CHAP. VI. Charge of explaining the doctrine in the Office of Infant Baptism, by that in the Office of Adult Baptism. p. 54. CHAP. VII. Question of authorities. Luther. Grace, but no assurance of the Remission of Sin, before Baptism. Recipient known to be worthy, yet pronounced unregenerate. Doctrine of the Article upon Baptism. CHAP. VIII. p. 67. Engagements made by the Sureties in Infant Baptism. Innocence the only prerequisite of Infants. Baptism not confined to the seed of Believers. p. 85. CHAP. IX. Corrected passage in the Church Catechism. Singular Inaccuracy of Mr. Scott in a quotation ascribed by him to Baxter. CHAP. X. p. 104. Regeneration without Sponsors. Passage in the first book of Homilies. Clauses in the Church Catechism respecting the Promises of Sureties for Infants. CHAP. XI. P. 115. Salvation of Children dying in Infancy. Calvinistical Churchmen disposed to believe it. Rubric relating to it. Inconsistency in Calvinistical opinion. Influence of the Holy Spirit on the minds of Infants. Conclusion. p. 128. CHAP. I. Mr. Scott's Defence of his opinions in answer to Dr. Laurence. Principles and View of the Controversy. SINCE the publication of my late tract upon the efficacy of baptism, the Vicar of North Ferriby has honoured me with two distinct notices; the first of which is only indeed an indirect and irregular attack upon me, contained in a pamphlet denominated, "An Appendix to the Rev. "J. Scott's Inquiry into the Effect of Baptism;" but the second is a more direct and formal one, under the title of," The Principles of an Inquiry "into the Effect of Baptism defended against "the Animadversions of the Rev. Richard Lau"rence, LL.D." In both these productions I am occasionally complimented for my controversial talents, sometimes seriously, and sometimes ironically; but, that I might not be too vain, I am at other times treated with greater freedom, and with unmasked severity. "that "It may be thought," says Mr. Scott", "I here take advantage of an inadvertency of a Answer to Dr. Laurence, p. 18. B "Dr. L's. Perhaps I do; and I do it purposely "to shew him, that there are inaccuracies 66 quas aut incuria fudit, "Aut humana parum cavit natura "which he himself does not escape." Again he remarks, "I never imagined, when adducing a 66 passage to prove what, after the utmost force of art has been tried upon it, it certainly does 66 prove, b that I was providing so much un"availing labour for an antagonist. Dr. L. "has taught me to think more highly of the force of my quotation, than I ever did before." So far for compliment, if compliment it can be called. Now for the reverse. I am not only represented as ungenerous in running down an inadvertent illustration; but as perpetually addicted to mistating the real question at issue; as misrepresenting and perverting argument in a most injurious and utterly inexcusable manner; as supercilious in my remarks f; and to crown all, as professing to believe in the perfect agreement of scriptural truth with the doctrine of our Church, yet at the same time as at least suspecting a real discordance between them; for it is said," although I would be e |