analogy and inference, he fliould, if he had had but a
little policy, have kept that defence of female commu-
nion entirely out of fight. It was not crafty in him,
though there is a fpice of it in the defence itfelf, to
fufter that to go abroad, which, when fet agalnft what
he had faid in oppofition to infiint baptifm, would run
down and ruin the whole. Had I been he, and wilh-
L2
125 A SHORT METHOD
ed my other arguments to ftand, I would have taken
that defence, and thrown it into the fire.
III. There is fomething in this conducSl very un-
fortunate. It is a fad cafe that a book ftiould be fo
written, that one part lliall rife up againft and ruin tji^
other. Mr. B. Samfon-like, when oppofmg infant
baptifm, thinks he can carry gates apd bars, and every
thing elfe away ; but when he defends female comr
munion, Samfon-like again, he becomes like another
man, that is, a Fsedobaptift: For he reafons, infers,
and proves (fet afide his falfehood and prefumption)
in the very fame way. In one thing, however, he
differs, and herein he is unfortunate, that inlleaM of
killing the Philiftines, to wit, the arguments of Fsedo-
baptifts, he falis to combating himfelf, and deftroys
his ov/n.
What Ihall we fay to thefe things ? I reply, that
with refpe
unfair, I v/ould difiike him ; as he is impolitic, I would
excuse him; as he is unfortunate, I would pity him j
and, under all thefe views, I would make the bell apo-
logy for him which the nature of the cafe wiU admit.
Since it is evident that Mr. B. demands expref^,
pofitive, and explicit proof, with refpect to the mode
and fubje6t of an inllituted rite, and as it is equally
evident that he himfelf reafoos on fuch a rite by im-
plication, analogy, and inference, the apology I make
for him, and it is the beft I can make, is this : That
he understood explicit proof, which he had fo much
infifted on, and proof by inference, which he hirafel|f
adopted, to mean precifely the fame thing ; ib that
when any thing was proved by inference^ he tlia^t
aproof was conlidered by him as exprefs and explicit.
This, I fay, is the beft apology I can make for thofe
repugnancies, or (if this apology be admitted) feem-
ing repugnancies, 1 find in th^s book. But, methinks
I hear fome Pi^edobaptift fay, If this apolog)' be good,
it will indeed reconcile fome of his inconfiftenries,
but then he will, at the fame time, ftand in need of
aaother; for if exprefs proof and proof by inference
WITH THE BAPTISTS. IS?
be the fame thing, I fliould be glad to know why he
wrote his book at all. To this I can only fay, that I
have no other apology to make ; cetatem habet, let him
j^pologize for himfelf. Leaving Mr. B. or any one
e,lfe, to manage thefe prevarications, &c. the beft way
fie cap, I pafs to the third confequence, namely,
That, according to the principles and reafoning*
of the Baptifts, God had no church in this world at
leaft for fifteen hundred years.
The way in which the Baptifts are driven into this
ponfequence is this : When it is urged againfl them
that infants were conftituted church members, and
\vere, by the Lord himfelf, deemed fit fubje<5ls of a
religious rite, they, in order to avoid a confequence
which wp,ul4 hear hard on their arguments, endea-
vour to reduce this church into a mere civil fociety ;
s^nd as they cai>not deny the memberlhip of infants,
they try to efcape by deftroying the church. Now,
as this is a neceffary confequent of their principle, it
will ferve to difcover the error of that principle of
which it is a confequent.
Mr. B. in trying to effe6l his efcapQ in this way,
has ufed a language, which, if true, will prove that
God for many centuries had no church at all in this
world. This is Mr. B.'s expedient, but it is a def-
perate one. In vol. ii. p. 252, he calls the then exift-
ing church, an " ecclefiaflico-political conftitution.**
By this compound word he feems to confider the
church under the notion of an amphibious fociety ;
partly civU, and partly religious. And he might have
likewife confidered, that, as nothing in nature differs
more than policy among men, and piety towards God,
they mull be viewed in all bodies of men, whether
large pr fmall, as things totally and at all times dif-
tinSl. But this Mr. B.'s fyltem would not admit.
Now in a la^ge body, as the Jews for inftance, all
laws pertaining to human fociety, as such, were civil
laws ; a,nd all laws, though in the fame code with the
others, relating to the woriliip of God, were, properly
peaking, eQcWfi^ftical law.s.. S,o with refpedl to ixien^
12S A SHORT METHOD
when they are united in promoting order and mutual
fecurity, they are to be confidered as a political Hate ;
but if fome, or all of thefe profels piety towards God,
and unite in his worlhip, they are to be viewed as a
vifible church. And though all the inhabitants of Ju-
dea belonged to the ftate, it will not follow that all
belonged to the vifible church. There were without
doubt fome excommunicated perfons, fome who vo-
luntarily withdrew, and there might be many who
came into the land of Ifrael, that did not join them-
felves to the Lord. There was, therefore, no juft
reafon why Mr. B. fliould confound things, which in
their own nature are, and ever mud be, feparate.
Neither is it probable he would have done it, if he
had not been compelled by his oppofition to the con-
tinuance of infant-memberfliip.
Though Mr. B. by the phrafe ecclefiallico-political
conllitution, has confounded the church and flate, the
one being a kingdom of this world, the other the
kingdom of Chrift; yet as fomething of church ftill
makes its appearance, the confequence charged on
Baptift principles may not feem to be clearly evinced.
'Tis true, he feems to grant two parts, the political
and ecclefialtical ; but if we look more narrowly into
his book, the ecclefiafticnl part difappears, and no-
thing will remain but the political only.
In vol. ii.p. 251, Mr. B. has thefe emphatic words:
" To be an obedient fubjc6l to their [the Jews'] civil
government, and a complete member in their church-
Itatc, were the fame thing." Every one knows, that
a civil government, be it where it may, is converfant
about prefent things, it is a government among [chesi
citizens as fuch, and is defigned to regulate their
worldly concerns. An obedient fubje6l of fuch a
government, is one who quietly and cheerfully fub-
mits to its regulations, and feeks the peace and fecu-
rity of that community to which he belongs. Now
Mr. B. affures us that fuch was the nature of things
among the Jews, that " an obedient fubje6l of the civil
government, and a complete member of the church-
WITH >TffE BA-PTISTS. '12^
ilate, v/ere the fame." If this were fo, it muft be be-
caufe the civil government was nothing lefs than the
church ; and the church was nothing more than the
civil government; that is, they were both the fame
thing. It fignifies nothing by what name we call this
community, whether a national church, or an eccle-
fiaitico-politicalconilitution ; it means no more at laft
than a civil government: For, as Mr. B. informs us,
there was nothing more required in a complete mem-
ber of wliat he calls the church, than his being an obe-
dient fubjecl of the civil governmept. Now as this,
whatever it was, could be no church of God, and as
it is not fuppofed there was a church of a higher na-
ture in any other part ; it will follow, that according
to Mr. B.'s principles, God had for many centuries
no fuch thing as a church, properly fo called, in this
>vorld.
What a dreadful ecclelisecide in this fame Mr. B. !
And when we confider that all this refults from prin-
ciple, and is carried on by regular logical procefs ;
what a horrid principle mufl that be which leads a
man to deflroy the very church of God ! Though I
have been a Baptift myfelf for feveral years, I nerer
till lately difcerned this Ihocking confequence of the
Baptift fentiment. And I am much indebted to Mr*
B. for an infight into this, as well as oth< r confequen-
ces wWch neceffarily refult from the Baptift fcheme.
And I have no doubt but his book, when nicely exa-
mined, will do more good this way than any thing
which has hitherto been written on the fubje6l;.
As Mr. B. to preferve his fyftem, has laid violent
hands on the ancient church of God ; we cannot fup-
pofe that that which was connected with it could poi-
fibl'v' efcape. He that could reduce the church into a
civil government, will not think it mrch to manufac-
ture a religious inftitute into a political rite. What
was circumcifion? According to Mr. B.'s Talmud,
*' it was a iign of carnal defcent, a mark of national
diftinc\ion, and a token of intereft in temporal blef-
fiix^s." Here indeed is a good match ; a civil iafti-
^^'^ A SSORT METHOD
tute, and a civil government! xMo;v, though there is
not a word of truth in all this ; yet this honft,r Mr.i.
ihah have, and ,t is an honour I cannot always ^ive
h.m, that â– nth.s he is aftually confiftent with himfdf :
gether' ^^'"'"'^"'^ '"^ '^''"«h ^""^ the inftitute to-
I will not now contend with Mr. B. whether he has
given a true account of the ancient church, and its
members; U ,. fufficient for my prefent pu'rpofe to
tJ' uT" ''"^'' ^^ ^'•'' "^'"''^^- Yet I could wifh,
mould he wnte agam upon the fubjea (as I hope he
wi! ) to lee a fuller account of that chu.xh, the com-
plete members of wh.ch were only obedient fubjefts
of the civrl government. I have never, in my Lm
reading, met wuh a definition of a church like this ,
it 1. enough for me now that Mr. B. has. Mv bufi'
nefs IS not to difpute, but to take it upon his word. I
only fay, that.ffuch a church did ever exift, what-
ever It was, It could be no church of God. And as
nl' T>,"° '^"'^'•/^hurch, i. e. a civil government,
in any other part; there was not, on Mr. B.'s princi-
ples, ror many centuries, a church of God, properly
fo called, in all the world. ^ ^
" An obedient fubjea of their civil government,
and a complete member of their church flate, were
the fame thing." The fame thing! If, then, the com-
plete member was no more than an obedient fubiefl;
the church ftate could be no more than a civil go-
gernment : For, according to Mr. B. thev were pre-
cife y the fame thing. What might be the reafon of
all this.' Mr. B. ihall inform us himfelf; it was,
Becaufe by treating Jehovah as their political fove-
reign, they avowed him as the true God." As it
MrR"V' ^"^'rf ,!" ^Y'' P'^"^'^ '° "PPO'^ ""V- thing
Mr. B. fays, I /hall only take the liberty to explain.
What IS a political fovereign.' He is one who reigns
over others in civil things; that is, he governs and
regulates the affairs of this prefent world. This is
the reafon then, that an obedient fubjea of civil jjo-
rernment, and a complete church member, were the
WITH THE BAPTISTS. 131
fame thing , becaufe all that God had to do with them
was, as a political fovereign, to regulate the affairs
of the prefent world.
But where would have been the harm of fuppofing
the ever-bleffed Jehovah to have been more, infinite-
ly more, than apolitical fovereign? And that he gave
his word and ordinances to lead to the faith of Chrift?
That he fent his prophets to bear witnefs, that
through his name, whofoever believed in him fliould
receive remiffion of fms ? That he formed a people
for himfelf, to Ihew forth his praife ? Where, I fay,
would have been the harm of fuppofing this ? None
at all, in reality ; the harm would only have been to
Mr. B.'s fyftem. For had Jehovah been a religious
fovereign, he would have had a religious communi-
ty, and that community would have been a religious
church, i. e, a church profeffing godlinefs ; and then,
an obedient fubje6l of civil government would not
have been a complete member ; and then, their infli-
Uite would have been a religious inflitute ; and then
— what then? And then Mr. B.'s fyftem would have
gone to ruin. But he wifely forefeeing this, takes
meafures to fecularize the whole. He begins at the
head, and goes down to the inftitute. Jehovah muft
be a political fovereign, that the church maybe poli-
tical ; the church mull be political, that the member-
fliip may be fo too; the memberfliip muft be politi-
cal, that the inftitute may be political alfo. So all
was political; a political fovereign, a political church,
a political member, and a political inftitute. And
now Mr. B. has gained his point ; for fure enough,
there can be no analogy betv/een a church and no
church ; and confequently no argument can be drawn
in favour of infant memberftiip from a church which
never was, to a church that now exifts. Yes, he has
gained his point, he has run down infant baptifm ;
but, at the fame time, he has eradicated the church
of God. Nay, he was under aneceffity of eradicating
the church of God, that infant baptifm might be run
down. This has given me a notion for infant baptifm
132 A SHORT Mf;T>^t>
far difTercnt from what I ever had. And, if I could
faj', diat an}' one thing has fatisfied my mind r^fpe6l-
ing it more than another, it has been this : I faw that
infant baptifm could by no means be overthrown,
without overthrowing the church of God. And for
this convi6lion I am indebted to that very boek, on
v/hich I have taken the liberty to animadvert. No-
thing, therefore, in nature can be plainer than this
confequence, that the fyftem of Mr. B. has fubvert-
ed the church of God.
Thefe are the three confequences which rife out of
the Baptiil fyllem, and which, I have faid, will ope-
rate to ruin that fyftem out of which they arife :
Namely,
1. That, according to the principles and reafonings
of the Baptifts, a women, however qualified, can
have no right to the Lord's table.
2. That the Baptifts, in oppofmg infant baptifm,
and defending female communion, do vary their
mode of reafoning, contradict themfelves, and pre-
varicate moft wretchedly.
3. That according to their principles and reafon-
ing, God had no church in this world for many cen-
turies.
I fliall nowclofe the Appendix by an appeal to the
reader ; and this I mean to do in three queftions.
1. Are thefe confequences real? To anfwer this
queftion I need only appeal to the Appendix itfelf.
There the reader may fatisfy himfelf lefpetlmg their
reality. As to the firlt, it is there evident, that there
is no explicit command for female communion ; and,
according to the Baptift fyftem, they are not to com-
municate without : The confequence is, that they
have no right to communicate at all. With regard to
the fecond, I have placed Mr. B.'s defence of female
communion againft his oppofition to infant baptifm ;
and what repugnancy, prevarication, and felf-tontra-
didtlon, are difcoverable in thefe two, 1 have pre-
fented to the reader. The third fpeaks openly for it-
WITH THE BAPTISTS. 133
felf, that the befl church in the world for i-nany cen-
turies, was nothing elfe but a civil government.
2. Do thefe confequences rife out of the Baptifls
fyfteni ? For an anfwer to this I might refer the read-
er to the former part of the Appendix; where he
may fee in what way they a6lually do arife out of
their fyflem. Their fy lie m deilroys the right of fe-
males to the Lord's fupper, by demanding expHcit
proof for infant baptifm ; becaufe ihere is no fuch
proof for female communion. Their attempt to prove
the right oi females to commune, involves them in
the mod mean prevarication and felf-contradiction.
And in overthrowing the argument for infant baptifm
taken from the memberfhip of infants in God's anci-
ent church, they overthrow the very church itfelf. In
this way, thefe horrid confequences ov/e their birth
to that bad fyflem.
3. Are fuch confequences as thefe which rife out
of the 'Baptifl fyRem, fufficient to ruin that fyflem
out of which they rife ? To this I anfwer, that if any
confequences are fulHcient to ruin a fyflem, thefe are
they. It is a rule in reafoning, that that argamcnt
which proves too much, deilroys itfelf. The fame is
alfo true of a fyflem ; the fyflem that proves too much
mufl follow the fate of its kindred argument, and
prove its own deRra6lion. This fyftem, it is true,
proves againfl infant baptifm ; but there it does not
flop, it carries its force flill farther, it ])roves againfl
female communion, and againitthe exiftence of God's
church ; and to complete the whole, it proves againfl
the author who patronizes it. So that if infant bap-
tifm fall, they all fall together; female communion
falls, the church of Gbd falls, the author himfclf,
Mr. B. falls, and all by the fame fatal, fyilem. For
if this fyflem make infant baptifm anullit^', it makes
femvde communion a nullity too ; and turns the church
itfelf into a civiL^overnment, and turns the patron of
it into a lelf-contr idiclor. Thi'^, if anv thing can be,
is proving too much; and, therefore, that fyflem
M
134 OF THE MODE
which is producllve of fuch confequences, mufl itfelt'
be deflroyedby the confequences it produces. And
I appeal to the confcience of any reader vvheTherthefe
confequences have not been proved, and whether
thev are not fufficient to dellroy any f} ftem.
I call this alhort method with the Baptifls, becaufe,
whatever courfe they may take, it will ferve to ruin
their fcheme. If, on the one hafid, thefe confe-
quences are fuffered to remain as they do now in Mr.
B.'s book, their fcheme will be ruined this way. For
that fvftem can have no pretenfion at all to truth,
which in its confequences militates againft female
communion, and the very exiftence of the church of
God ; and moreover exhibits the patron of it under
the (liape of a iliifter, prevaricator, and felf-contra-
dicior. But if, on the other hand, they alter their mode
of defence fo as to avoid thefe confequences, their
fcheme will be ruined that way : For then, they will
lofe thofe very arguments by which they endeavour
to fappon it. So that let a Baptift, Mr. B. for in-
flance, take which way he will, his fcheme will ei-
ther be overv/helmed with its own confequences, or
it will fall for want of arguments.
Thus much I fay at prefent concerning the Appen-
dix: And fliall now commit it into the hands of God,
the eternal patron of truth, and to every reader's
judgment and confcience in his fight.
A CASE
Submitted to the consider at io7i of Baptists,
BEFORE I enter on the mode of baptifm, I
w^ould take the liberty of propofmg to my Baptift
friends a plain cafe ; not fo much a cafe of confcience
as a cafe of criticifm. That on which this cafe is foun-
ded is as follows : It is well known that under the
prefent difpenfation there are two inftituted ordi-
OF BAPTISM. 1^
natices ; the one in Scripture is expreffed by the tt.rni
deipnon^ ii fupper, the other by baptisma^ baptiTm.
The proper and obvious meaning o^ deipnon is a road
or a common meal, Mark, vi. 21 ; John xxi. 22 ; the
proper meaning of bapttHma is faid to be the immer-
iion of the whole body. The cafe then is this :
If, becaufe the proper meaning of the term bapiisma
baptifm, is the immerfion of the whole body, a pcrfon
who i3 not immcirfed, cannot be faid to h ive been
baptifttd, fince nothing ihort of immerfion amounts to
the full import of the word baptifm. If this be true,
1 ihould be glad to know that as dcipnon^ a fupper,
properly means a feaft or common meal, \v'hether a
peribn who, in the ufe of that ordinance, takes only a
piece of bread of half an inch fquare, and drinks a
table-fpoonfuU of wine, which is neither a feall nor a
common meal, andfo does not come up to th^e proper
meaning of the word, can be faid to have received
the Lord's fupper ?
Mr. Booth, I prefume, faw this in Mr. Piries'
book, but has not taken any notice of it; I therefore
requeft fome Baptill friend to turn his attention to it.
OF THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
IT appears to me, from the following circum-
ftance, that the Baptills are not fo tenacious of the
mode as of the fabje6l of baptifm. I had been con-
vinced more than four years ago, in reading Dr. Wil-
liam's book, that immerfion was not tfl'ential to bap-
tifm ; and though I preached fmcc that period feve-
ral baptifing fermons without faying a word about the
mode, I never heard of any of our Baptiit fri^ids
that ever obferved that omilHon ; whereas, on the
contrary, had 1 infifted on the inodt>, and omitted the
fubje(5l, I have not a doubt but tliey would have no-
ticed it in the firfl fermon : And I remember fome
,'ears back to have heard a BaptiTc minilter fa^/, lli.t
156 OF THE MODE
the mode of baptifm, by iitimerfion only, did not ap-
pear equally plain as the lubje6l. Indeed I am per-
fuaded that if it can be made plain to the Baptifts that
it is wrong to reject an infant, they will foon give up
the idea oi immerfion only ; and it is for this reafon
that I have been the more diffufe on the fubje<5l, and
Ihail now be ihort on the mode.
Ail our knowledge of the manner of baptifing, mufl,
at this diftance of time from the firfl inftitution, be
collected from the word '* baptife," the circumftan-
ces of baptifm, and the allufions of fcripture to that
ordinance : Thefe three I will endeavour to examine
impartidiy, confining myfelf to fcripture, and the
word made ufe of in the inflitute. The queftion, on
which this examination is to proceed, is this ; Is the
imnierf on effential to baptifm i or, in other words, is
there no baptifm but what is by immerfion? I fliall
begin the inquiry with that precife term which the
fcriptures always ufe when this ordinance is fpoken
of, namely buptiao^ and examine thofe places in which
it occurs either as a noun or a verb, where the ordi-
nance is not hitended.
There is av/ord commonly introduced into this de-
hate, viz. bapto., though it is never ufed in fcripture,
refpe6ting this ordinance ; and this being the fa(5l, I
fee no great propriety in bringing it into the debate
at all ; for let it mean what it may, it can fignify no-
thing to the que {lion in hand unlefs it had been ufed
by the infpired writers to exprefs this ordinance. I
do not, however, fhun this term becaufe it would be
unfavourable to my fentiment, but becaufe Ijudge.it
beft to examine that word, and that only, which the
Holy Ghoft, v/hen fpeaking of this ordinance, has
thought ])Voper to adopt.
Neverthelefs, that I may not omit it altogether, I
would fay thus much of the term bdpto, that it is a
term of fuch latitude, that he who ihall attempt to
prove, from its *ufe in various authors, an al^folute
and total immerfion, will find he has undertaken that
which he can never fairly perform. Of the truth of
ef BAPTIS>I. IS/-
this affertion I would give the pl.iin reader a tide in
the followuig inflances. The term bupio then is uied
to exprefs,
1. The throwing of a perfon into the mire. Job
IX. 31. en ropo me ehafh^as^ Thou (halt plung^;, bap-
tife, or make me foul in the mire.
2. A partial dipping. Matt. xxiv. 23. eKiba'v;as
met emoii en to trublio teen clielra; He that dippetn,
baptifeth, his hand with me in the dilh.
3. A Rained garment. Rev. xix. 13. imation Be-
hammenon alniatL A veflure dipped, baptifed, (hiin-
ed with blood.
4. A human body wet with the dew. Dan. iv. 33.
apo ton drosou ton ouranou to soma autou ebaphe. His
body was wet, baptifed by or from the dew of hea-
ven.
5. The colouring a lake with the blood of a frog.
Homer, ebapteto clt; a'lmati limne. The lake was bap-
tifed, coloured, or flained with blood.
6. Thefmearingof theface wi /i colours or waflies.
Ariftophanes, baptoineno'i batra h ' . He baptifed,
fmeared [his face] with tawney wafhes ; fpe:iking of
Magnes, tht comedian, v/ho ufed to colour his face
in [lead of uhag a maOv.
7. The ftainingof th^ h.md bv p'-eHing a fubftance,
Ariftode, TliUbomenos rl: bajitel teen clwira. lieii^.g
preffed, it baptifes, llains the hand.
So various is the ufe of the term bapto, that we can
only view it as a miauing to wet or ftain, and that by
whatever mode the nature of the thing to be whetted
or llained may require. And I can truly fay I have
often been heartily fick and forry when I have ob-
f^rved perfoas of eminence for learning, efpeciallv
Dr. Gale, labouring, in oppofition to the very in-
ftances which they the mfelves had produced, to prove
that this term intended immerfion, total immerfion,
and nothing elfc. But as this word is never ufed with
refpecl to the ordinance in quellion, and can there*
fore give us no information concerning the mode of
M 2
-^^° OF THE MODE.
It, I ihall immediately difmifs it without further
notice.
I come now to confider the term baptizo, which is