^ 
 
 CO 
 
 CL 
 
 
 _I"V 
 
 
 
 # «5r 
 
 ca 
 
 
 
 
 
 /? 
 
 1c 
 
 3 
 
 
 * 
 
 -o 
 
 J5 
 
 
 ^^ 
 
 HE 
 
 
 ^ t-i 
 
 Q. 
 
 
 # w 
 
 
 
 *<S> fc 
 
 O 
 
 • 
 
 o 
 
 5 
 
 
 « § 
 
 CD 
 
 
 C 
 
 
 w o 
 
 t>fl 
 
 Cv 
 
 «ss ^ 
 
 <t 
 
 !§ 
 
 i^ g 
 
 "q3 
 
 3 
 
 
 Sz* 
 
 E 
 
 .<o 
 
 <^ M 
 
 w 
 
 "*>> 
 
 *5 « 
 
 CO 
 
 ■&« 
 
 
 S 
 
 
 G* 
 
 
 s 
 
 % 
 
 •73 
 
 CD 
 
 s 
 
 v* 
 
 Q> 
 
 _, 
 
 & 
 
 2 
 
 ,g 
 
 & 
 
 £ 
 
 &0 
 
 X 
 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM 
 
 EXHIBITING 
 
 VARIOUS PROOFS 
 
 THAT THE 
 
 IMMERSION OF BELIEVERS IN WATER 
 
 ONLY BAPTISM, 
 
 INSTITUTED BY JESUS CHRIST TO BE CONTINUED IN THE 
 CHURCH ; 
 
 AID THAT THE 
 
 ASPERSION OF INFANTS 
 
 UNSCRIPTURAL INNOVATION: 
 
 IN WHICH ALSO 
 
 Some strictures are made on a late address on a baptismal occasion, by a 
 
 methoditt minister the extolled production of Mr Peter Edwards is 
 
 shewn to consist of reasonings and inferences grossly erroneous ; and proper 
 attention is paid to a pamphlet lately published in Philadelphia. 
 
 BY WILLIAM WHITE, 
 
 PASTOR OF THE SECOND BAPTIST CHURCH, PHILADELPHIA, 
 
 Search the scriptures. — Jesus Christ. 
 
 Buried with him by baptism into death. — Paul. 
 
 It is highly probable the Baptist ideas will prevail.— Mr. Pierie. 
 
 BURLINGTON, N. J. 
 PRINTED FOR THE AUTHOR. 
 
 BY S. C. USTICK, 
 
 1808. 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 
 in 2011 with funding from 
 
 Princeton Theological Seminary Library 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/christianbaptismOOwhit 
 
TOTHEREADE 
 
 - 
 
 SEVERAL motives have induced me to lay before ilu 
 reader my thoughts in this way, the principal of which are the 
 following : 
 
 When Mr. Peter Edwards' book came into this country, it 
 was received by the Pcedobaptists with the utmost enthusiasm, 
 and the praises of the author were sung throughout the United 
 States. In the course of three or four years many large editions 
 were printed off. Congregationalists, Presbyterians, and 
 Methodists seemed to vie with each other, which should print 
 and circulate most of them. The Pcedobaptists abandoned 
 their old friends, such as Findley and Bostwick, and by their 
 general expression of joy, fully evinced that they believed 
 those performances were lame, or at least not unanswerable : 
 but now they considered the victory as secure, and Edwards 
 was their whole theme. If any one was seeking his duty as 
 to baptism, even from the pulpit directions were given to read 
 Edwards. In all private conversations, Edwards was refered 
 to. Their pulpits rung with, and retailed out, on the subject 
 of baptism, nothing but Edwards. In every new performance, 
 Edwards was the text ; and without a blush many, not content 
 with handing out his ideas, even adopted his phraseology. 
 
 I was, as might be expected, anxious to see this far-famed 
 production ; and, after having obtained it, being convinced 
 that it might be very easily answered, I set about it, and 
 afterward desisted from it, only on account of hearing that 
 one of my brethren was engaged in a similar work. 
 
 Having laid it aside then, it would probably never have 
 appeared, had not an attack been made on the Baptists bv the 
 Rev. Joseph Totten, a Methodist preacher, in the presence 
 of thousands, in which he propagated many untruths ; and 
 
IV 
 
 had not that attack been followed up by one from a Rev. 
 gentleman, believed for some reasons to be a resident in this 
 city, who did not chuse to prefix his name to his performance, 
 whether through shame or not, is not for me to say ; but this 
 last work was ushered into the world by hand-bills stuck up 
 at the public corners, and in the taverns, for miles round the 
 city, headed with the words " INFANT BAPTISM," in 
 large capitals. I had pledged myself to the public to notice 
 the address of the first gentleman : but have indeed been sorry 
 for my promise, as on a review, I have really thought his 
 remarks unworthy of notice. 
 
 In these strictures, I am sensible there are many inaccu- 
 racies as to style and composition, which indeed were minor 
 considerations ; and criticism on either will give me no pain. 
 For the sentiment, I offer no apology, but invite investigation, 
 and shall feel it a pleasure to reply. 
 
 Two late Sermons, printed in New-Jersey, are not noticed 
 in this work*, because it was, with the exception of the 
 preface, finished before I saw them. 
 
 This volume has been ready for the press more than nine 
 months past ; but some unforeseen difficulties have occurred, 
 to prevent its appearing until now. 
 
 WILLIAM WHITE. 
 
 Philadelphia, May 1808. 
 
 * The Sermons I allude to have been written, the one by Dr. Smith of 
 Prrnceton, the other by Rev. Mr. Findley of Baskenridge : but neither of 
 them contains a single idea, which has not been frequently and fully refuted. 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM, .&c. 
 
 IN THREE PARTS, 
 
 PART I. 
 
 Addressed to the Rev. Joseph Totten 
 
 ^^L 
 
 Sir 
 
 I 
 
 HAVE taken the liberty to make a few strictures 
 on your late address at the water. I need not apologize for 
 this freedom, because you seemed then to court investigation ; 
 and, not content with signifying a willingness to defend your 
 system, (if it deserves that name), you even defied any person 
 on the margin of the river then present, to prove your assertions 
 -unfounded. Your defiance, twice repeated, did but remind me 
 of the Philistine who flourished in the presence of the armies of 
 Israel, and who like you, ridiculed their God : but remember, 
 sir, that with all your boasted armour, it will require nothing 
 but an insignificant pebble to bring you to the ground. Under 
 such circumstances to remain silent, would but afford you a 
 theme of exultation among your brethren, while riding the 
 circuit, and give you an opportunity uncontradicted, to assert a 
 victory over the Baptists you never obtained : but that the 
 weakness of your performance may be seen, and that you in 
 future may be more guarded, I now lay before the public what 
 you then advanced, which was minuted immediately after the 
 transaction. 
 
 I attended at the Delaware that day from the best motives, 
 even to countenance an ordinance of Christ administered in the 
 primitive way. This was done by our society in general, to let it 
 be seen that we did wish to go with our Methodist brethren as 
 far as we could, and that our opposition to them was not on 
 account of the name they bore, but because of their practice ; 
 and that we wanted nothing more to reconcile us to them, than 
 an abandonment of what we verily believed to be contrary to the 
 word of God. Had we remained at home on that occasion, you 
 might then have charged us with a partiality to the name of 
 Baptist, and insisted that we did not regard the ordinance, 
 because we refused to give it countenance : yet, when we did 
 attend, our motives for so doing were impeached, and we were 
 said to be fond of litigation. Be it known to you, sir, that when 
 we sciw a number of Methodists (whom we know to be the mos| 
 
 B 
 
bitter and implacable enemies of the doctrines which the Baptist* 
 hold to be eternal truth) coming to the water to be baptized in 
 reality ; we considered it as a complete triumph of truth over 
 antiquated error, and a pledge of its universal prevalence. But 
 never did 1 see a man placed in a more auk ward situation than 
 yourself j for your whole address went to prove that immersion 
 is not baptism, or in other words, that dipping is not dipping : 
 and yet, after the expence of a full hour's labour and sweat, and 
 after a number of known falsehoods urged against the Baptists, 
 as if it were designed to put you to the blush, and tell you they 
 did not believe one word you had said ; I say, immediately after 
 you had ended your libel on baptism, twelve persons went down 
 into the water, in your presence, and were completely immersed. 
 Yea, and to shew how much they despised pcedobaptism, they 
 would not suffer you, sir, to perform the ordinance, being an 
 unbaptized man ; and, therefore, rightly deeming you unquali- 
 fied to administer it, waited several months for one of your own 
 order, who had been himself regularly baptized. Do not mis- 
 take, reader, these were not Baptists, who had the effrontery 
 to go down into the water after such a learned address ; but 
 Methodists, and some of them of no mean repute either. Now 
 the conduct above described might stand thus : 
 
 1 Be it known to the citizens of Philadelphia, and others who 
 maybe interested, that we whose names are hereunto subscribed 
 (being twelve in number) were a legal jury of our country, 
 impannelled to try a cause depending between infant sprinkling 
 and believers' immersion in water, which of them is baptism 
 according to scripture : and, after having heard learned counsel 
 on one side only, and that in favour of sprinkling, and also from 
 the same counsel much defamation against the immersion of 
 believers ; the case appeared to us so plain, that without hearing 
 counsel on the other side, we did unanimously agree to a verdict, 
 which we delivered by going down into the water and being 
 immersed in the same. Signed, Stc' 
 
 This, sir, is a specimen of your success ; and if all vour 
 future endeavours are crowned with the like, we shall see the 
 advocates for infant sprinkling greatly diminished, and but a few 
 obstinate characters adhere to a system already tottering.-Every 
 such discourse will do more for the cause of the Baptists than 
 you can well calculate. 
 
 I have nothing to say against the deportment of either of the 
 clergy who were present but yourself ; for they conducted them- 
 selves with much solemnity. Neither do we find fault with the 
 administration of the e>rdinance ; it was done decently enough : 
 nor yet with the candidates ; for they on the whole merited 
 applause; — the indiscretioix; yf two of them, ought not to be 
 
attributed to the rest. But, sir, how can you defend your 
 conduct? for some of it was indecent, and some of it irreverent, 
 to say the least of it. You introduced the service by asserting, 
 the ordinances of the gospel were solemn, and then recognized 
 as one of them that which was about being- celebrated ; and yet, 
 after such declarations, and after exhorting the people to treat 
 it with respect, you did in plain words deny that immersion is 
 baptism. It will not avail you to say, that you left men to enjoy 
 liberty of conscience, and that what they thought to be right, 
 was really so ; for when you pretended to take the scriptures for 
 vour guide in search of baptism, you then declared " there were 
 two modes, and only two that you could find in the Bible, and 
 that they were sprinkling and pouring — the first from Ezekitl 
 xxxvi. %S, the other from Zech. xi. 10." Now, sir, how could 
 you dare to insult the understandings of your audience thus ? 
 Did you think they would let such glaring contradictions pass,- 
 and that they were prepared to swallow every thing you said ? 
 Surely, a man that had any common respect for his own repu- 
 tation, or for public opinion, would not thus have acted. But, 
 sir, your audiences are notjn the habit of disputing ministerial 
 dogmas, and this accounts for your temerity. 
 
 The indelicacy of the remark you made will not speedily be 
 forgotten, when you said, vt if immersion were necessary, you 
 would strip yourself naked and go into the water :" and lest it 
 might not be heard, you repeated it with extended voice. Were 
 you afraid the people would mistake your character, and con- 
 clude you to be a decent and modest man, that you forced them 
 to hear such vulgarity? Or did you wish to stir up lewd and 
 unhallowed passions, to take off the solemn effect of the scene, 
 and furnish young rakes and bloods with something to laugh at 
 over their cups ? Or did you wish, by such mean and pitiful 
 observations, to bring the ordinance into contempt, and thus 
 deter the modest female from the duty, lest she should incur 
 such illiberal remarks ? Did you give it as your advice to the 
 candidates to act thus ? Or was it to counsel the administrator 
 not to perform the ordinance unless they complied ? Whatever 
 were your motives, or whether you had any at all, it is difficult 
 for me to know : but, as I am disposed to think the best of it, I 
 must attribute it to a want of that intercourse with the modest 
 part of society, which never fails to lay a restraint on unbecoming 
 freedom. 
 
 You also said much of yourself, and in the opinion of manvfar 
 too much. You told us of your large acquaintance with scripture, 
 and that you would not yield to any in that particular. W T hy, sir, 
 did you tell us of it ? Did we not witness your great strength ot 
 memory? Were you afraid we should forget how you bel$!*}y*ed 
 
Us with texts of scripture, especially when you had to resort to 
 Ezekiel's prophecies to prove what were c the modes of baptism^ 
 as you termed them ? Yea, and when you most unanswerably 
 proved, that a person of thirty years old is not an infant, nor 
 3^et an infant thirty years old ! But, above all, after boasting 
 so much about what you could do in proving infant baptism (or 
 rather sprinkling) from scripture, you at last referred us to Mark 
 x. 16. ' Jesus took young children in his arms and blessed them.' 
 But where is it said he baptized them ? Did you mean, when 
 asserting your knowledge of scripture, to compliment the baptists 
 by letting the world know, that with all your great knowledge of 
 holy writ, you could find but one text that made against them ? 
 — O ye Pcedobaptists, here is a gentleman who declares his 
 knowledge of the scripture equal, at least, to that of any man, 
 (how much superior, he has not yet declared ; but that may 
 possibly be done at the next Methodist baptism) ; and, after all 
 his great research, has not produced one solitary text, nor yet a 
 half of one, to prove infant baptism to have been in practice ; 
 and will you now undertake to do what this gentleman has failed 
 in ? If you will presume to have him for an antagonist you must, 
 as he will not yield in point of scripture knowledge to " any 
 man." 
 
 But I have run too fast : you did not say indeed, that you 
 could bring scripture which would apply to the case, but simply 
 that you could bring scripture, I beg your pardon, sir, for 
 misapprehending you ; for there is a great difference between 
 bringing scripture to prove a point, and merely citeing it to 
 exhibit strength of memory. I believe that you are emulous of 
 the latter more than the former. You did^ indeed, bring a great 
 deal of scripture which just proved nothing at all, unless proving 
 that you did not understand the controversy was proving some- 
 thing ; and the texts you quoted to defend infant baptism, were 
 of the same kind that the pope of Rome has taken to make it 
 appear that he stands in Peter*s shoes, yea, that he is Peter 
 himself, or at least his representative : — we shall however give 
 some specimens of your scripture knowledge presently. 
 
 You next tell us you are a Methodist — have been one tivcnty 
 years, and glory in your co?inecticn with that society. How in 
 the name of wonder does all this prove infant baptism ? Are we 
 then to receive it because the Methodist society in general, and 
 you in particular, are in favour of it ? — I hope we shall not be 
 brought before the conference for being dissentients. — But you 
 have been a " Methodist minister twenty years," — twenty years 
 
 a minister ! — and a Methodist minister too ! Why you must 
 
 have* grown grey hi the service by this time. O, now I under- 
 stand you — your silver leeks and great experience must plead 
 
the cause of infant sprinkling, (eloquent orators indeed !) The 
 impertinences of youthful enquiry must give way to sage counsel 
 and wisdom. — As to the glory attached to your connection, we 
 feel no disposition to deprive you of it ; yet, at the same time, we 
 hesitate not to say, that our envy is not excited by your privilege, 
 and we think it adds nothing to the weight of your argument. 
 
 You likewise let us know how " sure you were of getting to 
 heaven, if you continued faithful as you then were." How, sir, 
 does this apply to the controversy ? Because you will go to 
 heaven when you die, must believers baptism needs be wrong 
 on that account? Cannot you go to heaven, and believers baptism 
 be scriptural after all? Or did you mean to insinuate, the poor 
 Baptists must then of course go to hell, and that as a reward for 
 their opposing the baptizing of little infant believers, as you 
 would have them to be ? Or it may be, that as heaven is to be 
 the reward of your faithfulness (not the gift of grace), that you 
 concluded, a less price than heavenly glory would not repay 
 the labour of love, and great service done to the cause of religion 
 
 by your baptismal address. Jonah was sent to denounce 
 
 the Ninevites, and foretel their utter destruction by some tem- 
 poral judgment, unless averted by a national humiliation : but 
 the same man, seeing their overthrow not likely to be accom- 
 plished, was mightily concerned lest his character as a prophet 
 should suffer by the extension of divine mercy. It would seem 
 that you were acting the same thing over again, making your 
 religious character as a man, stand or fall with your assertions 
 as a preacher ; and, as your going to heaven could not be ques- 
 tioned by us Baptists, unless we should take leave of our senses, 
 that, of course, all you said at the water must be true, yea, truer 
 than the gospel itself, for to be sure you have leamt more than 
 the ignorant apostles*. — Before I take leave of this favourite 
 remark of yours, I would ask whether such avowals of assurance 
 were delivered in meekness and fear ? And whether they do 
 not look too much like that odious thing spiritual pride, and 
 religious boasting, than which nothing degrades a christian 
 more ? I do not mention these things as a denial of your Christi- 
 anity 7 ; but this I must say, that you looked very little like your 
 divine Master, while trying to bring his ordinance into contempt ; 
 and, by acting the buffoon in the presence of thousands, to obtain 
 the rich teward of a laugh. And sure I am, your then conduct 
 formed no evidence of your assurance being genuine. 
 
 It would seem, that you came with a view of silencing us 
 forever on the subject of baptism ; and to leave this very grateful 
 testimony of respect behind you to your friends, who no doubt 
 
 * These were his expressions at the v/ater- 
 
10 
 
 will be hard pressed to find a successor so learned (especially in 
 Greek prepositions), so meek, so modest, diffident, free from 
 slander and low vulgarity as yourself. But as for me, my 
 wounds are incurable ; for you laid about you so lustily, that, 
 indeed, medical aid must immediately be called in, or what the 
 consequences may be is uncertain. How you must have enjoyed 
 yourself to see us Baptists so chopfallen, to see how you con- 
 verted us to your way of thinking, and how we afterward sought 
 for admission into your society ! One of your people reported 
 that we were dreadfully mangled, and others much doubted 
 if there was a whole bone left ; and as for the poor parson, (as 
 they termed me), they surely concluded he must keep his 
 chamber for weeks at least, and would never dare appear again 
 on the baptizing ground. You had declared your wish to have 
 a " whet 1 ' at me : but to think all this must be done in public, 
 where I could not avoid the shame consequent on a defeat ; and 
 to think you must defy every one on the ground as well as my- 
 self, and lest it should not be heard, to repeat the same ! How, 
 sir, is it possible that means can be devised to take off all this 
 odium ! ! ! — Well, one thing consoles me, that you challenged 
 at least three thousand people, and you know I am but one 
 among so many : but then the dear people looked at me so, 
 and the Methodist brethren gave me such vers' loving glances, 
 acd some smiled so charmingly ; that my vanity became nattered 
 witli the idea, that by the " every one present," myself only 
 was intended. Well,' thought I, what a HUGE BEING the 
 Baptist parson must be, that he has hidden from view all the 
 numerous assembly ; or how strangely must the visionary 
 organs of the preacher have deceived him, when to his distem- 
 pered fancy, the little parson seemed to multiply into thousands, 
 
 yea to cover the whole shore ! Your empty vapouring where 
 
 you well knew your challenge could not be accepted, especially 
 as the tide was ebbing rapidly, gave me but little concern ; for 
 you would not fail to have improved a reply to your weak 
 assertions, (for arguments they were not), into a design to 
 interrupt the service — vea, such was your magnanimity, that 
 when I only mentioned to the people my intention to notice you 
 at our next baptism, your cry was, u Don't interrupt me, I am 
 not yet done." But, sir, words may be forgotten, or denied, 
 which will probably be the course you will adopt on this occasion, 
 though they may be attested by hundreds : — but that the public 
 may see what a champion you are for infant sprinkling, I now 
 in turn challenge you to a reply, and let you know that you will 
 be abundantly noticed. There is nothing the Baptists covet 
 more than public discussion, and our Preclobaptist brethren have 
 hitherto found their account in observing a profound silence. 
 
11 
 
 Little will they thank you for exposing their weak cause, and 
 forcing them into a contest they have studiously avoided. A 
 iiostwick, a Findley, an Edwards, have all in turn failed : but 
 you, sir, mean to rival them all, and as if heaven had designed 
 lOl \ OU ,, .pk e laurel wreath to grace the vicior's brow," 
 
 and that a Buonaparte should rise in the religious as in the poli- 
 tical world ; men will have nothing now to do, but stand with 
 amazement and behold your skill. Two or three old nostrums, 
 such as — u Baptism is not essential — these are little things — no 
 questions will be asked by and by, whether you are baptized or 
 not— what will become of infants — of Quakers — of heathens — 
 a little water, a drop is as good as an ocean :" — these would 
 have done more for you, than all you can bring from the divine 
 word. Now, sir, mark what I say, this very injudicious attack 
 on the Baptists,, will end ultimately in your defeat, and in the 
 advancement of the rite of our adored Redeemer. 
 
 Among your strange reasons for the truth of infant baptism, 
 the following was not the least, to wit : il That God had greatly 
 owned the Methodist society — that six hundred had been added 
 to your churches in the city last year — that the minutes of the 
 conference would exhibit greater wonders still ; and that God 
 has owned iniant baptism by giving you a happy time, when 
 vou were sprinkling some candidates. Yea, and that you were 
 -sure if it was not right, God would not have done this, but 
 would have sent you into damnation," (pardon me, for they are 
 your own words). Were the Methodist society in reality as 
 successful as they would have us believe, would that be a con- 
 vincing proof that their doctrines were right? Certainly not. 
 With the same propriety, and indeed with more, might the 
 Romish church urge this as evidence in their favour ; for it 
 cannot be denied that popery lias spread much wider, and 
 lasted much longer, than ever methodism has done. Ho*.?- 
 readily might the Jews have urged the same against the docti h.t* 
 of Christ, and on the same principles the heathen nations might 
 have insisted the christian religion was not true, inasmuch as 
 his followers were few and mean. Though we are willing to 
 grant that the Methodists have been successful, and useful in a 
 certain degree ; yet we are by no means disposed to grant it to 
 the extent they desire. I know indeed that your society wish to 
 appear respectable, and to leave the impression on die public 
 mind diat your number? are very axeat. With this view it may 
 be, that your ministers are obliged to attend conference at one 
 place, that the appearance of such a body together mi^ht el 
 the idea, and with it 2 plea for false principles: Were 
 -societies #0 anxious on that hea L it w< uld ■ - 
 
12 
 
 •your numbers, as well as talents, were comparatively insignifi- 
 cant. — You tell us, it is true, how many you had added to your 
 society in the last year within the city ; but then, why did you 
 not favour us with an account of the number that still remain 
 with vou ? We have become so familiar with Methodist revivals 
 that they cease to create surprise ; not so much because they are 
 frequent and real, as from a fear that often they are the result 
 of a mere elevation of the passions, which in a little while vanish 
 or leave but few traces behind. 
 
 Nothing is more common than to hear the cry, c the mighty 
 power of God ! ! the mighty power of God ! !' But when all 
 comes to all, it Avould seem the Lord has had but very little 
 hand in it, and the better name for it would have been, the 
 mighty power of the lungs. It affords pleasantry enough to hear 
 the preacher threatening the devil with a black eye, a broken 
 Itg, or at least a fractured scull ; and not content therewith, he 
 must be made to scamper out of the sinner's throat, yea, and 
 sometimes he has to run for it so, that he does not dare to 
 stop within a day's journey of them. It is common enough 
 to see societies of them collected together, and like Jonah's 
 gourd, come up in a night and perish in a night — an instance of 
 which take. — A certain hired girl in this city went home one 
 evening, and addressed her mistress thus : u Oh! said she, we 
 have had a great display of divine power among us this evening." 
 <k Well, and how so r" said the mistress. " This night," said 
 she, M we have had added to our society thirty persons." M But 
 how many have you turned out this night ? . '* We have cast 
 out thirty-two backsliders*. " This you see, sir, will set your 
 revival in its true light. — Will any sober man deem 6uch to be 
 be revivals of religion, when the doors of a meeting-house are 
 locked, and those who are there prevented from retiring ; and 
 then ministers and members reiterate the most horrid cries and 
 shrieks, until persons not accustomed to such scenes become 
 terrified, and while thus alarmed, the preacher solicits their 
 names to be placed on his class paper, and then these are his 
 
 converts ? Methodists talk much of falling from grace : but 
 
 it is such grace as they have received from their ministers, 
 not from God — grace that never changed the Heart, but only 
 alarmed their fears. 
 
 When mention was made by you that the Lord had sanctioned 
 infant sprinkling by his presence, I perfectlv understood you. It 
 bad become notorious, that the immersion of believers had been 
 made the happy instrument of awakening many sinners. Now, 
 that this might not detract from the credit of your favourite 
 
 * Should Mr. T. dispute the credibility of this or any succeeding anecdote, 
 -.be writer cf this work is pieparwd to adduce testimony of its correctness* 
 
practice, it was your wish to make it appear that God had 
 equallv approved its administration. When you were about 
 producing your strong proof, my curiosity was not a little raised, 
 and I expected nothing so much as to hear of numbers that were 
 converted at the sight; but, after having waited with the utmost 
 impatience, the mountain in labour brought forth a mouse. You 
 tell us you had a happy time. A happy time ! that is, perhaps 
 vou were ail in an uproar — fell to shouting — disturbed the 
 neighbourhood with your noise, (for these are what vour people 
 deem their happy meetings) ; and all this to be sure must be 
 ibuted to God, and these irregularities pass for the workings 
 of his Spirit. But you think God would have u damned you 
 in the act," if infant baptism were not from heaven : but 
 remember, sir, that it is yet time enough for him to reprove 
 vour conduct, and though damnation may not be the penalty, 
 vet vou are not escaped out of his hand. 
 
 While atheists have mocked at the being of a God — while 
 gentiles have sacrificed to devils — while deists have denied 
 divine revelation utterly, and while Jews were hanging the 
 blessed Jesus on a tree ; God was silent, and seemed not to 
 notice these things : but will you make the forbearance of God 
 an argument for additional insult ? I suppose your excessive 
 impiety and ridicule at the water, was the fruit of such a 
 sentiment. The same argument would justify all the error of 
 opinion, and all the immorality of practice, that ever was in 
 existence among those who call themselves christians. 
 
 You console yourself with the sentiment, that no enquiries 
 will be made by and by whether you have or have not been 
 baptized, or whether baptism has been rightly or improperlv 
 performed, and you are pleased to call these by the name of 
 little things. However, for a warning to you, and to make it 
 evident God will require it at your hands, take the following 
 quotations. — " From the days of your fathers ye have gone 
 away from mine ordinances, and have not kept them,' 1 Mab.ehi 
 iii. 7. u Why do ye transgress the commandment of God by 
 your tradition :" Matth. xv. 3. " In vain they do worship me, 
 teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." Matth. v. 9. 
 " Full well ve reject the commandment of God, that ye ma\ 
 keep your own tradition," Mark vii. 9. " Making the word or" 
 God of none effect through your tradition ," Mark vii. 13. 
 " Whosoever ^whether private or public character) shall break 
 one of these least commandments, (only one, and that not a little 
 one, but the least) and shall teach men so, he shall be called the 
 least m the kingdom of heaven," Matth. v. 19. What now 
 nes of your assertion, that God regards not th 
 
Out of humour with the Baptists on account of tlieir requiring 
 religious experience from the candidates for baptism, as a proof 
 of your liberality, you a would not go through such tedious 
 forms as hearing of experiences and dreams, but would take 
 their word, for it, and if they seemed to be aifected by the truth 
 preached, take them down the bank immediately by hundreds, 
 
 and baptize them right awa}'." Now, reader, here is a 
 
 precious confession indeed! this is a specimen of additions 
 made to the Methodist episcopal church. The man seems not 
 to care whether his converts are the children of God, or the 
 children of the devil ; he would tumble them into ih ; Methodist 
 church by hundreds— verily he is not very nice about his spiritual 
 company! I deem this remark of his the mere important, 
 because it is well known the Methodists have pretended to 
 more spirituality than their neighbours, and are often branding 
 other societies with the odious epithets of hypocritts and formal 
 professors ; and they have not failed to say these thngs cf the 
 Baptists : but now it seems the Baptists are too strict, much more 
 so than the gentleman would have been in a similar case ! Is not 
 this a compliment to the Baptists ? and does it not go to say, 
 (and which is certainly true) that we are careful of receiving 
 unworthy persons into our connection ; while Methodists, or 
 at least the gentleman himself, would feel no scruple on that 
 head r I confess, that I never before had thought that the 
 Methodist society had so greatly degenerated, until I received 
 It from the gentleman's own lips ; but had conceived they wished 
 the children of God, and only such, to unite with them : but 
 now, I find, (if the gentleman has stated their views right), they 
 are opening their doors wide ( for the world to come in. Eut 
 then, what he advanced was not thought to be quite correct by 
 his colleague ; for, immediately after the elegant address of the 
 speaker was finished, behold ! the Rev. Mr. Smith (and to his 
 konour I mention it.) interrogated the subjects in a variety of 
 instances, as to their knowledge of, and faith in, Christ, and 
 
 resolutions to live a religious life. Did you not feel very much 
 
 confused, sir, when this was done ? or, are you so insensible to 
 nhame, that you cannot blush ? 
 
 You will, Mr. Totten, doubtless pardon m£, if I inform the 
 reader why you were incensed against the relating of dreams : 
 but, at any rate, whether or not, he shall have the reason in 
 
 full. It is not, gentle reader, that the Baptists are so fond of 
 
 d« earns, that I relate this ; for, although we think it proper to 
 recite such as have been blessed by God to the awakening of the 
 party ; yet it is w n, that we diligently look into the 
 
 feelings and views of the candidate, to see if the divine Spirit be 
 Sit work, or whether the person has had only legal fears. But 
 
15 
 
 then the gentleman was all alive on account of a very particular 
 dream, that was related by a young man, one of our candidates 
 for baptism, whom he had tried to make a convert of, but had 
 entirely failed, and who, to his great mortification, considering 
 the dream to be a warning from God, (of the correctness of 
 which opinion the reader must judge for himself), joined the 
 Baptist church. — Now, reader, for your satisfaction, and that 
 you may sympathize with the gentleman, you shall have the 
 dream, which was as follows : u I was," said the young man, 
 " an attendant on the Methodist worship, and was inclined to 
 them much ; but one night, in a dream, I thought that I was 
 among thousands of people, who were in the act of gathering 
 in a harvest — that while thus employed, a person in shining 
 garments made his appearance, and called to me with a loud 
 voice, saying, ' Come out from among that people, for they are 
 Methodists.' Ke then said, ' Do you know what they are about ?* 
 To which I replied, 4 Yes, they are gathering in an harvest.' 
 He then said, ' Do you know what kind of wheat it is they are 
 gathering V To which I replied, c I do not.' ' Come here, then,* 
 said he, ' and I will shew you.' He then took me to a garner, 
 and bade me examine the wheat, which I did, and when I took 
 it in my hand, I found the most of it hollow and blasted, and but 
 here and there a sound grain among it. He then asked, 4 Is this 
 grain good ? To which I replied, c No, it is hollow and blasted.' 
 He then said, ' Come with me, and I will shew you a harvest to 
 gather.' He then took me to a beautiful field of wheat, and said 
 unto me, L Gather that :' and then he left me." 
 
 Now, reader, it was this that the young man related, and 
 said was, as he thought, an admonition to come out from among 
 them ; and to this dream the gentleman alluded. Can you blame 
 him for his great sensibility on such an occasion? Certainly not. 
 — But the society with which you are connected, sir, ought to 
 be the last to object to visions ; for it is well known, that you 
 have been greatly imposed upon by persons pretending to super- 
 natural revelations, and so confident have you been that God 
 has interfered in favour of your society, that you have not been 
 ashamed to avow it openly. If you want evidence of this, I 
 have it in my power to assist your recollection. 
 
 How, sir, could you have the effrontery to declare, in the open 
 manner in which you did, that the Baptists believe and teach, 
 that every person not baptized is lost ? I was the more surprised 
 at this, because you seemed to be afraid that the people present 
 would not hear the assertion, and lest they should not, you 
 repeated it again ; and my surprise is not a little increased by 
 hearing, that after my answer to your address at the wafer, at 
 our next ordinance season, you again insisted on the same 
 
lb 
 
 thing. I ask, whence did you obtain your information I Was it 
 from our Confession of Faith ? or did either yourself, or any of 
 your brethren ever hear a Baptist affirm it in his preaching ? 
 You must bear with me, sir, if I say the charge is entirely false, 
 and that you knew it to be so, and that the reason you made it 
 was for want of argument. I now challenge you to furnish proof 
 of it from any of our writings, or Confessions of Faith ; and if 
 you cannot, you must forever be mistrusted in future. What 
 sufficiently manifested you knew the reverse to be true, was, 
 your objecting to our examining persons before we baptized 
 them. You dare not deny what you then said ; and, if you 
 dare not, pray, sir, what is the examination for ? Is it not to 
 ascertain whether the candidates be gracious persons or not ? 
 and did you not blame us for this our strictness ? Does not our 
 practice in this fully prove the falsity of your charge, and that 
 we do not baptize persons unless we believe them to be christians 
 already, and not to make them so, as you have asserted \ But, 
 sir,, why did you resort to such pitiful artifice ? I will tell you. 
 You were sensible that your pretended reasoning would not bear 
 the test of examination, and lest your hearers should see the 
 weakness of your cause, there was no other expedient that could 
 be adopted but an address to the passions of the audience, to stir 
 up their prejudices, so as to prevent them from searching for 
 themselves. The hue and cry is set up against the Baptists thus : . 
 *■ See, ye mothers, these Baptists will have none to go to heaven 
 but themselves — they make sprinkling to be no baptism, and 
 therefore send us all to hell as unbaptized persons. Now what 
 is to become of your babes ? are they in hell too ? Why these 
 wicked Baptists do certainly believe in the damnation of infants, 
 or why do they not baptize them ? Surely, those that are not fit 
 for baptism, are not fit to go to heaven.' Thus by mere declama- 
 tion, and an address to the passions, the auditory are led off from 
 the controversy. Their prejudices being roused, they become 
 unprepared to examine impartially, and under such false impres- 
 sions dismiss the subject entirely ; but not without many woes 
 denounced against the cruel and hard-hearted Baptists, as they 
 cail us. — You, sir, are an inveterate enemy to the Baptists, and 
 it is this enmity that carries you all the lengths you go ; neither 
 is it the first time you have misrepresented our society, and 
 though it may be disagreeable to you to hear it, I shall relate to 
 the reader a piece of your public prevarication, that must stamp 
 on you merited disgrace, and shew what you are capable oi\. 
 aad what sort of an antagonist we have to deal with. 
 
 Some few years since, this famous Methodist champion 
 commenced an attack on the Baptists in the neighbourhood of 
 Jacobs Town, New jersey. But what weapon do you think he 
 
17 
 
 used, reader ? Was it argument ? — No, no, it was the weapon 
 with which he excels, and which he so dexterously wielded lately 
 at the water. He obtained the Baptist Confession of Faith, 
 and, if my memory serves me, obtained also a pamphlet called 
 the Confession of the Synod of Dort: these were stitched toge- 
 ther, and then, in a crouded assembly, he thus -addressed the 
 people : u I will now," said he, " shew you what a xvicked people 
 these Baptists are, and what dreadful doctrines they hold. See, 
 I have in my hand the Baptist Confession of Faith, and to con- 
 vince you that I do not charge them wrong, shall read you a 
 paragraph." Instead, however, of reading a passage out of the 
 Baptist Confession, he selected one from the other, to the follow- 
 ing purport : a God, by an eternal and irreversible decree, hath 
 predestinated a certain number to eternal salvation, without 
 regard to faith or good works ; and, by the same eternal and 
 irreversible decree, he hath predestinated the rest to eternal 
 damnation, without regard to unbelief or evil xvorks" — u This," 
 added he, " is the creed of the people denominated Baptists." 
 A minister, who afterwards visited Manahawkin when Mr. 
 T. was at that place, having heard of the imposition practiced 
 at Jacobs Town, and fearing that attempts would be made to 
 deceive the people at this place also # , he publicly mentioned 
 the circumstance, and declared, that if Mr. T. had announced 
 the above as the Baptist Confession of Faith, he was either 
 mistaken or worse! — An interview between Mr. T. and the 
 gentleman ensued ; when, during a conversation respecting the 
 above affair, and from the circumstance of the person being very 
 near-sighted Mr. Totten probably supposing he should not be 
 detected, opened a Book and put it into his hand, saying, " Is 
 not that your Confession of Faith ?" The gentleman having 
 examined it, replied, " Yes, this is." Mr. T. then made an 
 attempt to take back the book : but, much to his mortification, 
 the other retained it, and continued turning over leaf by leaf, 
 until he came to the Confession of the Synod of Dort, and then 
 said, " This is not ours, sir," and asked, u Did you not know, 
 Mr. Totten, that this is not the Baptist Confession ?" To which 
 Mr. T. answered, u Yes." He then asked, u Did you then, sir, 
 mean to make me acknowledge the whole of this book to be the 
 Baptist Confession of Faith, and then make use of my acknow- 
 ledgement to deceive the people." To which Mr. T. made no 
 reply. 
 
 * It seems the gentleman's fears respecting Mr. T's designs at Manahaw- 
 kin were not wholly groundless. There was a meeting house there, built for the 
 Baptists in particular, but subject to the use of other societies when they were 
 not occupying it. The Baptist minister removing from thence during the 
 revolutionary war, the society fell into decay. The Methodists did not fail to 
 avail themselves of so favourable an opportunity, and, as usual in such cases, 
 
18 
 
 Now, reader, you have a portrait of the man ; you see he 
 will stick at nothing to gain a favourite point, and no doubt he 
 concludes the end will justify the means : hut do you admire 
 the likeness ? Can you, after this, believe any of his defamatory 
 charges against the Baptists ? — This is the man that boasted of 
 his assurance and faithfulness at the water side, in the presence 
 of thousands ! 
 
 The reader may ask, * But do you not, indeed, hold such a 
 sentiment, that unbaptized persons are lost, infants as well as 
 others ? If you do not, how has the report gained such circula- 
 tion, and from what source could it originate ? — To the public 
 we owe it as a duty to render every satisfaction ; but as to our 
 accusers, we need take no pains with them, because they know 
 better, and only use it for party purposes ; and were they refuted 
 a thousand times, would still repeat the slander. When we 
 declare infants are not to be baptized, it is not because we doubt 
 the salvation of such as die in infancy ; for we do most assuredly 
 believe, that all deceased infants, whether they are the offspring 
 of believers or not, are saved by the atonement of Christ : but 
 the reason we object to their baptism is, because there is no 
 example of their being baptized by Christ or his apostles — and 
 because faith and repentance are required of the subjects of 
 baptism, of which infants are entirely incapable — and likewise, 
 because baptism is an ordinance preparatory to church fellowship, 
 of which it is clear they are incapable also. — Our reason for not 
 sitting down at the Lord's table with such christians as have 
 been sprinkled, but not baptized, is not because we doubt their 
 piety, or whether they will finally arrive at glory. No : of this 
 we have no doubt ; we firmly believe, that all pious people will 
 rise to heaven, whether baptized or not. But we do not com- 
 mune with them, because we believe baptism to be a prerequisite 
 to the Lord's table, and that such as are even the children of 
 
 occupied the house entirely as though it were their own. In this situation of 
 their affairs, the Baptist Association appointed some of their body to visit and 
 preach to such of the people as still remained ; who, on going thither, found 
 but five members of the church who had survived. They, however, entered 
 upon their duties, and such was the power that attended their ministry, in a 
 short time many souls were awakened, and after having savingly believed in 
 Christ, were baptized on a profession of their faith. And this was not all : the 
 the love which the people formerly had for the Baptist society returned, the 
 expression of public sentiment was in their favour, and a manifest preference 
 given to them; some of the members of the Methodist society were convinced 
 of baptism and united with the Baptists, others were very uneasy. The two 
 societies continued to worship in the same house alternately, until at last the 
 Methodists tried by stratagem to turn the Baptists out altogether : but failing 
 in this, and fearing the total dissolution of their society by the force of truth, 
 ttiej finally went off of their own accord, and built a house for themselves. — 
 In the schemes which were here devised for dispossessing theBaptir.ts M. T. 
 • ztulouziy and actively took a par*. 
 
19 
 
 God have no right there, until they have submitted to Christ's 
 command ; and if, under such circumstances, we were to admit 
 them, it would be an encouragement to persist in disobedience 
 to Christ. When, for these reasons, we refuse to commune 
 with them, our enemies take the advantage, as this man has 
 done, and presently report, that the Baptists deny any persons 
 to be christians but themselves, and affirm the damnation of 
 infants. — But the question between us is not, who shall be saved,* 
 but who are to be baptized^ and what is baptism. 
 
 That no dependence is placed by us on baptism, as a saving 
 ordinance, mast be evident to every unprejudiced mind ; because 
 we baptize none but professing believers* — we always refuse 
 receiving persons that look upon baptism to be a saving ordi- 
 nance — in every instance they are interrogated on that head 
 first. In our Confession of Faith we have declared the reverse 
 in the following words : u Baptism is an ordinance of the New 
 Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party 
 baptized, a sign of his fellowship with him in his death and 
 resurrection — -of his being engrafted into him — of remission 
 of sins — and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, 
 to live and walk in newness of life. Those who do actually 
 profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to our 
 Lord Jesus, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance." — 
 If we believed baptism would save, should we not then admin- 
 ister it to our children ? Or are we more deficient in love to 
 our offspring than others ? But you still object, that if we deny 
 the right of children and of unbaptized believers (for we deem 
 all such unbaptized, who have not been immersed) to church 
 membership, we do in effect, though not in word, thereby denv 
 that they will be saved; because, say you, if they are not worthy 
 of church membership, much less are they meet for the kingdom 
 of God. This mode of reasoning appears to me very incorrect, 
 because it makes church membership essential to salvation, or, 
 at least, it supposes such as are church members must neces- 
 sarily go to heaven : but we firmly believe, that thousands are 
 now in heaven, who never were baptized, nor yet united with 
 a christian church of any order ; and we are equally sensible, 
 that there are thousands who have have been connected with the 
 church of Christ, as its visible members, who are, notwith- 
 standing, now excluded from the presence of God. 
 
 But this charge with more propriety may be urged against the 
 gentleman ; for it is certain that all his reasonings went to prove, 
 that Abraham and his natural posterity, even all of tht 
 the believing people of God ; and, to vindicate the 
 infants to church "nembership now, he affirmed that the Jewish 
 and gospel church were the same, and that as Abraham and his 
 
20 
 
 natural infant posterity were members of the then church, so 
 believers and their children are members of the gospel church. 
 You now perceive, reader, that the gentleman made no pro- 
 vision for the infants of Gentiles then, nor yet for the infants of 
 unbelievers now : but has left them in the hand of the devil, or 
 to " the uncovenanted mercy of God" as a late author terms it'*. 
 
 Our opponents are reduced to a great difficulty, and one out of 
 which they never will be able to extricate themselves ; for, in 
 order to have infants into the church, they insist on their interest 
 in the covenant of grace, by virtue of being the children of 
 believing parents ; neither do they pretend to say that this is the 
 right of dl infants, by which they deny the infants of unbelievers 
 to be in a state of salvation, and do virtually teach, that their 
 state is a dangerous one. 
 
 The Posdobaptists, in setting up^i defence of infant church 
 membership under the gospel, had to infer their right from the 
 Jewish church. They could not extend it wider than to Abra- 
 ham and his posterity ; for, had they made the whole world the 
 church then, the whole world must, according to their reasoning, 
 be the church now ; and, of course, the whole world become 
 the " believing- people of God" But no ; it seems it would 
 not suit, that Jew and Gentile were alike in the church of old ; 
 an$ if church membership being denied, implies (as our oppo- 
 nents affirm concerning the Baptists) an affirmation that children 
 are lost, then the Jews by such a denial, and those who make 
 the gospel church to consist only of believers and their seed, do 
 by a like denial of membership to the children of others who are 
 not believers ; I say they do, in thus declaring, affirm the damna- 
 tion of by far the greatest part of infants born into the world; 
 for the majority of such are not the children of believers, but of 
 unbelievers. Nov/ to demonstrate the truth of this position, I 
 would address a lew questions to the gentleman, and also subjoin 
 the reply he must make, unless he abandons the ground he has 
 taken ; and the result will be, that he must either give up his 
 slanders about the Baptists sending children to hell, because 
 they will not baptize them, or else the charge is fastened on 
 himself and brethren. 
 
 Q. Do, Mr, Totten, tell me, what was the church of old ; did 
 it consist of Jews only, or were all the Gentile nations incorpo- 
 rated with them ? 
 
 A. Abraham and his children were then in the church, and 
 ■ »nly, 
 
 Q. Who ore members of a gospel church now ? 
 
 A. Believers and their children, and only such. 
 
 * See Rev Mr Berride:e*s Christian World Unmasked. 
 
21 
 
 Q. How do you prove, that believers and their children are 
 now in the gospel church ? 
 
 A. Because Abraham and all his children were in the Jewish, 
 and then his infants were, as well as himself ; and as the gospel 
 church is one and the same church, we infer that infants of 
 believers are now members. 
 
 Q. How were die infants of J ewish parents brought in, and 
 also how are the infants of believers now brought in i 
 
 A. The first were brought in at eight days old by circumcision, 
 and children are now at the same age to be brought in by baptism; 
 that is, the children of believers. 
 
 Q. Then the infants of gentiles were not church members, 
 nor are the infants of unbelievers church members now ? 
 
 A. No; the children of uncircumcised gentiles were not 
 members ; and so the children of uncircumcised, or unrenewed 
 persons, are not members now. 
 
 Now, sir, you blame the Baptists for net admitting infants 
 into membership ; but wherein do you differ from us ? do you 
 not deny also membership to the children of unbelievers ? You 
 also declare that the Baptists, in denying baptism to infants, do 
 in effect say they are damned. Do you not perceive, that if 
 what you say of us is true, that the charge lies equally against 
 yourself; for you do affirm, that none but the children of 
 believers are to be admitted into the church ? But, in order to 
 extricate yourself, the answer will be, that you will baptize any 
 infant, and that in doing this you avoid the imputation. 
 
 How amazing the inconsistency of Pcedobaptists ! Sometimes 
 Abraham and his posterity are made the figure of believers and 
 their children ; but then, perceiving that this would not make 
 the platform broad enough, they presently run from it, drop the 
 figure, and will have every thing to be the church. If we 
 allowed all these gentlemen want, that is, that the gospel church 
 is the Jewish church continued, and that they might infer mem- 
 bership for the seed of believers from the circumstance of 
 Abraham's infant offspring being in that; I say, should we grant 
 it, on condition they would act consistent with themselves, such 
 a restriction as they plead for would not satisfy them : their plea 
 for the infants of believers is a mere pretext for an unlimited 
 extention of infant baptism. 
 
 It is really ridiculous in them to shift their ground so often, 
 for with one breath they confine membership to the seed of 
 believers only, and then run right away and sprinkle the seed of 
 unbelievers, and, as a warrant, point to the Jewish church ; 
 whereas it is evident the Jews never pretended that the children 
 utiles, as such, had a right to eireumci i 
 
Would you, Mr. Totten, in order to shew your boasted 
 liberality^ had you lived under that dispensation, have gone 
 forth and circumcised the children of gentiles, when their 
 parents still remained separate from the congregation of the 
 Jews ? If you would not, and yet persist in saying the Jewish 
 was a figure of the gospel church, how dare you then administer 
 what you call baptism to the children of unbelievers ? Did you 
 < v. r hear of a Jew acting so inconsistently, and afterward 
 
 iid to plead a divine warrant ? If not, which you certainly 
 
 not, do you indeed act according to your pretended model ? 
 Would you say that circumcision would have been administered 
 to the children of a gentile on his demanding it for them, while the 
 parent himself would not submit to it? If you do, I challenge you 
 to Furnish a precedent : but if you do not so affirm, I still repeat 
 the question, how dare you, in the presence of God, administer 
 what you call baptism to the children of those who are even 
 revilers of the gospel of Christ ? If you would have circumcised 
 the children of the gentiles indiscriminately, then what you say of 
 the Jewish church (that it was composed only of Abraham and 
 his posterity, together with the gentile proselytes) is false, and 
 the church in that case must have embraced all nations ; and so 
 must your inferences be false in making believers and their 
 children now the church of God. To constitute your inference 
 or conclusion perfect, the whole world must be the church of 
 Christ now, because you will admit any to ordinances. You 
 now, sir, must see that you are reduced to the necessity of either 
 giving up your Jewish church as a model, or, if you will have it, 
 then you must cease to baptize the children of unbelievers — 
 Which w ill you take ? If you give up the Jewish church as your 
 model, then, alas for you, all your arguments for infant baptism 
 are gone at a stroke ; for infant church membership as then 
 existing, is all you can bring to justify your present practice. 
 But if you will keep your model of a gospel church ; to be 
 consistent, you must cease to baptize the children of unbelievers 
 (for remember you make baptism come in the place of circum- 
 c sion), and then, to be sure, you must of course be deemed an 
 uncharitable man, and the same charge rests upon you that you 
 have urged against the Baptists ; that because you would not 
 baptize them, you must needs believe they are lost. You are 
 uow touched in a tender place, and as the saying is, " slain with 
 your own wi ■ pom" You will surely, sir, after this, be more 
 in charging us thus, especially as it recoils on yourselves. 
 Id ever have thought of using such arguments had 
 it not betn, that an appeal to the feelings of a mother has done 
 
 for .he cause of infant sprinkling, than all that has been 
 
 r w ritten in its favour. 
 
23 
 
 Did we ever hear of such charges being preferred against the 
 Jews for not circumcising the children of gentiles ? Would any 
 gentile say to the Jewish priest, ' Sir, you only circumcise the 
 children of Jews, why do you not perform the rite on our 
 infants also ; — see, ye mothers, these wicked Jews think that 
 our children will all be damned, for they will not circumcise 
 them !' Would not the Jew have replied thus : c We do not 
 circumcise our own children because we think it will save them , 
 neither do we refrain from circumcising yours because we t 
 t.hcv will be lost : but we do the one because we are commar . 
 and omit the other because no such command exists.' Such 
 precisely, would be the answer of a Baptist concerning baptism ; 
 for we do not baptize infants, because Ave have no command so 
 to do ; and we are fully of opinion that if it would have been 
 rebellion in the Jews (which it certainly would) to circumcise 
 the children of gentiles as such, without a command ; in like 
 manner it would be rebellion in us to baptize without a command; 
 and that, as in the first case, no Jew ever pretended to such a 
 right, it would be equally absurd and wicked for a gospel 
 minister to act thus. 
 
 But to conclude my remarks on this ridiculous assertion, we 
 challenge our opponents to furnish anv thing from our writings, 
 or from any other quarter, to prove that we make baptism a 
 saving ordinance ; and I now solemnly assert, that it is not the 
 sentiment of the society, nor is it my sentiment, nor did anv 
 person ever hear me so affirm ; and I am bold to declare the 
 charge destitute of all truth, and that our opponents have inferred 
 it merely from our denying the right of infants to baptism, and 
 have found their account in propagating it, 
 
 I am disposed, sir, to dispute your claim to liberality, and 
 the more so, because it can easily be made appear, that what you 
 term charity and benevolence, deserves quite a different name. 
 You told us at the water s:de ? that " your society were no bigots, 
 did not lord it over the consciences of christians, and that 
 they thought zvas right, you would not object to ;" and then you 
 gave yourselves a great deal of credit for being so exceedingly 
 complaisant in religious matters. Now, sir, give me icave^to 
 say, that such sentiment is the most monstrous impietv ; and if 
 the principle is admitted and carried to its full extent, there is 
 of necessity an end of all religion. Will you pretend to 
 the apostles practiced differently at different times : 1 1 
 I ask for proof ; if net, then there was but one mode 
 practiced. Now, sir, whatever that mode was, which Chri 
 and the apostles submitted to and practiced, do you im 
 they would have deviated from it under the specious pretcne 
 being thou ght liberal ? You, above all oth e 
 
24 
 
 l o maintain your ground, and that because of your very different 
 administrations ; for as your practice varies, you must cf course 
 be different from the primitive mode at one time or the other. 
 You did indeed make your boast, that you must be right " some- 
 times at least" as you followed " every mode that ever had, been 
 in use ;" but, sir, you had not sufficient sagacity to see, that this 
 was a complete acknowledgment, that you must have gone 
 entirely wrong at other times ; yea, and in this declaration, did 
 you not forfeit your character as an honest man in the things of 
 God, as you admitted all the ways practiced could net be right, 
 and yet you justified the practice? Did you mean to insinuate 
 that the word of God is obscure — that it is impossible to know 
 with certainty the divine will ; and men were left at liberty to 
 follow their own inventions ? yea, that New Testament ordi- 
 nances were left entirely in the dark, and that Christ, who is a 
 son over his own house, had been less particular in pointing out 
 his worship, than Moses the servant was, who even descended 
 to point out the colour of garments — ordered a red heifer for 
 sacrifice, and even directed the size and form of snuffers and 
 candlesticks ? Do not such insinuations, sir, tend to scepticism, 
 create doubt about other parts of the divine word, and make 
 persons indifferent as to the service they render to God? You, 
 sir, in this pretended liberality, set up the judgment of men in 
 opposition to the law of God ; for the principle is this ; that if a 
 man expresses a desire to serve God, and with this view sets 
 about what he thinks to be religious duties, but nevertheless 
 goes wrong entirely ; yet, as long as he is sincere, and thinks he 
 is right, he does no harm in acting contrary to a divine law ; 
 hut this very service is fully as acceptable in God's sight as if he 
 had scrupulously performed his will. By this it would appear, 
 that not what God says to be right, is so ; but what a man thinks 
 is proper, let it be ever so contrary to the divine command, is 
 right, and of course the man knows better than his Lawgiver. 
 But, sir, where will you stop if you admit this principle i Do 
 vcu not perceive, that it aims a deadly blow at all practical 
 religion ? It will not do for you to pause at baptism ; for if you 
 teach men to get over one positive ordinance in this way, they can 
 with equal ease surmount all the rest ; they have only to plead 
 sincerity for their excuse, when they set ail the laws of God at 
 defiance ; and it will be impossible for you to attack any of 
 their vices, having admitted the above principle, and fur: ; 
 them with such an admirable excuse for breaking the divine law. 
 Now, sir, let us try what sort of work you would make of it in 
 reforming a transgressor, who pleads your excuse for his 1 
 of the divine law ; and let me beseech you candiel y to examine 
 the very pernicious tendency of the principle which you have 
 
wrongly named liberality. To set this forth, I will introduce 
 you to one of your members, and suppose a variety of cases, 
 thus : 
 
 Minister. Brother P. you have lived very improperly of late, 
 and I have been very uneasy about you ; pray how can you rest 
 thus ? 
 
 P. Do sir, point out my improprieties, and if you convince 
 me, I will forsake them. 
 
 M. Why, sir, you attend the theetre — visit places of amuse- 
 ment — play at cards — you dance — -besides, you do not attend 
 the Lord's Supper, nor pray in your family, nor yet pray in 
 private. 
 
 P. Whv, sir, all those places of amusement I consider entirely 
 innocent ; and as for praying and attending the supper, I do not 
 see it my duty ; for I look upon these things to be mere outward 
 form, and praying and communing I consider as an inward 
 work only : and I am sincere in my belief of these things. 
 
 M. But some of these things are commanded to be done in 
 the word of God, and others of them are discouraged ; surely 
 you will not do what is in the one instance forbidden, and omit 
 that which is commanded. 
 
 P. But, sir, you have often said, that what a man thinks to be 
 right is so : now I do think I am doing right in acting thus ; 
 therefore it cannot be wrong, or else my conscience would 
 accuse me. 
 
 M. But I only said so about baptism, not other things. 
 
 P. But is net baptism a command, and is not the mode clearly 
 revealed? yet have you not repeatedly said in my hearing, that 
 though a man might be wrong in this, yet if he were sincere, 
 God would not require it of him ; and does not the authority 
 of God as much suffer in one deviation as in another ? 
 
 It is easy to perceive the difficulty in which Mr. Totten would 
 be placed, and that he would either have to tolerate every vice, 
 or else abandon the false position. This doctrine would lead 
 to a complete justification of the error of the papists, concerning 
 the ordinances ; nor would you, sir, on your principle, be able 
 to resist them. Were a catholic to address ycu thus : c Sir, I 
 desire you to administer to me the supper of the Lord ; but you 
 must in doing this conform tc the doctrine of cur church, and 
 instead of giving me broken bread, consecrate a wafer, which, 
 when so consecrated, becomes really and substantially the very 
 flesh of Christ ; and you must drink the wine yourself, not 
 nting any part to me.' In vain would you, sir, object that 
 the bread underwent no change of substance — that the v/ine, as 
 well as the bread, was to be received by the communicant ; and 
 that the wHole was contrary to the primitive administration, 
 
26 
 
 and also to the sentiments of your society ; for he would answer 
 all these objections with your assertion, that what a man believed 
 to be right, is tight, that these are little non-essentials, that 
 every man is to judge for himself in such things, and that 
 ters are to be liberal and receive all the children of God : 
 moreover, his plea of sincerity would silence you effectually. 
 But to bring the matter still nearer home, should a person of 
 the same denomination demand baptism of you, at the same 
 time assuring you, that you must use salt and spittle in the 
 ordinance, and thai he verily believed that baptism was not 
 complete without them ; here, sir, in like manner, you dare not 
 object, and in order to be thought liberal in sentiment, you 
 must conform to his demand, and that because it is his opinion 
 and he is sincere in it. 
 
 You do indeed, sir, dearly earn the epithet of liberal ; it is at 
 the expence of God's authority, — it is by trampling under foot 
 his ordinances, setting up the ignorance, false reason, and preju- 
 dices of men in their place. You are, it seems, all condescension 
 to men, and are free ;o change the laws of God to please them j 
 and are more afraid to displease man than God. Whence, sir, 
 did you receive a power to dispense with divine laws ? was it 
 from God you received it ? O horrid blasphemy ! ! ! Are you 
 not afraid, sir, thus to offend the Lord ? Remember that Nadab 
 and Abihu offered real incense, and in censors also, yet 
 they were struck dead for doing this with common fire, instead 
 of that from the altar of the Lord. Your doctrine would make 
 this a trifle, and charge God with cruelty in this thing. Did 
 notUzzah lose his life for only putting forth his hand to keep the 
 ark from overturning, which he did also out of a pious motive, 
 even to preserve the ark from falling ; and yet this did not 
 excuse him, because God had forbidden any to touch it but 
 priests ? Did not the men of Bethshemesh, to the number of 
 fifty thousand, (1 Sam. 7. 19.) perish for only looking into the 
 ark I Did not Moses for his striking the rock twice, instead of ' 
 merely speaking to it as God commanded, so displease the 
 Lord, that he was forbidden to enter the land of rest ? Did not 
 Saul lose his kingdom for offering sacrifice, and that to God too, 
 and in a right manner also ; but this on account of his having 
 no command thus to do ? Did not the Lord charge the Israelites 
 with having gone away from his ordinances, even from the days 
 of old, and declare they were cursed with a curse on that, as 
 well as on other accounts: Mai. iii. 7. Why need the ancients 
 have suffered persecution if they had held your accommodating 
 doctrine? Would the church of Home have ever persecuted 
 them if they had acted as you do, calling (lie institutions of God. 
 little things, and deeming such persons as conformed to pop 
 
27 
 
 opinion the only liberal persons ? No, verily, they would have 
 been caressed instead of being put to death ; for if Paul had 
 preached circumcision in order to please the Jews, he declares 
 the offence of the cross would have ceased, Gal. v. 10. 
 
 And, sir, under the specious pretence of charity, you and 
 your brethren have set up the hue and cry against the asse iters 
 of God's authority — have made bold to call such as affirm, that 
 men have no right to change divine ordinances, by the odious 
 name of u bigots ;" while you have audaciously declared those 
 to be the only friends of Christ, who give men liberty to alter the 
 worship of God. You, sir, are afraid of the cross, you love to 
 go with the multitude ; but although such conduct may make 
 vou pass for a liberal man now, a little while and the scene w T ill 
 be changed, and God himself will declare whose conduct he 
 approves, whether time-servers, or such as have nobly withstood 
 innovation and stuck to his precepts. 
 
 You very indecently laughed at the different methods of 
 baptizing the persons on that occasion ; and in order to pass for 
 a wit, to the no small interruption of the assembly, you expressed 
 yourself very irreverently. At one time with extended voice 
 you ask, " If it required such a length of time to baptize so few 
 persons, how could three thousand have been baptized in one 
 day by the apostles r" and this you accompanied with a laugh of 
 scorn. Then you again, as if void of all shame, cry out, when 
 one was immersed lace foremost, " See there, did I not tell you 
 that persons may be baptized different ways !" 
 
 As you are unquestionably the Solomon of the age, and 
 without an equal for clearing up doubts, it will not be taken 
 amiss by you, should I notice your witty, or rather nonsensical 
 observations. Pray, sir, did you mean to insinuate, that the 
 scriptural account of three thousand being added to the church 
 in one clay (Acts ii. 4.) was not to be credited ? or did you wish 
 to be understood that they could not have been baptized that 
 day, unless it were done by sprinkling, and as a reason for such 
 sentiment object to the length of time your brother took in 
 immersing the thirteen persons who were candidates ? If you 
 meant the first, then you rendered no small service to your 
 deistical hearers, and confirmed them not a little in their con- 
 tempt for the inspired writers ; neither was that the alone 
 instance in which you lent them vour aid on that day. It must 
 have afforded them sport to hear a professed minister of Christ 
 doubt a narrative in the scriptures, and they certainly were the 
 more confirmed in their opinion, that religion is mere priest-craft. 
 But if you meant the latter^ you might have spared all your 
 wit, for the text does not nay that three thousand were baptized 
 in one day, but only that diev were added to the church in one 
 
28 
 
 day ; and it is not improbable they were baptized at different 
 times preceding. But if it had been said they were baptized 
 in om day, would it have been impossible for the seventv 
 disciples whom Christ had sent into the ministry, (Luke x. 17.) 
 and the twelve apostles, to. have done this in oae day ? Allowing 
 them to be present, and it lays on you to prove they were not ; 
 then if each one of them baptized thirty-seven persons, the 
 number so baptized, would amount to more than three thousands 
 Now, sir, how ridiculous does such a little, mean, and pitiful 
 objection appear ! and how indefensible must a cause be, that 
 needs such quibbling to support it ! But we cannot forbear the 
 smile, that because a Methodist preacher, who does not under- 
 stand the business, makes an aukward hand of it, and spends 
 three hours in doing what a Baptist could perform in less than 
 one, this very deficiency on their part, must be charged to the 
 account of the Baptises ! Why, sir, your brother did the best he 
 could, and no doubt will so improve in time, that he will 
 perform it as decently and expeditiously, as a Baptist would 
 have done ; and this is reasonable to expect, as the Methodists 
 are becoming Baptists rapidly. But you would infer, that to 
 immerse must take up much more time than to sprinkle ? this, 
 however, is not so clear as you would wish it to be ; for it must 
 certainly take a Pcedobaptbt as long to pronounce the name of 
 the Trinity over the candidate, as it would a Baptist. The 
 difference of the time between putting the hand into water, 
 and sprinkling it on the face, and putting a person under the 
 water, and then raising him up, would be trifling. But then, 
 our brethren in their wisdom have supposed many probable 
 ways were in use to dispatch business ; for the saving of labour 
 in their account is not a small matter. Some will have it, that 
 the jews stood in ranks in the waters of Jordan ; others, that 
 they were onlv at the water ed^e ; then comes John, sav some, 
 with a shell (for he was too poor to have a pitcher) and flings it 
 on perhaps a dozen of them at a time ; but others arm him with 
 
 " A scoop, or squirt, or some such thing, 
 " Whereby ingenious John did fling, 
 
 " Full drive, the wat^r on the rank 
 
 " Of candidates that lin'd the bank." 
 
 Do not smile, reader, at the idea of labour being saved in 
 religion, for such is the ingenuity of our Methodist brethren, 
 that they have imitated the famous spinning machines of old 
 England, which, you know, does the work of many at once ; 
 and it is no uncommon thing for them to call on all such as are 
 in their place of worship, and wish to be converted, to rise up, 
 and likewise bid all the backsliders to do the same ; now, what 
 as this for, but to convert the first in a trice, and to reclaim the 
 
29 
 
 latter in an equally short space of time, and that without the 
 tedious process of converting them one at a time. Indeed 
 Mr. Totten is become such an adept at dispatch, that he has 
 hinted his intention of converting the people by hundreds at a 
 time on the bank, and then without more ado, lead them, 
 immediately into the river and baptize them. But he thought 
 the cause of infant sprinkling was gained, when one of the 
 subjects was immersed face foremost : " See there," said he, 
 triumphantly, " did I not tell you so — did I not say there might 
 be different modes of baptism !" 
 
 But what did all that prove ? did the immersion of a person 
 face downward, prove that a person maybe dipped by sprinkling, 
 or overwhelmed in a bason of water ? or did it prove, that 
 because a Methodist preacher would conform to any thing, or 
 every thing, to suit the caprice of men, that this was mcon- 
 testible evidence, that the apostles did just so ? It is unpardon- 
 able in you and your brethren, sir, not to have known that 
 believers immersed in the name of the sacred Trinity, and by 
 authorized persons, are considered by us as regularly baptized; 
 neither is it a matter of any importance (except as it relates to 
 decency) whether it is done face forward or not, for immersion 
 is immersion : But if you wish us to take it for granted, that 
 because persons may be immersed different ways, it equally 
 follows that they may be immersed by sprinkling ; we will, in 
 that case, take the liberty of dissenting from you. 
 
 If your society were to immerse believers in water, and that 
 uniformly in the way last mentioned, or were thev to vary their 
 mode of immersing them as much as possible ; in that case, the 
 controversy would cease between us ; and if we were to object 
 to the manner of doing it, it would not be by proving it not to 
 be baptism, (for that would be impossible) but by shewing, that 
 •one wav would be more convenient than another. Now, sir* 
 what becomes of }T>ur pretended wit and indecent laugh ? indeed 
 vou deserve to be laughed at for your d illness. Would any one 
 but a self-conhdent, vain, impudent, and ignorant man, ever 
 have thought of asserting such nonsense as, that because a 
 person may be dipped in different ways, therefore dipping and 
 sprinkling must most surely be the same thing ? 
 
 Your remarks on Greek prepositions were truly ridiculous ; 
 for vou first most gravely affirmed, that the words " into" and 
 " out of" as found in our translations of the Bible, were wrong, 
 and that where thev are said to go down u into the water" and 
 to " • f it" should to it % 
 
 and u come up from it" So, then, it seem:, that I fault 
 
 with the present translation, and it v. Bible must 
 
 E 
 
30 
 
 undergo an alteration, or sprinkling cannot be defended. But 
 whence, sir, did you obtain your information ? Are you a critic 
 in the original tongues ? After this great parade about mistraris- 
 . lotion of the scriptures, to our utter astonishment, we hear you 
 say c you knoxv nothing- about Greek, and that the learned gave 
 \ ou this information.' For the sake of your reputation, if you 
 have no fear of wresting the scriptures, do not in future pretend 
 to mend the present translation of the Bible ; but leave it to 
 others, on whose opinion more reliance can be placed. But ' the 
 learned told you so ;' that is, in plain words, the learned Mr. 
 
 P. E , the same author from whom you obtained all you 
 
 advanced at the water. But what credit is due to that gentleman t 
 Certainly, if he could unblushingly misquote Mr. Booth, his 
 antagonist, in order to abuse him (which will appear hereafter) ; 
 he would not hesitate to serve the apostles in the same manner. 
 — You were resolved to come oif, however, as well as the case 
 would admit of, b)^ saying you would 4 leave the learned to 
 contend about words ; but, for your part, it was not words, but 
 the substance you would pursue.' Pray, sir, why did you not 
 act thus, and not expose your ignorance, by such an unmeaning 
 flourish I and if it was substance, and not shadows, you were 
 grasping at, how came you to bring in the shadows of the old 
 lav/ to illustrate gospel rites ? — As to the prepositions above 
 mentioned, we shall notice them in their proper place. 
 
 But you say, "there is nothing said against baptizing infants." 
 Is there, sir, any thing for it ? and do you mean to tell us, that 
 an}' thing and every thing maybe performed as acts of religious 
 worship, however absurd, provided God does not expressly 
 forbid them ? Look, sir, where this will lead — to what lengths 
 men may go — and how it will justify the greatest atrocities. It 
 is not said in scripture, that the pope shall not be called Peters 
 successor — that the priest's shall not sprinkle zvjth holy zvater — 
 say mass for the dead — baptize bells — make use of salt and spittle 
 in baptism — cast out the devil by exorcism — keep saints days — 
 : ray by counting of beads — mortify the body by whipping or 
 Ulceration — go into nunneries or convents for life : all which, 
 and many more things equally ridiculous, have been performed 
 under the name of religious duties ; and every one of them is 
 equally defensible, on the principles for which you contend, as 
 infant sprinkling is : if the silence of scripture justifies the one, 
 it does the other also. Or do you supnose, that as the people 
 are the fountain of power in civil governments, and that all 
 powers by them not delegated to their public servants, are 
 retained m their own hands ; I say, do you imagine God is 
 exercising a delegated authority, and that you retain power to 
 do what \s not expressly prohibited r 
 
In that address, did not you act the part of a religious juggler, 
 and, in order to take off the attention of the people from the 
 merits of your argument, in a most indecent manner appeal to 
 the prejudices of the audience? sometimes rouse the sympathies 
 of mothers for " dying infants :" — sometimes excite the anger 
 of the multitude by asking, c what would become of unbaptized 
 heathen ?' and, to excite part}' zeal, ' what would become of the 
 numerous sects of religious people, who do not practice as we 
 do V and whom, you affirmed, on our principles would be lost. To 
 crown all, your crocodile tears are called up, and with plaintive 
 voice you exclaim, " Where will all the Quakers go, who have 
 not received baptism in any shape ; do not the baptists send them 
 to hell?" You, sir, ought to have been the last man to have 
 named that society; for your abuse of them is frequent and 
 illiberal in the extreme. I could furnish indubitable evidence, 
 that you have from the pulpit declared them devoid of religion ; 
 and yet, to serve your purpose, with an unblushing effrontery, 
 vou dared to speak of them thus. Yes, sir, if ever consummate 
 impudence and vanity were united in any man, it is certainly in 
 yourself; and it does not appear that you regard the choice of 
 weapon, if victory may be obtained. 
 
 You likewise affirmed, that we resort to immersion in order 
 to obtain popularity. I am ready to suspect, sir, that you are 
 unacquainted with the meaning of the term popularity; or, how 
 could it have entered into your head to advance such a chai 
 Does not that which is popular meet with the countenance of 
 the public at large, please the great majority of them, and gain 
 favour for those that are its advocates ? and do not the persons 
 who take opposite ground meet with a contrary treatment ? But 
 on whose side is public sentiment ; is it with the Baptists, or 
 their opponents ? Certainly, sir, you cannot be ignorant of this, 
 that we are far in the minority ; nor are 3011 ignorant of the 
 torrents of abuse poured out on us from every quarter, espe- 
 cially as you have taken no inconsiderable, nor yet unsuccessful 
 part yourself, in exciting public indignation against us. Whence, 
 then, the justice of the charge ? Do we thus' practice to gain the 
 favour of the public ? 
 
 I now, sir, appeal from you to every candid and honest mac, 
 whether the reverse is not precisely true, and whether the immer- 
 sion of believers is not extremely unpopular ? Do not our 
 candidates, on their making a profession, frequently endure the 
 cruel scoffs, and jeers, perhaps of hundreds ? Do they net, 
 many times, endure the wintry stream, and not only bear an 
 uncomfortable sensation from chilling waters, but also the 
 despicable names of "fanatics" and " enthusiasts" on this very 
 account, while the most illiberal constructions are put on theii 
 
conduct ? Mirny, very many of our members have been most 
 cruelly persecuted on this very account. The wife has been 
 beaten by the husband, and even turned out of doors from her 
 little peeping children ; children have likewise been driven from 
 the houses oi their parents, and not suffered to return ; appren- 
 tices have had their usual liberties abridged on the same account, 
 and otherwise treated very roughly; and my ministering brethren 
 have had to administer this ordinance amid threats of personal 
 assault, yea, and loss of life. The people have been warned 
 against us from the pulpit, as enemies to God and disturbers of 
 families ; — we have been pointed at in the streets with the finger 
 of scorn, and made the subjects of unfriendly conversation 
 in private circles ; — the weapons of slander and detraction are 
 used against us, and the most glaring falsehoods propagated, 
 (in doing which, you, sir, have been in the foremost ranks) to 
 bring us into contempt. And after all this, every tittle oi which 
 can be proved with ease, we hear this gentleman affirm, we do 
 it in order to be popular. Were that our design, we should 
 take a quite different course, we should not put the feelings to 
 pain, nor expose the candidate to view, but do it in a private 
 house ; we should go with the multitude, and approve what 
 they practice. 
 
 On the contrary we are certain, that this ordinance requires 
 too great a sacrifice of feeling ever to be received by the great 
 ones of the earth, by whose opinion public sentiment is directed ; 
 and that as the religion of Jesus was designed to mortify the 
 pride of man, and to counteract the false notions of propriety 
 and honour inherent in our fallen nature and propagated in 
 society, we do not hesitate to say, it was for this, among other 
 important reasons, that the great Head of the church directed 
 it thus to be administered. So far from this ordinance being 
 popular, it is the very thing to which people object, and very 
 many declare without disguise, that were it not for the shame 
 attendant on the performance, they would submit to the institu- 
 tion. And my opinion certainly is, that this, and this principally, 
 is the foundation of that violent opposition the ordinance experi- 
 ences. — Now, sir, I call on you to answer as in the presence of 
 the Searcher of hearts, whether this sentiment is not strictly 
 true. — But, sir, you appear intent only on augmenting numbers, 
 and stick at nothing to proselyte men and women. You will 
 court, fawn, flatter, intimidate, receive them with or without 
 baptism, and never question them as to religious sentiment. 
 
 I shall close my remarks on your loose observations, (for loose 
 
 they were indeed) by noticing your most horrid charge of 
 
 ignorance on the apostles. You did, sir, repeat the expression 
 
 .-, " the ignorant apostles !" What, sir, could have induced 
 
33 
 
 you thus to speak ? Were you not afraid of depreciating the 
 characters of the apostles, and do you not see that such remarks 
 go far to weaken the confidence of men in them, and to bring 
 their writings into utter contempt ? What could the numerous 
 infidels of the age have desired more than to hear a professed 
 minister of Christ call in question the knowledge of the apostles, 
 and intimate doubts of their inspiration ? for surely, if public 
 characters doubt, what may we not expect from those who 
 possess not their information ? 
 
 But it seems, such is the estimation in which infant sprinkling 
 is held, that its advocates rather than part with it, will question 
 the verity of God's word. Pray, sir, if you are at liberty to dis- 
 pense with a part o/the apostolic writings, have you not an equal 
 right to dipense with the whole ? and if you teach the people to call 
 in question their writings in one instance, will they not proceed 
 farther, and eventually deny them altogether ? for there is no 
 such thing as drawing the line, and in that case knowing 
 where to stop. It is evident, if they mistook in some points, 
 they might also in others, and who may venture to say where 
 they have not been mistaken, and whether they have not been 
 imposed upon first and last ? Is infant sprinkling of such magni- 
 tude, that it is better to part with our Bibles than with it ? 
 Surely such assertions do not accord with what gentlemen say, 
 when they term baptism a mere " non-essential." Go on, sir, in 
 this business as you have begun, and engage a few more of your 
 brethren equally zealous with yourself, and let it be your work 
 to tell the people the apostles are not to be credited, at least, in 
 some things ; and let me tell you, sir, you will effectually 
 supercede the necessity of a third part of the Age of Reason. 
 Infidels may then cease their libels on the sacred writers, for 
 Methodists and Quakers have effectually relieved them from the 
 task, and raised an insurrection in the very camp of Israel ; and 
 our young rakes wiii make merry and send gifts one to another, 
 rejoicing that the apostles are proved to be a band of blockheads, 
 and that even by their pretended admirers. 
 
 You will hope to be relieved by saying, that they were 
 deficient in knowledge concerning the nature of Christ's king- 
 dom, and his design in coming into the world ; and why not, 
 therefore, on the subject of baptism ? But at what time was 
 this ? was it not while they were with the Redeemer, when they 
 thus disputed ; or immediately after his death, when he called 
 them fools and slow of heart to believe, and before they received 
 the baptism of the Spirit, which was given to fit them for their 
 ministry ? But in the charge you exhibited against them, no 
 distinction was made as to time. On the contrary, the audience 
 were left to apply it to any time whatever, even to their after 
 
34- 
 
 writings 5 and the purport of it was, that neither their example 
 or commands were to be attended to, inasmuch as they them- 
 selves had been, and might again be mistaken, as to God's 
 will. 
 
 But your charge of " ignorance" against them cannot avail 
 in this dispute, because at the time alluded to, they acted not 
 according to their own views, but under the immediate orders 
 of the Saviour ; so neither will it do to apply it to after times, 
 without all the consequences resulting therefrom already men- 
 tioned ; the truth of which thus appears. After Christ's resurrec- 
 tion, mention is made of men and women " being baptized," and 
 of no others! — of " coming up out of the water" — of requiring 
 u faith of the eunuch and jailer," and opening " Lydia's heart." 
 Now all this was done after they had received the baptism of the 
 Holy Ghost, and were endowed with power from on high ; and 
 it is easily seen, that to charge mistake or ignorance on them 
 at this period, is, in effect, to deny the inspiration of all their 
 writings, and to invalidate ah the epistles. What a reflection 
 was this on infant aspersion ! It was as much as saying, c I know, 
 indeed, that the apostles did practice as the Baptists now do, 
 and it is so plain, that it would be folly in me to deny it ; but 
 then the apostles were " ignorant" and did not know what they 
 were about ; and, for my part, rather than trust them in this 
 dispute, I will go to Moses, Ezekiel, and Joel the prophet, to 
 enquire about the mode and subjects of baptism.' 
 
 Reconsider, sir, this business, and abandon a system that 
 requires such sacrifices in its support, and, if possible, make an 
 adequate atonement to the injured cause of religion, by letting 
 the world know that you were too hasty in your remarks, and 
 that you did not at that time perceive you were tearing up the 
 very foundations of all revealed religion : and may God preserve 
 you in future from such furious zeal and outrageous attacks on 
 the great bulwark of our holy religion! I mean the inspiration 
 of the scriptures. 
 
 My attention shall now be directed to what you call proof, 
 that sprinkling was the mode, and infants were the subjects of 
 baptism in the first days of the church. But here I must be 
 excused from taking any notice of you at all by name, and be 
 permitted to confine my strictures to Mr. Edwards' performance, 
 from which you derived every idea that was of any weight. It 
 would not do for me to answer Mr. E. as you quoted him ; for 
 I know that he has suffered so much from the very imperfect 
 representation you gave of his arguments, that I am resolved 
 to notice him especiallv ; and as you advanced nothing which 
 he did not, it is my place to make him a suitable reply; and 
 you through him. 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM, &c. 
 
 V-' 
 
 IN THREE PARTS. 
 
 PART II. "^ 
 
 hi Reply to the late Work of Mr. Peter Edwards. 
 
 Observations on his Introduction — shewing that Mr. Edwards has falsely stated 
 the controversy — and that, by leading the reader away from the matter in 
 dispute, he attempts to puzzle him, and then by false conclusions to gain 
 his point. 
 
 M 
 
 .R, EDWARDS having formed a few Theses ; I 
 will examine them. 
 
 TRESIS I. 
 
 Mr. Edwards says that, c in disputes, the only thing to be 
 aimed at by the parties is the attainment of truth.' Had Mr. E. 
 governed himself by this maxim, all would have been well : 
 but judge, reader, :f he be sincere. I shall make it appear to 
 vou, that he has been guilty of imputing falsehoods to the 
 Baptists, and that he has made untrue quotations from Mr. 
 Booth. The maxim, however, is a good one, and it will be v^ell 
 if our desire be sincerely to seek after truth — that, laying aside 
 prejudice and veneration for long standing practices, we be 
 determined to embrace it as soon as discovered. Mr. E. thinks, 
 that wh ere there is an agreement on subjects, it is in vain to 
 dwell on them in controversy. True : but then there must be a 
 real agreement. Mr. Wesley will admit, that there are such 
 truths as election, justification, a iacation ; but then it is 
 
 in mime only, and not in reality, or not in the scripture sense : 
 but will it be inferred from hence, that the friends of sovereign 
 e must not oppose his views \ So Mr. E. says, ' there is an 
 ment between the Baptists and himself on the subject of 
 'It'' baptism :' but this we deny, as will appear in the sequel. 
 We, however, understai u is by taking for granted many 
 
 : to have been pi >ved, tnat 1 >es to gain 
 
 his point. We do net object to the opinion, that i in seeking 
 truth, we ought fc .-. Inch will bring us sconce: 
 
 to it.' Dc h'. conform to tl nent, when he goes to 
 
 heathen poets to find out the mo:le of baptism, rather than to 
 
36 
 
 New Testament examples ? — and when, to find out the materials 
 for a gospel church, he takes the Jewish commonwealth ior his 
 model ; and, instead of enquiring at the mouth of Christ and 
 the apostles for subjects of baptism, he takes you to Closes ? 
 
 THESIS II. 
 
 This author proceeds in his way, to shew wherein' consists 
 the difference of opinion between the Poedobaptists and us. His 
 statement is, that Baptists consider those only to be subjects of 
 baptism who possess faith in Christ. He observes v... 
 baptists agree with us in this, u that believers are proper subjects; 
 but deny that such only are proper subjects." We do not thank 
 him for the acknowledgement,that believing adults were bapt i 
 for the names " men and women," (not children,) so frequently 
 occur in the New Testament, that he could not deny the position : 
 but then we suspect, that he would have been better please d 
 the sex and age of candidates never have been mentioned ; the 
 silence of scripture here would have strengthened him much. Or 
 had the name of infant, or children of believers, once occurred 
 with relation to baptism ; then, to be sure, we should haw; been 
 completely routed. — But is he sincere, when he speaks of adult 
 baptism, (a name, by the by, which the word of God k 
 nothing about) ; for, all he acknowledges is, that adults have 
 been baptized. Surely he must perceive, that if the unscriptural 
 practice prevailed, it would go to banish the baptism of adults 
 from the world. It would also follow, that infant baptism, of 
 which the New Testament says not one word, nor furnishes one 
 example, would supercede the baptism of believers, male and 
 female, of which instances are abundant. But this acknow- 
 ledgment is only an artifice, to take from us our trh j d armour, 
 which will presently appear ; and likewise, under a shew of 
 charity toward the Baptists, to cast an odium on them for the 
 supposed want of it, and thus to gain to himself credit with the 
 weak mind. 
 
 T \Ve are willing to admit the statement of our sentiment given 
 in this thesis, that we " consider those persons as meet subjects 
 of baptism, who are supposed to possess faith in Christ, and 
 those only." Now, then, our opponents are to take the i 
 and what is that ? Why, that unbelievers also are subject* ; . 
 hes^vs, Poedobaptists deny that believers only are prope. - 
 — Are our adversaries prepared to enter the lists upon 
 
 ruses as these? If they are, they have undertaken an 
 indeed, and one that will overwhelm them in 
 confusion. Reader, do not forget this statement given 
 £.; for it will not be long before you will find he i 
 ground, knowing by experi - nc e how untenable it is. Recollect, 
 
37 
 
 he says, Pcedobaptists deny — deny what ? Why, that believers 
 only are subjects. ; and if so, then of consequence unbelievers, or 
 persons having no faith, are subjects, or at least if not all, some 
 of them are. Mr. E. makes a difference between the children 
 of believers, and of others who are not believers ; but this seems 
 strange, as he elsewhere calls infant baptism a " mean of grace." 
 Now, if it be so, does this agree with the great noise Pcedo- 
 baptists make about charity, that the means of grace should 
 denied to the infants of unbelievers * ? Why, one would be 
 think they held that unpopular, and unscriptural doctrine, that 
 some dying in infancy are lost. It is a pity that Mr. E. did not 
 furnish us with some of the arguments which so mightily con- 
 vinced his " ignorant" Baptist friends of whom he speaks, and 
 also told us their names (for he is not very modest about using 
 names, as appears from his abuse of Mr. Booth) and thereby 
 let us have the pleasure at least, with them, of marvelling at 
 his uncommon sagacity. The Baptists must be ignorant to be 
 sure, and if there were no other proof of it, their rejection of 
 Mr. E.'s premises and conclusions must, no doubt, substantiate 
 the charge. But it is a question with me, whether they marvelled 
 most at his uncommon impudence, or his sophistry. 
 
 THESIS III. 
 
 In this thesis, he goes on to say, that c it appears from his 
 former reasonings, that both were agreed about adult baptism :' 
 — Hold, stop, stop, sir, not so fast! ! You said believers' baptism 
 before ; now you have changed the word believer for adult. 
 This will not do, sir, we hold you to your first statement, we 
 do not agree to the last. Did I not tell you, reader, that the 
 gentleman would soon change his ground ! But you will say, 
 why so tenacious of a word ; must not a believer necessarily be 
 an adult ? We answer, no ; for persons may believe in Christ 
 ere they arrive at mature age. This will give an entire new 
 turn to the controversy ; for this statement would make the 
 Baptists affirm, that men and women were baptized because 
 they were adults, and that infants were not to be baptized 
 merely on account of their infancy : but the truth of the matter 
 is, that the Baptists affirm believers, and they only, whether 
 they are men or -women, adults or those under age, are subjects of 
 baptism. And it is plain, when the scripture speaks of subjects 
 
 * Some few years since, the deacon of a Pcedobaptist church was reproving 
 his daughter for omitting to have her infant baptized. She answered, that, 
 according to his own principles, only the infants of believers were subjects of 
 the ordinance ; and alleged, that she was no believer. "True," said the father, 
 ** but / am a believer, if you are not, and that will answer for my grandchild." 
 The woman replied : " it is very strange, father, that the grace should pass 
 from you through me to my child, and not a grain of it stick by the way 1" 
 
 F 
 
of baptism, it says nothing about age ; but mentions only 
 character. Therefore all we require of our opponents is, that 
 if they will bring infants to baptism, they prove them to be 
 believers ; and if they will not undertake to do this, and yet will 
 have them baptized, they are plainly reduced to the necessity 
 of admitting, that persons without faith may be baptized j or, 
 which is the same thing, that faith in Christ is not a necessary 
 qualification for baptism. The word " infant''' baptism, and 
 the word " adult" baptism, are inventions of our opponents ; 
 words never used in scripture, but invented by themselves in 
 order to confound readers in the investigation of this controversy. 
 We therefore say, we have no objection to the baptizing of 
 infants, if they, or their parents, or their ministers, can prove 
 they have the prerequisites insisted on in the scriptures. 
 
 Mr. E. thinking he had completely duped the " ignorant" 
 Baptists (as he represents them to be) by his sophistry, proceeds 
 thus : " Now seeing they are so far of one mind," — Not so, sir, 
 v. v 1 are as wide apart as the poles, we do not admit this as the state 
 of the controversy ; and still insist, the only dispute really is, 
 whether persons with, or without faith are to be baptized ; or 
 whether one is to receive it as well as the other. The simple 
 question to be decided, he says, is, " Are infants fit subjects for 
 baptism ?*' No, sir, the question is, whether persons (no matter 
 what their time of life) void of faith and repentance, are to be 
 baptized. Now on this, as you say, the whole controversy 
 turns, and we once more declare, we have no objections to the 
 baptizing of infants, if they are in possession of faith and 
 repentance. 
 
 THESIS IV. 
 
 In this thesis Mr. E. might rather have said, that the simple 
 question is not as he stated, but quite the reverse. The passages 
 advanced to prove believers' baptism (not of adults as such) 
 prove every tiling on the side of the Baptists, and leave their 
 opponents in confusion and dismay. Now, to overwhelm us 
 a mpletely, he proposes a question deemed by him unanswerable 
 without an abandonment of our cause ; and, indeed, had we 
 admitted his statement of the controversy, it would have been 
 formidable : but, as we wholly reject it, he is only beating the 
 air, and exposing the weakness of his cause. Now for his 
 illustrative question : " Is,' 7 says Mr. E. with an air of triumph, 
 addressing himself to his Baptist opponents, " is an infant a fit 
 subject of baptism r" Now mark his policy: had he asked, is 
 a believer 0itly 9 which indeed is the proper question, and not 
 an unbeliever, no matter as to time of life, is he only a subject 
 of baptism? he knew the Baptist's answer would have been 
 conclusive. But no; he makes the enquiry to relate to an infant. 
 
S9 
 
 in order to turn our thoughts from the true question. The 
 queries of Mr. E. should stand thus : 
 
 Q. Are infants, as such, subjects of baptism ? 
 
 A. No : not because they are infants, but as they possess 
 not the qualifications indispensible to baptism, which are faith 
 and repentance. 
 
 Q. But how do you prove they are not subjects ? 
 
 A. First, there are no examples of infant baptism in scrip- 
 ture ; secondly, the gospel is not addressed to infants ; thirdly, 
 it is said, with respect to qualification, " Repent and be bap- 
 tized ; — If thou believest thou mayest." 
 
 Q. I say, your answer is not in point. 
 
 A. I say, it is. 
 
 Q. You answer me by declaring a penitent adult is a subject 
 of baptism: but this is not in point ; for my question concerned 
 infants only. 
 
 A. In my answer, I said nothing about adults, but only about 
 believers, without respect to age ; and the distinction between 
 infant baptism and adult baptism, is a human invention. My 
 answer respects infants as far as they have, or have not faith. 
 It lies on you to prove they have, and then my answer will be 
 in the affirmative. But, as I do not believe they have, for 
 reasons I shall hereafter assign, I do not think they are subjects 
 of baptism; and as the true question is not, whether an infant 
 or an adult, but whether a believer, or unbeliever, is a subject ; 
 therefore the texts you referred to apply to infants, they not 
 having faith. Your only alternative is to prove, that not having 
 faith is no bar to baptism, and then you establish the right of 
 unbelievers to do it of every age. 
 
 But now let us see how ridiculous Mr. E. would appear by 
 such a question, and how triumphant a Baptist in the answer; 
 provided he had stated the question truly, which would have 
 been by substituting the words, " believer and penitent," in the 
 place of infant. Example : 
 
 Q. Is a believer, or penitent only, the subject of baptism? 
 
 A. Yes, such only. 
 
 G). How do vou prove it ? 
 
 A. By such texts as above quoted. 
 
 Q. But this is not in point as to infants. 
 
 A. Yes, it is, for they have not faith and repentance, nor are 
 they capable of either. 
 
 Or, again : 
 
 Q. Is an infant, whom Posdobaptists acknowledge not to be 
 capable of faith, a subject of baptism r 
 
 A, No. 
 
 .Q. Wherefore? 
 
40 
 
 A. Because the scripture says, " Repent and be baptized ;" 
 — a Believe and thou mayest." 
 
 Q. But your answer is not in point, you only speak of adults, 
 who alone are capable of faith and repentance. 
 
 A. I have not mentioned adults, nor any age or sex, but 
 characters. Besides, adults are not all subjects ; nor yet arc 
 any of them so, because they are adults : but you answer the 
 question by owning they have not the qualifications. Besides, 
 the requiring of these proves their necessity, unless there is some 
 restricting clause in their favour : but where will you find it ? 
 
 In the latter part of this extraordinary paragraph, we discern 
 the reasons which Mr. E. had for distinguishing baptism into 
 adult, and infant. It was by this expedient to deprive the 
 Baptists of the innumerable passages of scripture, with which 
 they would overwhelm him. To avoid the dilemma, he dexte- 
 rously dissembles, and covers the true ground of controversy — 
 shifts, and ranges adults and infants in opposition — supposes two 
 distinct baptisms, one as the right of believing- adults only, the 
 other as belonging to infants of believers. But what seems more 
 singular still, is, that after he had adopted the distinction in 
 order to prepare the mind of his opponent to receive and act 
 upon it, he pretends that this mode of stating the question was 
 not only proper in itself, but that it was the precise thing the 
 Baptists had been " contending'*'' for, so many years ; and that 
 he being so much more charitable than all his Pcedobaptist 
 brethren that had gone before him, would, in his extreme good 
 nature, grant them all they desired. Having as he thought by 
 assuming the garb of liberality, in granting the baptism of 
 believers under the name of believing adults, secured the consent 
 of the Baptists to his statement of the controversy : now he 
 throws ofF the mask, and proceeds to make use of the supposed 
 concession to our great disadvantage. We discover that his 
 design was to deprive us by stratagem of every text where 
 baptism is mentioned ; and then, by making the Jewish and 
 gospel church the same, prove the church membership of infants, 
 and then infer their baptism. 
 
 Now, to discover how much depends on the right statement 
 of the controversy, I shall shew, that in his thesis, he reduces 
 the scriptures wholly to silence in the business ; and then leaves 
 us to prove what is a positive ordinance, only by conjecture and 
 inference. ; and moreover, how every passage of scripture, on 
 a proper statement of the controversy, bears entirely against 
 him. 
 
 EXAMPLE I. 
 
 P. I understand you do not admit of the baptizing of infants. 
 
 B. I do not. 
 
41 
 
 P. Why ? B. Because the scriptures condemn it. 
 
 P. What scriptures do so ? 
 
 B. You know the circumstances of those that came to John, 
 Matth. iii. 5. — the Samaritans, Acts viii. 12. — the three thou- 
 sand, Acts ii. 41. — the jailor, Acts xvi. 33. — Lydia, Acts xvi. 
 14. — Paul, Acts ix. 18. — the eunuch, Acts x. 47. — you remem- 
 ber besides, the commission to teach and baptize, Matth. xxviii. 
 1 9. ; and the refusal of baptism to some for want of the qualifi- 
 cations, Matth. iii. 1. 
 
 P. These are nothing to the point, I asked only about infants. 
 
 B. But infants do not believe or repent. 
 
 P. That is true, but you remember the concession you 
 made, that you admitted my statement of the controversy, and 
 thereby admitted that all the scriptures you mentioned only 
 respected adults, and you were not afterward therefore to 
 mention them, you were to find some in which infants were 
 prohibited by name, or what was equal to it. 
 
 B. You, sir, took the advantage of me ; you blinded me by 
 a seeming charity ; I see you are obliged to deal deceitfully 
 with God's word ; yea, nothing will serve your cause but 
 silencing the scripture. 
 
 EXAMPLE II. 
 
 P. So, sir, you do not believe in the baptism of infants. 
 
 B. I do not. 
 
 P. How do you prove your sentiment from scripture ? 
 
 B. By the above citations. 
 
 P. But they say nothing about infants, whether they shall or 
 shall not be baptized. 
 
 B. They do. 
 
 P. How? 
 
 B. They demand faith and repentance, and deny baptism to 
 them that have it not, and you have acknowledged they have 
 neither, therefore the argument is at an end. 
 
 P. I admit that on your principles they are excluded, but 
 then my statement is thus : that there are two baptisms, infant, 
 and adult, and that all those texts apply to adults only, and we 
 do not deny that they must be believers and penitents ; but this 
 does not apply to infants, and if my statement is just, you must 
 find new arguments or else lose your cause. 
 
 B. But I deny your distinction. 
 
 P. Why deny it? 
 
 B. Because it is not in the New Testament, neither can you 
 find it there ; and I now demand of you one single text to 
 warrant such distinctions. 
 
 P. I do not pretend to prove it from any scripture text, but 
 the distinction is logical enough. 
 
42 
 
 B. And were you not afraid to sport with the Bible thus ? 
 Yes, it wus logic with a witness, and by such miserable shifts as 
 these, you endeavour to support a practice not countenanced by 
 God's word, and thus to impose on the weak. 
 
 P. But what statement do you give ? 
 
 B. The baptism of believers, without respect to sex or age ; 
 and all such as are not believers excluded. 
 
 P. If your statement is just, the dispute is at an end. 
 
 thesis v. 
 
 The only things to be noticed in this thesis, are a few assertions. 
 
 1. That " both parties agree about adult baptism." This we 
 deny as above, and declare we know nothing about any baptism 
 of that name. 
 
 2. That " when a Baptist has proved adult baptism, he has 
 proved nothing against a Pcedobaptist." This we also deny, 
 because we never did pretend to prove any baptism but believers; 
 and because, in doing this, we prove infants are excluded, thev 
 not having faith. 
 
 3. That the u only question to be decided between us is, Are 
 infants fit subjects for baptism or not." We say this is not the 
 question, but whether believers only are such, or if unbelievers, 
 or persons wanting faith may be admitted also ; and, as far as 
 infants are concerned in the question concerning faith, so far, 
 and only so far, have we to do with them. 
 
 4. He asserts, that those passages that prove " adult baptism 
 will not disprove that of infants." True, because there are no 
 such passages that speak of adult baptism, but there are such as 
 prove believers'* baptism ; and these will disprove the right of 
 infants fairly. 
 
 5. That " the arguments for and against," that is, not of adults 
 and infants, but of believers or unbelievers' baptism, " being 
 compared," as to their number and weight ; " that side is the true 
 one, on which they preponderate." So that we fairly conclude, as 
 saith this thesis, that if the arguments for believers' baptism are 
 stronger and more numerous than those on the side of unbe- 
 lievers, or of such as are void of faith and repentance, that 
 believers' baptism must needs be true, and the other false : and 
 we shall, as advised by him, set them in opposite columns, by 
 which process, we shall see whether Baptists or Posdobaptists 
 have the truth on their side. 
 
 Reader, I consider the whole of the performance of Mr. 
 Edwards a master-piece of sophistry, which consists in leading 
 off the enquirer from the real controversy to an imaginary one ; 
 in proposing the arguments of his antagonist unfairlv, while he 
 seems to do him justice ; he affects candour , while at the same 
 
43 
 
 time, with an air of importance, of solemnity, of triumph, he 
 proposes arguments otherwise very zueak, so that they appear 
 to have solidity, and a bearing on the subject, when they really 
 have none whatever. You have already had a specimen of this 
 in his theses, which are indeed in miniature his whole book, so 
 that vou will not be surprised if we have frequent occasion to 
 expose his policy, and by shewing where he has taken an undue 
 advantage, hinder him from reaping the profit he intended. 
 
 The first thing he does, is to introduce the question concerning 
 female communion. This must be surprising at first sight, when 
 the man is professedly on the subject of baptism j but then, our 
 surprise vanishes when we see he is laying a snare for us, that 
 on our being unwarily entangled, we might not be able to make 
 good our retreat ; while he, taking advantage of our embarrass- 
 ment, might make us an easy prey. Kis view in its introduction, 
 was to deprive us of the advantage of one of the most powerful 
 arguments in favour of believers' baptism : To wit, That every 
 ordinance which God has appointed in his church must either 
 have an express command, or else the examples of the apostles 
 for it. He plainly saw, that if the controversy must take this 
 turn, the cause of infant baptism must be ruined entirely ; for 
 he well knew, and made no scruple to acknowledge it, that there 
 is no one text in which infants are commanded to be baptized, 
 nor yet one example on record of its having been attended to. 
 In this dilemma, what was to be done ? not one text, not one ex- 
 ample in its favour ! The only expedient was to shew, or at least 
 m?,ke an attempt so to do, that while the Baptists were strenuous 
 in demanding positive proof, or plain example, as to the subjects 
 and mode of baptism ; they were not so careful in other things, 
 but inferred their duty in other things, where no such command 
 or example did exist. In order to prove his point, he introduced 
 our practice of admitting believing females to the communion, 
 when, he asserts, there is neither command or example thereof 
 in all God's book. — Now vou plainly see at what he aims, which 
 is nothing less than to have us believe, that no positive command, 
 nor yet example, is necessary to prove what the ordinances and 
 worship of God ought to be ; but that men are left to infer their 
 duty from a former practice under another dispensation. This 
 will at once convince us how very important it was to gain his 
 point here, and will readily excuse his great anxiety about the 
 fate of the question, the uncommon labour bestowed to establish 
 it, and the very numerous repetitions of the same arguments ; 
 making it take up the greatest part of his book ; for, if he failed 
 here, all was gone, and he knew if he was put on proving of it 
 by precepts or example, he should not be able to do it by one 
 solitary text, or yet one example. Nothing can set this in a 
 
44 
 
 clearer light than to address to him a few queries, which the. 
 Baptists, on their principles, could answer with the greatest 
 ease : To wit, 
 
 Q. Do vou believe infants ought to be baptized ? 
 
 A. Yes'. 
 
 Q. Why do you believe thus ? 
 
 A. Because the scriptures authorize our practice. 
 
 Q. Where do you find one text commanding the baptizing 
 of infants, or one example that it was done by the apostles ? 
 
 A. We do not pretend there is any : but then we infer their 
 privilege, from the church membership of infants among the 
 Jews ; from "households being baptized," wherein it is probable 
 there were infants ; and from the circumstance of Christ " putting 
 his hands on little children and blessing them." 
 
 Now reader, you may readily see that not one example or 
 command is in their favour, and it is not possible for them to 
 say more for the practice, than what is contained in the answers 
 to the above queries ; neither has any Pcedobaptist pretended, 
 and I am bold to affirm, never will pretend to say more, or to 
 adduce either precept or example for it from the New Testament. 
 But only address such queries to a Baptist, and see with what 
 ease they are answered, — an example of which take : 
 
 P. You only baptize believers on a profession of their faith, 
 whence do you derive your authority ? 
 
 B. From the word of God, which says, " Then they that 
 gladly received his word were baptized," Acts ii. 41. " The 
 Lord opened Lydia's heart, and afterward she was baptized," 
 Acts xvi. 14. " When they [the Samaritans] believed Philip 
 preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, they were 
 baptized both men and women," Acts viii. 12. 
 
 P. But all this only speaks of men and women, and it is only 
 said of them, that they must believe ; but how does this affect 
 the case of infants, and especially those of believing parents ; 
 may they not have been baptized, even though they could not 
 exercise faith ? 
 
 B. No, by no means ; for certainly, if infants had been bap- 
 tized, it ought to have been mentioned somewhere, which is 
 not the case ; and if the children of believers were so dealt with, 
 one would suppose the text would say he baptized men, women, 
 and children, or the children of those believers at least ; but 
 the text says no such tiling. Besides, faith was required, Acts 
 viii. 37. u If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest ;" 
 which evidently' implies a prohibition if no faith exists ; and 
 you have never pretended that infants believe. Moreover, the 
 plea for baptism by birth-right, or being Abraham's children, 
 was rejected by John, and which is the thing you insist on ; 
 
45 
 
 Matth. iii. 8, 9. " Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repent- 
 ance ; and think not to say, We have Abraham to our father.'"' 
 Do you not now, reader, see that if the Baptists are called on 
 for precept and example, they can furnish both with promptness, 
 and that when our opponents are pressed, they are entirely at a 
 loss, and are obliged to depend on inference for the support of 
 their practice ? This then, at once evinces the reason of his over 
 anxietv about the fate of the question concerning female com- 
 munion ; as upon it the success of his book depended. Although 
 it is due to him to say he possesses talent at argument, yet it 
 must not be taken amiss if I equally affirm, that he has availed 
 himself of the weaknesses of human nature to gain his point, 
 and has addressed himself to the feelings, rather than to the 
 judgment of his readers. Why does he make the baptism and 
 the salvation of infants but one question, and insinuate that if 
 they may not be baptized they will be lost? Is it because the 
 Baptists believe so ? Or rather, is it not to enlist the prejudices 
 of parents against us, when he at the same time knew these 
 were not our sentiments, and that one Was no way connected 
 with the other? So in this question, he affects to be the precious 
 friend of females, and to uphold their rights, while he wishes 
 it to be understood that his opponents are the reverse. In this 
 his wish seems to be, that females should make of it a common 
 cause with him against the Baptists. The insinuation is, that 
 if the Baptists be right, then females must give up their 
 pretentions to the supper. To put his argument in other words, 
 it would stand thus : i Ye fair daughters of men, come, assemble 
 yourselves ; lend your aid against the might)' ; the Baptists 
 have invaded your dearest rights and those of your babes ; they 
 have already forbidden the baptizing of your children, and you 
 know if they are not good enough to be baptized, they are not 
 fit to go to heaven ; and not content with this, they are about 
 depriving you of your right to the supper. If you tamely stand 
 by and suffer your children to be excluded from baptism, are you 
 willing to give up your own privileges ? Do you not know that 
 although there is neither example nor precept in the New 
 Testament in favour of infant baptism, it is just the same with 
 female communion ; and if you will not allow us to prove the 
 first by mere inference, neither can we avail ourselves of it in 
 your case? We, indeed, are your only friends, and are for 
 defending your right to the supper : but it must be on this 
 condition, that you help us in the controversy about the bap- 
 tizing of infants ; and that you roundly assert there is no 
 necessity for precept or example in the New Testament to 
 warrant it, but that it may fairly be proved by inferences only, 
 and these mostly from the writings of Moses.' 
 
 ■G 
 
46 
 
 What would Mr. E. gain by it, if he could prove what he says 
 about females, that there is no precept or example that justifies 
 their coming to the communion ? would that make it appear that 
 mere inference is sufficient to warrant the establishment of an 
 ordinance ? Has God ever done so I Has he been in the practice 
 of leaving that which concerns his worship so entirely in the 
 dark, and to the mere caprice of man, whose depraved heart 
 is continually leading him astray ? Let any man examine the 
 Jewish worship, and see if God did not go entirely on different 
 principles, and so far from leaving them to infer their duty, he 
 was on tl*e contrary so exceedingly jealous of innovation, or 
 mistake, that he describes the tabernacle, its contents, the mate- 
 rials of which to be made ; and not satisfied to say it should 
 be covered with skins, but the very beast whence they should 
 be taken, Exod. xxv. 5. In the offerings, the salt is mentioned, 
 and the quantity, Lev. ii. 13. — Sacrifices, what part to be 
 burnt, and where.; Lev. viii. 35. — what to be eaten, verse 15. 
 — where the blood poured out — where the blood applied in 
 sanctification,tip of the toe, right thumb, right ear, chap. xiv. 14. 
 — scarlet wool, hyssop, and cedar wood to be tied together, and 
 this dipped in the blood, verse 6. — Not a heifer only, but a red 
 one commanded to be had, Num. x. 2. Now, is it possible for 
 us to conceive that such precaution should be used, and such 
 precision enjoined, u And look that thou make them according 
 to the pattern which was shewed thee in the Mount," Exod. 
 xv. 40. and that relating to a worship that was to stand only for 
 a time, and vanish entirely when Christ came ; and yet leave 
 in total uncertainty gospel worship, which was never to be 
 removed, but to continue to the end of the world ? — Yet, absurd 
 as such a sentiment is, it is that which our opponents defend ; 
 for while they contend they are left to infer their duty under the 
 present dispensation, when they allow there was no such latitude 
 given under the former ; do they not set the former above the 
 latter, and Moses above Christ, by admitting, that in the former 
 duty was clearly defined y while in the latter it must be guessed 
 
 But were the right of females to communion, to stand in 
 reality on no better ground than mere inference, (and which he 
 contends it does not) and that there is not one precept or 
 example to authorize it, does Mr. E. think we are afraid to 
 meet die consequence fairly, and that rather than offend the 
 ladies, we should admit an unscriptural practice ? No, Mr* E. 
 you have mistaken the Baptists ; we would meet all the 
 consequences in such a case, and though w T e should, by that 
 means alienate from us the affections of female disciples ; yet, 
 ^here favouring them would precipitate us into rebellion against 
 
47 
 
 the Head of the church, we should, in that case, cheerfully 
 forfeit their good opinion. But certainly Mr. E could not on 
 that account blame us ; for he wishes the Jewish church, as he 
 calls it, to be our model, and has asserted that circumcision wa* 
 the initiating right therein. Then, of consequence, the Jewish 
 females were never in his model of a church ; and if he has felt 
 no reluctance in proving they had no right there, certainly he 
 could not censure us in a like case. But it may be, he would at 
 least have remonstrated against the order, had he then lived, and 
 loudly censured Moses, as he now does the Baptists. Yes, the 
 husbands would have had ample trouble with their wives ; for 
 Mr. E. would have been seen at the head of them to assert 
 their rights, and if he could not find precept or example, he 
 would, no doubt, have found inferences enough in their favour. 
 
 Allowing Mr. E. to be right, what would the argument 
 amount to ? would it not express just thus much ? u If you are 
 right, that we must practice nought as worship, but what is 
 commanded, or for which there is an example, then you are 
 wrong as well as we are, for you practice female communion 
 without either." But who ever thought that two wrongs made 
 a right ? This is preposterous indeed, that because the Baptists 
 have done wrong, their neighbours may do the same ! ! If we 
 have departed from God's word in this, which we assuredly 
 have, if there is neither command or example ; does that give 
 licence to others to go greater lengths, and is their sin justified 
 bv ours ? But what if it should be found, reader, that our case is not 
 so very deplorable as this gentleman has represented it ; and, that, 
 he assumed for a fact that which he ought first to have proved ? 
 I hope to make it appear, this is indeed the case, and that female 
 communion is really warranted by the word, at least by direct 
 example, if not by positive command. Should this be done, 
 one half of his book is gone at once ; his empty vapour and 
 indecent vulgarity will appear in their true light; and then, 
 unsupported by either example or precept of the divine word, 
 nor yet shielded by the sin of the Baptists, truth will consign his 
 performance to merited contempt. 
 
 He affirms, that we are opposed to reasoning by inference. 
 In this he has also misrepresented us ; for it is not inferences 
 drawn from suitable pre)nises, that we are opposed to : but when 
 our opponents affirm, that they are at liberty to infer New 
 Testament worship from the ceremonial law, which would 
 imply a censure on the Head of the church for neglect in matters 
 of worship, and by setting aside precept and example clear as 
 the day, in order to admit their inferences ; we do, indeed, deny 
 such premises and such conclusions to be correct. Let us, for 
 a moment, indulge the gentleman in his excursions, and w^ 
 
48 
 aliajl see -whether he is willing to admit his own reasoning in ita 
 full extent. Let him for the present take it for granted, that he 
 may infer from the ancient economy rules of worship for the 
 new, and see whither it will lead. His argument is this : c The 
 New Testament,' says he, ' is clear as to the baptism of adults, 
 and we do not deny that of them faith and repentance were 
 required as qualifications ; but as it respects infants, though 
 there is nothing said about their baptism, yet infant church 
 membership being a thing not disputed, the silence of the New 
 Testament on that subject is no evidence against their right ; 
 but we are left to infer it from the former dispensation.' The 
 sum of the argument then, is this : the silence of the New 
 Testament is no evidence, that an ordinance which had been 
 formerly used in the Jewish church was done away ; yea, it 
 goes farther, and affirms, that the * practice being a thing well 
 known,' if its continuance is not forbidden, or set aside by some- 
 thing positive, that christians in such a case are bound to infer 
 their duty from that silence, and to continue the practice. Now, 
 sir, are you prepared to go the lengths to which this will carry 
 you ? Where is it said of any particular Jewish rite, that it is 
 done away? But if you will thus affirm, must you not admit 
 all the Jewish worship ; for where is it expressly said to be laid 
 aside, or prohibited ; or who gave you liberty to say this one 
 part is retained but all the rest are abolished ? Your favourite 
 argument, u the silence of the word," will make entirely against 
 you here. " No," say you, " rites are done away, all of them, 
 but then the church is substantially the same, and therefore I 
 infer infant membership from the standing of children there." 
 Well, let it be so, is your cause bettered by this ? you infer the 
 membership of infants from their being in the Jewish church, 
 and cannot you infer the membership of a whole nation on the 
 same principles ; yea, of the most wicked and abominable 
 creatures that ever lived on the face of the whole earth ? for 
 there was no distinction on that account. Now it comes to this, 
 that either you must give up your plea, that a mere membership 
 there entitles to membership in a gospel church, or else you 
 must make the church of God now to be thronged with prosti- 
 tutes and murderers ; for such were members of what you call 
 the Jewish church, as an attention to their history recorded in 
 the word, will abundantly testify. But you shall hear more of 
 this in its proper place. 
 
 Once more : On the subject of reasoning by inference, our 
 opinions are not as Mr. E. states. The Baptists do not deny 
 the lawfulness of reasoning by inference, and Mr. E. knew they 
 did not : but they do deny, that any positive institute ought to 
 have nothing but inference for its basis j and they do also deny, 
 
49 
 
 that inferences drawn from false premises are conclusive in 
 argument. Is there no difference between denying inference 
 altogether, and only denying it in irrelevant cases ? Yet, strange 
 as it may appear to the pious, Mr, E. hazarded the assertion, 
 without any manner proof, yes, and contrary to his own con- 
 viction, that we disallow reasoning by inference altogether. If 
 the controversy about infant baptism must be decided by infer- 
 ence, let it be so : but then, let those deductions be natural, and 
 let them be derived from the New Testament; for it is manifest, 
 that from this source only can we infer, with any degree of 
 certainty, what is to be done in worship. Are you willing, Mr. 
 E. or are any of your brethren willing to meet us on this ground? 
 If you are willing, tell us so ; and we promise you, that from us 
 you shall never hear any objection to analogy and inference, as it 
 relates to this controversy ; for if the weight of inference on your 
 side, fairly drawn from the New Testament, will preponderate in 
 favour of infant baptism, then will your cause be gained. But 
 no, you will not accede to this proposal, and that for this plain 
 reason, that it is not on inferences drawn from the writings of 
 Christ and his apostles, that you rely for success ; but, strange 
 to tell, it is on inferences from the Old Testament worship, and 
 from a a covenant waxed old," which has given place to one 
 entirely new. 
 
 This gives a new turn to the controversy, and the question 
 between us and our opponents is not about the lazvfulness of 
 inferential reasoning, but concerns the source from whence these 
 inferences are to be drawn. Can any just reason be assigned by 
 them, why we should admit inference from a church dissolved^ 
 and a worship done away, in order to prove what a church now 
 is, and what worship should be established ? Our opponents 
 say, we will go to the writings of Moses in order to prove that 
 infants ought to be baptized : but why go to Moses ? will not 
 the evangelists and episdes do? or do you mean to say the 
 former are to be trusted and the latter not ? or they were better 
 informed than these ? If our opponents refuse to receive the 
 decision of the New Testament on this controversy, which they 
 assuredly will, if it must stand by itself; what does such a 
 refusal imply, but that the weight of argument would be in 
 favour of the Baptists ? Had the question been, What was the 
 duty of a Jew, when under the former dispensation ; how 
 natural would it be to search the writings of Moses for informa- 
 tion? and if the question of those under the present dispensation 
 is, What are the duties of a christian ; is it not natural to enquire 
 at the mouth of Christ and his apostles, who were the authors 
 and propagators of the gospel ? No, no, say our opponents, this 
 will not do, we must ask the advice of Moses as to this thing ; we 
 
must search the house of the vk servant," in order to see what 
 furniture would be suitable for the house of the master ; and we 
 must go to a dispensation acknowledged to be an imperfect and 
 shadowy one, in order to find out that which is perfect. I now 
 appeal to the reader, whether the refusal of our opponents to 
 decide this controversy, only by recurring to the New Testament, 
 does not carry in it a charge . Christ and his apostles for 
 
 not having been sufficiently explicit ; and, at the same time, 
 compliment the Jewish economy as more perfect ? 
 
 I once more repeat it, that if our opponents will confine them- 
 selves to the writings of Christ and his apostles, we will consent 
 to all the liberty they ask, to reason by analogy and inference ; 
 and so far from denying the justness of the demand under these 
 restrictions, we shall be the first to plead for it, and no doubt should 
 soon have them the adversaries of it. But if they will have it to 
 extend even to the Old Testament, it lays on them first to shew, 
 by fair and substantial reasons, that they are at liberty thus to 
 do. Until this previous question is settled all is wrong, and I 
 hope to prove ere this is finished, that they are not entitled to 
 such liberties. 
 
 Now, reader, take notice : The whole plea of our opponents 
 for infant bapt Is entirely on their doctrine of infant 
 
 church-membership ; for they say, that they never pretended to 
 prove that Christ gave such a command, nor yet that there is 
 one positive instance of it in the word: but that M infants were 
 in the church," and they infer their privilege from this circum- 
 stance. But where is the proof that they were in the church ? 
 Whence do they derive this information r Was it from the 
 evangelists or apostles I Xo, both these are entirely silent on 
 that subject ; and dees it not appear marvellous indeed, that 
 ats should be in the church and nothing said about it at all ? 
 From hence arises the necessity- of going awav from Christ and 
 his apostles to find out their right to church membership, and 
 of travelling into the Mosaic economy; and having found them 
 : church of Moses, they bring them from thence into the 
 church of Christ, and after thev have placed them there, without 
 divine authority, then thev infer their baptism from being found 
 there. If our opponents would agree to be governed by the 
 above propos. uld then address to them this question : 
 
 Where do you find in the New Testament, that the infant seed 
 qf beh . :r ethers, were in the gospel church : for if you 
 
 will shew the place that proves it, or bv fair inference therefrom 
 make it appear, you then gain the point. Xow, in what a sad 
 case would they be ! no such text could be found ; no reasonings 
 by inference or analogy from thence could establish it ; and, of 
 course, even allowing them their favourite mode of reasoning 
 
by inference altogether, their cause would be wholly ruined. I 
 call upon Mr. E. and upon any of the Pcedobaptist brethren, to 
 produce a text, one solitary text, from one end of the New 
 Testament to the other, where it is said infants were in the 
 gospel church, or ought to be there ! Where is all your boasted 
 argument, founded on inference and analogy ? is it not dissipated 
 and passed off in thin air, and are you not left without a single 
 weapon for defence ? I undertake, reader, to prove before I 
 have done, that all that has been said about the Jewish church 
 does not apply to the gospel church ; and that there was no 
 more likeness between that and a gospel church, than between 
 a mere commonwealth and a church. 
 
 But I ask our opponents, whether the Baptists would be in 
 such a plight, were thev called upon to prove their practice 
 from the New Testament only, without resorting to the Old ? 
 To make the reverse appear, I will address a few questions to 
 him, which a Pcedobaptist never can answer, and which the other 
 can do with ease : 
 
 P. How do you prove that believing men and women, and 
 that such only, were in the gospel church ; and that such only* 
 were entitled to ordinances ? 
 
 B. I prove it two ways ; first, by positive command and 
 example, and secondly, by inference. 1. By command and exam- 
 ple thus : " Teach all nations, baptizing them, Matth. xxviii. 
 19. — If thou believest thou mayest, Acts viii. 37. — They were 
 baptized both men and women, Acts viii. 12. — There arose a 
 murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their 
 widows were neglected, Acts vi. 1. — Phcebe our sister, Rom. 
 xvi. 1. — Let your women keep silence in the churches, 1 Cor. 
 xiv. 34. — Receive not a widow into the number," 1 Tim. iv. 9. 
 16. — 2. I infer the church membership of men and women, 
 because they are even' way capable of the prerequisites, and 
 because it is said multitudes of believers were added to the 
 churches, Acts iv. 32. — And both men and women believed, 
 Acts xvii. 12. — 3. That infants were not — first, from the entire 
 silence of the New Testament about this thing ; secondly, no 
 mention is made of their being baptized at any time or place, 
 when both sexes were mentioned, and their qualifications as 
 believers ; thirdly, they are not able to perform the duties of 
 such, nor can others for them ; fourthly, as what is said aboui: 
 members of a gospel church can by no means agree with infants. 
 Here, you see how readily a Baptist could answer any queries 
 addressed to him from his opponent, without the aid of a former 
 dispensation, and that the New Testament furnishes proof in 
 point* But let the same questions be addressed to a PcsJobaptist^ 
 
52 
 
 and then see how aukwardly he manages the business, when he 
 stands or falls by New Testament decision — thus : 
 
 B. What positive or inferential proof can you bring from the 
 New Testament, to make it evident that infants were members 
 of the apostolic churches ? 
 
 P. As to positive proof, I do not pretend to any ; for it is no 
 where said of them in express words, that they were added to 
 the church ; but then as I believe they were so considered, I 
 infer their membership from certain texts. 
 
 B. What texts are these, from which you infer their right ? 
 
 P. I do infer it, 1. from Mark x. 14. " Suffer little children to 
 come unto me, and forbid them not ; 2. from Acts ii. 39. " The 
 promise is unto you, and to your children ;" and several others. 
 
 B. There is not any thing said of church membership in these 
 texts ; and of the first it is said, he called them in order to lay 
 his hands on them, Mark x. 16. and of the other it is not said 
 of all their children, but only of them the Lord should call, verse 
 39. to whom alone the promises were made, Acts ii. 37. But 
 we shall in a proper place bestow more attention on these texts. 
 
 Now would such passages as these, which have no bearing on 
 the subject, be sufficient to establish infant church membership? 
 Would inferences like these weigh sufficiently to satisfy an 
 enquiring mind, that infants were members of the church of 
 Jesus Christ ? The texts produced prove just nothing at all in 
 favour of Posdobaptism. 
 
 To pursue Mr. E. it will be necessary, 1. To consider his 
 Argument on female communion— expose his misrepresentations 
 — and shew, that contrary to his assertion, there is both example 
 and precept for it. 2. Examine his method of getting over those 
 texts, where faith and repentance are required in order to bap- 
 tism. 3. Investigate what he calls a scripture proof, that infants 
 are in membership with the church of Christ under the gospel 
 dispensation. 4. We shall afterward examine, what is called 
 the Jewish and also the gospel church. We shall then contrast 
 them ; when it will evidentlv appear, that howeve infants might 
 have been connected with the one, they can by no means be 
 with the other. 
 
 STRICTURES ON CHAPTER FIRST. 
 
 He says. Chap. I. That for a Baptist to demand an example or 
 positive command in order to know what worship ought to be 
 performed is u assuming — contracted — false." Is it assuming in 
 a Baptist to enquire of God what he would have him to do? 
 I should verily have thought that it wei*e a great evidence of his 
 humility, and that the gendemaa who brings the charge is the 
 
53 
 
 assuming character ; but it seems, that it is more pleasing to 
 Jehovah for his creatures to act without instructions from him, 
 than to consult him in all they do of a religious nature. An 
 assumer, is an haughty, an arrogant person ; but, judge ye, 
 brethren, to whom does this belong, to the gentleman, or to 
 the Baptists ? Will not candour decide, that those who are 
 setting up their own reason, in place of God's word, are the 
 arrogant and impertinent persons in question ; and not those 
 who rely entirely on divine instruction, and make their reason 
 bend to that ? Now the former is true of them, and the latter 
 of the Baptists. But if our opponents call it assuming in us to 
 say we must depend on a revelation, in order to know the mind 
 and will of God ; we would ask them, in turn, by what other 
 means they will attain such knowledge, and whether a denial 
 of such information being necessary does not turn us over again 
 to what the infidel calls * natural religion V 
 
 It must be allowed, that to be left to gather our duty by 
 inference and deduction only, is, to speak the least of it, a very 
 doubtful and uncertain way. Now, is it any how to be credited, 
 that the Head of the church would leave us in a state of uncer- 
 tainty, when it cannot be denied, that he could with equal ease, 
 put us in possession of his mind and will unequivocally ? I say, 
 is not such a sentiment repugnant to all the ideas we have ever 
 entertained of him ? Yet if the above sentiment be true, this is 
 certainly the case, and we must believe that he has left these 
 things in obscurity with design ; but is not this arrogancy and 
 impiety with a witness ? 
 
 He says farther, the sentiment maintained by us, " that there 
 ought to be precept or example" is " contracted ;" affirming, 
 that God can use different methods of instruction. I believe 
 that he has done this indeed, as it relates to infants ; for he has 
 not only passed over them in silence, when membership in the 
 church is spoken of, but he has- also, in describing the qualifi- 
 cations and duties of a church member, abundantly shewn, that 
 infants, as such, are entirely unqualified for such a station. Now, 
 if the gentleman desires to know what methods he has taken to 
 inform us on this point, they are, as he would have them to be, 
 many and various. First, No mention is made of their being in 
 the apostolic church ; no exhortations are addressed to parents or 
 guardians to bring them in, as were to the Jews of old. Qualifica- 
 tions are required, which they do not possess ; duties enjoined, 
 which they cannot perform themselves, nor others for them ; 
 things said of the church, which will by no means agree with 
 their membership ; and,lest such membership should be inferred 
 from the Jewish church state, it is called " a covenant made 
 old, Heb. viii. 13, — said to have vanished awav, Heb. xviii. 13. 
 
 H 
 
54 
 
 — to have lasted until John, Luke xvi. 16. — this gospel dispen- 
 sation, said not to be according to the covenant made with 
 th^ir fathers, Heb. viii. 9. — the plea of being Abraham's chil- 
 dren being rejected," Matth. iii. 9. Will this suit you, sir ? 
 Surely, you will not say the Baptists are contracted after this, 
 when we not only insist on it, there is neither precept nor 
 example for infant membership ; but also, that the whole New 
 Testament aims at it a deadly blow. 
 
 He also says, the above sentiment is " false," and attempts 
 to prove it by the practice of the Baptists, and others, who 
 admit females to communion without a divine warrant. If it 
 were as this gentleman says, that there is no such warrant by 
 precept or example, what would he gain by it ? would he prove 
 the practice right ? yea, would he do any thing more at last, 
 than to prove that all religious denominations have acted wrong 
 in this? What kind of reasoning is this? ' There is no command 
 for, nor yet example in the New Testament of, females being 
 admitted to communion in the church ; but yet, without either, 
 both Baptists and Pcedobaptists have so admitted them,' therefore 
 it follows, that it must be right, because they have so done. This, 
 my brethren, would be making the old abominable doctrine of 
 Rome true, that the church is infallible, that she cannot err, 
 that she has a power to dispense with the laws of Christ ; and 
 it would make her independent of him entirely : it would be 
 urging the corruptions of the church as a justification of her 
 corruptions ; and it would, in that case, only be necessary to 
 practice error, in order to make it right. I still declare, that 
 if females have no better right to the Lord's table than infants 
 have to church membership, it is high time to discontinue the 
 practice ; for if the infallibility of the church must be admitted, 
 and the old popish doctrine received on that ground ; and if the 
 practice of the church will justify any thing, however contra- 
 dictory to the word, it is most proper to drop every practice 
 that would militate against the authority of Christ, But we 
 utterly deny, that female communion and infant church mem- 
 bership do stand on the same ground ; we are satisfied there is 
 a divine warrant for the first, and none whatever for the last. 
 
 Will Mr. E. have the hardihood to affirm, there is as much 
 said about infants being in the gospel church, as there is about 
 females ? If he will not venture thus to assert, and which he 
 certainly will not, how came he to make their cause a common 
 one, and insinuate that if the one is not to be admitted, the other 
 ought not for the same reason ? In the New Testament, you 
 hear it is said expressly of females thus : " Woman, great is 
 thy faith — Thy faith hath made the whole — Honourable women 
 not a few believed — The Lord opened Lydia's heart — Priscilla 
 
55 
 
 taught Appollos the way of the Lord more perfectly — Phcebe 
 our sister — He baptized both men and women — Women not to 
 speak in the churches — The Grecians murmured against the 
 Hebrews because their widows were neglected in the daily 
 ministration — Have not I power to lead about a sister — Receive 
 not the widows into the number under threescore," 1 Tim. v. 9. 
 
 Let our opponents shew us where any thing like this is said 
 of infants in the New Testament, and then they will hear no 
 more of the Baptists opposing their admission into the church ; 
 but they know that a profound silence is observed concerning 
 them, and neither do they place much reliance on inferences 
 drawn from the practice of the apostles, or from what is said 
 concerning them in the New Testament ; but chiefly on what 
 they gather from a dispensation " done away." Every thing 
 relating to the infant, they must infer, and having set up one 
 inference, they then infer something else from that inference, 
 and then a third from the second, and so on without end. Now, 
 could they prove infants to have been in the gospel church, and 
 thence infer their baptism from their membership ; or could 
 they have shewn that these were baptized, and then infer their 
 membership from their baptism ; or could they have shewn, 
 that the duties enjoined upon a gospel church, and the things 
 said concerning its members, were enjoined on infants, and 
 would well agree with their condition, and then have deduced 
 their membership and baptism from such premises ; then there 
 might have been some shew of reason on their side. But, no : 
 inference — inference — inference, first and last, all is inference ! 
 
 Of females, the New Testament says, they were baptized. 
 If you would infer membership from baptism, here you have it : 
 It says of them, that they were in the church. Would you infer 
 their baptism from thence ? Here you have the premises ; it 
 says they believed, repented, and had the qualifications for 
 church members. Would you infer their baptism and member- 
 ship from hence ? — you have the premises. But where do 
 you find any thing like this relative to infants in the New 
 Testament ? And yet we are told by Mr. E. that the right 
 of females to the communion is no better established than that 
 of infants. 
 
 Mr. E. says, he acknowledges the right of " females to the 
 supper." We do not thank him for this, because he dare not 
 do otherwise. But then, says he, we have no " exomple nor 
 express law" for this practice, and therefore must wholly rest 
 on inference. ' This we deny, and pledge ourselves to maintain. 
 &:e contrary. In page 17, he states a conversation had with 
 Baptists, wherein he tried his strength with them, and shews 
 how much they were surprized and mortified ; yea, and 
 
56 
 
 how unable they were to make any answer; at all; and when 
 answers were given by some, how wide they were from the 
 mark* It is not for me to say whether such conversations as 
 these really took place or not, or whether they were the pro- 
 ductions of a biassed imagination ; but sure I am, if he ever had 
 such conversations, and such were in reality the answers given 
 (the truth of which I very much suspect) he must have chosen 
 for his opponents some of the very weakest of them, and that 
 with a view to render the Baptists ridiculous, as a set of block- 
 heads. Will any one believe, that the replies made to the 
 queries he put, were given by sensible and well informed men ; 
 or that the preachers who are said to have so much " marvelled" 
 at his profound knowledge, were men of real sense and sound 
 learning ? I firmly believe, that the whole of this was designed 
 as a compliment on himself, and to make those of his sentiment 
 believe, that he had discovered a method of copeing with the 
 Baptists, never before thought of by any of his predecessors in 
 controversy ; yet it is well known, that this very objection has 
 been urged again and again, and has as often been refuted. The 
 truth is, that our opponents bring forward arguments old and 
 stale as though they never had been noticed. 
 
 Mr. E. tells us, " one Baptist inferred the right of females to 
 communion from their grace — another from their baptism — a 
 third from Jewish females eating of the Paschal Lamb — a fourth 
 from their being God's creatures," page 17. Leaving Mr. E. 
 to amuse himself with his imaginary men of straw, we will try 
 to find out some other way to answer him, when he will again 
 have an opportunity to exercise his skill at misrepresentation. 
 The method I shall follow, is, to prove the positive right of 
 females to communion on the ground of church membership, 
 and that not of the Jewish, but of the Gospel church ; and then, 
 secondly, to shew that his overthrow of Mr. Booth was mere 
 pretence, and that he in fact never fairlv touched his argument 
 at all. 
 
 I am now reasoning with a Dissenter, and shall employ those 
 arguments which he deems conclusive against the Episcopalian 
 and the RomanCatholic. Were the last my opponent, I should use 
 Mr. E.'s reasonings against him, which are indeed conclusive ; 
 and then should advance the following remarks, which would 
 be equally conclusive against both, on the subject of infant 
 baptism. 
 
 The Protestant, in reasoning with a Papist or Episcopalian on 
 the unscriptural practice of administering the supper to any 
 individual, as such, and in insisting, that it ought not to be 
 given to sick pcrsotts in their chambers, but only to the church, 
 when assembled in one place - f in proof of his sentiment, he 
 
S7 
 
 advances that text in 1 Cor. xi. where the apostle delivers the 
 instruction to the church, that when met together, they proceed 
 to commemorate the sufferings of their Lord. He instances 
 other scriptures to the same effect ; as, the saints breaking 
 bread from house to house, Acts ii. 46. who are said " to come 
 together" for that purpose, 1 Cor. xi. 20. Hence the supper is 
 culled " the communion," 1 Cor. x. 16. Some are said to be 
 u spots in their feasts of charity," Jude 12. He states also that 
 no instance is given of the administration of the supper to any 
 individual, as such, in the divine word. Now, we admit all 
 this reasoning in its utmost force, and with our Pcedobaptist 
 brethren firmly believe, that the supper never was administered 
 to any but churches assembled together, and that this was Paul's 
 meaning when he said Christ was evidently set forth as cruci- 
 fied among the Galatians, Gal. iii. 1. This could not have been, 
 if they were not in a collective capacity ; for surely, the supper 
 could not be said to be " among" one person only. But what 
 does all this go to prove ? Is it not precisely this, that of what- 
 soever materials the ancient churches were constructed, be their 
 members who they might, such as were constituent parts of 
 the church, in common with the rest, partook of the supper. 
 
 Now my reasoning is this, that both Baptists and Pcedobaptists 
 do agree, that whoever belonged to the ancient gospel churches, 
 did most assuredly partake of the supper. Here then, I ground 
 my argument and proof, that females were most unquestionably 
 members of the apostolic churches ; and if this can be done, 
 indubitable evidence is furnished, and such as our adversaries 
 have already granted, that females have such a right, and that 
 founded on the express example of the first churches. 
 
 Mr. E. would object to this as mere inference ; but it certainly 
 is not, unless we were first to infer their membership, and then 
 draw a second inference from that to prove their right to the 
 supper ; for it is plain, that if a collective participation of the 
 supper pertained to a church, as such, then it pertained to all 
 the churches without distinction ; and if not to all, then certainly 
 it was not delivered to any, as a church ; so that the Pcedobaptists 
 are fairly forced to abandon the communion of churches, or else 
 to admit this reasoning. But why doubt this, when we have 
 three instances of churches, as such, communing in their col- 
 lective capacity ; of one of which it is said women were members I 
 The first alluded to is the church of Galatia, Gal iii. 1. among 
 whom Christ is said to have been set forth ; the second is that 
 of Corinth, who were said to be assembled for the very purpose 
 of communing, 1 Cor. xi. ; and a third, that of Jerusalem, who 
 are said to have continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine 
 and fellowship, and to break bread from house to house, see 
 
53 
 
 Acts ii. Is it not evident therefore that the only question is, 
 were females members of the church of Christ ; and can we 
 prove this by example or precept ? and if we prove it, does not 
 Mr. E. vapour about female communion in vain ? 
 
 I prove they were in the church, first, by Acts ii. 41. " They 
 that gladly received the word were baptized — were added to 
 them," [the church] all of them — verse 42. " they continued 
 stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine, and in breaking of bread, 
 and prayer" — verse 44. and all the above mentioned persons 
 44 had all things common," that is, as expressed in verse 45. 
 44 Every man sold his possessions, and parted them to all men, 
 as every man had need." Now notice, the every man last 
 mentioned is confined to every believing man of their commu- 
 nity, and not every man in the most extensive sense of the word ; 
 and it must also be remarked, that the church of Jerusalem is 
 here mentioned. This same church of Jerusalem is afterward 
 spoken of in Acts vi. &c. where women are said to be of their 
 body, as in verse 1. 4t The Grecians murmured against the 
 Hebrews because their widows were neglected in the daily 
 ministration." These following things from hence are evident : 
 First, that all that believed were added to the church ; secondly, 
 that all these had every worldly good thing in common ; thirdly, 
 that all these did commune or continue in breaking of bread 
 and in prayers ; fourthly, that females, called u widows," shared 
 a part of what all were said to have, and therefore were of the 
 number of the church. Our opponents must be reduced to the 
 necessity of admitting that females were in the church of Jerusa- 
 lem ; and, if so, what must follow, but that the supper, being a 
 church ordinance, these females belonging to the church, did 
 partake ? for the words 4C every one" are applied to them in 
 chap. ii. ver. 44. and they, in ver. 47. are called the church. 
 To strengthen all this, collections were raised for these very 
 persons, and others of their number, by the name of the " poor 
 saints at Jerusalem," Rom. xv. 26. and 1 Cor. xvi. 1. which 
 entirely cuts off the supposition that these were the mere poor 
 of the world. 
 
 The next passage is, Rom. xvi. 1. "I commend Phoebe our 
 sister." This text is similar to many others, and is a term 
 denoting church relationship. I know that the word sister is 
 taken sometimes to signify a natural tie, but in this text it is 
 otherwise ; and it is remarkable, that this very person is in the 
 text denominated 44 a servant of the church," and in verse 2. 
 called M a saint," which was doubtless intended to distinguish 
 from mere natural connection. That this is the sense, will fur- 
 ther appear from 1 Cor. vi. 5 — 7. where those called u brethren" 
 are said to be of the church, and reproached for going to law 
 
59 
 
 with each other ; and this term " brother" is without doubt 
 applied in the same sense as " sister" in the former passage, 
 being used with reference to church relationship. In chap. vii. 
 a husband or a wife is called " brother" and M sister ;" and Paul 
 asks, " Have not I power to lead about a wife or a sister V* And 
 to shew that the brethren or sisters in question, were considered 
 so only as they were in the churches, he adds, in this seventh 
 chapter, verses 16. 1 7. " For what knowest thou, O wife, whether 
 thou shalt save thy husband ? or how knowest thou, O man, 
 whether thou shalt save thy wife ? But as God hath distributed 
 to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him 
 walk : and so ordain I in all the churches" How remarkable is 
 this, that both husband and wife are here said to be in the church, 
 and that the above directions respected " husbands and wives 
 in the church, and that this church is held up as a pattern for 
 other churches ! and what is still more to the point is, that unto 
 this very church of Corinth, the apostle Paul delivered the 
 supper ! see 1 Cor. chap. xi. 2. " Keep the ordinances," says 
 he " as I delivered them to you." Not ordinance, but ordinances, 
 even baptism and the Lord's supper (for there were but two) 
 and these they were desired to keep just as they were delivered, 
 without alteration. The supper was delivered to this very 
 church — females were in this church, and to husbands and 
 wives, as in that very church, are these directions given. Surely 
 this will not be called reasoning by inference only j for in the 
 address to this very church of Corinth, Paul says, he delivered 
 to them the supper, and that when collected together ; and then, 
 in the passages above quoted, expressly speaks of females 
 belonging to it, to whom he gives directions about marriage, 
 and then declares these rules were for other churches as well as 
 for them. Will our opponents now say we have no M express 
 warrant — no command — nor yet example:" Surely, ever}' man 
 will see there are both in this last cited passage ; and if so, what 
 becomes of all the noise about the Baptists admitting females to 
 communion without warrant ? 
 
 There are some other passages which strengthen the above, 
 to prove females were in union with the church of God, and in 
 that capacity partook of the supper. By directions given to 
 females in the churches, and to some concerning them, we 
 prove their membership. The apostle declares, that in his 
 instructions how the christians should demean themselves, he 
 confined himself to the church ; and therefore says expressly, 
 he had nothing to do with those that were w ithout, see 1 Thes. 
 iv. 12. " That ye may walk honestly toward them that are 
 a without " also 2 Cor. xi. 28. " Beside those things that are 
 without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the 
 
60 
 
 churches ;" and 1 Cof. v. 12, 13. M For what have I to do to 
 judge them also that are without! do not ye judge them that 
 are within I But them that are without, God judgeth. There- 
 fore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.'* 
 Xow from the above it is plain, that the apostle confines himself 
 to the duties of church members in his directions as to deport- 
 ment ; and if so. he equally gives instructions to females, to 
 the church concerning them, and to the ministers presiding ; 
 for it would be the height of absurdity to suppose Paul should 
 make it the dutv oi churches to regulate the conduct of females 
 who were not of their number, or of ministers to restrict female s 
 yet unconverted and in the world, as to marriage, attire and 
 the like. 
 
 The following texts incontrovertiblv prove that females were 
 church members, and as such, they were commanded to com- 
 mune, as you see 1 Cor. xi. That females were instructed as 
 above, see 1 Tim. v. 1. M Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as 
 a father, and the vounger men as brethren; the elder women as 
 mothers, the younger as sisters, with all purity.'' Ver. 9. M Let 
 not a widow be taken into the number, under threescore vears 
 old." Verse 11. u But the younger -widows refuse." Verse 16. 
 " If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let diem 
 relieve them, and let not the church be charged." From the 
 above we see, some widows were to be received among the 
 number to be supported, and this charge was to fall on the 
 church ; from which support the younger widows were to be 
 excluded, and that because labouring not under the infirmities 
 of age, thev w supposed capable of supporting themselves. 
 To apply this -easoning to all widows, whether of the church 
 or not, is abs , and would go to make it a duty in the church 
 to support e- ry widow, a thing utterly impossible, and would 
 effectually relieve the public of the charge, and burden the 
 churches, so that thev could not subsist. So also Titus ii. 2 — U 
 M That the aged men be sober, grave, temperate, sound in the 
 faith, in chanty, in patience. The aged women likewise, that 
 they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, 
 not given to much wine, teachers of good things ; that they may- 
 instruct the young to be sober, to love their husbands, 
 to 1c ve their children." 
 
 It will require but a small degree of candour to own, that 
 the above were directions to females as members of the church 
 of Christ, who, as such, are ranked with elders, old men, 
 young men, and called by the names of mothers and .sis' 
 
 rst descriptive of age, the last of cfeurch relation. I there- 
 fore consider the Doint as settled ; but shall add something more 
 ien are said to be professors, which is but 
 
another term for church membership, 1 Tim. ii. 9. 10. " That 
 women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shame faced- 
 ness and sobriety ; not with broidered hair, or gold, or pearls, 
 or costly array ; but (which becometh women professing godli- 
 ness) with good works." That women were in the churches, 
 will likewise appear from 1 Cor xiv. 34. where they are pro- 
 hibited from teaching, " Let your women keep silence in the 
 churches." And that by the church a mere place of worship is 
 not meant, will appear from verse 23. " If therefore then-hole 
 church be come together into one place," in which the church 
 is manifestly distinguished from the place of meeting, and 
 women said to be in the church ; and it is clear members are 
 intended, and not merely persons associating as a congregation, 
 because in the chapter at large, directions are given to members 
 -in general possessing gifts, how they shall use them, that no 
 confusion might ensue : but then, women are expressly pro- 
 hibited from speaking, because, had there been no exception 
 with respect to them, they would have considered themselves 
 equally included in the directions. But if the women in question 
 were not in church union, such a prohibition would be ridiculous, 
 and would imply, that women not converts to Christianity might 
 possibly claim the privilege of teaching it. 
 
 It will appear, in summing up what has been advanced, 
 that the points kept in view were, 1. To establish the scriptural 
 sentiment, that females were in the churches ; 2, That they 
 partook of the Lord's supper ; 3. And this, not because they were 
 "" God's creatures" nor because they were capable of u grace" 
 nor because they " eat of the Paschal Lamb" (which were the 
 foolish answers Mr. E. put into the mouth of a Baptist dispu- 
 tant), but because they were found in the first gospel churches ; 
 and, 4. This we proved, by the command to the Corinthian 
 church, given by Paul, to keep the ordinances, in which church 
 there were actually female members ; and also, by women that 
 were widows being in the church at Jerusalem, and of which 
 church also it is said, they continued stedfastlv in the apostles' 
 doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in p ravers. 
 The sum of the whole is this : churches communed in their 
 collective capacity ; but women were members of those churches \ 
 and therefore women did commune* 2. Paul delivered the 
 ordinances to certain churches ; but in those very churches 
 there were females as well as males ; therefore to females, as 
 well as to males, the ordinances were delivered. 
 
 Now, in this plain statement, one of his objections is taken 
 away, that example is wanting ; for we heve see plainly, that the 
 Baptists d© not practice without example, nor is it in the paver 
 
of all the sophistry of Mr. E. to prove otherwise. If he demands 
 from us a positive precept for the practice, he has that also in 
 the above. In that eleventh chapter of 1 Cor. verse 2. it is said, 
 44 Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all 
 things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you." 
 And in verse 23, u For I have received of the Lord that which 
 also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in 
 which he was betrayed took bread : and when he had given 
 thanks, he break it, and said, take, eat" and " this do" Who- 
 ever were in this church, these precepts were delivered to 
 them (for precepts they cannot be denied to be), and that women 
 were in this church, I have proved beyond contradiction ; there- 
 fore, females did actually partake, and were positively com- 
 manded so to do. 
 
 Mr. E. will however cry out, " This is reasoning by inference," 
 it is analogy, a thing not allowable in the Antipcedobaptist. 
 Although, as above proved, the Baptists have never denied 
 this mode of reasoning, when it does not stand alone ; or when 
 the inferences are fair and natural, or drawn from proper 
 premises ; yet we will aver, that the proofs adduced above, are 
 not mere inference. Mr. E. in page 15, gives a definition of 
 what he calls an explicit warrant. Take his own words : " If," 
 says he, u a question be started concerning the meaning of a 
 text, let it be 1 Cor. xi. 28. the reader will see at once that it is 
 no explicit word, because he will stand in need of a third thing, 
 to determine in what sense it is used there ; whereas, if the word 
 were explicit, nothing else would be necessary to fix the sense." 
 Let him have his definition, for arguments sake (though I by no 
 means agree with him) yet here he has all he asks for. From 
 what was advanced before, it is evident females were church 
 members, and they are known to have been so, as much as 
 believing males. Now, to the church, and not tc a part of them 
 only, was this ordinance delivered. If, therefore, the command 
 is to a church, as such, to commune, and the point be well 
 established that such church was composed of male and female 
 members, as is most true in this instance ; then the moment the 
 command is given to such a church, in a church capacity, so to 
 commune, there is no need of a " third thing to fix the sense ;" for 
 every one knows the church embraces all its members, and that a 
 partis not the church. Then the matter stands thus : The apostles 
 did deliver to a church the ordinances, one of which was the 
 supper. In this delivery, he makes no distinction between its 
 members, commanding some, and prohibiting others ; then 
 females were in membership, and must of necessity understand 
 this of themselves, and others must understand it of them, 
 
6S 
 
 because their membership is clear and certain. Here then, is 
 the command — here also the church ; where then, I ask, is the 
 third thing necessaiy to explain it ? 
 
 Before I dismiss this point, it will be necessary for me to 
 notice the following remark of Mr. E. in page 32, chapter ii. 
 on arguments in favour of infant baptism. " Infant baptism," 
 says he, " is to be proved, in the same way as female com- 
 munion." Is it, indeed, sir, to be proved in the same way? 
 We are happy to hear this from you. Now, reader, remark, if 
 it be to be u proved in the same manner," which is true indeed, 
 if ever proved ; then example from the New Testament, and 
 also positive precept, derived from the same source, are abso- 
 lutely requisite. It is not true, as asserted by Mr. E. that it 
 must be proved " by inference and analogy only" But what a 
 sad situation is this gentleman reduced to ! he has declared, 
 infant baptism must be supported in the same way as female 
 communion. In relation to the latter, we have brought command 
 and example — we have shewn that females were in the church, 
 were said to be saints, sisters, servants of the church, believers, 
 &c. Well, Mr. E. where are the texts you are to produce to 
 make it appear that infants were in the church ? Where are the 
 the examples — the command? Where called sisters, or brothers, 
 servants of the church I Where are they told when to speak and 
 when not ? Where called believers ? We understand you, sir, 
 perfectly. You hoped the Baptists would receive your dog- 
 mas, and bold assertions, and take it for granted, indeed, that 
 there is neither command nor example, and would be reduced 
 to the necessity of proving female communion by analogy and 
 inference only ; and then, to be sure, you would couple infant 
 baptism with it, and make them stand or fall together. But; 
 sir, we take you up at your offer, and now, on our part, demand 
 such proof for infant baptism as we have advanced for female 
 communion. Candid reader, must not Mr. E. have been desti* 
 tute of shame, or wilfully ignorant, when he had the audacity 
 to declare, in the face of an enlightened public, that there is as 
 much New Testament proof in favour of infant baptism and 
 church membership, as th2re is in favour of female communion I 
 
 The indelicacy with which Mr. E. has treated Mr* Booth, 
 is scarcely to be pardoned ; and if there were no other reasons 
 this would be sufficient, that the gentleman he abuses was by 
 no means a scurrilous writer ; neither was he Mr. E.'s oppo- 
 nent, or we might have attributed his dislike to having been 
 mortified by a refutation from his pen. But Mr. Booth had 
 written largely on the subject, and contended with complete; 
 success against the most learned and acute adversaries : and as 
 Edwards expected to be dragged into public view by that 
 
64 
 
 laborious and enlightened man, his object seems to have been 
 to intimidate him by vulgarity and abusive language. One half 
 of his book is made up of a misrepresentation of" that gentleman, 
 tcon;erning an explicit warrant for female communion : It shall 
 now be my business to expose his dissimulation. His quotation 
 of Mr. Booth is page 12. " Does not the term Anthropos, there 
 used," (that is, in 1 Cor. xi. 28.) u often stand as a name of our 
 species, without regard to sex ?" He then, with a view of 
 making Mr. Booth appear ridiculous, quotes another mutilated 
 paragraph thus : " Have we not the authority of lexicographers, 
 and, which is incomparably more, the sanction of common sense, 
 for understanding it thus in that passage V He then, with a 
 view of making him appear far beneath his character, and true 
 worth, thus replies : u How does he [Booth] know it ? Why, 
 he has two evidences of this ; a lexicographer, that is, a 
 dictionary-maker, and common sense. Common sense, he says, 
 is the best of the two." I would now ask the gentleman, in 
 turn, is this all that Mr. Booth says in proof of his position, 
 that Anthropos is a name for our species, without regard to 
 sex ? Has he said no more, than that a dictionary -maker and 
 common sense were on his side ? Are you not, Mr. E. guilty of 
 falsehood in this ? Keeping back part of a narrative, which tends 
 to make it speak falsely, is certainly a species of guilty deception 
 in the party that does so with design. Mr. Booth has furnished 
 -abundant proof of his position from the book of God. Why, 
 then, did you exhibit this very imperfect and mutilated account 
 of him j and why did you not furnish his reasons entire, or at 
 least the strongest of them ? Sir, your views are but too well 
 seen ; you were sensible, that to meet Mr. Booth fairly, would 
 be to expose your own weakness : but how wicked is it to use 
 the devil's weapons of slander and misrepresentation, in what 
 you would have us believe to be the service of God. Will God 
 thank you, sir, for this ? And does truth need misrepresentation 
 in its defence ? 
 
 Remember, ere you rave again 
 Against sincere and pious men, 
 .And ridicule a gospel rite, 
 That GOD peruses all yoa write. 
 
 Mr. Booth says truly, that the word Anthropos, when used 
 in scripture, where there is no distinction of sex, is a name of 
 our species. Remark, M zvhere there is no distinction of sex" it 
 is so. He never would have denied, nor did he ever deny, that 
 where the sexes were distinguished and opposed to each other, 
 that the word " Anthropos''' was sometimes applied to the male. 
 But then, Mr. Booth would with equal propriety assert, that 
 this same word Anthropos, (man) is also applied to the female, 
 
65 
 
 when distinguished from the male. What has Mr. E. gained 
 by his criticism i He has indeed proved, in nineteen instances, 
 that the word Anthvopos means the male as distinguished from 
 the female ; but, in doing this, he has done no more than what 
 Mr. B. grants ; and, after all, he has not touched Mr. B.'s 
 argument. But if he had accomplished any thing to purpose, 
 he ought to have proved, 1. That the word Anthropos is never 
 used as a name for our species, when the sexes are not distin- 
 guished and opposed to each other, 2. That the word is always 
 applied to the male, when distinguished from the other sex. 3. 
 That the word is never applied to the female, when distinguished 
 from the male. 
 
 Examine, brethren, for yourselves, the nineteen instances he 
 brings forward, in page 14, and what does he prove, more than 
 this very thing, which we shall allow without hesitation j that 
 where the male is distinguished from the female, in some 
 instances, he is called Anthropos, or man ? But has he attempted 
 to prove the other two propositions ; That this word is never 
 used as a name of our species, when the sexes are not distin- 
 guished from, and opposed to each other? Or, that the word 
 Anthropos is never applied to the female ? No, no, not a word 
 of this ; he could not have done it ; and to have attempted it, 
 would have been the ruin of his whole book, and would have 
 deprived him of an opportunity to abuse Mr. B. The truth of 
 the matter is, that the word Anthropos, is used in all the three 
 senses. It sometimes meaning the male as distinguished from, 
 and opposed to the female ; sometimes the female, as distin- 
 guished from, and opposed to, the male ; and, at other times, 
 it is used as a word denoting our species, where neither sex is 
 spoken of, so as to be distinguished from each other, but equally 
 takes in both of them. 
 
 You will observe, we grant all Mr. E. says about the word 
 Anthropos: but our present business will be, to shew that the 
 same word is applied to the female, and then that it is also 
 applied to our species, where the sexes are not distinguished 
 from each other ; when this is done, you will readily see where 
 the victory lies, whether with the Baptists, or Mr. E. 
 
 That this word Anthropos is applied to the female, as well as 
 the male, take the following instances : Gen. i. 26. " And God 
 said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness : and 
 let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the 
 fowl of the air, and over all the earth." In this text, the word 
 man is used in the singular number, and afterward the plural pro- 
 noun between them, explains the sense of it. So Gen. 1. 27. " So 
 God created man in his own image, in the image of God created 
 he him: male and female created he them ;" here as in the 
 
66' 
 
 cither, the word man is applied to both male and female. In 
 Rom. v. 12. this is set in a still clearer view, if possible, u By 
 one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin." It is 
 well known, that the woman was first in the transgression, and 
 not ihe man ; so that she indeed brought death into the world as 
 well as sin ; yet here the woman is called " Anthropos" or man. 
 
 But I am indebted to Mr. Butterworth for one evidence of 
 the female being called u Anthropos" which ought effectually 
 to silence all opposers ; the word is applied to our Lord Jesus, 
 he is called the Son of Man, Here there can be no deception, 
 it is evident the female is called man as well as the male, for 
 Jesus had a miraculous birth, and was the son of Mary only : 
 and yet she is called man, and he her son. I have taken the 
 trouble to search how often the phrase Son of Man, occurs in 
 the New Testament, and find it is so used in forty-four places. 
 These passages, surely, must give to the cheek of Mr. E. the 
 tint of shame, especially as he affected so much gaiety, and 
 made himself so very merry at Mr. Booth's expence ; and the 
 more so when it is considered, that all his illiberal remarks 
 concerning his w ignorance" did but eventually expose his own. 
 
 There are also texts without number to be produced, wherein 
 this word is obviously used, as Mr. B. stated, as a name of our 
 species. You will bear in mind, brethren, that Mr. E. does 
 attempt to make it appear, that Anthropos is not a Word used 
 as the name of our species, but that it means on** of the sexes as 
 opposed to the other, the male as distinguished from the female ; 
 and he insinuates that it is always so understood when it occurs 
 in scripture, or at least, his wish is to make us believe, that 
 where the sexes are not distinguished and opposed to each 
 other, the word Anthropos does not necessarily include both 
 sexes, but is equivocal in its meaning, and may even then apply 
 to the male only. Mr. E. produced nineteen instances where 
 the word meant the male only, and we have produced more 
 than double the number, in which it intends the female only, and 
 w r here the male is left wholly out of sight. Surely, if this word 
 is applied to both sexes, and that, even when opposed to each 
 other, it must, as Mr. B. says, be a name for our species. But 
 you will see in the texts that follow, the word Anthropos used 
 in the very sense Mr. B. describes it, that is, as a name for our 
 species, and wherein the sexes are not distinguished one from 
 another ; and these texts must manifestly include the male and 
 female, or they would be perfectly unintelligible, or teach dec- 
 trine hostile to the attributes of God. Some of them shall be 
 given at large, in order to shew this must be the sense ; and the 
 rest shall just be referred to, as to chapter and verse. Gen. vi. 
 o. " And the Lord said, My Spirit shall not always strive with 
 
man" This declaration cannot be considered as restricted to 
 the male only, or it would imply, that the Spirit would always 
 strive with the female, though not the male, which is absurd. 
 Gen vi. 7. M And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I 
 have created from the face of the earth." Here the female was 
 intended as much as the male, for both were destroyed ; and 
 yet, no sex is expressed. Gen. ix. 6. " Whoso sheddeth inan's 
 blood, by man shall his blood be shed." If the female were not 
 included here, the text would go to exonerate the female mur- 
 derer, and only make the male liable to punishment for the 
 crime ; yet, here neither sex is distinguished, but both are 
 implied. Exod. xxxiii. 10. u And all the people saw the cloudy 
 pillar stand at the tabernacle door ; and all the people rose up 
 and worshipped ; every man in his tent door." Here all the 
 people are said to have seen the pillar — all the people are said 
 to worship, and are called man ; that is, all the people were so 
 called. Were there no females among all the people ? Lev. 
 xviii. 5. u Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judg- 
 ments : which, if a man do, he shall live in them." Does this 
 mean only the male ; shall he only live in keeping the law I yet 
 no sex is here mentioned. Deut. iv. 32. u Since the day that 
 God created man upon the earth." W^hat ! did he not create 
 the female also ? Deut. viii. 3. " Know that man doth not live 
 by bread only> but by every word that proceedeth out of the 
 mouth of the Lord doth man live." Are the male sex here only 
 intended, and do not the females live also by the word of the 
 Lord ? yet here there is no distinction of sex. " Deut. xxvii. 
 15. " Cursed be the man that maketh any graven, or molten 
 image." Does the text intend that male idolators only are 
 cursed, and that female idolators will be excused ? yet here 
 -there is no distinction of sex. I shall now give a few from the 
 New Testament, lest it should be thought, that the phrase ma» 9 
 •used as a word to distinguish our species, was only peculiar to 
 the Hebrew text. Matth. iv. 4. " Man shall not live by bread 
 alone." Matth. xii. 45. " Then goeth he and taketh with him 
 seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in 
 and dwell there : and the last state of that man is worse than the 
 first." Does all this only apply to a male, or is a femaie also as 
 wretched in similar circumstances ; is not the one intended as well 
 as the other I yet here is no distinction of sex. Matth. xii. 35. 
 *' A good man out of the good treasure of his heart, bringeth 
 forth good things : and an vil man, out of the evil treasure, 
 bringeth forth evil things." Do not the good or bad actions 
 of a female also proceed from the same source ? yet no sex ig 
 •distinguished here, though both is manifestly implied. Rom. 
 :* 23, " They changed the glory of the incorruptible God int«. 
 
68 
 
 ati image made like to corruptible 7nan. ,i Certainly a gentleman. 
 so very learned as Mr. E. must have known, that the heathen 
 made their gods in the likeness of corruptible woman, as well 
 as man. He could not, I should suppose, have gotten so much 
 Greek as his book exhibits, into his head, without some acquain- 
 tance with Juno, Minerva, and a thousand more. 
 
 You will readily perceive, brethren, that in all these texts, 
 the word Anthropos is used not with reference to the male only, 
 but also the female ; and yet, at the same time, the sexes are 
 not distinguished and opposed to each other. Now this is 
 precisely the thing for which Mr. Booth contended, and on the 
 account of which Mr. E. lavished such ungentlemanly abuse 
 gn him ; yet it is evident from the above, that Mr. B. was right, 
 and his opponent entirely wrong. 
 
 Lest the reader should be terrified at the nineteen instances 
 produced by Mr. E.,as opposed to the texts to be found on the 
 side of Mr. B., I shall now subjoin a great number, all of which 
 must be taken as those above mentioned j or if not, they have 
 no meaning at all, or are perfect nonsense. In all these following 
 texts, as well as those already recited, the word man occurs ; 
 and in not one of them can it be applied exclusively to the male, 
 but must equally mean the female. 
 
 The number of texts quoted, are not to make an ostentatious 
 show, nor yet to swell the size of the book : but as our wondrous 
 Greek scholar, Mr. E. lays more stress on his criticism on the 
 Word Anthropos, than any other thing advanced, and really builds 
 one half of his book on it at least, there seems to be the greater 
 necessity to shew, that the whole current of scripture is against 
 him. See then, these following passages: Exod. xxxiii. 11. 
 Deut. iv. 32. viii. 3. xxvii. 15. Judges ix. 12. 1 Sam. xv. 29. 
 1 Chron. xxix. 1. Job ii. 4. vii. 1 — 17. xxxiii. 14, 15, 16, IT. 
 Psalm viii. 4. xlix. 12. lxxxix. 49. ciii. 15. civ. 14, 15. 23. xx, 
 27. Eccle. vii. 29. xii. 13. Isaiah vi. 12. Job x. 23. xvii. 5. 
 xvii. 7. Ezek. xx. 11. Hosea xi. 9. Micah vi. 8. Malachi ii. 
 12. iii. 8. Mark ii. 27. John i. 4. ii. 25. iii. 4. vii. 51. Rom. i. 
 23. iii. 4. ix. 20. 1 Cor. ii. 14. Col. ii. 8. Titus ii. 20. iii. 8 — 10. 
 1 Peter i. 24. Rev. ix. 4, 5, 6. 10 — 18. 
 
 Does Mr. E. say, the word Anthropos sometimes means the 
 male only ? Granted. But does he mean, that the word Anthropos. 
 akvays signifies the male as opposed to the female ? This is not 
 granted ; for I have already proved, that the same word is 
 applied to the female in more than fifty instances, and that where 
 the male was entirely excluded. But does he mean to say that 
 the word Anthropos, where it occurs without expressing either 
 of the sexes, does not necessarily include both, and is not a word 
 t? ditfingy&sh our species? This, also, is not granted; for I have 
 
69 
 
 shewn, that in more than eighty texts, and eighty more if 
 necessary can be produced, the word mail must include both 
 male and female, of necessity, and that without either being 
 ■expressed ; and therefore must be a name for our species, 
 without regard to sex. 
 
 Now let us see how Mr. E. can manage the text quoted by 
 Mr. B. 1 Cor. xi. 28. We will imitate him in his colloquial 
 uiode of arguing. 
 
 c Mr. E. Whence, Mr. Booth, do you obtain your express 
 warrant, in order to justify the practice of female communion ; 
 what scripture can you bring? remember, you Baptists say, 
 •every ordinance appointed by God must have positive precept, 
 or plain example. 
 
 B. I take it from that text, among others, 1 Cor. xi. 28. 
 *" Let (Anthropos) a man examine himself, and so let him eat." 
 
 E. That is not an express warrant, for this word Anthropos 
 is applied to the male, when opposed to the female ; witness the 
 nineteen texts. 
 
 B. Granted ; it is so applied : but then the female, when 
 opposed to the male, is also called by the same word, and that 
 in more than fifty texts* 
 
 E. It is indeed true, that the female is called Anthropos^ 
 (man) as well as the male : but how will you prove that the 
 female, and not the male, was intended by the apostle here ; 
 for, an express proof must have nothing equivocal in it, and the 
 person must be named therein ? 
 
 B. I prove it thus: That although this word Anthropos is 
 applied to both sexes indiscriminately, when opposed to each 
 other, and which of itself would be sufficient to shew, that both 
 male and female were intended ; yet I do not rely wholly on 
 that : but this same word Anthropos is used to distinguish our 
 species, without regard to sex ; and is so used where neither 
 sex is distinguished or opposed, but where both at the same 
 time are manifestly included, and this is precisely the case with 
 the text in question. 
 
 E. Can you indeed prove, that this word man is not only 
 applied to the sexes indiscriminately, when opposed to each, 
 other, but also to both the sexes as included in the one word 
 Anthropos, where there is no opposition or distinction ? If so, 
 this text is indeed positive, and the point must be conceded. 
 
 B. This, sir, can be done with ease ; and I now present you 
 with more than eighty texts where the word is so used : See 
 here they are. 
 
 It may not be amiss to enquire, whether or not this text, on 
 the principles above mentioned, will conform to Mr. E.'s views 
 ol what constitutes express, or explicit warrant. His views 
 
ro 
 
 are, that a text ought to have that within itself which fixes its 
 meaning. I am fully persuaded his criterion is not proper, 
 because our acquaintance with scripture does not arise from one 
 text only, but from a great variety of them ; yet each expressing 
 the same meaning, and serving to strengthen each other, and 
 fix and confirm the sense of * all. We are to compare spiritual 
 things with spiritual. Yet, rigid as this rule of Mr. E.'s is, and 
 though it was so constructed by him, as an artifice to deprive 
 us of what are really express proofs ; still I am confident thifc 
 text will bear the ordeal of his test — thus : 
 
 E. You require explicit proof for the sprinkling of children ; 
 I, in like manner, demand express proof for female communion. 
 
 B. I do indeed require such proof, in the case you mention^ 
 and I will furnish the proof for female communion you ask. 
 You have it 1 Cor. xi. 28. U Let a man examine himself, aud 
 so let him eat." 
 
 E. This is no proof at all, much less is it express proof; for 
 Anthropos (man) is applied to the male as distinct from, and as 
 opposed to, the female. 
 
 B. I beg your pardon, sir. That it is applied to males in the 
 manner you have said is not denied by me ; but it is also applied 
 to females as opposed to males ; and, therefore, is proof in 
 point. 
 
 E. Although it may be proof, it is not express proof ; for 
 what is express proof, carries its own meaning in it, without 
 recurring to foreign aid ; and as you have granted Anthropos 
 (man) is applied to each sex, at times when opposed to each 
 other, how do you know whether the male or female is intended 
 here ? 
 
 B. My proof is this, that the word Anthropos, where it is 
 found in texts which say nothing about sex, and which conse- 
 quently do not distinguish, and oppose one to another ; in that 
 case, both sexes are included. Now, in this text I quoted, there 
 |s no opposition of sexes, nor distinguishing one from the other j 
 yet here the word Anthropos is. Now, if what I have said is 
 true^ that Anthropos in such cases, does thus include both sexes, 
 then this text comes up to your ideas of express proof; for it 
 enjoins the supper on both sexes equally, after due examination ; 
 the meaning prising immediately out of the text. 
 
 E. Then the whole turns on this, whether what you say is 4 
 true, that this word Anthropos, where the sexes are not distin- 
 guished and opposed to each other, does include both sexes 
 therein. If it does, then indeed your point is gained ; for it is 
 \>\xt fair to own, that there is nothing that distinguishes, or 
 opposes the sexes one to another, in this text. But I demand 
 proof, that th? wovd is so used j$ you. have said.. 
 
n 
 
 B. The proof, sir, is at hand ; and, for your satisfaction, I 
 now present you with more than eighty texts, and I will augment 
 their number if you please, where it is impossible to understand 
 it otherwise, and where both are certainly included. — See here 
 they are, as above. 
 
 Mr. E. as was before remarked, insinuates, that Mr. Booth 
 had offered no other argument in favour of his hypothesis that 
 Anthropos included both sexes, than merely the authority of 
 lexicographers and common sense. This he did with a view to 
 have it believed, that these were the only proofs, or at least the 
 best, that could be advanced by the Baptists. The fallacy of 
 such an insinuation is easily discerned from the above. It may, 
 however, readily be seen what his views were in these remarks, 
 that they were intended only to substitute ridicule, in the place 
 of reasoning, and, knowing he could not meet the argument 
 fairly, and refute it, he took this method of raising a laugh to 
 evade it. But why is he so unfriendly to dictionary-makers, 
 as he ludicrously terms them ? Was it because it is unnecessary 
 to find out the meaning of words ? Was it that he thought an 
 entire ignorance of the derivation of terms would best suit his 
 purpose of imposing on his credulous readers, and that, by these 
 means, he could the better shield himself behind their ignorance I 
 Or, was he afraid to trust himself in their hands, lest they 
 should entirely ruin his book ? Do not be alarmed, sir, at the 
 name of a dictionary -maker ; there are few, if any of them. 
 Baptists ; and, surely, if the Baptists are willing to trust them- 
 selves in the hands of their Pcedobaptist opponents, you need 
 not object to that. The concession of an adversary is a double 
 confirmation of truth, and such is this relative to dictionari;- 
 makers. But this is the first time I ever witnessed such a thinp;, 
 as a man pretending to u great humility, laborious research after 
 truth, and putting up pious prayers (in his book) to God to 
 guide him in the research ;" and yet, in a little while, to spurn 
 at aid, even from his friends, and obstinately refuse to hear 
 what they could say. 
 
 But the secret is, these cruel Pcedobaptist dictionary-makers- 
 gave their testimony against him; and surely it was verv 
 impolite in Mr. Booth, to set the gentleman a quarrelling with 
 his friends. Why, Mr. Booth, you have created an eternal 
 enmity between these gentlemen: little did thev think you 
 would have made such bad use of their writings, as to emplov 
 their sword against their very good friend. You must now be 
 content to let them quarrel about the meaning of the word 
 Anthropos y and if they should never be on speaking terms 
 again, indeed, sir, it is your fault ; you divulged important 
 secrets. 
 
72 
 
 There is another phrase also, which has given our sprinkling 
 u sensitive plant" no little concern; and I suspect the causes for 
 it are the same, I mean the word u common sense." Now, 
 Mr. Booth, did you, indeed, use such an expression ? If so, no 
 wonder the gentleman felt all alive, and was scarcely able to tell 
 whether his head was in the moon, or out of it. " Common 
 sense" seems to have tinkled on his imagination, like Whitting- 
 ton's bells. Your address, it would seem, was personal, and 
 would admit of but two applications. One is, that Mr. E. had 
 no common sense, and therefore rejected your argument ; the 
 other, that his sense was so refined, so uncommon, that he soared 
 so much above his fellow ministers in point of erudition^ and 
 his contemplations were so sublimated, that he had no ear to 
 hear a Baptist reason* Now*, sir, if he supposed you meant the 
 first, what was it but saying that the intellects of Mr. E. were 
 much Weakened, and that his capacity was so shallow, that he 
 was incapable of reasoning on a subject plain to the meanest 
 capacity ? Can you wonder, then, that he was so angry ? 
 No man would wish to be called a fool. Ah, sir, you should 
 have been present ; you should have seen how his choler was 
 moved, when he read that word, common sense ; you should 
 have heard how he muttered, 4 Common sense ! common sense ! 
 Why, what does the man mean ; does he intend to convey 
 the idea that I am a fool V But, sir, / am inclined to think 
 that you meant it in the best sense, knowing your extreme 
 goodness and how unwilling you are to offend ; and if so, your 
 opinion was truly flattering to the gentleman : it was equivalent 
 with saying, that his ideas were so elevated, that he could not 
 stoop to receive common definitions of the word Anthropos ; 
 but he would put a better sense on it — a loftier one ; and, as to 
 " common sense," that should surely have its brains dashed 
 out. Come, now, ye dictionary-makers, ye lexicographers, — 
 come learn in future, at the mouth of this wondrous scribe ; 
 — away with your common sense ; — this man is above vulgar 
 opinion, he is resolved never to go with the multitude. But 
 still, why so angry with c common sense V out with the secret, 
 sir, — let us have the whole of it — do not mumble so ; we shall 
 not take it ill of you. Oh, sir, then it seems, that, according 
 to the generally received opinion, this word " Anthropos" is 
 understood to mean our species in general, where the sexes 
 were not distinguished and opposed ; and it seems, Mr. B. 
 took advantage of this, and called in the aid of common sense ! 
 which to prevent in future, it was settled in your mind, that the 
 villain Common Sense should be knocked in the head ; or at least, 
 laughed to death. It is a poor cause that must chase Common 
 Sense from her seat xvhen it asks a hearing. 
 
73 
 
 EXAMINATION OF ARGUMENT 2. CHAPTER I. 
 
 Mr. E. having done his best, on the subject of female com- 
 munion, now attacks what he calls, the w other half of the 
 Baptist strength ;" he wishes to overthrow the sentiment, that 
 faith and repentance are required of every subject of baptism. 
 His words are, page 20, the Baptists say, * The scriptures 
 require faith and repentance, as requisite to baptism ; but, as 
 infants cannot have these, they are not proper subjects of bap- 
 tism. Infants, say the Baptists, cannot believe, cannot repent; 
 and none should be baptized without faith," &c. We are not 
 disposed to deny any part of the above quotation ; but acknow- 
 ledge it to contain our sentiment fully on that head : we shall, 
 therefore, hear how Mr. E. can overcome this reasoning. The 
 method he takes to get over this, is the same he adopts in his 
 theses ; that is, by opposing adults to infants, and by making 
 two distinct baptisms : the one, as the right of infants, the other, 
 as the duty of adults. As the sophistry of this arrangement 
 was sufficiently exposed in my animadversions on his theses, I 
 might be *ully excused from treading the ground again : but, as 
 it might appear to a common reader, that our silence here was 
 evidence of defeat, we shall indulge the gentleman and follow 
 him in his remarks. His words are, see page 20, " They" (the 
 Baptists) " say the scriptures require faith and repentance in 
 order to baptism ;" (this he does not deny, remark that) " I 
 ask, from whom ? The answer must be, of adults ; for the 
 scriptures never require them of infants, in order to any thing." 
 He then proceeds : " The scriptures require faith and repentance 
 of adults, in order to baptism." His conclusion from these 
 premises is, " Now, you see, infants are gone j they have 
 nothing to do with the argument, or if they must be brought in, 
 the argument runs thus : The scriptures require faith and 
 repentance of adults, in order to baptism ; but as infants cannot 
 have these, they are unfit subjects of this ordinance." 
 
 Now all this sophistry is founded on one word, " Adults" as 
 opposed to infants* But I ask you, candid reader, where did 
 Mr. E. get these words adults and infants from ; and where did 
 he find two baptisms commanded — one the right of infants, the 
 other of adults ? Did you ever read of adult baptism in the New 
 Testament ? Did you ever read of infant baptism there, or of 
 these two, as opposed to each other, and requiring very different 
 qualifications ? You very well know there are no such words in 
 God's book, as adult baptism and infant baptism ; and if so, 
 whence did Mr. E. derive them, and what were his views in 
 inventing them ? From the book of God, it is doubtlessly- 
 acknowledged he did not obtain them ; or, if he did, let him 
 
tell us from what part : but this is impossible for him to do. 
 Then himself, or his brethren, must have invented them, to 
 answer certain purposes, not to be otherwise accomplished. If 
 he derived them from the word, he must either produce us 
 express words, or what is equivalent ; and the latter would be 
 to this amount : He that is an adult, on his believing and 
 repeating, and then being baptized, may be saved : but he that 
 is an infant may be baptized without either ; for faith and 
 repentance are only required of an adult, or grown up person. 
 I ask you again, reader, have you ever seen any thing in the 
 whole of the New Testament like this ? Did you ever witness 
 -any distinctions, as it respects age y made between one subject 
 of baptism and another ? or have you ever found any thing 
 said of infants about baptism at all ? 
 
 An adult is one who has arrived to full stature of boat;, and 
 also of understanding 1 ; or, in other words, one who has grown 
 up to a man's or woman's estate. Then, to take Mr. E. on his 
 own statement, it would be this ; that from infancy up to twenty, 
 or twenty-one years of age, (for then only persons are thought 
 to be mature, and scarcely then) every such person is to be 
 baptized, without either faith or repentance, and that because 
 they are not required of such ; but ail above those years, must 
 have both faith and repentance, as indispensible pre-requisites. 
 The commission was, " Go ye out into all the world, preach 
 the gospel to every creature ; he that believeth and is baptized 
 shall be saved ; but he that believeth not shall be damned." But, 
 according to Mr. E. we are not to understand this commission 
 to respect any one under twenty years ; and then all minors, 
 though they believe not, may be baptized, and are not included 
 in the threatening of damnation. After all, we ask, where is 
 the other commission relative to those under twenty, and 
 commanding their baptism? 
 
 Who is prepared to receive such a statement ? Yet, if we 
 believe Mr. E., we must go this whole length with him, or else 
 the word adult must have either no meaning at all, or a very 
 'liferent one from what it is considered as having. But let us 
 for a moment recur to the real subjects of baptism, mentioned 
 in the divine word ; then all difficulty vanishes at once. The 
 qualifications required respect not age, but grace. So also, as 
 to those who are not qualified for this ordinance, the ground of 
 prohibition is not infancy, as he savs, u he that is an infant shall 
 not C ' No, but, " he that believeth not," whatever may be his 
 age. Should scripture warrant be asked for, this we hav also 
 at hand : " If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest ;" 
 the having of this faith, being made the qualification for baptism, 
 and the not having it, the ground of refusal* • 
 
75 
 
 Mr. £. does not deny, that faith and repentance are required ; 
 but he says it must be from " adults" We again repeat the 
 question, where is such a requisition made as to adults ; are we 
 yet to continue without an answer ? No answer is to be found 
 in all his book. His reasons, however, for his opinion, are not, 
 it seems, because the scriptures favour it: but, first, because- 
 infants cannot believe, and therefore it is not required of such ; 
 and, secondly, because the word of God is silent concerning 
 them, as to this point, and therefore such qualifications cannoc 
 be required. This statement has for its foundation the assump- 
 tion of an idea which is not true ; even that baptism is the duty 
 of the infant, and because the infant cannot possess the pre- 
 requisites, it is to be baptized without them. Is not this 
 begging the question in dispute ? We would at once concede 
 the point, were it proved that infants ought to be baptized ; and 
 in such cas^, we should presume God made no such requisition 
 of them, but of adults only: but it will be time enough to 
 draw such conclusions, when the fact is established ; until thefc, 
 nothing is done. 
 
 This argument of Mr. E. has several strange aspects : First, 
 infancy is made a reason for having no faith, or repentance j 
 then the want of these, is made the reason why infants should 
 not have them ; and, to crown all, infancy, and the want of faith, 
 are produced as reasons for baptism. It would be easy to justify 
 the baptizing of unbelieving adults on the same principles, and 
 the reasons assigned by Mr. E. in the one case, would suit full 
 as well in the other. The argument of Mr. E. here is, the 
 incapacity of infants to believe and repent ; and his inference is, 
 that therefore they being incapable of it, God neither does, nor 
 ought to require it, in order to baptism ; and then the inference 
 is, he does not. The adult also, labours under an incapacity 
 of himself to believe, though that incapacity is of a moral nature ; 
 but yet this is a preventive as effectual as if he laboured under 
 both a natural and moral incapacity. 
 
 But what would be thought, were I to say with Mr. E. faith 
 and repentance are required for baptism, only from such as can 
 exercise them ; hence, this does not obstruct an adult, though 
 an unbeliever, because he has no power to believe ; and God 
 requires faith and repentance, in order to baptism, only from 
 such as can believe and repent ; now these requisitions can only 
 apply to those upon whom he has bestowed the grace of divine 
 faith : but, as the sinner may say, he has not given that faith to 
 me, and I cannot exercise what I have not ; of course the 
 prohibition cannot extend to me, and I may be baptized without 
 any such prerequisites. — On Mr. E/s hypothesis, how would 
 jhe extricate himself I 
 
76 
 
 But still it may be asked, is it not implied that baptism is to 
 be administered to the infant? and if so, surely it is reasonable 
 to think, that faith and repentance pertain to adults only, for 
 God never requires impossibilities ? Now as these are with 
 infants impossible, are we not justified in the classification of 
 the subjects of baptism into adults and infants ? 
 
 I think this is, in reality, the utmost that can be said, as a 
 defence of such classing ; and though Mr. E. has not conde- 
 scended to give his reasons for so doing, yet sure I am, had 
 he attempted it, not a passage would have been produced, and 
 all he could say in its defence, would be found in the short sketch 
 above. This classification then, at last, rests upon a mere 
 supposition, that infants were included in the command to be 
 baptized, and on this mistake rests the whole. There is no doubt 
 with me, if such had been the intention of God, with respect to 
 infants, that this method of opposing adults to them, would be 
 certainly the best one, and a justifiable one also. But then, this 
 was not the case with Mr. E. ; he laboured under no mistake 
 on that head ; he had an object in view, and that was the support 
 of a bad cause, and possessed sufficient penetration to discover, 
 that this cause could not be maintained without such a classifi- 
 cation. It may, indeed be thought, that the remark is an illiberal 
 one ; but it must be remembered, that Mr. E. has not met his 
 opponents fairly : he has taken every advantage of them in his 
 power — dealt altogether in sophistry, and low wit — and dis- 
 covered that caution through his whole book, that indicated the 
 subtle disputant^ rather than the candid divine, who is seeking 
 after truth. 
 
 The reader may, however, be ready to ask, if it be granted 
 that no scripture can be produced to warrant the use of the 
 words " adult" and M infant" in determining the subjects of 
 baptism ; yet, is not the classification harmless in itself ? I 
 answer, one evil arising from this classification is, that it makes 
 two baptisms instead of one, of which the word of God is entirely 
 silent ; and is it no harm to add to the divine word ? Can it be 
 right to say, there is one baptism for infants, which requires 
 no qualifications, but those merely accidental (having believing 
 parents is an entire accidental affair), and that there is another 
 baptism for adults, which is to be administered on quite different 
 principles ; the one requiring a change of heart, the other 
 requiring no change whatever X I ask, can any good man say 
 this is harmless, when it is well known that it has not the 
 smallest countenance in the word of God. ? Another serious evil 
 ensues : The New Testament is rendered by Mr. E. entirely 
 silent as to the subjects of baptism, in order that he may take 
 advar-tap-e of that silence, and thereby artfully bring in infant 
 
77 
 
 sprinkling by implication, and inference ; yea, and infer it From 
 that very silence, which he himself has brought about. 
 
 Would it not be reasonable to suppose, that where a command 
 is given to baptize certain characters, and afterward, in strict 
 conformity with that command, this is done, and in describing 
 it, the persons to whom it was administered, their character, 
 and the way in which it was performed ; all exactly correspond 
 with the original instructions, and not an instance of, nor yet a 
 single hint given, that any other character had been thus bap- 
 tized, nor yet that it had been done in any other way : I say, 
 would it not be reasonable to suppose the command thus given, 
 and thus executed, would be a sufficient guide to those who 
 wished to know what was right on that subject \ Now all this- 
 is true of the New Testament account of baptism. The apostles 
 are commanded first to teach, and then to baptize, Matth. 
 xxviii. 19.; they understood their instructions, and required 
 faith of one before baptism, Acts viii. 37.; of others it is said, 
 they baptized them, because they had received the Spirit, Acts 
 x. 48. ; others they refused, because they had no repentance, 
 Matth. iii. 7, 8, 9. ; others on the confession made of their sin, 
 are baptized, Matth. iii. 6. ; in several instances, they first 
 preach, then the pious exercises of thousands are described, 
 and, as before, baptism is administered to these, and only these, 
 as far as the word informs us, Acts ii. 37, 38. ; and of others, 
 spiritual joy is mentioned, Acts viii. 12. 39. 
 
 But is there any thing said of infants being baptized ? No, 
 not one word. Is there any thing said of one person being 
 baptized, without believing or repenting ? No, not one word. Is 
 it pretended that infants are believers, and exercise the grace 
 of repentance? No, not a sentence is said to establish this., 
 This cinssification rendering the New Testament speechless^ 
 makes it incapable of settling the dispute between us and our 
 opponents ; which will thus appear : When a Baptist asserts, 
 that the baptizing of infants is wrong, the immediate answer is, 
 How do you prove it to be wrong ? If the reply is, that it is 
 'contrary to the command of Christ, and the example of the 
 apostles ; the answer is, Shew us wherein it is contrary. The 
 reply is, That faith and repentance are required -of candidates 
 for the ordinance, and some were refused for not having these 
 qualifications ; while there never was an instance recorded in. 
 the scripture, of baptism being administered to any persons, 
 but unto such as possessed them. Then comes in Mr, E.'s 
 answer thus : ' I do not deny that these qualifications were 
 required, but of whom ? not of infants, but of adults, I acknow- 
 ledge them to have been required of adults; but insist, they 
 Kere not required of infants. * But if the Baptist replica wftere 
 
78 
 
 do you find scripture to prove infants were at all baptized, and 
 that these qualifications are not required ? O, says he, we do not 
 pretend to produce scripture for this sentiment, but we infer it 
 from certain passages ; and as all the texts you have quoted 
 have no bearing on the dispute about infants at all, and there are 
 no other texts that speak of them, I am to prove their right by 
 inference, and you are to disprove their right by inference only ; 
 for you see my classification cuts you off from scripture texts 
 that are positive. 
 
 Without this word adult, you see, he can do nothing against 
 the Baptist ; for were the two words, believer and unbeliever y 
 substituted in the place of adult and infant, then the dispute on 
 Mr. E.'s plan of conducting it would immediately be at an end* 
 nnd a decisive victory be on what we believe the Lord's side- 
 On this principle, let us see how readily his questions may be 
 answered ' 
 
 P* E. You deny that the baptizing of infants is right ; on 
 what principle do you thus deny ? 
 
 B. We deny it because they have not the qualifications. 
 
 P. E. What are the qualifications I 
 
 B. They are faith and repentance j and you have such and 
 such scriptures in proof of it. 
 
 P. E. Then you deny them baptism because they are infants. 
 
 B. Not so, but because they have not the qualifiations re- 
 quired, and which you own infants have not. 
 
 P. E. Then you baptize others because they are adults. 
 
 B. In this also you are equally wrong ; for we baptize great 
 numbers of various ages, and very many that are not adults ; and 
 this we do, not because of age or stature ; but, because they 
 are believers in the Lord Jesus Christ, and come up to the 
 character described as a worthy candidate ; and if an infant of 
 eight days old, could evidence he had faith in Christ, we should 
 baptize him as freely as any others. 
 
 P. E. But I think the qualifications were required of adults 
 only ; of infants they were not required, and therefore they are 
 to be baptized without them. 
 
 B. You ought to shew first, that infants are at all enjoined to 
 be baptized, and then it would be time enough to enquire about 
 their qualifications. But where do you find adult baptism, and 
 infant baptism, spoken of in scripture \ I demand authority for 
 these two baptisms. 
 
 I ask, how would Peter Edwards answer this last question ? 
 IV] ust it not confound him— leave him speechless — and over- 
 throw all his sophistry. But let him ask a Baptist where he finds 
 scripture to justify the words, believers baptism, and the non- 
 baptism of unbelievers j how easy is it to furnish abundant proof. 
 

 79 
 
 I shall certainly claim the indulgence of the reader, for repeating 
 what before had been advanced in my strictures on Mr. E.'s 
 theses ; but if repetition is burdensome, it has been forced upon 
 me by Mr. E., who again and again repeats the same argument.. 
 If Mr. E. will use words in the controversy, on the admission 
 of which the whole issue depends, surely he is bound in the first 
 instance, to prove them scriptural ; and I rest with confidence 
 on this, that no man, no, nor angel from heaven, will be able to 
 adduce one text to prove, that the New Testament speaks of 
 two baptisms, the one for adults^ and the other a distinct one, 
 designed only for infants. 
 
 Mr. E.'s next attempt is, to shew the fallacy of the argument 
 " that faith and repentance ought to be required of infants in order 
 to baptism"— see page 20. He might spare himself the trouble 
 of doing this ; for he never heard a Baptist say, that they were 
 required of an infant : on the contrary, our sentiment is, that 
 the scriptures are not addressed to infants at all. Perhaps it 
 would be better for him, first to make it appear that the gospel 
 is addressed to infants, and requires duties to be performed by 
 them, while in that state. It would never have entered into 
 the head of any man but a defendant of Predobaptism to assert, 
 the gospel is addressed to infants ; for without supposing the 
 gospel addressed to an infant, and requiring duties of it, the 
 baptizing of it would instantly appear absurd. Pray, Mr. E., 
 ought you not first to tell us who the Baptists are, that require 
 faith and repentance of infants ? In what an aukward predica- 
 ment are you placed ! You know, sir, that we do not believe 
 that the word of God is addressed to them at all, while in an 
 infantile state ; and hence, while such, none of the duties it 
 specifies are required of them. Were you, sir, to admit this, 
 there would be an end of infant baptism at once : but if you 
 will not admit it, then pray begin at the right end of your work ; 
 first prove the obligation of the babe to receive, peruse, believe 
 and obey the gospel ; then, of course, baptism will come in . 
 among the rest of the duties. 
 
 But you ask, Why do the Baptists say, infants ought not to 
 be baptized without having these pre-requisites ; do not these 
 very pre-requisites imply their duty to believe and repent ? Not 
 at all, we require no duties of them, because God does not ; but 
 you require the performance of a duty from them, which God 
 has only enjoined on a believer; and hence, }'ou force the reply 
 from us, that if you will have them to perform the duties that 
 devolve on a believer only to do ; to be consistent with yourselves* 
 you ought to prove they have faith. Hence it is easy seen, that 
 it is our opponents who compel us to insist on their possessing 
 faith and repentance, because they will have them to be baptized,. 
 
80 
 
 What Mr. E. aims at, is to shew, that faith and repentance arc 
 cot essential to baptism ; or, in other words, that baptism may 
 be performed without either ; and that, admitting both were 
 required, yet this will not affect the case of infants, because he 
 thinks they were required from adults only, and therefore infants 
 were never intended. He then means to prove infants were not 
 included in the requisition, by four arguments ; in which he 
 fails. These being his total force, we must consider the cause 
 as lost to him. — He reasons thus : 
 
 u In order to judge of the real worth of an argument, I lay 
 down this rule : ' Every argument that will prove against au 
 evident truth ; or, which is the same thing, every argument 
 which will support falsehood, is clearly a bad argument.' This 
 rule is self-evident ; for that must needs be false, which proves 
 a falsehood." We are fully agreed to this : but he says, " I 
 will proceed by this rule, and attempt to shew, — I. That thi3 
 argument," (that is, about faith and repentance being required 
 of all subjects for baptism) " is entirely fallacious. II. Point 
 out wherein its fallacy consists." He proceeds, by saying, that 
 the tendency of this argument, " That infants are excluded 
 from baptism, because something is said of baptism which will 
 not agree to infants," is to prove error. 
 
 This first argument is founded on the circumcision of infants. 
 This, he affirms, was done by u the express command of God,'* 
 4 they must have been proper subjects of such an institution, is 
 evident from the command given' — that " this was a solemn 
 entering into the church" — that by this rite every child so 
 circumcised became " a debtor to do the whole law" — that this 
 last requisition " could not be performed by an infant" — and 
 that " circumcision and baptism were initiating ordinances into 
 the church of God." The conclusion is, that if duties were 
 required of the one, which he could not perform, even to keep 
 the law, and that inability did not disqualify for circumcision ; 
 so neither does a want of faith and repentance disqualify for 
 baptism. 
 
 I do not deny that circumcision was an express command of 
 God; nor yet, that Jewish infants were proper subjects of this 
 rite. But that circumcision was a solemn entering into the 
 church, this is not true ; for they were in what Mr. E. calls the 
 church before, as will appear from Gen. xvii. 14. " And the 
 uncircumcised male child, whose flesh of his foreskin is not 
 circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people." Now, 
 if the Jew was in the church before his circumcision, how could 
 circumcision be an entering in ? If he was not in until brought 
 in by circumcision, in the name of sense, how could he be 
 separated, when in fact he was not joined to the people. 
 
81 
 
 The text quoted to prove, that by' being circumcised the 
 person became a debtor to do the whole law, proves not the 
 point ; for the apostle intended, that if the Galatians, who were 
 gentiles, were to become circumcised, this act of theirs would 
 be a virtual renunciation of Christ, a declaring the Messiah not 
 come ; and that, therefore, the law was still obligatory, inas- 
 much as it was designed to stand until the coming of Christ. — 
 But if a mere circumcision, without respect to motive, laid the 
 party under obligation to keep the whole law ; then, when Paul 
 circumcised Timothy, he by so doing placed him, as this 
 gentleman would have it, under a necessity of obeying the whole 
 law for himself : Oh, cruel Paul ! But does he mean by the 
 whole law, the moral law among the rest ? This cannot be ; for 
 an obligation to that did not depend on being circumcised, but 
 was antecedent to it. Then, of course, the ceremonial law was 
 intended, and the infant became bound to the performance of 
 those ceremonies. But what if I, for argument sake, grant 
 what he asks, that this text applies not merely to the Galatians, 
 and others in similar circumstances with them ; but that Paul 
 really meant that every Jewish infant became, when circumcised, 
 a debtor to do the whole ceremonial law ? You will see presently, 
 that even this concession will be of no use to him. 
 
 The second affirmation I notice is, that in being circumcised 
 the infant Jew ' could not perform the obligation, yet it was his 
 duty ;' and the conclusion drawn is, that the case of an infant as 
 to baptism is the same at present, and the incapacity of the last 
 to believe and repent, no more precluded him from baptism, 
 than the former from that Jewish rite. That they were not in 
 similar circumstances, will immediately appear. The Jewish 
 infant was commanded to be circumcised, and the parent to 
 perform it : but, where is the command for an infant to be 
 baptized ; and where is the parent enjoined to have it done ? 
 The exact period of eight days old was pointed out then : but 
 \v T here have parents any such instructions, with respect to bap- 
 tism ? The duties to be performed by the infant, lay merely 
 in outward things, all of which he could perform by proxy, 
 the duties lying in mere ceremonial obedience, and requiring 
 no gracious dispositions to the right performance of them : but 
 who will pretend to say, that the duties of a member of the 
 church of Christ lie merely in outward things, and require not 
 gracious dispositions to perform them i I have no doubt, but 
 that the custom of parents binding themselves, and of making 
 vows to perform the duties obligatory on those in a church state 
 in behalf of their children, originated in this verv injunction of 
 God on the Jews to circumcise their children, when incapable of 
 doing any thing for thems-ives. But then, for want of knowing 
 how different the duties of the one were from the other, parents 
 
J52 
 
 have ventured forward rashly, to promise for their children 
 what they cannot do for themselves, and what God by no means 
 required of them. How readily could the parent of the Jewish 
 infant present to the Lord the different offerings and sacrifices, 
 which he directed for their child, and also perform for him all 
 the ceremonial purifications enjoined : but is it not exceedingly 
 strange, that men should in the present day, infer it as duty from 
 hence, to represent their children before God r 
 
 From hence it is evident, that not only is the affirmation untrue, 
 that tue Jewish infant, as it related to circumcision, and infants 
 of the present day, are precisely in the same situation : but it 
 w r ill also appear plain, that while all the duties enjoined in the 
 one case, could be performed by the parent of the child ; in the 
 last, it were utterly impossible. This argument, drawn from 
 the incapacity of the Jewish infant, \v T ill not stand : 1. Because 
 if God required duties of the infant, they were not such as 
 needed supernatural md. 2. They were such as another could 
 perform for him. 3> He provided and commanded persons to 
 discharge those duties in its behalf. 4. For their being done, 
 there was a positive command. But in the case of the baptizing 
 of infants, no such command is given. Qualifications are 
 required which they have not : (but which w r as not so in the 
 other case ; for every Jewish infant had the prerequisite) : they 
 are not such as another can perform for them ; neither has God 
 made any provision for the helpless infant in this respect, nor 
 could all the angels in heaven perform for him, what God 
 requires from every subject of gospel baptism. How then could 
 Mr. E declare the two cases similar ? We enquire, how does 
 this argument go, in u opposition to his rule laid down r" Did 
 God require any spiritual qualification in the Jewish infant f 
 Certainly he did not. Does then the proposition, that God 
 demands faith and repentance in order to baptism, and which 
 demand bars infants from partaking of it ; does this demand 
 prove w error" because a Jewish infant was to be circumcised 
 without any such qualifications being required ? Had Mr. E, 
 proved in reality, that both were church ordinances and required 
 like qua&ficaticns, and that faith and repentance were demanded 
 of an adult Jezv, in order to circumcision, as they are demanded 
 in the gospel,' in order to baptism : in that case, he would have 
 been nearer his point. But even then the cases would not be 
 similar, because every male child of Abraham, whether adult 
 or infant, were commanded to be circumcised ; and it is well 
 known, that every adult and infant are no where commanded to 
 be baptized. 
 
 To shew that faith and repentance are not necessary, he 
 advances the baptism of our Lord Jesus Christ ; observing, 
 that " Christ was no sinner," and therefore could not exercise 
 
 
83 
 
 repentance ; that he needed not salvation, therefore could have 
 no faith to act. His conclusions are, that either " the baptism 
 of Christ was wrong," (he not having the pre-requisites) " or 
 else the argument is false." He then contends it cannot be 
 wrong ; but, if not, then it is not an universal rule, that subjects 
 of baptism must have faith and repentance* His last conclusion 
 is, that " it is a rule for some only," and the exception is in 
 favour of infants who cannot believe and repent. 
 
 I am certainly not disposed to doubt of Christ being a fit 
 subject for baptism j nor do I deny that he needed no repentance 
 and faith, in order to salvation. But it is extremdy hazardous 
 to say, that because Christ had no need of faith and repentance, 
 that therefore, none are needed by others in such a case. Is 
 tiot this to dispute the business with Christ himself, who has 
 required them ? Admit, then, that what Mr. E. says is strictly 
 true, that Christ not having faith and repentance, and yet 
 receiving baptism, proves that others may be baptized, who have 
 them not ; where will Mr. E. stop in applying this rule I Will 
 he say, the exception is in favour of infants only ? No ; there 
 he cannot stop, because there are millions without faith and 
 repentance as well as they, even all unconverted persons. But, 
 to avoid the difficulty, will he say, these are wicked, unconverted 
 persons ? Be it so. Would he not, in such a reply, deny the 
 depravity of infants, and make out that they needed no grace ? 
 
 But stop, sir, you are not at liberty to apply it to infants only, 
 others are without faith as well as they ; and if you will take 
 advantage of the Saviour's baptism in this instance, you mus?: 
 go all the length, and make it the privilege of every ungracious 
 person ; for you can furnish no just reason why the exception 
 shouldbe in favour of one, more than another, who is void of faith. 
 Now, sir, take your own rule and apply it: " That which proves 
 what is false, cannot be true ;" but if the baptism of Christ 
 justifies the baptism of a person without faith and repentance > 
 then it equally justifies the baptism of all of that description ; 
 but as this is of necessity false, then the argument drawn from 
 Christ's baptism must needs be false. This argument therefore, 
 if it proves any thing, proves more than you wish it to prove, 
 and must fall of itself. 
 
 But what if I should avail myself of the very objections he 
 mentions, will the consequences follow that he speaks of ? Let 
 us see : 4 If, says he, you should object that Christ's baptism was 
 no rule for us on account of the dignity of his person, still you 
 admit there was an exception against the rule, that fafth and 
 repentance is always necessarv thereunto ;' and then asks, " how 
 many exceptions are there?" This question is readily answered 
 by saying, just as many as there are persons in Christ's situation 
 
84 
 
 .Now if the exceptions to this rule must only operate in favour 
 of persons claiming equal dignity with Christ, and to extend it 
 farther would be ridiculous ; how then will this operate in favour 
 ot infants? Are infants, and unbelievers of every description, 
 equal in dignity with the divine Saviour? and have they, there- 
 tore, a right to plead this exception in their favour ? When a 
 precedent is established which is to operate in courts of judica- 
 ture, and a person pleads the same in his own favour, is it not 
 indispensibly necessary he should make it appear the cases are 
 parallel ones ? Well, then, here is the Lawgiver, that institutes 
 baptism, who himself submits to it ; but he does it without 
 certain forms that are enjoined on others ; as a reason for this 
 departure from form, he assigns the dignity of his station, and 
 the great superiority over any other person in point of worth ; 
 but would it not be preposterous for the subjects to omit the 
 forms in question on the account of his having done so, when 
 they neither possess his station or his worth ? This would, of 
 itself, abundantly shew, that our demand for faith and repen- 
 tance, in order to baptism, is not weakened by the baptism of 
 Christ ; because a case can never again occur, nor can there 
 ever be another exception to this rule, on that very account. 
 
 He asks again, c Do the Baptists say Christ was baptized as 
 an example V this would be worse still for their argument, c and 
 go to prove, that he set an example to justify persons without 
 faith and repentance, being baptized ;' and then he concludes 
 our cause is ruined. There is one thing Mr. E. entirely glided 
 over ; that is, that the want of faith and repentance in Christ, 
 and the want of them in unbelievers of the human race of every 
 description, proceeds from very different causes : The want of 
 faith and repentance in Christ proceeded from his entire inno- 
 ■eence, and the perfection of his nature ; but the want of them 
 ^in others, proceeds from their imperfection and great sinfulness. 
 Now, would any one but Mr. E. assert, that these are parallel 
 cases ? and that because Christ, who was no sinner, -might be 
 baptized without repentance, which in the nature of things he 
 could not have ; that for this very reason, a person confessedly 
 a sinner ought to be baptized without repentance ? This is logic 
 with a witness, that a good man having received certain marks 
 of favour, as the reward of his piety and extraordinary virtue ; 
 this should give to the vilest a just and valid claim to the same 
 thing. 
 
 I should however have thought, that the example of Christ 
 ought rather to operate in favour of believers baptism, than in 
 favour of the baptism of unbelievers ; and that for reasons the 
 very reverse to what Mr. E. assigns. The reasons are, that 
 J*eiievers have received of Christ's Spirit, are conformed to his 
 
85 
 
 image, and bear his likeness ; but unbelievers have not his 
 Spirit, have no such conformity, nor are they like him in any 
 degree. If, therefore, Christ is an example, is he so to the 
 first character, or to the last ? If he is no example at all, then 
 his baptism will not operate in favour of unbelievers, because it 
 is no rule to go by ; if he is an example, it does not favour 
 them, because his case and theirs are not parallel : but if he is 
 no example, the duty of the believer is still the same, because 
 he has a, command ; and if it is such, then the example of Christ 
 stimulates him more, because he bears his likeness. Beside all 
 this, Christ is said to be an example to the godly, 1 Pet. ii. 21. ; 
 but where is it hinted that he is so to unbelievers ? We expect 
 Mr. E.to cavil at the remark, " the want of faith and repentance 
 arises from a fallen, sinful state ;" and that he will say, this 
 reasoning will not apply to infants, for their want of these 
 qualifications arises from natural incapacity* But will Mr. E. 
 pretend to say, they are not depraved, and do not possess the 
 very same principle which produces unbelief and the hard heart, 
 in an adult : and that nothing is wanting to the exercise of both, 
 but the maturity of their powers ? If these he will not say, and 
 I am persuaded he will not ; then he does but admit a twofold 
 incapacity, natural and moral, proves a total unlikeness between 
 them and the great Head of the church, and fully establishes the 
 absurdity of his own reasonings. 
 
 Once more : The reasons for which faith and repentance are 
 required, in order to baptism, will shew the fallacy of applying 
 the case of Christ's baptism to unbelievers of any description 
 whatever. Faith and repentance are required in order to bap-^ 
 tism, not because of any thing in themselves, but as they 
 evidence a change of heart, and thereby prove the soul to be 
 born in the image of Christ. The profession of faith and 
 repentance, therefore, with other graces of the Spirit, are but 
 the index of the mind, and shew, as we charitably hope, what 
 exists there. A want of these, proves the soul to be still in an 
 unrenewed state : but as the members of Christ's spiritual 
 kingdom are to be regenerated persons, and must be like their 
 divine Master, these are required ; therefore, these are asked 
 for, to prove such an union with, and likeness to, Christ. Now, 
 how does Christ's example affect us in the argument, and how 
 can it help the cause of unbelievers ? Christ was baptized for 
 this, among other reasons, that he was a holy person, though 
 he needed not faith and repentance to make that apparent : but 
 others are to bfl^aptized in token of their being regenerated and 
 holy persons ; and this they can make manifest in no other way, 
 than by their faith and repentance. , Now, the argument will 
 stand thus ; Christ was holy, and therefore was baptized, and 
 
 31 
 
£6 
 
 ♦his was done without repentance, because he needed not repent 
 ance to make his holiness known. Believers also are to be 
 baptized, because they resemble their Master in holiness ; but 
 this they cannot manifest otherwise than by the qualifications 
 before mentioned. Apply this to unbelievers, and then it will 
 stand thus : Christ was holy and needed not repentance to 
 evidence it, yet he was baptized as a token of his purity; there- 
 fore persons without faith are to be baptized, although it is 
 conceded, that only faith and repentance can prove a person to 
 be regenerated, and without which they are not so #. I now 
 ask, to which character the example of Christ best suits, and 
 whether it is not altogether in favour of the baptism of believers, 
 and entirely against that of the contrary character ? 
 
 His third argument is on the salvation of infants, in which he 
 says, " That infants maybe the subjects of salvation is universally 
 admitted ; that those who die in infancy, are actually glorified, 
 is also granted : and yet there is something said concerning 
 salvation, which will by no means agree to infants. " He that 
 believeth shall be saved ; he that believeth not shall be damned." 
 The use he makes of this is, " If infants must not be baptized, 
 because something is said of baptism, which does not agree to 
 infants ; then, by the same rule, infants must not be saved, 
 because something is said of salvation, which does not agree to 
 infants." 
 
 These cases are not similar, because there is something said 
 in the text to shew, that it was not designed for infants. And 
 the salvation of infants is not to be gathered by implication only, 
 as infant baptism must be, if it is ever established ; but is 
 expressed in unequivocal terms, " Suffer the little children to 
 •come unto me, and forbid them not ; for of such is the kingdom 
 of heaven," Mark x. 14. And, " their angels do alway behold 
 the face of my Father which is in heaven." The fact, therefore, 
 is this, that when it is said, " He that believeth shall be saved, 
 and he that believeth not shall be damned," we do understand 
 the text as not having any respect unto infants who cannot 
 believe ; not because it is admitted bv general consent that they 
 will be saved ; but because the scriptures declare, that such 
 dying in infancy are saved. But how stands the case with infant 
 baptism ? The text says faith and repentance are required, in 
 order to baptism ; and it is admitted, faith and repentance they 
 have not : but then there is no where an exception in their 
 
 * It may be thought strange, that I should say baptism was to signify the 
 holiness of the candidate : but let it be remembered that it has ever been 
 considered as an emblem of regeneration. See such texts. 1 Peter iii. 21. 
 Acts xxii, 26. Rom. vi. 3, 4, 
 
sr 
 
 favour- as it respects baptism, freeing them from the obligation 
 to believe and repent ; or in other words, permitting them to be 
 baptized without such qualifications. 
 
 Now the argument stands thus : Faith is required in order 
 to salvation ; but infants dying in infancy are not included in 
 this rule, because they are said to be in heaven, even though 
 they cannot believe. As to baptism, it would stand thus : Faith 
 and repentance are required in order to baptism ; but infants 
 must be affected by this rule, because there is no passage in the 
 word that says they may be baptized without them. Then the 
 conclusion that follows is : Though we are bound to believe, on 
 the express warrant of the word, that infants will be saved 
 who die in infancy, though incapable of the exercise of faith > 
 yet we are not„boundto believe that infants ought to be baptized 
 who have not faith ; because, in the first instance, we have the 
 authority of the word, but in the last case we have it not ; and 
 there has been no relaxation of the precept in their favour. This 
 one remark therefore, is sufficient to evince the total dissimilarity 
 of the two cases in question ; and that there is no such thing as 
 arguing from one to the other, without the greatest absurdity, 
 and giving evidence of a very incautious or dishonest mind. 
 
 I must contend therefore, that the maxim is not to be contro- 
 verted, that where God declares in his word any general rule 
 of duty- , this rule must affect every of the parties, unless there 
 is some particular exception in favour of some. It is so in the 
 civil laws, that all are implied, unless there is some clause of 
 exception, or provision otherwise made. Baptism is a rule ; 
 the persons to perform it are described as " believers ;" those 
 not to do it, are described by a being destitute of faith. These 
 two characters embrace all the human family. No exception is 
 any where made in favour of infants, and therefore the prohibit 
 tory rule applying to them, they cannot be baptized. Apply the 
 rule to the other case. The general rule is, " he that believeth 
 shall be saved ; he that believeth not shall be damned." This 
 rule embraces all the human family, as the other does, pointing 
 out who shall, and who shall not, be saved. Infants have not 
 faith, neither can they exercise it : but infants are not included 
 in this rule, who die in infancy, because there is an exception in 
 in their favour mentioning them by name. Now, is it good reason- 
 ing to say, that because there is one rule for the human family 
 from which infants are excepted, and that exception mentioned 
 explicitly ; that they are not bound by other rules, given to the 
 whole human family, wherein there is no such exception in their 
 favour found ? Surely, such reasoning must appear ridiculous 
 to even' reflecting mind ; yet such are the reasonings of Mr. 
 E, on this case. The conclusion is therefore contrary to what 
 
83 
 
 Ire says'. There is something said of salvation in the Bible 
 (" he that believeth," &c.) which does not affect the salvation 
 of infants ; but there is something said in the Bible of baptism 
 \\ hich does affect, and entirely preclude the baptism of infants. 
 
 This argument is defective in other points of view, but of 
 Lss moment ; and chiefly because it is designed to prove the 
 right of infants to baptism, from the possibility of their salvation. 
 It is defective, because it would go farther than Pcedobaptists 
 intend ; for it is their professed belief, that the infants of 
 believers only are to be baptized ; because, they say, such have 
 an interest in the covenant, in common with their believing 
 parents : but these gentlemen admit that the infants of the heathen 
 that decease, as well as of believers, do go to heaven. If then, 
 infants have a right to baptism, because they may be saved, this 
 argument proves too much for them, and they must give up 
 Abraham's covenant entirely, and baptize every infant. It is 
 delusive ; for if baptism is to be administered to those who are 
 to be saved, and that because they will be saved, which is indeed 
 the ground our Opponents take, (for of what significance is it 
 for them to say, deceased infants will be saved, and therefore 
 you have no right to withold baptism from them, if they do 
 not make their salvation an argument for their baptism) ; then 
 it is deceitful, because it is the occasion of introducing more to 
 the ordinance than ought to come : and it is well known, that 
 though all infants dying in infancy are saved ; yet all infants do 
 not die in infancy, but some grow up to man's estate, lead wicked 
 lives, die miserable ; and yet these, under the colour of infant 
 salvation, must be baptized likewise. 
 
 This argument is likewise erroneous, because, if a person who 
 will be saved has a right to every institution on that account, 
 yea, and if it is his duty to submit to it ; then it would follow, 
 that all the infants of gentiles were bound to receive circumcision 
 because they might be saved, yea, and it would have been the 
 duty of Lot to be circumcised, for he was a good man ; and the 
 same doctrine would make it the duty of infants to partake of 
 the supper. 
 
 Mr. E. next introduces the text in Mark xvi. 16. " He that 
 believeth and is baptized shall be saved ; but he that believeth 
 not shall be damned." And in order to shew that this text, as 
 explained by. us would either make against the salvation of 
 infants, or the salvation of believers not baptized ; he for this 
 purpose introduces the strictures of Dr. Walker on this passage. 
 His words are : " If none must be baptized but he that believes, 
 because believing is set first ; then none must be saved but he 
 that is baptized, because baptizing is set first. And then, what, 
 better argument can be made for infant baptism \ They must be 
 

 89 
 
 baptized if we will have them saved ; because they cannot be 
 saved without being baptized ; for baptism goes before saving. 
 And yet from the same text, and by the same way of arguing, 
 it maybe proved, that no infants are saved but those that believe; 
 because believing is set before saving : and not only so, but 
 whereas it is not said, he that believeth not shall not be baptized j 
 it is said, he that believeth not shall be damned." 
 
 For the clearing up of the seeming difficulty in this way of 
 treating the text, nothing more is needful than to say, that 
 infants have nothing to do with it. This was a direction to the 
 disciples, as to their preaching, " Go preach the gospel to every 
 creature :" the rest of the instruction goes to show how they 
 should preach to them to whom they came, the sum of which 
 was, a He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved ; and he 
 that believeth not shall be damned" Now, this was to be the 
 substance of their ministry. But how does this affect the case 
 of infants ? The apostles were not sent to preach to them. The 
 error, therefore, lies in applying this text to infants, (who are not 
 subjects of a gospel ministry, who can neither understand or 
 practice it, and are therefore not accountable for not submitting 
 to it, as others would be that hear it, or to whom it was sent) ; 
 instead of applying it to persons capable of hearing and refusing 
 it. But, to make it take in the infant race, it ought to be, Go 
 and preach the gospel to every creature, to infants, as well as 
 mature persons : but the very mention made of believing, at once 
 shews who were intended, and that they were persons capable 
 of receiving or resisting a gospel ministry. 
 
 Then the plain literal meaning of the text is, that the apostle6 
 should go and preach to every creature ; that is, not confine 
 their ministry to the Jew in particular, or to any one nation in 
 preference to another, that whosoever among them to whom 
 they preached, (that is, persons capable of reflecting and profes- 
 sing of their faith, which is supposed by hearing) believed or 
 gave evidence of having a divine faith, they should baptize, and 
 to them that thus believed, they were to give assurance of 
 salvation for their comfort: but to those that heard, and rejected 
 their ministry, or were unawakened by it, they were to assure 
 them they would be damned. 
 
 Now let us see how this unravels the Doctor's theses. — His 
 first is, \ If none must be baptized but he that believes, then 
 none must be saved but those that are baptized, because baptizing 
 comes before saving.' All this is but a mere quibble on the 
 order in which they lie ; that because we say believing must 
 come before baptizing, we must needs make none saved but 
 those baptized. But it is easy to see, that though the words, on 
 repeating, still insist on faith before salvation, yet they do not 
 
90 
 
 insist on baptism before salvation. If, for instance, it had been 
 said, 4 He that believeth not, and he that is not baptized, shall 
 be damned ;' then, by insisting on the order of the text, we 
 would have made baptism necessary to salvation. But as in the 
 repeating of the words, the word " baptized" is not mentioned in 
 the text, how shall we, by maintaining the order, insist on 
 baptism as necessary to salvation ? There is, indeed, an uncom- 
 mon beauty in the words as they stand, and they shew us how 
 exceedingly guarded the divine lawgiver was, that while he 
 enforced his ordinances by his authority, and thereby shewed, 
 that where divine faith was wrought through the instrumentality 
 of the zvord preached, it would always manifest its genuine 
 nature by obedience to his laws, one of which is baptism ; yet, 
 well knowing that certain cases would occur, where a believer 
 could not obtain the administration of that ordinance, he very 
 carefully and with much tenderness, in the repeating of the 
 words only insisted on faith unto salvation ; though, in common 
 cases he insisted on baptism, when it might be had, as an. 
 evidence among others, of their faith being genuine. If, on the 
 one hand, he had left out the word believeth, then the doctrine 
 of universal salvation would have been established ; if he had 
 left out baptism in the first part of the text, it would be mani- 
 festing a want of regard to his own laws : but, to cut off the 
 vain hope of man on the one side, and to secure obedience to 
 his laws on the other, and yet not throw into despair persons 
 who would yield obedience, but had it not in their power ; he 
 to accomplish this, demands a compliance with ordinances, as 
 an evidence of their faith, and of the other only demands divine 
 faith (not baptism) in order to salvation*. 
 
 Nor does his second conclusion follow, " That then infants 
 must be baptized, if we would have them saved." This conclu- 
 sion must be false, if the first is ; because, if baptism is not 
 insisted on in the words as they lie, in order to the salvation of 
 any one, how then can they insist on it in order to the salvation 
 of an infant? The conclusion, therefore, is manifestly incorrect ; 
 for they do not say, that either an adult or an infant for want of 
 baptism shall be damned. 
 
 His third conclusion from the text is, that faith being required 
 before baptism, and also as necessary to salvation, would prove 
 that no infants were saved, and that because they cannot believe. 
 His words are, " And yet from the same text, and by the same 
 
 * I have seen a lady, who had discovered her duty to be immersed seven 
 years before she could see a minister that would administer the ordinance to 
 her. Such was her exercise at one time, when she came to the water, she 
 was almost induced to descend into it, and immerse herself in the names of 
 the three divine persons. 
 
91 
 
 way of arguing, it may be proved that no infants are saved, but 
 those that believe ; because believing is set before saving." What 
 is here said cannot be proved from this text, and that for the 
 very reason first assigned ; which is, that infants were not the 
 subjects of a gospel ministry, neither were the apostles sent to 
 preach to them at all. When the apostles were commissioned 
 m this text to go and preach, it was not to infants ; for they 
 were not capable of understanding it, and the preaching to such 
 would have been ridiculous. Therefore, what is said about faith 
 and baptism afterwards, has nothing to do with infants, but with 
 those only to whom they were commissioned to preach ; such 
 as could hear and understand the gospel. 
 
 The Doctor's last conclusion from the text is, that it does not 
 prohibit the unbeliever from being baptized ; because, in the 
 repeating of it, it says the unbeliever shall be damned, but does 
 not say he shall not receive baptism : hence he wishes to make 
 this text prove, that faith and repentance are not prerequisites 
 to baptism. His words are, " And not only so, but whereas it 
 is not said, he that believeth not shall not be baptized ; it is said, 
 he that believeth not shall be damned." If this doctor's remarks 
 were just, and the text did not prohibit the baptism of unbe- 
 lievers, yet there are others that do ; for Philip required faith 
 of the eunuch, before he would baptize him, Acts vii. 37. and 
 John the Baptist refused some of the pharisees, who desired 
 to be baptized by him, and that because they had not true 
 repentance, Matth. iii. 
 
 We must however be excused, if we should enter our dissent 
 from his exposition of the text. It is true, in the repeating of 
 the text, nothing is said about the unbeliever as to baptism ; but 
 in the former part of the text, such a prohibition clearly exists. 
 The words are, Mark xvi. 16. " He that believeth and is 
 baptized, shall be saved ;" and the commission to teach first 
 before they are baptized, is to the same effect. It is granted, 
 the prohibition is not in so many words, ' The unbeliever shall 
 not be baptized ;' but the very command to teach them first; 
 evidences they were not to receive baptism while in their 
 untaught state ; and then baptizing, mentioned afterward as 
 coming after believing, and not before it, puts the matter beyond 
 the injurious influence of such quibbling. In order to make 
 this text speak what the gentlemen wish it should, the order of 
 the words ought to be inverted, thus : 4 Go preach the gospel 
 to every creature, he that is baptized, and afterward belie ves^ 
 shall be saved ; but he that believeth not shall be damned.' This 
 however needs no comment. 
 
 Before I dismiss this part it will be proper to shew, that Mr, 
 E., in placing this text as he has, in cutting it in parts, to treat 
 
92 
 
 it as he says, logically, has made it all in our favour, and the 
 conclusions he draws are entirely false. He having given the 
 views of Dr. Walker on Mark xvi. 16. rather thought the 
 learned doctor did not manage the text quite as well as he could 
 himself ; and therefore, to exhibit a specimen of his talent at 
 handling the word of God deceitfully, instead of taking it 
 together, as he ought to have done, chops it up into mince-meat, 
 with a view of perplexing his readers. You shall have his own 
 words : " The Baptists reason on a part of the text only, and 
 the Doctor reasoned on the whole. And to shew how miserably 
 fallacious the reasoning of the Baptists is," (he ought rather to 
 have said his own), " I will lay down a plan of their logic on 
 this text, which will produce more conclusions than there are 
 principal words in that part of the verse. Now as the Baptists 
 reason," (says he) " from the order of the words, I will mark 
 
 1 2 3 
 
 them with figures — believeth — baptized — saved. 
 
 " The logic is as follows : Take the first and second — believ- 
 eth — baptized — and say with the Baptists— 
 
 1. None are to be baptized but such as believe, because 
 believing must be before baptizing," and then it will be— • 
 
 1 2 
 
 " believeth— baptized. — This," says he, u will conclude against 
 infant baptism." — This conclusion is a just one. 
 
 " Next, take the first and third — believed — saved— and say 
 in the same way : 
 
 2. None are to be saved, but such as believe, because believing 
 
 1 3 
 
 must be before saving. — Believeth — saved. — This concludes 
 against infant salvation." 
 
 This last conclusion is false ; for as I proved, in answering 
 Doctor Walker's statement, of which this is a mere recapitula- 
 tion, the text has nothing to do with infants, but only with 
 such as should hear the apostles preaching, and thereupon 
 receive or reject it : the first were to be baptized as an evidence 
 of their faith in Christ, and title to promised salvation ; the last 
 were not to be baptized, but damnation was denounced against 
 them. Hence, infants had nothing to do with all this, because, 
 when Christ bid them go and preach the gospel to every crea- 
 ture, he did not include infants ; for they could neither receive 
 nor reject it, and therefore were not to be comforted by its 
 promises, nor yet included in its threatenings : but all this was 
 true of those to whom they were sent to preach. If Mr. E. will 
 have this applied to infants then, he makes infants as responsible 
 for a neglect of the gospel as adults ; and fixes the cruel charge 
 on God, that he makes no allowance for the natural incapacity 
 
93 
 
 of infants to believe, though that incapacity is from himselfi 
 Thus the falsity of this conclusion is expressed. 
 
 His third is thus : says he, " Now take the second and third 
 -—baptized — saved — and argue in the same manner : 
 
 3. None are to be saved, but such as are baptized, because 
 
 2 3 
 
 baptizing must go before saving. Baptized — saved* 
 
 w This will," says he, " conclude on the side of infant baptism, 
 they must be baptized, or they cannot be saved." 
 
 This conclusion must be false, for the same reasons that 
 were last mentioned. For if infants have nothing to do with, 
 this text, which was before proved, then the baptism mentioned 
 here can have nothing to do with them, whatever it may have 
 to do with others intended in it. See my answer to this part of 
 Mr. E.'s logic, as he terms it, in my observations on Doctor 
 Walkers theses, in a preceding page. 
 
 " Lastly," says he, " take all three— ^believeth — baptized — 
 saved — and say ; 
 
 " 4. None are to be saved but such as believe and are bap- 
 tized, because believing and baptizing must be before saving. — 
 
 1 2 3 
 
 Believeth — baptized- — saved." — He adds, " This concludes 
 against the salvation of believers in Jesus Christ, if they have 
 not been baptized. And so upon the principles of the Baptists, 
 it concludes against the salvation of all the Pcedobaptists. 
 
 This conclusion is false likewise, and that because in the text 
 as repeated, it is not said, And he that is not baptized shall be 
 damned, but he that believeth not ; the word c baptize' being 
 wholly left out ; so that while in the last part believing is 
 repeated, and required in order to eternal life, the word baptize 
 is wholly omitted, and baptism is not required in order to 
 salvation. The art of Mr. E. here consisted in keeping out 
 of sight, all the latter part of the text entirely ; and by thus 
 suppressing it, and taking away from God's book, he wished to 
 establish his false conclusion. How impudent must the man 
 be to say, as he did in the beginning of these remarks of his, 
 that the Baptists only reasoned on half of this text, but he and 
 Doctor Walker would reason on the whole of it ; when afterward 
 he keeps the latter part of the text entirely back, and never says 
 any thing but on the former part. 
 
 Reader, are not these words in the text, " And he that 
 believeth not shall be damned r" Do you not see, that the word 
 baptize is not in this latter part, and that it does not say, he that 
 is not baptized shall be damned ? Do you imagine that it war, 
 an oversight in Mr. E., and that he did not notice this variation 
 of words in repeating of the text ? Or if this vou cownot believe 
 
 N 
 
(and indeed you cannot), what motives think you, could have 
 induced him thus to triiie with the word of God? 
 
 Having failed in the three first arguments, which were adduced 
 to prove, that the requisition of faith and repentance in order to 
 baptism did not apply to infants, Mr. E. now produces his fourth 
 and last ; which is, that there are some general directions given 
 in God's word, as to duty, which cannot include infants, but 
 must be confined to adults only, though adults are not distin- 
 guished from infants in those texts. From which he infers, 
 that infants may not be intended in those directions given about 
 baptism, and that faith and repentance, when required, ought to 
 be understood of adults only, though not expressed. The subject 
 chosen for his fourth argument is, that of the temporal subsist- 
 ence of infants. He affirms, that in some passages, if infants are 
 included, then God has left them to starvation, yea, made it their 
 duty to starve. His argument is, " On the temporal subsistence 
 of infants. As the reader may perceive the drift of reasoning, 
 on these instances, I will use but few words on the present one. 
 Now that infants should be supported, not only scripture, but 
 nature itself teaches. And yet if we form the Baptist argument 
 on a few places of scripture, it may be proved, in opposition to 
 nature and scripture both, that infants should actually be left to 
 starve." The texts adduced are, Isaiah i. 19. u If ye be willing 
 and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land ;" and 2 Thes, 
 iii. 10. " If any would not work, neither should he eat." 
 
 The reasonings from these texts fail, from two considerations* 
 The first of which is, that divine revelation is not addressed to 
 infants at all, nor do any of its commands include them, unless 
 express mention is made of them by name, or unless a whole 
 nation or the world at large are addressed ; in which case, they 
 are necessarily included. Whenever there are duties to be 
 performed, of which infants are the subjects, they are expressed ; 
 and then, the command is not addressed to the infant himself, 
 but to others concerning him. Thus, when the infant was to be 
 circumcised, the command was given to the parent or guardian,, 
 but never to the infant. Apply this reasoning, it will stand 
 thus : Where any thing is enjoined in the word of God as a 
 dutv, and infants are not expressed in that injunction, nor no 
 mention made of it in any other place of scripture as being their 
 dutv, nor any direction given how it is to be done for them ; 
 then it is clear, that the precept has no reference to them what- 
 ever, but only to such as are immediately addressed. 
 
 But who ever thought of applying the text in 2 Thes. iii. 10. 
 to infants ? If they were church members, then it did apply 
 to them, and in that case would carry all the consequences with 
 rt Mr. E, so much depi vcates j for this charge was to the whole 
 
95- ^ 
 
 church, and not to a part of them only. But if they were not 
 church members, then the direction only respected such as were ; 
 and, in that case, infants were left out. So that in fact, it is 
 only Mr. E.'s doctrine of infant church membership, which 
 makes that text carry the consequences in it he talks of. If 
 church members are only such as are united in a profession of 
 faith, then the prohibition going to discourage an indolent life 
 in professors was a seasonable one, and had nothing to do with 
 infants at all, they never having made any such profession ; and 
 they, not being members of the church of Thessalonica, were 
 never contemplated* 
 
 But such instructions concerning the temporal subsistence of 
 infants will not apply in this case, and do wholly stand on 
 different ground from that of infant baptism ; which will thus 
 appear. In the texts Mr. E. has quoted, it is true, there is no 
 mention made that infants are not intended, although evidently 
 implied ; yet, in order to make this an argument in favour of 
 infant baptism, it ought to be proved that there is no precept 
 for infant subsistence in other texts ; for infant baptism and that 
 will not be parallel cases, unless no more is said about one 
 than the other. It is manifest, that the use Mr. E. intends to 
 make of these quotations is this : That because there are texts 
 containing directions concerning temporal subsistence, in which 
 directions if infants are included, they would go to depriving 
 them of food ; and as God could never authorize their starvation, 
 they could not be intended in such places, though not expressly 
 excepted. He would infer, for like reasons, that where direc- 
 tions are given about faith and repentance in order to baptism, 
 so neither can infants be intended in such text. But what ruins 
 this conclusion is, that God has enjoined it as a duty on parents 
 to take care of infants ; while there are no directions given for 
 the baptizing of infants any where. Mr. E. says, in the texts 
 he quoted, there is no provision made to subsist them. True : 
 but are there no directions given in other texts on that head ?— — 
 So again, he admits there is no command to baptize infants, in 
 those texts that demand faith and repentance. True, again j 
 and is there any such command in any other text ? Certainly 
 not. Now, though passages requiring faith and repentance of 
 persons in order to baptism, do virtually exclude the baptizing 
 of infants, because they have them not ; yet if there were other 
 texts commanding their baptism, as there are those commanding 
 the subsistence of infants, we should then admit infants were 
 not intended in such texts as require faith and repentance, as 
 well as in those texts that say, 4 he that will not work shall aoi 
 •eat.' To set this forth clearly, let the following queries be 
 considered. 
 
96 
 
 P. E. Those texts Baptists bring to prove none ought to he 
 baptized but such as believe and repent, are not in point, and do 
 not affect the case of infants. 
 
 B. They certainly do exclude them, for they cannot believe 
 and repent. 
 
 P. E. But these texts only respect adults, and it is right they 
 should believe and repent before they are baptized ; but infants 
 are not intended, and they may be baptized without either. 
 
 B. But what reason have you to believe that infants are not 
 intended I 
 
 P. E. Because it is said, in 2 Thes. iii. 10. " If any would 
 not work, neither should he eat." Now, infants cannot work, 
 and if this text means every person, without exception ; then, 
 as infants cannot work, they must starve : but I am in duty 
 bound to infer this text did not mean infants ; and, for like 
 reasons, I am bound to believe, when faith and repentance are 
 required, it is of adults, and not of infants. 
 
 B. But why do you think these are parallel cases ? 
 
 P. E. Because if the command to believe and repent, excludes 
 infants from baptism on account of their incapacity ; in like 
 manner, infants must be left to starve, because it is said, u If 
 any man will not work, he shall not eat. n 
 
 B. These two cases are not parallel. 
 
 P. E. Shew me wherein. 
 
 B. When faith and repentance are required of persons for 
 baptism, and those who had them not were refused, we must 
 apply those prohibitions to infants ; because there is no where 
 any other text that authorizes their baptism. And although the 
 text you quote would seem to make against the subsistence of 
 infants, we know that infants were not implied in this command ; 
 yet not on account of a supposed absurdity of it, which is the 
 ground of your opinion ; but, because there are other passages, 
 which enjoin that provision be made for them. 
 
 P. E. Where do you find provision made for infant subsist- 
 ence, that authorises you to make the exception in their favour 
 in this case. 
 
 B. In this text, 1 Tim. v. 8. u But if any provide not for his 
 own, and especially for those of his own house, he hath denied 
 the faith, and is worse than an infidel." Now, if you can only 
 produce one text that warrants infant baptism, as plainly as this 
 does infant subsistence, then we will be bound to admit, that 
 where faith and repentance are required, infants are not affected 
 by the requisition. 
 
 I would now ask the reader, if the reasonings of Mr. E. art 
 BQt entirely inapplicable in the present case £ 
 
9? 
 
 Mr. E. seems to feel the weight of the Baptist argument, 
 u that faith and repentance were required of all persons that 
 ever were baptized by the apostles ;" and he labours more to 
 overthrow this than any other. He says, (p. 26.) it is false, 
 because against the truth. Thus : " Is it a truth that infants 
 should subsist ? This argument proves against it." How so, 
 sir ; how does the requiring express authority for infant baptism 
 prove that infants ought to starve ? Have I not produced you 
 express proof, that " he that provides not for his own house is 
 worse than an infidel ?" And can you say, you have any proof 
 like this for infant baptism ? Do, sir, give us one solitary text. 
 You ask, u Is it a truth that infants may be saved i" and assert, 
 that the Baptist " argument will prove the contrary." How does 
 this follow, sir ? Have we ever denied that infants will be saved ? 
 And because we demand express proof for baptism, does it 
 follow on our principles that infants will be lost ? Be not uneasy, 
 sir, we think they may be saved without baptism, and we are 
 sure baptism would never bring them to heaven without the 
 blood of Christ. But your uneasiness seems to arise from that 
 text, Mark xvi. 16. where you imagine believing and baptizing 
 are connected, and both made necessary to salvation ; so that 
 you think it cruel in us to deny baptism to infants, seeing, as 
 you suppose, they must be damned without it. But sir, this 
 text need not give you pain ; for it does not say, he that is not 
 baptized, but he that believeth ?iot y shall be damned. How, 
 therefore, does our requiring express warrant for baptism affect 
 the salvation of infants ? 
 
 But Mr, E. asks, " was Christ rightly baptized ?" and 
 declares, ' this cannot be if faith and repentance are required, 
 for he had neither.' But had he not that holiness, of which 
 faith and repentance in his people is the evidence they also 
 possess, and are therefore qualified to receive baptism to signify 
 their fellowship with him ? And was faith and repentance ever 
 demanded with any other view, than to shew the candidate is 
 made partaker of the divine nature ? 2 Pet. i. 4. And if that 
 purity in Christ as Head of the church, entitled him to baptism, 
 and faith and repentance are required of his people in order to 
 signify this their union with him, and their baptism (which 
 always is the figure of holiness) was designed to evidence that 
 they were conformed to the image of Christ ; does it follow, that 
 his baptism will justify persons being baptized who are destitute 
 of such a principle of holiness, and who have neither faith nor 
 repentance to evidence a renovation of heart ? I am confident, 
 that if Christ's baptism is not an example to believers, much less 
 can it be to unbelievers : but in making his baptism a reason for 
 the baptizing of infants without faith, Mr. E. makes it an equal 
 
98 
 
 example to justify the baptism of adults without faith. Certainly, 
 the baptism of believers will justify Christ's baptism ; for if his 
 baptism was the emblem of his perfect purity, they being like 
 him in their new nature, have a right to burial with their common 
 Head, as evidence of their death to sin ; but if their baptism 
 does not justify Christ's, it is hard to see how an infant pos- 
 sessing a depraved nature, can by baptism justify his. 
 
 But, Mr. E. asks, " Were infants subjects of circumcision ? 
 the Baptist argument proves they were not." Not so, sir, the 
 Baptist argument goes to prove, that where an express command 
 is given to any person, whether it concerns adult or infant, they 
 ought to comply ; but iiow does this militate against the circum* 
 cision of infants ? You know as well as I do, that there was such 
 an express command that Jewish infants should be circumcised, 
 though you cannot furnish any thing like it for infant baptism : 
 but is not this acting deceitfully, to associate the two together, 
 when their circumstances did so widely differ ? But you still 
 insist the Jewish infant could not believe and repent, no more 
 than ours can ; and if infants must not be baptized without faith, 
 so neither could they be circumcised, on such principles. Yes, 
 sir, but you are in too much haste ; for faith and repentance 
 were never required of a Jewish adult in order to circumcision, 
 therefore, of course, it was not required of an infant : but you 
 do not pretend to dispute that faith has been required in order 
 to baptism. If so, what strange logic is this? Of a Jew, faith 
 and repentance were never required in order to circumcision, 
 whether he were an adult or an infant ; and therefore, if the 
 Baptists require faith and repentance as qualifiations for baptism, 
 in doing this, they deny a Jewish infant a right to circumcision, 
 for want of faith. So then, demanding faith where it is required, 
 is, it seems, a denying the right of an ordinance, where no such 
 demands were ever made. 
 
 It remains for Mr. E's readers to put his premises and 
 conclusions together as w T ell as they can, but it will be utterly 
 out of their power to reconcile such contradictions ; and we 
 have only to add, that when he says the requisition of faith and 
 repentance does in the case of baptism, establish falsehood, we 
 set him at defiance to prove it. 
 
 Mr. E. now declares, that he will point out wherein the 
 fallacy of the Baptist argument consists, which is, that in requir- 
 ing faith and repentance in order to baptism, we bring more 
 into the conclusion, than was in the premises. In page 26, he 
 says, " But to make it yet more evident what that fault is, of 
 which it is guilty, I will take the liberty of saying a few words 
 more. That particular rule, against which this argument offends, 
 is this : there should not be more in the conclusion than was in 
 
99 
 
 die premises.*' He then produces his proof that we thus do, 
 which we shall now examine. He says when we produce such 
 scriptures, u repent and be baptized," and, u if thou believest 
 thou mayest," that then our address is really in scripture mean- 
 ing to adults ; but we offend against the above mentioned rule, 
 by bringing infants into the conclusion. — For this however, you 
 have only Mr. E.'s word that adults cnly are intended. We 
 have looked for some text of scripture from him to prove that 
 two administrations of this ordinance, and two kind of subjects 
 did exist ; but where have we been answered in this ? 
 
 To justify such a statement as he gives, there are but two 
 kinds of evidence that would have been in point, and those are, 
 either the practice of the apostles, or some declaration of theirs 
 on the subject; neither of which has he pretended to, and which 
 I mav, with confidence say, he cannot furnish. The proofs of 
 his correctness would be these : Had one instance been recorded 
 any where of John, Christ, or the apostles, having baptized the 
 infant offspring of any person whatever : or had there been one 
 single word in the New Testament declarative of this, that when 
 such prohibitory language was used, infants were not included, 
 but that it respected persons grown up to maturity only ; in that 
 case, Mr. E.'* classification of infants and adults would have 
 been just, and his inference a natural one. 
 
 If he has attempted to furnish proof of this, it is not by 
 referring you to either of the above, but to the circumcising of 
 Jewish infants — the baptism of Christ — the salvation or misery 
 of infants — infant subsistence, from which he has laboured to 
 prove, by much sophistry, that if the requisition of faith and 
 repentance is not confined to adults, the circumcising of Jewish 
 infants was wrong — that Christ was not rightly baptized — that 
 infants must be damned — that infants must be left to starve. 
 Now in all this he has failed, as you see by my refutation of his 
 assertions ; and having failed in these, the whole of the evidence 
 that he could bring in support of the sentiment that faith and 
 repentance was only required of adults, is gone. I have, indeed, 
 proved, that all his reasonings on the four points here referred 
 to, had no bearing whatever on the question, and that not one 
 of the difficulties would follow, which he insisted would be the 
 result thereof. 
 
 But that infants were indeed included in the prohibition, will 
 appear thus : Baptism was never intended to be a mean of grace, 
 but a sign of fellowship with Christ in his death, burial, resur- 
 rection ; and of course could only be administered to such as in 
 reality enjoyed that fellowship. Now, as it is only by faith and 
 repentance, and other christian graces, such an union with him 
 can be proved ; ^lerefore infants were not suitable subjects, 
 
100 
 
 forasmuch as they were not able to give any evidence of such 
 an union. Baptism was also designed to set forth the withdraw- 
 ment of the person from the world, his solemn renunciation of 
 it, and that he was a servant of Christ ; therefore of course 
 infants could not be the subjects of it, because, by faith and 
 .repentance only can a person make it appear that he has re- 
 nounced the world — that he is a servant of" Christ. 
 
 Baptism was designed to set forth that the subject is born 
 again, and intends to walk in newness of life : but an infant 
 cannot make it so appear; and even if they are actually renewed 
 by the Spirit, the possibility of which we do not doubt, yet 
 they are not able to furnish the evidence of such a change, and 
 therefore are necessarily included in the prohibition. Besides, 
 our opponents do not pretend to say all infants are renewed, but 
 only such of them as die in infancy ; and as we cannot tell which 
 of them will die in infancy, or which of them are regenerated, 
 it plainly follows, that incapacity to give the requisite informa- 
 tion must include them in the prohibition. But if infants are 
 to be baptized generally, and baptism is a sign of death to sin, 
 and union with Christ, then (as Mr. E. modestly affirms in 
 another place) their baptism would be a sign of a lie in thousands 
 of instances ; for these young baptized disciples do afterwards 
 prove that Christ has had no fellowship with them. Our oppo- 
 nents do as did Herod, who, to make sure of Christ's death, 
 ordered all the babes in Bethlehem to be slain : so they, to make 
 sure of baptizing little infant believers, hesitate not to baptize 
 all who come within their reach. 
 
 Again, the church of Christ is so constructed, that the duties 
 it enjoins, and the privileges it affords, are entirely out of the 
 reach of infants, so that they neither can perform the one, nor 
 yet enjoy the other ; therefore, baptism being a prerequisite to 
 church fellowship, it follows that infants are included in the 
 prohibition, when faith and repentance are required of the 
 subjects of gospel baptism. Now what has Mr. E. offered to 
 overthrow all these ? Has he offered any scripture evidence to 
 shew that adults only were intended in the prohibition ? and if 
 not, is his word sufficient to outweigh all this evidence, deduced 
 immediately from the scriptures ? 
 
 How then has he made it appear that adults only were in the 
 premises, and that we have brought infants in the conclusion, 
 and therefore have offended against the rule he mentions? The 
 premises are, " If thou believest thou mayest — Repent and be 
 baptized." There is as evidently as the sun shines this emplied, 
 that without faith, without repentance, the party would not be 
 accepted. Is it not evident, therefore, that such as have not 
 faith and repentance are in the conclusion \ Our opponents 
 
101 
 
 admit that infants do labour under a natural incapacity to believe, 
 and others of them under a moral, as well as a natural one ; and 
 if so, how could Mr. E. have the effrontery to say we place 
 more in the conclusion than was in the premises ? And how 
 could he affirm, that we offend against the rule above mentioned ; 
 yea, rather, is it not manifest that we strictly conform to it. 
 
 Mr. E. does but repeat his argument against faith and repent- 
 ance, as pre-requisites to baptism, over and over ; and although, 
 in refuting his theses, which has been amply done, we have 
 answered his book ; yet, we are subjected to the stale work of 
 repetition in the following of him, and in this last notice of 
 him I do but expose an argument already refuted, and repeat 
 reasoning already offered. To this I am compelled, and that 
 because Mr. E. has but varied the order of his argument, 
 without adding any thing to its strength. My business is to 
 shew how the reasonings already advanced will meet his argu- 
 ment, in every possible shape. He says, page 27, that if we 
 will have infants in the premises, when faith and repentance are 
 required in order to baptism, then they must be in the premises 
 when faith is required to salvation, and also when it is said a 
 man must work or not eat ; and then, if the first conclusion is, 
 they must not be baptized, the second will be, they must not 
 be saved, and the third will be, they must starve ; for he affirms 
 the two last conclusions are as necessary and natural as the first* 
 I will undertake to prove, that they are in the premises in the 
 first instance, but are not so in the two last. 
 
 I do this by one simple argument; which is, That when 
 faith and repentance are required in order for baptism, they 
 (infants) are manifestly in the premises, although they have 
 not these qualifications ; because there is no clause in those 
 texts which require them, nor yet in any other text ; nor yet 
 any example to the reverse, to shew that unbelieving infants 
 are excepted out of this general rule : for we are bound to take 
 the rule in its utmost extent, where there is no such exception. 
 But this does not hold good in the last two conclusions. For 
 when faith is required to salvation, we know that infants are not: 
 included, as other scriptures inform us that such as die in their 
 infancy are in the kingdom of God. In like manner, we know 
 that infants are not in the premises or conclusion when it is said, 
 " He that will not work shall not eat ff because, in other texts 
 it is asserted, that if u a man will not provide for his own house 
 he is worse than an infidel." Now, though it should not appear 
 from the texts themselves, that infants are not in the premises 
 and conclusions, vet other texts do prove they were not. Now 
 brethren, you see on what widely different ground these things 
 stand. 
 
 O 
 
102 
 
 You will see, reader, that in every part of Mr.E.'s book which 
 I have answered, he has laboured hard to establish two points ; to 
 wit: That express or explicit scripture warrant, is not necessary 
 to inform us what ordinances God has left to be observed in his 
 church ; and also, wherever any scriptures are found that speak 
 of the mode and subjects of baptism, that such passages have no 
 bearing on the subject in dispute, and prove nothing for or 
 against infant baptism. The methods he has taken to accomplish 
 these objects, reflect more honour on his talents, than on the 
 goodness of his heart ; and you will easilv see, that he has 
 availed himself more of the cunning and quibbling of a lawyer, 
 than the candour of a christian. When we behold men studi- 
 ously avoid touching a difficulty in controversy, and misrepre- 
 senting the arguments of an opponent, either by taking the 
 weakest of them, or keeping back part of a sentence ; what are 
 we to gather from such conduct, but that the person is not an 
 honest man, and really intends to deceive ? This has, indeed, 
 been the proceeding of the gentleman. It does not require much 
 discernment to see that he was unfriendly to Mr. Booth as a 
 man, and yet he wished to conceal his displeasure under the 
 guise of zeal for God's honour. In one part of his performance, 
 he represents him as a fool, and what he has been pleased to 
 quote out of his book would justify the charge : but afterward 
 he says, Mr. Booth is an " artful man and writes with caution" 
 If so, it seems he kept back such specimens of art as he might 
 have exhibited from his book, and chose to confront those parts 
 of his work that he represented as destitute of argument, or 
 which he could readily turn into ridicule. This, then, fixes 
 indelibly the charge of dishonesty and a want of candour on 
 himself. 
 
 The only chance he had of defeating the Baptists, was to 
 deprive them of those scriptures wherein baptism is set forth, 
 and not to suffer us to use them in debate. He well knew, that 
 for infant baptism there was not to be found even one solitary 
 text; and to meet the Baptists on such unequal ground, when 
 they had hundreds at command, this he could not think of. At 
 length he fell upon the method of making two baptisms, one as 
 peculiar to adults, and the other as belonging exclusively to 
 infants ; and then had the profanity to affirm, that all the texts 
 which mentioned baptism only applied to adults. His next 
 business was, to persuade us that he would not contend about 
 adult baptism with us, and that he was entirely of the same mind 
 with the Baptists on that head ; and under pretence of the 
 irksomeness of repeating things in which both parties were 
 agreed, (as he affirmed they were) he asks the Baptists to be 
 silent on ail these texts where baptism is mentioned. It seems 
 
103 
 
 wonderful indeed, that he could find courage to silence the 
 scriptures in this manner, and to render the examples of Christ 
 and his apostles of no use. 
 
 Knowing that express proof would be required of him by the 
 Ikiptists, in support of infant sprinkling, he seemed to be greatly 
 disquieted on that account ; and especially as he knew there 
 was abundance of such proof on the opposite side. To evade 
 this, he dextrously introduces the question concerning female 
 communion, charges us with admitting the practice when there 
 is no express warrant for it in the word ; and then, taking for 
 granted what he had said, and without offering a shadow of 
 evidence in support of it, he very gravely tells the Baptists to 
 be quiet about express warrant ; for, as they were wrong them- 
 selves, they must tolerate his error. In this business, he does 
 not answer the best arguments of the Baptists on that question, 
 but produces the answers of some silly person whom he had 
 taken in, and then amuses himself not a little in misrepresenting 
 Mr. Booth, and using indecent railing against him* without 
 any provocation. Fearing, however, that the Baptists would 
 not make a compromise with him about express warrant, in 
 order to avail themselves of his consent to retain^ female 
 communion ; he then produces four questions, relating to 
 circumcision — the baptism of Christ — salvation of infants — and 
 subsistence of infants ; in which he has used not a little labour 
 to bewilder his reader, and by false statements to confound him. 
 He tries to make out here, that the requiring of faith and 
 repentance, would be a denial of all the four last mentioned ; 
 and thus under colour of making the scriptures agree with 
 themselves, he insists we are not to take those passages which 
 speak of baptism in a strict sense, but are to infer from them 
 something which they obviously do not mean. 
 
 I feel no reluctance in owning, that Mr. E. is equal in 
 disingenuousness and cunning, to any man that I have ever 
 read ; and that there is an ease and delusiveness in his manner 
 of writing, that makes him a dangerous writer to such as are 
 not acquainted with the little arts of schoolmen. He appears, 
 however, to have kept back with design many things, which he 
 knew would have borne hard on him ; and in his quotations of 
 the sacred text, he has, in Mark xvi. 16. kept out of sight a 
 material part of it, which would have shewn at once, that infants 
 were not contemplated by it. Leaving Mr. E. to the harrowings 
 of his own conscience, which I doubt not he feels, for having 
 with too evident a design cast contempt on the authority of the 
 scriptures ; I shall only add, that I may with confidence appeal 
 to the reader to decide where the truth lies. 
 
104 
 
 I now come to what Mr. E. calls his real proof that infants are 
 to be baptized ; and what will very much surprise the reader is, 
 that he does not pretend to one command, or one example for it ; 
 but depends entirely on inferences drawn from certain texts in 
 its support. Can any one after this think his aversion to explicit 
 warrant strange ? This proof is contained in his second argu- 
 ment, and second chapter. His argument is, M The church 
 membership of infants was never set aside by God or man ; but 
 continues in force, under the sanction of God, to the present 
 day." This argument is a deduction from one which precedes 
 it, that u God has constituted in his church the membership of 
 infants, and admitted them to it by a religious rite." Had Mr. 
 E. made it appear that what he calls the Jewish church, was 
 made up of such materials, and were to perform the same 
 spiritual duties as are enjoined on a gospel church, he would 
 have done something to purpose. It can answer no end to spend 
 time in proving that infants were members of the Jewish 
 commonwealth, when it is well known we do not deny it : but 
 the question to be discussed is, whether what he calls the Jewish 
 church, was such a church as is described in the New Testament. 
 After we have granted him that infants were therein, and that 
 certain things were enjoined concerning some of them, by much 
 the greater part of his work is still to be done ; and that is, to 
 tell us what those duties were that God enjoined on them, and 
 what those are he requires of church members under the 
 gospel ; and then make it appear that in both cases they are the 
 same. For, if duties are required of the members of a gospel 
 church, that never could be performed by a natural man, much 
 less by an infant ; (while this was not the case with the Jew, 
 who was united to the Old Testament church), then all his 
 attempts to prove the continuance of the Jewish church fail, and 
 the membership of infants vanishes. This one observation is a 
 sufficient answer to all he has advanced, as it will appear on the 
 Very first view, that the two institutions are entirely dissimilar 
 to each other. The diiference will be pointed out presently. 
 
 Mr. E.'s definition of a church is, that it is " a sociey that stands 
 in special relation to God, instituted for religious purposes. — 
 When the persons composing this society appear openly in such 
 relation to God, it is called a visible church." All that is here 
 said if true, rests on the words special relation to God ; and here 
 a question occurs, Did every member of that church, or did 
 every Jew, (for all such were members, and that by divine 
 appointment) stand in that spiritual relation to God, which a 
 member of a -ospel church does, he having entered therein by 
 divine direction ? Did God, in the organization of the gospel 
 
105 
 
 church, make it lawful for persons void of grace to become 
 members, and do they stand in the same relation to him that 
 others do, who are spiritual persons I In the Jewish consti- 
 tution, eveiy person therein, whatever might be his character, 
 stood in that relation to God, be it what it might, which he 
 intended in its organization. I therefore contend, that in a 
 spiritual relation to him they did not stand as a body ; though, 
 no doubt, many of them did : and though the relation the Jews- 
 stood in to him was a special one, it was only in a national sense. 
 Several reasons induced Jehovah to choose Abraham's poste- 
 rity, and to make them a favoured nation in distinction from all 
 others ; and these were, 1. That from them the Messiah was to 
 come. 2. The prophets and sacred writers were to originate 
 from them, that by such means the sacred scriptures might 
 gradually progress, until completed ; that thereby both the elect 
 among them, and afterward from among the gentile nations, 
 might be instructed in the mysteries of redemption. 3. That 
 the genealogies of that nation being regularly kept, when the 
 Messiah should come he might be certainly known ; which never 
 could have been, without such a national distinction. 
 
 To effect these great ends, it was his pleasure to separate 
 them from all other nations — to become their temporal prince — 
 and, in the enacting of laws for their government, he incorpo- 
 rated those of a religious nature among their civil institutions ; 
 by which means they, in obeying them as a nation, would 
 acknowledge his government over them as such, and at the same 
 time his dear people that were among them would be instructed 
 in the great plan of salvation. Their religious rites being, with 
 others of a civil nature, the test of their obedience to God as a 
 temporal prince, he rewarded them for their fidelity with national 
 mercies, and punished their disobedience by temporal and 
 national calamities. It must be obvious to any person who has 
 read the Old Testament with attention, that the punishments 
 awarded and denounced, both by Moses and the prophets, against 
 the Jewish nation, were of a temporal kind ; and when inflicted, 
 consisted in ' blasting — mildew — caterpillar — locust — drought 
 — pestilence — raising up of national enemies — destruction by 
 the sword — long captivities :' while it is equally evident, that 
 but little, if any thing, is said in the threatenings of the prophets 
 about the torments of the damned. In directions given to 
 punish, it is by inflicting death in one way or other, or delivering 
 them over into the hand of enemies. When promises are made to 
 encourage obedience, they uniformlv relate to national prosperity; 
 as, c victory over enemies — plentiful harvests — that their cattle 
 should be plentiful — inhabitants of the land should be thrust out 
 before them — wild beasts should not multiplv — that their land 
 
106 
 
 should not cast them out.' Circumcision, which was a mark of 
 distinction whereby they were separated from other nations, 
 being a mark in theflesh,was indeed to show, that the distinction 
 between them and other nations, was but a mere fleshly distinc- 
 tion, as it related to the body at large. 
 
 For the keeping of the sacred books incorrupt, the great 
 advantages of which may be readily comprehended — for the 
 keeping of genealogies incorrupt, whereby the Messiah should 
 be known — for the upholding of the ceremonial worship, which 
 was for the time being designed to instruct the elect in the way 
 of salvation, until the perfect dispensation of the gospel should 
 commence, when these things should no longer be taught hy 
 types, but every thing unfolded with precision ; for these pur- 
 poses was the Jewish nation selected, a land given to them, and 
 they rewarded for doing this, with mere temporal mercies ; but 
 when these things were accomplished, God had no further use 
 for them as a nation, and accordingly suffered them to be 
 scattered over the world, and lie neglected. Thus, while it is 
 denied that the Jews as a nation, stood in a special relation to 
 God in a spiritual sense ; yet this was not the case with all ; for 
 all the elect being called in due time by grace, enjoyed the 
 adoption of children, yet these were hidden among the great 
 body, and in no way were they to be distinguished from them 
 by any outward special privileges. It is easily seen how much 
 all this differs from a gospel church, where there are no temporal 
 rewards promised for obedience, nor yet any temporal punish- 
 ments for disobedience ; (or these are but in special cases) and 
 where God does not admit of carnal descent to build it up with, 
 but forbids absolutely all unrenewed persons to unite therewith. 
 
 Mr. E. says in page 40, there is a " sameness of the church 
 state among the gentiles, with that among the Jews," and a 
 change of institutes he contends, page 39, " will in itself produce 
 no more alteration in the members of the church, than a change 
 in a man's diet will destroy the idenity of the man." From these 
 quotations, we find that he makes the gospel church, as to its 
 members, to be precisely what the Jewish church was ; and he 
 says, the gospel church is nothing more than the man appearing- 
 in new cloaths. 
 
 If this definition is true, he has hereby, in the most explicit 
 manner, cut off all females from membership in the gospel 
 church; for he says, page 33, that circumcision is, u a public 
 entering into church fellowship." If it was by circumcision 
 persons entered into the church, then females were never in it ; 
 and if the church is the same under the gospel, of course females 
 cannot be admitted therein. But Mr. E. tries to avoid the 
 dilemma by saying in page 41, "females were added to the 
 
lor 
 
 gospel church by the express order of God. 3 ' Here he forgets 
 all he had advanced about female communion, when he denied 
 they had any warrant for it : but now he not only admits that 
 females were in the gospel church, but says it was by express 
 order of God \ This overthrows all his reasonings about express 
 warrant not being in the scriptures for such a practice. How 
 is this, sir ; is your memory so short, that you cannot write a 
 few pages without contradicting yourself? You must have 
 urged what is untrue either here, or in another part of your 
 book ; for females cannot be members, and non-members at the 
 same time. Or have you, sir, been convinced, and are we to 
 take this for a recantation ? But here again there is a contra- 
 diction ; for he tells us, page 32, that it was an " unaltered 
 constitution ;" and, page 39, that all the change was in what 
 related to ceremonial rites, which he says " produces no more 
 alteration in the members of the church, than a change in a 
 man's diet, will destroy the identity of the man." 
 
 This is a heap of contradictions, and it appears that he says, 
 and unsays, in the same breath, as it may best suit him. If 
 infants are to be members of the gospel church, and it is to be 
 according to its model, the Jewish commonwealth ; then, for 
 fear infants should be left out, he vehemently affirms that it is 
 an unaltered constitution. But if the subject is varied, and the 
 question is the extent of the gospel church, Oh, then to be sure, 
 something more has taken place than a change of cloatlis, and 
 he at last discovers that there is a supplement to the old Jewish 
 law, by which females are annexed to the church. After all, 
 then-, this Jewish model is no model at all ; it is a mere nose 
 of wax, which is made to bend any way that will suit the 
 gentleman's convenience. Females will now see through this 
 pretended asserter of their privileges, and not suffer themselves 
 to be imposed on by a man who, under pretence of vindicating 
 female communion, was only addressing himself to their pre- 
 judices. 
 
 Mr. E. vindicates the membership of Jewish infants by 
 the promise made to Abraham, a I will be a God unto thee, and 
 to thy seed after thee." If this is the warrant, and by the seed 
 is meant his natural posterity, then indeed females were in the 
 Jewish church, unless Mr. E. would deny them to be the seed 
 of Abraham ; and if this is the case, (which it surely must, if 
 the scripture just quoted is that on which he relies) then they 
 did not become members by circumcision, and of course, his 
 beautiful type of baptism is entirely lost, and his reasoning from 
 analogy is foolishness. And if what he says is true that circum- 
 cision was a " token that God would be a God to Abraham and 
 his seed," and this promise related to things purely spiritual ; 
 
108 
 
 it will follow, that the females had no interest in God as their 
 God — no hope of salvation from him ! — must be lost, and all 
 spiritual blessings belong to the males exclusively. If any thing 
 more is necessary to represent in its true colours the absurdity 
 of Poedobaptist views concerning Abraham's covenant, I am 
 much mistaken ; for by it females were shut out of the church, 
 and excluded from heaven, our opponents having declared 
 Abraham's covenant to be the covenant of grace, 
 
 Mr. E. seems to be very much offended with Mr. Booth, on 
 account of his having denominated circumcision " a token of 
 interest in temporal blessings — a sign of carnal descent :" but 
 declares, that it was a " sign of regeneration — a seal of the 
 righteousness of faith." That it was a sign of regeneration in 
 a typical sense will not be disputed ; but surely, Mr. E. will not 
 pretend it was a sign that the party was regenerated who received 
 it ; for in that case, the gentleman's charity would be excessive, 
 and in open hostility with the rest of his book, where we must 
 own it is very scarce ; and to use his own modest language, u it 
 would be the sign of a lie to many of the circumcised Israelites.'* 
 And in like manner, it was a " seal or token of the righteousness 
 of faith, which Abraham had being yet uncircumcised ;" but to 
 to the Jews in general it was no such seal ; for, as the prophet 
 rightly observes of many, they were " children in whom there 
 was no faith." That it was a token of interest in the privileges 
 peculiar unto the Jewish nation is clear, Mr. E.'s assertion to 
 the contrary notwithstanding ; for a Jew not circumcised was 
 to be cut off from his people, and it is well known that without 
 being circumcised, a stranger had no right to partake of the 
 passover. But I think it was but playing with words when he 
 says, that if circumcision was a mark of distinction, " then it 
 was a distinction that did not distinguish ;" for surely, Mr. E. 
 is not ignorant of the fact, that the Jews are frequently called the 
 circumcised to distinguish them from other nations : " Lest the 
 daughters of the uncircumcised should triumph," 2 Sam. i. 20. 
 It is saying nothing, to inform us that Ishmael was circumcised, 
 especially when it is known he was the son of Abraham, and 
 though in that case his circumcision did not entitle him to the 
 temporal blessings alluded to, he being born of Hagar ; yet, had 
 his posterity been incorporated with the Jews, they would, as 
 circumcised proselytes, have shared the blessings peculiar to 
 that people. 
 
 Mr. E. cannot rest without having granted to him, that 
 circumcision was the door into the church, and baptism is now 
 in the place of it ; in this he is followed by the pamphlet we 
 noticed. If it was the door into the church, and baptism has 
 ^ome in its place, the cl^or was a very narrow one indeed \ so 
 
I 
 
 109 
 
 much so, that it would not admit females into the church. We 
 need not wonder therefore, that he denied them a place at the 
 Lord's table, when they could not enter in the door. Let us 
 hear no more of charity, ye advocates of infant church member- 
 ship ; for not content with refusing infant females a place in the 
 church of old, vou have now outdone the Baptists entirely, who 
 denv the right to infants, as such ; whereas your door into the 
 church excludes females of whatever age, or however pious. 
 But this does the business for Mr. E.'s division of the subjects 
 of baptism into adults and infants, when he says, that adults 
 ought not to be baptized without repentance and faith, though 
 infants may without either. It is well known, that adults among 
 the Jews had circumcision administered to them without any 
 evidence of grace, yea, when extremely wicked in their life ; 
 neither is there any evidence that any spiritual qualifications 
 were required in order thereunto. But if the Jewish and gospel 
 churches are the same, then, according to that rule, no gracious 
 qualifications are to be required of any person in order to mem- 
 bership in the gospel church ; and Mr. E.'s talk about faith and 
 repentance being necessary to adult baptism, must not be sincere. 
 It does follow, therefore, that either the Jewish and gospel 
 churches are not one and the same, and that circumcision is no 
 rule for the administration of baptism ; or else that the church 
 is not the church, and the rule is not the rule. 
 
 But still, Mr. E. insists upon it^ that " circumcision must 
 surely be a religious rite, and as much so as either baptism or the 
 Lord s supper ;" and in attempting to prove it, says, " circumci- 
 sion is called a sign, a seal." As a sign, it " denotes the grace 
 of God in the heart ; as a seal, it applies to the righteousness of 
 faith, the righteousness of Christ." Do not smile, reader ! this 
 is a wonder- working ordinance indeed: no wonder the gentleman 
 admires circumcision so much, when it puts love to God in the 
 heart, makes the subject of it apply to the righteousness of faith ; 
 nor can you think it strange that his reverence for the Jeivisk 
 commonzvealth was such, when they were all made so very holy 
 by circumcision : but then, what became of the poor little female 
 babies ? It seems they had no holiness, nor the least grain of 
 faith, that they should receive the sign. But it appears, that 
 our Lord Jesus thought differently from this gentleman about 
 his circumcised believers ; for he says, Matth. xxiii. 33. " Ye 
 serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the 
 damnation of hell." The truth is, that it is only said to have 
 been a sign and seal to Abraham himself, and not to his 
 posterity in common with him, Rom. iv. 11. The gentleman 
 is equally unfortunate in his remark on 2 Cor. xi. 12. ; for the 
 : '<-<^mn?ior! there, intends not the circumcision of Tews in 
 
 P 
 
110 
 
 common, but of Christ in particular. The other two passages 
 quoted, have no relation whatever to proving circumcision to be 
 purely a religious rite, and he might as well produce Gen. i. 1. 
 u In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth," to 
 prove his point. His inference from Rom. iii. 2. and xv. 8. is, 
 that as to the Jews the cracles of God were committed, and be- 
 cause Christ, as a minister,wi\s u of" the circumcision, or in other 
 words, a Jew, that these things evidenced the spirituality of the 
 ordinance. The oracles of God are committed in providence to 
 us as Americans : but would any one be so stupid as to infer 
 from hence, that his title to citizenship must needs be a religious 
 rite ? yet circumcision was no more to the Jew, than a designa- 
 tion ol his being a subject to God as a temporal prince. Equally 
 strange it is to hear Mr. E. make use of the last text, wherein the 
 apostle only aimed at eradicating the prejudices of the christians 
 which were suffered to exist against their Jewish brethren, on 
 account of their having crucified their Lord Christ ; and with 
 this view reminds them, that Christ was a minister of circum- 
 cision, and therefore exhorts, u receive ye one another." 
 
 The author of the sermon on baptism, agrees with Mr. E. 
 concerning circumcision being done away and baptism coming 
 in its place, and he censures the Baptists very much for denying 
 it. We shall now see what he can say in its behalf. Page 47, 
 " As infants were the subjects of circumcision, and were recog- 
 nized and marked as the people of God by this rite ; the 
 conclusion is very natural and reasonable} that if baptism comes 
 in the place of circumcision, as the token of admission into the 
 church, infants are the proper subjects of this ordinance." 
 
 In this extraordinary paragraph the question is begged, " If 
 baptism comes in its place :" if! — if! ! then it seems the author 
 really doubted concerning the business himself. Why did he not 
 ask us to grant at once all he contends for ? and then, to be sure, 
 lie might proceed with his inferences. But we object^ and put 
 him upon the proof of what he takes for granted. And then the 
 first " if" being granted, that is, that circumcision was a door 
 into the church among the Jews ; of course, as a compliment to 
 him, we shall concede the other likewise. 
 
 We have already proved, that circumcision was not the door 
 ;nto the Jewish church, or else the females were never in that 
 church* But then he tells uf , the females were reckoned " of 'the 
 circumcised," page 49, a accounted of the circumcision !" But 
 Avhether he intended those that were -wives of them-— children cf 
 ihcm-^-or scrvcmts of them, is left in the dark : but still they are 
 not after all really the circumcision, but only accounted so. Is 
 It in tliis way the gentleman wishes female infants to be inducted 
 into the church ? And would it do were he to insist, that the 
 
Ill 
 
 female infants are baptized, or accounted so, because they are 
 of baptized parents ? Yet, strange as such an assertion would 
 appear, it is exactly what he vindicates. After all, it appears 
 that Jewish infants were in that church before they were circum- 
 cised ; for if they were not, how could they be cut off from it ? 
 Yet Moses declares, the Israelite not circumcised should be cut 
 off irom his people, Gen. xvii. 14. The gentleman has no need 
 to wait until infants of believers are baptized in order to become 
 members ; for if he will have the practice of the Jews to be in 
 point, they are born members of the church. Neither is baptism 
 the door of the gospel church, though it must be administered 
 prior to admission : but this honour is reserved to the Redeemer 
 himself; John x. 9. " I am the door; by me if any man enter in, 
 he shall be saved ;" and if any enter into the church another 
 way, even though it were by infant baptism, he enters wrong. 
 Christ says in verse 1. " He that entereth not by the door into 
 the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other xvay, the same is a 
 thief and a robber" By natural generation, the posterity of 
 Abraham became members of the Jewish church: but it is only 
 by the renewing of the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of Christ, who is 
 the door, that persons are qualified for, and authorized to, enter 
 into the gospel church. 
 
 Neither were the Jews marked as the people of God in a 
 spiritual sense, but only in a natural one. But this cannot be 
 said of the subjects of baptism ; for by baptism they enjoy no 
 natural nor temporal blessings distinct from others. But in 
 baptism, the proper subjects of it are to be distinguished by 
 something more, even a renovation of nature, This argument 
 of itself is calculated to overthrow infant church membership * 
 because, if baptism did really come in the place of circumcision, 
 and if circumcision was a mark or sign that the Jew was God's 
 subject in a natural point of view, and if baptism is %o be a 
 jnark of the subjects of it belonging to God in a gospel sense. ■, 
 then it follows, that if God's mark is to be put only on property 
 that really belongs to him, we are not by baptism to mark the 
 devil's goats for Christ's sheep, unless we mean to commit a 
 religious theft. Here, indeed, is the infatuation of all Pcedc- 
 baptist writers : they will have circumcision to be a sign and a 
 seal ; and likewise the ordinances of the gospel to be the same. 
 Now, be it so: what is it a sign and a seal of? They answer, 
 they are both of them sig^s of inward grace, death to sin, of 
 being righteous persons. Very well, what will this bring you to, 
 gentlemen, on the principles you espouse ? Will you put the 
 signature of God to a lie ? God tells you to sign and seal his 
 property, he has entrusted the seals with you to that end, and 
 will you challenge that as God's spiritual property he has nevqj 
 
112 
 
 owned ? Observe, sirs, baptism is a sign " of inward grace 
 — of justification by the righteousness of Christ.' 1 Is it a sign 
 of these things to some other person ? If so, why put the sign at 
 a distance from the thing signified ? Is it a sign of the person 
 possessing it who is marked, or signed by baptism ? If so, why 
 do you not ascertain this to be the fact first, and how dare you 
 to lie in the name of the Lord, in testifying by affixing his 
 signature, that these persons are renewed, when they are not ? 
 I know the outcry will be made, that we declare children to be 
 in a depraved and unrewed state, and that this is uncharitable, 
 for they are not sinners by practice. But in what respect do we 
 differ in this from yourselves ? Is it not well known that few 
 deny this ? But you make either the natural sanctity of infants, 
 or a supposed sanctity of the offspring of believers, the ground 
 on which to baptize them ; and you think you ought, in order 
 to be charitable, presume such to be renewed, though it cannot 
 be proved. But that which sets infant baptism in its true light 
 is, that after the sign and seal of God (as they call baptism) is 
 put upon them in their infancy, they grow up to man's estate, 
 and at least nineteen twentieths * of them disdain all connection 
 with God, and carry the devil's mark in their forehead. How 
 many baptized swearers — swindlers— unclean persons — and 
 even infidels, the associates of a Paine, do we see ! Are there not 
 thousands I and did they not receive this seal in their infancy ? 
 And yet, after all this testimony of our senses to the contrary, 
 we are still told, that baptism is the sign and seal of spiritual 
 grace. It is now come to pass, that instead of baptism being 
 an ordinance to distinguish the pious from others, it is rather 
 calculated to distinguish men of the world from the pious ; for 
 (if sprinkling is baptism) the number of unrenewed persons that 
 are baptized, are to the pious, at least in the ratio of one hundred 
 to one, and yet we are to hear that it is a seal and sign of interest 
 in the covenant of grace ! If circumcision was a sign and seal 
 to the Jews, it was only a sign and seal of natural subjection to 
 God, and therefore was properly applied : but if baptism must 
 needs be a sign and seal, then let it be applied to those who are 
 as really Christ's subjects, as the Jews were under a Theocracy, 
 or divine national government ; for it is as absurd to administer 
 baptism to such as are not Christ's real subjects, as it would 
 have been in Moses to go and insist on other nations receiving 
 circumcision. 
 
 The author owns, however, that baptism does not introduce, 
 as did circumcision, the party into " a national church, and 
 worldly sanctuary." Why, sir, hesitate ? Did you not testify, 
 
 * I speak ot infant sprinkling as generally practised. 
 
I 
 
 113 
 
 that Christ has not abridged the privileges of the church under 
 
 the gospel ? But here, it seems, you are for curtailing. Is not 
 
 this a contradiction ? and will it be any more sin for a Baptist to 
 
 lessen the bounds of the church, than yourself? But, reader, 
 
 the gentleman sees a rock, he wishes to avoid it if possible, and 
 
 that rock is a national church. It is beyond the power of all his 
 
 good sense to bring him out of this dilemma ; for, if church 
 
 membership under the gospel is the same as the Jewish, there 
 
 is an end of particular churches, and of course, a national church 
 
 must exist : but whether it shall be the church of Rome, or of 
 
 England, is not yet established. Had not the gentleman been 
 
 a dissenter, the Jewish church would have suited as a model 
 
 entirely, and then with what additional force could he have 
 
 reasoned from it ! Still I must dissent from him when he says, 
 
 infant baptism will not " introduce into a national church." 
 
 This is precisely its tendency ; for as all baptized infants are by 
 
 them said to be church members, and as it is well known, that 
 
 infant sprinkling has drawn within its vortex whole nations in 
 
 Europe, with but few exceptions, and in this country the large 
 
 majority of the inhabitants are precisely in the same situation ; 
 
 surely it comes with an ill grace from the gentleman, that it does 
 
 not introduce into a national church. Equally incorrect is the 
 
 remark, that it does not introduce into a u zvordly sanctuariu" 
 
 If I am not much mistaken, it will do even worse ; it will turn a 
 
 real church of God into a worldly sanctuary. Let a church be 
 
 composed entirely of believers, and let them admit all their 
 
 offspring to baptism and membership ; and I would ask the 
 
 gentleman, how long a time would it take to make a wordly 
 
 sanctuary of such a church ? As it behoves me to be faithful, 
 
 I do not hesitate to say, that, through this same thing, infant 
 
 baptism, the church has greatly disappeared and fled into the 
 
 wilderness ; and a something, called indeed by the name of 
 
 Christ's church, but not so in reality, has taken its place. Let 
 
 us then, hear no more about an institution fraught with so much 
 
 mischief to the cause of vital godliness. 
 
 As to what the author says of circumcision "being an outward 
 token of interest in Abraham's covenant, as baptism is of interest 
 in the covenant of grace ;" this has been noticed briny remarks 
 about signs, and seals. As circumcision could not be a token 
 to a Jew of his having grace, when he had not ; so neither is 
 baptism a token that the person belongs to Christ, who is an 
 unrenewed man. But as circumcision was indeed to the Jew. 
 a token of his natural union with, or incorporation into the 
 Jewish nation, and thereby was subject to its regulations, and 
 for that reason was entitled to the care of God as his temporal 
 prince while he served him, or liable to his displeasure when he 
 
114 
 
 transgressed ; all which was true of them : so also is baptism & 
 token, or sign to a real believer, and only to such, of interest 
 in the covenant of grace ; and to talk otherwise is but nonsense. 
 
 Grant it is true, as the author says, that the " apostle calls 
 christians the circumcision ; 9f yet, he calls them so, not for having 
 been baptized, but as renewed persons. And this is against 
 infant baptism, inasmuch as circumcision is allowed to prefigure 
 regeneration. Therefore, the name would not belong unto 
 any but such as were renewed in the temper of their mind, of 
 which infants could give no evidence ; and as spoken to them, 
 would in the greater number of instances, prove to be untrue, 
 which is abundantly testified by their after lives : but when 
 applied to real believers, it then has its utmost force. Spiritual 
 circumcision is, in this sense, an induction into the church in 
 reality ; and were our Poedobaptist brethren not to sprinkle, nor 
 admit into the church any other persons than such as he calls the 
 circumcision, we should have no dispute with them farther, as 
 to subjects of baptism. 
 
 We shall now return to Mr. E., who, in page 36, says, he 
 has evinced, " 1. The church membership of infants ; and, 
 2. Their admission to it by a religious rite." In both these 
 however, he has failed, notwithstanding his positiveness. He 
 has indeed proved, that the posterity of Abraham were yews — 
 that the males of them were circumcised — that every one of 
 them was under a Theocracy or divine government, and infants 
 among the rest were God's subjects, and certain things were to 
 be done for them which required no grace to perform, either in 
 the administrator or subject. But still he has not proved that 
 the Jewish nation were a church of God, in that sense in which 
 the gospel church is so called. Taking it for granted that his 
 assertions would be admitted as facts, he draws these following 
 inferences : "1. That infancv is not incompatible with church 
 membership ; and, 2. That the ignorance and want of faith, 
 Inseparable from a state of infancy, are no impediments to the 
 administration of a religious ordinance." 
 
 All that he has proved is, that infancy was not incompatible 
 with a membership in the Jewish church ; and the reasons 
 >are plain, because, 1. There were no spiritual qualifications 
 required of the person to be circumcised, no matter what his 
 time of life ; 2. Because the duties enjoined to be performed 
 were such as a natural man without any grace could perform, 
 and that by the exertion of his natural powers ; and 3. If infants 
 were not in a capacity to perform what was required of th$m, 
 .still this defect was remedied for the time being, by the appoint- 
 ment of persons to do these things for them, until they were in 
 a condition to do it for themselves ; and the things to be dotte- 
 
I 
 
 115 
 
 for them were not of a spiritual nature, but lay altogether in 
 outward ceremonies, which persons could well do in their place* 
 ]3ut will it do to reason from such a carnal institution, to one 
 purely spiritual ? To shew the absurdity of such conclusions, 
 nothing more becomes necessary, than to state the premises 
 fairly, and then to see whether the conclusions are not monstrous 
 indeed. 
 
 Premises 1. Young male infants were circumcised by the 
 command of God under the old law, but no gracious qualifica- 
 tions were necessary in order thereunto, neither in an infant cr 
 an adult. — Conclusion. And for that reason, baptism, an ordi- 
 nance which requires grace in the subject, is to be performed, 
 though no grace exists in the person ! 
 
 Premises 2. Gcd required no duties of 'a circumcised person 
 as a qualification for the ordinance, nor yet any to follow after 
 it on the account of receiving it, but what he could perform 
 
 independent of divine aid, or without a renewed heart. • 
 
 Conclusion. Because such were circumcised, it follows, that 
 an infant may be baptized, although spiritual qualifications arc- 
 required of him, and spiritual duties are to be performed, which 
 he has not done, and cannot do I 
 
 Preinises 3. Vv 'hen God commanded a Jewish infant to be 
 circumcised, he made provision for remedying the defect of his 
 natural capacity, by appointing others to do for him what was 
 to be done in his infancy, and which tliev could perform, and 
 which at a suitable age the child with certainty could do for 
 himself. — Conclusion. My infant therefore may be baptized, 
 although mere has been no such thing as sponsorship appointed 
 — and though if it had, it would not have answered — and though 
 qualifications are required whicH my infant have not — and 
 though no one can do the things required for him — nor yet he 
 himself, neither now, nor at any future time ! 
 
 If such premises and conclusions will suit Mr. E.'s readers, 
 they are not very nice indeed in their choice of instructors : but 
 certain I am, they will never satisfy an enquiring mind. 
 
 But, says he, in opposing the church membership of infants the 
 Baptists have against them, u the Wisdom of God who ordained 
 it, and the practice of tivo thousand years." We as much 
 admire the wisdom of God in the former dispensation as Mr. E. 
 and we have already shewn wherein his wisdom consisted in 
 setting apart the Jews in a national capacity ; and we do as much 
 admire his wisdom in instituting a gospel church, which is not 
 national or carnal, but purely spiritual, and is freed from all 
 the exceptions to which a national church is exposed. If the 
 custom of receiving infants had existed ten thousand years, 
 instead of two } yet this will not make it appear that a change 
 
116 
 
 was not necessary. It must be remembered, that the gospel 
 church was to be a more perfect one ; and, for that very reason, 
 infant membership could not exist, or in vain would that 
 perfection have been sought. — If that gentleman wishes to see 
 what infant church membership has done, let him look at the 
 mournful picture the nations in Europe exhibit, where the name 
 only of religion exists, with but few exceptions. 
 
 Mr. E.'s second inference is, " that ignorance and a want of 
 faith, inseparable from a state of infancy, are no impediments to 
 the administration of a religious ordinance." He might with 
 more propriety have said, that had no religion in it. That 
 ignorance and incapacity in a Jewish infant were no bar to 
 the administration of circumcision is admitted, and that for 
 these plain reasons : No spiritual qualifications were required 
 of them — nor was the church a spiritual body, with which they 
 were connected — nor were any spiritual duties required in order 
 to membership, either of young or old — nor at any after period 
 were duties demanded, but what they could perform without a 
 renewed heart. But will the gentleman say, that no spiritual 
 qualifications are necessary to fulfil the duties of a member of 
 the church of Christ, and that ignorance and want of faith are 
 no obstruction to membership in this case l 
 
 ON MR. E.'s 2d ARGUMENT, CHAPTER II, 
 
 Mr. E. prefaces this argument thus : " The church member- 
 ship of infants was never set aside by God or man ; but continues 
 in force, under the sanction of God, to the present day." — His 
 drift is, to prove that the Jewish church was not dissolved by 
 the gospel dispensation, and that in fact the gentiles were 
 received into the Jewish church. If his reasonings amount to 
 any thing, it must be this ; that the gentiles became incorporated 
 with the whole Jewish nation, and were reckoned proselytes, 
 (for the whole nation were the church) ; for he says they were 
 **■ brought into the Jewish church." He cannot mean, the little 
 handful gathered by Christ ; for f in that case, his scheme would 
 be ruined, inasmuch as his dependance is on the continuance of 
 that church, to prove infant church membership ; for, if those 
 that Christ gathered by his ministry were the church, in distinc- 
 tion from the rest of the Jews, it will at last prove a dreadful 
 task for him to make out that infants were among them. How 
 truly ridiculous dots this appear, and how inconsistent with 
 truth ! It would seem by him, that all the priests, people, 
 oanhedrin, and even those that crucified Christ, were members 
 of his gospel church. 
 
f 
 
 lit 
 
 But here is a mystery : Mr. E. says circumcision was a door 
 into the church, and that baptism is a door into the church. What 
 does he mean ? Is it, that there are two churches ? or is it, that 
 there are txvo doors into the church ? Perhaps he meant to shew 
 how convenient the church of God was for admission ; on the 
 one side, a door for the Jews by circumcision, and then a door 
 on the other for the gentiles by baptism. But, according to him, 
 baptism was a door into the church, and yet the circumcised 
 Jews had to come in as well as the gentiles. Why, this would 
 look a little like a contradiction, and would seem to intimate, that 
 there was a body distinct from the Jewish nation, in which Jews 
 must enter as well as gentiles. But if the Jews were in already \ 
 and had been brought in by circumcision, how in the name of 
 sense could they be brought in a second timet To be brought in, 
 supposes the party to have been out. You, sir, say that the 
 Jews were " in before." How then, were they to come in? 
 What, sir, shall we do with this? It will be a lame piece of work 
 after all your patching. 
 
 In page 43, he says, " It appears from the text, that the 
 church state is the same to the gentiles, that it had been to the 
 Jews," and adds, u that the changes made were only like the 
 change of a garment, when the man himself remains the same." 
 First he tells us the church is the same — then he says, the 
 cloathing has been changed-— then admits the priesthood was 
 lopped off — and then he adds to them all, the female children of 
 believing parents ; and yet, after all this, very gravely tells us, 
 the church is the same, the very same it ever was : wonderful 
 consistency this ! ! But he has not condescended to tell us how 
 much of her cloathing- has been taken away, nor yet where he 
 found new express laxv\ as he calls it, to add females to the old 
 Jewish church ; but leaves us to make it out as well as we can. 
 We read, that under the sermon of Peter, many converts were 
 made, and it is afterwards said, that about " three thousand 
 were added to the church the same dav," Acts ii. 41- and that 
 44 God added to the church daily such as he would have to be 
 saved." Is it possible to conceive, that these Jews were added 
 to the church of which they were members before ; to the old 
 Jewish church ? And could it with propriety be said, that such 
 were added to the church daily as he would have to be saved, 
 when they were already a part of the old Jewish church ? Or 
 .vere they all gentiles that the apostle Peter addressed, and on 
 whom he charged the murder of Christ, of whom it was said 
 they were baptized mid added to the church? To the confusion of 
 Mr. E. these persons that were thus added were Jews, Acts ii. 
 36. " Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, thar 
 God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both 
 
 Q 
 
118 
 
 Lord and Christ ;" and in verse 41, three thousand of these are 
 said to be added to the church. Blush, Mr. Edwards, if vou 
 are capable of a consciousness of wrong. In Acts xi. 22. " Ti- 
 dings of these things came unto the ears of the church which 
 was in Jerusalem: and they sent forth Barnabas, that he should 
 go as far as Antioch." But, according to this gentleman, 
 Barnabas must have been sent to preach, not by the disciples, 
 but by the enemies of Christ, even by the Jewish nation ; for it 
 was the church that sent him, and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem 
 at least, must have aided in sending out this missionary to 
 propagate the gospel of Christ, especially as their " branches" 
 were not then broken off. But why do I take up time thus 
 Without cause ? No man ever had the impudence before Mr. E. 
 to declare, that Christ and the apostles, together with the Jews 
 of every rank and description, were the gospel church spoken of 
 In Jerusalem ; and so contrary is this to every thing like truth, 
 confident I am that no man will receive it. 
 
 For the proof that the same church remains as constituted by 
 God, he produces Matth. xxi. 43. u Therefore I say unto you, 
 the kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and be given to a 
 nation bringing forth the fruits thereof." The plain meaning, 
 lie says, of this " passage is, that as in time past, the church of 
 God, which is his kingdom, was limited to Judea ; so, in future, 
 he would have a church in the gentile world." The inconsistency 
 of all this will thus appear : he says, the church is his kingdom, 
 and that church was made up of all the posterity of Abraham ; 
 then by the giving of the kingdom must be intended, that the 
 Jewish nation should be given to the gentiles. Indeed the Lord 
 was wonderfully good to give his church away, and that to the 
 gentiles. " But this," it seems, u was to take place by numerous 
 accessions made from the gentiles, until their numbers would 
 fully absorb the Jewish nation." Now all this goes to prove, 
 what no man will believe, that the gentile converts first became 
 Jews and were incorporated with the nation ; then in return, 
 the Jews became gentiles, and were lost in the gentile nations. 
 But what ruins all is, that the Jew r ish nation is yet distinct from 
 all others. Well, but it was the state and not the people. Very 
 well ; and what state was it that was removed, was it the gospel 
 and ordinances ? If so, then the kingdom of God as you call the 
 Jewish nation, never did accept or own them, and it is folly to 
 talk of taking a state from them they never had ; on your 
 principles this will not do. But do you mean by the state the 
 old Jewish worship ? If so, that the gentiles did not receive, 
 though some of them were much perplexed therewith. But 
 after all, by the kingdom of God it does not appear distinctly 
 F/hat he means ; for somuimes he affirms the Jews themselves 
 
119 
 
 were that kingdom : but finding this did not sound very well? 
 that the Jews should be given to the gentiles, which indeed 
 must be the case, if what he calls God's kingdom was given to 
 them ; he then exchanges the word kingdom, for state, or 
 condition. And what does he gain by the change ? Certainly 
 nothing ; for by the church state, or condition, must be meant 
 either the condition or state of the body at large, or else those 
 converted to the christian religion. If it was that of the body 
 at large, that was the old ceremonial worship, but surely the 
 gentiles never had received that : but if the latter was intended, 
 then it must be false what Mr. E. affirms, (and which is indeed 
 so) that the ivhole Jewish nation were the kingdom of God : 
 but that kingdom must have consisted only of those converted 
 under the ministry of Christ. This being the case, the truth of 
 which it would be absurd to the last degree to question, they 
 being a distinct body from that nation in religious things, how 
 will Mr. E. make it appear, that this separate body admitted 
 infants into their number ? He has in this case no data to reason 
 from; for they being a distinct body from the nation at large,. 
 and no ways connected with, (except by national ties) nor de- 
 pendent on them, where is the analogy between the first and 
 last, from which the membership of infants could be inferred I 
 
 But that he distinguishes between worship and the kingdom 
 itself, will appear page 40, that rituals " were not of the essence 
 of a church state ;" that " rituals are to a church what diet and 
 raiment are to a man," and " these removed, the essence of the 
 man will remain the same." From all which it will appear, that 
 the kingdom and state he alludes to are two things ; and the 
 kingdom or Jewish nation, as distinct from the rituals, must, 
 according to him, been given to the gentiles : greater foolishness 
 than which cannot well be conceived of. But if the rituals, or 
 worship, as distinct from this kingdom, or church,, are given ; 
 then also an equal absurdity follows, which is, that a mode of 
 worship was transferred from one to the other ; but in the transfer 
 the kingdom itself was left behind. Poor Mr. E. cannot bring 
 his Jewish infants into the gentile church. 
 
 But all this nonsense to which we allude, takes its rise from 
 a false interpretation of the text, in which the kingdom there 
 mentioned, does not mean the Jews as a nation, nor yet the first 
 gospel church in particular ; but by u the kingdom of God" in 
 the passage, is meant the gospel which was first sent to the Jews.. 
 This, that nation had in the outward ministry of it, and this only 
 could be taken from them, for it was all they had. And that 
 the apostle Paul understood it so, is evident, when he thus 
 addressed the Jews, Acts xiii. 4-6. " It was necessary that the 
 word of God should first have been spoken to you ; but seeing- 
 
120 
 
 ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting 
 life, lo, we turn to the gentiles : for so hath the Lord commanded 
 us ;" and Matth x. 5. " Go not into the way of the gentiles, and 
 into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not, but go rather to 
 the lost sheep of the house of Israel ; and as ye go, preach saying, 
 the kingdom of heaven is at hand ;" and Luke xxiv. 47. " And 
 that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his 
 name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." But if the 
 kingdom of heaven meant the church, it was not good sense to 
 say it was at hand, for it was already there ; and had existed, 
 as Mr. E. says, two thousand years. Surely, then, this can only 
 apply to the gospel, which was to be dispensed first to them and 
 afterward removed. It is also said, Luke x. 8. " The kingdom 
 of God is come nigh unto you." But if Mr. E. is right, it had 
 been with them two thousand years* Mark i. 14. u Jesus came 
 into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God" I 
 shall not quote more scripture to shew the gospel was intended 
 in Matth. xxi. 43. ; but shall content myself with making it 
 appear, that although the church is indeed called the kingdom 
 of God * yet the words ' kingdom-ef God', where it does occur, is 
 not applied to the Jews as they were in a national capacity, or as 
 they were united with the first christians ; but that the word is 
 applied only to a gospel church, as distinct from them. 
 
 " It is hard for a rich man to enter into the kingdom, ,, Mark 
 x. 23. Luke xviii. 24. But if the Jewish nation was meant, it 
 was not hard ; for the rich were already in that. Publicans and 
 harlots were said to go into the kingdom before the Pharisees, 
 Luke xxi. 31. : but how can that be, if the Pharisees who were 
 Jews were already in this kingdom? Certainly, on Mr. E.'s 
 plan, this is all foolishness. In Luke vii. 28. it is said of John 
 the Baptist, " The least in the kingdom of God is greater than 
 he ;" from which it would appear, that the gospel church was 
 so far from being made up of all the Jews, that the forerunner 
 of our Lord was not therein ; and how clearly does this shew, 
 that the first gospel church consisted of Christ and his disciples, 
 the least of whom was greater than John. The young man in 
 the gospel was said to be M not far from the kingdom of God :" 
 but as the branches were not yet broken off, according to Mr. 
 E. he must have been really in it, and that without our Lord 
 knowing it. But, to shew that the Jews were never esteemed 
 the church of God in a gospel sense, I subjoin Matth. xxiii. 13. 
 " But woe unto you, scribes, Pharisees, hypocrites ; for ye 
 shut up the kingdom of heaven against men, for ye neither go 
 hi yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go 
 in." From all which it appears, that Mr. E. has not given die 
 sense of the passage, and that in applying it to the Jewish church, 
 
211 
 
 he went in direct contradiction to the views of Christ and the 
 apostles, as to what the gospel church really is. So that after 
 all, the taking away of the kingdom of God from the Jews, and 
 giving it to the gentiles, was not a taking away of the church 
 and a giving it to them ; but simply a taking away of a gospel 
 ministry from the Jews, and preaching of it to the gentiles. But 
 if this word kingdom of God, as found in the text quoted, had 
 meant the church, and not the gospel ; yet, as I have proved 
 the church was distinct from the Jewish church, Mr. E. en- 
 tirely fails of proving infant membership in the gentile church, 
 unless he can make it appear that infants were in the church of 
 Jerusalem. 
 
 We shall therefore find no difficulty in owning all he says in 
 this paragraph, page 40, u that the gentile church state is the 
 same as that among the Jews :" but then the question recurs, 
 What was that church ? Had it infants in it ? Mr. E. says it had. 
 How does he prove it ? Why by saying that all the Jewish nation 
 were in it, and of course infants were : but here his proof fails ; 
 and I have shewn that the Jewish nation was not considered in 
 the church ; yea, that it did mm consist of Christ and his apostles 
 first, and afterward of those also who were added from time to 
 time. But where is the proof that infants were added ? It is 
 most certain that all the conclusions he has drawn from this text 
 are false, as it relates to the church of God, and to infant 
 membership therein. From all which it appears, that the church 
 of Christ was a distinct body from the Jewish nation, and were 
 in that capacity persecuted by them, gave advice in that capacity 
 to the deputation sent to them on the question of circumcision ; 
 and the opinion of Mr. E . that infants were in the New Testament 
 church, must rest on a mere and mistaken presumption. 
 
 His next argument is founded on Rom. xi. 23, 24- " And they 
 also, if they abide not in unbelief, shall be grafted in : for God 
 is able to graft them in again. For if thou wert cut out of the 
 olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to 
 nature in a good olive tree : how much more shall these, which 
 be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree ?" 
 The argument he raises from this text is, " That the olive tree 
 is to denote a visible church state — the Jews are the natural 
 branches — the gentiles were brought into the same church state 
 from which the Jews were broken off — that the Jews will be 
 grafted into their own olive tree, or church state, again." All 
 this goes on the supposition of his former argument, that the 
 old Jewish church remained, and that not only the converted 
 Jews retained their membership there, but also that all the 
 gentiles were added thereunto when converted ; and all the 
 alteration that was made consisted in a few outward rites. 
 
122 
 
 • Nothing more will be necessary to set this assertion in its true- 
 light, and to bring it into merited contempt, together with its 
 author, than these few citations of scripture texts following : 
 " Fear came on all the church," Acts v. 11. Was it the whole 
 Jewish nation that are here said to be afraid ? Acts xv. 4. " And 
 when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the 
 church, and of the apostles and elders. " Were Paul and 
 Barnabas received by the Jewish church, and did that same 
 Jewish church afterward decide against circumcision as the 
 chapter relates ? Monstrous absurdity ! ! ! Acts xv. 22. " Then 
 pleased it the apostles and elders, with the -whole church, to send 
 chosen men of their own company to Antioch, with Paul and 
 Barnabas ; namely, Judas, surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief 
 men among the brethren.'' It is here very remarkable that the 
 whole church was gathered, but if the Jewish church was meant, 
 then all the Jews from the provinces were assembled. The 
 apostles and elders are here represented as having the lead of 
 this body when convened. But is it not ridiculous to conceive 
 of the apostles having the government of the Jewish nation in 
 spiritual affairs ? They sent chosen men of their own company 
 as messengers, and also Paul and Barnabas: these they call 
 " brethren," and their " own company." Can we conceive of 
 the Jewish nation and Sanhedrin doing thi3, who had already 
 crucified Christ, and afterward sought the life of Paul ? Yea, 
 they sent these to christians among the gentiles, and that to 
 advise them against circumcision : Is this possible ? Yet if the 
 church spoken of at Jerusalem consisted of the posterity of 
 Abraham in general, and the apostles were members of it and 
 acted as such, all this must have been ; but if this is not so, then 
 how shameful in Mr. E. to assert, that the converts to Christianity 
 were added to the old Abrahamic church ! Acts viii. 3. " Saul 
 made havock of the church." Was it the old Jeivish church 
 Saul made havock off And was it to destroy the old Jewish 
 church the chief priests furnished him with letters to Damascus ? 
 You now see, my brethren, that the christian church was a 
 separate and independent body ; that they acted without con- 
 sulting the Jewish rulers and nation ; yea, that the Jewish nation 
 and rulers were its persecutors, and by them was the church of 
 Christ scattered abroad, and the apostles put to death. Then 
 it follows of course, that the gentiles were not grafted into this 
 body, nor was the olive tree the old Jewish establishment of 
 worship and membership. Mr. E. has used the words " church 
 state," which he calls the olive tree, but he has not let us know 
 what he means by it, and I suspect he has with design been 
 obscure on this point ; yet he wishes to have something as the 
 olive tree into which the Jew r s were as natural branches, and 
 
123 
 
 irom which some of them were broken off, in whose place the 
 gentiles were grafted in. If by this olive tree or church state, 
 is meant the Jewish worship as established by Moses, then 
 what he calls the broken branches were never separated from 
 that, for they still retain their Jewish ceremonies ; neither can 
 it be said with any appearance of truth, that the gentiles were 
 ever induced to receive those laws, for they declared against 
 them, and were declared by the apostles from all obligations to 
 them. If by this olive tree is intended the old Jewish xvorship 
 xis changed, and the institutions of Christ taking the place of 
 those brought by Moses ; then this will not agree, for what he 
 calls the broken off branches, the impenitent Jews, were never 
 in this olive tree really, had never received this establishment 
 bv Christ, and therefore could not be broken c^when they never 
 were in it. The truth of the matter is, that the distinction he 
 has made between the Jewish church and church state, is an 
 idle and unmeaning one, and designed to obviate a difficulty he 
 foresaw,. For if he had insisted the Jewish church was the 
 olive tree, deriving its nourishment from the institutions and 
 worship established; he saw how ridiculous the assertion would 
 appear, that the believing gentiles should be incorporated into, 
 and considered a part of the Jewish commonwealth, and he 
 knew that fact would contradict him. And if he had said the 
 olive tree was the worship itself, either as first instituted or as 
 declared by him to be altered, he knew that the Jews as a body, 
 had never received Christ's laws and government, and therefore 
 could not be broken off : and was sensible that they were never 
 broken off from the Mosaic laws, but still retained them, and that 
 the gentiles never were grafted into Jewish rites ; and he could 
 not help seeing, that in such a plant, it was not the impenitent 
 Jews that were broken off, but the Jews that believed in Christ, 
 for they only have been separated from that body. From hence 
 he preferred the using of a word to which he could attach no 
 meaning, and by holding up a something he knew not what, in 
 which the Jews were grafted, he amuses himself with breaking 
 off, and grafting in again, to the no small confusion of himself 
 and readers. 
 
 Into the Jewish church then, the gentiles were not grafted, 
 nor yet were they grafted into their worship, which has been 
 abundantly proved in what has been said ; neither have the 
 impenitent Jews been broken off from either ; nor did the Jews 
 receive the new institutions of Christ as a rule for the whole 
 nation, and as such practise them, but on the contrary did reject 
 them, and only those who were the followers of Christ were 
 such as did receive them. If therefore, the gentiles were never 
 grafted into the Jewish church, nor yet into the worship which 
 
124 
 
 they as a body received, how can it be said, " if they did nqt. 
 take heed they would be broken off?" And if the Jewish nation 
 did not receive Christ's institutions in the place of those Moses 
 brought, how can the gentiles be said to have been " grafted in 
 among them ?" In the text, the gentiles are said to stand by faith : 
 but no faith was necessary in order to union with the Jewish 
 church ; and the Jews, in like manner, are said to have been 
 broken off for unbelief If so, the Jewish church could not be 
 intended, because their union with that was by birthright, and 
 not for any spiritual qualifications. All this will serve to shew, 
 th#t the olive tree was different from the Jewish church or 
 worship, and that infants could never be contemplated in that 
 establishment ; for whatever requires faith in order to an union 
 at first, or to retain that union afterward, is entirely incompa- 
 tible with infant church membership, for infants cannot have it 
 when frst added, and nineteen-twentieths of them would forfeit 
 it afterward, 
 
 1. The olive tree mentioned in this text was most unques- 
 tionably the first gospel church gathered in Jerusalem by the 
 ministry of Christ and the apostles. 2. This is called a root, 
 because from it proceeded all other churches of Christ, as a tree 
 grows from the root ; and because like a root it was hidden, 
 mean, and contemptible in its appearance — called also the first 
 fruits, as it was in reality the first fruits of Christ's gospel ; and 
 as the first fruits were presented as a part and earnest of the 
 whole harvest, so this church at Jerusalem was an earnest of 
 all the elect. The branches of this olive tree were the individuals 
 who all stood in relation to the church as a branch does to the 
 tree ; these branches are said to be like the root, holy, thereby 
 shewing that the converted persons only were in the church of 
 Jerusalem — the same being called the first fruits, and that being 
 jholy ; and the lump said to be as the first fruits, was to shew, 
 that the real church of Jesus Christ unto the end of time was to 
 be constituted of holy persons, and all others not to be reckoned 
 among them. This root was said to have a fatness in it ; which 
 intends the doctrines and ordinances left by Christ for the 
 nourishment of his church. These branches are said to be 
 grafted in, and afterward the gentiles among them ; for the word 
 4 grafting,' refers to both, and was designed to shew, that no 
 Jew, as such, was in this church of Jerusalem, but only brought 
 in by a work of grace, which first united him to Christ, and 
 then to the church, of which grafting was a suitable emblem. 
 3. The impenitent Jews were not said to be grafted, but broken 
 off : this was to shew, that they had a natural, but not a spiritual 
 relation, to those Jews that constituted the church at Jerusalem ; 
 and that while the first, were grafted into the church of Christ, 
 
125 
 
 the others were compared to broken branches, that were wither- 
 ing ; and their being broken off signifies nothing more than a 
 privation of the gospel, which they had in common with the true 
 church at Jerusalem. 4. When it is said, the broken branches 
 shall be grafted in, it is to be understood of the gospel being 
 restored to them in the latter day ; and when the olive tree, or 
 Jerusalem church, was called " their olive tree," it was merely 
 to shew the natural connection that subsisted ; for the members 
 of the first gospel church were Jews, and hence the inference of 
 the apostle, that (according to reason) they had a much better 
 right to expect a grafting in among them, than the gentiles who 
 had always been considered as the natural enemies of the Jews : 
 and all this was to shew the sovereignty of God. The only thing 
 in the interpretation of this text that needs enlarging on, is, 
 whether a mere privation of the gospel is what is meant by a 
 breaking off, as it relates to the Jews. This will appear from 
 Acts xiii. 46, 47. u It was necessary that the word of God 
 should first have been spoken to you : but seeing ye put it from 
 you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we 
 turn to the gentiles, for so hath the Lord commanded us." 
 " Therefore I say unto you, the kingdom of God shall be taken 
 from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof,'* 
 Matth. xxi. 43. And that this kingdom of God which was to 
 be taken away and given to the gentiles, was the gospel, will 
 appear from those texts where preaching of the gospel is called 
 a preaching of the kingdom of God. Luke iv. 43. " I must 
 preach the kingdom of God to other cities." Luke ix. 2. u And 
 he sent them to preach the kingdom of GodP It is in another 
 place called the u gospel of the kingdom." 
 
 Mr, E, says, u that the same stock from which the branches 
 were broken off, even into that were the gentiles grafted." 
 Very well. We have already shewn it was not from the old 
 Jewish church they were broken, for to that they still adhere : 
 but it was frGm the enjoyment of the gospel which they first had ; 
 and truly, the gentiles have received that gospel from which they 
 have been broken off. He likewise observes, that u they shall 
 be grafted into the same state from which they were broken off," 
 To this we shall not object neither : but then we contend, it was 
 not from the Jewish establishment containing infants, for with 
 that they are now connected, and therefore need not grafting in 
 again ; but to the enjoyment of the gospel they can be restored, 
 and will, in the latter day. He still proceeds to say, " and as 
 infants were in that church from which they were broken off, so 
 they will be in the church to which they shall be restored, for it 
 is the same church." To which I object as before, that the first 
 gospel church not consisting of all the Jews, but only of believer^ 
 
 R 
 
126 
 
 infants were not in this church j and as the unbelieving Jews 
 were so far broken oft as to be deprived of the gospel, at the 
 restoration they shall again enjoy it ; and the church of Christ 
 among the Jews not having infants in it then, shall not have 
 them in when the Jews are restored. 
 
 As the first church of Christ was collected from among the 
 Jews, and even that church thus collected is not to be found in 
 this day, made up entirely of that people, but even their posterity 
 have been rejected, so that the whole nation is literally refused ; 
 what that church at Jerusalem was, such shall the Jews be 
 when restored : and as our opponents have not proved, and I 
 am bold to say cannot, that infants were in it ; neither can they 
 prove (as he asserts) that infants will be in it, in the latter day 
 glory of the church. Let Mr. E. or any of his brethren shew, 
 that infants were in the Jerusalem church, and then the dispute 
 is at an end. Besides, those cut off from the church here spoken 
 of, were cut off for unbelief, and this is a convincing proof that 
 infants could not have been connected with it ; for it is acknow- 
 ledged that they could not disbelieve or reject the gospel : hence 
 this text of scripture overthrows his scheme entirely of the 
 gospel church having infants as members. Those gentiles that 
 were put in their room, are said to stand by faith, which shews 
 their children were not united with them in a church capacity ; 
 and farther shews, that to keep a standing in the gospel church 
 as it was in Jerusalem, required the exercise of a divine faith ; 
 all which an infant cannot have while in infancy. There is no 
 way of evading the dilemma, but to assert that the right of 
 children to church membership depends on the piety of the 
 parent ; and that a parent being excluded, his exclusion involves 
 the exclusion of his child : a doctrine this, which our opponents 
 "will not venture to defend. 
 
 " For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath 
 broken down the middle wall of partition between us," Ephes. 
 ii. 14. This Mr. E. advances in order to prove, " 1. That the 
 Jewish church continued as before, and was not dissolved at the 
 calling of the gentiles." 2. That the gentiles were a separate 
 church, " and were not formed into a new church," when the 
 partition was broken down. iC 3. That the partition taken away 
 united them both, made both one ; and that because adults and 
 infants being in membership among the Jews, the removal of 
 the partition brought adults and infants into union among the 
 gentiles." 
 
 In this last effort, Mr. E. has entirely thrown down what he 
 before had laboured hard to establish ; that the gentiles were 
 added to the church of Jerusalem, and by means of numbers, at 
 Jast overwhelmed the Jewish church, tjntii it lost its name and 
 
127 
 
 became gentile. Now, it seems, he has found out two- distinct 
 churches j one purely gentile, the other purely Jewish, and both 
 these existing at one and the same time, and only divided from 
 each other by a partition* But the most curious part of the 
 business is, that these two churches, according to him, both 
 existed while the partition was still standing. I always thought 
 that this partition was taken away when Christ died, and not until 
 then. The text itself says, Ephes. ii. 16. " That he might 
 reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain 
 the enmity thereby ;" and it had always appeared to me, that 
 the gospel was not preached to the gentiles until after the 
 resurrection of Christ, and that there was not a gentile church 
 gathered for some time after this period. Where he found this 
 gentile church, he has not yet condescended to say : but so eager 
 was he to get at the partition and pluck it up, thereby to get his 
 little Jewisn infants into it ; that he quite forgot there was not 
 a gentile church of Christ at that time in the woild. It may be 
 that the gentleman in his reveries, was transported in idea to 
 the church on u Mars hill;" and so pleased was he with their 
 thousand altars, and with the one to the unknown. God in 
 particular, that to be sure, Jesus Christ must have been meant 
 as the God referred to ! Or perhaps he had heard the noise of 
 the great Diana's worshippers, and concluded, so much zeal 
 must surely belong to the worshippers of Christ. How these 
 gentiles could, according to his first statement, as they embraced 
 the gospel, unite with the Jewish church by degrees, and yet at 
 the same time remain separate, and then all at once (the supposed 
 partition being plucked up) become united, is left to the gentle- 
 man to make plain by his logical propositions. At one time, 
 to get infants into the church, he declares the gentiles went into 
 the Jewish church gradually and received infant membership 
 there ; but then, suspecting that would not go down, he has 
 them both standing with a partition between them, he plucks it 
 up in haste, and brings all the Jews, adults and infants, right 
 into the gentile church. Do you net think, reader, that the 
 gentiles must have been at their wit's end when they saw their 
 church thus invaded ? How did they manage the little folks ! 
 
 There is one thing more that did not strike the gentleman at 
 the time. He concedes the point, that infants were not in the 
 gentile church at first, and that they were not in it until the Jews 
 brought them there. This seems to look as if the gentiles were 
 not very favourable to infant membership ; and if they were not 
 over powered with argument, thev certainly were with numbers* 
 This text was an unfortunate one for Mr. E., and it seems as it. 
 he put it into our hand to use against him j for the very next. 
 
128 
 
 terse ruins his whole interpretation, thus ; " For to make in 
 himself of twain one new man, so making peace," Eph. ii. 15. 
 —Now this church so made is called a new man, not an old 
 man as the Jewish church was ; but a new man. This shews, 
 that in taking up this partition, Jesus dissolved the distinction 
 between the Jew and gentile, and placed them on a level as to 
 religious rites ; and then, out of both, made a new man or church, 
 and that entirely different from both Pagan and J 'etuis h institu- 
 tions. If he had brought the gentile church into the Jewish, it 
 would have been but an old man after all. The like might be 
 said, had he brought the Jewish into the gentile church, (had 
 such a church existed) it would still have been nothing more than 
 en old man. But, says the text, it is a new man, or new church ; 
 •which excludes his views of the passage entirely. By the sepa- 
 rating of the Jewish nation from others, and they receiving as 
 the mark of that national election, circumcision, with the rituals 
 of the ceremonial law ; the Jews became proud, and insulted the 
 gentiles on all occasions that offered, so that the most determined 
 enmity existed. But God, to do away that enmity, says the 
 apostle, abolished those national distinctions that had been 
 necessary, and nailed them to the cross of his Son ; for in his 
 death they all had their fulfilment : and now, circumcision and 
 all the Jewish rites being removed, and national distinctions 
 done away, by which peace was made between Jew and gentile, 
 and God out of both (not one) making one new man, or church ; 
 therefore, he (Christ) is called our peace, or peace maker. 
 This entirely sets aside the notion of the Jewish church state 
 continuing. 
 
 Mr. E. concludes his four arguments on the texts already 
 considered, by drawing certain inferences which he deems con- 
 clusive in his favour : 1. That no law can be found in the New 
 Testament, that repeals the church membership of infants. 
 2. That had it been repealed, the Jews who were tenacious of 
 their customs, would not have been silent : but, he says, no 
 instance can be produced of their opposition on this subject. In 
 answer to the first, it will be sufficient to say, that as infant 
 membership had never obtained in the gospel church, there was 
 no need of any repealing act : but to authorize their admission 
 into the gospel church, there ought to have been a particular 
 law in their favour ; and we can with more confidence affirm, 
 that had the w ill of Christ been that infants should be admitted, 
 it is unaccountable that he should not so intimate. That the 
 New Testament is silent about this matter is not true ; which 
 will be evinced in two ways : first, That their plea has been set 
 aside, and that by abrogating the whole Jewish ceremonial law j 
 
129 
 
 and as circumcision was never denied to be a ceremonial precept? 
 and as it is said that by it infants were initiated, if that was done 
 Away, their membership died with it. 
 
 It will be in vain to say, that by baptism infants were after- 
 ward initiated ; for if so, some instances ought to be furnished 
 thereof, as express as the circumcising of Jewish infants. " The 
 law and the prophets were until John : since that time the 
 kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it," 
 Luke xvi. 16. Here the date is fixed when it ceased (John's 
 ministry). Since that time, (not before) every man, or all kinds 
 of men, whether Jew or gentile, are said to press (not to be 
 carried in, as infants must be) into it ; and for the very reason 
 assigned in Eph. ii. 15, 16. that Christ had u abolished in his 
 flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in 
 ordinances," (Jewish ordinances) : " And that he might recon- 
 cile both unto God," (Jew and gentile) " in one body by the 
 cross." Surely, that which sets aside the whole ceremonial law, 
 must have affected the standing of infants, especially as by one of 
 those abolished ceremonies (circumcision), they were admitted, 
 as our adversaries affirm. " For the priesthood being changed, 
 there is of necessity a change also of the law," Heb. vii. 12. In 
 this text, there is mentioned a change in the membership of that 
 church, as to the priesthood ; and the law itself is said to be 
 changed, and that not partially, for there is no limiting clause : 
 but does not a change of the law, by which their right was first 
 established, affect their standing ? " For there is verily a dis- 
 annulling of the commandment going before, for the weakness 
 and unprofitableness thereof. For the law made nothing perfect, 
 but the bringing in of a better hope did," Heb. vii. 18, 19. This 
 text is very explicit. The Jewish law is said to be disannulled, 
 repealed — the reasons of this repealing were, its weakness, and its 
 unprofitableness, and because it made nothing perfect. Can any 
 one pretend, that such a repealing did not affect the standing of 
 infants ? M For the law, having a shadow of good things to come, 
 and not the very image of the things, can never with those 
 sacrifices, which they offered year by year continually, make the 
 comers thereunto perfect. For then would they not have ceased 
 to be offered ? — Then said he, lo, I come to do thy will, O God. 
 He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second," 
 Heb. x. 1, 2. 9. In this text, the law ceremonial is called a 
 shadow, because it is empty, fleeting, perishable — designed to 
 make known the substance ; for there can be no shadow, where 
 a substance does not intervene to hinder the sun's rays : hence, 
 it was to express the superior excellency of the gospel dispen- 
 sation. — God is said, in verse 6, to have no pleasure in them 
 
130 1 
 
 ^—Christ is then said to take away the first dispensation, te 
 establish the second, or gospel dspensation. 
 
 1. Taking away is not altering, but an entire re?novi?ig. Will 
 it then be said that the taking away a law by which infant church 
 membership had a being, does not do away that rite ? u Behold, 
 the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant 
 with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah ; not 
 according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the 
 day that I took them by the hand, to bring them out of the land 
 ol Egypt ; (which my covenant they brake, although I was a 
 husband unto them, saith the Lord); But this shall be the 
 covenant I will make with the house of Israel; after those days, 
 saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and 
 write it in their hearts ; and will be their God, and they shall 
 be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his 
 neighbour, and every man his brother, sayings know the Lord : 
 for they shall all know me from the least of thtm to the greatest 
 of them, saith the Lord : for I will forgive their iniquity, and 
 I will remember their sin no more," Jer. xxxi. 31 — 33. In this 
 most conclusive text, we have it declared " a nenv covenant" 
 should be made at some future period. This covenant was the 
 gospel dispensation, which was new, not only in order of time, 
 but also as to church, members, ordinances. 2. It is expresslv 
 said not to be u according to the covenant God made with their 
 fathers," The covenant made with their fathers was delivered 
 to them by Moses, (ordering their worship and institutions) at 
 Mount Sinai. Now, this gospel covenant was not to be like that; 
 jio, not in any wise : but if infant church membership was 
 retained, it was like it. 3. This difference between them con- 
 sisted in the law of God u put in their mind" and not wrote on 
 tables of stone as the former was. They should u know the 
 Lord" from the least of them to the greatest ; but this could not 
 be the case if infant church membership remained under the 
 gospel ; for then many would be without the knowledge of God. 
 This text shews,the gospel church was to be made up of renewed 
 persons — they were to be " pardoned" persons ; all of which is 
 expressive of the members of the gospel church being regene- 
 rated, vend justified persons. It is quoted at full length in Heb. 
 viii. 8 — 13. ; from which we learn two things : that in Paul's 
 da)' this business had been effected ; the new covenant had been 
 made with the spiritual Israel of God ; and therefore, saith he, 
 u he hath made the first (covenant made with Israel when they 
 w r ere in the wilderness) old ■" of which he further saith, that the 
 first covenant had " decayed, and is ready to vanish away" 
 That which is " decayed or rotten" could not be fit for use : so 
 was the old Jewish law in ail its parts; and the Builder of the 
 
131 
 
 spiritual temple would not use such materials in his new church. 
 That which " vanishes" is not to be seen, no traces of it are left: 
 and such has been the case with the Jewish dispensation : but if 
 any part remains, it has not vanished away. How evident it is, 
 then, that in the abrogation of the whole Jewish system, infant! 
 membership has gone with it ; and this is the more evident, as 
 our opponents make but very feeble efforts to establish their 
 membership from the New Testament, but rest their defence on 
 that very abrogated law. Now, if Mr. E. asks for the repealing 
 law, he certainly has it furnished to him. 
 
 The author of the late pamphlet has tried to evade the force 
 of these texts, by denying that the covenant made with the 
 children of Israel at Sinai, was the same with that made with 
 Abraham, and asserts that the covenant made Avith Arbaham was 
 distinct from it, and existed long before. — See page 38. This 
 is mere evasion ; for if there is a difference it only consists in 
 the covenant being made first with Abraham without the presence 
 of his posterity ; and afterward the same covenant renewed with 
 his posterity, when he was not personally present. This evasion 
 would prove fatal on another ground, and that because the 
 promise made to Abraham xvas made before he had any posterity, 
 Ishmael excepted. If, therefore, this promise or covenant was 
 not made, with all his posterity in him ;■ then it was made with 
 none of them, and Abraham only with his servants, with Ishmael 
 must have been in that church, Gen. xvii. 23 ; and, of course, 
 infant church membership falls to the ground in this way. 
 Besides this, every thing mentioned in the covenant with Abra* 
 ham, was also mentioned in that of Sinai. See Gen. xvii. 7. 
 " And I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and 
 thy seed after thee, in their generations, for an everlasting 
 covenant ; to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee," 
 verse 10. u Every man child among you shall be circumcised." 
 See also Deut. xxix. 9. " Keep, therefore, the words of this 
 covenant ;" verse 13. " that he may establish thee to-day for a 
 people unto himself, and that he may be unto thee a God, as he 
 hath said unto thee, and as he hath sworn unto thy fathers, to 
 Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob." Josh. v. 2. " At that time 
 the Lord said unto Joshua, make thee sharp knives, and circum- 
 cise again the children of Israel the second time." From which 
 it may be readily seen, that the covenant made with Abraham 
 was indeed that which was afterward renewed with Israel at 
 Horeb, word for word, and even those expressions on which 
 most reliance is placed, were in this Horeb covenant, " I will 
 be a God unto thee" 
 
 If, then, the covenant made with Israel at Horeb, was the 
 same in all respects as that made with Abraham , and if that very 
 
132 
 
 covenant has vanished away ; how futile the remark that they 
 were two different covenants, and that only one has vanished ! 
 All Abraham's posterity were included in that covenant made 
 with him, and it was with his poserity this Horeb covenant was 
 renewed. Now, if from the date of the Horeb covenant, and 
 so onward to the gospel time, their posterity were bound by that 
 covenant, and that to all intents and purposes the same as 
 Abraham, and that has now vanished ; who does not see that 
 the Jewish church has been finally dissolved ? — If the publisher 
 wished to gain any thing by the distinction he made, he ought 
 to have made it appear, that the covenants in question were not 
 alike, and that the latter was not a mere repetition, or renewal 
 of the former. 
 
 To Mr. E. I again say, that the plea of the posterity of 
 Abraham to circumcision, though valid as to that rite, was 
 absolutely insufficient, and therefore refused when urged in 
 order to baptism ; see Matth. iii. 9. " Think not to say within 
 yourselves, we have Abraham to our father." Verse 8. " Bring 
 forth fruit meet for repentance." This text proves that a plea 
 which could not have been rejected as to admission into the 
 Jewish church, or in relation to the ordinance of circumcision, 
 was not thought sufficient by John to warrant him to baptize. 
 It is also certain, that the persons who came thought their right 
 a good one, and urged it on John, but urged it in vain. The 
 only answer that Mr. E. can make to this, is, that the persons 
 who came to John were adults, and that repentance was required 
 of such ; but that if infants had been brought with that plea, they 
 would not have be^n rejected. This gloss affords no relief ; for 
 the argument respects church membership under the former 
 dispensation, Warranting church membership under the present. 
 But if an adult Jew, on application, would have received 
 circumcision, though it were manifest he had no grace ; and yet 
 the same person would not have received baptism, then the 
 evidence is undeniable, that there needed more to fit a person 
 for a gospel church, than for the Jewish — and all this must 
 destroy infant baptism. 
 
 Mr. E.'s second conclusion is equally void of correctness ; 
 that no opposition was made by the Jews to the gospel, on 
 account of infants not being admitted into the gospel church, as 
 they had been in the Jewish. Though no mention is made 
 particularly, it stands on the same ground widi other things that 
 are admitted to have been abrogated, and that uvenot in the scrip* 
 tures mentioned as objected to by the Jews in particular. But 
 if the Jews thought that Christ had come to destroy the whole 
 law, and opposed him on that broad basis, without entering into 
 detail ; can it be said they did not object to this, when they did 
 
133 
 
 to the whole ? The constitution of this country secures to every 
 child, born in the land, the right of citizenship. Noav, if persons 
 were thought to be attempting the destruction of the whole 
 instrument, and the good citizens opposed their apparently 
 A'illainous designs against the whole bill of rights ; would any 
 one take it in his head to say, that these citizens were not 
 tenacious of the rights of their children, because they did not 
 dwell on their case in particular ? Yet, such is the reasoning of 
 Mr. E. That the Jews thought Christ and his apostles to be 
 unfriendly to their whole establishment, and opposed him on 
 that ground, will appear thus : u This fellow persuadeth men 
 to worship God contrary to the law," Acts xviii. 13. u Men of 
 Israel, help : this is the man that teacheth all men every where 
 against the people, and the law, and this place," Acts xxi. 28. 
 
 Mr. E. produces Mark ix. 36. " And he took a child, and 
 set him in the midst of them : and when he had taken him in his 
 arms he said unto them," (Luke ix. 45.) " whosoever shall 
 receive this child in my name, receiveth me." He concludes 
 that this child must have been an infant, from the circumstance 
 of Christ taking him in his arms ; and then infers, that the 
 receiving of him must not be merely as an infant, but as one 
 belonging to Christ, as a member of his church, and that the child 
 was to be received in that capacity. The design of Christ in 
 setting this child in the midst ought not to be forgotten ; for, the 
 disciples had been contending about pre-eminence, and the 
 setting of a child in the midst of them was to teach them to be 
 as meek and inoffensive as a child ; so that if an infant had been 
 intended, the utmost we could learn would be the moral couched 
 under it, which was, that whoever of the disciples could act 
 most with the meekness pf a child, would be the greatest among 
 them ; but this, at last, would not be a warrant for infant church 
 membership. The child here spoken of was not an infant ; but 
 a young person that was a believer in Christ, for in Matth. 
 xviii. 2, 3, 4 — 6. the same narrative is given ; which at once 
 clears the difficulty, thus : " And Jesus called a little child unto 
 him, and set him in the midst of them, and said, verily I say 
 unto you, except ye be converted, and become as little children, 
 ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever, 
 therefore, shall humble himself 4 as this little child] the same is 
 greatest in the kingdom of heaven. But whoso shall offend one 
 of these little ones which believe in me, it were better," &c. This 
 text Mr. E. omitted, no doubt, with design ; for had he quoted 
 it, the difficulty would have vanished at once. The text speaks 
 of this little child humbling himself, words never applicable to 
 infants ; and this little one is also called a believer in Christy 
 which bv no means agree? with an infant. Samuel and Timothy 
 
 S 
 
134 
 
 arc such instances of early piety ; and very early in life, many are 
 made the subjects of a divine call in the present day. It was 
 such an one Christ took in his arms, whom he stiled a believer, 
 commended for humility, recommended as an example to his 
 disciples, and of whom he declared, that in receiving such, he 
 was received* But the text also says, that Jesus " called him ;'* 
 thereby manifesting, that this child was capable of reflection, 
 and was able of his own accord to come to him. It is not said he 
 called for the child. All the reasoning of Mr. E. as applied to 
 this child we are not disposed to reject ; for such as he are in 
 reality in connection with the church of God. But as a mere infant 
 was not intended, his conclusions must all of them be false. 
 
 We refer next to Mark x. 14. " But when Jesus saw it, he 
 was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little 
 children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the 
 kingdom of heaven." That a child is proposed as an emblem 
 of a christian cannot be doubted, not because it is in possession 
 of divine grace, but on account of its weakness, dependance, and 
 passiveness ; reference to which is found in Matth. xviii. 3. 
 u Except ye be converted and become as a little child, ye shall 
 not enter into thekingdom of heaven." Of such, therefore, who 
 resemble little children in the above sense spiritually, are the 
 kingdom of heaven, Mr. E. thinks that in the interpretation of 
 this text, all depends on the meaning of the words kingdom of 
 heaven ; he does not seem to remember more than two senses in 
 which it is taken in the scriptures, one or the other he thinks 
 must apply to them ; these are, u the church" and everlasting 
 vi glory" both of which he determines to make subserve the 
 interests of his cause. If the first is meant, then his cause is 
 gained, and it would follow they were in the church. It is 
 however unfortunate for him, that if they were in the church, 
 the disciples did not know it, or certainly they would not have 
 disputed their right therein. Will any man believe that these 
 little babes were members of the church of Christ, and yet the 
 apostles remain ignorant of it ; especially when Mr. E. affirms, 
 that the membership of infants was so familiar to them, that they 
 " naturally looked for it r" But, says he, the Baptists admit 
 they are of the kingdom of glory, and if they are a part of the 
 T.hurch triumphant, then they must be fit for the church on earth. 
 The Baptists admit a part of what is here stated, but not all ; 
 they indeed believe that all infants dying in infancy are saved : 
 but then all infants do not die in infancy ; many of them grow- 
 up to men's estate, live wicked lives, and die miserable. If 
 those only are to be baptized that die in infancy and go to heaven, 
 how do our Pcedobaptist brethren mean to find them out ? will 
 they wait until they are deceased, and then administer the 
 
135 
 
 ordinance ? Or, do they think they have a spirit of discernment 
 and can distinguish them from others ? But if not, and baptism 
 is to be inferred from glorification, is it not absurd to baptize all 
 that come in their way indiscriminately I In what a situation 
 are our opponents placed, if they infer their membership from 
 the church being called the kingdom of God ! That will not do f 
 for the church did not know them, and were angry on account of 
 their being brought. If they infer it from children dying in 
 infancy, this likewise fails them; for they know not who they 
 are that shall die until they are actually deceased, and then it is 
 too late. And if they in their great charity will baptize all, in 
 order to find out the right ones ; then they must of course baptize 
 thousands who will live wicked lives, and never enter glory. 
 What then will they do ? In all their arguments in favour of 
 baptizing infants, they infer their meetness from a supposed 
 holiness in them ; and yet in their sermons they are piously 
 preaching the doctrine of human depravity, and insist that 
 infants are under the ruins of the fall, and have all the latent 
 principles of corruption in them. Is it not singular to hear such 
 contradictions from men of sense ? And is it not strange that an 
 incapacity to commit actual sin, while all the dispositions to 
 sinful actions are within, should be considered the same as the 
 renovation of the heart by the Holy Spirit I And yet such incon- 
 sistencies are found in our opponents. 
 
 The author of the Sermon tries to be witty, and says the 
 Baptists act ridiculously in asserting that children in humility 
 are intended ; for, adds he, u What should we think of a man 
 that should say to his servant : Suffer the sheep and lambs to- 
 come unto me and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom 
 of heaven." It may seem ridiculous to this author that good 
 men should be called lambs and sheep, and he may make himself 
 merry with it : but that he may not langii too loud, nor too long r 
 I present him with these scripture declarations as a reply, and 
 wish him in reading them, much entertainment : u He shall 
 gather his lambs with his arm, and carry them in his bosom," 
 Isaiah xL 11. u My sheep hear my voice, and they follow 
 me," John x. 27. He states the same argument that we have 
 seen advanced above from Mark ix. 56, 37. and Luke ix. 4. ; 
 but, like Mr. E., has fraudulently kept back the parallel passage 
 in Matth. xviii. 3 — 6. where that same little child is called a 
 believer in Christ. Is this honesty in these gentlemen ? Would 
 they be thought to be searching after truth ? Is not this handling 
 the word of God deceitfully ? Why could not the gentleman find 
 the last quoted text? Was it not design in him, knowing that all 
 the inferences he afterwards draws would then he false ? But he 
 associates the " ktik children" that were brought to Christ, as 
 
136 
 
 mentioned in Mark x. 14. with the u little child" that was called 
 by Christ, and whom he calls a believer, Matth. xviii. 3 — 6. ; 
 and then he completely wrests the sacred text, by taking so 
 much of the last passage as " whosoever receiveth one of such 
 children" which he applies to the child, who was not brought, 
 but came himself to Christ, and of whom Christ testified he was 
 a believer, and confounds with it the children mentioned in Mark 
 x. 14. who were said to be brought to him" These words, 
 ** whosoever receiveth one of such children" are not found in 
 the last quoted text ; and for this plain reason, that these last 
 were in reality infants, and not of the church of God : but the 
 first was a believer, and as such a disciple, and therefore those 
 that received him, received his Master. 
 
 He continues, " Since then Christ would have us receive 
 little children in his name, as belonging to him, and declares 
 that in so doing, we receive him ; when, therefore, a believer 
 offers his child to the church, to be received by baptism, as 
 belonging to Christ, shall they thus despise Christ's little ones?" 
 The gentleman is still going wrong. It was not the little 
 children brought to Christ in Mark x. 14. we are to receive ; 
 but little believing children, as in Matth. xviii. 3 — -6. "who came 
 to Christ when called : these are to be received ; and, when a 
 believer brings his believing offspring, we have a warrant to 
 baptize them : but when they bring their babes, such as will 
 be guided by Christ's example, must do no more than touch 
 them, or at most put their hand on them and pray. 
 
 This author, page 23, thinks it impertinent in a Baptist to ask 
 such questions, " Why Christ did not baptize them, if they were 
 proper subjects ?" Why, sir, so much afraid of being questioned ; 
 does it arise from a consciousness, that you are not able to meet 
 inquiry fairly, and that you would be entangled ? Rude, how- 
 ever, as it may seem, we must request an answer. Gentlemen 
 are very condescending in shifting their business off themselves 
 on us. He says, u If they were not baptized, it is the business 
 of the Baptists to shew they were not." But, sir, what are you 
 arguing about ? Did you not promise to make it appear that 
 infants were baptized, and did you not bring this very passage 
 in proof of it ? Yet now you are reduced to the necessity of 
 taking the silence of the text for conclusive evidence, and of 
 putting it on us to prove a negative. You tell us, that you 
 produce this passage to demonstrate their membership, and 
 from that infer their baptism ; yet you tell us again, that persons 
 may be members without baptism, " that baptism could not be 
 thought necessary before the church was finally settled." At 
 one time you say that baptism is " the door of the church," 
 and as you by some means found them in it, they must have 
 
137 
 
 come in through the door : but now you have placed them there 
 without coming in at the door at all. After all, it seems, 
 baptism is a door, and it is no door : it is the way into the 
 church, and yet infants may go into the church without it. 
 Such are the contradictions of this convincing writer. But, he 
 says, the text plainly asserts, " that infants belong to the 
 church*' 1 Is the gentleman serious when he says, that it is 
 indeed plainly asserted ? No such thing, sir ; the church is not 
 once mentioned in the text, nor yet is membership once adverted 
 to ; nor are there any hints about their eligibility to such a 
 station. The author thinks the silence of Christ at this time is 
 in his favour. He says, " if they" (meaning infants) " were 
 not to be baptized, this was the time for Christ to have said so." 
 Had these children been brought to Christ with a request he 
 would baptize them, there would be some appearance of reason 
 in this : but as they were brought to him to receive his blessing 
 onlv, there was nothing to lead to such a conversation. If, 
 however, the gentleman is disposed to draw conclusions from 
 silence, I will furnish him with a text in Acts viii. 12. " They 
 were baptized both men and women." If it is true, that the 
 apostles baptized believers and their offspring, why were not 
 their children mentioned here, and especially when an account 
 was given of those that were baptized, and even the sexes 
 mentioned ? 
 
 In page 21, this writer observes, that by the kingdom of 
 heaven in Mark x. 14. u the church is plainly meant," and he 
 says further, " Nor is it denied by any that I know of : and I 
 think it is the visible church." Do you say what is -true, sir, 
 that you know of none that deny this to be the meaning of the 
 text? Surely you must know to the contrary, and that the 
 increasing thousands of Baptists, both here and in Europe, deny 
 it to be the sense. How then, can you sport with your readers, 
 and with the truth, in this manner ? If your meaning were, 
 that no advocate for infant church membership denied this, 
 ought you not to have been more explicit : The last part of 
 this extraordinary quotation deserves a smile : u I think" This 
 opinion of yours, sir, must fix the sense of the passage ; and the 
 Baptists, after this, must not demur, but receive the evidence as 
 conclusive. But, sir, if the question will not by you be deemed 
 u impertinent," what reason have you to " think" that the king- 
 dom of heaven in the text, means the church ? Will you decline 
 giving an answer to this ? Is it not stealing out at the back door, 
 to say " the texts are so many that may be quoted ?" Well, let 
 us have one at least. What, sir, not one of the " numerous 
 passages I'' Why so coy ? I, sir, will speak for you, and teach 
 the reader the cause of this untimely silence. The phrase 
 
138 
 
 kingdom of heaven is taken in different senses. It means 
 the gospel, Matth. ix. 35. — grace in the heart, Luke xvii. 21.-— 
 the gospel church, Matth. xi. 11. — and a state of glory, Luke 
 xi. 32. But the gentleman wished to insinuate there was one 
 sense, and only one, that thereby he might lead his little ones 
 into the church. That the ' kingdom of heaven,' in the text he 
 refers to cannot mean the church is evident, because the apostles 
 nvere displeased with infants being brought ; they did not own 
 them in that relation, or how could this conduct of theirs be 
 accounted for ? And if Christ had urged them to receive the 
 children of believers, and such had before been in the church, 
 why should they be so displeased with the parents for bringing 
 them ? Had it been true of those infants in particular, that they 
 possessed grace in the heart, yet it is not true of all the infants 
 of believers ; and this can never therefore, be a reason why all 
 infants are to be received into the church : much less can modern 
 preachers point out those little subjects of grace as Christ could, 
 who was omniscient, and infallible. Subjects of a gospel address 
 they could not be, for they were not capable of hearing it ; and 
 this shews they were not fit for a gospel church, inasmuch as 
 they are incapable of its duties. In the kingdom of glory they 
 appear, yet not all infants ; for all do not die in infancy : but it 
 Is truly impertinent to assert the right of all, or of any infants to 
 baptism, merely because those who die in infancy are saved* 
 Well, sir, after all, the business is not so plain as you would 
 have your readers believe ; neither have you as yet proved they 
 were at all in the church* If we ask a Pcedobaptist where he 
 finds his proof that infants were baptized, he immediately hands 
 out this text, " Suffer the little children to come unto me," and 
 insists it was to receive baptism. We object to this, by saying, 
 the text makes no mention of his baptizing of them, but only 
 44 touching" or " laying- his hands on them ;" that Christ did 
 not baptize them, for he baptized no one, not even believers, 
 John iv. 2. ; and that the disciples did not baptize them, because 
 they were for driving them away ; all which plainly shews they 
 were not in the practice of infant baptism. Mr. E. has seen the 
 perplexity of his brethren here, and to relieve them, he has so 
 far shifted the argument, as to infer the membership of infants 
 from the circumstance of their being brought, and then their 
 baptism from their membership ; and the author of this pamphlet 
 being in reality a mere imitator of Mr. E., has retailed out his 
 arguments, and claimed them as his own. 
 
 In this sermon it is affirmed, that " Christ gave them as sure 
 a token of church membership as baptism itself, when he laid 
 his hands on them and blessed them." This goes to say that 
 the act of laying on of hands, was to signify the party to be a 
 
139 
 
 member, or, that it was a rite in use, and by Christ exercised 
 on all church members j for if it was not done to all, it could be 
 no evidence of membership, and if it was not a gospel rite and 
 in constant practice, then it could not be an evidence of church 
 membership. But surely, this argument was used only as an 
 artifice ; nor does he consider that act as a religions rite, and 
 obligatory on all that enter into church relation. That he does 
 not consider imposition of hands on baptized persons as such, 
 as necessary to entitle them to membership, is evident ; for it 
 is well known that the society with which that gentleman stands 
 connected, does not hold the laying on of hands on baptized 
 persons, to introduce them into the church ; neither does the 
 gentleman himself practise it, But if he viewed it as a religious 
 rite, why not practise it? and if he considered no person admitted 
 anciently without it, why deviate at this time ? But if he thought 
 it were not necessary to church membership, what force could 
 it have in this case ? Why advance it to prove membership, when 
 persons might be members without it ? The gentleman's practice 
 is the best comment on this, and shews what his real sentiment 
 is, and that he does not consider it as a religious rite. In one 
 of the texts he quotes, it is said Christ M touched them," and ia 
 the other, " that he might lay his hands on them :" the inference 
 is, that this imposition of hands was a token of membership. 
 It will, however, appear from these following texts, that persons 
 were touched and had hands laid on them, to confer temporal 
 blessings only, where spiritual blessings were not in question: 
 and therefore it is not true, that imposition Gf hands is the 
 evidence of the person being in the church of God : " And he 
 touched her hand and the fever left her, 5 ' Maith. viii. 15. " He 
 put forth his hand and touched him, and saith unto him, I will, 
 be thou clean, 5 ' Mark i. 41. These passages shew that where 
 Christ is said to touch a person, it may be to remove a bo- 
 dily complaint only, and convey a temporal blessing, and is 
 no evidence of church membership at all. But would any one 
 infer the membership of these persons from Christ touching 
 them ? Equally ridiculous is it on this ground to infer that of 
 infants, " And they bring unto him one that was deaf, and had 
 an impediment in his speech ; and they beseech him to put his 
 hand upon him," Mark vii. 32. Here the two cases are parallel; 
 they bring the man — so persons brought the infants ; they 
 beseech him to put his hand on him-^-the others asked the same 
 thing. In the first case, a bodily blessing only is conveyed, 
 which shews it vras no religious rite : neither can it be proved 
 that these infanta were not diseased, and did not in like manner, 
 receive a corporeal blessing. £te that as it may, tins abundantly 
 
140 
 
 demonstrates, that Christ laying on his hand was no religious 
 rite, and did not imply church membership. 
 
 In page 22 of the same author, there is a most curious exhibi- 
 tion given of this business ; wherein he represents the disciples 
 to be contending about infant membership, and to find fault 
 with Christ on account of his allowing the privilege of infants to 
 be equal with theirs ; and he represents Christ as sharply 
 rebuking them on that account : but, in another part of his book, 
 he declares that they never had any difficulty on the subject of 
 infant membership, but always understood it to be their right. 
 Now, as the best answer, is to shew how he contradicts all this, 
 I will set one part of his book against the other. Page 22, " The 
 disciples were much disposed to stand on their distinctions. 
 They seemed to think, that they had a clearer and better title to 
 the privileges of Messiah's kingdom than infants. They were 
 actual believers and followers of Christ j which could not be 
 said of babes." For the contradiction, see page 25 and 26. 
 " For, let it be remembered, that the apostles had been educated 
 in the Jewish church, of which infants had been all along 
 undoubted members. They understood that the membership 
 of such had never been called in question, since there had been 
 a church in the world." 
 
 We now return to Mr. E. and consider his reasonings on 
 Acts ii. 38, 39. " Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be 
 baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the 
 remission of your sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy 
 Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and 
 to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall 
 call." Mr. E. says, that to find out who are meant by the 
 children to whom the promise is extended, reference ought to be 
 had to Gen. xvii. 17, "I will be a God unto thee, and unto thy 
 seed after thee." From which he argues, that seed and children 
 are the same ; and therefore, as the promise God made to 
 Abraham was equally to his posterity, so it must be understood 
 here. He is the more inclined to believe this to be the meaning, 
 because it was in consequence of the promise made to Abraham, 
 that he and his seed were to be circumcised ; and it was in 
 consequence of this promise mentioned by Peter, that they and 
 their children should be baptized. This will not answer his 
 purpose ; for it will contradict a former part of his book, where 
 he divides the subjects of baptism into adults and infants ; the 
 first, he says, are hot to be baptized without faith and repent- 
 ance, and the last might be baptized on the lakh of their parents. 
 This will be overthrown, because Abraham circumcised Ishmael 
 at twelve years of age though a wicked youth, and all his mrfe 
 
141 
 
 household servants. It is well known that none of Abraham's 
 male posterity were at liberty to be without circumcision, though 
 they should be grown up to maturity without it, and though 
 they had no grace (which he insists adults ought to have, as a 
 pre-requisite to baptism) ; and at one time, Joshua had all the 
 males circumcised without respect to age, even many thousands 
 who had been brought up in the wilderness without it, Josh. v. 
 5. What will Mr. E. do with this ? He tells us, that the converted 
 Jews and gentiles, were to administer baptism to their children 
 by the same rule, and to the same extent, that Abraham adminis- 
 tered circumcision to his children. If so, then, as we have 
 before proved, all his male posterity were to be circumcised, 
 no matter whether they were infants or adults, whether they had 
 faith or not, whether their parents were believers or not. Now, 
 let the administration of baptism here mean the same thing, and 
 then the believing Jews and gentiles were to baptize their 
 children, no matter whether they were infants or adults, whether 
 they had, or had not, the grace of God. Was it then in conse- 
 quence of that promise Abraham circumcised ? Is it for this 
 promise we are to baptize, and is baptism to be administered in 
 the last case, as extensively as circumcision in the first ? Then 
 Abraham circumcised a -wicked son, and all his servants, and 
 Joshua afterward, by the same authority, circumcised a whole 
 nation of males. What think you now of your rule for baptizing? 
 Let us hear no more, sir, of your saying adults must have faith 
 in order to baptism, but infants mav be baptized without it ; 
 and, sir, see that you baptize all the servants of your household 
 as well as the servants of your members. Upon your principles, 
 sir, all the nation may censure you for not baptizing them. 
 
 From the above it is manifest, that the promise made to 
 Abraham was not the one intended here, nor yet are we to go 
 on the same plan in baptizing that he did in circumcising ; for, 
 in that case, baptism ought not to be withheld frGm any one of 
 a believer's posterity, even down to the remotest ages of time ; 
 and it would be sufficient for a person to prove his right to 
 baptism at any time, that some of his ancestors had feared God. 
 As to his having no religion himself, that would be nothing ; 
 for he would only have to make it appear that graceless Jews 
 had been circumcised by divine command, and that not lor 
 their own faith, but for the faith of, and promise made to, 
 Abraham. 
 
 That the promise alluded to could not mean that made to 
 Abraham, is evident from this circumstance, the Jews knew 
 that promise to be theirs already ; and tiien Peter would be 
 considered as telling them what e\-ery Jew was acquainted with. 
 But the promise had respect to .something of which they saw 
 
 T 
 
1-12 
 
 themselves much in need, and without which they could not 
 take comfort. The promise was the gift of the Holy Ghost, of 
 which he had first spoken in verses 16 and 1 7. " But this is that, 
 which was spoken by the prophet Joel ; and it shall come to pass 
 in the last days, (saith God) I will pour out of my Spirit on all 
 flesh : and your sons and your daughters shall prophecy ;" — 
 verse 18. " And on my servants and on my handmaidens, I 
 will pour out, in those days, of my Spirit; and they shall pro- 
 phecy." The apostle then proceeds to shew, that Christ was the 
 Messiah foretold, (and proves him to have been no impostor) 
 from this consideration, that the Spirit, spoken of above, had 
 been poured out on them (the apostles), which had enabled 
 them to speak with tongues, " which," says he, verse 33. u ye 
 now see and hear." It was on this appeal to their senses, he 
 founded the charge afterward, that they had " crucified the 
 Lord Christ ;" and it was this truth, that the Holy Ghost set 
 home upon them which begat such anguish in their spirit, that 
 it is called a being pricked to the heart. Now it was, they 
 expected that God would take them at their word, " Let his 
 blood be on us and on our children; and therefore, being in great 
 distress, they inquire, u What shall we do V* Then Peter advises 
 them to c repent;* — to manifest their sorrow for having crucified 
 the Redeemer by being baptized in his name ; and adds this 
 gracious " promise" that they should receive remission of sins, 
 and the gift of the Holy Ghost. Here, then, is the promise 
 intended ; that on repentance, and being baptized, they should 
 have the remission of sin in general, and of the crucifixion of 
 Christ in particular ; and that they should receive the gift of 
 that same Spirit, which was visible to them in the apostles. This 
 promise oi the Spirit, he assures them was made to their penitent 
 children also, and to the Jews u afar off," (in every nation) that 
 should be " called of God" as likewise to the called gentiles. 
 When our opponents produce this text, they generally stop 
 short at the words, " the promise is to you and your children," 
 and it is with the greatest reluctance they ever produce the other 
 part, ■" even as many as the Lord our God shall call." 
 
 It is as plain as the sun in its meridian, that immediately 
 after mention is made of the promise, that in order to shew that 
 remission of sins, and the gift of the Holy Ghost is not to ever}' 
 Tew, nor yet to every gentile, it is directly added, " even to as 
 many," whether cf Jew or gentile, " as the Lord our God shall 
 call." Nor could the remission of sins, and the gift of the Holy 
 Ghost he intended for the posterity of those Jews who believed, 
 and of the gentiles who were to be called ; because, in that case, 
 the promise has not been verified ; for it is manifest, that the 
 children of believers are as graceless as others. Were we to. 
 
143 
 
 grant what our opponents ask, that the promise made to Abrav 
 ham, " I will be a God to thee and to thy seed," was intended 
 here ; still, as they say that the blessings of the covenant of 
 grace were intended in that promise, and not merely temporal 
 things, what would they gain by it ? Will any of our Poedo- 
 baptist opponents dare to say, that the blessings of the new and 
 everlasting covenant, are the property of the children of all 
 believers, no matter what are their lives ? Or if they dare not 
 say this, and yet insist that this promise is made to all the seed 
 of believers, as such, must they not in this charge God with a 
 breach of promise, and that he has said he will give to them, 
 what he has not actually given ? See to what straits our oppo- 
 nents are reduced : they must either insist that the posteritv of 
 believers are all saved — or else, that God has broken his promise 
 with some of them — or, that he never made it to all, and then 
 their scheme is gone — or else that the promise to Abraham was 
 not to be a God to them in a saving and religious sense ! The 
 best of all will be for them to give up these God dishonouring 
 interpretations. 
 
 I return to what the author of the Sermon has said on this 
 text. This author has hardly a remark that is original, but 
 seems to have copied all he says from Mr. E. ; and why he 
 thought proper to print this sermon, when the original itself has 
 been circulated in this city so generally, is not for me to sav : 
 but were it not, that a neglect of him might be improperly 
 construed, I should certainly not notice the production ; for 
 nothing is advanced but what is to be found in that book. He 
 takes up some time to prove, that what is called " the promise 
 by way of distinction and eminenc) T ," was that made to Abraham, 
 " I will be thy God;" and for proof, advances Rom. iv. 13. 
 " For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was 
 not to Abraham or his seed, through the law, but through the 
 righteousness of faith." Gal. iii. IT. " The covenant that was 
 confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four 
 hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should 
 make the promise of none effect." Gal. iv. 28. " We as Isaac 
 are the children of the promise." I shall not deny, that the 
 promise made to Abraham was an eminent one ; nor yet shall I 
 dispute that it is called " the promise," by way of eminence : but 
 does the gentleman wish to insinuate that the promise of the s 
 Holy Ghost is not also a great promise, and that it is not likewise / 
 called u the promise" for the very same reason ? If such is is 
 intention, and he wishes by this means to make us believe that 
 the apostle meant the promise made to Abraham, and not tin? 
 promise of the Spirit, he will find himself mistaken. To evince 
 that the gift of the Holy Spirit is called " the premise" by way 
 
144 
 
 of eminence, and is therefore the meaning of that text, see the 
 context, Acts ii. 33. " And having received of the Father ' the 
 promise'' of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye 
 now see and hear." Acts ii 4. u Commanded them that they 
 should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for 4 the promise* of 
 the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me." Luke xxiv. 
 49. u And, behold, I send ' the promise' of my Father upon 
 you : but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued 
 with power from on high." The author is of opinion, that the 
 promise made to Abraham, was that intended in the text ; and 
 yet it is manifest there is not one word in it, or in the chapter, 
 that warrants such a conclusion ; that promise not having been 
 mentioned once in the context : but it was not so with respect 
 to the promise of the Holy Ghost, for that is spoken of in this 
 very address, and it occurs in the 4th, 17th, 33d and 48th verses 
 of this chapter j Is it not therefore ridiculous, to travel abroad 
 an quest of the promise to Abraham, to press it into the service 
 of infant baptism ? 
 
 Were we even to grant, that the promise made to Abraham 
 was that intended here, still this will not help the cause of 
 infant baptism ; because the apostle declares (and that in the 
 very texts this gentleman quotes) that these promises were not 
 made to Abraham's natural posterity, but to his spiritual chil- 
 dren only. The truth is, that the promise made to him, u I will 
 be a God to thee and thy seed," had a double aspect. As a 
 selected nation, taken from among other nations, and over 
 ■whom God intended to rule as a temporal prince, he was in that 
 sense a God to him and all his posterity : but when the promise 
 is taken in a spiritual sense^ then it is not made to his natural 
 posterity, but to his spiritual children, 
 
 Abraham is called the father of the faithful, Rom. iv. 16. ; 
 and they that are of faith are said to be his children, of whatever 
 nation, Gal. iii. 7. This title is given to him, not because he 
 is the author of their faith ; but as an honorary title, on account 
 of the greatness of his own faith, m which he is the example of 
 all believers. I will now evince, that believers only are Abra- 
 hams children, in the sense of the apostle ; and therefore, this . 
 promise made to Abraham belongs only to such, and not to his 
 natural seed, nor yet to the natural posterity of believers. For 
 it must be evident to every unprejudiced mind, that if the 
 promises of the covenant of grace do not belong unto the natural 
 posterity of Abraham, as such, to whom they were originally 
 made ; much less can they belong unto the natural posterity of 
 believers, as such. What is it to be a God to a person, in a 
 spiritual sense ? And what is it to have an interest in the 
 covenant of grace ? Docs it mean no more than to admit a 
 
145 
 
 person to church membership, and gospel privileges ? Eveu 
 our opponents believe, that when any person stands in such a 
 relation to God, as the term implies spiritually, he is in a state 
 of favour with God — his sins are remitted — his person justified 
 — and, having a spiritual and vital union with Christ, is prepared 
 for the heavenly world ; that all things work for his good, so 
 that he shall most surely arrive at a state of gfory* But if so, 
 is God a God to Abraham's natural posterity thus, and likewise 
 to the natural posterity of believers ? How preposterous, and 
 to what lengths will good men go in defence of a weak and 
 unscriptural practice ! 
 
 To make it appear that believers, and only such, are Abraham's 
 children in the sense of the gospel, and that only unto them are 
 the promises made, see these texts : Rom. ix. 6, 7. " For they 
 are not all Israel, which are of Israel ; neither because they are 
 the seed of Abraham are they all children;" verse 8. " They 
 which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children 
 of God : but the children of the promise are counted for the 
 seed." Here, it is remarkable that the children of promise are 
 distinguished from the children of the flesh, or mere natural 
 birth, and these called children of promise are said to be his 
 seed. Gal. iii. 29. " If ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's 
 seed, and heirs according to the promise." In this last text, 
 6uch only are said to have a right to the promise made to 
 Abraham, who belong to Christ, and that such only are his seed ; 
 yet the apostle says, " If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, 
 he is none of his," Rom. viii. 9. But have all the children of 
 believers the Spirit of Christ ? This promise is said to be by 
 faith, or only to belong to believers. Rom. iv. 16. u Therefore 
 it is of faith, that it might be by grace ; to the end the promise 
 might be sure to all the seed: not to that only which is of the 
 law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham, who is 
 the father of us all." Now, to shew who they are of whom 
 Abraham is the father, and consequently who are his seed, and 
 whose this promise made to Abraham is, see Gal. iii. 7. " They 
 which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham." 
 
 I now ask, what will our opponents gain were we to grant that 
 the promise in Acts ii. 39. was the promise made to Abraham 
 and his seed ? yet these seed are believers, and such only; still, 
 the sense of the text would go to establish believers baptism, 
 and the promise would be confined to such of their offspring as 
 were the spiritual seed. Our author lays great stress on the 
 privileges of infants, under the former dispensation. He says, 
 " That if infants were not admitted to membership in the gospel 
 church, their situation was better under that dispensation than 
 now." I know of no privileges they then had superior to those 
 
146 
 
 tnjoyed by them now, unless in mere temporal things. God 
 promised abundant harvests — freedom from the invasion of 
 enemies — .health and peace in their possessions, as a reward for 
 the observance of ceremonies : but temporal blessings are not 
 promised to the christian now ; and might not a person disposed 
 to cavil say, that a Jew was better off then, than a christian is 
 now, and that because God has not promised them fields and 
 vineyards, and national protection ? Circumcision gave them 
 no grace ; and though it gave a right to the passover, yet that 
 was celebrated as a national deliverance, not a spiritual one : 
 but baptism is not necessary to preserve our infants from national 
 destruction, neither does it impart spiritual grace ; and though 
 it is a pre-requisite to the Lord's supper, still our opponents 
 will not mourn its loss on that account ; for they do not plead 
 for it with a view of bringing their infants to the Lord's table, 
 but absolutely deny it to them. I then ask, what privilege has 
 a baptized infant with them, more than one not baptized? Have 
 they a better right to the supper ? No, say they* Have they a 
 right to the discipline of the church ? Still it is, No. Have they 
 a better right to be brought to meeting — to hear the gospel when 
 capable — to be catechised— to be addressed by ministers- — to 
 fee prayed for, and instructed by parents ? Still the answer must 
 be, No. To train up children in the nurture of the Lord .is not 
 a ceremonial, but moral obligation. Well, then, what is all this 
 noise made about ? Is it such a privilege to have a little water 
 cast ill the face, without the subject asking it, or knowing for 
 what it is done ? But, if I am not mistaken, the advantages 
 of parental instruction, and of a pure gospel ministry, which 
 children unbaptized may have, as they are able to receive them, 
 are superior, yea, infinitely superior, to all the outward and 
 carnal privileges of a Jew, whether an adult or infant. 
 
 I shall dismiss his remarks on the above text, with a few 
 observations on this paragraph, page 44. " If the gift of the 
 Holy Ghost was promised to them, it was to their children, and 
 they were to be considered as subjects of baptism on account of 
 the promise ; not because the gifts of the Spirit were manifest 
 In them, but in order to their receiving of the Holy Ghost." 
 This is partly a concession, that such was the promise in the 
 text ; or it does, at least, betray the fear of the author, that he 
 had not satisfied the reader, that the promise made to Abraham 
 was intended. His remark is, " That if the Holy Ghost was 
 promised, it was to their children." True : but not to all of 
 them, and only to such as are Abraham's spiritual seed, even 
 such as the Lord should call by his grace. Remember, it is to 
 M as manv as the Lord our God shall call." It is not true, that 
 they were to be baptized without the appearance of grace : that 
 
147 
 
 appearance they had, for they were pricked to the heart ; and 
 when they are afterward exhorted to repent, we are not to 
 understand it of evangelical repentance, for that they had 
 already, and had evidenced it : but to repent of that sin of 
 crucifying Christ in particular, and to receive baptism in his 
 name immediately, as the evidence of it. But he avers, the 
 promise was, that they should receive the Holy Ghost aft a 
 baptism, which was an evidence they then had not the Spirit ,♦ 
 and he takes the advantage of this, to insist that children who 
 cannot believe may be baptized. To say nothing how this 
 doctrine would overthrow the necessity of regeneration, in 
 erder to baptism, in an adult as well as an infant, which it surelv 
 would ; I shall only observe, his chief mistake is here : that 
 Peter did not promise the regenerating influences of the Holy 
 Ghost after baptism, for those they had already received, being 
 the Lord's called ones ; but the extrGorcFmarij gifts of the Spirit 
 were intended, which consisted in speaking with tongues, &c. : 
 and were distinct from regeneration. 
 
 There is but one text advanced by the author of this pamphlet, 
 which had not been produced by Mr. E, It is 1 Cor. vii. 14. 
 ** The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the 
 unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband : else were your 
 children unclean, but now are they holy." This he calls au 
 unanswerable argument, for infant church membership. Th-. 
 gentleman represents that the Corinthians had been concerned 
 about their marriage with unbelievers, and that this concern 
 arose from a fear that their children would be unfit for member- 
 ship ; and the apostle, to satisfy them on that head, had declared 
 that their children were holy, and so fit for an union with the 
 church. I would advise a careful perusal of that chapter, and 
 the reader will be convinced there is not even one //hit about 
 infant church membership in the whole of it ; but the whole has 
 respect to marriage, as to its lawfulness, or unlawfulness, witl* 
 an unbeliever. The reference had to Ezra, commanding the 
 Jews to put away their strange wives, and also all the children 
 whom they had by them, confirms the sense we give of this text, 
 and as fully discountenances that of our opponents. The Jews 
 being forbidden to intermarry with females of other nations, all 
 such marriages were deemed by the Israelites null and void ; 
 and the children begotten, were viewed as illegitimate. Now, 
 these children were separated from the congregation, because 
 they were considered as unlawful ones.. The command to put 
 away their wives was on account that their marriage with such 
 persons was considered as no marriage. 
 
 That the Corinthians had scruples on this head, and were 
 fearful their marriage mi^ht not be lawful where one of the 
 
148 
 
 parties was an unbeliever ; and that this very instance of the 
 Jews putting away their gentile wives, might have produced 
 this uneasiness, I will not deny : and if so, then it was on this 
 very account that they feared they were living in continual 
 fornication. This at once proves our views of the text to be 
 just; and that the question was, whether or not they were really 
 man and wife, and as such ought to live together. The apostle's 
 answer goes to shew, that the ceremonial holiness that was 
 required of the Jew, was not looked for in the gospel church ; 
 and though it was a fact, that the marriage of a Jew with a 
 gentile was, under that dispensation, no marriage at all, and 
 consequently, their children begotten in that state Were illegiti- 
 mate ; yet this is not the case now, because those Jewish 
 ceremonies are now at an end, and the marriage of a believer with 
 one who believed not was lawful ; and that the consequences 
 would not ensue with them as with the Jews, their children 
 would be 5* holy" or lawful children. To strengthen this sense 
 of the text, it will be worthy of notice, that the use he makes of 
 the remark about their children is to shew, that if such scruples 
 as they had respecting the lawfulness of their marriage were 
 just, the most awful consequence would ensue, even the disgrace 
 of their families ; and he urges the necessity of their living 
 together, from this consideration, that a departure of the wife 
 from the husband would be at once declaring their children base 
 born ; and leave an indelible disgrace upon them. In all this, 
 he addresses their feelings as parents, and urges them to live 
 together, on account of the love they bore their children. 
 
 If what this author says is true, these persons were not so 
 much concerned about the unlawfulness of their connection, as 
 whether their children might become members of the church ; 
 whereas, it is manifest that their difficulty was whether they 
 ought to live with each other or not. An attempt is made to 
 evade the force of our argument wherein we say, " that the 
 same holiness which is ascribed to the children, is also attributed 
 to the unbelieving parents." The evasion is this, that the word 
 " holy" in scripture, is alwavs used to signify either a person or 
 thing, devoted and dedicated to God, or to one as being con- 
 formed to the will and moral image of God, in temper and 
 practice." In the first sense he considers the text, and that 
 when the apostle says, ■" but now are they holy," he means they 
 are, or ought to be, dedicated to God. But he has not told you, 
 that the word " sanctify" has the same meaning as the word 
 ** holy;" as, Aaron and his sons were " sanctified^ or set apart, 
 Lev. viii« 30. as Christ is said to be ** sanctified," or set apart, 
 Heb. x. 29. ; and where personal holiness of believers is called 
 sanctification, 3 Thes. ii, 13, Are the children said to be u holy 
 
149 
 
 or sanctified V* So also, the unbelieving wife is said to be sancti- 
 fied, or made holy : so also the unbelieving husband is said to be 
 sanctified, or devoted, or made holy. Where then, will the gen- 
 tleman's interpretation lead him ? These children are holy, says 
 he, that is, devoted to God, members of the church. We reply, 
 then the unbelieving wife or husband is also holy, and a member of 
 the church. Oh no. But why not? Because, says the gentleman, 
 " the children only are said to be holy, but the husband or wife 
 only said to be sanctified" We still reply, the words are both 
 alike as to their meaning, (neither can our opponents deny it). 
 To be sanctified is to be holy, or to be holy, is to be sanctified; 
 and, as the same words are applied to both, they must mean the 
 same thing. 
 
 But our author replies, " The husband is sanctified, or made 
 holy to the wife, and in like manner the wife to the husband, not 
 to God ; but the children are sanctified to God." This word 
 1 holy,' he insists is applied to none but those that are of the 
 church, and therefore shews these children were of the church, 
 while the unbelieving parent was not. I may still reply, that if 
 what he says is true, that the word holy is never applied to any 
 persons but such as are of the church ; so neither is the word 
 sanctified applied to any but the same persons ; and as for saying 
 the husband is made holy or sanctified to the wife, I may with 
 equal appearance of truth say, the children are made holy, or 
 are sanctified to their parents. But where does he find it in the 
 text, that the husband is sanctified, or made holy to his wife, 
 but the children are made holy, or sanctified to God, and become 
 members of the church ? It is plain, the same holiness is applied 
 in the text to the unbelieving husband or wife, as is applied to 
 their children ; and if the one means devotedness to God, so 
 does the other ; and if one is to be a member of the church, so 
 must the other. So that our opponents must either admit our 
 sense of the passage, or else they must admit, that an unbelieving 
 husband, or wife, is entitled to membership in the church of God^ 
 because married to a believer. 
 
 This doctrine is monstrous on another account : it makes 
 grace to be conveyed in natural generation ; which is in direct 
 hostility to that text, John i. 13. " Which were born, not of blood, 
 nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God ;" 
 and to John iii. 6. " That which is bora of the flesh is flesh." 
 It also represents the infants of unbelievers, as not being in so 
 safe a state as those of believers, and that God has not the same 
 regard to them ; and if anv thing looks like teaching the ever- 
 lasting misery of infants, this does, for it is surely making the 
 case of some infants much better than that of others. — Ou*v*. 
 opponents urge the supposed holiness of infants, as a reason why 
 
150 
 
 they shall be church members : but they deny, that the infants 
 of unbelievers have that right, while they at the same time assert 
 the right of the infants of believers thereunto. Is not this saying, 
 that the infants of unbelievers are destitute of holiness, while 
 the others possess it ? O shame ! shame ! Had a Baptist done 
 thus, his name would have rung far and near. 
 
 The word u sanctified" as found in this text, has been by 
 Doctor Gill, interpreted to mean, " married" or " espoused;" 
 and then the text will read thus, The unbelieving husband is 
 sanctified, i. e. espoused by the wife. The doctor's meaning is, 
 that it would be as though the apostle had said, The unbelieving 
 husband is married, or espoused, to the wife, i. e. lawfully so, 
 in the sight of God, although both do not possess religion ; and 
 therefore your children are holy, or legitimate. To which our 
 author replies with a smile, thus : " I think it may pass for one 
 of the most improbable, unhandsome, and incredible glosses that 
 we shall readily meet with upon any text whatever. Neither 
 the Corinthians, nor any one else doubted, or had need to be 
 told, that the unbelieving husband had been, and was married 
 to his wife," It is not said, that the apostle meant to inform 
 the Corinthians they were married : but his intention was, to 
 declare their marriage lawful ; so that the question was not as 
 to the reality of their marriage, but as to its validity. 
 
 To shew that the doctor Was right when he said, the word 
 sanctify is often used by the Jews to mean " espouse" and that 
 the gentleman may not have all the merriment to himself, the 
 reader shall see what the doctor has said. See his exposition 
 on 1 Cor. vii. 14. " The very act of marriage, in the language 
 of the Jews, is expressed by being sanctified. Instances almost 
 without number might be given of the use of the word" (here he 
 shews, that the sense of the original Hebrew term may be trans- 
 lated to espouse) u in this sense, out of the Misnic,Talmudic and 
 Kabinic writings. Take the following one out of a thousand that 
 might be produced. The man (here the word occurs) 4 sanctifies? 
 or espouses a wife by himself, or by his messenger. The woman 
 is ' sanctified? or espoused by herself, or by her messenger. 
 The man l sanctifies? or espouses his daughter, when she is a 
 young woman, by himself, or by his messenger. If any one 
 says to a woman, be thou c sanctified? or espoused to me by this 
 date (the fruit of the palm tree), or. any thing of the value of -a 
 farthing* she is ' sanctified? or espoused." The doctor gives, 
 in one 'quotation out ol the Jewish authors, ten instances, where, 
 the word marry, or espouse, means to 4 sanctify ,-' and how 
 impertinent is it, therefore, in the author of this milk and water 
 Sermon, to raise a laugh at the word 4 sanctify? as meaning to 
 espouse, when it was the current meaning of the Jews. But 
 
1*1 
 
 perhaps he intended, by a little mirth, to cheat the reader out of 
 the sense of this text, for the text truly means what doctor Gill 
 affirms. The apostle, when he says, the unbelieving wife is 
 sanctified by the believing husband, intended to convey the idea, 
 that their espousing or marrying one another was lawful in the 
 sight of God, although one of the parties were not a believer ; 
 and that therefore their children were not illegitimate, as the: 
 Jews esteemed theirs to be in Ezra's time ; but holy, or lawfully 
 begotten. I shall now dismiss this author, as to his remarks on 
 the subjects of baptism, reserving the liberty to notice, in tVeir 
 proper place, his observations on the practice of the primitive 
 churches. 
 
 Mr. E. closes his arguments in favour of baptizing infants., 
 by adducing in its support the scripture account of the baptizing 
 of households ; from whence he concludes that there must have 
 been some infants therein. The instances he produces are those 
 of the jailor, Acts xvi. 33. — of Lydia, Acts xvi. 15. and of 
 Stephanas, 1 Cor. i. 16. All these passages he does not consider 
 separately ; but huddles them together, as if he wished to have 
 done with them as soon as possible. On Acts xvi. 33, u And 
 he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their 
 stripes ; and was baptized, he and all his, straitway. And when 
 he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, 
 and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house." He will not 
 admit that the family of the jailor rejoiced with him ; because 
 he knew, to acknowledge this would be giving up that infants 
 were among them : but he says, the jailor himself only rejoiced, 
 and that over his family; which he calls, rejoicing domestically. 
 That the whole family rejoiced, will scarcely be doubted by any 
 one, who will be at the trouble of reading the narration ; nor need 
 we wonder, that a family rescued thus from eternal destruction, 
 should feel such joy, as to be thought worthy of being recorded 
 in holy writ. He says, " But whether all believed, or were 
 capable of believing-, is not said, no mention being made of any 
 one's faith but his own." A more glaring contradiction of holy 
 writ, I have never witnessed ! What, not capable of believing, 
 when, in verse 32, it is said, u They spake unto him the word of. 
 the Lord, and to a// that were in his house ?" And when in verse 
 34, it is said, all his house believed, as well as himself? HoM r , 
 Mr. E., could you so far forget yourself as to hazard such an 
 assertion ? Can you, dare you deny, that a person capable of 
 hearing a preached gospel, is capacitated to exercise faith in a 
 Redeemer ? How in the name of integrity, could you deliberately 
 say, there was nothing mentioned about " any one^s faith but 
 his own" when the express declaration is, u And rejoiced. 
 believing in God, with all his house !" 
 
152 
 
 Mr. E. thinks, however, that the baptizing of these house- 
 holds evinces, that the practice of the apostles was, when they 
 administered the ordinance to believing adults, in like manner 
 to administer it to their families. His words are, " When 
 Abraham received circumcision, his household were circumcised 
 •with him: so the jailor, when he was baptized, all his were 
 baptized likewise." This, instead of favouring, entirely ruins 
 his whole scheme ; because, his object is to make the conduct 
 of Abraham in circumcising his household, the example for 
 baptizing ; and the one was to be as extensive as the other. If 
 so, then Abraham circumcised his wicked son Ishmael, and all 
 the male servants he had; nor was there, as we read of, an infant 
 in his house. What becomes now of Mr. E.'s assertion, that 
 iaith and repentance are required of adults in order to baptism I 
 Has he not affirmed, that the household of believers, consisting 
 of infants and adults, are to be baptized on the faith of their 
 parents ? Thus, at one blow, he has levelled all he advanced in 
 his theses, and at length has fully declared himself, letting the 
 world know, that he wholly disregards the requiring of faith 
 and repentance in any instance whatever — that he can say and 
 unsay, just as it may suit his purpose ; at one time pretending 
 great reverence for apostolic practice, in asking faith and repent- 
 ance in adults, and then directly asserting his full belief, that 
 christian preachers ought to administer baptism to all the house- 
 hold of believers, without regarding age, as Abraham did in 
 circumcising. The reader will plainly see, that no dependance 
 is to be placed on what this author says — that he has no fixed 
 principles ; or, if he has any, it is a determination to overthrow 
 believers' baptism, disregarding the means by which this is 
 accomplished. 
 
 How Mr.E. can assert, that on the principles of the Baptists, 
 households could not be baptized, is to me a mystery ; especially 
 as it is well known, that in many families there are no infants ; 
 and as there are instances not a few among the Baptists, of whole 
 families being united with the church on profession of their faith. 
 It is very remarkable, that in all the instances recorded of 
 households being baptized, the Holy Ghost has been careful to 
 prevent the error of infant baptism, or infant church member- 
 ship, being thereby encouraged ; and this has been done by 
 something being said in the narrative, to prevent the idea from 
 fairly obtaining, that infants were in such households. Thus, 
 in the case of the jailor, the narrative says expressly, that the 
 word of the Lord was preached to him and all that were in his 
 house, and that before baptism was administered to any one of 
 them — that he believed, and all his house : from whence it must 
 readily be inferred, that infants were not there : for they cannot 
 
153 
 
 hear the word of the Lord, nor yet believe in Christ. So also 
 in the case of Lydia, there is no proof she was a married woman, 
 or had an husband ; for had that been the case, no one can 
 account for the house going under her name, and not her hus- 
 band's j and it is improbable that she should leave the city of 
 Thiftitira, and come to Philippi in the character of a female 
 merchant^ a seller of purple ; much less, if she had young 
 children and a husband also. It is evident her household were 
 •servants, or, if children, such, as had arrived to years of maturity, 
 and that because in verse 40, it is said, u Paul and Silas entered 
 into the house of Lydia ; and, when they had seen the brethren, 
 they comforted them" Her household are here called 4 brethren,' 
 are said to have been comforted ; which could not have taken 
 place had thev been infants. The household of Stephanas is 
 said to be the first fruits of the gospel in Achaia, w I beseech 
 you, brethren, (ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the 
 "iirst fruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to 
 the ministry of the saints)," 1 Cor. xvi. 15. If there had been 
 infants in that household, they could not be a fruit of the gospel; 
 for that intends conversion to God : nor yet could they minister 
 to the saints, — surely it will not be said, that infants could 
 minister to the apostles' wants. 
 
 I would now ask the reader, why this precision, this great 
 care, on the part of the apostles ? Does it not seem as if the 
 Holy Ghost foresaw that men would, during the reign of Anti- 
 christ, introduce into the church of God improper persons, and 
 that they would take advantage of every thing that looked like 
 favouring their scheme ; to prevent which, he placed the apostles 
 on their guard, that in all their narrations of facts, nothing 
 should escape them which would in the least degree countenance 
 infractions of the law of God ? Upon the whole, there is nothing 
 in the word of God that countenances the baptism of infants ; 
 and no warrant can be produced for it, either from the command 
 of the Head of the church, or the examples recorded concerning 
 Its administration, nor yet from their being found in church 
 relation. 
 
 The evident result, therefore, is in direct opposition to what 
 Mr. E. has asserted, and instead of infants ever having had a 
 place in the gospel church, the reverse is the case ; so that there 
 was no express law necessary to discountenance that which was 
 never once thought of. As for the Jewish commonwealth, of 
 which thev were members, it was an institution so radically 
 different from the gospel church, that there is no inferring 
 membership in the one instance, from the other. The question 
 he asks, ' how infants are to be brought into the church, seeing 
 thev are suitable subjects, whether it is to be with or without 
 
154 
 
 baptism V is quite useless ; and that, because he has utterly \ 
 failed in making it appear they are members, or that Christ has 
 ordered that they should be. We boldly aver, they are not to 
 be members of the visible church of Christ, either with, or 
 without, baptism. 
 
 There is but one argument, properly speaking, produced by 
 our opponents, to prove the right of infants to baptism ; and 
 that is, the membership of infants in the Jewish church. If we 
 take from them this plea, we deprive them of their all, and their 
 cause is left without support. I will grant them, without hesi- 
 tation, all they ask, yea more than they request ; for, whereas 
 they only affirm the membership of males, we will grant females 
 were also members : but then, after all, what have they got by 
 it, when it is obvious this goes not to prove their membership 
 under the gospel ? If I shall make it appear, that the churches 
 in question bear not the smallest resemblance to each other — ■ 
 that duties are required of the one, which were not of the other 
 — and that the duties required in the gospel church are such as 
 are, in their nature, out of the reach of infants to perform for 
 themselves, or others to do for them ; all of which was not 
 the case in the Jewish church : yea more, if it shall appear that 
 infant membership was the great defect of that church, and was 
 one of the great reasons why God found 'fault with it, Heb. viii. 
 8. overturning the whole system, thereby to make for himself 
 one new man, Eph. ii. 15. ; will it not then be seen, that the 
 membership of infants in that church, is so far from entitling 
 them to membership in this, that it is the very reason why they 
 must be excluded ? 
 
 My present business is to present you with a picture of both 
 churches. In doing which, I shall from scripture text exhibit 
 their materials— their laws — their rewards and punishments — 
 their officers — and, last of all, shew there are many things said 
 of the church, that will by no means agree with infants, and that 
 infants can be of no use unto, nor yet derive any advantage from 
 such an institution. 
 
 Before I proceed to my design, some things must be premised, 
 in order to arrest the cavils of Edwards. They are : lc He 
 tries to intimidate us from examining the Jewish church, by 
 declaring ' we fall on the very church of God ^ 'and affects some- 
 times to laugh at Mr. Booth, (a man whose works will live, 
 when the impudent sophistry of Mr. E. is forgotten), and at 
 other times to censure him most illiberally, for having pointed 
 out its imperfections, asserting that he and his brethren did not 
 scruple to degrade the church of Christ to answer their own end. 
 All this can be readily seen through : but, be it known to him, we 
 are not affrighted by mere words and hard names j and, if we 
 
155 
 
 have not done justice in our descriptions of the Jewish church, 
 why do not our opponents overthrow what we have advanced, 
 instead of denouncing us: But has Mr. E. even attempted to 
 prove any of Mr. Booths assertions untrue ? He certainly has 
 not. He foresaw, that in maintaining the Jewish church state 
 to be in force, he would be hard pressed with such questions as 
 these : Whether there w r ere no alteration, ekher in its members, 
 or its institutions ? He was too much master of the argument, 
 not to perceive, that if it were granted that any alterations zvere 
 made in that church, as to its members, it would be impossible 
 to maintain his ground ; and therefore, he roundly asserts that 
 the gospel church is the old Jewish church in a new dress, with 
 the addition of females, founded on some pretended clause in 
 their favour, added to the old law. When some alterations 
 were suggested to have been made, he declared, that the church 
 itself was not altered, but only some of her dress. If so, then 
 what the Jewish church zvas, such must the gospel church be : 
 but if, on examination, we find in the New Testament, that 
 what is said of the gospel church is, in every respect, unlike the 
 Jewish church, Mr. E. must needs be mistaken, or else, what: 
 is worse, the inspired writers must have been. 
 
 My first argument is, that the materials of the Jewish church 
 were different from those of the gospel. 1 . They w T ere all the 
 posterity of one man, together with their servants bought with 
 money. This cannot be disputed ; for if circumcision was an 
 initiating ordinance, and male servants were circumcised, then, 
 of course, they were members, Gen. xvii. 27. 2. No grace 
 was necessary, in either young or aged persons, in order to 
 ■circumcision. This will appear from the command being general, 
 to circumcise every male child, Gen. xvii. 10. : and surely none 
 will attempt to assert, that all the male posterity of Abraham 
 were renewed persons ? That no grace was requisite, appears 
 from the circumcising of all the sons of Shechem, Gen. xxxiv. 
 24. — from the circumcising of a whole army of adults and 
 infants, without distinction, Josh v. 7.— in the circumcising of 
 a wicked Ishmael, Gen. xvii. 27. — and, in that no direction is 
 any where given to require religious experience prior thereto, 
 even from adults. 
 
 In direct opposition to all this, the gospel church was formed 
 out of no one family, nor of a few families ; nor yet did all of a 
 family belong, because one had embraced the gospel ; much less 
 w r as it confined to one nation, or one country. Neither are the 
 servants of a family members of the gospel church, on account 
 their master embracing religion, nor do our opponents pretend 
 to such a thing; much less did they in the church of Christ 
 force their servants to be baptized, as the Jews compelled their 
 
156 
 
 nought servants to be circumcised. But the churches of Jesus 
 Christ were made up of persons who had been convened under 
 the gospel ; nor do we ever hear of any other, Acts ii. 41. "Then 
 they that gladly received his word were baptized ; and the saint-. 
 day there were added unto them about three thousand souls." 
 These were " added," not to the Jewish church ; for to that 
 they did belong before. Such as were its members, it is said, 
 were added by God, and were in a state of salvation, Acts ii. 
 47. " And the Lord added to the church dailv such as should 
 be saved." The gospel churches are spoken of thus : 4t Beloved 
 of God, called to be saints," Rom. i. 7. " Unto the church of 
 God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ 
 Jesus, called to be saints" 1 Cor. i. 2. " Unto the church of 
 God which is at Corinth, with all the saints which are in all 
 Achaia," 2 Cor. i. 1. " To the saints which are at Ephesus, 
 and to the faithful in Christ Jesus,'* Eph. i. 1. u To all the 
 saints in Christ Jesus, which are at Philippi," Phil. i. 1. u Unto 
 the church of the Thessalonians, which is in God the Father, and 
 in the Lord Jesus Christ," 1 Thes. i. 1. " Unto the church of 
 the Thessalonians, in God our Father, and the Lord Jesus 
 Christ," 2 Thes. i. 1. 
 
 This contrast shews plainly, that the two are as wide apart as 
 the poles, and that while no grace was required to be a member 
 of the former, but only a willingness to be circumcised ; on the- 
 Other hand, persons however pious, who were not of that nation, 
 were not reckoned to belong to it, nor yet were they commanded 
 to be circumcised. This is evident in the case of Lot, Abraham's 
 brother. Yet, in the gospel church, no inquiry is made about 
 family, or nation. But if what Mr. E. affirms is true, that the 
 infants of believers are to be baptized, because Jewish infants 
 were circumcised ; then, from what I have just proved, it will 
 appear that their bought servants are also to be baptized, yea, 
 forced to it; and, what is worst of all, that unbelieving adults 
 are to be baptized, because such were circumcised. Beside all 
 this, a man that was illegitimate was not to belong to the Jewish 
 church," Deut. xxiii. 2. u A bastard shall not enter into the 
 congregation of the Lord." Would any man, besides Edwards, 
 ever have dreamed of making this the gospel church ? What ! 
 is it so, that a bastard is not to belong to the gospel church, nor 
 yet his children to the tenth generation ? Neither was a Moabite 
 to enter in under a less time, verse 3, " An Ammonite or a 
 Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord ; even 
 toth ; r tenth generation." Surely it will never be pretended 
 that this was an image of the gospel church, and that very church 
 itself* It can never be a model for us to receive members by, 
 when a mere accidental cirewnstance of parentage or cowitry* 
 
157 
 
 and that without respect to personal vice, is a prohibition to 
 membership. But what is worse, is, that a person wounded in 
 body was not to enter into that church his whole life, no matter 
 how pious he might be, Deut. xxiii. 1. Will it be pretended, 
 that deformity of body is now to be a bar ; that misfortune 
 is to be considered as crime, and made the foundation of still 
 greater privation? Yet such must be the christian church, if 
 membership in the cne, is to govern membership in the other,. 
 It will not do for Mr. E. to say these things are done away ; for 
 If membership has been altered at all, then his plea for infant 
 membership is at once gone : and beside, he told us the " man y 
 or church" was not " altered," but only the " dress," Will any 
 of our opponents affirm, no grace was required to membership 
 in the gospel church ? Or dare they assert, that grace was 
 required to entitle an adult Jew to circumcision, or yet a gentile 
 proselyte? If these things they will not pretend to, how r can 
 they tell us, that membership in the one instance is the rule in 
 the other ? 
 
 My second argument is from the organization and extent of 
 die Jewish church. It embraced the whole nation ; the most 
 abandoned were as much members of it, as the pious ; the nation 
 was not considered as many churches, but one ; and, in its 
 original organization, authority, in civil and religious affairs, 
 Were both deposited in the same hands— priest and prince were 
 recognized in the same person — he that wore the mitre, was 
 also a general in the field — -the same persons that sacrificed for 
 the soul, passed sentence of death on the body. That the Jewish 
 church was a national one, who will pretend to deny? Of course, 
 such as insist on it being still in force, must advocate a national 
 church. If infant sprinkling is admitted, even as restrained to 
 the offspring of believers, the gospel church must be national ; for 
 if all baptized persons are in the church, and being there are 
 reputed believers, then their offspring will be entitled to baptism, 
 on the same pretended right, and so on from generation to 
 generation, until all the community are therein ; and if but 
 one infidel should be converted, his posterity, to a thousand 
 generations, would fall heirs to membership on his account. 
 However preposterous and contrary to the gospel scheme this 
 is, and even repugnant to the feelings of Pcedobaptists as it may 
 be, yet it is the very plan they pursue ; for they first sprinkle 
 children on the right of their parents' membership, and then 
 their offspring on the same ground, and so proceed on without 
 end ; and all are members in some sort. Surely, it will require 
 no argument to prove this is not the plan of the gospel church. 
 
 Every abandoned character was in that church : such as were 
 guilty of incest, Gen, xxxviii. 18.— murder. Gen. xxxiv 25 , 
 
 X 
 
158 
 
 nor were there any methods of separating them, unless their 
 crimes came under the view of the judicial law, and they were 
 punished with death : but can any man affirm, that every monster 
 of wickedness is to be in the gospel church, until separated by 
 a capital punishment by the civil laws r Yet, if no alteration is 
 made in the old Jewish church, such must be the case. But, as 
 was before said, if any former members are cut off, away goes 
 tlie plea for infant membership ; for it rests entirely on the two 
 churches being of equal extent. The Jewish church was but 
 one, and that extended over the whole country ; nor were the 
 synagogues considered as distinct churches : but how unlike is 
 this to the gospel church ? for we read of churches in Judea, 
 Gal. i. 22. — seven churches in Asia, Rev. i. 11. — indifferent 
 cities, as Corinth, 1 Cor. i. 2. — Philippi, 1 Phil. i. 1. — Ephesus, 
 Eph. i. 1. ; and a church is spoken of as being in a house, Rom. 
 xvi. 15. You, reader, are left to judge what credit is due to 
 those writers who affirm, as does Mr. E., that both churches 
 are the same : I ask you, is there the smallest resemblance ? — 
 While we see priests buried in war, Josh. vi. 4. and the high 
 priest presiding in a court of justice and pronouncing sentence 
 of death, John xviii. 13. 14. ; does this look like the church at 
 Jerusalem I Does not Christ refuse to have any thing to do in 
 their civil concerns ? Luke xii. 14. Does he not declare his 
 kingdom is not of this world ? John xviii. 36. ; and does he 
 not say, he came not to destroy men's lives, but to save them ? 
 Luke ix. 56. But can our adversaries pretend, that civil and 
 religious authority are deposited in the hands of the clergy, and 
 that the power of life and death are with them ? If not, then 
 the churches are by no means the same ; for such power the 
 Jewish priesthood had. 
 
 My third argument is, The duties of members of the Jewish 
 church do not, in the least, resemble those in the cliristiaii 
 church.. In that church, an outward attention to sacrifices — 
 tithes — rituals, no matter as to the motives which influenced, or 
 or whether the heart was in them or not, were all that the law 
 I .quired of them ; and never do we hear of their being punished 
 for any thing but an outward neglect. But the duties of the 
 members of a gospel church, are chiefly those of the heart. To 
 evince this, I will now produce positive commands to members 
 of the Jewish church ; which, if they are considered as a 
 religious body, are incompatible with the church of Christ, and 
 in direct hostility to his commands, yea, to the whole gospel 
 scheme: Exod. xxi. 10. u If he take, him another wife ; her 
 food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage shall not be 
 diminished ;" with which contrast Luke xvi. 18. " Whosoever 
 putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth 
 
159 
 
 adultery." — Exod. xxi. 24. " Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand 
 for hand;" contrasted with Rom. xii. 19. " Dearly beloved 
 avenge not yourselves," and 1 Tiies. v. 1 5. u See that none render 
 evil for evil ' unto any man." — Exod. xxii. 10. " Six years thou 
 shalt sow thy land, and shalt gather in the fruits thereof : but 
 the seventh year, thou shalt let it rest and be still £* contrasted 
 with 2 Thes. iii. 10. k If any will not work, neither shall he 
 eat.' A witch was to be put to death by that church, Exodus 
 xxii. IS. He that did not keep the sabbath, was to be put to 
 death, Exodus xxxi. 14. They were to put the idolater to 
 death, Deuter. xvii. 5. The man that touched dung, was by 
 them to be put to death, Lev. vii. 21. They were to put to death 
 those that ate the blood of beasts, Lev. xvii. 10. Ail the 
 congregation were to stone the blasphemer, Lev. xxi v. 14. They 
 were to stone a person who taught idolatry, Deut. xiii. 9. In 
 some cases they were to inflict punishment by stripes, Deut. 
 xxv. 3. 
 
 It will be remembered, that this putting to death was for sins 
 committed either against the ceremonial or moral law, and that 
 the congregation, or church, were to be the executioners : but, 
 brethren, is this any thing like the church of Christ ? Has he 
 any where ordered his people to inflict the punishment of death, 
 and that in a church capacity ? Was there one instance of any 
 being stoned by them, even for blasphemy ? Yea, did not the 
 extent of the powers of a gospel church consist in excommuni- 
 cation i Is it not, therefore, plain that the Jewish church was 
 more of a civil, than a religious institution ; and is it not evident, 
 that it was radically different from the gospel church? What 
 figure would a church of Jesus Christ make in dragging an 
 idolater or a blasphemer forth, to encompass him about, and 
 stone him with stones until he died : yet, brethren, such was 
 the church which Mr. E. calls the gospel church. But this is 
 not all ; for the parent was to put to death his own child, Deut. 
 xxi. 31. : and is this a church of Christ ? Or rather, is it not a 
 mere commonwealth, or civil institution ? 
 
 In the second chapter of Numbers, every man of Israel is 
 commanded to learn the military profession, to perforin the 
 duties of a soldier: but where are such precepts to the church 
 of Christ ? Is not the injunction, ' as much as in you lies, live 
 in peace with all men V Nothing will serve better, to shew how 
 opposite the two were, than to consider two passages which 
 were suitable to the Jewish church, as such, but never could 
 suit them as a religious body ; and, evident it is, that the duties 
 of the gospel church are so very opposite, the one could never 
 be a pattern for the other. " Thou shalt not seek their peace* 
 nor their prosperity, forever" Deut. xxiii* 6. M Therefore it 
 
160 
 
 diall be, when the Lord thy God hath given liiee rest from all 
 thine enemies round about, in the land which the Lord thy God 
 giveth thee for an inheritance to possess it, that thou shalt bio' 
 out the remembrance of Amalekivom. under heaven ; thou shall 
 not forget it" Deut. xxv. 19. In both these texts are inculcated 
 an unforgiving temper, and a spirit of revenge. Had the Jews 
 been a religious body, as the church of Christ now is, such 
 precepts never would have been given : but as our opponents 
 insist on it, they were a religious body, and hold them up as an 
 example to us, how evident must it be, to a reader of but super- 
 ficicial knowledge, they cannot be such, when the laws of Christ 
 are so opposite, as we shall shew, and their practice so different. 
 To manifest how opposite the duties of the members of a gospel 
 church are to those of the Jewish, take the following texts : " Let 
 us do good unto all men," Gal. vi. 10. " But I say unto you, 
 love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good unto them 
 that hate you, and pray for them which despiteficlly use you, and 
 persecute you." Indeed, an hundred passages such as these 
 might be produced, to evince how widely different the two 
 institutions, are, and that what was obligatory on one, could by 
 no means be duty in the other j yet, is it not strange that they 
 should be considered as one and the same church I 
 
 The only expedient which our opponents use to extricate 
 themselves from the difficulty, is to say, these were mere civil" 
 institutions, and were enjoined on them not as a church, but 
 merely as a body politic. But what does this amount to ? Is 
 it not admitting a difference between them and the christian 
 church, when they do not pretend it has the administration of 
 the civil law in its hands, and do they not acknowledge the 
 dissimilarity ? Indeed, this is a concession that goes to the 
 ruin of their cause," and is the very thing we have been contending 
 for. The Jews were truly a civil body; in this light they are to 
 be viewed : but the church of Christ was in no respect like them; 
 so that while adults and infants were of necessity a part of that 
 community, it cannot, it does not follow they are to be members 
 of an institution purely spiritual. 
 
 My fourth argument respects the discipline. In the gospel 
 church, an offended member was in the first instance to tell the 
 party his fault by himself ; if confession was made he was bound 
 to forgive : if no confession was made, he was to take with him 
 one or two more of his brethren — if no confession still was 
 made, he was to give the matter up to the church, to judge 
 between them, Matth. xviii. The punishment inflicted by a 
 church was that of excluding the person from their fellowship ; 
 but in no instance was corporeal punishment inflicted. How 
 different from all this was the Jewish church ! Its laws took n6 
 
161 
 
 Notice whatever of offences of a spiritual kind; and the only 
 offences it regarded were those against property, f amity, repu- 
 tation, or the like. Nor were any directions given to admonish-^ 
 i;nd forgive ; nor yet was sorrow for an offence, in any instance, 
 looked upon as sufficient : but the command was to obtain 
 satisfaction according to the nature of the offence, either in 
 restitution, stripes, or death. In the church of Christ, every 
 christian is forbidden to go to laxv with each other, and especially 
 to do it before the people of the world ; but the Jews were on 
 - vcrv occasion to appear before the judicial authority. From the 
 Jewish church there was no excommunication, nor could a Jew 
 be separated any other way than by death ; and although the 
 Pharisees cast the blind man out of the synagogue, yet it was 
 not done by anv lav/ of Moses (for no such law was ever given 
 by him), but by one of their own traditions. If any were ever 
 excommunicated, it was the leper, who was ordered to be shut 
 out of the camp : but then this was for a bodily malady, not a 
 moral evil, and the person w T as temporarily excluded for mis- 
 fortune, not crime. But how different is this from the gospel 
 church, from whom every wicked person is to be excluded, and 
 that not on account of natural defect, but moral offences. If our 
 opponents are right in the opinion, that they are one and the 
 same church, or that the christian church, as to members, is to 
 be governed by the Jewish ; then every vile person must be 
 retained in our communion. c An heretic reject, after the first 
 and second admonition,' Tit. iii, 10. 4 Put from among you 
 that wicked person, 5 1 Cor. v. 13. Brethren, judge ye, if the 
 two churches are the same, when murderers, incestuous persons, 
 and every species of wicked men w ere retained in one, but cast 
 out of the other, Gen. xxxiv. 25. and xxxviii. 18. 1 Cor. v. 11. 
 My fifth argument is taken from the difference of officers. 
 In the Jewish church, the priesthood were to be of the posterity 
 of one man. All the sons of Aaron, without exception, were 
 of the priesthood, and it would have been death for any other 
 person to officiate in the priests office, no matter what his piety -y 
 or his abilities were ; but is there the smallest resemblance ? 
 Were the family of any one man, or any set of men\ set apart 
 to that work ? And would it be a crime worthy of death, in any 
 well qualified man now to preach the gospel, though he were 
 not descended from the apostles ? But what is still more striking, 
 is, that a man might minister in holy things there without grace y 
 yea, no grace was required ot such to fit them for the priesthood ; 
 therefore we see the sons of Eli, who committed fornication 
 even in the temple, 1 Sam. ii. 22 ; nor could they be hindered 
 from the work, until God put them to death. On the other 
 hand, a child of Aaron might not minister in the priest's office, 
 
162 
 
 if he were even a pious and sensible man, provided he had the* 
 least blemish in his body, Lev. xxi. 18, 19. " It he is a blind, or 
 a lame man, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, 
 or a man that is broken footed, or handed." How different is all 
 this from the church of Christ, where no bodily blemish is a 
 bar, and where a want of grace and ministerial Qualifications, 
 ave the only- things which disqualify for that work. See the 
 cha racter of a gospel minister as pourtrayed by the apostle Paul, 
 an then I ask, whether there is the smallest resemblance, 
 1 Tim. iii. 2, 3, 4 — -6. " A bishop then must be blameless, the 
 husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given 
 to hospitality, apt to teach ; not given to wine, no striker, not 
 greed\- cf filthy lucre ; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous ; 
 not a novice," See* The one was a mere carnal ministry ; the 
 other was purely spiritual : the first had only carnal offices to 
 perform, which needed no grace, and therefore such were 
 appointed, but the other has spiritual things, and such only to 
 minister in, and therefore spiritual persons alone are qualified; 
 and all this shews the two churches were by no means alike. 
 
 My sixth argument is derived from the future rewards and 
 punishments held out in one, and the other dispensations. In 
 the whole of the five books of Moses, not one word (that I 
 recollect) is said about future punishments, nor yet of future 
 rewards, unless by type or implication ; nor is there an instance 
 of threatening the sinner with future damnation, nor yet of 
 promising the good man as a reward for his virtue eternal joys : 
 and when the reward of piety is mentioned, it is, perhaps, only 
 in the transfiguration of Enoch, and that not in the form of 
 promise. In the books of the prophets, there is now and then 
 mention made of heaven and hell ; but it is very rare. When 
 the Jews are threatened by the prophets for disobedience, it is 
 seldom with future damnation, but with present evils, such as 
 the invasion of enemies — destruction by the sword — wild beasts, 
 dreadful disease* — cutting off the fruits of the earth — and car- 
 rying of them captives into a strange land : And when promises 
 were made to them for obedience, they refer to defence from 
 enemies— abundance of the fruits of the earth- — their living at 
 ease in the quiet possession of their own land. I would advise 
 a careful perusal of the prophets, where the reader will most 
 assuredly see, that in every address to the Jews as a body, (or 
 church) they principally confine themselves to temporal rewards 
 and punishments ; and this is true with scarce an instance to 
 the reverse, in all the addresses of Moses to the Jews : heaven 
 and hell, are I believe not once mentioned to them, either to 
 intimidate or allure them. Nothing will set this in a clearer 
 light than for the reader to turn to the xxviiith chapter of 
 
163 
 
 Duteronomy, and read the whole chapter ; where Moses alto- 
 gether dwells upon, and sums up the promises and threatening* 
 made to Israel ; and where it will be seen that the threatening^ 
 and rewards are wholly of a temporal nature. I could, were 
 my limits sufficient, make it appear by particular quotations 
 from the prophets, that this was likewise their practice ; but no 
 doubt the reader has observed the same things himself. It u 
 also to be remarked, that when the civil authority was sufficiently 
 strong to punish idolatry, it was done ; the punishment of the 
 individuals was death, and God, the lawgiver, was satisfied, and 
 punished not the nation ; but when the nation itself became 
 idolaters, death was likewise inflicted ; but it was done by raising 
 up the nations against them. 
 
 In the gospel church, no temporal good was to be the reward 
 of virtue, but poverty and disgrace were the lot of the christian ; 
 nor was this confined to the apostlic age ; it is well known, that 
 God has ," chosen the poor of this world, rich in faith," James 
 ii. J. u Not many mighty, not many noble are called ; God 
 has chosen the foolish things of this world, and things that are 
 despised," 1 Cor. i. 26— -28. ■" That those that have hope in 
 Christ, only in this life, are of all men most miserable," 1 Cor. 
 xv. 19. In this world, such shall have tribulations, and we 
 often read of the c poor saints' — ^-collections for the churches at 
 Jerusalem, &c. It is likewise manifest, that Christ has never 
 promised abundance of good things of this world to his follow- 
 ers ; nor, in ail the threatening^ in the New Testament held up 
 against sinners, is there a word about temporal calamities ; and 
 when the destruction of the Jews is foretold, it is on the ground 
 of their national polity being dissolved, the Messiah having 
 come, and there being now no more use for them in that capacity, 
 and likewise to establish the mission of Christ : but where do 
 the apostles threaten the gentiles with national calamities, if they 
 did not receive the gospel ? The whole ministry of the apostles 
 turned on spiritual things,-— the mystery of redemption — the 
 work of the Spirit — the offices and characters of Christ — the 
 order of the church — the spiritual duties of the christian — their 
 future happiness, and the future misery of the wicked ; these 
 were all their theme. The rewards of the Jewish church were 
 of an outward nature, because their obedience was entirely 
 outward ; but the rewards of the christian are future, because 
 his obedience is only spiritual, he having no outward burden- 
 some duties to perform. To you then, reader, I appeal ; is not 
 Mr. E. " wide of the mark" when lie affirms, that the old 
 Jewish church is the same as that of the gospel ? And has he 
 not utterly failed, in proving their church state in continuance : 
 
164 
 
 No spiritual qualifications are either necessary or required 
 of a Tew, to fit him to be a member of that church. That they 
 were not required, is evident in this, that they were members 
 by birth, or, in case of proselytes, if made so by circumcision. 
 it was done in infancy before conversion, or if done in mature 
 age, no religious experience was required, and thousands of 
 wicked persons were circumcised. A good Jew, was one that 
 kept the outtvard letter of the law ; this he might do without 
 being a good man spiritually ; this was a righteousness suffi- 
 cient to gain the approbation of God as a temporal prince, but 
 not as an eternal Judge. In fact, the Jew might possess this 
 outward ceremonial righteousness, continue in it to the day of 
 his death, and yet be lost at last. But those righteous in a 
 gospel sense, are so in heart, not in ceremonial obedience ; and 
 the qualifications for Christ's spiritual kingdom are such, that - 
 those who possess them will eventually be saved. 
 
 I close this argument by observing, that a Jew, who was , 
 deemed righteous in his own church, and was so in a ceremonial 
 sense, if translated into the gospel church, could not perform 
 the duties there; because, in the first only bodily service was 
 required, and this he could perform without grace: but in 
 the second, faith, hope, love, patience, humility, and a number 
 of graces are required, all which he has not ; or if he had 
 them, they were not necessary to the station which he held as a 
 member of that community ; for other than a member he could 
 not be, unless he ceased to exist, or never had existed, or at 
 least had not been of Abraham's posterity : but a man might be 
 a descendant of Abraham, or any believer, and yet not belong 
 to the church of Christ. But if an adult member of the Jewish 
 church, as such, could not perform the duties of a member of 
 the gospel church; is it not preposterous to affirm, that a Jewish 
 infant could perform such duties, who even wanted the outward 
 advantages of the other? Besides, as the duties required of an 
 adult Jew, were of an outward nature, all of which he could 
 perform without grace, and allowing the same duties were 
 required of his infant, still this could not be done for him by 
 another : but we cannot infertile membership of infants in the 
 gospel church from hence ; because, as before observed, if an 
 adult member of that church, as such, could not be a member 
 of the gospel church, and his membership could not be argued 
 from his standing there ; much less can the membership of an 
 infant be argued, who does not stand on as good ground as the 
 adult Jew ; and that especially as no one can for that infan:: 
 perform the duties required in the gospel church, whi^h could 
 be, and was done, in the Jewish. 
 
165 
 
 These arguments may be summed up and contrasted, thus t 
 
 1. The Jewish church was 
 n national one. 
 
 2. That was one man's pos- 
 terity, and all of one man^s pos- 
 terity, together with his bought 
 servants. 
 
 3. In that church, nothing 
 but ceremonial holiness was 
 required. 
 
 4. In that, they could be, and 
 were members, without grace. 
 
 5. Their rewards were tem- 
 poral, and so were their punish- 
 ments. 
 
 6. In that, a person was to 
 be cut off who was not circum- 
 cised. 
 
 7. In that, temporal death 
 was inflicted for offences. 
 
 8. In that, their children 
 could perform duty by proxy. 
 
 9. That church increased by 
 natural generation. 
 
 1. The gospel church never 
 embraced any whole nation. 
 
 2. This, not of one family, 
 much less all of a family ; nor 
 are servants to be baptized and 
 received members, as such. 
 
 3. In this, outward perform- 
 ance is nothing without holy 
 dispositions. 
 
 4. In this, they must have 
 grace, for they could not per- 
 form requisite duties without 
 it. 
 
 5. In this, rewards and pu- 
 nishments are only in futurity, 
 and spiritual. 
 
 6. In this, no person will be 
 damned for not submitting to 
 baptism. 
 
 7. In this, quite the reverseo 
 
 8* In this, it is utterly im- 
 possible, because a christian 
 parent can do no more than his 
 own duty. 
 
 9. This, only by the power 
 of the Holy Spirit attending his 
 word. 
 
 10. In this, Christ's king- 
 dom and that of the world, are 
 two different things ; nor did 
 the apostles pretend to civil 
 authority. 
 
 11. In this, directions are 
 given to exclude them. 
 
 10. In that, their religion in- 
 corporated itself with their go- 
 vernment; and civil, religious 
 and political powers lodged in 
 the same hands. 
 
 1 1 . In that there was no such 
 thing as to excommunicate an 
 unworthy member. 
 
 Having thus demonstrated the falsity of Mr. E.'s assertions, 
 that the Jewish church state remains, and having shewn that 
 the two churches are radically different, and that infants can by 
 no means be members of the gospel church as they were of the 
 Jewish ; I shall now shew, that some things are said of the 
 gospel church that will not agree with infants. The church is 
 called w the pillar and ground of the truth," Tim. iii. 15. : but 
 can it be said of infants, that they are the support and defence 
 of the gospel? The church is said to be subject to Christ, sis r. 
 
 Y 
 
16b 
 
 woman ought to he to her husband, Eph. v. 22. : but are infants, 
 indeed, subject to Christ ? Paul persecuted the church, says the 
 sacred text, Phil. iii. 6. : but did he act so unmanly as to 
 persecute infants I It is said that Saul made havoc of the church, 
 Acts viii. 3. : can it be thought he put young children to death ? 
 Certainly not. It is said, that it pleased the whole church (not 
 part of them) to send chosen men of their own company, to 
 Antioch, Acts xv. 22. : this cannot agree with infants ; for it 
 was impossible that they should send messengers. Such as 
 prophecy, are said to edify the church, 1 Cor. xiv. 15. : but if 
 infants were members, this could only be true of a part of them. 
 The church were not to be charged with the support of certain 
 widows, 1 Tim. v. 16.: but would it not be nonsense for the 
 apostles to direct babes not to support the widows ? The apostle 
 John says, u I wrote to thechurch," 3 John 2. : but it is ridicu- 
 lous so to talk, if infants were in it, especially if the children of 
 believers were such : ; they would constitute the majority. In 
 Acts ix. 31. " Then had the churches rest, throughout all Judea 
 and Galilee and Samaria, and were. edified ; and walked in the 
 fear of the Lord, and. in the comfort of the Holy Ghost." Can 
 jt with consistency be said of little sucking infants, that they 
 were " edified, 1 '* u walked in the fear of the Lord" and" were 
 comforted of the Holy Ghost f n Yet such inconsistencies are 
 with our opponents. It is said, that when Ananias and Sapphira 
 his wife, had been slain by the Lord, " great fear came upon all 
 (not a part only) the church," Acts v. 11.: but were babes 
 afraid ? Directions are given to aggrieved members of the church 
 how to act, and their instructions run thus : " And if he shall 
 neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church : but if he shall 
 neglect to hear the church," &c. Matth. .xviii. 17. But how is 
 he to tell his case to infants? and how can infants speak to tht, 
 offending person ? ' 
 
 The^e, and numberless other texts that might readily be 
 adduced, afford dignified and obvious proof that infants were 
 n£)t in the apostolic churches ; nor can our opponents, with all 
 their subtle logic, evade the force of them. But all the exhorta- 
 tions and warnings addressed to the members of churches, prove 
 -he same thing, all of which would be utterly inconsistent w T ere 
 intants in membership ; besides which, it is remarkable, that no 
 directions are given to the church with respect to such infants : 
 •a negleec this, that never would have existed, if they were 
 members, and which cannot lie said as it relates to the Jewish 
 , tlun'ch. Doe* it appear consistent, that exhortations should be 
 •uidressed to the church by name, and which do, in every instance, 
 imply the parties having grace and the exercise of their under- 
 standing and yet no directions given to the church respecting 
 
167 
 
 infant members, if they were so ; but all the exhortations whkfo- 
 eoncern them are addressed to their parents ? No duties are 
 pointed out for them to perform, or others to perform for them ;- 
 nor yet is there any church privilege assigned to them, nor could 
 they enjoy any; nor can our Lord's* act of blessing some infants, 
 establish their right to baptism, or church membership, for we 
 have no information of either taking, place ; nor yet did he 
 leave any command to his disciples to follow his example in this 
 respect. 
 
 Such exhortations and cautions as these following^ are in all 
 the epistles directed to the church in general, without any 
 specification of age or sex : a Take heed, brethren, lest there 
 should be in any of vou an evil heart of unbelief," Heb. iii. 12.. 
 " Bear ye one another's burdens," Gal. vi. 2. " If a brother 
 he overtaken in a fault, let such as are spiritual restore him," 
 Gal. vi. 1. " Not forsaking the assembling of yourselves toge- 
 ther," Heb. x. 25. " Examine yourselves whether ye be in the 
 faith — Let a man examine himself and so let him eat of that 
 breads" 1 Cor. xi. " Ye are all the children of God by faith in 
 Christ Jesus," GaL iii. 26. " Received ye the Spirit by the works 
 of the law, or by the hearing of faith l n Gal. iii. 2. Such 
 quotations would be endless ; I must therefore leave it to the 
 reader to judge for himself, how very absurd such addresses 
 would be if made to infants ; and confident I am, that a man 
 not blinded by prejudice, never will maintain the membership 
 of infants. 
 
 It has been asked by PoedobaptistSj why make so much ado 
 about baptism ? It is, say they, but a non-essential at last, and 
 even if we are wrong, it is not a matter of much importance, nor 
 shall we be asked in the day of judgment whether we were 
 Baptists or Poedobaptists. In answer to this I shall observe, that 
 it is hard for our opponents to know What questions will be asked 
 them on that head hereafter : but Christ says, ' He that breaketh 
 one of the least of these commandments, and teacheth men so, 
 shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven,' Matth. v. 19. 
 Certainly this text does not look as if the practice were harm- 
 less. I have often wondered that any christians would urge as 
 a reason for neglect, that baptism is not a ^saving" ordinance ; 
 there is so much meanness in it, and it certainly conveys the 
 idea that they are determined to have no more religion than is 
 sufficient to keep them out of hell; and if they can but get to 
 heaven, God's glory is nothing to themy yea, that they care not 
 whether he is pleased or displeased* I know that there are 
 thousands of godly Pcedobaptists who would tremble at such 
 inferences : but I ask, do they not arise out of the excuses that 
 are made ? But infant baptism is so far from being a small things 
 
168 
 
 it is one of the greatest of evils, and has been the fruitful source 
 of most of the calamities that have overtaken the christian 
 church : it has been the inlet to innumerable other evils, and 
 never will the church of Christ be purged and appeal- in hci 
 primitive simplicity and beauty, until this most pernicious 
 practice is discontinued. Baptism is called the door into the 
 church, by our opponents : does it not then assume the greatest 
 importance, and does it not become us to take care that the door 
 is such as will not eventually destroy the church itself I All 
 pious men know, that real religion consists in a work of grace 
 in the soul — a new and spiritual birth — and that in this work, 
 there is effected a change or views, of affections, and of the pur- 
 suits of those who are the partakers of it : so that such persons 
 are entirely opposite in their tempers and dispositions, to the rest 
 of mankind ; nor can they have any real fellowship with them in 
 worldly things, and none at all in spiritual concerns, for there 
 is not the least agreement of sentiment here. 
 
 I now ask, what was a church state set up for ? Was it not 
 that real religious persons might be associated together in 
 brotherly love j and by enjoying each other's conversation and 
 fraternal assistance, grow up in their holy religion, and so aid 
 each other in seeking everlasting life ? And did not Christ in 
 establishing the gospel church, intend they should hold up to 
 the view of sinful men the excellency of the christian religion,, 
 and thereby practically enforce in their view, the necessity of 
 real piety in order to their future happiness? But infant sprink- 
 ling has corrupted the church of God — has made the fountain 
 turbid — has made it a mere worldly sanctuary — has defeated 
 the ends Christ proposed in the organization of this religion* 
 institution ; and the children of God have to seek in retirement 
 that comfort they cannot have in a worldly church ; while the 
 wicked are hardened in their infidel principles, by the conduct 
 of such professors. 
 
 My brethren in the ministry, who are in the practice of infant 
 sprinkling, and who have felt the power of religion in your heart, 
 (lor to carnal clergy this address will be tasteless) ; have you 
 surveyed all thexonsequences of such a practice, and will you 
 bear with me whiter discharge a solemn duty which I owe to 
 God and to you, even that of developing the evils attendant 
 upon it ? You well know, that in christian countries (so called) 
 near nine-tenths of the people have received what is termed 
 baptism, in infancy, and you have told us that baptism introduces 
 into the church. Now, brethren, look at the state of society j 
 what have you done, have you not assisted in crouding into the 
 church of Christ the children of satan ? Do you not, by these 
 means, put the government of the church into the hands of 
 
169 
 
 wicked men, they being by far the majority? Infant sprinkling 
 is the mean by satan used for preventing a religious experience 
 being given in, in order to admission into the church : hence a 
 religious experience ceases to be necessary to church member- 
 ship, and what is the consequence ? Is it not, that the great 
 majority of such institutions become In a short time graceless 
 persons ? And these churches, what are they to do ? are they 
 not to select their officers, such as ministers and deacons ? But 
 what selections are wicked men likely to make ? Will they choose 
 pious persons to fill such stations, or are they not generally 
 disposed to sit under a clergy that will favour their vices ; and 
 to choose deacons and elders, who will w r ink at sin ? 
 
 If it should be asked, why are many churches so corrupt, that 
 their members generally live in all the fashions and gaiety of the 
 age — attend the theatre — arc found at assemblies and sinful par- 
 ties — are profane and loose in their conversation — neither as- 
 semble for social worship, nor admit of religious conversation 
 among them ; the answer will be, infant sprinkling is the cause of 
 all this — it has made them members of the church. Should it 
 be asked, why are many of the clergy void of religion, and how 
 came they into the sacred trust, and what led to their being se- 
 lected as pastors? the answer is still the same — infant sprinkling 
 is the cause ? Should it be asked, why mere moral lectures, ele- 
 gant diction, flowery language, correct composition, should be 
 called gospel preaching by the hearers ; when at the same time v 
 human depravity has not been set forth-— or the new birth and 
 experimental religion insisted on— nor Christ hardly mentioned, 
 much less the mysteries of his cross, and the completeness of 
 his righteousness displayed — but on the contrary, a total igno- 
 rance of a work of grace on the preacher's heart, manifest to 
 every spiritual man that hears him ; the answer still is, infant 
 sprinkling is the cause of all this ; for if the church had not been 
 corrupted by it, and the majority had feared God and loved reli- 
 gion, they never could sit under such preachers. 
 
 In the first ages, while believers* baptism was in practice, the 
 churches were nearly pure ; but no sooner did- that desolating 
 evil of infant sprinkling creep in, but in a very short time the 
 face of the church was changed. Then a carnal clergy succeed-, 
 ed — then every abominable error took its rise, for a graceless 
 clergy could do no less than err— then in a little time the clergy 
 began to aim at worldly power and dignity — then the harlot of 
 Rome became caressed and established, and this was her sup- 
 port — then a wicked clergv, under pretence of seeking God's 
 honour, interfered in the political concerns of nations, and sowed 
 discord among princes, and provoked the most cruel wars. Had 
 church membership continued on the plan first established by 
 
no 
 
 Christ, and had none been admitted to baptism but believers, or 
 such as gave a credible account of a work of grace on the heart, 
 the majority of the members in churches would have been such 
 as feared God ; and none of those evils would have followed. 
 Infant sprinkling makes a carnal church ; a carnal church only 
 can be a fighting or persecuting church. Infant sprinkling and 
 infant church membership, have laid the foundation for all the 
 persecutions that have ever been practised by the church of 
 Rome : had it not been for a carnal church, the fields of Italy, 
 France, Spain, England, Germany, would never have been cover- 
 ed with human gore, by the pretended children of Christ. I ask, 
 could a real christian church be a persecuting church ? I know 
 the answer must be, it cannot. But would the church of Christ 
 ever have been so corrupt, had membership therein depended on 
 a religious experience ? It will — it must be conceded, that it 
 would not. But was it not infant sprinkling that occasioned this 
 religious te?t to be laid aside ? and if it were, is it not to this 
 dreadful evil all the consequences are Owing ? 
 
 Infant sprinkling, by corrupting the church cf God, h-as made 
 her a bloody, a persecuting church-^is now that tie that binds 
 church and state together on the continent, (for without it there 
 could be no national church,) the present cause of ungodly and 
 shameful persecutions. Infant sprinkling is that which in Europe 
 has settled a numerous and licentious clergy, who having enter- 
 ed into the political schemes of their respective governments, 
 have in return been saddled ori the people to ride them to death, 
 and are the cause of preventing the faithful preaching of the gos- 
 pel there by others ; so that ir religion prevails under the name 
 of established religion, and no means can be used to remedy it, 
 as the civil power is enlisted in its defence. 
 
 But to come nearer home. If infant sprinkling, and infant 
 church membership were discontinued, and the ancient practice 
 6i receiving persons on at relation of religious experience were 
 revived in general ; then in a little time a complete separation 
 would take place between the church and the world — -churches 
 would harmonize — an unconverted ministry would be banish- 
 ed — professors would not look so much like the world — the 
 church would appear amiable— revivals of religion would be 
 common, for the prejudices of infidels and others that now exist 
 against the churches on account of their wickedness, would van- 
 ish — then christians would take a pleasure in God's house — then 
 true church fellowship would be enjoyed—then the church 
 would be the envy of men, and terrible to the wicked as an army 
 with banners- — then numerous families would not be confined to 
 attend places of divine worship, to hear a man that has never 
 known the way to heaven himself, has no acquaintance with 
 
in 
 
 spiritual things, und therefore cannot teach them to others * an* 
 by that means thousands would not be deluded, who are now 
 lulled to sleep by these worst of enemies to the soul. 
 
 Things must come to this > the latter day glory will shortly 
 break ; then infant church membership must be at an end, and 
 already does it tremble to its base ; and the feeble efforts thai, 
 are making in its support will prove ineffectual. But, brethren, 
 lay aside a practice so pernicious in its consequences, and so de- 
 rogatory to the honour and glory of God; and remember your 
 responsibility to the great Head of the church. Can you cal* 
 .that harmless, which has spoiled the beauty of the church of 
 God, has deluged her with blood, filled her with errors, and 
 which now makes thousands rest secure, under the idea thai 
 \they have been brought into covenant with God, and made chris 
 nans, while their steps are taking hold of hell. 
 
 ON THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 THERE is no part of Mr. Edward's performance more to 
 be admired than what he says of baptizing ; i. e. that he " had 
 been convinced more than four years ago, that immersion was 
 not essential to baptism ;" and " though he had since that, 
 preached several baptizing sermons, without saying a word 
 about the mode ; yet the Baptists did not notice the omission;, 
 but would directly have observed it, had he omitted saying any- 
 thing about the subjects." This, certainly leaves an indelible 
 stamp of infamy on his character as a religious man ; for it is 
 well known, that on uniting with the Baptists, he had professed 
 to hold all their distinguishing sentiments ; and his remaining 
 with them, must have been interpreted as a perfect coincidence 
 between them in sentiment. He had renounced Poedobaptism 
 once, from the pretence that he could not concientiously continu< 
 in the practice of it : if afterward he was converted back again 
 to his former faith, did he not owe it to his friends, and to the 
 causeof God in particular,to own the changein his mind \ During 
 the four years he had administered baptism as the Baptists do, 
 yet at the same time believed others right in this particular as 
 well as they,, should he not, as an honest man, and as a christian 
 minister, have endeavoured to convince his brethren of their 
 mistake, and to have lent hi£ aid to the opponents of the .Baptists 
 on that subject ? What reason sufficiently weighty can he assign 
 for such criminal silence, when he might, in advancing his 
 sentiments, as far as he knew, have brought the Baptists anci 
 .Pcedobaptists together on that head I 
 
172 
 
 One thing is manifest from his confession, that he has not 
 a very tender conscience, but that he can make his religion bend 
 to the times ; and that the very same principle -would have 
 enabled him, in the time of persecution, to have accommodated 
 himself to a false religion. For four years he was silent on the 
 mode of baptizing ! ! Reader, a man that could temporise in 
 religious things so long, cannot be that candid man he calls 
 himself in his book ; neither can you believe those reasons he 
 assigns for leaving the Baptists are candid, as he affirms them 
 to be. Query, Could not Mr. E., had it accorded with his 
 interest, have disguised his sentiments for the whole of his life, 
 as well as for four years ? This is not an impossible case, for he 
 does not condemn that conduct, nor does he say he ever repented 
 on account of it ; therefore it follows, that from real integrity- 
 he did not discontinue the practice. 
 
 While Mr. E. mentions that his brethren did not notice his 
 leaving the mode of baptism untouched, he no doubt meant to 
 impress the mind of his readers with an idea of their ignorance ; 
 or at least, that they were, in their opposition to Pcedobaptists, 
 led to act more from party zeal, or prejudice, than an honest 
 attachment to principle. This was rather a compliment to them 
 than otherwise, and shews, that they were not of a suspicious 
 make, and had thought that Mr. E. was an honest man ; in 
 which, unfortunately for them, they had been deceived, and had 
 quite mistaken his character. It is a just adage, that a suspicious 
 mind evidences great depravity of heart. None are so easily 
 deceived as truly honest men ; nor could any one believe that 
 a man who had pretended to search into the merits of the 
 controversy between immersion and sprinkling, and who had 
 declared himself entirely convinced of the truth of the former, 
 and afterward to give evidence of this conviction submit to this 
 rite ; I say, no one could, under such circumstances, admit a 
 thought, until conviction was forced upon them, of his insin- 
 ceritv. His new friends will not probably feel as secure of his 
 attachments as he thinks they do, nor would it be in the least 
 surprising to hear of his chopping about again ; nor does it ap- 
 pear improbable, that his partiality for a national establishment 
 which he has manifested so abundantly, will at last lead him to 
 covet something in the gift of the mother church. If the Baptists 
 did not suspect him, it was from their consciousness that the 
 ordinance is so plainly revealed in the word, that they did not 
 think any man would be disposed to call it in question, who had 
 once dispassionately exainined \t ; and such is the prevalence of 
 the truth on that head, that rcedobaptists have been more; 
 puzzled to maintain their ground here, than when reasoning on 
 'he subjects of baptism, though their defeat in both is notorious* 
 
173 
 
 I want language to express his effrontery, when he says, * It 
 appears to me, that the Baptists are not so tenacious of the 
 mode, as of the subjects of baptism." On what, sir, do you 
 ground such an opinion ? Did you ever, sir, see a Baptist author, 
 that reasoned for the one, and neglected the other ? You know 
 I hat this is destitute of the least shadow of truth, nor can you 
 furnish any proof of what you now unblushingly affirm ; and 
 give me leave, sir, to say, that your word is not to be relied 
 on ; for you have not acted the christian, or the gentleman, in 
 this controversy. But you had a conversation with a Baptist 
 minister, who told you, that the u mode of baptism, by immer- 
 sion only, did not appear equally plain as the subject." If this 
 be true, is the opinion of the gentleman you advert to evidence 
 of the fact? Did the Baptists constitute that gentleman the organ 
 of their sentiment, and are they guided by his views in this 
 business ? A Baptist told you so, and therefore all the Baptists 
 believe so — wonderful logic ! Who is that Baptist, sir, is it 
 your dear self ? I shrewdly suspect your veracity ; and the 
 farther I have gone into an examination of your performance, 
 there has appeared so much duplicity and shuffling, and such 
 unchristian misrepresentations of Mr. Booth, that by this time 
 I can credit nothing you advance. That man who could give a 
 mutilated account of the reasonings of an opponent, intending 
 them to pass for the whole sentiment of the author — that can 
 subdivide texts, split them into fractions, try to puzzle rather 
 than lead to truth — that under a specious pretence of zeal for 
 God, and the honour of his cause, becomes a detailer of error ; 
 I say, that all such a man declares to be true, on his own credit, 
 is not to be received. 
 
 There is a sideway argument advanced by Mr. E. which is 
 designed to shew, that words are not always to be taken in their 
 strict and literal sense, but frequently in a qualified and restricted 
 one. The argument will be this : 4 The proper and obvious' 
 meaning of " deipnon? is, a feast or common meal. If this 
 be true, I should be glad to know, whether a person who, in 
 the use of that ordinance, (meaning the supper) takes only a 
 piece of bread of half an inch square, and drinks a table spoonful 
 of wine, which is neither a feast nor a common meal, and so 
 does not come up to the proper meaning of the word, can be 
 said to have received the Lord's supper V The argument from 
 this will be, that if a little bread, and a little wine, are called a 
 supper, although the person has not fed to the full, may not 
 baptism be something beside dipping, even if baptizing signifies 
 to immerse I that is, may not a little water applied to the body 
 be baptism, though the word baptized signifies to be immersed in 
 water? There is in this argument a very ^reat concession made 
 
 Z 
 
174 
 
 by the author against his will, that is, that taking a little bread and 
 
 ruine was a supper in an improper sense, and that sprinkling is 
 
 baptism in an improper sense ; and that if one is tolerated the. 
 
 other ought to be, and that if the one is rejected the other must 
 
 be also. I thank you, sir, for speaking the truth for once ; it 
 
 is not your happy lot to do it often. Yes, sir, you are right, if 
 
 sprinkling is baptism, it must not be so in a strict and proper, 
 
 but in a contracted and qualified sense. But then, sir, here will 
 
 lie your mistake, that there is no one instance of baptism being 
 
 mentioned in any other than in its strict and unqualified sense ; 
 
 whereas the instance you bring will not apply, because when it 
 
 is called a supper, there is something connected with the text 
 
 which shews it was not to mean a supper in the usual acceptation 
 
 of the word, but in a qualified sense only. When the command 
 
 was given by the Saviour to partake, of the supper, had he not 
 
 said any thing which could make it evident a common meal was 
 
 not intended, we then should act as in baptizing.; as, in the last, 
 
 being guided by the strict signification of the word, we should 
 
 immerse, so in the first, we should have made a full meal, and 
 
 thought he intended we should satisfy the cravings of nature* 
 
 But while in the one case (that of baptism), he has ordered the 
 
 thing to be done, without qualifying the sense of it ; in the other 
 
 he has not done so, but has qualified it. And as in the one case 
 
 we are told to baptize, and baptize signifies to dip, and there is 
 
 no instance where the word is used in a sense differing from its 
 
 primitive meaning, and we in obedience do so according to its 
 
 strict sense : yet, in the other case, when he commands us to 
 
 eat of the supper, and we know that the word supper means a 
 
 common meal, yet we know it does not mean so here, and that 
 
 because there is something said about it, in which they widelv 
 
 differ. 
 
 To shew that a little bread and wine is called a supper, and 
 is immediately distinguished from a common meal, I will quote 
 the text : u For in eating everyone taketh before other, his ow?i 
 supper : and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have 
 ye not houses to eat and to drink in ? or despise ye the church 
 of God, and shame them that have not," 1 Cor. xi. 21, 22. 
 The apostle declares, verse 20, " This is not to eat the Lord y s 
 supper;" and evidently points out where their mistake lay, in 
 that they had considered it a meal to satisfy hunger, and to 
 indulge in intemperance ; but he now rectifies their mistake, and 
 lets them know it was not a supper for the indulgence of appetite, 
 nor even in an usual, but a qualified sense. Can our opponents 
 shew any such authority for understanding sprinkling to be 
 baptism, as we have shewn that a little wine and bread is called 
 a ;.ujper ? 
 
175 
 
 But it was called a supper, not with reference to the body, but 
 the soul j and of the soul it may be said to be a common, or full 
 meal ; for in the supper the soul feeds and feasts on Christ. Nei- 
 ther is it a light meal, but a satisfying one ; and therefore it may, 
 in the strict sense of the word, be used, and the wit of Mr. E. ail 
 falls to the ground. But cart he shew how sprinkling is as fully 
 immersion or baptism, as we have shewn that the supper is a 
 full feast or meal to the believer ? What becomes of his criticism^ 
 He says that deipnon means, a full meal : be it so j the supper 
 is such in a spiritual sense to the believer, and the piece of bread^ 
 of half an inch square, with the table spoonful of wine, were 
 as just a representation of the sacrifice of Christ, as a much 
 larger portion, and therefore answers all the purposes the other 
 could ; by which the worthy communicant makes a full spiritual 
 meal on faith's object, the blessed Redeemer. 
 
 We shall certainly object to the statement cf Mr. E., that 
 " All our knowledge of the manner of baptizing, must, at this 
 distance of time from the nrst institution, be collected from the 
 word 4 baptize' the circumstances cf baptism, and the allusions 
 of scripture to that ordinance." He has, indeed, started fair,; 
 but he does not conform to the premises laid down by himself. 
 At one time, you shall see him pay no regard to apostolic 
 example ; then you will see him introduce but two allusions to 
 baptism ; and, finally, you will discern, that he is not by any 
 means willing to let those places where dipping is expresslv 
 mentioned, be any guide to us. lam not altogether satisfied 
 with his statement of the controversy, which is, to inquire, " I.s 
 immersion essential to baptism ? Or, in other words, is there no 
 other baptism but what is by immersion ?" If the question were, 
 is there such a thing as baptism, without the body being over- 
 whelmed, or covered all over, then it would be a question that 
 would strike at the root of this dispute. The quibbling of these 
 gentlemen rests on the word " dip, plunge" which pre-sup- 
 poses a person going into the water, and another putting him 
 under it ; in opposition to which, they advance certain passages 
 where there was not a going into the water, and yet the person 
 or thing is said to be baptized : from which they raise their 
 objection, that if a thing may be baptized without going into 
 the water, or being put under it, which supposes the existence 
 of a pool or stream ; then, why may not applying water to a part 
 of the body only, be meant by baptizing ? In answer to this, it 
 may be said, that although instances may be produced where 
 a person or thing is said to have been baptized which has not 
 been put under water, in a pool or stream ; yet no instance can 
 be produced where a person or thing is said to have been 
 baptized, which has not been entirely covered over with water, 
 
176 
 
 or whatever element it was said to be baptized in. There arc 
 but two ways in which a person or thing is ever said to have 
 been baptized, yet in both there is an overwhelming, or complete 
 covering. The one is, by the person or thing put into the 
 element, and covered over by it; the other is, the element covering- 
 over the person or thing' : yet in both instances the same effect 
 follows, — an overwhelming-, covering, or burying. In the one 
 case, the element is passive in which the baptism is effected, 
 and the person or thing is the active ag'ejit : but in the other 
 case, the person or thing baptized is passive, and the element 
 is the active agent ; yet in both there is an entire covering, or 
 burying. The question, then, will be varied thus : Is there a 
 single instance to be found, in the word of God, where baptism 
 is spoken of, either by example or otherwise, where it does not 
 intend an entire covering or burial ? Or, can there be found 
 a single Greek lexicon, or Greek author, (such excepted as 
 . have compiled lexicons since sprinkling has been in use, and 
 have taken the meaning of the word baptize^ from the practice 
 of modern times) who, in using the word baptize, employ it so 
 as to mean a partial, but not an entire covering ? 
 
 Our opponents think they have done a great deal, and have 
 entirely ruined our cause, when they prove that a person or thing 
 has been baptized, when it has not been dipped under ; but, 
 contrariwise, the thing that covers descends on them. After 
 all, however, they have done just nothing ; because, in every 
 instance they produce, there has been a complete overwhelming, 
 and the only difference has been, that in some cases the person 
 or thing baptized has been active, and in others passive : but 
 in both, a burial or covering takes place. If they would do any 
 thing to purpose, let them point out a single place in the Bible, 
 in an ancient Greek author, or in Greek lexicons that have been 
 compiled prior to the use of sprinkling, where the word baptize 
 is ever used to mean u sprinkle, or asperse" They will tell us, 
 the word baptize is sometimes applied to pouring, grant it \ 
 but then it is such a pouring as buries or overwhelms the 
 subject* 
 
 Upon the whole, this may be safely affirmed, that no one 
 instance can be produced by our opponents where a person or 
 thing is said to have been baptized, but that person or thing 
 was completely overwhelmed, or covered; let the covering 
 have been effected either by putting it into the element, or the 
 element covering it. And all they can prove is, that, in some 
 solitary instances, a person or thing is said to have been baptized 
 by the element descending on it, and covering of it completely; 
 though in most of the instances, where a person or thing is said 
 to have been baptized, it was by putting it under the element* 
 
m 
 
 Therefore, covering or overwhelming is essential to baptism, 
 though dipping is not ; for though dipping or immersing is 
 essential to baptism, when the person or thing to be baptized is 
 the active agent, and the element the passive ; yet dipping is 
 not essential to baptism when the person or thing to be baptized 
 is the passive agent, but the element the active one : but, in 
 both cases, a covering over, or overwhelming, is essential, for 
 without that there is no baptism. From whence it may readily 
 be seen, that a partial pouring, or a partial dipping, is never 
 called baptism, unless it respects the part dipped, or the part 
 poured on, which in that case is so called. In this last sense, 
 the hand is said sometimes to be baptized, when the man was 
 not ; here the baptism is restricted to a part, and that as dis- 
 tinguished from the whole person. However trifling these 
 distinctions may first appear to the reader, yet, in the sequel he 
 will find they enter into the very heart of the controversy, put 
 an end to several unmeaning cavils, detect the sophistry of Mr. 
 E. and other Poedobaptist authors ; and, at the same time, shew, 
 that where the word baptize is variously applied, it invariably 
 means the same thing (that is, a covering), though at first it 
 may seem otherwise. 
 
 Mr. E. objects to the Greek word bapto y being introduced 
 into the controversy ; and as a reason for his objection, urges 
 that " it is never used in scripture respecting this ordinance." 
 Yet, lest this should have the appearance of cowardice (a thing 
 not to be brooked by a man of his courage) he undertakes to 
 make it appear, at least, that it is u a term of such latitude, that 
 he who should attempt to prove, from its use in various authors, 
 an absolute and total immersion, will find he has undertaken 
 that which he can never fairly perform." He then gives instances 
 of its various use, which we shall examine. But why should 
 Mr. E. be so squeamish concerning this word ? Is it because 
 he does not wish to introduce foreign matter into the dispute, 
 and intends to keep up to the first principles adopted in his setting 
 out ? No, this cannot be : for he has entertained us with a long 
 harangue about female communion, though it is a subject in 
 which we are both agreed. But the gentleman will not tell his 
 true reason : he is so afraid of " lexicographers and common 
 sense," that the very mention of them makes the blood freeze 
 in his veins ; and, suspecting that the word bapto may not be 
 interpreted to suit him, he is determined to say as little abou* 
 it as possible. This word is not so foreign as he would have u:: 
 believe ; but on the contrarv, as lie has acknowledged, that the- 
 dispute about the node of baptizing must be settled by the 
 meaning of the word baptize, to understand its meaning, this 
 may be considered as the key : bapto is the root from which. 
 
these words baptize and baptism proceed. Now, if the ro©i 
 itself signifies to dip, plunge, bun', or overwhelm, then of course 
 the words baptize, and baptism, which are mere derivations from 
 that word, are to be explained by it. This is certainly the fact, 
 and from hence arises the objection to consider it ; for he was 
 sensible, that tracing these words to their source would be at 
 once to expose the weakness of his cause. 
 
 But how does he prove the great latitude given to the word ? 
 Does it mean to sprinkle, or asperse ? Let him speak. It is, 
 said he, applied to " the throwing of a person into the mire," 
 Job ix. 31. This is indeed singular, for it is not so used ; the 
 word mire is not found in the text, but the words are, u Yet 
 shalt thou plunge me into the ditch." Mr. E. had nothing to 
 do, but to make a little alteration in the text, put the word 
 *' mire" instead of " ditch" and as he hoped his readers would 
 take his quotations for genuine, he knew that persons would 
 think a burying in mud to be impracticable, and conclude it was 
 a mere defiling a part of the cloathing which was intended. 
 Could he not as easily conceive of the ditch containing stagnant 
 waters, which is quite common, and a being plunged beneath 
 them, an emblem of the foulness of Job's transgressions, and of 
 their numbers, as overwhelming would more suitably express ? 
 I hope, however, that we shall not find his next quotations quite 
 so imperfect, or we shall not thank him for his M taste" of them 
 which he promised. 
 
 His second instance, is Avhat he calls " a partial dipping," 
 Matth. xxvi. 23. " He that dippeth (baptizeth) his hand with 
 me in the dish." It is not said the man was baptized or dipped 
 in the dish, but his hand ; and this was true of his hand, as far 
 as it was in the dish. Had the text said, the man was baptized, 
 or dipped, in the dish, and then it should appear that only his 
 hand had been so used ; in that case, the baptism would have 
 been a partial one, because a part would have been baptized for 
 the whole : but when it is only spoken of the hand, and that was 
 actually in the dish, how can it be called a partial plunging ? 
 But the baptizing mentioned is not to be applied to the hand, 
 but to the contents of it ; and when the hand is said to be 
 baptized, it has reference strictly to the custom of the Jews at 
 the passover dipping the unleavened bread and bitter herbs into 
 the sauce, called charoseth ; and it was into this that the hand 
 dipped that unleavened bread, and those bitter herbs. This 
 takes away all the difficulty, and fixes the sense entirely in 
 favour of immersion, as the things in question were entirely 
 buried in what the dish contained. To make it appear, that 
 the baptism in question refers to these, and not the hand, you 
 will see that the parallel text in Mark does not say the hand 
 
179 
 
 was dipped, but simply, he that "dippeth f 9 manifestly referring 
 to the things ubove mentioned : " And he answered and said 
 unto them, it is one of the twelve that dippeth with me in the 
 dish," Mark xiv. 20. The custom among the Jews of dipping 
 the unleavened bread is thus performed. See Gill's Exposition 
 of Matth. xxvi. 23. " The account Maimonides gives of it is, 
 the charoseth is a precept from the words of the scribes, in 
 remembrance of the day in which they served in Egypt; and 
 how did they make it ? They took dates, or berries, or raisins, 
 and the like, and stamped them, and put vinegar into them, 
 and seasoned them with spices, and brought it upon the table in 
 the night of the passover ; and he rolled up the unleavened 
 bread and bitter herbs together, and dipped them in the, 
 charoseth." 
 
 The third instance he produces is, that the word is taken tp 
 stain ; and adduces in support of it Rev. xix. 13. " And he was 
 cloathed with a vesture dipped in blood." Surely Mr. E. must 
 think his readers prepared to swallow any thing, when he pro- 
 duced this text to prove the word " bapto" signifies to stain; 
 because the text does not say stained with, but " dipped in 
 blood." And though it will not be denied, that a garment dipped 
 in blood is stained with it, yet it was not stained by affusion, but: 
 by an immersion of the garment in it. Had it been, as he insinu- 
 ates, only stained, (which is not the case) still it would not have 
 been in favour of sprinkling ; because it was not a partial one, 
 but such a staining as entirely covered the garment, by which 
 the garment was indeed baptized, or overwhelmed with it ; nor 
 can he serve our cause better than to produce such texts. Th« 
 translation plainly shews that the translators thought u bapto** 
 meant to dip : perhaps they were not to be compared with Mr. 1 
 E. for Greek learning. 
 
 The fourth is the case of Nebuchadnezzar, whose body " was 
 wet, (baptized) by the dew," Dan. iv. 33. " And his body was 
 wet with the dew of heaven." This passage, brought to prove, 
 as I suppose, .that bapto may be taken to sprinkle, certainly is* 
 not in point, unless only a part of his body was wet, and then 
 the word baptize applied to the whole man. This cannot bt 
 contested ; for the whole body was exposed to the action of the 
 dew, and was covered or overwhelmed therewith : and when it 
 is affirmed his body was wet, it was not a partial, but universal 
 wetting, such a wetting as extended over the whole body. 
 Nothing will set this matter in a fairer light, than to shew from 
 a celebrated traveller in those countries, that the dews were sq 
 copious, that persons or things exposed to them might be said 
 literally to be baptized, or covered therein. See MaundrelV 
 Travels through Palestine, wherein h_e observe*, that the u dor 
 
180 
 
 was like rain, and that their tents were wet as if dipped in the 
 water," 
 
 Mr. E. in his fifth objection to the word bapto^ as always 
 signifying immersion, carries us away to Homer, the Greek 
 poet, who uses it thus : " The lake was baptized," he adds, 
 " stained or coloured with blood." Is it not a little surprising, 
 that a man who objected to the use of lexicographers to find out 
 the meaning of words, should now refer us to a heathen poet ? 
 Where is Mr. E.'s consistency ? Is it criminal in Mr. Booth to 
 refer to human authorities, while his accuser, Mr. E., is at 
 perfect liberty, nay, glories in the privilege of doing so ? But 
 the most strange part of the business is, that he does not quote 
 the sober criticism of a prose writer ; but avails himself of the 
 flight of a poet — of poetic fable, where every thing is fiction, or 
 where latitude is allowed to colour the most insignificant things, 
 so as to make them appear of the utmost moment. This was 
 the precise case with the passage referred to in Homer, who, 
 allowing himself in high poetic colouring, represents the lake as 
 entirely covered with the blood of a frog ; which he calls 
 baptizing the lake #. Neither does he lose sight of the original 
 
 * The following are specimens of poetic extravagance in Homer, in his 
 battle of the frogs and mice, and plainly shew, that the Grecian bard by using 
 the word baptize in the sense to cover, did but pursue the strain of hyperbole 
 that pervades many parts of his sportive poem. I use the translation of 
 Cowper, because more literal than that of Mr. Pope. 
 
 " Limnocharis* at Troglodytes f cast 
 
 " A mill-stone weight of rock." 
 
 »* Psycharpaxi*'' ■" upheaving from the ground 
 
 M A rock that had incumbered long the bank, 
 
 " Hurl'd it against Pelobatesfl " 
 
 It seems, that among these wonderful heroes 
 
 " There was a mouse, young, beautiful and brave, 
 
 *i like another Mars; 
 
 " He fought, and Meridarpax§ was his name* 
 *' A mouse, among all mice without a peer." 
 
 This mouse in his fury vowed 
 
 " T' extirpate the whole croaking race.'* 
 Jupiter heard-^-he was amazed — he called to Pallas and Mars to quel? 
 
 m With force comb'm'd the sanguinary chief;" 
 but Mars declined, for said he, 
 
 11 Neither the force of Pallas, nor the force 
 
 " Of Mars, O Jove ! will save the destin'd frogs 
 
 " From swift destruction. Let us all descend 
 
 " To aid them; or, lest al! suffice not, grasp 
 
 " And send abroad thy biggest bolt." 
 
 * The beauty of the lake. f The crumb-catcher. £ A :rcepcr intp holr, 
 ij The mud-tup! h.- § The svrafl-catcken 
 
181 
 
 meaning of fhe word in this allusion ; for if he wished to b§ 
 understood only as mentioning the sprinkling of the blood of an» 
 insignificant frog on the waters of the lake, the narrative would 
 Itave been mean and contemptible in any poet, much more in a 
 *' Homer ;" but when he indulges in the latitude allowed him as 
 a poet, assumes the wonderful, and makes the blood of the frog 
 to C0WET, or overwhelm, and as a consequence, to stain the lake ; 
 then it is, the reader admires the fertile imagination of the poet,, 
 while he is not deceived as to the real meaning. Every one 
 knows, that such writers do not confine themselves strictly to 
 the meaning of words ; in the same sense as a man uses the* 
 words infinite and eternal, to convey the ideas of a distant 
 period, or something of magnitude : but such a critic as Mr. E. 
 would deny existence to be infinite or eternal, because the words 
 are applied figuratively to things that are not ; or assert, that 
 infinite and eternal do not mean what they do, merely because 
 applied to limited creatures* 
 
 His sixth and seventh instances, are no more in point ; for,, 
 granting that the face being smeared all over, or coloured, is by 
 " Aristophanes" called a baptizing of the face, and that the hand 
 pressing a substance containing a liquid, upon which pressure it 
 suddenly bursts out and covers the hand, which by Aristotle, is 
 Galled a baptizing : who does not see, that neither of these is a 
 deviation from the strict meaning of the word, which is, to dips 
 •or cover ? Aristophanes does not say the man was baptized, but 
 his face; and if the colouring was all over his face, which indeed 
 he affirms, and that only was said to be baptized, how in the 
 name of sense can it operate against the original signification 
 of the word ? So also, in the last case, the hand, and not the 
 man himself, is said to be baptized ; and when the liquid 
 effusing from the substance covers it, or the hand is dipped 
 in it, can it with propriety be said that this is a departure 
 from the original sense of the term ? If, indeed, it had been 
 affirmed that these men had been baptized, and afterward it had 
 appeared, that the hand or face only was, then there would have 
 been meaning in the objection of our opponents ; and that 
 because, while -the whole man was said to> baptized, a part .of 
 the man only was in reality. In that case, sprinkling might well 
 
 In perfect correspondence with this poetical wildness, with the Wood of 
 Pternophagus * 
 
 " The bank around was spattered," 
 
 .And when Crambophagusf fell, his blood overspread che lake , 
 
 " redd'ning with his blood 
 
 *"' The wave." 
 
 * Tfe ^on-caler , f fhe cabbage-devours. 
 
 A a 
 
182 
 
 be deemed baptism. But it is objected, the word is taken to 
 stain. It is so only in a consequential sense, as a garment dipped 
 in blood becomes stained, and as a garment dipped in the juice 
 of grapes is stained by the juice. Now, the dipping is the 
 baptizing, the staining is a consequence of the dipping : so in 
 the above instances, the substance covering the hand and the 
 face was the baptism ; but the staining was a mere consequence 
 of that covering. 
 
 Mr, E., from hence, is wrong in his conclusion, when he says, 
 * c So various is the term bapto" — How various, sir ? Does it not 
 rather appear, that it invariably means to dip, cover, or over- 
 whelm I But it means to " wet and stain." Not so, sir, in its 
 primary, but only in a consequential sense ; as a thing must of 
 .consequence be wet that is dipped in, or covered with, water - t 
 and as a thing must, as a consequence be stained, after it is. 
 dipped in, or covered over with a dye. You may indeed, sir, 
 have been " sick," very " sick, in seeing Dr. Gill's strictures on 
 those passages ; but we believe your sickness originated in disap- 
 pointment, that his solid remarks were not to be overturned by 
 your sophistry, and that it was not in your power to blunt the 
 edge of his weapons. 
 
 We shall now follow Mr. E. in his remarks on the word bap- 
 tizo 9 which he admits to be a scripture term, and the meaning of 
 which will be conclusive in this argument. His object is to 
 shew, that this word is taken in different senses in scripture, 
 and means td-sprinkle, pour, and dip, and that all of them are alike 
 called baptism. If he should succeed, we are indeed defeated ; 
 but let us see how he manages his matters* To prove the above, 
 he refers to Heb. ix. 10. " Which stood only in meats and 
 drinks, and divers washings, ( baptisms ) and carnal ordinances." 
 Mark vii. 4, ifc And when they come from the market, excepting 
 they wash, (baptize) they eat not." And many other things 
 there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing 
 (baptizing) of cups and pots, brazen vessels, and of tables." 
 Luke xi. 38. " And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled, 
 that he had not first washed (baptized) before dinner." 
 
 He then asks, u Is the word baptize used in these instances 
 to express immersion only f " The reader may observe that the 
 first instance proves it is not. The apostle plainly expresses the 
 Jewish ablutions by the term c baptisms. 9 I might ask in return, 
 how do the Jewish ablutions prove that immersion only is not 
 baptism ? Is there any place where any thing but an immersion 
 is called baptism among the Jews I Why did not Mr. E. furnish 
 us with some quotations where sprinkling, in the Jewish rites, 
 is called baptism ? Was it enough for him to say they were 
 called " baptisms," and then infer its being done in a different 
 
183 
 
 Way, when he knew they were called " baptisms** not because 
 done by pouring or sprinkling ; but because done for different 
 purposes, at different times, and in different elements, as a 
 cleansing from ceremonial defilement — cleansing of the leper 
 — bathing of the priests — dipping in blood ? 
 
 Mr. E. says that Mr. Booth has granted that the apostle uses 
 the term i baptisms' in this place, to denote pouring and sprink- 
 ling as well as immersion," and adds, u a man must be very 
 defective in point of modesty who will even attempt to deny it." 
 This quotation from Booth is entirely false : he never granted, 
 but his words are, " Were I to grant it." Does this gentleman 
 talk of modesty, who can wilfully misrepresent an author? Any 
 man may see, that granting what is here said to be granted, 
 would be nothing less than to give up the argument. 
 
 44 I ask," (says he) u whether immersion of the whole body 
 was any part of the service ?" Yes, sir, and to gratify you, I will 
 take the liberty to place before you a few of those texts that 
 relate to Jewish baptizings. " As for the living bird, he shall 
 take it, and the cedar wood, and the scarlet, and the hyssop, and 
 shall dip them and the living bird, in the blood of the bird that 
 was killed over the running water," Lev. xiv. 6. Verse 8. " And 
 he (the leper) that is to be cleansed, shall wash his cloaths, and 
 shave off all his hair, and wash himself in water, that he may be 
 clean." Verses 15, 16. " And the priest shall take some of the 
 log of oil, and pour it upon the palm of his own left hand : and 
 the priest shall dip his right finger in the oil that is in his left 
 hand, and shall sprinkle of the oil with his finger, seven times 
 before the Lord." In these texts the bird and hyssop were to be 
 dipped (baptized J — the leper was to wash (baptize J himself, 
 and his cloaths ; not a part of either, but the whole ; not with, 
 but in, the water, i. e. by dipping each in it. In the two last 
 verses three actions are described, and each of them as distinct 
 from the other, and entirely different : 1. Pouring of the oil on 
 the hand. 2. Then dipping (baptizing) his finger in the oil. 3. 
 Then sprinkling' the oil seven times before the Lord. Will any 
 one after this, pretend that pouring, sprinkling, and dipping are 
 one and the same thing ? 
 
 The Jewish baptisms of which he speaks, and asks if they 
 were by immersion, are called bathing, a term foreign either 
 from pouring or sprinkling, " He shall bathe himself in water," 
 Lev. xv. 5. and in verse 7. " Shall wash his cloaths, and bathe 
 himself in water." This command is repeated in the same 
 words, to persons in different circumstances of ceremonial 
 uncleanness, in verses 11. 13. 21, 22. 2,7, and in chap. xvi. 26. 
 28. and in chap. xvii. 15, 16.; also in Num. xix. 7, 8. 19. 
 •Surely a man will not he deemed "void of rnedrctv" after 
 
let 
 
 exhibiting such evidence that Jewish baptisms were an immci'; 
 sion in water ; nor can anything better express it, than the words 
 dipping and bathing, both of which are applied, and no other, 
 unto them. An objection may be raised here that the flesh is 
 said to be cleansed u by the blood of bulls and goats," sprinkling 
 the unclean, that is, the leper, and that therefore sprinkling 
 was a washing from spiritual uncleanness. To this it may be 
 answered, that this sprinkling was not the whole cleansing, but 
 the party was to bathe or immerse (baptize) himself in water, 
 which was a finishing of the ceremonial rite, " For an unclean 
 person they shall take the ashes of the burnt hei 4 er of purification 
 for sin," Num* xix. 18. Verse 19. " And the clean person shall 
 sprinkle upon the unclean, and on the seventh day he shall 
 purify himself, and wash his cloaths, and bathe himself in 
 water ; and shall be clean." I hope the gentleman is now 
 answered to his satisfaction, that Jewish baptisms were immer- 
 sion. 
 
 The instance he produces of the " Pharisees washing (baptiz- 
 ing) before meals," does not prove that sprinkling is baptism, 
 nor yet pouring, since it is such a pouring as buries the body 
 beneath it. Those passages are produced to raise a doubt in 
 the reader, that the pharisees should always bathe their whole 
 body in water before every meal ; and the inference that is 
 wished to be drawn seems to be, that the hands only art intended, 
 agreeably to that text, Mark vii. 3. " For the Pharisees, and 
 all the Jews$ except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding 
 the tradition of the elders ;" and that, as the Pharisees are said 
 to baptize when they come from market ; whereas, nothing 
 more is intended than a mere washing of hands : so they infer, 
 that to baptize does not intend an immersion of the whole body. 
 This mistake is founded on the supposition, that the same thing 
 is meant in both texts ; whereas^ in Mark vii. 4. where they are 
 said to baptize when they come from market ^ this baptizing was 
 really the whole body $ for this they did when they returned, 
 supposing they might have touched some unclean thing, and 
 th re fore did bathe the whole body when they came from 
 market ; but only baptized or washed their hands before they 
 eat; so that for want of this distinction the absuroity exists, and 
 the moment the distinction is made, there is no difficulty in 
 supposing they washed, or baptized their hands always before 
 eating. See Gill's exposition of this text, and his quotation from 
 jVIaimonides* u Washed in a laver, which holds forty seahs of 
 water, which are not drawn, every defiled man dips himself, 
 except a profluvious man, and in it they dip all unclean vessels, 
 ■is cups, pots, and brazen vessels." This is the testimony of a 
 Jewish author concerning their own customs, and will weigh 
 
185 
 
 more in shewing how they baptized, than the mere vague opinions 
 of Poedobaptists. 
 
 Baptizing of the hands before eating, is surely no very difficult 
 thing to conceive of, and that washing of hands is performed by 
 a dipping of them in water, every day's experience proves ; yet 
 even if it were by pouring, it is such a pouring as covers over, 
 or immerses the hands, and may well be called a baptizing or 
 overwhelming in water. As to what Mr. E. says, that dipping 
 is but the means, and washing, or baptizing, the end, it is but 
 a mere quibble ; because the dipping is the baptizing, and the 
 washing a mere consequent of dipping ; and when washing is 
 called baptizing, it is only so called as it pre-supposes a dipping 
 or overwhelming in order to a washing or cleansing. That the 
 hands when dipped or overwhelmed in a bason, in order to wash 
 them, and pouring water over them so as to overwhelm or cover 
 them, is a baptizing of them, will not be disputed, because that 
 in both cases there is an overwhelming, and therefore a baptism : 
 but how this can serve the cause of sprinkling, is hard to say ; 
 for it is not pretended that they sprinkle so as to cover or over- 
 whelm the body. The question is, did the Pharisees in washing 
 (baptizing) their hands, so wash them as to have every part 
 completely covered over with water, whether that was performed 
 by dipping or pouring ? If they did, then a second question 
 follows, which is, do our opponents so baptize, so as to over- 
 whelm or cover the whole body with water ? If they do not, 
 then they do not baptize in the same sense as the Pharisees 
 baptized their hands. Therefore* were we willing to admit 
 (which is not admitted) that to baptize is to pour j yet, as the 
 pouring was such as to cover the whole hand, still the concession 
 would not benefit the Poedobaptists ; because they do not so 
 pour, or wash, as extends to the whole bodv ; but this the 
 Pharisees did to their hands. The question, u Did the Pharisees 
 marvel, that our Lord did not baptize himself before dinner," 
 I deem an impertinent one ; because Mr. E* well knew, that 
 the baptizing before dinner related only to the hands, and it was 
 that which occasioned him to marvel that he eat without washing 
 his hands before dinner, (not his whole person) and he well 
 knew that baptizing of the body, was resorted to only after 
 coming from market, or from among a great concourse of people, 
 when they supposed some ceremonial defilement might have 
 been contracted. 
 
 The third question resorted to is, whether it is likely that 
 the Jews immersed th ir cups, pots, brazen vessels, tables, 
 and beds ? There can be no difficulty in believing that all of 
 them might have been thus immersed, the bed excepted.. Yet 
 even this objection he has removed himself, by admitting that 
 
186 
 
 the beds alluded to, were a kind of seats, or couches, on which 
 they lay at their meals. The whole objection is the improbability. 
 What, is it not likely that they dipped their cups and pots into 
 the water ? and is it inadmissible that a table, or bench, should 
 thus be immersed ? A man must be sorely pinched indeed, 
 when he is obliged to resort to such preposterous surmises. But 
 he says, " no creature living can determine how they were 
 washed, (baptized) whether by sprinkling, pouring, or dipping." 
 All he means to say by this, is, that there were different ways 
 of washing ; yet he admits they were so washed as that every 
 part of them had the water applied. What a miserable defence 
 would this be of sprinkling, when not an huudreth part of the 
 body has the water applied ! But let a Jew speak of their customs 
 on this head : " A bed that is wholly defiled, if he dips it, part 
 by part y is pure ; again, if he dips the bed in it (the pool of 
 water) although its feet are plunged into the thick clay, it is 
 clean. A pillow or bolster of skin^ he must dip them, and lift 
 them up by their fringes." I will only add here, that while Mr* 
 E. has endeavoured to convey an idea, that the word baptize 
 may mean to wash, sprinkle, or pour ; yet he has not dared to 
 assert, that it is such a wetting, sprinkling, or pouring, as was 
 partial ; but admits it extended over the whole person or thing ; 
 that being the case, an entire wetting is baptism — nothing short 
 of it is so called : but if there must be an entire wetting of the 
 body, we are not at a loss to know how our Poedobaptist friends 
 would perform it, if reduced to the necessity j they would, in- 
 stead of sprinkling, resort to the eligible way r which is dipping 
 the person under the water. 
 
 By the circumstances of baptism, which he next proposes to 
 examine, he means the custom of resorting to rivers. However 
 he is disposed to undervalue this evidence of immersion, yet 
 he cannot but confess, that the resorting to rivers does counte- 
 nance the practice. Yet he seems disposed to weaken this 
 evidence, by affirming that there were instances of persons being 
 " baptized in houses, and cities, where no rivers were — that 
 there was no place for change of garments — no mention made 
 of such change, though in two other instances there is such 
 mention made, as of Christ laying his garments off when he 
 washed his disciples' feet, and the men laying down their gar- 
 ments at Saul's feet — from the Greek prepositions, which, he 
 says, are indeterminate as to their sense." That the jailor was 
 baptized in the house, is not true ; for it is said, he brought 
 them into the house after his baptism, which he could not have 
 done, had he not been out of it when the ordinance was per- 
 formed : * And when he had brought them into his house" 
 Acts xvi. 34. Neither was Lydia baptized in her house ; for, 
 
187 * 
 
 after her baptism, she constrained them to come into her house, 
 saying, u Come into my house, and abide there, and she con- 
 strained us," Acts xvi. 15. It was at the city of Philippi, that 
 both Lydia and the jailor were baptized. In verse 13, we learn, 
 there was a river, by the side of which certain persons resorted 
 for prayer, and it was there the Lord opened Lydia's heart ; 
 and for her baptism and that of the jailor, here was a suitable 
 place, and no doubt they were baptized therein. It is therefore 
 destitute of all proof, that any were baptized in a house ; and if 
 it had been otherwise, it would not haye been against immersion, 
 as the use of cisterns and baths were common. It is in vain to 
 plead this as a presumption in favour of sprinkling. 
 
 Nor does it appear, that John might have chosen a river for 
 the sake of convenience, if immersion was not necessary ; and 
 that, because a very little water would have sprinkled thousands, 
 if that had been baptism ? and it would have been madness in 
 him to put the people to the great inconvenience of attending him 
 to the wilderness, if the ordinance could be performed at their 
 homes. That they were not immersed he seems to think likely, 
 because no mention is made of their putting off their garments, 
 and he thinks there were no accommodations for dressing and 
 undressing. What conveniences there were for that purpose, is 
 hard for Mr. E, to say : but, surely, if we are at liberty to draw 
 conclusions., the most natural would be, that as they left their 
 houses to attend John's ministry in the wilderness, they were 
 careful to take change of raiment, provisions, and a tent to 
 dwell in ; for it is not supposable, they would abide under a 
 scorching sun in the wilderness.. At any rate, it is tire work of 
 lyir. E. to prove they had no such conveniences, 
 
 As for his asking, why no account was given of their putting 
 off their garments, the reason is very plain, because they went 
 into the water with them on, (unless he thinks they went m 
 without garments) ; and the administration of the ordinance 
 Jiad nothing to do xvith the change of the garment any way j 
 much less., as that change took place after its administration. 
 He is quite out of his way, when he adduces the instance of 
 Christ laying off his garment, and of the men who stoned 
 Stephen, laying theirs at Saul's feet; because these are net 
 parallel cases ; for there is no change of apparel made mention 
 of in either of them ; nor yet did they lay off all, but only a part 
 of their garments, " their upper one" Besides, their laying off 
 of their garments was significant, and was necessary to perfect 
 the narrative, without which the narrator could not transmit to 
 us the most important information : but their change of apparel 
 was no way connected with the right administration of that 
 ordinance, nor was the relation of tha,t needful to shew what 
 
188 
 
 was done, or any act of humility or virtue. But in Christ 
 uncovering himself, was seen the assumption of servitude, put- 
 ting himself lower than the disciples, and setting them an example ; 
 and the men laying oft their upper garments, and Saul's taking 
 charge of them, was to shew how heartily the first entered into 
 ihe business of stoning him, and how intent they were upon it ; 
 while the latter discovered the willingness to Paul to be an 
 accessary-— the pleasure he felt in seeing it — and his hardness 
 of heart, and all as a contrast to his future conversion. 
 
 Mr. E. deals not only disingenuously, but also unjustly, in 
 his remarks on Greek prepositions ; for he says, en and eis 
 mean, " towards, near," and not into; and that apo and ek, very 
 often signify "from," and not out of. How is it, if the instances 
 are so abundant as he here insinuates, that he has only furnished 
 us with one, John xx. 4, 5. ? I would ask him whether those 
 prepositions are most generally used in the sense he means, or 
 whether they are not used generally to signify into, and out oft 
 and whether the instances are not exceedingly rare of their being 
 used in the sense he speaks of? The truth is, that where these 
 prepositions occur in the sense he speaks, the instances are very 
 iew, perhaps not one to twentv times they occur in the other 
 sense ; so that instead of its being the current sense of the New 
 Testament, it is entirely the reverse, 
 
 I will now demonstrate, that if the words which are inter- 
 preted into, and out of, only meant "near," or M from," the 
 word of God would be unintelligible and absurd. Matth. viii. 5. 
 a Jesus entered into Capernaum." Did he not go in it ? was he 
 only at the walls? Matth- ix. 1. ■" He entered into a ship." Did 
 he only go by or near it? Matth. xxiv. 38. " The day that Noah 
 entered into the Ark." Was Noah onlv near, or by the Ark ? 
 Luke viii. 34. " The devils entered into the swine :" but if 
 what Mr. E, says is true, they were only near them. " The 
 ^fherd ran violently down a steep place, into the lake, and were 
 choaked :" but how were they choaked in the lake, if they only 
 went by the side of it I John xviii. 33. 4t Pilate entered into the 
 judgment hall." Was he only by the side of it? Rom. v. 12. 
 " Sin entered into the world." Did sin only come to the side of 
 the earth, or near it ? Yea, by that rule of interpretation * Christ 
 has not gone to the right hand of his Father : w For Christ has 
 not entered into the holy places made with hands ; but into 
 heaven itself," Heb. ix. 24. Is it, indeed, true that this word 
 ** into" means only by f then Christ is not in heaven. The 
 reader will here see what an awful business Mr. E. makes of it; 
 for these words u into," are the en, and eis, which he sa\ s mean 
 7\car, or by. In like manner apo, ek, or out of, if they m. an 
 "from" fhen there textfe that follow are absurd. Matth. ii. 6* 
 
189 
 
 • ; Anci thou, Bethlehem, in the land of Judea, oat ofthzz shall 
 come a governor." Did Christ come only from the side of 
 Bethlehem ? Matth. xii. 34. " Out of the abundance of the 
 heart the mouth speaketh." Are words only from the side of, or 
 by, the heart ? James iii. 10. " Out of the same mouth pro- 
 ceeded blessing and cursing.'' Do words only come from the 
 side of the mouth ? Mark v. 8. " For he said unto him, come 
 atti of the man, thou unclean spirit :" but the devil must only 
 have been by him, and net in him, if what Mr. E. says is true. 
 You see, my brethren, how ridiculous is the interpretation of 
 this man, when he would make you believe that " oat of" only 
 intends " from." 
 
 But why do Poedobaptists alter the translation ? Can*they not 
 defend their system without doing violence to the word of God? 
 Surely they may be content with a translation that has been done 
 not bij Baptists, but by the advocates for infant sprinkling ! 
 That it may appear, that coming to the side of the water, without 
 going into it, was not intended by the words, it is said, " They 
 came ' to' a certain water ;" then it is immediately added, "They 
 went " down into" it ; but if epi and eis, in both places, mean 
 only to the side of the water, it would be foolishness ; for then 
 it would stand thus : 4 They came unto a certain water, and they 
 went to a certain water.' The folly of which will be sufficiently 
 manifested, by reading the text itself; Acts viii. 36. "They 
 
 . " And they went down 
 to? and ' into'* means the 
 same, then they came to it, and went to it, which is tautology 
 and nonsense. 
 
 That the circumstance of administering this ordinance in 
 rivers, is a strong presumption in favour of immersion, is 
 strengthened by a great variety of corroborating texts ; particu- 
 larly where it is compared to a burial, as it is expressive of Chrisrs 
 sufferings — of the passage of Israel through the sea, and the 
 deliverance of Noah in the Ark ; all which cannot be expressed 
 by any thing else than an immersion in water. In one passage, 
 the reason assigned for going to a river was, because there was 
 much zvater there ; " John also was baptizing in Enon, near to 
 Salim, because there was viuch water there," John iii. 23. Our 
 opponents feel the force of this passage, and have attempted to 
 evade it, by saying, " in the original it is many waters," that is., 
 many little streams. This will avail them nothing ; for we have 
 as much right to assert they were many large streams, as they 
 have to call them little ones : but manv waters, in the scripture 
 ,ense, signifies a great bodv of it, and with reference to the noise 
 of waters falling in cataracts, is compared the voice of God , 
 Rom. i. 15, t; And his voice as the sound of many waters' 1 ' 
 
 Bb 
 
190 
 
 'How mean, and low, would this comparison be, to compare the 
 voice of God to many little rivulets, whose murmurings can 
 scarcely be heard ! but how expressive is the figure, when the 
 stunning noise occasioned by the foil of rivers, and which can be 
 heard at the distance of many miles, is made the emblem of 
 God's majestic voice ! " I will show unto thee the judgment of 
 the great whore that sitteth on many waters," Rev. xvii. 1. 
 Here many nations are called many waters. Verse 15. a And he 
 saith unto me, the waters which thou sawest, where the whore 
 sitteth, are people, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues?" 
 Would not the image be mean indeed, if many waters meant 
 only little rivulets ? I ask then, why did the inspired writer 
 assign as a reason for John's going to Salim, 'because there 
 was much water there,' if much water was not necessary to 
 baptism, or if sprinkling would have done ? Their going into 
 the water, and coming up out of the water, are unmeaning 
 things, if immersion is not intended ; for no just reasons can 
 be assigned that they should .go in at all, if an immersion was 
 not necessary. 
 
 After all their twistings and turnings, the T?cedobaptists must 
 know, that these are mere evasions ; and that when, like Mr. 
 E., they say it cannot be known from their going down into the 
 water, that they were immersed ; at the same time, their inward 
 conviction is to the reverse. The effrontery of Mr. Edwards 
 is unparalleled, when he says, " neither the term baptize, nor 
 the circumstances of baptism, determine anything about the 
 mode." It would seem from him, that the scriptures were, 
 deficient to direct in this ordinance, and that we are left wholly 
 to conjecture what is our duty : neither the baptism of Christ 
 —that of the eunuch — of those baptized in Enon~-going into, 
 and coming up out of the water ; all, all these are nothing to 
 him — they weigh not any thing to determine our conduct. 
 And what seems as strange as any thing else, is, that though he 
 has not pretended, in his whole book, to say that baptism was a 
 partial washing ; but in more than one place, very strongly 
 suggested it was an entire or universal wetting (though he 
 contended it was not always done by dipping), that he could do 
 no less than admit, that it seemed to be a strong presumption, 
 that this attendance at rivers was to perform this general wetting 
 with more convenience. 
 
 Mr. E.now proceeds to what he terms " the Baptist allusion 51 
 in favour of immersion, Rom. vi. 4. " Therefore we are buried 
 with him, by baptism into death." On this text he argues, that 
 if it is an allusion to the mode of baptism, the Baptists must 
 certainly be wrong, and ail others, though he thinks the papists 
 come the nearest to truth. He observes, that on our principles 
 
191 
 
 the mode must be threefold, a baptism " into Christ — into his* 
 death — into his burial ;" that his life must allude to the mode, 
 so also must his death and his burial : from which he observes, 
 44 The papists in using salt, spittle, and oil in baptism, prefigure 
 his life ; the church of England uses the cross to prefigure his 
 crucifixion, and the Baptists immersion, to signify his burial ; and 
 he infers that all three together would make the allusion complete." 
 As to what the chureh of England and the papists do in this, we 
 are not concerned ; nor do we know, or care, whether these were 
 the reasons that induced them thus to act, or not : but it is very 
 easy to see, that Mr. E. does not know how to evade the force 
 of this passage, and that his whole drift is to laugh this text out 
 of countenance* If the allusion is simply to the death .and burial 
 of Christ, and baptism does represent this in the text, he could 
 not but perceive that sprinkling was ruined, it not answering to 
 a burial. But what was to be done in this case ? Nothing could 
 now be done but to disfigure the passage, by making it say what 
 it does not; that is, that we are baptized into the u life of Christ" 
 — into the " death of Christ" — into the "burial of Christ ;" and 
 eo make three distinct allusions in the text, instead of one* 
 There is not in the passage any thing said about baptizing into 
 the life of Christ, nor yet into his burial. These were his mere 
 assertions, destitute of all foundation, and were as wanton an 
 abuse of the scriptures as he could well be guilty of. All that 
 the text says, is, that we are baptized into his death. The 
 reasoning of the apostle is, that Christ in his death represented 
 his people, and that they were considered present in Christ ; so 
 •that when he was crucified, verse 6, they were viewed as crucified 
 — when he was dead, they were so in him — when he was buried 
 and rose, they were also buried and rose with him : now, says 
 he, he that is dead is freed from sin ; and on this is founded the 
 question in the 2d verse, " how shall we that are dead to sin, 
 live any longer therein ?" The whole meaning of the passage 
 then is this : c Brethren, you have been baptized into Christ ; 
 that is, you have put on Christ in a profession, whereby vou 
 declare your union with him ; then remember that you in this 
 public act was baptized into his death, (you were then consider- 
 ed dead to the world, as he was actually when he left the 
 world) and as an expression of your deadness to the world and 
 sin ; and, as Christ after his death was buried in the tomb, of 
 which his baptism was a figure ; so you also, to signify your 
 death to the world and sin, have been buried in baptism, in 
 which you have fellowship with Christ in his death and burial." 
 Indeed, the inference is a very natural one ; " You have been 
 baptized into Christ's death, and if it is not fit a dead man should 
 be on the earth and concerned about human affairs an4 folliev 
 
192 
 
 but is to be buried out of sight, as one that has nothing to do witfl 
 £hese things , so you, as " dead" men, have been u buried" with 
 him by baptism, hereby signifying your unconeernedness about 
 human affairs." There is then but one allusion in the text ; and 
 that is, to the burying of one that is dead : this burying is said 
 to be done in baptism,- and from hence it is readily seen, that 
 baptism is a covering over in water, as a dead man is covered 
 over in the earth ; and as Christ was buried in Joseph's tomb, 
 so believers were said to be buried with him by baptism, signi- 
 fying their union with him, and fellowship therein. What then 
 becomes of sprinkling ? Is it a burial ? That their baptism was 
 designed to represent their fellowship with him not in his life, 
 but in his death and resurrection, it is added, " That like as 
 Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, 
 even so we also should walk in newness of life." It means, as 
 a dead man is buried, in consequence of death, so have you, 
 being dead as to the old man which has been crucified, been 
 buried in baptism : but as Christ rose from the dead, so have 
 you risen from the grave of sin, and as in baptism you were 
 buried, and afterward rose out of your watery grave, all which 
 is expressive of Christ's burial and resurrection ; so also is it, 
 of your own death to sin, and resurrection with him to newness 
 of life; 
 
 Mr. E.' contends, that asjln verse 5, a planting in the likeness 
 of his death is mentioned, this must be baptism also, if our ideas 
 of the text are true ; and then it would make in favour of 
 sprinkling, rather than immersion ; for as a tree planted is not 
 entirely covered with the earth, he thinks, this will make nothing 
 in favour of immersion, but the contrary. This argument is 
 certainly an ill chosen one for him, because he ought to remem- 
 ber that other things besides trees may be planted ; and that 
 seeds of different sorts may as readily be planted as trees. Is 
 the planting here expressive of baptism, and does this planting 
 refer to the death of Christ ? Then Christ in his death and 
 burial is not compared to a tree planted in the earth which is 
 not entirely covered ; but to a grain of corn cast into the ground, 
 and buried in it, which is the cause of its vegetating. See John 
 xii. 24. " Verily, verily, I say unto you, except a corn of wheat 
 fall into the ground and die, it abicleth alone ; but if it die, it 
 bringeth forth much fruit." This corn of wheat (Christ) falls 
 into the ground, not on it. Is then, the burial of Christ intended 
 by this ? If so, does it not represent immersion, and immersion 
 onlv ? If is truly diverting to hear Mr. E. decide the controversy 
 in favour of the planters, (or sprinklers) as he calls them : surely 
 Christ's burial in the heart of the earth will make nothing m 
 favour of such a practice- 
 
1&> 
 
 We shall now attend to what he calls the Pcedobaptist allusion t 
 and, if I am not mistaken, we shall find it as unfavourable to his 
 scheme as an} 7 thing he has advanced. 1 am indeed surprised, 
 that as he introduces the baptism of the Holy Ghost into the 
 controversy,- he did not use it as some of his brethren have done 
 of late • that is, to insist upon it, that when believers are said to' 
 be buried with Christ in baptism, that rvater baptism was not 
 intended, but the baptism of the Holy Ghost, and by that means 
 at once rid themselves of the two texts that gave Mr. E. so 
 much trouble. He says, that " the two are called by the same 
 name ;" i. e. the baptism of the Spirit, and rvater baptism : True. 
 " That the mode of communicating the grace of the Holy Spirit 
 to the soul, and that of applying baptismal water to the body, 
 are viewed as corresponding with each other." This is partly 
 true, and partly false : True, as the baptism of the Spirit is an 
 emblem of water baptism ; but false, when the baptism of the 
 Spirit is confounded with regeneration. Our opponents say 
 that baptism is an Outward sign of inward spiritual grace ; and 
 our author makes this spiritual grace to be the baptism of the 
 Holy Ghost ; but if so,' John baptized persons who had it not, 
 but speaks of it as a thing to come ; so that it seems, baptism 
 was not administered to signify that the person had been bap- 
 tized with the Holy Ghost. " I indeed baptize you with water 
 — he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghos\ and with fire," 
 Matth. iii. 11. It is unparalleled stupidity, indeed, to speak 
 of the baptism of the Holy Ghost and regeneration, as one and 
 the same thing ; when they are as wide apart as the pol(js« 
 Millions have been regenerated, or born of the Spirit, who never 
 were baptized of the Holy Ghost. The first work is done by the 
 Spirit to prepare the elect for fellowship with God here, and 
 the enjoyment of him hereafter ; the other was granted to the 
 apostles, to fit them for the ministry- — to work miracles, and 
 speak with tongues, for the confirmation of the gospel. It is 
 manifest, that John speaks of the baptism of the Holv Ghost as 
 a thing that had never yet taken place, but as something to be 
 done in future ; "' He (Christ) shall baptize you with the Holy 
 Ghost and with fire," Matth. iii. 11. So also Jesus spoke, 
 Luke xxiv. 49. " Behold, I send the promise of my Father upon 
 you ; but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem until ye be endowed 
 with power from on high." See also Acts i. 5. 
 
 Now, if no man is regenerated, but he that has been baptized 
 with the Holy Ghost, then it follows, that none were renewed 
 persons before John's time — that true religion never existed 
 until after the resurrection of Christ, (for the baptism of the 
 Spirit was never given until after Christ rose from the dead). 
 Yea, on such principles it would appear that the apostles were 
 
f94 
 
 not renewed persons, until after Christ rose from the dead.. 
 But are any disposed to receive such monstrous things ? Sec 
 John vii. 39. " But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that 
 believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet 
 given ; because that Jesus was not yet glorified," John xiv. 26. 
 " But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father 
 ■will send in my name, lie shall teach you all things, and bring 
 all things to your remembrance." Now let me ask, What was 
 this Spirit that had not yet fallen upon them ? and what the 
 Comforter that had not come, and that because Jesus was not 
 glorified? Was it the regenerating operations of the Spirit, and 
 that one and the same thing with the baptism of the Spirit ? If 
 so, the Holy Ghost had not come until after Christ's resurrection 
 — all before that period were unrenewed men, and that even up 
 to Adam's time, and all that died in that state were not saved, 
 unless they were saved in their sins ! There is no way of getting 
 out of all this, but to acknowledge, that the baptism of the Holy 
 Spirit consisted of gifts, and not grace ; and that it was peculiar 
 to the times of the first introduction of the gospel, for its con- 
 firmation, and ceased with the apostles ; because speaking with 
 tongues, and working miracles did cease with them. Besides, 
 Paul asks, " Received ye the Holy Ghost since ye bcHeved?" 
 Acts xix* 2. Here the receiving the Spirit is after believing ; 
 But can an unregenerated man exercise faith ? 
 
 Well then, all Mr. E.'s fine Pcedobaptist allusion is at once 
 spoiled, and it is no allusion at all. His wish was to make water 
 baptism a sign of a baptism within~-then, to make that inward 
 baptism the baptism of the Holy Ghost ; and then, thinking he 
 could make it appear that the baptism of the Holy Ghost was 
 sprinkling, he could have a good Pcedobaptist allusion : but 
 how he could call it a Pcedobaptist allusion is wonderful, unless 
 he means to make it appear, that all infants are baptized with 
 the Holy Spirit, and are to be baptized with water as an evidence 
 of it. Had he indeed said it was a good Baptist allusion, he 
 would have been about half right. 
 
 Mr. E* seems to be in raptures with half a dozen texts of 
 scripture, (were they in his favour well he might) and says with 
 great flourish and parade, now I'll bring my ' lexicon', " a lexi- 
 con worth more than five hundred." This word " lexicon" 
 seems to have haunted him like a ghost ; he cannot yet forget 
 Booth's lexicographers. But, pray sir, what has put you in 
 such a good humour ? I think I hear you say, Good humour ! 
 Reason enough I have for it. There are six, no less than six 
 scriptures, and all, all of them for infant baptism ! May not a 
 Pcedobaptist be merry indeed, when he can bring scripture for 
 fantizing ? Well, sir, let us have them. Here are the scriptures 
 
195 
 
 that will prove that rantizing, or sprinkling, rs baptism. The 
 baptism of the Holy Ghost is thus described : Acts xi. 33. To 
 shed forth. Acts i. 5. To come upon. Acts xi. 15. To fall upon. 
 Acts ii. 17. and x. 45. To pour out. Well, sir, and what have 
 you gained by all this ? Was this Spirit shed forth and pourecj. 
 out only in drops like rain ? No. Did it fall upon, and come on 
 them, only so as to give them a sprinkling of it ? You seem, sir, 
 to fancy the Holy Ghost coming on the apostles like a little 
 stream, and running down one side of them, leaving the other 
 side untouched ; so mightily in love are you with that beautiful 
 metaphor of yours, when you had the Jew baptizing his " hands 
 at a cock]' that now to be sure the Spirit must descend on the 
 apostles in the same way. Tell us, Mr. Edwards, was there no 
 more of the Spirit shed or poured forth on the apostles than 
 vou would pour on an infant's face ? Come, sir, do not start at 
 die question, for you call this the Pcsdobaptist allusion. If sir, 
 you are not too much offended with my freedom, I will under- 
 take to find you a measure to ascertain the quantity : it was no 
 less than what filled all the house* Query, Do Pcedobaptists 
 baptize in a house full of water P " And suddenly there came a 
 sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled 
 ■all the house where they were sitting," Acts iL 2. Here, then, 
 we have the quantum : the Holy Ghost by his influence fell on 
 them so as that the whole house was filled ; and heing therein, 
 they were completely buried, overwhelmed, immersed in thaf 
 •sacred influence. But Mr. E. denies this, he says it was mere 
 sound that filled the house, a mere echo ; but this is not true ; 
 it is not said, " a mighty wind — a sound," filled the house ; but 
 the Holy Ghost; who, as a sound, like a mighty wind, he in his 
 coming rushed like the xmndior its swiftness, and sounded like 
 a mighty wind that creates dread in those that hear its roar. 
 Take notice, brethren, it was not a wind, a mighty rushing 
 wind ; but " as'* one— some thing that resembled it in the noise 
 and swiftness of its coming. Mr. E. cannot bear to think that 
 the baptism of the Spirit was something outward, as well as 
 inward ; but wishes to make it altogether an inward thing ; and 
 that, with a view to avoid all the consequences that would arise 
 from the house being filled. But the very words he quoted, 
 "■ shedding forth " " pouring out?' fully imply the very thing 
 he wishes to avoid. But to leave you without any doubt, that 
 that which filled the house was the influence of the Spirit, and 
 not a mere " echo," or a " rushing wind," as he affirms, I now 
 produce this following text, with reference to the baptism of the 
 Holy Ghost ; where, instead of its being an inward thing alto- 
 gether, it is said expressly to fall " upon," — take notice, u fall 
 upon" the parties ; and it is. further said, in that text, it fell just 
 
196 
 
 as it did on the apostles at the first. ¥ And as I began to speak, 
 the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning," Acts 
 xi. 15. 
 
 Are you pleased, sir, ^vith your Pcedobaptist allusion ? Do 
 not, sir, bring the baptism of the Spirit to justify sprinkling 
 after this ; but if you will have this to be the pattern, come up 
 to it fully, and do not do it by halves, or rather by an hundreth 
 part only. You have told us, sir, that pouring is baptism : but 
 here you have a full view of what kind of a pouring is so deno- 
 minated ; not one that partially wets, but that which wholly 
 overwhelms, and that literally buries the subject. If you choose 
 to place your candidates in a bath, or room, and then pour water 
 on them in the name of the sacred Three, until they are over- 
 whelmed or buried therein, as the apostles were at the day of 
 Pentecost ; we admit that such a pouring is indeed baptism, but 
 still we must insist upon it, that you despise the authority of 
 Christ. And. certain we are, that if such a pouring only as 
 overwhelms, is at all a baptism, and our opponents must practise 
 it thus, we should soon see them admire the Baptist method of 
 dipping the party, and we should hear no more about baptizing 
 by pouring. I insist the more on this remark, because I have 
 .observed, that in ail the writings of Pcedobaptists, while they 
 have laboured much to prove that to wash and to pour is called 
 baptizing : yet not one of them has pretended to affirm, it was 
 not such a washing and pouring as covered the subject entirely. 
 Now were we to grant that is .its. meaning, yet, after all, they 
 have done nothing, unless they prove that a partial wetting, or 
 washing, is called baptism. 
 
 The concluding remarks of Mr. E.are, 4hat " baptizo means 
 washing only, but not any mode of washing : it means neither 
 dipping, pouring nor sprinkling ; for these are only different 
 ways of washing.'*' The reader will not lose sight of this, that 
 he has not condescended on being sufficiently explicit, in letting 
 us know what he means by washing, whether it is such an one 
 as extends to every part of the subject, or whether it is partial* 
 Will he say a garment is washed that has not been wet all over j 
 or is it consistent to say a garment is washed, when in reality 
 only a part of it has been so served ? I imagine that our Poedo- 
 baptists would mightily complain were their sentiment of 
 washing reduced to practice in civil life, and our reverend clergy 
 appear in public with their linen only sprinkled. We hope the 
 ladies will avail themselves of this exposition ; for, as gentlemen 
 of the cloth roundly assert thai: sprinkling is good washing, how 
 comfortably might the tender sex get through the business of 
 cleansing apparel, and especially theirs ; and we should not hear 
 *bem complain of chafing their hands until the blood was weeping 
 
197 
 
 through the skin. But, gentlemen, let us propose to you a question. 
 You are called upon to administer baptism ; this you say means, 
 to wash, neither have you pretended that it is a partial washing: 
 you proceed, and take a little water in your hand and apply it to 
 the face of the subject, and immediately add, I wash thee — I 
 baptize thee. Did you -wash that child, or only a part of the 
 child $ If the latter, which is certainly the case, did you not in 
 this instance speak false ? Yea, and did you not do ;t in the name 
 of the Lord, and in his very house, and, what is more awful, 
 declaring it was by his authority you -did so I Now, to what 
 purpose is it for our opponents to be repeating, 44 baptism 
 signifies to wash — pouring is called baptism," when at the same 
 time they dare not deny, that it -is only such a washing as 
 embraces the whole of the subject, and such a pouring as com- 
 pletely overwhelms the party; and when in their pretended 
 baptizing, thev neither conform to the one, nor the other ? 
 
 Mr. E. is indeed right, when he admits thaf^ remitting is as 
 different from baptizing, as sprinkling is from iv ashing ;' there 
 is just such a difference, for as a garment is not washed that is 
 only sprinkled, so neither is a man baptized, that has only been 
 lantized, or sprinkled. But he adds, " The word baptism is 
 used in scripture, where pouring is evidently intended ; while 
 it cannot be proved that it is ever used, where immersion is 
 intended." It is very remarkable, that Mr. E. has never, in 
 his whole book, attempted to prove that sprinkling is called 
 baptism, and yet here he has the effrontery to declare it is 
 manifestly used in scripture in that sense ; I would recommend 
 the reader to go over his book carefully again, and see if this is 
 not the case. He does give a hint, and but, one, w r hen he savs 
 -the leper was cleansed with the sprinkling of the ashes of an 
 heifer, and when he makes the apostle to the Hebrews call this 
 one of the u divers w r ashmgs, or baptizings :" but then the leper 
 had to w r ash his cloaths, and his flesh, after this sprinkling, 
 before he could be clean ; and it was this washing, and not the 
 sprinkling, the apostle calls one of the Jewish baptisms : u And 
 he shall w r ash his. cloaths, also he shall wash his flesh in watery 
 (not with water) M and he shall be clean," Lev. xiv. 9. Is it not, 
 then, the most barefaced wickedness in him, to say sprinkling i , 
 manifestly called baptism ? Neither has he brought but cne text 
 to prove that pouring is called baptism, and that cne is the 
 baptism of the Holy Ghost ; yet you have seen that it was such 
 a pouring as filled the house m which the apostles were, and in 
 vvhich they were truly immersed, and not merely sprinkled. But 
 had he been intent on proving what he hasoaid to be false, u that 
 baptism is not once mentioned as immersion in the NewTtsta- 
 • '' he co'ild notjrave done it more effectuallv, than by hi 
 
 C c 
 
producing the baptism of the Holy Ghost, wherein the apostles 
 were literally immersed, and therefore properly baptized. 
 
 Mr* E. acknowledges, that when Naaman was commanded 
 by Elisha to go and wash or baptize in Jordan, that it is rendered 
 he dipped. " Naaman went down and baptized in Jordan. 
 The English has it l dipped* and this is the only place where 
 baptize is translated ■ dip." This is an extraordinary passage. 
 The reader will turn back to Mr. E.'s first argument on the 
 mode of baptism, where he will see, that he declares the word 
 " bapto" is never used in scripture respecting this ordinance ;" 
 yet he now has found out that it is once so used ; so much for 
 his inconsistency. Well, if there is but one, is not that sufficient ? 
 But how will he manage this dreadful passage ? Why, reader, 
 he will try to take it to bits, raise doubts ; and, as is usual with 
 him in such cases, not being able to deny that the word dip was 
 to immerse, he conjectures it might be a partial immersion, or 
 that he might have been u figuratively" baptized or dipped. Then, 
 sir, at last it is wrung out of you, that to dip is to immerse, and 
 to baptize is to dip. You would wish to escape the consequence 
 of all this, by supposing the immersion was a partial one. Very- 
 well, we will suppose Elisha did not mean he should baptize 
 himself, but only the part affected, and that this he performed, 
 and, as you say, this dipping was an immersion of the part. 
 Now, who does not see that you have conceded all we ask, that 
 the command to wash the affected part, meant to dip it under 
 water ? and if dipping it means to immerse it, then, of course, 
 the word baptize signifies to dip, and if Christ commands his 
 children to be baptized, dipped, immersed, and that not only in 
 part, but wholly, where is rantizing fled ? You seem, sir, mightily 
 troubled with this text, and not liking very well the concession 
 that was extorted from you, the dernier resort is, to imagine he 
 was figuratively baptized, " And sin baptizes me ; meaning the 
 punishment due to sin, which is expressed by pouring out anger, 
 &c. on a person." The plain English of all this will be, that 
 there must be a figurative Elisha — a figurative Naaman — a 
 figurative Jordan — a figurative dipping, i. e. pouring, and a 
 figurative healing. What a group of figures here are ! and may 
 we not really suppose that Mr. E. was figuring to purpose., 
 when he first has Naaman in the water dipping the leprous part, 
 and then in a trice he has him not dipping at all, but a stream 
 pouring on him from above ? Yea, and not that in reality, but 
 Only figuratively ! It would indeed puzzle the gentleman of the 
 bar, to find out what this figurative baptizing of Naaman means. 
 Do, Mr. Edwards, in your next, be more explicit, and let us 
 know how Naaman's leprosy looked after it was figuratively 
 baptized ; whether he was figuratively delivered from pain, 
 
199 
 
 and figuratively returned to Damascus, to a figurative king o* 
 Assyria, Once more, sir ; in your figurative baptism, you 
 compared it to pouring out the wrath of God, and it seems with 
 you, that pouring is not an overwhelming, but a sprinkling : if 
 so, you no doubt tell the people how dreadful it is to be sprinkled 
 with the wrath of God, not buried in it, or overwhelmed with 
 it, for this you say is not baptism. This doctrine must affright 
 the people much, especially when they see that by sprinkling 
 you mean as many drops as are cast in an infant's face. 
 
 All that Mr. Ef says about Naaman dipping the affected part, 
 is mere conjecture : it is not expressed in the text, neither can 
 he make it appear that he was not leprous all over his body ; for 
 we have as much right to contend for the one, as he has for the 
 other : but he had the direction given to wash in Jordan for 
 the cure of his leprosy, as lepers in common had to do in Israel 
 when cleansed ; but this will make for immersion. I now 
 remark, that the words " wash" and " dip," are of the same 
 import : Elisha says to Naaman, " Go wash in Jordan ;" he 
 goes, but how does he perform it ? The text says he dipped 
 himself seven times ; so in like manner the leper was commanded 
 by Moses, after being sprinkled with the blood, to go and wash 
 himself and cloaths, not xvith^ but u tn n water, and he should 
 be healed. 
 
 One remark more shall close my observations on what is 
 advanced by this writer. It is on his last observation, " that 
 the scriptures commonly join material and spiritual baptism 
 together as counter parts of each other." Admitting this senti- 
 ment in its full extent, although I should not select such texts 
 to prove it as he does ; but if so, then immersion only can be 
 a figure of the inward work on the soul. How can sprinkling 
 a few drops of water on the face, be a complete figure of the 
 renovating influences of the Spirit ? Does this renewing only 
 extend to one part of the spirit of man, or to ail ? If it does to 
 the whole man, sprinkling cannot be the figure, because it is not 
 applied to the whole man j but immersion is, and must be the 
 scripture baptism. 
 
 I now return to make a few strictures on the pamphlet 
 mentioned before : but in so doing, I find, that were I to follow 
 this author, it would only be to repeat the observations made 
 on Mr. E.'s performance. There are not half a dozen new 
 thoughts in all this part of his book, but the author has in a most 
 servile manner copied Edwards ; so that I shall have frequent 
 ©ccasion to refer the reader to what has been already offered. 
 
 This author charges the Baptists with " unchurching' all the 
 churches in the world, except those who agree with them in the 
 mode of baptizing— -that they deny the call and mission of their 
 
300 
 
 Ministers ; invalidate and nullify their ordinances, and Ofcc&fB 
 rnunicate tliousands, whom they cannot denv to be eminent for 
 faith and holiness." This is high colouring, and only part of it 
 is true. That the Baptists have denied the right of Pcedobaptist 
 ministers to administer ordinances, is true ; and that, because 
 we think unbaptized persons are not qualified to administer an 
 ordinance they have never received : but that we have denied 
 their call to the sacred work of the ministry, is untrue. If they 
 have not entered on that work properly, winch we think they 
 have not, it will be theirs to account to God therefor. Neither 
 have we denied that great numbers of Pedobaptists are eminent 
 for piety,- yekj full as much so as the Baptists ; yet we do not 
 think that their rejection of an ordinance of Christ is excusable 
 on that account, nor that their piety consists therein. Piety 
 never sanctioned an error. But if we deny that Pcsdobaptkt 
 churches are regular gospel churches, we do in this only act on 
 their own principles, and deal out to them as they do to others. 
 
 To shew how far they go themselves in this business, we have 
 only to ask the compiler of this sermon these questions : Do yon 
 believe that Quakers are christi ns ? Do vou believe there are 
 those among them as eminent for piety as any among the Pcedo- 
 baptists I Now to these questions., we doubt not the answer 
 would be in the affirmative. Well, we ask again : Do vo*i 
 believe that the societies of friends are regular gospel churches? 
 Would you admit a believing Quaker to the Lord's table with 
 you, were he to desire it ? The answer to these questions would 
 be in the negative. We then ask again, Why do not you deem 
 them a gospel church r Whv will vou not admit them to the 
 supper ? To the first question you answer, they do not conform 
 to the primitive churches in ordinances and worship ; to the last, 
 you sav a Quaker has not been baptized i anil no unbaptized 
 persons have a right to the supper. Now, in all this, you stand 
 in the view of a Baptist, as a Quaker does in vours ; and if your 
 reasons are sufficient to keep a believing Quaker from the table, 
 were he to desire it, the same reasons would justify a Baptist in 
 denving a Predobaptist that privilege ; for we do most con- 
 scientiously declare, that we look upon the one to be as much 
 unbaptized as the other ; yea, that sprinkling is no baptism 
 at all. 
 
 He adds, that cc we a*USt conclude, that dipping cannot be 
 essential to baptism, and christian communion. The conse- 
 quences are not to be endured." Why not dipping essential to 
 baptism \ does the departure of Fcedobaptists make it less essential 
 than it formerly was ? If it cannot be endured, because of the 
 serious consequence arising from such an admission, who is the 
 efiuse of ail this \ Will you charge on the Baptists the consc 
 
201 
 
 quences of jrour own error ? But why so afraid of consequence p f 
 what are tney, sir ? Speak out. I will not, I dare not say, that 
 the revenue arising from Pcedobaptism (though it is considerable) 
 is that dreadful consequence ; neither will I say it is a desire to 
 multiply numbers, and attach them to a particular place from 
 motives of interest. But, what is it ? Is the pride of opinion at 
 bottom ? Has the error grown grey ? Will it be too much to 
 vield to these despised Baptists f Is it, that you would thereby 
 acknowledge yourselves unbaptized ? If, sir, it is pride, do not 
 let it weigh a moment, it is an easy thing for wise and good men 
 to be mistaken ; and, stubbornly to persist in a practice our 
 better judgment tells us is wrong, must surely be offensive to 
 God. Is it beneath you to yield in sentiment to Baptists ? Still, 
 sir, remember the Saviour himself was a Baptist ; do not think 
 it beneath you to conform to his example, however much you 
 may think yourselves justified in despising our " inferiority" of 
 talent. But the last is probably the true cause. O, it is too much, 
 too much, savs a Pcedobaptist, to admit we are unbaptized, that 
 our churches are not regular — ministers are not regular ! Well, 
 sir, truth is truth, however much it may offend — may grind the 
 feelings, or run counter to great and respectable bodies of men : 
 but you may as well begin this business iirst as last, down infant 
 sprinkling must come, the latter day glory will destroy it, it is 
 now trembling to its very base ; and, dreadful as the consequences 
 may be to vou; and however much deplored,- they must, they 
 will most certainly ensue. 
 
 The author of this sermon thinks he has caught ns in his snare, 
 when he affirms, that the Baptists at first "received their baptism 
 from the hands of such who, according to their principles, were 
 unbaptized, and consequently could not be regularly authorized 
 to administer the ordinance*" and from thence he infers, that if 
 their administration be invalid, so must ours be, who received 
 it at first from them. We must beg leave to differ from this- 
 gentleman on the kst mentioned point j for we can readily prov-* 
 that immersion has never been laid aside entirely in the church, 
 even in the darkest ages of popery ; yea, we hope to shew in the 
 sequel, that sprinkling itself is a novel thing, and that it was 
 scarcely three centuries back that it came into use. 
 
 The first thing he now undertakes to prove is, " that the 
 proper meaning of the word baptize, does not always imply 
 dipping*" Not " always* Reader, remark that word : this is 
 a concession in our favour, and is an admission that it sometime*} 
 does mean dipping. Is it not strange, that the preacher should 
 have dared to deviate from his text book, Mr. E. ? You see, by 
 the by, that these gentlemen do not agree among themselves — 
 Edwards says, it c never' means dipping, but our author thinks 
 
202 
 
 k does c sometimes.' What a pity he did not furnish us with a 
 list of texts for, and against ! Well, what does it mean, sir I 
 u It properly imports a wetting, washing, bathing in any mode, 
 or bleeding, or weeping, or otherwise." Do go on, sir ; do not 
 stop yet, you will spoil our diversion. u Otherwise !" What 
 otherwise ? What a pity you broke off so short ! Bleeding and 
 weeping are baptism ! Reader, did you ever read in your Bible 
 of such baptisms as bleeding and weeping ? You have indeed 
 read of garments baptized in blood, and of Christ's feet being 
 baptized with tears ; but are the actions of bleeding and weeping, 
 baptizing ? You must let our author prove it, and here you have 
 his proof : " All the lexicons and critics, so far as I have found, 
 ngree, that the word signifies to wet, or wash, as zvell as dip" 
 One thing you remark in this question is, that he does not 
 pretend his critics and lexicons allow sprinkling* to be baptism. 
 So then, poor sprinkling, as our " eastern friends say," comes 
 out at the little end of the horn ; not a word, not one word, in aH 
 the critics, in all the lexicons, that allows sprinkling to be 
 baptism ! But how does this agree with what he said in the 
 paragraph just before, that sprinkling is called baptism ? You 
 will again observe, all his critics and lexicons can do for him is, 
 to expound baptize to u wash, to wet, as well as dip ;" mark that, 
 " as well as dip." Now reader, this author has told the truth ; 
 but he has not told the whole truth. The Greek lexicons do, as 
 he says, make the word baptize signify, to dip, and this they 
 give as the primary sense of the word ; and they allow likewise, 
 that it signifies to wash, or, if he pleases, wet ; but then, this is 
 as a consequence of dipping ; for any one must see, that a thing 
 that is dipped must needs be washed, or wet all over. But they 
 never did allow, that to sprinkle a little water on a thing, was to 
 baptize it, or that to wash a part of a garment, was to wash 
 the whole of it. 
 
 What a miserable falling out is there between this gentleman 
 and Edwards ! He allows that dipping is called baptism — 
 Edwards denies it, and says it is not so. This writer goes 
 to lexicons and critics to help him out : but the very name of a 
 lexicographer was to Mr. Edwards like a shock of electricity; 
 he is ready to scout them as a parcel of unprincipled villains. 
 Now, whence arose this conflict of sentiment ? The answer is 
 plain : Edwards was a man lost to pious feeling, was disposed 
 to take ever)' undue advantage in controversy ; and, therefore, 
 knowing that the universal testimony of lexicons was in favour 
 of the Baptists, he would have nothing to do with them in debate, 
 and roundly abuses Booth for mentioning of them. But our 
 
 * But of late, in this city, I understand stroking of the face with the hand 
 U substituted for sprinkling. 
 
203 
 
 author has made lexicons speak ; yea, declares they all speafc 
 alike in this thing ; and what will no doubt enrage his textarian 
 much, he tells the world what Edwards denied was true, even 
 that to dip is to baptize ; yea, and has done more, he allows 
 they do not say that sprinkling is to baptize. 
 
 He goes on to say, that if the Baptists are yet dissatisfied, i. e. 
 with the testimony of lexicons, " we must examine the matter 
 farther." That we are not quite satisfied is most certain, and 
 that for two reasons: 1. He has not mentioned the lexicons 
 and critics alluded to, that we might have had the pleasure of 
 consulting them with him, and seen that he quoted fairly. 2. He 
 has not given us the decision of Greek lexicons in their own 
 words, nor has he told more than a part of what they say ; and 
 I now demand of him, whether any lexicons have ever given the 
 sense of" baptize" to wash, or wet, unless as a consequence of 
 dipping, as a garment, or any thing dipped, must of necessity 
 be washed, or wet ? 
 
 In this sermon proof is offered from scripture, that " baptize* 
 does not always signify an immersion. This we shall examine- 
 In page 7, he has confounded the practice among the Jews of 
 baptizing after they return from market, with that of baptizing 
 their hands before they sit down to dine ; and then he adds, 
 n This shews, that in the language of the New Testament, a 
 person is said to be baptized, when a small part of his body is 
 washed." When the Pharisee, in Luke xi. 38. wondered, it 
 was not on account that Christ did not baptize himself, but thai 
 he did not baptize his hands before he eat ; and to evince this 
 was the meaning, the same fault is found with the disciples in 
 Mark vii. 8. " And when they saw some of his disciples eat 
 bread with defiled, that is to say, with uiywashen hands, they 
 found fault." Is it then said, as this author has affirmed, that 
 washing of hands is called a washing of the whole man, and 
 therefore a baptizing of a small part of the body attributed to 
 the whole ? He knows that the representation he gave was not 
 warranted by the text. But why huddle the two together as 
 one thing ? The reader will see, in turning over to my answer 
 to Mr. E., that when the Jews came from market, they did in 
 reality baptize themselves, lest they had been denied by the 
 touch of some unclean person ; but in the other case, before 
 eating, they never did more than to wash their hands. 
 
 On Heb. ix. 10. u Which stood in meats and drinks, and 
 divers washings,'? he says, u The Greek is, different baptisms" 
 He then inters, that u purifications by sprinkling are especially 
 intended," verse 13. M For if the blood of bulls, and of goats, 
 and the ashes of an heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctineth to 
 the purifying of the flesh ;" and th?r. he proceed* to 
 
204 
 
 to be " plain proof that Sprinkling is a true baptism/' But this 
 plain proof of his is no proof at all ; and tnat, because the 
 sprinkling of the unclean man with the blood of bulls and goats 
 did not cleanse him without the further process of his bathing 
 himself in water. See Num. xix. 19. " And the clean person 
 shall sprinkle upon the unclean on the third day, and on the 
 seventh day : and on the seventh day he shall purify himself, 
 and wash his cloaths, and bathe .himself in water, and shall be 
 clean at even." Now, where is this plain proof for sprinkling? 
 is it in the bathing in water? There was in this process a twofold 
 cleansing prefigured ; a cleansing from the guilt of sin, which 
 was set forth by the blood sprinkled on the person, and this was 
 to set forth the atonement by Christ; and there was in the 
 washing of the body in water, a representation of the Spirit in 
 sanctifying, or cleansing from the filth of sin, Atonement for 
 sin is never mentioned m the New Testament as represented by 
 baptism ; but baptism is frequently used as an expression of 
 regeneration, and the same thing w T as set forth by dipping in 
 water, in the text quoted. 
 
 But how this author could think of advancing 1 Cor. x. 1, 2. 
 a Our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the 
 sea ; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud, and in the 
 sea," as at 1 argument in favour of sprinkling, is to me amazing. 
 You, sir, think it rained on them ; but the text says no such thing, 
 and the Psalm (lxviii. 7., 8.) you refer to, will not apply, because 
 the Israelites were not then in the sea, but in the wilderness ; 
 and you would render their march through the sea very uncom- 
 fortable, the spray of the sea flying over them, and the rain 
 pouring on them. If what you say is true, the apostie must be 
 mistaken when he says they passed through the sea as on dry 
 ground, Heb. xi. 29. The text does not say, as you insinuate, 
 that they were baptized by the cloud, and by the sea, the one 
 dashing its spray, the other dropping in rain : no, but a in the 
 cloud ; in the sea." Of course, the gloss is a flimsy one indeed. 
 That the Egyptians were baptized in the sea is true, though they 
 were not baptized unto Moses, but unto Pharaoh, whom they 
 had followed thither.. That the children of Israel were covered 
 ay the cloud and sea, you do not deny ; but pretend to cavil at 
 the idea of their being baptized, unless they had been wet ; yet, 
 sir, you might have recollected that Noah and his family were 
 said to be a figure of baptism, while in the ark, nor can you say 
 the rain wet them, for the ark was covered and they defended 
 from it ; and yet the clouds covering the ark above, and the 
 waters beneath, are called by Peter a figure of baptism,, 1 Pet. 
 in. 21. You might on the same principles deny that Christ was 
 in the heart of the earth, because he was enclosed in ft tomb 
 
205 
 
 newn out of a rock ; yet, in John xii. 24. he is said, like a corn, 
 of wheat, to be in the ground. Baptism is called a burial : but 
 in page 15, you insinuate that Christ was not buried ; that he 
 was only put in the hollowed rock ; yet, sir, Paul owns you not 
 as his disciple in this, 1 Cor. xv. 4. " And that he was buried^ 
 and that he rose again the third day." You, sir, must be sensible, 
 that a person is not the less buried because the earth does not 
 touch him, but only his coffin ; neither are you ignorant of this, 
 that baptism signifies a covering, an overwhelming ; and that 
 when this is by water, wetting is not the baptism, but an effect 
 of it. 
 
 How you can compare sprinkling to covering a person in the 
 grave, is laughable enough. Do you, sir, ever sprinkle so much 
 water on the candidate as to bury him with it ? All the notice I 
 shall take of this is, just to observe, the apostle says they were 
 baptized " hi the cloud, and in the sea :" but if your interpreta- 
 tion were just, he ought to have said they were baptized in the 
 spray of the sea, and in the rain from the cloud ; but any one 
 can well conceive how they were (not seemingly, as you sug- 
 gest we say) really baptized in both, when they were literally 
 surrounded and enclosed with these waters. As to the people 
 being sanctified by the rain, in imitation of the sprinkling of 
 the unclean, that has been already noticed ; and it has been 
 proved, that the sprinkling of the unclean was not called a 
 baptism, but his bathing in water was so denominated ; therefore 
 the allusion is folly. 
 
 Christ's sufferings being called a baptism, Luke xii. 50. " I 
 have a baptism to be baptized w r ith ; and how am I straitened 
 till it be accomplished," is supposed by him to be in favour of 
 sprinkling, but with what propriety judge ye. He is said to have 
 sweat blood — to have poured out strong cries and tears — to 
 have been crucified. Our author thinks this will be better 
 expressed by sprinkling than immersion. But how trifling does 
 this represent his sufferings to be, to compare them only to a 
 few drops of water sprinkled on a person ! Our opponents 
 themselves must own, that an overwhelming in sorrows and 
 pains, is a more lively description of them. Sprinkling is only 
 ©n one part of the body ; but Christ's sufferings extended over 
 the whole man, yea, to his very soul ; and, it is evident, they 
 underrate the sufferings of Jesus very much indeed, when they 
 compare them to a sprinkling. To represent the extent of 
 Christ's sufferings, and to shew how incompatible they are with 
 sprinkling, yea, and that they are really set forth by immersion, 
 or dipping ; see these pa.ssages, which are concerning Christ. 
 Saints are said to be *' washed (not sprinkled) from their sins in 
 his own biood," Rev. >, 5. His garments are said to be dved 
 
 Dd 
 
206 
 
 (not sprinkled), Isaiah vi. 3. The waters are said to cover him, 
 Psalm Ixix. 20. u I am come into deep waters where the floods 
 overflow me :" this surely is no sprinkling. What the fathers 
 3aid figuratively of the martyrs, comparing their sufferings to a 
 baptism, is not in point ; but, no doubt, many of them were 
 covered with their own blood. 
 
 There is very little said by this author on the baptism of the 
 Holy Ghost, but what has been noticed in my reply to Mr. E. 
 The reader will bear in mind that the shedding forth, and pouring 
 out of the Spirit on the apostles at Pentecost, filled the room 
 where they sat, and overwhelmed them entirely ; and surely 
 this cannot favour sprinkling, unless our opponents do bury their 
 candidates in water by pouring or sprinkling it on them in great 
 quantities : but this, experience proves not true. I am amazed 
 out of measure at seeing such a quotation as the following, to 
 prove sprinkling, Isaiah xliv. 3. " I will pour waters on the 
 thirsty, and foods on the dry ground." Is the baptism of the 
 Spirit compared to floods ? How then in the name of wonder can 
 it set forth sprinkling ? Do Pcedobaptists pour out floods of water 
 on their children ? But, says he, the baptism of the Holy Ghost 
 is called sprinkling, Ezek. xxxvi. 25. " I will sprinkle clean 
 water upon you, and ye shall be clean." Our author is still 
 unfortunate : the passage has nothing to do with the baptism of 
 the Holy Ghost, for that took place at Pentecost before the 
 dispersion of the children of Israel ; but this was to be done for 
 the Jews after they were restored in the latter day, which appears 
 in verse 24, " For I will take you from among the heathen, and 
 gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own 
 land." This proves, that the baptism of the Spirit was not 
 intended, that having existed prior to their dispersion. The 
 sprinkling of clean water was not in allusion to baptism ; but 
 to the waters of purification mentioned in Numbers xix. and 
 which being made out of the ashes of the red heifer, that was 
 burnt without the camp, was a lively type of Christ — was to set 
 forth, not the Spirit, but the atoning blood of the Lamb—not 
 a cleansing from the filth, but the guilt of sin \ which last, bap- 
 tism never represents. If it did allude to the influences of the 
 Spirit, it could not be to the baptism of the Holy Ghost, because 
 that was not a sprinkling, but an overwhelming, as I have made 
 abundantly to appear. When we ask a Pcedobaptist to advance 
 proof that sprinkling is baptism, he immediately replies, " I will 
 sprinkle clean water upon you." To say nothing about going to 
 fke OidTestament in this case for a command, being highlv absurd, 
 rhe fallacy of applying this to baptism thus appears : 1. It cannot 
 mean baptism, for it is said God will sprinkle it ; whereas it is 
 not God that administers baptism, but man. 2. Baptism doe* 
 
20/ 
 
 not cleanse from sin, but it is said in the text, " and ye shall be 
 clean." 3. Nor is it essential to baptizing, that it should be 
 done with clean water, although it is desirable. But apply this 
 'n the meaning of the text, it will stand thus : I will, saith God, 
 in the latter day, " take you from among the heathen, and gather 
 you out of all countries, and bring you into your own land ; I 
 will sprinkle clean water," or cleanse you from your idols ; as a 
 man is cleansed who has been defiled by a dead body, with 
 having the waters of purification upon him, so will I forgive 
 your sin, through the atonement of my Son, which those waters 
 represent, whose atonement does remove guilt, as the waters of 
 purification did ceremonial defilement. Nor does the unction, 
 or anointing, mentioned in 1 John ii. 20. 27. mean the baptism 
 of the Holy Ghost, as this author affirms ; for, as I have proved, 
 that the baptism of the Spirit and regeneration are by no means 
 the same, and that the first w?s confined to the apostolic age, and 
 has long ago ceased, while the other always did, and always 
 will exist ; and as every christian has that inward spiritual 
 illumination of which the text speaks, it cannot be spiritual 
 baptism, forasmuch as that miraculous baptism ceased, when 
 the mission of Christ and his apostles was confirmed. I am 
 ready to examine this matter largely as a separate subject, if 
 called upon. This being the case, the gentleman's allusion does 
 entirely fail, and the pouring of a little oil on the head as an 
 anointing, did not point to spiritual baptism ; and cannot, there- 
 fore, help the cause of sprinkling. 
 
 His concluding remark on this part of the argument is, that 
 in all the translations of the New Testament he had ever seen, 
 the word •* baptizo is never rendered to signifv immersion, but 
 that they either retain the original ivord, or render it washing, 
 or ablution." It is hard for me to determine, what translations 
 this gentleman has seen, or whether he has taken measures to 
 seek for such information ; but one thing is certain, that such 
 translations may be found, as do render the word baptizo in 
 opposition to his sentiment. I agree with him, that a right 
 translation of that word would lay the controversy at rest ; and 
 it is owing to this word not being translated in our editions of 
 the Bible, that the learned take advantage of their hearers, and 
 make them believe, that to dip or plunge, is not the meaning 
 of the word. But why has not the word been translated ; whose 
 fault is it ? Were Baptists the translators ? If that were the case, 
 would not a non-translation look suspicious t But this is not the 
 fact : the translators were advocates of infant sprinkling, and 
 they have not done it. But why have they not done it, and 
 especially if it would make in their favour ? Does not this of 
 itself warrant strong suspicion what their conviction was ? Bur 
 
203 
 
 the truth is, that to render it to sprinkle, or a partial wasning\ 
 they dare not, for fear of the consequence ; (" he that takes 
 away from my word, his part shall be taken out of the book of 
 life") and rather than do justice, and thereby condemn their 
 practice, they left the Greek \v r ord untranslated. But the gentle- 
 man " has seen no such translation :" let him then examine the 
 High Dutch translation, and the Low Dutch translation, and 
 also the Danish ; in each of them he will find the word so 
 translated, where John the Baptist is called John the dipper, 
 and baptizing called dipping. But all the translations he has 
 seen " render it, to wash." Here again* he passes a deception 
 on us, and means to tell a part of the truth only. Does he mean 
 they translated the word baptizo to wash, in the sense Pcedo- 
 baptists mean, that is, a partial w T ashing; or do they render it, an 
 entire washing as a consequence of dipping ? In the last sense 
 he knows they have translated it, and not in the former ; neither 
 do the Baptists deny that washing, in the last sense, is called 
 baptism in the word. Is it not monstrous in an author to deal 
 in deception at this rate ? We thank you, sir, for one thing; you 
 have not, it seems, found one translation that makes baptizo 
 signify to sprinkle: poor sprinkling has neither the original 
 -word, no lexicon, nor yet one translation, to say it is baptism ; 
 and the whole testimony in favour of it, is in Num. xix. where 
 the ashes of the red heifer were sprinkled on the unclean man, 
 and after which he had to bathe himself in water before he 
 could be clean. 
 
 Our author next proceeds in his remarks on the examples of 
 baptizing, recorded in the New Testament; in which he roundly 
 asserts, u There is no certainty that any were immersed," and 
 declares it " morally certain that it was not the constant practice;" 
 yet, in the very next breath, acknowledges " that Christ came up 
 out of the water, and that the Jews were baptized of John in 
 Jordan." It is true, he afterward endeavours to weaken this 
 evidence of immersion, by the same use of Greek prepositions 
 with Edwards ; but is " willing to wave that," as a point not 
 sufficiently clear, and w T hich he, as a good ma?i, did not dare to 
 defend : but as I have noticed these things already, I will follow 
 him in his other arguments. 
 
 He thinks that going into the water was no evidence of their 
 being immersed, but that they might have been sprinkled there. 
 That such a thing is not probable must be evident, because the. 
 idea is not to be received that they would wade in the water, if 
 not to be immersed ; and especially if to be sprinkled, they 
 needed not have come to Jordan at ail, much less go in it. If 
 sprinkling had been baptism, it is admirable that John went tc 
 Jordan at all ; cities would have been the most convenien , 
 
209 
 
 where every family could furnish their bowl of water at least ; 
 this is an answer to those who think he went to rivers to furnish 
 drink for their camels, for in that case, leaving their home was 
 nonsense. But how will this do ? The text says, " They were 
 baptized of him in Jordan," Matth. iii. G. If they were sprinkled, 
 or water poured on them, it was not the truth ; for in that case 
 they were not baptized in Jordan, but xvith Jordan, But it is 
 ** impropable." Why : Ci It seems unlikely that mixed multi- 
 tudes of both sexes should be dipped naked" Who told you, 
 sir, they were naked, did the Baptists ever so assert, or do they 
 now baptize naked candidates i You have used this word 
 44 naked" twice. What was your motive, sir ? Was it because 
 destitute of argument, and did you mean to do by inuendo, what 
 you could not accomplish by reasoning ? This, sir, is of apiece 
 with the performance of one of your fellow labourers (Mr. 
 Findlay, president of Princeton college), who declared that the 
 Baptists took females into the water with transparent garments 
 on : but you, sir, wished to be more indelicate, and as if to shew 
 a lascivious turn of thought, nothing but the word " naked" 
 would do. You say it must have been done so, for it was not 
 customary with the Jews to bathe " with their cloaths on, in 
 which respect they were so strict, that they held a person to be 
 unclean, if but the tip of one of his lingers were uncovered." 
 Is not this contradicting a former part of your book, where you 
 say, " Jewish baptisms were by sprinkling the ashes of an heifej* 
 on the unclean ?" Now, it seems, they were unclean if but the 
 tip of the linger was uncovered — O consistency ! But what has 
 baptism to do with the Jewish ordinances ? It was not a rite of 
 Jewish, but of christian extraction. Our opponents are so wedded 
 to the old Jewish law, that it is for ever running in their heads ; 
 and our author thinks that John patterned after them ; which is 
 not the fact. You, reader, will*not forget however, that a Jewish 
 baptism consisted in covering " all over" — " not the tip of the 
 finger to be left out :" you will not believe after this, they were 
 sprinklings ; and pray is not this an illustration of what the word 
 baptize means I 
 
 Our author cannot conceive " where they should change their 
 apparel, or how those that came unfurnished should obtain a 
 change of raiment." But who told the gentleman that any one 
 of them came unprepared ? Yea, is it not likelv they came well 
 prepared ? And how does he know there was no convenient 
 place to undress in ? Has he been there, or has the Bible told 
 him there was not ? Do, sir, for the sake of your reputuation as 
 a man of sense, leave such foolish quibbling. But " travellers 
 say, there are only springs and small rivulets to be found in this 
 place." What travellers, sir, have you consulted ? Was Mr. 
 
210 
 
 Maundrei one of them ? Certainly not ; for he says, that Jordan 
 was eight and nine feet in depth ; and if it were so shallow, why 
 do the scriptures speak of the fords of Jordan ? (Judges iii. 28.) 
 Is it customary to speak of places in a river as fordable,when it is 
 so in every place ? How absurd ! Nor can the supposed number 
 which John baptized, be used as an argument against immersion; 
 neither is there any necessity for us to suppose with him, " that 
 John must stand in the water up to his waist a great part of his 
 time, to dip the multitudes that came to him." If it had been 
 any where said, that the number he baptized was such as to 
 make it impossible to perform it, there would be some reason in 
 the objection ; but as the word o^God is silent on the subject, 
 on what does such conj sqture rest? That great numbers came to 
 him will not be denied ; but how many he baptized is another 
 question. We know hn reiused those who had no repentance ; 
 and if so, his task could not be very hard to baptize penitents 
 only, and such as were willing to receive Christ as the Messiah. 
 It does not appear that there were more than five hundred 
 disciples to bear testimony to Christ's ascension, which was 
 probably a greater number than John ever baptized. 
 
 This writer thinks that several instances of baptism arc 
 recorded, which in his view, renders " the supposition of their 
 being dipped most incredible." He is of opinion, it was not pos- 
 silu that the three thousand were baptized by immersion u on 
 the day of Pentecost; for it was at least nine o'clock when Peter 
 began his sermon." But, sir, who says thev were baptized on that 
 day ? I am sure the text does not, neither do the Baptists so 
 affirm ; and all the narrative says is, " And the same day there 
 were added unto them about three thousand souls," Acts ii. 41. 
 Is it here said, as you insinuate, that these were baptized that 
 day ? But even if they were baptized on that day, was it too 
 great an undertaking for the twelve apostles, and seventy dis- 
 ciples to have performed it, seeing each administrator would 
 onlv have thirty-seven persons to baptize ? But you object, 
 " The seventy disciples were not authorized to administer 
 ordinances." Who gave you that information, sir ? You know 
 they were sent to preach, Luke x. 1. ; yea, and that they wrought 
 miracles in attestation of their mission, which no modern 
 preacher can do ; and surely it must be presumption to affirm 
 the}' had no authority to do what men in the present day may, 
 who have not been sent to preach immediately by Christ. Neither 
 is there the least colour of truth in the assertion. It is positively 
 said that " Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples," John 
 iv. 2. Phillip, who was not an apostle, did baptize the Samaritans, 
 Acts viii. 12. Equally destitute of plausibility is the objection, 
 il that convenient places could not be found for to baptize such 
 
211 
 
 numbers, and that they could have had no change of raiment."" 
 It is well known that places were erected in every direction 
 among the Jews for bathing, which they were obliged constantly 
 to perform to purify from ceremonial uncleanness, and in which 
 chiefly their religion lay ; and beside the private baths, there was 
 the brazen sea in the outward court of the temple, which was 
 supplied with water, as the Jews say, from the fountain of Etom ; 
 likewise the pool of Bethesda, into which persons went down 
 at certain times for healing, John v. 2. ; and also the pool of 
 Siloam, John ix. 7* All such objections would be unworthy of 
 notice, were it not that men are easily persuaded to believe that 
 to be right, which they wish to be so ; and a man must be indeed 
 much pressed for want of argument, who in support of a theory 
 advances nothing but conjecture, yea, and such as is most 
 ridiculous, and had been refuted over and over again. 
 
 This writer suggests, that it is probable Paul was baptized in 
 the house where he was. His reasons are, " there being no 
 hint of his going out to any water, weak as he was with long 
 fasting, and agitation of mmd.** But, surely, there is no hin^ 
 given, that he was baptized in the house ; and even if there had 
 been, it would not prove there was no cistern or place to bathe 
 in there. Beside, there is a hint, and that a strong one too, that 
 he was not sprinkled; for it is said, Acts ix. 18. that he " arose 
 and was baptized :" but zvhy rise up, if only to be sprinkled ? 
 Surely, if what was urged about his being weak with fasting was 
 true, and on that account he ought not to be immersed, why not 
 sprinkle him m a sitting posture ? In a note on this text, the 
 author declares Paul was not baptized on a profession of faith ? 
 But was not that a profession of his faith in Christ, when he 
 stiles him Lord, and asks, u What wilt thou have me do ?' Nor 
 was there need of a profession of faith being made to Ananias, 
 when God himself had declared Paul to be a " chosen vessel. 1 ' 
 If our opponents could bring equal proof in favour of their 
 candidates for baptism, it would be well for them : but, after 
 all, there is nothing in the text that warrants such an assertion ; 
 the mere silence of the passage does not. 
 
 A thunderer against the Baptists is now advanced, Acts x.47. 
 " Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized V* 
 The comment of our author is, " Can any forbid water to be 
 brought or provided to baptize these r" Why add to the text ? 
 There is not a word about being u brought" or " provided." 
 What a nice place would this be for our Pcedobaptist brethren, 
 if such words could but be found in the text ! Query, Could 
 they not find some old manuscript copy of the Testament that 
 has them in ? or could they not by some means get them in un- 
 observed I But where is the great d ifficulty of denying the uv ; of 
 
212 
 
 a bath, as well as of a bowl of water ? Indeed, to forbid as much 
 water as would sprinkle a person's face would be nonsense ; for 
 none would pretend to forbid it, nor would the apostle ask such 
 a trifling question ; but the question is of more importance when 
 it stands thus : " Who shall forbid the use of his bath, cistern, 
 or fountain, seeing this case is so singular?" The question, after 
 all, does not relate to the water, but to baptism ; for the Jews 
 had an idea that the Gentiles were not to be admitted to the 
 same privileges with believing Jews, and Peter himself had that 
 sentiment, until Lis vision on the house top ; nor was he fully 
 confirmed in th» contrary opinion until he saw the Holy Spirit 
 fall on Cornelius, as on the apostles themselves ; and then, the 
 question was addressed to the believing Jews that accompanied 
 him, which Will stand thus : u You see, my brethren, that the 
 Holy Ghost has fallen on these gentiles, as it did on us at Pente- 
 cost ; can any man of you, therefore, retain your old prejudices 
 against the gentiles, and forbid them to be baptized, as you have 
 heretofore done ?" 
 
 From the baptism of the jailor, (Acts xvi. 33.) he has drawn 
 the conclusion, it could not have been by immersion, and that 
 for these reasons which he assigns : " 1. It was done in the 
 night, and in the prison where there was no river nor pool. 
 2. That the jailor with his whole family, and his prisoners, 
 whom he was charged to keep at his peril, could not grope away 
 through the dark to a river or pool, and that through a city just 
 waked up with a great earthquake, and the streets it is probable 
 filled with frighted citizens." It is not true, that they were 
 baptized in the prison ; for the text positively says, " he brought 
 them into his house," verse 34. which he could not have done, 
 if they had not been out of it ; and we have better reason to 
 conclude they went out for this very purpose, than he has to 
 suppose the contrary. But what other reason could they have 
 for going out of the house ? That there was a river running har4 
 by the city, (if not through it, which was the case with almost 
 all eastern cities) is evident from verse 13, where Paul baptized 
 Lydia ; and how can this gentleman say, it was not very near 
 to the prison itself? Surely it would not be thought strange to 
 baptize at night, nor had the jailor need of taking all his 
 prisoners with him ; for it is not to be supposed, that he had not 
 persons under him as assistants, and with whom he could leave 
 the prisoners in charge during his absence ; yea, it is rather a 
 certainty, than a probability, that such was the case ; for it is 
 highly improbable that a man having such a charge should be by 
 himself. There was also a great difference between Paul leaving 
 the prison while he could administer baptism, and leaving it 
 altogether,, and that by r.n^alth ; which might have given an 
 
213 
 
 appearance of guilt, and justified the magistracy in his confine 
 meiit. Indeed, his voluntary return to his prison after he was 
 out of it, and had power to escape, justified the confidence 
 placed in him by the jailor. It does not appear that the earth- 
 quake extended to the city, as the author affirms ; nor is there 
 any foundation for such a sentiment in the text, but the contrary ; 
 and that this earthquake only affected the prison is certain, 
 1. Because there is no mention made of the citizens being 
 affrighted, or awakened ; and, 2. Because, in verse 26, all that 
 is said of it is, that " the foundations of the prison were shaken" 
 - — not a word of the city. Whence, then, all this high colouring? 
 Is it justified by the text ? If not, where was the difficulty of 
 repairing to the water ? But he says that u it is never intimated 
 that they went from the place where they happened to be, to any 
 river or stream, that they might be baptized in, or at it." Surely 
 the author is not very nice in his examination of scripture, or 
 he would have seen JMatth. iii. 5, 6. " Then zuent out to htm 
 Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, 
 and were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins ; and 
 in verse 13, " Then cometh Jesus from Gallilee to Jordan unto 
 John, to be baptized of kim. n 
 
 His remarks on Rom. vi. 4. " We are buried with Christ in 
 baptism," have been amply noticed already ; and, were it neces- 
 sary, many examples of Posdobaptist writers of the first respec- 
 tability might be brought to shew that they thought differently 
 „ on this text from the author; pi the sermon, and believed the 
 allusion to be to the mode of baptism, 
 
 I pass to his fourth and last question, " whether dipping- 
 answers to, and represents the thing signified in baptism better 
 than sprinkling." Well, sir, let us hear : " Christ washes us 
 from our sins in his own blood." Are you in earnest ? Does 
 sprinkling represent this better than dipping? I have indeed 
 read that they washed their robes and made them white u rn" 
 mark that, " hi* the blood of the Lamb ; but never have I read 
 that they sprinkled their robes white in his blood ; and never 
 I heard before, that a thing can be washed better by sprink- 
 ling, than by dipping, nor do I think the gentleman believes so. 
 I have often noticed in this book, that christian baptism is never 
 used in the New r Testament as a figure of the atonement, but of 
 regeneration only ; therefore the passage is entirely inapplicable. 
 But to shew how ridiculous the words u sprinkle, pour, wash," 
 (as used by Foedobaptists) Would appear wK n I to certain 
 
 i of scripture, and which, when immersion is used, are fre : 
 I here 
 v .. 
 
214 
 
 Pbedobaptism examined. See Bryant's abridgment of Booth, 
 
 37. 
 '* While our brethren maintain that the term baptism, when 
 
 ing to the institution so called, means any thing short of 
 
 ersion, it behoves them to inform us, which of our English 
 words is competent to express its adequate idea. I have ob- 
 served, indeed, that they seldom fix upon any particular term 
 and abide by it, as answering to the word baptism ; but rather 
 choose to use washing, pouring, or sprinkling, just as their 
 cause requires. Now, as these three expressions, in their 
 native signification, denote three different actions, it looks as if 
 they \. rful of being embarrassed, were they to select one 
 
 of them, and uniformly employ it in preference to the other two. 
 As they do not pretend our divine Lawgiver meant, that v. 
 ing, pouring and sprinkling, should all be performed on the 
 same person, to constitute baptism j so, while they believe that 
 any action short of" immersion is warranted by his command, 
 they ought as fair disputants, to tell us what that action is, and 
 by what name we should call it. At present, however, we can 
 only ask, is it washing ? If so, we may consider that word as a 
 proper translation of it, and a complete substitute for it, wherever 
 the ordinance before us is mentioned by the sacred writers. Let 
 us make the experiment on a few passages. We will take, for 
 instance, the words of Ananias to Saul, Acts xxii. 16. which 
 must be read thus : " Arise and be -washed, and wash away thy 
 sins." And those of Paul, Rom. vi. 3. and Gal. iii. 27. " Know 
 ye not, that as many of us as were washed into Christ, have put 
 on Christ." Is it pouring ? Then we must read, Mark i. 9. and 
 Acts ii. 38. 41. thus : u Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee., 
 and was poured of John in (m, into) Jordan. Repent and be 
 one of you, Then they that gladly received his 
 word were poured^ Is it sprinkling ? Then we must ; 
 John iii.. 23. Rom vi. 4. Col. ii. 12. thus : " John also was 
 sprinkling in Enon, near to Salim, because there was 7nucli 
 r, and they came and were sprinkled — Therefore, w T e 
 are buried with him by sprinkling into death — Buried with him 
 by sprinkling." 
 
 These few examples may suffice to shew what an aukward 
 
 appearance the noble sense, and masculine diction of inspiration 
 
 wear, when expressed according to this hypothesis. Whereas, 
 
 if instead of washing, pouring, or sprinkling, vou employ the 
 
 version, the preceding passages will make a very 
 
 figure, and r. ad thus : Arise and be immersed, and 
 
 i away thy sins. Know ye not, t nany as were 
 
 . i into Jesus Christ, were immersed into his cleath ? As 
 
215 
 
 many of us as have been immersed into Christ, have put on 
 Christ. Jesus came from Nazareth of Gallilee, and was im- 
 mersed of John in (or into) Jordan. Repent and be immersed 
 every one of you. Then they that gladly received the word 
 were immersed. John was immersing in Enon, near to Salim, 
 because there was much water there : and they came and 
 immersed. Therefore we are buried with him by imiriei 
 into death — buried with him by immersion. I think thes 
 answer the gentleman's question effectually, whet 
 or immersion best agrees with what; is said of baptism in the 
 New Testament. 
 
 On the mode of baptizing, I shall close my remarks by saying, 
 First, That immersion is agreeable to all the allusions te- 
 as found in the New Testament, which sprinkling cannot suit- 
 ably represent. Is the new birth called the xvceshvng of re 
 ration ? Then sprinkling cannot represent it ; for the new birth 
 extends to ail the faculties of the mind, but sprinkling is a pai 
 wetting : whereas, immersion represents the renovation o 
 whole man. Are the sufferings of Christ called a baptism t 
 Then they cannot be set forth by sprinkling, because it would 
 convey a diminutive idea of his sufferings ; but immersion is 
 expressive. Is baptism called a burial ? Then sprinkling can 
 by no means be baptism ; for the candidate is not buried be- 
 sprinkling. Is the miraculous descent of the Holy Ghost called 
 a baptism? Then sprinkling cannot be a representation of it ; 
 for the house was filled where they were with spiritual influence, 
 and they covered in it. Were the children of L. tized 
 
 unto Moses in the sea, and in the cloud ? Then sprinkling 
 cannot set it forth ; for they are net u in'"' sprinkling, but it 
 is " on" them : nor will it set forth the sea through which they 
 passed, and the cloud that covered them ; for sprinkling is at 
 best but a few drops of water ; neither does the sprinkled person 
 go to the bottom of the bowl, as Israel did to the bottom of the 
 sea : but, in immersion, the partv is completely covered oi 
 sight, as Israel were in the sea. Was Noah, in the ark, a type 
 of baptism ? Then sprinkling cannot set it forth ; for as he was 
 encompassed with the waters above, and t rone 
 
 will pretend to say sprinkling will overwhelm or encompass the 
 person. But to all these things immersion \ -s. 
 
 Secondly, Nor will sprinkling agree with the places of bap- 
 tism ; for, did they go into rivers ? Fhen, if sprinkling had bj t n 
 baptism, their conduct was preposterous ; it could have been 
 done at home as well. Did they go down into, and come up 
 out cfthe water ? Then why is this, if they were sprinkled oi 
 Did they assign as a reason for going to Enon, " that there was 
 
216 
 
 much water there ?** Why should they give this as a reason, if 
 sprinkling were baptism ? it does not require much water to 
 sprinkle with ? 
 
 Thirdly, Washing, when called baptism, in everyplace where 
 it occurs, is not such a washing as Poedobaptists use in sprink- 
 ling ; but such an one as implies a dipping, or covering : and 
 when the man is said to be washed, or baptized, it always agrees 
 in the place with immersion ; and when part of the man is only 
 baptized, it is always so expressed, as the " baptizing of his 
 hands." Nor is pouring ever called a baptism, but in the baptism 
 of the Holy Ghost, and this was such a pouring as well agreed 
 with immersion ; for it was a pouring that overwhelmed the 
 apostles. 
 
 Fourthly, That the word baptizo signifies to immerse, to dip, 
 or plunge, is evident, 1. Because the Greek church, who are 
 best acquainted with their own language, do not sprinkle, but 
 in every instance immerse unto this day. 2. Because, in all the 
 Greek lexicons of note, the word is said in its primary sense to 
 signify to dip, to immerse; and when they translate it to wash, 
 it is only as a consequence of dipping, as a thing must needs be 
 washed that has been under the water. Scapula, Stephens and 
 Schrevelius ; Leigh, in his Critica Sacra, Budseus, Constantine, 
 and many others might be enumerated, 3. Because the most 
 learned Poedobaptists themselves, do admit this is the meaning 
 of the word, and that baptism was so administered : but plead 
 in the behalf of sprinkling, not a divine warrant, but coldness 
 of climate, and that the water itself has no virtue in it, or the 
 like. Among the names who admit this are, Baxter, Pool's 
 Continuators, Dr. Doddridge, Saurin, Whitby, Calvin ; and 
 men of the same sentiments, and first respectability, may be 
 referred to without number, who have conceded the same 
 point. 
 
 Fifthly, Sprinkling has not prevailed more than about three 
 hundred years '-' ? , and the testimony of Poedobaptists who have 
 written ecclesiastical history, give it in favour of immersion. 
 The learned Dr. John Lawrence Mosheim was a Lutheran, and 
 practised the baptizing of infants ; yet, in his church history, 
 proves indisputably that in the three first centuries, baptism was 
 administered to such only as professed faith in Christ, and that 
 it was universally done by immersion. See page 126 of the 
 first volume of the Philadelphia edition, where he says, " The 
 sacrament of baptism, was administered in this century, [that is, 
 
 * See Robinson's History, which says, that Dr. Lightfoot caused immer- 
 sion to be laid aside by the assembly of divines, which was decided only bv a 
 majority of one, there being- twenty-five for, and twenty-four against its disuse. 
 
217 
 
 the first] without the public assemblies, in places appointed and 
 prepared for that purpose, and was performed by immersion of 
 the whole body in water ;" and that it was u customary that 
 the converts should be baptized and received into the church by 
 those under whose ministry they had embraced the christian 
 doctrine" Also, in the second century, page 206, " The persons 
 that were to be baptized, after they had repeated the creed, and 
 confessed and renounced their sins, and particularly the devil, in 
 his pomps and allurements, were immersed under water." In 
 the third century, he says, p. 283, " Baptism was administered 
 to such as, after a long course of trial and preparation, offered 
 themselves as candidates for the profession of Christianity." 
 
 In the pamphlet we have noticed, the author tries to lead his 
 readers astray by quotations from the fathers, wherein he asserts, 
 that as early as forty years after the apostles, the baptizing of 
 infants is spoken of in their writings. The persons he refers us 
 to in proof of it are, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen 
 and Cyprian. All that he has said here has been literally copied 
 from a sermon of Mr. Bostwick, of New- York, yet no credit 
 has been given to him for it : but it is disingenuous to the last 
 degree in him to renew this argument, when he well knows that 
 the late Dr. Gill proved Mr. Bostwick's assertions erroneous ; 
 and, as that gentleman never did reply to the Doctor, his silence 
 is conclusive evidence of his defeat. Nor does our author give a 
 true account of the time in which thev lived ; for according to 
 him, Justin Martyr wrote about forty years after the apostles : 
 but the fact is, that he lived about one hundred and fifty years 
 after Christ. Irenaeus, instead of living in the apostolic age, as 
 he says, actually flourished about one hundred and eighty years 
 after Christ. Nor did Tertullian, as he affirms, live within one 
 hundred and ninety years of the apostles ; for he did not join 
 the church at Carthage, until the close of the second century, 
 nor flourish until the beginning of the third. Cyprian lived 
 about the middle of the third century ; but this author says it 
 was about one hundred years after the apostles. Nov/, what 
 dependance is to be placed in men's assertions, when they can, 
 to serve their purpose, so egregiouslv falsify history ? 
 
 This author's pretended quotation from Justin Martyr is, 
 that " some aged christians were made disciples in, or from 
 their infancy ;" and, though he allows that infant baptism is 
 not mentioned, yet he savs, u if they were made disciples in 
 infancy, they were doubtless the subjects of baptism." The 
 quotation is not correct ; for the word " disciple" is net in the 
 passage ; all that he says is, that they were " instructed" from 
 their childhood : The original quotation is, " Several persons 
 
213 ! 
 
 among us, men and women of sixty and seventy years of 
 who from their childhood were instructed in Christ, remain 
 incorrupt." These persons were instructed, not baptized, nor 
 made disciples. How absurd, therefore, the conclusion, that 
 they were baptized in their infancy, when no such thing is said! 
 ]Nor is the Greek word, which he renders " infancy"" in his 
 quotation, properly translated ; for it ought to be rendered 
 " children ;" and surely, it will not be thought strange that such 
 should be instructed ; for Timothy knew the scriptures from a 
 "child" Besides, " instructing" supposes they were not infant;; ; 
 and therefore, if they had been " diseiplcd" as he affirms, yet 
 it was done at a time when they could, and actually did, receive 
 " instruction" 
 
 Our author says, u Irenaeus mentions the baptism of infants," 
 This assertion of his is altogether false : The words are, " He 
 (that is, Christ) came to save all ; all I say, who by him are born 
 again to God, infants and little ones, and children, and young 
 men, and old men." He will have it, that by u regeneration" is 
 meant " baptism :" but this gross error of calling regeneration 
 baptism, had not at that time got into use, and was reserved to 
 darker ages ; nor is it in his power to shew an instance in any 
 of the writings of Irenaeus of its being so used, to justify this 
 interpretation. This would make him say, that Christ came to 
 save all baptized person lie never would have said : but 
 
 it was true in the sense he used it, that Christ came to save alJ 
 that were U born again of God ;" for no doubt infants dying in 
 infancy, are regenerated and taken to glory: but not all infants ; 
 for some grow up in sin and live in it all their days. 
 
 He next introduces Tertullian, who, he says, " speal 
 baptizing of infants as a practice of the church," and he calls 
 him singular and whimsical. Tertullian does not say it was a 
 practice of the church ; hut he opposes it as an innovation, and 
 declares it to be wrong, advising that such should grow up first 
 
 be instructed before they were baptized : His words 
 *' Let them come, while they are growing up, let them come and 
 learn, and let the i • when the}' come, and w 
 
 understand Christianity, let them profess themselves cl 
 ." 1 now ask, is it not too barefaced for a man to assert, 
 r, that he spoke of infant baptism as a practice 
 of the church ? We, indeed, have not denied that at this time 
 
 jade to introduce infant baptism, I 
 the notion that it was . ''.on : but other errors wen 
 
 introduce tys j whose words 
 
 Lw It is well known, iety of supe rst 
 
 bus and foolish rites were I I into the church." Must it 
 
219 
 
 [dent to an unprejudiced mind, that this is an evidence 
 against infant baptism, rather than a deft nee of it? But why call 
 
 Tertullian whimsical r Or, if he were so, why quote him as aft 
 authority? The whole mysterj lies in this, that b d the 
 
 baptizing of infants ; and the test of firmness and with 
 
 our author must, no doubt, be zeal tor infant baptism. 
 
 Origen is next mentioned, thus : wC He was one of the most 
 
 led and knowing men of the age, and declares, that infants 
 
 are, by the usage of the church, baptized. And that an order for 
 
 the baptizing of infants had bee- delivered to the church, from 
 
 postles, who knew that the pollution of sin is in all." The 
 
 lerwill observe, that Origen wrote m Greek, and many of 
 
 his own writings are still in being ; but this quotation concerning 
 
 t baptism, is not found in any of them. But if it is asked, 
 
 whence was it derived ? The answer is, that our opponents have 
 
 i it from lations, which are 
 
 not to be trusted. These were made by men that lived at the 
 
 end of the fourth century, when the churches w eve ovc mm 
 
 error. But had it been in reality proved (which it cannot: 
 
 be) that Origen had so written ; yet his assertions deserve but 
 
 lit, as he was one of the most erroneous and w 
 
 5 us persons of hi gh f universal salvation ; 
 
 and that our author has given him a character he by no re, 
 
 deserves, and to shew how little reliance is to be placed on 
 
 join a quotation from a Poedobaptist (Bishop 
 Taylor) concerning him : His remarks are, " A tradition ape sto- 
 lical, if it be net consigned with a fuller testimony than that of 
 one person (Origen) whom all ages ha\ ' of mam j 
 
 errors, will obtain so little reputation among those, whole 
 
 others have upon greater authority pn 
 from the apostles and yet falsely, that it will be a great argument 
 that he is creduloi detenu h 
 
 k approbation in a matter of so great cor, . 
 reader will see by this quotation from so eminent a person as 
 Bishop Taylor, that our author's recommendation ol char; 
 is not to be trusted ; and this will learn the reader to be can 
 how he takes on trust what this v erts. 
 
 Cyprian (says our author) gives as full a testimony as po:> 
 to the practice of infant baptism at the time lie lived* At a. 
 council of sixtv-six ministers, held about one hundred and 
 years after the apostles, (th re is false, i\)\' it ■ 
 
 middle of the third centur ler it 
 
 not be pro; v r I 
 
 : it ted that i i 
 
220 
 
 introduced in the beginning of the third century. Of what tree 
 can it be to tell us of Cyprian, who lived after that period, or of 
 the council of Carthage which debated the question referred to, 
 when we have not disputed it prevailed then ? Take out the false 
 date our author has given it, and then the poison is extracted ; 
 for instead of this being done in the second century, it will be 
 found to be in the middle of the third. But the name of the 
 council in which this was debated is kept back, as well as the 
 arguments used in support, as likewise other ridiculous questions 
 debated. Why not tell these things ? Was the gentleman 
 ashamed of the transaction ? Well he may be. But that the 
 reader may see the extreme ignorance and superstition of these 
 " ministers" as he calls them, I will give a little account of this 
 business. 
 
 A Bishop named Fidus wrote to Cyprian at Carthage, to 
 know whether children might be baptized before they wer£ 
 eight days old, (it seems his Bible could not determine this 
 question, nor yet Cyprian) ; a council was called, and its deci- 
 sion was this : " That God denies grace to none ; that God 
 would be a respecter of persons if he were to deny to infants 
 what he grants to adults ;" and then to justify this decision, 
 they advance the following reasoning : " Did not the prophet 
 Elijah lie upon a child and put his mouth upon his mouth, and 
 his eyes upon his eyes, and his hands upon his hands I Now, 
 the spiritual sense of all this is, that infants are equal to men ; 
 but if you refuse to baptize them, you destroy the equalit)vand 
 are partial." Here, reader, is conclusive reasoning for vou! 
 Here is the mighty decision of the council of Carthage! How 
 profound the reasoning! Elijah lay upon a child, therefore 
 infants are to be baptized ! Infants are equal to- men, therefore 
 are to be baptized ! God is no respecter of persons, therefore 
 infants are to be baptized ! Wonderful council of Carthage ! 
 Sixty-six Solomons indeed they were ; and no doubt our author, 
 had he then lived, would have vied with any of them ! But one 
 thing is singular : they do not pretend to any apostolic tradition. 
 do not quote the practice of the church — bring forward no 
 command of Christ — no example from the New Testament ; 
 as for them, they at that time never thought of arguing from 
 Abraham's covenant, and were it seems ignorant of infant 
 church membership, and destitute of arguments which modern 
 Poedobaptists so amply supply in the present day. 
 
 But I have not done with this council yet ; for it seems the 
 pious Fidus above mentioned, had his conscience troubled about 
 a matter equally as weighty as the baptizing of a child at eight 
 tiays old, nor could he rest until the council decided on it ; and 
 
221 
 
 now, reader, if you promise me not to laugh immoderately, I 
 will tell you what it is. Poor dear man, he was very delicate, and 
 had no small fear of ceremonial defilement (as a person of his 
 holiness must needs be) ; now as it was the practice to kiss the 
 babe, poor Fidus thought this was an unclean piece of business to 
 kiss the child so soon after it was born ; and, fearing the wrath 
 of heaven if he did not do it, his holy soul could not rest until 
 the council had settled the matter. This council that decided 
 so wonderfully on infant baptism, very gravely debated the 
 point, and after many a display of genius, decided thus : " You 
 are mistaken, Fidus, children in this case are not unclean, for 
 the apostle saith, ' to the pure all things are pure.' No man 
 ought to be shocked at kissing what God condescends to create. 
 Circumcision was a carnal rite, this is spiritual circumcision, 
 and Peter saith we ought not to call any man common or 
 unclean." These famous bishops were as tenacious of the 
 ordinance of baby kissing, as of baby baptizing. It is indeed 
 singular, that while these gentlemen refer to Cyprian and others 
 as authorities" for the subjects of baptism, they wholly reject 
 the mode ; for it is well known that they practised immersion 
 only. 
 
 One remark more will close these strictures ; and that is on 
 what the author says in page 51, " that we have the testimony 
 of Doctor Wall to this effect : ' For the first four hundred years, 
 there appears only one man (Xertullian), that advised the delay 
 of infant baptism in some cases, and one Gregory that did 
 perhaps practise such delay in the case of his children ; but no 
 society so thinking, or so practising, nor any one man saying that 
 it was not lawful to baptize infants. In the next seven hundred 
 years, there is not so much as one man to be found that either 
 speaks for, or practised such delay." Had all this been true, 
 what would it prove, more than that the long reign of the 
 superstitions of popery is a justification of those superstitions ; 
 such reasonings will justify most of the errors of the church of 
 Rome. But it is not true ; for Doctor Wall has allowed that 
 Tertullian did oppose it, on its first introduction in the begin- 
 ning of the third century ; and the same man produces a deci- 
 sion of the council of Carthage, one hundred and eighteen years 
 after Cyprian, where persons are anathematised who deny infant 
 baptism. This was in the year 418, and stands thus : " Also 
 it is our pleasure, that whoever denies that new born infants 
 are to be baptized, let him be anathema." Would that council 
 have given these directions, had it not been opposed ? And the 
 same Doctor Wall admits, that Peter Bruis, and Henri;, his 
 follower, were both Antipoedobaptist preachers, and says, " the\p 
 
 Ff 
 
222 
 
 were the first that ever set up a church, or society of men 
 holding that opinion against infant baptism, and rebaptizing 
 such as had been baptized in infancy ; and that the Lateral! 
 council, under Innocent II. A. D. 1139, did condemn Peter 
 Bruis, and Arnold Brescia." From this it appears, that Doctor 
 Wall has granted all we want ; namely, that the Waldenscs, of 
 which these men were pastors, held this very doctrine ; and it 
 is well known that the Waldenses were inhabitants of the vallies 
 of Piedmont, who firmly and at the peril of their lives, main- 
 tained the truth through all the dark ages of popery. Their 
 confessions prove thev opposed infant baptism. Extracts from 
 their confessions may be seen, with a general account of them, 
 in Doctor Gill's answer to a pamphlet printed in Boston in 1 746. 
 
 I now commit this performance to the blessing of God, being* 
 confident that the purest motives have influenced its publication ; 
 and, whatever be its fate, the author rests satisfied that the cause 
 is God's, and will eventually triumph over all opposition. 
 
 THE END.