STRICTURES
cs,
Asr
TO
A TREATISE ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM:
PUBLISHED BY REV. J. J. TRIGGS:
IN WHICH
THE ARGUMENTS AND DOCTRTNES CONTAINED IN TIIE TREATISE ARE PARTICU¬
LARLY NOTICED AND ANSWERED.
BY J. H. T. KILPATRICK,
MINISTER OF THE GOSPEL.
PENFIELD, GA.
PRINTED BV" BKNJ. BRANTLT.
1843.
To the ReADHR.
You may, probably, have seen Mr. Triggs' "Treatise on Chris¬
tian Baptism," in answer to a short Sermon of ours; a part, only,
of which was devoted to that subject.
We wish it distinctly understood that our reason for noticing
Mr. T-s. Treatise, is not because we consider it, abstractly, as wor-
of any attention; but wholly, to disabuse the public mind in rela¬
tion to many of the gentleman's statements,—especially, in regard
to his absurd and unscriptural views relative to the Covenant of
Grace.
On page 9th of his very extraordinary work, he has plainly de¬
nied that there exists any covenant or agreement between the Fa¬
ther and the Son, in relation to the salvation of man. The fallacy
of the doctrine which denies the existence of such a covenant, is
equalled only by the weakness and absurdity of the arguments
brought forward to support it. Surely our Presbyterian brethren
cannot feel themselves much indebted to the Treatise, or its author,
for the weak effort made in support of Infant Baptism, when it is
done at the expense of the Covenant of Grace or Bedemption.
We had rather, yes, infinitely rather, give up water baptism en
tirely, than support it at this dear rate. And in this we feel con¬
fident that we express the sentiments, not only of our Presbyte¬
rian brethren, but of every orthodox christian of every denomina¬
tion. When such doctrine as this is aiming its deadliest blows at
the foundation of man's dearest hopes, it becomes the duty of
every lover of Gospel truth and human happiness, "to instruct the
people in the way of God more perfectly."
Mr. T. has stated, in his remarks addressed to the reader, that
lie has answered us in candor, and has given "no false gloss or
version." How much truth there is in this statement you will be
the better able to judge after you shall have perused our answer.
Four things are particularly prominent in Mr. T's. manner of
writing—viz: 1st. He was certainly under the influence of a very
unfriendly and unchristian feeling. 2d. He made it his aim,
throughout, to excite disgust against immersion. 3d. He has ta¬
ken no little pains to prejudice the public mind against the author
of the Sermon. 4th. There is an entire want of that urbanity of
manner which ought ever to characterize the Christian Minister, if
not the gentleman: also, much egotism, and a propensity to ridicule
when not able to answer his opponent. These, with many similar
defects, we are truly sorry to discover. Buffoonery is not argu¬
ment; but the sure mark of the absence of those mental qualifi¬
cations it is intended to supply, to pay nothing worse of it.
Mr. T. in his address to the reader, has accused us of garbling
and misrepresentation. This is nn assertion without any founda¬
tion in truth, as the reader may plainly discover from our answer.
We wish it to be most distinctly noticed, that Mr. T. instead of
4
'neetmg and answering the lew short arguments laid down m oui
Sermon, commences a war of personal abuse, and bitter, unchristian
invective!! —leaving our arguments, many of them, wholly untouch¬
ed, and all of them unanswered on anything like iim* principles.
Again;—Mr. T. states to the reader, that ids Treatise was writ¬
ten at the "request of the quarterly meeting," &.C., and also slates,
that having seen our Sermon on Baptism, "he felt compelled to
notice it," &c. Is there 110 discrepancy here? .Moreover, was it
our Sermon, or only a part ot our Sermon that was 011 baptism?
These things all require explanation. But again,—How did it
come to pass that Mr. T. felt that he was compelled to notice us?
Did he feel that he was the only man belonging to the Methodist
connection possessed of the requisite talent? Most probably this
was the case. But we must be allowed to think differently and
better of his own people than this.
In the Treatise, Mr. T. makes us repeatedly say things we never said, or
thought of saying, merely for the pleasure, v/e presume, of contradicting
them, and leading astray the mind of the reader. For example: we affinned
" that nothing is baptism but immersion." He represents repeatedly that
we have said that Pvedobaplists acknowledged this. We never thought ot
making such an affirmation. The statement was our oivn—it was a conclu¬
sion to which we had been led by an easy process of reasoning, based upon
certain premises assumed. We repeat the assertion and think we shall be
able fully to sustain it in our answer, to the satisfaction of every unprejudi¬
ced mind, and even to that of Mr. T., if be will butlay his prejudice aside.—
What is baptism? According to the proper or native meaning of the word,
it is immersion. Then are we to be blamed and held up to public ridicule
as dolts and idiots, merely because we follow the dictates of common sense,
and believe that immersion is immersion; and 1 hat nothing is immersion but
immersion? This is precisely the amount of what we say when we affirm
that " nothing is baptism but immersion." Did not Mr. 'J1, know that the
Baptists, as a denomination, all believe in this sllf-evident truth? Why
should we be blamed for what we believe more than otheis? Are we to be
censured because we cannot bring ourselves to believe that sprinkling or
pouring is immersion; or, that they will answer as a substitute for im¬
mersion in the ordinance of baptism? Let candor and justice answer for
us, and the response will be—No.
Baptists lay no greater stress upon what they conceive to be baptism, in
point of communion, than do Panlobaptists. Neither can consistently com¬
mune with those whom they esteem unbaptized. Where is the difference?
Brethren, you can come to us in this matter—you believe immersion is good
and valid baptism—we cannot think So of pouring or sprinkling. We
love you as brethren, and desire to Jive in peace with you. With many of
you we are personally acquainted, and we esteem you as worthy of our most
sincere christian regard.
If the reader should think that we are too severe in any instance, our apo-
logy is, that Mr. T. has thiown himself beyond the pale of that courtesy
which we ever feel ourself bound to observe towards honorable and candid
disputants. Controversy is not our element—we desire to avoid it as far as
possible; that is, as far as duty will permit. May God grant that all jars
may cease, and may He guide 11s all by His Holy Spirit in the way ever¬
lasting. Amen. % J. H. T. K.
STRICTURES, &c.
The discrepances in Mr. TVs Treatise on this subject are so
many aud so great, that to attend to all, in uny'mnnner adequate
to their demands, would throw us entirely beyond our prescribed
limits, with regard to time and space. We shall, therefore, be
compelled to treat many of his remarks with much greater brevity
than we could wish. 0
Mr. T. in the commencement of his Treatise, has written down
the commission given to the Apostles by our blessed Saviour,—"do
ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them," &c. (Matt. 28:
19, 20.) He then goes on to tell us, 1st "To^each' is to disciple/'
then 2d. "To baptize, them"—3d. "To teaSh them all things their
Lord had commanded them," &c. We have no objection to this,
but hope Mr. T. will bear in mind its force and obligation. Here
then we have the "commission" by which not only the Apostles
were to be governed in the establishment of Gospel Churches, but
that by which all Gospel Ministers were to be governed through
all succeeding ages. According then to Mr. T.'s own statement,
the persons whom this commission warrants to be baptized are to
be "disciples," that is, those who have been taught, instructed,
and brought over to embrace the christian religion, and, conse¬
quently, are believers in Christ. Here the persons-whom Matthew
calls disciples, (and Mr. T. too,) Mark calls believers,—"Go ye
into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature. He
that believeth and is baptized shall be saved," &c. Mark 16: 15,16.
Now if Mr. T. will only be consistent with himself, and abide
by his own statements, and by the commission, which is the touch¬
stone, the law and the testimony in relation to the proper subjects
of baptism, as well as the act—we say if he 'will do this, which
he is bound to do, then he must give up the • point at once; for he
cannot find infants or infant baptism in this commission; nor
can he find sprinkling or pouring in it. Believers, a,nd be¬
lievers only, are those whom we are here warranted to bap¬
tize, that is, immerse. "Nothing but positive precept or plain ex¬
ample to be found in God's holy word can authorize the bap¬
tism of infants. But there is no such precept or example to be
found in the sacred writings. Many, very many, of our more
candid Psedob^ptist divines have acknowledged tlfts. Dr. Woods,
Professor in the Theological Seminary at Andover, in his work on
Infant Baptism, says, "We have no express precept or example,
for infant baptism in all our holy writings." Reader, picture to
youi'self, how Mr. T. would look, standing up and contending this
point with such a man as I)r, Woods, Professor of Theology at
.Andover i Both of them too, Pradobaptists!! But again, Dr.
Woods goes on to say,—"The proof must be made out in'some
ft
other-way.'" (See his Lecture 1st p. 11.) What! ''"make out
or prove such a matter as this, in "some other Avay," than by the
"word of God ? Yes, reader, this is a candid confession of the plain
truth. The very SILENCE of God's word on this subject is to
be taken as proof in its favor,—and this you will be very apt to
find Mr. T. doing. The traditions of men; the Councils of old Po¬
pish Bishops; the Council of sixty-six African Bishops, as late as
A. D. 254, with Cyprian at their head—at a time when corruption
in a thousand forms, had crept into the Church—these are the
ways, mainly, in which this matter, infunt baptism, is to he made
out!!
Bui Dr. Woods is not the only Pscdobsptist Mnistcr that has
made candid acknowledgments. Pretty much all the more candid
have done the same. Dr. Field says,—,kThe baptism of infants is
therefore named a 'tradition, because it is not expressly deliver¬
ed in Scripture, that^the Apostles did baptize infants; nor any ex¬
press precept there fouftd that they should do so." (See Dr. F. on
the Church p. 375.)
Bishop Prideaux says,—"Pocdobaptism rests on no other divine
right than Episcopacy." (See his Fascicul. contro. Loc. 4. p 210.
Peng. p. 48.) These are a few of many testimonials of the same
import now lying before us ; but we hope these will suffice.
We shall certainly hold Mr. Triggs to the Commission, as he in¬
troduced it, (and very justly too,) and acknowledges that it con¬
tains an "awful and important charge." Shall we indulge a hope
that he will not dare to set its "awfulness and importance" at de¬
fiance, and thereby trample it and its Author under his feet ? We
shall soon see.
On page 1st Mr. T. says,—"By baptism a person renounces ev¬
ery system, and practice opposed to Christianity, and dedicates
himself to God's service." Now, we have no objection to the doc¬
trine here advanced; but, how will this apply to Infants? Can
an infant at the breast renounce his sin, and dedicate itself to
God's service ? Surely it cannot. On the same page, Mr. T. tells
us, John's baptism was not "Christian baptism," not being "in the
name of the Trinity,"—nor could it be, "for Christ was not yet
crucified," &c. We know that our Pcedobaptist brethren, very
generally, labor hard to set aside John's baptism; and we also well
know their reasons for it. But will Mr. T. and all of like senti¬
ment be pleased to notice now, and once for all,—that all the ar¬
guments, generally resorted to in this case, will miliiate with equal
force against the Lord's Supper, being a Christian Ordinance.—
Was Christ "iHucified" when it was instituted? Certainly not.
We know that'Uohn did not use the formula, of Father, Son and
Holy Ghost; which was afterwards given by the Saviour, and is
now used. But the truth is, and let it be remembered, now and
ever, that the form of words, as prescribed by the Commission,
was not necessary to the validity of baptism, until made so, by
the terms of the Commission itself. But John did baptize into
the name of him that was to come; that is, Christ Jesus. (See
I
Acts 19: 4, 5.) This was certainly more exclusively christian
baptism, for it was in the name of the Messiah, or Christ Jesus
alone. But it is said John's baptism was "unto repentance."—
No sir, we say, and the history of the case says, (see Matt. 3 ch.,)
it was upon repentance. " Unto repentance" would make no good
sense, but a direct contradiction of the plain history of the case.—
Unless we make John guilty of the most gross solecism, contradic¬
tion and absurdity, by saying that he baptized people to produce
in them that repentance for the want of which he would not bap¬
tize them! Was there ever an absurdity to equal this? Yet this
is the very absurdity of which our translators make John guilty
in the 11th verse, by making it read "unto repentance." No,
John said no such thing—he is guilty of no such contradiction.
John says, ''Ego men baptizo umasen udati eis metanoian." (See
Matt. 3: 11.) The plain English of which is, if interpreted in
unison with the context, "I indeed immerse you in water upon
repentance." This is in precise accordance with the whole pre¬
vious history of the case, both of what had been said and done.
Reader, do turn to the third chapter of Matt.; read and compare
the passages for yourself
But we must not make too free with the King's English, or with
Xing James' translation, lest Mr. T. be again thrown into spasms.
John's baptism certainly belonged to the Gospel dispensation,
though we know some deny this, saying it was a kind of middle
dispensation, belonging properly to neither the Law nor the Gos*
pel. We read of only two, i. e. the Old and the New Testament
dispensation—no middle one. Mark expressly declares John's
preaching was -'the beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ the
Son of God," &c. (See Mark 1: 1,2,3.) But the blessed Saviour
himself declares, "The law and the prophets were until John,
since that time the Kingdom of God is preached," &c. (See Luke
16: 19.) The Saviour expresses himself to the same effect. (Matt.
11: 12, 13.) Who does, who can want other or further evidence
than this? Surely people who'thus rant and rave about John's dis
pensation, baptism, &c., have read the Scriptures most superficial-^
ly, or wilfully turn a deaf ear to its most clear and ample testi~
mony. None are more deaf than those who will not hear.
But it is argued, that John baptized in the name of a Saviour
"to come"—the christian baptism is in the name of a-Saviour that
"ha : corned Suppose this to be a fact—though John and our Sa¬
viour (or His disciples by His authority) were both baptizing at
the same time, (see John 3: 22, 23)—wherein is the difference be¬
tween prospective and retrospective faith? Whafis the difference
as to the virtue of faith, whether it look forward or backward to
the object of its dependence? We can see no difference in point
of virtue. Abraha m looked forward to the days of the Saviour
and "was glad." (John 8: 56.) Is not this just the amount of
diff rence between all believers before and since the coming of
Christ, prospective and retrospective faith. Those believed in a
Saviour to come, these in a Saviour that has come.
,<5
But what will Mr. T. and others do with the disciples whomoui
Saviour made and baptized? (Sue John 4: 1). Was this, too, in¬
valid baptinn, though carried on hy our Lord Jesus Christ hhnselJ!
This was "before C!nii*t was crucified," Ihcrelore according to Mr.
T.'s decision was invalid baptism!
Mr. T. takes it for Granted that some of John's disciples^ were
re-baptised on account of what is said in the 19th chap, ot Acts.
We know our Poedobaptis! brethren generally argue this. J3ut to
our mind it is most perfectly clear that there was no re-baptizing
in the care. But, on the contrary, a commendation and conse¬
quent confirmation of the validity of John's baptism. Reader, at¬
tend, aud you will certainly be convinced. This matter turns en¬
tirely on the proper understanding of the fifth verse; that is,
whether in that verse the Evangelist is still relating what Paul said
in reference to John's baptism or disciples; or whether he is rela¬
ting what Paul did in relation to these particular disciples at Ephe-
sus? We are clearly of the opinion that the 4th and 5th verses
both contain what Paul said. Thus, v. 4, "Then said Paul, John
verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the
people that they should believe on him which should come after
him, that is on Christ Jesus." 5th v. (Paul yet speaking,) "when
they," (the people to whom John preached,) "heard this," (heard
and received John's doctrine,) "they were baptized in the name of
the Lord." In verse Gth, the Evangelist goes on to relate what
Paul did, but not before. What sense or propriety can there be in
supposing John's disciples were re-baptized, merely upon hearing
a recapitulation of John's doctrine,' which is certainly the case in
the 4th verse? But the truth is simply this—in verse th Paul re¬
counts what John said; in verse 5th what he did; and this the
Evangelist relates in these two verses. But, for the sake of argu-
ni3nt, suppose Paul did re-brtytize these disciples, still there is no¬
thing gained in regard to being baptized in the name of the Trini¬
ty: lor it is yet in the name only of the "Lord Jesus." So then,
according to our opponents' views, in verse 4th, we hear that John
baptized in the name of "Christ Jesus;" and in verse 5th we hear
that Paul baptized in the name of the "Lord Jesus." But where and
what is the difference in point of validity between "Christ Jesus"
and "Lord Jesus?" And how much better was Paul's baptism
than John's? This view of the subject must convince every can¬
did mind that there was no re-baptizing in the case. It only
shows on what absurdities men will venture in support of a sink¬
ing cause. Moreover, Paul in counting over those whom he had
baptized, and foe appears to be very careful, makes no mention of
these twelve disciples at Ephesus. Nor is it baptism he has in his
mind in relation to these disciples, but to impart to them the gift of
the Holy Ghost. Hence the question, "Have ye received the
Holy Ghost since ye believed?" Not have ye been baptized since ye
believed? Paul well knew they had, of course, been baptized when
they believed. Again—Peter commanded the converts at the
house of Cornelius "to be baptized in the name of the Lord.7*
f)
(See Acts 10: 48.) This we know was long after the formula was
given.
President Edwards, a Peedobaptist and a great divine, in speak¬
ing of the Commission given by Christ, (see Matt. 28: 19, 20,)
says, "Here is an appointment of Christian Baptism. This ordi¬
nance indeed, had a beginning before; John the Baptist and Christ
both baptized," &c. (See Edwards' Works, vol.2, p. 248.) What
must now become of Mr. T's. objections to John's baptism?—■
They are more«fymsy than a cobweb and lighter than air. More¬
over, as we have said in relation to Dr. Woods, so now we say
again, how would Mr. T. look contending this point with such a
man as Edwards?
Mr. T. says on page 4th, "It is the duty of all unbaptized per¬
sons to receive this ordinance." What! faith or no faith? Where
do you get your authority, sir, for this daring assertion? Not in the
Commission, nor within the lids of God's holy Word. We said we
Avould see whether you would hold to the Commission. You have
already thrown it away and trampled it under foot with the ut¬
most disdain!! But the truth is, the want of Scripture authority
does not appear to weigh so much as half a feather with Mr. T.;
for in the same sentence he teaches, that if we are baptized, "but
NOT as the Scriptures direct, it will not endanger our sal¬
vation." This one sentence speaks volumes. Here the whole se¬
cret is out, so far, at least, as Mr. T. is concerned. He has told us,
indirectly, but very plainly, how and why it is he can teach and say
things in relation to baptism, which he certainly must and does
know are contrary to Scripture. 0! it will "not endanger his sal¬
vation!" Is it in the nineteenth century that a professed Minister
of the Gospel will thus teach? We know and love many of the
Methodist brethren,—we ask you, brethren, can you sanction such
doctrine as this? Surely not. We do not hold that baptism is a
saving ordinance; but we do hold, that to allow ourselves to live
in the neglect of any known duty, or to live otherwise than as the
Scriptures direct, is at best a very dangerous experiment!—one
upon which we would not wish to venture, and still less to encour¬
age others so to do! But the gentleman may try to palliate this by
saying he had said, "If for want of opportunity or correct infor¬
mation," &c. This, at best, is supposing a very unsupposable
case in this part of the world, and at this day and time. With
us, it is a perfectly clear case, that the design was to lull people's
consciences to sleep on the subject of baptism, and induce the be¬
lief that whether right or wrong in this matter, whether acting ac¬
cording to God's word or contrary to it, all would still be weil.
But the climax of the absurdity and darmg is, that he should at¬
tempt to sustain this unscriptural and dangerous doctrine by quo¬
ting Mark 16: 16, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be
saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." He adds,
"damned not for the want of baptism, but of faith." But does
not baptism follow as a certain consequent upon faith? Most cer¬
tainly. Here then Mr. T. has doubly overthrown his own cause.
10
1st. He had in the very sentence above this, most unqualifiedly de¬
clared, "It is the duty of all unbaptized persons to receive this
ordinance," wholly irrespective of faith—that is, faith or no faith
—indirectcontradiction of the woid of God generally, and especially
the passage he now quotes. Was such confusion and contradiction
as is here manifested ever before known? It certainly is without a
parallel! 2d. If baptism is a consequent upon faith, or is to follow
it, as he has proved by Mark, does it not then follow as a matter of
necessity, that every time Mr. T. baptizes an in/ant he makes bap¬
tism antecedent to faith and not a consequent, and that he puts
his seal before there is any thing to seal? Most undoubtedly.
Surely Mr. T. you have wound yourself up, and would do well
beg for quarters.
But let us hear the Saviour on this subject: "Whosoever, there¬
fore, shall break one of these least commandments, and shall
teach men so, he shall be called the least in the Kingdom of Heav¬
en," &c. (Mat. 5:19.) Again—"But he that knew not," &c. "shall
be beaten with few stripes," &c. (Luke 12: 48.) So then we
see that the Saviour teaches a doctrine the very opposite of what
Mr. T. teaches. Which are we to believe? The truth is, Mr. T/s
doctrine in reference to this matter is most'dangerous and positive¬
ly opposed to the whole scope of God's word. "He that is unjust
in that which is least, is unjust in much." "He that keepeth the
whole law, and yet oflendeth in one point, is guilty of all." To what
dangerous lengths will not men go to gain their point! May God
open Mr. T.'s eyes on this subject before "it is too late.''''
• On the same page (4) he charges the Baptists with preaching
about baptism with as much zeal "as if the salvation of Adam's
race depended on the manner and time of its performance." We
ask Mr. T. before his God and at the bar of his conscience, how
he could make such an assertion as this, with our sermon before
his eyes, in which we had distinctly stated, on page 26th, "That
as to the mode of baptism it is nothing." True we did say that
we did not consider pouring or sprinkling any mode, of baptism,
unless it could be made to appear that they were modes of immer¬
sion. This we still say But on the same page we had also dis¬
tinctly stated, that "we did not hold baptism to be essential to sal¬
vation." Again,—who would have supposed that by the expres¬
sions manner and time, Mr. T. had what we call baptism itself
and the proper subje t of baptism covered up? Yet such is the
fact. Is not this giving a "false gloss?" Is this moral honesty?
No, sir, neither the manner nor mode of baptism, nor the time, is
any part of the matter in dispute, but baptism itself and the pro¬
per subject; and this Mr. T. knew perfectly well If "truth be
his motto," why endeavor thus to lead astray the mind of the
reader? Wa know that there are efforts made to persuade
the public that the' mere mode of baptism is the matter of debate.
But no, such is not the fact; but baptism itself is the matter in
dispute.
On page 5th. Mr. T. begins to discover signs of great uneasi-
11
ness and perplexity in relation to infant baptism. He begins to
feel and look about how he may get outside of, or over the Com¬
mission. He well knows infant baptism is not there. He asks
whether we can find uany thing against it in the Scriptures?"—
and concludes, "this is an important point m the consideration"
"Well, it must be a strange case and a hard push that will either re¬
quire or accept of silence as good authority to proceed to action,
and that, too, in matters of religion! where we have "line upon
line, precept upon precept," yea, where we have God's word so
full, so clear in its precepts and examples in relation to our duty!
But, alas! here is a case in which he thinks it an "important
point" that God's word is silent in reference to it! Strange case!!
But we ask every candid man, is not this virtually giving up the
whole matter? Further, we ask, ought not this, and every other
cause to be given up that has to depend upon the silence of God's
word for its authority. We truly regret to see this, as it shews,
1st. An utter recklessness and disregard of the specific duties con¬
tained in the Commission; and, 2d. An entire ignorance in regard
to the nature of positive institutions. We ask Mr. T. does he ar¬
gue thus in relation to the nature and obligations of commissions
generally? Suppose he receives one from his government to pur¬
chase horses for the army, will he sit down and count up all that is
not forbidden in this commission, and conclude that he is at liberty
to purchase hundreds of things not mentioned, merely because
they arc not specifically prohibited? He knows better. Again,
apply this mode of reasoning to judicial proceedings, and we will
immediately discover its fallacy. It surely would be a most singular
position to assume, that the absence of all evidence would afford
sufficient ground of action. We beseech Mr. T. and all others, to
remember, that the design of a commission is not to prohibit, but to
enjoin—not to forbid, but to command. It is not to point out the
many thousand things you must not do, but to point out the parti¬
cular thing or things you must do. These things are more espe¬
cially true in relation to the positive institutions of the Gospel.—
Here we beg leave to make one more general remark in relation to
the difference between moral duties and positive institutions. A
moral duty is commanded because it is right—a positive insti¬
tute is right because it is commanded. Moral duties, with their
obligations, arise out of general principles;—but that of positive
institutions depends wholly upon the will of the institutor. These
distinctions must be kept up and borne in mind, else we will make
wild work, and open a door wide enough to admit all the mum¬
meries and follies of Popery.
Before we proceed further on the subject of infant bap¬
tism, we beg leave to introduce the thrilling language of Rev. Mr.
Carson, in an appeal he makes to his dear Paedobaptist brethren.
Mr. C. had long been a Psedobaptist minister, but it pleased God
to open his eyes on the subject of infant baptism. Hear his appeal:
"My brethren love the thing imported by baptism, while I lament they
spend so much zeal in endeavoring to establish a baptism not instituted by
13
Christ. In doing so, they injure thousands and thousands of their bretluen,
and cannot but injure themselves. It is impossible to fight against God on
any point without being wounded. I acknowledge I was long in the same
transgression. Many infants have I sprinkled; but if I know my own
heart, I would not now pour water in a child's face, in the name of the Fa¬
ther, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, for the globe on which I
stand. Ah! my brethren, it is an awful thing to do, in the Lord's name
that which the Lord has not appointed! 'Who has required this at your
hands?' You may explain, and reason, and suppose, b.ut till the trumpet
sound, you will never force this Commission to include your baptism of
infants. You may conjure up difficulties to perplex the weak,—your inge¬
nuity may invent subterfuges that may covei error,—but you will never find
an inch of solid ground on which to rest the sole of your foot. \our work,
will never be done. You are rolling the stone of Sisyphus, and the farther
you push it up hill with the greater force will it rebound on your heads.—
The labors of Hercules are but amusement compared with your task. In¬
genuity may put a false system plausibly together—but no ingenuity can
give it the validity of truth. It may satisfy as long as men do not inquire
deeply and earnestly into the question—but it will not satisfy when the mind
begins to say, 'Lord what wilt thou have me to do?'"
We perfectly agree with Mr. Carson, that when persons become
in earnest oil the subject of their duty in relation to this matter,
all these childish reasonings and fallacious arguments become as
light as air.
On this page (5) we are told of Moses leading the children of
Israel through the sea, &c. We are told, "there were children
along, and that Paul tells us they were all baptized." We ask, is
this your commission, Mr. T., for the baptism of infants? How is
it that Moses did not understand it so, and lay down the painful
rite of circumcission at once? And more especially, if one came
in the place of the other. We say Paul referred to this circum¬
stance as a figure of our baptism, and not as affording any author¬
ity as to the proper subject of baptism. For if it be brought for¬
ward as authority on this respect, it will prove quite too much,
and will force us to baptize all our cattle, &c.: for we are told
there was "a mixed multitude went up also with them, and flocks
and herds, and very much cattle," &c. (see Ex. 12: 38.) Now
these were ali just as much baptized on this occasion as the men, wo.
men and children. On what principle then are we to select the
children alone as the only authorized subjects of baptism, on ac¬
count of this circumstance that happened alike to all, both man
and beast? Mr. T., we beseech you not to force us to follow you
in such childish sport or wild reveries. Why lay down your com¬
mission so full, so clear, and run after Moses, and his children, and
his cattle into the sea, to try to ascertain what kind of persons the
Saviour commanded His Apostles, and all succeeding ministers of
the Gospel, to baptize? Such conduct, sir, is as simple as to light
a candle to enable you to see objects under the clear blaze of the
noon-day sun!!
Mr. T. next complains of us for saying, "that the New Testament
is, and of right ought to to be, the only proper directory with re-
13
gard to its ov/n ordinances.'" Yes, sir, we did -say so; we still say so;
—and we think common seir?> says so. Nay, more; we think you
would say so, sir, nor evur drj.mi of a iy thing else, were it not
that you are busily engaged in your mind to find out some way of
escape from the clear authority of that very commission with
which you very justly commenced your Treatise. The truth of
the remark against which you object is self-evident. Where, we
ask, shall we look for direction relative to gospel ordinances, or
New Testament ordinances, if not to the New Testament itself?
Again, Mr. T. complains of us for calling baptism a New Testa¬
ment ordinance. Will the gentleman be so kind as to tell us what
it is if not a New Testament ordinance? Is it an Old Testament
rite? We never heard of such a remark, or such a complaint be¬
fore. All books, creeds, catechisms, confessions of faith, and ser¬
mons, that we ever read or heard of, call baptism a New Testament
ordinance. He further states, that "we find it easier to deny the
authority of proof brought from the Old Testament than to an¬
swer the proofs therefrom." How exceedingly disingenuous is
this! Did we not fully meet the supposed proofs, viz: the Abra-
hamic Covenant, Circumcision, &c. &c., and clearly show that bap¬
tism had not the shadow of foundation there, for this very plain
reason, that baptism was a New Testament ordinance? To go
back to the very commencement of the types and shadows of the
Old Testament dispensation to obtain information in relation to a
New Testament ordinance, or positive institution of the Gospel,
would not only be derogatory to Christ and the clear light of the
Gospel dispensation, but it would be, as before observed, like light¬
ing a candle to enable us to see and distinguish objects under the
clear and full blaze of a meridian sun!! We still say the same.
Mr. T. on page Gth-says, "Some years ago the Baptists demand¬
ed ail express command or an express example for infant baptism,
but that being hard run by the Psedobaptists demanding like au¬
thority for female communion, an experience of grace, and the ob¬
servance of the first day of the week for the Christian Sabbath,
they have dropped their demand." How very wide the gentleman
is of the mark in every way! No, sir, we are neither 'hard run/
nor have we dropped our demand; or if it has been dropped at any
time, we now renew it. How dare you, sir, or any professed Min¬
ister of God, proceed without authority in the business of building
up a Gospel Church? And where is your authority if you have
neither precept nor example? Without one or the other of these,
no man dare go beyond the clear authority of the commission,
which confines baptism to believers, and believers only. But this
mode of reasoning is so perfectly absurd, that Job himself could
scarcely give it a patient hearing. 1st. It presupposes, before it
can have either weight or common sense about it, that Mr. T. does
by no means admit females to the Lord's table,—that he is oppos¬
ed to the religious observance of the Christian Sabbath,—and that
he could not be persuaded to admit a person to church member¬
ship who could tell any thing of a gracious change of heart!—and
14
that the Baptists are the only people who admit of and practice
these things 2d. It is a virtual acknowledgment that there is no
authority for these tilings in God's word; and if they are either
admitted or practised, it is without Divine authority!! But as this
will be denied, and Mr. T. will say, that he and other Pcedobap-
tists do admit of and practise all these things, th&n the argument will
be,—3d. That they are certainly justifiable in being wrong twice.
to our once! Or that our all being wrong in one thing will make
it right for them to be wrong in two things!! or, that two wrongs
will make one right!! or, that two erroneous and unscriptural
practices will amount to one correct and scriptural practice!! It
may be said, all this is little and childish. Indeed is it; but it is
that to which Mr. T.'s mode of argument naturally leads, and
which it necessarily involves. When we play with children we
must play childish play. Let us then be more mauly and sedate.
The truth is, to our mind there is sufficient scripture authority for
female communion, the observance of the Christian Sabbath, and
the requiring an experience of grace or faith previous to baptism.
But if there is no authority for these more than for infant baptism,
as Mr. T. would appear to intimate, then let all go down together.
As much as \ve love and value them, and as dear as they are to
our hearts, we are not going to receive them contrary to God's
word; nor will we receive tradition and Romish trumpery in order
to retain them. But thank God this is not the fact.
1st. Female Communion.—"When they believed Philip,preach¬
ing, &c. they were baptized both men and women." (See Acts 8:
JO.) Now a baptized believer is all that we want, and all that the
word of God requires to constitute a proper and fit communicant
at the Lord's Table; and here we have them, women as well as
men. Again,—"And upon the first day of the week, when the
disciples came together to break bread," &c. (See Acts 20: 7.) Are
riot females disciples as well as males? Most certainly And very
generally better ones too. But it may be asked,—Is there not a
text, where, speaking of the Lord's Supper, it says, "Let a man
examine himself," &c.? (See 1 Cor. 11: 28.) Certainly there is, and
this is just what we want,—"Let a man"—anthropes, the Greek
word here used, is common gender, and of necessity signifies a
woman just as much as a man Jlnthropos, a man, a woman—
plural, anthropoid people, nations. The Greek word for a man, in
contra-distinction from a woman, is JJner and not Jlnthropos.
Here then is example upon example, clear and full. Let this suffice.
Tne Christian Sabbath.~With regard to the observance of the
first day of the week, instead of the seventh, we have the' exam¬
ple of our Saviour after His resurrection, and His disciples, and
the apostles, and the first Christian Churches, in the days of the
apostles. "And upon the first day of the week," &c. (Acts 20: 7;
Rev. 1.: 10; 1 Cor. 16: 2.)
Experience before Baptism, fyc.—There is no difficulty here.
"And the Eunuch said, See, here is water, what doth hinder me
to be baptized? And Philip said, if thou belie vest with all thy
1.5
heart, thou mayest," &c. (Acts 8: 36, 37.) "He that believeth
and is baptized shall be saved," &c. (Mark 16: 16 ) But why mul¬
tiply proofs? Turn your eye where you will in the New Testa¬
ment, and you may discover them. But suffer one more: ''Sanctify
the Lord God in your hearts, and be ready always to give an an¬
swer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in
you, with meekness and fear." (1st Perer 3: 15.)
But the truth is, it is Mr. T. who is "hard pressed;" yea, pushed
over by his own arguments. For if he is determined to be s-overn-
ed by the Old Testament as to christian ordinances, worship, &c.,
then he is bound to observe the Jewish Sabbath", as the Jews yet
do; (and indeed he argues that the Jewish nation, as such, is the
true church of Christ.) He is hound, also to hold on to circumcis¬
ion; or, at least, to baptize only males,—to bring little children to
the Lord's table, for the Jews, old and young, good and bad, par¬
took of the Passover, &c.
Explanation.—We, as Baptists, care nothing about hearing an
experienc3 of grace, abstractly considered, i. e; merely for the
sake of hearing it; no, but what we want is to know, if possible,
whether the person applying for baptism is a proper subject;
whether he or she is a converted man or woman; for we dare not,
kno wingly, baptize any but believers. Nor did Philip dare to bap¬
tize the Eunuch till he was convinced that he was a believer. And
all the baptisms of which we read throughout the whole of the
New Testament, were connected with the exercise or profession
of faith.
We have thus produced many clear and full examples of Fe¬
male Communion, the observance of the Christian Sabbath, and
Experience of Grace, or evidence of faith before baptism. We
now call upon Mr. T. to produce one single instance of a similar
kind, equally clear and full, and strong, in favor of infant baptism
within the lids of God's holy word. 'We call in vain, he cannot do it.
Abrahamic Covenant.—Mr. T. has labored, from page 6th to
page 10th, to prove that the Abrahamic covenant is the only prop¬
er covenant of grace or redemption, and that there is none other.
This, however, we think is a total failure. The scheme is more¬
over perfectly at variance with the whole word of God and every
principle of sound Theology. The gentleman, in his great zeal to
establish the Abrahamic covenant, has flatly denied there being
any covenant between the Father and the Son. (See page 9.)
This doctrine was so perfectly astounding to us, that we went to
Mr. T. and asked him, "if it was indeed his doctrine?" He an¬
swered by saying, "it was his doctrine!" Thus, then, according
to Mr. T.'s views, in relation to the covenant of grace, the whole
scheme and plan of salvation, through Christ as the Redeemer, is
uprooted and overthrown at once, and Christ the Redeemer is vir¬
tually discarded and dismissed therefrom, there being neither room
nor necessity for him! Not more certainly does any cause pro¬
duce its own natural effect, than Mr. T.'s covenant-scheme goes to
throw the Saviour wholly out of the plan of salvation. This we
lh
Will shew more fully at proper times and places, during the discus¬
sion of this part of the subject. But just here we would ask Mr*
T. and the reader, does not the covenant of grace require a Head
to represent all that are concerned in that covenant? Does it not
require a Mediator? Does it not require a Redeemer? Does it
not require a Testator, &c.? There can be but one answer to all
these questions, and that is, fTiat the covenant of Grace or Re¬
demption does most certainly require all these. But are not all
these lost to the covenant, or transferred to the one with whom the'
covenant was made? And this one, according to Mr. T., being a
mere man, these things still remain virtually lost, for no mere man
can fill these offices which belong of necessity to the Covenant of
Redemption. No reasoning, in our opinion, can ever save Mr.
T.'s scheme from these startling difficulties and consequences.
All Mr. T.'s sophistry can never cover these alarming defects, dan¬
gers and difficulties from the view of the more discerning part,
'even of his own brethren. They must and will see, that his plan
is a house without any foundation,—a hull without a kernel,—a
body without a soul!
The amazing fallacy of this doctrine is equalled only by the
weakness of the arguments brought forward to sustain it. Let us
hear the arguments, or, as Mr. T. said in a certain place, "the
sophistry:—"The Father and the Son could not make an agree-
ment, because they are not two but one; and there never was a
period when they covenanted or agreed on any thing, in which be¬
fore they had no agreement; for they are unchangeable." What
a display of deep Theology! Before we proceed to other remarks,
we beg leave to say,—What a pity Mr. T. did not have some little
school boy or girl at his elbow, just to remind him, that though
the Father and Son are one in nature, yet they are two in person.
But, says he, "the period never was when they covenanted," &c.
And what then? Not that there was no covenant, but that the pe¬
riod never was when it did not exist;—that it was from everlast¬
ing, or from all eternity, and co-existent with the Deity. And this
is precisely what we want—it is that for which we contend. And
Mr. T.'s own premises establish our doctrine. They are the prem¬
ises we have always laid down, (that is, his second ground of
argument,) on which to build our doctrine of an everlasting cove¬
nant. But his own premises and conclusions are at direct war
with each other, and involve many absurdities the most gross, and
^lead to conclusions the most startling. Let us take a glance at
some of them, according to his mode of reasoning. 1st. Because
a thing always was, therefore it never was. 2d. The great work
of salvation was executed, but never devised, (for to devise would
involve a covenant). 3d. Because the Father and the Son always
agreed on the covenant; therefore, they never agreed; (for this
would involve a covenant.) 4th. The Blessed' Saviour came to
this world and suffered and bled and died for sinners, but never
agreed to come and suffer and bleed and die! for this would in¬
volve a covenant. 5th. The great work of salvation, throwrh a
17
Redeemer, was triumphantly accomplished, but then it is nothing
but a huge accident!! No scheme, no plan, no design on the
part of Deity; for all these would involve a covenant.
I hese are some of the absurdities which Mr. T.'s arguments
involve. Yea, moreover, they drive us from the use of all such
phrases as scheme, plan, design, agreement, &c. in speaking of sal¬
vation by a Redeemer; for all such expressions imply a covenant.
We will now look at some of the conclusioi^s to which his ar¬
guments lead. He says, the Father and the Son could not make
an agreement, "because they are not two but one." Now this ar¬
gument goes at once to destroy the whole plan of salvation; for if
the oneness here spoken of, is of such a nature as to preclude the
possibility of an agreement between the Father and the Son, cer¬
tainly then it ^much more completely p-eeludes the possibility of
God the Father sending God the Son into this world to die for
sinners. So, then, the matter is settled—the game is up!! And
according to Mr. T.'s own showing, the Saviour never was sent,
nor possibly could be; for "they are not two, but one" and God
coujd not send himself to die for a perishing world. Again; it
will also be borne in mind, that Mr. T. sets aside the covenant on
the ground of its ctern ty of existence, and says, "there never
was a period when they covenanted or agreed on any thing in
which before they had no agreement." Therefore, Mr. T. con¬
cludes, that of necessity there is no covenant. Now, let us apply
this reasoning to the Deity;—viz: there never was a period when
God did not exist, therefore there is no God! So, then, Mr. T. has
lauded in Atheism! But he will object to this and say, it only
proves the eternity of God's existence. Be it so, and just so say
we with regard to the covenant. As to the expressions, agreed,
entered into, &c., these are to accommodate the ideas to our powers
of comprehension. Thus it is said of God, "He looked down
from heaven to see if there were any that did good," &c.
But sve are asked for proof of this everlasting covenant. We
answer,—1st. It is found in the facts of the case; that is, we see
what great things God has done for a fallen world. Here we dis¬
cover the grandest display of the power of God, the wisdom of
God, the goodness of God, in the recovery of a lost and ruined
world! We know this was not done without design. This would
be to sink the Deity below the most stupid of men, in point of
wisdom. Where is the man of common sense, who would engage
in an enterprise the most grand in its nature, stupendous in its
consequences, and costly in its execution, without mature reflec¬
tion? But, do you ask us to prove to you that there ever was a
watch-maker? We hold a watch before your eyes. Thus you
find the proof in the fact of the case. So we say in relation to
the covenant. We hold out to view a world redeemed. When
did God devise the plan? From all eternity. Hence the eter¬
nity of the covenant. God is of one mind and changeth not.
There never was a time or period when he had not dtsigned to
save man. For God to bfoin to design, would imply progressive-
IS
ness in knowledge, and consequently, imperfection. This we can¬
not admit for a moment in relation to the Deity. This, then, is a
mere synopsis of the proofs arising oat of the facts of the case.
It is one eternal NOW with the Great Jehovah. He sees the end
from, the beginning. A thousand years with Him are as one day,
and one day as a thousand years.
So, then, Mr. T. and the reader may both see, that when he was
laboring so hard to prove "that the period never was when the
Father and Son did not agree," &c.. he was ou our ground, and
working exactly to our hand. But the difficulty was this: he was
contending for the foundation on which rests and towers to infinity,
God's grand superstructure of an everlasting covenant from all
eternity, and His purposes of grace and mercy through Christ to a
fallen world! We say he was contending for this foundation on
which to build his own little pigmy scheme of no ^ovenantlf
Merciful God! pity the dear man, and open his eyes. We are
perfectly aware of the reason why Mr. T. is so sensitive on the
subject of this everlasting covenant between the Father and the
Son: He knows full ivell that the doctrine of God's sovereign,
electing grace is intimately connected with it; and human pride'
does not Like to say, "By grace I am what I am." We have giv¬
en a hasty outline of the evidences of the covenant between the
Father and the Son, arising out of the facts of the case.
2d. We shall introduce, briefly, what some good and orthodox
divines have said on the subject. We could bring forward a great
array of authors in our favor, who have written largely and
learnedly'on this subject—such as Witsius, Calvin, Gill, Flavel,
Scott, Owens, Baxter, Dwight, &c. &c., all of whom, with the ex¬
ception of Gill, were Pgedobaptists—but this we think unnecessa¬
ry, and content ourselves by introducing only four. If Mr. T. will
not believe these, "neither would he believe though one rose from
the dead." The first author we bring forward is the Rev. S. J,
Cassels; this we do because he was well known to the people in
this section of our country. In his lectures, he says:
"The Apostle Paul, in Eph. 1. 3, 4, thus expresses himself: "Blessed
be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with
all spiritual blessings, in heavenly places, in Christ, according as He hath
chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world.' Now certainly,,
(continues Mr. C.) if it can be said believers were chosen in Christ before
the foundation of the world, that covenant of mercy through which they
were chosen must also have existed from eternity." (See C.'s Lectures p.
p. 169 and 170.)
This same sentiment Mr. C. reiterates again and again, and cites
us to a great many passages of Scripture in proof of this doc¬
trine. Prov. 8: 22, 23; 1 Peter 1: 20, &c.
Henry says, on Eph. 1: 4, "Here we have the date of this act of love.
It was before the foundation of the world; not only before God's people had
a being, but before the world had a beginning; for they were chosen in
Ihe Council of God from all eternity."
The next author we produce is no less a character than Presi¬
dent Edwards. He says:
19
"There were many tilings done in order to this work of redemption be-
Tore that; (the fall of man,) some things were done before the world was
created; yea, from all eternity. The persons of the Trinity, were, as
it were, confederated in a design and covenant of redemption, in which cov¬
enant the Father had appointed the Son, and the Son had undertaken the
work, and all things to be accomplished in the work were stipulated and
agreed. The creation of heaven was in order to the work of redemption.
Matt. 25: 34—'Come ye blessed of my Father inherit the Kingdom pre¬
pared for you from the foundation of the world,1 'Angels were created in
order to this work'—Keb. 1: 14." (See Ed. on Red. vol. 2, p. 14, 15.")
We shall next introduce a good old Methodist Preacher, the far
and justly famed George Whitfield. Whitfield says:
"God the Father and God the Son had entered into a covenant concern¬
ing the salvation of the elect fiom all eternity, wherein God the Father
promised if he would offer his soul a sacrifice for sin he should see his seed,
&c. This is a consistent and Sciptural scheme, without holding to which
we must run into sad extremes," &c. (See vol. of his serm. p. 15.)—
Thus did this great and good man write and preach.
3d. Paul says: "Now the God of peace that brought again
from the dead our Lord Jesus Christ, that great Shepherd of the
sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant," &c. (See
Heb. 13: 20.) Peter says: "We are bought with the precious
blood of Christ as of a lamb without blemish and without spot,
who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world,"
&c. See 1st Peter 1: IS, 19, 20; also, Isa. 55: 3; Zech. 11: 9:
Heb. 10: 20; 2 Tim. 1: 9; Rom. 8: 29; Rev. 13: S.
We have thus clearly and fully proved to the entire satisfaction,
we trust, of every candid and unprejudiced Inind, a covenant of
grace and redemption between the Father and the Son. 1st.
From proofs arising out of the facts of the case. 2d. From the
plain testimony of God's word. We have also shewn, that our
views are corroborated by many eminent Peedobaptist divines.
We shall now turn our attention more particularly to what Mr. T.
has to say of the Abrahamic covenant.
In speaking of this covenant, Mr. T. lias sprinkled some two or
three pages over pretty thickly with 'everlasting covenant."
marked in capital letters. Now how did it happen that he never
once recollected to tell his readers, that in this very same sense the
land of Canaan was to be an everlasting possession? See Gen.
17: s—"And I will give unto thee and thy seed after thee, the
land in which thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an
everlasting posses ion," &c. We-are rather of opinion Mr. T. did
not care much about his readers knowing this, lest some of them
might happen to remember that the Turks, the avowed enemies to
the christian religion, are now in possession of that everlasting
possession; or, that the Turks now own the land of Canaan. We
say it is most likely Mr. T. was willing that his readers should not
be reminded of these things, lest they might begin to think these
two everlastings were about the same; that everlasting possession,
as applied to the land of Canaan, was about as strong as everlasting
when applied to the Abrahamic covenant. Was Mr. T. fearful his
20
readers might begin to look at these things, and so doubt the foice
of his arguments? Did Mr. T. "remember to forget" this other
everlasting? Was this right, honest and candid in Mr. T. towards
his readers? And just so, too, with regard to circumcision. It is
gone; yet it was said it shall be '-in your flesh for an everlasting
covenant." (See Gen. 17: 13. It will not do to say, we have yet
got it in baptism, for baptism is not in the flesh. This ought to
convince Mr. T. too, that one did not come in the place of the oth¬
er. But admitting, for the sake of argument, that one came in
place of the other, (which, however, is not the factv) we do not
expect baptism to be everlasting. One thing- is certain, the land
of Canaan is gone that was promised to Abraham and his seed,
after bim for an everlasting possession. Mr. T. ought to have
explained all these tilings to his readers.
President Edwards considers the Abrahamic covenant as no¬
thing more than a revelation of that covenant made in eternity
between the Father and the Son, of whici* there had been many
revelations made previous to the time, of Abraham; as in the case
of the seed of the woman bruising the head of the serpent, in
communications with Enoch, Noah, Sic.: but that to Abraham'a
clearer revelation was afforded than had previously been made.
This, to our mind, appears to be the only proper rational and scrip¬
tural view of this subject. The transaction with Abraham was
but a revelation of the everlasting covenant made between the
Father and the Son before time began or man was formed.* (See
Ed. Hist. Red. vol. 2. p. p. 14, 28, S9, 47, 50. 57, Sic. Sic,)
In our objections t"o considering the Abrahamic covenant as real¬
ly and truly the covenant of grace or redemption, we said, "That
Abraham was not competent to measure up to the requirements of
that covenant," &c. To this Mr. T. answers,—"When Mr. K.
finds a people who be\ievc that Abraham died for them, he may
make these remarks," &c. But the truth is, the amazing absurdi¬
ty of Mr. T.'s scheme is such as to compel him to depend upon
Abraham for life and salvation!! Reader, attend! Remember
Mr. T. denies any covenant, agreement, or any thing of the kind
between the Father and the Son in relation to the salvation of man!
and that the covenant of grace was made alone with Abraham.
He with whom this covenant of grace or redemption is made, or
was made, is constituted of necessity, the covenant-head, and on
him all must depend, for the benefit of whom, the blessings or
benefits of the covenant are intended. This is clearly self-evident.
This was the case in the covenant of works. This was made with
Adam—he stood for the human family, was their federal or cove¬
nant head. He fell, and they fell with or in him. Then it is
clear, if the covenant of grace or redemption was made with Abra¬
ham alone, he is thereby constituted the covenant-head, and on
*As we ate anxious the public mind should be enlightened on this, (and all
important subjects.) we refer them to the Evangelical Family Library, con¬
taining Edwards' History of Redemption, as many families have that Library,
who have not his larger works, from which wo have been making extracts.
21
him all must depend for life and salvation who are embraced in
that covenant. He must be the Mediator, Redeemer and Testator
of the covenant with him; for the covenant of redemption, as be¬
fore remarked, requires ail these. lie must make restitution to
the infinite demands of a vi>.)ln'r:."l law. ;:;iJ satisfy justice in all
the infinity of its requisitions, God made il.e covenant of works
with _ Adam when in a sti.fe of holiness and morally capable of
keeping that covenant; but he broke it, became corrupt, ruined
and corrupted him-eit and ail lor whom he siood! But strange,
surprising inconsistency! that God should make the covenant of
grace or redemption with the iiilen son of a corrupt father!! A
covenant that is to grapple with Infinity in every department, of
its requirements! Your scheme, Mr. T., requires all this of Abra¬
ham in order to consistency. Hence, we say, you throw Christ
out of the plan of redemption wholly, and have no more use for Him,
according to this scheme, than a torn leaf of a last year's A la ma
nac. Hence, we say too, your scheme has no Redeemer, no Media¬
tor! This probably accounts for, or is the real cause why there is
so much leaning towards works as meritorious in point of salva¬
tion. And what else can be done? Where look, and on what de¬
pend? Alas! Mr. T., we repeat, your scheme is a house without
any foundation on which to rest!—a hull without a kernel!!—a
body without a soul!!!
We hold, that the Abrahamic covenant was indeed a gracious
covenant, but not the covenant of grace. God was graciously
pleased to give a clear revelation to Abraham'of what was done,
and more especially of what would be done; and that the prom¬
ised Seed of the woman, the blessed Messiah, in whom all the
families of the earth were tQ be blessed, should descend, according
to the flesh, from him. This much hud never before been reveal¬
ed; i. e. from whom or what particular family the Saviour, as to
the flesh, should come. Abraham believed, saw Christ's day by
an eye of faith, and rejoiced. This is the amount, in substance, of
the Abrahamic covenant.
In taking leave of this subject, we would ask, what did God
promise to'Abraham? 1st. A numerous offspring. 2d That
kings should descend from him. 3d. Great temporal prosperity.
4th. The land of Canaan. 5th. That the Messiah should descend,
according to the flesh, from him. Now, we ask, have not all these
promisesbeen faithfully and literally fulfilled long since? To what
believer, or to whom of all God's children do any of these promi¬
ses now belong, only so far as relates to the blessings piomised
through the Messiah? The Turks now possess the land o£ Canaan;
but Mr. T. has his land in Burke county, Georgia. Blessed are
the poor in spirit, for their's is the Kingdom of Heaven. And the
poor have the Gospel preached to them. And thiough much ta¬
bulation we are to enter the Kingdom.
Circumcision was 1st—A seal of the righteousness of Aura-
ham's faith, which he had yet being uncircumcised; and, as Presi¬
dent Edwards says, was 2d—"The principal wall of separation;
22
it chiefly distinguished Abraham's scud /rum the world and kept
up a distinct ion," &c. &c. (See Ed. on Red. vol. 2. p. 58.) Hence
we see, that the argument from circumcision for infant baptism,
is utterly groundless. Because, as to the first, the]/ have no laith,
the righteousness of which wants sealing; and as to the second,
the necessity of the separating wall, and that for which it was in¬
tended, has ceased to exist; for the Messiah has come: and blessed
be Gocl, the wall of partition is broken down. See Eph. 2,13, 11,
15, &c. This, we say, is perfectly conclusive.
On page 9, Mr. T. says, in the way of a burlesque, on our views
of the covenant of grace or redemption: "People were saved
through the atonement of Christ before His death!" Certainly,
sir; if not, how was Abraham himself and all God's children
saved before Christ's death? How else would you have it, sir?
Does not this betray the most amazing ignorance? Their faith in
a Redeemer was prospective; ours retrospective; and what was
the difference in point of virtue? As President Edwards
remarks, and as every well informed Theologian must agree: "As
soon as ever man fell, Christ entered upon His Mediatorial work.
He had undertaken it before the world ivas made. He stood en¬
gaged to the Father, from all eternity, to appear as man's me¬
diator, and to take on Him that office when there should be occa¬
sion," &c. &c. (See Ed. on Redemp. vol. 2. p. 26.) Where, we
would ask, is the man of. the most scanty information, in regard to
Theology, who does not perfectly agree to all this? Christ entered
upon His Mediatorial office as soon as man fell, and thousands of
years before His incarnation and death; else what kept man from
sharing the fate of fallen angels? Men were saved then, as well
as now, through the merits of that atonement and satisfaction that
was o/terwards actually made; for it was then virtually made.
In the same strain of burlesque, Mr. T. says: "So then people
could have the benefits of the covenant before it was made!" Is
not this sporting with every principle of truth and moral honesty?
Had we not contended throughout, that the covenant of grace was
made prior to man's creation? Before the world had been form¬
ed, &c.? Reader, do turn to our sermon, page 15th, and lea^p in
what estimation to hold the man who would thus torture and mis¬
represent, both our sentiments and our statements!! He also ridi¬
cules our quotation of Paul, where he speaks of the "blood of the
everlasting covenant," (Heb. 13. 20,) and tauntingly says, "We
have always understood, by the blood of the covenant, the blood
of Christ." Yes, Mr. T., and so have we, strictly speaking, and
no doubt.so did Paul. But as it was that glorious covenant that
was made from all.eternity, that Christ sealed with His own blood,
hence Paul, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, calls it the
"blood of the everlasting covenant." Mr. T., if you wish to find
fault in this matter, go to Paul, or rather, to the Holy Spirit, and
there battle it out;—we only quoted what was written.
On page 10th, we are said to have contradicted both ourselves
and Bishop Hoadly, by calling the blood of Christ the "seal of
23
the covenant;'1 and also by saying, that "believers are sealed with
the Holy Spirit of promise. No contradiction at all, sir. The
Sprit applies to the believer through faith, the efficacy of that pre¬
cious blood, by which Jesus Christ sealed the covenant, and is
thereby sealed, by the Spirit, in the application of this blood.
All as plain as A. B. C. We do pity the man who cannot see this;
and still more the man, who seeing, will try to cavil. ,
On page 10th, we are called 011 to produce other reasons, if we
have any, why the covenant of grace and the Abrahamic cove¬
nant are not the same. We can easily do so, when those we have
advanced are answered; bat till then, why advance others? We
do now solemnly aver, that not one of our objections have been an¬
swered. They have not been even fairly met. There has, been
much quibbling and much effort to ridicule, and to appear smart,
&c.; but our objections remain unanswered. It would be too tedi¬
ous to retrace the whole ground to prove what we say, but we shall,
for an example, take our sixth and last objection: Obj. 6th. "The seal
itself shews, that this was not the covenant of grace; not only be¬
cause it was of such a nature as to exclude the female world, but
because the blood of Christ is the seal of the covenant. Bishop
Hoadly says, "That the blood of Christ, as shed for us, or His
death, is the only seal of the covenant."
Now, will the reader please to notice, that in this objection of
ours, three difficulties occur: viz. 1st. How could the blood of Christ
and circumcision seal the same thing, or be seals of the same cove¬
nant? 2d. if the Abrahamic covenant be the covenant of grace or
redemption, then why are females debarred from its benefits in
consequence of the nature of the seal? And, 3d. If it be answered
females are not debarred from the benefits of the covenant, then
how is it that persons are entitled to the benefits of a covenant,
ivithout the seal of that covenant?
Now let us see how Mr. T. meets and answers all these difficult
ties? His answer is, " Mr. Iv. on page 19, contradicts himself,
and Bishop Hoadly too. There he tells us believers are sealed
with the Holy Spirit of promise, and quotes Paul as a witness,
that there he is right " Here is the whole of his answer; no more
to the purpose than if he had said three and two make five And
this has been the case, or worse, with the greater part, or all that
we have said. No manly meeting or answering, but childish
quibblings and evasions.—We stand unanswered.
2nd part. Old Testament, &c. Here, on page 11th, Mr. T.
commences his effort to shew that the Old and New Testament
Churchjs are the same. He insinuates that it had been said, God
had no church till the days of John the Baptist. This is a perfect
gratuity. We had neither said nor intimated any such thing; for
we believe God always had a spiritual people, in greater or less
number from the time of righteous Abel, down to the present time.
We said that God had a Church in the Jewish nation, but that na¬
tion, as such, that is, as a nation, was not the true church of God.
" They are not all Israel that are of Israel." (See Rom. 9. 6.)—
24
That man must be insane, who will say, that all the Jewish nation
are the true Israel or children of God. It is most extraordinary
folly, in any man, to contend thi^s point. Who were the avowed
enemies ana persecutors of our blessed Saviour? The Jews, as a
nation. Of whom does the Saviour say, ^e are of your father,
the Devil? Whom does John call a generation of vipers? ^ Strange
that God's children had the devil for their father! and, instead of
being like doves and lambs, were like vipers!! Reader,.turn to
the 2fid chapter of Matthew, and behold the character which the
Saviour gives of this people: hypocrites, blind guides, fools, vipers,
serpents, &c. Who were continually trying to ensnare the Saviour
in his speech? Who sent officers to take him? Who were ever
ready to stone him? Who told him plainly he had a devil? The
Jewish nation did all this, and a thousand, times more. Yet Mr.
T., to make out a perfectly desperate case, would have you to be¬
lieve the Jewish nation were all good church members!! and fit
members or subjects for a Gospel church!! But, reader, take no¬
tice, all these very characters were members of the Jewish nation¬
al church, and many of them Teachers in the Synagogues! Indeed,
their chief Priests and Scribes were notorious for their most impla¬
cable and persecuting spirit. But, strange to tell, Mr. T. insists
that the Jewish and Christian church are all the same, only a little
differently dressed, or words to this effect. Paul tells us plainly,
that the difference is so great, between the Jewish and Gospel
church, that Christ himself, when on earth, could not have been a
Priest in the Jewish church, though he is the only Priest in the
Christian church. "For the Priesthood being changed, there is
made of necessity a change of the law." Heb. 7. 12.
Proselyte Baptism.—Mr. T., in attempting to pass from the
Jewish to the Christian church, or from the rituals of the Law, to
the ordinances of the Gospel, on his principles, meets a great chasm,
and must either make a most amazing stride to get over this chasm,
or throw something into it, on which to step. He prefers the latter,
and concludes to roll Jewish proselyte baptism into it. He tells us
on page 1 Ith, " Jews admitted proselytes by baptism," &c. and
that "we have the unanimous testimony of their most ancient,
learned and authentic writers. The males they received by baptism
and circumcision; the women by baptism only." For this he gives
W'esley for authority.
Now we are compelled to say to Mr. T. and to the world, this
statement is not founded on fact; of which we can certainly con¬
vince Mr. T. himself, and every candid reader. Josephus, the
prince of Jewish historians, makes no mention of any such custom
among the Jews. Philo, another of their best historians, is perfect¬
ly silent on the subject. It is not to be found in the writings of
Moses, or any other Old Testament writers. And where now is
this unanimous testimony gone? Again: Learned Paedobaptists,
such as Owen, Lardner, Benson, &c. declare against the idea.
Benson says, if there was no such thing in the Old Testament,
nnr in the ADocraphv. nor in Josephus, nor in Philo, what at this
25
age of the world signify the conjectures of a Lightfootand a Wall?
Further; Dr. Gil) tells us, the " Genuine Targums and the Mis-
nah, written about the middle of the second century, say nothing
on this subject."* See Rob. His. pp. 3G to 51.
But it Air. T. will only look at Ex. 12. 4Sth and 49th verses, he
will there see this question settled forever. God has there express¬
ly commanded that there shall be but the one law, for the home-
born and for the stranger: and this one law is circumcision.
"And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the
passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised; and then
let him come near and keep it, and he shall be as one that is born
in the land; for no uncircunicised person shall eat thereof. One
laic shall be to him that is homeborn and unto the stranger that
sojonrneth among you." (Ex. 12: 4S, 49.)
Several instances are recorded of the admitting proselytes into
the Jewish church, both men and women, as Rahab, Ruth, &c. but
not a word is said about baptizing them.
Now, reader, with this Divine authority for circumcision alone,
staring Mr. T. in the face, and to which he had. himself referred,
but took good care not to quote the words, he turns right round
and says, the heathen were admitted both by circumcision and
baptism! (See p. 11 ) The question which the Saviour asked the
Jews, in relation to John's baptism, plainly proves there was no
such custom as proselyte baptism among them. For if such had
been the fact, there would, 1st. Have been no propriety in the ques¬
tion; and 2d. There would have been neither difficulty nor danger
in answering it. This is as clear as day. But does not Mr. T.
see that his cause is floundering, and is perfectly hopeless? Else,
why struggle so hard to rest the sole of his foot on mere Jewish
tradition? This is the very sin for which the Saviour so repeated¬
ly and sharply reproved the Jews—"Teaching for doctrine the
commandments of men." (Matt. 15. 3-9, &c.) Now the truth is,
this tradition, for which Mr. T. labors so hard, has not the shadow
of probability on which to rest; but if it had, still it would be mere
tradition. And of what authority is that? Ah! helpless, hopeless
cause! How gladly would it rest its foot on tradition, Jewish tra¬
dition! but even that is denied it.
Next, on page 12th, Mr. T. contends stoutly for Infant baptism
from "The promise is to you and your children," &c. Acts 2. 38, 39.)
This is worse than childish, and is arrested at once—1st from the
fact of the thing promised, viz. the gift of the Holy Ghost,
whereby they should be enabled to prophecy, &c.; which could by
no means apply to infants. 2d. The Greek word, fekna, render¬
ed children, properly signifies posterity, offspring, &c., and not in-
*Sir Norton Knatchbull states, that the Jewish Rabbins differed among
themselves relative to the existence of such a rite. He says that Rabbi
Joshua vv.is the first who asserted it, and that Rabbi Eliezer contradicts
the statement of Rabbi Joshua and affirms that a true proselyte was circum-
n.'cftd. but no't baptized. (See Supplement to the Athenian Oracle, vol. i.
2n
fants. "If ye were Abraham's children, (teknuJ ye would do the?
works of Abraham." John 8. 39. According to Mr. T's argu¬
ments, there must have been wonderful infants, that could do the
works of Abraham. Has not Mr. T. one or two daughters that
are grown? Have they ceased to be his children because they
are grown? Dr. Hammond says, "If any have made use of that
very unconcludent argument, Acts 2. 39., in support of infant
baptism, I have nothing to say in support of them." (See his
works, vol. 1. p. 490.) Drs. Whitby, Doddridge, Limborch, &c., in
their notes on the place, express themselves to the same effect.
Dr. Limborch's express words, are, "The argument very com¬
monly taken from this passage, Acts, 2. 39., for infant baptism, is
of no force; and good for nothing." (See his Com. on the place.)
This is sufficient. These were all Pgedobaptists.
On page 11th, Mr. T. says, "The Church has laid aside circum¬
cision, and uses baptism in its stead." Now this is a flat contra¬
diction, in the very nature of the case. If the Jews had used cir¬
cumcision, and baptism both, as Mr. T., with Mr. Wesley's help,
has been contending, he could have said, according to his views,
the church had laid aside circumcision, but had retained baptism;
but not that one came in place of the other. So then Mr. T. has
helped us out with our doctrine, in which we deny that "baptism
has come in the place of circumcision," and has knocked his own
third general proposition dead, viz: "That baptism stands in
place of circumcision." No, sir, it must stand in its own place, ac¬
cording to your own shewing.
To prove, however, thatbaptism came in place of circumcision,
Mr. T. points us to Col. 2: 11, 12, but he has not dared to quote
the words—that would have opened the eyes of the reader. Is it
possible any man can thus dare to pervert the plain word of God!
The circumcision here spoken of is that of the heart, "made with¬
out hands" through the operation of the Holy Spirit. Is water
baptism performed without hands? Job himself would certainly
find use for his patience in such a case as this! Does Mr. T. bap¬
tize without hands? Mr. T. says, John refused to baptize the
Pharisees and Saducees "on account of their wickedness." Very
good, sir; that is a general truth. They were exceedingly wicked,
justly comparable to a generation of vipers! The Sadducees, in
addition to their wicked practices, were in their faith Deists. But,
sir, remember these very wicked men were members of the Jew¬
ish national church; or, if you had rather, we will leave out the
word national, and say, they were members of the Jewish Church.
And they had as good a right to all the ordinances and immunities
of that Church as John himself had. Yea, the whole body of the
unbelieving Jewish nation enjoyed all the rights of the Jewish
Church by as valid a title as John or any of the apostles of Christ.
Now, sir, you see these Jews are circumcised and are members of
the Jewish church; now, whatever entitled them to these, must
and will entitle them to baptism and membership in the christian
church, if baptism came in the place of circunicision^udlUtLJew-
21
ish and christian churches are the same. But do you not see there
is no possible chance for either? John calls them a generation of
vipers, and utterly refuses to baptize them. Here then is proof
positive and beyolid all contradiction, that baptism did not come
in place of circumcision, and that the christian and Jewish church¬
es are radically different. Still Mr. T. would have us believe that
there is no difference between the Old and New Testament dis¬
pensations, nor in the qualifications of members now and then.
But John taught a very different doctrine. He tells them, "the
axe is laid at the root of the tree." There was going to be a
mighty down cutting—a mighty cutting off! The floor, the Jew¬
ish church and nation, was going to be purged—the wheat and the
chaff separated! This certainly looks like a mighty revolution,
was about to take place; yea, and it did take place, and Mr. T.
knows it, if he only had moral courage to acknowledge it.
On page 15th, in controverting our remarks with regard to the
seal, Mr. T. says: "St. Paul calls circumcision a seal of the right¬
eousness of faith." This is just what we contend for. But we
ask Mr. T. when he baptizes an infant, is it the seal of the right¬
eousness of faith that he applies? Does he believe that infant
possesses the righteousness of faith? He cannot. Then what is
it he seals? . A non-entity—just exactly nothing! Why then ap¬
ply the seal when there is nothing to seal? Mr. T. do give it up,
and fight no longer against every principle of common sense.
On page 1 (ith, Mr. T. boasts, most stoutly, that he has established
the right of infants to church membership, according to the princi¬
ples of the Abrahamic covenant and circumcision, and "challenges
any man to show a repealing act." To this we answer, as we
did in our sermon, by holding up tor his' vie w an entire New Tes¬
tament, a neiv will, and tell him, every thing not transferred to
and found in this new will or Testament, in relation to the ordi¬
nance of baptism, the proper subjects of this ordinance, &c. is of
necessity repealed-, so says common sense. But, Mr. T., save
your shouts, till you are sure of victory. Remember, sir, (and we
want the reader to notice this particularly,) that your chief foun¬
dation stone, on which your baptism rests, is Jewish proselyte
baptism. Take away this, and down goes your building! Well,
sir, it has been entirely taken away, and you know it. Then, of
course your building is down! But as before remarked suppose
you could establish Jewish proselyte baptism; even then it would
be only tradition, and would not do for authority on which to
build a Gospel Church. So your foundation is doubly gone!!
But in this shameful scramble after Jewish proselyte baptism, we
ask you, sir, where is the Word of God? Where is your commis¬
sion? Wiiat have you done with it? The Saviour gave a com¬
mission, sir, in relation to this very matter, positive, full, clear.
What more would you have? We say to you, be governed by
your commission, sir, as a good christian minister ought to be.
On page ] 6th, Mr. T. still appears to be in great perplexity at
oar idea of a Jewish national church, and wishes we had "eJc-
28
plained the matter a little." Surely Mr. T. cannot be in earnest,
in wishing to deny that the Jewish Church was national. Every
person that belonged to the Jewish nation also belonged to the
Jewish church; every Jew that was properly a member ot one was
a member of the other, without any regard to moral character.
And as to the distinction between the Jewish national church, as
such, and the true children of God in that nation, there can be no
difficulty. Paul is very plain 011 this subject: " I hey are not all
Israel that are of Israel;" (Rom. 9: 6,) "Neither because they
are the seed of Abraham, are they all children." (Rom. 9: 7.)
Again, Paul speaks of "a remnant according to the election of
grace." (Rom. 11: 5.) "Though the number of the children of
Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved."
(Rom. 9: 27.) Does not this teach Mr. T. that among the thou¬
sands of wicked and unbelieving Jews, who belonged to the Jew¬
ish national church, there were but very few who were God's real
children? There is, indeed, no difficulty 011 this subject; nor did
we ever hear of any till now.
JMr. T. asks, "which of the two had the ark of the covenant?"
We answer, that the Jewish nation having the ark of the covenant
did not constitute it, as such, i. e. as a nation, the real spiritual
church of God; and Mr. «T. knows it did not. Mr. T..asks again:
Which did our Saviour visit? This is a most unfortunate question
for Mr. T., and it ought to have opened his eyes to the propriety of
our views, in making a distinction. The Saviour "came unto his
own," that is, his own nation, according to the flesh. The Sa¬
viour, as to the flesh, was ol the Jewish nation, and in this
sense he tells the woman of Samaria, "salvation is of the Jews."
But, sir, though he came unto his own, yet his own received him
not. Strange! that his "own real, true and spiritual people should
not receive him, but that he should appear unto them "as a root
out of dry ground," &c. But, "to as many as did receive him
to them gave he power to become the sons of God." This clear¬
ly shews, that till now they were not the real sons of God, though
nominally so. Again; "which were born not of blood," &c.
Now every Jewish child, was born heir to all the rights and immu¬
nities'of that nation; but not so in God's true or spiritual church.
To enter this, "you must be born again, not of blood, nor of the
will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." Will this
satisfy the gentleman?
Mr. T. reminds us, very strongly of Nicodemus, to whom the
doctrine of spirituality was most perplexing and strange; and tho'
he was a teacher in Israel, a teacher in the Jewish national church,
yet so perfectly ignorant of the doctrine of a spiritual faith, that
when he heard of being "born again," he began to cast about in
his mind, "how a man when he was old should enter the second
time into his mother's womb and be born again." Yet this was a
teacher in that very Israel that Mr. T. would represent to be all
spiritual. If such were the teachers what were the taught?
Mr. T. asks again: "Which met in the temple?" This is anoth-
20
er most unfortunate question for the gentleman's cause, as will ap¬
pear in the sequel. The Saviour lashed and drove these very
wretches (Mr. T.'sgood, pious, spiritual people,) out of the Temple,
and told then) they had made it "a den op thieves." We leave
Mr. T. and the blessed Saviour to settle this matter, whether it was
God's spiritual worshippers he drove out of the Temple; and how
the pious worshipping of God in His own house could convert it
into a den of thieves. Mr. T, brings forward Buttenvorth to de-
cide*this matter, and says, "He speaks of but one." He then
gives us what Buttenvorth says, "Church signifies," (4) the peo¬
ple of the Jews, who were the Church and the people of God."
And is it possible that Mr T. would thus wilfully misrepresent
Buttenvorth, and thus endeavor to lead astray the mind of the
reader? You say, "he speaks of but one." Can/you, sir, before
God, say that Buttenvorth, in his definition of the word church,
"speaks of but one," as you have here asserted? Well, it so hap¬
pens that we too have a Buttenvorth, and the reader shall hear
what he really does say. Buttenvorth says:
"Church, s. .signifies, (I.) a particular congregation of believers in Christ,
united together in the ordei of the Gospel, 1 Cor. 1: 2, Rom. 2. 7—l(2.)
All the elect of God from the beginning to the end of time, who make np
but one bod)' of which Christ is the head, Col. 1: 18—(3.) Believers in
one family, Rom. 16: 5, Col. 4: 5, Phil. 1. 2—(4) The people of the
Jews, who were the church and people of God, Acts 7: 38—(5.) A multi¬
tude assembled, good or bad, Acts 19: 32. 39."
Now, reader, look at this. Does Buttenvorth speak of but one;
and that one, "the people of the Jews, who were the church and
people of God?" No: Buttenvorth speaks of Jive; and the very
first signification he gives is the very one for which we have ever
contended; and the one concerning the Jews is the fwirth significa¬
tion. Yet Mr. T. asserts that "he speaks of but one!!" Comment
is useless; we leave you to form your own estimate of the man.
On page 17th, Mr. T. cries out with emphasis, and with consum¬
mate contempt, "An old covenant, but a new will!" Most cer¬
tainly, sir. A covenant from all eternity; and just so old that the
period or point in eternity never was when it was not; but still a
new will or Testament, by which this old covenant is to be admin¬
istered. This very circumstance ought to have opened the man's
eyes, if they could be opened, to see the propriety^ and truth of
our views. By his own showing, the covenant of grace or re¬
demption is as old as the days of Abraham, and that there is a
.new will or Testament made since, the gentleman will surely not
deny. The truth is this, the old covenant of grace was adminis¬
tered under the Old Testament dispensation by promises, sacrifices,
types, prophecies, &c. But under the New Testament dispensa¬
tion, by the preaching of the Gospel, baptism, the Lord's Supper,
&c. And where is the school boy so ignorant as not to know all
this? As there was to be a new and different administration of this
same covenant, God gave us a New Testament, explanatory of
His holy will in relation to this new dispensation of the covenant.
Hence the old covenant, but a new will, m relation to the adminis-
:*0
tration of that covenant. This very circumstance ought to con¬
vince every reflecting mind of the entire impropriety of running
back to the old dispensation of this covenant, to understand how
the dispensation or administration of it is to he conducted,, when
God has given us a New Testament or will in relation to this very
matter. Thus to act is virtually refusing to be governed by the
new will. It is virtually implicating the wisdom of God in hav¬
ing given it, as a work of supererogation. It is virtually saying,
that the old dispensation, wrapped up in all its types and shadows,
is still more clear than the new, under all the brighter rays of Gos¬
pel light!!"
We know Mr. T. has labored hard, in different parts of his Trea¬
tise, to leave the impression on the public mind, that we are oppo¬
sed to the Old Testament, and would set it entirely aside. Not so;
God forbid. We are as much in favor of the Old Testament as
Mr. T. can be, in so far as it has not been abrogated by the New.
We believe it was written by Divine inspiration; that it throws
light upon the New Testament, and the New reflects it back again
upon the Old. That in many things the New and the Old mutually
explain each other, and without the one we could not well under¬
stand the other. We believe all this, and much more. So wehope
the public mind will not be misled in this matter.
On page 17th, Mr. T. is again endeavoring to prove infant bap¬
tism by k'Moses in the cloud and in the sea;" but as we have al¬
ready answered what he has to say on this subject, it is unneces¬
sary to dwell on it here longer than is sufficient to Repeat, that Paul
alluded to this fact merely as a figure of our baptism, and not as
affording any authority as to the proper subject of baptism; for if
so, it would prove too much, and require us to baptize our cattle,
&c.; for they underwent the baptism here spoken of as well as the
people. We refer the reader to what we have already said on this
subject elsewhere.
On pages 18 and 19, Mr. T. endeavors to prove infant baptism
from the fact of their bringing infants to the Saviour; not in¬
deed that he contends that these infants were baptized, for this
he knew was not the fact, but as fit subjects for the Kingdom
of Heaven. So then Mr. T. would reprove his Lord and Mas¬
ter for not having done His duty. Does not this circumstance
afford positive proof, that we ought not to baptize our children,
else why were not these baptized? Are we not taught in this in¬
stance .just how far to go? That we'ought to bring our children to
Christ continually, that He may bless them? That we ought to
dedicate them to God daily? But to baptize them, without author¬
ity, would be a work of supererogation, and we might well ex¬
pect the chilling rebuke, "who hath required this at your hands?"
Let us look at this subject seriously. We believe in infant
salvation as much as our PaBdobaptist brethren possibly can do.
But they are not saved by faith, or through the belief of the
truth as it is in the Gospel. For if infants believed, then would
they all be believers before they could hear and understand the Gos-
31
pel. And if this were the fact, what goes with their faith as they
advance in life? That the benefits of the atonement, through the
blood of Christ, are applied to infants, and that they are saved, we
.do fully believe; but the modus operandi, or way and manner in
and through which these things are effected, God has not fully, if
♦at all, revealed to us. But so far as we can see, it is not through
faith, for faith %-hich is necessary to the salvation of adults, is not
the necessity of nature, but the necessity of Divine Appoint¬
ment; and this faith, which is the necessity of Divine appoint¬
ment, must, according to the commission, precede baptism; hence,
the necessity of baptizing believers, but not infants. And if in¬
fants will go to heaven without this faith, why baptize them, unless
we believe it to be a saving ordinance?—which'in fact was the very
thing that gave rise to infant baptism; of which any one may be¬
come convinced by looking into its history.
On page 20th, Mr. T. challenges us to produce several instances
of household baptism, under certain restrictions, &c., promising
that if we do, he will give up the arguments for infant baptism
from that quarter. In answer to this challenge, we are authorised
by the Rev. J. PoLhill to say, that in 1839 he baptized two house¬
holds at Piney Grove; and in the same year, one household at
Sardis. Also, during the same year, there was one household bap¬
tized at Eotsford. We are moreover informed, and authorised by
the Clerk of the Church at Providence to say, that five in¬
stances of the kind have occurred in that church. We have no
earthly doubt, but that if the subject were duly investigated hun¬
dreds of instances might be adduced The truth is, it is by no
means an uncommon occurrence. We are also clearly of the opin¬
ion, that household baptism occurs much more frequently among;
Baptists than among Psedobaptists. The difference in our prin¬
ciples necessarily leads to this result.
On page 21st, the gentleman is out upon us, exclaiming, "Oh!
for consistency and candor!" and appears to have well nigh fallen
into spasms. And what now? Why we would not allow Hannah
to leave her son ten miles, while we would make Lydia leave her
—her what?—can't tell—her—supposed child three hundred miles!!
How could you rave and talk so, sir, when we had expressly said,
"that it was not in the pale of probability that Lydia had a child."
We did say it was not likely she carried "ait infant with her," but
not her child, as you have got it. For we said then, and say yet,
it is not probable that she had any child of her own; and it was
not likely she would have carried "an infant ivith her" as a use~
less appendage to her family. So then the fault is all your own at
last, by making a false quotation, and refusing tgt notice what we
had previously said. But if we had said all that you foolishly and
improperly imputed to us, where would have been any ground for
this childish ? There would, in reality b we been none.
On page 22d, he most bitterly complains of our quotation from
Mr. ITtmry. We cannot see any just cause of complaint in this
' c wrote. lie states that the
32
jailor "rejoiced, believing in God with all his house; there: wus none
in the house that refused to be baptized and make a jar 111 the cer¬
emony; but they were unanimous in receiving the Gospel, which
added much to the joy.'-'' Mr. T. asks the reader, "it lie s^es so_
much as a hint in the above quotation that Mr. II. did not believe
that there were infants in the Jailor's house." It Mr. 1or anyj
one else, will tell us how infants receive the Gospeiand rejoice in
it, \te will thank him for the information. These things cannot
apply to infants; and as they were unanimous in ah these, there¬
fore, it is clearly certain there were no infants. But we do not say
that Henry was opposed to infant baptism; nor did we ever dream
» of such a tiling;—nay, we quoted him as a Pa^dobaptist, or rather
as a Psedoratitist or infant sprinkler. Mr. T. quotes a sentence
from Mi. Henry, and then asks the reader, "Could it be possible
Mr. K. did not see this?" We now tell the reader, and the world,
that we did not see the passage which Mr T. professed to quote;
forit is not in the edition of Henry which we have, nor in any of
the editions like ours, and Mr. T. knew this before. I3ut if we
had seen it, we would have quoted just as we did; for, in this case,
just as in that of Lydia's, it is Mr. T. himself who is at fault, by
confounding what Henry supposes Paul might have said to the
jailor, (when Paul said just no such thing.)—w'e say Mr. T. has
confounded this with Henry's comments 011 what did actually take
place. Where then does the fault lie, if there be any? Not at
our door.
Master Stroke of Logic.—As a master stroke of logic, Mr.
T. supposes a case. He lays the scene in Florida: "A missionary
writes, that your brother and family believed the word, embraced
religion, were the first fruits of his ministry in Florida, were very
benevolent, particularly to religious people, and rejoiced greatly in
the prosperity of Zion. But 011 a certain night the Indians attacked
the house, your brother was killed, and all his." Now says Mr.
T., "A Baptist would argue the little children were not killed, for
the letter states they all embraced religion, rejoiced," &c. "Chil¬
dren could not do these things; therefore, none were killed but
adults." Reader, look at this master piece of logic, from this mas¬
ter logician! What connexion is there between the premises and
the conclusions? No, Mr. T., Baptists would argue in no such
way. They are not idiots, though you may think them such.
But they would argue, and so would common sense, that as the
family were all believers, there were of necessity no infants for
the Indians to kill. Will the reader observe, that Mr. T. first makes
it impossible, according to the statement in the letter, that there
could be any infants in the family, for they all believed; and then,
with magic art, creates infants to have them ready for the Indians.
So then his reasoning would stand thus:—As faith is above the ca¬
pacity of an infant, therefore an Indian cannot kill an infant!" A
cause that requires such juggling as this must be both weak and
desperate:—but what shall we say of the man who will descend to
such tricks of legerdemain?
S3
Historical.—Mr. T. next proposes to shew from History, that
infants were baptized from the days of the Apostles until the six¬
teenth century, with very little interruption. Now, if he will do
tnis fairly, it will be far more than all the •learned men in the
world have ever done before. But how does Mr. T. attempt to
make good his proposition? Mostly by quotations from Dr. Wall,
who was himself a most violent partizan, with regard to infant bap
tism,though as violently opposed to infant sprinkling. Now would
such party evidence be received in any court of judicature? Cer¬
tainly not. But still worse, Dr. Wall grounded his doctrine of in¬
fant baptism, mainly, with Dr. Lightfoot and others, on the tradi¬
tion of Jewish proselyte baptism. And, if the reader will look on
p. p. LI, 14, 15, of Mr. T.'s Treatise, he will there see that Mr. T.
has done the very same thing. Indeed it is a stepping stone in
getting from th3 lavf of circumcision to Gospel baptism, that those
who hold to infant baptism cannot well do without. But such a
foundation on which to build a Gospel ordinance, is to be wholly
rejected, as utterly abhorrent to the spirit of the Gospel, and ev¬
ery principle of sound theology.
Mr. T., iu quoting from Dr. Wall, says, "Tertullian was the only
man for the first four hundred years that offered any objections to
infant baptism." This we know is the statement generally made
by our Paedobaptist brethren; and from this they infer, and would
have us to believe, that infant baptism was practised all this time,
without interruption. But no; the very opposite of this is the
fact. True, Tertullian is the first we hear, or read of, oppos¬
ing infant baptism. He was born at Carthage, brought up
to the law, became religious, and joined the church at Carthage,
about the close of the second century; and flourised about A. D.
225; and did oppose the baptism of children, not infants. He
says, " Norin^petere salutem, ut petenti dedisse videaris,—that is,
"They just know how to ask for salvation, that you may seem to
give to him that asketh." Again, he says, -'Fiant Christiani,
quum Christum nosse potuerint,—that is, When they understand
Christianity, let them profess themselves Christians." (See Ter.
IS ch. de bap. Rob. Hist. p. 170 and 171.) But the reason why
infant baptism was not opposed till now, was simply because it
was not attempted to be introduced previously. How could a cus¬
tom be opposed, that did not exist,—that was not? Thus we see
how it was that infant baptism met with no opposition till Tertul-
lian's time; and, also, how entirely wrong our Paedobaptist breth¬
ren are in their arguments and conclusions on this subject.
But to convince every candid mind on this subject, we ask what
opposition to the worship of saints and images, &c. &c. do we read
or hear of, during the first four or five ages of Christianity? None
whatever. And are we to infer from this, that this kind of wor¬
ship was practised by all christians during the whole of this time?
Surely not. But certainly, say the Roman Catholics. Now it is
to be carefully noticed, that the very argument urged by our Pae¬
dobaptist brethren in favor of infant baptism, during the earlier
j'i
ages of Christianity, is the very argument urged by Papists for the
early worship of saints, images, &c.; and^the Catholic challenges
us to show where it was opposed in the earlier ages. This is suf¬
ficient to put the question to rest, in every candid mind.
Justin Martyn, who lived A. D. 133, is next brought forward
by Mr, T., or more properly by Dr. Ilemmenway, in support of in¬
fant baptism. The truth is the very reverse of this. Martyn wrote
an Apology for the Christians, to the Emperor Antonius Pins, in
which he gives clear testimony in our favor. He says, " Whoso¬
ever are persuaded these things are true, which are taught by us,
are then led by us to where there is water, and immersed in the
name of the Father," &c. (See Apol. 1. ch. 61. Also, Wad. ch.
Hist. vol. 1. p. 27.)
Irenaeus is brough forward to support infcnt baptism. This is
another error. He is speaking of salvation through the atonement,
and not of baptism. (See Chr. Rev. vol. 3. p. 106. Also, Wheat-
ly B. Com. Pray. p. 310. Ed. 1769. Bap. Chro. vol. 1. p. 127.)
Origen is produced in support of infant baptism. This autho¬
rity ought to be wholly rejected by every party, from the spurious
nature of the translation of his works. The original Greek letters
are lost. Rufinus, who translated-Origen's works, was a wicked,
witty profligate, and made Origen say many things which he cer¬
tainly never did say. We give a few examples: viz. 1st. "In fu¬
ture ages, our Saviour, Jesus Christ, shall be crucified for the sal¬
vation of Devils," &c. &c. 2d. " That God had exhausted all his
strength in the creation of this world, and had no more left," &c.
3d. "The punishment of the Devils and the damned will continue
only for a limited time," &c. (See Hist, of Facts, p. 201, &c.)
Cyprian and the Council.—Cyprian and the famous Council
of sixty-six Bishops, are produced in support of this cause. We feel
very certain that if Mr. T. had known any thing of the history
of Cyprian and this Council of sixty six, (some say seventy)
Bishops, he would certainly have kept silent, for the honor of his
own cause and that of Christianity generally. But as all he says,
in all his historical accounts, are second-handed quotations from
others, we must make allowances. Yes, reader, Cyprian and those
sixty-six (others say sixty or seventy) Bishops, did pass a decree
in favor of infant baptism. This was in Africa, about A. D. 254.
A certain Fidus, supposed to be a Bishop, wrote to this Council,
at the head of which Cyprian was, concerning infant baptism, and
other matters. They returned for answer, infants were to be bap¬
tized. But, reader, what reasons did they give? Did they urge
circumcision? No. Did they plead Jewish proselyte baptism? —
No. But the reason they gave was, " The Prophet Elisha lay
upon a child, and put his mouth upon his mouth, and his eyes up¬
on his eyes, arid his hands upon his hands. Now the spiritual
meaning of this is that a child is equal to a man, but if you refuse '
to baptize them, you destroy this equality and are partial." (See
Cyp. Epist. 66. ad Fidum. Rob. Hist. p. 189.)
Thus these Solomon's reasoned! What a pity they never once
35
thought about baptism coming in the place of circumcision; nor
yet of Jewish proselyte baptism: but must get the good old Pro¬
phet stretched upon the poor little child, to teach us the necessity
of infant baptism!! Elisha restored a dead child to life, therefore
infants must be baptized. Ah! if they could only have had our
modern Solomon at their "elbow/' to have told them a thing or
two about the tradition of Jewish proselyte baptism!
Let the reader notice, that the modern arguments for infant bap¬
tism had not at that time been once thought of, nor for a long time
after; and though Fidus intimated the eighth day, as the time the
Jews circumcised, yet they never caught the idea of drawing any
argument from that, in support of baptism. Again: it will be re¬
membered that it was baptism, not sprinkling, or rantism, that was
recommended by this Council. Baptism, or immersiorf, was uni¬
formly practised, except in the case of " the clinici," or sick, for
more than thirteen hundred years after the christian era.
This Council gave another reason for infant baptism, which we
had nearly forgotten. In their letter to Fidus, they go 011 to say,
"If baptism be deferred,it ought to be to adults, who have commit¬
ted great crimes,&c. and not to infants, who come into the world cry¬
ing for baptism!!" (See Cyp. Epis. 66 ad Fid. Rob. His. p. 189.)
These wise men, says a certain writer, being deeply versed in
puerilities, sagely interpreted the cry of the infant,—ba! to mean,
" Give me ba,—baptism!" How else could they make out that in¬
fants came into the world crying for baptism? We feel both sorry
and ashamed that Mr. T. introduced this (Council of African Bish¬
ops; but as he did so, with such an air of confidence, we felt bound
to let the reader, and the world, know of what kind of materials it
was composed. We can assure the gentleman, we have all the
documents before and around us, whereby we can examine fully
into the merits of all his quoted authorities; and only lack room
and time to make a far more extensive shewing.
Luther.—Mr. T. a'dduces Luther, in relation to the Anabap¬
tists in Germany, which is wholly irrelevant to the case; but we
have Luther again and again in our favor. He says, "It cannot
be proved by the Scriptures that infant baptism was instituted by
Christ, or begun by the first christians after the apostles." (See
Paed. Exam. vol. 2. p. 4. Peng. p. 40. Again; He says, "It was
not determined till Pope Innocent's time." (See Ext. in Dan. p. 1O7.)
Thus we have certainly shown, that Mr. T.'s proposition, to
shew from history the apostolic authority for infant baptism, has
proved an entire failure, a perfect abortion. All his authorities,
upon examination, being found in our favor, with the solitary ex¬
ception of John Calvin, and that can be of no avail to his cause, as
it is only the round assertion of a violent Pasdobaptist partizan,
without giving any authority to support what he says. It is to be
particularly noticed, that Mr. T. has endeavored to prove a Psedo-
baptist point mostly by Psedobaptist authors. Is this fair or just?
Certainly it is neither;" but even then he has entirely failed. He
says that we, the Baptists, "have nothing worthy of credit to op-
:16
pose to all this." No! Then it will be because the most learned
and pious Peedobaptist divines will speak falsely to support the
Baptist side of this question, which \ve think is hardly v^rY P10"
bable.. Let us hear, then, what some Pscdobaptists out of scores,
have said in our favor. I3ut, before we proceed, let us hear
Barnabas and Hernias, who are both mentioned in the New les-
tament, and come before Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. The wri¬
tings of both these Apostolical Fathers, as they are called, are yet
extant, and they testify in our favor, at. great length; but our lim¬
its will allow us only to give an extract from each. ■
Barnabas, in his writings, chap. lO.ver. 14., says, -'The signification is
this: we go down into the water full of sins, but come up again, bringing
forth fruit, ha.ving in our hearts the peace and hope which is in Jesus, by
the Spirit." Also, in verses 10 and 11, to the same effect.
Hermas, in his Vision 3. veise 76, says, "These are such as have heard
the word and were willing to be baptized," &c. &c.
Let us now hear from Psedobaptist Ministers on this subject.
Olshausen, in vol. 2, p. 454, says, "By the inttoduclion of infant bap¬
tism, which was certainly not apostolical, the relative position of baptism,
after the ebullition of spiritual gifts had passed away, was changed," &c.
(See Chris. Rev. vol. 3, No. 10, Art. 4, p. 210.)
Kaiser, In Theol. Bib. vol. 2, p. 178, says, "Infant baptism was not an
original institution of Christianity."
Neander, in Apostolical Age, vol. 1, p. 140, says, "The piactice of in¬
fant baptism was remote from this age."
Gregory Nazianzen, says, "None were baptized of old but such as did
confess their sins." (See Orat. 3, in Hist, of Facts, pr 174.) And many
other places to the same effect.
Corrodi, quoted by Dressier, p. 154, says, "At the time of Christ and hia
disciples only adults were baptized."
Beza says, "The baptizing ot children was unheard of in the primitive
church." (See Hist, of Facts p. 182.)
Dr. Hammond says, "Anciently, men were instructed in the faith before
baptism." (See Lib. 1. ch. 3. p. 23.) Strabo, Ludovicus Vives, Jacob
Merningus. Wheatly, and various others, all testify to the same effect. (See
Bap. Chron. vol. 1. p. p. 64 and 65, &c.)
Encyclopedia Americana says, "It is certain that infant baptism was not
customary in the earliest period of the Chiistian Church." (See Article An¬
abaptist, in the work Ph. Ed.)
Dr. Taylor, a learned Bishop of the Church of England, says, "It was
the opinion of the primitive church that infants might not to be baptized."
(See his Lib. Proph. p. 237.) Taylor goes on to remark, "The truth of
the business is, as there was no command of Scripture, to oblige children to
it, (baptism); so the necessity of Pasdobaptism was not determined in the
church till the Canon that was made in the Milevitan Council, a piovince in
Africa, and never fill then. Austin was the first, that ever preached it to be
necessary, and it was in his heat and answer against Pelagius, who had so
warmed and chafed him, that made him innovate herein." (See Lib. on
Proph. p. 237, and in Hist. Farts p. 201.)
Dr. Barlow, Professor in the University of Oxford, says, "I do believe
and know that there is neither precept nor example in Sciiplure for paedo-
baptism, nor any just evidence for it for above two hundred veais alter
Christ." (See Barl. Letter in Hist, of Facts, p. 204.) „
37
We could swell this kind of testimony to a vast extent, but must
desist. If Mr. T. and others will not believe the united testimony
of such a cloud of witnesses as these, and men of such character,
neither would they believe, "though one rose from the dead."
These were all Pirdobnptists, with the exception of Barnabas and
Hennas, and perhaps some few of the earlier fathers, but they
would hardly testily to what was not so. Also, let it be particu¬
larly remarked, that the greater part of these witnesses all point to
the Council in Africa, of which we have spoken, as being the real
origin of pcedobaptism. And we have mentioned comparatively
few of the many who have testified to the same effect, and whose
testimony is now lying before and around us. Yet Mr. T. would
say that we have nothing to oppose to the scant testimony he pro¬
duced, and nine-tenths of which w.^s in our favor, clearly and fully,
as we have previously shown, to the satisfaction, we think, of all
candid men. We do hope this will suffice.
Exhortation.—Mr. T. next goes into an exhortation to parents,
"to bring up their children for God." In this we can most sin¬
cerely join, and say to parents, "Bring up your children in the nur¬
ture and admonition of the Lord."—carry them to Jesus daily in
the arms of faith and prayer—dedicate them to God and to His
service—pray with them and for them. Take God's word for your
directory in this and all other religious duties. But beware of
works of supererogation. "Be not wise above what is written."
Teach not "for doctrines the commandments of men." (Matt. 15:
9.) Remember, that in all positive institutions, of which baptism
is one, they are right only because commanded;—but not so in
moral duties; they are commanded because they are right. This
then clearly shews, that in positive institutions which are ight
only because commanded, that we are just as fw wrong and as
culpable, when we do that, in God's name, which is not com¬
manded, as when we neglect or refuse to do that which is com¬
manded. May God grant that parents, ministers and all others
may remember these things, and act accordingly.
Baptism or Immersion.—Mr. Triggs commences this part of
the subject by observing "We should say little or nothing about
the mode of baptism, were it not that our Baptist brethren place
such an undue stress upon it," &c. How can Mr. T. dare to ex¬
press himself thus, at the expense of - ositive evidence to the con¬
trary, when we had expressly said in our sermon, page 26th, "We,
too, say as to the mode of baptism if is nothing." True, we re¬
fused to recognize sprinkling or pouring as any mode of baptism,
unless it could be shown that these were different modes of im¬
mersion. Shall we now tell Mr. T., and all others, once more, that
it is not the mode of baptism about which we contend, but about
baptism itself. We care not a straw about the mode, whether it
be back-foremost or face-foremost, or in what other mode, provi¬
ded it be baptism. If Mr. I\ and others could only get the world
to believe it is the mere mode of a thing about which we were
contending, then they think they would have gained a great point;
but no, this is not the fact.
38
With regard to the meaning of the word bapto, or its derivative
baptizo, we stand precisely where we did, only that we are more
and more established in our former views, as to their truth and
propriety. We still say, baptizo signifies to immerse, plunge, dip,
nor does it ever signify any thing else. We said before, and now
repeat, that this is its proper, native or etymological meaning.
And to say that any one word can have two or more native mean¬
ings, is a palpable contradiction in idea, and absurd. Before we
proceed further, Ave shall lay down some general rules in relation
to this matter.
"Rule 1st. A word that applies to two modes can designate neither."
"This is an axiom or self-evident truth in the philosophy of language. The
same word cannot express different modes; though a word, not significant
of mode, may express till modes. Wash, stain, wet, are words of this lat¬
ter class; they are not significant of mode. A tiling may be washed, or
stained, or wet in various ways. For instance, a thing may be wet, or wet¬
ted, by dipping, by pouring, by sprinkling, or by distillation of the dew.—
The word expresses the effect only, and says nothing about mode. Yet it
would be both absurd and false to say these words signify all these modes.
They express nothing of mode. Modes are essentially different from one
another, and have nothing in common. One word then cannot possibly
distinguish them. The name of a mode is the woid which expresses it, as
distinguished from other modes. It might more reasonably be supposed
that the word black may also be employed to signify the idea denoted by
white, because black and white admit of degrees; but there are no degrees
in mode. On the authority of self-evident truth, we assert, that baptizo
cannot signify both dip and pour or sprinkle We assert, that in no lan¬
guage can one word signify two modes. Now, it is given up by our oppo¬
nents, that baptizo does signify to immerse, or dip; if so, it cannot signify
to pour or sprinkle."
"Rule 2. In certain situations, two, or even several words, may with
equal propriety Jill the same place; though they are all essentially differ¬
ent in their signijicafioyis. For example, the physician might with equal
propriety say, 'dip the bread, or moisten the,bread in the wine;' yet this
does not impoit that dip signifies to moisten, or that moisten signifies to dip."
Rule 3. The proper definition of a term, substituted for it, will always
make as good sense as the term itself For example, we are told that all
Judea and Jerusalem, &c. went out to John and were baptized of him in
Jordan. Sprinkled them in Jordan—poured them in Jordan—immersed
them in Jordan. We see sprinkled or pouted substituted for baptized in this
case makes no sense, while immersed makes perfectly good sense."
Mr. Carson, a most profound Greek scholar and critic, says;
"Bapto has two meanings—the primary to dip, the secondary to dye.—
The derivative, baptizo, in the whole history of the Greek language has but
one. It not only signifies to dip or immerse, but it never has any other
meaning, and i* invariably used when the ordinance of baptism is spoken of."
§ft|p*We know that baptizo, as well as other words, when
transported to the field of tropes, metaphors and figures, or subjected
to the fanciful flights of poetic imagination, may be tortured into
various meanings, or applied in various ways; but all this does not
disturb or destroy its proper or native meaning, nor militate^t all
against the truth of our remarks in relation to its native meaning.
With these general remarks made and rules laid down, we proceed
to the subject.
39
Mr. T. complains, on page 27th, that "we appear to rest our
cause on the meaning of the word." Not entirely, sir, but in a
great measure. And where else should we rest it in such a case as
this, where the whole matter turns or depends on the meaning of
the word. The Saviour commanded a certain act, of a very im-
portant and solemn nature, to be performed—He used this very
word in this His solemn command; and as words are signs of our
ideas, therefore, to know what the Saviour meant, and consequent¬
ly what it is He would have us to do, we must know the proper
meaning of the word He made use of; and more especially, as we
find the same word is always used in relation to this same solemn
duty enjoined.
Rev. Mr. Wherry, in a sermon now before us, in defence of in¬
fant sprinkling, says, "If the word baptizo signifies to dip and no¬
thing else, then the argument is at an end." Then truly the argu¬
ment is, or ought to be at an end; for the word does not signify
any thing else. To suppose that the Saviour made use of a word
of ambiguous import, and consequently of doubtful application,
would be to prefer a charge of most tremendous import against
the Lord Jesus Christ. We say according to our first general rule
laid down, in relation to the meaning of words,. upon the prin¬
ciples of self-evident truth, the meaning of this word is estab-'
lished beyond the possibility of a doubt. But as this may still
be disputed by some, how then is the question to be decided? We
say go to every standard Greek Lexicon, they all testify in our
favor. Go to the Greek Church, it not only testifies in our favor,
but holds the very idea of sprinkling in utter contempt. Go to
ancient writers, Grecian, Roman, and English, they unitedly
testify 111 our favor.
Dr. Wall, the very man from whom Mr. T. has quoted so large¬
ly in favor of infant baptism, says, "He cannot bnt pity the weak
endeavors of those Paedobaptists that maintain the negative of it."
(See Wall's Hist, of In. Bap. vol. 2. p. 351.) Then while Mr. T.
is struggling to maintain the negative, Dr. Wall pities him—pities
his weakness.
It is necessary, for the information of the reader, to ob¬
serve, that though Dr. Wall was a great advocate for infant bap
tism, yet he held sprinkling in utter contempt. Calvin hesitates not
again and again to declare, that "baptize signifies to immerse."—
(See Peed. Ex. vol. 2, p. 461.-) Dr. George Campbell, a Presby¬
terian divine, and President of the Marischal College, at Aberdeen,
says, " The word baptizein, both in sacred authors and classical,
signifies to dip, to plunge, to immerse " (See his Four Gospels,
vol. 2, p. 259. Also, his note on Matt. 3. 11.) But why multiply
names, authors and authorities? We could fill pages with state¬
ments and acknowledgments from the writings of the best Psedo-
baptist scholars and divines to the same effect.
When the difficulty took place in the American Bible Society, in
which aid was refused for the printing of Judson's translation, the
following statements, among many others, were then and there
•40
made by the Baptists: viz. " Does any person present doubt that
baptizo means to immerse? Let him examine how the word is
used in sacred and classic authors, in the Greek language.^ All
Greek literature proves that baptizo signifies to immeise. No na¬
tive-born Greek ever attached any other meaning to the word.—
Their Historians, orators, philosophers, physicians, and poets, use
it only in the sense of immersion; and never attach to it any o 'her
meaning. Not in all the Greek classics can it be found to mean
otherwise than to immerse. But if this be not sufficient, let us call
the Professor of Greek in Columbia College, who is an Episcopa¬
lian, and the Greek Pr lessor of the University of New York, who
is a Presbyterian, and let them declare, under oath, whether the
word baptizo means to immerse, or not. Extend the inquiry, if
you please, to every College in the United States,—to every Col¬
lege in the world; and, we venture to affirm, the response in every
instance, would be the same,—that the word means to immerse.
No Greek Professor would be willing to risk his reputation as a
scholar, independent of all religious and moral obligation, by deny¬
ing to baptizo this signification. To all this no response was
made." (See Maclay's Sermon, p. S and 9.
Now let the reader look at this, Here, in a meeting of the Ame¬
rican Bible Society, composed of the ablest scholars and divines be¬
longing to six or seven different religious denominations, all of
which were Psedobaptist but one,—as not this the time and
place to meet and refute these statements, if they could be met and
refuted? And did not the occasion require it should be done, if it
could, be? Most certainly. " But there was no response." How
great a pity they did not have Mr. T. there! The question, how¬
ever, recurs, why did they not attempt to refute these statements?
Simply because they were men of sense and learning, and knew
they were true, and, therefore, could not he refuted. This is but
a small part of what the Baptists did then and there state, equally
as important, and pertinent as this, but we have neither time nor
room for more, which we much regret.
Serious Fact.—Dr. Wall, in his History of Infant Baptism,
says, "That in all countries, where the power of the Pope of Rome
* was never admitted, and among all denominations of christians,
who do not acknowledge their descent, either directly or remotely
from Popery, immersion is now, and always has been, practiced."
While, on the other hand, all those nations of christians that do
now, or formerly did submit to the authority of the Bishop of Rome,
do ordinarily baptize their children by pouring or sprinkling.—
And, though the English received not this custom till after the de¬
cline of Popery, yet they received it from such neighboring nations
as had begun it in the time of the Pope's power. (See Wall's Hi.
Infant Baptism, vol. 2. p. 376. Ed. 3.)
Here then we see at once where, and ivhen, and how, infant
sprinkling commenced; and, also, where it came from. But still
more, Dr. Wall, a Pasdobaptist minister, being our interpreter and
expositor, we can see the true origin of those christian churches
41
who yet practise and plead for infant sprinkling. Dr. Wall being
judge, this does not look much like running back to Apostolic
practice, but to a widely different origin!
At the famous meeting of the Westminster Assembly of Presby¬
terian divines, in the Abbey church, as late as A. D. 1643, the
question on baptism so long and warmly debated, was not wheth¬
er sprinkling was baptism; but the question debated for more
than a week was, whether " It was lawful and sufficient to sprin¬
kle." This was not only a virtual, but full and clear acknowledg¬
ment, that the deliberate opinion of that body of Paedobaptist min¬
isters was, that sprinkling was not baptism: but the question was,
will it do for baptism—" Is it lawful and sufficient?" And when
it was put to vote, even in this shape, it was carried by a majority
of only one vote. Dr. Lightfoot's words are, "It was voted so
indifferently, that we were glad to count names twice. For so
many were unwilling to have dipping excluded, that the votes
came to an equality within one.;—twenty-four for the res rving of
dipping, and twenty-five against it." (See Lightfoot's works, vol.
13. p. 299 and 300.) Dr. Lightfoot, also, goes on to say, "But as
for the dispute itself about dpping, it was thought fit and most
safe to let it alone." (See ut Supra.) The reader need hardly
be told, there was no Baptist belonging to that body; yet with
what difficulty sprinkling was established!
But let us come nigher home, with our remarks. A late Pro¬
fessor of Languages in the University of Georgia, says, "The his¬
tory of Mormonism does not furnish a more visionary idea, or one
more opposed to sober reason, and to the well established reputa¬
tion and accuracy of the Greek language, than (to suppose) that it
should or could express dip, pour and sprinkle by one word."—
(See his Sermon on Christian Union, p. 14.)
Rev. Mr. Worcester, a Presbyterian minister, and missionary
among the Cherokee Indians in Georgia, translated the New Tes¬
tament into the Cherokee language. He used a word for baptize,
which, in that language, always means to dip, and nothing else.—
(See Chris. Index No. 25, vol. 10. p. 389. Now why should Mr.
Worcester do so? From his convictions of truth and his sense of
moral obligations to teach it to others. In this thing he was an
honest man.
Bishop Smith, of the P. E. Church of Kentucky, thus writes: "I
do fully and unhesitatingly believe that no instance, either of adult
or infant baptism, occurred during the first three centuries, except
by immersion, save only in the few cases of clinical baptism; and
that to this practice all the incidental notices of Holy Scripture best
conform." (See his letter to J. L. Burrows, Bap. Rec. vol. 6, No.
31. p. 123.) . - _ .
Thus we have proved, in various ways, and by the concurrent
testimony of evidence from different quarters, beyond the possibil¬
ity of rational contradiction, that the wordbaptizo signifies to dip
or immerse, and nothing else; therefore, all dispute about mode is,
or oiiffht to be at an end. Mr. Wherry, a Presbyterian Minister,
42
says, "We are told the word baptizo signifies to dip, and nothing
else; if so, the dispute about mode is at an end." (See his ser. p. 16.)
Well we have certainly proved it "to be so;" 1st. From the Uiom
and philosophy of language; upon the principles of sclj-evident
truth. 2d. From a 1 standard Lexicons of the Greek language,
3d. From the testimony of the Greeks in their use of the word.
4th. From the Greek Church always practising immersion. 5th.
From the concurrent testimony of numberless Paedobaptist schol¬
ars, critics and divines, both ancient and modern. Here theu the
question ought to rest.
Now, reader, take notice! This is the very word which the Sa¬
viour makes use of or employs in his commission to baptize; and
this is the word invariably used by the Holy Spirit to designate
baptism. Then is it not written, as with a sun beam, "nothing
is baptism but immersion?" But just here, we would ask the
reader—we would ask the world—we would ask common sense—
if any other idea beside that of immersion was intended to be
conveyed, why were not those words used that contain those other
ideas, and would necessarily have conveyed them? The Greek
language is both rich and precise in this respect. Was the idea to
sprinkle intended? There is the word for this idea, ruino, or its
derivative runtizo. Is the idea to pour? There is the word cheo.
Is the idea to wash a part, such as the hands? There is the word
nipfo. Is it to bathe? There is the word louo. Is it to wet or
moisten? There is the word brecho. Is it to wash as clothes? There
is the word pluo or its derivative pluno, &c. &c. Strange! that
no one of these words was ever introduced in all that is said
about baptism in the New Testament. There must surely have
been intention in this careful avoiding of all these other words—
yes, and Divine intention.
If our Psedobaptist brethren will sprinkle, why not make use of
the word rantizo as expressive of the nature of the act they per¬
form, and say, I rantize you? &c. Why so tenacious of the act of
sprinkling, and yet so shy of the word expressive of this act?
Ah! tell us nothing—there is a great deal in "a name."
But notwithstanding this cloud of witnesses, still it is contended
by some, yea, many of the less candid, that it signifies to sprinkle
and pour. Others have contended that it has no definite meaning.
In Dr. Morrison's translation he has it, "I make a wash upon you.""
In the Sclavonian, it is translated "to cross." (See Maclay's ser.
p. 12.) And the learned Mr. Ewing, a Peedobaptist Minister,
contends that it signifies "to pop." Dr. Ewing says he has come
to this discovery by "reducing the word baptizo to its radical let¬
ters, and by interchanging labials and vowels, he forms the word
"pop." (See Cox and Carson on Bap. in answer to Ewing &
Dwight, p. 134.) Here then we have "I make a wash upon you,"
"to cross," and "to pop," as expressive of the ordinance of bap¬
tism. What is it men will not do in support of their sectarian views?
To prove that the word sigtiifes something besides immersion, Mr.
T. cites us to Matt. 3. 11, "I indeed baptize you with water unto
43
repentance." We have been on this ground once before; but we
can slightly touch upon it again. W e think this is wholly in our
lavoi; for in the original text it reads thus: "Ego men baptizo umas
on udati eis metanoian"—the plain English of which is, "I indeed
immerse you in water on or upon repentance." We would refer
the reader to Rev. George Campbell's notes on thisplace. He was
a Pasdobaptist, as said before, and a great scholar and critic, but a
candid man. He is with us here. But as Mr. T. has been great¬
ly offended that we should dare to say one word against the king's
translation, we invite his calm attention here for a moment. In
verses 7 and 8 of this chapter, we see that John refuses to baptize
the Pharisees and Sadducees, for the want of repentance. This is
right,—but then in verse lith, according to our version, he is made
to say, that he baptizes, to produce in them that repentance, for the
want of which he would not baptize them—else there can be no
sense in "unto repentance." Then, according to this rendering,
John is made to baptize people to produce in them that, for the
want of which he would not baptize them!! There certainly nev¬
er was a more discordant idea, or contradiction more complete.
But take it as we say it ought to be, and all is perfect agreement
and good sense; it corresponds with what had gone before. More¬
over, "unto repentance" is not a correct rendering of "eis metano-
ian," even if it made good sense; so then it is doubly wrong.
On page 27th and 28th, Mr. T. tries to support his views of bap¬
tism, by the pouring out of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost—
the Holy Ghost falling on those in the house of Cornelius, &c —
To all this we would say, these are figurative expressions, both
in regard to baptism and also in relation to the wonderful influen¬
ces of the Holy Spirit, and so lar as the mode of baptism is con¬
cerned, are directly in our favor. To convince Mr. T of this, we
ask him, what conceptions has he of the Holy Spirit? Does he
suppose it is a material something, such as water, that can literally
be poured out as a liquid? or literally sprinkled, or poured, or
made to fall upon,, as water or earth? Surely not. Then is it not
much more in consonance with our views of baptism to say that
you are surrounded, overwhelmed, immersed in the Divine influ¬
ences of the Holy Spirit, than to say these influences were sprin¬
kled or poured upon you? And, though the baptism of the Holy
Spirit is a figurative baptism, yet as respects the transactions on the
day of Pentecost, there was a real baptism, immersion, not in wa¬
ter, but in the emblems of the Holy Spirit. The house was filled
with the wind, the emblem of the Holy Spirit, and cloven tongues
as of fire, another emblem of the Spirit sat on them, so that they
were completely surrounded, covered over, immersed in the em¬
blems of the Spirit. Thus what our Lord had promised was lit¬
erally fulfilled, for they were really immersed in the Holy Ghost
and in fire. JVlr. T. says it was the sound thut filled the house^
No doubt there was sound in the house too, but then will Mr. T.
remember, that sound is never spoken of as an emblem of tho
Spirit, but wind is. (See John 3. 8.) Henry says, "this wind Jill-
44
ing the house would strike an awe upon the disciples," &c. (See
Hen. Ex. in loco.) , .
On page 29th, Mr. T. has got to Moses in the cloud and in tne
sea again. This is the third time he has been at this place. We
again say, this was referred to as a figure of our baptism. The
children of Israel were shut out from view by a wall on either
side and a cloud over them. A strong and beautiful emblem of im¬
mersion, just as it was on the day of Pentecost. But it will be re¬
torted, "Paul says they were baptized." So the Saviour says,
speaking of bread and wine, "this is my flesh and my blood." Must
we all turn Papists, and refuse to believe in figurative language?
Mr. T. child-like, makes himself very merry at the idea of "dry
immersion." And would not the idea of "dry sprinkling or dry
pouring" be equally ludicrous? Is the gentleman so silly as to
suppose that water is absolutely necessary to constitute the fact
of immersion? How much water was there on the day of Pente-*-
cost? Yet here was a complete immersion; yea doubly so, by the
two-fold emblem of the Holy Spirit, wind and fire, in fulfilment of
a Divine prediction. A man may be immersed in various substan¬
ces beside that of water. And figuratively speaking, as is the case
here, a man may be said to be immersed in debt, in trouble, &c.
In Mark 7. 4, Mr. T. is sure he has found baptism without im¬
mersion; but we are just as sure he has not. In verse 3, it is said,
"the Jews eat not except they wash (nipsontai) their hands."
And when they came from market, (4th verse,) lest they might
have contracted some ceremonial pollution, they made sure work,
and dipped or immersed (baptizontai) the whole body. In the 3d
verse, when a different idea from that of immersion is intended, a
different word is used; and so it would have been here, 4th verse,
if a different idea had been intended. If Mr. T. intended to con¬
vey the idea of sprinkling, would he use the word immerse?—
Why then impute to the Spirit of Divine inspiration a folly of
which he would not be guilty himself? Or does the gentleman
really believe the Spirit of inspiration did not know any but one
Greek word? We want this matter explained. As to cups, pots,
&c., Mr. T. asks, "Is it reasonable to suppose they were dipped or
immersed?" Most certainly; to suppose any thing else would be
treasonable. We think a few drops of water sprinkled on a cup,
table, or post, would be poor washing. If Mr. T. has his cups,
&c., washed in this manner, he is truly to be pitied.
Heb. 9. 10. "Divers washings," 8ic. "Here we have divers
baptism, says Mr. T., and, consequently, baptism was performed in
more ways than one." How childish! This divers signifies re¬
peated washings, and the washing of divers things. There is no¬
thing looking towards different modes.
1st Peter 3. 21. The ark and those saved in it, Peter brings for¬
ward as a type or figure of our baptism into and salvation through
Christ, &c. It is abundantly evident, that Mr. T. wholly misun¬
derstands the nature of this figure. He talks of the ark not being
"immersed in the water, but sprinkled by the rain," &c. What
■15
perfect folly! The thing taught is this—viz: Christ is the true Ark
of safety—the sinner, by faith, flies to Him for salvation—by
grace, through faith, he enters, is taken and shut in, as it were, like
Noah and his family—he is dead, that is to the world and sin-
has left all behind, (so Noah and his left all behind,) but though he
is thus dead, yet his life is hid with Christ in God, (so Noah was
hid in the ark,)—he has followed Christ through the laver of re¬
generation—his sins are washed away in this laver, the blood of
Christ—having died to sin, he is risen to newness of life, and made
alive unto holiness. Now having faith and an interest in the death,
burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ,as an actglowingly expressive
and beautifully figurative of all this, (Peter calls it a figure,) he is
"buried with Christ by baptism," (Rom. 6: 4,) and then comes
forth again from these typical waters as did Noah. And then he
has the "answer of a good conscience." We have President Ed¬
wards with us in these views, (See Ed. on Red. vol. 3. p. 47.)
This is among the most destructive passages to Mr. T.'s whole
system. He is sure, however, "the rain sprinkled the ark." God
bless the man and open his eyes. And do you think, sir, that the
ark represents the candidate for baptism? No, verily; but it rep¬
resents the Saviour—Christ. Hence He is called the "Ark of
Safety."
On page 30th, we have Mr. T.'s eleven Greek words, words
which he says, "are equivalent to immerse," &c. Now these words
are no more to the point in debate than the numeral adjectives from
one to eleven would have been, which we will shew in few words.
It will be borne in mind, that we have contended all the while for
the native ox proper meaning of the word, that is, its etymological
meaning, or what it means when traced to its nativity or root: and
this is the only way in which the native or proper meaning of any
Greek word can be ascertained. Now, tried by this test, (and it is
the only proper one,) Mr. T.'s words are set aside at once. We
take his first word buthizo: we ask what is its native meaning? It
is a derivative. To ascertain its meaning, therefore, we must trace
it to its source. It comes from the noun buthos, which signifies
bottom. What, we would ask, has this to do with baptism in any
way or shape, whether b.y sprinkling, pouring or immersion?
But we are not yet at the root of buthizo, it comes from buthos,
and this comes from bathos, another noun, and signifies depth,
profoundness, height, &c. Here then we see Mr. T's verb buthi¬
zo, that signifies to sink, &c., is turned into a noun, that signifies
bottom; and that noun is from another noun that signifies depth,
profoundness, height. In the name of common sense, we ask,
what has this to do with the subject in debate? Nothing more
than the word hat or umbrella.
The next two words, katabuthismos and katabuthizo, are pre¬
cisely the same word as buthizo, only that they have the preposi¬
tion kata prefixed or placed before them; but they are derived from
the same root, and, consequently, have the same native meaning.
The remaining words are still less to the purpose, if less can be,
tfi
which we would go on to shew if we thought there was the most
distant necessity for doing so; but we feci confident there is not.
What Mr. T.'s motive could have been for introducing words so
wholly irrelevant to the subject, we cannot conjecture. Did he in¬
tend to impose upon others/ or, was he imposed upon? Our posi¬
tion stands unmoved and untouched, in relation to the meaning of
baptizo.
^fHP^One idea here will forever settle this matter in the mind of
every candid man—viz: Suppose that any of Mr. T.'s words, or
any other Greek word, had the same native meaning as baptizo,
then why should the Baptist, and Peedobaptist world have been
contending over this word, as to its meaning, for so many hundred
years? Simply because this is the hinge on which the whole ar¬
gument turns, as to mode, or rather, as to what is baptism; and the
proper meaning of this word alone decides the matter. As be¬
fore quoted, Mr. Wherry, a Paidobaptist Minister, says, "If bap¬
tizo signifies to immj^se and nothing else, then the argument is
over." Well, we have certainly shewn, in different ways, in a
preceding part of these remarks, that it signifies to immerse, and
nothing else.
On pages 31 and 32, we are accused of having misrepresented the
sentiments of Pocdobaptists in our quotations from them, in support
of our views of baptism. This charge we repel promptly and pos¬
itively, as not founded in justice or truth, and of which we can
very quickly convince the reader. It was in support of our argu¬
ments with regard to the meaning of the word baotizo, for which
we called on or quoted those Paedobaptists of which complaint is
made. They unanimously gave it in our favor, saying the mean¬
ing for which we contended was the proper or native, meaning.
This was all we asked—all we wanted. We care not how many
thousand other meanings they might say the word had, so we had
the proper one, and they acknowledged it. If they thought any
of all these other meanings would do for them, that was their look
out, not ours. Moreover, we quoted them as Paedobaptists, yea,
rather as Psedosprinklers, that is, those who sprinkled infants, and
took for granted that all the world knew, that many of them at
least contended that the word also signified to sprinkle or pour;
or that in the same way they satisfied themselves, as did the As¬
sembly of divines at Westminster, that "sprinkling was lawful and
would do;" not indeed that it was baptism, but that it would do.
If the reader will look at Mr. T.'s quotations from our sermon,
he will see those authors granted all we asked. See Mr. T. p. 32.
Zancheus,—"The proper signification of baptizo is to immerse."
This is all we want, the proper signification. Zancheus may add
fifty other significations if he should see fit, still they will all be
improper. Yea, Mr. T. goes on to tell us that Zancheus does say,
"Baptizo doth as well signify to dye, or simply to sprinkle, as to im¬
merse." Now we also took it for granted that all the world knew
that we, and common sense too, considered this a contradiction,
that the proper meaning of a word should be to immerse, and yet
47
that the same word did as icell signify to sprinkle. We say there
is not that word in any language that signifies both to immerse and
sprinkle. The idea is a perfect anomaly in the science of language.
But just here, we ask Mr. T. when he quoted any authors in his
Tieatise, did he put down all they said in relation to those subjects
for which he quoted them? Surely not. Then is he not as much
chargeable with garbling and misrepresentation as we? Most
certainly. The fact is, if we are required to put down all an au¬
thor says, it is no longer a quotation, but an entire transcript. We
abhor garbling and misrepresentation, not only as much as Mr. T.,
but vastly more.
But our "boldest stroke of all is," that we have dared to men¬
tion Wesley as giving evidence in our favor. Mr. T. appears,
from the manner of his expression, to be almost frantic on this oc¬
casion. We would advise the gentleman to be a little calm. He
goes on to tell us of a case in Savannah, in which Mr. Wesley re¬
fused to sprinkle a child, unless the parents would certify it was
weakly, and not able to bear immersion; this they refused to do—
"so Mr. Wesley did not baptize it." Having made this statement,
Mr. T. then goes on to declare, in a most rustic and unqualified
manner, that "this is the only instance in Wesley's life and wri¬
tings that seems to favor the Baptist side," &c., and then proceeds
to implicate our veracity in the clearest terms. Now, reader, you
shall see who is guilty of a breach of veracity, and how much
truth is in Mr. T.'s pnsilive assertions. It will be borne in mind,
this was a Mr. Parker's child of whom mention has been made,
as any person can see by turning to Wesley's works, vol. 3, p. 38
to 46. Now, reader, turn to this same volume of Wesley's works,
and you will there read the following statement, viz: "Sat. 21st.
Mary Welch, aged eleven days, was baptized according to the
custom of the first Church, and the rule of the Church of England,
by immersion; the child was ill then, but recovered from that
hour." (See Wesley's works vol. 3, p. 20.) See also Wesley's
note on the Apostle's meaning when he says, "buried with him by
baptism," &c. (Rom. (>: 4.) Wesley in his note on this says,
"Alluding to the anc ent manner of baptism by immersion."
Again see his note on Col. 2. 12, "Buried with him in baptism,"
&c.; he says, "the ancient manner of baptizing by immersion is
as manifestly alluded to he e as the other manner of baptism by
sprinkling," &c. Heb. 10. 22.
Now vve consider this remark of Mr. Wesley's much more in
our favor than if this last clause had not been added. Though we
consider the expression, baptism by sprinkling, a solecism and a per¬
fect contradiction in terms, yet here is the point: In the first instance,
Col. 2.12, "Buried with him in baptism," &c.,and concerning which
Wesley says, "the ancient manner of baptism by immersion is
manifestly alluded to," &c., the word baptismati is used—but in
the other case, to which reference is made, Heb. 10. 22, the Apos¬
tle is speaking in relation to legal sprinkling, &c.—the word used is
errantismenoi, from rantizo oi raino, to sprinkle; most clearly and
18
positively proving what we have all the while contended for, viz:
that when the idea of immersion was intended, the word baptizo
in some of its forms was used; but. when another idea was intended,
such as sprinkling, &c. some other word containing and conse¬
quently conveying the idea, was used. The thing is as clear as the
blaze of a mid-day sun. But to return to Mr. Wesley. Here,
then, we see that he bears testimony in our favor, clear, plain, full,
in three instances besides that of Mr. Parker's child, to which Mr.
T. alluded in his statement. What now has gone with Mr. TVs
unqualified assertion, that "that was the only instance in Wesley's
life and writings in which he seems to favor the Baptist side?"—
Whose veracity now stands impeached? Shall we attribute this to
Mr. T.'s disregard of the sacred principles of truth, or to an igno¬
rance of Wesley's life and writings? If he is ignorant of Pres¬
ley's life and writings, what is it he does know?
Again: Mr. T., on the same page, (33,) in what he says of Mr.
K. having once been a Presbyterian, &c., implies that Mr. Wesley
though once of the high church party, had changed his church-
membership. Was this the fact? We had always been of opin¬
ion that Mr. Wesley lived and died a member of the Church of
England. Nor is it true that Mr. K. was once a Presbyterian,
further than having Presbyterian parents, being sprinkled in his
infancy, &c. made him so; but never since he has made any pro¬
fession of religion, or exercised his own judgment on the subject.
But we ask the impartial reader what had we said of Mr. Wesley
to justify this storm of personal abuse and invective? Not the
first word or syllable, only that we could add his name to those
who had given evidence in our favor in relation to immersion.
(See our sermon p. 25.) This, and much more, was said at the
meeting of the American Bible Society, in relation to Mr. Wesley,
when it was not attempted to be denied or disputed. (See Maclay's
statement of that meeting, p. 11.) Is it sacrilege to mention Mr.
Wesley's name? We stated the truth, which we have here clear¬
ly and fully established, notwithstanding Mr. T.'s groundless as¬
sertions to the contrary. But when Mr. T. quoted Wesley on
baptism, did he tell the "whole truth"—all that Wesley said on
that subject? Far from it. Alexander Campbell was never half
so great an advocate for baptismal, regeneration as Mr. Wes¬
ley. Mr. Campbell would not allow that baptism was of any
avail, only as it was coupled with faith—but not so with Mr. Wes¬
ley. In speaking of baptism, he says: "By baptism we who were
by nature the children of wrath are made the children of God."
Again, he says, "The virtue of this free gift, the merits of Christ's
life and death, are applied to us in baptism," &c. But in speaking
of infant baptism, and it is here he runs so far ahead of Mr. Camp¬
bell, he says: "If infants are guilty of original sin, &c., then they
cannot be saved unless this be washed away by baptism." And
that they were guilty of original sin, Mr. T. had just cited many
texts of Scripture to prove. But again, he says, "it is certain by
God's word, that children who are baptized, dying before they com-
49
mi^ a^ua^ are saved." (See Wesley's works, vol. 6. p. 14 to 17.)
§pgp~The above is but a few from among many expressions
and remarks of like import to be found in the work above alluded
to. Did Mr. T. put down all this? No. Then did he not garble
and misrepresent Mr. Wesley? But does Mr. T. believe all this?
If this is all true, what becomes of the millions of babes who die
unbaptized? Does not this shew us at once, what gave rise to,
and still keeps infant baptism alive, viz: an idea that it is regener¬
ation, and without it, even babes cannot be saved? Austin first
taught this doctrine, and it has been more or less taught and be¬
lieved among the Pasdobaptists from that day to this. Again: Do
we not see from this, who it is that lays too much stress on bap¬
tism? Bishop Emory disapproves of Wesley's notions of "bap¬
tismal regeneration." (See his note on the place.)
Baptism in a state of nudity.—On pages 27 and 46, Mr. T.
speaks at considerable length of men and women being ^baptized
naked. This is in precise keeping with the gentleman's taste.
We have heard of his indulging himself, frequently, in this kind of
exhibition in his public discourses. Besides the pleasure it ap¬
pears to afford, he no doubt had another object in view, equally
beneath the dignity of the Gospel Minister, viz: to create disgust
in the public mind against immersion. If this were his object, We
can easily conduct him to that point in the history of infant sprink¬
ling, far more abhorrent to every feeling of modesty than that of
naked immersion, and where the historian must be mute, riiodesty
retire, and the blood mantle in the cheek. Go, sir, and ask Father
Jerome Florentini, of his quarto sized'volume, '^containing direc¬
tions how to sprinkle unborn infants and all such as could not be
born." Hear him telling Christina, Queen of Sweeden, if she
would only patronize his book, "she would save untold multitudes
of abortives, perhaps from purgatory, and certainly from hell!!"
Go again, sir, and ask a learned Doctor of Divinity, of, Palermo,
of his boo"k of 320 pages, quarto, and published at Milan, and
dedicated to all the guardian Angels, and Priests, and Physicians;
'"and directing them how to secure the eternal salvation of infants
by baptizing them, when they could, not be born!!" Meat also
the decision of one of the learned Councils of Trent, gravely pro¬
nouncing, that in all such cases, "if only a hand or a foot is sprin¬
kled, it is valid baptism, and the child is saved." (See Rob. His.
bap. from page 3$2 to 3S5, with all the authorities he cites, to6 tedi¬
ous for us to put down.) Does not this far surpass any thing in the
history of immersion? We are both sorry and ashamed to be found
in company with Mr. T. in siich cases. Biit we must folloi^ him,
else it might be said, we failed to meet and answer the gentleman.
But in the history of this case, it is again proclaimed, as with the
voice of seven thunders, what gave rise to and still keeps alive infant
baptism, viz: an idea, "that it savissperhaps from purgatory, and
certainly from hell?" Once more.—Let God himselfJ>oint Mr. 1.
to the aged and venerable Patriarch subrriitting to circdfticision, per-
iia/os this may seal his lips and silence his burlesque and ridicule.
50
On page 34, we are charged with bigotry, for having said the
word baptizo, was not translated in the New Testament, meaning,
when the ordinance of baptism was in view. This is the first time
we ever heard any one deny that this word was not translated, or
pretend to dispute the fact that it was merely transferred, with
some very slight alteration in its termination, but by no means
translated. Mr. T. in his fury says, "we had better give up the
present version," &c, Suppose we should do so, we would only
be following the example of Mr. Wesley. Has he not put out a
translation of his own? So then Mr. T. being judge, Mr. W esley
is ahead of us in bigotry! Ah! Mr. T., see how folly, especially
when ill-natured, will kill itself. But strange! after this frantic fit
and cry of bigotry, Mr. T. on the same page, concedes the point,
that the word was not translated, and quotes authority in vindica¬
tion of the translators, for not having translated this particular
word! then caps the climax of a four-fold absurdity, by saying
the translators have done the Baptists more than justice!! Indeed!
more than justice? Then Mr. T. has made them out those very
corrupt men that he would try to make people believe that toe had
made them; and about which he had shown so much ill-natured
zeal. For if they have done the Baptists more than justice, then is
the same principle of faithfulness violated that would have been had
they not done us justice. If we have had more than justice done
us, the translation is not faithful. But while on this subject, let
Mr. T. tell us how it happens, that when this same word occurs
where the ordinance of baptism is out of view, it can be transla¬
ted without any kind of difficulty? Does it not look a little singu¬
lar, that when the ordinance of baptism is not concerned, the words
bapto and baptizo can be translated without any difficulty? There
surely was a dodging in this business; else why not, make use of
the word baptize in all cases as well as when the ordinance of bap¬
tism is spoken of?
Axiom.—Next comes the axiom "in philosophy," viz: "That
things equal to the same thing are equal to one another." Here
the gentleman goes perfectly frantic; nor do we know wheth¬
er his ebullitions have yet ceased. He cries out, "a mutilated ax¬
iom in mathematics applied to moral reasoning," &c. Not so fast,
sir. It is an axiom "in philosophy"—not natural more than mor¬
al; and we were demonstrating an act, not a principle, therefore
the gentleman is wholly wrong in saying we applied an axiom in
mathematics to moral reasoning. What kind of moral reasoning
is the explanation of the nature or form of an act? Why is this
axiom in philosophy not to be applied to the testing of moral
truths, as well as to the measurement of lines and angles? Cannot
truths be "self-evident and equal" in moral philosophy as well as
in natural? Most undoubtedly. In the applieation of this axiom,
we had said in our sermon, "If sprinkling be baptism and immer¬
sion be baptism, then sprinkling is immersion and immersion is
sprinkling; leaving out the word equal, of which Mr. T. makes
great complaint and calls it mutilated. We left out the .word
.51
equal designedly, and trom a sense of duty, arising from the fact
of the unqualified declarations of the different administrators of
the ordinance of baptism. When Mr. T. sprinkles a child does he
say, I perform an act equal to* baptism? Certainly not. Nor do
Ave, when we immerse a believer; but we both say "Ibaptize"—
Hence we felt bound to drop the word equal m the application of
the axiom. We feel ourselves still bound to say, "//"immersion
be baptism and sprinkling be baptism, then sprinkling is immer¬
sion and immersion is sprinkling." This is a self-evident truth,
nor can it be evaded or denied, only at the expense of common
sense. But is it a fact that these are one and the same act? Certainly
not, but two, and wholly different. The question naturally arises
then, how dare we declare that we do perform one and the same
act, by making use of the same word as expressive of the nature
of the act we perform? Is not one of us wrong?—and, is not
truth likely to suffer in this lawless use of the word baptize? This
is all evident. Well, as one of us must be wrong, another ques¬
tion arises—which one? We stand on firm ground in this matter,
in using the word baptize, as all our learned opponents concede
that it certainly does signify to immerse, whatever else they sup¬
pose it may signify;—and as we all know it is a Greek word trans¬
ferred to our language, the full and clear import of which, if trans¬
lated into English, would be immerse, which is certainly expres¬
sive of the nature of the act we perform. Mr. T., look at your
Greek Lexicon, and see the truth of what we say. "We speak
that we do know." Rantize is a Greek word, also transferred to
our language, the full and clear import of which in English, is
sprinkle;—when we sprinkle why not use it?
But Mr. T. has attempted to set aside all our arguments from ax¬
ioms and "principles of philosophy," by introducing several ex¬
amples, as he appears to think, entirely subversive of all we have
said; which, however, we will quickly shew every candid mind is
far from being the fact. Mr. T. says, "If green be a color and red
be a color, then red is green and green is red," &c. HHP" Now
we wish the attention of the reader while we fully and clearly
shew that Mr. T. has gone upon false first principles, and, there¬
fore, his conclusions are total abortions, and • wholly irrelevant.
Color is a general and indefinite term, having no application to
any one kind of color more than another, but is applicable to all
possible kinds of color. It may be red, blue, green, black, orange,
&c. &c., still it is a color. Not so with the word baptize; it is not
applicable to all possible kinds of use and application of water, as
every child knows: but still, it is an application or use of water.—
Not so with the word color. If the ivord color is a color, or any
color, will Mr. T. tell us what color it is? The terms must be the
same. Suppose then here is red, blue, green—now if red be blue,
and green be blue, then of course red is green and green is red, if
they are both the same color as blue. But is this a fact? Cer¬
tainly not; nor is it true that red is blue, or that green is blue; but
if the former be true, the latter follows as a natural consequence;
52
but neither is true. This then is the very error we had intended
to expose in our sermon. But we do still say, that if sprinkling
be haptism and immersion be baptism, then sprinkling is immer¬
sion and immersion is sprinkling. Because, it they are both the
same kind of act and application of water with that of baptism,
then, of necessity, they too are the same kind of act and applica¬
tion of water. But, we repeat, as before said, that neither the
former nor the latter is the fact; that is, sprinkling is not baptism,
nor is immersion sprinkling, or sprinkling immersion. But we do
hold, that baptism and immersion are the same, for this plain and
good reason, that baptism is the Greek term, immersion the En¬
glish term for one and the same act.
But as to the balance of Mr. T.'s examples, they are all predica¬
ted alike upon false first principles, and are consequently wholly in-,
applicable. Food is a general, indefinite term, having no applica¬
tion to any one kind of food more than another, but is equally ap¬
plicable to all kinds of food, as in the case of the word color.—
And so in regard to. the word exercise, this term is applicable to all
kinds of exercise, &c. This is precisely the case with his term
minister, which is, if possible, still more general and indefinite
than any-of the preceding, and is equally applicable to ten or ten
thousand kinds of ministers, whether of church, qy state, of good,
or evil, of God or the devil, &c., still they are all ministers. Now
if Mr. T. can make it appear that the word or term baptize is of
such general or indefinite import, that it may with equal propriety
be applied to. ten or ten thousand different applications of water, and
also that it applies to one kind of use or application of water wo more
than to another, then there may be some propriety in his examples.
But a& this can never be done, therefore, his man of struyj must
come down, and be "scattered to the four winds of heaven."
We say again, the terms must be the same, or of the same import.,
Will Mr. T. tell us what kind of food the word food is? or what
kind of exercise the word exercise is? or what kind of minister
the word minister is?
But to shew the utter fallacy of Mr. T.'s mode of reasoning in,
this case, let us test it on something of mathematical principles.
He would say ten feet is a meas.ure and twenty feet is a measure;
therefore, ten feet is twfenty feet and twenty feet is ten feet, as they
are both measures. No, sir, no! The indefinite term measure
will not do. What length is the word measure—how many feet is
it? Upon mathematical principles you must have a definite mea¬
sure to commence with, as the standard by which the others are to
be tested. It must be a measure of some definite length, such as
five, ten, or fifteen feet. Say then here is a measure of ten feet,
you bring another and try by it, they are the same—and another,
and they also are the samev This then proves both the last
not only to be the same, but to be ten feet; because they are equal
to the first, which was ten feet. So sir, you and the reader can now
clearly see the perfectly false principles upon which you proceed¬
ed throughout the whole of what you had to say on the axiom.
. 33
«?ohn's Immersion.—To shew us that John, could not have bap-,
tfized the vast multitudes that came to him for baptism by immer-.
sion,—^or, in other words, to shew that John could not "have im-
meised those whom he did immerse, Mr. T., on page 35th, starts,
on a surveying rout across the State of Georgia, &c to get the size
of the land of Judea,—then goes to counting up the population, &c.
Now, sir, do let us save you all this trouble, and worse than child¬
ish folly, by asking you a few plain questions: Do you, sir, does
any man in his right mind, believe that John baptized the whole
population of all the land of Judea? Do you not know that John
refused to baptize the Pharisees and Sadducees? These two classes
of people alone, constituted & large proportion of the population of
the country. Whom did the Saviour baptize? He was baptizing
at the same time John was. (See John 3. 22, 23.) Again, they
came to John and told him that He of whom he bore witness, which
wa's Jesus, baptizeth, and all men come to him. (See John 3. 36.)—
Now if John baptized all, where did this other all come from?—
Where were the three thousand on the day of Pentecost? This'
was a stout number that John and the Saviour both missed. After
John's death and the Saviour's ascension, who was left for the
Apostles to baptize? For we read that believers, not children,—
multitudes, b;o.th of men and women, no children yet, were added
to the Lord. (Acts 5. 14.) After all this, and much more, where
did the thousands of persecuting Jews come from? But why labor
to disprove what no sober-minded man can or does believe? These
are the weak and hopeless stragglings of a more hopeless cause.
On page 37th, he says, It is thought by some people that the
Saviour was baptized to set us an example. Yes, exactly so, Mr.
T., and no less a man than President Edwards, though a Paedo-
baptist, thought and said so. (See Ed. on Redmp. vol. 2, p. 196.)
But if this were so, Mr. T. chides and rebukes the blessed Saviour,
in a manner enough to fill the stoutest heart with sentiments of
horror, for having delayed this example till he was "thirty years
of age." Here we could weep over the man's insolent bearing
towards our Lord and Master, and also over his ignorance. Must
we tell Mr. T., J,ohn has just begun to baptize,—he has not been
baptizing "thirty years.." And we find the holy Jesus among the
very first in the river of Jordan, to be baptized; even before John
has ceased talking to the people; though he had to come all the
way from Galilee! (Read Matt. 3d ch. throughout.)
Witsius, on John's baptizing our Saviour, says, " Our Lord
would be baptized that he might conciliate authority to John's
baptism,—that by his own example, he might commend and sanc¬
tify our baptism," &c. (See Miscel. Sacra. Exer. 15. p. 63. Pen. p.
10.) Not only Witsius, but Taylor, McKnight, Vossius, Scott,
Doddridge, &c. &c., ail say the same; and all these were Paedobap-
tists. (See Peng. p. 10, 11.)
Typical Import of Baptism.—On pages 38 and 39, Mr. 1. la¬
bors hard to set aside the typical import of baptism; and asks,
" Pray, brethren, what is it that baptism does rtot represent. The
.VI
best answer that we can think of at present is, it does not represent
sprinkling, nor does sprinkling'represent baptism. On Rom. 6. 4.,
Mr. T. says, "The Apostle dues nut mean, that we are buried un¬
der the water when we are baptized." A man that will thus
speak will deny any thing, or any passage in the word oi God, to
carry his point. The whole Paxlobuptist world, so tar as we have
ever seen their sermons, notes, or comments, are against this self-
opinionated man. His own favorite Dr. Wall says," Paul twice rep¬
resents our being buried in baptism." This he says in relerence to
Rom. 6. 4. and Col. 2. 12. (See Wall, p. 131.) Dr. Doddridge, oif
Rom. 6. 4. says, "It seems the part of christian candor to confess,
that here is an allusion to the manner of baptizing by immersion."
(See his Fam. Exp. note, in loco.) Yes, Dr. Doddridge, but in this
day some people have no christian candor. Dr. "Whitby, on Ro.
6. 4., says, "It being so expressly declared here, that we are bu¬
ried with Christ in baptism, by being buried under the water," &c.
(See his notes on Rom. G. 4., also, Col. 2. 12.) Wells, McKnight,
Towerson, Assembly of Divines, &c. &c. all declare to the same ef¬
fect. ' (See Peng. p. 30' and 37.) But why multiply authorities to
prove what no one ever heard denied before, by any man of sense
or candor? All these authors we have mentioned were Paedobap-
tists; and we could greatly swell the number.
But worst of all for Mr." T. is, he has let his self-importance lead
him to contradict Mr. Wesley and'Dr. Clark both, in their notes and
comments, on this same passage. Who does the man take himself
to be, that he would thus contradict such men as Wesley and Clark?
Not only men of profound learning, but of exalted piety, and of
his own religious persuasion. Who is it that is possessed of big¬
otry now? Will the Methodist brethren tamely submit to this?
But perhaps the conceited man did not know what Wesley and
Clark had said on this text? No!—then if his reading is thus lim¬
ited, he ought to have remained silent. Wesley, in his note on
Rom, 6. 4. says, "Alluding to the ancient manner of baptising by
immersion. That like as Christ was raised from the dead, by the
glory,—glorious power of the Father, so we also, by the same
power, should be raised again; and as he lives a new life in heav¬
en, so we also, should walk in newness of life. This, says the
Apostle, our very baptism represents to *is." (See Wes. Testa¬
ment, note on Rom. 6. 4.)
If Mr. Wesley had been a Baptist, what more could he have
said? Dr. Clark is much more full, and speaks of the il whole body
being put under the water in baptism;" which we have not room
to write down, but cite the reader to Clark's Com. on Rom. 6. 4.
On page 40, Mr. T. says, " The conviction on his mind is, that
immersion cannot be proved by the Scriptuies!" As we said be¬
fore, so we say again, a man that will talk thus, will say any thing
rather than give up ins point. Reader, look on page 31st of Mr.
T.'s Treatise, where he says, -'If Divines would administer the
ordinance, meaning# baptism, in a way they knew to be wrong,
what kind of consciences had they? With us their testimony would
O.)
not, weigh a feather." Docs not Mr. T. immerse sometimes? Yet
it is the " conviction." of his mind that there is no authority for it
''in the Scriptures." Then, of course, it is wrong, and he must
know it. ^ " W hat sort of a conscience lias lie?" He being his own
judge, his testimony would not weigh a feather. A conscience
that is like a waxen nose, that may be bent in any direction, in
reference to the ordinances of t'u3 "Gospel, is not entitled to much
confidence in other matters, according to our judgment.
General Remarks.—In the few remaining pages, Mr. T.
touches upon several different subjects. He finds a great many
cases, places, &c., in which baptism could not have been by immer¬
sion. This was hard if fair, that baptism could not have been by
baptism; or immersion could not have been by immersion! Just
here, then, let us ask, how did it come to pass, that in all those
places where immersion could not have been practised, as Mr. T.
thinks, that the writers of the New Testament, or rather the Spirit of
Divine truth, never once used any one of all those words that sig¬
nify to sprinkle, pour, wash, &c.; but invariably used that word
only which signifies to immerse, and which never signifies any
thing else? Let Mr. T. answer this question. In all these asser¬
tions he charges the Spirit of Divine inspiration with teaching one
thing, while facts teach another!! Of using deceptive language,
and leading astray the mind of the reader!! These are serious
charges for a poor, frail mortal to bring against the Holy Spirit of
Divine Inspiration. Has Mr. T. thought of this idea seriously?
We suppose he has not. Does Mr. T. know that this is precisely
the way the skeptic argues in relation to the Scriptures generally?
He says, " I can't see how it could be, therefore I do not believe
it." But the truth is, immersion was certainly practised in every
instance in which the Spirit of Inspiration says it was; for the Spi¬
rit did not speak at random in this matter; nor, still less, did it say
one thing when the fact was another! What presumption!!
Aaaim These things are not only as we state, bat a faithful
versfon in this respect would have had it so, as George Campbell
and Dr. Macknight, two learned Prcdobaptist divines, abundantly
testify in their versions and else where, in accordance with the concur¬
rent testimony ot other candid and learned Pa)dobaptists. And,,
further; there is no earthly difficulty 111 any of all these cases only
as it exists in the mind of the objector. (1.) One difficulty with
Mr. T. is, Jesus went up into the mountain. Mr. T. says, "Sure¬
ly the Lord was not immersed in the mountain!" How childish!
Was there any mention of baptism, sir, in the history of this case?
No Mr. T., our Lord was not immersed in the mountain; but very
shortly before this he had been immersed in Jordan—once was
enough. But, sir, suppose there had been any thing said about
His baptism in the mountain, it would have been far more easy
and natural, both to have immersed Him in the mountain, than to
have sprinkled or poured Him in the mountain. Folly will kill
itself. (2.) The next difficulty is the 3,000. Here is no difficulty
whatever.' To the 12 Apostles add the 72 whom the Saviour also sent
5t>
but to preach, and it will appear, that there Were only abOut
■candidates for each administrator. And there might have been-,
and probably were, others to assist in this matter. (Read Acts 1 & 3
chaps.) Nor were they obliged to stop at night, if not thro' with the
baptizing, as always appears to be taken for granted, for the Jailor
was taken the same hour of the night and baptized. (3.) This,
then, leads to a third difficulty, with Mr. T. He can find no way
to immerse the Jailor and his believing, rejoicing family. Here is
a river close by, where Lydia's heart was opened; (See Acts 16. 13,
&c.) why not go to that? But it appears they did, for we read they
were taken the same hour of the night, &c. The natural conclusion
is, they were taken to this very river. (A. 16.35.) But there are sO
many ways in which this family could have been itnmersed, that
when God inHiswordtellsus'it was done, we ought to believe it. But
Mr. T. asks, with an air of wonderful triumph, "Would they leave
the prison at night without leave, and refuse in the day with
leave?" Most certainly, sir; and here is the beauty of the ihing.
After night, under the extraordinary circumstances of the! case,
they will go out on their Master's business, and return again,
like honorable, fearless men, and then next day refuse to cjitit the
place clandestinely as it were, but must be openly and honorably
discharged. This is all, as we think, just as it should be. There
is an honorable bearing, a moral grandeur in this transaction, ac¬
cording to'our view of it, worthy of the character of the Apostles;
in all the cases of household baptism there is any
doubt, or shadow of doubt, whether there were any infants bapti¬
zed or not, go and look at the commission. This will at once de¬
cide the whole matter; unless the Apostles transcended the author¬
ity of the commission, and this we can hardly suppose. Infants
are not in the commission. Suppose you receive a commission
from Government to enlist able bodied white men, from eighteen
to forty-jive years of age, as soldiers—you see your limits at once.
But suppose at a future day there should arise a dispute as to what
kind Of persons you did enlist, on certain occasions; the commis¬
sion, if it can be produced, will decide this matter—unless yoii
disobeyed orders. We do not believe the Apostles ever disobeyed
the authority of their commission.
4. The gentleman has taken a wonderful race through the New
Testament, hunting up all the little words called prepositions, such
as en, eis, ek, apo. &e. Now the truth is, these are all just as much
in our favor as we wish. When the sense requires it, en and eis
signify in and into—ek and apo out, out of, &c. But all these
words are very arbitrarily used, and are applied, in a great many
ways, as the sense of a sentence may require. 5. "Peter said,
who can forbid water," &c. Mr. T. says, this means "who can
forbid water to be brought." Who told you so, sir? We, the
Baptists, use this very mode of expression, pretty generally, when
we are about to receive a member as a candidate for baptism; and
we do not mean who can forbid water tb be brought, but who cart
forbid water in which to immerse this person?
57
6. Mr. T. says, on page 42d, and gives Dr. Thomas Goulding as
his authority, that where it is said of Saul of Tarsus, "that he
arose forthwith and was baptized," the Greek participle anas/us
means "stood up." But stop,sir, before we go anv further. It is
not said, "tnat he arose forthwith and was baptized;'' but that
'•he received his \ight forthwith," &c. Nor is the Greek partici¬
ple anastus, but anastas; or at least it is so in our Greek Testament.
But suppose; it ni3aii3 " stood up." This is decidedly against you.
1st. A little water could hive h^en sprinkled on his facj much
more easily and properly, while lying down, than when on his fjet;
hence there was no possible propriety, but the contrary, in making
him stand up. 2d. Mr. T. has it. thus: "And he stood up and was
baptized ininizdiately;" nisaning that he received baptism with¬
out any delay, in the room where he was, where Ananias visited
him, "standing up on the floor by the bed side." Was there ever
any thing to equal all this! What will be next? But, sir, suppose
you tell us, that you ordered your servant to get up, that is, arise
from his bed, make you a fire, feed the stock, and go to work, and
that he did so immzdiately, are we to understand he did all this
standing by the bed side? or before he moved from the spot where
he stood when he first got up? Let common sense answer. Yet
transfer this case to Saul of Tarsus, and you would have us to be¬
lieve it was all done "standing up by the bed side!" 3d. As to
the Greek participle anastus, stood up, as you have got it, there
is a wide difference between that and anastas, rising, or stand¬
ing up. But, as before said, suppose it be st od up; yet because
Saul got up, or stood up, as the first act towards obedience, you
would have us to believe all things were done while he stood
there!! Was ever folly equal to this?
But, Mr. T., how did you, or I)r. Goulding, happen to take the
liberty of removing the word "forthwith," which occurs in this
verse, (reader, look at Acts 9. 18,) from where it does belong, and
placing it where it does not belong? The answer must be, you
stood in need of it,—you had a purpose to answer,—you wanted
"forthwith" as close to "baptized" as possible. You say, "In
the common version it is said, ' And he arose forthwith and was
baptized.' " Now, as before remarked, (and we are sorry to have
to say it,) the common version says just no such thing, which any
school boy may see by turning to Acts 9. IS. The common ver¬
sion says," "and he received sight forth with, and arose, and was bap¬
tized." So then, by this change of position, not only the- sense of
the phrase is changed, but the fact said to have taken place is
wholly different. It was his sight he received forthwith, and not
baptism. What a difference!! The baptism, from the way in
which the passage reads in our version, might, have been delayed
for a considerable length of time,—even a day or more,—too long,
at leas:, to keep Saul "standing up by the bed-side." This our
opponents saw, and were trying to obviate. This is certainly an
unwarrantable liberty to take with God's word, and against which
■nrp. most solemnly protest.
58
But as a palliative at least, arid some kind of excuse m this case,
it may be said, "The copulative conjunction, and*, ties the differ¬
ent members of the sentence together." True, it ties the different
members of the sentence together, yet it doen not tie the adverb,
"forthwith" to each member of the sentence, os a necessary con¬
sequence, hy any means. For example: yon say, }Tou forthwith
sowed your wheat, and it grew, nnd vou cut it, &c. Will any man
say this was all done "fmthwith,''1 or at once? So this subterfuge,
should it be resorted to, will afford no r »lief. This our opponents
well knew, else there would have been no necessity for removing
forthwith from its proper position. What a shitting! what a
scrambling for even a straw to hold by!
7. On page 43(3, Mr. T. finds another great difficulty in the way
of immersion, on account of the icc; and says, that the Baptists of
the present day feel this difficulty, and ukeep aloof from higher
latitudes." This is another of Mr. T/s perfect gratuities! It is
matter of sincere regret, that he appears to he determined to be
always wrong and never right. His favorite Dr. Wall, in his His¬
tory of the Greek Church, that now does, and always did immerse,
says, "In which third paft of Europe, are comprehended the
Christians of Grecia, Thracia, fcervift, Bulgaria, Rascia, Wallachia,
Russia, Nigra, and so on; and oven the Muscovites, who, if cold¬
ness of country will excuse, micht plead for a dispensation with
the most reason of any.'*1 (WVs Hist. In. Bap. vol. 5, p. 376, ed. 3.)
And as to the present Baptists,. or those of this day and time, they
abound and flourish greatly in the North, and higher latitudes.—
We have our missionaries in Canada, &c.; and in the report of the
American and Foreign Bible Society, (exclusively Baptist,) for the
year 1842, we have iavorable reports from Iceland, (see p. 53,)
and other high latitudes. Be assured, sir, ice does not alarm, nor
cold hold us back for a single moment. Nor have we ever known
or heard of a solitary instance in which ill effects resulted from
immersion, in the ordinance of baptism, hut frequent and repeated
accounts to the contrary; many of which were truly surprising;-—
thus shewing God's approbation of this matter.
i Concluding Rehiajiks.—We have now followed Mr. T, through
the whole of the more particular and prominent parts of his Trea¬
tise. It has been our connlant care, faithfully to represent his re¬
marks and ideas; and if we have failed, in any instance, it has not
been through design. Mr. T/s manner of defence is, with us,
matter of sincere regret, viz. to deny nnd explain away the obvious
and plain meaning of God's holy word. In this respect the gen¬
tleman has displayed a hardihood never before witnessed by
us. As an example of this, we point to his denial of the typical
import of Rom, 6. 4, with rcgrrd to water baptism; where Paul
speaks of our being buried with Christ by baptism. Here, rather
than yield or give up his point, he sets at defiance common sense,
the obvious and certain meaning of God's word, and the concurrent
testimony of all Paedobaptists, so far as we have ever known, inclu¬
ding: both Mr. Wesley and Dr. A. Clark! This shews to what uu-
59
warrantable lengths party feeling and resentment may drive a man.
The excellent Dr. T. Dwiglit, in his defence of infant sprinkling^
brings forward, as one of his strong arguments, the circumstance
of the Saviour's washing Peter's feet. (See Dwight's Works, vol.
5. p. 337.) How any \ er.son can Hud aulhority in relation to the
ordinance of baptism i.i any way, in tni;j circumstance, we a,re ut¬
terly at a loss to cu.nciri1. Vitus we mention rmrely to shew to
what lar-lelched and cuii.li-ih arguments even great, and good, and
learned men will resort, racier than give lip a long and dearly
cherished idea, ot docliine, or practice. But with regard to Mr.
T.'s denying and endeavoring to explain awoy the obvious and
clear meaning of God's word, we do beseech him to remember,
that this is the precise manner in which the Universalian argues,
denies, and explains away the Scriptures. Tins certainly is a most
humiliating fact, and we would be rejoiced if we could indulge a
hope, that Mr. T. would tako it into serious and prayerful conside¬
ration.
Again: When we point the Deist to the doctrines of Divine Rev¬
elation, the fall of man and manner of his fall, the way and plan of
salvation by and through a crucified Redeemer, the Divinity of
Christ, his Divine and human nature, his miraculous conception,
the miracles he performed while here'ou earth, his death, resurrec¬
tion and ascension, and the declarations that it is ouly by faith in
him we are to be saved,—he tells us he does not believe it. Why?
Because he thinks it impossible. Well, when the Spirit of truth
and inspiration assures Mr. T. that immersion did take place in
all those instances in which baptism is mentioned,—assures him of
this by invariably using a word which positively, fully and clearly
signifies to immerse, lie says he does not believe it. Why?. Be¬
cause he thinks it impossible. Reader, where is the difference in
the mode of arguing in these two cases? And where is the differ¬
ence between the authority and weight of evidence rejected? The
amount of difference in the two cases is precisely this; viz. the one
denies the fact affirmed; the other acknowledges the fact, but de¬
nies it to have been performed in the manner affirmed. But they
both agree in setting aside the authority and testimony of God's
word only in different degrees and to a different extent. This last
idea, alone, ought to have been sufficient to put this question for¬
ever at rest, and to have superseded the necessity of all that has
been written. The Saviour prayed, "Father forgive them, for
they know not what they do." We do sincerely wish to adopt the
language and to imbibe the sentiment in relation to Mr. T.; for he
certainly has never seriously weighed the extent to which he is
rejecting the testimony of God's word, in relation to this matter.
Controversy, to us, is exceedingly disagreeable; it is not our ele¬
ment. Nor did we seek or desire it in this, or in any other case.—
But bem°- unexpectedly drawn into it, we feel it our duty "earn¬
estly to contend for the fiith that was once delivered to the saints."
And also, if possible, to disabuse the public mind in relation to
what we had already advanced in support of our faith.
00
May jars cease, and brotherly love prevail.—May Baptists and
Paedobaptists meet where all party names shall be forever hushed
in the songs of the redeemed, is the sincere prayer of the Author.
Amen.
A BRIEF SKETCH OF TIIE ORIGIN CF THE BAFTFSTS, &c.
Many have been (lie efforts to fix the date of the .Baptist De¬
nomination as fur back only as the Sixteenth Century. This is
exceedingly unjust, to say the least of it, and in opposition to the
clearest evidence to the contrary. That flic Baptists had their rise
in the commencement of the Gospel dispensation, is a Iruth so
manifest as to defy contradiction from skeprioisui itt'cli; and which,
we presume, 110 one will have the hardihood to deny, who reads
the New Testament, or will look, for a moment, at the history of
the Saviour, or his fore-runner, John the Baptist, or at the nets and
doings of the Apostles, as there recorded. The fact of their early
origin, we say, is beyond the power of skepticism itself to deny.
But we propose, in as brief a manner as possible, to shew that
they have existed from then till now.
Moshcim says of the Baptists, or Anabaptists, as he and others
called them, that their origin "is hid in the depths of antiquity."
(See Mos. His. vol. 2. ch. 3. p. 127..)
Edingburgh Encyclopedia, under the word Baptist, speaking of
this denomination, says, "Its origin is hid in the darkness of an¬
tiquity." And again: "There can be no doubt there were many
that held these opinions before the Reformation." (See Ed. Ency.
Am. Ed. Phil. 1^ 12. -
Here then are facts stated, in regard to the Baptists, which can¬
not be admitted in relation to the antiquity of any other denomi¬
nation of the age. Now the reason wl.y these writers, and many
others, could not discover the origin of ihe Baptists, and why their
history was hid in the "depths and darkness" of "antiquity," &c.,
was simply because they did not go to the right place to look for
it. I lad they only gone to the New Testament, they could have
found something of their history on almost every page. And had
they looked at Matt 21. 25, Mark 9. £0, and Luke 20. 4, they could
have found how, and where, and when baptism itself originated.
It is admitted on all hands, by Theologians and Ecclesiastical
writers of good repute, so far as they have touched upon the sub¬
ject, that there was a people who never did submit to the Papal
power, who never did worship the Beast, nor receive his mark in
their foreheads, who never did symbolize with "Antichrist." The
question, then, naturally arises,—What people were these who
never could, never did submit to Romish corruptions, in the dark¬
est ages of Antichrist? They could not have been the Lutherans,
or any branch of that church, for we trace these back to Martin
Luther, in the Sixteenth Century. Luther, the father and founder
of this denomination, was born*14Sy and died 1546. They could
61
not have been the Presbyterians, or any branch of that denomina¬
tion, for tney are all to be traced to John Calvin as their founder,
&Lo in the Sixteenth Century. This was a refinement, or refor¬
mation of Luther's reformation, and was in many respects greatly
for the beiter. They could not have been the Episcopalians, or
Church of Lug-land, for this denomination we trace at once to
Ilenry the VIII. It. grew out of a rupture that took place be¬
tween Henry and the Pope, in relation to the King's divorcing his
old wife, Catharine of Arragon, (his brother's widow,.the mother
of "bloody Mary," as she was called, and aunt to Charles the V.)
any marrying the young and bcamiful Ann Uoleyn. (See Marsh's
Chur. His. p. 2fi0to"262. Also, "Fate of England," &c.,by Les¬
ter, vol. I. p. 133. And various other historians.)
The Pope, in dread of Charles, would not gratify Henry in this
matter; therefore, Ilenry denied his authority, threw off all alle¬
giance to his Catholic supremacy, and causedto be pro¬
claimed supreme head of the Church of England. " Thus was the
reformation effected in England. This was a transfer of supreme
power from the Pope to the King." (See Mar. Ch. His. p. 2bl.)
This was also in the sixteenth centu.y; and, from the history of
the case, it was rather a transfer of Papal power, than a reforma¬
tion, as every reader must se^. Marsh says, "Most of the mon¬
strous corruptions of Popery still remained. (Page, lit supra.)—
Then it follows of necessity, that the Episcopal church is not, pro¬
perly speaking, a reformed church, but only has a different head.
For from that day to this, with the exception of Mary's short reign,
whoever is on England's throne, irrespective of moral character, is
the Head of the Church of England; or the Episcopal Church as es¬
tablished in England. The Methodist Episcopal Church claim Wes¬
ley as their founder, though he lived and died, so far as we know, a
member of the Church of England, and was strongly attached to
her doctrines; nor have they as a people, or religious denomina¬
tion, existed but little over one century.
From the above hasty view of the denominations we have men¬
tioned, it is evident that none of them could possibly have been the
people spoken of as never having submitted to "Antichrist;" for
they are all of comparatively recent date;—the oldest going only
as far back as the sixteenth century.
Just here suffer us to remark, that Henry "V Ilf, King of
England, up to the tim: of the rupture between him and the Pope,
(Leo X) was Luther's violent opponent, and had actually written
against hi.n; for which this same Pope had complimented him with
the title of " Defender of the Faith." And so it goes to this day!
But the question returns,—Who were those people who stood
out a-'ainst the "corruptions of the church?' They were the Wal-
denses. They are called by different names, by their persecutors
and others, according to that of their more prominent leaders; or
as the word valley was pronounced in different languages. But
th.6 name simply meant, dwellers or livers in valleys. Some sup¬
pose they took their name from Peter Waldus or Waldo; but this
6i
through all ages:—And, at tho same thru1. jrc.es to confute the erroneous
notion of the Catholics, thaf their Comriviiiion if llie most ancient."
Thus wo have the1 ic: hnony of two distinguished Pucdobap-
tists, one Professor o! '! lie*, logy in the University of Gottingeu, the
other Chaplain to the King ot Netherlands. (See Chris. Index,
vol 10, iXo. -35, p. 719 )
Once more:—According to \\ hUton, Sir Isaac Newton pronoun-
ced "the Baptists the only community that had never symbolized
with Antichrist, and was at times inclined to think them one of the
two Witne^o.'i described in the Apocalypse." (See Bap. Advo¬
cate, vol. 2. No. .S3, p. 129.)
3rd. The third and last kind of proof we propose, and that
which'is most conclusive of all is, the Waldensian Confession or
Articles of Faith. These Articles they produced on various oi a-
sion?, to vindicate and defend themselves against Ihe vile asper¬
sions that were cast upon them by (heir enemies;, and which Arti¬
cles have been preserved and handed down to us. \
The 7th Arlicle reads thns:
*• We behove, that in the Ordinance of Baptism, the. water is the visille
and externa! xi%n, which represents to us, that, which, hy the virtues of
God's invisible operation, is within us; namely, the renovation of our
minds, and the mortification of our members, through lite fait h of Jesus
Christ And hv this ordinance we are received into the holy congregation
of God's people:—previously professing and declaring' our faith and
change of life." (See Jones' Ch. His. vol. 3,.p. 46. 47, 48, Sir.)
IJere is no sign or appearance of the doctrine of baptismal re¬
generation, such as was taught and carried to a frightful extent
by those who opposed the Waldenses; and is, alas! but too much
taught and believed in, by many of this day,—no, nothing of this,
but kound Gospel, Apostolic. Faith. And just such as the Baptists
now hold.
Thus do we fee] fully persuaded, that to every candid and un¬
prejudiced mind, we have clearly proved, and fully sustained boih
orfr propositions,—viz. 1st. That the Baptists had their origin in
the days of Christ's incarnation, and at the verv commencement,
of the Gospel dispensation. And, 2d. That there has been an un¬
interrupted succession from then till now.
As to the first proposition, wc,did not attempt, to introduce any
other proof, than the New Testamen^ This is surely proof enough.
The second, we have sustained by good authority from various
quarters; and a concurrence of testimony from different witnesses,
which cannot be set aside. The whole history df the case is per¬
fectly plain; nor can. a shadow of doubt, in our opinion, rest
upon it. '
May God .of his infinite mercy, give us all grace to walk in the
good old Apostolic way,—nay each one*hear a voice, a gentle
voice from Heaven falling upon his ear, saying, " This is the wajr,
walk ye in it!" is our"prayer for Christ's sake. Amen.