...

be a blind and foolish obftinacy to a prefent notion, a dif• avowing all future ufe of reafon for our fecurity. . . . He declares, that that perfon best enjoys the true and genuine faith, who never afked himself one fingle question about it, and never dealt at all in the evidence of reafon..... And tho' he obferves, that we are ordered to be taught the faith in our childhood, vet he exprefsly affirms, that faith. and religion can never be a thing that is to be taught, and that it must needs be fomething that does not require time to ' attain.' That the chriftian faith cannot be a rational thing, [becaufe] that we are ordered to be baptized into ' it. This he reprefents as the known original of faith, the great root whence all our religious impreffions notoriously Spring, and that, by the baptifmal ceremony, men commence true believers at once: And this, even whilst they have not the least share or symptom of understanding. He feems to lay great ftrefs upon this, and returns to it in feveral parts of his pamphlet.'

This, I think, is all, except one line, that the doctor hath any where cited from this author's objection about infant-baptifm; whether because it appeared to him too difficult to answer it, and vindicate the practice therein exposed, or from an unwillingness in exprefs terms to give it up and difavow it, I fhall not pretend to fay. For, as to what he fays about the education of children, I take that to be no plea at all for infant-baptifm; fince the children. of thofe, who oppose that practice, may have the fame advantage of a chriftian education. Befides which, they are in no danger of having their minds prejudiced against the truth by fuch human traditions, to which the others are expofed, and is the true reafon, why many fincere perfons are kept from yielding a perfonal and voluntary obedience to Chrift in his own appointed way. However, this is fufficient to fhew, that if the practice of our Pædobaptift brethren be not a ftumbling block in the way of Infidels; yet it certainly gives them a very great handle to expofe, and is now made the occafion of their fneering at and deriding, Chriftianity, as if infant-fprinkling was really a part of it, and contained in the New Teftament: tho' as the doctor exprefles himfelf,

2 Nothing can be more contrary to plain and undeniable fact, more contradictory in all its parts, and more evidently fubverfive of itself, than the fcheme here ad•vanced

Ibid. p. 28. 2 Second Letter, p. 55.

vanced by this writer. I am fenfible this Gentleman will be ready to fneer at the charge. For undoubtedly he does not intend that the world fhould look upon it as a thing which he himself believes. It is the true fcriptural and revealed account of the matter, and the fcripture alone must answer for it. And therefore the more contradictions are proved upon this fcheme, the better it will anfwer his defign, which is to expofe Chriftianity to the derifion and contempt of mankind.' where,

And elfe

3 I do not think there can be a more complete scheme of abfurdity and enthufiafm, than what this Gentleman here puts upon us for the true fcripture account of faith, and of the fpirit, and of the nature of gofpel-evidence; which he undoubtedly intends for expofing the facred writings.' But if it be made appear, that this is all grofs mifrepresentation; that the account he is pleafed to give us [of baptifm] is as contrary to fcripture, as it is to reafon and common fenfe, then the contradictions and abfurdities are to be charged upon the author himself,' for upon thofe churches, whofe corrupt practices furnish him with fo just an occafion for it, and they are] juftly accountable for them. And this attempt of his muft only pass for a proof of his readiness to take any methods, how unfair and difingenuous foever, to expofe the reli6 gion of Jefus.'

The doctor's reply to all his objection on the head of baptifm, tho' not in direct and exprefs words, is yet, in my judgment, a clear and manifeft giving up their practice in this particular, as an unfcriptural thing; for he fays,

5 The ftrength of his argument here depends upon the fneering account he gives of the nature of baptism. • But there needs no more to show the weakness and fallacy of it, than to ftate the cafe of baptifm according to the gospel notion of it; in which alone Chriftianity is • concerned. At the first founding of the chriftian church, the first work was to bring perfons over to the faith of the gospel, by fetting before them the evidence whereby it was confirmed; and then, when they were once converted to the faith, they were, according to the divine appointment, to be baptized, which was a • folemn

3 First Letter, p. 14 Letter, p. 29

4 Second Letter, p. 55.

5 First

folemn taking upon them a profeffion of the chriftian. religion, and a bringing themselves under the most facred obligations to obey its laws. And there is nothing in this, but what is perfectly confiftent with faith's being founded-upon good and rational evidence; nor can fo much as a fhadow of an argument be brought from it to prove, that because perfons were ordered to be baptized after they believed, therefore they did not, or could not, ufe their reafon or intellectual faculty to lead

them into that belief.'

All this is every way agreeable to the practice of the Baptift churches at this day, but is not confiftent with Pædobaptifm. For this true ftating the cafe of baptifm according to the gospel notion of it, in which alone the doctor affirms Chriflianity is concerned, is an abfolute exclufion of every other way of proceeding in relation to that ordinance, as no part of Chriftianity: fo that infant-fprinkling, by the doctor's confeffion, muft be an unchristian practice, becaufe according to what he here gives us as the gospel notion of baptifm, there cannot fo much as a fbadow of an argument be brought frome thence to prove it. And therefore I heartily wifh, that our established church, and that of Scotland, may be herein reformed; and fettled upon this true fcripture plan according to the divine appointment, and thereby become proof against the attacks of Infidels.

But if the affertion of the kirk of Scotland, that the ufe of understanding, and faith, is not requifite in all those that receive this facrament; or if the laft claufe of the xxvii article of the church of England were true, that the baptifm of young children is in any wife to be retained in the church, as moft agreeable with the inftitution of Chrift: furely the doctor might have proved it from Chrift's inftitution, and not have been forced to make use only of mere human fuppofitions, inftead of plain fcripture, for the vindication of his practice, and the beft fupport of his own caufe, as he does in what follows. "Our author is fenfible of this, and therefore he lays the ftress of his argument upon the baptifm of infants, which he reprefents in his own way. Let us therefore argue with him upon the SUPPOSITION, that it was the will of God, that not only adult perfons, who themfelves embraced the chriftian faith, but that their children too fhould be baptized."

Had

அ

Had this been the will of God, certainly we should have met with it in his holy word; because the apostles did not fhun to declare unto his church all the counsel of God, and kept back nothing that was profitable unto them. Acts xx. 20, 27. Befides, the order of the kirk of Scotland affirms, that baptifm, and the holy fupper of the Lord Jefus are then rightly miniftred. . . . . when further to them is nothing added, from them nothing diminished, and in their practice nothing! changed befides the institution of the Lord Jefus, and practice of his holy apoftles. . . . . And that fuch, as would prefume to alter Chrift's perfect ordinance, ought feverely to be punifhed' and the xiv article of our established church fays exprefsly, that Voluntary works, befides, over and above God's commandments... cannot be taught without arrogancy and impiety:' both which may be underftood, as a fevere cenfure of the doctrine, and practice of infant-baptifm, as well as of other things not commanded in fcripture.

However the doctor proceeds thus: And I cannot fee how it follows from this, that therefore faith is not a rational thing. For as to adult perfons, their being commanded to be baptized upon their believing does not in the leaft prove that they did not embrace the christian faith upon a rational conviction.' Had the churches of England and Scotland reftrained baptifm to adult perfons only, their minifters would never have been thus prefled by fuch objections; nor could infidels ever have fuggested, as this writer has done, that their members did not embrace the chriftian faith upon a rational conviction: because their being commanded to be baptized upon their believing neceffarily implies a rational conviction; which the doctor is here compelled to own, that infants have not, when he adds. And as to infants, they have no faith at all; nor does their being baptized suppose they have any. All that it fuppofes, is not that they do themselves believe, but that they are the children of believers; and are by that facred rite entered into the vifible fociety of Chriftians, folemnly dedicated to God, and commended to his grace and bleffing by fuch as do themselves believe; and who folemnly undertake to fee that they be carefully inftructed in the principles of the christian faith, when they come to years capable of it, and that they be trained up to a holy and a virtuous • practice.'

But

But muft we account infants members of Christ's vifible church, before they are believers? Of what use or credit can they, as fuch, be to any church? And from what authority could the doctor imbibe thefe fcriptureless notions, but from the kirk of Scotland, and the English directory? The kirk, in her form of baptifm, fays, Neither is it requifite, that all those that receive this facrament, have the ufe of understanding and faith;' and the directory fays, that fuch children by baptifm are folemnly received into the bofom of the vifible church; that they are Chriftians, and federally holy before baptifm, and therefore are they baptized.' See my remarks hereon, p. 33, 35. From thefe laft words one would have imagined, that our English Prefbyterians believed, that infants have faith; tho' I find the doctor does not underftand them fo, and yet feems implicitly to receive what goes before. But is it at all becoming a Proteftant, or in the leaft worthy of a wife and learned minifter, to rest upon. fuch authorities as thefe? I am fure the authority of our eftablished church is equally as good; and in her catechifm baptifm is faid to fignify an inward and fpiritual grace in the perfon baptized, together with a death unto fin, and a new birth unto righteousness, as the fruits of repentance whereby they for fake fin; and of faith, whereby they ftedfaftly believe the promifes of God made to them in that facrament. And her xxvii article fays, Baptifm is not only a fign of profeffion,....... but it is also a fign of regeneration, or new birth, whereby, as by an inftrument, they that receive baptifm rightly are grafted into the church: the promifes of the forgiveness of fin, and of our adoption to be the fons of God by the Holy Ghoft, are vifibly figned and fealed: faith is confirmed, and grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God.' And therefore the queftions are afked, and the answers made in the infant's name. The prayers are put up for the infant in exprefs words, and the minifter fays, that the child is regenerate, and grafted into the body of Chrift's church.

These things are abundantly more, than what the doctor fays is all that the baptifm of infants fuppofes; in which he widely differs from our eftablished church, whofe fentiments are fo entirely contrary to his affertion, that The fuppofes infants to be regenerated, that they have faith, and make profeffion of it likewife; tho' indeed it is made after a very ftrange manner, and without the leaft evidence of

faith.