candidate, who professes repentance and faith, be a proper subject of the institution, except the administrator to whom he applies possess "an exact knowledge of his moral state," as it really is in the sight of God; whereas, nothing maintained, nothing believed by us, of which I am aware, involves any such consequence. Our avowed principle, with regard to this particular, is; That there should be a personal and credible PROFESSION of repentance and faith, made by the candidate, before any administrator is warranted to baptize him. But does this infer the necessity of an administrator possessing "infinite knowledge," by which to discern with precision the "moral state" of a candidate? May not divine, positive law require such a profession; and may not an administrator form the requisite conclusion upon it, without being able precisely to distinguish the degree of repentance and faith so professed→→ nay, without being CERTAIN that there is any degree of true repentance or of genuine faith? It is recorded of Simon the sorcerer, that he believed, and was baptized.* Now, Dr. W. himself, I presume, does not consider that magician as really believing in Jesus Christ. He must, therefore, view him as professing to believe "the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Chirst;" which profession Philip, not being able to search the heart, considered as credible, or else we cannot with reason suppose that he would have baptized him. Agreeable to this view of the case, is the language of our opposers. Thus, for instance, Mr. Blake: "Let Mr. Cobbet, from New England, in this particular be heard, who lays down this conclusion; "That the church, in dispensing an enjoined initiatory seal of the covenant of grace, looketh into visibility of interest in the covenant to guide her in the application thereof; nor is the saving interest of the persons her rule by which she is *Acts viii, 13. to proceed.' There we find, in the affirmative, what that is that must lead, viz. visibility of interest in the covenant; and, in the negative, what must not lead; and that is, saving interest in the covenant."*-Thus Mr. Jonathan Edwards: "The question is not, whether Christ has made converting grace, or piety itself, the condition or rule of his people's admitting any to the privileges of members in full communion with him. There is no one qualification of mind whatsoever, that Christ has properly made the term of this; no, not so much as a common belief that Jesus is the Messiah, or a belief of the being of a God. It is the credible PROFESSION and visibility of these things, that is the church's rule in this case."-Now these are "competent and unexceptionable witnesses" to the truth, the propriety, and the importance of that very principle on which we proceed in the administration of baptism. Nor do they seem to have had the least suspicion of baptism not being a merely positive institute; nor yet that "infinite knowledge" is necessary to distinguish the moral qualifications, either for that ordinance, or for full communion at the Lord's table. Did we maintain that any thing more than a credible profession of repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ, is necessary to warrant the administration of baptism to any person; or did we consider it as criminal for an administrator to baptize a candidate, who does not really possess that faith in his heart, of which he makes a plausible confession with his mouth -so confesses, that there is no apparent evidence to the contrary; then, indeed, that absurd consequence mentioned by Dr. W. might be charged upon us. But this is manifestly far from being the case. The futility of my opponent's argument may be shown, by appealing to instances of a similar kind. So, *Covenant Sealed, chap. vii. sect. ix. p. 104. Rom. x. 9. for example, the circumcision of proselytes to the Jewish religion has, for aught I have observed, been universally considered by learned men as a merely positive institute; yet the qualifications of adults for that rite, were manifestly and entirely moral. This the very nature of the case plainly supposes; because no Gen tile, educated in superstition and idolatry, could ever voluntarily and sincerely become a candidate for admission into the Jewish church, except he renounced the false objects of his former worship, considered Jehovah as the only true God, and was disposed to observe the various laws of Judaism, according to the covenant made at Horeb. Now, as these things are manifestly of a moral nature, so it is equally plain, that the Jews could not receive a candidate for circumcision, without violating the grand principles of that economy, except he made such a profession of conversion to Judaism as they judged to be sincere.-Agreeable to this is that representation of the case which is given by Dr. Jennings: for he informs us that, according to the Jewish rabbies, the preparation for admitting a proselyte consisted in an examination, whether it was the love of any Jewish woman, the fear of any temporal punishment, the prospect of any worldly advantage, or a sincere love to God and his law, that excited in him a desire of admis sion into the Jewish church. Having given a satisfactory answer to these questions, he was then instructed in the Jewish religion. After this, he solemnly professed his assent to the doctrines which had been proposed to him, promising to persevere in the faith and practice of the law of God, as long as he lived.* The doctrine of circumcision, relative to proselytes from among the Gentiles, may therefore be justly considered as a complete answer to that confident requisi * Jewish Antiquities, vol. i. p. 132, 133. Vid. Ikenii Antiq. Hebr. pars i. cap. i. § 13. Brem. 1735. Relandi Antiq. Hebr. pars ii. cap. vii. § 14. Traject. Bat. 1717. Ainsworth on Exod. xii. 48. tion of Dr. W., where he says: "I beg leave to demand ONE INSTANCE out of all the numerous precepts, which Mr. B. calls positive, delivered by Moses to the chosen tribes, that required in the subject a discriminating moral qualification?"* Or will he, to maintain the negative of this, assert, that the Gentiles were admitted to circumcision, and into communion with the Jewish church, without the least regard to any alteration in their moral sentiments and religious views? But if so, divine law must have permitted such an admission for merely secular purposes; must have acknowledged those for true subjects of the ancient theocracy, who did not profess to venerate Jehovah, as the King of Israel; and must have tolerated, in Gentile proselytes, those dispositions that were absolutely forbidden to exist in the heart of any Jew.-If, then, a credible profession of regard to Jehovah as the only God, and of being disposed to obey his laws as established among the Jews, was previously necessary to the circumcision of a Gentile proselyte, why should it be thought impossible for the law of baptism to require an equally credible profession of repentance and faith, from every candidate for that institution? Yet this our author will not admit, even with reference to the most profligate adults, when willing to be baptized!-Nay, Dr. W. himself, when speaking of adults and infants being circumcised, says; "The adult had an opportunity of testifying his assent, belief, and submission; he had the advantage [over infants] of devout preparation, by prayer and fasting; and on the solemn occasion of performing the duty, he was capable of reflecting on its nature, design, and obligations; and, in short, all his life after he could [do] no less than recollect his PERSONAL engagements.”† This, if I mistake not, is "plump against” himself. Another of my opponents-who, like Dr. W., no sooner steps into the field of controversy, than he cries, † Vol. ii. 264. * Vol. i. 74. HEARKEN TO ME, I ALSO WILL SHOW THEE MINE OPINION-is of a sentiment quite the reverse, and, with regard to the circumcision of Abraham's natural posterity, runs into an opposite extreme. For thus Mr. Pirie: "It is indisputably evident-that none of [Abraham's] offspring were circumcised without respect to their faith....The very infants were circumcised with respect to their faith....So evident is it, that the fleshly birth never gave any title to circumcision.... Thus circumcision and baptism have been administered on the same footing, even a profession of the faith of Abraham."* But, when two disputants appear in defence of infant baptism, equally claiming the solemn consequence of an Elihu, and yet contradict one another in an article of the first importance to their common cause, who shall decide? Again: Dr. W. maintains the antiquity of Jewish proselyte baptism, to be greater than that of John the Baptist's public ministry; † and, consequently, he considers it as existing while the laws of Judaism were in their full force. Now that rite, whether it was from heaven, or of men, and whenever it first came into use, was common to both sexes; and it is, I presume, considered by all the world, except Dr. W., as of a merely positive kind. Having, therefore, already seen that no adult male from among the Gentiles could legally have been admitted to circumcision, without a credible profession of his own moral qualifications for that ordinance, the argument is equally valid, with regard to adult females, in reference to the proselyte baptism. For, can my opponent, or any other man, suppose, that no moral qualification was required of any such female candidate for that Jewish bathing; or that the requisite qualification could be known by those concerned, without a credible * Appendix to Dissertat. p. 154, 155, 158. † Vol. i. 278; vol. ii. 230. |