INTRODUCTORY

OBSERVATIONS.

SOME are disposed to deprecate all such discussions as the one on which I am now entering, under the common designation of unprofitable controversy. That it is controversy, I admit;-that it is unprofitable controversy, I deny. If I thought it so, I trust I should have grace to abstain from it. But I think otherwise, for the following

reasons:

In the first place: As a pædobaptist, I am accustomed, along with my brethren of the persuasion, to administer the ordinance of baptism, as occasions present themselves, both privately and publicly, to the infant children of believers; and we are countenanced in so doing by our churches and congregations. Now every thing that we do, as professed subjects of the Lord Jesus, ought to be done, not blindly, or in mere conformity to custom, but from a scriptural and enlightened conviction of duty. To call any institution an ordinance of God, and persist in adherence to it, without knowing either its import, or the reason of observing it, is unworthy a professor of that religion, which enjoins nothing but what is reasonable service."

Secondly In consequence of the universality of the practice of infant baptism, and the consequent frequency of the abuse and prostitution of the ordinance, believers themselves are in no small danger of attending to it as a mere matter of course, without due consideration, either of the nature of the rite, the grounds on which the administration of it to their children rests, or the parental obligations, so deep and so solemn, that are inseparably connected with it.

Thirdly I see no reason whatever, why pædobaptists should feel the slightest disposition to evade the question, or the most distant fear,-although on both sides there may be minute points of difficulty,—to meet it fully, fairly, and openly, in all its great general bearings.-There has

2

sometimes appeared to me, to be too much, on the part of pædobaptists, of a disposition to stand upon the defensive merely too much of the mere nagation of the conclusiveness of arguments used on the side of their opponents, and too little of the direct enforcement of positive evidence on their own;-too much of the shield, and too little of the sword :—I mean, of course, "the sword of the Spirit."

Fourthly: There are too many, especially of the young, who, in the outset of their Christian profession, have not their minds directed at all to the subject. It is an unexamined point. And these persons, when, in this state of want of knowledge and information, they happen to fall in with a baptist friend, a baptist book, or a baptist argument, feel themselves unprepared to meet what is new and startling; their minds are in danger of being immediately unsettled, and of hastily adopting what is presented to them with no little plausibility, and possibly too with much imposing confidence.-I invite the attention of my young Christian readers,-not fearing, that if we are only enabled to come to the subject without the heat of party opinionativeness, in a cool, composed, and reasonable frame of spirit, and especially in humble dependence on Divine teaching, we shall be led into all truth, and established in the due observance of every scriptural institution.

Fifthly: The discussion does not exclusively regard a particular instituted observance; it involves principles and topics, such as are very closely connected with the right understanding of a large proportion of the Old Testament scriptures, and of those parts of the New of which the reasonings and illustrations are founded upon the Old ; and also with just views of the Divine procedure towards the church, from the beginning to the end of its history. -This must have been apparent to every person of the slightest discernment, that has bestowed any attention upon the controversy. There is a certain style of speaking and writing regarding the Old and New Dispensations, and the two revelations respectively connected with them, by which, in general, the supporters of the opposite sides of it may be readily distinguished. And this gives an importance to the argument, beyond its direct conclusions. respecting the single ordinance which forms its more immediate subject.

Lastly: I am satisfied, that the argument respecting the validity of infant baptism is far from being so difficult and formidable, as, from the numberiess pamphlets and volumes that have been written upon either side of the question, many are ready, without further inquiry, to suppose. They shrink from approaching the subject, under the apprehension, (not altogether unnatural,) that if such a mass of controversy must be gone through in order to bring their minds to a settlement, it is a hopeless case. They will not venture into the flood; it is frothy and turbulent, and troublesome to pass, and they have little certainty of finding solid footing beyond it. They heave a desponding sigh; and, as the easiest at least, if not the best and safest way to dispose of the subject, they dismiss it with the trite and indolent remark, that, "much, it seems, may be said on both sides."-And it is true, that a vast deal has been said on both sides; much more, in my apprehension, than enough; much that is needlessly abstruse,―much that is very irrelevant,―much that has only involved the combatants in clouds of "learned dust," which has served to blind the eyes of common and unlettered men, and almost at times, I fear, to blind their own.

Nothing can be easier, on such a subject, especially now, when we have so much criticism about it made up by others and ready to our hand, than even for the veriest sciolist to make a mighty parade of learning-nothing I say, can be easier,-unless indeed it be, speaking with great positiveness and dogmatism-a figure of speech, which, on all subjects, has been too much resorted to, as a substitute for the lack of argument.-On no subject, it is granted, and especially, on no subject that involves the obligations of conscience towards God, are we to allow ourselves to be determined by the weight of names and of human authority. "He that judgeth us is the Lord;" and "What saith the Lord?" ought to be our sole inquiry. But although our opinions and practice are not to be decided by names; yet the manner of our treating any subject not only may be, but ought to be, not a little affected by them. And when I think of the names of high eminence, both for intellect and for piety, both for scholarship and for integrity, that are ranged on both sides of the present controversy, I cannot but consider pertness and dogmatism as indications, not of vigor of judgment, but of the imbecil

ity of self-conceit.-If, through infirmity and corruption, I should, in any part of my argument, be found guilty of these evils, or of the appearance of them, I have thus pronounced a previous verdict against myself. My aim, however shall be, to avoid them, and to state my views and reasonings, although with decision and firmness, (because to this I do believe them, bona fide, to be entitled,) yet with becoming simplicity, self-diffidence, and charity.

I am not about to bewilder the reader's mind by multifarious and protracted discussions,-by entering at large into all the topics that have been forced into connection with this subject. It has long been my conviction, from observation of the writings of others, and from any little experience I have myself had in controversy, that in conducting an argument, the principal difficulty consists, not in finding what to say, but in knowing what not to say. The resolution to say all that can be said, has often led to the introduction of a great deal of matter, that, if not altogether irrelevant, is yet but remotely and by slight association connected with the point in debate, and, being redundant, is enfeebling to the conclusion aimed at. There may be self-denial at times in using the pruning-knife; but it is necessary to a vigorous fructification. A skilful gardener, who wishes his tree to bear well, will lop off freely its green wood, and never think of encumbering the wall by training in every shoot that sprouts in the luxuriance of vegetation. He may sometimes be at a loss, which to cut, and which to spare; he must exercise his discretion: but he will never hesitate to cut, when to spare promises no produce. Branches that yield no fruit themselves will mar the productiveness of others. The present argument has assumed much of the appearance of intricate complexity and difficulty; for which both sides of it are in some degree answerable My present object is to simplify,-to divest the subject, as much as possible, of its multiplied encumbrances, and to present it in an easy intelligible form, and with as much brevity as its own nature, and the previous state of the controversy, will admit.

One ground of objection I must anticipate, and endeavor to remove, because it is frequently and confidently urged against all inferential conclusions, and all reasonings indeed together, on such a subject. It is alledged, that the case is one which does not admit of a process of

reasoning;-one with which argument and inference have nothing to do. The ordinance of baptism, both in itself and in regard to the subjects of it, is a positive institute; and a positive institute cannot be established by reasoning, but requires, to warrant its observance, explicit terms of institution.

In reply to this view of the matter, let it be considered, in the first place;-If any thing can be made out from the word of God, as having Divine authority to support it, it is surely our duty to obey, whatever may have been the mode of arriving at the conclusion. Only make the supposition that we can show such authority for any practice; we certainly can never consider ourselves as at liberty to decline compliance, because the point has not been made out exactly in the way which we had previously determined to be the only legitimate and right way. This ought to be self-evident. The man who

questions it, (with whatever assurance he may express himself,) betrays a secret want of confidence in his own views. He hypothetically admits that the practice has the support of divine authority; and yet declines compliance, because the intimation of God's will has not been conveyed in a manner according with his taste, and his preconceptions of propriety. He prefers his own judgment to that of God, and presumptuously refuses the substance of authority on account of the mode in which its requirements has been expressed! The simple and only question is What saith the scripture? not In what way does the scripture say it? It is not ours, in this or in any thing else, to prescribe to God.

Secondly: Those who make the objection may be fairly called to consider, how far the principle of it, if consistently applied and followed out, will necessarily carry them.I am not going to take up the ground which by some pædobaptists has been assumed, that, on the principle of the objection, we have no direct and explicit authority for the admission of women to the Lord's table ;because this has always appeared to me ground hardly consistent with manly fairness and candor, and calculated to enfeeble rather than to strengthen, to expose to a sneer, rather than recommend to acceptance, the cause it is meant to support. I have in my view a case of much higher order, not inferior in importance to the question of infant-baptism itself;-I mean the sanctification of the first

*2