IN ASMUCH as Baptism was instituted by the great King of hea­ven and earth, I shall make no apology for being desirous to know who are the sub­jects of that ordinance: and seeing you would be great lovers of what you call truth, and not desirous that the people should be in an error, I hope you will not be offended with my making some remarks on that subject, and asking a few questions concerning the chief arguments that I have ever heard used by any person in favor of infant baptism; and also in respect of persons being desired, or forced to pay to the support of a ministry that they have no fellowship with.

The first argument I shall mention, is what is generally used to shew that baptism was in­stituted in the room and stead of circumcision, and to be administred to the same subjects.

We have an account in Act. 15 chap. of the judaising teachers going down to Antioch, and said, Except you be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. The apos­tles Paul and Barnabas were sent up to the apostles and elders, about that question; who wrote back a letter, in which are these words. [Page 4]viz. It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burthen than these ne­cessary things; that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if you keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Now if baptism was instituted in the room and stead of circumci­sion, did not the apostles know it? And if they knew it, would they not have taught it? Surely as they declared the counsel of God, they would have informed us that baptism was instituted in the room of circumcision. I believe there is none so absurd as to say the Holy Ghost did not know it; or that he did, and would not reveal it to the apostles. But in the letter it is said, from which if you keep yourselves, ye shall do well; let me ask you, could it be said, ye shall do well, unless they did all that was required in the room and stead of circumcision, concerning which they wrote?

Again, it is argued in favor of the presby­terians, or infant baptizers, that the apostles practised baptizing infants; for they say hous­holde were baptized, viz. the jailor and his houshold, Lydia and her houshold, and the houshold of Stephanus: they say probably there was infants baptized in some one or other of these housholds. But let us consider of the probability.—As to the jailor we are told, Act. 16.34. That be rejoiced, believing in God [...] all his house. Now if they were believ­ers, [Page 5]as is evident they was, they were proper subject, of baptism, as appears by Philip's answer to the Ethiop an that requested bap­tism, see Act 8 37. If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayst: Which plainly shews that faith in Christ was absolutely necessary, in order to be admitted to the ordinance of baptism, see also, Act. 10 47. Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? Which plainly shews that the receiving the Holy Ghost was an evidence of faith in Christ, and the rule upon which they were admitted to the ordinance of Baptism. But to return: As to Lydia, if we believe the scriptures, say­ing her houshold; she had no husband; for if she had, it would have been said HIS hous­hold, and not her houshold: and it is not half the virgins and widows that have housholds, that have children in them so small, that if they had faith in Christ, it could not be known. Besides, what would she do with infants tending her shop? Again, we find in Act. 16 40. And when they had seen the bre­thren, they comforted them and departed. Now then if these brethren are supposed to be in­fants, how, and with what did the apostles comfort them? Upon the whole, it is evident that she had no children in her houshold, but such as could and did make a profession before they were baptized.

And with respect to the houshold of Ste­phanus, [Page 6]see 1 Cor. 16.15, 16. I beseech you brethren, ye know the house of Stephanus, that it is the first fruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints; that ye submit yourselves unto such. Now from the time of the writting this first epistle to the Corinthians, back to Paul's preaching at Co­rinth, was but about five years, as appears by the dates in the bible. Now then, if the houshold of Stephanus were baptized in infan­cy, they must have been in the ministry over the church, at about six or seven years of age, which I think is exceeding unlikely.

But let me ask you, if the apostles had con­stantly practised baptizing infants, is it not much more probable there would have been some direct account of it, some where in the new testament, than that there was infants baptized in some one or other of these hous­holds? Where were the infants of the three thousand that came together to see that strange thing? As it is in the eyes of all unconverted people, to see the Holy Ghost poured out up­on the apostles, do you think they brought their infants with them to be baptized, or no? No, it is evident they did not; as may be shewn presently. But why do I talk thus of probabilities; let us prove from scripture what the apostles practice was; re-consider and see Gal 3 27. As many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ. Says the Rev. Mr. Fish, on the text, ‘That as, in your [Page 7]baptism, you put on the character of chris­tians, you declared or profess'd, that you received Christ as your Lord and Saviour.^‖’ And I verily believe the gentleman was quite right; for I cannot believe, that to put on Christ, can mean any thing less than that they were true believers in Christ. Now then, if as many, or all of them that were baptized, had made their profession, so that it was evi­dent they had faith in Christ, then the apos­tles did not baptize children that made no profession: nor is there any believers that dare declare that all their infants have faith in Christ.

The third argument is drawn from Act. 15.10 Now therefore why tempt ye God to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples? Here they say, inasmuch as it appears from the chapter, that the yoke was circumcision which they would have laid upon children at eight days old, infants are called disciples in the scrip­ture, and therefore they are so, and have a right to be baptized by the commission, Mat. 28.19. where disciples are ordered to be baptized, tho' the word children or infants is not mentioned.

But let me ask you why you do not admit infants to the Lord's table, inasmuch as our Saviour tells us in Mat. 26.27. Drink ye all off it. Is not that as much an institution for dis­ciples as baptism? Do you indeed keep ordi­nances [Page 8]according to your own mind?

But for answer, I say the word why tempt ye God to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, doth not conclude, that all on whom they would have laid that yoke, were disciples. The church of Antioch was a Gentile church, see Act. 21.25 the believers in it bad not been circumcised; so that the putting the yoke upon the neck of the believers of the church of Antioch, of whom they spake, was putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples; altho' there might be thousands of infants, or others which were not disciples, on whom they would have laid that yoke. This will appear to be the true meaning of this text, if it is compa­red with our Saviour's explanation of the word DISCIPLE, see Luk. 14 27. And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, can­not be my disciple. Now did all the infants of the church of Antioch, and do all infants of all believers, take up their cross and follow Christ? Ver. 26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father and mother, yea and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. Did, and do all the infants of believers, love God to that degree that their love to their fathers and mothers, and to their own lives, when in com­petition to their love to God, is but hatred? Of if you do not like my explanation, do all the infants of all believers hate their fathers and mothers, and their own lives, with a perfect hatred?

[Page 9] The fourth argument is drawn from Acts 2. and part of the 38 and 39 verses. Repent and be baptized every one of you—For the promise is to you and to your children. Here they argue that the promise was mentioned as an encouragement to both parents and children, to be baptized. I answer, that the promise is mentioned as an encouragement to them to repent, and be bap­tized; but not that they should be baptized without repentance. But as true repentance cannot be, without true faith, this text is another instance of true faith's being a rule, in order to be admitted to baptism. Especially when com­pared with the last part of the same verse. Re­pent and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Here I would ask, was there ever a promise of remission of sins and of the gift of the Holy Ghost, made to bap­tism without repentance? if not, then the pro­mise they speak of could be no encouragement to baptism without repentance. Again we see in the chapter these jewish believers were bap­tised themselves; but did they have their chil­dren baptized. NO. It is evident they did not, for we see verse 42, they continued sted­fastly in the apostles doctrine: But they conti­nued steadfastly in the practice of circumcising their children, therefore that was the apostles doctrine, see Acts 21.20. And they were all zealous of the law: that is the law of circumci­sion, as appears from the 21st verse. And they also advised St. Paul to shew the jewish believ­ers, [Page 10]that he kept that law, as in verse 24. To circumcise the children therefore, was the apost­les doctrine and the jewish believers practice. But if baptism was appointed in the room and stead of circumcision, then circumcision must have ceased, and would have been no more an institution, than if it never had been instituted. Now to set up circumcision as a seal after that, without divine warrant: was to set up a seal of their own in opposition to that which God had set up. Pray what manner of men do they make of the apostles, were they the vilest of men? surely no.

The fifth argument is drawn from Mark 10.14, 15. I do not remember any account of our Saviour's being displeased, but when something was said, which tended to hinder the channels of his mercy to poor perishing sinners. But I suppose no one will deny that those children were brought to Christ to plead for mercy: likely their parents were poor and despised in the world; perhaps the disciples therefore, tho't it below their blessed master, to take notice of such miserable creatures, as likely they appeared to be. But our Saviour soon corrects their mis­take; and says he, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of God. I understand it is, as if he had said, those children are in a deplorable con­dition, polluted with sin, and exposed to the everlasting wrath of God. Hinder them not from coming to me for mercy. In me is a full­ness whereby is sustained the whole kingdom of God.

[Page 11] But they argue from the words, suffer little children to come unto me, for of such is the kingdom of God. That some little children belong to the kingdom of God, and therefore have a right to church-membership and its ordinance. But why do they say some children? I never knew them to argue that the children that were brought to Christ, were children of believing parents. But I believe those persons that brought these chil­dren to Christ, were converted persons; and as it is truly every one's duty to search the scrip­tures to know what is their duty, and not to pin their faith upon other men's sleeves without evidence, I am willing you should make the best of your arguments; I will therefore give you the reason why I think so. — But to re­turn — Observe the word, of such is the king­dom of God: here is an ALL implied: —the king­dom means all the kingdom. Does it not? Is the kingdom of God made up of such infants? Have all the infants of believing parents an interest in Christ by faith? If there be evidence of that, then they are proper subjects of bap­tism; but if not, how do they belong to the kingdom of God? But if you would have it, that by the kingdom of God is meant church-membership, our Saviour tells you in the next verse, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein. — And can no person enter into your church, un­less he receive it as a little child? You will an­swer, doubtless they can and do.

But I come now to let you know, why I think [Page 12]those persons that brought the children to Christ, were converted persons. When any person (at a time) is under the operation of the Spirit of God, and is brought to see that the punishment, eternal misery! is, if any thing, much less than he deserves; oh! now he is amazed at the mer­cy of God! that he is not sent into the eternal torments of hell, Lev. 26.41. Ezek. 36.31. Now if his heart cries to God for mercy, God does shew himself, in and through Christ, Joh. 17.3. and chap 6.40. to be more willing to forgive him, than any of you could be to pull an only son, or your dearest friend on earth out of the flaming fire, if he lay screaming there. For we all with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image. Now if those that brought the children to Christ, had not been made thus to know Christ, likely they would, with the unconverted multitude of that age, have called him the carpenter's son; or with the topping pharisees of them times, who were not willing that Christ should preach, have demanded by what authority, and have said this fellow, &c. and not have come to him for a blessing upon their children. But the word (at a time) was put because most people think they have known their punishment for sin was just, ever since they came to the years of understand­ing, altho' their heart rises up against it, and thinks hard of the punishment. This is what some call an historical knowledge, or learnt by man, and is not of the operation of the spirit of God. Job 36.22. Behold God exalteth by his power, who teacheth like him?

[Page 13] Again, if they should say they have had the same lively sense of it always, ever since they had an understanding, I should think it was on­ly the same historical knowledge which is com­mon to all natural men of understanding, and not from the Spirit of God, Song 3.4. and 5.4.

The sixth argument is taken from 1 Cor. 7.14. And the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband, else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. Here they ask what holiness this can mean, if it is not such an holiness as intitles the chil­dren to baptism? To which I answer, that it may be such an holiness as the children of Israel had, on account of which they were called an holy people, an holy nation, &c. which was an holiness that did entitle them to circumcision, but now to abstinence from meats offered to idols, &c. but not to baptism. Baptism is a profession of the subject, that he has faith in Christ. See Col. 2.12. Being buried with him in baptism; wherein also ye are risen with him thro' the faith. Says the Rev. Mr Fish, in his sermons, p. 41. ‘As if he had said, in and by your baptism, you signify and declare, that your old man, the body of sin, is crucified with Christ.’ Then how can the body of sin be crucified with Christ, without faith in him? But was circumcision a profession of faith in Christ? The answer is, No: it was ordered to be administred to the males of the sojourner a­mong the children of Israel, who had a mind to keep the passover, and to all the males of the children of Israel. Were these all converted [Page 14]persons? such as could in truth profess that they were true believers in Christ? Do you think that God ordered or directed his people to be false? But says the Rev. Mr. Parsons, in his book, intitled, Infant Baptism vindicated, p. 28. ‘Circumcision signified putting off the sins of the flesh and so does baptism, Colos. 2.11.’ This text doth not say that circumcision made with hands, did signify that the subjects of it had put off the sins of the flesh: but Abraham did not circumcise without hands. Did circum­cision signify that the subjects of it had put off the sins of the flesh? No. Circumcision was given to teach faith in Christ, and was a seal of the promise that God would justify such as had or should have faith in Christ, see Gal 3.8—29. And the scripture foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, in thee shall all nations be blessed. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abra­ham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. Thus circumcision was a token, assurance, or seal, that God would justify Abraham, inasmuch as he had faith in Christ, tho' it was before he was circumcised, Rom. 4 11. But does not baptism signify that the subjects of it had put off the sins of the flesh? Why then did the apostles require faith in Christ, as a rule for their administring the ordinance of baptism? You don't pretend that the commission, Mat. 28. [...]9 authorized the apostles to baptize any but disciples; and they are such as are true believers in Christ, if I can understand our Saviour's explanation of [Page 15]the word Disciple, in the 14th chapter of Luke. Will not God's saying in Jer. 31.31, 32. I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the co­venant that I made with their fathers, convince you that there is a difference between the new church-covenant, and that made with Abraham; altho' the new excels, yet that made with Abra­ham was great. Although the apostle Paul, writing to the Roman church, says, 2 chap. 26. Shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circum­cision? Such as have faith in Christ will be justi­fied, when one that is circumcised, not having faith in Christ, will be condemned. He in the 3d chap v.i says, What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? ver. 2. Chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. A great gift this, which taught the main errand of the bible, viz. Faith in Christ. But oh! how slothful is man, that he must be whipt with the yoke of circumcision, to make him remember himself, and to teach his children. O the depth of the riches hath of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judg­ments, and his ways past finding out. To whom be glory forever. Amen. Rom. 11.33.36.