, therefore, as we annex the idea of ohfcurky
to what he fays about the mode and the fubjcft
of it,- we either fink, the idea of obligation to
regard it, or impeach the ivlfdom^ or the goodnefs^ or
the equity of our divine Lcgijlator : - for we neither
have, nor can have any acquaintance with a pofitive
inflitution, farther than it is revealed. We are,
THEREFORE, obliged to conclude that our Lord
HAS CLEARLY REVEALED his pleafure, with re-
ference to this appointment, in that code of law,
and rule of religious woriliip, which he gave to
the church, in the volume of the New Tefla-
ment*."

Thus alfo Dr. S. " Here I would obferve
then, that all pofitive inftitutions depend folely
Upon the will of the inllitutor, and that therefore
in every queftion relating to them, we mufl be
guided by his ecprejs dec'-arations^ or by thofe of
perfons he has daly authorized to fignify his
xvill. Nor is it to be doubted that a wife legllla-
tor wall, in all mitters of this fort, take care to
exprefs his mind in the mo ft plain and intelligible
m inner. Now bapti.fm is a pofitive inftitution
of Chrirt: and, agreeably to his infinite wifdoni
and goodnefs, he has exprefled himfelf. in the mnji
clear and explicit manner refpeSling both the
mode and the fubjeit of it. — And therefore
the ifTue of this inquiry ought to be relied xilone

upon

* p. II — 13.

3? Of Pofitlve Injlitutims Ch. i.

upon his own exprefs declarations^ and thofe of
his apoitles and firft minifters *." — And again,
*' A right to baptifm muft depend, and depend
alone, upon the dire£t exprefs command of the
inftitutor; for it is abfurd to talk of analogy and
confequence in the matter of pofitiveinftitutionsf."
And again, "As pofitive duties depend folely
upon the will of the inftitutor, every queftion
refpedling them ought in reafon to be decided
by his exprefs declarations ; which declarations, if
he be a zvife legijlator^ willy no doubt, be clear
and explicit %." There are other paiTages in
both thefe writers very much to the fame pur-
pofe.

Not to ftop to examine the truth and pro-
priety of fome things in the above quotations
which are taken for granted ; fuch as the abfolute
pofitivenefs of every branch of ritual worfliip under
the Old Teflament ceconomy; wherein nothing
was to be inferred by the people; or to inquire
whether it can be jujlly concluded that becaufe^
on fuppofition that the Old Teftament rituals
were of that kind, thofe of the New Teflament
mnjl be fo likewife; both which I believe they
would find too difficult to prove : pafling by fuch
things, let us attend to the point of immediate
confiderationi — which is to demonftrate contrary
to thefe alTertions, that the New Teftament
inditutions are not of a nature merely pofitive',
or, in other words, that Baptifm and the Lord's
Supper, in their completenefs and comprehenfion,

aie

* Anrwer to A, p. 3, 5, -f p, 90. | p. 1931

Ch. I. and Analogical Reafoning. 3^

are inftltutions of a mixed nature, that is to fay,
partly pofitive and partly moral. And in profe-
eution of this defign I further obferve that,

§ 10. (2) From thefe gentlemen's own account.
It follows, that the inftitutions of the New Teft-
anient are either of a mixed nature or not at
all pofitive. For according to them, all matter! of
this fort rtiould be expreffed in the mofc glaiii
and intelligible, the mofl: clear and explicit man-
ner; and, THEREFORE, feeing baptifm and the
Lord's Supper are not in fact fo circumflan-
tially defcribed as not to need, or io minutely
exprefs as to prohibit moral reafoning, analo-
gy and confequence; it inevitably follows, that,
if thefe inftitutions are not of a mixed nature,
partly pofitive and partly moral, they are no
pofitive inftitutions at all. And as they allow
none to be of that fort but thefe two, chriftia-
nity mufl be left without any; and fince chriili-
anity is the laft and luialterable difpenfation of
religion among men, it is impofhble there fliould
be any to the end of time; and fo all pofitive
inftitutions are, on their own fuppofition, fairly
and utterly banifiied out of the world.

Besides, their anticipated mode of determining
the degree of evidence with which a pofitive law
enght to he ena<Sl:ed, is quite fubverfive of the
very nature of fuch a law; for it is allowed on
all hands, and by thefe gentlemen in the plain-
eft terms, that the diftinguifhing nature of pofi-
tive laws confifts in the meafure and the degree
of their injlitution.^ and that they derive their

whole

'40 ^f Pofit'we Injiltut'ions Ch. f .

whole being from the foverelgn vj'iU of God.
Arid thus their reafoning is built upon a petitlo
principil^ a beggiag of the queftion, whereby they
firft take it for granted, that baptifm is an in-
(litution merely pofitive, and then take it further
for granted, that being fuch it mnji be free from
all obfcurity.

§ II. (3) But if it be contended, that our
Lord has, a£iuallyy been plain and explicit in the
inftitution of this ordinance, and that therefore
it is eafy to be underftood : I might afk, to
ivhojn is it eafy ? and what fcnfe of it is eafy ?
Is it the honeft chriftian, the judicious divine,
the learned critic, or the profound univerfal fcho-
lar to whom the fcnfe is eajy ? But what fenfe
of the inftitution is fo plain and eafy? Mr. B.
and Dr. S. no doubt, think that their own fenfe
bids fair for this character. But here is an ex-
traordinary phenomenon ! here are not a few
thoufands of honed chriftians ; not a few hun-
dreds of judicious divines, learned critics, profound
fcholars ; commentators who have developed the
moft abftrufe parts of holy writ ; who yet cannot
fee this fenfe of the infiitution which is fo eafy.
Can that fcnfe of a paffage of fcripture, or of
the nature and defign of an inftitution, be with
any propriety called plain and eafy^ clear^ explicit
and moj} ifitelligib/e^ which five men out of twenty
contend is the true fenfe, but which the other
fifteen, pofTeffed of an equal fhare of parts,
piety and learning, maintain is the wrong fenfe ?
That great numbers fliould unanimoufly ftand
out againfi fome kinds of truth, not very ab-
ftrufe

Ch. r. ofid Analogical Reajon'wg. 4^

/Irufe in their own nature, is a very pofTible
Cafe ; either when a truth may not appear to be
of fo much importance as to engage perfons duly
qualified to ftudy it with clofe application; or
when it has been a point of mere fpeculation;
or when flavifli fear and W'Orldly intereft have
prevailed over the honfell diilates of coafcience;
but that fo many proteflant worthies, who have
left all to follow Chrift; thv%t fo many learned
commentators and cafuifts, of unblemiftred cha-
ra£ter, of unexceptionable ability, having no in-
terefl: to ferve vi/hereby the judgment fnould be
biaffed, or the confcience bribed; calling no man
mafter upon earth, but, with a generous freedom,
(liaking off the prejudices of education, the ihacicles
ofcuflom, and the influence of different fyftemsj
th at thefe, I fay, flwuld oppofe unanimouily the
fcnfe of an inftitution quite plain and eafy to be
underftood, is a cafe, I believe, unparallelled and
unaccountable. 1 would rather infer, and with
what propriety let the reader judge, that either
the Antipaedobaptifl fcnfe of Chrifl's inftitution
is not at all the true fcnfe, or, at any rate, a
fenfe very (iLfficult to come at.

§ 12. But Mr. B. ftill urges, that " in pro-
portion as we annex the idea of obfcurity to what
is faid about the mode or the fubje6l of baptifm,
we either fmk the idea of obligation to regard
it, or impeach the wifdom, or the goodnefs, or
the equity of the divine Legiilator." That his
idea of the inftitution of baptifm, as an Anti-
r.tuoBAPTisT, appears to by far the greater

number

4-4 Of Pofitive Injlltutions Ch. i.

number of competent judges an oh/cure one, is
an inconteftible /ff.3 J judges competent, I mean,
in a moral as well as natural refpecl. And,
tlierefore, it follows, on his own principles, that
their obligation to adopt the Antipaedobaptift
Hypothefis is fimk in proportion; and that the
perfons, fo qualified, who can fee no truth in it,
are under no obligation to embrace it ; but are
obligated to retain the P-sidobaptist fyftem, as
what they fee more clearly.

Allowing, therefore, our annexing the Idea
of ohfcurity to what is faid about the fubje(St
and the mode of baptifm, in the refpe6l now
mentioned, to be true, I might be excufed from
vindicating myfelf and my friends from the crime
of impeaching the divine wifdom, goodnefs, and
veracity, by adopting the alternative of finking
the obligation; were it not that Mr. B.'s charges
fun ftill higher, when fpeaking of the fignifica-
tion of the terms of the inflitution. " Nay,
fays he, were the leading term in any human
law, to have an ambiguity in it, equal to that
for which our Brethren plead with regard to the
word baptljm; fuch law would certainly be con-
fidered as betraying, either the weaknefs, or the
wickednefs, of the legiflator; and be condemn-
ed, as opening a door to perpetual chicane and
painful uncertainty. Far be it, then, from us
to fuppofe, that our gracious and omnifcient
Lord Ihould give a law relating to divine wor-
ship, and obligatory on the mofl illiterate of his
real difcipies, which may be fairly conikued to

mean,

Cli. I. and Analogical Reafoning, 4j

mean, this or that or the other adion — a law
which is calculated to excite and perpetuate con-
tention among his wifefi: and fmcereft followers—
a law, that would difgrace a Britifli Parliament
in refpe6l of its tripple meaning, as being
involved in the dark ambiguity of a Pagan
oracle f." What! and is Mr. B. alfo among the
analogical, hypothetical, and confequential rea-
foners, upon the matter of a pofitive inftitutlon ?
This mode of reafoning, on our principles,
would have fome plaufibility ; on his is quite out
of character. But what fignifies fetting up our
own idea of propriety againft a plain fasSl; it is
a faSf^ that wife and good men cannot fee the
eflentiality of dipping in the leading term of this
law; while Mr. B. and his friends think they
do. It is •a.faSiy that wife and good men fincerely
believe the law of chriftian baptifm extends to
infants, and that they are as much included in
the very terms as their parents are. But does it
from thence follow, that our Divine Legiflator
has lefs wifdom than a Britilh Parliament; or
deiigns an impofition like a Pagan oracle?

§ 13. Mr. B.'s argument is, that as the
principal terms of all approved human laws are
without ambiguity in their meaning, therefore
much more ought the laws of Chrift relating to
divine worfliip to be fo. But do we forget that
pofitive inftitutions depend intirely on the Jovercign
will of Heaven, and that we know yiothing
about them further than they are revealed? Al-
lowing

t P- 34'

44 ^f Pofitive Inji'itutions Ch. r»

lowing this; yet, it may be objecled, if our all-
v\'ife Legiflator does enail any law of this kind,
■we may reafonably prefume that it will be fo
plain and eafy that the moft illiterate of his real
difciples cannot miftake its meaning. This is
ftill indulging fuppofitlon againft fa^.

Let us fuppofe, for illuftration' fake, that an
ante-diluvian faint had adopted this mode of
reafoning. — " It is true, it depends intirely on
*' the fovereign will of God whether he will re-
" veal himfclf to my pofterity, whether he will
" give them laws and pofitive inftitutions, to re-
*' gulate their lives and prove their obedience ;
*' but if he do fo favour them, I may eafily infer
" from his infinite wifdom, goodnefs and equity;
*' from his omnifcience, and grace, that thefc
" laws and inflitutions mufl be fo plain and eafy
*' that the moft ignorant of the righteous, cannot
" mifinterpret them. For were I, a finful fhort-
" fighted creature, to form a code of laws for
" my pofterity, they fliould be all of that charac-
*' ter, and therefore much more will thofe v/hich
" the Moft High may deliver, be free from all
" ambiguity. Yes, He fees the end from the
" beginning; and as he is capable by reafon of
" his unerring wifdom, fo he is bound by his
" immenfe goodnefs, to prevent all occafion of
" chicane and painful uncertainty. If prophets
" be raifed to addrefs my ruined pofterity, their
" meffage muft be fo plain and eafy to be un-
*' -derftood, that none of thofe to whom they are
" delivered can miftake their meaning ; their cre-

" dentiaJs

Ch. r. and Analogical Reafoning, 45

" dentials muft be of fuch a nature as to admit,
*' of no debate whether they fhould be credited
*' or not. And when the promifed Saviour ap-
** pears, he will, undoubtedly, deliver himfelf in
*' fuch a manner as to prevent all difpute among
" his followers, efpecially concerning matters of
*' everlafting moment. There will be no quef-
" tion among them whether this Saviour is the
*' Creator himfelf in man's nature, or only an
*' extraordinary prophet of fuperior wifdom and
" holinefs j fuice all this may be prevented by a
" few words out of his own mouth. He will
" put it out of all doubt with all the wife and
" pious of his followers, whether he is to be ferved
" with, or without, a form of devotion in pub-
*' lick affcmblies; whether chriftian magiftrates
*' ought, or ought not, to form an alliance be-
" tween the church and the ftate; whether or
" not feme perfon, for the time being, fhould
*' aft as his viceroy to the end of time, at the.
" head of his univerfal church. And if he fhould
*' inftitute a rite of initiation into his church, it
" is reafonable to expert that his wifdom and
" goodnefs will prevent all painful uncertainty
" refpecSling the mode of admiflion, and who arqi
" the proper fuhjeSls" efpecially when we confider
that " all doubt of the matter might be precluded
by a few plain words." Thus the pious ante-
diluvian might meditate, and reafon, a priori^ from
the wifdom and goodnefs of the Great Supreme j
rejoicing in the profpe<5l of the halcyon days which
his pollerity fliould enjoy, when all laborious

karch

4.6 Of Pofitlve Inf it lit ions Gh. I.

fearcli, and tedious analogical reafoning, would be
utterly precluded by the explicitnefs and perfpi-
cuity with which he would fignify his pleafure.
All this feems quite reafonable, very defirable,
and mighty fine; but yet is attended with one
great infelicity, it is a theory which does not
agree with facts. But fliall a benighted finner
exclaim, when his views of propriety and wifdom
are confronted, deranged, and totally overthrown,
"the Lord's ways are not equal!" Rather
let me fhrink to my proper nothingnefs, and
fay, O the depth of the riches both of the ivifdojn and
knowkdge of God^ hovj wrfearchahle are his counfels.^
and his ways., his providence and his various difpen-
fations, how pafl finding out! " Let us appeal (fays
Dr. S.) to the words of the inftitution, which
no doubt are exprefled, as all laws ought to be,
in fo clear a manner as that he who runs may
read." I walk and read, ftand and read, medi-
tate and read, pray and read, and yet cannot
difcern the fenfe he puts upon the law of the
inftitution. And, what is far more extraordinary,
thoufands whom it concerns, many of whom are
far better qualified to judge than I am, are
equally at a lofs to difcover, what Dr. S. pro-
nounces to be without doult^ fo clear a meaning
that he who runs may read it. *

Our

• What the pious Mr. Flavel laid of himfelf, is, no doubt,
the unfeigned fentimcnt of numbers not lefs fincere and upright
than he, however fuperior he vas to moft divines in minifterial
abilitici and ufefulncfc j f/jK. " We have a witnefs in -your bofom,
*• (iijy» he ia his reply to Mr. CaryJ that tfae defence of CM^'*

*' pun

Ch. r. and Analogical Reafonlng, 47

Our opponents involve themfelves in a glar-
ing inconfiftence. They maintain that pofitive
rites depend folely on the pleafure of the Infti-
tutor, and then, with the fame breath, plead
that their evidence muji be in a certain given
degree of explicitnefs, that is, the fuperlative de-
gree. For if they are not exprefled in the rnoji
plain and intelligible manner, they are not wor-
thy of a zvife Legiflator. This is to profefs
ahfolute ftibje£iion to the fovereign Lord, and af-
terwards to prefcr'ibe rules for him to ena£l his
laws. Thus they infifl: upon a poftulatum on
which to eredl: their fyftem, which it is out of
our power to grant them without offering open
violence to logical precifion and found Theo-
logy.

§ 14. From what has been faid I conclude —
fince it is efiential to an inftitution merely pofitive^
our opponents themfelves being judges, it ihould
be free from all obfcurity and ambiguity, rela-
tive to mode and fubje6t, and fince the inftitu-
tion of baptifm does not bear that character, as
ftubborn fad>s proclaim — that baptifm is an
ordinance of a mixed nature. And it appears
further reafonable to conclude, from the forego-
ing premifes, that, as all allow baptifm has
fomcthing in it of a pofitive nature, " the fet-

" ting

" pure luorjhlp and Inpituttons hath coft us fomething 5 and as for
•• mc, were I convinced by all that you have here faid, or any
♦* of your friends, that in baptiaing the infants of believers we did
" really depart from the piimitive purity, I would renounce it,
" and turn Anabaptift the fame day." Flavel's Reply to Mr,
C\B¥'» Solep-.n CaU, Wwh, Vol, II. p. 1003. Firft £<1.

4-8 Of Po/ithe -InJIrtutions Ch. l.

** ing apart a perfon apparently a proper fubjedl
« of the viiible church of Chrift, by the ufe of
" water, in the Naine of the Father, of the Son,
" and of the Holy Ghoil, by a teacher of chrif-
«* tianity," feems to bid fair for that charader.
Thus far Paedobaptifts and Antipaedobaptifts
generally agree; but whether a total hnmerfion
ef tlie fubjedl be ejfent'ial to the ordinance, or
even the mo ft proper mode of admiflion; and
whether fome infants are not equally intitled
to the privilege as adults; with other quellions
of inferior conlideration, muft be neceflarily de-
cided by moral and confequential reafoning.

§ 15. Let us now attend to what feems the
only remaining method for determining about
the degree and proportion of pojitivenefs and 7no-
ral'tty in a law or inftitution commonly termed
pofitive. And here I obferve, towards folving
this difficulty, the two things following,

I. That we ought carefully to dirtinguilh
between what is true of a pofitive inflitute in
its own nature, or fimply and abJiraSicdly con-
f.dered, and the fame thing attended with its
necefiary circumftances. It has been fhewn, that
baptifm is an inftitution which is pofitive but
in part, and, therefore, that fuch a diftindion as
is here propofed is necefiary. I am willing then
to .own the propriety of Mr. B.'s reafoning up-
on the nature and effential properties of poiitive
inAitutions, as far as they are fuch^ but deny
that any juft confequences from them are fa-
vourable to Antipaedobaptifm. And if we admit,

what

Ch. I. end /Analogical Reafoning, ifij

what I hope has been fufficiently proved, and
what the following pages will more abundantly
demonftrate, that there is no inftitution of the
gofpel difpenfation fo merely pofitive as not re-
quiring prudential and moral aid to determine
about the due performance and proper fubjects
thereof; and confequently, that the ordinance of
baptifm does not agree to the abJhaSi notion of
pofitive inftitutions; I venture to aflert, as no
lefs true than extraordinary, that there is not
ONE of all the quotations from Paedobap-
till; writers contained in the firft part of his
P trdobaptifm examined^ concerning the nature of
pofitive inftitutions^ but is Perfectly consist-
ent with Psdobaptift principles ! But the fpeci-
ous fophifm was fupported by arbitralily uniting
what were in themfelves different; by extending
the abftrad nature of an inftitution, to the par-
ticular circumilances of it.

2. Laying afide all preconceived ideas, we
fliould carefully inquire how far any inftitution irk
queftion, from an impartial furvey of what is
recorded of it, agrees w^ith the definition of
a pofitive Inftitution in its abftrail fenfe. We
all agree that fuch an inftitution, as deferves the
denomination of pofitive, is that^ the reafon of
which we do not fee, yet delivered with fuch
plainnefs, clearnefs, and circumftantial evidence,
as is liable to no mifconftruif^ion from a perfon
of common capacity and religious fincerity. Let
\is apply this rule to baptifm, and we find, that
there are fame things wherein the rule and the
D ordinance

^ 'Of Pofithe Injl'ihitlons Ch. r.

ordinance agree, and other things wherein they
difagree. Bp. Butler will furnifli us with a
flight fpecimen of the manner of applying the
above rule. " The moft important obligations
and privileges fignified by baptifm are of moral
confideration. — For inftance, if fome are com-
manded to he laptlzed in the name of the Father,
and of the Sofi^ and of the Holy Ghofl j there are
obligations of duty refulting from the command
as pofitive^ but the importance of thefe duties may
be judged of by c ^ferving, that they arife not
from pofitive command merely^ but alfo from the
offices which appear from fcripture to belong to
thofe divine perfons in the gofpel difpenfation;
or from the relations^ which, v.e are there in-
formed, they ftand in to us *." This I call a
fpecimen^ but that the diflin6lion above noticed
is applicable to the fubjefl and circumflances of
baptifm, will be afterwards confidered.

§'i6. Hence we may infer, that analogical
and confequential reafoning is not only lawful,
but effential to this controverfy.

We have feen (§ 12.) that our opponents
themfelves do occafionally run into this ftrain,
however inconfiflent with their favourite maxim;
and we have feen that, hitherto, it has done
them no fervice. From their being fo extremely
reludant to admit of this fort of argument on
the fubjecSt of baptifm, we may juftly fufpect that
it is proportionably injurious to their tenet. Mr.
B. indeed, is very explicit on this head, as be-
fore

* Eutlek's Analogy, ut fupra»

Ch. I. and Analogical Reafoning. 51

fore obferved; " Except it be maintained (fays
he) that pofitive ordinances are to be intirely
governed by pofitive law and primitive example,
it is impojfible for the Antipasdobaptifts to ftand
their ground by fair argument in various cafes,
when difputlng with Paedobaptiils as fuch *."
Dr. S. infifts, " that prefumptive proofs are in-
fufficient to eflablifh duties of a pofitive kind ||.'*
And I take the liberty of infifting in my turn,
that, as no fuch duty exifts, in his application of
the term ■pofitive^ prefumptive proofs are very good
ones, becaufe they are the very beft that the na-
ture of the cafe can admit of. To argue from
what is certain in one cafe, the probability of a
cafe lefs evident, when the latter bears fome
flriking relation or refemblance to the former,
has ever been reckoned fair and proper in fub-
jecls of morality and duty ; it therefore follows,
that, as the duty in queftion is partly founded
on moral grounds, the fame method of arguing
is fair and proper to a certain degree in the pre-
fent cafe. For when the ctrcumjiances of a duty
commonly termed pofitive are left in an indeter-
minate ftate, and therefore of neceflity muft yield
to moral confiderations, and when thefe moral
confiderations do not arife immediately from the
evident relation of the cafe in hand, or are not
determined clearly by precept or example; what
more rational method of determining thefe cir-
cumftances, than by recurring by means of analogy
D 2 tQ

• P' 462- II p. *9»»

52 Of Pofitive Injiitutions Ch. r.

to thofe which we are fure met with the divine
approbation ?

What has been faid already upon this article,
might appear, I prefume, quite fufficient, in vin-
dication of a method of defence which our op-
ponents would fain deprive us of, were it not
that they are impertinently inimical to it upon
ever)' occafion, as might be eafily fliev/n by nu-
merous quotations out of their writings, and Mr.
B.'s Pitdobaptifm Examined in particular. But
A6 their favourite terms, POSITIVE LAW
iud APOSTOLIC EXAiMPLE, as oppofed
to moral and analogical reafoning, are a two-edged
fword, which they brandifh with great parade,
*)\d with which they pretend to do great execu-
tion; let us now fee whether this weapon may
not be wrefted out of their hands.

§ 17. That principle, whereby our opponents
ilecry all ufe of analogy in this debate, is redu-
cible to the moft glaring abfurdities. For,

(i) It is impoHible that Mr. B. Dr. S. or
any one elfe in the prefent day, flioukl know any
thing about this ordinance without the aids of
the very method which they fo much oppofe.
This is evident when we refle<f^, that as fcripture
can never be proved to be of divine original, fo
neither can any particular part of it be proved
to have this meaning rather than that^ but by
means of moral and analogical reafoning. The
evidence of revelation is either external or internal ;
its external evidence muft depend on the faithful-
nef of our predeceflbrs who have recorded and

tranfmitted

Ch, r. and Analogical Reafoning. 53

tranfmltted fuch fa(5ls as conftitute the fame;
but will any man, compos mentis^ hefitate a mo-
ment refpedling the neceflity of examining the
pretenfions and credentials of our fellow-mortals,
when they aflert they were fent of God to claim
the attention, belief, and obedience of mankind?
And how can this be decided without the alTill-
ance of moral reafoning? Its internal evidence
muft be fought by the fame method ; for nothing
can be of God which is evidently and demon-
ftrably falfe or impious, however recommended
by figns and wonders.

Nor will it avail to fay, the moft abllrufc
things, indeed, will admit of fuch inveftigation,
but fome things are " fo plain and eafy to be
underftood that he who runs may read." Such
parts of fcripture, then, need only to be propo-
fed, and they appear felf -evident. I will not deny
but there are many fuch truths in fcripture ;
inafmuch as fome of the plaineft didates of
common fenfe and reafon are there recorded.
And, indeed, this 4s no fmall part of the glory
of revelation, that it is " a republication of na-
tural religion; fo that natural religion, in the
words of Bp. Butler, feems as much proved
by the fcripture revelation, as it would have been,
had the defign of revelation been nothing elfe
than to prove it *." But it muft amount to an
evident ccntradiilion to aflert that pofitive laivs
are felf-evidcnt in their own nature ; for, on the
fuppofition, we know nothing about them further
D 3 than

• Bvtl£r'« Analogy, ut fufra.

54 Of Pofttlve Injlituttons Ch. r,

than they are revealed. Nor will It mend the
matter to fay, x\z.\. when revealed they are felf-
evident; for, it is likewife granted, that they de-
rive their whole force and being from tlie fove-
reign authority that enioins them; which autho-
rity itfelf cannot be ielf- evident, but muft be
examined, . weighed, compared, and finally deter-
mined by fome cintcc€de72t principles; and this is
the province of moral reafon and analogy.

§ 1 8. But if it be faid, that " tho' we need
thefe aids to afcertain the truth of revelation, yet
•when that is once done we have no farther need
of it;" I anfwer, this can by no means folve
the difEculty ; for in order to difcover the im-
port of any law or precept of holy writ, we mufl
either take the literal and ftridl meaning of it,
or we muft have recourfe to the dejign of the
pailage from the moft probable intention of the
Lawgiver; if the latter^ the point is given up.;
if the former, the moft abfurd confequences will
immediately follow. For it is evident to a de-
monftration, that two perfons, who would under-
take to perform a pofitive command, may both
alike plead the ftriit letter of the law to be on
their llde, and yet one of them may comrnit fm
while fo doing, and the other difcharge incum-
bent duty. And I may venture to fay, there is
not a pofitive law in all the infpired volume, re-
lating to the mofaic or the chriftian ceconomy,
but might furnifti an illuftration and proof of
what I aflert. To avoid prolixity I fliall infift.
upon the law of baptifm only : on wliich Mr. B.

thus

Ch. I. and Analogical Reafoning, 55

thus refle<£l:s. " It Ihould be well obferved, that
when our Lord after his rcfurredion, fays, Go—'
baptize \ he does not mention baptifm by way of
allufion, or incidentally. No, he fpeaks the lan-
guage of legijhtion'y he delivers divine law..
He mentions, and appoints baptifm as an ordi-
nance of God, and as a branch of human duty..
Where, then, muft we expeil precilion in the ufe
of terms, if not on fuch an occafion*?" Where?
why, in thofe parts of revelation where man's
everlafting welfare is more immediately concerned.
For is it probable that the law of initiation into
the vifible kingdom of Clwift, and an external
relation to him and his church, is of more im-
portance, and requiring greater precifion in its
terms, than that which afcertains their qualifica-
tion for the kingdom of grace and glory? But
fuppofmg, for argument fake, that the law of
baptifm (Mat. xxviii. 19.) is delivered with greater
precifion than ufual, and let us try — not with a
view to impeach the wifdom or the goodnefs of
Chriil — let us try, I fay, whether moral reafon-
ing and analogy are not necefTary for the right
obferv-ance of it, even upon our author's own
principles.

Mr. B. will allow that this law confifls of
three parts; the a6lion itfelf, baptize -y the quali-
fication necefTary for the fubjeit previous to bap-
tifm, implied in the word teach \ and the com-
miflion given to the adminiftrators, Go ye. The
firft of thefe ideas will be more profcffedly ex-
D 4 aniintd

* 9* 33*

56 Of Pofithe Injiitutions Ch. r.

amined hereafter; but by the bye, one would
think that the great diverfity of opinions refpeft-
ing this a^ion, and the various practices of dif-
ferent nations and churches in performing what
they apprehend to be included in it, might lead
a modell and impartial obferver to conclude — not
that one party of chriftians exclufively are in the
right, while all the others are ejfentially wrong,
many of whom have ferioufly, deliberately and
impartially examined the authority and the mind
of their divine Lord in the matter, whofe fove-
reign pleafure is more dear to them than their
lives, and whom they would not wilfully offend
therein for the world — to conclude, I fay, either
that the precept is not delivered with all that
plainnefs and precifion which our opponents con-
tend for, in favour of their manner of perform-
ing the aSiion^ or elfe that it is of fuch latitude
as to include divers manners. I would only
remark, that, fuppofing (without granting) the
exclufive invariable meaning of the term, baptizcy
fignifies to immerfe, I might, on that fuppOfitioii
fo fulfil the command literally.^ in plunging a
proper fubjedV, as that Mr. B. I am perfuaded,
would either not admit it to be at all true bap-
tifm, or would require no fmall affiftance from
that very method of arguing which he oppugns,
to prove its validity. But I fhall obferve, more
particularly, fome things with refpedt to the
commifTion of the adminiftrators, which will fur-
nifh a fecond argument againft the oppofers of
analogical and moral reafoning on the fubjeil.

§ 19*

Ch. I. and Analogical Reafonlng. ^j

§ 19. (2} It is impofTxble, on the principle I
am oppofing, for Mr. B. or Dr. S. to prove
their right and authority to adminifter the ordi-
nance of baptifm to any fubje^t, and of confe-
quence the validity of the action. The fen-
timent I refer to, is, that nothing fliort of a
precept or precedent will fuffice for the due per-
formance of the duty. Now that every adion
performed by apoftles, difciples, or faints, with,
or without, the fpecial dire<Stions of the Holy
Spirit, is not to be regarded as a precedent^ or
an example to be imitated, will, I prefume, admit
of no debate. It therefore follows that we muft
either gather from moral confiderations, or con-
fequential deductions, whether any particular acti-
on is to be imitated by us, or notj or elfe that
there muft be a precept previoufty given, whereby
any fuch action receives a fpecial direction and
determination to influence our choice. And fo
it remains that an action, however and by vvhom-
foever performed, can be to us no rule of duty,
no precedent at oll^ of itself. It is there-
fore abfurd to fay that we can regard aiiy action
as a precedent, without the aids of inferential
reafoning. We are, now, driven to precepts to
perform the difficult taflc. Let us, therefore, at-
tend to that " language of legiflation, that divine
law where we may expect, we are told, the
greateft plainnefs and precifvon." Go ye, there-
fore^ and teach. — This is the precept. But to
•whom is it given? The anfwer, no doubt, will
be, To the difcipk^^ and to their fuccejjhrs in th^
D 5 gofpcl

5 8 Of Pofitive hijittutions Ch. r.

pel miniftry. Rather, To the difciples, and, we
may juftly ?«/>r, to their fucceffors in the gofpel
miniftry to the tnd. of time. For our Lord adds,
** Lo! I am with you alway, even to the end
of the world;'* which 77iore likely refers to our
Lord's authoritative and gracious prefence with
all the then future, properly qualified teachers
and propagators of thfe gofpel, than exclufively his
immediate fucceffors, the apoftles and difciples,
who fliould be endowed from above with extraor-
dinary abilities, remarkably owned, and attended
with figns and wonders for the eftablifhment of
the chriftian religion, on the ruins of the jewifh
hierarchy.

But fuppofing, (without granting) that the
former propofition is fo fclf-evident as to pre-
clude all need of inference, or analogy. The
queftion flill returns, what conftitutes a difciple,
and teacher of religion? Chriftian godly parents
are difciples, and they alfo teach their children and
domeftics the principles of chrillianity ; have ihey^
therefore, authority io bapt'rze fuch as they teach?
Without analogy and inference how can their pre-
tenfions be difproved? May they not plead, from
the very paffage in queftion, that becaufe they
rnay teach, they may likewife baptize? It will
be faid, perhaps, the adminiftration of gofpel or-
dinances belongs to puhlick teachers. But publick
and private are relative tepms ; and who fhall
draw the line of diflin6lion how far publick his
charafter and teaching mufl be? May any one
ran, without being fent, to teach and baptize ?.

Does

Cii. t. and Analogical Reafoning, ^Of

Does this conftitute a teacher of chriftianlty, that
he fancies he may fet up for one? or is he to.
be admitted to the difcharge of his minifterial
funcSlioii in forae more regular way ? How fhall
we judge about the regularity of that way? The
wearer of the tripple crown aflerts an univerfal
claim to this right of admiffion, as his fovereign
prerogative. With a prieftly nod, with roaring bulls,
or with dire anathemas, he excludes all of us,
who are of the heretical tribe, from approaching
to officiate at the baptifmal font, or the holy
altar. And what is extraordinary, he urges ex-
prefsy literal pafTages of fcripture, on which to
found his pretenfions.

§ 20. But Proteftants, alfo, talk of the divine
right of epifcopacy, and the neceflity of an epif-
copal commiifion, for preaching God's w'ord, and
for the valid miniftration of the chriftian facra-
ments. And this they attempt to prove from
the holy fcriptures^ as well as the doctrine and
praiflice of the primitive church. Thus . the
twenty third article of the church of England, pa-
raphrafed by a faithful fon and champion; " //
is not lawful by the law of Godi for any .man to
take upon him the office of publick preaching or
minifiering the facraments in the -congregation or
church of Chriil before he be laiufidly called ac-
cording to the law of God, and fent to execute
the fame. And thofe lue ought to judge lawfully
called and fent according to the law of God, zuhich
be chofen and called to this work by ?nen^ who by
the law qf God have publick authority given unt\
D 6 them

6o Of Pofitwe In/iltutlons Ch. r.

them in the congregation or church of Chrift, to
call and fend minijiers into the Lord's vineyard. I
have put in the words according to the law of
Gcd, (fays the Paraphraft,) becaufe it is certain
that is meant by the word lawful in this place.
Thefe articles were drawn up by the Bifliops and
Clergy in convocation or fynod, who were ever
efteemed to be interpreters or expofitors of the
law of God, and to have authority to declare
what was agreeable to his laws, and what not —
Confequently (fays this Do6lor of Laws) when they
fay, it is not lawful for any man to take upon
him the office of publick preaching or miniftering
the facraments in the church, they could not
mean that it was not lawful in this realm only by
virtue of the temporal laws here in force, becaufe
they had no authority to declare or expound
thofe laws, but that it was not lawful according
to the LAW OF God, and therefore could not
be allowed in any realm, in any country, in any
church or fociety of chrijlians. — And in the pre-
face to the forms of ordination, it is faid, that // is
EVIDENT to all men diligently reading holy scrip-
tures, and ancient author s^ that from the apcjllcs'
time^ there have been thefe orders of minijiers in
Chri/l's church, bijhops^ priejis and deacons, which
offices were evermore had in fuch reverend eflima^
tion, that no man by his own private authority j
might prefume to e^^ccute any of them, except he were
f.rji called, tried, exainined and knoxvn to have fuch
qualities as were rcquifte for the fame, and alfo by
futlick prayer, with impofition of hands, approved

and

Ch. Xr and Analogical Reafon'mg. 6i

and admitted thereunto.'— She [the church] alfo de-
clares thefe three orders to be of divine injlitution,
when flic fays that it is evident to all men dili-
gently reading holy scripture that there havt
been thefe orders of ?ninijlers in ChrUVs church.—^
And therefore according to the dodrine of the
church of England^ declared by her ordinal and
articles as they expound each other, it is not
lawful for any rnan to take upon him the office of
publick preachings or minijlering the facraments in
the congregation or church of Chrift, before he be
laxvfuily called and fent to execute the fame by fame
Bishop-, that is^ before he be episcopally or-
dained; and this by the law of God, who
by his Holy Spirit has appointed the order of
bifhops, and direSicd that only thofe who are of
that order fliould ordain others, confequently is
a law not only obligatory in the church of Eng-
land, but throughout the whole catholic church,
— She further declares, in the tzventy fixth zn'ide,
that altho^ in the vifible church the evil be ever
mingled with the good^ and foinetime the evil have
chief authority in the minijiration of the word and
jacramcnts ; yet forajmuch as they do net the fame in
their own name but in ChrijVs^ and do minijier by
HIS coMMissiONf and authority ^ we may ufe their
mini/try both in hearing the ivord of God, and in
the receiving of the facraments. Neither is the effeil
of ChriJVs ordinance taken away by their ivickcdnefs,
nor the grace of God's gifts diminifhed from fuch,
as by faith, and rightly ao receive the facraments
minijiercd unto thcin^ which be ejflcfiial becaufe of

Chrijfs

62 Of Pofitive Jnjlitiitiom Ch. I,

Chri/i's INSTITUTION and promise, altho^ they
be 7niniJ}ered by evil fnen. Here the church plainly
makes the validity of the facraments depend
intirely upon Chrift's commission. For the
reafon alleged why they may be received from
evil minifters, is becaufe fuch miniflers have com-
m'ljjton and authority from Chrill, and that facra-
ments fo received are effe6tual becaufe of Chrift's
injlitution and promife, which evidently implies
that where there is no fuch comraiifion there is
not the inftitution and promife of Chrift, confe-
quently they are not effeflual without the com-
miffion. Thus the church of England moil
clearly maintains and afferts both the divine right
of epifcopacy^ and alfo the neceffity of an epifcopal
comynijjion to the valid adminiftration of the
facrament *."

§ 21. Thus the large body of venerable Bifliops,
together with their numerous fons and fervauts
the Clergy, in convocation affembled, as the re-
prefentatives of millions, deliver their final and
permanent fentiments, concerning the authority
necellary for minifters to difcharge the duties of
their fundion, and the validity of their miniflra-
tions thereon depending. But what is very re-
markable is, that their determination appeals, not
to the uncertain reports of tradition, t(^ moral,
inferential, or analogical reafoning, but to a pofi-
tive law, to the exprefs inftitution of Chrilt.,
And our expounding Doilor juftifies thefe eccle-
fiaftical decifions, on the very fame principles^ by

appealing.
* Dr. Brett's Divine Ri^ht of Epifccpacy, § i — 4.

Ch. I. and 'Analogtcal Reafming. 63 »

appealing to the language of legiflation, the di- ■
vine pofitive command, to which we firll: referred.
Thus he fettles his point: " That the npojlollcal
or highefl order, which was appointed to fupply
the place of Chrill: himfelf after his afcenfion,
was intended by him not for a temporary, but
a perpetual inftitution, is evident from the com-
milhon he gave them after his refurreclion. For,
having fmgled out the eleven Apoflles, out of
above five hundred, to whom he appeared at
once after his refurreclion, and appointed them
alone to meet him at a mountain in Galilee^ he
fpake unto them, faying, All power is given unto
?ne in heaven and in earth. And having thus de-
clared his own power, he commits it to them,
and fays. Go ^^ therefore^ as my deputies and
vicegerents, and difciple all nations, baptizing them
in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and
of the Holy Gho/l, teaching them to obferve all
things whatfoever I have commanded ycu. And lo
I am ivith you alvjay, even unto the end of the
world. Amen. In which words he plainly ihews
that their office was intended to be continued
alway, even unto the end of the world, and
he confirms this promife with an Amen, thereby
teiiifying that he would verily and indeed fulfil
it. Now it was plainly the apoftoiical office
which our Saviour here promiled he would be
alway prefcnt with, to ratify and confirm their
miniih-ations. For it was ouly the eleven dif-
ciples or apoftles, whom he hiid before font, as
he was fent by the Father, to whom he inude

tin;

64 Of Pofitive Injlitutions Ch. r.

tlie promlfe. And that the promifc was made
to the office or order with which he had veiled
them, and not to their perfons, is evident^ becaufe
otlierwife his promife muft have failed at their
deaths, and confequently he was fo far from con-
tinuing with them to the end of the world in the
difcharge of this office, that he did not continue
with them an hundred years, for all thefe eleven
Apollles were dead in lefs than that time.
But fome pretend that the words which we here
tranflate, the end of the xvorld^ fignify no more
than the end of that age. But if they are un-
derftood to fignify no more, then the com miffi on-
to difciple by baptifm, and to teach what Chrift
had commanded, muft end with that age alfo,
and then chriftianity muft have ceafed with that
age, fo that ever fince our preaching has been
vain, and your faith alfo vain; for it has fince
had no promife of Chrift to depend upon, if
this promife is to be extended to no longer
time; and that is not falth^ hut prtfumption, 'which
is not founded upon any promife. But if the
promife is to be extended to the end of tha
world, and that it muft be, or there can be no
chriftianity in the v/orld, then muft the office,
the apoJioHcal office or order, to which it was
made, continue fo long. For Chrift did not
fay, / am akvay prefefit to ratify and confirm thefe
miniflrations by xvkomfoever performed.^ but I am
with you akvay; with you whom I have fent, as
I was fent by the Father, with you whom I
have appointed to difciple all nations by bap-
tifm

Ch, r. snd Analogical Reafonirtg, 65

tifm, with you whom I have appointed to teach
all things which I have commanded and will
ratify and confirm what yrju do in thcfe minif-
trations, that is, you who are commifiloned for
that purpofe. Iherefore the office, the apojlolical
office^ to which this commiflion was given, muft
continue for the miniftry of thefe ordinances,
or tiiere is no promife that thefe ordinances
fliall be eifedual to any after the death of thofe
perfons to whom this commiffion was particu-
larly given. But if the ordinances continue,
then the commiffion alfo is continued, for the
promife is not made to the ordinances, but to
the commiffioners in the miniflration of thofe
ordinances; and therefore if thofe who have
not the commiffion undertake to adminifler them,
there is no word of promife to make fuch
miniftrations efFedlual.

" Now whence do the facraments receive their
validity P Certainly not from any thing that i»
naturally intrinfick to the outward vifible fign,
but from the injlitution of Jefus Chrift. But
then it is not every kind of baptifm, or of wafli-
ing with water, that will have effeft: it muil
be done according to his injiitution^ or it is not
the facrament which he has ordained. Now
when Chrift ordered baptifm to be adminiftered
to all nations, when he appointed that all fliould
eat of that bread and drink of that cup, he did
not only ordain in what manner, or with what
form of words thefe facraments fliould be cele-
brated, but likewife directed what particular pcrfom

fliould

66 . Of Pofttlve Injlltutions. Ch. T.

fhould celebrate them. Thus when he ordered
all nations fliould be made difciples by baptifm,
he did not indifcriminately command all perfons
that Ihould know how to recite the form of
words with which baptifm was ta be adminifter-
ed, to baptize, but the Jpojiles only, whom he
chofe out of a vaft multitude of his difciples,
and to them particularly, as I have before ob-
ferved, he gave commiffion to go and difciple all
nations.^ baptixlng them. So alfo when he infti-
tuted the holy eucharift, he did not commit
the miniftration of it to all his difciples, but
only to the twelvs. And to them only he faid
This do, that is, confecrate bread and wine,
and diflribute it, as I have now done, in re-
membrance of me. — The Apoflles on neither
of thefe occafions met our Saviour by accident,
but by appointment. Whereas if he had intend-
ed to have commi(iioned ?nore for eitlaer of thefe
purpofes, he could as eaflly have ordered more to
ha.ve attended him upon either of thefe occafions*.
But by- not requiring their attendance, and at the
fame time requiring that of the Apoflles, he
pla'mly excluded all the reft. — I know it is ob-
jetSled, that a bare omiflion in this cafe does not
amount to a prohibition, and therefore fince our
Saviour only forebore to command, but did not
prohibit his other difciples to adminifter his fa-
craments, we have no ground from fcripture to
fay that none but Btjlsps, as Succejfors to the
Apoftles, may minifter them, or that if any
others do it, they are invalid, and of no effect

what-

Ch. r. and Analogical Rcnfoning, ()^

whatfoever. But we anfwer, that an oml/fion in
this cafe does amount to a prohibition. For where-
ever a conimillion is necelTary to authorize an
act, whofoever is Uft out of the commiirion, is
unauthorized, and therefore cannot perform that
ail fo as to make it valid. — I never could
underftand that a prince when he granted a
commiffion to levy, or any other commiiTioa
whatfoever, did exprefsly or in direct terms for-
bid any other to do wliat he authorized thofe
to do whom he did commiflion. For a com-
miiTion is always given to authorize a man to
do that, which without fuch commifnon neither
he nor any one elfe has otherwife a right to ^o,
— There was therefore no occafion for our
Saviour to prohibit others from adminiilering his
facraments, fmce the authorizing fome and not
others was itfelf in the nature of the thing as
full a prohibition, as if he had forbid them to
do thefe things in exprefs words. — Now the pro -
mifes of God with relation to the facraments, at
lead to the facramcnt of baptifm^ are not made
to the 2.di itfelf, but to the perfons by whom
that facrament is ordered to be adminiilered.
For Chrift does not fay, I am with the a<Sl of
baptizing, or wartiing in the name of the Father,
&c. — But he fays, Lo^ I am with you alivayy
with YOU my Apojlles^ with you whom I have
commijjioned to 7ninijler baptifm^ and with your
Succeflbrs to the end of the voorld. Tiie pro-
mife being therefore not made to the bare bap-
tifm or wafhing with water, but to the Apoftles.

and

68 Of Pofitive Injittuilons Ch. r.

and their SuccefTors, who were Gommiflioned to
miniiler that facrament, thofe that are not bap-
tized by perfons fo commiflloned, have no pro-
mife to depend upon, that they have received
Chrift's baptifm; and therefore for any to be-
lieve that they have received it, is not faith but
prefumpt'ion, and being not of faith St. Paul tells us
it is fm. It is fin in the perfon who pretends
to admimfler it, for he takes upon him an
office unto which God has not called him, he
a£ls without authority, and prefumptuoufly fup-
pofes God will ratify that which he has given
him no commiffion to do : it is alfo fm in the
perfon who receives it from one whom he
knows to have no commifTion to give it, for
he alfo is prefumptuous, and expedls a bleffing
where God has made no promife of any. — Any
pretended baptifm therefore miniftered by fuch
as have no commiffion, is deftitute of this pro-
mife, and being fo, is of no effe6l or validity,
for it is not Chr-iji's baptifm^ but a baptifm of
human invention *."

§ 22. The attentive reader will eafily obferve,
that Dr. Brett, when he wrote the above,
was on his road to Rome-, taking, however, po-
ftive precepts^ which always imply their negative,
for his guide. And had he compleated bis
journey, he and his principles would have met
with the mod cordial welcome. For by fuch
principles the papal chair is fupported, and tlie
whole ftiudhire of the holy catholic church can

boaft

• Ibid. § 9. t^-— 18.

Ch. I. and Analogical Reafomng, 69

boaft of a fimilar foundation. " Yes, whether
it be an aflembly of prefbyters, or a council of
prelates; whether it be the injunction of a popt,
or the mandate of a prince, by which the in-
ventions of men are incorporated with the ap-
pointments of God ; they admit of the fame kind
of defence." How Mr. B, would anfwer the
above pretended apoftolical fucceflion, I will not
take upon me to determine > but for my own
part, fince my Maker and Judge has given me
eyes to fee and ears to hear, I would attend to
what the Spirit of truth faith unto the churches;
I would diligently and with diffidence fearch
my bible, and efpeeially thofe parts that feem
more immediately to refer to thefe matters ; feek
light and direition from the Father of lights,
who liberally imparts wifdom, and prudence pro»
fitable to direcSl; I would examine, reafon, mo"
ralizc, analogize^ and ufe ALL the means and
methods which a gracious God has furnirtied
me with; and, finally, I would fhew that the
Do6lor's foundation, notwithflanding his appeal
upon every turn to pofjtive appointment and apo-
ftolic practice, is contrary to the genius of the gofpel
difpenfation, and reducible to manifold abfurditiesy
which can never be a part of the divine will.

§ 23. (3) But fuppofmg, for argument' fake,
thefe gentlemen could extricate themfdves from
the above entangling difficulty; it would prove
but a temporary relief, for another ftill greater
awaits them. I aflert, therefore, in the next
place, That it is impoflible, on their own avowed

prin-

70 Of Pofitlve Injii tut tons Ch. I.

principles, whereby they dilcard from their fyftem
all ufe of moral confiderations, inference and
analogy, to determine in pradice who is a pro-
per fubje^f of baptifm among adults and who is
not; and if fo, are not only liable to commit
fin inftead of performing duty, but as often as
they perform the adion of baptifm they ifievita-
bly plunge themfelves into fin.

Let us not lofe fight of that " divine law,'*
where, if at all^ w^e may expe£l precifion with
refpedl to the qualifications of the fubjeil. Go —
TEACH — baptize"— As "this infirudive text,
fays Mr. B. is the firft appointment of baptifm
for the ufe of the gentiles^ and as it is the law
of adminiftration to the end of time, fo it can-
not but require the moft fubmiflive regard. For
Jefus Chrift, on this occafion, exprefsly claims
all authority in heaven and on earth. He plainly
appears as King of Zion, and Sovereign of the
world. His language, here, is not a mere allu-
fion to baptifm, — but it is the inftitution of that
ordinance, it is divine law; and therefore the
expreffions contained in it, muft be underftood in
their natural and obvious meaning, except any ahjur~ ■
dity would follow fuch a conflru61ion of the facred
ftatute. — As to any abfurdity following upon it,
our opponents pretend none, but what implies
a begging of the queition difputetj*/*— Over-
looking a great piece of inconfiftency obferva-
ble in the above paragraph, where it is faid
that " this text is the frji appointment of baptilaij

Ch. r. and Analogical Reafoning, yt

for the life of the Gentiles" implying that it
was before appointed for the ufe of the fews^
which is the real fa(5l; tho' that/r/? infiitution
is not mentioned in the evangelic hiftory: and
where it is alfo faid, " that this is not a mere
allifion to baptifm, but is the injiitution of that or-
dinance;" which, if it has any determinate mean-
ing, muft imply, by the oppofition intended, that
if was not before iyxjlituted^ which involves a con-
tradiction. It was not a mere aliufion, but the
injiitution itfclf of what was before inflituted.
Faffing by this, what, pray, is that difputed
queftion which the P:edobaptifts beg at the
hands of their brethren ? Is it the favour of
difputing about the qualifications of fubjecSls on
moral grounds? They have no need to beg that;
it is their native rights as the preceding pages,
I prefume, do evince; and as the following will
further eftablifh. Or is it that the natural and
primary fignification of the greek term, /^ia9>!Tjt/cr«T£,
is to difciple rather than to teach? At prefent I
only obferve, that, whatever advantage would
accrue to the caufe for which I am pleading,
from fuch a grant in its favour, Mr. B. and
his friends will be no great gainers by a peace-
ful pojfejpon of what they fo highly efteem.
My prefent argument does not require a profefled
examination of the above queftion, and therefore
let it be now fuppofed that the word is properly
rendered, teach. I will 4lfb grant that Mr,
B. is in tlie propereft fenfe a qualjtied perfou to
CTtecutc Chrift's commiilion, as properly quaiifted

as

*72 Of Pofitlve hi/lltutlons Ch. r.

as thofe to whom the commifTion was originally
given. After all, I infift it is not in his power
to perform his appointed work, to teach in or-
der to baptifm, but by the aids of moral and
analogical reafoning. Without this he will be
at a lofs about the kind and the degree of
teaching. The word teach is vague and inde-
terminate, becaufe it is not only of various
kinds, about which however we will fuppofe no
mifunderftanding, but admits of endlefs degrees.
How much teaching is fufficient ? The quahfication
of the taught is by no means to be meafured
by the time, the pains, or the abilities employed
by the teacher. Some are ever learning without
ever coming to the knowledge of the truth j and
few go^el teachers but have occafion to make
the mournful obfervation. No given degree what-
ever of fkill, of faithfulnefs, or of laborious di-
ligence in the difcharge of his high commiffion,
can enable a teacher to decide who is fit for
baptifm and who is not. Were a teacher to
come to this determination, that each catechumen
fhould be fufficiently qualified when able to recite
the Lord's prayer, the ten commandments, and
a certain Ihort creed ; all this, and much more,
may be taught a perfon, while he has not a
grain of religion; nay, continuing openly irre-
ligious. And fhould fuch be baptized? Befides,
by what authority could he fix upon fuch a
ftsndard ? The obje(£l and the end of this teacli-
ing, then, is the moral improvement of the in-
truded, of which the teacher is the appointed

jiidge.

Ch. I. and Analogical Reasoning, 73

judge f . But what pofitive precept or example
can enable him to do this? Pofitive inftitutions
are of an external nature, as before ihewn, (§ 6.)
and are perfe£tly diftindl in their nature from
all moral confiderations.

§ 24. Mr. B. very frequently refers us to the
Mofaic ritual as of a fimilar nature with bap-
tifm: or, in other words, tinds an analogy be-
tween baptifm and thofe antiquated rites, to
which he is fond of referring us. And on a cer-
tain occafiOEi, when fpeaking of the fignification
of terms, he throws down the gauntlet; and,
feeling the ground on which he treads^ exclaim.s,
" We may fafely challenge our oppofers to pro-
duce an inftance of this kind out of the Mofaic
ritual*." Before we accept the challenge, I
would fain learn, upon what principle Mr. B.
draws a co?nparifon between baptifm and the
Jewifli ceremonies ? How the law that enacts the
former, ought to have any thing in it analogous
to thofe inforcing the latter? It feems he makes
it requifite that there fliould be an analogy be-
tween thefe laws ; " the whole being of which, and
all their legitimate connections, depend on the
fovereign pleafure of God:}:." .

But, inftead of acceding to this propofal of

producing an inftance out of the Mofaic ritual

enjoined in a manner fimilar to what we con-

E ceive-

+ " Admiflion to baptifm lies fsUly in the breaft of tlie y^dr:!-
tiljfrjtor, who is the cK/y judge of qualifications for it, an.l has
Xhi file power of receiving to it, and of rejefling from it." Gill's
Body of Divinity, Vol. HI. B. III. Chap. i.

74 Of Pofitive Injl'itutlons Ch. I,

ceive the latter to be; I beg leave to demand
ONE INSTANCE out of all the numerous
precepts, which Mr. B. calls pofitive, delivered
by Mofes to the chofen tribes, that required
in the fubjedl a difcriminating moral qualification?
An inftitution ?nerely pofitive^ in regard to the
fubjedl, neceffarily requires diftinguilhing marks in
him of an external nature; a diftindion that is
lenfible, circumftantial, not liable to mifconftruc-
tions, and, in a word, infallibly charadlerized ;
otherwife, the choice of the fubje6t, to whom the
rite is to be applied, depends not upon pofitive .
rules, but prudential maxims, and moral confider-
ations. Hence we may obferve, that thofe rites
w^ere awfully guarded with temporal vifible penal
fanSfions^ which baptifm is not. He that helieveth
and is baptized Jhall befaved^ but he that BELIEVETH
NOT, or rejedls the Redeemer and his falvation,
Jhall be DAMNED. The neglect of baptifm, in
proportion as it is a duty, is finful; but it is
guarded with no penal fanction. There appears
another important reafon why the Mofaic ritual
was connected with external characters, as dif-
tmguifhed from moral ones, and alfo their being
guarded by penal threats, and that is, their being
typical of future blefllngs under the Mefliah; but
no gofpel ordinance, ftridly fpeaking, is a type.
— On the whole, then, we may obferve this
remarkable difference between the inftitutions of
the Old Teftament and thofe of the New; the
former referred, for inftance, to perfons of fuch
7i fex and age^ as circumcifion 5 to perfons who

had

Ch. I. and Analcgical Reafoning, 71J

had certain ?narks on their bodies, as the cure
of the leprofy ; to perfons who touched any thing
declared to be unclean; to perfons who uttered
certain words, as the blafphemer ; to perfons who
committed certain aSI'ims^ as the manflayer; &c.
—but the latter refer to ?noral quahties, to cer-
tain difpofitions of mind, to perfons in fuch cir-
cumjiancei as are anfwerable to the end and de~
fign of the inftitutions, according to the judgment
of the Adminiftrator. Mr. B.'s reafoning, there-
fore, is of no force when he argues, that becaufe
the terms of the Mofaic ritual left nothing to
be inferred, refpedting the qualifications of the
fubje^^ therefore the fame mufl hold in baptifm;
and his challenge is impertinent. To difcard moral
grounds from this controverfy, leads to this ab-
furdity, for it is the fame as to fay, that Chrift
gave a command to his minifters, in executing
which, no reafoning or inference is at all necef-
fary, and yet without this they are liable to per-
petual miftakes. It is like a fovereign giving
his reprefentative a difcretionary commiffion to
treat with a foreign power, but every word of
the treaty, he is told, is written and unalterably
fixed^ and mull be taken in its ftridlefl: mean-
ing. Which is the fame as to fay. The nature of
your commifllon neceflarily requires fome liberty
and latitude, fome difcretionary power of de-
termining certain points, which cannot polTibly
be included in thefe rules and this treaty, and
yet you muft not recede a hair's breadth from
the particulars therein contained,

E. 2. § 25.

76 Of Poftti've Injlitutions Ch. i.

§ 25. If it be objected, (what indeed feems to
me to be the only objedtion of any plaufibility
that can be urged) " that tho' our Lord has
drawn no line in the command to determine
zvhat degree of infti"u£l:ion is necelTary, yet ac-
cording to the letter of the command fome de-
gree is requifitej" To this I reply, that teach-
ings in the prefent cafe, is of no further ufe than
a 7neayi to a moral end. Its only ufe feems to be
to difcover, produce, or promote a moral qualifi-
cation. This is evident when we confider that
if this important end is attained, the other is of
courfe fuperfeded; for whether the fubje<5l, on
our opponents' principle, has been taught by
- another, or has profited, in a folitary way, by
prayer and reading, &c. as a pre-requifite quali-
fication, is quite immaterial. The fubjeil has al-
ready attained to what is a necefTary qualification,
in the Antipasdobaptift fenfe, and therefore teach-
ing for that end is unneceflary. Which fuffici-
ently fliews the weaknefs and futility of forming
an abfolute and indifpenfible connexion between
teaching and baptizing. The objedion, therefore,
is of no force, but on fuppofition that human ,
teaching is a neceffary mean, without which there
can be no moral qualification, which is contrary
to fail; for it is demonfirable from the con-
ceflions of our opponents, that many of the hu-
man race are actually in pofleflion of that end,
to attain which is the fole ufe of the teaching
intended, who yet are not beholden to its aid.
Nor can it be denied, that there are other means

of

Ch. r. and Analogical Reafon'tng, 77

of information befide what arife from the cir-
cumftance of teaching, whereby we may con-
clude with fnfficient Certainty, that is, with a
certainty equal to what teaching can afford us,
or equal to any profejfion whatever, that certain
perfons are in the Jiate of which a profcffion, a-s
the effeiSl of teaching, is only an indication;
except it be maintained that profeffion is an
infallible fign, which is abfurd.

But fhould any one flill infift, that a com-
petent knowledge of cliriil:ian principles, and a
credible profeffion are neceffary; I afk, what is tlic
ftandard of this competency or credibility ? Wliat
pofitive rule can anfwer this purpofe ? And again,
I afk, necejfary for what? If the reply be, to an-
fwer the nature and defign of the inftitution—
it is evident this is only begging the queftion,
as_ I fhall fully fhev^ in the next chapter; where
I hope alfo to demonftrate, that there is nothing
in the nature and defign of baptifm, but is ^-
qiially applicable to the infant child of a believer
as to himfelf, however eminent he ipay be in
faith and piety. Upon the whole it appears,
that teaching cannot be any way an efjential
qualification for baptifm, and therefore is re-
quired in certain circumjlanccs only.

§ 26. From what has been faid it follows,
that Qur opponents, if they acl upon their avowed
principles, are not only liable to commit fin by
baptizing an unqualified perfon, but do inevitably
commit fin, by renouncing and deferting the
real and only guide left to conduil us in the
E 3 path

78 Of Pofdhe Injlitut'ions Ch. I.

path of duty. To baptize the inJhuSlcd would
Idc no duty, without attending to the Tnoral cir-
cumllances of the inftrufiion; and to perform
vvliat is jnateriaUy right without an adequate
rule, is morally an evil, or finful. It is the ob-
fervance of the defign and reafon, the moral
purpofes of the command, as it refers to teach-
ing, and not the mere letter of it, that conlli-
tutes a teacher's duty. For of two minifters,
keeping to the letter of the precept, in a manner
equally firi£l, one may be performing the inten-
tion of the Lawgiver, and the other committing
a nn. The office of teaching, therefore, is a
difcretionary office, to be m.eafured by the moral
defign of the inflitution to which it refers. How
abfurd to argue thus: Omai the favage is taught
— the Patcrnofler — the ten commandments — the
^poitles' creed — therefore he fhould be baptized;
hov»'cver deftitute of chriflian virtue and religion.
Yet, on the principle I am oppofing, this muft
be good logic. — Now, if we ought to reje^ fome
candidates for baptifm who yet are taught, be-
caufe not in a flate that feems to comport with
the defign of the inflitution; we are at liberty,
for the fame reafon, to admit others who ap-
pear in a condition fuited to that defign, tho*
not taught, if upon inquiiy any fuch fliould be
found. Whether infants be of that number, will
be confidered in its proper place.

§ 27. {4) What innumerable other abfurdi-
ties would follow from that mode of interpreting
fcriptare which Mr. B. contends for, even in

reference

Ch. I. and Analogical Reafon'mg, 79

reference to the very commiflion in queflion !
For inftance, Whofoever believeth and is baptized,
fliall be faved; Simon the forcerer believed and
was baptized; therefore he is faved. He that
believeth not (liall be damned ; infants believe
not; therefore (borriblle dlSiul) they fliall be
damned. And thefe figns fliall follow them that
believe: in my name they fhall cafl: out devils;
they fliall fpeak. with new tongues; they (hall
take up ferpents; and if they drink any deadly
thing, it fliall not hurt them; they fliall lay
hands on the fick, and they fliall recover : but
thefe figns have not followed for many ages back;
therefore, during all that time, none have be-
lieved. Or, on the other hand, many have
believed without thefe figns following ; therefore,
Chrifl: is not true to his word. — Again, Jefus
fpake nothing but in parables ; but he fpake the
commiflion to preach the gofpel and to baptize;
therefore this commiflion is a parable. The com-
mand is not only teach all nations, but preach
the gofpel to every creature \ (the latter being lafl
written explaining the former;) but four-footed
beafts, fowls, and fiflies, &c. are creatures ; there-
fore it behoved the difciples to preach to thcfc.
Again, Paul was not fent to baptize, but to
preach the gofpel; but he baptized Crifpus and
Gains, and the houlTiold of Stephanus; therefore
he did that which he was not fent to do, or
acted contrary to his commiflion, and was blame-
worthy in baptizing them. How can fuch a
E 4. ridicu-

8o Of Pofit'ive Injl'itutmn Ch. i.

ridiculous mode of reafoning be confuted with-
out inferential reafoning?

§ 28. Will any fay, that there is no danger
of running into fuch ridiculous inconfiftencies ;
that a very moderate fhare of common fenfe, a
httle fober reafon, a fmall attention to the fcope
of a paffage, and the analogy of faith, vv»ouId prove
a fufficient barrier againft the apprehended dan-
ger? Very true; this is all we defire. But this
is the very barrier which the Antipa?dcbaptifts
would fain demolifh. Wheji Dr. S. profelTedly
inquires by what kind of proof we are to be
determined in this controverfy, he fays, " Here
I would obferve then, that all pofitive inftitu-
tions depend folely upon the will of the infli-
tutor, and therefore i-n every queflion relating to
them we are to be guided by his exprefs decla-
rations, or by thofe of perfons he has duly au-
thorized to fignify his will. — Now this principle
granted, I might very properly be excufed confi-
dering the much greater part of Mr. A.'s book,
which confifls of analogical reafoning; — becaufe
a matter of this iynportance in its own nature
requires an exprefs pofitive declaration*." And
Mr. Robinson is fo well fatisfied and pleafed
with this principle, (however repugnant in its
genuine confequences to that freedom of inquiry
which on other occafions he profefTes and adepts,
and for which he is reprehended by Mr. B. as
inconfiftent with himfelff) that he looks upon
it as a moft formidable weapon employed againft

the
* Anfwer to A. p. 3, 6, f p. 462. Ncte.

Ch. r. ond Analogical Reafonin^. 8r

tlie Paedobaptifts 3 and publickly compliments his
reverend brother, when he fays, " Dr. Stennett
has given the deatlj wound to A-Ir. A 's ar-
guments for infant baptifm by this method §."
But Mr. R. need not be informed that the
"wadikc Jcbilles was not invulnerable^ any more
than the vaunting Goliah. And I am fully per-
fuaded that the merely pofithe fyjierrif whatever
gigantic and formidable appearance it hath made
in the eyes of its votaries, and however loud
and ftrong its defiance, muft fall at the feet of
found reafon and genuine analogy. — Mr. B. we
may be fure, is otherwife minded j " This maxim,
fays he, [of adhering to precepts and precedents]
is a firm barrier againfl encroachments on the
government of Chrift, by princely domination,
prieftly pride, and popular unfteadinefs. It guards
the throne of our afcended fovereign, and fecures
his honour as legillator in his own kingdom.
This maxim duly obferved, his difciples treat,
with equal contempt, the mandates of a pope
and the edi<^s of a prince, the canons of a
council and the ftatutes of a parliament, when-
ever they prefume to appoint rites of divine
worfliip, or to alter thofe zuhich Omjl ordained:^
In reading this paragraph and fome others of
the fame complexion, I could not help fmiliug
at the thought, how well it would fuit (mutatis
vxutandii) a popilii do6tor in defendino- — tran-
fubjlantiation I In vain do Protefiants wa^^e war
againfl: this firll-born of abfurdities, while it is
E 5 defended

§ NotesonCtAVPj, Velt II, p, 247,

§2 Of Pofit'ive Injittutlons Ch. i,

defended by fuch a frjn barrier. Entrenched in
this camp, the catholics are fecure; having this
for their guard, no arguments can approach them ;
planting in front this pofitlve canon, they defy
every aflault. In vain do we oppofe to their
maxim, common fenfe, the ufe of reafon, moral
confiderations, the afTiftance of analogy; &c. for
what has all this to do with a pofitive inflitu-
tion? " Let the fubjeit of inquiry be moral truth,
" or 7noral duty, may popifh advocates reply, and
** we admit inferential proof in as large an ex-
" tent as any of our oppofers; concluding, that
'* a genuine inference from a moral principle,
** and relating to things of a moral nature, has
*' all the certainty of the principle itfelf. — But,
" when a pofttive duty is under our notice;—
*' tlie cafe is greatly altered. For the inquiry
*" being intirely converfant about the fovereign
" pleafure of God, concerning an article of hu-
" man faith or duty, which abfolutely depends
" on a ?nanifeJiation of the divine will; the na-
" ture of the cafe forbids our expeding any
" intelligence relating to it, except what arifes
" from divine revelation, precept, or fcriptural
" precedent. Such is the ordinance of the eu-
" charift; fuch was the fyftem of ritual appoint-
" ments in former times ; and fuch is the myftery
" of tranfubJiantiatio72, which is ejfential to the
" aforefaid ordinance, as it is founded upon the
" plain xvords of inflitution. This is my body.
*' Metliinks they need but be read, and they mull
" produce conviition, if taken in their plain and

*' proper

Ch. I^ a^d Analogical Reafomng. 83-

" proper fenfe. And that they are to be taken
** in their proper fenfe, in oppofition to one that
" is figurative, is apparent hence, for furely Chrifl
" wouid fpeak in the plainejl manner to his dif-
" ciples, while his language is the injiitution of
" that ordinance; it is divine law. And what
" is very remarkable, St. Paul received of the
*' Lord Jefus, now afcended to glory, what he
" was to communicate to the churches as of
" {landing obligation till the Lord come, a con-
" firniation of the inftitution in the felf fame
" words. This is 7ny body\ whereby the cavils
" of heretics are for ever confounded. 'Tis true,
" before the confecration it was bread; but after
" that it was his body. And as to any ohfur-
" dity attending our interpretation, none can
" be pretended by thofe who admit, that the
" Divine Word was inade flesh; and other
" gofpel myfteries equally remote from human
*' comprchenfion."

§ 29. Mr. B. after quoting a paflage from
Ainsworth's Arrow againjl Idolatry^ remarks;
'' By this abftrail of the mafterly mock apology
which the famous Puritan makes for the conduct
of Jeroboam — it appears — that the moft deteft-
able corruptions of ritual worfliip admit of a
plaufible defence, when managed by perfons of
genius, if you do but allow them the privilege
of arguing on general principles, as diftinguilh-
ed from pofitive laws, and on fuch pafTages of
facred writ as are foreign to the fubje6l in quef-
tipn. It certainly behoves us, therefore, to be
E 6 exceed-

S4 ^f Pofitme Injlitutions Ch. r.

exceedingly careful of deferting pofttlve law and
primitive example, when a ritual ordinance is
under confideration j feeing this apology for Jero-
boam defies the art of man to confute it, on
any other ground *." What ! cannot Idolatry,
that fuperlatively deteftable 7)ioral evil, be con-
demned on moral grounds? Would this abomi-
nktion, this fpiritual whoredom, this root of all
evil, be an innocent thing, then, were it not
pofitively prohibited ? Credat Jiideus. While the
mafterly pen of Ainsworth defcribes in ?nockery
the condu6l of the idolatrous Jeroboam, on ge-
neral grounds; the learned and eloquent pens of
a numerous train of Romifh dodlors vindicate in
earncjl the do61rine of tranfubftantiation on posi-
tive ground; and I may with the greateft pro-
priety add, " their apology defies the art of man
to confute it," without the aids of inferential
and moral reafoning; and that in the cafe of an
inftitution confejfedly pofitive.

A CERTAIN anonymous writer, who profefies
himfelf an eneqpy to the corruptions of Poper)',
after an appeal to antiquity and univerjality, to
early Fathers^ Councils, and Liturgies, in evidence
that the pra6tice of the church refpe£ting the en-
charijiick cup, was to offer wine mixed with
WATER, as beft agreeing with the original injii-
iution ; and having obferved, that this is not the
only eJJ'ential defeat the church of England is to
be charged with in the commemoration of this
great myftery, writes to his learned friend as fol-
lows: " Give me leave therefore to afk you in

what

• F' 472.

Ch. r. and Analogical Reafonlng, 85

what tolerable fenfe we may be faid to retain
this inftitution of our Lord's, when we obferve
neither the matter nor the fortn of it ? If it be
anfwered, that we do retain the inftitution, tho'
maimed in Tome parts of itj I afk again, whe-
ther, in a POSITIVE institution, every part of
it be not equally necejfary to be obferved, efpeci-
ally when there is nothing in the nature of the
things themfelves which can produce the effects,
but all the benefits we receive thereby are de-
rived to us upon account of our exa5l confor-
?nity to the will of him that inftituted them ?
But again, if every part of a pofitive injlltutlon
be equally neceflary, where is the power that can
flifpenfe with our non-obferv^ance of the forego-
ing particulars ? If there be fuch a power, that
power may difpenfe with as many more parti-
culars, and fo on till the whole be taken away,
and then it will follow, that our Saviour injiituted
Jomcthing for a continual remembrance of his deathy
which might lawfully be taken away before his corning
again.'* The reader Ihould obferve, that the wri-
ter of the above, and the perfon addrefled, both
ftood on the merely pofitive ground^ and accord-
ingly the latter fo felt the force of the former'^s
reafoning on their common principle, that he
made the following ingenuous acknowledgment :
*' To this long obje*5tion &c. 1 muft con fefs /
knovj not haw to return a fatisfaSlory anfwer f ."
Here is a man honeftly fabmitting to the ftrength
and evidence of his own avowed principle, how-
ever

•f Brett's Divine Right, v^'c, Appiindix, p. 1S9 — J91.

85 Of Pofitwe Injlittitiom Ch. I,

ever repugnant to found analogy and the gemdne
fpirlt of the chriftian difpenfation.

§ 30. The real fa6t is, that the path of truth
is daily tranfgreffed on either fide. Some leave
the line of duty fo flack and entangled, that it
proves of little or no ufe to guide; others draw
it to fuch a pofitrue tigbtnfs^ that it breaks ; they
furely are beft off who cautioufly obferve the
golden mean.

There is, no doubt, in the divine difpenfa-
tions, an admirable analogy obfervable, an analogy
eftabliflied and confirmed by uncontefted faSis ;
nor fliould we quit the clue afforded by the for-
mer, in theological as well as philofophical fub-
je6ls, but when obliged to do fo by the latter.*
The Supreme Being obferA^es in the works of cre-
ation and providence, in the revolutions of ftates,
the rife and fall of empires, and the fucceffive
difpenfations of religion, refpe5:ively, a wonderful
proportion 'i and who can deny that a due atten-
tion to the fame, as explained by fa6ls, eminently
diftinguifhes a wife politician from a weak patri-
ot, or a judicious chriftian from an enthufuiilick
bigot. Among the extravagancies of the latter,
of which the chriftian world furnifhes too many
inflances, not a few are ellablifhed and fupported
by the pretended aids of analogical reafoning,
wiiile others are beholden to the abufed patro-
nage of pofitive laws. But the real parent of the
former is not fober and juft analogy^ but rather
a kind of ano7naly; and that of the latter aiiomy
of lawlefs breed,

§ 31'

Ch. I. and Analogical Reafotiing, 87

§ 31. (i) Before I clofe this part of my fub-
jedl:, I iliall take notice of fome ohjeSiions that
may be made, befide thofe already anticipated, to
what has been delivered in the preceding pages,
whether in itfelf or in its confequences. And,
firft, it may be objected, " If the preceding
account be true, that baptifm is not an infdtu-
tion merely pofithe, as much fo as any enabled
under the Mofaic difpenfation, then the prefent
oeconomy hath no inftitutions at all of that
kind." This objection fuppofes,

I. That precepts of a pofitive nature under
the Mofaic difpenfation, were abfolutely fo in all
their circumftances ; fo as not to leave any thing
to be inferred by the perfon or perfons concerned,
in the difcharge of the duty enjoined. — But if
thefe things were fo, if the Jewilh ritual was fo
cxprefs as to leave nothing to be determined by
inference, one might well wonder whence could
fpring fo many Targums and Talmuds^ fo many
voluminous works intended to explain and illuf-
trate the various circumftances attending the per-
formance of thefe pofit'rue duties among others.
Are not thefe wiprefcribed circu7V.J}ances of ritual
worfliip, and other pofitive injunctions, what in
a great degree fwell the interpretations of the
Rabbinsf — The truth is, that there were many
precepts under the Jewifli ceconomy pofitive in a
confidcrahle degree^ relative to the fuhjs^ as well
as the mode of an inftitute, and refpecling the
former, it was fometimes particularly fcrupulous,
for rei\foiis already alfigned (§ 24.} i but it does

not

$S Of Pofitlve Infiltut'iom Ch. I,

not follow that any one of thefe were fo ftridly
pofitive, as not to take fome things for granted
refpe(5ling the circumftances of the duty, fuch as
national cuftom, the common dictates of fenfe
and reafon, traditionary knowledge, the general
principles of the law of nature, &c. And it
fhould not be forgotten, that the adminiftratior
of the Jewifti rites had the fubjefts diftinguiftied
and chara61:erized in a fenftble manner^ which qua-
lification was to be determined by the fame fort
of evidence as any fa^s in common life; but
the adminiflrator of the Chriftian rites has no
fuch grounds to proceed on j his commiffion is
of a difcretionary nature, arifing from the nature
and defign of the inftitutions themfelves, as
before fliewn (§ 23.)

2. The objeilion again fuppofes, that there is
fome excellency in an inftitution being merely
and abfolutely pofitive, more than .in one of a
mixed nature. But this fuppofition is vain and
erroneous. For what conceivable fuperior excel-
lency can there be in any precept or duty on
account of its pofjivenefs F Were there any force
in the objection, it would imply that the Chrif-
tian difpenfation is hfs excellent than the Mofaic;
as having fewer pofitive rites, and their proportion
of pofitivenefs being alfo fmaller. And it would
" alfo imply, that the reafonable duties of prayer
and praife, as founded on the law of nature, as
well as more fully enjoined by revelation, were
l/'fs^ excellent than baptifm and the -Lord's fupper;
and it would follow, that the fervices of the

church

Ch. r. (tnd Analog'ual Reafon'ing. 89

church triumphant are in their own nature lefs
excellent than thofe of the church militant; which
are confequences from the force of the objection
equally genuine and abfurd. Our Lord's anfwer
refpecting the firft and great commandment, ftiews
at . once that what is the moll: important duty, is
alfo the moll natural^ and therefore the moll re-
mote from what is merely pofitive; and that is
the kve of God. This matter has been fully
ihewn before. (§ ) In one word, the fpirit
of the objection is truly pharifaic.

§ S'^' (2) Some may perhaps objecl, " that
this has been always admitted as true, that bap-
tifm and the Lord's fupper are pofitive infhtu-
tions of the New Teftament; and that many
PEedobaptifts have availed themfelvcs of this fort,
in afcertaining the nature and enforcing the obli-
gation of the latter, and particularly Bp. Hoad-
LY. And as his Lordlhip's principle, in his
Plain Account of the Sacrament of the Lord's Sup"
per^ has been deemed unanfwerable, Mr. . Foot,
Dr. Stennett, and others, have taken but the
fame method in treating about baptifm." To
this I reply,

That, as principles taken upon trud, digni-
fied titles, and lawn fleeves, are light as a fea-
ther in the fcale of argument ; fo, on the other
hand, I am fatisfied the Bilhop of Wincheller's
pofitions, taken in a found fenfe, nay, the only
confiftent fenfe in which they can be taken, are
evidently true and important. The fum is this;
" That all pofitive duties, or duties made fuch by

inftitutioa

go Of Pcfitive hijlitutiom Ch. i,

inftitutlon alone, depend intirely upon the will
and declaration of the peribn who inftitutes or
ordains them, with refpecl to the real defign
and end of them, and confequently, to the due
manner of performing them." This is ftri£tly
true, in the degree that any duties are pofitive^ but
no further. And to denominate a precept or
duty pofitive^ tho' but partially fo, I have no
objec^ioji, for the fake of diftinguifhing them
from fuch as are merely moral, and evidently
founded on the reafon and iiature of thhigs.
" Except we obferve this caution," as Ep. But-
ler obferves, " we fliall be in danger of run-
ning into endlefs confufion."

§ 33- (3) It may be faid, " If we refign this
maxim, that a pofitive precept or duty excludes
all moral reafoning, analogy and inference, we
open a door to numberlefs innovations, and de-
prive ourfelves of a neceflary barrier againfl the
encroachments of popery, he. *" In reply to
this fpecious objection let it be obferved,

I. That this maxim, whatever confidence our
opponents place in it, is a very infujjicient barrier
for the defence of truth, if the objedion implies,
that it is calculated to defend truth againft error,
and not error againft truth as well. For it is
notorious, that there is hardly any extravagance,
in the whole compafs of the diftinguilhing pecu-
liarities of religious praftice, that is not barrica-
doed by this very maxim. If Protejiants ufe it
againft Pspifts, Papijls in their turn ufe it againft

Proteftants,

* Thus Mr, B, p. 190, 443, &c.

Ch. I. «fid Analogical Kcafoning. 91

Proteflants. If the ^takers are purfiied and foiled
when they occafionally quit this fort, they foon
rally their controverfial forces, and, entrenching
thcmfelves behind the firength of this maxim,
the warlrfs race becomes again viSforious. Whence
pafllve obedience and non-refiftance? Whence an
oppofition to all forenfic fwearing, in common with
profane ? Whence the Qiiakers' nonconformity to
what other ferious chriftians confider as la'wful?
Their peculiar mode of falutation and addrefs?
Their method of conducing religious worfhip?
The little ftrefs they lay on the obfervance of
the chriftian Sabbath ? &c. Whence the popifti
abfurd figment of tranfubflantiation *, apoftolical

fucceffion fj extreme undion ? ho.. On the

contrary,

2. Not to diftiaguifli between the pofithenefs
and morality of a precept, ordinance or duty, and
not to afcertain their refpeflive degrees \ and to
deny that the latter diftincftion admits of moral
reafoning, inference and analogy, open a wide
door to bigotry^ and numberlefs glaring abufes
of the facred oracles. By reje6ting the analogy
of faith and the defign of fcripture herein, we
give the moft effeitual encouragement to every
fenfelefs intrufion. And what is ftill more re-
markable is, that the iiwre fii ndy any one ad-
heres to the undiAinguifliing pofitive fcheme, in
reference to any chriftian ordinance whatever,
the more clofely will he be allied to the intereft
of genuine bigotiy. For it has a direct ten-
dency

* See § 28, t See § 21.

92 Of Pofit'ive Injlitutiom Ch. i.

dency to make the unprefcribed circumftances of
a pofitive rite, ejfential to the rite itfelf, and
confequently to make that neceffary and elTential
which the inftitutor has not made fo. How
far this is appHcable to the Antipxdobaptift's
caufe, will be further confidered. — The do6trine
that teaches the propriety of yielding our reafon
to pofitive inftitutions as fuch^ or in the degree
they are fo, is jufl and proper, as founded on
the fovereign, abfolute and manifeft authority of
the Supreme Legiflatorj and in this view it has
been of lingular fervice in refuting the cavils of
deifiical impiety. But to carry the principle any
further, tends to betray the caufe of chriflianity
into the hands of infidels, and to breed un-
hallowed party zeal and uncharitable animofities
among its fmcereft profefTors. " For who are
moft likely to put weapons into the hands of in-
fidels \ they, who feem to difcard reafon in the
inveftigation of truth, or they, whofe refearches
are founded on her moil vigorous exertions, and
moft rational decifions? — They, who make fcrip-
ture bow to their preconceived notions, in direct
oppofition to the dictates of reafon and common
fenfe, or they, whofe arguments are founded
on a coalition of fcripture and right reafon fi"*
Once more,

3. The obje£l:ion, as it includes Mr. B.'s fa-
vourite maxim, and tends to oppofe the diflinc-
tion above ftated, involves a great inconfiftence
with itfeif. For on what principle, except what

they

f D* Couicv's Rejoinder, p, 252*

Ch. I. a>2d Analogical Reafoning, 193

they affe(5l to difcard, do our opponents retain
fome of the pofitive rites of the New Teftament
and reje6l others? Why regard baptifm and the
eucbarijl as of {landing obHgation; while the pe-^
dilavium znd. feajis of charity {the former injoined
exprefsly by our Lord, and both pradifed by the
difciples of the apofloUc age, fee John xiii. 14,
15. I Tim. V. 10. Jude 12.) are judged un-
worthy of continuance? Why receive females to
communion, or adopt the f?fl day of the week.
for the chriftian fabbath? How can they juftify
their condudl in thefe matters, thefe circumflances
of po/itive inftitutions, without undermining their
own avowed hypothefis? With regard to the
fabbath, indeed, the Antipasdobaptifts are divided
among themfelves; while fome are content with
the fr/i day of the week, others obferve the
f event h. On this point Dr. S. is very open and
ingenuousi Mr. Addington appeals to an ob-
jedling Antipasdobaptift, " whether he does not
think himfelf fufficiently authorized to keep the
chriftian fabbath, tho' Chrift has no where faid
in fo many words. Remember the firji day of the
week to keep it holy \?" To this the Dr. replies,
** There is, I acknowledge, fome weight in this
*' objeiSlion: and all I can fay to it is, that not
*' having yet met with any paffage in the New
" Teftament that appears to me to have re-
" pealed the fourth commandment, and to have
*' required the obfervation of the firft day, I
" cannot think myfelf fufficiently authorized to

" renounce

II The Chrlftian Minifler's Reafons, 5;c. p. 143.

94 Of Pofit'ive hi/litutions Ch. r,

'' renounce that, and to keep this f." If the Doc-
tor is profeffedly an obferver of the JewiHi fab-
bath, he is confiftent with himfelf, however dif-
ferent from fo great a part of the chriRian world ;
if not J he and his tenet are at variance; analogy
and inferential reafoning have got the better of
the pofitive fyftem, which neverthelefs mufl not
be refigned, for fear of worfc confequences.

§ 34. (4) Another objedlion much infifled
on is, " If our Lord has left any thing to be
inferred relative to the fubjeSf and mode of bap-
tifm, being a pofitive inflitute; or if he has not
delivered himfelf exprefly and clearly in every
thing, refpe6ling the queflion ivho are to be bap-
tized, and the manner how, it implies a re-
flexion on his wifdom and goodnefs." But this
objedion is impertinent on different accounts.
For,

I. Its force is derived from the fuppofition
that the Inftitutor was fomehow obliged to make
his will known to men by one method only.
But is the Great Supreme under any fuch ob-
ligations to his abfolutely dependent creatures?
What fhould we fay of a philofopher, who,
having to judge of any important phenome-
non in phyficks, (liould quarrel with the author
of nature, becaufe he had not confined his
method of information to one fource only, to
the exclufion of all others? That his evidence,
for inftance, was not confined to the informa-
tion of frfe^ to the exclufion of reafon and

analogy F
f Aflfwer to At p. 177.

Ch. I. and Analogical Reafoning. 95

analogy? Or what fliould we fay of a perfon,
who having to decide on the truth and reality
of a miracle, Ihould impeach the wifdom and
goodnefs of his Pvlaker, becaufe he did not ap-
peal to one i&n{e only of his dependent and
-unworthy creatures, that^ of feeing^ for infTance,
to the exclufion of that of hearhigf The anfwer
is plain, and the application eafy.

2. The obje£lion is guilty of another im-
pertinence, nearly allied to the former: it un-
reafonably requires pofttive evidence for what is
difcoverable by other means. It is demonftrable,
and I think has been demonftrated, that the
qualifications of the fubjecSls of baptifm (the
?node alfo ^will be examined in its place) is
what cannot poffibly be determined by any pofi-
tive rule whatever as fuch, but muft be refolved
to the difcretionary nature of the commifllon, or
the fuppofed luifdom and prudence of the admi-
niftrators, in common with other parts of the
fame commiffion, fuch as the choice of an au-
dience^ the choice of a concionatory fubjeSJ, Sec.
Preach the go/pel to every creature, is a part of
the commilfion, but the execution has no pofitive
rule. Nor does this ' commifllon of preaching
the gofpel prohibit preaching the law, for a law-
ful ufe, or any branch of natural religion, not-
withftanding Mr. B.'s excluding ftandard, that
" pofitive laws imply their negatives." In like
manner, the commifllon to baptize believers, and
the taught^ we contend and prove, does not
mean to include all fort i of believers and taught

perfons,

96 Of Pofitive Injittutkni Ch. i.

perfons, but fuch of them as the adminiftrators
judge fit, according to the rules of chriftian pru-
dence and difcretion. And we further infifl, as
Ihall be more fully ftiewn hereafter, that the
terms of the commiffion, believers and taught^ (land
oppofed^ not to no?i-beUcvers and untaught^ but
to unbelievers and perfons perverfely ignorant.
What, therefore, falls necejfarily to the province
of inferential reafoning, is impertinently referred
to a pofitive ftandard.

3. The objection implies an ungrateful re-
flexion on the Inftitutor's wifdom and goodnefs,
contrary to what it pretends to avoid. And
this it does, by countera61:ing and vilifying thofe
natural di6i:ates of reafon, prudence and com-
mon fenfe, that our all-wife and beneficent
Creator has given us — his goodnefs^ in not fuf-
pending their operations, but leaving them in
full force, as to thefe circumfl:ances of pofitive
duties — his ivifdom^ in grafting what is pofitive
of his laws on thefe common principles — and,
finally, the favourable circumfl:ance of his dimi-
nifiiing the degree of pofitivenefs in New Tefia-
ment inftitutions, as well as their number.

§ 35. Let us now recapitulate what has been
faid in this chapter. — From an inveftigation of
the nature of pofitive precepts and duties, as
diftinguifhed from moral ones, together with their
comparative obligations and importance, we have
feen, that, in any cafe of fuppofed competition,
the latter claims an undoubted preference. We
have alfo feen, that nothing but abfolute, deci-

five

Ch. I. and Jnalogtcal Reajoningm 97

five, dlfcernible authority can turn the fcale in
favour of the former^ or, indeed, place any law
or duty in the rank of positive. Moreover, it
has been (hewn, that every duty refulting from
any difcernible moral relation^ muft needs be
clafled among vtoral duties j that fome things ap-
pertaining to the very ejfence of baptifm, on our
opponents' own principles, are of moral confider-
ation; particularly the qualifications of proper
fubjedis; confequently, that baptifm is an or-
dinance of a mixed nature, partly pofitive and
partly moral. Of all which an unavoidable
confequence is, that our opponents' outcry a-
gainft all moral and analogical reafons in our in-
quiries refpeding the fubjefts and mode of
baptifm, is impertinent and abfurd, and to a
demonftration contradidory to their own avowed
principles. — The moft material, I believe, of
the objections that may be urged againft my
principles, have been anfwered. And this I
can fmcerely aver, that I have not intentionally
concealed one objedion, that has been or may
be advanced, on account of any apprehended
force therein. On the contrary, I have pur-
pofely and ftudioufly fought out what appeared
to me the moji forcible. And I am fatisfied that
no obje£lsoi3L can be fairly made, which is not
capable of a fair and full anfwer, and which will
not eventually contribute to illuftrate and eftab-
lifli what I here contend for.

Having now fixed upon the fpot, cleared
F the

^5 Of Pofitwe InJiltuUonSj ^c. Cli. i,

the rubbifli, and laid the foundation, I proceed
to the fuperftrufture, and firft of all to invefti-
gate the Nature and Defign of tlie baptifmal
rite.

CHAP.

Ch. a. Of the Nature^ &c. 99

CHAP. IL

Of the Nature and Defign of baptlfm;
containing an account of the fa6ls, blef-
fings, and obligations reprefented by it,
impartially deduced from all the paflages
in the New Teftament relating to it.

§ I. The beji method to find the nature and de-
fign of baptif7n. § 2 — 7. (i) Thofc pajfoges of
fcr'ipture that fpeak of baptifn in dire^ tenns.
§ 8. (2) Thofe that are fuppofed to allude to this
ordinance. § 9. Axioms of interpretation. § lO
—12. (t) The difference between the baptifn of
John and that of Chrijl. § 13. (2) Their
agreement. § 14. The general nature of bap-
tif?n. § 15—17. (i) The blejpngs exhibited by it,
§ 18 — 21. (2) Obligations refulting from it.
§ 22. General conclufom\ (i.) baptifm obliges to
fome dutieSy and exhibits fome benefits not cx~
prefsly mentioned in fcripture'i benefits and obli-
gations beiiig correlates, § 23 — 35. (2) The
propriety of denominating baptifn a feal of the
covenant. § 36. And of confequcnce' the Lord's
Supper. § 37. (3) The unworthinefs of minijler
or fuhje£i does not nullify the ordinance. § 38.
{4) To renounce infant baptifn^ as fuch, by a
deftre of rebaptizing^ militates againfl the very
F 2 nature

100 Of the Nature and Ch. 2.

nature and dejtgn of the ordinance. § 39. (5)
// is not necejfarily attended with fpiritual com"
munications. § 40 — 42. (6) The death, burial^
and refurreStion of Chrijly not the principal faSis
reprefented by ba^tifm.

§ I. np^HO' I have faid fo much in vlndi-
X cation of inferential proof and juft
analogy, in controverfial debates about inftitu-
tions partially pofitive, as baptifm is (hewn to
be; I am far from defiring to evade the force
of any thing recorded in the New Teftament re-
lative to this ordinance: on the contrary, the
rules laid down in the preceding chapter require
that we (hould very carefully attend to revealed
fa£ls before all other confiderations, as all reafon-
ings that may contradidl thefe muft needs be
falfe and impertinent. It would be ridiculous
to borrow the aids of analogy, while inveftigat-
ing any fubjeil whatever, in oppofition to plain
fads. For as an hypothefis in philofophy is
juftly exploded, when the fyftem-maker, in whofe
brain it was fabricated, forcibly drags all phe-
nomena into its vortex, in defiance of well atteft-
ed obfervations and experiments; fo that fyftem
in divinity, whether it comprehends the whole
body of it, or any particular part, muft needs
be precarious and vain when it contradiSis re-
vealed inconteftible fadls. And it is no lefs
evident, that the pretenfions of any hypothefis
muft be equally futile in proportion as it is in-
confiftent with itfelf. To avoid thefe inconveni-
ences

Ch. 2. Defign of Baptifm, lOi

ences I know of no better method, in general,
than that which an ingenious writer on this
fubjefl has adopted, in a fmall treatife which
he callsi J Plain Account of the Ordinance of
Baptifm*\ and that is, to Jay together all the
texts in the New Tejiament relating to it; that
from thefe, as fo many data, we may deduce
the nature and defign of the inftitution, and
learn every thing t\k that the inftitutor hath
been pleafed to reveal concerning it. And this
method I the rather adopt, not only becaufe it
is proper and rational in itfelf, but likewife
cannot be objefled to confiftently by any of
our opponents. The Author of the Plain Ac-
count produces firjl the paflages concerning John's
baptifm, znA. fecondly thofe that refer to Chrift's
baptifm ; and inferts promifcuoufly thofe paflages
th^t only allude to the baptifmal rite. I fhall
attempt, however, a flight improvement of his
arrangement, by placing firjl all the pafl*ages in
the Neiv Tejiament that fpeak of baptism in
dire(5l terms and in whatever connedlion ; and
fecondly thofe texts that are fuppofed to allude to
the inftitution. This I think is lefs exception-
able, fince the clafling of the texts in the man-
ner he does, feems to imply an eflential dif-
ference between the baptifm of John and that
of Chrift, as a circumftance taken for granted,
before the inquiry is made.

F 3 § 2. (I)

* Anenymouf, but generally afcribcd to M/, Foot, of Biiftolj
addreflsd to Bp» Hoadlev, in a feries of Letterst

102 Of the Nature and Ch. 2.

§ 2. (i) Let us begin with thofe pafTages
that fpeak of baptism in dire6i terms and in
■whatever connexion. Mat. iii. 5 — 7. Then went
out to him Jerufalem and all Judea, and all
the region round about Jordan, and were bap-
tized of him in Jordan, confefTmg their fins.
But when he faw many of the Pharifees and
Sadducees come to his baptifm he faid unto them,
O generation of vipers, who hath warned you
to flee from the wrath to come? — v. 11. 1 in-
deed baptize you with water unto repentance;
but he that cometh after me is mightier than
I, whofe fhoes I am not worthy to bear; he
ihall baptize you with the Holy Ghoft and with
fire. — V. 13 — 16. Then cometh Jefus from Ga-
lilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of
him. But John forbad him faying, I have need
to be bapti-zed of thee, and comeft thou to me?
And Jefus anfwering faid unto him, fuffer it to
be fo now; for thus it becometh us to fulfil all
rlghteoufnefs. Then he fuffered him. And Jefus
•when he was baptized went up ftraightway out'
of the water; and lo, the heavens were opened
' unto him, and he faw the Spirit of God de-
fending like a dove and lighting upon him.—
Chap. XX. 22, 23. But Jefus anfwered and faid,
Ye know not what ye afk. Are ye able to
drink of the cup that I fliall drink of, and to
be baptized with the baptifm that T am baptized
witli? They faid unto him, We are able. And
he faith unto them, Ye fhall indeed drink of
my cup, and be baptized with the baptlfji that I

am

Ch. 2. Dejign of Baptifm. lO^

am baptized withj but to fit on my right hand
and On my left is not mine to give, but it Hiall
be given to them for whom it is prepared of
my father. — Chap. xxt. 25. The baptifm of John,
whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And
they reafoned with themfelves, faying, If we fliall
fay, From heaven; he will fay unto us, Why
did ye not then believe him? — Chap, xxviii. 19.
Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing
them in the Name of the Fatlier, and of the
Son,, and of the Holy Ghoft.

§ 3. Mark i. 4, 5.. John did baptize in the
wildernefs, and preach the baptfn of repentance
for the remidlon of fins. And there went out
unto him all the land of Judea, and they of
Jerufalem, and were all baptized of him in the
river of Jordan confelTing their fms.— -y. 8 — 10.
I indeed have baptized you with water; but he
Ihall baptize you with the Holy Ghoft. And it
came to pafs in thofe days, that Jefus came
from Nazareth of Galilee, and v/as baptized of
John in Jordan. And ftraightway coming up
out of the water, he faw the heavens opened,
and the Spirit like a^^dove defcending upon him.
— Chap. vii. 4. And when they come from the
market, except they wafh, [Greek, baptize^'] they
eat not; and many other things there be which
they have received to hold, as the wafhing
[Greek, baptizing,"] of cups and pots, and of bra-
fen vefTels and tables. — Chap. xi. 30. The bap-
tiftn of John, was it from heaven or of men?
anfwer me,— Chap. xvi. 15, i6. And he faid
F 4 unto

104 Of ihe Nature and Ch. 2.

unto them, go ye into all the world, and preach
the gofpel to every creature; he that believeth
and is baptized fhall be faved.

§ 4. Luke iii. 3. And he came into all the
country about Jordan, preaching the laptifm of re-
pentance for the remiffion of fins.— v. 7, 8. Then
faid he to the muhitude that came forth to be
baptized of him, O generation of vipers, who hath
warned you to flee from the wrath to come? —
V. 12—14. Then came alfo publicans to be
baptized^ and faid unto him, Mafter, what fliall
we do? And he faid unto them, Exad no more
than that which is appointed you. And the fol-
diers likewife demanded of him, faying, And
what fhall we do? And he faid unto them, Do
violence to no man, neither accufe any falfely;
and be content with your wages, — v. 16. John
anfwered, faying to them all, I indeed baptize you
with water; but one mightier than 1 cometh,
the latchet of whofe fhoes I am not worthy to
unloofe; he fhall baptize you with the Holy
Ghofl and with fire. — z*. 21, 22. Now when all
the people were baptized^ it came to pafs that
Jefus alfo being baptized^ and praying, the heaven
was opened, and the Holy Ghofl defcended in
a bodily fhape like a dove upon Iiim, and a
voice came from heaven which faid, Thou art
my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleafed.—
Chap. vii. 29, 30. And all the people that
heard him, and the publicans, juftified God, be-
ing baptized with the baptifm of John. But the
Pharifees and lawyers rejedcd the counfel of

God

Ci». 2. Defign of Bapttfnt\ 105

God againft themfelves, being not baptized of him.

— Chap xi. 38. And when the Pharifee faw it, he
marvelled that he had not firft wafhed [Gr. baptiz-
ed] before dinner. — Chap, xii, 50. But I have a
baptifm to be baptized with, and how am I ftrait-
ened till it be accomplilhed! — Chap. xx. 4. The
baptifm of John, was it from heaven or of men?

§ 5. John i. 25, 26. And they afked him,
and fent unto him. Why baptize/} thou then, if
thou -be not that Chrift, nor Elias, neither that
prophet? John anfwered them, faying, I baptize
with water. — v. 28. Thefe things were done
in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where Johri was
baptizing — v. 31, And I knew him not; but
that he (hould be made manifeft to Ifrael, there-
fore am I come baptizing -with water. — v. 33.—
He that fent me to baptize with water, the fame
faid unto me, upon whom thou Ihalt fee the
Spirit defcending and remaining on him, the
fame is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghoft.

— Chap. iii. 22, 23. After thefe things came
Jefus and his difciples into the land of Judea;
and there he tarried with them and baptized.
And John alfo was baptizing in Enon, near to
Salim; becaufe there was much water there;
and they came and were baptized,-— v. 26. And
they came unto John and faid unto him, Rabk",.
he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom
thou bareft witnefs, behold the fame baptizeth^
and all men come to him. — Chap. iv. i, 2.
When therefore the Lord knew how the Pha-
rifees had heard that Jefus made and baptized
more difciples than John, (tho' Jefiis himfclf

F 5 baptized

io6 Of the Nature and Ch. 2.

baptized not, but his difciples). — Chap. x. 40.
And went away again beyond Jordan, into the
place where John at firft baptized^ and there he
abode.

§ 6. Acts i. 5. For John truly baptized
with water; but ye fhall be baptized with the
Holy Ghoft not many days hence. — v. 22.
Beginning from the haptifm of John, unto that
fame day that he was taken up from us.—
Chap. ii. 38, 39. Then Peter faid unto them.
Repent and be baptized every one of you in the
name of Jefus Chrift for the remifTion of fins,
and ye fhall receive the gift of the Holy Ghoft.
For the promife is unto you, and to your children,
and to all that are afar off, even as many as
the Lord our God fliall call. — 'y. 41.. Then
they that gladly received his word were baptized^
and the fame day there were added unto them
about three thoufand fouls. — Chap. viii. 12 — 17^
But when they believed Philip, preaching the
things concerning the Kingdom of God, and the
name of Jefus Chrift, they were baptized both
men and women. Then Simon himfelf believed
alfo ; and when he was baptized^ he continued
with Philip, and wondered, beholding the mira-«
cles and figns that were done. Now when the
Apoftles which were at Jerufalem heard that Sa-
maria had received the word of God, they fent
unto them Peter and John: Who, when they
were come down, prayed for them that they
might receive the Holy Ghoft. For as yet he
vras fallen upon none of them 5 only they were

baptized

Ch. 2. Deftgn of Bapttfm, lof

baptized In. the name of the Lord Jefus. Then
laid they tlieir hands on them, and they received
the Holy Ghofl. — v. 36—38. And as they
went on their way they came unto a certain wa-
ter. And the Eunuch faid, See, here is water;
what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip
faid, If thou believeft with all thine heart, thou
mayefl". And he anfwered and faid, I believe
that Jefus Chrift is the Son of God. And he
commanded the chariot to ftand ftill. And they
went down both into the water, both Philip and
the Eunuch, and he baptized him. — Chap. ix.
18. And immediately there fell from his eyes
as it had been fcales ; and he received light forth-
with, and arofe and was baptized. Chap. x. 37,
38. — That word (I fay) you know, which was
publiflied throughout all Judea, and began from
Galilee, after the baptipn which John preached;
How God anointed Jefus of Nazareth with the
Holy Ghoft, &CC.—V. 47, 48. Can any man
forbid water, that thefe fliould not be baptizedy
which have received the Holy Ghod, as well as
we? And he commanded them to be baptized
in the name of the Lord. — Chap. xi. 15, 16.
And as I began to fpeak, the Holy Ghoft fell
on them, as on us at the beginning.^ Then re-
membered I the word of the Lord, how that he
faid, John indeed baptized with water; but ye
ihall be baptized with the Holy Ghoft. — Chsp.
xiii. 23—25. Of this man's feed hath God,
according to his promife, raifed unto Ifrael a
Saviour, Jefus: When John had firjl preached
F 6 before

io8 Of the Natun and Ch. 2.

before his coming, the baptlfm of repentance to
all the people of Ifrael. And as John fulfilled
his courfe, he faid, Whom think ye that I am ?
I am not he. — Chap. xvi. 15. And when Ilie
fLydia] was baptized^ and her houfehold, flie
befought us, kc—v. 33. And he [the jailor]
took them the fame hour of the night, and
wafhcd their flripes j and was baptized^ he and
all his, ftraightway. — Chap, xviii. 8. And Crif-
pus the chief ruler of the fynagogue, believed'
on the Lord with all his houfej and many of
the Corinthians hearing, believed, and were bap-
tized.— V. 25.— He [Apollos] fpake and taught
diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only
the baptifrfi of JohrL. — Chap. xix. 3 — 5-. And
he faid unto them, Unto what then were ye
baptized? And they faid. Unto John's baptlfm.
Then faid Paul, John verily baptized with the
baptlfm of repentance, faying unto the people,
that they fhould believe on him which fhould
come after him, that is, on Chrift Jefus. When
they heard this, they were baptized in the name
of the Lord Jefus. — Chap. xxii. 16. And now
why tarrieft thou? Arife and be baptized, and
wafli away thy fms, calling on the name of the
Lord.

§ 7. RoM. vi, 3j 4. Know, ye not, that fo
many of us as were baptized Into Jefus Chrift,,
were baptized into his death? Therefore we are
buried with him by baptlfm into death; that like
as Chrift was raifed up from the dead by the
glory of the Father, even fo we alfo fhould walk

in

Ch. 2. Deftgn of Baptifm, 109

in newnefs of life. — i Cor. i. 13 — 17. Were
ye baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God
that I baptized none of you, but Crifpus and
Gaius ; left any fliould fay, that I had baptized
in mine own name. And I baptized alfo the
houfehold of Stephanas; befides, I know not
whether I baptized any other; for Chrift fent me
not to baptize^ but to preach the gofpel. — Chap.
X. 2. And were all baptized unto Mofes in the
cloud and in the fea. — Chap. xii. 13. P'or by
one Spirit are we all baptized into one body,
whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we
be bond or free ; and have been all made to
drink into one fpirit. — Chap. xv. 29. Elfe what
fhall they do, that are baptized for the dead, if
the dead rife not at all? Why are they then
baptized for the dead? — Gal. iii. 27. For as
many of you as have been baptized into Chrift,
have put on Chrift.— Ephef. iv. 5. One baptijm.
— Col. ii. 12. Buried with him m baptiftny
wherein alfo ye are rifen with him. — Heb. vi.
2. The do<Slrine of baptifms. — Chap. ix. icr.
Which flood only in meats, and drinks, and di-
vers waftiings [Greek baptifms] and carnal ordi-
nances impofed on them until the time of refor-
mation.—! Pet. iii. 21. The like figure where-
unto, even baptfm^ doth alfo now fave us (not
the putting away the filth of the flefti, but the
anfwer of a good confcience towards God) by
the refurredlion of Jefus Chrift. — Rev. xix. 13.
And he was clothed with a vefture dipt in [Gr.
baptized in or with] blood,

§8.

no Of the Nature and Ch. 2.

§ 8. (2) I SHALL now produce thofe pafTages
that are fuppofed to allude to the ordinance of
baptifm, tho' the term be not ufed. John iii.
5. Except a man be born of water and of the
fplrit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
— V. 25. Then there arofe a queftion between
fome of John's difciples and the Jews, about pu-
rifying.—"2. Cor. vi. II. But ye are wajhed.—
Eph. V. 26. That he might fandlify and cleanfe
k, with the ivajhing of water ^ by the word. — Tit.
iii. 5. According to his mercy he faved us, by
the wajhing of regeneration, and renewing of the
Holy Ghoft. — Heb. x. 22. Our bodies wajhed
with pure water. — i Pet. i. 9. And hath for-
gotten that he was purged from his old fins. —
Rev. i. 5.— Unto him that loved us, and wajloed
us from our fins in his own blood. -— — Perhaps
the following texts, and fome others, allude
to the chriftian purification. Tit. ii. 14. — And
purify to himfelf a peculiar people. — James iv. 8.

. Cleanfe your kands, ye finners, and purfy your

hearts, ye double minded. — i Pet. i. 22. — See-
ing ye have purified your fouls in obeying. — 2
Cor. vii. I. — Let us cleanfe ourfelves from all
filthinefs of fiefli and fpirit. — i John i. 7. The
blood of Jefus Chrift cleanfeth us from all fin.
<y. g.— To cleanfe us from all unrighteoafnefs.
— May I not add? Ads ii. 33. — Having re-
ceived of the Father the promife of the Holy
Ghoft, he hath ,[})ed forth this, which ye now
fee and hear.— Rom. v. 5. The love of God is
jked in your hearts by the Ploly Ghoft.— Tit.

iii. 6.

Ch. 2* Defign of Baptifm. rrr

iii. 6. Which he Jhed en us abundantly thro'
Jefus Chrifl: our Lord. — A£ls x. 45.— On the
Gentiles alfo was poured out the gift of the Holy
Ghoft. &c.

§ 9. Before I proceed to confider thefe paf-
fages, I would propofe the following remarks as
axioms of interpretation.

1. Every one of thefe texts, feperately, con-
fidered in its proper conneiSlion, muft have one
principal defign and determinate meaning.

2. As they all proceed from the fame infal-
lible fource, they muft have one general mean-
ing, coUedlively, in which they all agree.

3. That cannot be the defign and meaning
of any particular text which is contrary to this
general defign, or even contrary to^ any other
paflage which is more evident than itfelf.

4. That is to be deemed the general mean-
ing of thefe paffages, and their true interpretation,
which moft unexceptionably harmonizes with the
whole revealed will of God, which is ever con-
fiftent with itfelf.

5. As the law of nature, viz. That rule
of action which derives its being from the na-
ture of God and man, and the relation thence
arifing, was never fuperfeded as ufelefs under
any difpenfation of religion j but on the contrary
always remained in force, and ever will remain ;
no interpretation of thefe texts, or indeed any
other, fliould be admitted as true, which feems to
offer violence to this law of nature, otiierwife
called the moral law, except it be fupported by

the

ri2 Of the Nature end Cli. 2,

the clear, indubitable, pofitive authority of GodV
The reafon is evident; for as this law of na-
ture is always binding in every part of the
globe, and thro' every period of time; whatever
appears to be probably conformable to it, or a faith-
ful di6late of it, every man is hid under a pro-
portionable obligation to obey its voice; until
an infallible authority interpofes, ufhered in with
Jlronger evidejice againft: the former fuppofed pro-
bability, from whofe decifive verdidl there lies no
appeal. This I the rather infift upon, becaufe
it may ferve to explain the genuine meaning of
a maxim on which Mr. B. lays confiderable
ftrefs, viz. " Pofitive laws imply their nega-
tive*." Pofitive duties as far as, or in the re-
fpecl that they are pofitive^ that is, having no
apparent reafon to recommend them but the
mere authority of the Lawgiver, imply their ne-
gatives, for this reafon, that no law whatever,.
on the fuppofition, enjoins thefe negatives. Nol
the natural or moral law, for then they would
not be ranked among pofitive duties: not any
pefitlve law, for then the term negative would be
inapplicable. On the contrary, whatever appears,
upon the whole, a moral duty, cannot with
any propriety be termed the negative of any
pofitive duty.

§ 10. (i) I SHALL now make fome obferva-
tions on the foregoing texts. And it is ob-
vious, in the firft place, that there is fome
difference between the baptifm of John and that
of Chrift and his Apoftles.

1, The
» p. 1S7.

Ch. 2. Defign of Baptifm. J13

I, The immediate Injlitutor of John's bap-
tifm was God the Father^ John i. 33. He that
fent me to baptize with water, the same faid
unto me, Upon whom thou (halt fee the Spirit
defcending and remaining on him, the fame is
he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghoft. Here
we fee that He who fent John to baptize was
a divine Perfon diftinit from the Son and Spirit ;
who muft be therefore the Father. — But the
immediate Injlitutor of the Chrirtian baptifm,
which is of perpetual ob'igation, is Chrift the Son
of God. John iii. 22. After thefe things came
Jefus and his difciples into the land of Judea;
and there he tarried with them and baptized.
V. 26. And they came unto John and faid un-
to him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond
Jordan to whom thou bareft witnefs, behold the
fame baptizeth, and all men come to himj &c.
Mat. xxviii. 19. Go ye, therefore, and teach all
nations, baptizing them he. P>om thefe paf-
fages we obferve, that Chrift was the Injiitutor
of baptifm before his death j and more explicitly
before his afcenfion.

2. John's baptifm was a preparatory rite, re-
ferring the fubjeils to Chrift, who was about to
confer upon them fpiritual bleftings. Mat. iii. 11.
I indeed baptize you with water unto repent-
ance; but he that cometh after me is mightier
than I, whofe flioes I am not worthy to bear;
he ftiall baptize you with the Holy Ghoft and
with fire. Mark i. 8. I indeed have baptized
you with wateri but he fliall baptize you with

the

114 Of the Nature and Ch. 2.

the Holy Ghoft. Luke iii. 16. John anfwered,
faying to them all, I indeed baptize you with
water; but one mightier than I cometh, the
latchet of whofe (hoes I am not worthy to un-
loofe; he fhall baptize you with the Holy Ghoft
and with fire.. John i. 31. And I knew him
not, but that he fiiould be made manifeft: to
Ifrael, therefore am I come baptizing with water.
A£ls L 5. For John truly baptized with water,
but ye fhall be baptized with the Holy Ghoft
not many days hence. Chap. xix. 4. Then
faid Paul, John verily baptized with the baptifm
of repentance, faying unto the people, that they
fiiould believe on him which fhould come after
him, that is, on Chrifl: Jefus, &c. — The Chrif-
tian baptifm was an a6lual initiation into the
Meffiah's vifible kingdom. Ads ii. 41. Then
they that gladly received his word, were baptized ;
and the fame day there were added unto them
about three thoufand fouls. — This addition was
to the number of the difciplcs, and fubje£fs of
Chrift; for thejiy when they were baptized^ were
they reckoned among his followers. — The bap-
tifm of John did not a^ually introduce any in-
to the gofpel kingdom, or make them difciples.
of Chrift; but thofe whom John baptized were
properly his own difciples, and expectants of the
Meffiah's bleffings. Whereas thofe whom Jefus
ordered to be baptized, were ftridly his difciples,
and were taught to expefl the promife of the
Spirit, in his various gifts and graces.

3, It

#&-

Ch. 2. Defign of Baptifm. 115

3. It appears from the texts firfl: recited, that
the baptifm of John was confined to the Jnvs^
and temporary; Mat. iii. S~7' &c.— But the
Chriftian baptifm was common tq Jews and
Gentiles, and of {landing obligation. John iii. 26.
The fame baptizeth, and all men come unto him.
Mat. xxviii. 19. Mark: xvi. 15, i6. &c.

4. It does not appear that John had any
formula of adminiftration; nor, indeed, have we
any account of his coimnijfwn^ but what may be
inferred from what he fays John i. 33. He that
SENT me to baptize with water. And we may
further infer that his baptifm was from heaven,
from what our Lord fays to the chief prieds
and ciders of the people, Mat. xxi, 25. <kc. —
Whence it appears that he was divinely autho-
rized, and, as before obfcrved, that the Father
was the Inftitutor. — But the Chriftian baptifm
has "^ formula of adminillration. Mat. xxviii. 19.
In the name of the Father, and of the
Son, and of the Holy Ghost.— And ftill
fhorter, A6ts ii. 31. Be baptized every one of
you IN THE Name of Jesus Christ. Alfo
Chap. x. 38. In the Name of the Lord.

5. It may be added, that the baptifm of
John was the concluding fcene of the legal dif-
penfation, and in faiSl part of it. Hence the
lead in the kingdom of God, vi'z, the gofpel
kingdom, was greater than he. It may be con-
fidered as a final and general purification, per-
formed by John as the lart: prielL That he
difcharged his office as a purifying prieft to the

thoufands

Ii6 Of the Nature and Ch. ^.

thoufands of Ifrael, fee Ads xiii. 23—25. Thus
John went before Jefus in the fpirit and power
of Elias (as promifed Mai. iv. 5.) to turn the
hearts of the fathers with the children to him,
and the difobedient to the wifdom of the juft;
to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.
See Luke i. 17.— Chriftian baptifm is the regular
entrance into and is a part of the evangelical
difpenfa^ion. Gal. iii. 27. For as many of you
as have been baptized into Chrift, have put on
Chrift, &c.

6. It does not appear from the infpired nar-
rative (however probable from inferential reafon-
ing) that any but John himfclf was engaged as
operator in his baptifm; whereas Chrift himfelf
baptized none, but his difciples by his authority
and in his name. John iv. 2.

§ II. Some have fuppofed another diftindion
between the baptifm of John and that of Chrift,
viz. ']'hat the latter had an immediate reference
to the Holy Spirit^ requiring of the baptized
faith in him as a divine Perfon, and an expec-
tation of his promifed influence; that the former
had no refpe<5t at all to that divine Perfon, nor
fuppofed any information concerning hira ; in
proof of which they urge, A<Sls xix. 2.— That
Chriftian baptifm has an immediate relation to
the promife of the Spirit exhibited in the
gofpel difpenfation, I grant and maintain, but
that any baptized by John (or even his dif-
ciples) fhould be fo grofsly ignorant as not to
know any thing about the Holy Ghoft, or never

to

Ch. 2. Dejign of "B apt I fin, II7

to have heard of him, is highly Improbable.
There is nothing upon the fubjcifl more exprefsly
and emphatically noticed by the evangelifts, than
that John direded thofe whom he baptized to
Chrift, as one who would baptize with the Holy
Ghoji and with fire. It appears probable, there-
fore, the difciples at Ephefus meant by their
anfwer, That they had not been informed that
the Holy Ghoft, in his miraculous influence, had
been a<Sua!ly conferred on any of the difciples
of John or of the Mefllah as yet. As if they
had faid, We have not fo much • as heard
whether there be any Holy Ghoft, miraculoufly
communicated, much lefs have been made par-
takers of the fame.— If this be not the import
of their ftrange anfwer, what muft we infer?
Were they baptized by John in their infancy^
about thirty years before? Were they children of
parents who were fo ignorant or fo carelefs as
not to inform them of this very important part of
John's miniftry? Could they be baptized by this
popular reformer, or have any connexion with
thofe whom he difcipled, and not be informed of
that extraordinary fa6t, the defcent of the Holy
Ghoft upon Jefus at his baptifm? And was not
the appellation familiar to John and his fol-
lowers? Whether we confider thefe twelve men
as natives of Ephefus or foreigners, as Jews or
converted Gentiles, whether baptized with their
parents in infancy, or when adults; attending
the one interpretation there remains infuperable

difficulties,

liS Of the Nature and Ch. 2.

difFiculties, according to the other none at all.
See A£ts x. 37, 38.

§ 12. The baptifiii of John, therefore, was a
rite appertaining to the legal difpenfation, infti-
tuted by God the Father for the ufe of the
Jews alone, for a fhort time, to prepare them
for the kingdom of the Mefllah then approach-
ing, as by an extraordinary general purification*,
attended .with fuitable inftrudions and exhorta-
tions to the people, and performed by John
himfelf. — And Chriftian baptifm, as far as it
has been confidered, is an evangelical rite, infti-
tuted by Chrift, the Son of God, for the ufe
of Jews and Gentiles, to the end of time, to be
adminiftered in the name of the Lord Jefus
Chrift, or, more fully and properly, in the name
of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft, performed
by Chrift's difciples.

Thus John's miniftry and baptifm were, in
a manner, the voice of the Father crying by
him in the wildernefs to prepare the thoufands
of Ifrael for a fuitable reception of his divine

Son.

>»^ John's baptirm is to be confidered as one of thofe " divers
wafljiings," in ufe among the Jews on many occafions; for he did
not attempt to make any alterations in the Jewifli religion as
fettled by the Mofaic law, ary more than to ereft a new dif-
penfation. And as thefe wa/hings were intended not only for
" the purifying of the flefli," but to be figns and fymbo^s of
moral purity ; fo the rite of baptifm was, in this view, very
fuitable to the doftrine of repentance, which John preached,
JE^MNGs's Jnvip Antiquities, B. I. chap. iii. Art Profelytes.
— And the fame Author concludes, from a paflage in Jofepbus,
that the latter makes John's baptifm to be of the nature of the
jewifh purifications or ceremonial wafliings.

Ch. 2. Defign of Baptifm. 119

Son. Behold the Lamb of God! Let your
attention be drawn from all legal facrifices, as
about to ceafe; and let it be direded to him
m whom all the law and the prophets have their
accomplifhment, and who is fliortly, in a won-
derful manner, to bear away the fm of the
world! — And lo, a voice from heaven, faying.
This is my beloved Son, in whom I am

WELL VhE\sEi}\ — Hear ye him. But the

Chriftian baptifm is the inftitution of the Son,
proclaiming the neceflity, and direding to the in-
fluences of the divine Spirit; and thefe influ-
ences poured upon the difciples of Jefus is
the baptifm of the Spirit. And thus we are
led with wonder and gratitude to contemplate
the love and provident care of the Father,, the
mediation and grace of the Son^ arid the effica-
cious and everlafting operations of the Ho/y Ghoft,
Thefe three are onej and they concur in bear-
ing record to the truth and glory of the bleffed
gofpel. See I Johji v. 6—8. And thofe who are
baptized in the name of Jefus, or the facred
Three-One, ftiould inceflantly breathe after the
fpirit of grace, to which the ordinance refers us,
Jefus, our divine Mafler and Lord, is able and
ready to baptize us with the Holy Ghoft and
with fire: not by conferring miraculous gifts,
but, what is infinitely more important to us
fanififying graces, whereby we may be purified
and made meet for his heavenly kingdom.

§ 13- (2) It muft be allowed, in the next
place, that between the baptifm of John and that

oi

120 Of the Nature and Ch. 2.

of Chrlfl, there is an agreement in fomc particu-
lars. And

1. They were both from heaven, or oi divine
inftitution. The one inftituted by the Father^
the other by the Son^ but both aUke by the
higheft authority.

2. There appears no mark of difference, in
the two inftitutions, as to the a^ion of baptiz-
ing; we may, therefore, conclude, for aught the
different accounts fay to the contrary, that it
was the fame. Pure water was the common
clement, but the nature and mode of the adion
itfelf will be confidered in its proper place.

3. The fame may be faid concerning the
qualifications of their refpedive fuhje6ls\ which
qualifications and the grounds thereof, will be
examined at large in the fubfequent part of this
treatife.

4. There was an agreement refpedling fome
of the hlejfings fign'ijied and exhibited; particularly
the remijfton of fins. Mark i. 4. Luke iii. 3. and
A£ls ii. 38.— They both referred to Chriji as
the fove reign difperfer of the influences of the
Spirit, the one indeed in a fenfe more remote^
and the other direSlly. See Mat. iii. ii. &c.
and A6ls ii. 38. &c.

5. Some obligations were alfo fimilar; efpecially
that of repentance. See Mat. iii. 11. Ads xxii.
16. — Alfo that they fhould believe on Chriji »
A6ts xix. 3 — 5. and chap. viii. 37. — Both re-
quired a fuitable reformation of life and condud.

§ 14. I AM led by an attentive and impartial

furvey

Ch. 2. Defign of Baptifm. I2i

furvey of thofe facrcd paflages that have any re-
ference to the baptifmal rite, to confider it in
its mofl: general nature^ as " the inftituted ordi-
*' nance of a regular admijfion into the vlfible king-
" dom of Chrift, or, as it is fometimes called, the
" kingdom of heaven j wherein the minijler fo-
" lemnly recognizes the fitnefs of the baptized to
" be a fubjecl of that kingdom."

I. It is the inftituted ordinance of a regular
admiffion. See A£ls ii. 41. Charity, and the
nature of the cafe, compel me to conclude, that
there are many whom we ftiould deem fubjecls
of Chrift's kingdom, even in its vifible form,
who were never admitted into it 7ninijhr,ially
by baptifm. Among whom we may reckon at
leaft the promiftng (not to fay the infant) off--
fpring of Antipsedobaptifts; many well meaning
tho' erroneous difciples of Fox and Barkley,
he. Nor ftiould this conceflion feem at all
ftrange to thofe who difclaim the pretended iti-
fallibility of a viftble church: But however wil-
ling we may be to embrace thefe in the arms of
chriftian charity, as fellow fubjccls of Chrift's
kingdom, yet as they were never initiated into
it by the folemn right of baptifm, we cannot
confider them as regiihr fubjecls.

1. It is an ordinance of admiffion into the
Vlfible kingdom of Chrift. Compare Acts viii.
13- X. 47, 48. The Redeemer's kingdom is to
be confidered in two rcfpects; as to \U fpiriiiud
form, and its external odmlnijlration. Many, 110
G doubt.

122 Of the Nature a»d Ch. 2.

doubt, belong to the former^ who have no re-
gular conne6lion with the lattery and many, it
is equally certain, are introduced to the Meffi-
ah's kingdom thro' the baptifmal ceremony, (even
in adult age,) who are not the fubjedts of his
fpiritual government. It is highly probable this
was the cafe with great numbers of difciples who
followed Chrift but for a feafon, and then forfook
him ; we might alfo inftance in Judas, Simon the
forcerer, &c. And many will fay at laft. We have
eaten and drunk in thy prefence, who yet will
be difowned. However regular the admiflion,
and however unimpeachable the external allegi-
ance of fome perfons, they may be, notwith-
(landing, eflentially deficient in a fpiritual view,
and be at laft tranflated into the kingdom of'
darknefs,

3. It is a folemn recognition of the fitnefs of
the baptized to be a fubjecSl of that kingdom.
See Mat. xxviii. 19. The qualifications of the fub-
jeds muft be of a moral nature, as before fhewn,
and baptifm does not produce thefe but fuppofe
them. So far is it, therefore, from faving a
foul, ex opere opcrato, that it does not even con-
flitttte a vifible fubje£l or member, but only re-
cognize one; and fo far from making the bap-
tired a child of God, a member of Chrift, and
an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven, in the
proper fenfe of thefe terms, that it is only decla-
rative of his fitnefs to be a fubjed: of the ex-
ternal adminiftration of that kingdom. Ads
yiii. 13.

4. The

Ch. 2. Defign of Baptlf?n. 123

4. The perfon whofe right it is to determine
this fitnefs is the minijier who does folemnly
recognize it. See Mat. xxviii. 19. Whatever extra-
vagant notions have obtained refpecling the power
of the keys, in admitting into the kingdom of
heaven or (hutting out of it, there is, however,
a found fenfe in which this power is affigned
to minifters. They are the appointed guardians
of the inftitution, and have a negative voice in
oppofition to all claims. If they abufe this pow-
er, as fallible perfons may, to their own Mafler
they ftand or fall. Their Sovereign and Judge
is at hand.

§ 15. (i) Let us next inquire, by fcripture
evidence, into the things reprefented by this fig-
nificant rite. Paflages of information relating to
this particular are very numerous j but if I mif-
take not, there is not one but is naturally redu-
cible to thefe two heads, viz. hlejfings exhibited
by it, and obligations refulting from it. I ftiall
begin with the former.

I. One of the important bleflings exhibited in
the ordinance of chriftian baptifm, as in a bright
4^ mirror, is the remijjion of fins. A(5ls ii. 38. In
this, as obferved before, the baptifm of Chrift
agreed with that of John, and I may add, with
the divers baptifms under the law (Heb. ix. 10.)
Indeed it is not eafy to conceive how there
could be a difpenfation of grace, or exhibition
of mercy to fallen man, in any period of time,
without including this blelRng as an efjmtial
part of it.

G 2 2. It

124 Of the Nature and Ch. 2.

2. It exhibits falvation thro' Chriji. Mark
xvi. i6. I Pet. iii. 2i. The difplay oi fahatioriy
fimply confidered, is not peculiar to the chrirtian
ceconomy, more than the remiflion of fins; but
the peculiarity of the one and the other blefling
under the gofpel difpenfation is, that they are
propofed thro' the mediation and atonement of
the MelTiah aSlually come. Now, in this laft moft
perfect and unfhaken eftabhfhment of rehgion,
the initiatory rite of it, baptifm, exhibits falva-
tion and life eternal to its highly favoured fub-
jedls, as not only procured by the merits^ but alfo
conferred by the hands of its divine Founder.

3. In chriftian baptifm is exhibited un'ioyi and
commuvion with Chrift and with his body the
church. I Cor. xii. 13. Pom. vi. 3, 4, &c.
Col. ii. II — 13. Under every oeconomical pub-
lication of mercy to the apoflate race of Adam,
cofmnunion with God was a privilege fmgularly
important. This Enoch, Noah, Abraham, and
indeed all the faithful, enjoyed in every age, more
or lefs ; and the fubjeds of thofe difpenfations,
refpe£tively, were favoured with the exhibition of
it. But it is our diftinguiflied lot, as fubjeils
(jf the gofpel kingdom, to have communion
with Jehovah as our God and Father in Chrijf^
with whofe meritorious fufFerings and perfedi
righteoufnefs he is well pleafed, difplayed to us
in the moft explicit and endearing terms, and
particularly in the fignificant inftitution of bap-
tifm. But conwiunion with Chriji the Son of

God,

Ch. 2. Deftgn of Bapt'ifm. 125

God, is of a nature ftill more difcriminating.
For this fuppofes not only an accefs to him for
fpiritual bleflings, and a reception out of his
fulnefs of a liberal fupply, but alfo a twofold
union; the one federal^ the other myjiical. He
exhibits himfeJf, therefore, as a complete covenant
head, to his vifible church, and therewith ,a cor-
refpondent communion; and in virtue of which
general exhibition, a foundation of hope and en-
couragement is adminiftered to all without ex-
ception. And whenever the ordinance of baptifm
is duly adminifkered, this glorious truth is repre-
fented and fignified. Chrift is alfo a head of
infuience; this truth, equally glorious and impor-
tant, he alfo exhibits in the fame general way j
wherever the gofpel and- its ordinances come,
a proclamation is made, that Chrift is the head
of influence, that there is a moft precious en-
dearing communion between him and his people,
that he regards them in point of nearnefs and tender
love, members of his hody^ of his fe/J), and of his
bones*. And as Chrift is thus the head, all quick-
ened by his vital influence, are members in par-
ticular. Hence arifes the communion of faints.
For as the body is one, and hath many me?nbers,
and all the members of that one body^ being many^
are one body \ fo alfo is Chrijl and his Church ;
For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body.
See alfo i John i. 3.

4. It exhibits Chrift as our fpiritual covering

and complete righteoufnefs . Gal. iii. 27. Re-

G 3 markable

• Eph. V. 30.

126 Of the Nature and Ch. 2.

markable. to this purpofe are the words of Mr.
Locke — *' So that to God, now looking upon
" them, there appears nothing but Chrift. They
*' are as it were covered all over with him, as
" a man is with the clothes he hath put on.
" And hence he fays in the next verfe, that
" they are all one in Chrift Jefus, as if there
" were but that one perfon f ." In every in-
ftance of baptizing into Chrift, an exhibition is
made of him in this illuftrious view: He is
fet forth a propitiation. He is difplayed as a fun
and ftiield, a robe of righteoufnefs to cover our
naked fouls, and a garment of praife as a pre-
fervative from forrow. That the zuoman fiiould
be clothed with the Sun, the church enrobed with
the Lord her righteoufnefs, was efteemed a great
wonder in heavenly and {hould be marvellous in
cur fight.

§ 1 6. 5. In baptifm is eminently exhibited
the doivn-pouring of the Holy Spirit. To this
John bore conftant witnefs, Mat. iii. 11. Mark
i. 8. Luke iii. 16. John i. 33. — And this our
Lord confirmed, A(5ls i. 5. — This, moreover,
Peter repeats, and further authenticates for the
information and encouragement of the Gentiles,
Ads ii, 38, 39. — Thus do the ancient promifes
and prophecies run refpedling tliefe divine influ-
ences, Prov. i. 23. Turn ye at my reproof,
behold I will pour out my Spirit \x\\\o you.— Ifa.
xliv. 3. I will pour out my Spirit upon thy feed.
—Joel ii. 28. And it ftiall come to pafs after-
ward

•f Paraph, in loc, % RcT. xii. i«

Ch. 2. Deftgn of Baptlfm. 127

ward, that I will pour out jny Spirit upoa all
-fle(h, &c. that is, I prefume, " Under the gof-
" pel difpenfation I will make an exhibition of
*' this invaluable privilege to Jews and Gentiles
" without diftinction." This prediction Peter
applies to the miraculous effufion of the Spirit
on the day of Pentecofl, Adls ii. 17, 18. But
that he does not exclude his cojmnon influences
in after times from being a part of the promife,
appears from v. 29. —To the fame purpofe is
the language of Zee. chap. xii. 10. And I will
pour upon the houfe of David, and upon the
inhabitants of Jerufalem, the Spirit of grace and
of fupplications, &c. Such a general promife
muft intend an ceconomical exhibition of the blef-
fuig; as is evident from the apoftolick writings,
Heb. iv. 16. James i. 5. &c. And efpecially
from our Lord's declarations and condu6l, Luke
ii. 13. John vii. 37 — 39. — Under former dif-
penfations God granted to his people his Koly
Spirit ; when he was comparatively but as the
dciu unto Ifrael, or the fnall rai?i on the tender
herb ; but now he is poured on the Gentile?,
and ^ed abundantly, not only thro' the mediation,
but alfo by the a6lual communications of Jefus
Chrifl: our Lord, Tit. iii. 6. Acts ii. 33.
X. 45. John i. 33.

6. Regeneration, or the quickening influ-
ence of the divine Spirit on a fmful foul, is
another blefling exhibited in the baptifmal rite.
John iii. 5. Tit. iii. 5. From the evident refe-
reace baptifin has to this effect of the Spirit on
G 4 tlie

128 Of the Nature and Ch. 2.

the fouls of the redeemed, the ancient Fathers
termed the ordinance itfelf, naXiyHvEcria, regejiera-
iion. And others have obferved a ftriking ana-
logy between the baptifir.al element, and the
regenerating ef&cacy of the Spirit. " IFater is
" the principle of very many livi'ig thif?gs^ and
*' in their creation the Spirit brooded on the
*' waters. Gen. i. 3. The earth produces fcarce
" any thing that has life, either of the vegetable
" or reptile kind, unlefs it be impregnated with
" water, Pfalm Ixv. 10. The very generation of
" the human foetus is faid to be from tvater,
*' Ifa. xlviii. i. Pfalm Ixviii. 27. Thus in like
*' manner, the blood and Spirit of Chrill, as the
" niyftical water, are the principles of our re-
" generation and new creation. John iii. 5. and
" as that IS Jig nijied by the water of baptifm, fo bap-
" tifm itfelf is called, Tit. iii. 5. The waging of
" regeneration, and renewing of the Holy GhoJ}'^.
7. Sanctification, or the cleanfing efFe6l
of the Spirit on a polluted foul, is a mercy very
figniticantly reprcfented, and gracioufly exhibited
in baptifm. i Cor. vi. 11. Ephef. v. 26. The
wafping away the filth of the fejh, as Peter (1 Ep.
chap. iii. 21.) calls baptifm, is not only an apt and
expreflive fgn of the Spirit's purifying influence,
but alfo a divinely appointed mirror, if I may fo ex-
prefs myfelf, in which God exhibits the bleffing to
all thus regularly enrolled among the fubje61s of his
kingdom, in the moil confpicuous manner. This
remark is equally applicable to all the other par-
ticulars

• Witfii Oecon. Fceto. Lib, ir. Cap. xvi. § 24,

Ch. 2. L>efign of Bapttfm. 129-

ticulars before mentioned as to this of fandifica-
tion. And it is a diftindlion I could wilh the
reader fully to enter into, being of no fmall mo-
ment in this debate, as will appear hereafter.

§ 17. 8. What crowns all the other blef-
fmgs, and in which indeed they are all virtually
included, is man's chief and all-sufficient
good; and this is what baptifm exhibits in a
very exprefs and glorious manner, Mat. xxviii,
29. — The ever adorable and blefled God, Father,
Son, and Holy Ghoft, ufes and dignifies this
ordinance for the purpofe of dlfplaying his won-
derful condefcenfion and grace to every fubjeft,
introduced thro' this avenue iiito the vifible
chriftian kingdom, thereby explicitly teftifying,
as of old to Abraham, that he is God all-
sufficient. He declares himfelf a merciful
and loving Father-^ an almighty and gracious
Redeerner, and moft holy San£iifier. But it is a
confideratioa peculiarly worthy of our regard,
that herein he does not merely declare what he
is in himfelf, but what he is in relation to guilty
helplefs finners. To thofe who have efcaped the
corruption that is in the world thro' luft, or
have been regularly entered as the fubje^ls of
the Redeemer's kingdom, are exhibited exceeding
great and precious promifes, that by thefe they
might be partakers of a divine nature. 2 Pet.
i. iv. — BleJJed is the people^ comparatively fo at
any rate, whofe God is the Lord, who are autho-
rized and encouraged to approach Jehovah as
the objedt of their worlhip, truft and confidence;
G 5 and

130 Of the Nature ani Ch. 2,

and bleffed in a manner flill more emphatlcal if
their hearts, however corrupt by nature, are affi-
milated by grace to his moral image. Pfa. xxxiii.
12. clxiv. 15. — It is further obfervable, that
the unworthinefs, yea the moral unfitnefs of the
fubje(5t, does not eclipfe this glorious truth; for
as the heavenly Father maketh his fun to rife
on the evil and on the good, and fendeth rain
on the juft and on the unjuft, fo the ceconomical
exhibition of himfelf, under the moft illuftrious
and endearing characters, is to every fubjedl of
his gofpel kingdom without exception. What-
ever reception his mercy meets with among
men, he abideth faithful y he cannot deny himfelf
See 2 Tim. ii. 11 — 14. And he ftill Jhinethy
even in darknefs^ tho* the darknefs comprehendeth
him not. John i. 4, &c. — This hath been the
common and exalted privilege of the fubjeds of
every difpenfation of true religion that ever was
in the world, viz. That Jehovah gracioufly
prcpofed himfelf to them as their chief good.
But this propofaly or revealed exhibition, of the
Great Supreme made by himfelf to thofe
whom his providence fingled out, tho' it feems
the principal and moft diftinguiihing feature of
each oeconomy, from the firft to the fecond
Adam, hath yet been charadlerized by different
degrees of explicitnefs. What the wife man fays
of the path of the juft, that it flnnes 7nore and
more to the perfeil day^ is peculiarly applicable to
the gradual openings of the difpenfations of
grace. The fall of Adam brought upon his

pofterity

Ch. 2. Defign of Baptifm, 131

pofterity a night of moral darknefs, uncertainty,
and juftly apprehended danger; while additional
difcoveries were made of the divine will, and
numerous witnefTes raifed to promulgate the cer-
tainty and approach of greater and better blef-
lingsi till, at length, the Sun of righteous-
ness appeared to illuminate the hemifphere of
the gofpel church, as a prelude to a ftate of
unclouded and immortal glory. By the gofpel
life and immortality are brought to light, and
placed in full view. What was hidden from
ages and generations is now made manifeft to
the faints; and they are encouraged, with open
face, to behold the glory of the Lord. O glo-
rious privilege! Blefled are the eyes that fee, and
the ears that hear thefe things! The meaneft
chriftian hath no need to envy the dignity of
kings, or the honour of prophets, that died with-
out this fight. And let not the reader forget,
that the very exhibition made in baptifm of
fuch blefllngs, is an important privilege.

§ 18. (2) The things fignified in baptifm are
either blejfmgs or obligations , we have confidered
the former, and now proceed to the latter, which
we (hall find to be great and important. And

I. From chriftian baptifm refults the obliga-
tion of repentance. A£ls xxii. 16. Every dif-
play of divine goodnefs obliges a finful creature
to repent, (Rom. ii. 4.) but an exhibition of
mercy and forgivenefs increafes the obligation.
And as in baptifm are held forth the greatefl
mercies and bleflings, it muft proportionably oblige
G 6 to

132 Of the Nature and Ch. 2.

to a difpofition correfponding thereto. Now tho'
re7niJfion offtns be reprefented in fcripture as general-
ly granted upon repentance, (A6ls iii. 19,) it does
not follow that there is no remiffion granted with-
out it ; but this is clear, that actual impenitence
perfifled in, excludes remiffion. And thofe who are
the fubjecSls of forgivenefs, but under a natural
incapacity to repent, may be faid, notwithftand-
ing, to be under obligation in this fenfe, viz.
That the principle of holinefs and rectitude, from
which evangelical repentance muft proceed, is
what every child of Adam is obliged to, or ought
to poflefs. And the natural capacity itfelf is
under an abfolute obligation to fubferve the dic-
tates of that principle.

2, From baptifm arifes the obligation to clc"
Jiroy the body of Jin, Rom. vi. 3, 4, &c. That
the pafTage now quoted refers to the obliga-
'fioN refulting from baptifm, to renounce^ to
crucify^ to dejlroy and bury fin, is evident from
the connedtion. The apoflle had been (hewing
that a finner's jujlification was obtained freely by
the righteoufnefs of Chrift imputed, and fo the
privilege not founded on any deeds of the law,
or any good quality whatever in the perfon juf-
tiiied; no efforts or worthinefs of the guilty fm-
ner could ever deliver him from the condemna-
tion of fm. This repreferrtation of the fubjedl
gave rife to an Antinomian objeftion, which the
apoftle firfl rejecls with abhorrence, and then
particularly refutes. And this he does by Ihew-
ing that holinefi, as well as righteoufnefs, is an

effential

Ch. 2. Lef.gn of Baptifm. 133

eflential part of the chriftian chara£ler; that fin

muft be fubdued as well as pardoned; and that as

our righteoufnefs was obtained by the perfe£l

work of Chrift, fo our fani^ification is efFeded

by virtue of a vital union with him. Now this

myftical, vital, fpiritual union is one of the great

bleflings exhibited in baptifm ; and from it re-

fult the moft important obligations. Such a union

requires particularly, that we (hould concur with

the grand defigns of Chrift as the Saviour of his

people. In regard to fw^ it was his dejign to

refill it in every inftance, to renounce it in every

ftiape, to nail it to his crofs, and fo to deftroy

and bury it, that neither himfelf nor his redeemed

people fhould be in any refpe^St voluntary fub-

jeds of fin's power; he of its imputative force,

they of its enflaving and defiling dominion. The

perfon who is baptized uito this union with

Chrift, (and fo is every one that is baptized at

all) is, from the very notion of fuch a union,

under an obligation of univerfal conformity to

this important defign. Chrift is the vine, his

difciples and" fubjects are the branches. As

divine juftice dealt with fin in Chrift the furety,

fo ought we to deal with it in ourfelves. In him

it was condemned, crucified, utterly deftroyed and

buried ; our union with Chrift reprefented by

baptifm obliges to a cordial concurrence in the

fame defign. If juftice fpared fin in Chrift, fa'

may we in ourfelves, otherwife not. If juftice

avenged itfelf on fin in our reprefentative and

head, fo {hould we in ourfelves. Chrift, in his

unparalleled.

^34 Q/* ^^^ Mature and Ch. 2.

unparalleled condefcenfion, and by virtue of his
federal engagement, became fo united to our
imputed fin, that he and fin mull: live or die
together. If he had not died, fin had not died.
If he had not been buried, fin could not be buried.
Then the union was difiblved, when both were
dead and buried. But the fame glorious power
that was pleafed to bruife, to fmite, to put him
to grief, and facrifice him to death, when united
to fin; did, when he became difengaged from
it, raife him up to immortal life and glory. Nor
can our new man be raifed, till our old man
be dead and buried. Therefore, infl:ead of che-
riftiing and animating in ourfelves the monfier
(in, for the eternal deftrudion and burial of
which Chrift was crucified and buried, we are
under the ftrongeft obligation to concur with his
defign, to bring it to a ftate of death and keep
it there, putting our foot as it were on its hor-
rid neck whenever it attempts to rife. And as
Chrift, the tree of life, was taken from the trees
of the wood, and after his death planted in the
earth, that, freed from fin, he might grow and
flourifh with immortal vigour; fo we ought to
plant ourfelves with Chrift, that our corrupt
nature may be left with his imputed fin and
weaknefs, and our fpiritual nature may grow up
^with him into a fimilar fruitfulnefs, vigour and
glory. Or, as a graft cannot participate of the
fap, life and fruitfulnefs of another tree except
it be firft fevered from its old ftock, leaving it for
ever behind j fo we cannot partake of fpiritual life

and

Ch. 2. Defign of Baptifm. 135

and fruitfulnefs from Chrift, but by being fever-
ed and entirely difengaged from our fmful felves,
that we may grow up into him in all things.
The apoftle's fimilitude when treating of the
refurre6lion is not inapplicable to the fubje£t of
this myftical union. That which thou foweji is
not quickened except it die. All feeds, and fome
fpecies of plants, never fpring up into new life,
but by the death and corruption of at leaft a
part thereof. When the germcn fprouts forth,
the other part confumes away in the ground.
Thus as baptifm obliges to a concurrence with
the dejign of this union in general^ which is ex-
hibited in baptifm, fo particularly with that of
mortifying and dejiroying the body of Jin.

§ 19. 3. From baptifm refults the obligation
of newnefs of life and heavenly -mindednefs. Rom.
vi. 4, 8, II, 13, 19, &c. And this is peculi-
arly enforced by the apo/lie from the do£lrine of
vital union to Chrift; union of defign, union of
intereft; a certain onenefs of fpirit, of life, light,
and liberty. For as Chrift is rifen and afcended
to a ftate of triumph over fin and hell, a ftate
of refined pleafure, and an inexpreffible, ferene
delight, in fpiritual purity and the beaaty of
holinefs; fo every perfon baptized into Chrijl is
baptized into his life^ and lies under the ftrono--
eft obligations of being thus conformed to him.

4. From our baptifm arifes the obligation of
an inviolable attachment to Chriji as our fupreme
Mafter and Lord, i Cor. i. 13. Chrift is our
mafteri he demands of us to regard him as

fuch

136 Of the Nature and Ch. t.

fuch, and he alone is deferving of it: No one
elfe deferves to be called Mafter on earth. And
as none can itrvt two mafters of different and
oppofite intereftsj with the fame fidelity and af-
fe6lion; by baptifm, the right of a regular en-
trance into his family and fervice,. we are obliged
to be faithfully attached to him and his intereft
intirely. Chrill: is a King, and his church is a
kingdom (but not of this world) and every fub-
jecSt of this kingdom is in loyal duty bound to
adhere to Chrift as the lawful and infinitely
worthy Sovereign.

5. An obligation is laid on the baptized per-
fon to feek and maintain the atifiuer of a good
confcience towards God. i Pet. iii. 21. God's
requifitions and demands from us are very great
and awful. As a holy and juil God, he claims
perfection of ftate and obedience from the crea^
ture; nothing fiiort of perfe61ion will God ac-
cept, or the confcience approve of. How, then,
can a finner make a confident appeal to God,
whea anfwering his demands as a judge, or
claiming the peculiar bleffings of a God in co-
venant? What provifion is made to calm the
ftirges of the mind ? What can diffipate the
gloom of adverfe providences, or fupport the
foul, confcious of much frailty and imperfedion,
in the apprehenfions of approaching death ? — A
confcioufnefs of being united to Chrift as the rifen
Saviour. As united to him we are jujiified by
his rejurre£iion j and faved by his conilant inter-
ceffion, his heavenly and immortal life. In bap-
tifm

Cli. 2. Defign of Bciptijhi. 137

tifm, indeed, are reprefeiited and exhibited God's
all-fufficiency, his matchlefs greatnefs and gocd-
nefs, the boundlefs and unfathomable riches ot
his grace; and a cordial, confcious embracing ot
thefe bleflings muft fatisfy confcience and pro-
duce a ferene content in the mind. But what
the confcience has to do with, in the paflage
above cited, i?, I prefume, more immediately, the
claim of divine juftice and holinefs. The rcfur-
reSlisn of Chrifi is, then, the great evuhnce we
have that juftice is fatistied with his finiihed
work, and fo it becomes an objecSlive ground or"
confidence to the confcience (otherwife temfied
v/ith guilt and condemnation) in its reply to the
divine claims. And being confcious of a vital
union with Chrift, the confideration of his viilo-
rious refurreclion and triumphant afcenfion lays
the foundation of holy joy and triumph. But
it is a remark not a little important, that here
the remedy is proportioned to the difeafe; the
anfvver of a good confcience is to the believer^
adequate to the clamours of an evil confcience to
the unbeliever.

§ 20. 6. From baptifm refults the obligation
ot filling up (honourably no doubt) the place
of departed chrifiians. Rom. xv. 29 AVhat
Solomon remarks of the generations of the
world, of mankind, thro' the fuccelfiYC revolu-
tions of time, is applicable to the cliurch of
God in the world. One generation p<^ffeth aiuny,
and another generation co?7ieth *. All alike make

their
* Ecdef. i. 4«

#

^3^ O/" //;^ NatM'e and Ch. 2.

their exit thro' the gate of death; for it is ap-
pointed for all men once to die, by an irreverfible
decree. How, then, is the depopulated kingdom
of Chrift to be recruited? When perfecution
with its mercilefs attendants, and the wafting
meffengers of death, render the church like a
defolate ifland, how is it to be colonized? By
conftant fupplies from the wide world. The
world is a common nurfery from whence the
church is planted; but the watering of baptifm
is not of itfelf fufficient to enfure the future
growth, verdure, and fruitfulnefs of the plants;
for in this plantation, the church vifible, every
plant which the heavenly Father planteth not
(of which there have always been awful inft;an-
ces) fhall be rooted up. Paul may plant and
Apollos may water, but God giveth the increafe.
But notvv'ithftanding this, minifters are commif-
fioned to tranfplant and to water, leaving the
event to God. But to fpeak without a figure,
it is evident, that v/hen any are brought into
the church regularly by baptifm, to fill up the
room of others, they are obligated to do it
honourably and ufefully; even as a member that
is chofen into any body corporate, or a foldier
to fill a place in a rank or regiment.

7. From the ordinance of baptifm arifes the
obligation of waiting for the -promife of the Spi-
rit. Ads ii. 38, 39. viii. 12—17. The gof-
pel difpenfation is eminently difdngulfhed from
all preceding it, by a rich difplay and commu-
nication of the influences of the Spirit, not only

ia

Ch. 2. Dejign of Baptifm, 139

in a miraculous way, but alfo as a SanSiiJier^
and efpecially as a Comforter^ to the church.
And as this is a blcffing of unfpeakable value,
and moft explicitly exhibited in chriftian bap-
tifm, every perfon to whom it hath been admi-
niftered is under the ftrongeft obligation to feek
and wait for all necelTary divine influences.
This is the unftion from the Holy One which
we all want ; and^ thro' the divine mercy, there
is in the inftitution of baptifm a foundation laid
for the moft importunate and unwearied appli-
cation for all needful fupplies thereof. We can
never be too ardent and importunate in our
defires and prayers for the illuminating, quicken-
ing, teaching, and transforming influences of the
Spirit, And this inceflant breathing of the foul
after the divine influences, is not only its intc-
reft and comfort when lb employed; but, in
confequence of baptifm, where the blefling, by
virtue of the divine appointment, is clearly fet
forth, it is what every fubjedl: is abfolutely obliged
to do. And as no one can be fo far replenifh-
ed as not to need further fupplies, the obliga-
tion muft be conftant, thro' every ftep of our
life.

§ 21. 8. Another obligation highly impor-
tant refulting from chriftian baptifm, js an abfo-
lute devotednefs to the grace and fovereign ivill
of God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
Mat. xxviii. 19. — Baptifm (ei; 6vo/x«) into the
name of Father, Son and Spirit, implies an obh-
gation,

(I) To

140 Of the Nature and Ch. 2.

(i) To receive this God, and him alone^ for
our God, as the objecfl of our worfliip, the fo-
vereign of our heart, and our everlafting portion;
to the abfolute difavowal and renunciation of all
competitors whatfoever.

(2) To receive him under the reprefentation
here given of himfelf, as Father, Son and Holy-
Spirit. That thefe three terms belong to God
only, and not the lirft to the true God, and
the other two to beings of an inferior claf?,
(and if at ail inferior^ they muft be infinitely fo)
feems evident from the mamier in which they
are connected; for from this nothing lefs can
be obfervcd than equality among them; and the
importance of this remark rifes dill higher when
we reflect, that the goodnefs of God, — his de-
teftation of idolatry,— the excellency of the gof-
pel above other religions, — and the exalted cha-
ra<51er of Jefus as the founder of it, — are necef-
iarily degraded if this be not the fail. For thus
to alTociate the terms. Father, Son, and Spirit,
in a folemn ordinance of religion, the very in-
troduSlory ordinance, on fuppofition that an infi-
nite difparity fubfifts between the objecSls they
refer to, appears like putting a dangerous ftum-
bling-block at the very porch of the chriftian
temple. But his true difciples have not fo learn-
ed Chrift; and wifdom is juftified of her child-
ren.

('3) Every baptized perfon is laid under
obligations of duty to Father, Son, and Spirit,

ref^e^ively

Ch. 2. Defign of Baptlfm, 141

refpeSlively^ according to the fcripture reprefenta-
tions of thefe divine Perfons, and their feveral
relations to him, whether abfolute or exhibited
only.

(4) Another obligation included in the form
of adminiflration is, cordially to embrace the in-
finite mercy, grace, and love of God, herein
exhibited. Every expreflion of benevolence and
favour from God, obliges the perfon to whom it
is directed, to anfwerable gratitude;, but no one
that hath been admitted, by baptifm, into the
number of Chrifl's regular fubjecSls, can fay that
he hath not had reprefented in his baptlfm un-
fpeakably great and glorious bleflings, and this
he may be as certain of as he can be of the
/t767 — THAT HE WAS BAPTizBD. Whether he
be certified of his baptifm by the evidence of
fi'fjfi', or competent human tejlltnony^ does not

alter the cafe; to be fure of the fa5i is to be
equally fure of the exhibited bleffing and the
correfpondent obligation.

(5) To be influenced, aiSluatcd, transformed,
direiSled and governed by that mediatorial grace
and mercy which is difplayed by the medium
of this ordinance. Tho' the divine mercy be
like a mofi delightful fun-fliine, in itfelf, yet
mankind are fo fi'iuated in the prefent flate as
not to be benefited by it but by reflecSliom
(See 2 Cor. iii. 18.) The face, or perfon of
Chrift, — the infpired records, — the ordinances
and inftitutions of the gofpcl, — and this initia-
tory rite in particular, do eminently anfwer this

important

142 Of the Nature and Ch. 2.

important end. And in proportion as this laft
does fo, the baptized perfon is obliged by it.

(6) To be abfolutely devoted to the fovereign
will of God; fo as to be at his command and
difpofal in every refpedl. As our Creator, Re-
deemer, and San6lifier, he hath an undoubted
right to us; all we are, all we have, and all
we do; which right being evidently reprefented,
and as it were refleded, by the ordinance, to
every fubjeft of it, obliges to a fuitable and
adequate devotednefs to his will.

§ 22. Having now confidered the bleflings
exhibited by baptifm, and the obligations refulting
from it, by an attentive regard to what the
New Teftament fays on the fubje*^, I proceed
to make fome remarks that feem to follow from
the whole as obvious corxlufions. And

(i) Whatever bleflings are, according to
the fcripture account, reprefented and exhibited by
baptifm, there are anfwerable obligations refult-
ing from them, tho' not particularly fpecified.
And this appears from the very nature and
fpring of moral obligation; for one perfon is
cbliged to another in proportion as he is indebted
to him, fo that to be under obligation to ano-
ther, with refpe£l to univerfal jujiice^ is the fame
as to be his debtor; and the nature and degree
ef this debt muft be afcertained by the compa-
rative worthinefs of the perfon to whom we are
indebted, in all thofe refpeils in which we fup-
pofe him to have a demand or claim upon us.
For inftance, it obedience be the debt, then it

fhould

Ch. 2. Deftgn of Baptifm. 143

fiiould be according to the worthinefs of the
comparative authority requiring it; if the debt
be gratitude^ it ftiould be according to the wor-
thinefs of the benefits, or exprelTed benevolence,
of the party benefiting, compared with the wor-
thinefs or unworthinefs of the party benefited;
and if the debt be love or benevolence, it fhould
be according to the worthinefs or excellence of
the perfon himfelf, which worthinefs confifts in
the joint confideration of greatnefs and goodnefs.
Let us apply thefe reflexions to the prefent cafe.
God is infinitely great, and infinitely goodj
hence every intelligent being is under infinite
obligation to love him^ becaufe he is infinitely
excellent and worthy, yea, is worthinefs itfelf in
every poffible refpe6l. — God's benefits to man
are emanations from his matchlefs benevolence,
and the greatnefs of thofe benefits exhibited in
the gofpel difpenfation, or, which is the fame
thing, in its initiatory rite, are of unparalleled
excellence and importance. Behold, fays an in-
fpired Apoflle, what manner of love the Father
hath beftowed on us! And, fays another, To us
are given exceeding great and precious promifes.
The riches of Chrift are unfearchable riches;
then v/hat mufl be the gift of Chrifl himfelf I
And what muft be the miffion of the Divine
Comforter! What a worthinefs of favour is
here, and what a call to gratitude! Again, God's
authority is fupreme, and its worthinefs is infinite ;
and, as every exhibition of mercy and favour
defigned for finners, and addreffed to them as

fuch^

144 Of the Nature and Ch. 2.

fuch^ dalms from them a fuitable and corref-
ponding tribute of gratitude, and the obligation
or debt rifes and multiplies as the favour does,
it follows, that the mofl free and fovereign grace
of the gofpel muft, in this refpecl, have all the
force, influence and authority of a law upon all
to v/hom it is direded. All tlie exhibitions of
gofpel blefTings, therefore, have an authoritative
and binding power, (for this is neceffarily im-
plied in tlie very idea of obligation) even when
they are not delivered in a commanding formj
but when a difregard to gofpel blefTmgs is de-
clared^ in the moil exprefs terms, to be difpleaf-
ing to God and deflrucElive to ourfelves ; when
we are pofitively told, that a non-compliance with
the propofals of mercy is the fame infult as to
charge the God of truth with itnpious falfhood.^
(i John V. 10.) the authority v/ith which gof-
pel grace appears invefted is infinitely important.
From thefe confiderations it appears, that where-
ever we meet with a benelit or blefling exhibited
in baptifm, we may as fafely conclude that an
anj'werohk obligation refults therefrom, as if that
obli2;ation were mentioned in form. — Another
conclufion, which is in a manner the converfe
of that now mentioned, is the following, viz.
That whatever obligations we find fpecified in .
the New I'eflament as adually conneiSled with
baptifm, or derived from it, we may- be fure
that the foundation of that obligation is laid in
the exhibition of anfwerahle benefits^ tho' not
exprefsly mentioned in that vie\^'.

§ 23.

Ch. 2. Deftgn of Baptifm. 1 45

§ 23. (2.) If the above reprefentatlon of the
nature and defign of this ordinance be juft,
it may contribute to vindicate the right ufe of
two very important terms, commonly employed
in the controverfy, liable to abufe, and, may I
not add, very feldom explained in a conll/lent
manner ? I mean the terms seal and cove-
nant. Hardly any thing more common in ex-
plaining the nature of baptifm than fome fuch
phrafe as this — " It is a fign and fed of the
gofpel covenant" : and the authority ufually ura;-
ed in favour of this application of the word fal^
is vfhat the Apoftle fays touching circumcifion,
Rom. iv. II. And he received the Jign of circum-
cifion^ a seal of the righieoufnefs of the faith which
be had yet being uucircumcifed. Waving a parti-
cular difcufTion of the many ftrange things
this notable paflage has been made to fpeak,
and the abfurd deductions following thereupon ;
I would obferve, that the chief, if not the on-
ly, fource of thefe miftakes, has been owina to
the want of a proper attention to the different
ufes of seals among the ancients, in connedlion
with the different acceptations of the term co-
venant.

The word covenant , as I fhall fhew more
fully afterward, frequently intends, in the holy
fcriptures, a gracious decree^ the exhibition of a
free promife, or the like, direded for the ufe of
any; and in the above text the exhibited llef-
fmg is the righteoufncfs of faith. This is the di*.
vine proclamation, full of mercy and grace, that
H righteoufncfs

146 Of the Nature and Ch. 2.

righteoufnefs and eternal life (hould be received
by faitb^ as that is oppofed to work and merit ;
■which by no means implies, that the blefling is
never communicated to _any of the human race
but in confequence of a certain acSl of the mind
called believing. Prevailing unbelief, it is true, ex-
cludes all adual int^reft in the contents of the
gracious charter ; as it indicates a want of uni-
on with the divine Saviour, which is the grand
foundation of our being accepted as righteous :
and true beliefs for a fimilar reafon, entitles to
that righteoufnefs which faith regards. But faitlp,
or believing, as an a/^ of the mind, is not the
fundamental and effential bond of union ; for in
that refpeil the fpirit of Chrift, whereby the
fallen fmner is apprehended, is the bond; and
which may fubfift without the exiftence of any
fuch aft, as all muft allow who admit that it
appears agreeable to the divine conftitution to
impute righteoufnefs to infants, who have nei-
ther works nor faith. This is fufficient to fhew"
that the righteoufnefs exhibited and reckoned to
Abraham, which was the infinite merit of the
divine Interpofer, may have its complete effeft on
fome of the human race, without any adual re-
ftipulation on their part : tho' at the fame time,
it lays them under obligations of a fuitable return,
whether defigned for life or death. And if fo,
here is a covenant, (if we intend thereby an ap~
plication of mercy and righteoufnefs) without
any fealing, or fo much as confent'mg^ on the
part of the perfon benefited.

Among

Ch. 2. Defign of Baptifm. ' 147

Among the ancients, as well as the mo-
derns, the ufe of seals was various ; and by
no means confined to contrails^ or agreements be-
tween two or more parties. An act, patent, or
charter, &c. of a monarch is fealed, as well as a
mutual contradl. Seals were affixed to letters and
decrees. I Kings xxi. 8. Efth. ill. 12, 15. Chap.
viii. 8, 10. &c. &c. In fiiort, merchants were
wont to put a feal or mark (ufually on a thin
piece of lead, not wax) on their commodities ;
different things were fealed for fecurity againft
intrufion and deceit, as bags, chefts, doors, &c.
Thus, for inftance, God fays (Deut. xxxii. 34.)
Is not this laid up in ftore with me, and fealed
up among my treafures f And thus Job fays,
(Chap. xiv. 17.) My tranfgreflion is fakd up
in a bag. When Daniel was caft into the lions*
den, a ftone was brought, and laid upon the
mouth of the den, and the king fealed it with
his own fignet; (Dan. vi. 17.) and the ftone on
our Lord's fepulchre was fealed, (Mat. xxvii.

66.) When, therefore, the apollle ftiles cir-

cumcifion a fcal of the righteoufnefs of faith, it
feems an unwarrantable liberty to infer, that the
feal here referred to muft neceffarily be that of
a reftipulator in acceding to the terms of a con-
traiH: ; as if the faith of Abraham, or of his
defcendants, or of any other whofe faith ^ Jlwuld
he in uncircumcifion, gave exigence to circumci-
fion as a feal. Why not rather confider it, as
what the eternal King has thought fit to affix
H 2 to

lit-S Of the Nhture and Ch. 2.

to an an of grace ? What the inftrument to be
fealed contained, was an exhibition of righteoufnefs ;
and, for confirmation that this righteoufnefs was
recommended, as the only foundation of a fin-
ner's hope, and as an all-fufficient introduction
to eternal blifs, God appointed circumcifion to
ratify or feal it. This inftrument or covenant
contained glad tidings of great joy, which fhould
be firft to the houfe of Ifrael principally, and
afterwards to all nations \ it was the gofpel in
miniature. And the feal was to continue until
the feed (hould come ; when exprefs order fhould
be given for its abolition, to make way for
another. But as long as this ordinance conti-
nued in force, it exhibited^ not only to the fub-
jeft himfelf but to all who (hould obferve it,
whether male or female — nor only while the
ceremony was performed, but in every period of
life — the certainty of thefe glad tidings. If any
doubt arofe concerning either the covenant hlef-
ftngs or obligations reprefented, they were to have
recourfe to circumcifion, as the broad feal of
heaven ; whereby they might be certified, that
the former continued in full force and virtue,
by way of exhibition, for their ufe, whether
male or female j and that the latter were un-
avoidably incumbent on them.
§ 24. Let us now advert to what Mr. B. has
to fay on this fubjeCt. " If Dr. Lightfoot's
verfion of Rom. iv. 11. and his obfervation
upon It, be juft j there can be little reafon

for

Ch. 2. Defign of Baptifm. 149

for calling haptifm a feal of tb.e covenant^ on
account of circumcifion being denominated a Jcal
of righteouf72cfs. His tranllation of the text, and
part of his remark upon it, are as follow. " ylnd
he received the f.gn of circumclfio-n^ a fcal of the right-
eoiifnefs of the faith, which should HEREAFTER
BE in uncircumcifion. V/hich fnouhl be^ not which
had been. Not what had been to Abraham, as
yet uncircumcifed; but which fliould be to hii
feed uncircumcifed ; that is, to Gentiles that
fliould hereafter iniitate the failli of Abraha?n."
Which verfion and interpretation (adds Mr. B.)
are agreeable, fo far as I can perceive, both to
the fcope of the paffage and the letter of the
text. For the Apoftle does not reprefent cir-
cumciuon as a feal of righteoufnefs to the Jews,
in common ; but to Abraham, in particular.———
Or, if our brethren muft needs call it [baptifm]
a feal of the covenant, we defire to be inform-
ed, what fpirltual blejftng it afcertains, really afcer-
tains to infants, any more than to unbelieving
adults, who have at any time ' been baptized j
or, than circumcifion, to fimilar characters, un-
der the former osconomy? Millions of Jews
were circumcifed in their infancy, and numbers
©f Profelytes, who lived and died in I'ebellion
againft the government and grace of God. Si-
mon the forcerei', profgHing faith in Jefus Chrift,
though he had it not, was baptized by I'liilipi
and many, no doubt, in former and latter ages,
have been baptized on a fimilar profeflion, whofe
H 3 condudl

150 Of the Nature and Ch. 2.

conduil difgraced the . chriftian chara(5ter. Now,
muft we confider thefe, all thefe, as having had
the righteoiifnefs of faith ^ or the covenant of grace^
RATIFIED or SEALED to thetii ? Far be it!
Why, then, fliould baptifm be reprefented
at every turn, and without hefitation, as a
Jeal of the covenant, when applied to in-
fants?"! To this I will fubjoin the following
remarks from Dr. Stennett. " The praftice 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 prefeive to that
end, an authentic proof of the tranfaulion.— —
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 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 vv'hat I have principally to obferve is,
that it follows from this account of the ufage
of fealing, that intered in a covenant does not
in all inflances 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 whofe fignature there-
fore is not at all requifite. Children, for in-
ftance, frequently derive advantages from cove-
nants

•j- Pccdob. Exam, p, 313.

Ch. 2. Defign of Baptifm. 1 51

nants which, with all the authentic forms of
them, exifted long before they were born." f
And on Rom. iv. 11. he further remarks :
" Abraham believed in the promife of God re-
fpecting the Mefliah, and by voluntarily fuhmhting
to circumcifion in obedience to the divine com-
mand, he gave clear evidence of his faith ; and
fo circumcifion became, in regard of hlm^ a feal
or authentic proof of his juftihcation ; it was a
feal affixed by Abraham himfelf to the cove-,
nant, and an atteftation, on the part of God,
to his intereft in the blefQngs ©f it. And in
the fame light it miglit be confideixd in regaid
of others^ who fubmitted to it in riper years,
and upon the convidtion of their judgment. It
was an exprelTion of their affent and confent
to the covenant, and fo a feal affixed by them
to it. And it was on the part ©f God (to
fpeaiic with reverence) a feal affixed by him
to the covenant, that is, a gracious afllirance,
with refpecSl: to thofe who thus in faith fubmit-
ted to it, that he would pardon, accept and

fave them. |1 It is eafy to fee that baptifm

cannot be a feal of the righteoufnefs of faith,
that is, of their julVitication, to infants, they not
having faith : nor can it be in regard of them a-
teft of new obedience, they not •voluntarily fuh-
mitting to it."— And again, " Circumcifion was
a taken of the covetiant between God and Abra-
ham, A pofitive arbitrary fign, inftituted by God
H 4 to

•f S'sAnfwerto A. p. 105, U pt 107,

, 152 Of the Nature and Ch. 2.

to bring to remembrance that tranfaftion, in the
fame manner as the bow in the heavens was
appointed by God, as a token of the irar.faSiion
between him and Noah.'' § Thus I have endea-
voured to give thefe gentlemen's obje6}ions and
reafons ajl the ftrength they admit of; nor have
I defignedJy evaded the force of any one cir-
cumllance; but forbear further quotations, to
avoid prolixity : conchiding, that if thefe pofiti-
ons are fairly and folidly refuted, as far as they
tend to oppofe Fcedobaptifc principles, this is
fufficient for my prefe.nt purpofe. I only ob-
ferve here previoufly, that if the reader will give
himfelf the trouble to confult and weigh im-
partially what I have faid in the laft fe£lion,
mcfl, if not all that is here advanced, is in ef-
fecSl anfwered or precluded. However, 1 fhall not
decline a m.ore particular examination of what
they urge.

§ 25. Whatever appearance of argument
there is in thefe quotations, againft the propriety
of calling circumcifion and baptifm in general,
that is, confidered merely as injlitutions, inde-
pendent of the genuine faith of the fubje£l,
feah of the covenant, is reducible to thefe po-

fitions. " Abraham's covenant was a con-

ira6i between God and Abraham, and as fuch
required a ?niitiial agi-eement of both parties. —
Mr. B. will have it, that circumcifion was not
a feal of righteoufnefs to the Jews in common ;

but
§ p. »09.

Ch'. 2: Defign of Eaptif7n. 153'

but to Abraham, in particular.. Dr. S. main-
tains that it was fo to all believing Jews ; but
both agree, that it was not a feal of righteouf-
nefs to Jewifh infants : and the common reafon
is, that they were not capable of ajfcnting or .
fubmitting to the contracSt. And on thefe ac-
counts baptifm is not a feal of righteoufnefs to
any infants, or even adults who are not true

believers." Here are feveral things taken for

granted which ought to have been firft proved.
And, firft, I maintain, it is not true that what
is called the Abrahamic covenant was a contrast
between God and Abraham ; as if it could not be
properly termed God's covenant to or with Abra-
ham, without the latter's believing conjent. For,

I. Nothing is more clear, than that the firft
publication of mercy to our fallen parents (Gen.
iii. 15.) was of the nature of tl free promife. We
may, perhaps, not improperly call it, The firft
edition of the covenant of grace that was ever
pubJiflied and revealed to man. Nor was it in
their power to alter its nature as a covenant.
Their not believing could- not have made the
faith of God of no efFeft. The revealed and ex-
hibited blefiing was God's covenant to man, or,
if you pleafe, with man, which amounts to the
fame thing in regard of God's tranfadions with
fmners, independent of his aflent and confent
to the terms of it. For God to publifli his
covenant to fmners, few or many, is one thing j
and for thefe to give it a cordial reception, is-
H 5 another

^54 Of the Nature and Ch. i.

another. Such a tranfadion, on the part of
God, may ftand on the moll abfolute founda-
tion J and if we believe not, he abideth faithful
and true to his declaration : but a believing con-
currence, or a difpofition fuited to fuch an exhi-
bited favour, is what proceeds from a very dif-
ferent difpenfation ; that of the Spirit of grace in
executing the hidden counfel of Heaven. — The
covenant of grace is one. In its original inter-
nal form, which comes under the notion of a
contrail or mutual agreement in the ftrideft
fenfe, it is perfe6lly abfolute ; as founded on
the fovereign pleafure and irreverfible decrees
of God. It is alfo abfolute in its exhibition to
fome rather than to others ; for in this fenfe
as well as the former it may be faid, God will
have mercy on whom he will have mercy, and
companion on whom he will have compaffion.
^Vhatever is conditional of it is on account of
man's free nature and God's moral government.
Its publication and exhibition to man, as a free
agenty folicits and requires his approbation — his
obedient reception of what is propofed to him
by his Creator and Benefador. But man-
kind being univerfally finners, and as fuch infi-
nitely unworthy ; and what is more, totally averfe
from what is required of them ; no foul could
be faved if the covenant in its abfolute internal
form did not enfure the direction of its bleffings
to the intended perfons ; as alfo a difpofition fuit-
ed to their enjoyment. Thus, when God gave
Adam and Evs an abftradl of his covenant of

redemption.

Ch. 2. Defign of Baptifm. JSS

redemption, which was abfolute and infallible
in its internal form as fettled in the divine
coun fel ; the exhibition of it was alfo abfolutCy
both to them and all thofe of their pofterity
who (hould be informed of it : importing, that
there was mercy with God that he might be
feared. Yes, not lefs abfolute than his cove-
nant of the night and of the day ; which
no one, furely, will maintain was fealed,
certified, confirmed, or made more abfolute, by
the ajfent and fubmijfion of man, to whom it was
given. It was in that very difplay and promul-
gation of it an unfpeakable blefling ; and, as fuch,
abfolutely obliged them to fuitable acknowledg-
ments ; previous to, and independent on any
difpofitions of the perfons, whether good or bad.

And not only fo, but it is highly probable

the inftitution of facrifices was given to Adam,
as a feal of the covenant, as well as a type of
Chrift. " For, (as Witsius obferves) the injii-
tutions which commemorated fin, alfo fignified
and fealed the future expiation of it by the Mef-
fiah." * Again he fays : " Thefe facrifiees were
feah of God's covenant. For though there is
a difference between facrifices and facraments for-
mally confidered ; becaufe facraments are given
by God to men, but facrifices are offered by
men to God : neverthelefs, there is no reafon
why the confideration of a facrament and facri-
H 6 fice

• WiTSv Oecon. Fad. Lib. iii. Cap. iii. § x.

156 Of the Nature and Ch. 2.

fice may not, in different refpedts concur in one
and the fame thing. For even facrifices are
^ven by God to men, that is, are injiituted by
divine authority ; that by thefe ceremonies, the
coming of the Son of God in the flefli, &c.
might be fignified and sealed." f

2. Not lefs abfolute was God's covenant or
free promife to Noah, (which Dr. S. quaintly
calls a " tranfadion between Him and Noah")
that he would drown the world no more by a
flood. This was a fcafonable covenant granted
to Noah, to all mankind, and hterally to eve-
ry creature capable of the benefit ; and parti-
cularly fo, as it was an adumbration of the
covenant of grace, or connected with it. But
what is very remarkable is, that God's covenant
to Noah, and his feed for ever, was confirm-
ed and fealed, by a token on the part of
God only ; independent of any confent and fub-
rnljfton on the part of Noah and his defcendants.
God made a covenant, and fet his bow in the
cloud as the confirming feal of it ; but where
was Noah's aflent and fubmifllon, on behalf of
feirnfelf, his pofierity, &c. to render the con-
trail valid ? For if it was a covenant made
•with all flefh, fhould it not, on the principle I
am oppofing, have the confent of the parties
contained in it, as the imprejjlon aSl'ive^ before it
could be faid to be ratified or fealed to them ?
Rather I would afk, is not the rainbow a fign

and

•f- Id. Lib, iv. Cap. vii, ^ vii.

Ch. 2. Defign of Baptifm. 157

and confirming feal of God's covenant not lefa
to the atheiftical philofopher than the grave di-
vine ? Nor fliould we fuppofe that fallen finners
are fo far complimented, and that God's injli-
tutlons are fo liable to be degraded and nulli-
fied, as that nothing could be a feal of his co-
venant to men, but what they are pleafed to
make valid, by tlieir faith and fuhmiffion.

§*^6. 3. What has been faid of the difpenfe-
tions of God's covenant to Adam and Noah,
with their refpe^tive feals, is applicable to that
publication of it made to Abraham; but with
fome remarkable circumftances of limitation in re-
gard of the additional blejfmgs exhibited, and the
fuperadded feal of it, circumcifion. The foriner
were principally addreiTed to Abraham's defen-
dants in the line of Ifaac and Jacob, though,
not exclufively, for a gracious provifion was made-
in favour of profelytes and their feed ; and the
latter was confined to Abraham's male defcen-
dants, and thofe of the profelytes. This reflric-
tion of the feal of the covenant, to be applied,
only to the males, was, we may be fure, found-
ed on the wifeft and jufteft reafons; and may be
in fome good meafure accounted for, by attend-
ing to the civil and ecclefiaftical politv of tiie
Jews, in connexion with the Saviour's- incar-
nation. To inveftigate the particular reafons of
this reftridion, my prefent argument does not
require. I would only add, that as the in-
ftitution of facrifices was a feal of the former
difpcnfations of the covenant, and a part of

family

158 Of the Nature and Ch, 2.

family religion ; we ought not to infer that Abra-
ham's female defcendants had no feal of God's
covenant in common with the males. All that
can be faid of them is, that they were deprived,
by an exprefs reftricSlion, of this additional feol^
for reafons the moft proper ; while they enjoyed
every thing elfe in common. So far then (hould
we be from fuppoling, that a Jewifh circumci-
fed male had not in his flefli the feal of God's
covenant, even from infancy ; that I think it

may be juflly affirmed the female part was

highly obliged to the divine goodnefs for what
may be properly termed a feal of the righteoif-
iiefs of faith ; — to afj'ure them of blefTmgs ex-
hibited to them, and of their important obli-
gations, li, therefore, God's covenant of re-
demption to fallen man, in its external form
and manifeftation, is nothing elfc but a decla-
ration of foverelgn grace and a dhvine rights'
eoufnefs'y which, in everlafting tranfcendent love and
compaffion, is provided for the ufe and fervice
of wretched finners, who live within the pale
of fuch a declaration : and if to this God inftitute
a fign, yet not a mere fign, but a confirming
token — — a demonftrating evidence of the
truth of what is teilified, and of God's infal-
lible, unchanging veracity be that fign what

it may, and direfted to be applied or adminifcer-
cd to the fubjeds of a difpenfation indifcrimi-
nately ; or elfe exprcfsly reJlriSied, for wife and
obvious reafons, to a certain clafs, as in cireum-

cifioA

Ch. 2. Defign of Baptifm. 1 59

cifion to the males only : is there not the great-
eft propriety in calling fuch a token the seal
of God's covenant^ perfe6tly unconnedled with
and independent of the faith of the fubjetSl, as
in the cafe of Jevvifli infants ?

§ 27. But this is not all. The principle I
am oppofing, is fraught with an inconvenience
little Ihort of a grofs abfurdity. For this im-
plies, " that circumcifion became a feal or au-
thentic/)r(7o/' of their juftification, only to thofe of
riper years, who, upon convidion of their judg-
ment, fubmitted to that erdinance j and the fame
rule (our opponents contend) holds as to the
ordinance of baptifm." This^ it is evident, the
above quotations maintain, and the following
propofition is the fum. " Then only may cir-
cumcifion and baptifm be termed feals^ when
they are proofs of juftification to perfons fub-
mitting to them." — Now I afk,

I. May we infer that a man is certainly in a
juftified ftate, and what is more, affured of his
juftification, becaufe he has fubmitted to an inlli-
tuted ordinance, fuch as circumcifion or bap-
tifm ? If not, how can his affixing his feal to
the covenant, which according to Dr. S. muft
be matter of duty, be any proof to him of his
juftification ? Previous to this dnty of fealing the
covenant, the performer muft either be affured
of his being in a juftified ftate, or he is not :
if ^he former, how can the obfcrvancc of fuch
an external right be a prosf to him of his juf-
tification? What is defigned it feems, for this

external

i5o Of the Nature and' Ch. 2.

external right to perform, has been' hefcre ef-
feiled by other means. As a proof then it
comes too late, if the perfon was aflured
of righteoufnefs antecedently. But if he was
not aflured previous to his performance of.
the duty, and yet was confcious of no infince-
rity of heart, is the mere addition of the per--
formance of the duty a feal or certain proof to
him that he is juftified ? It (hould feem then that
no perfon who fubmits to baptifm upon con-
vi(Slion, and who is confcious of no hypocrify,
can be at a lofs to determine upon the good-
nefs of his ftate ; for baptifm is to him a feal
whereby he may be certilied of his juftification.
But if this be true, how comes it to pafs that
any fmcere fouls, who have made that fubmif-
fion, are yet harafled with fears and doubts
refpe£ling their ftate ? or, mufl we pronounce
them all hypocrites and unfound, who hefitate
about their interefl: in Chrift, and maintain that,,
in this refpeit, he who doubteth is damned f

2. If it be faid, that baptifm is a feal to thofeL-
only who have real faith^ and that fuch per-
fons only may be affured of juftification and the
confequent blefllngs of the covenant ; I reply,
that then it foilows, that baptifm can be no feal
to any but fuch as have the aflurance of faith :
for if they doubt of the reality of their faith,,
they muft proportionally doubt that baptifm is a
feal; and the confequence will be, that fince,.
on the principle I am oppofing, baptifm is a feal;
of the covenant as a duty performed by the be-
liever.

Ch. 2. Defign of Baptiftn. l6i

Jicver, and on the part of God, an atteftatlon
of his intereft in the bleffings of the covenant ;
— God's attertation is no atteftation to any
who doubt of the reality of their faith, and fo
is a fcal of a certainty that certifieth nothing !
3. There fecms but one method of evading this
conckifion ; and that is, that however doubtful
a perfon may be of his ftate before or at his
baptifm, yet, nfter he has fubmitted to the duty
upon convi£tion, he may be ajfiircd of his intereit
in the bleflings of the covenant. — — < Yet this
evafion is of no ufe, except we borrow for its
aid another principle, which maintains, that the
ordinance produces a real moral change in the
fubjecl, ex cpere operato. For if it be faid, that
the certainty is obtained from God after we
hav'e in faith complied with a known duty, and
from the confideraticn of our fubmitting to it
as fuch \ I would fain know how this rather
than any other duty, enjoined by the fame au-
thority, becomes an evidence ©f our interefl in
covenant bleflings ? or, how we ar'e certified of
a divine atteftation to our juftification in any
other way, than we may infer from any other
chriftian duty whatever? Is it not abfolutely
inconceivable how baptifm can be a confirming
fcal of our intereft in Chrift and his benefits, on
the part of God, in any other fenfe than all
other duties may be fo termed when performed
by faith ? And if fo, it follows from our oppo-
nents' own principles, and contrary to what Dr.
S. maintains, that neither baptifm nor circumci-

fioa

*.'('

l62 Of the Nature and Ch. 2.

fion can be any dijiinguiflnng feals at all, any more
than any other moral duty performed in faith.

4. From the above confiderations it muft
alfo follow, if Mr. B» and Dr. S. are right,
that circumcifion could not be a feal of the
righteoufnefs of faith, even to Abraham himftlf,
contrary to the Apofile's exprefs words, (Rom. iv.
II.) as an inftitution ; without a fupperadded re-
vealed afTurance given him of the reality of his
faith and fubmifTion. And thus we are driven,
at length, to this conclufion, that circumcifion
was no feal to Abraham or any of his de-
fendants but in confequence of the feaiiag
of the Spirit ; and the purport of God's lan-
guage to Abraham muft be (Gen. xvii. 9 —
14.) " Though I enjoin upon thee, and thy
feed after thee, the right of circumcifion as a
token of the covenant betwixt me and you ; yet
it fliall be no token of confirmation, no feal of
the covenant at all, but to fuch of you as have
previoufly the infallible witnefs and fealing of
my Spirit, to certify you of the undoubted reali-
ty of your faith and fubmilTion. And obferve
further, that this honour is not to be extended
to thy feed who fhall be circumcifed in infancy;
for, not having faith, it can be no feal to
them : no, this honour is referved for thofe who
fliall be bought with money of any ftranger, or
any profelytes not of thy feed ; and thefe muft
be fealed by the Spirit, or have the certainty of
their intereft in the covenant, before they have
any juft grounds to conclude that circumcifion ii

to

Ch. 2. Dcfign of Baptifm. 163

to them the feal of vny covenant." But is this
a declaration worthy of God ?

5. It therefore follows, on Dr. S's hypothe-
cs, that to be of the feed of Abraham, was a
privilege not worthy to be compare<l with that
of a profelyte. To Jacob and the patriarchs for
inftance, circumcifion was not a feal of the co-
venant, for they had no fcith when circumcifed ;
but the profelyte of a day, who fubmitted to-
the rite upon conviction, had in his flefli a con-
firming feal of his juftification. Had not a na-
tive Jew here an irrefiftible temptation to envy
the profelyte? A Jewifh mafter to envy the pri-
vilege of his fervant bought with his money,
even fuppofmg their piety to be equal ? How
happy thofe children above others, who, through
the neglecEl of their parents, or any other acci-
dent, were left uncircumcifed in their minority;
whereby they had an opportunity in riper years
to fuhnnt to the important ri::e, and thereby of
obtaining a feal of their juftification !

§ 28. Aware of thefe inconveniences, Mr. B.
avails himfelf of Dr. Lightfoot's verfion of

Rom. iv. II. and his remark upon it " A

feal of the righteoufnefs of the faith, which y^c?//<^
hereafter he in uncircumcifion. Which Jhoiddhe^
not which had been." Why the Dr. Ihould fup-
ply the elliptical psfTage (rri iv tt, uKfo^v^ix) which
in uncircumcifton^ with a Jhouhl hereafter be^ re-
quites no fmail critical difcernment to determine.

I THINK it muft be allowed by any impartial
competent judge, that th« fuppliod part of the

fentence

J 64 Of the Nature and Ch. 2.

fentence is far fetched, and fhould not be pre-
ferred without manifeft neceflity. Tlie Vulgate

Latin renders it qua est in prorput'wy the

Syriac VerRon is rendered qua; fuerat;

the Arabic qua erat ; and the iEthiopie

thus : Et circtiincifo_ fignaciduni jujutiis' ejus fuif
quam ei dedit, ^ fgfium ejus, ut ei Innctfcerct
de hoc, quod per fidem Deus juflif caret Abraham
cuum ncii fuit Ulo ter-ipcre circumcfus. 'lh& fcope
of the paffage is evidenLiy this : .The apoiiie
in profecution of his grand proof, that jufiinca-
tion and eternal hfe are not obtained by human
worthinefs, Vvorks or obfervances of our own,
but are folely and abfolutely the fruit of fove-
reign grace ; (liews that this dodrine, though
more clearly revealed in the gofpel, was yet the
common language of preceding difpenfations..
That this was tiie import of the Jeivijh difpcn-
fation, David tefhiieth, ver. 6. Even as David
afo defcriheth the hhfj'cdnefs of the man unto zuhom
God imputeth right eonfncfs without works ^ And
that this method of acceptance through grace
and a divine righteoufnefs, was not peculiar to
the circumcifion, but belongs to the uncircum-
cifion alfo ^ appears from the hiilory of Abra-
ham, whom the Jews were fo ready to boaft
of on every occafion. Ver. 9. Co?neth this hlef-
fednefs then upon the circumcifion only, or upon
the iincircumcifon ALSO ? For we fay that faith
(as contradiftinguilhed from works or any man-
ner of worthinefs of his own) was reckoned to
Abraham for righteoufnefs. Ver. 10. How was it

then

Ch. 2. Dcfign of Bapt'ifm. 165

then reckoned? When he was in circu?nciJion, or
in uncircujncifion ? Not in circunicijion^ but in un-
circumcifion, Ver. 11. And (Kat) as a following
confideration, many years after the righteoufnefs
of faith was made known to him, he received
the fign of circumcifon^ a SEAL of the righteoufnefs
of the faith which (the relative having a refpedl
either to the antecedent faith or righteoufnefs *)
he had (or, pofTeffed) in uncircurncifton j that un-
circumcifed ftate juft fpoken of. That the phrafe,
tv TV u>i(o0v<;Kx,j refers to Abraham's uncircumcifed
Jiate ratlier than to the Gentiles^ in this place,
may appear from what immediately follows. To
the intent that he tnight he the father of kli. be-
lievers^ — a confpicuous example to Jews and
Gentiles that juftification is not the confequence
of ceremonial obfervances, or any human merit,
worthinefs or confideration whatever; ■ — {}l a.Hfo0v.
?•«?) thro^ uncirciancifon^ — by reafon of his be-
ing the favourite of God in his uncircumcifed
ftate, as well as after ; — to the end that righteouf-
nefs might be imputed unto them also. Ver. 11. And
that he might be the father of circwncifton^— that is,
of fpiritual circumcifion ; (an inconteftible inftance
that the blejfmgs exhibited in and by that rite,
and of which circumcifion was the feal, were not
intended for chriftian gentiles exclufively, buf had

refpecl

• Sluee (ambiguum eft, & referendum, vel i. ad fidem: vel
potius, 2. ad juftitiam fidei, h, e. qiiam ex fide exceperat } eji in
prafuth, Eftius. — Fidei y//ar (vel, qua fuerat ; Eiafmus, Pagninus,
Tremellius, Flaccms Illyricus, &c. vel, rectpta, Reza, Pifcator j
vel, quan hituiffe dignofcitur, Zegcrius) in fneputi*, Poli Synop.
in loc.

l66. Of the Nature and Ch. 2.

refpecl) to them who are not of the circumcifton
ONLY, hut alfo walk in the fieps of that faith of
cur Father Abraham, which he had (t* fn aKfo^vim)

being yet iincircumcifed. Thus the Apoftle

cuts- off boafling on either fide. The Jew had
no ground to flight the Gentile, nor the Gen-
tile to flight the Jew. The grace of the cove-
nant was exhibited and applied to Abraham he-
fort circumcifion ; and yet circumcifion was infti-
tuted as a fign and feal of the fame grace, right-
eoufnefs, or covenant, to the Jew. I would fur-
ther remark as juft criticifm requires, that

fimiiar renderings fliould be given to fimilar
phrafes in the fame connexion, it feems an un-
accountable liberty to render the fame phrafe,
iv r»! axpo^v?»», in ver. 11. as referring to the
Gentiles^ which in ver. 12. ?nu/i be referred to
Abraiiam's fate of uncircumcifion ; while at the
fame time there is no pretended neceflity for fuch
a variation.

§ 29. Thus, I think, we may pronounce Mr.
B's favourite interpretation of the paflage in quef-
tion — far-fetched and unnecefl!ary. But fuppofmg
he were indulged with Lightfoot's critical wea-
pon, I prefume it would be but of little fervice
to him ; fmce there is another confideration that ~
fo blunts it, as to render it perfeitly innoffenflve.

Now fuppoflng, without granting, that Abra-
ham's circumcifion being a feal to him, that the
Gentiles fliould, in fome after period, be jufti-
fied by faith, were the meaning of the contro-
verted

Ch. 2, Defign of Baptlfm* 167

verted text ; what is the confequence ? Why, if
ver. II. implies that he received a feal to aflure
him that righteoufn^fs, (or by a periphrafis, the
righteoufnefs of faith) would be imputed to the
future Gentiles without ceremonial obfervances,
works or worthinefs of their own; ver. 12. muft
in like manner, from the conne£iion of the two
verfes, neceffarily iitiply, that he had the fame
confirming feal to affure him of the fame im-
portant truth in relation to the Jews. He re-
ceived a feal, of what ? Of righteoufnefs. What
kind of righteoufnefs ? That which is of faith,
as oppofed to legal obfervances, works, merit, or
worthinefs of the creature. Who fhould be the
happy objedls of this favour ? The uncircumci-
fion ; fuppofe the Gentiles. But to what end was
fuch a feal given to Abraham ?

I. That he might be the father^ "or the ap-
pointed and highly honoured pattern, of all
among the Gentiles in the moil diftant periods,
who fliould obtain righteoufnefs and falvation
of free and fovereign gracc^ exclufive of works
of righteoufnefs which they fhould do. Thus it
was that he received mercy, without any works
of the law ; and therefore properly ftiled \k\.t fa~
thcr of all among the Gentiles who fhould have
no pretenfions at ail to any ceremonial and legal
righteoufnefs of their own. And was this the
only defign of his receiving circumcifion as a feal ?
Far from it, for,

2. An6ther

i68 Of the Nature and Ch. 2.

2. Another very important one is immediately
fubjoined, ver. 12. and that he might be the
father of circu7ndfwn, a similar pattern to
the Jews alfo^ that none of them may truft to
the law, ceremonies, or any other confideration :
and thofe among them who were beholden to
mercy, as Abraham was, without works, were
his CHILDREN in the fame fenfe as the graci-
ous among the Gentiles are. Thus it appears,
that circumcifion was to Abraham a seal of the
righteoufnefs of fattk^ or of free groce^ not more
to the Gentiles than the Jews ; and confequent-
ly, Mr. B's attempt, to confine the purport of
circumcifion as a feal, with reference to Gentiles
onlyy proves abortive.

§ 30. Our laft inquiry refpeiled the perfons
concerning whom Abraham received a feal ; but
now another queftion returns, viz. To whom cir-
cumcifion was a feal of righteoufnefs ? Mr. B's
reply is fliort and plain, " To Abraham in par-
ticular." * Herein, however, he differs from Dr.
S. For thus the latter writes : " Though I ob-
je6l to the idea of circumcifion 's being a feal of
the covenant, at leafl: in regard of infants, and
underftand the pafiage juft referred to as only
faying, that it became to Abraham, and by con-
fequence to all others v/ho believed, a feal or
atteftation to their juftification j yet I readily ad-
mit, that it was a fign or token of the cove-
nant between God and Abraham in all who

were

* P» 3'3.

, Ch. 2. Defign of Baptifm. 169

were circumcifed f." And a little after: " Circum-
cifion, though it became a feal of the righteouf-
nefs of faith to Abraham, could not be a feal
to his infant pofterity, at leafi: in the fame fenfe
it was to him." — In conformity to this principle
he further adds, " It is eafy to fee that baptifm
cannot be zfeal of the righteoufnefs of faith, that
is, of their jujiification^ to infants, they not hav-
ing faith : nor can it be in legard of them 3
teft of new obedience, they not voluntarily fub~
fnitting to it."

But have thefe aflertions any foundation in
fcripture or reafon ? And,

1 . Is there any truth in the fuppofition. That no-
thing can be a teft of new obedience, or lay us
under additional obligations of duty, without our
voluntary fuhmijfion ? Is not this fingular notion,
fo much infilled on by our adverfaries, confront-
ed with the fundamental principles of morals ?
For it is demonftrable, from the nature and
fpring of moral obligation, that if baptifm be a
benefit to infants, as we maintain, it muft be to
them fuch a teft, or obliges them to additional
duties. Again, I would afk,

2. Is -there any propriety in the fuppofition —
becaufe infants cannot believe^ they therefore can-
not be jujiified? or what amounts to the fame
— becaufe infants have not a£lual faith^ there^
fore their juflif cation cannot be fealed? But all

this ftands on another rotten pillar that

there is no difference between a feal being ap-

I plied

f S's Anfwer to A, p, 108,

lyo Of the Nature and Ch. 2.

plied to a perfon, and the certainty of his aftual
juftification. On the contrary, is it not abundant-
ly evident, that God's covenant of redemption,
AS REVEALED TO FALLEN MAN, is of the na-
ture of a gracious proclamation ? If fo, what ne-
ceflity is there to fuppofe, that there can be no
fealing of fuch a covenant to any perfon with-
out thereby certifying his juftification ? May not
the Eternal Sovereign inftitute a ?nemorial of his
mercy which endureth from generation to genera-
tion ; to the intent, that every loft finner to whom
it is duly adminiftered, may be certified, as far
as any thing fhort of a miracle can do, that
this gracious God does actually and inceflantly
exhibit to him the bleflings of his covenant -
with the merciful defign to encourage his future
faith, and to engage his grateful obedience ?

3. May we not fay, that fuch an inftitution
is the feal of God's covenant, without fuppofing
the efficacious grace of the covenant experienced
by the fealed ? For, who feals ? God, by liis

commiflioned minifters. TVhat does he feal ?

His own gracious proclamation, exhibited to the
fubjea. — The voice of God's heralds is to this
purpofc: " Now then we are ambaffadors for
Chrift, publilhing to a loft world, the moft merci-
ful terms of reconciliation : and if any fufpe6l the
truth of our meflage, or the faithfulncfs of our
divine mafter, behold both ratified with his own

seal !" I fuppofe it has been proved, that

circumcifion was not defigned, nor indeed could

be

Ch. 2. D^Jign of Baptijm. ijt

bje, to Abraham or any other, as a pi^of of
adual juftification, without involving a great
abfurdity\ Therefore,

4. It muft be a feal, as an instituted
RITE, which God affixed to his covenant. This
muji be its purport in reference to Abraham, as far
as it ajfured him of any thing ; nor can it be de-
nied, that in this fenfe, which I think is demon-
flrably the true one, it ought to be confidered, in
regard of every individual fubjedl of it. — Thus
the twelve patriarchs, for inAance, had in their
flefli, not only a fign^ but a feal alfo of God's
covenant : purporting, that he thereby propofed
himfelf to be to them a God ^ that they, in re-
turn, may be to him a people. The fa6l of the
infhtution, fealing the covenant, and not their
pcrfonal qualifications of any kind, was the ground
of their obligation ; and this increafcd with their
years. When grown up they might thus refle^St:
*' By this mark in our perfons, we are ajfured^
" in confequence of what the Lord fuid to our
" father Abraham, that he is gracioufly willing
"to become, not only the objedl of our wor-
" Ihip, but our all-fufficient portion. And, fure-
" ly, this confideration obliges us, incontefhbly,
" to become his people, — to love and ferve him

" with all our powers." But will any one

fay, that circumcifion was not to them a feal ?
or not without their devout approbation of it ?
That cannot be, except we maintain this abfurd
pofition. That the very effence of a divine inilitu-
tion depends on the precarious determination of
I 2 the

172 Of the Nature and Ch. 2.

the finful creature. This, however, is in perfect
confiftence with another pofition, equally abfurd,
viz. That what we do not voluntarily fubmit
to, cannot be to us a teft of new obedience.

§ 31. From v/hat has been faid, we infer,
that the hypothefis which maintains — infants
were not fealed by circumcifion, becaufe of their
not having falth^ or not fubmittlng to it upon
conviction, — is untenable. Yet, as our opponents
have treated this fubje6l with undeferved con-
tempt, we fhall, ex abundantly take another turn
with them.

Now, if circumcifion was a feal of righteouf-
nefs to Abraham, and not to the infant fubjedis
of it in Xht fame fenfe^ it muft be owing— either,
to their being incapable — or, to fome difference
in the original infiitution^ fpecified or implied —
or, to fome fcripture evidence whereby this
didiQdion is made neceflary. I affirm, then,
in general.

That none of thefe cofiderations, nor any
other fufficient reafon whatever, can fliew the
7iece(pi)' of the pretended diJhnSiion. Now, the
queftion is not, Whether or no circumcifion, as
a Handing rite, had other ufes of an ecclefiafti-
cal or political nature; but. Whether it was a
feal^ on God's part, to circumcifed infants ? The
former is not difputed ; and therein it agrees
with the inftitution of facrifices, which were not
only a type of the Mefliah's atonement, but, in
a fecondary view, anfwered the cn6. of a tribute,
to fupport the priefthood. Nobody, I prefume,

will

Ch. 2. Defign of Baptifm. 173

will deny, but one inftitution may, by divine
appointment, fubfeive various purpofes — moral,
typical, ccclefiaftical, and political ; as numer-
ous inftances in the Jewifh oecononiy fup-
port the fa6t. Therefore, to enumerate fevcral
purpofes, for which we may fuppofe circumciHon
was inftituted, befides that of a feal of righteouf-
nefs, is impertinent ; when intended to conclude
againfl the idea of its being a feal to infants.
Yet Dr. S. expatiates largely upon the different
ufes of circumcifion, as a reafon why it was not
a feal of the covenant to infants. But- how
Hull we reconcile the following pafiages with
truth, or with each other ? " As to circumcifion,
it was a token of the covenant between God and
Abraham. — But what was the purport of that
tr;;nfa(5lion ? I readily agree, that the grand
objed: of it was the coming of the Meffiah,
and our redemption by him ; on which account
the gofpel is fuid to have been preached unto
Abraham. But this furely was not the only ob-
ject of it *." And again : " Thofe matters in the
covenant between God and Abraham, which feetn
to be the chief if not the onlj ground or reafon
of circumcifion, and which that rite was peculi-
arly adapted to exprefs, are matters to which
baptifm hath no reference at all f." Has baptifm,
then, no reference at all to our redemption by
Chrift ? Or, is it conclufive to infer, that
becaufe the coming of the Mefliah, and our
redemption by him, was the grand ohji£l of
I 3 circumcifion

* Dr. Stinnett's Anfwer to Dr. Atjdington, p. iiz.
t Ibid. p. lis.

174 ^f i^s Nature and Ch. 2.

circumcifion, but not the only one ; therefore,
it was not a feal of righteoufnefs to infants ?

§ 32. Considering circumcifion as an inftituted
rite, defigned to afford the ftrongeft evidence, that
righteoufnefs was attainable otily as a free favour
— — that it was God's feal^ as the imprefiion
adlive of his authority, adminiftered by his fer-
vants ; attefting, not that the fubjeft is adlually
poffefled of the fpiritual bleffings reprefented by
it, (for this no external rite whatever is capable
of, as before fliewn, § 27.) but, that it is the
divine pleafure to exhibit therein to him the blef-
fings of his covenant — that the fa61: of an ex- -
hibited benefit^ lays earlieft infancy under obliga-
tions of future returns (§22.) — confidering, I
fay, thefe things, it is evident,

I. That infants were capabie of circumcifion
as a feal ; if not, we muft fay, that the incapacity
lay either in their apparent Jiate^ or in their
want of a profelTed fubjet^ion. But neither of
thefe is ejjential to being the fubje6is of the feal
of God's covenant; and therefore are required
qualifications in certain circumfrances only, viz.
in perfons who are capable of diflenting and re-
jedling, as well as afienting and fubmitting. If
any again infifl, that the concurrence of the
fubje<ft is abfolutely necefiary to confbtute the
fealing, as this muft be on the part of God and
the creature ; this would be only obje(Sling to the
fenfe, in which I have explicitly declared I
underftand the term and notion of fealing j and
which I think is demonftrably the only conlif-

tent

€h. 2. Defign of Baptlfm. 175

tent fenfe in which it can be taken in reference
to the inftitution either of circumcifion or bap-
tifm. For the general thefis under confideration,
requires me. only to fliew — That there is a
proper and confiftent fenfe in which any divine
ordinance intended to exhibit the . bleffings of
the covenant, and to oblige the fubjetSt to a cor-
dial reception of them, and other anfwerable re-
turns, may be termed a seal of the covenant :
and that baptifm, being proved an ordinance of
that nature, is properly denominated yytV? a JeaL
And the argument under prefent confideratjon
is — That fiich an ordinance, is equally appli-
cable to infants and adults ; and, therefore,
that no pretended incapacity in the Jewifli
infants could be a fufficient reafon why cir-
cumcifion was not to them as well as Abra-
ham a feal of righteoufiiefs. Let any one, there-
fore, refleil: in what fenfe I underftand the word
feal^ and he may immediately perceive the va-
lidity of this branch of the argument, that
infants are not incapable fubjeils of it.

§ 33. 2. But tho' circumcifed infants were
thus capable of having the feal of God's cove-
nant in their flefh, is there not fomething in the
INSTITUTION ITSELF, whereby it appears, that
circumcifion was a Jcal to Abraham, while it
was only a token to his infant feed? I think
not. The words are very exprefs and particular.
Gen. xvii; 7. " And I will ejiablijh my cove-
nant between me and thee, AND thy seed af-
ter THEE, in their generations, for an ever-
I 4 lafting

176 Of the Nature and Ch. 2.

lafting covenant ; to be a God unto thee,

.AND TO THY SEED AFTER THEE. ver. 8. ■ —

AND I WILL BE THEIR GoD. ver. 9. And
God faid unto Abraham, Thou flialt keep my
covenant therefore, thou AND thy seed af-
ter THEE, in their generations, ver. 10. This
is my covenant, which ye (hall keep between
me and you, and thy seed after thee;

EVERY MAN CHILD AMONG YOU fhall be cir-

cumcifed. ver. 11. — And it (hall be a token of
the covenant betwixt me and you. ver. 13. —
And my covenant fhall be in your flefh for
an everlafting covenant." On thefe words I
obferve,

(i.) That Abraham and his feed are herecon-
fidercd as one aggregate body, as well as in
llridi conjunction. God not only addreffes Abra-
ham in thefe terms, refpe^ling the covenant and
its token, " thee AND thy feed," which abun-
dantly Ihe-v^-s a fmilanty of defign in their
direction to Abraham's jeed as well as to him-
felf J but they are alfo addreffed in thefe collec-
tive terms, YE, YOU, YOUR, without any
difcriminating claufe. There is, therefore, in the
inftitution itfelf no ground of diftindlion, why
circumcifion fhould be a fed to Abraham and
not to his feed, of which the latter were equal-
ly capable,

(2.) The grand covenant hhffmg exhilited to
Abraham, extends equally to his ktA. I will
eftablifh my covenant — — to be a God unto

thee

I

Ch. 2. Defigyi of Baptlfm, 177

thee AND to thy feed after thee. And I will
be THEIR God.

(3.) The oblioations rejult'tng from the inftitution
are the fame to Abraham and his feed. For
God faid unto Abraham, " Thou fhalt keep my
covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed. This is
my covenant, which ye shall keep between me
and you." There was not indeed an application of
grace to all the circumcifed alike, but there was
an exhibition, and the obligation was general.

§ 34. It has been confidently aflerted by our
opponents, as before obferved, " That there were
other ends, ufes, and fignifications of circumci-
fion to Abraham's own perfon, than thofe for-
which it was difpenfed to his feed; fuch as —
that he (liould be the father of all believers —
that his feed (hould inherit Canaan — that Chrift
fhould come out of his loins." From whence
they infer, " That the covenant of circumcifion,
in every of thofe refpe<fts in which circumcifion
was given Abraham as a feal of it, was not giv-
en to ail the Jews and their children : nay,
which his feed (indefinitely) had no promife of at
all*." But is there any thing in thefe dogma-
tical afTertions better than magiflerial triilincr?
For,

I. To fay that circumcifion was a feal of
Abraham's fatherhood of all believers, or of his
fe^d inheriting Canaan, is diredly contrary to the
apoftle's affertion, that it was a feal of the right-
eotifnefs of faith. That thefe particulars were
I 5 included

* Fisher's Chriftianifmus Redivivus, p. 18, 19,

178 Of the Nature and Ch. ^,

included as inferior parts of the Abrahamic char-
ter, is granted; but it is abfurd to make them
fynonymous with the righteoufnefs of faith ;
which our opponents mull do to be confident.
Nor is it true^ that the promife of Canaan was
peculiar to Abraham, in any other fenfe than
that he was foretmji upon the lift. See Gen.
xvii. 19. chap, xxviii. 13 — 15. Was not Je-
hovah a God to Ifaac and his feed, and to Ja-
cob and his feed, as well as to Abraham and
his feed ; and in the very fa7ne refpeil ? And,
fays the Lord to Jacob, in the paiTage laft ci-
ted, " The land whereon thou lieft, to thee

WILL I GIVE IT, i^ND TO THY SEED." See-
ing, then, that this divine charter includes Abra-
ham and millions of his defcendants in common y
and, as before fliewn, without any ground of
difference ; and feeing the fame charter has been
confirmed, to Ifaac and Jacob, and their feed —
to make the circumflance of Abraham's priority on
the lift of perfons benefited by the grartt, the
foundation of the pretended diftindion, is to the
laft, nugatory and impertinent.

2. To urge that the claufe " of Chrift's com-
ing out of his loins," was a privilege peculiar
to Abraham, in fuch a fenfe as that circumci-
iion was to him a feal of it, but not to his
feed ; is equally futile. For tho' it was grant-
ed him, that he fliould be the progenitor of
Chrift J yet it was faid. to Jacob as well, " in

THEE, AND IN THY SEED SHALL ALL THE
FAMILIES or THE EARTH BE BLESSED." Nor

muft

Ch. 2. Defign of Baptljm, 179

mufl we confound Abraham's carnal privilege
with the righteoufnefs of faith, Circumcifion is
faid to be a feal of the latter exprefsly, but not
of the former ; nor does there appear any rea-
fon or propriety in faying that the carnal privi-
lege was fealed to Abraham, but fo far as it
was fubfervient to the Saviour's infinite and eVer-
lafting righteoufnefs. Thus it appears, that as
infants were capable of circumcifion as a feal^ io
there is abundant evidence from the infitution
itfelf that it was equally applicable to them as
to Abraham.

§ 35. However unfavourable to the purpofe
of Antipoedobaptifts might be the inftitution
itfelf of circumcifion, were there notwithftanding
any other producible evidence from a fubfequent di-
vine ftatute in their favour, it would alter the cafe
proportionably. But this> I believe, is what none
of thofe whofe interefi: it is to produce, it, at-
tempt to do; except Rom. iv. 11. which has
been already confidered ; and I think fairly fliewn
from the fcope and defign of the apofi:le, to be
inconfiftent with their confined view of it. The
apoftle's argument is, that both Jews and Gen-
tiles are juftified by the fame divine righteouf-
nefs, and not by the obfervance of any law
whatever, or any worthinefs of their own : now,
is it any thing elfe but ridiculous trifling to
contend, and ftill worfe to make the apofile
maintain, that the ineftimable privilege of right-
eoufnefs imputed without works is common to Jews
L 6 • and

l8o ' Of the Nature and Ch. 2.

and Gentiles, because circumcifion was to ^Abra-
ham ALONE a feal of righteoufnefs ?

There is, indeed, another palTage that has been
cccafion-aUy fubpoenaed to ferve this tottering
caufe ; and that is, John vi. 27. Him hath God
the Father fealcd. " In the fame fenfe," fays the
author laft quoted, " in which the Father is faid
to feal the Son, to be the giver of meat that
endures to eternal life, i. e. authorifed to that
bufmefs, honoured with that office, is God faid
to give circumcifion to Abraham, whereby to
feal him up, and fettle him for ever in that glo-
rious title, viz. The father of all that believe -y
in which fenfe circumcifion was never given to
any one of Abraham's poflerity at all*." To
this I reply,

That there were in ufe among the ancients
fcalings for different purpofes, as before ob-
ferved ; and a perfon may be faid to be
fealed when he receives a commijfion^ is inverted
with authority J or bears well authenticated cre-
Tentials, &c. And thus was Chrift lealed of the
Father. His miracles were inconteftible proofs
of his divine miffion. But how does this help
the notion, that neither Ifaac, Jacob, or any
other befide Abraham, received circumcifion as
a feal ? For where is it faid or implied, that
God fealed Jhraham r' It is faid, indeed, that he
received the fign of circumcifion, a feal of right-
eoufnefs. But who would infer, that becaufe a
promife, a law, or a facred rite, was received by
an individual for the ufe and fervice of himfelf

and
* Ibid.

I

Ch. 2. Defign of Bapttfm. i8i

and his pofterlty; it muft fignify one thing to
the firfl receiver, and another thins to all the
refi: ; when no fuch diftindion is intimated, and
when the cafe does not require it ? Is it reafonable
to conclude, that, when a perfon receives a certain
privilege for himfelf and his heirs, colledively and
indefinitely, it has one meaning when it regards
himfelf, and another when it refers to his heirs j
where there is no manner of neceflity for fuch
an interpretation ? Would any one conclude,
that becaufe Mofes received the Jaw for himfelf
and the Ifraelites, it fpoke to him one thing,

to thon another ? Finally j I conclude it

muft appear to the impartial reader of the pre-
ceding pages, that the rite of circumcifion, con-
sidered AS A DIVINE INSTITUTION, was ap-
pointed to all the fubjeits of it, indifcriininate-
ly, a SEAL of the right coufnefs of faith -, viz. a
declarative and certifying token that a man,
whethsr Jew or Gentile, is juftified by faith,
as oppofed to merit or worthinefs of his own j
or faved by grace. And I prefume, it muft fur-
ther appear highly proper^ to term circumcifion
a fed from the very nature of the inftituti-
on ; as it moft afluredly exhibited the grand
bleffings of the everlafting covenant, and was
attended with fuitable obligatiTins* , And more-
over,

* As to what fome have urged from Afts xv. lo. where cir-
cumcifion is called a yoke, and Gal. v. 3, where the circumcifed
are reprefented as tUbton to do the -whole law ; it is manifeft
that nothing can be fairly concluded againft what has been here
advanced J fin;? thefc paflages refer, not to the hatv&z

and

l82 Of the Nature and Ch. 2.

over, fince the ordinance of chriftian baptifm, ex-
hibits the fame fpi ritual and principal bleflings,
with the fame infallible certainty, and obliges to
fimilar correfponding duties j it follows, that
baptifm is properly and ftrictly a feal of the
chriftian covenant, or the exceeding great and
precious promifes of the gofpel, to every perfon,
indifcriminately, to whom it is duly adminifter-
ed, and may be fo denominated from its very

NATURE.

§ 36. From what has been faid refpe61:ing the
nature of baptifm and of circumcifion, and the
propriety of calling them feals of the covenant of
grace ; it follows, that there is an equal pro-
priety in calling the Lord's jumper a seal; as it
is a divine inftitution in the church, moft aflli-
redly exhibiting the great bleflings of the cove-
nant, and obliging the fubjects to anfwerable
returns of gratitude and obedience.

§ 37. (3.) Another general conclufion from
the nature and defign of baptifm is, That the
a6lual unworthinefs of minifter or fubje£l has no
invalidating influence on the bleffmgs and obli-
gations reprefented in the ordinance. For if
baptifm be a feal^ and does really reprefent the
aforementioned particulars, as a divinely iti/litu-
ted ordinance^ neither the holinefs nor the fmful-

nefs

and genuine defign of c'rcumciffon, but to the aeusk and per-
verfion of it by legalifls. Patil himfelf circumcifed Timothy ; but
did this chatTipion for foveieign grace, and gofpel liberty, put oo
his neck a yoke, which, in its proper nature, uie and tendency,,
fTjbjefted him to legal bondage ? Suiely not.

Ch. 2. DeCign of Baptifm, 183

nefs of the ni'inijier can alter its nature and de-
Hgn ; for to fuppofe it a feal to a proper fub-
je£l when adminiftered by a good man, but not
fo if by a bad man ; is to reft the vahdity of
a divine ordinance on a bafis totally unworthy
of God. It would alfo render the baptized lia-
ble to conftant doubt and fufpenfe, nay, abfolute
uncertainty, whetlrer he has received the feal of
God's covenant or not, in proportion as the
moral ftate of the adminiftrator was not cer-
tainly known ; which inconvenience would be a
fource of perpetual confulion in the church; and
therefore the fuppofition is inadmiffible for the
cleareft and ftrongeft reafons. Again : to fuppofe
that baptifm, duly adminiftered, is a feal only to
the true believer and not to other baptized per-
fons as well, is attended with the fame inconve-
nience. P'or if baptifm be valid and a feal to
none but true believers^ none but fuch can
infer, that any benefits are exhibited to them in
particular as baptizedy or that any confequent
and anfwerable obligations are thereby incurred j
and it alfo follows, that altho' the fubjeft be a
true believer, yet if he do not ktjow it, or have
not a certainty that he is fo; he muft be pro-
portionably at a lofs whether the ordinance be oir
be not to him a mere nullity. For, on the fup-
pofition, it is not the truth but the ajjurance
of faith, can enable him to draw the inference,,
that he is in confequence of his baptilin under
any additional obligations of duty. But how
abfurd to fay, that none are thus obliged except

they

184 Of the Nature and Ch. 2.

they are ajjured of the truth and reality of their
faith !

§ 38. (4.) From what has been faid we
may draw another corrollary, viz. That for any
perfon to defire rebaptization (I mean, on fup-
pofition of agreement about the mode ) from a
pretence that he was not properly quahfied for
his former baptifin, or cannot recollect it^.
or was not adlive and voluntary in it ; is vir-
tually to deny that gofpel bleffings are at all
exhibited therein to himj and that his baptifm
did lay him under any obligations of duty re-
fusing from this inftitution, hecaufe he was not
then duly qualified. But I think it has been
demonftrated, that confent is no neceflar)'' pre-
requifite of future obligation — that an admini-
ftrator of baptifm has a difcretionary power
of determining who is a qualified fubje6t and
who not— that no unworthinefs in minifter or
fubjeft renders the baptifmal a6l a nullity j —
for a perfon, therefore, who has been baptized
before properly, as to the manner^ by a gofpel
minifter, under the aforefaid pretence of non-
confent, &c. to be rebapti%ed^ or to defire it, is
wrong, unreafonable and unfcriptural. This
being the cafe, is not a defire in any to make
void the firft, that they may fubmit upon con-
viifion to another baptifm, which they appre-
hend requires them to make an open teftimo-
ny of their allegiance to Chrift ; too much like
the fubje6l of a ftate, who defires to rebel againfl:

his

Ch. 2. Deftgn of Boptlfm. 185

his fovereign, by a temporary withdrawing of
his allegiance, tho' introduced into his kingdom
when an infant — that he might have the plea-
fure oi Jubmhting upon conv'iSl'ion to the legal and
rightful authority of his fovereign ? For, if bap-
tifm does lay every perfon, however unworthy,
that has been baptized by a chrifl:ian teacher,
under the obligation appertaining to that or-
dinance ; to renounce, that baptifm, is to re-
nounce Its obligation ; and confequently to re-
bel : and this rebellion is for the fpecious, but
fpurious, reafon of perfonally, openly and fully
acknowledging future allegiance ! Again ; Is not
this defire of rebapt'rzation too inuch like that
of a perfon who enjoys the privileges, and even
feals of friendlhip, on another's part ; but who
has a mind to introduce a quarrel^ by declar-
ing that he has been hitherto under no obliga-
tion to his friend on account of any former feal
of his friendly difpofition and conducSl, to the
intent — that he may, after the quarrel was made
up, take occafion to profefs his friendlhip to his
benefactor !

I WOULD here remark, that it is pretty evi-
dent from the natural di(States of confcience, that
one who rejeds chriftianity after he has been
baptized in due form in his infant flate, and
brought up in a chriflian family, is in a more
"wretched condition than an infidel who has not
been fo devoted to God. Nor is this a begging
of the queflion, but an appeal to the common
notices and impartial pradical conclufioas of

mankind

i86 ■ Of the Nature and Ch. 2.

mankind. Let but an intelligent apoftate refleift,
that IF what is reprefented in baptifm be truey
however unfit he was to comprehend and receive
it J whether or not his guilty in renouncing
chriftianiiy, would be the greater on account of
his having been recognized by baptifm a fubjeil
of Chrift's kingdom \ I verily believe there is
no fenfible perfon of that defcription, but muft
conclude, fiom an attentive regard to the nature
and defign of the ordinance, that he incurs ad-
ditional blame, (fuppofmg chriftianity to be true)^
in confequence of his infant baptifm. This then
argues, on the fuppofition, a benefit received, and
ohligation incurred ; for otherwife there could be
no ground of blame. If a gofpel minifter, who
has a difcretionary commiffion relative to the fit-
nefs and qualification of. an admiflible fubjgcl,
judge (fuppofing, for argument fake, he were
under fome mifiake as to his determination of
fitnefs) that an infanty^m fome cafes, may be
baptized according to the nature and defign of
the ordinance, and the inftitutor's intention ;
mufl: this aSi of a difcretionary commiflion, and,
I will boldly affert, an zSt confifient with the
firidefc fincerity of determination, regarding the
glory of God, the will of the Redeemer, and
the good of the fubjedt, — mufl: this a6l be
deemed a mere nullity ? When the baptized af-
terwards reflects upon the fa6l, muft he conclude,
that becaufe it was done without his confent,
therefore he is not obliged by it as true baptifm ?
For an anfwer to this queftion, 1 appeal, not

to

Ch. 2. Defign ofBaptljm, 187

to the paffions, but to the rational powers, and
deliberate impartial judgment, of thoufands who
love their Lord and his authority more than
their own lives ; and doubt not that their reply
is, WE ARE UNDER OBLIGATIONS,
even all thofe which refult from the ordinance,
as a divine inftitution. When I exprefs my
own fentiments on this head, thofe of my bre-
thren will be echoed ; and they are thefe, —
I look upon my baptifm as exhibiting to me
inceflantly the forementioned blelTmgs, and find
ray confcience conftrained to anfwerable obliga-
tions of love, gratitude and obedience, and all
the particulars abovementioned. i have a ra-
tional certainty of the faft, and I am certain
(pardon the expreffion) that the adlion of a pro-
feiTional minifter pouring water upon me, when an
infant, in the name of the Father, o:c> does really
and truly oblige my confcience according to our
Lord's intention in chriOian baptifm. Nor can
I conceive of baptifm anfwering the ends of ex-
hibiting and obliging more truly and powerfully
if adminiftered this very day, than in earli-
eft infancy ; of its having any better moral ten-
dency, or being better calculated to ftrengthen
faith or adminifter comfort *. For if I cor-
dially

• ** Sacraments were never intended by God to exert their virtue
only in, or during the adminiftration For then it would follow,
that the haptifm once received, at vfhatever age, is no further to be
im;>roved by the party receiving it ; aiid fo, either baptifm nnill be
altojether a barren facranient all our lives, but only during the lit-
tle time of its adminiftration : or t\iz \.o tckciu ^Z'f benefit tlitre-
of, we muft often rcncio tbt adminiftration itlelf." Dr. Form's I'rac*
tical ufc of Infant Baptifmt Dial. ii. p. i®.

l88 Of the Nature and Ch. 2.

dially and morally approve of this tranfadtion,
of which I was confeffedly a capable fubjeil,
performed thirty or forty years ago, and on
fuppofition that it is to be done but once in
my hfe time, I am at a lofs to conceive,
why it may not anfwer every valuable purpofe
in refle<5ling upon and approving the fa6l, as if
done this day. If it be a fa5l that I was hap-
t'lzcd into ChriJ}^ in the fenfe before explained,
as I am perfwaded it is, the obligation to put
on Chr'iji is inceflant and perpetual, and not at
all weakened but x^tlizr Jirengthencd by the diftance
of time.

§ 39. (5.) Those, whether ancients or mo-
derns, who fuppofe a i'eol communication of fpi-
ritual bleffings conjlantly attendant on the ordinance
of baptifm, are under a miflake, if a jufl: ac-
count of its nature and defign has been given
in the preceding pages. For there we find,
that what the inftitution does infallibly^ is to
eichibit bleffings, and oblige to duties j but as to
any moral and fpiritual favour communicated by
it, this we fhould refer, not to any virtue
in the duty, or any certain connexion between
this and any fuppofed favour, but to the fove-
reign pleafure of the God of means. Much lefs
have we ground to infer that baptifm is the true
chriftian regeneration^ or that a certain iinmor-
talizing fpirit is imparted with it, as fome have
whimfically affirmed.

§ 40. (6.) From an attentive and impartial
furvey of the nature and defign of baptifm, de- .
duced from all the paffages of the New Tefta-

ment

Ch. 2. Defign of Baptiftn. 189 .

ment relating to it, we may again infer, That to make
the death, burial, and refurredlion of Chrift the only
or even the principal facts reprefented in the
ordinance, is partial and unjuft. Mr. B's third
chapter is entitled, " The design of Baptifm;
Or the Facts and Bleffings reprefented by it,
both in regard to our Lord, and his Difciples."
And under this title he mufters together no lefs than
fifty fix poedobaptift writers ; who, having made
fome conceffions refpe^ting the propriety and ex-
preffivenefs of immerfion to reprefent the fads of
Chrift's dcath^ burial and rcfurreSiion^ he imagines
greatly affift his caufe. It appears that the
chief reafon of thefe conceffions was their fup-
pofmg the apoftle, Rom. vi. 3 — 6, and Col. ii. 11
— 13. alluded to the mode of dipping the fub-
je<S when baptized. But is there any necejfity
for fuch a fuppofed allufion ? or is that the
moft natural zx\A fignificant import of thefe texts ?
I think not ; but am of opinion with Mr.
Henry's Continuator ( and more than fifty fix
others that might be collected, were the con-
troverfy to be decided by nmnhers^ as certainly
it is not) that the allufion is not to any mode
of baptifm whatever, but to a fpiritual difpofition
to which baptifm as a divine inftitution, obliges
the fubje6t. " Why this burying in baptifm
fhould fo much as allude to any cufcom of dip-
ping under water in bap'^ifm, any more than our
haptifinal crucifixion and death (hould have any
fuch reference, I confefs, I cannot fee. It is
plain, that it is not the fign^ but the thing fig-

nificd

190 Of the Nature and Ch. 2,

nlfied in baptifm, that the apoftle here calls be-
ing buried with Chrift ; and the expreffion of

burying alludes to Chriffs burial." And again,

** We are both buried, and rifen with him ;
and both are fignified by our baptifm ; not that
there is any thing in the fign or ceremony of
baptifm, which reprefents this burying and ri-
fing, any more than the crucifixion of Chrift is
reprefented by any vifible refemblance in the Lord's
fupper Ij." In addition to this, and what was
faid before on thefe paflages ( § 18, 19, of this
chapter ) I would propofe it to any impartial
perfon, acquainted with the nature of the myf-
tical union between Chrift and his church, of
which Paul often fpeaks, whether it is not a ftridt
and weighty truth, — that every chriftian, tho*
UNBAPTizED, is dead.^ buried and rifen with
Chrift ? and, as baptifm is an initiatory ordi-
nance, reprefenting thefe things in common with
varioiis other momentous fads of a quite differ^
ent nature, whether it is not mofi natural to con-
clude, that the Apoftle in thefe places urges a
particular branch of duty, of being CQnfor?ned to
Chrifl's death &c. from the general nature
of the exliibitory rite, however adminiftered, and
not that he ftiould prefs them tq the fame du-
ty from the fuppofed manner of adminiftration ?
And is not the former a topic far more noble
and powerful than the latter^ to anfwer the apo-
ftle's grand defign ?

§ 41. But, it may be objedted, " Suppofing

the

JI Henry's Comnnentary on the Rom, vi, 4andCol. ii. iz.

ig2 Of ihe Nature and Ch. 2,

any correfpondency between the fign and the
things that are fignified by it ; Lmmerfion mujl
be the mode of adminiftrationf." Here is a bold
conclufion drawn from premifes couched under
three hypothetical propofitions ; ihefecond, I pre-
fume, is (ufficicntly enervated already ; to the fr/f
and the third 1 (hall make the following re-
plies. And,

I. I AFFIRM there does not appear, from any
thing faid in the New Teftament or any thing ur-
ged by Mr. B. that the deaths burialy and refurreSfion
of Chrift are the principal fads defigned to
be reprefented in baptifm. For, if no paflages
of fcripture are adduced, nor any confideration.
urged by our author to fupport his conclufion,
except the two places above mentioned; — and
if the dire6t: meaning of thefe paflages ^amount
to no more than this, viz. lliat as baptifm
exhibits the blefling of the church's union to
Chrift and communion with him indefinitely ;
fo Tt lays the baptized under obligations of
conformity to him as the furety ; and hence his
incarnation^ his obedience^ his fufflrings — when
he was devoted to the curfe as the facred vic-
tim, and (dreadful baptifm! Luke xii. 50. Mark
X. 38.) when the cup of divine juftice was
poured out § on him without mixture his

crucifixion^
+ p. ?!•
^ The almoft conftant fciiptural mode of exprefling God's inflic-
tion of punifliment when the n etaphor is taken from water. See
Pfa. Ixix. 24. Ixxix. 6. Jer. vi. ii, x. 2;. xiv. 16. E/ek. vii. 8.
3tiv, 19 XX. ?» 13,21. xxi. 31. XXX. 15. H(f. v. 10. Zeph. iii, 8.
% Chron. xii. 7, xxxiv. zi, 2^, ]eT, vii. 20. xlii. 18. xl'v. 6.
£z, xxii. 22, 3i« xxxi. 18, Rev. xiv. lo. and xvi. throughout, &c. &c.

Ch. -2. Deftgn of Baptifm. 191

the apoftle does urge the fpecial duty of the mor-
tification of fin, from the confideration of the
general nature of baptifm as binding the fubje<5l
to univerfal duty, and confequently that very
important one; and fuppoling that the apoftle
PRINCIPALLY alludes to this general obligation oi
duty refulting from the nature of the ordinance;
does it not follow that the motive would be
yetjironger if the mode was immerfion?

1 ANSWER, with Mr. B. that " we have no
more authority to invent a fignification for any
rite of holy worfliip, than we have to appoint
the rite itlelfy." And if the texts in queftion
do not require this additional allufion, it muft
be either invented to ferve an hypothefis, or it
muft be fought in fome other part of holy
writ. Tliere is no alternative, and therefore let
our opponents take which they pleafe, their fond
conclufion is not proved from thefe premifes.
That the facred paflages referred to, do not
require an allufion to the mode of baptizing, has
been (hewn, and whether or not immerfion ap-
pears to be the moft proper mode from other
confiderations, is not to the prefent argument,
therefore to fuppcfc an additional force and pro-
priety in them on that account, is no better
than begging the queftion.
• § 42. Let us hear Mr. B. " Now, if fuch
[to reprefent the death, burial and refurre£tion
of Chrift,] be the chief defign of the ordinance j
if thefe pafjages of holy writ [Rom. vi. 4. Col.
ii. 12.] be pertinently applied j and if there be

any
B p- 7o«

Ch. 2. Deftgn of Bapt'ifm. 193

crucifixion^ when his body was bathed in its
own blood, the circumftance which above all
others St. Paul preached and gloried in — his
dying for fin — his burial for three days and
three nights — his victorious refurrection and

triumphant afcenfion to heaven, are all

illuftrious facts, by which the chriftian, in
virtue of the faid union, is bound to all fu:t-

able conformity ; if this, I fay, be the

apoftle's meaning, as before fhewn ; it is plain
Mr. B's conclufion is ill founded. For, ma-
turely refled, reader, do not chriftians fuffer with
Chrift ? are they not crucified with Chrift ? do not
they Uvc^ and fit and reign with him in hea-
venly places ? and are not thefe privileges in virtue
of union? does not baptifm reprefent that union
in general ? If fo, why confined to thefe three
particulars to the exclufion of others ? " Know
ye not, as if the apoftle had faid, that fo ma-
ny of us as were baptized into Jefus Chriji^
were baptized into him at large^ (fee Gal. iii.
27.) and of courfe into his death, that as he
died for fui, fo fhould we die to fin ; as he
buried our fin with his mortality, we fhould
concur with his defign by unremitted efforts
to keep under fubjedion the body of fin ; and
as he rofe to triumph over fin, we (hould not
continue its deluded captives, but a6l as' becomes
a rcyal pricfibood^ an holy nation^ a peculiar pes -
pie 11 ." Was not Chriji crucified the tnoji impor-
K tant

\ Pet. ii, 13. '

194 ^f ^^^ Nature and Ch. l.

tant theme of Paul's apoftolic teaching? (i Cor.
ii. 2.) And, God forbid, fays he, that I fhould
glory fave in the crofs of our Lord Jefus Chrift.
I am crucified with Chrift ; neverthelefs I live.-—
Now this union being general^ when any one
branch of it is fele£tcd, it is according to the
moral purpofe in view. For it is evident, from
the confideration of the gemral and unlverfal
nature of union and communion between the
church and the divine Sponfor, reprefented in
baptifm, that had the circumftance of crucifixion
anfwered the apoftle's moral defign better, he
might have properly faid, " being crucified with
him in baptifm."

Now who fees not, that the reftri<51:ive noti-
on of baptifm friticipally reprefenting the death,
burial and refurre(3:ion of Chrift, is inadmiffible,
being repugnant to an equitable axiom of inter-
pretation, ( § 9. ax. 3.) That no meaning of a
text, which is contrary to another paflage more
evident than itjelf, can be the true one. Nothing
can be plainer than this, that the apoftle Paul,
repeatedly, confiders baptifm as reprefentative of
union and communion with Chrift and his peo-
ple indefinitely ; (i Cor. xii. 13. Gal. iii. 27. 6cc.)
but this Mr. B's limiting hypothefis virtually
denies. For it is the fame as to fay, that a
tart is greater than the whole : that a few par-
ticulars, (however important) are more princi-
pal than the whole aggregate of the Redeemer's
vicarious fubftitution.

Upon the whole, then, it appears, that to

confine

Ch. 2. I>''ftsn of Baptifm, 195

confine the fignlfication of baptifm to this part
of the furety's meritorious work, is contrary to
the fcriptural idea of baptifm reprefenting union
to Chrift at large in all thofe refpeSis in which
he is the finner's fubftitute. Nor is it eafy to
fay, how any iyiode of miniftration whatever is
adapted to exprefs this more than another.
From whence I infer, that neither the death,
burial, refurreflion of Chrift, nor any other cor-
poral Jlate thro' which he pafled, were to be
at all reprefented by the ordinance. For the
church has union and communion with him in
all the Jiates of his furetyfhip, which were fo
various as not to be capable of an external re-
prefentation in one Jingle a^ as baptifm is.
Which leads to another conclufion, that may
ferve as a fufficient reply to Mr, B's remaining
argument, which implies, that " if there be any
correfponckncy between the fign and the things
fignified, irnmerfion muji be the mode of admi-
niftration," and that is,

2. From the cleared teflimonies of fcripture,
and from Mr. B's own maxim, it follows.
That if any faSfs at all^ of an external deno-
mination, are reprefented in the mode of ad-
miniftration, we are referred, above all others,
to the VISIBLE DESCENT of the Ho'y Spiiit.
Now this, as it is exprcfsly called, without con-
troverfy, a baptism, is a more certain clue
to find out and afcertain the mode, moftly ufed,
than any other. I fay mojily ufed ; for I own it
does not appear to me likely that one uniform
K 2 mode

196 Of the Nature and Ch. 2.

mode prevailed even in the apoftolic age. When,
therefore, I objedt to the baptift fenfe of Rom.
vi. 4. &:c. what I would be underftood to
mean is — thefe paffages do not amount to a
proof either that our Lord's death, burial and re-
furre<5lion are the principal fa£ls^ fignified by bap-
tifm, or, that the ordinance was defigned vifibly
to reprefent thofe fa6^s — that, fo far from
countenancing the ejfentiallity of dipping, they
are no evidence at all of any allufion to fuch a
mode. For further confirmation of which po-
fition, I refer the reader to that part of our fub-
'ytdi which treats profefledly of the mode.

Bur why {hould Mr. B. exert himfelf fo much
in an attempt to eftablifli, from two controverted
paffages, that the death, burial and refurredion
of Chrift are the principal fadts alluded to and
reprefented, while there are many tnore texts, and
thofe uncontr averted^ which reprefent the dejcent
and influences of the Holy Ghofl to be the
things fignified ? Nay, I fcruple not to affert it,
there is no objeSi whate'ver in all the New
Teftament, fo frequently and fo explicitly figni-
fied by baptifm, as thefe divine influences, fee
Mat. iii. ii.Mark i. 8 — 10. Luke iii. 16, 21, 22.
John i. 33. A£ls i. 5. ii. 38, 39. viii. 12 — 17.
V. 47. xi. 15, 16. 5cc. &c. Yet thefe things
he prudently overlooks. The reafon is at hand ;
*)lunging is pradifed by himfelf and his conftitu-
ents, and there is a greater refemblance between
that pradlice and a burial, than between the

faid

Ch. 2. Dcfign of Bapftfm. 197

faid plunging and the ailive communication and
application of divine influences to the foul.

Besides, Mr. B.'s maxim may be thus retort-
ed ; if in baptifm there is an exprejproe emblem of
the defcending influences of the Spirit, pouring
?nuji be the mode of adminiftration, for that is
the fcriptural term moft commonly and properly
ufed for the communication of divine influences.

To conclude, when we impartially confider
thefe things, and withal, that the Gofpel difpen-
fation is in the ftrideft fenfe The ministrati-
on OF THE Spirit II, it appears mojl probable^
that the various influences of that divine Agent
are principally rcprefented in baptifm. I own there
appears to me great beauty in this fcriptural
view of the ordinance, efpecially when confidered
in conne6tion with the other {landing inflitution
of the gofpel. The initiatory rite, which is not
to be reiterated, reprefents the promifed influences
of the fpirit of grace ; and by exhibiting thefe
blefilngs as about to be imparted repeatedly and
fucceffively, obliges the fubje6t to unremitted and
earnell applications for them. While the con--
firming ordinance, which is to be repeated, repre-
fents the death of the Lord §, and by exhibiting
this important tranfadtion as a paft event, obliges
the fubjedl to celebrate it euchariflically, or in
thankful remembrance of the great facrifice. The
jormcr teaches what the fubjedl may expeSf^ the
latter to what he is beholdm,

K 3 CHAP.

II 2 Cor. iii. 8, &c. § i Cor. xi. a6.

198 Of the proper Ch.

CHAP. III.

Of iho, proper Subjeds of baptilm -, parti-
cularly, whether it is the Will of
Christ that the infants of believing
parents fhould be baptized .'*

§ T. Of the proper point in debate. § 2. How
we may hioiu what is the will of Chrlfi in this
matter. § 3. Pretended fcriptural evidence
a^ainfl Posdobaptifm^ and the fuppofed filence of
the New Tejianient about it. § 4. All thefe
Antipoedobaptiji objections confronted zvith ttuo pro-
pofitions. § 5, (I.) Baptifm is applicable
to infants ; as appears ( i ) From the nature
and defign of the ordinance. § 6 — 9. (2) From
the fcriptural account of neceffary qualifications.
§ 10. (3,) From the concejjions and pri}2ciples
of our opponents. § 11. (II.) It is the will
OF Christ our children Jhould be baptized, as
appears^ § 12 — 17. (i.) From the di£iate$
of the law of 7iature, which are his will, when
not contravened by poftive authority, to benefit
eur children. § 18 — — 28. (2.) From God's
conflant approbation of this principle, in all pre^^
ceding difpetifatiovs. § 29 — 35. (3.) From the
language of prophecy refpe£iing children in gofpel

times. § 36 54. (4.) From New Tefla-

ment paffages, which corroborate the preceding
arguments. § 55. Corrolaries,

Cli. 3. Suhjc^s of Baptifm. 199

§ I. TTAVING, in the former chapters,
XjL inveftigated the nature of pofitive in-
ftitutlons in genera], together with the nature
and dcfign of baptifm in particular ; we proceed
next to confider, who are the proper fubjedls
of that ordinance ? And here it would be imper-
tinent to enlarge on the evidence we have in
fcripture, that Jews and Heathens upon renounc-
ing their falfe and embracing the true religion
were baptized; for about this we have no dif-
pute. We do not inquire, whether it be right
or not to baptize qualified adults who had not
been baptized before j nor, whether a profefli-
on of faith and repentance and a confillent
moiiil chara£ler be neceffary for fuch •■, but whe-
ther any infants are to be baptized ? or, to bring
the queflion to a ftill narrower compafs, " Whe-
" ther it is the will of Christ that believing
*' parents^ (hould endeavour to have their children
*' baptized ', and, virtually, being the other's
" correlate, Vv'hether it is the will of Christ
" that his minillers (hould comply with their
" requeft in baptizing them ? " The Antipoedo-
baptids adopt the negative ; it is my bufmefs to
make good the affirmative. Nor am I appre-
henfive that our opponents themfelves will objeul
to this ftatement of the controverfy, but will
allow, that if what is propofed be fairly dcnion-
flrated^ our caufe as Pcedobaptifts is good, and
our practice commendable.

§ 2. This being the matter in debate, our
K 4 next

200 Of the proper Ch. 3.

next inquiry muft be refpe£ling the allowable
fncdium of determining the queftion, I doubt
not but it will be allowed, to fave proving what
is fo evident, that whatever fliall appear to be
the will of God, is equally the will of Christ, I
and vice verfa. When 1 fpeak of Chrift's WILL, ^
I mean that will, upon the whole, as difcoverable
by us. This zvUl being to us the Supreme Law,
it is evident that wherever it appears, upon the
whole, to preponderate, we are under proportion-
able obligation of concurring v^'ith that prepon-

deration. Again, no one, who deferves to

be rcafoned v/ith, will deny, that it is perfectly
indifferent by ivhat means this is afcertained, pro-
vided it be but afcertained ; for if all poffihle
mediufus of proof be not allowed, then Chrift's
will, upon the ivhole^ or all things confidered, is
not the deciding flandard, which is abfurd.
Befide, this rule is confident with our opponents*
own principles ; for, when they appeal on every
turn to baptifm as a pofitive inAitution, they
can mean nothing elfe than that it is Chrifl's
will, all things covfulered^ we ftiall not baptize
our infant children.

The pojtive evidence of fcripture, in reference
to b?ptifni, or any other doclrine, privilege, or
duty, holds the fame rank in theology, as expc^
rimcnted evidence does in reference to any hypo-
thefis in philofophy. As, in the latter cafe, there
is no difputing in favour of a fyrtem againji
fa£is^ phenomena and experiments j fo, in the
former cafe, no reafoning can be valid in oppc-

fition

Ch. 3. SubjeSIs of Baptifm. 201

fition to pofitive evidencey or exprefs difcernible
authority. This authority muft be difcernible.^ elfe
it is no authority at all, for then nothing would
remain to influence our determination. Nor can
it be pofitive.^ but in proportion as it is exprefs
and unequivocal. For, in the prefent cafe, poft-
tive authority is that, the reafon of which we
do not, and cannot other-wife find out. There-
fore, that pofitive evidence, for or againft, which,
if afcertained, mull: needs preclude all further
inveftigation, (liould firfi be attended to. And
if on examination no fuch evidence appear, the
inquiry muft be transferred to another tnedium,
the neareft, in the fcale of importance, to which
it is applicable. Let any one propofe a more
juft and fatisfa(Slory mode of inveftigating the
fubje6t, (et erit mihi magnui Apollo) I fliall vene-
rate his abilities, and will fincerely thank him
for the difcovery.

§ 3. The firft inquiry to be made being
concerning the pofitive evidence of fcripture, I
(hould produce all thofe pafTages out of the New
Teftament which relate to the fubjecfl, were not
this done already ; but as it is done, the read-
er is referred to the beginning of the laft: chap-
ter, to prevent needlefs repetition. Now fince
it would be endlefs, as well as unnecefTary, for
me to examine every facred text produced againft
us, or which may be fo produced, — and fuice
that would be impofing on myfelf to prove a
negative, — it only remains that I {hould bring
to the teft thofe which our opponents lay the:
K 5 greateflt

262 Of the proper Ch. 3.

greateft ftrefs upon ; and this flep is the mofe
reafonable, inafmuch as it is to be prefumed
their own intereft in the debate would prompt
them to produce the ftrongeft. And here I muft
beg of my reader he will give me credit when
I fay, that I ftiall endeavour all along to place
the Antipoedobaptift objedlions in what appear
to me the flrongeft light, and dwell chiefly on
thofe points which are of the moft radical im-
portance in the controverfy.

When we confider the diflates of nature in
parental feelings; the verdidt of reafon in favour
of privileges ; the relation children bore to the
inftitutions of all preceding difpenfations ; and
efpecialiy the language of prophecy in reference
to the children of the gofpel church ; — it may
reafonably be prefumed, from their inflexible op-
pofition, our opponents have fomething very
exprefs to urge out of the New Tejlament to
counteradl fo ftrong a probability in our favour.
And, furely, exprefs they muft be, to refift the
united forces of fuch confiderations. And yet,
ftrange to think ! I do not find that any of
the Antipoedobaptifts pretend to adduce one
SINGLE TEXT as an exprefs and pofitive tefti-
ir.ony for this purpofe. Therefore, the merce-
nary forces they place in front muft be fuch
as thefe. -" 1 here is no exprefs precept^ or prece-
" dent^ in th6 New Teftament for pcedobaptifm.
^ «— That fuch paflages are our only rule of dodrind
*' and worfhip. — That the fcripture forbids what
*' it does not mention, '^Th.'ni in religious matters

»Mt

Cfa. 3. * Subjeils of Baptifm, 203

" it IS not only fmful to go contra Jlatutum^ but
*^ to go fupra Jiatutuni. " — To thefe they add,
" that to imagine the firft pofilive rite of religious
** worfiiip in the chriftian church, is left in fo vague
" a ftate as Pcedobaptifm fuppofes, is not only
" contrary to the analogy of divine proceedings
" in fimilar cafes, but renders it morally im-
" poffible for the bulk of chriftians to difcern
" the real grounds on which the ordinance is
*' adminiftered. — We have both exprefs coni"
*' mandi and exprefs examples for baptizing fuch
" as prafefs faith in Jefus Chrift ; but for none
" elfe. — That the qualifications required of thofe
" for whom our Lord intended the ordinance,
" do yiot agree to an infantile ftate. — Thatyi///^-
'' and repentance are pre- required in baptifm. —
*' Hence Philip faid. If thou believejl with all
" thy hearty thou 7nayejij Ads viii. 37. The com-
*' mand of Peter wa$, Repent and be baptized,,
*' Acts ii. 38. — That the facraments are not
" converting but confirming ordinances. — The fol-
" lowing fcriptures are alfo urged. Mark xvi. i6*
" He that believeth and is baptized. A6ls ii. 41 ►
^' Then they that gladly received his word were
" baptized. I Pet. iii. 2i. The like figwe whtreunto^
" even baptifin^ doth alfo now Jave us (not the put-
" ting away the filth of the fefl}y but the atifwer of
'' a good conjcience towards God) by the refurreC"
" tion of Jefus Chrijl. Again, Tliat the fcrip-
" tures confine its adminiftration to fuch as pro^
^^ fefs faith in the Son of God. — That our
"■ practice retrains it aUnoft intirely to fuch as lie
K 6 *<- under

204 .Of ^^-'^ proper Ch. 3.

" under a natural incapacity of profeffing repen-
" tance and faith. •— That pofitive laws imply
" their negative j — that our Lord having given
*' a cpmmiflion to baptize thofe that are taught,
" without faying any thing elfewhere, by way
*' of precept or of example, concerning fuch as
" are not infiruded being included in that com-
*' miflion ; there was no neceflity for him to
" prohibit the baptizing of thofe who are not
" taught : much lefs the baptizing of infants,
" that cannot be taught, in order to render the
" baptifm of them unlawful. — That fince office,
" or duty, means an a6tion conformable to
*' laiv, it is plain that duty cannot be conceived
" without a law ; that he does not perform
" a duty, when the law, or the rerfon of the

*' law ceafes f." Thefe, I believe, are Mr.

B.'s moji capital obje£tions, which are excerpta
taken out of his eighth chapter, entitled, No
exprcfs precept^ or precedent, in the New Te/ia-
ment, for Pcedohaptifm. But numerous as they
are, their whole collective force from van to
rear, confifts in thefe two things,

1. That fuch are the qualifications for bap-
tifm, required in fcripture, that children are
incapable of it.

2. That, fuppofing they were qualified, fmce
infants are not exprefsly and uncontrovertibly
rriCntioned in connexion with baptifm, it is not

the

■\ Pocdob, Exaro. p. 16?, 174, 17^, 179, 181, 183^
lE4, 185, 187, 188, 190.

Ch- 3» SubjeSis of Baptlfm. 205

the will of Chr'ijl they (hould be baptized ; be-
caufe in a pofitive inftitution, nothing fhort of
an exprefs precept or plain example can indicate
his will.

§ 4. On the contrary ; to confront, to break,
and to rout this boafted fophiflical phalanx, I
Ihall fhew,

I. That the ordinance of baptlfm is appli-
cable to infants, not lefs than to adults : or, in
other words, that infants are poflefTed, accord-
ing to fcripture, of all necejfary qualifications for
baptifm, and therefore are capable of it.

II. That there is fufficient pofitive evidence
it is the WILL of Christ baptized believing
parents fhould endeavour to get their children
baptized. Let us begin with the former.

§ 5. (I.) That the ordinance of baptifm is
applicable to infants, as well as adults, appears
hence,

(i.) That there is nothing in the nature
and defign of it, but is equally applicable to an
infant as to its parent. For,

I. What is its nature? It is a feaL This, I
flatter myfelf, has been demonftratcd in the
foregoing chapter ; and am bold to fay, is ca-
pable of manifold demonflration. Eut what
does it feal ? Not that the fubjecf^,, rightly, bap-
tized^ as fome have affirmed, is aflured thereby
that he is juftified and faved : which mufl imply,
if any thing, that he who is notfo afjiired was
wt rightly baptized j than which nothing need

be

206 Of the proper Ch. 3.

be more abfurd. For, then, numbers baptized
by the apoftles themfelves were not rightly bap-
tized. And yet, being a feal, it muft afture the
rightly baptized fubjeil of fomething. But what
is this fomething? Is it that the fubjefl is fm"
cere, that he has a good confcience^ is aSfually
pojfejj'ed of certain perfonal endowments, or cer^
tainly entitled to new covenant bleflings ? This
is irapoflible, on any other hypothecs than the
Popilh figment of facraments being effecStual to
the fubje(£l, ex opere operato. \\ hat it ajfurcs^
therefore, is not any thing fubje^lhely to the
baptized, whereby he is diftinguifhed from others ;
but as the only alternative, the fealing muft im-
ply an objeSiive certainty afforded him by the
Inflitutor. Now,

2. What is the dejign of this objeftive fealing?
and what are the truths thus certified ? ( I fay
truths^ for nothing which is not true does the
God of truth certify. ) The anfwer is piain —
That he will be A God to all the fealed. Or>
more fully, this is the record, " That God gives
i. e. exhibits to fuch eternal life, thro' the me-
diation of his Son, and the influences of his.
fpirit." But when I fay, that God afTures the
baptized in and by the faSl of the ordinance,
he will be a God to him, I do not intend the
erroneous, but too common notion, that a de-
claration or pron'iife of his being a God to any,
in the ceconomical revelation of mercy, implies
a certain connetlion between the promifee and his
future (much lefs his prefeut) pojpffion of the

Chief

Ch. 3. SubjeSfs of Baptlfm. 7,oj

Chief Good. For fuch declarations and promif-
es cannot, I think, be conceived of, when
addrefTed to man, under any other notion than
that of a propofal from a firft mover of covenant
terms ; for the free nature of man requires that
he fhould be addrefTed in this way. But how
man anfwers the divine requifitions, or how he
carries by a nature and difpofltion which, as an
echo, makes a fuitable reply to fuch a propofal,
belongs intirely to another difpenfation^ namely,

that of SOVEREIGN EFFICACIOUS GRACE ; the

Holy Spirit therein executing the decree of elec-
tion. It is evident, therefore, that the Lord
may be properly faid to be the God (or the chief
good) of a perfon or people, in divine ordinan-
ces, independent of any adftipulation from the
creature. For he was, in this fenfe, the God of
the infant Jews, and uncircumcifed in heart,
no lefs than Abraham himfelf. But,

3. W HO itts not that if it be a truth he may
be a God to any, infants or adults, independent on
their gracious difpofltion, the fame truth may be
Confiftently fealed and certified to them. T his I in-
fift was done to all, adults or infants, rightly cir-
cumcifed ; and this is done to all, adults or infants,
rightly baptized. However fome have made an
improper ufe of the topick of circumcifion in the
baptifmal controverfy, one would think there is
one thing at leaft that may be inferred from it
—that the feal of Ciod's covenant to man, be
that feal and that covenant what they may, is
APPLICABLE to an infant as well as to its pa-
rent. If, indeed, God's requifitions couLi not

be

2o8 Of the proper Ch. 3.

be anfwered in any other way^ than by the be-
I'teving confent of the finner, there would be feme
force in the objedtion of infants' incapacity and
incapability of being the fubje6ls of God's cove-
nant feal. But this is not the cafe. For tho*
infants are (inners, and have no believing con-
fent ; yet fome infants, our opponents being
judges, anfwer God's requifitions, or, in other
words, are jurtified. The truth is, the infant of
a day, and the convert of three- fcore years, are
accepted on the fame account^ tho' attended with
different circumftances. Union with the Saviour,
formed by a fovereign a6l of grace, anfwers all
demands. All other confiderations are merely
circumftantial. If, then, infants are capable of
anfwering the grand condition of acceptance, nay
equally fo with adults, it is evident that they
are capable of being under obligations, and ftill
more capable of baptifm, the feal of the objedive
certainty of exhibited bleflings.

§ 6. (2.) That infants are capable fubje£ls
appears, alfo, from the fcriptural account of necef-
fary qualifications for baptifm. Infants are capa-
ble, not only of what is equivalent to faith, re-
pentance, the anfwer of a good confcience, a
profeiTion of Chrift, &c. and a fubjeolive fuit-
ablenefs for the inftitution ; but alfo of that very
things from v/hich thefe qualities derive all their
value.

I. Infants are capable of what is equivalent
to faith, &c. in the mod important concerns,
fuch as acceptance with God, juftification ta

life.

Ch. 3. SubJ£^s of Bapt'ifm* 2Cg

life, kc. and where thefe very things are pro- v
nounced ^s necejjary as in the cafe of baj^tifm.
For iadance, He that helieveth (hall be faved y
but he that believcth not fliall be damned. With-
out faith it is ImpofTible to pleafe God. Except
ye repent^ ye fhall all liJcewife perijh. He that
helieveth not God, hath made him a liar. With
the Jieart man helieveth unto righteoufnefs^ and
with the mouth confejjion is made unto fahation.
Now, what can be more evident than that thefe,
and innumerable fimilar paffages, are not intended
to exclude from the benefits of redemption, all
infants^ but UNBELIEVERS, IMPENITENT finners,
DisPLEASERs of God, and disowners of Chrift.
This conclufion docs not, indeed, appear from
the paflages themfelves, for they are as exprefs
and peremptoiy as can bcj.in rcJlriSling the qua-
lifications for SALVATION", to FAITH, REPENT-
ANCE, &c. yet, when we confidcr infants' capa*
city for the former^ as moral and immortal
beings, and their incapacity for the latter^ (hov/-
ever peremptorily the cojiditions and qualifica-
tions are fpecified \ ) and when we confidcr the
favourable regard (liewn them, in every difpen-
fation, by the Great Father of all ; we are fairly
led to conclude, that fuch paffages of holy writ
do not afled> infants, as wuw-belicvcrs, «j«- peni-
tents, W(7«-pleafers, or w^s^z-profelTors. For the
pofitive virtues and graces which divines call
conditions of falvation, fine qua non^ are oppof-'d,
not to the mere ahfcnce of thofc qualities ui th.cir
activity and exercife, but to their aSilvc opfoj::.:s^

unbelief,

210 Of the proper Ch. 3.

unbelief, impenitence, &c. which can take place
only in adults.

From the premifes, then, it is clear, that if
infants are capable of thofe things which are
equivalent to faith and repentance, as qualifica-
tions for the mojl important privilege of falvati-
on, they are alfo capable of what are equivalent
to them as qualifications for the lefs important
privilege of baptifm. For, if the one be denied,
fo ttiay the other ; and if the one be granted,
fo ought the other. Infants are capable of a
divinely conftituted union with the infinitely wor-
thy Saviour, not lefs than adults ; and are they
incapable of the fy?nbol of that union ? Infants
are capable of the injluences of the holy Spirit,
not lefs than adults ; and are they incapable
of the fymhul of thofe influences ? He that can
believe it, let him believe it.

§ 7. 2. Infants are capable of a fubje^ive
fuitahlenefs for the inftitution. The nature and
defign of baptifm require, as is plain to com-
mon fenfe, that cjfenfible foeSy fuch as unbeliev-
ers, impenitents, and the like, ought not to be
treated as apparent friends ; that thofe who evi-
dently love darknefs rather than light, becaufe
their deeds are evil, fhould not be ranked with
the vifible children of light ; but does it follow
that infants muft be clafTed w'ith the former, and
not with the latter ? There is a fuitablenefs in
excluding open enemies from an external token
of a fuppofed fitnefs to be fubjecls of the gofpel
kingdom. But does it follow that infants oug^.t

to

Ch. 3. SubjeSis of BapUjm. 2ii

to be alfo excluded ? Again, there is a fuiu
ablenefs in this, that none but believers, penitents
and profeflbrs fhould be baptized, among adults^
becaufe if they are not fuch, they muft be po-
fitively the reverfe ; for in them there is no ^
alternative ; there is no medium between faith
and unbelief, between repentance and impeni-
tence. Of them^ he that is not for Chrift, is
againfi him. But can the fame be faid of in-
fants ? Becaufe they are not intelligent and volun-'
tary fubjeds, muft they be treated as foreigners ?
nay, as rebels ? Is there no medium between
loyal active obedience, and rebellion ? And be-
caufe the infants of any community do not make
an adive part of the ftate, does it follow that
there is no fuitablenfs in their being fubjeds at
all ? But if there be a fuitablenefs in infants
being admitted proper fubjects of a civil king-
dom, much mere is there a fuitablenefs in their
being admitted fubjects of the gofpel kingdom ;
the requifitions of the latter having a refpeft tq
grace^ which is applicable to both alike, but
thole of the former having a refped to reaforiy
of which infants are incapable.

Moreover : it is apparent, that faith and
repentance are no diftinguifliing characterifticks
of a chrillian as fuch^ but of a chriftian as adult ;
thefe qualifications are not efj'ential to chriitia-
nity, (if we intend thereby falvation thro\Chrill)
for this may exift without them. Now if the
initiating ordinance of chriitianity has relation to
the ejjence^ nature and dcfign of chriftianity, and

not

212 Of the proper Ch. 3.

not merely to a particular mode of it, it follows
that the ordinance is applicable to infants. To
fay, that this initial rite refers not to chriftia-
nity itfelf, but only to a certain mode or cir-
cumftance of it, is flatly to contradict its nature
and defign. For baptifm exhibits the whole of
chriftianity, and not merely a part j its ejjence
and not a mere circiimjiance ; as appears from
the preceding chapter. It exhibits regeneration,
fanclification, myflical union, falvation, Sec. whicli
are common to infants and adults. Nor does
it appear, I believe, that atry thing is therein ex-
- hibited, which is not equally applicable to both.
Nay, were we, for argument' fake, to allow Mr.
B. 's account of what it reprefents, viz. The
death, burial, and refurre6lion of Chrift, and
communion with him therein, it ftjll follows,
that infants are not lefs capable of thele blelT-
ings than believers, penitents and profeflbrs.
They are alfo capable of being put under obli-
gation^ except we adopt one of the mofl: abfurd
pofitions — That v/e ought not to be grateful,
when grown up to manhood, for a beneht re-
ceived in infancy. Thus we fee, that fuitable-
nefs to the nature and defign of baptifm, belongs
to the infant no lefs than his parent.

§ 8. 3. Again : they are capable of that very
thing from which faith, repentance and profef-
fion derive all their value. That there is in
fcriptuie a connection formed between believing
and baptifm in adults^ is clear from particular
paiTages, as well as the nature and defign of

the

Ch. 3. SiibjeSIs of Baptifm. 213

the ordinance ; but it is not lefs clear that this
connexion depends on thefe qualities, not as
they are in tbemfelves^ but only as they are in-
dicative of fomething more eflential f. Thefe
qualities are no further valuable than they are
exprejfive of the perfon's moral and relzXwt Jiate,
For, on our opponents' own principles, a pre-
ponderation of evidence againjl the latter, would
abolifh the pretenfions of the former. They will
allow, that the moft plaufible profejfion of know-
ledge or faith, is of itfelf no fufficient ground
for baptizing adults ; for if fuch a defe<5t in
a candidate's moral chara6ter, as demonftrates
to the minifter at the time of baptization, the
infincerity of his profeflion, and the badnefs of
his (late, be proved againft him, it would cer-
tainly dilqualify him for the ordinance. It is
clear from the nature of the cafe, that the be-
forementioned qualities, rather than any other
chriftian virtues, are connecfted with baptifm,
becaufe they are the moft ftriking and decifive
indications of a real change of ftatc, or at leaft
fuitablenefs of ftate and difpofition to commence
a fubjeit of the gofpel kingdom. Does an in-
fidel become a believer ? Does a criminal be-
come a penitent f Is the ignorant become know-
ing P Then they give a minifter the befl evi-
dence the cafe can afford, that they are proper
fubjetSts ; that is, in a ftate fuited to the nature
and defign of the inftitution. Could we fuppofe
a perJ'on pofTeflcd of the clearcft underftantiing

of

•f See Mr. Booth's Apology for the L'aptiAs, p. 2.

214 Of the proper Ch. 3.

of chriftian dodlrineis ; making the moft devout
and abundant profeflions of fincerity, of the
foundnefs of his faith and the genuinenefs of
his repentance ; the integrity and circumfpedtion
of his conduct for a length of time paft ; —
but, while the candidate is (landing ready for
the ordinance, and the minifter is going to ex-
ecute the command of Chrift, inconteftible evi-
dence is produced of his being that very day
guilty of a notorious deliberate crime, which he
had {ludioufly concealed ; what can the minif-
ter do ? Muft he forbid water? On what
ground ? His knowledge, profeflion of faith,
repentance, &c. are now fuperfeded on a moral
account. On the fuppofition, his baptifm was
to have taken place becaufe of thofe qualifica-
tions, but now he is excluded becauje he wants
THAT VERY THING of which children are capa-
ble^ viz. a ftate of grace and acceptance. But,
if it be faid, that the reafon of his rejection
was becaufe his profeffion was not fincere^ it
amounts to the fame thing ; for what is the
difference between a ftate of fincerity and a
ftate of grace ?

§ 9. Should it be flill urged, that " what is
deemed by the Antipoedobaptifts as the grand qua-
lification, is a credible profejfion ; not grace apart,
nor profeffion apart, but the umon of both ;
of which infants are incapable : " I anfwer.

This diftinilion, however fpecious, is a mere
evafion. For if there be any force in it, it
militates alike againft their fahability. For we

are

Ch. 3. SubjeSfi of Baptifm, 215

are faved by grace, thro' faith. We arc faved
by hope. With the mouth confejfion is made to
fahation. If any man love not the Lord Jefus
Chrift, let him be anathema maranatha. Repent
— that your fms may be blotted out. Now if
this union be requinte in one cafe, it muft be
fo in the other^ fmce it is required with equal
exphcitnefs in both. And falvation is conne^::ted,
not with grace apart, nor profellion apart, but
with the unifin of grace and the expreflions
thereof in faith, hope, confeflion, love to Chrift,
and repentance. But whatever Ihews this latter
inftance to be fallacious is proportionably con-
clufive againft the objedion. Suffice it to ob-
ferve, as before — that in each cafe, the fcriptures
require thefe exprefllous and figns of a gracious
rtate, of thofe only who are capable of their
aftive oppofites, or the contrary vices. y\nd
they derive thtir value intirely from the circum-
Jlances in which they are placed f , and not frond
any fuppofed excellency refulting from their
vnion as fuch.

Besides, that there is no fuch union as the
obje<.%on fuppofes, no fuch indifpenfible connec-
tion between thefe qualities and baptifm, as
founded on divine pofitive authority^ is apparent
hence ; that in the New Teftament different
qttalities are required of differont perfons^ accord-
ing to the circumftances in which thefe perfons
are found. If any are charged with fome no-
torious fms, the exhortation is, Repc7it and be

bap-

•}■ See Padobaptifmus Vindicatus, pe 1 5, &c.

2l6 Of the proper Ch. 3.

baptized ; if any are in a ftate of inquiry after
falvation, the qualification is, believing o7i the
Lord Jefus Chriji ; if any hefitate in giving their
afTent to his mefTiahlhip, believing ivith the whole
heart is required. In like manner the confejjion
of fins^ receiving the word with joy^ the anfwer
of a good confcience^ ^c. are required in different
circumftances. But what renders this argument
irrefragable is, that our Lord was a fuitable fub-
je5i of the baptifm of repe7itance^ tho' incapable
of repentance. He pofTelled, indeed, what was
equivalent to it, but not the thing itfelf The
fame may be faid of regeneration^ ^c. The bap-
tifm of John required repentance and the con-
feffion of their fins of thofe only who were in
circumfiances capable of thefe things, but they
were not efjential qualifications ; for what was
efiential to the nature and defign of the infti-
tution, Chrift muft have poflefled, elfe there was
no propriety and fuitablenefs in his being the
fubjedt of it.*

As to what is called a credible projejfion^ it is
plain the epithet credible is predicated of pro-
feffion to fhew, on the one hand, the infufii-

ciency

* " Neque obilare debet, qucd non cmnta quas itidem per
♦' baptifmum fii;pificari folent, in iftam ostatem [ fcil. infantiamj
♦• proprie congruant. 'Nam ei fatiitertia, quam fcimus baptifmo de-
" fignari, majorem certe in iisqui, cum vitam diu impiiram
«« egiflenr, vitae totius mutandae propofitum teftabantur, quam
«* in aliis, locum h.^bebat 5 in Chris to vero, quem Johannes
" baptizavit, NULtvf^; qui, ut Tirtullianus loquitur, W-
" livs pcsnhentia debitor 'vir.fius ejl," Poli Synopf, in Matth.
xix. 14.

Cb. 3' Subjedfs of Baptlfm. 217

ciency of mere profefllon, and on the other,
that the fuppofed pojjejjion of the thing profefTed,
gives to profelTion the whole of its value. Thus
in refpecl of promifes and oaths, they are no
further valuable, in a moral and religious fenfe,
than they are exa6t delineations of the refpec-

-tive principles from which they are fuppofed to
proceed. A promifor or a juror, known to be

falfe in the matter promifed or fworn, is detefl:-
ed. The value of thefe things arifes from their
credibility^ that is, from the fuppofed conneSiion
between the fign and the thing thereby figniiied.
So far, then, it is clear, that if there be any pro-
fefliofl at all^ that profelFion ought to be cre-
dible. But from the confideration, tha|t no pro-
feffion is available but what is credible, it does
not follow, that profeffion of this or any other
kind is necejfary. For the nature of the gof-
pel kingdom, and of this inftltutipn, do not
require, any more than the nature of civil
government, that infants, becaufe not capable
of profejfing allegiance to their refpeiStive kings,
Ihould be confidered as no fuhjeSls -, tho' the
nature and defign of the one and the other
require, that where it is fuitable there fhould
be a profeiTion at all, it fliould be a credible one.
§ 10. (3.) It may be made to appear, from
the principles and ccncefiions of our opponents,
that infants are not naturally incapable of bap-

. tifm ; but the incapacity they object to is de-
duced, from the fuppofed effentiality of faith
and profelUon, as qualifications for the ordinance.
For thus Dr. S. writes in reply to Dr. An-
L DiNcj ton's

2i8 Of the proper Ch. 3.

dington's enumeration of benefits refulting from
infant baptifm : " Now, Sir, if thefe advantages,
which no doubt are very great and important,
were the natural and proper effeds of the ap-
plication of baptifm to infants; or if the cere-
mony were appointed by God to thefe ends-; or
IF the omiffion of it did at all lefTen the
obligations of parents to take care of the edu-
cation of their children, or of children to make
all fuitable returns to their parents and to demean
themfelves well in life, or of minillers to inflmct
and exhort them both to their feveral duties :
IF this were the cafe, / acknowledge it would be
both cruel and impious to deny theyn to children j|."

Here it is plain, from the avoived connection
fubfifting between the confequenCe and the hy-
pothetical antecedents, that nothing is neceflary to
render infants equally capable of baptifm with
adults, but a divine appointment of its applica-
tion to them, or its ufeful tendency when applied.
And, therefore, no incapacity in infants. Dr. S.
being judge, can be fairly objected, but what
arifes from a begging of the queftion in debate.
For, if it fhall appear, that it is the will of Chrifl
believers (hould get their infant offspring bap-
tized ; or, if it fhall appear, that there is a pre-
ponderation oi foUd advantages in its favour, the
pretended incapability urged is totally annihilated.

§ II. (II.) I AM now to fhew, that it is the
WILL OF Christ baptized believing parents
iTiould endeavour to get their children baptized.
When I exprefs myfclf thus, 1 would not be under-

flood
D p. 291.

Ch. 3. Subjecis of Baptifm. 21!)

ftood to mean, that thofe parents who are not
bapti'z.ed^ and do not believe.^ are under no obligation
with refpedl to their own baptifm and tiiat of
their children ; but our controverfy with the Anti-
pffidobaptifts does not require a greater univer-
fality than is exprefled in the propofition. It
muft be left to the candid reader to determine,
whether the preceding pages evince the capabi-
lity of infants to anfwer the nature and deiign
of the inftitution. But our opponents contend,
" That, fuppoling they were capable and qua-
" Hfied, fince infants are not exprefsly and incon-
" trovertibly mentioned in connedlion with baptifm,
" it is not the will of Chrifi they fliould be bap-
" tized ; becaufe, in a pofitive inftitution, no-
" thing fhort of an exprcfs precept or plain ex-
" ample can indicate his will," The fallacious
impropriety of connefling the abftract notion of
a pofitive inftitution with the ordinance of baptifm
in i'-s complex form, and efpecially in extending
its pofitivenefs to the moral qualifcations of the
fubjeils, has been fhewn in the firll chapter ;
to which the reader is referred. Now, againft
the remaining part of the objedtion I maintain,
tliat on fuppofition infants are not exprefsly and
incontrovertibly mentioned in connection with
baptifm, there is fufficient pofitive tvidence \i\
favour of Poedobaptifm. For,

§ 12. (i) The Unv and light of nature re-
quire, and confequently the will of Chrifi^ that
parents (hould introduce their children to all the
benefiti and privileges of which they are capable.
L % I'hat

220 ~0f the proper Ch. 3.

That infants are fubje6ls capable of baptifai
{capable^ I mean, in the propereft fenfe) has
been demonrtrated. For, haptifm being the seal
of God, to be minifterially applied to all the
fubjcifls of the vifible gofpel kingdom ; and circum-
cifton being a seal of the righteoufnefs of faith ;
the latter therein eminently agreeing with the
former ; it follows, that if an infant be capable
of the one, it is equally fo of the other. — It
remains therefore that we attend to the remain-
ing parts of the complex proportion. I fay, then,

I. Baptism is a benefit and privilege when
applied to capable fubjecSts, poffefling all the
qualifications neceffary to anfwer the fcriptural
defign of the ordinance. lliat it is a benefit
to fuch is apparent, when we confider what
baptifm when applied necelTarily includes. It
includes a relative change of ftate ; thereby
the fubjeil is tranflated, minifterially, from a
ftate of diftance to a ilate of nearnefs j is fepa-
rated from the world and joined to the_ uni-
verfal church ; is thereby legally entitled to
all the other external privileges of the gofpel dif-
penfation, of which the fubjeil is capable, this
being the right of initiation into them. Again, it
includes, a dedication of the fubje6l to Father,
Son, and Spirit; is a feal of God's covenant
to the fubjeiSl:, afluring him to his dying day,
that therein are exhibited to him exceeding
great and precious promifes ; and, of courfe,
.'ays a foundation for the moft rational and in-
terefting obligations of duty. And, indeed, the

finsle

Ch..3 Suhje^s of Baptijm. 2.21

fingte confideration of baptifm laying all fuita-
He fuhje^ls to whom it is minifterially applied
under fuch obligations, is alone decifive in fup-
port of the point under confideration. And here
we may aik, If infants are capable and fuitable
fubjects, as we have proved they are, and if
the above important particulars belong to aU
thefe when baptized, as fuch ; what greater be~
nefit can we conceive to appertain to a divine
inftitution? Could Paul himfelf regard his bap-
tifm in a more benejici.d light ? For, if it be
fald, that an adult has an opportunity at his
baptifn to tejiify his faith and repentance, to
profcfs his fubjeftion and allegiance to Chrift,
it is plain this is only confounding what are in
themfelves diftincl:, divine henefiti and human
duties. To call the difcharge of duty a divine
benefit, in fcridlnefs of fpeech, is to fay that
the grounds of moral obligation, and the dif-
charge thereof, are one and the fame thing,
which is abfurd. The grounds, motives and en-
couragements of duty are divine benefits, toge-
ther with the ability, inclination and the effec-
tive caufe of compliance with duty ; but, pro-
perly fpeaking, duties the?nfelves are not fo. And
this muft neccflarily be the cafe while man is
free in his anions and accountable for them.

§ 13. If the above reafoning be jull, and if
I do not greatly mifunderlland our oppofers, their
notion of baptifm is no benefit at all. We con-
fider the baptifmal ordinance as a feal of God's
covenant to fcederaiiy and of confequence the
L 3 right

222 Of the proper > Ch. 3.

right to it a benefit. To this Dr. S. repHcs,
" If fealing be, as you have feen, a matter of
duty rather than of right, to ufe this kind of
language is much the fame as to fay, that per-
fons have a right to do their duty-f." But be it
known, that this worthy author does not fay,
as indeed he could not with any colour of plau-
iibility, that infants are incapable of being be-
nefited by free grants and covenants, for thus he
fubjoins: " A man may be included in a cove-
nant or BENEFITED by it, who is no way a party
to it, and whofe fignature therefore is not at
all requifue. Children, for inftance, frequently
derive advaritages from covenants which, with
all the authentic forms of them, exilied long be-
fore they were born]{." The Reafon, therefore,
why infants, according to him., are not proper
fubjecls of baptifm, is not becaufe of any incapa-
city in them of being benefited.^ but becaufe they
are incapable of duty. And fo eflential is the
fubjecft's dutyy on thefe principles, to the ordi-
nance of baptifm, that feparate from this obfe-
quious concurrence, the infcitution itfelf is not
a benefit or a privilege, but a mere non-entity.
Confequently, for any to difregard baptifm, is
not to difregard a benefiit mercifully held forth
to them, but the negledl of a duty.^ in the fame
fenfe as prayer, or any other moral duty is rieg-
leded. , On thefe principles, therefore, which re-
pi-efent baptifm as no benefit in any fenle but
that in which the performance of any duty is fo,

it

f Anf, to Dr. Adding ton's Rearo.nf, p. ic6. \ Ibid.

Ch. 3. Suhje^s of Bapt'ifin. 223

it is, no wonder that our antagonifts fliould pro-
nounce the baptizing of infants an abfurd prac-
tice, for it is the fame as to put an infant on
performing duty ! But if it be fo, it equally
follows, that baptifm is no benefit^ properly
fpeaking, to believers. And if no benefit, it
can lay them under no obligations of gratitude,
for gratitude neceflarily fuppofes a benefit. What
they muft lay for a foundation of gratitude on
thefe principles is their oivn performance of duty,
and that properly being no divine benefit, their
gratitude mufl terminata on themfelves . But
what are our opponents' avoived grounds of
obligations of duty in this matter? Dr. S.
replies : " There can be no doubt that we
are to confider it [ baptifm ] as a folemn teft,
whereby we voluntarily bind ourselves to

new obedience. Nor can it be in regard ot

them [ infants J a teft of new obedience, they

not VOLUNTARILY SUBMITTING TO IT*." Is

this the language of a proteftant orthodox
divine ? Is our new obedience founded on
our OWN SUBMISSION ? Is our OBEDIENCE ob-
ligatory in proportion as we bind ourselves
to it ? Be it fo ; there is one confequence ine-
vitably follows, viz. That no perfon in the world
is under any obligation to perform what he does
not voluntarily fubmit to, or to regard any thing
as a duty until he binds himfef to the perform-
ance of it. A doilrine this, that will be always
grateful to the human mind, in proportion as it
L 4 is

• Ut fupra, p, 109,

224 ^f '^^^^ proper Ch. 3.

is difaffetfled to the requifitions of its Creator !
How much mere rational and fcriptural the fup-
pofition, That baptifm, as a divine inllitution,
is a benefit conferred on all who are the capable
and adual fubje6ts of it ; and, as fuch, exhi-
biting bleffmgs anu obliging to anfwerable du-
ties ? To conclude this paragraph, I will fub-
join the words of a Prelate on ihis fubjeit, in
whom the power of godlinefs, found learning,
and judicious moderation, feemed to unite their
fpiendors : '' Either baptifm is a benefit to
" fants, or it is not. If none, why then admi-
" niftered at all ; but if it be [ which was his
"real fentiment] then why fliould the poor
*' innocents be prejudged of it for the parent's
" caufe, if he profcfs but fo much of a chrif-
" tian as to offer his child to that ordi-
" nancef." We now come to (hew,

§ 14. 2. That as baptifm is a Z-^w/f/ff appli-
cable to infants, the diciaies of nature require
our applying it to them ; and, provided thefe dic-
tates are the will of Chriji^ and if they are not
contravened by pofitive authority, the conclu-
fion is clc::r as the day. That it is the will
OF Christ profeffing parents fhould folicit
baptifm for their children, and gofpel minifters
fhould baptize them.

Let us not miftake the flate of the queftion, and
the force of the argument. I do not fay that bap-
tism is difcoverable by the light of nature , but that
the revealed account of it confiders it as a bene.-

FIT
f Archbifhop Leighton's Seleft Works. Lft. No. j.

Ch. 3. Suhjefls of Baptifm, 225

FIT ; and thit the law and light of nature require
vre rtiould confer on our children all the benefits
of which they are fuituble fubjeds, and which
lie within our power. This is of importance
to be obferved ; for there is a very obvious dif-
ference between the difcoverlng of a benefit and
the application of it, when difcovered, to one
rather than another. This diftinftion Dr. S»
overlooks, when he thus interrogates and re-
plies : "Is infant baptifm a duty the light of
" nature and reafon teaches ? This furely will
" not be pretended*." But this is artfully blend-
ing what are in themfelves perfe(Slly diftindl.
We do not fay that baptism, viz. The chrif.
tian pur^jfeation in the name of the Fatiier, and
fo on, is taught by the light of nature and
reafon j but is, on the contrary, a pofttive ap-
pointment. And what then? Does it follow
that the light of nature and reafon is not con-
cerned in the application of baptifm to one fub*
je£l in preference to another ? The miniflerial
commiffion to baptise (as well as to preach) is a
dijcretionary trv.fi \ the gofpel revelation is the
RULE and pofitive dire6lory; but can any one,
who properly confiders the nature of divine
laws, their fcparate and refpc>Stive influence, the
nature of politive authority in particular, hefi-
tate a moment about the necefiity of the light
of nature and reafon to aflift in the application of
that rule ? To fuppofe that, by infifiing on the
neceflary aids of the dictates of nature in the
application of the fcripture rule in many cafes,
L 5 w*

* Anf. to Dr. A. p, 29IV

226 Of the proper Ch. 3.

we derogate from the true perfeSllori of the fa-
cred volume, is a furmife demondrably weak
and impertinent. Suffice it to obferve with St.
Austin: " To reje6l the conduit of the light of
" nature is not only foolifh but alfo impious*."
With Tertullian: " Thofe notions and
*' perfuafions of the human mind that are com-
" mon, are capable of making us wifer, even
" in divine matters., provided we employ them
" in defence of truth, not for the fupport
« of error f." With Hooker : " The will of
" God, which we are to judge our adions by,
" no found divine in the world ever denied to
" be in part made manifefl: even by light of na-
" tare and not by fcripture alone J." With
Chillingworth : " It is very meet and rea-
" fonable and neceflary that men, as in all
" their actions, fo efpecially in that which is of
'' greateft importance, the choice of their way
" to happinefs, fhould be left unto — right
'' reafon^ grounded on divine revelation and com-
** 7non notions^ written by God in the hearts of
** all men ; — deducing, according to the ne-
•' ver-failing rules of logic, confequent deduc-
" tions from them. And he that follows this
*' in all his opinions and adlions, and does not
" onlyfecm to do fo, follows always God||."

The

* Augustinus de Trin, cap. vi. Lumims naturalis ducatum
rfpellere, non modo ftultum eft, fed et impium.

•f Tebtxjllianus de Refur. carnis, cap. iii. Eft quidem et
de ccmmunibus fet:Jious fapere in Dei rebus, fed in teftimonium veri,
non in adjutorium falfi.

" X Hooker's Eccles. Polity, F, III.- § 8.
g C'lit.MNGwoRTH 's Religion of Proteftants, Pref, § 12»

Ch. 3. SuhjeSls of Baptiffji, 227

The influence, therefore, here afcribed to the
light of nature, is not the difcovery of baptifm
as a po/itive appointment, (which would imply
a contradi£lion) but the application of baptifm to
fome perfons rather than others, with the afTift-
ance of the fcripture rule. If the fcripture rule
clearly countera^ what feemed before a natural dic-
tate, this latter, it is evident, fhould fubmit to
the former ; if not, and fuppofing revealed po-
fitive evidence out of the queftion, the natural
di6late continues in full force, being, on the fup-
pofition, the only evidence remaining in the cafe.
But if to this laft mentioned evidence be fuper-
ndded any given degree of fcriptural authority, the
force of obligation is increafed in that proportion.
§ 15. When I fpeak of the Law of nature^
in this connection, I would be underftood to
mean nearly with Grot i us : " That [regular]

" DICTATE OF RIGHT REASON WHICH SHEWS

" that there is in any f human ] aft, from its

" AGREEMENT OR DISAGREEMENT WITH
" [our] RATIONAL [aND SOCIAL] NATURE a

" moral turpitude, or a moral necefllty ; and,
" of courfe, that fuch an aft is either forbid-

" DEN OR ENJOINED BY GoD THE AUTHOR

" OF NATURE*." And, With Calderwood,
I would term any human aft indifferent
" which has no moral goodnefs or pravity ;
** that is, which is neither enjoined nor for-
" bidden, by any law natural or divine.f"
L 6 AH

» Grotius De Jure Belli ac Pacis, Lib. I. Cap. 1. § x. i.
-f Calderwood Akare Damafcenum. Cap. ix. De rebut adia-
{i^lioris et ceremoniisi p. 366.

228 Of the proper Ch. 3.

All human ails, therefore, morally confidered, in
their general and univerfal nature, are either
GOOD, BAD, or, feiundum fpeciem^ indiffer-
ent ; tho' no human a6l, in its particular and
fingular nature, feciindum individuum^ terminating
in a6tual exiftence and attended with all its cir-
cumftances, can be morally indifferent. By the
light of nature I underftand with Doddridge :
*' That part of the law of nature which man
" by the exercife of his reafon has aSiually dif-
^^ covered \^" and not merely what he may difco-
vsr^ by that means.

Here let it be obferved, that as the reports of
fenfe may be taken for true, when there is no
reafon again ft them ; becaufe when there is no
reafon not to believe, that alone is a reafon for
believing them : fo, the reports of the Imv of our
nature may be taken for true, when there is
no revelation agairjl them ; for to do otherwife
would be to deny our allent to what, on the
fuppofition, is the hefl evidence. And where
certainty is not to be had, probability muft be
fubftituted in the place of it : that is, it muft be
confidered, which fide of the queftion is the
7nore probable. With whatever contempt fome
may afFeft to treat this rule, they fhould be
reminded that the obje6l of fuch contem.pt is
truth itfelf. Befides, unlefs it be reafonable to
put out our candle, becaufe we have not the
light of the fun.^ it muft be reafonable to direcEl
our fteps by probability when we have nothing

clearer

[I PoDCRiCGz's Le^. Definit, LXII,

Ch. 3. S)uhje£ls of Baptifm, 229

clearer to walk by. The only alternative is to
wander and fluftuate in abfolute uncertainty f .

Nor can it be denied, " that every man," as
PuFFENDORF obfcrvcs, " of mature age, and 3
" found mind, poiTefles fo much of this natu-
" ral light, that ufing proper means and due
" attention, he may very well difcover at leaft
*' the general precepts and principles of the law
" of nature ; and, at the fame time, judge,
" that thefe are perfectly fuitable to his nature
" and ftate *. But if any thing be determined, by
" rational inveftigation, to be a part of the law of
" nature, this muft not, on that account, be pro-
" nounced oppofite to what the facred fcriptures
" deliver more clearly on the fame fubjeft ; but
" fhould be diftinguiflied as it were by ahjira^tion^."

§ 16. Having premifed thefe things re-
fpeftirlg natural diSJates^ as being of divine ori-
gin, and of univerfal and perpetual obligation,
when not contravened by the exprefs will of tlie
fupreme Lawgiver, who alone has a right to
controul them ; we proceed to inquire what are
fome of the moft important and univerfally ac-
knowledged parts and principles thereof that relate
to our prefent purpofe.

The following things feem to be of that
defcription : " That man is a focial creature :

" and

•|- See WotLASTON's Religion of Nature, § HI. 14, 15, 16.

* Vjd, PurFEKDORFiuM De Officio, Lib, !• Cap. I. § 4.

§ Id. Pref. % 4.

230 Of the proper Ch. 3,

" and the fubje^l of moral obligation. That
" all injuftice is wrong and evil, and vice verja.
" That to render all their due, is juftice : and
" to detain any thing that is another's, is injuf-
" tice. That infant children are to be regard-
" ed as parts of their parents. That parents
" have a juft right of putting their children,
" even in earlieft infancy, under future obliga-
" tions : or, in other words, that they ought ta
" benefit their children, when it is in their
" power to do fo. That parents ought to take
*' the hej} care of their children they can, en-
*' deavour to provide for them, and to be al-
" ways ready to affifl: them. That in order to
" the good of children, there muft be fome
" authority over them lodged by nature in the
" parents : that is, the nature of the cafe is
'* fuch, as necejfarily requires there fliould be
" in the parents an authority over their chil-
" dren in order to their good. That parents
" ought to difpoje of their children according to
" the bejl of their judgment. That as the
*' child grows up, the cafe is ftill the fame in
'■''fome degree or other, till he arrives at the age
" reckoned mature ; and very often longer.
'' That parents, in confulting the good of their
" children, ought to adopt thofe means, which,
" according to the beft of their fkill, abilities,
" and opportunities, they find moft conducive
" to that end. That children are laid under
*' obligations to their parents in proportion as
** they are benefited by them^ and to God fu-

" premely

Ch. 3. SubjeSis of Baptifm, 23 1

" premely, as the ultimate fource and firft caufe
" of all. That the natural ajfc&iion which re-
" gularly and mutually fubfifts in parents and
" children, ought to be obferved and followed,
" when there is no reafon to the contrary. For
*' when there is no reafon why we (liould not
" comply with it, its own very folicitation, and
*' the agreeablenefs we apprehend to be in com-
" plying, are preponderating arguments. This
*' muft be true, if jomething is more than no-
" thing. Nay, if this T^^y-n be only a kind
" of attra^ilon in the mere matter of parents
" and children"; yet ftill this phyfiical mo-
" tion ox fympathy ought not to be over-ruled
" if there be not a good reafon for it. On the
" contrary, it ought to be taken as ^ fuggejilon
" of nature, which ihould always be regarded,
" when it is not fuperfeded by fomething fu-
" perior; that is, by reafon^ Sic. — Therefore
*' not to a£l accordmg to it, is not to acl ac-
" cording to reafon, and to deny that to be which
" is II . Confequently, That when parents do
" not a£l according to thefe dictates^ without a
" divine warrant to aft otherwife, they lie a-
" gainft the truth, and deny themfelves and their
" children to be what they are ; and the relation
" that fubfifts between them. That when any
" do not benefit their offsprings and thofe m their
" houfe^ who are not of age to rejeSt the pro-
" pofed favour, aft an unnatural part."

§ 17". From what is faid, the conclufion is

inevitable

H See Woliaston's Rdig. of Nat. § VIII. faffm.

232 Of the proper Cli. 3.

inevitable — That it is the will of Chr ist, his
difciples fhould devote their infant children to

him in baptifm. For,

The dictates of nature, uncontrouled by-
revelation, are the will of Chrljl^ and our rule
of duty. ( § 15. ) — The will of Christ,
cxpreiTed in thefe dl5iates^ requires us to benefit
our children as they are capable. ( '^ 16 ) —
Baptfm, as the initiatory fcal of God's cove-
nant, is a benefit of which infants are capable.
(See chap. II. § 23—25. and ch. ill. § 5 — 10.)

— This evidence is not eclipfed^ but brightened.,
by fcripture authority, as v^e lliall fee in the
fequel of this chapter.

Let the reader carefully notice, that we do
not fuppofe, by infirting on this argument, the
infufficiency of direct fcripture evidence : for
this has ■ been frequently urged with advantage,
to fatisfy perfons of the beit difpofitions and abi-
lities. That is, reader, " fome of the moft eminent
Poedobaptifts that ever filled the Profeffor's
chair, or that ever yet adorned the Proteftaat
pulpit." But fince our opponents infifl;, that
what has been fo often urged, is not conclufive ;
and modefily affirm, it is only calculated to catch
" the eye of a fiiperfi.cial obfei ver ;" they are
defired once more impartially to weigh this rea-
foning, and then, if they are able, to refute it.
Let them know, however, that hackneyed phrafes
without meaning — principles taken upon truft

— and empty declamation — mufl: not be palm-
ed on us inftead of folid arguments.

Wer£ it necefiary, it would be eafy to (hew,

that

Ch. 3. SubjeSls of Baptifm. 233

that the principles above urged are no novelty ;
but are perfedtly agreeable to experience, — and
to the practical judgment of the mofc ferious
Pcedobaptifts, both illiterate and learned. But
waving this, proceed we next to another cor-
roborating proof of the main propoiinon.

§ 18. (2) What we contend for is, That
it is the WILL of Christ we ftiould baptize
our infant children. In proof of this we have
fliewn, firft, that the dictates of right reafon re-
quire us to benefit them, and confcquently to hap~
tize them j as baptifm is always a beneiit when
adminiftered to capable fubje6ts. We come, fe-

condly, to fhew That God has conflantly

approved of this principle^ in all preceding difpen-

fations. In other wc«-ds That the principle

of the laft' argument is fo far from being weak-
gned by fcripture evidence, that the Lord's op-
prohation of IT, in his condutSt towards the
offspring of his profefTmg people, in all the dif-
penfations of true religion, is abundantly iiluf"
trated and confirmed.

iMr. B's mifapplied but favourite maxim —
" Pofitive laws imply their negative," has no
force in the bapiifmal controverfy, until he
demonftrates, in oppofition to what is advanced,
that the didates of right reafon muft be fmother-
ed^ or elfe, that revelation countermands their in-
fluence. But to dsmon'irate the former, in mat-
ters about which, on the fuppofition, fcripture
is filent, is no cafy tafiC. And the difficulty will
be increofed iu proportion as the facred oracles

corroborate

234- ^f i^-i proper Ch. 3.

corroborate reafon's verdict. Let us now ap-
peal to thefe oracles.

§ 19. I. We appeal to that period of the
church, and difpenfation of grace, which extend-
ed from Adam to Noah. The infpired narra-
tive of this long fpace of time is very fhort :
on which we make the following remarks.
We then affert,

(i) Whatever exhibition of grace was made to
antediluvian parents^ was conftantly made to their
offspring; and confequently whatever yj-is/j of
grace were granted to the former, muft equally
appertain to the latter, if not voluntary rejec-
tors of them. Therefore, all fuch parents had
a revealed warrant to regard their offspring as
entitled to Xh^feals of the covenant, in like man-
ner as themfelves, according to their capacity. For,
( 2 ) All allow that Gen. iii. 15. contains
the promulgation of gofpel grace ; nor are we
authorifed to queftion the interefl of children
therein with their parents, without an exprefs
contravention. For, it were unnatural for a
parent to confine fuch a bengfit to his own perfon
to the exclufion of his children, who are not '
only parts of his family but of himfelf. To
v.'hich we may add, that the phrafe thv seed,
tho' principally referring to the A'lelTiah, re-
fpedted Eve's natural feed as fliarers in com-
mon with herfelf in the exhibition of mercy ;
and we fuppofe not lefs fo than her husband.
For this application of the phrafe thy feed^ com-
pare Gen. xvii. 7. and Gal. iii. 16. Again,

(3) It

Ch. 3. SuhjeSls of Baptifrn. 235

( 3 ) It is generally agreed, that not only
the inftitution of facrifues^ but alfo the coats of
fkin ( Gen. iii. 21. ) were emblematic of cove-
nant blefllngs ; and not only fo, in common
with mere types, but feals of the covenant, as
earnells and pledges of exhibited favour. " Who
will deny," fays Witsius, " that God's cloath-
ing our firft parents v.'as a fyviholical acl ? Do
not Chrift's own words ( Rev. iii. 18. ) very
clearly allude to this*?" As iox facrifices^ they
were flain at God's command after the promul-
gation of the covenant. For, if Abel offered by
FAITH, ( Heb. xi. 4..) it prefuppoles the divine
inflkutiod of them. And this inftitution,

mort: probably, took place when God — taking
occafion from the infufficiency of the aprons of
fig-leaves, which the fallen pair fewed together,
to cover the Ihame of their nakednefs — himfelf
cloathed them with coats of fkins. And
mod divines agree, that it is very proba-
ble, thefe were the fkins of thofe beafts
which were llain for facrijices. However, God
gave teftimony to thefe oblations of the an-
tient patriarchs, that they were acceptable to
him ; but this cannot be fuppofed without ad-
mitting them to be divinely injiitutcd. Befides,
a dirtinilion of clean and unclean animals was
obferved before the deluge ; which was not from
nature.^ but the mere divine pleafure; and njay
we not add, with a particular refpecl to Jacnfices r
Now

(4) li'-
* Wits, Oecon, FccJ. Lib. iv. cap, vii. § 4 — 7,

' 236 Of the proper Ch. 3.

(4) If, according to Witsius and others,
.thefe ffcins of beajhy and facrifices^ were ap-
pointed SEALS of the nghteoufnefi of faith -^ I

would afk Was tlie covenant ( ufing the

term in the fenfe before explained, chap. ii. §
23, ^c. ) dire6led for the ufe of their seed ///
connnon with the parents, and not the feal in
like manner? For, if tlie fcals be affixed to the
covenant for confrmatlon of its contents, as
well as, in another view, for fignificatioii ; I
would fain knov/, by what rule of conftru6lion
we can infer, that the covenant itff belongs
to the parents and thc'.r feed In common^ while
the confir?nation of it belongs exclufvsly to the
former ? Is it not contrary to cufiom and
unreafonahle to conclude, that a charter of privi-
leges, or a teftamentary inftrument, ( which by
the way exprefs the nature of the covenant }
belongs to a man and his heirs alike, but
the confirming feal refpeils the former only ;
while on the fuppofition, the fovereign, or the
teilator, has given no ground for fuch partiality?
Befides,

( 5 ) If the covenant itfelf be a benefit to the
perfons to whom it is dire6fed, as it certainly is
in every difpenfation of it, it follows that the
covf.rination of it is fo ; for parents, therefore,
to deny their offspring all the fhare in fuch
common benefits they are capable of, without
a divine warrant, is unnaturol^ and an acl of

injnjiice. We may therefore conclude that

fi'om Adam to Noah, the covenant and its feals

appertained

Ch, 3. SuhjcSis of Baptif?n. 237

appertained to infants in common with their
parents.

§ 20. 2. We appeal next to that period of
the church which extended from Noah to Abra-
ham : On which we obferve,

(i.) Whatever benefits and privileges belonged
to the formet- difpenfation, continue to flow on
to the prefent, if not exprefsly repealed ; for the
change of a difpenfation, of itfelf is no adequate
caufe of their abrogation. That would be as un-
reafonable as to fuppofe that the bare change from
night to day was, of itfef^ an adequate caufe of
a man's being difmherited. Or we may as well
fay, that the abftracfl notion of an epoch in
chronology has a real influence on the lequence
of events. Whatever covenant privileges, there-
fore, belonged to Noah and his family lefore the
deluge, if not exprefsly repealed^ muft belong to
them after the deluge. But,

( 2. ) So far were thefe privileges from being
abridged at this period, that they were greatly en-
larged and confirmed, by additional difcoveries. For
thus we read, Gen. vi. 18. But with thee ivill I es-
tablish MY COVENANT J and thou J})alt come
into the ark^ thou^ and thy fons^ and thy vjife^ and
thy fo7ii' .wives with thee. Again, chap. vii. i.
y^nd the Lord fa id unto Noahj Come thou., AND all
THY HOUSE into the ark; for tuee have I fen
righteous before me in this generation. And again,
chap. viii. 20. ^nd Noah builded an altar unto
the Lordy and took of every clean bcaji.^ and of
every clean fowl^ and OFFERED burnt offer-
ings

238 Of the proper Ch. 3.

INGS on the altar. Once more, chap. ix. 8,
9, 12, 13. And God [poke unto Noah^ and to his
SONS vj'ith h'un^ faying^ And /, behold^ I ESTAB-
LISH my covenant with you, and with your
SEED after you. And God faid^ This is the TO-
KEN OF THE COVENANT I do fet 7ny bow

in the cloud. Hence we further leari;,

( 3. ) That the covenant or divine charter,
firft given to Noah, included the preceding ; it was
the same covenant with additional grants : for
the Lord fays, " I will establish my cove-
nant." Left Noah fhould infer that the drowning
of the world in wrath difannulled the well
known covenant, God diflipates his fears, by
faying, " I will ejlablijh my covenant."

( 4 ) On Noah's account^ or as belonging to
him, all his house or family was privileged.
The privilege is, — " Come thou, and all thy
houfe into the ark." The ground and reafon

of that privilege " for THEE have I fecn

righteous." It is true, the natural di^lates of
reafon and affeclion, whereby a father piticth his
children *, and whereby an infidel careth for his
O'iUn^ efpcclally thofe of his vwn houfe ||, would
have prompted this righteous perfon to bring
all his family^ ( except any adults refufed com-
pliance ) into the ark, ( the like figure %vhereunto
is baptism, as an infpired teacher afliires us,
I Pet. iii. 21. ) yet t}ie Lord was pleafed to
brighten his evidence and ftrengthen his obli-
gations of duty by exprefs revelation.

( 5 ) After

« PAlm clii. 13. II I Tim. v. 8.

Ch. 3. SiibjeiJs of Baptiffii. 239

( 5 ) After the flood the inftitution of fa~
crifices continued as the feal of the firjl part of
the covenant ; and the rainboxv was inftituted as
the feal of the additional part, or, as, Pare us
calls it, " appendix of the covenant of grace f ."
And here it is worthy of notice, that as the
firft exhibition of the covenant and its feals
refpe(5led the offspring of fcederati^ and the re-
neival or ejlahlijhmcnt of it to Noah retained
that privilege in full force: fo alfo \h.t appendix
of the covenant comprehended his seed,

(6) Respecting this appendix of the cove-
nant of which the rainbow was the feal, tho'
we fuppofe, with Witsi us, it was not formal-
ly and precifcly the covenant of grace; yet we
obferve, with the fame excellent author, " it
" does not feem confident with the divine per-
" feilions, to make fuch a covenant with every
" living creature, but on fuppofition of a cove-
" nant of grace, and having a refpeSi to it, [j"
And as this covenant, in its univerfality, im-
plied the covenant of grace, we are not to
deny, but the promifes of it were alfo feakd
to Noah and his feed by the rainbow. ( See
Rev. iv. 3. X. 8. )

( 7 ) It is obfervable, finally, that Noah, his
SON'S, and their seed were fcedrrati^ in this
ratification of the covenant ; ccn'eqently what-
ever feals of the covenant belonged to Noah,
belonged to his fms^ and their feed, while non-
dilTcntients. § 21. 3.

■|- Ap. Wits. Occon. FaLLib, iv, cap, vii. § 19. \ Ii.d.

2d.Q Of the proper' Ch. 3.

§ 21. 3. Appeal we next to a very important
period of facred hiflory, viz. From Abraham
to Mofes. On this alfo we make the following
remarks.

( I ) The Abrahamic covenant included the
preceding, difpenfations, on the general principle
— that grants and privileges continue in force
until repealed. Which repealing, if it be not
either expre/s^ or arife from the nature of the
cafe, in itfelf plain, can have no binding influ-
ence, that is to fay, no exiftence at all : except
we maintain, that we are bound to refign an im-
portant good without an affignable caufe; which
is in fact to m^aintain that we ought to deny that
to be, which is.

(2)1 SUPPOSE it will be granted, that the
prindpal hleffing exhibited in the foregoing dif-
penfations was THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF FAITH;
the great importance of which to the human
race, in every age of the world, no one will deny
who confiders things as they are. This cove-
nant, therefore, was in force to Abraham prior
to what is called the Abrahamic difpenfation ;
and in this connedlion we might micntion Lot
and his family. But, behold,

( 3 ) A MOST explicit ratification of it, with
fuperadded favours. Gen. xii. 3. In thee

SHALL ALL FAMILIES OF THE EARTH BJS
BLESSED. Chap. xvii. 7. Jyid I will ESTAB-
LISH MY COVENANT between me and thee, and
thy SEED after thee, in their generations, for an
everlajling coi'er.ant; to be a God unto thee

AND

Ch. J. SubjeSls of Baptifm. 841

AND TO THV SEED AFTER THEE. V. 10, This it

my covenant which ye Jhall keep between me and
you^ AND THY SEED after thee', every MAN-
child among you Jhall he circumcised, v, 12,
He that it eight days old Jhall be circumcifed
among you^ every M.AN -child in your generations i
he that is born in the houfe^ or bought with

MONEY OF ANY STRANGER, which is not of thy
feed, V, 24 — 27. j^nd Abraham zvas ninety
YEARS OLD AND NINE, when he was circumcifed
in the fiejh of his forejkin. And IJhtnael his fon
tuas THIRTEEN YEARS OLD, luhcn he was circum-
cifed in the flejh of his forejkin. In the self same
DAY was Abraham circumcifed^ and IJhmael his
fon. And all the MEN of his house, born
in the houje^ and bought with money of
the stranger, were circumcifed with him.
Hence we learn,

( 4 ) The nature and extent of the Abra-
HAMic covenant or promise. Whatever
blejfmgs are promifed to ruined man, muft be in
virtue of the covenant of grace. All promifed
bleflings, therefore, muft imply an exhibition
of gofpel grace. And the glad tidings of falva-
tion thro' Chrift preached to the gentile
WORLD, is exprefsly called — The blessing
OF ABRAHAM ( Gal. iii. 14. ) Not that this
link is the first in the chain of exhibited mercy
to the fallen race in general, or with an univer-
fal and unlimited afpedt, if the reafoning in tlie
laft fe£tions be juft ; but for its expiicitTifs^ and
precious ( becaufe exprefsly diffufive ) intend-
M uient

24* Of the proper Ch, 3.

ment, it may be juftly termed a golden link.
In "this refpe6t Abraham may well be ftiled —
the Father of us aU\ not to the difavowal of
Noah, with whom the covenant was before
ratified, or Eve, who received the firji intima-
tion of it, and who in this refpe(5l eminently

may be called The mother of ail living,

ITie covenant of grace, in its external mani-
feftation, containing an exhibition of exceed-
ing great and precious promises to every human
being on the face of the globe, to whom provi-
dence direils the joyful news, may be compared
to a flowing ftream : it proceeds ultimately from
the immenfe ocean of fovereign grace in Chrift ;
its jirfi vifible fource we trace to paradife,
where it rifes in a fmall fpring, and glides on to
Noah. During this part of its progrefs, there
were but few comparatively who participated of
its cleanfmg and healing virtues, tho' none were
debarred from it. This continuing to glide along,
without interruption, ( notwithftanding God's
awful vifitation of a corrupt world by the deluge )
we difcern thro' the perfon of Noah another
fource, whence is poured forth a fecond ftream
which empties itfelf into the former channel.
The fb-eams thus united become a river, which
flows on to Abraham ■ a river to which all
ar? invited, but few come, and thefe made
willing by the omnipotent energy of divine influ-
ence which obferves the laws of another ■
a HIDDEN difpenfation, running parallel as it

were

Ch. 3. SuhjeSfi of Baptifm. 243

were with the former ; which was alfo the cafe
in the preceding period. Then, thro' the highly-
honoured perfon of Abraham we behold ano-
ther mighty fpring copioufly pouring forth the
waters of falvation, and again uniting itfelf to
the former river j and from him to Chrift, with
a wide majeftic flow, it proceeds along the con-
fecrated channel of the Jewifh nation ; gradually
increafing by the acceflion of other dreams, till
it arrives at the Saviour's finifhed work ; where,
impatient of confinement, it breaks over its
banks on every fide, and the healing waters flow
to the mod: diftant regions— That the bles-
sing OF Abraham might come upon the
GENTILES. ( Gal. iii. 14, 8. compared with
Gen. xii. 3. xviii. 18. xxii. 18. ) Paul ex-
prefsly fays, that " the gospel ( even the very
fame as the New Tellament contains — falvation
^;' grace) " was preached to Abraham :" And
(Heb. iv. 2. ) it was preached to his unbelieving''
defcendants in the wildernefs.

( 5 ) As it is natural to expect, that whatever
exhibition of privileges the parents enjoyed
fliould be extended to their children, in common
with themfelves ; fo we find that in fa£f they
are exprefsly included in this difpenfation as well
as the preceding. The covenant is ellablifned
between God and Abraham's seed, in the very
SAME fenfe as with Abraham himself; the
cflence of which is— to be a God to him
AND his seed. And lelt it Ihould be ob-
jected that the term feed refers to his adult
IM 2 • pojUrity

24+ ^f i^e proper Ch. 3,

pojierlty who fhould tread in his fteps, to the ex-
clufion of infants, all doubt is diffipated by the
appointment of applying ihtfeal of the covenant
in early infancy.

( 6 ) Sacrifices continuing in full force to
SEAL the covenant, till the divine oblation
fhould be made; and the how of the covenant
continuing as a token and seal of it, until tlie
Mefliah's fecond coming ; at the commencement
of this period is given an additional feal— cir-
cumcision. The very nature of the rite
ihews that all females are excluded from being
the fubje^s of it ; as well as the dilcriminating
fpecification — every MAN-child, Here obferve in
general, that children, in this rite, have the fame
privileges as their parents. The males are
treated as Abraham, and the females as Sarah;
l^hefe^ therefore, had the covenant fealed in the
fame manner as their honoured mother. Again :
tho' Sarah and her fex were not the fubjeSis of
this rite, they were conftant witnejfes to the
inftitution; and therefore there was an important
fenfe in which circumcifion was a feal to Sarah
and her daughters : a fenfe analogous to that in
which facrifices were.

( .7 ) Every domeftic head being, in truth,
-a prophet, prieft, and king, in his own family;
a queftion muft arife. Whether the covenant
and its feals are reftrifted to the parent head
of the family, and his children, or elfe ex-
tended to the other dome/lies? Nor would the
queftion be unimportant; for liis infiruBions^
his prayers.^ and commands^ anfwerable to his three-
fold

Ch. 3, Suhje6fs of Baptijm, 245

fold office, muft be dire£led accordingly. To
tills queftion right reafon replies : If the covenant
and its feals are betieficial to all capable fubje£ts,
benevolence requires that they fhould be extend-
ed to the other non-dijfentlng members — except
forbidden by indifputable authority. This is the
voice of reafon; and we find that this is the
voice of Godi, The privilege is common to th«
feed, and to him that is born in the houfe, or bought
with jnoney of any Jiranger, WHICH is NOT or
THE SEED, Qtn. xvii. 12.

§ 22. It has been objedled, " that the cove-
nant with Abraham was a covenant of peculiarity
only, and that circumcifion was no more than
a token of that covenant ;" but if fo, as Mr.
Henry obferves, " how came it that all pro-
" SELYTES, of what nation foever, even the
" firaugers^ were to be circumcifed j tho' not
" being of any of the tribes, they had no part
" or lot in the land of Canaan ? The extending
• " the feal of circumcifion to profelyted Jlr angers^
" and to THEIR SEED, was a plain indication,
" that the New Teftament adminiftratioii of the
*' covenant of grace would reach, not to the cove-
" nanters only, but theiry^<fr/*." But it has been
proved that circumcifion y^^/^^ to Abraham and his
feed the righteoufnefs of faith ; and therefore it does
not aftedl the point in debate to contend that
temporal promifes were fealcd alfo. The reader
is referred to Chap. ii. § 23, he, where the fub-
je6l has been coiifidered at large.

M 3 § 23.

* Treatife on Bapt. p, 89,

246 Qf the proper Ch. 3.

§ 23. 4. We next appeal to the long and
interefting period from Mofes to Clirilt. On
which let the following obfervations be confidered.

( I ) Whatever appertained to the Abra-
hamic covenant was not difannulled by the
Mofaic difpenfation. This St. Paul allerts in
plain terms, Gal. iii. 17.

( 2 ) It may not be amifs to take notice,
before we proceed, of Job's family ; who, being
as is generally fuppofcd, cotemporary with Mofes,
and unconneclcd with his hillory, deferves a
previous regard. Of him it is faid, that " he
*' fanoiijied his children, and rofe up early in
*' the morning, and offered burnt offerings^ ac-
" cording to the number of them all — Thus did
" ^oh conttnualh" or, all the days. (Jobi. 5.)
On this I would only obferve, let the fanSilfying
be what it may, Xhtfacrif.ces muft have been of
divine inllitution, and ufed by Job, being an
eminently righteous men, as the feals of the
covenaiit of grace; — with refpe^l to his chil-
dren Jeparately.

( 3 } Superadded to the foregoing feals of the
covenant, is the passover ; a divine rite of the
nature of a facritice, inftituted in memory of
Ifrael's deliverance out of Egypt, reprefenting
and fealing fpiritual blelfings. " As to the guc/is^
" fays WiTsius, they were, firft, all native
** IfraelitiSy who were not excluded by legal un-
" cleannefs. For all the congregation of Jfrael is
" commanded to folemnize the paflbver. (Exod.
« xii. 6. 47.) And, next, the Profelytes circum-

« cifed

Ch. 3. &ubje£is if Baptif7n. ~ ^i^rf

" cifed and become Jews; ( Efth, viii. 17.)
" whether bondmen born in the houfe or bought
** with money, &c. Exod. xii. 48. TVhen a
" STRANGER Will fojouni zvith thecy and keep the
" p^Jfover to the Lord^ let ALL His maIes^^' c/V-
*' cumcifedf and then let him come near and keep itj
" and he Jhall be as one that is horn in the land%."
On this paflage in Exodus, Dr. Jennings ob-
ferves thefe two things : " -^'V^, That when a
" man thus became a Profelyte, all his maks
" were to be circumcifed as ivell as hitnfelfy where-
" by his children were admitted into the viilble
" church of God, in his right^ as their father.
*' Secondly^ That upon this, he ftiould be entitled
" to all the privileges and immunities of the
" Jewifh church and nation, as well as be fub-
" jecl to the whole law : He fhould be as " one
" born in the land§." In rtiort ; not only men
and women, but alio young children partook of
this ordinance, as foon as they were capable of
anfv.'ering the revealed defign of it, for — no
POSITIVE rule was given them on this head,
like that of circumcifion. It is manifeft that
fmce the injundlion refpe«fted not only indivi-
duals of fuch a defcription, but alfo families as
fuchy every member without exception had a legal
right to the ordinance; and nothing prevented
infants from a participation, but what lay in the
natural incapacity to anfwer the defign of it.

M 4. (4) " Besides

% Wits, Oecon. Fa-J. Lib. iv. cap. xii. § ii«
§ Jewifli Antiq. vol, I. p* J32«

248 Of the f roper Ch. 5.

(4) "Besides the ordinary and univerfal
** facraments of circumclfion and the pajfover^
** fome extraordinary fymbols of divine grace
" were granted to the Ifraelites in the wildernefs,
" which in the New Teftament are applied to
" Chrifl: and his benefits, and faid to have the fame
" fignification with our facraments. And they are
" in order tliefe— The passage in the cloiid
" thro' the red sea— the manna which was
" rained from heaven — The water ifluing out
"of the ROCK — and the brazen serpent
" eredled by Mofes for the cure of the If-
*' raelites*." To this we may add, among other
things^ with the author now referred to — the
clear and familiar difplay of the divine majes-
ty—and the adumbration of divine myfte-
ries daily fealed by religious ceremonies.
Our fubje^fc does not call for an inveftigation of
thefe particulars, but I would remark in general,
that the principle for which we contend, is fo far
from being weakened, that it is abundantly cor-
roborated by the infpired teftimony of every
difpenfation, and the Mofaic in particular—
That it is a common didlate of right reafon,
children Ihould from their earlieft infancy fhara
in their parents' privileges, as far as they are ca*
pable, when no pofitive authority contravenes it.
§ 24. From the preceding induction of fa«
cred evidence in favour of children being (harers
of the feals of grace in common with their
parents, we conclude, that for the fpace of four

thoufand

* W1TSXP8 ut fnpra, cap, x, § I«

Ch. 3. SubjeSls of Baptifm. 249

thoufand years, that is to fay, from the cre-
ation TO Christ, it was a rule wiiverfally in-
cumbent on parents to treat their children as
entitled to religious privileges equally with them-
felves, according to their capacity. — And as a
counterpart of what was obferved of privileges,
we may remark that, in virtue of the fame uni-
form principle, often when the parents were
puniftied with excommunication or death, their
infant children, were included with them. As>
might be inftanced in — the deluge— the deftruc-
tion of Sodom< and Gomorrah — the cafe of
Achan the Son. of Zerah ( Jofh. vii. 24. ) — the
matter of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram — the
cafe of the conquered nations (Deut. xx. 16,.
17.) — and many more inftances, down to tha
deftruiSlion of Jerufalem. Far be. it from us to
fuppofe, that the parents' crimes and impenitence
made their fuffering children incapable of meny
— that mercy which proceeds on an invifible plan,
and belongs to a purely fpiritual. difpenfation.
Yet, that children, during their dependence on their
parents, fliould fliare equally with them in judg-
ments and mercies externally, is the effect of an
all-wife conftitution coeval with mankind.

§ 25. Mr. B. when treating of external cove-
nant relation, objefts : " All reafoning from data
of a moral kind and the fuppofed fitnefs of
things, or from the natural relation of children
to parents, is wide of the mark. As baptifm is
not a duty naturally refulting from our relation
to God, as reafonable creatures j for then it
M 5 ^ould

»50 ^f ^^e proper Ch. 3.

"would be incumbent on every man to be bap-
tized : as our obligation to regard it does not arife
from any moral, or civil relation, in which we
neceffarily ftand to our fellow creatures ; for
then the fame confequence would inevitably
follow : and as this duty does not originate in
the natural relation between parents and chil-
dren; for then a/l parents, whoever they hey
would lie under an obligation to have their in-
fants baptized : fo it is altogether vain to fearch
any where for the proper fubjeds of baptifm,
except in the appointment of Chrift and apoilolic
praftice ; thefe being the only rule and law of
its adminiftrationf." But this objection, how-
ever plaufible, does by no means affeil the
above reafoning. For, data of a moral kind are
very good ones, when no pofitive evidence lies
againft them. Befides, there appears to me a
manifeft impropriety ( not to fay impertinence )
in making the ^ind of argumentation an objec-
tionable matter. For it is |"demonflrable, that
pofitive laws, tho' they conclude affirmatively y do
not conclude negatively^ except in matters that
are abfolutely indefenfiblc on all data whatever.
Nothing can poflibly be eftablifhed by found
reafoning, but what is reafonable and right 'y and
when this is done, it is plain that nothing but
c^rmative pofitive evidence can invalidate the
'conclufion. The conduct of our opponents in
this inftance is not unlike that of Arminians
when difputing with Calvinifts. It is objected

to

f Ptfdob, Exam. p« 2S6*

Ch. 3. SuhjeHs of Baptifm, 251

to the latter that their reafoning is metaphyftcaly
or may be reduced to the fcience of metaphyftcks^
and to the Poedobaptifts that their reafoning is of
the 7noral kind. But the cavil is well refuted by
a mallerly pen ; part of which refutation, mutatis
mutandis, we here apply : ** If the reafoning be
" good, 'tis as frivolous to inquire what fcieiice
*' it is properly reduced to, as what language it
" is delivered in : and for a man to go about to
" confute the arguments of his opponent, by
" telling him, his arguments are metaphyfical [or
" of a moral kind] would be as weak, as to tell
** him, his arguments could not be fubftantial,
** becaufe they were not written in Fretich or
" Latin. The queftion is not. Whether what
" is faid be Metaphyficks, Phyficks, Logick,, or
" Mathematicks [morality, divinity or criticifmj
" Latin^ French, EngUJh, or Mohazvk ? But,
" whether the reafoning be good, and the ar-
" guments truly conclusive ? The foregoing
" arguments are no more metaphyfical [or
'' moral'] than thofe which we ufe againft the
" Papifts,. to difprove their do6lrine of tranfub-
^*- Jlantiution \ alledging, it is inconfiftent with
" the notion of corporeal identity, that it fliould
" be in ten thoufand places at the fame time. — I
" am willing my arguments (hould be brought to
" the teft of tlie jufteft and ftri6teft reafon, and
" that a clear, diftincl and determinate meaning
" of the terms I ufe fhould be infifted on ; but
*^ let not the whole be rejected, as if all were
M 6 ** confuted

aSa Of the proper Ch. 3.

" confuted, by fixing on it the epithetH"— ;«<?r^/,
confequential, or analogical.— "As to the arguments
" I have made ufe of, if they are quibbles [ adapted
" to dazzle " the eye of a fuperficial obferver'*
" only ] they may be (hewn to be fo : fuch
" knots are capable of being untied, and the trick
" and cheat may be detected and plainly laid
" open. If this be fairly done, with refpeft to
*' the grounds and reafons I have relied upon,
** I fhall havejuft occafion for the future to be
*' filentj if not to be aftiamed of my argumenta-
" tions. I am willing my proof fhould be tho-
" roughly examined ; and if there be nothing
*' but Begging of the que/Hon^ or mere Logomachyy
" or difpute of words, let it be made manifeft,
" and fhewn how the feeming ftrength of the
" argument depends on my uftng words without
** a meaning^ or arifes from the ambiguity of
" terms, or my making ufe of words in an
** indeterminate and unfteady manner ; and that
*' the weight of my reafons refts mainly on fuch
" a foundation : and then I (hall either be ready
" to retract what I have urged, and thank the
" man that has done the kind part, or (liall be
" juftly expofed for my obftinacy f."

§ 26. But what has Mr. B. to urge in fupport
of his aflertion, that " reafoning from data of a
moral kind, and the fuppofed fitnefs of things, or
from the natural relation of children to parents

is
I £dwarbs*'s Inquiry into the freedom of the will, p» 390.
t Ut fufroj, p. 39J.

Ch. J. SuBjeSfs of Bapttftn. 255

is wide of the mark?" His reafonlng Is, " If
baptifm were a duty, naturally refulting from
our relation to God, as reafonable creatures^
then it would be incumbent on every man to be
baptized." And what a dreadful confequence !
But will our author favour us with the curious
intelligence of any man unbaptized, in a chriflian
country, on whom it is not incumbent to be
baptized? The objeftion confounds two things
which in reality are quite diftinil^ It makes na
difference between an obligatioa to perform a
duty before it is revealed, and after it is revealed,.
Neither the righteoufnefs of faith, nor any part
of the gofpel myftery, demand tlie belief and cor-
dial reception of mankind, before they are pro-
mulged; fuch a revealed exhibition of mercy
depending on the divine pleafure, with which
only a fmall part of the human race is a(£l;ually
favoured; but does it follow, either — that the
African Hottentots, who are without fuch a re-
velation, are under obligation to believe what
they have not heard, or — that any in a chriflian
land are not laid under obligation to believe and
prailife what is revealed to them ? And does
not this obligation " naturally refult from our
relation to God as reafonable creatures ?" For
can any thing be more reafonable than that we
fhould thankfully receive what revelation teflifies
is a proffered mercy ? Methinks it requires no
great labour to fhew — that if the exhibition of
grace be a benefit to man, it is his duty to re-
ceive it i and that the denial of this tends diredly

to

254 ^f t^'^ Pf-^P^'' Ch. 3.

to fap the foundation of religion and morals.
In like manner haptifffi, as a feal appended
to the gofpei covenant, is as much a mat-
ter of revelation as the covenant itfelfj but this
is no fufficient reafon why the feal fliould not
be obligatory in as extenfive a manner as the
mflrument fealed. On new difcoveries being
made to the creature, or benefits beftowed on
him, new relations commence ; and hence du-
ties naturally refult, anfwerable to thefe relations,
with all that certainty and univerfality which
belong to duties refulting from unrevealed re-
lations.

Again : our Author draws another confequence
equally formidable : *■* If the duty of parents to
baptize their children originate in the natural
relation between parents and children, then [fad
alternative ! ] all parents, zvhoever they be^ would
lie under an obligation to have their infants
baptized." We are ftill at a lofs to find out
wherein lies the inconvenience of the intended,
conclufion. For we have no obje£lion at all to
the idea, that all parents, whoever they be^ in a.
CHRISTIAN COUNTRY, lie undcr an obligation
to have their infants baptized j but if my oppo-
nent objefls to the claufe in a chrijlian country,
as acknowledging others not being under the ob-
hgation, and therefore not originating in a natural
relation between parents and children, it will do
him no fervice ; until he demonflrate either —
that this natural relation does not oblige all parents
without exception to benefit their children, in;
every part of the globe and every period of time,

as

Ch. 3. Suhjeiis of Bapt'iJ?n. 2rf

as we maintain; or — that baptifm is no bene-
fit to infants, in oppofition to thofe arguments
that fhew it is a benefit. But the nature of the
benefit, or the manner whereby it appears to be
fo, make no part of the criteria whereby we
fhould judge, that the duty originates in tlie
natural relation between parents and children.
Whether the benefit relate to the body or the
mind, to property or liberty, to politicks or
morals, to time or eternity, to the chief or an
inferior good, — is out of the queftion: and.
Whether it appear to be a benefit by the medium
of fenfe or teftimony, of right reafon or revealed
facts, by direcSl aflertion in fcripture or juft con-
fequence, by pofitive or moral evidence, or by
any other mode whatever of collecling the fa£fy
— is equally immaterial. For it flill follows,
tliat the parent's duty originates in a natural rela-
tion between him and his child, be the nature of
the benefit, and the mode of afcertaining it, what
they may.

§ 27. Our author ftill objeds: " Were it
allowable to reafon from covenant interejl^ to the
enjoyment of a pofitive rite^ Abraham and liis

poflerity might have circumcifed their fe,-

MALEs ! in feme way or other*." His reafons
are, — " circumcifion is a ftgn of the covenant
— that covenant extends its benign influences to
both fexes — God has made us reafonable crea-
tures ; and he requires that we fliould ufe our
intclledual powers, on the nature, the application,
and the defign of all his inftitutions. Hence it

appears

* Padob. Exam, p. 287,

256 Of the proper Ch. 3.

appears, (fays he) that a little raafon'ing on the
covenant made with Abraham, and a few de-
dudions from the nature and fitnefs of things,
•would have inferred fne right of Jevvifh females
to circumcifionj in a manner fimilar to that by
vrhich our brethren endeavour to authenticate
the baptifm of infants*." On this fingular argu-
ment ad hominem I mak^ thefe two remarks.

1. Our author feems to make no manner of
difference between the folid deduciions of right
reafony and the fpecious pretences of fophiftry.
For, according to him, nothing more is necef-
fary to eftabUlh the propriety of female circum-
cifion, but to admit this datu?n of arguing from
covenant intereji. But we deny that any fuch
Gonfequence would follow, for two plain reafons.
Firft, the moji evident revealed account of the^
nature and defign of the inftitution forbid iti in
confirmation of whicli, we appeal to impartiality
itfelf, and the univerfal fufFrage of Jews and
Chrifnans. Secondly y The phrafe — every MAN-
chUd^is io decifive in itfelf, and fo often repeated^
in the inftitution, as to put it out of all doubt ;•
in favour of which we might again refer to the
whole body of Jews and Chridians, who (nem,.
con.) underftand the males exclufively..

2. Tho' we contend iov \h.Q proper ufeo? mo-
ral and analogical arguments, we do not fuppofc
that they conclude in oppofttion to pofitive evi-
dence, but only in fubordination to it. Common-
fenfe, like common law, ought to influence our

proceeding*
♦ Padob. Exam. p. aS;.

Ch. 3. SubjeSfs of Baptifm, 257

proceedings when not controuled by fuperior
authority ; but in proportion as decifive ftatute
evidence appears, the operation of the vifa-'ior
principle is fufpended.

§ 28. Once more: " It is worthy of confi-
deration, fays Mr. B. whetl\er this doctrine con-
cerning the federal interejl of infants, be not cal-
culated to harden their confcicnces in an uncon-
verted ftate, and to flufh them with falfe hopesy
when grown to years of reflection." This ob-
jedlion has been frequently urged by the Anti-
poedobaptifts, but with how little juflice and
force, may appear from the following obferva-
tions.

1. If this federal intereft confift, as the current of
Poedobaptift writers hold, in the children's being
entitled to the external pmvUeges of the covenant
in common with their parents ; how can this tend
*' to harden their confciences," or " to flufh
them with falfe hopes," more than their parents?
Or when thefe latter abufe their privileges, are
we to infer, that fuch privileges are calculated
" to harden their confciences," or " to flufli
them with falfe hopes ?" But if fuch arguing
be fallacious in the one cafe, it muft be equally
fo in the other.

2. It feems abfolutely unaccountable, nay de-
monftrably abfurd, to fuppofe that this federal
intereft, including divine grants, blelTmgs, bene-
fits and privileges, fhould, in its native tmdituyy
*' flufh any With falfe hopes.'' The effeds it is cal-
" culated" to produce are fuch as thefe— repentance

— cau«

258 Of the proper Ch. 3.

— caution — thankfulnefs, — gratitude — obedience,
&c. With equal propriety may we pronounce,
on the principle of the objection, tliat they>^tT<2/
intereji of Jewifti infants, their church member-
(hip, their right to the Teals and fliadows of grace
in common with their parents; — that the pof-
feflion of Canaan, the worrtiip of the temple,
the fpirit of prophecy, and the promife of the
Mcfllah ; — that our Lord's preaching and mighty
works among the Jews — were all " calculated" to
harden the confciences of that people, and to
flufh them with falfe hopes !

3. It is the united language of thofe who main-
tain the children's federal interef in their parents*
privileges, that an abufe and ?nfitnprove}nc>it there-
of heighten their guilt and danger; which ne-
celTarily implies, that the thing itfelf is a real
good, llius Mr. Strong : '-'■ That it is a fpe-
** cial privilege iov parerds and children^ that they
" [ the children ] are taken into their parents*
" covenant, will appear by thefe arguments and

" demonftrations. It will aggravate their fm

" if they abufe it ; therefore it's a mercy and a pri-
" vilege in itfelf: for what is not a mercy and
" privilege in itlelf, that cannot add to a man's
" fm and judgment. Now as it is in riches and
" honours, and all the bleflings in this life, they
" will be unto a man judgmettts if they are
*' abufed ; therefore they are bleflings in them-
" felves ; bleflings in the things tho' a fnare to
" the man. So this very argument, that is
" brought to prove that they are no bleflings, and

" give

Ch. 3. Subje£1s of Baptipn. 259

" give no benefit, doth clearly prove, that the

*' thing itfelf'n a privilege and a blijfing, For

" a child to be difinherited, and call out of his
" l^ither's covenant, is a very great judgment, and
" the foreH of all outward affli<51ions that can
" befal a man ; as we fee in Cain — Thou haji
" caji me out from the face of the earth, and from
" thy face I Jhall be hid. It is the fentence of
" excommunication that the Lord pafleth upon
" Cain : and fo upon Ilhmael — Cafl out the

" bond woman and her fan : Now if it be a

" great judgment to be ca/f out, furely it is a great
" privilege to be taken into their parent's cove-
" nant. — — It is proraifed as a fpecial hlejfmg for
" the vifible church of God to continue in any
" man's pofterity. So it was in Seth, Gen. iv.
" 25. in Shem, Gen. ix. 27. In the family of
" Aaron, and afterwards of Phineas, and David.
*' — And it is looked upon as a great judgment
" for a family and a pofterity to be difinherited :

** as in Efau, Saul, and Cham. ■ It is the

" greateft wrath that God doth pour out upon
" men in this life, to caft them out of external
" church privileges. The Apoftle faith [of the
*' Jews ] Wrath is come upon them to the uttermoji :
" therefore if the wrath be fo great in a carting
*' out, furely there is a great deal of mercy
" fliewed in the taking in. — The Apoftle fpeaks
" even of an intereft in the external privileges
" of the covenant as a very great matter, Rom.
" iii. r, 2. — To be caft out from being a vifible
" member is the greateft judgment that can be-

« ful

26o Of the proper Ch. J*

" fal a perfon or people in this life. i Cor,

" V. 5. Hof. I. I — 9. There is a pedigree

" of judgments fet down, but yet the higheft
" is Lo-a7n7ni\y

% 29. (3.) We come next to confider the
language of prophecy refpeiSting gofpel times*.
On which obferve in general,

1. That the evidence of prophecy, in its owrv
nature, is dire6l and pertinent ; and when its mean-
ing is afcertaiued, its verdict [cateris paribus) isr
indifputable.

2. There are feme fuhjeSis of prophecy whichj.
in their own nature, are more plain, while others-
are intricate. It is often difficult to afcertaia
with exaclnefs points of chronolog)', the dura-
tion of empires, the identity of fovereigns, and
the like ; but the nature of the cafe is fuch, that

while we are inveftigating this queftion^

Whether the offspring of parent fubje<5ts of the
gofpel difpenfation are or are not to be confidered
as parts of their parents, to (hare with them in
all the church privileges of which they are capa-
ble we may with comparative eafe learn the-

mfpired meaning. Befides,

3. Whatever affirmative pofitive evidence our
fubjecl derives from prophetic language is ex abwi-
dant'i ; for fince infants did adually make a part
of God's church at the time of delivering thefe
prophecies» and ever had been, held in that re-
lation from the beginning of the world, it is evi-
dent that we ought to be influenced by nothing

fliort
K D.fcourfe on the tw» Covenants, p. 208/ S09*. 212.

Ch. 3- Subjeils DJ Baptifm. 261

Ihort of a decifive contravention from the Su-
preme Head of the church, to alter our conduft
towards our offspring : and whatever the fpirit
of prophecy pronounces in their favour, is the
addition of light to light.

4. Akd, relative to the national afpe£l of
prophecies, tho' addrefled to individuals^ Bp,
Newton, (when fpeaking of the curfe of Canaan,
the blefTmg of Shem, and the enlargement of Ja-
phet ) fays : " It is thinking meanly of the an-
** cient prophecies of fcripture, and having very
** imperfe(fl, very unworthy conceptions of them,
" to limit their intention to particular perfons.
" In this view the ancient prophets would be
" really what the Deifts think, them, little better
" than common fortune-tellers; and their pro-
*' phecies would hardly be worth remembering
"■ or recording, efpecially in fo concife and com-
** pendious a hiftory as that of Mofes. We
*' muft affix a larger meaning to them, and un-
" derftand them not of fmgle perfons, but of
** xvbole nations', and thereby a nobler fcene of
** thina;s, and a more extenfive profpe6l will be
*' opened to us of the divine difpenfationsl|."

§ 30. If any prophecies reprefent decidedly
chriftian converfions in a national view, I think
it muft be allowed, that the infant part, on a fair
conftruaion, muft be included in fuch an idea.
Out of many pafFages that might be adduced fo
this purpofe, I fliall infift but on the few follow-
ing.

Genesis

\ Diflert* on Proph. vol. i. g, 14.

262 Of the proper Ch. 3.

Genesis xil. 3. In thee pall all families
OF THE EARTH be hlejfed. And chap. xxvi. 4.
In thy feed /hall ALL THE NATIONS OF THE
EARTH be bleffed. Thefe paffages are not only
precious promfes^ but alfo Important prophecies ^
the former delivered to Abraham, the latter,
being a repetition and coniiiunation of it, to
Ifaac. And the fame was exprefsly made to
Jacob afterwards (chap, xxviii. 14. ) It is evident,
the terms famlUes and nations are here ufed fyno-
nymoufly ; nor does there appear any necefTity,
or fufficient ground, for underflanding them other-
wife than indefinite^ comprehending the general
body^ great and fmall, of people inhabiting cer-
tain territories and provinces. Whether our Lord
intended fuch national converfions in his commiffion
to — difciple all NATIONS, Matt, xxviii. 19. fliall
be further confidered. Again, when Ifaac un-
wittingly bleffed his fon Jacob he faid, chap, xxvii.
29. Let PEOPLE ferve thee and nations botv down
to ihee^ 5zc. " When the gentiles were converted
" to chriflianity, the prophecy was fulfilled li-
*' terally, and will more amply be fulfilled, when
*' the fulnfs of the gentiles Jhall cojne in^ and all
« Ifrael Jhall be faved\,"

Psalm Ixxii. 11. Tea all kings fijall fall down
before him [ the Meffiah ] j all nations Jhall ferve
him. ver. 17. ult, all ti ATiotas Jhall call him blef-
fed. I believe it is generally agreed, that divers
paffages in this Ffalm are quite inapplicable to
Solomon, tho' entitled, " A Pjahn for Soloinon^"

and

■J- Newton's Diflert, utfu^ra, p. 83,

Ch. 3. Suhje£is of Baptiftn. 263

and equally fo to any other King but the Mejfiah.
It fhould therefore be confidcred as referring to .
Solomon but impcrfedly, while it has its clear
and full accomplifhment in Chrift and the gofpel
difpenfation. And from thefe pafTages of this
prophctick fublime Pfalm it appears,

1. That the MeiTiah's kingdom, in its ex-
ternal afpe6l, fhould have kings and their fubjcdts,
or whole nationsy as fuch, included in it.

2. That in fome future period this fhould be
uyiiverfally the defirable cafe. Jil kings fhall fub-
tnit and worftiip ; all nations Ihall become his
fubjefts, to ferve him and call him bleffed. To
the like purpofe is Ff. Ixxxii. 8. ult.

Isaiah xix. 23 — 25. In that day^ /hall there
he a hight-way, &c. On which palTage Bp.
Newton thus remarks : " By the means of
the Jews and profelytes dwelling in Egypt and
Syria, Ifrael, Egypt and Syria were in fome
meafure united in the fame worfhip. But this
was mere fully accomplifhed, when thefe countries
became chriftian, and fo were made members of
the fame body in Chrift Jefus. And we pioully
hope and believe, that it will receive its moft per-
fe£l completion in the latter days, when Moham-
med'ifm fhall be rooted out, and Chrijiianhy fhall
again flourilh in thefe countries, when the fulnefs
of the gentiles Jhall come /«, and all Ifrael Jhall he
faved^." On the whole it appears, That £gypt
and Jj/yriay whether they ftand for the converted
Gentile nations indefinitely, or thofc countries
•literally, fhould be on the farne footing with Ifrael
in this particular, viz. Their convcrfion would

be

§ lb. p. 378.

264 Of the proper Ch. 3.

be national^ and not confined to adults only. On
Antipoedobaptift principles, none fhould be deemed
fubjedts of the gofpel kingdom externally, but.
thofe adults who make a credible profeffion ; but
how well this agrees with the prophetick reprefen-
tations of national converfions, let the impartial
judge.

V£RY remarkable to the fame purpofe is ano-
ther text in the fame prophet, chap, lii. i^. S0

JhallUE SPRINKLE MANY NATIONS. On whlch

obferve,

1. That the term HE refers to Chrlft, is very
evident from the context ; and many of the Jew-*
ifli do<Si:ors, as well as the Chaldee paraphraft,
apply it diredly to the Mefliah ; and fo ftriking
is the reference to Chrijl, that it is faid, *' divers
Jews have been convinced and converted to the
Chriftian faith, by the evidence of this prophecy.'*

2. It is as clear, that the action here afcribed
to him relates to the New Tejlament Difpenfation.

3. The obvious and natural acceptation of the
term sprinkle, in this conne6tion, is that of pu-
rifying ; and it undoubtedly alludes to thofe Jewifh
ceremonial purifications which were performed by
fprinkling perfons and things.

4. Tho' thcfe ceremonial fprinklings under the
law reprefented and typified the atoning blood of
Ch.ri{>, and the cleanfing efBcacy of his grace,
yet it vs'ould be forced and unnatural to alcribe
this internal, fpiritual, and faving influence, to
MANY nations. Ihercfore,

5. The predi(5lion properly and directly intends
tliat external holinfs whereby Chrijiian nations are

pro-

Ch. 3. Subje^s of Biiptifm, 26^

profefTionally difllnguijhed from others. And how
great the privilege, how fignal the honour, con*
ferred on fuch nations ! They are fct apart by a
gracious diftinguifhing Providence, and by the
profelyting ordinance, to be to the Lord a people^
while he exhibits himfelf to be to them a God!
Blefled is the people that is in fuch a cafe, yea
blefled is the nation that has the Lord for its
God ! But

6. Must we exclude infants from being parts of
thefe nations, and from the prl\^Ieges of their
parents ? The law of nature, that is, the law of
God, and the analogy of all divine difpenfations
that were ever made known to man, forbid the
contradled thought, while unfupported by any fo
much as pretended divine warrant.

7. It appears from the New Teftament records
.that the appointed ordinance of initiation into this

ftate of relative holinefs, individually and explicitly,
is, the Chriftian purification — Baptism. Confe-
quently,

8. From the premifes it unavoidably follows

That the fpirit of prophecy, in this paflage, af-
fords a venerable and facred fan6lion to Pcedo-
baptift principles.

WHiiiTHER the interpretation now given, or Dr.

^'s, who, fays of this text, "The pjain, meaning

. is, that his dodrine Ihould dcfcend like rain upon

many rjatiops and people f," be moft. agreeable

to truth, let. the impartial reader judge.

§ 31. This national (and confeque|it|y Pcedo-

• . . . ^\ ^optyi)

•\ Remark* on the Chrijilan Mimjitri Rtajans, Sec, p. 3.

i66 Of the proper Ch. 3.

haptijl) view of the gofpel difpenfation, is implied
in many more prophetick pafTages, Ifa. Iv. 5. J?^-
hold thou Jhalt call a "ti AT 10^ that thou knowejl mty
and NATIONS that knew not thee Jhall run unto
theey becaufe of the Lord thy God, &c. Jer. iv.
2. ult. The NATIONS Jhall blefs themfelvcs in hiniy
and in him Jhall they glory. Dan. vii. 14. Atd
there was given him dominion and glory and a king-
dom, that all PEOPLE, NATIONS, and languages
Jhouldferve him, Ver. 27. ult. Jtid all BOMiiil<m
ONS Jhall ferve him. Mic. iv. 2. Jnd many
NATIONS Jhall come, and fay. Come, and let us go
up to the mountain of the Lord, &c. Zech. ii. 1 1,
jfnd MANY NATIONS Jhall be JOINED TO THE
LORD in that day, and Jhall be my people.
To which we may add, Matt. xxi. 43. There-
fore fay I unto you, the kingdom of God
Jhall be taken from you, and CJ\Eii TO A nation
bringing forth the fruits thereof* Rev. xi. 15. ult,

THE KINGDOMS OF THIS WORLD ARE BECOME
the KINGDOMS OF OUR LoRD AND OF HIS

Christ. Here I obferve,

I. That the phrafe, " the kingdoms of this
tvorld," in the laft text, muft be underftood in its
plain literal import, from the obvious oppofition
intended between it and the other, ** the king-
doms of our Lord;" and for a Jikc reafon,
the latter muft intend kingdoms professedly
christian. For the words are a prophetick
reprefentation of what Jhould take place in fome
future period of the Chriflian church. Now in
what fenfe can the kingdoms of the world

BECOMK

Ch, 3. Subje£fs of Baptifm. . 267

BECOME the kingdoms of the Lord, and of
his Chrift, if not in that we contend for ? They
were his in every other fenfe pnor to the date of
this prophecy. They were always the Lord's as
the God oi providence. By him kings have ever
reigned, and princes decreed juftice. Nor was
there ever a time when the whole earth was not
HIS, and the fulnefs thereof, with all its nations '
and kingdoms j to enlarge or contrail tliem ; to
raife or to fink them ; to caufe and regulate their
revolutions and fucceflions in every age. It
remains, therefore, that Chriftian kingdoms are
the Lord's in a fenfe fimilar to that in which If-
rael was his ; with this difference, that the yoke
of Mofaic ceremonies fhould be removed, and a
fpiritual evangelical worfhip introduced.

2. Our Lord (Matt. xxi. 43.) fpeaks of the
kingdom of God being transferred from o.ve
nation to ANOTHER nation. Now what Icfs can '
we infer hence, than — that the kingdom of God
was not abolijiied but transferred from one people to
another — and that the national afpe6l of the former
( at leaft fo far as to iticlude the children with
their parents) fliould be the fubje6t matter of
the transfer. If it be faid that what was taken
aivay from the one, and given to the other, did
not imply, notwithftanding, the church -member -
Jhip of infants : I reply, if the church -raember-
(hip of infants, in the kingdom of God to he
transferred, be an ejjential part of that king-
dom, this eflential part muft be included in wliat
\i:ai given to the otlier nation, or the gentile part
N jl of

268 Of. the proper Ch. 3.

of the world. But the former is true, as might
be eafily fliewiii and therefore fo is the latter.
And that by the kingdoin of God we are not to
underftand merely the preaching of the gofpel, is
decifively clear hence, viz. That this was not
what they once poffejpd and gloried in, but their
national adoption^ their church ftate and privileges ;
and therefore this latter (from the fcope of the
text) muft be what was taken away^ and not
merely a preached gofpel. It is true the rejec-
tion of the MefTiah, as the mofi: fignal inftance
of unfruitfulnefs, was the cauje of their vineyard
being laid wafle, their branches cut off, and their
kingdom transferred ; but the apoftolick refolu-
tion — lo ! ive turn to the gentiles^ was by no
means the full acconiplifhment of the predidion.
It intended, as what refulted from their rejecting
the counfel of God againfl: themfelves, a difmherit-
ing of the Jewifli. nation, which differs from their
7tot receiving the gofpel^ as the effect differs from
the caufe. Befides, the phrafe, " fhall be given
to another nation," is to be confidered as a judg-
vient on thofe from whom it is taken ; but this
could not have been the cafe if it meant no more
than — henceforth the gofpel, which is preached
to you, Ihall be preached to the gentiles olfo — for
that could be no judgment to any, but a bleffing
to all. Nor is it true infaSf, that the gofpel was
taken from the Jews otherwife than from any
unbelieving gentiles. The commiiiion was, GV,
preach the gofpel to every creature^ beginning
AT JERUSALEM. And Peter affures his brethren,

that

Ch. 3. Subjeds of Baptifm* 269

that the gofpel promife, or the exhibition of mercy,
is ta them and their children^ as well as to thofe
that were afar off. Nor do we find any repeal of.
this grant, this iin'iverfal afpe£t of the gofpel pro-
mife, and therefore what was taken from them
was their church state, \i\vtxt\i^ wrath — this
predi<5tcd wrath — came on them to the uttermoji,
Frcjn this x\\Qy -^'QtQ broken off, (arul not from the.
gofpel call ) and to this the gentiles were adopted.
T\\t fall of the one, became the riches &f the-
other. What the one fell fro7n^ the other Was
promoted to ; and what can this be, but their
church Jiate as a body of people ?

3. That remarkable text in Zechariah (chap.
ii. II.) fpeaks of inany nations that fliould, un-
der the gofpel difpeniiition, be joined to the Lord;
and accounted his people. On Antipoedobaptiil
principles, which deny the church-member(hip of
infants and the validity of their baptifm, this
prophecy neither has been, nor is ever likely
to be, fulfilled in whole or in part. Nay, ac-
cording to them, it is abfolutely incapable of being
fulfilled. For infants and children ever have
made, and ever will make, a very confiderable
part of a -nation. But if none, on our opponents'
hypothefis, are to be deemed as joined to the Lcrdy
but fuch as make a profeflion of faith and -repent-
ance, not only all infants and young children are
ftruck off from vifible church -memberlhip, but,
for aught we have yet feen, the bulk of a nation,
or the far greater part. Nor will it avail them
to fay, that this predi<5tion refers to the latter day
N 3 glory

270 Of the proper Ch. 3.

glory ; for be me day ever fo glorious, and the
fuccefs of the gofpel ever fo great ; let it be that
all the adults in a nation (hall be born to God in
one day, ftill the younger part of the nation, which
is very confiderable in number, mufl not be join-
ed to the Lord ; and therefore, if our opponents
be right, no nation, properly fpeaking, is capa-
lie of being joined to the Lord^ and of being his
people^ in any period of the gofpel church however
glorious.

§ 32. To this view of national converjtons it
may perhaps be objedted, " That the term nation
in the above places is taken improperly and fgu~
ratively^ not for the whole of a people fmall and
great, but for a confiderable part^ i. e. for thofe
in a nation that would make a profeffion of their
faith and repentance. As in Ifa. xvii. 12, 13, &c.
I anfwer,

1. In all equity the term fliould be taken
according to the nature of the fubjecl j which
has no reference to the incurfion of armies^ but
the jccefilon of profelytcs ; which latter ever in-
cluded the children with their parents.

2. In the paffages firft produced ( § 30. ) the
words nations andyi7»////*j are ufed fynonymoufly j
wliich latter cannot be underftood in that con-
nection to the exclufion of children. Therefore,
to rnnii the term nation, to fignify thofe in a na-
tion who profefs faith and repentance, is taking
an unwarrantable liberty ; a liberty for which no
tolerable reafon, I think, can be affigned.

As

Ch. 3. Suhje^s of BapttjTTU 271

As to the objedion, " That religion Is a per-
y5W thing II; either it has 00 force at all againftr
Pcedobaptift principles, or it muft condemn all
preceding difpenfations. But loth to impeach in-
finite wifdoai for giving fanclion to infant church-
memberftiip in every age of the world, we con-
clude, that whatever truth is contained in the pro-
podtion— " religion is a perfonal thing"— ftands
in perfefl conliftency with our principles. — But
if by religion's being a perfonal thing, be im-
plied— that a perfon's oivn confent is necelTary to
make him the fubjedl of religious obligations ;
I dare affirm that the propofition in that fenfe is
of moll pernicious tendency. Not lefs fo, than
the modern notion of the — " innocence of men-
tal errors ! "

Will it be objected, " That God requires to
be worlhipped »(7w in fpirit and in truth?" And
pray, zuhen was it that he did not require to be
fo worlhipped? Was Abraham's worlhip, for in-
fiance, of a carnal complexion ? Was his family
religion lefs fpirltual than that of thofe who rejeit
infants, as far as in them lies, from the bofom
of the chriftian church ? We cannot help think-
ing, that tliofe objections which are urged againft
the churclvmemberfnip and baptifm of infants,
drawn from the great fpirituality of the gofpel
difpenfation, favours not a little of the Socinian
leaven f, which degrades the Old Teftament as
much as poffible, to keep its votaries in counte-^
nance when explaining the New. On the con-
N 4 trary

II Dr. STENNrTx's Anfwei to Dr. A. p,
f Vid. Mark II Mcdul. Cap, xii, § 4, 8, I2« 1$, &c.

272 Of the proper Ch. 3.

trary, we think it reafonable to conclude, that the
more fpiritual and excellent the difpenfation is,
\hQ.Jironger the argument in favour of Poedobap-
tifl principles and pra6l:ice.

Or will any fay, " Suppofing all former difpen-
fations admitted infants to a participation of
the fame religious rites with their parents, it does
not follow that they notu muft." We fay it does
follow, by the moft juft and certain confequence,
if we have no fcriptural affirmative evidence to the
contrary. For whatever fource it proceeds from,
it is a privilege in itfelf. Whether this univerfal
fo£i of infant children having been included with
their parents in church privileges, arifes from its
natural reafonablenefs, and the apparent incon-
gruity, unreafonablenefs and unnatural feverity ot
the contrary ; in other words, from the original
conjlitution of human nature.^ whereby its divine
Author has not only chara6lerized it txs fecial and
communicative of benefits, but alfo formed the
ftrongeft connexion between the parents and their
offspring, as to all the benefits and privileges of^
the former: Whether the fact arifes from this,
I fay, or from a covenant grants — it (hould not
be renounced but by the higheft authority. And
this authority muft be, if at all exifiing, either
an explicit repeal, or an implicit and virtual abro-
gation. V/e n>aintain that neither exifis j and
therefore we cannot renounce the church-mem-
berlliip and baptifm of our infant children, with-
out denying thefe things to be a privilege^ that
IS to fay, without denying a plain fact.

§ 33. But

Ch. 3. SubjeSIs of Baptlfm. 273

§ 33. But an obje£lion ftill more formidable
yet remains, viz. " If the above prophecies refer
to national converjions^ does not that lead to na^
tional churches ? And what then becomes of the
diflenting and congregational plan ? " I reply, ,

That a national eftablifhment, if well or-
dered, appears more agreeable to the prophetick
paflages we have been confidering than the An-
tipoedobaptift plan j nay more agreeable to the ge-
ral tenor of revelation. I fay, " well ordered i"
for, in the prefent cafe, the queftion is not how
they are^ but how they may be eftablifhed. Nor^
does there appear any irreconcileable difference
between a national eftablifhment and congrega-
tional difcipline.

It is neceflary that infants make a part of na-
tions, but it does not at all follow, that the civil
magiftrate fhould — be the vifible head of the
church — prefcribe to all the nation, to the greateft
nicety, the terms of chriftian communion— publifh
a<Sls which impofe uniformii)\ rigid uniformity, in
religious mattei's, under heavy penalties — require.
obedience in things which no one pretends
to be vindicable on fcriptural or rational grounds
— and efpecially (hould require of minillers the
fubfcribing of plain contradi^ions.

On the whole it appears, that the language
of prophecy, refpe£ting nations becoming vifibly
chri/iian^. is quite inimical to the Antipcedobaptift ,'
hypothefis. — We now proceed to invelligate a
few prophetick teftimonies of another kind.

N 5 ^34' Out

274 Of the proper Ch. 3.

§ 34. Out of many that might be urged in
favour of infants, let the following be confidered.
Pfalm cii. 28. The children of thy servants
jhall continue^ and their seed Jhallhe efiahlijhed
before thee. On which I obferve,

1. That thefe words moil undoubtedly belong
to the Chriftian difpenfation, as appears from St.
Paul's quotation. (Heb. i. 11, 12.) of the fore-
going verfes; for thofe he exprefsly applies to
Chrill, and this ftands in ftridl connexion with
them. It therefore follows, that thefe fervants
are the fervants of Chrift, and who can thefe be,
but either his real or profejjing people ? And whe-
ther the one or the other be intended, it follows,

2. That their children (hall continue. But in
•what refpedl (hall the children of chriftians con-
tinue? Does it refer to the continuation of the
human race thro' their inflrumentality ? Is this
the full' import of the facred text, that chriftians
(hould not be furpaffed by infdels^ but fliould be
fruitful and multiply, and replenilh the earth, as
we'l as they P We cannot fuppofe that fo low
and jejune a meaning is worthy of the pen of
infpiration. It therefore remains, that the pro-
phetick proraife refers to the religious privileges
of the children of chriftians, and imports — that
they fhouid continue (Jijhconu) dwell, abide, or
tarry in the vifible church of God, as they were
wont to do, along with their parents in every
other oeconomy of grace that ever was. To this
is added,

3. That their feed fhall be eftablijhed. It is

hardly

Ch. 3. SubjcBs of Baptifm. 275

hardJy necefTary to obferve here, that hy feed is
meant offspring as fuch, without excluding tlie
youngell infant. And whether the pronoun
the'n\ relates to the antecedents fervants or chiU
dren^ is immaterial, ( tho' the conneilion feems to
refer it to the latter,) it ftill follows that the
offspring -^ yes, the infant offspring — of chriftians
are to be ejlablijhed before the Meifiah. In what
fenfe eftablijhed ? and how before the Lord Chrifl ?
It cannot mean that the feed of believers (hould
be eftabl idled in the grace of the covenant. We
conclude then that the purport of the words is,
—that the offspring of chriftians were intended
by the fpirit of prophecy to be efiahlijhcd^ con-
firmed, unmoved from and fettled in their for-
mer (landing before the Lord in his church.

Should any contend for this general meaning,
that the chriftian church fliould be a kingdom in
perpetuity, to continue for ever as what cannot
he moved, it will not alter the cafe j for the words
clearly point out the manner and means whereby
this is effected, viz. by the children of profefTors,
and their feed being continued and eftablilhed in
the church.

§ 35. The next pafTage I fhall advert to is
Ifaiah Ixv. 23. They Jhall net labour in vain^ nor
bring forth for trouble: for they are THE SEED of the
blejjed of the Lord^ and THEiB. OFFSPRING WITH
THEM. Hence obferve,

I. That the predi<Slion refers evidently to
gofpel times, and the accomplifhment mud be
fought among Chri/iians, For tlK)' it were main-
tained, that the fpirit of prophecy here eyed the
, N 6 Jews

276 Of X]n proper Ch. 3.

Jews in their glorious reftoratlon to church pri-
vileges after the fulnefs of the Gentiles was brought
in, that can make no manner of difference j for
the Jews when called will be christians as
well as the called Gentiles. The middle wall of
partition^ which caufed the celebrated diftribution
of the human race into Jews and Gentiles, has
been taken down. And it is obvious that what
the Gentiles now do enjoy by right of evangelical
privileges, is the very fame as what the Jews
would have enjoyed^ if wrath had not come upon
them to the uttermoft, to their un- churching andT
difperfion. The removal of the feparating wall
evidently implies an intdided incorporation, and
a community of privileges. And it is equally
plain, that what they woidd have enjoyed if they
had then received the Meffiah, was the fame as
what they Jimll enjoy on their future reception of
him. Therefore, whether the converted Gen-
tiles or Jews be intended in the words, they are
CHRISTIANS, or fubje(Sbs of the /a/? and unalte-
rable oeconomy of mercy.

2. Whatever honours and privileges belong
to THE SEED of the bkjjed of the Lord (and
■whoever be intended thereby) their offspring
are pronounced hkffed with them, co-partici-
pants of the fame benefits. But all religious
benefits being either internal and real, or external
and relative] and the former bleffings do not
devolve on the children, as their children, (which
needs not to be formally proved to Antipoedo-
baptiftsi) it follows— that thefe privileges, of

which

Ch. 3. SuhjeSts ofBoptiftn. 277

which the offspring of chriftians are co-partici-
pants with their parents^ are the external and ceco-
nomical benefits of the chriftian church. And if
haptifm be a benefit^ as it demonftrably is to all
capable fabjedls, and it is equally demonftrable
that infants are fuch, it irrefragably follows that,
according to the language and defign of prophecy,
the infant children ot chriftians are entitled to
baptifm with their parents. On the whole, the
connection between parents and children, relative
to church privileges and facred ordinances, fo rea-
fonable and conformable to the law of nature in
itfelf, and fo countenanced by the fanflion of
Heaven, is here ratified and confirmed.

§ 36. (4.) That it is the will of Christ we
fhould introduce our infant children into the chrif-
tian church, by the initiatory ordinance of bap-
tifm, will further appear from the corroborating
evidence afforded in the New Testament.

But, previous to our inveftigation of particular
paflages, it is neceffary to repeat a remark before
made — that the transition from one difpen-
fation to another, is of itfelf no adequate reafon
for abrogating any benefit or cuflom appertaining
to the former, v/hich would be really a benefit
under the latter. Hence we find, (conformably
to that wife and benevolent apophthegm, Mark ii.
21, 22.) that the change from the Jewifli to the
Chriftian ceconomy, was gradual and moft tender.
Nothing was altered without a manifeft necelfity,
and that always for the better. Our Lord and
his apoftles, being native Jews, not only were obr

fervant

a78 Of the proper Cli. 3

fervant of the religious worfliip and ceremonies of
the Jev,'ifli church, but alfo compJied with their
innocent civil cujhtm. It is beyond all reafonable
doubt, that baptlfm^ as a purifying rite, and the
holy fuppery as a folemn Jewifli feftival, were in
ufe before their appointment as ftanding ordi-
nances in the church*. The Apoltle Paul af-
fures us ( Heb. ix. 10. ) there were- before Chrifl:
divers bapttfms. Therefore the baptifm of the
New Teftament has nothing new but its appoint-
ment to the particular purpofe of profelyting into
the Meffiah's vifible and univerfal church. And
this is perfeilly conformable to the divine pro>-
ceedings in former periods ; as might be inftanced .
in the appointment of the rainbow as a token and
feal of the covenant, the Mofaic inftitution of
facrificeSy &c.

These things duly confidered, it muft be a weak
prejudice, a faife notion taken upon truft, unfup-
ported by one folid principle, That there is any
thing in the mere change of a difpenfation, which
implies an abolition of former privileges^ and a
promifcuous annihilation of every part of church,
relations and connections. 7 he fubfiance of true
religion is the fame in all periods ; and to fup-
pofe otherwife, would be as ridiculous as to fup,-
pofe that whenever a man changes his clothes, his
body too is metamorphofed ! The fpiritual and
moral parts of religion are the fame now as ever ;
and tho' the gofpel prefents to us new ohj^t^Sy

or

* See, among ethers, the following authors on this bead : Wit-
sros's Oecon. B. iv. chap, xvi. § 2. aJfo ^ 3 — 10. Godwvn's
Mcfes and Aarcn, Lib. iii. chap. ii. Hammond's Letter, Qi^
iv. § 5. Grotjus ia Match, iii, 6. xxvi. 16— jo, xxviii. 18,

Ch. 3. SubjeHs of Baptlfm. 279

or rather the fame objeds in a clearer light, yet
the principles of true piety, faithy love^ kc. con-
tinue invariably the fame in every age. Again :
duties of natural obligation are no more fuperfeded
by any change of difpenfation in the church, than
the principles of common fenfe are fuperfeded
by true philofophy. Whatever, therefore, appears
of natural obligation, and meets with no revealed
pofitive interruption, flows on uniformly and quite
unafFeded by a mere change of ceconomy.

Of this invariable nature, we infift, is the
obligation of parents to benefit their children by
introducing them to a participation of their own
privileges, even all thofe of which they are fuit-
able fubjedh, be thefe privileges what they may:
for, properly fpeaking, their nature does not
conftitute the criterion whereby we judge of the
obligation, but the capacity and fuitablenefs of the
fubjeft. It has been, I think, demonflrated, that
baptifm is an ordinance of which infants are not
lefs capable than their parents, that they poflefs
all neceffary fuitablenefs and qualifications to an-
fwer its nature and defign ; and therefore that the
obligation of parents to baptize them is abfolute
and ftrong. This being the cafe, nothing (hort
of a divine exprefs warrant fhould influence any
chriflian parent to the contrary. But fcripture is
fo far from affording any fuch evidence, that it
abounds with corroborating proofs to the contrary.
We have appealed to every fuccefliive difpenfation
of revealed religion, we have appealed to the
language of prophecy relative ' to c;ofpeI times,
whereby the original thefis acquired additional con-
firmation :

28o ' Of the proper Ch. 3.

iirmatlon j and now we chearfully appeal to the
New Teftament records.

§ 37. John the Baptift, or the Baptizer, makes
his appearance as a Jew among the Jews j in
fpirit, afpe6l and manners, another Elijah. But
whom does he baptize f IFho were the fubje61:s of
his extraordinary purificatioxt ? " Jerufalem and all
Judea, and all the region round about Jordan.'*
Matt. iii. 5 — 7. " All the people that heard him,
except the Pharifees and Lawyers." Luke viii
29, 30.. — The whole account of the fubjedts
of his baptifm is but (hort -and general, as may
be feen at one view, Chap. ii. § 2, &c. On
which I remark,

Towards an accurate and judicious interpreta-
tion of this coneife account, in reference to the
particulars of our prefent inquiry, it is necefTary
to keep a fteady eye upon the proper and allow-
able data for that purpofe. The Antipoedobap-
tifts lay this down as a general rule — " If the
fcripture be filent about infants as the fubje<5l of
baptifm, or even not dedfively exprefs in their fa-
vour, we are to take it for granted^ that they were:
not baptized." To face this cannon, however,
formidable, we venture to plant another — " If
the fcripture be filent about infants as the fubjecfts.
of baptifm, or even not decilively exprefs againji
iheniy we are to take it for granted.^ that they were
baptized with their parents." The general reafon
of this rule has [been already produced repeatedly ;
but with regard to its propriety and juft applica-
tion

Ch. 3. Subjeas of Baptifm, 281

tion in the cafe before us, let the following things
be obfcrved :

1. If John's baptifm was beneficial to the parents,
as a divine injiitutiony and their children were
equally capable of being the fabje6ts of it with
thennfelves, (which our opponents in faft allow,
by promifing to accede to our practice on the evi-
dence of a clear precept or example, which they
could not promife to do on fuppofition cf abfo-
lute incapability); there appears (bme reafon and
propriety for PcEdobaptilm, and nothing againfl; it,

2. If we confider the confhtution, the genius,
the ftate and circumftances of that church of which
John lived and died a member, and the perfons
who were the fubjecls of his baptifm, we may
fafely conclude — that infants wci-e partakers of
the cleanfmg rite with their parents.

John was a Jew^ and fo were thofe, all thofe,
he baptized ; nor did they ceafe to be members
of the Jewifh church on account cf his baptifm.
Their minds were indeed raifed and direvSted to
Chrift, as one who would baptize them with the
Holy Ghoft ; but that did not change their church
relation, any more than the believing lively views
and longing expectations of the patriarchs, prophets
and other faints, in reference to the future kingdom
of the MefTiah, did change their church ftate.

Now what was the nature of that 7-ite of which
John was the appointed adminillrator ? I anfwer.
It was a Jewifh cleanfmg, or ceremonial puriii-
cation. In proof of which aiTertion, (omitting
numerous refpectable authorities that might be

produced

2S2 Of the f roper Ch. 3.

produced, fufficient at lead: to exculpate from the
charge of novelty ) let this confideration be duly
attended to — That, independent on the teftimonies
of the Jewifli doctors concerning profelyte baptifm,
fince we are certified by the pen of infpiration,
(Heb. ix. 10.) there were divers baptisms in
ufe among the Jews, we ought not to confider
John's baptizations as any other than thefe Jew-
ifh purifications and ckanfings, any further than
we are necejfttated to do fo from tlie New Tefta-
ment records. It is therefore incumbent on thofe
who hold that this rite was of a different nature, to
fhew clearly wherein the difference confifted, or elfe
be content with the cenfure due to thofe who
adopt an hypothefis without proof. Convinced,
however, that thefe divine records favour no fuch
difcrimination as the abettors of that hypothefis
contend for, we conclude that John's baptifm v/as
one of xhz divers baptisms, before mentioned*.

It

* I am not a little (urprifed at Dr. GiLi's remarks on John's
bjptifm (Tody ot Div. Vol. iii. B. iii, Ch. i.) where he at-
tempts to prove that water-baptiTm is peculiar to the gofpel difpen-
fation. " This is oppofed," fays he, " to the fcntiments of fuch
" ^Aho f<ty baptifm was in ufe befoie the times of John, of Chrift
" and his apoftles, — There were indeed divers wa/hings, bathing";,
*' or BAPTISMS, under the legal difpenfation, fur the purification
•' of ptrfons and things unclean, by the ceremonial law| which
«« had a doftrine in them, called the doEirine of bjftifms, wh'ch
'« taught the cleanfing of fin by the blood cf Chriji ; but tlieie was
" nothing fimilar in them to the ordinance of water-baptifm, but
•' IMMERSION oNLv ! " How the Dr. takes for granted, without
proof or apology, tliat the pafTaee referreJ to ( Heb. ix. lo. ) fig-
nifies dmas imme«sioks! a pafTage his opponents have always
pleaded as decifive again/} him! Nothing JimHar to ivater-nArriiM
hut JMMiRsjoN, That is, on his principle, which maintains that

Ch. 3. Suhje£is of Baptijm. 283

It is plain the exprefs cleftgn of it was to pre-
pare the way of the Lord. For, as Mofe's was
commiffioned to sanctify the people^ i. e. to pre-
pare them by a ceremonial purification in expec-
tation of an approaching new oeconomy (Ex.
xix. 10, 14..); in like manner, John was fent to
the fame honoured family, the houfe of Ifrael,
not only to proclaim to them that the kingdom of
heavdn, that is^ a new and more excellent oeco-
nomy, was at hand, but alfo to fecond the im-
portant mefTage by a general purification j|.

But, the queftion now returns, what was the
conftitution of the Jewifli church as to infants ?
The reply need be but fhort to fo plain a cafe :
Infants Ihared in the fame rites with their parents,
even all thofe of which they were capable fubjecSts,
were not particularly diftinguilhed and excepted,'
Not more fure is it, that children ©ft, particularly
infant children, were unavoidably fubjecled to ce-
remonial pollutions with their parents than they
were entitled to the fame cleanf.ngs. Therefore,
whatever was the nature of John's cleaniing rite,
we may fecurely infer — parents and children
partook of it in common.

3. When

Ba7r1jfjix,05 is immerjlon — tliere was nothing in thofe divers tmnur-
Ranif fimilar to the otdinance of ivattr-immtrjion, but immcrfion only ! !
To fuch ridiculous inconfiftcncies is that hypolhefis reducible which
makes the biblical ufe of the words baptifm and immerfion conver-
tible and fynonymous! He proceeds: "John wjs the ^/y? admi-
niftrator of the ordinance of baptifm." — I'his is flatily coiitra-
didory to the Dr's, concefllon immediately foregoing — '* that
there were divers iaftifmi under the legal difpenfatjon," and con-
fequently baptlzers.

II Vidi CcoTivi ia M<ttth. iii. 6.

284 Of the proper Ch. 3,

3. When we confider, in connection with thefe
things, the genera] and univerfal tenns made ufe
of in the narration, we are rather confirmed than
otherwife in favour of Pcedobaptifm, as pra6lifcd
by the venerable fon of Zacharias. When we read
of, a/I the people — the multitude — all that heard
him, and the like, in reference to an ordinance in
which infants and young children were capable of
Iharing as well as adults ; by what equitable rule, I
would fain know, are we authorized to fet up an
excluding barrier? If becaufe infants and children
are not mentioned particularly, by the fame rule
we mufl exclude ivomen from the privilege of
John's baptifm. But if \[\tflence of the infpired
narrative is no fuincient reafon for excluding the
latter, neither is it for excluding tht former. The-
very ufe of general terms is fufficient evidence (cat:
par. ) for including dl the fpecies to which they
are applicable.

§ 38. But here I am aware of an cbjeftion that
may be thought unanfwerable againft the above
reafoning, viz. " That thofe who were baptized by
John confcfj'ed their fms, which infants could not
do." To this irrefragable argument, faifely fo
called, we (liall oppofe the follovv'ing anfwers.

I. In all equitable and fair conflruftion, nothing
more can be inferred from fuch pailages as fpeak
of " Jerufalem, and all Judea, and all the region
round about Jordan, being baptized of John in
Jordan, cojfejflng their fins " (Matt. iii. 5, 6. ) than
thzi fuch of them as were a5lual (inners made a
general Qowh'^ion of their fins and iniquities; where-
as.

Ch. 3. Sitbje^s of Bapttfm. 285

as, to ferve the antipcedobaptift caufe, the narra-
tion (hould fupport a proof widely different, viz.
That John baptized no others but thofe who made
a perfonal confeffion of their fins. But this, which
alone would be available to our opponents, the
hirtory of John's baptifm I believe will not fupport.
What better clue can we fix upon towards
inveftigating this point, than thofe fcripture paffa-
^es which treat of national and general confejjions
.of fin? Thus, for inftance, the Lord himfelf fays
.with refpecl to Ifrael, Lev. xxvi. 40 — 42. If
they Jhall Qon¥ ESS their iniquity, andtheini'
qu'ity of their fathers^ -with their trefpafs which they
ircfpaJJ'cd againji me^ and that alfo they have xvalked
figainjl me — if then their uncircumcifed hearts be
.humbled^ and they then accept of the punijhment of
their iniquity -y then zvill I remember my cove?iant —
and I xuill remember the land. Thus alfo Solomon,
in his excellent prayer, on that memorable and
eminently folemn occafion of introducing the ark
of God into the new erected temple, i Kings,
viii. 47 — 53. If they Jlmll bethink themfehes —
<77Z^ REPENT, and make JiippUcation unto thee — fay-
ingy We have sinned, and have done per-
versely, WE HAVE COMMITTED WICKEDNESS ;
and fo return unto thee zvith all their hearty and with
all their foul — theyi hear thou their prayer and their
fupplication in heaven thy dwelling place^ and main-
tain their caufe — and give them compajfion before
thetn who carried them captive^ that they inay have
companion on them ; for they he thy people and thine
inheritance-^ i£c. In like manner, on another fo-
lemn

286 Of the proper Ch. 3.

!emn occafion, when a national reforniation was
attempted, and a general faft obferved, it is faid,
Neh. ix. 2. The feed of Ifrael feparated themfelves
from allfirangersy and flood and CONFESSED THEIR
SINS, and the iniquities of their fathers.

From thefe and fimilar paflages we may obferve,
(i) That the people in general, or as a
body^ are faid to confcfs their iniquity^ to repent^ and
to fay, IVe have finned^ &c. { 2 ) That notwith-
{landing, infants were not capable of thefe a6ts.
But, ( 3 ) Neverthelefs, there was no privilege, na-
tional or ecclefiaftical, which an infant was capable
of enjoying, but was participated by the child as
well as the parent, as connefled with, or confe-
quent upon, fuch as repentance and confeffion
of fin. And ( 4 ) We may note the general form
of confeflion, — " We have finned, and have done
perverfely, we have committed wickednefs." — How
parallel this account is with the repentance and
confefTion of, " Jerufalem and all Judea," let the
impartial reader judge. Let him refleft, particu-
larly, that repentance and confeflion of fin wer?
the prefcribed conditions in both cafes, and the be-
nefits fufpended on thefe conditions were, in the one
cafe, God's remembering his covenant, and the
land — maintaining their caufe, and giving them
companion before their enemies; — and, in the
other, the blejfmg ( not the duty) of the ecclefiaf-
tical purifying rite, and whatever external privi-
leges were connected with it.

Again: it is not fuppofeable that " Jerufalem

and

Ch. 3. Subje^s of Baptifm, 287

and all Judea/' were deemed by John true penitents ;
and the fequel of the hiftory flievvs abundantly
they were not in faSf, All^ who did not rejeSi the
counjelof God againjt themfehes^ ( Mark i. 5. Luke
vii. 30. ) were baptized of him ; all the people
but the Pharifees and lawyers. Therefore, feeing
the repentance, humiliation and confefllon were of
the general nature above defcribed, there is no
fufficient reafon affignable why the infants and
children Jhould not, or did not, Ihare with their
parents in the baptifmal benefit^ as the confequence
of thofe conditions.— It would be eafy to make
the fame remarks on the humiliation of the Nine-
vites ; when Jonah cried in the city, as John did
in the wildernefs, that deftruȣlion and wrath await-
ed the impenitent, the effecft was pretty much alike ;
a general humiliation enfued, and we are fure that
in the one inftance, i?ifants (hared in the parent's
confequent privilege j therefore, iince that parti-
cipation was not founded on a pojitive grant but
the law of nature^ we are conftrained to conclude
— that the parent's privilege, in the other inftance,
extended to his infants, and dependent family, in
virtue of the fame uniform law. Befides,

2. When we confider how little notice is taken
of children in the fubfequent hiftory of the chrif-
tian church, particularly that part of it which
treats of the progrefs and fuccefs of the gofpcl,
and the evangelizing of nations, as well as in the
facred records of the Old Teftament ; where yet

from

288 Of the proper Ch. 3.

from circumftances we may gather with certainty
the avowed church- memberfliip and baptifm of
infants ; it is very conceiveable how the New
Teftament fliould leave this point as we find it.
The fame remark is apphcable to m.oft reforma-
tions in the church, and revolutions in civil fociety,
while the memberfhip and privileges of infants
in thefe cafes ftand confeiTed in the eftimation of
their refpetStive hiflorians.

Considering, therefore, thefe things — that
the ordinance in it felf dots not exclude infant fub-
jeds, but admits them not lefs than adults, as
.before proved; — that the conilitution, genius,
and uniform cuftom of the Jewifti church ( of
which John and his difciples were members )
included infants with their parents ; — that there
appears in the brief account of John's miniftry
nothing agninjl infants, but the general terms ufed
are rather /« y^t'w/r of them ; — and that nothing
• can be gatliered, in fairnefs and equity, of objec-
tionable weight, from the account of the people
confeffmg their fins as a conditional qualification for
enjoying the baptifmal privilege ; for, on fuppofi-
tion that infants xvere baptized^ no other language
could be reafonably expe^Sled, as further appears
from the Old Teftament and the moft approved
. ecclefiall:ical and civil records — we conclude, That
John was a Poedobaptist de jure^ therefore,
(ca:t. par.) that we ought to regard him fuch de
■faSfo*

§ 39. We next appeal to Chrift's public minif-
try. Our Lord and his fervants, we ai'e exprefsly

told,

Ch, 3. SubjeSJs of Baptifrn. ■ 289

told, made and baptized 7mre difciples tlian John,
tho' the latter baptized fo great a number. How
numerous then muft they be ! But were they
all confidered as true believers, or real converts,
that isj'juftified and famSHfied perfons ? Did our
Lord, by his minifters, baptize the innumera-
ble multitudes on that fuppofition ? Nothing \t.{s.
All that can in reafon be thought of them is, that
they made a general furrender of themfelves as
families and affembled crowds, after the manner
of John's followers; and indeed, their fo gene-
ral defe£tion from Chrift on occafion of his
fearching difcourfes, and his approaching death,
renders the facSl indubitable.

We may here again obferve, that the fame
reafon remains in force, in behalf of the privi-
leges of children, in this period as before; as
there is no ground of repeal, vre think, either
expreffed or implied. But tho' we have nothing
agairijl them, we have fomething /;; favour of
them. What I (hall infift upon from this part of
fcfipture evidence, Ihall be confined to two things
— our Lord's confirming and decifive fentence
concerning the church privileges of infants — and
the fame thing implied in what he fays of cer-
tain towns and cities as a general body, thro*
the whole courfe of his miniftry.

Let us begin with that pafTage Mat. xix, 13
— 15. recorded alfo, with fome variation, Mark
X. 13—16. and Luke xviii. 15— 17. Inllead of
tranfcribing thefe pallages at length feverallv, as
every reader may eufily confult them, 1 fliaif give
O them

29^ ^f the proper Ch. 3.

tliem In one conne6led view from the harmony
of the ingenious and candid Dr. Doddridge.
" And they brought infants and young children
" to him, that he fliould touch them, or put
" his hands on them, and pray; and when his
" difciples faw it, they rebuked thofe that brought
*' them. But when Jefus faw it, he was much
" difpleafed, and faid unto them, Suffer the httle
*' children to come unto me, and forbid them
" not; for of fuch Is the kingdom of God. Verily
" I fay unto you, Whofoever fliall not receive the
" kingdom of God as a little child, he fliall in
" no v/ife enter therein. And he called them
" unto him, and took them up in his arms,
*' and put his hands upon them, and blelTed
"them; and departed thence f." — Jefus was
now, it feems, at Bethahara^ which was beyond
Jordan^ over againft "Jericho^ where he tarried
with his difciples fome months. Hither great
multitudes reforted to him to receive his inftruc-
tions, fpiritual bleffmgs, and miraculous cures.
During his abode at Bethabara, previous to his
going to Bethany^ thefe things are recorded par-
ticularly,—-the dodrine of divorce and matrimony,
in anfwer to the tempting Pharifees — his doc-
trine concerning infants and children, occafioned
by the importunity of their friends and the harjij
imprudence^ or the inconftderate officioufnefs of the
difciples — the danger of riches, occafioned by
the queftion of the young ruler — bigotry and a
party fpirit, a very ^prevailing fin of the Jewifti

nation,

\ Fam, Expof. voJ« ii, Seft, 136.

Ch. 3. SubjeSIs of Baptifm, igi

nation, reproved in the parable of the labourers.
—This, 1 1 believe, is all we have recorded be-
longing to this period, tho' of feveral months
continuance.

Now, let us attend to the circumftances and
import of that paflage relating to infants and
young children, as above. On which I would
offer the following reflections; which fhall relate
to — the children's friends — the difciples — and
our Lord's doctrine on the occafion.

§ 40. I. The moft probable motives of the
children's parents or friends feem to be, that
the fame of Jefus being abroad about his con-
defcenfion to children and his peculiar fond-
nefs for them, as is manifeft from Mat. xviii.
2, &c. they were anxious of receiving fome
token of his cond.efcending notice, and impor-
tant benediction. In the inltance juft referred to,
Jefus while at Capernaivn, had called a little
child unto him, and fet him in the midlt of his
difciples, taking him up in his arms and tellino-
them — that they muft become ///v little children
— that kindnefs fhewn to fuch, was like (hewino-
it to himfelf. And, indeed, when we confider
the propriety and amiablenefs of the tiling itfclf
in connection with the character of Jefus, we
Ihould think too contravStedly to imagine, that
the few instances recorded by the Evan"^elifts
were the only ones wherein he manifefced a opa-
cious regard for them. Thefe confiderations flilly
jultified the motives of the perfons in quedion,
whether they or the chiLiren were baptized (n-
O 2 u .^

292 Of tht proper Ch. 3.

not, by John or any of Chritl's difciples here-
tofore, and without fuppoting them to have any
defign of offering themfelves or theirs to be
baptized at this time; and indeed, this is the
more improbable, in that, moft likely, they had
certain appointed opportunities for that purpofe,
whereas their exprefs defign, as here recorded,
was to receive his benecUSi'ion,

2. The next inquiry is. What could induce
the difciples to rebuke thefe perfons? I readily
agree with Dr. S. That it is not probable their
condudl is chargeable with the guilt of despis-
ing LITTLE CHILDREN OS fuchy " having a far
*' better opinion of thof; men of God, than
" to fuppofe them capable of an evil, which
*' very few of the moft profligate among man-
" kind are chargeable with ;" but is rather
imputable to " their imprudence and inconfidera-
" tion^ than to any inhumanity or cruelty in
" their tempers *." In fail, it feems to me
pretty evident, that what gave offence to the dif-
ciples was, what might appear to them an un-
seasonable hnportunity. Every one knows how
much depends upon well timing an application
to perfons of much bufinefs of an important
nature. This remark is fufficient to fhew the
inconclufivenefs of Mr. B.'s reafom'ng on this
point : " Is it not ftrange, unaccountably ftrange,
" that our Lord's moft intimate friends fhould
" have been offended with the perfons who brought
" thofe children, if it had then been cuftomary

" to

* Anfwer to Dr. A, p. 5I,

Gh. 3. Suhjt\fs of Baptijhi. 293

*' to baptize infants f?" Strange! not at all j
much lefs unaccountabiy ftrange. If there be any
force in the reafoning it is this,— -If our Lord's
attendants had been Poedobaptills, then no ill-
timed application, no improper manner of apply-
ing, no circumjlance whatever, could have been a
caufe of offence to them. I would exclaim in
my turn, atid with how much greater propriety
let the reader judge, " Is it not ftrange, unac-
" countably ftrange," that my refpe£lable oppo-
nent ftiould be fo inattentive to logical conclu-
fivenefs, as to reft an argument on fuch a
foundation! Suppofe an opulent and generous
perfon, diftributing liberally to proper objefts on
convenient and feafonable opportunities, were ad-
dreflbd by the medium of fervants or attendants
unfeafonably ; and upon thefe giving the importu-
nate folicitors of his charity a Jhort anfwer^ or
perhaps a repr'imand^ it fliould be divulged —
The public is miftaicen in regard of the cha-
racter of the perfon, as if generous and cha.-
ritable, and particularly his attendants who are
reported to be of the fame difpofition with
himfelf ; for elfe " is it not ftrange, unaccount-
ably ftrange," that the perfon's moft intimate
friends fliould have been offended with thofe fo-
licitors of their mafter's bounty, and ftiould even
have rebuked them, if it had been cujiomary for
him to relieve the diftrefled? Anyone acquainted
with the world, and the nature of important
bufmefs, might well fay, Did you apply at a
O 3 convenient

\ Poedob, Examt p. 349,

294 ^f *^^ proper Ch. 3,

convenient time, and in a prudent manner ?
Equally futile is the inference, that ChrJft and
his difciples were no Poedobaptifts, elfe the latter
could not have been offended with the perfons
who brought the children. — Befides; Mr. B.
feems to forget or conceal the circumftance of
our Lord's being greatly difpkafed v/ith the dif-
ciples for their conduct j which he would not
have been, without any ground of blame. And
I believe with Dr. S. that his difpleafure " was
"' exprefTed with the greater warmth, in order
" the more deeply to irnprefs the minds of
" fpedators with the exceeding great tendernefs
" he felt for little children. And I imagine it
" was chiefly with a view to mark this diftin-
" guifliing feature of benevolence in our Lord's
" character, and to inftrudl us in the duty we
" owe to our children, that the evangelifts have
*' fo paiticularly related this pleafmg ftoryf."
While all attention, perhaps, to fome heavenly
dodlrine, the difciples inadvertently thought he
ought not to be interrupted by children^ by in-
fants (Bptp»i) who are incapable of attending to
and comprcliending the divine lecture*. But he
foon convinces them of what they ought to
have had always frefh in mind — " what ex-
" ceeding great tendernefs he felt for little chil-
" dren." But

3. What
t p. 58.

* Apofloli rem minus dignam Chrifto putabant, contingendit
pucns pccopari, Poli Synops. in ]oc. " Si impofitum ejus capiti
«' fuiHet diadema, libcnter nee fine plaufu excepiflent: quia propri-
*• uin ejus munus nonduni tenebant." Caiv, in IVfctt. */«, z^.

Ch. 3. SuhjcSls of Baptijm. ^ 295

3. What was our Lord's do(5b-ine on the
occafioil? Suffer the little children to come unto
mej FOR of fiich is the kingdom of heaven, *' Hunc
" clypcum Anabaptiftis non temcre opponimusj."
This I venture to call a decifive fentence in
favour of the continued privilege of the church-
memberniip of infants under the gofpel difpen-
fation, and confequently their title to baptifm ;
the evidence of which let us now inveftigate.

§ 41. From the paflage under confideration
we may learn,

1. *' That thefe little children, being fti'ed
« (ra ^pipvj) infants^ (Luke xviii. 15.) and taken
*' up in Chrift's aims, ( Mark x. 16. ) wers
" children not yet come to the age of difcretion ;
" for i3p£?''j, according to Eustathius and Pha-

" VORINUS, is TO afl« yijivo? Traii^ioyj y.ctt Tfi^'ifAtna;

*' otTTo Ti;Oij?— (? neiu born childj nourijhed from the
« teat*."

2. Whatever may be included in tliis blef-
fing, ofjuch is the kingdom of heaven^ we are not
to fuppofe it confined to thofe children, much lefs
to adults. " I cannot approve of rendering
roteluv, fiich as rcfemhle thefe. It is the part of %
faithful tranflator, not to liinit the fenfe of the
original^ nor to fix what it leaves ambiguous jj."
And Mr. Henry obferves, that " the word ge-
" nerally fignifies not fimilitude, but identity \ nor
" can any one inftance be found where it excludes

O 4 " the

J Calvin in he. * Whitby in loc%

H DoDCK, Fain« Expof, vol, ii, Sedl. i3<><

296 Of the proper Ch. 3.

** the perfon or thing mentioned J." " Horum
" et fimiliuin: puerorum ut aetata, ita et mori-
*' bus : non excludit pueros, a quibus facit ini-
" tium, fed includit adultos eis flmiles; q. d.
*' Pueri, a me jam benedicSli, jam nunc idonei
" funt regno ccelorum: vos adulti qui diu mea
" prefentia & benedi6lione fruimini, nondum ido-
" nei eftis, &, ut idonei fiatis, reddamini oportet
" illis iimiles quos contemnitis, a fallu alieni,
" &c. *" " Hac voce tarn parvulos quam eorum
" fimiles comprehendit. Infulfe enim Anabaptiftae
*' pueros excludunt, a quibus initium fieri debe-
" bat-}-." And Dr. S. underftands Tojalwy,—
" of fuch little children, LITTLE CHILDREN IN
*' GENERAL §;" which I am by no means in-
clined to difpute.

Yet afterwards he qualifies this univerfality
thus: " All little children who die in their
" INFANCY. And this," fays he, " I take to
** be our Lord's meaning. Of fuch, of little chil-
" dren passing out of life in their in-
" FANCY, is the kingdofn of heaven. And con-
" fidering what 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
" cf them." Yet our author adds, " There is
*' no way by which it can be credibly known,

" which

X Treatise on Baptifm, p. 104%

* Maldonat. ex Oris. Hieron* August, &c. et Lue.
BruG£N.. ap. PoLi Synopf, in loc,

f Calv* in kc, § Anfwer to Dr^ A, p» 61*

Ch» 2' Subjects of Baptifm. 297

" wliich of them do poflefs fuch title to the
" k'ngdo.-n of heaven, till they die ]|." Hence
he concludf s, that becaufe we cannot certainly or
credibly know which of them fhall die in their
infancy— we are to regard none of them, while
they live, as fubjeSis of the kingdom of heaven '^
except we reft our judgment " upon a prefump-
" tion of their dying."

But what fays Mr. B. on this head? « That
*' it is laivful for a parent, or a minifier\ to give
** UP INFANTS to God by folemn prayer, which
*' is a moral duty, we readily allow; and that
" the condu£l of Chrift, on this occafion, mani-
" fefted his regard for little children.^ is beyond a
" doubt; at the thought of which, we are fo
" far from being pained, that we rejoice. Yes,
" it is a matter of joy; becaufe, in our view, it
" wears z fmiling afpeSi on Xh^ final Jl ate of fuch
" as die in their infancy; aad that without
** any reftriilion, in reference to carnal dcfcent^
" which limitation has the appearance of a Jewifh
" tenet f." Mr. James Rutherford is ftill
more explicit: " As I cautioned my hearers, in
" like manner let me intreat my readers, not to
" entertain the leafl fufpicisn that my fentiments
" are harfli and uncharitable, refpe6ting the hap-
" py (late of children who die in infancy; for
" tho' my conclufions fo peremptorily exclude
" them from any part in the outward church
" ftate, and deny their right to every ordinance
*' thereof, yet I dare not affirm they are incapa-
O 5 " bk

\ I'rid. p. 64. t i'odob, Bxam» p« 350^

298 Of the proper Ch. 3.

« ble of Internal wafhing, or without a part in
" eternal glory : For altho' I have not met with
" one word, either in the Old or New Tefta-
" ment, from which the final Jlate of thofe who
" die in infancy can be inferred, yet where the
" matter is fo liable to difpute among men, and
" the fcriptures fo fdent about it, always choofe
" to take the niofi charitable fidej on which
*' account, I am inclined to believe the falvation
" of ALL who die in infancy *." After all, ac-
cording to Mr. B. the condudl of Chrift mani-
fefting his condefcending regard for little children,
without baptizing them, makes nothing for
infant baptifm. " He who can fairly prove the
** 'point, or make any advances towards it, from
" fuch premifes, muft: be a wonderful proficient
« in the art of fyllogizing f." On the contrary,
we cannot help thinking, that " he who can
" interpret thefe words, " fufFer little children,
" &c." to the denial of infants', all infants', church-
memberfhip and confequent right to baptifm, is
no mean proficient in the art of evading evi-
dence. However, let us examine this matter a
little more clofely.

These authors unanimoufly agree, that the
phrafe, " of fuch," includes, " little children in

" general'

• Thoughts on Beh'evers' Bapt« p. 15. See, alfo, Gillard's
Prcbahility of lie future Jlate cf infants, ivha die in infancy, fated-
ttnd corfdend. The Author, who is an Antipcedobaptift, fays of
his defign : " The idea putfucd in this Treatife is, the probability
«« that ALL who die in a ftate of infancy, are elcEled and there-
«• fore certainly faved." p, 9.

"^ P^dob. Exam* p. 351*

Ch, 3. SuhjeSls of Baptijm* igg

*' general, without any reflriftion, in reference to
" carnal defcent." They alfo unite in fuppofing
the falvation of ai-L fuch as die in their infan-
cy." Yet, if JVIr. Rutherford's opinion be
admitted, — " that there is not one word^ either
" in the Old or Nfew Teftament, from which
*' the final ftate of thofe who die in infancy can
" be inferred" — the above concefTions (for fo
I may call them) come from Antipoedobaptifts
with a very ill grace. However, tho' I cannot
admit of Mr. Rutherford's premifes, I can eafily
fall in with the general conclufion, for reafons
that need not be here produced, ( See § 6. )
But tho' our opponents be thus unanimous in
allowing children, dying in their infancy, a place
in the church ahove^ they are not lefs fo in
denying them a place in the church below ; for
were they to grant them the latter privilege,
their obligation to baptize them, as belonging to,
or members of, the church of Chrift, could not
be difputed. Here I would aik our opponents,

§ 42. Can they coolly and impartially believe^
that thofe very children whom Chrift aSlually
bleJJ'ed.f to the joy of their parents, and the in-
flruclion of his miniftring fervants, were not
mejnhers of the gofpel church, in the fame fcnfe
as their parents or any other difciples were, af
leaft AFTER this benediilion * ?

O 6 K^

* " Cette non luforium nee inane fymbolum erat manuum jm-
i" pofitio, nee fruftra prcccs \n aerem Chriftus eftuJit ; folenniter
•' autem ofl'erre Deo n©n fotuit cuin puritate donaret, Quid

*• vcr#

300 Of the proper Ch. 3,

As Jews, they were members of the church
of God, as well as their parents. But when a
Jew believed Jefus to be the MelTiah, and profeffed
attachment to him, was he required to renounce
his former religion, in like manner as a heathen
was required to renounce his ? Or, Was there any
thing whatever required of a Jew, but to believe
what Chrifl: taught^ and to obferve what he com-
manded? But believing what he taught, and ob-
ferving what he commanded, no way interfered
with the continued and uninterrupted church-
memberfhip of his children. Nay, his own
church- memberfiiip was not changed but improv-
ed by confeffing Chrift. Therefore, for fuch a
parent to treat his children as difpojfejjed of their
church-memberfliip, when he himfelf was not,
and without any pretence of neceffity from any
thing which Chriil taught or commanded, muft
be evidently unjuftlfiable. Confequently, in pro-
portion as thefe parents judged and adted agree-
ably to truths they muft have conduced them-
ielves towards their children, as aSlual members
of the church of God.

But fmce it appears that not only the lefs
inftruded among the Jews, but our Lord's dif-

ciples

" vero illis precatiu eft, nifi ut redperentur inter Dei flios?
" Unde fequitur regenitos Splrifu fuifle in fpem falutis. Ipfe
•' denique am plexus teftis fuit cenferi ipfos a Chrifto in fu» grege,
" Quod fi dononim fpiritualium quae figurat baptifmus, compotes
" fuerunt, externa f'gno privari abAirdum eft. Sacrilega vero au-
*♦ dacia eft, abigere procul ab o-vili Chrifli quos ipfe in finu fuo
" fovef, & quafi extraneos claufa janua lejicerc ^uos prohiberi
" fion Nvilt," Calt. in Matt. xix. 14,

Ch. 3. SuhjeSfs of Bapttfm. 301

ciplcs who conftantly attended him, formed very
wrong conceptions of the nature of the Mefliah's
kingdom, which they called the kingdom of heaven^
(See Mat. xviii. 1 — 4.) what can be more na-
tural than to confider our Lord's declaration in
the text, as a dire£l anfwer to fuch a miftake?
Why Ihould we not, therefore, interpret, " the
** kingdom of heaven," of the Mefliah's king-
dom ? In the lafl: mentioned text, the difciples,
labouring under this common prejudice, inquire
of their Lord, " Who (liould be greateft in the
*' kingdom of heaven ?" His anfwer to their quef-
tion was, by an aflion fimiJar to that we are
confidering; and (except we fuppofe the anfwer
foreign to the queftion) in the former inftance,
the requifition for memberfliip in the gofpel church,
or for fubjeds in the Mefliah's kingdom, was —
conformity to a little child, which he propofed to
them as a model; in the latter^ he feems to cuf
off all occaflon of the abfurdity of confining his
dodrine to the cafe of adults, whofe excellency
confirted in likenefs to infants, to the exclufion
of infants themfelves. Therefore, the kingdom of
heaven^ i. e. the gofpel churchy is made up, as to
the true charadler of its fubjeds, not only of
thofe who are like little children, but of little
children thetnfelves. Not only fuch adults as
refemble thefe, but theje^ and fuch as thefe^ in the
ftrideft fenfe, belong to my kingdom now about
to be eftabliftied.

To this Dr. S. objedls: " That he means
*' the world of glory, and not his kingdom on
" earth, appears plain to me from the words

" immediately

302 Of the proper - Ch. 3;

** immediately following, aa reported by Luke,
•*' Whojoever Jhall not receive the kingdom of God
" as a little child^ Jhall in no wife enter therein,
'^ that is, Whofoever Qiall not receive the gofpel
" with the fimplicity and teachablenefs [teach-'
" ablenefs!*] of a little child, he (hall in no wife
*' enter ihto the world of glory — not furely he
" fhall in no wife enter into the vifibl'e church,
" for into that fome of the vileft hypocrites have
" entered f." If this be a jufl: account of the
pre-requifites for glory, what becomes of infants,
who do not receive the gofpel at all? Our re-
fpetSlable author feems to forget, that fimplicity and
teachablenefs are not imiverfally neceffary for en-
trance into the kingdom of glory, which he muft
allow in granting the falvation of dying infants.
Faffing by this, let us attend to his main argument:
" Not the vifible church, for into that fome of
** the vileft hypocrites have entered.'* But if this
proves any thing, I fear it will prove too much.
On other occafions we are told, " He that
forfaketh not all to follow Chrift, — and hateth
not fatlier and mother, &c. for his fake, can-
not be his difciple^ i. e. cannot be a fuhjeEl of
his kingdom.''^ But who fees not that in fuch
[ pafiages we are to underftand the term difdple,
not as implying mere profejfion^ but the poffef-
fion alfo of what is profefled? In like manner,

etitering

" * Wlien Ml-. makes their dccibhnefs the thing intended by

•* Chrift, he forgot that he judged them uncapable of being dlfcipleu
•' Why may not thofe be difdples, who are not only docilh, bjt
''exemplary for their teachablenefs?" Baxter's Plain Sciipto
Proof, p. 105,

\ Anfwcr to Dr, A, p. 65,

Ch. 3. SuhjecJs of Baptifm, 303

enterifig into the khigdom of heaven, or the church
of Chrift, is twofold; either into the mwiber of
fubjeds externally, or into the real fpiritual hap-
pincfs it exhibits. And in this view the impartial
Dr. Doddridge paraphrafes the paflage in quef-
tion, Mark x. 15. and Luke xviii. 17. " TP^oo^
*' foever Jhall not be willing to receive the kingdom
" of God, or the gospel dispensation and the
" HAPPINESS IT PROMISES, as a little child,
" diverting himfelf of thofe prejudices, and thofe
" fecular views which men contract in their riper
*' years — he Jhall not in any wife, or on any
" terms, enter into it, be his genius ever fo fub-
** lime, or his circumflances in life ever fo confi-
" derable f." This I believe is a plain, natural
and confident interpretation of the text ; and
avoids five great inconveniences with which the
other appears clogged.

( 1 ) The confined fenfe of the words, for which
our opponents contend, referring them exclufively
to the -world of glory, labours under this incon-
venience, viz. That then they are 7iot fo direSl
and full an anfwer to the reigning prejudice of the
perfons addrefled, particularly the difciples, whofe
wrong views of the Mefliah's kingdom are here,
it feems, intentionally redified. (See Matt, xviii.

1-4.)

( 2 ) It labours under another difadvantage, viz.
It virtually renounces that well known fcriptural
diftindtion of a twofold entering into the kingdom
of Chrift ; into its external privileges, and its in-
tsrnal blejftngs : as if thefe words, " Whofoever

fhall

^ Family Expof. vol. it. Seft, 136,

304 Of the proper Ch. 3.

fhall not receive the kingdom of God as a little
child, fhall in no wife enter thereinj'* muft nesds
refer either to a mere external relation to Chrift
and his people, or to heavenly glory. 'Whereas
it is equally true, that the worldly minded mifer,
or the felf-righteous pharifee, can not enter into
the happinefs of the gofpel difpenfation, as that
they can not enter into glory.

( 3 ) It feems to deny, that the JIate of grace
as well as \X\zJlate of glory., m.ay be called the king-
dom of heaven. Nothing is more evident, or more
univerfally acknov^ledged, than that the goipel dif-
penfation, in its external afpe^St, is fo called. Nor
is it much lefs evident, that the fpiritual ceconomy
of the gofpel is fo denominated in the following
places. Matt. iii. 2. iv. 17. x. 7. xii. 28. xvi.
28. &c. &c.t

( 4 ] It excludes thefe very infants from prefent
intereft in the blefling pronounced concerning
them. Is it fuppofeable that they have no real
privilege either confirmed or conferred ? Was
our Lord's laying his hands on them, and reprov-
ing his difciples for their fakes, expreflive of no
favour towards them, but a mere empty iign ?
But if this wonderful condefcenfion and loving
regard to them was attended with any benefit to
them, are we at liberty to fix on any which fancy
didates, to the exclufion of what the words plainly
cxprefs ? Qf fiich is the kingdom of heaven. The
benefit here pronounced on them, ( if at all here
included, which cannot reafonably be denied,

as

•\ For a Isige coJlcdlion cf fuch paflages, fee White t on
Matt, iii. a^

Ch. 3. SubjeJis of Baft'ifrn. 305

as before fliewn ) was a prefent benefit, whether
now conferred or only aflerted and confirmed.
And to deny this will be attended with another
inconvenience, viz.

( 5 ) If they were at all included, it muft either
make the plaineft language of the time prefent
refer to time future ; or, convert the declaration,
" of fuch is the kingdom of heaven," into 2i pro-
phecy concerning their eternal flate — both which
will be thought fufficiently improbable ; and the
more fo, when we refle£l, that there is not the
leafl necelTity of running into fuch extremes.—
I Vv^ould again inquire,

§ 43. Have we any ground to fuppofe, that
our Lord would have denied the privilege here
cxprefTed, to any other infants or little children,
had they been brought to him ? Was not his
declaration, " of fuch," abundantly encouraging
on behalf of any fuch that fhould be brought to
him ? Or muft we interpret what is expreffed in
terms fo general, as exclufive of alt the infants
and little children in the world ? Strange inter-
pretation ! For, then, what encouragement or
even propriety can there be in the preceding
gracious declaration, " Suffer them to come unto
me, and forbid them not?" How could this be
founded on the general do6lrine, " Of fuch is
the kingdom of heaven ? Or muft we fay, in
compliance with our opponents' interpretation, —
" Such as DIE in their infancy go to glory^
THEREFORE let thcfc wliich are alive, and
SUCH as thefe, be brought unto me !"

Again

306 Of the proper Ch. 3.

Again : Seeing what was done to thefe children
was not of a miraculous nature, have we any
authority to aflert, that parents in the prefent day
are debarred from every privilege tantamount to
this with refpe<Sl to their children ? Yet, on An •
tipoedobaptift principles, which deny their church-
memberfliip and baptifm, this is the cafe ! For,
according to them, we cannot conclude, thalt
" theirs is the kingdom of heaven," but on fup-
pofition of their dy'mg. But our Lord's gracious
mandate, " Suffer them, &c." was not that they
?nay partake of the kingdom of heaven, but be-
caufe of thefe, and fuch as thefe, is the kingdom
of heaven.

Moreover : How can parents bring their
children to Chrift, in the Antipoedobaptift fenfe
of bringing them, hecaufe theirs is the kingdom
of heaven ? Or were it further granted, that our
Lord meant, heaven above was in a great mea-
fure peopled with fuch infants, therefore thefe
wei-e welcome; will it not ftill follow, that ours
are welcome in the fame fenfe and for the fame
reafon ? And if bringing them to him be followed
with no church privilege, if no poffible difpofition
or conduit of a parent be attended with prefent
advantage, and if the children of heathens (as my
opponents hold) be equally admitted to heaven
with thofe of believers, dying in their infancy,—
what polTible advantage can there be to our off-
fpring, or encouragement to ourfelves, from thefe
%vords of our Lord ?

Once more ; if parents or minifters may now

lawfully

Ch. 3. Subje£is of Baptlfm, 307

lawfully, In the language of Mr. B. " give up
INFANTS TO GoD by folcmn prayer," hecaufc
there are infants in glory, it ftill follows — that
we may lawfully give up infants to the church of
God, becaufe there are fuch in glory. For to
hold, that they may be given up to God with the
view of their obtaining the grace of the covenant,
and yet debarred from the means of the covenant,
without any perfonal forfeiture, is abfurd. Nor
can it be maintained, with any lliew of reafon,
that our Lord's words, " Suffer them to come,
and forbid them not," are the fame in meaning
as — " Do not hinder parents to pray for their
children ;" for this neither the difciples nor any-
other perfon who would permit a parent to pray
at all, would once think Mo fort hi.

But fuppofmg, for argument fake, fo unnatural
and forced an interpretation were allowed, which
grounds the reproof of the difciples, and the en-
couragement of parents to bring living infants to
him, on the happinefs of the dyings and of theirs

if they die while infants flill, I fay, if 1 am

not greatly miftaken, we ought to regard infants
as parts of the vifble church. For, if Mr. Tow-
good's calculation be juft, viz. That *' from the
exaileft obfervations, it appears, that of thofe who
are born into the world, fcarce a third part zVi-Ain
to the age of one year f:" nay, upon a more mo-
derate calculation, if, inftead of a " third part," we
fay one half attain to the age of two years : — —
there is not a new born infant in the world, our

opponents

J Baptifm of Inf. Reafont Serv. p. i.

3o8 Of the prcper Ch. 3.

opponents being judges, but of that it may be faid

it more probably is an heir of glory than of

woe. And, tho' the matter were not quite fo
clear, Mr. Rutherford candidly obferves, " we
*' fhould always choofe the mo/l charitable fide."
Hence it follows, that tho' none were to be vifi-
bly brought to Chrift, or admitted to church-
memberfliip, but thofe whom we charitably judge
to be heirs of glor)'', we ought, on the conceffions
of our opponents, to treat our new born infants
as thofe who are vifibly related to Chrift, or
church members. For a probable vifible relation
to the kingdom of glory, includes a certain vifible
relation to the church militant. If we have any
charitable probable ground of judging-—" the king-
" dom of heaven belongs to fuch, much more a
" Handing as members in the vifible church : for
*' what is it to be a member of the church vifible,
" but to be one that in feeming, or appearance,
" or to the judgment of man, doth belong to
" the invifible church, or the kingdom of hea-
" ven? For the church is but one, and the dif-
" ference refpedtive — Therefore, both vifible and
" invifibie, both military and triumphant, are called
" in fcripture^ The kingdom of heaven, or of God,
" If a man be [but probably ] known^ or any fort
*' of men, to belong to the church invifible, then
" they viftblj belong to it ; and then they are vifible
" members of the church. So that this proof
" [ founded on our opponents' conceflions || j is
'* more full for infants' church-memberfliip, than

« if

y See § 41 .

Ch. 3. Suhje^s of Baptifm. 3O9.

'' if it had beea faid, They may be vifible church
" members : for it faitli much more of them,
*' which includeth that *.'*

Besides : have our antagonifts any thing more
than probability to influence their determinations
with refpe£l to adults ? Infallibility^ we know,
tliey difclaim ; and a medium between both, will
not be pretended. Now if a vifible probability
of relation to the kingdom of glory be, according
to our Lord, a reafon of a vifible accefs to him j
and if he fays " of fuch" ( underftanding thereby
with our oppofers, the fpecies of infants dying in
their infancy ) " is the kingdom of heaven," or
heavenly glory ; it follows, that we have zjlronger
reafon for concluding that any child whatever be-
longs to the vifible church, than any can have
refpecling any adult. In the latter we may be
deceived, in the former we cannot. The premifcs
duly weighed, we dare not hefitate to conclude,
— that the balance evidently turns in favour of
Poedobaptifm.

Should any objed, that to acknowledge the
church -memberfhip of infants would not amount
to a concefllon to juftify Poedobaptifm ; — I an-
fwer. If baptifm be the only regular way and man-
ner of folemn admiffion into the gofpel church
(as the learned Mr. Tombes allows f, and if I
miftake not the generality of Antipoedobaptifts) \
it will be time enough to prove the certain con-
ne5lion between church- memberfliip and baptifm,
when ou? opponents enter their proteft againil it.

Before

• See Baxter's Plain Script. Proof, p. 105.
f Apology, p. 54. See Baxt. Plain Script. Proof, p. 24.

310 Of the proper CIi, 3.

Before I difmifs this branch of our fubjedl,
the length of which has been occafioned by the
fubtle evafions of our adverfaries, I would pre-
fent the reader with the following words of Mr.
Richard Baxter : " Doth Chrift take them
" [infants] in \\v% anns^ and would he have them
" all put out of his vtfible church ? Would he have
" us receive them m his narne^ and yet not receive
" them into his church, nor as his difciples ? How
" can infants be received in Chrift's name, if they
" belong not vifibly to him and his church ? Nay,
" doth Chrift account it a receiving of himfelf,
" and ihall I then refufe to receive them, or ac-
" knowledge them, the fubje^ts of his vifible king-
" doin ?— For my part, feeing— Chrift hath given
" me fo full a difcovery of his will in this point,
" I will boldly adventure to follow his rule, and
" had rather anfwer him, upon his own encou-
" ragement, for admitting a hundred in-
" FANTS into his church, than anfwer for keep-
" ING OUT OF ONE ||." " I defirc any tender
" confcienced chriftian, that is in doubt, whether
" infants ftiould be admitted members of the vifible
" church, and would fain know what is the plea-
" fure of Chrift in this thing, to — bethink himfelf,
" Whether it be more likely that it will pleafe
" Chrift better to bring, or folemnly admit, in-
" fants into the cl.urch, or to fhut therp out ?
" And whether thefe zuords of Chrift, fo plain and
" earneft, will not be a better plea at judgment for
" our admitting infants, than any that ever they
" [ Antipcedobaptifts ] brought, will be to them

« for

P Plain Script. Proof, p. 103.

Ch. 3. SubjeSfs of Baptifm. 311

" for refufing' them* ?" "1 blefs the Lord Jefus,
" the King of the church, for having fo great a
" tendernefs to the infants themfelves, and fo great
" a care of the information of his church con-
" cerning his wil], as to fpeak it thus plainly^ that
" plain meaning men may well fee his mind :
*' even as if he had therefore done this becaufe
" he forefaw, that in thefe latter days fome would
*' arife that would reiiezv the difciples^ mijlake in
" this point |."

§ 44. Having, as propofed, (§ 31.) confi-
dcred our Lord's confirming and decifive fentence
concerning the church privileges of infants ; we
proceed to confider more briefly, the fame thing
implied in what he fays of Ifrael and certain
towns and cities, through the whole courfe of his
miniftry.

I. It is well known, that the mlflion and mi-
niftry of Chrift were primarily intended for the
ufe of the Jews, Matt, xv, 24. with which coin-
cides his commilfion to the feventy, Matt. x. 6.
Now if our Lord by his miniftry addrefted Ifrael
as a body of people^ even as they were wont to be
addreflcd by the former prophets ; and the fame
was given, in commifllon to the feventy difciples,
that tiiey fliould " go to the loji Jheep of the houfe
of Ifrael^ preaching, and faying, " the kingdom
of heaven is at hand" — it follows, that their
national converfion was propofed, and but for their
unbelief, aiid general rejeftion of the Meifiah,

would

J * IbiJ. p. J06.
J Ibid, p, 107.— See alfo Dr. Dodoridck's excellent Improve-
ment of the facrcd ftory. Fain, Expof, Seft. J 36.

312 Of the prefer Ch. 3.

would have been efFecSted. Therefore, it was
ceconomically and minifterially intended that the
Jewifli infants fliould be among the converted, or
fubjeds of the Mefllah's kingdom. Confequent-
ly, it would be abfurd to fuppofe, that thofe who
did receive him were not favoured in regard to
their children, as they would have been on the
general converfion of their countrymen, except
obliged thereto by a revealed fadl. But no fuch
revealed fa6l exifts. Hence we conclude, that
the infants and dependents of converted Jews
were de jure members of the gofpel church, and,
for aught appears to the contrary, de faSlo like-
wiCe.

2. The fame thing is implied in our Lord's
inftru6lions to his difciples Lukex. 5 — 15. They
were inftruded to dire£t their meflage to families
and cities ; the family was blefled, profelytcd or
difcifled if \!t\tfon of peace was there ; and in pro-
portion as a city gave reception to them and their
meffage, it v^as difcipkd in like manner. But
If they and their meflage were defpifed and re-
jecSled, an awful curfe was denounced. The threat-
ened woe was levelled againft the inhabitants of a
place, cQltidively ; in which the parents and chil-
dren (liared alike, at leaft externally; which im-
plies, that the contrary blefllngs would have been
fnared in common, on fuppofition of the parents
receiving the gofpel. Now it appears, that what
was required of thefe families and cities for the
continuance and extenfion of their religious pri-
vileges, was their not rejecting th^gofpel meflage ;

but

Ch. 3. SuhjeSIi of Baptifm. 3I3

but perfonally to repent and believe in fuch a fenfe
as is peculiar to the regenerate, cannot be fup-
poled to be that, and that alone, which entitled
•whole famiUes and cities to difciplefliip and gof-
pel privileges.

3. What our Lord fays in his lamentation over
Jerufalem, Luke xiii. 34, 35. and chap. xix. 41
— 44. and Matt, xxiii. 37, 38. implies, that,
had it not been for its ingratitude and unbelief,
in that general fenfe before mentioned, its reli-
gious privileges would have been continued, con-
firmed and enlarged, as well as its temporal ca-
lamities averted. " How often (fays the com-
panionate Saviour) would I have gathered thy
children together, as a hen doth gather her brood
under her wings, and ye would not r" Again,
" He beheld the city, and wept over it," faying,
If thou hadft, ( or Oh ! that thou hadft ) known,
even thou, at leaft in this thy day, the things
which belong unto thy peace ! but now they are

hid from thine eyes because thou kneweft

not the time of thy vifitation." Is it not here
implied^ that the genuine tendency and exprcfs
defign of our Lord's miniftry complied with,
would have prevented their awful doom ? But
what was that doom ? Did it not include a dif-
folution, not merely of their civil polity but of
their religious privileges alfo ? And did' not thefe
include tlie church -me mberjhip of their infant chil-
dren, which we have feen was by no means pe-
culiar to the mofaic difpcnfation, and therefore
P would

3^4 Of the proper Ch. 3.

would not have been abrogated with the mofaic
ritual ?

4. The fame conclufion is evidently inferable
from Matt. xi. 20 — 24. where our Lord «/>-
Iralds the cities wherein moft of his mighty works
were done, becaufe they repented not j and the
kind of repentance that would have be€n avail-
able, for the purpofe of admiflion into the gofpel
difpenfation, is mentioned ver. 21. "a repenting
in fackcloth and afhes;" in the fame manner
as Nhieveh ; (compare Matt. xii. 41.) From
whence, and from the foregoing pafTages, we
infer, ■ ■ That the whole tendency, and exprefs
defign, of our Lord's miniftry and that of his
difciples, implied, that t^e church-memberfhip
and religious privileges of parents were to be ex-
tended to their children under the gofpel. Con-
fequently, the Antipcedobaptift plan of evangeli-
sing and difcipling the nations, which admits
none to the chriftian church, in its more univer-
fel form, but on perfonal profeffion of what is
deemed faving faith and repentance, differs effen-
tially from that of Chrift through the whole courfe
of his miniftry. — Should it be faid, that we ought
to diftinguifh between the averting of judgment
from a people, and their partakitig of religious
privileges and rites; I anfwer, it is true thefe are
di/iinguijhoble, but it is equally true, that no fuch
diilin£tion can be of any real fervice to the An-
tipcedobaptift caufe. For, being "Jewijh towns
and cities, families and people — the mode of
their converfion is to be fought from their ctt;/,

hiftor y

Ch. 3. SuhjeSls of Baptifnu 315

hiftory, and the former revolutions that had be-
f(jre obtained in the church of God j except a
different manner be exprefsly fpecified. Whatever
hypothefis is ere(5led in defiance of this funda-
mental rule, muft be neceflarily a bafelefs fabrick.
Or, wc may as foon contrive an even balance pof-
fefled of the wonderful property of outweighing
fomething vv'ith nothing ! as to contrive a rule for
excluding infants from the church of the New
Teflament, without an exprefs injun6lion for fo
doing.

§ 45. In confirmation of our general argu-
ment, that it is the will of Christ infants
(hould partake of all their parents' privileges, and
conCequently that of baptifm, we next appeal to
that capital text. Matt, xxviii. 19. Go ye^ there-
forCf and teach alt nations^ baptizing^ them^ and fo
on*. " The whole tenour of the fucceeding
P 2 " books

* Mr. Booth fays, this •* is uot a Ejerc alhifitn to baptifm,
nor an incidental ufe of the term,— -but it is the injiitution of that
ordinance." But what proof does he cfftr in fuppoit of this affcr-
tion i" Why, " It is the firft appointment of baptifm for the ufe
of the Gentiles;" and " Jefus Chrift, on this occafion, exprefsly
claims all authority in hea-ven and on earth " (Pcedob, Exam, p,
37Z.) But how can the fadkof its being now firft appointed ^cr
the ufe of the Gentiles, difprove its being before appointed _/o/-/fif ufe rf
the yews F yVith as great propriety may it be inftrreH, tliat becaufe
in this commiflion we have the firft appointment of prcaciing tie
gofpel to the Gentiles, therefore the gofpel was not preached before
to the Jews! — Did not the difciples baptize befre this perioc ? And
was not that done by commiffion from Chrirt ? Had he not authority,
divine authority, to commiflion ? Or was it now his kingly ofHce
commenced ?— " He plainly appeart as Kin!' of Zior, and Sai^ireign
, ef the ivorlJ," But will Mr. B. f*y, that he was not fo prior to
tiiis period ? If not, how does this fhew that baptifm was not be-
fore inftituted ?

3i6 Of the proper Ch, 3.

" books of the New Teflament fliews, that Chrift
" defigned by this commiflion, that the gofpel (hould
" be preached to all nations without exception, not
" only to the Jews, but to all the idolatrous
" gentiles : but the prejudices of the Apoftles led
" them at firft to mijlahe the fenfe^ and to ima-
" gine, that it referred only to their going to
" preach the gofpel to the Jews among all nations,
" or to thofe who fhould be willing to become
" Jews*." It is, I believe, generally agreed,
that by all nations ( 'rru^a. no, eOh? ) is intended, the
Gentile world at large, together with the Jewifh
nation. They were no longer to confine their la-
bours among the loft fheep of Ifrael. The mid-
dle wall of partition being taken down, their com-
mifllon is unlimited. The whole habitable globe-
is their diocefe, in which they were to employ
their extraordinary talents, and feraphic zeal,
without any official fuperiority.

In our inquiry into the controverted part of this
-important pafTage, it will be neceflary to premife,
•what is properly the point contended for from
thefe words ? And this is the rather neceflary, on
account of the following repiarkable declaration :
•*' Could it be proved, that p.a9>!T£vo-aTE, fometimes
" conveys the idea of making difciples, where
" there is no teaching ; and that ^aTTTj^oi-TE?, is
" occafionally ufed for pouring or fprinkling, where
** there is no immerfion-y yet the difpute between
" us and our brethren would not be decided :
•* becaufe this queftion would ftill remain for

" difcufiion ;

* DoDDR, Fam, Expof. in ke. Note,

Ch. 3. BubjeSii of Baptifm. 317

" difcudlon i Is making a difciple without in-
*■'■ Jiruofion^ in the one cafe j znxd pouring ov fpr in k-
" Z/;?^, in. the other; the natural and pri-
" maRY fignilication of thofe Greek words*;"
In fettling this point, if we wi(h not to confound,
it will be neceflary to diftinguifn. — Still tb^ difpute
would not be decided \ becaufe of the natural and
PRIMARY ftgnification. Here let the following
.things be confidered.

1. There is an important difference between a
primary philological or etymological, and
z primary L¥.G Ah fenfe of terms; founded on tiiis
ground — That terms acquiie different accepta-
tions according to the pofitions in which they
ftand. There is hardly any law, facred or civiJ,
but may furniili a confirmation of this neceflary
didindUonf.

2. It follows, that a term, in its primary legai
feafe, • may have one acceptation ; while, in its
primary philological fenfe it occupies another.
And this, we contend, is the cafe here, even on
fuppofition — that f^cc^nnvu ( referring the other
term to its proper place) fignifies, in its primary

P 3 philological

* Poedobi Exam. p. "^iz,

•f- '< It muil b; obferved, that in tranflating, we nre not to rendet
" word for ivord, b\itf:rfi for fenfe, and that the moft literal "vcrjioni
" are not always the mod faithful. There is a great deal of differ-
« ence between the latter and the literal fenfe. The latter is tlie
" wori/ explained according to hi etymo/ogv The literal fenfe is the
" meaning of the author, which is frequently quite diftl-rent frooi
" the grammatical fignification of the words." Beausoure and
L'Entant's Introduftion to the reading of the Holy Scriptures,
a p. Bp, WATSON'sCollca. of Theol. Trafts. Vol, iii. p. 103.

3i8 Of the proper Ch. 3.

philological meaning, and in certain pofitions, what
Mr. B. contends for.

3. Nothing is capable of fixing the exa£l
hgi/iative force of a word or phrafe, but a careful
and impartial attention to circumftances ; and
thefe refer either to the Sovereign or the fubjedl:.
For, if we overlook relations, time, place, cuf-
toms, laws already in force, and the like, what
fuccefs can be expedted in afcertaining the fenfe ?

4. That muft; needs be the moft naturali\gn\-
fication, which refults from a due weighing of all
circumftances. Should not the force and com-
parative influence of terms be fought in connec-
tion with the conllitution and genius, and efpe-
cially the former ftatutes of any liate I And is not
this rule equally applicable to that kingdom which
is not of this world ?

These things confidered, then, m.ay we not jullly
cxpofcu!ate~PIow was it pofTible for the difciples, —
who were native Jews, and brought up in the bofom
of the Jcwifn church, receiving inflru6lions from the
MefTiah v»fho was alike circumflanced, — to under-
ftand the terms employed in this text, in any otlier
fenfe than that which includes infants with their
parents ? Would they underftand their commifilon
in a fenle to which they never had been accuftomed ?
take words capable of tivo conftrudions in that
fenfe which excluded infants from their parents'
privileges i" A fenfe, I will add, they never heard
ofi nay, that never had been heard of
SINCE the worid BEGAN? Of, had they been
previoufly verfed in our opponents' notions about

pofitive

Ch. 3. SuhjeStt of Baptifm^ 319

pofitive rites ? Thefe we have feen, and feen I
think demonftrated, to be inconfiftent with truth ;
and therefore, may boIdJy affirm, they were go-
verned by no fuch maxims. Moreover ; could
they fo eafily forget, in the interpretation and ex-
ecution of their commiffion, their Lord's repeatetl
declarations, that " of infants was the kingdom
of heaven?" Could they forget his being greatly
difpleafed vnth. them, for their not paying infants
that attention which was their due, and to which
culpable negleiH: their ambitious and erroneous
views of the gofpel kingdom had betrayed them?
Had they not juft reafon ever after to fear adopt-
ing any fentiment or pra>3:ice which would exclude
hifants from a vifible accefs to their Divine Friend
and Saviour ; by whom their privileges, as vifiblt
church-members, had been fo exprefsly afl'erted
and confirmed? (See § 39 — 43.)

"Are thefe the fenfes of thofe terms, fays Mr.
B. that would naturally firji occur to the mind
of a wife and impartial perfon, on reading or
hearing this law of baptifm r" and again; " each
of thefe ernphatical words, making a capital figure
in the heavenly editSl, (hould be underftood in its
7noJi plain^ and common^ and exprejjive fignlficaUon :
for, as to any abfurdity following upon it, our
opponents pretend none, but what implies a beg-
ging of the queftionf." We anfwer, that in
conneflion with all thofe circumftances of legal
interpretation which ought to be taken into the
account, the fenfe which includes infants with
P 4, their

f- Posdob* Exun, p. ^zz,'

320 OJ the proper Ch. 3,

their parents, in this phrafe lAuhlivo-are -Ka^a,

T« t^vr, i3«7r]»Voyl£; aVTtfj is not Only the firji

that would occur to the mind of the difciples,
but we maintain that there is the " higheft
evidence" the Legiflator did intend that fenfe.
Nay further, we infilt that it is " highly ab-
furd" to interpret them otherwife than what we
contend for, and that without " begging of the
quefiion difputed." For, is it to " beg the quef-
tion," to take into the account the circumftances
of legillation ? And were not the difciples always
accufiomed, as Jews and as the difciples of Jefus, '
to reckon infants as members of the church with
their parents, in every preceding difpenfation ?
Eefides ; on fuppofition that our Lord intended,
in fo many words, to eftablifh our fenfe of the
text, how could it be more properly exprcfTed, or
more efFedually eftablidied ? And though defigned
for all ages and nations, that does not hinder
their being adapted to the circumftances of the
perfons firft addreffed. Upon the -moft equita-
ble ground, therefore, it would be ahfurd \.o fup- '
pofe tlie difciples underfiood them of adults only.
I'his being the cafe, nothing can be admiffible in
evidence againft Pcedobaptift principles, from this
or any other text, 'which does not reje6l and
excommunicate infants in the moft exprefs and
unequivocal manner. I fay excommunicate; for
can it be any thing fhort of this, when the whole
fprcies of infants is cut off from the church mili-
tant at one blow ? Before we accede to fuch a
ftcp, is it not proper to, paufe — to paufe again —

and

Ch. 3' Suh;-;as of Baptifm. 32 1

and to inquire '.vi.h holy alarm; — On what
ground are tbcy excl.id^l froin the church on
canh, who are co'itelFodly ad.aitted to glory,
dying in their infant llate ? The Jews were cut
off for unhelii-.f; but this is no adequate caufe in
the cafe of infants born in the city of God. Is
the fpecies of infants more wuked now, than before
and after the deluge, that they fhould be debar-
red from their parents' privileges ? Where is the
broad feal of heaven to ratify that abfolute au-
thority "which puts an end to all flrife? I muft
ingenuoufly confefs, that, with all the light Mr.
B. has thrown upon the point,. I, can difcover
no fuch authority. But I fee, or think. I fee, every
part of the divine difpenfations, and the whole
of the facred oracles, perfedly confident with
Pcedobaptifm, and delivering a verdicSl not a little
favourable to it.

§ 46. But Mr. B.'s moft formidable ob-
jection, and that on which he fcems to lay the
principal ftrcfs, is (till behind. Its figure is that
of a horned dilemma. " If this law of the
*' Lord have any regard to indrudion, as a pre-
" requifite for baptifm ; that inftruclion mufl be
" required, either of all or only oi fame. I0
" affirm the latter^ there is not the lead ground
» " in this divine canon j beeaufe it makes no dif-
" tindlion between what is required of fome, and.
" what is demanded of others.-- — It remains,
" then, that all muft be taught, that all mud
" become difciples, before they are baptized*."
This does not appear to me confcquentiaJ and
folid, though fubtil. I would, therefore, propof^,
P 5 what

• Ibid. p. 325.

322 Of the preper Ch. 3.

what, to my apprehenfion, feems to be th«
precife meaning of our Lord in the text, viz.
That gofpel minifters fhould profelyte, difciple, or
teifch, and baptize all proper subjects in all
nations, introducing them thereby into the gofpel
kingdom, and exercillng their commiflion dif-
cretionally, pro captu Jingulorum et inflantium
rerum. And not only do I think this to be the
genuine intent of the commiflion, but apprehend
that, by fair criticifm and argument, it is im-
pojjible to fettle the meaning of the text, by any
other interpretation! . For, if it be faid, that 7rai/7«
ra. eSkji muft be takQnJiriSily and without any fuch
qualification— if /xaOijisva-als be underftood in that
fenfe of profelyting which may be done zvithout
tnftru6iion^ abfolutely and unconditionally — if we
fa,y that all who are taught may be baptized with-
out difllnclion— they all lie equally expofed to
exception, uncertainty and error.

But

•f "It feems to me (fays the judicious Dr, Guyse), that
'< lA.ct^y^evs-(xrB tsravla, ret fGm, DifcifU all nations, relates to
*' the 'WHOLE Dj:siGN of Chrift's comminion for making difci-
" pies to him ; and that /3a7rI»^o»lE?, and ^^x(Ty.ov\e<; avitK;,
" ieftizing and teaching them, are mentioned, as particulah
" BBANCHES of that general deCgn, the order of which was to he
" deternrvined by the circumftantes of things. And thefe indeed made
•' it nfceflary, that in difcipling adult Jeivs and Heathcm, they
" fliould be taught hefoi^e they were baptized ; but other circum-
« ftances, in the fettled ftate of the gofpel kingdom, make it at
*' necejary, that in difcipling the children of believers [i. e. of
« Chriftians] they fliouid be /r/? ha^tixed and afterviards taught^
"••-as the CHILDREN of Jews, and of profelytes to their rehgion,
«• were jirji cirtumcijedy and when they grew up were inftrufted
•* in tke faith of the God of JJrodi* Note in Iw,

Ch. 3. SiihjecJs of Bapttfm. 323

But here it is obfervable, that what Mr. B,
cites as concejpons from Hoornbeckius, Ridge-
ley, Calvin, Poole, Beckmanus, Barrow,
Mastricht, Burnet, Whitby, Venema,
&c. who were profefled Paedobaptifts, fhould be
underftood in the fenfe juft propofed; and what
thofe pafTages fairly imply is — that it would be
an abufe of the term i*.aAyiriv<ritii to plead from
it the mode of difcipling which the church of
ilome has fometimes adopted, to the difgrace
of the chriftian religion. It is extremely impro-
bable, nay highly uncharitable to fuppofe, that
thefe eminent charackrs ftiould be capable of fo
glaring a contradiction, as to hold any fenfe of
the word (t-ot^-niivu incompatible with infant difci-
ple/hip and baptifm. However that be, my bu-
finefs is not to vindicate characters, but to in-
veftigate truth. — In fa£t, the text is capable of
abufe in two oppoUte extremes: the one {trains
them into a fenfe too general-, the other into a
fenfe too particular^ or unreafonably contracted.
But if repentance and faith be required only
of adults, as conditions, y?;z^ qua noriy oi fa hat ion;
for the very fame reafon — teaching is required
ONLY of adults, as a condition, y?«^ qua non^ of
baptifm> Here the hackneyed diflinCtion between
the different kinds of evidence required in moral
duties and pofitive rites, is ufelefs. For, is ft
not an a£l equally fovereign, to prefcribe the
conditions of falvation and the qualifications for
baptifm? And is not xh.t former as much in-
cluded in Mr, B.'s definition of pofitive abfolute
P 6 authority

324 Of the proper Ch. 3.

authority as the latter can bei' Befides, are not
thefe qualifications for falvation and baptilm,
refpedlively, delivered in the fame co?nmiJJioti f It
lollows, therefore, inevitably, that if this com-
miiTion (fee Mark xvi. 15, 16.) excludes infants-
from baptifm, it muft on the fame principle
exclude them from falvation and glory, contrary
to our opponents* declarations. Nor will it ever
be in their power, I fcruple not to affirm it, to
prove the greater probability of dying infants*
falvation than their perdition, without at the
fame time furnifliing us with premifes from
which we may fairly conclude they may be
baptized while living. For if it be faid, that
their fahation may be gathered from other con-
fiderations ; fo may the duty of parents and
minifters to baptize them. But this I hope has
been fufficiently eflablifhed before.

" Hebe one can hardly forbear to remark,'*
fays Mr. B. " in what oppofte ways this capi-
tal text is interpreted, to make it agree with,
different hypothefes f ." True: And we claim
the liberty, in turn, to clafs his interpretation,
among thofe which are fo different and oppofte.
Or can he fuppofe, that his hypothefis muft
needs pafs for true, becaufe he finds a difagree-
ment among other authors ? Were this mode
of arguing admitted, with what cafe might the
Quakers confute the Foedobaptifts and Antipoedo-
baptifts alike; the Papifts our Proteftant princi-
ples ; and Deifls our common chriftianity !

§ 47. It

t P- 33®'

' Ch. J. . SubjeSis of Baptijm, 2^5

§ 47. It would be eafy to produce a long lifl: of
eminent authors, ancient and modern, who ren-
der the word /Aa&vjleysn', by to proselyte, to
DISCIPLE, or to make disciples, as well as by
to teach. Let the few following fuffice. Thus
Leigh, in his Critlca Sacra: " fAaSvjIet/o-ars, Go
and teach all nations ; or word for word from the
Greek, Go make them disciples, as it is
expounded, John iv. i." Bullinger : " Dis-
cipulate, five, facite mihi difcipulosf." Dutch
Annotators : " EnftT-Tj all the nations; or
MAKE disciples among all nations, as the
word is alfo taken, A6ts xiv. 21. Mark xvi.
15." Poole's Continuators: " The Greek is^

/lAaGjileutrare, MAKE DISCIPLES all nations." DoD-

dridge: " Go forth therefore and prosel/te
all the nations of the earth |[." Turretine " Vox
p,a9■/i^^^c^y, qua Chriftus utitur, proprle non tarn
eft docere per predicatiqnem quam discipulos
facere, quod lit etiam adminiftratione baptifmi,
qui eft lacramcntum inltiationis, & primus in
ecclefiam & familiam Chrifti introitus *." Stoc-

KIUS : " MatJy.ltvw, FaCIO DISCIPULUM. x'ro-

prie difcipulatum innuit, & tranfitive^ notans,

DISCIPULUM facere §." BeZA I ^^ {^-'x^h^iM hic

non neutropaliive pro, difcipulian ejpj fed a^ive
accipitur; q. d. discipulate." Gataker :
** Difcipulos facite." Lightfoot :> " Introducite

per

J Criti Sacr. ad verb, J Fam. Expof, vol. ii. § 202.

* Iriftit. Thcol. Loc. xix, Queft. xx. % 4,

^ Clav. Nov, Tcft, in vote.

326 Of the proper Ch. 3.

per baptlfmum, ut doceantur. — Errant qui hinc
coUigunt, neceflkrio docendos qui baptizandi funt.
— Dixit ethnicus ad Hilelem, profelytum me facy
nt me doceas*." Hammond: "Mat. xxviii. 19.
— The phrafe which is there ufed in the origi-
nal is a Angular one, not duly exprefled by our
englifh, teach. It is /Ai^AjjIefo-aTe, make disci-
ples, or receive into difciplejhip^ all nations, bap-
tizing them in the name, &c. making this form
of baptifm their ceremp^, of receiving them.—
John iv. I. fj-a-^nlotq 7.-ojii, xat /?»7ri;^E(, is all one

with jwaSvilet/s-aTE /JaTrl.'^oi^ff. — Ai^xo-^oilgi;, teachtngy

follows after ^xTfliaovm, baptizing : all that are
thus brought and received ad difcipulatian, to be
for the future intruded, and inftituted in the^
chriftian faith, may furely be received in baptifm,.
the ceremony which is there prefcribed by Chrift,
with which to receive difciples f." WiTsius :.
" Mat. xxviii. Go ye, therefore, and /x«S>j7£t;craTe,
DISCIPLE all nations, baptizing them^ &c. There
Chrift commands that difciples be gathered into
his fchool, and, as perfons in covenant with
bim, fealed with the feal of baptifm. But it is
evident, that when parents become difciples of
Chrift, their children likewife are reckoned in
the number of difciples. Juft as among the Jews,
together with the profelyte parents their infants
were initiated in the Jewifh rites. It was need-
lefs therefore that Chrift fhould make exprefs
mention of infants as the fubjedls of baptifm ||."

To

* PcLi Synopf. in Ice. f Six Q:«^r'"« Qi^""* •'• § *5«
H Wits, Oeon. Fad, Lib. ir, cap, x?i. § 4J.

Ch. 3. SuhjeSfs of Bapttfm, 327

To thefe refi^ectable authorities many more
might be added, were it neceflary ; in whom w&
find i^x^^lvu is expreflive of fuch dlfciplejhip as
includes infants and young children, no lefs than
adults; and confequently, that previous teaching
is by no means ejfent'ial to difcipleftiip. There-
fore, the word muft be a general tenn^ which
does not, nor is intended, to exprefs the fpecijic
mode of difcipling. The manner of executing the
command depends, entirely depends, on the ca-
pacities and circumftances of the perfons to be
difcipled. And this difcretionaiy nature of the
commifllon, well attended to, is the only preven-
tive againft abufes.

Again; if infants and children cannot be
difciplesj they cannot be chriJilanSf for thefe terms
are convertible, and ufed fynonymoufly (A(5ts xi.
26») J and if not chriftians, they cannot be^ng
to Chrift; but there are many fuch, our oppo-
nents grant, who belong to Chrift (fee alfo Mark
ix. 41. )> therefore infants may be difciples^ ex-
cept it be faid, they may be admitted to glory
•without belonging to Chrift, which is abfurd.
And if fo, they may be difciples without human
teaching, in the New Teftament fenfe of dif-
ciplefhip.

Besides; if iraHoc t* t9»vj be the obje(5l of the
command, ^aOnlevc^arE ; we infift that the render-
ing, disciple, is more obvious and natural^ than
the other, teach. For difcipling, in the fenfe now
explained, may naturally and ftriiSlIy belong to
n nation^ to all the nations-^ but not teaching.

Hence

328 Of the proper Cli. 5»

Hence we further argue — if the difcipling in the
text be fuch as may comprehend a n-iiic-^^ nay,
all the nations^ as it certainly is (except Oiiift
commands an impoffibiiity), then it is iu:h as
cannot agree to that fpecific mode of diicipling
which is effe61ed by teachings exclufmely. For,
on Antipcedobaptill principles, what tolerable
propriety can there be in making all nations the
objeds of difciplefhip ! According to them, the
term nation mufr have a very fmgular accepta-
tion indeed; for, in the firft place, they muft
exclude from it all infants and young children ;
and, in the next place, they would exclude all
adults, except the few, comparatively very few.,
who are deemed by them fit fubjefts of bap-
tifm. Well, when they have tat-.^ibi them, few
as they may be, they muft fay — that thfe na^
tion I is difcipled. Does not fuch an interpre-
tation militate againft the plain and natural ufe
•of terms, and bid defiance to the force of lan-
guage ? On our principles, it may be fome
time firfl before a yiation be difcipled ; but on our
opponents', no nation ever can be. How much
more rational, and agreeable to the language of
prophecy; and how much more worthy of the
nature of the Mcffiah's viflble kingdom, the fol-
lowing words of the judicious and venerable
TuRRETiNE? " (/M(i;-lu<; ttixeji/ non eft fimplicitcr
docere, fed difcipulos facere. — [Mat. xxviii. ig.
Probatur Poedobaptifmus ex ioc mandato] ab
' aiititiiefi nam omnes gentes opponuntur omnibus
& fofis Jud*eis, ut poltulat dil'crimen Veteri.s &

Novi:

Ch. 3. Suhjech of Baptifrn. 329

Novi Teilamenti. — Qui praecipit oinnes gentes
baptizarij is etiam prjscipit baptized infantes,
praeceptuni eniin de gcn2»"e includit omncs fpe^
ciesX-" To this let me add the following
words of Bifliop Beveridge : " Our Lord
Chrifl:, a little before his aicenfion into heaven,
left orders v/ith his apoilles', and in them with
all that fliould fucceed in the miniftry of the
church to the end of the world, to make all
tiations his difciples, by baptizing them in the
name, &c. as the original words plainly import
Mat. xxviii. 19. — It. is to be further obferved,
that when our Saviour ordained baptifrn to be
the way or means of admitting perfjns into his
church, or the congregation of his difciples; left
we fhould think, as fome have done, that he
meant it only of thofe who are of riper years,,
he ufcd the mofi general terms that couil be
invented, requiring that all nations fhould be bap-
tized ; and if all nations, then children alfo,
which are a great, if not the greatell part ot
every nation ]|."

Moreover : There feems to me a peculiar
propriety in our Lord's ufmg terms of fuch
general import; for had it been inllead of (/.aby^iu-
cxri any term which excludes teaching as a
mode of difcipling, what a handle mull ignorant
and cruel bigots make of it in fubjecling nations
to the chriiVian faith! Ambitious mifRonarics
might then juftify their cruelties with fpecious

arguments

J Inftit, Theol, Loc. xix. Qneft, xx. § 4.
1] Prir, Thoughts, Part ii, On Chriftian Education, p. 6.

330 Of the proper Ch. 3,

arguments, and abufe their commiflion by pre-
tending to divine credentials. Would not any
ether term be liable to greater abufes and ftronger
obje(flions than that which is v/ifely chofen ?
For inflance, had oi^«crx« or -jrctihiu been adopted
as terms lefs general to exprefs the pre-requifition
for baptifm, it would have weakened what we
apprehend our Lord meant to countenance, viz.
our obligation to receive children together with
their parents into the vifible church, by the initi-
atory rite of baptifm. On the other hand, had
/*«:-w or ri>.ioi been fubilituted for f^ci^jr^tvu, the
fame inconvenience would have followed. For
tho' the two former, 1 prefume, might have
conveyed the main idea contained in the latter
(and accordingly fome of the greek fathers feem
to ufe them fynonymoufivj fee Isidore of Pel*
lufium Lib. ii. Ep. 37. &c. ) yet they would
have been on many accounts lefs eligible.

Once more: Why, we wifh to know, muft
we put a conftruftion fo unfavourable to infanta
(when no neceifity requires it), upon every claufe
of the law which is deemed the rule of en-
trance into the church militant; while our op-
ponents themfelves aflume, and juftly affume,
the liberty of giving an apparently cppofite con-
IfruClion to that law which refers to their ad-
miffion to the church triumphant? " He that
helieveth not fhall be damned." Nay, vv^e may
add, we have greater apparent reafoii, from this
very commiflion (Mark xvi. 15, 16.) for exclud-
iog infants from falvation, than from baptifm.

For

Ch. 3. SuhJeJIs of Baptifm. 331

For we contend that it is a law of nature, that
children fhould partake of all the external rites
and privileges of religion they are capable of,
and therefore baptifm, together with their parents ;
which cannot be faid of their falvation.

To conclude: If infants were deemed, and
juflly deemed, profelytei* ; they may in like man-
ner,

* Dr. Stinnett, indeed, feems to deny this, when he fays,
*' Is it proper to fay of perfons, that they may be frofelyted or dif-
cipled without any previous inftrudlion, conviftion or perfuafion ?"
(Anf. to Dr. A. p. J33.) To this I reply,

J. If it was cuflomary among the Jews to call thcfe who were
tranflated from Heathenifm to the true religion, or the kingdom of
God among them, Gkrim, foreigmrt or inmates -y ana if it was cuf-
lomary for the Greeks to call thefe n^oo-eXvloi, projdjtm, oltch
r« itBr)(TiKfi>M^ux\\ and if it be fact that wj/an/f were always
reckoned, and by divine appointment, (Exod. x.i. 4?, and Numb.
XV. 14, 15.) among thefe inmates — We may well afk, what im-
propriety is there in calling an mtant a profclyte f

X. It is an incontejiihk faB that the Jewifh writers, fpeak of
infants and little children, as froflytis. 'Tis not only the Ccmara,
but the text of the Mifna Itfelf, both in the Babylonian and Jtru-
fa'cm Talmud, which fpeaks of a child becoming or being made, a
frofelyte. — And the Ctmara fpeaks exprefsiy of " a frojdyte in w
fancy," And Maimonides calls a little child or an infant ** a
profelyte" (Sec Dr. Wall's Hiftory of Infant Baptifmj Introd.
h 3» 4> ^''^ *^"^ Authors there referred to.; This, Dr. Giil
himfelf could not gainfay, and therefore gives it up. Body of Div,
vol. iii. 486.

■ ^. If a proftlyte be ad-vena, a Jfranger, one come over from one
place or relation to another, as the term imports j what iropropii-
ety is there in applying it to infants? When we fay '• J^rangcrs,
are come to a place," is there any impropriety iix our includmg
infants, becaufe thefe are flriflly brought?

4, When our Lord fays of infants ( Matt, xix, 14. ) " SulfcT
them, and forbid them not (,\^uv titoi «,s," '* there not the
Uricicft propriety in calling ;>/i«;j when brought, Prosii.'xtbs ?

3i^ (^^ i^^ proper Ch. 3.

ner, be deemed difciples: for, (as a great critick
obferves) " a difciplc and a profelyte being per-
fecHy all one, fiive only that the latter de-
notes a coming from fome other nation or country,
which difference hath no place in this matter,
where tlie difciples are fpecilied to be received
from all )jationS'\.'' And if difciples^ they ought
to be baptized ], for the text in difpute affords
no ground of exception againft any who are
difcipL's. " Nor ought that ho?.ry maxim of
legal interpretation to be haftily caft afidej — Jf^e
■ muft not diftinguifh, wliere the law does not
diftinguifh." — And fhould it be objedted, that
infants are not made difciples, and therefore
fhouM not be baptized ; we anfwer, if they are
difciples, they muft be corjlituted fuch ; and whe-
ther that confiitution be derived from a divine
appointment m_ favour of xh^ fpecieSy from a mi-
niilerial act whereby they are profelyted to "the
chrlilian religion (as heathen families were pro-
felyted to the Jewilh religion) or from any other
caufe, is perfeiSly immaterial in the prefent ar-
gument.—A.s to the trite objeclion Urged from
the order of the words, " teach — baptizing ihemy"
I anfwer with Dr. Addington ; " It is, in
every view, indefenfible and ill -grounded. It is
a mere englijh criiicifm [1." And with Dr.
Hammond; '■ The phrafe which is there ufed
in the original^ is a fingular one, not duly
exprefTed by our Englifh*." But, even in our

travjlation

•f Dr. Hammond's Sit Q^er, Q^iv, § 27.
tl Chviftian Minifter's Reaf, p. lu, * Ut fapra, § 25.

Ch. 3. StihjeSfs of Baptifm, 333

tranjlation^ there is no conjunSlion to denc-e a
diverfity of adts: for it is not " teach AND bap-
tizcf" but " teachy baptizing than," Hence the
author laft quoted fays, " We know from that
place of Mat. xxviii. that baptifm is the folcmn
ceremony of receiving into Chrift's fchool the
church ||."

And, indeed, were our oppofers indulged
with their favourite rendering, teach, they mufl
either renounce their Angular notion of pojitive
injtitutions, as utterly excluding all analogy and
inferential reafoning, or find themfelves involved
in endlefs uncertainty; for on what authority
can they deny baptifm to any who are taught P
And yet, how very unfit for baptifm, our oppo-
nents being judges, are numbers who are taughty
and who profefs that Jefus is the fon of God
and the only Saviour ? But if " we muft not
diftinguifh where this law does not diftinguifh,"
what grofs abfurdities would follow/' Not more
oppolite is the Antipasdobaptift hypothefis to the
truth, than fubverfive of itfelf!

§ 48. Let us next inquire, In what fenfe the
Apoftles underftood their commilfion ? And par-
ticularly, whether they did not underftand it to
include the difciplefhip and baptifm of infants
with their parents ? But here it is neceflary to
prefcribe the limits of T)ur inquiry. Now fmce
the pofitive part of the evidence has been already
eftablifhed, it would be fufficient for us, in point
of ftridl argument, to a<Sl henceforth only on the

defenfi'ot

334 ^f ^'-'^ proper Ch. 3,

defetifive ; for until that part be difproved ( which,
I prefume, will not be done in a hurry ) the fmal-
left probability wilP be a corroborating addition.
We fhall therefore attend, in the remaining part
of this chapter, to what we apprehend to be, in
conne6tion with the premifes, additional evidence ;
referving for another place an examination of thofe
pafTages in the apoftolic writings, which are fup-
pofed by our oppofers to be inimical to Poedo-
baptifm.

Let us begin with Acls ii. 39. For The
PROMISE is to you^ and to your children, and
to all that are afaroff"^ even to as many as the Lord
cur God Jhall call. — There are three terms in
this paffage, — prcmife^ children^ call — the exadl
meaning of which it is necefTary to afcertain
before any dedudion be attempted.

I. What are we to underftand by the promise ?
— A fatisfa6^ory anfwer to this queflion requires,
that we fliould fix the meaning of the term
{(Trciyfo.'ioc) promifc^ — znd determine what is the
matter pro?)iifed; for every promife is of fotnething,
Refpefting the word iirayUWa.^ Stockius remarks:
" Generatim et vi originis annunciationem
" fignificat. Speciatim autem notat promijfionem.
*' In hac fignihcatione adhibetur nunc proprie^
*' nunc improprie et metonymice. Proprie fi
" adhibetur, denotat a^um voluntatis, quo pro-
'' mittens fe aliquid alteri daturum, vel faiturum
" indicat ac denuntiat, — Improprie et metonymice

" fignificat rem proitujfjm, Comple?nentum et

*^ tventiim

I

CIi. 3. SrihJ^s of Bapt'ifin. 335

" eventum promijfionis^ &c. %" The word often
occurs in the New Teftament, and is varioufly
rendered by Latin interpreters ; as, Promijfum^.
fromijffioy ppllicitatioy repromijjio, nunciumy &c. And
Beza obferves : " Eft autem notanda haec pro-
j *' pria fignificatio tirayTiXia.^ a dodliflimo Budjeo
" obfervata, quoe gratuhum ejfe Dei promijfum de-
" clarat*." In our tranflation, it is generajjy
rendered, promlfe. But in i John i. 5. MeJJage.
— The pafTage we are upon, feems to be of the
fame import with Ads xiii. 26. Men and brethren^
children of the Jlock of Jbrahmn, and whofoever
among you that feareth God^ TO you is the

WORD OF THIS SALVATION fent. VCr. 32, 33,
And WE DECLARE UNTO YOU GLAD TIDINGS,

how thai the promise which was made unto the
fathers, God hath fulfilled the fame unto us their
children, in that he hath raifed fefus again. Or,
" And we evangelize unto you that promife which
was made unto the fathers, how that God, 5rc."
Now, whether the term promife, in Peter's
addrefs, fignifies ftricily, according to the force
of the original ( ab tm et ayfiAo?, Denunciatio
divinae voluntatis et beneficentiaef ) declaration,
proclamation, annunciation, denunciation, of the di-
vine will and pleafure, a meffage, &c : or, more
particularly denotes " an aSi of the will, whereby
the promifer jhews and delares, that fomething
fhall be given to another, or done for liiin," it
amounts in fact to the fame thing, the difference
being only circumftantial. For in this they both

agree

\ Stockii Clav. Nov. Teft. fub toc * Annct. in loc.
•f. Via Leigh Crit. Sac.

336 Of the proper Gh. 3.

agree, that the will of the promlfer mufl: be an-
r.junced to conftitute either ; and therefore muft
in:ply— " a declaration of God's will
concerning forncthing." Nor is it again material
"whetl^tr if be Xiktw prcperlj^ or ?7utof:ymicaily for
the thins, pcmijcd; becaule, in the prefent cafe,
*' the pnmife oF A thing" is tantamount with
" the thing pro in'ifed.'''' No difficulty therefore re-
mains but what hes in afcertainmg the contents of
the promife, or that of which the promife is made..
Some feek the Apoftle's meaning from ver. 21.
*' And it J}:all come to pafs that tvhofoever Jhall call
en the na?ne of the Lord SHALL BE SAVED."
Some fcek it from ver. 38. where " the remis-
sion of sin" is promifed. Others, from the laft
claufe of the fame verfe, " and ye Jhall receive the
GIFT OF THE HoLY Ghost j" and the rather
bccaufe this ijnmediately precedes the controverted
text. And others fuppofe, that Peter here ufes
the phrafe, " The promife^^' by way of eminence
and diftin(3ion. " The word [promife] in the
New Teflament," fays Mr. Cruden, " is oftex
" taken for thofe promifes that God heretofore
" made to Abraham, and the other Patri-
" archs, of fending the Mejfiah : It is in this
" fenfe that the Apoftle Paul com7nonly ufes the
" word promife. J" This ufe of the word in the
text before us implies ; The afpefl of the promife
in its prefent accomplishment in Jefus Chrift, is
towards you and your children. In vindication
of this fcnfc, feveral Expofitors diftinguifh. between

the

X Concord, under the word Pronif;.

Ch. 3. Suhjeifs of Bapti/rn. 337

the Apoftle's advice, and his encouragement. His

advice — (i) Repent, (2) Be baptized, (3) Every

one of you. His encouragetnent — (i) The re-

miflion of fins, (2) The gift of the Holy Ghoft,

(3) The well known promife refers. to you and

yours, notwithftanding your ungrateful and cruel

treatment of the Mefliah, who was the end and

fum thereof. Thus Benedictus Aretius:

" Confilium Petri duas comple^litur partes.

" Prior monftrat facienda : Pofterior addit rationes.

" Nam fine rationibus aliquid jubere rebus affli6lis

" non fatis eft prudentis oratoris. Itaque orator

" apoftolicus perfpicuitati ftudet. Jubet faci-

" enda, ac confilii fubnedit admodum perfpi-

" cuas rationes. — Primiim a fine rem commen «■

" dat : In remissionem pecatorum — Alia

" ratio eft, quia accipietis donum spiri-

" TUB fanCti. — Tertio^ VoBlS ENIM eft PROMIS-

" sio facta et liberis vestris, h. e. de
" Meflla, et illius beneficiis, promifllones in pri- -
" mis fpedtant ad vos. — ^arto^ declarat perfo-
" nas, ad quas fpecStant promifliones. Vobis &
" liberis vestris, et qui longe sunt*."

This view of the paflage appears to me moft
agreeable to the fcope and occafion of it. For
the Apoftle's reply and encouragement muft be
fuppofed anfiverable to the folicitud^ and enquiry
of the awakened multitude. What particularly
ftruck them, it feems, was, " the evidence with
which the Apoftle urged the MeJJiahfhip of J ejus
Q. from

• Bened. a»et. Coirrrent. in Aft. ii. See alfo C/.i mn"s
admirable Notes on the text in qucftion.

338 Of the proper Ch. 3.

from the Jewifli writings, and the miraculous
gifts which were now vifible and aftonifhing."—
This was the great defign of thofe miraculous
cfFufions, " to reprove the world of fin, of righ-
teoufnefs and of judgment;" that is, to be an
unparalleled and invincible demonftration of the
Meffiahfhip of Jefus Chriil;. This is what he
princ'ipaUy aimed at, and this idea he fixes in
their minds, " as a nail fallened in a fure
place," by concluding in thefe pungent and per-
fuafive expreffions — ver. 36 " Therefore let ail the
houfe of Ifrael know affuredly that God hath made
that fame fefus^ whom ye have crucified^ both Lord
and Chrlf." The hiftorian adds, " Now when they
heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and
faid^ unto Peter, and to the refi of the Apofllcs, Men
and brethren what Jhall we do F" Peter rephes,
*' Repent; and your fins, particularly your re-
je6lion and crucifixion of the Meffiah, ihall be
remitted. Be baptized, every one of you ; fub-
mit to this initiator)'^ ordinance of his kingdom,
which exhibits the influences of the Holy Spirit;
and Chrift fhall baptize you, as John his fore-
runner has often declared, with the Holy Ghoil;
at lead: this is your path of duty, — he has the
refidue of the Spirit, — and do not imagine that
the grace of Chriji, or the bleflings of his king-
dom, are peculiar to us. For the well-known
promife, grant, covenant, or exhibition of
mercy and grace, is common to us all. Do not
fuppofe that zve have any other divine charter,
whereby we are entitled to thefe unfpeakable

bleflings,

I

Ch. 3. SubjeSJs of Bdpttfrn. 33^

blelTings, than wliat was granted of old to our
forefathers: and this, you may be fure, is na
Jefs open to you, as a ground of application for
the blefTings of the Mefliah's kingdom, than to
us. And, according to what was faid of old,
that in him all the families of the earth were
to be bleffed, the time is come that the gentile
nations, as well as our own, are to be called to
him."

To confine the promife to the miraculous gifts
of the Spirit, would be unworthy of an apoftle;
for it would be prefcribing a remedy to the
multitude, cut to the heart with remorfe for
then: cruel treatment of Jefus, inadequate to the
difeafe. When he fpeaks of the promife^ it muft
be as a ground of their faith and their accefs to
God;, but nothing can be fo to fallen man but
a difpenfation of mercy, a facr?d warrant, falva-
tlon thro' a Redeemer, the miniftry of reconci-
liation, in a word, the covenant of grace in its
exhibition and direction to him. I fay in its
EXHIBITION or external form, for this, and this
alone^ properly fpeaking, is the ground of a fm-
ner's approach to God. " To us are given^ that
is> EXHIBITED for our ufe and encouragement,
exceeding great and precious promises, that by
thcfe we might be partakers of the divine nature.
(2 Pet. i. 4..) For the apoftle to aflure his hear-
ers, tliat the promife was to ■ thcm^ in their prefent
circumftances, was the fame as to preach the
gofpcl to them. And thefe are ufed fynonymoully.
(See Gal. iii. 8 and 18.) For, to give Jhrahani
0,2 a divine

34® Of the proper Ch. 3.

a divine promise, is the fame as, to preach the
GOSPEL to him*

Besides: Is there any probability in fa£f^
that ALL who complied with this exhortation
received the premife^ if the miraculous gifts oi
the Spirit as about to be conferred upon them,
be thereby intended? Or was this promife made
to the mixed muhitude ; to their children as
fuch^ whether their immediate offspring or pof-
terity; to all afar off, whether Jews or Gentiles,
that the Lord (hould call? If this interpretation
were admitted, would it not follow, that we
Tinners of the Gentiles, being fome of the all
that were afar off^ upon being called of the
Lord, upon repentance and haptifm^ may expeil
from the promife^ the miraculous gifts of the Holy
Ghoft ? In my opinion, it could be then no jujl
motive either to repentance, to be baptized, or
to any chriftian duty, of itfelf\ and to us who
are called and afar off, it can be no motive at
all. And, indeed, had any complied from fuch
an expedation of miraculous endowments, except
in fubordination to a more important promife,
their mercenary motive muft (land condemned
as unworthy of chriftianity, and therefore unwor-
thy of an infpired teacher of it to recommend.
— But (hould any contend, that the promife
refers to the Holy Ghoft in his ordinary gra-
cious influences, and not merely thofe which
were miraculous, this is virtually to admit that
fenfe of the pafTage for which I plead; for
it implies and eminently contains what the

fcriptures

Gh. 3. SuhjeSfs of Baptifm, 34I

fcriptures term, xal* t^o^/,*, the promlfe* " To
" conclude this point, the apoftle himfelf has
" plainly informed us, In another place, what he
" here intends by the promife; fee Ads iii. 25.
" where, urging much the fame exhortation upon
" his Jewifh hearers, as he does here, he en-
" forces it with this argument : " Ye are the
" children of the covenant," [or promife, ac-
" cording to Gal. iii. 18.] " which God made
" with our fathers" [or granted to our fathers;
" ?j ^uSslo 0 050? wfo; T«? TTflilipa? xyMv, ] " faying
" unto Abraham, and in thy feed (hall all the
** kindreds of the earth be blefled ; unto you
^^ firji [or primarily for your fake,] God hath
" raifed up his fon Jefus, and fent him to blefe
« you, &c. t"

§ 49. 2. Who are the perfons to ivhom th«
promife is made ? " The promife is unto you,
and to your children, and to ALL that are
AFAR off, even as many as the Lord our God
SHrtLL CALL." The promife is unto YOU, fays
the apoftle ; you who now hear me ; you who
compofe this vaft aiTembly, of every nation, rank
or age. Tou does the Lord our God call to
repentance^ who have rejected and murdered the
Prince of Life ; on whom the guilt of the hor-
rid deed, fo impioufly imprecated on yourfelves
and children, muft otherwife abide. Tou^ with-
out exception, who are capable of remorfe, does
the Lord our God call to repentasce^ in as much
as all of you have fins to repent ofi and a
Q^ 3 ftate

rf- Bostwick's Fair and Rational Vindication of laf, Bapt. p. 9.

342 Of the proper Ch. 3.

iftate to be chsnged for the better. And to each
one of you, without the leaft exception, is the
promife^ the glad tidings of mercy, made. And
as bapt'tjm is the inftituted feal oi that promife,
■ you may be fure that if the one belongs to you,
the other does of couriCj for if the teftamentary
grant be yours, it follows that every confirmation
of that grant is yours, of which nature baptifm
is. Here we might ailc, Is it not reafonable to
fuppofe, that among fo great a multitude there
.were fome children and infants in arms before
the apoftle; and if fo, by what rule were fuch
excepted fiom being included in this declaration
— the promife is unto you? Were they not ad-
dreffed as a body? Or, will it be faid, " All
who are capable of repentance were addrefl'ed ?"
Nay, rather, all who were capable of repentance
.were called to repent ; and all who were capa-
ble of the promife or divine grant, and its feaJ,
•were included therein. And no one can .deny
that infants are capable of bequeathments and
grants (and confequently the Jealing of them) in
their favour.

But to put this matter further out of doubt,
the apoftle adds, " the pro?nife, or grant, is to
your CHILDREN, tok Tf/.t'ci^." ft appears to me
a matter of no great moment, in this contro-
verfy, whether we underftand by the term chiL
drer:^ fons and daughters, feed, offspring, defcen-
dants, pofterity, or any other the like; for none
of thefe expreffions exclude infants, which is fuf-
ficient for our purpofe. If there- be any exclu-

fim

Ch. 3. SiibjeSis of Baptijm. 343

fion in the cafe, it muft be fought, not from
thefe tcrim^ but fome ctker confiderations ; which
is foreign to the prefent point. Suppofe, for in-
ftance, our opponents attempt the exclufion of
infants, by adopting the term, pojier'iiy.; it will
not ferve their turn •. for who can we under-
hand by the pojhrity of a perfon or perfons, but
thofe who lineally come after, or defcend from
fuch? And is not the term applicable to them,
as foon as they exift ? Are they not fuch in
every ftage of lifei' Befides : Were that inter-
pretation allowed, which excludes all from pofte-
rity but adults, what would it prove? Why,
that the promife is to the adult pojler'ity of this
audience, tho' they were Jews or Mahometans,
but not to the infant offspring of any Chriftian.
But muft we regard our infant children, tho' born
in fin, in a Icj's favourable condition^ as to any
merciful grant, than the obftinate Jew, and the
deluded Turk ? He that can believe it, let him.

Nor is it material, whether the phrafe, " all
that are afar off"" refer to diftant Jews or Gen-
tiles; diftant as to place or time. From this
phrafe infants are not excluded, nay are clearly
implied.

But, fays Mr. B. " There is nothing faid about
the promife refpe^ting any, befides thofe whom
the Lord our God Jhall call. Yes, whether
they be Jews or Gentiles, whether they be pa-
i-ents or children, they muft be called^ before this
text will permit us to view them as interefted
0,4 ia

344 ^f *^^ proper Ch. 3.

in that promife of which it fpeaks f." To this
we readily fabfcribej but deny what he imme-
diately fubjoins : " which intirely excludes infants
from all confideration here." This will lead us
to inquire,

§ 50* 3' What are we to underRand by the

term, ir^oa^ta^-ivr^M, CALL ? The word Iifoa-xciXfO[ji.ctt,

which often occurs in the New Teftament, (tho'
never I believe in its a£live form,) plainly and
properly fignifies, advoco^ accerfo, adcifcoy arcefje.,
&c. Leigh: " Utrumque fignificat, & csnvocars
& ad fe -uocare. Mat. x. I, &c. *" SxocKius:
" Generalim notat advocare^ connotato termino
ad quem, five hie fit perfona five res perfonae
oppofita. — Eft vocare gentes An ecclesiam, per
predicationem evangelii, Adt. ii. 39 1|." But here
we fhouid carefully diftinguilh between God^s call
and men's compliance with it. The latter of thefe
ideas is out of the prefent queftion ; being ex-
cluded by the nature of the fubje6t, and the
proper force of the term. Nor fhouid we con-
found the call of the gofpel^ with God's fecret
choice of individuals, or his efficacious drawing of
them to himfelf to love and ferve him in fpirit
and in truth. Thefe things belong to a fove-
reign invifible difpenfation ; a difpenfation of
quite a different nature from what our apoflle
mainly intends. And indeed, with regard to
what is termed efft5lual callings which Mr. B.
feems to take for granted is here intended, the

call

•}• Psdob, Exam. p. 362. • Critica Sacra, fub voce,

1! €!av, Nov. Teft, fub voce.

Ch. 3* SuhjeSfs of Bapujnu 345

call muft not be confounded with the effe^ of it.
In my apprehenfion, the fecret and efficacious
influence of God on the finner's mind, whereby
it is difpofed to receive the truth, is very impro-
perly termed God's calL For his calling of them,
properly fpeaking, is by his word, his will re-
vealed, the minijiry of reconciliation, &c. but
what renders this calling effeSfual, is the im-
parted influence or powerful operation of the
Spirit on the mind, and thereby a difpofition, in-
clination, or moral ability, is produced, to comply
with the call. Hence many are called^ but few
are chofen*.

Besides : The promife, or gofpel grant, isnot
any blefl[ing conferred in consequence of effec-
tual calling, but in fuhferviency to it. For the
promife is the foundation of our accefs to God,
and our encouragement to repentance, and not
a blefllng confequent upon either. Repenting,
complying, coming to God, &c. are our a6ls
and exercifes ; but without a promife they have
no ground, no motive, no exiftence. Perfons,.
families, and nations, are called that they
MAY COMPLY, and the promife is given them
as the inducement. When any a£lually comply
with the purport of the call, we are taught and
obliged to afcribe that efficiency, not to our own
diftinguifhing worthinefs and ability, but to the
power of God, executing the plan of fovereign
diftinguifhing Iov€. Thus God calk, but man,
through the ftupifying efi^e6l of fin, refufes j. yet
Q. 5 whea

* Matt. ». 16. xxii. 14,

346 Of the proper Ch. 3.

when God works in us both to will and to do
©f his good pleafure, who can let ? Neverthelefs,
the bleffings promifed, or exhibited in the pro-
ir.ife, become actually ours in confequence of our
anfv/ering the divine requifition or calL

On the whale : As the apoftle has no reference
to the internal power of grace, we are conftrained
to feek his meaning in the external c^ll of the
gofpel. Into whatever part of the gentile world,
as if he had faid, the cloud of divine providence
moves, from henceforth, the miniftry of recon-
ciliation, or God's call to men by the Gofpel, is
defigned to follow it. Our call has no limita-
tion but what arifes in the courfe of providential
condudt. If all the gentile nations are not ac-
tually evangelized, fuch confinement and feeming
partiality is not owing to any limiting claufe in
our com million, but to the all -wife conduct of
providence, wliile it opens a door of entrance
to fome nations, and leaves others for a time
fhut. But no fooner is a perfon, a family, a
nation, or a people, evangelized, or addrefled by
a gofpel miniftry, than we can aflure them, that
the promife is to the?n and theirs. If they rejeSi
the call, they reje<5l alfo the promife ; and if they
r^V^ the promife, grant, or covenant, they have
no right to tm/eai; for the inftrument and the
feal muft not be feparated. External compliance
is fufficient to fecure whatever is in the covenant
of an external nature; and baptifra, the initiating
feal, he'mg fucb, by that compliance it is fecured.
But an internal and fpiritual compliance, and that

alone

Ch. 3. SubjeSis of Baptlfm» 347

«lone, fecures to us whatever is in the covenant
of an internal and fpiritual nature And whence
the ability to comply, as before obferved, belongs
to another queftiori, and flows from the cove-
nant of redemption, well ordered in all things and
fure, in its internal form.

We might again afk : Are any individuals, fa-
milies, tribes, or nations, projelyted to the vifible
church of God, without being called i' Does not
frofelyting of neceflity imply calling'' Yet infants
may be projelyted with their parents, as parts of
themlelves, as members of families, and as making
a very confiderable part of thofe nations that may
be joined to the Lord; and therefore fuch infants
(hould be reckoned among the called. On the
whole, the following remark of Calvin on
the place, appears very jufl: and comprehenfive.
" Ciiriftus diruta maceria, utrofque reconciliavit
'' Patri, & veniens annunciavit pacem his qui
" prope erant, & his qui procul. Nunc tenemus
" Petri mentem. Nam ut Clirifti gratiam am-
" plificet, earn Judeis . fic proponit, ut Gentes
'' quoque fore confortes dicat. Ideo utitur verba
" advocandi : acfi diceret, Quemadmodum vos
" prius in unum populum fua voce collegit Deus,
" ita vox eadem ubique perfonabit, ut qui remoti
" flint, ad vos accedant, ubi novo Dei ediclo
" fueiint accerfitif."

Now if this be the meaning of the text, it

appears — ( i ) That wherever the difpenfation of

the gofpel comes, there the promife comes. For

0,6 to

"J-Calvjni Comment, in Aft. ii. 39.

34^ Of the proper Ch. 3.

to be called is to be " invited to the honours and
privileges of the vifible church ;" and to be the
called^ as expreflive of a continued ftate, in the
fcripture ftyle, is to be adually pofTefled of fuch
privileges. Thus Ifa. Ixviii. 12. Hearken unto me^
O Jacoh^ and Ifrael MY CALLED. Rom. i. 6.
Among whom are ye alfo the called of ^efus
Chrifi. ver. 7. To all that be in Rome, beloved of
■God J called to be faint Sy &c. ( 2 ) That no
people are adiually the called of God, in a ftate
of gofpel privileges, but their children, as theirs,
or in virtue of their right in them, are included
with them. (3) When we confider this, in
connexion with preceding revelations, we cannot
fay, properly, that infants' right to their parents'
privileges, iiiclufive of the promife and initiatory
fcal, is founded here, but confirmed: rather, what
\s, founded in the law of nature, what is implied
in every difpenfation, and what has been in many
inftances explicitly ratified, is here afferted and
confirmed againft all fufpicion to the contrary, viz.
That the promife, covenant, or grant of mercy,
is not more to the parents than to their children;
and confequently the initiating and confirming
feal of that grant, baptifm*."

§ 51. We come now to inquire what addi^
tional evidence we have from the account given
us of households, from A6ls xvi. 15. When

» Jlje

• It may be here remarked, that the interpretations of Dr. Owxn
and "WiTsius, of Hammond and Limborch, are not at all
inconfiftent with Pcedobaptift principles as here ftated, the' produced
by Mr, B. in favour of Antipcedobaptifm j an^ the fame remark
n applicable to numetovu other initances, Ir the woik I aA
exanalixing ,

Ch. 3. SubjeSfs of Baptlfm. 340

Jhe was baptized and her HOUSEHOLD. —A6ls
xvi. 33. And was baptizedy he and ALL His,
Jiraightway, — i Cor. i, 16. / baptized alfo the
HOUSEHOLD of Stephonus. But here it is necet-
fary to premife what is the juft ufe and real
importance of thefe pafTages in the controverfy.
Our opponents would fain infinuate, that if we
cannot demonftrate hence there a£tually were infants
in thefe families, and that thefe were baptized,
the texts in queftion are of no ufe to the Pcedo-
baptift caufe. But this is a great miflake. We
infift, from other premifes, that parents ought to
baptize their children ; therefore we do not urge
thefe texts to prove their right, but to increafe
the probability that they were de fa5lo baptized.
I fay, to increafe the probability ; for it is evident
from the nature of the controverfy, that thefe
texts, which refer to a cafe of fa^^ (hould be
weighed only in the fcales of right ; and that the
balance of probability will preponderate accord-
ing as the previous right is proved or difproved.

We have infifted from various topicks — the
law of nature — the divine difpenfations — pro-
phetick language — our Lord's miniftry and com-
miflion, &c. — that religion, that is, Chriftianity,
(for the nature of it does not alter the cafe) is
7i family concern. In other words, a man's chil-
dren, and non-oppofmg domefticks, are not only
to be denominated from his religious profeflion,
as the head of the family, but are entitled to all
the external privileges of that religion, as infti-
tuted means of grace and godhnefs, according to
their refpedive capacities. When tlierefore we

hear

35° ^f ^^^ proper Ch. y

hear of a man who has a family, that he became
a believer, a difciple, or a chriftian, we infer (and
the more excellent the nature and quality of
his religion the more rational the inference)
— — we infer, that his family is a chriftlan
family ; and that each member of it, that is not
an oppofer^ is entitled to thofe privileges he himfelf
enjoys, according as it is capable : I fay not an
oppofer^ for to compel any, who zrt fui jurisy would
"be impious, fmce chrifiianity, in this important
particular, does not interfere with the rights of
nature. And the matter of right landing thus,
it would be uncharitable and unreaJonMe to fuppofe
the matter of faSi to be otherwife, efpecially in
the apoftolic age. We may therefore conclude,
when we read — " her household — his house-
hold^— ALL his" — were baptized, that thefe
things are fpoken of hcufeholds or families asfuchy
or coUeSiivcly ; and that we fliould not underiland
■ the terms diftributively, but with the provifo of pro
cnpti( fingulorum, F^or, if a man's children be equally
capable of baptifm with himfelf, and believing or
repenting is a qualification not at all effential
to the ordinance, as belonging to its nature^ but
only neccflary to thofe who are capable of them,
there remains no ground of exception againft in-
fants ; that is, if there were any children or in-
fants in any of the families referred to, we ought
to conclude they zvere baptized. The parent,
or he:id of the family, would of courfe^ according
to all the fources of information he could con-
fult, if a heathen^ the light of nature, if a Jew,

the

Ch. 3. SubjeSls of Baptifm. 351

the Old Teftament, and more efpecially in either
cafe from the genius, of chrirtianity, confider his
dependants, particularly his children, being at
his difpofal for their benefit, as entitled to the
fafne privileges., or means of grace and religion,
as himfelf— /y not expressly prohibited.

Mr. B. availing himfelf of Limborch's con-
ceffion, that the argument from the account of
bonfeholds bein^ baptized, am.ounts to no more
than a hare probability that there were any infajits
baptized as well as adults in thofe families ; feems
to forget that a bare probability ( cost, par, ) is
very fufficient to influence an impartial mind.
For if one fide of a queftion be only barely
PROBABLE, all things confidered, the other fide
furely is fo far improbable. " It may admit
of a query," fays Mr. B. " whether, in this
metropolis, a majority of houfeholds have any
mere infants in them." Granted: but will it
admit of a query, whether three families for one
in the . metropolis, or in any city, town, or parilh
in the kingdom ; or, more properly, in thofe parts
of the world, and that age, which thefe paflages
refer to, had any ? Our argument fairly refts not
on ONE family fcparately confidered, but on the
THREE unitedly. Othcrwife, could we produce a
thovfand inflances out of the facred records of a
perfon's houfebold, or all his, being baptized, Mr.
B.'s mode of arguing would leave the ■probability
the very fame ; which is abfurd.

As to. what is urged from thefe phrafes — " El-
kanah and, all his HOUsje went up to offer unto

tht

352 Of the proper Ch. 3.

the Lord the yearly facrifice. A nobleman at Ca-
pernaum believed, and bis whole house. Cor-
nelius/^^r^i God with ALL HIS HOUSE. Unruly ^
talkers fubvert WHOLE houses. Paul and his
companion /pake the word of the Lord to the
Philippian jailor, and to all that were in his
houfe. He, believing in God, rejoiced, with all
HIS house. Te know the house of Stephanas^
that IT is the first fruits of Achaia,
and that they have addi^ed themfelves to the minif-
try of the faints*— znd the like; let any un-
prejudiced mind refledl:, whether fuch phrafes be
not perfectly confident with our account of houfe-
holds ; nay, whether they do not diredly tend
to ejlablijh it. For is not this an idea moft na-
turally fuggefted, — that religion, according to the
facred oracles^ as well as from the reafonablenefs
of the thing, is, tho' internally confidered a per-
fonal concern, yet as externally profeffed z family
concern. Do not fuch paffages intimate, and
more than barely intimate, that no furer do the
means of grace belong to a perfon, than they
belong to his houjehold as fuch ? — " In all which
examples," fays Mr. B. " infants muft be except-
ed j]." If by examples he intends the actions
conne(5led with the univerfal terms, " whole
houfe, all his houfe, &c." fuch as, " all his
houfe went up to offer, his whole houfe believed^
all his houfe feared God, unruly talkers fubvert

whole

• I Sam. i, 21. John iv. 53, A£ls x. a. Tit, i. ij, 12,
Aft} zvi« 32, 34« and xviii. 8. i Cor. xvi, 1-5..

B Pcedob. £xam« p* 36^.

Ch. 3. Subjeils of Baptijm. 353

whole houfes, Paul /pake the word to all in a
houfe," and fo on ; it is manifefl fuch examples
are nothing to the purpofe. For our arguments
do not imply, what fuch a remark feems alone
calculated to fhew, that we afcribe to infants
what they are naturally incapable of. But if by
*' examples " he means the univerfal terms, " all,
whole, &c." as being Xhefubje^s of thofe ailions,
and therefore there could be no infants in thofe
families; our author confutes himfelf: for he
owns " it is not uncommon for the facred writers
" to aflert this, or the other, concerning a houfe-
" hold, without any exprefs limitation ; which
" is manifeftly meant of only the greater part *."
His " examples," therefore, neither tend to fhew
that there were no infants in the houfeholds in
queftion, nor, fuppofing there were any, that
they were not baptized. Not the former ; for in
the very examples he produces, there might have
been infants, from his own concejjion, provided
the greater part be adults. Not the latttr \ for
that an infant fhould be baptized implies no
impoffibility, as the anions in the " examples "
produced do ; nor any thing itnprobable without
begging the quedion in debate. What the obt-
jeiSlion really proves, is what ho one ever denied,
— tiiat there 7nay be families without infants! To
which we beg leave to make a reply fuitable to
its importance — there may be families with in-
fants. But is it not probable that in three fami-

lies
* Ibid,

354 ^f '^•'^ proper Ch. 3.

lies there was an infant or a young child? And
is it not very prohablc, if infants were capable
of the rite of baptifm as well as the parents,
that they were baptized? — But what do I fay?
will not the following objedtion marr the whole?
" If our oppofers would be true to tlieir
*' argument, by a6ling confidently with it, they
" mull, when called to baptize the majler of a
" family, adminifter the fame ordinance to his
*' wife^ his children^ and his domfjiicks^ without
*' exception, if not baptized before, whether
*' they profefs repentance towards God, and
" faith in Chrift, or not*." No, this is not
a legitimate confequence. For

1. Teo' a mafter has a right over his chil-
dren, and in fome meafure his other domefticks,
for their good and benefit, this does not imply
that he ought to adl the tyrant, to force the
confcience, or to ufe compulfion in religious
matters.

2. Our argument, and our a£ling confiftently
with it, require no fuch promifcuous and unrea-
foi'iable proceedings as the objection infmuates.
1'he law by v^hich we fuppofe a parent or a
•mafler ought to be ruled in thofe cafes is this —
.tliat he benefit his children, and all his^ as
ithey are capable. And accordingly we infifl,

3. That infancy is no greater objection to
baptifm, than to proielytifm or circumcilion, that
is, is no juil plea of exclufion at all; whereas
,sn oppofition to Chrift, his gofpel, and the means

of

* Pccdobi Exam. p. 370, 371.

Ch. 3. SuhjeSis of Baptifjn, 355

of grace, is a reafonable and fcriptural ground
of exclufion. No man has a right to Jorce
another, in matters of judgment and confcience,
In proportion as that other has a right to judge
for himfelf, even in the moft advantageous and
momentous concerns. And that there may be
adult perfons in a family, whofe unalienable right
of private judgment overbalances the authority
and right of the domeftick head, I fuppofe none
will deny. Hence we conclude, that

4. Tho' the promife and its initiatory feal may
be rejeSied by fome of a man's domefticks, yet
that thefe were intended and dire61:ed to him and
to ALL HIS as fuch ; and confequently that this
is a fufficient reafon for us to conclude, that
ALL of them are entitled thereto, ceconomically,

. who do not reject the counfel of God againft
themfelves, as the Fharifees and lawyers did,

'Luke vii. 29, 30*.

§ 52. Among

* " When Zaccheus, who was not by bifth a fon of Abraham,
*• but a (inner, a Gejiti.'e, was thus converted, Chrift enlargijth his
" COVENANT to his y}7w/^ alfo — l^hii (fjy is Jahation coine to this
*' Houar, in as much as he ciljo is a fon of Abraham, Luke xix. 9.—
" He makes [his believing in Chrift] the reafon why his house
" rtiould be faved alfo, and fo the cozrenarti ftuck with them of his
" fomily likew'ik, bccaufe the father of the family nvas n(nv a believer,
■" — And let me add this, that as Chrift onc{^ before in the conver-
" fion of the Centurion, the firft-fniics of the Gentiles, (Mutt. vJii )
" did firft break open the treafury of the Gentiles' con\erfion j fo
*' upon occafion of this man's conveifion afterwards, he fti':w3 the
'* priiiilege of the Gentiles when converted — ^fhewing how their cctjc
" nant was to run by households, in a conformity to Abraham's
" family at firft. — Thus in hkc manner, when the apoftles came to
" preach the gofpel to a Gc-ntiJe boufeboJdtr, maflcr or father of a

" family

356 Of the proper Ch. 3.

§ 52. Among thofe pafiages which tend to
fiiew in what fenfe the apoftles underftood their
commiffion with refpedl: to the Jewilh and Gentile
nations, is Rom. xi. 11 — 31. on which I would
offer the following refiedions.

I. Nothing

" fimily, they carried the offer of it in this tetiour, and in the way of
" tifs fri-vilege, as a motive to converfion. — In the New Teftair.ent
" we find in the n'ent (which ftill anfwers to promifas) that the
" gofpel fpread itfelf thro' iviok kovszholds, this being the tenure
" of our covenant — Now then, when the covenant thus runs with
*' tlie heads if hcufes for the familiti themfelves, I argue thus from
'• thence for their children, That they muft needs be included and
" intended in a more ^a/u/ manner ; for they are the natural branches,
" and fervants but tvgrafted, as was faid of the' Jews and Gentiles in
" the like cafe. — The houfe of Aaion and his children, are put for
»• one and the fame, Pf. cxv. 12, 15. In Hke phrafe of fpeech Leah
" and Rachel in bringing foith children, are faid to build up the houft
*' of Ifrael, Ruth iv. 1 1. And (o the word HOUSE is ufed for
" /ci/?£f;';^ in all languages. And for the fuither confirmation of this,
" namely, that this tenure of the Gentiles' covenant in a conformity
" to Abraham's, fhould run thus by families from the beads there-
" of, this doth fully fuit with the original promife made to Abraham
" hinifelf, when the fcripture foiefaw ^as Paul's phrafe is) that the
'• Geuti'es fhould be juftified — as his jted. The promife (Gen. xjj,
" 3.; runs in thcfe terms. In thee fhall all the families of the
" earth he biffed-^ as elfewhere (Gen. xviii. i55. and xxij. 18.) it run*
'* in thefe terms, All the nations of the earth pall be blejjed.
" Thefe expiefllons are both ufed ; — to fliew, the feed fliould be of
'♦ zU nations and pecfle ; yet fo, as witlia!, the covenant was to run
•' ^yi»//7/« in thofe nations. Theseforc the New Teftament quotes
" it in both fer.fes. Gal. iii, 8. fays itoctta. T« ££)■>), oil natioKS,
" — A&s iii 25. u] Tral^ai, fatherhoods oi the earth.

*' And further: — th.s uras the primittie end natural church "uay,
" under the Leitv of nature aloie Mofes; unto w bich the teiore for
•' e\er God haih fi.ited this family coittiunt, and in Abraham ratified
" ana fai£lified it to the end ot the woiJd.— And the reafcn why God
" chcfe this of i family to convey the covenant by, v^as, that th s foci-
" tty wds the only naiural Jociety of all others, ar.d therefore God did

•' always

Ch. 3. Subje^s of Bapiifm. 357

1. Nothing lefs feems implied by the apof-
tle, than that tlie converfion of the Gentiles was
intended to be national^ as appears from the
whole of his reafoning. That is, he confiders
them as a people, or as a body, in the fame fenfe
as the Jews were fo. All muft allow his idea
is a colleo?ive one; and we further in fift, that the
individuals or members of the gentile or gofpel
church here defcribed cannot be adults exdufively.
His idea of the gentile church is fuch as cannot
agree to a company of adult believers, or the
Antipoedobaptift notion of the gofpel church.
And if this aiTertion be made good, either they
or Paul muft be wrong. Let us briefly analyze
and invcftigate the apoftle's reafoning.

(I) He

" always choofe it throughout all ftates of the church. — God herein
" engrafting (as he ufes to do grace on nature in our fpirits, when
" he converts us, fo ) his covenant of grace upon this covenant of
" nature to run in the channel of it." See Dr. Thomas Good-
win's Works, Vol. ii. p. 391, 3c», 393. — But let the lefs informed
reader carefully diftinguifli, in judging o-f God's covenant to man, to
families, &c, between the cxi^/^V/ob w</</r znA the grace p^JJ'eJid, The
prefent contro^erfy has to do immediately only with xhtformfr-^ which
is alone, ftiiftly fpeaking, the foundation of a finner's encouragement to
draw near to God for rrerry, grace, and every needful bleffing. A«
to the notion of hereditary graa pofjijj'ed, as if tbit defccnded frorn
father to fon , it is equally unfcriptural and abfurd. That the Lord
fhould condefcend to declare, that he w/// bt a God unto me, and
mint, is one thing ( and how unfpeakable the privilege ! ) ; but for me
to conclude from thence that i am f>o£eJl'ed of grace, or a peifon
tBually ]ujlified, would be highly pi efuirptuous. He is my God, /Z?,j/
/ may BELIEVE, &c J but not that I may conclude upon my Jiate
M if it proved ny juf if iatitn,Si.Q^ And yet, when from juft premife*
I infer my jjjfifed Jiate, I may fafely call the Lord " wy Cod'" in
the v.ere peculiar and difctiminating fenfe»

358 • Of the proper Ch. 3.

(i) He employs fuch general terms^ in con-
trailing the gofpel church with the Jewifh, as,
we apprehend, would be very improper to ex-
prefs any other church ftate, than that which-
agrees to a body of people, comprehending old^
and young. Thus he ufes the terms Gentile Sy.
or nations \ the world -^ lfrael\ Sic. ,- ,-

(2) The manner in which he contrajls the
partial fall^ and the compkat rejl oration of the .
Jews; as alfo the different ftates of the Jews
and the Gentiles; is incompaiible with that hy-.
pothefes which we oppofe. : , ,:

(3) His figurative- illujiration of the Jewifh
and gofpel churches, affords another argument io -
favour of our view of the fubje<a:. He fpezlks .
of the two churches as the root and branches
of a tree; and the lopping off anfwers to the
vraftincr in,

(4) The ajfignahle canfe of the Jews' rejec-
tion, unbelief and the remedial means of their
reinflatement, believing, are mentioned in fuch a
connection and light, as cannot be underflood of
their fubje<5ts as individuals, but as a body of people,
confifting of old and young, parents and children.
Their unbelief confilled in the general and nati-
onal rejeiuion of the Meffiah; and their faith, the
only mean of their defirable reinftatement, mufl
coniifl in a general reception of Chrifl.

(5) The univejfality oi \\\q\x future converfion
is reprefented in fuch a manner as totally difa-
grees with the Antipoedobaptift view of gofpel

privileges

CIi. 3. SubjeSls of Baptlfm. 359

privileges In general, and church- member (hip in
particular.

(6) As thcxv JIanding before their renunciation
of the Mefliah was compleat, like a perfect olive
tree confifling of root "and branch,, or like the
vine which God brought out of Egypt, planted
in Canaan, and which covered the whole land
witli its luxuriant ramifications; fo their having
quitted that (landing is reprefented by the apoftle
in fuch a manner as to fhew them highly blame^
able and criminal. That Jianding., then, was
what they ought to have maintained ; therefore
it was not any peculiarity of covenant relation
defigned to ceafe and to be annihilated under
the MefTiah. Whatever they were before tiieir.
national unbelief, their fumbling, and diminijhing -,
whatever that fxdnefs was they fell from, on ac-
count of which they are here reprefented as
faulty and finful; it inevitably follows, that it-
was fuch a fianding and fulnefs as the gofpel
was not intended to abolifh, but was calculated
to eftablifh and promote. But what could fuch
a fanding and coinpleat fulnefs or abundance
be ? Was it tlieir fanding faft in perfonal pie-'
ty ? Was it their abounding in adult believers,
when it was attempted to prevent their down-,
fall? Was it any peculiar privilege defigned to
laft until the Mefliah came, and no longer? No:
neither of thefe fuppofitions can poflibly be truek
Not the two y?r/?, — for they are contradivfted by
plain matter of fa£l;; nor the la/l,-r-for it is
incontrovertibly i?/:plied, that if tiiey left th.^ir

fianding,

3o6 Of the proper Ch. 3.

(landing, and loft their fulnefs, it was owing to
their fin, their hlindnefs^ Sec. and on the other
hand, if they, as a nation or body of people,
received the Redeemer, their fall and diminution
would be prevented.

In (hort, from the very dawn of gofpel light,
nothing elfe was intended than their national fal-
vation, or continued church-relation to God as a
body at large. To this tended the flaming zeal
of John the Baptift ; to this tended the vene-
rable miniftry of the Son of God, and the con-
ftant efforts of his miniftring difciples, under his
diredlion; to this tended the unwearied labours,
fervent prayers, and afFe<5lionate exhortations of
hiy infpired apoftles ; and efpecially after this
Paul ardently purfued ; to accomplifli this he
could wijh himfelf occurjed Jrom Chrijl^ and for
non-fuccefs herein he had great heavinefs and
continual forrow in his heart. (Rom. ix. 2, 3.)

But, if this was the real avowed intendment
of the gofpel miniflry, which Mr. B. neither
does, nor, I prefume, can deny, relative to all
the inhabitants of Judea ; it follows from the
whole drift oi the apof^le's argumentation — from
the general terms he employs — from the contrafi
he draws — and from his figurative illufrations
and ccrrparlfons, — that the real avowed intend-
ment of the gofpel miniftiy among the Gentiles
or oil the naticyn of the world, is nothing lefs
extenfive thr.n their rational jalvationy that is,
their exleinal church-relation to Gcd as bodies

at

i

Ch. 3. Suhje£fs of Bapttfm, 361

at large, comprehenfive of all ages and defcrip-
tions of mankind *.

Moreover: the future fulnefs of the Jews,
to be accompliflied by their embracing Jefus
Chrift as their Mefliah, will reinJlaU them in
their former pofition, ver. 23. And they alfo, if
they abide mtflill in unbelief Jhall be grafted in
AGAIN. " Grafted in again ! " — how ? reinfiatt
them ! in what ? No folid anfwer but one can
be afllgned, viz. In all thofe church-privileges
which they enjoyed, as a general body of people,
excepting what was merely typical and ceremonial.
But the church-memberjhip of infants and chil-
dren was not fuch j it was before Mofes, before
Abraham, more ancient than the flood, yes,
coeval with the firft family in the world. There-
fore, this will be a part of the reftored privilege.
While they continue to renounce all conne6lion
with Chrift the Life of the tree, his church,
they muft needs be withered branches; but, re-
R ceiving

• The infpired prophets " extol not merely the inherent ex-
•* cellence, but nvide extent, of the heavenly kingdom. When-
«' ever the profpeft rifes before them, and it was often prefented to
" their view, their heart glows with inftant rapture at the fplendid
*' fcene ; the powers of language are exhaufted to convey their lofty
** conceptions of thofe days of gladnefs, when all nations whom the
" Lord hath made /hall turn unto him, and walk in the light of
" his holy word. We do not afTert, that in order to warrant the
" expreflions ufed on this occafion, it is neceflary that every indi-
«« vid'ial of the human fpecies fiiould ferve God with a pure heart
" and faith unfeigned : but if the whole race fliall not hereafter be,
«* what they have not yet been, visible members or the
«' CHVRCK OF Christ, language is ufejefs, and words have no
** meaning," Chue ton's Fampton's Lcfturcs. Serm. vii, p, zaj.

3*^2 Of the proper Ch. 3.

ceiving him, both the branches and their buds
ihall vegetate again in the vifible univerfal church.

Mr. B. in his RejieSiion on ver. 16. fays : " Here
'' it may be obferved, that baptifm is not the fub-
" je6l of Paul's difcourfe." Granted : but he mufl:
grant alfo in his turn, that church -memherjhip and
church-privileges are the fubje^l of Paul's difcourfe.
And he will find it too difficult to fhew, that bap •
tifm is not included therein ; which leads me to
another reflexion, viz.

§ 52. 2. That the apoftle's reafoning necef-
farily includes infant baptifm. It has been I think
demonilrated, in the laft: fedlion, that infant
church-memberfliip and privileges are included
in his reafoning j that the chriftian church both
of Gentiles and Jews, muft, according to him,
be made up in a great meafure of infants and
children. That is to fay, the gofpel jtiiniftry
or difpenfation defigns and intends^ in its own
nature, nothing (hort of this. But if fo, the con-
fequence is evident, that they are intitled thereto
by the very nature of the gofpel church, and a
divine grant. According to Paul, that is, accor-
ding to the genuine fpirit and native tendency
of the gofpel ; according to the IVill of God; ac-
cording to the laft will and teftament of Jefus,
which he fealed with his own blood j and accor-
ding to the witnefs of the fpirit of truth, by whofe
infallible direction Paul reafoned and wrote,—
infants have a right of church-memberftiip with
their parents. But who fees not, that if they
have that right, they have, of courfe, a right to
baptifm, the ceremony of initiation. To deny

this.

Ch. 3. Subjects of Baptifm. 363

this would be as ridiculous as to fay, that a man
and his family liave a legal right to a houfe,
but dare not enter it thro' the door, the only
door, that leads to it ; or, that he has a legal right
to certain premifes, but has nothing to do with
the ways and avenues leading thereto.

The apoftle fays (Rom. xi. 16.) For if the
firji fruit be HOLY, the lump is alfo holy: and
if the root he holy, so are the branches. On
which Mr. B. refledls, that the word holy is
mentioned, " in reference to the ancient patriarchs^
*' efpecially Abraham ; in reference to thofe cori-
** verted Jews, that were the firfl fruits of a
" chriftian miniflry : and in reference to the ya-
*' ture converfion of Abraham's pofterity, in the
" latter day." And immediately infers, " that
" the paflage has no regard to any chriftian pa-
" rent, as a root ; or to his infant offspring, as
" [ranches ariiing from itf." But how do the
premifes, fuppofmg them unexceptionable, fup-
port his conclufion ? For fuppofe thefr/l fruit
be ■ the ancient patriarchs^ were not thofe their de-
fcendants who received the Mefliah a part of the
Lump or confecrated mafs ? Or, muft we fay,-
that their reception of him, and fubmifRon to
his righteous government, made them an unholy^
or lefs holy, part of that Lump? It cannot be
denied, that what is here called the lump intends
the defendants of thefe patriarchs as fuch, with-
out any exception of infants ; the infants^ there-
fore, of their defcendants, who had not as yet
embraced the Meffiah, were of the holy lanip,
and fhall thofe parts of the fame mafs be pro-
R 2 nounced

■f- Poei^ob. Exjin. />, 373,

3^4 Of the proper Ch. 3.

nounced unholy^ because of their parents' obe-
dient faith ? While to-day the parent reje^s the
Meffiah, he and his children are parts of the
holy lump alike; but to-morrow the parent em~
braces the fame invaluable bleffing, and he con-
tinues in his privilege, and has it greatly increafed,
but his CHILDREN — ftill the defcendants of Abra-
ham, and, were it not for their parents' /aith f
would ftill be holy -^his children become unholy.
While they were holy^ it was their privilegCy for
In that view the apoftle fpeaks of it. But lo !
on Antipoedobaptift principles, the parents' faithy
makes the child unholy ! The parent's promotion^
degrades the child ! " He that can believe it let
him believe it."

Again: fuppoflng iht firji fruit to intend
the firft Jewilh converts to chriftianity; it ftill
follows that the whole mafs^ of which they are a
part, is holy : and it appears from the fcope of the
paflage, that this holinefs of the lump is not what
jfhall hereafter take place, as the ej^ei^ of gofpel
preaching; but is reprefented as the encoura-
ging reafon why the gofpel ought to be preached
to them. The apoftle's argument, it feems, is
not, Inafmuch as fome Jews do now believe,
this is a token and pledge that Abraham's pof-
terity at large Jhall believe hereafter: but rather,
— -becaufe the other parts of the lump are na
hfs holy than that which received the Meffiah ;
therefore there was an encouraging profpe<5l of
their converfion alfo. But if this be denied, the
cafe is ftill worfe. For if it be faid, that the
Jewiih converts to chriftianity were the firfl fruit

in

Ch. 3. Subje{1s of Baptlfm, 365

in reference to the future church ftate of all If-
rael ; and that the confecration of the part fanc-
tiiied the whole : it then follows, contrary to what
our opponents are willing to allow, that the uncon-
verted are fanSiified^ or made holy^ by being on-
ly related to chriftians; and if fo, for the fame
Teafon children may be faid to be fan6lified or
holy by their relation to chriftian parents. For
to fay, that the remote pofterity of any is holy
on account of its relation to him, but not his
immediate defcendants who are more nearly and
clofely related to him, is, I fuppofe, fufficiently
abfurd. I now appeal to the intelligent and
impartial reader, whether this is not a fair and
full reply to Mr. B's objedion.

But as it is my profefled defign not only to
confute error, but alfo to inveftigate truth, it may
be proper to inquire, what is the real import of
the term holy, here ufed by St. Paul? *' By
bofy is here meant," fays Mr. Locke, " that
relative holinefs whereby any thing hath an ap-
propriation to Godf." Or, more particularly,
we may fay, A holy perfon, in the relative fenfe
of that word, is one to whom God gives a co-
venant grant of mercy and the means of grace,
and in virtue of which grant he is appropriated
to God. This appears to me to be the leading
idea of the term, and its precife import in the
prefent connexion ; tho' fometimes ufed in a dif-
ferent fenfe. For if the whole nation of the
Jews was holy in the apoftolic age, the whole mafi
R 3 as

f Uott vn Rom. xi, i€«

3^6 Of the proper Ch. 3.

as well as the firji fruity the natural branches as
well as the r<30/, as the apoftle a/Terts ; if the
future defcendants of Abraham and the patriarchs
are to be regarded as holy^ as Mr. B. allows,
and for which reafon they are not to be defpifed
and infulted by the Gentiles ; then the prefetit
Jews are fo in the like fenfe : except we hold
that the both ends of a genealogical chain has an
appropriation to God, while the intermediate links
are unclean. Which is the fame thing as to fay,
that this genealogical chain is at once, and in
the fame refpe6l, a conductor and a non-condu^or
of this relative holinefs.

But what is deferving of particular notice is,
that there are feveral degrees of relative holinefs ;
and that, in fcripture eftimation, a perfon may
be, relatively, holy in one {tnie^ while unclean in
another. Accordingly, in a very general fenfe,
no 7nan is to be deemed unclean under the gofpel
difpenfation (A61s x. 28.), but e^uery manj-v^ht-
ther Jew or Gentile, is deemed holy\ i. e. in
virtue of the gofpel grant of mercy and the means
of grace to the Gentiles as well as the Jews, all
ju^nkind without diftin6lion of nation, or tribe,
are appropriatc'd to God, or pointed out by him
as the intended objects of fuch a grant. When
the command was given to preach the gofpel to
every creature^ to propofe the means of grace to
all mankind^ they were virtually declared holy^
and not dogs as before reckoned. The prorrtife'^
or covenant grant, is now not only to the jews
and their children, but to all that are afar off\ for

all

Ch. 3. StihJeS/s of Baptifm. 367

all the nations are as much the defigncd objedts
of the call, as the inhabitants of Judea were
•when the apoftle wrote; and when any are ac-
tually among the called^ that defign is in them
accomplifhed. — Now, when incorporated with the
vifible church, they are termed holy in a more
particular fenfe. They are then more particu-
larly appropriated to God ; the promife is to them
more direclly; they are more exprefsly intitled
to all the means of grace and falvation, accor-
ding to their capacity. And, compared with this
degree of relative holinefs> thofe who are holy
in the former fenfe, are yet unclean. • Thus an
idolater and his family in the one fenfe, that is,
in reference to any divine prohibition^ or any ex~
chifive claufe in the covenant, promife, or grant
of mercy, is no longer common or unclean,
but relatively holy. Yet in reference to the
called^ the incorporated members of the vifible
church, the fame idolater and his family are not
holy but unclean. The one is holy becaufe be
may partake^ in virtue of ,a divine appointment ;
the other is more holy ( and in comparijon ot
whom the former is unclean ) becaufe .he a;Stu-
a!ly does partake of general church-memberfliip
and privileges, and therefore baptifm.

I SAY general church-memberfhip, to diQin-
gui(h it from that which belongs to any particular
congregation, or even denomination of chrifti-
ans. For tho' we contend that baptifm is the
rite of admiffion into the univerfal church of
R 4 Chrift

368 Of the f roper Ch. 3.

Chrift, or gemral body of chriftlans, of which
all denominations of chriftian people are parts ;
yet this is perfedlly confiftent with congregational
worfhip and difcipline, with dilTenting churches,
and the independent form in particular. And
this indeed the pra6lice of independents abun-
dantly confirms, for when they admit any into
JPecial mcmberfhip, it is immaterial whether the
parties were baptized in Ruffia or Italy, in Hol-
land or England ; in the eftablifhment or among
difilnters, or by what denomination of diflenters ;
it is fufficient in that refpecl, that they have
been recognized general church-members by bap-
tifm. The other memberfhip is not to conftitute
them profeiTed chriftians, but is intended for the
better promoting of their edification, in a man-
ner as near as poflible to the intention of tlie
infpired rubrick.

§ 53* We now proceed to examine another
paffage, from whence we may gather, in what
light the apoftles viewed the children of believing,
or chriftian parents; and that is i Cor. vii. 14.
For the unbelieving hufbaird ii fanSiified by the wifey
andihe unbelieving wife is fanSfifed by the hufbani :
tlfs were your children unclean ; but now ore they
holy. " On the matureji and moft impartial
** confideratiori of this text," fays Dr* Dod-
tKiDGE, " I muft judge it to refer to infant
" baptifm. Nothing can be more apparent, than
" that the word holy, fignifies perforis, who might
" Le admitted to partake of the dijlinguijhing rites
" of God's people. Compare Exod. xix. 6.

« Deut.

Ch, 3. Siihje£is of Baptijm. 369

** Deut, vii. 6. chap. xiv. 2. chap. xxvi. 19,.
" chap, xxxiii. 3. Ezra ix. 2, with Ifai. xxxv.
« 8. chap. hi. 1. A6ts x. 28. &c. And as
** for the interpretation, which fo many of our
" brethren the Baptifts have contended for, that
** }}oly figavfica legitimate^ and unclean illegitimate i
" (not to urge that this feems an unfcriptural
" fenfe of the word) nothing can be more evi-
" dent, than that the argument will by no means
*' bear it*." It was not without reafon that
the Doftor expreffed himfelf with fome limita-
tion refpeding the interpretation he oppofes, thus,
" which fo manyi of our brethren the Baptifts ;'*
for they are by no n^eans agreed, how to com-
pafs the wrefting of this text from the Pcedo-
baptifts. Dr. S. for inftance,- is of opinion
" that legitimacy is not here intended f." And
thus he afligns his reafons for diflenting herein
from fome of his brethren: *' If one party's
" being a believer makes cohabitation lawful,
" it fhould feem to follow as a natural confe-
" quence, that when neither is a believer co-
" habitation is unlawful 3 which is a propofi-
" tion no one will maintain. But ( fays he, ) let
" us examine the queftion refpeding legitimacy
" a little more attentively. The apoftle's obje<St
*' in this context was, no doubt, to diffuade
" thofe chriflians who were married to unbe-
" lievers from any thoughts of a feparation* And.
" the confideration of their having been law-
" fully married, was moft certainly a good
** argument to enforce fucli advice j and the
R 5 rather.

• Fam. Expof, im kt, ^ Aof, t* Dr. A. p. 3.

370 Of the proper Ch. 3.

•" rather, as a divorce would be likely to bring

*' di(honour on their offspring, in the opinion

" of thofe who might aot know the true caufe

" of it. But if he meant to urge this argu-

" ment, it is fcarce imaginable he would de-

" fcribe the lawfulnefs of the marriage contract

" by the phrafe of the unbelieving hujband's being

^^ fanSiiJied by the wife^ and the unbelieving wife

" by the hu/band ; 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 (he were or were

*' not a believer, the fnarriage would have been

" good ; nor would a reparation, upon pretence

" of their not being of the fame faith, have

" made the children illegitimate ^^ Mr. Booth,

however, warmly pleads for what Dr. Sten-

NETT ftrenuoufly oppofes.

But as the real meaning of the text very
much depends on the exadt import of certain
terms, it will be necefTary to pay our principal
attention to them i and thence to deduce the
apoftle's meaning.

I. The .terms ax«Oaf)o< and ayic? fliould be
afcertained. Thefe " are ufed here by the apof-
*' tie in the Jewifh fenfe. The Jews called all
" that were Jews, holy i and all others they cal-
" led unclean. Thus proles genita EXTRA fanc-
" titatem, was a child begot by parents whilft
" they were yet heathens; genita itiTRA fane-
" titatemy was a child begot by parents after
*' they were profelytes. l^his way of fpeaking

" St.
I Ibid, p. iS'

Ch. 3. Subje£Ji of Baptifm. 37 1

" St. Paul transfers from the Jewifh into the
** chriftian church, calHng all that are of the
" chriftian church faints^ or holy, by which rea-
■* fon all that were out of it were unclean'*'." The
fame author elfewhere obferves : *' The heathen
" world had revolted from the true God, to
" the fervice of idols and falfe gods, Rom. i.
** 18 — 25. The Jqws being feparatcd from this
*• corrupted mafs, to be the peculiar people of
" God, were called /'(?/)', Exod. xix. 5,6. Numb.
" XV. 40. They being caft off, the profefTors of
** ehriftianity were jeparated to be the people of
" God, and fo became holy^ i Pet. ii. 9, 10 ;{:.'*
Thus Mr. Baxter : " The common and 1
" doubt not true expofition is, That it is meant
" of a ftate of feparntion to Gody as a peculiar
" people from the world, as the church is fe-
" parated.— — It is generally agreed, that the
'* moji common ufe of the word holy^. if not the
" only.^ both in fcripture and prophane writers,
" is, to fignify a thing feparated to god : and
*' \o- fanSiify any thing, is to feparate it to God.
" Omne fantlum eji Yi^E-O janSiian \ whatfoever is
" holy, is holy to God. This therefore being
" the proper fenfe and ordinary ufe of the word,
" I take myfelf bound to receive it as the mean-
" ing here, till I know more reafon to the contrary.
" —Now as hoUneJs thus fignifieth a fe.paratlon
" to Gody fo it may be diftinguiflied thus j a
" perfon or thing may be holy, or feparated
R 6 " to

• LocKi's Paraphr. in lot. Note, J Id, chap, i, %, N»ttt
\ Plain Script, Proof, p. 3o.

37* Of the proper Ch. 3

*' to God, either in ftate and Jianding relation ;
** or elfe only for fome particular a£l or ufe^
" whether for (horter time or longer*.** When
contending with his redoubtable antagonift, Mr.
ToMBEs, and bearing hard on him by urging
the conftant ufe of the word holyy he gives him a
fyllogiftick overthrow thus : " If the conftant
" meaning of the word holy be for a feparation
** to Gody then we muft fo underftand it here,
" except there be a palpable neceflity of un-
" derftanding it otherwife; but the conftant fenfe
" of the word holy is for a feparation to God,
" and here is no palpable neceffity of under-
" ftanding it otherwife : Therefore we muft fo
" underftand it here*.'* And here it is obfer-
vable, that Mr. Tombes denied not that the
conjlant meaning of the word holy was as Mr,
Baxter faid. The latter had alfo urged, that
the fenfe of the term holy^ for which he pleaded,
was ufed in fcripture near six hundred times,
and the other fenfe no where ufed. " Here,'*
—'—fays the keen difputant, confcious of the
truth on his fide, and fomewhat touched with
indignation ; and is it to be much wondered at,
when his fide of the queftion was illuminated
with vitTX fix hundred rays of evidence, and the
other confefiTedly all darh?'^^^ here Mr. Tombes
•* denied not but that the word was taken fit
•* ofit in my fenfe, and never in hh\ and yet**

• ■■ and yet ! ■ * ' denied the confequence.
•• 1 do therefore ( fays the good man ) here re-

* quire all men that are not of defperate rcfolu-

** tions,

* Ibid. p. Sz»

Ch. 3. Suhjeils of Baptifrn, 37 j

" tions, and proftituted confciences, to confider
" faithfully; whether he be likely to make a
" more comfortable anfwer before the bar of
" Chrift, who faith, Lord, I fearched after thy
" will in thy word as far as I was able, and I
■*' durft not rafhly venture on my fmgular fancy>
" but in my admitting or bringing infants into
" thy vifible church, I grounded my judgment and
" pra<Slice on thy word, in the fame fenfe. as
" it is ufed near fix hundred times in the fcrip-
" ture — I fay, will not this man have a bet-
" ter plea than he that (hutteth infants out of
" the church upon the expofition of fcripture in a
*' fenfe as it is never elfe ufed in, but near fix
" hundred times otherwife ?" — Again: " If the
** apoftle by holy (hould have meant, that they
" were not bq/iards^ then he (hould have fpoke
" in a phrafe which they were unlikely ta
" underftand j and fo his fpeech might tend ta
*' draw them into miftakes, and not ta edify
** them. For if the word holy were conflantly
** ufed ( even near fix hundred times in the bi-
** ble ) for a feparation to Gody and never ufed
" for legitimacy (all which Mr. Tombes de-
" nieth not), then what likelihood was there
" that tlie apofHe (hould mean it for legitimacy^
** or the people fo underftand him ? If I (hould
*' write an epiftle to a chriftian congregation
** now, and therein tell them, that tlieir chil-
** dren are all by nature unholy^ would they
** ever conjedure that I meant that they were
«* all ba/lardi*r*

But

• Ut Jvfra, p, 83,

374 ^f ^^^ proper Ch. 3.

But here, were we difpofed to retort on the
life of terms, with what propriety may we aik,
** Is illegitimate in one cafe, and legitimate in the
other, the natural and primary fignifica-
tion of thofe Greek words (axaSafTij and ay»oj)?
Are thefe the fenfes that would naturally firji
occur to the mind of a wife and impartial per-
fon, on reading or hearing the apoftolick ob--
fervation || ?" The inquifitive and learned Mr.
Baxter replies,—" Six hundred to one it is not."
Aiid Dr, GuYSE obferves : " The terms (axaSapio?)
*' unclean^ and (ayio?) holy^ occur almoft num*-
" berlefs times in the Seventy and in the New
*' Teftament ; but I don't find that they are ever
" ONCE ufed to fignify illegitimate and Icglti-
" mate^ which is the fenfe that fome would
" here put upon them. And as the apoftle
" was fpeaking of perfons already married, and
" marriage is a civil ordinance of the God of
** nature, there was no room to douht^ whether
" the children of fuch unbelieving and believ-
" ing parents were legitimate^ or not, fmce that
*' depends intirely on the legitimacy of the
" marriage and not at all on the religious cha-
" ra(Ster of the hufband and wife, whether one,
" or both, or neither of them, were chriftians
" or no*." To this I will add the following
remarks of Dr. Whitby: "He doth not fay,
" Elfe were your children bajiards^ but now
** they are legitimate ; but, elfe were they un-
** cleany i. e, heathen children, not to be owned
" as an holy feed. — 7'hat this is the true import
" of the words ^jcaSaf-ia a.;d uy.a^ will be ap-

" parent

\ Pcedob. Exatn» 321, • • i'araphr. in /«. Nitt^

Ch. 3' SuhjeSls of Baptifm, 375

" parent from the fcriptures, in which the Hea-
" thens are ftyled the unclean^ in oppofition to
*' the Jews in covenant with God, and there-
" fore ftyled en holy people. So Ifa. xxxv. 8.
" ax.x^ot^o<^ the UNCLEAN, Jhall not pafs over it,
" —Chap. hi. i. There fhall no more come
" unto thee axaSapV, the unclean. So Adls
*' X. 28. God hath Jhewed me that I jhould call no
** man common^ or^ axetQupov, unclean. Whence
" it is evident, that the Jews looked upon
" themfelves as ^tf^o| ©sS xaflSpoJ, the clean fervants
" of Gody Neh. ii. 20. and upon- all Heathens,
" and their offspring, as unclean, by reafon of
" their want of circumcifion, the fign of the
" covenant. Hence whereas it is faid, that
" Jortiua circiimcifed the people, chap. v. 4. the
" feptuagint fay, TrsptExaQapEx, he cleanfed them.
" Moreover, of Heathen children, and fuch as
" are not circumcifed, they fay, They are not
** horn in holinefs ; but they on the contrary are
" ftyled (TTTt^fj-of. ccyiot, an holy feed^ Ifa. vi. 13.
" Ezra ix. 2. and 'the offspring from them,
" and from thofe profelytes which had embraced
** their religion, are faid to be born in holinefs^
" and fo thought fit to be admitted to circum-
" cifion, or baptifm, or whatfoever might initiate
" them into the Jtwifh church. And therefore
" to this fenfe of the words holy and unclean^
" the apoftle may be here tnojf rationally fuppofed
" to allude, declaring that the feed of holy per-
" fons, the offspring born ix. tu* ayio-j-^-ii/uv, of
** faints^ as chriftians are ftill called in the New

" Tcflameiit

376 Of the proper Oi. 3.

" Tei^ament, are alfo holy, (See note on chap.
*' i. 2. ) And though one of the parents be ftiU
** an Heathen, yet is the denomination to be
** taken from the better^ and fo their offspring
" are to be efteemed not as Heathens, i. e.
" unclean^ but holy^ as all chriftians by denomi-
" nation are. So Clemens Alexandrinus
" (Strom. L. iii. p. 44.5. D.) infers, faying,
" I fuppofe the feed of thofe that are holy is HOLY,
*' according to that faying of the apojile Paul-^ The
*' unbelieving wife is fanSiified by the hufbandy
" &c. — The word ufed for a baftard by this
" apoftle being voSos, Heb. xii. 8. and the word
"** yvhertoi being the proper word for a legitimate
** offspring:, had the apoftle intended fuch a fenf^
** [as our opponents plead for] he would have
" ufed the words, whicii in the greek writers-
** are generally ufed in that fenfe, and not fuch
** words as in the feptuagint, and in the Jewifli'
" language, always have a relation to foederal
* [or relative] holinels, or the want of it ;. but
"none at all to the legitimacy or fpurioufnefs,
•* of the birth*."

These quotations are inferted, not fo much*
to fhew what were the opi7iions of thefe learned
writers (for the general current, of expofitors.
runs in the fame channel) but for the fake or
the reafons and grounds by which their inter-
pretation is fupported^ A gentleman well known,
to my opponent, on a certain occafion borrows-
the following paflage, which^ becaufe it is com-
mon
•' Ceminent, in hu

Ch. 3. Suhje^s of Baptifnu 377

mon property, I here infert: " We are not
" to forfake the genuine and natural fignification
** of words, unlefs there be the highest evi-
" DENCE that the author did otlierwife intend
** them, faith the Civil Law. And as Austin
** fays. The proper fignification of words is al-
** ways to be retained, unlefs necessity inforce
** us to expound them otherwife. — What better
** evidence can we have of the fenfe of a place,
" than that, had an author intended fuch a
** meaning, he could have ufed no plainer
" exprelfion to declare it*."

But fays Mr. B. " Whatever the apoflle
intends by the word holy^ as here applied to
children, one of whofe parents is a believer ;
it is not confined to the infants of fuch per-
fons, but belongs to all their offspring, whe-
ther younger or older ; whether born before the
converfion of either parent, or after that happy
event had taken place : for the children^ without
any diflindtion are pronounced holy J." And
what then? Does the afpe6t of the gofpel dif-
penfation, or God's grant of mercy to the Hea-
then, who were not a people^ appear kfs amiabie
becaufe it fmiles on all the children of a chrif~
tian, and not on fome only \ Or, what incon-
venience is there in allowing, what impropriety
in maintaining, that the relative holintfs for
which we plead, wliile granted to the parent,

fliould

* Pwdob, Exam. p. 324. From Ferguson's Intercft of R-caloi*
in Religion, p. 328, 333, 334, 461,

X Pcsdob. Exam, p. 3S9.

378 Of the proper Ch. 3.

ihould -be alfo granted to all his ? —'Qxxt will
not this be the fearful confequence ? *' If it be
lawful to baptize them on the ground of this
holinefs, while infants, it muft be equally fo
when grown up[j." Very true — and what harm
can this blunted arrow do ? Is not this the
very thing we plead for; provided you grant
that this reafonable poitulate fhould be taken
into the account ; viz. That whatever right an
adult has, in virtue of a divine grants to any
religious privileges, Chriilianity will juftify no
compulfive meafures for ,the purpofe of intrud-
ing on him thefe privileges againft his good will
and liking. Chriiiianity does not annihilate, nay
in this iiiilance does not fufpend, the natural
rights of parents and children. And what can
be more plain than tliis, that the natural autho-
ritative right of parents over their children,- for
their good, is in a great degree abfolute, while
infants ; and that in proportion as they grow up
to reafon and manhood, this authoritative right
is lejfencd? Nor is there any more difficulty in
afcertaining thefe degrees, than in tranfading
^he common concerns of life, where any de-
gree of wifdom and prudence are required. At
leaft, a chriftian minifter could not, in the na-
ture of the thing, be more at a lofs how to
9(Sl in this cafe, than in determining the de^
grees of teaching, and the kind of profeilicn,
requifite in adults. We will fuppofe, therefore,
that God by his apoflle pronounces the chil-
dren

Ch. 3. SuhjeSIs of Baptl/m. 379

dren of a chriflian without exception ho!y, and
let us further fuppofe fome of them are injhnts,
and others groxvn up. If God pronounce them
hol)\ that is, dire6t his grant of mercy to them,
declaring the promife is to them, and that they
are all ahke, in common with tlieir parents,
welcome to his vifible church ; it is manifell
tjiere lies no objectionable ground to their bap-
tifm, but their own dljjent from the chriftian
connecSlion, their perverfe oppofitlon to its humb-
ling doflrines and holy laws. Are they compil-
able? willing to enter into the fchool, that is,
the church of Chrift ? or, in other words, do
they believe with all the heart, that Jefus
Chrift is the true Meffiah ? Who can forbid
water ? On the other hand, do they oppofe ? are
tliey unwilling to enter the fchool, to embrace
its dodrines and to be governed by its laws ?
Who has power to (onjirain? . For, in the
nature of the cafe, in proportion as the oppo-
fitlon is criminal or morally evil, the authority
of the parent is weakened.

. It is again objected : " That hoUrujs of which
tlie infpired author fpeaks, is not inferred from
the faith of the believing parent, but from the
fanctif cation of the unbelieving party, />/, or /^,
the believer f." But does not this involve a
contradiction ? For, furely, if the fanftification of
the unbelieving party is by the believer^ as fuch,
it mart be inferred from his faith. And again,
if the fan6tification be by the believer, how can

it

f Padob. Exam. p. 3^9.

3^0 Of the proper Ch. j.

it be to him ? Are not the two renderings of
the prepofition i», by and to^ of which the ob-
jedor gives us our choice, eflentially different
and contradidory ? If we fay to him ; the effei^:,
fanitiiication, muft be caufed by another, that
it may terminate on him. But if we fay by
him i he muft be the caufe, that the effecSt
may terminate on another. — This diverfity of
rendering, and the importance of the term fane-
tijled^ make it neceffary that we fliould,

§ 54. 2. Attempt to afcertain the import
of the phrafe r,y»as-Tai £». " On this term
^^ fanSfificd^ fays Mr. B. the infpired writer ma-
" nifeftly lays a peculiar emphafis; fuch an
" emphafis, that it feems to be the governing
" word of the whole fentence, and a key to
*' its true meaning. For it is twice mentioned
** as containing the grand reafon^ why the be-
" lieving party fliouId neither defert, nor divorce,
*' the unconverted companion; and alfo as ex-
*' prefiing the ground of that holinefs which is
*' afcribed to their children f." This, then,
being the key to unlock the text, and dif-
cover its contents, let us examine the wardsy
and fee whether they fit Mr. B.'s interpre-
tation. " Bengelius, fays our author, con-
*' iiders the holinefs of the chi/dreny and of the
" unbelieving parent, as the fame \ becaufe jj^iajTatij
" and a,y\ct i^Tt*, differ only as, to be made holy^
« from to be holy." On which he reflects : " If
" then^ that fan«^ification ofths unbelieving huf-

" band

f Ibid. p. 4CQ,

Ch, 3, Subjects of Bapttfmi 381

" band, gives him no claim to baptifm ; the
" holinefs thence arifing cannot inveft his cbil^
" dren with fuch a right J." This o\ix author
jfeems to confider as an infurmountable ob-
jection. And in the fame hght, we fuppofe Dr.
S. views it. " Now I readily admit, • fays he,
." that the children of believers, or of parents,
*' one of whom only is a believer, are here
" ftiled holy. But then I infift, that fuch chil*
" dren are in no other fenfe holy^ than is the
*' unbelieving parent alfo. For the apoftle as
" exprefsly aflerts that the unbelieving hufband
" is fan£tified or made holy (layK^crraj) by the
*' wife, and the unbelieving wife famSlified or
" made holy by the hufband, as that the cbil-
" dren of fuch parents are holy (ecytx). And,
'* thus confidered, it will follow, that if the
" holinefs of the children, whatever be the fenfe
** of the word here, is to be admitted as a
" proof that they are included in the chriftian
" covenant, the holinefs of the unbelieving pa-
*' rent 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 pofitive inftitutions of
" Chrift, upon the fame ground the latter has
•* alfo§." But -this objection has been fuffici-
ently replied to, virtually, in the lall: fe6lion ;
when treating of adu/t children, who are rela-
tively holy thov^h unbelievers, or oppofers to

X t' 39°' S 'A"'* ^*> ^'* ^' P* ^h ^**

3S2 Of the proper Ch. 3.

the chriflian faith. And were we to grant, ac-
cording to our opponents' willies, that the chil-
dren are holy in no higher fenfe than the un~
believing parent is, it would ftill follow, on the
principle already dated, that the children ought to
be baptized, but not the parent. The one and
the others have the grant of a privilege, the cove-
nant and its initiatory feal ; and the believing
parent has a divine right and rubrick for hav-
ing the feal applied to the children, who are at
his difpofal for their good, and who do not
cppofe the faith ; but this cannot extend to the
unbelieving partner, his unbelief counteradling his
relative fandtification.

.Thus we may obferve, thefe two refpec-
table authors, though widely differing in their
interpretations of the text, are equally confident
that relative holinejs, which intitles to chriftian
ordinances, is not intended. " It may be diffi-
" cult, fays Dr. S. to fix his [the Apoflle's]
" precife meaning ; but if we will make reafon,
" fcripture, and fa<£l: our guide, it cannot be
" difficult to determine upon fome of the fenfes
" given, that they are not his meaning, Per-
" fonal interfial hoUmfsy for inftance, cannot be
" here intended*." In this decifion, I believe the
generality of Pcedobaptifts will readily concur "j
though fome divines have pleaded for real ho-
lincl's, as here afcribed to the children, and par-
ticularly Dr. Thomas Goodwin J. Cn this
'». head

•^ Ibid. X W(iik», Vol. ii. p. 4=c» ^'^'

Ch. 3. Subje^ls of Baptlftn, 3S3

head Mr. B. is fufficiently explicit : " Neither
" have we any reafon to think, that tlie chil-
" dren of behevers are denominated holy, in
"reference to internal fannification\" What,
then, does this gentleman think was the hoU^
nc/s referred to, whereby the unbeheving party
was Jan£lijied by the bdiever ? That which you
have feen confuted by Dr. Stetnett in the
laft fe(5lion — marriage! Take his own words;
" The public and voluntary aft of taking the
" woman for a wife, and the man for a huf-
" band. By this tranfaftion, according to the
" legal cuftom of their country, they mutually
" ga've «/>, or fet apart ^ themfelves one to ano-
" ther*." Well, reader, what fay you to this ?

Here is, one infidel sanctifying another!

Or, if you had rather, each infidel sanctifying
hiirfilf!

If »;yi«;«» fignify no more than to he j^anitd^
or to be given up in marriage, the one party to
the other, it had no influence to fatisfy their
fcruples. For the IfraeUtes, who had married
idolatrous wives, could fay the fame j yet it was
no fufficient pica that one of them had been
jjVtajat, in Mr. B.'s fenfe, fet apart to the other.
The queftion would ftill return. How fliall I
know that this party that has been given up to
me, is not to be difcarded, or put away, as in
Ezra X. 3, &c. ? If our author's explanation
be admitted, it is to make the Apoftle to folve
a cafe of confcience in a manner totally unwor-
thy

^ Poed«b. £x:m, p. 392. * Ibid. p. 400.

3^4 Of the proper Ch. 3.

thy of him ; for he muft do it by aflerting
a facl^ that they were once married, of which,
they were as well afTured before it was aflerted :
while he fays nothing of the lawfuhefs of that
fa£t, which could be the only ground of fcruple.
The doubts of thefe Corinthian querifts were raifed
by reflecting on the quality of the relation con-
trafled, and not the fa£i ; whereas the apoftle,
if our author be right, folves the difficulty by
paffing by the quality^ and aflerting the fadlj
that is to fay, by faying fomething wide of
the point, but nothing at all to the purpofe.
Whereas, had it been his defign to prove the
validity of their marriage, would he not natu-
rally have done it by fuggefting fome middle term
or confideration, befides barely referring them to the
fadl? Was it not neceflary for them, that they
ihould be certified of the laivfulnefs and propriety
of their marriage relation ? On Mr. B.'s hypo-
thefis this ii not done ; on ours fully. If the
queftion be propofed to him. Why fhould the
believer cohabit with the unbeliever? he muft
reply, Becaufe they were formerly married. Or
rather, Not becaufe you, believer, have been
devoted to your partner, and are bound to fulfil
your engagement J but becaufe your infidel part-
ner has formerly given himfelf to you. But
was this a remedy fuited to the difeafe? Or
(hould it be faid. This is a fatisfadlory confi-
deration why the parties (hould continue, not
merely becaufe there has been a mutual dedica-
tian^ but becaufe there has been a divine ap-
pointment

Ch. 3. SuhjeSIs of Baptifm, 385

pointment of marriage as the bafis of it. But
the duty of marriage was from the beginning;
yet thofe in the time of Ezra were obliged to
put off each man his wife, to which neverthelefs
he had been wedded. Nor is it available to fay.
That thofe in Ezra offended againft a poftt'iv^
divine law, but not thefe; for that is the very
point in which they defire fatisfaiSlion, viz. Whe-
ther the chriftian law does or does not require a
feparation P His anfwer is not. The law of nature
is binding, and chriftianity has nothing againft it.
This would have been his idea if nothing more
was intended than the validity of marriage.
But he fays more ; the unbeliever has been ( from
the moment of the partner's converfion to
chriftianity) or, by an ennalage of time, //,
made holy or fandlified by the believer, in vir-
tue of a divine grant, which divine grant is
much in favour of infants. The grant of the
parent's covenant and its feals being aiways
intended for thera and their children, according
to their capacity, be it known, as if Paul had
faid. That tho' God hath been difpleafed with
mixed marriages, and tho' he ftill fays, " Be
not unequally yoked with unbelievers," yet the
idolatry and unbelief, that is, the heathenifm,
of the one parent, ihall be no prejudice to
their children. They are not debarred from any
privileges given by divine grant to other chil-
dren both whofe parents are chriftians. The
faith, or chriftianity, of the one (hall avail more
-S to

386 Of the proper Ch. 3.

to infure thofe privileges, than the unbelief of
the other to prevent them.

This is a medium of proof calculated to fa-
tisfy their fcruples. To the pure, all things arc
pure; the unbelief of your partner (hall not
pafs over to you, as if you were involved in
his unbelief and guilt; or as if the precept
" touch not, tafte not, handle not," afFe£led
you. God will gracioufly deal with you and
your children without any reference to your
partner's unbelief. He (hall ftand or fall a-
lone ; his obftinacy ftiail be perfonal^ centering
in himfelf; but mercy herein rejoicing agninjl
judgment^ tlie promife is to youy chriftian party,
and to your children, tho' your partner op-
pofe. — Nature dictates that a father^ who is
king in his own family, (hould exercife his au-
thority to the benefit of all his domefticks;
but by a gracious exprefs appointment^ the chil-
dren common to both fliall be deemed boly^ on
account of the mother as well as the father,
fo as to be treated as if both parents believed.
The feed of mixed marriages were not deemed
holy^ Ezra ix. 2. Neh. ix. 2. it might be ob-
je^ed. True, fays the ApoiHe, and to anfwer
your fcruples I am authorifed to fay, That un-
der this difpenfation there is the difference I
have mentioned ; and let this quiet your minds.
Your continuance together, rather than thofe
you refer to, is owing to a fpeclul grant in their
favour, as more agreeable to this difpenfation.

God

Ch. 3. SubjeSts of BapUfm. 387

God does not now infift on a divorce as he did
heretofore, for wife reafons, and among others,
becaufe he defigns hereby more fpeedily ta
chriji'tanize all nations. For if the unbelief of
one party were fufficient to denominate and
regard their common offspring in the clafs of
heathens rather tb.an chriftians, how flow mufl:
be the progrefs of chriftianity ! but now, if one
believes in tlie Mefliah, all the family is chrif-
tian, and is treated accordingly. Otherwife,
were not this God's plan and our praftice, your
children and the whole family but yourfelfmufl
be deemed unclean^ or heathenijhy and vifibly
related to Satan's intereft. But as an unbeliev-
ing fon, daughter, or fervant, is not fufficient to
clafs the family of which either is a part among
heathen families, fo neither (hall the unbelief of
your partner, even a hufband, have that influ-
ence.

Again: If my opponent be right, " the epi-
thet tinbeUeving^ as BfizA well obferves, would
be quite fuperfluous, as alfo the implied epithet
believing; believing viifey znd believing hufband*."
S 2 " For

* ** la UKM-e, tt r*i yv*xiKt, Vulg Per mulierem rinKLiM,
" «» T») yvvecKi WISIJ : quam leftionem in Claromontano et alio
" pfaeterea manufcripto Grasco codice invenimus ; et nirfum paulo
•• poft t» ru av^fti) VKiU, per virum fidelem. — Aucustinuj L i.
** quo exponit fermonem in monte habitum, legit, Jn fntre fideliy
•' EH a^eX^a; tw irifw. Vetus autem interpreg habet, Ter mulh'
** rem fidtlenty et, per virum jiMem \ et nos in uno tetosto
'< coBict repetimus ad marginem annotatum frt^it priore loco.

38S 0/ the proper Ch. 3;

" For we fhould confider, what is the fubje6t
" matter in difputej namely, Whether matri-
" mony contraded between two perfons, one an
" infidel and the other a believer, is hdy, and
" for that caufe the believer is bound to con-
*' tinue in it ? Were it not fo, why fliould Paul,
** in the other member, add the epithet unbe-
" lieving P Nor can any one truly fay, that the
" marriage between two infidels is holy, and that
" their children are holy.-— I grant that the mar-
" riage of infidels is valid in a civil fenfe, nor
«* is their matrimonial commerce to be re-
** garded coram Deo pro Jcortatione. But what
" has this to do with Paul's defign, who treats
«* of a cafe of confcience, or a religious fcru-
** plef?" The unbelieving hufband i^ fan6i;ified
by the believing wife, and vice verja. Whereas,
if Mr. B.'s hypothefis be true, the fanSfification
was neither by nor to the believer, as a believer^
but was pofTefled of it while an infidel. But if
the fan£fiJication does not refpeft the party as
believing, it feems inferted for no other ufe than
to miflead us. If the apoftle only meant fim-
ply, " you have been married,'* or, " you have
been devoted to each other by marriage," why
introduce and interchange the expreflions and
ideas—" the unbelieving hy the believing party?"

Mr.

«< et Trtiu) pofteriore* Claromontanus autetn codex habct, iv eit^ft
" echxipUf In fire /r'lre, id eft, qui fit frater five fideiis. Et
*' certe etiamfi haec epitbeta non addas, tamen mxczssario /uiatt^
** ditnda funt» Six a in he,

"t* Bbsa ut Jufra,

Ch. 3. Subjelis of Baptifm, 389

Mr. B. feems to be aware of this obje£tion,
and obferves : " The unbeliever only could en-
" tertain a doubt, concerning the lawfulnefs of
" cohabiting with an unbeHever." Very well;
but the queftion ftill returns, If the apoftle
meant, as our author would have it, That
the unconcerned party was married to tlie fcru-
pulous ; is it not reafonabie to fuppofe, that the
idea would be differently exprefled? Is it not
confefledly an unprecedented mode of exprefTing a
common idea ? Whereas, if he intended to fhew
^►. — that the chriftianity of the one party was
more prevalent, in virtue of the more merciful
and extenfive grant of God, and the genius of
the gofpel difpenfation, towards clafling the chil-
dren among the chriftians ; than the infidelity of
the other party towards the clafTmg them among
idolaters — what expreffions could he ufe better
adapted to exprefs the fentiment ?

Moreover : be it obferved, that the very ex-
iftence of the other opinion depends on ren-
dering the prepofition tr, to, which rendering
ought not to be adopted without manifeft necef-
fity, if on any confideration whatever, in that
fttife of tOy which denotes a dative cafe. It
is well known that the moft common accep- \
tatlons of £► are /«, by^ among, with, and fome- '^
times it is ufed for, becaufe of for^ or for
the Jake of, by reafon of-, and the likel|." EN
S 3 imports

H '*E» Ti) yVKXxi, by the -wife, Uxtris gratia, because ok the
" wife j i, e. he is to be reputed as fan£tifiedf becaufe he is one

" flefli

390 Of the proper Ch. 3.

" imports ihtjiate and difpojition^ the abode and
^^ fituation \ habit urn et fttum^'hys Vergara;
" correfponding to the Latin in*" And " it
commcniy marks the term of reft, or the ftate
ia which a thing is ; wherefore it only governs
an ablative \." But what has Mr. B. to fay
in vindication of his rendering ? " The unbe-
" lieving hulLand is fanStified to the wife.—
" So Dr. Doddridge and others render the par-
" tide (»; and I think more properly in this
** paffage than in our common verfion. So the
" prepofition is tranilated in the very next verfe j
" as alfo in Luke i. 17. i ThelT. iv. 7. and fix
" or feven times over in 2 Pet. i. 5, 6, 7 J."
But why is the rendering to^ more proper in this
palTage than in our common verfion ? This
anfwer we have flill to learn. We hear a lan-
guage fomewhat different whenever it is found
in conneclion with water^ ai^d efpecially a
river. Thus, we may be fure, were we to
meet witli «»- irolxixv, in conne6i:ion with bap-
tifm, it would be in, and not at or by the
river. However, let us a little more narrowly

infpeft

*' fle/h with her who it holy. So Tfraet ferved t* yvvonxi, for
•' a "wife, and, en yvMcuat, for a vife he kept flieep, Hof. xii. iz*
** t defire that you faint not, tv T«tf 6Xl\J/eff-» ^«, BY REASON or
** my tribulations, Eph. jii. 13, and, th:it no man be Jhaken av t«»{
«* 6x»4'£0'* ruvlctn;, BY KSASON or n:y tribulations. See Naldiui
«* in the 23d figmfication of the particle Btth," Whitby in lot,

* Mrjpeuri Dk Port Royal's New Method, p. 195.

f Ibid. p. 334. aad their Greek Primitives, by Nugent, p. 297,

X PieJob. Exam, p. 395.

*5::

Ch. 3. SuhjeSis of Bapufin» 39 1

infpedl the authorities produced, and I am very
much miftaken if any one of thefe inftances an-
fwer the purpofe for which they are adduced :
for if they do not anfwer the idea of a dative^
which implies that fomething is given to the
objedV, they are ufelefs. And I believe the beft
Criticks and mailers of the Greek language
unanimoufly maintain, that the prepofition e*
never conveys that idea§.'* The dative cafe is
fo called, " quia per eum alicui aliquid nos
" dare demonftramus f ." This the particle in
queftion never lignifies, any more tlian the latin
in\ and yet without that ufe of it Mr. B.'s
interpretation is a bafelefs fabrick.

We are referred to " the very next verfe"

following tlie controverted text (i Cor. vii. 15.)

God hath culled uSy tv tifr^vtif TO peace^ according

to our verfion; whereas Dr. Hammond juftly

S 4 obferves,

§ ** Ey rn yvvsmi, hj or tbro* the wife. This the prepofition,
" »», fo ordinarily fignifie!:, that it cannot need to be further tcflified
" (and in th's notion it is, that we here take it)j whereas the
" notion, which by oppofers is here afiixt to it, that it fliould
** fjgnify to (that to, which is a fign of the dati've cafe)— i«
" never once found to belong to it in the New Te(l<rnentj nor
*' can with any tolerable c*ngruity or grtmmatical anaLg\, be affix t
" to it- All the places that are produced for this ftnfe are com-
•« monly miftaken — And lo fliil the tendering it to the ivife [in
" the dative feme J will be without any one example, and the
•* turning it into quite another phrafe, as if it were yvyotiKi with-
•* out »> J which 10 rio without any tiect/fity or re^fon, favc only
" — to ferve tUe oppofer's turn upon the place, and fupport hi»
'• falfe opinion, niuft needs be *cry unieafonablt," Ham-
MOKfi's Six Quer. Q;_ a. iv. § 32*

■J- LiTTLtTON, fub Toce dalivut.

392 Of the proper Ch. 3.

obferves, " It is not to as the note of a dative
*' cafe, but unto peace^ as iv is taken for t^t."
Again we are referred to Luke i. Vj, To turn
"-the difobedient to the wifdom of the juji. But
ihis is by no means the fign of a dative.
There is nothing given to wifdom. " Elsner
would render it, as Dr. Doddridge obferves,
By the wifdom cf the jufi*" And thus Sir
Norton Knatchbull : " Et infideles inflruat
in fppitntia jufiorum^.'^ And fo other literal
verfions ; " In prudentiam juflorum^.'^ " Ad
fcientiam re£iorum%\.''* "Ad fcientiam jujio-
rumXX'^* "Ad prudentiam juforu?n**.'* " Jd
inteliigeniiam }iflorum\\^' hc» In like manner,
I Theff. iv. 7. For God hath not called us
unto (nr») uncleannefs, but i\i ayiao-^w, unto z^^-
linefs. That is, in the phrafe of Dr. Dod-
dridge, "to the love and pratJ^ice of univerfal
holinefs." But what has this to do with giving
to a recipient? As to 2 Pet. i. 5, 6, 7. it
feenjs ftill lefs to his purpofe. Add to your faith
virtue^ and to virtue knowledge^ &c. f7rt;^ofr7*!craTs
ti Tu 7ri;« l^uv rr,» ei.fr%y, f» ^s t»j etprilr? T»i» ynucn*,

&c. i. e. bring forward, with your faith, virtue,
and, u-'ith virtue, knowledge. " The word iTr*-
*' x^p*'y^'<^dit properly fignifies to lead up, as in
" a dance, one of thefe virtues after another in
<* a beautiful and majeftic order f." " Refpexifle

*' videtur

J Dt« Hammond bt fifra, • Fam. Expof. »« loct JH Anj-

madver, /■« Itc. § Montan. §§ Syk. Interfbet.

J{ /has. I^TI«PR^T, ••Vu!g. |H| iCTHIOF, IwTEarRET%

f DopDR. Fam, Expof, in Ice,

Gh. 3. SuhjeSJs of Baptifm, 3^3

" videtur Apoftolus ad antiquum morem , ducendi
" choros ; vox enim svixofvy^* proprie fignificat
** chorum duceref.'* Accordingly the fame Au-
thor renders the pafTage, " Jungite invicem cum
" fide virtutem, curh virtute fcientiam, &c." I
repeat the queftion, What has this to do with
giving to a recipient? Or what fimilarity has
it to Mr. B.'s dative fenfe?— Who knows not
that the article to has various acceptations, be-
fide what Mr. B. would force upon it ? For
inftance, we fay, appointing to an office, going to
a place, calling to enjoy, turning to wifdom, &c.
yet fuch an acceptation of the particle to will
not ferve him.

Nor will Dr. Doddridge's verfion anfwer
his purpofe in fenfe, tlio' in found. For tho*
he renders »!7»ajai u fanSIiJied to, yet the particle
has not the dative fignification. He evidently
gives the original particle the acceptation of the
Greek §»? or Latin /«, fignifying towards, in
refpeci of, for, &c. It is but fair the Dodlor
fliould explain himfelf : " Fbr in fuch a cafe as
" this, the unbelieving hufhand is fo fanSfifed to
" the wife [in uxoremj, and the unbelieving wife
** is {o fan£lifed to the hujband [in maritem], that
*' their matrimonial converfe is as lawful as if

** THEY WERE BOTH OF THE SAME FAITH."

" Otherwife their children in thefe mixed cafes
*' were umlea", and muft be looked upon, as
" unfit to be admitted to thofe peculiar ordi-
" nanceSj by which the feed of God's people
'* are dilUnguifhcd j but now they are confelfedly
S 5 « holy

f Sir NoKTCN Knatchbvll, Mt JaprMt

39+ Of the proper Ch. 3.

*' holy^ and are as readily admitted to baptifm
** in all our churches, as if both the parents
" were chriftians : So that the cafe you fee,
" is in effed decided by this prevailing prac-
" tice*." In a note the Dodlor oppofes the
idea of legitimacy ; by (hewing " that the argu-
ment will by no means bear it." But is it
not furprizing that perfons of difcemment, that
Mr. Booth in particular, fhould fuppofe this
rendering, fan^l'ified to, gives the leaft counte-
nance to his dative notion ? Is this any thing
better than a play upon the various acceptations
of an englifh particle? Is it not taking, or at-
tempting to take, an advantage of found againft
fenfe ? And is it not ftill more furprizing that
Dr. S. Ihould exprefs himfelf thus : *' Indeed
" Dr. Doddridge, to whofe character for learn -
" ing, candour, and piety I pay great deference,
" has fo exprefl'ed himfelf in his paraphrafe on
" this paflage, as very naturally to convey this
" idea [of legitimacy], tho' in his note he op-
** pofes the fentiment. How to reconcile him
•* with himfelf I am at a lofst." — ^T*^ para^
phrafe very naturally conveys this idea. And I
am quite at a lofs to know, by what medium
the Dr. views it. Whereas it appears to mc
•* very natmally to convey the contrary idea."
Does it not evidently refolve the laufulnefs of
matrimonial conveife, in fuch a mixed cafe, to
a divine grant, declaration and appointment, that
is, to the party's being fo fanfiifeti^ in virtue of

a gra-
* Fam, Exp of. in loc% -f Anfwer to Dr, A. p. 83.

Ch. 3. SubjeSii of Baptijm, 395

a gracious privilege conferred under the gofpel,
as if they were both of the SAME FAITH? And
does not this clearly imply, that what fanSlified
the unbeliever was (not his giving himfelf to
the other in marriage, but) God's favourable
appointment in fuch a cafe? Had they been of
the fame faithy no fcruple could have exifted ; the
PRIVILEGE therefore confifts in the oppofing
party's being fo fan£iified for the ufe of the
other, as if both believed alike j otherwife, their
having " mutually given up^ or Jet apart them-
felves one to another," would have been no
fecurity againft a divorce^ which was the point
in queftion, if the Lord were equally ftricSl a-
gainft infidel and idolatrous connections under
the prefcnt, as he was under the preceding
OEConomy (Deut. vii. 3, 4, &c.) : and the pri-
vilege moreover is exprefsly extended to the
children-^ which would have been reckoned (ac-
cording to Ezra ix. 2. Nehem. ix. 2.) not
among the relatively holy feed, in fuch a mixed
cafe. Such a grant of fpecial privileges, there-
fore, the text and the paraphrafe imply j and
nothing Jhort of this could tend to fatisfy the
fcrupuloiis querift.

But tho' Dr. Doddridge appears to me
perfeiStiy confident with himfelf, while he oppofes
the idea of legitimacy -y yet I cannot help think-
ing but he is more relerved than he had need
to be, if he had meant to confine the fanSiifica-
tion to the matrimonial converfe. For, tho' we
S 6 ftiould

39^ Of the proper Ch. 3.

fhould allow that the fanUtficatim of the un-
believing partner and of the children is the fmne ;
and that the terms fan^ified and holy imply a
qualification, as far as a divine grant can quali-
fy, or a declarative permiflion and liberty, ** to
partake of the diftinguiflning rites of God's peo-
ple j" yet, as before fliewn, the oppofer of the
gofpel ihould not be forced^ for violent meafures
are no weapons of the gofpel, and fhould not
be employed in its propagation, or in adminifter-
ing its initiatory feal. To which we may add,
that fuch an oppofing infidel or idolater, being
an avowed enemy to the head of the church,
does not pofTefs a fubjcdive fultablenefs to enter
upon a vifible relation to him and his fubjedts.
He may, therefore, pofTefs a rights in virtue of
his relative fandification or holinefs, a right
founded on a divine grant, and yet no minifler
has a right, or lawful authority, to impofe up*
on him what he rejedls, however beneficial it
might be to him if accepted. But this is only
a circumjiance, that takes its rife folely in
adults from the perverfe exercife of human li.
berty, the facred rights of confcience in religi-
ous matters, and a fubjedive unfuitablenefs to
anfwer the defign of the ordinance. The fanc^
tified unbeliever is entitled to the covenant and its
feal, unconditionally; which title he derives, in-
dependent ©f his choice, from his relation to his
chriflian partner, and as the Gift of God:
but the adual application of the external pri-
vilege miniflerially, is fufpended on a conditiony

viz.

Ch. 3. Subje£is of Baptifm. 2^^

viz. his accepting of it in a manner fuitable to
his condition and circumftances.— On the con-
trary, fuppofing the children to be holy only in
the fame fenfe, ftill the rule holds, that infant ones
ought to be baptized ; becaufe they are capable
fubje(Ss, and have not forfeited the grant, nor
failed in any condition required of them.

It may not be improper to remark, that,
notwithftanding we have, for argument' fake,
admitted Mr. B.'s idea of famenefs in having
been fan^ified and being holy^ there feems to be
a difference : As if the Apoftle intended to (hew,
that the unbelieving partner was fan<5lified, not
merely for his own fake, but as alfo having a
further influence on the children, and without
which they would have been unclean. The in-
fluence of the unbelief and heathenifm of the
one party, as if he had faid, is annihilated, by
the counter influence of the other party's faith
or chriftianity, with rerpe<5l to their offspring.
The faith of the one party, by the merciful
tenour of the gofpel difpenfation, is more eflSca-
cious towards clalfing the children among the
chriftians, than the unbelief of the other towards
clafling them among heathens. The unbeliever is
fanSlified^ i. e. his profefled unbelief is overpowered
by the profejpd holinefs of the other, in reference to
their refpective influence upon their children, which
were to be ranked either among heathens or chrif-
tians. But as to the children^ their holinels ap-
pears in ftronger and more expreffive terms, allud-
ing, it (hould feem, to a well known/<7Ji' that they

were

39^ ^f the proper Ch. 3,

were treated as holy ; were deemed members of the
chriftiaii church, and made partakers of its pri-
vileges according to their capacity, (ewi* apa,)
Otherwife were your children unclean, ( w» h )
hut now are they holy. *' Nam particula vvv hoc
** in loco, fays Beza, non eft temporis ad\^er-
" bium, fed eft conjun6tio quae adhiberi folet in
*' argumentorum aflumptionibus, ut alibi oftendi-
" mus*." Therefore the phra(e vvv h uyM iri*, is
tantamount to, " fa>idii funt autem."

Thus we fee that the interpretation for which
Mr. B. contends, is in every view indefenfible.
It directly tends to make the apoftle Paul, with
all his fupcrior abilities and fupernatural endow-
ments,— an unlkiiful cafuift, a very abftrufe, if
not an inconclufive, reafoner, and a blunderer

in

• Annot. in foe— The following expofition of this part of the text,
and the refleflions, by a mafterly critick, are worthy of initrtion
here. — " Ette* if a — ^.'iofuit! [n;fi parentum alteruter eflet fidelis J
*• Jiteri -vejhi ejftnt immutdi, i. c, mane rent Ethnici ; niv ae, nunc
*' -vero [quoniam parenturo alter eft fideh's,! nyM i5»»-» fonfii
•* Junt, i. e. reputantur meinbra Ecckfise Chriftianse. Et in hac
*• notione credo Apoftolum faep'us ufurpare vocpm ay^^i;, "t in
" initio hujus epiftulje, &c Ei-Clefia enim et fanfli funt fspius apud
«• Apofto um Synoijyma, ut apparet etiam alibi, maniteft flime vero
" % Cor, i I, &c. — Noil quod omr.es, qui eflent in Eitlefia Coririthi
«• vrl tphefi, eiaEtreveia farfli, fed quia mpirbra frant vifibilia eccle-
" £«, Jdeo vocabantur foncii, te ob com caufam iiberi eorum ex alte-
*' rutro parente fideJt, qui fuit vicatus (anftus, partcipes fafti
" funt BPTisMi, qu. modo filius r fel\ta; Ud^us eft particept
** c'namc fionis, etiam infan? cftiduanuf. Et /I liberi eoruT qui
" viicantur janBi, cum fint ttiam i^fi Javliiy non capacfs fint
" bai,t.i'jr.!, 'n quo praecellurt fan£}i inninunrif ? q-id inde hakent
*' commodi, eo qund v^cenrur vel reputecturyitai-r;/" Aiumadv, M
Iqc. a NoKTo^o (Cnatchbull.

Ch. 3. SuhjeSls of Baptifm. jgo

in the language in which he wrote. Whereas
ours regards him, as indeed he was, a fkilful
cafuift, a mafterly reafoner, and a good writer.

But we muft not quit this fubjedl without
attending for a few moments to Dr. S.'s com-
promifmg plan. Having difcarded the intention of
perfonal internal holinefs, legitimacy, &c. from the
text, he obferves: " If Mr. A. will but give
** up his general propofition [that the children of
" pious parents are included with them in the
" chriftian covenant] in thofe exceptionable kn~
*' fes of it to which I have all along objected
" we fhall perhaps be able to compromife the
" matter upon this text without much diffi-
" culty. I agree then, that there is a i^n{t in
" which every good man may be faid to sanc-
" TIFY hii wife and his children. He devotes
" them by faith and prayer to God, he fepa-
" ratei them, as far as his influence reaches,
" to the fear and fervice of heaven. — Thus
" Job is faid to have fan^tified his children, ch.
** i. 5:^." But inftead of compromiftng the mat-
ter, the Dr. feems to me to give up the point.
And one would think he is apprehenfive of it
himfelf J for, after having endeavoured to fup-
port his notion by a full paraphrafe, he obferves :
*' This paraphrafe may perhaps not fatisfy, nor
" do 1 lay any great flrefs upon it* " But
feeing this notion is hardly expected to give fa-
tisfaction, he flies to the dernier refort of Anti-
pcedobaptifls, I mean, their peculiar notion about

pofttive
J Ai)f. tc Dr. A. p. 87. • Ut Jufra, p, 89.

400 Of the proper Ch. 3.

pofttlve injVttuilons : " Could it be proved that
" the children of chriftian parents are included
" with them in the chriflian covenant, and on
" that account holy : it would not follow that
" therefore they fhould be baptized : their right
** to baptifm mufl depend, and depend alone,
** upon the diredt exprefs command of the In-
" ftitutor; for it is ahjurd to talk of analogy
" and confequence in the matter of pofitive in-
" ftitutionf." And yet this fort is untenable;
yes, I am bold to affirm, it is a vain and ufe-
lefs refuge in the prefent caufe. (See Chap, i.)
If the reafoning contained in the preceding
pages be juft, I fay it again, " Inftead of com-
promifing the matter, the point is given up.'*
For, if every good man, as prieft in his own
houfe, may sanctify his wife and children^
may devote them by faith and prayer to God,
and SEPARATE them to the fear and fervice
of heaven ; if thofe who are thus treated may
be termed holy^ and are fo termed by the apof-
tle, as the Dr. fuppofes — the very nature of the
cafe fhews, that the holinefs fpoken of is rela-
tive ; and the nature and defign of chriftian
baptifm ihew, that he may with equal propriety,
fet apart all of them, as his, for that ordi-
nance; and it appears from what has been faid,
that none in fuch a family fhould be left un-
baptized, except thofe who rejef^ the counfel of
God, or are manifcf.ly dijafedted to the chrif-
tian church and its divine i-oundcr,

§ 55. From

Ch. 3. Suhjeffs of Baptifm* 401

§ 55. From what has been faid in this chapter
we may draw the following obvious corollaries.

1. Coroll. Thofe principles whereby infant chil-
dren are debarred from their parents' privileges,
from a vifible ftanding in the church of Chrift,
and particularly from baptifm, which is itfelf a
privilege, and the only introdu(51:ory rite to
that viable llarding among God's people, are
unreajonable^ unfcriptural-^ and highly uncharita-
ble,

(l) XJnreafonahle — becaufe " infants are capa-
ble of the OBLIGATIONS of baptifm J for the
obligation arifeth from the equity of the things
not from the underftanding and capacity of the
perfon*." And " if we confider baptifm as an
ordinance of dedication — it is the indifpenfible
duty of believers to devote themfelves, and all
they have, to God j which is founded in the law
of nature^ and is the refult of God's right to
us and ours." And if it be objeded : " Since
infants cannot devote themfelves to God in this
ordinance, therefore it is not to be applied to
them ; to this it may be replied. That as there
is no other medium which can be made ufe of
to prove that the folemn aft of confecration,
or dedication to God in baptifm, is to be
made only by ourfelves, tut what is taken from
a fuppofition of the matter in controverfy, by
thofe who aflert that infants are not to be
baptized: fo if this method of reafoning be al-
lowed of, we might as well fay, on the other

hand
* Pooix't AcROti on M>tt. uviii. 19.

402 Of the proper Ch. 3.

hand ; Infants are to be baptized ; therefore bap-
tifm is not an ordinance of felf dedication, fincc
they cannot devote themfelves to God j and that
would militate againft what is allowed of by all,
that baptifm, when applied to the adult, is an ordi-
nance of felf-dedication. — V/hen I do, as it were,
pafs over my right to another, there is nothing
required in order hereunto, but that 1 can law-
fully do it, confidering it as my property ; and
this is no lefs to be doubted concerning the
infant feed of believers than I can queftion, whe-
ther an adult perfon has a right to himfeif ^\\tx\ he
gives up himfelf to God in this ordinance. —
And from hence it may be inferred — that in-
fants defending from parents, either both, or
but one of them profefling faith in Chrift, are
to be baptized : fmce 07ie parent has as much a
right to the child as the other*" To thefe re-
flections of the judicious Dr. Ridgley, I will
add the following from the juftly celebrated Dr.
Owen; " All children in their infancy are
reckoned unto the covenant of their parents, by
virtue of the law of their creation. — Thofe who
by God's appointment, and by virtue of the
law of their creation, are and mufi of necejfity be
included in the covenant of their parents, have
the fame right with them unto the privileges of
that covenant, no exprefs exception being put in
againft them. This right it is in the power of
none to deprive them of, unUf they can change

the

* JliDG lev's Body of Div. vol. ii. p. 408, 409»

Ch. 3. Subje£li of Baptifm. 403

the law of tb.'ir creation ^.^ To attempt which,
it is hardly neceflary to remark, that it is fuffi^
ciently unreapnable.

(2) Unfcripturai In addition to what has
been faid on the various difpenfations of the co-
venant of grace, or the grant of mercy to menj
the declarations of prophecy ; and the records of
the New Teibinent j let the following remarks
from the author lart referred to, be impartially
weighed. " Believers under the New Teftament,
have loft nothing, no privilege that was enjoyed
by them uncJer the old. Many things they have
gained, and thofe of unfpeakable excellency, but
they have loft nothing at all. Whatever they
had of privilege in any ordinance, that is conti-
nued i and whatever was of burden or bon-
dage, that is taken away: all that they had of
eld was on this account, that they were the
people 0^' G:d. — Into this great fountain privilege
belivvers under the gofpel have now fucceeded.—
This 1 fuppofe is unqueftionable ; that God
making them to be his people who were not a.
people, would not cut them fhort of any privilege
which belonged before to his people as fuch. —
Let men but give one injlance to this purpofe,
and not beg the matter in queftion, and it fliall
fuffice. — And is it poflible that any man fhould
be a lofer by the coming of Chr't/l, or by his
own coming unto Chrift? It is againft the whole
gofpel once to imagine it in the leaft inftance.
Let it now be inquired, whether it were not a

great

t Traft of Inf, Bapt. ap. Colleft. of Scrzn. p. 577.

404 ^f i^e proper Ch. 3*

great privilege of the people of God of old, that
their infant feed were taken into covenant with
them, and were made partakers of the initial
feal thereof? Doubtlefs it was the greateft they
enjoyed, next to the grace they received for the
faving of their own fouls. — Without this, what-
ever they were, they were not a people. Believ-
ers * under the gofpel are, as we have fpoken, the
people of God; and that with all forts of advan-
tages annexed unto that condition, above what
were enjoyed by them who of old were fo.
How is it then that this people of Gcd^ made fo
by Jefus Chrift in the gofpel, {hould have their
charter upon its rennval razed with a depriva-*
tlon of one of their choiceft rights and privi-
leges? Afiuredlyit is not fo. And therefore, if
believers are now, as the apofUe fays they are,
the people of God ( Heb. iv. 9. ) their children
have a right to the initial feal of the covenant f.'*
(3) Uncharitable, Is it not uncharitable (to
fay nothing worfe) to conclude, that all the
infants in the chriftian world are as unqualified
for a vifible rnemberlhip in the church of God,
as the moft hardened infidel? Nay, much fur-
ther from the gofpel kingdom j fince the lattef
may come to be a member in a few days, while
the former w;//?, on this plan, be fiiut out for
years} and this exclufion muft continue for ever,

if

♦ Understand by Belie^'ers and the people cf Cod, Chsis-
TiANs; that is, thofe who are fuch by denomination 'y which re-
>i:ai:ks are ftill more forcible with refpeft to the truly pious*

•f- Pr, Ovv KN, On the Hebr, vol. ii. p. %^6.

Ch. 3r SubjeSis of Baptljm. ^5

if the party do not fubmit to fuch terms of com-
munion, as nine godly perfons out of ten judge
and fincerely believe are unreafonable and unfcrip-
turaly viz. a renunciation of the baptifm and
church-memberftiip of infants, and of every
mode of receiving and adminiftering the ordi-
nance, except a total immerfion of the body.
Our opponents, indeed, extend their charity as
far as we could wi(h, to dying infants, while
they are fo fparing of it to the living. The
dying are numbered with the faints^ the living,
as to church relation and privileges, are clafled
vrith infidels. And is it not ftrange to aftonifli-
^»mcnt, that the excellency and fpirituality of the
gofpel difpenfation ftiould be confidered as an
argument by men of fenfe, for excluding infants
from a vifible relation to Chrift and his people!
But if this be a juft plea of exclufion, why fo
freely allow the;n a {landing in a ftate far more
excellent and fpiritual f How can thefe things
hang together? Does it not involve an abfur-
dity, as well as uncharitablenefs, to fay, that a
perfon may be very well admitted to heaven,
without believing and repenting, but not to be
a member of the vifible church ? The church, it
is allowed, is the common nurfery from whence
paradife is planted ; and yet infants muft not be
taken into this nurfery, but heaven muft have
them from the wild wafte! — Dr. John Owen
was a man whom no modcft perfon would
venture to pronounce either a fhallow divine or-
a fuperficial reafoner; he was a perfon much
converfant with the controverfial parts of divi-
nity

4o6 Of the proper Ch. 3.

nity, eminently verfed in the rationale of the
divine difpenfations, well acquainted with the
nature of pofitive inftitutions in general; and
the fubjecls and mode of baptifm in particular,
pofTefled a fliare of his inveftigations. Thus
qualified to inftru£t us, let us hear his words :
*' Why is it the will of God, that unbeliever i
" and impenitent fmners (hould not be baptized?
" It is becaufe, not granting them the grace, he
" will not grant them the Jign. If therefore
" God denies the fgn to the infant feed of be-
" lievers, it mull be becaufe he denies them the
** grace of it ; and then all the children of be-
" lieving parents, dying in their infancy, muft
" without hope be eternally damned. I do not
" fay, that all muft be fo, who are not baptized;
" but all mufi be fo whom God would have
" NOT BAPTIZED*." Infants being not natU'
rally incapable of baptifm, as before fliewn, any
more than of circumcifion, and fcripture evidence
affording no exprefs exception againft them, but
on the contrary contains much in their favour
as members of the chriftian church, and their
right to baptifm, may we not afk, if Dr. Owen's
reafoning be juft (and we may fafely challenge
the whole corps of Antipoedobaptifts to refute it)
muft not our denying baptifm to our infant chil-
dren be a conduit towards them highly uncha^
ritable, as well as unfcriptural and unreafonable ?
We impeach not the tendernefs and affedlion
of our brethren to their children in other re-
fpe£ts, and readily fuppofe that there is a fenfe

in

* Dr. OwiM of Inf. Bapt. utfufta.

Ch. 3. SuhjeSIs of Baptifm. 407

in which every good man among them " devotes
them (as Dr. Stennett exprefles it) by faith
[ tho' in this refpe<Sl weak ] and prayer to God
— feparates them as far a? his influence reaches
[except in the cafe of church-member(hip and bap-
tifm] to the fear and fervice of heaven, and
they derive from their connection with him fuch
external advantages of a religious kind [tho*
in an irregular way, if it be irregular to fepa-
rate what God hath joined, the charter and the
fealf and to tear away the ftamp and fignature
of the only charter whereby they enjoy thofe
external advantages ] as often prove the happy
means of their converfion and falvation f." The
uncharltahUnefs we are fpeaking of confifts, not
in reftraining prayer before God for them, or in
neglecting moral parental duties (except what
arifes naiurally and iieceflarily from their dilUn-
guifhing tenet ) ; but in adding the part of the
difciples over agam, who forbad infants and chil-
dren to be brought to Chrift in all the external
xvayi they are capable of being brought.

2, CorolL From what has been faid it may
evidently appear, what that church memberjhlp is
which we claim for infants, and what thofe dif-
ferent relations are in which they (land to Chrift
and his peopie before and after baptifm. The
term itfelf, church-memherjhip^ being expreflive of
relation and comparifon, admits of different de-
grees-^ fo that the fame perfon may be a church-
member in one fenfe, but not in another. The
gofpel church is a feled body of people of which

Chrift

f Anf, to Dr. A. p. 87.

4o8 Of the proper Ch. 3.

Chrift is the head, and each perfon of which it
is compofed is a member. But this body may
be fele^ in a mamier lefs or more ftri6l; and
confequently the relation of the members to tlie
head and to eacli other mufl be proportionally
remote or intimate. Accordingly we may ob»
ferve,

( 1 ) That perfons are often called church"
members in this controverfy, when they are (o
only de jure^ or quoad dehitum. And in this
fenfe we regard all adults before baptifm, who
neverthelefs may be lawfully baptized. The in-
fant children of profeffing chriftians, thofe of
o^r opponents not excepted, we alfo regard as
chtuch-members in the fame fenfe, tho' not
baptized. And we cannot but confider this cir-
cumftance with pleafure and gratitude, on behalf
of children, that there is one degree of church-
memberftiip, that which is quoad dehitum^ which
it is out of the power of men to deprive them
of. The propriety of their being denominated
members of the church, antecedent to their being
minifterially recognized fuch, arifes hence. That
they actually poITefs the qualifications of mem-
bers, and therefore are Jo in the divine ejiimation^
and ought to be fo in ours, tho', quoad eventum,
they may never be baptized, thro' the miftakes
and faults of others. This relation to Chrift is
appointed and determined by himfelf, and ftands
abfolutely independent on the will of others.

( 2 ) Persons are called church*members in a
JlriSler fenfe, when they have . been regularly ad-
mitted

Ch. 3. SiihjeSls of Baptifm. 40J

mitted by baptifm, the ordinance of admifTion,
into the number of thofe who are profefled
chrijiians^ in contradiftiniSlion to Jews, Heathens,
&c. And it is evident from the nature of the
cafe, that this degree of memberfhip depends 011
the will and miniflry of man, quoad eventum.
The right of memberfhip, being a divine gift,
muft needs be abfolute\ but the publick avowal
and recognition of that right by an ordinance
inftituted for that purpofe, muft n6eds depend on
the judgment, volition, and agency of men. If
any abufe this difcretionary truft, they are ac-
countable to the Judge of allj neverthelefs, with'
regard to the validity of mmijierial a6ls, in ad-
mitting perfons into this memberfhip, or (hutting
them out, we may fay, that what is bound
on earth is bound in heaven, and what is
loofed on earth is loofed in heaven. There-
fore, the firft relation is to be fought from the
determination of God, but the laft from the
determination of man. And then alone is the
latter right, when it coincides with, and is ex-
preflive of, the former. And in reference to
baptifm we may fay, it belongs to the firft, but
makes the fecond.

( 3 ) Again : Perfons are called church-mem-
hers in the Jlri£iejl fenfe, when they have con-
fented to aflbciate together for divine worftiip '
and chriftian fellowftiip, for promoting their
mutual edification, the converfion of fouls, &c.
But fuch a body is not, ftridtly fpeaking, the
ihurch of Chrift, but a part of it. Chrift has
T but

410 Of ihe proper Ch. J.

but one body, the church, myftically; and but
ene^ vifibly ; and as to congregational churches,
fo called, they are but colledive parts of that
one viable church. Or if we borrow an illuf-
fration from the ftarry heaven, we may fay,
That a particular church is a conjiellation o£
ftars, which makes but a fmall part of the ge-
neral catalogue.

But wh^t particularly deferves our notice ia,
That the J/)JI relation entitles to baptifm ; that
the feco fid relation fuppofes the application of bap-
tifm s and the third alone is what infants and
young children are to be debarred from. And
this exclufion is no arbitrary proceeding, but re-
fults from the very nature and defign of fuch a
ibciety. The only po/itive qualification requifite
for this lal^ memberfliip, is, that a perfon be
baptized; and in that refpetSt every baptized per-
fon may be faid to have a legal right to it.
But again, feeing the nature and defign of fuch a
fociety, as may be gathered from nature and reve-
lation, does not camprehend infants and children,
and adults -evidently < difqualiiied by error and
wickednefs ; the one not pofTeffing natural, the
other not moral qualifications; the not admit-
ting baptized infants to the Lord's Supperj.
which is peculiar to church-members in this firift-
cfl fenfe, is founded, on the jufteft principles ;
for when laws and rights pofitive and moral in"
terfere^ the former muft yield to the latter.

If our opponents wilfully overlook thefc plain
and necefiary diftindions, it is no wonder, if

fo

Gh. 3*. Subje^S' of Baptljltu. 41 r

fo difpofed, that they fhould be able to repre-
fent the Poedobaptifts in an mconfiftent and ri-
diculous light : for Vs'hat armour is proof againft
fuch weapons ? At this rate, tjie facrccinefs and
dignity of truth itfelf are no defence. Mr. B»
having made fome remarks on the word " cove-
nant" as ufed by Mr. Matthew Henry (as-
if that term alfo had not various acceptations),
adds: " The condiid of Mr. Henry is quite
" fimilar, in regard to chiirch-nKmberJhip. For
" in one place he tells us, that baptifm is an
^" ordinance of Chrift, whereby the perfon bap-
" tized is folemnly admitted a member of the
" vifible church : yet in the fame treatife, he af~
" fures us, that baptifm is an ordinance of the
** vifible church, and pertains therefore to tliofe
" that ARE vifible me?nbers of the church. — Theix-
" covenant right and their church-memberjhip^ in-
" titleth them to baptifm — Baptifm doth not
" give the title, but recognize it, and corapleat
" that church-raemberfhip which before was im-
" perfect f." But does this pafiage deferve all
the ridicule Mr. B. afFedls to treat it. with ?
Is there any thing here deferving of " the far-
caftic reflection of a profane poetr" Mr, B.'s-
ironies in the prefent cafe, afFe£l — not Mr. Hen-
ry's caufe, nor the fentiments here advanced,
but — the defeat of language, or at mod an omif^
fion in defining terms and making diftindions,
to prevent the cavils of thofe who feek occa-

fion.

"f Padob. Exam. p. 32a, and Mr. Henry^ Treati'c on Baptifm,
p. 25, 66, J07,

412^ Of the proper SubjeSfs of Baptifm. Ch. 3.

fion. — HaviPxg examined as propofed, Who are
the proper Subje^s of baptifm ; particularly, whe-
ther it is the WILL of Christ that the in-
fants ot believing or chriftian parents fhould
be baptized ? we proceed tq confider next the
mode of adminiftering the ordinance.

End" of Vol, I.