GUMENTS, in the absence of prohibition, lead, as we think, to the inevitable conclusion that infant baptism was ordained of God?

QUOTATION FROM DR. Woods.

Under the foregoing section, Mr. Woolsey quotes Dr. Woods, p. 248, as though Dr. Woods had explicitly given up all claim either to a Scriptural warrant, or to Scriptural evidence for infant baptism. The quotation is thus: "And Dr. Woods, an associate of Professor Stuart," (whom he has just quoted in a similar manner) "says: 'We have no express precept or example for infant baptism, in all our holy writings.""

Dr. Woods indeed uses this language. But the scope of Dr. Woods' argument lays an emphasis here on the word " EXPRESS;" and to make Dr. Woods say so much as is here quoted, and say no more, is to make him bear a witness precisely the reverse of what Dr. Woods believes, and most strenuously and ably maintains to be the truth. Mr. Woolsey knows full well, that the work of Dr. Woods from which these words are taken, was written for the express purpose of proving from the Scriptures the divine authority for infant baptism. Mr. Woolsey knows full well that Dr. Woods most formally takes his position in the following words:

"But I shall now proceed to argue the point FROM THE INSPIRED RECORDS, JUST AS THEY ARE. My position is, that the Scriptures of the New Testament, understood according to just rules of interpretation, imply that the children of believers are to be baptized."

"The

In the Preface to his work, Dr. Woods says, reader will perceive that the doctrine of Infant Baptism is a doctrine which I very seriously believe, and which I feel it to be my duty earnestly to maintain. He will per

ceive too, that the doctrine is dear to my heart, and is associated in my contemplations with the most sacred truths of religion, and the most precious interests of Christ's kingdom. My manner of treating this subject is not the result of haste, but of repeated and long-continued investition." "For many years in the earlier part of my life, I had a decided prepossession in favor of their" (the Baptists') "peculiar sentiments on the subject of baptism; and they have a right to inquire for the reasons of my present belief. I here frankly give them my reasons.'

In bringing forward Dr. Woods for the authority of his name, his learning, his integrity,-in testimony; in adducing him as a witness in this cause, Mr. Woolsey was bound, in common honesty, to quote so much of his words as would at least let him speak the truth as touching his opinion on the matter in question; and not just so much as would cause him to be understood as saying the reverse of what he means. To quote him in part, and to suppress what is essential to the truth as touching his knowledge and belief, is an injury to Dr. Woods, a fraud upon the public, an offence against the truth; which ought to be deemed a high moral misdemeanor by the whole Christian world, and deserving of solemn rebuke from the church of God. Whether Mr. Woolsey has done this, or whether his quotation has dealt justly with Dr. Woods and with the truth, I leave those who will examine the scope of the section in which the quotation is made, and the connection in which the words are quoted, to judge. I am unable to understand Mr. Woolsey here as quoting Dr. Woods in any other way than as though Dr. Woods admitted and intended to admit that "Baptism must not rest upon the instructions of the word of God;" while it is certain that Dr. Woods holds and teaches the very reverse of this.

QUOTATION FROM BAXTER.

In a similar manner, p. 272, 273, Mr. Woolsey, in speaking of the "order" of teaching and baptizing, as bearing upon the question of infant baptism, quotes Richard Baxter, (among others) in such a way as to make Baxter throw his testimony against the propriety of baptizing infants. The quotation is long. In the first part of it, Baxter shows that the work of the apostles is "first" by teaching to make disciples; the "second" work to baptize; the "third" to teach them all other things which are afterward to be learned in the school of Christ. Mr. Woolsey having quoted his words so far, says "[observe what follows"]"To contemn this order, is to renounce all rules of order; for where can we expect to find it, if not here? I profess my conscience is fully satisfied with this text, that it is one sort of faith, even saving, THAT MUST GO BEFORE BAPTISM; and the profession whereof, the minister must expect."

Now here is the opinion of Richard Baxter, and a sound one, on a certain point; viz. whether adults are to be baptized before they have saving faith? No: says. Mr. Baxter: my conscience is fully satisfied that they must

not.

Mr. Baxter says this of adults. Mr. Woolsey brings it forward for the purpose of throwing the mighty name of Baxter into the scale against infant baptism. But would Baxter say this of infants? By no means. He is a most strenuous defender of the divine authority for infant baptism. He maintains that, "God never had a church of which infants were not infant members, since there were infants in the world." He published a book which he entitled "Plain Proof of Infant Church Membership and Baptism;" and nineteen years afterwards, another book

entitled "More Proofs of Infant Church Membership and consequently their rights to Baptism.", A Jew might have argued concerning circumcision, as Baxter has argued concerning baptism;—that adult Gentiles must believe in the God of Abraham, and profess hearty submission to his word, before being circumcised ;-and that to "contemn this order," would be to "renounce all rules of order." But would it follow from this, that the same Jew believed that the infant children of the seed of Abraham were not to be circumcised till they could first be instructed and believe? Would it be honest, to cite that Jew as a witness against an ordinance which he held as undoubtedly divine, because of his argument concerning the "order" of adult believing and being circumcised? Would it be accepted as a justification of the act of quoting that Jew for such a purpose, to plead that he was quoted simply concerning the "order" of circumcision? Would not the reply be obvious, and such as preclude the possibility of justifying the quotation:-"The Jew was speaking concerning the order of "adult" circumcision: you, by quoting his words with reference to the order of “infant" circumcision, have misquoted him and perverted his meaning: making him bear witness against that which he held as undoubtedly an ordinance of the Most High God.

CLAIM TO CONFIDENCE ON THE SCORE OF QUOTATIONS FROM PEDOBAPTIST AUTHORS.

Mr. Woolsey says, in his Introduction, "The many honest concessions of some of the most able and learned Pedobaptist authors cited in this work, constitute one of its distinguishing peculiarities, and cannot fail to recommend it to the confidence of others."

The quotations from Pedobaptist authors do indeed constitute one of the distinguishing features of the work,

but scarcely one of its distinguishing peculiarities. This manner of quoting Pedobaptist authors, is not an original sin in Mr. Woolsey; nor is he altogether peculiar either in the number of quotations, or in the mass of the particular quotations which he has made. Thus the quotation from Baxter is a quotation of a quotation. Mr. Woolsey sets it to the credit of Booth's "Pedobaptism Examined." It is found in Pengilly, in Jewett,—and,—indeed I know not by how many Baptist writers it has been quoted over and over again. Pengilly is in great part made up of such quotations, and in many cases the very identical quotations. The tract "Peter and Benjamin" of the Baptist General Tract Society, makes Peter say "I have read the ample concessions of more than eighty Pedobaptist writers." This has been a favorite method or arguing among our Baptist brethren. But it remains to be seen whether such quotations as we have examined "can" or cannot fail to recommend" Mr. Woolsey's book "to the confidence of others."

66

It is to me a matter of wonder, that our Baptist brethren should not have seen the fallacy of an argument built on the supposition that such men as Baxter, Miller, and Woods, in arguing most strenuously for practices which they felt bound to observe as the ordinances of God, should have openly and explicitly given up the very thing for which they were contending. Mr. Woolsey seems to have felt this difficulty, and to have endeavored to account for so strange a thing. (Introduction, p 7). But after our examination of these quotations, I leave it for the reader to judge whether there be not another reason why it has come to pass, that these distinguished Pedobaptists should seem "to bear," as Mr. Woolsey says, "the most decided testimony against their own cause."