confessed their sins; because his business was to baptize the adult."- Dr. Whitby: "It is not to be wondered at, that infants were not baptized during John's ministry; because the baptism then used by John and Christ's disciples, was only the baptism of repentance, and faith in the Messiah which was for to come, of both which infants were incapable." -Mr. Burkitt: "John's baptism was the baptism of repentance, of which infants were incapable."- -Thomas Lawson (a Quaker:) "Faith and repentance were the qualifications of such as were admitted to John's baptism."- Now all these are "unexceptionable witnesses," and "plump against" my opponent. Having considered the grand principles on which Dr. W. proceeds, when defending the right of infants to baptism; and perceiving but little in the course of his argument on particular passages of the New Testament, besides what is either directly answered or implicitly obviated, partly in the preceding pages, and partly in the second volume of Pædobaptism Examined; I shall, to avoid prolixity, waive a particular examination of what he says on the texts produced. I will, however, before I conclude the chapter, again present my reader with Dr. W.'s axiom of interpretation, and with one reflection relative to the texts themselves: The axiom is; "As nothing should be considered as an established principle of faith, which is not in some part of scripture delivered with perspicuity, so that perspicuity should be sought for principally where the point in question is most professedly handled." But in which of those passages produced by him, either from the Old Testament or the New, is infant sprinkling most professedly handled, professedly handled, handled at all, or even so much as mentioned? His axiom, therefore, is "plump against " his argumentation. My reflection follows. The cause of Pædobaptism seems to be very unhappily circumstanced. For if a passage produced in its favour mention baptism, it says nothing of infants;* if it mention seed, or sons, or little children, or indefinitely an individual, it says nothing of baptism; if it mention children, in connection with the term promise, the word baptized being in the context, it very untowardly falls out, that the blessing promised is not baptism, nor does the term children signify infants;‡ if it mention first-fruit and lump, root and branches, the sacred writer neither speaks of baptism, nor seems to have had any thought about it; § or, supposing it to mention children, and to represent them as holy, there is a deep silence respecting baptism. || If, therefore, infant baptism be a divine appointment, the predicament in which it stands, as a positive rite, must be quite peculiar—so peculiar, that it is not in the power of my opponent, with all his polemical skill, to produce a similar instance. The acknowledged silence of scripture with regard to infant baptism, though pleaded by me and urged at large, ¶ is almost entirely overlooked by Dr. W. in his "full reply." Should he condescend, therefore, to "take another turn" with us, and plant his cannons afresh; it may be justly expected that he will confront, and break, and rout the whole phalanx of my arguments arising from the silence of scripture. * As in Matt. xxviii. 19; Acts xvi. 15, 33; 1 Cor. i. 10. As in Acts ii. 39. As in 1 Cor. vii. 14. John iii. 5. § As in Rom. xi. 16. ¶ See Pædobap. Exam. Vol. I. p. 303-367, this edition. CHAPTER VII. Infant Communion and Infant Baptism compared. THAT the practice of infant communion is very ancient;* that it was in former times universal throughout what is called the Christian world; that it was continued for about six hundred years; and that it is now practised by nearly one half of those who profess Christianity, our most learned opposers declare: † nor is it denied by Dr. W. It is equally plain, that various eminent Pædobaptists, in these parts of Europe, have expressed their approbation of infant communion, and some of them have written in its defence.-In evidence of this fact, besides the authors mentioned in Pædobaptism Examined, I will here produce the attestation of Zornius, who says: "Wolf. Musculus contends, that infants ought not to be withheld from the eucharist." Hosius and Ruardus Tapperus, he also informs us, " contend, that the Lord's supper is necessary for all, both little children and adults." After having told us, that Heinriquez, Didacus Nunez, and Cajetan, are favourable to the practice, he produces M. F. Amicus, who says: "Little children are not less capable of nourishing grace, which is given by the eucharist, than of strengthening grace, which is given by confirmation."§ I will now lay before my reader the testimony of *Spanhemius bears the following testimony respecting the practice of it in the second century : "In ecclesiis Africanis (quanquam obscurior hoc seculo, manifestior sequente) communio eucharistica respectu infantum, statim à baptismo, Augustini adhuc tempore ut plurimum recepta." Hist. Eccles. Christ. secul. ii. † See Pædobap. Exam. Part II. Chap. V. Vol. II. p. 252, this edition. Hist. Eucharist. Infant. cap. xxvi. § 1. those impartial judges, the Quakers. Robert Barclay: "For aught can be learned, the use of [infant communion] and infant baptism are of alike age; though the one be laid aside both by Papists and Protestants, and the other, to wit, baptism of infants, be stuck to." Joseph Wyeth: "If from the commission (Matt. xxviii. 19,) must of necessity be understood baptism with water, and that infants must be understood to be within the limits of it, it may be convenient-to show-why infants are not within the limits of 1 Cor. xi. 26, and that they must not communicate of bread and wine."t-This verdict of completely impartial Friends, must be a strong presumption in our favour. Respecting infant communion, our author says: "I reject [it] ONLY as an IMPROPRIETY. Were [Mr. B.] to grant as much in favour of infant baptism, as I am willing to grant in favour of infant communion, our controversy would be at an end." Infant communion, therefore, in the estimate of my opponent, is a trifling impropriety; far from being offensive to God, and unworthy to be the subject of debate. My reader should here observe, that this is part of his introduction to a serious contest with Mr. James Peirce, relative to this very affair. But if Christ appointed infant communion, it must be our indispensable duty to regard it; or else his command is of no force, and stands for nothing. If, on the contrary, infant communion have not the sanction of his institution, it must be the invention of men and will-worship; a corruption of his holy religion, and condemned by that divine query, "Who hath required this at your hands?"-In a few pages after, however, when speaking on the same subject, he expresses himself thus: "Now I say, that infants-ought to be baptized; but— ought NOT to be admitted to" particular church-membership; and, consequently, not made partakers at the * Apology, prop. xiii. + Switch for the Snake, p. 270. ‡ Vol. ii. 238, Lord's table. For he informs us, that "Jesus gave the elements [of bread and wine] only to those who might be called a particular church."* I say they ought not. Thus, with a tone of authority, and quite in earnest, he begins to controvert the subject with Mr. Peirce, Dr. Priestley, and the Greek church; even though it be ONLY an impropriety-an impropriety too, that is not worthy of a debate! Dr. W. farther informs us, that "the ground of right to baptism and the eucharist [is] the same."† Nay, he elsewhere interrogates and answers thus: "If infants have a right to baptism, what assignable reason is there why they have not a consequential right to churchmembership? And if they are entitled to the latter, why should they not be treated as other members are, especially as a considerable benefit might attend it? As to the objection, That the counterpart to this is to admit them to the Lord's table, if they do nothing to deserve censure—I ask, what is there unreasonable or unscriptural in such an objection? Nay, farther, in point of RIGHT, how can the two ordinances be separated? Are not 'The same reasons which are brought for infant baptism, in like manner applicable to infant communion? And will not the objections against the latter admit of the same answer as those against the former?' See Mr. James Peirce's Essay in favour of the Ancient Practice of giving the Eucharist to Children.-Nor do I see how this reasoning can be evaded by a consistent Pædobaptist, while we only attend to the legal right of infants to that ordinance; but such advocates must allow, that many things are lawful which are not erpedient. And should it be granted, that a Christian minister cannot justly deny the eucharist to any church member (who does not lie under its censure) when demanded, yet there are prudential reasons why a parent should not desire it for infants and young children; espe* Vol. ii. 242, 246. ↑ Vol. ii. 242. |