CHAPTER III.

On Dr. W.'s Pretence, that his Book includes A FULL REPLY to my Pædobaptism Examined.

THAT the reader of Antipædobaptism Examined, is taught by our author to consider it as a complete answer to my book, appears, not only from the language of his title-page, but also from that of his preface. For, speaking of Pædobaptism Examined, and of his own design relative to that work, he tells us, that the task he imposed upon himself was, "not to nibble at some of the branches of his stately tree, but to lay the axe of opposite principles to the root of it; not to uncover a little here and there of his building, to find a few faults in quotations, translations, and the like, but to undermine the foundation. The principal grounds of reasoning I have endeavoured constantly to keep in view; and my aim is throughout to show that the principles of Protestants and Nonconformists, taken in their only true sense and force, are either misunderstood or misrepresented by my opponent, and consequently his reasoning upon them, which derives all its plausibility from that MISREPRESENTATION, is inconclusive."*

How various and how formidable is the appearance of this opponent! Do you consider the system of quotations and arguments contained in my book, under the metaphor of a stately tree? He appears bearing an axe, and, with menacing aspect, he lays it in a most unmerciful manner to the root.-Do you contemplate the same performance under the notion of an edifice? He comes forth with all the terrible apparatus of a skilful engineer; and, in a trice, he saps its deep foundations. The tree, with all its beautiful ramifications and verdant

* Preface, vi.

honours, lies in the dust. The edifice, with all its costly workmanship and elegant furniture, sinks in ruins. So terribly destructive are the weapons and the attacks of my opponent! Alas, for thee, poor Pædobaptism Examined, how art thou fallen!-so fallen in the estimate of Dr. W., as never to rise again!-But, supposing the fabric to be demolished, yet as it does not appear that my opponent, like Joshua respecting Jericho, has denounced an awful anathema on him who shall dare to rebuild the fallen structure, its re-edification may be lawful. It seems expedient, however, for me to examine, whether he have, in reality, "undermined" the building, or whether he have only, "uncovered a little here and there"-whether he have, indeed, extirpated the tree, or whether he have merely "nibbled at some of the branches."-It behoves me, notwithstanding, before I proceed in this examination, to consider that severe censure which is contained in the passage I have just quoted.

Dr. W. tells his reader, that I have either misunderstood or misrepresented the principles "of Protestants and Nonconformists;" and that, from this "MISREPRESENTATION," my reasoning derives all its plausibility. Now, by contrasting misrepresented with misunderstood, and by repeating the former idea, though not the latter, he manifestly impeaches the rectitude of my intention. But, whether I ought to consider this as the language of inadvertency, or as a designed impeachment of my integrity, I dare not assert. If the former, candour demands that it should be overlooked. If the latter, I know not how to reconcile it with his professed esteem for my character, as elsewhere expressed.* I boldly deny the charge, and earnestly call upon him to prove his assertion.

That Dr. W. has confronted-that he has endeavoured to break, and entirely to rout, what he elegantly

*See vol. i. Pref. ix. ; vol. ii. 417.

calls my "sophistical phalanx," is doubtless a fact; but whether, after all the displays of his polemical prowess, Pædobaptism Examined be completely confuted, is to some people doubtful, and may justly bear an enquiry. To this enquiry, therefore, let us now apply.

The data, or principal grounds of argument, all through my performance, were taken from Pædobaptists. These data are, testimonies to facts, concessions of what we assert, and principles of reasoning; as every intelligent reader of Pædobaptism Examined must have observed. Such were the topics on which I proceeded in every branch of the subject; and what my opponent says, relative to that system of quotations which I have produced from Pædobaptists, must now be considered.—It may, indeed, be observed in general, that he treats them as Job's leviathan treats brass and iron, like straw and rotten wood; while, what he is pleased to call, concessions from us, are considered by him as pointed spears and barbed arrows-fitted to pierce our cause to the very heart, and to perform terrible execution. Nor does he, as on some other occasions, "muster" his "forces of considerations;" or, in the true spirit of polemical heroism, "confront, break, and rout" my quotations in form; either as collected into a "phalanx," or as in detached parties: but he considers them as almost unworthy of his notice. Yes, whatever testimonies the most learned and eminent Pædobaptists have given in our favour, he treats as if little more than " showing his opinion," were quite enough to deter them from appearing more or less on our side of the question, and to drive them from the field.

Thus, then, Dr. W.: "My judgment entirely fails me, if a very great number of these quotations are not perfectly consistent with the practice of the persons quoted."* Here he barely "shows his opinion."-"There is not one of all the quotations from Pædobaptist writers con

* Vol. i. 19.

tained in the first part of his Pædobaptism Examined, concerning the nature of positive institutions, but is perfectly consistent with Pædobaptist principles." Ipse dixit." Mr. B.'s third chapter is entitled, "The Design of Baptism; or, Facts and Blessings represented by it, both in regard to our Lord and his Disciples.' And under this title he musters together no less than fifty-six Pædobaptist writers; who, having made some concessions respecting the propriety and expressiveness of immersion to represent the facts of Christ's death, burial, and resurrection, he imagines greatly assist his cause."† No less than fifty-six Pædobaptist writers. Then, by his own rule, we have fifty-six "competent and unexceptionable witnesses" in our favour, with regard to the design of baptism.-Made some CONCESSIONS. Nay, rather, the generality of them are strong assertions, and in the most direct manner to our purpose.-He imagines they greatly assist his cause. Yes; much more than those forty Pædobaptist authors, "mustered" by Dr. W. in favour of pouring and of sprinkling: for, in the latter case, they are only defending their own practice; and therefore are not "unexceptionable witnesses.""What Mr. B. cites as concessions from-professed Pædobaptists, should be understood in the sense just proposed [by Dr. W.]-It is extremely improbable, nay, highly uncharitable to suppose, that these eminent characters should be capable of so glaring a contradiction, as to hold any sense of the word μante incompatible with infant discipleship and baptism."-Extremely improbable-Highly uncharitable. Indeed! So, then, we must consider learned Pædobaptists as absolutely incapable of saying any thing which, in its necessary consequences, is inimical to infant sprinkling! Privileged with a patent of consistency, you hazard your character for candour and for charity, if you endeavour to make it appear, that any of them have so interpreted the word ↑ Vol. i. 189. ‡ Vol. i. 323.

* Vol. i. 49.

palŋrevw, as to exclude the idea of new-born infants being the DISCIPLES of Jesus Christ. Whereas, detached from the love of hypothesis, one should rather have thought, that it would have been considered as an insult upon their learning and common sense, to represent them as maintaining any such thing. But let the reader, for his own satisfaction, peruse their sayings.*-What an admirably easy method my opponent has of defending his cause! Pædobaptism must be supported; and, therefore, Pædobaptists must be consistent. Because it would be a shameful thing indeed, for any of their principles to be at variance with their practice; the very idea of which Dr. W. can by no means admit. But might not the Roman Catholics, with equal propriety, avail themselves of the same plea, in answer to similar charges that are laid against them by Protestants? Here, as on various other occasions, our author " shows his opinion;" but, certainly, he does not "answer his part."

Again: "His quoting any who sprinkle the subject and pronounce him baptized, can answer no other purpose than to amuse and dazzle the eye of a superficial observer." Must the quotations, then, to answer our purpose, be taken from them, if such there be, who pour or sprinkle water on the subject, and pronounce him unbaptized? If so, the quotations could not be extracted, according to the plan of my book, from Padobaptists; no, nor yet from Baptists. Because, the latter are as far from acknowledging pouring or sprinkling to be baptism, as the former are from EXPRESSLY condemning their own conduct.According to my opponent, the cause of Pædobaptism is in the most singularly happy situation, with regard to concessions, which might, apparently, be pleaded against it, from the

1

* In Pædobap. Exam. p. 314-321, first edit.; or in Vol. II. p. 97-107, of this edition.

† Vol. ii. 4.