K\S9 
 
P 'i?f C iC \l v^ 
 
 A# / v 
 
 \ \ ^ 
 
}». 
 
 Iijl 
 
 (IT a r^< ^c4:< 
 
 &%fel 
 
 -:V%5 
 
 CCC< vf 
 
 
 
 ^;€^;; 
 
 Cc CI 
 
 
 core •<' 
 
 
 ^t:r 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 cr 
 c 
 
 
:M: M 
 
Digitized by tine Internet Arciiive 
 
 in 2011 witii funding from 
 
 Princeton Tiieoiogicai Seminary Library 
 
 m 
 
 littp://www.archive.org/details/pliilaletliesagainOOrand 
 
PHILALETHES 
 
 AGAIN!' 
 
 O R, 
 
 Candidus unmafked! 
 
 Being the Second Part of 
 
 The humble Attempt of a Lawman 
 
 'f O W A R D S 
 
 • A Confutation of Mr, Henry Mayo's 
 Pamphlet on Baptifm. 
 
 Job xxxii, 17, I faid I will anfwer alfo my Part, I alfo 
 will fhew mine Opinion, 
 
 Job xlf 5, Once have Ifpoken ; "but I will not anfwer; 
 yea twice; but I will proceed no fatther, 
 
 ^^ pRov. xxiii, 23, Buy the Truth, 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 Printed. Sold by t. Blyth, in CornhUl ; G. Keith, 
 in Grace-Church-Jireet ; and J. Johnson, in Pater- 
 NoJier'Ro'w, mdcjlxvii. 
 
 [ Price One Shilling. ] 
 
£^^^^y ';^.^^ ^e^^ 
 
 
 A~^0 <^^>^^ ^y^/^ 4/^:^^^^ 
 
 

 JJ/^M, 
 
 T O T H E ' ^t '^ 
 
 Rev. Henry Mayo, M. A. 
 
 S I R, 
 
 AS I am informed that you expeded 
 nothing farther from Philalethesy — 
 (a fuppofition which my long filence hath 
 encouraged) — I write thefe to apologize 
 for the difappointment I have now put 
 upon you. Clofe confinemcit to bufmefs 
 was the reafon of my not writing fooner. 
 I have, however, in the following pages, 
 faid as much as I intend to fay; — not 
 doubting but you likewife will perfift in 
 your prudent refolution, to anfwer every 
 thing I either have written, or can write, 
 with that fJent contempt, which is moft 
 wonderfully becoming in great folks when 
 A 2 they 
 
iv DEDICATION. 
 
 they are oppofed by little ones. I farther 
 flatter myfelf, that the fame heroic mag- 
 nanimity which hath hitherto forced you 
 to overlook my writings^ fliould likewife 
 prevail upon you to overlook my character. 
 Reproach is no argument ; or, at leaft, it 
 is a very fupeifluous one, where reafon 
 can exert her voice. You have more- 
 over read that, the fervant of the Lord 
 J hjonld 7iot Jirive, but be gentle unto all 
 men, apt to teach, and patient. If, there- 
 fore, ycu think it beneath you to reply to 
 what I have written, you fhould think it 
 equally beneath you to concern yourfelf 
 with what I h^wtfaid or done in private:— 
 efpecialiy if you recoiled: (as you ought 
 to do) that we long correfponded together 
 as friends and feilow-chriftians, even after 
 thofe inadvertencies, or whatever elfe you 
 may pleafe to call them, for which (unlefs 
 I am greatly mifinformed) you have lately 
 refledted upon me with fuch unfparing fe- 
 ver ity. As to the motive of my former 
 publication, that was not, as you have 
 priidmtly reprefented it, an old grudge, 
 but a rec;ard to truth and common-fenfe : 
 
 for 
 
DEDICATION. v 
 
 for, you may affure yourfelf, that I had 
 (ccn your pamphlet advertifed feveral 
 months before it fell into my hands ; — • 
 and, after all, I met with it not by pur- 
 chafe but mere accident. If, therefore, 
 I could take the pleafure you would infi- 
 nuate, in mortifying, or endeavouring to 
 mortify my quondam friend, I fhould cer- 
 tainly have purchafed one of your books 
 as foon as publiihed, and, if I thought 
 myfelf capable, have gone to work with 
 it without delay. 
 
 I muft beg leave to inform you farther, 
 that fince my laft, I have {^cn the Lay- 
 preacher, whofe prayer you have fo feverely 
 cenfured in page 36, w^ho affured me, 
 that by the blind Sodomites groping in the 
 darky * &c. he was fo far from meaning 
 fpr inkle d chrijiians, that he intended thofe, 
 -^all thofe, and only thofe, of whatever 
 party or denomination, who are unregene- 
 rate, and flrangers to the grace of God. 
 It furprifed me, that Mr. Mayo fhould be 
 capable of fuch an ungenerous mifrepre- 
 
 fentation ! 
 
 * Deut. xxviii, 29. Job. v, 14. Ifaiah lix, 10. 
 
vi DEDICATION. 
 
 fentatlon ! And more, that inftead of lift* 
 ing up his heart to God, in that facred 
 and awful duty of public prayer, he could 
 employ himfelf in criticizing on the lan- 
 guage of the fpeaker. A fine example 
 from a chrijlian minijier ! It feems, how- 
 ever, at firft you was fomewhat diffident 
 of his meaning. ** Sprinkled chriftians," 
 fay you, in a news-paper, " /ome thought 
 ^* he meant;" but in your pamphlet you 
 appear to be certain of it. O prejudice^ 
 how powerful is your influence ! Never- 
 thelefs the worthy Lay-preacher is ready 
 to forgive you, and to excufe you, on 
 account of the heat of youth, and the 
 warmth of oppofition. He was once a 
 Paedobaptift himfelf, and a ftrenuous one, 
 and flill efteems many of them, and is 
 efleemed by them with whofe acquaintance 
 he is honoured. I muft, however, in- 
 form you, that notwithftanding the bad 
 grammar you have charged him with, he is 
 fcholar enough to admire the grammar of 
 your Rifiwi teneatis Amice, He owns, in- 
 deed, thrt teneatis fhould have been of the 
 fin;z;ular number, to agree with Amice ; 
 
 but 
 
DEDICATION. vii 
 
 but this, he fuppofes, would have fpoiled 
 the metre you intended. 
 
 All I have farther to fay, is to compli- 
 ment you on the many ftrokes of mirth 
 with which you have enlivened the con- 
 troverfy. The difpute hath been fo oftea 
 canvafled, that without thefe it would 
 have been too dull and languid to meet 
 with attention. I have therefore endea- 
 voured to walk in your fteps, and to be 
 your humble imitator. Whether or not 
 I have done it to your mind, and feafoned 
 my ragout in fuch a manner as to pleafe 
 your palate, yourfelf alone muft determine. 
 It may be, after all the pains I have taken 
 to divert you, that you will give me for 
 a motto, — little wit and no manners. But, 
 be this as it will, I fhall ftill honour and 
 efteem you as a brother harlequin* We 
 have both of us mounted the ftage, and 
 done our utmoft, — you to banter the JDoc^ 
 tor, and \ you : and, doubtlefs, the pub- 
 lic is greatly beholden to us for the diver- 
 fion we have given them. As to thofe 
 demure and vinegar-faced chriflians who 
 think it a crime to laugh out-right,—- never 
 
 mind 
 
viii D.E D I C A T I O N. 
 
 mind them. For it would be hard in- 
 deed, — very hard, — if fuch a young, and 
 fuch an ingenious performer as you are, 
 fhould be debarred the privilege of dif- 
 playing his wit to the world, and tafting 
 the fweets of applaufe 3 — and harder, much 
 harder ftill, if a young layrnan^ as I am, 
 fhould be denied the liberty to be as merry 
 as a young divine. 
 
 Philalethes 
 

 Philalethes againl ^c. 
 
 IF any perfon Ihould take offence (and it is 
 poflible that many of my readers may) at 
 the renewal of a controverfy which hath 
 been thoroughly canvafTed, and v/ell nigh drained 
 and exhaufted long ago, — let him coniider, in 
 the firll place, that we have not revived the dif- 
 pute as aggrefors^ but only engaged in it as de- 
 fendants. The honour of founding the alarm, 
 and beginning the contefc afrefn, belongs to 
 Candidus. Philalethes hath only yielded to the 
 fummions, and accepted the challenge which 
 hath been publi.Jy given to any one who fhould 
 have the hardinefs to meafure fwords, and make 
 a trial of his prowefs. If indeed he had pur- 
 pofely attended on Mr. Mayo as a preacher, and 
 carefully watched for an opportunity to attack a 
 paftoral, and an occafional difcourfe as delivered 
 from the pulpit ; — if, moreover, to difplay his 
 wit and his abilities to ail the world, he had 
 commenced the difpute in the public newspapers^ 
 then, it might have been truly faid, that he hath 
 not fcrupled (as far in him lay) to facrifice the 
 peace and the good harmony of his fellow- 
 chriilians to his own youthful ambition, and that 
 he hath only fought to raife a name, and be 
 adored as the fearlefs champion of a party. But, 
 on the contrary, if fuch imputations may be 
 juilly faftened upon Candidus^ where is the harm 
 B of 
 
. [, 2 ] 
 
 of Handing up to detend ourfelves, or of endea- 
 vouring to repel argument by argument, and 
 ridicule by ridicule r 
 
 Let the impartial reader confider, in the next 
 place, that fuch a defence is not only very ex- 
 cuiable, but highly proper. We know, indeed, 
 that the argument hath already been difcuffed 
 in every part of it, by much abler writers than 
 Philalethes. But if we refled, that Mr. Mayo's 
 pamphlet may fall into the hands of many who 
 are not provided with thofe writers •, or, if they 
 are, have neither leifure nor capacity to feledt 
 the proper anfvvers, — the follovv^ing attempt, pro- 
 vided it is executed with judgment, will not be 
 condemned as altogether needlefs and im.per- 
 tinent. 
 
 If it fhould be farther obje6led, that the de- 
 bates and the animofities among chriilians are 
 already fo fierce, that there is occafion rather to 
 quench the fire than to feed it \ — I mull anfwer^ 
 that he is the man who foments divifions, and 
 ads the part of an iiicendiaiy, — '7iGt who ventures 
 to ftand forth and vindicate his principles, when 
 they are openly and feverely ftigmatized, — but 
 he \\'\\o firft begins the difpute, — he who wantonly 
 applies the to/ch, and kindles the fiames of con- 
 tention. It is alfo worthy of remark, that when 
 fuch a perfon hath taught thofe of his own party, 
 who have little knowledge and great zeal, that 
 their opponents have efpoufed fentiments which 
 are fcarcely capable of even a tolerable defence •, 
 the moil; probable and the moft cffedual means 
 to get the better of their contempt, and abate 
 their unchari&ible confidence, is to let them fee 
 that we hav(^ abundantly more to urge in our 
 own behalf than they have been made to believe. 
 If chrlfcians would but take the trouble to read 
 
 both 
 
f 2 .^ 
 
 both fides, and examine ferioufly what the cppo- 
 fite party in a difpute are able to fay for them- 
 felves, they would be more moderate in their 
 cenfares ; — they would no longer defpife their 
 brethren as contending and wrangling for they 
 know not v/hat, and perfiding in opinions which 
 common reafon would bluili to vindicate, but 
 learn for the future to place each other upon a 
 more decent and a more refpeclable footing. 
 Their over-heated zeal would grov/ cooler, their 
 perfonal prejudices would infenfibly die away, 
 and they would foon begin to love and honour 
 thofe 2.% fellow-chrifiians^ whom before they could 
 fcarcely own 2& fellow -men. It is therefore evi- 
 dent that contentions are kindled and fomented, 
 not by thole who defend their fentiments when 
 they are publicly ridiculed and pelted at, but 
 by thofe who, unprovoked, difgrace the princi- 
 ples of their brethren, ana fet them up as a con- 
 venient mark for the fcorn of every ftupid zealot. 
 Whether Mr. Mayo hath aded this mean, 
 tins lov/, this ungenerous part, v/ill befc appear 
 from his own account of the rife of the prefent 
 controversy, in letter "CiV^ firfi. He went, it 
 feems, to the dipping of Mr. Ccrmichael. — 
 Wherefore? — Verily, from an expedation of 
 being mofi highly entertained and profited *. But 
 why fo full of expectation .^ Truly, becaufe a 
 D. D. was to oificiate. — Were his expedations 
 then fully gratified } By no means. On the 
 contrary, fo great was his difappointraenty his 
 furprize, his vexation -f, that he could not pof- 
 fibly put up w:th it^ but, when the fenice was 
 over, immediately determined to leek his re- 
 venge upon the doclor, for his lofs of time, by 
 giving him a gentle adraordtion or tzvo in the pub- 
 E 2 lie 
 
 * Page I. t Ibid. 
 
[ 4 J 
 
 lie papers *. This he accordingly did, and thus 
 laid the foundation of a diipure, from whence 
 he promifeu himfelf the moft extenfive and 
 never-dying fame. vVhat an admirable contri- 
 vance this ! And Vv'hat a marvellous pretty ex- 
 cufe for reviving a ^onteft of which the world is 
 auTiofl weary ! Becaufe the doctor, forfooth, had 
 played his part as a preacher like an errant blun- 
 derbufs, and defended his principles like a 
 dunce, — Ergo^ it was Mr. Mayo's duty to feud 
 home to his fludy, commence author, and an- 
 fwer that in print which himfelf hath pronounced 
 to have been fcarcely worth his hearing. Yea, 
 verily, he was full of /natter^ and the fpirit with- 
 in him conjtrained him. His helly was as wine 
 which hath no vent., and was ready to hiirjl like 
 new bottles. Accordingly write he would^ and 
 write he did., that his foul within him might be 
 refreflied. This, and this alone, produced the 
 quarrel, fuch as it is, and gave rife to all that 
 fnarling and popping., of which our young adven- 
 turer hath fo bitterly complained -f . 
 
 But wherefore iliould he complain ? For know- 
 ing, as he tells us, the doctor's great fondnefs 
 to appear in print, fo that there is hardly an oc- 
 cafional fermon he preaches but what is publifhed 
 at or by requejl J, one would have thought that 
 he might have had a little patience. If he had 
 but waited till the Doctor's preachment had iifued 
 from the prefs, and been fairly publifhed in black 
 and v/hite, he might then have taken the field 
 with a better grace, and perfuaded the world 
 that he hath only afled upon the defenfive. But 
 
 this, alas. 
 
 Dolor's ' 
 ?xnd^ thcr 
 
 , would never do ! It was pofiible the 
 fermon might not have been printed ; 
 [, what had became of the merry fal- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 lies 
 
 
 
 * Page ; 
 
 3. t Ibid. I 
 
 Ibid. 
 
 
f 5 J . 
 
 lies, the witty conceits, and the ingenious ftric- 
 tures which fwelled the teeming fancy of Can- 
 didus ? And what had became of the towering 
 hopes, and lofty views, which filled his labour- 
 ing bread ? fie therefore chofe, like a fenfible 
 youth, to take time by the forelock, and feized 
 the favourable moment to acquire a name, and 
 ftart up a man of confcquence, before it gave 
 him the flip ; for, 
 
 " He who wills not when he may, 
 " When he wills he fhall have nay" 
 Let our author, then, if he has been treated 
 wi'ch greater feverity than he can eafily rclifh, 
 afcribe it wholly to his own impatience. Let 
 him be contented to pay the tax of his over-haily 
 eminence, and take the bitter with the fweet. 
 If, indeed, he had condefcended to have been 
 more delicate, more ingenuous, and more equit- 
 able, in his manner of com.mencing and con- 
 dueling the controverfy, we alfo had been more 
 refpedlful in our reply. If he had began the 
 attack, not upon a fermon as delivered from the 
 pulpit, but on a legible and a printed diicourfe, 
 — if, moreover he had com.bated the Do<itor's 
 arguments without abufing his charadter, and ri- 
 diculed him as an author without reproaching 
 him as a man, — if he had argued without calum.- 
 ny, and reafoned without invective, and been 
 merry without ill-nature, — in fiiort, if he had 
 tempered the earneftnefs of an opponent with 
 the decent gravity of a divine, and qualified his 
 wit, as a writer, with the chearful innocence of 
 a chriiiian, — we might then have been m.ore 
 fparing of our cenfure, and handled him, not as 
 a perfecuting fcribler, but as a fair and a re- 
 fpe6table antagcnift. Let the reader remember 
 this, and I am perfuaded that he will forgive 
 B 3 the 
 
[ 6 ] 
 
 the freedom of our anfwer, and the mirthful 
 langu.;ge in which we have fometimes indulged 
 ourielves. We have only replied to Candidus in 
 his ov/n v,ay, and returned the arrows which 
 were firll diicharged at the poor baptifts from 
 his ovv^n bow. This we think is the more ex- 
 cufable, as it can never prejudice the argument-, 
 for, in the opinion of v/ife men, whatfoever can 
 endure the tefl of reafcn^ will likewife Hand the 
 tefi of ridicule. Even thofe literary connciffeiirs^ 
 thofe worth) li^cors of criticifm *, thofe w-akefui 
 centinels of fchoiafiic fame, and trufiy guardians 
 of truth and reafon, the monthly reviewers^ — 
 even theje^ I fay, have frequently cooled the 
 ambition, and funk the credit of afpiring fcrib- 
 blers, by foufing tliem, not indeed in the muddy 
 mixtures of Fleet- ditch,, but in the pure Cajldian 
 ftreams. I hope, therefore, that what thefe 
 wdts of the age have indulged themfelves in, as 
 jUilifiable, will not be imputed to me as a hei- 
 nous crime ; though there may be as much diffe- 
 ren:e between my wit and their's, as between 
 a .iirty horfepond, and the /iw/>/^ waters of the 
 river Jordan. 
 
 As to any other difputes which may be appre- 
 hended from the bold feverities we have ufed, 
 the reader m.ay make himfeif eafy. For be it 
 known, that Mr. HcKry Mayo hath wifely re- 
 
 folyed 
 
 * A //VToK amoncr tVe ancient Ro77ians was, in fome re- 
 fpe6ls, r/.uch the fame as a Jack Ke:ch is among the En- 
 gl:JI?. N. B. This is only Vifplap by the bye : if people 
 Hand in the way, they muPt take what follows. 
 *' Tlius many an honeft man we've fcen 
 ** LtrudinjT dirty trimmers 'tween, 
 •* To pac'Jy thei: noifc and ftrife, 
 *' Or makin,*^ peace 'tween man and wife, 
 '* MoPc r.l hiiy with mud dcnl'd, 
 *' And clothes en's back uncivilly fpoil'd." 
 
[ 7 J 
 
 folved to treat my Humble Attempt with filent 
 contempt •, becaufe this, he hath written, is the 
 very treatment which it richly delerves in the 
 opinion of fome of the mod eminent Anti-p^do- 
 baptijls, Pbilalethes^ therefore, may now chatter, 
 and frown, and laugh with abfoiute impunity, 
 and the reader perufe his Icribble without pain. 
 I fhall accordingly proceed in my anfwer to the 
 fix letters, and leave the merits of it, as before, 
 to be decided by the impartial public. 
 
 The firft part of the difpuce hach been dif- 
 cufTed. We have enquired, in our former 
 pamphlet, into the mode of baptifm, and exa- 
 mined whether fprhikling ox immerjionis the moil 
 proper, and the moil Icriptural v/ay of adminif- 
 tering it. For as to the pratlice of the Anti- 
 pdedobaptijis in Holland*^ this is nothing to the 
 purpofe ; fince we are not difputing whether 
 they do^ but whether they ought to fprinkle. 
 Neither is the plea from the coldnefs of particu- 
 lar climates, nor from the dilicrent cuiloms and 
 drefTes of particular people 7, a whit more rea- 
 fonable. For, in the firll place, it is well 
 known that immerfion is the eilabliihed practice 
 of the Riijjia?is^ who live in a climate abundantly 
 colder than that of England : — And, in the next 
 place, every plea for an alteration mull be 
 grounded on the very iuppofition we are labour- 
 ing to prove, — namely, that the fcriptural and 
 the apofcolic mode of baptifm was dippings or 
 plunging. Befides, if the feeming, or even the 
 real inconvenience of a reli:3;ious and a divine 
 
 n • • • • - 
 
 inilitution, is a fuiiicicnt plea for altering the 
 mode of it, — the Ifraelites., during their travels 
 in the wildernefs, might have circumcifed either 
 an ear or a finger, infiead of poftpo?iing the ordi- 
 B 4 nance, 
 
 * Page 36. f Page ij. 
 
[ 8 ] 
 
 nance. But they wifely chofe the latter ftep ; 
 becaufe, in fa6l, to change an ordinance, is to 
 corrupt and dejlroy it. The next thing, then, to 
 be confidered is, who are the proper and the 
 fcriptural Jtihje5fs of baptifm. This point fhall 
 be the enquiry of the follov>^ing pages. 
 
 But, before v/e enter upon the controverfy, 
 it will be necefiary to clear away the rubbifli with 
 which our author hath encumbered it. For, 
 like a crafty champion, as he is, he hath laboured 
 hard to prejudice the reader againll his opponent 
 as a veiy monfler of cruelty ; — becaufe he is well 
 apprized, that it is a general, though, doubtlefs, 
 a miftaken praftice, to form our fentiments of 
 any dcclrine or principle, not from the nature of 
 the evidence, but from our opinion of the per- 
 fon who upholds it. Accordingly, in letter the 
 fifth, he begins with affuring us, that the Doc- 
 tor hath treated dl children^ without exception, 
 as unclean'^ ^ not fuffering them to be admitted 
 into the church of G'>d ; ana nut only Ko^ but 
 that he likcwife looks upon the Psdobaptiils in 
 general as unclean^ fmce he v^^ou]d not fit down 
 w^ith one of them at the Lord's table, nor admit 
 him into his church as a niember, were he Mofes^ 
 E'ias^ St. Paul., or an angel from heaven /-f- He 
 hath farther told us, in page the 41ft, that the 
 Dodor hath curtailed the fpiritual prcmifes and 
 privileges which children enjoyed under the Jew- 
 iJJj diipenfation ( all rigorous as it was) and caft 
 th-'-in nut of God's church, and treated them as 
 Scythians afid Larl/arians, Laftly, (fee page tht 
 55th) the Do(5lor would willingly deprive infants 
 of 11 n ordinance which is frequently fan6lified to 
 the fubjecl, and, if they die before years of dif- 
 cretion, rob their parents of the comfort, that 
 
 by 
 
 * Pa-e 38. t Il^i^- 
 
[ 9 J 
 
 by baptifm they had devoted them to God, and 
 that he hath therefore taken them as his heirs to 
 dwell with himfelf for ever, and to poflefs an 
 incorruptible inheritance. 
 
 Thefe charges, it mnft be owned, are as fe- 
 vere as they are invidious ; and, if they were but 
 fairly proved, would be fufficient to rouze the 
 indignation of parents in general, and excite in 
 the bread of every tender mother, and every 
 affectionate father, an utter abhorrence of the 
 man who would thus injure and abufe their infant- 
 offspring. But let us not be raih in pafTmg fen- 
 tence, nor condemn till we have careruUy, tho- 
 roughly, and impartially confidered the iJcJjy 
 and the •u:kerefore. Hard names, injurious re- 
 flections, and reproachful inve6lives, are the 
 common refources of thofe who make it their 
 bufinefs, — -not to enquire after truth, but to pro- 
 mote the intereils of a pa my. Thefe are the 
 fcare-crov/s, the bug-bears, with v/hi.h they 
 terrify and drive the ignorant into what they 
 would, but cannot reafon rhem. But men of fenfe 
 and underftanding will never fuffer themfelves to 
 be thus impofed upon, nor coniefcend to be 
 tampered with like Cxhildren. No, truly, if they 
 are to believe an accufation, they will exped: to 
 be treated like radonal judges, and require a 
 flronger and a more fa'dsfactory proof of what is 
 alledged, than m.ere invedlive and dirty language. 
 To Kich, therefore, would I now addrefs my- 
 felf, — perfuaded, as I am, that they will think 
 it but a reafonable precaution that we fhould 
 clear ourfelves from e^ ery imputation of religious 
 cruelty, before we proceed to a farther vindica- 
 tion, — and perfuaded, moreover, that throwing 
 afide all prejudice and partv-zea), they v/ill 
 weigh my defence in the equitable fcales of rea- 
 fon. 
 
[ JO ] 
 fon, and pay a favourable regard to what I fay, 
 fo far, and no farther than what I fay, Ihall ap- 
 pear to be right. 
 
 In the firft place, then, let us anfwer to the 
 charge,— the invidious charge, — that Dr. Gill 
 hath treated all children as unclean without excep- 
 tion *. Here we iliall enquire upon what proofs 
 our author hath grounded w'hat he fays. For, 
 though he is far iTom being over-burthened with 
 modelly, he neither hath, nor ever will be bold 
 enough to tell the public, that the Do6lor hath 
 any where fpoken of children as unclean in ex- 
 prefs words. If he was once to offer fuch a 
 hint, v>^e might indantiy confound him. , We 
 might defy him, v/Ith all his wrefiing and tortur- 
 ing, xo produce even a fingle paffage, or a Rn- 
 gle exprelTion, from the Doccor's writings to fup- 
 port his calumny. He hath, therefore, endea- 
 voured to impofe upon us another way. He 
 hath laboured to prop up his charge by wrong 
 inferences and falfe deduftions, and very artfully 
 infinuated what he could never have roundly 
 afferted* The Dodior, forfooth, cannot in con- 
 fcience adiriini:ler baptifm. to infants ; — ergo^ he 
 mull look upon all of them as unclean without, 
 exception j that is, he rnuit conlider them as a 
 far more polluted and defpicable let of beings 
 than adult perfons. But how does Candidus 
 know that the Do6lor's reafon for not baptizing 
 children is becaufe he looks upon them as un- 
 clean ? Hath the Doftor himfelf ever told him fo ? 
 On the contrary, the reafons he hath mentioned 
 for his not approving and pra6lifmg infant-bap- 
 tifm are, that there is neither precept nor exam- 
 ple for it in the New Teilament j and that infants 
 have no vifible capacity for the exercife of faith 
 
 and 
 
 * Page 38. 
 
and repentance which are parti.:ularly and ex- 
 prefsly mentioned in the golpel as neceflary qua- 
 liiications for baptifni. How, then, it may well 
 be aflced, hath our author cleared up his point ? 
 Why, the drift of what he urges is plainly this. 
 " Baptifm is an ordinance which admits the f jb- 
 '' je6l into the gofpel-church ; confequendy, if 
 *' the Doftor refufes to baptize children (as he 
 " undoubtedly does) he will not fuiTer them to 
 " be admitted into the church of God." The 
 anfvver, liowever, is very eafy. For nothing 
 can be plainer than that the church, into which 
 baptifm admits the fubjecl, is only the viftble 
 church. But who can be ignorant that the per- 
 fons to be admitted into the ^-jifibk churcK, Ihould 
 either he^ or at leafi appear to be mem^bcrs of 
 the invifMe church ? Otherwife, we might ad- 
 minifter baptifm to jews and infidels, and to 
 wretches of the moft unchriftian charader, both 
 as to principle and practice. If Mr. Mayo Ihould 
 a(k us, by way of reply, whether the Do6lor will 
 affirm that nc infants are members of the inviftble 
 church } I anfwer, he will not. He is fo far 
 from it, that on the contrary, he hath openly 
 declared that the everlafting falvation of thofe 
 who may die in their infancy is a point which 
 he hath never yet difputed. (See the Divine 
 Right of Infant-Eaptifm examined and difproved, 
 p. 70.) But, in return, let me afic Mr. Mayo^ 
 whether he believes that all infants are members 
 of the invifible church ? If they are^ hov/ hap- 
 pens it that fo many of them, as they grow up 
 into manhood, are continually degenerating into 
 mere reprobates and apcftates, not excepting 
 ei'en the children of believers ? But if they are 
 not^ by what probable rule m.ay v/e diftinguifh 
 thofe who really are members, from thofe who 
 
 neither 
 
[ 12 ] 
 neither are^ nor ever v;ill be fo ? Till fuch a 
 rule can be diicovered, we mull: beg leave to 
 retain our principles, or, if Mr. Mayo will have 
 it ^^o^ our uncharitablenels, our obflinacy, our 
 cruelty, and ftill refufe to admit infants as vifible 
 members of the church. In other words, we 
 fhall think it full time enough :o admit a perfon 
 into the vifihle church, when v/e can do it Vv^ith 
 a fafe confcience, and find a nj'tfihle reafon to 
 confider him as a member of the kingdom of 
 heaven; — and all this we may do, without de- 
 fpifing infants as unclean^ or excluding them 
 from the regions of biifs and eternal happinefs. 
 
 But fuch a hearty friend as Mr. Mayo would 
 appear to be to the caufe of helplefs infants, v/e 
 might imagine that he reipedts them ail as fo 
 manv faints incog, or rather angels ', and that he 
 would fooner, much fooner, deprive a lawful 
 heir of his eflate, than exclude them from any 
 of the privileges of the gofpel-church. For if 
 children have a right to one of its ordinances, 
 therefore not to another ? If they have a right 
 to baptifm, wherefore not to the fupper ? — But 
 here our author's charity will difappoint them.. 
 Baptized they may and muft be, but nothing 
 farther ! He hath, however, n^t^ fliffly infifted 
 upon it, that the Doctor mufl certainly look 
 upon the P^dohaptifts as unclean^ becaufe he 
 will not receive them as fellow-communicants. 
 "Why, therefore, may we not return the com- 
 plimicnt, and infill upon it, for the very famiC 
 reafon, that Jn Mr. Mayors opinion all infants 
 muft be unclean. I do not fay that he really 
 harbours fuch an opinion, but only mean that it 
 might be as plaufibly imputed to himfelf as to 
 the Doclor. For he would not fail to look up- 
 on it as a great folly, and great prefumption, if 
 
 we 
 
[ '3] 
 
 wc fhould admit infants to the Lord's tabic. 
 He talks, indeed, of receiving them into the 
 church by baptilm •, but this, alas ! is mere talk, 
 and nothing better. For, notwithitanding their 
 baptilm, ic is matter of fad that many hundreds 
 (and irttleed the greateil part of them) are never 
 luffered to partake of the fupper, and commence 
 a6lual church-members ; 1 will not fay in their 
 infancy, but even afterwards, when they are 
 grown to years of full maturity. No, truly, this 
 is a privilege which is only referved for a few 
 here and there •, — and even thefe muH plead a 
 better right than that of baptifm, or the cove- 
 nant of God with their parents. 1 hey mud 
 give a particular and a critical account of their 
 paft experiences, and make a confefTion of 
 their faith. — Otherwife they will never be duly 
 and truly received into a church, into which 
 thev have been as //, or as it were received, 
 a number of years ago. Let me appeal to 
 Mr. Mayo^ if he hath not many inftances of 
 this fort in his own congregation, — many per- 
 fons, who, as he fays, have been received into 
 his church by baptifm, in their very infancy, 
 when after all they neither ^;v, and perhaps 
 ne'ver will be acknowledged as real members. 
 Verily, good reader, this is dowmrighr trifling, 
 and dealing with children like mere innocents as 
 they are. We are told, indeed, that they are 
 received into the vifible church in real earnefi: ; 
 which, to be fure, hath a very enchanting found 
 with it. But the misfortune is, w^hen ail com.es 
 to all, that this boailed z^i/ible church is, in 
 truth, a fort of vijlble invifibk^ or invifible vifi- 
 ble, which you pleafe •, for not one in a hundred, 
 
 who 
 
who have been received into it in their child- 
 hood, can ever afterwards find the way to it \ 
 and thole who can, have met with full as much 
 diiHculty to be re- admitted^ as if they were mere 
 flrangers, and had never belonged to it. So 
 that, in fhort, notwithftanding the noife and the 
 clamour about their covenanr-rlght, and their 
 covenant-interefl, they are in full as bad a cafe as 
 an unfortunate heir without an ellate, or a Lord 
 without a title. ' 
 
 Let us now proceed to the next charge, — - 
 which is, that the Doctor net only looks upon 
 infants, but on Padobaptifts in general as unclean \ 
 becaufe, truly, he would not fit down with one 
 of them at the Lord's table, nor admit him into 
 his church as a member, ijoere he Mofes^ Elias^ 
 St. Paiily or an angel from heaven /* — But, O 
 thou, the fair picture of benevolence, the bright 
 em.blem of m.oderation, and the perfect model 
 of chrifhian charity, — how doll thou know that 
 the DoiStor looks upon all, who duTer from him, 
 as unclean r Hath he ever told thee ^o ? So far 
 from it, that you yourfelf have honeilly informed 
 us that he hath infimiated^ — that is, that he hath 
 pubHcly declared, — that he hath no fuch opinion 
 of the Pcsdobaptifts, or that he doth not look 
 upon them as unclean I Verily, good reader, we 
 mufl live in cruel times when v/e cannot venture 
 to take the word of a fober m.an for what is, or 
 what is not, his own opinion. It is to be hoped, 
 however, all-fevere as the world is grown, that 
 Mr. Mayo mufl fairlv prove what he has thus 
 charitably infmuated, before the public will con- 
 defcend to believe him. But how will he prove 
 it. Hath not he already told us that perfons are 
 admitted, or initiated into the church by bap- 
 
 tifm ? 
 
 * Page 38. 
 
f 15 ] 
 
 dim ? And does he not believe that baptifm is 
 the only ordinance for that purpofe ? If fo, — all 
 he fays amounts to this, — that the Do6lor is 
 fiich a narrow-fpirlted bigot, that he will by no 
 means admit thofe into his church who are not 
 willing to be admitted, — or that he will not ad- 
 mit them upon any account before he does ad- 
 mat them.. If, indeed, he had told us that the 
 Dodor would refufe to baptize a Paedobapdft, 
 he would have faid fomething. But, at prefent, 
 what he hath faid amounts to nothing. For the 
 Doctor's reafon for not admitting Psdobaptifts 
 to the Lord's table, — is, not becaufe he looks 
 upon them as unclean ^ or defpifes all of them as 
 mere reprobates and infidels, but only becaufe 
 he confiders them as never truly baptized-, — an 
 objedion which would be thought fufHcient to 
 exclude from the fupper by any other party *. 
 Mr, Mayo^ I fLippoie would himfelf beliave as 
 rigidly in a fimilar cafe. Let us only imagine, 
 for inllanoe, that a vvxU-meaning, but whimfical 
 perlbn, Ihould make him a vifit, and requeft 
 the favour to be received into his church, — tel- 
 ling him withal that he muft crave the indul- 
 gence to be excufed from eating of the facra- 
 mental bread, and drinking the wine. " I am 
 " willing, fays the man, to fit down with you 
 '' as a fellow- communicant, and commence a 
 
 " member 
 
 * ^ery. Should a Pa-^an or a Turk be called by divine 
 gr?.ce to embrace the truth, would Mr. Mayo receive either, 
 of them as a fellow-communicant before baptifm ? If not, 
 he v/ould obferve the very' felf-fame conduift towards thefe, 
 which he blames in the Doctor towards y;;r;>;/^/^^ chrijllans: 
 for he well knows that the Dodlor confider:: even believing 
 P^edobaptiih, ViOi^indLcad. n^ unbaptized heathns, (fee p. 2.) 
 but, hov^-ever, as unbapti%eil chrifiians ; — otherwife he mull 
 look M'^on j'prinhMng as valid baptifm, and both approve 
 and difapprove cf it at the fame time. 
 
[i6] 
 
 " member of the chrifdan brotherhood ; but as 
 " the bread and the wine are mere emblems, I 
 " think it fuilicient to behold the one as broken, 
 " and the other as poured forth." — What reply 
 woul.i Mr. Mcyjo return him '^. Would he admit 
 him as a member, — or would he not ? I believe, 
 in this cafe, I may venture to anfvver in the nega- 
 tive. Give me leave, then, to proDofe the quef- 
 tion, whether baptifm is not as m.uch an ordi- 
 nance of the gofpel-church as the Lord's fupper ? 
 And, if it is fo, whether it will not follow that 
 every member Ihould have jufb notions of the 
 one as well as of the other ? Either both of them 
 ihould be properly underflood, and properly 
 adminifcered \ or, on the other hand, they miuft 
 hoth be immaterial, and hcth of little confe- 
 quence \ — and thus to prevent trouble, and 
 open a door as wide as polTible, we may fet up a 
 church without any ordinance at all. 
 
 But v/hat does it fignify, to argue with thofe 
 who are reiblved to carry their point at all adven- 
 tures ; For the bottom of the ilor}^ is this ; — it 
 would be a confiderable fupport to our author's 
 ill-founded caufe, that the Boclor Ihould be 
 deemed a fiubborn and an incorri2:ible bio;ot, 
 and for this reafon, and no other, a ftubborn 
 and an incorrigible bigot he mull be. One 
 would think, however, that thofe men wlio are 
 fo fond of preaching up charity and moderation, 
 upon every trlhing difpute, fliould condeicend to 
 lead the way, and fnew that they themfelves are 
 as meek and gentle as they would perfuade othe}' 
 people to b^. But is this the cafe v/ith Candidus? 
 Yes, truly, poor harmlefs man ! if we are dif- 
 pofed to take his word for it, his w^hole de/tre 
 and refolution is to live and go on unto perfeulhn 
 
 in 
 
[ 17 1 
 
 in that divine grace charity ^', and tc receive arid 
 love his chritlian brethren, as Chrijt haih received 
 and loved him. Accordingly, his angry Iharls 
 and warm invedlives, are nothing more than 
 gentle touches -^-^ — his numerous and very illiberal 
 mifreprefentations of the Do6lor's lermon are 
 candid Jl?'iclirresp, — his unjhnilianinfults on the 
 Doctor's character are only brotherly rebukes^ and 
 evident marks of his kind intentions '^-^ — and his 
 rude attacks and fcurnlous witticifms, of which 
 the public papers themfelves were foon weary, 
 were but gentle adraonitions ||. It is to be hoped, 
 however, that chriilians will think as w^ell as 
 read^ and that our author mud qualify his v/it a 
 little better, and condefcena to addrefs the bap- 
 tifts in fofter and more obliging terms than he 
 hath yet done, before he will he deemed the 
 mighty charitable mian he would fain pafs for ! 
 The Dodlor and his followers, it fhould feem, 
 are mere bigots, and employ ail the cunning 
 craftincfs they are m^fters of to ftagger wavering 
 P<£dobapti{ls *"; — yea, " they v:ould ccmpr.fs fca 
 " and land to make one profelyte to dipping.^ and 
 " glory more in him than in ninety and nine prcfe- 
 *-'• lytes to right eciifnefs and holinefs.^* But, on the 
 other hand, the benevolent leiters of Candidas 
 2re wholly calculated " to promote charity^ and 
 '' love^ and mutual forbearance among thofe "who 
 " differ in an external rile-\.^^ Alas! what a 
 wide, wide difference! But if a m.an's own vvri- 
 tings, which he hath digeltcd and revifed, and 
 put together himfelf, and publifaed as his own, 
 may determine any tiling as to his tem-.. rr, the 
 
 C . vA'itty 
 
 ■« 
 
 * Page 72. fP. 3,!. 23. t P. 4. 1.4. §P.^1. 63, 
 and p. 72. II P. 3, 1. 1 1, 12. ** P. Vide preface to the 
 letters, -j-f Vide preface. 
 
witty Candidus is nor iuch a prodigy of chriftian 
 love and moderation, as he has modefdy pre- 
 tended to be ! He is far, very far from ii ! As 
 fair proofs of v;hat I fay, I might appeal to the 
 many fcorntul and contemptuous ipteches wiih 
 v/hich he hath pelted us, as if all cf us were 
 mere ideots and ignoramufes -,—1 might appeal 
 to the many'reproachtui invectives with Vv^hich 
 he hath belaboured us, as if v/e were indeed 
 the conilant troublcrs oi Ijrael\ — I might ap- 
 peal to the m.any perfonal, and the very invidious 
 refieci.inns, Vvdth wh-ch he harh befpattered the 
 Doctor's chanicler •, — I mighi a; peal, in the 
 lall place, to every ranting, noiiy, tipling-houfe, 
 and every drunken tap-room, for thefe alio have 
 been hlled with the coniroverfy of bapiifm, and 
 o-i^crled, I trow, full merrilv at cur author's 
 fharp -pointed iatire :• — Yes, I mi^ht appeal to 
 them all, and caii them all to witncfs, thac even 
 Mr. MujO C3n give the reins to his im^ atient 
 zeaL and charpe his i^ntagr^nift with as mixh 
 fury and reiblution, as any ico.try bigots or chrif- 
 tier. Fhcirifee 'r;h'At^vcv\ " If proteilants, there- 
 *' fore, can thu:^ treat their brethren, and oive 
 " way to ranJice. and en-vics^ and evil-fpeahjigs^ 
 *' no wonder it the infaliible ■ hurch of RomiC to 
 ^' tiery words adds flakes, to convin e us theirs 
 " is the right way, and the true church, and 
 ^' compel us to come in *." I might add, that 
 fm.al] "Would be the wonder fprovided they fliould 
 ever have the povv^er to do itj to behoLi iome 
 perfons dilplaying their clarity towards the 
 bigotted Bapiiils, by fom.ething harder than hard 
 words. For the times have been (God grant 
 they may never return) when Anchaptum hath 
 bitterly groaned under the oppreiiive cruelty of 
 
 * fage 3. 
 
f ^9 ] ^ 
 
 iis enemies. It the reader is denrous to perufe 
 any inftances of this nature, let him confult Mr. 
 David Rees^^ who will furnifh him with enough to 
 make him abhor, and for ever curie the intem^- 
 perate zeal which hath carried the difputes be- 
 tween feliow-men and fellow chriilians, not only 
 to rough names and angry fpeeches, but to im- 
 prilbnment, — blood, — and flaughter ! Yes, there 
 Hill are, and always have been, too many bigots, 
 too many forward and unthinking bigots, in all 
 parties. Heaven forbid that any of them, in 
 any party, fhould ever have it in their power to 
 fhew us how gentle, and how charitable they 
 really are ! 
 
 But to fay no more about bigotry, which we 
 may certainly objecl againil Mr. Mayo^ wdth as 
 good a grace as he can charge it upon the Bap- 
 tilis, — let us proceed in our propofed defence. — 
 The Dodor, then, it feems, is farther culpable, 
 for depriving infants of an ordinance (that is 
 baptifm) which is frequently y^/Z67//W to the fub- 
 jcuf^ and, confequently, if they leave the world 
 before years of difcretion, robbing their parents 
 of the comfort, that by baptifm tliey had devov^d 
 them to God, and that he hath therefore taken 
 them as his heirs, to polTefs an eternal and an 
 incorruptible inheritance, fee page the 55th. — 
 But let us enquire, in the firil place, wherefore 
 we fhould look upon infant- baptifm as an ordi- 
 nance w^hich is frequently y^;zj7/^^i to the fubjecc? 
 The reafon Mr. Mayo hath offered is, becaufe 
 prayer and thankfgiving will not only fanctify 
 other drjine infthut'icns^ but even the , common 
 bounties of Providence. Now it is eafy to an- 
 Iwer, that, as to the common bounties of Provi- 
 C 2 dence, 
 
 * Vide, His infant-bapnfm no initltution of ChriPr^ 
 p. zo-] — .220, 
 
[ 20 3 
 
 dence, thefe may be lawfully and very innocent- 
 ly trjoyed-, and lb far as they are fo, we may rea- 
 fonabiy pray tor, and expect a blefling to attend 
 them. In the lame manner, if infant-baptifm 
 may be lawfully pra6lifed, — that alfo may be 
 frecjuently lancuhcQ to the fubjedl. But can it 
 be lawfully pracftifed ? Let this be proved, and 
 we fhall readily fubmit to the inference. We 
 are all lenfibie, that in cafes of abufe, we cannot 
 hos e for a bltlllng, even upon the common and 
 the mod ordinary enjoyments of life. Where- 
 fore, then, fhculd Vv'e hope for a blefnng upon 
 a lacred ordmance, when that ordinance is mif- 
 applied and perverted ? — When it is adminifler- 
 ec' to thofe who were never dcvilared as proper 
 fubjects of it by the inftitucor ? Or why fhould 
 we compare jmant-haptilm with other facred an4 
 divide inilituticns, v/hen, in fad, itfeif is only a 
 humcn mftitution ? Perhaps, then our Author 
 would r^ler us to experience. In this cafe his 
 argifment wdl be, tliat many baptized infants, 
 when grown to manhood, have proved to be 
 godly and very v/orthy chriflians ; — ergo., bap- 
 tiim to them was a fanEiified ordinance. But is 
 this the ale with all baptized infants ? I vvilli I 
 could believL^ in the judgment of charity, that 
 it were the cafe with one half, or even with a 
 quarter of them : — I could wifh it for the fake 
 of the perfons {o baptiz'-^d, and I could wifh it 
 for the fa<ce of their pious and worthy parents, 
 who, ir is to be feared, have many of them had 
 the mcfl: melanch lly, and the moft affliiiiing 
 proofs, ihat baptized infants may become very 
 indifferent chriilians, and very unfit for church- 
 communion. What fiidll we fay, then } Shall 
 we attribute the faiih and the chriftian piety of 
 a few, to the virtue of their baptiim, as fancti- 
 
 fiedi 
 
[ 21 ] 
 
 lied by the prayers of their parents ? If fo, why 
 fhould not all, who receive bapiiiin unuer the 
 fame advantages, receive the ordinance with 
 equal benefit ? Verily, /V is neither of him that 
 willeth^ nor of him that runneth^ but of God 'who 
 fjjeweth mercy^— who fheweth mercy not in con- 
 fequence of a man's baptifm in his infancy, but 
 of the covenant with the glorious head and re« 
 prefentative of the invifible church. 
 
 As to the comfort which intant-baptifm may 
 adminifter to parents under the lofs of their 
 children, they are highly welc ;me to enjoy it. 
 I am not defirous to aggra-- ate their forrovvs, 
 and deprive them of the only confolation which 
 religious prejudice hath Icfc them. No ; let 
 them rather footh their inwara grief, and allay 
 the throbbing anguilli of their minds, as well as 
 they are able. — But when lorrow gives v/ay to 
 reflection, and the temped of difappoinied fond- 
 nefs begins to abate ; — when the dawn of thought 
 fucceeds the night of afiliction, and reafon, iike 
 the riling fun, hath difpeiPd the gloom of dif- 
 trefs, — tnen forgive me if I venture lo expoitulatc. 
 Forgive me it I afk the queition, — ^^ herefore 
 the friends and the advo.ates of mfant-baptifm 
 fhould have more favourable hopes of dieir once- 
 beloved, but now departed offspring than their 
 Baptiil brethren ? Will baptifm fave the children 
 of the one ? Or will the want of it deltroy the 
 children of the others ? — iNo, truly ; but t'^.ofe 
 who have bapdzed their children, have devoted 
 them to God. What ! have they prayed for 
 them .? Have they recommended them to the 
 divine favour, v;ith all the earneftnefs which 
 parental fondnefs can inlpire .^ So have 'we. God 
 forbid we Ihould do otherwife ! — " Aye, but 
 " chriilian bapdfm gives admijjlon into the chrif- 
 C ^ *' tian 
 
t 22 ] 
 
 " tian church. It is the leal of the cavenant.- 
 " and the leal of all Ipiritual and and eternal 
 '' blefiings." But was it defigned to admit in- 
 fants into the church ? Into a religious fociety 
 which they cannot join with in one fmgle a6l of 
 v/orfhip ? Or is it matter of fa6l, that it feals to 
 the fubjects the blefiings of grace and falvation ? 
 Experience^ alas, has teftified to the contrary^ 
 in a hundred and a hundred thoufand inilances ! 
 Nor is baptifm ever menricned as the feal of the 
 co^'Cnant, — of any covenant whatfoever. Let 
 parents then build their hopes and their comfort, 
 not upon a ceremony of hum.an invention, (luch 
 as infant-baptilm) but upon the goodnefs of Al- 
 mii2;hty God, — that God v/ho extends his care to 
 the very beads of the forcfl, and regards the 
 happinefs of every contemptible fparrow, and of 
 a fliU mxre defpicable infed: , how much ra- 
 ther, then, will he blefs the offspring, the dy- 
 inp;, harm.lefs offspring of thofe w^ho fear him, — - 
 thoie v/ho have called upon his name, and em- 
 braced th^ faith of his well-beloved and his only 
 begotten fon ! For my part, be it far, very far 
 from me, to condemn the infants even of the 
 vilefl of men. Let me leave them to the great 
 Fad^icr of micrcies, who can, and oii^VLdoes^ dii- 
 play his goodnefs upon their adult poilerity (how 
 much more, then, upon their departing helplefs 
 babes ?j though he juflly Vvithholds it from the 
 wicked and unbelieving parents. Wherefore, 
 then, fhould faithful chriilians diltrufl his mer- 
 cy, and fly for comfort to a pra6lice which he 
 hath never inflituted ? Let us rather truft him 
 in his own way, — and recommend our children 
 to his fatherly ]fity and comipalTiOn, not by me- 
 thods which he hath no v/licre required, but by 
 
 thofe 
 
[ 23 J 
 
 thofe fervent and imp^rtuna.e prayers which are 
 feidom knosvn to pab unnoticed and unrewarded! 
 
 Having thus endcavjured to rernjve the pre- 
 judices which have been railed agalnlt the oppo- 
 lers of infant-baptifin, and proved that we nei- 
 ther look upon children as unclean^ nor defpife 
 our Paeaobaptitt brethren as unbaptized heathens, 
 nor deprive parents of any reafonable ground of 
 comforc under the lofs of their offspring, — let us 
 now proceed to the controverly. 
 
 We are to encjuire, thtn, who ar-e the prcpcr 
 and the [crip tural [uhje Lis of chriltian baptifm. — • 
 Thele are defined by the Doctor to be " repent- 
 " ing finners^ believers in Chrift^ difcipks of 
 " Chrift-, and receivers of the fpirit of God;''' — a 
 definition which fcenis, in our author's opinion, 
 to be very impertinent, very unfair, and very 
 erroneous. He thinks it impertinent, becaufe 
 no m.an -an have the fpirit of Goo and of Chriff, 
 ■ and not be all the reil*, — that is repenting fin- 
 ners, believers in Chrift, and dif.iples ot Chrifr. 
 It will therefore follow, that the laft, or, if he 
 pleafes, the two laft exprelTions, are fyn'mymous 
 to, and include the two former. I dare l:;y, 
 that in this the Doctor v/iil readily agree with 
 him. Where, then, is the candor, or the good 
 fenfe, in reprefenting thole to be intended as 
 diftinci ideas, which, in faft, were only meant 
 zsfmiilar ones .^ at this rate, we might turn the 
 beft and the ableft writers v/e have into mere 
 triflers, and difgracc them with diilinclions 
 which they never intended or tliought of— -But 
 v/hat is the inference from the fourfold diftinc- 
 tion which our author hath fathered upon the 
 Doctor ? That his drift was to receive all the 
 pyofejh^g zvorld into the church except (he cer- 
 
 C4 
 
 <^ ■ tainly 
 
L 24 J 
 
 tainly mean:,, and exclude) harmlefs infants ^\ 
 for though the latter jv.ay be receivers of the fprit 
 of God^ they can' never prcfefs repentance or 
 faith in Chrift. Now one n::ight huagine, from 
 hence, that Mr. Mayo had unwarily forgotten 
 himlelf •,— for if, as he fays, (and as we^d^y too) 
 there is no difference between receiving the fpirit 
 of God, and receiving faith and repentance, it 
 muil certainly follow, that it is as pofTible to 
 profefs the one as the other : becaufe, in fa6l, 
 the profeffion will be the fame in both cafes. So 
 that infants will be as much excluded by one 
 exprefiion as by the other ^ for if profelTing to 
 have received the fpirit, or profeffing faith and 
 repentance are required in baptifm, (which is 
 manifeftly the Dodor's meaning) none fhould 
 be baptized but thofe who can m.ake fuch a pro- 
 feffion, and confequently not infants. 
 
 Thus, then, it appears that the Do6lor's de- 
 finition is neither impertinent nor unfair. Let us 
 next enquire into the truth of it. Go, then, 
 fays Mr. Mayo^ and tell your champion, that 
 he hath a fcripture precedent for baptizing an 
 aduU perfon an unbeliever -V. He means Simo?i 
 Magus. Nay, fays he, if the Doctor was never 
 to baptize any perfon till it was clear and evi- 
 dent that he hath received the grace of God, 
 v/as he to live to Methufelah's years he would 
 never baptize another. But let us have a little 
 patience, and fairly underftand each other's 
 meaning, before v/e proceed to draw conclufions. 
 
 What 
 
 * Page 38. ^ery. Is it good fenfe to fpeak of infants 
 as excepted out of the prcfeliing world ? If not, the witty 
 Cdndidiis hath bnf finali occalion to triamph over the poor 
 lay-preachers for their breach of grammar, — a crime which 
 is far more excuiabie th^n abiblutc nonfcnfe. 
 
 t I'age ^%. 
 
[ 25 ] 
 
 What the Do(5lor hath maintained is, — not that 
 every man who is baprized is really a repenting 
 finner, and a believer in Chrill, out only that 
 he ought to be lb •, — and, confequently, that we 
 ought to baptize none whom we cannot receive 
 as liich in the judgment of chriHian charity. It 
 will therefore be eafy to account for the baptifm 
 of Simon Magus, and uo vindicate the pradice 
 on fuch modern profe lib rs as may afterwards 
 have been found to refemble him in his vile 
 hypocrify. Both the one and the others were 
 baptized on their verbal profeJio7i : — why ? Be- 
 caufe their profelTion was then luppofed to be 
 fincere. For neither Philips nor Dr. G///, had 
 fuch a fpirit of diicernment as to be able to 
 judge of the fincerity of a man*s profefTion, any 
 otherwife than by rational appearances, which, 
 it is to be hoped, though they fometimes mayy 
 and often have deceived us, will not be found to 
 have done fo in all cafes. Our author, indeed, 
 hath infmuated, that a defire to be overwhelmed 
 in water is the clear efi proof in the worlds with 
 fcrne^ of a pcrfon's meetnefs for the church and 
 table of Chriji^. When abufive raillery fhali 
 pafs for argument, this reflexion may claim a 
 ferious anfwer •, but till then v/e iliail leave the 
 candid Mr. Mayo to enjoy the credit of it. As 
 to what he hath farther urged, — that miniilers 
 have a greater encouragement, and ftronger 
 foundadon, to baptize the infants of believing 
 parents, than to baptize any on their own bare 
 proklTion, who m.ay deceive and impofe upon 
 them t, — it is fuflicient to afl-c him, v/hether the 
 parents themfelves are not coniidered as believers, 
 on their own bare profeflion, as much as the 
 adult baptized, and may not therefore deceive 
 
 and 
 • Page 39. t Ibid. 
 
[ 26 j 
 
 and impofe upon us with equal eafe P If they 
 may, his obfervation is nothing to the purpofe ; 
 becaulc the encouragement or foundation he 
 fpeaivs of, will be as weak and uncertain, and 
 indeed much more fo, than what we have for 
 adult baptifm ; fince it is far more rational to 
 baptize a perfon into the faith which himfelf pro- 
 fefles, than ' upon the verbal faith of anothet 
 man. 
 
 Our author's next refource is to the covenant 
 made with Ahrahamr. He hath, indeed, moil 
 leverely rebuked the Dodor for cenfuring his 
 opponents, as if they were w^ak enough to fetch 
 a proof of the baptifm of infants from the 1 7th 
 of Genefis. This, he hath told us, is a wilful 
 mtfrep-efentatiGn. He ought, however, as an 
 academic and a mafter cf arts^ to have recolle6i:ed 
 that there are two kinds of proof, direEl and in- 
 dire^l •,—- and that the latter may as properly bd 
 called a proof as the former ; becaufe, in fadi, 
 it is always intended as fuch by thofe v/h.o em- 
 ploy it. If, therefore, the covenant with Abra- 
 ham is conllantly and warmly urged by all the 
 advocates of infant-baptifm, it mull certainly h6 
 confidered as a proof either dire5f or indirecl., or 
 other wife be wholly foreign to the purpofe. In 
 other words,— if Mr. Mayo is aihamed to call it 
 a proof, why hath he mentioned it 1 — And if lie 
 is not, vv^herefore hath he cenfured the Doctor 
 for reprefenting it to be commonly urged as 
 fuch ? But, leaving our author to explain him- 
 felf as well as he can, let us proceed to the 
 argument. 
 
 The proper quefiions, then, which will ariie 
 frorti the covenant with Abraham., as it relates 
 to the controverfy, are fach as thefe \ viz. 
 
 " Doth 
 * Page i'9,— 42. 
 
[ 27 ] 
 
 " Doth it afford a proof that all the children 
 ^' of believers have an intereil in the covenant 
 " of grace?" 
 
 '' Was circumcifion, as a token of the cove- 
 '' nant, adniiniflered to diftinguiili thofe who 
 " were interefted in it from thofe who were not, 
 '' or was it iniHtuted for forrie other purpofe ?" 
 
 " Is the relation of infants to the vifibie 
 *' church under the law^ a fufficient proof that 
 " they fhould alio be admitted into the vifible 
 " church under the gofpel r" 
 
 As to the firfl of thefe queilions, one would 
 imagine that an anfwer to it would be needlefs. 
 For if the covenant of grace is a fure and an 
 everlafting covenant, and all the children of 
 believers are included in it, it will certainly fol- 
 low, that they muil all be eventually faved^ — a 
 notion which the moil charitable man alive will 
 never indulge •, becaufe m.any hundreds of them, 
 when grov;n to years of difcretion, have, by their 
 conduct, given us very fufiicient reafon to fear 
 the contrary. But let us hear Mr. Mayo, His 
 argument, then, amounts to thiSj-^The cove- 
 nant with Abraham was in part, if not chiefly, 
 the fame as the rovenai:t of grace ; if, therefore, 
 it was m^ade witii his feed as well as with himfeif, 
 it v/ill follow, that tlie covenant of grace includes 
 the children as well as the parent. — That the 
 covenant v;ith Abraham was in part the covenant 
 of grace, and that the bhifings it prx)nounced 
 were fpiritual and eternal, our author hath in- 
 ferred from what St. Faal hath faid of it in Rom. 
 4th. and Gal. 3d. But let us reafon without 
 prejudice. If we are to take the apollle's v/ord 
 for the nature of the covenant, fnould we not 
 alfo tike his word for the perfons concerned in it. 
 " ylhrahan^ favs he, ^j^as the father of all them 
 
 "•' that 
 
[ 28 J 
 
 " that helievs^ though they be not circmncifedi 
 ^^ and the father of circumci/ion^ to them who are 
 '' not of the circumcif.on only^ hut who walk in 
 ^^ the fieps of that faith which he had being yet 
 *' uncircumcifed." S&e Rom. iv^ ii, 12. Again, 
 *' If we be Chrifl'sy (that is, if by our faith we 
 appear to be united to him as our fpiritual head) 
 '*' then are we Abraham'' s feed, and^ his heirs ac- 
 " cording to the promijc.'" See Gal. iii, 29"^. 
 Other pafiages might have been quoted to the 
 fame purpofe : but it is as plain from hence as 
 the plaineft v/ords can make it, that th^ feed who 
 were interefled in the covenant as a fpiritual co- 
 venant were not the natural feed of Abraham, 
 merely as fuch, but only his fpiritual feed •, — that 
 is, only thofe v/ho imitated his faith. But if not 
 his natural feed, wiierefore the natural feed of 
 any other believer ? Are the children of profef- 
 fmg chriftians a whit more holy than the off- 
 fpring of this illuftrious father of the faithful ? 
 Or was the covenant made not only with the 
 fpiritual feed themfelves, but with their very chil- 
 dren alfo ? If not, it will certainly follow, that 
 the infants of believers, merely as fuch, have 
 RO greater right to the blefTings of the covenant 
 than other infants : becaufe the right is not of 
 nature, or derived from natural birth, but mere- 
 ly of grace. — But what ! the reader, perhaps, 
 will aflc me, had Abraham's natural feed no con- 
 cern in the covenant ? If they had not, for what 
 reafon were they all to be circumcifed ? This 
 leads me to the fecond queilion ^ namely, 
 
 " Whether 
 
 * Let the reader turn back to the 27th verfe, and then 
 determine whether th.e fpiritual feed are not the only proper 
 and fcriptural fubjedls cfbaptiim. " As many of you as 
 ** have been baptized into Chrill:, have put on Chriji.^* 
 Query, is this applicable to infants ? 
 
[ 29 ] 
 
 " Whether circumcifion, as the token of the 
 •' covenant, was only adminiftered to diflinguifh 
 " thole who were interefted in it from thofe who 
 *' were not, or whether it was infticuted for 
 " fome other purpofe r" 
 
 Now the anfwer to this will depend upon the 
 light in which the covenant itfelf is confidered. 
 For if the covenant was si temporal co\tn^ntj and 
 promifed the pofieflion of the land of Canaan in 
 a literal fenfe, thus far it was mofl certainly 
 fulfilled to the natural feed ; and accordingly 
 their intereft in the promife, and their piiUic re- 
 lation to the Almighty as the God of IJraeU or 
 as the immediate governor and protedor of the 
 Hebre'uj people, was the foundation of their cir- 
 cumcifion. But here of what concern is either 
 the covenant, or its token, toprofelTing chriflians r 
 Unlefs, indeed, we mav argue from a temporal 
 covenant to a fpmtual one, — and fay, that if 
 Abraham/s natural pofterity were entitled to tem- 
 poral bleflings, it v/ill follow, that the children 
 of chriftians mufl have a right lo faving and eter- 
 nal bleflings. This, however, v/ill not be ad- 
 mitted as fair reaibning. — But, on the other 
 hand, if the covenant was originally a fp'ritual 
 one, and only an exhibition or tranfcript of the 
 covenant of grace, — or, at leail, fo far as it was 
 fo, the cafe will be altered. For if it is allowed 
 (and it certainly mud be allowed) that many 
 hundreds and m.any thoufands, and, it may be, 
 the greatell number of thofe vho were circum- 
 cifed, had no intereft in eternal bleflings, — if, 
 moreover, miany of Abraham's believing contem- 
 poraries (luch as Lot^ Melchifedec^ i£c.) though 
 doubtlefs in the covenant of grace, were never 
 circumxcifed, — it will follow, either that the or- 
 dinance was m.ifapplied, or that it v;as never in- 
 tended 
 
[ 3° ] . 
 
 tended to fpecify the diftinclion we are fpeaking 
 of. The token, therefore, in this light, muit 
 have been inftituted for fome other purpofe, — 
 z'iz. to diftinguifh thofe who were to be the 
 fubjeds of a mere external or ceremonial difpen- 
 fation, by which the blefiings of the covenant 
 were to be condantly typified and figured out 
 till the coming of the MelTias. Accordingly, 
 circumcifion was adminiftered to infants ; — and 
 adminiftered to infants to confirm them as vifihle 
 members of the vifMe church of God. — But if in- 
 fants were members of the vifihle church under 
 the Je-ivifJo difpenfadon, and, as fuch, had the 
 vifiblefign or token of the covenant, wherefore 
 ihould they be debarred from a limilar privilege 
 under the chrifiian diipenfation ? In aniwer to 
 this, let us enquire, as v/as propofed, in the 
 third and laft place, 
 
 " Whether the relation of infants to the vifible 
 " church under the law^ is a proof that they 
 *' fhculd alfo be admitted into the vifible cl^urch 
 *' under iht gofpel ?'' 
 
 Here I mull anfwer in the negative. I know, in- 
 deed, that the popular opinion is againil me. But 
 as the voice of the mukitude is not in all cafes 
 on the fide of truth, let us examine whether this 
 pcptilar opinion is not, in facl, a popular wiftake. 
 Give me leave, then, to propofe the queRion, — - 
 Was the jewifh church on rhe fame footing with 
 the chrifiian church ? The reaocr will doubtlefs 
 anfwer, that the fame God was wcrfhipped in both, 
 and that religious truth was the fame in one as 
 the other, though in the latter it was revealed to 
 miuch greater ad\ antage. But the queilion v/ill 
 Hill recur, is the chrifiian church a national 
 church ? Now, when I fpeak of a national 
 church, it is evident, in the cafe before us, that 
 
 \ 
 
I muft mean a church which is confined, as that 
 of zh^: Jv^ws was, to One parcicuiar nation ♦, and 
 fo inodellcd and conftituted, that all the mem- 
 bers of the nation fnould alfo be members of the 
 church ', — that is, children with their -parents^ 
 fcrvants with their majlerSy and unbelievers as 
 well as believers. That this was the plan of the 
 jewifh.'Chiii-ch is notorious : for all, without ex- 
 ception, who belonged to the nation, whether 
 as proper natives, or as naturalized foreigners, 
 were confidered as miembers of the church., that 
 is of the vifihle church. But is this the cafe with 
 the chriftian church ? If it h., to v/hat happy 
 nation ha:h the Almighty confined the feat of it ? 
 And if it is not, what will become of the church- 
 memberdiip of infants ? Should it be faid that 
 the faith of their parents is a fufiicient plea for 
 them, — that plea niuil be grounded, either on 
 fome exprefs authority from the New Teftamx-nt, 
 or on their covenant-intereft. But their cove- 
 nant-interefl hath been already difproved, and 
 as for exprefs authorities, I knuw of none. — Be- 
 fides, the faith of the parent was not the circum- 
 fiance which entitled even xh^ jewijh children to 
 be received as members of the church •, for they 
 were always confidered as fuch, whether their 
 parents were believers or not ^ — otherwife, the 
 greateft pai-t of them would nev^er have been 
 circum.cifed at all. It is therefore evident, that 
 the grounds of their relation to the church, were 
 the mere circumftances of their birth, or their 
 being horn into the jewiih nation. But if infants 
 were members of the church under the la-zv^ 
 only becaufe that church was a national ont., and 
 national by divine appointment^ — this is no proof 
 that they fnould be admitted into another church 
 y/hich is not national. For, in the former cafe, 
 
 fuch 
 
[ 32 ] 
 fuch admittance was a mere privilege of birth ; 
 but, in the latter, it mufl: depend iblely upon 
 the character of the perfons to be admitted. To 
 make the cafe, if poffible, flill plainer, let us 
 fuppofe an adult p erf on ^ and not an infant, to be 
 a candidate for chriftian baptifm. To afcertain 
 his right to it, he will tell us, perhaps, that he 
 was born of believing parents. But fiiall we en-^ 
 quire no farther ? we fhould doubtlefs afk him, 
 whether he himfelf could profefs his faith in 
 Chrifl, as his parents had done before him .? If 
 he could not, we fhould rejecft him as an impro- 
 per perfon to be baptized. On the other hand, 
 let us fuppofe a Jew, who had never been cir- 
 cumxifed. Should he propofe himfelf to Jews 
 for that purpofe, he would probably be required 
 to prove his right to it. How would he do this ? • 
 Why, perhaps he would produce witnefs that 
 he was born a Jew, both by father and miOther : 
 and if his witnefs was valid, the enquiry could 
 proceed no farther. He is a genuine fon of 
 Ifrael^ and a defcendant of Abraham^ and, there- 
 fore, whether a faint or a fmner, he would be 
 circumcifed without delay. From this compa- 
 rifon it mufl appear, as plain as it well can be, 
 that 'the ground of jewilli church-memberlhip 
 was very different from that of admilTion into 
 the church of Chrifl, — and, copfequently, that 
 the right of infants to the former, can be no 
 proof of their right to the latter. The right in 
 one cafe was purely civile and in the other it 
 mufl be purely fpiritual. 
 
 If any thing farther remains to be noticed up- 
 on this head, it is the very artful and the very 
 popular fuggeflion, that by oppofing the church- 
 memberfhip of young children, — of mere infants, 
 r=-we have made the privileges of the gofpel to 
 
[33] 
 
 be lefs than thofe under the law*. For under 
 the law they were always confidered as members. 
 But, in the firft place, gentle reader, had not 
 the jewijh infants a right to eat of the pajfover ? 
 And is it not pretended, to make up the pair, 
 that this was fucceeded by the facrament of the 
 Lord's fupper ? Wherefore, then, are not chrif- 
 tian infants admitted to the table ? Verily, here 
 is one privilege gone •, and a very confiderable 
 privilege it is ! — Again, was church-memberfhip 
 confined to the infants of believing^ pious ^ and 
 religious Jews ? If it was not, wherefore fnould it 
 be confined to the infants of believing and reli- 
 gious chrillians ? Here, then, is another privilege 
 gone. Mofes^ therefore, was not fo rigid as 
 Mr. Mayo is •, — or, at ieail, not fo rigid as Mr. 
 Mayo pretends to be in his ivritings. — But, to 
 come to the point, how have we leiTcned the pri- 
 vileges of the law, by debarring infants from the 
 vifMc church of Chrifl: ? Did circumcifion fave 
 the jewiJJj infants ? Or v/ill baptifm fave any 
 chriftian infant ? If not, what inhumanity are we 
 guiltv of, that WT fnould be reproached as treat- 
 ing children like mere Scythians and Earbarians?-\ 
 We all know that under the law no uncircumcifed 
 Jew would be fuffered to join in religious wor- 
 ship, nor to enjoy the benefit of public ordinances. 
 But is this the cafe with unbaptized infants ? 
 On the contrary, they are at full liberty to attend 
 the minillry of the word as foon as they are ca- 
 pable, and to join in worfhip both public and 
 private, and reap the benefit of a much clearer, 
 and a far more perfect revelation than ever the 
 Jews had. So that, in facu, they are poirefTed 
 of much greater advantages, even without bap- 
 D tifm, 
 
 * P^ge 42. t Page 41, 
 
r 34 ] 
 
 tifm, than clrcumcifion conferred on the Ifraelites. 
 But is this a diminution^ or is it not rather a 
 manifeft increafe of privilege ? Aye, fays preju- 
 dice, but the jewifh infants were members of a 
 church. True, they were fo •,— --but of what 
 church ? Why, merely of a national church; — a 
 church which hath been long aboHfned and fuper- 
 feded by a far more glorious church ; but at the 
 fame time by a church which is not national^ and 
 therefore cannot, in the nature of the thing, be 
 fuppoled to admit of the memberfhip of infants. 
 Again, — the jewifh infants when circumcifed 
 were confirmed as real members of the church, 
 and continued fo ever afterwards; which is far, 
 very far from being the cafe with baptized in- 
 fants in the chriftian church. So that, in effedi:, 
 here is a third privilege gone ! But, as we have 
 already obferved, the children of the Jews were 
 only members of a national church, — a church 
 which was encumbered with many fevere and 
 troublefome ceremonies, and with many rigorous 
 though neceifary inflitutions. Accordingly, the 
 apoftle hath confidered circumcifion as a yoke, 
 an intolerable yoke, and eileems it a privilege 
 that the gofpei hath removed it. Wherefore 
 then (hould we be defirous to return again to the 
 former yoke of bondage ? — Or to borrow a facred 
 and a chriftian ordinance from a troublefome 
 rite, which, with the whole difpenfation it was 
 intended to fupport, hath been totally and for 
 ever aboliihed ? Tell it not in Gath^ publifh it 
 not to the Jews, left the circumcifed fhould 
 triumph, and be more abundantly hardened in 
 their prejudices againft the gofpcl of Chrift, as 
 indebted to a fevere, a painful, and a very bur- 
 den fome 
 
[35 3 
 
 denfome ceremony of the law for one of its moft 
 fblemn inftitutions !* 
 
 But this reminds me of another argument al- 
 ledged againft us, — an argument which hes fnug 
 in a little note at the bottom of the page, like a 
 watchful enemy in ambufcade. Mr. Mayo^ 
 truly, hath infinuated that the believing Jews, in 
 Adls xxi, 20, 2 1, mufl have thought their 
 children to have been entitled to enter with them 
 into the church of God, and that they were pro- 
 per fabjefls of it, elfe they would not have dif- 
 puted about their circumcificn. But in this he hath 
 made more hafte than good fpeed, and, like an 
 errant Marplot^ helped us to an argument which 
 might otherwife have efcaped our notice. For, 
 in the name of common reafon, wherefore fhould 
 thefe tender and affedionate parents have been 
 fo mighty folicitous to fecur-e to their children 
 the ittitlatmg ordinance of circumcifion, if bap- 
 tifm came in the room of it ; or if it had been 
 the practice of the apoftles to initiate children 
 into the church by any other ordinance ? Would 
 not one ordinance have been fufficient ? Or would 
 they have their children initiated twice over ? 
 Yes, truly, they were determined to make fure 
 work of it, and to have their children admitted 
 into the church, both according to the 7ie\jO way 
 and the old way, left haply the former ihould 
 prove ineffedual. What careful parents were 
 thefe ! Verily, friend Mayo^ if thou art not an 
 Antipsdobaptifl: incog, yet give me leave to 
 lay, that you could never have chofen and ap- 
 D 2 plied 
 
 * *' Thus did the Tons Oi^ Abraham pafs, 
 *' Under the bloody feal of grace; 
 " The young difciples bore the yoke, 
 " Till Chrift the painful bondage broke.'* 
 
 Watts., book ii, hymn 127. 
 
[ 36 1 
 
 plied a better argument, not to fupport, but to 
 undermine and overthrow the cauie for which 
 you have fo manfully contended ! 
 
 But to proceed, our author hath farther in- 
 formed us, that every covenant God made with 
 men included children •, fuch as the covenant 
 made with Adam^ that with Noah^ that with 
 Abraham^ that with Mofes and the Ifraelites^ that 
 with the tribe of Levi^ &c. — As to the cove- 
 nant with Adam^ " it is moft evident that it in- 
 " eluded his children, and that they were in- 
 " terefled in it -, elfe how came ficknefs and 
 " death on his offspring, even upon them who 
 " fin not a6lually as he had done ? Rom. v, 12, 
 " 14." — Hov/, indeed ! But what is the infer- 
 ence of the apoftle ? Hath he concluded that all 
 the children of all believers are in the covenant 
 of grace ? No fuch thing. He hath only infer- 
 red that as the guilt of Adam was entailed upon 
 all his pollerlty, fo the righteoufnefs of Chrift 
 may be Imputed to all who believe. Beiides, 
 Mr. Mayo's argument will prove too much. 
 For it it is allowed, as I fuppole it will, that 
 Adam was himfelf a believer, it will fellow, ac- 
 cording to this way of reafoning, that all his 
 children v/ere in the covenant of grace, and their 
 children after them ; and fo on, from generation 
 to generation, till at lad we llrall include the 
 whole world ! — As to the covenant with Noah^ 
 this was not offpiritual but only of temporal con- 
 cern, as is fuificientiy evident from the places 
 referred to; for the covenant was made, not 
 only with Noah and hisy^^^ after hir/i^ but with 
 every living creature that was with him^ of the 
 fowl^ of the cattle^ and of every htojl of the earth. 
 See Gen. ix, 10. It is likewife plain, as we 
 
 have 
 
. I 27] 
 have already proved, that the covenant with 
 Abraham^ fo far as his natural pollen ty were 
 engaged in it, was purely crjil\ and, conie- 
 quently, the covenant Vvuth the Ilraelites was the 
 fame. But as to the co^-enant with the tribe of 
 Levi^ I mufl frankly acknowledge, that I am at 
 a lofs where to find it \ for in Numb, iii, the 
 chapter quoted by Mr. Mayo^ there is no men- 
 tion of a covenant. On the contrary, whau is 
 there recorded is not a covenant, but only an 
 appointment or command. It is true, inaeed, 
 that in temporal and national concerns, children 
 were ever efteemed in their mir.ority as one 'xitb 
 their' parents'^', but that the cafe is the fame in 
 fpiritual things, is a point which Hill remains to 
 be proved. — Mr. Mayo^ however, hath afTured 
 us, that chiLiren were members, real members 
 of God's vifible church, not only for near fwo^ 
 but for above four thoufand years before Chriil ; 
 that is, from the very beginning. But as we 
 are not obliged to take his word, — his bare word 
 for it, we ftiall beg leave to think otherv/ile : 
 for at prefent he hath favoured us v/ith nothing 
 but 7nere ajfertions !' 
 
 But it is time to hailen to the next article -f. 
 " The Doctor then, it feems, hath faid that it 
 " is an abiurdity of abfurdities, to aiHrm that 
 " baptifm comes in the room of circumcifion, 
 " fince baptifm was in force and ufe Ict^ before 
 " circumcifion was abolifhed ; circumcifion was 
 " not aboUihed till the death of Chrill, but bap- 
 " tifm was admiaidered many years before^ to 
 " multitudes, by John^ and by the order of 
 " Chrifl, and by his apoilles. NrAv where is 
 '^ the good fenfe, (proceeds the Dodor) of 
 '•'' faving one thing fucceeds the other, when 
 D3 " the 
 
 * Page 4?, t Page 43, &c. 
 
" the one faid to fucceed, was in ufs and force 
 '' long hfore the pxher ceafed?"- Now, veri- 
 ly, gentle reader, whether our D. D. had hi^ 
 diploma for his ftiil in chronology , I Ih^ll not 
 pretend to determine ;«— but that our M. A. had 
 7jis diploma for his fkill in logic is beyond difpute, 
 and, HI good troth, a moft excelloit logician he 
 is ! Witnef§ his anfwer to what the Doctor hath 
 faid as above. For he hath proved, to a de- 
 monilratioD, ihu five years are not five hundred^ 
 and that there is a confiderable difference be- 
 tv>i(ttn a fev; years and many years I What an 
 amazing icretch of reafon 1 — But, with the leave 
 of this truly wonderful genius, this Arifiarckus 
 of the age, this theological nonefiuch -, if John 
 baptized ovM' five years ^ or even but zfingleyear 
 before the death of Chrift, this was long enough, 
 full long en: ugh, to prove the ufe of water-bap- 
 tilm before the abolition of circumcifion, and, 
 confequently, that the former neither was, nor 
 could have been fubilituted in the room of the 
 latter. — Aye, but does the Doctor think that 
 John's baptifm was chrifiian haptifm ? If he does, 
 how was it that the number of the difciples and 
 their names (even after their afcenfion) v*'as only 
 ^bout a hundred and twenty ? How, indeed ! 
 But docs Mr. Mayo then imagine that the Evan- 
 gcliil, in Acts i, 15, includes the whole num- 
 ber of Chriil's difciples ? If fo, — what can be 
 the meaning of John iv, i, compared with chap, 
 iii, 22, 26, where it is faid that Jefus (that is, by 
 the miniiby of his apoftles) both made and bap- 
 tized more difciples than John .^ Or was not 
 Chrift feen after his refurredfion of above 500 
 
 brerhren at once } But, after all, it will be 
 
 diificult to prove, that even John's baptifm was 
 not cquiv alent to chrifiian baptifm. For himfelf 
 
 hath 
 
I 39 ] 
 
 hath informed us, in John i, 31, that the defign 
 q£ his baptizing with water was to notify the apr 
 pearance of the MefTiah to the houfe of Ifrael. 
 Accordingly, the fubje(5t of his preaching was 
 not only repentance towards God, but faith in 
 Chrift. See John i, paj/m and John iii, 36, — 
 but particularly Acts xix, 4, 5, where Paul is 
 
 introduced as faying to the twelve difciples, 
 
 " John verily baptized with the baptifm of re- 
 " pentance, faying unto the people that they 
 " fnould believe on him which ihould come after 
 " him ; that is, on Chrift Jefus. And when 
 " they (the people to whom John preached) 
 " heard this, they were baptized in the name 
 " of the Lord Jefus." For it is fuiiiciently evi- 
 dent that verfe the 5th is only a continuation of 
 the fpeech of the apoftle Paul^ not merely from 
 the connection, but from the ufe of the particles 
 fA.li and ^« \ the latter being never joined with a 
 participle to begin a paragraph when the former 
 immediately precedes it. This, at leaft, is the 
 opinion of Beza^ Bochart^ Drufius^ Grctius^ Guife, 
 Poors Continuation^ ^c. We might farther en- 
 quire, who baptized the twelve apoftles, or the 
 hundred and twenty difciples above-mentioned ? 
 It is plain, from John i, 35, 40, that Andrew was 
 one of the difciples of John^ and the fame is 
 probable of his brother Peter and their townfman 
 Philips and yet we no where find that they were 
 ever afterwards rehaptized -, on the contrary, in 
 John iv, 2, we are informed, that Chrift himfelf 
 baptized no one. Nor can we eafily fupport 
 the pertinence of Chrift's obferving in A6ts i, 5, 
 that John truly baptized v/ith water ; unlefs v/e 
 fuppofe that the only water-baptilm the apoftles 
 had was that of John. We may add, that 
 Chrift's fubmitting, as he did, to the fame bap- 
 D 4 tifmj 
 
[40] 
 
 tifm, v/hich baptifm it is to be hoped will be 
 allowed to be chriftian baptifm, together with 
 his anfwer to John will favour the opinion ad- 
 vanced. In the lafl place, the eloquent Apol- 
 los^ though a chriftian teacher, is exprefsly 
 faid to have known no other baptifm, fee Ads. 
 xviii, 25. Accordingly it is the fentiment of fe- 
 veral learned Psdo-baptifts that thofe believers 
 v/ho had been baptized by John were never 
 afterwards rebaptized. See Guife on the fore-cited 
 Ads, xix. 4, 5. 
 
 But, dropping this point, the apoftles them- 
 felves, even betore their mailer's death, bap- 
 tized many. Was their baptifm then equiva- 
 lent to chriftian baptifm ? If it was, even chrif- 
 tian baptifm (or a baptifm which was very- 
 very much like it) w^as ufed and adminiftered 
 three years before circumcifion was abolifhed. 
 The reader, indeed, may objed, if he pleaks, 
 that three years are not three hundred. But 
 wherefore ihould this difliearten us ? If our 
 <hampicn hath fallen, his antagonift hath been 
 -kind enough to raife him up again, and very 
 generoufly returned him his fword. Baptifm, 
 fays Mr. Mayo^ was ufed and adminiftered many 
 centuries of years before John the haptift was 
 born •, for by this external rite the Jews were 
 wont to receive their profelytes — men, women, 
 — and — oh ! fatal unexpeded blow, ~- even 
 CHILDREN ! Alas ! what is become of our 
 hero's clemency now ! verily, he hath railed 
 his antagcnift from the ground — only that he 
 mght have the honor to ftrike him down again. 
 But how does he know that this was the cuf- 
 tom of the Jews ? Why, Maimonides^ whom it 
 is to be hoped the Dodor hath read, // not 
 
[41] 
 
 in hehrew^ yet in latin* (which by the by, 
 may be more than every M. A. is capable of 
 doing), — Maimonides hath exprefsly told us fo ; 
 — and other cahaliftical and talmudical writers 
 {the dodors favorite companions^ his chief era- 
 cles) have faid fo too. What a pity that the 
 Do6lor's companions fhould prove fo treacherous ! 
 as to the Babylonian Talmud^ however, in which 
 mention is faid to be made of this baptifm, ac- 
 cording to Buxtorff^ it was not compleated till the 
 end of the ffth century ; and as to Maimo- 
 nides^ his teftimcny is ftill weaker •, for he did 
 not fiourifh till the very middle of the 12th. jj 
 century. What credit,^can he lend to a ce- / th<i i 
 remony v/hich is faid to have been pra6lifed 'u2^ 
 about eleven hundred years before he was born ? f>^^^ 
 -^tikRahhi Mayo may be as good a witnefs of J^ — * 
 what he hath never feen as Rahhi Maimonides •, ' ' 
 for my part I would as foon admit the evi- 
 dence of the one as of the other, 
 
 But what fhall we fay of this Jewifh Bap- 
 tifm when fome cf the Jewijh Rabhies them- 
 felves have queftioned tlie truth of it Pf When 
 one affirms it and another denies it ^ When 
 neither the Mifnah nor Philo Jud^us^ nor even 
 Jofephus^ though he writes profefTedly on the 
 cuiloms and antiquities of his countrymen 
 hath -Bet fo much as mentioned it ? We mufl 
 fay that if infant baptifm hath no better fup- 
 port than this, (and feme perfons have made 
 it the principal fupport) it is built upon a weak 
 and a very crazy foundation. Our author, then 
 may attempt to frighten us^ if he pleafes, v/ith 
 the names of a Light footy a Selden^ a Grotius^ 
 
 &c. 
 
 * Page 44.. 
 t Vid. Gale's Refleaions on Wall's hiflon* of Infant* 
 baptifm. Page 330, &c. 
 
[42 3 
 
 &c, who have read authors which he^ it may 
 be, hath never feen, or even heard of •, but he 
 muft for once forgive the baptifts, if they will 
 not fuffer themfelves to be terrified out of their 
 reafon by the popular and venerable whirnfles 
 of fallible men. The Jews of our Saviour's 
 time appear themfelves to have coruidered 
 baptifm as a novel cuftom, fmce they difputed 
 John's authority to practife it, unkis he could 
 prove himfelf to be either the Chrilt, or Elias, 
 or the greatefl prophet. See John i. 25. Ac- 
 cordingly, in verfe the '^'^i}i. he does not excufe 
 himfelf by mentioning the ceremony as a com- 
 mon practice, but openly declares that he bap- 
 tized by a divine commifTion. To the fame 
 purpofe fee Mark xi. 30, and Luke 7,. 29, 30 ; 
 from whence it will appear that baptifm (-that 
 is initiatory baptifm) was not an old but a new 
 ceremony, — a ceremony of divine appointment^ 
 and at firil peculiar to John^ who for that 
 reafon, and no other, v/as called the bapiift. — 
 As to the walliings or purifications under the 
 law, which our author hath urged to fupport 
 his hypothefis by referring us to Numb, xv, 1 5, 
 16, let me aflc him for whom, and for what 
 end, thofe wailiings were appointed ? Were 
 they not for fuch as were actually members of 
 the jewiih church ; and to be obferved, only in 
 cafes of legal uncleannefs ^ It is true, indeed, 
 that one ordinance^ one law^ and one manner was 
 to ferve for the Jews and for the ftranger who 
 fojourned among them. But it is alfo equally 
 true, that the ftranger and all his males were 
 to be previoufly circumcifed, and thus become 
 members of the vifible church. We farther 
 know (as our author fays) that the Gentiles v/ere 
 always confidered and ftiled by the Jews un- 
 clean J 
 
[43 3 
 
 clec^n % but a littfc riefleclipn might convince 
 us tliat they could never have been confidered 
 and treated as proper Hibjeds of any legal pu- 
 rification, till they had been firfc circumciied 
 and lubjeded to the Jewifn law. Befides, the 
 waminefs in queftion were not to be performed , 
 by the^prieds, but by the parties themielves 
 who were to be purified. If, therefore, pro- 
 felytes were to be thus admitted, they muft be 
 fuppofed to have admitted themfehes — not half- 
 way (as it ieems the eunuch did under the gof- 
 pei) but, wholly and altogether, 
 . But the reader, perhaps, will afk me, to 
 what purpofe is all this wrangling and jang- 
 ling about the baptifm of thejev/ifh profelytes. 
 Mr. Mayo hath informed him in page the 45th. 
 ~" Now, fays he, as our Lord adopted this 
 *' rite of walliing or baptifm, for initiating 
 " mem.bers into his church ; — is it not rea- 
 '^ fonable to fuppofe he would have it applied 
 " to the fame iubje6ts, parents and their child- 
 *' ren, as was the cuftom of the Jews for cen- 
 ^' turies before } Or if he had intended to ex- 
 " elude children^ would' he not have given a 
 " prohibition^ that his apoflles might not have 
 *' a<5led according to the common ujag€ of the 
 " Jews, and the church of God in pall ages \ 
 ^' you muft excufe me, if I fay, he certainly 
 " would : But did he in his great commilfion 
 '' to them. Matt- xxviii, 19 ? By no means, &:c." 
 — But in the firH place, good reader, it 15 
 highly probable from what hath been already 
 faid that this jewifh baptifm is a jewijh fable^ 
 an ens raticnis^ a meer chimccra \ — and, in the 
 next place, even fuppofing it to have been as 
 ancient and as general a pra6lice as our reve- 
 rend antiquarian would have it to be, — what 
 
 advantage 
 
[ 44 ] 
 
 advantage will he gain by it ? Was it a di- 
 vine inftitution ? Or is it any where com- 
 nianded or even mentioned in any of the in- 
 fpired writings ? In Exod. xii. 48, 49. the ad- 
 miflion of profelytes is particularly fpecified. 
 But is there a word about their baptifm ? If not, 
 it mufl have been a meer tradition, an ordinance 
 of the jewifh fcribes •, and, coniequently, the 
 apoftles mud have been very v/eak, or very 
 unmindful of their mailer's directions, if they 
 had baptized infants only to imitate their fu- 
 perfritious countrymen, and comply with a 
 ceremony of barely human invention.* Be- 
 fides, even before the crucifixion of the MefTiah, 
 the apoftles themfelves had adminifcered bap- 
 tifm to many hundreds, — a 'baptifm in which 
 infants had no concern ; and, confequently they 
 could never afterwards have altered their practice, 
 and confidered children as proper fubjedls of 
 baptifm, without a command for it. 
 
 Mr. Mayo ^ indeed, hath afTured us xh2it the 
 very words of the apofile's commijjicn include 
 children, f He means, I fuppofe, that children 
 are a part of all 7iationu But fo are fervants 
 and flaves •, and fo are the wicked and profane 
 as well as the righteous. It is therefore evi- 
 dent that the phrafe mud be definite., and only 
 ufed in a limited fenfe •, in the famie manner 
 as' 'n^o(,T-n T-ri ySf7n cvcry creature in Mark xvi, 15. 
 But from whence muft we take the limitati- 
 on ? Undoubtedly from the paffage itfelf. " Go., 
 " fays our Lord, and teach all nations^ baptizing 
 ^' them in the name of the Father^ and of the Son., 
 ^' and of the Holy Ghojl." From iience it fol- 
 lows 
 
 * Our Lord hath inveighed very feverely, in feveral places, 
 againll the ir.iditions of the Jews, and particylarly agamft 
 their baptlfms or wafliings. 
 
 t Page 4.^. 
 
[45 ] 
 ows, that the proper fubjedls of baptifm were 
 filch as had been taught. Accordingly it.-is faid 
 in Mark, upon the fame occafion, he who be- 
 lieves and is baptized. It may, perhaps, be 
 alledged — and, indeed, it commonly is alledged 
 — that our Lord is Ipeaking only of the bap- 
 til m of adult perfons. Is he fo ? What right, 
 then, hath Mr. Mayo, or any man elfe, to talk 
 of the baptifm of any ctloer fort of perfons? 
 Shall we prefume to add to the inftitution of 
 Chrift ? Or fhall we look upon it as deficient, 
 and not fo plain and explicit as it ought to 
 have been ? God forbid ! It is true, indeed, 
 our Lord hath not exprefsly prohibited the bap- 
 tifm of infants. But it is equally true, that 
 pofiti\:e laws mufl, in all cafes, carry their ne- 
 gative along with them. When the Ifraelites 
 were ordered to circumcife their males, they 
 readily concluded they were not to circum- 
 cife their females. In the fame manner, if Chrift, 
 hath commanded that thofe who believe fhould 
 be baptized, we may rationally infer that thofe 
 who are not believers Cor whom we have no 
 reafon to confider as fuch) fhould not be ad- 
 mitted to baptifm. — But Mr. Mayo^ I fuppofe, 
 will tell us, that a command for the baptifm 
 of infants would have been fuperfiucus ; becaufe^ 
 " if Chrift had intended to exclude them, he 
 *^ would have given a prohibition that his 
 •' apoftlcs might not have afted according to 
 " the cowmen ufage of the Jev/s, and the church 
 " of God in paft ages :"* fmce it is certain 
 " that the children of che Jewiih profelytes 
 were incorporated with them and became of the 
 houfhold of God. But is not this acknowlec^- 
 ing in effect, that there is no precept for the 
 
 baptifm 
 
 * Page 45. 
 
1 46 J 
 
 baptiim of infants, and that the very words of 
 the apoftles commijfion do not include them ? Be- 
 fides, even the argument itfelf is infufficient ; 
 iox we have already taken notice that the mo- 
 fak or Jewifh c hurch was a national one, which 
 is not the cafe with the chriftian church. — 
 This will furnifh out an anfwer to our au- 
 thor's queftion in page the 45th. — a quefiion 
 by which he doubtlefs imagined that he fhould 
 ilagger the faith of his antagonifts. " Suppofe 
 " our Lord, fays he, had not changed the rite, 
 " but ordered his difciples to go difciple all 
 *' nations, circumcifing them in the name of 
 " the Father &c. would they not have thought 
 " themfelves diretfled to circumcife the children 
 " of chriftian profelytes or believers, as well 
 " as the parents, if not every male of the 
 " family ?" Now, here, good reader, we have 
 a pinching query with a witnefs ! what then 
 fhall we do with it ? Or hov/ fhall we loofe 
 and unravel this Gordian knot ? Verily by pro- 
 pofing another queftion vv^hich, it may be, will 
 be altogether as puzzling. — Suppofing then, 
 that no command, no precept, had ever been 
 given for the circumcifion of children (which 
 is precifely the cafe with refpe(5l to baptifm ;) 
 and fupponng farther that the jeijoijh church 
 was not a national one, (which is precifely the 
 cafe with the chriftian church •,)—- fuppofing, I 
 fay, that under thefe circumftances, that ten or 
 a dozen of the Jewifh priefts had been dif- 
 patched, fome into one country and fome into 
 another, with thefe orders, " go and preach 
 " to all nations the true religion, circumcif- 
 " ing them in the name of the true God •/' 
 would they or could they have thought them- 
 felves diredted, in this cafe, to circumcife child- 
 ren 
 
[47] 
 ren with their parents ? We may fafely and 
 boldly anfwer no^ they would not. 
 
 But if we add, not only that there is 7to com- 
 mayui for the baptifni of infants, and that the 
 chriilian church is 7:ot a national one like the 
 jewifh,— if we add, I fay, what we have be- 
 fore obferved, that the apoflles themfelves had 
 already pradtifed a baptifm in which infants had 
 neither part nor concern \ what can be mor^ 
 improbable than that they fhould baptize them 
 afterwards, under the goffel^ meerly becaufe 
 they were ufed to be circumcifed under the 
 law ? 
 
 Let us next enquire whether baptifm comes 
 in the room of circumcifion ♦, for this alfo hath 
 been alTerted in order to convince us that child- 
 ren have as great a right to the former as they 
 had to the latter.* But let it here be remem- 
 bered that the jewifh converts thought other- 
 wife ; for, notwithilanding their baptifm, it is 
 a matter of fad, that they llill contended for 
 the continuance of circumcifion. Nay, fo great 
 was their zeal for it, that they would have 
 perfuaded even the believing Gentiles to have 
 been circumcifed as well as themfelves. It is 
 alfo remarkable that the apoille Patd^ where he 
 endeavours profelTedly to prove the nullity of 
 circumcifion, hath never done it by reprefent- 
 ing baptifm as coming in the room of it. We 
 may add that it will be difficult to give a 
 reafon why the apoftles Ihould have permitted 
 the ufe of circumcifion among the believing 
 Jev/s, as they manifeftly did, — or to account 
 for the circumcifion of Timothy, even after 
 fiis baptifm, — if we fuppofe the latter ordi- 
 nance to be fubllituted in the room of the for- 
 mer; 
 
 * Page 4.6 
 
[48 3 
 
 mer ; for this, in effedt, would have been to 
 be circumcifed or baptized twice over, v/hich 
 you pleafe. It is, indeed, pretended that in Col. 
 ii. II, 12. the apoflle hath evidently fupported 
 the notion. — " For the apoftle's argument, it 
 ** feems, according to common fenfe^ is, that 
 *^ as baptifm reprefents and feals the fame blef- 
 ^^ fings, as did circumcifion •, therefore it v/as 
 *^ needlefs for chriftians to be partakers of cir- 
 " cumcifion, efpecially as Chriil's circumcifion 
 ^^ had put an end to that ceremony, and they 
 " were baptized into him, and one with him."* 
 But, in the firfl place, circumcifion is no where 
 mentioned as a feal\ either of temporal or fpi- 
 ritual blefTings, — neither is baptifm. In the 
 next place, the apoftle is fpeaking in the verfes 
 referred to, not oijeiznjh but only of fpirittial 
 circumcifion, the circumcifion made without 
 hands, in putting off the body of the fins of 
 the fleili by the circumcifion of Chriil — that 
 is, the circumcifion which Chrifi: requires. 
 
 It is plain, then, that the PafTage is merely 
 allufive, and that the allufion is not between 
 circumcifion and baptifm, but between the cir- 
 cumcifion made 'with bands, and that which is 
 made without hands. Chriftians are fubjedts of 
 the latter, and therefore have no occafion for 
 the former ^ J as is manifeft from their baptifm, 
 
 in 
 
 * Page 46. 
 
 •|- To AbrahajTij Indeed, it is faid to have been a feal. 
 (See Rom. iv. 11,) But of what ? W^hy of the righteo«Chefs 
 of the faith which he had, yet being uncircurncifcd j that is, 
 it was a proof or confimiation of the goodnefs or Jincerity 
 of his faith. How ? Becaule it was an, inftance, a ftriking^ 
 inftance, of his ready and implicit obedience to the will of 
 God. 
 
 X If it fhould be afked, what occafion then had the Jeivs 
 fcr circumcifion any more than ChrlftianSy fmce the one had a; 
 much need of /7^iWf/<«/ circumcifion as the others can have:--- 
 
 I 
 
[ 49 ] 
 
 in which they profefs themfelves, not as bound 
 to liibmit to the law and its ritual obfervances, 
 but, as buried and rifen again together with 
 Chrift as the great end of the law for righteouf- 
 nefs to all who believe. The Apoftle therefore 
 hath argued for the abolition of circumcifion, 
 not from baptifm itfelf as coming in the room 
 of it, but from that inward circumcifion of the 
 heart which confers a right to baptifm, and of 
 which thofe who are baptized fhould make pro- 
 feffion. So that, in fad, the pafTage before us 
 might be urged not fcr but againfi the pasdo- 
 baptifls ; becaufe it difcovers that the fiibjeds 
 of baptifm Ihould at leaft appear to be what in- 
 fants cannot appear to be, — that is, to be cir- 
 cumcifed with the circumcifion of Chrid, or 
 chriilian circumcifion, in putting off the body 
 of the fms of corrupted nature. Befides, under 
 the law, not only the fons, but all tiie male-fer- 
 ijants of the jewifh houlholders were to be cir- 
 cumcifed, — and only fuch-, for ail iht females 
 were excluded. Now what Ihall we infer from 
 this ? Doubtlefs, even fuppofmg that chriilian 
 baptifm came in the room oi circumcifion, we 
 muft infer that the fubftitution extended not to 
 the fubjecis^ but only to the end and defign of the 
 two ordinances, — the eftablifnment of proper 
 and appointed members in the vifible church. 
 
 But let us hailen to the next argument. This 
 is borrowed from i Cor. vii. 14;* and, it feems, 
 is fuch a ftrikingone, that if there were no more 
 in the New Teftament, it would be a fufficienc 
 authority for minifters to receive children into 
 E their 
 
 I anfwer, becaufe the fofffier were to be dlftinguifhed} by fome 
 perm n nt fign or token, as rp'imbers of a national church, 
 which is not the cafe with the latter. % 
 
 * Page 46,"-47- 
 
[ 5° J 
 
 their Lord's church by baptifln. But alas I 
 wonderfully plain and ftriking as the argument 
 is, it is notorious that feveral learned Paidobap- 
 tiils have difowned the force. of it. Mufculus^ 
 who once employed it againft the baptifis with 
 great virulence, hath frankly acknowledged 
 that it hath no concern with the controverfy, 
 and that his former explanation of the paflage 
 
 was entirely e^roundlefs. Ave, fays our au- 
 
 thor, but were not the marriages of heathens 
 as lawful as tliofe of chriilians \ Yes, they cer- 
 tainly v;ere. 'Will it not follov/, then, that the 
 marriage of a believer and a pagan is as lawful 
 as that of two believers ? It is equally fo, be- 
 yond difpute. But, nev-erthelefs, it is fufficient- 
 ly plain from the context that many of the Co- 
 rinthians thov^mt otherwife, or, at leail, had 
 not the happineis to be fo v/ell fatisfied about 
 the matter as Mr. Mo.yo is. They had requeued 
 the apoftle's advice (lee v. i.) concerning things 
 whivh to themi appeared doubtful ; and, in an- 
 fwer to this he informs them, among other par- 
 ticulars, that a believer is far from being obliged 
 by the gofpel to icparate from an unbelieving 
 yoke-fellow. For, as he tells them in the verle 
 before us^ the unhelieiing hufiand is fanciified by 
 the unfe^ end the tinhelieving ij^ife is fancfified by 
 the h.ujhand\— that is, the unbehever is really 
 fandified to the ufe of the behevcr, fo far that 
 they may lawfully cohabit as man and wife, 
 notwithftanding the ciitterence of their ipiritual 
 and rel'gious charac'iers. Otherwife, fays he, 
 your children (that is, thole already born) are un- 
 clean^ or illegitimate ; whereas, in facl, they 
 are by you efteemeJ and really are holy le- 
 gitimate and lawfully begotten. He reafons 
 wiiii them upon their own principles. " If you 
 
[ 50 
 
 '^ can believe that your children are holy^ and 
 " love and cherifh them as your lawful pro- 
 " geny, — wherefore fnould you feparate, ye 
 " wives from your hufbands, or ye hulbands 
 " from your wives, for not fubmitting to the 
 *' fame faith as yourfelv^s ? If your ci7^7Jr^// are 
 " legitimate, your hujhands and your wives muft 
 " be fo too j but if the latter are not legitimate, 
 " neither are your children. Since, therefore, . 
 *' ye will not fcruple to confider your children 
 *' as legitimiate, it would be a real and a mani- 
 " fell contradiction to fuppofe otherwife of their 
 " parents." View the paffage in this light, and 
 it appears fenfible and connedxd : the apofde 
 argues from the acknowledged legitimacy of 
 their offspring, to the full legitimacy of their 
 marriage. We might add, as a farther con- 
 firmation of our opinion, that the word fan5li- 
 fied is frequently ufed by the Jews for being 
 la--jijfulh' married^ cr efpoufed. See Dr. Gill on 
 the pafiage in queftion. If, therefore, to be 
 made holy when applied to the unbelieving pa- 
 rent, m.eans a civil, or matrimDnial holinefs; 
 (fur It is certain, as well from the connection, 
 as from, comm.on reafon, that no other holinefs 
 can be intended) v/hy iliould not holy belikewife 
 taken in a civil fenfe, and mean legitimate v/hen 
 it is applied to the children ?--efpecially when it 
 is ufed of both parties, not only in the fame 
 paragraph, but in the fam^e fentence r— " But 
 " fuppofe, fays our author, ir had been faid to 
 " the Jews, that though one party fliould be 
 *' unck^/n^ or a Gentile, yer, if the ether v/as 
 *' a Jew, their children w<_uld be holy ; would 
 " not every one among them imm.ediately have 
 " underflood what was m>eant, even that thb 
 " children were peculiarly related to God &c. 
 E 2 .. ifxl 
 
'* and accordingly Iiave circumciled them ?'* 
 I anfwer, it is veiy probable they would. But 
 wherefore ? VvHiy, becaule they knew from their 
 facred law, that all their legitimate offspring 
 were to be confidered as miembcrs of the na- 
 tional church, and that, for this reafon, they 
 were exprtisly <.ommanded to circumcife them. 
 But is the chriitian church a national church ? 
 and doth legitimacy of birth conilitute the mem- 
 bers of this, as it did of the Jewilh ? Or is there 
 any command for the baptifm of infants under 
 the gofpei ? If not, the cafe is widely different. 
 
 As to Rom. xi. 16, 17,* which hath been 
 urged as another proof of the right of infants 
 to baptifm j this is far from proving, as our 
 author would have it, that the jewilh and the 
 chriilian church are the fame, and confequently 
 that both the members and the privileges of the 
 members in each ffiould be fo too. For the 
 apollle is not fpeaking of the Jews under the 
 •Mofaic difpenfation, but, only of thofe who had 
 outlived it, and were his own cotemporaries, 
 and as fuch were no longer members of a na- 
 tional chur.h any more than the Gentiles. In 
 the next place, it is iufficiently plain from the 
 general tenor of the apoille's argument, that by 
 the rcot and the branches he does not intend be- 
 lieving- Darents and their children : but thofe 
 jewilh converts v;ho were the nrll fruits, and as 
 it were the root of chriftianity, and luch of their 
 pofterity, as, at the time appointed, lliould be 
 called in to embrace the faith of the gofpei. It 
 is alfo m.anifcfl from verie the 20th that the 
 ur.hcly branches (or branches who were broken 
 off) were aclual unbelievers^ while the branches 
 who fnoukl be grafted in were actual believers^ — 
 
 and, 
 
 Page 47, 48. 
 
fusJ — r 
 
 and, confequently, that infants are intended m 
 neither cafe. Becaufe of unbelief they ivcre hrc* 
 ken off-, and thou flan def,— how }—byfaitk. Aye. 
 *' but when the natural branches the Jews, (fays 
 "^ouf autho/) iliail again be ingrafteu into their 
 " own olive tree, the church of God, will not 
 " their children be grafted or entered • with 
 " them ?" * poubtlefs, fays he, they will ; and 
 refers us to Jer. xxx. 20, 22. Their children alfq 
 'fhall be efiablifhed as aforetime &c. But fo far is 
 the prophet trom intending the happy and the 
 glorious event in queftion, that he only refers 
 to the return of the Jews and their children from 
 their captivity in Babylon^— ?.n event which was 
 confiderably prior to the abolition of the Old 
 Teftament church. Let the reader judge,^ then, 
 from what hath been laid, whether the children 
 of Chrillians are declared by infpiration to be 
 foederally holy and as {landing in a peculiar vifible 
 ^'elation to God. 
 
 The next argument alledged againfl us is 
 deduced from Luke xviii. 16, or Matt. xix. 14, 
 which of them the Doctor pleaiesf. Theie paf- 
 fages it feems, have fo miferably prappled and 
 perplexed our unfortunate champion that h;; 
 could not and cannot but fay, vvaU aii ms tor- 
 turing, that they clearly prove the redeemer's 
 love to infants^ and his readtnefs to rece'rce and 
 hlefs them. Now, who would not imagine from 
 hence that the Doctor and all his followers are 
 infant-haters^ and that this is the reafon why 
 they are fuch enemies, fuch inveterate and cruel 
 enemies to infant-baptifm. " Yes, verily, fa^s 
 " our author, knowing a little what parental 
 " affection is, I cannot but think that he (the 
 '< Doctor) is defiitute of it-, or bigotry forces 
 E 3 " him 
 
 * Page 48. P. 48—51. 
 
L 54 J 
 
 " him to fay and unfay, juft to fervc his own 
 *' turn*.'"' Weii ipoken, Iriend Candidus ! This 
 is chanty to perieclion ! The Doctor is either 
 a monfcer of inhumanity, or a mod pre- 
 varicating {huffier 1 — But come, let us for the 
 preienc diveit ourfclves of our unnatural and worfe 
 than Scythir.n barbarity. Let us throw oij" the 
 giant and affume the air of focial beings. Chil- 
 dren, then, we fay, are capable of divine blej/ings, 
 —properly and truly fo.— But what of that ? 
 Why, " really. Sir, fays Mr. Mayo^ -thofe 
 " whom Chrifl took up in his arms and blefled, 
 " or that are capable of divine blefTing, Ifliould 
 " be afraid to call: out of his church, and afTert 
 " they have no right to be received into it." 
 Mighty well! But how did Chrift blefs them ^ 
 If we may judge from the context in- Matthew, 
 be prayed for ther,i\ and it is faid of Chrifl: that 
 hini the father heareth always. It is therefore 
 more than probable that whatever blelTings he 
 prc^ycd for w^re afterwards very plentifully be- 
 lt nved upon them. But were thefe bleffings of 
 a temporal or a fpiritual nature P if they were 
 merely tCxTiporal, and only regarded the health 
 of their bodies, or their profpcrity in future 
 life, the argument will prove too much. It 
 will prove that not only vjicked micn as well 
 as the righteous^ and i'lfdels as well as be- 
 li:\::rs^ but that even peep, lambs, or doveSy 
 fhoMid be devoutly baptizea ; fi nee all the crea- 
 -■ifcc .of r}'.e great father of the univerfe are up- 
 ^ !d by bi-^ watchful care, and more or lefs re-. 
 I :<: mh'iS unwearitd bounty and companion as 
 e Hod of providenc : 
 
 :vji. A'L^yo, inc.eed, hath exclaimed, " if 
 "• ti'iefc children v/ere difeafed, and fo brought 
 
 '• to 
 
 * Page ^i. line 6, 7, 8, 
 
t 55 1 ^ 
 
 '' to Chrift to be cured (as the Docior fup- 
 ** poles) — what monflers mull the apofcles be 
 " to reied and endeavour to put cnem and their 
 " tender mothers away, when they • knew that 
 " a touch of their mailer's hand, or a word 
 " from his lips would have cured them and 
 " preferved their lives !''* But hov hath he 
 mended the matter? For if he fuppofes that 
 the children were brought to have a fpiritual 
 blefling pronoun-.ed upon them by the hps of 
 him who could never biefs in vain; — if he fup- 
 pofes this, he will give the apoitles a far worfe 
 characler than the Doclor hath. Vvhat^ art 
 thou a maftcr in Ifrael, and hall it yet to learn 
 t\\2it fpiritual bleiTings are far more weighty than 
 temporal ones, — even as niuch fo as the impor- 
 tance of eternity outweighs the lightnefs of 
 time ? If, therefore, you would look upon it 
 as a barbarous action to hinder children from 
 receiving bodily advantage, — what muft we call 
 it when they are forbidden to be brought to 
 Jefus, the compaflionate Jeius, to recei\e fpi- 
 ritual and eternal advantages ? Verily, friend 
 Mayo^ thou hall reminded me of the charitable 
 prieft in the fable, who, though unwilling to 
 part with a farthing, out of his pocket, '.vas 
 very ready to beiiow his blelnngs, — thus fhew- 
 ing that he thought the former to be of more 
 value than the latter. 
 
 But after all, even fuppofmg that the chil- 
 dren in quellion receiveu not corporal bwi fpiri- 
 tual bleffings, — is this any proof that we ought to 
 have baptized not only them, but all other chil- 
 dren too ? . Thefe^ v/e will i.-opofe, Cf -uld not 
 fail of becoming true believers as they grew up 
 and arrived to years of dif retion. But mall we 
 E 4 fay 
 
 * Page 51. . 
 
[56] 
 
 fay the fame of every other infant ? If not, 
 the cafe is widely different. — Befides, we ar« 
 no where informed that either Chriit or his 
 apoftles baptized even the very children to 
 whom he gave his blefTmg \ and yet we are 
 certain that the apoftles baptized numbers. 
 But had they been ufed to adminifter baptiiin 
 to infants, it is highly improbable, in the firft 
 place, that they would have forbidden them 
 to be brought to their mafter at all, and, in 
 the next place, that they would have negleded 
 to baptize them immediately, when Jefus had 
 blelled them. If Mr. Mayo had been there 
 he would doubtlefs have fprinkled them forth- 
 *with. But the apoftles were not fo much in 
 a hurry \ — knowing, it is likely, that faith and 
 repentance are indifpenfable prerequifites to 
 baptifm, — that is, that no perfon ftiould be bap- 
 tized, who, in the judgment of charity, is not 
 pofTefTed of both. 
 
 But let us look at the argument again, and 
 examine it carefully and attentively on every 
 fide. " If children are capable of fpiritual. 
 " hlejfngs^ they are alfo capable of laptifmr 
 Now this muft mean, either that a meer capacity 
 to receive fuch blefilngs will give a right to bap- 
 tifm •, or, on the other hand, we muft under- 
 ftand it of perfons who appear to have aSlnally 
 received, them. If a meer capacity w^ill do the 
 bufmefs, we muft take in not only all infants^ 
 but all the world : for all have an undoubted 
 capacity to receive fpiritual blefllngs, on whon;i 
 the Almighty is willing to beftow them. Bvt 
 if baptifm is to be confined to thofe who may- 
 appear to have a^ually received fuch blefTings, 
 — what will become of the baptifm of intants ? 
 —This will furnilh us with an anfwer to whaf 
 
 our 
 
[ 57 ] 
 
 eur a\ithor hath farther alledged. 'After tell- 
 ing us that our Lord hath declared that oi fucb 
 (he ^ means of infants) \s the kingdom of hea- 
 ven, and that, if we pleafe, we may under- 
 ftand the kingdom of glory, he puts the quef- 
 tion, '* if infants are members of the invifjble 
 church, why not of the vifihle ?" Truly, Sir, 
 becaufe you have not yet informed us, '-juhat 
 infants are members of the former. You will 
 not fay that all infants are lb -, — no, not ail 
 the infants of helievers. Perhaps, then, yovi 
 will extend the privilege to all who die in 
 their childhood. But, how are thefe to be 
 diftinguifhed from the reft? Can you open the 
 book of fare, and read the length and the 
 number of their days ? Can you meafure the 
 myftic fpan of life, and fay that child Ihall 
 become a man, but this child ihali be carried 
 from the cradle to the grave ? If not, you mufl: 
 give us leave to defer the admiffion of an 
 infant into the vifihle church, till we can judge 
 whether he is a member of the invifihle ; that is, 
 till he grows to years of difcretion -, for then, 
 aiid not till then, can he appear to belong to 
 the kingdom of heaven. The Doctor, th'ere- 
 fore, hath very rationally inferred — " that the 
 " church of Chriil, under the gofpel, is not 
 " national but congregational, confifting of men « 
 " gathered out of the world by the o-race of 
 " God, and wlio make a public profeffion of 
 " Chrift ; which infants are not capable of^ 
 " and fo cannot be real fubjecls of it-." I'his 
 you treat as a very laughable account. But 
 how have you proved it to be fo ? Truly, 
 by adding the quefiion, why the Doc'tor hath 
 not mentioned 'ujonien as well as 7^;cn ? Where 
 fore, then, did he not mention them ? Poubt- 
 
 ' Icis. 
 
lels, becaufe he never dreamt that he Ihotild 
 ;have to deal with a qnihblei\ — I fay a quibbkr ; 
 for no one elfe, who kno.vs(as you do) that 
 he baptizes tvomen as well as men^ would ever 
 have infinuated that he rejedls women as well 
 as children. But, to carry on the joke, you 
 have referred us to Gal. iii, 28 to prove what? 
 Why, that women fhould be admitted into the 
 church as v/eii as 7nen^ — or, in other words, to 
 prove what nobody denies. O Aiayo^ Mayo^ 
 what idle trumpery is t]iis ! 
 
 But come, let us take notice of the Doflor's 
 ether reply ^ or of his next folution of the text. 
 This, however, fjcidd be overlooked for the 
 Do dor's fake I '- 10 r,^ — itrange ! th'/agh our 
 " Lord declai-es tottdem verbis (in fo many 
 " words) that of infants is the kingdom of 
 *' heaven ; he, contrary-wife, ainrms, in fadt:, 
 '* u\cy themfelves are not intended.^ but only 
 '^ fich as they" &c. Well f:^- ken, Mr. 'Pofi^ 
 tivi: '! Yoi! have hamperea u> moft f^^ecdy ! 
 ]>urj hold ! li i-i -''."n to the pnfTage itfelf. 
 Pray, then, gcnde Sir, what verfion did you 
 conlult ? Or did you peep into the original 
 Grcrk ? the original fays To»yTa;^ pf fuch : — mod 
 of the Latin verfions fay talium^ of fuch ':- — the 
 Syriac fays, illorum qui funt Jtcut ijli^ fuch who 
 (ire like iher,:.. hat is, like children : and the 
 EjigUfh verfion fays of fuch. O bigotry, O 
 prejudice, hov/ wonderful is your power ! Ye 
 can even bewitch the fliculty of fight, and by 
 your enchantment make us read and fee., what 
 is no where to be either feen or read ! 
 
 But let us proceed. " According to the 
 '' Doctor's explanation of Chrift's words, and 
 '' condu6l, (fays our author) had fhee^., lambs., 
 ♦' or doves been brought to him, he might 
 
 *' hav^ 
 
[ 59 ] 
 
 *' have been angry luith his difcipks^ for for- 
 *' bidding the bearers to come near and prefent 
 " them \ and has^e not only faid, fujjer them ;^ 
 " to he brought^ but have alfo taken them into 
 " his arras ^ laid his hands up en them and blejfed- 
 '' them \ and then pronounced that of fuch as 
 " they\ (v/ho are comparable to them for temper, 
 '^ meeknels, &c.) is the kingdom of heaven : 
 *' riftim teneatis amice ! (that is, O/m;^^/ laugh 
 ye merrily at this !/' aye, truly, laugh indeed! 
 for this is certainly a very merry conceit ! It 
 thildren are humble, fo are fbeep \ if children 
 ' are meek, fo are lar,ihs •, if children are harm^- 
 
 lefs, fo are doves •, ^^g^j when children were 
 
 brought to Chrift to receive his blefiing, it is 
 a wonder of wonders that he compared the 
 fubjec5ls of the kingdom of heaven, not to 
 fbeep and lamls^ and doves^ but to children^ — 
 becaufe the latter, forfooth, were prelented to 
 him, and the others were not : — though by 
 the by, \t fiecp, and lamhs^ and dcves had been 
 before lum, he might, and, upon other occa- 
 fions, actually did reprefent them as fitting 
 emblems of what his followers ought to be, 
 —obedient, meek, and harmlefs. 
 
 But again, in Mr. Mayo's opinion, " tliere is 
 '' nojuit connection between Chrift's difpleafure 
 " at his difciples for keeping infa7its from him, 
 " and giving as the reafon of it, that not to them^ 
 " hut to grown perfcns, q^tiite different fuhje^fs^ 
 '• his kingdom belonged." Now, here, let me 
 afk the reader one quedion •, and a very fair one 
 it is. What was the reafon why the apollies 
 v/ould have rejedted the children we are fpeaking 
 of? To make the belt of it, and give the apoi- 
 ties as favourable a character as we can, we wilj 
 fupiofe, not as our author does, that they were 
 
 brcuphr 
 
[ 6.0 ] 
 
 brought for fpiritual blefTings, but that they 
 were only preiented for the cure of bodily infir- 
 mitieSr. Wherefore, then, would the apoilies 
 have been their hindrance ? From motives of 
 .cruelty ? Let us hope not ^ but rather becaufe 
 many perfons of riper years were then waiting to 
 be healed ^-r-or, it may be, they thought the 
 children would be troublefomc. This, however, 
 at the bottom, was nothing but pride, — a weak- 
 nefs to which the befl of men are fubjedt -, for 
 as the brightefl day hath feldom paffed without 
 a cloud, fo the wileft and the holieft of mortals 
 have their frailties and imperfections. The 
 apoflles mufl have thought that adult perfons 
 (fucli as themfelves) had, or ought to have, 
 the preference before children^ as well in the 
 fight of God as in the fight of man ; — otherwife, 
 wherefore fhould children have been negledled ? 
 But did our Lord encourage their vanity ? So 
 far from it, that he not only to'>k up the chil- 
 dren and bleilcd them, but affured his difciples 
 that; Ol fuch as they^ i. e. of perfons who had 
 . as little notion of their own importance and per- 
 fonal merit as infants have, is the kingdom of 
 heaven. Accordingly, faid he, Whofoever JJjall 
 not receive the kingdom of God as a little childy 
 (with the fame meeknefs and humility, and with 
 as little opinion of his own worth and fignili- 
 
 cance) Jhall in no wife enter therein. Are the 
 
 words and condu6l of Chriil, in this view of 
 them, really pertinent and conne6led, or are 
 they not ? Mr. Aiayo^ perhaps, will dill anfwer 
 in the negative; but feveral learned Pasdohaptiffs 
 have thought otherwife, and C^/i/'/w among the 
 reft.. . As to Matt, xviii, 6, lo, and Mark ix, 
 36, 37, .compared with Luke xvii, i, 2, it is 
 fufficiehtly evident th^t the little ones there men- 
 tioned 
 
[6i ] 
 
 fioned are not to be taken in a literal fenfe, but 
 fignify true difciples ; becaufe they are faid ex- 
 prelsly to be fuch who believe in Chrijl, Aye, 
 lays ouF author, " but why did God command 
 " infants to be admitted of old, and continued 
 ^' them in his viiibie church thcufands of years ? 
 *' Why did not Adam,, Noah^ Abraham^ Mofes^ 
 *' the prophets and jswiJJj priefts, argue as Dr. 
 " Gill', and of their own head, without divine 
 *'' authcj'ity, exclude them ? Truly, becaufe they 
 *' modeftly refledted that God excelled them in 
 *' wiido 11, and well knew who w^ere the. molt 
 
 " proper fubjeCts of his ow^n church, &c." 
 
 That is, we may fuppofe, becaufe they were 
 
 modeft enough to do as they were ordered^ and 
 
 adminiiler a ceremony tc^' their children which 
 
 was exprefsly and veiy ftridtly enjoined. Now 
 
 one would imagine, from hence, that infant- 
 
 baptifm is a divine inftitiition,, and that there is a 
 
 plain and a pofitive order for it in the gofpeL 
 
 Otherwife, the cafe is widely ditferent. But 
 
 where is this order to be met with? Or in what 
 
 part of the gofpel fnall wc find it ? If no where, 
 
 who is molt difcrcet ? Who moil humble and 
 
 refpedful ? Who bell imitates the pious modefty 
 
 <?/ Abraham^ of Mofes,, and the prophets ? The 
 
 man who pra6lifeth what God haih ordered him 
 
 to praClife ? Or the man who adds to his maker's 
 
 command, and renders a fervice which he hath 
 
 no where required ? Befides, as we have already 
 
 obferved, the jewilh church was a national one, 
 
 and, as fuch, included all who were born into 
 
 the nation ; but the chridian church is purely a 
 
 fpiricual one, and fhould therefore be confined 
 
 to thole who are born of the fpirit, — or, at leail^, 
 
 - who appear to be fo. " But the Dodlor him- 
 
 *' felf acknowledges, fays Mr. Mayo^ the necef- 
 
*^ fiiy of infants being regenerated, before the^ 
 ^' can enter the kingdom of glory : muil he not 
 *' then either damn all that die in childhood, or 
 " maintain that fome are born again of the fpi- 
 " rit : but if of the^^^/r/V, why not oi water ?'^ 
 Why, indeed ! Truly, becaufe no one can fore- 
 tell what infants will leave the world in their 
 childhood, and who will not : and as to thofe 
 who may live, it is alike uncertain, not only 
 which of them are^ or v/hether any of them are, 
 but which of them ever will be born of the fpi- 
 rit. One would therefore imagine, that upon 
 this footing it would be mush the wifer way to 
 defer their baptifm till they grow to years of dif- 
 cretion : for as to thofe who die in^their infancy, 
 their want of baptifm can be no prejudice to 
 their fajvation ; and as to thofe who live, their 
 charader will naturally open and unfold icfelf as 
 they advance in years. 
 
 I have dwelt the longer upon this argument, 
 becaufe Candidus appears to be fond of it, and 
 to look upon it as the capital fupport of his 
 caufe. To me, however, it wears a difTerent 
 afpect; and when I confider the air of confi- 
 dence and triumph with which he hath mention- 
 ed it, and the weaknefs and incapacity wich 
 which he hath managed it, I mull compare his 
 difappointed readers to the men in the fable. 
 Thefe, it feems, as they were (landing upon the 
 fea-fliore, imagined, at firil, that they difco- 
 vered a (hip at a diRance hulling towards them : 
 but, as the waves drove it nearer, it appeared 
 lefs, and dwindled firft into a barge, and foon 
 after into a finall wherry, till, at lail, it was 
 found to be nothing more than a heap of weeds! 
 
 Our author's next argument is from Acls ii, 
 39, For the prcmife is to you and your children^ 
 
 and 
 
. [63 ] 
 
 iind to all that are afar off^ ev-en ^s many as the 
 Lord our GodJJjall call. This promile, in Mr. 
 Mayo's opinion, is the fair.e as the promile and 
 blciring;3 in the covenant with Abraham. But if 
 we may judge from the conne<5lion, it was rather 
 the promile in Jce-l., or tt^Q promile which Chrift 
 had received of the Father, ev^en the promile of 
 the Holy Ghofl: — fee verfe the 38th compared- 
 with verles 16, 17, and the 2i^d. It was farther 
 a promife only to fuch as fhouid repent, and be 
 baptized in the name of Chrift for the remiflion 
 of fins ; — fee verfe the 38th^ and therefore can 
 only extend to the adult. Wc are told, indeed, 
 that it was made to the Jews and their children '^ 
 but you and your children^ is nothing more than 
 you and your poficrity^ as appears not oiily from 
 this ufe of the word children in other paflag^s, 
 but from the limitation expreffed in the text. 
 For, if there is any meaning in woixis, the pro- 
 mife belongs neither to the Jews nor their chil- 
 dren, nor to thofe afar off (that is the Gentiles) 
 but only to fuch of them v/ho believe. V/here- 
 fore elfe was it added, even to as many as the 
 
 Lord our God fiall call? We m,ay farther 
 
 obferve, that the very praclire of the apoflles, 
 on this occafion, is a plain intimation that the 
 words before us had no fort of reference to in- 
 fants. For who were to recei'/e the Holy Ghofl:, 
 or the promife in queftion P 'i hole who had been 
 baptized: fee verfe the 30th. Who then were 
 baptized ? Thofe who had gladly received the 
 zvcrds of Peter., fee verfe the 4 ill: and thefe, 
 after their baptifm, continued itedfailly in the 
 apoflie's doctrine and fellowfhip, and in breaking 
 of bread and in prayers, fee verfe the 42 d. Can 
 this be fuppofed of children ? Befides, \i yau and 
 ■your children mcdim you and your infants^ how 
 
 naturally 
 
[64] 
 
 naturally would it have followed, in verfe the 
 41ft, " then they that gladly received the word 
 *' were baptized together with their children'^ 
 But the baptifm of their children is not fo much 
 as hinted •, on the contrary, it is manifeftly ex- 
 cluded by the very turn of the expreflion. Let 
 the reader judge from hence, whether the Doc- 
 tor's expofition of the pafTage in queftion is fo 
 frivolous, that it hardly agrees with common fenfe. 
 Drs. JVhithy and Hammond^ though Psdobap- 
 tifts, and it is to be hoped as good judges of 
 common fenfe as Mr. Mayo^ have thought the 
 pafTage to have no concern with mere infants, 
 and confequently to be no argument for their 
 baptifm. — As to our author's out-of-the-way 
 quer}% " \V-hat advantage had the Jew^ or the 
 " Gentile believer of old \ or what advantage 
 " hath the Chriftian now^ either parent or child,, 
 " above the Ethiopian or the Indian favage^'' 
 fuppofing the promife not to concern infants, I 
 may well excufe myfelf from anfwering : — for, 
 to Ipeak the truth, I cannot difcover his mean- 
 ing, unlefs it be that it is no advantage to be 
 born under the found of the gofpel, and to have 
 parents vv^ho can inftrud us in the chriilian faith. 
 If this is his opinion, he is highly welcome , to 
 reap the honour of it. 
 
 His next endeavour is to reply to the Do6lor's 
 objection, " that if infants are real members 
 " of the church, they muft have an equal 
 " right to the Lord's fupper as to baptifm, of 
 ^' which they are equally capable." But how 
 dees he reply ? Your champion, fays he, will 
 inform you that one ordinance initiates into the 
 Church, and the other efiahlijhes. Now, fup- 
 pofing this to be true, let me aflc the reader,-- 
 not ori'y the cooland impartial, but even the 
 
 warm 
 
[ 65] 
 
 warm and the prejudiced reader,— let me afk 
 him in the name of reaion and common fenfe, 
 whether it is not as vain, as ridiculous, and as ab- 
 furd to initiate or ad7-:it a perlbn into he knows 
 not what, as to eftablifi him in he knows not 
 what ? O prejudice, O bigotry, Ipeak ouc and 
 
 deny it if ye can. But, to proceed, the Lord's 
 
 fupper, he fays, efiablifoes. Now luppofing that 
 he is not miftaken, and that the real defign of 
 the Lord's fupper was to eftabUfi or confrrn per- 
 fons, not fo much in faith and holineis, but as 
 approved members of the vifible church ; fup- 
 pofing this, I fay, let us alk the queflion, — 
 at 'u;kat time does it eflabiifh ? Truly when the 
 fubjed is old enough to partake of it, that is, 
 when he hath proper capacity fo to do. But does 
 he mean a natural^ or an implanted capacity ^ 
 If only a natural capacity, how happens it that all 
 thofe who are baptized in their infancy are not re- 
 ceived forthwith as lawful communicants, when 
 they difcover fuch a capacity,that is, as foon as they 
 can reafon and think ? But if he means an implant-* 
 ed or a fpiritual capacity (fuch as faith, love, re- 
 pentance, &c) he requires a capacity which the 
 greateft part of thofe infants who are baptized will 
 never have ! — Befides, after all, it is cercain that 
 the infants of believers have as good a fpiritual ca- 
 pacity for the Lord's fupper as the children of 
 the Jews had to partake of the paffover : if, 
 therefore, the latter fucceeds the former in the 
 fame manner as baptifm (it is pretended) comes 
 in the room of circumcifion, why lliould not 
 the partakers be the fame in both cafes, that is, 
 children with their parents ? Bur, to come to 
 the point, it will be owned, I fuppofe, thac bap- 
 tifm and the fupper are equally ordinances of 
 the gofpel-church : it m.ufl like wife be farther 
 F acknow= 
 
[66 J 
 
 acknowledged that repentance and faith are as 
 expiefsiy required for the one as they are for the 
 other : nor can ic be denied chat, in the New 
 Teflarncm-hiflory, the ivvo ordinances are fo 
 nearly conjoined that thofe who were admitted 
 to baptifm \vere always admitted to the fupper 
 without a fcruple. I might add that this was the 
 confiayit o/nd iiniierjal practice of the church in the 
 firit ages. By what authority then would Mr. 
 Mayo^ or any one elfe, put the ordinances fo far 
 af,inder r So far that in 7nan}\ and indeed in moft 
 cafes y the one is never known to follow the other ? 
 As they are both ordinances of xht fame churchy 
 they lliould both extend to the fatne perfons^ and 
 what is a reafon either to give or withhold the 
 fupper^ ihould be the fame with refpecl to hap- 
 tifn. No, truly fays our author, " tor I could 
 " aimoft appeal to yourf^lf (that is to his anti- 
 " poedobabcift correfp ncierit, whether real or 
 " ficlitious I cannot tell) I could aimoft appeal 
 " to yourfelf, whether the natural idea which 
 *' the word i*.^^///*;?? conveys, 'v^ notpaJPi/ve^ that 
 " of water's being applied to the bod)\ and not 
 " the body's being applied or plunged into the 
 " water ; but in the fupper, the 'uoord of God 
 " requires thofe who partake of it, to be aMive'^ 
 He means, 1 fuppofe, that the fubjecls of bap- 
 tifm fhould be fo pafjive^ as to exercife neither 
 faith, nor repentance, nor any grace whatever; 
 for, unlefs this be his meaning, the fubjedls of 
 bapiifm may ftill be as active as thofe who par- 
 take of the fupper, — and, ccnfeouently, his new- 
 fangled and truly wonderful diftindtion f will 
 
 prove 
 
 f This, I fuppofe, is a bright ray, a Jhining beam of 
 the nenjj light which he hath reileded upon the controver- 
 iy. Verily, friend Mayo, thou art not a pilfering Planet^ 
 Ihedding a ligh: which is none of thy own, but a new 
 and a felf-enlightenedy?^r. 
 
[6/] 
 
 prove nothing ! On the other hand, if the per» 
 Ions to be baptized Ihould be pajjtve in the 
 fenfe we have fpecified, the diftinclion will prove 
 too much. It will prove, not only that infants 
 may^ but that infants only (or, at leafb, that 
 fuch alone who have as little faith, &;c. as infants) 
 fhould be admitted to baptifm. 
 
 But, after all^ wherefore is not the idea as 
 truly pajfi've^ when the body is applied to^ or 
 plunged into the water, as when water is applied 
 to the body ? Verily, fhould any watry zealot 
 feize our author and throv/ him headlong, or, 
 if you pleafe, apply him into a river, I am per- 
 fuaded he would look upon his body to be alto- 
 gether as paffive^ and indeed more fo, than if 
 he fhould be complimented with a bucket of 
 water thrown upon him. But would his mind 
 be paffive too ? No, truly, his refentment and 
 his indignation would prefently operate, and, 
 in all likelyhood, even the tongue and feet, and 
 hands, would foon become as adive as the 
 ruffled mind. In the fame manner we may 
 fpeak of baptifm : for though the body, whe- 
 ther fprinkled or plunged, is certainly paflive 
 in either cafe •, this is no proof that the mind 
 fhould be una6live alfo, — a confequence which 
 our author would fain eftabiifh. In cafe of in- 
 fants, indeed, the fubjed of baptifm, both as 
 to body and mind, is as pafTive as if it were a 
 mere pidure or a ftatue : for water is applied 
 to the body, while the mind is not only igno- 
 rant of the reafon wherefore, but is totally in- 
 capable even of confenting to the ceremony. 
 A thorough pajjivity this, and doubtlefs a moft 
 hopeful qualification for church-memberfhip ! 
 It is true indeed, we have no exprefs prchihition 
 of infant-baptifm, but neither have we of infant- 
 F 2 com- 
 
[68 ] 
 
 communion. If therefore, to put afide the lat- 
 ter, it is fufficient to fay, that all communi- 
 cants are required to be a^ive (that is, in the 
 exercife of faith and other fpiritual graces) let 
 the fame argument fuffice for rejeding the 
 former. 
 
 But I had aim oft forgotten Simon Magus. 
 *' Was not Simon, fays our author, a real iiib- 
 " je6l of the church ?" Ke means, I fuppofe, 
 not that Simon was a real cbriflian, but only 
 that he was thought to be fo, and as fuch was 
 baptized and rcv^eived into the viftble church. 
 Wherefore, then, fhould he believe, as it feems 
 he does, " That Dr. Gill would not chufe to 
 " fay that he (Simon Magus) had an equal 
 " right to the Lord's fupper as to baptifm". 
 What was it that gave him a right to baptifm ? 
 Doubtlefs neither more nor lefs than his pro- 
 feflion of the faith. But was this profefTion 
 thought to h^Jincere? If not, he would fcarce- 
 ly have been baptized : — but if it was, how can 
 we queftion that the fame apoftle who thought 
 him entitled to baptifm^ fhould difpute his 
 right to the /upper P 
 
 But come, good Sir, as you feem to be wil- 
 ling to hinge the controverly on the fingle, and 
 indeed the leading queftion, — " whether faith 
 " and repentance are fcripture-prerequifites to 
 " baptifm," let us hear what you can offer to 
 the contrary. The Doflor, you fay, infifted 
 much in his preaching, as he hath in his print- 
 ed fermon, on the order of words in fcripture. 
 The apoftles commifTion was, go teach^ and 
 having jirft taught^ then baptife them. But the 
 fame identical Do6lor, it feems, hath acknow- 
 ledged upon another occafion, that in fcripture 
 the order of things is frequently inverted^ and 
 
 that 
 
[%] 
 
 that the Jews la^e a faying^ that there is neithet 
 firft 7ior lafi in the law. Let ns fuppofe, then, 
 that this is^ or JJjould be the cafe, v/ith refpect 
 to the apoftles commiffion. They were not to 
 teach firft, and then baptize ; but to baptize 
 firft, and teach afterwards. Will this fatisfy 
 you ? If it will, let us proceed to draw the 
 inference. The inference, then, will be this . 
 whatever country or city the apoftles vifited, 
 their firft queftion to the firft perfon they met 
 muft have been, " are you willing to be bap- 
 *' tized ^. If you are, we will afterwards inftruct 
 " you in the faith which you ought to profefs." 
 Let us fuppofe, then, that Mr. Mayo himfelf 
 were the perfon in queftion. " No truly, gen- 
 " tlemen (would he fay) none of your baptifm 
 *' for mt. I muft wait till I am better ac- 
 " quainted with you. Inform me, in the firft 
 " place, who and what you are, and give me 
 *' an account of the faith you fpeak of j other- 
 '' wife you may keep your baptifm to your- 
 *' felves." If fuch, therefore, would have been 
 the common and the conftant reply, we may 
 infer that teaching muft have preceded baptifm : 
 for no perfon in his fenfes would have been bap- 
 tized into any faith, or new religion, of which 
 he was ignorant. — What then fhall we fay ? 
 Truly, that if the order of ivords fhould be in- 
 verted in other cafes, it cannot be fuppofed to 
 be fo in the prefent. Goliah^ therefore, may ftiU 
 employ the order of words as a trufty fword^ a 
 gallant /pear, a noble helmet^ and an impene- 
 trable coat of mail^ when he marches forth in 
 the caufe of adult baptifm. 
 
 But to deal as tenderly as v/e can, and be as 
 
 merciful as our boafting antagonift would feem 
 
 to be, let us for once reject the order of words.» 
 
 F 3 and 
 
[7^ 
 
 and only attend to the meaning of them. Here, 
 then, let me afk him one queftion j and a very 
 honcft queftion it is. The commilTion fays, 
 go^ teach ^c. but isjho are to be taught ? All 
 nations. Is this a fair anfwer, or is it not ? If 
 it is, let me aflc him, in the next place, whether 
 infants can be taught ? If they can, they are 
 certainly included in the phrafe all nations. 
 Well, then, perhaps it will be faid, infants 
 may be taught. But when ? Alas ! when they 
 grow to years of difcretion: that is, ijuhen they 
 ceafe to he infants. Infants, therefore, are not 
 a part of all ncticns in the cafe before us : — in 
 other words, they are not included in the 
 apoftles ^ommiflion. Wherefore, then, lhou]d 
 we have rccourfe to that commilTion to prove 
 their haptifm r — But, hold ! hath not our hero 
 a fling and flone as fure and fatal as the flaming 
 fword, and the mafly fpear of Goliah ? He cer- 
 tainly hath. " Infants, faith Gohah, are not 
 " capable of being taught, nor of repenting 
 *' and believing, and therefore not to be bap- 
 " tized, or admitted into the church of God.'* 
 Now this, truly, is a vaunting fpeech. But 
 mirk our hero's rejoinder, and behold the 
 deadly flone deep fixed in the giant's haughty 
 forehead ! " Surely, fays Mr. Mayo., they (that 
 *' is, chriftian infants) are as capable of thofe 
 " things (viz. faith and repentance) as the If- 
 " raelite infants, who, neverthelefs, were com- 
 " manded to be circumciicd." Now, who 
 would not imagine from hence, that faith and 
 repentance were as exprefsly required for cir- 
 cumciflon under the law, as they are for bap- 
 tifm under the gofpel } Otherwile, our ftripling 
 hath mifl^ed his mark, and argued from a paral- 
 lel which ixath no real cxifl:euce. The Je'ujiJIj 
 
 church. 
 
[ 71 ] 
 
 church, as we have already obferved, was purely 
 national \ and therefore the being born of Jewirfi 
 parents was alone fufficicnt to entitle an Ifraehte to 
 circumcifion. But is the chrijiian church a na- 
 tional one ? Or can any man of comlTl.^n fenfe 
 and common hmefly, who reads the gofpel, 
 deny that faith and repentance are frequently 
 mentioned as qualificauons for baptifm ? What 
 faid Peter ? Repent and he haptifed^ every one of 
 you^ in the name of Jefus Chrijt\ and accordingly, 
 they that ghdly received his word were baptized,^ 
 What faia Phihp to the eunuch ? If thou believeH: 
 with all thine hearty thou mayeff\j thac is, you 
 may be baptized into the chnilian faith. What 
 fays Luke of the Samaritans ? f'Fhen they belie--. ed 
 Philip preaching the things concerning the king- 
 dom of Gody and the name of Jefus Chriit^ they 
 were baptized both men and women\. What read 
 we of Paul ? What of Lydia ? What of the 
 centurion ? Whatof the jailor and his houfhold ? 
 They are all defcribed as receiving baptifm in con- 
 fequence of their apparent godiineis and avowed 
 faith in the chriflian fa . iour. Nothing is to be 
 found but the baptifm oi profejfed believers. 
 
 But to proceed, y.>u have been aflced— 
 " what ufe is baptifm of to children ? \Vhat 
 " benefits do they receive by it ?" To this you 
 reply, " of what ufe is circumcifion to Ijhmael^ 
 *' to EfaUj an I to the jewifh chih.ren ; and 
 '' what benefits did they re:eive .^ Yea of what 
 " benefit or ufe was baptifm to multitudes bap- 
 ^' tized by John in Jordan and at Encn ♦, or to 
 *' Simon Magiis^ and to numbers of thofe who have 
 " renounced their infant baptifm, an-l been dip- 
 ^^ ped by Dr. Gill and others at adult years ?" 
 F 4 The 
 
 * Ad^s ii. 38, 41. t Ibid. viii. 37. % Ibid. viii. 12. 
 
[7^ 
 The anfwer, however, is at hand. From your 
 own mouth have we receivea it. " Notwith* 
 " iianc.ing, lay you, many who are baptized 
 •' are never the better for it •, yet God will have 
 " a ^tfible church in the world, and therefore, 
 " his vihble leal is to be fet on them whom he 
 *' prefcribes" But are infants^ then, prefcribed ? 
 Or IS there any command for the baptilm of chil^ 
 dren ? If not, you have been far from replying 
 to the purpole. 
 
 You feem, however, to be much furprized 
 that we fhoula a knowledge that dying infants 
 may inherit glory, and yet deny that they may 
 receive benefit from baptifm. If, fay you, they 
 inherit glory, they muft have grace. True i 
 but do they receive grace in confequence of their 
 baptifm? — Of an or.iinance to which they can 
 never be lawfully fubjecled ? To fay they do is 
 very eafv •, but it is not fo eafy to pro've it. 
 Grace they certainly mc'y receive, and it is to be 
 hoped they do receive it : — but this, alas ! can- 
 not be ov/ing to their baptifm (a ceremony 
 which the Icripture 'hath no where appointed for 
 them) but' to the free and indifcriminatlng 
 gcodnefs of God, — that God, whofe mercy and 
 companion is as boundlefs and as unreftrained as 
 his pov/er ! Buc the ^:eader perhaps will fay, if 
 yc u cic!cnowledge t'lat infan-s may have grace, 
 why do you retufe to baptize them ^ To this I 
 aniwer, thai nothing can be more prefumptuous 
 than to let up the methods of divine grace with 
 dying infants, as the rule of our conduct to the 
 livi^ig •, — 1 mean in matters of religious inftitu- 
 tion Befides, who can look forwards into the 
 diliant regions of futurity, and fay this infant 
 fliall reach the farthefl ftage of life, but that 
 Jhall end its travels almoft as foon as it hath 
 
 begun 
 
[ 73 ] 
 
 begun them ? But if we are ignorant of this, wi 
 cannot fay which infant will receive grace, and 
 which will not j and, confequently, we can have 
 no encouragement from this quarter to baptize 
 any of them. — We are referred, however, in the 
 next place, to an inftance in which the fubjed: of 
 baptifm had neither faith nor repentance, but 
 was more incapable of receiving moral benefits 
 by the ordinance than Dr. Gill can pretend in- 
 fants are. " Behold^ fays our author, all ye 
 " chrifiian farents^ for your comfort and eflablijh^ 
 " ment in this matter^ this inflance is no other 
 " than Jefus the great head of the church /" Nay, 
 fo confident is he that his correfpondent muft 
 fubmit at once to the force of his argument, that 
 he cries out, — " you, doubtlefs, are convinced ;" 
 though the Do6lor, it feems, is fuch an harden- 
 ed and fuch an incorrigible bigot, that he will 
 not yield, " iinlefs one comes from the dead!'' 
 But fair and foftly, irrefragable fir ! Let us ex- 
 amine what you have faid, and look boldly at 
 this apparition of an argument before we frighten 
 ourfelves. Chrift, you fay, had neither faith 
 nor repentance, and yet he was baptized. True; 
 in this you have well faid. But fhall we prefume, 
 then, to compare the polluted and the guilty ofF- 
 fpring of men to the fpotlefs Son of God ^ Or 
 fhall we have the boldnefs to liken our infants to 
 him who was the brightnefs of his father's glory, 
 and the exprefs image of his perfon .^ Jefus, we 
 know, had neither faith nor repentance : for he 
 was holy, harmlefs, and undefiled, and there- 
 fore could have no occafion for either ; whereas 
 infants, even the infants of believers themfelves, 
 are all fhapen in iniquity, and conceived in ori- 
 ginal guilt. The cafe, then, is widely different. 
 But to fift your argument to the bottom, let us 
 
 aft 
 
[ 74 ] 
 
 aik you,— •w^^^ was Jefus baptized ? Not till 
 thirty years of age. If, thereiore, we are to 
 make a precedent of his baptifm in one circum- 
 ftance, wherefore not in another ? Again, if the 
 baptifm of Chrill is a proof that Jome perfons 
 may be admitted to the ordinance without either 
 faith or repentance, why not, that all may be fo 
 admitted, — adult perfons as well as intants, — 
 efjpecially as our Lord himfelf, when baptized, 
 was an adult. Befides, Jefus Chrift was bap- 
 tized by John ; and you have already laughed at 
 the Do6lor for being fo weak as to think that 
 John's baptifm was chrijtian bapcifm*. Where- 
 fore, then, have you thus appealed to it as a 
 precedent ? Verily, we may return the compli- 
 ment, the refpe(::.ful coaipliment, which you 
 have pafled upon your ancagonift, and lay that 
 bigotry (that powerful but delufive enchantrefs) 
 hath forced you to fay and unfay^ juft to ferve 
 your own turn ! 
 
 Thus we have examined the feveral texts 
 which are produced as exprefs commands and 
 'Warrants for infant baptifm. But, notwith- 
 ftanding all his vaunting, our author himfelf 
 appears to queltion the force of them •, — for 
 he has concluded what he hath faid of thenr\ 
 by referring us to the alteration of the fab- 
 bath fi-om the feventh day to the fir ft, and to 
 the adrniffion of women to the Lord's fupper 
 — for neither of which, in his opinion, we 
 have a more exprefs command than for in- 
 fant baptifm. But as to the former cale, we 
 are exprefsly told that the difciples affembled 
 on the firft day for the performance of the 
 mofl folemn duties and a6ts of worfhip. See 
 ^ds XX. 7. and j Cor. xvi. i, 2 :— and as to 
 
 the 
 * Page 44. 
 
[75] 
 
 the admifliion of women, they are not only 
 capal^le of every qualification which is re- 
 quire^, but are particularly mentioned as fel- 
 low-vvorfliippers with other dilciples, fee Adls 
 i. 13, 14, 15. compared with chap. ii. 42, 44, 
 46. If our author can produce fuch evidence 
 for infant-baptifm, we ihall readily excufe him 
 from quoting precepts and exprefs commands. 
 But as he can do neither one nor the other, 
 he hath betaken himfelf to his old haunt and 
 his furefl refuge. He hath required us to pro- 
 duce a precept for repealing an ordinance which 
 was never adlualiiy inftituted, and for exclud- 
 ing infants from a church of which they were 
 never yet declan^d to be members, that is, 
 the chriftian or g ofpel-church \ If we can do 
 this, and prove C.hrift and his apoftles to have 
 been errant triflens — he hath promifed to be- 
 come a profelyte 1 But even here we mull be 
 very cautious what we do, and treat him with 
 the utmoft tendermefs, left haply his known 
 antipathy to the drfagreeable^ the painful^ and 
 the dangerous chill of cold water ihould get 
 the better of his confcience. We muft there- 
 fore wait for a fummer's day^ or rather for 
 one of the dog-days^ when not a cloud is to 
 be feen, nor a breath of wind to be felt, — when 
 the air is fweltered with the fultry beams of 
 Phcebus^ and man and beaft are panting with 
 thirfty heat. Then, and not tell then, our 
 lady-like l^heologue muft be conducted to the 
 water^ weli-wrapped, we may fuppofe, and 
 fwaddkd up in double flannels, like an Egyptian 
 mummy, to fecure his tender limbs. But who 
 muft perform the operation ? — the Doctor ? 
 No, truly, this will never do ; for he belike 
 
 is 
 * Letters. Page 56. vid. the little note at the bc|tom. 
 
C 76 ] 
 
 IS an ancient man. Age hath long ago un- 
 braced his nerves T and deprived his body of 
 its vigour. Rather, therefore, let us fearch 
 the kingdom through, till we can find an 
 able and a flurdy operator, who hath brawny 
 arms and Herculean Jirength* to plunge the fhi- 
 verer in a trice. Nor let us forget, when the 
 ceremony is over, to put him inftantly into a 
 ■warm bed, and ply hi?! heartily with ri-.h and 
 reviving cordials : — otherwife, perhaps, the 
 fright would carry hiir^ off! 
 
 Bur enough about precepts. Let us now 
 proceed to precedents. The firfl which our 
 author has mentioned is chat of the IJraelites /- 
 " Were not the children of the Ifraelitcs^ fays 
 *' he, baptized as well as their parents, or was 
 " there another miracle v/rought to prevent 
 '^ it P' No, verily, their children were baptized 
 alfo •, and, at this rate, fo were thdr fljcep and 
 their oxen^ and their very goods and c''?gg^gej 
 which, doubdefs, may furnifh a hopeful argu- 
 ment for baptizing bells and candles. But 
 fuppofing the cafe before us to be a precedent 
 rr/t only of the mcde (as the Dodlor would 
 have it) but even of the JuhjeSls of baptifm, 
 —where is the danger '^ The Ifraelites are fpo- 
 ken 6f — how ? Mcil: certainly as a colle^ive 
 body, without any reference either to age or 
 fex ; and as fuch they are faid to have been 
 types^ — types of the church of Chrift. Ac- 
 cordingly, as all who v^ere members of the 
 jewijij church were baptized unto their leader 
 Mofes in the cloud and the fea, fo all who 
 are members of the chriftian church muft be 
 baptized in the name of the Lord Jefus. Who 
 then, were members of the je-wifi church ? 
 
 Thofe, 
 * Page 1 6, line a. 
 
[ 11 3 
 
 Thofe, and thofe only, whom God cppointed to 
 he fo. In the lame manner, tho.e, and thofe 
 only, whom Chrilt harh appointed to be mem- 
 bers of the chrifiian church Ihould as luch be 
 baptized in his n^:me, — and, confequently, not 
 infants. Such then, is our author's argument 
 from the baptifm of the Ifraelites. If the reader 
 ihould think it a very ftrange one (as I do) 
 let him not be furprized. For the man who 
 can advance o?ie ftrange thing, may as eafily 
 advance another. The man who can gravely 
 tell us that Nebuchadnezzar was baptized, though 
 a heathen and an idolatrous prince, and that 
 a meer tree^ 2l flumps was baptized likewife, 
 and all this from the meaning of a word (BaTrlc;) 
 which IS no where uled to fpecify the ordi- 
 nance of baptifm, — what will he not tell us 1 
 Wt are referred, in the next place, to the 
 feverai houfholds which were bap:ized by St. 
 Paul. The juUor's is mentioned hrit. How- 
 then, ihall we, or how can we prove that the 
 jailor had no children? that is, no ^i?z^;z^ child- 
 ren, no infants \ for adult children^ are out of 
 the queflion. Now here we can never fuffi- 
 ciently comrpxCnd our author for the witty in- 
 genuity with which lie hath rallied us, and 
 his inviolable regard to truth when he hath a 
 mind to humble us. He hath informed us of 
 an argument which I have never feen nor even 
 heard of before •, but neverthelefs (if we may 
 vtrnture to beheve him) an argument which 
 hath been urged by one of our brethren. 
 " It may very much be queftioned (fays this 
 " wife and 'very difcerning brother of our's, 
 " but whether real or ficiitious I cannot tell) 
 " it may very much be quellioned whether the 
 " jailor had any children"— -wherefore ? verily, 
 
 " becaufe 
 
f 78 J 
 
 " becaufe it hath been obferved that for rfjany 
 *' years together not one child was born to all 
 *' the jail-keepers in all the coiinty of Efit^x." 
 Now this, as our author tells us, is demonfira^ 
 Hon I Let us fuppofe then, that he hath re- 
 lated nothing but the truth, and that fooner 
 than utter a falfefhood to f*rve a turn, he 
 would fuffer the Doctor to overwhelm him again 
 and again ; — let us fuppofe that his veracity 
 is not the dupe of his zeal, and that lying is 
 the very fin which he moil abominates ; — let 
 us farther fuppofe that he can produce the name 
 of this extraordinary brother, and tell us when 
 and where he firft publilhed his truly wonder- 
 ful argument, — we mufl then, alas ! acknow- 
 ledge that there is a fool or two among the 
 Antip^do-haptifts as well as among their neigh- 
 bours ! What a woeful difaller ! But does Can- 
 didus, then imagine that becaufe foryje of us 
 may have the misfortune to be errant block- 
 heads, it will therefore follow that we are all 
 fo ? Or if one here and there hath ufed a fim- 
 ple, a foolifh argument, will he from thence 
 infer that none of us can produce a good one ? 
 Muft we all, and the Doctor among the reft 
 of us, claim affinity to the fons of Gotham, and 
 be defpifed as meer ideots and moon-rakers ? 
 Forgive me funny Sir, if upon this occafion 
 (for it is fometimes allowable to compare great 
 things to fmall) — forgive me if I prefume to 
 liken you to the honeft taylor in the ftory. 
 Alas ! poor Buckram ! though nature had ne- 
 ver defigned him for a cudgel-player, yet 
 fraught with noble rage and determined to ap- 
 prove himfelf a real hero, he frowned upon 
 the firft tree he came to, and aftaulting it right 
 gallandy with his oaken ftaff, — " there, cries 
 
 " he 
 
[79] 
 
 *' he, good Mr. AJh if thou wert but a man 
 *' as thou art a tree, how finely could I maul 
 " thee"! In like manner, if this pretty argu- 
 ment from the EJfex jail-keepers was but the 
 Dodor's, and not a filly brother's, — what fweet 
 work you would have made with him ! You 
 would have fmitten him, you would have cut 
 him, you would have gafhed him here and there 
 and every where ! 
 
 But, after all, what is the matter with the 
 Doctor's argument, that you fhould make fuch 
 a fool of him ? For, in your opinion,* he rea- 
 fons worfe, much worfe, than our fimple con- 
 jurer of a brother. The Do6tor hath told you 
 that there were no children^ that is, no infants 
 in the jailor's family, — why ? Becaufe it is faid 
 that he believed in God with all his houfe ; 
 " and he, as the Dodor adds, who can find 
 *' any other in the houfe than all who wxre 
 *' in it (that is, than all who believed) muft be 
 reckoned a very fagacious perfon." Indeed I 
 think fo too. But you it feems are highly 
 fatisfied with telling us that the word all is 
 frequently ufed in a limited fenfe. Confequently, 
 when the hiftorian fays, that all the houle be- 
 lieved, he only means that fome of them be- 
 lieved. Now fuppofe we Ihould be willing to 
 talk with you in your own way, and to take 
 the word all in the very fenfe you would have 
 us, — will this pleafe you ? If it will, what Ihall 
 we think, or what Ihall we fay, when we read 
 that all the family were baptiz-d ? We muit 
 fay, truly, that only feme of them were bap- 
 tized. But if fome of them were baptized, 
 2inAfcme of them were not baptize a, — n which 
 party are his fupp fed children to be included ? 
 Verily, with all your cunning and Sagacity, you 
 have forgotten the Dodor'o axiom, his darling 
 
 axiom. 
 
[ 80 J 
 
 axiom, ^' that whatever proves too much^ proves 
 nothing" ! — As to your doubt — " that every in- 
 '^ dividual in the fame family fhould have 
 *' new hearts, penitent fpirits, and faving faith 
 ** in the fame nick of time,'' — where was your 
 piety, your religion, your reverence for the 
 facred oracles, that you fhould fneer at that 
 as an idle tale, which you ought to admire 
 and glory in as an aftonifhing inftance of the 
 energy of divine grace ? What ! is the arm 
 of the Almighty fhortened that he cannot fave ? 
 Or isiUknot he who can change the hearts of 
 many hundreds and many thoufands of indi- 
 viduals, equally able to convert a fingle fami- 
 ly ? The only excufe we can make for you 
 (and God forbid we Ihould refufe to excufe a 
 brother, though his offences fhould be even 
 fe'venty times feven) the only excufe we can 
 make for you, is, that your zeal hath gotten 
 the better of your underflanding •, and that 
 bigotry, in the hurry of difpute, hath con- 
 ftrained you to fay what you never would 
 have faid in the cooler moments of refiedlion ! 
 
 But let us haflen to the houfhold of Lydia, 
 Who, then was Lydia ? If we may take Mr. 
 Mayors word for it, fhe was a mother. But 
 was ilie likewife a wife F Or was fhe a widow ? 
 If neither, let the reader judge what a pretty 
 compliment our author hath pafTed upon her ! 
 Aye, but who can tell what good intelligence 
 he hath met with ? It may be, he hath dif- 
 patched a melTenger either to Philippi or Thya- 
 tira to fearch the rcgiilers : — and yet methinks, 
 after all, it is fomewhat ftrange, if fhe had a 
 hufband, that herfelf fhould be chief manager 
 of the bufmefs, and chief ruler of the houfhold. 
 
 For 
 
[ 8i ] 
 
 For whatever may be the cuftom in good old 
 England^ I cannot perfuade myfelf that in Ly- 
 dia\ country (the eaitern part of the world) 
 it was the ufual privilege of the ladies to wear 
 the- breeches •, nor, indeed, to carry on burinefs 
 at a diftance fi-om their hulbands. On the other 
 hand, if fhe was a wido\;j^ it is fomewhat fur-- 
 prifing that (he is not mentioned as fuch, as well 
 as other pious women. Befides, even fjppofing 
 her to have been a widow, we may lliill enquire 
 hov/ long her hufband.had been dead ? \{ fever d 
 years^ her children were not infants : but ii" our 
 author fnould fay only a mcnth or t-wo^ or fome- 
 thing like it, how can he prove the ailertion ?— 
 But married or unmarried, a mother or no mo- 
 ther, there is not a v/ord, it feenis, in fcripture 
 which intimates that her houlhold believed, or 
 fo much as attended to the words of the apoftles. 
 l"he Doctor, however, has been fimple enough 
 to think otherv/ife. Wherefore? " Becaufe, 
 *• truly, thole in hydioh houfe were brethren^ 
 ^■- whom afterwards the apoilles went to fee, 
 " and whom they com.forted, and fo not in- 
 " fants." But he hath not referred, fays Mr. 
 Mayo^ X.0 xkit te:)ct iox this ^ and to be lure, we 
 fnall not be weak enough to take his v/ord for 
 it. What, then, fays the evangelift ? And they 
 (that, is the apoflles) zvent out of prifon^ and en- 
 tered into the houfe of Lydia ; and when they held 
 feen the brethren^ they comforted them and de- 
 farted. A6ts xvi. 40. Now this fhould intimate, 
 one would think, that the brethren they faw 
 and comforted were of Lydia s fami'y. No, 
 verily, fays our author, this can never be fjp- 
 pofed •, for what a wonder of wonders would it 
 be, that there fliould be feveral brethren grown 
 up to men, living in one houfe, and a filler be 
 
 G the 
 
[ 82 ] 
 
 the- mafter of the houjhold I True, Sir, a Jhe- 
 mafter in this cafe would have been very un- 
 feemly. But does the Do6lor, then, mean that 
 they were Lydias natural brethren ? He hath 
 not told us that he does. But Mayo^ alas 1 is 
 determined to be Mayo Hill, and to drefs the 
 T3o<5Lor (according to cuflom) in a party-coloured 
 vefl, and put the cap of folly on his head, that 
 he may afterwards laugh at him and banter him 
 at his leifure. For my. part, however, it ap- 
 pears to me that, by the brethren^ the Do6lor 
 means only her religious domeftics ; whom the. 
 evangelift might very innocently fpeak of as 
 brethren, in a fpiritual fenfc, without the leafh 
 affront to their miiilrefs, or, if Mr. Mayo will have 
 ic fo, their mafter. It is true, indeed, that we 
 read nothing of their believing in exprefs terms : 
 but if the very apoliies themfclves could look 
 upon them as chriftian brethren^ they may be 
 fuppofed, as chriilian brethren, to have profefTed 
 the lame faith as the apoftles. Our author, in- 
 deed would ptrfyade us that the brethren in 
 queflion were the chriflian believers of the city. 
 Who, then, were thefe r The only perfons whom 
 Paul converted and baptized in the city of 
 Philippi (at leaft fo far as the hiftory informs 
 us) were Lydia and the jailor and their refpedive 
 houfholds. \Vhat, then, can be more likely 
 than that the brethren whom the apoftles faw 
 and comforted, when they left the prifon, were 
 neither more nor lefs than the believing houf- 
 hoid of the former ? 
 
 As to the houiliold of Stephanas., the Do6lor 
 told us, (and produccth his authority for faying 
 fo) that they addi^cd themfelves to the minijtry 
 of the faints., — from whence he fuppofes that 
 they Vv'ere not infants or young children. In 
 
 what 
 
[83] 
 
 what manner hath our author anfwered him? 
 By telling us that his reafoning is futile and be- 
 neath a fchool-boy ! A fhort anfwer this, and 
 doubtiefs a very fuHicient one from a gentlcmaa 
 of Mr. Mayos infalhble difcernment! It is to 
 be hoped, however, that he will fuffer us to 
 reafon in our own v/ay, all futile and all childifh 
 as it is, till he can fpare time to inilrucl our 
 ignorance and put us in a better. 
 
 Thus, Sir, we have confidered your argu- 
 ment from the feveral houfnolds which were 
 baptized by '^x., Paul. But why fnould we 
 call it an argument ? you have referred us to che 
 fcripture-houfholds to prove the truth of infant- 
 baptifm. But wherein lies the proof? Yvou 
 fuppofe (and what may we not fuppofe, if we 
 have a miind to it !) you fuppofe that there was 
 an infant or two in each of the houi'holds in 
 queftion. Can you prove, then, that this was 
 the cafe ? Hath every family a child in ic ? Or 
 fuppofmg it hath, is every child an infant ? If 
 not, how can you tell that there was an infant 
 in the houfiiold of Lydia ? Or an infant in the 
 houlhold of the jailer ? Or an infant in the 
 houfliold of Stephanas ? Or in all or any one of 
 the houihoulds you have mentioned ? Truly by- 
 putting us to prove that there were 710 children 
 in either of them. A very ingenious come off\ 
 and yet we have freely given our reafons for 
 efpoufmg the negative. You ought, however, 
 if you are able to do it, to have given us a 
 proof, not that a houfJjold hath been baptized, 
 but that the houfhold reterred to had an infant 
 in it, one at the leail •, otherwife you give us a 
 proof and no proof. 
 
 But, after all, even luppofing we fhould own 
 
 what you want us to own, that we are abfolute- 
 
 G 2 iy 
 
[ 84 ] 
 
 ly uncertain whether or not the houfholds in 
 quefhion had any infants, — even here the con- 
 fcquence will not be unfavourable. But before 
 I tell you what the coniequence is, let us know 
 your mind. You have intimated that you be- 
 lieve", or fain woula believe, that the fcripture 
 houiholds had caci of them an infant. But are 
 you certain of this ? If you are, you would have 
 told us fo in plain terms -, you would have boafl- 
 ed of it, anct repeated it again and again ^ in 
 fhort, we fhould never have heard the laft of it. 
 Lei us fuppofe, then, that we art: both under 
 the fame uncertainty, and that neither you nor 
 your opponents ran prove any thing either />r^ or 
 con. No V, what vvili be the confequence i* It is 
 manifefcly this — that u we are both of us alike 
 uncerta-n, whether the fcripture-houfholds had 
 any irfar-cs or not, it muft alfo be a great uncer- 
 tuaity whether or not there are any precedents 
 of infant-baptifm. But what fhall we fay of a 
 dubious^ uncertain precedent ? We mufl fay that 
 it is no precedent at all. For when we refer to 
 precedents to direct our practice in a doubtful 
 point of duty, it always /j, and muft be fup- 
 polcd, that fuch precedents are inconteftable ; 
 otherwife we Ihail employ one uncertainty to 
 remove another. But, in fa6l, the cafe before 
 us is not fo full of darknefs and uncertainty as 
 you would willingly perfuade us : for the fcrip- 
 ture-charader of the feveral houlliolds you have 
 mentioned, is not applicable to infants. The 
 jailor's houiliold- were believers.^ Lydids y^^c 
 chnflian brethren., and Stephanas^ are faid to 
 'have- addicted themfeives to xhc miniftry of the 
 faints. 
 
 If it v/ere needful to fay any thing more about 
 precedents, we might refer you to Ads viii, 12, 
 
[85 ] 
 
 when many of the Samaritans believed Philips 
 preaching the things cc:il erning the kingdofn of Gody 
 what did he do v/ith them ? ^hey ^jcere baptized 
 loth men and ivo-nen. Now if it was the pradlice 
 of the apoilk.: tu adminiuer baptilm to covenant- 
 infents, how natural would it have been to have 
 faid, " they were baptized, men, women, and 
 *' children" For if the hiftoi;ian is fo very par- 
 ticular as 10 notice the fex^ he would, doubtlcfs, 
 have been equally explicit as to the difference of 
 Age^ if there had been any room for ii. 
 
 As to your obfervation, that if children re- 
 ceived natural benefit from Chrift, on account 
 of the faith of their parents, — we may, with 
 equal reafon, fuppofe that they did^ n:ay^ and do 
 receive, at times, fpiritiial benefit an i blefTings 
 on the fame account -5 — here 1 heartily join with 
 you, and am perfuaded the Doctor v;ill do lo 
 too, — eife v/herefore do we pray for them ? But 
 when^ — 'uchen^ I fay, do they receive thefe fpi- 
 ritual benefits ? You miuH: anfw^er, when they are 
 
 old enough to make ufe of their reafon. At 
 
 •■-J 
 
 ieafl till then, neither you, nor I, nor the Doc- 
 tor can afBrm any thing either pro or con. 
 
 You have fnrther reminded us that children hav^ 
 fullered ana do fufter for the ciifobedicnce of 
 their firft parents •, an • that many infbances may 
 be produced from hiflory, of childrens fuffering 
 through, and being involved in the guilt and 
 punifhment of their parents evil deeds. Where- 
 fore, then, fhould I, or DoClor C-f//, or doctor 
 anybody, deny them co be equally benefited by 
 their righteous parents r/V/?/f<7«j deeds? Where- 
 fore, indeed ! For temporal benefits are f e- 
 quently beftcwed on the children, as an open 
 reward to the beheving and the faithful pc:ent: 
 and chriflians have fometimes the fatisfaicrion, 
 G 3 though 
 
[ 86] 
 
 though not always, to behold their offspring 
 partakers of the like precious faith with them- 
 felves. But, after all, let them wait till they 
 dif .over their children to be what they wifh them 
 to be, — true penitents, and true believers. It 
 will then be time enough to think of admitting 
 them to baptifm. It is our duty, indeed, to 
 pray for them and inftru6t them •, — to recom- 
 mend them to the divine favour night and day, 
 and teach them the principles of that faith which 
 was once delivered to the faints : but let us wait 
 till we fee the effe6t of our prayers, and the good 
 fruits of our pious inflru^lions, before we receive 
 them, by the water of baptifm, into the congre- 
 gation of the faithful. Otherwife, let us admit 
 them in good earneft, and receive them to one 
 ordinance as well as to the other i to the holy- 
 table as wtU as to the font, — and allow them 
 the fame privileges under the chrijiian as under 
 the legal difpenfation. But, now-a-days, the 
 gofpel-ordinances are flrangely feparated, and 
 many hundreds who have received baptifm are 
 never admitted to the fupper, not only during 
 their infancy, but even afterwards when they 
 come to years of full difcretion. Such, then, 
 is the church-memberlhip of infants ! A church- 
 memberfhip which it is almoft facrilege to de- 
 prive them of They are declared chriftians 
 v/ithout the privilege of chriflian communion, 
 and are re-.eived into the congregation of the 
 faithful without belonging to it. In fhort, they 
 are both in the church and out of the church, 
 and yet neither out of the church nor in it! 
 Venly, good reader, if the monfler Sphinx^ who 
 devoured thofe that could not anfwer her riddles, 
 had propofed fuch a riddle as this to the hero 
 
 Oedifus^ 
 
[87] 
 
 Oedipus^ llie muft certainly have made a meal 
 of him. 
 
 But our author hath required, and openly de- 
 fied us, to produce one Icripture-precedent for 
 delaying the baptifm of the children of chriflian 
 parents till gi-own up ; or for baptizing adult 
 peribns who were born of fuch parents. His 
 meaning is plainly this. " The compafs of the 
 " New Teftament hiilory is at leafl fixty years 
 " after Chriil ; but in all this length of time and 
 *' courfe of years^ there is not a fingle inftance 
 " upon record of the baptifm of an adult per- 
 '' fon whofe parents were chriftians. — VVhat 
 ^' then? — Why, truly, it will follow, either that 
 " none of the chriilians, for fixty years toge- 
 *' ther, had believing children (which would be 
 " as improbable as it is untrue) or, on the 
 " other hand, that thefe children were all bap- 
 '' tized at the fame time as their parents, or at 
 " leaft in their infancy, in confequencc of their 
 " parents faith." But, come, as no man can 
 tell his flrength till he tries it, who knows but 
 we may get the betcer even of this crgmnent^ all 
 formidable as it is ? What, then, fhall we fay 
 to it ^ Why, fuppofe v/e fay, as v/e may, that 
 the only part of the New Teftament-hiftory, 
 after the death of Chrift, in which, initances of 
 the cafe required could^ipipi^ if any where, be 
 expefteo, is the Acfs of the Ape flics j for fun :y 
 the book of the Revelation cuuld never be 
 thought of for fuch a purpoie. fo Mayo^ Mayo^ 
 thou never hadft thy diploma of M. A. for thy 
 {kill in chronology, whatever others may have 
 had; for the Acts of the Apofiles contains a hiftory 
 only of about thirty years \ and fuppofe v/e fay 
 that the faii hifrory was not written to defcribe 
 \\it growth and progrefs^ but only the founding, 
 G 4 and 
 
)(- 
 
 [ 88 ] 
 
 and, as it were, the birth of particular churches. 
 Yenly, upon this fuppolkion, it would be as 
 unrealonable to exped an account who were 
 baptized (that is, after the founding or firft 
 eiiabiifhment ot a church) as who and who were 
 adrritttd to the iupper. — Again, to follow our 
 aiithoi-s way of aigUiPg, is it not furprizing, if 
 it was die cuftc m ot the apoitles to baptize in- 
 fants, thiiiioY a lenph of time ^ a course of years ^ 
 even yf.r/y^ars, there is not one initance, one 
 plain and expreis inftance of this nature in the 
 whck hiiloiy. Indeed it is very furprizing ! So 
 furprizing, that it will be very uiilicult to account 
 for it. 
 
 Thus far, then, we have efcaped tolerably 
 well ; and, to make the leaft of it, conne off as 
 handlomely as our antagonift. Now, then for 
 the viclcry. 
 
 Can we fay, can we prove that, in a fingle 
 inil?nce, the hopfiolder was baptized at one time, 
 and the hoiifidcid at another ? Good reader, at- 
 tend vo what v/e fay, and then judge for your- 
 fe.i. The tirft perfcn that v/e fhall mention is 
 Crifpus^ the chief ruler of a fynagogue. By 
 whom, then, was he baptized ? We read by the 
 .apcitle Paul " I hcptized none of ycu^ fays he, 
 " but Crifpus and Gaius^ Sec" — That is, none of 
 you Ccrintkians : which plainly intimates that 
 he baptized the hcufhold of neither. But had 
 Crifpiis a houfbold? Vv'e read, in Ads xviii, 
 8, that he had not only a hcufijcld^ but a bcliev- 
 irg houfbold. V herefore, then, were not his 
 hv^uftiold baptized ? Undoubtedly they were bap- 
 tized ; but not by the apoftle Taid, From 
 whence it is probable, that though they did he- 
 lieve^ and were baptized, it was Ibme days, and, 
 h may be feveral weeks, or feveral months, af- 
 ter 
 
 iir 
 
[ 89] 
 
 ter Crifpus himfelf was baptized. Here, then, 
 is one precedent, — a precedent for delaying the 
 baptilln of the children of chriftian parents till 
 believers. The cafe of Gaitij would, in all like- 
 lihood, furnifh anorher. But this we ihail omit, 
 and pafs to Stephanas. Who, then, baptized 
 Stephanas ? Not Paul •, for he only baptized his 
 houfhold. If, therefore, Stephanas himfelf was 
 ever baptized, as it is plain he muil have been, 
 (fee I Cor. xvi, 17,) he v/as baptized at fom.e 
 other tune, and by fome other perfon, before 
 the apoftle baptized his houfhold. Here, then, 
 is a third precedent. So that your defiances., your 
 boafting defiances, are no longer in full force. 
 You will reply, perhaps, by running off to that 
 ever hcfpitable trope, and friendly afyium of 
 bafiled difputants, the Synechdoche : the hGuJhold 
 includes the houfhold and the mailer •, and the 
 mafter includes the mailer and the houfhold. But 
 if this was the apoiiles meaning, inilead of 
 mentioning the mafter in one inftance, and the 
 houfhold in another, it is highly probable that 
 lie would have mentioned the mailer in all of 
 them ; and faid, " I bapdzed none of you but 
 '' Crifpus, 2ir\^ Gaius, znd S "T E P HJN J S" 
 You muit, therefore, bid adieu to tropes and 
 figures, and never hope ty thefc, in the prefent 
 infiance, to combat adverfaries whom vou have 
 handled with iuch unfparing feverity. 
 
 Your lail refort is to antiquity. But as the 
 Doc'jor hath nor pleaded this in his favour in 
 his printed fermon, you have v/ifely concluded 
 that be is at length convinced 'tis againft him : 
 though, it ihould feem by what you have faid 
 in the next page, he fiill retains a fondnefs for 
 TertnUian., and hath even gloried in him a litt].e 
 too freely. Confidering, however, theilrength 
 
 an^ 
 
C 90 ] 
 
 and long continuance of his former prejudices, 
 this may be deemed fomewhat excufable,— 
 he could not wean himfelf all at once. But 
 oh ! fatal, fatal blunder, the Dodor hath de- 
 clared that infant-baptifm is a popijh invention 
 and foolery. Now v/hat does this manifeft ? 
 *' It fhews," {^s our author, (fomething or a- 
 nother, we may well fuppofe, which is too bad 
 to be mentioned) — " it fhews — but I fpare him." 
 Well done, Mr. Orator ! what a beautiful Jpo^ 
 Jiopejis ! Verily, thou haft learned rhetoric for 
 fomething ? But whatever may be the mean- 
 ing of this dumb eloquence, this fpeaking 11- 
 lence, — we need not hefitate to pronounce the 
 Do6tor an ig'doramus^ a meer ignoramus in chro- 
 Tiology and ecclefiaftical hi ft or y ! For who knows 
 not that the frft pope was Boniface the third, 
 in the feventh century, anno 606 ^ If any one 
 whoever fhould be fo ignorant as not to know 
 it, let him only read the note at the bottom 
 of the page, in which our chronologer and hif- 
 torian of lafting note hath kindly noted (as a 
 note, to be fure of his ov/n great learning and 
 extenfi-ve reading) "that the title papa or pope 
 " was not peculiar to the bilhops of Rome^ 
 " but was given to all bifhops in the firft 
 '' centuries of the church. We frequently meet 
 " with papa or pope Cyprian, &.c." Now this 
 is argument ! this is proof ! this is demonftra- 
 tion ! many bifhops before Boniface were called 
 pap^ or popes— ^x^p^ papa or pope Boniface was 
 not only the firft univerfal hifmp^ but \k\^ firft 
 pope or papa among them all ! But, O thou, 
 the very Zeno of modern divines, and the trufty 
 fword of Pasdo-baptifm; is there no difference 
 between the baptifm of infants as a new, an 
 ynfettled, and '^ confined pradice, ^nd as a ge- 
 neral 
 
r 9\ 3 
 
 peral and an eftablifhed cuftom ? And is there 
 no difference between the beginning of popery, 
 and its being at its height, or near it, as ia 
 the time of Boniface ? If there is, the Dodor 
 might fafely fpeak of it as ^ipopiflj foolery^ &c. 
 without denying that it prevailed here and there 
 before the papacy was at its height. Accord- 
 ingly, he hath frankly toki us, that it was moved 
 for in Tertullian's time, and pradifed in the days 
 of Cyprian (fee the argument from apofloiic 
 tradition, &c. page i8th.) 
 
 But let us hear what you are able to urge 
 from antiquity. We will fuppofe, then, that 
 you are not beholden in this point (as it fhould 
 feem the DoClor is) to the references of an op- 
 ponent^ but to your own learning and reading \ 
 we will fuppofe that you have read the fa- 
 thers over and over with your own eyes, and 
 that you have fet_up night after night, yea 
 whole nights together for that purp©fe, we 
 will fuppofe that there is fcarceiy a volume, 
 ■ — a Lrap of primitive tlieoiogy which you have 
 not feen, and thoroughly examined, and fearched 
 as cani'uUy as lawyers perufe the ftatute-book. 
 Come then, Mr. Indujlry^ let us fee v/hat you 
 have been able to glean from the fields of an- 
 tiquity. You begin v/ith the fourth century, 
 from whence you proceed to the thirds and 
 afterwards to the fecond. Infant-baptiim, truly, 
 prevailed not only in the fourth centur}% but 
 alio in the third ; not or:ly in the third, but 
 ^Ifo in the fecond ^ and if in the fecond cen- 
 tury, confequently in the firfi; what a beautiful 
 gradation ! 
 
 Let us begin, then, with the fourth cen- 
 ):ury, in which Auftin (rx feems) maintained 
 
 thax 
 
[ 92 ] 
 
 that the chriftian church had always held and 
 praclifed infant bapulm as ba apoftolic tra- 
 dition. Now we may doiiDtlels iuppofe from 
 hence that the v ord of 6*/. Auft? i is genuine 
 golpel, and ought never to be ca.led in quef- 
 tion upon any account. For \{ we may ciif- 
 pute it in one cafe, we certainly may in ano- 
 ther. Be it fo, then •, — St. Aitftin was 
 infallible. Vill this pleale y^^u 't If a will, — 
 who IS it that declares iyifant-communion., to oe 
 CVK^ a facred, a^ apoftolic tradition }—St. Aunin.— 
 Who is it that mentions exorcifms and exfuf- 
 fiations as rites in baptifm of ancient tradition, 
 and therefore ufed by the chriftian church 
 throughout the world ? — St. Auftin.- — ^ho is it 
 that fpeaks of confecrating the waters of bap- 
 tifm, and anointing the fubjcds of it with oil ? 
 — St. Aujiin — Who js it that delcribes immerfion 
 (that difagreeable., xhzx painful., that dangerous 
 practice) as the received mode in which the or- 
 dinance w^as adininiilerea ?— 6"/. Auf:in^ — the ve- 
 ry fame St. Aujiin v/ho is referred to as the 
 great bulwark of infant-baptifm. Aye, but his ' 
 cotemporary Pelagius v/as a Pjedo-baptift^ though 
 it v/ould have been his intereft to have ohje5fed 
 to the baptifm of infants as not praftifed by 
 the apoftles. But wherefore his intereft .^ Tru- 
 ly, becaufe he denied original fin. But have 
 none of the Baptifts denied it ^ Yes, verily?; 
 — and yet I have not heard of one of them 
 who hath argued from the denial of baptifm 
 to infants ; which, however, might as reafcn- 
 ably be expecled of them., as of Pelagius. But 
 Pelagius declares, fays our author, not only that 
 he himfelf was for infant-baptifm, but that he 
 never heard, no not of an i?npicus heretic^ w^ho 
 would difpute it. Now, here, I will not ob- 
 
[ 93 ] 
 jedb that none of the writings of Pelagius are 
 extant, — nor that the words in queflion are a 
 meer quotation, a quotation made by his an- 
 tagoniit ♦, St. Auftin I will fuppofe hath done 
 him the ftrideit jutlice j fo that we may now 
 con/erfe with Pelagius^ and know his mind as 
 fully and as furely, as if he had fpoken to 
 us by v/ord of mouth. But, after all, I am 
 far from being fatisHed, that even in this caie, 
 what he fays was meant of infant-baptifiii. What! 
 had he never heard of • T^^r/^/Z/V^/;,— neither he, 
 nor St. Auftin ? Or hath our fpiritual antiquary 
 never read in Jerome of fome chriftians, at the 
 very time we are fpeaking of (the age of Pe- 
 lagius) w^ho refufed to give baptifm to their 
 children ? Hath he read nothing to the fame 
 purpofe in h-is favourite Augujtin F Or hath he 
 never feen the canon, — " it is iikewife our plea- 
 " fure that whoever denies that new-born in- 
 " fants are to be baptized, let him be ana- 
 " thema,"— a canon of the council of Carthage 
 in which Auftin was prefident, and which ma- 
 nifeftly fuppofes that infant-baptifm was by 
 fome denied and rejected ? Lafdy, hath he 
 never read, hath he never heard, that the Pe- 
 lagians themfelves denied baptifm to the infants 
 of believers ? If he hath not, his opponents have. 
 Accordingly, it is fuiHciehtly plain from the 
 connexion, that Pelagius refers not to infant-bap- 
 tifm, but to the charge v/hich was alledged 
 againft him, that he had promifed the king- 
 dom of heaven to fome, that is to infants, with- 
 out the redemption of Chrift,— a charge which 
 his enemies grounded on his denial of the doc- 
 trine of original fm. 
 
 — But after all, fays our author, " it is very 
 " remarkable, that in the lift of what are ftiled 
 
 '' heretics 
 
[ 94 ] 
 '* heretics and hereftesy from the apoilles time 
 *' to the eleventh century, we meet with none 
 *' that deny infant-baptiim." But what does this 
 prove ? If we are certain, as we are and muft 
 be, that Tertullian and others difapproved of 
 it, it will follow either that thefe were no 
 heretics, or that the perfons who compiled the 
 iifl were a very negligent and a very carelefs 
 fet of men, and confequently not to be re- 
 garded. 
 
 But it is time to go back to the third ctn^ 
 tuiy. As to Cyprian^ then, and his boafled 
 council of fixty-Jix hiJJjcps^ the very arguments 
 they produce for infanr-baptifm are fufHcient 
 arguments that it was a novels an infant '^xd.&\^Q^ 
 for how have they argued ? Do they refer us 
 to any precept for it in the holy fcriptures ?— 
 No. — Do they refer us to the cuftom of the apo- 
 illes, or their immediate lliccefibrs ? — No, — 
 What then do they do ? They offer arguments 
 which any modern P^do-baptifts would be 
 afhamed of \ — fuch as the giving the grace of 
 God to all men, and the equality of the gift to 
 all, as proved from the fpiritual equality of the 
 bodies of infants and adults, which is inferred 
 from ElificCs ftretching himfelf on the child of 
 the Shimcunite. They farther argue from the 
 words of Peter that nothing is to be called co7n- 
 mon or unclean^ and from the comparative inno- 
 cence of infants, and the necefTity of baptifm to 
 falvation. Yea, the weeping and the crying of 
 infants they have interpreted as praying. What 
 hopeful arguments are thefe ! Yet fuch were the 
 arguments of Cyprian and his council of bilhop'>. 
 (See his letter to Fidus.) If therefore, even thofe 
 ■who lived in the third century, when arguing 
 profeiTedly for the baptifm of infants, have not 
 
 pleaded 
 
[95] 
 
 pleaded antiquity, what Ihall we fay of the mo- 
 dern P^do'haptifts who make this their lafl re- 
 fort, their ftrong, their impregnable fortrefs ? 
 But, come, let us allow that father Cyprian^ and 
 his brethren biiliops, are to rule our practice, and 
 guide our faith; — they fhall govern, and we fub- 
 mit ; they fhall be m afters, and v/e the fcholars. 
 What then, fays Cypria7t ? He plainly intimates 
 that, in his time, infant -communion was the re- 
 ceived practice of the church ; for he relates to 
 that purpofe an extraordinary ftory of which 
 him.felf was an eye-v/itnefs. Again, in Cyprian's 
 age, the fign of the crofs, exorcifm, the con- 
 fecration or fanclifying of the water of baptifm, 
 holy chryfms, the baptifm.ai ring and kifs, and 
 feveral other ceremonies were in uic which are 
 now rejected. But if the authority of Cyprian 
 is of any weigh* let us revive thefe ancient 
 ulages j — otherwiie let us no longer plead it 
 for infant-baptifm. 
 
 As to Origen^ as our author hath only men- 
 tioned his name, without telling us what he 
 fays, it will be needlefs to take any notice of 
 him. As to Irenasus, moreover, who lived in 
 the fecond century, and Clemens Rcmanus who 
 lived in the fr/l^ — I am not lurprized our author 
 hath told us that thefe alfo were likeminded 
 (that is Psdobaptifts> without quoting any thing 
 from either of them : for, in truth, as to infant- 
 baptifm they are totally fiient, — yea' they have 
 not lb mAich as hinted it, no not once^ — But 
 what ihall I fay, when I hear Juftin mentioned ? 
 — an author who wrote openly and avowedly 
 in defence of the chriftian religion ? Y/hat ! is 
 Candidus ignorant, with all his boafting, and all 
 his pretended fkili in ecclefiaftical hiftory, is he 
 ignorant, that the primitive chriftians in the 
 
 days 
 
[96 ] 
 
 days of Juftin were fliamefully (landered, and 
 traduced as ufing their children, their own 
 children with the vileft inhumanity ? • Was 
 this a trifling charge, a trifling accufation ? 
 If not, — when he gives the Emperor an open, a 
 fair, a particular account of, chrillian baptifm, 
 wherefore did he omit and overlook the baptifm 
 of infants ? Why did he not plead, and infill 
 upon it, by way of defence (and a very natural 
 defence it v/ould have been) that the chriilians 
 were fo far from m.ifufing their children, that, 
 on the contrary, they openly blefied them., and 
 ■devoted them to the Almighty, by one of the 
 moil: folemn ordinances of their religion? If 
 infant-baptifm is to be looked for any where, it 
 iliould be here -, if it was the pradice of juftin 
 arid his cotemporaries, we fhould find it here. 
 But, fo far from this, he hath not m.entioned it : 
 — on the contrary, the very account he hath 
 given us of chriilian baptifm excludes the bap- 
 tifm of infants. See the whole at length in 
 Rees, page i6o, of • Infant-baptifm no Inilitu- 
 tion, &c. 
 
 But to proceed, let us fuppofe that the firfb 
 of the fathers who hath mentioned infant-bap- 
 tifm had heartily approved of it, and recom- 
 mended it;- — that he had fupported it by nervous 
 arguments, and folid proofs ;— then, alas! with 
 -what trium.ph and affurance would his teflim.ony 
 have been produced againft us ! — rand what a load 
 of rebuke would have been call: upon. lis for 
 Handing out againfl fuch powerful evidence ! 
 we fhould have been condemned as manifeli 
 bigots,— llubborn, unyielding, incorrigible bi- 
 gots. Bur, on the other hand, becaufe Terlul- 
 lian, the firfl of the fathers v/ho hath taken no- 
 tice of it, hath' fpoken againft it, the cafe is 
 
 altered. 
 
[ 97 ] 
 
 altered. What in us would have been obfti- 
 nacy, is only warinefs and circumrpev5tion in 
 our opponents, T^ertullian^ truly, hath not de- 
 nied infant-baptifm, but ^"^ fully pro^jes it was 
 " the pra6tice of the church in his time." Verily, 
 this is flrange indeed! He hat!: diiapproved of 
 it, he hath oppofed it, he hath wrote and argued 
 againft it, and yet he hath not cfenied it. At 
 this rate, neither the Doctor, nor I, nor any 
 other perfon hath denied it. But how hath he 
 proved, fully proved ; that it v/as the general 
 pra(5lice of the church in his ovs^n times ^ Truly, 
 by {landing forth againft ii. Confequently, if 
 Mr Mayo^ fhculd fet pen to paper, and go to 
 work with thofe he nicknames th.t pure Glaffites, 
 his performance, if it fhould furvive the havock 
 of time, and live to diftant centuries, would 
 then be a proof, a full proof, that the princi- 
 ples he oppofes would be the prevailing principles 
 of the age. Aye, but Tertullian^ Motive for op- 
 ^pofing infant-baptifm was a notion that baptifni 
 wafhed away fm. This, at lead, is what our au- 
 thor would inlinuate. But hath he ever read 
 TertuUian ? If he hath, he muil think other- 
 wife, whatever he is pleafed to fay. For 'Ter- 
 tullianh reafon (if his own words may determine 
 it) is the incapacity of infants to underftand the 
 meaning of baptifm. " Our Lord fays indeed'*, 
 (thefe are his words) — «' our Lord fays indeed, 
 *''• forbid them not (that is, infants) to come unto 
 " me : let them come, then, when they are 
 *' grown up \ let them come when they under- 
 " ftand; let them be made chriftians, when 
 " they can know Chrift, &c." How, then, could 
 you fo artfully infinuate that the necefTity of 
 baptifm to regenerate and wafh away fin, firft 
 led fome to objed againft the baptifm of in- 
 fants ? 
 
[ 98 ] ^ 
 fants ? Is this the objedion of any modern j^nti- 
 p^dGpaptift ? Far from it. The notion, indeed, 
 both 'was and ftiil is adopted by the Romijh 
 church •, and is, in fact, the frrongefl pillar of 
 infanr^baptifm, not only among catholics^ but 
 in the minds of many ignorant proteftants ; and 
 fo firmly is it fixed, that if every argument 
 Vv'hich the Bapifts have urged fhould be deemed 
 unanfvrerable, this alone would fupport a prac- 
 tice v/ith fomiC perfons which cuftom and edu- 
 cation have rendered venerable. 
 
 To conclude, if it is a matter of fuch con- 
 vincing, fuch powerful, fuch inconteftible, fuch 
 irrefiflible evidence as Mr. Mayo would wiUing- 
 ly perfuade us, that it was the general, and the 
 ccnftant cuftom, of the primitive churches, to 
 adminifter baptiim to infants, how happens it, 
 that feveral eminenl and very learned Pasdobap- 
 tifts have confidered the pradice as a thing of 
 doubtful original, and queftioned the frequency, 
 and indeed the very exiftence of it in the earlier 
 ages of chriftianity*? Thefe are circumftances 
 of undent able triith, and, one would think, of 
 force fuHicient to abate the confidence of every 
 boafting zealot, and ftagger the prejudices of 
 every modefl: and difpaiTionate reafoner. 
 
 Thus, good reader, we have fully confidered 
 v/hat hath been advanced by Mr. Mayo^ for the 
 baptiim of infants. Your bufinefs is to judge 
 for yourfelf ; — and to judge, neither negligently^ 
 nor haftily. Not hafiily^ left you miftake the 
 mere appearance of truth for tru.h itleif :— -nor 
 negligently^ left you put a flight upon a facred 
 ordinance, which Chnft himfelf hath conde- 
 fcended to inftitute. Truth, in all cafes, is an 
 objecl worthy of attention, — but more cfpecially 
 in m.atters of rehgion, I know, indeed, that to 
 
 many 
 * See the Appendix, 
 
[99] 
 
 many perfons things of this nature, appear fo 
 trifling and immaterial that they will icircely 
 furnilhroom iox amufement^ — much lefs for fiber 
 thought. But, nevertheiefs, what heaven has 
 thought proper to appoint, fhould claim the re- 
 fpect and attract the attention of every fenfible 
 man. Baptilm is a divine infiitution : — we all 
 acknowledge it to be fo : — it is, therefore, cer- 
 tainly worth our while to have proper notions of 
 it : — otherwife, the Almighty hath appointed an 
 ordinance which is beneath our notice, and fent 
 his Son to encumber us with a ceremony of the 
 moil trifling confequence. But if there is no one 
 who would harbour a thought, which is fo dif- 
 honourable to his maker, let us confider the 
 fubjed with that fobriety and attention which 
 is due to every thing that bears the flgnature of 
 heaven. Let us no longer fubmit to the leiTons 
 of education, and the dictates of mere cuflom, 
 (thofe mafters which have too frequently mifled 
 the wife and the worthy, as well as the ignorant) 
 but henceforward take our opinion of a facred 
 infiitution (fuch as baptifm is) from thofe ora- 
 cles which are the only llandard of every reli- 
 gious appointment. 
 
 FINIS, 
 
 Laus Deo Optimo maxinio. 
 
 APPENDIX, 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 Tejiimonies in favour of believers haptifrriy 
 by learned Pcedobaptijis. 
 
 G ROT lU S. 
 
 " TNFANT baptifm feems to me to have been 
 
 " JL praclifed of old far more frequently in 
 
 " Africa than in Afia^ or any other parts of the 
 
 " world, and with a greater opinicn of its ne- 
 
 '•' cefTity. For in the councils we find no men- 
 
 " tion of this cuftom before the council of 
 
 " Carthage." 
 
 Annot. in Matt. xix. 14. 
 
 CURCELLjEUS, 
 
 '^ Psdobaptifm, in the two fir^ centu- 
 " ries after Chrifl, was unknown, but in the 
 " third and fourth was approved of by a few, 
 " began to prevail in the fifth and fubfequcnt 
 ^' ages J and therefore this rite is obfen^ed by 
 " us, not as an apoilolic tradition, but as a 
 *' cuftom of long condnuance." 
 
 Rclig. Chriil. Infl. Lib. I. c. 12. 
 
 SUIC E R US. 
 
 ^' In the two firft ages no one received baptifm 
 " unlefs he who being previouily inftrudted in 
 *' the faith, and tindturcd v/ith the doctrine of 
 " Chrifr, could teflify that he beheved &c." 
 
 Thefaur. Eccl. Tub voceX'jya|ij. 
 
 I BRANDT. 
 
102 A P P E N D 1 X, 
 
 BRANDr: 
 
 " That good and very ancient cuflom of bap- 
 " tiling infants, is advanced with too much 
 " violence by fome, and oppofed with no lefs 
 " by others. This ceremony, as fome think, 
 " prevailed firft in Africa and Greece^ but in 
 " fuch a manner that fome dodlors of the church 
 *' openly declared that they could not confent to 
 " it." Annot. onB. II. p. 8. 
 
 Bp. BARLO JV, 
 
 " The truth is, infant baptifm did (how or 
 " b) whom 1 know not) come in in the fecond 
 " century, — and in the third and fourth began 
 " to be practifed, though not generally, and de- 
 " fended as lawful by that text grofsly mifun- 
 *' ceritood. John, iii. 5." 
 
 Grantham's friendly epifl. p. 11. 
 
 After telling us that he had difcovered that 
 
 the only iniants or little children intended by 
 
 the early fathers v.hen they fpeak of them as 
 
 baptized, v/ere thcfe that were capable of cate- 
 
 cheti. inilruf.ion adus, — " This moft important 
 
 ' difcove y I loon communicated to the world 
 
 ' in this paper (i. e. Primitive infant-haptifyn 
 
 ' revived) whi..h both bifhop Hoadly and Dr. 
 
 ' Ckrk greaily approved, but fdll went on in 
 
 ' the ordinary pra^ice, notwithllanding. I fent 
 
 ' this paper alfo by an intimate friend, Mr. 
 
 ' Haines^ to Sir Isaac Newtont, and defired 
 
 ' to know his opinion. The anfwer returned 
 
 " was 
 
APPENDIX. 103 
 
 " was this, that they both had difcovered the 
 " fame thing befjre •, nay, I afterwards found 
 *' that Sir Ifaac Newton was fo hearty for the 
 " Baptifts as wdl as for the Eufebians or Aria; ,s, 
 " that he fometimes fufpec^led thefe two were 
 *' the two witneiTes in the Revelation." 
 
 Vid.3 VVhi.lon's life page 177, 178. 
 
 Dr. WHI'J BT. 
 
 Owns that Dr. Gale's very learned letters prove 
 it to be doabtful and uncertain, whether infant- 
 baptifm cid conllantly obtain till fe/erai hun- 
 dred years after Chnft. 
 
 Diirert.de S. Script, interpretatione, pref. § 5. 
 
 LU DOFICUS VIVES, 
 
 '' None were baptized of old, but thofe who 
 *•' were of age, who did not only tindcriland 
 *' what the myfterv of the water meant, but de- 
 " fired the fame; the perfed image v/hereof we 
 " have yet in our infant-bap tifm. For it is afked 
 " of the infant, wilt thou be baptized f* for 
 " whom the f jrecies anfwer, I will." 
 
 Ccmment. m Augaft. lib. I. cap. 27. 
 
 Bp. t: ATLO R. 
 
 Lib. Prpph. p. ^l<^. " It is againft the per- 
 " petual analogy of Chrift's do?lrine to bap- 
 " tife infants -, for befides that Chrift never giv^e 
 *' any precept to baptife them, nor ever .him- 
 ^' felf, nor his apoftles, that appears, did baptife 
 " any of them, — -all that either he cr his aDoilles 
 " faid concerning it, requires fuc^- revious dif- 
 ^' pofitions to baptifm, of which in .^ ts are not 
 ^' capable, and thefe are faith and repentance." 
 I 2 To 
 
104 APPENDIX. 
 
 To make no more quotations on this head, 
 many learned P^dohaptifts have acknowledged 
 that there is nothing exprefs, either as to precept 
 or precedent^ for the baptifm of infants, in the 
 whole New Teftament. They will farther ac- 
 knowledge that the fcriptures Ihould be our only- 
 guide in matters of religious inftitution. The 
 unprejudiced reader wilf draw the proper in- 
 ference. 
 
 Tejiimonies hi Favour of Immerjion^ 
 
 GROriUS. 
 
 *' That this rite (baptifm) was wont to be pCN 
 *' formed by immerfion, and not by perfufion, 
 " appears both from the propriety of the word, 
 '' and the places chofen for its admjniitration, 
 " John iii. 2, 3. Adis viii. 38, and from the 
 " many allufions of the apoftle which cannot be 
 " be referred to fprinkling, Rom. vi. 3, 4. Col. 
 " ii. 12." Annot. inMat. iii. 6. 
 
 MASr RIC HT. S.S.T.R 
 
 " Immerfion only was ufed by the apoftles and 
 " primitive church." Theologia, p. 918. 
 
 CALVIN. 
 
 " Here we plainly fee what m.anner of bap- 
 
 " tizing there was among the ancients, for the 
 
 " whole body was dipped into water" 
 
 On Afts viii. 38. 
 
 Bp. rAT^ 
 
<i 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 Bp. TJTLOR. 
 
 " The cuflom of the ancient church was not 
 fprinkling, but immei-fion, &c." 
 
 Dua. Dub. lib. 3, 4. 
 
 Dr. IVIT S lUS. 
 
 (i.) "^ It is certain that both John and the 
 difciples of Chriil, ordinarily uied dipping, 
 whofe example was followei by the ancient 
 church. (2.) It cannot be denieJ that the na- 
 " tive fignification of the words ^a^ri^^-" and '^ciTfu^ety^ 
 " is to plunge or dip. — Nor are we to conceal 
 " (3.) that there is a greater copiournefs of fig- 
 " nification, and a fuller fimilitu:'e between the 
 " fign and the thing fignined in immerjion. (4.) 
 " Nay, that immerficn may be performed in 
 " cold countries, without any great danger of 
 " health and life, appears from the example of 
 " the Rujjians^ who plunge the children that 
 " are to be baptized three times all over, not 
 '' believing that baptiiin can be duly performed 
 " by any other v/ay." 
 
 CEconomy of the Covenants, Vol. Ill, p. 1213, 1214. 
 
 Bp. r ILLOr SO N, 
 
 " Anciently thofe who were baptized put off 
 " their garments, v/hich fignified the putting off 
 ^' the body of fin, and were immerfed and bu- 
 ^' ried in the water, &c." 
 
 Sermon on 2 Tim. ii. 19. p. 22, 
 
 Bp. HOABLT. 
 
io6 APPENDIX. 
 
 Bp. HOADLT, 
 
 *' Baptifm, or the ceremony of immerjion in 
 '' water^ reprelents to chri[tians their death un- 
 *' tofm," &c. 
 
 Sermon before the King, Feb. 15, 1729-30. 
 
 M E D E, 
 
 *' There was no fuch thing as fprinkling or 
 t« iav1t£7-^o; ufed in the apoftles time, nor many 
 " ages after them." Diatribe on Tit. iii.5. P* ^3« 
 
 Dr. MANrO N, 
 
 " The ancient manner of baptizing was to 
 " dip the parties baptized, and as it were bury 
 ^' them under the water for a while." 
 
 On Rom. vi. 4. p. 14. 
 
 CA L V I N. 
 
 *' The very word baptizing fignifies to dip ; 
 '' and it is certain that the rite of dipping was 
 ^' obferved of ihe ancient church," 
 
 Inft. lib.4. chap. 15. fed. 19. 
 
 LU "T H E R, 
 
 ^' I would have thofe that are to be baptized, 
 
 *' to be .wholly dipped into the water, as the 
 
 " word imports, and the myftery doth fignify.'* 
 
 Tcm. II. de Baptifm. Fol. 19. 
 
 Dr. HAM-^ 
 
APPENDIX. 107 
 
 Di'. HAMMOND, 
 
 « BaTrVjuo? lignifies an immerfion, or waibing 
 " of the whole body. Annot, on John xiii. 10, 
 
 POOL. 
 
 To be baptized is to be dipped in water. ^* 
 
 Vid. in Mat. xx. 22. 
 
 P I SCArO R, 
 
 " It feems to refpect the ancient rite, whea 
 *^ as the whole body was dipt into the water, 
 " and fo as it were buried, and prefently again 
 " drawn out as out of the grave." 
 
 In Rom. vi. 4. and Col. ii. 12. 
 
 Dr. DODDRIDGE, 
 
 " It feems the part of candor to confefs, that 
 *' here is an aUufion to the manner of baptizing 
 ** by immer/ion, as moft ufual in thofe early times." 
 
 On Rom. vi. 4. 
 
 Dr. Tho. GOODWIN. 
 
 " The eminent thing fignified and reprefented 
 " in baptifm is not fimply the blood of Chriil, 
 " as it wafheth us from fin, but there is a fur- 
 " ther reprefentation therein of Chrift's death, 
 " burial, and refurreftion -, in the baptized be- 
 " ing firfl buried under water^ and then rifing 
 « out of it." &:c. 
 
 Chrilt fet forth, edit. 2d, p. 128. 
 I might 
 
I mighrqu(3te man/ more fedobaptifls to the 
 fame purpole, but iBall conclude, with what the 
 learned 'and favourite J)y^ Cv:en hath (aid of the 
 jev-'iili baptifms. '' The RabbinSj^; faidhe, have 
 **- framed a baptifm for- thcfe. that enter 'intci their 
 *^ Synagogue. A fancy too greedily enibr;^:^'.ed by 
 ^' fome chriflian writers, who wjuld have the 
 '^ lioly ordinance of the church's b^pt^fm to^ be 
 *' ^(feived froin thence:-^ nere^ar^: jpc«: ihe leaft 
 H 'foctfleps cf ■ any R;.ch-ufage amotig "the 'j'^vvs, 
 •*^ r-ntil after the, days, of John Bapuu, inlmita- 
 " tion of whom it was fSil taken up by fome 
 -*' anti-mifhnical Rabhim/'"- ' 
 
 Vid; ExeiX. on Hear. Vol. i. p. 272- 
 
 Let the reader judge from the above qu^L,^- 
 tions(v/hich he may be anured a"e both fa -V^uMu 
 auchentic) — let him icius-e whether Ca^tdid::' ' 
 our author- alTe^b to be called) hath a thou, . 
 part ci; the modHly of thole who had ten .thou- 
 iitiA fiineshis; learning. Vit wilHibewife 'pt: 
 ceiye that, immerfion was f>_maiu^i^yy the p:.- 
 tnitiye mode cf baptifm, that the moii ab'a 
 chs^xnpiGrv. for P^dobaptifm have readily a:- 
 kt^owiedged it, and fonie of them fubaiuteciVto 
 the fyrlnBmp-^ mode radicr -asra; pra^J^ 9; of :Ioug. 
 cuilom than divine inlti :iition. — ^J May<>r,P^>Syo'! 
 how I pity thee! §m I mufl pronounce thee 
 guilty either cf fhamefui igaofance^ or , fl-^ame; 
 ful effrontery! Let me theiefDre-^civiie W'i iii 
 •futur0^ that is before yoii venture into; ^noiher 
 fray, to examine carefully (as iio,ruCe'la5^s) 
 
 ^dd vckant humeri^ quid /: / rttecufmi 
 FINIS, 
 
vm. 
 
 
 
 : ^# 
 
 i Still:': 
 
 
 
 
 Hi 
 
 
 f or(C[c Mir (^'-m, 
 
 
 
 'iiii 
 
 
.^^.^^^ 
 
 
 
 0, '.?*'« 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 ( 1 
 
 ? • 
 
 
 1'- 
 
 wr' Cfir^ 
 
 ^c accede: : cc 
 
 ' ( << 'C f vf <- V 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^#f 
 
 
 
 C 
 
 [ 
 
 r 
 C 
 
 c 
 r 
 
 -41 
 
 
 r^«: C( 
 
 ccc c 
 
 ^ i 
 
 V 
 
 * ml; 
 
 ^A a 
 
 <:cc<^ c 
 
 <!CC! 
 
 
 
 
 CC'- c 
 
 ccco: c 
 
 
 c 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 CC 
 
 c 
 
 c 
 
 C 
 
 
 
 
 C