"The moft expeditious way, fays Mr. Edwards, of deftroying this argument is this. They fay the fcriptures require faith and repentance in order to baptifm. I afk of whom? The answer must be of adults; for the fcriptures never require them of infants in order to any thing." My Baptift brethren! do you not tremble for the fate of your argument, fince it has fallen into the hands of fuch an Apollyon? But how is he going to work to defroy it? Why by telling you that all the qualifications required by the inftitution, have refpect only to a very fmall proportion of the candidates for that ordinance, and that no qualifications at all are required of far the greater part.

How does Mr. Edwards prove that the fcriptures do not require faith and repentance of all who are to be admitted to baptifm? He does it in this way, by adding the word adults. But it must be remembered, that the fcriptures do not mention either adults or infants; but prefcribe thefe qualifications generally and without any exception. We fhall therefore infift, that the want of these qualifications must forever bar the claim of all others to this ordinance, whether adults or infants. This is ground we fhall by no means give up, until it fhall be fairly proved, that either Chrift or his apoftles did actually admit perfons to baptifm, who made no profeffion of faith and repentance. This has never yet been done, and we believe it never can be. However, we have no objection to any perfon's making the attempt.

Mr. Edwards, after working over this argument, fo as to fuit himself by changing and diminishing the force of the major propofition, at length declares it " a glaring fophifin," But in what does the fophiftry coufift? In his own management, and in nothing else. The firft ftatement reads thus ; "The fcriptures require faith and repentance in order to baptifin."

The

meaning is generally and without any exception. When altered by Mr. Edwards, it stands thus :-"The fcriptures require faith and repentance of ADULTS, in order to baptifm." It is this addition alone which can poffibly expofe the argument to the charge of fophiftry. Place the argument upon its native ground, and it will ftand thus:

"The fcriptures require, in all perfons, faith and repentance as requifite to baptifin; but fome perfons have not faith and repentance: therefore, all impenitents, whether adults or infants, are not proper fubjects of baptifm." The reader will determine for himself, which party is juftly chargeable with fophiftry.

After altering the argument as above defcribed, Mr. Edwards goes on to prove it falfe. We will now briefly examine his proof. He propofes" first to show that the argument is entirely fallacious; fecond, point out wherein its fallacy confifts." "1. Of the fallacy of this argument. The principle of it is, that infants are excluded from baptifm, because fomething is faid of baptifm which will not agree to infants. To fee therefore the tendency of this argument whether it will prove on the fide of truth or error, I will try its operation on these four particulars."

1.

But

"On the circumcifion of infants. That infants were circumcifed, is a fact. That they were circumcifed by the exprefs command of God, is a proof of right, &c." This will not be difputed by any one. how does this prove the argument of the Baptifts to be falfe? Why in this way," circumcifion, as it was a folemn entering into the church of God, did fix an obligation on the circumcifed, to conform to the laws and ordinances of that church."* How is this proved? From Gal. v. 3. "Every man who is circumcifed is a debtor to do the whole law." What is the inference ? Here it follows in Mr. Edwards's own words; "Then it is clear, there was fomething faid of circumcifion which did no more agree to infants, than if it had been faid, Repent and be baptized." Suppofing, Mr. Edwards, we should retort a little of your logic upon yourself, and affirm, that when the apoftle fays, Every man who is circumcifed is a debtor to do the whole law, he must mean, every ADULT: "for the fcriptures never require fuch obedience of infants in order to any thing." Now, Sir, if your logic is good, your argument is good

*It would, we believe, be very difficult to defcribe the great folemnity which an infant of eight days old difcovered, at this time of its entrance into the church.

for nothing. For the fame mode of reafoning which you have adopted to destroy our argument, will destroy your own. But I mean to how its fallacy in another

way.

To the above inference our author adds, " In this refpect, baptifin and circumcifion are upon a level; for there is fomething faid concerning both, which will by no means agree to infants. Infants, on the one hand cannot believe and repent; and these are connected with baptifm; and on the other hand, infants cannot become debtors; they cannot keep the law, and these are connected with circumcifion." If I fhould reason after this manner, I fhould expect to be roundly charged with fophiftry. Connected with baptifm;" "connected with circumcifion," fays Mr. Edwards. But, Sir, are they connected alike? Muft not every perfon, by a moment's reflection, fee that they are totally different? Baptifm does not merely " fix an obligation" to believe and repent at fome future period; but requires a profeffion of faith and repentance, as a previous qualifica tion for the ordinance. Circumcifion did not require any previous obedience to the law, in order to qualify a perfon for that rite. The utmoft that can be faid of it with regard even to fuch adults as voluntarily choose it for themselves is, that they thereby made themfelves debtors to do the whole law. The apostle's meaning is evidently this, that those who still infifted upon circumcifion, as that was one of the first articles of the legal difpenfation, could not be fuppofed to have embraced the gofpel; and if they depended on their obedience to the law for juftification, which was implied in their holding to circumcifion, they must then confider themfelves debtors to do the whole law. But can it be fupposed, that the mere act of circumcifion, performed on. a. helplefs infant, without his knowledge or confent, fhould make him a debtor to do the whole law? It is evident Paul had nothing of this in view, when he çircumcifed 'T'imothy. I do not think it constituted him a debtor to do the whole law. But had he chofen that method of juftification in preference to the gefpel it certainly would.

But will not every perfon who is capable of reafoning upon a fubject, fee a wide difference between qualifica tions previously required by an ordinance, and an obliga tion fixed by the ordinance itself? The great Author of being fixes an obligation upon every rational creature as foon as it exifts, to love and obey him. But he requires no previous exercifes of love and obedience in order to qualify us for existence. It hence appears that the two cafes ftated by Mr. Edwards, as being entirely fimilar, "and upon a level," are totally unlike. Therefore, until it can be made out that qualifications for an ordinance, and fubfequent duties arifing from it, are the fame thing, we must fet down Mr. Edwards as a fophiftical reafoner! But the whole will be fubmitted, argumentum ad judicium, to all whom it may concern.*

Mr. Edwards next argues against the general requirement of faith and repentance, from the "baptism of Jefus Chrift." He fuppofes as he was no finner, he could have no repentance; and fince he needed no falvation from fin, he could not have the faith of God's elect."

Are there any Chriftians who fuppofe that Jefus Chrift was baptized for precifely the fame reafons as thofe by which he has enjoined the duty upon his people? Or in other words, whether his baptism fignified the fame things which our's does? If not, his argument is nothing to the purpose. But let us hear Mr. Edwards's own explanation. With regard to the ufe of baptifm," faith, he, "I confider it in the light of a mean of grace, and I view it in the fame way when applied to infants" (p. 184.) Does Mr. Edwards fuppofe that the baptifm. of Christ was a mean of grace to him? If not, it mu certainly be very different from the baptifm of an other perfon. We do not think that Jefus Christ stood in need of any fuch means of grace as infant baptifm. Hence his not being a fubject of faith and repentance, cannot with any fairnefs be urged against the general requirement of the inftitution, nor be pleaded as an exception in behalf of finful creatures.

* The reader will excufe my using these logical terms, when he recal lefts I am reafoning with a very logical man,

Mr. Edwards draws his third argument from the "falvation of infants." Thefe he prefumes are faved; and faved too without either faith or repentance.

If in

We fufpect he may find this argument rather unmanageable. It may poffibly take a greater extent of latitude, and fpread much wider than he intended. fants may be faved without faith or repentance, (the qualifications for baptifm) it must be plain that all infants may be faved. If this be an argument in favour of the baptifm of fome infants, it will prove equally in favour of the baptifm of all infants, whether their parents are Chriftians, heathens, or infidels, unless the poffibility of their falvation be denied. We fee but two ways (to ufe his own modeft language) to fave his

argument from perdition." The firft is, to prove that no infants will be faved, but fuch as defcend from believing parents or, fecond, to extend his practice of baptizing them to all infants, without exception. For if their right to this ordinance is to be fupported upon the poffibility of their falvation, then it cannot depend at all on the moral condition of their parents, unless their falvation depends on that Fkewife, which it would be abfurd to pretend. We only add, if they may be faved, though incapable of the qualifications required by the baptismal institution, we fhould certainly fuppofe their baptifm might be alfo omitted, unless that be thought of more confequence in the article of falvation than faith and repentance.

Mr. Edwards's fourth and laft argument to prove that the Baptifts reafon fophiftically when they infift on a profeffion of faith and repentance in order to baptifm, is drawn from the "temporal fubfiftence of infants." He endeavours to make out that our argument goes to prove, that infants ought to be left to ftarve to death. His reafoning is founded on Paul's words to the Theffalonians: We commanded you, faith the apoftle, if any would not work, neither fhould be eat.

Our argument, as ftated by Mr. Edwards, is, that "the fcriptures require faith and repentance as requifite to baptifin; but as infants cannot have thefe, they are not proper fubjects." This argument fuppofes, that