blessed effects; for, surely, he never could suppose that a little water was equal to these advantages. It appears, however, that while he bends his force to maintain a darling practice, he grossly intrenches on the honour of divine grace, for which he affected to be thought an able, and a warm defender; that same favourite plunging of his being represented by him, as little short of a substitute for electing love, atoning blood, and sanctifying influence. For, after having written many a long page against the Arminians, it now appears, that he considered the solemn dipping of a person in water, as putting his name into the gospel grant-as wresting the key of his heart out of the hands of Satan-as putting him into the covenant-as writing his name on the breast-plate of our great High Priest-as cleansing him from the defilements of the flesh-as making him a Christian-as sealing, confirming, and making over to him, all the benefits of our Lord's death-and, finally, as sealing the promise to him of God being to him a God. Admirable plunging, truly! Who, on such grounds, would not be dipped, aye, and dipped again? Had but the doctor soundly proved all these ipse dixits, we should no longer have objected against immersion, as being either dangerous or indecent; but have cheerfully submitted to it, though in the cold of Russia and in the presence of ten thousand spectators." -Such, I presume, would have been the remarks of our opponents upon it. The reader perceives, however, that it is not Dr. Gill, that it is not any Baptist, but Mr. Henry, who talks at this wonderful rate. So far, indeed, are the Baptists in general from attributing more efficacy to the divine appointment than their opposers do, that it is manifest, from the preceding quotations, their expectations from it are abundantly less. Nay, the very learned Buddeus, who was a person of immense reading, and well acquainted with their sentiments upon the subject, charges them with greatly depreciating the ordinance, in point of utility. His language is, "Their principal error consists in considering baptism as a mere sign, or symbol, and not as an efficacious mean, of obtaining grace."* Though I am far from considering Mr. Henry as avowing the natural consequences of his own positions, and equally far from charging them upon him; yet I cannot but view the positions themselves as unwarrantable, extravagant, and of a dangerous tendency. They remind me of the virtues attributed, both by ancients and moderns, to the sign of the cross. Thus, for example, Cyprian: "In this sign of the cross, there is salvation to all who have this mark in their foreheads."†-Ambrose: "All prosperity is in one sign of Christ. He that sows in it, shall have a crop of eternal life; he that journies in it, shall arrive at heaven at last."-Once more: A Roman Catholic author teaches how the most ignorant persons may become true believers, by making the sign of the cross."§-Now I feel myself no more disposed to believe that baptism is the mean of conveying to infants, or to adults, all those capital blessings of which, among a thousand others, Mr. Henry speaks, than I do to receive this doctrine concerning the sign of the cross; or to adopt the notion of ancient Pagans, when they teach, that the use of salt and water purifies the heart; || or to imagine, with some of the Roman Catholics, that baptized bells have a mighty efficacy to frighten away devils from their vicinity. ¶ Yet, calculated as the language and sentiments of Mr. Henry are, to excite in the breasts of ignorant persons a deceitful dependence on the baptismal rite, it is manifest from ecclesiastical records, that things of a similar kind, and often, if pos * Theolog. Dogmat. 1, v. c. i. § 21. + In Mr. Polhill's Discourse on Schism, p. 62. + Ibid. sible, more grossly erroneous, have been asserted by Pædobaptists in every age, from the time of Cyprian to the present day. And, indeed, when it is considered, that an unwarrantable opinion about the necessity of baptism, seems to have laid the foundation for baptizing infants, it is no wonder that Pædobaptists, both ancient and modern, should frequently represent that practice as vastly important. To a dangerous mistake of this kind, the espousers of infant baptism are apparently more liable, than such as baptize those only who make a profession of repentance and faith; for no Baptist minister, without notoriously confronting the grand principle on which he proceeds in administering the solemn rite, can ever teach that baptism is a mean of producing those great effects which Mr. Henry and a thousand others have mentioned. Το maintain, with a resolute perseverance, that the laws of Christ relating to a positive institution should be strictly observed, is one thing; to insist upon it, or to insinuate that baptism, to whomsoever administered, is the medium of procuring those blessings to which we advert, is another. The former is our indispensable duty; the latter is pregnant with dangerous consequences. Reflect. IV. That baptism is of real importance to the church of Christ, and that believers, in a cheerful submission to it, have reason to expect a blessing, we firmly maintain; but that infant baptism is big with much greater advantages than adult baptism, as Mr. Henry insists, we cannot admit. His words are as follow: "That which shakes many in the doctrine of infant baptism, is the uselessness (as they apprehend) of the administration, and the mighty advantages which they fancy in adult baptism. But before they conclude thus, they would do well to answer Dr. Ford's proof of this truth, That there is much more advantage to be made, in order to sanctification, consolation, and several other ways, of the doctrine and practice of infant baptism, than of that doctrine and practice, which limits baptism to personal profession at years of discretion."*Though there are few assertions in this respectable author's treatise, that have less pretence to evidence from scripture than the passage here produced, yet he speaks with an uncommon degree of assurance. This reminds me of what I have somewhere seen remarked concerning Bellarmine. That zealous cardinal, it has been observed, when he had the least appearance of reason, or of scripture, for what he was going to say, commonly assumed the most confident airs, and was pretty sure to introduce it with a proculdubio. Now, though we cannot accept of Mr. Henry's challenge to answer Dr. Ford's arguments in defence of this bold position, because we do not know what they were; yet we will suggest a few thoughts against the position itself, and leave the reader to judge. What then can be the reason of infant baptism being much more advantageous than adult baptism? Mr. Baxter himself shall answer for us, by giving a general negative to the bold assertion. "Upon my first serious study," says he, "I presently discerned, that infants were not capable of every benefit by baptism, as are the aged."-To be more particular. Is infant baptism of greater advantage than that of adults, because it is more solemn? If we appeal to Dr. Wall, his answer will be; "The baptism of an infant cannot have all the solemnity, which that of an adult person may have. The previous fasting and prayer, the penitential confessions, the zeal and humility and deep affection of the receiver, may be visible there, which cannot be in the case of an infant." Is it because infants are better capable of reflecting on the nature, the design, the obligation of baptism, than adults; or because they are more proper * Treatise on Baptism, p. 179. † Antisozzo, p. 545. Plain Scrip. Proof, Pref. p. 2. § Defence of Hist. Inf. Bap. p. 404... VOL. I. 2 F subjects of ministerial exhortation? None will pretend the one or the other.-Peter speaks of baptized persons having the answer of a good conscience towards God; and Mr. T. Bradbury tells us, "that the benefit which arises from this ordinance is owing to the answer of a good conscience.' Is it, then, because infants have a better conscience, and make a better answer, than believing adults? That cannot be; for as the minds of mere infants are not capable of comparing their own conduct with the rule of duty, they have, properly speaking, no conscience at all. Our Brethren, indeed, frequently speak of covenanting with God in baptism: but mere infants are totally ignorant; and Mr. Baxter tells us, "It is a known rule in law, that consensus non est ignorantis." The language of common sense, as well as of casuists, is; "That infants are not capable of contracting," either with God or man.-Is it because the conscience of a person is more tenderly affected, by considering what was done for him, while incapable of moral agency; than by reflecting on what was done by him and upon him, with the full consent of his will? To suppose any such thing insults the understanding and feelings of mankind. For, as Bp. Sanderson observes, "In personal obligations, no man is bound without his own consent; and a spiritual obligation, which is in the conscience, must necessarily be personal, as every one's conscience is his own; and such an obligation cannot pass into another person."§ Children, when arrived at years of discretion, may be told, that they covenanted * Duty and Doct. of Bap. p. 9. ↑ Disputat. of Right to Sac. p. 9. Dr. Ames, De Conscientia, 1. v. c. xlii. § 2. Limborch informs us, that Peter Auterius, an eminent minister among the Albigenses, was accused and condemned by the Court of Inquisition, for saying, among other things, "That water baptism performed by the church is of no use to children, because they do not consent; nay, they weep." Hist. Inquisit. 1. i. c. viii. p. 31. § De Juramenti Obligatione, prælect. iv. § 9. |