Skip to main content

Full text of "An argument between an Anabaptist and a Methodist on the subject and mode of baptism : to which is prefixed a letter to the publisher"

See other formats 


■fz  <■■■>    ■ 

'•el..  «.     '    !         ' 

i      C         <- 

-.•;OCc<XL- 


J 


- 


STATES 


«SCL 


«:  ex. 
I      MC     ' 


m 


ts«C 


t 


5  CT 


C ,       4 

C     <?  .'■-    (';: 
C'j 

.  c    <c  -   ■ 

g£  <         < 


$5k-  <fc 

x;  -  m: 

! 

cir 


<r 


S3 

C        - 


€     XLTc 

-r      ■<: 


O 

<  .■"<- 

-    t 


! 


c   «rc-«ec:: 

■ 


CO   • 

:  •-: 


<   . 

c 

'Cv. 

c      c  .; 
-  -c 
C       '■' 

It 


C 

c 


c:  <c 


«?■■■    «^ 

i 
.  c  -  « 


C<k 

c 

c£ 

c<f 

®6 

■ 

."•■ 

<0 

■i_ 

~ 

." 

'  ' 

" 

■ 

s 

<      c 

= 

c 

^  _ 

= 

c 

■•' 

--  - 

c 

<- 

! 


X 


AN 


ARGUMENT 

BETWEEN  AN 

ANABAPTIST  and  a  METHODIST, 

ON  THE  SUBJECT  AND  MODE  OP 

BAPTISM. 


TO  WHICH  IS  PREFIXED 

A  LETTER  TO  THE  PUBLISHER 


Acts  ii.  29.  For  the  promise  is  unto  totj  and  to  your  children. 

2  Thess.  ii.  15.  Therefore,  brethren,  stand  fast,  and  hold  the  Traditions 
which  ye  have  been  taught,  whether  by  Wohd  or  our  Epistle. 

Isaiah  lxv.  23   For  they  are  the  seed  of  the  blessed  of  the  Lord,  and  their 
offspring  with  them. 

Jer.  xxx.  20.  Their  children  shall  be  as  aforetime. 


PUBLISHED  BY  A  MEMBER  OF  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND 


WITH    AN    APPENDIX,     CONTAINING    SEVERAL 

INTERESTING  ash  WEIGHTY  EXTRACTS. 


■aBOHESBE&Mki 


FREDERICKSBURG  : 
Re-printed  bx  Green  and  Cadx.— 1814. 


TO    THE 

Sfccerend  Mr.  Devereux  Jarratt,  Hector  of  Bath  Tarfsh 
in  tlw  County  of  Binwiddie,  Virginia* 

Dear  Sir,- 

THROUGH  the  friendly  offices  of  one  whom  we  both  es- 
teem affectionately,  I  have  had  the  pleasure,  though  at  this  dis- 
tance, of  being  introduced  to  you.  But  an  introduction  merely, 
admitting  it  were  even  personal,  attended  likewise  with  all  that 
benevolence  and  christian  courtesy  for  which  you  are  distinguish- 
ed, could  not  complete  my  wishes  :  I  would  desire  to  know  more 
perfectly. — I  could  look  upon  myself  entirely  fortunate,  only  in  en- 
joying a  continued  long  acquaintance  with  the  person  who  had 
endeared  his  character  to  me  so  much  as  you  have  done,  by  his 
first  kind  manifestations  of  himself. 

The  men  of  our  order  and  communion,  are,  at  this  time,  thinly 
scattered  in  the  land  ;  and,  through  a  difference  of  opinion,  it  may 
be,  in  some  matters  that  are  in  a  great  measure  foreign  too  from 
our  business,  and  by  reason  of  sundry  local  circumstances,  the 
few  there  are,  enjoy  but  little  intercourse  with  one  another  ;  they 
feel  themselves  precluded  somehow  from  strengthening  each 
others'  hands  ;  they,  possibly,  do  not  enough  endeavour,  in  har- 
monious affectionate  conjunction,  to  carry  on  the  glorious  work 
assigned  them  by  their  blessed  Master.— I  ardently  long  for  an 
increase  of  our  number  ;  a  perfect  union  of  our  hearts  ;  a  sympa- 
thy divine  to  operate  continually  within  us,  as  the  band  of  an  in- 
dissolvable,  most  sacred  fellowship. 

The  obliging  letter  you  were  pleased  to  write  me,  not  long 
since,  came  seasonably  to  hand  ;  and  brought  with  it  no  small 
share  of  consolation  :  it  breathes  not  only  the  tenderness  of  pri- 
vate  friendship,  but  a  general  liberality  of  soul  and  sentiment,  an 
expansive  glow  of  entire  good-will  towards  all  mankind  ;  the 
heart-felt  wish,  that  our  Redeemer's  gospel  in  its  life  and  energy, 
may  every  where  be  published  and  received,  producing  meraTS 
bright  and  pure,  Jike  the  Heaven  its  doctrines  point  to-, 


C    »v     ) 

I  do  not  know  indeed  what  can  alleviate  our  present  tribula- 
tions, except  the  symptoms  here  and  there  appearing  among  the 
people,  of  life  not  quite  departed  ; — of  penitence  reviving ; — of 
reformation  and  spirituality  taking  place,  in  some  degree — the 
promise,  I  would  hope,  of  their  spreading  deep  and  far  ;  the  ear- 
nest also  of  a  full  preparation  for  that  prosperity  which,  we,  trust, 
the  Lord  will  send  us,  after  the  tedious  "  years  wherein  we  have 
ft  suffered  adversity/* 

With  you,  therefore,  I  can  rejoice  in  the  healthful  operations 
of  grace;  the  rise  and  progress  of  unaffected  piety,  wherever 
they  are  found — bearing  the  most  intimate  relation  to  a  church, 
whose  purity  and  excellence  we  pre-eminently  revere ;  while  we 
regard  each  faithful  Fellow-Minister  and  member  of  it  with  af- 
fection peculiarly  fervent :  this  shuts  not  out  from  our  esteem 
and  love  so  much  as  one  individual,  whether  Minister,  Teacher, 
or  private  person,  of  whatsoever  sect,  description,  or  denomina- 
tion, who  follow eth  Christ  Jesus  in  sincerity. 

You  have  taken  notice,  I  observe,  of  the  introduction  of  Me- 
thodism into  Virginia  about  seven  or  eight  years  ago,  by  some  of 
Mr.  Wesley' *s  preachers  ;  and  mention  your  early  examination  of 
their  principles  and  intentions ;  the  result  of  which  was,  that  you 
found  them  to  be  members  of  the  Church  of  England,  and  averse 
from  a  dividing  spirit ;  that  although  you  had,  no  doubt,  your  ob- 
jections and  pre-possessions  against  men's  preaching  without  or- 
dination ;  yet,  upon  the  whole,  after  reading  and  considering  Mr. 
Wesley9 s  reasons  for  this,  you  acquiesced,  and  favoured  them  as 
much  as  you  possibly  could  ;  that  ever  since  the  good  effects  of 
their  labours  are  apparent  and  considerable. 

My  particular  acquaintance  with  this  plan  and  people,  is  of  a 
more  recent  date.  I  view  them,  however,  in  the  very  same  light 
that  you  do  ;  and  take  a  pleasure  in  countenancing  them.  For 
this  cause  some,  it  may  be,  are  offended.  But,  on  what  reasona- 
ble grounds  ?  Do  not  both  preachers  and  the  people  in  connec- 
tion with  them,  regularly  attend  the  ministrations  of  the  Church  ? 
Or,  is  it  not  a  standing  order  among  them  so  to  do  ?  Do  they  not 
adhere  to  the  doctrines  of  the  church,  approve  of,  and  observe  its 
discipline  ?  Do  they  not  look  to  us  for  the  ordinances  ?  They  do 


not  consider  themselves  as  a  separate  sect  ;  they  have  guarded 
against  this  roost  cautiously.  They  cannot  possibly  fall  off  from 
the  Church,  without  breaking  through  their  essential  fundamen- 
tal principles  repeatedly  and  publickly  declared.  Wherefore 
then  should  we  reject  or  disown  them  ?  Why  should  we  behave 
unfriendly  towards  them  ? 

Lately  I  have  been  favoured  with  the  sight  of  a  manuscript 
pamphlet  containing,  in  the  form  of  a  Dialogue,  a  disputation 
more  especially  concerning  Infant  Baptism.  The  preface  closes 
with  the  signature  of  "  A  Member  of  the  Church  of  England." — 
I  am  informed,  and  it  gives  me  satisfaction,  that  my  honoured 
brother,  to  whom  this  letter  is  addressed,  is  both  the  Editor  and 
Author.  It  was  very  suitable  to  conduct  the  argument  in  this 
familiar  way — in  phrase  and  reasoning,  level  to  common  under** 
standings.  The  characters  brought  together  on  the  occasion,  arc 
aptly  pitched  upon  ;  for  it  seems,  that  in  your  state  particularly, 
as  well  as  in  some  parts  ©f  this,  and  in  sundry  other  places,  the 
Anabaptists,  or,  as  they  would  rather  style  themselves,  the  Bap" 
tists,  are  assiduous,  now  in  particular,  to  press  the  Methodists 
on  this  subject. 

Thinking  that  they,  from  principle,  or  many  of  them,  perhaps 
from  custom  merely,  hold  the  validity  of  Infant  Baptism  ;  yet, 
very  probably,  have,  in  general,  never  attended  to  the  subject,  as 
a  matter  of  controversy  ;  or  furnished  themselves  with  polemical 
reasons  for  it ;  when  there  appears  among  them  a  solemn  deep 
concern  about  salvation;  when  there  is  a  considerable  moving 
among  the  people  ;  a  spiritual  work  having  been  begun,  and  thro' 
its  efficacy  conveyed  peace  to  many  souls,  and  an  earnest  striving 
after  purity  in  the  complete  will  of  God  ;  then  cometh  one  or  ano- 
ther of  these  zealous  friends,  in  a  public  sacred  character,  at  first 
seeming  warmly  to  encourage  the  work,  declaring,  enforcing, 
the  great  essential  truths,  in  which  all  are  agreed.  Having  in 
this  way  rendered  themselves  acceptable  in  their  measure  as 
joint-laborers,  agreeable  to  the  divine  system  of  grace;  present- 
ly they  step  into  their  favorite  grounds — open  their  distinguish- 
ing tenets — and,  with  other  things,  suggest,  especially  to  the 
Weak  and  doubting,  the  insufficiency  of"  baby  sprinkling ;"  and 


(     vi     ) 

strive  to  persuade  them,  that  their  peace  can  in  no  sort  be  sound^ 
nor  their  standing  comfortable,  until  they  go  yet  deefier  into  bafi~ 
dismal  water. 

I  look,  with  reverence  upon  honest  zeal,  by  whomsoever  pos* 
sessed  ;  but  pity  that  which  hath  not  thorough  information  for  its. 
basis ;  or  which  principally  aims  at  proselyting  to  the  destinations 
of  a  party  ;   or,  at  the  best,  spends  itself  in  non-essentials. 

If,  hence,  controversy  does  at  times  unavoidably  arise,  I  see 
not  what  can  be  done,  but  to  make  the  best  of  it ;  desiring  in  sim* 
plicity  and  godly  sincerity,  to  find  and  hold  the  truth.  In  the 
course  of  such  candid  enquiry  and  endeavour,  all  tenderness  and 
charity  should  be  cultivated  towards  those  who  are  opponents. 

The  matters  treated  in  your  Dialogue  are  not  merely  such  as 
Methodists  alone  are  concerned  in  ;  they  relate,  many  of  them, 
in  particular  to  the  whole  Church,  with  which  we  are  in  commu- 
nion ;  and  the  rest,  in  common  with  that  Church,  to  almost  all 
the  Churches  in  the  world.  This  consideration,  I  believe,  indu* 
ced  you  to  become  the  writer,  and  hath  afforded  me  the  pleasure 
<&f  being  one  of  your  earliest  readers. 

I  am,  with  most  affectionate  regard, 

Dear  Sir, 

Your  brother  in  Christ, 

and  faithful  servant, 

A  Clergyman  of  the  Episcopal  Church 

Dover,  Delaware  State,  March  27,  178L 


{  VII  } 

TO  THE  READETC. 

THE  following  Argument  between  an  Anabaptist  and  a  Me* 
th%dist,   was  occasioned  by  the  publication  of  a  late  Dialogue  be~ 
tween  Mr.  Traditionist  and  Mr.  Scripturist,   on  the  Subject  and 
Mode  of  Baptism.     I  had  no  intention,  at  first,   of  making  this 
public^  notwithstanding  I  was  particularly  made  acquainted  with 
the  Discourse  contained  herein.     But  having  shewn  it  to  some  of 
my  friends,  who,    believing  it  might  be  of  use  in  preserving  many 
well-meaning  people  from  error,  were  urgent  for  its  being  sent  t» 
the  press;    I  told  them  that  I  had  several  reasons  against  what 
they  urged  ; — 1.    That  I  had  no  ambition  of  commencing  arc  Au- 
thor ;  but  rather  an  aversion  to  it.     2.   I  scarcely  thought  the  Dia» 
logue  referred  to,  deserved  any  reply,  much  less  a  public  one. — - 
3.  I  found  that  when  I  was  answering  a  piece,  abounding  with 
so  much  abuse,  vaunting,  quibbling  and  trifling,  it  required  a  very 
strict  guard  to  maintain  that  temper  and  decency  which  becomes 
the  Christian.    4.  1  remembered  that  the  wise  Man  says,  "answer 
not  a  fool  according  to  his  folly,  lest  thou  be  like  him." — Prov.  26, 4, 
By  which  words  I  understood,  that  it  is  often  best  to  answer  things 
§fa  trifling  nature,  by  silence  and  contempt.     And  this,  at  first,  1 
thought  the  best  way  to  answer  that  Dialogue.     But  here  again  X 
was  put  to  a  stand  by  the  5th  verse  of  the  same  chapter,  which  says 
w  answer  a  fool  according  to  his  folly,  lest  he  be   wise  in  his  own, 
vonceit."     By  which  I  understood  that   there  are   times,  when  it 
becomes  necessary  to  answer  trifling  arguments,  lest  he  who  makes 
use  of  them  should  conceit  himself  so  "smart"  that  no  man  dares 
to  encounter  him,  and  his  arguments  so  strong  that   they  cannoS 
be  answered  ;  and  so  will  interpret  silence  as  a  concession  of  victo- 
ry ;  and  thus  he  may  be  confirmed  in  error,   and  others  receive  Hi 
impressions  thereby.     For  this   cause,  it  is  at  times  necessary   to 
expose  the  futility,  and  detect  the  fallacy  of  his   arguments,  audi 
turn   them  upon  him  in  his  own  way  ;  that  so  his  pride  may  be 
mortified,  though  he  should  still  obstinately  persist  in  his  opinion. 

To  avoid  mistakes,  I  beg  the  reader  to  observe,  that  I  don*M 
mean  to  insinuate  that  the  real  Authors  of  that  Dialogue,  for  ra- 
fixer  the  Authors  of  the  m&lermts  of  which  it  h  tsmfiosed  )  wetQ 


(      VIII      ) 

men  who  wanted  eense.  Far  from  it:  Dr.  Gill,  Abel  Morgan, 
Philip  Cary,  &c.  did  not  want  sense.  But  still  their  arguments 
on  Baptism  are  exceeding  trifling  ;  and  the  reason  is,  because  they 
have  no  foundation  in  truths  reason  or  scripture .  And  hence  it  is 
that  you  find  them  tur?iing  and  twisti?/g  every  way.  Sometimes 
you  will  see  them  running  back  as  far  as  Melchisedec,  JVoah,  Ar- 
phaxad,  Lot,  &c.  and  the  next  time  you  have  sight  of  them,  they 
are  dragging  in  poor  Uzsah  and  the  cart ;  and  other  things  of 
the  same  colour,  which  have  no  more  to  do  in  disproving  the  Bap- 
tism of  Infants  than  the  transmigration  of  Souls.  For  this  reason 
they  are  also  obliged  to  raise  a  dust  before  them  wherever  they  go  ; 
and  mingle  abundance  of  raillery  and  abusive  epithets  with  the 
rest,  in  order  to  supply  the  place  of  argument. 

But  to  return  : — I  have  mentioned  four  objections  I  had  against 
publication  ;  which  were  answered  to  my  satisfaction  ;  and  there- 
fore I  agreed  to  send  the  Argument  out  into  the  world,  without 
any  apology  for  its  want  of a  better  dress.  They, for  whose  bene- 
fit it  is  intended,  will  not  find  fault  because  it  savours  not  of  polite 
literature.  It  may  appear  indeed  to  the  more  judicious ,  that  some 
things  are  grovelling  ;  but  then  they  will  consider,  that  I  could 
not  well  rake  in  the  dirt  without  stooping  low. 

Many  pious  and  learned  men  have  written  in  favour  of  Infant 
Baptism  ;  and  I  think  have  fully  proved  the  point  from  scripture, 
reason  and  antiquity.  Baxter,  Flavel,  Wall,  Bostwic  and  others, 
have  done  this.  But  the  arguments  of  many  of  these  authors, 
Baxter,  Flavel,  &c.  though  very  conclusive,  are  yet  too  long  and 
too  deep  for  many  capacities.  Something  shorter,  plainer,  and 
more  level  with  common  understanding,  seems  to  be  still  wanting. 
Besides,  no  author  that  I  know  of,  has  so  far  condescended  as  to  an~ 
swer  the  Anabaptists  in  their  own  way,  which  I  think  is  necessary. 
For,  you  will  observe,  that  notwithstanding  all  their  vaunting  and 
boasting  of  being  able  to  bring  such  a  vast  number  of  scriptures 
into  the  field  of  controversy,  sufficient  to  drive  all  before  them; 
yet  when  they  come  to  dispute  the  point,  they  keep  themselves 
within  their  trenches,  stand  only  upon  the  defensive,  and  endea* 
vour  to  keep  out  of  the  way  of  our  strokes,  or  raise  a  dus*  that 
they  ?nay  not  be  sec?i. 


(     ix    ) 

My  firincifial  business  has  therefore  been  to  drag  them  out  of 
their  subterfuges  ;  to  oblige  them  to  rally  their  forces,  that  we 
might  see  their  strength,  and  the  numbers  they  talk  of  When  I  ef- 
fected this,  I  stood  a  little  while  on  the  defensive,  till  the  enemy  had 
brought  ufi  all  his  forces  to  the  charge.  By  this  manoeuvre  the 
weakness  of  our  enemies  was  soon  discovered  ;  and  fighting  them 
with  their  own  weapons,  they  were  so  galled  that  they  were  glad 
to  get  off  in  the  best  manner  they  could. 

Should  any  ftretend  to  say,  I  have  not  answered  all  the  argu~ 
ments  in  the  Dialogue,  because  I  have  not  mentioned  every  ward  in 
it,  nor  rehearsed  every  particular  ;  to  such  I  would  say,  if  any 
man  can  shew  me  one  argument  in  that  Dialogue  against  Infant 
Baptism  that  I  have  not  answered,  let  him  point  it  outj  and  an* 
swered  it  shall  be.  But  I  am  satisfied  I  have  taken  in  the  whole 
substance  of  every  objection,  which  is  worthy  the  least  notice.  And 
moreover,  because  I  am  made  particularly  acquainted  with  the  way 
and  manner  of  the  Anabaptists  ;  and  the  many  methods  they  take 
in  their  private  conversation  and  publick  preaching,  to  lead  the 
weak  and  unwary  astray,  I  have  also  taken  notice  of  some  of  these 
over  and  above  what  is  in  the  Dialogue. 

The  accurate  reader  will  see  the  reason  why  I  move  so  often 
from  place  to  place,  backward  and  forward.  I  have  to  do  with  a 
shifting  adversary,  and  I  am  obliged  to  follow  him  or  else  lose 
sight  of  him.  Every  one  acquainted  with  the  way  of  reasoning 
adopted  by  the  Baptists,  will  see  that  I  could  not  answer  them  in 
their  own  way,  agreeably  to  my  design,  without  condescending  to 
this  method. 

Hoping  the  discerning  and  impartial  reader  will  see  how  vain  the 
boasting  of  our  antagonists  is,  hoi  unscriptural  all  their  pre  tend t  d 
arguments  are,  and  what  a  manifest  design  of  deceiving  the  igno- 
rant, runs  through  the  whole  Dialogue  ;  I  conclude  by  subscribing 
myself 

A  Member  of  the  Church  of  England* 


(  *  ) 


AN  ABGUMENT,  $e. 

Anabaptist.  ~WELL'  0ld  ^"^  howdoy°udo?  la» 
v  "     glad  to  see  you.     I  hear  you  have  got 

an  experience  of  grace  since  I  saw  you. 

Methodist  I  trust  you  hear  nothing  hut  the  truth  :  I  have 
reason  to  helieve  God  has  dealt  bountifully  with  me,  and 
has  pardoned  my  sins. 

Jlna.  It  is  a  great  mercy  !  I  should  be  glad  to  hear  your 
experience. 

Metho.  I  am  not  ashamed  to  tell  the  whole  world,  what 
God  hath  done  for  my  soul.  However,  it  might  be  too  te- 
dious, at  present,  to  descend  to  particulars ;  let  it  suffice  to 
say,  that  being  awakened  to  a  sense  of  my  danger,  I  received 
the  spirit  of  bondage  to  fear  $  and  crying  to  the  Lord,  he 
gave  me  the  spirit  of  adoption  :  I  found  rest  to  my  soul ;  the 
love  of  God  was  shed  abroad  in  my  heart,  and  the  light  of 
his  reconciled  countenance  was  lifted  up  upon  me. 

Ana.  I  love  you  sincerely  :  I  could  freely  give  you  th# 
right  hand  of  fellowship.  But  one  thing  now  and  all  is  well ; 
and  when  that  one  thing  is  done,  you  will  be  much  happier 
than  you  now  are. 

Metho.  I  am  much  happier  already  than  ever  I  expected, 
or  thought  it  possible  to  be  in  this  world.  But  I  know  I 
have  not  only  one,  but  many  things  to  do  yet.  I  must  fight 
the  good  fight  of  faith ;  watch  and  pray,  to  keep  myself  in 
the  love  of  God  ;  and  grow  daily  in  grace  and  holiness  :  I 
must  go  on  to  perfection,  and  not  rest  in  what  is  already 
done.  And,  I  believe,  when  I  love  God  with  all  my  heart, 
and  am  sanctified  wholly,  I  shall  be  much  happier  than  I 
am  at  present. 

Ana.  How  that  may  be,  I  can't  tell.     I  know  my  hca*t 


(  2  ) 

is  very  unclean;  it  is  deceitful,  and  desperately  wicked* 
above  all  things  ;  and  I  expect  it  will  remain  so  while  I  live. 

Metho.  Then,  I  am  sure,  you  cannot  go  to  heaven,  when 
you  (lie  ;  for  no  unclean  thing  can  enter  there.  Like  must 
go  to  like  ;  only  the  pure  in  heart  shall  see  God. 

•Ana.  For  my  part,  I  am  a  poor  sinner :  I  commit  sin 
every  moment :  but  my  comfort  is,  I  know  I  can't  fall  from 
grace. 

Metho.  I  doubt  you  are  fallen  from  grace  already.  For 
the  scripture  says,  ««  the  soul  that  sinneth  shall  die,  and  he 
«« that  is  born  of  God  doth  not  commit  sin." 

Ana.  I  don't  want  to  talk  about  this.  That  was  not  what 
I  meant,  when  I  said,  y$u  have  one  thing  to  do  yet, 

Metho.  What  then  ? 

Ana.  Baptism.  Have  you  seen  no  necessity  of  going  into 
the  water  ? 

Metho9  Now  you  have  got  into  your  own  element.  But 
what  am  I  to  go  into  the  water  for  ? 

Ana.  Does  it  not  lay  upon  you  as  a  duty  to  be  baptized  ?■ 
Are  you  not  convinced  in  Baptism  *l  I  hope  you  will  be,  if 
| on  are  not  already, 

Metho.  I  make  not  the  least  doubt,  but  my  parents,  who 
professed  Christianity,  took  care  to  present  me  to  God  in  the 
ordinance  of  baptism.  I  was  then  washed  with  water  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghost,  whereby  I  was 
made  a  visible  member  of  the  christian  church  :  and  what 
occasion  have  I  to  be  baptized  again  ?  Baptism  can  do  no 
more  for  me  than  it  has  done  already. 

Ana.  I  suppose  you  mean  baby  sprinkling.  What  good 
do  you  think  sprinkling  can  do  an  infant  ? 

Metho.  I  have  told  you  one  thing  already,  I  was  thereby 
made  a  visible  member  of  the  church  :  And,  by  virtue  here- 
of, since  I  knew  the  goodness  of  God,  I  have  been  admitted 
to  the  communion  of  the  church,  by  her  Pastors  or  Minis- 
ters.   But  as  you  seemed  to  ask  me  with  a  sneer,  what 


(    s    ) 

good  baby- sprinkling  does  ?  I  ask  in  my  turn,  with  all  chris- 
tian gravity,  what  good  your  adult-dipping  has  done  you? 

Ana,  Nay,  I  don't  say  it  has  done  me  any  good. 

Metho,  So  I  thought  when  you  told  me  how  unclean,  de~ 
veilful,  and  wicked  your  heart  still  is. 

Ana,  Well,  but  it  is  a  duty  though,  which  must  be  done 
in  obedience:  and  must  we  do  nothing  but  what  we  are  to 
get  by.     I  find  you  are  upon  the  doing  scheme. 

Metho,  This  is  not  an  answer  to  my  question.  However* 
it  is  all  I  could  ever  get  from  one  of  your  persuasion, 
"Whenever  we  come  to  any  point,  you  will  fly  the  way.  I 
frankly  told  you  one  thing  my  baptism  did  for  me  :  And  if 
your's  has  done  any  more  for  you  than  mine  has  done  for 
me,  I  should  be  glad  to  hear  what  it  is.  But  you  know  that 
your  going  into  the  water  only  left  you  where  it  found  you  $ 
saving  this,  you  were  before  in  communion  with  us,  but  now 
you  are  in  communion  with  the  Anabaptists;  before,  you 
were  a  man  of  peace,  but  now  you  are  a  man  of  strife  and 
contention.  And  as  to  your  insinuation,  that  we  are  upon 
the  doing  scheme ;  I  heg  leave  to  assure  you,  that  I  know 
that  salvation  is  not  of  works,  as  well  as  you. 

Ana,  But  I  think  it  looks  as  if  the  Church  of  England 
made  a  Saviour  of  baptism  ;  and  there  are  sufficient  grounds 
to  charge  this  uvon  her  members.  This  you  will  find,  if 
you  look  into  their  prayer-book. 

Metho,  I  have  a  great  regard  for  that  book ;  and  I  look 
into  it  very  often.  But  this  strikes  wide.  We  were  talking 
about  baptism.  Now,  if  every  word  in  the  prayer-book  was 
erroneous,  this  would  make  nothing  against  infant,  or  adult 
baptism.  But  this  is  a  trick  of  you  all,  to  endeavour  to 
raise  a  dust,  that  so  you  may  blind  the  eyes,  and  deceive  the 
hearts  of  the  simple.  But,  Sir,  let  me  tell  you,  that  you 
have  no  sufficient  grounds,  to  charge  us  with  making  a  Sa*- 
viour  of  our  baptism,  from  any  part  of  the  prayer-hook, 


(  *  ) 

Ana.  One  of  our  brethren  has  lately  published  a  very  en- 
tertaining piece,  written  dialogue-wise,  on  the  subject  and 
mode  of  baptism,  wherein  he  makes  out  this  charge  very 
plain. 

Metho.  That  is,  in  your  opinion,  I  suppose ;  but,  in  my 
opinion,  the  Author,  as  he  calls  himself,  of  that  entertain* 
ing  piece,  has  either  spoken  evil  of  the  things  he  does  not  un- 
derstand ;  or  wilfully  misrepresented  them.  I  have  read 
that  pieee  over  and  over  again. 

Ana.  And  don't  you  think  it  a  very  smart  pieced  How  do 
you  like  it  ? 

Metho.  I  don't  like  it  at  all.  The  Author  condemns  in- 
fants. 

Ana.  Not  he.     How  do  you  make  it  out  ? 

Metho.  Does  he  baptize  infants  ? 

Ana.  No. 

Metho.  Who  then  does  he  admit  to  baptism  ? 

Ana.  "  He  does  not  admit  any  to  baptism  but  such,  who 
in  a  judgment  of  charity,  are  looked  upon  to  be  in  a  gra- 
eious  state,  previous  to  their  being  baptized."     Page  1. 

Metho.  Then,  in  a  like  judgment  of  charity,  it  seems,  he 
does  not  look  upon  infants  to  be  in  tli at  gracious  state,  and 
therefore,  in  a  graceless  one,  and  exposed  to  wrath  eternal. 
So  that  in  the  very  beginning  of  that  entertaining  piece,  he 
lias  brought  himself  to  this  pass,  either  to  baptize  infants, 
or  devote  them  to  destruction.  This  is  very  entertaining 
Indeed  ! 

Ana.  I  have  got  the  pieee  in  my  pocket,  and  J  wish  you 
would  read  it  once  more.  I  hope  you  would  have  a  better 
opinion  of  it.  You  said  the  Author  had  misrepresented,  or 
misunderstood  something  in  the  prayer-book ;  1  w  ish  you 
would  shew  me  what  it  is. 

Metho.  Look  here  in  the  6th  page,  "  The  little  one  is 
taught  to  have  such  a  lii«*h  opinion  of  its  baptism,  as  to  say, 
*  wherein  I  was  made  a  member  of  Christ,  a  child  of  Goi^ 


C    *    ) 

and  an  inheritor  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven/'  And  further* 
*«  that  being  by  nature  born  in  sin,  and  children  of  wrath, 
they  are  herkby  (i.  e.  by  baptism)  made  the  children  of 
grace." 

JLna.  And  is  it  not  so  ? 

Metho.  No;  for  if  you  will  observe  the  part  of  the  an- 
swer last  quoted  is  made  to  this  question,  *'•  What  is  the  in- 
ward and  spiritual  grace  1"  Or,  in  other  words,  what  is 
baptism  a  sacramental  sign  of  ?  The  answer  is,  "  A  death 
unto  sin,  a  new  birth  unto  righteousness ;  for  bring  by  na- 
ture born  in  sin  and  children  of  wrath,  we  are  hereby  made 
the  children  of  grace."  Now  is  it  not  evident,  according  to 
the  most  easy  and  grammatical  construction,  that  the  here- 
by relates  not  to  the  wafer,  but  to  a  death  unto  sin,  and  a 
new  birth  unto  righteousness  ?-~And,  as  to  the  child's  being 
taught  to  say,  "  In  my  baptism,  wherein  I  was  made  a  mem- 
ber of  Christ,  a  child  of  God,"  &c.  this  can  be  found  fault 
with  by  none  but  such  as  will  not  understand  it.  For  it  is 
plain  no  more  is  intended  here  by  <•'  a  member  of  Christ," 
than  the  being  admitted  into  the  visible  church,  which  is 
called  his  body.  The  27th  article  accordingly  explains  it, 
«  being  grafted  into  the  church,  and  the  baptismal  office,  a 
being  grafted  into  the  body  of  Christ's  church. — By  being 
made  "  a  child  of  God,  and  an  inheritor  of  the  kingdom  of 
Heaven,"  is  meant  no  more  than  being  formally  adopted  fop 
such  :  and  the  privileges  pertaining  to  their  adoption  are  t©» 
be  retained,  on  condition  of  their  dying  unto  sin  and  living 
•unto  righteousness.  And  the  child  has  reason  to  thank 
God,  who  has  called  him  into  this  state  of  salvation  .-  for  is 
it  not  matter  of  thankfulness  that  we  are  called  out  of  the 
darkness  of  heathenism,  and  admitted  to  dwell  in  aland  of 
gospel  light?  and  within  the  pale  of  Cueist's  Church  ?  But 
are  the  little  ones  taught  to  have  such  a  high  notion  of  their 
baptism  as  to  suppose  that  they  have  an  inadmissible  title  to 
tho  glorified  state  of  Heaven  above,  by  virtue  of  it?  If  so* 


'    i  *  ) 

why  does  the  church  teaeli  thein  •'<  to  pray  unto  C3od  that 
they  may  continue  in  the  same  to  their  life's  end  ?"  Why 
does  she  require  them  "  to  crucify  the  old  man,  and  utter- 
terly  abolish  the  whole  body  of  sin  V9  And  "  continually  to 
mortify  all  evil  and  corrupt  affections,  and  daily  proceed  in 
all  virtue  and  godliness  of  living  V9  So  that  in  both  these  in- 
stances, your  author  is  guilty  of  a  gross  misrepresentation 
<ar  misunderstanding. 

Ana,  What  does  he  misrepresent  besides  these  ? 

Metho,  The  office  for  burial.  Here,  says  he,  the  church 
orders  all  her  Ministers  to  declare  concerning  all  who  have 
been  baptized,  and  norte  but  such,  that  they  are  surely  gone 
to  Heaven,  though  the  greatest  of  sinners,  murderers, 
drunkards,  &c*  This  is  not  truth.  For  only  observe  the 
rub  rick  before  the  order  for  burial,  and  you  will  see  that 
this  order  is  for  none  who  are  excommunicated,  &c.  And 
Snow  let  us  turn  to  the  office  for  the  communion,  and  Ave 
shall  see  that  none  who  live  ungodly,  or  in  any  outward  sin, 
are  by  order  of  the  church  to  be  admitted  in  anywise  to  the 
Lord's  Table,  and  consequently  are  to  be  excommunicated. 
From  hence  it  is  plain,  ttiat  the  church  never  ordered  this 
to  be  read  over  any  wicked  man  at  all,  much  less  does  sh© 
require  her  Ministers  to  declare  that  drunkards,  thieves, 
Whoremongers  and  murderers  are  surely  gone  to  Heaven, 
because  of  baptism. 

Ana,  That  I  did  not  particularly  consider  before,  Pag* 
t?.  But  it  is  plain  your  church  calls  baptism  regeneration  : 
**  Seeing  now,  dearly  beloved,  that  this  child  is  regenerate." 

Metho,  She  does  so,  and  she  has  the  authority  of  scrip- 
ture for  so  doing.  See  John  iii.  5.  "  Except  a  man  be  born 
of  water  and  of  the  spirit,"  &c.  Born  of  water  here  is  bap- 
tism or  the  outward  and  visible  sign ;  born  of  the  spirit  is 

*  It  is  to  be  observed  that  I  do  not  always  quote  an  author  word  for  word, 
but  just  give  his  plain  meaning,  a*  6hort  as  possible,  in  order  to  save  psfer 
$ers  ink  and  tiia** 


(  *  ) 

the  inward  and  spiritual  grace.  Again,  Titus  iii.  8.  "  We 
are  saved  by  the  washing  of  regeneration  and  the  renewing 
of  the  Holy  Ghost."  The  washing  of  regeneration  must 
allude  to  the  water  of  baptism,  the  outward  and  visible 
sign  ;  the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  inward  and  spiri- 
tual grace.  The  propriety  of  calling  baptism  regeneration 
appears  also  from  this — it  is  a  xevy  natural,  easy  and  com- 
mon figure  in  speech  to  call  the  sign  by  the  name  of  the 
thing  signified.  Thus,  bread  and  wine,  in  the  Lokd's 
Supper,  are  called  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ;  not  that 
they  are  so  in  reality,  but  as  being  sacramental  signs  of 
them.  So,  by  the  same  figure,  is  baptism  called  regenera- 
tion, because  this  outward  washing  is  a  sacramental  sign  of 
it. 

•Ana,  If  this  is  all  she  means,  it  may  be  well  enough  % 
But  I  think  this  is  not  all.  For  Mr.  Episcopus  Clericus 
plainly  informs  us  what  he  intends,  when  he  immediately 
adds,  "  We  yield  thee  hearty  thanks,  most  merciful  Father, 
that  it  hath  pleased  thee  to  regenerate  this  infant  with  thy 
holy  spirit."     Page  6. 

Metho,  My  dear  Sir,  I  thought  you  knew  that  the  whole 
eeeonomy  of  the  church,  whether  external  or  internal,  is 
under  the  government,  direction,  and  guidance  of  the  holy 
spirit,  for  it  is  the  spirit  that  leads  into  truth  and  duty ;  so 
that  whatever  is  done  by  his  direction  or  according  to  the 
mind  of  the  spirit,  is  done  by  the  spirit.  The  rest  is  easy: 
for  how  often  do  we  hear  a  gentleman  say,  "  I  have  plough- 
ed my  ground,  I  have  laid  by  my  corn  f9  when  it  is  evident 
he  means  no  more  than  his  servants  had  done  this  by  hh  di* 
rection.  Upon  the  whole,  is  it  not  plain  to  every  man,  that 
your  author's  own  design  in  all  he  has  advanced  respecting 
the  church,  is  to  deceive  the  ignorant,  and  prejudice  the 
minds  ofthe  populace  against  the  church,  so  that  they  n  uy 
dissent  from  her,  and  thus  fall  into  the  snare  j^e  iiaa  laid 
for  th^m  ? 

C 


(      8     ) 

Ana.  Well,  let  us  drop  the  prayer-book,  and  go  to  some- 
thing else  :  For,  as  you  observed,  let  that  book  be  right  or 
wrong,  it  makes  nothing  either  for  or  against  your  opinion. 

Metho.  But  hold  !  Before  we  drop  it,  give  me  leave  to 
ask,  what  you  think  of  your  author's  inference  from  his 
own  false  and  injurious  misrepresentations  of  that  book. 

Ana.  What  inference  ? 

Metho.  That  in  the  7th  page — That  every  Minister  who 
declares  his  unfeigned  assent  and  consent  to  all  things  con- 
tained in  the  service  book  must  stretch  his  conscience,  or  in 
plain  English,  be  forsworn.  Does  your  author  think  that 
illiberal  abuse  and  uncharitable  censures  will  make  in  fa- 
vour of  his  cause?  Every  thinking  man  will  rather  judge 
that  it  betrays  the  weakness  of  a  cause,  when  abuse  and 
slander  are  from  necessity  substituted  in  the  place  of  argu- 
ment. Your  author  signifies  to  us,  in  the  28th  page,  that 
the  design  of  his  coming  among  us  is  to  reform  a  certain 
corruption,  &c.  A  goodly  reformer  indeed  ! — Does  he 
think  that  reformation  is  to  be  effected  by  a  slanderous 
tongue,  or  a  pen  dipped  in  gall  ?  Or  does  he  think  the  rea- 
diest way  to  reform  men  is  to  fall  upon  them  with  abuse  ? 
He  must  bring  better  proof  than  this,  that  ever  he  was  sent 
at  all9  or,  I  trust,  his  pretensions  to  the  office  of  general 
Meformcr,  will  be  but  little  regarded. 

Ana.  Well,  well,  don't  say  any  thing  about  that  ? 

Metho.  It  is  no  wonder  you  are  for  hushing  up  and  pass- 
ing over  slightly  the  most  notorious  offences,  seeing  it  is 
one  of  your  tenets,  that  crimes  of  the  deepest  die  will  never 
be  imputed  to  you  to  your  ftnal  condemnation.  You  may 
fall  foully,  you  say,  but  not  finally.  What  lengths  of  sin 
may  not  men  be  encourage]  to  go,  by  such  a  licentious 
principle  as  this  ? 

Ana.  You  are  getting  off  the  subject  now.  I  want  t» 
know  whether  you  have  any  proof  for  Infant  baptism. 

Metho,  A  great;  deal  more  than  you  have  against  it 


(  •  ) 

Ana.  I  suppose  you  bring  your  proof  from  tradition. 

Metho.  Tradition  is  twofold,  oral  and  written.  St.  Paul 
mentions  both,  n  Tliess.  ii.  15.  Therefore  stand  fast,  says 
he9  and  hold  the  traditions  which  ye  have  been  taught,  whe- 
ther by  word  or  our  epistle.  Now  as  we  are  to  stand  fast 
and  hold  traditions,  then  it  follows,  that  if  infant  baptism 
was  only  handed  down  to  us  by  tradition,  we  must  hold  it 
fast  till  it  can  be  made  appear  that  it  is  an  evil  in  itself,  or 
forbidden  by  the  word  of  God.  But  may  not  a  thing  be  ac- 
tually proved  by  tradition  ?  And  if  it  can  be  actually  proved, 
can  you  desire  any  other  proof? 

Ana.  We  are  scripturists — we  will  have  nothing  to  do 
with  tradition.     There  can  be  no  proof  from  that. 

Metho.  How  came  your  author  to  know,  and  so  positive- 
ly to  affirm,  that  giving  the  Lord's  Supper  to  infants  was 
actually  in  practice  from  the  4-th  to  the  12th  century  ?  Page 
8.  Your  author,  I  suppose,  is  not  yet  fifty  years  old,  and 
therefore  he  could  not  be  an  eye  witness  of  it.  He  cannot 
get  it  from  scripture,  nor  does  he  give  us  any  written  tra- 
dition for  it  :  How  then  does  he  know  it  was  actually  done, 
but  by  mere  tradition  ?  For  infant  baptism  we  have  the 
practice  of  all  the  primitive  churches  on  our  side,  and  the 
concurrent  testimonies  of  many  ancient  fathers  and  coun- 
cils ;  and  some  of  these  tell  us  it  was  delivered  to  them 
from  the  Apostles  :  Therefore  we  may  with  great  confi- 
dence believe  and  declare  that  it  was  actually  practised  by 
the  apostles,  and  the  church  in  all  ages  from  their  days. 

Ana.  "  But,  my  dear  Sir,  had  we  not  much  better  abide 
by  what  those  more  ancient  Fathers  Peter,  Paul,  James, 
John,  Jude,  &e.  have  left  upon  record  V9  Page  6. 

Metho.  Pray,  Sir,  have  these  more  ancient  Fathers  left 
any  thing  upon  record  against  infant  baptism  ?  I  trow  not. 
But  you  seem  to  be  insensible  that  by  speaking  so  contempt- 
ibly of  the  anr-ient  Fathers  and  councils  of  the  primitive 
church,  and  rejecting  their  authority,  you   do  in   effect, 


at  the  same  time,  reject  Peter,  Paul,  &e.  and  all  the 
writings  of  the  New  Testament.  To  the  care  and 
fidelity  of  these  ancient  Fathers  the  sacred  records  were 
committed :  It  was  by  tliem  that  the  canonical  books 
of  the  New  Testament  were  determined  and  settled. 
Sundry  epistles  now  read  in  the  New  Testament  were  at 
first  placed  among  the  antilegomina  or  doubtful  pieces, 
which  these  ancient  Fathers  afterwards  received  into  the 
sacred  canon  :  Nor  was  this  done  till  a  recognition  of  its 
controverted  books  was  taken  by  the  council  of  Laodicea, 
330  years  after  our  Loiid's  ascension.  If  then,  these  an- 
cient Fathers  were  capable  of  determining  what  books  were 
the  composition  of  the  apostles,  certainly  they  were  as  able 
to  determine  what  was  their  opinion  and  practice  respecting 
infant  baptism.^  Now,  how  ridiculous  is  it  in  your  author, 
to  reject  their  authority  in  this  respect,  and  tell1  us  with  a 
sneer,  M  that  error  is  never  the  more  to  be  respected  for 
having  a  grey  headT9  How  ridiculous,  I  say,  when  he  is 
indebted  to  these  very  grey  heads  for  all  the  knowledge  he 
has  of  Peter,  Paul,  &c.  and  their  writings.  If  I  did  not 
think  the  authority  of  those  Fathers  was  to  be  depended 
upon,  I  must  reject  Peter,  Paul,  &c.  But  as  1  regard  their 
authority  and  the  soundness  of  their  judgment,  and  put 
great  confidence  in  their  care  and  fidelity,  I  am  bound  to 
believe  that  there  were  such  men  as  Peter,  Paul,  &e.  and 
that  the  writings  ascribed  to  them  are  genuine. — And  now, 
Sir,_  let  me  assure  you  that  Peter,  Paul,  &e.  are  the  very 
luen  that  I  abide  by  :  and  if  any  of  these  have  left  any  thing 
upon  record  which  condemns  our  practice,  yea,  if  our  prac- 
tice be  not  countenanced  byT  them,  and  by  J±,sus  Christ 


*  It  would  be  needless  to  shew  the  judgment  of  the  ancient  Fathers  res- 
pecting infant  baptism,  as  the  author  of  the  dialogue  does  not  deny  that  they 
practised  it.  Many  writers  have  shewn  it  to  be  the  universal  practice  in 
all  the  primitive  churches  in  every  province  ;  and  therefore  I  shall  not  take 
time  to  insert  their  names  here, but  would  refer  the  reader  to  Cavu's  live* 
«rf  the  Jfathers,  the  history  of  the  councils,,  and  W  aui's  history* 


(  *»  ) 

the  Anther  of  the  christian  church,  as  well  as  br  these  an- 
cients  of  (he  primitive  ages  of  the  church,  I  will  he  one 
who  will  make  way  for  your  Reformer  General  to  come  in. 

Ana.  You  fly  too  high  for  nie.  For  my  pari,  I  believe 
infant  sprinkling;  is  built  upon  a  Popish  quicksand.     Page  8. 

Metho.  Your  belief  is  without  all  foundation.  lrenceus9 
Origen  ond  others,  who  have  spoken  of  infant  baptism  as 
practised  by  the  Apostles  and  delivered  to  the  Church  from 
the  Apostles,  lived  a  great  while  before  the  darkness  of  Po- 
pery had  overspread  the  christian  world  ;  therefore  it  could 
not  be  built  upon  a  Popish  quicksand. 

Jlna.  But  our  author  says  it  was  haled  through  the 
Church  of  Rome  though. 

Metho.  So  were  the  scriptures,  and  they  are  not  a  jot  the 
worse  for  that.  But  this  is  a  trick  of  many  disputants 
when  they  desire  to  carry  a  point,  and  have  neither  reason 
or  scripture  on  their  side  :  What  must  they  do  to  help  them 
out  at  a  dead  lift?  Why,  cry  Popery,  Popery,  and  the  work 
is  done.  But  I  trust  the  people  of  our  church  have  more 
sense  than  to  be  scared  out  of  the  truth  or  their  duty,  by  a 
mere  sound. 

Ana.  But  you  must  own  that  godfathers  and  godmothers 
are  a  relick  of  that  mother  of  harlots. 

Metho.  Not  at  all.  These  are  of  long  standing.  The 
Jews  had  sponserb  at  the  circumcision  of  their  infants,  and 
these  have  never  been  discontinued  in  any  age  of  the  church  : 
and  we  think  it  both  wise  and  good,  to  retain  them  still. 
That  you  may  be  convinced  that  they  were  among  the  Jews, 
only  read  Luke  i.  57,  63.  On  the  eighth  day  they  came  to 
circumcise  the  child,  and  they  called  his  name  Zacharias  — 
Who  called  his  name  so  ?  Not  his  father,  for  he  was  dumb 
•— Not  his  mother,  for  she  did  not  approve  of  the  name  ; 
and  therefore  answered  not  so,  hut  he  shall  he  called  John. — 
And  they  made  signs  to  his  father  how  lie  would  have  hies 
called ;  and  he  called  for  a  wilting  table,  and  wrote,  say* 


(    ™    ) 

ing,  his  name  is  John.  Now  what  were  they,  these  who 
gave  the  name  to  the  child,  and  marvelled  all,  when  they 
found  he  was  to  he  called  John  ? — Some  of  those  cousins 
and  relations  of  Elizabeth,  no  doubt,  who  we  read  came  to 
visit  her  on  this  occasion,  and  were  now  sponsors  for  the 
child.  And  does  not  this  circumstance,  relative  to  the  nam- 
ing of  the  child,  put  us  in  mind  of  what  we  often  see  at  the 
baptism  of  children  in  our  church  ?  When  the  minister  asks 
the  name  of  the  child,  how  often  do  we  see  the  godfathers 
and  godmothers  make  signs  to  the  parents  how  they  will 
have  him  called  ?  especially  if  they  have  neglected  to  en- 
quire before  hand.  So  you  see  how  mistaken  you  are  :  and 
that  you  may  see  that  godfathers  and  godmothers  were  also 
in  the  primitive  church,  and  were  then  called  sponsors  or 
sureties  as  we  call  them  now,  I  shall  beg  leave  to  read  you 
a  passage  from  Dr.  Cave's  primitive  Christianity.  When 
persons  were  brought  to  baptism,  the  bishop  asked  them,  as 
you  see  here,  «  Lost  thou  renounce  the  devil  and  all  his 
works,  powers  and  service  ?  To  which  the  party  answered, 
I  do  renounce  them. — Dost  thou  renounce  the  world,  and  all 
its  pomps  and  pleasures?  Answer,  I  do  renounce  them. — 
Next  they  made  an  open  confession  of  their  faith,  the  bishop 
asking,  Dost  thou  believe  in  God.  the  Father  .Mmighty.  &c. 
in  Jesus  Christ  his  only  Son.  who,  &c.  Dost  Ihou  believe 
in  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  hohj  catholic  church,  and  in  one  bap- 
tism of  repentance  for  the  remission  of  sins,  and  life  ever- 
lasting ?  To  all  which  the  person  answered,  I  do  believe. — 
This  form  of  interrogation,  or  questioning,  seems  to  have 
been  very  ancient  in  the  church,  and  the  Apostle  is  jusily 
thought  to  refer  to  it,  when  he  styles  baptism  the  answer  of 
ngood  conscience  towards  God,  which  can  reasonably  refer 
to  nothing  so  well  as  that  common  custom  of  answering  in 
baptism. — "  These  answers  and  actions  in  the  adult,  were 
done  by  the  persons  themselves  ;  in  children  by  their  spon- 
sors, as  Tertullian  calls  them,  their  sureties  or  undertakers ; 


(    18    ) 

l»r  that  both  infants  and  adult  persons  had  those  that  under- 
took for  them  at  their  baptism,  is  notoriously  known."—- 
Thus  far  Doetor  Cave,  See  Christian  Library,  31st  vol. 
212th  page.— -See  then  how  widely  you  are  mistaken  in  this 
point:  And  I  think  it  must  give  great  satisfaction  to  the 
members  of  our  church  to  observe,  as  here,  such  a  strict 
agreement  between  us  and  the  ancient  christians,  not  only 
in  the  subjects,  but  in  the  very  rites  and  form  of  baptism. 
And  however  light  some  may  pretend  to  make  of  such  au- 
thority or  agreement  as  this,  yet,  I  believe,  there  is  hardly 
a  man  endued  with  reason  and  tolerable  sense,  who  would 
not  be  glad  to  find  that  his  practice  is  countenanced  by  the 
primitive  church,  and  to  have  such  venerable  antiquity  on 
his  side. 

Ana,  Well,  I  would  not  stand  for  a  child  for  all  the 
world.  I  should  think  I  committed  a  very  great  sin  in  it, 
•*  to  promise  things  which  the  event  manifests  to  be  false.'* 

Metho.  Commit  a  very  great  sm  /  And  what  of  that  ?  Sim 
cannot  hurt  you,  A  grievous  fall  would  only  make  you 
more  humble,  and  your  brethren  would  like  you  the  better 
for  it.  If  I  mistake  not,  this  is  agreeable  to  your  doctrine. 
But  your  shyness  in  regard  to  standing  for  children,  arises 
from  another  of  your  mistakes.  If  godfathers,  &e.  abso- 
lutely promised  that  the  child  shall  (as  your  author  mis- 
quotes) renounce  the  devil,  &e  it  would  be  very  absurd  in- 
deed. But  you  know  they  do  not,  they  cannot  promise  any 
such  thing.  The  word  is  should,  of  the  potential  or  sub- 
junctive mood,  which  implies  a  contingency. 

Ana.  What  do  they  do  then  ? 

Metho,  They  only  express  the  covenanting  wrords  and 
what  the  duty  of  every  christian  is,  what  he  is  to  believe  and 
do,  and  what  that  child  in  particular,  "  when  he  comes  to 
age  himself  is  bound  to  perform." — And  the  sponsors  duty 
is  expressed  in  the  exhortation  at  the  close  of  the  baptismal 
«iHce,  which  is  briefly  this,  «  to  see  that  the  child  he  taught 


-     .Hi 

(  (*  ) 

and  exiiertedl  to  his  duty."  Certainly  this  can  he  no  bad 
thing*  but  a  wise  and  excellent  institution,  and  nothing  in  it 
hard  to  be  performed. 

Jlna.  Ah !  but  many  stand  For  children  that  never  con- 
cern themselves  about  them,  either  to  teach  or  exhort  them* 
©r  any  thing  else. 

Metho.  I  am  apt  to  think  this  is  too  often  the  case.  But 
what  would  you  infer  from  hence?  If  the  institution  he 
good  in  itself,  it  must  not  be  rejected  because  some  of  the 
persuasion  are  wicked  and  careless.  At  this  way  of  reason* 
ing  you  might  argue  the  bible  out  of  the  world,  seeing  ma- 
ny profess  to  believe  it,  and  cry  it  up  as  the  best  of  books, 
containing  the  most  perfect  precepts  of  molality,  &c.  and 
yi't  act  quite  the  reverse  of  what  it  enjoins. 

Jlna.  Well,  well,  drop  talking  of  the  prayerbook. 

Metho,  Just  as  you  please.  Indeed  f  should  be  glad  to 
drop  the  subject  of  baptism  at  this  time  ;  1  do  not  like  to 
dispute  at  all.  I  had  much  rather  the  conversation  should 
turn  upon  something  more  to  edification,  and  which  might 
tend  to  warm  our  hearts  with  the  love  of  God*  and  uni<e 
them  in  love  to  each  other.  T.  is  would  be  much  better  for 
us  both,  than  thus  turn  aside  to  vain  j< 'nglings*  whereof 
eometh  nothing  better  than  envy,  strif and  contention. 

•Una.  Vain  j anglings  !  Why  should  we  not  declare  the 
whole  counsel  of  God  ?  And  is  not  baptism  called  the 
counsel  of  God  ?     Luke  vii.  30.     P.  34*. 

Metho.  The  pharisees  and  lawyers  are  there  said  to  re- 
ject the  counsel  of  Gon>  because  they  were  not  baptised  of 
John,  and  become  his  disciples  :  But  I  don't  know  that  we 
are  required  to  be  John's  disciples  now.  And  is  this  the 
famous  Baptist  jn^eacher  your  author  talks  of  in  page  9,  and 
from  whom  you  derive  your  original  ?  J  so.  then  you  ought 
to  decrease,  and  not  to  increase.  For  John  said  I  must  de- 
crease :  And  indeed,  John  had  humility  enough  to  say,  fa- 
mous as  he  was.  that  he  that  is  least  in  tue  kingdom  of  hea.- 


(  If  j 

ven  or  gospel  church,  is  greater  than  he.  Christians  the** 
arc  not  the  disciples  of  John,  for  if  so,  the  disciple  would 
be  ahove  his  master ;  nor  was  John's  baptism  and  the  chris- 
tian's baptism  the  same. 

Ana.  Certainly  you  are  wrong,  for  Christ  and  his  apos- 
tles, &c.  were  all  baptists.  Page  9.  And  our  author  proves 
it  very  prettily  too  :  For,  says  he,  «  if  a  baptist  preacher 
baptizes  any  number  of  people,  they  are  immediately  looked 
upon  to  be  baptists.  But  the  baptist  baptized  them,  there- 
fore they  were  baptists,"  and  so  along. 

Metho.  Very  pretty  indeed  ! — But  permit  me  to  ask  you 
ene  question.  Don't  you  think  that  your  author's  intention 
in  that  argument  was  to  deceive  the  ignorant  ?  Certainly  it 
was. 

Ana.  I  think  it  very  smart  reasoning. 

Metho.  'Reasoning  !  It  is  palpable  sophistry  to  every  dis- 
cerning eye  ;  and  it  is  a  sophism  of  that  kind,  if  I  mistake 
not,  which  the  learned  call  ignoratio  elenchi,  or,  a  mistake  ' 
of  the  question.  Every  man  that  baptizes,  may  so  far  be 
called  a  baptist,  that  is,  a  baptiser.  But  the  question  in  de- 
bate is  not  whether  the  apostles  and  primitive  christians 
were  baptized,  or  whether  they  did  baptize.  This  we  all 
allow.  But  the  question  is,  whether  they  were  for  or 
against  the  baptism  of  infants :  Consequently  that  pwtty 
argument  of  his  does  not  touch  the  question  at  all.  By 
chopping  logic,  after  the  manner  of  your  author,  I  could  as 
well  prove  that  a  man  is  a  goose,  an  ass,  or  any  creature 
you  please. 

Ana.  How  could  you  do  that  ? 

Metho.  Thus — ey&ry  goose  is  an  animal — so  is  every  man 
an  animal — therefore  every  man  is  a  goose.  This  is  just 
as  good  logic  as  that  of  your  author.  The  question  is  equal- 
ly mistakes;  in  both.  I  have  given  a  more  serious  answer 
to  this  reasoning  than  was  due  to  it— to  mention  it  is  sumel* 
«5nt  to  confute  it. — But  I  can  prove  from  your  author's  own 


(    16    ) 

words  that  John's  and  the  christian's  baptism  is  not  one  and 
*he  same. 

Ana.  How  does  this  appear  from  our  author's  words  ? 

Metho.  Very  clear :  In  the  5th  page  he  says,  «•  I  don't 
hold  with  rebaptizing  at  all ;  if  any  one  has  a  valid  baptism 
according  to  the  scriptures,  I  am  not  for  baptism  being  re- 
peated on  such." 

Ana.  And  what  of  that? 

Metho.  In  the  xixth  chapter  of  Acts,  we  read  of  some 
who  had  been  baptized  with  John's  baptism  ;  and  so,  to  have 
it  your  own  way,  they  were  baptists.  But  this  would  not 
do — therefore  the  apostle  commanded  them  to  be  baptized 
in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  i.  e.  with  the  christian's 
baptism,  that  so  they  might  be  christians  and  not  baptists. 
Now  if  John9s  baptism  was  the  same  with  the  christian's, 
then  here  would  be  a  repetition  of  baptism,  contrary  to 
what  your  author  holds :  He  is  not  for  repeating  a  valid 
baptism;  John's  was  looked  upon  to  be  not  valid,  and 
therefore  baptism  was  repeated  on  those  certain  disciples 
which  the  apostle  found  at  Ephesus.  See  Acts  xixth  chap. 
1,  9,  3,  4  and  5  verses.  And  if  you  derive  your  original 
from  John,  your  baptism  is  not  valid.  Have  I  not  proved 
my  assertion  ? 

Ana.  That  I  did  not  particularly  consider  before.  But 
is  not  baptism  still  a  counsel  of  God  ? 

Metho.  Not  if  it  be  derived  from  John— his  baptism  was 
antiquated  long  ago.     Christ  is  our  Lord  and  Master. 

Ana.  You  believe  it  is  a  counsel  of  God  to  baptize,  don't 

you  ? 

Metho.  You  know  I  do  :  And  I  believe  it  is  the  counsel 
of  God  to  baptize,  infants  and  adults  too,  if  they  were  no! 
baptized  in  infancy.  But  the  baptism  you  contend  for  and 
practise,  so  far  from  believing  it  to  be  a  counsel  of  God, 
that  (I  speak  in  the  fear  of  the  Lord)  I  verily  believe  It  in  a 
edunsel  ef  Satan-, 


(  *?  ) 

Ana,  Why  do  you  tliink  so  ? 

Melho.  Because  those  whom  you  baptize  have  been  bap- 
tized already,  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  you  have 
neither  precept  nor  example  for  baptizing  such  over  again  : 
And  I  know  of  no  end  it  answers  but  to  introduce  cn\y, 
strife,  contentions,  bitterness,  clamour  and  distentions. — 
And  whence  do  these  come  but  from  the  evil  one  ? 

Ana.  You  know  Christ  said,  "  I  am  not  come  to  send 
peace,  but  a  sword  and  division." 

Melho,  Our  Lord  well  knew  that  through  the  wicked- 
ness of  men  and  the  agency  of  evil  spirits,  feuds  and  conten- 
tions would  be  excited  in  consequence  of  the  gospel ;  but 
you  dare  not  say,  you  believe  this  to  be  the  design  oi 
Christ's  coining,  but  contrary- wise,  to  send  peace ;  and 
therefore  is  he  called  the  Prince  of  Peace,  and  the  Peace 
itself.  He  says  indeed,  in  a  certain  place,  It  must  needs  le 
that  offences  come,  but  at  the  same  time  pronounces  a  woe 
on  those  by  whom  they  come.  But  by  what  we  can  gather 
from  the  temper  and  spirit  of  the  Anabaptists,  we  have  too 
much  reason  to  fear,  if  ever  they  get  strong  enough,  we 
shall  see  a  sword  and  feel  it  too. 

Jlna.  "  If  there  be  any  bitterness  of  spirit,  &c.  at  whose 
door  is  it  to  be  laid  ?  The  Baptists  have  no  occasion  for  it, 
they  have  scripture  enough  for  their  principles."  P.  Si. 

Metho,  That  is  easier  said  than  proved.  1  said  before, 
and  I  will  maintain  it,  that  you  have  neither  precept  or  exam- 
ple for  your  practise.  Here  I  set  my  foot  on  this  single 
point,  and  though  you  should  turn  and  twist  all  your  days. 
you  can  get  no  ground. 

Ana,  I  never  could  see  any  warrant  for  infant  baptism, 
(sprinkling  I  call  it.)  I  never  could  see  the  word  infant 
baptism  mentioned  between  the  lids  of  this  bible,  from  the 
beginning  of  Genesis  to  the  end  of  the  Revelations, 

•Metho,  And  neither  is  the  word  trinity  to  be  found  there, 
and  yet  this  is  no  reason  why  we  should  not  believe  in  it.—* 


(     <*    ) 

Neither  are  the  words  adult  baptism  to  be  found  in  scripture. 

Ana.  But  I  never  could  see  where  any  infants  were  bap- 
tized. 

Meiho.  That's  a  pity :  but  your  author  says,  none  are  so 
blind  as  they  who  will  not  see. 

•Una.  I  wish  you  would  shew  me  where  infants  were  ever 
baptized. 

Metho.  That  is  not  hard  to  do. — Look  here  in  the  xnfh 
chap,  of  Exodus,  600,000  Israelites  went  out  of  Egypt  on 
foot,  besides  children  who  could  not  go  on  foot.  And  M. 
Paul  tells  us,  in  1  Cor,  x.  2.  that  they  were  all  baptized  un- 
to Moses,  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea;  and  thus  were  they 
initiated  into  the  religion  Moses  was  to  teach  them.  Now 
here  you  can't  deny  that  infants  were  baptized,  and  they 
were  baptized  by  sprinkling  too,  and  that  is  more  :  Foy 
they  must  be  baptized  by  sprinkling,  unless  you  will  suppose 
they  plunged  themselves  or  one  another  into  the  cloud,  and 
that  the  sea  overwhelmed  them,  as  it  did  the  Egyptians. 
But  this  would  be  absurd  to  suppose. 

Ana.  This  may  he  so  ;  but  how  will  you  prove  that  in- 
fants are  to  be  baptized  now  ? 

Metho.  The  onus  probandi  is  always  to  lie  upon  my 
shoulders  ;  I  mean  I  am  to  prove  every  thing  and  you  no- 
thing. People  might  reasonably  think  that  you  who  set  up 
yourselves  for  reformers,  and  have  come  to  change  the  cus- 
toms and  usages  of  the  church  in  all  ages,  ought  to  have 
acted  upon  the  offensive,  and  not  always  stand  upon  the  de- 
fensive. 

Ana.  To  be  sure  you  must  prove  the  infant's  right. 

Metho.  The  right  of  infants  to  the  ordinance  of  baptism 
is  so  clear,  that  it  is  no  hard  matter  to  prove  it  to  any  un- 
prejudiced person  :  but  f  insist  upon  it,  that  as  they  are  in 
possession  of  their  right,  or  what  almost  nine-tenths  of  the 
church  of  Christ  believe  to  be  their  right,  it  lies  upon  you 
to  prove  that  their  right  is  not  good,  before  they  can  be  le- 


(  i»  ) 

gaily  turned  out  of  possession  ;  otherwise  yon  might  turfi 
me  out  of  possession  of  any  article  of  properly  1  have. 

Ana.  How  could  that  be  done  ? 

Metho.  Suppose  you  should  demand  what  right  I  have  to 
sm  h  a  plantation  ?  I  might  tell  you  fiiy  lather  gave  it  to 
me.  You  demand  further,  But  how  came  your  father  to 
have  possession  of  it  ?  I  may  he  able  to  say,  my  grandfather 
gave  it  to  m\  father.  You  still  go  on,  But  what  right  had 
your  grandfather  to  it  ?  I  am  run  out  of  breath,  and  must 
say,  1  do  not  know.  Now  you  triumph  over  me,  and  say, 
this  plantation  may  he  the  property  of  the  Indians  for  what 
you  know,  and  your  title,  at  best,  depends  upon  a  mere  tradi- 
tion, and  if  you  can't  prove  it  to  have  been  purchased  of  the 
Indians,  it  is  none  of  yours  ;  and  thus  1  am  cut  out  of  my 
farm. 

Ana.  Well,  hut  I  ask  you  how  the  children  of  the  Israel- 
ites, being  baptized  unto  Moses,  will  prove  that  infants  are 
to  be  baptized  now  ? 

Metho.  I  will  try  to  draw  you  out  of  your  entrenchment 
presently.  Jn  the  mean  time  I  will  answer  your  question. 
My  first  design  in  shewing  you  those  places  of  scripture, 
was  to  let  you  see  where  infants  were  baptized,  which  you 
could  never  see  before.  This  design  being  answered,  I  shall 
prove  from  the  same  scripture  that  infants  are  now  to  be 
baptized  unto  Christ,  as  they  were  formerly  unto  Moses. 

Ana.  Proceed — I  am  ready  to  hear. 

Metho.  In  the  3d  chapter  of  Acts,  and  22d  verse,  we  have 
a  quotation  from  Deut.  xviii.  15 — 18.  «  Moses  truly  said 
unto  the  fathers,  a  prophet  shall  the  Loud  your  God  raise 
up  unto  you  of  your  brethren,  like  unto  me."  This  prophecy 
is  here  applied  to  Christ,  of  whom  Moses  was  a  type, 
Christ  was  to  he  like  unto  Moses.  Parents  and  their  chil- 
dren were  initiated  into  the  religion  of  Moses,  and  put 
themselves  and  their  little  ones  under  the  government  and 
direction  of  his  laws  by  baptism.    And  if  this  is  not  to  be 


(    20    ) 

the  ease,  wherein  is  Christ  like  unto  Moses  ?  If  Christ 
had  excluded  infants  from  baptism,  would  not  the  Jews  have 
said,  surely  you  can't  be  the  Messiah  or  that  prophet,  for 
fjou  are  not  like  unto  Moses,  for  he  took  little  ones  and  all  in- 
to covenant,  and  they  were  baptized  unto  him.  In  this 
very  thing,  the  likeness  between  Moses  and  Christ  princi- 
pally consists.  Is  Christ  a  ruler  and  deliverer  ?  So  is 
Moses  :  Acts  vii.  35.  This  Moses  whom  they  refused,  the 
same  did  God  send  to  be  a  ruler  and  a  deliverer.  Moses 
delivered  the  people  from  Egyptian  bondage,  took  them 
tinder  his  care  and  protection,  gave  them  laws  and  statutes, 
and  led  them  on  to  the  earthly  Canaan:  So  does  Christ  pro- 
tect and  guide  his  church,  and  lead  his  people  to  the  celes- 
ti.tl  Canaan,  which  is  also  a  promised  rest  above,  of  which 
t)ie  earthly  Canaan  was  a  type.  This  argument  is  very 
plain,  and  yet  it  is  not  the  only  argument  by  many.  • 

Jlna.  I  do  not  think  infants  have  any  right  to  baptism. 

Melho.  You  don't  think  so  %  Can  you  prove  they  have  not? 

Jlna.  Why,  what  does  the  prayer-book  say  is  required  of 
persons  to  be  baptized  ? 

Metho.  We  have  agreed  more  than  once  to  drop  this  book. 
I  know  what  that  book  says  both  of  adult  and  infant  baptisnaj 
too  :  It  says  infants  are  in  anywise  to  be  baptized  as  most 
agreeable  to  the  word  of  Gou.  But  what  signifies  this  ? 
You  don't  believe  that  book ;  if  you  did,  the  controversy 
would  be  at  an  end. 

Jlna.  Well,  don't  the  scripture  say,  repent  and  be  bap- 
tized ;  believe  and  be  baptized  ?  Now  how  can  infants  either 
repent  or  believe  ?  You  know  they  can't,  and  therefore  they 
can't  be  admitted  to  baptism. 

Melho.  Fie  upon  it ! — You  have  broke  my  head  sadly  at 
the  first  stroke  :  However,  I  am  glad  1  have  got  you  out  at 
last ;  I  hope  T  shall  get  over  the  wound  presently.— But, 
my  friend.  I  find  I  was  more  seared  than  hurt,  and  now  dis- 
oover  that  you  have  overshot  yourself.      Your  argument 


(    21     ) 

proves  too  much,  for  if  put  into  form,  it  would  stand  thus— 
All  who  do  not  repent  and  believe  can't  be  admitted  to  bap- 
tism.—Infants  have  neither  repented  nor  believed,  therefore 
infants  cannot  be  admitted  to  baptism. 
Ana.  Ah,  and  it  follows  very  clearly. 
Metho.  Now  hy  the  same  argument  I  can  prove  that  all 
infants  shall  he  damned,  and  the  devils  saved.  The  argu- 
ment shall  stand  according  to  the  same  mood  and  figure  with 
that  of  your's  above. 

Ana.  Well,  let  us  have  it. 

Metho.  You  know  the  scripture  says,  «  he  that  believe* 
shall  be  saved,  and  he  that  believes  not  shall  be  damned. 
And  again,  except  ye  repent  yt  shall  all  peHsh.  Thus  stands 
the  argument.— .ill  that  believe  shall  be  saved :  but  the  devils 
lelieve,  (James  ii.  19.)  therefore  the  devils  shall  be  saved. 
And  with  respect  to  infants,  thus  stands  the  argument— Jil 
who  do  not  repent  and  believe,  shall  be  damned:  Infants 
neither  repent  nor  believe,  therefore  all  infants  shall  be 
damned.— -Nay,  don't  start !  this  conclusion  as  clearly  fol- 
lows from  the  premises  as  yours,  Mr.  Impartial  Enquirer 
himself  being  judge. 

Ana.  That  I  did  not  consider  before. 
Metho.  I  hope  then  you  will  be  ashamed  of  the  absurdity 
of  such  an  argument  for  the  future  :  since  to  reason  from 
such  general  premises,  infants  would  be  in  ten  thousand 
times  worse  case  than  the  devils  themselves.  If  you  would 
read  your  bible,  you  would  see  that  faith  and  repentance 
Were  as  much  required  to  circumcision  as  to  baptism.  But 
this  did  not  exclude  infants,  and  for  this  good  reason,  be- 
cause infants  have  committed  no  sin  to  repent  of,  and  so  need 
ao  repentance. 

Ana.  O,  but  our  author  says,  faith  and  repentance  were 
sot  required  to  circumcision.     Page  20. 

Metho.  You  must  not  take  all  \»nv  author  says  upon 
crust.      D»J  not  Mraham  believe  before  he  was  dream- 


(  %%  ) 

•afsed  t  And  when  any  were  proselyted  to  IT'C  Jews  religiou* 
do  you  think  they  did  not  believe  in  the  God  of  Israel,  be* 
fore  they  would  submit  to  be  initiated  into  the  church  of 
God,  by  the  painful  rule  of  circumcision  ?  That  man  must 
have  lost  his  reason  who  can  think  otherwise. — See  Exodus 
xiith  chap.  48  v.  But.  have  you  any  more  scripture  to  bring 
against  infant  baptism  ? 

Ana.  Yes,  I  have— 

Metho.  Ah,  so  you  have,  and  T  will  not  give  you  tie 
trouble  to  mention  it — I  will  do  it  for  you- — It  is  teach  and 
baptize. 

Jlna.  Yes,  that  is  it.  Christ  said,  Go  teach  all  nations, 
baptizing  them,  &c.  Here,  you  see,  teach  stands  before 
baptizing  : — Now  what  can  you  teach  an  infant  ? 

Metho*  I  find  you  stand  much  upon  a  mere  sameness  and 
priority  of  words.  But  as  you  are  a  scripturist.  you  might 
have  noticed  that  the  order  of  words  in  scripture,  is  no  cer- 
tain rule  for  the  order  of  things. 

Jlna*  No  !  Why  then  you  must  read  the  scripture  back- 
wards. 

Metho,  I  will  give  you  an  instance  or  two  of  what  I  said. 
See  Mark  i.  chap.  4th  and  ,r»th  verses.  «*  J:hn  did  baptize 
in  the  wilderness,  and  preach  the  baptism  of  repentance. — 
And  they  were  all  baptized  of  him  in  Jordan,  confessing 
their  sins."  Here  you  see  preaching  repentance  and  confes- 
sion of  sins  stand  after  baptism  ;  and  which  do  you  think 
was  done  first  ? 

•Ana.  Why,  I  make  no  doubt  but  John  preached  the  bap- 
tism of  repentance  first,  and  they  confessed  their  sins  first; 
both  were  before  baptism. 

Metho.  But  according  to  the  order  of  words,  baptism  was 
first ;  therefore  the  order  of  words  can  be  no  rule  for  the 
order  of  things. 

Jtncu    This  I  did  not  particularly  consid&r  before;  for 


(    23    ) 

tii is  is  not  the  way  in  which  the  advocates  for  infant  sprinfo 
tins;  usually  answer  this  text, 

Meiho.  How  then  ? 

Jinn.  Why,  they  tell  us  that  Mr.  Lexiconist  says  that  the 
word  teach  should  be  rendered,  disciple  all  nations,  bapii- 
king  thein,  &c.  But  our  author  says  this  amounts  to  the 
9.1  ne  thing,  "  for  it  would  he  an  odd  sort  of  a  disciple  that 
was  made  without  teaching;.*5     Page  29. 

Metho.  When  I  read  that  part  of  the  dialogue,  I  question- 
ed much  whether  your  author  understood  the  meaning  of 
the  word  disciple.     Do  you  know  the  meaning  of  that  word? 

•Una.  Ah,  to  he  sure  :  It  means  a  person  already  taught. 

•Metho.  It  is  strange  that  you,  who  have  been  a  school- 
master as  well  as  myself,  should  not  better  understand  that 
word.  I  thought  every  body  knew  that  a  disciple  is  one 
who  is  put  under  the  care  of  a  master  to  be  taught,  and  not 
one  who  is  already  taught.  Every  child  sent  to  school  is  a 
disciple  of  the  master  to  whom  he  is  sent :  and  you  must 
know  that  children  are  sent  to  school  not  because  they  are 
already  taught,  hut  that  they  may  he  taught.  And  that  this 
is  evidently  the  true  meaning  of  the  text,  appears  upon  the 
very  face  of  the  words  in  Matt,  xxviii.  19,  20.  Go  prose- 
lyte or  disciple  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the 
Father,  Sou  and  Holy  Ghost,  teaching  them  to  observe  ail 
things  which,  &c.  Here  you  see  teaching  is  put  after  bap- 
tizing. By  baptism  we  are  initiated  into  the  church,  the 
school  of  Christ,  in  which  we  are  to  be  tausht  and  trained 
up,  till  having  finished  our  course  of  education  here  below? 
we  are  admitted  into  the  higher  forms  m  Heaven. 

■JLna.  I  can't  see  int©  it0 

Meilia.  When  you  used  to  want  a  school,  what  did  you 
do? 

.Ana.  Whv,  J  went  out  into  some  neighbourhood  fo  see 
how  many  scholars  I  could  getf  by  soliciting  parents  to  send 
their  children  to  me. 


(    2*    1 

Metho,  And  did  you  not  get  these  scholars  or  diseipkif 
(the  words  are  the  same)  before  you  taught  them  ? 

Jina.  To  be  sure  J  did. 

Metho.  No  doubt  of  it ;  and  you  called  them  your  disci- 
ples the  very  hour  they  were  brought  into  your  school,  or 
put  under  your  care,  though  (hey  did  not  know  one  letter  ia 
a  book.  So  the  apostles  made  disciples,  and  then  taught 
them  to  read  the  text  according  to  the  translation  of  Mr* 
Lexieonist,  as  you  call  him  ;  the  words  run  natural  and  ea* 
sy,  Go  disciple  or  proselyte  all  nations,  baptizing  them.  &c* 
teaching  them  all  things. — But  according  to  Mr.  Scriptur- 
ist,  there  will  be  a  vain  tautology  or  a  senseless  repetition  ; 
Go  teach  all  nations,  &c.  teaching  //iew.-*-W  hat  pretty  sense 
is  this  I 

•Etna.  I  ean't  but  think  this  text  makes  against  infant 
baptism. 

Metho,  Against  it !  Surprising !  It  certainly  makes  inucii 
for  it,  if  it  be  not  an  express  command  for  it, 

Jlna,  How  so  ? 

Metho.  Why,  it  can't  be  denied  (unless  by  those  who  will 
deny  any  thing,  rather  than  give  up  a  party  opinion  J  1  say* 
It  can't  be  denied  that  it  was  a  custom  among  the  Jews  to 
baptize  the  infant  children  of  all  who  were  made  proselytes 
to  their  religion.  This  the  most  learned  and  candid  among 
the  Anabaptists  are  obliged  to  own.  It  was  also  a  common 
phrase  with  them  to  call  such  infants  proselytes:  for  in  theifl 
writings  we  meet  with  such  sayings  as  these  :  "  If  with  a  pro* 
selyte,  his  sons  and  his  daughters  be  made  proselytes,  that 
which  is  done  by  their  father  redounds  to  their  good."  And 
asrain — "  An  Israelite  that  takes  an  heathen  child  and  bap- 
tizes  him  for  a  proselyte,  behold  he  is  a  prosety  te  M*  Now* 
Sir,  the  apostles,  who  were  brought  up  in  the  Jew's  religion, 
Qould  not  be  ignorant  of  this  custom  of  baptizing  infants 

*Wau  in  his  history  and' conference  ©n.  baptism,  $uotee  the-  a«th#ra 
•svfee're  thmo  phrases  are  fsun<J-, 


(    25    ) 

&n<5  calling  them  proselytes  :  Therefore  when  our  Saviour 
gave  this  general  commission  io  go  and  proselyte  all  nations, 
they  must  of  necessity  understand  him,  that  infants  were 
included  as  well  as  others.  This  they  must  understand  and 
do,  unless  their  master  had  told  them  otherwise,  and  exclu- 
ded infants  by  name. — Men  are  to  lake  words  in  that  sense 
in  which  they  are  current,  at  the  time  and  place  in  which 
they  are  spoken ;  but  baptizing  infants  was  then  to  make 
proselytes  of  them  as  well  as  adults;  therefore  the  apostles, 
without  all  doubt,  must  consider  these  words  as  an  express 
command  for  infant  baptism.— I  could  say  a  thousand  things 
more  in  favour  of  infant  baptism,  but  it  would  be  tedious, 
•specially  as  they  have  been  said  already  by  others*  Let 
me  persuade  you  to  read  Bostwic*8  sermon  $a  that  subject, 
without  prejudice,  and  I  am  sure  you  will  see  stronger 
arguments,  and  more  fair  and  manly  reasoning  for  infant 
baptism  there  than  you'll  find  in  that  dialogue  against  it ; 
you  will  see  no  quibbling  or  unchristian  censures,  as  you 
see  in  that  dialogue. 

Ana.  But  I  am  not  satisfied  about  the  text,  teach  ami 
baptize  yet.  Certainly  the  apostles  did  teach  people  before 
they  baptized  them. 

Metho.  There  is  no  doubt  but  they  taught  some  before 
they  baptized  them.  Their  commission  led  them  out  among 
the  heathens,  who  never  heard  of  Christ  or  his  gospel 
before;  the  adults  among  these  they  must  first  teach  some- 
thing of  the  true  God,  and  of  Christ,  &e.  before  thvy 
would  be  willing  that  either  they  or  their  children  should 
be  initiated  into  the  christian  religion  by  baptism,  or  be 
made  proselytes  thereunto. 

Jlna.  But  it  does  not  appear  that  the  apostles  told  then* 
to  baptize  their  children. 

Metho.  Then  they  did  not  act  up  to  their  commission : 
but  I  think  it  is  fully  evident  that  they  did  teach  them  this, 
«fee  how  came  those  who  were  baptized  themselves*  so rea^ 


(  m  ) 

dily  to  have  their  whole  families  baptized  ?  Did  they  d» 
this  without  being  taught  to  do  it  ? 

Ana.  I  suppose  you  have  an  eye  now  to  Lydia,  the  Gaol? 
ev  and  Stephanns :  I  suppose  all  the  members  of  their  fami- 
lies were  grown  up  to  be  men  and  women,  and  so  were 
taught,  repented  and  believed  before  they  were  baptized. 

Metho.  It  must  be  all  supposition  sure  enough,  but  it  is  a 
very  groundless  one.  The  practice  of  infant  baptism  has 
prevailed  in  all  ages  of  the  church  ;-— it  has  been  universal 
in  this  colony  ever  since  its  first  settlement  by  the  English, 
(Quakers  excepted)  till  within  a  very  few  years  you  have 
come  among  us,  under  the  title  of  reformers  of  this  corrup? 
lion,  as  you  are  pleased  to  call  it.  Surely  you  ought  to 
have  been  better  provided  with  arguments  for  such  an  un- 
dertaking. You  have  brought  three  scriptures,  and  they 
all  prove  just  nothing  at  all,  except  against  you.  And  see- 
ing you  have  no  more  scripture  to  bring,  you  are  reduced 
to  bare  suppositions  :  but  I  will  spoil  your  supposition  fbr 
you  ;  for  I  can  prove,  upon  your  own  principles,  that  the 
members  of  Lydia's  family  were  not  adults. 

•Una.  Can  you  so  ?  Let  me  hear  you. 

Metho.  Is  it  not  one  of  your  principles  that  you  must, 
have  express  scripture  proof  or  nothing,  and  that  you  will 
admit  of  no  supposition  ? 

Ana.  Yes. 

Metho.  And  don't  you  hold  that  people  adult,  must  be 
taught  before  baptism  ?  Or  do  you  think  an  adult  heathen 
would  be  baptized  before  he  was  taught  and  believed  ?  You 
say  no. 

Ana.  All  this  we  hold. 

Metho.  Then,  Sir,  upon  your  own  principles  I  can  prove 
that  Lydia9 s  family  consisted  of  infants,  or  such  as  were  un- 
der her  control,  and  so  were  baptized  by  her  will,  and  nof 
their  own. 

odna*  Proceed, 


(    27    ) 

Metho.  In  the  xvith  chapter  of  Acts  and  15th  verse,  w& 
3save  plain  scripture  that  Lydia's  family  were  baptized  \ 
but  I  must  not  say  that  the  members  of  her  family  were 
taught  or  believed  ;  for  this,  on  your  principles,  you  must 
4eny,  because  there  is  not  the  least  shadow  of  scripture  to 
prove  that  they  were  taught  or  believed.  Grown  persons* 
we  all  allow,  would  not  be  baptized  without  these  pre-re- 
quisites:  it  then  clearly  follows  that  they  must  be  infants 
and  such  as  were  baptized  by  Lijdias  will,  and  not  their 
own.  I  am  sure  you  have  no  scripture  to  prove  that  they 
Wer*e  either  instructed,  repented  or  believed  ;  so  that  upon 
your  own  principles,  I  have  fairly  proved  the  baptism  of  inv 
fants. 

Ana.  Stay  !  hold  !  Not  you.  Why  you  know  the  apes- 
ties  went  out  of  Ihe  city  by  a  river  side,  and  spake  unto  the 
women  which  resorted  thither.  (Acts  xvi.  13.)  And  here 
they  might  be  taught  perhaps. 

Metho.  Perhaps  so,  on  this  supposition,  that  all  Lydia's 
family  were  women  ;  otherwise  there  is  no  room  even  for  a 
perhaps.     Do  you  think  they  were  all  females  ? 

Ana.  It  is  very  possible. 

Metho.  1  allow  then  that  here  is  proof  that  the  apostles 
spake  to  women  by  the  river  side.  But  these  could  not  be- 
long to  Lydia's  family,  for  the  author  of  the  dialogue 
makes  out  that  the  members  of  this  family  Avere  all  men 
and  not  women,  since  you  and  he  stand  so  much  upon  words 
and  literal  significations. 

Ana.  Dots  he  so  ?  How  ? 

Metho.  Observe  here,  in  page  30th,  where  he  goes  about 
to  patch  up  a  proof  that  there  were  no  infants  in  Lydia's 
family,  he  refers  us  to  the  40th  verse,  «  And  they  entered 
into  the  house  of  Lydia,  and  when  they  had  seen  the  bre- 
thren, they  comforted  them  and  departed."  Here  he  insi- 
nuates that  all  these  brethren  belonged  to  Jjydia's  family, 
mid  that  the  apostles  saw  no  other,    If  so,  then  they  must 


(    28    ) 

fee  males  and  not  females,  otherwise  he  would  have  saidy 
and  when  he  had  seen  the  sisters  he  comforted  them,  &c« 
IV e  must  go  by  scripture,  and  you  know  the  scripture  teach- 
es us  to  call  women  sisters  and  not  brothers.  So  all  your 
proof  is  gone  again. 

Jlna.  But  what  does  the  sacred  writer  mean  by  their  see- 
ing the  brethren  and  comforting  them  ?  Our  author  says 
these  could  not  be  infants,  "  for  every  body  knows  that  a 
good  nurse  could  do  more  toward  comforting  a  cross  child 
than  an  apostle."  P.  30. 

Metho.  I  believe  your  author  would  make  a  good  Merry* 
Andrew,  he  is  very  witty  upon  us  :  but  such  low  wit  and 
reason  seldom  go  together.  But  now  to  the  question.  You 
know  there  was  a  numerous  church  planted  at  Philippi,  and 
we  have  reason  to  believe  that  many  more  were  converted 
on  this  first  visit  of  Faul  and  Silas,  than  what  we  have  here 
an  account  of.     Tire  rest  is  easy. 

•Una.   That  I  did  not  particularly  consider  before. 

Metho.  Upon  the  whole,  household  baptism  is  as  plain  in 
scripture  as  any  truth  whatever.  This  is  what  our  ehurek 
ministers  practise;  and  therefore  they  are  right  and  you  are 
wrong ; — and  so  you  stand  in  need  of  reformation  in  this  re- 
spect* and  not  they. — For  your  ministers  do  not  baptize 
households  together,  as  the  apostles  did,  and  our  ministers, 
after  their  example,  still  continue  to  do.  And  now  where 
is  all  the  scripture  you  talk  of  to  prove  your  principles  7 

Ana.  Why,  have  we  no  scripture  for  our  practice  ? 

Metho.  No,  not  one  single  text.  Your  practice  has  nei- 
ther precept  nor  example  to  support  it. 

Ana.  Why.  is  it  not  plain  the  apostles  did  baptize  adults? 

Metho.  And  so  do  our  ministers  too  ;  they  baptize  such 
adults  as  never  were  baptized  before,  or  in  infancy.  But  it 
is  very  strange  that  any  man  should  be  so  blind  as  not  to 
see  that  there  is  a  wide  difference  between  the  present  time 
and  the  turn  of  tho  apostles  and  first  planters  of  Christianity 


(    29    ) 

la  the  world.  The  apostles  went  out  info  heathen  nation^ 
ivith  an  intent  to  proselyte  those  who  had  no  gospel  or  chris- 
tian baptism  before;  nor  had  they,  as  we  know  of,  ever 
heard  of  Christianity  before.  In  this  case,  the  apostles  first 
work  Avas  to  open  their  commission,  to  convince  them  of  (he 
Deing  and  attributes  of  the  Lobd  and  his  Chuist,  and  to 
persuade  them  to  believe  the  truths  they  delivered  to  them* 
Now,  people  in  this  state,  mast  of  necessity  be  taught  such 
things  as  these,  and  believe  them  too,  before  they  would  b$ 
baptized  into  the  profession  of  them.  They  had  no  fathers 
who  believed  the  gospel,  to  baptize  them  in  their  infancy  as 
we  have  :  But  is  this  the  case  now  ?  No.  Many  nations  ar© 
now  baptized  into  Jkstjs  Christ  : — Christianity  has  long 
been  established  among  them,  and  it  has  been  handed  down 
from  fathers  to  their  sons,  and  parents  and  their  children 
are  already  baptized  into  it.  And  now,  Sir,  where  have  you 
any  command  to  do  this  over  again  ?  Or  where  have  you 
any  example  for  it  ?  Did  you  ever  read  of  any  one,  hern  of 
ehristian  parents,  baptized  at  adult  years  ?  Have  you  either 
precept  or  example  in  scripture  for  such  a  practice  ? — You 
must  know  you  have  not ;  and  till  you  can  shew  precept  and 
example  for  t liis9  you  shew  nothing  at  all  to  the  purpose  ; 
and  therefore  every  unprejudiced  person  must  conclude  that 
yours,  and  not  ours,  is  a  scripture-Jess  practice. 

Ana.  Do  you  suppose  that  the  apostles  baptized  the  in- 
fants of  those  who  believed  and  were  baptized  themselves  ? 

Metho.  I  do  not  only  suppose  it,  but  I  am  satisfied  they 
did.  Their  commission  includes  them,  and  their  baptizing 
whole  families,  just  as  our  ministers  do,  shews,  beyond  all 
shadow  of  doubt,  that  they  did  so.  Now  in  this  you  do  not 
follow  the  apostles'  example  as  we  do.  Did  you  ever  know 
©ne  instance  of  your  ministers'  baptizing  a  whole  household 
at  once  ?  I  believe  not.  Any  tolerably  consistent  and  can- 
did interpretation  of  the  14th  verse  of  the  viith  chapter,  1st 
epistle  Cm\  will  eowfirm  the  same  truth.     "  The  unbeliev- 


(    30    J 

iig  husband  is  sanctified  by  the  believing  wife  ;  and  rici 
versa — -else  were  your  children  unclean,  but  now  ate  they 
holy."  It  discovers  the  last  degree  of  stupidity,  or  the  most 
desperate  distortion,  for  the  purpose  of  defending  a  bad 
cause,  to  explain  those  terms  by  legitimate  and  illegitimate* 
Where  is  there  an  example  in  scripture,  you  who  stickle  so 
much  for  its  literal  words,  where  is  there  an  example  of  un- 
clean signifying  illegitimate  birth  ?  Or  of  holy  signifying  a 
child  born  in  lawful  wedlock  ?  Is  not  such  an  explanation 
suited  to  tempt  a  smile  at  the  embarrassment  of  writers 
with  an  obstinate  text  ?  But  the  terms  holy  and  sanetfy,  in 
a  multitude  of  passages  in  the  old  testament,  imply  the  se- 
paration of  any  thing  to  an  holy  or  sacred  use  J  as  the  ves- 
sels of  the  temple,  the  victims  for  sacrifice,  or  the  separa- 
tion  of  persons  from  the  rest  of  mankind,  to  sacred  privi- 
leges. So  Israel  was  called  a  holy  nation,  because  they  were 
distinguished  from  the  rest  of  the  world,  that  they  might 
enjoy  the  privileges  of  the  church  of  God.  The  Levites 
were  an  holy  tribe,  because  separated  to  be  the  priests  of 
that  religion.  What  an  easy,  natural  interpretation  of  these 
words  is  it,  in  conformity  to  their  frequent  use  in  scripture? 
to  say, — -else  were  your  children  unfit  for  the  blessed  privi- 
leges of  the  gospel  church  ;  but  now  are  they  /iofy,  that  is 
entitled  to  her  privileges,  and  particularly  to  the  ordinance 
of  baptism,  separated  from  the  rest  of  the  world,  and  distin- 
guished by  the  enjoyment  of  this  holy  ordinance,  for  the 
sake  of  one  believing  parent  ? 

JLna.  Well,  whatever  you  may  say  about  Lydia's  family, 
it  is  certain  the  Gaoler's  all  believed  and  were  taught :  »4  for 
"  the  scripture  says  enough  to  shew  that  there  were  no  fn- 
«  fants  in  the  Gaoler's  household,  for  the  apostles,  who  ne- 
<«  ver  used  to  preach  to  infants,  spake  unto  him  the  word  of 
f*  the  Lord,  and  to  aU  that  were  in  his  house  ;  and,  verse 
«  34,  it  is  said,  he  rejoiced,  believing  in  God  with  all  his 
?'  htmse*     Si*  that  h  is  evident  that  all  hsiinwd,  unless  some 


(  **  3 

*  artful  person  can  prove  that  there  were  some  in  the 
«  house  besides  the  all  that  were  in  the  house.5'     Page  $06 

JMetho.  This  smells  a  little  of  the  Jack-pudding  again* 
There  is  a  little  wit  and  a  little  art  too  in  that  sentence, 
but  your  author  has  gone  from  his  point.  He  set  out  with 
saying,  there  is  scripture  enough  to  prove  that  there  were  no 
infants  in  the  Gaoler's  household  ;  and  concludes  with  put- 
ting it  upon  some  artful  person  to  prove  there  were  not :  but 
it  does  not  require  much  art  to  shew  that  the  scripture  he 
brings  is  very  far  from  being  sufficient  to  prove  what  lie 
brings  it  for.— *»For,  suppose  I  should  say  that  the  Rev.  Mr* 
Jl.  preached  a  sermon  at  Mr.  B's,  or  spake  the  word  of  the 
Lord  to  all  that  were  in  Mr.  B's  house ;  would  this  be 
enough  to  prove  that  there  was  not  one  soul  at  Mr.  B\s  be- 
sides his  own  family,  or  that  Mr.  B.  had  not  a  child  in  his 
house,  or  that  Mr.  B's  wife,  like  Sarah  and  Elizabeth,  was 
a  barren  woman  ?  Do  you  call  this  reasoning  ?  It  is  really 
trifling.    To  mention  it  is  enough  to  confute  it. 

Ana.  But  you  don't  take  notice  of  what  is  said  in  34tli 
verse.     He  rejoiced,  believing  in  God  with  all  his  house. 

Metho.  This  does  not  prove  that  there  was  not  a  child 
there.  For  suppose  it  was  said  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  JL's  congre- 
gation at  Mr.  B's,  that  the  sermon  had  a  great  effect  upon 
all — that  they  all  rejoiced  in  the  Lord,  and  that  the  preach- 
er rejoiced  with  them  :  Is  it  not  easy  enough  to  understand 
this  expression,  without  undertaking  to  prove  from  it  that 
there  was  not  one  infant  there  ?  Or  that  there  was  not  one 
woman  there  who  had  brought  a  child  to  be  baptized  that 
day  ? — It  is  said  in  the  33d,  that  the  Gaoler  was  baptized, 
he  and  all  his  ;  which  I  think  strongly  implies  that  his  fa- 
mily or  the  greatest  part  of  them  were  baptized  by  the 
Gaoler's  will  and  desire ;  And  this  is  agreeable  to  Exodus, 
xiith  chap,  and  48th  verse,  where  it  is  said  of  one  proselyted 
td  the  Jews  religion,  Lei  all  his  males  be  circumcised  ;  and 


F 


(    »*    ) 

besides  it  is  not  said  tliat  the   Gaoler's  house  rejoiced  ancl 
believed,  but  only  that  lie  rejoice  ,  believing,  &e. 

Ana,  Bat,  "  the  household  of  Stephanas  were  the  first 
fruits  of  Achaia9  and  they  addicted  themselves  to  the  minis- 
try of  the  saints.  And  could  cradle  bed  infants  addict  them- 
selves to  the  ministry  of  the  saints  1"     Page  31. 

Metho.  This  argument  is  of  a  colour  with  the  rest,  and 
proves  nothing  at.  all  of  what  the  author  of  the  dialogue 
would  have  it  prove.  For  suppose  it  is  said  of  any  family 
in  our  church  (where  all  infants  are  baptized)  that  it  is  an 
exceeding  happy  family  ;  that  all  join  together  in  the  wor- 
ship of  God  ;  that  they  are  all  addicted  to  good  works,  and 
are  kind  to  the  preachers  of  the  gospel :  Would  it  not  be 
thought  exceeding  trifling,  if  some  captious  person  should 
say,  "  Why,  Sir,  you  are  wrong,  there  are  several  infants 
in  the  family,  and  can  cradle- bed  infants  do  so  and  so  ? 

Ana,  Well,  but  "  if  household's  must  needs  be  taken  as 
4i  comprising  infants,  then  that  phrase  salute  the  household 
66  of  Onesiphorus,  must  be  taken  so  too;  and  what  absurdi- 
**  ty  were  it  to  tell  cradle-bed  infants  that  Paul  the  prison- 
**  er  remembered  his  respects  to  them  ?"     Ibid, 

Metho,  If  it  be  an-  absurdity  to  remember  our  respects  to  a 
gentleman  &  his  family,  the  wisest  men  are  guilty  of  it ;  fof 
how  often  do  they  say,  "  Please  to  give  my  compliments  to 
such  a  family  ?  Or,  please  to  give  my  respects  to  Mr.  JW 
&nd  his  family  ?"— Indeed,  Sir,  such  arguments  as  these 
are*  so  trifling,  that  I  am  almost  ashamed  to  follow  your 
author  through  them.  You  must  see  that  his  intention  in 
all  this*  is  to  blind  and  deceive  the  ignorant,  and  to  beguiU 
unstable  souls, 

Ana,  But  I  don't  think  there  is  any  command  for  infant 
baptism  ;  and  if  so,  you  ought  not  to  baptize  them,  for  fear 
of  the  iud&ments  of  God.  "  Poor  U%%ah  lost  his  life  its 
eonsequence  of  carrying  the  Ark  upon  a  cart,  instead  e# 
aarrying  it  upon  mens*  shoulders."    3r*3ge  17* 


(    33    ) 

Metlio.  TVe  are  not  to  be  scared  out  of  our  duty  by  these 
far-fetched  stories.  J  believe  it  would  puzzle  a  philosopher 
to  find  out  any  connection  between  Uz>z>ah9$  cart  and  infant 
baptism  :  besides,  we  have  never  seen  any  body  lose  his  life 
for  having  his  child  baptized. 

Jlna.  "  This,  Sir,  U  a  more  spiritual  dispensation,  and 
f  therefore  God's  judgments  are  of  a  more  spiritual  nature, 
*«For  disobedience  Gop  many  times  sends  leanness  into  the 
« soul."    Ibid. 

Metho.  If  by  leanness  you  mean  the  want  of  holiness  of 
heart,  and  universal  love  to  God  and  all  mankind,  &£.  then 
I  think  the  leanness  appears  to  be  on  your  side  $  for  your 
ebarity  is  so  far  from  being  universal,  that  it  is  bounded  by 
ih&  narrow  limits  of  your  own  party  :  And  by  your  own  con- 
fession, your  hearts  continue  very  wicked  and  polluted  ;  and, 
no  wonder,  seeing  there  is  so  much  bigotry  and  spirit  of 
party  to  be  found  among  you,  and  so  great  a  part  of  your 
time  is  taken  up  in  disputing,  and  so  much  of  your  sermons 
is  taken  up  in  abusing  all  other  churches  and  societies  be- 
sides your  own.  It  is  not  strange  that  you  are  so  lean,  for 
the  soul  can't  feed  and  thrive  upon  ridicule  and  abase, 

Ana.  JVadao  and  Mihu  though  were  destroyed  fordoing 
what  the  Lord  commanded  them  not.     Page  32. 

Metho.  The  Anabaptists,  for  want  of  a  better,  have  made 
great  use  of  this  text,  I  commanded  them  not.  The  words 
are  found  in  Jeremiah,  viith  chap. '51st  verse,  where  they 
evidently  mean  that  the  people  had  done  what  the  Lord  had 
forbidden.  The  whole  verse  runs  thus,  They  hare  built  the 
high  places  of  Tophet,  to  burn  their  sons  and  daughters  in 
the  fire,  which  I  commanded  them  not.  This  was  murder 
and  idolatry,  both  of  which  are  absolutely  forbiddcn-*-But, 
Sir,  can  you  see  no  difference  between  the  Jews  offering  up 
their  sons  and  daughters  to  devils,  in  the  fire  of  Tofliet.  and 
the  christians  offering  their  children  to  God,  in  the  v&ter  of 
latptism.  ? 


(    3*    > 

Jlna,  But  one  plain  text  would  have  settled  the  whok* 
controversy. 

Jletho.  But  it  is  your  misfortune  that  you  have  not  got 
one  text  on  your  side,  plain  or  not  plain.  You  can't  pro- 
duce one  for  your  life  $  and  what  vaunting  is  this,  for  you 
to  pretend  that  you  have  so  much  scripture  on  your  side, 
and  when  you  are  called  upon  for  it,  you  have  none  to  bring, 
at  least  none  to  the  purpose,  mere  negatives  at  best. 

Una,  You  should  not  interrupt  me.— I  was  going  to  say, 
one  plain  text  would  have  settled  the  controversy  5  for  if  the 
apostles  had  said,  "  Brethren,  our  divine  Master  has  been 
*<  pleased  to  appoint  baptism  to  succeed  in  the  room  of  cir~ 
<«  cumeision,  and  your  infants  are  now  to  be  baptized  in- 
"  stead  of  being  circumcised,  it  would  have  done."    P.  22. 

Metho,  It  is  not  our  business  to  prescribe  how  the  apos- 
tles ought  to  have  spoken.  Infants  had  all  along  from 
Abraham  been  taken  into  the  church  with  their  parents :  if 
therefore  it  had  been  the  mind  of  Cukist  that  they  should 
no  longer  be  taken  in  with  their  parents,  but  were  to  be  left 
out  under  the  gospel  dispensation,  then  there  would  have 
been  a  necessity  for  an  express  mention  of.  But  our  Lokd 
is  so  far  from  intimating  any  such  thing,  that  he  declares  of 
such  is  the  kingdom  of  Heaven,  or  of  God.  But  we  have 
reason  to  think  that  if  the  apostles  had  spoken  as  you  pre- 
scribe, it  would  not  have  done  ;  for  they  told  the  Jews  that 
circumcision  was  abolished,  but  they  were  so  attached  to 
their  own  usages  that  tljey  still  thought  it  necessary. — It  is 
plain  that  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper  wrere  ordinances 
of  the  Christian  church. — The  Quakers  deny  both. — We 
are  plainly  commanded  to  sing  psalms,  hymns  and  spiritual 
songs.— The  Quakers  deny  all.  So  you  see  that  those  who 
are  given  to  dispute,  will  dispute  at  all  events. 
Jlna,  Well,  I  must  be  going.  Farewell. 
Metho.  No,  no,  stay  a  little  longer.  As  you  have  drawn 
me  into  this  dispute,  I  want  to  make  you  sick  of  it,  before  I 


(    35   ) 

let  you  £6.  I  hope  it  will  do  you  good  :  for  you  have  bees 
so  full  of  disputes  lately  that  all  your  religion  seems  to  belly 
in  this  very  thing.  So  much  disputing  among  professors  of 
religion,  has  wounded  the  cause  of  Christ  :  if  I  could  be 
so  fortunate  as  to  drive  this  disputing  devil  from  among  you, 
it  would  be  much  to  your  advantage,  and  contribute  towards 
your  happiness.  If  you  have  got  asy  scripture  against  in- 
fant baptism,  let  us  have  it  now. 

Ana.  I  have  none  but  repent  and  be  baptized,  believe  and 
be  baptized — teach  and  baptize. 

Metho.  So  I  thought. — And  two  of  these  you  quote 
wrong  :  for  there  is  no  such  scripture  as  believe  and  be  bap' 
iized,  nor  teach  and  baptize.  But  these  texts  I  have  taken 
notice  of  already,  and  have  shewn  how  little  they  make  for 
your  purpose. 

•Ana.  But,  «  wherever  Christ  commands  the  baptizing 
f*  believers,  there  is  an  implicit  prohibition  of  all  others  not 
f*  so  qualified  ;  for  every  affirmative  command  of  Christ 
f«  implies  a  negative."     Page  32. 

Metho.  Before  you  scare  us  with  your  negatives,  you 
ought  to  produce  your  affirmatives,  for  you  have  not  shewn 
us  where  Christ's  affirmative  command  for  baptizing  be- 
lievers is  yet.  The  text  I  suppose  your  author  had  his  eye 
upon,  is  that  in  Mark  xvith  chap.  16th  verse.  He  that  be- 
lieveth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved.  But  I  appeal  to  eve- 
ry person  in  his  right  senses,  whether  that  text  contains 
any  command  at  all.  It  only  contains  a  condition,  and  that 
not  a  condition  of  baptism  but  of  salvation.  This  is  clear 
from  the  promise  annexed  to  believing,  and  the  threatening 
denounced  against  unbelief.  He  that  believetli,  &c.  shall  be 
saved;  he  that  helieveth  not  shall  be  damned.  And  as  to 
what  your  author  says,  that  every  affirmative  command  im» 
flies  a  negative  ;  this  is  not  true,  for  we  have  a  positive 
command  to  keep  the  seventh  day  of  the  week  a  holy  sab- 
bath of  rest,  which,  according  to  your  author**  divinity,  is  a 


(    M    ) 

ffcoajatWe  command  for  not  keeping  the  first  day  of  the  week  f 
and  vet  y«>u  and  I  do  it.  There  is  also  a  positive  command, 
ftnrarwr  thy  father  and  mother  :  and  if  this  implies  a  nega- 
tive, then  it  is  a  sin  for  us  to  honour  rulers,  magistrates,  &c. 
An  i  as  to  that  other  scarecrow  your  author  makes  out  of 
JVadab  ami  Ahihu'8  offering  strange  fire,  commanded  not,  I 
would  reply,  that  this  is  not  a  parallel  case.  The  particular 
fire  they  were  to  offer  was  specified,  hut  they  would  not  da 
as  they  were  commanded.  Now,  if  in  baptizing  our  min- 
isters, instead  of  using  water  as  commanded,  should  use 
braiidy,  ru«i  or  tar,  the  observation  would  he  something 
better  ;  but  as  the  ease  is,  every  man  who  is  not  blinded 
with  prejudice,  must  see  that  the  author's  whole  design  is 
to  deceive  the  people  with  false  appearances. 

Ana,  But  if  you  are ■■right  with  regard  to  the  subjects  of 
baptism,  surely  you  are  not  right  in  the  mode.  The  apos- 
tles did  not  sprinkle,  but  plunge. 

MM(K  That  is  much  easier  said  than  proved. 

tMna,  O,  come,  we  nave  scripture  enough  for  this. 

Melho.  Perhaps  not — Let  us  see  what  ytm  have  got. 

Ana.  John  did  baptize  in  Jordan*  Mark  i.  *. — John  was 
baptizing  in  Enon,  became  there  wan  much  water  there,  &e. 

Metho,  That's  nothing  to  me,  1  am  not  John's  disciple  5 
and  if  I  was,  it  would  puzzle  you  to  prove  that  John  had 
them  oil-over  in  the  water. 

Ana,  H«>w  did  Phitep  baptize  the  Eunuch  ?  Theij  went 
down  hoik  into  the  Wider. 

Metko,  They  went  down  out  of  the  chariot,  and  they 
mi'J-Itt  stand  in  the  water,  for  what  yon  or  I  can  tell ;  bu«  it 
is  not  said  that  Philip  dippe  I  him  over  head  and  ears  in  the 
Water:  and  I  a  n  satisfied  he  did  not. 

Ana.   Why  do  you  think  so  ? 

Mciho.  Because  by  the  best  accounts,  the  water  is  not  six 
ics  iU-rp,  and  therefore  ii  was  not  possible  for  a  aiau  t© 
be  dipped  in  it. 


(  sr  ) 

Jna.  Who  says  so  ? 

Metho.  One  Mr.  Saunders,  who  was  at  the  very  plaee  | 
and  also  one  Charles  Thompson*  who  was  I  here  also. 

•An-a.  But  we  must  not  take  any  thing  from  man. 

Metho.  But  your  author  takes  something  from  man,  and 
affirms  it  was  actually  so. 

Ana.  But ;  does  it  not  say  we  are  buried  with  him  in  bap- 
tism ?  (£  And  can  a  man  he  said  to  be  buried  by  having  a  lit- 
tle sand  put  upon  his  face  V9     Page  12. 

Metho.  Your  author  says  he  is  sorry  any  one  should  tak® 
a  metaphorical  expression  as  strong  proof  of  any  filing. 
Page  25.  Surely  buried  with  Christ  by  baptism  into  death, 
is  not  a  literal  but  a  metaphorical  expression,  as  Well  as 
that  other  expression  in  the  same  chapter,  and  which  means 
the  same  thing,  crucified  with  him.  Therefore  nothing  can 
foe  proved  from  this  expression  ;  but  if  the  expression  was 
taken  literally*  it  would  make  as  much  or  more  for  sprink- 
ling or  pouring,  as  for  plunging.  For,  in  burying,  the  body 
is  not  plunged  through  the  substance  of  the  earth,  but  (lie 
earth  is  sprinkled  or  poured  upon  it.  So  all  your  proof  is 
gone  again,  and  you  are  out  at  sea  as  far  as  ever. 

Ana,  Why,  does  it  appear  to  you  that  the  apostles  sprink- 
led those  whom  they  baptized  ? 

Metho.  I  am  satisfied  they  did.  It  can  admit  of  little 
dou'it  hut  PanUiim self  was  so  baptised,  and  also  the  Gaoler 
and  all  his  household,  and  the  S000  at  one  time,  and  5000  at 
another,  converted  and  baptized  by  St.  Peter  at  Jenisulem, 
must  have  been  sprinkled. 

Jlna.  Why  so  ?  Our  author  says,  6i  there  is  one  circum- 
stance that  puts  it  beyond  a  doubt  that  Paul  was  dipped,  iia 
that  he  puts  himself  among  others,  and  asserts,  we  are  bu- 
ried with  Christ  in  baptism."     Page  15. 

Metho.  The  circumstance  he  mentions  does  not  remove 
the  doubt  at  all.  For,  i.  The  author  misquotes  the  apos- 
*••*  fosejrting  in  baptism^  instead  of  by  hayUm  into  &e*ik* 


(    38    ) 

&  The  egression  itself,  as  I  said  just  now,  is  figurative* 
and  therefore  no  certain  proof  can  he  drawn  from  it.     3* 
The  meaning  of  the  expression  is  doubtful,  most  people  be- 
lieving that  it  means  no  more  than  to  express  the  obligation 
which  lies  upon  all  who  are  baptized  to  die  unto  sin  and  de- 
part from  iniquity,  &e.     So  no  certain  conclusion  can  be 
drawn  from  doubtful  premises.     4.  It  has  not  been  made 
appear  yet,  that  the  others  he  puts  himself  among  were 
clipped.     And,  5.  If  it  could  be  proved  that  the  other**  were 
dipped*  it  would  not  prove  that  Paul  was,  any  more  than  it 
can  be  proved  that  St.  James  was  a  curser  and  swearer,  lie- 
cause  when  speaking  of  the  tongue,  he  puts  himself  among 
others  and  asserts,  *<  therewith  curse  we  men."     So  that 
your  author's  circumstance  leaves  the  matter  as  doubtful  as 
ever :  and  as  to  the  3000  and  5000  mentioned  before,  it  is 
not  at  all  probable  that  they  were  dipped  any  more  than  St. 
Paul.     Good  reasons  have  been  assigned  for  their  being 
sprinkled*  by  many  writers,  but  I  will  only  add  this.— Mr. 
Fuller  tells  us,  "  there  were  no  water  mills  at   Jerusalem, 
because  there  was  no  stream  large  enough  to  drive  them.'* 
They  had  none  but  the  gentle  waters  of  Siloam;  so  that  the 
nature  of  the  place  as  well  as  the  number  of  the    baptized, 
renders  it  plain  enough  that  they  were  sprinkled. 

.Ana.  The  action  of  baptism  is  to  represent  the  death,  bu- 
rial and  resurrection  of  Christ,  and  how  can  these  be  rep- 
resented but  by  plunging  ? 

Metho.  It  does  not  appear  that  the  act  of  baptizing  was 
intended  to  represent  any  such  things;  for  the  apostles,  who 
baptized  during  the  life  of  our  Lonu,  knew  nothing  of  it : 
for  after  Jesus  rose  from  the  dead,  it  is  said  that  as  \^t  they 
knew  not  the  scripture,  that  he  must  rise  again  from  the  decide 
John  xx.  9. 

Ana.  What  then  do  you  think  the  ac  of  baptizing  is  in- 
tended to  represent  ? 

Metho.  The  cleansing  from  sin  is  represented  by  it.   Wa- 


C    39    ) 

fer  you  know  is  an  emblem  of  purity,  and  has  in  itself  & 
cleansing  virtue.     Cleansing  from  sin  is  ooi  effected  by  trie 
element  of  water,  but  by  the  pouring  out  of  the  holy  spirit 
upon  us,  the  sprinkling  us  with  it,  and  also  the  sprinkling 
of  the  blood  of  Jesus,  all  which  is  represented  by  water. 
Hence  we  read,   Then  will  I  sprinkle  clean  water  upon  youP 
and  ye  shall  be  clean,  &e.   Ezekiei  xxxvi,  25.     So  shall  he 
sprinkle  many  nations,  &e.  Isa.  lii,  15.    This  cleansing  us 
from  all  filthiness  and  sin,  as  I  said,  is  not  the  effect  of  the 
water,  but  of  the  holy  spirit  and  the  blood  of  Christ,  which 
are  represented  by  the  water*      And  those  expressions  of 
sprinkling  us  with  the  spirit,  pouring  out  the  spirit  upon  us, 
and  sprinkling  us  with  the  blood  of  Jesus,  being  figurative* 
they  must  allude  to  some  likeness  m  nature,  with  which  we 
are  acquainted ;  for  all  our  ideas  of  spiritual  things  are  ta- 
ken from  some  likenesses  in  nature,  with  which  we  are  ac- 
quainted :  Then  it  follows,  that  the  pouring  of  water  is  an 
outward  sign  of  pouring  out  of  the  spirit.     From  hence  it 
may  be  concluded,  that  if  there  is  to  be  a  likeness  between 
the  sign  and  the  thing  signified,  then,  as  sprinkling  or  pour* 
jug  water  in  baptism  best  represents  this,  it  is  the  most  pro- 
per mode.     We  never  read  of  being  plunged  into  the  spirit 
or  into  the  blood  of  Chris  r,  but  of  these  being  poured  or 
sprinkled  upon  us.     The  likeness  between  the  sign  and  the 
thing  signified  would  be  lost  by  any  other  mode  of  baptism 
but  that  of  sprinkling. 

Ana.  Some  of  your  church  hoi  7s  with  dipping*  and  Mr. 
Burkett  says  it  was  the  manner  in  hot  countries. 

Metho.  Whatever  they  might  do  in  some  hot  countries 
does  not  prove  that  our  Saviour  has  fixed  this  mode.  For 
my  part,  I  should  never  be  for  any  other  mode  but  that  of 
sprinkling,  and  for  this  reason,  there  is  no  command  for 
dipping;  and  it  is  at  least  very  doubtful  whether  ever  the 
apostles  practised  it  in  any  one  instance  :~~<hei  e  are  the 
strongest  circumstances  that  they  illd  sprinkle,  and  as  sprint* 

G 


(    40    ) 

Sng  is  the  most  expressive  of  the  thing  signified,  therefore 
1  should  choose  this  mode  and  no  other* 

Ana.  I  douht  you  are  afraid  of  the  cross.  Brother  Har* 
ris  and  hrother  Waller  both  say,  that  "  this  has  frightened 
Diany  good  christians  from  the  blessing  attending  a  submis* 
sio si  to  this  ordinance.'* 

Jlletho.  It  is  very  strange  that  your  brother  Harris,  who 
so  often  tells  us  in  his  sermons  that  he  has  been  a  Burgess, 
and  a  Colonel,  a  Sheriff,  &c.  could  not  write  ten  line9,  after 
all  his  preferments,  without  contradicting  himself,  for  he 
has  advanced  a  glaring  contradiction  in  terms— "  Many  a 
good  christian,  and  yet  frightened  at  the  cross."  A  man 
cannot  be  a  christian  at  all  who  does  not  take  up  the  cross 
daily  ;  and  if  your  baptism  be  the  cross,  it  should  be  daily 
submitted  to  and  taken  up.-— But  what  blessing  is  this  that 
attends  this  submission  ? 

•5na.  Why  it  is  a  duty. 

Melho.  That  it  is  my  duty  to  be  baptized  a  second  time, 
or  in  other  words,  to  be  an  Anabaptist,  still  remains  to  bo 
proved.  The  contrary  has  appeared  hitherto,  and  you  have 
no  more  scripture  to  bring  to  prove  it  a  duty  ;  and  there* 
fore  I  ask,  Who  hath  required  this  at  your  hands  $ 

•Ana.  We  think  it  is  required,  and  we  believe  you  have 
changed  the  ordinances  and  broken  the  everlasting  covenant* 

ffletho.  You  think  so ;  and  I  suppose  the  Fapists  think 
they  ought  to  baptize  hells  and  go  barefoot :  But  your  think** 
in*  so  is  no  proof.— -But  what  ordinances  have  we  changed? 
The  words  you  allude  to  are  found  in  xxivth  Isaiah,  and  5th 
Terse,  At  that  time  it  is  beyond  a  doubt  that  infants  were 
taken  into  the  church  of  God.  This  we  have  not  changed, 
for  we  take  them  in  still.  And  what  everlasting  covenant 
have  we  broken  ?  The  everlasting  covenant  here  mentioned, 
was  the  same,  I  suppose?  which  was  made  and  established 
with  Mrahaitt*  for  an  everlasting  covenant.  Gen.  xvii.  7. 
in  this  infants  aro  expressly  named,  and  required  to  be  en- 


(   41   5 

$m?A  into  it.  This  we  do  still.  Wow  wlio  is  it,  you  or  w^ 
Who  have  changed  the  ordinances,  and  broken  the  everlast- 
ing covenant  ?  For  thai  man  who  did  not  enter  himself  and 
his  seed  into  covenant,  by  the  seal  of  circumcision,  was  to 
be  cut  oif  from  among  the  people  :  He  hathhrokm my  cgv&> 
giant.  Geo.  xvii.  i&. 

JLna.  But  we  can't  allow  that  baptism  succeeds  in  the 
place  of  circumcision. 

Metho.  No,  no,  you  must  take  care  how  you  give  up  that* 
©r  indeed  allow  any  thing  that  is  true,  though  ever  so  plain: 
JJut  Doctor  Gill,  the  famous  Anabaptist  in  London,  in  his 
JBxpositioa  on  the  Canticles,  had  like  to  have  forgot  him* 
self,  and  let  the  truth  fall  out,  before  he  was  aware :  How- 
ever truth  enough  dropped  from  him  to  shew  that  he  look* 
•d  upon  baptism  to  answer  the  same  end  under  the  gospel* 
as  cireumcision  did  under  the  law. 

Qtarto  edition,  page  1.35, 
JLna.  I  don't  think  it  did. 

Metho,  Why,  it  appears  you  think  so,  by  your  own  prac- 
tice* and  I  can  make  you  sensible  of  it. 
•Una.  How  ? 

Metho.  Were  any  considered  as  members  of  the  Jewisb 
church  under  the  law,  but  such  as  were  circumcised  ?  Was 
BOt  that  man  cut  off  from  the  church,  or  from  among  the 
people,  who  did  not  submit  to  this  rite  J  Were  any  admitted 
to  the  Passover  without  it  ? 
Jhia.  All  this  is  right. 

Metho.  Very  well.  Then  I  ask,  are  any  considered  as 
members  of  your  church  who  are  not  baptized  ?  Are  not  all 
those  cut  off  from  among  you  who  will  not  submit  to  that 
rite?  Or  are  any  admitted  to  the  sacrament  among  you 
without  it  ?  I  need  not  wait  for  an  answer,  for  every  body 
knows  that  this  is  your  opinion  by  your  practice :  and  there- 
fore it  appears  by  your  own  practice,  that  they  answer  the 
same  end*    This  is  enough,  without  going  any  farther. 


jSntt.  B'it  some  of  your  church  have  written  as  if  noli 
baptizing  infants  would  abridge  their  privilege  ;  but  what 
privileges  have  your  sprinkled  infants  which  ours  have  not, 
though  they  are  not  baptized  ?  We  have  the  oracles  of  Gop, 
and  «  I  hope  that  you  will  allow,  Sir,  that  I  have  as  good  a 
right  to  put  a  bible  into  my  child's  hand,  as  you  have  into 
yonr's."     Page  31. 

Metho.  A  Jew  might  have  argued  in  the  same  manner, 
What  good  does  it  do  to  circumcise  my  child  ?  What  though 
he  is  not  circumcised,  I  hope  that  you  will  allow,  Sir,  that 
I  may  teach  my  child  as  well  as  you. 

Jna.  But  can  you  point  out  any  bene||t  infants  receive  by 
It,  which  others  do  not  partake  of? 

Metho.  To  this  I  have  spoken  already,  and  it  will  be  time 
enough  to  answer  that  question  further,  when  you  point  out 
any  benefit  which  you  receive  by  your  adult  dipping,  which 
we  who  were  baptized  in  infancy,  do  not  partake  of:  but 
this  you  can't  do ;  nor  can  you  shew  one  end  it  answers,  but 
a  very  bad  one,  that  is  to  make  a  schism  in  the  church,  the 
bodv  of  Chiiist.  Do  you  expect  to  be  saved  by  your  bap- 
tism ? 

•Ana.  No.  salvation  is  not  of  works. 

Melho.  I  believe  I  could  produce  many  witnesses  to  prove 
tli :it  they  have  heard  some  of  your  preachers  often  declare, 
that  people  could  not  be  saved  without  submitting  to  your 
baptism  :  and  I  myself  have  heard  it  said  by  some  of  you, 
that  they  believed  every  christian  would  sooner  or  later  sub- 
in  it  to  it.  Now,  what  is  this  short  of  making  a  Saviour  of 
water,  and  affirming  that  none  but  those  of  your  own  sect 
can  be  saved,  or  go  to  Heaven  ? 

•Una.  I  believe  ik&t  all  christians  will  submit  sooner  or 
Iziev  to  our  baptism. 

Metho.  This  is  uncharitable  indeed  :— "What  reasonable 

man  can  swallow  this  ?  Look  into  all  ages  of  the  church, 

especially  those  of  which  we  have  the  dearest  diseove* 


(   M   5 

pv.  Where  have  tlie  most  pious  and  useful  men  beon  found  ? 
JSot  in  your  chureh  or  of  your  persuasion.  When  popery 
bad  overspread  so  great  a  part  of  Christendom,  was  U.t-  ra*i 
formation  brought  about  b.v  Anabaptists  ?  &ot  at  all.  Ati- 
ther  was  the  man  raised  up  and  qualified  by  the  Lord  to 
bring  about  this  glorious  event;  bat  after  the  reformation: 
was  in  some  good  measure  effected,  then  started  up  the  sect 
pf  Anabaptists  :  And  this  sect  aid  a  vast  deal  of  hurt  to  the 
reformation,  by  bringing  very  much  discredit  upon  it.  This 
■was  about  235  years  ago,  and  no  clear  account  of  your  sect 
can  be  traced  any  further  back  than  this  period.  It  has 
hem  said  by  some  that  the  Waldenses  and  Albigmses  in  Bo* 
hernia,  were  of  your  opinion,  at  least  some  of  them  ;  but  I 
have  lately  read  the  history  of  the  Waldenses,  Jllbigenses 
and  Petrobrusians,  and  I  cannot  see  that  there  was  any 
such  error  among  them,  as  that  of  denying  infant  baptism. 

Jlna.  But  our  author  says,  page  9,  the  ancient  WoMen- 
ses  and  Jllbigenses  are  charged  by  the  Papists  with  denying 
Infant  baptism* 

Metho.  It  is  not  at  all  improbable  but  the  Papists  were 
villainous  enough  to  charge  them  with  this  erroneous  opi- 
nion ;  foe  the  historian  who  writes  the  account  of  the  rise 
and  sufferings,  &c.  of  these  good  people,  says,  that  «  the 
Popish  Monks  charged  them  with  many  foul  and  false  opi- 
nions. From  which  accusations  they,  by  a  publick  apolo- 
gy, cleared  themselves.55  (See  Clarke's  General  Martyro- 
logy,  in  Christian  Library,  vol.  6,  and  page  14.)  So  that 
if  the  Papists  did  charge  them  with  denying  infant  baptism, 
it  appears  that  it  was  only  a  wretched  and  malicious  slan- 
der, and  by  their  apology  they  made  it  evident  that  it  was 
so,  and  that  no  such  foul  and  false  opinion  was  held  among 
them.  It  is  manifest,  from  Clark's  account,  that  the  Wal- 
denses, Jllbigenses  and  Petrobrtisiajis  were  one  and  the  same 
people,  and  that  they  were  episcopalians,  as  our  church  is  : 
But  with  respect  to  the  reformation  just  mentioned,  it  is 


(    4*    } 

dear  that  Anabaptists  did  then  make  their  appearance,  Be* 
se  Luther  mentions  them,  and  complains  of  the  great 
hurt  they  did  to  the  reformation  and  the  christian  cause, 
(Bee  his  commentary  on  the  Galatians.J  And  now,  Sir, 
what  reasonable  man  can  even  suppose  that  you  were  sent 
here  to  reform  the  corruption  of  any  established  ordinance  ? 
Luther  was  sensible  that  the  Anabaptists  hung  as  a  dead 
weight  upon  the  skirts  of  the  reformation,  and  I  believe 
many  pious  people  believe  you  hang  as  a  dead  weight  upoa 
the  skirts  of  true  religion  at  the  present  day  ;  and  whatever 
you  may  be  prompted  to  believe,  from  the  too  great  success 
you  have  met  with  in  making  proselytes  to  your  persua* 
sion,  I  trust  my  countrymen  begin  to  see  into  things,  in 
some  good  measure  now,  and  will  not  so  easily  be  beguiled* 
as  too  many  have  been  already. 

Ana*  Ah,  now  you  are  persecuting  us  :  but  we  have  al» 
ways  been  a  persecuted  people,  and  so  have  the  mark  of  the 
people  of  Go®,  Blessed  are  ye,  says  our  Lord,  that  are  per* 
scented  for  righteousness  sake, 

Metho,  Take  care,  if  you  are  persecuted,  that  it  be  fot° 
righteousness  sake,  and  not  for  unrighteousness  : — but  far 
be  it  from  me  to  persecute  any  man  alive.  But  if  it  is  called 
persecution  in  ine  to  speak  the  truth  in  answering  for  my* 
self,  and  endeavoring  to  preserve  people  from  error,  what 
mast  we  think  of  those  many  abusive,  sneering  and  offensive 
expressions  which  are  to  be  found  in  your  author,  and  in 
many  of  your  sermons  ? 

•ana.  We  don't  persecute.  What  expressions  do  you 
mean  ? 

Metho.  How  often  do  we  hear  your  preachers  (who  pep- 
haps  have  not  read  their  bible  through  since  they  went  to 
school)  declaring  in  such  language  as  this  ?  viz.  "  Infant 
baptism  is  a  scripture-less  practice — a  feather  of  Antichrist9  s 
cap — built  upon  a  Popish  quicksand — haled  through  the 
chureh  of  Rone — a  spawn  of  the  msthvr  of  harfot$—th&" 


(    45   ) 

jbnirfe&neeof  lazy  priests,  who  are  afraid  of  wetting  Hid? 
feet,  who  rather  than  do  their  duty,  will  lie  in  bed  and  mil 
for  a  cordial :" — that  is,  in  plain  English,  they  are  so 
drunk  they  can't  rii^j  and  many  other  things  too  tedious 
to  mention.  All  this  Is  we!!,  as  it  comes  from  you,  no  per- 
secution at  all :  but  if  we  say  any  thing  against  what  you 
advance,  in  vindication  of  ourselves,  though  in  the  most  in- 
offensive terms  the  truth  will  admit  of; — O,  this  is  persecu- 
tion, we  are  poor  persecuted  creatures,  and  such  like, 

Ana.  O,  but  you  must  own  that  some  of  the  church  mia* 
Jsters  do  get  drunk* 

Metho.  Supposing  this  to  be  the  ease  with  some,  jet, 
blessed  be  God,  they  are  not  all  of  this  stamp  ;  and  if  they 
Were*  this  would  make  nothing  against  infant  baptism,-— 
And  how  easy  would  it  be  for  me  to  recriminate  ?  But  I  will 
never  return  railing  for  railing — I  scorn  it. — My  cause  can 
ho  defended  easy  enough  without  descending  to  the  low  ar-» 
tifice  of  slander  and  abuse. — What  I  have  said  already, 
the  Anabaptists  in  the  world  can  never  answer  ;  but  I  have 
not  said  the  hundredth  part  of  what  might  be  said,  and 
been  said.  If  yoi\  or  any  one  else  should  desire  further' 
light  into  this  subject,  I  would  advise  the  reading  of  Host* 
apic's  sermon  on  Infant  Baptism*  FlateVs  argument  with 
Cory,  Baxter's  dispute  with  Tombs,  Wall's  history  of  In* 
fant  Baptism  and  Conference.  Whoever  reads  these  witii 
an  impartial  eye  and  unprejudiced  mind,  will  be  in  no  dan* 
ger  of  being  an  Anabaptist. — But  I  could  risque  the  cause 
with  all  the  world  upon  what  I  have  this  day  advanced  in 
conversation  with  you. 

Ana.  Well,  I  must  be  going — farewell. 

Metho.  I  wish  you  well,  and  I  beseech  you  for  the  future 
to  pray  more  and  dispute  less,  and  be  more  anxious  to  grow 
in  grace  than  to  make  proselytes  to  an  opinion  which  has  no 
snore  scripture  on  the  side  of  it.     Then  you  will  lead  a 
^nd  peaceable  life*  in  ali  godliness  and  christian  love. 


(    43    ) 

APPENDIX. 


■w  oo -Me- oe- 

B&traet  from  a  Sermon  on  Baptism,  by  the  Rev,  Caleb  & 
Tenney,  of  Newport,  M,  I.    Published  1808. 

TESTIMONIES,  well  authenticated,  give  assurance, 
that  Infant  Baptism  was  universally  practised  by  the 
church  in  the  time  of  the  Apostles  and  for  several  centuries 
after  them. 

Although  this  right  of  infants  is  not  to  be  maintained  Irjr 
the  evidence  of  history  alone,  yet  if  the  testimonies  of  the 
fathers  in  the  first  ages  of  Christianity  are  united  to  sup- 
port this  as  an  observance  of  the  church,  they  will  establish.) 
beyond  all  reasonable  denial,  the  transmission  of  this  right, 
from  Christ  and  the  Apostles. 

As  the  concession  is  general,  that  the  baptism  of  infants 
has  been  practised  for  several  of  the  last  centuries,  our  pre- 
sent inquiry  is  into  the  practice  of  the  church  in  the  time  of 
the  Apostles,  and  of  their  immediate  successors. 

Grateful  must  it  be  to  the  Christian  world,  that  more 
than  a  century  ago,  a  complete  history  of  Infant  Baptism 
was  published  by  Dr.  Wall,  a  learned  and  correct  historian. 
Such  were  the  accuracy  and  merits  of  this  work,  that  in  a 
general  convention,  holden  Fehruarv  9th,  1705,  the  elenry 
of  England  •'•  ordered,  that  the  thanks  of  this  house  begiv- 
«  en  to  Dr.  Wall,  for  the  learned  and  excellent  book,  he 
e°  hath  lately  written,  concerning  Infant  Baptism."  Also 
Mr.  Whiston,  a  man  of  extensive  learning,  and  one  of  the 
denomination  of  Baptists,  declared  to  many  of  them,  in  a 
public  address.  «•  That  Dr.  Wall's  history  of  Infant  Bap- 
's* tism,  as  to  facts,  appeared  to  him,  most  accurately  done, 
**  and  might  he  depended  on  by  the  Baptists  themsleves.M-~* 
From  this  history,  a  few  testimonies,  touching  the  subject 
before  us.  are  now  to  he  presented. 

After  all  his  assiduous  researches,  our  historian  gives  the 
result  of  the  various  testimonies,  in  these  words  :  '*  For  the 
"jirst  four  hundred  years"  after  Christ,  «  there  appears 
65  only  one  man,  Tertulian,  who  advised  the  delay  of  Infant 
«  Baptism  in  some  cases;  and  one  Gregory,  who  did,  per- 
(i  haps,  practise  such  delay  in  the  case  of  his  own  children  $ 
"  but  no  society  of  men  so  thinking,  or  so  practising  ;  op 
**  any  one  ntatt  saying,  it  was  unlawful  to  baptize  infants* 


(    «    ) 

«  So  in  the  next  seven  hundred  years*  there  19  not  so  much 
jw  as  one  man  to  he  found,  who  either  spoke  for,  or  practised 
<«  any  such  delay,  but  all  the  contrary.  And  when,  about 
U  the  year  1130,  one  sect  among  the  Waldenses,  or  A 1  bi- 
ff geuses  declared  against  the  baptizing  of  infants,  as  being 
**  incapable  of  salvation,  the  main  body  of  that  people  re- 
**  jected  their  opinion $  and  they,  who  still  held  that  opinion, 
«  quickly  dwindled  away,  and  disappeared  ;  there  being  no 
«  more  persons  heard  of,  holding  that  tenet,  until  the  rising 
«  of  the  German  Antipcedobaptists,"  or  Baptists,  *«  in  the 
«  year  1532." 

Considering  the  practice  of  Infant  Baptism,  through  the 
long  period,  from  the  fourth  to  the  sixteenth  century,  as 
universally  observed,  except  by  a  few  who  soon  dwindled 
away,  and  some  who  denied  all  baptism  by  water ;  we  are 
brought  to  a  careful  examination  of  the  subject,  during  the 
-first  four  centuries. —But  through  this  period,  so  complete 
was  the  union  of  all  Christians  in  this  point,  that  publica- 
tions directly  upon  this  subject,  either  controversial,  or 
historical,  were  needless.  The  accounts  of  the  fathers  are, 
of  course,  detached  and  occasional.  Yet  they  are  suffici- 
ently numerous  and  decisive,  to  carry  full  conviction,  that 
in  their  day,  the  church  uniformly  gave  baptism  to  the  in- 
fants of  believers. 

About  300  years  after  the  Apostles,  or  400  after  the  birth 
of  Christ j  the  Pelagian  Controversy*  upon  the  subject  of 
Original  Sin*  was  commenced,  continued  long,  and  engaged 
the  greatest  abilities  of  the  age.  On  one  side,  Pelagius  and 
his  adherents  contended,  that  infants  were  born  free  from 
all  sinful  impurity. — On  the  other  side,  Austin,  with  his 
adherents,  urged  against  them  the  design  of  Infant  Baptism. 
«<  Infants  are,"  said  Austin,  ««  by  all  Christians,  acknow- 
"  ledged  to  stand  in  need  of  baptism,  which  must  be  for  ori- 
«  ginal  sin,  since  they  have  no  other.  If  they  have  no  sin, 
i(  why  are  they  then  baptized,  according  to  the  rules  of  the 
6i  church,  for  the  forgiveness  of  sins  ?  Why  are  they  washed 
"  in  the  laver  of  regeneration,  if  they  have  no  pollution  V9 
By  this  argument,  the  Pelagians  felt  themselves  pressed, 
and  deeply  perplexed.  But  had  the  baptism  of  infants  not 
been  practised  by  the  church,  they  might,  with  ease,  have 
asserted  this,  denied  the  right,  and  freed  themselves  from 
the  whole  argument,  by  which  they  were  so  deeply  embar- 
rassed. Was  this,  however,  the  method  which  they  adopt- 
ed ?  Was  this  their  expedient,  to  secure  to  themselves  a  fi* 

If 


(    **   ) 

aal  triumph  ? — Indeed,  their  conduct  was  completely  the 
reverse.  When  some  reported,  that  Pelagius,  by  denying 
the  pollution  of  infants,  denied  baptism  to  them  also,  he,  in 
his  own  vindication,  declared  :  «  Men  slander  me,  as  if  I 
"  denied  the  sacrament  of  baptism  to  infants,  and  did  pro- 
**  mise  the  kingdom  of  heaven  to  any  person  without  the 
"  redemption  of  Christ :  but  I  never  heard  of  any,  not  even 
"  the  most  impious  heretic,  that  would  say  such  a  thing  of 
"  infants."  In  opposition  to  the  success  of  his  own  argu- 
ment, and  of  his  favourite  sentiment,  this  man  did,  thus 
plainly  declare,  that  he  was  slandered  by  those,  who  intima* 
ted,  that  he  denied  the  baptism  of  infants,  and  that  it  was 
the  universal  practice  of  the  church ;  or  that  he  had  never 
heard  of  any  man,  no,  not  even  the  most  impious  heretic* 
who  denied  this  sacrament  to  them.  But  at  this  period* 
was  Infant  Baptism,  as  some  would  intimate,  generally  de- 
nied ;  and  still,  had  Pelagius,  who  had  travelled  into  all 
parts  of  the  Christian  world,  and  well  knew  the  general  state 
of  all  the  churches,  had  he  never  heard  of  one,  who  denied 
it  ?— -These  circumstances,  duly  considered,  must  be  viewed 
as  almost  absolute  proof,  that,  at  this  early  period,  Infant 
Baptism  was  practised  throughout  the  Christian  church. 

About  280  years  after  the  Apostles,  Austin  asserted  in 
his  writings,  «  That  Infant  Baptism  is  one  of  those  practi- 
"  ces,  which  was  not  instituted  by  any  council,  but  has  al- 
"  ways  been  in  use. — The  whole  church  of  Christ  have  con- 
«  stantly  held,  that  infants  are  baptized,  for  the  forgive- 
«  ness  of  sin."  He  adds,  "  That  he  had  never  read,  or  heard 
"  of  any  Christian,  catholic,  or  sectary,  who  held  other' 
«  wise." 

About  270  years  after  the  Apostolic  age,  Hierome,  Chry* 
50stom  and  Ambrose  touched  upon  this  subject,  in  their  wri- 
tings. Hierome  says  :  "  If  infants  be  not  baptized,  the  sin 
«  of  omitting  their  baptism  is  laid  to  the  parent's  charge." 
Chrysostom  says  ;  "  That  persons  may  be  baptized,  either 
'*  in  their  infancy,  in  middle  age,  or  in  old  age  $  and  that  in- 
iS  fants  were  baptized."  Ambrose  declares  ;  "  That  Infant 
5i  Baptism  was  practised  in  his  day,  and  in  the  days  of  the 
i6  Apostles."  Thus,  in  the  third  century  after  the  Apos- 
tles, these  writers  speak  of  the  baptism  of  infants  as  not  in-* 
f  roduced  in  their  age,  but  as  a  practice,  which  had  been  uni« 
ibrmly  observed  by  the  church.  We  are  hence  certain, 
that  this  practice  prevailed  earlier  than  the  third  century. 

The  settind  after  the  Apostles  is,  therefore,  to  be  exa- 


(    *9    ) 

mined.  Not  far  from  150  years  after  them,  Cyprian,  tlie 
Bishop  of  Carthage,  and  a  distinguished  martyr,  submitted 
to  a  council  of  66  bishops,  or  ministers,  this  question  ;— 
<*  Whether  an  infant  might  be  baptized  before  it  was  eight 
"  days  old  f  Upon  this  question  the  council  was  unani- 
mous,  that  infants  might  be  baptized  before  they  were  eight 
days  old.  In  their  reply  to  Fidus,  the  Bishop  by  whom  the 
question  was  first  proposed,  they  write  in  the  words  follow- 
ing ;  «<  As  to  the  case  of  infants,  whereas  you  judge,  that 
**  none  should  be  baptized  and  sanctified,  until  the  eighth 
«*day  after  their  birth,  we  were  alt  in  our  assembly  of  a 
« quite  different  opinion.  For  with  respect  to  what  you 
**  thought  fitting  to  be  done,  there  wsls  not  one  of  your 
<(  mind."  Testimonies  like  this  are  evidence  not  to  be  eva- 
ded, nor  resisted.  This  council  was  holden  so  near  the  age 
of  the  Apostles,  that  they  must  have  been  able  to  learn  with 
accuracy  and  certainty  the  Apostolic  practice.  When  we 
can  ascertain  beyond  all  doubt,  the  religious  sentiments  and 
practices  of  our  fathers,  who  first  settled  in  this  country  ; 
when  we  can  look  back  300  years,  to  the  days  of  Calvin  and 
Luther,  and  determine  their  faith  and  practice,  could  not 
this  council  look  back  through  a  period  of  half  the  length, 
and  ascertain  the  views  and  proceedings  of  the  Apostles  con-, 
cerning  infants  ?  Is  it  not  unquestionable,  that  some  of  the 
more  aged  of  the  sixty-six  bishops,  had  seen  and  conversed 
with  many,  who  had  enjoyed  personal  acquaintance  with  the 
Apostles  and  their  practice  ?  At  least,  this  council  of  Car- 
thage must  have  certainly  known,  whether  Infant  Baptism 
was  practised  by  the  Apostles,  or  were  an  innovation  after 
their  day.  But  had  it  been  an  innovation,  it  could  not,  at 
this  early  period,  have  been  established  through  the  church 
universally  ;  nor  could  it  have  been  established  without  fixed 
opposition  and  severe  dissention.  Yet,  without  the  least 
doubts  concerning  the  duty  and  with  unanimous  voice,  they 
declare,  That  infants  may  be  baptized  before  they  are  eight 
days  old.  Either  all  the  members  of  this  council,  and  all 
the  fathers,  (for  with  thorn,  all  the  fathers  unite,)  were  con- 
federated to  support  a  known  error  ;  or  else,  the  practice  of 
Infant  Baptism  descended  to  them  from  the  Apostles.  To 
believe,  however,  that  they  were  so  confederated,  requires  a 
stretch  of  unchristian  severity,  to  whieli  no  man  can  extend 
himself.  The  transactions  of  this  council,  which  Cyprian 
stated  at  length  in  an  epistle,  written  by  his  own  hand,  about 
150  years  after  the  Apostles,  are,  therefore,  a  clear  and 


(  s°  ) 

invincible  testimony  to  the  practice  of  Infant  Baptism  m 
their  age.  And  of  history,  «  There  is  no  piece,"  says  our 
historian,  "  in  all  antiquity,  that  canbe proved  more  certain* 
£'  ly  to  be  genuine,  than  this." 

Although  we  might  here  rest  our  enquiries,  in  full  con- 
viction, that  the  baptism  of  infants  was  inculcated  by  the 
Apostles,  and  uniformly  practised  by  the  primitive  Christi- 
ans, yet  we  have  other  testimonies  both  explicit  and  weigh- 
ty. The  evidence  is  clear,  that  Origin  descended  of  Chris- 
tian parents ;  that  he  was  born  about  85  years  after  the 
Apostles ;— that  he  was  a  man  of  extensive  reading,  and 
travelled  into  those  countries,  where  Christianity  was  first 
and  most  generally  prevalent.— This  man,  who  was  17  years 
old  when  his  father  suffered  martyrdom,  must  be  acknow- 
ledged to  have  been  in  a  capacity  to  ascertain  fully  the  mind 
ofthe  Apostles,  and  the  practice  of  the  church,  concerning 
Infant  Baptism.  And  thus  saith  Origin  :  "  Infants  by  the 
*<  usage  of  the  church,  are  baptized.— Infants  are  baptized 
"  for  the  remission  of  sin.^-The  church  had  a  tradition,  or 
««  command  from  the  Apostles  to  give  baptism  to  infants  ; 
«  for  they  to  whom  the  divine  mysteries  were  committed 
«'  knew,  that  there  is  in  all  persons,  the  natural  pollution  of 
66  sin,  which  ought  to  be  washed  away  by  water  and  the 
*•  Spirit."  This  testimony,  my  brethren,  is  full  and  incon- 
trovertible. For  we  are  constrained  to  believe,  that  by  Ori- 
gin such  assertions  would  not  be  sent  forth  to  the  public,  un* 
less  true.  We  are  constrained  to  believe,  that  had  any  in 
his  time  denied  Infant  Baptism,  they  would  not  have  been 
silent  until  they  had  made  it  appear,  that  the  church  re- 
ceived no  such  command  from  the  Apostles,  and  observed 
no  such  practice.  But  Origin's  testimony  stands,  without  a 
word  from  any  ofthe  fathers  in  contradiction,  and  in  all  its 
weight,  is  transmitted  to  us,  that  infants  were  baptized  in 
compliance  with  Apostolic  command. 

A  little  more  than  100  years  from  the  Apostles,  Turtu- 
lian,  and  about  150  years  after  him,  Gregory,  testified  indi- 
reetiy,  but  fully,  to  the  practice  of  Infant  Baptism.  These 
two  men,  our  historian  declares,  as  in  our  first  quotation 
were  the  only  persons  to  be  found  during  the  first  four  cen- 
turies, who  so  much  as  advised  the  delay  of  baptizing  in- 
fants. Turtu-lian,  though  esteemed  a  man  of  learning  and 
veracity,  was  extravagantly  fond  of  peculiarities,  and  for  he- 
resy was  finally  ejected  from  the  church.  He  advised  to 
delay  the  baptism  of  children,  until  they  had  passed  the 


C  «  ') 

temptations  of  youth.  Sueh  delay  Gregory  observed  re- 
specting Lis  own  children.  But  they  hoth  speak  of  Infant 
Baptism  as  universally  practised.  Even  their  advice  for  a 
delay  draws  the  conclusion  after  it,  infallibly,  that  infants 
were  baptized.  Otherwise,  there  had  been  no  occasion  for 
sueh  advice. 

Thus  we  are  assured,  that  Infant  Baptism  was  not  intro- 
duced in  the  second  century  from  the  Apostles.  For  all  the 
fathers  mention  it  as  universally  observed,  not  only  in  this 
century,  but  even  at  an  earlier  period.. — The  evidence  du- 
ring the  first  century,  therefore,  merits  cur  attention.  =-? 
But  in  so  early  a  period,  the  Christians,  as  they  must  have 
known  fully  the  mind  of  the  Apostles,  had  no  ground  for 
controversy,  or  for  leaving  their  testimony  upon  the  subject. 
Of  course,  any  thing,  which  remains,  undenied  by  all  the 
fathers,  and  from  whieh  this  practice  can  be  fairly  inferred, 
must  be  viewed  as  evidence,  in  the  present  case,  sufficient 
and  decisive.     Such  evidence  we  have. 

After  the  Apostles  67  years,  Irenseus  in  his  writings 
spoke  upon  this  subject.  This  Irenseus  was  born  before  the 
death  of  St.  John,  lived  in  Asia  where  the  Apostle  resided, 
and  was  afterward  bishop  of  Lyons  in  France.  lie  saw  and 
conversed  with  some  who  had  seen  Christ;  he  was  acquaint- 
ed with,  and  had  attended  upon  the  preaching  of  Polvearp, 
who  was  the  disciple  of  St.  John,  and  probably  that  angel  of 
the  church  in  Smyrna,  whom  the  Apostle  so  highly  ap- 
proves in  the  second  chapter  of  Revelations.  Being  well 
acquainted  with  Polyearp,  living  so  near  the  Apostles, 
where  St.  John  lived  and  died,  Irenseus  could  not  be  igno- 
rant of  the  apostolic  practice  concerning  Infant  Baptism, 
According  to  the  custom  of  the  fathers,  he  spake  of  baptism 
by  the  thing  signified  in  the  use  of  water  and  called  it  regenc 
ration.  But  that  he  intended  the  external  baptism  of  in- 
fants, when  he  spoke  of  their  regeneration,  is  certain  froai 
his  own  explanation.  In  reference  to  some,  who  had  been 
baptized,  he  says,  fc*They  are  regenerated  in  the  same  way 
"  of  regeneration  in  whieh  we  have  been  regenerated  ;  for 
*?  they  are  washed  with  water*  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
*<  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  For  Christ  says, 
<«  Unless  ve  be  regenerated,  you  cannot  enter  into  the  kins:- 
"  dom  of  heaven."  Speaking  of  Christ,  Irenseus  says; 
"  He  came  to  save  all  persons ;  all,  I  mean,  who  by  him  are 
"regenerated,  for  lapiized.J  unto  God  :  Injt  nts  and  Utile 
li  ones  ;    and    children,    and   youths,    and   eider    persons. 


*'<  Therefore  lie  went  through  the  several  ages ;  for  infanta 
**  being  made  an  infant,  that  he  might  sanctify  infants  ;  to 
*'  little  ones,  he  was  made  a  little  one."— -This  testimony 
proves,  undeniably,  that  the  baptism  of  infants,  as  an  impor- 
tant duty,  was  practised  in  the  days  which  succeeded,  im- 
mediately, to  the  Apostolic  age. 

Justin  Martyr,  who  was  born  ahout  4,  and  wrote  about 
40  years  after  the  Apostle  John,  observes  in  one  of  his  Apo- 
logies for  the  Christians,  that,  «  Several  persons  among  us, 
*<  of  60  or  70  years  old,  who  were  made  disciples  to  Christ 
«?  from  their  childhood,  do  continue  uncorrupt.,,  These 
persons  must  have  been  made  disciples  in  the  days  of  the 
Apostles,  and  must  afterward  have  witnessed  their  practice. 
From  them,  Justin,  their  acquaintance,  had  opportunity  to 
derive  full  assurance  concerning  the  Apostles'  treatment  of 
infants,  and  their  views  of  baptism  in  general.  With  this 
advantage  he  declares,  that  baptism  and  circumcision  are  of 
the  sai:ie  import,  and  of  course  the  former  must  be  applied, 
as  the  latter  formerly  was,  to  infants.  Says  Justin,  "  We 
*<  have  not  received  the  carnal,  but  spiritual  circumcision,  by 
"  baptism.  And  it  is  allowed  to  all  persons  to  receive  it  in  the 
"  same  way."  More  than  this,  from  the  age  and  circum? 
stances  in  which  he  lived,  we  could  not  expect.  The  testi- 
monies then,  of  Irenseus  and  Justin,  and  equal  evidence  from 
the  writings  of  Clemens  and  Hermes,  contemporaries  with 
Paul,  and  mentioned  in  his  Epistles,  have,  without  contra- 
diction from  one  of  the  fathers,  descended  to  us,  and  are 
strong  and  invincible. 

The  evidence  is  already  clear  and  plenary,  that  the  prac« 
tice  of  Infant  Baptism  was  not  introduced  in  the  third  cen- 
tury after  the  Apostles ;  for  it  is  repeatedly  mentioned,  as 
universally  prevalent  in  the  second.  Nor  was  it  introduced 
in  the  second  century  after  them  ;  for  it  is  mentioned  by  un- 
deniable and  full  implication,  as  universally  prevalent  in  the 
first.  Certainly,  then,  as  an  innovation,  it  was  introduced 
in  the  first  century,  without  a  struggle,  and  unknown  to  the 
whole  world  ;  or  else,  as  Origin,  Chrysostom,  and  Ambrose 
affirm,  the  church  had  a  command,  or  tradition  from  the 
Apostles,  to  give  baptism  to  infants. 

That  such  an  order  was  given,  and  that  the  church  prac- 
tised in  conformity,  is  certain,  from  the  expressed  and  gene- 
ral belief  of  the  fathers,  that  baptism  comes  in  the  place  of 
circumcision,  and  is  of  the  same  use. — As  before  quoted, 
Justin  said,  «  We  have  not  received  the  carnal,  but  spiritual 


(  *  ) 

e(  circumcision,  by  baptism."  «« Dost  thou  delay,  said  Basifj 
M  the  circumcision,  made  without  hands,  which  is  perform- 
«  ed  in  baptism?"  In  belief,  from  the  evidence  we  have  al- 
ready considered,  that  baptism  takes  the  place  of  circumci- 
sion, the  fathers  must  have  applied  it  to  infants.  This  con- 
elusion,  no  man  can  doubt,  Accordingly,  Chrysostom  saw! ; 
66  One  that  is  in  the  very  beginning  of  his  age,  may  receive 
**  this  circumcision  made  without  hands." 

In  direct  confirmation  of  the  correctness  of  all  the  prece- 
ding testimonies,  we  have  invincible  proof  from  several  his- 
torical accounts,  written  at  an  early  period,  and  yet  extant, 
of  all  the  different  religious  sects  and  practices,  which  pre 
vailed  in  the  first  ages  of  Christianity •  Irenseus  wrote  Ids 
account  76  years  after  the  Apostles.  Austin  and  Philas- 
tmis  wrote  about  280  years  after  them.-  Philastruis,  who 
created  a  distinction  into  sects  for  every  little  difference  of 
opinion,  stated  the  whole  number  of  sects  at  100*  Theo- 
doret  wrote  a  learned  and  very  particular  account  of  here- 
sies, about  380  years  after  the  Apostles.  These  writers  are 
full  and  express;  some  of  them  declare,  they  had  named  all 
the  sects  they  had  ever  heard  of  in  the  world,  speak  parti 
cularly  of  those  who  deny  all  baptism  by  water,  and  ex- 
pressly state  the  different  ways,  in  which  water  was  applied 
in  baptism.  But  in  all  their  accounts,  not  the  most  distant 
hint  is  to  be  found,  that  any,  who  believed  in  any  kin'd  of 
baptism  by  water,  did  deny  the  practice  of  Infant  Baptism- 
No  sect,  no,  not  a  man  is  named.  But  had  there  been  any, 
who  had  denied  this,  the  denial  of  it,  since  it  was  generally 
practised  in  the  church,  would  have  been  a  peculiarity  suf- 
ficient to  constitute  a  distinct  sect,  and  must  have  been  men- 
tioned by  these  writers*  But  these  writers,  and  all  the  men 
of  antiquity,  had  not  the  least  knowledge  of  any  such  sect. 
Evidence  like  this  must  carry  conviction  to  every  mind  un- 
less shielded  by  the  unchristian  armour  of  obstinacy  and 
prejudice. 

To  all  this  may  be  added,  as  an  argument  of  importance? 
a  deduction  from  the  silence  of  scripture  history,  and  of  the 
Jews  of  the  Apostolic  age.  The  Jews,  who  were  exceed- 
ingly tenacious  of  their  descent  from  Abraham,  and  of  the 
relation  of  their  children  to  the  covenant  ,• — who  suffered 
none?  unless  circumcised,  to  become  incorporated  with 
them ;-— who  were  watchful  and  jealous  of  every  change 
from  their  ancient  order,  and  of  whatever  seemed  unfriendly 
to  their  distinction  and  privileges  \ — who,  after  the  esta- 


(   &*   ) 

folishment  of  Christianity,  opposed  the  admission  of  the  Gen* 
tiles  into  the  church  without  circumcision,  until  a  council 
was  convened  at  Jerusalem,  and  declared,  that  it  seemed 
good  unto  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  to  them,  not  to  lay  this  un- 
necessary burden  upon  the  Gentile  brethren  ; — the  Jews* 
some  of  whom  were  implacable  enemies,  and  urged  every 
possible  objection  against  the  gospel ;  the  Jews,  had  the 
Apostles  severed  children  from  their  uniform  connection 
with  the  church  and  from  the  seal  of  the  covenant,  would 
have  sounded  this  innovation  far  and  near,  and  have  viewed 
St  an  unanswerable  objection  against  the  gospel.  But  did 
they  ever  allege,  that  Christianity  excluded  their  children 
from  their  former  standing,  or  curtailed  their  privileges ? 
Did  the  Apostles  ever  attempt  to  answer  this  objection,  to 
remove  this  stumbling  block  ?  In  the  whole  scriptures,  not 
a  word  upon  the  subject  is  recorded.  The  objection  was 
never  urged.  But  it  would  have  been  pressed,  had  not  the 
Christian  dispensation  preserved  and  secured  all  the  privi- 
leges and  blessings  of  children.  In  this  instance,  the  silence 
of  scripture  utters  a  language,  which  can  but  be  heard,  and 
must  secure  belief* 

On  the  whole,  have  we  not,  my  brethren,  ample  and  deci- 
sive evidence  to  support  the  right  and  duty  of  Infant  Bap- 
tism ?  Must  not  all  the  objections  urged  against  either  the 
right  or  design  of  this  institution,  be  merely  apparent,  cir- 
cumstantial, and  really  groundless  ?  Can  we  desire,  could 
we  have  evidence  more  complete  ?  Indeed,  this  evidence  is 
full,  that  you  may  receive  and  firmly  hold,  in  all  their  ex- 
tent and  consolation,  the  gracious  words  of  the  Apostle,—* 
The  promise  is  unto  you,  and  to  youii  children,  and 
to  all  that  are  afar  off,  even  as  many  as  the  Lord  our  God 
shall  call. 

The  following  is  extracted  from  the  reverend  and  pioue 
Bishop  Beveridge's  "  Thoughts  on  Religion." 

ARTICLE  X. 
I  believe,  that  as  God  entered  into  a  covenant  of  graze  with 
us,  so  hath  he  signed  his  covenant  to  us  by  a  double  seal, 
baptism,  and  the  Lord's  supper. 
AS  the  covenant  of  works  had  two  sacraments,  viz.  the 
tree  of  life,  and  the  tree  of  the  knowledge  of  good  and  evil ; 
the  first  signifying  and  sealing  life  and  happiness  to  the  per- 
formance, the  other  death  and  misery  to  the  breach  of  it* 


(  i] 


go  the  covenant  of  grace  was  likewise  sealed  with  two ^  typi- 
cal sacraments,  circumcision  and  the  passover.  1  he :  torm- 
er  was  annexed  at  God's  first  making  «™  «"«"*  w?£ 
Abraham's  person ;  the  other  was  added,  at  his  fulfilling  the 
promises  of  it,  to  his  seed  or  posterity,  winch  were,  there- 
fere,  stvled  the  promised  seed.  But  these  being  only  typical 
of  the  true  and  spiritual  sacraments,  that  were  afterwards 
?o  take  p  ace  «ponP  the  coming  of  the  Messiah,  .here  was 
then,  in  the  fullness  of  time,  two  other  sacraments  subst  tu- 
ted  in  their  stead,  viz.  baptism,  and  the  supper  of  the  Lord. 
And  these  sacraments  were  both  correspondent  to  the  types 
bv  whieh  thev  were  represented.  . 

As  to  the  first,  viz.  circumcision,  whether  I  consider  the 
time  of  conferring  it,  or  the  end  of  its  institution,  I  fin.,  it 
exactly  answers  to  the  sacrament  of  baptism  in  both  these 
™ts?    For,  as  the  children  under  the  law  were  to  be 
circumcised  in  their  infancy,  at  eight  days  old  ;  so  are  toe 
children  under  the  gospel  to  be  baptized  in  ttor  infancy 
too.     And  as  the  principal  thing  intended  in  the  rite  ot  cir- 
cumcision, was  to  initiate  or  admit  the  children  of  thefa.lh- 
fuUnto  the  Jewish  church  ;  so  the  chief  design  o    baptism 
now,  i.  to  admit  the  children  of  such  as  profess  themselves 
christians,  into  the  church  of  Christ.     And.  for  this  reason, 
I  believe,  that  as,  under  the  old  testament,  children  had  the 
trant  of  covenant  privileges,  and  church  membership,  as 
really  as  their  parents  had ;  so  this  grant  was  not  repealed, 
as  is  intimatedf  Acts  ii.  39.  but  farther  confirmed  in  the  new 
testament,  in  that  the  apostle  calls  the  children  of  believing 
Barents  holy,  1  Cor.  xii.  14.     Which  cannot  he  understood 
of  a  real  and  inherent,  but  only  of  a  relative  and  covenanted 
holiness,  by  virtue  of  which,  being  born  of  believing  parents, 
themselves  are  accounted  in  the  number  of  believers,  and 
are  therefore  called  holy  children  under  the  gospel,  in  the 
game  sense  that  the  people. of  Israel  were  called  a  g  peo- 
ple under  the  law,  Deut.  vn.  6.  and  xiv.  2, 21.  as  being  all 
within  the  covenant  of  grace,  which,  through  the  faith  ot 
their  uarents,  is  thus  sealed  to  them  in  baptism. 

Not  that  I  think  it  necessary,  that  all  parents  should  be 
endued  with  what  we  call  a  saving  faith,  to  entitle  their 
children  to  these  privileges,  (for  then  none  but  the  children 
of  such  who  have  the  spirit  of  Christ  truly  implaned  in 
them,  would  be  qualified  to  partake  ot  the  covenant  but 
even  such,  who  by  an  outward  historical  faith,  have  taken 
tb<^  name  of  Christ  upon  them,  are,  by  that  means,  in  cove- 

X 


(    5G    ) 


nant  with  God,  and  so  accounted  holy  in  respect  of  their  pro* 
fession,  whatever  they  may  be  in  point  of  practice.  And  if 
they  are  themselves  holy,  it  follows  of  course,  that  their 
children  must  be  so  too,  they  being  esteemed  as  parts  of 
their  parents,  till  made  distinct  members  in  the  body  of 
Christ.;  or,  at  least,  till  they  come  to  the  use  of  their  rea- 
son, and  the  improvement  of  their  natural  abilities. 

And,  therefore,  though  the  seal  be  changed,  yet  the  co- 
venant-privileges, wherewith  the  parties  stipulating  unto 
God  were  before  invested,  are  no  whit  altered  or  diminish- 
e'd  ;  believers'  children  being  as  really  confederates  with 
their  parents,  in  the  covenant  of  grace  now,  as  they  were 
before  under  the  Jewish  administration  of  it.  And  this 
seems  to  be  altogether  necessary  ;  for  otherwise,  infants 
should  be  invested  with  privileges  under  the  type,  and  he  de- 
prived of  or  excluded  from  them,  under  the  more  perfect 
accomplishment  of  the  same  covenant  in  the  thing  typified  ; 
and  so,  the  dispensations  of  God's  grace  tvould  be  more  strait 
and  narrow  since,  than  they  were  before  the  coming  of  our 
Saviour,  which  I  look  upon  to  bk  wo  £j&ss  than  BLAS- 
PHEMY TO  ASSERT, 

And,  upon  this  ground,  I  believe,  it  is  as  really  the  duty 
of  christians  to  baptize  their  children  now,  as  ever  it  was 
the  duty  of  the  Israelites  to  circumcise  theirs ;  and  there- 
fore, St.  Peter's  question,  Can  any  man  forbid  water,  that 
these  should  not  he  baptized,  who  have  received  the  Holy 
Ghost  as  well  as  we  $  Acts  x.  47  may  very  properly  be  ap- 
plied to  this  case.  Can  any  one  forbid  water,  that  children 
should  not  be  baptized,  who  are  in  covenant  with  the  most 
high  God  as  well  as  we  ?  For  what  is  it,  1  pray,  that  the 
right  to  baptism  doth  depend  upon  ?  Surely,  not  upon  per- 
forming the  conditions  of  the  covenant ;  for  then  none  should 
he  baptized,  but  such  as  are  true  believers  in  themselves, 
and  known  to  be  so  by  us ;  and,  b\  consequence,  none  at 
all ;  it  being  only  God's  prerogative  to  search  their  hearts, 
and  to  know  the  truth  of  that  grace,  which  himself  hath 
been  pleased  to  bestow  upon  them.  But  children's  right  to 
baptism  is  grounded  upon  the  outward  profession  of  their 
believing  parents  $  so  that  as  a  king  may  be  crowned  in  his 
cradle,  not  because  he  is  able  to  wield  the  sceptre,  or  ma- 
nage the  affairs  of  his  kingdom*  but  because  he  is  heir  to 
hh  father  ;  so  here,  children  are  not  therefore  baptized,  be- 
cause they  are  able  to  perform  the  conditions  of  the  cove- 
nant* which  is  sealed  to  them,  but.  because  thev  are  children 


(    ft    ) 

to  believing  parents.  And  this  seems  yet  to  be  farther  evi- 
dent, from  the  very  nature  of  seals,  which  are  not  adminis- 
tered or  annexed  to  any  covenant,  because  the  conditions  are 
already  performed,  but  rather  that  they  may  be  performed: 
and  so  children  are  not  baptized,  because  they  are  already 
true  christians,  but  that  they  may  be  so  hereafter. 

As  for  a  command  for  infant-baptism,  I  believe,  that  the 
same  law  that  enjoined  circumcision  to  the  Jewish  enjoins 
baptism  likewise  to  christian  children,  there  being  the  same 
reason  for  both.  The  reason  why  the  Jewish  children  were 
to  be  circumcised,  was  because  they  were  Jewish  childrenj 
born  of  such  as  professed  the  true  worship  of  God,  and  were 
in  covenant  with  him  :  and  there  is  the  same  reason,  why 
christian  children  are  to  be  baptized,  even  because  they  are 
christian  children,  born  of  such  as  profess  the  true  worship 
of  the  same  God,  and  are  confederates  in  the  same  covenant 
with  the  Jews  themselves.  And,  as  there  is  the  same  rea- 
son, so  likewise  the  same  end  for  both,  viz.  that  the  children 
might  be  actually  admitted  into  the  same  covenant  with 
their  parents,  and  have  it  visibly  confirmed  to  them  by  this 
initiating  seal  put  upon  them  :  so  that  circumcision  and 
baptism  are  not  two  distinct  seals,  but  the  same  seal  di- 
versely applied ;  the  one  being  but  as  a  type  of  the  other, 
and  so  to  give  place  to  it,  whensoever,  by  the  institution  of 
Christ,  it  should  be  brought  into  the  ohureh  of  God.  And 
therefore,  the  command  for  initiating  children  into  the 
church  by  baptism,  remains  still  in  force,  though  circumci- 
sion, which  was  the  type  and  shadow  of  it,  be  done  away. 
Hnd  for  this  reason,  I  believe,  that  was  there  never  a  com- 
mand in  the  new  testament  for  infant-baptism,  jet,  seeing 
there  is  one  for  circumcision  in  the  old,  and  for  baptism,  as 
coming  into  the  place  of  it,  in  the  new,  I  should  look  upon 
baptism  as  necessarily  to  be  applied  to  infants  now,  as  cir- 
cumcision was  then. 

But  why  should  it  be  supposed,  that  there  is  no  command 
in  the  new  testament  for  infant-baptism  ?  There  are  several 
texts  that  seem  to  imply  its  being  practised  in  the  first 
preaching  of  the  gospel,  as  particularly  in  the  ease  oTI/ydia 
and  the  keeper  of  the  prison.  Acts  xvi.  15,  33.  who  had  their 
whole  families  baptized,  and  we  no  where  find,  that  children 
were  excepted.  On  the  contrary,  St.  Peter  exhorting  the 
converted  Jews  to  be  baptized,  makes  use  of  this  argument 
to  bring  them  to  it,  For  the  promise,  says  he,  is  unto  you, 
q,n&  to  your  children,  Acts  ii.  38*  39.  which  may  as  reason- 


(    S3    ) 

ably  be  understood  of  their  infants,  as  of  their  adult  poste- 
rity. But,  besides,  it  was  the  express  command  of  Christ 
to  his  disciples,  that  they  should  go,  and  teach  all  nations* 
baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy, 
Ghost,  Matth.  xxvii.  10.  The  meaning  of  which  words  X 
take  to  be  this :  go  ye,  and  preach  the  gospel  amongst  all 
nations,  and  endeavour  thereby  to  bring  them  over  to  the 
embracing  of  it  ;  that  leaving  all  Jewish  ceremonies  and 
heathenish  idolatries,  they  may  profess  my  name,  and  be- 
come my  disciples,  receive  the  truth,  and  follow  me  ;  which 
if  they  do,  I  charge  you  to  baptize  them  in  the  name  of  the 
Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost :  for  the  word  matheleusaie 
doth  not  signify  to  teach,  but  to  make  disciples,  denoting  the 
same  here,  that  mathetas  poiein  doth  upon  the  like  occasion, 
John  iv,  l. 

And  this  is  the  sense  that  all  the  ancient  translations  agree 
in  ;  nor,  indeed,  will  the  text  itself  bear  any  other ;  especi- 
ally, not  that  of  teaching;  for  though  the  apostles  should 
have  taught  all  nations,  yet  they  were  not  presently  to  bap- 
tize them,  unless  they  became  disciples,  and  professors  of 
the  doctrine  that  they  were  taught.  .  A  man  may  be  taught 
the  doctrine  of  the  gospel,  and  ^H  not  believe  it;  and  even 
though  lie  should  believe,  yet  unless  he  openly  professes  his 
faith  in  it,  he  ought  not  presently  to  be  baptized.  For, 
without  this  outward  profession,  the  very  possessing  of 
Christ  cannot  entitle  a  man  to  this  privilege  before  men, 
though  it  doth  before  God  ;  because  we  cannot  know  how 
any  one  stands  affected  towards  Christ,  but  only  by  his  out-* 
ward  profession  of  him.  It  is  the  inward  possession  of 
Christ's  person  that  entitles  us  to  the  inward  spiritual  grace : 
but  it  is  the  outward  profession  of  his  name  only,  that  enti- 
tles us  to  the  outward  visible  sign  in  baptism :  so  that  a 
man  must,  of  necessity,  be  a  professed  disciple  of  the  gos- 
pel, before  he  can  be  admitted  into  the  church  of  Christ. 
And  hence  it  is,  that  the  words  must  necessarily  be  under- 
stood of  discipling,  or  bringing  the  nations  over  to  the  pro- 
fession of  the  christian  religion  ;  or  else,  we  must  suppose, 
what  ought  not  to  be  granted,  that  our  saviour  must  com- 
mand many  that  were  visible  enemies  to  his  cross,  to  be  re- 
ceived into  his  church  ;  for  many  of  the  Jews  were  taught 
and  Instructed  in  the  doctrine  of  the  gospel,  who,  notwith- 
standing, were  inveterate  enemies  unto  Christ.  They  were 
taftght,  that  he  was  the  Messiah,  and  saviour  of  the  world* 
*  -1  that  ivh&soecer  believed  in  him9  should  not  perish,  bu£ 


(    59    ) 

"have  everlasting  life ;  and  they  bad  all  the  reason  in  the 
World  to  I)**  convinced  of  it :  ^et,  T  hope,  there  is  none  will 
say,  that  the  bare  knowledge  of,  or  tacit  assent  unto,  these 
things,  are  a  sufficient  ground  for  their  reception  into  the 
church. 

Now,  as  h  was  in  the  Jewish  church,  when  any  one  be- 
came a  proselyte,  not  only  himself,  but  whatsoever  children 
lie  afterwards  had,  were  to  be  circumcised  ;  so  in  the  church 
of  Christ,  whensoever  any  person  is  brought  over  into  the 
profession  of  the  christian  religion,  bis  seed  are  all  equally 
invested  with  the  outward  privileges  of  it  with  himself, 
though  they  he  not  as  yet  come  to  years  of  discretion,  nor 
able,  of  themselves,  to  make  their  profession  of  that  religions 
they  are  to  he  received  and  baptized  into.  For,  so  long  as 
Children  are  iu  their  infancy*  they  are  (as  I  before  observed) 
looked  upon  as  parts  of  their  parents,  and  are  therefore  ac- 
counted holy,  hy  the  outward  profession  which  their  pa- 
rents, under  whom  they  are  comprehended,  make  of  it :  a?  c! 
in  this  sense,  1  Cor.  viii.  14.  the  unbelieving  husband  is  said 
to  he  sanctified  by  the  believing  wife,  and  the  unbelieving 
%vfe  bij  the  believing  husband,  that  is  man  and  wife  being 
made  ope  flesh,  they  are  denominated,  by  the  better  part, 
holy,  and  so  are  their  children  too. 

And  hence  it  is,  that  I  verily  believe,  that  in  the  commis- 
sion which  our  saviour  gave  to  his  apostles,  to  disciple  and 
baptize  all  nations,  he  meant,  that  they  should  preach  the 
gospel  in  all  nations,  and  thereby  bring  over  all  persons  of 
understanding  and  discretion  to  the  profession  of  his  name, 
and  in  them,  their  children ;  and  so  engraft  both  root  and 
branch  into  himself,  the  true  vine,  by  baptizing  both  parents 
and  children  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Ghost. 

The  main  objection  against  this  is,  that  infants  are  not  \n 
a  capacity  either  to  learn  and  understand  their  duty  in  this 
covenant,  or  to  stipulate  and  promise  for  their  future  per- 
formance of  the  conditions  of  it.  But  this  difiVultv  is  easi* 
ly  removed,  when  1  consider,  that  it  i&not  by  virtue  of  their 
Own  faith  or  knowledge,  but  that  of  their  parents,  that  they 
are  admitted  to  this  sacrament ;  nor  is  it  required,  that  they 
should  stipulate  or  promise  in  their  own  persons,  but  by 
their  godfathers  or  sponsors,  who  enter  into  this  engage* 
jnent  for  them,  and  oblige  them,  when  they  come  of  age,  t$ 
take  it  upon  themselves ;  which  accordingly  they  .do.  And 
ihh  engagement,  by  proxy,  docs  as  effectually  bind  them  to 


(    60    ) 

the  performance  of  the  conditions,  as  if  they  were  actually 
in  a  capacity  to  have  stipulated  for  themselves,  or  sealed  the 
covenant  in  their  own  persons.  For  these  spiritual  signs  or 
seals  are  not  designed  to  make  God's  word  surer  to  us,  but 
only  to  make  our  faith  stronger  in  him  ;  nor  are  they  of  the 
substance  of  the  covenant,  hut  only  for  the  better  confirma- 
tion of  it, 

ooo^ooo-ta* 


From  the  Commentary  or  Doctor  Apam  Clarke. 

JWe  on  Matthew,  3d  chapter,  6th  verse. 
In  what  form  baptism  was  originally  administered,  has 
been  deemed  a  subject  worthy  of  serious  dispute.  Were  the 
people  dipped  or  sprinkled  °l  for  it  is  certain  hapto  and  bap- 
ii%o  mean  both.  They  were  all  dipped,  say  some.  Can 
any  man  suppose,  that  it  was  possible  for  John  to  dip  all 
the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem  and  Judea,  and  of  all  the 
country  round  about  the  Jordani  Were  both  men  and  wo- 
men dipped,  for  certainly  both  came  to  his  baptism  ?  This 
could  never  have  comported  either  with  safety  or  with  de- 
sency.  Were  they  dipped  in  their  clothes  V  This  would  have 
endangered  their  lives,  if  they  had  not  with  them  change  of 
raiment :  and  as  such  a  baptism  as  John's  (however  admi- 
nistered) was,  in  several  respects,  a  new  thing  in  Judea,  it 
is  not  at  all  likely,  that  the  people  would  come  thus  provi- 
ded. But  suppose  these  were  dipped,  which  I  think  it  would 
be  impossible  to  prove,  does  it  follow,  that  in  all  regions  of 
the  world,  men  and  women  must  be  dipped,  in  order  to  be 
evangelically  baptized  ?  In  the  eastern  countries,  bathings 
were  frequent,  because  of  the  heat  of  the  climate,  it  being 
there  so  necessary  to  cleanliness  and  health  ;  but  could  our 
climate,  or  a  more  northerly  one,  admit  of  this  with  safety, 
for  at  least  three  fourths  of  the  year  ?  We  may  rest  assured 
that  it  could  not.  And  may  we  not  presume,  that  if  John 
had  opened  his  commission  in  the  North  of  Great  Britain, 
for  many  months  of  the  year,  he  would  have  dipped  neither 
man  nor  woman,  unless  he  could  have  procured  a  tepid  bath? 
Those  who  are  dipped  or  immersed  in  water  in  the  name  of 
the  Holy  Trinity,  I  believe  to  be  evangelically  baptized. 
Those  who  are  washed  or  sprinkled  with  water  in  the  name 
of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  1  be? 


(    61    3 

lieve  to  be  equally  so  :  and  the  repetition  of  such  a  baptism, 
I  believe  to  be  profane.  Others  have  a  right  to  believe  the 
contrary,  if  they  see  good.  After  all,  it  is  the  thing  sign*- 
iied,  and  not  the  mode,  which  is  the  essential  part  of  the  sa- 
crament. 

Note  011  Mark,  vii  chapter,  16  verse* 
Then,  though  little  children,  they  were  capable  of  receiv- 
ing Christ's  blessing.  If  Christ  embraced  them,  why 
should  not  his  church  embrace  them  ?  Why  not  dedicate 
them  to  God  by  baptism  $  whether  that  be  performed  by 
sprinkling,  washing,  or  immersion;  for  we  need  not  dispute 
about  the  mode  :  on  this  point  let  every  one  be  fully  pcrsua* 
ded  in  his  own  mind.  I  confess  it  appears  to  me  gross]/ 
heathenish  and  barbarous,  to  see  parents  who  profess  to  be- 
lieve in  that  Christ  who  loves  children,  and  among  them 
those  whose  creed  does  not  prevent  them  from  using  gpfant 
baptism,  depriving  their  children  of  an  ordinance  by  which 
no  soul  can  prove  that  they  cannot  be  profited  ;  and  through 
an  unaccountable  bigotry  or  carelessness  withhold  from 
them  the  privilege  of  even  a  nominal  dedication  to  God  \ 
and  yet  these  very  persons  are  ready  enough  to  fly  for  a  mi- 
nister to  baptize  their  child  when  they  suppose  it  to  be  at 
the  point  of  death  !  It  would  be  no  crime  to  pray,  that  such 
persons  should  never  have  the  privilege  of  hearing  my  fa- 
ther i  or  my  mother  I  from  the  lips  of  their  own  child,  " 


Concluding  Note. 
It  is  easy  to  carry  things  into  extremes  on  the  right  hand 
and  on  the  left.  In  the  controversy,  to  which  there  is  a  ve 
ry  gentle  reference  in  the  preceding  observations,  there  has 
been  much  asperity  on  all  sides.  It  is  high  time  this  were 
ended.  To  say  that  water  baptism  is  nothing,  because  a 
baptism  of  the  Spirit  h  promised,  is  not  correct.  Baptism, 
howsoever  administered,  is  a  most  important  rite  in  the 
church  of  Christ.  To  say  that  sprinkling  or  aspersion  h 
no  gospel  baptism,  is  as  incorrect,  as  to  say  immersion  is 
none.  Such  assertions  are  as  unchristian  as  they  are  un- 
charitable ;  and  should  be  carefully  avoided,  by  all  thosr. 
who  wish  to  promote  the  great  design  of  the  gospel—- -glory 
to  God,  and  peace  and  good  will  among  men*  Lastly,  to 
assert  that  infant  baptism  is  unscriptural,  is  as  rash  and 
reprehensible  as  any  of  the  rest.  Myriads  of  conscientious 
people  choose  to  dedicate  their  infants  to  God,  by  piiilh 


C  ®%  ) 

baptism.  They  are  in  the  eight  !  and  by  acting  thus,  fel- 
low the  general  practice  both  of  the  Jewish  and  Christian 
church— a  practice,  from  which  it  is  as  needless  as  it  is 
dangerous  to  depart* 


IJVIS. 


* 


«3       C 


-    C  <f 


■    ,C  < 

■".  < 

% 

i    C  -■ 

'  c 
-    dc-c 

c  or  ■ . 


<. 


■ 


r 


c 


'•:       .  ~~Y:-. 


i 

: 

t  ( 

IS 

<  c  c    .<: 

X  C  $ 

sc  <     r 


:  |      "      r    esc  << « 


tmttt. 


ix<  I  ■ 


:.«&.  <c 


06JC:O4r 


Deacidified  using  the  Bookkeeper  process. 
Neutralizing  agent:  Magnesium  Oxide 
Treatment  Date:  Sept.  2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A  WORLD  LEADER  IN  PAPER  PRESERVATION 

1 1 1  Thomson  Park  Drive 
Cranberry  Township,  PA  16066 
(724)  779-21 1 1 


c  6£5    -    i 


^nr;^ 


'. 

-• 

C.  *' 

■'"     w        c 

<; 

■':'.,                 < 

(      C 


«£      i   ' 


c 


«<^ 


.  C     >■-<  r 

~ 

.  GSC   !  •"_ . 

.   C     ' 

'    vv 

C    4   ■ 

£• 

C<i: 

c    ■  .  <£        C 

C  ',    .  ■■' 

C< 

s-     - 1 

/'"< 

CC ;       5 

Jj 

■    '■      '£■' 

'"C 

:;X 

-\  % 

CvC 

i'~ 

<■■  c  " 

■c 

"   ,.c  "",„-      C5    ■■■       <S3  ' 

5 

■    <<: 

C 

<r«c 

\  .■"  i 

■c  «C    -   ■ 

v    : 

J 

<-,/- 

- 

i     < 

c  c   ■  ■■  " 

•  ■ 

"  tt 

■   €               ■■: 

<-  _ 

c  C 

r  «C    c 

■  ... 

";;" 

.-  c: 

i  <: 

c 

i  c:  .       : 

d;    C<      C 

C 

t 

CT    "O    '    -  : 

i  c 

•     m<  i  !  v  ^ 

W          '  *§i        *-'«■&    ■  ' 

?";.■>      ,    .  e ■ "     ■     «r:: 

.  -    .    g 


4;r_ 

rr, 

r 

.: 

^ 

?c_ 

'<$B&. 

i 

«£ 

%  c<-*e^. 

C 

<C 

C  «5<5£>. 

•-.. 

c 

c 

*'. 

: 

'    ^■<&tg§ 

s  . 

r 

'■ 

m 

Ǥ<CL