^ PRINCETON, N. J. %

Presented by Mr Samuel Agnew of Philadelphia, Pa.

Agnciv Coll. on Baptism, No.

SCO

THE

PtEDObaptist mode

O F

ADMINISTERING

THE

BAPTISMAL ORDINANCE DEFENDED:

Wherein the Author profefles to confider, whether Dipping and Sprinkling y are not the two CONSTITUENT ACTS of Baptizing OH thc part of the Adminiftrator.

By W I L L I A M 'M I L L E R*.

Search the Scriptures. John v. 30.

// Infants be folemnly Jprinkled by divine Rights it mujl he the indifpenjabk Duty of Pcedobaptijls to contend for. it.

Booth,

Amicus Socrates, Amicus Plato, fed major arnica Veritas.

HIGH nrCOMBE: .

PR: NTED FOR THE AUTHOR, BY S. CAVE. OLD BY PRIESTLEY, (lATE TRAPp) PATER- ;OST£R-RO\y ; S. MATTHEWS, NO. l8, STRAND; '.NO r.Y T. CHAPMAN, F L E £T- ST R E E T, LONDON.

1794.

s^

ae«d&.

ADVERTISEMENT.

X HE Author respectfully thanks thost

whose Names appear on the succeeding List, as Subscribers to this Work. It is hoped they zuill excuse his advancing the Price of it,

^ fro77i Eighteen Pence, as mentioned in the Proposal, to TWO SHILLINGS; because the former, through a mistake, would

r fall very short of discharging the Expenses attending the Publication*

fi=3" It cannot be sold at the Booksellers, under TWO SHILLINGS AND SIXPENCE.

NAMES

J^JAMESOF SUBSCRIBERS, as received.

COPIES.

JVIR. Gomme, jun. Rev. John Geary, Rev. Mr. Rees, Thomas Shrimpton, Efq.' Mr, Carter, — —

Mr. Payne, — — Charles Ward, Efq. —

Jofeph Shrimpton, jun. Efq Mr. Goodwin, — -

Mrs. Goodwin, —

Mr. Goodwin, jun. — '

Mifs Goodwin, —

Mrs. Shrimpton, — Mr. Henry Allnutt,' — Mrs. Ailnutt, —

Mifs Ailnutt, —

Rev. William Rookcr, ^- Mifs Smith, —

Thomas Clarke, Elq. — Rev. John Murren, —

Mr. Blackweil, —

Mr. Ricketts, —

Mr. Dawfon, -- —

Rev. William Williams, B.

High-Wycombe, Beaconsfield. Rjfborough, High-Wycombe, *— Ditto,

Ditto, — Ditto, — Ditto,

— Wycombe- Marfli,

— Ditto,

— Ditto, — Ditto,

— High-Wycombe,

— Ditto,

— Ditto,

— Ditto,

— Goidhill,

— High-Wycombe,

— Ditto,

— — 1/hame,

— J^oud water,

— Great Mar low, High-Wycombe,

A. — Ditto.

Mr.

S U B S C R I B E R 1

Mr. John Carter, jun. — High-VVycombc, r

Mifs Carter, — — Ditto, t

Rev. Mr. Burder, — — London, r

Rev. Jofeph BrooklLank, Newington Green, i

Mifs Shrimpton, ~ — ■ Ditto, i

Mr. Caftleden, — — Hoxton, r

Mr. Richard Froft. Aldermanbury, London, r

Rev. Thomas Towle, B. D. Crjpplegate, Ditto, i

Rev. E. Gilbee, — -— Paragon, Southwark, i

Rev. William Wall, — — London, i

Rev. Thomas Tayler, — Stockvfcll, i Rev. John Pell, Refident-Tutor to the Academy

at Homerton, — — — 3

A{Ir. Gum, — — Hoxton, i

Mr. Morris, — — Ditto, i

Mr. Farfons, — — Ditto, i

Mr. Brickie, _ Ditto, i

Mr Thomas, Ditto, *i

Rev. George Vowell, (deceafed) r

Rev. Mr. Farfons, Leeds, Yorkfhire, 2

Rev. Robert Winter, Kenfington, 2

Rev. Mr. Jennings, Illington, i

Rev. John Clayton, ■ Ditto, i

Mr. Thomas Wilfon, Wood-Street, London, i

Rev. Jofeph Barber, Artillery-Court, Ditto, r

Mr. Robert Stevens, Thames-Street, Ditto, r

Mr. Jofeph Lomas, Ifiington, r

Mr. Henry Rutt, Fenchurch-Street, London, r

Mr. Joleph Wilfon, — Miik-Streot, Ditto, i

Mr. John Bates, ^ Wycorabe-Marfh, i

Mr. Samuel Lamb, ~ — Reading, i

ReVi

S U B S C R.I, B E R S.

■Rev. Thomas Noon, Mr. Edward Talford, Mr. John Wilrafhurd, Samuel Baddily, Efq. Rev. Mr. Price, — Mr. Green, * — Mr. Bell,

Reading,

-^-_ Ditto,

- Ditto,

- Suffolk, St. Gilc's-Charlfont,

High-Wycombe, Ditto, .

Rev. George Campbell Brodbelt, Recftor of Afton- Sandford, and Curat3 of Loudwater,

Rev. R. P. Alien, Rev. William Chaplin, Rev. William Evans,. Rev. Samuel Rooker, Mr. Hollovvay, Mr. Davis,

Stonehoufe,

■ Totnefs,

< Kingfbridge,

Taunton,

London,

• Loud water,

M. A. Walthamftovv,

M. A. Fellow of Wor-

' Oxford,

Rev. John Neal Lake, Rev. Thomas Bartlam,

cefter College, Rev. R. Lillington, A. 3. Vicar of Hampton,

Warwickfliire,

Mr. John \V:lliams, A.B. St. Mary's Hall, Oxford, Rev. James Price, A.M. Vicar of High-Wycombe,

Mr.	Thomas Saunders,		W	ycombe-Marfli,
Jofcp	h Shrimpton, Efq.			Ciapham,
Mifs	Davie,			Wrentbam,
Rev.	William Shepherd,			Ditto.
Rev.	John Cook,	—		Maidenhead,
Rev.	James Churchill,		—	Homerton,
Rev.	fcdward Williams,	D.	D.	Birmingham,	2
Rev.	John Winter,		—	Newbury,	I

S. A (lop was put to further Subfcriptions in con-^ fequence of the Alteration of the Price.

CONTENTS.

CHAPTER I. Ohfervatiom in favour of more Actions than one being intendedy on the part of the Admimjlralor^ by the Baptifmal Order,

Chap. II. On the Scriptural Signification of the Word "^AvTizE, taken in connexion with pofitive Law.

Chap, III. On the Meaning and life of certain Prepofiiions in this Controverfy.

Chap. IV. Containing an Examination of Paf- fages of Scripture where allu/io7ii to Immerfion of ike SubjcH arefu^pofcd.

Chap. V. Mifcellaneoiis Remarks refpediing the Mariner of fupporting the Immerfion of the Siibje& in Baptifm.

Chap. VI. On the Importance of the Baptifmal Ordinance,

INTRO-

^^HkA^^

■f:

■*^

J _ f,

ft.

V

INTRODUCTORY PREFACE. I

"If.

*^Hiv^^*

/

A Strong apprehenfion of being in the right, a conviftion of the impor- tance of attaining that point in a controver- fy of this nature, a willingnefs to hiy my opinion and the evidence on which it refls bc^forethe public for further examination, and a defire to promote an unifoimity of S ntiment as far as pofTible, are the Reafons vhy this Work ventures abroad. Having already offered Thoughts on the Ground and Extent of Baptifmal Adminiflration, at a time that M^as deemed eligible for com- municating them from the flate of the Con- troverfy between Mr. Booth and Dr. Williams; an Inquiry as to the Afo^^ na- turally follows, and fo completes the ex- pe6^ations which fomemay have ent«.rtain- ed and expreffed relative to a Piece of this Nature. As, however, a difference more or lefs from the Views of thefe Authors could juftify the publication of Catholic Baptifm;

foi

vi PREFACE.

fo, the Reader may be aflured, the fame Circumftance refpefting the manner of de- fending the Pa^dobaptift mode ot fprinkling the Subjefl, may be urged in behalf of pub- lifhing the prefent Volume.

According to Mr. Booth, the Opinion here adopted is novel *, for, as he obferves, * Our Lord, indeed, gave a command to laptize ; by which it is univerfally under- flood, that he defigned the performance of a Jingle AEiion ; for nobody fuppofes that fprinkling, pouring and plunging ^alias, dipping] muft all be united to conflitute Baptifm*/ If Novelty be applicable in the moft univerfal fenfe in which it can be ta- ken, this of itfelf will be fufficient to over- throw the avowed principle of this Work, and lay the Author of it open tothecenfure of fingular arrogance in advancing that which no Perfon ever thought of before. The Novelty of it however, in refpeft of the different Sentiments of many Pasdo- baptifts and Antipaedobaptifts, both ancient and modern, is of little comparative Confe- quence, in cafe it has the Sanftion of the

Sacred Records.

Con- * Poedobap. Exam, vol, i, p. 107,

PREFACE, vtt

ConTonant to the laft obfervation is the following Paragraph from iVlr. Booth's Psedobaptifm Examined. *It is, fays this Au- thor, a good Rule which Dr. Owen gives, relating to divine !nftitutions,when he fays; That which is firfl in any kind, gives the nneafure of what follows in the fame kind. With Dn OwEN,Abp.TiLLOTSON perfe6t- !y agrees. He expreffcs himfelf thus ; This is reafonable, that the firji m every kind fhould be the Rule and Pattern of the Reft, and of all that follow after ; becaufe it is likely to be the mod perfeft. In procefs of Time, the bell InfHtutions are apt to de- cline, and by ini'eiifible degrees to fwerve and depart from their firft State ; and therefore it is a good rule to preferve things from corruption and degeneracy, often to lookback to the first institution, and by that to coiveft thofe impcrfe61ions which almod unavoidably creep ia with Time. To the judgment of thcfe two eminent Authois, I will add the Suffrage of Mr. Henry, who fpeaks with a profclTed re* gard to Baptifm in the following nv.iiiner : * When a queRion was put to cur Lord Jefus, by the Pharifees, concerning Mar-

riagp,

viii PREFACE.

riage. he refers them to the Injlitution and original Law, Matth. xix. 3. 4. to teach us to go by thc/'ime rule in other Ordinan- ces. Run up the Stream of the Obferva- tion (which in a long Courfe fometimes contra6h filth) to the fpring of the Inftituti- on, and fee zokxt it was from the Beginnings Thele diredions perfe81y coincide with that Maxim oF unerring Wifdom, to which Mr. Heistry adverts. From the beginning it WIS not fo. A Maxim this of fuch impor- tance, that whoever can is ready to avail himfelf of it. For, as Mr. Blake juftly obferves, * If we can but fay. From the be^ ginning it zvas not fo — w e have suffi- cient +.'

Along with thefe teftimonies, I cannot forbear adding, as much to the purpofe, what Dr. Williams advances in his Let- ter to Dr. Priestley. ' The attempt to determine hyHiftoryv^\\2X was the Faith of Chriflians in early Times, independently of any aid from the Scripture, that we may thereby gather what was the Do61rine of the ApoRles, has long ago been folidly refuted by the great Chilling worth, and other

eminent Paedobap. Exam, vol, 1, p. 228, 229.

P R E F A C E. ix

^eminent Proteftants, in their Controverfy with the Papifts. There is no admitting of it but at the expenceofone of the no- blefl principles, and ftrongefl: pillars of the Reformation from popery — That Scrip- ture is the only Rule whereby to judge of Controverfies. And it appears to me, that the revival of it into a Rule, would direftly tend to reflore the Popifli privilege of ren- dering blind obedience to our fpiritual Guides. For every attempt to explain Scripture by Scripture Principles, would be checked as wrong and dangerous ; while the unlearned, that is, the Body of the Chriftian Church would be called upon to embrace, on the word of a few learned, and every Chriftian Church on the ipfedixit of its paftor, however unqualified to make a fair report, to fubmit to the Opinions of the an- cient Church tor their Guide ; which leads at once toimpofition and impoflure on the one hand, and lo blind obedience, fuperfli- tion, and an abjcft deference to human Authority in matters of confcience on the

otherf .'

b A

t Letter to Dr. Prieftley — prefixed to Dr. O^ven's Expofition of the Ep. to the Hebrews, abridged by 'Cx, Williams.

X PREFACE.

A flenrler acquaintance with Ecclefiafli- cal Hillory, will convince all who pay a due regard to the authority and language of the Scriptures, whether Baptifts or others, that it is very unfafe to commit our- felves abfolutely to the Ancients, in regard to the Baptifmal Ordinance. Both parties with the greatefl reafon agree, in rejefting, as innovations on the original Inflituticn, many things they held refpfling it. Inaf- much then as it is, and cannot but be ad- mitted, that, in divers rcfpeds, they devia- ted From the only Rule of faith and piaftice, the queftion is. Mow far they did fo ? And there is no other way of difcovering this, but by an immediate appeal to the Bible. If evidence fufficiLnt to eftablifh the leading Sentiment of this pi^ce can be obtained thence, the fnppofed Novelty of it as be- foie-mentioned, amounts to nothing.

The late Publications of Mr. Booth and Dr. Williams are here noticed, as well as in Catholic Baptifm. Thefe Gentlemen having dillinguifhed themfelves in the Con- troverfy within thefe few years, and their Wiitings containing a good deal both of their own, and other Authors, I have made fuch ufe of them, as an inquiry after Truth, Or the deltnce of it, appeared to require.

To

PREFACE. xi

To (Tiield himfelFrrom a mirconftru61ion of his dcfign, the Author can find no words better adapted, or more expreliive of his views than the following, borrowed from Mr. B. with which he concludes this in- troductory Preface. * It is againfl what the Author conflders a^ an Lnor in Senti- ment, and a Corruption of w^orfliip, that the following Examination makes its Ap- pearance. Errors, not Ptrfons, are here ap- poled. He thinks with Mr. Leigh, that we * fhould diliini^uiOi between lovincjof men's perfons and their errors ;' and with Bp. Burnet, that * whatever moderation or charity we may owe to rncn's perfons, we owe none at all to their Errors, and to that frame which is built on, and fupported by them.' Nay, as Dr. Waterland in another caft? obferves, ' While we are of a con- trary judgment, it cannot but be guilty pratlice and conduft in us, and very great too, to fmothcr our Sentiments, or not to bear our teflimony in fuch a way as Chrift has appointed, againfl all notorious Cor- ruptions, either of Faith, or Worfhip, or Do6trine f .".

High-Wycombe. W. M.

t Pasdobap. Exam. voL i. Preface, p. 19

THE P.f^.DOBAPTIST MODE DEFENDED.

CHAPTER I.

Various Obftrvations in favour of more Anions than One being intended on the part of the Admimjir ator » by the Eaptif- mil Order.

HE great Handing law of baptifmal ad- niinillration among Jews and Gentiles, it M iith. xxviii. 1^. Go ye therefore, and

DISCIPLE ALL NATIONS, BAPTIZING THEM llf THE NAME OF THE FATHER, AND OF THE SON, ANO OF THE HOLY-GHOST. OUF Lord ifTucd

this divine order after his Rerurre6lion, when he was declared to be the Son of God with power ; and therefore, with great propriety and fignifican- cy, Bapiifm in feveral parts of Scripture, where jt is moll explicitly mentioned, is connected with that great event. Afts ii. 36. 37. Rom. vi. 4. GoIoiT. ii. 12. I Pet. iii. 21.

( «4 )

Baptizing in the commiffion, expreffes fome determinate aaion on the part of the Adminiftra- tor, which renders the perfon on whom it termi- nates baptized. Here I have the plcalure of con- curring with Mr. B. when he writes, ' The m^n- ner of itfing water when Baptifm is adminiftered ; is not a mere circim/iance, but Baptifm itfelf ; for no Minifter of Chrift can confider his performance of fpiinkling, of pouring, or of plunging, in the fublimeft of all names, but the very aH of baptiz- ing. If the manner of ufing the water be a circuraftance, what in the world can Baptifm itfelf be*?" That Baptizing enters into the compoh- tion of a difcipled Rate, and is a mean of difci- pling, hath already been (hewn in Catholic Enpiifrn. Accordmgly, the end or drfign o{ the Ordinance as well as teaching affociated with it, being ex- preiTed in the claufe difcipU all nations, baptizing vhich immediately follows it, imports naturally fome certain 7>iodeo^ ufmg the water. To affert, as Dr. Williams does, that *the proper facramen- tal import of the word, hapiifm, in the New Tef- tament is exhaufled by defining it a ceremonial and religious ufe oj waterV is indefeniible. It is ob- vious that fuch a definition of the.Baptifmal word ill accords with the fubfequent paits of the com- mifTion, hapfzing and /I^ccAzn^, which are includ- ed in the preceding language, difciple. Sec. for, if

we

•Padobap. Exam. vol. i, p, 126 129 f Antiped. Exam, vol 2 p. 369,

( '5 )

we confider the facred order after this manner, the definition of Dr. W. is fuperfluous and in- adequate. Superfluous, becaufe, difciple, as it (lands united with baptizing, expreffes in effetl the religious ufe of water. Inadequate. ^ becaulc nothing remains in this cafe hxiUhQ undejined Aft. According to this, Bapiilm as exhibited in the commiflion determines nothing but that water fliould be applied in fome form or other : but who can credit this ? It is contrary to the legiti- mate principles of reafoning on pofitive inftitutes, whereof we are furniflied with ample fpecimens in Mr. B — 's work, from a learned and refpe8a- ble body of Pasdobaptilts. It gives an ambiguity of meaning to an enacting term^ of which there is no example in the laws of[ pofitive worfhip ur.der the Old Tellament, for they v.'ere * particular, clear and decifive.'

Agreeing with Mr. B. then, that the term Bap- tize conveys, and requires, a determinate Adion ;.. thequeftionis what? Whether is it fmgle, or two-fold ? Is it dipping 3.nd fprinkling as two modes of adminidering the Ordinance in refoeft of the fuhjccl, according to the ai{f^rent practice of Bap- liits and PiedobaptiRs ? Or, are dipping and Jprinkling lo be performed by the Adminifirator, as conftiiuent parts of i\\twhole Adion of Baptiz- ing ? In order to make way for a fair and expli- cit folution of thele queries, it lies on a Baptift

tc»

( iS )

to demonftrate that the term in the commifliom has no other figiification as to a fpecific A61, than dipping. Could this be done, then no one could hefitate a moment in thinking that the nations whom the com:nidion refpcfts, mull be dipped into the water. Much however, as Mr. B — 's abilities are equal to, he does not appear capable of ellablifhing this point. An attempt to limit the meaning of the term to dipping is as objec- tionable, as it would be for a Paedobaptift to ex- clude that fignification, and cngrofs the word to exprefs Jpr inkling only. — As to Paedobaptifts who view the two modes of dipping the fubjeft indi£e~ rent, equally valid; it devolves upon them to fhew their authority for their opinion. Where do fuch find warrant fufficient to /hift the method from dipping to fprinkling, from fprinkling to dipping, as they, or the baptifmal fubjeft lift ? For my own part I can perceive no juft ground for it. But it belongs to me, in giving an affirmative by way of reply to the laft-mentioncd queftion, and fo differing from Baptifts and Paedobaptifts, to ftaie fome further preliminary remarks in this Chapter, before we make a more direft in- quiry into the import of the commanding term in the commiffion.

If the voice of * the firft literary characters that any age has produced' be heard, they will in- form us that it is their decided and unanimous

opiniop

( 17 )

opinion that wettings waJJiing is the general figni- fication of the controverted word. * BaptizOy fays Dr. Owen, fignifies to wafh ; as inftances out of all Authors may be given ; [and it] may be con- fidered either as to its original natural fenfe ; or as to its myftical ufe in the ordinance. This dif- tinftion muft be obferved concerning many other words in the New Teftament, as ekklejia, keirotonia, and others which have a peculiar fenfe in their myftical ufe.' It then remains to be inquired, whether it does not bear in our Lord's commif- fion a fpecific acceptation alfo ? If fo, what that fpecific acceptation is ? Whether it is capable of proof, that our Lord meant hnot to be underftood in a general to the exclufion o^ a particular fenfe ? And whether the latter agrees w^on found Scriptu- ral data to theP^DOB APTisT MODE, and that Only? A dire6l and implicit anfwer to fuch queftions, is attempted to be given in the progrefs of this work. That a word may have a more lax fenfe in regard of its etymological acceptation than when it is ufed in pofitive law, Mr. B. grants, as will be hereafter noticed, in regard of the term circumcife. Guffetius on the Hebrew Roots mul and namal, informs us * though they do not occur in the conjugation kal, except in the facramental or typical fignification of circumcifing ; yet this is not to be confidered as their primary, but only as a fpecies of their general fignification of cutting which therefore is their meaning. The genuine, e general

( i8 )

general fignification is to be fetched from Pfalm, :S:c. 6. and n8. lO.' Somewhat analogous to this, Baptifm may have a general acceptation, diftin- guifhable from ^Jpecific a^ion: accordingly, it fig- nifies wetting, xuajliing. Pofitive Law requires fome determinate mode ; and as a complex aBion may naturally apply to baptizing for the pur- pofe of wetting on the part of the Adminiftrator, i^either the etymological general acceptation of the word, nor facramental, forbids it.

Baptizing, be the a6lion enjoined what it may as it exifts in the commifTion, is immediately ad- drefled to the Apoltles, and their fuccelfors in the Miniflry. If it could be proved to fignify dip- ping folely, according to the diftinguifhing fenti- ment of our Opponents, it is neverrhelels clear, that here it more dire6lly enjoins the atlion of the Adminiftrator, and the immerged ftatc of the fub- je6l is only confequential. If, on the contrary, dipping and fprinkling are included in the term, this meaning well comports with the fituation it has in this divine order. — While Paedobaftifts and Antipaedobaptifts unite in fpeai<ing of this commiffion as law, it feems ftrange that more at- tention has not been paid to the queftion, to WHOM IS IT so? The anfwer is eafy and perfpicu- ous; TO MINISTERS. It of courfe affe6ls the na- uonsfecondarily. It requires us to confider thefe large bodies of people paj/ively; ih&y derive advan- tage from this order, by a voluntary fubmiffion to the difcipling, or in other words, baptizing and teach- ing

( >9 )

cfi^ contained therein, and enjoined upon tbofc whom Chrill fees fit to employ in their official niiiiiderial capacity. To write as Mr. B, does, rcfpctling this comniiiTion, it is ' a law that is obli- gatory on ilie ni ){l iliii' rate of his [Chrifl's] dif- cipiest/ bci'peaiis either an entire overfight of the commiflion being intended for Minifters, or elfe inaccuracy of expreliion. P^roperly fpcaking, it is LAW to the latter only. At the fame time it is to be obfcrved, that ilie Rate of the nations to be baptized and taught, is not uncondUionally\:Q:(\n\xtdy but with reference to the law of nature, or their proper conlent ; for, if it was not, the fmallefl refleclion mufl make it manifeft, that Minifters would be obliged to execute the com- miffion at any rate. In this cafe, it would be- come lawful, neceffary, and expedient, to have recourle to compulfory rneafures. Whereas no- thing more diftant from our Lord's dcfign can be imagined. AH the terms in the commiflion feeing addreffed to thofe whom our divine Mafter fees fit to employ, whatever id'::as are comprehended in them muit furely be definitive of their work. The nations are in a difcipled, baptized, taught condition, in reference to certain a6ts for the purpofe, on the part of officiating Minifl:ers. A complex aQion, that is, confifting of more parts than one, will not only fuit this place in refpe8:

C 2 of

1 P»(^obap. £xacn. vol i. p. iU£,

( 20 )

of Baptifm, as well as afingle one, but beft har- monizes with the other terms on this plan; for dijciple has been fhewn in Catholic Baptifm, to confifl both of baptizing and teaching, and as to teaching, the lalt mentioned in the commiflion, it doubtlels relpeds more than one uniform a6lion.

To thel'e remarks we may add, as having foine affinity to them, that common rules of Grammar require us to diftinguifh between the fame words as they are ufed aEiively^ or pajfively. * A verb ac- tive expreffes an aflion, and neceffarily implies an agent and an objeQ afted upon. A verb paffive expreffes a pafTion or fuffering, or the receiving of an aftion, and necefiariiy implies an object afled upon, and an agent by which it is atled upon t.' The agent, according to thefe remarks, takes the lead in paflages of Scripture ■where the atlive verb, baptize, occurs. Is it not then a legitimate confequencc, that we ought to regard for this reafon, the commanding baptifma! term as well as the others, more in reference to the agent or adminiflrator, than, as far as I perceive, has been ufually done in this contro- verfy ? The ufe of the adive participle, and its fignification, ferve to give it a llronger direftion this way ; for thus the commiifion literally tranf- lated, runs, going, dijciple yc all nationSy bap- ti ziN G ihtm. On the contrary, where the pajjive

verb

f Lowth's IntioJuflion to Euglifli Graaimat.

( 21 )

verb appears, the objeB, (or which is the fame here, ihc fubjeci) takes the lead. Upon this prin- ciple it is admiffible, as well as from what is fo maiiiftdly the defign of the Hiftorian, that the Greek word, Dan. iv. 33 v. 21. rendered in our Englifli verlion, was wet, (a pajfive verb, and adopted by the Greek Septuagint Tranf- lation of the Old Teftament, and the pri- viilive of the word, baptize) is not ufed to de- fcribe the a8:ion of the dew asdiftilling or fall- insf. hut to expref? the flatc of Nebuchadnezzar's body.' In palfive verbs the objetl takes the lead; and, therefore, by parity of circumftance and rcafoning, it (hould follow, that where it is faid» * they were baptized', it is not {o immediately ex- preffivc of the a6"t.ion, (this beiiig impUed) as that of the Rate. The baptized Itate of the fubje6l commences, when the aQ of the Adminiftrator is completed j fo that if the aftive verb in the com- miffion be interpreted in regard of the adion whereof it confifts, and of the ftate of the bap- tized together, the latter, namely the ftate of the baptized, can only be confidered as confequential, or following the a6l of baptizing. While bap- tizing in the commiffioii naturally fuppofes fome fubjett, the aClion itfeif, whereby it is performed, lies with the Agent or Adminiftrator. Carrying this idea in our minds, and applying it to the commiflion, it fhould feem that whatever be the

nieaning

( 22 )

meaning of die Baptifmal Term, fo far as it ex^ prefTes a mode of adminiftration, it relates to the hodily aBion of the Minifter, and the manner in "which thefubjeft is affefted by it, is here, where the nations are only to be regarded confequen- tially, a matter of ff.condary confideration.

Again : It is remarkable that baptize and haptifm are appropriated under the New Teftament, to that ordinance whofe mode we are profefiTediy examining. This uniformity, douhtlefs, is to be attributed to defign, neceffity, or both. It bap- tize fignilied one fpecific fingle aft of dipping, or of fprinkling, Greek words, I prefume, might be found to anfwer to each of thefe. How comes it to pafs then, that when the ordinance in queflion is infifted upon, the commanding word in the commiffion is invariably preferved ? Is there any better method of refoiving this query than by fuggefting, it has, in the facramsntal ufe of it at leaft, fome meaning peculiar to itfelf? And does not this afford a full and lafhcient anfwer to Mr. B. when he afks, what fubftantial reafon can be produced for Tranflators' retaining the Greek term in the manner they have generally done? • There is, as Mr. Locke obCerves, a great florc of words in one language which have not any that anfwers them in another,' and inafmuch as there are other word% which, as before obferved, tvould have expreffed dipping, or fprinkling, and

yet

( 23 )

yet neither is ufed as an entire fuhjliiute for thc- bapiifmal ordinance, but the terms, baptize, bap- tifniy are retained, it is a reafon why they ought to be left as they are, untrarillated. It is in truth following the example the facred Writers them- felvcs have fet us. Nor is there any room for ja(t exception to this, under the idea of their be- ing unintelligible, uhile the Bible furniflies us notwidiftanding, with competent means of obtain- ing their true fenfe. When therefore, cither ihc Paedobaptift or Baptift affumes dipping, or fprinkling, as a complete definition of the term bapti'zey is their not occafion for adopting Dr. George Campbell's cenfurc ? He fays, * It is to be regretted that we have fo much evidence that even good and learned men allow their judg- ments to be warped by the fentiments and cuf- ~ toms of the feci which they prefer. The true Partizan always inclines lo corred the didion of the fpii'it by that of the party t. Wl:iat elfe is it than correcting the ditlion of the fpirit by that of the party, to render pafTages where it is re- ^ corded of perlons they were baptized, ^'^^jy were plunged, they zccre fpnnkled, when Scripture has no where fet us the example ; but on the contra- ry its unifvH-m Phrafeoiogy on occafions of bap- ufm, militate diretlly againfl it?

It

( H )

It is not however meant to exclude either, but to admit both, for which it is imagined there is fufficient evidence. But, upon ihe prelumpiion that it is wrong to confider ihem Jingly bapiifm, for reafons already given and others in the follow- ing pages ; and that two furh modes of baptizing in refpeft ot the iubje6l are juftly exploded; I afl^, may not the idea of a complex action on the part of the adminiftrator, condHing partly of dip- ping, partly of j5>^"2^/^k^, to complete baptifmal adminiftration. be put into nomination with a Grace, as a candidate for general acceptance. ?

Our Lord's commiflion if explained agreeable to the diftinguifhing fentiment of this work, is to this effeQ — going, difcple all nattons, baptiz- ing ihem, i. e. dipping in order to .sprinklj them^ 7eligioiij2y wettings rvajliing ihem, or fitting them apart, in the Name of the Father, &c. Whether this fenfe has evidence to fupport it, the fequel will fliew ; and if true, it mull be allowed to be an eafy, exprefs, intelligible one, every way becoming laws and principles refpefting po- fitive inUitutes* No juft objedion can be urged againfl it on the ground of its being obfcure, or indeterminate, in itfelf.

Feedohaptifts, following their ufual mode of adminiltraiion, appear to me much interefted in the way of ftating, and defending it in thefe pa- ges. The adminiftrator among ^/^ew, sprink-

• LING,

( 25 )

LING the fubje6l, prcvioufly dips. Sprinkling is the ttM-minaling A61, dipping the introdu6lory > the latter in its place is as neceffary as the former. But where is \\\qx& pojitive authority for fo lead- ing a part of the adminiftration, unlefs the com- manding term impofes and requires it? Is fo capi- tal an act as dipping into water, to be fupported bv no better plea than that it is neceffary for the fake of the fubfequent one of fprinkling ? The legitimate principles of reafoning on pofitive lullitutes, it is apprehended, are entirely rep.ig- nant to any fach plea. Of courfe, all thofe learned Pasdobaptift Writers who have pra£liced fprinkling, while they admitted the term baptize to fignify dipping and fprinkling together, really ftood in need of both thofe ideas to jullify their a8;ing^as they did, namely, dipping in order to fprinkle.

O.ir Brethren of the Baptift-perfuafion fubje^l themfclves to no fmall difficulty, in turn ; — for, admitting that a pofitive enaQing term, as bap- tizing in the commiffion is conhdered, muft be full, exprcfs, — * That, in religious matters, aQing fnpra StatiUimi, above or beyond a ftatute is all one with acting againfly contra Statutum. Therein God's not requiring, is equivalent to forbiddn g; and doing more than he commandeth, to doiig contrary toitt,' — Suppofing ailb without granting,

D tiat

+ Pxudl)- Exam, vol, 2 p, 19.

( 26 )

that baptizing means dipping t.'iefuhjeci — what is the confequence ? I reply, our Lord, when be delivered the commiflion, ilTued in effe6l the Death-warrant of his Difciples. Bapt^fm be- comes inevitably fatal to a Man's life. The a£l of duty, if baptifm fignifies ejfentiady and ex- clujivdy dipping below the furfacc of the water in refpe6l of the fubjeft, terminates on the Minifter's putting him there. So far he has warrant : but where is politive law for railing up, when the Law- term is underllood natively to fignify juft the rc- verfe ? It is deferving of no better a name than mere evafion, to urge by way of avoiding this moft inconvenient confequence, that the dip- ping required, is for the fake of wetting or wafh- ing. xAmbiguity in this caufe is looked upon by Mr. Booth, when ever he fees reafon to de- left it in his opponents on this controverfy, as a very fufj^icious circumftance indeed. * Pofitivc law muft be declared full)\ plainly, — Pofitive in- ftitutions cannot be proved by illation — have no accidental parts — it is unlawful to conform to any part of a religious right without divine warrant' — are allowed and favorite maxims of the Author of Psedobaptifm examined. And if the tenet that dipping the fubje6l, is only truly baptizing him, be held and prafticcd upon according to thefe maxims, it is manifeftly offering violence to the law of Baptifm to lift him out of the water.

A^

( 27 )

As it feems moft natural to confider baptizing in the commiffion immediately addrefTed to Mi- ni fters, and fo affetling the nations confequential- ly, ti)e bodily poiiure of the baptized is but an accidental circumilance, from ought that appears in Mattb. xxviii. 29. If baptize fignifies more tlian dipping, as is alTerted in this work, a fubjeft may be either fetting, (landing, or raifed up as in the cafe of Infant Baptifm, this depending upon circumftances, and being immaterial in itfelf: while the action of the Minifter renders the fub- jetl wet, and is al fo the ground o{ Jimiliiude^ or "jujl Jigurative language in regard of Baptifm.

Before I conclude this Chapter, it is proper to throw out a hint to Paedobaptifts, that to confider immerging and fprinkling as two diftin6l modes of baptizing the fubjeft, equally valid, at once ener~. vates the term in the commiffion, and is conceding to the Baptifts much more than truth requires. * To vary the method according to the circum- ftances/ is an amicable expedient propofed by Dr. Williams. The accomodating propofal is utterly reje6led by his Antagonift, Mr. B. whofe advantage fo far as he has it, is, if I miftake not, to be traced to the idea of either dipping or fprinkling being equally Baptifm. A conceffion this, of which our differing Brethren are glad to avail themfelves, not only to ufe it as a weapon pf defence, but of affault againfl thofe who put D 2 it

( 28 )

it into their hands. Owing to this, Mr. B. places himlelf, like one having author ity, at the head of eighty-two quotations from Paedobaptift authors, who allow that Baprifm fignifies dipping as well as fprinkling. Whence is this Au- thor fo furnifhed ? If the foregoing; and tollow- ing pages do not bear falfe witnefs, I prcfuaie it may be accounted for thus. It has not been confidered fo much as it fliould be, that bap- tizing is immediately addreffed to Minifters in the commifficn — that fome determinate aftion on theirpart is intended, in confeqiience of which the fubje£l is put into a baptized ftate — that under the general idea of wetting, more aftions than one ■well comports with the meaning of the Baptifmal term at- large — That thefe learned men flood in need of the two ideas of dipping and fprinkling, in order to defend their own practice — that their own opinion would have furnifiied them, if pro- perly ufed ynder the direction of Scripture, with argument and proof fully fufficient to vindi- cate their fiift dipping and then fprinkling. From fepdrating in refped of the fubjcd, what ihcy might have affociated on ihe part of the Baptizer in one complex atl of AdmimUration, they have allowed a mode d fFerent from, to be equally valid with their own, without occafion ; and in fome refpeBs to the difadvantage of their caufe as Pae- dobaptifls, and of their writings alfo.

Chap.

( 29 }

CHAP. II.

On the Scriptural Signification of the Word Baptize, taken in Connexion with Pofitivc

Lazo.

T T is of moment in this controverfy to eftab- •*- lifli after a proper manner the meaning of the term baptizing in our Lord's commiffion ; becaufe it is this which determines the mode of adminif- tering the Ordinance under confideration. So far as its import is controverted, there are three opinions candidates for general acceptance. One prevails among our Brethren of the Baptift perfua- fion, and is well known to be the dipping or plunge ing of the baptized under water. The fecond em- braced by fome Paedobaptifts, is * that dipping and fptinkling the fubje6are two modes perfe6lly equivalent, equally valid. That the word Bap- tifm is an equivocal, open, general term. — That nothing is determined by it further than this, that water fliould be applied to the fubjeft in fome form or other. - That the method may be varied according to circumftances, and referred to the private judgment of the perfon or perfons concerned t.' The third opinion, and that a-

vowed

-^ Antipasdobap; Exana, voU 2. p. ^5^' 353*

• ( 30 y

vowed in this work, is, that the Baptifmal word fignifies the ufe of water for a religious purpofe ; wherein the adminiftrator purfuant to a divine order, dips [^his hand, or fomething equivalent^ into the aforefaid element, and therewuh fprinkles the fubje6t of the ordinance.

What isufually urged in favor of the two firft opinions is already before the public in various writings ; particularly in thofe of Mr. Booth and Dr. Williams, between whom this controverfy hath principally lain for fome time paft. After attentively reading the publications of thefe gen- tle;nen, lam ohligtd to iprofeis my ^e\^ dij/atisfied. When thus writing, it is fome confolation to learn, that no great while ago the Monthly Reviewers than- felves had occafion to remark, * we have not yet feen any thing on .this fubjeft that hath thoroughly fatisfied us t.' It will be the lefs furprizing of courfe for the Author of this performance to de- clare himfelf inthe fame predicament.

The defign of this Chapter is to produce fvich evidence as is at hand, in fupport of the third opinion juft flated. But in order to afcer- tain the legal fenfe of the word in debate ; pro- per means, certain unexceptionable media, muft be previoufly fixed upon and pointed out. I can by no means bring my mind to approve of what Mr. B. offers for this purpofe. He fays, ' The

Greel^

A ^pnthly Ret, vol. LXX. F« 3Q^>

{ 31 )

Greek is a dead language, and as the word before us is a claffical Greek term ; what better evidence relative to its true meaning in the New Teftament can we poffibly have, than that of its general claffical ufe confirmed by thofe Chriftian Fathers who fpake and wrote in the Greek Language ? f. Eifewhere I am taught by this worthy Author himfelf to revere fuch principles as thefe : — ' The Bible only is the religion of proteftants'. — ' The Scripture is the only rule of our faith ; we do not acknowledge any other authority able to de- cide the difputed points in religion, than that of the word of God ; and if we fometimes difputc by the Fathers, it is but by way of condefcen- fion to [our oppofersj, to a£l; upon their own principle ; and not to fubmit our confciences to the word of men.' — ' There can be no inftance given of any obfcure place or palfage in the Scrip- ture, concerning which a man may rationally fup- pofe or conjeciiire, that there is any doftrina! truth requin;)g our obedience contained in it, whicli is not elsev/here explained J.' The Reader v.'iil here perhaps join me in wondering, and aflcing. what is become of that relpeQ: to Scripture difcoveiable in thefe laft quotations, wherein the Author of Pasdobaptifm examined al- lows it to be the only rule and beji interpreter of it-

Mf,

t Def-nc'cof Pa;dof;ap. Exam: p. 253 I Fopd, E«aai. vo!; 2. p, 36 2© 8i- 4'«

( 32 )

/f^, comparedwith the otheriWhcre Mr. B. extolls and patronizesas the BEST evidence, the gener- al dajfical uje of the Baptilmal term in all the writings but thefacred? How happens it, that the Septuagint Tranflation of the Old Teftament does not come in for its due fliare of honour, "when Mr. Parkhurft can inform us * That the Writers of the New Teftament — or rather, with reverence be it fpoken, the Holy Spirit, whoie Pen-men they were, wifely chofe, in exprefling evangehcal notions, to employ fuch Greek terms as had been long before ufed for the fame pur- pofesby the Greek Tranflators of the Old Tef- tament: and thus the Septuagint Verfion became in thisrefpeft; not to the firft age of the Church, only but to all fucceeding generations, the con- neBing link between the language of the Old and New Teftament, and will be regarded in this , view as long as found judgment and real learning fliall continue among Men t? Befides i To the validity of afcertaining the fenfe of the difputed word according to Mr. B — 's propofal, it may be objeBed, and deferves particular obfervation, that a term in pofitive law may have, confiftently with the legitimate principles of reafoning on pofitive inftitutes, a limitation affixed to it which is fubordinate to a more general acceptation

that

+ Parkhurft' J Iw. preface, p, 6, 7,

( 33 }

that may belong to it when ufed on other occafi^ ons. Of this Mr. B. himfelf affords us fpeci- mens; for thus he writes : * Mul* is the woid moft commonly ufcd to i'lgmiy ike a5i of circum- cifing ; and if that idea be not exprelTed by it, we may fafely conchide there is never a term in the Hebrew Language which can exprefs it. Yet befides that fenfe, and its prepofitional accepta- tions which are various, it has the general figni- fication of cutting off or cutting down and cutting to pieces. So it is ufed iti Pfalm Iviii. 7. xc. 6. cviii. 10, 11. 12. and in other places. The original word /?02em to do, ufed in the inftitution of our Lord's laft Supper, is proved in a great many inftances to fignify to offer '\' Theie in- llances defcanted upon by Mr. B. for fome pages, are ftrongly in favor of a certain limitation being fet to a term in fome cafes, (efpecialiy in the connexion of pofitive inftitutes) while it has a larger acceptation in others. If fo, it is be- yond all reafonable doubt, hom the united fuf- frage of the ablefi; Lexicographars, and obvious ufe of the word bolh in faded and other writings, that baptize in a lax fenle fignifies wettir.g or waHiing. Bui ihat our Lord fhould ufe it to this effed in {o capital a commiffion as Matth. xxviii. 19, without meaning lome determinate

E mode

* Hebrew word in Eiiglilli Chavaflerii, x

f P«dyb; Exa'n, vol, i p, n'j. iig.

( 34 )

mode of aBion for wetting or wafliing, is, to fay the lead of ir, highly improbable ; and we may add, upon legitimate principles of reafoning on pofitive inOitu'es, is too improper to be admitted. Common fcnfe muft perceive that, weuing on the part of the AdminiPirator, and as it relates to the fubje6l, may be effefted by aftion quite diff^ient. The very fituation therefore which the \v(^rd in qiieftion occupies in t'ne Budy of our Lord's commiffion, warrants us to expeft fome reflraint, limitation, or diftiiift aQ, affixed to it, which would anfwer the |-urj)c)fe of determining oJUr zvhatvianner g Baptizer fhould proceed, and whe- ther the fuhjeft fliall be wetted baptiimally in a greater Jmall degree. To alcenain this, the on- ly juft and fafe mcdiun, it is conceived, is an c\2i\\\\nAi\o\'\ o^ pofitive law, vihere the word oc- curs, at leall radically iti its primitive. The Reader's attention is accordingly requelled to the following remarks:

L In relation to the primitive word, whence the term in quellion is immediately derived. This, according to the Septuagint Tranflation appears in the following paffages among others.

The Priejl Jliall dip [bapfei* — s e p x u a g i n x) his finger in the bloody and sprinkle {profranci) of

the

* N B For want of proper Types, the Reader, it is hoped, will ex- Ci.ifc the Greek Words being infcrtcd in Englilh Chaia6lcr«i

( 85 )

the blood [even times before t-he Lord, before the veil oj the fandaary. And ike Pricjl jTiall pour^ [ekkeei) all the Blood of the Bullock at the bottom of- the altar. Levit. iv, 6. J. See verie 17, 18. Moie'i took the anouituig oil — and he sprinkled [crranen) thereof upon the altar ftveii times, — And he POURED (epeke.e) of the anointm'^ oil upon Aaron's hfdd. M)jes spi^iNi<.LEo (p>'ofekcc) the Blood upon the altar round about. And he washed [eplunen) the inwards and the legs in water. Levii, viii. 11, 12, 19, 21. He T)ii'T [eb J pfe) his finger in the Bluod-^and poured out (^exikcen) the Blood at the bottom oJ the altar. And Aaro7i's S071S prefented unto luni the blood which he sprinkled, (profekecn) round about on the altar — And he did wash [eplane) the inwards. Levit. ix. 9, 12, 14. As for the Hving Bird, he f hall take it, and the. Cedar Wood, and the Scarlet, and the dyjop, and Jhall dip them [bapjei auta) and the living Bird, in the Blood of the Bird that xuas kited — And he fhall sprinkle {Perirranei) upon him that is to be cleanfed from the Leprojy feven tmus. And he that is to be cleavjed. Jhall WASH [pndiei) his clothes, and fliave off alt his hair, ana wajii himjelf, [loufetai) in water thai he may be clean. Levif. xiv. 6, 7, 8. And who- foevcr toucheth his Bed /hail wajh {plunei) hii clothes^ &nd bathe himfclf [loujetai] m water. Levit. xv. 5. See aifo the following verfes t. Thefe paf- E 2 fages

+ Fcedob. Exam, vol, i p, %i, 83

( S5 )

fages are tranfcribed from Mr, B. in Paedobap- tifm examined, and a fele6lion better adapted to the objeft of this Publication could not be pro- duced. Suppofing what Mr. B. quotes them to fhew, viz. * that dipping, pouring and fprinkling denote three different a6lions in the language of divine law ;' is it not equally manifeft that they are feveral parts of the whole action, to which the Adminiftrator hath recourfe, for the fingle purpofe of ceremonially wetting the proper object ? That the a6li(}n in general would have been incom^ lete, if to dipping he had not added a fubfequent adion ; and that the former was for the fake of the latter ? — Here then is positive LAW; and if a due regard is paid to the import of the primitive word in thefe texts, Ii is, I con- ceive, decidedly in favor of the fenfe we at- tribute to the derivative word in the commiffion of Chrift. Bapto, as it appears in this con- ne6lion, unqueftionably expreffes an initial ac- tion, for the fake of another ; in other words, a dipping on the part of him who officiates, for the purpofe of wetting fomethingin ihtjirjl in- ftance, that thereby the element or Fluid dipped into may be communicated to a fuitable objeft in the ftccjid. Mr. B. on this occafion, is liber- al in affording us pafiages much to our purpofe ^ for he informs us in another part of his work *it is plain the word (/vf /oj is often ufed where a

total

( 37 )

total Lmnizrjion cannot be defigned. So we read that jon;ithan put forth the end of the rod which was in his hand^ and dipt it {e bap fen auto) in a honey comb. Again, fend Lazarus that he may dip {hapje) the tip of his finger in water t. After fpecimens to this eft'e6l, can it be juftly made a matter of doubt, that the derivative tei.n bap- TisMOs retains in its compofition, and connetlion with the pofitive inftitute in queftion, an aEl on the part of the Adminiftralor exaBly anjwering to it ? If it cannot, the Pa^dobaptift mode of dipping into water in order to jfrijikle, is furely mod con- fonant to the acceptation of the primitive word ; and baptifm radically defined^ is the Miniltet's dipping his hand, or what is equivalent, into [he water to convey it to the bapiifmal candidate. The pratiice of our opponents is juft as dilTiini- lar and difcordant as our's agrees; for the Ad- miniftrator on tl,e ba fift-plan, blends dipping on the part of himfeif and the fubje6l together ; inftead of applying water to the latter, though that mode is invariably fan6lioned by the figni- fication of the primitive verb in the aforecited in- ftances, he applies the fubjeci to the Element. In truth the primitive word no where requires ONE PERSON TO DIP ANOTHER ; but as far as cafes to the point, namely, thofe of pofitive law, furnifii us with precedents, it appears that the

dipping

=^ Pardobap; Exara, vol, i, p. isjj*

( 38 )

dipping enjoined by it, relates to an inflnmental intermediate aBion of the Baptizer, fubjervient to another whereby the water, &c. reaches to the baptized. After fome fuch manner is it that the precife acceptation of the word drcumcife in He- brew, which fignifies in general a cutting off, is to be afcertained in connexion with pojilive Law. That fenfe which it fo plainly affumes there, as denoting the excifion of a particular part, is in- variably to be adopted, where the verb appears Jingiy with any apparency evident reference to the order refpeftiiig that Old Teftament rite. From the paflages produced, there is not lefs difcernible authority for confidering the primitive verb before us, as enjoining an aft of dipping in refpeft of the performer, inflrument, or iiiflru- mental intermediate aftion ; not of the baptized objeft.

II. Baptize being a derivative, and, as was ob- ferved in the firft Chapter, appropriate to the or- dinance in queftion throughout the New Teda- ment ; mud we not underftand it confiltently ■with its primiiivey and To expreffive of the whole aftion by which the water that the baptizer dips his hand into, or what is equivalent, is imparted to the fubjeft of the Adminiftration? What can we denominate the feveral a£lions to which we have adverted in the Ritual of Mofes, and fo

plainly

( 39 )

plainly conftituting one determinate ceremonial performance but hapiifm in the aggregate ? That the aBion exprefled by {hapto)^ in thefe inftances where the application of the blood, \vater» lies be- tween the Adminiftrator and the fubje6l is not hoptjjm complete i every one mull be able to perceive. The fubjeft of the ordinance cannot be laid to be in a baptized ftate, till he and the water come in contaft. Does not common fenfe di£late, that inafmuch as dipping on the part of one baptizing another according to the Mofaic Law, was no more than putting the hand, bird. &c. into the fluid for the purpofe of fprink- ling, that ii Ihould be a fimildf aBion (lili ? How plunging of the fubjeft of the otdmance under water can be fairly deduced from a term, which radically cnnfidered and in pofitive Law, en- joined an acl entirely the reverfc, mull be left with thofe on the oppofite fide ot the queflion to fhew. Tiie baptifmal word in Matth. xxviii. ig ap- pears to me to poflefs, agreeably to thefe re- marks, a FULL INDEPENDENT SENSE in it-

felf ; ihem, or the accufaiive which follows it, cxprefles iis abjecls on whom its a6lion terminates; the action iileifrefpe^ls the Admmijlrator -, and if be begins as a Jew would have done under the direction of [bapto) ilie primitive word, there can be no doubt but he would have dipped in order to fprinkle.

If

( 40 )

If the Reader fhould be difpofed to allow as much weight to what has been here urged as the Author does, he will perceive that our differ- ing Brethren err in their performance of baptif- mal ,^. dminiftration at the very outfet, by plunging the fubjeft. — The error equally refpeds ihta^lhn of the Minifter in plunging, and the flate of the perfon plunged. According to the forego- ing account, it was the injlrument that was to be dipped, not the ohjeM, Baplifm defined in re- lation to what concerns the Adminiftrator's wet- ting himfelf, is his dipping partially his hand into the water : as it relates to the wetting of the bap- tized, it is his fpr inkling them. — If we cannot fe- parate baptizing in refpeft of the fubje6ls from the initial a6l in refpe6l of the Adminiftrator, it is plain our Lord never intended the nations to be immerged under water, upon two grounds ; that the water is to be applied to the fuhjeft ; and as little is taken up by the baptizer, fo the baptized who is paffive under the adminif- tration can receive but little.,

So friendly to the leading objeftof this work is the reafoning hitherto purlued, that, it appears to me, we are unavoidably led to conclude from it, that baptizing is a complex aQion : for, if pofi- tive law afcertains after this manner the import, ufe and relation, of the primitive term (bapto)^ no one, it is evident, can undergo baptifm without

a Jecond

( 41 )

a fecond aBion on the part of the Adminiftrator, and doubtlefs the derivative denotes as much. Hereby we are at no lo(s confiftently to account for baptizing, though a fingle term, having re- fpeft to different aftions. Pofitive Law gives it this plenitude of fignification, and by this mean, a natural, regular line of connexion is difccrniblc between the baptizer, the inftrumental a6lion, and the baptized.

Whether ' John, the Son of Zacharias, was dif-- tinguiflied among his countrymen by the name of BAPTIST on account of his imvierjing profelytest,* as Mr. B. writes,may well be difputedanrt denied, if the preceding and following remarks are admits led to have weight. Let the attion appertaining to baptifin-<l Adminiftration be what it might, whe- ther more or lefs, it is natural and ordinary to confider an official title as this is, rather in re- ference to the aHion John v.'as called to perform, than to ihc condition of the fubjeSts in adniinfter- ing the facred Rite. That dipping mzde part of John's complete performar.ee of it, I have no doubt, and nair.ing h.im from this initial acl, he might with propriety be called A dipper. That his adminidiation was as yet imperfcQ:; that the wa«.er of Baptifm had not yet reached the fuhjccl; that he proceded to ^ijurihir a.£t before it did fo, I am equally difpofed to believe, from his own

F account,

* r<rdo,'v Ezani. -vol. ii p- ;.§?.

( 42 )

account, Matth, iii. ii. I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance ; kit he that cometh after me — fiall baptize you -with the Holy Gkojl, and with Jire, Art baptize you Siud dip you, Phr&ks Jynony- moiis here ? No, for if iii or into was fubftituted inftead of with, and baptize wiih which the remain- der of the verfe is joined fignifies immcrging of the JubjeB^ how, is it reconciicable with A6is ii. 2, 3. ? Shall we be told ih.e h.oufe wherein the Apoftles were fitting was fJkd with the found of a ru/hing zoind ? Unfortuately for the mode our Brethren would defend, when they thus in- finuate, * The Apoftles, as an Antipaedobaptifl: writer obferves, were in the houfe before the Spirit filled it, fo that there was nothing like dip- ping [in this part of ] the cafe, but in immerfion [of the fubjetl] the place is frfl filled wllh water, before the perfuu is put into ii t.' No mention is made of any thing but the fre in connexion with this Baptifn of the Spirit,' chhtr in John's language as recorded by Matthew, or related by Luke, and repeated by Chriit himfelf, Afls i. 5, AVith good reafon,then, does the Author but now quoted, afe, when it is faid, by way of objeBion, -* that the pouring of the Spirit on the Apoflles is called baptifm by way of allufion to that of m- merjion ; becaufe the houfe, in which the Apof- tles were then affembled, \v3ls filled with it' — ^ How

doth

f Elliot's dipping, not baptizidg. Chap, 2.

( 43 )

doth the Objedor know that this is the rcafon why it is called baptifm ? The Scripture no where gives this 2iS, a reafon for it ; coiifequently, we hdiWQ no warrant from Scripture io fay or believe it t.' If to the fdling of the houfc we affiK a fjgnificancy, and it may naturally be fuppofed to have fomc^ what impropriety is there in under- ilanding it to denote, that the woild at large, of which the houfe on this occafion became a fit einblcni, lies open to a communication of mer- cy on the Apodles' receiving, and their fuccef- lors in ihcm this qu-iliftCLUioii for, and JanHion to the difcp.arge of the grand commiffioii, Matlh. xxviii. 19.? That wljcjiever providence makes way for Chrifl's commiiTioned fervants, there is a fulnefs from which they may baptize and teach the nations, exhibiting the Spirit by thefc two affociated ordinances ? While that part of the human frame is (trikingly marked out, to which the blelFings of the gofpel are addreflfed, as well as by which they are delivered, and where, at lead principally, the baptifmal fign is to be applied ? Peter's explanation of this affair. Chap. ii. verfe i6, 17, well agrees 10 this reprefentation, when he fays, *' This is that which was fpoken of by the Prophet Joel ; and it Jhall come to pafs in the lafl days^ faith God^ I will pour out ofy or, I will effufe from my Spirit F. 2 (apo

+ Elliot's &c: ibid.

( 44 )

(apo tou pneumatos) upon all fleJJi. Even t«i fuch an extent was the promife now radically and virtually accomplifhed ; and in fuch a manner^ as to put it out of all doubt in my mind, — that in refpeft of the nations^ baptifm jointly with preaching belongs univerfally to them by virtue of a given right — that in regard of Baptifmal Ad-^ miniftrationy it is duly performed by taking of and applying the element to the fubje6t, or, in other words, dipping into the water for the pur- pofe of pouring or fprinkling. — If thefe things be once admitted refpefting the baptifm of Mef- liah, it is furely in proof of the mode of John's Adminiflration of the Baptifmal Ordinance^ provided mc give credit to his own words be- fore quotedi

To thele things refpefting the title cf John, the remark may be added, that, on the fuppo- lition of his being denominated the dipper be- caufe of the Jiaie of the baptized under water, it follows that the phrafe baptizing them in the com-^ miffion of Chrift, exprefles the e^eBy but leaves the caufe or injlrumental aElion to be inferred* Or elfe, which is equally improbable and inca- pable of proof, a partial dipping on the part of the Minifter, is to produce a total immerjion of the fubjefl:. If dipping as it refpeds the Ad- miniftrator, fignifies to immerge the hands, does X\iQ plunged^aiiQ of the baptized follow thence ?

To

\

( 45 )

To argue from it may hefo to it mufl befo, is a fpecics of reafoning pointedly and juftly repro* bated by Mr. B. It cannot theretore be con- fidently efpoufed by way of felf-defcnce here. Indeed it is of no weight at all, that in point of JaB^ a perfon dipping himfelf partially, may plunge another totally ; unlefs there is the evi- dence of pofitive Law that it mujl be fo, in relation to an ordinance like that we are now confidering. Making this however an umpire, I hefitate not to affirm, that it is neither a natural or legal confequence* Not natural^ even upon allowed data, legitimate principles of reafoning on pofi- tive inllitutes, for, whereas the enabling baptif- mal term fliould be full and determinate, it is otherwife on fuch a fuppofition. Not legale for if we appeal to the Mofaic Ritual for precedents, there was a little dipping, fuch as above-men- tioiieJ, and making part of Baptifraal Adminif- iration, where fuch an effeft as is fuppofed neither did, or could follow. Taking the defini- tion of baptizing from the practice of our Anta- gonilils, it is a partial dipping of the Baptizer himfelf, in order to dip the Baptized wholly. According to this mode, parts of the body and arms of the officiating Minifter are well-known to be in the water — but where is there a fixa- tion authorized by the ufe and import of the primitive or derivative word under confidera-

tioD,

( 46 )

tion, in the connexion of pofitive Law, that a- grees to this, on the part of a Baptizer? Not one paffage whence a ftate refembling that of a Baptift-Adminiftrator on occafionsof baptifm can be fairly inferred, is to be found throughout the Bible.

If we want a true and jufl account, fo far as it goes, of the ftate of baptifm among the Jews, previous to, and at the time of, John's and our Lord's appearing, we may meet with one, Mark, vii. 3, 4. where the words literally rendered, run thus: The Pharisees, and all the JEWS, that is, as I conceive it is natural to un- derftand it, thofe who rejefted John's miniftry and his Matter's, except they xuajli their hands oft [Piigme, with abundance of exadnefs. See Dr. Doddridge's paraphrafe on the place] eat not^ ho l d-

INGTHE TRADITION OF THE ELDERS. And wh 611

they come from the market [left they fhould without their knowledge have touched any thing uncleanj except they -wajli (^Greek, baptize) they eat not. And UAH Y OTHER THitiGsthcrc be, which they have RECEIVED TO HOLD, as die waJJiing ^Greek^ baptisms'] of cups and pots, brazen vefjelsy and oj tables^ or bcds^ as the word may be rendered, [or the very couches on which they lie at their meals. Doddridge]. As baptifm was unqueftionably a term of long ftanding, and ufed to denote fome performance agreeable to its religious import,

( 47 )

prior to the days of John, it is an inquiry of importance, what was the genuine ftate of the Jews in reference thereunto. If we advert ei- ther to the narrative of the facred Hlftorian, or others, I apprehend there is ground for believ- ing, that as the Jews were degenerate in other things, they were become fo in this alfo. Tradi- tion had fo far encroached upon divine politive Law, as to make the word of God of no cffeft among them. The declaration however of a facl in the hijlory of Mark, the application of the term to things or a6lions fo accounted by the Jews, are no proofs of the genuine meaning of bap- tizing, «/»ar^ from the teft and decifion of the Mo- faic Ritual, where it is originally and divinelypre- fcribed. Here, then, if our Brethren would derive countenance to their diftinguifhing pra6lice, it looks very likely to originate in the principle to which Mr. B. would feign trace and afcribe ours, namely, Tradition. But on the other hand, if as Dr. AddiiT^ton julUy oblerves, *it is utterly incredible that they fliould plunge their whole bodies before every meal, or that they (liould dip their beds at all, t/ will our opponents venture to deny, but fome fuch mode as is contended for in this work, was probably adopted? If luch a conceffion cannot be reafonably with-holden, baptifm by fprinklingy admits of an earlier date than Mr. B. in Fa^do-

baptifm

•f Adiir.gton'< Clidil/ Mliiiftci'i Rcafoas, , &c, p, ao;

( 48 )

baptifm examined gives it, for whereas according to him, it was fubfequent to Chrift and the Apof- tles' time ; according to this account it exifted hefore. — But ftiil perhaps it will be urged, it is more likely to be the offspring of Tradition, than the other mode. However I might be apt to think fo was I of the Baptift perfuafion, nothing but unaccountable prepoffeflion of mind could hinder from perceiving that diffing was not ihc modt invar iably\x{tdi. Yet it muft be allowed that precedents to which foever fide they lean, which the ordinary praflices of the Jews hold out, whom wc know to have been fo corrupt and degenerate, cannot be entitled to much credit ; not in this connexion ejfccially^ where they are arraigned, convifted and condemned as culprits , by au- thority unqueftionable. * To have recourfe to Tradition is a difgrace to that principle, the SUFFICIENCY OF SCRIPTURE, nof cau it in- deed be fuppofed that any [on either fide in this, or any other controverfy], fhould folicit the friendly aid of Tradition in fupportof religious praftice, if they did not feel their want of dirett evidence in the facred writings t/ Cordially approving thefe remarks of Mr. B. I obferve, that the proper matter of inquiry and confideration is. Not what the Jews did, or cd!//d<i baptifm, but what pofitivc Law required of them in this cafe. When

Tradition

( 49 )

Tradition appears to have obtained fuch an af« cendency as it did over them, furely the Adminifm tration of rites among them fhould be received with the greateft care and circumfpeQ;ion.

When infifting upon immerfion of the fub- jc6l, it has been common to urge the neceffity ?nd ufe of what is called baptistories, among the Jews. They are faid to have had receptacles of water in, or, near to their houfes, large enough for the total immerfion of their bodies. Whatever credit is due to hiflory, tranfmitting accounts of this fort, I mull repeat and contend, that there is no arguing from fuch a faB to what was requifite; or that theyufed the water contained in thefe repofitories after one invariable method. What was requijite pofitivc Law only can decide. That the occafions of ceremonial purifica- tion were numerous by divine appointment, of fuch a nature, and occurring with fuch frequen- cy, that no fmall quantity of water would be neceflary, none can venture to difpute. But on examining the Mofaic Ritual, I apprehend it will be found, that natural in^purity being deemed inconfiftent with ceremonial purity of the perfon, there was an abfterfion of the flefh or clothes, partially or totally, joined along with that clean- fing which is more Jiriclly ceremonial. Baptifm as adminiflered under Mofes, included what the Apoftle calls i Pet. iii. 21, The putting away the

G JiUh

( 50 )

filth of ihefiejh. Therefore, to the fprinkling of the Leper who was pronounced ceremonially clean on his being fo ferved ; it was alio required, that he Jlioidd wa/Ji his clothes, and JJiave off all his hair, and wafh himfdf in or with -water that he might be clean. Levit. xiv. 7, 8. Again: In Numbers, xix. 11. it Teems, thai ihe perfon who had the water of reparation fprinkled upon him, was on the feventh day to purify himjelf, and -wafh his clothes, and bathe himfelf in water. Tho' that water was put into a veffel along with the afhes of the burnt heifer of purification, it ceremoni- ally rendered the perfon clean, notwithllanding a mixture of that kind would ferve to render him literally otherwife, in our account. This 1 confider as ftri£lly ceremonial, bccaufe that which in itfelf confidered would naturally defile, produces ritual purity. That purification which devolved upon himfelf afterwards, would re- move every appearance of natural pollution, for it confided of his wafliing his clothes and his body, feparately in water. By the way it may be obferved, that could it be made to appear that the wafhing prefcribed for a perfon himfelf to do, was aftually performed by his immerging himfelf, it could not be admitted as an argu- ment in this controverfy. It would only ferve for Je-baptifuy whereas the enquiry here is, what the law requires in bapiifmal wafliing admini-

ftercd

f 51 )

ftered by c-ne in behalf of another,.' It bow- ever makes very much againft our differing Brethren, that in ail thefe cafes where what we iinderRand ordiiiarily by an att of abfterfion rflay be fuppofcd id take place, it was done by tlve perfon hinilelF, the body itfelf bare, as the ablution might be partial or total ; the clothes waflied leparateiy ; and an cftabliflied regard is oWervablc to decency and conveniency. But, €ven on tk.is occafion, that thciC was an immerg- iug the body in the water, no where appears. For louo, the verb that is ufed in connexion with Naamaii's cafe, the waihing of the Leper, &c. in the Lcvitical Law, by the Seventy, may of it- felf be underltood alike, either of a total or partial wa&ing. So Mr. Twogood remarks. In proof of which Dr. Williams bids us confult, Exod. XXX. 18, 20. and v. 19, 21. Gen. xliv, 24, 31. £xod. xxix. 17. I Kings, xxii. 38. Job, xxix. 6. Ezekiel, xvi. 4, adding here, *One might adv, what is the mode of wa/liing a new- born child ? or is a chariot plunged in a pool when it is toajlied ^ Or when Job fays, '* I loajhed my fteps with butter/' is it natural to fay he immerfed them in it t.* If louo is ufed to ex- preis the wafhing of a part, it makes againft an application of the fubjed to the water by immer- iion, for a part may be wafljed, that is effeded by G 2 an

i Antipjedobap, Exam, vol. 2. p, 4^.

( 52 )

an application of water to it, when it cannot be ^immergfd. If this verb is alfo ufed to exprefs 'total wajhing in the Morale Ritual for the fake of putting away the filth of the flefh, of what is it more natural and legal to undcrftand it, than of the conjlituent aBion of applying water to the fubjeft ? Not of the circumjiantial one of its being dipped, and yet not really wafhed ? For as a body or clothes may be put into water, and yet nei- ther be at all cleaner for fo doing — to make dip^ ping them and wa/Jiing themy terms of the fame import, is both contradiBory to the defign of the Law of Mofes when prefcribing the latter, and to the nature of the elfential aftion alfo, as the pra6lice of every Wafher-woman, a chara£ler to whom Mr. B. appeals, abundantly demon- flrates. To me it appears there is ftrong reafon to fufpefl, that ivimerfion as praaiCed by the de- gt^-ncrate Jews, was owing to their careleffnefs, ra- ther than exaanefs; as if going in and coming out of the water, was fufficient ; whereas there are two objeaions againil it from the very requifi- tions of the Law they were profeffedly obferving. One, that it required a punBual and complete removal of the impurity it enjoined the ad of abfterfion for. The other arifes from the purity of the water, which the Apoftle, alluding to thefe cleanfings, Heb x. 22. lays ftrels upon. If the water wherein they were to wafli themfelves

was

( 53 )

was proper to be preferved in as clean a ftate as poffible, it is not likely that whatever occafion there might be for refervoirs of pun water in or near their houfes, that they could ufe them by plunging themfelves totally^ and fo frequently as they are fuppofed to have done, without making the Law of no effect. — The pajjage from the Epijilt to the //e^r(?w5, juft mentioned, deferves yet more particular notice, for it is evident, that the lan- guage of the Apoftle isjewijli^ tho' the meaning is fpiritual and becoming one writing oj, and under the Gofpel difpenfation. His words are, Let us draw near with a true hearty in Jull ajjurance of faith ^ having our hearts fprinkkd from an evil con^ fcience, and our bodies wafJied with pure water. That the Apoftle has recourfe to a mode of reprefen- tation fo evidently jewifh, is no ground for fun- prize, if we confider his defign in this Epiftle at large, viz. to (late the Jewish and Chriftian (economy, by way of comparifon, and to eftabli/h the preeminence and preference belonging to the latter^ The perfons who are in a ftate cor- refponding to ihejpiritual import of the Text are unqueftionably^^Tzwm^ believers. Immediate- ly, in this view, it appears reafonable to under, ftand hearts and bodies, as diftinguilhed from each other, and faid to be fprinkkd or wafhed, to de. note the extent of their fanftification to their whole man. Dr. Owen who adopts and fanftions

this

( 54 )

this Opinion writes, * The Body is faid to btwa/hed from Jins becaufe they are outward, m oppo- fition to thofe that are only inherent in the mind. And becaufe the body is the inftrument of the perpetration of them, hence they are called the deeds of. the body ; and the body is defiled by fome of them in an efpecial manner, i Cor. vi,. Therefore the pure water wherewith the body is to be waflied, and which is divinely promifed [[Ezekielxxxvi. 85. Then willl sprinkle clean WATER uponyoUy and ye /hall be clean : from all your Jilthinefs and Jrom all your idols will I cleanfe you.~\ is the ajjifiance of the fantlifying Spirit by virtue of the facritice of Chriftt.' It is obfervable that, in a paflagc of this fort where doubtlefs the Apoftle hath in his eye the Baptifms of the Old Teftament, and fome re- fpeft probably to the one, Baptifm under the New, ihdit. fprinkling Ihould be mentioned in con- nexion with confcieuQe, For Peter likewife, when defcribing Baptifm, tells us, * It is not the putting away the filth of the flesh, but the anfwer of a good confcience. i PetQr, Chap, iii, ver. 21. So far as the latter claufe in the Text from Paul, may allude to an aBual abfierfion of the body, 'il,\s Jewish Siud repugnant to Chriftian Baptifm, as reprefented by Peter. Confequentlyj regard- ing baptifm, which we are led to do from thcfe

and

f Owen on the Hebrtwi, abrWged by Dr, WilliaKi.

( 55 )

and other paffages, as an exhibitory and obliga- tory fign of univerfal holinefs, or fpiritual cleanf- ing ; and yet not as a Jewish Ordinance which had JiriB abjlerjion of the body joined with it; if that be feparate from it, the aft bell becoming the adminiftration of it, to fignify fpiritual blef- fings, is that wherein the water is applieiI TO THE SUBJECT, uot tlic fubjcB to the water. The Paedobaptift mode is here fan6lioned, if the principle now mentioned is refpefted as it fhould be, for, aftual abfterfion being out of the quef- tion, fprinkling is pointed out ; beft preferves the conftituent a6t of wafliing ; is more entirely pofitive^ and as fully ferves to reprefent fpiritual cleanfing, as fprinkling produced ceremonial^ and was for the time an emblem o{ fpiritual alfo.

The Apoftle, in this fame Epiftle, Chap. ix. lo, infilling on the Jewifli difpenfation and its apper- tenances, enumerates among other things, divers washings^ or as they may be literally rendered, diaphorous baptifms, — Scapula in his Lexicon ren- ders the verhdiaphero, by thefe Latin words, di^ero i. c. fero in diverjas partes, Baptifm, then, accord- ing to this account, confided of more parts or a8:s than one. The only place befide in all the New Teltament where the fame word occurs, is Rom. xii. 6. diverfe gifts. Gifts, i. c, prophecy ^ teachings rulings cSrc. are fpoken of as diaphorous in imraediaiti; conne6lion with the preceding verfe,

where

( 56 )

where the Church is reprelemed as one body, un- der the notion of an individual. They were, tho' of different kinds, and dilhibuted among feveral members, yet all together conjliiutive of the Church as 2igifttd body. — There were Baptifms of blood, water, &c. of Priefts, Levites, and people among the Jews — But where was occafion for the Apof- tlc*s ufing any but the word baptifms to exprefs a variety in this way, when for ought that is perceivable, this of itfelf would have ferved his purpofe jufl; as well, as we know meats and drinks^ the words immediately foregoing, do, though Hand- ing alone, without any adjediive at all. * Meats ; that is, fays Dr. Owen, Things to be eaten, or not eaten, as being clean or unclean ; an account of which is given, Leviticus xi. Leviticus x. 8. 9. ver. 17, 18. Chap, xxiii. may be alfo re- fpe6led.' If, in one caje, the ufe of the plural num^ her is fufficient to exprefs fuch a variety, why not Baptifms equally fo to exprefs Baptifmal Ad- miniftraiions in refpe6t of the feveral things be- fore mentioned ? Muft not the word which the Apoftle prefixes to Baptifms, have fome diflinEl fenfe, or elfe is it not ^ fuperjlmus ^ needlefs Epithet? To what may it more naturally be fuppofed to relate, than to the internal frame of baptifmal Adminiftration on the part of theperfon perform- ing it ? It is to be noted that the property expref- ed by the adjeftive, belongs to evfry taptifm : con

fequently.

( 57 )

fequcntiy, if it be interpreted according to the definition already given, it moft ftrongly con- firms the avowed principle of this work.

'Paul, when exhorting the church at Ephefus to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, enforces his exhortation by mentioning a variety of unities^ among which are the foliowing : one Lordt ONE Faith, one Baptifm. That is, one and the fame Lord to be obeyed ; one and the fame Faith to be profeffed ; one and the fame Baptifm to be adminidered. On the ground of this apoftolic alfcrtion we are, therefore, autho- rized to conclude ; That the New Tellament is equally a Ilranger to different fpecies of chrif- tian haplifm^ as to different fpecies of the chridian Faith, or difierent Lords of tliC chriflian church : and hence the propriety of baptifm being men- tioned, as an argument for chrillian unity t.* Thus tar Mr B — i' alfillance is accept-ed in ex- plaining Eph. Chap. iv. vtrr. 5. A pafTage, that, in the (trongefl manner, pronounces the bap- ii/m undf:r the Gofpel one. Cne, I- add, in re- - i'ped of the water, the elenier/t to be u(ed — One in refpett of the perfons adnnniltering it, Miniliers to whom it is affigned, the commiffion being ex- prefi.ly agairift Se-bapiijrn — Cne, in refpeft of all Nations, and _[o the World at large are put on a level — One, in rcfpe6l of the mode in oppofition

H to

t Dcfenc; of Fadobap, Emm, p. 349.

( 58 )

to thofe adulterating mixtures Nvhich prevailed through the degeneracy of the Jewifli Church. — But perfectly confonant with the idea of unity in all thefe refpefts ; with the deJJgn and Jlrength of the Apoftolic argument, and with the other parti of the pafTage, is the other of its being diaphorous. DiAPHOROus! not as authorizing two fpecifically diftinft tnodes. In oppofing fuch a conftruflion I join with Mr, B, ^ox unity ^ not the idea of m- difference, it is obvious, contains the force of the argument, fo far as it can be fuppofed to refpeft the m.anner of the bapiifmal performance. Now that thedfverfity of the mode between us and our oppofite Brethren hath been a bone of contention, and an occafion of breaches,faQsj melancholy fa^s^ evince. Inftead of uniting^ it hath jeparatcd. Whether therefore we judge from the divifions that have prevailed on this ground, or rather from the language and defign of the Apoille, it is likely Paul means to intimate, that \\\^modt of Baptifmal Adminiftration is juchy that, if it be performed fcripturally, it will unite all : — there is no fuch difference as will, or can, infringe upon the unity of the Gofpel-difpenfation, if the ac- tions attending it are duly regarded. The meaning of the term baptizing^ therefore, cannot extend to the pra6lice of Baptijls and Pcedobap- tijls ; both parties cannot be equally right, purfu- ing fo different a courfe : and while the difference

prevails

( 59 )

prevails that does, there is little ground to fup- pofe the Apoftle intended, or to ftate and urge two fuch oppofite modes as reconciieable to the unity of Gofpel-Baptifm.

Baptifm in the conneftion of pofitive Law feems to be a governing word ; louo^xvafk^ to be uled in reference to the conllituent aftions, and the general defign of it. In the hiftory of Naaman's cafe, tabal the Hebrew verb, is render- ed by louo in the Septuagint, tho' ordinarily bap-, to is ufed by the Seventy in the Mofaic Ritual. Our Englifii verfion tranflatcs it, wafJ.i, 2 Kings, V. lo. Yet in ver. 14. where Naaman is re- lated to have done according to the Prophet's direction, the Phrafeology to exprel's it is, he went down and dipped, (septuagint, baptized) fcven i'ivui. A number that is attached to the very a^ion we are contending for, in the law of ^/lofes concerning the Leprofy. Is it not then a fair inference, that he proceeded after the ufual manner of dipping in order to fpnnkle the part immediately atfeCled ? If he did any thing further, or performed a total ablution, it is na- tural to refer it to the order of the aftion ex-i- preffed by tabal or bapto^ in connexion with pojitivc Laiv ; and if this is done, an application of water to his body is denoted, and, confe- <^uentiy, the immerjion of it after the manner of Qur opponents, is, by no means, either a

H 2 ratural^

( 6o )

Matural, neceffary, or legal confequence of Naa- man's afting according to the faying of the Man of God. The fub/erviency of the derivative word, baptize to louo^ appears in Ananiaf's ad- drefs to Paul, Afts, xxii. 16. Arift and be bap- tized and wafii away [apoloufai] thy Jins» On which it may be remarked, that if the aBion cor- refpondent to wafliing away, as it flands con- iiefted with Sins in this paflage, is preTerved in baptizing a perfon, it muft be naked ablution^ in defiance and violation of all decency. To im- merge the body at all, is neither neceffary nor legal to eiFe6l wafliing : to perform fach an a6l with apparel upon it, is repugnant to every idea of cleanjing'n. If baptilm is a wafliing, then the part is bare^ and inafmuch as a perfon is to ad- minifter baptifm for another, pojitive Law and De- cency, join to affix i<: to that part of the human body, which is ufually fo, and immediately ex- preffes the whole Man, as it confifts of foul and body.

To undcrftand the term in our Lord's com- miffion to fo large an extent, as it appears to bear in the Mofaic Ritual, where there was a cleanfing on the part of the perfon hinijeij, deno- minated baptifm, would be improper and unna- tural. Se-boptijm and £ie7obapti/m^ or, what a perfon did of a baptifmal nature refpedjng /zm- fel/j and what another was authorized to do for

hind

(61 )

him, are vtry different : the Mofaic Ritual as far as I can perceive, refpetted decency and con- veniency \n both. It is true, per/o7is and things undcrwejit baptifmai purification ; both, however, were bare, i. e. immediately expofed to the Element, Clothes and Bodies arc evidently diftinguifhed, and if waflied, whether totally or partiallv, were fo feparately. It is equally clear from the fame Law, that a partial application of water to a perfon or thing, was a firitl ceremonial a8:, and produced a clean ceremonial (late in refpeft of the whole. Separating, tlien, as we are warranted to do, a putting away the flih of the flejh, from CHRISTIAN BAPTISM — Adhering to the letter and import of Chrifl's commiflion, which requires Minifters to baptize them, not their clothes Re- garding the part bare that has the water ap- plied to it, as under the Law — What conftruc- tion are we juftified in giving the baptifmai term in the commiffion, uulefs it be agreeable to what we havejull obferved, that water is to be applied to that part which is ufually bare, and which Nature and Scripture jointly make the Reprejentative of the zvhole Man.

If private conveniences for baptifmai admini- ftrations were fo common among the Jews as fome contend for — If the ufe they made of themi was, at lead occafionally, by immerging their iodies in them— Yet it is not lefs true, than it is

remarkable.

( 62 )

remarkable, when John, the Forerunner of our Lord, makes his appearance as a baptist, and the ELI AS who was to restore all things, he abandons private Baptiftories. He betakes him- felf to a river, and Enon where there were ma- ny waters. His Adminiftration was after fuch a manner as to admit of baptizing all who were able to come, whether Jlrong or infirm, large or fmally poor or rich, male or Jemale ; and in the prefence of whatever number o{ fpeHaton might attend on the occafion. Is it credible^ that m- merjion of their bodies could be ufed, under all the natural and adventitious circumftances, which in refpe6l of Sex, Age, Health, Apparel, &c. may be reafonably conceived to have attended fuch multitudes ?

After what hath been before obferved, is it not natural to conclude, that John's baptifm was ac- companied with this notoriety, as a contrail to that corruption and mixture which tradition had introduced, and by way of diftinguifhing between Se-baptifm and Eterobaptifm. *If John's praftice was not new or unprecedtnted, it could neither have excited curiofity or jealoufy t." Looking upon him as the Forerunner of Meffiah, it would have been an extraordinary circumftance accord- ing to the views and expe6lations of the Jews if he had not baptized, * Nothing, as Mr. Brad- bury

*f Maitin's Letters to Mi. Hoifeyi

( 63 )

bury remarks, can be more apparent, than that the Jews expe6led that the perfon who brought bap- tifm amongn: them, muft be either the Meffiah himfelf, or one of his Forerunners. This was the queftion of the Priefts and Leviies, who came from Jerufalem to aflc John^ whether he was the Chrift, or Elias, or that Prophet. And they that were fent were of the Pharifees, a peo- ple diligent to know the law, and jealous to ad- vance it. Therefore they aflc him farther. Why haptizejl thou then, if thou be not the Chri/l, nor Elias, nor the Pro[htt? And John in his anfwer fhows us, that though the Jews raiftook in a circumftance, yet they were right in their notion. / knew him not^ fays he, but that he Jliould be manifejl to Ifrael, therefore am I come baptizing with water.* If John's Baptifm was 7iezu to them, the inode of Adminiftration was at leaft one thing, which would ferve to render it fo ; and this appearance it would acquire, from the adulterating mixtures of Jewifh tradition, making the law of God of no effe6l. That John's pra8;ice however was agreeable to divine laxv, in diftinftion from, oppofition and' preference to human, is, if I miftake not, flrongly intimated by the reafonings and anfwer of the Chief PriclU and Elders of the people, when our Lord afked them concerning the baptijm of John, Whence was it, from heaven, or ^f men ? Unable to invalidate John's Baptifmal

mode

( 64 )

mode on the ground of its inconfijkncy with di- vine politive law, and confcious of the advan- tage they would have giverj our Lord over them, if they fpoke out according to the conviBions of their own minds, they refoive to decline anfwer- ing in the affirmative to the Jirjl query. To degrade his baptirm to a level wiih that which had no higher authority than human invention, had been undermining his Prophetical chara6ter, and to have fignified it, would have entailed the anger and refentment of the people upon thera- felves ; for all held Jf'hn to be a Prophet. From all which circumftances, is it not reafon- able to conclude, that John's character a,s a Re- ftorer of all things, bears date and takes its rife from his baptif'm j but how he could be thus denominated in reference to that branch of his minillry, but upon the fuppofition of fome egre- gious prevailing improprieties among the Jews, it is out of my power to conceive. Viewing him as a. Reformer in this c'd{'Cy[o far as pofitive law required he fhould be, his baptifm both from , the mode and avowed defign of it, became a very important Alra. The fuccefs attendnig him in it produced a (urprifing change in the view of great numbers, fufficiently to excite the dillike, and envy of the Chief Priefts, Rulers, to a high degree. It might, on this account as well as others, juftly bear the name of the Baptifm of

Kepentance;

( 65 )

Repentance; affords a reafon why all that went to him were, and fhould be baptized ; and fhews us how one and all in the very a6l of being baptized, might be faid, virtually at leaft, to confefs their fins. To fulfil all Righteoufnefs, our Lord him- felf fubmits to be baptized by John ; thus bear- ing a public Teflimony to John's character and work, and at the fame time, difcountenancing the illegal praftices of Tradition, and beginning from the Baptifm of his Forerunner to be a public FULFiLLER of tlic Law. * The Jews, previous to the Death of Cbrift, were under the fame obliga- tion to ufe the old ceremonial purifications after John began to baptize, as they were before he appeared among themt.' While indebted for this obfervation to Mr. B. I aflc is it not true, that none of John's Difciples, nor his own, came under cenfure after the Bapiifm of John, or his own Baptifm, for baptifraal irregularities while they adhered to their refpeQive Mailers. The blame and reproof conveyed in Mark vii. which we have already noticed, appear to have fallen wpon thofe Jews who profeffedly were enemies to Chrifl: and John. However, ditonetime^ all THE JEWS were involved in fimilar Guilt, (fee ver. 3. of the laft mentioned Chapter,) John's Miniftry was efficacious in their reftora- tion at leaft fo far.

I Tho*

i Booth '1 Defence, &ci p. 3J2.

( 66 )

Tho' we read of Baptifm being perforrtied by our Lord's Dijciples both before and after his afcenfion ; yet xohere, throughout the (acred Narrative, is it intimated, that what is com- monly underftood by Baptiflories, baptifmal Fonts, &c. in ancient or modern terms, were ufed ? Not y© much as -water is dire6lly mentioned, ex- cept it be in the cafe of the Eunuch, and of thofe whom Peter baptized in the houfe of Cor- nelius, A8;s, X. 47. A filence this mod extraor- dinary and unaccountabhy but upon principles direftly oppofite to the praftice of our differ- ing Brethren. Where the mode of immerfion prevails, we can be at no lofs, from fa£ls, to know what is deemed and found requifite, re- 'lating to receptacles of xvater, provifion of drefs, &c. but neither op.e or the other are coun- tenanced by Scripuire. Pofitive Law no longer fanftioned the ufe of private conveniences of water, than there was real occafion for them from a partial or total naked ablution. Even thefe, tho' neceffary and right while tf/^i^ Jazy/id/- /)', are proJlHuted at length to Tradition. The Jewifli difpenfation is approaching to a clofe ; divine Providence wonderfully prepares the way of the Lord by fending John in the fpirit of Elias, to vindicate, in the adoption and per- formance of a peculiar Baptifm, the Law fo much violated. Baptijlories are deferted. Rivers, or natural refervoirs of waier are repaired to.

Chrift

( 6/ )

Cbrift and bis BaptiOn fucceed. A more glo- rious Difpenfation than ever exifted. at length commences. Our Lord in reference to it, ut-^ ters HIS ROYAL ORDER, Maith. xxviii. 19. «o, dijcipk ye all nations, baptizing them in the NAME of the father, and of the son, md of the holy ghost. Water u unqueRion- ably tbe element proper for the Ordinance en- joined. The life of it is confined to Miniflers. Tbe Apoaies waiting for the promife of the Spirit, are baptized by his coming upon, or being ■ Jhedonthem, Individuals, Families, great Num- bers are faid to be baptized, fubfequent to this event in the facredbiftory ; and yet, in all cafeSy u'itbout a fingle exception, tbe immediate per- formance of the facred Rite is expreded by the term of the commiflTion, baptized.

When Mr. B. obferves the queftion in this controverfy properly ftated is, ' what is thewe^w- ing of the term ?' He writes juftly ; and on a furvey of this Chapter, what reply muft ^ be made? One unfavorable to his profeffed views and praaice as a Baptift. An application of the water to the fubjeB, by a partial dipping on the part of the Adminiftrator, has been at Icaft attempted to be proved^ as part of its legal ''meaning, and beft agreeing to the conaituent aaion requifite for waihing perfon or thing. The phrafe baptizing them in the commiflion, as ad-

I 2 dreffed

( 68 )

dreffed to the Apoftles in refpe6l o^ the Nations, muft, it is prefumed, contain the leading conjlitu- ent aElions necefTary to adminiftration, or other- wife it is not full and determinate. Thefe firft Minifters, it is well known, were men whofe «3- iural capacities rofe not above the ordinary rate* the elajftcal ufe of the term, for which Mr. B. fo much pleads and lays fo much ftrefs upon, was what j&oor illerate fi/Jiermen could not be fup« pofed to be very converfant about : the utmojl to be expe6led from fuch would be an acquain- tance with, or reference to the Septuagint, or original Hebrew, of the Old Teftament. And whether a Jew, unbiaffed by Tradition, and re- pairing to thofe fources for due information, would not have confidered the baptifmal term di- reftive of an application of water to the fubjeft, rather than of the Jubjedt to the water, is left with the impartial Reader to judge, after a perufal of the preceding pages, Dillinguifhing between what devolved upon a perfon himfelj when per- forming any part of Ritual purification, and that which the Law prefcribed for another to perform on his behalf, muft not the phrafe, baptizing therrii as it marks out miniJUrial duty, correfpond to the flridlly ceremonial or pojiiive AB of baptizing in the latter cafe ? The per/ons, not the'w clothes, being as to both ordinances, baptizing and preaching, m- mediately concerned ; and as in refped of the latter,

there

( 69 )

there can be no doubt which part of the human frame is immediately intended; is it not natural to confider i\\^. former terminating on the j'izTOf , when no diJlinBion or difference is exprejjed? If Baptifmal Adminiftration proceeds upon the principle of a perfon previoufly dipping himfelf partially in or- der to communicate the water to the fubjeft, what other aftion for the laft mentioned purpofe, can we conceive warranted by positive law, if not fprinkling or pouring ? Thefe are the on- ly terminating afts perceivable in the Mofaic Ri- tual, or Scripture at large. Not modes /pecijically di/lwM, like thofe which are fet up in competition and oi)po{ition between us and our differing Bre- thren. Bothy equally and naturally proceeding from the fame previous primary aH of dipping on the part of the Adminiftrator. Both, fanftioned by the language of promifes, and the fignificancy of certain aftions or appearances, A6ts, ii. Bothy declared alike adapted to the purpofes intended, and coinciding with the fame ftate as to the bap- tizer and baptized in connexion with the water, Ifaiah xliv. 3. Ivii. 15. Ezek. xxxvi. 25 — 27. Both, confonant to that idea of unity which is affixed to baptifm under the GofpeL Both, uniting in a greater or lefs degree, every time the or- dinance is adminiftered after the Paedobaptift mode.

Imprefled

( 70 )

imprelTed with thefe confiderations, I con- clude this Chapter, with fubmitting to the Reader what Dr. Owen^bferves in his expofition on the Hebrews, Chap. ix. ver. 18—22. 'This rite or way offprinkling was chofen of God as an ex- pieffive/^wof the communication of covenant benefits to the fprinkled ; hence the communicat- ing of the benefits of Chrift's Death for fanaifi- cation is called * the fprinkling of his Blood,' 1 Peter, i. 2. And our Apoftle comprifeth all the effefts of it to that end under the name of « the blood of fprinkling.' Chap. xii. 24. And I fear that thofe who have ufed the expreffion with fome contanpt when applied to the fign of communicatingthe benefits of Chrifi's Death in Baptijm have not obferved a due reverence of holy things i for this fymbol o£ fprinkling was that which God himfclf appointed as a meet token of the communication of covenant mercy, that is, of HIS «RACE in Christ Jesus to our Souls.'

CHAP,

( 71 )

CHAP. IIL

On- the Meaning and life of certain PrepO" Jitions in this Controverjy.

AL L allow, what none without egregious ignorance and effrontery can deny, that the Greek particles interfperfed among the Hifto- ric Narrative of New Teftament Baptifms, are capable of various renderings*. From this ac- knowledged diverjity of fignifi cation, may it not be prefumed that the baptifmal term fhould hav6 and really hath a compleU independent fenfe^ with- out them ? Of this it undoubtedly is in pofleffion as much as it can be, if underftood agreeably to the preceding Chapter. However true it may be ' that prepofitions have no fmall influence in determining the meaning of words, and in ma- ny cafes are quite decifive f ;' yet, in regard

to

• Almoft every piece on the Mode of Eaptifni, containing a larger or fmaller account of the various renderings of the Greek prepofitions oc- curring in this Controverfy, it is deemed needlcfs to particularize them kere. A mong other Publications, the Reader ij referred for information ©a this Branch of the Subjetl to Dr. Addington's Chriflian Miniftcr'a Jleafonsfor baptizing InfantSi &c.- and to Dr. Williams's Antlpedobap* £x9mi vol. 3. Chap. iv.

+ Antipadobap. Exam. vol. a. p» 541 Iwih'i Defence, &c, p, aj;, j^S,

( 7^ }

to a term like that in queftion, is it not apparent that it becomes equivocal and indeterminate, jufl in proportion as thefe particles are admitted, or fuppofed to decide its import ?

That eis and ek in certain conneftions muft be conftrued to and /ro7)i Nobody ever denied' is the language of Mr. B — 's pen t. Wherefore it follows that, if there is no neceffity for ren- dering thefe prepofitions into and out of, which they are made to bear in ourEnglifh verlion,from the baptifmal word with which they may be im- mediately, or moreindireftly conne6ted, we are at liberty to tranflate them otherwife.

Whether, therefore, we affix to the contro- verted term, the acceptation given it in the pre- ceding pages, or even That of our Opponents, where is the neceffity arifing from the connexion for diredly and exclufively tranflating, Matth. iii. 6. and any paffiige of a fimilar conftruftion, thusj And were baptized of him into Jordan? Who can avoid perceiving that, if the phrafes haptiz~ ing them, and immerging them, are flriftly fyn- onymous, it is fwperjluous rather than neceflary to render the prepofition into. And as eis wiU admit of other acceptations, among which at is one, fome fuch fenfe feems beft, even on Mr, B — 's principles of reafoning. Thus the force of the cnafting term will remain undiminiffied

by •K Padobapy ExaiD} vol, s pi fo;*

( 73 )

1)y the fubfequcnt prepofition ; bis own tenet is Sufficiently f'ecure if he can make it appear that they whom John baptized were immerged at Jordan ; and thereby room is left for circumflati' tial reafons as well as othe)\ on the account of which Jordan is mentioned : whereas, accord- ing to the fentiment of our Baptiil-Brethren, and, indeed, to make it anfwer their purpofe, the Hiftorian muft be fuppofed to relate things after the manner he does, as if the River was not ne- ceflary for the fake of any thing but the Ordi- nance. This however, all circum^ances cotijidered, could not be the cafe.

If into be inhfted upon as the immediately- proper and exclufive rendering of eis in the Nar- rative of Bapiifmal Adminiftrations, the impro- priety thereof in fome paffages where it is found along with the baptifmal verb, is furely an objec- tion to it. Becauf.^, fubftituting for the latter, im- merging^ alias, putting into, or fuch like phrafeolo- gy, will they not run after this manner ? And zvere baptized, immerged^ /. c.pid into, 0/ or under him, iHTo Jordaii. Matth. iii, 16. This fingle fpecimen is, if 1 miftake not, fafficient to fhew that impropriety and redundancy of diftion, are requifite to fupport the tenet we oppofe, if fuch phraleology is recurred to in poMit of argument. Other Texts, fuch as John, vi. 17. Mark, xvi, 5. are ill adapted, for the« lame reafon, to

K aufwer

( 74 )

anfwer Mr. B — 's defign in quoting them. To render eis by into, as it is fitua'.ed between Ship and Sepulchre on the one band, and the participles emhantes or eiselthoufai on the other in the Scrip- tures juft mentioned, is fuhjetling the whole of each to the following aukward and inco.nudent appearance. And entering, ox going into, in- to (/'7"0/'e/'/)', at) the Ship. Entering^ ^.WaiS, going into, inio (^propei'ly, at) the Sepulchre, While the compound words denote emiance, the pre- pofition eis in this connetlion mull be equivalent to at.

* The form of expreffion adopted by Evan- gelifts and Apodlcs, is always, if I miftake not, fays Mr. B. baptizing in or zn^fo fomething]];.' If this remark hjii/l(z})d that it is altogether other^ wifcy I am not dilpofed to think) it remains to in- quire whether Mr. B — 's fide of the quedion bath recourfe to proper or undue means in op- pofing a conclufion favorable to the Pasdobaptift mode on fuch a ground ? Or, whether they are juftifiable in engrojjing fuch an idea to the fup- port of their own peculiar fentiment, from thofc parts of the facred narrative where en and eii are ufed ? Is it very agreeable to the * noble fenfe aild mafculine diftion of infpiration,' to exprefs the fiicceeding texts as Mr. B. gives them to us ? Know ye not that fo many of us as were

IMMERSED J Psdobap. Exam. vol. i,p. 88. Defence, &c. p, s6o.

{ 75 )

IMMERSED (put INTo) INTO Jcfus Ckrift,

•were IMMERSED (put into) into his Death ? yU many of us as, have been immersed (put into) INTO Chrijl^ have put on Clirijl. Thertfore we ar^ buried ^^ i m m e r s i o n ( p u t t i n g i n to) into death' ' And hence, he goes on to oblerve^ it appears, that the word baptize is connetted with fuch par- ticles {en and eis) as forbid our concluding that c\i\itvwa/Ii, pour or Jpr inkling i« a proper fub- ftitute for it.' Granting this remark as to the two laft terms, I beg leave to add, Equally improper n DIPPING OF ITSELF. Lct either the, original word be retair.ed, or a fcnfe agreeable to fuch a complex aclion as that of dipping in order to jprinkky be given it in the paflages where it is found ; and there is not one of them but will make-a better figure than by confidering it 2i Jin- gle aclion, whether immerfion of the jubjzB. on the part of our Opponents, or fprinkling on the fide of Paedobaptilts, be fuppoled.

After the afore-mentioncd obfervation relating to baptizing in or into fomething, as the form of exprefnon adopted by Evangelilts andj^Apof-' ties, Mr. B. fubjoins by way or' illuftrating and confirming it : ' Thus, for example, en or eis IN or INTO Jordan. Matth, lii. 6. Mark, i. 9. (?», IN "aiater^m Enon^ in the Holy Spirit , Matth. iii. 11. John, iii. 23. Mark, i. 9/ On this rcprenfeniatioa of the particles^ to every

K 2 thinking

( 76 )

tliinking Reader it will occur, that an exhibition of them in d^feparate detached fiate from the paf- fages whereof they are a part, fliould be received mth caution. Matth. iii. 6. and Mark, i. 9. in the above lift of examples, tho' fiort are conipre^ henftve. The Subjea of the Ordinance, the Aaion in adminiftering it, the Agent performing it, the Element itfelt, are all noticed. Doubtlefs thefe have a bearing one towards another ; and there- fore it is proper that, whatever argument is fought from the partj« taken feparatcly, it ftould be compared and examined by a reference to the ^hole. Proceedipg upon this plan, let it be re- membered that into or immerge, if made to ex- prefs the Jlate of the Juljecis of the Ordinance, produces fuperflutiy of language— hoxh \viih re- fpea to the prepofition eis, and the other, upo, of or under him. The Tautology is not lels glar- ing and prepofterous than the foiicwing VeiTion : Then uent out to Am Jerusalem, and all ju- liEKyand ALL THE i,EGio^ Tound ahout J ordan, andzoerevvT into under him into Jordan. Befides what has been urged in the i-receding Chapter for a different fenfc of the baptilmal term, let us fee how the pafTage immediately before us harmonizes wi.h it. Admitting, then, that it means a complex circmtous aBion on the part of the Adminiftrator, the phrafe, baptized of him, takes in the initial aH of John dipping into the water of the

WHOLE

( 77 )

WHOLE Riv.., and ibe terminating aB as well, bv an application of the water to the fubjea. ^ That this is .// that.W. neceffarily intends con- ncaed with baptifmal or ordinary wafhing I muft beg leave to affirm, becaufe to fuch a performance it is not ejjential that perfon or tning be immediately dipped into the water, but that the Wdjher partially dips into, and fo applies the ele- n^ent to ..7A.r. Into, in conneaion with the exprefs baptifm of pofuive Law, appears to me to be exaaiv the fame. Taking into account the latiiude of the baptifmal aBion on the part of ihe Adminiftrator, and the defign alfo of the mode, namely, to produce a jim^f^jr. between the M-ater and the candulate, into well agrees, as a meaning of the Greek prepofuion eis fubordinate to at, tho' the Ordinance was adminiftered ac- cording to the raedobaptill-plan. Upo, the o- ther panicle, tianflated of, rather, under in the Hiftoric pallagc alluded to, compoits with the terminating ad on the part of John, which in this cafe would htfpnnkLng. It likewife accords w the \dt2i'o[ ihc baptizer and baptized being to fome convenient degree fepar ate, as was certainly the cafe when the fubject was ultimately affeaed by the aaion exprefl'ed by the primitive word, hapto, in the Mofaic Ritual. On the contrary a junaionof the Adminijlrator and the Baptized, fo often as our opponents praaife immerfion,

neceffarily

( 78 )

ftecefTarily takes pi ace by one laying hold of the other. The like mufthave happened if the mode John ufed was not diffimilar : but why there (hould be occafion for, or where the propriety of, doing that which was not done under the direction of the primitive term immediately^ is what I have yet to learn. Inafmuch then, as under jointly "with into, ferve to overload the facred narrative tvith impropriety and fuper/luity, I only add, the aBion we contend for, reftores propriety and precifion to the ufe and fignification of both par- ticles.

As yet we have not done with the examples Mr. B. produces of baptizing into fomething. For he enlarges the paragraph whence the former quotations were taken, by the following addition : * EiSy INTO the Name of the Father — into the Name of Paul — into my own Name — into what were ye baptized ? — into John's Baptifm — into his Death.' — Now if thefe exprefiions refer to the end or obligation of the Ordinance, which I im- agine mull be granted — If an argument for the mode be deducible hence, and it be infilled up- on that the immergmg the fuhjeB is the proper correfpondent aftion, is it not irregular to lift the baptized party out of the water? As immerging expreffes obligation, emerging being a contrary a6lion, countera6ts and weakens the fymbolic force of the other ; and the Adminiftrator himjelf

is

( 79 )

is chargeable as an AcceJJ'ary to it, beeaufe of the part he takes therein. By putting him down, he contributes to \\\% putting on Christ ; by raifing him up io put him off ^ when as yet the Adminiftra- tion is fuppofed not t9 be completely over. Sure- ly the advantage here is on the iide of the Pce^ dobaptijl-^ he applies the water to the fubje6l, leaves him in the ftaie of wetnefs confequent on the Adminiflration, and thus expreffes^ the per- manency of that obligation, of which a baptized perfon can never dived himfelf. He affords him at lead an opportunity of holding forth in his life, a behaviour fuitable to the facred rite. But how this is to be enjoyed on the principles Mr. B. avows in relation to pofitive inllitutes, the baptifmal term, and confijlency of condu6l withal, I am not able to dilcover.

To proceed: Nothing in the ftory oftheEunuch, A6ls, viii. tho' his * Baptifm is perhaps more cir- cumitantially related than that of any othert,' of- fers itfelf to oblige us to depart from the re- marks which have been made, either concerning the baptifmal tetm, or the prepofiiions ufed along with it. As He and PhiUp go on their way, kata odon, or on the' main road, they come to, cpiy that is according to Mr. B. they approach, A CERTAIN water||. At ihis juntlurc, the for- mer cxclaims 6fd', Water I Language this, ftro/igly

indicatmg

f Pedobap; Exatn: vol, 2. p, .508,, |j Ditto vol 1 p. 243.

( So ;

indicating it to be \hz firjl they came to, and not fo large as to be feen at any great dijlance. So foon as his eye difcerned it, his tongue fpoke of it; and as the Travellers are admitted to be near \if this circumftance, together with the lan- guage TV Udor^ by which it is denominated, arc rather calculated to produce a diminutive idea of its quantity than the contrary. As One not very apprehenfive, at leaft apparently, that defth was material, he no fooner efpies it, than taking it for granted there Vf^swater enough to ferve for the -baptilmal purpofe, he aflcs, -what doth hinder me to he baptized ? No objeBion, no fit/penjion, is fo much as infinuated by Philip, on account of Jhalloxvnefs of water. But ftill moving on- wa'-d, the Chariot is at length commanded to flop. Let Mr. B. go on ; * Does [the infpired HiftorianJ defcribe them as alighting from the chariot, and as ujing the water ? His words are. They zoent down both into the water t.' What but the love of hypothefis can hinder this Author from perceiving, that while the verb, ka- tabefan, as he underftands it, is expreifive oi their aH of ali,%hting, and fo relates to the Chariot which they left, the prepofition f/s, primarily and moft naturally figmhes towards^ which is one among other acceptations it hath elfewhere. A6ls, xxviii. 14. So that there is no neceffity without begging

the

•f Pffidobap. Exam, vol s. p, 507:

( Si )

the qiieflion, or taking it for granted that the Bap- tiOnal Action required their entrance within the edge of the water, to confider it- denoting their ^o- ing 111 at all. Verfe 39, is alledged where we read of their coming, ek, out o/the water. But, fuppofing without granting, they were aftually in the water, yet as the atl of Adminiftration is reprefented fe- , paraie and did inft, verfe 38, there is no ground for faying, Philip dipped the Eunuch, without taking a<J great a jump as from ii may be fo to it mujl be fo; alluding to the idea and language of an Author whom Mr. B. quotes. Whereas Matthew em- ploys apo to exprefs a fimilar circumftance refpec- r.ing our Lord, Chap. iii. verfe 16, Luke here ufes t'/^. And as to ihisprepofition, Dr. Addington can inform us, *Out 0/, is fo far from being its m- variahle fignification that it fignifies no more than from^ in a variety of paffages in the New Te (la- ment. Thus John ix. 1. 2 Cor. v. 1. Rev. iii. 10. &;c.' 'Of the other, apo, fays the fame Author, E- very one that knows any thing of the Greek lan- guage, and has read his Greek Teftament with the lead attention, mud have met with Jcores of paiTagcs in v.hich it fignihes no more i\TAnfrom. Matth, iii. 7, v. 42. xi. 25. xxviii. 2. «&:c.* Belides : as the afore-mentioned verb katabe- [ally verfe 38, means their alighting in regard of ihe Chariot, anabejaii rendered They came upy

L points

(82)

points out naturally their return to it. Here It was, as it fhould feem, ibat the Eunuch was deprived of his good companion and valuable in- ilruSlor. While our Opponents would make us believe the wet pate of the fubjeft, by making the prepofitions apo and ek equivalent to out ofy the Scriptures where they are introduced, lead us to conceive cf the Baptized in a fit flate to GO UP TO A WILDERNESS, Mattb. iii. 16; or TO ASCEND A CHARIOT, as iu fhc cafc be- fore us. So that upon the whole, the Phrafeo- logy of l.ukc and the Evangelifts, including the principal verb, prepohtions, Sec. being naturally and fcriptnrally interpreted, makes direQly to ourpurpofe. And, aloi;g with Mr. B. v.'e fhould be glad, in tin n, oF infurmativm what other Greek language the facicd { liliciiidus could have ufed to convey U\c\\ idca;> viiii greater piecifion.

Eiior.gii I thiiJ; h.As been advanced to jultify aTking the foiiovirig qtiedion. TT'/ijj; may not the Bapti/vial Icrr.i ht ji'Ifcrcd to dcciJe the import of the pr:pvfitioniin conudiic/L zvi'/i it, rather than be in- (fritted to them Jor its oivn J/gnifuation ? Efpecially il, as Mr. B. obferves, The true ftatement of il;c (jueftion i;, ]'. lujt is the meaning of the bap- tismal TE"M?r Inasmuch as the prepofitions sre u;;^.'aellicr.^jiy capable of various rendtiir'gs,

and

i" Ecoili's Defence, &c. p %^^

( 83 )

and fo are certainly accommodating ; why ^ as the Baptifmal word inclades in it the aHion and the md, which Mr. B. fays are things diftinft, t may it not be welcome, by virtue of its in- dependent SENSE, to a variation fo convenient to itfelf, and not inconfillent with the meaning of the particles themfelves. If the Author fhould be thought fuccefsful in eftablifhing the complex aBion attributed to it in this work ; then, thefa particles as fuftaining a latitude of conltru6lion,are mod proper to follow it ; becan!e admitting of a more general and Jubordinate Ji^nification^ they better fuit the purpofe of the Hiftorian confider*

cd AT LARGE.

f Pooth's Oefcnce, (J:c, p, tgSt

La CHAT.

( ^4 )

CHAP. IV.

Containing an Examination of PaJJages of Scripture xohere Alluf ens to hnmerfionof the SubjeEl are fuppofed.

' A NALOGY between figns and things fignified •^ -^ is neceffaiyt.' Upon this principle along wiih federal paffiges of Scripture, Mr. B. is of opinion, that immerjion of the JuhjeB is cleaily a fcriptural mode of baptizing ; and produces fe- veral Psedc baptift writers in fupport of the fame fentiment. Previous to noticing iht allufcve and metaphorical uje of the Baptifmal term in the New Teftament, it will be proper to lay before the Reader fome extra6ls from Mr. B — 's writings, which are pertinent to this branch of our inquiry. * lam far from thinking, he writes, that the ^^- lufive fenfe of a word fhould be the rule of in- terpreting the fame exprefTion in a pojitive divine Law' — * All pertinent Metaphors have a literal and proper fenfe for their foundation +.' * Were it granted that the word Baptize under confider- ation is frequently ufed by Greek CloJJics and by the facred Writers in a general fenje it would not

necejjarily

*Booth'i Posdobap. Exam; Indev, p 32, &c. $ Ibid, vol 1 p, 5c.

( «5 )

necejjarily follow that it is in the Baptifmal ftatute a generic term t.' Again : ' There are few terms in any language, that are not occafionally ufed in a lax meaning — a meaning different from their na- tive, obvious, and ordinary accepfation. Were we , at liberty to interpret the grand enabling *erms of a divine Law, according to an occafion- al and lingular ufe of terms in fome paflages of Scripture '.ve might eafily model any inftitution or precept of Chrid agreeably to our own in- ciinaiiun t.' ExceUerd objervatiom \ to which the Author of this work fully accedes ; and, at the lame time thinks, they m no fmall degree will ferve the caufe he has cfpoufed.

One thing here occurs as deferving of particu- lar remark. The Aclion on the part of the Bap- tizer required by the Baptifmal term, be its fig- nilication what it may, mull be the bafis of ana- logical reprefentation in Scripture. I conceive it to be irregular and unjufiijiable to reafon on fuch an cccafion, afier a retrograde manner, from the Jlate of the Baptized to the aBion of the Mini- fter ; on the contrary, that we are to proceed from the latter . to the former. The immediate inquiry in all paffages where the verb occurs, whether attivcly or paffively, is in my judgment this, What was done by the admin istrator ? For, ftriftly fpeaking, the baptized ftate of the fubjed

depends

•f Boo h's defence, p 287; J Ditto, &c, p< 347

( 86 )

cfepends Upon die a£tion of the Minifier, '/io'j iwc Minifter's aftion upon the baptized ftate of the fiibje6;. The /ame clue^ I apprehend, (hould be followed in allusive^ as hillorical paffages. If along with this, we avail ourfelves of fuch ground to go upon, as the Chapter, context, or evident defign of the facred writer affords us. v,c may at length reach the irue^ the ScriptuT'zl analogy. That thefe are unexceptionable media of di ("co- vering and tracing the Analogical ufe of the Bap- iifmal term, I cannot helping thinking ; and if they are, the pailages ufually produced againfl Psedobaptiits as allusively eilablifiiing the I'hmcr.. sionoj the fi'MjcB, inHead of being formidable arc juft the reverfe.

Thefe things premifed and adhered to, I go on to ftate in xvhat point of view it appears to mc, v/e arc to underftand thofe two famous parallel paffages, Rom. vi. 4. Col. ii. 12. The ailio}i and the end are diftinguifhable according to Mr, Bo A quedion, therefore, naturally aiifes here: •whether does the Apoftle refer to hothj or if not, to -which ; as he doubtlefs docs to one or other ? Whether to one, or both promifcuoufly, the Pae- dobaptift has no occafion to flirink from an im- partial inveftigation of thefe texts. What was obferved at the outfet of this work fhould be here recoile6ted, viz. That our Lord ilTued the

commiflion,

( 87 )

eommiffion, Matth. xxviii. ig. after, and in con- fequence of his refurre6:ion> and that, therefore, with great propriety and fignificancy, Baptifm, in feveral parts of Scripture where it is moft ex- plicity mentioned, is conne6led with that great event *. This is the cafe with refped to the two paffages under confideration. Here then I would commence the Queriji, fubjoiningfuch remarks as the nature, matter, and dejign of the context feem to warrant. Has it been noticed fo much as it fhould be, that when Chrift is fpokenof as rifing from the DEAD, it is a very different Phrafeology, and admits a very different conftruftion from the ex- preffion, a RefurreHion from death ? The Dead left in their Graves, are o/»^o/e^ to Christ under the notion of refuming Life. Again : are Christ's Death, Burial and Refurre6lion link- ed together with Baptifm ? Yes ; and with e- vident marks of peculiarity from jirjl to laji. Hence the Apoftle adopts the expredive language of • baptized into his Death,' verfe 3. and the fame appropriating relative is manifeftly to be car- ried to the fucceeding claufes. — Is it inquired under what peculiar view oi Christ's Death the Apoltle enlarges ? We are at no lofs for a dired; reply : partly, from verfe 10. In thai he died, he died unto SiUy but m that he livethf he liveth unto God* Partly^ from the Apoftle's advice, verfe the 11.

Likewifc

' p. 13. of this Work.

( 88 )

Likewife reckon ye alfo yotjirfelvei to he indeed deaw UNTO SIN J hut ALIVE UNTO GoD, through our Lord Jefus Chrifl. Putting thel'e things toge- ther, and duly weighing them, is it not ohvwus that the Death, Burial, and Refurreftion of Chrift are here exhibited in oppofition to his LIFE BEFORE he died. Tho' the holy one ii) whom was no Sin, He might be faid, as our Surety to live unto Sin, i. e. under Jpecial ohligaticn to obedience and fufFering during that period. From that however, He obtained a releafe by dying to it on the Crofs, and to this he bore his tellimo- ny when He exclaimed, juft before he gave up the Ghoft, It is jinijlied. Verfe 7, contains an Axiom, applicable in a fenfe both to Chri^ and his 'people. He that is dead, is freed Jrom Sin. While this is undoubtedly mentioned with re- ference to the Death of the former as well as the latter, the fcope of the place leads us to con- fider Death, in regard of both, as a benefit, Tho' in one view the Death and Burial of the Redeemer were circumftances of deep humilia- tion, yet as they were the boundaries of a prior ftate to which he fhould never relapfe ; fo they were in YQ.d\\iy fecurities from it. Ey his Death he becomes removed as it were one Jiep from it ; Jlill further by his Burial, and, to complete the whole, moft of all by his Refurreftion from the Dead. — From the dead remaining under the

power

f 89 )

power of Death, who are contrajled with Chrift ; and agreeable to the general analogy of the A- poftle's reprefentation, are compared with per- fons dead i n trefpajjes and Jim. With this view of Clirift's Death accord the nature, extent^ and permanency o{ the bleffing which baptism holds FORTH, and feah to the genuine Chrijiian, confiding of a Death unto Sin and a Life unto righteouf- nefs.

A due attention to this ftatement, which I be- lieve to be accurate, will help us to difcover defeUs in point of proper analogy between it and an immerging of the fubjed in Baptifm. For, agreeably to this, the water reprefents a grave ; immerjion into it a death in sin; and emerjion a lije unto righteoujnefs. Wheieas ,the water di- re^y exhibits only blessing, and the ufe of it a BLESSED CONDITION. It IS applied in refer- ence to a Death uiiio (not, in) Sin, and Jpiritual life ALONG with it. Thefe meet in one and the fame perfon, at the fame time ; belonging to the felf-l'ame (late. If the mode of Adminiftration harnios;iz(\s with this account, is it not fit that the terminating ad on the part of the Adminiftra- tor, flioald be the (ingle one where the fimilitude reiis ? That the pollure of the baptized party fliould be fuch in reference to that atl of Ad- miniftration, which, circumftanccs coiifidered» will unite a Death, Burial, Refurre6lion, and all

M ihefe

( 9° )

thefe under the idea of a benefit ? If the order and manner after which the Apoltle treats thisfub- jeft be examined wiih the mode, and the fenfe affixed to the dijlinB aBions of it by our Oppo- nents, it will if 1 millake not be difficult indeed to reconcile them. The Apoffle begins with this (\ut{\.\oY\^Knozv ye net that Jo riiany of us as were bap- tized into J ejus Chrijl, -were baptized into his T)eath ? He abides by this idea, and accordingly ufes it in the fucceeding claufe, Therefore we are buried

with him, BY BAPTISM INTO DEATH, A

perion bc'ir.g Jirll dead and //kn buried, it is plain tlis reprerentaiion as it refpe61s death, mufl relate to the posture of the fubjeft in connexion mih the Adminiftrator as about to perforin the baptifmal a£lion. If fo, our Pa:dobaptift Brethren muft grant that, even upon their own plan, to be ereB, or fomething equivalent. Now, adverting to the phrafe on which fuch ftrefs is laid. Buried with him by Bajtifm into Death, what idea are we to form of ihe poHure of the Baptized under the entire aft of B<iptifmal Adminiftration, unlefs it be that he is in that identical pofiure buried, in which he is confjdered as baptized, into Death? Is it not a legiiiraate inference, that immerfion of the fubjcQ is not necefl^ary, but involves in it a contradiftion on the face of the Apoftolic ftate- ment ? Underftanding the baptifmal aftion to be a circuitous one of taking up water to put upon^

wc

( 9» )

^'e have the conjlituent terminating aBion of huriat, while the poRure and appearance of the can- didate in reference to and under it, are Ilriking- ly chara6leri(tic at once of death, life, and con- dition for aCUon. It appears to me, there is no pofiure on t!)e part of the fabje6f, which will unite fo confiftentiy the ideas of Death, Burial and Refurrettion, according to the matter and defign of the paffagcs in quedlon, as the Paedo- baptili mode. No action on the part of the Ad- mini.'irator fo well, and timely interpofed to unite them, as that. None, either in refpeO. of <2cZic)n, py/iure or end, to which the following addrefs will better apply. 7/ we have been planted together in the likenefs of his [Chriji's) Death, we jhall he alfo of his RefurreBicn. Buried with him in Eaptifm wherein alfo ye are raifed with him. It is true the face of a perfon is the part immediately fprinkied by an officiating Pssdobaptift ; but it is done exprefsly under the idea of that part being a reprefentative of the whole perfon. An ad of this kind facramentally confidered, may as well be denominated a burial by Baptifm into Death, ^s. circumcifion is at lead, implicity made to denote the cutting off of the bo- dy oj the Sins of theflefh, though that Jewifh Rile was the excifion of but a fmall part. The Baptifm of the Spirit related A8:s ii. as we have had occalion to remark before, agrees to this. M a Unlefs

■ ( 92 )

Unlefs we affociate with the aftion of a Minifter in ufing the elements of the Lord's Supper, cer- tain ideas that pofitive authority attaches to it, it would not anfwer its known end as a meinorial of his Death : no more I conceive is requifite re- fpefling the mode we efpoufe^ to difcern a fuffi- cient and ftriking analogy. Thus confidering things, I cannot but regard as frivolous and ill- founded, the following queftion and remark of Mr. B. ' Whatj%wr^, what refemblance is there of a Death, a Burial, and a Refurre6lion, in fprink- ling a few drops of water on the face of a perfon ? or, if there be any fimilitude between the afci and the things intended, it is of that kind which Dr. Addington himfelf defcribes, when he fays ; A ftrong imagination, or a prejudiced mind, may find an object, and then point out a refem- blance in many particulars ; but no Reader of judgement and caution will ftrain fo obfcure an allufion t.' Is it then conceded, that with the aid oF a ftrong imagination and a prejudiced mind, a refemblance may be pointed out in many particulars ? It is alfo to be remembered, that a Jl7'ong imagination, where Scripture autho- rizes the exercife of it, as it does in the Lord's Supper, &c. as well as here, is no juji ohjeBion ; nor is it any proof of a prejudiced mind, but of one willing to be guided by the Spirit and Word

of God.

Not

* Pcedobap. Exami vol. i. p* i8i>

( 93 )

Not only may it be objected to making the analogy lie between the Baptifmal Burial, and iininerging the fubjeCl under water, that the A- pv)ilie's analogical reprefeiuation leems to re- quire us to regard the perlbn ere£l as to a flate o{ Death, before he and the water come in con- tacl ; but, likewife, the fingle aftion of immerg- ing the (ubjcfl: cornea not up to a Jlriti fimilitude o{ burying a perfon. For laying a corpfe in the grave is but circumdantial, and to make this as the aBion of the Baptizer, the point where the iikcnefs principally rells, is to overlook putting ON, wh.ich is ejjential in every manner of Burial Shall it be urged, The Water flows over and co- vers the perfon baptized ? True ; but, in this cafe, the atl of the Adminiflrator in putting down is made to exprefs the very different and elTen- tial aft of putting fomething on the fubjett; or elfe the water, and that confequentially too, not the Adminiftrator, performs the ejjential part.

The Baptifmal Ordinance is again mentioned along with the Re(urre6lion of Jefus Chrift, 1 Peter, iii. 21. as a token and mean of Salvation.' One would be apt to think, that the destructive property of the water at the deluge arifing from its overwhelming ; a mode infeparably connefted with the latter, would fcarcely be fought here, where Baptifm is exhibited as z Javing Ordinance. Indeed, fo remote from any fuch idea h it, that

the

( 94 )

llie infpired Writer, defining Baptifm from the end of it, ftates it in the very body of this account to be. Not the putting away the filth of theflefJi, but the anfwer^ or jii^ ulation, of a good confcicnce. — ^ot the putting away the filth of the fiejh ! True : but if it was fo, the natural and legal way of admini- ftering it would be the application of the v;ater to the fubjeft, and rubbing him : but according to this parenthefis, it does not amount to any thing like /i?nc^ ahfierfion. The other part of the Apoftle's account is, * It is the anfwer, or fiipula- iion, of a good confcicnce,'' with which Heb. x. 22. unites the fymbolic a6lion o^ Jpr inkling, as before obferved. — To me it appears that the pafTagc before us, warrants us to confider it after the fol- lowing manner. In the days of Noah, while the Ark was preparing, wherein few, that is, eight fouls were faved, dia by or through water. By •which ELEMENT [waUr being the immediate ante- cedent to the pronoun relative) us who are an ANTITYPE, to Noah, &c. Baptifm favtth, by the Mefurreciion o£ ]esus Christ. The little World in the Ark (which latter as lifted up was a type of Chrifl: rifen) were under a fpecial difpen- fation of Mercy. Baptifm, as it implies the ufc of a little water under the gofpel, is as aufpici- ous to thofe partaking of it, as that element was to the inhabitants of the Ark, fo far as they were immediately benefitted by it. Under a view of

it

( 95 )

it as overwhelming ^ it was a flood of vengeance ; the A7-k was, conlVquently, their ajfylum from it. Baptifm by the very a8: of Adminiftraiion, and the pojhcre oi die (ubjeft, exempts us from everjr fimilitude of that deluge in which all flefh, (thofe ^ in the Ark excepted,) periJJied. lo one part of the analogical reprefentation it agrees to be above the water ; to another, to be under ; and along with both^ to be To in fuch a manner as to ex- hibit a itaie of compojure and fajety. The fmall quantity of water which could be immediate- ly baptifmal to the fubjefts in the Ark ; their fitUHiion in reference to the water beneath and above them, will furely well comport, if we an- nex hereunto the idea of a Bapiizer, with thefe iriferences — That where a great deal of water may be adjacent, very little will ferve for Bap- tifm ; — That an application of water, as oppofed to immerging of the fubjeO:, is the legitimate and antitypical adminiftering aft, whether we refpe£l the water below or above ; — ►That it is moll natural to confider the baptized parties in a (late lifted up, eieft, or tantamount, in order to theii under- going it, becaufe the Baptifm of the Ark com- menced with that VeiTel and thofe in it being elevated', — and finally, that baptizing in refpeftof the water below and that above the Ark, typifies and juftifies theufe of water, by taking of it and

oafting it upon the candidate.

Another

( 96 )

Another paflage where Baptifm is ufed allu- Jivtly, is 1 Cor. x. 2. If the quellion is aflxed, ■which is pertinent in every fuch cafe, viz. uho baptized the Ifraelites ? The reply, as far as ihe paflage will help us to it, mull be fuch as to make the ^^^n^ and the elemmi one; that is to fay, The cloud and thefea baptized them. But, while it is a faft that the cloud was over them, and did in their journey rain a plentiful rain upon them; and the fea was gathered into heaps on each fide of them, what conclufions follow, unlefs fuch as {hefe? Perfons may be baptized on dry land, which the mode of our Opponents renders impojjible. A Baptizer and the baptized, confiftently and con- veniently enough with the performance of the rite may be feparate from each other. What- ever quantity was near to them, yet the Ifra- elites having in reality no more water in conta6l with their perfons, than what the cloud and the {cdi/Jud on them, the taking of a little water out of more and imparting it to the fubje6l, agreeable to the Paedobaptift mode, is analogous to this fymbolic reprefentation. An ercft attitude in refpeft of Adults, and a fimilar one to that of the Ifraelitifh Infants in arms, are equally ad- Qnijfibk and convenient for a complete performance of the Baptifmal a6tion on the part of the adminiftrator. In refpeQ: of accidental and general circumftances, fuch as the paffing of

the

( 97 )

the I fraelites through themidfl; of the Sea or its Channel on dry land, perl'ons may Jeem to be immerged when in reality they arc noty and that their Baptifm depends upon fomething more fpe~ cific. To {'ay, this body of people were a^ it were dipped, goes but a little way in proof of the Antipaedobaptifl; mode, or to put an ifTue to this controvcr(y, unlels they really were. J^or, viewing the Nations as an aggregate body^ sprink^

LED ONLY", AND AT ONCE de jure^ IN OUR

Lord's commission, the water requifite for fuch an Adminiftration, its neighbouring hiuaii,- on, and the carting of it upon them, would give fuch atranfatlion an appearance to the eye of a f^e6l.itor, ot thevr being as it were immerged^ Avhen in f^tft the adion of the Minifte.r a.nd thei^r ftate would be very different.

Whatever be intended by Luke^ xii. 50—/ have a baptifm to be baptized with, and how am I Jlraightened till it be accompli/Jied—ihe allu(io;,i is unquedionably to Etero- baptifm, not Sc-baptijin. If our Lord's la;'guage has a reference .to in.e fcene of h.is I'uffcriiigs, the qucdion again occurs Who whcr£ the a d m i n i s t r a t 1 x o p a r t i e > ? A nt I Vvhat was their pi^ucedurk ? Did they dip hivi ? No: pcifji'^tly the glorious Sufferer ilood, and l.ai^ himfelf open to all that Heaven, Karth, and lleli could inii.clupon him. I'he laci r.aiiig Sco.ui;:'.;, ^])e reading Thorns, the penetiaiiig rvJdii.5 aiid

( 98 )

Spear, inftruments of Jewifli and Roman cruel- ty, made way for an eflrufion of vital Blood from a thoufand opening veins. The facrifices of tlie Law were accompanied with a baptifm^l ufe of Blood ; and in this circumftance, perhaps, lie the ground of the Metaphor, and the propriety of maintaining it by a correfpondent mode of aftion. That our Paedobaptift Writers are chargeable with inadvertency in their analogical reprefenta- tions, and more generous than they bad any right to be by conceding to our Opponents on that ground, the propriety of their diJlinguiJJiing mode, appears, if I miftake not, from feveral quotations Mr. B. gives us out of their Writings. What fhort of inadvertency is it, to make the paflage of the Ifraelites through the Sea an image of DEATH dejlru^ively confidered, when it is as clear as the Sun fliining at Midday, that it was direclly a way of efcape from Death all along from fliore to ftiore ? What is it but to confound after a very improper maimer ^ the curse and the blessing togeiber, when the rvaters of Baptifm are made to exhibit the tremendous Ahyfs of divine juitice .►* Nothing but what is henejicial and falutary is im- mediately exhibited by the Ordinance ; and fure- ly Rom, vi. 4. 12. Coloff. ii. 12. pafTages we bave already noticed, fet forth the Death, Buri- al, and Refurre6tion of Chrift, alluding to baptifm, under the Jams idea. Does it not deferve the

cenfure

( 99 )

ceiifiire of being inaccurate to ftate, as one of thefe Writers does, that the Ifraelites ' tho' bap- tized in the cloud and the fea were neither im- MERGED in the one, uor rvetUd by the other/ and yet derive from their pojilion at large an argu- ment for ufing a good deal of water? Whereas, whether we confider the baptifmof Noah in the Ark, or of the KVaelitites, m, in, with, by the cloud and the fea, either the drops defcending from the cloud, (confefiTedly, water) or from the fea in their paffage niuft p-cifs for nothing, or the con- clufion is according to fuch a ttatement, there may be much water lying contiguous to perfons baptized, and themfelves put into the latter flate without a'/iy application of water at all. How curious the idea, and how very recommendatory of the Baptill mode, when phinging and drown- ing are made convertible terms thus : ' As plunging may fignify that we are baptized with Chrift into his Death, Rom. vi. 3. and that our old Man is drowned in Baptifm, Rom. vi. 6.' How quaint and fanciful the analogy, in regard to the pradice of the primitive Chridians, affumed by another Writer, * They put off their old clothes, and Jlnpt themfelves of their garments^ then they \fcre i7nmerged all over and buried in the water, which notably fignified the putting ofF the body of the fins of the flefh &c.' Thefe fire a few fpccimens out of many more that might N 2 be

( 100 )

be produced ; and ferve in comparifon with the preceding palfages of Scripture and the remarks offertd on them, to fhew the futility of an ar- gument drawn from Juch kind of analogy in fup- pori of the mode we oppofe .

With only the change of a word or two, the following obfervations of Mr. B. are very apro^ pos. to the fubje8 we arc upon, and when confi- dering the aforecited paflages of Scripture. * Every body fees ihe term baptized is here ufed merely by way of allufion ; and as the allufive acceptation of a word fhouid never be made the Jlandard of its literal and proper fenfe ; it muft be very incongruous to produce fuch paflages in favor of immerfiun, and fhows great poverty of argument in defence of the praftice. Muft we expound the principal term of a divine hiw, ivhich is to be literally underftood by a inerely allufive expreflion ? So expound it, as to depart from its native, primary, and obvious meaning in pofitive law ? Ourdilputeis about the meaning of the term Bapiifm in d. proper and literal {^.w^q, and as occuiring in divine law t.' After what has been advanced in the fecond Chapter re- fpeBing the controverted word in the connexion of pofitive Law ; after what has been laid be- fore the Reader on certam allufive palfages of Scripture, it is fubmitied, whether there is not

juft

i Fcedobap. £xami vol, i. p. itg $'ji

( 101 )

juft ground for eoncludijig, that neither the true rciiptural import of the term in queltion, nor the dnft of ihe facred Wiiters wheie it is me- tapiioricaily ufed, requires us to conddet immerfion of the JubjeS;, as the true and propei Line of Analogy.

CHAl»rf

( 102 )

CHAP. V.

Mifcellaneous Obfervations refpeBing the manner of fupporting the Immerfion of the SubjeH: in Baptifm,

THE Plan upon which Mr. B. hath conduc- ed Pcedobaptifm examined, will bear to be characterized, not only according to his account as the argumentum ad Homme%iypYt^mg confequen- ces drawn from the principles and conceffions of Paedobaptifts ; but likewife the argumentum ad Vcr- tcundiam, which Mr. Locke defcribes after the following manner. *One fort of arguments that Men in their reafonings with others, do ordi- narily make ufe of, to prevail on their affent j or at leaft fo to awe them, as to filence their oppofition, is, to alledge the opinions of men, •whofe parts, learning, eminency, power, or fome other caufe, has gained a name, and fettled their reputation in the common efteem with fome kind of authority. When Men are eftablifhed in any kind of dignity, 'tis thought a breach of modedy for others to derogate any way from it, and quef-* tion the authority of men, who are in poffc^iTion •of it. This is apt to be cenfured, as carrying

with

( 103 )

with it too much of pride ; when a man does not readily yield to the determination of approved Authors, which is wont to be received with re- fpe6l and fubmifTion by others ; and 'tis looked upon as infolence for a man to fet up, and adhere to his own opinion, againft the current ftream of antiquity, or to put it in the balance againft that of fome learned Do6lor, or otherwife ap- proved Writer. Whoever backs his tenets with fuch authorities, thinks he ought thereby to car- ry the caufe, and is ready to ftile it impudence in any one who fhall ftand out againft them/ Conformable to this kind of argument, and with fimilar expeftations from the ufe of it, Mr. B, an advocate himfelf for immerging the fubje6t as a fcriptural mode, appeals to various Writers of the Paedobaptift perfuahon, ' the firft literary charafters that ever any age has produced.' His Chapter on the fignification of the terms, baptize and baptijm^ contains not lefs than eiglUy-two quotations from thefe learned Authors : It is however to be remembered, that truth required the fucceeding caution to be prefixed. * N. B. To prevent miftakcs, the Reader is defired to obferve, That many of the following quotations, are to be confidered as concefliotis, no inconfi- derable pait of them alferting notwiihftanding what they here fay, that the woid Baptifm fignj-

fies

[ f IfTayonthe human uuderflanding, vol, % B, .4 Cbap, 17 ^ 19.

( i<>4 )

Gcs pouring And fprinkling as well as immtrfion* Of the eighty two quotatiqns more than one half are only declarations of their opinion, unaccom-.. panied by any reafons for it. It was. doubtiefs, very much the intercft of this Auihor to produce, by means of ihefe Writers whom he retains as counfei on his own fide, even againft themfelves, arguments, as well as the opinion iifelf, refpefting the immerfion of the fiibjeel. A fentiment un- fupported, even though it comes from fuch liter- ary charafters as thefc are allowed to be, can here avail but little, confronted as it is by an avowal, that baptize and hapiilm fignify pouring and fprinkling alfo. Whether much or little evidence could have been collefted, one thing is clear ; the number of quotations above-mentioned, are ip/e dixit s, BARE ASSERTIONS. Amongthe ar- guments which are to be found in others, befides the wScriptures which have been already examin- ed, a very principal part of them is grounded on the n\'c or fenfe of the Baptilmal term in human or ordinary Writers. But if the Reader is like- minded with myfelf, he will feel himfelf difpofed to reflect on tins m inner of fupporting the An- tipaeflobaptifl fide of the queftion, thus : * What I •« am I to be direded to I'uch authority for deci- •* fion in regard to adminiftering a pofitive Ordi_

* nance of Scripture under the Gofpel-dil'penfa-

* lion. *'N.cw cuftoms introduce new fignificaiions

.of

( ^^5 y

of words.** "As to multiplicity of m^aninc;s foiTietiiues affixed to {ingle words, one would beat a lofs to fay what tongue ancicu or mo- dern is mot ch.irg'dble with this biejnifh.'* Sure I am, fays the celebrated I^ocke, that the iigaificatioa of words in ail languages depend- ing very much on the thoughts, nonons and ideas of him that ufesthem, mull unavoidably be of great uncertainty to men of the lame Ian* guage and country. This iN fo evident in the Greek Authtrs^ that he that (h ill perufe their writings, will find in almojl every one of them,

A DlfTINCT LANGUAGE fhoUi^h the SAM5

vvoiiDS.'* Are human Linguiils, lying open to Inch animadverfions as their, to be magnified to an oracular importance of Itttling rhe impirt of terirts in pofiive Law ? Rather, to adopt the judicious principles and choice of Or. Wiliidjns, ** the data peculiar to 'I'heologic fcience aie divine REVELAi:Io^J, and that on- /y, atid the whole, of it, and ii appears to me that if divine Rc;velation felj -compared doih noL anlwcr the purpofe, notnn g die [can, orj wil!.'

That the learned Wrirers appearing in Pcedohop^ tifni xaf/iinedy were of 0|.)ini.)n that tnc B.ipiii.nal term hath a geaenc acceptation^ is a co.'icluiioii unavoidable^ from their viewing it at large to la- ciuJe dipping and Iprinkhng. A minute inquiry

O laiO

( loS )

into this matter may be found in Antipcedohaptifni examined^ where the Author, after the example fet him by his antagoniO, gives us a lift of forty li- terary eminent charaQers, in fupport of the doc- trine contained in his general thefis, viz. That Baptize and Baptifm, at leaft when facramentally ufed,are generic terms: and concludes byobferv- ing, * It would be eafy to colle6l a large volume of pafTages to the fame import from Lexicographers, Clitics and Commentators ; many of which I purpofely omit from the fole motive of not fwel- ling the prefent work and being tedious to the Reader/ If the avowed principle of this work be truCf it is to be remembered, the Baptifmal term muft partake of a generic nature ; and fo far, the Author feels himfelf not a little ftrength- ened by what Pasdobaptifts fo invariably and ex- prefsly affert. Notwithftanding, he cannot help difagreeing with them on the ground of an appre- hended mifapplication of dipping to the fubjed as well asfprinkling. Rethinks that Mr. B. con- tends with advantage on his fide, that Baptize is fpecifically ujcd in our Lord's commiffion. The force and tendency of all that has been urged in the foregoing pages, reft on this idea. When examining this point, it occured as a queftion proper for difcuffion, whether the Baptilmal term is not fuch in itfelf, and in pofitive law, as to ad- mit of dipping in order to fprinkle as its fpecific

fignification -

( 107 )

fignification ? With what fuccefs the Author has purfucd and endeavored to lefolve this queftion, mull be left to others to determine.

The variety of occafions on which the Baptif- mal term occur* in other writings than the facred* is certainly productive of what might be expec- ted from a lax ufe of it, namely, an equivocal appearance. Yet if I miftake not, feveral things defervc attention upon this topic of argument, whicji along with other parts and arguments of this work, will ferve to invalidate the defence of the Baptift-mode fet upon this ground. It is prpper to call the Reader's recolle61ion here, to thsii latitude of meaning allowed to it through- out this performance^ and alio to that rejiric- tion which the authority of pofitive Law, and other circumftances jointly attach to it, as mak- ing part of the commiflion, Matth. xxviii. 19. All along it has been ailumed on the authority of Old and New Teftament Scriptures compared together^ that Baptifm extends to feveral atlions fuch as dipping, fprinkling &C. under a certain generic acceptation belonging to it, with which '.hefe fubordinately confidered well comport : — A generic fenle of the term is equally inferable from the ClaJJics. — It has likewife been ftated, to admit of various degrees of wetnefs in refpeft of thtjubje^ according to the partial or total ab- lution prcfcribed in the Mofaic Ritual : fome- O 2 thing

f .o§ )

tiling fim'lar is manifeft in the c'^flics, fo r we read of perfons being baptized as high as thtir knees, breads, arms, head, a^d ^omninn) altoge- ther. Now, if perfons in refpeft of greater or lelTcr degrees of wetnef^, may be laid to be baptized ; and it is prefumed the word is of that nature we contend for in this work ; it will follow, confiftently enough with fuch a view of its con- fit uttion and import, that a perlon in^jy be in a fidte of uetnels. as if immerged, when, in f^6i, the teimina'ing aflion by which he is put into that flate is laying on water, not putting under. And if rhere has been leafbnable evidence already brought forward to eflab'ifh a regular order of a£fion annexed to it in p Jitive law, 1 beg leave to afi^, Why the ufe of it in clajjical Authors fh«)uid not be rtductd to that jlandurd, rather than pofiiive Law be dilh snored by an apjeal to the teft and decifion of the other ? What tho' we read in Polybius, of Si)lditrrs be'ng fcarcely able to pals becaule bapfizid up to their bieaffs' The agtnt, the intermediate aEiwr:^ and xhc Julij'^l which aie kept clear and diitii.Q in pofiiive law, muft of courl'e be involved and mdijtmd here. But, while aU that the 11 ft rian can be rationally fu; pofed t:* mean by reLni g Inch a circun^ilance, i,s to exprefs an hmderance frum a confiderable dkrgree of weinefs and water; and thefe Soldiers ^re iaid lo be nu further bapiized than as they

were

f 1^9 )

Vere afre6^ed by it, is it not eafy to perceive, that Bot merely tht'ir going into the water or the a^- flicaiion of the Soldiers to it as Agents, but the Jipplication of the water to ihem ds the SubjeBs of tl.is baptized ftate, are connedrd. Thus their going in and palhng through, was equivalent to a perfon when baptizuig another, taking water and laying it tipon him. Do we lead of a (hip being baptized at Sea, in confequence of a ludden lem- pcit? Where iN tht difficulty, or impropriety of tracing this Baptifm to liie attion of the ftorna liftiiig up the waves, and io confequentially covering the Vefl'el, which fiuks by its own weight. B'lptized in winCy deht^Jleep, cares, Sec. are ex- predions to be met with ; and on this di6lion Mr. B. ren.aiks, * The word, iii thefe connedi- ons, expreffes the notion of being as it were huried in flcep, overwhelmed in winet,' Let it however, only be aflied, how a perfon is l)apt zed in wine ? Or, with what fort of aBion does luch language bell agree ? Wnether with a fingle one, or more ? None can hefuaie to reply as foll.)Wi» ; r<> plunge in wine, is literally and e- vidently foi a man to ca/i himflf into a quantity of it. But d*jes any perfon aB thus, who is in that Itate fu^jpoiod to be meani by phrafeology of this fort? No, quiie the rcvtile of it ; he takes of the wine fioui tne cup. Sec, by ihe abiioa

t Pmdobip. tmuai vu<. x, £>. 6jt N«tcj

( no )

of his hand, and then by drinking it, applies it to himfelf, which is the fecond and terminating a6l whereby he becomes fo baptized. The like may be obCerved as to Baptifm in connexion With debt. It commences with, and bv the aQion, whatever it be, that the Baptifmal term refers to in this cafe. It may apply to tradingy horroxving of moneyy or fomething equivalent, whence debt arifes, and an obligation to payment enfues. The other things, fuch as cares, deep, &c. are eafily reconcileable, after the fame manner, to the definition of the term in this work. Ultimately to put the water on^ rather than dire6lly to put the fubjeft under water by dipping it, is an idea of Baptifm, to which thefe Writers are very favorable when they inform us again and a- gain of land being baptized by water, from its coming on it — of land animals being baptized by the Nile overflowing. The River or Sea here con- fidered as Agents, apply the water to the fubjefts fpecified. In the Sybilline verfe, baptizing is diftinguifhed from fubmerging. Jofephus and others join with it words, fuch as kaiadunOyScc. which having difagreeable ideas attending them, the former cannot juftly be confidered as y^'wony- mous ; if therefore there is an ambiguity accom- panying the word, it is ,by no means clear, that dire6i immerfion is its proper fignification, b t that it has iuch a latitude of meanings as that

perlon

( 111 )

perfon or thing may be faid to be in a baptized ftate, when wet^ or fo Jerved as if immerged ; whicFi ideas are perfeflly harmonious with what has been repeatedly aflerted refpefting it in the courfe of our inquiry. It is one thing to be as z'/! wgr^ immerged, and another to be really Jo ; nor is it difficult to account for a word, fuch as this under confideration, which will apply to a wetnefs of ftate not leCs than that which is the effcEl of total immerfion, being ufed in a lax incautious manner, to exprefs the aBion^ as well as the ftate. Thus, the very ambiguity of it in thefe learned Authors, inftead of difproving the fenfe attributed to it in this work, is, if I may be permitted to offer my opinion with deference to the learned, beft reconcileable to it.

In refpe£l of Gofpel-baptifm, Dr. Williams alluding to the praftice of immerging the fubje6t in the primitive Ages, fuggefts, * The following thought might appear very plaufible ; '* If the Chriftian purification be a cleanjing, the more general and C07nilcte the better; therefore a total washing, and even the putting of the fubjc6l un- der water maft be more coviplde and expreflive.'' — But to this he fubjoins, ' However plaufible this may feem, it is built upon a Jallacy, viz. That there is a natural beyond an injlituted conne61;i- on between ablution and the thing fignified^ But were this fallacious fancy purfued to its

( "2 )

juH conrpqiiences, where could we flnp ? Shall we not Oe in danger of chgrging the ancient di- vine ablutions with a defca of iymboUc fitnefs>? -And of placing the excellency of the rite in 7va/kmg away the Jilth of the pPi ? Ox perhaps, of commencing Hemerobaptifts ? f Baptizing by dipping in order to fprinkle on th^ part of the Adminsftrator, and that partially, is affumed, as that a6lion authorized by pofuive Law, and j^- greeable to juft ideas of GofpeLbaptifm, to which neither the fprinkling of clothes^ nor the interventioa of any medium between the perfoJi baptized and itie ekment, is proper, or re- quired.

The management of this controveify on the part of fome Paedobaptids, hath rendered it in-. cumbent upon our difFcrmg Brethren to defend their practice from the charge of zn^iecmcy. Mr. B — 's way of prote6ling it from this acculation is as follows : ' Why luch complaints of indecency againft the Baptifinal plunging, as performed in public afTembiies ? What immodcfty is there in the iole nn im-nei li )ii of Candidates for Bap- tifm, WHEN propekly clothed; any more 'than in the public and proinifcuous bathing of both iVxes, at Bath, Svjutuampton, or any oiher place of rj (i.mlar kind +?' The defence of the Paedobapiiit mode requires me to obferve on this

palfage,

+ Aotipacdob. ExaiQi Tol. ».p. 187. % Foedobap, £xam« v, »} p ^»i-

( "3 )

.pafTige, that if the dedc.cy of immerging the Subjetls depends upon x\\t\\hc'mg propeily clothe ed. it became the more expedient, in order to a- void the appearance of evil, that we (hould be told they were fo. The New Ttftament lying open to refleftions not the mofl delicate through its entire filence on this matter ; it is, furely, a pre- fumptive argument, that the mode was fuch, and that there are circumftances (ufficiently recorded, to prevent its running any reafonable riflv on that account. To fhow how this is at all recon- cileable to the Baptift mode, is a Tafls. devolving on our Opp )nents. As to the pro nifcuous bath- ing of both fexes at public places, many perhaps will think with me, that it is not eafy to juftify it upon the principle of JlriH decorum, even tho' it is accompanied with the ufe of Machines and proceding fome diftance in the water : cir- cumllances tb.efe, which could not have taken place in New Teftament inftances of Baptifm ; nor do they ainoiig Antipaedobaptiits in the piefcnt day. — 'Th;it the facred Hiftorians (hould 07ml, to mention the diefs or undrefs of the Sub- jects, on the luppofuion the immerhon of the lubjecl was ufed, in which connexion a regard to health and decency rei.deis them of confi^ derable mportance. is to me alt(jgether llrange and unaccountable. As to our Lord's coni- mifTion, no particular kind of diefs is required

P for

( "4 )

for perfons as the objefts of preaching. Why it {hould be by our differing Brethren, when the other part of it refpetling Bapiijm is performed, no reafon from the body of the com- miffion can be affigned without begging the queftion. Are they, then, unnatural or illegi- timate conclufions, that the mode of Adminiftra- tion needed no change of vefture, was conve- nent for perfons affembling in large numbers, whether rich or poor, Orong, or infirm as to con- ftitution, at a diftance from home or near, male or female. The water necejjary was fuch, that tho' baptizing was an unforefeen event until a fliort time before its Adminillration, yet the A- poftle could baptize the Jailor and all his, STRAIGHTWAY. The MANNER of applying it was fuch, that it is not reckoned material to men- tion any thing about a preparatory drefs, or re- fuming their common one. Naked, to be furc, they were not. To fappofe that thofe whom John and our Lord's difciples baptized, Jlripped ihemfelves oi their apparel, is equally pppofed by the, manner, circumftances and purity of the fa- cred narrative. Yet, it is in evidence before us, that the Eunuch no fooner alights along with Philip, than he is reprefented as immediately bap- tized.- The Jailor and his Family have it ad- miniftered by Paul and Silas, notwilhllanding their ilripes, during the night feafon. Not a

lyllable

( "5 )

fyllablc appears to countenance change of rai- ment, nor the idea of any tiling dangerous to health from having their apparel on them at the time,

H )ilazius informing us that, in the beginning of the Primitive Church, Baptifm was adminif- tercd by immerfion of the (ubjetl, adds, that the Candidate went naked into the River, and in that Rate was plunged .into it, for which reafon Chrill, Matth. ill. 13. 26. is faid to come up l^raigluway out of the water t. The praftice of BAPTIZING NAKED wasyo gcnevaly Mr. Bing- ham oblerves, * that we find no exception made V.I til refpetl to the tendernef'i of infants or bajhjulnefs of the Female fex* ;+;. With accounts of this fort before us, that require no comment on them, and which even Mr. B. himfelf does not venture to contradiQ, and can no how reconcile to modefty, immerfion makes but a very indif-^ Jerent figure indeed. To their credit, our Op- ponents abandon the examples of antiquity here. If, however, this praftice was agreeable to our Lord's command or example, wliy is it not re~ tained^ when it is afferled that conveniency and even decency are to yield to pofitive authority ? On a contrary fuppofition, it is an implicit ac- knowledgment that the Ancients formed an er« P 2 roneous

f Booth's Defense, p, 362 t % Singham** Antiquities, &c, p<>. «•

f 116 )

roneous judgment of Scripture in this cafe, and are the lei's to be regarded on that account.

One indirect argument againft the Psedobap- tift mode is couched in thefe terms; * We find, fays Mr. B. that when our Lord walhed the feet of his Difciples, as he made ufeof a bajin, it is exprefsly mentioned. . Is it not a wonder that the facred Hiftorians, when recording fo many inftahces of the ordinance being adminiltered, no where mention fuch a domeltic utenfil, nor any thing like it as employed by the Adminif- trator ?'t. Unfavorably to the mode this Au- thor patronizes, the narrative not only acquaints us with our Lord's ujing a bajin^ but what Mr. B. entirely overlooks y viz. He lofe from Supper, and laid afide his garments. "What! Only to wafli his Difciples feet ? Vtay it not be in turn aflvcd, is it not wonderful^ that, if any thing like Jlrippmg after this manner by John, Sen. and the numbers baptized took place, it was not re- corded ? Or, is it likely that our Lord had re- courfe to fuch a circumftance when he was a- bout io ^G:\^on'n A pedilavium 'y and that John, if he immerged the lubjed, did not dived hiuifelf of kis raiment ? Yet for ought that appears in the hiftory, John is prefented in ihefame condition as to apparel when baptizing, as when preaching. The place where, the thing or veflel whence the

water

■i Poedobap. Exam; vol. 1. p 2^2.

( H7 )

water is procured are trifling and indifferent circumdaiices in ihemfelves

The fahUa^ine's of plunging is urged in be- half of that mode ; but while it is no argument againjl it, neither is it /or it, becaufe Chnfi did not prefcribe Bdpiilm, as a phyfician does bath- ing for his patients, nor mean to put his Minii'- ters on a level with the common afliltants on fuch occahons, at Brighton and public places of that ibrt. But however falutary, when caution as to attendant circumllances of drefs, &c. is ob- lerved along with it, the fubjeEl might find it^ Mr. B. I believe hath entirely forgotten to de- monllrate the utility oF it to the Adminijlratorf baptizin^^ vail numbers, and confequenily, re- maining and exenuig himfelf long iri the water, as muil be ivippoied to have been the caie with John.

To prove ihe pyaBicability of immerging a great m'.ny m a fhon t;me, an appeal is made to Dr. Robertion's hj{lt)iy of America, where a clergyman is faid to have oapiized in one dajr above ^i;^ ^Ao^c/d'na' Mexicans, and did not defift till he was ib exhaulti.d by fatig le. , thai he was not able to lift up his liaud-.' Overcome with labor as this gentleman appears to have been, having adminillered the ordinance lo fuch, a num- ber, he betrayed the weaKncls of his conititU'- '- lion, compared with thoie awghiy men, GKiiOORy,

the

( iiS )

theApoftle of the Armenians, who baptized twelve ihoufand together by immerfion in the Euphra- tesr— and Francis Xavier, who furpafTed him hy plunging three thoufand more i. e. fifteen ihou-. /and in one day t.' Thefe infiances, if true, may indeed ferve to fhow the pjfihility of performing a very arduous talk ; yet will not avail our Op- ponents ; for who can conceive, with the lead co- lour of reafon, that Baptifm is intended to be atrial of ftrcngth after this manner ? That its mode is fo fatiguing, when there are great num- bers to undergo it, as improperly to be match- ed with preaching, to which, in thefe cafes, in- ilead of being an help mttt^ it is plainly an Am- derance ? That there is fuch an obvious expo- fure to perfonal danger required in the courfe^ of ordinary fervice from Minifters, by him who hath declared. Pie will have mercy and not fa- crifice ? Or that fuch examples at ^11 agree to New Teftament Baptifms, where, as far as we judge from recorded circumftances, it fliould ^ feem, neither Adminifirators, nor SubjeEs, were in any perilous fituation, at the time, or from the manner, of performing the ordinance ?

Tho' numerous inftances or teftimonies to the praftice of total imvierfion in the firft centuries may be producible by our Opponents, yet is it to be remembered, unlefs they are warranted by

Scripture!

I Fxdobat). £xain< vol. i f s 2^4, agi

( »»9 )

Scripture Authority, Proteftants are bound to difregard them. The ifTue of this Controverry depends upon the meaning of Scripture when handling this point, not upon the faBs of fubfe- quent times, which hiftory may tranfmit refpe£t- ing either mode. No wonder, however, we meet \NithJprinklmg in the Primitive Church. Mr. B. takes care to inform his Readers, " that learned and laborious Enquirer, Dr. Wall, could find no inftance of pouring or of fprinkling, prior to the cafe of Novatian,in the year two hundred and fifty-twot.* Cornelius's account of this tranf- aftion, as it appears in Eusebius's ecclefiafti-. cal hifiory, informs us, ' he fell into a grievous diftemper ; and it being fuppofed that he would die, immediately he received Baptifm', being befprinkled with water on the bed whereon he lay, if that can be termed Baplifm.' That total immerfion of the fubjeft, and that naked too, a good deal prevailed in the early ages, is admit- ted ; but when the extravagances of thofe ages come to be confidered in rerpe6l of this rite as well as mai^y other things, their credit {inks in proportion. It is an obfervation that no one at all acquainted with the hiliory of thofe times can help making ; namely, the An- cients either egregioufly mifunderdood, explain- ed away, or abandoned Scripture in a great

man)''

t BooUi'i Defence, <5cci p 299

( 120 )

*iany inftances of do6lrine and praQice, Near as they were in comparifon of Us to the Apofto- lick. age. ihc'w degeneracy is incontroverti- ble: and. therefore, no confi'lent Proteltant can think of determining the meaning of the facred Scriptures by fuch authorities. If Mr. B. is right, a diverjity of mode refpe6ling the ordinance in queftion muft originate in inncvation^ fowewhere and at fome time. — In the cafe of Novaiian^ fprinkling the fubjeB, and dipping him are plain- ly put in competition. Which of thefe modes is to be afcribed to innovation, is a queftion, that claims the following remarks. Thtpnority of fprinkling is not indejenfible on the ground of this pafTage, becaufe, befide the authentic re- cords of the New Teftament eflablifliing it, I aflv, Why fhould they have recourfe to it at ally efpecially in dying circumJlanceSy if they did not reckon it valid ? The truth is, it "was fo ac- counted. And hence it is natural to infer, their obje6lion to a perlon^o baptized in health, cou]d only rife from fome principle of juperjlition. Nothing is left more apparent on the Oce of this paffage concerning Novatian, than the ex- iftence of fuch a rite. Nor, is it tc be obferved, could Cornelius with propriety, have lubjoincd the expreffion he does, if that can he termed hap- tifmy had he underftood the Eaptifmal term to fignify putting under y/ater on the part of the

Adminijirator.

( 121 )

Adminiftrator. The claufe which is made ufe of by our Opponents as an sfrgument againft us, makes in our favor, for the aBion of laying ON water, muft by Corneliu , have been fuppo- fed to comport with the acceptation, of the term, or he would and might have pojitivdy ajfcrtcd^ that an aclion {o contrary to that of dippi ng was not Baptifm. He, however, does not venture to afTert any thing like it : ino. ground of \{\& Ju picion \s to be fought elfnvhere ; and if fo, none more likely to be the C'?J^, by which his mind was imprefled, than the latitude of meaning which the term will confefTedly bear, fo as to admit of the laying on of water totally^ joined with a fuperjlitious regard to the quantity of water, under the notion of its being holy, and as if the ordinance was faving ex npere operate. In this view of things, there is reafon to apprehend Cornelius was not fingular, but as with refpeft to the e.jficacy of the ordinance, the Ancients w'll be acknowledged to be very errone- ous ; fo it is clear it had no fmall efFeft upon thQ judgment ihsy formed o^ the Adininiftration. Inftead of making the Bapiiimal term in pofi- live Law tlie fubjett of immediate inveltig-ation, or fo much their guide as they fhould, a fet of fuperjlitious antijcri'.tural notions refpetling the utility of the ordinance g:vin the afcendency ; and thus they deviate fro-.n the true (tandard, jjs the Jews are confidered in tiiis work to

( 122 )

ffeve olond before them. It feems admitted oi^ ^1 hand?, * that innovatioiis may come in with- Q|it notprious opppfiiion.* * That the pretence of iradition is a happy expsdient, in favor of thofe who wifh to retain unfcriptural rites in the wor(hip of God/ That fome of the first Fa* THE^s vibo pleaded apostolic tradition', 0and conviQ:ed of error. — That were an ecclefi- aUical cuUum, but a few centuries after the Chrif- tian -£ra commenced, to be confidered as an a- pcQ:(iheal pra6lice; barely on a traditional ground, y:e muft ad<>pt a variety of ceremonies which all Prol' ftai ts have agreed to rejtft t.' So little, then, are the Ancients to be depep.dcd upon, that we cannot be too obfervant and tenacious of that ^vcr ro be v.ilucd Piincij-le of Chillir.gworth, Ti.e Bible, the Bible only is the Religion of ProteflaDti J.

However true Dr. Wall's ftatement may be, * that all the Nations of Chriflians, that do n.wor foin erly did fubmit to the autho- ri'v <»f ihe Bfiiop of Rome, do ordinarily bap- t'zt" iheir Infaras by pouring or fprinkling;' it dv-es liot f)!K:'W_ the pzedobaptifl mode originated in the Apodate Church of Rome, and that the I roteOaiit CI urches thence derived it. There is evidence f/r the thing itfelf in the facred writings; and if fo, wliat tho' the Romi/Ji Church patronized iv ! Is it to be rejected merely on that

account ?

•i Booth's Pedobap. Exam. vol. s« p. 427, % Sec pref» to this work.

( ^23 }

acconnt ? Were we direEly to conclude from tlie prevalence of acknowledged errors in per(bns, a- gaind any particular, dofiririe or practice ihey hold, I fear we Oiauld be obliged to difavow the Baptifm of the Ancients altogether^ for it d >es not admit of a doubt, that the Church egregiocin/ degenerated in this as well as other articles uf Faith, foon after the aroftofic ase.

* Calvin's Form of adminiitcring the Sacra- ments was probably the firfl in the World that prefcribed pouriiig ahjolately'\ ' Denying this po{ition K<y far as it afcribes the mode we are vindicating to human invention or authority^ I csn- not forbear obfervlng, that a pcrfon of fuch ex- emplary piety and learning, ctndJ not be (appo- fed to retain ihismodeout of any partiality to t')e Church of Rome. It would be a very marvel- lous circumftance indeed,, that one wiiom Mi>f- hcirn confidcrs as the pkincipal foun'oek c^f

THE REFORMED CHURCH, fhouid UlTocl tO nnitd'e

the PAPAL of which he was asxRExuous ad- versary. Had he not difcerned Scripture fa- vorable to it, he would have, doabtleis, rejected it with equal fidelity, as he did nmovations of a- nother nature. Providence will always have his in- struments to perform his Work ; and as Pro- teflants in general agree in regarding Calvin of that number, it is not at ad to the d.jcrtdii of the Q 2 mode

"f Pcedotap, Exam; toI, a. y. $53»

( 124 )

rriode we are defending, to fee it perpetuated by his means. Whatever oppofnion and advantjges may have befallen our pra6tice at certain periods, it has fooner or later obtained a way of efcape. It has out lived many things that attended the dark ages of Popery. It has accompanied the glorious caufe of Proteftant Reformation in this country. — Even where itnmerjion hath been prac- lifed. lefpeQ:, neverthelefs, hath been paid to Jprinkling in particular cafes. — Baptifmal Fonts as fuch have been difufed among us for rnany years. The Psedobaptifl mode has become more popular, while thecontraiy hath declined. Thus HjTAVEN continues to own and approve it, apparently with a determination refembiing that of the pious Patriarch, when be faid, / have UtJJed him and he Jhall be blcjjed.

Mr. B. afTerts for himfelf and Baptift-brethren, *We maintain that none of the purifications pra6ii- fed in the ancient Jewifh Church (whether by dipping, wafhing, or fpj inkling,) were types and figures of Baptifm t.* But what, if the truth of this extraordinary declaration could be made to appear, will it avail our Opponents unlefs what is asmanifeft as light could be fet afide, viz. that thefe identical purifications are denominated BA.pTisMsin the new testament, and were inliitutcd and prefcribed in the old, under that

idea.

i Booth's Dsfenccj &:c, p 29©

( 125 )

idea. Gofpcl Baptifm as authorized by our Lord hath moft unquertionably a retrofpe6l to feme ddmimjlering aclions appertaining to a rite bearing that name in the Jewifli Church, Hence too, the queftion of importance that occurs in this con- troverfy, U, what is the initial and terminating aftion, by which the Bapiifm of Chrift is to be performed ? And, while we cannot help thinking there is warrant for dinipgruifliing between Se-. Baptifm and Eirro- Baptifm ; between clothes and per/ons, to unite both of which is indeed Jctuijhy I beg leave to obierve, pertly in Mr. B's words, that * n(^ aUiifion to any of thofe ancient riles^ whether it be found in th.e Old, or in the New Teftament, can be a proper direction for us in the Adminiflration of Baptifm, "^^ ■ without regarding fucli dilliij&ions, rii.d if this be done, it will lead us diretlly to the Fixdohaptiji niod^. of Adminiflra- tion, if to any.

In the courfe of my reading on this controvert fy, I have obferved/et/^r^/ iiiftanccs both of Bap- lifts and Psedobaptiits aflbciating and treating the primitive and derivative words b'.f>io and baptizo, as ftriclly, nearly, or altogether bearing the famt, Jigmjication. But is not this way of confidering them improper ? Is it not flying in the face of an inference /izzr/v deducibU h-Qm,i\\Q derivative only- being appropriate to the ordinance in queftioti

% P>£oo: £xamiucd, T*U i p 298;

throughout

( 126 )

throughout the New Teftament, videlicet. There is a difiinHion or difference betzaeen them in pofitvve Lavi ? How is it poffible to account for the Circumftance that the primitive word is never ufed by way of fubftitute fjr the derivative in the New Teftament, if they are to be regarded as fynonyincus ? If, as I think it ought to be admitted on the principles o^ language and deriva- iioTiy the derivative has a further import, and vet, at leaft in part, partakes of that which the primitive has of which it is compofed ; does it not countenance the idea of its denoting a wet- ting on the part of the agent, in order thereby uitimately to af!e6l the fubjeft with a wetnefs al- fo? Though it muft be g- anted that fach paffagey- as Leviticus, iv. 17. Kai hapfei 0 iereus ton dak- iulon Apo £011 aima:os. xix. 16- cannot be im- mediatcfy tranflated otherwife than, The Prieji Jhall WET his finger from the Blood, and Oil ; yet, I prefume, it cannot be reafonably denied but the fpecific action performed by tiie officating Prieft was dipping his finger ; for this beft and moft naturally comported with the fubfequent a6lion oi fiprinkling or pourings for the fake of which the firft was done. Fjom fuch phraleolo- gv as this found in the Septuagini Veriion, fome additional ftrength feems gained in fuppojt of vhat was fuggefted on the hi'lory of Naaman ; tliat the Hebrew tabal or the Prophet's order, is

iKeant

( 127 )

aieant of one aftion as introduftory to another, and accordinglv, when the obedience of the Sy,, rian to it is related, it is thus exprefled, lu bap^ tized Jeventimes {tn) in^ with^ at Jordan,

It feems there are bat the four following paf^ fages in the Septaagint Verfion of the Old Tef^ tament, and the Apocrypha which contain inflex- ions of ihe verb, bapUzo : 2 Kings, v. 14, Ifaiah, xxi. 4. Judith, xii. 7. Ecclefiafticus, xxxiv. 25. The fiift of thcfe hath been alreadjr noticed, and while neither of the remaining three is hoftile to our idea, but the contrary ; I would lay before the Reader, Mr. Twogood's remarks pn the cafe of Judith in particular. Thus that fenfible writer : ' It is faid — -JJie -went out^ in the nig ht, into the vility of Belhulia and washed^ (Greek, was bapiized) in a fountain of water hy the camp. Did fie dip her whole body in this fountain of \*'ater ? Yes, forne earnedly contend. But uLteri'y without reafon- and agninll all proba^ hUty. For as there appcat.s to have been but this Jzngk founiaiii \\\ i\\£ s 3l\\'qy of Bethulia, at, clofe by, or around which ((.bap. vii. 3.) an army

of above TWO HUNDRED T HOIJS A N D SO L DI ERS

Uy encamped, ii is tije height of abfurdity to ima-» g'lie that J'ldith, in the n'ghi, could with any con- venience or modcfly unclothe heifelf and plunge 'htr whole body, therein: Or, if Ihe could; in a coani.r^ Wiicie vva>ci was lo amch needed and lb

fcarce ;

( 128 )

fcarce'^ and fo prodigious an army, with its infi- nite multitude of attendants and cattle, were to be continually fupplied from it. When therefore it is faid, fhe — was 'baptized in the camp, at the Jountain of water, (this is the exa6l rendering) it may be left to any one to judge— ^Whether fhe was totally imvierjed, or had thf water, ap- FLiED only to a part of her body. ^This, then, muft be accounted another very clear and incon- teftible inftance, where a pcrfon is faid to be baptized^ without being overwhelmed t.* If thefe judicious remarks be admitted, the a£tion on the part of Judith mufl; then have been taking of the water and applying it to herfelf ; fo that here, from the nature and circumftances of the hillory, and the ufe of the term itfelf, is a proof of the fenfe affixed to it in this work.

Dr. Williams, underftanding the primary^ ©bviousj natural import [of the bapiifmal term] to be general, as to tinge to xott, to wafi. Sec, obferves, ' If the duty, in general^ be required, without ipecifying the manner of performance, it is evident that the fubjeQ [rather, Adminiftra- tor, at ieaft in the firfl inftance] is dejignedy left at liberty to adopt any manner in which the gen- eral duty may be performed And pofitive du- ties being no further enjoined then they arc made known, it is plain that the law of natuie,

or

•i Twogood's dipping, &c, 17, i8, Autipce, Exam, vol, 8 p 48, 49,

( 129 )

«r fome prior Revelation is our guide t.' He moreover writes, ' Let us then remember, that iht primar)' etymological acce^^tation of a term, is no CERTAIN RULE to determine its primary legal force. What then mud determine? Weanfwer, the meaning is to be fought from the wo/? probable Aq- fign of the Legiflator, colleded from former fta^ iutcs^ or the apparent nature and intention of the thing enjoined, that is, from the circumjlanees of the, cafe^J From fucli premifes, I am unavoidably led to draw a conclufion, which goes to fliew, that the Autlior of AntipceAobaptiJm examined hath been, abundantly on his own principles, more gen- •erous to the Baptifts, than he has a right to be. For, admitting the propriety of the above-men- tioned means of determining our Lord's inten- tion, it is plain that might have for its obje6l/owe fpecific adion^ though the genuine etymological acceptation of the term might extend to various modes of Adminiftration. If we judge of our Lord's meaning from former JlatiUes, prior Reve- lation, and all the circuriijlances of the cafe^ among which 1 reckon, the .jfnuij of the gofpcl difpenfa- lion, diftinciions bQiwccnEtero-baptifm, and Se-bap- lifm, and various other things already noticed in the hiiloricai narrative of New Teftament Baptifms; 1 conceive, that dipping the fuhjeB after the manner ^f our Baptiil-Erethren, did not^ and could not en-

R ter

i FxJobap; Exam; vol; 2 p. 363. 2^8,

f 33® )

t^rliis thoughts; and therefore Iiath neither lot nor part in this matter. If, becaufe wetting is a generic term that may be cfFetled various "wavs, the order is confefftdly equivocal^ it furely daihes wifh acknowledged legitimate principles of reafoning on pofitive itiftitutes. The great Hinge therefore, on which this Controverfy appears to me to turn, is, a Solution of this Queftion — Whaf fped-fic aBion in refpeQ of the Baptizer and baptized, Juhfervient to the general acceptation of the term, is there difcernible authority for ujing ? And upon the plan of reafoning we have purfued^ I cannot but think for myfelf, that the aQion of the Psedobaptift. comports with the compofition of the term, the genius of the Gofpel, and the real defigt) of its adorable Author.

WaJJiing as well as wetting, feems to be ano- ther general acceptation of baptizo ; and when our Paedobaptiit Writers fpeak as they do of fprinkling and wafiiing as /j^no??)7720W5, it is not to be overlooked, that this is done, to ufe partly Dr. Owen's Language, in the 'myflic' pofitive view of it, for which they have warrant, as various parts of this piece fiiow, from pofitive lato^ the teiior of evangelical promifes where fprinkling and cleanfing are united, and various other paffages of the Old and New Teftament. What> then, is fo evident in refpett of our Paedobaptift Writers, is the more necelfary to be obfcrved

here.

{ '31 )

here, beeaufe if we compare their legitimates principles of reafoning oii pofitive inftituie* witht this, it ferves, — not indeed to exculpate them to- tally from incovJi^enc)\ but it is in aid of the opin- ion with which our firil chapter concluded, name- ly, that their ineonhltency is to be ir-iced to an ovcrjight^ of that kind and elflcl, as to render the dillinguifhing fentiment of tne Aufh >r the more likely to be true, and the kfs dithculi to be thus defended.

To ftate as fome Paedobaptifts have done, that thofe whom John baptized mi^^ht he within the edge of the water j'and to afleri with our Baptirt- Brethren, thai they \ferefoJar in it as to be acm iually and totally immerged^ are fentiments equally incapable of direB proof ; and may be claffed to- gether under the common denomination of con-^ jeBures. If, as we muft maintain till further evi» dence is procured on this controverfy, neither the Baptifmal term requires immerfiun of the fubje6t, nor are the prepoli.ions in the hilloric narratives, admitting of dilierent renderings, to be limited to one exclufively, is it natural to take up that idea which is uncertain^ viz. theii being in Jordan, Sic. at the time of Adminiltraiion, rather than what is c^r^az.*?, viz. they were bipti- zed at Jordan ? But lu[)poCuigt\\Q former^ whicfi for want of manifeit evidence cannot be je^ranttd, I fliouid be led, in unilon with the general views

R 2 anil

( 132 )

and principles of this performance, to fay — that Baptifms, as prefcribed in the Mofaic Ritual, hav- ing refpeft to natural purity of fubjcft and ele- ment, would, if legally ptrformed^ forbid fuch a procedure as John and his Candidates' going into the water^-that if John's Baptifm was not a Jew- ifh ordinance of purification, he was not forbid- den from the coniideration above-mentioned to enter it, if conveniency from drefs (they ordina- rily ufed fandals on their feet) and from numbers, would render it eligible — that the proper a6lion appertaining to the term in the connetiion of po- fitive law, would receive a fan6tion from the Bap- tift's taking up and laying water on the candidate by pouring or fprinkling — that confequently, the expreffions ' was baptizing m Jordan and Enon,' are fo far from being neceffarily coniidered * as agreeing to immerfion,' that, wiih all the circum- ftances of the cafe taken into account, they make againji it. So that in reply to a conr.raon, tho' fal- lacious way of reafoning, frequently adopted b^ our Opponents, by aflcing, * Why fliould they go into the water, if not for the fake of imraerfion'? It is fufBcient here to fay, it muft be proved that they did ; and when that is done, our laQ remarks muft be difproved alfo ; and ftiil further, dipping, which Mr. B. often does, muft be exchanged for the Baptifmal word in the New Teftament: which is taking greater liberty than our Tranflators

have.

C 133 )

have, and yet without it, our Englifh Vrrfion does not neceffarily favor the Baptitt caufe.— I admit, therefore, without embarrairmg the fide I take, * That was Mr. B. to be iriformed that [a Fsedo- baptill] goes into a River, merely to fprinkle an Infant, or an Adult ; he might certainly impeacli either the credibility of his information, or the inUL leBs of the Adminilbator.' Am I aflced. Why ? I anfwer, becaufe Ac «fC(i wo^. The ufe ofaRiver# tioubilefs, was not intended to operate as an ex- clufive example ; for if it had, we had never met with fuch inflances as we have of Houfehold Baptiftns. The refuit of thefc things compared, is, that, under the Gofpel, to be in the water or out of the water on the part of the Adminiftra- tor and SubjcQs, in refpeB: of the performing a6l, is neither here nor there ; that our Lord's commiflion does not forbid his Miniflers to ga into the water upofi the Pcedobaptiftmode, if there is real occafion for it ; that if they do without occahon, there is room to fufpe6l, as Mr. B. infinuates. they are bejide thefnfelves ; but to be placed in the fame fuuation as our Op- ponents by going into a Baptiftory whether as Baptizers or Candidates, and upon their princi- ples, is inconfillcnt with the will of Christ, What impreffion, this with the foregoing Chap- ters, may make on the minds of Baptilis or Paedobaptifts, condefcending to give this work a

perufal

C 134 )

perufal, I cannot pretend to determine ; but committing them to a candid and impartial exa- mination, as Onedfcfirous, if poffible, of finding out the Truth, the whole Triuh, and nothing but the Truth, I conclude what relates to the contro- verfy with a declaration and a wilh, — The former is, that I ftiall as readily retract, as I have been. forward to advance^ if there Ihould appear oc- cafioR for it hereafter ; but at prefem, notwith- ftanding what both fides have urged, I cannot confiderihe controverfy exbaulted, as it is \cry often reprefented to be — but am of opinion, that the Jilence of Scripture about forne thrngs, equally with what it aJJeHs concerning others in Baptifmal accounts, makes againft immerfion of the fubjeft ; and that fome Paedobaptilts have Tsxzde unwarrantable conceffi-'>ns, and highly diC advantageous to Truth and the Caufe they would defend. — The latter reTpeSls the manner of treat- ing one another in this controverfy ; and I hope that whatever claims Baptifm may be confiderecl to hare on a Refpondent, making thefe pages the ground of a reply, he cannot feel bimielf in- duced by any example of unbecoming Language, to ufe it himfelf. God forbid, that when pro* feffing to defend the caufe of Adam the secon d, we fliould fuffer ourfelves to write, as if promp- ted and dictated to by the Spirit of Adam the

en AP,

( ^35 )

CHAP. VL

On the Importance of the Baptifmal O^* dinance^

TTAVING finiflied the controverlial part of "*- •*■ this publication, I would engage the Rea- • der*s attention a few moments onlyj while fome Gonfiderations are barely ftated, which give import iance to Baplifm, both gs it refpeHs the Ad- minidrator, and the SubjeQ:, Such are the fol- lowing.— No precept, or ordinance is delivered by greater authority than that to which wc owe the €xillence and enlargement of Bapti/raal Adminif- tration under the gofpeL With this deferves to be conneQed the time when, and the circumftan- ces under which, the Lord of x\ll uttered his roya! Mandate, It was in «bat memor^ible interval bf- tweenhis refurreftion from the dead, and his afcent to Glory in Heaven, and in the ftile of majefty, — Baptifm j'inily with preaching, is to be of per' petual deration and obligation upon Mini Iters and Nations, as Providence makes, way for the former to execute the commiflion in refped of the latter. All t<' whom it i* adminiftered, have thereby an injlitutsd fign of cxtaifive mercy, and arc under Jpecial vbligaiiom and advantage ariling out of it,

t9

( 136 )

to concern themrelves about, and feek after thofe things that belong to their everlafting peace.

As a Caveat againll trifling with ii under the idea of its being a pofitive ordinance, and con- fiding of the ufe of a little water only, certain paflages, with which we are furnifhed from Psedo- baptifm examined, well deferve a place in this chapter, and in our memories. Bp. Taylor : All inftitutions facramental, and pofitive laws, depend not upon the nature of the things them- felves, according to the extenfion or diminution of which our obedience might be meafured; but ihey depend wholly on the will of the Law-giver, and the Will of the Supreme, being afctualiy li- mited to this fpccification, this manner, this mat- ter, this inftituiion. — Reeves: God commands <a thing which was before indifferent ; therefore that thing is as much a law as if it was never fo good in its own nature. Bp. Butler : It is highly necelTary that we remind ourfelves hov/ great prejumvtion it is, to make light of any infti- tution of divine appointment ; that our obliga- tions to obey all God's commands whatever, are abfolute and indif'penfable ; and that commands merely fofitive, admitted to be from Him, lay us under a moral obligation to obey them, An obli- gation moral in the jlriBeJl and mojl proper fenfc. Mr. Jonathan Edwards : Pofitive precepts arc the greateft and molt proper trial of our

obedience.

( ^37 )

obedience ; becaufe in them the mere authority and will of the Legiflator,is the fole ground of the obhgation, and nothing in the nature of the things tbemfelves; and therefore they are the greateft trial of any perfon's refpeft to that authority and will. Anonymous : We deny that there are any acci- dental parts of inilituted worfliip ; for if infti- tuted, (i. e. commanded by Christ) it cannot be accidental (i. e. left to our liberty, as that may or may not be done without fin). Dr. Grosvenor : The diminutive things that have been faid by feme of the pofitive appointments in Religion, and the extravagant things that have been {aid by others, are two extremes which true reafoning leads nobody into, on either hand. It is as contrary to the nature of things to make nothing of them, as to make them the whole of Re- ligion. To know exa6tly the regard that is due to them, is to find out the rank and order they are placed in, by him who has appointed them. — Some things arc abfolutely necelfary to Salvation, and in their own nature. We call thofe things abfolutely necedary, without which there can be no Salvation at al!. Thus, a mind fuited to the happinei's intended bv the word Salvation, is abfo- lutely necefiary ; or holinefs, without ivhich no man Jhall fee the Lord. — No merely pofiiive ap- pointments are necefTaiy in this fenfe ; i. e. abfolutely and in their own nature.— A difpofi-

S tion

{ J3S )

tioR to obey divine orders, wherever they are difcerned, either pofitive or inoral, is part of that holinefs^ xvithout "which no man JJiall fee the Lord. — The fincerity and truth of, fuch a difpofi- tion, is to be known by its being uniform and uni- verfal. Pfalm, cxix. 6. Col. iv. 3. The Author of oui Religion has told us, and added his ex- ample to his word, that thus it becomes us io fuL fil all RighteoicfnefSydind fo ordered him felf to be baptized. — Baptifm was a pofitive Rite, an ex- ternal thing ; and yet he calls it righteoufnefs. Such Righteoufnefs as became him, who was the HOLY ONE of God ; became Him, who had in- trinfically no need of any outward ceremony; whofe inward purity was perfe6lly divine : and if if became him to fulfil fuch fort of Righteoufnefs, it can hardly become any, who pretend to be his followers, to negleft it. — As a competent evidence is fuppofed needful, for any external rite being of divine appointment; fo again, a wilful igno- rance of that evidence, or not difcerning it through criminal caufes, will not excufe from guilt. The criminal caufes of not feeing the evidence for fuch appointments, are, in this cafe, as in many other cafes, non-inquiry, laziness, preju- dice, LUST, PRIDE, passion. Thai an igno- rance owing to thefe caufes, cannot be pleaded for a negleft of any of God's appointments, is fo much the general I'enfe of all cafuifts, that I fliall

only

( -^39 )

only addhere, That it is at f.very man's

PERIL, KOW H£ COMES NOT TO KNOW THE

WILL OF God, as well as not to do it— We raitll look to it, how we come not to fee the appointment, and mud anfwer that to God and our own confcience. It is not enough to fay, Lord, I did not know it was appointed ; when the aniwev may juftly be, you never inqmred into the matter : you never allozued your/elves to think of it : or if you did, you refolved in y.our mind, that you ivould not he convinced : you madi the mofl oj every cavity but never minded the folution to any of your ohjeBions. — The duty and neceffity of any exter- nal rites, and particularly of Sacraments, have their meafures and degrees. And here I appre- hend, the meafures of the duty and neceffiiy of Sacraments to be^ — The authority enjoining. When we fee the broad seal of heaven, where there is the divine warrant. Thus faith the Lord 5 it is worfe than trifUng to cavil and fay, It is but, an external rite. — The degree of evidence "of their being fo appointed.— The //r^/s God lays upon them for the time they are to continue. Sprink- ling the Blood of the FafTover upon the polls of the doors, was not at all neceffary to prelervation from the deftroying Angela but God laid that ili-efs upon it.-^The reafon and end of them t, ^ 2 Leaving

■^ Pssdobaj*; ExaiCi vol; i Clap, jj

C 140 )

Leaving the Reader himfelf to make an appli- cation of ihefe obfervations to the ordinance of Baptifm, I have only to fubjoin the words of the Apoflle, 1 John, v. 6, 7, 8. This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ ; not by water only but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witnefs, hecaujc the Spirit is truth, For there are three that bear record in * heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost ; AND these three ARE ONE. And there are three that' bear witnefs inearth, the spirit, and the WATER, and the blood; and these three

AGREE IN ONE.

FINIS.

ERRATA.

Page 1 6, Line 13, after dipping, read a?id fprinkUng,

• 33, — — 22, For LexicographarSy r. Lexicogra-

phers:

39, 26, After Jew, r. originally:

42, 1 1 , For unfortuateJy y r. unfortunately.

— — 68, 9, For illerate,r. illiterate.

88, 29, After Dead, dele the full point,

124, ■ 5, For out lived, r. out-lived.

PUBLISHED BY THE AUTHOR.

y M N S, &c. on various Subjects. Price, IS. 6.

s. Our Appointed Time Confidered. A Ser- mon occafioned by the Death of the Author'^s Sifter ; and preached at High- Wycombe, Bucks, PricCj 6d.

^. The Death oF a Minifter impFOved, and the Miniftry of the Living recommended and en- forced. A Funeral Sermon, preached March 16. 1794. Price, 6d. — The above' Sold at M. Prieitiey'Sj (late Trap) Pateraiofter-Ro^^'j, London.

4. RemarksanfoiTie Parts of the Stb and 12th Chapters of Daaiel, andti^e 11th Chapter of the Revelations, in reference to the recenfj prefect, and approaching Events of the, Times. Piiee, Gd. Printed for f . Chap- man,, No. 151, Fleet Street.

g. Catholic Baptifm Examined -, Or, Thoughts on the Ground, and Extent, of Bapiifmai Admini Oration ; wherein Mr. Booth's Publiu cations on Baptifm are noticed, fo far as deemed material to the objeft of Inquiry m this Work. Price, 3s. Sold at M. Frieftley's, Paternofter-Rov;, London ; and tahebadof the Author^ High- Wycombe.

\

CATHOLIC BAPTISM

EXAMINED;

O B,

THOUGHTS 01^ the GROUND. Anp extent.

O F

Baptismal Administration^

Wherein Mr. Booth's Publications on BAPTISM are noticed, so far as deemed ma- teria) to ;nc Objeft of Inquiry in this Work.

By will 1AM,./M ill ER.

Let every Man be fully perjwaded in his own Mind, Froye ail Things, hold /asi that ivhich is good^

PAUt.

HICH-WYCOMBE:

Printed for the AUTHOR.

jOLD BY S. CAVE, PRINTER; ANDBY M. TRA?^ T?ATERNOST^R-ROWj LONPON,

?793-

CONTENTS.

INTRODUCTORY PREFACE.

Chapter 1.

Pagi»

/^F the privileged State of all Nations under

^^ the 'limes of the Glorious Mejfiah, .... i,-— 14'

Chaper II.

Comprehending an Inquiry into the right Rule of Adminifiering the Baptifrtial Ordinance ; who are the proper SuhjeEls of it ; and an Examination of Scripture Accounts, d-firned to difcover their Agreement or Dijagreement -with, their Confirmation or Refutation of the Author's views of Baptifm 15 — 1 35

Chaptbh

iv C O N T E NT S.

Paoi, Ckapter III.

Brief Ohfervations,ferving ti txplain^ mforce , and recommend Catholic Bdptijiri 1 3 / '"^

iNTRO^

INTRODUCTORY PREFACE.

*^^ APTISM is an Ordinance of the New Jj Teftament, which has occafioncd con- fiderable ControVerfy. Numerous publica- tions oi Paedobaptifts and Antioaedobaptifls^ have made their appearance in behalf of their refpeftive opinions. After all that has been advanced. Unanimity is far from being the Boaft of ProfefTors on the Subjeft. Some, every now and then, feel themfelves obliga* ted, or induced, for one reafon or another, to come forward as Writers thereon. It is owing to this, that hitherto there has been, and yet is likely to be, a fuccefTion of Books on this controverted article of the Chrif- tian Faith. Well, be it fo : there can be no doubt, but Benefit will accrue to ths Truth, and the World, eventually, there- by. Controverfial Writings, however much to be regreted on fome accounts, will, it may be expeded, prove effeftual,

ac-

Vi PREFACE

arcompanied with the guidance of the Holy Spiiit, to bring about ihat unity of the Faith which is de{i;ab!e. Nor can it be juftly queftioned, 1 conceive, on a Subject of this kind, nor peihaps on any other, but an alteration, at lead in lome degree, in the Statement and mode of Argument, hitherto ufed in its fupport, may introduce Unifor- Jnity of fentiment and i);a6(ice.

^ Until I had feen t! e works of Mr. Booth, and Dr. Wdliams, I entertained no thoughts of becoming a public Advo- cate for Catholic Baptifm. However, aftCF a careful perufal of both, various confi- derations which are here fubmitted to the Reader, occurred in Favor of this enlarged Baptifmal plan. 1 hey are publilhed, to borrow the language of Dr. Jortin on ano* theroccaGon, ''for the fervice of Truth " by One, who would be glad to attend, ** and grace her Triumphs ; as a Soldier : *' If he has had the honour to ferve *« fticcefsrullv under her banner : or, as her *♦ Captive, tied to her Chariot Wheels, if *' he h^s, th.mgk undejipicdlyt committed '* anv offence a^aiiiR her."

Everjr

PREFACE- vii

Every Reader of Mr. Booth's Work, entitled, Faedobaptifm examined, on the principles, concefTions, and reafonings of the moft lea»^ned Paedobaptifts, will difcO- ver and commend the Author for confider- able pains and labor. On the utility of it, in various points of view, I venture with equal confidence to pronounce, though it is profeffedly, and in fome parts of it violently, written againft the caufe of Paedobaptifm. The Index to his quotations naturally leads us to view him furrounded wirh numerous volumes ; and among them herefembles the induflrious bee in a gar- den, collefting from every flower ; yet for p/EDOBAPTiSTS, he i^ not without a Sting, The defign of bis employ is, to fhew the inconfiftency of the pious, and mod le^irned of the denomination juft mentioned, in pra61ifjng Infant-Baptifm on their pHnciples and conceiTions. And in- deed Mr. B — ''s reafoning and reprelenta- tion run to fuch an extent, that if others are like-minded with myfelf, they will join me in the opinion, that fuch palpable inconfiftency as this Auth©r would load

their

viii PREFACE,

their memory and writings wiih, is with difficulty indeed reconciled to their being men of eminence in literature, or even integrity. A work fimilar to Mr. B — '.s, as to its general defign was, I think, very much to be wifhed for: but whether wjp confider a Paedo, or Anti-piedobaptill thus engaged, it has a delicacy peculiar to it, a- rifing from the nature of the Subject;, and the number and charafter of thofe who hold different opinions upon it, that re- quires impartiality and moderation, liberal- ity and judgement in executing it. Truth demands the acknowledgment, in a general way, that Mr. B. has had too much reafon to avail himfelf, in many inftances, of the Works he has ranfacked. Notwithftardng, if I may offer my opinion, the Cauic he op- pofcs, will receive benefit by his publi- cation, as it gives us a colleftion of what are conndered as Inconfiflencies in Paedo- baptifls : while there can be no doubt of the Author's taking every advantage he can, to fiiik the reputation of tlieir caufe. If the Reader has Pcedoboptifm Exvnined, &c, at hand, he may at once fee Quotations

gathered

PREFACE. IX

gathered from eaft, weft, north and fouth. The prudent and confiflent Perufcr will not fail to make a difference between a GREAT DEAL that will apply as Common Property to one fide as well as the other, and that which ftri6lly belongs to his own. He, will not forget the arrangement (not to fpeak of the Quotations them/elves) was optional and lay with the Author and may give too flrong a colouring. He will dif- tinguifh between the Quotations ferving as a Text, and the Remarks and Enlargement thereon. When this is done, a fmall Part of Mr. B — 's Work, compared with the bulk of the Whole, can be confidered as immediate- ly to the purpofe, and adapted to the caufe he would defend, or againll the caufe he would oppofe. Therefore, while I cannot but think, truth will ftand indebted to Pasdobaptifm examined, I am equally ap- prehenfive, its Author will be difappointed. One effect of his work appears in Anti- paedobaptifm examined ; or a drift and im- partial inquiry into the nature and defign, fubjefts and mode of Baptifm, &c. by Dr. Williams. Acknowledged, as this work has

b beeu

X PREFACE.

been, to pofTcfsconfiderable merit, Mr. B. in

a late performance of his, aflFe£ls to treat it

with t^e greateft indignity. He tells us by

the pen of another, that "he would not have

" thought it worth while to have anfwered

" the performance of his opponent, but for

" the clamorous confidence of fome people,

** who reckon a book unanfwerahle when no

" reply is made to it." What provocation

fhould we think a perfon has received, who

in his preface exprefTes himfelf thus : "Ye^,

** I have made fome exertions in order to

** prove, that I am not enamoured withyln^f-

'^ pcedobaptifm examined — that I am no more

*•' convinced by the force of my Opponent's

"arguments, than I am charmed with the

" modejiy of his pretenfions, the c<?77y^f72(^

" of his {^n\AxnQXi{.$,perfpicuity of his mean-

•* ing, the accuracy of his language, or the

" elegance of his compofition." Will not

the Reader feel furprize atfuch language as

this, when he learns the caufe in the fuc-

ceeding fenteUce ? " On all which, I have

•* made fome animadverfions that would

" certainly have been fpared, even though

« I had thought proper to write a defence,

« if

PREFACE ?:

*" if he had not confidered me as ^CApy^- " VAT ED with his performance." What unpleafant intelligence did this Author'? correfpondent in the country convey ip him ! Surely, that gentleman did not fore- fee the effeds of it, or he would not have contributed to fo iijifavorable aji im- preflion on the temper of Mr. B. jDy com- municating what he pbtained *'from a *•• friendly interview that he had with Mjr. " (now Dr.) Edward Williams." Here- after, let Psedobaptifts relinquifh every idea of captivating Mr. 3. with a produc- tion in favor of their diiflinguifhing feati- ments. Let them take >varning for tjie fu- ture and defift from ithe attempt, on pain of having every overfight in language marked by his Italics — a colleftion made of the firft pcrfon pronoun and other ex- preflCions, from different parts of the book^ to (lamp and fix the character of the Egotill Jipon the Author — the charge of apparent ^nconfiftency, when, if one part is taken vith another, pafTages are reconcilable. Is it credible, that it is the farne Author who writes in his preface to hi^sforEner work-, every one

b 2 mult

vii PREFACE.

mufl confefs, that the wrath of man worketh not the righteoufnefs of God, and that the caufe he pleads requires not fuch means o' defence ? How unhappy the exchange o ** a few ftrokes of pleafantry in the courfe ** of his refleftions on the language and ar- ** guments of fome Paedobaptifts," in that work, for notorious ftrokes of illiberahty and unkindnefs in his Animadverfions on this of Dr. Williams's. — Much room is there for enlargement^ but even thefe hints would have been fpared, was not injuftice done to the chara6ler of a refpe6lable Wri- ter and much-valued friend.

Notice is taken of the three pieces alrea- dy mentioned, quotations from them ac- knowledged, and references given at ihe end of this Work. I lie under a great mif- take, if the caufe here pleaded, does not gain advantage from them all, obje6^ions to, and difficulties attending on a more con- fined plan being avoided herein. Circum- ftanced as the ftate of the controverfy be- tween our Authors is, it occurred that the time and purpo/e well agree, for offering thefe Thoughts, &c. after Mr, B — s< De- fence,

PREFACE. xiii

fence, and before the reply, which Time may, perhaps, produce, on the part of his Antagonift.

The firft chapter might have been en- larged, but only fo much is inferred as wa» deemed fufficient to lay a foundation for the fucceeding ones. Particular attention is paid in the fecond chapter to our Lord's Commiflion, and the hiftorical accounts relating to Baptifm in the New Teflament, becaufe the negleft of a clofe inveftigation, the want of diftind and particular obferva- tions here, would neceffarily entail miftaken views of the whole.

Whatever opinions, different Readers may entertain concerning the plan and ex- ecution of this work, it is hoped, no im- proper Spirit, no unbecoming language will be found to hinder its acceptance. It is the Author's wifh to improve daily in a conformity of fpirit and fpeech to the Apoftolic maxim of Jpeaking the truth in love. So far as the fentiments contained here bear the criteria and facred image of truth, the blefiing of God is implored, and expeded on them. Perfonal confiderati-

Xiv PREFACE.

on$ refpefiing the Author, are thrown a- fide: his only concern is, that the Rb- DE£M£r's Intereft and Glory m?y be pro- moted ; and as a Friend of the Bridegroom, he will heartily rejoice at his increafc;, and the fpread of the Gofpel always.

( 1 )

Catholic Baptijm exajnined.

■mni—ii

Chapter I.

Of the privileged State of all Nations un- der the Timr-s of the glorious Mejfiak.

KNOWN unto God are all his Works from the beginning of the World, We, there- fore, conclude from the wifdom, goodnefs, and veracity of the divine being, that Prophecies and Promifes, which are intended to reveal the State and Events of future times, may be depended upon, as containing a true and faithful Account. From the perfeft agreement of ancient prophe- cies and promiles with the times they refpe6l, ** their Evidence," as a valuable Writer obferves, " in its own nature is direft and pertinent ; and « when its meaning is afcertained, its verdift

<* (ccsUris paribus) is indifputable." As to pafs

ovex

( 2 }■

over thciCj >vould be. to difregard eligible means of information on the Subject in hand, it be- hoves us to avail ourfelves of their afliftance.

Old TeHasnent Prophecies and Promifes, ftand as facred Eminences in Scripture, whence we may take a Survey of a widening Profpeft, extending through the lapfe of ages, down to the confumraation of all Things. Hence the Pa- triarch Abraham forefaw the Redeemer's day, and was glad. His heart gladened at the fcenes, the hyight fcenes, opening to his view from fhofe enlarged declarations. In thee Jh all all th^ fa- milies or THE EARTH bc blcjjcd. Gtx\. chap. 12. v. 3. And again, in thy feed Jhall all the nati- ons of the EARTH he bkjjed. Gen. chap. 22. V. 18. The feed here intended, upon the tefti- monyofan infpired Apoftle, is Christ. Gal- chap. 3. v. 16. All nations without exception are ihe privileged fubjecls of the promife ; and the c>:a61: pofition in which we behold them, is blejfcd. O joyful Tidings! O glorious Period! — BlefTing, which, like a River, ran in the nar- row channel of the Jewifh nation for feveral ages, at length fprea-^.s itfelf far and wide; and like the Sea which graTps in all the fhore, compre- hends every part of the habitable Globe — Exult, ye nations, at the thought! To interpret thefc paflages without a manifeft neceffity, fo as to ex- clude the greater part of the nations, mull be do- ing

( 3 )

ing injuflicc to die force of tiie language, tlie par- ties intereftcd, and tlie liberal grant of the pro- Kiiler. Tlieir natural import foems to he, that UNIVERSAL BLESSING inf)me ii)ipcs)iant jiiifcy Ihall abound under the Redeemer's gentle reign. Like a diftant voice, they proclaim in, cur ears, a, thdiUgz in the relativn pate oj all natiom, with re- gard to go/pel privileges. Countries known aiid unknown, polifhed and barbarous, even rhofe igtiorant of the gofpel, as well as thofe acquainted with it, are, compared with their former flaie, be- nefited in this refpc6t, upon the commeiiceinent of the days of Mefliah.

Equally aufpicious to the world at large, is that pafTage. So (hall He fprinkle mamy natio^^s. Ifaiah 52. 15, This, like the former, is fpoken of gofpel tuTies, and only a varied form of cxpreffing the fame thing. It contains the adurance of fome benefits, v.'hich the nations at huge fluili be made partakers of under Chrill. " The ob- " vious and natural acceptation of the term, fprin-^ '■^ kle, in this connection,'' fays the author of Anti- " Paedobaptifm examined," is that o^ purifying i " and it undoubtedly alludes to thofe ceremonial ** purifications, which were performed by fprink.- ** ling perfons and things." Vol. 1. p. 264. See- ing in every fenfe in which the word, fprinkle, can betaken, it denotes a benefit; and the benefit, be it what it may, rerpe6h nations as fuch, there is

A 2 good

( 4 )

good rcafon for obferving wiih the afore-citcd author, '* the prediction, properly and direclly intends external Holine/Sy" that holinefs. whereby nations, now, are diftinguiflicd from nations be- fore the coming of Chriit.

In furveying thefc, and fimilar paffages of the old teftament, what a wonderfully conftituted flate of grace a'^d privilege arifes to our view. Virgil, in his paftoral, entitled Pollio, kindles into rapture on defcribing the golden age of the world- Aided by prophecy and promife, is there not much greater occafion, in reference to gofpel times, to break out m the language of that Heathen Poet> **Afpice venturo laetentur ut omnia feclo," obferve how all things rejoice at the coming age — Well might Simeon embrace his Saviour, in his wither- ed arms, on feeing Him in the temple, and pathe- tically add. Now letteft thou thy fervant depart in. peace, for mine eyes have feen thy falvation.

To new Teftament Hiftory we next appeal. Undoubtedly, this accords with former prophecies and promifes. Prophecy is but the account, be- forehand, of times ; hift;ory, of times, when come; and to be true, they muft agree with the times, and with one another. It may be further ex- pefted, that hiftory and prophecy fliouldrecipro- cally throw light upon each other; fo that by the diftin£l information of both, we may afcertain in the cleareft manner, the Hate of the times they

reprefent.

The

( 5 )

The hiftory of the new tellament, comes in aid of the privileged ftate already mentioned, with the fulleft evidence. Jews and Gentiles, as they formerly differed in this refpeft, arc herein cppo- Jed to each other. A line appears drawn around the former, while the latter are excluded : widi- in this facred enclofure, they are called Children^ ^nd the Gentiles without, were for ages a? dogh and outcaJlSy without Chrift, aliens from the com- monwealth of Ifrael, ftrangers from the covenants of promife, having no hope, and without God in the world. Eph. chap. 2. v. 12. Sad pitiable ftate ! how defirable an alteration ! This Abraham faw attendant upon the day of Chrilt. God's promife to Hiiti imported fo much ; and new Tcftam.ent Hiftory abundantly confirms it.

Prejudices, like to thofe which influence the minds of too many ftill, and which prevent their viewing the world in fo favorable a light a:, to ex- ternal gofpel privileges, as they ought, prevailed in the breafts of the Apoftles. To deft roy them in Peter, was the defign of that extraordinary vi- {lon related, A£ts chap. 10. He faw heaven open- ed, anda cert ain vefTel defcending unto him, a.s it had been a great fl^eet, knit at the four corners, and let down to die earth, wherein were all man- ner of four-footed beafts of the earth, and wild beafts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. And there came a voice to him. Rife, Peter,

kill

( 6 ) ■

kill and eat. But Peter faid, not fo Lord, for I have never eaten any thing that is common or un- clean. And the voice fpake unto him again the fecond time, what God hath cleanfed, that call not thou common. This was done thrice, and the veffel was received up again into heaven. V. 1 1 . — 16. Peter doubting in himfelfwhat this Ihould mean. Providence becomes interpreter. The fequel of the (lory fliews, the defign v/as, to pre- pare Peter for an embalfy among the Gentiles ; to teach that fervant of God the long exifting dif- tin6lion, between Jews and Gentiles was no more J that the latter ftood upon equal footing with the former under a difpenfation wherein all are One; to difpollefs him of opinions and preju- dices to the contrary, and to excite that liberal fpirit in him, which fuited the Genius of thegof- pel, and upon which depended the difcharge of the commiffion he had received, — Go and difciple all nations. Peter, like Paul in another cafe, was not difobedient to the heavenly vifion. Happily, no nation fmce, as it was before the fetting up of the kingdom of Mefliah, is debarred from the privileges of the gofpel. Adieu, for ever adieu to language, once in ufe, and confining Salvation, i. e. the means of Salvation, to Ifrael. God's will and declaration of it rendered Abraham's pofter- ity fole poffeffors of it. All befides were as na- tions whom God knew not, as unclean. But, glo- ry to God, times are changed. Gentiles at large,

con traded

( 7 )

contrafted with their former ftate, arc, by God's full and abfolute declarations of mercy to be rec- koned, clean, relatively holy ; and, confequently, are in as fit a capacity for external privileges, as the Jews before them were from their relative fandity.

A bleffing of this nature fhould not be held in low eftimation by creatures, who arelefs than the leaft of all God's mercies. It is a bleffing to all to whom the promife and prophecy convey it ; fo that nations, even ignorant of the gofpel, being, neverthelefs, interefted in the conftitution of the gofpel, as well as thofc acquainted with it, are be- nefited. To be fituated as gentiles once were, would be an evil, the abfence thereof muft be a good.

Pertinent to this part of the fubje6l, requifitc for its further explanation, and introdu6lory to the fequelyare the remarks which have been made on the terms, unclean and holy — *• It is gen- «' erally agreed, fays the pious and learned Mr. «* Baxter, that the mofl common ufe of the word " holy^ if not the only, both in fcripture andpro- " fane writers, is to fignify a thing feperated to " God — Omnc SanBum cfl; Deo fanftum ; what- *' foever is holy, is holy to God. — Now as holi- " nefs thus fignifieth a fcperation to God, fo «* itmay be diflinguilhed thus; a perfon or thing " may be holy or feperated to God either in ftatc

«« and

( 8 )

*' and (landing relation, or elfe only for fome ** particular ad, o: ufc, whether for fliorter time, *' or a longer. This fenfc of the term, he ob- ** ferves, is u(ed in fcripture, near fix hundred *V times. Baxter's plain fcripture proof, pages 80 and 82. — The rule for determining the fituation of the gentiles, in the above ferie, clean or holy, is, in all equity, and upon fcripture war- rant, to confider the Itate of the Jewifh nation, to which they ftand oppofed. Now the origin^ of Ifrael's fepcration from the reft of the worldj was God's promife to Abraham and his feed. To put them in remembrance of this, was God made known to that people fo often, as the God of Abra- ham. Exodus, chap. iii. v. 6. 15. 16. chap. iv. V. 5. Hence the privileges they poflefled. Shall ANY NATION, (and none is excepted) be declared clean or holy as the Jews, upon the free and un- incumbered promife of Jehovah, and not at leaft have, de jure, correfpondcnt privileges accom- panying a fimilar flate of relative holinefs ? Is it conceivable, Abraham in the forefight of the fu- ture ftate of the nations under Chrift, guided by the promife made concerning them, would view them in any other light ? — Thus ran the divine declarations, as they immediately refpefted himfelf and pofterity, I will make of thee a great NATION, and 1 will blefs ihee, and thou Ihalt be a BLESSING. Gen. 12. 2. chap. 22. 17. Whence was Abraham to judge of the manner

and

, ( 9 )

^nd extent in which Christ the promised seed mjome mporiant Jtnp^ would be a blefTii g toall nations, unlefs from the manner and extent in which ho hiiDfelf was to be a bleffing ? — This Pa- triarch was a blefiing to the whole Jewifh Nation [))' the promife of Jehovah, comprehending him- fclf and dciccndants : I'urely, it was natural for Abraham Lo conclude that to the fame extent, Chhim' would be a blelfing.to all nations ? — . To Abraham and his '\Kic(i appertained divers ex- ternal privileges : could he conceive the nations under Christ, would not have what was tanta- mount to them? — With fuch profpc6:s before him, his believing foul might well rejoice; and like the wife men upon feeing the liar, with exceeding great joy.

If Abraham had fo much reafon to apprehend the nations would be privileged after this man- ner at that diitance of time, and from fuch grounds of inference, much more does the hiftorical and do6irinal language of the New-teftament, warrant us to believe this fame Oate \s the unalienable Inherit tance oi the nations, till tim2 (hall be no more. Two palfagcs in proof of this, defcrve remark.' One is, Rom. chap. ii. v. 16. if the firjl-fruit he holy, the lump is clfo hdy.^ and ij the root he holy, Jo art the branches. Having in the preceding ob- fcry ationsafcertained the fenfe of ihe ter»[i, holy, it

B only

••J

( lO )

only remains to enquire, to wljom t!ic obfcrVation of theApoftle is applicable, and in what way it is true, if the firft-fruit be holy, i^hc !iinrj> is holy, &c.^^If we attend to the cor.ncttion and drift of the Chapter, the paflage is plainly meant to re- fer both to Jews and Gentiles. Is it inquired, upon what ground it is true of them ? I anfwcr, upon the ground of the promise, which confti- tutes both Jews and Gentiles equal alike holy in a relative fenfe. Internal holincfs cannot be meant, for it does not follow, if the root wa« holy in that fenfe, the branches \eoujd be i'o too. No promife fecures internal holinefs bj way of invariable fucceffion from Anceftors to pofterify. Herein progenitors and dcfcendanti may differ. The impoffibility of applying the Apoftle'sobfeivations in this way, proves him to liave a different meaning. Examine it by the interpretatioji of relative hoUnefs, it will admit of the mod uNivTKSAL application, firft to Jews and then to Gentiles under the gofpcl difpenfation. The Generations of the Jev/s in fuccellion from Abraham to Chrift were, umformly, univer" falh and equally kolft rekttvely mifulered % and the Centiks under the g tfpel arc fo too. Divide the largeft bodies of peopfe into fmall, and fchefe in- to ftill lefs, it will hold true, if thcfiift-fruit of a nation, city, town, vtlh^gc, Famiiy, be boly, the lump is : bccaufe the pi oi»iie which give« birth

( » )

to this relative holinefs, fincc it comprehends the whole, muft of courfe, the parts.

The other paflage, claiming our notice, is I. Cor. chap. 7. v. 14. for the unbelieving hujhand iifan&ijied by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is fane* tified by the hujhand : elfe were your children unclean, but now are they holy. So ourtranflators have ren- dered the original J and accordingly our Expofuors comment upon it. In reference to the fubjeQ; in hand, it has been ftrangely bandied about by all parties; and both fides feem to feel themielves bound to abide by the Engiifli verfion of the paf- fage. Drs. Doddridge, Stennct, Williams, and Mr. Booth, apparently regard the order of the Englifh text as true. The author of Anti-Paedo- baptifm examined, propofes confidering, in this palTage, the import of the phrafe, anfwering to, the words in E.ng\i{h^Ja7iH;Jzed by. By fo doing, a coalition or partnerfhip, takes place between two words in the pafTage which, in the ori- ginal are quite fcparatc; and if I miftake not, need not, from grammatical conftru£lion, or from the defign of the Apoflle, be joined toge- ther. The Greek may be thus read, Thehujband %uho is not a believer luith or as the wife, hath

BEEN SANCTIFIED OR MADE HOLY , and the Wife

who is not a believer with or as the hujhand , hath

»EEM SANCTIFIED OR MADE HOLY. Thc

learned Mr. Fool, in his Annotations, on thc

B g eleventh

( 12 )

eleventh vcr{c of this chapter, marks an overdght of our tranflators, in rendering a verb paflive in the a6live f?rm. The like is oblervable in the pal- {og^ before us : for the Verb, uhich is the pre- terperfeft tenfe, paffivej of the in^dicative mood, and ought to have been rendered, "hath been fanc- tified," is on the contrary tranflated, *• is fandified'* which is the indicative rHOod, prefent lenfc, paf- five. It is as extraordinary that fundry words in the Greek, which immediately and naturally follow one another, fliould be difplaced. Schrevelius obferves, the prepohtion here ufed has the force and conftruftion of all the prepofitions, fo that no objeftion can be niade to its being conftrued with^ or as. No fuch thing, therefore, is intended as our tranflation would import, namely, that an unbe- lieving hufband is fanftified by his wife, or that the unbelieving wife, is fanftified by her hufband. 1 he idea fuggelled, is quite different, that though thg liufband is not a believer as the wife is^, yet he hath, neverthelefs, been fan£lified, i. e. made rela- tively holy; and that the wife, though not a believ- er as her hufband, has been the farwe. Not that in cither cafe, the one is fanQified by the other : the unbelieving party is not made better in any relative fenfe by the believing. The marriage flate does in no view a[fe6t or alter the relative holinefs of cither hufband or wife ; and both are declared, Jiowithftanding they may be unbelievers, flill holy

l6

( 13 )

Is it allied, upon what ground ?— The anfwet is, by virtue of the difpenlation they live under, vhirh conftitutes every one relatively holy, inde- pendent of faith, and unbelief.

The difficulties of afcertaining in what fenfe the unbelieving party could be fanftified by the oppo- fite, and which have occafioned fuch variety of opinions, are upon this view of the pafTage, done away ; and appear entirely groundlefs. Thus un- derftanding it, we admit with vaft force and advan- tage Mr. Booth's remarks, wherein he obferves, ** On this term, fanftified, the infpired writer, ** manifeftly lays a peculiar emphafis ; fuch an ** emphafis, that itfeems to be the governing word •' of the whole fentence, and a key to its true " meaning." It is, indeed, a word of vaft impor- portance : the whole pafTage refts upon it, as its bafis: all befides this word in each claufe, denotes, and diftinguifhes the perfon fpoken of; this dc- fcribes his or her relative ftate. The Apoftle's con- clufion concerning their offspring is natural, and the reafon of it obvious. The promife on vvhich the relative holinefs of the parents flands, equally includes the children ; and thus coincides that other pafTage, if the root be holy, fo are the branches. — What farther tends to recommend this explanation of the text, is, that it anfwers the de- fign of the Apoflle, which appears from the con- text, to be the reconciling of the believing party

to

( '4 )

to dwell with t!ie unbelieving : it being fup- pofed, ihat after their marriage, eisher the huf- band, or the vife, had been conViC?',rd. The Apoftle's words are to this effetl, as sddrcITed to the believer on either fide, « 1 ho^ she Grace of

• God, bath made fo great a change in you, ihat,

• your partner by marriage is juft the revcife to

• yourfelf, remaining in a ftate of qr^btli^if, yet

• notwithftanding, you arc to regard Wan, under

• the privileged ftate of the goi'pej, as rcliitiveiy

• holy, and your chiidiren equally To. ThmK not

• then of departing from him, O Wife, for ^vhst

• knoweft thou (and relative holinels h a^^ e??-

• couragement to hope it may be fo in the ui'e of

• iheJins) \vheiher thou fhalt fave thy hufband ? No key can better fit the wards of a lock, than this Interpretation feems to correfpOMd with the drift and fcope of the Apoftle. It confe- Quently bids the fairer to be the one intended.

Upon the whole ihen, it appears on the fufFragc of Old-leftament prediBions and promifes, and New-teftamient accounts, that there is the greaieft reafon to regard all the nations of the earth, indif* criminately, under an advanragious relative change of ftate, for which they are indebted to the Lord Jesus Christ. Well might a Multitvideof the heavenly hoft at the birth of foexieafive a Mer-* cy, blefs and praife God, faying, glary to God in thi high^^ peace upon carih, ^ood vaU towardtmen*

Chap,

( 15 )

Chapter IL

Co/izprehending an Ir.juiry into the Right Rule of adminiflcring the Baptifmal Or* dinance ; zdio are the proper Subjects ofit\ and. an Exarnination of ^cripture Account dejisrned to Dl [cover their Agr cement ^ or DifagrctTMui with, their Confirmation or Rejiitalmh of the Authors viex^s of Bap" tifm,

THE dcfign of this work being profefledly to afcertain who are the PROPER subjects of Baplifm under the gofpei difpenfation, and what the REGULAT£Na pRi^ctPLE to bc oblervcd as to adminiftefing ihe Ordinsnce, this is the proper place to lay before the Reader, the author's fenti- ments, together with thofe upoa the lubjefl: to which he objcds.

luthe j'ldga^entof Anti-P«dobapti{|s, the on- ly proper Tubje^ls of Baptifra, are perfon^ dczmtA

CfiMUlME BELIEVERS Olf A CREDLBL& PRO«

MLsnaa OF FAITH. According to this icndmenl^ §11 infants and the greater part of aduUs, arc ex« eluded from the ordinance.— The opinion of the Author of this work is, that, the right and rule f^ admintftering the baptifaial ordinance, wbicli

coafaiTedlf

( i6 )

eonfefledly lies with a miniller, {lands on a diit'er- cnt footing; that true faith does not cireniially conftitute a proper fubjecl of baptifm ; that how- ever it may, or it may not be in the baptized, or however the faving advantage of this, as of all other ordinances depends upon faith, (which is granted) that fcripture holds forth other tenable ground than this, on which perfons may be ad- mitted to that facred rite.

Of thefe two fe ntiments that, be it which it may, mufl be the true and fcriptural one, which hath the leaft real inconveniencies attending it ; ismoft fuiied to the Genius of the gofpel ; maintains the harmony in the leveral parts of fcripture,- and to which things apparently contradidory, may be moft fafely andeafily reduced.

Among other difficulties, the following lie in the way of embracing the Anti-Padobaptift plan,

J. On the part of the adminiftrator of the or- dinance. *'Admiffion to baptifm, fays Dr. Gill, " lies foldy in the breaft of the adminiftrator, ** who is the only judge of the qualifications for ** it ; and has the file power for receiving to it ** and rejecting from it ; if not fan8:ified, he may ^* rejeft a pcrfon thought fit by a church and ad- •* mit a perfon to baptifm not thought fit by a <• church. Body of Divinity. Vol. p. 312. What •• an arduous tafk devolves in this cafe upon a tminilier of Christ! Zs^ty minilter, is offici- ally

( 17 )

ai^y, to decide upon tlie merit, or demerit of the candidate ; and this depends upon his faith or unbelief, as the credibility and the incredibility .of profefllon will make it manifeft. Credible profession! how vague the term! how varying and clafhipg as to what conllitutcs it, may be the ideas of different minilters. Who is to afcertain what degree of knowledg-e, &c. what kind of pra6lice, or length of time, are necefTiry to make A PROFESSION CREDIBLE ? After all is done to difcover the finx:erity of the heart, who can take upon him to affirm, the perfon may not deceive himfelf, or elfe,impofe upon others ? A credible profeflion being made the ftandard of adrninfter- ing the ordinance to Adults, it is necefTarily an UNCERTAIN Ru LE, and liable tovary,as minillers entertain different opinions about it. A candi- date may be qualified in the judgment of one ininifter, who is not fo in the judgment of another; and the latter may have an equal right to deter- mine unfavourably, as the former may, to do the contrary. Is it reafonable to imagine, that €ver this was, can, or ought to be, the determin- ing rule of adminiftration? A rule which may be multiplied into as many rules, and differing from one another, as adminillrators agree or difagree about the nature of a credible profef^on ? Is it iiikcly, that Chrift would impower his rainifters iohly to jjapti^e^ each upon his pwN judgment ?

$ ^pcording

( »8 )

According to the judicious remarks of Dr. Gilf, it is allowed, the ordinance of baptifm lies fokly with a minifter, and that he is fole-judge of the qualifications for it. — But, thefe admitted, it is highly defirable for the fake of the baptizcr, and candidate, yea, indifpenfably requifite, there fhnuld be fome more determinate rule of guidance than credible profeffion. This is to be fought upon a plan where it is not poffible to miftakc. This we offer in lieu of the other, by propofing relative holinefs ; or^ in other words, we would exchange that which is fubje6: to fuch un- certainty, difficulty, and inconvenience, for that relative ftate arifing from the abfolute and gra- cious Will of God.

a- The term *'all nations" ufed in Chrift'S commiHion, and in other parts of Scripture, de- fcriptive of the gofpel-difpcnfation, are, upon the Antipaedo-baptift plan, indefenfible. Exceptions unavoidably follow it, to the exclufion of, by far, very far, the greater part of the nations. A few, very few comparatively deemed credible profeflbrs, and, ALL NATIONS, are terms fynonymous! Can Scripture give countenance to fuch notorious im- proprieties ? Can the oracles of heaven tolerate fuch an abufe of words ?

Free of fuch embarraffments, confiftent with the nature of the baptifmal ordinance, comporting with the general It rain «f the gofpel, the follow-.

(■ »9 )

ing ground of adminiflration is urged, in tne room of the other exceptionable plan.

The RELATlVli STATE OF THE NATIONS UNDER THE GOSPEL, IS IN ITSKLF A S U F- riCIENT TITLE TO BAPTISM, AS D IS THE A- LONE INVARIABLE, CLEAR, AND CERTAIN RULE OF DIRECTION IN ADM I N I STEH I N G T^l E ORDINANCE.

It appears to me, the iwo ordinances of preach- ing and baptizing, in a paniculai: manner depend on this relative liate : it became neceffaiy, there- fore, to iniid thereon in the firft chapter; and hav- ing! pointed it out in fevera! paflages, to examine its merit and ufe as to baptii'm. Such is the defign of the prcfent chapter.

The prophetical, promifory, hidorical and doc- trinal parts of fcripture, jnftify the idea of a change, greatly in favor of the world at large, taking place on the coming of Chrilt. It is now for us to enquire, whether, upon that ground, the Nations may be baptized, as well as preached unto, INDISCRIMINATELY. Objedions to this idea, if any, are to be found — cither in the nature of the relative ftate and baptifm, difagreeing in them- felves — or fomething repugnant to it in fome di- vine order refpcQiiig baptifm — ^in accounts of the adminiftration of it, orelfe in pafTagesaddreffedto perfons, as^ or about to be baptized, Thcfe in the following pages, will be diftinQly examined: and I

C 3i t^uii

( 20 )

truft, it will be fhewn, that on a fuitably doffe rt\6 impartial inveftigation, nothing like an infupera- ble objeftion arifes from either of them. On the contrary, it is prefumed, they will appear recon- cileable to the right alferted in beliaif of the na- tions, and in various points of view, confirming them in it.

I. To begin with the relative change^ (or that holinefs whereof it confifts as a benefit) and the ordinance of baptifm iifelf, A Superftruc- ture requires its foundation to be equal to it- felf,or itcannot (land thereon: an anfwerable con- fiftency and fuitablenefs between the relative ftate and baptifm is difcernible, or the argument from it muft be abandoned and given up. — What is there in baptifm, that will not allow us to atJach it to the nations as conftituted relativdy holy under the gofpel ? "I am led, fays Dr. Williams, by an •* attentive zlnd impartial furvey of thofe facred ** palTages that have any reference to the baptif- *' mal right, to confider it in its vao^ general na- *' turCf as the inftituted ordinance of a regular •* admiflion into the vifible kingdom of Chrift, or ** as it is fometimes called, the kingdom of hea- " ven; wherein the minister folemnly recog- *' nizes the fitnefs of the baptized to be a fubjeft " of that kingdom.'* As to the things reprefent- *' ed by it," the fame author obferves. " Paf- " fages of inibrmatibn relating to this particular,

•'are

( 21 ;

♦' are very numerous ; but, if I miftakc not, «* there is not one but is naturally reducible to •* thefe two heads, viz. bkjfings exhibittd by it, " and obligatiom refulting from it.'' — Under tb.cfe two diftind branches, there is the following enu- meration. Bleflings exhibited in the ordi- nance of the Chriftian Baptifm are — " RemifTion '• of fins. A8:s ii. 38 — Salvation thro' Cnkisr. *• Mark xvi. 16. 1 Peter iii. 21. — Union and " communion with Chrilt and with his body the •• church. 1 Cor. xii. 13. Rom. vi 3. 4. &c, " Colof. ii. 11. — 13. — Chrift as our fpirituai ** covering and complete righteoufnefs. Gal. iii. •* 27. — The down-pouring of the Holy Spirit *' Matth. iii. u. A8,s i. 5. — Regeneration. Jolui *' iii. 5. Tit. iii. 5. — San6lification. 1 Cor, vi. «* 11. Eph. V. 26. God all fufficient" — Undt^r the lift of obligations, refulting from baptifm, arc ** obligations to Repentance. Afts xxii. 16. to ** deftroy the body of fm. Rom. vi. 3. 4. — New- '* nefs of lifeandheavenly-m.indednefs. Rom. vi. ** 4. 8. 11. 13. 19. &c. the anfwer of a good ♦* confcience towards God. 1 Peter iii. 21. filling *' up the place of departed chriftians. Rom. xv. ** 29. — Waiting for the promife of the fpirit. "Adsii. 38. 39. chap. 8. 12. — 17. — Devotcd- " nefs to the grace and fovereign Will of Gon, ** FATHER, so K, and HOLY- GHOST. Matth. xxviii. '* 19." — Anti-Psedobaptifm examined, vol. 1. chap, 2. The nature of the ordinance being

fought

( 22 }

fought for in the above particulars, and having a twofold afpeft, exhibitory and obligatory, what dif- agrecment is there between baptifm and relative holinefs ? It is only a vifible Ji^n of that ftate of privilege into which the nations are brought un- der Chrift. It is a vifiok mean, as vveJ} as preach- ing, of holding fortb the fame bleflings, and lay- ing under the fame obligations. Initead then, of any contradiftion, there is an entire confilkncy between relative holinefs and the baptilmal ordi- nance.— There is no further bar in the way of any being baptized, than of their being preached unto, fo far as can be gathered from its na- ture.— What confirms this lentiment^ is, that both preaching and baptizing are claffed together in the fame general commilTion. Matth. xvviii. 19. Both ordinances evidently grow up out of the fame root, the implied relative ftate. So far as the nature of an ordinance, in itfelf con- lideredjCan determine its ufe, and proper fubjefts, there is every reafon to view it of the fame extent as preaching with which it is coupled : and tht objeds of the latter, are all nations.

There is not a fmgle difficulty more in the way of preaching to all indifcriminately, than of bap* lizing them, from the general nature of the or*"- dinance. All that is required for preaching, is mere natural conjent^ from men as men, indepen- dent of their being unbelievers, or the contrary.

Chrift

( 23 )

Chrifl; hath in veiled his minifters with full a«- ihority to preach, and the nations with a right to the privilege of hearing, virtually in the very commiflion. Some indeed, cannot be addrefTed as infants and perfons labouring under the infirmity of deafnefs to a great degree : not that, as part& of the nations, they have not an equal right, but natural incapacity forbids the full benefit thereof. With refpe£l to others, they have a na- tural capacity for preaching ; are fit obje£ls in. that refpeft : ftill however, their common con- fent is requifite, but this moll effentially differs from true faith ; and it is evident, perfons may attend preaching, and yet be unbelievers. — Vio- lence is not to be offered, in any branch of the miniftry to the common law of nature, fo that men Ihould be forced to it, contrary to their will. A difrcgard of this principle hath occafion- cd the perfecution which hath ftained Church- Hiftory with fo much human blood. Chrift in- tends and enjoins in no fhape, compulfive violence. Common confent, [nohuithjlaiidivg which perjom may be unbelievers) is alone requifite on the a- forc-mentioned reafon for minifters to feel ihemfelves at liberty to preach to any ; in like manner, we obferve, fo far as the argument re- fpe6ts the nature of the ordinance and its connec- tion with preaching in the commiffion, nothing i^iiore than NATURAL acquissence is needful

C H )

for baptifm. Perfons may be baptized on barel)^ not objefting to it, as they may hz preached unto, for ought that appears to the contrary from the exhibitory and obligatory defign of t!ie ordinance. It is, in tiuth, a joint-mean with preaching, of exhibiting and obliging to thefame things, belie- vers and unbelievers, indifcr minaiely.

Befides : ordinances havin;7 alw^y^ been attach-,. ed to relative holinefs, in point oi right or ht\. a- rtiong Abraham's feed, it is natural to fuppofe the like to be the cafe, as to relative holineis under the gofpcl. It is notorious, that circumcifion wa» inftituted, on purpofe to be a fign and fealof Abra* ham and his poflerity's external reiationftiip to God.- — Its general nature and ufe correfpond to baptifm. Ifracl was not only preached unto, but CIRCUMCISED. The foundation of thefe diftin* guilhing privileges, was their relative holinefs. And is ihc felf-faine thing unequal under the dif- penlation of the gofpel ? Has it no outward, vifible general fign annexed to it? Baptifm, furely, if we confider its general nature ; if wc view it by way of analogy with circumcifion, looks likely to be an infeparabic attendant upon it, and I dare not hefitate to fay, it is.

Dr. Doddridge in his Family cxpofitor, deli» vers his femiments on i Cor. vii. 14. which wa» noticed in the former chapter, after this manner, ** On ihe matureli and moft impartial confidera-

f 25 )

" tion, I muft judge it to refer to infant baptifm, " nothing can be more apparent than that the word " holy, fignifies perfons v;ho might be admitted to ** partake of the diJlinguiJJiing rites of God's people, ** Compare Exod. xix. 6. Deut. vii. 6. chap, " xiv. 2. chap. xxvi. 19. chap, xxxiii. 3. Ezra ** ix. 2. with Ifaiah XXXV. 8. chap. lii. 1. A6ls " X. 28. &c. And for the interpretation which " fo many of our brethren the Baptifts have con- *' tended for, that holy fignifies legitimate, and ** unclean illegitimate (not to urge that this feems " an un-fcriptural fenfe of the word) nothing cari *' be more evident, than that the argument will " by no means bear it." In the preceding re- marks on this pafTdge, it hath been fhewn, that on a due rendering of the words, and affixing the mofl natural meaning to them, the unbelievir g party as well as the oppofite, is relatively holy. *' Nothing is more apparent. Dr. Doddridge ob- " ferves, than that all who are fo, are to be *^ admitted to partake of the rites of God's peo- " pie.'* It follows, that the unbeliever being equally holy in a relative fenfe, with the believer^ hath an equal rite to baptifm The whole paf- fdge therefore, ferves to illuftrate and confirm vhat we alfert, that baptifm is infeparably joined to relative holinefs, and that the latter, is a fuf-i ficient title to the, former,

T^ II. Whether

( 2S )

II. Whether that divine order, Matth. xxvlii. tg. will oblige us to depart from the groundwe have chofen, comes next to be examined.

** It is, fays Dr. Williams, an acknowledged " fa6l that baptiftnal purijication was familiarly *' known to the Jews, when John the Baptift '' made his appearance, and many ages before, " Should a doubt of this fa6t flill remain, Dr. ** Gale Hands ready to remove it ; that the Jews, *' fays he, on account of feveral kinds of poUu- " tion^ ufed to purify themfelves by wajldng, can **. not be quefliuned ; the diuerfe baptijms or wajh" ** ings mentioned in the Epiftle to the Hebrews, " (chap. ix. 30.) make it inconteflible. It ap- *' pears with fuperior evidence, from the teftimony *' of competent and unexceptionable witnefTes that " BAPTISM was well known as a ceremonial, pu- " rifying rite, prior to the chriftian aera : con- *' fequently, our Lord appointed a ceremony " which was in ufe before'' — Anti-paed. vol. 2. p. 231. Baptifm then being no novelty, Chrift plainly affumed to himfelf, as was the cafe with John before him, an ufual mode of purification. It is introduced as making part of the work of his difciples. John iv. 2. Jefus hivifel/ baptized not, hut his Difciples. The original inftitution of the ordinance is no where noticed, only the faft of Chrifl's Difciples baptizing, (and doubtlefs by his authority) is recorded, Baptifm as ufed and fanc-

tioneil

( 27 }

tioned by Chrift in the firft inRance, impercep- tibly and unawares, comes forward to our view. In truth, the formal primary inllitution of baptifm by Chrid, is only to be inferred, for it is no where declared. With regard to the pafTage tinder im- mediate confideration, it is manifellly not infliiu- tive, but merely direElive as to the baptifmal or- dinance; and the latter, in only one fingle point of view. Well acquainted already with the na- ture, fubjefts. and mode of baptifm, the ApoHles needed no indruQion concerning them : wherein their ignorance required it, it is informing to them, and that is, as their miniftry was to extend to all N AXIOMS. To expe6l all that preqifion in thisorder as though it was the inftitution of baptifm, or no- thing was left us to learn about it, from other parts of fcripture, is to jftretch our expeBations beyond their due bounds. The Apoftles, furely, needed not to be taught things they could not but know before upon the fubjeft ; and their fuccelfors have no reafon to complain, unlefs it be unreafonahly in- filled upon, that the whole of duty mull be con- tained in a (ingle paflage ; or that fufFicient in- formation is not to be received from other paf- fages. Mr. Booth's words are unguardedly ftrong, when he obfetves, "If we annex the idea o^obfcu- " riiy to a paflage of this fort, we either fmk the " idea of obligation to regard it, or impeach tlie '* wifdom, or goodnefs, or the equity of the divine

Da legiflator

( 28 )

«* Icgiflator." There is nothing, the language and circumliances confidered, to give it the iliape of an inftitution : it is only preceptive as to what had before been injlituted. The paflage feen in this point of vicW) I proceed to make the following remarks with a view to elucidate its meaning and life.

(i) This commiflion implies what we have be- fore afferted, viz. Ajecret con[liiutionin favor of its ebjetis, prior to the words, and originating m the Will oj Chrijl, >2nd his Father who feat him. It was the will of ihe-latter, agreeable to what he had promifcd to Abraham, that in his feed, Christ, all the nations of the earth fliould be blefled. I afli, whether it does not look likely from the very- face of our Lord's commiflion, that he delivered it with a view to the performance of that ineftimably precious promife ? It is beyond all reafonabla doubt that this commiflion refpe6ls the divine Will, by which all nations are inore favor- ably fnuated, than bejore. Purfuant to it, the Apoftles travelled to and fro, preaching the gof- pel of the kingdom.. Infpired with a genuine zeal for the Lord of Hofts, with a glowing con- cern for the fdlvation of fouls, Ch rift's minifters may itinerate to all parts of the earth, with the cverlafting gpfpel in their hand ; wherever they go, they have this commiffion to produce^, at once to fliew the right of all nations to be preached unto, and their right to preach to them.

All

( 29 )

^11 that is requifite for the nations having the full enjoyment of their right, is natural con- sent, for they mull not be compelled by VIOLENCE. Hiltorical accounts of gofpel-mif- fionaries are agreeable to thefe remarks. — I hefe going on the benevolent defign of introducing the gofpel where it was unknown, have undeitakcn the voyage or journey, under the notion of the inhabitants having a previous right to the GofpeL The idea of their being believers or unbelievers, is on luch occafions out of the queftion. All which ininifters want, as the firft ftep to an eftablilhment of the gofpel, is liberty to preach : common conjent, is enough to fecure them this, and is compatible with a (late of unbelief in the pcrrfons giving it. Now the queftion is, whether baptifm is not to be adminiftered on the fame footing. Hav- ing this enquiry in view, I proceed to obferve,

(2) There is nothing in the nature of bap-, tifm in itfelf, which forbids its immediate conjunc- tion with the other branch of the miniftrv, viz, preaching. From ought that appears as to its ufe, it may be clafled and performed as a joint-mean with preaching to anfwer the fame ends. What Jias been before advanced concerning the nature of baptifm, it is prefumed, abundantly evinces this. Its nature, then, allowing us tp confider preaching ^nd baptizing, as the names of feveral pcrfons ^nder a firm, who yet are equal in the part-

nerfhij^

( 30 )

nerfiiip, it is plain, as far as the nature of the or- dinance is a guide, it may be adminiftered upon the fame ground — As minifters are warranted to preach to people, upon obtaining their leave, fo jointly with this part of their work, they may baptize them, becaufe there is an equal reafon for doing the one as the other.

Here a proper place prefents itfelf for noticing baptifm as a mixed ordinance, partly pojitivt mid partly moral. So the author of Anti-peed, ex- amined, reprefents it with great propriety and force of evidence. Whether it be confideredas po- fitive, or moral, or wherein it is partly both, it is conceived, it appears mod naturally and advanta- geoufly fo, as it is made parallel with preaching. *' A pofitive inftitute, is thaf, the reafon of which ' wc do not fee, prior to external command, but *' which entirely originates in the fovereign will " of the legillator." Such is Dr. Williams's de- fcription of a pofitive inftiiution, and he fuppofes, his opponent, Mr. Booth, will not obje6l to it. If this be its nature, jome ohfcurity, is to be ex- pelled in a commiflion including the baptifmal rite: it is no further plain, than as it is plainly the fover- eign will of the Legiflator. Not to notice ho \f much it behoves Mr. Booth, to allow a certain proper obfcurity in Chrift's commiflion to baptize* if it be pofitive, I afkin what ^o^\i\on its pojitive ndT ture moft appears ? As following, teaQhing, and

fcrtain

( 3» )

certain qualifications in the fuhje^Sy according to the baptid plan? Or, as we place ir, parallel with preaching and feparable from it ? Baptifm as ad- miniftered to an adult, without a previous procefs of teaching and certain efFefts required, hath a more confiftent appearance as a positive insti- tute, than under any other circumftances of ad- miniftration. It has, on this footing, the afpe8; of INDEPENDENCY, and thc sovereign will of THE iNSTiTUTOR is at oncc conspicuous

AND STRIKING.

It is howevei true, that it is partly moral, not as requiring moral qualifications in the fubje6ls be- fore-hand, but as denoting and obliging to moral ufes, and ends in them, when baptized. — So far then as the nature of baptifm, whether politive or moral is confidered, it is reducible with the great- eft advantage to the bafis of a fovereign conftitu- tion, favorable to all nations.

Baptilm further confidered as an ordinance out 9J the churchy is a proper affociate with preaching, and both refpeft the kingdom of heaven, or the difpenfation of the gofpel, as it includes the world at large.

3. To the remarks already made towards eluci- dating the paifage in hand, I add, the due render- ing of the original muft be fettled j and when that is done, its jull: and genuine meaning alfo. Here it fhould be remembered. " Nothing is capable 2 of fixing the exa6t legiflative force of a word.

«' or phrafe, but a careful and impartiat attcn-» •' tion to circumflances. — That muft needs be the «• mod n/?/Mr^/ fignincation, which re fults from a *' due weighing of all circuvijiance^.^*

It is admitted that either, teach, or di scifle ALL NATIONS is a proper tranflation of the ori- ginal. If number, piety and learning can efta- blifh the preienfions of the Greek word to be ren- dered, difcipk, be it known, it has all thefe in fup- port of it. Dr. Williams tells us, it would be eafy to produce a long lift of eminent authors, an- cient and modern, who render the original word by, to profelytey to difciple^ or to make difciples^ as well as by, to teach. — Authorities of not lefs weight than the following are producible, BuUinger, Dutch-Annotators, Pool's Continuators, Dod- dridge, Turretine, Stockius, Beza, Gataker, Lightfoot, Hammond, Witfius; and this lift might be increafed by the names of many more.

The term ^z/c^//^, as the fame Greek word is cngliftied elfewhere, often appears in fcripture, in the fubftantive form. Perfons are faid to be difciples ; thus we read of Mofes*s difciples; and fuch, it is notorious, were infants and adults, be- ing initiated by circumcifion. "Some" fays Dr, Addington**may think it improper to call children difciples ; but there feems no more improprie- ty in calling them difciples of Chrift, than fer- vants of God, as in Lev. ;(xv. 41. 42. And

thcf

( 33 )

fiioy Teem at ieaft included, if not principally re- ferred i(\ in the term in Ads xv. lo. where the de- lijn of l!ic judaizing teachers, which is mentioned, Ads xxi. 2 1. as thefcheme for circumcifi ng their chiildreri, is ccrifured as an attempt to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples." The learned and judicious Turretine remarks, **the word, which Chrid here ufes, does not fo properly figni- fy to teach hy preaching, as make disciples, which may be done by the adminiftration of baptifm, it being a Sacrament of initiation. Thus John iv. 1. Mathetas ^oxqiw [the Greek in Engli/Ii Characters) is not Jimp ly to teach, but to make disciples and to introduce into a profefiional fiate of dif- cipline, ns among the Jews, perfons were often made difciplcs, not as already tan-ghi, but in or- der to RE taught. Thus a Gentile addref- fed Hillel, viake a projclyte of me, that thou 7nayejl teach me. And that the word is fo to be underftood here, is demonflrabls from the word afterwards, rendered teaching, v.hicli appears taidologicr.l, un- lefs the firil word refers to fometbing more than that." Turretini Thcologia. — What was the judgment of Juilin Martyr concerning the con- troverted word in the commiffion, as well as what was the praO.ice of his time, which was very early in the fecond century, appears from one of his apologies : wherein he obferves, there were in his day, *' icveral men and

a women

( 34 )

^vomen fixty or feventy years old, who from in^ fants, hsid been difcipkd ta Chrift." "Here," '*fays Dr. Williams, noticing this pafTage," he ufes the very word of commiffi(m, with which Bap- tifm is fo ftridly and infeparably connefted." Ignatius in his Epiflle to the Romans, fpeaks of his being DisciPLED by his fufFerings from his perfecutors. The ufe of the fame Greek word in connexion with fufFerings, which are figu- ratively ftiled laptijms in fcripture; favors, at lead remotely, a more general fenfe of the term, then mere teaching ; and furely does not contra- di£lthe idea of baptifm as a mode of difcipling. Having examined fuch pafTages where the term, DISCIPLE, either as a Subftantive, or elfe as a Verb occurs, I have not been able to perceive in one of them, any thing to eftablifh its limited meaning teach. The propriety of rendering THE \' EKBy difciple^ is acknowledged in tranflat- ing the SUBSTANTIVE after that manner. Then why are they not invariably fo engliflied ? How comes it to pafs, that the fame Greek word is one while, and uniformly, as a Subftantive rendered t)iscipLE, anon, as a verb, teach ? I anfwer, that in many paOages, it would be manifeftly harfh and improper to render the fubllantive by teach, though it is fo ftriftiy urged, and contended for, to be the meaning of the verb in the commiffion. How uncoulhly would the following pafTages run.

When

( 35 )

When he had made an end of commanding hh TAUGHT. — Matth. xi. i. Teach us to pray as John taught his taught. Luke xi. i. If any man come to vie, and hate not his father, and mo^ ther^ wife^ and children ^ and brethren and Jip^ers^ yea and his own life alfo, he cannot be my taught, Luke xiv. 26. If neceffity, or conveniency, in- troduced the tranflation of the fubiiantive, by difciple^ it had been better to have retained it on all occafions. This, however, is no where the cafe* when the Verb is ufed ; ai.d the variation, from what is evidently the occalion oF it, coun- tenances the idea of the original word, being of greater latitude than fome are willing to allow it. Befides, teach occurs twice over in the commiffion according^ to the common render- ing. But if the fame thing is meant, why not the fame Greek word ufed in both places ? Why a needlefs tautology of fenfe, and fuperfluous variety of languaa;e ? — If the lad word rendered teach^ ing is explanatory of the firll, properly tranf- hted difcipie, baptizing which i^nmediately follows it, may be referred to it alfo. If it be quite di/iinB, then it follows, perfons may be difciples without teaching. If teaching 3ind baptizing arc referable to the firft word, then difciplc (lands as a oenf.ral term,

E a Mr,

( 35)

Mr. Booth feems to think the ApoOle Paul has lielped him to a declaration much to iiis purpole, and quite inconfiftent wiiii the idea of its !h i'ig ^n apofloiic duty to make pei ions difciples by baptiz- ing them. Chrijlfcnt me not to baptize, but to prcaih the gofpel. 1 Cor. i. 17. Mr. Booth . lemaiKs, *' on the fuppofition of its being an apudolic Juty " to make perfons difciples by biiptizing then;j, '* either the ApoIIIe Paul received a commiflion " from his divine Lord eflcntialiy different from *' the words under confideration, Maiih. xxviii. ** 19. or, he failed to a great degree in the *' execution of it, efpeciaily among the Corin- " thians. Our opponents at every turn infill *' that the great Law-giver ordered his eleven ** Apoftles to difciple all nations by baptizing ** them ; while he who laboured more abun- *' dantly then they all, tells us, that he was not •' fent^ comparatively fpeaking, to baptize even •' thofe that believed. Confcquently, he was not *•' fent to make difciples, in that way for which " our opponents plead, is clear from the copy of ** it, which Luke has recorded. Nay, fo far from ** thinking it would have been his happinefs to <• have made a muhitude of the Corinthians dif- *' ciples by baptizing them, that he thanks God " he has baptized but very few : and this he does, •' while claiming the honour of having been the '* favoured inftrument of converting a great part

" of

{ 37 )

*' of thofe that were faints in the city of Corinth,'* Thus fdf Mr. Booth: and notwithftanding his view of the paflage, I cannot help thinking, it requires a different comment and conclu (ion. Mr. B.will not himfelf prefume to deny (for how can any one ?) that part of Paul's bufinefs was baptizing ; and that he a6led under this general commillioi) made to the eleven Apoflles. If bapiifrnwas a branch of minifterial duty, or a benefit conferred on the fubjeft of it, could Taul, confiuently ci- ther with truth or charity, thank God abfoiutely, that he ^zi not baptize, or was not Tent for that work ? ImpofTible. Paul intends no fuch thing . but it is evidently an expreflion, which the parti- cular circumflances of the Corinthians prompted himtoufe. There were divifions in the church : they were fplit into parties, and each had its head or mafier. One faid I am of Paul, another, I am of Apollos, &c. Whence is this? The y\u()llle it» efFeft afks, by proceeding thus : IsChrifl divided ? was Paul crucified for you, or were you bapti/od in the name of Paul ? You have.no pretencf, as ithappens, for what you do in fetting nie up as yourmafler, from my Baptizing you. And how- ever it is my work and delight to baptize as well as to preach, I thank God, under your divided circumftances, that you have it not in your power, from any part that I took in adminiflering that ordinance for you, to fay, I baptized you in my

name,

( 38 )

name, or made] you, in a fort difciples oF mine. They were baptized, and many of them too, as appears from AQs xviii. 8. Confequently, there was a baptizer befides Paul, at Corinih. and in reference to that providence of God, whic'n pro- vided him with an auxiliary in that part C'i his work, and not to his general commifiion, he adds, God fent me not to baptize, but to preach the gofpel among you. If thefe remarks fubjoined to Mr, Booth's, are deemed more natural and preferable than his by the impartial reader, the paflage a- grees to the idea of its being an apoftolic duty to make perfons difciples by baptizing them, and ftrongly confirms it, if any force be allowed to the Apoftie'sreafoning.

In Afts xiv. 2 1. it is related concerning Paul and Barnabas at Derbe, that zuhen they had preached the Gojpel to, {literally according to the Greek) evangelized that city, and taught (^Greek,) discipled u a^ y , they returned again t9 Lyftra. In this paffagc we have all that is pre- ferved of the hiftory of this place, as it relates to the miniftry of thofe two faithful fervants of Chrifl there. The confequence of their coming to it, and opening their commifiion, was, they evangelized the place. They minifterially recog- nized the whole city by preaching in it, as withio the compafs of the commifiion by which they a6led. — They difcipled many in it. — It is manifettly

a very

( 39 )

a very fummary account that is contained in this latter claufe. Did they only ttach many ? Did ihey not baptize them ? Doubtlefs they did; but all, the hiftory tells us, is, they were, dis.cipl- £D. — Surely then, this phrafe is proper to expi efs, and reprefent them, as both baptized and taught : their baptifm is not barely inferable from it, but included in the common term. — It is obfervable^ that the word, difciplc^ is not introduced in Scrip- ture, as adopted by Chrift, nor applied to particu- lar perfons, till there is good reafon to conclude they were baptized. Chrift is even faid to teach nmltitudes, and they are faid to follow Him ; who ncverthelefs, feem diftinguifhed from Difciples* Maith. V. 1 &c. It is true there is an entire filence obferved concerning the bapiifm of the twelve dif- ciples, but doubtlefs as baptizers of others, they were baptized theaifelvcs, tho' the fa6l of their be- ing fo, is not recorded. The firft time, New-tefta- ment hifio'y makes mention of perfons beif)g made dilciples, is, when they are faid to have been baptized. — The pafTage alluded to, is John iv. i. On this Mr. Booth cbferves, " To make difci- " pies and to baptize one or another, are plainly '* reprefented as different adions : for Jefus made " more difciples than John, though He baptized ^* not any of them." 1 he purpofe for which, this Author makes the obfervation, is very plain,

but

( 40 )

but it \s by no means fo clear, that the pafTage will juftify it. It muft be allow ed to be of importance, to regard the circumftances of a text, in order to determine the defign of" it, and after what man- ner, the Piirafeology is to be underflood. Now the circumjlance and language controverted in this text are evidently introduced, merely to account for the departure of Chrift from Judaea. The increafe of his Difciples had excited the jealoLify of the Pharifees, and he retreated to Galilee, to efcape the confcquences of it. The Hiftorian with a view to account for the removal of Chrift to this latter place, relates the rumour which had reached the ears of the Pharifees con- cerning him. That which rendered Chrifl: ob- noxious to this feet was, making diJeipleSy and this in general, would be naturally repoi ted to them, and the other claufe, ^'' and baptized," to confirm the former, as afferting a general fa6l. There is no room, therefore, whether we confider it as a matter which forae reported to the Pharifees, or as related by John, to conceive, either the one or the other meant, to reprefent the a6lions of making dif- ciples and baptizing fo diftind, as Mr. B. ima- gines. The difciples baptizing is nothing to the purpofe, forit was the fame, done by his authori- ty, as if Chrifl: did it himfelf : and accordingly he is faid to have baptized* — Nor is it likely,

that

( 41 )

that thePharifees, to whom the report was carried, and in reference to whom this hiftorical circum- llance is mentioned, confidered making difcipks, and baptizing, different and diftinft actions. What ! the Pharifees, fo apt to boaft themfclves the difciples of Mofes, among whom they were entered by circumcifion !

*' To make difciples, and to baptize one or another, are plainly reprefented as different ani- ons, FOR Jesus made more difciples than John> though He baptized them not" — If baptizing and making difcip!es,be fo very diftinO;, and it is evident the making difciples, was the obnoxious circum- ftance to the Pharifees, what occafion.for adding anything about baptifm, or for the Hiftorian's en«. larging upon it ? If it be fo very dillin61, was it not immaterial, neither here nor there, whether it was mentioned or not? But the Hiftorian takes pains to inform us, that Jesus baptized not, but his difciples. — Is not this bed accounted for, I beg leave to aflc, by thus confidering the drift of the paffage in queftion, * Jcfus made, and for that purpofc, baptized more difciples than John, by mean^of his twelve difciples,' Mr. B. very well knows, that and in the paffage, is exegetical, as well as copulative, and anfwers, in fenfe to even, when it follows feme general defign or fafl: mentioned, and fometbing is introduced, \vhich is a branch or mode thereof. The claufe then> andf or evm baptized, feems particularly noticed, as

F part

C 42 )

part of the report made to the PhanfeeJ, whicli as a branch of Chrifl's work by his difciples, would certify the circumftance fo offenhvc to them of his making disciples. — It may be ob- ferved, that it is with little propriety, Mr. B. raifes the diftinftions, which he does upon this paffage, after the account given in the preceding chapter, by fome of John's difciples, concerning Chrid. Rabbiy he (hat was with thee beyond Jordan, fo whomthon harcjl wiinefs, behold the same

BAPTIZETH, and ALL MEN COME TO HIM. So

far from difcarding baptizing, as no part of mak- ing difciples, thefe paffages may be added to others in fupport of the contrary.

Mr. B. well aware of the importance of limi- ting the fenfe of difciple all nations to teach, in fupport of hii caufe, labors hard to eftablifh it to the exclufion of any thing befides. — But after all, that he hath faid, and all which he produces from others, there is one thing, on which I think, I may venture to challenge him. Namely, to pro- duce a paffage, where the original word in the commiffion is ufed, and applied to perfon or charaftcr, under the name of di/ciple, or difd- pled, and Baptifni may not fairly and eafily be con- fidered as included in its general import.

Till this is done, all befide is labor loft. — If it cannot be done, but on the contrary, Scripture ufes it as a general term in other places, there is no

reafon

( 43 )

YTaft)n,lDiit what predileBion for a particular hy- pothefis fuggefts, to regard it in its limited fenfe teach. — -To adopt the words of Dr. Guyfe, m a note upon Chrift's commifljon. Upon the above grounds, to me it Teems, " That, dijcipk all <* nationSy relates to the whole delign of Chrift's •' commiflion, for making difciplcs to him, and ** that baptizing and teachings are mentioned as " particular branches of that general defign, the ** order of which, was to be determined by the *' circumftances of things." — See his Para- ph r a fe.

Difcipk all nations thus underftood, the latter phrafe, all nations y yi'iW bcAr a confillent fenfe, as it denotes one great whole, confifling of ever fo many parts. Upon Mr. Booth's and the Bap- tift interpretation of it, confining it to teach, in- cluding therein its particular clfcfts, it cer- tainly dwindles into a very fmall number. '* Ac- ** cording to the principles: of our opponents, *• the term. Nation, muft have, a very fmgular "' acceptation indeed, for in the firll place, they " muft exclude from it, all injaats and young " children, and in the next place, they would ex- *' elude from it all adults, the few, comparatively " very few excepted, who are deemed by them fit " fubjeQs for baptifm. Wt;ll, when they 'have •' taught them, few as they may be, the nation' ** is difcipled!'* So Dr. Williams remarks, and

F 2 if

( 41 )

if fuch be the natural confequence, is it not enough to render their limited fenfe fufpefted ? And the more fo by Mr. Booth, who infills, that this law is moftexprefsand unequivocal.

How Mr. B. would get rid of the arguments taken from the obje6ts of the commiffion all na- tions^ in combating with a Paedobaptift, the follow- ing extraQ will fhew. '* All nations are to be ** difcipled. Infants are part of the nations. •* therefore, fay Mr. Henry and others, infants " muft be difcipled by being baptized. As if " whenever we find any thing mentioned in the ** new Teftament, rel'pefting all nations^ we were ** obliged to confider millions of infants, as ira- ** mediately interefted in it ? But whether this " be a FaB., let the following examples declare. " Matth. xxiv. 9. 14. Rom. xvi. 2.6. Mark, ** xi. 17. Rev. xiv. 8. xv. 4. xviii. 23. Rom. " XV. 11. Pfalm, Ixxii. 11. 17. Ixxxvi. 9. cxvii. " 118. 16. Zech. xiv. 2. Mai. iii. 12. Now •* as in thefe and other paffages, the terms, nation^ ** all nations, are ufed without any reference to ** infants ; the arguments formed upon them, by ** our oppofers muft be quite futile." Confident as our remarker may be, that theTe palfages are ufed without any reference to infants, truth will juftify the obfervation, they mayy every one of them, have a reference, in a very confiftent fenfe ; and if fo, why fhould they be excepted.

Mr-

C 45 )

If Mr. B. is unfortunate in bis lift of fpeci- mens, the argument formed upon the terms,

nations, and all nations, from ouglu that appears to the contrary in the texts produced, is valid. After a clofe examination of thofe pafiages, where the terms in queilion occur, I venture on a publication of the following remark: namely, that where they are ufed, as large colleftive bo- dies, and things are defcribed as done to, or per- formed by a nation, or nations as fuch, indivi- duals of all fexes and ages, are included, as hav- ing one common intereft therein. Now if the idea of mterejl is transferred to our Lord's commiflion, which hath exprefsly for its objefts all nations, it is but maintaining an uniformity of ia- terpretation in the facred Scriptures, and efta- blifhes the intereft of all, indifcriminately, in the branches of the commiflion, baptizing and teach^ ing.

Millions of infants, as acknowledged in the laft quotation from Mr. B's work — and it may be added, millions of adults alfo, are not a little con^* cerned in the juft fenfe of this leading text;, for as that is determined, they are all either ex- cluded from, or admitted to participate, de jure* i. e. in point of right, the benefit of the commiffion. That fcheme which impoverifhes the phrafe, all nations, by millions and millions of infants and ^ults, may well he fulpeO-cd to be wrong, as

repugnant

( 46 )

repugnant to propriety of cxpreflion, and the feelings of humanity alio. By what authority is fuch an unnatural, unprecedented difmember- ment of the objefclive term, made ? Is it out of conveniency to the term, teach, allerted to be the llrift and only meaning of the verb, rendered properly Difcipk ? That fenfe, which will not admit of a compromile between the two terms, but if maintained as to either, will offer vio- lence to both in turn, mud certainly be illegiti- mate. This is the unavoidable confequence of the baptift rigid interpretation, therefore let it be cafhiered-— and that which will be more accom- modating between the feeming oppolites, iffflcA and alhiationSy be adopted. The fenfe, deferving of acceptance on this ground, is, (even if the firft word be rendered teach) that which has been juft hinted, under the idea of common intere/I.;di\-\d maybe feen under the foilowing oblervations upon Mark xvi. 15. — To this paffage, I immediately proceed, becaufe it is a parallel one and, as Mr, Booth ftiles it, another copy of the ena6ling flatute refpetling baptifm. And he f aid unto them ^ Go ye into all the V/oi'ld, and preach the Gofpcl^ to every creature. He that helieveth and is baptiz^ ed, Jfiall be favcd, but he that beiieveth not^ Jliall be damned.

On making the flighteft comparifon between the two, a difparity is at once perceivable; and

of

( 47 )

of the two copies, that in Matthew is found the moft perfcft — In this, recorded by Mark, preaching only is noticed in (ht preceptive part, Baptifrn makes its appearance in the charadler drawn afterwards of one who fhall be faved. The difference which appears incontroverti^ bly, in thefe two copies, though relating to the fame objeft, and where our oppo- nents feem to expeft language the moft exprefs, is not a little extraordinary. If it be maintained (as fome do according to Matthew's commif- fion) there is a teaching previous to baptifrn, and a teaching ajtcr^ exprelled by two different Greek words — it is natural to aflc, to which does Mark's copy anfwer. To the fir It or to the laft ? if to ihtjirji^ there is in that cafe an omiflTion, or filence, as to baptifrn and fubfequent teach- ing, as fuppofed in Matthew's account — If to the lad, it is then moft likely to be, as we con- fider it in Matthew, a branch of the general dcfign, as contained in the firft word, and properly rendered, difciple.

Of the two cafes, there can be little hefita- tion, in pronouncing, which claims the prefer- ence— for, admitting the firft, Mark's copy ftrangely falls lliort of Malihew's. If the laft, the full word in Matthew's, unlels it be a general term, muft be fuperfluuUs. This by the way, if a frejumptive argument of it$ partaking of a

greater

( 48 )

greater latitude, at the head of the Paffage, and that baptizing and teaching, are the modes of it. —

Preach the gofpd to every creature. If I miftake not,, there is juft and ilrong ground to con- clude the fenfe of this claufe, expreffed in words to the following effeft. Minifters are authori- fed to look upon all, young and old, in- clulively, as teachable dt jure, i. e. in point of right. Not one is under any difqualifying hin- drance from the commiflion itfelf. This, as a legal inftrument, conveys and fecures to the World at large, a grant and right which they had not before. The miniftry of the Apoftles, vas confined heretofore, to the Jews, by a pro- hibitory claufe. Matth. X. 5. Confequently, till their commiflion is enlarged. Gentiles, adults and infants, were de jure, in point of right, un- TEACHABLE. Siucc thc commifTion before us, ALL are to be regarded as fit objects for mini- fterial teaching, not from any qualifying circum- ftances in themfelves, but in the Redeemer's authoritative grant and conftitution. Is it a matter of inquiry why the gofpel is preached to any, the anfwer is, becaufe our Lord im- powcrs his minifters to confider them teacha- ble.— But how ? — As grown to years of matu- rity or underftanding ? No, for it is evident, that prior to this enlargement of the minifterial

commiflion.

( 49 )

eommiflTion, the Gentiles, in point of capacity^ were teachable, when they were not fo, in point of right — Infants and adults, flood upon an equal footing, for want of this commiffion, however different as to age and capacity, &c. Under the commiffion, their cafe is juft the reverfe, the de- fign of our Lord being to eftablifli a genera^ right : and what, from circumftances \s fo evi- dently the fpirit of the paffage, ought, in all rea- fon, to regulate our interpretation of the letter of it. — Was every perfon'i capacity made the mea- fure of our Lord's commiflion, and the Jlandard of a right to preaching, what abfurdities would follow ? The deaf among adults, as well as in- fants, mud, for that incidental infirmity, be fet afide, as not concerned in this commiffion. Per- fons at different limes, under different circum- fiances, are interefted and not interefted. Inter- eft (ftrange to tell !) will, in this cafe, be fufpen- ded on hearing, or the lofs of it. Yet, if the deaf are not blind alfo, the ufe of God's word by their eye-fight, proves, they are juft as much interefted, in refpecl of right, as if they had the life of their ears, as well as their eyes.

To underftand the general commiffion in the two copies without the above latitude, would it not feem to be an impeachment of Chrift's wifdom, — dero- gatory to his authority — and virtually fubveifive of the miniftry of the gofpel ? II' when he fays,

G preach

( 50 )

'Preach tbe gofpe! to every creature,* &c. He had no defign to eflabhfh a certain univerfal right, or iniereft therein, wotild not other lan- guage have been chofen, more adapted to the limiituions and exceptions, with which the words are incumbered on the Antipsedobaptilt plan ? If^ to give an univerfa! intereH, be the objed he has in view, it at once comports with his wiidoni, dignity, and authority, by fixings 'every Trra- ture,' *ail Nations' in a preaching, teachable, bap- tizable State ; rifing above, and not regarding, as an hindrance to their constitoted ca» PAciTY, any natural incapacity from age, infir- mity. Sec — If this commiffion be weakened, will not the MiniiUy which (lands upon it as a Bafis, totter ? Is it not owing to the fanftion of this commiffion, that Miniltcrs preach the gofpel to. anv — :ind if to any, then to all, dejure. but if their official right to preach to all, be denied, it is in efle6l, denying a right to preach to any.

Now, all who arc confidered teachable in right of the Gra,nt', are bajitizable. Adults and Infants are confiiiuent parts of all nations ; teaching and baptizing, arc parts of the commiffion, common to both parts of the nations, Infants and Adults. Natural capacity from age, &c. a fpiritual ca- pacity including believing, (Sec. are only fecondary things, m^re circumllances. — A constituted

CAPACITY A GIVEN I N D ISCIliM I N ATE RIGHT,

is,

( 5» )

is, I conceive, the principal thing in the com- xiissioN,as SUCH — MiniRers are to preach to Adults, not only for their lakes perf jnally, but virtually recognizing the given right of all their FcUow-creatures 'o the fame. Baptifm, is to be adu>iniftercd as declarative to the lame ex- tent.

" Every Creature^ all Nation" viewed through

the medium of our Lord's Granc, are upon an

EQUALITY. — In the execution of this commiffion,

Fidelity to their MalUr demands of Minifters,

that all be treated as equal. Which way is this

to be" done ? Is it not by baptizing Infants, who

are in poUfHion of the right, and are capable

fubjeQsof ihe ordinance ? Incapable of a6lual

preaching, (to which, neverthclefs, they have

a right) there is the greater reafon, that they

fliould be baptized, to which the grant and

natural Capacity concur ; that thereb)' the whole

of the Coajmiffion, and their Right to bapiifm and

teaching, may be acknowledged in the admiiiir-

flration of one ordinance.

Adults are equal in refpeft of this commif- fion. To recur to what has been faid, I alk, why are they teachable? I anlwer, from a given RIGHT, independent of uaderflanding, <S<:c. Why baptizable ? The replv i^ the farhe. The in- terveii'iou of particular cfie6ls of the miniflry, producing a credible prcFcnion of faith, as con*

G 2 llituting

( 52 )

ftiiuting a right to baptifm, appears to me totally unauthorized' by the commiffion. Baptizing and teaching, as branches of Chrid's general defign, are affociated ; they are, de jure, of equal ex- tent, which is the thing to be regarded ; and therefore, adults are, indifcriiliinatefy entitled to preaching as well" as baptizing, to bap- tizing as well as preaching. Particular quali- fications, fuch as are luppofed on the plan of Antipaedobaptifts, are not within the compafs > of a commiffion to minifters, as fuch. Believ- ing, repenting. Sec. are things which may be brought about, and doubtlefs are, by the mi- niftry : both ordinances are appointed for theie ends ; and the Lord may, and often does render them effeftual. But is not the diftinftion juft, neceffary, and manifcft, between, EfTefts flow- ing from the immediate Agency of the Holy Spirit, and baptizing and teaching, as commit- ted to minillers. What would the Apoftles have had reafon to fay, when the commiffion was jufl ifTued, or minillers flill, as afting un- der it, if we are to confider, difciple all nations, Teach all nations, as fynonyTnous \K''nh, viaie them, true believers, real penitents. Though it is granted, Faith, Repentance, and Salvation, are the defigned ends of the miniftry, on the part of Chrift, yet, it is impoffible, that difcipling, teaching, baptizing, fhould be a law to minifters,

but

( 53 )

but as MEANS — Repentance and Faith are efFe6l$ for which no human Being is, or can be ftric- ly, either equal or refponfible. The trust, as affigned in the commiflion, hath refponfibility and capacity attached to it; and who muft not perceive, that thefe can only relate to the ex- ternal work of teaching and baptizing. Let im- partiality judge then, whether it is not reafon- able to conclude that the Nations have a right to baptizing and teaching, according to tlie ftate in which the commiflion becomes a law to mini Iters. Is it a law to miniflers, only as it relates to external teaching and baptizing ? What is the conclufion, with refpeft to the nations, but that, in the moment, tha^ niinifters are in a fituation, externally to teach them, they arc at the fame time, in a fitua- tion, as warranted by the commiflion, to bap- tize them. If this be true, Believing and Re- penting, are not to be taken into the account, but under the notion of prerequifitcs to baptifm, to be difcarded, as they are in regard to preaching, whatever ufe they may be of, on o- ther accounts, under both ordinances.

But is not, Mark xvi. 16. inimical to the point contended for, where it is faid. He thaj; bdievdh and is baptized, JJiall he faved. He that helieveth not, /Iiall be damned. Often as this text is cited by Mr. B. and Others, as containing

an

( 54 )

an indifpenfable qualification for baptifm, I fulpeft, it will not anfwer the purpofe intended. If baptifm reds on a credible profeffion of faith, which is the fentimeni of our opponents ; to countenance it, the phrafeology ouglu to be ve- ry different, and the words run after the fol- lowing manner, He that credibly prof ijjclh to believe. To this variation from the letter of the text, the declaration which follows, Jlicdl be faved, is to- tally repugnant. — Saved ! confcquently, a gen- uine BELIEVER, fo that if we find a ruls here, our condu8: mud anfwer to this principle, Genuine believers C7i!y arc to be baptized. A judg- ment of charity will, in this cafe, not be fufficient to determine, who is a proper Candidate : no- thing lefs than a judgment of certainty will do. But, alas ! tiie latter is not to be had ; and if a judgment of charity is propofed in lieu, it' is evidently deviating from the text in quef- tion ; and not only fo, but lies open to the charge of an uncertain rule, varying as the temper, or views of the adminiilrator, may differ. As ^* He that believeth and is baptized," cannot ferve as a rule, fo it is plain, it was not in- tended to do fo ; othervvife, we Ihould have found u in the p'-fCrptive part of the vevfe be- fore, whereas in the place in which it (lands, it is a defcription of the saved, and with its op- pofite, of the damned according to chare6tcrs

exifting

( 55 )

exiflfng under the gofpel-difpenfation. By the u N B E L I £ V ER, of vhooi no.thiiig is faid concerning baptifm, Ts. it not reafo.nable to underftand him-, as an Infidel, or one who proftffeth to believe and IS BAPTIZED, and yet void of true faith*

Common fenfe requires, that the order o£ the words fliould be confidered in reference to the DESIGN of the whole, which is not to ihefv, how we are to proceed as to baptizing but who fliall be faved and perifli. He thai heluveth, is the cffential part of the charaHer, to whicli Salvation appertains ; and is baptized, follows merely as an aaendaut on it, which with lefpea to ihQ Perfoii, might either be before, or after, without or with genuine faith.

One thing more is defcrving of our notice, concerning teaching, as part of our Lord's com- milTion, namely, that it has a positive as- pect.— To teach one another, is agreeable to the law of nature, but that law was counter- afted,. when the Redeemer delivered that pofitjvo precept to the contrary. Matlh. x. 5. Thefc ki)dve, Jejas fait forth, and commanded, filing. Go not into the way of the gentiles, &c. Here was a pofitive embargo laid upon miniaers, not to llir beyond the Jews; aiid had it continued in force, the confequence muft have been, a reftriaion of labours to the circle prefcribed, Wjio or WHAT can take it off? Onjy nr.

whcp

( 56 )

who laid it on, and by the fame manner, a POSITIVE PRECEPT, fuch as we have in the text. Thus the Law of Nature returns to its old courfe; all which flopped its current, is taken away, and teach^ in the commifiion, is a joint-pofitive branch of it with baptizing. Confequently, 'dif- ciple itfelP is pofitive too.

Let partial baptifm then, as maintained by the Baptifts on one hand, infant and adult Baptifm, as avowed in this work on the other, be balanced together ; will not the fcale turn in favor of the latter ? If the obfervations be true, which have been produced, the Commifiion commands the Baptifm of infants and adults, indifcriminately. It gives no fanftion to the partial principles, and praftices, of our differing Brethren. " la *' religious matters, and efpecially in the; " worfhip of God, it is not only finful to g6 " contra Siatutuniy (againft a ftatute) but to go ** Supra Statutum (above a ftatute) or to fpeak. ** home in the cafe, acting fupr a flatutum-y is all *' one with aHmg contra StatiUum. Therein *' God's requiring is equivalent to forbidding ; " and doing more than he commandeth, to ** doing contrary to it." As thefe are Senti- ments which have obtained Mr. "^'s approba- tion, being part of a quotation found in his work, may I not venture to afk, in what light arc we to confider, doing lejs than the Statute ?

Is

( 57 )

Is there not evil annexed to adlng LifraStatutum, (beneath the Statute)? If fo, and the preceding pages do not bear falfe witnefs» there is no lit- tle blame imputable to the principles and prac- tices of Antipaedobaptifts. The commiffion is very large, their fcheme very narrow ; all the difference there is between both, will determine the degree of enormity chargeable on the Au- thors of it. — Befides : upon the prefumption that what is urged is true, it may be retorted upon our Brethren in their ufual drain, No precept for what you do ! — The detail of ftrange con- fequences may be yet further increafed by ob- ferving, that, if teach all nations be underftood as our opponents do, of that teaching, which is followed with Baptifm, and includes in it particular eff-eBs ; then, to maintain confi^ency, they fhould preach or teach no more than they do, or, than they are fure, they fhall baptize, for the commiffion in this fenfe, requires, that whom they teach, the fame they baptize. As " rare are folitary woes," fo rare are foiitary ab- furdities ; one begets another. For inliance, this ablurdity will accompany the former. Minifters can only be Teachers to fuch who are fo taught, as in the judgment of Antipasdobaptifts are fit fubje6ls for the baptifmal ordinance. They may be Preachers according to Mark's copy, but not Teachers according to Ma!.ihew's. Alas !

H for

( 58 }

for my aged Fathers, and beloved Brethrca in the Miniftry, if this be true Do6lrine. To difprove it to be a natural confequence from the views of our opponents, as well as the reft men- tioned, will, I conceive, be a difticult tafk ta perform.

Judge then, Reader, judge for yourfelf, after attentively weighing the commiffion, and what has been advanced upon it, whether there be not good reafon to confider Baptifm, and Teaching, as pofitivc branches, (at large, mo- ral-pofitive) of Difcipiing the Nations found- ed upon fome pofitively favored State, which can be no other than Relative Holinefs, — to which ftate, while the Jews enjoyed it, external privileges appertained.

III. The InvePiigation of the principal hif- torical accounts of Baptifm in the New Tefta- ment, next demands our attention.

The object of the inquiry, it fhould be re- membered, is, to afcertain the agreement or dif- agreement of thefe accounts with the author's principles, or thofe of Antipaedobaptills, con- cerning Baptifm. In tracing this objeft, I remark on the leading hiftorical cafes recorded, as follows :

(i) That Preaching, Teaching, or what a- mounts to it, introduces to baptifm, and that the Baptifmal Ordinance was adminiftered very foon.

Ho\f

( 59 )

How this mode of procedure, this difpatch in baptizing, is accounted for; and its confiftency with the avowed principle and defign of this work, the fequel will make to appear. When our Redeemer delivered the commifiion already confidered. He, doubtlels, did not mean himl'elf to regard the Nations; or that the Nations fhould be regarded, as if they were a colleBion of ir- rational Beings. He did not defign to give a fan£lion to the principle or praftice of unnatu- ral compullion. He did not intend palling an a6l in favor of criminal violence in a holy caufe. While we cannot but conclude this was far from his defign, Miniflers are not to aft in reference to the commiffion, towards their Fellow-creatures, but as perfons having a natural unalienable right to aft for themfelves in reli- gious concerns. Two views of the Nations ousht to be diftinftly taken and confidered in conneftion with our Lord's words — One ivS, that view of them but jult mentioned, as ra- tional creatures — the other is, that which imme- diately prefents itfelf from the body of the commifTion as they are the ohjefts of it. — ^Un- lefs this diflinftion be allowed and regarded, violence and perfecution by thoie who aflume the difcharge of the commifhon, will meet with a patronage, to which one cannot forbear fay- ing as Abraham, That be Jar from thcc to do H 2 afitr

( 6o )

ttfterthis manner. It is a propofition therefore, which, I conceive, may be laid down, as ftrift- ly true, that any profeffing to aft under the commifiion of Chrift, either as to baptizing or teaching, and therein offers violence to the law of Nature^ deviates from the defign of the Legifla- tor, rnifconftrues his words, and pra6tically ca- lumniates his bleffed religion.

Upon this principle, all inftances of Baptiira, however, by whom, or upon -whomfoever per- formed, infringing upon the Law of Nature, demand the feverelt cenfure. As Baptifms of this caft, we regard thofe adminiftered by the Miffionaries of the Church of Rome upon the Indians; concerning which, Millar in his hiftory of the propagation of Chriftianity gives us the following intelligence. •' 'Tis (fays He) repoit- *' ed of twelve Francifcan Friars, that each of ** them baptized an hundred thoufand Indians, *' and one of them four times that number, " alking no more, but, what is your Name? " Yea, they baptized vaft multitudes all at " once, without any previous care, fo as that " thefe pretended Profelytes did not know whe- *' iher they were baptized or not." To this Paragraph may be added Mr. Ramfay's Story, related by Mr. Booth. *' The abfent Owner *' of a Plantation, [in the Wefl-Indies] fent " out pofitive [landing inflruftions to his Ma-

" nager

( 6i )

" nager to have his Slaves carefully inftrufted ** in the Chriftian Religion, and baptized. He ** [the Clergyman that was employed] came to •' a Flaniation on a Sunday afternoon, and dc- *' fired the manager to colleft eight or tea " Slaves to be baptized. They were brought " before him. He began to repeat the office of ** Baptifm. When he had read as far as that ** part of the Service where he was to fprinkie " them with water, if their former name plea- ^' fed him, he baptized them by it, but if he ** thought it not fit to call a Chriftian by, as " was his opinion of Quarpina, Bungee, and the *• like, he gave them the firft Chriftian Name " that occurred to his memory. — Some of the " baptized would mutter and fay, they dejirei " not the Parfon to throw water in their face, *' which was ail they knew of the matter, and " therefore were loth to fuffer themfelves to be *' fo dealt with." This is the Story : Mr. Booth's Remarks upon it fliall next come forward. " Now •* this is genuine Difcipkjhip by baptifm, for here *' is not the leaft appearance of profeffing Faith, '* nor of inftru6tion previous to the ufe of wa- " ter. A fine illuftration this of what cur Lord " meant by Matheteufate ! — Nor is it of any ** force againft this method of making Difciples, *« that thefe poor Negroes muttered^ and knew ** not what to make of the parfon's condu6t.

*« For

( 62 j

** For, if it be the command of our Lord t* « make Difciples without inftruaion, and merc- *' ly by baptizing them, the Work is done, " the difcipiefhip is effeaed by barely admini- ** Itering the Rite."

Having laid this ftrange Weft- Indian Cafe be- fore the Reader, and Mr. B— 's Remarks up- on it, I hope, I may be permitted to fabjoin a few of my own. " The glafles need not to ** be wiped very clean" (to adopt a borrowed Phrafe in Mr. B — 's Work) nor be ufed very long, to fee that Author*s defign in introducing this ilory, and commencing a Remarker on it. Was it with a view to ftrengthen his Argument in fupport of his favorite rendering of MathetevfaU by teach ? Was it to entail ridicule and ab- horrence upon principles as to the Adminiftration of the Baptifmal Ordinance more wide and li- beral than his own ? If fuch were the obje6ls Mr. B. had in view, I am happy to fay. He has undertaken a bad caufe, and has no oc- cafion to triumph. Such a courfe as was pur- fued in the Weft-Indies, receives no counte- nance from the diftinguifliing Sentiments of Paedobaptifts, or from the Author's ftill larger plan in this publication. The Relation of it, creates not a little difguft, fo abhorrent are our principles from fuch pradices. And fome withal, at Mr» B — 's infinuations to the contrary.

That

( 63 )

That the cafe held up to ^public notice, as a riNE ILLUSTRATION of v/Hat OUT Loid meant

by MATHETEUSATE AS GENUINE DISCIPLE- SHIP — does not make it necefTary that, the Grtek Ihould be rendered teachy and fo throw any advantage into the caufe of our Opponents, I would endeavour to prove thus — I afk, did Chrift or did He not mean, to authorize his Minifters to force or compel any by an unnatural violence, or infringement on the Law of Nature, to be baptized and taught, under the commiffion ? If it be anfwered in the ne- gative, which it muR, the Apoftles had one obvious ftep to take, which was to addrefs. thcmfelves to the People, that they might obtain their confent. The commiffion at large is pofitive in part, reding on the fover- cign and gracious Will of its Author — intruflcd to. Men to execute among their Fellow-crea- tures. From the very nature of things, even if it were admitted that the firft word in the commiffion required teachingy who does not perceive, there mud be a teacking^ d\i(t to the Law of Nature, to the natural liberty of Adults before that. Accordingly, tl^ere muft not be lefs than a firft, fecond, and third teaching ; the two firll before ; the laft after Baptifm. — The Nations muft be pheviously told, alias, i;au^ht, what cotmniffion is about to be executed

among

( 64 )

among them, what it confifts of, and according to the approved rendering among the Baptifts thefb are, teacky baptizing^ ^e^cAm^— — — Befides, it IS a quite unprecedented thing for a poCitive Ordinance which is to be adminiftered by men among men, to be done without previous con- fent among Adults. Adminiftrators are obliged by the unreftrained Law of Nature, to treat the Subjecis of their Adminiftration as rational Beings, be they of what age they may.

Abraham upon receiving command from God, to circumcife every one born in his houfe, and bought with money, took every male and circumcifed the flefh of their forefkin on the feif.fame day. What means did Abraham pur- fue ? Violence made no part of them by com- pelling, contrary to their confent, the men of Abraham's houfe to be circumcifed. Would he not make a declaration of this pofitive Or- der, the nature, and ends of it ? Doubtlefs — The Lavv of Nature requires ^o mucli : the divine Order though pofitive, did not exclude it, and fo authorize a violent courfe. The Na- ture of an Ordinance as pofitive, is not necef- farily hollile to thefe ideas ; for let the definition of fuch an Ordinance be given (as it ought) to diflinguifli it from moral ones, the Or- dinance as pofitive, muft have a certain Ji- tuation ; and it is a thing entirely new for H

to

( 65 )

to have either fuch a fituation or dIre6lion sis to infringe upon natural liberty from the con- duQ: of the Adminiftrator. — When it was men- tioned under a former Head, that the prohibitory claufe, Matth. x. 5. countera6led the Law of Nature, my meaning was merely with regard to the Gofpel-miniflration. The Gofpel-mini- ftry being a matter of podtiv^e Inftitution and limited to the jewifli Nation, though as Men, it was ao^reeable to the Law of Namre that the Apodles fliould teach the World at large, yet as Minifters, they had no right for want of aa enlarged commifTion- Thus the Law of Nature received a check, but entirely in reference to the Gofpel. As far as the commilhon went, under which the Apoftles aCled at firft, which was to the Jews, the Law of Nature had no reftraint. Under this new enlarged glorious commifTion to all Nations, there is room for it to aQ flill ; and thus it becomes an honored auxiliary to Chriit's Minifters in the execution of it. If there be any force in thefe remarks, which are fubmitted to the Reader's confi- deration, it is plain that the plan here pro- pofed for enquiry allows no fuch procedure as Mr. Ram fay's Story difcovers. — They make for the rendering of the term in queftion by Difciple, rather then teach, as upon the lat- ter there will be quite a fuperfluity of it — and

I there

( 6S )

there is no occafion for fetting it up under the idea that difcipling by baptizing lief open to the making of fuch Dlfciples as the Clergyman afore-mentioned, becaufe confent be- ing requifite to prevent any infringement on the Law of Nature, foraething tantamount to teachings freaching^ muft ordinarily precede it. To dilciple by baptizing, ftands clear of thofc incongruities which Mr. B. would annex to it, 'by having recourfe to what has been faid. Here, let it be obferved, that the commifiion, as we have feen, including Infants as well at Adults, the Law of Nature receives no infringe- ment from difcipling them, [it being their right) provided it u done with the confent of thofc ■who have from natural Relation their difpofal.

Mr. B. animadverting on Mr. Horfcy's fer- fnon on Infani-Baptifm inferts the following Note. " Regularly admitted into the difpenjation ** 6J the Chrijiian Religion^ by being baptized. *' While I cannot but queftion the truth of " this pofition, yet, I freely allow it the merit " of originality. For though many have talk- ** ed of baptifm admitting into the vihblc *' Church; yet Mr. Horfey is the only Author *' whom I have obferved, that fpeaks of it " admitting into the Chriftian Difpenfation. «' To live under the Chriftian Difpenfation, to «^ enjoy the privileges of the Chriftian difpcn-

*< fgtioiip

( 67 )

" fation, and fuch like phrafes, are commonly ** ufed, but regularly admitted into the Difpen- " faiion of the Chriftian Religion, and that by ** Baptifm, is both uncommon and improper.'* Thus finding fault with the expreffion He pro- ceeds. *' To convid it of impropriety." Then follows a fet of quettions, which as they belong to the fubjeft in hand, I will beg leave to confider myfelf as Catechumen, and anfwer. Does Mr. B. inquire, "Is it a fad that nei- ** ther Jews nor Gentiles had any regular In- " lereft in the Chriftian Difpenfation till they " were baptized" ? I anfwer, it is a fad they had no vifible regular intereft in the Chriftian Dilpenfation, till they were baptized. ** Wa» " not the Gofpel, by divine order, preached to " them, and was it not quite regular for ** them to hear it, prior to their being baptized ?'* Preached to them, and regular for them to hear it in an unbaptized ftate, only upon the afore-mentioned end of obtaining confcnt. The divine order to which Mr. B. refers, and which has been confidered under the fe- cond general Divifion, it is apprehended, re- quires no more. ** Might not both Jews and Gentiles, while unbaptized, attend the Apofto* lie Miniftry, in all branches of moral Wor- fhip, without the leaft iiregularity"? ThcWor* (hip under the Gofpel is an evangelically-inftu

I a iute4

( 68 )

tuted, moral-pofitive Worihip. — And premifing this, I reply, without helitation. There is no impropriety, but the contrary in the Jews and Gentiles attending the public miniltry, till bap- tized. But belore Mr. B. can obtain any ad- vantage to his cauf«; either from the queltion or the aniwer, it behoves him to ftiew, thai Jews and Gentiles did ailead on all the brancnes of moral Worfhip in an unbaptized ftate. For want of precept and precedent to eflabliih the fa6l, there would be no fmall irregularity in fuch a condu6l. To become fpeftators of fuch a fcene, as the queftion fuppofes, we muft repair to the congregations of profelfed Baptifts : the e)c will quickly dif-over feme who twenty, thirty years, &:c, have attended on the branches of moral Worfhip, as Mr. B. calls them, and notwithftanding unbaptized. Where will Mr. B. find a precedent for this in all the New Tcf- tament — ? " Might they not ftudy the Scriptures, " converfe with chriRians about their Souls, and " folemnly pray in the Name of Jefus, with- *' out being fufpedv^d of irregularity, except ** they were baptized ? " What ! ftudy the Scriptures, converfe widi Chriftians, pray in the Name of Jcfus, and be unbaptized ! Has Mr, B. no fufpicion of irregularity here ? Does he carry his notions of credible proftjfion fo much further, that he will not baptize perfoiis who

amit

( 69 )

admit of fuch a defcription ? ** From what ** branch of moral worfhip are unbaptized per- ** fons debarred by any rite of Chrift, or the " cuftom of the Apoftolic Churches ? " No Rule of Chrift, no cuftom of the Apoftles, debars perfons as unbaptized from moral Worftiip as fuch. — But, be it remembered, both the rule of Chrift and the cuftom of the Apof- tles and Apoftolic Churches require, that mo- ral Worftiip ftiould be made evangelical, ac- cording to the inftitution and Genius of the Gofpel. And here our Opponents are greatly to blame, who lay ftumbling blocks in the way of its being fo.

It is now time for me in turn to interrogate. From the pradicc of the Apoftles as recorded, is there no reafon to confider them ading a- greeable to the above views? Do we not mark, the fpeed with which they proceeded to the ad- miniftration of baptifm? and 2l JoUd reafon for it likewife ? May we not here obtain a light to difcover emphafis and weight in fuch language, as. Why tarried thou, arife and be baptized ? Yn fuch accounts as. He and all his were baptized Strait-way ? Laying afide this view of the cafe, and fuppofing for the moment, the Apoftles had confidered the import of the firft leading term in the commiftion to imply very particular eflPeas, they might have allowed themfelves more time,

after

( 70 )

after the example of certain perfons amongft us now-a-day$ ; they might have gone on teach-' ing and Jlill Uaching. But the King's bufineff demanded haftc. The commiffion is admirably framed to expedite ; the pattern drawn therein the Apoftles manifeftly followed and fo gencr^U ly, that a reference to the whole of their con- du6l is enough.

Through an overfight of the exaB, pojition^ and regard which the commiffion of Chrift bears to THE LAW OF NATURE, which, as the Will of Chrift, forbids any part of Chrift's pofitive Commiffion to be executed without a certain previous confent obtained, it is, I fufpeft that our differing Brethren have infifted fo ftrenu- oufly for their rendering Matheteufate : not dif- tinguifhing between what is done in reference to the commiffion, and what is performed under it. To the fame circumftance, if I miftake not, Mr. B. may confider himfelf indebted for fome obfervations, which he regards as conceffion* of Paedobaptifts. A Reader may perceive in feveral of the quotations produced in Mr. B — 'i work under Matth. xxviii. 19. That the Au» thors are impreffed with the expediency of teaching of fome fort previous to the baptifmal Ordinance. This is particularly to be obfer- ve din the Specimens given from Dr. Doddridge, Qmm^ Uoornbcekius, Dr. Ridgley, Poole's

ContinuatorS)

C n )

Continuators, Beckmannus, Kpircopiuf. — The Teftimony of Beckmanus is not a liule (Irik- ing. " That the word Mathcteudn according to its etymology fignifies to makje disciples, is readily allowed by all" — Still however, thefc Authors feem to confider inftruftion, as belong- ing to it, which is moft readily granted, as a gen- eral term, including baptizing and teaching — This placing teaching in the commiffion after haptizing rather than before, if the order in which they are reprefented is tenacioufly fol- lowed, and at the fame time, the circumflancc of natural confent being over-looked, led them to fuch accounts of Maiheteufaie, which are inconfiiient with themfelves, and if admitted, would overJoad the commiffion, with a /riper" abundance of teaching, as before remarked.—-

(2) I proceed to notice the language which the New Teftament-Baptizers ufe as to their preaching and baptizing, having their great commiffion before them. While under the for- mer head of fubdivifion obfervaiions have been made, intended to account for the Apof- ties* baptizing with fuch celerity — namely, that the parties might with all fpeed be vifibly Hat- ed under the commiffion — this particular leads us to examine, whether a 'credible .pro/ejjion of f^ith <ntitles tg Baptifm, is a lentiment which

Scripture

( 7« )

Scripture-Precedents of Baptifm warrant. It is natural to cxpeft, that the language ufed by adrniniftrators fhould aflift us herein. Let us, therefore, examine it with care and impartiali- tv.

The Miniftry of John, the venerable Fore- runner of our Lord, confuled of preaching and baptizing. What was the fabftnnce and fcope of his preaching ? Repentance, and the Baptifm ot Repentance. — Matih. iii. 2. Mark, i. 4, What Repentance ? Doubtlefs, fincere and un- feigned. The very word Rep eni^mc^ns the eflential of Repentance, as it refpeds the Heart ; not in- deed to the exclufion of the form and fcuits of it, but this is rather implied than expreffed. If the Tree be good, the Fruit will be fo alfo. But if John preached true unfeigned Repen- tance, and wc are to make his preaching the rule of baptizing, and fo true Repentance a pre- requifite to baptifm, it follows none but real peni- tents ought to be baptized. — John, we are given to underftand, preached alfo the Baptifm of Repentance. A mode of reprefenting the Ordinance that ftrongiy befriends the idea of Baptifm as exhibitory of, obligatory and helpful io Repentance ; and the conclufion, that it is a

joint-

( 73 )

joint-mean with preaching to bring about Rel pentance where not, and aid it '^where it is. /

baptize you loith water unto repentance. The prepofitioii ufed appears in that remarkable paf- fage c()ncernir)g liVael at large where it is faid, they v/ere all baptized unto Mofes, in the Cloud and the Sea. i. Cor. x. 2. Turretine unde,rftand3 the phrcife, unto moses, Mciony^ mically, q, d. unto the Dotli inc and Difpenfation of Moles. Not to notice that here we have an inflance of Baptifm, wherein, unquefuonably^ In- fants and Adults promircuoudy arc included* I afk is it not Scriptural, in the pafiage juft ad- duced, to regard the phrafe, unto Repentance, in a fenfe not to the exception of Infants or Adults, as making Repentance an effential pre- requifite to Baptifm ? Is not Repentance, as here reprefented, rather held forth as a terminus ad qucniy an end for which, than /erwnnws a quoy a GROUND ON WHICH, it was adminiitered ?

Among the number who repaired to John's Baptifm were many of the Pharifccs and Sad- ducees. Upon feeing them, headdreHed them in Language, which befpeaks faithfulncfs, but no re- fufal. The contrary to a denial is intimated in V. 11. where in a fpcech immediately direficd to them, he fays in the words before noticed, I iNDEEDBAPTizE YOU wiih Water w/z/o Re- pentance. C^n language more exprcflivc of

K con-

( 74 )

confent, or of a6lual adminiftration on the part of a perfon baptizing be ufed ? He, however, accompanies what he does, and which thefe Pha- rifees and Scribes came for, with reafonable and fuitable advice, that as perfons fubmitiing to the Ordinance of Baptifm, they vrould bring forth fruits in their future lives meet for, or becom- ing the nature, dcfign, and obligations of the jBaptifmal Ordinance. — To this effeQ, is that lan- guage, Bring forth therefore Fruits meet for Repen- tance. The Pharifees and Lawyers, whom our Lord reprefents as rejefting the counfcl of God againft themfelves being not baptized of him, were certainly not thefe perfons, for the fa6l difprovcs it — Mr. B. allows Baptifm in the paffage here alluded to (Luke, vii. 30.) to be call- ed the Counfel of God, — counsel! How con- gruous fuch an account to the idea of its be- ing an ordained mean with preaching, of ad- vifing, obliging, and being helpful to Repen- tance. This Ordinance, the Pharifees and Law- yers rejefted againft themfelves. The many faid to come to John's Baptifm, muft in all reafoii be excepted— and wlierc lies the diiterence be- tween thofe two clafTcs of Pharifees ? — The one came to J')hn's Baptifm i. e. to be baptized ; the other rejcfted it and did not come. What conclufion then, is warranted by a comparative view of our Loid's charge againft the Pharifees a^

re-

( 75 )

reje6ler5 of John's Baptifm ? Of the Pharifee as coming to John's Baptifm ? I anfwer, tha thofc that did come, were baptized ; that it wr the fault of the others, for want of a profeffe •willingiiefs, that they were not baptized — th^ if Repentance had been urged as a prerequifu for Baptifm, our Lord would have blamed then in the firil inftance, for non-repenting. But it 4ipon the confeflion of Mr. B. Baptifm pnd the Counfel of God be Itridly fynonymous, Chriil io exprelTes himfelf as to make their criminality to lie in their rejecling John's Baptifm, the oppofite to which is cony^n/m^.-i— John's grand argament for what he did, was. The Kingdom of Heaven is at Hand. — The period was drawing near, when the adorable Meifiah would enter on his public Minillry, and introduce the moit illuftrious dilpenfation of Grace, which fhould continue till Time would be no more. What the morning Star is to the riling Sun, fuch was John's Miniltry to our Lord. He therefore comes for- ward, fay i n g, Repent ^ for the kingdom o f HEAVEN IS AT HAND. — He publjflies a call to Repentance, and announces Baptifm, as we . bavefeen, a joint-mean with preaching, to bring the nation to Repentance. A fuitablenefs of State to the Difpenlation coming on, feems to be one general idea intended. — Repentance may be conceived iii a two-fold view, either K 2 as

{ 75 )

as it refpefts the thing itself — or as the END OF A GOSPEL MINISTRY — In either ca{e, I fee no reafon why Infants fhould be excepted from a certain intercQ; in this general call. To deny their capacity for that which is tantamount to Repentance in Adults, brings along with it one or other of thefe confequences — either that they were not born in Sin contrary to the tefti- mony of Scripture — or a denial of their Salva- tion as incapable of what is cffential thereunto — If Repentance be confidered as the end of a Gofpel call, and Infants, as I think muft be allow- ed, are proper fuhje6ls of certain obligation, it is unnatural to confider them as not interefted in a call which rcfts on the obligation of the objcQs of it, to the thing it fpecifies* namely, Repentance. — Other teftimony of Scripture favors thefe ideas as to a general call. Thus, when Jonah received a commifTion to go and preach to Nineveh, more than fix fcore thoufand perfons that could not difcern between their right hand and left, alias Children, were interefted in the preaching of that prophet — As far as children were capable of an external Slate of Repentance, they were put into it by wear- ing fackcloth. Making Scripture our guide from the cafe of Nineveh, what is more natural than to view Infants as well as Adults, mdif- criminately involved in the call to Repentance,

UP-

( 77 )

under John's Miniftry ; and Baptifm he'wg as fuitable to the people on his preaching as cov- iring with fackdoth was to Nineveh on Jonah's, Infants in the one cafe, might be fo fuuated, as to anfwer to the Infants in the other.

Befides : if the Kingdom of Heaven being at hand was a reafon of John's Miniftry, then both branches of it, calling to Repentance and bopt iixing, muft apply to all under the Kingdom of Heaven ; and it feems fair to conficler that interpretation of the paflages in quedion, as not the true and genuine one, which makes the matter of John's call, repenting and bap- tizing, UNEQUAL TO IT. — But thc Kingdom of Heaven, is a glorious Difpenfcition of wide extent — it includes Infants and Adults pro- mifcuoufly. Concerning the former, Chrift was pleafed to declare. Matth. xix. 14, Suffer little Children to come unto tUCy (or to be brought, as they are faid to have been carried, and taken up in Chrift's arms) for of fuch is the Kingdom of Heaven. — Befide the gracious afTurance exprefled in thefe words on behalf of Infants without exception, it is obvious, that Chrift fpeaks of that aft of parents op friends bringing cinU dren to him as if their own aQ: of coming, though from the circumftances related, we know it was not. — Are Adults included under the Kingdom of Heaven ? Few, very few, ac- cording

( 78 )

Cording to the praQice and principles of our Antipaedobaptift friends, but, furely, our Lord vas of a different way of thinking, when He dictated, Matth. xiii. 47. The Kingdom cf Htavm is like uiiLo a mt that was cajl into the Sea, and gathered of every kind both good and lad. Tlie commiflSon of Chrifl before confidered, is doubt- lefs this net, in the execution of which, Mini- fters are to gather ; the Sea the World, v. here pcrfons, indifcriminatciy, are to be gathered by the two pans of the commilTion, hapti'Mng and teaching, — Minifters officially confidered may throw the net into the fea, or execute their commilliua in the World, without diilinftion of parts, places or perfons. — All in refpetl of the commiffion, are allowed to be in a ftate to be gathered. — Such feems to be the defcviption of the Kiijgdom of Heaven, as pi6lured in the afore- cited parable — Now was it on the eve of the com- mencement of this glorious conftitution, that the. New Tcflament Elias appeared ? Was his Mi- niltry owing to its fpeedy approach ? Surely, ALL included in the Kingdom of Heaven, were intereffed in the joint-branches of his Miniliry Confequently, Infants and Adults prornifcuoufly. If other circumftances, then, ftiould not arifc in the account of John's JBaptifm repugnant to the general right of all indilcriminately, it is prefumed, the language John made ufe of as to

preaching

( 79 )

preaching and baptizing, is not difcouraging to

the objed of iliis work.

A6is, ii. 28. 30. Then Peter fa'id unto tkcm. Re- pent^ and be baptized every one of you in the name of jefus Chrijl^ for the remiffwn oj Sins, and ye fliali receive the gift of the Holy Ghcjl, Fur the proviifc is unto you and your children, and to all that art afar off [_i. v e n] as many as the Lord our God fJiall call. Here, and in the cafe wiih which thefe paflages arc conne£led is a fort of colossus among baptismal precedents. The more attention is due to it on that account. H.jW far Peter's addiefs as now before us, will fup- port the principle of our Opponents, bapfizing on a credible profcllion of Faith, I fiiail at- tempt to Icrutinize, a^^d to this end notice thofe things in the texts, wlience they derive their argument, and confidcr theui as conclufive in 'their favor. — I'o fecu^e thcmicives in pof- feffion of this part of Scrip: ure, Repent ye and he baptized, or the order of the Words^ the fromife mentioned as 7neaning that of Joel's Prophecy, the term Children as denoting fuch o«- ^ who are the difiinguifhed Suhjeds of divine Grace, ihe Call as fpoken of God's Spirit, are each cf them infified upon. Of each of thefe, I fhall take no- tice in the Sequel.-^The ariangement of the

word?'

C 8>i )

words, repent ye and be baptized, is and cafi be of no fcrvice to the caufe of Amipasdobap- tifts, in my apprehenfion, uiilefs two things can be fhewn, naniely. that the Apoftle, by "Repent ye," means any thing ieTs than grnuine Repentance, and that a credible pTojiJfton of Repentance is the fame thing as genuine Repentance. De- fpairing of the poffibiiity of tliefe things, 1 cannot but confid^r an argument in favor of the diftinguifhing fentiments I oppofe taken l^om the mere uords of Peter or their order to be futile. For the difference is, or may be as much as between the fhadow and the fubftance. Credibly prof efs Repentance and be baptized I No, if the mere order of the words is to decide, and the moft natural fenfe of the call, " Repent ye'' be confidered, truly and unfeignedly re- pent AT HEART AND BE BAPTIZED, is Peter*S

language conflrutlively. I fcruple not to affirm if this was the Repentance urged along with baptifm by Peter, and as an essential pre- requisite to baptifm, it was out of his pow- er, and it is out of any man's, to aft according to it, without a difcernment of fpirits. Re- fpe6ling Repentance as required in the text in queftion, and profeflion of Repentance which may be deemed, credible, as required by our differing Brethren, a pcrfon may come up to the latter, and fail ihort of the foimer. To

cite

( 8. )

cite Pder*s Language^ uhich is ex'prefs and un- equivocal, demanding true Repentance as afTord- ing a Ririe, when the main thing in that Rule, (if Bat'tifin refts on proFeirion mere'y) ni-iy be want- ing, i;s to fay the leafl of it, jlran^e indeed. Yet this is thecoi)du^, and way of reafoning on the part of our Opponents. — Allow to tlie czW Re- pent K, but ITS NATURAL GENUINE SENSE,

and the Worm at the bottom of Jonah's gourd did not render that more ufelefs to him, th^n this fenfe will the "'Lirt order of t\'.is palTage to the caufe it is urged to deFcnd — The d^Ti-xn of the Apoflle being beyond all rtaf-'nable d-iibt to prefs true Repentance, how fuitabie fuch lan- guage, fpeaking as he was to pcrlons who were, unexpeftedly wrought upon and evidently the fiibjects of r<.)n-i2 coiiipunfilion. Repent ye and be baptized, ere both pArts of the Minillerial Call, and as one muft unavoidably precede the ctlier, how pertinent a].d proper that the endy Re- pentance, to which baptizing and p!"eaciiing lire fubfervier>t, (liould be mentioned^y?. '* roiitive Inllitutions " fays Bifl:op Butler, '* I fnppofe all *' thofe whicb Chriftiani'y enjoin<;, are ■mea7LS to ** a moral' end, and the end mull b« acknowledged ** more excellent than the mean,." Acrieeabie to

o

thijj remark, if ii cannot be denied Ijut Baptifm is a mean to repentance, is it at aU to be wondered at, that *• Repent ye^' fliould precede *•' and he

L baptized,"

( 82 )

baptized.'* — Impartiality muft, I think, actcnow- ledge, that the words in Peter's addrefs, do not neceJJ'arily draw along with them the fenfe, which would make. Repentance an indif^enfible prere- quifite. They may admit, peifeflly confiftent with the Phrareo]oj.y, a very different nieaning. Now fuppofe Peter's call, capable of two diffe- rent conftru6lions. It, in this ca'c, refembles a pair of fcalcs in equilibrio, or equdlly balanced. Only as both fides can produce folid arguments - for their own and againlt the oppofite opinion^ can they expe8: the fcale to preponderate in their favor. What is there on the Antipaedohaptift fide of the queftion ? Nothing from the nature of the Ordinance. Nothing from Chrift's commif- fion, both which we have confidered. I add by way of anticipation, nothing from the froniije by which Peter backs this Call. So far as I can fee, the mere order, without any re- gaid to the ftrift and natural fenfe of the paffage, is fet up. To fay the moll of it, an apparent fenfe of Scripture is brought forward as a candidate fcr acceptance, though fuch confequences would follow from the admiffion of it, as to render it of no ("ervicc, even to thofe who contend for it — for true Repentance is the requifition and the requifition can alone be the Rule or Pre- cedent.

The

( 83 )

Tlie PromiTe in the book of Joel quoted b/ Peter exprefsly, as mentioned in the former part of the chapter, is infifted upon to be the promife meant by Peter in the paffage under confideration. In oppofition to this, others ftep forward in be- half of the Abrahamic promise. Mr. Boft- wick in his fcrmon on this controverted text, ar- gues againft the former and for the latter in the following manner. *' Some fiippofe" (fays he) *' that by this promife the Apoftle only intends " that of Joel's prophecy which he had quoted *' in the preceeding fermon from the 16. to the " 22. V. But let any one read that prophecy of ** Joel as quoted by the ApoRle in thefe verfes, ** and he mud be immediately convinced, that the " extraordinary and miraculous gifts of the Holy *' Ghoft are there intended ; confequently that *• the promife, contained in this prophecy, could ** never here be urged as a ground or motive • to baptifir: ; for extraordinary and miraculous ** gifts were neither required as the ground of " Baptifm, nor numbered among the bleffings *' that ufually attend or (low fiom it. Nor is ** there the lead intimation given in this hi;>ory, *^ that the three thouiand here baptized did le- " ceive thefe miraculous gifts. If therefore this '* was the promife the Apoflle (peaks of to them *' and their children, it will follow that the ** promife was not made good ; for neither they

L 2 " nor

f 84 )

** nor their cliildren, ( that we readof ) were " ever poffeflcd or ihtfe extraordinary gifts, — * Befidcs, the promise ip Joel . ady its

" accompliihmeiitiin, that extraoiaiiiary effafion ** of the Spirit upon the Apoftlcs. This Saint " Peter declares^ and quotes the promife on pur- '* pofe to prove his declaraiion. ^It is plaiij then^ " he can have no reference* 10 this_,in the. Promife " here mentioned/' As to she ^rpruife '; ceives to be mean*, the fa.ne Auihor oL;u *• It is notorious that the covenant vv . . .i " ABRAHAM was wcH-known and often empha- •' ticaiiy called the promise without any other " CharaBeriPdc or note of Diftinttion. But to " conc'u !e the poii)t, the Apoilie himfclf has " plain'y informed us in anoiber pbce, what he " here liireiidi by the Pioiaife. See A6ls iii. 25. ** where urgi'^g nu'cii iLc SA^^: exhortation " upon his Jewifii Hearers as he does here, he " enforces ijLwuH this argument : Ye ere the ckiU *' dren of the Covenant, -which God 7/iade with our. " lathers, fay mg unto Abraham^ and in tky seed **■ shall all the kindreds or t 11 v: earth '^' B E BLESSED." It would bc cafy to ihcw that this worthy Author is not fmgular m his vie.vs or reafonings by producing other quotations. Eut to proceed : let the Promife be what it may, one thing mufl, I think, be granted that it is intro- duced as the ground of tW Apo file's addrefs in

the

( 85 )

the verfe immediately preceding-it. It is remark- able, that our Lord's comniiiTion^ notwithllajid^ng the capital figure it makes, was not either in ihts cafe or any.oihtr we read of, pleaded, the promisb, whatever it be, doubilefs of ancient do.te compa- red with the commiffion,is brought forward. Now ' does not the Apoitie's mention of tiie one, and the fiiei-'ce about the other, when one would bi^ve expefled, the commifuon of Ghrift might have been urged as the ible bcifis of his conduCl and their complidnce, bcfpeak, that Chriil, wheo he made the commilijon, had reipctl to tl^e ancient promife, a'^reeablc to what has appeared in, this ■ work already ? Peter direds their views lo the promife, as that u hence they may derive encou- ragement as to repentaiice, bapiilm, ren^iiLon of i\n and the leceiying of the Spirit. — * he Covimijficn under which Pc:er a61ed, he feems to confider more immediately as the Rule to Chjiit's Minifters, who are the executors of it. The Fromi/ey as that which refpetis the people, as the objetLs included in the comm'fiicn. Thus both the commiffion and promife have a mutual afpcB: to each other. By the One, Miniders as the fmaller body, are warranted to perform their parr, the large Body of the Nations is prompted to their's on the giound of the promife. If the pro- mife be allowed to be the 'encouraging matter to the people, to Repentance, Baptifm, &c. at/d as

fuch

( 86 )

fuch urged by the Apoftle, it appears to come to the fame thing whether, the promifc be under- flood of that in Joel — or of the other mentioned, A£ls, iii. 25 — Both the promifes refpeB the fame feriod of time, the commencement of the Gol'pel Difpenfation. Of the two promifes, that in Joel being much later, and yet refpiHiing the lame pe- riod, requires to be confidered, as Jubordinate to, or virtually in the older comprehenfive pro- mife. The promife is manifeftly urged to inforcc a compliance with the Grand Call of the Miniftry and its objeQs. How could it be mentioned by Peter, or fo underftood by the people, unlef? ob- jectively exhibiting Bleffiags — -I -will pour out of my Spirit on all Flefli. — In thy Seed fli all all the Na- tions of the earth he hlelJcd. — Having their views di- re6led by the joint affiflance of the commifTion and of fuch promifory language, what greater encou- ragement could the Apoftles or the People have ? ALL FLESH, ALL NATIONS, ou the authority and exhibitory Grace of the commifTion and pro- mife may be minirterially called. How confirm- ing this to the leading idea of this work, namely the privileged flate of the World at large !

The Promife is to you, and your children . — The term children in this claufe, undergoes a ftrange limitation, both from Paedobaptifts and Antipaedobaptifts. Infants are underflood to the exception of Adults, as it is fuppofed to refpeft

the

( 8; }

the Ordinance of Baptifni by one party, and only vifiblv profeliinfT children are regarded by the other, and fo all Adults befide, and Infants as well, thiult out of the term. "Some of our learned oppo- fers inaeed (fays Mr. Booth) contend for the in- definite (cnfe of the term, children. Thus for ex- ample, Vossius: To you and to your children was the promifc made. Now mention is made of children fimply, without difference of age. Hei- degger us : The promife was made to their chil- dren indefinitely without difference of age^ WiTsius : Mention is made of children fimply without difference of age." Not a little pleafed with the fan6l;on of f ich a learned Triumvirate to my own opinion, I am not at all afraid of Mr, L — 's confequences. No, 1 admit his " confe- *' quently, all the children of the ApolUes' a- " wakened auditors, whether Infants or Adults " were uiihout exception t j be b'lptlz.d."

7 J all that are afar (>■[, whethlr jew or gen- tile. Geneidl and indifciiinina^e j^ the objec. live terms are ; calculated, as they fcem to be to give us an idea of the extenfive latitude, or com- pafs belonging to the promife ; natural as it was for Peter's Jewijh hearers to confider it in that light, yet the lall claufe f)f all, if Mr. B. be right, has the fame effect upon the foregoing terms as fome baneful Froft on a Tree laden with Fruit, Thus he obfervcs, ** Ai many ai the Lord our

( PS )

Jhallcall^ is as plainlv as poffible a 'imiting claufe, and extends a reftnttive force to the term children, the pronoun you, or to that defcriptive language a// that are afar cff." Thefc Remarks mav be con- frt.riifd with the following of Y^r. Williams's, ^vhich ferve to fliew, that Mr. B. conTjunds what ought to be dijlinguifl-ed ; and [hat while it is unnatural, fo it is unnecc^fTary to mutilate the for- mer part?: of the palfage by reafon of the laft. *' Here we fhould carefully diftinguilh between God's call and Tiieiis cc7nt?liance with it. The latter of thefe ideas is out of theprefent queftiou; being excluded by the nature of the fuoje6l, and the proper force of the term. Nor fh mid we con- found the CALL of the gofdei, with God's fecret choice of individuals, or his elfcacious drawing of them to himfeif to love and Icrve him in f. irit and in truth. Thele things belong to a fjve- reign invifible dirpenfation ; a difpenfarion of quite a different nature fronl what our apoftie niiin'y intends. And indeed, with regard to what is termed effccl.i,al calUnc^, which Mr. B. fetrms to take for granted is here intended, the fiz// mull not be confounded with the effeHsof it. In my apprehcnfion, the fecret and efficacious influcnre of God on the finner's mind, whereby it is dirpofcid lo receive the truth, is very impro- perly termed Gcd's calL For his calling of them> propetly fpeak'ing, is by his -word^ hi, wiU revealed,

the

f 89 )

the minijiry of reconciliation, &c. but what ren-» ders this calling effeBual, is the imparted in- fluence or powerful operation of the Spirit on the mind, and thereby a difpofition, inclination, or moral ability, is produced, to comply with the call. Hence rnany are called^ but few are cho-^ fen^.

Besides : The promife, or gofpel grant, is not any bleffing conferred in consequence of effec^ tual calling, but in fulferviency to it. For the . promife is the foundation of our accefs to God, and our encouragement to repentance, and not a blelfing confequent upon either. Repenting, complying, coming to God, <S:c. are our acls and exerciles ; but without a promife they have no ground, no motive, no exiftence. Perfons, families, and nations, are calkd that they MAY COMPLY, and the promife is given them as the inducement. When any aBually 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 diflinguifhing love. Thus God calls, but man through the ftupifying effed of fin, refufes ; yet when God works in us both to will and to do pf his good pleafure, who can let ? Neverthelefs,

Mitt, ^K: 1$, $.^U, J|,

{ 90 )

the blefTings promifed, or exhibited in the pro- n^ife, become aftually ours in confequence of our anfwering the divine requifition or call.

On the vvho'e: As the Apoftle has no reference to the internal power of grace, we are conftrained to feek his meaning in the external call of the gofpel. Unto whaiever 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 conduQ:. If all the gentile nations are not ac- tually evangelized, fuch confinement and feeming partiality is not owing to any limiting claufe in our commiffion, but to the all-wife conduft^ of providence, while it opens a door of entrance to fome nations, and leaves others for a time fliut. But no fooner is a perfon, a family, a nation or a people, evangelized^ or addrelTed by a gofpel miniftry, than we can affure them, that the promife is to them and theirs. If they rejeEl the call, they rejeO: alfo the promife ; and if they reject the promife, grant, or covenant, they have no right to ihtfeal; for the inftrument and the leal muft not be feparated. External compliance is fufhcient to fecure whatever is in the covenant of an external nature ; and baptifm, the initiating fealj being /wc^, by that compUance it is fecured«

£ut

( 9» )

But an internal and fpiritual complianre, and thai alone, fecures to us whatever is in the covenan* of an internal and fpiritual nature. And whence the ability to comply, as before obferved, belongs to another queftion, and flows from the cove- nant of redemption, well ordered in all things and fure, in its internal form.'*

If Minifters, as they ought to be, are confi- dered as the Ferfons to whom God has intrufted the call, then the limiting claujcy as Mr. B. ftile« it, is quite the rerverfe. So far as our Lord'c commiffion is made the rule of admhnftering it, Minifters are authorized to preach the Gofpel to every creature. We have before feen, there is no nation under Heaven, nor any part of each which is under any difqualification or excepted, in refpeft of the commiffion itfelf. A Minifter's addrefs fhould comport, and ought to have that fcnfe affixed to it, which will make it harmo- nious to the liberal and genuine Spirit of the commiffion. Peter, though aQing in the inftance before us under if, fupports the call by the Proraife. The latter is prefented as a glafs in which the objefts of it might difcern their fa- vored and advantageous fiiuation. Whether it be that taken out of Joel, or that made to Abra- ham, the ftate is fuch, of all fleffi, all nations, as fuffisrs none to confider themfelves, or to be confidered, di^ exchded ho\Vi \hz Spirit cr Mcfling.

M- 2 It

( 92 )

It is abfolute, unconditional, a general revealed exhibition of mercy. While on the bafis of the commiffion in refpeft of himfelf as a Minifter, Peter, on the bafis of the promife in refpeft of his hearers, addreffed them, faying. Re- pent ye, &c» The inherent power of the crea- ture being juftly difcarded, the requifition con- tained in the call turns not upon what the creature has noi, hut what he has. This is the FREE UNLIMITED PROMISE. Our Lord'6 commiffion is fubordinate to ^:ie promife, as the nature and date of both evince. Miniftcrs arc encouraged to the execution of the former, be- caufe of the pcjjibility as well as neceflity of Re- pentance, appearing from the latter* In other words, the minifterial call is made in reference to the favored flate of mankind depi6led in the promife, fhewing itfelf through the medium of our Lord's commiffion. From the very nature of the cafe therefore, repent ye, which denotes a ftate of real Repentance, cannot be urged as an indifpenfible prerequifite to the Baptifmal Or- dinance, for as the fecret intention of God can be no rule of adminillration, fo the fecret Work of God's Spirit can be none. Repentance, con- fidered as to its effence, is feated in the heart, and nothing lefs than fuch a Repentance never to be repented of, agreeing to the call, it is not to be fuppofed, that the Apoftle meant to propofc

as

C 93 )

as a ground of adminiftration, that qualifica- tion which neither be nor any other, is com- petent to determine with a certainty that a per- fon poflefles. Some other view of the call then muft be the juft one, which frees it of any fuch cmbarrafiTment. And a due attention to its lan- guage as it relates to, and is fupported by the promife, muft, I think, convince us, that Re- pentance as contained in the c.ill, is not a con- dition in reference to the promife, but as an £ND, and fo. Repentance is propofed not as that which /mJ5 to, h\ii proceeds from it.

Confidering the relation of the call to the promife, the objefts of the latter fpecified under the pronoun, you, meaning thoie whom Peter ad- dreffcd, children indifcriminately, and all whom the Lord our God fliall call by his Minifters (and none are excluded in refpefl; of the commiffion or promife, but quite the contrary) — the exhibitory import of the promife, and the nature of. the call, ** repent ye '' correfpondeut to it, what light more pertinent and natural, to fee Peter's language in, than as a call to a state of uepentance, ari- fing from the neceffity and poffibility of being in it under the Gofpel ? What hinders, that it fiiould not be underftood as a call to all virtually — not in reference to their frefent Jlate^ however that be of penitence or the contrary, but what ought to be the llatc of a;l under the Gofpel ? God

now

( 94 0

flow commandeth all men every where to re- pent. A6ls, xvii. 30. The call to repentance be- ing adapted to the nature of Gofpel-times, and urged as in Peter's cafe, in fuch a manner, as to fuit a mixture of charafters, penitent and impeni- tent, and confequently relating to the ftate of Repentance, rather than perfons, fo it is natural to confider the other part of Peter's call, namely, to the Ordinance of Baptifm.— Is it an evangeli- cal ground for Repentance that it is a blelling exhibited ? By parity of reafon, Baptifm is an ex- hibited Ordinance in reference to that ftate of Repentance, and fo all fhould be baptized. To this mode of reafoning, the pailage literally ren- dered, well agrees. Repent ye^ and let every

ONE OF YOU, EVERY ONE BELONGING TOYO»

be baptized. *^Some," fays Dr. Addington, "have remarked the change obfervablc in the Apoftle's phrafeology from the plural, repent ye, to the lingular disjunftive, let every one of you^ ^c." — It is added, yijr the remiffion of Jins. Without re- pentance NO FORGIVENESS, is an evangelical AXIOM. In the order of the paflage before us, Baptifm intervenes between "Repent ye," and remiffion of fins. If an argument is taken from the literal arrangement, we may as well infer on that ground, that Baptifm precedes remiffion, ne- eejfarily^ and is of effential importance to it, for the words run, Recent ye and be baptized every one

of

( 95 )

9/ you,forthi remijfion of fin. No fuch thing in regard to Baptifm can be juflly inferred ; from the MANNER of the Apoftle's phrafeology, and and its plact too, forming a call to Baptifm, there is every appearance of its being conne6led with that ftate of Repentance, which is the objeft of the Gofpel-miniftry ; and the fenfe of the whole to be this. Repent ye, and or but, let every one of you, every one belonging to you, be baptized, as

A MEAN TO THAT STATE.

Pricked, as fome of Peter's auditory are faid to have been, in their hearts, whereby the ferious in- quiry was extorted from them, men and brethren what fJiall we do ? The Apoftle plainly replies to them in a manner fuitable to the oppofitt charac- ters, of which the whole aflemby might confifl. He informs them, ooc and all, that they mujl re- pent. Did he mean to infinuate, they were all impenitent ? This cannot be imagined with refpeft to the awakened part of his auditory, whofe interrogatory he immediately refolves. If he h?d reafon to confider them as awakened, doubtleis he rauft confider them as the fubjefts of Repentance begun. Peter's language then, immediately ad- dreffed to fuch a defcription of perfons, and inter- preted confiftently with an application to the cir- cumftances they were apparently in, leads us to confider him, not as requiring Repentance of them, in Older ta be baptized, for why demand that,

whick

C gs )

which as awakened hearers, he had rcal'oH to imagine they ahcady had. But a real ftate of repentance is iiififted on and urged, independent o^ the charaBer of Peter's hearers ; and if fo, it can- not be as a prerequifite to Eaptifm, becaufe that which is not plain and evident in this cafe can be no rule. It is far more natural to conii- der that ftate as an end, to which preaching and baptizing are fubfervicnt. Aijd agreeable to this lait idea, the fubjoined claufe, feems to partake of the nature of a parenthefis, and or hut let every one of you, cvciy one belonging to yoic, be baptized.

Such views of this leading paflage of Scripture bave the advantap;e and claim of rendering^ the exhortatory and promijory parts of Peter's ad- drefs, natural, harmonious, and conclufive, and that fenfe, which has fuch effed, is likely to be the defigned and legitimate one. In fupport of the fentiments of our Baptift friends, the order of the words is in vain prefled into the fervice, and with the moft evident fenfe of the call, repent ye, will not anfwer the end they wifh. An unnatural^ conftru8.icn and limitation is made of the term children. That which ought to be diftinguifhed, is confounded in refpeft of the call. The pro- mife itfelf is mifapplied. That interpretation which offers fuch violence to a text, can never be juftly admitted. The inference in regard to the fubje6i in queftion, rauft be derived from a

DIFF£IV*

( 97 )

DIFFERENT, AND MORE CONSISTENT EXPLANA- TION. If the preceding pages offer fuch, as I cannot help thinking they do, it is plainly in favor of the indifcriminately privileged ftate of the world under the Gofpe!, of the general ufe of baptifmas a joint-mean with preaching, of call- ing the Nations to a ftate of Repentance.

What meaning are we to affix to Philip's reply to the Eunuch, if thou believed with all thy heart thou mayejly upon the latter obferving, See^ here is water, what doth hinder me to be baptized ? A6ls, viii. 36. 37. The nature of that Faith which is here required, i5^enwm^,y2jx;m^ Faith. If Phi- lip's reply be made a guide in adminiftering the baptifmal Ordinance, then it follows,, that no- thing Icfs than genuine Faith poffeffing the heart, can qualify for the baptifmal Ordinance; and Philip could not confiilentiy with his enforcing Faith, as an indifpenfiblepre-requiGte to baptifm, adminifter the Ordinance but on evidence demon- Jlrative of it. Philip had before baptized Simon Magus, whom, whatever his profellion might be, Peter declared to be in the gall of bitternefs and the bonds of iniquity. Unlefs Philip was incon- filtent with himfelf, and did baptize Simon on a different ground, than he would the EunucH, no- thing, (if words have any true and genuine mean-

N ing)

^98 )

jng) but demonftrative evidence of his poffefling true Faith would futhee. If hehad dcmonftrativc evidence, how came he fo much to miftake Simon'* charatler ? If he did not require it in one cafe» how comes he to be m-ade by an improper inter- pretation to require it in his reply to the Eunuch? Whence fuch a demand — as if thou believefl vith ail thy heart — thou mayeft be baptized ? The only natural and confiftent way of refolv- ing this matter, is, by taking into account, what there is fo much reafon to apprehend, the views al large of the Eunuch were when he aflied the queition. It is highly probable that fome conver- iation had pafTed between them, relating to the Ordinance. No doubt the nature of the Ordi- nance and its ufe, of Faith and its ufe, would be noticed by Philip who expounded to him Jefus. Anfwerabie to the ideas, the Eunuch had, or which Philip might conhder his new Convert to have, he replied. If thou believe^ with all thine heortt thou maycj} ht baptized with the mojl encouraging hopes of Salvation. So much is implied, and fo in efFeft aflerted, for the nature of the Faith urged^ is faving Faith, nothing lefs. What'is more na- tural therefore, than to confider it here in rela- tion to its end. Salvation, and baptifm being one mean, which as every other Ordinance, derives its efficacy from true Faith, Philip preffes it in that viev/. Confequenfly, the reply of Philip,

con-

( 99 3

concurs with our Lord's general obfervation (before noticed), He that believeth and is hap.'.ized, Jhall he faved. It is a reply modelled according to the views oF the inquirer, defigneJ to iliev/ with what Faith he mi<;ht expeB: any faviug ad- vantages froqi it. U Philip was not farisfied with his being a proper (ubjetl forbaptiCm before* and meant to lay down laving Fai:h as an indif- penfible pre-requifite to baptifm and his ad- miniftration of it, it is not ci edible, a \^tiz verbal declaration^ failing fhort too of that which he in- iifted on, believing with all ihs hearty cow\A make his path of duty clear. However he commanded the Chariot to ftand Rill : and they went down into the water, both Pniiip and the Eunuch, and he baptized him. — It is in my appiehenfion, a palpable miitake to coiifider true Faith heije required otherwife, than as a perfonai thingeden- tial to Salvation. — It is one thing to require it ia this view, as it relates to the sub / fct of an Ordi- nance. It is another, to require it as a Rule of adminiftcring it. Every Ordmance requires tVue Faith vvidi refpctl to its faving ulc, yet not for its adminiltration.

Atls, xxii. 16. And now why larrtfjl thou F arife and be baptized y and wojh aii>ay th^ 7^'^'^» calling on the name of the Lord, So fpakc Ananias to

N 2 Paui

( 100 )

Paul immediately upon his receiving figlit in the houfe of Judas. It is to be remembered here, as in other hiftorical accounts, that what is extraor- dinary in the Apoflle's cafe, either as confined to thofe early times, or peculiar in feme refpefts to Paul himfelf, fhould be diftinguifhed from that which is ordinary. Paul's converfion is marked "with ftrong and fingular proofs. Ananias could not poffibly confider him in any other light, but on a denial of the heavenly vifion he had feen, and the exprefs intimations he then received in favor of Paul. Paul, accompanied with peculiar proofs of a converted ftate can not be drawn into a precedent, in relation to the quellion, who is a proper fubjetl of Baptifm ? There was no room to be dubious as to the genuinefs of the change. Ordinary profeflion among us is the only criterion for us to judge a perfon by, and far from being an infallible one. — Our judgment can rife no further than a judgment of charity. It will not do to make a perfon concerning whom, as in Paul's cafe, Ananias might judge of with certainty, a precedent to one, whom at moft you can only form a judgment of charity about. Now that ■which makes the difference between Paul and others as to the ordinary courfe of things, forbidi our making him a Precedent entirely. He was certainly a converted man, but was unbapiized^ In the felf-fame hour (fuch was the hafte} that

he

( 101 )

he receives his fight by the hands of Ananias, he fays to hiui, arife and be baptized, C^c. The w^i/h- ing away Jin, can, I conceive, be properly under- ftood only as it is conne6led in this cafe with baptifm, and as that Ordinance may be confi- dered as a mean to it. Ananias does not aim to infinuate, Paul to be in an unfanflified and un- pardoned ftate, for how could he with fuch fu- perabundant evidence to the contrary. It is far from being a juft inference from this addrefs, that only fuch as Paul, including all circumftances of his cafe, is to be baptized. The nature of the cafe therefore, requires us to confider Ana- nias's addrefs, as it refpeBs Paul as a converted perfon, and the Ordinance of Baptifm enjoined and reprefented in it. The inference from the former is, that a perfon unbaptized, and in a converted ftate as Paul was, fhould be baptiz- ed. The matter of this inference is denied by none who allow of Baptifm at all. The addrefs is next to be confidered refpe6ling the Ordinance of Baptifm itfelf, Arife and be baptized, and waJJi away thy Jins, — i. e. by Baptifm, and here being evidently exegetical The prominent idea of Baptifm taken from this account, is of its being a mean to the purpofe mentioned. Paul doubtlefs was viewed as one truly penitent, and pardoned ; this however, does not fuperfcde the propriety of his being baptized, under the

ordinary

( 102 )

ordinary and {landing idea of its facramtntalij wafhingaway fin. So far then, or in whatever fcnfc, Baptifm is held forth as an Ordinance in %vhich there may be a wafhing of fin, and its an- fwering this purpofe, is given as a reafon for its adminiftration, it will apply to a mixture of cha- raBers, penitent and impenitent. The idea en- tirly congruous to this ufe of Baptifm is, that, jointly with preaching, of its exhibiting Repen- tance, laying under obligations to it where it is not, and to perfifling in it where it is begun* Arife and be baptized, &c. fays Ananias, calling en the name of the Lord y i, e. fuitabiy to the nature, and obligations of a baptized ftate. The adjunfts and properties of this calling, erjoined on Paul, arc thofe of fincerity and truth, of which as a con- verted pcrfon he was capable ; but if this be made a pre-requifite to Baptifm in that fenfe which every truely converted perfon, alone, can perform it, it is plain, a Minifter cannot upon this prin- ciple adminifter an Ordinance but upon an in- fallible knowledge of a perfon's capacity coming up to this ftandard. Alas, to admit this prin- ciple would be a6lually to annihilate the Ordi- nance itfelf a« to praftice. To conclude : if wc feparate from this cafe of Paul's what fhould be feparated, and wherein alone it can be a rule or precedent to the ordinary adminiftration •f Baptifm, it in no wife difcounienances what

is

( 103 )

h contended for in this work, but coincides with all the reft ia giving its fanftion to it.

In Afts, X. we have Peter opening his mouth at the houfc of Cornelius, and while he yet fpake^ the Holy Ghoft fell on all them that heard the word ; and they of the circumcifion which belie- ved, were aftoniflied, as many as came with Peter, becaufc that on the Gentiles alfo was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghoft. For they heard them fpeak with tongues and magnify God. Then anfwered Peter, Can any man Jorhid water^ that thejcjhould not be baptized^ which have received the Ho' ly Ghojl as well as we ? This addrefs compared with A6ls, viii. 16. As yet he (i. e. the Holy Ghoft) tyas fallen upon none of them, only they were baptized in the name of "jefus^ leads us to obferve — that if the Holy Ghoft had not fallen upon thefe perfons, they would, notwithftanding, have been proper Subjefts of Baptifmal Adminiftration — that per- fons may be baptized on other more radical ground than that apparently mentioned in fomc accounts. That it may with as much juftice be inferred from this account, that receiving the Holy Ghoft in a miraculous manner is eftential to Baptifni as fome pretend to make believing eflential to Baptifm from its being faid, they that believed were baptized. — But of this more particularly under the next fubdivifion.

(3) The

( 104 )

(3) The fubjeCls of Baptifm appear to have been numerous in fome cafes — Houfholds, &:c. In fome accounts, likewife, confeffing of fm, behcv- ingj receiving the word gladly, are attributed to the party baptized.

Mr. B. animadverting on Dr. W — 's rc- prcfentation of the numbers baptized by John, thus exclaims. " How numerous f Not quite fo ** numerous, perhaps, as he thinks proper to " infinuate in this place." With equal eafc may it be retorted in reference to Mr. B. who in- clines to the oppofite way of thinking. — Not near fo few perhaps as Mr. B. thinks proper to in- finuate. Curious is the reafoning which the laft mentioned author adopts to diminifli the num- bers baptized by John. " If (fays he) fuch mul- " titudes as Dr. W. feems to think, had been " baptized by that venerable man, it would be '• impoffible to conceive of our Lord baptizing " Jlill morey except we were to fuppofe either *' that a great majority of the whole nation partly " by John, and partly by Chrift was baptized, or " that many of John*s difciples were by the or- *' der of Chrift re-baptized, but of thcfc things, *' there is not the kajl appearance, that I perceive «' in the New Teftament." With refpcft to the laft fuppofilion that **many of John's difci- ples were by the order of Chrift re-baptized," what is there to forbid the idea ? So far from

fome-

( 105 )

fomcthing to forbid, Afts, xix. 5. offers much to countenance it. While Apollos, (of whom it is faid in the preceding chapter, he knew only the Baptifm of John), was at Corint*^, Paul having pafled through the upper coafts ai.d finding cer- tain Difciples, faid unto them, Have ye re- ceived the Holy Ghoft fince ye believed ? And they faid, we have not fo much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghoft. Upon this, the Apof- tie immediately afks. — Unto what then were ye baptized ? No fuch thing as any being difciplcd with- out Baptifm. The anfwer returned, was. Unto John's Baptifm. Then faid Paul, John verily baptized with the Baptifm of Repen:ance, faying unto the people {agreeable to the nature^ defign and obligations of his Mimjliy) that they should {truly and unfeignedly) believe ■ r. him which fliould come after him, thai is, on Chrift Jefus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jefus. Having furniihed Mr. B. with this paiTage, will he be at a lofs to perceive tkc Ncv.^ Teftament favourable to the idea of rf-3«j&- Liziiig John's Difciples ? Can it be pretended, or urged, that what happened way^ was not done ^1?- fore ? He (Chrifl.)- muji increafcj and I 'mpfl dc- creafe^ is John's own account of our Lord's. Miniliry— and does it not comparti to fay the ieaft of it, with the above fentiment ? Mr. B. prpceeds : '^ The ApoUolic ?q\\ is very far

O '' from

" from teaching us that the Difciples of Chrirfi '* before his afcenfion, werevery numerous. Nor " is there ariyjuft foundation for us to conclude, ** that the generality of thofe nominal Difciples ** who forfook the Miniftry of our Lord (John *' vi. 66.) had been baptized." The general hiftory of the New Teftament will not fupport thefe obfervations. The claufe, A£ls, i. 15. plainly refpefts the number gatliered in one place, upon that occafion. On the evidence already given, there is no ground to conceive there was any difciphng, but baptizing ^ma.de part of it. And unlefs thofe, whom Mr. B. calls nominal Difciples were baptized, how is it poffible to con- ceive, that Jefus did what is related of him — make y and y or even hoptize more disciples thiin John.

Be the party baptized by John more or Icfs, they were evidently fo many, that if their number, the time, place, and defign of John's Miniftry be duly confidered, it will be an arduous tafls. indeed to fhew that John proceeded upon a fimilar prin- ciple to Ahtipeedobaptifts. Not forgetting that a credible profefTion of Repentance is their prin- ciple, and taking along with m/'fohsr reafon" Mr. B — 's. approved companion, let us examine the account. Then went out to him Jerufalem and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan^ Matth. ill. 5. Confequently a vail many, Mr. B.

accedes

( 107 )

accedes to the high probability that John was fok Adminiftrator. On him, therefore, it of courfc devolved, if their Baptifm depended upon it, to receive their confeffion. As the com- mon circumllanccs of time, place, and manner^j muft be allowed in this cafe, ii is a natural in- quiry, when, where, and hozu was this confeffing performed. In the hiftorical pafTages where it is recorded, there is a junftion of it with the Bap- tifmal Ordinance. Baptized in Jordan, conjejjing their fins. This, however, (efpecially if the mode of adminiftration was immerfion) was very un-. likely to be the cafe ; yet, fuppofing it a faft, it cannot aff )rd a competent Argument in fupport of a credible projejjwn being required. Was a verbal confeffion received by John in the inftant of adminiftering the Ordinance, when both the Baptizerand Candidate are fuppofed to be in the water ? Is it not abfolutcly inadmiffihle, that a confeffion taken under fuch circumftances, and from fuch numbers could be deemed credible by John ? A previous knowledge of all the par- ties mufl: be at leafl admitted to fuppofe an ' inftanianeoQs confeffion plaufible: he ffiouldhavc demanded more time, further acquaintance, but of thefe things or any thing like them, we per- ceive not the fmaileft appearance in the hif- tory. Did this momentous circumdance of confeffing happen any length of time before,

O a adminiftratioii ?

( io8 )

adminiftration ? How comes it to be fo clofely joined to the Ordinance, and if the order of the words have any Itrefs laid cm it, to follow it ? Or where could the Baptiil engaged as he was, have an opportunity of obtaining that knowledge of their perfons, condu6l, as well as confefiion, to give it the air of being credible ; and fo free him from the charge of aBing hajlily and mthout judg- ment ? Had this venerable man waited, with re- fpeft to the multitude he baptized, a length o^ lime to have feen the fruits meet ior repentance brought forth, the time of his miniftry muft have elapfed. Though he came to manifeft Mcffiah to Ifrael by baptizing, he mud have adminiftered the Ordinance to next to none comparatively with the number he didy and it is natural to fuppofe,hc ■would baptize, confidering his errand. I knew HIM (Christ) not, but that he should

BE MADE MANIFEST UNTO IsRAEL, THERE- FORE AM I COME BAPTIZING WITH WATER.

It is very improbable that this being the avowed defign of John's baptizing, theminillration fhould have reltcd on fuch a credible profeffion of Re- pentance, that even Mr. B, being judge and confident with himfelf, requires much more time and evidence, than John had of owe, or could allow for the other.

Be the confefiion what it may, it is neither faid, how it was made, nor to whom. Neither is credibility

mentioned

( 1^9 )

mentioned as appertaining to, or required in it, and tircumrtances confidered, there is no reafon to think that cither one or the other was the cafe in refpecl ot the multitude baptized. The requifi- tion in John's preaching was nothing lefs than Re** pcntance. The ground on which fomc would re-» prefent them baptized, is confeffion oflin. How will thefc agree, unlefs as before obferved, it can be ftiewn that confcffion of Sin and Repentance is the SAME THING. If John meant to require real Repentance in order to Baptifm, he devia- ted from his own principle, by baptizing on that which does not come up to it. The inference from Jerufaleni, &:c. confefling, if it be refer- red to and judged by John's preaching real Re- pentance, iar, that it is a circumftance, at moft fuitable, not elTential ; for that only which is deriioiiJl7-ativc of the thing required can be juft- ly deemed ejjential: but if true Repentance was abfoluteiy required, then for want of a certain infaliibie rule of judgment, no one wuh certainty or fafeiy could be baptized, much lefs fuch a number as this hiftory records.

Again : It is worthy of remark, that John's Baptifm being a Baptilm of, or unto a (fate of Repentance the very ad of adminiftration mull be virtually a confefTion of fin. Baptifm itfelf is virtually a confcffion of fin.

The circumftance of confeffing fin, if the very

nature

( 110 )

nature of the Ordinance be taken into account^ I'enders the paffage under confideration, no more inapplicable to Infants and Adults, then what the Apoflle obferves of Ifracl, when he fays. They were baptized unto ; or virtually, both Infants and Adults, confeffed Mofes in the cloud and the fea. Of the perfons baptized by John we have only an account in the aggregate. The great number reforting to him, was one reafon for his ftation near Jordan. Is it poffible to exclude the idea of children making part of this vaft company ? It is true, if confeflTion of fin be confjdered as univerfally implying a v:rbal de- claration of it, no argument can be drawn from it in favor of Infant Baptifm whatever number might be prefent. But before this can be adr mitted, it muft be fhewn to be antifcripiural to annex the idea of con/lruSiive fpeakmg to every Ordinance according to its nature and defign when adminiftered ; or that in general confcffions, fuch as this was, we are not warranted to confi- der all virtually confeffing, though not indivi- dually making it with their tongues. It is plain, that the paffage alluded to, of the Ifraelitcs paf- fing through the red fea, muft refpeft more the defign of the paflage itfelf, than the capacity or intention of thofe as a body, who trod this intermarine path. It is natural to join with the Ordinance in queftion, whenever it is f)crform-

cd

( 1" )

ed, fomc idea of conleiTing from the very na- ture of it ; and hence it becomes exhibitory OF, and OBLIGATORY TO, a coirefpondent ftate of Repentance. What hinders our viewing the hirtory as it relates to John's bapiizing in this point of view? Is there any thing contradiftory, abfurd, unnatural, or antifcriptural in fo doing? It is prefumcd, neither. And if fo, it well com- ports with the idea of the promifcuous adminiftra- tion of Baptifm as it rcl^ites to penitents or impeniients, children and adults.

Before I can accede to the opinion of our dif- fering brethren from any thing that a pafTage of this nature may allow, not only the remarks al- ready made rauft be fhewn to be futile, but fome further queitions and matters muft be refolved. If it is admiffible, that of the great number John baptized, there was a mixture of impenitents and penitents in refpeft of their internal ftate, is it not natural to conclude this confeffion comports with fuch a difference of (late ? If virtual, then it fuits all ages. If verbal, then it fuits all chara6lers, and it follows from the general cxpreffion in the text, that it is a circum- ilance fuitable, not effential. To affume it as evidence for eftablifhing a credible profefTion of Repentance, when not a word is faid about its credibility, and other circumftances, is a fort of •fftcrilcgc oommitied upoa Scripture. Is Dr,

Williaras's

( 1»2 )

Williams's axiom approved by Mr. B. ? " As •* nothing fliould be confide: ed as an rfh.blifhed ** principle cJ Faith, which is not in Tome part of '^ Scripture, delivered wiih perfpicuiry ; fo that " perfpicuity fhould be fought for principally ** where the point in cjueftion is nioii profeffcd- •* ly hand'tfd " Admi iing this axiom, if the queflion be afked in relation to John's Baptifm whether a credible profession of repen- tance M'iif at: cffeniial pre-requifite in the bap- tized ? I anfwer. No, unlefs v;e are at liberty to fay, theft is edential which is not mentioned ; to interpvjlaie Scripture by ideas of our own ; and to infer, tnat to be a pre-requifiie.. which from the hiftory there is no room to think, was, or could be had. The paifage fo far as peripicuous leads lo this conclufion ; it becomes ambiguous and encumbered with difficulties only as it is ufcd to lupport the caufe of our opponents. Now inaf- much as where the point is profeffedly hand]cd> perfpicuity fliould be fought for principally, that fentiment which renders the paffage, circum- ftances confidered, mod natural, eafy and per- fpicuous, is deducible from it.

In vain, therefore, is a plain example of a cre- dible PROFESSION, even fuch as the author of Paedoh'ipiirfn examined would lead us to confider necefTary to a pofiiivc right, fought heie. The formal inllitution of joha's Baptifm, we have

not

( 113 )

not ; only a general account of its being from Heaven. The part of the narrative moft likely to give us an infight refpe6ling the point in queftion, is where the Hiftorian re- lates the fubftance of John's preaching. This has been confidered. The hiftorical lummary of Jerufalem, Judea, &:c. being baptized fuppofes a prior ride to which it may be re- ferred. Now John's requiring true repentance^ (on the fuppofiiion he did it as an indijpenjible pre^ reqiiifite to Baptifmal Adminiftration) and the hiftorical account of the baptized conjejjing their JinSy being laid together, what is the In- ference ? I anfwer. One, which though natu- rally drawn from the premifes, can never be ad- mitted. All whom John baptized were true PENITENTS, FOR they confefled their fins. With the utmoft ftretch of charity, the forn^er part of theconclufion will not, I conceive, obtain credit; and the latter is equally objeBionable in proof of true Repentance. Mr. B. would introduce to our notice Mr. Baxter's reafoningon this part of the fubjea. *' If any ftiould fay, that it is only con- *• feffion that is required, which is no fign of " true Repentance : I anfwer, when John faith, ** ij we conjejs ourfins^ he is faithful and jujt tofor^ *' give us our fins, he took that confeffion to be a *' fign of true Repentance.'* How could the Apoftle do olherwife than confider a confeffion of

( ti4 )

fin to be a fign of true Repentance, with which he connefts the aBiial remiffion of fin ? But before the mouth can make confcffion unto Sal- votion, man muft believe with the heart unto righteoufnefs, Rom. x. lo. Mr. Baxter's ac- count of himfelf as an author, will prevent the reader's furprize at finding inadvertency and in- coherency in this part, and much more of the quo- tation produced by Mr. Booth. The good man makes this honeft declaration: " I fcarce ever " wrote one fheet twice over, or ftayed to make *' any blots or interlinings, but was fain to let it " go, as it was firft conceived." Chooiing^ from refpe8: to fo worthy and learned a perfon to make him a critic upon himfelf, let us advert to the idea of taking confcffion to be a fign of true Repentance.

One thing is granted, that confcffion of fin, be it made, how, when, or to whom it will, is a fign of true Repentance as requifite for a finful creature, and under the gofpel pojfibk^ and de- manded. Any confcffion is a fign of this, but not of true Repentance poffisfTed. Wherefore, after all that has been advanced, tending to prove the want of evidence in fupport of a cre- dible profeffion of Repentance in the baptized multitude — fince the confeffing of fin is con- joined with the a8; or undergoing of baptifm — \ I afk, is it not a natural and legitimate idea that

avir-

( "5 )

a virtual confeffion is partly and primarily in- tended ? A virtual confeffion involved in the very nature of the Ordinance itfelf, derived partly from the a£l of adminiftring and under-going it, and accordingly fo reprefented in the detail of tile whole paft tranfaftion. Analagous to this, is the account in John, iii. '23. And John a.lfo was Baptizing in Enon, near to Salim, becaufe there "was much water there: and they came, am d WERE BAPTIZED. It is impofible to feparate from the Baptifmal a6l itl'elf, the idea of a virtual confeffion, and inafmuch as we have feen John's preaching was a call to a ftate of Repentance ; his Baptilmunto that ftate as an end ; and a con- feffion of fin any how, is becoming a fallen crea- ture, contained in the Baptifmal acl itfelf, here is a reafon why all fhould indifcriminately be baptized, and a way to account, confiilently and fcripturally, how, Jerujalem and. all Judea, and the Region round about Jordan -were baptized, confejfing their Jins. Baptifm, as a pofitive rite and adminiftered by John, fo far as its nature and manner are determined, appears >.o include in it a ftate of Repentance as the defigned end, a con- feffion of lin inyolyed in the ad itfelf; and thus the circumflance recorded, confeffing their fins, as it follows the verb baptized, kerns natu- rally conneQcd with, and to anfe from, the per- fons under a baptized ftate. Very far therefore

P » is

( »6 )

it from being a pre-requifite, or giving a fanc- don to the diftinguifhing fentiment or pra6lice of our opponents in regard of credible profeffion.

We are informed in the hiftory of the A6ls^ Then they that gladly received his word were laptized, A6ls ii. 41. — When they (the Samaritans] believed Philipy preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of J ejus Chrijl^ they were baptized, both men and zuomc^i. A6ls, viii. 12. — ? Many of the Corinthians^ hearing, believed, and were baptized. A£ls, xviii. 8. That thele pafTages de- termine fomething about the Baptifmal Ordinance is un-queftionable, but the queftion for confider- ation is, WHAT ? Is the language here ufed concerning the baptized party, merely dejcriptive of perfons who were de JaBo, in point of fa8;, baptized? Or, is it definitive and decifive of chara- cters who have a fole exclufive right to its ad- miniftration ? It is eafy to perceive thefe queftions to be very different, and that nearly the fame ftile of expieflion might be adopted, where one and not the other, of thefe ideas is intended. The following reafons, along with the arguments in general urged on this fubjeft, incline me to embrace the opinion, that thefe pafTages are de- fcriptive of perfons who were baptized. So far as they appear to draw the line between the bap- tized

( 117 )

lized aud unbaptized, is there not Scripture-Au« thority for regarding the chara6lers in oppofition to thofe baptized, to be fuch who abfolutely re- je6led the miniftrations of the Gofpel ? Is not the contraft given us after this manner, Atls, xvii. 4 ? So7ne believed and comforted with Paul, and Silas, ^c. But the Jews which believed not^ moved with envyy took unto them certain lewd fellows of tht hafer fort, and gathered a company and fet the city on an uproar. Other inftances might be produced to the fame efFe6l. In the pafTage juft mention- ed, is not the difaffeclion of the unbelie- vers, to the Gofpel-minillry at large, evident ? They had an equal right to it in refpe6t of Chrift's commiffion with others, but they wilful- ly difclaimed it. By believers, on the other hand to whom they are oppofed, that defcrip- tion of perfons who might believe with the heart, and thofe who only profefTed faith, is promifcu- oufly intended. Simon Magus was an inftance of the laft clafs ; and though the hiftorian was about to record, that Peter pronounced him in the gall of bitternefs, and the bonds of iniquity, yet he previoufly tells us, Then did Simon believe alfo. Whatever internal difference appears between thefe two claffes, there was one thing in which they vifibly agreed, namely a profeflion of faith. One thing further, they refembled each other in, mentally, and that was willingnefs or confent.

However

( n8 )

However profeflion of faith could not be receiv- ed as demonftrative of true faith in pofleffion, it might be juftly admitted in fu!l proof of con- fent. That this is the leading circumftance to be regarded in the hiliory of believers-Baptifm is plain to me, becaufe wherein thefe two forts of them may be fuppofed to agree, there the difference of unbelievers contratted with them begins. The line of diftinftion lies between co/z- fenting and non-confcnting. While there can be no reafonable doubt entertained of the exiftence of thefe three claffes mentioned, two of believers and one of unbelievers, the two firfl are involv- ed in one defcription. And, it is as true, as it is remarkable, that New Teftament hiftory affords no cafe in contradi6lion to the above remarks. There is no account of perfons who appear to have confented to an attendance on the Gofpel-miniftry, whom we have realbn to conlider remaining in an unbaptized flate. In the pafTages, then, cited at the head of this pa- ragraph, it fhould appear, we have language not charafteriflic of baptized perfons in reference to a ground of right, but of fuch who w^cre in point of fad baptized, profefTing and manifefting that confent, which, urtlefs the law of nature has violence offered to it, mud be obtained, before Chrifl's Minifters can execute their commiffion. Noiinpediment lies in the way of a moreextenfive

Baptifmal

f 119 )

Baptifmal Adminiftration than Antipaednbaptifti praftice from texts of this fort. Their contents weigh in the fcale as merely hiftorical faQs. Their phrafeology does not neceflarily or na- ' turally convey the idea that would confine Bap- tifm to what is called a credible profeflion. It is therefore made to have a meaning foreign to the form and defigii of the language ufed. And a credible profelfion, as the diftinguifliing fenti- ment of a party, ufurps a place which does not. belong to it.

Of houfehold Bapiifms, there are feveral inftan- ces exprefsly mentioned in the New Teftament hiftory. Mr. B. examining thefe from A6ls, xvi. 15. xvi. 33. I Cor. i. 16. remarks: " It is not uncommon for the facrcd Writers to *' alfert this or the other concerning a houfe- *' hold, without any exprefs limitation, which is " rnanifeftly meant of only the greater part : and ** in other places the fame form of fpeaking is *' ufed, where none but Adults can be intended. " A few examples may fuffice. Thus it is " writen, all the house cf Jofeph, and his " Brethren, and his Father's houj?,, went up to bury *' Jacob; only their little Ones they left in the land of '• GoJJien, Elkanah and KLi. his house went up *■' to o^er unto the Lord, the yearly facnfice, ye% *' we are told in the following verfe, that Han- ** nab and the child Samuel, tvent not up."

Strangr

( 120 )

Strange ! that inftances fo ill-adapted to the Au- thor's wants and views, fhould make their ap. pearance. Have we not an express exception of Infants and Children in thefe palTages ? Is not this exprefs exception made — not upon a princi- ple that will render them of ufe to Mr. B — not becaufe thefe children were incompetent to the a6l fpecified, or the defign thereof? Are we not TOLD that they were left at home? Other- wife, the phrafe, all the houfcy fo naturally includes the idea of a family as fuch, that fo far as thefe pafTages raanifeft, were it not for an ex- prefs exception, we had no bufinefs to prefume on the common topic of Antipaedobaptifts in* other parts of Scripture ; and conclude, they were not involved in thefe afts ?

" In the New Teftament, fays Mr. B. the " word houfe or houjehold is repeatedly ufed in ** fuch a manner as to exclude Infants. Thus, for " inftance, we are informed, that a man's foes " fliall be they of his own houfehold ; that a no- *• bleman at Capernaum believed and his whole " houfe ; that Cornelius feared God with all " his houfe ; that unruly talkers fubvert whole " houfes ; that Paul and his companion fpakc «' the word of the Lord to the Philippian Jai- ** lor and to all that were in his houfe ; that he *' rejoiced, believing in God with all his houfe, " and that the houfe of Stephanas addided them-

'* felvc»

( 121 )

^* felves to the miniftry of the Saints, in all which " examples Infants muft be excepted." The pur- port, for which thefe accounts are urged, is by no means fatisfaftory ; becaufe there is ground to con- ceive THE DESIGN, and therefore the meaning of them, to be foreign to the ufe they are applied to by Mr. B— Can it be imagined, that what is here related, of a man's foes being thofe of his own houfehold : of a nobleman believing with all his houfe, and of the reft mentioned in the quotation, was ever meant to infinuate. Infants made no part of their houfeholds ? If fuch was not the defign of the hiftory, is it not bold, (to exprefs my felf moderately) to interpret them as if every idea of Infants was to be excluded from thefe families, when it is unnatural to con- ceive of them without fuch members ? Is it not far more confiftent and proper to confider the line of diftin8.ion in reference to thofe who be- lieved, to be drawn, not between the different ages and capacities in the fame family, but be^- tween them and others ? Furfuing this clue, may they not be underftood to the following eife6l ? When Chrift obferves, a man's foes fhall be thofe of his own houfehold, he would reprefent his houfehold in fuch an hoftile (late, that from the aftual conduft of its adult members, and the infantile ftate of the reft, lie cannot ^gniider himfelf as having a friend in his own

^ houfe.

f 122 )

houfe. Anfwerable to this, is the view given us, in my apprehenfion, of the Nobleman and his houfe, Cornelius, and his houfe, &c. There were none who, in the judgment of charity, ought to be re- garded, as unbelieving irreligious perfons. The language of thefe pafiTages is not defcriptive of families, as divided among themfelves into In- fancy and riper age, but in reference to others promifcuoufly confidered. There is no ground, I apprehend, to confider in the facred writings, the believing chara6ler, ever oppofed to Infancy, but to maturer acre. As the circumftance of be-

o

lievers compofing a ''greater or fmaller part of a houfehold, is no proof, there are not Infants in it ; fo, as far as Infants are noticed in Scrip- ture, it is totally unwarrantable to put them on a level with unbelievers. Again : when we read of unruly talkers fubverting whole houfes; if it is not to be fuppofed, there were no Infants among them, query, nre they not involved in the fub- verfion ? Will the plea be urged, thefe houfes were fubverted by talking ? What is that to the. purpofe, while a blow at the root may change the (late, not of the ftock only, but alfo of the branches.

As to Lydia, whether flie was a married wo- man or fingle, (and Mr. B. imagines the latter mo ft likely from the phrafe, her koufchold) it is not very material. " But fuppofing her to have had

a hufband

( 123 )

" ahufband, as Philippi where (lie was merchan- " dizing, does not feem to have been the place ** of her dated refidence, but Thyatira. A6ls *' xvi. 14. it is the more unlikely i( flie had any " children, that Infants made a part of ihe houfe- " hold at the time to which the text refers." Thus Mr. B ; and is there net fomething extraor- dinary in this paragraph ? On the fuppofiiion that flie was a married woman, and Thyatira was her place of ftated refidence, the phrafe, her hoiifeholdy leads us to confider her at this time a- part from her hufband. Of whom, then, is it probab'e that her houfehold confifted ? Suppofuig that as a married woman (he might have chil- dren, and that Philippi, for a feaibn at leaft, was a place of her abode, is it not far more likely, that thefe were with the mother at this city, than with the father, at Thyatira ? Cuftom, if heard, will reply in the affirmative.— Leaving thefe things as minutiae which would have been unnoticed, had noi the work I am exan^iining re- quired it, let us attend to L) dia^ cafe. — When the Lord had opened her heart, tiiat Ihe attended to the things fpoken of by Paul, tiie next thing re- lated is, the Baptilm of HERSELF and HtR house- hold. A total (ilence is obferved concerning their number, age, or. character. The bare fatt of their Baptiim is recorded. Here then, is a PRECEDENT; and it is that of a household

O 2 not

( 124 )

not as a family of credible believers, for there \i riot one word whence we may conclude they were fo: no, not from v. 40. where Paul and Silas, be- ing liberated from prifon, are laid 10 enter into the houfe of Lydia, and when they hadfecn the brethren, they comforted them and departed. " Perhaps thefe *' Brethren were not of the houfehold. It might *' be fo. I find however, none but brethren in •* the houfe. When you are able to prove that *• Lydia had any children, I will pay uncommoa *' attention to the offspring of that amiable wo- " man." So writes Mr. Martin in his letters to Mr. Horfey. According to this mode of rea- foning, Lydia may as well be fuppofed to have no females in her houfehold, for fays Mr. M« very fagaciouflv, "I find none but brethren in the houfe." Whether we confider her as a fingle ■\voman or married, a houfekeeper, or in bufinefs^ this was very unlikely, and too improper to be true. Befides : are we at liberty to infer, that Paul and Silas had no brethren in the city beyond the limits of Lydia's family ? There is flrong reafon to believe the contrary, as the perufal of the chapter, and of the Epiftle addreffed by Paul and bearing the name of Philippians, will evince. The paifage cited fo far from meaning to deter- mine who were the members of Lydia's houfe- hold, plainly points out Lydia's houfe, where Ihc had conflrained Paul and Silas to abide, to be

the

( 125 )

ihe place where the brethren met for the purpofc

of an interview with Paul and Silas before they

departed.

In the fame chapter that we read of Lydia, an

account is given us of the Jailor. Several things in his cafe require feme attention. One is, the Apoftle's reply on his aflcing, what fliall I do to be faved ? Believe in the Lord Jefm Chrijl, and ihoiijhalt he faved, and thy houfe. Here, if I mif- take not, is a confirmation and inftance, how Paul, did, and minifters ought, to ^declare the Gofpel as it refpe6ls perfons promifcuoufly, whe- ther Adults or Children. He informs him of the way of Salvation for himfelf, and his houfe, of whomfoever they might confift. And is it not the doctrine contained in the bofom of his anfwer, that none can be eternally faved under the Gof- peUdifpenfdtion, without faith in the habit or the a6t ? — It is next obferved of Paul, and Silas, that they [poke the zuord to him^ (the Jailorj and all that were in his houfe* If, what is common upon much fmaller occafions may be fuppofed to take place here, the alarm which fo great an earthquake as then happened, mull occafion, would, when it was over, caufe fome to refort to thatfpot. This idea is offered, not without fome evidence in its favour from v. 35. And when it was day^ the Magiflrates fent the Sergeants^ faying^ Let thefe men go. They appear to have been acquainted with what had happened, and to have

alTembled

( 126 )

■aflembled for confultation, and early to have dif- patched meflengcrs to the pril'on to have Paul and Silas difcharged. The All in the Jailor's houfe, it is highly probable, were a mixed num- ber, confiding of thofe whom the circumftance of the earthquake had brought there, befides the Jailor's family. All, whatever difference of age might be among them, had, on this occafion of Paul's preaching, 'the given right to be preached unto, recognized. — The jailor and all his iuere baptized Jlr aightivay , " It is certain to a Jew, ** (fays Dr. Prie[Uey, whom Mr. B. occafion- ** ally quotes) fuch phrafes would convey the ** idea of the Children, at lead, if not of " domeftic flaves, having been baptized as " well as the head of a family. From the ** very firft promulgation of Christianity, it " could not but be manifeft that perfons were in- *' terelled in it, as individuals, and not as mem- *' bers of families or focieties. I make no doubt *' but Jhat in general, if there were Adults, Chil- ** dren or Slaves in a family, at the time that the ** Mafter profeficd himfelf a chriftian, they were *• not baptized without their own conlent, but *' no confi deration that can be fuppofed to have " occurred to jews, could have led them to make ** the fame exception in favor of Infants." Here then is ANOTHER precedent of household BAPTISM. Mr. Blake did not write inconfider-

ately

( 127 )

ately when he fays, '*We have examples not to be ** contemned of baptizing wholf households, *• and whether Infants were there or no, as it is- "not certain, though probable, so it 'is not *' MATERIAL. The precedent is an HO u s E HOLD. *• He that foUoweth the precedent, mud baptize ** houfeholds. It appears not that any wife was *' there ; yet he that followeth the precet^ent, •* mud baptize wives, and fo I may fay, Jer-m " vantSy if they be of the houfehold." — It is added, according toour Englifli tranflation : when he. had brought them into his houfe, he Jet meat hefore them, and rejoiced believing in God zuilh all his hoii'e. 1 he original anfvvering to the words Wi^^ all his hntfe, is-but one, and that word an ad* VERB, immediately following the verb, rejoiced, '• Adverbs are added to verbs to denote fome *' modificati Ml or circumftance of an atlion,'*. xow.TH — Was the Greek rendered lilerally and tidverhially, the Englifn would run thus, he (the Jailor) rejoiced housely. Certain it is, that in the pafTage, of which this is a claufe, the Jailor himfelf is immediately brought forward, ^^ ^et meat before them and rejoiced — then fol- lows the adverb, to denote fome modification or «ircain(lance-» of his rejoicing. So the Seventy feem to have underftood the fame \yord, by their tranfla'ing that palTage in the Old Teflament, ^QVi Ihek are the names of tks children of I/rae!,

which

( »28 )

which came into Egypt^ every man (paiioki) uiih his houfeholdy or according to the Greek houfely^ came with Jacob, Every man Aozi/f/y came! In- fants and all together. The verb, came, expreffes the mental difpofition, and local movement of the Head of the family — not to the exclujion of Adults who were willing and able to move — not to the exception of Infants, who maft from their age be paffive in this removal. In like manner, when it is related of the jailor, that he rejoiced houfe- ly, will not the fame mode of interpretation ap- ply ? Is it not evident, there was occalion for joy throughout the family ? The Jailor, there- fore rejoiced houfely — in relation to himfclf and his. The Adults of his houfehold rejoiced alfo. This admitted; yet the hiftory tells us he re- joiced houfely — not to the exclufion of Infants if any ; though as v/as obferved on the verb, came, in the other paflage, it requires a dif- ference of application to a ftate of age and infancy. The general ideas are, conformable to what is common, when a man with his family and as the head of it is faid to rejoice houfely, after a houfely manner, — all have occafion for joy — the Adults in it arc joyous — Infants as interefted in every matter of rejoicing to a family, are involved with the reft. This con- ftru6tion obtains a fandion from common fenfe, and common cuilom, as well ai from the Scrip-,

turs

( 129 )

lure-inftance produced before, and cited by Mr. B. though for a different purpofe. — Not On& word is faid of the Faith of ary of the Jailor's houfehold, but oHus own. The literal tranflation of the paflage according to the order of the words, is, he rcjo'ced houfely, having beheved in God. Whether Infants or Adults, or both, compofed the Jailor's fanily, they were all baptized. To in- fer, that true Faith is required in order to Baptifm from fuchan hiftorical cafe as this, when it is im- mediately and only made indifpenfible to Salva- tion— That the Jailor was baptized, becavfehe. be-, lieved, uhen if the order of thehiftory be regar- ded, he is not charafterized as a believer, till we are informed of his being a baptized perfon— that his family were baptized on a credible pro- feflion of faith, w hen not a word is faid about their believing — would be ftrange Logic indeed. Let only this kind of arguing be abandoned, and the cafe ftands plainly a natural precedent to houfehold-baptifm as fuch ; and Paul a baptizer

of them INDISCRIMINATELY.

What has been advanced, unlefs the reafoning can be overthrown, goes to prove the injullice and futility of the ufual ip\ta, Jilence of fcripture-^ No precedent — againCl Pzedobaptifts. What! Scrip- jurf fikni concerning children, when our Lord

R ha„

( ^3o }

has fo gracioufly and exprefsly pronounced tbera of the kingdom of heaven, included theiTi under the gofpel-ftate. Silent! when they are as natural- ly underftood by the term nations, the objefts of the commiflion, as Adults. Silent, when they are diflintlly and exprefsly mentioned in the promife urged by Peter, on the famous day of Pentecoft, and that in conneftion with Baptifm. Silent^ when houfeholds are faid to have been baptized, in fome of whom there is no account of the faith but of an individual j and when there is fuch reafon to con- fider believing among Adults in a family not op- pofed to the Infants thereof, but to the family-' flate of others. If we are not fatisfied with thefe things, what greater precifion have we a light to expeft ?

It is certainly a miftake, if there is weight in the preceding reprefentaticns, to confider Faith in reference to the Bapiifmal Ordinance, in any other light, than as a mean whereby the fubjeft of it becomes, not i7itiiled,hut rather difpofed, to let the Apoftles, according to the commiffion, dif- ciple them by baptizing. Pcrfeftly confident with this idea, are thofe hillorical paffages, Afts ii. 41. — xvi 34.— xviii. 8.

I am greatly miftaken if the ufual plea of no precedent, as well as no precept, may not be retor- ted on the oppofite party. Be it obferved, it is an cafy thing to fancy ourfelves in poffeffion of a

precedent

( 131 )

precedent from Jomt refemblance. Precedents can only be viewed as a fort of fecond Rules ; they involve in themfelves, both j&nWzj&/fS and anions ; and unlefs there is a conformity to both, it is only a partial deceiving imitation. This ap- pears to me to be the cafe with Antipaedobaptifts, when they engrofsto themfelves Scripture-prece- dents, as they refpeft Adults. Allowing their Baptifm of perfons on what is deemed a cre- dible profefTion, to be valid, yet, error is 3n- feparable from it. Examined by the principles and practices of New Teftament baptizers, both which muft be taken into account under the term precedent y they have none for their diflingidJJiing fentiments and praQice. There is good reafon to believe, that all who confented and all who did not diflent, were baptized". There is no inftance to the contrary ; but much othcrwife. Wbere do we find perfons attending on the miniilry in an unbaptized (late, from any objection to ad- minifter the Ordinance on the part of the of- ficiating minifter ? ^u(\gu^go\' principles by con- duft, is it not likely, that the Baptizers recoided in the New Teflrament, a6ted upon very differ- ent ones from Antipaedobaptifts ? Plence their difpatch, their numerous Adminiftraiions. Judge of their conduH by their principles and from the tenor of their preaching, it is not to be v/on- dered at, that they a6led with more fpeed, and

R s baptized

( 1Q2 ^

baptized greater numbers, than our differing friends, confillently with their principles could have done.

The utmoft after all, which Mr. B. feems to reft his caufe upon, is — the plea of its be- ing implied in thie fcripture. For, when Dr. Addington aflcs and anfwers, '* Is there no ex- ** prefs command of Chritt to baptize believers ? «' Not one in all the New Teftameni/'Mr. B. fubjoins, *'If by an exprejs command^ he mean thofe ** very words, baptize believers, it is allowed. " but what is that to the purpofe, while the ideas ** are as plaiiily and ftrongly expreiled as if the " identical words had been repeatedly ufed." No exprejs command in fo many words for baptiz- ing believers! Even Mr. B. concedes. The Lails on which the caufe of Catholic Bapiifm depends, is, a divine order to difciple all na- tions, or baptize and teach them under our Lord's commiffion. The identical words '* bap- " tize believers," and the hiftorical accounts wherein we read of Believers-baptifm are very different thing*. The one is an order, the o- ther relates to an hiftorical faft.

Upon the ftrength of what has been advanced concerning Baptifmal precedents, including prin- ciples and aftions, I conclude, that the Apoftles of Chrift treated the nations as having a given right to an evargelicaliy-inftituted ftate, that

Bap-

( »33 )

,-*"¥

Baptifm was adminiftered as appertaining ^ the general difpenfation of the Gofpel, and pcr- fons promifcuoufly made partakers of it.

IV. Thofe pa ffages require fome notice wViere- in perfons are addrefled as baptized. Of thefe, the following , by way of fpecimen, will be fuffici- ent. Know ye not that fo many of us as were baptized into Jefus Chriil were baptized into his death ? Therefore we are buried with him by Baptifm into death : that like as Chrift was railed up from the dead by the Glory of the Fat'ier, even fo alfo we Ihould walk in newnefs of life. Rom. vi. 3. 4. By one Spirit are we ail 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, I Tor. xii. 13. For as many of you as havt been baptized into Chrift, have put on Chrift. Gal. iii. 27. Buried with Him in Baptifra, where- in alfo ye are rifen with Him. CololT. ii. 12.

The htuation in which the perfons addrefled in thefe paflages are immediately placed, is, that of perfons baptized. The expreflions found in them, are plainly taken from the nature, defign, and ufe of the Ordinance itfelf. What is there in thefe reprefentations, to contradid the idea of Baptifm acceflible by, as well as incumbent upon, all indifcriminately ? Should not every one put on Chrift, fo far as this can be done by

the

C J34 )

the adminiftralion of the Ordinance ? Should they not be baptized in his death, that like as Chrift was raifed from the dead, they Ihould walk in newnefs of life ? Is Baptifm exprefiTive of the general incorporation of Jews and Gen- tiles, how fuitable to fuch a defign is the extenfive adminiftration of it contended for in this work ?

That children and fervants fhould not have their Baptifm formally and exprefsly pleaded and ur- ged as a ground of obligation in the Epiftles, i* a circumftance very ftrange to Mr. B. on the fuppofition they were to be baptized upon the Pae- dobaptift-plan. But where was the neceflity for it in Epiftles addrefTed to parents and matters di- reftly ? Does not a gardener by watering the root, water the branches of a tree alfo ? It is fufficient to have children and fervants noticed in fuch a manner, as befpeaks ihem regarded by the Apoftles under an evangelicaliy-infticuted ftate.

Thus I clofe this chapter, pleading the variety and importance of its contents to the fubjeft in view, for its length. It was begun with declaring the relative privileged ftate of the nations under the gofpel» to contain a fufficient title to the Bap- tifmal Ordinance, and to be a rule oF dire6lion in adminiftering it. Objedions to this idea have not been fhunned, but fought for, in feveral quarters where moft likely to be found. Nothing like an

infuperablc

{ ^35 )

infuperable difficulty arifes on examining, the re- lative change and the Baptifmal-ordinance itfelf— our Lord's great commiffion — accounts of Bap- tifmal Adminillration — or pafTages addrefled to perfons as or about to be baptized. On the con- trary, it is the Author's opinion, and fubmitted to the candid and impartial Reader for his judgment thereon, that every one of thefe four leading Divifions of this chapter, in various points of view^ confirms the caufe of Catholic Baptifm on the ground of a general right to it.

Chapte?

( i3« )

Chapter HI,

Brief Obfervations, ferving to ex plain y en- force, and recommend Catholic Baptifm.

TT AVING in the preceding pages offered rca^ -*■ -■■ fons for thinking that baptizing enters into the compofition of a difcipled ftate, difciple being accordingly to be underftood in our Lord's commlfTion, is ,confequently, a general term. " The far greateft part of the words that mal^c all ** languages are general terms, originating in rea- " fon and neceflity." Doubtlefs our Lord's ufe of them is to be traced to fuch an origin. Any other mode of expreffing himfelf would not have fuited the extenfive plan of his Grace, his high Authority, and therefore his Wifdom adop- ted it. To theformer obfcrvation of Mr. Lockej the following may be added as a guide in the ufe of general terms. *' Words, fays he, become ** general [and therefore to be treated foj by »* fepara'ing from them the circumftances of «* 1 ime and Place, and any other things that may *' determine them to this or that particular ex- '* illence," Anfwerable to this account, fome one

general

( ^37 )

genera! idea is conveyed by this capital word in the Commififion ; the force and the fpirit of the whole centers here.

Pertinent are Dr. Williams's obfervations on the fame terms in reference to the word baptize, if fubjefted to certain alterations. His words altered to our purpofe are : all general terms in the laws of God and man do not fix the mode as contra-diftinguifhed from thofe of determinate Specification. Terms being reducible to this two-fold diltribution, it is evident, that a wife Legiflator will ufe one or the other fort according to the defigri he has in view. If he means to dire8: his Minifters to the performance of a duty in a certain fpecific manner, he will employ fpe- cific terms. Thus if our Lord's defign had bee"', in the cafe before us, to enjoin teaching only or effentially, we fiiould have a word conveying that idea, whereas it has been Ihewn that the ori- ginal word properly rendered, difcipie, does not. If the language in which the law is promulged, does not afford fuch a word as abfolutely confines a Minifter to one thing, the remedy lies eafy in a circumlocution or an explanatory caufe. This remedy, the Legiflator has gracioufly beflowed upon us in the fubfequeni parts of the Commif- fion, for thus it runs, "Go ye and difciple all na- "tions." The general duty required in this 'ef^:fla- tive language is to difciple ; the manner in whica

S it

( 138 )

it is to be performed, is to be fought in the fe- quel, haptizingy teaching. It is the Will of Chrifi, as heie revealed, that all nations fliould be difci- pled. He utters a gracious royal mandate, that al! nations, jewifh ar^d gentile, fhould be haptiiedi taught^ or in other words, be minifterially fixed and recognized in an evangelically-inftituted, mo- ral-pofitive ftate of Worfhip. The term, difci* ple^ is apen but expreEs. Welt might an order of fuch extcniive grace and authority be intro- duced by the augull declaration, ALL POWER 13

GIVEM UNTO ME IN HEAVEN AND EARTH. It

demands our moft grateful admiration ; and the Tongue of Zacharias exhibits a pattern for our praife. Luke, i. 6'j.

The true do6lrine of pojitivc injiitutes is, con- fefledly, a matter of moment in this controverfy. Mr. B. therefore has very liberally fupplied his Readers with twenty quotations from Paedobap- tifts, containing, as he is pleafed to exprefs himfelf, "the grand principles of legitimate rea- foning" on the fubjeft. On a deliberate perufal of them, and weighing them one with another, I am prepared to affirm, there is not one of them which is not perfeftly confiftent with what has been advanced relathng to, and ia fupport of. Catholic Baptifm. The mofl leading principles in regard of pofitive inftitutes are the following: ** As they derive their whole Being from the

fovereign

( 139 )

« fovereign pleafure of God, fo his revealed * Will muft have given them their exigence un- " der every difpeniation of true religion. Con- " fequently, we cannot know any thing about " their precife nature, their true defign, the pro- «* per fubje^s of them, or the right modedfad- *' miniltration, further than the Scriptures teach. " They are determined by divine inftitution as to *' their matter, manner, fignification. — The ob- " ligation to obferve them, arifes not ffoni tlie ** goodnefs of the things themfelves but from ** the authority of God. — Our obligation to ob- ^* ferve them, does not refuli from our feeing the ** reafons of them but from the command of ** God.'' The admiflii>a of thefe principles is iiot hazardous to the caufe vindicated in this work. — On the contrary, fo far as divine Reve- lation is fubmitted to, as determining the exaH pofition, or Jituation^ as well as the nature, man- ner and fignification of Baptifm, it is imagined, that:the fituation it has been reprefented to occu- py in regard to our Lord's commifTion. better fuits a view of it fo far as a pofitive. Ordinance, than on the plan of Antipaedobaptifts.

While it is admitted, that a pofi'.ive inditute depends upon the divine authority. Caution be- comes us, that we do not make the blessed god a6l arbitrarily refpefling it. For, as one of the writers v?hoin Mr. B. quotes, obferves, " the

S 2 idea

( HO )

" idea of arhiirary, implies a weaknefs incom- ** patibletothe divine nature ; whofe perfeftioH ** it is, to do nothing but for fome vife reafon., " and for fome good end." A very laudable circumfpe6lion of the fame kind appears in the worthy Author of Anti-paedobaptifm examined, as the following paragraph evinces. " When " I fay that the obligation of pofitive laws refts ** on the mere authority of the Legiflator, let the •* Reader obferve, that this is not to be confound- ** ed with an arbitrary di/pojition in the Deity, " This diftindion is well defcribed by an elegant ** and philofophic pen : " When fome fpeak of ** the Will 0/ God, as the ride of duty, they do no,t ** mean a blind arbitrary principle of a6lion, but " fuch a principle as is direEed by reafon, an^ " governed by wifdom, or a regard to certain '* ends in prejerence to others. Unlefs we flip- '* pofe fome principle in the Deity analogous to *' our fenfe of obligation, fome antecedent affec- " tion, or determination of his nature, to prefer " fome ends before otbers, Vf'e cannot aflign any " fufficient, or indeed any poffible reafon, why ** he fliould will one thing more than another, or ** have any ele6lion at all. Whatever therefore, '* is the GROUND of HIS ci-ioicE OR wii.L mu(l " be the ground of obligation, and not " the choice or will itfelf. — That this is fo, ap- ** pe&r$ further from the common diilindion

*•' which

( J41 )

** which Divines and Philofophers make between ** moral and pojitive commands and duties. *' The Jormcr they think obligatory^ antecedent to ** will, or at leaft to any declaration of it; the " latter obligatory only in confequence of a po- ** fitive appointment of the divine will. But " what foundation can there be for this diftinc- •' tion, if all duty and obligation be equally the ** refult of mert will ?''

If there is no pofitive inftitute in the appoint- ment of which, it is not reafonable to fuppofe the Divine Being is fwayed by rcajons-y if the revealed ends of fuch an Ordinance may be numbered a- mong thofe reafons, which I think muft be allow- ed, two things follow in the way of juft conclu- lion. One is, what Dr. Williams contends for, that there is no entirely pofitive Ordinance. The other is, that the application or uje of a po- fitive ordinance cannot contradiEi or clajh with its revealed ends. To fuppofe a contradiftion between the Nature and Ends of an ordinance and the Ufe or Application, would be in efFetl an impeachment of the Wifdom of Deity. Whe- ther, therefore, Dr, W — s's fentiment on Baptifm is a mixed ordinance, partly moral and partly pojitive, be admitted, or whether we fay with Mr. B, ^* To conftitute any branch of religious duty ^* purely pojitive, it is enough that the Rite it- ^^ felf, the manner of performing it, the quali-

" fications

( 142 )

" fications of the fubjea, the end to be anfwere^ " by it, and the term of its continuance, de- «* pend entirely on the fovereign plealure of " our divine Legiflator," — it appears to me, that in either cafe, a regard to the divine Charafter making known the ends of the baptifmal Rite, juftifies an extenfive Latitude of adminiftration on this topic of argument, which our opponents cannot objeft to without begging the queftion.* External HoHnefs is a principle to which Mr. B. profefTes himfelf averie. Were fuch confe- quences, as this Writer intimates, neceifarily ap- pertaining to it, every Reader who has a juft

idea

* It is natural to conceive, of a positive iNjTiTure aftergrwo- »OLD manner. One is, to view and define it in the abftraft, or apart from any one particular Oidinance of that ndture. The other, as including not Only a pofitive inftitute in the abftraft, but fome pariicuhr rite revealed in the Bible. Now, isitnot plain and eafy to perctive the definition of a pofitive inftitute will vary accoiding to this diftinihon lefpetlin^j it ? Anfwerable to the former, which may be called iti primary view,; it is naturally defined to be, an institute, the rcaf^ns of which we do not fee, prior to the appointment and revelation of ir, refting oti thf ^T^RS AUTHORITY of the Inftitutor. In the other, or s Jcondary view of it, in refpeft of any particular pofitive rite, the whole of what is revealed muft be taken into account, and makes part of the dEfinition. The coa« fequence is, that accorc'ing to its revealed ufes and ends, it fhould be de« fcribed ; and therefoie of a mixed nature. The quotations of Mr. B — 's firft chapter fiom Pccdobaptift Wiitcrs, containing their accounts arid leai- fonings on the doftrine ot pofitive inftiiutes, appear to nie toinclude this two-fold dtfiuition However, then, the charge of novelty is affixed to Dr. W— 's reprefentation of a pofitive inftitute by his opponent, I cannot help thinking, it obtains the fanflion of thtfe learned Authors, who involve in their accountsof p jfitive inftuutious at LARCEjtbe diftinclioa above- aaeiit ioned >

( ^43 )

idea of the Gofpel-difpenration, muft explode it from its incompatibility with the genius of it* But if I may offer n:>y opinion, the whole force of Mr. B- — 's ol>je6lions depends upon cow/oztn<:^ ing things which are diftinguifhable. To ex- plain niyiclf: th$ general idea conveyed by the X^rmholy, in the Scriptures, i^s, a separation, as numerous Authors are at hanc^ to teftify, and feveral exprefsly in Mr. B — 's work. The O^^i- gin of this feparation is to be traced to the

WISE AND GRACIOUS WILL OF GOD. Ycjliall

ht to mt a holy nation. Exod. xix. 6. &c. Rites and Ordinances are but different weJ^i^ by which Holinefs as external, fhews itfelf. Thefe vary according to different difpenfations. It does- not therefore follow as a clear confequence, that be- caufe external Holinefs is maintained under the Gofpel-difpenfation, the Rites of the Jewifb GEconony are to be continued, in which idea, lie the bulk and. weight of Mr. B — 's objeftion. . Both as Icriptural and. natural, it is defenfible to affirm, that ext;:rnal Holinefs, in refpe£l of the thing itfelf, is not a jewiili peculiarity, l:?ut, common to al!, who from God's revealed, ?fz7/, may beconfidered as the obje6ls of a (landing exhibition of mercy* Ordained and fuitable to . the genius of the gofpel is the Baptifmai Rite, which, reafons and evidence have been offered in this work fqr confidering asa mean jointly with

the

( 144 )

the Ordinance of preaching, and alike expreffive of the relatively Holy State of mankind at large. What has been advanced on that famous paf- fagc, I Cor. vii. 14. in my firft chapter deferves particular regard. The unbelieving party is there- in unqueltionabiy reprefented in poffeffion of a fauBtty. I cannot forbear remarking, how im- probable it is at any rate, that Mr. B. rightly underltands that text, when the fenfe he puts up- on it, extorts this confeflion, " There is not an *' inftance in all the bible, that I recolleft, of the " word JanHihed being ufed precifely as it is in " this paffage. For where, I demand, where is it *' employed in the whole facred Code, to exprefs " that a8; or engagement between a man and a *' woman, which renders it lawful for them to " cohabit as hufband and wife ?" Then, furely, that fenfe is not very likely to be the proper one, which this Author gives it, even upon his own confeflion. An eligible one, it certainly is not, unlefs he deviates from his own approved rule of interpretation. This we learn, when he quotes, in another part of his work with marked approbation. Dr. Doddridge as writing thus : *' I chofe to follow the plainejl and mofl '* obvious and common interpretation, which indeed ** I generally think the befi. As it is certain that " arke\_ the Greek -word'] has not always that fignifi- " cation for which fome contend, I judge it fafe *' to give what is wortf co??jmow/y the fenfe of it."

Thus

( H5 )

Thus Mr. Booth may be left to fettle the merit and pretenfions of his interpretation of the term, hoJy on his own acknowledgment. — However, I would accompany him furtlier, when he obfcrves, ^' It " is highly probable, that the Apoftle is here '* fpeaking of two Gentiles ; one of them convert* " ed, the other an idolater, whom he forbids to *' feparate on account of the Chrirtjan Faith • " while, on the contrary, the Jews were com!» " manded to put away their heathcnijh Wivc*^ " even after having had idue by fuch mar- '* riagcs. Then the unbelieving party was, con- fequently, not to be reckoned heathcnijh, but holy. Now this Holinefs confided in a fepara» tion to God which the Heathen were without, and on this ground the Ifraelices were called up- on to put away a wife taken from among them. What, our Author advances as highly probable, coincides, upon his own illuftration, for ought that I perceive, with the idea of a general fan6lity iimong all nations under the Gofpel, which did not exift before.

That the Apcflie is performing the M'oik of a Cafuift, is plain, but in Mr. B — 's opinion, " The very doubt which Paul refolves, affords a " ftrong prefumptive argument, that it was not the •' cuftom for Apodolic MiniMers to baptize chil- *' dren ; fuch, at leaft, whofe parents were not both f- converted. The defign of Paul was to evince,

X " that

( hG )

»* that fuch converts as were married to unb^- ** lievers fliould rcjeft every thought of a fepara- ** tion on account of the Chriftian faith; becaufc

* that Faith was far from difTolving the matrimo- ** nial bond, and equally far from rendering their *' cohabitation unlawful : for it feemslhat adoubt

' of this kind was then entertained by forae who " were members of the Church at Corinth. But

* with what appearance of reafon fuch a query ** could have arifen, if it had been ufual in thofc " times to baptize the Infants of parents in this *' predicament, we leave our oppofers to fhew. «• For had that been a prevailing praftice, there *• wotild not have been the leaftfliadow of reafon *' for it J becaufe on the principles adopted by raa-

* ny oppofers, a pra6lice of that kind would have <* been an open avowal of fuch a marriage as valid, *' and as obliging to all the tender duties of the ** conjugal ftate." In anfwer to thefe remarks, it may be demanded, whether Mr. B — 's right to derive hence an argument againft the praQice of Infant-baptifm in thofe times, may not be juftly litigated and fufpefted, when the term fanBified^ vrhich he calls in one place the governing word of the fentence, obtains a fenfe in his reprefentation of it, which is peculiar to this paffage. Is it very confiftent, to fuppofc the ground of the doubt to be fomething commo7i, and the Apoftle's refo- Itttion of it to be in language never ufed to that

fame

( M7 )

fame /?rr-://^ purpoTe before as we read of in the Bible? The odds in favor of a different fenfc from Mr. B — 'sjsatleaft six hundred to one. The reafons bcin^ fo numerous and (Ironop againft his view of the pafTa^e, for which the reader is referred to Dr. Williams's work i[i re- ply, the prefumptive argument fought for againfl Paedobaptifm, comes to nothing that way. But if his fen fe and view of the paffage be allowed, it feems to me, that'hisconclufion againft Infant- Baptifm hence is not natural, but {trained : for when he afks, with what appearance of reafon fuch a query could have arifen, if it had been ufual to baptize in thofe times the infants of parents in this predicament ? Need I inform our Inquirer, of what frequently happens among profeflTors, namely, the exiftence of unreafonab^e fcruples, e- ▼en when they arc in pofTelfioji of circumfiances fufhcient to remove them. Tiiefe, it becomes Minifters to attempt to obviate where-cvcr and whenfoever they arifc : and is it fo very extra- ordinary, that Jovie (fuppofifig them recently- converted Gentiles) in the Ciiurch at Corinih, and we have no written account of any othc s, fiiould have fcruples of this fort, in rcfpeCt of their unbelieving Partners, to employ the Apoftle as a Cdfuilt after this manner? — But if we ad- vance a ftcp further, and in turn, afifamc a pre- fumptive argument in favor of Pdcdobapiiliii, it

T a m?M

( 148 )

thzf be done with as good and better a grace, than Mr. B. finds one againll it. For it is left to our oppofer to fheWj what ihere is in tlie naiure. drift and phrafeology of the paffage, that forbids our confidering the claufe, " e'/e .were your children ** unclean but now are they holy,'' as a Circumttance to which the Apoftle appeals, to convince the; c by the believing party, how groundlefs was his or her fcruple about dwelling with the un- believing. The objeQ; of the doubt entertained, "vvas the unbelieving adult. The offspring feem to be noticed collaterally in the refolution of the fcruple. If then any regard is due to \vhat has been advanced on the conneSlion be- tween external holinefs, and the Baptifmal Rite in the former pages of this work, does not this claufe concerning children afford a pre- fumptive argument in favor of Infant-Baptifm ? The Apoftle declares them holyy and it fhould appear he has recourfe to what was, would, or might be readily acknowledged of the offspring, to fhew the fanftity of the unbelieving parent, and the unreafonablenefs of the believer's think- ing to leave the oppofite chara8er on that ac- count*— Though, for argument fake, the pre- ceding remarks have been made conformable to our common order of the paflage in Englifh ; yet it is proper to remind the reader, thi oiher rendering iproTpofed Sit tht beginning of this

work

( H9 )

Work t (ee no reafon to relinquifh^ from any In- quiry made, or information obtained on the fubje£l fince. — Belides : fome of Mr. B — 's obfervati- ons on this controverted pafTage entirely co- incide with the ideas I have fuggefted, and the life to which it has been applied. For iiillance : •* The infpired Writer fpeaks in the preterpcrfe£k *• tenfe, hath been fandijied j expreffing an act ** COMPLETELY PAST." Again: '*it is frequent- " ly maintained by our oppofers,on the authority *.* of this paffage, that the unbelieving hufbandis in •* a relative fenfeholy, in virtue of his converted " wife, and it is plain, from the text, that as is the *' holinefs of the children^ fuch is the JanBiJication of *' the unbelieving parent. How comes it, then,that " the latter does not qualify the fubjeft of it for •' Baptifm, as well as the former ?" How indeed! Let Pacdobaptifts to whom this remark will apply, ward off the blow, as they are able ; fuffice it t6 obfcrve, it is favourable to the idea avowed in this work, and ivith other remarks^ inclines me to be of opinion, that fhould Mr. B. ever difmifs his prefent diftinguifliing fentiment, il will be ex- changed for one not lefs extenfive, than that of Catholic Baptifm.^ — Till fomeihing further is faid to difprove what has been urged, for Mr. B. in his defence waves a particular examination of V/hat Dr. Williams fays on the texts produced, leaving them as they are found in the fecond

vol urn c

( ^50 )

volume of Paedobaptifm examined, neither this paffage before us, nor others already noticed, can be relmquiflied as untenable pofls. For, re- fpefting " the courfe of argument on particular " paflages of the New Teftament" to ufe Mr. B — *s language, there is nothing in the way of objeftion but what has been or will be " dire6lly ** anfwered, or implicitly obviated."

When infilling on Infant-Baptifm, and Infant- Communion at the Lord's fupper, Mr. B. makes this declaration. " Were we, *• he fays," to " behold Paedobaptifm Jairly and entirely divor- ** ced from its old alTociate, Infant- communion ; " that being confirmed, while this is confuted ; *' one great impediment would be removed out of " the way of our commencing Paedobaptifts.'' Paedobaptifm is included in Catholic Baptifm, and it is fubmitted, whether on the great principles and arguments urged in the courfe of our ex- amination in favor of Infant and iVdult Baptifm, this divorce is not fairly and entirely efFeBed. — • It cannot reafonably admit of a doubt, that no pofitive infiitute, as it refpeds the adminillra- tor and fubjeft, has been fo enjoined, as to be done by the former at the expence of infringing the natural liberty of the latter. It is to be re- membered, there is a material difference between the two Ordinances in queftion as to their nature, (ituation, and way of adxiiiflion. A difference,

i»

( '5> )

is fufficiently, for our prefent purpofe, pointed out in the following wofds, the greater part of which is the language of an eminent Paedobaptift/ *' The mcharijiic riie is applicable to thofe only '* who may be deemed proper fubjefts of a par^ *' ticular churchy or chriftian congregation. '♦ They ought to be Jir/i baptized, it is true; " but this alone is not a (ufficient qualification. «* For as Dr. Gill well obferves : ♦' Baptifm ** isnot a church-ordinance ; I mean it is* not an •• ordinance adminiftered in the churchy but om^ of " it, and in order to admiffion into it, and eom- *' munion with it ; it is preparatory to it, and a '* qualijication for it ; it doe^ not 7nake a perfon a ** 7nember of a churchy or admit him into a vifi- ** ble church ; perfons mufl firft be baptized, " and then added to the church, as the three '* thoufand converts were , a church has nothing " to do with the baptilm of any, but to be (a- '* tisfied they are to be baptized before they are '* admitted intQ communion with it. Admiffion " to bapiifm \its Jolely in the breaft of the ad- ** miniftrator, who is the rn/j' judge of qu'alifica- *' lions for it, and has the fole power of re- ** ceiving to it, and of rejefting from it ; if not ** fatisfied, he may reje6l a perfon thought fit by a •* church, and admit a perfon to baptifm not " thought fit by a church — Saul, when convert- ■•' ed was imaiediately baptized by Ananias

withoyt

f 152 )

** without any previous knowledge and con» * fent of the Church, and it was many days " after this, that he propofed to join himfelf " to the difciples, and was received. Adis ix. 18, « 19, 23, 26—28."

Is it, then, admiflible, that Baptifm is not a church-ordinance ? Is it maintained, that admif- fion to it lies folely in the bread of the admini* ftrator, that if not fatisfied, he may rejeft a perfon thought fit by the church, and admit a perfon to baptifm not thought fit by a church ? Enough is granted in the above account to (hew that a participation of the Baptifmal Rite, and of the Lord's fupper, are very diftin6l things; and that thofe who are recorded, ABs ii.41. as baptized and are faid to have believed, might not have been added to the church, thouj^h believers in thejudgment of Peter, and a6luallv baptized bv him. What in this cafe would hinder ? I anfwer the consent witholden of the Mem- bers of that particular church, as not deeming the baptized party a proper candidate for their church-membcrfliip. Baptifm is a perfonal mat- ter, in truth, whereas the Lord's fupper being an Ordinance more directly focial, the admini- ftration of it depending on an aftual incorpora- tion wiih a particular church, it would be infring- ing the law of nature 5ind all order, not to allow a choice to the confederated body, as to

thf

( m )

the reception of its members. — Here it will be perhaps afls.ed by way ofobjedion — Are pariicu- lar church.es to att aslhey -plcafe, to exclude from tlieir focieties or admit into them whom they will ? To this it may be anfwercd — The word is their RULE, but then, where does it appear that it is the Will of Christ, that Infants and Adults pro- mifcuoufly fliould be admitted to the Lord's TABLE ? There is fuch a diftinftion obfervable in the Scripture-account of the two Ordinances, that to proceed to the fame extent in the one^as what we contend for in the other, would be in- deed, to aft, in regard of the Lord's Supper, without precept or precedent. That procedure, which in refpe6l of admiffion to the Lord's Sup- per, is requifite to fecure to a profeffing Chrif-- tian fociety, the excrcife of their right in the choice of their members, is both rational and fcriptural : hence rccourfe is to be bad to prn/ef. Jion on the part of the candidate. The church is guided by a judgment of charity, in forming which, as the medium of admiffion, they have refped to two things — the general ends of Church- memberfliip, — and the anfwerable capacity and promifing appearances of the candidate in refpeO; of them. A relation commences on the favour- able judgment of thofe who have a given right to admit, but it is after all conditional ; if occa- fion for a different opinion of the perfon ad-

U mitted

( 154 )

mitted is given, tbe Church has an acknowledged right to cut him off. — A perfon once baptized cannot be thrown back into an unhaptized jiatc. To avoid prolixity : I obferve that on juft the Jame grounds on which Infants are admitted to the Eaptifmal Ordinance under the wing of Catholic Baptifm, they are to be debarred from the Lord's Supper. Here then. Infant-communion is confuted on thofe very principles, by which In- fant-Baptifm is conjirmed.

Further, it is deferving of our notice, that what has been faid in fupport of Catholic Bap- tifm does not militate againft the real neceflity of DIVINE, PRECIOUS Faith, as to the faving life of every Ordinance. Inftead of making it void, this Plan abundantly eftabliflies it, for Ca- tholic Baptifm is brought forward as a joint-^ mean with preaching,immediately tending to this, as the Stai guided to Bethlehem. — The believing Parent in the baptizing of his houfehold, has here room to exercife faith in that glorious promife,

*I I WILL BE A GOD TO THEE AND THY SEED

*' AFTER THEE." Adults dcrive from the extcD- five adminiftration of this right, an additional exhibition of, and obligations to, the bleffings and ends connected with it. Whence I am led to remark,

That our Lord's Commiffion favouring Catho- lic Baptifm as we have feen, is direHivc to Minif- ters, promulging the Gofpel among a People

unacquainted

( ^55 )

mnacquainted with it. Ye, to whom this high com- miflion is given ! permit me to engage your atten. tion to the view taken of it in this work. It is

YOUR GREAT PASSPORT ALL THE WORLD OVER^

Y-c may proclaim in the ears of all that are afar off, your Redeemer's grant, by which they have a right to'be difcipled, or in other words, baptized and taught, rhe aHual enjoy- fnent of which nothing can deprive them of, but their own wilful and unreafonable diflenu How wide your fphere of adion 1 Earth, where-ever -tenanted by Man, makes part of that vaft Diocefe in which you are warranted to move. Hail, ye

HONOURED ITINERANTS OF THE MOST HIGH,

by whatever diftinftions -known among men • As ye refembie the Angel flying in the midft of heaven in refpetl of your movements, let it be manifeft, that like Him, you have the Redeemer's glorious commillion, the everlaiUng gofpel in your hand. Shew, that you have it ever be/ore you, that you would dire6l every tyt to it, ai;d gather the WHOLE EARTH undcT its banner, — How perfever- ingly (liould the Miniders of Chrid remind the difcipled according to his commiffion.of the advan- tages and obligations th-^nce ariling. WdS the general adminiilration of Baptifm followed with that inftruciion in private and public on the part of adminillrators anfwerable to the opportunities they have for it, the Redeemer's commiihon would

U 2 be

f 156 }

fee more faithfully executed, perlons receive grea- ter benefit, arid an additional argument, confe- quently be derivable from its experienced and ackno vledged utility.

Once more : ail that is requiu'e to fupport Catholic Baptifm, is the u!e of allowed principles and rules of interpreting the facred Scriptures. It will pafs the Ordeal of th;; loliowiug — '* The Bible only is the Rcli-ion of Pi otcftants." Tii I LLi N G WORTH. " It is a inanifeli miftake, in ** regard to Faith, and a clear evidence of pride, *' either to reject any cf tiicCc tilings which the '* Scripture c.;)^t^in^ ; or to intioduce r'.ny ih.ing *' that is not written in the Sacied pri.L;c,''' Basil. *' Where tlie Scripture is (iitnt, v;bo (hall '* ipeah ?'' Ambrose. — Ti.ere is b.n o-; c gen* •* uine fenfe of a text." ChA.Mu-R. "■ If it fth.e " Scripture] have not evcr\ wiuic o!ic pioper *• dcterruir.ate i'enfe, it has ncuie at all." Owi n^ *' Tiie true meaning of Scripture, is not cve- *' ty {ci;ie tliC words will bear, and pcrliaps may ♦* excite in the Reader's mir.d ; nor yet every lenfe *' that is true in itfelf ; but that which was really *' intended by the holy Writer.'' "W'euenfel- " SI us — " It is a principle with me. that the true " (Qn{t of any phrafe in the Nevv Tedament, is *' what may be called its Itanding fenfe; that *' which will be the Jirjl to occur to common peo- ple of every country and every age." a3r»

HORSLEY.-^

( 157 )

HoRSLEY. — " I am more and more convinced, •• that the vulgar fenfe of the New Teftament, ** that is, the fenfe in which an honeft man of '* plain fenfe would take it on hhfirjl reading the

*' ORIGI.\AL, OR ANY GOOD TRANSLATION, is al-

** moft every-where the true general fenfe of any " paffage.'* Dr. Doddridge. Thefe and fuch like principles and rules of interpreting Scripture, borrowed from the hand of our copious and la- borious colleftor, Mr. B, have not been deferted in the profecution of this work, neither are they dreaded, for, it is conceived, the Caufe afferted will ftand their fevereft fcrutiny, and come off with honour.

In refpe6l of Catholic Baptifm, as here defend- ed, I have attempted to bear in mind the fenti- ments contained in that excellent paragraph of Dr. Williams's in his letter to Dr. Prieftley. ** MY data, then, are divine revelation, *• and that only, and the whole of it. And it *' appears to me, on the matured rcfleftion, that " if Divine revelation felf-covipared doth not an- ** fwer that purpofe, nothing elfe will ; and that " whatever elfe is fet up for that purpofe, is " demoriftrably fallacious. The pojitrue evidence " of fcripture (as I have obferved elfewhere) ** holds the fame rank in theology, as experiment ** ted evidence does in reference to any hypo- '* thefis in philofophy. As, in the latter cafe,

** there

( 158 )

<^ there is no difputing in favour of a fyflem •* again/l faBSy phenomena, and experiments; fo, «' in the former cafe, no reafoning can be valid in ** oppofition to pofitive evidence, or exprefs dif- ** cernible authority. Common fenfe, right rea- *' fon, the opinions of the good and great, «* &c. have their ufe and an impoitant ufe, " in their proper places, but they are no data ** in Chriftianity. As to the order of in- " veftigation, preceding revelations, and Divine^ *' ly authenticated fafts, are the only fafe ruk " by which we ought to examine any particular " part of fcripture. Every foregoing difpenfa- ** tion of religion, and indeed, every revealed •* faO: is, I may fay, a torch lighted in heaven, « to illuminate thofe that follow, until we " come to the fealing of prophecy, or the end « of the canon; and every fucceeding one, to « the laft, refleas a ftill more abundant light « on all that went before. Wherefore, let all " that revere the authority of Heaven, all the " friends of revelation and rational inquiry, " attend more to this light, that fliineth in a *' dark place, and not (1 mean as the principal, « and only fafe means) not to the faH'e lights « of human opinions (early or late) in the « church, by following which we expofe our- « felves to wandering and danger every ftep « of our road, while in purfuit of truth and « happincfs. j^^^j^g

( 159 )

Having fuggefted thefe obfervations, it will, I truft, be attributed to perfonaJ conviQion 9nly, if I put a clofc to this volume, by obfer- ving — That as a given Point wh^-reon to ftand, ■was ALL Archimedes required to move the

World; fo, ON THE BASIS OF THE PRIVI-. LEGED STATE UNDER THE GOSPEL, THE MI-

KISTERS OF CHRIST MAY GO, DISCIPLE, BAP- TIZE AND TEACH ALL THE NATIONS OF IT,

FINIS,

INDEX to the QUOTATIONS.

K. B. The Numbers enclofed, refer to the Pages of this \'olLime, the other to the Works quoted* V. (lands for Voluaie, P. for Page.

AnOINGTON's Chriftlan Minlfter's Reafons, &c. <p. 32.) p. Ill —(p. 94-) p 126.

Baxter's plain Sciijiture-proof. (p. 7-) P- 80.

Booth's Pae loHaptilni Examined. .(Preface, p. xi.) Preface p. xi. — (pre. p. xii). pre. p. x. — (p. 13.) v. 2* p. 402. (p. 27.) V. I. p. 24— (p. 3^') vol. 2. p. 301. (p. 39) V. 2. 29S,— (p. 44). V. 2. p. 296.— (p. 56) V. 2. p. 19 — (p. 60). V. 2. p. 303. — (p 66.) V. 2. p. 501. Note.--Cp- 87J. p. 356 — (p, 119) V. 2. p. 362 —

(p. 120] V.2. p. 3&2.— (p. t22) V. 2. p. 363'— [P-I^y]

V. 2. p. 365-^[p 132.] V. 2. p. 69.— [p 138] V. I. P- 43~[P- 15S' ^39]- ^'- ^- P- ^9- '8.— [p. 139]. V. I. p.15.— [;>. 141] V. 2 p. 4-10— [p. 144]. V. I p. 74— [p. 145 j V. 2 p. 385— [p. 145] V. 2 p. 401, 4C2— [p. 149] V. 2 p. 398— [p. 149] V. 2 p. 397— LP- ^5'^] V. 2 463— [P^ 15'^'Jv- I P- 22, 71,72, 74.

Booth's Defence of Poedohaptilm Examined : or Animadverfions on Dr. WiIIiams'3 AntipaEdobaptifm Examined. [Preface, p. x] Pie. p. iv.-p-tPre. p. x.] Pre. p. V. — [Pre. p. xi.] Pre. p. iii. — [p. 104]. p. 447,

I N D E :5t»

448.— [p. 105] p. 448— [p. 112]. p. 443— '[P- '4»1 p. 165— [p. 150]. p. 467-

Boftwick*s Sermon on Infant Baptifm. [p. 83]. p. 8.9.

Butler's Analogy, [p. 8i]p.

Doddridge's Family Expofitor. [p. 24] vide i Cof- vii. 14.

Gill's Body of Divinity, [p 16. 151.] vol. 3. ip ^li^

Guyfe*s Paraphrafe on the New Teftament. [p 43^ vide Matth. 28. 19. Note.

Jortin's Remarks on Ecclefiaftical Hiftory: [pre. p» 6.] pre: vol. i:

Locke's EfTay on the human Underftanding. [p. 136] V. 2. Book, 3. Chap 3. p. 8. 9

Lowth's Introdudlion to Grammar, [p. 127] p. 93;

Martin's Letters to Horfey. [p. 124] p. 95.

Millar's Hiftory of the Propagation of Chriftianity. [p. 60] v. 2. p, 362.

Prieftley's Hiftory of the Corruptions of Chriftianity. [p. 126] On Baptifm.

Polycarpi et Ignatii Epls. [p. 34] Vide Epis. ad Ro- manos.

Sylvefter's Life of Baxter, [p. 114] p. 124: Turrettini Theologia.-^[p. 33.) De Baptifmo. Quoes^ XX. § vi.

Virgil, (p. 4.) Eclogue, iv, line 52.

Williams's Anti-paedobaptifra Examined, &c. (p i) V. I p. 260 — (p. 2') V. I. p. 264. — (p. 4) v. I. p. 264; ^p. 11.^ V, I p. 380— (^p. 20. 21). V. I. p. 120, 121, 123, &c. — (p. 26; V. 2. p. 231.— ('p. 30.^ V. 2: P; 389:— fp. 31.; v: I. p. 318— ^p. 32; V. p. 32S—«(p. 34> V. 2. p. 205--«(p. 88> v; i. p. 344. 345. 346. 347 —

INDEX.

t(p. i37.)» V. 2; p. 362. t(p. 140)) v.i: p: 23: note, p.* <p. 141. >v. .1 p. 33 «(p. 151 > V 2. 241.

Williams's Abridgement of Dr: Owen's Expofition of the Hebrews, 4p« i57-)» vide Letter to Dr. Prieftley, P- 343*

* Publiflied*

HISTORICAL and FAMILIAR ESSAYS, on the Scriptures of the Old Teitament ;

By JOHN COLLIER, Efq,

Late of Charter-Houfe Square, London ; now of

High- Wycombe, Bucks. In Two Vols. Price, los. 6d. Sold by S. Cave.

I. God manifejl in the FleJIi. A Sermon on Chriftmas-Day, 1791.

II. The Prodigal Son. A Sermon preached at High-Wycombe, Jan. 1792.

III. The good Samaritan. A Sermon preached and publiflied for the Benefit of the French Refugee Clergy, on Sunday, 2d. Tune, 1793.

By the Rev. W.WILLIAMS, A. B.

Curate of High-Wycombe ^ Bucks.

SOLD by the Printer, S. CAVE ; R. EEDES, High-Wycombe; by F. and C: RIVINGTOM, St. Prul's Church-Yard; DEIGHTOV, Holbom ; ASH, Moorfields ; M. TRAP, Paternoftei-Row ; PRIDDEN, Fleet- Street; MATTHEVv'S, Sttand ; DEBRETT, Piccadilly, London; and J COOKE, Oxford.

I. The Aged Saint in Life and Death. A Sermon occafioned by the Death of Mr. Matthew Miller; and preached at Rofs. Herefordfhire. Price 6d.

II. Hymns and other Pieces of Poetry on various SiiljeBs. Price is. 6d.

III. Our appointed Time conjidered. A Sermon occafioned by the Death of Mrs. Catharine Watkins, preached at High-Wycombe, Bucks. Piice 6d.

By the Rev. WILLIAM MILLER.

%* To be had at the fame Places as this Work.

atter adopt, read partly, p. irr j . ir V ^A' ' 3- read antipa^dohaptlf}. ^ ^ ' ' ^' ^""'^ P^^haptiji

•0^ 'iusii4vQ no 'jjoj aiJiiS\/'

•Bj 'v:u|cl|Ppp|iL](j jO M9uBv pnuieg ji/\| X^q pPHisssjj

^ ^'y.'i^cjojiisi 3V ^*