with God when baptized in their infancy; but as engaging to be the Lord's is a personal thing, and as they could have no idea of such transaction at the time of their baptism, so they cannot have any recollection of it: consequently, their consciences cannot feel an obligation in that respect, as those of baptized believers. may and ought. The writer of these pages takes it for granted, that the register of a certain parish bears testimony to his having had something done for him in his infancy, called baptism, attended with all the formalities of proxies, of thanksgivings for his being then regenerated, and so on; but he knows nothing about it, except by report. Nay, though he had no doubts concerning the validity of his infant sprinkling till he was grown up; and, through divine goodness, he had abiding impressions upon his mind, relating to his best interests, from the earliest period of his present remembrance; yet he does not recollect a single instance of his conscience feeling itself under any obligation, in virtue of those transactions. He considers it as very strange, and quite unprecedented in the sacred volume, that any one should have a positive rite administered to him according to divine appointment —a rite which must not be repeated; and that the recipient, through the whole of his life, should entirely depend upon testimony for all that he knows about the fact. This, it is plain, was not the case of those infants that were circumcised. They had no occasion to enquire of a parent, of any senior, or of a register, whether the sign of circumcision had passed upon them; because, from the earliest dawn of reason, to the latest period of life, the unequivocal mark was retained in their own persons.

Farther: It is of importance here to observe, what our opposers themselves, I think, will allow, That the proper standard of usefulness, in regard to any positive rite, is, not our own fancies, or feelings, or reason, but divine revelation; and that even an unscriptural cere

mony may, through the kindness of Providence, become the occasion of spiritual advantage to one or another. For, without intending an invidious comparison, and merely for the sake of argument, it may be asked; Whether it can be asserted with prudence, that none of the Papal superstitions were ever improved by Providence, as occasions of lasting spiritual benefit to any one? But yet, as Mr. Stoddart observes, "If men act according to their own humours and fancies, and do not keep in the way of obedience, it is presumption to expect God's blessing. In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." I will add, in the words of that great man, Mr. Jonath. Edwards; "Though we are to eye the providence of God, and not disregard his works, yet to interpret them to a sense, or apply them to a use, inconsistent with the scope of the word of God, is a misconstruction and misapplication of them. God has not given us his providence, but his word, to be our governing rule. God is sovereign in his dispensations of providence. He bestowed the blessing on Jacob, even when he had a lie in his mouth: he was pleased to meet with Solomon, and make known himself to him, and bless him in an extraordinary manner, while he was worshipping in a high place: he met with Saul, when in a course of violent opposition to him, and out of the way of his duty to the highest degree, going to Damascus to persecute Christ; and even then bestowed the greatest blessing upon him, that perhaps ever was bestowed on a mere man. The conduct of divine Providence, with its reasons, is too little understood by us, to be improved as our rule."† Candid and cautious is the following declaration of Dr. Owen: I do not know how far God may accept of churches in a very corrupt state, and of worship much

66

* In Mr. Jonath. Edward's Enquiry into Qualif. for Communion, p. 117.

+ Ut supra, p. 131.

depraved, until they have new means for their reformation. Nor will I make any judgment of persons, as unto their eternal condition, who walk in churches so corrupted, and in the performance of worship so depraved.' Farther: Were the dupes of Papal superstition, or our Brethren of the English Establishment asked, what advantage they have, in comparison with us Dissenters; they, very likely, would answer with Paul in another case, Much, every way." They would also, no doubt, mention a variety of particulars, to prove that their forms and rites are far better adapted to exercise devotional dispositions; and so to promote sanctification, consolation, and so on, than those of Dissenters. But would Mr. Henry have considered such pretences as any kind of proof, that those forms and ceremonies are warranted of God? No, he would have been ready to say, "Show us your authority for them in our only rule of religious worship, and then tell us how useful they are."

These things being observed, we add; If infant baptism be so very useful, the apostles must have known it as well, and have esteemed it as highly, as our author himself. But have they acted as if they thus knew and esteemed it? Their immortal writings make a considerable volume; and in that heavenly volume they have recorded their own faith and their own practice. Conscious of being amanuenses to the Spirit of wisdom, they intended that sacred book should be considered as a body of doctrine and a complete code of law for the church in every succeeding age. This being the case, it is quite natural to think, that infant baptism should make a capital figure in such a system of theological doctrine, of spiritual privilege, and of religious duty, if they had known and viewed it in that very advantageous point of light which Mr. Henry did. That they expressly mention the baptism of adults, is allowed by all; and that their baptism is represented in the New Testament as

* Enquiry into the Orig. of Churches, p. 168.

instructive and useful, is denied by few: consequently, if the baptism of infants be much more adapted to promote sanctification and consolation than the baptism of those who profess faith, it is but reasonable to suppose, that the apostles would insist upon it in a degree proportional to its greater importance. But is it a fact, that Pædobaptism itself, and the benefits resulting from it, make such a conspicuous figure in the apostolic writings? That the apostles mention baptism, and inform us of great numbers who were baptized, are facts; but where do they mention infant baptism? That they mention the ordinance as containing matter of instruction, motives to holiness, and grounds of exhortation, in reference to baptized believers, is a fact;* but where is Pædobaptism represented by them, as containing any of these things, with regard to children when they grow up? That they mention baptism as affording grounds of reproof to disorderly professors, is a fact; but where do they mention Pædobaptism as ministering reproof to Christian parents for neglecting the education of their children? That they exhort and caution believing parents respecting their children, is a fact; but where do they fetch their motives from infant baptism? That they exhort and charge children to be dutiful to their parents, is also a fact; but where do they remind children of their filial obligations being enforced by having been baptized in their infancy, or exhort them on that ground? Yet, had Pædobaptism been then practised, and had it been attended with such vast advantages as our author pretends, it might, perhaps, have been as pertinently urged as the latter part of the fifth command, on account of its being more precisely agreeable to the gospel dispensation. Mr. Henry, it is plain, did not fail to exhort both parents and children on the ground

* Rom. vi. 1-5; 1 Cor. i. 12-16, and xv. 29; Col. ii. 12; 1 Pet. iii. 21.

† 1 Cor. i. 12-16.

See Eph. vi, 1, 2, 3.

of infant baptism. No, he treats it as a capital source of motives, by which to enforce the performance of both parental and filial duty, though the apostles have not said a word about it in any of their exhortations. Candour forbids my supposing, that he thought himself, either more wise in the choice of his arguments, or more zealous in the application of them to practical purposes, than those ambassadors of Christ: but yet every one may see a remarkable difference between their conduct and his, in this respect; which difference must have had an adequate cause. I cannot help thinking, therefore, that either the inspired writers knew nothing at all of Pædobaptism, or had a very mean opinion of it; for it seems unaccountably strange, that they should all have approved the practice, and yet all agree, on such a variety of occasions, in saying nothing about it. But supposing it was practised by them, and that they considered it as much more advantageous than the baptism of believers, their conduct is yet more amazingly strange; because they expressly apply the latter to practical purposes, though entirely silent about the former :-an example this, which our opponents are not inclined to imitate. Peruse the writings of modern Pædobaptists, and you plainly perceive the advantages resulting from baptism, almost entirely confined to that of infants. Consult the apostolic records, and you find them all connected with the baptism of adults. We may now venture an appeal to the reader, whether he would not suspect any unknown author of being a Baptist, were he to find him treating on all the various topics lately enumerated, and yet perceive that he is quite silent about infant baptism?

The following passages from learned Pædobaptists, mutatis mutandis, will here apply in all their force. Anonymous: "The signing one's self with the cross hath neither command nor example in scripture, nor