baptism, I can make no better answer than Goldsmith has furnished me with: and that is, Fudge.

66

But the work from which I have quoted, professes to admit that our standards advocate Pedobaptism, and therefore accuses them of the inconsistency of approving it in one place, and condemning it in another. The same, however, might as correctly be said of their declarations on infant salvation. According to Baptist rules of interpretation the above passage excludes them all from heaven, for the want of faith: but another passage says, "Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who "worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth."(u) They must believe these to be contradictions. fore our ecclesiastical constitution is condemned for inconsistency among the many alledged faults of that transcendant production, let us try it by such sober rules as practical wisdom has established for the interpretation of our civil laws. Blackstone says, "One part of a "statute must be so construed by another, that the "whole may, (if possible) stand: ut res magis valeat,

66

Be

quam pereat." According to this rule we can admit that the church is sincere in professing to believe that elect infants dying in infancy, are saved without faith; and, in perfect consistency with this, they believe that faith, repentance, and the diligent use of the means of grace, are necessary to the salvation of adults. In this way we reconcile the declarations of our Saviour and one of his Apostles. Peter says, concerning the

(u) Conf. of Faith, ch. x, sect. 3.

promise of salvation by the blood and Spirit of Christ, "The promise is unto you and to your children." Doubtless many of these children who died in infancy, were saved without faith. Yet our Savour says, "he that believeth not shall be damned." This, then, must be understood of adults: ut res magis valeat quam pereat. So when our church or other churches, or when Christian Fathers and Reformers, and ministers approve of baptizing infants without faith, they are sincere: and they are no less so, when they affirm that faith is necessary to baptism; because they mean this of adults; so that it is quite possible "that the whole may stand." Thus we explain the scriptures. When they speak of the ecclesiastical or ceremonial holiness of children, and of circumcising and baptizing whole households on the faith of the parent, when the infants cannot believe, we receive it as true: and it is no less true that they often require personal piety as a qualification for baptism; because they often speak of adult subjects. This interpretation is of such a character, that the whole may stand without contradiction; that the thing may have some meaning, rather than perish, by inconsistency.

6

But my Opponent may tell me, this is the point 'to be tried. Prove that the scriptures do consider 'infants as suitable subjects of Christian baptism, and 'we can easily prove that adults, are proper subjects; and we may possibly admit that the two may go together without inconsistency.' To prove that the scriptures do admit infants to this ordinance, is the very thing which I hope soon to do: but before coming to this

point, it is necessary to declare what is meant by the scriptures, and what weight is to be given to them in this controversy. With the Westminster Assembly, I can truly say that "Under the name of holy scripture, "or the word of God written, are now contained all "the books of the Old and New Testament," "all "which are given by inspiration of God, to be the ❝rule of faith and life."(v) With them, I can conscientiously quote from the Old and New Testaments to prove that "the infants of one or both believing 66 parents are to be baptized." Yet would you believe that these very words, for the proof of which they have referred to Genesis and Galatians, are in that same Chapter on Baptism, which my Opponent quotes as denying the authority of the Old Testament in this controversy; merely because it is there stated that "Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ."(w) This my Opponent takes as his text, and professes to build upon it as follows, viz: "1. We shall go to the New Testament, and not to "the Old, to ascertain the nature, design, and subject "of this ordinance. 2. We shall appeal to the words of "Jesus Christ, for the institution of baptism, as our text

66

says, it is an ordinance of Jesus Christ; we shall have "nothing to do with Moses in this matter, however "useful he may be in others. No doubt our Opponent "will feel his creed honored, and will acquiesce in "our method as correct." "In establishing the first "point, that a believer is the only subject of baptism,

(v) Chap. i. sect. 2.

(w) Ch, xxviii, sect. 1. 4.

F

"I will, according to my text, appeal exclusively to "the New Testament; and reason itself will justify "me in this particular; for who would go to the Old "Testament to find an ordinance which is not in it, "and which belongs exclusively to the New?" (x).

Whether this ordinance belongs exclusively to the New Testament, is a point which we are about to try. We are about to see whether the words immediately preceding those which my Opponent has quoted are not also true. They are as follows, viz. "The sacraments "of the Old Testament, in regard of the spiritual things "thereby signified and exhibited, were, for substance the "same with those of the New." I agree with the authors of my Opponents text, that this initiatory rite, is, in its present form, an ordinance of the New Testament; but I agree with them in believing moreover, that in its substance, it is found in the Old Testament: and because it is there undeniably administered to infants, therefore the opposers of infant baptism are too apt to reject the authority of the Old Testament. Consider well the following words of my Opponent, in the prospectus of one of his publications. "The Editor acknow66 ledging no standard of religious faith or works, other "than the Old and New Testaments, and the latter as "the only standard of the religion of Jesus Christ, will, "intentionally at least, oppose nothing which it contains, "and recommend nothing which it does not enjoin." As it is the new Testament only, which he will not intentionally oppose, we are left to infer that he will

(x) See Campbell's Spurious Debate, pp. 57, 58.

intentionally oppose the Old Testament, as he most assuredly does. But this he thinks justifiable, since it is not the standard, in whole nor in part, of the Christian religion, but of some other religion; what this other religion is, he may yet tell us.

In rejecting the authority of the Old Testament, my Opponent only follows his instructor, the celebrated disciple of Dr. Priestley. Robinson quotes with approbation, the error of the Massalians, who "thought the Old Testament a true history, but not a rule of Christian action." The same thing he observes concerning the Manicheans; and then asks, "Who doth not see the justness of this sentiment?" He then observes that "the Fathers, particularly the Africans derived all the errors that founded and supported their hierarchy [that is, they derived Pedobaptism] from the Old Testament." These observations belong to nine quarto pages, which the American Editor has left out in one place; because, in them, Robinson comes out as the advocate of Manicheism, Socinianism, and every filthy thing which he can lay his hands on.(y) If he be really sincere, in saying that the African Fathers derived all their errors, as he calls them, from the Old Testament, then he must consider the Old Testament the worst book that was ever written, not even the Westminster Confession excepted: for he evidently considers the African Fathers the worst men, and their system the worst religion, that can be found on earth, or (I might say) in hell; but this great Baptist champion did not believe that there was a hell.

(y) London Edition, pp 204–213.