66

"be able to discern the reason of it."That is, the cui bono of it. "In things of external appointment," (says Dr. Samuel Clarke, quoted by Booth,)" and "mere positive institution, where we cannot, as in "matters of natural and moral duty, argue concerning "the natural reason and ground of the obligation, and "the original necessity of the thing itself; we have "nothing to do but to obey the positive command. God " is infinitely better able than we to judge of the propriety and usefulness [the cui boni] of the things, he "institutes; and it becomes us to obey with humility "and reverence." The same author quotes Bishop Hall as saying, "It hath been ever God's wont, by "small precepts to prove men's dispositions. Obedience " is as well tried in a trifle as in the most important "charge: yea, so much more, as the thing required "is less: for oftentimes those who would be careful "in main affairs, think they may neglect the smallest. "What command so ever we receive from God, or our "superiors, we must not scan the weight, [the cui bono] "of the thing, but the authority of the commander.” The same Baptist writer quotes Witsius as saying that, "One who resolves to obey God in some things only, "but excepts others, which he does [or not] according "to his own judgment [of their cui bono,] he does not serve God, but pleases himself. The true ground of "obedience is the authority of him who commands; which, as it is the same in all precepts, all then, it is "concluded, must be of equal obligation."

66

66

These are all Baptist authorites, because adopted

by Booth(h) in support of his sentiments, which he expresses in his own words as follows, viz. "As in the "great concerns of religious worship, nothing should "be done that is not required by Jehovah; and as the "lawfulness of all positive rites depends entirely on "their divine Author and his institution; so he who "complies with some, and neglects others that are "equally commanded and equally known, may please "himself, but he does not obey the Lord." "For it is "not the manifest excellence, or the great utility "[the cui bono] of any divine appointment, that is the "true reason of our submission to it; but the authority "of him that commands."

You have already perhaps observed that my Opponent himself advocates this same doctrine at some times, though he contradicts it at other times. He has quoted a passage from Bishop Hoadly, in which he says, "All "positive duties depend [not upon the question of "cui bono, but] entirely upon the will and declaration "of the person who institutes or ordains them, with "respect to the real design and end of them, and con"sequently to the due manner of performing them.” To the same purpose he has quoted largely from Bishop Taylor, who says that "The will of the law-giver, "[and not the question of cui bono] is all the reason "for obedience."(i) But in the debate with Mr. Walker we have my Opponent's own words to this effect as follows; viz. "Having now distinguished

(h) They may be found in the following pages of his Apology. 71.

100. 179. 180.

(i) Debate pp. 69. 70.

"positive and moral institutions, I proceed to shew that ❝on no account whatsoever in positive requirements, "are we to attempt to reason upon the expediency

66

[the cui bono] of the things enjoined, but implicitly "to obey on all occasions. When Eve, the mother of "us all, began to reason on the expediency [the cui 66 bono] of eating the forbidden fruit, she began to sin. "She reasoned that as the fruit of that tree was pleasant "to the sight, and to be desired to make one wise, "there could be no harm in eating of it; consequently "she concluded to taste it. Of the incorrectness of "her [cui bono] reasoning, and of her incapacity, even "when in Eden, to draw a correct inference, when "reasoning on a positive institution, we have, alas! "a melancholy proof"- -as we have in her

"cui bono descendant in this debate. (k)

Often as my Opponent contradicts himself, he hardly ever does it without what he considers good policy. He published a challenge, to shew his courage; and afterward denied it, to throw the odium upon his Opponent. Why did he say so much in his letters, about his holding the negative of our question? Because it afforded what he thought a plausible pretext for demanding the closing speech. Why does he now urge as strongly that he holds the affirmative of the very same question? The Moderators, to whom he has appealed, can answer, that this is made a pretext for demanding, that, as he has professedly opened the debate, I should not be permitted to choose my own plan of defence, but

(k) Debate with Mr. W. p. 46. On the same page in his 2nd debate we find his cui bono contradiction.

be compelled to leave the solid evidence upon which my cause rests, and follow the ignis fatuus of his declamation. Again; why is it that he insists so strongly upon the good old doctrine, that we must unreservedly obey every command of God, without waiting to discuss its expediency, or its cui bono? Because he hopes to pervert this truth to the sophistical conclusion that "nothing short of [what he means by] an express divine command can authorize" infant baptism: as if an implicit command were not binding at all! But when I approach the subject too closely, and seem in danger of producing a divine command, he complains that by such a course we should only "spend our breath, waste our time, and fatigue our bodies." Why does he then insist, in opposition to his former principles, concerning positive institutions, that we must first examine the question of expediency, "CUI BONO, for what good, or [for] what benefit to infants" is this institution intended? These questions you can answer.

66

I wish you to keep in mind the proposition with which I have set out, on the scriptural subject of baptism. It is, that "the scriptures consider infants as suitable, though not exclusive subjects of Christian baptism." Baptist polemics generally take it for granted that this is impossible in the nature of things; and think that infant baptism necessarily rejects adult baptism, and that adult baptism necessarily excludes the other, as if these were two distinct and irreconcileable baptisms. Booth says, "If infant sprinkling be a human invention, "disown it.. but if it be from heaven, embrace ❝ it.. and lay the other absolutely aside, as des

་

❝titute of a divine warrant; for as there is but one God "and one faith, so there is but one baptism.”(1) This writer is much in the habit of illustrating the sacraments of baptism and the eucharist by a reference to circumcision and the Passover. (m) We all know that there was only one circumcision as well as one baptism. How then would it look to reason on the former, as he has done on the latter? If infant circumcision be a human tradition, disown it but if it be from heaven, embrace it and lay adult circumcision absolutely aside- -for as there is but one God and one faith, so there is but one circumcision!!! Yes, there was but one circumcision; yet it was administered to adults and infants: so there is but one baptism, which, like circumcision, is the seal of the righteousness of one faith; yet this also is scripturally administered to believers and their seed.

Scriptural statements of the qualifications of adult subjects are always quoted on this point. "He that be"lieveth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that "believeth not shall be damned." "Go ye therefore "and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of "the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; "teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I "have commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, ❝even unto the end of the world."(n) We are both agreed that these passages exclude from baptism, those adults who are destitute of knowledge, because they must first be taught of faith, because they

(1) Close of his Apology. (m) See his Apology. pp. 145. 149. (n) Mark xvi, 16. Matt. xxviii, 19, 20.

E

1