Infant Baptism: A Part & Pillar Of Popery by John Gill

Infant Baptism:
A Part & Pillar Of Popery
by John Gill
(London: George Keith, 1766)
Thou hast given a standard to them that fear thee;
that it may be displayed because of the truth
— Psalm 60:4
Being called upon, in a public manner, to give proof of what I have said
concerning infant-baptism, in a preface to my reply to Mr. Clarke’s
Defense, etc. or to expunge it, I readily agree to the former, and shall
endeavor to explain myself, and defend what I have written; but it will be
proper first to recite the whole paragraph, which stands thus: “The
Paedobaptists are ever restless and uneasy, endeavoring to maintain and
support, if possible, their unscriptural practice of infant-baptism; though it
is no other than a pillar of popery; that by which Antichrist has spread his
baneful influence over many nations; is the basis of national churches and
worldly establishments; that which unites the church and world, and keeps
them together; nor can there be a full separation of the one from the other,
nor a thorough reformation in religion; until it is wholly removed: and
though it has so long and largely obtained, and still does obtain; I believe
with a firm and unshaken faith, that the time is hastening on, when infant-baptism
will be no more practiced in the world; when churches will be
formed on the same plan they were in the times of the apostles; when
gospel-doctrine and discipline will be restored to their primitive luster and
purity; when the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper will be
administered as they were first delivered, clear of all present corruption and
superstition; all which will be accomplished, when “The Lord shall be king
over all the earth, and there shall be one Lord and his name one.” Now the
whole of this consists of several articles or propositions, which I shall
reconsider in their order.
That infant-baptism is a part and pillar of popery; that by which Antichrist
has spread his baneful influence over many nations: I use the phrase infant-baptism
here and throughout, because of the common use of it; otherwise
the practice which now obtains, may with greater propriety be called
infant-sprinkling. That unwritten traditions with the Papists are equally the
rule of faith and practice as the holy Scriptures will not be doubted of by
any conversant with their writings. The Council of Trent asserts that.3
“Traditions respecting both faith and manners orally delivered and
preserved successfully in the Catholic church, are to be received
with equal affection of piety and reverence as the books of the Old
and New Testaments;”
yea the Popish writers prefer traditions to the Scriptures. Bellarmine says,
“Scriptures without tradition, are neither simply necessary, nor
sufficient, but unwritten traditions are necessary. Tradition alone is
sufficient, but the Scriptures are not sufficient.”
Another of their writers asserts, that
“The authority of ecclesiastic traditions is more fit than the
scriptures to ascertain anything doubtful, even that which may be
made out from scripture, since the common opinion of the church
and ecclesiastical tradition are clearer, and more open and truly
inflexible; when, on the contrary, the scriptures have frequently
much obscurity in them, and may be drawn here and there like a
nose of wax; and, as a leaden rule, may be applied to every impious
Bailey the Jesuit, thus expresses himself,
“I will go further and say, we have as much need of tradition as of
scripture, yea more; because the scripture ministers to us only the
dead and mute letter, but tradition, by means of the ministry of the
church, gives us the true sense, which is not had distinctly in the
scripture; wherein, notwithstanding, rather consists the word of
God than in the alone written letter; it is sufficient for a good
Catholic, if he understands it is tradition, nor need he to inquire
after anything else;”
and by tradition, they mean not tradition delivered in the Scripture, but
distinct from it and out of it; unwritten tradition, apostolical tradition, as
they frequently call it, not delivered by the apostles in the sacred
Scriptures, but by word of mouth to their successors, or to the churches;
that we may not mistake them. Andradius tells us,
“That of necessity those traditions also must be believed, which can
be proved by no testimony of scripture:”
and Petrus a Soto still more plainly and openly affirms:.4
“It is,” says he, “a rule infallible and catholic, that whatsoever
things the church of Rome believeth, holdeth and keepeth, and are
not delivered in the scriptures, the same came by tradition from the
apostles; also all such observations and ceremonies, whose
beginning, author, and original are not known, or cannot be found,
out of all doubt they were delivered by the apostles.”
This is what is meant by apostolic tradition.
Now the essentials of popery, or the peculiarities of it, are all founded upon
this, even upon apostolic and ecclesiastic tradition; this is the Pandora from
whence they all spring; this is the rule to which all are brought, and by
which they are confirmed; and what is it, be it ever so foolish, impious and
absurd, but what may be proved hereby, if this is admitted of as a rule and
test? It is upon this foot the Papists assert and maintain the observation of
Easter, on the Lord’s Day following the 14
of March, the fast of
Quadragesima or Lent, the adoration of images and relics, the invocation
of saints, the worship of the sign of the cross, the sacrifices of the mass,
transubstantiation, the abrogation of the use of the cup in the Lord’s
Supper, holy water, extreme unction or the chrism, prayers for the dead,
auricular confession, sale of pardons, purgatory, pilgrimages, monastic
vows, etc.
Among apostolical traditions infant-baptism is to be reckoned, and it is
upon this account it is pleaded for. The first person that asserted infant-baptism
and approved it, represents it as a tradition from the apostles,
whether he be Origen, or his translator and interpolator, Ruffinus; his
words are,
“For this (i.e., for original sin) the church has received a tradition
from the apostles, even to give baptism unto infants.”
Austin, who was a warm advocate for infant-baptism, puts it upon this
footing, as a custom of the church, not to be despised, and as an apostolic
tradition generally received by the church; he lived in the fourth century,
the same Ruffinus did; and probably it was from his Latin translation of
Origen, Austin took the hint of infant-baptism being an apostolic tradition,
since no other ecclesiastical writer speaks of it before as such; so that, as
Bishop Taylor observes,
“This apostolical tradition is but a testimony of one person, and he
condemned of many errors; so that, as he says, to derive this from.5
the apostles on no greater authority, is a great argument that he is
credulous and weak, that shall be determined by so weak a
probation, in a matter of so great concernment.;”
and yet it is by this that many are determined in this affair: and not only
Popish writers, as Bellarmine and others make it to be an apostolical
tradition unwritten; but some Protestant-Paedobaptists show a good will to
place infant-baptism among the unwritten sayings and traditions of Christ
or His apostles, and satisfy themselves therewith. Mr. Fuller says,
“We do freely confess that there is neither express precept nor
precedent in the New Testament for the baptizing of infants;”
yet observes that St. John saith, (

“And there are also many other things, which Jesus did, which are
not written; among, which for ought appears to the contrary, the
baptizing of these infants (those whom Christ took in his arms and
blessed) might be one of them.”
In like manner, Mr. Walker argues,
“It doth not follow our Savior gave no precept for the baptizing of
infants, because no such precept is particularly expressed in the
scripture; for our Savior spoke many things to his disciples
concerning the kingdom of God, both before his passion, and also
after his resurrection, which are not written in the scriptures; and
who can say, but that among those many unwritten sayings of his,
there might be an express precept for infant-baptism?”
And Mr. Leigh, one of the disputants in the Portsmouth-Disputation ,
suggests, that though infant-baptism is not to be found in the writings of
the apostle Paul extant in the scriptures, yet it might be in some writings of
his which are lost, and not now extant; all which is plainly giving up infant-baptism
as contained in the sacred writings, and placing it upon unwritten,
apostolical tradition, and that too, conjectural and uncertain.
Now infant-baptism, with all the ceremonies attending it, for which also
apostolical tradition is pleaded, makes a very considerable figure in the
Popish pageantry; which according to pretended apostolical tradition, is
performed in a very pompous manner, as by consecration of the water,
using sponsors, who answer to the interrogatories, and make the.6
renunciation in the name of the infant, exorcisms, exsufflations, crossings,
the use of salt, spittle, and oil. Before the party is baptized, the water is
consecrated in a very solemn manner; the priest makes an exorcism first;
three times, he exsufflates or breathes into the water, in the figure of a
cross, saying, “I adjure thee, O creature of water;” and here he divides the
water after the manner of a cross, and makes three or four crossings; he
takes a horn of oil, and pours it three times upon the water in the likeness
of a cross, and makes a prayer, that the font may be sanctified, and the
eternal Trinity be present; saying,
“Descend from heaven and sanctify this water, and give grace and
virtue, that he who is baptized according to the command of thy
Christ, may be crucified, and die, and be buried, and rise again with
The sponsors, or sureties, instead of the child, and in its name, recite the
creed and the Lord’s prayer, make the renunciation of the devil and all his
works, and answer to questions put in the name of the child: the form,
according to the Roman order, is this:
“The name of the infant being called, the presbyter must say, Dost
thou renounce Satan? A. I do renounce; and all his works? A. I do
renounce; and all his pomps? A. I do renounce: three times these
questions are put, and three times the sureties answer.”
The interrogations are sometimes said to be made by a priest, sometimes
by a presbyter, and sometimes by an exorcist, who was one or the other,
and to which the following question also was added:
“Dost thou believe in God the Father Almighty, creator of heaven
and earth, etc.? A. I believe.”
Children to be baptized are first exsufflated or breathed and blown upon
and exorcised, that the wicked spirit might be driven from them, that they
might be delivered from the power of darkness, and translated into the
kingdom of Christ: the Roman order is,
“Let him (the minister, priest, deacon or exorcist) blow into the
face of the person to be baptized, three times, saying, Go out thou
unclean spirit, and give place to the Holy Ghost, the Comforter.”
The form, according to St. Gregory, is,.7
“I exorcise thee, O unclean spirit, in the name of the Father, and of
the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, that thou go out and depart from
this servant of God.”
Salt also is put into the mouth of the infant, after it is blessed and
exorcised, as a token of its being seasoned with the salt of wisdom; and
that it might be preserved from the corruption and ill savor of sin: the
priest first blesses the salt after this manner:
“I exorcise thee, O creature of salt; and then being blessed, it is put
into the mouth of the infant saying, Receive the salt of wisdom unto
life everlasting.”
The nose and ears of infants at their baptism are touched with spittle by the
priest, that they may receive the savor of the knowledge of God, and their
ears be opened to hear the commands of God; and formerly spittle was put
upon the eyes and upon the tongue, though it seems now disused as to
those parts; and yet no longer than the birth of King James the First, it
seems to have been in use; since at his baptism his mother sent word to the
archbishop to forbear the use of the spittle, saying, “She would not have a
pocky priest to spit in her child’s mouth;” for it seems the queen knew that
the archbishop, who was Hamilton, Archbishop of St. Andrews, then had
the venereal disease . And so in the times of the martyrs in Queen Mary’s
days; for Robert Smith, the martyr, being asked by Bonner, in what point
do we dissent from the word of God? meaning as to baptism; he answered,
“First, in hallowing your water, in conjuring of the same, in
baptizing children with anointing and spitting in their mouths,
mingled with salt, and many other lewd ceremonies, of which not
one point is able to be proved in God’s word.”
All which he calls a mingle mangle. Chrism, or anointing both before and
after baptism, is another ceremony used at it; the parts anointed are the
breast and shoulders; the breast, that no remains of the latent enemy may
reside in the party baptized; and the shoulders, that he may be fortified and
strengthened to do good works to the glory of God: this anointing is made
in the form of a cross; the oil is put on the breast and beneath the
shoulders, making a cross with the thumb; on making the cross on the
shoulders, the priest says,
“Flee, thou unclean spirit, give honor to the living and true God;”.8
and when he makes it on the breast, he says,
“Go out, thou unclean spirit, give place to the Holy Ghost:”
the form used in doing it is
“I anoint thee with the oil of salvation, that thou mayest have life
The next ceremony is that of signing the infant with the sign of the cross:
this is made in several parts of the body, especially on the forehead, to
signify that the party baptized should not be ashamed of the cross of Christ,
and not be afraid of the enemy Satan, but manfully fight against him. After
baptism, in ancient times, honey and milk, or wine and milk, were given to
the baptized, though now disused; and infants were admitted to the Lord’s
Supper, which continued some hundreds of years in the Latin church, and
still does in the Greek church. Now for the proof of the use of these
various ceremonies, the reader may consult Joseph Vicecomes, a learned
Papist as Dr. Wall calls him, in his Treatise de Antiquis Baptismi Ritibus ac
Ceremoniis, where and by whom they are largely treated of, and the proofs
of them given. All which are rehearsed and condemned by the ancient
Waldenses in a treatise of theirs, written in the year 1120. It may be asked
to what purpose is this account given of the ceremonies used by Papists in
the administration of baptism to infants by them, since they are not used by
Protestant-paedobaptists? I answer, it is to show what I proposed, namely,
what a figure infant-baptism, with these attending ceremonies, makes in
popery, and may with propriety be called a part of it; besides though all
these ceremonies are not used, yet some of them are used in some
Protestant-paedobaptist churches, as sureties, the interrogations made to
them, and their answers in the name of infants; the renunciation of the devil
and all his works, and signing with the sign of the cross; and since these
and the others, all of them claim apostolic authority, and most, if not all of
them, have as good and as early a claim to it as infant-baptism itself; those
who admit that upon this foot, ought to admit these ceremonies also. See a
treatise of mine, called The Argument from Apostolic Tradition in Favor of
Infant-baptism Considered. Most of the above ceremonies are mentioned
by Basil, who lived in the 4
century, and as then in use, and which were
had from apostolic tradition as said, and not from the scriptures; and says
“Because this is first and most common, I will mention it in the first
place, as that we sign with the sign of the cross; —Who has taught
this in Scripture? We consecrate the water of baptism and the oil of
unction as well as him who receives baptism; from what scriptures?
Is it not from private and secret tradition? Moreover the anointing
with oil, what passage in scripture teaches this? Now a man is
thrice immersed, from whence is it derived or delivered? Also the
rest of what is done in baptism, as to renounce Satan and his
angels, from what scripture have we it? Is not this from private and
secret tradition?”
And so Austin speaks of exorcisms and exsufflations used in baptism, as of
ancient tradition, and of universal use in the church. Now whoever receives
infant-baptism on the foot of apostolic tradition, ought to receive those
also, since they stand upon as good a foundation as that does.
The Papists attribute the rise of several of the above ceremonies to their
popes, as sponsors, chrisms, exorcisms, etc., though perhaps they were not
quite so early as they imagine, yet very early they were; and infant-baptism
itself, though two or three doctors of the church had asserted and espoused
it, yet it was not determined in any council until the Milevitan Council in
418, or thereabouts, a provincial of Africa, in which was a canon made for
Paedobaptism and never till then: So says Bishop Taylor , with whom
Grotius agrees , who calls it the Council of Carthage; and who says in the
councils no earlier mention is made of infant-baptism than in that council;
the canons of which were sent to Pope Innocent the First , and confirmed
by him: And Austin, who must write his book against the Donatists before
this time, though he says the church always held it (infant-baptism) and that
it is most rightly believed to be delivered by apostolic tradition; yet
observes that it was not instituted, or determined and settled in or by
councils; that is, as yet it was not, though it afterwards was in the above
council confirmed by the said pope; in which council Austin himself
presided, and in which is this canon,
“Also it is our pleasure, that whoever denies that new-born infants
are to be baptized, – let him be anathema,”
and which is the first council that established infant-baptism, and
anathematized those that denied it; so that it may justly be called a part of
popery: besides baptism by immersion, which continued 1300 years in the
Latin church, excepting in the case of the Clinicks, and still does in the.10
Creek church, was first changed into sprinkling by the Papists; which is not
an indifferent thing, whether performed with much or a little water, as it is
usually considered; but is of the very essence of baptism, is that itself, and
without which it is not baptism; it being as Sir John Floyer says, no
circumstance, but the very act of baptizing; who observes that aspersion, or
sprinkling, was brought into the church by the Popish schoolmen , and our
dissenters, adds he, had it from them; the schoolmen employed their
thoughts how to find out reasons for the alteration to sprinkling, brought it
into use in the 12
century: and it must be observed, to the honor of the
Church of England, that they have not established sprinkling in baptism to
this day; only have permitted pouring in case it is certified the child is
weakly and not able to bear dipping; otherwise, by the Rubric, the priest is
ordered to dip the child warily: sprinkling received only a Presbyterian
sanction in times of the civil war by the Assembly of Divines; where it was
carried for sprinkling against dipping by one vote only, by 25 against 24,
and then established by an ordinance of Parliament, 1644: and that this
change has its rise from the authority of the Pope, Dr. Wall himself
acknowledges , and that the sprinkling of infants is from popery. “All the
nations of Christians,” says he, “that do now, or formerly did, submit to the
authority of the Bishop of Rome do ordinarily baptize their infants by
pouring or sprinkling; and though the English received not this custom till
after the decay of Popery, yet they have since received it from such
neighbor-nations as had began it in the times of the pope’s power; but all
other Christians in the world, who never owned the pope’s usurped power,
do, and ever did, dip their infants in their ordinary use;” so that infant-baptism,
both with respect to subjects and mode, may with great propriety
be called a part and branch of popery.
But it is not only a part of popery, and so serves to strengthen it, as a part
does the whole; but it is a pillar of it, what serves greatly to support it; and
which furnishes the Papists with one of the strongest arguments against the
Protestants in favor of their traditions, on which, as we have seen, the
essentials of popery are founded, and of the authority of the church to alter
the rites of divine worship: they sadly embarrass Paedobaptist Protestants
with the affair of infant-baptism, and urge them either to prove it by
scripture, both with respect to mode and subjects, or allow of unscriptural
traditions and the authority of the church, or give it up; and if they can
allow of unwritten traditions, and the custom and practice of the church, as
of authority in one point, why not in others? This way of arguing, as Mr..11
Stennet observes , is used by Cardinal Du Perron, in his reply to the answer
of King James the First, and by Mr. John Ainsworth, against Mr. Henry
Ainsworth, in the dispute between them, and by Fisher the Jesuit, against
Archbishop Laud; a late instance of this kind, he adds, we have in the
controversy between Monsieur Bossuet, Bishop of Meaux, and a learned
anonymous writer, said to be Monsieur de la Roque, late pastor of the
Reformed church at Roan in Normandy. The Bishop, in order to defend the
withholding the cup in the Lord’s Supper from the laity, according to the
authority of the church, urged that infant-baptism, both as to mode and
subject, was unscriptural, and solely by the authority of tradition and
custom, with which the pretended Reformed complied, and therefore why
not in the other case; which produced this ingenuous confession from his
antagonist, that to baptize by sprinkling was certainly an abuse derived
from the Romish church, without due examination, as well as many other
things, which he and his brethren were resolved to correct, and thanked the
bishop for undeceiving them; and freely confessed, that as to the baptism of
infants, there is nothing formal or express in the gospel to justify the
necessity of it; and that the passages produced do at most only prove that it
is permitted, or rather, that it is not forbidden to baptize them. In the times
of King Charles the Second, lived Mr. Jeremiah Ives, a Baptist minister,
famous for his talent at disputation, of whom the king having heard, sent
for him to dispute with a Romish priest; the which he did before the king
and many others, in the habit of a clergyman: Mr. Ives pressed the priest
closely, showing the whatever antiquity they pretended to, their doctrine
and practices could by no means be proved apostolic; since they are not to
be found in any writings which remain of the apostolic age; the priest, after
much wrangling, in the end replied, that this argument of Mr. Ives was as
of much force against infant-baptism, as against the doctrines and
ceremonies of the church of Rome: to which Mr. Ives answered, that he
readily granted what he said to be true; the priest upon this broke up the
dispute, saying, he had been cheated, and that he would proceed no
further; for he came to dispute with a clergyman of the established church,
and it was now evident that this was an Anabaptist preacher. This behavior
of the priest afforded his majesty and all present not a little diversion: and
as Protestant Paedobaptists are urged by this argument to admit the
unwritten traditions of the Papists; so dissenters of the Paedobaptist
persuasion are pressed upon the same footing by those of the Church of
England to comply with the ceremonies of that church, retained from the
church of Rome, particularly by Dr. Whitby; who having pleaded for some.12
condescension to be made to dissenters, in order to reconcile them to the
church, adds:
“and on the other hand”, says he, “if notwithstanding the evidence
produced, that baptism by immersion, is suitable both to the
institution of our Lord and his apostles; and was by them ordained
to represent our burial with Christ, and so our dying unto sin, and
our conformity to his resurrection by newness of life; as the apostle
doth clearly maintain the meaning of that rite: I say, if
notwithstanding this, all our dissenters (i.e. who are Paedobaptists,
he must mean) do agree to sprinkle the baptized infant; why may
they not as well submit to the significant ceremonies imposed by
our church? for, since it is as lawful to add unto Christ’s institutions
a significant ceremony, as to diminish a significant ceremony, which
he or his apostles instituted; and use another in its stead, which they
never did institute; what reason can they have to do the latter, and
yet refuse submission to the former? and why should not the peace
and union of the church be as prevailing with them, to perform the
one, as is their mercy to the infant’s body to neglect the other?”
Thus infant-baptism is used as the grand plea for compliance with the
ceremonies both of the church of Rome and of the church of England.
I have added in the preface referred to, where stands the above clause, that
infant-baptism is “that by which Antichrist has spread his baneful influence
over many nations;” which is abundantly evident, since by the christening
of children through baptism, introduced by him, he has made whole
countries and nations Christians, and has christened them by the name of
Christendom; and thereby has enlarged his universal church , over which he
claims an absolute power and authority, as being Christ’s vicar on earth;
and by the same means he retains his influence over nations, and keeps
them in awe and in obedience to him; asserting that by their baptism they
are brought into the pale of the church, in which there is salvation, and out
of which there is none; if therefore they renounce their baptism, received in
infancy, or apostatize from the church, their damnation is inevitable; and
thus by his menaces and anathemas, he holds the nations in subjection to
him: and when they at any time have courage to oppose him, and act in
disobedience to his supreme authority, he immediately lays a whole nation
under an interdict; by which are prohibited, the administration of the
sacraments, all public prayers, burials, christenings, etc., church-doors are.13
locked up, the clergy dare not or will not administer any offices of their
function to any, but such as for large sums of money obtain special
privileges from Rome for that purpose: now by means of these
prohibitions, and particularly of christening or baptizing children, nations
are obliged to comply and yield obedience to the bishop of Rome; for it
appears most dreadful to parents, that their children should be deprived of
baptism, by which they are made Christians, as they are taught to believe,
and without which there is no hope of salvation; and therefore are
influenced to give-in to anything for the sake of what is thought so very
important. Once more, the baneful influence spread by Antichrist over the
nations by infant-baptism, is that poisonous notion infused by him, that
sacraments, particularly baptism, confer grace ex opere operate, by the
work done; that it takes away sin, regenerates men, and saves their souls;
this is charged upon him, and complained of by the ancient Waldenses in a
tract of theirs, written in the year 1120, where speaking of the works of
Antichrist, they say,
“the third work of Antichrist consists in this, that he attributes the
regeneration of the Holy Spirit unto the dead, outward work,
baptizing children in that faith, and teaching that thereby baptism
and regeneration must be had; and therein he confers and bestows
orders and other sacraments, and groundeth therein all his
Christianity, which is against the Holy Spirit”:
and which popish notion is argued against and exposed by Robert {Smith}
the martyr; on Bonner’s saying
“if they (infants) die, before they are baptized, they be damned;” he
asked this question, “I pray you, my lord, shew me, are we saved
by water or by Christ?”
to which Bonner replied,
“by both;” “then,” said Smith, “the water died for our sins, and so
must ye say, that the water hath life, and it being our servant, and
created for us, is our Savior; this my lord is a good doctrine, is it
And this pernicious notion still continues, this old leaven yet remains, even
in some Protestant churches, who have retained it from Rome; hence a
child when baptized is declared to be regenerate; and it is taught, when
capable of being catechized to say, that in its baptism it was made a child.14
of God, a member of Christ, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven,
which has a tendency to take off all concern, in persons when grown up,
about an inward work of grace, in regeneration and sanctification, as a
meetness for heaven, and to encourage a presumption in them,
notwithstanding their apparent want of grace, that they are members of
Christ, and shall never perish; are children and heirs of God, and shall
certainly inherit eternal life. Wherefore Dr. [John] Owen rightly observes
“That the father of lies himself could not easily have devised a
doctrine more pernicious, or what proposes a more present and
effectual poison to the minds of sinners to be drank in by them.”
The second article or proposition in the preface is, as asserted by me, that
infant-baptism “is the basis of national churches and worldly
establishments; that which unites the church and world, and keeps them
together;” than which nothing is more evident: if a church is national, it
consists of all in the nation, men, women, and children; and children are
originally members of it, either so by birth, and as soon as born, being born
in the church, in a Christian land and nation, which is the church, or rather
by baptism, as it is generally put; so according to the order of the Church
of England, at the baptism of a child, the minister says, “We receive this
child into the congregation of Christ’s flock.” And by the Assembly of
Divines, “Baptism is called a sacrament of the New Testament, whereby
the parties baptized are solemnly admitted into the visible church.” And to
which there is a strange contradiction in the following answer, where it is
said, that “baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the
visible church;” but if by baptism the parties baptized are solemnly
admitted into the visible church, then before baptism by which they are
admitted, they must be out of it: one or other must be wrong; either
persons are not admitted into the visible church by baptism, or if they are,
then before baptism they are out of it, and have baptism administered to
them in order to their being admitted into it; and Calvin says, according to
whose plan of church-government at Geneva, that of the Scotch church is
planned, that baptism is a solemn introduction to the church of God. And
Mr. Baxter argues, that
“if there be neither precept nor example of admitting church-members
in all the New Testament but by baptism; then all that are
now admitted ought to come in by baptism; but there is neither
precept nor example in all the New Testament of admitting church.15
members but by baptism; therefore they ought to come in the same
way now.”
So then infants becoming members of a national church by baptism, they
are originally of it; are the materials of which it consists; and it is by the
baptism of infants it is supplied with members, and is supported and
maintained; so that it may be truly said, that infant-baptism is the basis and
foundation of a national church, and is indeed the sinews, strength, and
support of it: and infants being admitted members by baptism continue
such when grown up, even though of the most dissolute lives and
conversations, as multitudes of them are; and many, instead of being
treated as church members, deserve to be sent to the house of correction,
as some are, and others are guilty of such flagitious crimes that they die an
infamous death; yet even these die in the communion of the church; and
thus the church and the world are united and kept together till death doth
them part.
The Independents would indeed separate the church and the world
according to their principles; but cannot do it, being fettered and hampered
with infant-church-membership and baptism, about which they are at a loss
and disagreed on what to place it; some place it on infants’ interest in the
covenant of grace; and here they sadly contradict themselves or one
another; at one time they say it is interest in the covenant of grace that
gives infants a right to baptism, and at another time, that it is by baptism
they are brought and entered into the covenant; and sometimes it is not in
the inward part of the covenant they are interested, only in the external part
of it, where hypocrites and graceless persons may be; but what that
external part is no mortal can tell: others not being satisfied that their
infant-seed as such are all interested in the covenant of grace, say, it is not
that, but the church-covenant that godly parents enter into, which gives
their children with them a right to church membership and baptism:
children in their minority, it is said, covenant with their parents, and so
become church members, and this entitles them to baptism; for according
to the old Independents of New England, none but members of a visible
church were to be baptized; though Dr. [Thomas] Goodwin is of a
different mind: hence only such as were children of members of churches,
even of set members , as they call them, were admitted, though of godly
and approved Christians; and though they may have been members, yet if
excommunicated, their children born in the time of their excommunication
might not be baptized; but those children that are admitted members and.16
baptized, though not confirmed members, as they style them, till they
profess faith and repentance; yet during their minority, which reaches till
they are more than thirteen years of age, according to the example of
Ishmael, and till about sixteen years of age, they are real members to such
intents and purposes, as, that if their parents are dismissed to other
churches, their children ought to be put into the letter of dismission with
them; and whilst their minority continues, are under church-watch, and
subject to the reprehensions, admonitions, and censures thereof for their
healing and amendment as need shall require; though with respect to public
rebuke, admonition, and excommunication, children in their minority are
not subject to church-discipline, only to such as is by way of spiritual
watch and private rebuke. The original Independents, by the covenant-seed,
who have a right to church membership and baptism, thought only
the seed of immediate parents in church-covenant are meant, and not of
progenitors. Mr. Cotton says infants cannot claim right unto baptism but in
the right of one of their parents or both; where neither of the parents can
claim right to the Lord’s Supper, there their infants cannot claim right to
baptism; though he afterwards says it may be considered whether the
children may not be baptized where either the grandfather or grandmother
have made profession of their faith and repentance before the church, and
are still living to undertake for the Christian education of the child; or if
these fail, what hinders but that if the parents will resign their infant to be
educated in the house of any godly member of the church, the child may be
lawfully baptized in the right of its household-governor, But Mr. Hooker,
as he asserts, that children as children have no right to baptism, so it
belongs not to any predecessors, either nearer or farther off removed from
the next parents to give right of this privilege to their children; by which
predecessors, he says, he includes and comprehends all besides the next
parent; grandfather, great grandfather, etc.. So the ministers and
messengers of the congregational churches that met at the Savoy declare
“that not only those that do actually profess faith in, and obedience
unto Christ, but also the infants of one or both believing parents are
to he baptized, and those only”:
and the commissioners for the review of the Common Prayer, in the
beginning of the reign of King Charles the Second; those of the
Presbyterian persuasion moved on the behalf of others, that.17
“there being divers learned, pious, and peaceable ministers, who not
only judge it unlawful to baptize children whose parents both of
them are Atheists, Infidels, Heretics, or unbaptized; but also such
whose parents are excommunicate persons, fornicators, or
otherwise notorious and scandalous sinners; we desire, say they,
they may not be enforced to baptize the children of such, until they
have made open profession of their repentance before baptism.”:
but now I do not understand that the present generation of dissenters of
this denomination adhere to the principles and practices of their
predecessors, at least very few of them; but admit to baptism, not only the
children of members of their churches, but of those who are not members,
only hearers, or that apply to them for the baptism of their infants, whether
gracious or graceless persons: and were only the first sort admitted,
children of members, what are they? No better than others, born in sin,
born of the flesh, carnal and corrupt, are of the world, notwithstanding
their birth of religious persons, until they are called out of it by the
effectual grace of God; and as they grow up, appear to be of the world as
others, and have their conversation according to the course of it; and many
of them are dissolute in their lives, and scandalous in their conversation;
and yet I do not understand, that any notice is taken of them in a church-way,
as to be admonished, censured, and excommunicated; but they retain
their membership, into which they were taken in their infancy, and continue
in it to the day of their death: and if this is not uniting and keeping the
world and church together, I know not what is.
Moreover all the arguments that are made use of to prove the church of
Christ under the gospel-dispensation to be congregational, and against a
national church, are all destroyed by the baptism and membership of
infants. It is said in favor of the one, and against the other, that the
members of a visible church are saints by calling, such, as in charitable
discretion may be accounted so; but are infants who are admitted to
membership and baptized, such? The holiness pleaded for as belonging to
them, is only a federal holiness, and that is merely chimerical: are they
called to be saints, or saints by effectual calling? Can they in charitable
discretion, or in rational charity be thought to be truly and really holy, or
saints, as the churches of the New Testament are said to be? and if they
cannot in a judgment of charity, be accounted real saints, and yet are
admitted members of churches, why not others, of whom it cannot be.18
charitably thought, that they are real saints? Besides, it is said by the
“that members of gospel churches are saints by calling, visibly
manifesting and evidencing by their profession and walk their
obedience to that call; who are further known to each other by their
confession of faith wrought in them by the power of God; and do
willingly consent to walk together according to the appointment of
Christ, giving up themselves to the Lord and to one another by the
will of God, in professed subjection to the ordinances of the
now are infants such? Do they manifest and evidence by a profession and
walk their obedience to a divine call? And if they do not, and yet are
admitted members, why not others, who give no more evidence than they
do? Do they make a confession of faith wrought in them? Does it appear
that they have such a faith? and in a confession made, and so made as to be
known by fellow-members? and if not, and yet received and owned as
members, why not others that make no more confession of faith than they
do? Do infants consent to walk with the church of Christ, and give up
themselves to the Lord and one another, and profess to be subject to the
ordinances of the gospel? and if they do not, as most certainly they do not,
and yet are members, why may not others be also members on the same
footing? It is objected to a national church, that persons of the worst of
characters are members of it; and by this means the church is filled with
men very disreputable and scandalous in their lives. And is not this true of
infant members admitted in their infancy, who when grown up are very
wicked and immoral, and yet their membership continues? and why not
then national churches be admitted of, notwithstanding the above
objection? So that upon the whole, I think, I have good reason to say, “that
there cannot be a full separation of the one from the other, that is, of the
church from the world, nor a thorough reformation in religion, until it
(infant-baptism) is wholly removed.”
In the said preface, I express my firm belief of the entire cessation of
infant-baptism, in time to come: my words are,
“though it (infant-baptism) has so long and largely obtained (as it
has from the 4
century till now, and over the greater part who
have since borne the Christian name) and still does obtain; I believe.19
with a firm and unshaken faith, that the time is hastening on, when
infant-baptism will be no more practiced in the world,”
I mean in the spiritual reign of Christ; for in His personal reign there will be
no ordinances, nor the administration of them; and this is explained by
what I farther say,
“when churches will be formed on the same plan they were in the
times of the apostles; when gospel-doctrine and discipline will be
restored to their primitive purity and lustre; when the ordinances of
baptism and the Lord’s Supper will be administered as they were
first delivered; all which will be accomplished, when ‘the Lord shall
be king over all the earth, and there shall be one Lord and his name
that is, when there shall be one Lord, one faith, and one baptism,
acknowledged by all Christians; and they will be all of one mind with
respect to the doctrines and ordinances of the gospel. And as it becomes
every man to give a reason of the faith and hope he has concerning divine
things, with meekness and fear; the reasons of my firm belief, that infant-baptism
will be no more practiced in the latter day and spiritual reign of
Christ, are, some of them suggested in the above paragraph, and others
may be added, as
First, Because churches in the time referred to, will be formed on the plan
churches were in the time of the apostles; that this will be the case, see the
prophecies in

Isaiah 1:25,26;

Jeremiah 30:18,20;

11:19. Now the apostolic churches consisted only of baptized believers, or
of such who were baptized upon profession of their faith; the members of
the first Christian church, which was at Jerusalem, were first baptized upon
their conversion, and then added to it; the next Christian church at
Samaria, consisted of men and women baptized on believing the gospel,
preached by Philip; and the church at Corinth, of such who hearing,
believed and were baptized; and on the same plan were formed the
churches at Rome, Philippi, Colosse, and others; nor is there one single
instance of infant-baptism and of infant-church-membership in them;
wherefore if churches in the latter day will be on the same plan, then infant-baptism
will be no more practiced.
Secondly, Because, then the ordinances of the gospel will be administered,
as they were first delivered, clear of all present corruption and superstition;.20
this is what is meant by the temple of God being opened in heaven, on the
sounding of the seventh trumpet (

Revelation 11:19 and

15:5), which
respects the restoration of worship, discipline, doctrines and ordinances, to
the free use of them, and to their original purity; when, as the ordinance of
the Lord’s Supper will be administered clear of all corruptions and
ceremonies introduced by Papists and retained by Protestants; so likewise
the ordinance of baptism both with respect to subject and mode, which as it
was first delivered was only administered to persons professing faith and
repentance, and that by immersion only; and if this will be universally
administered in the latter day, as in the first ages of Christianity, infant
sprinkling will be practiced no more.
Thirdly, Because Christ will then be king over all the earth in a spiritual
sense; one Lord, whose commands will be obeyed with great precision and
exactness, according to His will revealed in His Word; and as baptism is
one of His commands He has prescribed, as He is and will be
acknowledged the one Lord and head of the church, and not the pope, who
will be no more submitted to; so there will be one baptism, which will be
administered to one sort of subjects only, as He has directed, and in one
manner only, by immersion, of which His baptism is an example; and
therefore, I believe that infant sprinkling will be no more in use.
Fourthly, At this same time the name of Christ will be one, that is, His
religion; which will be the same, it was at first instituted by Him. Now it is
various, as it is professed and practiced by different persons that bear His
name; but in the latter day, it will be one and the same, in all its branches,
as embraced, professed, and exercised by all that are called Christians; and
as baptism is one part of it, this will be practiced in a uniform manner, or
by all alike, that shall name the name of Christ; for since Christ’s name or
the Christian religion in all its parts, will be the same in all the professors of
it; I therefore firmly believe, that baptism will be practiced alike by all,
according to the primitive institution, and consequently, that infant-baptism
will be no more: for
Fifthly, As at this time, the watchmen will see eye to eye (

Isaiah 52:8),
the ministers of the gospel will be of one mind, both with respect to the
doctrines and duties of Christianity; will alike preach the one, and practice
the other; so the people under their ministrations will be all agreed, and
receive the truths of the gospel in the love of them, and submit to the
precepts and institutions of it, without any difference among themselves,.21
and without any variation from the word of God; and among the rest, the
ordinance of baptism, about which there will be no longer strife; but all will
agree that the proper subjects of it are believers, and the right mode of it
immersion; and so infant-sprinkling will be no more contended for; saints in
this as in other things will serve the Lord with one consent (Zeph. 3:9).
Sixthly, Another reason why I firmly believe, infant-baptism will hereafter
be no more practiced, is, because Antichrist will be entirely consumed with
the spirit or breath of Christ’s mouth, and with the brightness of His
coming (

2 Thessalonians 2:8), that is, with the pure and powerful
preaching of His word, at His coming to take to Himself His power, and
reign spiritually in the churches, in a more glorious manner; when all
Antichristian doctrines and practices will be entirely abolished and cease,
even the whole body of Antichristian worship; not a limb of Antichrist shall
remain, but all shall be consumed. Now as I believe, and it has been shown,
that infant-baptism is a part and pillar of popery, a limb of Antichrist, a
branch of superstition and will-worship, introduced by the ‘man of sin,
when he shall be destroyed, this shall be destroyed with him and be no
Seventhly, Though the notion of infant-baptism has been embraced and
practiced, by many good and godly men in several ages; yet it is part of the
wood, hay and stubble, laid by them upon the foundation; is one of those
works of theirs, the bright day of the gospel shall declare to be a falsehood;
and which the fire of the word will try, burn up, and consume, though they
themselves shall be saved; and therefore being utterly consumed, shall no
more appear in the world: for
Eighthly, When the angel shall descend from heaven with great power,
and the earth be lightened with his glory, which will be at the fall of
Babylon and ruin of Antichrist (

Revelation 18:1,2), such will be the
blaze of light then given, that all Antichristian darkness shall be removed,
and all works of darkness will be made manifest and cast off, among which
infant-baptism is one; and then the earth will be full of the knowledge of
the Lord as the waters cover the sea (

Isaiah 11:9), even of the
knowledge of the word, ways, worship, truths, and ordinances of God, and
all ignorance of them vanish and disappear; and then the ordinance of
baptism will appear in its former lustre and purity, and be embraced and
submitted to in it; and every corruption of it be rejected, of which infant-baptism
is one..22
Ninthly, Whereas the ordinances of the gospel, baptism and the Lord’s
Supper, are to continue until the second coming of Christ, or the end of the
world (

Matthew 28:19,20;

1 Corinthians 11:26), and whereas there
have been corruptions introduced into them, as they are generally
administered, unless among some few; it is not reasonable to think, that
those corruptions will be continued to the second coming of Christ, but
that they will be removed before, even at His spiritual coming, or in His
spiritual reign: and as with respect to baptism particularly, there must be a
mistake on one side or the other, both with respect to subject and mode;
and as this mistake I firmly believe is on the side of the Paedobaptists; so, I
as firmly believe for the reason given, that it will be removed, and infant-sprinkling
for the future no more used.
Tenthly, the Philadelphian church-state, which answers to and includes the
spiritual reign of Christ in His churches, is what I refer unto in the preface,
as the time when the practice of infant-baptism will cease; in which I am
confirmed, by the characters given of that church and the members of it; as
that it kept the word of Christ; that is, not only the doctrines of the gospel,
which will be then purely preached and openly professed, but the
ordinances of it, baptism and the Lord’s Supper; which have been
(particularly baptism) sadly corrupted in almost all the periods of the
churches hitherto, excepting the apostolic one; but will in this period be
restored to their pristine purity and glory; hence it is promised to this
church, and that it represents, that because it kept the word of Christ’s
patience, truly and faithfully, it should be kept from the hour of temptation
that should come on all the earth; and is exhorted to hold fast what she
had, both the doctrines and ordinances, as they were delivered by Christ
and His apostles, and as she now held them in the truth and purity of them.
These are the reasons why I believe with a firm and unshaken faith, that the
time is coming, and I hope will not be long, when infant-baptism will be no
more practiced in the world.
Since, now at this time, we are greatly and justly alarmed with the increase
of popery; in order to put a stop to it, let us begin at home, and endeavor
to remove all remains of it among ourselves; so shall we with the better
grace, and it may be hoped, with greater success oppose and hinder the
spread of it..23
The writer who lately appeared in a newspaper, under the name of
Candidus, having been obliged to quit his mountebank-stage on which he
held forth to the public for a few days; has, in his great humility,
condescended to deal out his packets, in a less popular way; under the title
of, The True Scripture-Doctrine of the Mode and Subjects of Christian
Baptism, etc., in six letters. It is quite unreasonable that we should be put,
by every impertinent scribbler, to the drudgery of answering, what has been
answered over and over again in this controversy. However I shall make
short work of this writer, and therefore I have only put him to, and shall
only give him a little gentle correction at the cart’s tail, to use the phrase of
a late, learned professor, in one of our universities, with respect to the
discipline of a certain Bishop.
The first and second letters of Candidus, in the newspaper, are answered in
marginal notes on my sermon upon baptism, and published along with it.
His third letter is a mean piece of bufoonery and scurrility; it begins with a
trite, vulgar proverb, in low language, fit only for the mouth of a hostler or
a carman; and his friends seem to have spoiled one or other of these, by
making him a parson. He goes on throughout the whole of the letter, as
one that is in great haste, running after his wits, to seek for them, having
lost them, if ever he had any; and it concludes with a poor, pitiful, foolish
burlesque, mixed with slander and falsehood, on an innocent gentleman;
quite a stranger to him, and could never have offended him, but by a
conscientious regard to what he believed was his duty. However, by this
base and inhumane treatment, it appears that his moral character is
unimpeachable, or otherwise it would have been nibbled at. His fourth
letter begins with representing the sermon published, as so mangled,
changed, altered and added to, that it has scarce any remains of its original;
in which he must be condemned by all that heard it: and he has most
unluckily charged one clause as an addition, which, there cannot be one in
ten but will remember it; it is this, “if any man can find any others in his
(the jailer’s) house, besides all that were in it, he must be reckoned a very
sagacious person;” and he himself, in his first letter published before the
sermon was, has an oblique glance at it; calling me, in a sneering way, “the
sagacious doctor.” What he says in the following part of the letter,
concerning the subjects of baptism, and what he intended to say concerning
the mode in another letter, which was prevented, I suppose are contained
in a set of letters now published; and which are addressed, not to Mr..24
Printer, who cast him off, but to a candid Anti-paedobaptist, and indeed the
epithet of candid better agrees with that sort of people than with himself, of
which he seems conscious, if he has any conscience at all; for it looks as if
he had not, or he could never have set out with such a most notorious
untruth, and impudent falsehood; affirming that I said in my sermon, that
“the ten commandments, styled the moral law, were not binding on Christ’s
disciples:” a greater untruth could not well have been told: my writings in
general testify the contrary, and particularly two sermons I have published,
one called “The Law Established by the Gospel,” and the other, “The Law
in the Hand of Christ;” which are sufficient to justify me from such a
wicked calumny; and the paragraph with which my sermon begins,
attacked by him, and which I declare, are the words I delivered in the
pulpit, that “the ten commandments, are the commands of God, and to be
observed by Christians under the present dispensation;” for which I quoted

1 Corinthians 9:21, this I say, must stare him in the face, and awaken
his guilty conscience, if not seared as with a red hot iron; which I fear is his
case. As for his flings at eternal justification, which he has lugged into this
controversy, and his grand concluding and common argument against it,
that it is eternal nonsense, I despise; he has not a head for that controversy:
and I would only put him in mind of what Dr. [John] Owen said to
[Richard] Baxter, who charged him with holding it,
“What would the man have me say? I have told him, I am not of
that opinion; would he have me sware to it, that I am not? but
though I am not, I know better and wiser men than myself that do
hold it.”
Somebody in the newspaper observing that this man was froward and
perverse, and fearing he should do hurt to religion in general, in order to
divert him from it, and guide him another way; complimented him with
being a man of wit, and of abilities; and the vain young man fancies he
really is one: and being a witty youth, and of abilities, he has been able to
produce an instance of infant-baptism about 1500 years before Christian
baptism was instituted; though he must not have the sole credit of it,
because it has been observed before him: the instance is of the passage of
the Israelites through the sea, at which time, he says, their children were
baptized, as well as they: come then, says he, in very polite language, this is
one scripture-instance; but if he had had his wits about him, he might have
improved this instance, and strengthened his argument a little more; by
observing that there was a mixed multitude, that came with the Israelites.25
out of Egypt, and with them passed through the sea, with their children
also. And since he makes mention of Nebuchadnezzar’s baptism, it is much
he did not try to make it out that his children were baptized also, then or at
some other time. This is the true scripture doctrine, of the subjects of
Christian baptism, according to his title.
That the Jews received their proselytes by baptism, before the times of
Christ, he says, I know; but if I do, he does not. I observe, he is very ready
to ascribe great knowledge of things to me, which he himself is ignorant of;
I am much obliged to him: the great names he opposes to me, don’t
frighten me; I have read their writings and testimonies, and know what they
were capable of producing, and to what little purpose; though I must
confess, it is amazing to me, that any men of learning should give into such
a notion, that Christian baptism is founded upon a tradition of the baptism
or dipping of proselytes with the Jews; of which tradition there is not the
least hint, neither in the Old nor in the New Testament; nor in the
Apocryphal writings between both; nor in Josephus; nor in Philo the Jew;
nor in the Jewish Misnah, or book of traditions; compiled in the second
century, or at the beginning of the third, whether of the Jerusalem or
Babylonian editions. I am content to risk that little reputation I have for
Jewish learning, on this single point; if any passage can be produced in the
Misnah, mentioning such a tradition of the Jews, admitting proselytes by
baptism or dipping, whether adult or children. I own it is mentioned in the
Gemara, both Jerusalem and Babylonian, a work of later times, but not in
the Misnah; though Dr. Gale has allowed it without examination. The only
passage in it which Dr. Wall refers to from Selden, though not fully
expressed, is this “a female stranger, a captive, a maiden, which are
redeemed and become proselytes, and are made free; being under (the next
paragraph is above) three years and one day old, are allowed the
matrimonial dowry;” i.e., at marriage: but not a tittle is here or anywhere
else in the Misnah, of receiving either minors or adult as proselytes by
baptism or dipping: and supposing such a Jewish tradition, five hundred, or
three hundred, or two hundred years after Christ; or even so many years
before Christ, of what avail would it be? He must be strangely bigoted to
an hypothesis, to believe that our Lord, who so severely inveighed against
the traditions of the Jews, and particularly those concerning their baptisms
or dippings; should found His New Testament ordinance of baptism, on a
tradition of theirs, without excepting it from the other traditions, and
without declaring His will it should be continued, which He has not done;.26
and yet this, as Dr. Hammond suggests, in the basis of infant-baptism: to
what wretched shifts must the Paedobaptists be driven for a foundation to
place infant-baptism on, as to place it on such a rotten one; a tradition of
men, who at other times, are reckoned by them, themselves, the most
stupid, sottish, and despicable of all men upon the face of the earth? For
the farther confutation of this notion, see Sir Norton Knatchbull on

Peter 3:20,21; Stennett against Ruffen, p. 61; Gale’s Reflections on Wall’s
History of Baptism, letters 9 and 10; Rees on Infant-Baptism, P. 17-29.
I shall not pursue this writer any farther, by giving particular answers to his
arguments, objections, and queries, such as they are; but shall only refer the
reader to the answers that have been already given to them: as to the
threadbare argument, from Abraham’s covenant, and from circumcision;
for Old Testament times and cases, are chiefly dealt in, to settle a New
Testament ordinance, see Ewer’s Answer to Hitchin, Rees against Walker,
and my answers to Dickinson, Clarke, and Bostwick. Of the
unreasonableness of requiring instances of the adult baptism of children of
Christian parents, in the scriptures, see my Strictures on Bostwick’s Fair
and Rational Vindication, etc., p. 106. Of the testimonies of the ancient
Christian writers, in favor of infant-baptism, see Gale’s Reflections, etc.,
letters 11, 12, 13; Rees on Infant-baptism, p. 150 and etc.; some treatises
of mine, The Divine Right of infant-baptism Examined, etc., p. 20-25; The
Argument from Apostolic Tradition, etc.; Antipaedobaptism; Reply to
Clarke, p. 18-23; Strictures on Bostwick, p. 100-103.
I called upon this writer, in the notes on my sermon, to name any
lexicographer of note, that ever rendered the word baptize by “perfundo”
or “aspergo,” “pour” or “sprinkle;” and behold! Leigh’s Critica Sacra, is
the only book quoted! and he the only lexicographer mentioned, if he may
be so called! a book which every one of our illiterate lay-preachers, as they
are called, are capable of quoting, and of confronting this writer with it; by
observing that Leigh says, that “the native and proper signification of the
word, is to dip into water, or to plunge under water,

John 3:22,23;

Matthew 3:16;

Acts 8:38.” In proof of baptism by immersion, and of
the true signification of the word, see Gale’s Reflections, etc., letters 3 and
Rees on Infant-baptism, p. 121; and my treatises of The Ancient Mode of
Baptizing and the Defense Of It, with The Divine Right of Infant-baptism
Examined, etc., p. 90, etc..27
I bid this writer adieu: God give him repentance for his sins, and the
pardon of them; and this I am sure he cannot charge, neither with
uncharitableness, nor with Antinomianism.
When the Paedobaptists write again, it may be expected they will employ a
better hand; or should they choose to fix upon one of their younger sort
again; let them take care, first to wring the milk well out of his nose, before
they put a pen in his hand.

Lasă un răspuns

Completează mai jos detaliile tale sau dă clic pe un icon pentru a te autentifica:


Comentezi folosind contul tău Dezautentificare /  Schimbă )

Fotografie Google

Comentezi folosind contul tău Google. Dezautentificare /  Schimbă )

Poză Twitter

Comentezi folosind contul tău Twitter. Dezautentificare /  Schimbă )

Fotografie Facebook

Comentezi folosind contul tău Facebook. Dezautentificare /  Schimbă )

Conectare la %s

%d blogeri au apreciat: