The New Testament Interpretation of the Old, Relative to Infant Baptism

Mr. BACKUS, Sir,

I TRUST I may say truly, without nauseous sawning, or criminal flattery, by a little acquaintance with your person, and more with your writings, that I look upon it that you are favoured with some excellent endowments of mind, with a good and rare rasent, especially in writing; and that for the most part your pen has been employed in the cause of truth—Yet however, I observe some things in your writings which brings an ancient but true observation to my mind, viz. That the best of men, are but men at the best.—Therefore, sir, take it not ill if I point you to one or two of those spots with my pen, since I can assure you I do not write with a cesire or disposition to contradict, much less to disgust you or any of your baptist brethren, tho' I know not but this may be the event But the aim I have in view, (however ◊eeble the effort may be) is, by the divine blessing to endeavour to rescue some injured truths, which have suffered abuse by your pen.—And under this consideration I undertake it chearfully, but upon some other accounts it is with reluctance. For having had the hap to dip a little in one or two public controversies in time past, I have of late almost come to a determination to let polemic subjects alone, (unless where the essentials of religion are controverted) and leave disputes to other people, who have more pleasure and better skill therein than I, and higher expectations of doing good thereby. —Disputes seem of late to be almost fruitless as well as endless; and the more work of this nature there is done, p. 4the more there is to do: and the more labourers there are who ◊◊ter into this field of dispute, the wider the field g◊ows in proportion; and in consideration hereof, I have almost been ready to say, that the multiplied numbers of disputants, in ◊he◊e times, had about as good stand all the day id◊e in th◊s market place, as to spend their time as they do — However, I trust I am not altogether so superstitious o◊ pres◊mptuous as to assert, as some have done, viz. That disput◊s never did any good. For I believe the reve◊◊◊ of this is true, and that some times disputes are really necessary, and were it not for this, I would lay down my pen.—But with respect to the dispute in favour of, and against in◊an◊ baptism I intended to have been a neuter, (as to public writing I mean) because I did not look upon it essential to vital religion, which side a man seteled in his judgment, in this affair, if he was consciencious, and truly perswaded in his own m◊nd, seeing both sides have so much of a plea, in their favour; and I doubt not but eminently good men are on both sides of the question.

p. 4But, sir, in reading your answer to Mr. F—'s letter in favour of infant baptism, I confess you have drawn me a little out from my state of neutrality; 〈…〉 I cannot be quite easy (however catholick) to see things gloss'd smoothly, and then put off for truth, which are not.— However, being so very averse to write upon this subject, I should not have meddled with it, had you neglected one thing in handling the controversy, and that is, you say, That in order to maintain infant baptism, we construe and interpret the new ◊◊stament by the old, and the old by the new, (p. 58). Now this was so directly the reverse of the truth respecting my establishment in favour of infant baptism, that I could not be easy, nor answer a good conscience herein, to let it pass unnotic'd. And as it was the new testament interpretation of the old that gave me an establishment concerning infant baptism; so I am ready to think, that if the baptists would p. 5suffer the new testament interpretation of the old, to take place in their understandings, with their wills subjected to the light of truth in this particular, they would easily see more grounds for the warrant of 〈…〉 baptism than now they can; for while they have a different way to interpret the old testament, from the new testament interpretation thereof, it necesla◊◊ly hides the truth, and the binding force of it from their minds, in this particular. And hence they peremtorily conclude that there is nothing in the scripture to warrant infant baptism because they in these circumstances can't see it; but I can't allow this to be demonstration—I suppose that it is very probable, the solid and judicious among the bap◊ists, who did not receive the binding force of their principles by tradition, made their mistake h◊re, viz they took intant baptism upon tradition only, and practiced without understanding therein, but afterwards when they came to be more consciencious in the point, and could 〈…〉 no further in the practice by tradition; and then they attempted to search whether there were a scripture warrant for the practice or not, and when they read or heard the scriptures, the arguments, and interpretations of 〈…〉 &c.

p. 5produced for the support of infant baptism, they never took the proper ideas belonging thereto, and so could see no proof, where others who take the ideas as well as the words, can. I know something of this by experience; for I myself took infant baptism upon tradition, and went on so for near ten years after I was experimentally acquainted with religion, as I trust; in which time doctrinal reli◊◊◊◊: and, practical godliness, was thro' grace, my de◊lightful study; but my mind was not turn'd upon baptism w◊◊h any closeness of thought, all that while. …