'^'/
Vl..^^'
^r'^ 7f.
// 7 ■• -
^♦^^^•3^^^*^
ItIIEOLOGICzVL SEMINARY. I
princelon, N. J-
«
Divisjon ,. y
I
©
Sec
N*.
S'CC
\/. z.
\
Antipcedobaptifm Examined :
o s,
A STRICT AND IMPARTIAL
I N Q^ U I R Y
I N T O T H K
NATURE, AND DESIGN, SUBJEC TS, and MODE
o r
BAPTISM.
INCLUDING, ALSO
An INVESTIGATION or the NATURE or
POSITIVE INSTITUTIONS
IN GENERAL, AND
OCCASIONAL STRICTURES on HUMAN
CEREMONIES in MATTERS of RELIGION.
Containing, in particular,
A FULL REPLY to
Mr. BooTH^s Poedobaptifm Examined.
By EDWARD WILLIAMS.
When i had waited — i said, i will answer also my
PART, I ALSO WILL SHEW MINE OPINION. ELIHU.
VOL. XL
SHREWSBURY:
Printed and sold by J. and W. Eddowes :
Sold also by T. Longman and J. Buckland, Pater.
koster-row, C. Dilly, in the Poultry, London j
AND W, Browne, Bristol.
MDCCLXXXIX,
ANTIPiEDOBAPTISM
EXAMINED.
C H A P. IV,
Concerning the fignificatlon of the terms
BAPTIZE, and BAPTISM ; wherein is
particularly fhewn, that at leaft when
ceremonially or facramentally ufed, they
are generic terms, comprehending dif-
ferent fpecific modes of purification and
cleanfing*
§ I. Of the point In quejllon, §'2— 10. That
ihefe words are generic lerms^ and not con-
fijied to the fpecific mode of dippings appears (I. )
From a comparative view of their different ren^
deringSy and an invejiigation of their primary
meaning* § 11 — 22. (II.) From a view of
fome of ihofe pajfages where the terms refer tt
other modes rather than that of dipping, § 23
— • 29. ( III. ) From the verdiSi of eminent au^ •V
ihors* § 30 — 42, (IV.) From the conceffwns
of opponents, § 43. Corollaries. ( i ) The mode
variable, § 44. ( 2 ) The practice of the
Greek Church of no importance, as the mode is
free. § 45. (3) The prifnitive cufiom^ ivere -j-
it invariable, would not fupport the essentia-
lity of dipping, § 4O. (4) That tho' the
Vol. II. B Defign
2 Of the Signification of the Cli. 4.
Defign of baptlfm were more fully expreJJ'ed by
"^ immerfon^ than by pouring or fprlnkUng^ yet
would not immerfton be proved efjential^ nor any
way fervlceable to the caufe of our opponents,
§ 47'— 49. 'The fuppofed reafonsy rife and pro-
grefs of pouring or fprlnkllng^ injlead of iminer-
fion — retorted,
§ I. npHE prefent queftion is not, whether
X the terms baptise and baptlfn^ when
they occur in profane writers, moft commonly
fignify to Immerfe and immerfion\ but whether
thefe terms, when they occur in the New Tef-
tament, convey the idea of immerfion exclufively ;
or, whether thefe a6tions are effentlally included
in the terms, when ufed in a ceremonial and
facramental fenfe ?
Again: The queftion is not, which of fe-
veral modes is the mofi eligible \ but whether
any mode whatever, befides immerfion, is valld\
and in fhort, whether the terms baptizing and
plunging are fynonymous^ in reference to th'e
baptifmal ordinance ?— We have therefore no
immediate controverfy with our brethren, the
Baptifls, about their preferring plunging to fprink-
jing or any other mode of ufing water. Our
principle, the confirmation of which I am now
engaged in, makes no diredl attack upon the
pra^ice of the Baptifts, however univerfal, any
more than on the rubrick of the church of
England, or the cuflom of the Greek church;
but upon that fcntiment which maintains, that
the prevailing pradlice of their opponents in
pouring
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Baptif?n, 3
pouring or fprinkling water on the fubje6l, is a
mere nullity. Were their attack upon us about
a pra6tice which they think is lefs proper than
their own, yet not invalid and null^ the ftate
of the controverfy would be eflfentially ahered.
Confequently, our oppofers' appeal to the cu/iom
of any churches ancient or modern, as uling
immerlion, in favour of their practice, is not
to the queftion. To anfwer their purpofe, thefe
ought to be brought tedifying, that dipping is
ejfential to the ordinance, The Baptifts won't
allow that there is the leaft affinity between
baptizing and fprinkling ; nay, that fprinkling,
pouring, and all fuch modes of applying water
to the fubjedi:, are diametrically oppofite to bap-
tifm : fo that neither by a fynecdoche, an allow-
able catechrefis, or any other figure of fpeech,
according to them, can fprinkling, &c. be cal-
led baptifm. But if we appeal to the language
and conceffions of thofe very perfons and
churches who are fummoned to witnefs againfl
us, and particularly the ancients, on this juft
and proper ftate of the queftion, we ftiall find
them unanimous in their decifions againjl our
brethren. For they call baptifm by many names
that have no relation at all to the adion of
dipping any more than fprinkling; fuch as, the
grace^ the gift^ regeneration^ illumination^ abfolution^
the unSiion^ falvation^ the myjlerious facrament^ the
feal^ the mark of the Lordy tin^iony /aver of rege-
neration^ the great circumcifiony the initiation^ con^
fecration^ confummationy the facred fymbol^ ^c, ^c*
B 2 We
• See Bingham's Antiquities of the Chriftian Church, B. xi. ch. i*
4 Of the Slgmfication of the Ch. 4.
,We are as much againft confining the term Bcfm^^u
to either or both of the fpecific anions of
fprinkling or pouring as to that of dipping.
When therefore Mr. B. exprefles himfelf in
the following language, what does he better than
yield the caufe ? " N. B. To obviate miftakes,
« the reader is defired to obferve, that many of
« the following quotations are to be confidered
« as conceflions, made by thefe learned authors j
" fio inconftderable part of them asserting, not-
« withftanding what they here fay, that the word
« baptifm fignifies pouring and fprinkling as
<* WELL AS immerfionf." And again: " N. B*
« Candour demands we (hould here acknow-
*' ledge, tliat tho' thefe numerous and learned
*< authors have expreiled themfelv^s in the fol-
«' lowing manner ; yet many of them inftji upon
« it, as highly probable, that the apoftles did
« fometimes adminifter baptifm by pouring or
ti fprinkling %,'' How many^ Mr. B. does not in-
form us. But his quoting any^ who fprinkle the
fubjed and pronounce him baptized^ can anfwer
no other purpofe than to amufe and dazzle
" the eye of a fuperficial obferver." When our
opponents, then, " produce inftances, where
^a7/l.?c. fignifies to dip^ they take pains to prove,
I what we never denied ; viz. that dipping is not
' excluded from the fignification of the original
word; and many voluminous treatifes they have
thrown away upon this needlefs fubjeft. But,
if they intend that their reafoning (hould
amount
•^ Padob, Eiam, p. 16. % Ibid, p. 78.
Cb. 4. Terms Baptize and Bapti/m, 5
amount to conclufive argument, and that their
fentiment (hould keep pace with their avowed
pradice, they ought to prove, that the contro-
verted word fignifies to dip only ; and by a
total immerfion : that the facrament is invalidated
by every other mode of applying the baptifmal
water— and that the authors, they produce as
countenancing their ^ fentiments, never acknov/-
ledge, that other modes of facramental walhing,
are equally valid with that of dipping. Till
they prove thefe particulars, they prove no-
thing*."
In one of his reunions on the fignification
of the terms baptize and bapti/m^ Mr. B. fays :
" By the numerous quotations here produced
from learned Poedobaptifts, we are plainly taught.
That immerfion, plunging, or dipping, is the
radical J primary^ and proper meaning of the word
haptlfm, — Such is the purport of what the moft
learned Poedobaptifts acknowledge and aflert, con-
cerning the word in difpute; which, whether it
be in favour of our [the plunging] practice, I
leave the reader to judge f" One of his readers,
at leaft, judges, that what he has produced
from Pcedobaptift writers as conceflions, " no
more regard the leading point in difpute than— •
( I was going to fay ) the firft verfe of the firft
book of Chronicles, Adam, Sheth, EnofnP'
For the immediate queftion is not, What is the
" radical^ primary^ and proper meaning of the word
bapti/my" . in a philological or etymological fenfe ;
B 3 but
* Mr. Djc Courcy's Rejoind. p. 143. f Pa^ob. Exam, p. 30, 3J.
'J^
6 Of ike Signification of the Ch. 4.
but, Whether the legal, the ceremonial^ ox facra-
mental fenfe of the word excludes, abfolutely ex^
eludes^ every other idea but immerfion ? No con-
celTion (hort of this is of any real fervice to our
opponents' caufe. If it be faid, that fuch con-
ceffions favour their " praclice,'' let the unwary
know, that this is only fubftituting a mean
fcphifm in the room of folid argument. For if
they only prefer^ for reafons that appear to them
conclufive, their plunging to our pouring or
fprinkling, they are cordially welcome to adhere
to that praftice, as the Greek church does j
but let them not uncharitably condemn and
nullify the baptifmal pradice of all Chriftendorn
befides. I fay, they are cordially welco7m\ for
tho' no human ait, as formerly obferved, in its
particular and fmgular nature, fecundum indivi^
duim^ terminating in a6tual exigence, and at-
tended with all its circumftances, can be morally
indifferent ; yet it may be fo fecundum fpeciem :
therefore we regard the queftion, Which mode
s of adminiftering the ordinance fhall I adopt, that
I of plunging or that of fprinkling, fecundum fpe-
ciem^ INDIFFERENT. If, then, by " our prac^
tice" Mr. B. means that he and his brethren
adminifter by plunging, from mere preference^
without nullifying the ordinance when any other
mode of ufmg water is adopted ; his numerous
quotations are nothing better than vain parade,
that does not at all affea the essentiality
of dippings which, and which aione, is the point
in
#
Ch. 4' T^rms Baptize and Baptifm, 7
in conteft*. But if by " our praSflce" be
intended, the plunging of thofe perfons, who had
been before fprinkled in the name of the facred
Trinity, under pretence that the latter was no
haptifm ; the fophiftical infinuation, that " this
practice" is countenanced by the venerable lift
of Pcedobaptifts which he quotes, deferves a fe-
vere reprehenlion ; as it has no foundation in
TRUTH, — as it tends to impeach, not only the
confiflency, but the chriflian lincerity of thefe
eminent charaders, — and as it tends to miilead
the incautious reader. I confefs that fuch a
condu6l appears to me no lefs difingenuous and
unreafonable, than that of a perfon, who, at
any rate to gain his point, Ihoukl rummage a
great number of epifcopalian writers in fearch of
CQncefJio7is^ importing that " the radical, primary,
and proper meaning" of the word prayer, fa-
vours the extemporaneous mode of praying 5 and ,
thence inferring, that this extemporaneous mode \
is ejfential to all acceptable prayer, — that he JL.
who reads a form, however devout his difpofi- '>
tion, and however earneft his fupplications, does
not pray \ — and then fhould appeal to fifty or
fixty authors, in vindication of his ill-grounded
dogma^ that he who reads a prayer can't be faid
to pray^ as if all thofe authors were on his
fide.
B 4 § 2. What
• " If Anabaptifts were content with maintaining their particular I
" modef only as the favorite badge of their party, without infift-- -V
" ing on it as the ejfence of the facrament; our controverfy /
"would be inftantaneoufly at an end." Mr, Ds Courc y '3 Rs*
joind, p. J26.
S Of the S'lgnificathn of the. Ch. 4,
§ 2. What' I afTert, and intend to demon-
ftate, is, that ^ocrfu^nv and ^<x,7rlia-{j.og are not fyno-
nymous with to plunge and plunging j but are
GENERIC TERMS, not Confined to the fpecific
mode of dipping ; and therefore that they include
other modes of purification, as by pouring, fprink-
ling, &c. But previous to the dire£l proof of
this pofition let the following things be noted
as pojiulata,
1. That the biblical fenfe alone of thefe
terms fhould ultimately decide in the prefent
controverfy.
2. That it is by no means neceffary that '
this biblical fenfe fhouid be the fame as the
clajfical^ or that which is commonly found in
profane authors* ; as might be inftanced in many
other fcripture terms.
3. That it is not neceffary (as before ob-
ferved concerning /xaS»j1eyw ) that the primary phi^
hlogical or etymological fenfe of thefe terms (hould
be
♦ ** Nothing is more common, than for the fame worJs, in the
•« mouths of different nations, to have dtfe rent fignijications^ In this
«* cafe to confult your diElionary would be a certain means to put
« you wrong as to the literal fenfe of an author. — It often happens
♦« that one author ufes a word yi a different fenfe from that of
*' another — the facred writers of the New Teftament forming
*' their fiyk upon the Hebrew and Septuagint Ferjiotty often give
" a particular meaning to the Crreek words. If therefore we were
*< to render fuch words by their mofi ufuai fjgnification, we fhould
** indeed render them according to the letter ^ but at the fame
«' time ihould be far from exprcffing the ideas annexed to them
<* by the author." Bbausobre and L'ENJ•A^'T's introduaioa
to the reading of the Holy bcriptures. ap. Bp. Watson's
CoUca. of Theol. Trafts. Vol. iii. p, 103,
wm * I m m^
Ch. 4, Terms Baptize and Baptt/m. q
be the legal one ; as the remark, refpeding other
terms, may be made abundantly evident from
the laws of God and men.
4. That, therefore, that bids faireft to be
the facramental fenfe, or legiflative force of
theie terms, which moft unexceptionably agrees
with all thofe paflages in the New Teftament
where thefe words are found.
Accordingly, in proof of our general po-
fition, we appeal ,
§ 3. ( I. ) To a comparative view of different
renderings of ail thofe paiTages in the New Tef-
tament where the words in queftion occur. A
partial fpecimen of this method of inveftigatioa
we are furnifhed with by (Vlr. B. himfelf, where
he obferv^s : " While our brethren maintain,
that the term haptlfm^ when relating to the in-
ftitution fo called, means any thing fhort of
immerjion ; it behoves them to inform us, which
of our Englifh words is competent to exprefs
its adequate idea. Is it ixiajhing ? If fo, we may
confider that word as a proper tranllation of
it, and a complete fubftitute for it, wherever
the ordinance before us is mentioned by the
facred writers. Let us make the experiment
on Ti few paiTages. — Is it pouring? Is it fpr ink-
lings &c. *? " Let us improve the hint, and
purfue the plan. But firft obferve, that we do
not confider any Englifh word as a " proper tranf-
lation of thefe Greek terms, or a ccfnpkte fub«
B 5 iiitut*
* P«dob, £xam« ?• 36, 57,
fw-
10 Of the SignificaUon of the Ch. 4,
ftitute" for them, tho' our opponents do. And
yet, with this difadvantage, I am inclined to
believe, they will have no great caufe to tri-
umph. But what Englifli term (hall we adopt?
Shall it be either of thofe already mentioned by
Mr. B.? Nay, thefe I would as much obje£l to
as himfelf, nearly; for the obvious reafon, that
they are fpecific terms, the one excluding the
other, contrary to the general thefis. If we
adopt either of thefe, the inconvenience will
foon appear; and we fuppofe a fimilar inconve-
nience will arife from adopting the Englifh
term plunging^ and for a like reafon. I infift,
then, that a generic term, fuch as purification^
;>( dedication^ cmfecration^ feparation^ initiation^ or the
like, comes nearer the facramental fenfe of hap-
tifm^ than iminerfton. Let us try the experiment
with the words purify and purification,
for want of fome flill nearer to the import of
the expreflive original.
Matt. iii. 6, 7. And were purified
(plunged) of him (ev) in (or, at) Jordan §. —
When
§ To be baptized, that is purified, in Jordan (leaving the
mode of purifying out of the queftion ) j proves no more than they
were in the channel, or between the banks of the river; for
thus the apoftle Paul fays; '* And were all baptized [purified,
initiated] unto Mofes — «v T>j GaAa^-crrj, in the fea,''* i Cor.
3t. 2i that is, in the dry channel of the fea. And of the fame
it is faid ; ** The children of Ifrael went lU f^i^ov t*j? ^ocXotcra-rji
(Sept.) INTO the midji ef the fea\ that is of the channel. — And,
indeed, to call the channel of the waters, or the whole cavity
between the two banks of a river, metonymicalJy the rivers is
pcifeftly conformable to the common modes of fpeech. So that
the
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Bapiijm, 1 1
When he faw many — come to his purifica-
tion (plunging ) he faid unto them, v, 11. I
PURIFY (plunge) you witli water — but he fhall
PURIFY (plunge) you with the Holy Ghoft
B 6 and
the queftion remains injiatu quo, as to any decifive froof deduced
from the phrafes into and in the river. Nor does it appear to
me fo probable (caet. par.) that fuch a fituation was appointed or
preferred on account of the a^ of dipping, as that it was fub-
fervient to other important purpofes. For if, as we are told, pri-
vate batbi were numerous in that country j and if fuch numbers
were fo well afFe£led to John as to be immerftd by himj it is
manifefl: he could be at no lofs for baptijicries, Befides, if the
confeiTion of fins, and profeflion of repentance, were perfonaly as
our oppofeis infinuate, how much more commodious muft have
been thofe retired baths ^ Not to fay, that the much iifater of
Jordan or Enon appears as unnecejfary for immerfion, in Judea,,
as the much water of the Thames, in London. Or if it muft
be in a more open fituation, the little ivater of any running
brook might be made, in a few hours, as convenient for im-
n-.erfion as any part of Jordan, Therefore netejfity here muft be
difcardcd. But if we confider John's baptifm as a general pu-
rification of the Jews, as a prelude to the Mefliah's appearance j
and if we confider the vaji multitudei that reforted to him on
that occafion } the eligtbknefs of the fituation, nay, the neccjfity of
a large current of \vater, '\% manifeft. Such a place, then, as
the verge of Jordan or Enon, on the principles I maintain — that
is, when we join the- ideas of a general and national confeflion
of fin, and purification or ceremonial fanftification thereupon, and.
the great concourfe of people whofe refrclhment and comfort were
confulted (not to mention the watering of their beafts, on which
probably many of them rode) — was not only expedient tut
highly necejfary j whereas on the contrafted hypothefis of our
opponents, who fuppofa none were baptized by John but fuch as
he deemed penitent and pious, from their perfonal converfe with
him* fuch a fituation appears totally unneceJJ'ary, In the on cafe
we can difcover either the prudence of John in chocfing, or the
wifdom and goodncfs of God in appointing, thofe fituations j but
in the other cafe, whether titter is difcoverable, let the. impartial-
judge..
12 Of the Signification of the Ch. 4.
and with firef. v, 13—16. Then cometh
Jefus
•f- In Mai, iii. i. We have a prophecy of John the Bap-
^ftj •* Behold, I will fend my MefTenger, and he fhall prepare
tht way before me," Then (ver. 2.) of Chrift it is faid j ** He
is like a refiner's JirCf and like fuller's fope/* And then (ver.
3.) it is added J ** He fhall fit as a refiner and purifier of fil-
ver : and he fliall purify the fons of Levi j and purge them aS
gold and filver.*' In perfeft conformity to this prophetic paf-
fage, and, it fhould feem, with a defigned and direft reference to
k, (fee Mark i. 2 — 4,) that very meffenger fays of his Lord whofe
way he was preparing — ** He fhall baptize [i.e. PURirvjyou
with (iv, in, by, or by means of) fire. Hence we may gather
that John's primary idea under the word baptize was not to plunge
bnt to PURIFY. But fhould it be faid, that the gold or filver in
a ciucible is immerf?^ in the iire in order to be purified, it is
nothing to the prefent point, except it be a giving of it up.
For if to purify be the primary idea, to plunge mufl be only a
fecondary one, but no way ejfential; and if in any cafe necejjaryp
it is fo by accident* And therefore to plunge and to baptize are
Jiot fynonymoui, which is the point in difpute. Again : tho' pu-
rification may be performed by plunging, yet they are far from
being fynonymous j elfe we may fay — that the phrafes ** npuri^
fier of filver," and ** he fhall purify the fons of Levi," may be
equally read, " di plunger of filver!" and "he ihzW plunge the fons
of Levi !'* And let it be remembered, that as our Lord is likened
to f)pe as well as to fire in his operation j fo to cleanfe by means
cf fope, and to purify by means of fre, are different reprefenta-
tions of the fame thing. Therefore, as the term baptize is made
fynonymous with purify, by John j by the fame rule we are
taught to regard baptize as fynonymous with cleanfe^ in this con«
ne£lion. And, as it would be ridiculous to denominate a refinev
or purifier of filver, " a plunger or dipper of filver j" I fuppofe
it would not be much lefs fo, to call one who cleanfei by means
of fope, or (according to Malachi, in the pafTage jufl referred to)
a fuller, ** a plunger or dipper in fope!" Which^ if I miflake
not, clearly fhews, that tho' the refiner or fuller may employ the
ipecific aft ion of dipping to effeft the end propofed, yet thij
aftfon, properly fpeaking, is only a mode of effefting the primary
■^ign. To thefe remarks we may not improperly add what the
iearuei
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Baptlfm, 13
Jefus— to be purified* (plunged) of him. — I
have need to be purified (plunged) of thee,
i — Jefus when he was purified (plunged) went
up ftraightway. Chap. xx. 22, 23. Are ye
able
learned Dr. John Owen faysj viz, that 0x<7rli^u " no •where
** l^gnifies to dip, but as denoting a mode of, and in order ta
** WASHING [or cleansing]} and that it fignifies to w^ [or
** cleanfe'] in all good authors," See Dr Owen's Complete Col-
leftion of Sermons, p. 580, 581. And Dr. Ridgele y's Body
of Divinity, Vol. ii. p. 416,
♦ It has been fhewn before, that John's Baptlfm was one of
the Jewifli purifications j (fee chap, iii, § 37. and chap. ii. § 12.)
but here it may be afked. How can the idea 0^ purification be
applied to Chrift? I anfwer — With the fame propriety as to any
other Hebrew. For, as it would be no degradation of his moral
and divine character to fuppofe him capable of ceremonial impu-
xities as well as any other Jew, fuch as followed the touch of a
corps, a bone, &c. (fee Numb, xix.)j fo it would be no im-
propriety to allow, that he might be purified. And, indeed^
feeing he condefcended to inhabit a polluted world, and became a
Phyfician to publicans and linners, embracing all proper opportunities
for promoting the corporal as well as the fpiritual welfare of the
children of men ; what itnit more natural can we aflign to his-
baptlfm, than that of 2i general purification? He became fubjeft to
the ceremonial as well as the moral law, as appears from his
eircumcifion and other confideratlons j but fince it does not appear
probable that he did on the one hand fcrupuloufly attend to the
purifying pofitive rites which were ** made for man," fo on the
other hand> when he fays, ** Thus it behoveth us to fulfil all
righteoufnefs/* it is highly probable that he, as the Lard of cere-
monieSf (as well as of the Sabbath,) fhould appoint and fubmit to-
one baptifm, as a general Jubfiitute for all ceremonial purifications.
Thus a cumberfome yoke was taken away and only an eafy one-
appointed which might anfwer every purpofe, as fuited to the
more fimple yet foblime genius of the Mefliah's kingdom. To
which we may add, tliat the idea of Jeparation or dedication to
God, may be alfo conveyed here by the term baptixedy as well,
as that of puri&catioo^^ aiid indeed ceiemoi^ial purification does it-
f«lf
t
J A Of the Signification of the Ch. 4.
able to-be purified* with the purification ~
that I am purified {plunged with iht plunging
that I am plunged) with? -Ye (hall indeed—
be purified with the purification that I
am purified [plunged with the plunging I am
plunged) with. Chap. xxi. 25. The purifica-
tion (plunging) of John whence was it ? Chap,
xxviii. 19. Go ye therefore and teach all nations
purifying^ (plt^nging) them.
Mark i. 4, 5- John did purify (plunge)
in the wildernefs, and preached the purifica-
TioN (plunging) of repentance. — And were all
purified (plunged) of him(") in [or at] the
river of Jordan. — 'z;. 8, 9- ^ '^"^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^"
RIFIED (plunged) you with water; but he (hall
purify (plunge) you with the Holy Ghoft.
And was purified (plunged) of John (e»?§)
in
fcif imply a (cparatlon from any relative impurity, for entering
into a clofer and more fpecial degree of relative holinefs : which
▼cry well agrees with our Lord's entrance on his public minif-
try, immediately after hii baptifm,
• HcBi feems to be implied the idti of initiation as of pro-
fclytes, as alfo the ftcondary idea of being tried, or put to the
proof, attending fomc kinds of purification, as of metals by the fire,
doth by the fulling mill, &c. See Job xxiii. 10, Pfa. xii. 6.
IxTi. 10, II. Zech. xiii. 9. and efpccially Dan. xii. 10. i Pet, i.
6 7. Prov. xvij. 3. ** In nomine ^<:/>///w/ ratio metaphorjE apte
** conftat. Scimus cnim baptifmo ad fui abnegationem, ad ve-
*« terem nominem crucifigendum, dcniquc ad crucis tolerantiam
*' initiari fidcles." Calt. in loc,
t Separaiing them from the world, dedicating them to me,
and initiating them into my church, by the purification of
water.
^ For t*, by an eoallagc; as Matt, ii. 23. He dwelt
Ch. 4. Ter?tis Baptize and Baptlfm. 15
in [or atl Jordan. Chap. vii. 4, And when
they come* from the market, except they puri-
fy (plunge) they eat not.— The purifying (
(plunging) of cups and pots, of brazen velTels
and tables. Chap. xi. 30. The purification
(plunging) of John, was it from heaven ? Chap,
xvi. 16. — He that beheveth and is purifiedjI
(plunged) (hall be faved.
LuKE iii. 3. — Preaching the purification
(plunging) of repentance^, v, 7. Then faid he
to the multitude that came forth to be puri-
fied (plunged) of him. v, 12. Then came alfo
publicans
tlq TToXiv in (or at) a city called Nazareth, Mark ii. i. Tha^
he was iU oIkov, in the boufe, Ai£ls iv. 5, (Gr.) il<; U^aaccXYt^^
at (or in) Jerufalcm, Matt, xii. 41. They repented lU y.vjfvyfxoi,
at (or, Tvitbf by means ofy in 'virtue of) the preaching of Jonas.
John ix. 7. Go, wafh il<; }toXvfjL^if]Qfa,Vt in (or, at the brink of)
the pool of Siloam, In reference to this laft inftance, the follow-
ing words from an acute and mafterly writer deferve infertion:
*' To infer always a plunging of the whole body in water, becaufe
** the word in for £»?J occurs in the narrative, would in many
** inftances be equally falfe as abfurd. For inftance j our Lord
** commands the young man born blind to wafh in the pool of
** Siloam,' — But that his whole body was not immerfed in it >8
«* plain J becaufe only his eyes were aftefted, and only this part was
** to have been wafhedj in doing which there was no immerfion
«* at all." Mr, Dz CouRcy's Rejoind. p. 232.
J Ceremonial cleanjingy which was effefted by various modti^ as
pouring, fprinkling, rinfing, bathings or any kind of ivajhing,
Jl Devoted to me,
^ Which led to, and laid the fubjefts under ftrong obligations
of repentance and the fruits of righteoufnefs j and as a ground of
encouragement and motive thereto, the remifTion of fin, and the
bleflings of the Meffiah's kingdom were conftantly exhibited.
,5 Of the Slgmfication of the Ch. 4.
publicans to be PURIFIED (plunged). ^.16 I
;",tlhe l^all PURIFY (plunge) you with tne
HolyGhoft and with fire {.c. ^v^.). v, 21,
r2 Now when all the people were purified
T.'luLd) it came to pafs that Jefus r.fo being
tZ^'L* (Plunged) and prayin, the h^ven
was opened, and the Holy Gnoft defcended la
. bod-ay (hape. Chap. vii. 29, 30. All the peo-
pie-being purified with the purification
(plunged with the plunging) of John. But the
Pharifees and Lawyers rejeaed the counlel of
God againft themfdves, being not purified
(plunged) of him. Chap. xi. 38. And when ,
the Pharifee faw it, he marvelled that he had
not firft purified t (plunged) before dmner.
Chap. xii. 50. But I have a purification
to be PURIFIED t (plunging to h^ plunged) with.
Chap. XX. 4. The purification (plunging) of
John.
John i. 25,26. Why purifiest|| (plungeji)
thou then?— I purify (plunge) with water.
V. 28. Thefe things were done— where John
was
• Including, rrobably, his being explicitly initiated into his public
iriniftry, warfare, and bloody trials. « Chriftus vero ad proedi-
candum evangcli^^m fe jccingcns, tarn baptifmo iniiiatui eft in mu-
nus fiitim, quam fpiritu banfto inftruftus,'* Calv. in loc,
+ Wajhtd bit hands, (Mark vii. 2^ 3.) as a mode of ceremonial
ileanfng .-mong the Jews.
X Intirnating alfo that he was to be fevercly tried and afBi£led>
as befdte obfcived,
I Why doft thou Jtt a^art the people, to a higher degree of
relative
Ch. 4. Terms Baptixe and Bap'ifm, 17
was PURIFYING (plunging), V. 31. — That he
fhould be made manifeft to Ifrael, therefore am
I come PURIFYING (plunging) with water.
V, 23' He that fent me to purify (plunge)
with water— the fame is he which purifieth
(plungeth) with the Holy Ghoit. Chap. iii. 22,
23. After thefe things came Jefus — and puri-
fied (plunged). And John alfo was purify-
ing (plunging) m [or ai^ Enon. — ^And they
came and were purified (plunged), v, 26. Be-
hold the fame purifieth (plungeth) and all
men come to him. Chap. iv. i, 2. — That
Jefus made and purified (plunged) more di-
iciples than John (tho* Jefus himfelf purified
(plunged) not, but his difciples. Chap. x. 40^
Where John at firft purified (plunged)^
§ 4, ACT5
relative holinefs than ufual, by this purification cf water, ** if tho«
be not that Chrift V The Pharifees lock it for granted that fo
general a purifying and fanftifying of the people, was a ijgnal of
fome great approaching change among them, and what might be
•well e^pfeiled at the coming of the Mefliah j nay, they feem to
take it ftrange that any fhould undertake the work but the Mef-
fiah. Now \i plunging was the mode of Johsi's purifying rite, is
it probable that thefe Pharifees, fond as they were of ceremonies,
and addidled as they were to baptijmi in particular, fliould afliga
to fuch a Mefliah as they expe£ted — tha arduous taHc of i<lunging
the inhabitants of Jerufalem, of all Judea, and of all the regions
round about Jordan ? To fuppofe that even the Pharifees, who could
occafionally fwallow a camel, conne£led fuch an amphibious idea
with the fplendid regal character of the cxpe£leJ Dtliverer, is litcls
fhort of fuppofing them to have been as deftitute of commoa
fenfe, as they were of real godlinef&. And even independent of
fuch a ftrange fuppofed coalition of ideas, " How — one adminif-
" trator could plunge head-ovcr-ears fuch \n immenfe and pro-
" mifcuoua
2 8 Of the Sign'ification of the Ch. 4.
§ 4. Acts i. 5. For John truly purified
(plunged) with water {v^o!]i) ; but ye fhall be pu-
rified* (plunged) (iv) with [or hyl the Holy
Ghoft not many days hence, v,. 22. Beginning
from the purification (plunging) of John.
Chap. ii. 38. Then Peter faid unto them, Re-
pent and be pURiriEDf (plunged) every one of
you. V. 41. Then they that.- gladly received his
word were purified (plunged). Chap. viii. 12,
13. — They were purified (plunged) both men
and women (comp. Jofliua viii. 25, 26.) Then
Simon himfelf believed alfo ; and when he was
purified (plunged) he continued with Philip.'
V, 16. For as yet he [the Holy Ghoft] was
fallen uponX none of them; only they were pu-
rified (plunged) m the name ot the Lord Jefus.
V. 36. And the Eunuch faid, See, here is
water; what doth hinder me to be purified ||
(phmged)}—v. 38. And they went down both
into (».'? ad^ vel /«, to, or towards ** ) the water,
both
•' mifcuous multitude — will ctct, to candour and common fenfe,
** appear either as abfolute miracle or romance," Mr, Di Courcy's
Rejoind. p. 235.
• Separated and fet apart for higher and fpecial fervice, by the
imparted influence of the Holy Spirit,
•\ Devoted to Chrift, and initiated into his church.
J i. e. had baptis^edf Afts xi, 15, 16,
j) Dedicated to the Son of God, and initiated into his vifiblc
chuich.
•* ** "Zl^ •— generally marks the motion toivardi fome term or
«' objeft to which the thing tends as towards its end." Mef-
feun De Port Royal's Primitives of the Greek Tongue, by
Nugent
Ch. 4. Therms Baptize and Baptifm, 19
both Philip and the Eunuch, and he purified
{plunged) him. Cliap. ix. 18. And he received
fight forthwith, and arofe and was purified
{plunged). Chap. x. 37. — After the purifica-
tion [plunging) which John preached, v. 47,
48. Can any man forbid water, that thefe fhould
not be Purified [plunged?} — And he com-
manded them to be purified [plunged) in the
name of the Lord. Chap. xi. 16. John indeed
purified [plunged) with water {^v^a}^) ; but ye
Ihall be purified [plunged) [zv] with [or hyl
the Holy Ghoft. Chap. xiii. 24. — When John
had firfl preached before his coming, the pu-
rification [plunging) of repentance to all the
people of Ifrael. Chap. xvi. 15, And when fhe
•was purified [plunged)^ and her houfhold,
fhe befought us, &c. v, 33. And he took them
the fame hour of the night, and wafhed their
ftripes ; and was purified [plunged) j he and
all his ftraightway. Ciiap. xviii. 8. — And many
of the Corinthians hearing, believed, and were
purified [plunged), v. 25. He fpake and
taught diligently the things of the Lord, know-
ing only the purification [plunging) of John.
Chap. xix. 3 — 5. And he faid unto them, L'n-
to what [lU riy 'To zuhat end^ for what purpofe^
to what doSlrine ) then v^ere ye purified f
(plunged)
Nugent, p, 296. The ufe of the particle in the above
paffaee feems parallel with Matt, xvii, 27. Go thou stj ^'i*'
fia^.afro-av, to (or, to tbejide of) the fea, and caft an hook.
•(■ Set apart by a folemn ceremony,
20 Of the Signification of thi Ch. 4.
(plunged)} And they faid, Unto John's puri-
fication* {plunging). Then faid Paul, John
verily purified with the purification {plunged
with the plunging) of repentance. — When they
heard this, they were purified {plunged) in the
name of the Lord Jefus. Chap. xii. 16. And
now why tarrieft thou? arife and be purified-
{plunged), and walh away thy fins.
Rom. vi. 3, 4. Know ye not, that fo many
of us as were purified f {plunged) (t*? r<7, /or,
into a union with) Jefus Chrift, were purifi-
ed {plunged) into {^U to the defign of) his
death || ? Therefore we are buried with him by
(^Va, thro\on account of) purification § {plung-
ing) Into {i\<; for the purpofe of) death;}:, i Cor.
.1. 13 — 17. Were ye purified** {plunged) in
the name (ek rl orof^ce, to hear the name^ to the
honour and fervice) of Paul ? I fhank. God that
I purified {plunged) none of you, but Crifpus
and Gaius ; left any fhould fay, that I had
purified {plunged) in' mine own name. And
I
• To the preparatory and fubfervient purpofes of John's puri-
fying rite.
"f- Solemnly Jet apart,
H i. e. the crucifixion, death and burial of £n«
§ This obligatory feparation,
J i. c, a ftatc of death in regard of attachment to (in j that
as Chrift died on account of fin, his baptized people, or chrillians,
mtglt to be, are under peculiar obligatiois to become dead at ti
tit fra&ice and tkt Icrve of fin, or any fellowfhip with it*
•• Initiated into tlie church.
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Bapttfm, 21
I PURIFIED (plunged) alfo the houfehold of
Stephanas j befides, I know not whether I pu-
RiFiED (plunged) any other 3 for Chrift fent
me not to purify (plunge)^ but to preach the
gofpel. Chap. x. 2. And were all purified [||j
(plunged) unto Mofes in (e» by^ with^ by means
of the cloud, and in (e* by^ withy by means of*)
the fea. Chap. xii. 13. For by one Spirit we
are all purified f (plunged) into (tU) one body.
Chap. XV. 29. Elfe what (hall they do, that
are purified (plunged) for (^fr^X) ^^^ dead?
Why are they then purified (plunged) for
the dead ? Gal. iii. 27. For as many of
you
IJI Separated, devoted, initiated. E»^ rli MuavrTfo tbe conduB,
difcipUJhipt kgijlation, or difpenfation of Mofes. Or, according to
fome eminent expofitors, by Mojet, by tbe minijiry of Mofa^ So
Beza, for inftance, per M<^en, But that ufe of the particle «>(
is fomewhat uncommon, nor does the intended analogy between
the Chriftian and Mofaic difpenfations, and the profefied fubjeftioa
to their refpeftive founders, appear to me fo ftriking, as by the
Other interpretation.
* It is difficult to fay whether the exaft reference here is,
to place, in j to time, ivhile in j or to inftrumentality, by means
rfj nor is it very material: what the ^poftle principally refers
to is the faSi, that all the father.?, all the Ifr^ elites, old and
young, as the vifible church, were baptized — i. e. by that folemn
tranfa€lion feparated from the idolatrous Egyptians, and initiattd
into a ftate of higher relative holinefs than they were in before —
as well as the chriftians ; who were now growing too fecure in
their diftinguiffied privileges j and particularly their fpecial relation
to God by means of their ftanding in the church, and partici-
pation of the chriftian riCes of baptifm, and the Lord's Supper.
■f- Initiated,
X In Jiead «f ; i« e> to fill up their place' in the church militant.
22 Of the Sigfiif cation of the Ch. 4.
you as h^ve been purified || f plunged J into
(£k) Chrift, have put on Chrift. Eph. iv. 5.
One PURIFICATION {plunging f J, Col. ii. 12.
Buried with him in (or, hy^ ty) purification
(plunging)^ wherein alfo ye are rifen with him.
Heb. vi. 2. The dodrine of purifications
(plungings). Chap. ix. 10. Which flood only
in meats, and drinks, and divers purifica-
tions (plungings), I Pet. iii. 21. The Hke
figure whereunto, even purification (plunge
ing) doth alfo now fave us.
§ 5. On this comparative rendering I would
make the following reflections.
I. I AM far from fuppofing that any two
words in the Englifh language are adequate to
exprefs the exacl idea of the Greek words,
^aiPiitu and /?a7r!t3-p,05 ; yet I appeal to any un-
prejudiced reader, whether fome words of lati-
tude, and general import, as purification^ dedica-
tion, confccration^ feparation to God, or the like,
do not convey an idea more conformable to
,that intended by the original terms, than any
which the contra6rtd fpecific ones, fo much
boafted of by our opponents, as " compe-
tent to exprefs the adequate idea" of kip-
I ///'//;, fuch as plunging^ dippings or immerfion^
are capable of conveying? According to them,
the baptifin of the Spirit^ is, the plunging or
I dipping of the Spirit ; the bcptifm of fire^ is,
the plunging or dipping of fire \ the baptifm of
watcr^ is, the plunging or di'pmg of waiir \ the
baptifm
1} Dcdicattd,
Ch. 4, Terms Baptize and Baptifm. 23
haptifm of bloody is, the plunging or dipping of
blood. How uncouth fuch a rendering ! And
yet how common with the moft approved au-
thors thefe phrafes, baptifmus flaminis (vel Spi-
ritus) i baptifmus flu minis (vel aques) \ baptif-
mus SANGUINIS (vel martyrii)? Is it not fuf-
ficiently manifeft, that the grating impropriety
of the former rendering, is owing intirely to
the making of baptifn and dipping or plunging
fynonymous ? If inftead of the pofleflive cafe
we employ a prepoftilon^ and be that what it
may, by^ withy in, or any other, the impropriety
in fome cafes will not be leflened but increafed.
Plunging or dipping wiihy by, In^ or into the
Spirit ; how irreverent an idea ! Dipping or
plunging byy tvithy in^ or into blood j how pre-
pofterous the fuppofition ! And yet, if our op-
ponents are in the right, the mofl eminent au^
thors both ancient and modern are chargeable
with this irreverent and prepollerous conduc^t,
this unparalleled abufe of language.
§ 6. 2. The reader muft have obferved, not
only how inadequate, but how abfurdy fome of
the paflages above quoted are made to appear,
by the renderings our opponents plead for. For
inftance, it is repeatedly faid, that the difciples
(hould be baptized with [iv) the Holy Ghofl,
Now, if dipping be the idea, it muft read ei-
ther,— dipped withy or by the Holy Ghoft; or
in the Holy Ghoft : the former is nonfenfe;
the latter too grofs and forced an idea to be
admitted' without the higheft neceffity for it.
Again :
24 Of {he Stgnijicat'ion of the Ch. 4«
Again : their hypothefis is abfolutely indefenfi-
ble without renouncing our public verfion. For
how often do we read, — I baptize with water;
but if dipping and baptizing are fynonymous,
we may fay, I dip or plunge with water.
Which is, in effcdl, to make our verfion ridi-
culous, and the tranflators, near fifty in number,
a fet of dunciads. In like manner, Are ye able
to be baptized with the baptifm that I am bap-
tized with ? baptifmate quo ego baptizor^ baptizari ?
To be plunged with a plunging ! — To be a-
nointed with an undtion ; to be purified with
a purification ; to be feparated with a fepara*
tion, &c. are, cum gram falis^ very pafTable : but
what allowance can be made for — 'dipped tviih
a dipping ? Moreover : how forced and impro-
bable the idea, — plunging or immerfing all na-
tiom? That a nation, and even all nations^ fhould
in time be feparated for God^ minifterially dedi~ .
cated to Chri/l, by this or the other mode of
the chriftian purification, are ideas both natural
and defirable ; but that of immerfing all nations,
is neither. Not natural \ it feems abhorrent
from the whole afpedl of the gofpel difpenfation,
and is nearly as improbable to be Chrifl's real
meaning, as another idea, which may not im-
properly be called it's counterpart, Go, and dip
all nations in a flame ! For ( in juftification
of fo abfurd a meaning) with equal propriety
might an adminiftrator have urged, " Was it not
faid and promifed by Chrift's venerable harbinger,
He, (but he did not baptize except by his cc?n»
miffioned
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Baptijm. 25
mjfioned fervants) he {^^.Ttlicri^) Jhall plunge you
in fire! — Not deftrahle; for the moil: obvious
idea of pUmging or totally immerfing all the
nations, founds but little (hort of, a general ca-
taclyfm:, a fearful judgment, and not a feal of
the covenant ; while, one would be led to think,
the commiiTioned difciples would appear as the
miniilers of wrath, and not the mefTengers of
peace ; efpecially when we confider that " pofi-
tive laws imply their negative ;" v/hich maxim
fatally excludes all hope of being raifed agal^
by the commilTioned plungers. When we hear
the prophet fay, " So (hall he fprlnkle many
nations,'* we are naturally led to conclude that
many other nations, in the time of the Meiriah,
fhould be purified^ as well as the Jews ; that ig,
externally cleanfed from their idols and fepa-
rated for God ; but had the prophet faid, So
(hall he plunge or immerfe^ totally dip or over-
whelm^ all nations, — would there not have been
the jufteft ground for fear and trembling, left
God were about to repeal his covenant to Noah
and all fleOi ?
We alfo meet with, on our opponents* hy- j
pothefis, fuch phrafes as thefe— John preached
thQ plunging of repentance — the plunging of John
he (hall plunge you in fire — he marvelled
that he had not firft plunged before dinner — ye
(hall be plunged ui (bv) the Holy Ghoft — know-
ing only the plunging of John — into (?;?) vjhat I
were ye plunged P Into John's plunging*.
Vol. II. C plunged
* Skb Mr, B.'s remarks on the particle iU, p. 4,6, Note* Nov*
W ■
•"*»-,
26 Of the Signification of the Ch. 4.
plunged into Jefus Chr'iA -^ plunged into Mofes —
plunged into one body — one Lord, one faith,
one plunging! — iNf which [plunging] ye are
risen! — Is not this mode of tranflating, ef-
poufed by our adverfaries, more like a burlefquc
upon the facred oracles, than a faithful repre-
fentation of the infpired meaning ? Whereas if
we underhand by the original terms an idea
fomewhat compounded of purification, dedication,
feparation
\i plunging or dipping be the idea conveyed by the term ^otTrlscr^tt
in this pafiage, (A£ts xix.) if would puzzle the fubtle genius of
an A<iUiKAS to make any tolerable fenfe of it. If in that early
period of the church they underftood by the term baptifm nothing
lefs than dippings and the particle tt? being here connctfled not
with a perfon (as £»? lAua-n* ) but a /£>/«/, eJ? ri j and if that
be alfo conne£led with dipping; would not Paul's queflion na-
turally import, Into xvhat were ye plunged? — the fea or a-
rjver, Jordan or Enon ? But the anfwer ihcws, except we
make it a very ridiculous and unmeaning one, that they un-
derftood the qiieftion in no fuch light j and confequently that the
idea of dipping was not what they had been ufed to zf^^x to
John's baptifm. They fay that they had teen haptixtd into his
haptifm j but that could not pofijbly be, dipped into his dippings
without dripping them of common fenle, as fome have done of
' the fiifl rudiments of religious knowledge.
■\ Shovld itnot rather ht after which? Would it not be worth
our cppcnents' while to rummage Greek authors and Lexicons in
fearch of an acceptation of the particle iv which implies a pojie-
ritrity of time. And, fhould that fearch prove fruitlefs, would it
not be defirable, for the fake of confiftency and common fenfe,
and fcr the credit of infpired laiiguage, that they fliould abate a
little cf their confidence when they maintam that immirjien, pkng.
ing, or dipping .re competent to exprcfs the original idea ? If they
grant th<it the otUr idea of being raifcd is implied, we arc glad
to fee them la fo fair a way,— -the way of cenfeguence !
Ch. 4. ^erms Baptize and Bapiijm, 2f
feparation^ initiation^ or the like, according to
the connedtion in which it ftands, we have de-
cent, proper language, and an important mean-
ing. Yet, be it underftood as before fhewn,
that tho' we contend it is abfurd to make dip-
ping and baptizing fynonymous, the former nc-
verthelefs may be a mode of the latter. For
we are not now inquiring profefledly, whether
John or any New Tedament miniilers did, i?i
fa£f^ dip any of their converts ; but what is the
genuine fenfe of the terms of the inftitution?
§ 7. 3. Tho* I beHeve the word purification
has a better claim to be a fubftitute for the
facramental fenfe of the word baptifm in the
New Teftament than plunging, dipping, or im-
merfion; yet I fully acquiefce in Beza*s opi-
nion, viz. That the words baptize and baptifm
in the facramental fenfe of them, ought not t»
be changed for any other. He fays of thofe per-
fons (at the head of whom he places Sebas-
tian Castellio) who raftily afFe(5!: to chan'^^c
thefe terms for better, as for lavoy ahluo^ lotio
&c. while the others were to be rejeded and
baniftied — " Deli cat i certe homines t** " They are
jurely men of excejjirje delicacy f '*
This able critic obferves : " Signi/icat autem
To ^anlitiiv tingere^,** To baptize CignifiQs to dyr
or tinge. And again: " Neque vero to /JaTrl.fni/
iignificat lavare, nifi a confequenti : nam proprie
declarat tingendi cauja immergere*.*' ' Nor in-
deed does ^aTrlifi,!/ Signify to xvajh^ except by con-
C 2 fequence
D Ccmmcnt. in Matt iil. ir. * Id, in Mar?, vii. 4.
;jg OJ the'Sigmfication of the Ch. 4.
fequence: for, properly^ it fignifies to immcrfe
FOR THE SAKE of dyings'' or tinging. Here it
is obfervable, that this great man (in common
with many other firft rate critics) does not he-
fitate about the primary philological fignification,
tho' he feverely cenfures thofe as over delicate
and ra(h who pretend to fubftitute another word
as a proper tranflation of the pri?nary legal or
facramental meaning. " Baptijm^' fays Mr. B.
" is a Greek word, with an Englifh termina-
" tion; concerning which Mr. Lewis fays (Hift.
« of Eng. Tranil. p. 317, 326. Edit. 2d.) " Our
" laft tranilators were directed by the King to
" retain the old ecclefiaftical words," of which
^» baptifm was onef.'* Query: Would Mr. B.
have thefe words, baptize and baptifm^ difcarded,
provided our prefent verfion were to be changed
for another new-furbi(hed, and fome Englijh
words introduced, " competent to exprefs their
adequate idea?" If he meant hereby to infi-
nuate that our verfion is lefs' perfed for retain-
ing thefe words ; it is a reflc6lion that affe£ts
not ours only but alfo nearly all other tranfla-
tions. And fmce they have been adopted by
the fncred writers to exprefs a diyine ordinance ;
and they have been, for fo many ages after,
appropriated to this one ordinance, by the filent
confent of all churches ; fo that they have alfo
paflTed into the vulgar idioms of ahnoft all na-
tions : may not Beza. be acquitted from the
charge of fcverity when he fays : " Baptixandi
verbum
\ Poedob. Exam. p. 36.
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Baptifm, 29
¥erbjum — audent tamen temere inimutare*?"
§ 8. But feeing. Mr. B. lays fo much ftrefs
on " the radical^ primary^ and proper meaning
of the word" ^^^rliffc;, as if the legal meaning
were neceflariiy the philological y let us inquire
a. little, tho* not eflential to my argument, whe-
ther he is fo triumphantly fecure in the pof-
feffion of this primary meaning as he would
fain perfuade us ? And- whether the following
declarations of Dr. Owen are not founded in
ti'uth ; viz. " No one inftance can be given in
" fcripture, wherein ^ufiPutw doth neceil'arily fig-
" nify either to dip or plunge. — It doth not
" fignify properly to dip or plunge^ for tliat in
" Greek is, s[y.^x7r]u and si^.^ccTfu^u -^It no whers
" figriifies to dip^ but as a mode of, and in
" order to waihing," wetting, dying f ? Here ob-
ferve,
(i) That the term primary is. capable of
twO' fenfes J it rnay either fignify a priority of
defign^ or a priority of execution \ it may refer
to the end^ or to the means. Now v^hat I- deny
is, that the principal end or defign conveyed by
the word is to immerfe ; tho' immerfion may
be a common mode of attaining that end ; and in
that fenfe, which I prelume. can't be Mr. B.'s
meining, being a very improper one, it may be
allowed, that often^ but not univerfally, the pri-
mary fignification of 0a,7rlil^n» is to immerfe :
that i%y tho' Iq/i in defign, it is frjl in execu-
C 3 tion.
*" Ut fupria in Matt, iii, 1 1. f, Collet, of Scrm. and TraiSls, p, j8j*
30 Of the ' Signification of the Ch. 4.
tion. On the contrary, what I affirm, with
becoming deference to the learned, is this: That
the primary fignification of ^ccjfiu and ^ccifh^u^
fought from the principal and ultimate deftgn of
ihe agent, or the main end in his view, is, to
tinge^ to dye\ to bring the fubje6l into a Jiate
of being wet, or coloured : and when the fub-
je£l is made wet^ or dycd^ the end is anfwered,
fey whatever means effected. But feeing that
among dyers, wafhers, &c. the mod ujiial mode
of efteding this end is by putting in the thing
to be impregnated with the moifture and the
different hue, lience the fecondary idea it has
acquired of plunging, immerfing. And that this
is reaily a fecondary idea, and by no means ef-
jential to it, one would think may be decided
by an impartial inquirer, by duly attending to
this queftion : Seeing it is univerfally agreed upon
among the learned, that thefe words are, ety-
mologically, or according to the radical, pri-
mary and proper meaning, juftly rendered by
the words, tingOy or mergo j to tiitgc^ or plunge ;
Which is mofl likely to be the primary fig-
nification, that the fubjed): is plunged for the
fake of being tinged, moiftened, wetted, or dyedj
or t\{Qj that it is dyed, wetted, &c. for the fake
of plunging ? Beza, Leigh, Owen, and in-
numerable other great names are decifive in fa-
vour of the former idea ; yes, many of thofe
names that adorn Mr. B.'s pages ; and, if I
miftake not, a critic fuperior to them all-'f^w-
mm fenfe^ decides. For if it be faid, that a
being
Ch. 4. Ter?ns Baptize and Baptifm, 31
being dyed, or wet, is only a confequence of
being plunged; it is only a mere fhuffling and
changing the ftate of the queftion. For the
queftion is not, when a thing is wetted or
dyed by plunging it, which is fir/} in the order
of time, the plunging or the dying ? But
whether the plunging be not entirely fubfervient
to the other purpofe ? So entirely fubfervient,
that were the propofed end as well attainable any
ather way, the plunging of it {coet, par.) would
be a matter of perfect indifference ; and were
it better anfwered any other way, the necefTity
of that plunging would have no exiftence ? And
that this is rc:illy the cafe, that a thing or
perfon may be tinged^ i. e. baptized^ without
being immerfed, will appear from another ob-
fervation, viz.
§ 9. (2) That the word tlngo^ which cor-
refponds with the primary meaning of baptize'^ ^
is a GEiVERic term; that is, the radical, pri-
mary, proper meaning of it is, not any fpecific
a<5t, as to immerfe, to fprinkle, or the like, but
to effecl the purpofe, or to produce a Jiate^ of
being dyed, ftained, wetted, &c. by any waf
whatever^ as may beft anfwer the end in view.
Thus we read, for iniiance, in Persius: ^' Tinc-
TA vencnOy^ infedted v^\\S\ poifon ; ^-^ Ti 'SG at olus
ficcum miiriay^ wet^ or jparingly imbue^ his gar-
den-ftufi with fauce^ or any liquid to give it a
reli(h; ^^ Sepe oculos memini tingebam parvus
C 4 oliv9
• Here it is obfervable, that the heft latin writers both antient and.
modern, ufe the words tiH^9 and baptixf promifcuoufly, m tefereocc XA
:hB chriltian ordinance.
32 ^f ^^^. Signification of the Ch. 4.
olivQ ; ** I remember that when a boy I anointed
my eyes with clive-oil, Virgil: ^^ Mujio tinge
crura ;" y/^/« your legs with new wine, i. e. in
treading out the grapes. '•^ Ar^os-^ Oceani metuentes
crquore TiNGi ;" the bears that cautioufly fhun
being wetted in, or touched tvith, the water of
the Ocean. And again, " Oceano proper ent fe
TiKGEREfoIes.** Of the Cyclops he fays j " Stri^
dcfitia TiNGENT yEra lacu\" the fiery bars in
hifTmg water cooL'' Horace: '-^ Fejiis tincta
cocco \* a garment 4'^^ ^^-i ox tinged with, purple.
And again, " Lance niurice tinct^." And in
his addrefs to Virgil he fays: ^^ Non ego te
meis immunem meditor tinge RE poculis;*' I do not
defign to wet you, if you come empty-handed,
with my feiiive bowls. Martial : " Tinge-
re r.ardo 3" to anoint with fpikenard.
From thefe few fpecimens of the ufe of this
word— a word which Mr. B. mufr acknowledge
" is competent to exprefs the adequate idea" of
0x7r%l^uy as he never fails that I reco]le6t to ren-
der it, when found in his Poedobaptifl quota-
tions, to dip it appears, that the primary fig-
nification is, to bring the fubjecl: into that ^ate
which is impregnated or affected with colour,
wet, Sec But in a fecondary fenfe it is ufed
for dipping, fprinkling, &:c. for thefe are only
certain jnrxics whereby the intended effe6l may
be produced, llius, for example, a vejlure may
be tinged {$c^a,ixnt*it. Rev. xix. 13.) wit!i blood,
by dipping it, by pouring ,. blood on it, or by
fprinkling it with blood, (lightly or plentifully.
Bu
C^
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Bdpii/m* 31
"^^t neither of thefe fpecifications can be the
prhnaiy meaning, except all of them could be.
fo, which is abfard. No on© has an exclufwe
claim for effeffcing the primary intention. The
mode of tinging^ therefore^ as appears from the
above few examples out of many, is various ;
and the difference of the aSilon muft depend on
the nature of the cafe.
Dr. S. indeed urges the ipfe dixit of Vossius
in oppofition to what I have been contending
for, whofe tranllation and comment here fol-
low : " Thtf' ^cifrlcj and iSaTrlnJy are ufed to be
tranjlated^ to dipy cr plunge^ and then to dye [turn
mergOy vel mergitOy turn tingo]; yet the word pro-
perly ftgnifies to dip [mergo]^ and only by a meta-
kpfis to dye \tingo']y that is, (fays the Dr.) as
dying implies or ^fuppofes dipping*." But I fee
no reafon why thi§ flrange afTertion of Vos-
sius fhould have any more weight than th«
declaration of Beza, who ailerts the contrary,
viz. That the leading fignification of ^»vr%^uv, as.
well as ^airlnvy is tingere ; while he reprefents
mergers as only a mode or accident of ting-
XNGf. And now the queftion returns, fince
the one ipfe dixit annihilates the other, and the
matter is left in that refpedt in Jiatu quo^ which
of thefe aflertions has reafon and truth to fup-
port it? As dying [tingo] i?nplies or fuppofes dip-
ping. But if this be the real meaning of Vos-
.sius, does he not contradict himfelf? For
C 5 tinggi
* Remarks on the Chriftian Min. Reaf. p. 57.
t Commenti in Matt, iii, n.
34 Of the Bign'ijicaUon of the Ch. 4,
tingo does not rmply or fuppofe plunging, as
we have feen; except we fay, that a thing has
no exiftence without it poflefles alfo what is
merely accidental, which is abfurd and contra-
dictory. With the very fame propriety we may
fay, that " thigo implies or fuppofes anointing,"
for tinging is effefted by anointing, as before
ihevvn, as well as by dipping. I think I may
fay with greater propriety, " Tho* t'mgo is ufed
to be tranflated to dip or plunge^ as well as to
tije [by Dr. S. Mr. B. and others,] yet the
word properly fignifies to dye, ftain, tinge, in
general, and only by a metalepfis to dip ; that
is, as dipping rmpWes or fuppofes tinging,'* dying,,
Gaining, or wetting : and fo does wa(hing, and
fprinkling, and pouring; nay, alfo, fwUHng and^
painting !
§ 10. ( 3 ) Let us now advance a ftep fur-
tlier, in fearch of " the radical^ primary^ and
proper meaning of the word ^«7rl»^a;.'* I be-
lieve it is generally allowed, that if there be any
Hebrew word in the Old Teftamcnt that an-
fwers to the Greek word in queftion, it is the
verb tahal. BaTrli^w, " if you- regard the word
*' itfelf (fays Beza) anfwers to the Hebrew
" iahhal rather than rachatz*,'* And the gene-
ral run of Lexicographers render it by the fame
latin words, as they do the Greek term. The
learned Castellus, for inftance, renders it by,,
«^ Tinxit^
* " Quod [Tcil. baptixandi %erbum] quidera, it vocabulum ip-
ftim fpeOer. tefpondet Hcbr»o tattaf, potius quam racbafXt'^ Cora-
r>ent. in LU't, Hi, 11,
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Baptifm. ^^
" Ti fixity Intlnxltt demerftt^ Immerfit^ baptizavit.'*
And BuxTORF, " Tlnxtty Intlnxlt, demerfity Im-
merfitj** St<>CKIUs: " ^linxlty httlnxlt, Immerjtt^
demerfjty 0»7r%v, ^*9r7t^£iv." L51GH : '* Tlnxlt^ in-
ilnxity merfity Immerjtt -, tingendi aut abluendi
gratia, demerjit — baptizavit." It is needJefs
to multiply inftanc^s in fo plain a cafe. Hav-
ing premifed thus much, I (hall now lay dowa
another propofition, and produce the evidence
for it ; viz.
T^hat the Hebrew word tahaJ, as ufed In tlie
Old Teftament, is a generic tjsrm 5 or is a
term of latitude^ and confequently, that the
" radical^ primary^ and proper meaning*' of it is
neither to plunge, to pour, to fprinkle, or any
other fpecific adion or ?node of application what-
ever, but to tingey to wet j and that to plunge.
is but a fecondary fignification, by a metalepils >
as what is plunged (or fprlnkled) may be faid
to be tinged, but not vice verfa. Let us ex-
amine the following pafTages.
Gen. xxxvii. 31. " And they took Jcfeph's
Goat, and killed a kid of the goats and tlngea
(or Jialnedy .daubed*) the coat in (or, uith)
—-•"■' C6 the
* The Septuagint does not render it iQcc-\ccv but «^(ihvv:^i
*' tov ^(iiciiva, ru ui^atli, injuinarunt, they ^ai'md or he/mean J
** the garment, &:c» Eefides, indeed reafon concurs in cftablifh-
" ing this tranflationj for, furely, it is not to be fuppofed, that
** Jofeph's brethren would immerge ox overwhelm his garment
" in the blood 5 fince that very circumftance would manifeflly
•* tend to deteft their orime, and to make their ftory about Jo-
" feph's being deftroyed. by a wild beaft, to wear the appearance
" not only of improbahilityj but of palpable falftood." Mr, Dk,
Coukcy's Rejoind. p, 163,
36 Of the' Signijication of the Ch. 4.
; the blood. Lev. iv. 6. " And the pried (hall
, tinge (or, W£t) his finger in (or, with) the
/ blood, and fprinkle of the blood, &:c. ver. 17.
^ " And the prieft Ihall tinge (or, wet) his fin-
ger of (or, by means of fromj the blood," (min
haddam^ DE fanguine). Chap. ix. 9. " And the
fon of Aaron brought the blood unto him ;
j and he tinged (or, wetted) his finger in (or
i with) the blood, and put it upon the horns of
j the altar.'/ Chap. xiv. 6. As for the living
^ bird, he (hall take it and the cedar wood,
nd the fcarlet [wool, or fiufF], and the hyf-
fop, and fliall tinge them, and the living birdy
in (or, with) the blood of the bird that
was killed over the running A'ater (comp. v,
51.) ver. 16. " And the prieft (hall tinge (or,
wet) his right finger in fmin hajhmen^ ex oleo-i
frcjuy of) the oil that is in his left hand," or
in the palm of his left hand (ver. 15.) Numb.
) xix. 18. " And a clean perfon (liali take hyflbp
! and tiyige (wet^ impregnate) it in (or, imth) the
I water, and fprinkle it upon the tent.'* Deut.
xxxiii. 24. *' And of Afher he faid — let him
be acceptable to his brethren, and let him tinge
(anoint) his foot in (or, with) oil." (fee Luke
vii. 46.) JoOi. iii. 15, " And as they that bare
the ark were come unto Jordan, and the feet
of the priefts that bare the ark were tinged
j (wetted) in the brim, (or, with the very edge)
of the water, &c." Ruth ii. 14. " And Boaz
faid unto her, At meal time come thou hither,
ajid eat of the bread and tinge (wety moiflen^
feafon
Gh. 4» Terms Baptize and Baptifm, 37
fsafon) thy morfel in (or, with) the vinegar." /'
1 Sam. xiv. 27. " But Jonathan — put forth 1
the end of the rod that was in his hand and
tinged (or, dipped for the fake of tinging^ wettings \
hefmearing) it in an honeycomb, and put his (
hand to his mouth :" i. e. I apprehend, col- (
leded the honey from the befmeared part of
the rod, with his hand ; and then turned his
hand to his mouth, or thus ate the honey. ,
2 Kings V. 10, 12--14. " And Elifha fent a
meflenger unto him, faying, Go, and wafh (Targ,
Jo N ATM. utehol\ tinge^ yel intinge) in Jordan
feven times. — Abana and Pharpar — may 1 not
wafli (Targ. etebboh, tinxeroy vel intinxero) in
them and be clean? — Wafh (Targ. ut fupra^)
and be clean. Then went he down [to the river] ;
and tingedy (wajhed^ purified) himfelf i^ytn times
in Jordan." Job ix. 30, 31. " If I wafh my-.
felf with fnow water, and make my hands never
fo cleans yet fhalt thou tinge (befmear^ bedauby
defile) me in the ditch, (or, with corruptiouy
filth) and mine own clothes fhall abhor me,"
Ezek. xxiii. 15. " Girded with gii'dles upon
their loins, exceeding in -tinged (dyedy coloured)
attire upon their heads."
I NOW appeal to impartial criticks, and to
common fenfe, whether the Hebrew word tabal '
is or is not a generic terniy wliofe " radicaly
primary y and proper meaning" is, to tingCy to dycy
to wety or the like; which primary defign is
efFe(Sted by different modes of application? The
mode whereby the fubject is afFeded with the
liquid is various \ either, by applying the fubjefl
to
38 Of the Signification of the Ch. 4.
to the liquid, which is by dipping, immerfing,
overwhelming; — or, by applying the liquid to
the fubjei^, which is by afperfion, afFufion, &c.
Now in regard of this fecondary fignifi cation,.
. it is not denied, that the mofi common fpecific
mode of application is, by the motion of the
fubje£l to the fluid, whereby it is tinged, or
wetted, in whole or in part, rather than by the
motion of the fluid to the fubjecft ; but not the
only, exclufive mode, and therefore an accident
onlv. By confulting the above paflTages we may
obferve, that fame refer to that mode of appli-
cation, which mbft naturally requires the move-
^ mcnt of the fubje6t towards the tindure, &c.
1 that fame leave the mode of application in a
great meafure indifferent -y and that fome afl!brd
irrefragable evidence that the tinging liquid, &c;
was moved and applied to the fubjeit, as Lev.
iv. 17. xiv. 16. and others make it probabk
that this laft mode was ufed.
Upon the whole, it is indifputable that the
primary meaning of the Hebrew word is to-
tinge \ now, for any one to contend that this
tinging is fynonymous with dipping univerfally,
as well as ufed fynonymoufly, is no lefs falfe
and abfurd than that I (hould thus infift: "The
human body is moji coinrnonly washed (efpeci-
ally in hot countries) by plunging and bathing
in water ; therefore^ the body of neither man
ror child can be wcfjhed or anointed^ without
immersion! Bcfid'es, the mofl common mode of
DYING, tinging and ftaining, is, and ever has
been
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Baptif?^. 3^
been, by immerfing the thing to be dyed, &c.
in the tingcnt hquid ; therefore all the antient
Britons, who dyed or ftained their bodies, muft
have PLUNGED themfelves over head and ears
into the juice of woad^ to effect that purpofe 1'*
At this rate, a dyer (^a^Bv^^ tInSJorJ is nothing
elfe but a plunger ! A wajher of clothes, accor-
ding to Mr. B.'s notion of the prwiary mean-
ing of terms, is a plunger of clothes ! And who
can tell but fome happy genius of this inven-
tive age may find out a method of white-wajh-
ing the ceiling of our rooms, or the walls of
our houfes, by iinmerfmg them in the wafhing
liquid ? and then he may be termed the plunger
of our houfes 1 Nay, reader, if the principles
and reafonings of fome people on this fubjedt be
right, the antient Britons— but who could have
expected an argument in their favour from fuch
a quarter, and from fo curious a topick ? — the
antient Britons were all Baptifts (tho* not An-
tipcedobaptifts) ! for, " Britanni tinxeruNt (i.e.
baptizaverunt) fe glafto."
§ II. Having finifhed the firft argument
in fupport of the general propofition, — that
^cctfli^u in its primary meaning is a generic term
that does not neceflarily or efientially include
immerlion — " from a comparative view of dif-
ferent renderings," — let us proceed to the next
argument, deduced in favour of the fame po-
fition
''II.) From a view of fbme of thofe pafTages
where
49 Of the Signification of the Ch. 4...
where the terms ^«w1w and ^«W]»fw refer to other
modes rather than dipping.
Mr. Parkhurst juftly remarks, " That the
" writers of the New Teftament — or rather,
" with reverence be it fpoken, the Holy Spirit,
" whofe penmen they were — wifely chofe, in
" expreffmg evangelical notions, to employ fuch
*' Greek terms as had been long before ufed for the
" fame purpofes by the Greek tranflators of the
" Old Teliamcnt : And thus the Septuagint
** verfion — became, in this refpe<a, not to the
** hrft age of the church only, but alfo to all
" fucceeding generations, the connecting link he-
" tween the language of the Old and of the
" New Teftament, and will oe regarded in
" this view as long as found judgment and
" real learning fhali continue among men*."
This remark, being indifputably founded on truthy
fliews clearly, that the Septuagint verfion ought
not to be overlooked in our inquiries after the
genuine force of Greek terms in the New
'I eftament. Nay, it muft (Irike every fenfible
perfon
• Greek and Engliih Lex. pref. p« 6, 7, This verfion " is very
•* rxceflary for the uoderfVandiog of the New Teftament, there
•* being feveral exjreflions theiein, which could not be well un-
•* detflood, was that fcnfe to be put upon them, which they
'* commonly bear in Greek j^uthcrs, and not that which they
•* have in the Septuagint. They thcreiore that are dcfirous of
*< underAanding the true meaning of th« books of the New
•* Teftament cannot be too often advifed carefully and diligently
** to perufc the Septuagint vctfion." Introd. to the reading of the
Holy Scritpt. by MefTis. BEAUtonm and L'Enpant, ap. Bp,
Watso's CoUcft. of Thcol. Trafts. VcU iii. p. 252, Sec aJfo
TATLot^aKcy to the Apo^hc Writings, § 3»^.
CIi. 4. Terms Baptize and BaptifjJt, 41
perfon, one would think, that this fountain of
matter and expreflion from which the facred
penmen of the New Teflament conftantly drew,
is. of far greater confequence than the complete
body of profane writers put together. Nor is it
to the purpofe to cite paflages, as Dr. Gale
and others have done, where the mode of dip-
ping any- thing in queftion is included in con-
nection with the truly " radical^ primary and
proper meaning" of the term, whicli is to tingc^
to vjei^ &c. as before fliewn ; for that condacl:
fophiftically transfers the true ftate of the quef-
tion from the eJJentiaUty to tiie greater propriety
of immerfion ; which queAions are totally dif-
tincSl : and he that does not allow this deferves
not to be reafoned with. The former concerns
the very e>:ijUnce of what we deem valid j the
latter only the preference due to one mode ra-
ther than another*.
" Inf
* " I cannot but obferve the prepofterous way which the An*
" tipoedobaptifts take in filling feveial pages with quotations out
" Q^ ficular authors, where the word ^ctTrlitiJ is taken for fuch
" wafhing as is by dipping the thing waflied into water, —
" There are none of the i'oedobaptifts but what do grant and ^
«< own at the firft word, that it is often ufed in that fenfe. And
" I think iroft of us do own that it is oftmr found ufed fo,
«« than in any other ienfe of wafhing ; that icay [or moJt] of
« wafhing being ufed in the cafe of n-^oft things that happen to
«* be fpoken of. Now when a debate ftands i'o, that both fides
*« do agree, that in fecular books a word is often ufed for 'wajking
<' by dipping, and there is no queftion made of that; but the
" only queftion between them is this, .That one fide afBrms, but
a the other. denies, that it is fometimes ufed for other ivays of
«« wafhing, as pouring, or rwbbing water, &c, (to lump the matter
42 * Cff the, Significaiion of the Ch. 4.
" Iw the Septuagint verfion of the Old Tef-
" tament and the Apocryplia, which I have
** carefully examined," fays Dr. S. " the words
•* occur twenty-five [he might have faid twenty-
*^ fix] times. In eighteen of thofe tnftances^ Dr.
** Gale fays ; I think he might have faid
'' twenty, they undoubtedly mean to dip. As to
•' the remaining five, two of them refpeil Ne-
** buchadnezzar, whofe cafe we have confidcred.
** 7'hat in Ifaiah xxi. 4. clearly fignifies to over^
" ivhelm. That in 2 Mac. i. 21. is beft un-
" derf^ood, and I think can only be properly
" underilood, by referring to the primary idea
•* of dipping. And that, Ecclefiafticus xxxiv^
" 25. as it rerpe61:s the Jewifli purifications, caa
*' by no means be proved, as lia^h already beea
" (hewn, to exclude the notion of plunging,^*
Carefully as Dr. S. hath examined the paflages
he refers to, I cannot help thinking but that
they will admit of re-examination ; and that tiie
true account will be found different from the
above ftaiement. Towards a fair inveftigation,
let us obferve,
§ 12. I. That of thefe twenty-fix inftances
only four are inflexions of the verb ^uiP.i^u ; tii'f
o( which are found in the Septuagi?2ty and two
i-n the Apocrypha, 2 Kings v. 14. Then went
he
** by g'ltfs fay, 3, coo tiircs it be found iifed for this way, and
** i,oco times for the other ways] ; what an idle thing is it,
«* for thefe dciiiers to bring tnflanci.s of that which is confcfTcd by
** both /iJes, iiiflcad of overthrowing or confuting the inftances
♦* brought by the others for tbofe other ways ?'' Waii.** Pr-
fcnte, in anfsver to Oale, p, 97, gS.
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Bapttfin, 43
he down [i. e. to the water fide] and ej9*7r7*^a70
tinged (wajhed^ purified) hiir.fcif in Jordan. liaiah
xxi. 4. My heart panted, fearfuhiefs ^avoyncf. ini-
quity] /3«7rlif£i tir/ges me (dyes, with its influence
and power impregnates^ as a ^^ftuid when it enters
the pores). Judith xii. 7. Thus (he abode in
the camp three days, and went out in the night
into the valley of Bethulia, and i^cc-.TV^-:\o ti?iged
(cleanfed^ purified^ probably in a religious fenfe,
xvajhsd) herfelf (or was baptized^ cleavfed^ &:c.
perhaps by an attendant) in a fountain of water
by the camp, [zv ri? 'Trcc^s^.^oTKri £7rt T>5^ 'TTY^yric, r«
vaxToq, at the fountain of water within the
camp.) Ecclefiafticus xxxiv. 25. -o ^ccTpiticixB^o^^ He
that fingetb (purificth^ cleanfeth^ feparatcth cere-
monially) himfelf after the touching of a dead
body, if he touch it again, what availcth bi&
wafhing? (fee Num. xix.)
Now it is evident upon infpe6lion, that each.
one of thefe four texts is perfectly confitlent
with what I maintain is the primary meaning
of the word /3«7r1ifc.; ; and therefore it is totally
wrong to confine it, without the' leaft neceifity,
to only one mode of that primary meaning : ef-
pecially when we confider, that fome, if not all,
of thefe pafiages are far more naturally reduced
to other modes of application, than to that of
plunging, (f.) 2 Kings v. 14. This is the only
paiTage of the four, and indeed in the whole
bible, where ^wrfli^u is rendered to dip,. And
how improbable it is that Naaman did in fia6l
PLUNGE hinifeif in the river, let the following:
remark*
44 Oj the Signification of the- Ch. 4.
remarks of a fenfible writer be confidered : " Na-
**• aman, it is plain, expelled that the prophet
" /hould have come and Jircked his hand over
" THE PLACE, and recovered the leper, fee
'^ ^^ II. Inftead of this i:e bids him — Go,
** and walh in Jordan seven times, ver. 10.— It
" is now inquired — Whether he plunged himfelf
" all over ieven times ? Or, whether he only
*■'• fprlnkled or poured water feven times upon
" [ and thus zvetttrly and rubht-d his hand overj
*' the Itprous place f' —ThtvQ h nothing in the
" ^^p^^ifion^ by which the command is given,
*' y^>iaaL\ zvajh^ to determine it j for this may be •
** alike underilood either of a toiali or a par-
" /.W*, wadiingj but there is a remarkable
" circuniflance which feemi to give it ftrongly
'' for the latter ; which is this. The prophet
*^ in commanding him to wadi seven times,.
" alludes, no doubt, to the inanne.r of clean-
" fing the leper, appointed by the Jewiih law,
" Now there were two ways of applying water
" to the leper's body, injoined by that law;
" botli alike commanded, and necelTary to his
** clcanfirig, viz. Bathing [or wajling the body
^'' v.'ith
• Ik pri of if what our author Htc aflerts, confult the follow^
mg pdfl..g.^s where, the //w* 'word is ufed as EhHja employs \\hea
Kt deliiers the divijie mandate — '* Go and ivajb." Exod. xxx.
J8, 20. and vfir. i>, 21. Gen, xli'i. 24, 31, Ex. xxix. 17.
J Kings xxji 38. Job xxix. 6. Ezek xvi. 4, Here one might
a/k. What it the vtt^ijc oi •u<ajkwg a rew-bcrn child? Or is a
chariot pfur.gtd in a pool when it is lu.ajked? Or when Job-
fays " I rvafiicd my ftcps with fcutler,'' is it lutur^ to lay he
tmmerj'id tbcjij ia it. ...
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Baptifm. a^
" with water] 2ii\d fpr ink ling : The former, bath-
J^ « ing^ to be ufed but once ; the hUtr fprinJtling^
" to be done /even times, _ See Lev. xiv. 7 8.
" When, therefore, the prophet bids him '
" wafi SEVEN TIMES, it is much mo?'e natural
" to undcrf^and it of fprinkling^ or pouring water
"seven times upon the leprous part^ over
^' which he expe6i:cd the prophet fhould have
^^ Jlroked his haiid^ than of. dipping his whole
*' body feven ti?nes ; of which kind of wajhing
" [dipping] there is not the leaft footflep nor
" fhadow in the law*." To which we may-
add — that it is not hkely Naaman (hould do
more than the prophet required^ lince he was
fo relu6^ant to make any compliance ; which
he muft have done on fuppofition that he im-
merjed himfelf^ fince the command was only to
Ajuajh \ and this^ every one knows may be, and
daily is, eafily and commodioully done without
immerfion. When we confider alfo the nature
of his diforder, and, as he could not be igno-
rant, the apparent unfuitablenefs, phyfically, of
the prefcription ; it is not probable that he
fhould go and plunge himfeif in deep water,
fince a gentle afFufion was fully anfwerable to
the requifition. Again : it is exprefsly faid, that
'what he did was '' according to the faying of
the man of God;" i. e. he wajhed in (or ufed
the water of) Jordan, tho' with haughty re-
luctance. But there is no fmgle circumftance,
without
* Tow noon's Dipping not the only Scriptural and primitive
manner of Baptizing, P* 19*
4^ Of the Zigmfication of the Ch. 4.
without begging the queftion in debate, but fa^
vours the application of water to the leprous
part^ rather than the appUcation of that to the
water. Not to mention the Vulgate verfion,
and the renderings of tlie Syriac and Arabic
Verfions, which read lavit fe^ which is by no
means fynonymous with dipping.
(2) Isaiah xxi. 4. Inftead of, " fearfulnefs
affrighted me," the Septuagint verfion reads,
h avofxix fjLt ^ccTrli^'ci, iniquity baptises me. This
rendering is very (ingular, and the paiTage is
evidently metaphorical ; the queftion is, to what
does it allude? It (hould feem the lamentation
is made by the king of Babylon ; and the paf-
lage, as Mr. Henry obferves, " was literally
^' fulfilled in Behhazzar : for that very night
" in which his city was taken and himfclf flain,
*' upon the fight of a hand, writing myftick cha-
" racters upon the wall, his countenance changed^
^ and HIS THOUGHTS TROUBLED HlM^ fo that
'* the joints of his hihs were loofed^ and his knees
*'*' fmote one againji another^ Dan. v. 6. — And
" thofe words, The night of my pleafure hath he
*' turned into fear to nie^ plainly refer to that
" aggravating circumftance of Belfhazzar's fall,
" that he was flain on that night when he was
" in the height of his niirth and jollity, with
" his cups and concubines about him, and a
*' thoufand of his Lords revelling with him ;
" that night of his pleafure, when he promifed
" himfelf an undillurbed, unailayed enjoyment of
" the cnoft exquifitc gratifications of fcnfe, with
Ch. 4. Termi Baptize and Baptifm* 4/
** a particular defiance of God and rel'gion
" the profanation of the temple vefTels ; that
'* was the night that was turned into all this
^^fear-\" I fuppofe few or none will deny
the propriety of thefe remarks ; and the ma-
nifeft allufion is to the dirtr-iled and affrighted
condition BelQiazzar found himfelf in, owing to
the difpleafure and judgement of God. Now
the remaining inquiry is, What is the moft
likely mode of producing this efFe6l ? Iniquity
(i. e. by a metonymy, the vengeance due to
it ) baptizes me^ is the fame as / am baptized
with iniquity^ (or the divine difpleafure as the
penal efFe6t of it.) Now there is no figure
more familiar, more eafy, more awfully beau-
tiful and ftriking in the prophetic writings, when
the doom of enemies and daring offenders is
defcribed, than that of God's pouring out
his indignation^ Pf. Ixix. 24. —his wrath^ Pf. Ixxix.
6. — his y«ry, Jer. x. 25. — men's wickednefs (i,
€. the punijhment of it) upon them, chap. xiv.
16. — Thus alfo Ezek. vii. 8. " Now will I
(hortly POUR out my fury upon thee, and ac-
complilh mine anger upon thee: and I will
judge thee according to thy ways, and will re^
compenfe thee for all thine abominations.'* If.
xlii, 25. " Therefore he hath poured upon
him the fury of his anger. Lam. ii. 4. " He
POURED out his /wry like fire/* Dan. ix* 11.
" Therefore the curfe is poured upon us,** &c.
^c.'— The cup of God's fury^ therefore, being
poured
\ Comment, in Ik»
#
^S Of the Signification of the Ch. 4.
poured out without mixture upon the impious
monarch, may be confidttred as the m'-Ji ufual^
natural^ and exprejfive mode of bringing his mind
into the condition defcribed ; '' my heart panted ;
fearfulnefs affrighted me*." To which we may
add — that an influx or communication from
God, of a confolatory and merciful nature, is
expreGly ftyled " a haptijm ;'' fee Matt. iii. ii.
kc. and Ails xi, 15, 16. Now if the pour-
ing OUT of God's merciful influence be pro-
perly called baptizing with that influence ; for
the like reafon it muft be equally proper to
call the POURING out of his punitory and
avenging influence, a hapiizitig with that influ-
ence. Whereas, for irtiquity^ or vengeance, to
plunge the offender into a fomnhing not expreffed^
as the contrary opinion fuppofes, is an idea
equally inelegant, confufed, and unufual in the
facred writings.
§ 13. (3) Judith xii. 7. Independent of the
force of the word in queflion, we have here
ftveral important circumjlances that render it highly
improbable that immerfion is intended ; and as
thefe circumfiances are concifely and properly
put together by Mr. Towgood, I fhall give
them in his own words. " It is faid — She
" ivent out^ in the nighty into the njalky of Be-
" thulia and WASHI-D, xat t^aifh^Clo and was
" baptized, in a fountain of water by the
" cajnp. Did file dip her whole body in this
^* fountain of water ? Yes, fome earnefliy con-
". tend. But Utterly without reafon and againfl
« all
• Compare the following exclamation of the roman Orator :
*' Dii iiTjmortales, qui me horror fttfudit I Cic,
Ch. 4. ^Tc'?'ms Baptize ami Bc*pttf}n. 49
" all pj'obabiUty, For as there appears to have
" been but this fingle fountain in the valley of
" Bethulia, at, clofe by, or around which (etti
" Tj;? vr.yY.qy chap. vil. 3.) an army of above
" tivo hundred thcufand foldicrs lay incamped, it
" is the height of abfurdity \^c<st, par.] to ima-
" gine that Judith, in the night, could with
*' any convenience or modefty unclothe herlelf
'' and plioige her whole body therein : Or, if flie
" could; in a country where water was both
" fo much needed and lb fcarce ; and fo prodi-
" gious an army, with its infinite multitude of
" attendants and cattle^ were to be continually
" fupplied from it. When therefore it is faid,
'' {he, — was baptized in the carnpy at the fountain
" of ivater (this is the exaft rendering) it may
" be left to any one to judge -«- Whether flic
'' was totally im7nerfed^ or had the water applied
"-only to a part of her body. This, then, mufl
" be accounted another very clear and inconief-
'' tible injlance^ where a perfon is faid to be bap-
" tized^ without being overwhelmed'^,*^ After
all, fuppofing, without granting, that the luafi-
ing here mentioned, whether for phyfical or
ceremonial cleanfmg, was the whole body,
that does by no means tend to confine the
mode of it to dippifig ; for nothing can be plainer
than that her cleanfmg^ and not i?7i?nerfion for
immerfion fake, w^as her pri?nary bufinefs at the
fountain ; nor is it lefs evident that tho' the
wafhing were totals p'^^'nging would be fo far
D from
* Ut JuprOf p. 17, iS,
eo Of the Signification of the Ch. 4.
from being efjential to it, that it is at bed
only one fpeciiic ?node of vvafhing the body, or
rather a very unimportant circumjiance attending
it. Again ; is it probable that Judith, a woman
of rank and beauty, and in fo critical a fitua-
tion, was not attended with the waiting woman
that flie took with her to the camp of Holo-
femes (fee chap. viii. 33. x. 5, 6.) as well
for company, the excurlion being in the gloom
of night, as for afliftance in the luftration?
Now let common fenfe determine, wliat was
the moft natural^ fafe^ and eafy method (for
necefftty is out of the queftion) of efFeding the,
main and only purpofe for which the mode ft
females went to the guarded fountain, (chap,
vii. 7.)
(a) EcCLESIASTICUS XXxiv. 25. O ^uTrii^ofJiBio?
xira »£xp« — He that is baptized from [the pol-
lution of] the dead. Here let it be obferved,
1. That the writer's aliufton is, it (hould
feem, to the ceremonial purification enjoined
Num. xix. after touching, or being any how
polluted with a dead body.
2. That it does not appear from the facred
rubrick, that the purified in this cafe had his
purification effedled by any other inode^ than by
SPRINKLING the water of feparation upon him
by another perfon. For I have never feen it
proved, nor am I convinced that it can be proved,
that the command to " wafh his clothes and
bathe himfelf in water" extends to any other
than the fprinkler^ Num. xix. 19, 21. The
water of feparation is exprefsly termed {v. 9.)
" a pv-
Ch. 4.. 'Terms Baptize and Baptifm, 51
" a PURIFICATION for fin." And again, {v.
17.) it is faid — " he (hall purify himfeif
with it," and " he (hall be clean*."
3. On fuppofition that the fprinkled as well
as the Jprinkler^ was enjoined to wa(h his clothes ^
and bathe himfeif, it would be as improper
(cat, par.) nay al^furd, to make that bathing
fynonymous with dippings as with ruhbing ; for
the former is no more included in ablution^ with
reference to the human body, than the latter.
And the word ^a-jrli^oiAsvoi;, if the queftion be
not meanly begged, fliould be no more ren-
dered by he that dippeth, than by he that
RUBEETH I
4. From the premifes it appears mofi probable
that the word ^aTrltfo^arvaj is here ufed fynony.
mouily with purified or cleavfed\ and that the
primary idea is not the fpecific tnode of puri-
D 2 fying
• It is very plain on the face of the hiflory, that the p»,
Rij-iCATioN was effedled by sprinxlikg j which Mr. Tow-
0000 thus erpreffes : '* This fully appears from verjei 13, 20,
*• where the perfon, who had negle£led this ceremonial purifi-
*« cation, is threatened to be cut off. For what ? For not hav-
<* ing bathed hii body S Nothing like it. No, but in each diftinft
*« threatening, bis guilt is exprefsly made to confift, in his not
** having the watkr of purikication strinkleu npoa
" him. And the apoftle, it is obfervable, fpeaking of this very
" fame purificaiion, makes the efficacy of the ceremony to confift
"entirely in the sprinkling j without the leaft mention of
«« the bathing. Heb. ix. 13. For if the blood of bulk and goatt,
" and the afbes of an heifer ^ (with which this ivater of pur if i-
" CATION was made) sprinkling the unclean, fanEiifeth to the
*^ purifying of the FLESh [i. c. (o far fanftffied the polluted, a|
" externally and ceremonially to purify or cleanCj him] how irycK
" more, &c*'* TowGcoa's Tjeatife, ut fupta, p. 17,
52 Of the Signification cf the Ch. 4.
fying, whether fprinkling or waihing, ( to pluyig-
ing it could . not refer, if the allufion be to
Numb. xix. fince the law of purification no
more includes that, than it does at moft any
other 77iere circumjlatice of bathing) but to the
•purification itfilf Therefore it is a generic
TERM, expreffive of cere?nomal purification; and
the exaa import feems to be—" i/<? that^ is
PURIFIED fro7n [the pollution ofj the dead,"
§ 14. Having now examined all the paf-
fages in the Old Teftament and Apocrypha,
where the term ^a^rlifa; occurs, I would here
make one general remark, viz. That in no one
paiTage out of the four is the word fynony-
mous, or even ufed fynonymoully, with immer--
/d?». — One of them is confefledly metaphorical,
and alludes as we have feen, to that ftate of
mind which is the efFe^, according to the
common language of fcripture, of God's pour-
ing out his indignation and wrath on the guilty.
The other three are evidently founded in the
Jewifn purifications, Naaman was a leper, and
the mean of his cure, tho' not in all things
conformable to the prefcribed law of leprofy,
was no other than a purifying rite; and his
baptizing himfelf feven times in Jordan (tho*
this mode of fpeaking by no means excludes
the adual afliftance of an attendant), amounts
to neither more nor lefs than that he cere-
monially WASHED, ckanfed or purified himfelf
feven times iv rco lop^'avri in [or, by tneans of^
the Jordan -, which ivajhing no more required
that he Ihould plunge himfelf, than that he
ihould
Cli. 4. Ter?ns Baptize and Baptifm, 53
ihould rub himfelf, or fwhi in the river. And
fhould an objeclor ftill urge, that when the
hiftorian fays he baptized himfelf, he meant that
he immerfed himfelf, and that this may be faid
to be " according to the faying of the man of
God^""' becaiife it ifnplies the wafhing command-
ed; in reply to this iuffice it to obferve — that
it is in vain for him to beg what will never be
granted him, that the " primary, radical, and
proper meaning" of the Hebrew or Greek
terms here ufed is to i?nni€rfe^ v/hich is a fpecific
acl:, rather than to tinge, which is a generic
term — and, that nearly with the fame plaufi-
billty another may infiii, that what the hiftorian
meant by the controverted term was — Naaman's
wetting J or rubbing himfelf with water ; his fvim^
?ningy or putting himfelf to foak in the river ;
for each one of thefe implies the v^afhing com-
manded. And, if it pleafes him, he may go a
ftep further, and with undaunted coniidence
iniilf upon it, that Naaman put himfelf in Jor-
dan to SOAK, head and all, feven times — but
how long he continued there, is a queflioa
which he will not perhaps choofe to be confi-
dent in, but rather refer us to inference and
analogy !
Again: When we confider the liablenefs of
Judith to be ceremonially polluted every day,
during her refidence in an idolatrous camp,
what more probable than that her going nightly
to the fountain to baptize herfelf or to be bap^
tizedy Vti^as of the nature of a ceremonial purifica-
D" 3 t:3n?
54 Of the Signification af the Ch. 4..
tlon? She went, therefore, to the fountain to
be purified^ or cleanfed from the ceremonial pol-
Jution contraaed in the day; which no more
required plunging than fwimming : and to fay thatj
in thofe circumftances, fhe went fupra Jiaiutum^
merely becaufe it is faid (he was baptized^ is to
facrifice common fenfe to an indefenfible hypothens ;
and to impute immodejl folly to the wifeft woman in
Ifrael, without producing one fmgle argument,
or one ray of evidence, in fupport of the charge
— except it be that noble argument, that trufty
foundation which has been the fole fupport of
niany a huge controverfial fabrick, — petitio prhi"'
cipii ! i. e. " baptizing IS plunging!"
§ 15. 2. The ofFspring, ^cc^Pul^co, having been
examined, and found totally filent about the
eU'entlality of immerfion ; let us nov/ proceed
to examine the parent, ^a,7fl(-. And here it is
obfervable, That of the tivo and twenty inftances
where ibis word is found, not one is inconfift-
ent with its being, in its primary meaning, a
generic term^ fignifying to tinge; Vv'hereas in
fix inilances at leaft, if I am not much mif-
taken, the fpccific notion of immerfion is ex-
dueled.
It is well known that in v^hatever language
prepofitions are ufed, they have no fmall influ-
ence in determining the meaning of thofe words
with which they are connecTted ; and in many
cafes are quite decifive. For inftance, were the
fubject of inquiry, liow general and extenfive, or
how particxdar and confined, is the meaning ot
any
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Bapfifm. 55
any word? the ufe of the prepofitions conne£led
with it will often decide. Suppofe, for illuf-
tratioil' fake, we fix upon the Englilh word t9
move : now in order to know that this is a
generic term I need only obferve — That prepo-
fitions of various and even contrary influence and
tendency may be confidently conne6led with it;
as to move ;//, with^ by, from, to. For a
thing may be rnaved from as well as to or
towards another. But let any other word which
is only a fpccies of the genus to ??iove be
adopted, as advance, proceed, withdraiv, recede,
^c. its fpecilic nature is eafily difcovered by the
ufe of the prepofitions. If, for example, ws find
the words tuithdravj and from connected, the
motion is fpecified as retrograde ; but the words
MOVE from do not fpecify it. Again, if we
find the words advance and to connected, the
motion is fpecified as progreJTwe ; but the v/ordv
MOVE to (\q not fpecify it. — Let us apply thefe
remarks to the word in difpute. If prepofitions
of oppofite and contrary tendency are found con-
nected with it, this demonftrates that the genu-
ine meaning cannot be that which is necefla*
rily confned to only one uniform tendency, viz.
That of the fubjecl towards the fluid, li the
particles employed, and the circumftances at-'
tending, convey to us the idea — That the fubje<Sl
baptized is brought to that baptized Jiate, fome-
times by the application of the fluid to the lubjecl,
and fometimes by the application of the fabjewt to
the fluid, it follows — that the radical^ and pri-
D 4 mary
56 Of the Signification of the Ch. 4.
mary meaning is that which is cstnimn to both.
The terms to dlp^ plunge^ im?nerfe^ and the like,
are expreffive only of that confined and fpeciiic
act which implies the motion and application
of the fubject to the fiuld ; confequently, they
are inadequate to exprefs the primary idea, be-
ing too partial and contracted.
If the moft eminent Lexicographers are right,
when they tell us that the priinary and proper
meaning oi ^a.Ti\u is to tinge; and if our op-
ponents are alfo right, when they aflure us that
its primary and proper meaning is to iimnerfe ;
it follows that tinging and immerfing are per- ■
fe6tly fynonymous. But every one knov>'s that
immerfion is only a 7nGde of tinging, as before
Ihewn ; therefore, if the premifes be true, the
mode and the thing rnodified are perfectly the
[aim I Or you are favoured, reader, with ano-
ther curious but legitimate confequence — A per-
fon or thing may be faid, properly and ftri6lly,
to be dipped when only fpri}ikl£d^ paifited^ or any
how coloured! — It is in vain to urge, that be-
caufe dipping is the ?noft vjual way of tinging,
therefore it may be termed the primary meaning ;
for with the fame propriety may a fophiil ex-
claim : " The primary meaning of MOTiox is
" progrejfr.n. Ye boalted men of fcience, who
" have faid fo much about motion, ye are all
*' deceived, and quite out in your definitions \
" for if \ou behold the planets in their courfes,
" they all proceed \ and fo do the rivers of wa-
'' ter frocfed in their channels j man on his
" journey
-li^
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Baptijhu S7
*' journey advances forward ; the whole vegeta-
*' ble and animal creation obferves the fame
'' plan; therefore — retrogrejjlon is no motion.'*
Equally abfurd is the conclufion, that the fre-
quency of one mode of tinging annihilates all others.
§ 16. In Exod. xii. 22. we read ; Kai ^cc^avlsq
AnO ra ctif^ccloq. Lev. iv. IJ. Kai ^si-^n 0 ItfEv;
TQv ^cckIvT^ov AnO ra aifjLccioq. xiv. 1 6. Kai ^x^n
Tov ^a-^vMti TO? ^£|»6v Alio T» EAata. Dan. IV. 30.
Kcti AnO T>?j ^focra ra a^ava to crwf/ta aJla t^aipv I
and the fame verbatim, chap. v. 21. And in Pfalm
ixviii. 23. we find : " That thy foot may be
tinged in [or, with] the blood of thine enemies,
and the tongue of thy dogs [may be tinged'\
IIAP' aJJa (fiil* Ui^.x\o<;,)
Now let impartiality itfelf determine, whether
thefe prepofitions, or the latin ones correfpond-
ing, <?, ab^ de^ or ex^ are any way compatible
with that mode of tinging which our opponents
make ejjential to true baptifm ? And whether
they do not demonjlrate that the primary fig^
nification of the controverted word is not to
plunge ; but to tinge^ wety Jlain^ or the like ?
And tho' immerfion may be found the moft
common^ becaufe the moft eafy and commodious
mode ^i tinging a variety of things, fuch as a
finger^ the one end of a bunch of hyffop^ or the
ind of a rod; but when the feet are faid to be
tinged at the brim (eiSa^jjo-av £14; |i*ipo?*) of overflow-
ing Jordan — when thefe as well as the head^
D 5 thr(/
* The Welfh tranflation is very emphatical : " A gtvlychu o draed
yr offeiriaid, oedd yn dwyn yv arcl*, ynghwrr y dyfroedd." Jof^
58 Of the Sigmficaticn of ihi Ch. 40
thro* the abundance of oil, are to be anointed^,
•—the mode of appFication becomes more ambi-
guous as to the fa^^ becaufe more difficult to
determine about the natural propriety of the ac-
tion. If again the queftion be put— What is
the moft natural and the moft commrn mode
whereby the garments of a warrior are tinged?
We can be at no lofs for a reply. The jnode^
therefore, of accomplifhing the primary thing
fignified, varies according to the nature of the
cafe.
§ 17, One thing more deferves particular no-
tice, refpeding the ufe of ^oe.'ii\b) in the Septuagint
and Apocrypha, There are, if I remember right,
but tiuo pajjages in all thefe writings where a
HUMAN BODY or PERSON is faid to be tinged
(^«7rl£^0at) and both refer to Nebuchadnezzar,
and are exprefled in the very fame words*. It
Ihould feem, then, that this cafe is of confider-
able importance, being the only one in pointy as
to the fubje6l baptized, within the limits of our
prefent inquiry. Now the queftion is, what is
the primary fignification of the word iQucpY, here
ufed ? Is it any one fpecific a6l of immerfing in
water, putting under water, fprinkling, or pour-
ing water upon the fubjedt I Or does it not
rather refer to a Jiate of wetnefs in which the
body of the metamorphofed monarch was ? Let
Dr. S. reply: " The word iQx(p7) is not ufed to
** defcribe the aSlion of the dew as dijlilling or
^^ fallings but to exprefs the STATE of Nebu-
" chadnezzar's
* Dan. iv. 3S, r, 21.
Clr. 4. Terms Baptize and Baptifm, 59
" chadnezzar's bodyf." This I verily believe
is the proper, radical, primary meaning of the
controverted term ; of which this pafTage is a
flriking proof. " Not the action but the
STATE." If any aSiion at all, it would be the
diftilling or falling of the dew, for there was no
other; but it " defcribes the ftate Nebuchad-
nezzar was in," which has nothing to do im-
mediately with any aSiion ; and confequently the
word tQct^rt does not, cannot defcribe immerfion^
which is as much an atlion as the falling of
the dew. It is in vain for Dr. S. to foift in
the falvo, " as it were." *' Which was, os it
were^ dipped or plunged in dew." For this was
not a figurative baptifm : it was a real fa^»
His body was aSfually in a baptized Jiate, It
v/as tinged or wetted^ and therefore as truly hap^
tized as any thing of which we read.
The queftion now returns : By what means
came the degraded monarch's body into this
flate? It muft be owned this is only 2. fee on-
dary confideration ; the primary is the y?^/f, no
matter how efFe(5led. Yet it is necefiary that this
ftate fliould be introduced by fome mode of ap^
plication. It mull: needs be that either the tin-
gent liquid was applied to him^ or he to it. It
could not be the latter; for there is no motion
of his body from, one pofition to another fup-
pofed, as is felf-evident \ nor was the baptifm
efFe6led by his being put in a river^ a pool-^ or
a bath which is equally clears no, nor yet his
D 6 bein^
f Remarks on the Chriftian Min. Reaf, f. 45.
^O Of the Higyjificatzon cf the Ch. 4»
being put in the dew, for the Jiate was ef-
fe6t:ed Ano rY,<^ o^otb, from the dew^ or by the
a6tion of the dew upon him. Confequently,
the tingent Hquid was applied to hi?n ; and a
MODE of baptiffn this, as oppofne and contrary to
Yipping^ as the points of Eaft and Weft, or the
ideas of aclion and re-a6lion, can be. Thus, I
think^ it is " fatisfaclorily proved (if demonftra-
tion will fatisfy) that in tills one inftance (and
the only one which refers to a human perfon
complexly under the word ^x'rflu) in the Septua-
gint verfion or the Apocryphal writings ) the idea
of dipping is EXCLUDED from the word.'*
But Dr. S. ftill objeds : " Now (fays he) it
<' is very remarkable, as Dr. Gale has largely
" fliewn In his anfwer to Mr. Wall, that the
" original Chaldee word (if/labbang)^ which is
" here rendered by t'^u^v), necejfarily implies dip-
'' ping, as appears by the conjiant ufe of the
" word ; and that it is by this Chaldee word
*' the Jerufalem Targum renders the Hebrew
" (tabbal) Lev. iv. 6. which alfo iinquejlionably
" fignifies to dip." And, he might have added,
— which unquefrionably fignifies to tinge ; which
laft as unqnejlionahly differs from plunging^ as Dr.
S.'s mode of baptizing differs from that of his
opponents.— I think it has been fufficiently prov-
ed already that the pri?nary meaning of the He-
brew word is not to immerfe^ but to iinge^ to
hring to a Jiate of wetnefs^ of colour^ &c. in whole
or in part; and becaufe this principal end was
more commonly accomplifhed by the mode of
dipping
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Baptifin* - 61
dipping, hence that fecondary idea became more
prevalent than any other. But I may venture
to fay, That it never fxgniiies to immerfe for
the fake of immerfion in all the facred writings ;
but the immerfion is always for the fake of a
higher end\ and therefore is only a mode^ how-
ever common, of effecting that primary purpofe.
Nay, I will venture a flep further, and affirm
—That in fame of thofe places where the word
occurs, immerfion appears a ujelefs mode of an-
fwering the main intention, fince another would
anfwer letter^ as in the cafe o{ fi dning Jofeph's
coat, &c. and that in other places a mode di-
ametrically oppofite to immerfion is plainly fug-
geflcd by the prepofition annexed, as before
nolkvd; tho', as to the nature of the thing
intended, it might have been done either way.— •
Therefore, that the Chaldee word in queftion
(hould be rendered by the Hebrew iabha\ is fo
far Irom proving the point intended, that it is
evidently agairift it.
§ 18. Respecting the Chaldee word— " that
it neceffarily implies dipping, as appears by its
conftant ufe" — we deny the fa6l. Nor has Dr.
Gale, or any one elfe, proved the pofition now
mentioned. The general if not the univerfal
fufFrage of Lexicographers of the firfl note, and
Criticks of the higheft reputation, is againft him ;
the verdidl of the moft eminent verftons is a-
gainft him -, and the nature of the fuhje6ls where
the word occurs is againft him.
Among
62 ^f ^^^ Signification of the Chs 4.
Among others, do not Castellus, whofe
eulogy was that of hterary greatnefs, pronounced
by an able judge*; N. Fuller, fo renowned
for his critical refearches; Pagninus, ftiled by
one not inferior to himfelf, " A man moft fkil-
ful in the eaftern languages fi" Buxtorf,
whofe very name refle6ts honour on Jewifh li-
terature; to which we may add, Leigh, Stock-
lus, &c. do not thefe, I fay, concur to pro-
nounce and prove the word in queftion, both
in the Hebrew and Chaldee form, to be a ce-
KERic TERM, by rendering it tingere and colo-
ran? Is not tinxit the primary meaning? And
is not this as different from immerfion as ge-
nus from fpecies^ or ejfence from mode ?
Mr. Parkhurst in his Lexicon under the,
word, fuppofes, indeed, the primary fenfe of the
Hebrew root to be — " To form longijh lines^ or
^^ Jlreaks^ or fuch as are longer than they arc
" broad, (q. d. ohlongare) ox to be of an oh-
" long Jhape,'*^ Hence he fuppofes that " as a
** noun (cjlabbang) it fignifies a finger or toe^
" from its longijh or oblong form.*' That " as
•* a noun or participle paffive it denotes Tijlripe
** oxjlriped^ Judg. v, 30." As a participial noun,
* The Hyana^ fo called from the dark flripes
* ox Jlreaks with which his colour is variegated."
When.
• Bp, "Walton, in his pref. to the Polyglot: *' Virum inr
•* quo eruditio fumnTa magnaquc animi modcftia convencrc."
■f- J. BuxTORj- in Epift. Dcd. to his Hcb. Lcr, ** Vir Lin*
•* fcuarum Orientalium peritiiHiKus.'*
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Bapttpn, 6j
When he confiders the word in the Chaldes/
form he obferves: " In Aph. To ivet^ molften^
Imhue^ Dan. iv. 22. In Ith. — To he ivetted.
Dan. iv. 12. v. 21. So the Vulg. render it by
tlngi^ infundi^ infici^ and the LXX. in the laA
palTage by et'^^jj."
The Assembly's Annotator on Jer. xii. g.
obferves : " The word here ufed, and not tMt^-
" where found, cometh from a root, which tho'
" no where ufed in the Hebrew text of Scrip-
*' ture, yet is found in the Syriack of Daniel,
" Dan. iv, 15, 23, 33. and v. 21. as alfo in
*' the Syriack and Arabick verfions of the New
" Teftament. Matt. xx. 23. Luke vii. 38/*
Now this laft paflage abfolutely excludes immer-
fion from the nature of the a(5lion ; and as to
the text in Matthew, the hteral interpretation of
the Arabick verfion is — " tin^nrat mea tlngemtni'''
While the Syriack Interpreter keeps to the
Greek terms latinized : " Baptifmate quo ego
iaptizory baptizabi7nim,^^ — As to Dan. iv. 15.
MoNTANUs's interlineary verfion and the Vul-
gate, render it by tingo-y the Syriack verfion
is interpreted by inthigo, ver, 23. is rendered
by Mont ANUS : " Ex rore coelorum te tingen-
tes." The Vulgate: " £t rore coeii infun-
deris." The Syriack, as before, by int'mgo ;
" Rore coeli intingeris." ver. 33. Mont. " De
rore ccxilorum corpus ejus tingebatur." Vulg:
" Rore coeli corpus ejus infe(5tum efl." Syr.
Interp. "Rore cceli intingendum." Sept. lite-
ral Tranfiation: " De rore coeU corpus ^jus in.
feclum
m
^. Of the Signification of the Ch. 4,.
feaumeft.'* Arab. Interp. " Perfufum fuit cor-
pus ejus rore cceli.'* And as to Dan. v. 21.
Mont. " E rore coelorum corpus ejus tinctum
fuit." VuLG. as in the pafTage laft mentioned.
Syr. " Rore coeli corpus ejus intinclum.'*
Sept. Verbatim as in the laft paflage. Arab.
" Perfufum eft corpus ejus rore coeli," — Let the
reader now judge, whether the " Chaldee word
necejjarily implies dippings as appears by its con-
J: ant uft !
It is well known that from this root is de-
rived, as before obferved, the participle, or par-
ticipial noun (tfabuang) which is rendered in our
prefent verfion ^^ fpeckled.^' And perhaps there
is not a word within the compafs of facred li-
terature, about the meaning of which there have
been more critical conjedures among the learn-
ed. And yet among thefe endlefs conjectures I
do not recollect one tliat conveys the idea of
neceffary immerfion*.
Once
* SoMi, as before hinted, and particularly Bochart ( De
jinlmalibui Sac, Scrip. Lib. iii. ii.) would, after the Septuagint^
render the phrafe vhich we read *' fpeckltd birdy' ~—^ *' byanuy''
or variegated luild btajl. But of thef- there were two kinds,
one a quadruped very much hke a wolf, only Jpotted\ and the
ether a "fcrpent fptckkd under the belly ; ce»ctri$, or ferpens milt'
grius. Others confider the word (eitb) with which it is con-
»e<£led, and which is agreeable to our verfion, as meaning flriftly
a hirdi and accordingly they exprefs the force of the participle
as agreeing with anjis in fome fuch terms aj thefe ; tinElOy coIo'
rata, piEia, variegata, difiolor, varicolor^ •vtrficilor y rubefaOoy fanguine
infcfla, cruentay cruentata j injolita, fylvejirii j digitata, praJongii utt'
guikui proidita, pradatriXf rapax, fera^ carni-vtra, &c. And were
It*
Ch. 4. Terms B.iptize and Bapt'ifm. 65
Once more; it may be remarked, that the
ufe of the Hebrew derivative, Judg. v. ?o. which
is rendered by the Sept. by a derivative from
^ciTrico^ is not at all favourable to our opponents'
hypothefis ; — " To Sifera a prey of aru::rs co-
Icurs (tfchaim /Sajf./^ola.j',) a prey of diver s colours
(as before) of need!e-work, a prey of divers
colours ftjebay ^siy.y.xicc) of needle-work on both
fides." But how would this paffage read on the
phinging plan ? " To Sifera a prey of piano--
••'•o-'j ^ P^^y ^f pLungings of needle-work, a
prey of pluiiglngs of needle-work on both fides
[qv^ more literally, a plimguig of double em»
broidery!)" And here it is obfervabie that
'while iMoNT. ^w^ the Vulg, render the v^ord
by color and diverfus color ; and the trandations
of the SspT\ and Syr. by itntluras ti\e Chal-
dee Faraphrail, retaining the fame word, In the
Chaldee form, (tjiheonvi) is rendered by the latin.
verfion ^^ color, '^ " Prcedam polymitarum colorum."
That is, if the Doctors Stennett and Gale
are right in faying, that the word " vecejfarily
implies dipping," — " A prey of the embroideries of
dippings !"
It
I to throw my mite of conje£lure into the heap, it Hiould be
" avis NOTATA," which, in my apprthenfion, txhibits the moft
fcafible and eafy connedlion between the very diflimilar derivatives;
the one importing "Color,'"'' cr " tinEiurOy* and the other *' di"
gitu%y — Who knows but in this age of difcoveries it may be
•' largely fhewn " and demonitrated, that the b'lrd in queftion \%
neither a hawk, a kite, an e^gle or a peacock, ( as fome have
conjecliued) tut av'.i immersa — a ^' ducky "" which is literally
*he dipping ^ or dipped) bird, from the Dutch " dncken" to dip *
66 Of the Sigytificatkn of' the Ch. 4.
It is not denied that the Chaldee word an-
fwcrs to ^avlecj ; but what we infift is that the
primary meaning of neither is to immerfe. —
Sir £i>WARD Leigh, after giving the import
of tl\e word thus : " Thixit, iutinxit, colore vel
humore i/uhuit feu infec'it^ coloravk, lavit^ made-
fccity rigavitj baptizavit^ i mmerf i'' — ohicrvcs from
Fuller: " The word among the Syrians,
" primarily and properly figniries ^ocirliiv j that
" is, either irnmergere or tingere ; and becaufe v;hat
" is flained with any colour is made fuch />/z-
" mergendo five tingendc^ hence alfo it denotes
" colorare; juft as ^aTpmf and tingere among the
" Greeks and Latins, comprize both meanmgs''-^^''*
Now if a word fignifies to tinge and to iin-
mcrfe^ it is demonftrable from the cafe itfelf,
that the former is the Uading and primary
fenfe ; for to immerfe is a ?r2ode of tinging, but
tinging cannot be called a mode of immerfing,
To deny this, is to deny that the genus pompre-
bends the fpecics, or that the whole compre-
hends the parts.— What Fuller fuggefls, that te
colour is a confcqumt meaning, because effected
BY plungi?jg or tinging, docs not afreet the
qucfiion ; otherwife the idea itfelf is controver-
tible. For, if fome better reafon be not af-
figncd, he might as well have faid j " Travel-
ling is a confideration confequent to walking or
riding, because that is effdUd by thefe,'' That
is. The thing itfelf is a confideration confequent
Xd tlie fpccifc mode or manner of elie(Sling it !
But
• Crit Sacr,
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Baptifm, 67
But before I leave this branch of the fub-
]tc\^ I would obferve, That the above remarks
and reafonings on the controverted words, in
proof that they are generic ter?ns^ mufl be in
ail reafon confidered in reference to tiie time,
place and occafion of ufing them. For there is
2 great deal of difference between the accepta-
tion of words at one time, place or occafion,
and others. Therefore, no objediiion that may-
be formed againft what I have faid will affeil
it, tho' it were proved (what yet remains to be
done) that the fpecific notion of dipping was
of ?nore early date^ as conveyed by thefe terms,
than the generic one of tinging ; except it be
alfo proved that the more general fignification
did not exift at the time and place of \ifmg the
words. Whatever is done fhort of this will
be juftly deemed inconclufive, and mere logo-
machy.
§ 19. Having taken rtotice already of all
thofe pafTages in the New Tefi:ament, where
the word ^xttI-.^u) occurs, it will be needlefs as
well as tedious to enter into a minute exa-
mination of them all. Inftead of this it will
be fufHcient, and perhaps more proper, to make
the following obfervations upon them, in con^-
nedion with what has been already laid.
I. Tho' I have, according to our opponents'
conftant wiili, made /SstTr/o;, as well as i5«7r?tfa;,
the fubjeifl: of inquiry ; yet as the former is
never, but conftantly the latter is ufed in the
New Teftament when the facred rite is in
queftionj
XZ Cf the Signification of the Gh. 4.
queftion, it is but reafonable to fuppofe that
this uniformity is owing not to accident but
tlefign ; and if to deftgn^ it is- equally reafonable
to conclude that both terms, at leaft in th&
legijlc.tive fenfe, are not fynonymous,
1. This being the cafe, it is but reafonable
to infer, that the \ife of the word ^ocrfi.i^j,} in
the Sept. and Apocrypha, rather than ^onrlu^,
fhould be regarded in afcertaining the {tn{(i
of the former in the New Teftament.
3. Inasmuch as every i7i/iance where the
word occurs in thefe writings (Ifa. xxi. 4. ex-
cepted, which is evidently figurative,) is a fpecies'
of ceremonial purification*, as before obfer-
ved i and feeing to purijy and to baptize are
vifed fynonymoufly, Mai. iii. 3. and Mark i. 8.
— ap.d when we add to this, the nature and
dcfign ci the inftitution ; the greater confiftency
of tlie rendering, of which let the impartial
judge; — ! think it natural to infer, That the
real legi dative and facramental force of the term
is of a general nature^ and by no means con-
lined to one fpecific action j and that the
words purification and purifiy^ tho' not perfedly
adequate, have a better claim on adequatenefs
to exprefs the meaning of the original than im*
merfiion and immerfic^ or any that convey the fame
idea.
§ 20. If we inquire by what mode this pu-
rification by water is beft effected ? I beg leave
to reply in general — By the application of water
to the body, rather than by applying the body
of
Ch. 4. ' Terms Baptize and Baptifm, 69
of the fubjedt to the water. My reafons are
as follows :
I. Because, S ^aTrltfo/Atvo?, the purified perfon^
all along from Mofes to Ckriji *, was ceremo-
nially cleanfed or purified^ at leaft principally,
by that mode. Numb. xix. 12. "He fhall pu-
rify himielf with iT."--ver. 33. " Becaufe the
water of reparation was not fprinkled upon him^
he fhall be unclean,^* ver, 20. "The water of
reparation hath not been fprinkled upon him^
he is unclean.''* Nor is there any evidence,
that the bathings or wajhing the body with
water, referred to any but the adminifira-
tor of the rit^l and the rather becaufe he
had no other mode of purification left but this,
whereas the other was clean by fprinkling. It is
confefTedly clear, that he who fprinkled or even
touched the water of feparation^ was thereby
rendered unclean ; now if fprinkling was necef-
fary for his cleanfmg, it muft be equally fo for
his fprinkler, and fo on, which is abfurd. There-
fore, the ablution was necefjary for him, but not
neceffary for the other, sny more than the te^it^
&c. after being fprinkled. And indeed fuppofmg
(without granting) that both bathed themfelves,
it ftill follows that the application of water to
the fubjedl for cleanfing, conflituted the leading
and principal part of the adlion.
2. Because the ^ia,(po^oi ^ccTflia-ixoi, the divers
purl-
* Be it obferved, that evtry person who was legally purified
from the touch of a dead body, &c during that long period^
was bapti^ned. How cotnn.on a thing, then, muft kapiifm be amon^
the JewSf as a facred rite!
no Of the Signtfication of the Ch. 4.
purficatlcns, which were in force font Mofes U
ChnfU were performed at leaft principally by this
mode.' On this phrafe ( Heb. ix. 10.) Dr. S.
has the following very fingular obfervation :
" As prophecy, teaching, ruling, &c. are the dif-
^' ferent fpecies of tlie genus gifts-, fo the van-
" cus plungings of priefts, Levites, and people,
« for confecration, defilement, &c. are the dif-
« ferent fpecies of the genus dippings or bath-
" in^^s." In fupport of this remark, fo un-
worthy of Dr. S. we are referred to Spencer,
Grotius, and Whitby. But the fentiment
muil: be untenable indeed if it has no better de-
fence than what thefe authors CTcrd. Nay, the
very references are plump again/l it. For not
only do they imply that the priefts, Levites, and
Ifraelites were different fuhjc^s^ but alfo that the
wajhings {^w^l^iAOi) were different (^ta^opot) ; and,
indeed, elfe they could not pofTibly be excul-
pated from palming on the Apoftle a contradic-
tion in terms, as we (hall prefently fee. The
piefls had one mode of purification by water,
Kxod. xxix. 4. " And Aaron and his fons thou
(halt bring unto the door of the tabernacle of
the congregation, and thou /halt w^ash , them
ivith water.'^ The. Levites liad another inode^
Numb. viii. 5 — 7* " And the Lord fpake unto
Mofes, faying. Take the Levites from among the
children of Ifrael, and charfe them. And thus
flialt thou do unto them to cleanfe them:
Sprinkle vjatcr cf purifying upon them.^* And
the
Ch. 4. Terms Bapiize and Baptijm. 71
the people when defiled had another mode^ Lev.
XV. 5 — 8, 16. Here the unclean is commanded
to " bathe himfelf in water," or to wajh himfelf^.
The words of Spencefc are: " Alia enim erat
Pontificis et facerdotum lotio^ alia Levitarura,
Ifraelitarum alia^ ^'c.'' (De Leg. Heb. Lib.
iii. Diflert. 3.) And thofe of Grotius: " Fa^
rias lotiones nominat, (Heb. ix. 10.) quia lotia
alia erat facerdotum, alia Levitarum, &c.'* And
Dr. Whitby upon the place refers to the
above texts in proof of the waflnngs being di^
vers, But^ how can thefe authorities or thefe
facred texts contribute in the leaft degree to
cftablifh Dr. S.'s unaccountably ftrange notion
of genus and fpecies ; when he fays that " the
various plungings of priefts, Levites, &c. are the
different fpecies of the genus dippings or bath-
ings." As this dodrine, peculiar to a tottering
hypothefis, ftands already confuted and juflly ex-
pofed in a publication which Mr. B. has cau-
iioujly overlooked (perhaps out of tendernefs for
himfelf and his caufe)-, and to which Dr. S.
has thought proper to make no reply (we fup-
pofe for a very fubjiantial reafon ) ; I beg leave
to prefent the reader with the following flridlures
from that unanjwered performance : ^' Accord-
ing to the Dr. dippings are the different fpecies
of the genus dippings, — Small as my acquaint-
ance
* ** They had tvajhlngs alfo — of the ir\wards, Ex. xxxx, ij, and
** of the burnt-offerings peculiarly, Ezek. xl. 3S. of the hands and
" feet of the priefts, Ex. xxx. 18. and of the Leper, xiv. 9. — ^
72 Of the Signification of the Ch. 4.
*' ance is vith the docSlrine of genus and fpe-
" aVj. yet I know there is between the feveral
" fpecies contained in the genus, what logicians
'* call differentia, 'Tiius a Jrian and a brute are
" different fpecies of the genus ariimah, and
" that which conftitutes the difference betv/een
'' thefe fpecies is rationality. But where is the
" logical differentia between plunging s and dip-
*' pings? unlefs the Dr. will contend that a va-
*' nation in ter?ns makes it. Indeed he feemed
*' aware, that to affirm, dip')ings are the fpecies
'' of dippingSy would incur manifeft abfurdity,
" and therefore he artfully varied his phrafeo-
" logy. But fuch little artifices as thefe are
" eafily fecn through, and help to deted the
*' fallacy and evafion which frequently lurk un-
'' der them.
" Let us fee how he applies his reafoning
" to the ufe of the word in Rom. xii. 6. Men-
*■*■ tion is made there of differing gifts ^ ^iu(pc^.a,
" ;'C«f"^/^-*'*» ^^^ thofe gifts are fpeciiied ; fuch
*' as prophecy^ exhortation^ ruling^ Sec. Upon
" this the Dr. argues thus: '^ We might with
'' good reafon argue analogically from this other
" pafiage in Romans, and fay, that as prophecy^
*' rulings &c, are the different fpecies of the
" genus gifts J fo the various plungings are, S:c.''
« But
** Ba'TUC"/xo? is ary kwd of -juajhirgf whether by dipping or fpiink-
" ling J putting the thi:ig to be waflicd into the water, or ap-
** plyirg tie luater iinto the thing iifelf to be uafhed. Of thefe
** waihings there vcre various /crts or iitiJs under the lavr,"
Dr, OwzVf in tec. Vol. iii. p. 351, 352,
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Baptif?n, y^
" But, according to our author's mode of rea-
" foning, the analogy is dejlroyed. — If, according
" to the Doctor, ^»a(popoi /SaTrlKj/xot fignlfy clean-
" fmg of different perfons', then, in order to pre-
'' ferve a juft analogy^ ha<pc^cc y^oc^ia-uc^a ought
" Ukewife to mean gifts difpenfed to different
^^^perfons. But the abfurdity of inference in the
" latter cafe, clearly expofes the fallacy of con-
" clufion in the former. x>xpȣr/xala gifts are the
" genus ; whofe /pedes are, prophecy^ ridings Sec,
" Each of thefe is a fpecies ; each is different
" from the other ; and both are contained in
" the genus. But according to our author's
" do£lrine of genus and fpecies, if only one of
" thefe (prophecy for inftance) had been given
« to " various perfons^' to the paftors, deacons,
" people ; ftill x*p*'^/^*^'=^ g'fts would have been
" the genus, and one of thefe gifts conferred
" on " various perfons'' would have .been the
" fpecies : and thus prophecies would have been
*' the fpecies of prophecies^ without any dif^
" ference whatever ! for the difference would
" refpe6t the perfons on whom they were be*
*' flowed, and not the things given.
" Another inflance vnW expofe it flill more.
" In Lev. xix. 19. the Lord commands his
« people not to fow their fields with mingled
" feed^ a KoJao-TrEptK ^ixpopov, diverfo femine ( Lat.
" Vulg. *) The Greek word is the fame here
Vol. H. E " ?s
* Other latin verfions have it, dl'verfi fpeciebus, ex dualus fpe-
debus, commlxtione Jemimim, mijlionibus, &c«
74- ^f '^•'^ Signification of the Ch. 4.
*' as in Hebrews and Romans^ and fignifies a
" difference in the fpecies of feed ; a mingling
" of which was prohibited under the law.
" But, by our author's mode of accomtnoda-
'* ting the doctrine of genus and fpecies, tho*
« the Jews had ufed one unmingled feed, yet if
" they depofited it in various fields or upon
" various " occafions," they would have equally
" violated the divine injundion; becaufc, al-
" though there was not the leaft difference be-
" tween the pure feed fown in one piece of
" ground, and the fame depofited in another ;
*' yet, according to the Dodor's idea, there
** would have fubfifled a difference between thefe
" fpecies of feeds, only becaufe of the different
^^ fields to which they had been committed.
" After the fame abfurd manner does he rea-
" fon about the divers baptifms under the law,
" The priefts, he fays, were dipped in water, the
" Levites were dipped^ and the people were dip^
" ped. And where is the difference between dip^
^^ ping in watery ^nd-^ dipping in water P " O,
" but different perfons were dipped!'* But how
" does a difference in the perfons conftitute a
'' difference in the things when [on the fuppo-
'' fition] the mode of applying the water was
'' the very fame to priefls, Levites and -people ?
" I need not inform the judicious reader, that
" the whole of the Do(Si:or's reafoning, which
" feems perfedly new, amounts to this, viz.
*' That a genus may have different fpecies,
" and
Ch, 4. Terms Baptize and Baptifm, 75
*' and that there may be ns teal difference at
" all between thefe different fpecies [or even
" between the gefius and /pedes'] (which is a
" contradidlion in terms) no more than between
" plungings and plungings */ "
But wonders never ceafe. Who could think
it? from this very phrafe, " divers wafhings,'*
Dr. Gill fetches an argument, (or '^ dipping !
" Called divers^ fays the Dodtor, becaufe of the
" different perfjns and things waflied or dipped,
" as the fame Grotius obfervesj and not
*' becaufe of different forts of wafliing, for there
" is but one way! of wafhing, and that is by
*' dipping!'' But Grotius obferves no fuch
thing, as his words declare. And whether the
other parts of this curious piece of dogmatifm
be not either already refuted in the refutation
of Dr. S. or tl^Q too palpably grofs and un-
guarded to impofe on any one pofTefTed of com-
mon fenfe, let the intelligent reader judge.
I KNOW it has been fuggeiled " that tho'
thefe wafhings were divers, they were not di-
verfeJ" But whether this Englifh criticifm be
not merely fuch, and totally unfupported by the
original, may appear, in addition to what has
been faid, by the following remarks from no
mean writer : " All, who underftand the origi-
" nal, know, that the words do and mvjl mean
" DIVERSE SORTS of baptifms^ or baptifms of
*' different fpecies or ki?ws. It is not faid
* Mr. De Courcy's Rejoind. p. 204, 305, &C, See alfo
Ik EMUS, Ar.tiq, Hebr. Pa r. I, Cap, xviij. § 0,
'^S ^f l^he Signification cf the Ch. 4.
" TToXXot? 7na7ij^ nor 7ro»x.tXoK 'various,, but ^la^ofoi?
" DIVERSE, or DIFFERING SORTS. The only
" place, in the New Teftament, where the word
" (^»a^opog) is ufed, befides this, is Rom. xii. 6.
" Where by ^^aipop x'^'^"^/^-*'* differing or di-
" VERSE gijtsj is indifputably meant leveral dif~
^^ fering KINDS of gifts y as the words following
« demonftrate, viz. Prophecy, Teachings Ruling^
« 5jc, Should, then, a perfon now fay — That
" there is no baptifm but by dipping^^hc would
" moft plainly and undeniably contradict
" the apojile; for he would hereby affirm, that
" there is but one kind of baptifm; whereas
" the apoftle declares there are more kinds
a than one*» — Yea, that the apoftle has, in this
« place a more particular regard to the Jewifli
^'' fprinklings^ than dippings^ feems highly pro-
*' bable (to fay the leaft) from his exprefs
" mention of the fprinklings (ver. 13.) as fome
" of the principal of thofe legal purifica-
" TIONS, or differing baptifms^ concerning which
" he had fpoken (ver. 10.)— If any (hall imagine
" that the baptizing of cups, pots, tables, hmnan
" bodies^
• ** Concerning the fcnfe of the word dia^opo; dl'verfe^ fee alfo
" "Wifd. vii. 10. ^0,(^0^0,% (^vluv Diverfities, or diverse sorts,
<» of plants. Dan. vii. 19. 6»p»o» ^iu(pQfov vet^u Ttuv Qcfiov^
«* a beajl of a KIND (or species) nirrERENT from all ether
'< becfis. So the word ^ia,^o^o\ifo<i is twice ufed, in this fame
*« epiftle. Heb. i, 4. and viii, 6. [the only places in the New
** Teftanient where it is fcund] in both which place?, it fighi-
*' fies of a very different kind: a name^ of a very ciffcrent
" kind'f and a minijlry of a very differ er.t kind (rem theirs."
Ch. 4. ^erms Baptize a?ld Baptifm, 77
" bodies^ Sec. is meant by thefe diverfe baptlf?ns ;
" the reply is obvious. Thefe (if they mull be
" all dipt in order to their being baptized) can
*' with no truth or propriety be called diverfe
" or differing kinds of baptifms; for they are
" then but one and the fame baptifii of differ-
'' ing things. •
" Here, then, is FULL PROOF that the
^ fcripture ufes the word ^aTrUa-uoi baptijm^ in
^* fp GENERAL and large a knk., as evidently
." to comprehend fpririKling^ if not chiefly to
" intend it. Sprinklings then, in the judgfnent
" of an infpired writer^ is an authentic and
*' DIVINELY INSTITUTED MANNER of baptiz-
" ing*,'* To this I will add, That it is with
confummate prudence our opponents, while con-
fiilting the. fafety and reputation of their caufe
—-the ESSENTIALITY of dipping — (lightly pafs
over, or at leaft very tenderly touch, this paf-
fege.
§ 21. 3. Proceed we now to a third realon
aflignable in favour of applying water to the fub-
jedt, rather than putting the fubje6l in the water j
viz. Becaufe this mode preferves the moll flrik-
ing conformity to the mode of application in
the baptifn of the Spirit^ i^f which water bap-
tifm is but the external fign. For whether we
confider the divine influences in a miraculoias
or fan6lifying view ; whether we refer to the
mode of conferring gifts or graces; it is both
E 3 fcriptural
* Tow good's Dipping not the only Scriptural and Piiiriititrc
manner of Baptizing, p. 6, ,7, 8.
78 Of the S'lgnif cation of the Ch. 4.
fcriptural and rational, and fup ported by ««/-
verfal analogy^ That man^ (if he be allowed to
be at all the fubje6t of fupernatural influences)
ihould be regarded as the recipient or paiTive
fubjeSt, There is no alternative. The appiica^
tiori^ if there be any at all, muft be either from
heaven to earth, or from earth to heaven.
But the new birth is fro?n above [ocvu^ty) ; the
gift of the Spirit was poured out en the Gen-
tiles] the difciples were endued with divine
power from on high (eI v-^8<^)» " As the apoftle
" Peter fays, that the Gentiles were baptized
" when the Holy Ghoft fell en them ; fo, we
" alTert, that water poured out or falling upon
" the perfon to be baptized, conftitutes a real
" baptifm ; and that the terms therefore admit
** a fynonymous analogy : And the fame mode
" of analogical reafoning we adopt, from the
" words of the prophet Joel ii. 28, quoted by
" Peter in A(3;s ii. and compared with verfe 33
" of that chapter. The Lord promifes by the
" prophet that he would " pour out his Spirit
^ on all flefh." The fulfilment of this promife
" is atteded by the apo/lle ; who ufes the very
•* fame word, to exprefs the baptifm of the dif-
" ciples on the day of pentecofl:. If ever there-
" fore the force of analogical argument be al-
*' lowed, furely it ought in the prefent ftriking
" inftance. And if it be admitted, then the
•' following argument, in favour of baptizing
* by effufion of water is irrefragable, viz. If ac-
•*' cording to the correfpondent teftimonies of
'' JoeI>
Ch. 4* T<irms Baptize and Bapti/m. 7^
" Joel and Peter, the apoftles were baptized by
" the pouring out of the Spirit; then perfons
" may, with fcriptural propriety, be baptized
" by the pouring out of water f.*'
On the other hand : tho' we allow immier-
fion to be a mode of baptizing, yet we afiert
that in this very important particular it has no
countenance frona the principal thing fignified.
The principal thing iignified in baptifm, as be-
fore (hewn (chap, ii.) is the communicated in-
fluence of the Spirit of grace ; but the mode
of immerfion is a very inadequate and unfuit-
able reprefentation thereof. Again ; if we make
dipping any thing elfe than a mode of ceremo-
nial cleanfing, that is, of baptifm, and m.ain-
tain, as our opponents do, that the very ejfence
of the rite confifts in the a^ of dipping ; we
neceflarily deprive the baptifmal element of every
degree of analogical fignification. For on that
iuppofition, what muft the watery element figni-
fy ? If the nature of the ordinance be a burial^
the water reprefents " the heart of the
EARTH;"— the dull grave. Here is, then, no-
thing left to reprefent the co?nmunicaiion of in^
fluencesy or the appUcaticn of grace to the perfon.
Here is no analogical reference to the blood
and merits of Chrift. But can any one, who
is in the leaft acquainted with the language of
infpiration, hefitate a moment to determine,
whether the water does not more fitly and
fcripturally reprefent the blood and Spirit
E 4 of
•f Mr, De CoviiCY*8 Rejoind, p. t47»
8o Of the Signification of the Ch. 4»
of Chrift-j than his grave? And if the y^r-
me?-^ we appeal to every principle of fcripture
analogy and common fenfe, as v/ell as to the
nature and defign of this ordinance, Whether
that mode of applying the fignificant purifying
element for which I contend be not tlie mofi
exprejjive ? But if any object, that fpr ink ling
or pourings or any mode of applying water to
only a part of the body is an infufficient em-
blem of a complete purification y he would only
cavil againft divine appointments, being wife a-
bove what is written. For the blood of Chrift
fprinkled en the heart reprefents a complete puf'i-
fication. And both men and things have been
pronounced ceremonially clean when oi\\y fpr ink*
led; and this very mode was inftituted by wif-
dom itfelf to reprefent moral purification.
The trite and frivolous objection, " That
there was no rite under the Mofaic ceconomy
which enjoined the fprinkling of pure waier^*
hardly deferves an anfv/er. For we have no
difpute about the aw/z/;-^ of the element ; tliis
the records of the Ivlew Tcjl?.ment iix withoiU
controverfy: our analogical allulion, therefore, is
not to the ptirifing liquid^ whether ivatcr pure
or mixed, or //^^V, or 5//*.^ &;c. but to the
inode
* Chrifl's being baptized vith naater, reprcfentecl his being
feaptized with the Spmt, in an e<traordinary manner j which totk.
place when the heavens we:e opened unto John, ** and he faw
•* the • Spirit of Cod dtfcending hke a dove, and lighting upon
** J^f^^*^^ ■^"'^ this baptifm of the Sp'rit is iikevvife called his
ANOINTING
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Baptifm, 8 1
mode of application. To which we may add,
Ezek. xxxvi. 25. " Then [under the reign of
" the Mefliah] will I sprinkle clean wa-
" TER upon you, and ye fhall be clean : from
" all your iilthinefs, and from all your idols,
" will I CLEANSE you.'*
§ 22. 4. There is no paflage In the New
Teftament, I will not fay that confines the mode
of purifying to immerfion, but from which it
can be fairly deduced {ccet. par,) that immer-
fion was at all ufed. In addition to what has
been faid already, I would only obferve ; That
if any pafTage in the New Teilament gives
countenance to the notion, that dipping was
the apoftolic pra6lice, it is Rom. iv, 4. (ta
which is added Col. ii. 12.)
Now to fuppofe tiiat the apoflle alludes to
the manner of difpenfing the ordinance, is to
enervate his argument, and in fa6t to make it
no argument at all. For how could the cir-
cumftance of their being plunged^ oblige them
to a holy life, which is the fcope of the paf-
fage ? Or how can a fuppofed tranfient con-
formity to the pofition of our Lord's body
in the grave, or, indeed, any other corporal
pofture, oblige to mortify fui and cultivate ho-
E 5 linefs ?
A^coiNTiNG, pr. XIV, 7, " God, thy God, hath anointed
** thee with the oit of'gladnefs above thy fellows,'* And this
anointing was done "by poufinc the oil, ExoJ, xxix. 7, "Then
Aalt thou take the. an-jinting oil and jcur it u^on hi: bead^ and
fnoint blmt''
Sa Of the Signification of the Ch. 4*
linefs ? — If it be faid, that the putting of the'
body in water, in Qonformity to the putting of
Chrifl's body in the eave, obliges in virtue of a
divine appointment ; it is- but meanly to beg
the queftion. We deny that there is any evi-
dence for fuch an appointment, in preference
to every other mode of application. Our op-
ponents muft make the apoftle argue to this.
eiFe6t: **' Your bodies^ brethren, in baptifm,.
muft have been in the fame pofture as the-
body of Chrift in the grave, therefore let your-
old man be buried ; for this has put you under
a ftrong obligation fo to do." How trifling the
fuppofition !
Again: The true anti thefts of the pafTage is.
deftroyed by the other interpretation.. That,
being buried with him, we may walk in new-
nefs of life, as Chrift was buried and raifed up^
by the glory of the Father. Now " to walk.
in newnefs of life" is a moral concern, anfwer-
ing to the refurre<Slion and afcenfion. of Chrift j.
confequently, if there be any propriety in
the antithefis, " to be buried with Chrift in.
baptifm" muft be a moral concern, anfwering
to the death and burial of Chrift. Here arc
two things alluded to, which are both, alike
external circumftances of our Lord's Perfon;
with what propriety, therefore, muft the allufion.
in the apoftolick argument be different F Why
Ihould his rifng reprefent a fpiritual newnefs
of life 5 but his burial reprefent a corporal pof-
ture in the water?
Be$id£s:
Cii. 4. Terms Baptize and Baptifm, 83
Besides: if there be not this uniformity
maintained, there is no compleatnefs in the apo-
i^'^s argument, but it is evidently defecSbive on
this account ; That we are not obliged " to
newnefs of life" in virtue of union to the rifen
Saviour^ but in virtue of conformity to the
buried Surety. Now who does not fee the de-
feat and glaring impropriety of fuch an argu-
ment ? For, on the fuppofition, plunging is
ixclujively the all of baptifm ; the raifmg of
the body being an a£lion of a contrary nature.
For baptifm mufl: flgnify either dipping atid
raijing again^ or it muft fignify dipping folely
and exciufively. If the former^ the main part
of the controverfy is given up ; for then l3<tv%^i,
is not fynonymous with dipping, plunging^ im-
merftng, or the like : if the latter, then accor-
ding to Mr. B.'s excluding maxim, the fub-
jesSl dipped fhould not be raifed ; for the term
fignifies neither more nor lefs than to dip, and
*' pofitive laws exclude their negative;" nor
(hould we in any part of a politive inftitute
venture " fupra Jiatutunu"
Moreover: if the di<5lates of ' the law of
nature be excluded from this ordinance, and if
baptifm be nothing more nor lels than plung-
ing, baptizing muft be in many cafes tanta-
mount to drowning ! However our oppofei's
afFe6t to difcard inference and analogy from
pofitive inftitutions, is it not well, reader, for
numbers, that the baptizer adheres in praBict.
E 6 t*
$4 ^f ^^^ Signification of the Ch. 4^
to what he renounces in fpeculation ? Is not
this the reafon perhaps that you, if you have
been plunged in baptifm, fee the Hght of day,
and enjoy the bleffings of protracted hfe ? For
your baptizer, on his own principles^ might have
fafely left you in the watery grave, and thus
juftify his proceeding: "^ I am certain that to
" baptize is to dip, all over in water, but am
" not fure that it ever fignifies to raife up ; it
" is therefore better to keep to the furer fide,
" left I ihould be guilty of will worflii-p, or
" be wife above what is written. Befides, the ,
" apoftle exprefsly declares w^e are " buried
" into death^^ furely he cannot be guilty of abu-
" fing language, and infulting logick, in fuch a
" manner, when fpeaking of death and burial
" in the fame fentence, as to refer the term
'' death" to the y^«/, but the term " buried"
" to the hody. Therefore, if the burial be liu-
" ral^ why not the death ?"
Once more : the being buried into death,
and planted in the likenefs of his death ; are
oppofed to zualking in newnefs of life.^ and be---
ing in the likenefs of his refurreclion : and they
are not only oppofed, but confequentially con-
ne£led. If we have been planted^ zue shall
BE raifed. That is, on plunging principles, if
we have been i?nmerfed^ we /hall be raifed in.
newnefs of life ; in the likenefs of Chrift's re-
furre£tion. And fo this interpretation brings us
at length to the Popifh tenet — That facraments
have
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Bapiifi/r* ^f^.
have a faving influence, ex opere operate^ from
bare performance ! But how different from
the apoftle's real defign, which was to urge
the mortiiication and burial of fin from the
do6lrine of myftical union to- Chrift and. com-
munion v/ith him ; which union, in its moit
general and extenfive nature, is reprefented in
baptifm ? Now this union extends to his in-
carnation^ lifey crucifixian^ Szc, as well, as to his
death and burial, refurre6tion and afcenfion ;
but the reafon why the apoftle inftances the:
latter was, not that baptifm did not exhibit the
other part of the Surety's undertaking, an union-
to which is equally the believer's privilege, but
hecaufe the renunciation of fm and the profe-
cution of holinefs, reprefented in that connexion
and form of fpeech., better fubferved the - moral
purpofes he had in view^\
§' 23.
* Thus Dr. Ow«N on this fubjeft, who was no fuperjicial
expofitor of the facred oracles on other fubje£ls ; " The apcft'e-
" Rom, vi, 3> 4> 5. is dehorting from fin, exhorting to holinefs
'• and new obedience, and gives this argument from the neceflity,
" of it, and our ability for it, both taken from our initiation
" into the virtue of the death and life of Chrift expreiled in
" our baptifm ; that by virtue of the death and burial of Chrift
** we fhould be dead unto fin, (^in being flain thereby 3 and by^
** virtue of the refurreftion of Chrift, we fhould be quickened
•* unto newnefs of life, as Peter declares, i Pet, ili. 21. Our
** being buried with him, and our being planted together in the
" likenefs of his death, and iikenefs" of his refurredlion, is the
** fame with our old man being erudjied ivith bifKy ver. 6. and
** the deftroying of the body of fin, and our being raifed from
** the dead with him j which is all that is intended in the
*' place — There is not one word, nor one ex-prefllon, thaf men-
" tions any refemblance between dipping under water, and the
♦* death
g6 Of the Signification of the Ch. 4.
& 23. ( in ) We now proceed to inquire whe-
ther the verdict of very eminent literary cha-
ra6lers does not corroborate the doilrine con-
tained in our general theds, viz. That baptize
and baptifm^ at leaft when facramentally ufed,
are generic terms-
r. WiTsius:
** death and burial of Ckrlfl', nor one word that mentions a re-
** femblance between our rifing out of the water and the re--
«' furreflion of Chrift. Our being buried with him by bap-
« tifm into death, ver. 4. is our being planted together in th».
** likenefs of his deaths ver, 5, Our being planted together in
<* the likenefs of his death, is not our being dipped under water,,
«* but the crucifying of the old man, ver. 6, Our being raifcd
" up with Chrift from the dead, is not our rifing from under
" the water, but our walking in ncwnefs of life, ver, 4. by vir-
« tue of the refurreftion of Chrift. i Pet, iii. 21. — That bap-
«« tifm is not a fign of the death, burial, and refarreftion of
** Chrift, is clear from hence } becaufe an inftituted fign is a fign
«* of the goffei gm" participated^ or to bt pardcipated. If dip-
** ping be a fign of the burial of Chrift, it is not a fign of a
*« cofpcl grace participated j for it may be where there is none,
«< nor any exhibited." — Again :. ** That interpretation which would
" ennervate the apoftle's argument and defign, our comfort and
«' duty, is not to be admitted. But this interpretation that bap-
** tifm is mentioned here as the fign of Chrift's burial, would
*f ennervate the apoftle's argument and defign, our comfort and
<* duty. And therefore it is not to be admitted. The minor \t
*♦• thus proved ; the argument and defign of the apoftle, as was
•* before declared, is to exhort and encourage unto mortifitation
** of fin and new obedience, by virtue of power received from
** the death and life of Chrift, whereof a pledge is given us in
** our baptifm. But thif is taken away by this interpretation;.
*' for we may be fo buried with Chrift, and planted into tlie
** death of Chrift by dipping,, and yet have no power derived
•* fiom Chrift for the crucifying of fin, and for the quickening
** of us to obedience." Dr. Owkn's Tra£l, on Infant Baptifs»
afid Dipping. Ap. Colle£l. of Scrsn* p. 5S1.
Ch. 4^. Terms Baptize and Baptif?n, 8^
I. WiTsius : "Thefacred rite confifts, i. In.
the application of the water to the body of the
perfon to be baptized. 2. la pronouncing a.
certain form of words. — We are not to fup-
pofe that immerfioa is fa neceflary to baptifm,
as that it cannot be duly performed by t>erfu^
fion or ajperfton. For both pouring and fprink-
ling are defenftble,. And tho' we could find out
for certain that the apoftles^ dipped, it does not
thence follow that they always obferved this
method. It is more probable^ that the three
thoufand who were baptized in one day, (Ads
ii. 41.) had the water poured or fprinkled on
them, than that they were dipped. For it is
not likely that men fo much employed in
preaching the word as the apoflles were, could
have leifure for fo tedious and troublefome a
work as the immerfion of fo many thoufands.
Nor is it probable that Cornelius, and Lydia,
and the Jailor, who, with their families, were
baptized in private, houfes, had baptifteries ^t
hand, in which they could be totally immer-
fed. Vossius (Difput. i, De Baptif. Th. ix.)
produces injlances of perfufion from antiquity.
— /JaTrlifitv — is more generally ufed for any kind
of ablution ; as Luke xi. 38. Dominicus a
so TO, therefore, (Diftin£l. iii. Queil. un. Art»
7.) fays well : In baptifm there is fomething that
concerns the ESSENCE of it^. as ablution, ^c-
eording to Eph. v. 26. where the apojlk calk
BAPTISM the WASHING OF V7 A^ I^R. I but fom^^
thing
g3. Of the Signification of the Ch. 4.
thing is ACCIDENTAL, to ivit, that the ablution
he done BY this OR THE other mqde/^
CEcon. Feed. L. iv. Cap. xvi. § 12, 14.
2. Calvin : " Whether he who is baptized
^ (qui tingitur)^ be dipt, and that thrice or once, or
whether he be only fprinkled with water poured
on him, it matters not in the leaji, — Then the
minifter pours (effundit) water on the child,
faying, N. I haptixe thee, &c." Inftitut. Chrift..
Relig. L. iv. Cap. xv. § 19. Tract. Theol.
De Form. Sacram. Adminift. in ufum Eccles.
Genev. Oper. Tom. viii. p. 34. Ed. AmlleL
1667.
3. Limborch: " It may here be afked, whe-
ther immerfion be fo neceffary, as that there is
no baptifm without it? Anfw. It does ?iot feem
to be fo neceflary.— Baptifm is duly adminifiered
h fprinkling only.. — There are not wanting ar-
guments to prove that baptifm was, even in the
firfl ages of chriftianity, adminiflered by fprink-
ling. For, as fome argue, 'tis not at all. un^
likely but that among the three thoufand con-
verted and baptizedj A6ls ii. 41^ there were
fome women ; and the promifcuous dipping of
them into water with the men would have been
againft the rules of decency and modefly :.
therefore, it is ?7iore probable^ that they were
baptized by fprinkling or pouring on of water,
than, that tiiey were immerfed or dipped into
it. Befules, fay they, 'tis incredible, that there
fliould be in Jerufalem, efpecially in the place
Vi^here Peter preached, fuch a quantity of water
at
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Bapti/m. S9
at hand, as was fufficient for the immerfing of
fo great a number of converts. Let this be as
it will, baptifm we fay is duty administer-
ed BY SPRINKLING only.'* Compleat Syft.
of Div. B. V. chap. xxii. Sect. ii. Mr. Jones's
Tranflation,
4r TuRRETTiNus : " Thc term haptJf?n is
of greek origin, deduced from the word iSa^U-,
which is to ti?2^e and imbue ; iSccvlil^Biv, to dye-y
and to i??imerfe, --But becaufe almoll every thing
is wont to be dipped and tinged^ that it may he
WASHED, and they who are immerfed are wont
to be cleanfed\ hence it comes to pafs, that, as
among the Hebrews tahal^ which the feventy
tranflate baptize 2 Kings v. 14. is alfo taken
for rachatZy which is to ivajh : fo among the
Greeks the word ^«7rl»Jjsv by a nietalepHs, is
taken for tlie fame [to wcJJ:]^ Mark vii. 4. TFhen
the Jews come from the market^ they eat not»
except they wafn^ i^v f^r, (3cc'frli^uvl<^f Nor ought
we otherwife to underdand the baptifms of cups,
of. pots, and of beds, in ufe among the Jews.
And the divers baptifms enjoined upon them,,
Heb. ix. 10. and the fupcrftitious iv^p-Angs re-
reived from the tradition of the eiders, Mark
vii. 4, 5. Hence the Pharifees o,n that account
are called by Justin, haptifis'' Inftlt. Theol.
Loc. xix. Quoefl:. xi. § 4.
§ 24. 5. Dr. Owen : ^' /oaTrli^^ {ignifics to waf)\.
as inftances out of all authors may be given ;
SuiDAs, Hesychius, Julius Pollux, Pha-
YORInus, and Eustachius. — No one inftance
can
00 Of the Signification of the QX\. 4,
can be given in the fcrlpttire^ wherein ^otTrli^a}
doth nccejfarily fignify either to dip or plunge*
^Ai^\t,oi may be confidered either as to its ori-
ginal, natural fcnfe ; or as to its myftical ufe in
the ordinance. This dijiinclion muft be ob-
served concerning many other words in the
New Teftament, as t^K^Tjo-ta, xetplovta, and others^
which have a peculiar fenfe in their myftical ufe,
—Wherefore in this fenfe, as the word is ap-
plied unto the ordinance, the fenjfe of [the ef-
ientlality of] dipping is utterly excluded. And
tho' as a mere external mode it may be ufed,.
provided the perfon dipped be naked; yet to
urge it as necejjary^ overthrows the nature of
the facrament. — For the original and natural
fignification of it, it fignifies, ta dtpy to plunge^
to die^ to wajh^ to cleanfe, — I have not all thofe.
[authors] quoted to the contrary. In the quo-
tations of them whom I have, if it be intend-
ed, that they fay,, it fignifies to dip and not ta
V7a(h, or to dip only, there is neither truth
nor honefty in them by whom they are quoted.
Scapula is one, a common book; and he
gives it the fenfe of lavo^ abluo ; to ivajhy
and wc.Jh away, Stephanus is another, and
he exprefsly in fundry places afTigns lavo and
abluo to be alfo the fenfe of it.. In Suidas,
the great trealury of the greek tongue, it is
rendered by madefaclo^ lavo^ ahluoy purgoy munda,
— I muft fay, and will make it good, that no
hoaeft man who, underftands the greek tongue,
carA
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Baptijm, 9 1
can deny the word to fignify to wa/h^ as well
as to dip,'* Compleat Colle6l. of Serin, and
Trads, p. 580, 581.
6. Lightfoot: " The apphcation of water
is neceflary for the ejfence of baptifm ; but the
application in this or that mode indicates a a>-
cumjlance^^l^o denote this ablution by a fa-
cramental (ign, the fprinkUng of water is equally
fufficient as immerfion itito water^ fince the for-
tner in reality argues an ablution and purifica-
tion AS WELL AS the latter,'^ Hor. Hebr. in
Matth. iii. 6.
7. Vossius : " But from the other importy
whereby /SaTrJifen' fignifies ahluere [to wap^ or pu^
rify\ it is transferred to the gift of the Holy
Spirit ; that is to fay, becaufe, that He might
wajh [or purify] the foul, He is poured out oa
it, as water is poured ; even as Joel fpeaks, chap,
ii. 28. and from thence Peter, h^s ii. 17^
likewife Paul, Tit. iii. 6./' De Baptif. Difput.
I. p. 344-
8. Beza :. « The reality of haptifniy is the
fprlnkling of the blood of Jefus Chrill: for the re-
milTion of fins and the imputation of his righ-
teoufnefs, which are as it were difplayed before-
our eyes in the fign of outiuard fprinkiing.—^ArQ.
they therefore improperly baptized, who are
fprinkled with water only eaft on them ? No :.
What is, in that a6lion [of baptizing] merely
fubjianiialy [or ftri6lly eflential,] to wit, the ab-
lution of water, is rightjy obferved bv tiie church
[by
^2 Of the 'Signification of the Ch. 4,
[by fprlnkling]. — But ^aTrlifuv fignifies tingere^
to dye^ ox Jlain^ feeing it comes immediately froni
^uTrlnv ; and — fmce tingenda ih^ things to be dyed
or flained 2.rt [commonly] dipped — it iGgnifies to
make wet and to dip. — BaTrltro^at, Vulg, bap-
iizentur ; which Erasmus hath defervedly chang-
ed for loti fuerint : fmce here it is not treated
concerning that folemn ablution, to which, as
before mentioned, the term baptifinusy baptifm^
has been long appropriated and confecrated by
the ufage of all churches." Tra6l. Theolog.
Vol. i. p. 28. Vol. iii. p. 195. Annot. in
Matth. iiL 11. et Mark vii, 4..
9. Ti LEXUS 1 " Altho' inimernon might have
been formerly more cuftomary than afperfion,
efpecially in Judea and other warm countries ;.
yet fince the circwnfance of immcrfion does not
belong to the fubflance of baptifm, the analogy
Of the fttcrament may be retained, no Icfs by
fprinkling than by dipping. — Here, in an efpe-
cial manner, are exhibited to us, the remiflioa
of fms by the blood of Chrid, and fandlifica-
tion by his Spirit. — Baptifm, if we regard the
etymology of th«e word, fignifies immerfion, and
alfo afperfion, in which fenfe it is ufed Mark.
vii. 4; and by confequence wadiing. — Baptifm
in general fignifies either immerfion, or ablu-
tion, or perfufjon. De Bapt. Difp. I. Thef..
ii. XV. Syntag. de Bapt. i. Thef.. x. Theol,
Syil. p. 1077.
10. Pasor : " BaTrlw — is derived from ?>au.\_
for which is ufed /Saoo;, from the Hebrew ba
[fignifying^
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Baptifm, 93
[fignifying viotlon^ going or coming] — ^xttIoixoh,
to ^z/>, imbue, infeSi ; Rev. xix. 3. a garment
tinged or ftained with blood. ^a.(pr,a-oiJicci tingar
Lev. xi. 32. ^a(p%c-{\ui e»; t-'^wp. Hi £ RON. tinge^
tur aqua^ (hall be clcanfed^ or purified, by wa-
ter*. /5a7r)jfy to i?nmerfe, to w^y7j, to baptize,
Matth. iii. ir. ^^ttIIJ.; v//.a? ev i/'^alt; baptizo vds
aqna^ I baptize you it;//Z? water ; ej^, being an
hebraifm, is here redundant." Lexic. Lond.
1644.
11. Casaubon : *' Immerfion is not nccejary
to baptifm, fince the force and efficacy of this
inyftery does not confift therein. — It was not
without fome ground of plea that fome have
long ago infixed on immerfing the whole body
in the ceremony of baptifm ; urging the word
^aTriifst)/. But their opinion has been dcfervedly
long fince exploded ; for the force and energy
of this m.yftery confifl not in that circumflance.'*
In Matth. iii. 6.
12. Cr/>dock: " In baptifm there are two
parts, I. The outward, 2. The inward. In the
ndward part there are three things confiderable
— The outward element, water \ the a£iion of
applying the water, by sprinkling or dip-
ping; x\\t form of adminiflering or applying
the v/ater, viz. in the name, &c. — Sprinlding is
as fignificant, as to the main ends of baptifm,
as dipping. Therefore the blood of Chriil,
which
* See alfo Dr. Pococxr, who was not behind the chief of
the Rabbles in Hebrew literature, Not, MifccH. Cap. ix. p. 388,
04 Of the Significaiton of the Ch. 4.
•which is fignified by baptifm, is called the
blood of fprinkling, Heb. xii. 24. I Pet. i. 2.
And fprinkling comes nearer the baptifm men-
tioned in the Old Teftament, than dipping doth.
I Cor. X. 2. Surely the children of Ifrael
were not dipped in the cloud ; but only fprlnkled
with it, that is, with fome drops that fell from
it. Nor dipped in the red fea, — but only touch^
ed it with their feet, or elfe poflibly fome drops
from the waves of it might be blown by the
wind. — Befides, [fuppofmg the apoftolick mode
were immerfion] we do not find that our Sa-
viour and the apoftles [any more than the Jews]
continued every circwnjiance that was in ufe m
the firft inftitution of the facrament of the pafs-
Qrj^r. — Therefore fome circumftances may be
varied according to chrifltan prudence^ provided
we keep clofe to the main of the inftitution, and
the ends of it. To conclude this particular, hap-
thing is ANY KIND OF RELIGIOUS WASHING,
or SPRINKLING, in the name, &c. duly per-
formed by a perfon rightly qualified for it. —
The inward part of baptifm, or the fpiritual
myflerics ilicrein fignified, are thefe two ; the
blood of Chriji fpriiikled upon the joul for the
waDVing away the guilt of fin ; the grace of Chrijl
poured into the foul, purging out the power and
dominion of fin, by regeneration and fan6tifica-
tion." Knov^l. and Pra(51:. Supplem. p. 11 1.
§ 25. 13. Usher: " The word baptifm in
general fignifieth any wajlnng. — What is the fe-
cond facram.cntal action ? The aclion of wajl:)-
ijig
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Baptifm» 95
ing ; that is, of applying the facra mental water
unto the party to be baptized : diving or dip-
ping him into it, or fprinkling him with it, in
the name^ &c. — Neither dipping is ejfmtial to
the facrament of baptifm, or fprinkling ; but
only wafhing and applying water to the body,
as a cleanfer of the filth thereof." Body of
Div. p. 411, 412, 413.
14. WiNDELiNUs : " Baptifm is the firft
facrament of the New Teftament, wherein they
who are in the covenant of God, are — Jprink-
led^ and [thereby, in the religious or ceremonial
fenfe of the word] w«y^^</. -— The matter of
which baptifm confifts, is, i. Water \ 2. hnmer"
/ton or ajperfion.*^ Chrift. Theol. Lib« I. Cap.
xxii. Thef. iv. p. 358, 363.
15. Wal^eus and Mich^elis a Gogh :
" ^octP,u) and ^a-Trlii^w, from whence comes ^a^-
^l<s■/xo?, fignify, properly, to tinge^ and to wa/h,
— The ritual or ceremonial fign in this facra-
ment, is a baptization or wajhing in the name
of the Father," ho., as Chrift has exprefsly
commanded, Matth. xxviii. and Mark, xvi.—
But there is no exprefs command left us, whe-
ther we fhoujd ufe immerfion or afperfion ;
and exa7r,phs of afperfion no lefs than immerfion
may be difcovered in the fcriptures." Synops.
Purior. Theol. Difput, xliv. Thef. iii. xviii.
16. Chemnitz: " Paul, that infallible inter-
preter, fays, that to baptize is to cleanfe^ or pu-
rify, hy the zvajhing of water thro' the word.
Eph. v. Tit. iii. Acls ii. Whether the appli-
cation
c)6 Of the Stgnijicatton of the Ch. 4.
cation of the water be made by dippings ii^g^^^t
pourings or fpr inklings it is a baptization;
for it is a cleanfmg or ablution by the wafliing
of water: and immerfioh under water is not ne-
ceflarily required to waJlmig.—-^\\^ command
of Chrifl therefore is, that there fhould be in
baptifm an ablution hy the wajhing of water.
But by what mode that (hould be done, whe-
ther by dipping, tipging, perfufion, or afperfion,
Chr'ifi hath not prefcribed,'' Exam. Concil. Tri-
dent. P. ii. p. 122.
17. LiTURGiA TiGURiNA : *' The godmother
eoeth near the miniller, and holdeth the child
over the font, and the minifter poureth three
handfuls of water upon the child's forehead,
faying; N. N. I baptize thee in the name
of God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Ghoft. Amen." The form of Com. Prayers
praciifed in all the churches of the City and
Canton of Zurick in Switzerland ; and in fome
other adjacent Countries, p. 89. Lond. 1693.
18. English Kubrick : " Then the prieft
(hall take the child into his hands, and fhall
fay to the godfathers and godmothers, Name this
child: and then, naming it after them, (if they
Dial! certify him that the child may well en-
dure it) he fhall dip it in the water difcreetly
and warily, faying, N, I baptize thee^ in the
narne^ he. But if they certify that the child
is weak, it fhall fuffice to pour water upon it,
faying the forefaid words, A^. / baptize thee\^
Sec." The Book of Com. Prayer.
19. Markius :
^h. 4. ^erms Baptize and Baptif?n, 9.7
ig. Markius : " B apt if m ongin^iWy denotes
wajhing^ Mark vii. 3, 4. as it is alfo otherwile
called the waflnng of vjaier^ and of regeneration^
Eph. V. 26. Tit. iii. 5. — The chrutian bap-
tifm of water is defined ; The firft facra.aent
of the New Teftament in which, by tfie ablu^
tion of the body^ by me^.ns of iiximeriion, infu-
iion, or afperfion of water, performed by a mi-
nifter of the gofpel, the fpiriiual ablution [or
wajhing^ from the ftain and guilt of fm by
the fpirit and blood of Chrift, is (ig lified and
fealed, &c. — The aoiion to be perfornied by
water is ablution ; whether by the immerlion of
the whole body,-— or by fprinlding, or pour-
ing J fince the word baptize is a general term
denoting a wa/hing ; and thus [by the modes
laft mentioned] the apoftles alfo ft em to have
fometimes baptized, A6^s ii. 41. x. 48. xvi. 3J."
Chrift. Theol. Medulla. Cap. xxx. § 9.
20. PiCTETUs : " The word baptifm is de-
rived from (3ci7r%iv, which is to tinge, and to
imbue •, and becaufe the hebrew word tabal, which
the feventy render by /J^Trufeiv, 2 Kings v 14.
is ufed for rochatz, which fignifies to wajh^
hence /oi-Triifgjv is taken for fimpiy to wafo^ Mark
vii. 4. and from thence diverfe vsajhings are
mentioned by Paul, heb. ix. 10. — The word
^aTfucTjxct; does not lefs denote fprinkling than
immerfion. - The Pv.ufccvites err, vsho tench
that immeriion is of the efTn'-e ot baptilm ;
and thofe Greeks, who, in the cuuncii of I'lo^
Vol. II. p rence,
qS Of the Signification of the Ch. 4.
rence, called the^ Latins unhaptized, w^re deli-
rious.'* Theol. Chrift. Lib. xiv. Cap. iv. § 6.
§ 26. 21. Cornelius [biftiop of Rome,
about A. D. 254.J : " Novatian, having fallen
into a dangerous diforder, and as was thought
very like to die, was baptized in the bed where
he lay by perfufion {7rcfixv^u<;) ; if it may be cal-
led a baptifm which he received, fmce he did
not obtain after his recovery what was necef-
fary according to the canon of the church, viz.
confirmation by the bifhop's hands." Epift. ad
Fabium Antioch. ap. Eufeb. Lib. vi. cap,
xliii.
22. Cyprian : " In baptifm (facramento falu^
iari) the contagious fpots of fin are not waihed
away as the filth of the fkin and body in a
carnal and fecular bath; as if there were need
of wafh-balls^ a baihing-vejfel^ or a capacious pool^
and any other conveniencies, whereby the body
is waflied and cleanfed. In a different manner
is the heart of a believer wafhed ; the human
mind^ by the merits of Chrift, is otherwije pu-
rified. In the facraments of falvation, when
neceffity urges, and thro* the indulgence of
God, the , divine abridgments [divina compen-
dia^ i. e. fuch ablutions as did not remove the
filth of the fiefh, yet were divinely infiiiuted
fymbols of compleat purification ;] convey the
whole benefit to the faithful. Nor let any one
think, it ftrange that the fick, when they are
haptixedy are only fprinkUd or perfufed^ fince the
holy
€h. 4. Terms Baptize and Baptif?n» 99
holy fcrlpture fays by the prophet Ezekiel (ch.
xxxvi. 25, 26. ) " I will fprinkle clean water
upon you, and ye (hall be clean ; from all your
filthinefs, and from all your idols will I ckanfe
you. A new heart alfo will I give you, and
a new fpirit will I put within you." It is alfo
faid in Numbers (ch. xix. 19, 2j.) &c. — And
again the Lord fpake to JVIofes (Numb, viii, 6,
7.) Take the Levites from among the children
of Ifrael, and cleanfe them. And thus fhalt
thou do unto them to cleanfe them ; Jprinkle
water of purifying upon them. And again, the
water of afperfion is purification. From vv hence
it appears — That fprinkling is funicient inftead
of immerfion. Or if any one fliall think that
they are not at all benefited, who are only be^
fprinkled with the water of falvation ; Itt them not
be impofed upon ; and if they recover, let them
be baptized ! But if they cannot be baptized,
as having been already fandified with the ec-
clefiaftical baptifm^ why are they diilreiTed with
fcruples?" Epift. Ixix. p. 1863 l^j. Ed. Oxon.
1682.
23. Origen: " Whence had you the per-
fuafion [Pharifees], that Elias, when he ihould
come, would baptize ? who did not, in /xhab's
time, baptize the wood upon the altar, which
required a wafhing, in order that, on tht Lord's
appearing by fire, it might be burnt? or he
gives orders to the priefts to perform a.at.—
He therefore who did not hinJ-lf then baptize^
but afTigned that work to otiiers, fi KinL,s xviii.
33. Fill four barrels of water, and pour it
E 2 on
lOO Of the Signification of the Ch. 4.
ON the burnt facrifice, and on the wood-,] how
was it likely that he, who was to come accor-
ding to Malachi's predi6lion, fhould bapti%e?'*
Comment, in Joan. Oper. Tom. vii. p. 116.
Ed. 1668.
24. Frider, Spanhemius F. " The form
of baptifm in ufe (cent, ii.) was immerfion, or
(xala^yo-i?) the plunging of the naked body in
water, whether men, or women, or infants ;
and indeed thrice "^in reference to the holy
Trinity ; a cuftom ftill in ufe among the ori-
entals. Due regard was had for female modefty
in baptifm, by the appointed deaconeiTes. And
the very putting ofF their clothes, and naked-
nefs, hadj with them, a moral fignification.
Neverthelefs, the infirm, or fuch as were con-
fined to their beds, were fprinkied there ^ which
baptifm was termed weptpct^rK, perfufton. And
this, it (hould feem, was ufed in the church of
Jerufalem, when the multitude of the perfons to
be baptized amounted to three thonjand^ and
prefently after to five thoufand^ A6^s ii. iv. for
there was no river to put them in." Kiftor.
Chrift. Secnl. II. Seft. iv. De Bapt. Oper. p.
622. Ed. Lugd. 1701.
§ 27. 25. Mr. John Wesley: " The w^r-
ier of this facrament is water; which as it has
a natural power of cleanfing, is the more fit
for this fymbolical ufe. Baptifm is performed
by wafl"iing, dipping, or fprinkling, the perfon,
in the name, &c. I fay, by wajhing^ dippings
OR fprinkling j becaufe it is not determined in
fcripture.
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Baptifm* 10 1
fcripture, in which of thefe ways it (hall be
done, neither by any exprefs praept^ nor by
any fuch example as dearly pr^j/es it; nor by
the force and meaning of tae word Baptise,
That there is no exprefs precept^ aii caUn men
allow : neither is there any conclulive example,
John's baptifm in fome things agreed with
Chrift's, in others differs from ir. ijut it can-
not be certainly proved from Iciipture, fiat even
John's was perfoni'ed by dipping. — iNor can
it be proved, that the b«iptifm of our Saviour,
or that adminidered by his diiciplcs, wai> by im-
merfion: no, nor that of the Lunuch baptized
by i^hilip, tho' they both '•'' w^nt ciown into
the water/' for that gohig down may relate to
the chariot, and implies no detcrrainate depth '-■«.
of water : it riiight be up to tlieir knees, or
not be above their ancles. And as nothing can
be determined irom fcripture precept or exam-
ple, fo neither from the force or meaning of
the word : for the words baptize and baptifm do
not neceffarily imply dipping, but are ufed in
other fenfes in feveral places. — 1 hat wafhing
or cleanfing; — is the true meanina; of the word
baptise, is tei^ified by the greateit fcholars and v
moft proper judges in this matter." Works
Vol. xix.. p. 275.
26. J. FoRBEsius: " With refpefl to the
facrament of baptifm, by whatever mode it be
adminiftered, both the ancient fathers, and thofe
who fucceeded them, agreed that it is not necef*
fary there Ihould be a real ablution of the fdth
F 3 of
joZ Of the Sigmfication of the Ch. 4.
of the Jlejh ; but what is commonly called a
wajh'ingy by the conta£l or application of water
to the body by another, who is a qualified
minifter; and that by this application lawfully
made, is reprefented the fpiritual contail or ap-
plication of the blood of Chrift to the baptized
fubjed ; by which fpiritual contadl or appli-
cation a perfon is truly wafhed and cleanfed
from his fins. Hence that faying of Austin :
" Whence has water fuch virtue, that it fhould
touch the body, and wajh the heart?" ( Trail.
Ixx5^. in Evang. Johan.) " Nor is it necefTary
(faith ScoTUs) that there fliould be an ablution^
as that is contradiftinguillied from wafhtng^ and
inc]ud<;s the removal of filth from the body
by the conta£lion of water : but a wajhing of the
body, fo called in general^ by water a6ting
vipon it to another purpofe, is fufHcient \ which
implies [nothing Q!\{t but that it is necefTary a
contafiion of the body by means of water (hould
be effected by another caufmg that conta6l:,'*
(Scot, in iv. Sent. Dift. iii. (^ 3.) But unU
verfal afjiquity hath given its fuffrage, that this
coiitaft may be done either by immerfion or
ly fprhiklhg. But the dipping even of infants,
v/as more ufual down to the times of Gre-
gory and Isidore." InOruft. Hift. Iheol.
Lib. X, Cap. ix. § 57. p. 504. Gen. 1680.
27. Dr. Featly : " ^ocrrli^u — is put gene-
rally for zva/hingy Luke xi. 38. Heb. ix. lOr
Mark vii. 4. /SATrl.ffc-;)**, they baptized themfelves.
Chrift
Ch. 4. Terms Baptise and Bapiifm, 1 03
Chrift no where requireth dipping but only
baptizing: which word (as Kesychius, Sca-
pula, and BuDEUs, the great mafters of the
greek tongue, make good by very many inftan-
ces and allegations out of clafilc writers) im-
porteth no more than ablution^ or wajlnng,
BocTrli^eo (fay they in their lexicons and commen-
taries) iavo ; ^wrfha-f/.ccy lavatio^ ablutio^ which may
be done without dipping." In Leigh's Crit,
Sacra.
28. Peter Martyr: " But \.\\\s purification,
whether we are dipped, or perfufed, or fprinkled,
or by whatever mode we are wafhed vvith water,
is very sppofitely reprefented in baptifm." In
I Cor. X.
29. Zanchius: *' Baptifm is the wafning of
ivattT by the word, in the name of the Father,
Src. for thus the apoftle fpeaks when he calls
it " the wafhing of water by the word:" fay-
ing, that the church is fandtified by Chrift,
and purified^ or cleanfed, with the wafhing of
water by the word (Eph. v. 26.). The matter
is water ; the form is the word : and the word
added to the element makes the facrament. —
Wherefore the apoftie joins both, the water and
the word. Nor does he fay fimply with water,
but with ihe wajhing of water : teaching us, that
the mere water is not the facrament of bap-
tifm; but the adminiHration of water j that is,
that facred adion whereby the body is wafhed
with external water. — In what manner baptifm
is to be adminiftered, whether the perfons ,
F 4. ihould
104- Of the Signification of the (Jh. 4,
fhould be dipped in zvater^ or only their heads
fprinkled with water ^ Chrift hath no where de-
termined.—This word fignifies as well to tinge^
and fimply to waJJ:)^ as to dip. In A6ls ii.
fince we read of three thoufand being baptized
by Peter, it feems probable, that their heads
were fprinkled with a little water, The apoftles,
as far as we can collefl from their writings,
had no certain (vafa) vefiels or receptacles in-
ftituted and determined for that purpoie : but
the churches had free permiffion to baptize by
what method they chofe. Neverthelefs, after^
wards^ there were in the church velTels ap-
pointed, made in the form of a tom.b in which
infants were immerfed ; and hence they were
called laptijieries. — And altho' bapiifni be^ re-
ceived by rhofe of the church of Rome, it
ought not to be repeated-, becaufe it is admi-
niftered w'ith the true element^ and \w the name of
the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." Oper.
Tom. iv. Cap. xvi. De Cuitu Dei Exter. Ar-
tie. De Fapc. p. 440, 486, 493. Tom. vii.
JViifcel. p. £6.
30. pARisus: " Bapiifm among the Greeks is
any kind of v/alhing or ablu ion, whether it be by
immerfion or afperiion." In Heb. ix. 10.
31. MuscuLus: *^^ As to the immerfioti of
the infant to be bapiized, we judge that this
is not fo iiecefiary, as that tiie churches were
not free to baptize either by dipping or fprink-
ling. Tl.ac this liberty was prcferved in the
churches we may fee in August in (Oe Ec-
clef.
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Baptifm, 105
clef. Dogmat. Cap. Ixxiv.) " The perfon to be
baptized (faith Augustin) — is t'lther Jprinkled
with water, or dipped in it. And Cyprian
'(Lib. iv. Epift. vii. ad Magnum) defends the
ufe of fprinkJing in baptifm.'* Loci Comm. de
Bapt.
§ 28. 32. Ursikus : " The word haptif?n.
iignifieth a dipping in water, or fprinkling with
water. Thofe of the eaji church were dipped
their whole body in the water ; thofe of the
north^ in colder countries, are only fprinkled with
water. I'his circumjiance is of no moment or
weight. For wafhing may be either by dipping
or fprinkling ; and baptifm is a wajhing. The
catechifm definition is ; " Baptifm is an out-
ward wafning with water, commanded by Chrift,.
&c. " Sum of Chrift. Relig. Tranflated by
Parrie. Part. ii. Q. 69. p. 695.
33. Dr. Watts : " The greek word bap^
tizo fignifies to tvaJJj any thing, properly by
water coming over it. Now tbere are feverai
ways of fjch wafhing, viz. fprinkling water ' on
It in fmall quantity, pouring water on it in
larger quantity, or dipping it under water, ei-
ther in part or in v/hole. And fince thii: ieems
to be left undetermined in fcriptv.re to one parti-
cular mode^ therefore any of thefe ways of waili-
ing may be fufficieiU to aniwer the purpoi'e of
this ordmanccv ISow that the grecii v/ord fig-
nities wapiiig a thing in general by water com-
ing over it, and not always dipping, is argued
by learned men, not only from antient gre&k
authors, but from the New Teftament itfelf,
F 5 ^c.
I©6 Of the Signification of the Ch. 4.
&c." Berry-ftreet Sermons. Ser. xxxvii. Vol.
ii. p. 156. Ed. 1757. Alfo his Works, Vo). i.
p. 820.
34. Lactantius: " When Jefus was grown
up, he was baptized (tin^Ius eji) by the pro-
phet John in the river Jordan ; not that he
might wa(h away his own fins by the fpiritual
laver, for he had none ; but for an external
purification : that as he had faved the Jews by
circumcifion, fo alfo he might fave the gentiles
by baptif?n^ that is, (purijici roris perfufone) by
the perfufton of the purifying water.'* Divin. In-
fl:it. Lib. iv. § 15. p. 354, 365. Ed. Oxon. 1684,
35. Perkins: " Baptifm is a facrament, by
which fuch as are within the covenant are wajh^
ed with water^ in the name of the Father, &c.
Matth. xxviii. 19. " Go, teach all nations^
haptixing them." — Touching the name^ it is
taken fix ways. Firft, it fignifies the fuperfti-
tious wafliings of the Pharifees, who bound
themfelves to the baptifms^ or wajhings of cups
and pots, Mark vii. 4. Secondly, it fignifies
the wajhings appointed by God in the ceremo-
nial law, Heb. ix. 10. Thirdly, it fignifies that
wajhing by water which ferves to feal the co-
venant of the New Teflament, Matth. xxviii.
l^. Fourtlily, it fignifies by a metaphor, any
grievous crofs or calamity. Thus the paffion of
Chrift is called his baptifm^ Luke xii. 50. Fifth-
ly, it fignifies the be/lowing of extraordinary gifts
of the Holy Ghofi-, and that by impofition of
hands of the apoflles, Ads i. 5* and xi. 16.
Lafily,
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Bapiifm. IQJ^
»
Laftly, it fignifies the whole eccleiiaftical minif"
try—^Kdi^ xviii. 25. And it muft be re-
membered that baptizing fignifies not only that
wafliing which is by diving of the body, but
alfo that which is by fpr inkling. — Many of our
anceilors heretofore have been baptized by Mafs-
priefts, and never received any baptifm but in
the church of Rome : Now the demand is.
Whether that baptifm were fufficient or no I
and whether they muft be re- baptized? I an»
fwer thus : The Romi(h prieft is no minifter of
God and Chrift, but of antichrift, in that he
offers Chrift a real facrifice for the quick and
the dead, wherein chiefly (lands his office : yet
becaufe he hath been and is defigned by men
to baptize, and ftands in the room of a law-
ful minifter, his a^ion is not void. For tho'
he be not a minifter lawfully called to baptize,
yet is he not a mere private man ; but he is
between both, that is, one called, tho* amifs,
thro' ignorance and overfight of men : and con-
fequently, ftands in the room of a right and
lawful minifter.— In things done there be two
kinds of faults; one in the work, another in the
worker. A fault in the work^ is when the ac-
tion itfelf is done amifs : and it may be done
amifs vci fuljlance^ or in cit cumjiance \ and if the
fault be in the fuhflance thereof, it is indeed a
nullity, and muft be reputed as not done. The
fault of the zvorker is, when an adion oi
a lawful calling is don^ by one that is not
called lawfully. Now then, when the fault of
an action is not done in the work itfelf, but
F 6 ia
lo8 Of the Signification of the Ch* 4,
in the perfon that v/orketh it, it is not to be
reputed a nullity, neither to be reverfed as no-
thing. As for example, on^ called lawfully
to the miniftry, baptizeth infants in the name,
of the Father and the virgin Mary : Here is a
fault in the a5lioii done, and that in the fuh^
fiance of baptifm, and therefore here is no bap-
tifm, but rather a prophanation of the ordinance
of God. Now put the cafe further, that bap-
tifm is adminiftered by a man that is called,
tho' not lawfully ; I fay if there be no [effen-
tial] fault in the adion, but only in the man, ,
that baptifm is not to be reputed a nullity.—
Whofoever denieth this ground of truth, over-
turns the regiment of kingdoms, churches, ftates,
and focieties whatfoever." Works, Vol. i. p. 73.
765. Vol. ii. 256. N. B. This eminent pro-
teftant divine, who feldom fpared any pillar or
part of popery when it flood in his way, was
clearly of opinion (and the judgment of fo
iearned a polemic, and fo venerable a cafuift
tlaims at leaft a tribute of refpe6^) that neither
tne unworthinefs of the adminiitrator, nor the
fpecific mode of ufmg the element, could juf-
tify a found proteftant in rejecting the popifh
baptifm as a nullity ; while he takes into the
account for this purpofe, the force of the term
baptifm^ the na'ure and deCgn of the inftitution,
the analogy of faith, and the principles of right
reafon.
36. Wilson: " Baptifm', dipping into water^
•r waJIAng with water, i Pet, iii. 21, " Where-
of
Gh. 4. Terms Baptize and Baptifm, 109
of baptifm, &c. — Pouring out, or Jheddi?ig a-
broad, the gifts of the Spirit, A6ls xi. 16,
« Ye (hall be baptized with the Holy Ghoft."
Mat, iii. II. A6ts. i. 5. To baptize with the
Spirit, is to hejiow the graces of the Spirit.—
To baptize \ to dip into water — To fpr inkle or
wajh one's body facramentally. Thus the minif-
ter baptizeth. Matt. iii. 11. "I baptize you
"whh water," that is, outward facramental wafh-
ing. — The minifter baptizeth by fprinkling
with water, God baptizeth by beilowing the
gifts of his Spirit." Chrift. Diet.
37. Synod of dort : " We believe and con*
fefs that Jefus Chrift — having abo3i(hcd circum-
cifion — hath inftituted the facrament of baptifm
in the room of it ; whereby we are received
into the church of God, and are feparated from
all other nations^ and from all other foreign
or falfe religions ; that we may be confecrated
or devoted to him alone, whofe chara6ler and
mark we bear. And hereby we have a tefti-
mony, that he will be always our God and
propitious Father. Wherefore he hath com-
manded that all who are his (hould be bap-
tized, to wit, with pure water, in the name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Iloiy
Spirit; to fignify, that as watei (in nos effufa)
poured upon uSy and to be feen 04 1 the body of
the baptized, and fpiinklmg it, waihes the filth
off the body ; fo alfo the blood of V^hrilt per-
forms the fame internally in the foul by the
Holy, Spirit, fprinkling it, and cleanfmg it from its
fms.
no Of the Stgntfication of the Ch. 4^
fins, and regenerating us from children of wrath,
to be children of God. We believe that we
ought to be baptized but once, with that one
baptifm, which is not to be repeated in fii-
ture ; fince we cannot be born twice. Nor is
this baptifm ferviceable only when water is
poured upon us and received by us, fince the
ufe of it extends itfelf to the whole courie of
our life. Wherefore we deteft the error of the
Anabaptifts; who are not content with one
baptifm once received, and who moreover con-
demn the baptifm of infants born of chriflian
parents." Corp. Confefs. Acta Synodi Dor-
drecht. § xxxiv. p. 143.
38. CONFESSIO ET ExPOSITIO FiDEI CHRIS-
TIAN-ffi : '•• Baptifm was inftituted and confe-
crated by God ; and John iirft baptized " qui
Chriftum aqua in Jordane tinxit," who tinged,
i. e. baptized, Chrift with water in Jordan.
From him it deicended to the apoftles, who
alfo themfelves baptized with water. The Lord
manifeftly commanded them to preach the gof-
pel, and to baptize in the name ot the r a-
ther, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoft.
And Peter in anfwer to the Jews, inquiring
what they ought to do ? faid, in the Ads, Let
every one of you be baptized in the name of
Jefus Chrid, for the remiffion of fins, and ye
(hall receive the gift of the Holy GholL
Wherefore baptifm is called by fome, the ini-
tial fign of God's people, in as much as by
this they were initiated to God, as his chofea.
There
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Baptl/m. m
There is only one baptifm in the church of
God, and it is enough to be once baptized,
or initiated to God. But baptifm once receiv-
ed, continues all our life time, and is a per-
petual feal of our adoption. — We are internally
regenerated, purified and renovated by God
thro* the Holy Spirit ; but externally we re-
ceive the feal of thefe very great ble/Tmgs in
the water, by which thofe very benefits are re-
prefented, and as it were exhibited before our
eyes. Wheri:fore, we are baptized, that is,
wajhed or fprinkled with vifible water*. More-
over i God feparates us^ by the fymbol of bap-
tifm, from all ftrange religions and people, and
confecrates us to himfelf, as his peculiar pof-
feffion.'* Corp. Confefs. p. 46. N. B. " Sub-
fcripferunt omnes omnium ecclefiarum Chrifti in
Helvetia miniftri, qui funt Tiguri, Bernae, Gla-
ronae, Bafileae, Scaphufii, Abbatilcellae, Sangalli,
Curi.TB Rhetorum, & apud confaederatos, in ec-
clefiis Evangelium profitentibus cis et ultra Al-
pes, Milhufii item et Biennae, quibus adjunxe--
runt fe et miniftri ecclefise, quas ell Genevae,
ct Neocomi, &c.'* Pref.
39. PococKE : " In the firft place the word
haptifm does not necefTarily denote an immer-
iion of the whole body in water, even when
ufed to exprels (Tebilah) the more folemn de-
gree of wafning j fince it is fpoken of him who
only intmges even his hand^ according to the
frequent ule of Jewifh tradition and difcipline.
Secondly,
* Ideoque baptizamur, id eft, abluimur, aut afpergimur aquu
vifibili.
112 Of the Signification of the - Ch. 4»
Secondly, the fame word is fometimes ufed for
that {lighter degree of wafliing, which is per-
formed by the affufion of water, and it indiffe*
rently belongs to both. Which perhaps it may
be ufeful to obferve againft thofe who morofely
and over fcriipuloufly urge the force of the
word, when difpu'dng about the facrament of
baptifm." Not. Mifcell. in Port. Mofis. cap.
ix.
40 Leigh : " BxTfli^u, Baptizo. Mr. Lau-
rence in his treatife of baptifm, the fifth
part, faith, The word /5a7ruf<y fignifies properly
mergOy immergo^ that is to drown! or fink in
the water, to dip, to overwhehn, to plunge ; fo
Chamier fays, that immerfion expreffeth the
force ra ^ocrfli^nv : it fignifies alfo tingo, to dye
or colour, quod fit immergendo ; which is to he done
by dipping into the colour, ovepA'helming and
drowning in it*. So Walrus, a learned pro-
feffor of thefe parts, fays, That the ancient La-
tines exprefled the word ^oe.'nWt^iiv per tinfiionem
Ct inundationem ; inundatio is overflowing. This
therefore is the material force of the word. So
he." To which Mr. Leigh replies: " I can
find
• JFhicb is t9 be done — that is, if any thing to the purpofe,
nothing can be tinged or coloured without immerfing it. Some-
thing like Dr. Gii.L, when he fiflerts, *' There is but one "May
of wafhing ; and that is by dipping!" No^. reader, you cannot
wafliyouryrt« but you tc\w^ dip \\\ Meirrs. Laurikce ao4 Gill
might hav2 as well infifted. That the only ivay to cut ofF a
nan's hair from his he^d u. To lever the hed from the body.
Or, that there is no ether iv^y to kill a man, than by the fpe-^
*\hc mode of fahbingt
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Baptifm, 113
find nothing at all in Chamier favouring your
opinion of immerfion. Walrus De Baptifnio
faith, " ^ccirlo] and ^ccttH^u properly fignifies la^
vare or hitingerej as Mark vii. 4. and Luke xi.
38. It is indicated that it is indifferent whether
v/e baptize by fprinkling or immerfion, becaufe
examples of both are found in fcripture." I
fuppofe that which I have quoted in my Cr/-
tica out of the beft lexicographers, and that I
here quote in the margent, out of two learned
dodtors [PococKE and Ligbtfoot] may fuf-
iice to take off what is obje£red by Mr. Lau-
rence from the force of the word. Schmi-
Dius on Matt. iii. 6. faith, ^c(,7r%v is to tinge,
from whence ^cctPu^cj. Any one, therefore, faith
he, may baptize, altho' he iliould not immerfe
in water; but fhould only tinge with water, by
whatever convenient mode." Crit. Sacr. oup-
plem. Ed. 1662.
§ 29. It would be eafy to colIe£i: a large
volume of palTages to the fame import, from
lexicographers, criticks, and commentators i ma-
ny of Vv'hich L purfjofely omit, froai tiie lole
motive of not fwelling the preient work and
being tedious to the reader. Now I venture to
appeal to the perufer of the foregoing piges,
whether tlie verdict of many very emiricnt lite-
rary charadlers does not corroborate the doc«
trine contained in our general thefis, viz. That
baptize and bapiifm^ at lead when lacramentally
ufed, or in their Nev/ Teibment legijJathue mean-
ing and force, are generic terms f '^ it will be
allowed
114 Ofjhe Signijjcation of the Ch. 4.
allowed, I think, by every competent and im-
partial judg;e, that many of the authors from
whofe writings thefe quotations are made, may
be juftly numbered among the firft literary cha-
rafters that any age has produced ; and, tliere-
fore, as likely to know the true meaning of a
greek Term, as any of our late oppofers:" and
they are unanimpufly of opinion, that the
term baf-iifm agrees to different fpecific modes^
fuch as immerfion and fprinkling; confequently
cannot be immerlion exclufwely^ but is of courfe
a general term.
" Can it be fuppofcd, fays Mr. B. without
impeaching the wifdom or goodnefs of Chrift, that
he enabled a law relating to his own worfhip,
the principal term in which is ohfcure and ambigu-
ous ? Can it be imagined, that he intended an
ambiguity fo great in the term baptifm, which
prefcribes the duty to be performed, as to war*
rant the ufe of immerfion^ or of pourings or of
jprinkling^ which are three different actions ? —
" Why not ? What inconvenience follows ? If
a fovereign enacl that all his "^ loving fubjc-fls
{hould rejort to feme place of worlhip every
Lord's day ; would he be blameable for not fpe-
tifying the Jhode of reforting, or would his fab-
je(Sts have any juft ground of complaint for not
determining whether all were bound to the fame
manner of performing the general mandate ?
Nay, is it not evident, that the greater the la-
titude of fignification, the lefs danger there is
ef miflake, and in reality the lefs room for
cavil I
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Bapti/tn, 11%
cavil ? If the generic Idea of a word be deter-
minate, there is little reafon to complain oi
the variety of fpecific ones contained under it.
What could we think of a foldier who ihould
quarrel with his officer becaufe when he gave
a general order to kill *, to Jlay^ or \o put to death
the common enemy without quarter, and with-
out exception, he had not withal fpecifiedj whe-
ther he muft do it by cutting off the head, by
dabbing, or by any other one method exclufively ?
When God faid, " Whofo (heddeth man's blood,
by man fliall his blood be Ihed" (Gen. ix. 6.) ;
is there any juft ground of refiedion on the
conduct of the divine Legiliator that the man-
ner^ or fpecific mode, of executing the fentence
was not precifely determined ? Would it be-
come any of our Lord's profeiTed followers, to
indulge the irreverent humour of cavilling, and
charging his legiilative authority with imperfec-
tion, becaufe he has not precifely determined
the quantity and quality of the bread and wine
in his fupper ; whether the wafhing of the dif-
ciples' feet, anointing the (icic with oil, the ob-
fervance of the feventh day as a fabbath, and
the feafts of charity, are or are not of perpetual
obligaiion i
* ** KVding a man with a fwmd or a hatchet, ave Jroked on
** as no /pedes of adlion: but if the point cf the fword firft
** enter the body, it pafles for a diftuift fpecies, where it his a
*' diftiL^l name J as in England, in whcTe language it is called
*' J}ahbing : But in another country, where it has not har>pened to
" be fieofied under a peculiar name, it pafles not for a dift.nft
" fpecies." Locice's Eilay on Hum. Under. B. III. Cha.»*
Ii6 Of the Signification of the Ch. 4.
obligation? If a mafter orders his fervant to
go, to a certain place on his bufmefs, leaving
it as a matter quite indifferent, becaufe unim-
portant, by zvhat road out of feveral the jour-
ney may be performed and the bufmefs done;
would it not betray the want of good fenfe, as
well as^ a rebellious cavil, for the fervant to charge
the mafler with " either weaknefs or wickednefs"
becaufe he had not pofitively and abfolutely
fpecified which of thefe different roads mufl be
taken to the exdufion of all others ? In fhort,
to find fault a pnori, as Mr. 3. does, with the
idea, that our Lord (hould enact a law by a
term of Intitude^ is to find fault with divine
wifdom for granting; to man any degree of //-
beriy of choice in his aclions. Why ihould any
wifi) a re<lri£Hcn of that principle, tlie exercife
of ^Ahich " is the difiinguiQiing privilege of our
nature, v/hen, on the fuppofition, no advantage
to man or glory to God can enfue therefrom?
Why covet fetters every way unprofitable?
Why defire fuch an a£i of uniformity in the cafe
of baptifm, to the exclusion of every degree of
liberty, while the ground and exiflence of all
pofitive inflitutions depend on the good plea-
fure of the inf\i tutor, and on that aloiie ?
§ 30. (IV.) The truth of what 1 contend
for will further appear, From the concejfions of
Antipocdobaptids..
Concessions may be made by a^ioiis as
well as by words. And when any v-ho pro-
fefTediy renounce the praclice of infant baptifm,
adiuit
Gh. 4. Ter?jis Baptize and Bapt'ifm» 117
admit perfons to the higheft degree of chrif-
tian communion, when baptized only by fprink-
ling, whiJe themfelves notwithftanding pradif^
immerfion, does it not amount to a concejjwi
that baptizing by affiifwn or fprinkling is equally
valid with their own ? And does it not amount
to a concefTion that the bapuzing of infants is
not a nullity ? If it be faid, that Antipoedo-
baptift congregations allow free communion to
Pafdobaptifts as unbaptizedi we afk, what evi-
dence is there for fuch an afTertion ? The
practice of adult baptifm in the fame congre-
gation only (liews, that Ibme from confcientious
fcruples prefer adult immerfion, as in their ap-
prehenfion more fcriptural and folema. Which
is the mofl: charitable conftruction of their con-
du6l in this matter, to fay, that they judge in-
fant-baptifm to be valid^ and therefore admit
their pcedobaptift brethren to full communion ;
or elfe, that they admit thofe whom they deem
unbaptized? Mr. B, adopts the latter; however
deftitute it may feem both of evidence and
of brotherly candor. " Tho' I look upon the
former [Pcedobaptift brethren] as under a mif-
take, in regard to baptifm ; I confider them as
acting, not only confcientioufly but con(i':lently
with their own principles in refpeil: of that or-
dinance : while I view the coaduit of the lat-
ter iprofefTed Baptilfs, who admit Poedobaptifis
to their churches and communion] not only as
contrary to the order of the primitive chri;tian
churches, but as inconfflent ivith their own
avowed
Ii8 Of f^f Signification of the Ch. 4.
avowed fe nil ments^.^* It is pretty manifeft from
this paflage, and many others in the fame per-
formance, that Mr. B. takes it for granted,
thofe Baptifts he oppofes maintain the nullity
of infant baptifm. But the fa^ of mixed com-
munion implies no fuch thing. It therefore
follows, that nothing fhort of explicit declara-
tions of their receiving their brethren as un-
baptized^ or as regarding their baptifm as a mere
nullity^ can juftify Mr. B.'s charge of inconfift-
ency. All that can be fairly gathered from
their condu6i: in this cafe is, that they admit
the validity of infant fprinkling, tho' for their
own part, they give the preference to adult
plunging. They confider, I prefume, the points
of difference in the light of circuTriftantiah^ or
nonSfjentiah^ of baptifm ; tho' in their own />n-
vate judgment^ they apprehend the immerfion of
adults more confor?nable to their Lord's plea-
fure.
Again: As far as we are authorifed to form
a judgment on the conduct of the free Bap-
tifts, they refer thefe points of difference about
baptifm to the private judgment of the fubjedt.
For when a communicant is difTatisfied with
his infant baptifm, the minifter and the church
admit him to the bath according to their own
cuftom of baptizing; which otherwife they could
not do, v^ithout deferving the name of Ana^
baptifi. But if he is fatisfied without it,
they liberally acknowledge, that they h^ve no
right
* Mr. Booth's Apology for the Baptifts, p» 19,
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Baptif?n. ti%
right to impofs thofe drcumjiances of baptifm
which Chrift has left free. And that thofe
Baptiil minifters and churches who prailife free
communion, and who are confiderabJy numer-
ous, as they are ah'b on account of their learn-
ing and piety not lefs refpectable than their
brethren, do regard baptifm^ tho' not immerfisny
as an eflential prerequifite for chriliian commu-
nion, appears hence : if any are propofed to
ftri6t fellowfliip, who, according to their own
judgment and profefTion, were never baptizedy as
are the children born of Antiposdobaptift parents,
they are never admitted, if I miftake not, with-
out previous baptifm. I do not pretend to fay,
that every part of their conduct in thefe mat-
ters is right ; but it is fufficient for me to in-
fer thence, what appears fairly inferible^ That
their aSiions and habitual condud: concede my
principle.
§ 31. It is alfo faft, that fome Antipoedo-
baptifts reje<5i: immerfion, on convi6lion of the
preference of afperfion or affuiion, from a ftrict
examination of fcripture evidence. Not to men-
tion the Antipoedobaptifts of Holland, of whom
it is faid, that they " commonly ufe affufton j'* I
(hall prefent the reader not only with the opU
nion but alfo the reafoning of an Antipaedobap-
tift, who has lately publi(hed on this fubjeit.
" It feems to me that baptifm was adminif-
tered both by John and the apoftles of Chrif^,
by fpr inkling or pourings and not by ifnmerfton,
A river does not feem to have been chofen for
the purpofe of baptifm, as if no other place
was
120 Qfj^^ Signification cf the Ch. 4.
was proper for it. The three thoufand bap-
tized, and added to the church the fame day,
(fee A(Sts ii.) feem rather, in my opinion, to
have been baptized in houfes. — Saul of Tarfus
" in the houfe of Judas," Ads ix. Likewife
the Jailor and his family were, I conceive, bap-
tized at home, A6ls xvi. — Cornelius alfo and
his believing friends, were probably baptized in
the centurion's own houfe, A6ls x. and the
words of Peter on that occahon, "Can any
one forbid water?" feem to imply that water
was to be brought to them, and not that the
perfons to be baptized were let out to fome
•other place for the conveniency of immerfion,
as no hint of that kind is there given us, — Per-
fons may very properly be faid to go down
into a water or river, and come up out of it,
v/ithout going into fuch a depth as is neceiTary
for the purpofe of immerfion \ nor do I remem-
ber it is any where faid, that the perfon bap-
tized was covered with water^ or put under it ;
and had this been the cafe, I can hardly think
the fcripture would have been entirely filent
about it, but in fome place or other it would
have been exprefsly mentioned ; efpecially, if it
be a circumf«ance of fuch importance^ as fome
perfons l\;ppofe, and conVend for. — Nor does
the fcnpturc, any where that I can find, repre-
fent the n cde of baptifm as a refemblance of
the bun;! I and reluirediion of Chrift. 1 am
fure the words cf I aul, Rom. vi. 3, 4. Col. ii.
12^ do not exptcfiy declare it. Neither does
the
CIi. 4. Therms Baptize ami Bap'tifm, 12 1
the pafTage John iii. 23. plainly tell us, that
John baptized in Enon becaufe of the depth of
water in that place, for the fake of hnmerfion ; fo
that the arguments raifed from fuch pafTages as
thefe,' to prove immerfion the true mode of
fcripture baptifm, amount, in my opinion, to no-
thing more than hare fuppofitiotiy without con-
taining any certain proof of the point in queflion.
—The evangelifl [Mat. iii. 6.] does not fay
they went in it, in order tQ he haptized hy im^
merfon ; this therefore amounts to no more
than mere conje^urey or hare affertion of the
learned Doctor [Gill]. We, on the other
hand, may as reafonably fuppofe,. and affirm,
that they went into the water to be baptized by
fprinkling^ and not by immerfion, for any thing
this text fays to the contrary. — Had John been
fent only to give them to drink of the water
of Jordan, it would have been more convenient
for the people to come down to him unto the
river for that purpofe, tho' it might have been
given them fome other way : So iikewife if he
baptized by fprinkUng or pourings it would have
been highly inconvenient for him to have bap-
tized them with the waters of Jordan, but at
or in the river itfelf. — Had he baptized after
the manner of the prefent advocates for im-
merfion, it is fcarce credible how John alone^
in any reafonable time, could have baptized the
vaft numbers that rcforted to him : but every
difficulty is removed on the fuppofition of their
coming to him unto or into the water, that he
G might
122 Of the Signification of the Ch. 4.
might, with the greater eafe and convenience,
fprinkle or four water upon them. — A« tne
Doaor lays a ftrefs on the words out of, I ob-
ferve that Matt. iii. 16. may be literally tranf-
lated thus, " Jefus when he was baptized went
immediately up from the water j"- which words .
are fo far from being a nueffary proof ot lus
being baptized by immerfion, that they do not
necefTarily declare that he was at all m the
water: confequently what the Doctor terms a
« neceffary proof,'' amounts to no more than
mere fuppofition ; and to me it feems highly
probable that Chrift was not under the water
at all for there is not the lead hmt of his
ri/inz'up, or of John's raifmg h\m from a flate
Jf immerfion, wl.ich muft neceifarily l^^ve fol-
lowed his being immened, before he cou.d be
faid to come out of it. But as the text fays,
immediately upon his being baptized, he went
up out of or (as the prepofition may more pro-
perly be rendered) from the water, it feems to
nie that Chrift only ftood in or at the brmk
of Jordan when John baptized him. And as
bis being baptized by John ^z% Jiraightway foU
lowed by that of the Holy Spirit, which de-
fcended from heaven upon him, (which bap-
tifm of the Spirit being, as I conceive, that
\vhich was eminently fignified by John's baptifm
with water) it feems to me more congruous and
reafonable to fuppofe, that the 7nanner of both
was precifely the fame, viz. that of fpnnklmg
or pouring, --l marvel that a man of Dr. Gill's
'^ learning
Ch. 4. %crms Baptize and B{Tpttf7n, 123
learning and difcernment, fhould lay fo great a
ftrefs as he does on Mark's ufing the particle
e^, which it IS well known often fignifies the
fame as £", in^ and fo Mark evidently ufes them
as fynonymous in the paflage referred to, Mark
i. 5, 8, 9. And here I obferve alfo, that it
is as proper to fay a perfon was fprinkled with
water, as that he was plunged into water. But
it is further rrianifeft from A6ls viii. 38. that
the particle ti^ is not intended to exprefs a per-
fon's being immerfed or put under water, for we
there read that they went down «s- into or unto
the water, both Philip and the Eunuch; yet
furely Philip himfelf did not go under the wa*
ter. But if it be true that fuch an exprelTion
as iU will not fuit, as the Do6lor fays it will
not, with any other mode but immerfion, it
muft necelTarily follow that both Philip and the
Eunuch were immerfed together \ and as it after-
wards follows, " He (Philip) baptized him,'*
the Eunuch^ according to the Dodlor's reafoa-
ing, muft have been twice immerfsd,—'Ev like-
wife, in the cafe of baptifm, not only can^ but
I think ought to be rendered with or by; for
tho' it would be aukward to fay John bap-
tized zuith or by Jordan; yet, as Dr. Gill
rightly obferves [on his hypothefisj, he did not
baptize into the banks of Jordan, but iato the
zvaters of Jordan ; and there is no more im-
propriety in faying that John fpri ikled them
with or by the waters of Jordan, than in fay-
G 2
i^i
124- Q/* ^^^ Signification of the Ch. 4.
ing h& dipped them in or iijto the waters of Jor-
dan.— 2k alfo, which is ufed indifferently with
f*, may be rendered by in this cafe, as it is in
Matt. V, 34, 35. where thefe particles are ufed
together, as in the cafe of baptifm. " Neither
flialt thou fwear ev by heaven, nor £v by the
earth, nor e»5 by Jerufalem. — It does not ap-
pear from this paflage [John iii. 23. J that the
evangelift intended to reprefent the mode of bap-
tifm in any way or manner whatever, as the
Dodor here fuppofes. — As it is not faid John
was baptizing in Enon becaufe the water was
deep in that place, or becaufe there was much
water for the conveniency of immerfion^ the Doc-
tor's inference [in favour of immerfion] in my
opinion is ?nere hypothefs, — The holy waters
which Ezekiel faw iffuing from the fanduary
were not little but much -, yet when the angel had
meafured a thoufand cubits from the place
whence they ifTued, and caufed the prophet to
pafs thro' them, they were only up to the
ankles, -^V^t read alfo that John removed from
place to place, for the purpofe of baptizing ;
and it feems to me probable that one of his
reafons for it was, becaufe in fome places, the
water failed and was dried up 5 and perhaps
this was his reafon for going to Enon, becaufe,
as the Greek expreffes it, there were ?nany wa^
tersy or divers flrenms^ which were not lb apt
to fail him, and become dry as in fome other
places. — Upon the whole, That John baptized
in Enon by immerfon^ cannot be proved from
this
Ch, 4. Terms Baptize and Baptifnu t25
this place^ becaufe the evangelift is entirely filent
about it. — Whatever, then, was the reafon of
' John's going to Enon to baptize, nothing can
thence be inferred with certainty, that John
baptized by ii>imer{ion ; there being not a word
in all the pqjptge^ either about the depth of
thefe waters, or the mode of baptifm. — The
Do6lor's glofs on this text [Rom, vi. 4.] feems
to me unzvarrantable and erroneous, — It is ob-
fervable that the apoftle thro' the whole paflage
does not fo much as once mention our being bap-
tized into Chrift's burial^ nor into his refurrec-
tion — but he fays again and again, baptized
into his death. •^'No mode of baptifm, then, can
"With certainty be inferred from thefe w^ords —
for he mentions our havino; been buried and
raifed with Chrift only as the efFe6l, or in con^
Jcquence of our being dead with Chrift, by being
baptized into his death \ therefore the apoftic
only infers that we are buried with Chrift. How ?
by being baptized into his burial ? No 5 but by
being baptized into his death. — AvA I humbly
conceive the apoftle would have faid not his
death but burial^ if he had intended to defcribe
baptifm as a refemblance of Chrift's burial in
the mode of it, but he feems to me carefully to
avoid it. — Thus I have endeavoured to ftiew
that the New Teftament does not p! Inly declare
baptifm to have been adminiftered by immer-
fjon from any circumjiances attending the admi-
*'niftration of it; fo that, for any thing the fcrip-
G 3 ture
226 Of the Signif cation of the Ch. 4.
ture faith to the contrary, it might have been
adminiflered by fprinhling or pouring,
§ 32. " The point in difpute entirely hinges
on this, IN WHAT SENSE ttlC SCRIPTURE VlfeS
this word J whether to dip a perfon in and un-
der water ^ or to waflj him vAth zvaier. — ls it
not then impertinent for any one flill to urge,
in Homer, Plutarch, Sec. it fignifies to dip^
or plunge \ for who denies it? — The point in
difpute hinges on this ; has it always that fenfe,
and no other P for t\(Q it proves nothing againft
us : — efpecially if this be not its corjlant mean^
ing throughout //^^ SCRIPTURE. Nor indeed
is its idea of dipping fufficient to juftify the Bap-
tifis in their pradiice; for if they are in the
right, it mufl: fignify not barely to dip^ but to
dip under water.
" Mr. Parkkurst — after having mentioned
the word bapiizo as fignifying to dip or plunge,
rdds, " But the New Tejiament does not v.fi itjiri^ly
in this fenfe^ unlcfs, &c.'* And afterwards citing
I Cor. X. 2. he fays, " Bapii-zed by Jpr inkling,'*
— GouLDMAN on the word baptizoj fays, " To
wajhj to waier^ to fprinkle^ &c.'* Ainsworth
on tlie word lavo fays, " To wajhy to bathe^
to he/prinkle!'*
"But further, the infpired writers of the Old
and New Teflaments — do no where, in my
opinion, intend by the word baptizo to exprefs
7nerely^ or chiefly^ an a6l of i7?i?7icrfiony or dip-
ping, and much lefs to dip under ivater , but ra-
ther
Ch. 4, Terms Baptize and Baptifm* 12 j
ther that of wafhing or fprinkling; — and this
I hope to make appear from the following con-
fiderations :
" First, becaufe in feveral places they ule
the word hapto for the a6t of dipping — but they
do not fo much as once ufe this word to
fignify the ordinance of baptifm, but always its
derivative haptixo. — Now if they had meant
by the word baptizo to fignify a proper dip-
ping, it is, I think, hard to conceive why the
word bapto v/as never ufed by them to exprefs
that ordinance. — I fuppofe, therefore, the facred
writers do not mean by the word baptizo a
dipping of the body under water. — The Bap-
tifts indeed tell us immerfion, or dipping a
perfon under water, is ejfential to baptifm ; but
the fcripture, in my opinion, lays the whole
firefs on a perfon's being wafied^ and not at
all on his being dipped. Some indeed aifinn
there is no wafhing but by dipping ; but this
I think is rajhly fpoken^ for it is contradiited
by every one's daily experience; for men may,
and generally do wafh their face every day
without dipping it. And tho* they dip their
hands in water, in order to wafh them, yet the
face is as completely wafhed without dipping it,
as the hands are by dipping them.
" Secondly, the apoftle, Heb. ix. 10. fpeaks
of divers wafhings (Grejk, different baptijtm).
His words are not " divers perfons^ or things
baptized," but ^io/po^oK; ^xTrlia-iA-oi^ diverfe baptifms*
They were not only diver Sy manyy but they
G 4 were
JlS Of the S'lgmficat'ion of the Ch. 4.
were alfo dlverfe^ different. The latin dlverfus is
ambiguous, but ^Kx.(pofo<; not ; for I find it no
■where ufed to fignify many, but as it properly
means, to denote a diverfity or difference ^ and
thence an excellency of one perfon, or thing above
another, — And whoever carefully attends, with
a mind unbiaiTed, to the fcope of the paflage,
(Heb, ix.) will, I think, be led to. under-
fland the apoftle ds fpeaking of every fort of
wajhing for purification under the law (the
chief of which was that of fpri?ikHng) ; for elfe,
I conceive, to prevent his being mifunderftood,
he would have fpecified the particular mode he
intended by it. And as he does not fo much
as name that mode of wafhing fometimes ren-
dered bathing, but he again and again mentions
that mode, and that only^ which v^^as by fprink^
ling ; I fuppofe the apoftle, in the paiTage under
CO nfi deration, eminently refers to that mode of
baptifm or wafhing which was by fprinkling ;
confequcntly, the fprinkUngs under the law were
haptifms, and are here fo termed by the apoftle.
Mr. Jenkins indeed fays (as Dr. Gill had
done before him), " The fprinkling (mentioned
Numb, xix.) only fan5lificd ov fcparated for the
purifying, from whence it is called the water of
feparation. Numb. xix. 9. but the purification
itfelf was performed by wajlnng the whole body
in water, ver. 19." So fays Mr, Jenkins.
But I read of no command given by Mofes, in
any part of the chapter, that the unclean lliould
wafh his whole body j and therefore we have
no
Ch. 4» Tenns Baptize and Baptijm, 129
no fcripture warrant to fay that he did fo.— ^
But Mr. Jenkins i? I think very bold, in that
he further adds, " The apoftle's argumerkt lofes
all its force without this explication ; for his
(the apoftle's) meaning is, that if the fprinkling
before mentioned did not even purify the flefb,
but only feparate for that purification^ how much
more, &c.'* Here again the apoftle is made to
7ncan what he doth not plainly fay ; and for what
reafon I know not, except it be this, that the
apoftle's words have a plain tendency to dif-
prove the notion of corporal immerfon being ef-
lential to baptifm. But Mr. Jenkins, in my
opinion, has quite miflaken both Mofes and the
apojile -y for — the water fprinkled^ is again and
again called a purification for fin^ and is faid to
purify the unclean by its being fprinkled on
him J but his wajhing himfelf is not fo much as
once faid to clean fe^ or purify from fin, — But
though Mr. Jenkins has ventured to aflert,
that, " Without his explanation the apol1Ie*s
argument is weak, and lofes all its force ;" I
for my part think quite the reverfe ; for the
apoftle's argument fcems to me clear, ftrong,
and conclufive, from his own words, and much
better without Mr. Jenkins's explanation than
with it. For the apoftle is not, in that place^
telling the Jews, what the law and its ordinan-
ces could not do, but what it could do for them,
as pertaining to thefe/h.'-^Tho. apoflle argues from
the lefs to the greater, and his reafoning is in*
tended, to perfuade the bJieving Jews to con^
G 5 tinue
130 0/ the Signification of the Ch. 4.
thiue in the faith -, as alfo to encourage finners
'at large, however guilty and defiled in them-
felves^ to come to Chrift that their fins may be
pardoned and purged through faith in his blood,
and by him to draw near unto God with full
aiTurance of faith, not doubting but he will
graciouily accept them, thro' the death and me-
diation of his own fon, even Jefus Chrift, who
once fuffered for fms, the Juft for the unjuil:,
that he might bring us to God. This I think
is the plain fcope and fenfe of the paflage ;
for if, fays the apoftle, the blood of calves and
of goats, and the afhes of an heifer fprinkling
the unclean fandtifieth unto the purifying of
the flefh; " how much more (hall the blood of
ChrilT, who thro' the Eternal Spirit offered him-
felf vvithout fpot to God, purge your confcience
from dead works to ferve the Living God?"
§ 33. " Thirdly, God having raifed up
find fent his fervant Mofes, to be the deliverer
of his people from Egyptian bondage, and to
lead them thro' the v;ildernefs to the borders
of Canaan; the children of Ifrael are faid to
have been baptized unto Mofes (as their leader
and commander to follov/ him) in or hy the
cloud, and by the fea, i Cor. x. 2. But that
they were properly in neither is manifefl, for
they walked on dry ground thro' the midft of
the fea, and the cloud was high above them;
therefore they were all baptized by fprinkling -^^
unlefs you can fuppofe perfons to be baptized
by water, when they do not fo much as touch the
element j
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Baptifm, I3f
element ; which fuppofition, in my opinion, is
highly unreafonahle and abfurd. It is faid, indeed, ^
by fome : " Here is an allufion to the cuftom
of immerlion, the Ifraelites being, as it were,
covered by the cloud over^ and the waters on
each fide of them.*' But this is barely ajjertedy
without producing any fcripture in fupport of
it, or giving any good reafon for it. — Befides,
the apoftle as if forefeeing fuch kind of evafions^
and to guard us againft being deceived by them,
changes the prepofition fTro, which he ufed in
the firft claufe of the fentence, into £> in the
next ; which he needed not have done, but
would, I conceive, have more properly retained
it, had he intended to fpeak of tiie manner
of their baptifm, as reprefenting the mode of
immerfion: for he fays they were all wwo under
the cloud, and then immediately adds, were all
baptized unto Mofes, not vrro under^ or hy being
wider the cloudy but iv by or with tlie cloud,
and with the fea, that is, with the waters of
both fprinkled upon them. This I think is
the moft proper and natural fenfe of the paf-
fage.
" Fourthly, as in the law of Mofes, fa
in the writings of the prophets, who lived many
ages after, the fame fpiritual benefits — are by
the7n alfo reprefented and faid to be given and
applied to us, in a way of pouring or f^rinkling ;
but no wliere, that I can find, by a mode of
dipping or immerfion.. " I, fauh God, will pour
water upon him that is ilurily j I v.ill pour
my /pint upon thy feed," Ifai. xliv, 3. and again^
G 6 ^' he
132, Of the Signification of the Ch. 4.
*' he {hzWfprinkle many nations ;" Ifa. Ivii. 15. and
again " I will Jprinkle clean water upon you, and
ye (hall be clean-, from all your filthinefs and
from all your idols will I cleanfe you, &c. I
will -put my fpirit within you, &c.'* Ezek. xxxvl.
25 — 27. — We are here exprcfsly told, that
God would cleanfe his people from all their un-
cleannefs by fprinkUng clean water upon them.
Thofe, then, whom God fo ckanfes^ "^ are clean
every whit," and need not to be immerfed^ but
fprinkled only. — Do not thofe perfons, then,
greatly err, who venture to aflert there is ne-
voajhing but by dippings and fpeak of fprinkling,
as a religious mode of wa(hing, by way of deri^
fan ; though God hath exprefsly declared, that
he would wajh or cleanfe his people from all
their uncleannefs by fprinkling clean water upon
them ?
§ 34. " Fifthly, Baptizo m the New Tef-
tament, as I conceive, fignifies to waJh or pu-
rify ^ by fpr inkling or pouring. So I think it
means Acts i. 5. " John truly baptized with
water, but ye Ihall be baptized with the Holy
Spirit.'* The word baptize hath undoubtedly
the fame meaning in both parts of the verfe
— to fay immerfion is implied in the word, is
legging the qiiefiion. Now it is certain that
believers were baptized with the Spirit, by its
being poured upon them ; and as John's man-
ner of baptizing is exprefled by the fame word^
it feems to me neceflarily to follow, that the
mode was the fame in both ; efpecially as John's
baptizing with water feems to have been ^ ftgn
or
Ch. 4. Tenns Baptize and Baptifm, 13 j
i>v emblem of Chrift's baptizing with the Holy
Spirit. — This, in my humble opinion, gives us
the true idea^ and fixes the fenfe of the word
haptizo^ as it was ufed, and intended to be un-
derllood, by the infpired apojiles and evangelijls.
And all that the advocates for immerfion have
faid, or urged to the contrary, from Matt. iii»
16. John iii. 23.. A6ls viii. 38. Rom. vi.
3 — 5. or any other part of fcripture, amounts^
in my opinion, to no more than mere hypo^
thejis.
" It is faid, indeed, by way of objeciion^ " that
the pouring of the Spirit on the apoftles is cal-
led baptifm by way of allufion to that of immer"
/ton ; becaufe the houfe, in which the apoflles
were then alTembled, was filled with it" But
how doth the obje6lor know that this is the
reafon why it is called baptifm? The fcripture
no where gives this as a reafon for it ; con-
fequently, we have no warrant from fcripture to
fay or believe it. — The apoftles were in the
houfe before the Spirit filled it, fo that there
was nothing like dipping in the cafe; but in
immerfion the place is firfi filled with water,
before the perfon is put into it. But further ;
the apoftle Peter, being one of the twelve who
were baptized with the Spirit, on the day of
Pentecoft, has I think plainly fliewed there was
no reference to any mode of baptifm but that
of pouring. For fpeaking to the people on that
very occafion, he fays, " This is that which
was fpoken of by the prophet Joel s and it (hall
come
134 Q^ i^^ Sigmfication of the Q\\, 4,
come to pafs in the lafl days, faith God, I
will pour cut my fp'irit upon all fleOi — and upon
my fervants, and upon my handmaids, will I
pour out of my Spirit^ ASts ii. 17, 18. confe-
quently, the pouring of the Spirit on the7n^
was their being baptized with the Spirit, tvithout
any refpeSI to the place in tvhich they were^ whe-
ther in a houfe^ or in the open fields. — Now I
have examined and confidered thofe texts on
which our opponents lay the greateft ftrefs, and
it does not appear to me that immerfion is
plainly declared in any one of them ; or that it •
can be inferred with certainty from circumjlances
or from any of the prepofitions there made ufe
of, that it has in thofe paflages the fenfe of
dipping under water*
"Had indeed the fcrlpture dirc£led, or given
a command for this manner of dipping, they
that do it would be juftified in the pra6l:ice
of it ; but I do not find that the fcripture
any where warrants the pradice either by pre-
cept or example. — Is not this manner of dippings
then, a mere human invention^ or acl of wilt
worjhip^ in adminiHering the ordinance of bap-
tifm ?
" I BELIEVE the Baptifls themfelves are altoge-
ther at a lofs to point out the manner of Joim's
baptizing thofe who came to him for that pur-
pofe, whether with or without a covering. Ncr
can they, as I fuppofe, afTign any good reafon,
why the fcripture fliould be totally filent about
it, but this only ; that he baptized not by /w-
7ncrfion
Ch. 4» Terim Baptize and Baptlfm, 135^
merfton but by fprmkling : for the Jews were well
acquainted with the Latter^ and often read of it
in their fcriptures, but of the former^ I conceive,
they were totally ignorant; it not being prac-
tifed or commanded in their law. — Thofe Eap-
tifts alfo, with whom I have converfcd on this
particular, are divided in their opinions about it.
None of them believe that a proper bathing
drefs was provided for them, on the occafion ;
but fome have told me they fuppofed them to
have been baptized in their orainary apparel \
others, without any covering at all. But, furel)^,
as decency muft forbid the latter-, fo I think
their health and fafety will flrongly militate a-
gainft the former. Now the filence of fcripture
in this point is eafily, and I think rationally
accounted for, and every difficulty removed, oa
the fuppofition that John baptized not by dip-
ping them under water, but by fprinkUng water
upon them. As, then, the pouring of the Spirit
on a believer is baptifm with the Spirit, pouring
of water on him muft, I think, of neceffity be
baptifm with water f ." There is little need of
an apology (at leaft to Mr. B.) for the quan^
tity of quotation here produced ; as the arguments
urged by this Antiposdobaptiji writer are, perhaps,
no lefs weighty and pertinent than aJl Mr. B.'s
boafted concejfions put together.
§ 35. Dr. Gale juftly remarks; " Oi\q
would
f Mr, ^tHOT's Dipping not Baptising, Chap, II, fajjinit
X o 5 Of the Signification of the Ch. 4.
would wonder a thing of this nature fhould be
capable of fo much difpute : for if it is not in-
/litutedy it ought not to be pra5iifed\ and if it
he inftituted, it fhould feein impojfible for any
not to fee it. — We are confident he has declared
his will to us, in this and all other articles of
like confequence, with all neceffary evidence \ and
what he hath not taught us with a fufficient
clearnefs^ he never defigned for the obje6l of obe-
dience*." It therefore follows, that in propor-
tion as we can extend our charitable opinion
to the integrity^ chrifiian honefiy^ and moderate ■
capacity of the numerous lift of authors lately
quoted ; our Lord " never defigned for the ob-
]e(5l of our obedience," the ■plunging any under
water^ for the purpofe of chriftian baptifm, who
had been before folemnly admitted into the vi-
fible church of Chrift by having pure water
poured on them, whereby they were tinged^ wajh^
ed^ or ceremonially purified^ that is, baptizedy in
the name of Father, Son, and Spirit.
The fame author has the following remark-
able declaration : ^' The word BwrfW^u^ perhaps,
'' does not fo neceflarily exprefs the a^ion of
" putting under water, as in general the thing's
" being in that condition^ no matter how it
•' comes fo, whether it is put into the water,
" or the water comes over it ; tho' indeed to
" put it into the water is the mojl natural and
" the mofi common^ and is therefore ufually and
" pretty conftantly, but it may be not ncceffarjly^
" implied
• Rcfledlions on WAiLVHiftory, pt 9T«
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Bapfifm, 1 37
*' implied*." This judicious refle6tion was oc-
casioned by a palTage in Aristotle (De Mi-
rabil. Aufcult.) " They relate [fays he] of the
" Phoenicians, who inhabit a place called Ga-
deb'a [or Cadiz]^ that failing beyond the pillars
of Hercules, with an eaft wind four days, they
came to certain defert places full of bulruOies
and fea-weeds : which, when it is at ebb, (^n
/Sa7r]if£5-6«») are fiot iuei ; but when it is flow-
ing tide, (jialaxAyfEo-fiai) are overwhebncd.^^ How
pertinent the above reflediion, as founded on
this palTage ! The word does not exprefs the aSfion
hut condition* IVo matter hoiu it comes fo. To put
Q thing into the watir^ when baptized^ not necef-
farily implied. But on the following claufe we
muft diftinguifh. " To put a thing into the
water is the mofl natural and the mod commony
and is therefore nfually and pretty conjlantly im-
plied.'* If not always implied, who is to de-
cide that it is requiftte in the chriftian ordi-
nance ? It is neither natural nor common for a
coaft to be plunged into the fea. The queflion
then returns ; fmce the application of the thing
to the water^ or the application of the wcner to
the things depends on the nature and circum-
flances of the thing itfelf^ which of thefe modes
of application is tlie moft natural, common, and
convenient, in reference to a human pcrjon ?
Impartiality replies : Both modes are natural, and
both are common, for different purpofes. A
nurfe, for inftance, wajhes a child without im-
merfiOn ;
♦ Reflections, p. 117,
1 3^ Qf'^^^^ Signijjcation of the Ch. 4,
merfion ; but for medical purpofes brings it into
a /iatj of zuetncfsj by immerfion. Hie fame may
be ofcferved of adults, the ?node is natural and .
common according to the end propofed, whe-
ther for mere pleafure, for cleanfmg, for medi-
cal purpofes, or for moral ends^ &c. But the
application, in chriliian baptifm, being for moral
aids^ the quedion comes now clofer. What
mode of application is the moft natural, and
iiioir commodious, and therefore ought to be
the mod common? We anfv\er; That which
mofi fitly reprefents the principal thing iignified
thereby. And this being the imparted influences
of the Spint, the mode of applying the figni-
ficant element to the fuhje5t is moil: proper.
§ 36. But the Dodor ftill cbjecls : " /?aw-
T.^ea-^cii being ufed here to fjgnify the land wa»
under water, by the waters corning In upon //,
and not by its being put into the water^ fome
perhaps may think it a confiderable objedion :
but it will be found of no advantage to our
adverfaries, if it be obferved, that it here necef-
farily and unvoidably imports to be under wa*
ter^ or to be overwhelmed or covered with
water*." I think not. For Aristotle only
fays, " The places were not baptized 'y'' which we
are fure jneans not^ plunged^ or dipped \ v^hich ,
we are equally fure does mean vjct^ as oppofed
to dry ; but have no grounds to fay it means
" to be under ivater.^** without begging the quef-
tion.
But
* Rcfleftion*, p. lid
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Baptifm, 139
But how fhall we reconcile the foregoing
concefTion, with the followino- bold afTertion ?
" I can't fee but the word baptize necejjarity
includes dipping in its fignilication f." Now,
dipping is ejfential\ before, dipping was not ne^
cejfarily implied. What contradicSlion ! In the
following words the defiance becomes more
flrong and loud : " I may challenge any man
to (hew a ftngle injlance of it, except in fome
ecclefiaftical writers of the latter corrupt times,
who retaining the words of the infTitution, and
altering the thing, do, in this cafe indeed, but
no other, extend the word into a luidtr feiife :
but profane authors, who lay under no fuch biafs,
have made no fuch alteration, 'Tis evideT:»t
from i.bemy the primary meaning is uniply to dip^
not only into water, but any matter^," But
what is this elfe than to build with one hand,
and to pull dov^^n with another? Was not
Aristotle a profane Author? And does not
he ufe the word, in a plain narration^ where it
would have been ahfurd to fpeak by an extra-
vagant figure^ in a fenfe which excludes dip-
ping ? Whereas, if we confider the word 0a.7fii(^u
as a geno'ic term here, as we have (liewn it to
be in the Septuagint, Apocrypha, and New
Teflament, the fenfe is natural and plain Witli-
out a figure ? *' The places were not wet at lov/
water." But would any hijiorian or pbilofopher^
much lefs an Aristotle, fay, " The places
were not plunged I at low water?" Dipping is
aa
t Ih. p, 94, * lb. p. 94, 9S»
140 Of the Signification of the Ch. 4.
an aBion\ and if the term does not necefTarily
cxprefs the aHion of putting under water, it
xloes not necefTarily exprefs dipping. Befides,
'' a thing's being in general in the condition of
being under water, no matter how it comes
io^^ makes the term »to be evidently general-^
as what is intended by it may be effecl:ed by
different modes^ fuch as affafion, perfufion, im-
merfion, inundation, &c.
But " the primary meaning is fimply to
dip," By what evidence is this aflertion fup-
ported ? ^od ?nere afferiur^ mere negari fufficit,
A bare dental is fufficient to a mere ailcrtion.
What is the faireft and moft equitable rule
for deciding this matter? Muft not that be
properly and truly the primary meaning of a
term, to which all the various acceptations of
it in approved authors ultimately and mofl natu^
rally refer, as the branches of a tree to one
common ftock, or the feveral fpecies to a com-
mon genus ? And if two or m.ore meanings be
fet up as competitors for that primarinefs, hov^r
(hall their refpe^liive claims be afcertained, but
by appealing to authors where the term is w{ti^
and to the common fenfe of capable judges?
If all the inftances produced, or that may be
produced, refer to the Qfie in a plain and eafy
manner, but many of them cannot refer to the
other without the fuppofitlon of extravagant fi*
gures znd elliptical fupplies, common fenfe de-
termines that the former has the moli equitable
cbim. \^^hich ever (lands ckarejl of all juJI
e^iception.
Ch. 4. Terms Baptlzg and Baptlfm. 141
exception that may be brought againft it from
approved authors, when duly examined and
compared, muft needs have the beft title to the
prijnary meaning.
Now I alfo in my turn " challenge any man
to (hew a fingie injiance'* which is not plainly
and naturally compatible with what I have all
along infifted on as the primary . meaning of
^ccTrli^w, VIZ, facramentally, to purify, and philo-
logically, to tinge^ weij (iain^ to impregnate with
a different fubflance or quality, &c. in both
cafes the word is a genusy and confequently
cannot be dipping, which is a fpecific aSiion.
To produce inftances where dipping is implied,
does not affedt my dotSh^ine j for 1 maintain,
in perfect confiilency with it, that dipping is a
Jecondary meaning : and, therefore, wherever it
is ufed for dipping, it is ufed in a fecondary
fenfe. But this fecondary acceptation never de-
flroys or offers violence to the primary, but
implies it. Now the meaning which Dr. Gale
fets up as a candidate for primarinefs, needs no
other evidence to lay afide its pretendons than
feveral of thofe very inflances which he himfelf
has produced in fupport of what he patronizes.
And in proportion as thefe inflances, to v/hich
he appeals as the fupporters of his hypothelis,
are incompatible with it ; while at the fame
time they perfe6Wy agree with that for which
I contend; they may be not improperly ranked
among the concejjlons of our opponents.
§ 37. The following inftance, from Homer,
will
142 Of the Slgiufication of the Ch. 4.
will (hew that the idea of dipping is abfolutely
excluded from the term, which for that reafon
cannot poffibly be the primary meaning of it.
In his hatracho7nyomachia^ or the ludicrous mock-
heroic poem of the Battle of the mice and frogSy
he reprefents one of the croaking champions
ftruclc with a panic, and fallen into the lake.
Then one of the 7iibbUng heroes gave him a
deadly wound ; " He ceafed to breathe, (e^aTrlilo
y aii^ccli xi//.>*-) and the lake was tmged with
blood*." Dr. Gale takes no fmall pains to
make this paiTage tally with his hypothefis.
But it is "''labour in vain." He begins with
Ivppofmg what fl"iould have been proved. " The
phrafe we muft confider, is borrowed from the
dyers^ who colour things by dipping them in
their dve : and to this the poet plainly alludes.^*
Pray how did the Dr. know that the phrafe
is " borrowed from the dyers ?^^ Had he any
r\o\\i or reafon in faying this ? Was not the
natural or accidental Jtaining equally open to
the poet, as the artificial one ? And why muft
he go fuch an unnatural round to borrow of
the dyer, what his own beloved ftorehoufe,
nature, contained in greater perfe6:ion? Or if
borrowed from art^ in oppofition to nature,
why may not another fay: " 7 he phrafe, we
muft
* It is rbfervable that Dr. Gale himfelf renders the word
licie tinged 'j and Mr. FARNtLL, correfted by Mr. Pope, thus;
<* Gafpirig he rolls, a purple ftream of Mood
" Dijiaim the i'uiface of the iilver flood."
B HI. 1. 47.
Ch. 4, Ter?ns Baptize and BaptifjK, 143
muft conlider, is borrowed from the Jlainers or
painters^ who colour things without dipping them,
but lay the varnifh, (lain, or colour on : and
to this the poet plainly alludes ?"
" Dyers colour things by dipping them In their
dye,'''' What things ? Let us not confound things.
The queftion is not how they colour wool,, chth^
Sec. but how their water in the vat is coloured
by the ^uixiacc, tlie materia finSforia ? If it be
abfurd to fay, that they dip the water to make
it red, purple, &c. it muft be equally i^^ to
fuppofe the word refers to that fpecific mode
of tinging which is by dipping. In this paf-
fage the colouring matter is the gafping croaker's
bloody which turns the colour of the lake as
the dyer's ingredients do the water in the vat;
if there be any allufion at all to the artr
" Not that the lake was actually dip-
ped in blood,, but deeply Jiained,^^ Here is a fair
concelfion of my point. For the lake was~
aSfuaHy tinged or ftained, but ?iot dipped at all.
Having thus yielded .the caufe which he un-
dertook to defend, in the plaineft terms, our
author fhuffles again by adding : " To heighten
our idea, he exprelTes it, with the ufuai liberty
of poets, by a word which fignifies more than
what is ftrifcly true, which is the nature of
all hyperboles,'^ 71iat there is an hyperbole in
the defcription 1 grant ; bjt deny that any part
of the figure is contained in the wor-d t^ccTrlslo,
For, fhat fo trifling a quantity of blood as
could ilTae from the wound of a /rog^ (hould
be
144 Of ih€ Signification of the Ch. 4.
be fuppofed to tinge a whole lake^ is extremely
hyperbolical of itfelf; and to fuppofe that the
poet involves in the fame phrafe another hyper-
bole of the moft unnatural and extravagant
kind, without any neceffity (cat» par*) is to de-
mand a licence in criticifm which the moll li«
centious poet would be afliamed to * require.—
Thus the literal fenfe is, The lake was tinged
with blood \ but the figure confifts in afcribing
fo prodigious an effed: to fo fmall a caufe.
*' But wcTTTip, ucruvsty &c. are to be underflood
here to qualify the feeming extravagance of the
cxprefiion." Indeed were the extravagance only a
feeming one, fome relief may be had from fuch
auxiliaries ; but w hat licenfe can juftify a real
extravagance ? Is it pofiible or congruous in na-
ture for a lake to be dipped f' If not, the fup-
pofition of " as it were^^ or " as if it had
been^'' has no tendency at all to mend the mat-
ter. Or is it natural^ on fuppofition of a me-
taphor, to compare the lake to the dyer's cloth
or wool, rather than his vat? Whereas if we
fuppofe an allufion to the latter^ the idea will be
clear and frriking, tbo' highly metaphorical, thus :
The whole water of the lake was fo greatly co-
loured with the croaker's blood, as if it had
been the water in a dyer's copper, ftrongly
impregnated with an ingredient deeply red.
On the whole it appears, that Homer (for
the poem is generally afcribed to him) ufes the
word ^oLTtlu in this place in the fenfe which I
call primary without any figure at all, viz. to
tingcy
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Baptifms 145
to tinge^ to impregnate with humidity, colour,
&c. by this or the other mode, according to
circumftances and as the nature of the cafe
requires. But whenever ^cttPioi fignifies to dip
or plunge, " it continues to fignify the famt
things in fome refpedt or other;'* for in that
cafe we may fay, that the allufion is not only
to the dying itfelf, but alfo to the ufual mode
of impregnating cloth, wool, &c. with the in-
tended colour ; and, which deferves peculiar no-
tice, the term never fignifies to dip for its
own fakfy but always as a mean or mode of
effecting fomething elfe, even as dipping is in
order to dye,
§ 38. Aristophanes (itt^ek, AS:, I. Seen,
iii.) obferves that Magnes, an old comedian
of Athens, ufed to (have the face, and (0xv%^
/xew? ^a]fa;)(;noK) ^^ Jiain it with tawny colours."
On which paiTage Dr. Gale thus reflects r
" He fpeaks of the homely entertainments of
the ancient theatre, where the adtors daubed
themfelves with lees of wine, and any odd co-
lours, before Eschylus reformed it, and in-
troduced the ufe of maiks and vifors. Aris*
TOPHANES exprelTeS this by /So- -rlo/xcvo? /3a']fa;^£toK ;
not that he fuppojes they dipped their faces in-
to the colour y but rather smeared the colour
on their faces.'' Having thus yielded his caufe,
by wliat expedient does our author attempt to
recover it ? — Here is a manifeji allvfon to the art
of dying. To whom is it manifeft ? It is not
felf-evident, and the Doctor offers not the leaft
Vol. II. H hint
IA$ Of the Signification of the Ch. 4.*
hint to prove it ; nor does there appear to me
any fufficient reafon affignable for the alTertion.
But I have this reafon again/} the aflertion. It
is not fair, nor agreeable to the juft rules of
criticifm, to interpret the words of an author
allufively, improperly and metaphorically, ex-
cept when plain necejjity urges. But here is no
necefTity, even pretended, but what arifes from
a begging of the queftion in difpute. What
a round about way is it, nay, how abfurd, to
make the writer in relating a flain fa£i^ ufe a
language fo highly metaphorical, without any
manner of neceffity? To fay that the old co-
median Jiained^ tinged^ befmeared his face, or the
like, is plain and dire<£l ; what need then of fup-
poling that it was fo befmeared as if it had
been dyed^ which dying as an art is ufually,
(tho* not neceflarily) performed by the means
or mode of dipping ? Were it indeed once al-
lowed that the word literally fignifies to dip, the
laws of criticifm would require a metaphorical
interpretation ; for, as it is well known, the
improper and figurative ufe of terms does not
filter the literal fenfe, otherwife the very foun-
dation of figures and allufions would be deflroy-
ed. But this I will not allow, without further
evidence. On the contrary, I infift that it lite-
rally fignifies to tinge^ or the like, and that in
the place under confideration the word is ufed
in its literal import.
Again, Aristotle fays (Hift, Animal. Lib.
Y. cap. 15.) : *' But when prefled (&at,v\ti Ka%
Ch. 4. 7erms Baptize and Bapttfm* 1^
«t»9»^e» rriv x^^f^) i^ tinges the hand and gives it
a florid colour." If the word in fuch places^ to
borrow the Doctor's language, « fignifies literally
nothing but to dip^ &c. the fenfe, if it muft be
fuppofed there can be any, will be abfurd, as
well as moll grofsly falfe. For, indeed, what
can be more ridiculous, than for a man feri-
oufly to talk, of dipping a lake or river, &c. in
blood ? or of a lady's dipping her face in Ver-
million, when fhe adorns it with artificial co-
lour? which, on the contrary, 'tis known mufl
be more artfully laid on ?" Or, to fay that a
man's hand muft needs be dipped^ elfe it cannot
be tinged when it prefles or fqueezes a juicy
fubftance? " I readily grant," adds our author,
'' the words as they ftand in the paffages re-
ferred to, are not literally true. And if it could
be imagined the authors intended they Jhould be
literally underjlood^ they would appear very ridi'
cidous^ and deferve the utmoft contempt" True,
on his hypothefis, but not on mine. For what
can be a more natural and confpicuous mean-
ing, than that a lake is tinged with blood j the
face or hand Jiained with any tingent liquid ?
For a man ferioujly to talk of dipping in fuch
cafes is ridiculous. But Aristotle talks of x
matter of faci:, and that with his ufual philofo-
phic ferioufncfs ; therefore, to afcribe to the Sta-
girite fo figurative a language as " it plunges,
or dips the hand," for " it ftains, or colours
the hand" is (ceet, par.) highly abfurd.
" There is another paflage in Arigtopha-
H 2 NES
148 ^f t^^ SlgniJicaUcn of the Ch." 4.
NEs (fays the Dodor) very Jlrong to the fame
purpofe, [i. e in favour of the eflentiality of
dipping] which however fome perhaps may fan-
cy favours the contrary : 'tis in his Parliament
of women.'^ And pray what is this boafted
pafTage, which is fo Jlrong againft us ? \A' hy
the poet obferves : " Firft (;2a7r7tfo-») they wajh
the wool in warm water, according to the old
cuftom." And what has the Refledlor to fay
on it ? You (ball hear. " Here the word im -
plies wajhing^ as Mr. Wall would have it ;
and— SuiDAS and Phavorinus interpret it by
irAt;»tf<r», which Pliny on another occafion ren-
ders eluunt^ i. e. they waJh out; and Stephens
lays, it fignifies lavo.'* Was not Mr. Wall,
and are not his other opponents, highly obliged
to him for this concejfwn ? No doubt. But
the merit of the deed, notwithftanding, is not
great. For he endeavours to retake what he
fo freely gave Nay, he thinks to gain ad-
vantage by it: " Tnftead of prejudicing, fays he,
this will be found greatly to confirm my caufe ;
for in wafhing^ wool is and muft be dipped and
put into the water." But let us not forget,
that the waftAn^ here implied, allowedly and in-
conteftibly, fie;nifies the cleanfing of the wool ;
and it is equally clear, that fuch cleanfing is
not imHied in the dipping of it, or that the
fcouring intended is not the nccejfary effe£i of
dippine*. wonfequently, that dipping is inadequate
to exprefs the meaning. Wajhing^ implies more
than dipping, denoting fomething over and above
that.
Ch, 4. Terms Baptize a'fid Baptifn, 149
that. We would, therefore, fain know, if ^Airlsv^
fignifies Hterally neither more nor lefs than they
dip^ by what figure of fpeech, and by what ca-
non of criticifm, it comes to fignify and Ihould
be rendered lavo^ eliio^ to zvajh^ to wajh cut f
When this is done, we^ in our turn, v^^ill en-
gage, on the fame principles, to fhew, that Ea7r1a»
is a generic term.
But wool is and mujl be dipped in order t9
waJh it. Were Dr. Gill's dodlrine true, " that
there is no waihing but by dipping ;" this
would be an eafy confequence. But this flrange
ipfe dixit need no other argument to confront
it than a clean face. However, " wool muJl he
dipped,"*^ If the meaning be,, "it is ahfolutely
necsjfary for its being cleanfed by water," xo dip
it in; I deny the alTertion. And on the con-
trary infift, that plain ocular demonftration lies
againft it. Whereas all cleanfing by water im-
plies, neceffarily, what I maintain is the primary
meaning of ^aTrlo/.
§ 39. Marcus Antoninus: (Lib. iii. § 4.)
Speaking of a man of real worth, fays : " He
is one {^hy.'uxoa-vyn ^s0cc[j(,[y.,ivov £»j /SaSoj,) ju/iitia peni"
tus imhutum thoroughly jeafoned or imbued with
juftice." Again (Lib. v. § 16.) he fays: "Your
mind will be filch as the things you moil often
think of; for the foul (^»9r;il«t) is imbued^ or
tin^iured^ by the thoughts. Therefore, {^a7r%)
imbife^ tin^ure^ or feafon it with frequent thoughts
of this kind, 6cc," Once more, (Lib, vi. § 30.)
H 3 " See
150 Of the Signification of the Ch. 4.
*' See that you be not conformed to the Cae-
fars, {i^n 0a(pn<;) left you be J}ained^ or infec-
ted,'* Of this Jaft inftance Dr Gale acknow-
ledges, ** That the period [that is, on Ins hy-
pothefis] is extremely elliptical, and ftands in
need of fupplements to make out the fenfe in
another language, wherein that defedivc form is
not in ufe." But whether it ftands in need of
his fuppiementary aid, as it were dip'd^ let the
following annotation of the very learned Ga-
TAKER on the place teftity: " Ne tingaris^ ne
inficiaris : ne mores aulici genuinum animi can-
dcrem obfufcent : quod, inquii: amentum combibere^
Septimius dixit, (De Speclac. c. 14.)" He
then refers to Homer, II. iv. 141. as an illuf-
tration.
Also to Virgil, JEn. xii. 67.
Indum fanguineo veluti violaverit oflro
Si quis ebur, %
And
♦ *' As when fome ilately trappings are decreed
To grace a monarch on his boundvrg fleed,
A nymph in Caria or iVIaonia bred,
Stains the pure iv'ry with a lively red ;
W'th equal luftre various colours vie.
The inning whiteneff, and tiie Tyrian dye:
So, great Atr.de s ! fhow'd thy facred blood.
As dovk'n thy fnowy thigh diftjU'd the ftreaming flood.
PoPi,
Wz may learn from hence (fays Mr. Popk) that the Lydians
and Carians viere famous in the firft times for their Jiaining in
purp e, and that the women excelled in works of ivwiy."
"X With pity touch'd, the fair Lavinia hears
Her mother's cries, and anfwcrs with her tears.
A
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and' Baptifm, l$i
And afterwards fabjoins : " Qaod nos dlcere-
mus, That you be not stained : nam quod Grseci
f/.niiniv et /a^TrlfiH', nos dicimus to stain.**
Plato, (De Repub. Lib. iv.) compares the
method of training up foldiers, to the method
of giving wool the beil dye ; and tho' the paf-
fage be fomewhat long, yet the word's occur-
ring, in different forms, feven or eight times,
may be a fufficient apology for tranfcribing it:
" Know ye not, faid I, that the (^x^pa^) dyers
[Mass. fullone^']^ when they wi(h (/3^t^}/a^ inficere)
to Jiain^ i^^g^y or tinSiure wool, that it may
be of a purple hue, chufe, in preference to
all other colours, the whiteft of the fleece :
Then they prepare and work it with immenfe
pains, that it may take the bloom in the bed
manner ; and fo at length (/JawJao-i they Jlain^
or give the dye to it. And (to ^a^6) v/hat is
dyedy or tin6iured^ becomes unalterably fo, when
thus {I3ci(pvi) tinged y nor can any wafhing either
by fair water, or any preparations for the pur-
pofe, difcharge the blooming colour. But what
has not been thus prepared, you know how it
turns out; for whether one (/SaTrJj?) put on^ im"
pregnate it with^ that, this, or any other colour,
it never looks well. I know, faid he, x\\2X fuch
colours are eafily wafhed out, and have at befl
H 4 but
A lovely blufh the modeft virgin warms,
Glo%vs in her cheek, and lights up all her charms.
So looks the beauteous iv'ry, Jlained with red j
So rofcs mixt with lilies in the bed,
Blend their rich hues— ~»'—
Pitt*
I^ Of the SignificatloJi of the Gh. 4.
but a fordid appearance.— Reflecft", then, that
when we chufe foldiers, and inftrua them in
mufic and the gymnaftic art, it is our wi(h,
as far as in us lies, to efFeft fomewhat fimilar.
We aim at nothing elfc but to prepare them,
in the bed manner pofiible, to receive the laws,
which are as it were (/S^f-cv) a clye\ that fo
their opinion of things, whether direful or other-
wife, may be properly and unalterably fixed i
and that, being thus formed by a proper dif-
cipline, their (^ct(pr^y) t'rnSJure may not be wafh-
ed out by any thing of the moft powerfully ex-
pelling nature, whether pleafure, &c." The
Dodor in refle^ing on this pafTage refers to
Gataker*s learned note on Marc. Anton.
Lib. iii. § 4. as tending to illuflrate his ajer"
tioni what aflertion he refers to I know not;
but if he intends what he aflerted at the be-
ginning of his quotations, (p, 94..) " That the
word baptize neceflarily includes dipping in its
fignification,*' I venture to affirm the note has
no fuch tendency ; nor is there one quotatioiv
which does not perfe6tly agree with my general
pofition.
§ 40. Let the foregoing examples, out of
many, fuffice for the primitive. But what the
Do6tor grants concerning BocttW^u is, if neceffary,
ftill more in our favour: " Befides, fays he,
the word ^ccrfli^u, perhaps, does not To neceflarily
exprefs the action of putting under water, as in
general a thing's being in that condition, no
matter how it comes fo, whether it is put in-
to
Ch. 4» Terms Baptize and Baptifm. 153
to the water, or the water comes over it ;
tho* indeed to put it into the water is the
moft natural way and the moft common, and
is therefore ufually and pretty conftantly, but it
may be not neceflarily impUed." The pafFage
in Aristotle, which extorted this conceffion,
where he fays, that " the fliore was not bap^
iized at ebb," we have before confidered, to
which the reader is referred (fee § 35, 36.) Other
inftances will juftify the foregoing conceffion.
Homer (II. xvi. 333.) defcribes Ajax kil-
ling Cleobulus, thus: « He ftruck him acrofs
the neck with his heavy fword ; (tt^v ^' virt^if^a.vQ'n
|Kpo? at/*al») and the whole fword became warm
with the blood." Homer's vra^E^iA.a.v^v^ is ex-
plained by PsEUDo-DiDYMUs, by eiSa7rJto-S»j, with
a view to (hew how much the fword was i7n^
bued^ Jiained^ or wetted with the reeking blood.
And DioNYs. Halicarn. (Concerning the
poetry of Homer, § 7.) obferves : " That in
this phrafe there is a peculiar emphafis, which
confifts in this, that the fword was fo (/SatTrlto-Sfvlo?)
wetted^ or Jiained^ as even to be warmed'*
with the gulhing blood>
Strabo, fpeaking of Alexander leading his
army by a narrow pafs between mount Climax
and the fea, obferves : " The foldiers marched a
whole day in the water i^^ot.ii\\lp^Am\i) being wet-,
ted up to the wafte."
Heraclides Ponticus, when moralizing
the fable which reprefents Mars as taken in
a net by Vulcan, obferves; " Neptune is
H 5 inge-
154 Of the Signification of the Ch. 4.
ingcnioufly fuppofed to be refcuing Mars from
Vulcan; becaufe, when a piece of iron
thoroughly heated is taken from the forge -
men, {lloi\\, (SuttHI^bIxi) it i^ cooled with water;
and the thing forced to a heat, from its own
nature, (v^ocli Kxiota^ta^iv) when it has been ex^
tinguijhed by water, is reftored to reft ;'* i. e. the
fire heating the irony has it in its cuftody ; but
water applied to it in any manner ^ weakens
the captivating power of the fire, and, as it
were, fets the iron at liberty.
Plutarch, in his Treatife of Education,
compares the method of inftru6ling children to
that of -watering plants. " For as plants are
nourifhed by moderate waterings, but pine away
if thefe are too frequent j in hke manner the
mind, by well proportioned labours, is improved,
but when thefe are more than enough (/?«ir];f«7a»)
it is drenched'^ The comparifon is evidently
introduced, as appears by the connection, to
fhew the impropriety of teaching children toa
many things at once.
If this pafiage fhould feem a little ohfcurej
fays Dr. Gale, I muft refer you. Sir, to what
I have faid before." I do not wonder that
this place appeared obfcure to the DocSlor, while
viewing it thro* the medium of his hypothefis ;
but while an impartial eye views it thro' any
other medium, it appears fufficiently perfpicuous.
The intelligent reader will eafily perceive, that
all the obfcurity confifts in Pujtarch's com-
paring the baptizing of children's minds, while
their
Ch. 4, Terms Baptize and Baptlfrn. 155
their teachers inftil various inftru£lions into them,
to a gardener*s pouring water upon his plants !
The laft mentioned author, (Paral. Gr?ec.
Rom.) fpeaking ot a Roman general a little be-
fore he died of his wound, fays: " He fet up
a trophy, and, (/JaVIiya?) wettings ox Jialning his
hand in the blood, he wrote this infcrip-
tion, &c."
The only apology I fhall make for dwel-
ling fo long on a fubjecl, which to fome read-
ers may appear prolix, is one drawn up for
another purpole, yet perfectly fuited to my
defign: " A thing of this nature, and fo evi-
dent, did not indeed need to have been fo
largely treated as it has already been: but the
unaccountable tenacity of our antagoniUs have
made it neceifary to be very particular*."
To conclude; this branch oi evidence from
profane writers, produced by Dr. Gale in fup-
port of his own hypotl^fis, with his remark-
able conceflions, may be pertinently cloied with
his concluding fentence a little improved. " I
know (fays he) it [/3a5r1if«J figniiies to ivajh as
a confequence of dipping ; but (o likewife it does
to wet, colour, dye, &c." l^he improvement,
as the juft refult of the preceding exammation,
ftands- thus.: I know it fignifies to dipj as a
mode of wajhingy fo likewiie it does of wetting,.
colourir.g,. dying, &c.
§ 41. Before i difmifs this opponent, I
lauH not omit an examination of his appeal to
H 6 the
• Dr, GAXiK's Refleiaions, p» iiz.
156 Of the SigJiiJication of the Ch. 4.
the do£lrln.e of genus and fpecies^ which, if I
am not in a great miflake, amounts to a fair
concejjlon in favour of my principle. " I need
not, fays he, repeat the obfervations of logici-
ans about their genera and Jpecies ; yet give me
leave only to tranfcribe one canon from Aris-
totle. (Topic. Lib. iv. cap. i.) " The
fpecies includes the definition of the genus^ and
all that is in it, but not vice verfa.^* Dipping
includes walhing, but wafliing does not include
dipping ; for there may be a wafhing by pour-
ing, &c. f." To this may be added the fol-
lowing words of Mr. Jenkins, in a fmall
pamphlet lately publilhed: " There is a remark
which I wonder is not more attended to by
the writers on baptifm, becaufe I think it may
be depended on as a canon of criticifm^ and
would reduce the difpute about the meaning of
this word [baptize] into a very fmall compafs;
I mean, that " Where a word is ufed in
^' a primary and fecondary fenfe, the fcondary
*' fenfe can never contradi6t the primary^
" but mull carry in it that leadmg idea ;
'*^ as in natural hiftory, every fpecies mufl
*' carry in it the leading idea of the genus
" that comprehends it.'*— The contrary fuppo.
fition involves an abfurdity, and renders the
meaning of words totally fceptical. — P'or my own
part (adds the iame author) I am confident alfo,
that without maintaining this remark the Bap-
tift minifters will never be able to eflablhh im-
merfion
Ch. 4t Terms Baptize and Baptifn. 157
merfioa as the exclufive meaning of the word;
for tho' it may be admitted, that in fo?ne cafes
it fignifies to dip, it will be as ilrenuouily in-
lifted, that in other cafes it figniaes to fprinkle,
and that this mode is as good as the. other*.*'
It may well appear wonderful to any thought-
ful perfon, that our opponents fhouid attempt
to explain and defend their caufe by the aids of
thefe logical diftindUons. For, on their hypo-
thefis, the diftindtioa of genera and fpecies is
abfolutely precluded. If dipping be a genusy
what is the fpecies F If it be faid, dipping ; this
makes both to be one and the lame thing,
which is abfurd. If they fay, wajhing^ or wet-
ting, colouring, dying, &c. are fpecies, this is
equally abfurd i and directly contradidory to the
canon referred to. For Aristotle, and com-
mon fenfe, declare, " that the fpecies paHake of
or neceffarily imply^ the genera, but not the
contrary j" as white is a colour^ a lion is an
animaly an angel is a creature^ but not vice
verfa, Confequently, according to the canon
and on the fuppofition, to wajh is to dip^ to
wet is to dipy to colour is to dip^ &c. Which
is juft as true, as To fprinkle is to dip-, for
there may be wetting without dipping as well
as fprinkling without dipping. Now it is a mere
evafton to fay that walhing, wetting, &c. may
be done hy dipping ; for if there be any wafh^
ingy any wettings kc, which does not include
dipping,
* Beauty of Believers* Baptifm, p. 6, Note,
158 Of the Signification of the Ch. 4.
dipping, wafhlng and wetting cannot be a fpe-
cies of dipping. For, as Aristotle obferves
(Topic. Lib. iv. cap. i. § 2.) we fhould con-
fider, El Tn/o? /x») KsclrjyQ^c^aci, whether there be any
fpecies to which the genus is not apphcable ?
Thus, to borrow the Stagirite's illuilration^
if we fay that good is the genus of pleafure^
we fhould inquire, whether there be any pleafure
which is not i??ipHed in good; tor then, it is-
manifeft, good is not the genusi of pleafure, be-
caufe the genus is predicabie by all the /pedes
contained under it. Then we fhould confider^
that if any tiling may be-, or may not be,
applied to the fuppofed genus, that fuppofed
genus is but an accident. For inftance, if it
be predicated of any thing that it is white, and
not white, white cannot be the genus, but aa
accident ; becaufe we call that an accident which
may or may not be in a thing* In like man-
ner, if we fay that wetting is by dipping, and
without dipping, it follows that dipping is not a
genus but an accia^nt^ or mode of wetting. Jjr.
Gill fcemed to be aware of thcfe abfurd con*
fequences, when, to avoid them, he ventured on
this aflertion, which is fairly confuted, to oc-
cular demonilraiion, ten thoufand times every
day, " That there is no wadiing but by dip-
ping V* Defperaie indeed niuft be the caufe
t"hat requires fuch aids 1
Again i if our opponents fix upon dipping
for a genus, they would do well to demonjlratey
that
* Vid. Akjstot. Topic, Lik, iv, cap. i* § 4.
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Bapttfin. 159
that what they call a genus is pofTefTed of any
/pedes whatever ; for it cannot be that what par-
takes of no fpecies, may partake of a genus ^."
But that dipping is poffeiTed of any fpecies, or
confequently is at all a genus, is I fuppofe,
what no one will deliberately ufidertake to fhew,
at leaft will be able to prove, while the logical
world Hands.
" Dipping includes wajhing, hut wajhing does
not include dipping** This is to fay, That dip~
ping is a fpecies, and wajhing is the genus.
Then it follows, if ^A7f\i'C,u be a generic term,
as we have abundantly proved it is, or be in
fome cafes applied where dipping is not necefla-
rily included, as Dr. Gale grants, — That dip-
ping is only a jpecies of baptizing ; and confe-
quently, that there may be a baptizing without
dipping : which was to be demonftrated.
§ 42. " We may venture to aiTert, fays Mr,
B. that the word baptifm certainly ligniiies im-
merfion, whatever meaning it may have he/ides'^
confequently, both candour and prudence re-
quire us to embrace that acceptation, in pre^
ference to any other." Very true; they muft
be rather uncandid, and perhaps imprudent, who
deny immerfion to be a fpecies of baptizing r
for that evidently includes wetting, tinging, a
conta6tion of the perfon and the element, &c.
And, for the fame reafon, we can have na
high opinion either of the candour or prudence
of thofe who deny that water poured^ or fprink-
led,
♦ Ibid, Lib, ir, c»p. t, § 8. ct paflirrt.
l6o Of the Signification of the Ch. 4t
kd, on a perfon {coet, par,) are fpecies of bap-
tizing : for either of thefe includes wetting, ting-
ing, &c. and that not lefs certainly than the
other. Do candour and prudence, feem to re-
quire any to adopt tne mode of immerfing the
fubje6t, in preference to any other I far be it
from us to condemn as a nullity what our bre-
thren confcientioufly believe proceeds from fo
refpectable an authority, and which we are fatis-
fied is one mode of baptizing. But do thefe
amiable virtues require any to condemn as a
nullity what other brethren (may I add, without
offence, equally confcientious ? ) believe to be moft
agreeable to the divine Legiflator's meaning ?
Is there any virtue in making that the badge
of parties and carnal divifions in the church,
•which was gracioufly intended as a bond of
general union ? Is it probable, is it poffible,
that the Head of his church (hould require that
as the condition of memberfhip, which numbers,
who truly love him, and who adore his autho-
rity, can fee no evidence for, after laborious and
prayerful inquiries ? Was that cenfure of honeft
Mr. BuNYAN, who was himfelf a Baptifi:, too
fevere? " In my fimple opmion your rigid and
church difquieting principles, are not fit for any
age and flate of the church. — I fay they are
babes, and carnal, that attempt to break,
the peace and communion of churches, tho'
upon no better pretences than water -^—l am
ilill of that mind, and ihall be, fo long as I
fee
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Bapfiffn. l5l
fee the efFeds that follow, viz. the breach of
LOVE, taking off chriilians from the more
weighty things of God, and to make them
quarrel and have heart-burnings one againfl
another*." It muft be allowed that Mr. B.
hath far furpaiTed his predeceflbrs, and there-
fore deferves the palm^ in the glorious contell
of ^^ fetting the Pcedobapttjis together by the ears \ ;*'
but how happy fhould I be if my humble at-
tempt (hould procure me the lefs fplendid ho-
nour oi peace-maker among brethren^ children of
the fame family, and alike beloved of their
heavenly Father in all other refpedts, yet, oa
account of baptifm, falling out by the way I
§ 43. From the preceding inveftigarion we
may draw the following obvious corollaries,
(i) CorolL If the terms baptize and baptifm
be generic terms, comprehending different fpe-
cilic modes of ceremonial purification, *' thft
" mode is variable according to circum-
ftances." Now where a pofitive divine law is
not exprefsy or where any latitude is implied in
the terms of it, the law of nature^ the principles
of right reafon^ of chriftian prudence^ and co??!"
mon fenfcy " require us to embrace that accep-
tation, in preference to any other," which is lead
burdenfome and inconvenient. The part of the
globe in which we live, the civil cuftoms of a
country, the conduSi of our Lord and his apof-
tles in reference to thefe things, and many
other
• Works, vol. i. p, 151, 153. f See Monthly Rev, vol, Ixxxi,
l62 Of Jhe Signljicatton of the Ch. 4.
other circumjlances^ " require us to embrace*'
what is mo(} conformable to national decency
and propriety, — when no divim laiv^ on the
fuppofition, enjoins one circumftance of an adion
in preference to another.
§ 44. (2) Coroll. Since the mode is free and
variable. The pra£lice of the Greek churchy
which our opponents lb often remind us of, is
of no importance when urged againil usf. Nor
do we fuppofe that another circumfance of bap-
tifm obiervcd by them, the trine immerfeon^
which is undoubtedly of considerable antiquity,
is fufficient to nullify the ordinance. Tho' our
opponents may find it, perhaps, as difficult to
reconcile three immerfions and one dipping (Eph.
iv. 5.) as their immerfion and our baptifm.
§ 4-5' (3) CorolL From the premifes it alfo
follows, that The primitive cuftom, tho* it
were dipping invariably, ^vill not fupport the
effentiality of dipping*. " A Queftion this, fays
Mr. B. which regards ho\\i faSl and right,'*
That I deny ; for tho* it were proved to be faSf^
it would not follow that it was exclujively right.
If it be meant that the praftice of John and
the apoflles was valid^ he has no opponents ;
in that fenfe^ therefore, the practice was right.
But theirs being right or valid, does not prove
that ours is wrong, or invalid, fuppofing (with-
out granting) that their mode and ours were
differ enty if, as we have proved, baptifm is a ge-
neric
rf- See Poedob, Exam. chap. v. pajfm. • See Pcedob, Exam,
chap, iv, paffim^
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Baptlfm, 163
nenc terin comprehending thofe fuppofed differ-
ent modes. " They had too much knowledge
and too much integrity to adminifter this branch
of holy worfliip in a wrong way.'* Granted,
Yet fuppofing them to have invariably baptized
by immerfion (v/hich I do not believe was the
fa6l), it only proves that they adopted a mode
which in their circumftances was eligible, tho*
not exclufively binding. But " they were not
ignorant that their praSike was to be viewed
as a pattern^ and to be confidered as a law.''*
What, every part of their pra6i:ice ? if not, which
I fuppofc no one will be inadvertent enough
to affirm, why the mode of baptizing, any more
than the mode of preaching, praying, fmging,
•keeping the fabbath, &c. ?"
Mr. B. thinks it " flrange to aflonifhment,"
and " a wonderful phenomenon in the religious
world," that a number of authors he refers to,
" (hould all unite in one atteftation, refpe6ling
the primitive mode of adminiflering this
ordinance, even while they oppofed the Bap-
tills, for confidering immerfion as abfolutely ne^
cejfary to a compliance with the divine com-
mand*." On the contrary, 1 think it a phoe-
nomenon neither Jlrange^ ajionijhing^ nor looft'-
derful J but conlider it as what might very na-
turally and rationally be expedted, and very
tolerably confiftent with the dignity of their
character as men of learning and religion. If
they concluded, as they had fufficient reafon
to
164 Of the Signification of the Ch. 4.
to conclude, that the legal primary fignification
of the word baptize in the New Teftament was
generaly io general at leaft as not to be confined
to one mode ; fo general as to admit dijferent
modes without pronouncing, or fuppofing the
divine Lawgiver to pronounce, either of them
invalid: yet allowing that one particular mode,
fuppofe dipping, prevailed in the primitive church,
which mode is not necefjarily implied in the
law itfelf, tho' eligible in their circumftances ;
if, I fay, they proceeded on thefe principles,
what is there fo " ftrange" in their oppofing.
the Baptiib *' for confidering immerfion as ab-
solutely NECESSARY ?" Had they indeed,
cppcfed for merely preferring immerfion in water
to affufion or afperlion v/ith water, their oppo-
fition would hardly be juftifiable, except, perhaps,
on this principle, viz. That it is wrong to
differ from our more numerous brethren in
the fame country, neighbourhood, and religious
ientiments, thereby occafioning endlefs fcruples
and diifentions without a divine warrant.
But when the Baptifts infift upon immerfion as
" ahfolutely necejjhry to a compliance with the
divine command ;" is it any thing " aftonljhlng^*
that thofe who profejpdly maintain the contrary
(hould oppofe it ? Is it a " wonderful phcenome-
non^^ that they fliould poffefs fo much courage
as to fpeak and puhlifh thefe things ? If I al-
low, that the primitive mode of public worfl^.ip
was without a prayer-book and pulpit notes,
can I be candid or juft in maintaining that my
godly
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Baptijm, 165
godly brethren who adopt this mode cannot
be faid to pray and peach ; but what they
think to be important duties are mere nullities^
and always unacceptable to Chrift, becaufe not
according to apoftolick. pra .tice ? 1 dare not fay
or think fo, " Vvhen rhey unite m declaring
their views of the apoftohck pattern, they have
clear, ftrong indubitable evidence — each of them
feels the ground on which he treads. Hence
their wiion ; and here they agree with us."
But is it not equally evident that they " feel
the ground on which they tread" when they
unite with immovable iirmnefs, in teftifying the
validity of different inodes^ after all that has been
faid againft them by their antagonifts ? If union
be any proof, in the prelent cafe, they all unite
againft the neceffity of immerlion for the efTencc
of baptifm. Fray, then, what do their conceffwns
amount to ? Not that they defert the truth ;
not that they a£t inconftjhntly \ not that they
are imprudent or uncandidy not that they are
bigot ted and narrow-minded ; but that they con-
fid er the words as generic termsy admitting di-
verfe modes ; and that tho' the more common
import of the terms, in their opinion, convey
the idea of immerfion, yet in the facramental
fenfe, at leaft, they are to be underftood with
greater latitude.
" When our divine Lord, addrefTmg his dif-
ciples in a pofitive command, fays, " It Jhall
be fo ;" or when fpeaking by an apoftolick ex-
ample, he declares, " It is thus," all our own
reafonings
l66 Of the Signification of the Ch. 4,
reafonings about fitnefs, expediency or utility,
itiufl: hide their impertinent heads." Very true;
but what Jkall be fo ? or, what is thus ? For
the queilion is not about our Lord's right to
command, and our duty to obey, but about his
meaning. And again, the queftion is not whe-
ther the one mode be confefTedly valid, but
whether the other be invalid 5 which laft we
deny.
" It muft, indeed, be acknowledged, that tho*
the numerous and learned authors juft pro-
duced, confider immerfion as generally pradlifed
by the apollles ; yet many of them think it
highly probable, that pouring, or fprinkling, was
ufed on fome occafions, in thofe primitive times."
Confequently they muft have confidered the
legal force of the word baptijm^ as a general
term, including diverfe modes of application.
" That plunging, pouring and fprinkling, arc
three different a£ts, will not admit of a doubt.
Or, does our Lord, in the fame ena<51:ing term,
of the fame law, warrant all thofe different
modes?" The apoftle Paul (Heb. ix. 10.) ex-
prefsly aiTerts, agreeable to what I plead for,
that the Jewifn haptijms were different or di^
verfe. And this muft be, not as plunging dif-
fers from plunging, but as purification by fprink-
ling difi^rs from purification by pouring, &c.
Kor do we hefitate to fay, " that our Lord
warrants plunging, pouring and fprinkling," if
he warrants baptizing,
a If
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Baptifm. ibj
" If pouring, or iprinkling, be naturally Infer-
rible from our Lord's command — and if the
apoftles, or the primitive church, ever pradlifed
the one or the other; it is hard to imagine,
how they came to ufe immerfion at all: ei-
ther of the former, confidered fimply in itfelf,
being more eafy and more agreeable to human
feelings, both in regard to the adminilirator and
the candidate." What ! needs Mr. B. the in-
formation, that the human mind is ever prone
to over- rate the externals of religion ; and that
fuperftitious feverities in external religious points
have generally kept pace with the decline of
vital piety ? With what eafe and force may
the above argument be retorted by innumerable
inftances out of the Jewilh and chriftian hiflo-
ries ? More agreeable to human feelings! Yes,
we may eafily fee how much, or rather how
little, perfons under the charming influence of
fuperftition confult their eafe and delicate feel-
ings, from the hiftory of certain felf-denyin<y
and mortified prophets, (i Kings xviii. 28.)
" who cut themfelves, after their manner, with
knives, and lancets, till the blood gufhed out
upon them.'* From the account we have
(Mark vii. 3, 4.) of the " Pharifees and all the
Jews ;" for, " When they came from the mar-
ket, except they baptized^ they ate not." And
Dr. Gill, out of Maimonides, aflures us,
that, " if any man dips himfelf all oyer ex-
cept the tip of his little finger, he is ftill in his
uncleannefs, according to them/' And a little
after
1 68 Of the Signification of the Ch, 4,
after he fays: " Scaliger from the Jews ob-
ferves, That the more fuperjiitious part of them,
every day before they fat down to meat, dip-
ped the whole body. Here we may obferve,
if thefe bapcifms were not by immerfion, the
argument from the univerfal ufe of the term
is given up ; and if they were by immerfion,
as here aflerted, Mr. B.'s argument from hu^
man feelings falls irrecoverably. For it will
not be prefumed that thefe fuperftitious and
troublefome ceremonies had any better ori-
gin than religious zeal exerting itfelf in will-
worfhip. To which we may add; if there be
any force in our author's argument in favour
of immerfion, it equally juftifies popijh mortify
cations !
" If the credit of fprinkling cannot be fup-
ported without burlefquing the lacred hiftory,
and expofing one of the moft exalted human
characters to the ridicule of infidels in this
manner, it ought for ever to fink in oblivion."
From this warm and ftrong language the read-
er may be led to think, that fomething very
impious and horrid has been imputed to John
the Baptift. Nothing lefs : it is only Mr.
John Wesley's following note on Matt. iii.
6. " It feems, therefore, that they flood in
ranks on the edge of the river, and that John
pafllng along, before them, caft water on their
heads and faces ; by which means he might bap-
tize many thoufands in a day." This, reader,
is what Mr. B. calls *' a very fanciful and
ludicrous
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Baptifm. 16^
ludicrous reprefentation j" and further adds,
" While I wonder at that fertility of in-
vention which appears in this note of the an-
notator, 1 cannot but deteft the puerile and
farcical turn, which he has given to the con-
du(5l of our Lord's Harbinger." Burlfquing
the facred hi/lory I Expofing "John to the ridi^
cule of infdeh! Nay, let infidels themfelves
judge, as well as the impartial faithful, whe-
ther Mr. B.'s hypothefis has not a greater
tendency to burlefque the facred hiflory, and
excite ridicule. The one mode of purifying
men and things was conftantly pra6tifed in the
church of God, Numb. xix. 18. " And a clean
perfon fhall take hyflbp, and dip it in the
water, and fprinkle it upon the tent, and upon
all the vefiels, and upon the perfons that were
there, &c.'* Of the other, we have not one
fingle inftance, of one perfon's dipping another
in water, within the facred annals of four thou-
fand years. And heathen writers, to which in-
fidels are (o partial, are not at all confidered
as debafing the dignity of heroic verfe by a
fimilar defcription. For inftance, thus Virgil:
" Idem ter focios pura circumtulit unda
" Spargens rore levi et ramo felicis olivae :
" Lu/iravitque viros dixitque noviiTima verba."
i^n. vi. 229,
" A verdant branch of olive in his hands,
" He moved around, and purified the bands -,
I " Slow
170 0/ the Signification of the Ch. 4.
" Slow as he pafTed, the luftral waters flied,
" Then clofed the rites, and thrice invoked
the dead."
Pitt.
I now venture to aflc, which has the greateft
tendency to excite the ridicule of infidels, the
idea Mr. B. oppofes with fo much warmth,
or his own hypothefis ; which reprefents John
as an amphibious animal, living fo great a part
of his time up to his middle in water ?
That we may further fee how little deferv-
ing of the " ridicule of infidels," and that of
Mr. B. is the circumftance of fprinkling alluded
to in the above-mentioned note, I fhall tranf-
fcribe another note. It will, indeed, detrad^
from the fertility of that annotator's invention
to whom Mr. B. afcribes it; and belongs to
one who was never, I believe, charged with
*' burlefquing" the facred fcriptures, by any
writer living or dead (Mr. B. excepted), or
fufpeftcd, by any of his writings, to afford a
juft handle of ridicule to infidels. The au-
thor I mean is, the judicious Dr. Guyse.
And his whole note, tho* fomewhat long, very
well deferves infertion in this place. " I can-
not think (fays he) that fuch prodigious num-
bers, as came to John, could be baptized in
the way of immerfing their whole bodies
under water ; or that they were provided with
change of raiment for it, which is no where
intimated, nor feems to have been pra^icabU
for
Ch. 4. Terjns Baptize and Baptifm, 171
for fuch vaft multitudes ^ and yet they could
not be baptized 7iaked with modefty, nor in
their wearing apparel with fafety. It feems
therefore to me that the people Jiood in ranks^ near
io^ or juj} within, the edge of the river ; and
yohn pajfmg along before them^ caji water upon
their heads or faces with his hands, or fame pro^
per injirumenty by vjhich means he might eafily
baptize many thoufands in a day. And this
way of pouring water upon them moll natural-
ly Cgnified Chrift's baptizing them with the
Holy Ghoft, and with fire, which John fpoke
of as prefigured by his baptizing with water,
(ver. II. and Mark i. 8. Luke iii. 16. John
j. 33.) and which was eminently fulfilled when
the Holy Ghoft fat in the appearance of cloven
tongues like fire ; and this is exprefsly called
" baptizing them with the Holy Ghoft " in
oppofition to John's " baptizing with water"
and is fpoken of as the Holy Ghoft coming upon
them, and as God's pouring out his Spirit j and
Jhedding him forth upon them, A6ts i. 5, 8, &c.
And with a dire£t reference hereunto, when the
Holy Ghoft fell on Cornelius, and his friends,
Peter faid, " Then remembered I the word of
the Lord, how he faid, John indeed baptized
with water; but " ye ftiall be baptized with
the Holy Ghofi:' (A6b xi. 15, 16.) The
apoftle Paul likewife, in a manifeft allufion to
baptifm, fpeaks of God faving us by the wadi-
ing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy
Ghoft, which he Jhed on us abundantly thro*
I 2 Jefus
3^Z Of the Signification of the Ch. 4.
Jefus Chrift our Saviour. (Tit. iii. 5, 6.) Now
whether plunging the body into water, or pour-
ing water upon it, was the likelieft emblem of
this efFufion of the Spirit, let t. e reader judge;
efpecially fince (/3<»7rl»^«) the word coaflantly
ufed for baptizing, fignifies any fort of wajhing^
and often fp-inkiing ; not being retrained to
dipping, as its primitive {fiv.Tf\u) is, [which
needed not be allowed ;] but this laft word is
jiever ufed to exprefs baptizing*." Reader, is
there any thing puerile or farcical in this lan-
guage ? Is it, in the eye of impartiality un-
worthy of a grave divine, or judicious com-
mentator ? Now I will fay, " If the credit of
immerfion cannot be fupported without burlef-
quing the facred hiQory," by fuppofing the mul-
titudes plunged over head, either naked or in
their wearing apparel^ and in the fight of all,
" and expofmg one of the moft exalted hu-
man charaders to the ridicule of infidels in
this manner," by fuppofing him to be cm-
ployed in purifying " Jerufalem and all Judea,
and all the regions round about Jordan," up
to his wafte in water, a work equally unna-
tural and unprecedented, — " it ought for ever
to fmk in oblivion." No; they are not the
infidels^
• Note on Matt. iii. 6. Which he paraphrafes thus; " And
they were fo far affefted with his dofttine that they miide a
public profeflion of repentance, and were baptized by him in the
river Jordan, both he and they according to the cuftom of the
country, g<-'^ng a httle way into the water, either barefoot or
with fundus, for the greater convenience and expedition in b?p-
^cing them.'*
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Baptlf?n, 1 73
infidels^ who ridicule baptizing by afFufion, but
our brethren the Bapfflls !
Mr. Matt. Henry had faid : " To bap-
tize naked or next to naked, (which is fuppof-
ed, and generally pra^tifed in immerfion) is
againft the law of modefty : and to do fuch a
thing in public folemn aflemblies, is fo far
from being tolerable, that it is abominable to
every chafte (oul : and cfpecially to baptize wo-
men in this manner*.*' At this Mr. B. thinks
the " reader has reafon to be furprized, of-
fended, ihocked." I (hall not attempt to vin-
dicate the paffage altogether ; but does not Mr.
B. exceed in his cenfure ? Will he venture to
deny, that the candidates who were baptized
by immerfion, in the primitive church, were
immerfed naked? The learned Bingham, af-
ter producing palTages from Chrysostom, Cy-
ril of Jerufaletn^ Leno Veronenfts^ Athana-
sius, &c. adds: " All which are manifeft
proofs that perfons were baptized naked^ either
in imitation of Adam in Paradife, or our Sa-
viour upon the crofs^ or to fignify their putting
off the body of fm, and the old man with
his deeds. — And this practice was then fo ge^
neraly that we find no exception made, either
with refpe6t to the tendernefs of infants, of
the bajhfulnefs of the female fex^ fave only where
the cafe of ficknefs or difability made it necef-
fary to vary from the ufual cuftomf," Will
1 3 Mr.
• Treat, rit Eaptifm, 13S, 139, f Antiquities of the Ciuif-
tian Churcl^^ B, xi. ch, xi. -^ x, »•
174 Of' the Signification of the Ch. 4.
Mr. B. fay it is required. \^ divine law, that
baptifm be admlniftered to perfons as naked as
Adam in Paradife ? If not, here is another
ftrjkirg proof how much the joint -influence of
xeal and fupsrftition confuks human feelings I
if it be faid, that what was then jnodeji is now
cihominahle^ it follows that local cuiloms and
national decency are not to be overlooked even
in pofitive inftitutions. And in proportion as
thefe antient baptizers were blameable for lead-
ing the modefl: daughters of Eve to the facred
font in their birth-day habits ; fo far, at leafl,
we have a proof that the ancient manner of
baptizing is no model for modern times ; and we
further infift, in connexion with the foregoing
pages, that the cuftom of plunging the fubje6t
was a matter of mere choice and preference^ as well
as the circumftance of nakednefs^ in diftinilion from
any binding authority of the Lawgiver, or any
abfolute obligation on the adminidrator's part.
§ 46. (4) CoroU. From what has been faid
it alio follows, That tho' the defign of bap-
tifm were more fully expreiled by immerfion,
than by pouring or fprinkling, yet would not
immerlion be proved efjhitial^ nor any way fer-
viceable to the caufe of our opponents*. But
I abfolutely deny the facl, that plunging does
more fully exprefs the defign of baptifm, which
is principally to reprefent the communication of
divine influences, as before ihewn ; and yet
were the contrary admitted, nothing more would
follow
• Sec Paddb. Ixam, chap. v. fajp.m.
Ch. 4. Tmns Baptize and Baptifm, 1 75
follow, than that a preference is due to the
immerfing mode, while what is necefTary and
eiTential is not afFe<5tedr Here I am flopped
with an alarming queftion, '^ Is it commend-
able, is it juftifiable, is it rational^ that the pro-
fefled followers of Jefus Chrift, fhould ftudy to
find out the exact boundaries of ejfence^ in a
pofitive inftitution ; that they may be able to
determine with precifion, hozv far they may
vary from the natural import of our Lord's
command, &c. —without intrenching on what
is ejjential to the appointment V To which
I return this calm reply. Yes, it is far more
commendable, juilifiable, and rational, that we
fhould ftudy the exa(Sl boundaries of ejfence^
and pronounce accordingly ; than rartily to pro-
nounce that^ of two modes, a nullity^ a priori^
without inveftigation, and efpecially in regard of
a pofitive inftitution, from the mere prefump-
tive plea, that the one is comparatively better
and furer than the other. For, furely, it mud
be palpably irrational to infer, that becaufe one
mode is not fo good as another, therefore it is
good for nothing ! It is, undoubtedly, every one's
duty and intereft to ferve Chrifl perfe<£lly; but
fiiall we therefore conclude, that no fervice is
an act of obedience to him, but what is per-
fect ? If one preaches the gofpel better than
another, does that imply the other does not
preach it zuelly or evea at all? If one bap-
tizes by a total immerfion, and another by ^
dipping /hort of that, is it juftifiable to contendj,
I 4 that.
176. Of 'the Stgnijicat'ion of the Ch. 4,
that the latter is no immerfion ? In like man-
ner, if the fcriptural baptifm be purification by
'iVater^ does it follow, that to pufify by water
jfprinkled or poured, is no baptifm ? " Let
candour, let common fenfe determine.'*
§ 47. Before we conclude this part of our
fubjecl, it may be proper to examine the force
of Mr. B.'s fcvertth chapter, " Concerning the
reafons, rife and prevalence of pouring, or fprink.-
ling, inllead of immerfion.''
Our author will have it that the praclice he
oppofes, " was introduced with the errors of
popery ;" but with greater force of truth may
we urge, that the confining of its elTence, as
well as mode, to total immerfion, is genuinely
popifh. — Our pradice, according to him, feems
to have taken its rife " under the combined
operation of different errors." On the con-
trary, we believe, and tlierefore fpeak, that the
doctrine of the ejfentiality of dippings was firft
planted by a pharifaic hand, as an improvement
on the original plan > and has been ever fince
"watered by the hand of bigotted fingularity.
He further obferves, that " perfufion was not
Xhouzhx p€rfie6l^ fjhmn^ 6cc,'* But what coun-
tenance can his caufe derive from fuch con-
fiderations, except withal it ^ was rejefled as aS^
foluiely null? '1 he cafe of Novatian, from
KusEBius, is very pariially reprefented by our
author, as if the whole fcruple about his bap-
tifm was owing to the mode ; whereas nothing
can be more evident than that the . hirtorian
fpeaks
Ch . 4. Ttrmr Bhptiz e und Baptijm, 177
(peaks of his baptifm degradingly on fevered
ether accounts, " Now forwards I will orderly
declare [fays Cornelius bifhop of Rome, in
a letter to Fabius bifhop of Antioch, preferVed
by EusEBius] by what means and by what
trade of life, he purchafed unto himfelf the
title of a bifhop. Think you that it was be-
caufe of his converfation in the church from
the beginning? or, becaufe he endured many
fkirmilhes and confii6ls for his name ? orj that
he ftood in manifold and great perils for pie-
ty's fake? None of all thefe was true in him.
The occafion of believing he took of Satan,
which entered into him, and made there long
abode. When he was delivered by the exor-
cifts, he fell into a dangerous difeafe; and be»
'laitfe he was very like to die^ was baptized \n
the bed where he lay, if it may be termed a
fcaptifm which he received ; for he obtained not
after his recovery that which he fhould have
done according unto the caiion of the church,
to wit, confirmation by the hands of the bifhop,
Infomuch then as he obtained not that^ how
came he 'by the Holy Ghofl ?" Again: " This
good man I forfook the church of God, wherein,
he was baptized, and where alfo he took prieft-
hood upon him — tho' all the clergy, yea and^
many of the laity, withflood it, becaufe it was,
not lawful to admit into the clergy any that
had been baptized in bed as he was*." It has
been moreover obferved of this Herefiarch, that
I 5 he
^ EvsEB. B, -V), chap, 42« Loqd, 1636,
178 Of the Signijication of the Ch. j^
' lie had feveral defects in his perfon, which ex- »
eluded him from the dignity of bifhop, even fup-
pofing the eIe6iion had not been fchifmatical ;
this, added to his having been a demoniac,
cxorcifed by the churchy baptized while he lay
fick and in danger of dyings and his never hav-
ing been confirmed by the biihop, might be
"well deemed capital irregularities, as being to-
tally repugnant to the ecclefiaftical canons, in-
dependent on the mode of his baptifm. Nay,,
the principal reafon for obje6ling to the clinics
being honoured with the clerical office, feems
to have been the prefumed imperfe6tion of
their chriftianity, and the fufpedled light in.
which their motives' for commencing chriftians
muft have appeared^ while they folicited bap-
tifm only in the face of apprehended death.
Therefore^ Vales i us on the above paffage in
EusEBius, n>ight well fay: " This baptifm w?s
thought imperfef^, and not fblemn for feveral
reafom*^^ And if " it was a formal and fo-
lemn queftion, made by Magnus to Cy-
prian, Whether they are to be efteemed
right chriftians, who were only fprinkled with
water, and not walhcd, or dipped /' we may
fairly refer the ground of the fcruple to a want
of conformity to the authoritative ecclefiaftical
rules, and' the fuppofed more perfe6l^ folemn^ felf-^
denying pratftice- which then prevailed of having
the candidates firft ftripped naked^ whether men,
women or children^ and then, immerfed three
timtu For all thefe particulars, according to
them
Gh. 4« Terms Baptize and Bapttfm, 179
them, were full of edifying myfleries. And by
the fame rule of interpretation, that they main-
tained the being buried with Chriji by baptifm^
.and being baptized into his deaths fignified im-
merfion j they alfo found, that putting off the
body of the ftns of the fejh^ (CoL ii. li, 12.)
denoted the delicate and inflruiStive pradlice of
divejling the candidates before their ghoftly bu-
rial.
We are further told : " That this clinic
baptifm had no exiftence in the apojlolick times."
Nor any that I know of in thefe prefent times.
It had no exiftence, if we confider " the er-
roneous foundation on which it refts [the ne-
celFity of baptifm for falvation], and the total
filence of the New Teftament concerning it."
We retort; that the efjentiality of dipping had
no exiftence in the apoftolick times, we are led
to conclude, by confidering the erroneous foun-
dation on which it refts, and the total lilence
of the New Teftament concerning it. — It is
again pleaded, that the neceflity of baptifm has,
in fome inftances, " operated fo far as intirely to
exclude water from any concern in the ordi,-
nance." And fo may the neceflity of immer^-
fion ; for our difpute is not about the element
but the mode of application. We hold, as well
as our opponents, that water is eflential to the
chriftian purification, becaufe plainly afterted ;
and we equally difcard the neceflity, of it to
falvation: but yet maintain, that to exclude
fprinkling or pouring as a nuiUiy, comes little
I 6 Ihort
iSo Of the Signification of the Ch. 4»
<Tiort of the unclwritable rigor, and unwarrant-
able zeal, of thole who hold that neceflity.
And it may be juftly queftioned, whether the
one has greater reafon to make dipping necef-
fary for baptifm, than the other to make bap-
tifm itfelf neceffary to falvation. — " Nicephorus
informs us, our author obferves, that a certairt
Jew was fprinkled thrice with fand inftead of
water." Is it not a wonder, then, if in thofe
early times immerfion^ in allufion to our Lord's
burial, was thought fo effential to baptifm^ that .
thefe zealots did not plead the neceflity of his
being fomehotu buried^ if not in water. Might
not the ill-informed and frightened convert (for
he was fuddenly feized with a dangerous illnefs)
have been made to lie down in a hollow bed
of fand, covered over with the fame, and then
be told, Now you are buried with Chrift in
baptifm, being hereby baptized into his death ;
for it is no matter how you come to this
Jiate of immerfion, whether you are put into
this fubftitute for water, or it is brought any
how over youP — " Our brethren, who prac-
tife free communion,'* fays Mr. B. " frequently
plead that thefe perfons whofe claim to the
holy fupper is under difpute, confider themfelves
as really baptized, and on that ground (hould
be admitted to the Lord's table. Query, Would
they receive a candidate for communion, who
fmcerely believes he has been baptized, merely
becaufe he has been fprinkled with fand-^ as in
the cafe of this Jew?" An important query
( this
Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Baptif?H, i$x
this, and highly complimental to his brethren f
But it will be time enough to anfwer it, when
tiie Querift condefceiids to inform us, whether
any cafe can occur, on the plunging plan, clog-
ged with far greater difficulties ? (3ne would
be induced to think, at firfl, that his hypothe-
cs is fubjedt to no embarrairment ; but is not
the quality of the clement, into which a fub-
jtSt is immerfed, liable to fcruples far more
difficult to be determined ? And will not the
degree of dipping often prove, on our opponents'
principles, a puzzling point? " Such confider
not with due attention, the confequences of
their opinion, fays Mr. Towgood ; nor obferve
how this precifenefs as to ritual matters naturally
genders ftrife, and miniflers occafion to/ end-
kfs, contemptible, and fooli(h debates. For if
overwhelming the perfon be of the effence of
chriftian baptilm, hence obvioufly fprings a doubt
— What if the perfon, when Jaying beneath
the water, fhould lift up a hand^ fo as to be
not quite covered with the element; Is the per-
fon, neverthelefs, truly baptized P Or, fuppofe
in the great hurry which fuch an operation
may occafion, both the hands, or even the
arms, fhould be fo incautioufly extended as
not to be overwhelmed i I a:Tc, is that baptifnt
good? Or again. If thra' the bulk of the bap^
tized, and the weaknefs of the baptizer, fome part
even of the face or head fhould be uncovered j
what is to be pronounced concerniiig fuch a
baptifm ? Is it valid^ or not? — Suppofe the per-
fon
rS-a Of the Signi/jcaijon of the CIi. 4.
fon whofe hands, or part of whofe face, was nc*
quite overwlielmed, fhould be dedred by the ad-
miniftrator 10 fubmit to Tifecond dippings becaufe
the firft being not totals he thinks not to be
fttfficient \ and either himfdf, or fome attend-
ing friends, Ihould fteadily refufe ; alledging the
defeat to be not material ; and the baptifm was
vahd — Would there not arife a very important
debate ; perhaps an a£tual feparation^ or rent in
that church? Some infifting, that the perfoa
be received to full communion, as a truly bap^ ,
ti-zed brother : Others ftrenuoufly oppofmg, and
refufing communion with him as not being
baptized, becaufe not totally overwhelmed,. — How
much to the edification and honour- of the
chriftian world would fuch a conteft appear !
What matter of ridicule would it furnilh to
unbelievers ! And how naturally draw con-
tempt; not upon baptifm only, as a folemn
trifle, but upon chriftianity itfeif, as nrtiniriering
occafion to fuch frivolous dtbates ! And yet,
really, to this iiTue does the making immerfion
effential to chriftian baptifm, naturally and di-
rectly tend. If it does not, in fa6t^ gender fuch
debates, it is becaufe thofe, who avow the
principle, do" not follow it in all its confe-
quences, nor clofely adhere to it in every emer^
gence of this kind. — And, if wajhing the wholt
body be of fuch moment in chriftian baptifm, as
our brethren reprefent; they ought, furely, to
confider, that the^ dipping a ckthed budy feems not
a
•Ch. 4. Terms Baptize and Baptlfm, 183:
a ftrictly juft or adequate performance of it*."
§ 48. Mr. B. on this occafion honours the
reafons of his Poedobaptift brethren for pouring
and fprinkling, by comparing them with the
arguments of Roman Catholics, in defence of
withholding the cup from the people. I hope
our opponent will take it in good part if we
return the compliment. Do the votaries of
Rome, then, maintain that baptifm is imperfe^
without the chrifm^ compofed of two ingredients,
oil and balfamj the one reprefenting the hu-
man nature of Jefus Chriil, the other his di-
vine nature ? So do our Baptift friends deem
the chriftian purification by pouring or fprink-
ling water imperfe^^ and, which is more, inva^
Vid^ except it be by the fpecific mode of im-
merfion. Is it required of every true catholic
that he acknowledge the fupremacy of the pope,
and that falyation is confined to the holy Ro-
man church ? In like manner, on the princi-
ples I oppofe,. no one fhould be deemed a
baptized chrijliati^ who is not initiated by the
diftingui(hing mode of a fe(5l ; nor admitted —
however folemn his profeflion- of impartial in-
quiry, however unexceptionable his religious itn-
timents in every other refpe61:, however orna-
mental his condu6t,. devout his temper, and
ufeful his labours — nor admitted, I fay, into
chriftian fellow/hip for the purpofe of commem-
morating the dying love of their common Lord
and
. * Towcood's Dipping not the onJy fcriptural and. primitive
manner of Baptizing, p. 31, 32,
184 Of the Signljjcatiofi of the Cli. 4.
and Saviour. Does the fame intolerant chur(Ji
hold the neceflity of epifcopal ordination for the
validity of miniflerial acls ? So do the rigid
votaries of plunging hold the neceflity of a
dipping purification for the validity of a true
chriftian church- memberfhip. Do the former
contend, that fo plain a thing as common
bread is infufficient for the eucharift? So do
the latter^ that no wajhing of watery with the
word, is valid, but that which is precifely in
their dijlinguijhing way. Do Proteftants urge on ,
Catholics the neceflity of firi£ily adhering to,
the original inftitution of tiie fupper ? So do.
Y/e on the Baptifl:s, wlx> impofe what the Infti,-
tutor has left free, and unwarrantably fcrew.
the initiating rite in the vice of bigotry in de-
fiance of thofe limitations, to which alone the
original inftitution obliges.
It is further added : " Suppofing an equal
degree of benefit, refulting from each mode of
adminiftration ; yet there is not, there cannot
be, the fame degree of humble obedience to Je-
fus Chrift.'* An argument this worthy of the
painful pilgrims to Jerafalem and Rome !' But
again : " The pradlice of afperjion is calculated
to embarrafs Proteftants in their difputes with
Pcedobaptifts j and Non-conformifts in their
controverfies with Epifcopalians." Not at all ;
but the very reverfe is true : The practice of
our opponents is calculated to embarrafs them
in their difputes witli Papifts and Nonconform-
ifts;
Ch. 4' Terms Baptize and Baptifm. 185
ifts ; inafinuch as they impofe as necejfary what
tlie divine Legiflator has left indifferent. More-
over : " Suppofing there were both difficulty and
danger attending the performance of our Lord's
pofitive commands ~ we muft fubmit without
repining and without hefitation." True ; fo did
Abraham. But we deny that to baptize only
by dipping is a pofitive command ; and there-
fore to fubmit to difEcuhy and danger, when
net required^ is no better than will-worihip and
voluntary humility unprefcribed. " Circumci-
fion was dangerous, yet not to be difpenfed
with." Right; for //;./ was made neccflary by
a plain command, but no dangerous mode of
baptizing is enjoined. Quotations alfo from
Charnock, Secker, Towgood, Owen, Sau-
RiN, Chardin, Maimonides, R. Nathan,
Calvin, P\ Fabricius, &c. are to no pur-
pofe ; not affe6ling the ' point in difpute. Once
more : Our author talks of our " altering a
pofitive appointment.'* But we think that this
alteration work is rather chargeable on thofe who
claim a power to annul what our Lord iiimfelf
has ordained, as v/e believe our baptifm is.
We are next impeached for " difpenfmg witk
divine laws, or mitigating their feverity." Let
us be (hewn what is divine law, and we obey ;
but we reckon the effentiality of dipping not as
the meaning of divine law, but the offspring of
pharifaic zeal— As to the hint, that our prac-
tice proceeds on the principle of—" fpare thy^
4elf;'* we may a(k ; Should not we fparc
where
I S6 Of the Slgnijication cf the CIi, 4,
where God does ? If not, we can do nothing
better than cut or fcourge ourfelves, or cru-
cify one another ! Finally : it is urged, that
" dipping was in ufe for thirteen hundred
years ;" i. e. thro' the darkeft times of popery !
what a mighty recommendation ! But that it
was the exchifwe mode, at leaft, in the apoflo-
hc!'C age is neither granted, nor admitted that
it can be proved.
§ 49. The genuine reafons, rife, and preva-
lence of immerfion in baptifm, in my apprchen-
fion, may probably appear from the following
remarks.
I. The word baptize being a general term,
denoting, in a ceremonial izn^ty to purify^ it is
probable that different modes of ablution were
ufed, even in the apoftolick age, according to
circumftances. Sometimes, the whole body might
be wajhed %vith pure vjater ; fometimes, tvafljed
in a more partial manner, as Paul and Silas
were wajhed {txaa-iv) on another occafion, and
probably thus the Jailor was, &c. when bap^
tizedy A6ts xvi. 33 j fometimes, the water might
be /hed more abundantly on them while ftanding
in a river or any other convenient place. But
if at any time, fo early as the apoftolick age,
the fubje6t was led into fuch a depth of water
as might be neceflary for immerfion, and was
a6lually immerfed (which yet remains to be
proved ) ; ftill the ftrefs was laid on the ablutiony
and not the mode of it. " Arife and be puri^
fied^ and wajh away X\i^ fins," A6ts x?cii. i6« .
2. After
Ch, 4. Terms Baptize and Baptifm, 1S.7
2. After a while Paul's words, Rom. vi.
3~6. and Col. ii. 11. began to be perverted
in favour of immerfim ; as if this were coun-
tenanced by him allulively ; and without conii-
dering that the fame infpired writer alludes
to fprinkUng^ pourings pjcdd'vig. The following
thought might appear very plaufible \ " If the
chriftian purification be a chanfing^ the more
general and complete the better ; therefore a total
wafhing, and even the putting of the fubje£l:
under water muft be mere complete and expref-
five." But however plaufible this may feem,
it is buiit upon a fallacy^ viz. That there is a
natural beyond an injVituted conneclion between
ablution and the thing fignified. But were
this fallacious fancy purfued to its juft confe-
quences, where could we flop ? Shall we not
be in danger of charging the ancient divine ab-
lutions with a defe6l of fymboiic fitnefs ? And
of placing the excellency of the rite in " wa(h-
ing away the filth of the fleili?" Or, perhaps,
of commencing Hemerobaptifts, &c. ? Having
made this proficiency, that a total ablution is
a more perfeSl refemblance of the moral clean-
fing fignified, and that this might beft be ef-
fected by dipping ; which moreover was twice
alluded to by St. Paul ; it was eafy to ad-
vance, '
3. To another improving thought, viz. That
as chriftians were under the ftrongefi: obliga-
tions to cultivate umverfal and complete purity,
it was beneath their hieh calling not to equal.
If
l88 Of {he Signification of the Ch. 4.
if not furpafs, the zealous Jews or any others
who ufed ablution as a fymbol of moral pu-
rity. And it appears to me moft probable,
that this fuperftitious emulation about the com-
fleteriefs of tl)eir ablutions, gave rife to the
great flrefs laid upon immerfion among the
Jews and primitive chriflians. The former with
our opponents, made a total immerfion ejfential^
(for if a finger's end was not immerfed, the
rite was not valid ;) and the latter -^ foon after
the apoflolick age, from the fame emulous mo-
tive, foitered by a well-meaning but injudici-
ous zeal for purity, gave it the fandion of ge-
neral cujicm^ tho' not ahjolutely necejfary^ as
appears from the records of thofe times.
4. In the primitive times, numbers flocked
into the church from the polluted embraces of
heathenifm ; it is therefore very conceivable that
many would urge a fetal ahlutionj and for greater
certainty the plunging of the convert, that no
part, no not a finger's end, might remain con-
taminated with their former idolatry. And
furely if the baptifmal water was th^; fw^;, the
water of life^ as Justin Martyr exprefTes it,
it was but charitable to make ufe of it copi-
oufly, and to apply it to every part. Hence,
5. From the fame principle, joined with that
of zeal for fuperftitious felf-denial and mortifi-
cation in unprefcribed ceremonies, arofe the
pra6lice of baptizing naked. For how could
perfeSi purity^ the neiv birtk^ &C, be fully re-
prcfented without it/
6. Ac-
Ch. 4» Therms Baptize and Eaptifm, 1^9
6. Accordingly, dipping continued during
tbofe ages when, and becaufe, externals made
nearly the whole of religion ; and ftill continues
in- the Greek Church, there is reafon to fear,
from a fimilar cauie.
7 Ro /.£, indeed, at length, tho' abundantly
fuperiiitious in other refpcds, began to relax
this line of bigotry long before the reformation.
And whether an attempt to eftabiifh the doc-
trine of dipping as essential to chriftian bap-
tifm, be not an attempt to re-eftablilh, aud to
improve upon, what was v;orthy of the darkeft
ages of the church, I leave to be confidered by
them whom it concerns.
S. At the Reformation from Popery, when
the doiSlrines of the facraments were minutely
and rigidly examined, the honoured champions,
who appeared on that occafion with undaunted
courage in the caufe of liberty and of truth,
were fo far from charging the gradual alteration
that had been introduced in the churches of
France, Italy, Germany, and others, as to the
mode of baptifm, as heretical and invalidating^
that, on the contrary, they gave it the juftefl:
* tribute of acknowledgment, as a prior part of
reformation, by embracing it themfelves.
But how little weight there, is in the above
confiderations, as the ancient mod plaufible rea-
fons for the efTentiality of immerfion; and in
what is pleaded by our opponents from the
force of the word baptifm^ &c. is now fubmitted
to the impartial public.
CHAP.
[ ^90 ]
CHAP. V.
Containing anfwers to the mofl capital
OBJECTIONS and evasions of Antipoedo-
baptifts.
§ I. ObjeSiion (i) That the conduSl of Protejiants
in their management of the Popijh controverfy
is inimical to Pcedobaptifm — anfwered, § 2,
(2) That there is no exprefs precept^ or pre^
cedenty in the New Tejiament for Poedobaptifm
— anfwered. % 3-- 6. {3) That there is no
evidence of Pcedobaptifm^ before the loiter end of
the fecondy or the beginning of the third century
'^anfwered, § 7. (4) The grounds of Poedo-
baptifm as pra^ijed by the ancients ^~ anfwered*
§ 8' (5) ^^^ dif agreement of the moderns con^
cerning the grounds of Poedobaptifm — anfwered,
^ ^ — 12. (6) If Infants have a right to bap-
tifm^ they ynujl have a right to the [acred flip-
per— anfwered. § 13. (7) If baptifm feals
mly a bare exhibition of fpiritual blejfmgs^ what
benefit can that be to infants? — anfwered* §14.
(8) If there be a fuitablenefs in infants^ as fuch^
to the infUtution of baptifm^ by what rule fhall
we determine what children to baptize^ and
what not?'-' anfwered, § 15. (9) If we bap-
tize all our infants^ then we [hall have no
adults to baptize— -anfwered*
Gh. 5. Objections and Evafions of l^c, igi
§ I. TT has been often obje<Sted, and is par-
X ticularly urged by Mr. B. in effedl,
(1) " That the conducl of Proteftants in
*' their management of the popifli controverfy, is
" inimical to Pcedobaptifm -, becaufe they have
" always juftified their renunciation of thofe
" objedtionable particulars that the Romifh hie-
** rarchy obtrudes upon its vafTals, for want of
" fcripture authority for them ; while the Anti-
" poedobaptifts, in their turn, juftify their con-
*' du6l on the fame principle*." And, indeed,
this feems one of the moft popular and plauli-
,ble objedlions they ever urge j but there is nei-
their truth nor fairnefs in the fuppofed parallel :
For,
1. When any thing is urged by Papifts or
others as neceflary to falvation, or an indifpen-
fible term of chriftian communion, which the
infpired volume neither exprefsly aflerts, nor
plainly fuppofes ; what is there more reafonable
or proper than a demand of their warrant for
fuch conduct and fentiments ? But,
2. Do Poedobaptifts maintain, or do their
principles or practice imply, that a being bap-
tized in infancy, rather than when adult, is a
neceflary qualification for chriftian communion?
It is too well known to need explanation, that
we regard infant baptifm^ and adult baptif7n^ not
as two ordinances of a different nature, but as
one and the fame, differing only in the cir-
cumftance of time* We lay no ftrefs on the
time
• Pcedoh Exam. f45— 154 174 — 178, ti^—zif, 310, 473.
V
I02 OhjeSiions and Evafions Ch. 5.
time whm-f as a neceflary ingredient of valid
baptifm ; and, therefore, let a perfon be bap-
tized at fouifcore, and we admit him to id^
lowfhip (ccet. par,) with the fame readinefs as
if baptized in infancy. With what candour
or fairnefs, then, are Pcedobaptifts compared
with Papifts ?
3. We cannot he^ regarding the invidious
comparifon as totally inapplicable on another ac-
count, viz. Becaufe it proceeds on a fuppofition,
that divine revelation gives no more counte-
nance to the baptizing of infants, than to the
farrago of Popifti will-worfliip. When we re-
flect on the godly and learned labours of Pce-
dobaptift worthies, in pleading the caufe of
infants and expofmg the fuperftitions of Rome,
we are grieved, we are painfully wounded, to
find their praSilcal judg?nent treated in fo uncaa-
did and fevere a manner. Muft we regard their
tears of joy and gratitude, which as parents
*nd minifters they have copioufly Ihed, while in
this ordinance devoting their infant children to
Jehovah, mingled with the tears of enthufiaftic
devotees, whofe paffions are excited by mere
fuperftitious ignorance ? — Judge nothing before the
time.
4. Protestants, and Proteftant DiiTenters,
forcibly objeil to the church of Rome, or any
other, arrogating to itfelf a power, jure divino,
to decree and impofe rites and ceremonies, for
■which it produces no authority from fcripture^
the law of nature, or any other law, except
that
Ch. 5» AnUpcedohapttJh anfjjcred, 1^3
that of ITS OWN- SOVEREIGK V/ILL AND PLEA-
SURE. Whereas we, as Foedobaptifts, appeal
to the revealed nature and dengn of the infti- '
tution; and for its application to our infant
children, in common with ourfelves, to the dic-
tates of nature J to every fuccelTive difpenfation
of true religion from Adam to Chriil ; to the
language of prophecy in reference to gofpei
times ; to New Teflament palTages ; and to the
almoil univerfal pradlice of the chriftian church.
We indft, in Ihort, that the baptizing of our
children, being fuitaUe Juhje6is of the gofpei
difpenfation, and of baptifm its initiatory rite,
not contravened by fcripture evidence, but ra-
ther included in the general commiiTion, is a
reafonable fervice^ which is corroborated by many
important topics. Therefore vve need not fcru-
pie to fay, that when any man or body of men
adhibit arguments of a pnilar iiature^ and equaliy
fcrcihle as thefe^ in favour of Koman (or any
other) rites and ceremonies, we ftand engac^ed
to approve, and with all fubmiffion to pradtife
them.
§ 2. (2) Mr. B. objects, and employs a
■ whole chapter in fupportiiig the objedlion, *' rhat
there is no exprefs precept, or precedent, in the
Nejw Teftament for Pcrdobaptifm*;" On this
I would pro^Kjfe the following obfcrvations 5
and
I. This mode of objecting to our practice
feems admirably calculated to confound two
Vol. [1. K things
* Pcedob. Exam, chap. viii. pafftm.
1^4- Ohjeilio7is and Evafions of Ch. 5»
things that are perfe6lly diftindt:, viz. nominal
and real differences. For the objedion tends
to lead the unwary to fuppofe, that the baptifm
of infants is another baptifm than what the Anti-
tipoedobaptifts ufe ; whereas it is plain to any
that properly diftinguifh between names and
things, that if we baptize an infant, we do not
ufe another ordinance differing effentially from
adult baptifm, as theirs is, but only differ in
judgment refpe<3:ing the qualifications of the fub-
je6ts. We fhould therefore be no more led
away by fuch infinuations, than we fhould by
being told that the baptifms of believers^ of
hypocrites^ of deaf and of dumb perfons, were all
of them ejfentially different from one another.
Or by being told, that the circumcifions of
adults and infants, of Ifraelites and profelytes,
were inf^itutions of a quite different nature.
2. If precepts and precedents are to be inter-
preted by the properefl rules, nay the only
rules which the cafe fairly admits, we infifl,
that the New Tertament contains both pre-
cepts and precedents in our favour. Thefe
rules we lay are, not the bare letter, or mere
expreffions of fcripture, but thefe in connec-
tion with prior divine Jlatutes and difpenjations.
If, with thefe rules in mind, we attend to the
revealed account of the nature and manife/l
deficrn of the ordinance, we can no more, in
equity, interpret the precepts and precedents re-
lative to it, to the exclufion of infants, than
we can interpret a general invitation from a
fovereign
Ch. 5. Antipxdobapttfts anfwered, 195
fovereign addrefTed to his fubjedts, importing a
defire that they (liould quit their native foil on
ternfS infinitely advantageous, while himfelf leads
the way, to the exclusion of their wives and
infant children. Is it reafonable, is it fcriptu-
ral, is it confiftent with common fenfe, or was
it ever inftanced from the birth of time, that
the child was juftly debarred from any of the
parents' privileges of which it was a capable
fubjedt? This being the cafe, all precepts
and precedents are to be interpreted on fup-
pofition that this is an eftablilhed and well au-
thenticated fa6l, which is not to be given up
but by the moft unequivocal contravention.
Therefore,
3. We retort, and more confidently plead,
that our opponents have neither precept nor pre^
cedent for their conduct. They exclude where
the /aiv does not exclude, and where neither
right reafon nor common fenfe require it.
" That the facred writings are our on/y rule
of dodrine and worfliip, was the grand princi-
ple of the reformation — The bible only is the
religion of Protejiants.'^ True; the bible only^
in oppofition to the bible and tradition: but
not in oppofition to natural dictates uncontroul-
led by revelation. Our only rule of dodlrine
and vjorjhip ; that is, fuch do6trine and worfhip
as can be urged oii men's confciences muft
not contradict this rule, but be countenanced by
it. A rule^ not abfolutely and extenfively in
every pundtilio and circumllance, but politively
K 2 and
Iq6 Gbjec^isns and Evafiom of Ch. 5.
and correclively, as far as it goes.— If nothing
is to be confidered as tiie will of Chrift, even
in religious worfhip, but what is exprefsly and
circumftantially defcribed, then our opponents
muft feel, equally feel, the embarrafTment with
ourfelvcs, not only in other matters but alfo in
the prefent controverfy. The perpetual cry^
therefore, about fcripture exprefs precepts and
precedents as alone decifive in the debate, is of
little moment with impartial inquirers after
truth, till it is previoudy determined that the
fcriptures v/ere defigned by the Fountain of all
truth as our only guide abfolutely and exten-
fively, in this matter. " The holy fcriptures,"
as the judicious Hooker, well obferves, " arc
" all-fuHicient unto that end for which they
" were given. Therefore, accordingly, we do
" receive them ; we do not think that in them
" God hath omitted any thing needful unto
*' his purpofe, and left his intent to be ac-
'' comp'iifhed by our devifmgs. What the fcrip-
" ture purpofeth^ the fame in all points it doth
*' perform. HoY*'beit, that here we fvverve not in
<« judgment, one thing efpecially we muft ob-
*^ ferve, namely, that the abfolute perfection of
" Icripture is feen by relation unto that end
« whereunto it tendeth. ' — And elfev;herc he
fays : " Saint Augustine was refolute in points
^' of chriftianity to credit none, how godly ai^d
'' learned (ocver they were, unlefs he confirmed
'* bis fentence by the fcriptures, or by fome rea^
^^ Jon not contrary to them. Let them therefore
" with
Ch. 5. Ant'iposdohapUjh anfwered, igj
" with St. Agustine reje6l and condemn that
*' which is not grounded either on the fcripture,
" or on fome reafon not contrary to fcripture, and
*' we are ready to give them our hands in
** token of friendly confent, with them *."
But other fathers^ we are given to under-
ftand, are peremptory; as Basil: " It is a
manifeft mi flake in regard of faith, and a clear
evidence of pride, either to rejeSi any of thofe
things which the fcripture contains ; or to in-
troduce any thing that is not written in the
facred page." Ambrose : " Where tlie fcrip-
ture \s fdenty who ihzWfpeakr^ Tertullian:
•' The fcripture forbids what it does not meri'*
//^«."— But thefe and fimilar maxims muft ei-
ther be taken with U?mtation^ or elfe muft ftand
convi6ted of inconclufive weaknefs. '^ To urge
*' any thing upon the church, requiring thereunto
" that religious aflent of chriftian belief, where-
" with the words of the holy prophets are re-
" ceived ; to urge any thing as part of that
*' fupernatural and celeHially revealed truth which
" God hath taught, and not to (liew it in
" fcripture, this did the ancient. Fathers ever-
" more think unlawful, impious, execrable. And
" thqs as their fpeeches were meant, fo by us
^ they muft be re/Irained-f.'-
It is further urged, that *' the fdencey ot
fcripture is a fufficient ground of rejecting the
y%,7 of the crojs^ exorc'ijm^ &c. — becaufe thofe
tilings 7iot being written in tlie facred volume,
K 3 are
* Ecclcs. Polit, B, II § 8, 4, f ib. § S,
198 ObjeSfiom and Evafjons of Ch. 5.
are therefore condeinneL^^ Granted ; for being
fupported by no antecedent principle of reafon,
and not enjoined by pofitive authority, they are
condemned defervedly. But x\\q ftknce of fcrip-
ture is not the formal ground of rejedting them ;
for it is filent about many other things con-
fefledly right; but rather becaufe not recom-r
mended by any law whatever, either natural or
revealed. And when any thing is urged as ne-
cefiary, which has no juft pretenfions for fuch
neceflity but fcripture evidence, then the filencc
of fcripture concludes againft it, being indeed,
on the fuppofition, the only remaining rule
wheieby its pretenfions can be tried.
Our author is very fond of introducing Dr,
Ov/EN among thofe who, he fuppofes, condemn
themfelves. For the Dr. had faid : "When
once a perfon maintains it allowable to pafs
over the limits of the divine command^ there
is nothing to hinder him from running
the moft extravagant lengths*." And again:
*' All worfhip is obedience; obedience refpeds
authority ; and authority exerts itfelf in com-
mands.—It is the authority of God alone, that
can make any worfhip to be religious ; or the
performance of it to be an acSl of obedience to
hi?n-\.'' One might be led to think from Mr.
B.'s manner of introducing thefe quotations,
that the celebrated Dr. Owen has deferted the
caufe of Poedobaptifm, if it be but granted
withal
• Thcologoumena L, v, c. xv, § a, f Expofition on
Hebrews i, 6, Vol, I, p. 99»
Ch. 5. Anttpcedohaptifls anfwered* 1 99
withal that the fame cafe is not exprefsly coun-
tenanced, and incontrovertibly enjoined in
holy writ. But let the reader obferve, that the
following remarks are contained under the very
fame head of difcourfe. " The command of
" God is the ground and reafon of all religi-
" ous worlhip. — Now the command of God is
'' twofold i formal and vocal — real and interpret
" tativei confining in an impreffion of the
*' mind and will of God upon the nature of
" his creatures, with refpedt unto that obedi-
" ence which their ftate, condition, and de-
*' pendance on him requireth. The very na^
" ture of an inteile6lual creature made for the
*' glory of God, and placed in a moral de-
*' pendance upon him, and fubjeclion unto him,
" hath in it the force of a command^ as to the
*' worfhip and fervice that God requireth at
*' their hands*." Therefore, on fuppofition that
nothing fhort of a command can authorize a re-
ligious aci:ion, the Dr. is clear that commands
are not only formal and vocal^ but alfo real
and interpretative. The former fort of com-
mands is founded on the infufficiency of in-
formation which man pofiefTes prior to their
being enadted, as to thofe particular i enjoined \
the latter fort continues of equal force with the
other, as far as the information goes.
The Poedobaptifts are clafTed by Mr. B.
with Fisher the Jefuit in their conclufions,
who when vindicating the worfhip of images
K 4 fays;
* lb, p. 9?,
-2.00 OhjeSilons and Eva/tons of ' Ch. 5.
fays: " In the fcripture there is no exprefs
pra£^ice nor precept of worfhipping the image
of Chrift : yet there be principles which, the
light of nature fuppofed, convince adoration to
be lawful." But this we overturn two ivays
moft efFeduallyj without being beholden to Mr.
B.'s fallacious mode of arguing from the fJence
of fcripture, as if it were a rule of undiftin-
guifhed and univerfal application. Firft, pofi-
tive interdi<Slions arc dire£l]y oppofed to it;
(Exod. XX. otc.) and fecondly, the principles ai
right reafon give it no countenance, nay, rather^
from the fame principles image worfhip is de-
monftrably abiurd. How far the alTertion,
" that there is no exprefs precept, he.'* is con-
. fiftent with iruth.^ the reader may judge from
perufmg the former volume, (Chap. iii. § 36 —
54-)
§ 3* fs) ^T Js again obje<5ved, " That there
is no evidence of Pcedobaptifm before the lat-
ter end of the Jlcond or the beginning of the
third century*." To which I reply,
1. If it be the iiiH of Chrijl to baptize in-
fants, which I think has been demonfirated, the
fuppofed filence of antiquity is of little mo-
ment.
2. The very objeclion, as f^ated by Mr. B.
himfelf, implies, that, " towards the latter end
of the fccond^ or the beginning of the third cen^
tury^'* i. e. about one hundred years aUcr the
death
♦ See Pcedob. Ejcanri, Chap, ix. faJJ-m,
^Ch. 5» Antlpcedoh<iptiJis anjwered, 201
death of the apollle John, Poedobaptifm incon*
teftibly exifted.
3. The comparative filence of near a century
after the apoftoHck age, by no means implies
that the practice of baptizing children was not
then in ufe. If the practice be a part of chrif-
tian duty, as v^e maintain, it is more charita-
ble to fuppofe they did adhere to it, than the
contrary, where we are not determined by po-
fitive evidence either way. And
4. Supposing it was actually oppofed by
fome foon after the apoftolick age, (which does
not yet appear,) e^en this, of itfelf, would no
more prove it wrong:, than the oppoiitions made
to other now acknowleds^ed truths proved them
fo.
5. To which I may add in the language o£
Mr. TowGooD : " If any thhik it ftrange, that
we have no more exprefs teftimonies to this
practice of the church, in the writings of thefe
fathers, let him coniider— That the far greater
part of their writings are loftj- and that it is
little more than their names and a few pieces
of their work^ efpecially as to the firjl age,
that are tranfmitted down to us.— And alfo [pro-
bably] that the baptifm of infants being then
univerjdlly praciijcd^ and no doubts or djfpute
having ever been moved about it j and it being
like.wife the conftant ever-prevaiiing cuHoin of
all the enemies of chriiliani'y, both Jews and
Pagans^ to admit infants to a participation of
their religious ceremonies and rites together with
K 5 tf^eir
202 Obji5itons and Eva/tons of Ch. 5,
their parents, Thefe things confidered, it will not
appear ftrange that this point is io rarely touch- T^^^
ed on in the writings of thofe times. There
are a thoufand religious books written in the
prejent age^ in which the leaji hint is not to be
found about baptizing of infants, tho' the point
has now been fo long and fo warmly contro-
verted amongft us : much lefs, then, fhould one
cxpe6l to find any thing but a few allufions
and hints as to this matter, in the books of
thofe early times*."
§ 4. The firft authorities produced by Mr.
B. to fupport his pofition are Salmasius and
SuiCERUS, who aflert, that " In the tzuo firjl
centuries, no one was baptized, except, being
inftruded in the faith, and acquainted with
the dodrine of Chrift, he was able to profefs
himfelf a believer ; becaufe of thofe words, He
that believeth and is baptized.'' But to confront
their authority, let the following obfervations of
the learned Mr. Bingham, whofe refearches
into Ecclefiaftical Antiquities are well known to
be very great, be well confidered : " Infants were
of two forts, either fuch as were born of chrif-
tian parents, or fuch as were born of Heathens,
but by fome providential means became the
pofTeffion and property, as I may call it, of the
chriftian church : Neither of which fort were
excluded from baptifm, when fufficient fponfors
could be provided for them. This is fo evi-
dent
* The Baptifm of Infants a Rcafonable Service, p, 31, iz%
Ch. 5. jint'iposdobaptl/is anfwered. 203
dent from the ancient records of the church,
that it is to be wondered how fome learned
perfo.iS could run into the contrary opinion, and
offer reafons from antiquity in prejudice of the
church's conftant praftice. Mr. Wall in his
elaborate Difcourle of Infant Baptifm, has juftly
refledled upon abundance of thefe men, who
by their unwary conceffions, have given too
great advantage to the Anabaptirts of this age.
There are fome others alfo, which he had not
feen, who advance as unworthy notions of the
ancient pradice : For Salmasius, and Suice-
Rus out of him, (Thefaur. Eccles. Tom. ii.
p. 1 136.) deliver it as authentick hiftory, that
for the two firft ages no one received baptifm,
who was not firft inftru6led in the faith and.
do(5trine of Chrift, fo as to be able to anfwer
for himfelf, that he believed^ becaufe of thofe.
words, He that bdieveth and is baptized. Which
in efFeft is to fay, that no infant for the two
firft ages was ever admitted to chriftian bap-
tifm. But afterwards they own Pcedobaptifm
came in, upon the opinion, that baptifm was
neceffary to falvation. Now I fhall not think
myfelf obliged to^ be very prolix in refuting this
opinion, together with the falje Juppofttion which
is made the foundation of it, lince that has fo
often, and fo fubflantially been done by Vos-
sius*. Dr. FoRB£st, Dr. Hammond ||, Mr.
Walker J, and efpecially Mr. Wall**, who
K 6 '; has
* De B^pt. D.fp. xiv, f InflruG, Kjft. Theol, Lib. x. cap. <;.
11 Dcf, of Infant-Eapt. ch, 4. X Plea for Infant- J-^apt. ch. xivii. &c,
*» Hift. of inf. BApt, Part I. chap, i, &c,
204 Ohjaftlons and EvajJons of Ch. 5.
has exa£lly confidered the teftimany and authority
of aimofi every ancient venter that has faid any
thing upon this fubjec^. — In all ordinary cafes,
where water baptifm might be had, they [the
moft ancient fathers] concluded as generally for
the necejfity of it, from that alTertion of our Sa-
viour, Except cue be born of water and the Spi'
rifi J?e cannot enter into the kingdo?n of God,
This was not only a do6lrine of thc^ third or
fourth ages, as Salmasius and Suicerus rc-
prefent, but the doclrine of the very firjl ages,
immediately fucceeding the apoftles. For we
fee Hermes Pastor [Lib. I. Vif. iii. cap. 3.
Lib. in. Simil. ix, n. 16.] who lived in the
apoftolical age, founds tlie general necefTity of
baptifm upon that very faying of cur Saviour.
And therefore they who reprefent this do£lrine
of the necefTity of baptifm, as a novelty or an
error firft introduced into the church in the
age of Saint Austin againft the Pelagian
hereticks, do manifeft wrong both to the doc-
trine itfelf, and to Saint Austin, and to the
ancients, who embraced and delivered the fame
before him. And it gives an unnecejjhry ad-
vantage to the Antipcedobaptif.s, which a right
undcrjranding of this matter abfolutely takes
from them. I thought it therefore of fome
ufe to obferve this againft Salmasius and SU-
ICERUS, and to add it to the obfervations
which Mr. Wall has made upon Hermes
Pastor *."
It
* £in£jiam'» Origin. Ecclefiaft. D. xi, C. i?, § 5, 6.
Oh. '$. Atit'iposdobapf'iJIs anfiuered, 205
It is well known to the learned that Jus*
TIN IVlARTi'R wrote and flourifhed Toon a.r'ter
the apoftoiick age : for his converfion happened
about the fixteenth )ear of Trajan^ that is,
A D. 132 — Tiiat the apology which he pre-
fented to Antoi-^inus i-'ius, and the young
C^jars^ being the firjl he wrote, was cornpored
about A. D. 150.— And that he fuffered mar-
tyrdom about the fecond year of Marcus An-
toninus, Ar D. i6d, or according to Baro-
Nius A. D. 165. Now Justin plainly fays,
in the apology juA referred to, commonly cal-
led the fecond, akho' in reality it be the firfl,
js OupiN obferves, that there were in his
time, " Several men and women of fixty or
feventy y-ears old, z\ ly. vcn^uf tfA.u&rp,ivhsrcu> ru XQirv
who from infants had been difcipled^ profelyted,
or devoted to Chrift^^" Here he ufes the very
word of the commiiTion, (xu^iolivaj^ with which
baptifm is fo ftridily and infeparabJy connected.
Dijciple all nations bapti-zing them (Matt, xxviii.
19.) Now if any were chjc'iphd^ profelyted, or
devoted to Chrift (which we have (hewn to
be the legillative force of the word, chap. iii.
§ 45 — 47.) from their vifancy^ sk wa»^u;v, they
muft have been baptized from their infancy like-
wife, according to the commiffion, and while
feme of the apoftles were yet living.
The author of the Recognitions^ who was co-
temporary with Justin Martyr, and fup-
pofed by fome to be Bardesanes. Syrus,
fpeaks of the nec^ffity of baptifm thus : ''' The
weaknefs
* JvsTiK, ApcJ, lit p. 62,
206 Ohje£fions a7id Evaftons of Ch. 5.
weaknefs of the firft nativity, which comes to
you by man, is lopt off when you are (^egeyie-
rato ex aqua) regenerated of water, and renewed
to God ; and thus you may arrive at falvation,
"which otherwife is not attainable. For thus
the true prophet [Jefus Chrilt] hath aflured us
with a folemn affeveration, faying. Verily I fay
unto you except one be born again of water he
fhall not enter the kingdom of heaven'^:* Now
fmce this author holds the neceffity of baptifm
to purge away original fin (we do not jufhfy
his dwinity\ and for an entrance into the king-
dom of heaven, is it not highly probable that
he in fail baptized infants? Inconteftible evi^
dence and certainty that he did is not neceffary,
for the nature of the cafe only requires, that,
in connection with all preceding accounts of
xight and fa£i^ it was more probable infants were
admitted to thefe apprehended bleflings by bap-
tifm, than the con.rary. Ard if it be right to
baptize infants, charity conllrains us to fuppofe
that this matter of right was reduced to fa^y if
we are not prevented by fome counter-proof.
*' Here then we have another author within
the compafs of the two firft ages, direcl;]y con-
fronting that aflcrtion of Salmasius and Sui-
CERUs, 1 hat the doaiine of the neceffity of
baptifm to falvation, was not the dodrine of
the two firji ages^ but only an opinion taken up
afterwards, upon which foundation the pradtice of
infant baptifm was introduced into the church.
For no one can, or ever did, declare himfelf
plainer
• Recognit. Lib. vi, n. 9, Ap. CoTetER. Tom. i. p. 55i»
Ch. 5. Ant'ipcedohaptiJJs anfwered. 20 J
plainer for the neceffity of baptifm to falvation,
than this author does, from the words of our
Saviour Chrift, which he interprets, as all the
ancients both before and after him did, of the
ordinary neceffity of water-baptifm to falvation.
So that if infant baptifm was founded, as Sal-
ma si us pleads, upon the opinion of the ne-
ceffity of baptifm to falvation ; this author
mull be an aflertor of mfant baptifm, becaufe
he was undeniably an aflertor of the general
neceffity of baptifm to falvation*."
Iren-^bus, who according to Dr. Cave, and
Mr. DoDWELL, was born about A. D. 97, while-
the apoiile John was yet living, fays^ " For
Chrift came to fave all perfons by himfelfj alJ
I fay, qui per eum renascuntur in Dewn:^
who by him are regenerated unto God, In-
fants and little ones, and children, and youths,
and elder perfons f." Now what is meant by
reiiafcuntur we may learn from himfelf when, ia
a parallel place, (Lib. i. cap. 18.) he fays, " ra
^a7rlto-/.calo5 t»j? ei? ©eo» <x.v(x,ytvr(i<Tiu<^'i baptifm-^ which is
our regeneration unto God, or, the baptifm of
regeneration to God." And that Iren^us is
not fingular in calling baptifm regeneration^ nay
that all the ancients commonly do the fame_,
SuicERUs himfelf owns|.
Mr. B. objects to this pafTage by obferving :
" If thefe expreliions, zvho by him are rege-
nerated
* Bingham ut fupra, § 8. •\ Iren Lib. ii, cap. 39.
J T^efaur Ecdesi Voce uvctySiVvr,aU* See alfo Wall's Hif-
tory, and Anlwer to Gal£«
20$ Qhje^Silons and Evafions cf Ch. 5.
NERATJED to Goiy fignify the fame as being
Baptized; they convey the idea of our Lord
hnnfelf baptizing perfons of different ages. But
this wc know was far from being a faci; for
Jefus himfcif baptized not^ John iv. 2/' But
the author is not fpeaking of Chrift's coming
to fave ail perfons who per cum had been bap-
tized, but all vjho are j which puts Chrift's
bodily prefence abfohitely out of the queftion.
Therefore, whether we underftand by the word,
renafcnntur^ baptifm, or a fpiritual change, the
phrafe per eum is equally proper : the former being
effected by his grace^ the other by his authcrity.
If iRENiEUs, therefore, intends by the pafTage,
what was cojnmcnly meant by the term in quef-
tion in thofe early times, namely baptifm, as
Mr. Wall in his Hifto)-y, and in his . an-
fwer to Gale's Refiedlions, has abundantly
proved, the meaning is, " Chrill: came to fave
all^ infants, &c. who are, thro' him (his medi-
ation, his name, in virtue of his authority,)
haptixedy i. e. feparated to God by the chnftiaa
purification." But this *' repreients our Lord
as coming into the vvorld to fave thofe only
■who are baptized ; an imagination (adds Mr,
B.) which is abhorrent from truth, and ought
not without the cleared evidtnce to be charged
on tlic venerable ancient," In tiie firft place,
our prefent inquiry is not about theological but
hijhrical truth. And, if any one is difpofed
to fupport tl:e credit of thefe " venerable anci-
ents" by d^;nying plam feels (of which the
writings
Ch* 5. jintipoedobapiijls anfwefed, 209
writings of Hermes, Justin Martyr, the
Reccg7iitions of Bardesanes Syrus, Iren^eus,
Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullian, Am-
brose, Chrysostom, Gregory Nyssen, &c,
are ilandmg monuments) let him, for me, in-
dulge the fancy, and enjoy the profits. — la
fhorr, IrentEUs's real meaning appears to me -
to be this, That it was our Lord's avowed ex-
plicit defign, by becoming incarnate, and going,
pr ornnem tstateniy thro' the feveral ftages of
life, to make an exhibitory grant of falvation to
all the baptized ; that the falvation was intended^
according to the tenor of its external difpenfa-
tion, for all, infants, &c. devoted to God, by
baptifm, thro' Chrift, and not for Jome only.
He is not fpeaking of the internal application
of falvation (according to the hidden purpofe
of Heaven) but of its external exhibition ; not
the fecret things which belong unto the Lord,
but thofe things which are revealed^ that belong
to us and cur children for ever ; that Jefus
Chrift came into ihe world to fave fmners;
that it is his exprefs v/ill and pleafure, no ont^
fet apart to God by tiic initiatory rite, (hould
perifh for want of a Saviour and Juitable meam
cf Salvation ; that Chrift and his falvation are
fo far defigned for them, that nothing but their
criminal reje^ion of the merciful grant can de-
prive them of it. But for any to be made
zuilimg in the day of Chrift's power; to ha\'e
the light of truth fhining in the mind, by the
efficiency of him who commanded the primi-
tive
210 Ohje^ions afid Evafions of Ch.
tive natural light to fhine out of darknefs ;
to be adlually reftored to the favour and image
of God, and made happy with the enjoyment
of his falvation, muft be referred, not to the
mere exercife of the juftice and equity of moral
government, but to the juft and equitable ex-
ercife of fovereign grace. Without attending
to this plain and neceffary diflinaion, not only
the writings of the fathers, but a great part of
the holy fcriptures will be involved in obfcurity
and feeming contradidions
Clemens Alexandrinus, who flouriflied to-
wards the clofe of the fecond century, has thefe
remarkable words : " If any one be a fiQier-
man, ATro^c^a fjLf^'jYtO-iloa y.sci ruiv af v^cclog avAC'nu^iiivujt
9rat^;a;y, let him think of an apoftle and the
children taken out of the water *^" On which
palTage Gentianus Hervetus has this com-
ment: " if there be engraven in 'a feah-ring
the pi<5lure of a fi(hei-man [or rather as Cle-
ment's own words are, If a fifherman will
have an engraving on his feal] let him think
of St. Peter, whom Chrift made a fifher of
men; and of the children which, when bap-
tized, are drawn out of a laver of water, as
out of a fifli-pondf." The father '^ is in
this chapter^ fays Mr. Wall, giving direcHon
to chriftian men and women concerning the
gravity and modefty to be ufcd in their appa-
rel
• Picdagog. Lib. iii. C, II. f See Wall's Defence of
Hift, Inf, Bapt. Appendix, p. 9, \q^
Ch, 5. Ant'ipoedohaptijls avfzvered, 711
rel and ornaments. And among other things
fpeaks of the rings then ufually worn on their
fingers, and the feals engraven on them. He
earneftly forbids all idolatrous and lafcivious
pi6lures or engravings ; and advifes to fuch as
are innocent, modeft and ufeful ; and fays thus,
Let your feal be a dove, or a fifh, or a (hip
under fail, or a harp, as was that of Poly cra-
tes ; or an anchor, which Seleucus made his
choice. jind if any one he a Jijher?nan^ ccc —
As the emblem of an anchor, or of a (hip
under fail, ufed for the imprefs of a fail ring,
does fuppofe thofe things to be commonly feen,
known, and ufed; fo St. Clement's advifing the
emblem of an cpojlle baptizing an infant^ to be
ufed by the chriftians in his time (which was
but about ninety yean after the apoftles) for
the fculpture of their feals, does fuppofe it com-
monly known by them that the apoftles did
perform that office.
This paffage has not efcaped Mr. B.*s no-
tice, and he takes no hnall pains to evade the
force of it. But the fum total of what he
fays, amounts only to this. That the term
vat^iot¥ is fometimes applied to ycung converts
to chriftianity as well as infants ; which no one
denies. But it (hould not be forgotten that in
this branch of our fubje6l we adt on the de^
fenfvsy and therefore that a demonf ration of the
negative is unnecelTary ; and if the -balance of
probability turns in our favour, our advantage is
abundant. Whether the term, vrm^wy be " ex-
prelTive
212 Ohjeci'iGns and Evafions of .Ch. 5.
preffive of young converts to chriftianity," or to
little children literally, let the learned reader judge
for himfelf. For my own part, 1 cannot help
thinking, but that the above Comment of Gen-
TiANus Hervetus, in connection with the
«xprefs defjgn of Clement in this chapter^ i«
the mojl probable meaning, notwithitanding the
wnited efforts of Mr. B. and Barker to (hew
the contrary.
§ 5. As for Tertullian, who was cotem-
porary with Clement, Mr. B. allows that he
" fpcaks exprefsly of infant baptifm." The fol-,
lowing paffage is found in his treatife De Bap^
iifmo (cap. xviii.): " According to every per-
fon's condition and dijpofition^ and even their
oge^ the delay of baptifm is more ufefuhy but
cfpecialiy with regard to Utile children. For
v/hat nccefTity is there, that the fponfors alfo
fhouid be brought to danger. Becaufe either by
death they may break their promifes, or qI'lq
may be deceived by a future wicked difpofition.
Our Lord indeed fays. Do not forbid the?n to
tome unto me. Therefore, let them. co?ne pro-
vided they grow up ; let them come provided
they learn; provided they are taught whither
they come : let them be made chnllians, pro-
vided they can know Chrift. Why does this in-
nocent age make hafte to the r^mifjlou cf fins
[i. e. biiptfm'] ? In worldly affairs men act more
CuWtioufly, tlian to entruft ' him with a divine
treafure, to wliom earthly fubftance is not cn-
trulied. Let them know how to afk faivation,
that
Ch. 5. Antipa^dobaptijh anjwered, 2r>
that you may appear to have given it to one
that afketh. For no lefs reafon unmarried perfom !
alfo fhoLiId be delayed, who are expofed to
temptation; as well as virgins by reafon of ma-
turity, as widows by being deiiitute of a con-
fort; until they either marry, or be confirmed
in continence." From this paffage Mr. B. ga-
thers that infant baptifm " was then a novel
pra£lice, was juft commencing, and approved by
very few^^ becaufe Tertulliaw oppofes it;
*' had it been otherwife, fays he, there is no ^
reafon to imagine that the celebrated African
Father would have treated it as he did.'* But
that he had no good reafon for fo treating it
may appear from his own account, for it is the
like reafon with that wliich he urges for pro-
craftinating the baptifm of unmarried vjomen !
which Mr. B. I prefume mud efteem fufficiently
whimfical and ablurd.— y/ novel practice jufl com^
mmcing^ approved by very few I If this be a
fair inference, we are authorized, from the fame
premifes, to conclude, that " to baptize un-
married women, who are furrounded v/ith temp-
tations, as well virgins as widov/s, was a novel
prdSfice^ juji cojmnencing^ approved by very fdw!
— 'I he Truth is, Tertullian entertaine(f
unfcriptural and fupedlitious notions about the
nature and importance of baptifm, vvhich made
him add to the above palTage the following
words : '' They who underitand, the importance
of baptifm \%i]l rather be afraid to receive if|'
than to put it off,'* He thought that fm after
baptifm
21 A. ObJeSfions and Eva/tons of Ch. 5.
baptifm, was fomething vaftly different from fia
hefore bzpud-n, if at all pardonable. Readmits
the FACT that little children were baptized ; and
that fponfors undertook for them, (probably he
refers to children of heathen parents come to
the poffeffion of chriftians, when he fpeaks of
/ponjors, and if fo that the advice of delaying
baptifm refers only to them) but he does not
attempt to (liew that it was " a novel pra^ice,
juji commencing, approved by very few^ With
far greater propriety we may fay, that his fu-
tile mode of reafoning on the fubjed, founded on,
fuperftition, (for which he was remarkable in
many other refpeas, as his works teftify) was
a " novel pra^ice, juJi commencing, and approved
by very few."*^
« That this ancient writer, fays Mr. B.
had a high regard for traditional rites in the
affairs of religion, is plain beyond a doubt, from
what he fays when profefTediy handling that
very fubjecl. His words, as given us by an
eminent Pcedobaptifl [Wall's Hifl. Part II.
chap, ix.] are as follow:-" To begin with
baptifm— When we are taken up out of the
water, we tafle a mixture of milk and honey ;
and from that day we abftain a whole week
from bathing ourfelves, which otherwife we ufe
every day. -At every fetting out, or entry on
bufmers ; whenever we co-ne in, or go out from
any place ; when we drefs for a journey j when
we go into a bath; when we go to meat;
when the candles are brought in j when we lie
down J
Cfi. 5. Antipoedohaptijls anfwered, 215
down, or fit down, &c. whatever bufinefs we
have, we make on our foreheads the lign of the
crofs. If you fearch in the fcriptures for any
command for thefe and fuch hke ufages, you
ihaJl find none. Tradiiion will ^ be urged to
you, as the ground of them ; cuftom as the
confirmer of them ; and our religion teaches to
obferve them." Next follows Air. B.'s very
fingular remark: " Hence it appears, fays he,
with fuperior evidence! that this ancient author
confidered infant baptifm as a novel invention."
How, in the name of Logic, does this conclu-
iion follow from the premifes ; He fubjoins,
" As a pradicc, that was neither injoined by
divine command, nor warranted by publick
examples, nor yet recommended by the poor pre-
tence of tradition, nor even countenanced by
prevailing cullom." If you are dim-fighted,
reader, have reccurfe to your glafTes, and wipe
them clean, and the conclufion, no doubt, will
appear with fuperior evidence. Yes : becaufe
Tertullian does not mention infant baptifm
among the unwritten traditions and cuftoms of
the church, therefore it was neither injoined by
divine command, nor warranted by apoftolick
examples ! But, fmce the Pcedobaptifts are fond
of truih without evidence^ it may be more pleaf-
ing to fome of them to view the following
darker conclufion, vi/.. inafmuch as this ancient
author does not diiluade from the pracSlice of
baptizing infants hecauj- ii was a novel inven-
tion, it is incredible that it was fuch ; for if
he
2i6 OhjeSfions a?id Evofiom of Ch. 5.
he believed it to be an- innovation, why does
he not reje6l it upon that ground, which would
have been, on the- fuppofition, an eflential to-
pic of diffuafion ? Moreover ; his mentioning
thofe words of our Lord, Nol'ite illos frohibere
ad me venire^ Do not forbid iheh^^ to come unto
me^ in the form of an objeSiion againft his ad-
vice to dejer their baptifm ; ftrongly intimates,
that the pra£lice ilfelf was wont to be urged,
and thought valid, from thofe memorable and
gracious words; and which TertuLLIAN op-
pofes with the fame reafon and fuccefs as the
dfciples^ when they forbad the Utile children to
he brought to Chriji. For with equal propriety
might they have expoftulated with the prohi-
bited children's parents ; " Let them come when
they are grown up ; let them come when they
can learn; when they are taught whither it is
they come; let them be made chriftians, when
they are capable of knowing Chrift." That is
a goodly mode of anfwering an objecSlion, which
confifts in repeating the very things objedted
to! Let not the children be brouglit now^ fay
the difciples; Nay " fuffer them to come and
forbid them not," fays Chrift; Sufcr them to
come^ fays the catholic church, on Chrift's au-
thority; No^ fays the African Innovator (except
where there is danger of death) ; No^ fay the
Antipocdobaptifts, let not the children be
brought novj, but let them be better qualified.
On the whole; if Mr. B.'s account of the
above cexbrated palTage be compared with the
Qri7inaly
Ch. 5. Antipoedohaptifls anfwered* T^iJ
original^ it will foon appear with what jufticc
thof^ acute criticks, the Monthly Review-
ers, pronounced it " partial /' and faid that
he " hath not prefented the reader with the
whoUy nor the exadi fenfe of the ancient Fa-
ther." And I flatter myfelf it will alfo appear,
from the prefent attempt^ that what they further
add, is equally juft ; " When the otnijfton is fup-
plied, and a fair tranflation given, the paflage
will bear a different ajpe£i*"
Or I GEN, who flourilhed in the beginning of
the third century, has various paflagcs that tend
to illuftrate and confirm the antiquity of infant
baptifm; " fome of which paflages, fays Mr. B.
it muft be allowed, are plain and exprefs to
the point." A few here follow. " What is the
reafon, why the baptifm of the church, conferred
for the remiffion of fins, is alfo adminiftered
to infants F Since, were there nothing in in-
fants that required forgivenefs and mercy, the
grace of baptifm might feem fuperfluousf."
And again : " Infants are baptized for the re-
miffion of fins. Of what fins ? Or when have
they finned ? Or how, in the cafe of little
children, can any reafon of the laver [i. e. bap-
tifm] hold good; except according t© the fenfe
before mentioned ? No one is free from pol-
lution, tho' his life upon earth were but the
length of one day. And, becaufe by the facra-
ment of baptifm our native pollutions are put
away, therefore it is that infants are baptized.
Vol. II. L For
* Monthly Keview> Vol. j.xxi, p. 213, -f Horn, viii, on LcTJt*
21 8 Obj^Siims and Evafions of Gh. 5.
For except a man be bom of water and the
fpirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of hea-
venj." And elfewhere: " The church hath
received the tradition from the apoftles, that
baptifm ought to be adminiftered to infants.
For they to whom the divine myfteries were
committed know that there were in all, thofe
natural defilements which muft be wafhed away
by water" and the fpirit*."
To thefe ftriking teftimonies Mr. B. excepts :
^^ It ought, however, to be obferved, that thofe
quotations are made, not from the Greek of
that celebrated Father, but from fuch Latin
verfions of his works as are very corrupt, and
confequently render it quite uncertain what was
his opinion in reference to that affair." In an-
fwer to which, let the following remarks of
Dr. Wall fuffice: " If there were found in
thefe tranflations of Origen but one or two
places, and thofe in Rufinus alone, that did
fpeak of infant baptifm ; there might have been
fufpicion of their being interpolations. But
when there are fo many of them, brought in
on feveral occafions, in tranflations made by fe-
veral men, who were of feveral parties and ene-
mies to one another, as St. Hierom and Ru-
finus were, and upon no temptation (for it is
certain that in their time there was no difpute
about infant baptifm) that they fhould be all
v/ilhout any reafon forged, is ahfurd to think.
Efpecially if we confider that thefe tranflators
lived
X Horn, xiv, in Lev, * Or ic, Comment, in Rom. Lib. v. cap. 6#
Ch. 5* Antlpcedohaptifls anfwered, 219
lived not much more than an hundred years af-
ter Origen's time; and the chriftians then
muft know whether Infants had been ufed to
be baptized in Origen's time, or not; the
very tradition from father to fon muft have
carried a memory of it for fo fhort a time.
And then, for them to make Or i gen fpeak
of a thing which all the world knew was not
in ufe in his time, muft have made them ri-
diculous. And befides; in the Greek remains
there are fentences and expreflions fo like and
parallel — that they do confirm thefe to hQ genu-
ine tranflations*." To this I fhall fubjoin the
following remark, as not very foreign to the
fubje(tl: " What Mr. Booth fays of Rufinus
makes but little againft the teftimony of Ori-
GEN ; which, by the way, is not confined to
thofe books that wei-e tranilated by Rufinus.
But if there were interpolations, why muft thofe
parages be the interpolated ones ? Where is
the mark of their fpurious birth f?" St. Je-
rome, if his own plain teftimony is to be cre-
dited, tranilated the Homilies on St. Luke with-
out alteration, and in a manner literally exadt.
But the pallage already quoted from this part
of Or I gen's works, is ahfolutely decifive^ that
INFANTS, as well as adults, were admitted
into the church of Chrift by baptism in his
time. And in proportion as Rufinus's tranf-
L 2 lation
• Wail's Defence, Appendix, p. u. alfo Hlftory, Pait J.
chap, V. § 4, 4-c.
t Monthly Rev, Vol, ixxi. p, -14,
220 ObjcSfions and Evafiom of Ch, 5.
lation is to be depended upon, it was the apof-
ties* praSiice^ and was continued in the catholic
church by their exprefs order. And we may
venture to appeal to any difpalTionate inquirer,
and impartial -judge upon the cafe, on fup-
pofition that this Tranflator did take liberties
ia fome points, whether it is not highly impro^
table that thefe liberties ihould be taken, by any
man pofleffed of a few grains of common
fenfe, in a matter of faSfy of fuch publick noto-
rieiy ? I^^ matters of mere opinion it is reafon-
able to fuppofe he might have indulged confi-
derable freedom ; fuch as, about the final punijh^
?nent of the wickedy &c. but fuppofe him as ex-
ceptionable a tranflator as Mr. B. would have
him; nay, fuppofe him guilty of interpolations
in fome fpeculative points ; ftill, it is utterly in-
credible he (hould venture to interpolate where
a notorious faSl was concerned ; and foift a falfe-
hood into the works of Or i gen under the eye
of Jerome, of whom he muft have been jea-
lous, and, indeed, in the face of the whole
chriftian world, without any apparent reafon for
fo doing. He that can believe it, let him.
& 6. As to Cyprian, who flouriflied about
an hundred and fifty years after the apoftles, his
writings are fo decifively clear and full to the
point, that neither fophifm, nor the fond love
of hypothefis, have had the courage to difpute
his verdi6l concerning the exiftence and wide
extent of Pcedobaptifm. He, therefore, and the
following Fathers of the church are generally
given
Ch. 5. AntipoedGhaptiJis anfwered* 21 1
given up, as incontejlihle. And fince Mr. B.'s
ohjeSi'ion does not extend to any of the chrif-
tian Fathers fubfequent to the time of Ori-
GEN, (tho* by the bye, he died but about
Jrjur years before Cyprian, the latter in A. D.
258, and the former about A, D. 254,) it is
not necelTary to produce their teftimonies. Suf-
fice it only to hint, for the fake of the lefs
inforiXied reader of thefe pages, that St. Cy-
prian gives us an account of a Council he'd
at Carthage A.-D. 253, where sixty-six bifh-
ops were convened ; that it was propofed to
this venerable afTembly, whether infants were to
be kept from baptifm till they were eight days
cldy as in the cafe of circumcifion, or might be
baptized fooner ? Without one diffenting voice,
a decretive anfwer was returned — That no in^
fant is to be prohibited from the benefit of
baptifm, tho' but just born. Not the lead
demur appears to have been made about the
lawful nefs, duty or propriety of baptizing infants^
but about the precife time of it as a (landing
cuftom ; which feems to have originated with
the fcrupulous Fidus, a country bifhop, when
thinking of the initiatory rite in the immediately
preceding difpenfation. About an hundred and
ftxty years after this council, a warm difput©
took place about original fm^ between St. Aus-
tin and Pelagius, which occafioned fomc
remarkable declarations concerning the baptizing
of infants, that otherwife might have never come
to light. Pelagius was pufhed hard by this
L 3 queftion
222 OhjeSllons and ^vafiom of Ch. 5.
queftion of Austin — " Why _ are infants bap-
tized for the remiffion of fins, if they have
none?" The former is confounded; he knows
not what to fay. But inftead of attempting to
difcard Poedobaptifm as unfcriptural, unapoftoli-
ca], or an unwarrantable innovation, which he
could not have failed to have done had it been
in his power ; he declares, " That he never
had heard, even any impious heretick, who
ftiould affert, that infants are not to be bap-
tized." And again: " Who can be lb impious
as to hinder infants from being baptized:"
And Austin fcruples not to fay, " That he
did not remember to have ever read of any,
not only in the catholic church but even in any
herefy or fch'ifm whatfoever, who maintained that
baptifm ought to be denied to infants. This
the church has always pofTeiTed, has always main-
tained." No, the bold Innovator on the ca-
tholic pradice, Tertullian, did not hold
that they were incapable^ or even unfmtable fab-
jecls, fo far as to render their baptifm a nuU
Uty, He only advifed to delay it, from the no-
tion that fin after baptifm was hardly pardon-
able ; and that the facred laver waihed away all
antecedent crimes.
Thus I think the objection is fairly folved :
If Pcedobaptifm be a matter of fight^ as before
prtved^ it is both charitable and reafonable to
conclude (cat. par.}- that the pureft antiquity
praSlifcd it ; and as nothing but the cleareft evi-
dence to the contrary flvould make us alter this
judgment.
Ch. 5» jintipcedobaptifis anfwered* 223
judgment, fo every degree of probability that it
was in fa£i obferved, is proportionably an evi-
dence, ex abundantiy over and above what is
ftridlly neceflary, in our favour.
§ 7. (4) Mr. B. has a chapter on, " The
high opinion of the Fathers, concerning the uti-
lity of Baptifm, and the grounds on which they
proceeded in adminiftering that ordinance to in-
fants, when Pcedobaptifm became the prevail-
ing practice;" v/hich may be conlidered as one
of his capital obje^iions. But as the main force
of it, (if force it has,) is already weakened by
what has been advanced in anfwer to the lafl
objection, our reply may be the more concife.
Our author obferves, that the earlier Fathers
had learned either to call baptifm " The water
of life — or had afcribed to it an illuminating
power^ and connefted adoption^ perfe£iion^ and /w-
mortality^ with it — or had pronounced it a di^
vine b/effingj which afcertains the abolition of fin^
and is attended with a fanStifying energy J"^ I
then afk, Is it reafonable to think, is it credi-
ble, is i: not abfolutely incredible^ that JusTil*
Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertul-
LiAN, an<l others, who ufed this language, did
a£iually and out of choice fufFer fuch children
as were at their difpofal, to die unbaptized \
The juftnefs of their motive is now out of the
queftion ; we inquire after the mofl probable
fact. Befides, not influenced by our oppo-
nents' maxim, " that pofitive laws imply their
negative,'* in reference to fome parts of their
L 4 chrifli a n
224 Ohjeiiions and Evafmis of Ch. 5,
chriftian worfhip, what could reftrain them from
applying that to the youngeji of mankind^ v;hich
they apprehended to be fo falutary and requi-
fite for ALL ?
" The baptifm of infants was introduced and
prevailed, on the fuppofition of its being a nc'^
cejjary mean of human happinefs : and — this
weak furmife was founded on a mifcake of our
Lord's meaning, in John iii. 5." It cannot be
denied, that " The ancient chriftian church,
from the highefl antiquity after the apoftolick
times, as Vitringa obferves, appears generally
to have thought, that baptifm is ahfoluiely necef-
fary for all that would be faved by the grace
of Jefus Chrift*j" but I deny that Pcedobap-
tifm arofe from that miftaken notion ; and
think it amounts to little fhort of demonftra-
tion, that the chriflian church ^^ from the higheji
antiquity'* adminiftered baptifm to the infant
part of the human race. But admitting this
opinion to be a miftaken one, in defence of
which John iii. 5. has been generally produced,
a queftion of confiderable moment arifes, viz.
How are we to account for fo extraordinary a
facl ? How came thefe venerable ancients, im-
mediately after the apoftolick times, thus to agree
in an interpretation of fo interefting a part of
holy writ, which is now exploded as indefenfi-
ble and abfurd ? On Antipcedobaptift principles,
I believe this muft appear an inexplicable pa-
radox. However, towards accounting for this
fmgular
* Obferv. Sac. Tom. J. Lib II. cap, vi, § 9,
Ch. S* jfntlpasdobaptlfis anfwered, 225
fingular phoenomenon ia the chriftian church,
I would fubmit to conlideration the following
remarks.
I. If John the Baptlft, our Lord, his difci-
ples and apoftles, did a^ually admit infants, and
dependent children, along with their parents,
to their baptifms j it is comparatively eafy to
account for the mifinterpretation : for then it
will be, at moft, only affigning an inadequate
caufe to an acknowledged fa£i. That is to fay,
either, one eflential reafon why^ according to
them, any under the gofpel difpenfation enter
into the kingdom, is, becaufe they are baptized
with water: Or elfe, one reajon of Pcedobap-
tifm is, its necejjity to falvation, according to
John iii. 5. Suppofmg, then, that the primi-
tive chriftians were all Pcedobaptifts, they would
probably thus refle6l : " We obferve that all
** chriftian families, and every member, both old
*' and young, male and female, are devoted to
" Father, Son, and Spirit, by baptifm ; this is
'^ a ftanding univerjal fa£i^ but what is the
'' principal caufe of it ? For, tho' fupported by
" precept and precedent^ tho* enjoined by the
" highejl authority,^ yet it muft be founded on
" fome important reajons. And feeing it is fo
univerfally adminiftered, may we not infer that
*' among other reafons afTignable for it, we arc
" to confider it as a necejfary mean of human
** happinefs ; efpecially fince our Lord fays. Ex*
*' cept one be born of water and the Spirit^ be
'^ cannot eritsr into the kingdom of heavgn," On
L 5 the
C(
226 ObjeSimis and Evafions of Ch. 5.
the other hand, fuppofing thefe ancients afled
on Antipoedobaptift principles, how (hall we
account for the Jluhhorn fa£i ? Would they not
rcafon to this effe6l ? " We lay this down as
a certain principle, becaufe plainly aflerted by
our Lord, that without being horn of water^
that is, baptized, no one can enter into hea^
ven under the prefent oeconomy. Therefore,
all our infant offspring, and children under age,
who are fummoned to eternity before they
make a perfonal application for the falutary
baptifmal rite, are inevitably— gloomy thought,
iiorrid fuppofition — are inevitably, and eternally
Joft ! Is this appointed by the God of Abra-
ham ? Is this authorized by the benevolent
Jefus ? ImpoiTible." But fhould it be faid,
that Antipoedobaptift principles have a direct
tendency to prevent the interpretation in quef-
tion. We reply, How, then, came it to be ac-
tually and fo univerfally embraced, immediately
after the apoftles' time ? It is but the effence
of folly to fet up mere hypothefis againft plain
fa6l. Nor can it be faid againft my argument
that Poedobaptifm was the genuine parent, but
the innocent occafion, of the erroneous fentiment
in queftion. For we, as well as our opponents,
dKcard and confiftently explode the latter. The
adminiftration of baptifm to infants as well as
adults, may afford the occafion, but is not the
real caufey why it may be thought of univerfal
neceflity.
2. The exa£l leading idea in the contro-
verted
Ch. 5« ji7JtlpcedobapttJ}s anfwered. 227
verted text, appears to me to be this : '' Some^
thing more than water baptifm^ is neceflary for
the happy enjoyment of the fpiritual bleflings
and glories of my kingdom ; and that is a fpi-
ritual baptifm^ or the renewing influences and
efFeds of the Holy Spirit, which may be termed
a fupernatural birth." Let it be obferved, that
at this very time John's extraordinary purifica^
tion muft have made a great noife in Jerufa-
lem ; and what it fignified^ muft have been a
common topick of converfation. It cannot alfo
be reafonably doubted, that Nicodemus wi(hed
to procure a particular account of thofe things
about which men were fo much divided in
their opinions: for, as Dr. Doddridge ob-
ferves, " Our Lord's anfwer intimates, that he
either exprefsly made, or fecretly intended fuch
an inquiry : and it is impoflible to enter into
the beauty of this difcourfe, without confider-
ing it in this view*.'' And accordingly, this in-
quifitive Pharifee is given to uriderftand, that
the much talked of purification by water^ tho'
divinely appointed and fo univerfally adminif-
tered, was not fufficient to conftitute a fubje6t of
his kingdom in the fpiritual and moft fublime
import of it. " Your being born within the
pale of the Jewifh church, as if he had faid,
conftituted you formerly, and this initiation by
water befpeaks you now, '^ the children of the
kingdom "in an external fenfe ; but fuper added
to this, and infinitely more important is the
L 6 ' confiderationj^
* Fam, Expof. in hi. Vol, i. Seft, 45,
228 ; 0})je£i'ions and Eva/tons of Ch 5.
confideration, you muft be the renovated fub-
jea of divine influences, before you can enter
as fubjeds of my inviftble kingdom. Ceremonial
obfervances may admit in the former fenfe, but
fandifying grace alone infures the latter privi-
lege." The paflage, therefore, is elliptical \ " Z7«-
lefs a man he horn not only of water ^ but also
ef the Spirit^ he cannot enter into the kingdom of
God:' The former claufe only implies, by way
of conceffion^ that water baptifm is very well
in its place ; but the emphafis of necejfity in
regard of the higher and fpiritual import of the
term kingdom, belongs only to the latter claufe,
with which the other is not fo much connedted
as contrafled.
Hence it appears, that this ancient opinion
is eaftly accounted for comparatively, if they did
baptize their children in the apoftolick age; by
their fuppofing the ja5i of Poedobaptifm to be
in a great meafure founded on the necejfity of
baptifm to falvation, which was rather ftrength-
ened than generated by a mifunderftanding of
this elliptical paflage. On the contrary^, fo early
a prevalence of this notion, if they did not
baptize their children, is incredible, and morally
impojftble-y becaufe connected with the moft gloo-
my and horrid idea; i. e. That all their bu-
ried infants were ^unavoidably lodged in endlefs
woe! And hence it alfo appears, that what
Mr. B. has advanced as a plaufible objedion
to- Poedobaptifm, proves a flrong argument in
fjtVQur of its , apoftolical antiquity.
§ 8. (5) Ano-
Ch. 5. Antlpcedohaptijli anfivered, 22()
§ 8. (5) Another objection, of which Mr.
B. often avails himfelf, is, " The diiagreement
of the modems concerning the grounds of Poe-
dobaptifm." In general, we reply; that the-
prefuraptive and probable reafons and grounds
for the pradice, have been always thought fo
numerous^ that it was difficult out of many to
fix upon the moji ftriking and folid. And this
is a natural confequence, arifing from the very
number of the mediums of proof. For it is
ever more difficult to chufe one out of many
things alike, than one out of a few. This alfo,
in a good meafure, accounts for the firmnefs
with which the condufton has been held by per-
fons who have difagreed about the coqiparative
importance of different arguments in this con-
troverfy. Each writer would be induced to
magnify and extol an argument which appeared
to him, viewed in certain conm£lions^ with fupe-
rior force ; and then by being difproportionately.
enamoured with the one convincing topick, might
be tempted to difcard all others as ufelefs.
Thus the famous Descartes, on a fubje(51: of
more awful importance, when he difcovered a
peculiar force in the argument for the Exijiencg
9f God which is founded on our idea of ^ifelf^
exijlent Beings feemed to regard as ufelefs all
other demonftrations againft Atheifm. And yet
this very argument, which he thought rendered
all others unnecefTary, was renounced by other
writers on the fame fubje6i:, as in its turn un-
necefTary alfo, while notwithftanding the fame
concliifidK
23<5 OhjeSfions and Eva/ions of Ch, 5.
conclufion was firmly and properly held. Bat
more particularly,
J. Some have laid confulerable flrefs on
« Jewijh Profelyte bapufm^:' But Mr. B. fays,
" There is no appearance, in the New Tefta-
ment, of this profelyte baptifm, but ftrong pre-
fumptive proof to the contrary." Not to enter
far into this inquiry, How foon did the profelyte
baptifm take place ? I would only fay, in the
language of Dr. Doddridge, who exactly ex-
prefles my thoughts -, " It is ftrange to me,
that any fhould doubt whether Profelytes were
admitted into the Jewifh church by baptifm,
that is, by ^vajhing-, when it is plain from ex-
prefs paflages in the Jewifh law, that no Jew,
who had lived hke a Gentile for one fmgle
day, could be reftored to the communion of
their church without it. Compare Numb. xix.
ici, 20. and many other precepts relating to
ceremonial pollutions ; by which the Jews were
rendered incapable of appearing before God in
the tabernacle or temple, till they were wajhedy
cither by bathing or fprinkling \ J*' And even
Dr. Gill allows that there Were baptifms among
the Jews for ceremonial wicleannefs -, and was
particularly uled in the cafe of fuch as had been
newly profelyted from heathenifm^ before they
could eat of the pafTover. He then adds : " Be-
fides, this baptijm — was not on account of pro-
felytifm, but was common to, and obligatory
upon
♦ Pcedobi Exam, chap, xi. Seft. L J>apm, \ Fain. Expof*
Vol. i. Seft. 25,
Ch, 5» Antiposdohapulis anjwend, 271
upon, a clrcumcifed Ifrieuti, in order to eat
of the paflbver ; as is avrknowledged by all'j:."
And again: " There v^re divers bathings, bap-
tifms — incumbent on the Ilraehtes, and (b upon
fuch Profelytes who were upon an equal tooting
with them, and equallv under obligation to obey
the ceremonial law; which confifted of divers
wafhings, baptiims, — yet none of them for Pro*
felytifm ; but for purification from one unciean-
nefs or another, in a ceremonial fenfe*/' So
then, it is an acknowledged fadl that baptifmal
purification was familiarly known to the Jews,
"when John the Baptift made his appearance,
and for many ages before. Should a doubt of
this fa6l ftill remain, Dr. Gale ftands readj
to remove it ; " That the Jews, fays he, on
account of feveral kinds of pollution, ufed to
purify themfelves by wajhing^ can not be quef-
tioned ; the diverfe wajhings [Gr. haptifms\ men-
tioned in the epiftle to the Hebrews (chap, ix,
10.), make it inconteftible. And it is plain
enough, that upon fome fuch notion, they were
wafhed after the fore of circumcifion was heal-
ed f." Therefore it appears with fuperior evi*
dence, from the teftimony of thefe competent
and unexceptionable witnefles, that baptifm was
well known, as a ceremonial, purifying rite, pri-
or to the chriftian sera ; confequently.- our Lord
appointed a ceremony which was in ufe before^
as .
X Body of Div, Vol. iii. p. 47 J« * lb. p. 4$i«
•f Refleftions on Wali., p« 328.
Ch. 5. ObjeSi'ions and Eva/tans of 232
as 2L/eal of the covenant to be applied to all
who are initiated into his church. Now it is
evident that thefe two things were of long
{landing, and by divine authority, among the
Jews, viz. Profelytifm and Baptifm, But they
were not conne6ledy fay our opponents; well,
fuppoHng they were not (which yet admits of
debate), is it reafonable to conclude {cat, par,)
that infants are not to be admitted profelytes,
lecaufe the ceremony of initiation is changed?
Infants were always admitted to the church
with their parents ; and we infift, that the an-
cient cuftom, as to the fubjeSfs^ is neither ex^
pre/sly nor virtually altered in the New Tefta-
ment ; and therefore fhould be ftill admitted.
The ceremony of admiffion into the church is
indeed altered by our Lord's pofitive authority,
Profelyte all nations baptizing them-, and to
this we fincerely fubmit. Nor Jet our oppof-
jng brethren, we intreat them, call our fmce-
rity in queftion for their own fake, (Matt,
vii. I, 2.)
2. Others have ftrongly urged " external
covenant relation*,^' Mr. B. takes great pains
to fhew how various and inconfiflent are the
accounts given us by different Poedobaptift au-
thors ; but he feems fomewhat cautious, how he
denies the exiftence of an external covenant. No,
wc infift it is not in his power to deny, and
to fupport the denial, that it does not exift.
1 think it would be no hard matter to (hew,
that fuch a covenant as may be properly cal-
led
♦ Padob. ExaxM, Chap, xi, Sc£t, II, ^ajim.
Ch. 5. Antlpcedohaptffh anfwered,. 233
Jed an external one, exifting in the prefent day,
is no lefs truly and demonftrably connected with
the Old and New Teftament, than Euclid's
Ql E. D. is fo conneaed with his Theorem.
" If, fays our author — we confider the offspring
of believers as interefted, not in the efficacy^
but in the adminift ration of the covenant —
where is that mighty difference, between the
ftate and prerogatives o'i fuch infants, and thofe
of children in common, who are brought up
where the means of religious inflruclion are en-
joyed ?" We retort ; Where is the mighty dif-^
ference between baptized and unbaptized adults*
And do we ever deny, that the children of Antipce-
dobaptifts are in the adminijlratlon of the covenant ?
But this we are forry to add, that they are un-
jujily deprived ot the fed of that adminiflration,
" What is the external adminiftration of the
covenant, but the benign condudl of Providence,
in affording a written revelation, a gofpel mi-
niftry, and other means of fpiritual informa-
tion ?" True, and confequently baptifm. God*s
covenant to man, as before (hewn at large, is
z grant of mercy to him as a finner deferving
eternal woe. The grant, which baptifm feals,
is extenfive as the gofpel found, on the part of
God; but man's fubjective, participated interejl
therein, muft have its denomination, its kind
and degree, according to the reception and treat*
ment God's covenant grant meets with. A fpi-
ritual reception, (efTedted by fovereign grace)
infures a fpiritual fubjedtive, or aduaily partici-
pated
234 Olje^ions and Evafwns of Ch, 5.
pated, intereft. A profejjtonal reception, infures
an external intereft. The nature and degree
of the reception or treatment the grant meets
vith, infallibly afcertains the nature and degree
of the poffejfion. Now the things that are re-
vealed^ particularly God's covenant, and if the
covenant, the feal annexed to it, belong to us
and to our children for ever. ( Deut. xxix»
29.) Our children as Vvell as ourfelves are
the obje^s of this grant ; their paffroe reception,
or 7wn-refjlance of the exhibited Itnercy, fliews
they have not forfeited the grant ; therefore, to
deem the grant theirs is but right; to allow
that the covenant belongs^ or is directed to them^
is but according to truth j and therefore, it ir-
rcfragably follows, the feal is theirs. For the
feal is given in confirmation of the promife, or
external grants and not the internal pojfeffwn of
covenant mercy. Confequently, a parent who
takes the feal to himfelf, and withholds it from
his child, who is equally «n object of the
grant and whatever confirms it, when no per-
fonal forfeiture is fuppofed, is guilty of ir^juf-^
tlce.
3. Some have pleaded in favour of Pcedobap-
tifm '' Jew'iJ}} circumcfon'^.^* How far the
topick of Circumcficn may be pertinently and
conclufively pleaded in this debate, has been
incidentally mentioned before; (chap, ii, § 32.
35. chap. iii. § 5, &c.) nor does it now re-
quire many wordo. For thus much is felf-
evident,
• Pffdobt Exam, chap. xi. Seft, III, pagrn^
Ch. 5» Antipcedohaptijls anjwered, 235
evident, (and it is fufficient for my purpofe,)
that Infants, during the long period from
Abraham to Chrift, were suitable objects
of a covenant grant; and capable subjects
of a covenant feal. And I may add, the grant
fealcd was " the rlghteoufnefs of faith," a fpU
ritual blefling; no lefs fpiritual than is now
exhibited under the gofpel, being, in fait,
virtually the fame as what Peter calls a pro-
mife^ when he fays. Ads ii. 39, The promife is
unto you^ and to your children ; not becaufe you
repent, but as your, encouragement to repent.
The Lord proclaims himfelf our God^ and gives
us his covenant and the feal of it, that we —
being drawn by thefe cords of love, and con-
defcenfion to human weaknefs, in a rational
and fuitable manner— might be induced to be-
come his people. To this end is infant cir-
cumcifion, and to this end is infant baptifm,
eminently fubfervient. To fay that baptifm is
a fuccedaneum for, or comes in the room of
circumcifion, is, perhaps, an exceptionable way
of dating the matter. But this we muft main-
tain, that what circumcifion eminently fealed^
under the law^ baptifm feah under the go/pel-,
and this appears from a comparative view of
fcripture teflimonies concerning the nature and
defign of each.
§ 9- (6) It is again objeded, ^« If infants
have a right to baptifm, they muft have a right
to the facred fupper ; and if they are admitted
to the former, they ought to be admitted to
the
236 Obje^ions and Evafions of Ch. 5,
the latter, if we would preferve confiftency*."
That this is an obje6tion of very great mo-
ment in Mr. B/s efleem, appears not only
from the frequent mention he makes of it, in
different parts of his publication, but alfo from
his devoting a whole chapter to urge it. There-
fore a becoming refpecSt for my opponent, de-
mands from me a particular examination of
its force. Not to fay, that Dr. Priestley
has written profefTedly in favour of " Giving
the Lord's Supper to children," which may be
deemed by fome, independent of his reafonlng^
a mighty argument in favour of the practice —
the following bold challenge is alone fuihcient
to juftify a clofe and impartial inquiry into
this matter: " The tenour of his argumea-
tation," fays Mr. B. when fpeaking of--Mr.
Peirce's publication on the fubje6i:, " is fuch^ as
may fnfely ch-alknge the united efforts of our
oppofers fairly to confute it, without fapping
the foundations of infant baptifm. Nor, indeed,
have I as yet heard of any profelTed anfwer
that was ever attempted ; tho' the caufe of Poe-
dobaptifm feems to require it, and tho* tlie
character of Mr. Peirce, for learning and parts,
may be juftly confidered as a motive to fuch
an attempt. For as the learned author grafts
infant communion on the principles of infant
baptifm, and in a mafterly way infifts upon it,
that thofe principles infer the Jormer as well as
the latter ; our opponents cannot be infenfible^
that
* Sec Pcedob. Exam, chap, xii, pajm.
Ch. 5« Aniipcedobaptijis anfwered* 237
that a thorough confutation of his Ejfay would
be of great importance to tlieir caufe, when
difputing with us. Were we to behold the
Pcedobaptift hypothecs fairly and intirely divorced
from its old allbciate, Infant communion ; that being
confirmed, while thh is confuted ; one great im-
pediment would be removed out of the way of
our commencing Poedobaptifts. — Now, to what an
extent analogical reafoning and inferential proof
may be purfued, in regard to pofitive inftitutions,
and for the fupport of error^ Mr. Peirce has given
us a ftriking inftance — fuch an inftance, that
we defpair of feeing his arguments really an-
fwered, on any principles but thofe of a Bap-
tift. If our opponents, however, be otherwife
minded, we (hould be glad to fee a trial of
their ftrength, by labouring to confute him on
the principles of Poedobaptifm*." This chal-
lenge I accept on Pcedobaptift principles. And
the rather, becaufe if I fucceed in refuting the
arguments of Mr. Peirce, I fhall by the fame
means anfwer the ohjeBlon of Mr. B. and what
is more, " one great impediment will be re-
moved out of the way of his commencing a
Pcedobaptift!''
Let it be premifed, that Mr. B.'s objection
in efFeifl, confifts of two parts ; the firji refers
to the fuppofed inconfiftency of the Poedobap-
tifts, as to their own condu£i:, while adopting
the one practice and reje6ting the other.; and
the fecond refers to the impertinence of thofe who
tipd
• P«dob, Exam. p« 438, 442, 4431
23^ OhjeSfions and Evajions of Ch. 5,
find fault with the Antipcedobaptifts for not
baptizing infants, while they do not give the eu-
charift to their own when baptized. Accord-
ing to the former^ we diftinguifh where there
is no difference, and act without reafon ; in
virtue of tl^ latter^ we juftify the conduct of
our opponents. The diredt reply, therefore, to
the firft part is, that we do not diftinguifli
without reafon ; and as to the fecond, that fup-
pofing our condu6t to be wrongs it does not
follow theirs is right. For fuppofe we both
were in the wrong? Befides, Mr. B.'s rejec-
tion of infant baptifm, and my rejedion of in-
fant communion, are not parallel cafes ; for the
queftion is, in what refpecSls, and to what de-
gree, do we reje6l them refpedively ? Mr. B.
rejeds the former as a nullity-y I reject the lat-
ter only as an impropriety. Were he, therefore,
to grant as much in favour of infant baptifm,
as I am willing to grant in favour of infant
communion, our controverfy would be at an end.
The ftate of the queftion would then be tranf-
ferred from what is effential^ to what is merely
preferable. It only remains, then, that we clear
ourfelves from the charge of inconffiency \ v^hich
I fl^all attempt to do in anfwer to the argu-
ments of Mr. P£iRC£, as tranfcribed by Mr.
^ B*.
S>§ 10. His lirft argument, as a general in-
trodudtion, is taken from antiquity^ thus : " The
practice of giving the euchanft to children is
.at
• lb. p. 4*7—43 ^»
Ch. 5. Antiposdohaptijls anjiv^red, ^39
at this day, and has been for many ages pajly
ufed in the Greek: churches, which are not of
the Roman communion. — 'Tis highly probable
this had been the practice of the chriftian
church from the apoftles' time — We have no
account of the rife of this cuftom — The very
filence of antiquity is a ftrong argument, they
admitted infants to the Lord's fupper as well
as to baptifm." We will admit thefe afTertions
without further examination ; and grant, by the
way, that from this very account, Ccat, par.)
there is more to be urged in favour of infant
communion, than againfi infant baptifm.
But the argument from antiquity, in either
cafe, can operate no further, in fl:ridl:nefs, than
to confirm a faSi-^ and not to prove a rights
The mere ex'iftence of a rite or cuftom, even
from the apoftles' time, can of itfelf conclude
nothing, Theiefore, our appeal to antiquity,
in the cafe of bapnfm, is not to eftablilh pofi'-
the proofs but by way oi f elf -defence. We there-
by (hew that our practice is not fo deftitute of
ancient precedents as our antagonifts pretend ;
and, being confirmed to be according to the
will and intention of Chrift from other confi-
derations, we ought to conclude that it was
the univerfal pradlice, where no pofitive coun-
ter-evidence appears. Our author's proving, that
infants have be£n^ or now are^ admitted to the
facred fupper, is no proof that they ought to be.
Lfit us, then, come to his formal linethod of
proving,
'' The
240 ObjeSfioni and Evafmis of Ch. 5.
« The baptiftn and communion of infants,
fays he, (land upon the fame foot-, and there-
fore they who admit the one, ought to admit the
other alfo. For the confirming of this argu-
ment I will (hew, Firft, that the fame reafom
which are brought for infant baptifm, are m
like manner applicable to infant communion.
Secondly, That the ohjeaiom againft infant
communion will admit of the fame anfwers, as
thofe againft infant baptifm." Let us now ex-
amine his particular arguments.
I. The firft is founded on the relative holt-
nefs of infants. " One ftrong argument for in-
fant-baptifm is taken from the words of the
apoftle, I Cor. vii. 14.— But I defire only a
reafon, why this will not as well prove infants'
right to the eucharift, as to baptifm." In an-
fwer to this let it be obferved,
(i) That relative holinefs admits o£ degrees y
for being founded on relation, it muft be fought
from the degree of that relation. To be the
objeas of a covenant grant, as the gentile
world at large; as thofe to whom the word
of falvation is adually fent ; as the family of a
chriftian houfeholder ; as a baptized perfon; as
an aaual member of a chriftian congregation,
&c. all denote different degrees of relative ho-
f^ lincfs. Now, . ,
(2) What both the ordinances in queltion
require, as a qualification in their refpeaive can-
dididates, is that degree of relative holinefs
^hich is necelTary and fukabU to their refpec-
live nature and defigns.
(3) Bap-
Ch. 5. Jntlpcedobaptt/is anfwered* 241
(3) Baptism ftands related to the body of
vifible chriftians at large. Now that infants are
fuitably qualified for this relation has been
proved, and is demonjlrahle from their former
actual church memberlhip and circumcifion, by
the appointment of unerring wifdom. But
(4) The euchari/iic rite is applicable to thofe
mly who may be deemed proper fubjedls of
a particular churchy or chriftian congregation.
They ought to be firji baptized, it is true ;
but this alone is not a fufficient qualification.
For as Dr. Gill well obferves: " Baptifm —
is not a church-ordinance ; I mean it is not
an ordinance adminiftered in the churchy but
cut of it, and in order to admifTion into it, and
communion with it ; it is preparatory to it, and
a qualification for it ; it does not make a perfon
a member of a church, or admit him into 2
vifible church ; perfons muft firft be baptized,
and then added to the church, as the three
thoufand converts were; a church has nothing
to do with the baptifm of any, but to be fa-
tisficd they are to be baptized before they are
admitted into communion with it. AdmifTion
to baptifm lies folely in the breail of the admi-
niflrator, who is the only judge of qualifications
for it, and has the folc power of receiving to
it, and of rejefling from it ; if not fatisfied, he
may rejecl a perfon thought fit by a church,
and admit a perfon to baptifm not thought fit
by a church. — Saul, when converted, was im-
M mediately
242 Obje^ltons and Evaftons of Ch. 5.
mediately baptized by Ananias, without any
previous knowledge and confent of the church ;
and it was many days after this, that he pro-
pofed to join himfelf to the difciples, and was
received, A6ts ix. 18, 19, 23, 26 — 28*.'* From
thefe obvious and neceflary diftinflions, about
admiflion to baptifm, and admifTion to particu-
lar church-memberfliip, it follows that perfons
before baptifm, ftand in one degree of relation to
Chrift, or relative holinefs ; that the fame perfons
after baptifm, fland in another degree ; and. that
the very fame when admitted into adlual church-
memberfhip, ftand yet in another. Now I f^y,
that infants are capMe of the two former de-
grees, and therefore ought to be baptized ; but
are not capable of the latter, that is, do not
anfwer its nature and defign, and therefore
ought not to be admitted to it. For
(5) Though the ground of right to baptifm
and the eucharift be the fame, in a fcederal
fenfe, yet the capability^ qualijication^ and fuitable-
nefs^ are different; arifing from the different na-
ture and defign of the two ordinances. Thus
if a parent prefent himfelf and his infant child
to baptifm^ which " a church," as Dr. Gill
obferves, " has nothing to do with," we main-
tain it is the minifler's duty to baptize both»
Why? Becaufe the covenant right is the
fame to parent and child ; and the nature of the
ordinance is a feal of the firji promife^ or a con-
firming token of initiation into that ftate where-
in
• Body of Div, Vol, iii, p. 311, 31*.
Ch. 5. Jntipcedohaptljh anjwered,, 243
in we may fay, the Lord is our God, and we
are his people;'* and of this ftate the child is
equally capable as the parent. Thus far they
are on a level ; the fubjeSfive fuitabknefs being
found in each alike. But let the fame parent
and infant apply to a particular churchy and the
cafe itfelf alters j the fundamental ground of ad-
miffion is different 'y there is a de'^ree of relative
holinefs of which the parent is capable, and of
which the child is incapable, neceffary for fuch
admifRon. The reafon why the parent is admit-
ted, is not merely becaufe it is baptized^ nor yet
becaufe it has a covenant right to all gofpel
privileges as baptized \ but becaufe it pofTeffes,
over and above the fcederal and ceremonial, a
NATURAL fuitabknefs to enter on this higheft
degree of relation. When, therefore, the infant
is rejected, it is not for want of a fcederal and
ceremonial qualification, but for a natural incapacity^
a perfonal unfuitablenefs^ to anfwer the nature and
principal end of a particular church member.—
Wherein this unfuitablenefs irr^mediately confifts,
muft be fought from the^4i^ture and defign of
a particular church, and which will be fhewn,
in anfwer to the following argument urged by
Mr. Peirce.
2. " I SEE no reafon why infants' right to
the eucharift may not, as well as their right
to baptifm, be pleaded, from their being mem-
bers of the vifible church, -^JJipon. what rea-
fon are feme of the members of the vifible
church, without any fault on their part, excJud-
M 2 cd
244 OhjeSflons and Eva/ions of Ch. 5,
ed from any of the privileges and advantages
which God has granted to his church in com-
mon ?" On which I obferve,
(i) That the divine grant of privileges and
advantages to each member of the vifible church,
is not limited, except by its capacity of enjoying
the fame. Now becaufe an infant is entitled^
in virtue of the grant, to every privilege, to-
gether with its parent ; does it thence follow,
that it is capable of all the privileges granted ?
The truth is, it is capable of jome of them,
but not of others. It is qualified to enjoy the
benefit of baptifm, but not the eucharift. Thus
an infant may be entitled to an eftate, but is
not qualified to take perfonal poffeflion and ma-
nagement. Or, a fcholar may be entitled to all
the privileges and advantages of a fchool ; but
does it thence follow that he is qualified for
the privilege of being in the higheft clafs?
When a Jewifh infant was circumcifed, he was
entitled to all the privileges of an Ifraelite ; but
was he, when only a few weeks old, capable of
enjoying them all? In fail, we overlook the
nature of privileges, if we conclude, that be-
caufe any thing is a privilege to one, it muft
be fo to another J for if there be no anfwer^
able qualification^ no fubjecSlive fuitablenefs^ no ca-
pacity of poflefling, it can be in thoje circum"
Jlances NO privilege. In like manner, tho' bap-
tifm be a privilege to an infant, being capable
of the benefit, as before fhewn at large; yet
the eucharift is no privilege^ for want of meet-
nefs
Ch. 5. Ant'ipcedobaptljls anjwered. 245
nefs to po/Tefs it. Now the queftion returns,
"wherein lies this want of meeinefs F In anfwering
this queflion, we are led to another obferva-
tion, viz.
(2) That the very nature and end of a
chriftian fociety, or particular church, to which
alone the eucharift ftands related, requires mutual
.cmjent and ajfijlance among the members. Its
very exiftence, properly fpeaking, arifes from the
need there is of mutual ajjlftance for edification,
to the glory of God, And> that fociety alone
anfwers the nature and main end of a particu-
lar church of Chrift, where this mutual affift-
ance is a5iually afforded. But infants are capa-
ble neither of perjonal confent^ nor perfonal af-
Jijlance ; and therefore are not fit for church-
memberfliip. The very light of nature teaches
that man is defigned for fociety ; and the nature
of that fociety is afcertained from the end pro-
pofed by it. Now revelation Ihews that the
end of a chr'tftian fociety is mutual chriftian edi-
fication in faith and love, holinefs and ufeful-
nefs; but the light of nature, as well as that
of revelation, makes it evident, that infants are
not capacitated for this end.
(3) That the eucharifiic ordinance belongs to
fuch a fociety, is almofl: felf-evident ; this the
names by which it is called, fupper^ communion^
Sec, (hew ; this the very words of the inftitu-
tion confirm. Matt. xxvi. 26 — 28. Mark xiv»
22 — 24. Luke xxii. 19, 20. i Cor. xi. 20 —
34. and this the original celebration of it tends
M 3 t®
246 Ohj colons and Evaftons of Ch. 5.
to corroborate. The fupper was adminiftered
to a feleSf company only^ and not to all the bap-
tized. Jefus gave the elements only to thofe
who might be called a particular church, of
which he himfelf was the condefcending Paftor ;
whereas there were numbers who had been ad-
mitted into the general vifible church who ne-
ver partook of them.
" The end for which our Lord infiituted this
duty," fays Bp. Hoadley, " was the remembrance
of himfelf ; that the breads to be taken and eaten,
was appointed to be the memorial of his body
broken ; and the wine to be drank, was ordained
to be the manorial of his blood (bed : or, according
to the exprefs words of St. Paul, that the one
was to be eaten, and the other to be drank,
in REMEMBRANCE cf Chrift J and this to be
continued, until He, who was once prefent with
his difciples, and is now abfent^ fhall come again.
— This remembrance is exprefsly mentioned, in
the original inftitution, by St. Luke ; and more
remarkably by St. Paul, as a part of the i/ifti-
futiony received by him from our Lord himfelf :
and ronfequently, it is this remembrance which
conftitutes the very nature of this holy rite
— without which, this part of chriftian fervice
ceafes to be what it was defigned to be by its
great Infhtutor : And indeed, v/e fo long only
keep to the original inllitution, whilft v;e con-
fider it as a rite to be ferioufly performed
IN remembrance of an abfent Saviour.
— Whoever therefore, in a ferious and reli-
gious
Cfi. 5. ^fitipcedobapiijis anfwered. 247
gious fenfe of his relation to Chrift, as his
difciple PERFORMS THESE ACTIONS of eating
bread and drinking wine, in remembrance of
Chriil, as of a Perfon corporally abfent from his
difciples, moft certainly performs them agreeably
to the end of the inftitution declared by Chrift
. himfelf, and his immediate difciples*." Wherefore,
(4) It is requifite that the chriftian com-
municant perforin an aSlion, Except he be fo
far a^ive as to eat bread and drink wine in
remembrance of Chrift, he does not anfwer the
nature and end of the inftitution. This is not
a mere circumjiance^ which is required of fome
and not of others, but an univerfal requifition.
On the contrary, it is plain that in baptifm
the adminiftrator alone is required to be adlively
engaged; however qualified the fubjedi: may be,
he is not, in the ordinance itfelf, required to
perform an a^lion^ but is wholly pajfive. Hence
It appears, that an infant of a day is equally
capable with an adult of receiving baptifm, where-
in he is pajfive ; but not fo with regard to the
eucharift, wherein he is required to perform an
aSlion, The one may be illuftrated by the rite
of circumcifion^ the other by that of the paJJ'over,
In the bloody rite, which was, like baptifm, an
ordinance of dedication^ and whereby the fubjecSfc
Vvas laid under obligations without his own
confent^ the receiver of the covenant fign, whe-
ther infant or adult, was only paffive; whereas
M 4 in
* Plain Account of the nature and end of the Lord's Supper,
F* 23, 28.
248 ObjeSikm and Evafiom of Ch, 5.
in the pafTover, which was an euchariftic ordi-
nance, or a rite eftablilh'ed in thankful remem-^
hrance of a fa6l, the parties were to perform an
a^ion. And this di(lin6lion arifes from the ve^^
ry nature and end of each. — From thefe confi-
derations it appears, that there is a good rea-
fcn aflignabie, why fame of the members of the
vifible church, without any fault on their part,,
are not admitted to the holy fupper. For to
be naturally unqualified, is no fault -^ znd to be
admitted to thatj for which we are not natu-
rally and properly qualified, would be, in h^y
no privilege,
3. Our author's next argument is founded
on covenant inter ejl : " Another plea for infant
baptifm, is their having an intereft in the new-
covenant. — And if their part in the covenant
will infer their right to one fealy why not to
the ether ? There is great need her£ of fome
very nice diJlin^ion\ or I cannot fee how we
ihall be able to urge the fame argument y
when 'tis brought to prove their right to one
facrament, and anfwer it when 'tis urged to
prove their right to partake of the other." I
care not about a diftin£tion being nicty pro-
vided it be a jujl one. And whether the fol-
lowing has not a claim on the latter charafler,
let the reader judge for himfelf.
The baptifinal feal, being a reprefentation of
a prefent and future good, certificth that God,
objectively, becomes to us a God ; in order that
we may become to him a people, of which
relation
Ch. 5* Antlpcedohapttfls anfwered* 249
relation and obligation infants are fuitable fub-
je6ls : But the euchariftic feal, as a memorial of
an qbfeJit Saviour, and a paji wonderful tranfac-^
iiony ceri'ifieth the truth of that tranfa6tion 5 in
$rder that the receiver, in his facial capacity, or
as a church member, may be edified in faith
and love, by his aSfual remembrance, of Chrift>
crucified for him, and by his aSiual performance
of the prefcribed duty ; and therefore infants are
not fuitable communicants. And yet, be it re-
membered, the bar of prohibition is not a
defcul of the foederal right, or ceremonial title,
but fuch a natural incapacity as renders what
is a privilege to others, no privilege to them.
4. Another argument is urged from " The
harfo and injurious treatment, of infants, implied
in their being refufed the facrament." But we
anfwer, that there is neither injury nor harjh^^
nefi implied in our refufing to give them what
, they are naturally unqualified to receive,, and
what, therefore, is no privilege to them.. Where*
as, when we admit them to baptifm, they have
not only a feeder al right ^ but alfo a .. natural
fuitablenefe to the nature and defign of the in-
ilitution, pleadable and decifive in their favour.
5. Another argument is; ," Infants are ca-
pable of falvation, and therefore may receive
baptifm which is t\iQ. means of . falvation. And
why does not this - confequence as well hold to
their receiving the Lord's fupper, which is as
much a means of falvation, as baptifm V To
pray and ftng with the Spirit and the under-
M 5 Jlanding^
250 ObjeSfkm and Eva/tons of Ch. ^.
Jiandlng^ are means of grace ; yes, a$ much the
means of falvation as the eucharift : And why
are not infants admitted to enjoy thefe means
and privileges of falvation, to fmg and pray with
the fpirit and the underjlanding? The reafon
is evident ; they are not capable ; for the pri-
vilege requires the performance of a duty. In
like manner, to eat the Lord^s Jupper, implies
the performance of a religious duty, with the
exercife of the underftanding, judgment, and
memor}^, of which an infant is not capable.
6. " Another plea, adds our author, made,
life of for infant baptifm is, That fuch may
be devoted to God. And certainly, this is as
good a reafon for their partaking of the Lord s
fupper, as of baptifm ; fmce the one is as pro-
perly a devoting perfons to God^ as the other."
Surely this is inadvertently fpoken. A partake
ing of the euchar'ifi^ is a devoting perfons to God,
Pray, tvho devotes ? Is it the communicant him-
felf? Every worthy communicant, it is allowed,
does give up himfelf to his God and Saviour,
conftrained thereto at the remembrance of dying
love. But can an infant devote itfelf? Per-
haps it will be faid, the parent devotes his
infant child. 1 hat every truly chriftian parent
gives up his child to God, none can queliion ;
he gives him his own with gratitude, and with
becoming confidence in his promife. He gives
him up in his own praifes and prayers ; and
(may I at length add ?) ought ^ at leaft, to give
him to be ft apart to God, by the ordinance
of
Ch. 5. AnU-poedohapttJls anjwered, 251
of baptifm. But what idea can we form of
a parent devoting his infant child, in the very
a£i and reJpeSl of its own eating bread and
drinking wine in remembrance of Chrift, for its
prefent edification and comfort ! That a parent
fhould infi:ru(ft, direct, and encourage his child
to do his duty^ or embrace his privilege^ when it
appears that the euchariftic ordinance would be
really fuch to him, is both reafonable and
right. But how an infant's partaking of the
Lord's fupper fhould be the parent's devoting
it to God is, to me, inconceivable. Nor will
it mend the matter to. fay, that the minijier
does ; for what is there in the fetting apart or
in the diftribution of the elements, like devot-
ing the partaker Q^ them to God? Can the
miniiler do more than fend up his devout
wiflies to the Father of mercies for his gracious,
prefence and blefling to himfelf and. fellow com-
municants ; and fuggeft to them fuch confider-
ations, by a ferious addrefs, as may affift them
to difcliarge their own duty in a profitable man-
ner? And yet we are told it is " as properly
fo as baptifm." On the contrary, I infift that '
properly it is Jio devoting ordinance at all. Its.
proper nature is, an ordinance of thankful re--
membrane e ; and to fay that this may be done,
by an infatit is grofsly abfurd ; and again, to fay
that a parent may properly devote his- infant
child in fuch an ordinance, is the fame as to
fay, that he can properly perform impOflibilities
and contradidions. It is making one perfon's
M 6 ow?i
252 ObjeSfions and Evajions of Ch. 5.
own a5i and deed^ the ai5i and deed of another.
It is making an infant's eating bread and drink'^
ing wine in remembrance of Chrijiy to be the
fame thing as the parent's wijhing it to do fo.
It is a making of the communicant a^ive and
pajfwey at the fame time^ and in the fame re-
fpeSf, It is a parent's doing that for the child,,
v.'hich, on the fuppofition^ the latter does for
itfelf; which at the fame time, in reality, it
neither does nor can do. In fhort, it is a
pretending to perform impojjihilities by proxy!
But how different the nature of the bap-
tlfmal ordinance! Is not this properly an ordi^
nance of dedication ? Does it not neceilkrily im-
ply, the ceding of what we have a natural right
to ? Is it not a transferring of the fubjedl
from one relative ftate to another ? And is not
this applicable to an infant ; may he not be.
devoted by another as properly as. an adult? —
But as this is granted by Mr* Pjeirce, it needs
here no further proof.
7. " It has been argued, [from Luke xviii,
15, 16.] That Chrift is willing little children
(hould come to him ; that he is pleafed when
infants, who are not able to come themfelvcs,
are brought by others to him, that he may blefs
them. And who has been able to afTure thofe
who make ufe of this argument, that Chrift is
only willing to have them brought to him in
laptifm^ and not in the Lord* s fupper ? Is not
the giving them the eucharift, as folemn a way
of bringing them to Chrill, as the baptizing
them?"
Cli. 5* Antipoedohapttfti anfwtred, 25^
them ?*' It is fufficient to reply, That Chrift
is neither pleafed nor willing that parents fhould.
attempt what is properly i?npra£iicabU^. And.
furely an inaccejfible way^ cannot be an encou'
raging way, nor can a way. which implies fo.
many ahfurditlesy have any jufl: claim on y3/^»?«
nity. The obftru£tion primarily lies in- the «^-
iure of the things and therefore it argues neither
breach of duty in parents, nor reflects on the
will and pleafure of Chrift, not to bring them
to the Lord's Supper. But no fuch oblirudion
lies in their way to baptiCm, as before demon-
ftrated; (chap iii. § 5 — 10, &c.) and the fata
of circumcifion, inftituted by Jehovah, is an,
impregnable bulwark agaihft all arguments de-
duced from the natural incapacity of. infants, in
reference to their being hr ought and devoted to
God.
8. Finally: « 'Tis frequently alleged, fays
Mr. Peirce, that infants are difciples^ A<5ts
XV. 10. and therefore they ought, by baptifm,
to be inrolled as fuch, and to be folemnly in^
itiated to his difcipline. And certainly their re-
ceiving the^ Lord's fupptt* is as proper a tefti-
mony of tlieir continuing^ as their baptifm was
of their being initiated to. be his difciples."
Strange aflertion of fo refpedable a writer!
Might he not have as wellfaid, that becaufe a
child is initiated into a fchool, before he knows
the very letters of his mother tongue, his making
gmk mrcife is « as proper a teftimony of his
(ontmutng.
2C4 OhjeSllons and Evafiom of Ch. 5.
continuing^ as his entrance was of his being
initiated to be a fcholar !''
§ 12. " The ohje5liom againft infant com-
munion will admit of the fame anf-Wers" pro-
ceeds our author, "as thofe againft infant
baptifm." Let us not, however, take his bare
aflbrtion, but examine his evidence.
" The only objeitions which carry any ap-
pearance of weight in them, are taken from
their incapacity to perform fome a£ls wliich are
required in the adult communicants ; fuch as
remembering Chrift, dlfcerning the Lord's body,,
and previoufly examining the?nfelves. And juft
fuch, arguments may be and are alleged againft
infant baptifm. Infants are not capable of that
repentance and faith^ which are required in the
adult when they are baptized. And the fanu
kind of anfwer will ferve in both cafes." Then
I am exceedingly miftaken. One. remark, how-
ever, might be^fficient to fhew, that our author
was not free of midake in the matter j viz.
That the incapacity^ in the one cafe, is an ef
feyjtial bar, a defeat which admits of no ade-
quate remedy ; but that the mcapacity^ in the
other cafe, is no real incapacity, is only a 7neye
circumjlancc^ and, therefore wants no remedial
aid. Our opponent does not pxelend that the
want of faith and repentance is a juft reafon of
excluding infants from baptifm ; whereby he al-
lows, that it is not the very nature of baptifra
that requires thefe qualifications, but merely
the Qtraumflantkl dijference of the fubjecl. On
the
Chi 5» Ant'tpoedohaptyis anfwered. 255
the contrary, I maintain, that the very nature
of the eucharift requires eating bread and drink-
ing wine in rememhrance of Chriji -, that remem^
hering Chrift, difcerning the Lord's body, and
-previous felf-examination^ are effential quahfications
of a worthy communicant, of which an infant
is incapable.
" I SHOULD be glad to know of thofe Pcedo^
baptifts, who go on the contrary fuppofition,
zvhat communion they admit infants to,, when they
baptize them ? What one privilege in the cliurch
do they admit them ta?" I anfwer j Into the
jhme communion as that into which John the
Baptift, our Lord and his difciples, admitted
thofe multitudes they baptized- And I fuppofe
it will not be faid, that their baptifm was no
privilege becaufe they were not admitted to. ccr
Jebrate the holy fupper. What communion ?
Purely not into any one particular chriflian fo-
ciety, which is founded on mutual engage-
ments. Such a church, as Dr. Gill well ob-
ferves, '*• has nothing to do with the baptifm of
any 5" nor has baptifm any thing to do with
it. The communion^ then, is that of the whole
chriflian church at large, as diftinguifh^jd from
Jews, Mahometans, Heathens, &qr What pri-
vilege ? 1 anfwer, ia the words of Paul, " Much,
every way; chiefly, becaufe that unto them are
committed the oracles of God. For what if
fome do not believe ; fhall their unbelief make
the faith of God without efFecSi: ? God forbid."
The promife is their's} liwii^ in covenant right-^
EVERY
2$^ ObjeSiions and Eva/ions of Ch. 5,
E.V'ERY PRIVILEGE thereunto belonging, of which
they are capable and fuitable fubjedts. " The
PROMISE, then, fays Dr. Owen, as it hath
the nature of a covenant^ including the grace
that God would fhew unto linners in the MefTiah,
and the obedience that he required from them,
was from the firft giving of it, the foundation
of the churchy and the whole worfliip of God
♦therein. Unto thii churchy fo founded and
built on this covenant- — were all the following
fronufes and the privileges exhibited in them,
given and annexed. Neither hath, or ever had ,
any individual perfon, any fpiritual right unto
— thofe promifes or privileges, whatever his
outward condition were, but only by virtue of
his memherjhip in the church built on the cove-^
nant, whereunto, as we faid, they do all ap-
pertain.— Wherefoever this covenant is, and with
whomfoever it is eftablilhed, with th^m is ths
churchy unto whom all th^ promifes and privileges
of the church do belong. Hence it was, that
at the coming of the Meffiah there was not one
church taken away, and another fet up in the •
room thereof— The Chriflian church is not ano-^
ther church, but the very fame that was before
the coming of Chrift. — TliQ promifes of the Old
Teftament are all made unto the church. No
individual perfon hath any intereft in them, but
by virtue of his memherjhip therewith.- — And
among thofe promifes this is one,, that. God will
be A God unto them and their seed for
EVER*." Thefe remarks, with a little expla-
nation,
♦ Dr, Ow£N on the Heb» Vol, I, p. 54—574
CIl. 5. Jntipcsdobaptl/fs anfivered, 257
nation, exprefs my meaning with regard to the
church communion^ and the church privileges^ to
which infants are introduced by baptifm. I
would not be underftood to mean, that \hQ firji
promife^ or gofpel grant, is not addrefled to any
until they become members of the gofpel church,
whereas it muft be in virtue of this promifi
that any who are afar ojf have a rational induce-
ment, and folid foundation, for joining themfelves-
unto the church. And yet, all the fubfequent
pro?nifes and annexed privilegeSy can belong im-
mediately to none but the oBual members of the
. church. And there is not any privilege, really
fuch, which does not fcederally belong to bap-
tized infants ; and if we do not admit fuch to
the facred fupper, it is becaufe that would be
no real privilege to them, which their baptifm.
demonflrably is.
Thus I have accepted Mr. B.'s challenge,
and attempted " fairly to confute" the arguments
and ohjeaions of Tvlr. Peirce, " without fap-
ping the foundations of Infant baptifm ;" and
while thefe (land fecurely firm. How far this
is done with, fuccefs^ whofe arguments wxigh
heavieji in the fcales of impartiality, I chearfully
refer to thofe who are pofleiTed of thofe inva-
luable fcales.
% 13, It may be obje(?l:ed, " If baptifm feals
" nothing more than a bare exhibition of fpi-
" ritual bleflings, what benefit can that be to
« infants ?" In reply to this let it be ob-
ferved,
I. That
258 Ohjecilons and Ewfions of Ch. 5. "
1. That the fealing of baptlfm is of the
fayne nature with the gofpel itfelf, which, it is
allowed, is the annunciation, or hare exhibition
of mercy and grace. — Therefore, if the gofpel
be a mercy, baptifm muft be fo ; and the de-^
gree of the fuppofed benefit, is in proportion to
that of a feal fuperadded to a legal inflrument.
The former witliout the latter is of no ufe ;
but when added to it, increafes its value: not
as importing fomething different ; but certifying
more llrongly the fame thing. And' as the moil
glorious difplays of falvation do not, of them-
felves, give to any a fuhjcSiive certainty, where^
by tliey may conclude themfelves perfonally
pofltfTed of it j but only an objective ground of
afTurance, whereby they are encouraged to accept
* of it, as defigned for their ufe : So is the nature
of the fealing. Confequenlly, if the melTage of
falvation be a bleliing, the fealing of that mef-
fage is an additional bleffing.
2. If the gofpel and the means of grace in
their bare exhibition, be any benefit to nations
and families, they muft be fo to infants as a part
of them ; and, for the fame reafon, baptifm
too. For if the glad tidings of falvation, in a
fettled minifiry, be a benefit, fo is God's fuper-
added fealing of thofe tidings.
3. As the miniftry of reconciliation is a blef-
fing, independent of our cflimation of it, fo is
tlie confirming token of that minifiry. For who
thinks to meafure the benevolent conduct of
the Deity, and the merciful dcfigns of his pro«
vidence,
Ch. 5. Jniiposdohaptifis anfvjered, 259
vidence, by their reception and improvement
among men ?
4. If the external {landing evidences of chrtf-
tianity be a benefit, in their bare exhibition,
baptifm muft be fo likewife \ as it may be juft-
ly ranked among thofe evidences.
5. Whatever tends to explain the nature
and to enforce the authority of gofpel truths,
muft be a benefit in its mere exhibition; but
this baptifm does from its very nature to every
capable fubjea-, and therefore is a benefit to
baptised infants, who, it is demonllrable, are
fuch.
6. Whatever has a juft claim on the
grateful acknowledgments of adults, for what
they enjoyed in infancy, muft be a benefit;
but what well-informed perfon is not thankful
that he was born under a difpenfation of mercy;
under the chriftian in preference to any other ;
in a country, and efpecially in a family, where
true religion was knov/n, praflifed and incul-
cated? But if this be true, who fees not that
baptifm, fince it is God's confirming- feal to
the truth and contents of the gofpel, is a
benefit, on fuppofition that it only exhibits the
bleflings reprefented by it*.
§ 14. It may be objeaed, « If there be a
" fuitablenefs in infants, as fuch^ to the rite of
" baptifm, (carnal defcent making no difference
« in their moral ftate) by what rule (hall we
" determine
♦ See Edwards on Original Sin, p, 441. and Dr. Taylor's
Scripture Doariiie of Original Sjii, p» 72, 73. Supplement,
26o Ohjc6iions and Eva/tons of Ch. 5.
'*• determine, what chlUren to baptize and what
" not? Or rather, if it be a benefit to all
" thofe who are capable, and all infants are
'' fuppofed fuch, therefore it would be a great
*' charity in miniflers to baptize all they can ;
" and, inftead of condemning Roman miflio-
'' naries for their attempts to chrillianize the
" Heathens by baptizing them, parents and
" children, when fuppofed unqualified, Ihould
" we not commend their pious and charitable
" zeal ?" To this I anfwer, by obferving
I. That the law of nature is not to be
violated, nor the rights of nature, infringed^
without a pojitlve divine command. But were ~
miniOers, in the difcharge of their high com-
miflion, to preach the gofpel, to baptize, &C.
to adopt cQ??ipulfivi or fraudulent means ; this
law would be violated, and thefe rights infnng-
cd, while, on the fuppofition, they have no po- ,
fitive injunction for fo doing. That the preach-
ing of the gofpel^ and its eliablifliment among a
people, is a benefit to them, no chriftian I fup-
pofe will deny; but yet, lie wlio employs for
this purpofe compulfion and fraud, is a detefted
violator of the facred dictates of the Law of
Nature and of Nations. And as to that text
(Luke xiv. 23.) wliich has been urged as a.
pofitive command for fuch proceedings, we anfwer
it in the fame mamier as we do the Antipoedo-
baptifts ; pofitive duties^ when brought to counter^-
mand natural and moral ones, are no duties any
further than they arife from divine authority
'' plainly
Ch. 5» Antipcedohaptifis anfiuered. 26 1
" plainly binding and ftrongly commanding."
So that this pretended pofttive command is a
mere nihility^ becaufe we are not bound to take
the word compel as denoting external force^
tho' it were urged that the literal and primary
meaning favours that interpretation.
2. From what has been faid it follows, that
our influence over others, whether adults or in-
fants, can be no further than the Jaw of Na-
ture and of Nations admit of when no pofitivc
injun6lion is fuppofed. It is evident that by
a divine conftitution, parents have a right or
limited dominion over their children ; which
dominion they receive from God as a facred
depofit, or an important talent to be improved
for their good. Nor is it in the power of any
man lawfully, to ufurp the parents* ^\2iQ^agatnJi
his confent {cat, par ) but this parental autho-
rity is capable of being transferred to another
than a real parent, by feveral ways. Whea
this transfer is jujlly and truly made, whether
explicitly or implicitly (for there are many af-
fignable inftances in which the latter cafe may
happen) then the adopter, guardian, truftee, &c,
of the child becomes, by univerfal confent, pof-
fefled of the fuppofed rights to be exercifed for
the benefit of his ward. And it is worthy of
remark, that this authority, wherever veft:ed, is
gradually dimin'ift)ed by the age, improvement,
&c. of the child, till it becomes nearly or in-
tirely extinSL
To illuftrate this matter, let us fuppofe a
perfon, ftanding in different relations to others,
is
262 Objeclions and Evafions of Ch. 5.
is come to a refolution of leaving: his na-
tive country, for the purpofe of colonizing ano-
ther far diftant. We will fuppofe, moreover)
that the country whither he is going abounds
with incomparably greater advantages and privi-
leges than what he leaves behind. Now the
queftion arifes, Whom fliall he take with him,
and whom fhall he leave behind ? In tliis cafe,
nature immediately dictates that, as he ought
not forcibly to compel his adult children and
fervants, or any other relations and dependants ;
fo he ought to take fuch as were in a ftate
of dependence on his determination, and efpe-
cially his infant children. He muft a6t an un-
natural part not to embrace fuch an, opportu-
nity of benefiting his child f ; and his conduct
muft be equally unnatural and culpable '1^ for-
cibly compelling others, in proportion as they
were in a capacity to judge for themf^lves*.
Perfe6ily analogous to this dictate of nature,
was
t 5ee X Tim. v. 8,
* ** In fevcral countries, in Spain and Portugal particularly,
their [the Jews'j children have been taken from them by order
of the government, to be educated in tlie Popifh religion. The
fourth council of Idedo ordered, that all their children fhould be
taken fnm them for fear they fhould partake cf their errors,
and that »hey ihould be fliut up in monafteries, to be inftrufted
in the chnlban truths. And vhen they were banifted from Tor-
tugal^ ** the king, fays Mariana, ordered all their children*
under fourteen years of age, to be taken from tliem and haptixed :
% practice not at all juftifiable," adds the h ftorian, " becaufe
none ought to be forced to become chriftians, nor ch Idren to be
taken from their parents," Bp, NiwTON'i Differt. on Pxophec.
Vol, 1. p. J04,
Ciu 5» AnUpoedohapi'iJis answered, 263
was the divine law concerning Profelytes to the
Jewifh religion ; and fince it is the voice of
nature and of nature's God, it behoves an ob-
jector to produce an exprefs undoubted contra-
vention from heaven, to influence chriflians to
a different pradice, when difcipling all nations
to chriftianity.
§ 15. It has been objected, " If we bap-
" tize all our infants, then we (hall have no
" adults to b'aptize."
But this objection amounts to no real force
at all, as it is evidently parallel with the fol-
lowing, which -iW muft allow is fufficiently
weak ; viz. '^ If we inculcate the principles of
^* chriftianity on the rifmg generation, we (hall
*' have no idolaters to convert j" for it is no-
torious, that the greateft part of chriftian con-
verts in the apoftolick age came to Chrift from
the bofom of idolatry. — However, we reply
more dire6lly, by obferving, that the objection
is grounded on a falfe fuppofition, viz. That
there is foraething more excellent in adult bap-
tifm than infant baptifm ; or more conformable
to the Inftitutor's intention. But what is this
clfe than to fuppofe that true which is difputed P
And as to the former branch of the fuppofkion,
be it obferved,
I. That we are under no obligation to ad-
mit this fuppofed fuperior excellency till we are
informed wherein its pretenfions confift. Is it
becaufe baptifm is to a baptized believer a feal
of the righteoufnefs of faith? So it is to a
baptized
264 Ohje£fJof2S afid Evafons of Ch. 5c
baptized infant; and we are bold to afRrm as
7nuch fo as to any believer that ever was bap-
tized. (See Lhap. II.) Is it bccaufe a be-
liever is, after baptifm, under folemn obliga-
tions ? So is every infant ? and, all things con*
f^dered, not lefs fo than any believer whatever.
On the contrary we infift, that the fooner a
benefit is enjoyed, the higher the obligation j
and this wc confider as more than equivalent
to any other fuppofed fuperior advantage what-
ever, which may be pleaded by our opponents.
2. Baptism being a feal of the covenant,
in the fame fenfe as circumcifion ; (Sec chap*
II.) were there any weight in the objection, it
would follow, that (fuppofing the pofitivenefs of
the command out of the queftion) adult circum-
cifion was more excellent and advantageous than
infant circumcifion. But will any affirm, except to
fupport a tottering caufe, that the moral and fpiritual
ufes of that inftruclive rite were better anfwer-
ed when fubmitted to by adult profelyres, than
when applied to infants? It is true there were,
in the former cafe, fome advantageous circum^
Jlances, The adult had an opportunity of tejii^
fying his aflent, belief, and fubmiflion. He had
the advantage of devout preparatlc7j^ by prayer
and fafting. And on the folemn occafion of
performing the duty, he was capable of rejieifiing
on its nature, defign and obligations. And, in
{hort, all his life after he could no lefs than
recoiled his perfonal engagements. But thefe
circumftances of partial advantage, were more
than
1
Ch. 5. AntipoedGhaptifls anfuuereif* 265
than counterbalanced by others appertaining to
infants. The latter, for inflance, had the im-
portant privilege of being much longer (their
age being equaF)^ vifibly, -related to God and
his people : And from infancy, had a legal
right to all the other church privileges as they
grew capable of them. To which we may add,
That initiatory rites, from their very nature, are
<3e{igned to influence every fuhfequent moment of
life, as well as the time of celebration f .
These things, therefore, duly confidered, we
are fo far from thinking the univerfal preva-
lency of applying baptifm to infants, in a chrif-
tian country, is a deviation from the real de-
fign of the divine Inftitutor ; that we cannot
help believing the commiflion he gave " to dif-
ciple all nations'* is eminently fulfilled therein.
And inftead of labouring to introduce an alter-
atioji in this refpe<5^, we cannot forbear earneftly
praying, that every fuch attempt may be fruf-
trated\ that miflionaries among the Heathens
may ever baptize their infant children with the
parents ; and that every nation on the face of
the globe may be thus difcipled *.
Vol. II. N Coroll.
"f See Pcedobaptifmus VinJxatus, p. 19.
♦ Agrkeable to this was the folemn dying wi/h of that
eiTiinently favoured fervant of Chrift, the Rev. Mr. Richard
Mather. This Gentleman and his family, being barbarou/ly
haunted by the daemon of pcrfecution in Old England^ after a
moft remarkable deJiveranre on the mighty waters, arrived in
Afw England, A. D. 163?, and the year following fixed at Dcr-
ibejlsr^ ** Being thus aga»n fettled in tlie Lord's woik, he therein
continued
266 ObjeSJions and Evafions of^ bfc, Ch. 5*
CorolL From the whole, we may infer, How
anreafonable and wrong it is for any particular
church to refufe memberfhip to any perfon merely
becaufe he was baptized in infancy^ or is a Poedo-
haptijl in principle; as alfo, becaufe one was
not plunged when he received the chriftian />«-
rification,
CHAP.
^inued to his dying day ; the Lord making him an eminent
blefling, not only to Dorcbejiery but to all the churches and plan-
tations round about him, for the fpace of almoft four and thirty
years. He did not fpeak much in his laft ficknefs, either to
friends that vifited him, or to his own children^ only his Son,
Mr. Samuel Mather, who was then a preacher in Bofion—-
coming to vifit his father, faid unto him. Sir, If there be any
fptcial thing which you would have me to do, in cafe the Lord
^ould fpare me upon the earth after you are in heaven, 1 would
entreat you to exprefs itg At which his father, making a little
paufe, and lifting up his eyes and hands towards heaven, replied:
♦* A (pedal thing which I would commend to you, is care con-
** cerning the rifing generation in this country, that they be
»* brought under the government of Chrift in his church 5 and that
** when they ate grown up and qualified, they have haptifmfor their
« childrenC^ That Is, that the children be baftisudy in virtue of the
parents^ profeffion. He wifhed that fome care and difcipline fhould
be cxercifed towards the children of prcfejforst and that thofe chil-
dren when they grew up and made a profeflion, fhould in con-
fequence thereof have their infant feed baptized^ and fo in fuc-
cefTion. See Dr. Gix,lies*8 Hiftorical CoUeftions, Vol. I. p. 241.
Neai.*8 Hiftory of New-Eng/and, Vol. p. 353, 354, 385,
[ 26; ]
CHAP. VI. •
Pradical Refledions ; containing a rational
and devout improvement of chriftiaa
baptifm, and particularly Infant Bap^
TISM,
§ IntroduSilon* § 2. PraSiical ReJleSiiom, (i) From
the confideration of our being baptized perfons^
as to ^ 3» !• Faith. § 4. 2. Gratitude, § 5.
3. Repe?itance, § 6. 4. Self-dedication, § 7,
5. Univerfal holinefs, § 8. 6. Exemplary dili»
gence, § 9, (2) i^r<lw //?^ confideration of- our
being baptized in infancy, as to § lO. I.
Faith, § II. 2v Gratitude, § 12. 3. Repent-
ance, § 13. 4. Self-dedication, § 14. 5, Univer"
fal holinefs, § 15. 6. Exemplary diligence, § 16
— 23. (3) y/i PARENTS. § 24 — 29 (4) ^J
MINISTERS. § 30—36, (5j As SPECTATORS.
§ 37, Recapitulation.
§ I. '"T^HE gofpel contains good tidings of
A great joy, which (hall be unto all
people. And the legacy, the ineftimable trea-
fure, bequeathed to us by the laft will and tef-
tament of our Divine Saviour, he Jeals not only
\\ith his blood to fatisfy Juftice, but alfo by
liis tnfitutions for our inftru6lion and comfort.
He condefcends to teach us, in a fenfe, after
N 2 the
268 PraSflcal Reflealons. Ch. 5.
the manner of men ; while at the fame time, Iiis
method of teaching bears the ftamp of infinite
wifdom and tranfcendent love. In thefe inftitutions
we difcover the loving -kindnefs of the Lord adap-
ting itfelf to human weaknefs, and human wants ;
hereby every faculty is addrefled, every affedtion
folicited, every fin difcountenanced, and every
chriftian grace, pious difpofition, and divine vir-
tue, encouraged. And as this is the character
of gofpel inftitutions in general, fo it is particu-
larly of bapitfrn in an eminent degree. Whe-
ther we confider ourfelves as baptized perfons —
as baptized in infancy — as parents — as minijiers
— and as fpeSiators of this ordinance, the practi-
cal and devout confideration of it will be at-
tended with peculiar advantages.
§ 2. (i) From the general confideration of
our being baptized peifons, without any re-
ference to the time when, we may gather many
profitable reflections for the important purpofes
of encouraging our faitb — provoking our gratis
fn^g — furthering our repentance — engaging our
felf'dedtcation — advancing our hoUneJs — and of
exciting our diligence,
§ 3. I. Is baptifm a feal? What an objec-
tive ground of faith does it exhibit!
Am I a baptized pQrfon ? Then I have not only
his word of promife, and his folemn oath, to en-
courage my faith in his gofpel, but alfo this
ftanding inftitution which was applied to me
for that purpofe. As an oath puts an end to
all ftrife, fo does the legal fealing of an inftru-
ment.
Ch. 6. PraBical RefleSilons, 269
ment. And can I any longer doubt that the
proinire is for ?ny ufe ? Surely the bare word
of the God of truth, who cannot lie, were
enough to fupprefs every rliing doubt, refpe£ling
the matter teftiiied ; but when he confirms the
teftimony with an oath^ he feems willing more
abundantly to encourage my faith. And yet, as
if this were not fufficient, he puts the matter
fo far out of doubt as to point me out by
name. He hath put his own name upon me :
and his languige, in effect is, I will be thy God^
thy father, thy everlafting portion 3 how Jono-
wilt thou be faithlefs ? Can faith, the moil ra-
tional faith, require any more ? Lord, let me
never be guilty of the impious crime of dif-
believing the freenefs of thy grace, thy willin<y-
nefs to fave me, even me^ however opprefTed
with guilt, and defiled with pollution. I can
never diftruft myfelf too much ; but is it pofUble
to put too much trufl in the Lord? To put
too much confidence in my Divine Shepherd \
Does he call me by my name ? Has he fet
me apart for himfelf? Wherefore fhould I
doubt, or what polTible plea has unbelief to
urge ?
Faith fhould refpect a divine tejiimony. But
what is the teftimony of God ? That God cf*
fers^ nay gives unto me eternal life, and this
life is in his Son. Is it on. condition of future
amendment and a virtuous condu£l ? No ; the
encouraging grant is fufpended on no condition
whatever. My pojpjfton of the mercy, fealed by
N 3 my
270 Pfaalcal Refie^ions, Ch. 6.
my baptifm, is to be enjoyed by faith-, and
this faith of the operation of God purifies the
heart, pacifies the confcience, works by love,
difpels every guilty fear, and is produ61ive of
the fruits of righteoufnefs to the glory of God.
Docs diffidence obje6t : " Why beHcve that the
promife is to yoii^ tho* baptized ?" Nay, rather,
why not to me ? Am I not a finner, under
the found of the gofpel, and fet apart to its
privileges ? And is not this one of them, that
Jefus Chrifl is willing to faye me from fm and
he]], and from the hand of all that hate me ?
That I may by fakh enter into reft, by faith be
juitiiied from all things, have peace with God
thro' our Lord Jefus Chrift-, receive reconciliation
and atonement, have my iniquities fubdued, and
my foul everlaftingly faved? If I may not receive
thefe bleffings by faith^ without the previous
condition of my performing works of righteouf-
nefs, what would become of me as a dying
fmner ? How, otherwife, could the gofpel be
good tidings to fmners on the verge of eternity,
as^well as to thofe who may live to manifeft
their faith by their works ?
Will difcouragement again urge: " Faith
is the gift of God, and therefore is not in my
own power?" If it be the gift of God, as it
certainly is, let me make the greater fpeed in
making my application to hini for it. And
even this is a privilege to which I am admit-
ted. Nor does faith being the gift of God,
hinder believing to be my duty. Nor yet does
my
Ch. 5*- Fra5ilcal Ref.eSftom. ' 2-71'^
xny attempting to difcharge a duty, any way pre-
vent the duty itfelf difcharged being a fuper^
natural effe£f. Is it not ray duty to attempt to
love God, to love him for the fake of his in-
finite worthinefs, as well as his ftupendous love
to a perifhing world, in the gift of his Son ?
And yet if I am a true lover of God, I dare '
not afcribe the attainment to any thing fhort
of fovereign diftinguifhing grace. Is^ the divine
nature., as pofTefTed of all pofTible perfe£tions and*
excellencies, of all that is amiable afid lovely,
merciful and gracious, the proper objeci and ra-
tional ground of divine love ; fo is the promife
of God, confirmed by> his oath and feal, the
proper object and rational ground, of divine.
. faith. The promife, fealed by my baptifm, as
a golden chain let down from heaven, is my
only ground of hope as a perifliing finner. And
as a finner does the promife "^regard me j under
that character it addrefTes nie. O charming
news, O glorious difcovery ! Here is a, remedy
prefented to me,- placed full before niy eyes,
equally free and efficacious. Is it prefumptioh
to receive it, wben I am afllired by the mef-
fenger who brings it. That not to receive the
bounteous donation, under the pretence that it
belongs not to me a fmner^ is in eff^edl to
charge the Promifer, the God of truth, with
infincerity and falfehood ? What greater evidence
can fcrupulofity itfelf wi(h for, that the grant
of mercy is defigned for mef What in the
whole compafs of the nature of things can be
N 4 imagined
272 'PrcMlcal Reflea'tonu Ch. 6.
imagined as a proof to me, a finfiil creature,
that the divine profnife is intended for my ufe^
than that it fhould be directed to me by name,
accompanied with the oath and feal of Jehovah ?
Will not the blood and the water, will not
heaven and earth be fwift witneffes againft me
it unbelief flill prevails ?
I AM not required to believe what is either
umeafonable or untrue. For what is more rea-
fonalle than to hclievi what the All -wife, Al-
mighty, and gracious God teftifies j and teflifies
\i\ juch a manner? And it would be impious
to fuppofe that Kc requires me to believe any,
thing which is not ftricily true. His teflmony
is not concerning my goodnefs^ my attalnmentSy
my a5fual poJfefpQn of grace, of faith, of holinefs,
tic, but concerning his own exceeding great and
precious protniles, that by these i may be-
come 3 partaker of a holy nature, with every
new covenant blefling thro' time and eternity.
Let my baptiftii then not only remind, but
alio affure me, that with God there is mercy
held forth for me ; tliat even I, however un-
deferving and condemnable in myfelf, may have
free accefs to a throne of grace, may obtain
mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.
§ 4. 2. Does baptifm exhibit important blef^
fings? Then how fhould the confideration of
it provoke my gratitude !
A M I a baptized perfon ? Then to me is held
forth the remiffon of all myjins. The very inftitu-
tion itfelf is a faithful zuitfjcfs for the God of grace,
that
Ch. 6. PraSflcal ReJleSiions, 273
that he (lands ready to pardon. O glorious privi-
lege, to have to do with the King of Kings and
Lord of Lords, who, tho' 1 have highly offen-
ded him with my fins, holds in his gracious
hand a free^ fall, and everlafting pardon ! Am
I placed in his church by baptifm ? With ad-
ditional evidence, therefore, may I confider the
following wonderful words addrefled to fjie,
" The Lord, the Lord God, merciful and
gracious, long-fuffering and abundant in goodnefs
and truth, keeping mercy for thoufands, forgiv-
ing iniquity and tranfgrelHon and fin." (Exod.
xxxiv. 6, 7.) And as thefe words were pro-
claimed for the ufe of the guilty and alarmed
Ifraelites, after the two firji tables of ftone were
l)roken, occafioned by their idolatry and folly;
fo are they directed to me now after all niy
pad follies and provocations. Even to me are
the following words dire6ted, " Thou haft
made me to ferve with thy fins, thou haft wea-
ried me with thine iniquities. I> (O wonder-
ful retaliation ! ) even I am he who blotteth
out thy tranfgreffions for mine own fake, and
will not remember thy fins. Put me in re-
membrance ; let us plead together : declare thou^
that thou mayeft be juftified," (Ifa. xliii. 24
— 26.) Lord, this is not the manner of men :
thou giveft liberally without upbraiding. In
grateful wonder I would reply, " Who is a
God like unto thee, that pardoneth iniquity,
and pafiTeth by the tranfgreffion of the remnant
of his heritage ? He retaineth not his anger for
N 5 ever
274 Pra^ical RefleSiiom. Ch. 6.
ever, becaufe he delighteth in mercy. He will
turn again, he will have compaflion upon us;
he will fubdue our inic^uities ; and thou wilt
caft all my fins into the depths of the fea.
Thou wilt perform the truth to Jacob, and the
mercy to Abraham, which thou haft fworn to
our fathers from the days of old/' Micah vii.
18 — 20.
Am 'I a baptized perfon ? Then ftill greater
hkjjings are yet granted and fealed to me. For
hereby I am ajjured that Jalvation from the ma^
lady of fin, the dominioa of lufts, the malice
of fatan, and the pains of hell, is exhibited and
prefented to me. And as this invaluable blef- ,
iing is directed to me by name^ ever fmce I
have borne the name of my Saviour, received
at my baptifm, fo it comes as a free gift, and
without charge. Stand ftill, therefore, and fee,,
in faith and affe61:ionate gratitude, the falvatlon
of the Lord, I am invited to the wells of fal-
vation, without money and without price. How
€an I doubt either his power or willingnefs
to fave me to the uttermoft ? Is not this the
voice of my Sovereign and Saviour ? " Look
unto me and be thou faved?^' And fhall not
gratitude, unfeigned gratitude, have a peaceful
aljode in my favoured foul ? Yes y ^' Blefs the
Lord, O my foul j and all that is within me
blefs his holy name. Blefs the Lord, O my
foul, and forget not aU his benefits j who for-
giveth all thine iniquities; who healeth all thy
difeafesj who redeemeth thy life froni deftruc-
tion J
Ch. 6i Praiiical Reflexions, ay 5
tion ; who crowneth thee with loving kind-
nefs and tender mercies.*' (Pfalm ciii. 1—4.)
In Chrifl my Saviour I have a propitiation for
my fins, and a robe of confummate righteouf-
nefs. If taught of God to underjland the things
thus freely given me out of the unfearchable
riches of his grace ; if my heart is opened^ like
that of Lydia, to receive thefe ineftimable bene-
fits, I may. further add, " I will greatly rejoice in
the Lord, my foul fhall be joyful in my God : for
he hath clothed me with the garments of faf-
vation, he hath covered me with the robe of
righteoufnefs, as a bridegroom decketh. himfelf
with ornaments, and as a bride adorneth herfelf
with her jewels. For as the earth bringeth.
forth her bud, and as the garden caufeth the
things that are fown in it to fpring forth ; io
the Lord God will caufe righteoufnefs and
praife to fpring forth before all the nations,
(L^a. Ixi. 10, II.)
Do I frill complain of fplritual dulnefs^ im-
potency and ingratitude ? Let me further con-
fider the ample contents of the promifes, and
fee whether ingratitude itfelf will not. be con-
founded at the rehearfal of them.. For does
not Jehovah fay to me, as well as to Abra-
ham, I am thy ftiield, and thine exceeding great
reward ? Does he not, in effect, invite, me to
take a view of a fpiritual inheritance, incor*
ruptible, undefiled, and unfading, as he did to
Abraham, concerning the terreftrial Canaan, who
had nothing to truft in, more than myfelf
N 6. or
276 Pra5lical Reflexions, Ch. 6.
or any other linful defcendant of Adam, but
the righteoufnefs of faith which was fignified and
fealed to him, as it is to me, by a divine or-
dinance— " Lift up now thine eyes, and look
from the place where thou art, northward, and
fouthward, and eaftward, and weftward. For all
the heavenly land which thou feeft, to thee will
I give it — Arife, walk thro' the promifcd land
in the length of it, and in the breadth of it :
for / will give it unto thee. *' May I not ap-
propriate the words of Mofes to Ifracl with a
little variitJon ? " He is thy Praife, and he is
,thy God, that hath done for thee thefe great
^nd marveloujly gracious things which thine eyes
have i^^n.'*'' And how reafonable the following
inference? . " Therefore, thou llialt love the
Lord thy God, and (as the bell expreflion of
thy gratitude) keep his charge, and his ftatutes,
and his judgments, and his commandments, al-
v/ay." May I not, without prefumption, ap-
propriate the words of Amafai to David, " Peace,
peace be unto thee, and peace be to thine
helpers j for thy Gc4> helpeth thee.'* But am £
afraid to admit this language, becaufe only al-
lufive ? Then let me attend to declarations
more direilly defigned for the ufe of the church
in all ages, and ^Htrefore for mine^ as a mem-
ber of it. " Fear thou not, for I am with
thee ; be not difmaycd, for I am thy God 5 I
will firengthen thee ; yea, I will help thee 5 yea,
1 will uphold thee with the right Ifand of my
righteoufnefs— For I the Lord thy Qod will
hold
Ch. 6. PraSfkal ReJleSlions. 277
hold thy right hand, faying unto thee. Fear not,
I will help thee— 1 will help thee faith the
Lord, and thy Redeeivier, the Holy One of
Ifrael. — Thou (halt fan thy fpiritual enemies^ and
the wind fhall carry them away, and the whirl-
wind (hall fcatter them : and thou flialt rejoice
in the Lord, and fhalt glory in the Holy One
of Ifrael." And left a difcouraging furmife
Hiould have room to intervene, he adds : " VVhen
the poor and needy feek water" to refrefli their
ibuls, " and there is none" in the whole com-
pafs of mere nature fuited to their cafe, " and
their tongue faileth for thirft, I the Lord will
hear them, I the God of Ifrael will not for-
fake them. I will open rivers in high places,
and fountains in. the midft of the valleys."
(Ifa. xli. 10 — 18.)
Am I a baptized perfon? Then I have the
enlightening, inftru6ling, and comforting influ-
ences of the Spirit of promife, exhibited for
my ufe^ with fuperadded evidence and certainty.
If earthly parents,, who are evil, know how to
give good gifts unto their children, how much
more Ihall my Father v/ho is in heaven give
good things, even the greateft of bleffings, his Holy
Spirit, to them that afk him ? And why not
to me ? Have I any fcriptural, or any rational
ground of fufpicion? Yes, the fame Lord who
inftituted water-baptifm, is ready to baptize me
with the Holy Ghoil and with fire. He will
take of the thmgs of Chrift and (hew them
unto me. He is ready to guide me into all
necelTary
%yS PraSftcal RefleSflons*.. Cfi. 6#
neceflary truth ; to comfort me iri every trou-
ble i to (bed abroad the love of the Father in
my foul; to reprove me of every fin; to help
my infirmities; to give me wifdom, and that
liberally, without upbraiding ; to teach me the.
Vv'ay of peace, holinefs, and fruitful living to
the glory of God. O my foul, what wouldeft
thou have more ? Doft thou complain o£
hardnefs of heart, fo that thef© and the like
precious promifes do not afFedt thee ? Them
remember that he will take away the flony
heart, and will b.eftow an heart of flefhi Plead
this piomife ; and that which foilo/;s: " This
is the covenant that I will make with the houfe
of Ifrael (of which houfe thou art, as a believer.^
in Jefus) after thofe day% faith ths Lord: I
will put my laws into their mind, and write
them in their hearts ; and I will be unlo them
a Godj and they- fliall be to me a people.
And they Ihali not teach every man his neigh-
bour, and every man his brother, faying, Know
the Lord : for all ftiall know me, from the
lead to the greateft. For I will be merciful
to their unrighteoufnefs, and their fms and their
iniquities will I remember no more." (Hcb.
viii. 10 — 12.) When I confider, therefore, that
thefe promifes, grace and glory, and every good
things are exhibited and fealed by my baptifm ;
how (hould the confideration of it operate as
a powerful incentive to inceffant gratitude and
thankfgiving ! And
§ 5, 3. What
Ch.. 6» PraSikal RefleSitons, 2y^
§ 5. 3. What a call to repentance does the
devout confideration of baptifm afford ?
Am I a baf'tized perfon ? Then under v/hat
folemn, what inconceivably ftrong obligations have
the above benefits laid me? For the greater
the benefits, the greater the obligations. Are
the blefTings fealed by baptifm, great, glorious^
infinite, eternal realities ? The love of the Fa-
ther, the atonement and grace of the Son, the
influences and fellowfhip of the Spirit? Pre-
fent peace and future glory ? Prefent pardon,
and everlafling life ? Then, have I given thefe
bleffmgs held forth in the promife, and fealed
to me by baptifm, a Juitable reception ? Tho'
directed and fent to me by name^ confirmed by
the oath and feal of God, how often have they
been difregarded? How has the mofl infigni*
ficant objedl:, the mofl trifling circumftance, the
mofl uninterefting occurrence, or the mofr in-
fipid tale, engrolTed my attention, while the
faithful and merciful record of Jehovah has
found no welcome ? The gracious mefTage from
heaven, tho' worthy of all acceptation, has long
found me carelefs, perhaps wilfully ignorant,,
hard-hearte3, in love with folly, in league with
lin and hell. What fhall I fay ? A prodigal
fon, bent on my own ruin, and lifting up the
heel of rebellion againfl a gracious God. Oh,
that my head were waters, and mine eyes a
fountain of ^tears, that I might weep at the re-
membrance of thefe things I How do I dfeferve
to be fed with the bread of tears, and to have
tears
aSo PraSlkal Refienlom, Cli. 6.
tears to drink in great meafure; for breaking
thefe bands afunder, and cafting away thefe
cords of obligation far from me? Nay, if I
fpeak of demerit, how do I delerve to be caft
into the hotteft hell, to fufFer everlaftingly, for
the mifimprovement of fuch aftonifhing love
and mercy ? Would not my damnation be
juji? If the means of grace are enjoyed, and
the grace cf the means exhibited, what have I
to fay againft the unfavourable fentence of ray
righteous Governor and Judge ? Am I not an
unprofitable fcrvant? Have I not buried my
talent in tlte earth? May not the Lord ap-
peal to heaven and earth againft my ingrati-
tude, as he once did againft Ifrael? " Hear,
O heavens ; and give ear, O earth ; for the
Lord hath fpoken : I have nouriflied and brought
vp a chikly and he has rebelled againft me."
But am I fo fmful, laden with iniquity, evil
and corrupt; have I fo forfaken the Lord, pro-
voked the Holy One of Ifrael unto anger, and
gone away backward, that there is no hope ?
No; for his mercy endureth for ever. Even
now am I told, that tho' my fms be as fcar-
kt, they ftiall be as white as fnow; tho' they
be red like crimfon, they ftiall be as wool.
Behold, nozv is the accepted time; behold, now
is the day of falvation. O the riches of divine
grace, the unfearchable riches of Chrift ! Tho'
my fms be great, thy pardoning love is greater.
Tho' my crimes rife high, thy mercy is high-
er. O the wonderful efficacy of the Redeemer's
merits !
W'
Ch. 6. PraSIlcal Reflections, 281
merits ! The blood of Jefus Chrift cleanfetli
from all fin. This my baptifin fealed unto
me. And is it poiTible that my hard heart
fhoLiId ftill remain unmelted, under the hot
beams of divine unchanging love? Does not
' every v/eapon drop from my rebellious hand ?
Does not evangelical forrow pierce my very
foul ? Behold a debt of ten thoufand talents
freely forgiven ! Tho' with my (ins I have
pierced the Lord of glory, yet looking to him,
by faith in his blood, he removes my guilt,
takes away all iniquity, loves freely, pours into
my foul peace with God, and leads me to refl
and refreihing joys for his name's fake. Thefe
blefTmgs, fealed by baptifrn, mud needs either
aggravate my guilt and mifery, or elfe promote
genuine repentance. O that they may anfv/er
the purpofes of grace, and not of avenging Juf-
tice ! O my foul, defpifeii thou the riches c^
his goodnefs, and forbearance, and long fuffer-
ing; not knowing that the gocdnefs of God
leadeth thee to repentance F
Mr. Matthew Henry well obferves : "Our
baptifm engageth us, not only to the firft re-
pentance from dead works, but to an a/te7- re-
pentance, as there is occafion. Our firft wafh-
ing in the laver of baptifm, obligeth us every
day t(^ wajh our feet (John xiii. 10.) from the
pollutions we contra6l*.** And as there is on
every one baptized an oUlgation to repent, fo
he has the moft abundant encouragetncnts for it.
For
* Trcatifc on Bapt, p. 195,
aSz RraSilcal RefleBionu Ch. 6*.
P'or what is more defirable to the guilty,, than
pardon, free, full and everlafting ? This was
the encouragement Peter gave to the guilty
Jews (Ads iii. 19.) " Repent ye therefore,"
(tho* ye delivered up Jefus, and denied him in
the prefence of Pilate ; tho' ye denied the Holy
One, and the Juft, and defired a murderer to
be granted uu,to you; and killed the Prince of
life, whom God hath raifed from the dead) re-
pent, " and be converted, that your fins may he
blotted out J when the time of refrediing (hall
come from the prefence of the Lord." " While
the hue and cry is out againft the malefa6lor,
he flies, but the proclamation of pardon brings
him in. This Kingdom of God (Matt, iv, .
17.) is come nigh unto us ; it was in baptifm
applied is us in particular^ that the encourage-^
ment might be paft difputef,"
§ 6. 4. The devout confideration of bap-
tifm is a powerful inducement to felf-dedica-'
cation. If I am a baptized chriftian, I have been
dedicated to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, by.
his minifler ; for this is neceflarily implied in
baptifm. Was this rights or was it not ? Nay,
was it not a high privilege ? If fo, it muft be
right to approve of it, and to be thankful for it.
Now in what way can this be done y^ proper
as by felf'dedication F- Rather, can a thankful
approbation of the baptifmal favour exift at all
without it ?. Is not the withholding of this
tribute
f, lb.. p. igS^
Ch. 6. . PraSikal ReJkSf'iQns. 283.
tribute a virtual denial of its being a privi-
lege ? But if the gofpel be a privilege to fallen
man, its diredion to me in particular^ figned,
fealed, and delivered, muft be a moft lingular
blefling. I blefs thy glorious Name, O Lord,
that a covenant of mercy was ever announced
to any of mankind i to Adam, to Abel, to
Enoch, to Noah, to Abraliam, &c. but what
fiiall I render unto thee, that this covenant has
been, by a gracious providence, dire£led unto
me P Has terminated upon w^, fo undeferv-
ing and finful ? Was there any thing in me
that called for fuch difcrimination? What am
I, or my father's houfe, that 1 (liould be thus
privileged ? It is owing to a fovereign provi-
dence that my lot is not caft among Americari
Indians, or the Savages of Africa ; and it is
owing to foVereign grace that England is illu-
minated with the Sun of Righteoufnefs. When
I think on thefe things,, and the numberlefs
bleffings therewith Gonne6ted ; when I confider
that I have been minifterially dedicated to the
only living and true God, and Saviour of men,
according to his will\ I iky again, what fhall
I render unto the Lord ? What have 1 which
I have not received ? What tribute can my
grateful heart bring unto the Lord, which is
not his own already? Yet he will not de-
fpife what I bring him of his own. By the
mercies of God, I will and do prefent, not
only my body^ but my foul alfo, a living facri-
fice unto God, which is my reafonable fervice*
Am
284 Pra^ical Reflexions, Ch. 6>
Am 1 not his in all refpeiSls ? Not to give up
myfelf to him then, is to commit robbery and
facrJIege. I am not only the v.'ork of his
hand, and the fheep of his pafture, but alfo am.
redeermd^ not with corruptible things, as filver
and gold, but with the precious blood of Chrift.
How reafonable and juft, therefore, a voluntaiy
and affeftionate furrender of myfelf, to my God
and Saviour ? And what exercife can equal it,
either in pkafure or profit ? Is it a phafure to
the honeft mind to pay a jufl debt ? Or to
the generous mind to make refLituticn ? Un-
fpeakably more is the pleafure and fails faction
I liave in giving up myfelf, without fear or
referve, to the God of love and grace. How
delightful the thought, that I am not my own !
I am bought with a price; I have been de-
livered up to my proper owner ; and now,
with inexpreflible complacency, I acknowledge
my being the rightful property of my Redeemer,
Oh tliat I may be found, while I Iiave breath
or being, glorifying God in my body, and ia
my fpirit, which are God's ! And, furely, as
it is delightful, fo it is prof.tahle. While I re-
fign all, I obtain all ; but while I kept myfelf
to myfelf, I had neither pleafure nor profit. I
was then a ftranger to my beft intereft. Now
appears, with peculiar force and beauty, the;,,
wife man's paradox : " There is tJiat fcatterc-th,.
and yet increafeth; and there is tliat withhold-
eth more than is meet, but it tendeth to po-
verty." And again : " There is that maketh
himfelf
Ch. 6. Pra^fkal Reflexions, 285
himfelf rich, yet hath nothing ; there is that
maketh himfelf poor, yet hath great riches."
(Prov. xi. 24. xiii. 7.)
Do I ftill find refervednefs or (loth, fpread-
ing their baneful influence over my foul? Am
I flill waiting for more powerful inducements?
Behold ! another inducement prefents itfelf — ■
one that may well fill me with everlafting
wonder. The AU-fufficient God, (how fhall I
exprefs myfelf ?) Jehovah gives himfelf to me.
Aftonilhing conveyance ! I will be thy God,
fays he ! He confirms it with his oath, and
ratifies it with his feal. Does the Lord, by a
covenant grant, make over his glorious felf to
me as my portion ? This is furely an irrefif-
tible motive. What fort of a grant is it ?
Not an imaginary or a feigned, but a real and
fmcere grant. I may venture, I would venture ten
thoufand fouls, were they mine, on the fincerity
and truth of it. If it be not a truth, that I as
a baptized perfon am privileged with this cove-
nant grant, I will be thy God; then I may
queftion whether the fun ever fiione upon Bri-
tain on a fummer's day. Lord, in return take
fole pofTeffion of me ! Make me thy living
temple ; let my favoured heart be th-e throne of
thy reigning grace; let it be my fweet employ,
thro' time and eternity, to behold, with open
face, as in a glafs—the gofpel mirror— the
glory of the Lord, as my covenant portion ;
that I may be changed into his lovely image,
froni
3:86 PraSfical RefieSl'iom. Ch. 6.
from glory to glory, as by the Spirit of the
Lord.
§ 7. 5. The devout confideration of baptifm
is a fuitable and ftrong motive to univerfal ho-
linefi. To be baptized^ is to be devoted to a
conformity with Chrift. Which con{?fts in the
deftru6tion of the body of fm, and a life of
purity, heavenly-mindednefs, and fpiritual Hberty.
By this ordinance of initiation, methinks, the
Lord fays, with peculiar ^mphafis, " Be ye
holy, for I am holy." To the chriftian church
fet apart to himfelf by the initiating rite, he
in effect fays, " Ye are a chofen generation, a
royal priefthood, an holy nation, a peculiar
people : that ye Ihould fhew forth the praifes of
him who hath called you out of darknefs into
his marvellous light : which in time pall were
not a people, but are now the people of God :
which had not obtained mercy, but now have
obtained mercy. Dearly beloved, as Grangers
and pilgrims, abftain from flefhly lufts, which
war againft the foul , that all around you may,
by your good works which they fliall behold,
glorify God in the day of vifitation." (i Pet.
ii. 9—12.) What is the end of our holy relU
gloHy of which baptifm is the badge? Is it
not, " that we fhould be holy and without
blame before cz/r heavenly Father m love?" That
we may be prefented " holy and unblameable,
and unreproveable in his fight r" That we
(hould be " faved from our fins," and " re-
deemed from all iniquity ?" Let me, there-
fore,
Ch, 6. PraSlical ^eJieHlons, 287
fore, " gird up the loins of my mind, be fo-
ber and hope to the end for the grace that is
to be brought unto me at the revelation of
Jefus Chrift ; as an obedient child, not fa(hion-
ing myfelf according to the former lufts in my
ignorance : But as he who hath called me is
holy, fo may I be holy in all manner of con-
verfation, Becaufe it is written. Be ye holy,
for I am holy." (i Pet. i. 13—16.)
*' We are by our baptifmal covenant," fays
Mr. Henry, " obliged to mortify fin, and in
baptifm receive the promife of the Holy Ghoil
for that purpofe. We are hurled by baptifjn^
i. e. we are, in profefTion and obligation^ quite
feparated and cut off from fm ; as thofe who
are not only dead, but buried, are quite parted
from the living, and have no more any inter-
courfe, correfpondence or fellowfhip with them.
We are likewife rifen again to another fort of
life. Not as the widow's fon, and Lazarus,
were raifed, to live juft fuch a life as they lived
before, but as Chrifl: was raifed j who, tho' he
continued on earth forty days after his refur-
re<S^ion, did not fhew himfelf openly, nor con-
verfe with this world as he had done ; but his
life was altogether heavenly, and no more in
the world. Thus our baptifm, obliging us to
die to {in, and live to righteoufnefs, we may
be faid therein to be buried, and rifen with
Jefus Chrift. A chriftian, therefore, who is by
baptifm buried with l hrift, and yet lives in
fm, is like a walking gho/l -, or the frightful
motion
288 Practical ReJieSllons, Chi 6.-:^^
motion of a dead body. We fliould often re-\"
member, that we are huriedy i. e. cut oft fron\
a life of fm; and rifen, i. e. entered upon' a
life of holinefs. We fliould therefore fee it,
(faith the excellent Davenant,) that what is
done once facramentally, in baptifm, Jhould he
always done really, in the life*.'* Lord, grant
me the prevailing aids of thy Holy Spirit, that I
may reckon myfelf to be dead indeed unto fin,
but alive unto God thro' Jefus Chrift our Lord.
That fm may never reign in my mortal body,
that I (hould obey it in the lufts thereof.
May I never yield my members as inflruments
of unrighteoufnefs unto fm ; but may I yield
myfelf unto God, as one alive from the dead,
and my members as inftruments of righteouf-
nefs unto God— fervants to righteoufnefs, unto
holinefs. That now being made free from fm,
and become a fervant to God, I may have my
fruit unto holinefs, and the end everlafting life.
(Rom. vi.)
§ 8. 6. Baptism may be improved as a pro-
per incitement to exemplary diligence.
Am I a baptized perfon ? Then let me an-
fwer the great ends of my baptifm, to fight
the good fight of faith — not uncertainly as one
beating the air, but with zeal according to
knowledge— run the race fet before me; prefs
toward the mark of my high calling of God
in Chrift; redeem the time; work while it is
day, for the night cometh when no man can
work ;
* Treatifc on Baptifm, p. 174, 175.
Ch. 6. PraSiical RefieHions, 2S9
work ; be diJigent in bufinefs, fervent in fpirit,
ferving the Lord. May he into whofe fervice
I am cnJifted, into whofe vineyard I am fent,
and to whom I am accountable, caufe me to
*' abound in faith and all diligence,'' Oh that
I may " (hew growing diligence to the fuJI af-
furance of hope unto the end ; that I be not
flothful, but a follower of them who thro' faith
and patience inherit the promifes/' (Heb. vi.
II, 12.) " Baptifm is a talent," fays Mr. Hen-
ry, " which muft be traded with, and accounted
for. It is a price put into the hand to get
wifdom: and with this, as with other talents,
Ihe charge is, Occupy till I co?ne. By working
upon our fouls a fenfe of the obligations we
are laid under by our baptifm, we put this ta-
lent into the bank^ and, if we were not wanting
to ourfelves, might receive from it the blefTed
ufury of a great deal of comfort and holinefs*."
To further my holy diligence in thofe works
and ways, to which my baptjifm was defio;ned
to lead me, let me often recoiled, and be de'eply
impreiTed by thefe truly wif^ maxims : « He
becometh poor trat dealeth with a flack hand ;
but the hand of the diligent maketh rich. He
that gathereth in fummer is a wife fon ; but hs
that fleepeth in hai-veft^M^ harvejl of his chriji
tian profeffion — is a fon that caufeth fhame "
(Prov. X. 4, 5.)
Alas ! how many ignorant and flothful pro-
fefTors muft one day take up this bitter la-
^'^^•"- O mentation;
* Tieati'c on Baptifm, p. 161.
2Q0 PraSlual Rejiecl'iom* Ch. 6.
mentation ; " The harveft is paft, the fummer
is ended, and we are not faved.'* (Jer. viii.
20.) Often have we been exhorted to give all
diligence to make our calling and ele(3:ion fure :
But we ftood againft every call, carelefs and
unmoved. V/e Mattered ourfelves that we pof-
feJTed a talent, while • yet it lay unimproved.
" How many baptized perfons are there,*' as
Mr. Henry juftly obferves, " who are altoge-
ther grangers to the covenants of promife ?
Who look upon baptifm only as a thing of
courfe ; nothing more than the cuftom of the
country? No wonder they do not improve
that which they do not undtrjiand, Baptifm
being the badge of our profeflion, to underftand
that is to underftand our holy religion ; the na-
ture, duties, privileges, and defigns of it ; to all
of which our baptifm doth fome way or other
rfefer. It is fad to confider, what ignorance of
thefe, reigns, even in the chriftian world j and
how many are little better than baptized hea-
thens f-" Neverthelefs, " The Lord hath done
great things for us, whereof we are glad.
Turn again our captivity, O Lord, as the
ftreams in the fouth." (rfa. cxxvi. 3,4.) Some
who are called by thy name underftand,
and gratefully acknowledge, the great things
thou haft done for them, and the ineftimable
privileges conferred upon them ; but others con-
tinue the deluded captives of fin and Satan.
Oh that thy Spirit may be poured upon all
fiefli !
f lb. p. X67, 168.
Ch. 6. Fraaical Reflealons, 291
flefhf Then (hall the wildernefs be turned
into landing water, and dry ground into water-
fprings. (Pla. cvii. 35.) " Then the eyes of the
blind (hall be opened, and the ears of the deaf
fhall be unftopped. Then (hall the lame man leap
as an hart, and the tongue of the dumb fing;
for in the wildernefs fhall waters break out
and ftreams in the defert." (Pfa. xxxv. 5, 6.)
Then fhall our fruit be holinefs to the Lord ; and
it fhall be found, " fome an hundred-fold, fome
fixty-fold, fome thirty-fold," to the praife and
glory of God; and the end everlafling; life.
§ 9. (2) Let us now proceed to a devout
and rational improvement of baptifm as received
in INFANCY. One very jufily obferves, "When '
an ordinance .comes to be dijputed — it is com-
monly neglecled^ or llightly attended, by the ge-
nerahty of people; and lies between them like
a ^ controverted ejiate^ concerning which fome-
thing is dom to maintain the /i///, but little to
manure and improve the lana. Men think it
a fufficient plea for their fmful neglecls in fuch
cafes, That it is a difputable thing, and till all
be agreed upon the point, they hope tliey may
be allowed to fit flill and look on, and then
engage when they fee what fide will prevail.
Thus difputes about the minijiry^ have made
the ways of Zion to mourn, for the fewnefs
of thofe that come to the folemn affemblies.
This is, generally, the cafe of the ordinance of
baptifm — people have had it commonly buzzed
in their ears that feeing the Infant-fubjeds of
^ 2 that
2Cj2 PraSfical RefieSllons. Ch. 6.
that adminiftration are incapable of undcrflanding
it, and making prefent a6lual improvement, there
is little reafon to retain the practice of that,
which feems fo barren, and unprofitable. But
holy men, who have made it their fludy to
dive into the nature and ufe of all ordinances,
and to work upon their own hearts by them,
have, for many ages no doubt, drawn abun-
dance of fandifying influence from it, and the
principles and grounds upon which it hath
been adminiftered ; and thofe of this age who
have had the holy wifdom to turn matters of
dijpute into praSiice^ have been able to fay by
their experience, in a manner, as the man born
blind, in the difpute between him and the Pha-
rifees concerning Chril>, " It is a marvellous
thing That ye know not from whence he is, and
yet he hath opened mine eyes," (John ix. 30.)
So they wonder it (hould ever enter into a
difpute, V. hether infant baptifm be of God,
or no ? feeing it hath been, by the fan6tifying
influence of the Spirit of God, a conduit of
abundance of gracious fupplies to them, for
which they have had caufe to^ blefs God the
longeft day of their lives. And the very ex-
perience of this — is no fmall encouragement
to them to own and value it; feeing it can-
not eafily enter into their hearts, that God
fhould convey fan5lifying influences^ for fo many
years, by a miftaken and mifappLed ordinance;
e-Tpecially when the main efficacy of that ordi-
nance, in order to the mentioned efFedls, depeiids
upon
Ch. 6. PraP.ical RefleSllons^ 293
upon that very circurnftance of age wherein it
is charged to be mifapplied. For the' it may
in fome cafes be granted, that an ordinance
adminiftered with fome confiderable circumftan-
tial irregularities may fan6lify ; yet that thofe
irregularities thcmjelves fliould be the channels
of fan£l:ifying grace, is not eafily imaginable.
Now this is the cafe of infant baptifm. Many
holy men, of many ages, have found their
hearts warmed, and quickened, in the exercife
of faith, repentance, love, thankfulnefs— by the
confideration, not only of baptifm and the per-
fonal covenant therein fealed, but alfo baptifm
under the circurnftance of infant adminiftration.
— And, indeed, that the Spirit of truth fhould
di;^ate, and the God of truth anfwer thofe
prayers, wlxich are offered up on fo grofsly
miftaken grounds as thofe of will-worJJnp^ (the
crime generally charged on infant baptifm,) feems
moft abfurd*."
But is not this gentleman fingulat in his
opinion ? Is not the fuppofed advantage more
in [peculation than reality? Let the following
language, uttered from the deliberate judgment of
one whole abilities as a divine, and whofe rationa^
and fincere devotion as a chriftian, fe^v will qusf-
tion, determine : " There w^ould not be io much
quarrelling about infant baptifm^ if there were
but more care to make that practical improve-
ment of it which is required. It is owing to
O 3 a
* Ford's Dialogue conceraing the Prafticai Ufe of Infant-
Bapt, Epift, Dedicat.
294 Przi£fical Rtfie6imis, Ch. 6.
a carnal hearty that the benefit of it is not ob-
tained, and then the thing itfelf is tlifputed.
In this circle many a poor foul hath been
made giddy ; infant baptifm is queftioned, be-
eaufe it is not improved \ and then it is not im-
proved becaufe it is quef/ioned. If any 'man fet
himfelf ferioufly to do his will in this matter,
by a diligent and confcientious improvement of
his baptifm, *' he fhall know of the doclrine,
whether it be of God, or whether we fpeak of
ourfelves," (John vii. 17.) — There are many
iiumble ferious chriftians, who can experimen-
tally fpcak of the benefits of it. — For my own
part, I cannot but take this occafion, to exprefs
my gratitude to God for m.y infant baptifm^
not only as it was an early admlffion into the
vifible body of Chrift, but as it furnifhed my
pious parents with a good argument, (and 1 truft
thro' grace, a prevailing argument,) for an early
dedication of my own felf to God in my child-
hood. If God has wrought any good
WORK UPON MY SOUL, I dcfue with humble
thankfulnels to acknowledge, the moral in-
fluence OF MY INFANT BAPTISM UpOn it*."
§ 10. I. Was I baptized in infancy? Then
I have an additional encouragement to exercife
FAITH upon the promife. Were I baptized but
this day^ there would be an encouraging ground of
faith, that the promife is unto me^ figned, fealed,
and delivered i but when I confider that this foun-
dation of taith, the exhibited promile, has been
laid,
* HiNRY*s Treat, on Bapt. p, 155, 156, and p. Ii?.
Ch. 6. Pra£lical Rsfletiions. 295
laid, and appropriated for my ufe, in infancy ; that
the charter or conveyance has been inconteftibly
fealed^ almoft as fcon as I came to exijimce^ it
is a fuperadded encourageinent. " Baptifm feals
the promife of God's being to me a God, fays
Mr. Henry, and that is greatly encouraging ;
but infant baptifm encreafcth the encouragement,
as it ajfures me of God's being the God of
my fathers, and the God of my infancy. —
Shall I queftion the kindnefs of one who is
my own friend, and my father's friend ? The
faithfulnefs of one, who was in covenant with
my fathers, and always true to them ? It is
a great fupport to faith, to confider, not only
that God is my God, but that he was fo be-
times,— He who took me when I was brought^
furely will not caft me off v>rhen I come my-
felf, tho' weak and trembling and unv>7orthy.—
He who began in ways of love and mercy to
me fo early^ will not now be wanting to me,
or backward to do me good. — Loving-kind-
nefles, which have been ever of old,, mull needs^
be very favourable to faith and hope*." The
nature of the gofpel grant is fuch, that the
longer it Jiands as a matter of record, in fa-
vour of the party baptized^ the ftronger and
more indubitable becomes his title to the thiiigs
granted ; wherefore, the confideration of my be-
ing baptized in my infancy is a circumftance
of encouragement to faith. Is it " ufual to
infert in the king's grants, that they are made,
O 4 not
* lb, p. 201, 303,
296 Pra£ilcal RefePJoni, Ch. 6.
not at the fuit of the grantee, but ex fpeciali
gratia^ ccrta fc'tentia^ et mero motu regis ; and
then they have a inore liberal conftrudion?"
But on the contrary, is it equity, and legal
prudence — That " a grant made by the king,
at the fuit of the grantee^ fhall be taken mod
beneficially for the king, and againji the par-
ty f?'* Let this illulxrate the fuperior advanta-
'j;es of the grant being made in my infancy^ and
* caled by bapiifm, compared with what was ob-
tamed at the fuit of the grantee. It is true,
the encouragement to faith is abundant every
moment, to a returning finner, from the gra-
cious tejlimony^ the faithful record of Jehovah ;
but it is more abundant in proportion to the
early date when the title was figned and fealed.
Lord, didft thou find me out, in the courfe
of thy gracious providence, and caufe thine ex-
ceeding great and precious promife of mercy,
forgivenefs and righteoufnefs, thy good Spirit
and eternal life, to terminate on my infancy?
l^idft thou thus find me out without my (eek-
ing or deferving ? How free and (overeign thy
mercy ! Didd thou confer a legal right to
thefe fpiritual and everlafiing bleflings, by a deed
ef glft^ directed, figned, fealed, and delivered to
7ne^ for my ufe and fcrvice, when 1 deierved
no pity? Nay, when I deferved to be caft out
in the open field to the loathing of my per-
fon, to be pafled by and left polluted in my
own blood, even then, in my tender infancy, in
my
f Bi ACKST, Comment, Vol, II, B, 11, chap, xxi, § 2,
Ch. 6. P radical Reflections, 297
helplefs and wretched ftate, thou haft had corn-
pa (lion upon me. Oh, the covenant care^ the
unparalleled kindnefs, of my heavenly Father!
Let me take the account from his own lips :
" When I pafTed by thee, and faw thee pol-
luted in thine own blood, I faid unto thee
when thou waft in thy blood, Livej yea, I
faid unto unto thee when thou waft in thy
blood, Live— Now when I paiTed by thee, and
looked upon thee, behold, thy time was the
time of love : and I fpread my (kirt over thee,
and covered thy nakednefs : yea, I fware unto
thee, and entered into a covenant, faith the
Lord God, and thou becameft mine. Then
wafhed I thee with water." (Ezek. xvi. 6, 8,
9.) Aftoniihing favour! And tho' I have not
cone up to my privileges, and " have not re-
membered the days of my youth, but have fret-
ted the Lord in all thefe things, and defpifed
the oath in breaking the covenant," he ftill
adds, " Neverthelefs, I will remember my cove-
nant with thee, in the days of thy youth, and
I will eftablifti unto thee an everlafting covenant.
Then thou ftialt remember thy ways and be
afhamed-rAnd 1 will eftablifh my covenant with
thee; and thou ftialt know that I am the
Lord; that thou mayeft remember and be con-
founded, and never open thy mouth any more
becaufe of thy ftiame, when I am pacified to-
waid thee for all that thou haft done, faith the
Lord God." (Ezek. xvi. 60—63.)
One well obferves : " The faints are many
O 5 times
298 PraSfical Reflexions % Ch. 6.
times fain to appeal from conditional promifes
and comforts to abfolute^ viz. The freenefs of—
juftifying and renewing grace in the refpedtive
declarations and offers of them ; upon the fame
reafon may they have recourfe to infant bap-
tifm; the mofi lively repreientation and obfig-
nation of both thefe. — I'his therefore being
their refuge, if God's feal add^ as it doth un-
doubtedly to us^ any certainty to his word ;
then, furely, for fuch perfons to reflect upon
the feal of baptifm adminiftered to them in in-
fancy, muft needs fortify them in that refuge. —
1 nov/ treat, not of confiderations prevailing
with God, but confiderations working upon us;
not fuch as further him in point of faithjuU
nefs^ but fuch as further us in point of faith.
Now fuch things may be of precious ufe to
«5, as are not of a like influence upon God.
All the arguments we urge in prayer do not
at all move God, but only fortify our faith to
depend upon him. So here, tho' God have a
like reafon in himfelf to move him to take
care of a foul that became one of his family
but yejierdayy as of one that hath been in his
family forty years cr upwards ; yet it muft needs
be a more rational encouragement to us to depend
upon him, mw that we have been related fo
long to hmi, than it would be to have begun
a relation but yefterday*," 7^his early relation
was a peculiar encouragement to David's faith,
when he faid, " I'hou art he that took me
out
* Ford's Dialogues, ut fu^ra, p. 39, 40, 43.
Gh. 6. FraSftcal RefleSiions. 295
out of the womb ; thou didft make me liope,
when I was upon my mother's breafls. I was
caft upon thee from the womb : thou art my
God from my mother's belly. Be not far
from me, for trouble is near : for there is none
to help." (Pfa. xxii. 9 — 11.) " Tho' every
one that is a child of a believer, had formerly,
and ftlll hath, a covenant right to God before
circumcifion and baptifm ; and fo every fuch
perfon circumcifed or uncircumcifed, baptized or
unbaptized, at leaft as long as the neglect is
not his own fault, hath the fa?ne plea which
we have been fpeaking of, yet he hath it not
to urge with the fame evidence and ground of
ajfurancey as he, that can plead the covenant,
with the fealy hath — otherwife, it muft needs
follow, that the facraments add nothing at all
to the covenant in point of certainty and evi^
dence^ which I think no fober chriftian will af-
firm*."
§ II. 2. Was I baptized in infancy? Then
I have an additional incentive to gratitude » How
highly have I been honoured, how greatly be-
nefited ? For from that early period has the
pardon of fm, free falvation, eternal life, with
every new covenant bleiling, been fealed to me.
Had every circumcifed Ifraeiite, when grown up,
fpecial caufe of gratitude for the particular cir-
cumrtance of infant circumcifion f So have X
for my infant baptifm. What a vifible relation
was then conlUtuted between me and. God in
O 6 Chrift [
* lb. p. 49.. -
300 Practical Rejie^tons* Ch. 6.
Chriil [ Was I then incapable of underftanding
the nature and force of the obligations under
which I was laid ? So was a circumcifed in-
fant; but the obligation was firm notwithftand-
ing. He became from that time forth addi-
tionally boundy in duty and in gratitude, to the
Lord. O my foul, art thou ever difpofed
to undervalue this privilege ? Blufh at thy in-
gratitude. If to be dedicated to God in bap-
tifm when an infant, was not a privilege, what
was ? I may fafely challenge ingratitude itfelf
to (hew, that any benefit greater than this was
or could be ever conferred upon me by my
parents. When my ungrateful heart is ready
to fay, What profit is there in infant baptifm ?
Let it again refieil:. What profit is there in adtdt
baptifm which is not more than counterbalanced
by the former ? I fay it again, to be baptized,
when an infant, is the greatcjl external privilege of
which infancy is capable. And if at any time
this is queftionedj let me inquire what is a
frreater ? If a greater there is, let it be pro-
iluced, and it (hall fuffice. If not, let deferved
gratitude glow in my breaft for the diftinguilhing
favour* I was then added to the church, that
J might be faved, I was then confiituted a
vifible member of Chrifi, that / might be con-
jormed to him. I was then put in the way I
(hould go, that, when grown up, / 7night not depart
from it. I was then vifibly ingrafted into Chrift,
that I might bring forth much fruity and thus be
found his approved difciple. Are not thefe high
privileges? A'nd efpecially when I confider that
there
Ch. 6. PraSitcal RefleSilons, 30 1
there was in me nothing meritorious to demand,
nothing amiable to foHcit thefe privileges. This
time of my efpoufals, was indeed a time of
unmerited, unfolicited love. From a ftate of
diftance 1 was brought near. From a ftranger
I was made a fellow 'Cit'fz.en with the faints,
and of the houfehold of God. Not lefs fo than
any circumcifed Ifraelite. All thefe privileges,
let me not forget that, are of the nature of
means. May I therefore not only cultivate a
grateful fpirit, at the remembrance of all thy
benefits, O Lord my God, but alfo be careful
to exprefs my gratitude by a proper ufe of
thefe beneficial means ; that I may apprehend
that for which I was apprehended of Chrift
Jefus.
§ 12.3. Was I baptized in infancy? Surely,
then, my mifcomings, tranfgreffions, and back-
flidings, are levelled at a circumftance of di-
vine goodnefs that makes the call to repentance
much louder. The goodnefs of God leadeth
to repentance. Fvery cord of obligation tliat
is broken, enhances guilt. The fins of a perfon
greatly privileged are crying fins. Every time, and
in every inftance, that I have a6ied unworthy
of my baptifm, I have been guilty of breaking
a cord of divine kindaefs. So far have I
fhaken off the yoke, the eafy yoke of Chrii%
from my neck.
Nov/ that Infant baptifm has the advantage
over adult baptifm, in promoting repentance^ or
godly forrow for fin, I think appears from the
following
902 PraSfkal Reflexions, Ch. 6.
following cxtraci:s on the fubje(5l : " When God
aggravates the fin of his people Ifrael (Ezek. xvi.)
under the fimilitude of a child taken into his
fpecial care from the very womb, he lays a fuffi-
cient ground for the deducing of this conclufion ;
That for any perfon or people, fo related to
God from infancy^ as he there exprefleth, to
depart from God by fmning againft him, is a
very great aggravation of fin. — Suppofe God
therefore pleading againft any fmner of the Jews'
nation in the ftrain of that chapter, and you wilf
fee it yield as great aggravations of perfonal fins
as national. Thou — in the day in which thoii
waft born waft naked, and in thy blood, utterly
naked and deftitute of original righteoufnefs, and
defiled with the ftain and guilt of original fm,
an object of loathing and abhorrency to a pure
and holy God as I am; yet when 1 pafTed by
thee, and faw thee polluted in thine own blood,
I faid unto thee, when thou waft in thy blood,
Live ; yea, I faid unto thee, when thou waft in
thy blood, Live. When I pafTed by thee and
looked upon thee, behold! (and wonder at my
goodnefs therein) thy time (even that time) was
a time of love, and I fpread my fkirt over thee,
and ct vered thy nakednefs ; yea, I fware to
thee, in circumcifion^ and entered into covenant
with thee, faith the Lcnl^ and thou becameft
mine, and 1 wafhed thee with water, 5cc. and
bred thee at my coft, under my o" dinances^ from
that day, yet l-aft thou forgotten all this kind-
ness, and rebelled againft me. Alter the word
cinumci/iGn into baptifm^ and make the applica-
tion
Ch. 6. PraSiical RefleSl'iom- 303
tion to yourfelf, and tlien fee whether it doth
not afford a cutting aggravation of fin. Ana-
baptifm yields no fuch aggravation of fin, for
it allows no man any fpecial relation to God,
no covenant, no engaging ordinance, no peculiar
covenant mercy, till adual faith, i. e. till years
of difcretion*."
Another *' ground of humiUation from in-
fant baptifm, is from the cunfideration of the
apojlacy tha% upon that account, is in the bowels
of every fuch perfon's fin, as was then admitted
into covenant with God. And methinks I may
to very good purpofe write bitter things againft
ftns of youth upon this ground. Ah wretch?
did God enter thee in his fchool, nay, adjiiit
thee into his family from a child ; did he in
much mercy make thee a covenanter with him-
felf ? — And yet, for all this, thou haft no fooner
been able to fpeak or go, but thou haft fpoken
lies againft him, and gone aiiray from him.
Yea, fince thou haft been capable of under-
ftandlng thy way, thou haft, contrary to the
duty 'of thy natural allegiance, entered into a
contrary covenant, and confederacy with the
devil and death, and thine own lufts ; and
maintained a war with this God, with abun-
dance of youthful heat and activity. — O fin-
ner ! remember from whence thou art fallen,
and repent, and renew thy covenant with God^
before, by moie ri vetted and aggravatvjd apofta-
cies, thou provoke him to — deal witli thee, as
thou
* FoRD*s Di.Iogue, utfu^rOf p, 49 — 5i»
^04 Pra^ical Refefiions, Ch. 6,
thou haft dealt with him.— Luther tells us a
{lory of a virgin that was wont to rcfift temp-
tations with this anfwer, Baptlzata Jum^. I am
baptized^ Satan, aid bein^ luajhedy fiall I with
the fow wallow in the mire again? I confefs
this is a prevalent cauiion from the general
confideration of baptifm ; but I am much mif-
taken if it conclude not more forcibly^ when
ftrengthened with this fpedal circumftance of
the time of the adminiftration which we are
now handling. Thus: Shall I fm againft an
ancient friend, mine and my faHier's God?
Shall I fell the inheritance of my fathers? (r
Kings xxi. 3, 4.) Forfake my father's friend?
(Prov. xxvii. 1.0.) — ShaU I now forfake my
mafter in whofe houfe I was born, and admit-
ted to the privileges of his family as foon as I
was born ? Shall I now be reconciled to fm,
to which I was a fworn enemy from my mo-
ther's breaft? God did me the greateft [exter-
nal] kindnefs I was capable of in my infancy,
and what wrong hath he done me (ince that
time, that I (hould now entertam a motion of
unfaithfulnefs to him? God hath been my
mafter thefe fourfcore years (faid old Poly car-
pus) and he hath all this while done me no
hurt, and ftiall I forfake him now? Surely all
the arrows in the quiver of Anabaptilm will
not pierce fo deep into the heait of a tempta-
tion as tills will I."
" Can 1 do otlierwife than melt into tears of
godly
X lb. p. 51, £2, 54, 55.
Ch. 6. Praalcal RefleSfions, 305
godly forrow, fays the pious Air. Henry, whea
1 reflect that I was baptized in infancy?
For if fo, then, by fin I have ill requited God's
early kindnefs to me. I have offended my God,
and the God of my fathers, who, upon my
father's account, dealt fo favourably with me.
It is often mentioned as an aggravation cf fm,
that it is againft the God of our fathers : thus
2 Chron. vii. 22. " Becaufe they have forfaken
the God of their fathers." So, 2 Chron. xxviii.
6. — Loved when a child, and yet revoking, and
dealing treacheroufly ! When we were polluted
and expofed, then regarded, pitied, taken up,
wafhed, adornt-d, taken into covenant, adopted
into a good family ; and was not that a time
of love? love fealed, love enfured, preventing
love, unmerited love ? What ! and yet defpife
fuch rich love, fpurn at fuch bowels ! Do ye
thus requite the Lord? Is this thy kindncfi to
thy friend? How fliould we charge this home
upon our fouls in our repentance, and bki(h
for our ingratitude ? Nouripjed^ and brought up^
and yet rebflLng I — Born in his houfe, brought
up in his family, brought betimes under his
jaw, and yet (leaking oiT the yoke, and burfting
the bop.ds ! Did God take me into covenant
with himielf, when I was a child^ ai.d look
upon me ever fmce as a covenanter ; and yet
no fooner have I been able to go, than I have
gone from him ? to Ipeak, than I have fpoken
to his ditlionour ? — Ihofe who are not bap-
tized till years of difcretion, have no fuch con-
fiderations;
306 Traakal RefleSlions. Ch. 6.
fiderations, to humble them for the finful va-
nities of childhood and youth, as they have,
who were baptized in thdr infancy. Let this
therefore break our heart for the fuis of our
youth*."
§ 13. 4. Was I baptized in infayuy ? Then
I have a fuperadd.d inducement to dedicate my^
felf X.0 the Lord. 1 vNas dedicated by my pa-
rents, and by thy niiniilerir-g fervant, Lord,
and now I would teftify my approbation of
what they did on my behalf, by giving up my-
felf^ which is my realonable fervice, to thee as
my Lord and my God, So far am I from
queftioning the natural right of my parents over
me, or the propriety of their giving up that
right to thee, as the God of grace^ that I blefs
thy name for giving them the opportunity and
inclination fo to do. 1 would be thankful, that
a minifter was applied to on the occai^on ; that
be complied; that what was thus done on
earth, was confirmed in heaven ; that my lot
was caft among chriftians, to whom are com-
mitted the oracles of God; and that my un-
profitable lire is thus prolonged. What method
fliall L adopt to exprefs my grateful feelings ?
I will take the cup of falvation, and call upon
the name of the Lord. I will pay my obliga-
tions to the moft High, by the aids of his
grace, in the beft manner I am able. O Lord
my God, '' I blefs thee for my creation, pre-
fervation, and all the blefllngs of this life; but
above
♦ Treat,, on Bapt, p. 197—199.
Ch. 6. Praaical Refie£iions, 307
above all, for thine ineftimable love in the re-
demption of the world by our Lord Jefus Chrift ;
for the means of grace," and particularly my
infant haptifm^ by which I was dedicated to thy
mercy, protection, and fervice, " and for the
liope of glory. And I befeech thee give me
that due {&x\\^ of all thy mercies," and efT:>eci-
ally that holy ordinance whereby i was initiated
as a meniber of thy church, '^ that my heart
may be unfeignedly thankful'; and that I may
ftiew forth thy praife, not only with my lips,
but in my life; by giving up myfelf to thy fer-
vice, and by walking before thee in holinefs
and righteoufnefs all my days, thro' Jeius Chrift
my Lord."
§ 14. 5. Was I baptized in infancy? What
an additional obligation and motive to cultivate
univcrfal hoitnefs ! Shall I embrace and cherhh
now, what was fo long ago and ever fince pro-
hibited? Shall I not " renounce the devil and
all his works, the pomps and vanities of this
wicked world, and all the finful lufts oif the
flelh," feemg tiiefe things are contrary to the
order, peace, and harmony of the houfe in
which I was brought up ? Have I from a
child borne the name of Chrift ? Is not this
a great ho?iourP Let me then deteft every
thing which has the leaft tendency to difcredit
fo honourable a connexion. Having been brought
up m the houfe of God, fliall I forget that
holinefs becometh it for ever ? Having been
brought up in a palace, the church of the
living
308 'PrrMlcal RtfleS^ions, Ch. 6.
living God, which he hath built for the houfe
of his kingdom, by the might of his unrivalled
power, and for the honour of his glorious ma-
jefty ; and ihall I embrace dunghills t Was I
pointed out by name, while an infant, as an
intended fervant cf the King of Glory; and
(hall I now reft fatii,fied with a ftate of bon-
dage to iin and Satan ? Was I then, {o be-
times, cal'.ed to holinefs j and fhall I continue
ftill under this dellrudive vafTalage ? Was I,
when an helplels infant, guilty and polluted,
adopted by n>y heavenly father, to the intent ^
that fin might not have dominion over me;
that I might be m the way of holinefs and
happincfs ; and fhall not this be a motive for
me to perfeSI holinefs in the fear of God?
" Is Iftael a fervant? is he a home-born
flave ? why is lie ipoiled ?" Am I a child,
brought up in God's houfe ; why then am I
fo deftitute of holinefs ? Where is the robe of
right eoufnefs, the 8;arment of falvation, and the
beauty of holinefs ? This is the proper drefs
of the family. W^hence carne I, then, to be
"•' wretched, and miferable, and poor, and blaid,
and naked ?" This is not the fault of my hea-
venly father, and his houfe is well furnifl.ed
with every needful fupply. O my foul, " haft
thou not procured this unto thyfelf, in that
thou haft forfaken the Lord thy God, when he
Jed thee by the way? — Thine own wickednefs
fhall correct thee, and thy backflidings fliall
reprove thee : know therefore and fee, that it
is
^^^' 6- PraSfical R^fiealons. 309
is an evil thing and bitter that thou haft for-
faken the Lord thy God, and that my fear is
not in thee, faith the Lord God of Hofts.
For of eld time I have broken thy yoke, and
burft thy bands. I had planted thee a noble
vine, wholly a right feed : how then art thou
turned into the degenerate plant of a ftrange vine
unto me," faith the Lord ? " How canft thou
fay, I am not polluted ?^ Wilt thou not from
this time ciy unto me. My Father, thou art
the guide of my youth ?^ Turn, O backflidin^
children, faith the Lord, for I am married unto
you." lurn, O my fouJ, from the forbidden
and dangerous paths of fin, to the King's high-
road of hoiiriefs i and the rather, becaufe there
thou haft been placed, and oughteft to have
walked, from the beginning. Return, O prodi-
gal, to the hoiy rules and precious privileges of
thy Father's houfe; and the rather, becauje it is
the houfe of thy infancy. The Holy God, is
the God of thy infancy J the Holy Saviour' is
the Saviour of thy infancy; the hoiy church, is
the houfe of thy infancy ; the holy angels, are
the guards of thy infancy ; and thy . holy bap,
tifm was a folemn and exprefs entrance on all
thefe hoJy relations and conneaions. Where-
fore, let holinefs to the Lord be my motto, refult-
ing from my baptifm ; and let the confidera-
tion of my infant baptifm give it a peculiar em-
phafis and powerful influence on my mind.
§ 15. 6. Was I privileged with chriftian bap-
tifm m my infancy ? Then let me improve
my
3IO PraSfical RefleSi'mis, Ch. 6.
my privilege for more exemplary diligence. ''As
we are chnftians, we have not only temptations
to be refified, and fins to be avoided, but
work, to be done ; great and neceffary work, tor
God and our fouls, and eternity. — Now nothing
can more quicken us to that work, than a
lively fenfe of our relation to the Lord Jefus
Chrift as his fervants ; truly I am thy Jervant,
(Pfa. cxxi. 1 6.) To maintain that fenfe, and to
excite us to an anfwerable diligence in our duty,
we Ihould frequently confider our baptifm ; ef-
pecially our infant baptifm. — Our baptifm as ad-
miniltered in infancy, doth very much ftrengthen -
the engagement \ and may help to quicken our
dulnefs, and put us forward, when we begin
to loiter. — If our engagements to him had been
only the refult of our own choice, we might
have been tempted to think, that a recantation
would diiTolve the obligation : but we are the
Lord's by a Jcrmer dedication*''' — God is our
kind mafter. " Kind indeed, who would take
us into his fam.iiy, and admit us to the pro-
teflion, provifion, and privileges of his family,
when we were incapable of doing him any ac-
tual fervice. Being now gro\^n up, this conn-
deration (hould quicken us to a double dili^
gence : that we may redeem the time loft when
we were children, and make fome gratetul re-
turns to our generous Mafter, for the early
tokens of his good will. IVhen Ifrael was a
CHILD, then I loved him: (Hof. xi. i.) and
(hall not we then ftudy what we fhall render
for
Ch. 6. Pra6lical Refe^ions, 31 1
for that love*?" How long have I been in
my divine Aiafter's houie and lervice, and yet
how iittie have, I iaipro\eG my invaluable
privileges, and how iinperteStly dilcharged
incumbent duty? May tiie quaatity of time
lort, make me the more careful of the re-
mainder. May the coniideraTion of the length
of road which I have travelled in departing
from Godj make me the more diligent now 1
am brought back to the King's highway,
§ ^^' (3) 'iHE baptifn of infants may af-
ford us, coniidered as parents, many devout
and profitable refle61:ions. Am I a parent?
Then Jet me improve baptifm — to increafe my
thankfulnejs to God, for admitting my children
to partake of it with myfelf— to teftify my
deftre of benefiting my children— to influence my
prayers for them- to afiilt me in promoting their
falvation^ their knowledge of that gofpel which
baptifm feals, their faith and repentance, holi-
nefs and happinefs— to inculcate on them chrif-
tian /^//i/)^ri -relative ^«^^/>j— and a converfation
becoming the golpel of Chrift.
§ 17. I. Is my child admitted to bap-
tifm ? Then let me improve the happy occa-
fion to increafe my thankfulnefs to God. Is
the Lord a covenant God, thro' a Mediator,
to any of the children of men ? This i^ a fub-
jea of pleafing wonder. But is he a covenant
God to me? This calls for my warmeft returns
of faith, love and thankfgiving. faith in the
covenant
* HtNRv's Treat, on Bapt. p. 189, ,91, ,55,,
2i2 PraSikal Rejie^iojis. Ch. 6.
covenant promile, love to the Divine Pfomifer,
and thanklgiving for the invaluable contents.
Yet this wonderful condelcenfion, great as it
is, does not exprcfs the whole of the divine
hberality. My covenant God is alfo the God
of my children, I will be a God to thee and
to thy feed. I will be a God to thee fays
Jehovah. " Wonder at his condefcending good-
nefs. Whence is this to me ! a worthlefs worm
of the earth ? fo rr^ean, fo vile, and yet taken
into covenant with God ! interelled in the
Lord of Glory ; his attributes, his promifes !
Who am /, O Lord God! (2 Sam. vii. i8.)
That God (hould take any notice of me, fhould
{hew me any token for good, is wonderful !
confidering how undeferving, how ill- deferving,
I am; but that he fhould communicate his
favours in a covenant way ; inteipofe himfelf for
fecurity; n.ake himfelf a debtor to his own
truth ; is fuch a paradox of love, as challengeth
everlafting wonder and praife.-Let this be the
burden of every fong of praife. To perform the
mercy promifed, and tc remember his holy covenant,
(Luke i. 72.)* The fame infallible lips fur-
ther add, " I will be a God to thy feed,'*
W^ere thefe words written for the fake of the
Jewilh church only, or for the chriftian church
alfo? Doubtlefs for the chrillian church, and
for the chriftian parent alfo. How can I avoid
being thankful for the divire grant, as extend-
ing t^o ir.y ^hild with m)fclf ? I cannot help re-
garding
• HeNRY's Ticatife en Bapt. p, 133, 434
Ch. 6. P radical Refeaiom. 313
garding what is a privilege to tins, as matter
of thankful praife from me on its behalf. How
can It be otberwife? for my child is a part of
myfelF, not only in the eflimation of a fond
parent, but by the laws of God and men;
by the concurrent fuffrage of nature and of
nations. Excellent are the following remarks
of Mr. Henry, for the tranfcribing of which
there needs no apology to the reader ; " Much
of the mercy of having children lies in this,
that we have them to devote to God : not only a
feed to be accounted to us, but to be accounted
to the Lord for a generation (Pfalm xxii. 30.)
Not only to honour us, and to bear up our
names, but to honour God, and to bear up
his name in the world. What is an eftate, or
office, good for, but to glonfy God with it,
and that we may have fomething to lay out
and ufe for his honour? Blefs God that he
hatli not only given you a child, but that he
haih invited and encouraged you to give it to
him again, and is pleafed to accept of it. Be
thankful that you have a child, admit-
ted, from its birth, into the bofom of the
church, and under the wing of the divine Ma-
je%.~ Hannah had been long barren, and it was
her great grief; at length God gave her a
Samuel ; but it doth not appear that his birth
was fo much the matter of her praife, as his
dedication to the Lord. When fhe had brought
him, in his infancy, to the tabernacle, then
It was that fhe faid, My foul rejoiccth in the
^oL. n. P ^^^^^^
21 A, Pra^tcal RefleSiions, Ch. 6.
Lord, (i Sam. i. 28. and ii. I.) You have
more reafon to be thankful that you have a
child born to inherit the privileges of the cove^
nont^ than if you had a child born to inherit
the largeft eftate. — Blefs God that he hath
creeled his tabernacle, and fanduary, in the
inidft of us ; and hath not left himfelf without
witnefs, nor us without the means of grace
and falvation. He hath not dealt fo with
many other nations (they and theirs are afar
eff) ; and (hould not this make us very thank-
ful ? — Rightly underftand the nature and inten-
tion of the ordinance, and you will fay with
wonder and praife, This is no other than the
houfe of God^ and the gate of heaven : this gate
of the Lord into which the righteous Jhall enter.
Enter into it therefore with thankfgiving^ and
into his courts with praife, — Your children are
polluted, but blefs God that there is a foun-
tain openedy Rot only for the houfe of David,
but for the inhabitants of Jerufalem (Zech.
xiii. I.) Draw water therefore with joy out of
thefe wells of falvation. Rejoice that there is
fuch a covenant, which you can, thro' grace,
lay any claim to. The expreflions of joy, and
rejoicing, at the baptifm of a child, fliould be
turned into this channel; and (hould terminate
in God, and in the new covenant f/'
Is mv child baptized ? O what (hall I ren-
der to tlie Lord or the feal of his covenant
to me and mine? To us are given, to us are
fealed
t lb. p. 225, 23^» *3^»
Ch. 6. Pra6lical ReJicSiiom. 315
fealed, exceeding great and precious promifes*
" The hearts of parents, in that aciion^ fliould
be affected," one obferves, " with abundance of
joy and comfort ; looking upon that day, as a
day of their children's efpoufals to Jefus Chrift;
and by confequence, a day that fhouM be
iViore joyful to a godly parent, than the day of
their marriage to the befl. earthly matches that
can pofTibly be defired. If a parent fhould hve
to fee all his children well married, he would
fay, and well he might, (as to the outward
condition of his pofterityj What an happy
man am I that have lived long enough, to fee
all my children fo well difpofed of ! But I
tell all parents that fear God, that the days in
which their children are baptized^ are far joy-
fuller days, than the days of their marriage (if
it might fo come to pafs) to fo many of the
moft potent and mighty princes in the world.
And thou that haft feen all thy children bap-
tized, haft lived long enough to fee them ten
thoufand times better beftowed. Thou haft ef-
poufed them to Chrift, and he hath made them
a jointure beyond the abilities of all the mo-
narchs in the world ; and therefore write down
the days of your children's baptifm^ as their
wedding-day Sy and as often as you have occa-
fion to remember them, remember it is your
duty to rejoice in the Lord, and blefs him on
that account*."
§ 18. 2. As a parent^ let me ufe and im-
P 2 prove
• Ford's Dialogue, ut Jupra, Part II. p, 92.
31 6 Pt;aoflcal RefleSilotts» Ch. 6.
prove the chriftian ordinance of baptifm, to
tefiify my deftre of benefiting my infant child.
I would confider baptifm in the light of a
benefit conferred^ rather than that of a duty per-
formed. To think otherwife, would lead me to
a radical miflake. Nor fliould I confider the
baptifm of an adult in any other liglit. The
baptifm even of fuch^ properly confidered, is a
privilege received, not a debt difcharged. If is our
duty to receive a gift^ only in an in Ure5l fenfe ;
but it is dire£lly our privilege. It would be
the duty of my child, were he adult, to receive
any advantageous offer, remotely ; but his privi-
lege, in the moft dire£i fenfe : confequenily, bap-
tifm, which in its proper nature is, demonrtra-
bly, a blejjingy or benefit, has nothing to do
with the duty of the fubjecl: of it dircSily, but
remotely. For, as he may be benefited by an
eftate, or legacy, without any fuppofition of du-
tiful co?npliance, becaufe fuch an act of benefiting
has no immediate concern with duty ; in hke
manner he may be benefited by baptifm, as a
divine grant. And yet the very fame thing,
which in its own nature is a beneficial grant,
be it what it may, does not require of an in-
fant any dutiful compliance, but of an adult
does require it. Which (hewi, that compliance
or fubmifTion, in reference to a beneficial grant,
is but a mere accident of the fubje6t, but not
an effential qualification; but ftill, when any
who have a liberty and right of choofing,
embrace what is in itfelf beneficial, they a6l
dutifully^
Ch. 6. P radical RefieSltons, 317
dutifully^ and vice verja. Thus it was, for in-
ftance, with refpeil to circumcilion.
If the direct notion of baprifm be that of a
ienefit granted by Jehovah to me and mine^ Uke
the precious promife it feals 5 it clearly follows,
that their want of underftanding, and voluntary
acceptance, is no juft bar to its application.
Wherefore, how can I difcharge the duty of
a parent, who impartially confults the welfare
of his child, if I withhold from it what is di-
vinely bequeathed to it in common with my-
felf? I am defired to confult the good of my
children, by bringing them up in the nurture
ana admonition of the Lora\ this fhews that the
means of this nurture and admonition, the rules
. of chriftian difcipline and inftrudtion, the facred
oracles, are intended for their ufe. How, then,
can I, in juftice to my truft, appropriate to
them the contents of the intruftment fealed,
but withhold from them, without any forfei-
ture on their part, the feal^ of which they are
as capable as myfelf ? Does God ever fay,
Baptifm is not to your infant children, tho'
the promife is to them ? If he does not tear
off the feal from his will concerning them,
nor requires me to do it, why fhould I do it?
Inftead of puttmg my fancy to the rack for
fome excepting claufe, whereby they may be
deprived of the baptifmal benefit ; let me thank-
fully acknowledge the loving- kindnefs of the
Lord in putting fuch a painful difcovery out
of my power, and even out of the power of
P 3 aU
2i8 PrjiSilcal JlefleSfions, Ch. 6.
all tliofc who mofl: zealoufly attempt it. Let
me not be alhamed to do this a<5l of kindnefs
to my child, even in the great congregation, if
thought moft convenient. God is not afliamed
to be called its God \ Chrilt is not afliamed to
fay. Suffer it to come, or to be brought tome,
and forbid it not ; and (hall I be alhamed or
backward to ovv^n that honourable relation,
that advantageous approach ? Is Chrift willing
to take it as a lamb to his fold, a member to
his church j and fliall I to whom it is a
fecond-felf, of whom it is, as it were, a part —
fhall I alone negative the gracious motion? I
cannot, and, without an authority which I have
not difcovered, I will not. But will fay, encou-
raged by fo many rational, fcriptural, irrefifti-
ble motives, before the world, before the church,
and in the prefence of profefTed oppofers — Be-
hold, Lord, here I am, and the child, or chil-
dren, thou haft giacioufly given me. What
thou granteft to my offspring, I defire as a
faithful fleward not to deprive them of, but
faithfully and chearfuJly to appropriate for the
intended ufe.
§ iq. 3. Am I the parent of a baptized child,
or children ? How (hould their vifible rela-
tion to Chriil: and his church, influence my
prayers for them ? Tho' morally polluted, yet
relatively they are not unclean but holy» Ac-
cording to the will of Chrift, I have given up
my natural right in them, and over them, to
the God of grace. They are dedicated to Fa-
ther,
Ch. 6. PraSiical RefleSilons, 319
ther. Son, and Spirit, that they may be in
every refpe£i what chriliianity requires them ta
be. They are fuch as the Lord my God hath
called i and their calhng is a high and holy cal-
ling. May I command nothing, require no-
thing, endure nothing, and do nothing unwor-
thy of fuch a relation and holy calling! Lord,
teach and affift me to bring them up as chrlf^
tiam^ in thy nurture and admonition. They
having been difcipled and baptized, may I be
found diligent and fuccefsful in teaching them to
ohferve all things whatjoever thou haji commanded
us. O what precious promifes are fealed to
them 1 May they have an early and faving ac-
quaintance with thefe promifes! O that they
may fpeedily know the things freely given them
of our covenant God ! May no backwardnefs
or negle<5l on my part, keep them in ignorance
of the things fealed to them, or fofter a cri-
minal indifference ! Various and important
are the bleffings and obligations exhibited ia
baptifm, as we have feen, (chap. ii. § 15 — 21.)
O that every one of thefe bleflings were actually
polTeffed, and every obligation, according to their
capacities, were difcharged, by my dear children !
Mighty Saviour, I would make my fupplication
unto thee, in behalf of every child thou haft
gracioufly given me, with the faith and impor-
tunity of the woman of Canaan (Matt, xv.)
in behalf of her daughter, faying, Have mercy
on me, O Lord, thou Son of David, my child
(this child and the other) labours under the
P 4 g^^il^
320 PraSlical Reflexions, Ch. 6.
guilt, pollution, difeafe and tyranny of fin, with-
out thy help. Lord, help me. I cannot doubt
of thy power.y nor while thy word, thy oath, tliy
facred feal ftand uncancelled, can 1 doubt of
thy wiilingnefs to lave to the uttermort all
that come to thee. I do not ground my fup-
plications on the worthinefs of myfeif or mine,
but on thy free grant of covenant favours.
This my faith would reft upon. Were I to
admit and plead this free grant actually made
to my children, and yet not baptize them, I
fliould be guilty of a criminal fo'cecifm in my
chriftian profelTion. I Hiould then mutilate the
gift of God, and zvithhold more than is meety
which would tend to i?npoveyiJh the legatees,
the church of Chrift, and probably my own
foul. 1 have therefore admitted thy covenant
gift in its full extent ; and received both the
inftrument and the feal in faith. Now, Lord,
help me to make them acquainted with their
privileges and obligations. By thy Holy Spirit
blefs my endeavours, and command fuccefs.
Are we the objects of the promife, the rich
bleffings of the new covenant, and yet neither
fxQ.t^ holy, nor happy, but the reverfe ? Surely,
then, we are not ftraitened in Chrift, nor in
his gofpel, but we are ftraitened in our own
bowels. O that, for a recom pence in the fame,
we, as the children of the covenant, may be
alfo enlarged! (2 Cor. w\. 11 — 13.) Compani-
onate Saviour, 1 bring my children unto thee,
who haft faid, Suffer the httle chidren to come
unto
Ch. 6. Pta6lical ReJleSfions* 32 1
unto me, and forbid them not ; for of fuch is
the kingdom oi God. Take tliem up in thy
arms of mercy, and blefs them. Thine they
were, thou gaveft them me, and haft made
them partakers of the covenant means of grace;
O receive them under thy fpecial proteition and
guidance, make them the fubjects of the grace
of thefe means, which it • is thy will they fhould
enjoy !
" The fealing of the covenant in general, as
a token of God's good will to our feed, is a
fufiicient handle for faith to take hold on, in
praying for our children. I fee not how thofe
parents can with equal confidence pray for
their children, who deny them to be in cove-
nant, and fo fet them upon even ground
with tlie children of infidels*." No prayer for
a bleiTing io acceptable, but the prayer o^ faith \
no hlejjing can be prayed for in faith, but what
is promifed 'y to have a promife is to have a
covenant grant; wherefore, I can confftently pray
for my children in faithy no further than I
allow them an intereft in the gofpel covenant
that is to fay, that the adminiftration and oeco-
nomical privileges of mercy appertain to them,
and confequently baptifm ; nor (hould any thing
be deemed a bar to the enjoyment of them
but incapability or a criminal rejeftion, But
they neither criminally reject, nor are incapable;
confequently, the covenant and its feal termi-
nate and reft upon them, and in warding off
any part of what was thus intended for their
P5 ure,'
* Treat, o« Bapt. p, 241,
321 PraSiical Refle6lions* Ch. 6.
ufe, I muft be blame-worthy. How can I plead
in faith promifed mercy, while I deny to them
the tokm of mercy ? If baptifm, the token^ be
not theirs, neither is promifed mercy theirs ; and
if the latter be not theirs, faith has no foun-
dation, in reference to their happinefs. Hidden
counfels^ do not tefify or afTert any particular
truth to me concerning my child. Through
grace, I can think, with adoring complacency,
of myfelf and mine being in the hand of a
fovereign God ; but the fovereignty of God, pre-
dejlination^ eternal covenant intereft, particular re- "
demption, and the diflinguijlnng application of
grace, are not the objeds of gofpel faith, pro-
perly and dire6tly. As far indeed as they are
iejltfied of in revelation as fa5ls^ which are only,
general^ fo far, and no farther, faith regards
them. While unexplained, and therefore in the
clafs oi fecret things^ they belong to God\ where-
as the things which are revealed^ and thefe onlyy
belong to me and my children. The arcana
of the divine government, neither are, nor in
the nature of things can be, either the ohjeSls
of my faithn^ or the rules of my duty. In fhort
they are not, they cannot be, the foundation
of the PRAYER OF FAITH. Take away the
plea of covenant interefl^ and faith is ftruck
dumb. Take away covenant promifes^ and faith
is ftruck blind. Take away covenant faithful^
nefs^ and faith has no Jianding. But blefled
be thy name, O Lord my God, my children's
covenant intereji is founded on thy tejiimony^
and
Ch. 6. Practical Refie6liom, 323-
and remaias indifputable, therefore I can plead in
fattn j rhv precious promifes are dire6led to each
by name, as a covenantee, and therefore I may
vieiv in faith thy merciful defigns towards them;
thy faithjulnefs was never known to fail, it
cannot fail, and therefore the heirs of promife
may have ftrong confolation, faith having two
immutable things to ftand upon, the promife
and the oath of that God who cannot lie.
Lord, increafe my faith ! And blefs my chil-
dren with the faving knowledge of thy co-
. venant. Amen.
§ 20. 4. Am I the parent of baptized chil-
dren ? Let me improve their baptifm for their
converfwn and falvation. That baptifm may be
confidered as a moral mean of converiion, faith
and repentance, is evident hence ; If the gofpel
be fo, baptifn is — except we maintain a i^iU
evident abfurdity, that the heavenly charter has
one ufe and tendency, and the feal of that char-
ter another. And with refpect to infants^ it is
as much fo, at leafl, as any other part of the
gofpel difpenfation can be. If falvation being
come to a houfe, lays all the members of the
family under obligations of receiving that falvati-
on, as they are, or become capable ; that exhibited
falvation may be juftly termed a mean of conver-
fion. In like manner, the feal which authenti-
cates that falvation in the moft unequivocal
form, muft be equally entitled to the fame
if not a fuperior rank. Not to fay, that it
is matter of faa^ that infant baptifm has been
frequently fo owned. And, indeed, it appears
P 6 to
324 Pi'a^kal RefieElions, Ch. 6.
to me that it would be unaccountably flrange
if otherwife. . If the injirmnent fealed be de-
ferving of credit, or a mean of faith ; muft
not the feal itfelf^ the broad feal of heaven, be
confidered in the fame light ? Here obferve,
(i) Our children, as the children of the co-
venant, and baptized, have a peculiar right to
the MEANS of converfion. To illuftrate and
confirm this point, let the following remarks
be confidered : " The oracles of God were (om^
initted to the Jews, and this upon the account
of circumcifion. They were a people, that were
folemnly and facramentally the Lord's, and God
commits his oracles to them. He permitted
them to others providentially ; but he commit-
ted them to the Jews fosderally^ as the law of
the kingdom he would govern them by. They
owed their bible to circumcifion. God's co-
venant was in their flefh, and therefore God
inftru6led them with the inftrument in which it
was drawn up. — It is clear, that the oracles of
God (that pure law, which, as David faith,
converts the foul, Pfa. xix. 7.) are the portion of
a people in covenant with God. Our infants,
►therefore, being, according to our principles, in
covenant with God, are intitled to the bible,
and all the contents thereof. — Add to this, the
minijlers^ the difpenfers of this word, are, upon
the account of church-memberjhip^ tbeirs, with
all their gifts, graces, and labours. Paftors and
teachers are fet up in the churchy (i Cor. xii.
28.) and given to them as a peculiar fruit of
Chrift's afcenfion, (Eph. iv. 12.)— God's huf-
bandmen
Ch. 6. P radical Reflexions, 325
band men are fet over his own inch fur e^ his
fhepherds over his own fiock^ and his builders
over his own building. If any perfons t herefor
be aliens to the common wealth of Ifrael^ no nnem-
bers of the church, lye common with the reft
of the world, (hut out of this enclofure, be not
(heep of this fold, no ftones in this building —
however God may providentially extend the be-
nefit of his minifters' labours to fuch perfons,
yet, — they can claim no covenant right or title
to any fpiritual advantage from them. — But our
children even from infancy, by our principles,
are entitled by a covenant right to all thofe pre-
cious emoluments which accrue therefrom.— To
which I may add, private means of converlion,
to which there are promifes made. That j/a9eo-ta
Kypa, the nurture of the Lord^ of which the apof-
tle fpeaks, infiruciion and corretlion^ as ordi-
nances of God, and all the promifes made
unto them, are not to be extended beyond the
church, as to the benefit that may be expeded
from them.
"But may not a godly parent of an y\na-
baptiftical judgment — obtain that ble/fing upon
his labours in the education of his child— whe-
ther his child be [deemed] in covenant with him
or no, bap:ized or unbaptized ?— I deny not but
he may. For the mercy of God to his people, is
many times, larger than their faith or prayers.
So that God uiay look upon thofe children as
in covenant with him, and deal with them as
fuch, whom their parents deny him a [viiiWe]
title to. — ^God may, and I doubt not doth
many
226 P ra£f leal ReJleSf Ions, Ch. 6.
many times, remejuher the covenant which they
finfully i or get \ and does them good upon the
account thereof, when they never plead it.
" But — can it be fuppofed, that ordinances
fhould be fo vifibly ineffectual upon fuch num-
bers of thofe, to whom they and the blefTmg
of them do peculiarly belong ? No wonder at
all that it fhould be fo. The apoftle anfwers
this very objedion, in my judgment, in the
cafe of the Jews, and their ordinances, Rom.
iii. 3. When he had fpoken concerning the
peculiar right of the Jews to the oracles of "
God, (V, 2.) he forefaw the objection that
might thence be ftarted : But how came it to
pafs that fo many of them were never the
better for them?— The apoftle anfwers this ob-
jediion thus : What if fome did not believe ? fiall
their unbelief make the faith of God of none effe5l ?
— The privilege of the Jew, in the enjoyment
of ordinances, was continued to the church by
God's faithfulnefs. — So that tho' divers of
them periffied under them thro' unbelief yet
God's covenant in the vouchfafement of them
was entire and unbroken notwithftanding. — In
like manner I may fay concerning the chil-
dren of Pcedobapti/h^ their privilege in the pecu-
liar right they have to converting ordinances is
not at all impaired by the ineflicacy of thofe
ordinances, upon any, or any number of them.
It is their privilege to enjoy them, and it will
be the aggravation of their guilty that tficy do
not improve them. And although they have a
peculiar
Ch. 6i PraSilcal RefleSlions, 327
peculiar right to the bleffing of ordinances, as
well as the ordinances themfclves, yet bccaufe
this right is, as the covenant is that derives it,
external^ it becomes inefteftual to many, thro'
their own neglect of feeking to God in his
own way for the obtaining thereof. Befides,
to the fhame of many of us it may be fpoken,
'divers parents atnong us do not underjiand^ and
others, out of diflatisfadtion as to their cove-
nant intereft, dare not, or through fmful neg-
Ie6l do not plead with God for their children
[and with their children for GodJ as they liavc
fufficient warrant to do.
" And here I fhall afk you a queftion .
concerning promifes of cojiverjion — To whom
think you do fuch promifes belong ? To thofe
within the church, or thofe that are without
it ? — An alien from the commonwealth of
Ifrael, is alfo a ftrangcr to the covenants of
promife, Eph, ii. 12. and fo no promife of the
covenant belongs to any one, that is not a church
member. — Be then yourfelf judge, whether the
, principles that exclude infants of believing [i. e.
chriftian] parents, out of covenant with God
and out of all church relation ; or thofe thatt
admit them to both, give the more comfortable
hopes of converfion to them. We fay that they
are not only under a providential capacity of
converfion, as mere heathens are, but they are
under a covenant capacity^ becaufe within that
number to whom the promifes of renewing
grace belong.
" But
328 PraSlical RefieSiionu Ch. 6.
" But — are there not promifes of converting
grace made to the heathen world ? — How then
can it be true—that promifes of converting grace
belong only to church members? Very vi^\\\
except you can make it appear that thofe
fcriptures — come under the proper notion of pro^
mifes^ made to them who are the perfons men-
tioned in them. For my part, 1 look on them
rather as prophecies of the converfion of the gen-
tiles, than promifes; or, if promifes at all, yet
promifes direifted to the Jews concerning the
gentiles.
" I HAVE fomething more to fay— concern-
ing the prayers of the church. Are the prayers
of the church— any means tending to the further-
ance of converjiun^ or no"* Yes, undoubtedly.
For if the effectual prayer of one righteous man
avail much, if it be fervent, as James faith,
furely the prayers of many righteous men, af-
fembled in Chriffs name^ muft needs be far more
prevalent, — Altho' the church — pray for all men^
according to the command, (i Tim. ii. i.) yet
thofe that are moji upon their hearts in tleir
prayers, are thofe of the fame flock and fold
with themielves. — Accordingly, 1 make no qutf-
tion, but that in the inmoft def.res of ail true
chrifiians, the converfion of thofe that are nearcfl
related, whether in natural or chriflian bonds,
is moft paflionately wifhed for ; and, by cunfe-
quence, the little ones born in the church, the
hope of the d--rivation of Chrift's kino;dom to
fucceeding generations. So that thofe pnnciples,
that
C h . 6 . Pra5lical R eJleSIlons. "329
that will not allow fuch perfons a franding in
the church, do what they can to difintereil the>n
in the very cream and mai-row of the whole
church's prayers*."
On the whole, I would obferve concerning
the external means of converfion^ that there is a
certain order of means divinely inftituted, where-
by our dcfires and our endeavours ought to be
regulated. By a prefumptuous difregard of this
order^ we are in danger of tempting God. For
inftance : If the convcrfion of the heathen be the
fubject, order requires, that the Jirji /iep in our
prayers and attempts (liould be, rhat God by
his providence would open an entrance, an ef-
fe6tual door, for his gofpel to be fent to them,
in purity and power. That the Lord would
convert them, by fending them firft the means
of converfion. A fccond Jiep in order is, that
a difpenfation of mercy may be e/lablijhed among
them ; that they may be brought inro a church
ftate, and have the minillration of the word
and ordinances as a people. A t.ird gradation
which divinely inftiruted order requires, is, that
we dcfire the grace of the means may be
communicated, and that fouls may be converted
to God, made to receive Chrift, juftified and
fanclified in the name of the Lord Jefus
and by the fpirit of our God. This order is
beautifully defcribed by St. Paul : " Whofoever
fhall call upon the naine of the Lord fliall be
faved. How then (hall they call on him in
whom
♦ Ford's Dial, Part, II, p. j8 — 49,
330 Pra^ical Reflccfions, Ch. 6.
"whom they have not believed? and how fi^iall
they believe in him of whom they have not -
heard? and how (hall they hear without a
preacher? and how Ihall they preach except;
they ht fent ?'' (Rom. x. 13 — 15.) He does
not, I appreliend, argue the abfolute impolFibi-
lity of falvarion to any but in this exa'5l mode,
but he fliews which is the appointed plan of means^
\\hich we are to regard. — In hke manner: If
the converfion of our children be the fubjeci:, or-
* der requires, that v^'e fliould jirjt delire, and ufe
our influence in bringing them into a church
Jlate, They are born under a difpenfation of ^
grace ; in that rcfpeoi they are not imclean^ but
holy-y nothing but our avowed rejection of chrif-
tianity can deprive them of that privilege. But
none can be deemed of the vifihle churchy regu-.
larly, without initiation by baptifm. This is
the inftituted porch to the temple of means.
To defire and make ufe of fubjequent means.,
while that which is initiatory is not ufed, is
irregular and prefumptuous. A fecond Jlep in
the divine plan is, that I fhould feek from the
God of means a blelling in their iife\ the con-
verfion of my children as partaken of the means
and not without them. For me to defire
grace for my child for converfion, and yet
deny him any of the means of grace of which
he is a capable fubje6l, is unfcriptural, difor-
derly, and prepoflerous. As, therefore, I delire
his converfion^ let me obferve the order of mdans
leading thereto j and O that I may never be
foiHid
Ch. 6. PraJfical Reflcciions, 331
found remifs, while nfmg the means, in fecking
their end» And that the important end of con^
verfton may be regularly fought, and is pecu-
liarly favoured by, infant baptifm^ will further
appear, if we obferve,
§ 21. (2) That the practice of baptizing
hifants, (cat, par.) may furnifh a parent with
many convincing conliderations and arguments,
in pleading with his child, with a view to his con-
verfion, which otherwife he could not fo well urge.
" My- dear child, may he fay, thou art a fm-
" ner from thy birth, guilty and polluted,
" This thy baptifm teaches. In baptifm, God
^' (hews and teftifies that he will forgive fms ;
" and this is one reafon why thou haft been
" baptized, becaufe thou art a fmner, ftanding
"in need of fpiritual wafhing. Thou art not;
" to think that the water of baptifm take3
" away fin, that is, pardons and makes thee
" pure in foul ; no, no, it only fhews thee
'' plainly that thcu xvanteji this pardon and
" purity i and it alfo fl^iews, that God is mer-
*' ciful and willing to give thee every good
" thing in this life and in the world to come
*' on thy coming to him. He fays in his wordy
" that he will give grace and glory ; that thofe
" who feek him early, that is, when young as
" thou art, fliall find him^ and Chrift fays he
" will in no way caft out any poor {inner that
" Cometh to him. But thy baptifm Ihews
"y?/7/ 7nore tlainly^ that thou art guilty, and
"that God is merciful— That thou art im-
« pure
- 33^ PraSlkal Reflexions, Ch. 6.
" pure, that is, unfit to go to heaven, but
** that God is willing, on thy coming to him,
'' to cleanfe thee and to make thee meet for
" heaven My dear child, learn this, and ftrive
*' to underftand it without delay. If tiiou dicft
*' without repentance — how ihall 1 fpeak it? —
" thou muft perirti for ever. No one goes to
" heaven without pardon, and thou muft not ex-
*' peil to go there without rtpentance. And O
" remcinber that not only the bible, the fab-
" baths, the fermons, the prayers, and the ad-
" vices thou haft from me and others, will rife
" up againft thee, if thou continueft impeni-
" tent, but alfo thy baptifm^ in the day of
" judgment.
" Observe again, my dear child; tho' you
" go with me to worfnip the great and "good
" God, to his houfe of prayer on the Lord's
" Day ; and tho' you are always prefent at our ,
*' family devotion ;— tho' you never take the
" holy name of God in vain, as many
" naughty children do ; nor do of a fabbath
" day as they do ; yet this is not enough to
" give you a title to heaven. This is very
" good in its place ; as alfo to honour your
*' parents. To behave properly to your fupe-
" riors, fchool -mates, and all people. *' To
*' render yourlelf lowly and reverently to all
" your betters. To hurt no body in word or
" deed. To be true and juft in all your deal-
" ings. 7'o bear no malice, nor hatred in your
** heart. To keep your hands from picking
" and
cc
Ch. 6. PraSfical Rejie5lions, 393
and ftealing; and your tongue from evil fpeak-
ing, lying and flandering." Thefe things, I
fay, are very right. Lut the beft of men do
" them very imperfectly ; and except we have
" a better title to heaven than this, we can by
" no means be laved. Now, obferve, becaufe
" we could not keep God's holy law perfectly,
" he fent his Son, Jefus Chrift, into the world
" to keep it perfectly in our rtead, that by our
" believing in him we Ihould not perifh but
" have everlafting life. This your baptifm
" teaches ; for St. raul fays, that to be bap-
" tized into Chrift, fignifies to ^ut on Chrift;
" that is, that he is our worthinefs, our per-
'' fe6lion, our righteoufnefs. This is one of
" thofe very important truths that your bap-
" tifm teftifies and feals. O then, my dear
" child, bring thy poor, peii(hing k\i to Jefus ^
" Chrift. He will not put thee off, for he has
" declared he wont. He went thro' every ftate,
" from infancy to manhood ; and having been
" a child himfelf, when in the world, he re-
" ceives children. O the happinefs he has to
" give ! He will not only keep thee from hell,
" but at death take thee to heaven. He alone
" can make thee truly good ; I cannot. No-
"body on earth can. But Jefus Chrift, being
" himfelf divinely good and gracious, can make
" us good ; yes, he can and will make thee
" fo, on coming to him with all thy heart.
" This thou mayeft be as fure of as that thou art
" baptized. For baptifm according to the will
"of
124 'Pra5lical RejieBiom, Ch. 6.
" of Chrift is a feal for confirmation. You
*' know, my dear, that what an honejl man con-
" firms hy fealing it, he will fland by. Much
" more fo will our gracious Lord and Saviour.
" Senfible of thy fmful and helplefs condition,
" with the affiftance of divine grace, and v^ith
" a contrite heart, pray unto this merciful re-
" deemer in fome fuch words as thefe: " O
" Lord God, who alone canft fave me from
" fm and the wrath to come, accept the prayers
" and the cries of a helplefs child. No one on
" earth or in heaven but thyfelf, O Lord moft
" merciful, can help me. I am deftroyed by
" fin, the fm of my heart efpecially, but my
" help is from thee. Accept me in Chrift,
" whofe nature and life were perfectly holy, and
" who is made wifdom, righteoufnefs, fandtifica-
" tion and redemption, to all thy children. O
" that as I have been baptized with water, I
" may alfo be baptized with the Holy Ghoft.
" And as this was fignified and fealed by my
'^ baptifm, grant it me, O Lord God, for
« ChrilVs fake. Amen."
§ 22. 5. Am I the parent of baptized chil-
dren ? Then let me improve their baptifm, for
the purpofe of inculcating upon them chriftian
tempers. Let me remind them, that to anfwer
the great ends of our baptifm, is the fame as
to be true chrifians ; to have that mind which
was in Chrift Jefus, a difinterefted, humble,
loving and liberal difpofition ; to live and walk
as he would have them, by faith and not by
fenfe.
Ch. 6. PraSlical RefeSfions, 33 r
fenfe. Baptifm, like chrifiianity itfelf, points
them to a penitent frame of mind ; to a refo-
lute oppofuion, by grace, to youthful lufts and
the whole body of fm ; to heavenly-mindednefs
and firm attachment to Chrift. (See chap, ii
§ i8~2i.)
§ 23. 6, As a paretit let me improve the
baptifm of my children for. the purpofe of pro-
moting in them a due regard to relative du-
ties. As their baptifm introduces them into a
ftate of new relation/hip^ it requires anfwerable
duties. As baptized ones, as chrifhans in name
and calling, let me often remind them of the
apoftolick exhortations, which are often founded
on the fam.e confideration. Let them be ex-
horted to be meek and peaceable, and even to
follow peace with all men, as well as holinefs j
to do good to all as they have opportunity,
and efpecially the mofl ferious and deferving.
And Oh, with the bowels of a parent, with
the integrity, watchfulnefs, concern and impar-
tiality of a chriftian, let me look diligently, as
far as in me lies, « l^'^t any of the/n fail of
the grace of God, left any root of bitternefs,
fpringing up, breed trouble and defile others."
Left there be any revengeful Cain, immodeft:
Ham, profane tfau, or proud Abfalom. And
let me enforce all duties, and efpecially relative
ones, from the apoftle Paul's grand confidera-
tion, (Heb. xii. 22-25.) ^^hat, in vifibiJity and
covenant relation^ « They are come unto mount
Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the
heavenly
336 FraSlical RefieHiom^ Ch. 6.
heavenly Jerufalem, and to an innumerable
company of angels, to the general ajjembly and
church of the firft born, which are written in
heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to
[the fame general relation with] the fpirits of
juft: men made perfecf, and to Jefus the Me-
diator of the new covenant, and to the blood
of fprinkling that fpeaketh better things than
the blood of Abel." In a word, may I im-
prove their baptvfm to promote a converfation
becoming the gofpel of Chrifl.
§ 24. (4) Am I a MINISTER of the gof-
pel? How fhould I dread the thoughts of
withholding water from thofe whom Chrift owns
as the fubjedis of his kingdom. — How ready to
berefir thole who are fo capable and fuirable
fubje£^s of fuch a benefit — With what Jolenmity
dilcharge this branch of miniflerial commilfion —
Vvith vhat clojenejs^ plainnefs and fidelity ad-
drefs, on this cccafion, the parents of the bap-
tized child — How, in improving infant baptifm,
concur with parents, for the aforementioned pur-
pofeSj in private and publick !
§ 25. I. How (hould I dread the thoughts
of withholding waier froiri thofe whom Chrift
owns as the fuVjeds of his Kingdom ! Let me
rtmember, that Chrift fevtrely rehukca his difci-
ples for their keepmg off little children from
being brought to him. Are they not as capable
of the nain end of bapnfm, as the Jewifti in-
fants were cf the prmcipal defign of circum-
cificn ? Do they not anlvNcr the fcriptural re-
quifition
Ch. 6. PralVical RefieSltom, 337
quifition of necefTary .qualifications, fuch as are
perfectly fultahle to the nature and deii^n of
chriftian baptifm ? If fo, I am not guiJtlefs
while I keep out of Chrift's fold, as far as in
me lies, thofe whom he is willing to receive as
the lambs of his vifible flock*.
§ 26. 2. How ready fliould I be to benefit
thofe who are thus qualified, by chearfully obey-
ing the call to baptize them. When I receive
a child into the vifible church, I am not only
executing the will and pleafure of Chrift, but
imitating his tender compafTion towards chil-
dren, whom he ever treated as church members.
What readinefs fhould I difcover in gatherin-:'
the lambs with my arms, in bringing them to
the arms of my Saviour, and their Saviour, who
has promifed to carry them in his bofom.
Delightful tafk ! not only « to rear the tender
mind and teach the young idea how to Oioot '*
but alfo to enter the infant mind into the
fchool of Him who can qualify the youn^refl
child that breathes for heavenly and fublime en-
joyments. Pleafing thought ! that every time I
baptize a child, I am adding to the number of
^^^L' i^- Q. Chrift's
• «* Some pious perfons profcfTdly decLire thit they dare not
«' bapt-2C an infant upon a dogmatical f^iirh in the parents, and
*' I cannot but proftfs that being fairly called to it, I ftouM
«* tremble at the guilt of refuHnp it I fliooM as foon be brought
" to ftrip them of their Ivujh, or {rhentar.ces, devolved upon
" them frnm Uich parents, to talce the bread out of their mouths,
<* as to debar ;hem of this their hnth-prix'ik^tr' Mr. 7tiomaj
Blake, in a Preface to Dr. Ford's DiaK gues concerning the
Pradlical Ui'c of Infant Bsptifm,
238 P radical Reflealois. Ch, 6.
Chrift's vifible fubjecls, many of whom, no
doubt, are taken to his heavenly kingdom,
where alone they can have an opportunity of
acknowledging the rnercy and faithfulnefs of
their covenant God, and the compaiTionate care
of their divine Shepherd. And if many of
them growing up will probably defpife their
birthright, like profane Efau ; or betray (in a
fenfe) their Lord and Marter, like ungrateful
Judas J or at leaft wound him in the houfe of
his friends by their difobedience ; yet fome, I
may chearfully hope, will be fpared, and gra-
cioufty difpofed, to fpeak of the goodnefs of -
their heavenly Friend and Lord in the land of
the living.
§ 27. 3. Am I as a goipel mbi'ifler called
to baptize infants ? With what concern and
folemnity ought I to difcharge this branch of
my minifterial commifllon ! They are no lefs
the purchafe of my Saviour's blood than adults.
His behaviour, in taking up infants in his arms
to blefs them, was marked with folemnity and
holy reverence, no lefs than in preaching the
gofpel, or even raifing the dead. They are no
lefs the objects of the father's everlafting love,
or the fubjeils of his merciful difpeniations,
than adults. The life and liberty, the mifery and
happinefs, the lofs or gain, the privileges and
the reverfe, of the Infant part of mankind, are
not lefs momentous than thofe of the adult, by
the laws of heaven and earth. Why fhould
not the chriilian diviney as well as the civil
magiftrate.
Ch. 6. PraSiical ReJieSJions, 339
magiflrate, the' lawyer or the judge, efpoufe the
caufe and tranfa^t the intereftin^ bufinefs of in •
fants with equal concern and folernniry as thofe
of adults ? Where the temporal welfare of a
child is concerned, men do not fay, " It is
but the life or death, the property or privilege
of an infant^ therefore it is no matter how
the bufmefs is done." Wherefore let me
regard the covenant privileges of infants as
truly important^ and their baptifmal dedication
to God, who condefcends to be prefent, fealing
to them his deed of gift, a Jolemn fervice,
§ 28. 4. Am I called to officiate, on fuch
an occafion, as a ininijier ? With what clofe^
nefs^ plainnefs and fidelity, fhould I addrefs the
fpeclators of the ordinance, in general, old and
young ; and the parents of the baptized child
in particular. What an opportunity is here
afforded me of making a practical ufe of the
fcriptural and interefling doctrines of original fin
— covenant mercy thro' Chrill:— juftifying, rege-
nerating, and cleanfing grace — our abfolute need
of Chrifl, and the Holy Spirit's influence — the
privilege of adoption into the family of the
great and gracious God — every covenant blef-
iing therein exhibited, and every obligation
thence refulting. What a favourable opportunity
of exhorting the parents to bring them up for
God,'^ in the nurture and admonition of the
Lord ; to pray for them, and devote them to him
conjiantly ; to provide for their welfare, not only
their temporal but alio their eternal welfare, as
0.2 God,
34^ PraPAcal Reficciions, Ch. 6.
God, even their God, evidently has provided,
by bis providence and covenant ; to improve,
in behalf of their children, as well as for them-
felves, thofe means of grace to which baptifm
is an inftituted and explicit introduciion ; to
fland prepared to refign them, if foon called
for by death, without repining ; to confider
themfelves as under teachers in the fchool of
Chrift, whofe pupils are their own children ; to
watch over them and ftudy their proficiency,
that they may be qualified betimes for the
higher clafs of congregational fellowfhip. ^
§ 29. 5. As a chriftian minyier^ let me em-
brace favourable opportunities to concur with the
parents of baptized children in improving their
baptifm, in publick and private. And is there
not a preffing call to this on account of the
great ignorance of many chriftian parents re-
fpecling the very nature and defign, blefiings
and obligations of this chriftian rite ? I cannot
help thinking that were it rightly underjiood few
or none would part with it from a confcUn-
iious fcruple J or make fo little ufe of it as a
moral mean of promoting real chriftianity. Are
not chriftian families and focieties in as great
dan2er of lofing fight of the true end of bap-
tifm, as Jewilh ones v/ere in regard of circum-
cifion, and other external rites ? Let me there-
fore endeavour to inform the judgments, and
direct the pious efforts of all as 1 have oppor-
tunity, and efpeciaily thofe heads of families
with
Ch 6. PraSllcd Reflet iotis, 341
with which I am conne6ledj that require rnofl
affirtance.
§ 30* (5) -As a SPECTAROR of infant bap-
tifm, let me not mock left my bands be made
ftrong — but rather admire the divine goodnefs
towards infants — cordially ajf-nt to the folemn
obligations my own (if the fubje6k of it) has
laid me under— regard the occafion as a folemn
and feafonable memento — wonder at the condudl
of fuch as tear off the feal from the divine char-
ter— confider how hlejfed thofe are who partake
of the things fignified.
§ 3Ji I. Let me beware of all appearance of
irreverence, indecency, and much more of mock-
£ry, " Now therefore be ye not mockers," faith
the Lord God of Hofts, " left your bands be
made ftrong," (Ifa. xxviii. 22.) None h\xi fools
can be guilty of fuch things. Nor is the cau-
tion ufelefs, feeing it is foretold, that the pro^
feffors of the lajl times Jhould he mockers, (Jude
18.) Such need no other evidence of their
being the children of the bond-woman, (See
Gen. xxi. 9, 10.) " Whifpering, and laughing,
and other irreverences of behaviour, at this or-
dinance, are a provocation to God, an affront
to the inftitution, a difturbance to others, and
a bad fign of a vain and carnal mind*,"
§ 32. 2. Let me admire the divine goodnejt
towards infants. How illuftrioufly do tht fove-
reignty of his love, the freenefs of his grace,
the all-fujffciency of the Redeemer's righteoufnefs
Q_^ 3 without
* Henrt's Treat, p, 263,
342 PraSlical Reflexions, Ch, 6.
wit he lit works^ appear in tha baptifm of infants I
What can they bring to Chrift for acceptance ?
and yet they are received. Kow helplefs, and
yet accepted ! What an emblem is this child, of
weaknefs, want, and unworthinefs ; and yet di-
vine goodnefs does not overlook, nay, the arms
of mercy embrace it. How is human merit
for ever dilcountenanced ! Far greater love
and compafTion does Jefus pofleis towards that
tender babe, than its joyous and fond parents.
§ 33. 3. Am I a fpeclator of this rite? fo
e,\prdfive of human indigence, and divine
bounty? fo firiking a difplay of the creature's
iibfolute dependance, and high privilege? Let
me cordially ajjint to the important benefits and
folemn obligations, which my own (if the fa-
voured fubjedl of it) has laid me under. Whe-
ther I aflent or no, the vows of God are
upon me. God's juft requifitions are more
binding than all the vows in the world be-
fide.
§ 34. 4. Am I a fpeclator of this ordinance?
How fliould every fuch occafion be a folemn
and feafonable memento^ refpecting human un-
worthinefs and fovereign grace. O my foul,
-what haft thou to boaft of? Remember the
rock from whence thou art hewn : how humb-
'ling the thought of thy original! No fooner
did I breatlie the vital air, than " the feeds of
fin fprung up for death." Naturally helplefs,
(more fo than moft animals) and morally de-
filed, is the moft diftinguiftied of mortals.
Roval
Ch. 6. PraSlical Reflexions, 343
Royal blood is contaminated with fin ; all
the care and attendance of a palace have no
tendency to remove the guilt and pollution
even of its infant inhabitant. But O the be-
nignity and rich grace of that God, whofe
mercy bsams forth not lefs on the poor cot-
tage, than the fumptuous palace ! " Who is like
unto the Lord our God who dwelleth on high I
Who humbleth himfelf to behold the things
that are in heaven, and in the earth ! He
raifeth up the poor out of the duft, and lifteth
the needy out of the dunghill ; that he may
fet him vv^ith princes, even the princes of his
people. He maketh the barren woman to keep
houfe, and to be a joyful mother of children,
Praife ye the Lord." (Pfa. cxiii. 5 — g.)
In beholding that infant let me be reminded,
how the kingdom of heaven is to be received.
As a free gift beftowed on the undeferving. If
ever I be admitted into the kingdom of glory, I
mud enter firft into the kingdom of grace. And
as the fubje(5t of grace I am pa [five in the
hand of mercy. How juft and holy the /equi"
fitions of the fupreme Governor \ and yet how
beholden to the fovereignty of grace if received
to celeftial blifs. Let me not be ignorant or
forgetful of this myftery, " left I be wife in
my own conceit.*' O the depth of the riches
both of the wifdom and knowledge of God !
How unfearchable are his judgments, and his
ways of mercy paft finding out ! ~ Who hath
firft given to him, and it ftiall be recompenfed
0,4 tg>
344 PraSi'ical Rtfieaions, Ch. 6.
to him again ? For of him, thro* him, and
to him, are all things. To whom be glory
for ever. Amen." (Rom. xi.)
§ 35. 5. How do they mutilate the defign
of chriftianity who tear off the fcal from the
divine charter. What ! do any begrudge to
their children and pofterity, the external evi-
dences with which chriftianity is recommended ?
God condefcends to confirm his charter with
his Tea!, as an additional evidence to every fubject '
of his kingdom — that he is and will be true
and faithful to his word of promife j as a
perpetual motive and encouragement to turn to "
God and live. Let nie, therefore, never, with-
out a divine ir.juntcion, imitate a conduct
which mtiiilaisi the motives to faith, to repent-
ance, to happinefs in a covenant God, as that
which denies bapiitm to children dots. Are
the following words, in reference to this con-
duct, too flrorig ? " If any fliould fet upon a
defign to undo all^ that by commifTion from
Ciirifr in many nations of the v/orld is hap-
pily done, there could not I believe a more
ready way than this be found to effect it ; tho*
thofe that take it in hand, are far from any
fuch defign in it*." O'n the contrary, 1 can-
not help thinking that trie following words of
Dr. Owen, concerning a IVcekly day of holy rcjl^
(miiiotis miUandis,) rriay be fitly applied to
the practice of hifani baptifm : " Amongft all
the outward means of convey mg to the prejcm
generation^
t • Blakk's \'\tU to Dr. Ford's DijJ.
Ch. 6* PraSficat RejteSitonu 34.5
generat'ion^ that religion which was at firft taught
and delivered unta men by Jefus Chrift and
his apoflles, there hath been none more effec-
tual, than the catholick uninterrupted obferva-
tion of fuch a" — r/V^*.
§ 36. 6. How hlejfed are thofe who partici-
pate of the things fignified by this ordinance !
They are born, not only of water^ but alfo of
the Spirit, They are juftified freely by grace,
and purified by the blood of Chrift, They
have the wadiing of regeneration, and renew-
ing of the Holy Ghoft. The covenant of grace,
not only in its external adminiitration, but in
its internal efficacy, has found them out, and
made them the favoured recipients of xhtfubjec^
five love of the Father, grace of the Son, and
fellowfliip of the Spirit. To have the light of
gofpel day, and glorious truths exhibited to
view, mull needs be ineftimable privileges j but
to receive from the fame beneficent, everlafting
fource of good, e\es to behold, ears to hear,
hands to receive, and a heart to improve thefe
bkirmgs, how inconceivably great the privilege !
O Lord, " What is man that thou art thus
mindful of him ? and the fon of man that thou
thus vifiteft him I" How defirable then the
Baptism of the Holy Ghost. O that I
may be found the happy, happy fubjeit of it,
according to the promife, *^ He Jhall hapti'z.e
y&u with the Holy Gho/h**-— M^y I conflantly
bieathe after this bleffing, until tlie apoftolick
Q.5 prayer
* Exercitations on the Sabbath, Fnftce^
346 Praalcal Refle£Jions, Ch. 6.
prayer be anfwered in me, (Eph. iii. i6 — 19.)
" That he would grant me," and all his chil-
dren, " according to the riches 6f his glory,
to be ftrengthened with might by his Spirit in
the inner man ; that Chrift may dwell in my
heart by faiti> j that I, being rooted and ground-
ed in love" — love to God who lirfl: loved me,
and the unfeigned love of the brethren, as well
as unlimited benevolence to all mankind — "may
be able to comprehend, with all faints, what is
the breadth, and length, and depth and height ;
and to know the love of Chrift, which paf-
feth knowledge; that I might be filled with
ALL THE FULNESS OF GoD." Jmen.
§ 37. Thus have we attempted to (hew —
(Chap. I.) That the notion of Mr. B. and
other Antipcedobaptifis concerning pofttive Injll-
iutions and inferential reafoning^ when applied to
the ordinance of haptifm^ is untenable — (Chap.
U.) That the general nature and ufe of bap-
tifm is to exhibit and confirtn the bleflings of
the covenant, as the feal of God, affixed to
his own merciful grant— (Chap. III.) That it
is the 'ijuill of ChriJ}^ that the infants of be-
lieving, or chriftian parents, fhould be baptized
*— (Chap, IV.) That the words baptize and
lapiifm are generic terms^ comprehending different
fpecific modes of application — (Chap. V.) We
have alfo anfwered the mofk capital ohje^iom and
evafiom of our opponents — and (Chap. VI.)
Endeavoured to point out fome important prac-
tical ufes of Pcedobaptifm. — From the whole
I
Ch. 6. Practical ReJle£fions. ^47
I venture to deduce this concluding corol-
lary, viz.
Coroll. That infant baptifm is not only
agreeable to the Will of Chrift, but alfo is, ia
its own nature, of a very ufeful^ praiJical tendency.
As this work was not undertaken or profe-
cuted, with a view to fofler a party fpirit^ but
to promote the union of <:hri/iians ; not fo much
to maintain a tenet^ as to inveftigate truth -, not
to promote the honour of a particular deno-
mination, but to fubferve, with his blefling,
the glory of God our Saviour ; I now humbly
dedicate the whole to the Divine Inst i tu-
tor, being firmly perfuaded that he will accept
it, however imperfect, as a Defence of Truth— ^
*' a work of faith and labour of love."
0.6 AP-
APPENDIX
CONTAINING
An examination of SOME OBJECTIONS
ADVANCED
By Mr. booth.
The second EDITION o f
His
PCEDOBAPTISM EXAMINED.
[ 351 ]
Contents of the Appendix.
§ I. Introduaion, (I.) The firji chfs of ohjec-
tians about the mode. § 2. Pajfages ohje£ied
to, § 3. Mr, B's Exordium^ retorted, § 4.
His feeming denial^ that learned men are di-
vided in their judgme?2t about the term bapiiffn^
unreafonable and contrary to plain fa£f, § 5—
15. ObjedVions^ anfwered, § 16 — 30. (II.) The
fecond clafs of obje^ions about the subjects an-
fwered,
§ i.Q OME time after Mr. B. publifhed his firj}
O edition of Pcedobaptifm examined, I pub-
lifhed a new edition of Mr. Morr ice's " Social
Religion Exemf lified," with Notes ; in which notes
I dropped a few remarks, as occafion offered,
on the fubjeds and mode of baptifm, and took
notice, with due refped, of Mx. B.'s publica-
tion. In his fecond edition, greatly enlarged, be
takes particular notice of my obfervations. Now,
tho' I think he has not brought one objec-
tion of plaufibJe force, which is not virtually
and fairly anfwered in the preceding pages, yet
fince he has honoured my remarks, with a pretty
clofe attention, and at fome length, it may be
cxpeded that a more exprefs and direct reply be
made to his principal exceptions.
It
352 Appendix,
It may be necelTary alfo to obferve, that
the Rev. Mr. John Horsey had publilhed,
after Mr. B.'s firjl edition came out, a Sermon,
intitled, " Infant Baptifm Hated and defended.'*
This Difcourfe and one of my Notes, contain-
ing exprelTions of a fimilar tendency, Mr. B.
takes occafion to introduce us together, like
brother tradefmen of the fame firm^ thus :
'* Meffrs. Williams and Horsey," or " MefTrs.
Horsey and Williams*." His firft ciafs of
objeftions refers to the mode,
§ 2. (I.) I HAD exprefTed myfelf (Social Re-
lig. p. 131) as follows: " As the moil eminent
criticks, commentators and lexicograpLers are
divided in their verdic>, refpe£ling the accepta-
tion of the verb Baptizo^ and confequently the
intention of our Saviour's command to baptize ;
and as tiie prentice of the dilciples, whence we
fhould gather in whit fenfe they underftood it,
k attended with confiderabie difficulty, when
reduced ta any one invariable method — we
fhouid vary it according to ci re urn fiances, and
in proportion as demonllrable evidence is want-
ing, refer the mode to the private judgment of
the perfon or perfons concerned." Mr. Hor-
sey had obfcived (Inf. Bapt. Stated and Def.
p. 15, 16, 17. Kd. 2d.) : 'i'hat the word bap-
tij?n is *V ''^^^ equivocal, open, general term." —
That nothing is determined by it further than
this, " that water ihould be applied to the fub-
jedt in forne form or other" — That " the mode
of
• PaJob. Ixam, Vul» I. p, ic.^, 105, &c.
Jppendix, 353
©f ufc," is '' only the ceremonial part of a
pofitive inftitute j juft as in the fupper of our
Lord, the time of day, the number and pof-
ture of communicants, the quality and quantity
of bread and wine, are circumflances not ac-
counted eflential by any party of chriftians"—
That " fprinkling, pouring, and plunging are
perfeclly equivalent, equally valid — And, that
" if our Lord had defigned to conline his fol-
lowers to a particular mode, exclufive of all
others,'* he would hardly have ufed " an open
general term (B^Trlfa;)," but " a word decided
and limited in its import." He adds, " The
Greek language would have furniihed him with
terms indifputably precifc and exa61:. Of this
kind have been reckoned, and I think properly,
fay ^v'ttIu and /S^Qifw." This was what we ho-
neflly expofed to the public eye, and Mr. B.
employs his plaulible pen for about forty pages
in depreciating our commodity.
§ 3« In general, by way of exordium, he re-
prefents them as Jircmge things, " Such are the
" views," fays our opponent, " and fuch is the
" language of Meflrs. Williams and Horsey;
" to whom I may fay, as the Athenians to
" Paul, Tou bring certain strange things to
'' our ears^ zve would therefore knozv luhat thcfe
" things meanX,'' In reply to this, in genera!,
we chearfully inform our Querift, and all whom
it concerns, that, with Paul, we care not iiovv
fining. 3
354 ' Appendix,
Jlrange thefe things may found in the ears of
— our oppofers, provided they be true thiags.
We moreover add, in the language of that
noble champion with whom we are honourably
clafied, mutatis mutandh^ " Ye Ard'tpoidobaptijis^ we
perceive that in all thefe things ye are too fuper-
Aitious.*' However, let us proceed to particulars.
§ 4. I HAD afferted : " That the moft emi-
nent Vvriters are divided about the acceptation
of tlie term baptixo.'' This pofition Mr» B,
Teems not to allow. But is it not truly afta*
nifhing, that this adept in baptifmal refearches,
makes the leaft hefitation refpecSting a fad fo
notorious that he who runs may read it ! If
my pofition be not jud, it muft be owing to
either of thefe two things — that Mr. B. on
behalf of himfelf and fraternity, rejedts the com-
pliment therein defigned them, as being in the
number of the ?no/i eminent writers; — or t\(ty
that " the greateft men that ever filled the
profefTor's chair, or adorned the Proteftant pul-
pit," are a i^t of ignoramufes or downright hy-
pocrites. If he does not choofe to abide by
either of thefe confequences, he is obliged to
admit the force of my pofition. For what can
be more evident, on the one hand, than that
Mr. B. the Do6tors Stennett, Gill, Gale,
&c. contend that the term in queftion fignifies
only and excluftvdy to dip ; and, on the other,
that a far greater number of the moft eminent
Poedobaptills ftrenuoufly affirm, that a fubjeci:
on whom water is poured or fprinkled is pro-
perly
Appendix, 355
perly baptized. Is not this a divided opinion ?
Nay, can any two propofitions be more contra-
didory than thefe f A fubjedi: fprinkled is bap-
tized ; and, a fubject fprinkled is not baptized.
The one party contends that - baptifm is a ge^
neric term, the otlier that it is a fpecific term.
Now thofe who hold the term to be a gcnusy
denoting a ceremonial purification by water,
muft of courfe allow thit dipping agrees with
their definition. And fo does affufion. And
what is the inference ? That a great number
of the mod eminent writers, and not a few of
thofe produced by Mr. B. in favour of his hypo-
thefis, differ ejentiaily from all the patrons of the
ejjentiality of dippmg in baptifm.
Our Author's moji weighty objeclions, as they
appear to me, may be arranged in the follow-
ing manner.
§ 5. (i) His firft obje^aon is, that our ac-
count of the word Baptizo^ if true, " would
greatly impeach the legiflative charadler of Je-
fus Chrid*.'* To this I reply, That fuch methods
of vindicating the legiflative character of Jefus
Chrift, that difcover fo fond a predjlecrion for
hypothefis as to fly in the face o{ Jlubbom fatis^
feem more officious than folid, and better adapt-
ed to make and confirm infidels, than to re-
flect honour on the Legiflator. The " amhi'^
guiiy we fpeak of" v\'e apprehend to h^ fa^ \
and whatever our Lord enacted in fafl, is ac-
knowledged to have been from defign\ and
whatever
* Ibid. p. 105.
2 $6 , Jfpeiidix,
whatever he defigned therein, muft be holy, juft
and good; as all his laws are. It therefore fol-
lows, that our aynhlguity (if this term muft be
palmed upon us) is fucli as excludes all real
defcSl, But let Mr. B. know, thai we do not
fuppofe, nor will admit, that there is nothing
certain to be gathered from the term. And let
him further know, that all the uncertainty we
acknowledge, begins precifely at tlie point where
he and we differ. Our worthy friend muft al-
low, that to baptize imports a religious ufe of
water \ fo far we agree. But he goes further^
and contends that plunging in water is ejfential
to the term ; in this we differ.
In hopes of narrowing rather than widening
the difference between us and our brethren, I
propofed, ** to vary the method according to
circumftances.'' For inftance, if any through a
confcientious fcruple preferred immerfion for their
children, or for themfelves, if not baptized be-
fore, that for peace* fake, we comply. This
was propofed from a principle of tendernefs to
well-meaning perfons who thought for themfelves.
And it was alfo fuggefted as a way of manifefting
a liberal impartiality. But this well-meant con-
ciliating plan feems to have excited my opponent's
peculiar difpleafure. The manner in which this
idea has been leceived, makes me, though re-
luctant, to hifer, that the more moderate and
candid our attempts are for a friendly accommo-
dation, the more fliall we be refilled, except the
converfion be complete.
§ 6. (2) Ou/
Appendix, ^c-
§ 6. (2) Our author again obje6ls : Our Lord
" gave a command to baptize ; by which it is
univerfally underftood, that he defigned the per-
formance of a fingle aSiion ; for nobody fuppofes
that fprinkling, pouring, and plunging, muft all
be united to conftitute baptifm*/' But who does
not fee that this is a mere quibble ? Now in
what Jenfe does this law require a fingle a£l of
obedience? It feems in this — that fprinklin'^',
pouring, and plunging, are not all united to con-
ftitute baptifm, but muft be ufed fingly. But
does my opponent mean to fubftitute this fophif-
tical fhuffling of terms for argument ? Does
not every generic term necejjhrily terminate in a
fingle a^ion^ as the terms to purify^ to a?ioint^
to confecrate^ to fanSiify^ to projeiyte^ to teach^ to
wajh^ &c. ? Yet no one will fay, that fuch a
term is fpecifically limited to one action, fo that
it is the only atflion that could have been ufed.
The objection has no force but in proportion as
the objedtor begs the queilion in debate, viz.
That the command to baptize requires a fingle aSi
of obedience in fuch a fenfe, that it could not have
terminated upon any other fpecifically different.
It -is therefore incumbent on him to prove, if he
can, (for this he has not done hitherto) that BocTili^it
excludes every idea but that of dipping, in its
legiflative meaning. Nor is he thereby called to
prove a negative ; for the queftion being about
the acceptation of a word, and eight out of ten
criticks, to fpeak within moderate bounds, are
againi^
• Ibid, p. 107,
0^8 ' Appendix*
ao-ainfl lum ; It remains for him to prove them
either incompetent judges^ or abandoned rebels againft
the authority of Chrift, before his point can be
eftablifhed.
§ 7. (3) Another objedliion is, " That to fup-
pofe baptifm to be a general term, is to impute
to the divine command fuch obfcurity as is in-
compatible with the general principles of law ;
cfpecially a pofitive law." Hence we are remind-
ed, That " a law defignedly ■ ohfcure is fitted for
nothing fo much as to multiply crimes and punifh-
ments. Such a law is unjuft and cruel \ con-
fequently, could not proceed from our divine
fovereign*." To this we reply,
1. That a law defignedly obfcure^ without
any penal fan£lion, is the moft innocent thing
in the world. If it argues any thing bad in
the legiflator, it is folly^ not cruelty and injuftice.
2. Our opponent muft allow, that it is not
only pollible, but a real faSI^ that the beft of
laws, human and divine, are indeterminate or
cbfcnre (if you pleafe) in feme refpeSfs^ while they
are fufficiently explicit in others. What a wife
legiflator intends (hould be underrtood and com-
plied with, he will make fufficiently clear and
determinate ; but what is not fo, does not,
properly fpeaking, make a part of the ftatute.
And this is eminently the cafe in thofe laws that
are called pofetive.
In perfect confidence with this remark, we
regard the law of baptifm. AVe are certain it
implies
• Ibid p, io6.
Apfcndix, OCA
implies a ceremonial purification by water \ but Tec
no reafon to conclude, that it fignifies im?nerfion
£xclufively. While then we confider the lail idea
as uncertain^ or rather very obfcure^ it is no part
of our duty to comply with it. As far as the
law is plain, it claims obedience ; but as far as
it is indeterminate, it leaves the fubje^l free.
Therefore, as far as the ejjentiallty of dipping
does not appear in the divine mandate, we are
right in oppofmg this baptifl principle as a fpecies
of will-woriliip. Let any ufe dipping, and that
invariably, in preference to any other mode, but
do not make that ejfential to the ordinance, and
we have no con trover iy with them. We have to
do only with thofe who make that a part oi bind-
ing authority, which our Lord has left defignedly
sbfcure, A wife legiflator, in proportion as he
would have his laws underftood and obeyed, will
enacl them in a plain and determinate manner •
Jefus Chrifc is fuch a lawgiver ; but as iMr. B.'s
import of the term appears to by far the
greateft number of competent judges very obfcure
the inference is plain, — the eflentiality of dipping
in baptizing was never intended by Chrift to be
a part of his law. We do not fay, " that fuch
a law Ihould be exploded as ohfolete \' but that
" in regard to us it -never %vas promulgcdj" For
" can it be fuppofed that our Lord would give
a pofitive law of divine worihip ; a law that is
obligatory on the moft illiterate of his real difci-
ples, in the very firft ftage of their chriflian
profelhon j and yet exprefs it in fuch ambiguous
Ian2;ua2;c
360 / Appendix,
lanouage, that the moft wife and eminent o^ all
his followers cannot now underftand it." He
that can believe it, let him.
§ 8. Aristotle well obferves. That " thofc
things 2X0, probable that appear fo to all^ to the moji^
or to the wife ; and to all thefe, to mojl of them,
or to thofe who are beft known, and repu-
table*." If this be a true criterion^ may we
not venture to fay, that probably our Lord never
enaBed what Mr. B. contends for, viz. That
every idea but that of immerfion is excluded from
the Chriftian rite in queftion 5 or if he did in-
tend it, that it is left very cbfcure. Again :
" Baron Montesquieu obferves. The ftile [of
laws] (hould be plain and ftmple\ a direct ex-
prefiion being always better underftood than an
indirect one. — It is an eiTential article that the
words of the laws fhould [be adapted to] ex-
cite in every body the fame ideas f." If thefe
remarks be conformable to the true fpirit of laws^
we again infili, that Mr. B.'s hypotheHs was
never divinely injoined. " For to what pur-
pofe is a law confidered as obligatory, when
the moft learned, fagacious, and impartial cannot
underlland it ?'* It is plain, " no pofitive law is
obligatory till promulged : in other words, it is
not a laiu. For what is meant by the term laii\
but
Lib. L Cap. i. § 7.
•f- Spirit of Laws, B. xxi^, Ch. xtI. and Pcedob* Exam. Vol, I. p« 105.
Appendix, 361
but a rule of aSilon prefer ibed by fovereign au-
thority ? It cannot however be a rule of action,
any further than it is made known.'* Agreeable
to this, is the following language of Sir Wil«
LIAM Blackstone ; " A bare refolution con-"
" fined in the bread of the legiflator, without
" manifefting itfelf by fome external fign, can
" never be properly a law. It is requifite that
" this refolution be notified to the people who
" are to obey it*." Hence it follows, by
Aristotle's rule, that the ejjentiality of dipping
in chriflian baptlfm has not, with regard to us,
been promulged. " If the trumpet gives an
uncertain found, it is all one as if it were not
founded,'* But we intreat of Mr. B. not to for-
get, that we fpeak of a want of clearnefs^ and
confequently non-obligation^ only with refpe^l to
that very point wherein he and we, and I may
add, he and mofl of his Pcedobaptift witnefTes
differ^ viz. That i5a7r7»Jy in the New Teflament,
that is, in the ceremonial and facramental {q\\{^
of it, ahfolutely excludes all other modes of purifi-
cation but that of immerfion.
§ 9. (4) It is again urged,^ " That fuppofing
the word haptlpn^ in different connections, is
ufed in various acceptations ; fuch as immerfony
wajhing^ pouring, and fprinkling ; yet that is not
a fufFiCient reafon for pronouncing the word equi^
vocaL Otherwife we fhall find comparatively
but few terms in any language that are not
R equivocal
* Comment. Vol. I, Introd. Se£l: ii. and Pcedob. Exam. Vol. I,
p, 106, 107.
362 appendix,
equivocal and of dubious meaning." On this
I would obferve,
That all generic terms in the laws of God
and men muft necejfarily be equivocal and du-
bious, fo far as we contend with refped to the
term baptifm, viz. That they do not fix the
mode of action ; as contradiftinguifhed from thofe
of determinate fpecification. Terms being, redu-
cible to this twofold diftribution, it is evident
that a wife legiflator will ufe one or the other
fort according to the defign he has in view. If
he means to require of his fubje£ls the perfor-
mance of a duty in a certain fpecific manner^ he
will employ fpecific tenns. Thus if our Lord's
defign had been, in the cafe before us, to enjoin
the chriftian purification by water in the way of
fpr inkling exclufively^ we (hould have had a word
conveying that idea ; or perfufion exclufively^ the
term would have been accordingly ; or plunging
exclufively^ the expreffion would have been fuch
as could agree, in the connexion where found,
with no other adion. If the language in which
the law is promulged does not afford fuch a word
as abfolutely confines the fubjecSl to one fpecific
action, the remedy lies eafy in a circumlocution,
or an explanatory claufe. If the duty, in general^
be required, without fpecifying the manner of
performance, it is evident that the fubje(51: is
defignedly left at liberty to adopt any manner
in which the general duty may be performed.
And pofitive duties being no further enjoined
than they are made known, it is plain that the
law
jfppendix, 063
law of nature^ or fomepmr revelation is our guide,
where the former is not excludingly reftriaive.
Let us fuppofe, for illuftration' fake, that God,
by one of his prophets, fliould of old enacSt,
That all the priefts in the holy land were to
PURIFY bywater all the families of Ifrael, on a
certain day, as preparatory to fome folemn tranf-
adlion. The mandate goes forth, and the ad-
vantages conneded with compliance are clearly
fignified. Accordingly, the obedient priefts and
tribes obferve the divhie fignal ; and immedi-
ately turn their attention to the manner of doing
what is thus indefinitely commanded. Some
obferve that the manner is very immaterial^ for
this plain reafon, that no particular mode of
purification by water was fpecified. They alfo
obferve, that religious purification by water was
wont to be performed either by wajhing the whole
hody^ or by fprinkling it only. Some therefore
are purified by one mode^ and fome by another-^
the defign of the law is equally anfwered by each,
and the lawgiver is well pleafed. But there are
fome in the land who take it into their heads, that
by the phrafe purify by water is meant fpiritual
purity, and rejeft the idea of material water.
Others, who fixed upon the mode of wa/hing
the whole body in fome river or bath, reckoned
their neighbours, who adopted that oi fprinkling
water on the body^ or tl part of the body, yet un.
clean-, and thus argued, « This purification is
an emblem of moral purity, which Jehovah re-
quires in all that approach him 5 now that purity
R 2 mufV
364 . Jppendix,
muft be either partial or complete. Not the
former, our neighbours themfelves being judges.
It muft, therefoi-e, he the latter. Of perfed pu-
rity, then, this purification is either an exprejfive
emblem, or it is not. if not, why fuch a ritual
fervice appointed in preference to any other that
might have exhibited the blefling in a far more
ftriking point of light. Befides, the command
to purijy by water muft intend the performance
of a fingle aSiion \ and to fuppofe it means either
this^ that^ or the other ^ muft proceed from the
deftgned obfcurity of the law itfeif j and fuch a
law is fitted for nothing fo much as to multiply
crimes and puniftiments ; nay, fuch a law is un-
juft and cruel \ confequently, could not proceed
from our divine Sovereign." The others reply:
" We admit yours to be valid, and only claim
from you the fame indulgence; you know that
loth modes have been long in ufe, and the law
does not fpecify either. Had your mode been
ejjeniialy or had it been exclufively defigned by
our Great Sovereign, he would have taken care
to inform us of it. But fince he has not, we
are uyireajonahly compelled by your a6l of uni-
formity, hefides, Jehovah himfelf has appointed
the mode ot fprinkling as an emblem of moral
parjfymg, and pronounces the perfons fo puri-
rified, " clean,''* I afk common fenfe, whether
there is any thing unreafonable in fuch a law ?
And whether the conduct of the former party be
not ftrongly marked with rigid, unreafonable An-
gularity,
jfppendix» 365
gularity, notwithftanding their pretence of ho-
nouring the authority of the lawgiver?
§ 10. (5) We are again afked : "In the name
of common fenfe and common impartiality—
Why fliould that emphatical and enading term
^ccttI^^u, be fmgled out as remarkably equivocal f
Why reprefented as ohfcure to fuch a degree, " that
the moft eminent criticks, commentators and
lexicographers are divided in their- verdift about'*
— what? Its primary meaning? far from it.
Here we thi^^k Mr. Williams is under a grofs
mirtake." In anfwer, I obferve,
I. That the epithets equivocal and ohfcure are
none of mine. Mr. Horsey indeed fays that
the word baptifm is " an equivocal^ open, general
term ;" nor is he fmgular in ufmg the firft of
thefe three: for he might plead in his defence
precedents of no mean rank. Two of thefe at
prefent occur to remembrance, which I fhall
here infert. The firft comes from the pen of
Dr. John Owen, one of the greateft divines the
lad century produced. Having quoted Mark i. 8.
John i. 33. and Adis i. 5. he obferves : " In
every place it [the term ^a,Tr\i^a\ either fignifies
to pQur^ or the expreffion is equivocal*.'*
The other example comes recommended by fuch
a company of literary criticks as ftand in a high
rank among the literati of the prefent age. The
Monthly Reviewers, who cannot be fuf-
pe6ted of prejudice againft immerfion, as appears
from their Literary Journals^ much lels can they be
R 3 charged
♦ Traft on Inf. Bapt. and Dipping, Ap. Colledl, of Serm. p. j8i.
\
3^6 Appendix.
charged with notorious incapacity to form a
judgment on the meaning of a Greek word,
write thus : " We cannot wholly fubfcribe to
this opinion ; [i. e. that there muft be an im-
merfion to conftitute baptifm, whether that im-
merfion be total or partial;] though we acknow-
ledge there are many authorities to fupport it
among the antients. The word baptize doth
certainly iignify immerfion, abfolute and total
immerfion, in Josephus, and other Greek wri-
ters. But this word is in fome degree EQUI-
VOCAL ; and there are fome eminent Greek
fiholars who have alTerted that immerfion is not
necejfarily included in baptifm." After having
made fome critical obfervations they add thefe
remarkable words : " V/e have not yet feeii
any thing on this fubjeci: that hath thoroughly
Jatisfied us*." Whether the prefent publication,
if they ftiall tliink proper to read it, wUl contri-
bute any thing towards their " thorough fatis-
faiSlion," is to me uncertain. — Again,
2. Supposing I had faid, that the mofl emi-
nent writers are divided about the primary mean-
ing of the controverted term, i deny the charge
of having been under a grofs miftake ; in fupport
of which denial it would be eafy to produce
numerous inftances. But to avoid repetitions,
(vid. Chap. iv. pajjirri) I would only remark, that
Mn B. and fome others, on the one hand,
confider the primary meaning to be dippings or
putting in water, &c. ; and many of the firft
rate criticks, on the other hand, confider the
primary^
• Monthly Review, Vol, LXX, p. 396.
Appendix, 36';
primary^ obvious, natural import to be generaly
as to tinge^ to wet^ to wajh^ &c. And that this
is the real fignification of it, even in a primary
philological fenfe, I think, has been fully proved.
I fay, " primary philological," becaufe
3. There is a manifefl and important dif-
ference between a primary philological or etymo-'
logical, and a primary /^^^/ meaning. The one
by no means implies the other. On the con-
trary, we are fully of opinion with the learned
GussETius, who, when fpeaking of the two
Hebrew roots Mul and Namal^ very properly
{hews, and we think beyond all contradi(iion,
that the divine Legiflator in enacSting his laws
has adtually deviated from that very rule which
Mr. B. would have us believe is invariably ob-
ferved and inviolably facred. And this in the
matter of a pofttive law ; yes, that very law
which enjoins the obfervance of what St. faul
ftiles " a feal of the righteoufnefs of faith.*'
With the alTiftance of a certain ingenious writer,
let us hear him fpeak in English, concerning
thefe two Hebrew roots, thus : " Though they
do not occur in the conjugation Kal, except iii
the facrarnental or typical fignification of circum-
cifing J yet this is not to be confidered as theif
primary^ but only as a fpecies of their general
fignification of cutting ; which, therefore, is their
proper meaning — The genuine, general fignifi-
cation is to be fetched from Pfalm xc. 6. and.
cxviii. 10.*" R 4 Aff
* Comment. Ebraicae, fub Rad. MuU aci Pcrdob, Exanx. Vol, I»
p. 1151 Z16.
368 Jppendix,
As a proof, that it is not necefTary the
words of a divine law fhould be interpreted
according to their pri?na?y acceptation, we may
further, obferve, with the tranflator of the
above parage, That the word " Jrelah is ufed
for the fore/kin ; but its general and leading idea
is, as Dr. 7'aylor informs us, a fuperfuous
incumbrance \ and Mr. Julius Bate fays its
PRIMARY meaning is, the top^ or protuberance* "
To which we may add Mr. Locke's remark;
" What v>rords are there not ufed with great
latitude^ and with fome deviation from their
/iri^ and prefer fignifications J," even in divine
laws ? It does not, then, follow, as Mr. B.
infinuates, that the primary and legal meaning
muft be the fame ; for thefe inftances demolilh
the fuppofition. Suppofing therefore, without
granting, that the primary acceptation of /3a7r]t^e*»
is to dip^ does it thence follow, that the facra^
menial import muft be fo too ? No ; for ^Jr.
B. himfelf has furnilhed us with inconteftible
inftances to the contrary. Let us then remem-
ber, that the primary etymological acceptation of
a term, is no certain rule to determine its pri-
mary legal force. What then muft determine ?
We anfwer — The meaning is to be fought from
the mofl probable defign of the Legiflator, col-
levied from former rtatutes, or the apparent
nature and intention of the thing enjoined, that
is, from the circumjiances of the cafe,
§ II. (6) We
* Tb. p, 116.
X Eflky on Human Underft. B. II. Chap, xxxii. § i«
Appendix^ 369
§ II. (6) We are moreover told, " That
the manner of ufing water, when baptifm is ad-
miniftered, » not a mere c'lrcumftance^ but hap-
iifm itfelf\ for no minifter of Chriii can confi-
der his performance of fprinkUng, of pouring,
or of plunging, in the fublimeft of all names,
as any thing but the very a5i of baptizing.
If the manner of ufing water be a circumjiance
of baptifm, what in the world can baptifm //-
felf be ? Now as according to Mr. Horsey,
the manner of ufmg water is only a circum"
Jiance of baptifm — and as according to Mr,
Williams, the mod eminent authors are di-^
vided in their verdict about what our Lord
meant by it ; all we can learn concerning the
ordinance is this : Baptifm is an unknown fome^
things which has a connection with water *.'^
To this I reply,
I. That our account of baptifm is fufficiently
intelligible at leafl to any who confider it im-
partially. If not, fad is my cafe that I have
talcen fo much pains in Hiewing what baptifm
is, and after all, my readers may perhaps mif-
take it for Leviathan I which alfo is an un*
known fomething that has a conneSfion with water.
We fay that baptifm is a chriftian ordinance,
which implies a ceremonial purification by water.
The proximate genus is purification^ the fpecific
difference is, that it is a purification by a cere^
menial or religious ufe of water. And I main-
tain that the proper facramental import of the
R 5 word
* Pcedoht Exam, p» i»6— lag^
370 ' Jppendix,
word /3a7rlKr/xo?, in the New Teftament is ex-
haujied by this definition, without defcending
lower in the differentia ; nor are we to wonder
that there is not in our language any one word
of the fame import; for as Mr. Locke well
remarks : It is " obvious to oSferve great Jlore
of words in one language, which have not any
that anfwer them in another. Which plainly
fhews, that thofe of one country, by their cuf-
toms and manner of life, have found occafion
to make feveral complex ideas, and give names
to them, which others never collected into fpc-
cific ideas. The terms of our law which are
not empty founds, will hardly find wards that
anfwer them in the Spanijh or Italian^ no fcan-
ty languages ; much lefs, I think, could any
one tranflate them into the Caribee or Wejloe
tongues. — Nay, if we look a little more nearly
into this matter, and exadly compare different
languages, we (hail find, that tho' they have
words which in tranflations and dictionaries are
fuppofed to anfwer one another, yet there is
fcarce one of ten amongft the names of complex
ideasj efpecially of mixed modes, that ftands
for the fame precife idea, v>^hich the word does
that in didionaries it is rendered by*." What
confirms the propriety of applying thefe obfer-
yations of Mr. Locke to the term in contro-
Terfy, is this. That moft tranflators of the ori-
ginal fcriptures into other languages found it
aecefTary to preferve in their tranilations the
words
* EiTay on Human Underft» Br III. Chap. t. § S.
Appendix. 371
words $xir\iJ^u and $»'7r\i^(ji.o<;y only giving them
a different termination, as baptifmuSy hapiifm^
hapteme^ &c. Indeed the Britifli words bedyddio
and bedyddy ufed in that verfion, form a re-
markable exception ; I fay remarkable, becaufe
they are neither the original words themfelves
with a different terrninationj nor yet are ever
ufed to denote exclufively any one fpecific ac-
tion whatever, as plunging, perfufion, fprink-
ling, or the like. They are generic terms that
fignify, more exad^ly than any others I know,
the ideas conveyed by the original terms, as
we have defined them. — I again remark,
2. That what our opponent himfelf fays on
this head, will help if neceffary to explain our
meaning. For thus he writes j " That various
particulars relating to baptifm are merely cir-
cumftantial, we readily allow — But it is quite
other wife, as to the folemn ufe of zvater. For if
that be omitted, baptifm ttfelf is wanting f/*
It is a rule with logicians, that the definition
and the thing defined are convertible. Here
Mr. B. calls baptifm^ " The folemn ufe of
water;" and again, thisy he fays, is " baptifm
itfelf." We cannot help wifhing that he will
always abide by this definition, in hopes that
it might help to introduce an amicable union.
If it be again afked. What mode of this
folemn ufe of water ^ is preferable ? We reply.
Such a mode as was already ejiablijhect in the
churchy for ceremonial purification, in connec-
R 6 tkjn
t ? n^
37^ ' appendix,
tion with the fcriptural defign of the ordi-
nance. And TuRRETiNUs affures us, " that
in the time of Chrift, it was not poflible for
any Jew either to /peak of jSaTrlifetj/, in reference
to a facred rite, or to underjiand it when fpoken
of, any otherwife than concerning the a6t of
wajhing^ immerfion^ or affufion'^,^^ As to Mr. B.*s
ludicrous fuppofition, that water may be applied,
on our principles, to the forehead, the eyes, the
ears, the nofe, the mouth, &c. we think it an
anfwer better than it deferves, when we fay,
TVe have no fuch cujlom^ nor the churches of
God.
3. When our Examiner, fays, " that im-
merfion, pouring, and fprinkling, are not mere
lircurnflances of the appointment under difpute,'*
we partly believe him, and partly difbelieve him.
For if we confider the term " circum/iance'*
with regard to the one particular manner of
obfervance which is adually adopted, then we
may fay that this a£i is not a circumftance,
but an eflential part of the hapt'ijm itjelf\ but
if we confider it in reference to a different ?nan^
ner^ which, on the fuppofition, might have been
adopted; then the ufmg of one mode in pre-
ference to another, muft needs be a circumjlance.
For the mode actually declined makes no part
of the fervice, and yet, on the fuppofition,
might
* " Alia vero temports, quo vivebat Chriftus ; quo ^otTrli^nv
de ritu facro neque dicere, neque di£lum intelligere quifquam Ju-
stus aliter poterat, quam de tin£iioniiy immtrjioniif aut affuftohis
aftu," Theol, Loc, XIX. Quaeft. xviii. § 4,
Appendix, o^-*
might have made a part. What I here defend
is not the ftri£l propriety of the word " cir-
cumftance," but the idea evidently intended by
it as now explained. If we only fubftitute the
term « fpecies^' and all Tvlr. B.'s reafoning on
the expreffion " mere circumjiance^" as " con-
trary to fcripture, to fadi:, and to common
fenfe," is quite difarmed.
But " the Roman Catholics have been con-
ftantly told by Proteftants, that a participation
of wine at the Lord's table is not a " mere
circumftance/' but an effential part of the jnfti-
tution; yet not more fo, fays iVir. B. than
THE USE OF WATER in baptifm, let the mode -
of ufe be what it may." Here we think our
opponent fails entirely in ferving his own caufe.
He compares a participation of wine^ to the ufe
of water ^ as is very natural : and when we re-
ject the USE OF WATER, then, we will fubmit
to the charge of Popifh mutilation.
§ 12. (7) " If plunging, pouring, and fprink-
ling, be equally valid^ it muft be becaufe they
are equally enjoined by divine law. But they are
three different anions — How then (hall a fmgie
term, uadei-ftood in its proper and primary knky
equally refpecl three difierent actions ? — Before
Mr Horsey pretends to evince that this word
Bowrrli^u) has this plenitude of fignification ; we
wi(h him to prove, that any term, in any lan-
guage, either doe^ or can equally or natural-
ly fignify three different ail:ions. — l\heoiogians
and civilians have feldom taken it into tlieir
heads
374 jlppendix,
heads to contend, whether the legislator had
three meanings or only one^ in any cnading
claufe." In anfwer to this obje6lion, obferve,
1. That thefe adtions being different^ does
not hinder their being equally enjoined^ and
therefore equally valid» The different a61ions
are only different means of attaining a propofed
end. This end is purification by ivater, to which
either of the mentioned means equally lead. For
each is included in the general term ; where-
fore, either of them muft needs be valid,
2. Our meaning is greatly mifreprefented in-
the objection. An unwary reader may be ready
to think, that the prefent queftion is, Whether
the enacting term has three primary meanings ?
And Mr. B.'s reafoning derives all its force
from the fuppofition. I know not that ever it
was difputed, and probably never will be, whe-
ther any enading term has three primary figni-
fications. We maintain, as well as the worthy
author, that there can be but one primary le-
gal fignification j but infift, notwithftanding, that
if the word be general^ and defignedly chofen
as fuch, it is not only capable of two or more
different modes of obfervance, but muft necejfarily
agiee in meaning with as many modes, as there
are fpeciesy or different manners of difcharging
the general duty; and thefe perfectly equi-
valent, EQUALLY VALID.
Considering, therefore, the general import
of the term — confidcring the perfons to whom
the command was firft given — the religious ufe
of
Jppendlx, 275
of water to wbich they had been accujlomed-^ the
perpetual and univerfally extenfive obligation of
the Jaw, in every age and every climate — the
various ways in which men eminently qualified
to judge, have performed the duty required,
with the lincereft proteftations of impartiality —
I am convinced more and more, as an account-
able creature, in the awful prefence of my Law-
giver and Judge, that of two minifters, one
fprinkling and the other dipping proper fubje6ls,
t neither of them effeniially deviates from the
import of the law; nay that they are perfealy
equivalent^ equally valid. And if each anfwer the
Legiflator's requifition, what pity they, and
their refpedive partizans, fall out by the way I
" The honour of our Mafter, and zeal for
his more important caufe, forbid it }" I am
fully of opinion with Turretinus in this
matter; who, when difcuffing this queftion,
" Whether, in the church of Rome, the true
dodrine of baptifm is retained," diftinguifhes
thus : « The truth of the dodrine of baptifm
fhould be confidered with refpecl either to its
ejfence^ or to its accidents^ fuch as the rites
and ceremonies ufed therein. In the former
fenfe we acknowledge that, thro' a fingular di-
vine providence, the true dodrine of baptifm
remains in the church of Rome; becaufe the
matter of true baptifm, water, is retained in
it, alfo the formula prefcribed by Chrift, ac-
cording to which it is adminiftered in the nam€
of the holy Trinity; for which reafon, the
baptifm
2^6 ' Appendix,
baptifm adminiftered in that church is thought
VALID, and not to be repeated*.*" Again,
3. What we contend for, is very common
in laws human and divine. This we hold
againft the objedtion, and the following remark-
able paflage, which is of the fame cart:. " If
Mr. Horsey be right, the law of baptifm is a
leaden rule, that will bend and take any form :
rather it is no law — it is Jio rule; and with
regard to the ufe of water, every one may do
that whiclv fbems right in his own eyes. But
as it is abfurd to fuppofe, that the primary fenfe
=of the fame word will equally .apply to three
different objeds j fo it muft be incongruous for
any to imagine that the fame enadting claufe
-or term of a law, can equally require three
different actions, and at the fame time be com-
pletely fatisfied with any one^ Qt them. Before
Mr. Horsey had inadvertently fixed an impu-
tation of this kind on a poficive Jaw of
Jefus Chrift, lie fhould have well confidered,
whether the whole hiftory of legiilation (facred,
civil, or eccle(iaftical) could have furn^ifhtd him
■with ^Jingle injiance of fuch a facl. That many
tyrants and fools have given laws to fecular
JLing<loms, and have even prcfumed to kgiflate
■for Jefus Chrift hiinfelf, is a fa<St; that foine of
their laws have been marked with tyrannical
fubtilty, and others wiih egregious folly, is alfo
a fact; but that any of them ever were fo
-crafty, as to contrive a Jaw which, by a iingle
enadting
• Inftit. Theol. Loc 'XIX. Quaeft, xvui, § i.
Appendix, 377
enacting term, equally required three different
a<Sls of obedience j and yet were fo compliant
as to ht\ themfelves perfecitly fat^stied with hav-
ing any one of thofe a6ts performed, I do not
believe f." Aftonifhing language from a BritiHi
divine, a Proteftant Diflenter ! " Abfurd to fup-
pofe that the primary fenfc of the fame word
will equally apply to different obje<Sls ? — lncon»
gruoui to imagine that the fame term equally
requires three different anions, and at the fame
time be completely fatisfied with any one of
them ? Not a Jingle injlance of fuch a fav5t ?
Such a law beneath the craft of tyrants and
fools ?'^ In the name of common fenfe, in the
name of common and llatute law, what can
Mr. B. mean by fuch language ?
We fuppofe there is hardly a fingle a£l of
the Bntifli Parliament, contained in the ftatutes
at large, but would furniih ample fufficiency to
confront and entirely enervate the force of this
paiTage. And this muft be inevitably the cafe,
when a generic term is made ufe of, and left
without reftri6lion. Is not this the cafe when
fuch words as thefe occur —to indi^y to try^
to execute ; recruitings enlifling^ marching \ confe^
cration^ ordination, indu<^ion ; and innumerable
Others ? Are not fuch words commonly found in
our laws, without their enumerating the complex
ideas contained under them in the fame ftatute ?
Nor can it be otherwife, except we fay, that
a
t P- >33»
37^ / appendix*
a ftatute ought to be a diSiionary as well as a
rule of a^loTu
§ 13. For inftance ; \i a law enjoin, that
the fubjecfts of Great Britain (hould resort to
their refpedive parilh churches, or fome other
lawful place of worfl-aip, on the Lord's day ; a
formal explanation of the word refort^ and the
particular mode of reforting, when that mode
was, on the fuppofition, indifferent, would be
needlefs and impertinent. Obedient fubjeds,
unbiafled by fubtle diftindtions and a cavilling
humour, immediately comply, without perplex-
ing themfelves or others, whether they mull
walk or ride? Others, of a contrary turn, lay
great ftrefs on the manner of reforting ; and
fpeak in a decifive tone in favour of walk-
ing as the moft primitive^ fimple, felf-denying
mode. And feeing infants and young children
cannot walk to church, they (hould be left at
home till they are able to perform this mod
excellent method of reforting, Befides, " the
word refort, it might be urged, cannot equally
apply to different objects, as walking and riding^
and at the fame time be completely fatisfied
with any one of them."
If a fovereign caufe a general fafi to be pro-
claimed, it is not to be expe6led that the fpe-
cific ideas contained under that term be at the
fame time explained. Some overfcrupulous per-
fons may puzzle themfelves about the manner
of obferving the royal mandate. It is not
enough, they hy^ that we obferve a religious
humiliaiian
appendix, 37^
hu?niliation ia general, but we mufl: take the word
faji in its primary acceptation, and that is ab-
Jiinence from food^ which ought not to be par-
tial but complete. This is not fufficient, fays
another, we muft follow fcriptural precedents^ and
put on fackcJoth. Nay, fays a third, this is
not enough neither, w^e cannot keep an accepi
table faft without extending our abftinence fur-
ther; for thus the fcripture fays: " Let neither
man nor beajt^ herd nor flock, tafte any thing;
let them not feed nor drink water.'* Hold your
peace, fays a fourth, ye know nothing at all ; this
royal order, is a pofitive command^ and in fuch
cafes it is not only unlawful to go contra Jiatutum^
but alfo fupra Jlatutum\ for podtive commands
imply their negatives. The principal enadling
term has no obfcurity, is not equivocal ; and
our fovereign being neither a fool nor a tyrant,
being neither crafty, weak, nor wicked, what
can be plainer than that he means, his loving^
obedient^ dutiful fubje6ts fhould abjiain from food
all that day. All Jhort of this, beyond this, all
different from this, is wrong. And what can
be clearer, than that infants^ and young chil-
dren, zrt excluded^ becaufe not exprefsly men-
tioned in the pofitive mandate.
Among the Romans, the folemn rite of mar^
riage might be effe<Sled by three different ways,
and at the fame time the law was completely
fatisfied with any one of them. *' We mufl: note,
fays GoDWYN, that three manner of ways a
woman became a man*s lawful wife ; ufu^ con--
farreatione^
3^0 , Jppendlx,
farreaiione^ coejnptione* ,'^ That is, either of thefe
three ways were perfectly equivalent,
EQUALLY VALID.
An ecclefiaiiick is hidu^ed into a benefice
by different rnodes^ perfectly equivalent,
EQUALLY VALID. " Induction is performed by
a mandate from the bifhop to the arch-deacon,
who ufually iflues out a precept to other clergy-
men to perform it for him. It is done by
giving the clerk corporal pcjfcffion of the church j
as by holding the ring of the door, tolling a
bell, or the like ; and is a form required by law^
with intent to give all the parilhioners due no-
tice, and fufficient certainty of their new minif-
ter, to whom their tithes are to be paid. — He
is then and not before, in full and complete
pofTelTion, and is called in law perfona imperfo^
nata^ or parfon imparfonee f ."
When a general gives orders to his officers
to march from one ftation to |nother, it is not
neceflary that he explain to them what he means
by the word to march^ being already well known.
And how ridiculous would it be for any to con-
tend that becaufe the word primarily fignifies
" to walk in a grave, deliberate, or ftately man-
ner/' the command is not to be extended to
the cavalry^ or if it does, that they are not to
ride but walk and lead their horfes. But the
legal force of the word is of a more general na-
ture, implying, '* to move in military form ;"
and
• Rem, AntJq, Lib. II. Seft. ii, cap. ao. And Kenn«tt'*
AntHj. Part. II. B. v. chap, 9.
f Blackst. Comment. Vol, I. B, I. Ch, xi» 5.
Appendix, ^Sl
and includes many fpecific ideas, well known by
cuftom.
But what need multiplying examples in fo
plain a cafe ? Tlie reader may ealily furnifh
himlelf with inflances innumerable. All laws,
whether civil or facred, in eve:y age and every -
country, from the very nature of things, fup^
pofe a previous knowledge of fome parts, terms,
&c of what is enacted, and it is our wifdom,
inftead of raifing a duft about what laws ought
to he, efpecially the laws of our Maker, to
employ the moft proper criteria for diftinguifli.
ing the true meaning of what is enacted for
our obfervance. And to this end, the follow-
ing moji judicious remarks, as applicable to all
laws, may be ferviceable. " The faireft and
moft rational method to interpret the %mll of
the legillator, is by exploring his intentions at
the time when the law was niade, by figns the
moft natural and probable. And thefe figns
are either the words, the context, the fubjedl
matter, the effeds and confequence, or the fpi-
rit and reafon of the \zvi . -- JVords are generally
to be underftood in their ufual and moft known
fignification ; not fo much regarding the pro-
priety of grammar, as their general and popu^
lar ufe, — If words happen to be ftill dubious^
we may eftablifti their meaning from the con-
text\ with which it may be of fingular ufe to
compare a word or a fentence, whenever they
are ambiguous^ equivocal^ or intricate. — Of the
fame nature and ufe is the comparifon of a law
with
3S2 ' Appendix^
with other lawsy that are made by the fame
legijlator^ that have fome affinity with the fub-
jc6t, or that exprefsly relate to the fame point.
—As to the fubjecSt matter, words are always
to be underftood as having a regard thereto ;
for that is always fuppofed to be in the eye
of the legiflator, and all his expreflions dire6ted
to that end. — As to the efFe«5ts and confequence,
the rule is, that where words bear either none,
or a very abfurd fignification, if literally under-
ftood, we muft a little deviate from the received
fenfe of them.— But, laftly, the moft univerfal
and efFe£tual way of difcovering the true mean-
ing of a law, wlien the words are dubious^ is by
confidering the reafon and fpirit ; or the caufe
which moved the legiflator to enacSt it. For
when this reafon ceafes, the law itfelf ought
likewife to ceafe with it." This is the lan-
guage of good fenfe, of found judgment, and
is of univerfal ufe in its application. And whe-
ther it be not more favourable to that inter-
pretation of the law of baptifm, which I am
defending, than the contrary, let the reader
judge.
§ 14. Dr. Samuel Johnson, as every one
knows, cuts no mean figure in the annals of
Englilh literature, and ftands eminently confpi.
cuous as a lexicographer j one would expert,
therefore, he could not fundamentally and ejfen^
ttally miftake as to the primary acceptation of
a word, than which hardly any his famous dic-
tionary contains had been more controverted.
And
Appendix* ^Sj
And yet this celebrated author has actually er-
red in that manner, if our opponents are in the
right. He confiders the word baptifmy and we
believe with great propriety, not as confined
to any one fpecific adion, as to fprinkle^ to dip^
or the like j but as a term of latitude^ according
to its biblical and facramental ufe j and this he
might naturally fuppofe from the nature of the
ordinance to which it refers. « To baptize^''
fays he, " is to chr'ijien -, to adminifler the fa-
crament of baptifm to one. — Baptijm\ an ex-
ternal ablution of the body, with a certain form
of words." But left it fhould be fuppofed
that this account fprung from popular preju-
dice in favour of the general pra^ice, and
againft our brethren's diftinguiftiing mode, the
fufpicion is immediately removed, if we confult
him on the word dippings where he quotes thus :
" The perfon to be baptized may be dipped in
water ; and fuch an immerfion or dipping ought
to be made thrice, according to the canon."
Now, if our martyrs and divines were mirtaken,
in darker or more improved ages, muft we pro-
nounce Johnson, fo much the honour of a na-
tion enlightened with fcienCe; Johnson, with
regard to philology, his favourite branch; and
with regard to a term fo long and fiercely con-
troverted ; muft we pronounce him in this affair,
(whatever he was in fome others) — " A being
darkly wife and rudely great ?"
§ ^5- (8) Great advantages have been boaft-
ed of from another confideration, viz. « That
as
284 ' Appendix*
as we allow dipping to 'be proper baptifm, our
opponents muft be right, whether fprinkling be
valid or not." But if this matter be fairly ex-
amined, our opponents will have little caufe of
triumph, as it is evidently againft them. For
when we admit dipping to be baptifm, it is be-
caufe that is a m§de of purification by water \
though neither fo eligible, for its own fake, fo
exprelFive of the things fignified, or fo confor-
mable to the genius of judaifm or chriftianity, as
the mode of affufion. We have, I fuppofe, at
leaA eight out of ten of the moft eminent wri-
ters on our fide. Admitting the fufFrage of
thefe numerous voices, who have undoubtedly
a right to be heard about the meaning of a
term, to have a preponderation of evidence,
we are probably right in whatever fcriptural
way we ufe water : but admitting further our
principle to be true refpefling the legal im-
port of the term, we have the Jullefl certainty
that we are in the right. Not fo Mr B. For
while he holds the ejjentiality of dipping, render-
ing null and void every other mode of ufing
water, it is incumbent on him to prove all the
Pcsdobaptifts who hold the former principle,
and among them an illuflrious .troop of thofe
who adbrn his pages, either incompetent or
abandoned \ but this is incompatible with what
he fays of them, that they are among " the
moft eminent that ever filled the profefTor's
chair, or adorned the Proteftant pulpit." And
it is Worthy of remark, that by how much the
more
Appendix, 38^;
more he fwells his catalogue, and the more
eminent the writers, proportionably will his con-
tracted principles be condemned. It is impof-
fible to evade this confequence but by proving
them either weak or wicked \ which alio he can-
not do without contradiding himfelf.
Mr, B. needs not to be informed how il-
milar his inference from our concellion is, to
that of the Romanifts, when they conclude, that
they muft furely be on the fafejl fide of the
queftion ; becaufe we charitably grant, there may
be falvation to them in their communion, while
they deny any to us in ours. And this con-
demning of Proteftants, while the latter are not
fo peremptory and prefumptuous in condemning
. them, is what Chill cngv^orth calls " their
ONLY GREAT ARGUMENT f."
I THINK we may at length afk, « If the
term baptifm do not determinately fignify what
we contend for, ceremonial purification^ we fliould
be glad of information what other exprelTion could
have conveyed that idea ?"
Before I conclude this part, give me leave
to introduce the following judicious remarks of
Mr. Locke : " Sure I am, that the fignifica-
tion of words in all languages, depending very
much upon the thoughts, notions, and ideas of
him that ufes them, muft unavoidably be of
great uncertainty to men of the fame language
and country. — But when to this natural diffi-
culty in every country, there fliall be added
Vol. II. S different
t Religion of Proteft, Dedicat. to the King,
386 , Jppendix.
different countries and remote ages, wherein the
fpeakers and writers had very different notions,
tempers, cuftoms, ornaments, and figures of
fpeech, &c. every one of which influenced the
lignification of their words then, tho' to us
now they are loft and unknown; it tvould he^
come us to be charitable one to another in our in-
terpretations or mif under ft andings of thofe ancient
writings : which tho' of great concernment to
be underftood, are hable to the unavoidable
difficulties of fpeech, which (if we except the
names of ftmple ideas^ and fome very obvious
things) is not capable, without a conftant de-
fining the terms, of conveying the fenfe and in-
tention of the fpeaker, without any manner of
doubt and uncertainty to the hearer. And in dif-
courfes of religion, law, and morality, as they are
matters of the higheft concernment, fo there will
be the great e^ difficulty. The volumes of inter-
preters and commentators on the Old and New
Teftament, are but too manifeft proofs of this.
Tho' every thing faid in the text be infallibly true^
yet the reader may be, nay cannot chufe but be
very fallible in the undenknding of it. Nor is
it to be wondered, that the will of God^ when
clothed in words^ fhould be liable to that
doubt and uncertainty, which unavoidably attends
that fort of conveyance; when even his SON,
whilft clothed in fiejh^ was fubje6t to all the frail-
ties and inconveniences of human nature, fin
excepted. — Methinks it would become us to be
-lefs
Appendix, ogy
— lefs magifterial, pofitive, and imperious, in im-
pofing^ our own fenfe and interpretations *."
§ i6. (II.) We come now to examine fome
of Mr. B.'s ftri6lures, contained in his fecond
volume, relative to the subjects of baptifm.
In a note on Social Religion I had exprefled
myfelf as follows : " Whatever there may be
in the ordinance of baptifm of a pofitive con-
fideration, there is nothing relative to the fub^
jeSls of it fo merely pofitive as to be indepen-
dent on all moral grounds ; — nay further, what-
ever relates to the qualification of the fubje6ls,
is of a nature entirely moral, — and to fay other-
wife muft imply a contradiction. Baptifm, there-
fore, is an ordinance of a mixed nature, partly
pofitive and partly moral. As far as this or
any fuch ordinance, partakes of a moral nature,
the reafon and defign of the law, or if you
pleafe iht fpirit of it, is our rule of duty;— and
only fo far as it partakes of a pofitive nature
is the letter of the law our rule. As what
relates to the qualification of the fubje(5ts is of
moral confideration, we are neceflltaied to feek
in them the reafon and intention of the com-
mand; but infants partaking of the great pri-
mary qualification, which the evident defign of
the ordinance requires, ought to be baptized ;
and it muft imply a breach of duty in a minifter
to decline it. To argue on this principle —
Baptifm IS a pofitive rite^ and therefore OUGHT
to be exprefs, full and circumftantial — is, on
S 2 the
• EfTay on Human Underft. B. III. Chap. ix. § a2, 23.
388 ' Appendix,
the principles, conceflions and pra6lice of Anti-
poedobaptifts, demonftrably fallacious. For the
law of baptifm is evidently, in fact, not cir-
cumftantial and determinate ; and therefore is
not, cannot be an inftitution entirely pofitive."
I had alfo faid ; " fhould any afk me why, as
a chriftian minifter, I baptize an infant? I
can truly anfwcr, that I have the very fame rea^
fon for doing it that John the Baptift had for
baptizing penitent finners m Jordan and _non;
the fame reafon that Jefus, by the miniliry of
his difciples, had, for baptizing a .ill greater
multitude ; and, finally, the lame reafon that
our Baptift brethren have, or ought to have,
and which they profefs to have in the general
tenor of their practice, for baptizing adults.'
This is the briefs now let us hear council.
Mr. B. thus begins :
& 17. " Baptism then, according to Mr.
Williams, is of a mixed nature j an ordi-
nance partly moral, and partly pofitive. This
to me is a new idea: for, of ali the writers
quoted in this work, of all the authors I have
peiufed, not one occurs to remembrance who
has thus reprefented baptifm.'' He very pro-
perly adds, " if, however, the evidence pro-
duced be vaiid^ the novelty of his notion is
not material. His principal reafon in favour
of the pofition is; Whatever belongs to the qua^
lifications of the fubjeSis is entirely moral. But
will this prove," adds he, " that baptifm is not
ftridly fpeaking, a poiitive inftitute? Will it
not
Appendix. 389
not apply with all its force to the Lord's fup-
per? On this principle, we have no ordinance
entirely pojitive under the New GEconomy; be-
caufe it is plain the qualifications for that
appointment are all of the moral kind." In
anfwer let me obferve,
I, That the two lafl confequences are ad-
mitted ; The pofition will apply with all its
force to the Lord's Supper ; and, We have no
ordinance entirely pofitive under the New CEco-
nomy. My opponent feems to regard thefe con-
fequences as diflionourable to chnftianity, or fome-
how a defeat; on the contrary, I confider them
as reflecting honour on it, being real excellen-
cies. My reafons are affigned elfewhere, (See
Chap. I. § 31—34.)
2. The firft queftion, " Will this prove that
baptifm is not ftridly fpeaking a pofitive infti-
tution?" This queftion, I fay, which implies
a denial of my pofition, I (hall now fairly ex-
amine. And towards folving it, and proving
the confequence — " baptifm is therefore an or-
dinance of a tnixed nature" — I fhall firft take
notice of fome particulars wherein we agree -y and »
then inveftigate Mr. B's chief argument againfl
my principle.
We agree then in our definition of a pofitive
inflitute ; " A pofitive inftitute is that,' the rea-
fon of which we do not fee, prior to external
command, but which originates entirely in the
fovereign will of the l^gillator." To this idea,
I apprehend Mr. B. can have no objeaion.
S 3 My
390 ^ uippendix.
My opponent, moreover, accedes to my ante-
cedent, viz. " Whatever belongs to the quali-
fications of the fubje<Sls is entirely moral.'*
But as to tliis latter agreement, perhaps it is
more in words than ideas, ' By moral qualift-
cations I underftand, " thofe qualifications which
God, as the moral Governor and Judge of
the world, requires of all mankind, indifcrimi-
natelv, confidered as immortal and accountable
creatures, according to their various circumftan-
ces, independent of pofitive authority, and which
are not meajurable hy any pofitive rule,^* And
I accede to the following declaration, a little
qualified : " To conftitute any branch of re-
ligious worOiip purely pofitive, it is enough
that the rite itfelf, the manner of performing it,
the qualifications of the fubjecl, the end to be an-
fwered by it, and the term of its continuance,
depend entirely on the fovereign pleafure of our
divine Legillator;" in proportion as that fovereign
pleafure is made known, and determinable by a
pofitive Jiandard. Thefe things I hold as per-
fectly confiftent with my principle. And, thus
far, we feem to travel the fame road.
§ 1 8. Mr. B/s objedions are now to be
confidered. " Many," he tells us, " are thofe
theological writers who have more or lefs treated
on pofitive inftitutions ; fome of whofe books I
have feen and peruled with care. But I do not
recollect any author, who fo defines or de-
fcribes a religious appointment merely pofitive,
as to exclude every idea of what is moral from
the
Appendix, 39 1
the qualifications of its proper fubjeifls.'* Very
probably ; but that does not affedt- my pofition.
What follows is more direcStly to the point.
" The nature of the qualifications, whether mo-
ral or not, makes no part of thofe criteria by
which the definition of a pofitive rite fliould be
directed." If this, in the view it is urged, be
a true aflertion (for we have nothing elfe) my
confequence, as fuch, fails ; if not, it ftands firm
againft the attack. But, be it remembered, that
the propofition itfelf, " Baptifm is an ordinance
of a mixed nature," is demonftrable from other
premifes, (as the reader may fee. Chap. L) in-
dependent of this Argument. However, it is my
prefent bufmefs to (hew, that the nature of the
qualifications of the fubjecfts, in the prefent cafe,
does make a part of thofe criteria by which the
definition of this pofiiive rite (liould be dire(Sted.
And to this end obferve,
1. If the nature of the qualifications required
be fuch as do not, nor poffibly can, admit of
a pofitive Jlandard to determine them, it is ab-
furd to fay, that the qualifications themfelves,
be they what they may, make any part of the
pofitivenefs oi an inftitution. But all moral qua-
lifications are fuch.
2. If the qualifications required be fuch in
their nature, as are infinitely variable^ according
to the infinitely variable circumftances in which
the fubjedl may be, it would follow, that none
could be proper adminiftrators of baptifm, on
our author's principles, but fudi as polTefTed in*
S 4 finiti^
392 ' Appendix.
finite knowUdge I But the moral qualifications
of faith, repentance, knowledge, &c. which our
opponents contend for, are fuch: Therefore,
thp qualifications cannot be ranked as any part
of a poiitive inftitute, but upon this fuppofiti-
on, that God communicates to the adminiftrators
what is incommunicable, which is an exadt
knowledge of the moral ftate of their fellow crea-
tures In circumftances infinitely variable, which
is abfurd.
§ 19. If Mr. B. thinks to evade this by
faying, " It is fuiHcient to conflitute an infti-
tution merely pofitive, that thofe qualifications,
tho' entirely moral, are ahfolutely dependent on the
fovereign pleafure of God \^ the evafion is of no
fervice : for it is in efFe£l to fay, If it be the
fovereign pleafure of God, he can appoint im-
poflibilities and contradictions. The evafive ob-
je6lion fuppofes, that tho' the qualifications be
moral, yet the appointment oi fame moral qua-
lities rather than others, for inftance faith and
repentance^ is a pofitive confideration. That is,
it is not the yiature but the appointment of fuch
qualifications which conflitutes them pofitive. But
is there any propriety in calling that a pofitive
appointment which neither has, nor can have a
pofitive rule f nay, whofe rule mufi: be necefi"a*
rily infinitely variable in its application ? For
fuppofing, without granting, the qualifications of
faith, repentance, &:c. to be alone entitled to bap-
tifm ; or that the abfence of a credible pro-
feflion of thefe, debars from the ordinance \ yet
even
Appendix, 393
even then, fuch a demur enfues, or liablenefs
to miftake, as is abfolutely incompatible with
an appointment merely pofitive^ as to fubje6l and
mode. It is impoffible for Mr. B. in virtue of
any pojitive appointment^ properly fo called, to
determine the qualifications of the fubje61:s, in
aflignable inftances of cafes ad infinitum', and
when innumerable perfons affignable are a(Sl:ually
baptized, to determine, whether they are duly
baptized or not. And while my opponent holds
that as a facred rule^ which never was, nor can
have exiftence, as appears from his own con-
ceJ/ion—*'^thQ qualifications of the fubjeds are en-
tirely moral'* — it is no wonder that he holds
all the Poedobaptifls in Chrillendom as unbap^
iized. And be it further noticed, that if my
principle be not admitted, in oppofition to his,
nothmg would hinder, but Atheiils, Deifis, or
blafphemers might be thQ proper fubjecls of the
MeiTiah's kingdom, as contradiftingui(hed from
believers and penitents, antecede?7t to the infiitu-
tion. And whether this juft confequence be not
fufficiently abfurd^ and of courfe the principle
from which it is deduced, needs no proof,
§ 20. The truth is ; Jefus Chrift, as the
fupreme Head of his Church, gave to his rai-
nifters a commiflion to difciple all nations ; to
bring all the worlds by all lawful means, and
efpecially by preaching the gofpel, under his go-
vernment. The nature of his kingdom had been
clearly afcertained before ; partly, from his own
mouth, and partly, by the light of preceding
S 5 difpenfations.
394 Jppendix»
difpenfations. His merely explaining to them
the nature and extent of his kingdom, affords
no pofttive rule of condu6t ; but it opens and
afcertains new relations^ whence arife fredi ob-
ligations of moral difpofitions and obedience.
The extent to which their commiflion reached,
implied a dijjolution of a former pofitive reftric-
tion, and gave them an unlimited fcope in their
work. This argued fovereign authority^ for no
other could repeal what was before enabled by
divine law. The known nature of his kingdom,
was a fufficient directory, without any pofitive
ruky refpetSting the preparatory qualifications of
his fubje<Sls. 1 he do£lrine of projelytifim was
well known to the parties, which they could no
otherwife than obferve, as far as it was confift-
tnt with the defign of the Meffiah's kingdom,
if not countermanded. Common fenfe, common
prudence, former ceconomies of the covenant, in
connection with the genius of chriftianity, fur-
nilhed them with ample means of information
about who fhould be admitted into this exten-
five kingdom, independent of all pofitive injunc-
tion. Confequently, it follows, from the very
definition of pofitive law, that the qualification of
the fubjeds formed no part of the pofitivenefs of
the law of baptifm, That is evidently founded
on the revealed nature of the gofpel church,
and eafily afcertained without the fuppofition of
external command \ and therefore is not reducible
to the clafs of pofitives. To purify by water^
in the name of the Father, and fo on, was
of
Appendix i. 395
of a pofTtive nature; but what kind of moral
qualifications (and no other are fuppofed) were
fuitable, for a participation of the ordinance,
needed no pofitiv* ftandard to determine. Or
were they in danger of rejeSiing the humble and
obedient, and of receiving and cafeffing blaf-
phemers as the moft proper? To fay that the
believing and penitent are noticed, as thofe who
ought to be baptized, no more argues that thefe
excliifively are to be baptized, than that thefe
exclufively are to be admitted to heaven ; and
therefore make no part of the pofitivenefs of
the law of baptifm. A moral duty may be
pofttively enjoined, but that alone will not con-
ftitute a pofttive injiitutey according to the defi-.
nition ; elfe the love of God and our neigh-
bour, may be forced into the fame rank. So nei-
ther v/ill it follow, that becaufe believers and
penitents are reprefented as fuitable fubje^ls of
the Redeemer's Kingdom, therefore no other part-
of the human race are to be fo reckoned.
§ 21. From the premifes it follows; that
" whatever relates to the qualifications of the
fubjetSls, is of a nature entirely moral— -that the
law of baptifm aflford.s no pofttive rule for de-
termining who are proper fubje6ls-r-confequently,
that the ordinance of baptifm is of a mixed:
nature, when we comprehend under the terii^
ordinance^ the fubjeSfs as well as the purification
itfelf.
Now that the reader may fee, that the charge
of no.velty upon my principles, as c^ueilioning.
5 ^ th€>
2^6 j^ppendlx,
the abfolute pofitivenefs of the law of baptifm ;
or my calling it a " mixed ordinance/* becaufe
the qualifications of the fubjedls make no part
of its pofitive nature, is of little weight ; may
eafily appear from the following excellent re-
marks of Dr. John Owen: " There are two
forts of laws whereby God requires the obedi-
ence of his rational creatures, which are com-
monly called moral and pofitive: it is greatly
queftioned and difputed, to whether of thefe forts
doth belong the command of a fabbatical reft.
Pofitive laws are taken to be fuch, as have
no reafon for them in themfelves, nothing of
the matter of them is taken from the things
themfelves commanded, but do depend merely
zndfolely on the fovereign will and pleafure of God.
Moral laws are fuch as have the reafons of them
taken from the nature of the things themfelves
required in them. For they are good from their
refpe6l to the nature of God himfelf, and from
that nature and order of all things, which he
hath placed in the creation. So that this fort
of laws is but declarative of the abfolute good-
nefs of what they do require; the other is con^
Jiitutive of it, as unto fome certain ends. Laws
pofitive^ as they are occafionaliy given, fo they
are efteemed alterable at pleafure. Being fixed
by mere will and prerogative, without refpeft to
any thing that fhould make them necefTary an-
tecedent to their giving, they may by the fame
authority at any time be taken away and abo-
lifhed. Such I fay are they in their own na-
ture,
Appendix* 3gy
ture, and as to any fir?nitude that they have
from their own fubjeca matter. But with re-
fpedl unto God's determination^ pofitive divine
laws, may become eventually unalterable. And this
difference is there between legal and evangelical
inftitutions. The laws of both are pofitive only,
equally proceeding from fovereign will and plea-
fure, and in their own natures equally alterable.
But to the former^ God had in his purpofe
fixed a deterfjiinate time and feafon^ wherein they
fliouid expire, or be altered by his authority ;
the latter he hath fixed a perpetuity and un-
changeablenefs unto, during the ftate and con-
dition of his church in this world. The other
fort of laws are perpetual and unalterable in them-
felves, fo far as they are of that fort, that is
moral. For altho' a law of that kind, may
have an efpecial injun^ion with fuch circum-
ftances as may be changed and varied, (as had
the whole Decalogue in the commonwealth of
Ifrael) yet fo far as it is moral, that is, that
its commands and prohibitions are necejfary emer-
gencies^ or expreffions of the good or evil of the
thing it commands or forbids, it is invariable.
— It is pleaded by fome, that thefe kinds of
laws are contradijlin^-, fo that a law of one
kind, can in no fenfe be a law in the other.
And this dbubtlefs is true reduplicatively^ be-
caufe they have efpecial formal realbns. Js fary
and wherein^ any laws are pofitive^ they are not
moral; and as far as they are purely moral,
they are not formally pofitive, tho' given after
the manner of pofitive commands. Howbeit,
this
^gS Appendix,
this hinders not but that fome do judge, that
there may be and are divine laws of a JVl I X T
NAIURE. For there may be in a divine
law, • a foundation in, and refpecl unto fome-
what that is moral, which yet may ftand 'in
need of the fuperaddition of a pofitive command
for its due obfervation unto its proper end.
Yea, the moral reafons of tiie things command-
ed which arife out of a due natural refpecl un-
to God, and the order of the univerfe, may
be (o deep and hidden, as that God, who
would make the way of his creatures plain and
eafy, gives out exprefs pofitive commands for
the obfervance of what is antecedently neceflary
by the law of our creation. Hence a law may
partake of both thefe confiderations^ and both of
them have an equal influence into its obliga-
tory power. And by this means, fundry dutieSy
fome morale fome pojltive^ are as it were C O M-
POUNDED in one obfervance. Hence the
whole law of that obfervance becomes of a
MIXT NATURE, which yet God can fepa-
rate at his pleafure, and taking away that which
is pofitive, leave only tiiat which is abfolutely
moral in force. And this kind of laws, which
have their foundation in the nature of things
thenjfelves, which yet ftand in need of further
direiftion for their due obfervation, which is
added unto them by pofitive inftitution, fome
call MORAL POSITIVE*." Mr. B. and
efpecially Dr. S. who, if I am rightly informed,
is
» On the Sabb. Exerclt. lU. § 2, 3.
Appendix^ 299
is a feventh day Baptift, with thofe of the fame
mind, would do well to confider thefe diftincSli-
ons thoroughly^ in reference to the Caufes of the
Sabbath^ and the Poedobaptift controverfy.
§ 22. Mr. B. objeas next againfl the moral
qualification of children, which I had afTerted :
" But how (hould an infant of a few days, or
of a month old, be a partaker of fuch qualifi-
cations, to render it a proper fubje^ of baptifm ?"
One would be tempted to think, from the con-
temptuous light in which our brethren place infants,
that they make no part of the human fpecies ;
agreeing with a certain profeiTor of logic and
philofophy who defined a human being, « A
creature that could draw an inference y** and as
infants cannot draw an inference, they are not
human beings. But as the pupils of the fame
profefTor, when applying their mafier's rule to
a limner^ who declared he could not draw an
Inference^ did not make him lefs than human -^
and a^ain, when applying the fame rule to an
able horfe^ which, his owner had aflured them,
could draw any thing in reafon^ they did not
make him any thing but a brute \ fo, I be-
lieve it will never be in the power of Anti-
pcedobaptifis, with all their inferences againfi:
infants, to make them otherwife than fubje^s
of moral obligation. To deny them this charac-
ter, it is incumbent on our oppofers to Ihew,
that they are not affeaed with original fin, nor
are even capable of it ; for this implies, at
leaft, a privation of fome 7nQral quality which
they
400 Appendix*
they ought to poflefs, and therefore argues them
the fubje6ts of a moral ftate, and of courfe of
moral obligation. Again, if no infants are the
fubje6ls of what may " with propriety be termed
mora^^ then no infants are the fubjeits of grace^
which is a moral quality. Moreover, if not fub-
je£ls of moral obligation, they are not account^
able creatures ; are not capable of being judged \
of being condemned or acquitted, of moral hap-
pinefs or mifery in a future ftate.
§ 23. And what is Mr. B.'s reafon for pro-
nouncing infants incapable of moral obligation and
moral qualifications P He replies : Becaufe " not
capable of moral agency j" becaufe " morality,
in all its branches, is nothing but the difcharge
of moral obligation ; or a conformity of heart
and of life to the rule of duty/' And then
adds ; " Parents may have the requifite moral
qualifications for the ordinance ; but I cannot
conceive how their new born offspring, for
whom our author pleads as proper fubjeds of
the rite, fhould be fo qualified."
It is readily granted, that natural incapacity
excufes from fuch aSfs as would otherwife be
incumbent on the fubje(51: ; for this obvious rea-
fon, that natural impolFibilities make no part of
the divine requifitions, and confequently of the
creature's duty. But here obferve,
That a natural incapacity for moral agency^
by no means excufes from all moral obligation ;
for that would be the fame as to fay, Children
are incapable of fm and grace, blifs or woe ;
need
Jppendix, 40 1
need no imputed righteoufnefs to (kreen them
from the latter, or to entitle them to the former.
For the imputing of a Redeemer's righteouf-
nefs, by an a6l of mercy ^ fuppofes demands from
juftice ; and fuch demands being always equit-
able, and never requiring what is not neceffary,
it follows, that the infant of a day, if made
the fubje6t of it, was under fome obligation to
juftice, which I prefume no one will deny is
moral obligation. (See Mark x. 15. and Luke
xviii. 16, 17.)
§ 24. But the moft plaufible obje6lion is:
" Suppofing fuch qualifications to exift, by what
means are they to be difcovered ? What is
there difcernihk^ that can with propriety be cal-
led morale in one that is not capable of moral
agency?" I had faid. Infants partake of the
great primary qualification ivhich the defign of the
ordinance requires^ and therefore jhould he bapti-
zed. On which my opponent exclaims : " //?-
fants^'whzt, in general? Of all mankind? He
will not, I prefume, aflert it. —I take it for
granted, however, that he means the infants
of profefTed believers. But there is no more
of a moral temper, or of a moral condu61:, in
the mere infant of a real chriftian, than there
is in that of a Jew, or of a Turk."
It is allowed, there is no difcriminating mo-
ral qualification difcovered in one infant more
than another; nothing difcernible of a moral
difference between the children of profeflbrs and
of profane, Mr. B. therefore is miftaken in
his
402 ' u4ppendix,
liis conjecture, that I mean, the children of
profefled believers only are pojfejfed of the moral
qualification I fpeak of. But is nearer the truth
when he fays ; " Our Author's pofition requires
that the int'ants the?nfelves poflefs moral quali-
fications, to render them the fubjects of bap-
tifm."
What I maintain as alone eflential to the
fubje(Sls of baptifm, is a moral fuitabknejs to the
nature and defign of the inftitution. What falls
fhort of this, is defective ; what amounts to
this, quite fufficient. It is evident, on the leaft
refle(S^ion, that criminal ignorance, impenitence,
unbelief, and the like, are excluded from all
claim to fuch a moral fuitablenefs ; for how can
they be proper fubjecls, who are profefTed re-
bels againft the government of the King of
Zion ? On the other hand, when we confi-
der the baptifmal rite as a seal of God's ap-
pointment, exhibiting to the fubjedb the blef-
fmgs of the New Covenant, and thereby laying
him under correfponding obligations of duty,
(in confirmation of which fee Chap. II. § 22.
&c.) the rite mufl: be applicable to infants
equally with penitents and believers ; that is,
they have all the qualification that is effential
to proper fubjecls. As the moral qualities of
faith, repentance, and the like, are efiential to
falvation in certain circumjlances only of human
life, fo in certain circumftances only are the
fuppofed exigence of thefe qualifications efiential
to baptif?n»
§ 25. According
Appendix, 403
§ 25 " According to him," fays my oppo-
nent, " nothing is plain, determinate, or certain,
relating to either the mode or the fubje»5l." He
might have almoft as well laid — that there are
no certain, determinate, and plain properties of
a triangle in general^ becaufe the precife dimen^
/tons are not afcertained. Aristotle's Edita
quajt non edita^ therefore, is impertinently applied
in the prefent cafe.
I HAD faid. The law of baptifm is emdently
and in fad not circumftantial and detenmnate,
and therefore cannot be an in/iitution entirely
pofttive. That is, as the conne6lion fliews, it
does not bear the ftgns of a mere pofitive law ;
the qualifications of the fubjects being reducible
. to no pofitive flandard. Even as the command
to " preach the gofpel to every creature," is
not fo determinate and circumftantial, as not to
require for its due execution, the aids of moral
inference and analogy. And now with refpecl
to the command of " preaching the gofpel," I
would afk, whether that be not a part of the
divine ftatute ? If not a part of pofitive law, by
what criterion fliall we diliinguiih ? If it be,
it is either wholly or partially ; if the latter, by
what rule (hall we difcriminate ? if the former,
how comes it to pafs that the Antipoedobap-
tifts, perhaps more than any other denomina-
tion" of chriftians, are at this day fo much di-
vided about the import of this command, " G9
— preach the Gofpel to every creature f " Not to
mention the perpetual clafhing of opinions, about
JFhat
404 / Appendix,
^TVhat the Gofpel is, and what is implied in
preaching it ?
I 'AM far from thinking, however, that this
affords the leaft room for the infidel to tri-
umph with impunity, or that an infallible head
on earth fhould be fought : on the contrary, I
am perfuaded that the more firmly we adhere to
the merely pofitive fcheme, rigidly infifting that
every punBiUo relative to gofpel order is to be
adjufted according to a pofitive Jiandard^ the
greater handle is given to watchful infidelity^
and the greater the pretended need of an infal-
lible pafior, falfely fo called.
Our Author imagines he fees a contradi£lion.
between the above declaration, and another I
had advanced elfewhere, viz. " Nothing fhould
be confidered as an eflablifhed principle of faith,
which is not in fome part of fcripture deli-
vered with perfpicuity," (Social Religion, p. 368.)
To apply this lafl axioTu to the fubjccl: before
us. As the fcripture delivers with perfpicuity^
that thofe in all nations who are deemed by the
commifTioned minifiers of Chrift Juitable fuhjeSls
fhould be dedicated in the name of the Fa-
ther, and fo on, by the folemn ufe of water,
it fhould be confidered as an efiablifhed princi-
ple of faith. But as it is fo obfcure with re-
fpe6t to the ejjentiality of dipping, teaching,
faith, repentance, &c. that only IVir. B. and a
few more geniufes fuperior in penetration to
many of the mofi: eminent " that ever filled the
profelTor's chair, or adorned the Proteftant pul-
pit,
Appendix* 40c
pit," can difcover the latent myflery — it fhould
not be confidered as an eftabliihed principle of
faith, or of practice.
§ 26. Our Author is very fond, on feveral
occafions, of charging thofe who plead and prac-
life contrary to his peculiar principles, as guilty
of fymbolizing with the Jt^apifts. Among others
I am honoured in this way. " Tho' I take it
for granted, fays he, that Mr. Williams is
not a rtranger to the popiih controverfy, relating
to pofitive ordinances of holy worfhip j yet I
cannot help thinking that he quite overlooked
it, when penning his Notes concerning baptifm :
becaufe that want of perfpicuity and of precifion
which he charges on a pofitive law, is much
more becoming the creed of a Papifly than that
of a Proreftant DifTenter."
Since party names do not operate on my mind,
as bugbears and hobgoblins do on the minds of
children, I take this from my worthy antagonift
with perfedi: good humour. As to the fai^t he
takes for granted, 1 (hall only fay ; " Many are
thofe writers who have treated on this fubje(5l
of controverfy ; fome of whofe books I have
feen and perufed with care." With refpedt to
the other part of the ftridure, tho' I readily
excufe the freedom of the language, 1 mufi:
protejl againft the charge of fymbolizing with
Rome, as totally ill-founded and unjuft ; if there-
by be meant a delertion of thoie grand prin-
ciples by which our fore- fathers were juftifiable
in withdrawing from that communion.
Want
406 ' Appendix,
Want of pcrfpiciiity and precifton in a pofttive
law^ is popijh, I anfwer with Chilling worth :
" It is requifite to a rule, so far as it is a
RULE, to be evident j otherwife indeed it is no
rule^ becaufe it cannot ferve for diredion."
And again, " Tho* Proteftants, being warranted
by fome of the Fathers, have called fcripture
the judge of controverftes : — yet to fpeak pro-
perly, as men fhould fpeak when they write of
controverfies in religion, the fcripture is not a
judge of controverfies, but a rule only, and the
only rule for Chriftians to judge them by.
Every man is to judge for himfelf with the
judgment of difcretion, — Now the fcripture, we
pretend, in things neceffary^ is plain and per-
fect.— If God's will had been we Ihould have •
underflood him more certainly^ he would have
fpoken more plainly *.'*
One principal fruit of my attention to the
Popilh controverfy is this, That I difcovered,
or thought that I difcovered, this maxim as
the quinteffence of popery — That one party of pro-
feffing chriflians ?nake thofe things to be terms of
chrijUan communion^ and of true religion^ which
Chriji hath not made fo. Hence the necejfity of
feven facraments ; the neceffity of tradition ; the
necejfity of an infallible interpreter, &c. and the
necejfity of believing and complying with all, as
terms of communion. And their bigoted, in-
tolerant principles are maintained by an appeal
to Chrill's pofitive injunctions.
The
* Relig. of Protel, Chap, ii. § 6, |i, 84,
Appendix, 40 7
l^he Want of perfpicuity and precifion in pofitive
laiv^ becomes the creed of a Papiji, He might
have faid, the creed of an infidel ! For what
is a pofitive law ? Is it any thing elfe, can it
be any thing elfe, than a law delivered with
perfpicuity and precifion^ founded on the fove-
reign pleafure, and enforced by the mere autho-
rity of the Legiflator ? « If you would have
more light added to the Sun," to ufe the words
of Chillingworth, « anfwer me then to thefe
queftions." Can that be a law msrely pofitive^
which does not polTefs any fuch properties, as
all the world allows to be neceiTary for that
purpofe ? Or can any portion of fcripture pof-
fefs them, in that fenfe which fome thoufands
of the moft eminent charaders for learning,
for grace, for a difinterefted freedom of inquiry,
that ever the chriftian world beheld, proclaim by
their immortal writings and their confcientious
practice, they do not and cannot difcover ? Yes,
ye Proteftant Champions now in glory, who
have (haken the foundation of St. Peter's by
your zealous efforts in favour of chriftian pu-
rity of dodrine and wordiip, ye were all un-
baptized we are aflured. And ye living Pce-
dobaptifts far and near, hear it, and let your
ears tingle, ye are more corrupt^ refpeding the
introdu6tory ordinance to your holy religion as
chriftians, than your fore-fathers or yourfelves
ever thought the Mother of harlots to be !
" He that can believe it, let him believe it."
One might be led to think from Mr. B.'s
infinuations
4o8 ' Jppendix,
infinuations and language, that his principles are
admirably calculated to ftem the torrent of papal
fuperflition ; but on clofer examination, we have
reafon to fear, that if one be Scyiiay the other
is Charybdis', the remedy is little better than the
difcafe. His hypothefis, indeed, may cut off
the excrejfence of fuperftition, but inftead of heal-
ing the wound, it would leave behind, as the
inevitable effect, tYie gangrene of bigotry.
If the fcripture be only a rule^ who is to be
the judge of controverted fubjeds ? I anfwer—
not the pope as an infallible interpreter, nor any
other man, who having " a pope in his belly,"
(in Luther's homely phrafe,) would determine
for others ; not any church on earth, however
infallible or pofttive its pretenfions; hm — each
man for himfelf^ as he would anfwer for his
dccifion and condud before the eternal Judge.
Duly weighing the difference between " a mo-
ment and eternity," between the authority of
Chrift and will-wor(hip, let him cautioufly judge,
and boldly a6l, as a man, — an imtmrtai man —
and as a chriftian, looking into the perfect law
of evangelical liberty.
§ 27. I AM further told, " I muft aft upon
a conjedture extremely (hrewd and uncommonly
hapf y, if at any time I really baptize an infant
for the very Jajne reafon that John or the Apof-
tles baptized multitudes ot penitent linners —
except 1 can prove, thai a coininanci to ifn-
merje penitents^ is equally an older 10 jprinkle
injanu:' Nay, this is no fair conclufioni tor it
it is enough that I Ihould prove, (which I thinfe
is now done,) that infants are equally qualified^
for baptifm and equally intended as penitent fin-
ners ; and that the word baptifm is a generic
term alike applicable to afFufion as immerfion.
Befides, Mr. B. himfelf being judge, when I dip
an infant, I baptize it. For, however he may be
difpleafed with my charitable effort to lejfen ra-
ther than increafe the difference between us, I
am not fo bigoted but I occafionally " vary
the mode of adminiftration, according to clr-
cumftances.*' If, therefore, baptizing be neither
more nor lefs than dippings I have the certainty
of at leaft fometimes baptizing infants. And if
fuch are dipped a fecond time, all the world mufl
know they will be Anabaptists.
Surely it can be no matter of furprife, that
" our grand reafon for baptizing infants (hould
be the very fame which is given by our oppo-
nents for immerfing penitent finners." For can
they have, or defire to have, a better reafoa
than that they acSt in obedience to the w^ill
OF Christ? Now if Poedobaptifm be accord-
ing to our divine Legislator's will, which
I have attempted to demonftrate, who hes
not, that the grand reafon is the very fame as
what they aflign. In proportion as our pra^Stice
is right^ we fulfil the royal pleafure of our com-
mon Lord, that is, we can truly fay, our grsnd
reafon, than which it is needkfs to feek a better,
is precifely the fame with what our friends urge
for their own practice.
Vol. IL T § 28./' Ir
4* Of- ' Appendix,
§ 28. " If Mr. Williams, however, Ihould
at any time write profefledly againft the Bap-
tifts, it may be expeiSled (unlefs he gives up
this point) that his grand reafon for fprinkling
infants, will be the very fame which is given
by us for immerfmg penitent finners : and then
the author of a certain Apology for Clerical Con-
formity [Rev. Mr. Newton] will have an
humble imitator *.'*
Well, in one refpe^l I am much obliged
to my antagonill, that he has not put me in
worfe company^ nay that he has coupled mc
with'fo worthy a charadler (as before with my
§^)od friend Mr. Horsey) with whom I have
the pleafure to agree in the moft important-
concerns. I cannot help thinking, hoj/vever, but
that, with regard to the merit of our refpec-
tive fubjeits as controvertifts, we are unequally
yoked. It is of little moment in how many
things I agree with the Apologift, but it would
be eafy to (hew, wherein my method of de-
fending Pcedobaptifm differs ejfetitially from his,
in apologizing for his minifterial conformity,
' Mr. B. obferves in a note : " If the apolo-
gift's reafons for clerical conformity be folid,
thofe minifters that were ejeded in the year
fixteen hundred and fixty-two muft be confi-
dered as a fet of maniacs,'* It is undeniable
that moft of thofe who fwell the Bartholomew
lift, were men who adled on principle; the real
as well as the oftenfible reafon of their non-
conformity was, they could not conform with a
good
♦ Pcedob, Exam. Vol, II, p. 67.
Appendix, 41 1
good confcience. Every one knows, they not only
infifted on the impropriety of one party of chrif-
tians impofmg on all others in a nation, a fyf-
tern of uniformity under pain of excommuni-
cation, fines, and imprifonments, but alfo point-
ed out thofe particular parts of the fyrtem that
gave them offence. It is evident, the baptizing
of infants makes a part of the fyftem ; and it
is equally evident, that this part of it was not
objeded to, by the greatefl luminaries for learn-
ing and piety among them. Now I afk ; If
Mr. B.'s hypothefis be true, " that infant bap-
tifm is unfcriptural, fuperftitious, abfurd, a daring
impeachment of Chrift's legiHative authority, &c."
can we look upon thefe miniflers in a much
better light than as a " fet of maniacs?"
What, could they be in their right mind, to
quarrel with fuch comparative trifles as a furplicc,
a gown, or a band 5 and yet embrace, pra6life,
defend, a " pillar and part of popery ?" But,
, " being loth to impeach the intellects of about
two thoufand perfons, who fufFered fo much for
the fake of a good confcience, I cannot forbear
, fufpedling that Mr. B.'s pofitions are an infult
on the underllandings of Pcedobaptifts." ^
§ 29. Among Mr. B.'s concluding Remarks,
we have the following which deferves notice :
** I will here prefent the reader with a plain
popular argument. — We affert, that pofitive in-
ftitutions depend entirely on the fovereign will
of God. It is true, fay our Poedobaptifl Bre-
thren, and cenfure the Papijis for prefuming to
T 2 ' alter
j^J2 , Jfppendix,
alter them.— We maintain, that the term bap-
tifm properly fignifies immerfion. It is true,
fay they, but, many of them add, it aljo figni-
iies wajhing^ where there is no immerfion.—
We maintain, that there is no exprefs com-
mand, nor plain example, for infant baptifm
in the facred fcripture. It is true, fay they ;
but it may be inferred^ &c. — Finally : Do we
folemnly immerfe thole who profefs faith in
the Son of God ? they cannot, they dare not
deny that we have divine authority for it. The
reader will now judge, from the foregoing pa-
ges, whether this be a fair ftate of the cafe ;
and if it be, 1 appeal to him, whether ours be
not the fafer ftde of the queftion*." This is %
pipiilar argument. We lieartily pity thofe peo-
ple who will fuffer fuch language to pafs for
argument. I rt^all eafe myfelf of the- trouble of
confuting It, by transferring the tafk to a tri-
umvirate wlio are perfectly qualified to retort
\3pon Mr. B. in his own way. The firft is a
iSoctman : " We aflert, that Jefus Chrift is pro.
pcrly a man. It is true, fay you who boaft
of fuperior orthodoxy, and cenfure the Gnojiics^
J^poHinarlans^ &c. for prefuming to deny it.
iJut not fatisfied with this, you make him
to be God alfi. You allow with us, that
he is an excellent example, and has taught
many fublime truths, but you muft moreover
make his death meritorious. I appeal to your-
felvcs, whether ours be not the fafer ftde of
the
• ^b. 5*7, 528.
appendix, 41:3^
the queftion.'* The fecond is a Jew : " You
Mr. B. are a chriftian; you therefore beUevc
with us, that the God of Abraham is the true
God ; but you afcribe divine honours to one
who was igiiominioufly crucified. The writings
of Mofes and the prophets are the word of
the Lord. Tt is true, fay you ; but there is
another volume which you fay muft be added
to the former, which you call the New Tefta-
ment. Now every one fhould choofe the fafer
Jide, and we are right by your own confellion,
in wo'rlhipping the God of Abraham, and ad-
mitting the infpiration of the Old Teftament."
The third is a Deij^ : " You Jews and chrif-
. tians are all wrong ; and this appears from your
own conceiTions. We maintain, that there is
one Godj who made and governs the world,
and who has given man the diftinguilhed and
excellent faculty of reafon, as a guide to truth
and a rule of a6lions. It is true, fay you; and
yet you muil, forfooth, add to this acknow-
ledged rule another^ which you call divine reve-
lation. To which I may add, that many of
you chriftians, you Mr. B. in particular, are
not content with a creed that only avows one
divine Being, but contend, often from the for-
mula of baptifm, that this divine Being fubfifts
in three perfonalities, Father, Son, and Spirit—
perfe^lly equal. Now, furely, from your own con,-
ceflion we have the fafcr fide.'**
If this method of talking be conclufive agai/ift
.our theological principles, then, and not till then,
T 3 wa][
414 ^Appendix.
•will Mr. B.*s popular argument be a conclufivr
one.
§ 30. " According to modem cuftom, the
principal part was paffed over in filence." That
is, on our principles, there is no room left for
adult baptifm. He might have mentioned ano-
ther inftance of deviation from apoftolick prac-
tice, viz. That we form our churches of thofe
who are brought up in the bofom of chriftia-
nity, and not of heathen idolaters converted to
the faith : Tho* I believe our oppofers would
hardly wifh a complete conformity in this matter.
It is fufiicient that we imitate the apoftles and
cvangelifts when providence calls us to ftmilar
circuTrJlances, When our miffionaries among tlic
'Heathen, for inftance, eflablilh churches, their
immediate concern is with adults. And were it
not that fome of thefe keep profefledly exact
journals of their proceedings, and particularly
tlie number of perfons baptized from time to
lime, we (hould not probably have heard of
infants and children as baptized fubjecls. To
fatisfy himfelf on this head, the reader may con-
{\ilt, among others, the Life and Journals of
Mr. David Bra i nerd, which at the fame
time may afford him more important informa-
tion and advantages. And now I have men-
tioned this excellent perfon and his journal, I
6eg leave to make two remarks upon them, in
^t^ference to the fubje6t in hand.
i. Particular as the account in this jour-
nal t^y no one can Je:irn from it the mode of
baptizing
Appendix* i^\K
baptizing he ufed. The only way to determine
this appears to be, to kam his connections in
the chriftian church. The words baptize or bap-
iifm throw no light on the point. In like man-
ner v^ fhould confider the religious connedlions
and cuftoms of the apofties and evangelifts a4
Jews, and the nature of what were called their
laptifms,
2. CoNSiEJERiNG the religlous charaSfer of
this fervant of Chrift, who, in proportion to his
ftanding in religion and the miniftry, had few
equals on the other or this fide the Atlantic^
in that which conftitutes the chief glory of a
chriftian minifter ; confidering this, I fay, is not
his conduit, in baptizing the infants of Indian
converts, perfectly unaccountable, on the principles
of our oppofmg brethren ? For on thefe principles^
the aSi of baptizing infants is unfcriptural, abfurd^
antichriftian, &c. Now that a man of this charac-
ter, fo much of a pilgrim and flranger on earth,
fo confcienrioufly attentive to the will of Chrlfi^
fo prayerful, fo watchful over the motives of his
practice in the minuteft things, and fo won-
derfully owned by his Lord and i\4after ;— that
fuch a perfon (hould be guilty of a thing evl^
dently wicked as, we are told, the baptizing of
infants is ; (hould dehberately fly in the face of
the Lawgiver to affront him, after wreftling and
agonizing like Jacob for hours for the exatfl
-knowledge of his will and univerfaj fubmifHon
to It — this, I confels, appears to me fomewhat
incredible.
That
^l6 Jppendix,
That faints on earth (I mean fuch as are
not perfect) (hould differ about fmaller matters,
is not to be wondered at ; that Mr. B. for in-
ftance, Ihonld be fo ;ar mfluenced by confclen-
tious fcruples as to omit baptizing children, is a
yery poiilble and accountable cafe \ and that fuch
chara6lers as Mr. Br a i nerd, or his celebrated
Biographei Mr. Jonathan Edwards, that
profeffors Witsius and Turretinus, Do6lors
QvvEN and Manton, Eifhops Latimer and
Leighton, Reformers Luther and Calvin,
and a thoufand more of the fame fpirit, fhould
baptize infants, is not Vv'onderful, on our prin-
ciples : but that fuch perfons as thefe fhould be
guilty of an enormous cr'ime^ a praclice fo evi^
dently ahjurd^ that he who runs may read it-—
deliberately, habitually, in their mojl ferious mo-
ments, and for a long feries of years to their
dying day — is what I cannot digefl. But he
that can^ let him.
We are fometimes informed by our friends,
that they have received light to difcover the path
of duty in reje6i:ing their infant baptifm, and
adopting adult plunging as ejfential to the ordi-
nance. What this bright convincing light is, I
cannot pretend to fay, it having not yet enlight-
ened my darknefs ; but this I may venture to
affirm, that it is a light by no means neceffa-
rily attendant on found learning, genuine grace,
the indwelling prefence and influence of the
Holy Spirit, great tendernefs of confcience, a di-
ligent inquiry into the whole of chriflian daty,
in
Appendix, 4x7
in fliort, great eminence in real religion. Where-
fore, being a light that often times fubfifls with-
tut thefe excellencies, rooft clearly it does not
derive its being from them j tho*, it muft be
owned, they do not always exclude its illumi-
nating rays. This being the cafe, it is but
fair to propofe a Qviery : Is this wonderful fa-
vour, fo partially conferred upon the childre^i of
the fame family, and fo much boafted of by
the recipients, any thing elfe but — evidena
without truth? or, peradventure, light without
evidence ?
My dear Friend and Brother — in bonds in-
finitely more precious than thofe of water bap-
tifm — farewell.
The end.
Lately publijhed^ price 3J. tn hoards^
SOCIAL RELIGION
EXEMPLIFIED,
In ten DIALOGUES:
By Matthias Morrice.
Rcvifecl^ with Notes^ the Author*: Lij% ^c.
By Edward Williams.
■ ■ ■i-^:-gMHBiftaR?Syiy?'?"
Jan. I, 1789.
This Day is publifhed,
The firji and fecond Folumes^ Price 6s, eachy in
Boards, of
A SHORT AND PLAIN
EXPOSITION
OF THE
OLD TESTAMENT,
V.' : T H
DEVOTIONAL AND PRACTICAL
REFLECTIONS,
FOR THE
USE OF F A M I L I E S.
BV THE , LATE REVEREND JOB O R T O N, S. T, P.
Publijlied frvm the Author's Manu/cripts,
Ey R. G E N T L E M A N.
N. B. A Volume of this Work will be publlfhed every
fix Months till the whole is compleated, which is intende*
rr^ Ko done in fix Volum'»-
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11