body of Chrift broken, and the pouring out of the wine not a resemblance of his blood shed. Baptifm by immerfion, according to our author, is no refemblance of the burial of Chrift; fince his body was laid in a fepulchre cut out of a rock on high, and not put under ground, or covered with earth: this arises from a mistaken notion of the Jewish way of burial, even in their fepulchres, hewed out of rocks; for in every fepulchre of this kind, according to the nature of the rock, there were eight graves dug, fome fay thirteen, and which were dug feven cubits deep in one of thefe graves, within the fepulchre, lay the body of our Lord. So that it had a double burial, as it were, one in the fepulchre, and another in one of the graves in it: befides, how otherwise could our Lord be faid to be three days and nights in the heart of the earth? Again, our author fays, "there is no more resemblance of a common burial in baptism by "immersion, than by fprinkling, or pouring on water; fince a corps above "ground may be properly faid to be buried by having a fufficient quantity of "earth caft upon it." True; but then a corps can never be faid to be buried, that has a little duft or earth sprinkled or poured on its face; from whence it is evident, that sprinkling or pouring cannot bear any resemblance of a common burial. In short, feeing no other mode but immerfion, not sprinkling, nor pouring, has any resemblance of a burial, this paffage neceffarily proves the mode of baptifm by immersion: and yet, after all, this writer inclines to that opinion, that both modes were used in fcripture-times; though it appears by all accounts that the manner was uniform, one and the fame word being always used in the relation of it; and yet he wrangles at every instance of immersion, and will not allow of one; what must be faid of fuch a man! that he must be fet down for a mere wrangler; a wrangler against light and confcience; a wrangler against his own opinion and fentiment; and what a worthlefs writer muft this be! I go on, 7. To confider the inftances, which, it is faid, fhew it improbable that the ordinance of baptifm was performed by dipping. The first is the baptism of the three thousand, Acts ii. 41. which, to be done by immersion, is reprefented as improbable; from the fhortness of the time, and the want of convenience on a sudden, for the baptizing of fuch a multitude. As to the time, I fhall not dispute it with our author, whether Peter's fermon was at the beginning of the third hour, or nine o'clock, or at the close of it, and about noon: I am willing to allow it might be noon before the baptifm of these perfons came on; nay, I will grant him an hour longer if he pleases, and yet there was time enough between that and night for the twelve apoftles, and feventy difciples, in all fourscore and two, to baptize by immersion three times three thoufand perfons. I pafs over his foolish remarks on a perfon's being ready for baptifm, as I have done many others of the fame ftupid kind, as deserving no notice, nor answer: 3 N 2 * Mifnah Bava Bathra, c. 6. S. 8. Matt. xii. 40. As As to the want of convenience for the baptizing fuch a number, I have obferved the great number of baths in private houfes in Jerufalem, the feveral pools in it, and the many conveniences in the temple: this writer thinks, the mention of the last is a piece of weakness in me, to imagine that the Jewish priests, in whose hands they were, the mortal enemies of Christ, should be on a fudden fo goodnatured as to grant the use of their baths for such a purpose: but how came they to allow the chriftians the ufe of their temple, where they met daily? And befides, it is exprefsly faid, they had favour with all the people TM. The fecond inftance, is the baptifm of Paul"; here only the narrative is directed to, as representing his baptifm to be in the houfe of Judas: but there is nothing in the account that neceffarily concludes it was done in the house, but rather the contrary; fince he arofe from the place where he was, in order to be baptized and fuppofing it was done in the house, it is not at all improbable that there was a bath in this houfe, where it might be performed; fince it was the house of a Jew, with whom it was ufual to have baths to wash their whole bodies in, on certain occafions: So that there is no improbability of Paul's baptifm being by immersion; befides, he was not only bid to arise and be baptized, which would found very oddly, be Sprinkled or poured; but fays himself, that he was buried by baptifm. The third instance, is the baptifm of Cornelius and his houfhold. The fense of the words given, "can any man forbid the use of his river, or bath, "or what conveniency he might have, for baptizing;" is objected to, as not being the apostle's words, but a strained fenfe of them: the fame objection. may be made to this writer's fenfe, that the phrase imports the forbidding water to be brought; fince no fuch thing is expreffed, or hinted at: the principal thing, no doubt, defigned by the apoftle, is, that no one could, or at leaft ought, to object to the baptifm of thofe who had fo manifeftly received the holy Ghost but what is there in all this account, that renders their baptifm by immersion improbable, for which it is produced? The fourth inftance is the baptifm of the Jailor and his houfhold'; in the relation of which, there is nothing that makes it probable, much lefs certain, that it was performed by fprinkling or pouring water on them; nor any thing that makes it improbable that it was done by immerfion: according to the account given, it seems to be a clear cafe, that the Jailor, upon his conversion, took the apostles out of prifon into his own houfe, where they preached to him and his family', and that after this, they went out of his house, and were baptized; very probably in the river without the city, where the oratory was', for m Acts ii. 46, 47. • Acts x. 47. n Acts ix. 18. • Acts xxii. 16. P Rom. vi. 4. it it is certain, that after the baptifm of him and his houfhold, he brought the apostles into his houfe, and fet meat before them", nor is it any unreasonable and incredible thing, that he with his whole family fhould leave the prifon and prisoners, who no doubt had fervants that he could truft, or otherwife he muft have been always little better than a prifoner himfelf: and whether the earthquake reached any farther than the prifon, to alarm others, is not certain, nor any great matter of moment in this controverfy to be determined; and the circumstances of the whole relation fhew it more likely, that the Jailor and his family were baptized without the prifon, than in it, and rather in the river without the city, than with the water out of the veffel, with which the Jailor had washed the apostle's stripes: upon the whole, thefe inftances produced fail of fhewing the improbability of the mode of baptifm by immerfion; which muft appear clear and manifeft to every attentive reader, notwithstanding all that has been oppofed unto it. There remains nothing but what has been already attended to, or worthy of regard; but the untruth he charges me with, in faying that "the dialogue"writer only attempts to mention allufive expreffions in favour of sprinkling :" our author will be afhamed of himfelf, and his abufive language, when he looks into the dialogue again; fince the writer of that never mentions the words. of the inftitution, for any fuch purpofe, and much lefs argues from them; nor does he ever fhew that the word baptize is in the facred pages applied to fprink-, ling, or that it fo fignifies; nor does he any where argue from the good appearance there is of evidence, that in the apoftles times, the mode of Sprinkling was used; he never attempts to prove that the word Bank, fignifies to fprinkle, or is fo ufed; nor mentions any one inftance of fprinkling in baptifm; what he contends for is, that the fignification of the word, and the fcripture inftances of baptifm, do not make dipping the neceffary mode of adminiftering that ordinance; and what he mentions in favour of Sprinkling, are only resemblances, and allufive expreffions. These, Sir, are the remarks I made in reading Mr Clark's book; which I have caufed to be tranfcribed, and here fend you for the ufe of yourself and friends, either in a private or in a public way, as you may judge neceffary and proper. w As xvi. 33, 34.. I am with all due refpects, LONDON, July 26, 1753 Yours, &c. JOHN GILL. SOME STRICTURES O N Mr BOSTWICK's Fair and Rational Vindication of the Right of Infants to the Ordinance of Baptism. ALONG with Mr Clark's Defence of the divine Right of Infant-baptism, to which what is written above is a Reply, there has been imported from America a treatise, called, A fair and rational Vindication of the Right of Infants to the Ordinance of Baptifm; being the fubftance of feveral difcourses from As ii. 39. by David Bostwick, A. M. late minister of the Prefbyterian church in the city of New York, which has been reprinted and published here; and as it comes in company with the former, it is but a piece of civility to take fome notice of it, and make fome few strictures upon it, though there is nothing in it but what is answered in the above Reply; to which I fhall greatly refer the reader. There is fcarce a fingle thought through the whole of it, that I can discern, is new; nothing but crambe repetita, old ftale reafonings and arguments, which have been answered over and over; and yet this, I understand, has been cried up as an unanswerable performance; which I do not wonder at, that any thing that has but an appearance of reasoning, candour, and ingenuity, as this will be allowed to have, fhould be fo reckoned by thofe of that party; when the most miferable pamphlet that comes out on that fide of the question, has the fame epithet bestowed upon it. And, First, This Gentleman has mistook the fenfe of his text, on which he grounds his discourse concerning the Right of infants to baptism, Aus ii. 39. for the promife is unto you, and to your children; and to all that are afar off; even as many as the Lord our God fball call; by which promife, he fays, p. 14, 15. must be be understood," the covenant-promise made to Abraham, which gave his "infant-children a right to the ordinance of circumcifion;" when there is not the leaft mention made of Abraham, nor of any covenant-promise made to him in it; nor was ever any covenant-promise made to him, giving his infant-children a right to the ordinance of circumcifion, but the covenant of circumcifion; and that can never be meant here by the promise; fince this is faid to be to all that are afar off; by whom, according to this Gentleman, Gentiles are meant; to whom the covenant of circumcifion belonged not; nor did it give to them any right to the ordinance of circumcifion, except they became profelytes to the Jewish religion: besides, be the promise here what it may, it is obferved, not as giving any right or claim to any ordinance whatever; but as an encouraging motive to perfons in diftrefs under a fenfe of fin, to repent of their fin, and declare their repentance, and yield a voluntary fubjection to the ordinance of baptifm; when they might hope that remiffion of fin would be applied to them, and they should receive a larger measure of the grace of the Spirit; and therefore can only be understood of adult perfons; and the promife is no other than the promise of life and falvation by Chrift, and of remiffion of fins by his blood, and of an increase of grace from his Spirit: and whereas the perfons addreffed had imprecated the blood of Chrift, they had shed, upon their pofterity, as well as on themselves, which greatly diftreffed them; they are told, for their relief, that the fame promise would be made good to their pofterity alfo, provided they did as they were directed to do; and to all their brethren the Jews, in diftant parts; and even to the Gentiles, fometimes described as afar off, of the fame character with themselves, repenting and fubmitting to baptifm; yea, to all, in all ages and places, whom God should now, or hereafter call by his grace; fee my Reply to Mr Clark, p. 50, 51. This text is fo far from being an unanswerable argument for the right of infants to baptifm, as it is faid to be, that there is not the leaft mention of Infant-baptifm in it; nor any hint of it; nor any thing from whence it can be concluded. The baptifm encouraged to by it is only of adult perfons convinced of fin, and who repented of it. The paffage in As iii. 25. brought for the fupport of the author's fenfe of his text, is foreign to his purpose; fince it refers not to the covenant of circumcifion made with Abraham, Gen. xvii. but to the promise of the Meffiah of Abraham's feed, and of the bleffing of all nations in him,. Gen. xxii. 18. and which was fulfilled in the miffion and incarnation of Christ, and in the miniftration of his gospel to Jews and Gentiles; which fame promise of Chrift, of life and falvation by him, is meant in AЯs xiii. 26, 34, 33~ and which is alfo a proof, that the children to whom it belongs, are to be understood: The Octavo Edit. is referred to all along. |
