by baptism now, their condition is much worse than that of those who were the children of such as lived under the legal dispensation; whereas, on the other hand, God has not, under this present dispensation, abridged the church of its privileges, but rather increased them.

Obj. 1. It is objected, that infants have no right to baptism, because they cannot believe and repent, since these graces are often mentioned in scripture, as a necessary qualification of those who have a right to this ordinance, as might be suffi ciently proved from those scriptures in which persons are said first to believe and repent, and then to be baptized; and, in order thereunto, the gospel was first to be preached, according to our Saviour's direction, Mark xvi. 15, 16. And we read of persons gladly receiving it, and then being baptized, Acts. ii. 41. therefore Philip would not baptize the Eunuch till he professed his faith in Christ, chap. viii. 37, 38. Moreover, this is called an ordinance of repentance, as none have a right to it, but those who repent: Thus it is said, John preached the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, Mark i. 4. and elsewhere, that he baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying to the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus, Acts. xix. 4.

Answ. We do not deny the necessity of faith and repentance to baptism, in them who are adult, as appears by those concessions which have been made under a foregoing head; in which we considered, that none are to be baptized if adult, till they profess faith in Christ and obedience to him; and this ought to be accompanied with repentance, otherwise it is not true and genuine; therefore we freely owned also, that the gospel was to be preached by the apostles, to those who were immediately concerned in their ministry, before they were either to be baptized themselves, or their infant-seed. Nevertheless this does not overthrow the doctrine of infant-baptism, since that, as has been before proved, depends upon different qualifications. Faith is, no doubt, necessary in the person that dedicates, or devotes to God: But, if what has been said concerning the obligation which every one that is able to dedicate his child to God by faith, is under, to do it, (as much as he that is able to dedicate himself to him by faith, when adult, is bound to do it,) be true; then we are to have regard only to the faith of him that dedicates, and to hope for the saving privileges of faith and repentance, and all other graces, as divine blessings to be bestowed on the person devoted to God, as the great end which we have in view in this solemn action. (a)

a) All these scriptures which require faith, that is, the credible profession of

Obj. 2. There is another objection which is concluded, by some, to be unanswerable, viz. that there is neither precept, nor example in the New Testament, that gives the least countenance to our baptizing infants; therefore it cannot be reckoned a scripture doctrine, and consequently is not from heaven, but of men. (b)

it, to precede baptism, are certainly directed only to those who are at years capable of it, and not to infants. These scriptures do not exclude infants whose claim is through the church-membership of their parents, by which they are not "unclean," 1 Cor. vii. 14. but holy, entitled to the promises made to the seed of Abraham; and also by virtue of the commission to disciple au nations, of which they are a part as much as their believing parents; and by the practical exposi tion of that commission in the universal baptism of infants in the christian churches for the first four hundred years.

(b) It may be objected, "If the preceding account be true, that baptism is not an institution merely positive, as much so as any enacted under the Mosaic dispensation; then the present economy hath no institutions at all of that kind This objection supposes,

1. That precepts of a positive nature under the Mosaic dispensation, were absolutely so in all their circumstances; so as not to leave any thing to be inferred by the person or persons concerned, in the discharge of the duty enjoined.—But if these things were so, if the Jewish ritual was so express as to leave nothing to be determined by inference, one might well wonder whence could spring so many Targums and Talmuds, so many voluminous works intended to explain and illustrate the various circumstances attending the performance of these positive duties among others. Are not these unprescribed circumstances of ritual worship, and other positive injunctions, what in a great degree swell the interpretations of the Rabbins?—The truth is, that there were many precepts under the Jewish economy positive in a considerable degree, relative to the subject as well as the mode of an institute, and respecting the former, it was sometimes particularly scrupulous, for reasons already assigned; but it does not follow that ANY ONE of these were so strictly positive, as not to take some things for granted res specting the circumstances of the duty, such as national custom, the common dictates of sense and reason, traditionary knowledge, the general principles of the law of nature, &c. And it should not be forgotten, that the administrator of the Jewish rites bad the subjects distinguished and characterized in a sensible manner, which qualification was to be determined by the same sort of evidence as any facts in common life; but the administrator of the Christian rites bas no such grounds to proceed on; his commission is of a discretionary nature, arising from the nature and design of the institutions themselves, as before shewn.

2. The objection again supposes, that there is some excellency in an institution being merely and absolutely positive, more than in one of a mixed nature. But this supposition is vain and erroneous. For what conceivable superior excellency can there be in any precept or duty on account of its positiveness? Were there any force in the objection, it would imply that the Christian dispensation is less excellent than the Mosaic; as having fewer positive rites, and their pro portion of positiveness being also smaller. And it would also imply, that the reasonable duties of prayer and praise, as founded on the law of nature, as well as more fully enjoined by revelation, were less excellent than baptism and the Lord's supper; and it would follow, that the services of the church triumphant are in their own nature less excellent than those of the church militant; which are consequences from the force of the objection equally genuine and absurd. Our Lord's answer respecting the first and great commandment, shews at once that what is the most important duty, is also the most natural, and therefore the most remote from what is merely positive; and that is the love of God. This VOL. IV.

Answ. To this it may be replied, that consequences justly deduced from scripture, are equally binding with the words or

matter has been fully shewn before. In one word, the spirit of the objection is truly pharisaic.

Some may perhaps object, "that this has been always admitted as true, that baptism and the Lord's supper are positive institutions of the New Testament; and that many pædobaptists have availed themselves of this fort, in ascertaining the nature and enforcing the obligation of the latter, and particularly bishop Hoadly. And as his lordship's principle, in his Plain Account of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, has been deemed unanswerable, Mr. Foot, Dr. Stennett, and others, have taken but the same method in treating about baptism." To this I reply,

That, as principles taken upon trust, dignified titles, and lawn sleeves, are light as a feather in the scale of argument; so, on the other hand, I am satisfied the bishop of Winchester's positions, taken in a sound sense, nay, the only consistent sense in which they can be taken, are evidently true and important. The sun is this; that all positive duties, or duties made such by institution alone, depend entirely upon the will and declaration of the person who institutes or ordains them, with respect to the real design and end of them, and consequently, to the due manner of performing them." This is strictly true, in the degree that any duties are positive, but no further. And to denominate a precept or duty positive, though but partially so, I have no objection, for the sake of distinguishing them from such as are merely moral, and evidently founded on the reason and nature of things. "Except we observe this caution," as bishop Butler observes," we shall be in danger of running into endless confusion."

It may be said, "If we resign this maxim, that a positive precept or duty excludes all moral reasoning, analogy and inference, we open a door to numberless innovations, and deprive ourselves of a necessary barrier against the encroachments of popery, &c." In reply to this specious objection let it be observed,

1. That this maxim, whatever confidence our opponents place in it, is a very insufficient barrier for the defence of truth, if the objection implies, that it is calculated to defend truth against error, and not error against truth as well. For it is notorious, that there is hardly any extravagance, in the whole compass of the distinguishing peculiarities of religious practice, that is not barricadoed by this very maxim. If Protestants use it against Papists, Papists in their turn use it against Protestants. If the Quakers are pursued and foiled when they occasionally quit this fort, they soon rally their controversial forces, and, entrenching themselves behind the strength of this maxim, become again victorious. Whence passive obedience and non-resistance? Whence an opposition to all forensic swearing, in common with profane? Whence the Quakers' nonconformity to what other serious Christians consider as lawful? Their peculiar mode of salutation and address? Their method of conducting religious worship? The little stress they lay on the observance of the christian Sabbath? &c. Whence the popish absurd figment of transubstantiation, apostolical succession, extreme unetion? &c.-On the contrary,

2. Not to distinguish between the positiveness and morality of a precept, ordinance or duty, and not to ascertain their respective degrees; and to deny that the latter distinction admits of moral reasoning, inference and analogy, open a wide door to bigotry, and numberless glaring abuses of the sacred oracles. By rejecting the analogy of faith and the design of scripture herein, we give the most effectual encouragement to every senseless intrusion. And what is still more remarkable is, that the more firmly any one adheres to the undistinguishing positive scheme, in reference to any christian ordinance whatever, the more closely will he be allied to the interest of genuine bigotry. For it has a direct tendency to make the unprescribed circumstances of a positive rite, essential to the rite itself, and consequently to make that necessary and essential which the

examples contained therein. If this be not allowed of, we shall hardly be able to prove many doctrines which we reckon not

institutor has not made so. How far this is applicable to the antipædobaptist's cause, will be further considered.-The doctrine that teaches the propriety of yielding our reason to positive institutions as such, or in the degree they are so, is just and proper, as founded on the sovereign, absolute and manifest authority of the Supreme Legislator; and in this view it has been of singular service in refuting the cavils of deistical impiety. But to carry the principle any further, tends to betray the cause of christianity into the hands of infidels, and to breed unhallowed party zeal and uncharitable animosities among its sincerest professors. "For who are most likely to put weapons into the hands of infidels; they, who seem to discard reason in the investigation of truth, or they, whose researches are founded on her most vigorous exertions, and most rational decisions?They, who make scripture bow to their preconceived notions, in direct opposition to the dictates of reason and common: sense, or they, whose arguments are founded on a coalition of scripture and right reason?" "Once more,

3. The objection, as it includes Mr. B.'s favourite maxim, and tends to oppose the distinction above stated, involves a great inconsistence with itself. For on what principle, except what they affect to discard, do our opponents retain some of the positive rites of the New Testament and reject others? Why regard baptism and the eucharist as of standing obligation; while the pedilavium and feasts of charity (the former enjoined expressly by our Lord, and both practised by the disciples of the apostolic age, see John xiii. 14, 15. 1 Tim. v. 10. Jude 12.) are judged unworthy of continuance? Why receive females to communion, or adopt the first day of the week for the christian sabbath? How can they justify their conduct in these matters, these circumstances of positive institutions, without undermining their own avowed hypothesis? With regard to the sabbath, indeed, the antipædobaptists are divided among themselves; while some are content with the first day of the week, others observe the seventh. On this point Dr. S. is very open and ingenious; Mr. Addington appeals to an objecting antipædobaptist, "whether he does not think himself sufficiently autho rized to keep the christian sabbath, though Christ has no where said in so many words, Remember the first day of the week to keep it holy?" To this the Dr. replies, "There is, I acknowledge, some weight in this objection: and all I can say to it is, that not having yet met with any passage in the New Testament "that appears to me to have repealed the fourth commandment, and to have re"quired the observation of the first day, I cannot think myself sufficiently au"thorized to renounce that, and to keep this." If the doctor is professedly an observer of the Jewish sabbath, he is consistent with himself, however different from so great a part of the christian world; if not, he and his tenet are at variance : : analogy and inferential reasoning have got the better of the positive system, which nevertheless must not be resigned, for fear of worse consequences, Another objection much insisted on is, “If our Lord has left any thing to be inferred relative to the subject and made of baptism, being a positive institute; or if he has not delivered himself expressly and clearly in every thing, respecting the question who are to be baptized, and the manner how; it implies a réflexion on his wisdom and goodness," But this objection is impertinent on different accounts. For,

46

1. Its force is derived from the supposition that the Institutor was somehow obliged to make his will known to men by one method only. But is the Great Supreme under any such obligations to his absolutely dependent creatures ? What should we say of a philosopher, who, having to judge of any important phenomenon in physics, should quarrel with the author of nature, because he. had not confined his method of information to one source only, to the exclusion of all others? That his evidence, for instance, was not confined to the information of sense, to the exclusion of reason and analogy? Or what should we say of a person, who having to decide on the truth and reality of a miracle, should in

only to be true, but of great importance. It would be endless to enter into a detail of particulars, to illustrate and confirm this matter; and I cannot but think it unnecessary, since they who deny infant-baptism, do not deny the validity of just scripture-consequences. (c)

peach the wisdom and goodness of his Maker, because he did not appeal to onę sense only of his dependent and unworthy creatures, that of seeing, for instance, to the exclusion of that of hearing? The answer is plain, and the application easy.

2. The objection is guilty of another impertinence, nearly allied to the former: it unreasonably requires positive evidence for what is discoverable by other means. It is demonstrable, and I think has been demonstrated, that the qualifications of the subjects of baptism (the mode also will be examined in its place) is what cannot possibly be determined by any positive rule whatever as such, but must be resolved to the discretionary nature of the commission, or the supposed wisdom and prudence of the administrators, in common with other parts of the same commission, such as the choice of an audience, the choice of a concionatory subject, &c. Preach the gospel to every creature, is a part of the commission, but the execution has no positive rule. Nor does this commission of preaching the gospel prohibit preaching the law, for a lawful use, or any branch of natural religion, notwithstanding Mr. B.'s excluding standard, that "positive laws imply their negatives." In like manner, the commission to baptize believers, and the taught, we contend and prove, does not mean to include all sorts of believers and taught persons, but such of them as the administrators judge fit, according to the rules of christian prudence and discretion. And we further insist, as shall be more fully shewn hereafter, that the terms of the commission, believers and taught, stand opposed, not to non-believers and untaught, but to unbelievers and persons perversely ignorant. What, therefore, falls neces sarily to the province of inferential reasoning, is impertinently referred to a positive standard.

ཝཱ

3. The objection implies an ungrateful reflexion on the Institutor's wisdom and goodness, contrary to what it pretends to avoid. And this it does, by counteracting and vilifying those natural dictates of reason, prudence and common sense, that our all-wise and beneficent Creator has given us-his goodness, in not suspending their operations, but leaving them in full force, as to these circumstances of positive duties-his wisdom, in grafting what is positive of his laws on these common principles-and finally, the favourable circumstance of his diminishing the degree of positiveness in New Testament institutions, as well as their number.

Let us now recapitulate what has been said in this chapter-From an investigation of the nature of positive precepts and duties, as distinguished from moral ones, together with their comparative obligations and importance, we have seen, that, in any case of supposed competition, the latter claims an undoubted preference. We have also seen, that nothing but absolute, decisive, discernible authority can turn the scale in favor of the former, or, indeed, place any law or duty in the rank of POSITIVE. Moreover, it has been shewn, that every duty re sulting from any discernible moral relation, must needs be classed among moral duties; that some things appertaining to the very essence of baptism, on our op ponents' own principles, are of moral consideration; particularly the qualifica tions of proper subjects; consequently, that baptism is an ordinance of a mixed nature, partly positive and partly moral. Of all which an unavoidable conséquence is, that our opponents' outcry against all moral and analogical reasons in our enquiries respecting the subjects and mode of baptism, is impertinent and absurd, and to a demonstration contradictory to their own avowed principles. DR. WILLIAMS ON BAPTISM.

(c) The commission to disciples baptizing all nations is both a positive and express authority for the baptism of the infants of such as are themselves dis vipled.