< 
 
 I 
 
 <t 
 
 •i 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 i. 
 < 
 
 t 
 
 
 
 « 
 
 
 
^ PRINCETON. N. J. xO 
 
 Presented by Mr. Samuel Agnew of Philadelphia, Pa. 
 
 AgJiezv Coll. on Baptism, No. 
 
 a, I 
 
4^ 
 
Digitized by tine Internet Archive 
 
 in 2011 with funding from 
 
 Princeton Theological Seminary Library 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/baptismitsmodesuOOmass 
 
ITS 
 
 MODE, SUBJECTS AP DESIGN; 
 
 ALSO, 
 
 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 BETWEEN 
 
 REV. JOHN E. MASSBY, BAPTIST, 
 
 AND 
 
 KEY. J. D. COULLING, METHODIST, 
 
 HEID AT 8HI10H, REAR lYY DBPOT, ALBEMARLE CO., YA.. 
 From the 10th to the 14th of July, 1860. 
 
 'PKOVa ALL THINSS: HOLD FAST THAT TVHIOH IS GOOD. 
 
 SHELDON & COMPANY, PUBLISHERS^ 
 No. 115 Nassau Street, 
 
 1861. 
 
% *> % '■'■■■ "' 
 
 
 CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 North Garden. Albemarle Co., Va., ) 
 October 26, 1859. S 
 
 Elder J. D. CoullinG;: 
 
 Dear Sir — Several persons who heard your sermons on Bap- 
 tism, delivered at Mount Moriah a few days past, have informed 
 me that you publicly expressed your willingness to discuss the 
 points of difference between the Churches to which you and I re- 
 spectively belong, upon the subject of Christian Baptism, with a 
 Baptist minister. 
 
 In compliance with the wish of many friends, who have heard 
 you preach upon the subject at the above-named and various 
 other places, and hoping that the cause of truth will be advanced 
 by a public interchange of our views upon the subject, in a kind, 
 courteous, and Christian manner, I avail myself of the first oppor- 
 tunity, since I heard of your proposal, to apprise you of my wil- 
 lingness to meet you in discussion at such time and place as may 
 be agreed upon by us, as soon as the terms of discussion and the 
 points to be discussed shall have been settled. 
 
 Please inform me, at your earliest convenience, whether I shall 
 have the pleasure of meeting you in discussion ; and, if so, state 
 the regulations by which you propose that we shall be governed. 
 
 Any propositions that will facilitate the settlement of prelimi- 
 naries, will be kindly received and considered. 
 
 It is due that I inform you, that, upon hearing of your proposal, 
 I publicly announced my willingness to discuss with you. 
 
 Eespectfully and fraternally, 
 
 John E. Massey. 
 
CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 Charlottesville, November 1, 1859. 
 Elder John E. Massey : 
 
 Bear Sir — Yours of the 26th ult. was received the 28th, about 
 an hour before I started for an appointment in the valley of Vir- 
 ginia. I returned this morning and hasten to reply. 
 
 You say that several persons who heard my sermons on Bap- 
 tism, informed you that I publicly expressed a willingness to dis- 
 cuss, &c., and again you speak of a discussion as my " proposal," 
 &c. This information seems to have made the impression on your 
 mind that I iiave, with the air and spirit of a hiight-errantj 
 thrown down the gauntlet, and am ready for a tilt at any one who 
 dares to take up the glove. If I have, at any time, or in any place, 
 publicly or privately, challenged controversy on this subject, I 
 am not aware of it. I cannot recall anything that I said in the 
 pulpit at Mount Moriah, which could have made such an impression 
 as was received by your informers. I have appealed to two intel- 
 ligent gentlemen who heard me the first day, and they cannot re- 
 call anything which made such an impression on their minds, and 
 one of them (not a member of any church) recalled a remark, 
 which confirms me in the opinion that I have been misunderstood 
 and therefore unintentionally misrepresented. The position, 1 
 think, I occupy on this subject, is simply this : I have been, at 
 sundry times, requested by some of the members of my own Church 
 to present the views of the Church on the points of difference be- 
 tween us and immersionists, and I have done so, plainly and em- 
 phatically, but I think courteously, toward those from whom I 
 difi'er. I have never intended to assail immersionists, unless the 
 statement of their positions and arguments, and an attempt to meet 
 them, can be regarded an assault. 
 
 You must allow me to say, that I cannot consent to be held re- 
 sponsible for all the misapprehensions of persons who hear my 
 discourses upon this subject. 
 
 Having attempted to disabuse your mind of a mistake, which, I 
 think, places me in a false attitude before you, and which, doubt- 
 less, suggested the proposal contained in your note, I will now say, 
 that if you choose to renew the proposal, without reference to 
 what you have been informed about my willingness to discuss the 
 
CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 subject, I ^Yill then consider the matter and decide that simple and 
 unembarrassed proposition. 
 
 Very respectfully and fraternally, 
 
 Jas. D. Coulling. 
 
 North Garden, Nov. 12, 1859. 
 Elder Jas. D. Coulling : 
 
 Dear Sir — Absence from home prevented my receiving your 
 favor of the first instant, until several days after its date, and then 
 hearing that you would be in North Garden to-morrow, I deferred 
 answering it till now. 
 
 I can but feel a little disappointed at the contents of your letter. 
 You say, " If I have, at any time, or in any place, publicly or 
 privately, challenged controversy on this subject [Baptism,] I am 
 not aware of it. I cannot recall anything I said in the pulpit at 
 Mount Moriah, which could have made such an impression as was 
 received by your informers." If you will examine my note, you 
 will, perhaps, discover that you have misconstrued my language. 
 I did not say you had '^ challenged controversy," but that you, 
 according to my informers, '' expressed your willingness to discuss," 
 &c., and that this " willingness" was expressed " publicly." 
 
 Perhaps you can recall something which transpired after you 
 left the pulpit, which justified the impression received by my in- 
 formers. If you cannot, they have fallen into a most egregious 
 mistake. They not only understood you to " express your willing- 
 ness to discuss," &c., but to name some of the conditions upon 
 which you would engage in discussion. 
 
 It is proper to state, that nothing which I have heard has made 
 the impression upon my mind that ^' you expressed your willing- 
 ness to discuss," in any unkind spirit or manner : nor do I take the 
 slightest exception to your preaching upon Baptism at any time 
 or place you choose. I not only admit the right, but believe 
 it the duty of every Ambassador of Christ to proclaim freely and 
 fully the doctrines of the Church he represents. 
 
 You say, in conclusion, " If 3-ou choose to renew the proposal, 
 without reference to what you have been informed about my wil- 
 lingness to discuss the subject, I will then consider the matter, 
 and decide that simple and unembarrassed proposition." 
 
6 CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 I could not, \nth propriety; under the circumstances, address 
 you again without so far referring to the past. Having thus ex- 
 plained the past, I now waive all further reference to it for the 
 present, and inform you that I am not only willing, but desirous, 
 to discuss with you the points of difierence between the Churches 
 to which you and I respectively belong, upon the subject of Chris- 
 tian Baptism. 
 
 Several considerations induce me to renew this proposition. 
 
 In the first place, though I have not preached a sermon upon 
 the subject of Baptism for more than three years, I consider it 
 obligatory upon us to impart to our hearers all the information wc 
 possess upon this, as upon all other Gospel subjects. 
 
 In the second place : your having preached not less than twenty- 
 Jive sermons upon the subject, during the present year, if I have 
 been rightly informed, satisfies me that you fully concur with me 
 in this opinion, and that you are well posted upon the subject. 
 
 In the next place, I believe correct information will more likely 
 be imparted by a presentation of both sides of the subject at the 
 same time. And, lastly, the high position you occupy in your own 
 Church, and the estimation in which you are held by your own 
 people, not only assure me that you are considered by them as 
 fully able to sustain their cause, but that the discussion would, on 
 your part, at least, be conducted in a dignified, kind, courteous, and 
 Christian manner. 
 
 I will make no suggestion as to time or place, until I hear your 
 answer to the " simple proposition.^^ If you, however, choose to 
 make any, I shall be glad to receive them. 
 
 Hoping to hear from you at your earliest convenience, I remain. 
 Very respectfully and fraternally, 
 
 John E. Massey. 
 
 Charlottesville, Dec. 6, 1859. 
 Elder John E. Massey : 
 
 My Dear Sir — Yours of the 12th ult. was received about dark 
 on the day before I started to the late Session of my Conference, 
 in Lynchburg. 
 
 While there I was unceasingly engaged; and since my return 
 my time has been closely occupied with duties imposed on me as 
 
CORRESPONDENCE. / 
 
 the Secretary of the Conference. I am thus particular to assure 
 you that my silence was unavoidable, and not intended to be disre- 
 spectful. 
 
 I accede to your proposition " to discuss with you the points of 
 difference between the Churches to which you and I respectively 
 belong, upon the subject of Christian Baptism." I shall be much 
 obliged to you, if you will state, distinctly, the issues you propose 
 to make, that I may be prepared to meet you on equal ground. 
 You are aware of the advantage one may have by raising new 
 issues on the spur of the occasion. Please be definite and distinct 
 in stating your points. 
 
 As to the place of meeting, I propose that the discussion take 
 place at Mount Shiloh, near Ivy Depot, on the Central Eailroad. 
 I name this place because it is convenient to us both, and about equi- 
 distant from Mount Moriah and Mount Ed, therefore easy of 
 access to the members of both Churches. 
 
 As to the time : I can meet you any Tuesday, Wednesday, and 
 Thursday, after the 25th of January, 1860. 
 
 xls to the terms of discussion, if I understand what you mean, 
 you have happily expressed all I desire. You propose that the 
 discussion be " in a kind, courteous, and Christian manner." This 
 covers all the ground that we can occupy consistently with the 
 character of gentlemen and Christians. 
 
 Yours, very respectfully, 
 
 Jas. D. Coulling. 
 
 North Garden, Dec. 16, 1859. 
 Elder James D. Coulling : 
 
 Dear Sir — Yours of the 6th inst. was received on the 8th, and 
 would have been answered at once, but for imperative duties 
 which have claimed my whole time since its reception. 
 
 Your reasons for not answering my last sooner, are perfectly 
 satisfactory. Our situations being similar — each having to per- 
 form a large amount of regular ministerial labor, will require us 
 to exercise mutual forbearance. 
 
 I fully agree with you as to the importance of having the issues 
 between us distinctly stated, and will try to comply with your re- 
 quest. I desire to embrace in our discussion the whole ground of 
 
8 CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 controversy between Baptists and Pedo-Baptists upon Christian 
 Baptism, and, if you will consent, the terms of admission to the 
 Lord's Supper. 
 
 I propose this addition because the two subjects are intimately 
 connected — because a right understanding of their mutual rela- 
 tions is of great importance, and because it will enable us to form 
 an equal number of affirmative and negative propositions, so that 
 we can meet on perfectly fair and equal ground. 
 
 Hoping this will meet your approbation, I submit the following 
 propositions, and ask your decision upon them. I will try to so 
 state them that either can be the affirmant : 
 
 1st. The Subjects of Baptism. 
 
 Believers are the only Scriptural subjects of Christian Bap- 
 tism. I affirm. You deny. 
 
 Infants are Scriptural subjects of Christian Baptism. You 
 affirm. I deny. 
 
 2d. The Action of Baptism. 
 
 The immersion of a proper subject in water, in the name of the 
 Holy Trinity, is the only Apostolic or Christian Baptism. I affirm. 
 You deny. 
 
 Sprinkling, or pouring water upon a proper subject, in the name 
 of the Holy Trinity, is Apostolic or Christian Baptism. You 
 affirm. I deny. 
 
 3d. The Design of Baptism. 
 
 Christian Baptism is designed to show the faith of the subject 
 in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, as the pro- 
 curing cause of his pardon and salvation. I affirm. You deny. 
 
 I must beg you to state your own views of the design of Bap- 
 tism as the converse of this proposition. 
 
 4th. Terms of Admission to the Lord's Supper. 
 
 None but those who have received valid Christian Baptism have 
 a Scriptural right to partake of the Lord's Supper. I affirm. 
 You deny. 
 
 The Scriptural right to partake of the Lord's Supper is not re- 
 stricted to those who have received valid Christian Baptism. You 
 affirm. I deny. 
 
 I am willing to take the affirmative of either the 1st or 2d, and 
 the 3d or 4th of these propositions, and the negative of the other 
 
CORRESPONDENCE. U 
 
 two. You can either select from these as they now stand, or pro- 
 pose such changes as you think will better present the true issues 
 between our respective Churches. 
 
 • I make no objection to the place you propose, but as the house 
 cannot possibly accommodate the congregation we may reasonably 
 expect to meet, it will be necessary to defer the discussion until 
 the weather will allow us to meet in the open air. I, therefore, 
 agree that Mount Shiloh, near Ivy Depot, on the Virginia Central 
 Railroad, be the place, and propose Tuesday, the 15th of May, 
 1860, as the time. 
 
 I submit the following propositions without dwelling upon the 
 reasons for them, as they affect us equally, and seem to me to com- 
 mend themselves. 
 
 Each shall be entitled to occupy forty-five minutes in his open- 
 ing address upon each proposition, and thirty minutes alternately 
 thereafter imtil we shall mutually agree to discontinue its discus- 
 sion. The affirmant having the closing address, but not to intro- 
 duce new matter in it. Each shall, during the discussion, recog- 
 nize the other as a Christian brother^ and avoid personalities, or 
 unkind remarks. All books introduced shall be free to each. That 
 we unite in employing a competent and reliable stenographer, who 
 shall report fairly and fully all that is said by us, subject simply 
 to verbal correction. 
 
 That the discussion be published in such form and numbers as 
 shall be agreed upon by us hereafter, at our equal expense — one 
 half of the profits, if any, after paying all expenses, to be appro- 
 priated by each of us to such object or objects as we may select. 
 
 I also propose that each of us select a man, and these two a 
 third, who shall act as moderators, pr^erving order, and regula- 
 ting the time, &c., of speaking. The third man should not be a 
 member of any Church, The other two may or may not be as 
 you prefer. 
 
 I have written hastily and may not have stated clearly all that 
 is necessary. Please supply any omission on my part, and pro- 
 pose whatever else you think desirable to render the discussion 
 both pleasant and profitable. 
 
 Very fraternally and respectfully, 
 
 John E. Massey. 
 1 
 
10 CORRESPONDEKCE. 
 
 Charlottesville^ January 10, 1860. 
 Elder John E. Massey : 
 
 My Dear Sir — Yours of the 16th ult., came duly to hand, and 
 its contents have been maturely considered. Absence from home, 
 in addition to my official duties, has caused a delay longer than 
 I intended or desired. I must throw myself on your forbearance. 
 I have no objection to debate any one of the points you have 
 stated. If any alteration should be made, I would only suggest a 
 different arrangement. The design of Baptism, involving, as it 
 does, its nature, is logically the tirst in order; then, the mode of 
 its administration; next, the proper subjects; and finally, the 
 effects of Baptism, including the privileges to which it entitles its 
 recipients. But I confess I regard this a very unimportant point, . 
 find will freely acquiesce in the arrangement of the subject you 
 have made. Perhaps it is merely a matter of taste, upon which 
 no stress should be laid. . 
 
 You must permit me to decline assuming the affirmative of 
 either or any of the propositions you state. My reasons for de- 
 clining are : 
 
 1. You have no right to challenge me to a controversy, and 
 then call on me to take the affirmative upon any point. 
 
 2. My views of the issues you have presented for discussion 
 are such, that I am not disposed to complain of you, or of your 
 church, for differing from me and my Church, and therefore I de- 
 cline raising any point of debate upon the subject. 
 
 3. I have never acted aggressively toward your Church, and I 
 have no intention of doing so. I cannot be induced to assume 
 such a position until my views upon the ordinance of Baptism un- 
 dergo a change. ^ 
 
 4. If there is any advantage in sustaining the affirmative, you 
 are entitled to it ; if any disadvantage, you have no right to im- 
 pose it on me. 
 
 5. My position is one of self-defence, and shall be purely such. 
 I am perfectly willing to take issue with you (because you desire 
 it) on the following points, you affirming : 
 
 1. That " Believers are the only Scriptural subjects of Christian 
 Baptism." 
 
 2. That " The immersion of a proper subject in water, in the 
 
CORRESPONDENCE. 11 
 
 name of the Holy Trinity, is the only apostolic or Christian Bap- 
 tism."' 
 
 3. Tliat " Christian Baptism is designed to show the faith of the 
 subject, in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, as 
 the procuring cause of his pardon and salvation." 
 
 4. That '• None but those who have received valid Christian 
 Baptism have a Scriptural right to partake of the Lord's Supper." 
 
 We are agreed as to the place of discussion. I am afraid the 
 16th of May will be too soon, to secure comfort in the open air. 
 The 13th of June, four weeks later, will perhaps be more pro- 
 pitious. I would prefer a longer time than forty-five minutes to 
 discuss each point. But this can be arranged when we meet. I 
 have no objection to the moderators, and will unite with you in 
 their selection. Pardon me for declining to employ a reporter. I 
 hardly think I shall say anything worthy of publication, and I am 
 not in pecuniary circumstances to incur the expense of such a 
 publication. 
 
 Very fraternally and respectfully, 
 
 Jas. D. Coulling. 
 
 North Garden, January 24, 1860. 
 Elder Jas. D. Coulling: 
 
 Bear Sir — On my return home, after ten days' absence, I found 
 your favor of the 10th inst., and avail myself of the first opportu- 
 nity to answer it. 
 
 When I received your second letter, I considered it settled that 
 we should have a perfectly fair discussion upon the subject of 
 Christian Baptism. In my last to you, I endeavored to bo state 
 the issues between us, that we could clearly understand the points 
 to be discussed, and meet upon perfectly fair and equal ground. 
 Self-respect — respect for the Church to which I belong — the cause 
 in which I am engaged — and for the truth, as it is in Jesus, forbid 
 my seeking an advantage in the arrangements for such a discus- 
 sion, or even receiving one if ofiered me. 
 
 I most sincerely believe that the doctrines of the Baptist denom- 
 ination, upon the subject of Baptism, are the doctrines of the Bible 
 upon that subject. I accord to you the same conscientious belief 
 with regard to the doctrines of your denomination. Hence, I sup- 
 
12 CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 posed it fair to conclude that each would earnestly desire that 
 truili — Bible truth — would triumph, let it be on whichsoever side. 
 I solemnly declare such to be my wish. I prefer sustaining a 
 thousand defeats, if I am in error, to being victorious over truth, 
 or triumphing by any other means than a fair presentation of it. 
 The questions between us are not questions of our personal skill, 
 or comparative ability in debate. They are questions as to what 
 the Bible teaches upon the issues proposed. How we can meet 
 upon equal ground, and conduct a fair and profitable discussion, 
 while you occupy yomp present position, I cannot see ; and I can- 
 not avoid feeling greatly surprised that you claim such a position. 
 You say your "position is one of self-defence, and shall be purely 
 such.^^ TFAo, my dear sir, has assailed you ? or intends to assail 
 you? 
 
 I hope to discuss with you, if you will meet me fairly (which I 
 confess your last letter causes me to doubt), but I assure you I 
 have no thought of assailing any man, or body of men. The rea- 
 sons you assign for not taking the affirmative of any proposition, 
 and the manner in Avhich you speak of my challenging you " to 
 controversy," make it necessary for me to refer to the origin of 
 this correspondence, although in my second letter I waived, for 
 the time, all further reference to it, and hoped not to be under the 
 necessity of referring to it again. I have preached more than six 
 years in this county, and have preached, I think, but three ser- 
 mons upon Baptism in it. To those who heard those sermons, and 
 who hear me Sabbath after Sabbath, I can safely appeal, to 
 defend me against the charge of assailing other denominations, 
 should such a charge be made. You have, I think, been in the 
 county but little more than two years. Durin^; this time, you 
 have, I learn, preached not less than twenty-six elaborate sermons 
 upon Baptism, requiring, on some occasions, two days for their de- 
 livery. 1 do not at all complain of this, but merely state the fact, 
 by way of explaining our positions. On the second day that you 
 preached upon the subject, at Mount Moriah, you announced, pub- 
 licly from the pulpit, that you were willing to discuss the subject of 
 Baptism with any mar, upon fair Christian principles, upon certain 
 conditions. These conditions were, first, no personalities must be 
 used ; secondly, you would select a man, the opposite party one. 
 
CORPxESPONDENCE. 13 
 
 and these two a third, neither of whom should belong to any 
 church, and that the three should preside as moderators. (I make 
 these statements upon perfectly reliable authority.) 
 
 You certainly could not have expected otherwise than that some 
 Baptist minister would be solicited to meet you. That I was se- 
 lected, I attribute to the simple fact that I was pastor of the two 
 nearest Baptist churches to Mount Moriah. How you can reconcile 
 the position you now occupy, with these facts, I must leave you to 
 explain. If you consider your doctrines defensible, and yourself 
 able to defend them, you surely cannot refuse to meet me upon 
 equal ground, and discuss the issues fairly. If we cannot agree 
 upon the propositions to be discussed, and the arrangements for 
 their discussion, I am willing to unite with you in the selection of 
 a committee, to whom the whole shall be submitted, with the 
 single restriction that they shall arrange for us to meet upon equal 
 ground, and have a full and fair discussion of the issues joined. 
 I prefer the following order : 
 1st. The mode or action. 
 2d. The subjects. 
 3d. The design. 
 
 4th, The Lord's Supper. ^ 
 
 You may select any two, and I will take the others. I cannot 
 withdraiu my proposition to employ a reporter, but as you present 
 a pecuniary reason for not uniting in employing him, I will re- 
 move that objection by assuming the entire pecuniary responsi- 
 bility, provided you will unite with me in his selection, and will 
 relinquish all claim upon his work after you shall have made such 
 verbal corrections, as proposed in my last. 
 
 The place being settled, I adopt your suggestion as to the change 
 of time, and agree to commence the discussion on Tuesday, the 
 12th of June next. You agree to unite with me in the selection 
 of moderators, but do not say whether they shall be members of 
 any church or not. I hope your next will settle all the points 
 necessary to be settled, to insure such a discussion as was first an- 
 ticipated. 
 
 Hoping to hear from you at an early day, I remain, 
 Very fraternally and respectfully, 
 
 John E. Massey. 
 
14 CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 Charlottesville, Feb. 2, I860. 
 Elder John E. Massey : 
 
 3Iy Dear Sir — You must havo greatly misapprehended my 
 last, or you would never have made such protestations of sincerity, 
 or such professions of loyalty to the doctrines of your Church. 
 I regret that you thought me capable of implying a doubt upon 
 such points. Your remarks on my assertion, that " my position is 
 one of self defence," is a great waste of sympathy, resulting, also, 
 I think, from a misunderstanding of my language. I would hardly 
 think it worth while to say that I would defend myself from a per- 
 sonal assault, and would doubt the courage or capacity of the man 
 who would trouble a stranger with such an assurance. You will, 
 perhaps, better understand what I meant, before the close of this 
 communication. You say: **'How we can meet upon equal 
 grounds," etc., ctt/", "I cannot see;'' you are ''surprised" that I 
 " claim such a position." Then, after reciting what you regard 
 the facts in the case,' you say, " How you can reconcile the position 
 you now occupy with these facts, I must leave you to explain. A 
 very easy matter, I think. What the facts you state have to do 
 with the mode of debate, I cannot see. If you were censured for 
 proposing the discussion, you might seek your vindication in such 
 facts ; but I humbly conceive they do not affect the present issue. 
 The facts in the case, which, to my mind, assign us our several po- 
 sitions, you have altogether overlooked. You proposed the discus- 
 sion. I accepted the proposition, and requested you to state the 
 issues. You made those issues frankly and plainly : but they are 
 severally and collectively a distinct dissent from the usages and 
 doctrines of my Church. They are allegations in which you deny 
 that my church is Scriptural. It is sheer justice to your common 
 sense to assume that you would make no allegations that you 
 could not sustain. But (and I only follow your own example), if 
 you find, upon more mature thought, that you have undertaken 
 more than you can accomplish; if you will let me know which of 
 the issues you most dread, I will assume the affirmative of thoso 
 points, and thereby relieve you. You can certainly see how anom- 
 alous my position must be if I assume the affirmative of any alle- 
 gation made against me. My position could not have surprised 
 you more than your proposition to me to take the affirmative sur- 
 
CORRESPONDENCE. 15 
 
 • 
 prised me. My position is so evidently defensive that you cannot 
 avoid feeling it yourself; and. in your very effort to induce me to 
 change my position, you unintentionally endorse my judgment, by 
 saying, " If you consider your doctrines defensible and yourself 
 able to DEFEND THEM,'' ctc. I might say much more upon this 
 point, hut I desist. Let me present another view of the subject. 
 "When we appear before an audience upon the issues you propose 
 to debate, what will be the several positions we will occupy? 
 You will stand up, an accredited member and minister of the 
 Church of Christ, endorsed as such by pedobaptist standards, and 
 entitled to all the privileges of church membership ; while I will 
 be denied, by all the standards of Immersionists, any Scriptural 
 title to any of the privileges of church membership, and will stand 
 there to debate issues which not only imply that much, but which, 
 if sustained, will place me without the pale o%the Church ; and 
 all I can hope to do will be to prove a title to a position conceded to 
 you in advance. If, then, there is any advantage (which is a ques- 
 tion of circumstances) in occupying the defensive, will "even that 
 place me on a level with you ? I concede to yon as much sincerity 
 in the view of the subject you have taken as I claim for myself. 
 I have carefully considered all you say in your last. Now, I request 
 you to consider carefully the view I have taken ; and if, after you 
 shall have looked upon the subject from both stand-points^ you 
 stijl think that my present position places you in any way ab a 
 disadvantage, or that it will L^ more pleasant to you, I will cheer- 
 fully yield my position ; and you will please frame, in your own 
 language, the affimative positions you wish me to sustain, and I 
 will then meet you on your own ground. I not only do not desire 
 an advantage, but I am unwilling to place you in a position the 
 least unpleasant ; and, if you desire more, more shall be con- 
 ceded if possible. 
 
 You seem to have been under the impression, when you last 
 wrote, that I implied more than I expressed. I have alluded to 
 some of these impressions in the commencement of this letter. 
 Those who know me best know that I do not often insinuate. I 
 generally try to say what I mean. I will give you an instance. 
 The only thing I have disliked in our correspondence is your repe- 
 tition of what you said in your first, and which I disclaimed, and 
 
16 CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 you " waived.'^ I had a right to assume that when you waived it, 
 you acted in good faith ; and, under that impression, I acceded to 
 your proposal. What shall I now think? That it was a mere 
 ruse to get me into a debate — that secured, you now throw off 
 the disguise ? Or that, pressed for an argument, you thoughtlessly 
 pressed into your service a subject you will regret having men- 
 tioned, when you think of it ? I will trouble you, if you please, 
 for the names of those upon whose " reliable authority" you '•' make 
 these statements." I have a right to their names. 
 
 I do not think it would become me to interfere in any way with 
 the selection of a reporter. If I am allowed to make verbal altera- 
 tions in that part of the report attributed to me, it will be the only 
 courtesy that I can, with self-respect, accept. That whole matter 
 must remain in your hands. I did not say whether the moderators 
 should " be mero^rs of any church or not." I did not think it 
 important. My idea was, and still is, that when we reach the place 
 of debate, you can select some gentleman present, and I another ; 
 those two, a third. I would prefer that all three should be non- 
 professors, but I aiTi perfectly willing to leave it to your judgment 
 to select all three. You know more about the citizens of the 
 county than I do. I will do anything that will be agreeable. I 
 have omitted the notice of several things in your last, lest my letter 
 should be too much lengthened. I think I have presented the 
 points most important to the subject directly before us, though I 
 have by no means exhausted those points. Allow me to say that I 
 have determined to act upon the Golden Rule: '"As ye would 
 that men should do to you, do ye also to them." In this instance I 
 should feel that I compromised my cause, if I resorted to any 
 thing even seemingly unfair. 
 
 Very respectfully and fraternally yours, 
 
 Jas. D. Coulling. 
 
 North Garden, Feb. 7, 1860. 
 Elder J. D. Coulling : 
 
 Dear Sir — I must ask you to excuse me from replying to a 
 portion of your letter of the 2d inst., as my former correspondence, 
 I conceive, explains itself 
 
 I am sorry my last communication contained anything you dis- 
 
CORRESPONDENCE. 17 
 
 like. If, however, I need any justification for that portion of it 
 which is objectionable to you, you have kindly furnished it. You 
 say, in your last, " If you were censured for proposing the discus- 
 sion, you might seek your vindication in such facts.'' In yours of 
 the 10th ult., to which my last was a reply, you say, '' You have no 
 right to challenge me to controversy, and then call on me to take 
 the affirmative upon any point." If you cannot see that you did 
 the very thing which you concede would justify me in restating 
 the facts which led to this correspondence, I despair of making it 
 obvious to you. 
 
 I am sure I need do no more to satisfy you that my waiving, for 
 the time, further reference to what you said at Mount Moriah, and 
 then restating it, when you, in my opinion, made it absolutely neces- 
 sary for me to do so, was not " a mere ruse,''' than to ask you 
 calmly to review all that has passed between us; May I not ask, 
 with equal propriety, if your declining to discuss, in your first 
 letter, unless I would renew the proposal without reference to 
 what I had been informed about your willingness to discuss, was 
 " a mere ruse'' to place you on the defensive, and thus secure you 
 an advantage as the challenged party ? I do not say it was, but I 
 do say the facts in the case lead more readily to this conclusion 
 than to the one you seem to have drawn. 
 
 When I first wrote to you, accepting what I understood to be a 
 challenge from you to Baptist ministers generally, I never once 
 thought of my position as merely a defensive one ; nor did I, when 
 renewing the proposal, suppose you would consider your position 
 such. 
 
 It has been from the first, and still is my desire, that we enter the 
 discussion on perfectly equal ground in all respects. In every prop- 
 osition I have made I have sought so to make it that eack would 
 be equally affected by it. I have requested you more than once to 
 make any proposition you thought desirable, but regret to find that, 
 with the exceptions as to time and place, you have made none. 
 
 You say, in your last : " You made the issues frankly and plainly, 
 but they are severally and collectively a distinct dissent from the 
 usages and doctrines of my Church." '- You can certainly see how 
 anomalous my position must be if I assume the affirmative of any 
 allegation made against me." I will not attempt a description of 
 
18 CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 the profound astonishment which these statements and'those con- 
 nected with them produced ! Let me re-state the propositions, some 
 of which I expected you to affirm. 
 
 1st. Sprinkling, or pouring water upon a proper subject, in the 
 name of the Holy Trinity, is Apostolic or Christian Baptism. 
 
 2d. Infants are Scriptural subjects of Christian Baptism. 
 
 3d. (Not knowing your views of the design of Baptism, I asked 
 you to form your own proposition on this point.) 
 
 4th. The Scriptural right to partake of the Lord's Supper is not 
 restricted to those who have received valid Christian Baptism. 
 
 Are these propositions " severally and collectively a distinct dis- 
 sent from the usages and doctrines of your Church ?" 
 
 When I offer that you may select any two of these as they are 
 stated, or make suak changes in them as will more fully express 
 " the usages and doctrines of your Church," am I asking you to 
 ^' assume the affirmative of any allegation made against you ?" 
 Do these allegations deny that your Church is Scriptural ? 
 
 The point agreed upon between us is, if I rightly understand, 
 that we discuss, at Mount Shiloh, near Ivy Depot, commencing on 
 Tuesday, the 12th of June next, the points of difference between the 
 Churches to which we respectively belong, upon the mode, sub- 
 jects, and design of Baptism, and the terms of admission to the 
 Lord's Supper. You can frame your own propositions so as to ex- 
 press " the usages and doctrines of your Church" upon any two of 
 these points, and assume the affirmative of them. I will frame 
 propositions upon the other two expressive of the usages and doc- 
 trines of my Church, and assume the affirmative of them; each 
 communicating his propositions to the other. If any advantage 
 attaches to either affirmative or negative, each will in turn enjoy 
 it. If any disadvantage, each will suffer it equally. These points 
 once settled, each will understand both his own and his competitor's 
 postition, and can properly address himself to the work. If you 
 will state your propositions in your next, I will at once state mine, 
 and we shall be able to bring all the arrangements to a close. 
 
 My reason for wishing you to unite with me in the selection of a 
 reporter is, that he may be entirely acceptable to you as well aa to 
 me. 
 I cheerfully give you the names of those upon whose authority 
 
CORRESPONDENCE. 19 
 
 I stated what you said at Moiint Moriali : Col. John Jones, Major 
 Will. H. Joucs, and Mr. Joshua W. Abell of my Church, and Mr. 
 Granville Owens of yours. Some of these have informed me that 
 they can give many more names if necessary. 
 
 I agree that the moderators shall all be non-professors, and will 
 notify you of the one I select as soon as I make a selection. I, of 
 course, shall select hut one. Hoping to receive a definite decision, 
 upon the points submitted, at your earliest convenience, 
 I remain, very respectfully and fraternally, 
 
 John E. Massey. 
 
 Chaklottesville, Feb. 17, 1800. 
 Elder John E. Massey: 
 
 Dear Sir — Yours of the 7th was duly received. It will be better 
 perhaps, to cease all debate upon unimportant preliminaries, 
 and keep only to the main object ; I will, therefore, proceed at 
 once to comply with the request contained in your last. On the 
 12th of June, Providence permitting, I will meet you at Mount 
 Shiloh, and debate with you the points of difference between our 
 respective Churches, and will then and there try to maintain the 
 following propositions, viz. : 
 
 1st. Sprinkling or pouring water upon a proper subject, in the 
 name of the Holy Trinity, is as valid and Scriptural Baptism as 
 immersion is. 
 
 2d. The Scriptural right to partake of the Lord's Supper is not 
 restricted to those who have received Christian Baptism. 
 
 I have thus ^done precisely what you requested me to do ; if I 
 have misunderstood you I will cheerfully be corrected. I am de- 
 termined to interpose no difficulty in the way of our discussion ; I 
 will comply with any reasonable request you may make. 
 
 Will you not consent that each shall occupy one hour and a 
 half in his opening address instead of three quarters of an hour ? 
 I have called your attention to this point before. This is the only 
 point I care about, and I do not make this a sine qua non. I have 
 not yet selected a moderator, and I really do not know whom to 
 select. Fraternally yours, 
 
 Jas. D. Coulling. 
 
20 CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 North Garden, March 19, 1860. 
 Elder J. D. CoulliiNg : 
 
 Dear Sir — Yours of the 17th ult. was duly received, but, as no 
 necessity for an immediate reply existed, I concluded not to write 
 until I could give you the name of the gentleman I desired to act 
 as moderator. 
 
 Dr. John K. Woods has kindly consented to act as one of the 
 moderators, and will unite with the one you select, in choosing a 
 third. 
 
 No obstacle seems now to exist, to a fair, and I hope, profitable 
 discussion. 
 
 We are not entirely agreed, as to the time we shall occupy in 
 our^'opening addresses upon each proposition. I think an hour 
 long enough, but will readily yield my preference, if longer time 
 be thought best. If it meet your approbation, I am willing to sub- 
 mit the time of speaking, and the rules governing the discussion, 
 &c. (not affecting the propositions to be discussed, they being now 
 settled), to the three moderators : or I will call at your residence, 
 or wherever you may suggest, with a friend, and unite with you 
 jn framing such rules as we may mutually agree upon. Please let 
 me know which mode you prefer. 
 
 The propositions you affirm, occupying the first and last points 
 in the order of debate, I will be the affirmant of the 2d and 3d, 
 as follows : 
 
 2d. Believers are the only Scriptural subjects of Apostolic or 
 Christian Baptism. 3d. Christian Baptism is designed to show the 
 faith of the subject in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus 
 Christ, as the procuring cause of his pardon and salvation. You 
 can notify the public of our expected discussion, in such a manner 
 as you deem proper, and, unless you object, I shall, in a short time> 
 take the same liberty. 
 
 Very respectfully and fraternally, 
 
 John E. Massey. 
 
 Charlottesville, Jpril 10, 1860. 
 Elder John E. Massey : 
 
 Dear Sir — Yours of the 17th ult. came to hand in due time- 
 Absence from home, and other circumstances have prevented an 
 
CORRESPONDENCE. 21 
 
 earlier reply. I am sorry that I have not yet been able to select 
 a moderator. I have spoken to a friend, to find one for me. He 
 told me the other day, that he had not yet succeeded. You sug- 
 gest several vrays of completing preliminaries. I would greatly 
 prefer a personal intervievr. It would afford us an opportunity of 
 becoming acquainted with each other. I would not know you if 
 I were to meet you. We could then more fully exchange views 
 upon several subjects, and I have no doubt^ we would agree per- 
 fectly. I shall be at home. Providence permitting, next week, from 
 Tuesday to Friday. If you could make it convenient to spend an 
 afternoon and night at my house, I would be more than pleased. 
 Come, and let us get acquainted with each other. I have no idea 
 that we can settle these arrangements satisfactorily unless we do 
 meet. 
 
 From the 20th to the 30th inst., I expect to be in the Valley of 
 Virginia ; after that, I shall be at home, every Tuesday, "Wednes- 
 day, and Thursday, until June. If you should not find it conve- 
 nient to visit me next week, you may the first of next month. 
 
 Very truly and fraternally, 
 
 Jas. D. Coulling. 
 
 PROPOSITIONS. 
 
 1. Sprinkling or pouring water upon a proper subject in the 
 name of the Holy Trinity, is as valid and Scriptural Baptism as im- 
 mersion is. 
 
 Mr. Coulling affirms. Mr. Massey denies. 
 
 2. Believers are the only Scriptural subjects of Apostolic or 
 Christian Baptism. 
 
 Mr. Massey affirms. Mr. Coulling denies. 
 
 3. Christian Baptism is designed to show the faith of the subject 
 in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, as the pro- 
 curing cause of his pardon and salvation. 
 
 Mr. Massey affirms. Mr. Coulling denies. 
 
 4. The Scriptural right to partake of the Lord^s Supper is not 
 restricted to those who have received Christian Baptism. 
 
 Mr. Coulling affirms. Mr. Massey denies. 
 
22 PRELIMINARIES. 
 
 KEGULATIONS. 
 
 1. Dr. John R. Woods having been chosen by Mr. Massey, John 
 L. Cochran, Esq., by Mr. Coulling, and Col. H. P. Murrell, ofTenn., 
 by Messrs. Woods and Cochran, it is agreed that they shall pre- 
 side during the discussion to preserve order, regulate the time of 
 speaking, enforce the rules adopted, and keep the debaters to the 
 question under discussion. 
 
 2. Each speaker may occupy one hour and a quarter in his first 
 address upon each new subject, and half an hour alternately there- 
 after to its close. 
 
 3. On the final negative, no new matter shall be introduced. 
 
 4. Five hours shall be occupied in discussion each day, com- 
 mencing at 10 A. M., and closing^at 4 p. m., with a recess from 1 to 
 2, unless a change is required by unavoidable circumstances. 
 
 5. The discussion shall continue from day to day, Sunday ex- 
 cepted, till all the propositions agreed upon shall have been dis- 
 cussed. 
 
 G. No proposition shall be discussed more than two days^ unles 
 by agreement of parties. 
 
 7. Mr. P. Kean shall act as stenographer, Mr. Massey alone 
 being responsible to him for the compensation agreed on for his 
 services; and, therefore, having entire right to the product of his 
 labor. 
 
 8. Each debater shall have the right to make any verbal or 
 grammatical changes in the stenographer's report, that shall not 
 alter the state of the argument, or change any fact. 
 
 RULES. 
 
 1. The parties mutually agree to consider each other as standing 
 on a footing of equality, in respect to the subject in debate. Each 
 shall regard the other as possessing equal talents, knowledge, and 
 desire for truth with himself; and that it is possible, therefore, 
 that he may be in the wrong, and his adversary in the right. 
 
 2. Personal reflections on an adversary!- should in no instance be 
 indulged. 
 
PRELIMINARIES. 23 
 
 3. As truth and not victory is the professed object of contro- 
 versy, whatever proofs maybe adduced on either side, should bo 
 examined with fairness and candor ; and any attempt to answer 
 an adversary by arts of sophistry, or to lessen the force of his rea- 
 soning by wit, cavilling, or ridicule, is a violation of the rules of 
 honorable controversy. 
 
 INTKODUCTION. 
 
 On Tuesday, the 12th of June, 18G0, the parties met in a 
 beautiful grove near Woodville (Ivy Depot), in the presence of a 
 large audience, and John L. Cochran, Esq., introduced the speakers 
 in a chaste, brief address, and read the preceding propositions, 
 regulations, and rules of order, which had been agreed upon. Rev. 
 A. B. Brown, pastor of the Baptist Church, Charlottesville, then 
 offered an appropriate and earnest appeal to the Throne of Grace, 
 for the illumination and guidance of both speakers and hearers. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Coulling then opened the discussion upon the first 
 proposition, which was continued for three days, and conducted in 
 a most amiable spirit and manner ; but owing to the failure of 
 the reporter to discharge his duty, the first address of each speak- 
 er was all that was taken down stenographically of the three days' 
 discussion. (This has not been written out.) 
 
 On the third day, Mr. Coulling announced that he could not con- 
 tinue the discussion longer at that time, but agreed to resume it on 
 the 10th of July. Upon resuming the discussion, Dr. Meriwether 
 Anderson acted as Moderator in the place of Col. H. P. Murrel,who 
 was absent. During thefoUowing days the speakers were govern- 
 ed more by convenience in making an equal division of time, than 
 by fixed regulations ; sometimes speaking a half or three quarters 
 of ah hour, &c. 
 
 Services were introduced by a very appropriate prayer, by 
 Rev. Mr. Judkins, " stationed minister'^ of the Methodist Church 
 of Charlottesville. 
 
 The second proposition was read by one of the moderators, and 
 Rev. Mr. Massey opened the discussion. His address, and all 
 
24 PRELIMINARIES. 
 
 the after addresses being reported by Mr. Wra. Blair Lord, of 
 New-York City, as follows. 
 
 (Mr. Cochran being absent on the third day, Dr. Anderson acted 
 as Mr. Coulling's moderator, and Mr, David Hansborough as 
 umpire.) 
 
DEBATE ON BAPTISM,t . 
 
 -.-4^ 
 
 X'*'' 
 
 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 
 First Dayh Discussion. 
 
 Tuesday, July 10, 1860. 
 MR. MASSET'S OPEMNG ADDRESS. 
 
 Messrs. Moderators, Ladies, and Gentlemen: I rise 
 before you with, profound gratitude to a kind Heavenly 
 Father, for honoring me with another opportunity of 
 addressing you upon a part of that great scheme of re- 
 demption unfolded to us in the gospel of His Son ; and 
 humbly trust in Him for that preparation of both heart 
 and mind which will enable me rightly to present His 
 truth. 
 
 The proposition to be discussed to-day, and which I 
 affirm, is this: ^'Believers are the only Scriptural sub- 
 jects of Apostolic or Christian Baptism^ 
 
 The first interview between our Creator and our first 
 parents, after their fall from their primeval estate, was 
 made memorable by the promise that " the seed of the 
 woman should bruise the serpent's head." In this prom- 
 ise, God disclosed his purpose to destroy the evil, malevo- 
 lent influence of Satan ; to redeem man from his lost 
 and ruined condition, and to establish Messiah's King- 
 dom upon the ruins of Satan's demolished throne, 
 through one born of woman. As time rolled on, and 
 the period when this promise should be fulfilled drew 
 
 2 
 
26 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 nearer, he renewed it in still plainer language. Tc 
 Abraham he said : " In thy seed shall all the families of 
 the earth be blessed."' Narrowing still the line through 
 which the promised Messiah should appear, old Jacob, 
 looking forward, through prophetic vision, to the future 
 destiny of the tribe of Judah, declared, '' The sceptre shall 
 not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between 
 his feet until Shiloh come." The auspices under which 
 this promised Messiah should appear, were disclosed 
 through Daniel, to Nebuchadnezzar, in the assurance 
 that three kingdoms should arise, after the one over 
 which he presided, and that " in the days of these kings 
 shall the G-od of Heaven set up a kingdom which shall 
 never be destroyed ; and the kingdom shall not be left 
 to other people." The time when this promise should be 
 accomplished, was declared to Daniel in his vision of the 
 " seventy weeks" that were to be accomplished ^' from 
 the sfoins: forth of the commandment to restore and to 
 build Jerusalem," until the "Prince Messiah be cut off." 
 Before the last sun of these seventy weeks had sought 
 his hiding-place beyond the western horizon, a voice was 
 heard crying in the wilderness, " Prepare ye the way of 
 the Lord ; make straight in the desert a highway for 
 our God." 
 
 Of this harbinger of Jesus Christ, John the Baptist, 
 it was declared that he was "sent from God," that he 
 might prepare the way before the coming Messiah. 
 Hence he exhorted those whom he addressed to repent^ 
 with the assurance that " the kingdom of heaven was at 
 hand." As it is in the present day, so it was then, some 
 believed the testimony of the divinely commissioned ser- 
 vant of God, while others rejected that testimony. The 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 27 
 
 Divine Master had prepared a test by which the recep- 
 tion or rejection of the testimony presented by his 
 servant should be manifested. Jesus Christ himself 
 declares what that test is. He says, in speaking of the 
 baptism of John, " the publicans justified Grod." How 
 do we know ? He adds, '^ being' baptized loith the bap- 
 tism of John.'''' " But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected 
 the counsel of God against themselves." And he gives 
 this evidence of it : '^ being not baptized of him." 
 
 Many, mistaking the design of this servant of G-od, 
 and the instructions which he imparted, entertained the 
 idea that they were entitled to this divine ordinance, 
 because of their natural relationship to him through 
 whom the Messiah had been promised. Being descend- 
 ants of Abraham, and not understanding that the Mes- 
 siah required a change of the heart and of the affec- 
 tions^ and a corresponding change of life, they came de- 
 siring to receive at the hands of John the Baptist, the 
 ordinance of baptism. He reproved them for their folly : 
 " generation of vipers," said he, ''who hath warned 
 you to flee from the wrath to come ?" As though he 
 had asked, What novice has given you instructions? 
 Who understands so little of the wondrous scheme of 
 redemption himself, that he has instructed you to come 
 asking this ordinance at my hands, without understand- 
 ing that it requires a change of the affections of the 
 heart, before it can be received ? Who has warned or 
 instructed you so imperfectly? He exhorts them : 
 " Bring forth, therefore, fruits meet for repentance ; and 
 think not to say within yourselves. We have Abraham 
 to our father ; for I say unto you, that God is able of 
 these stones to raise up children unto Abraham." He 
 
28 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 does not only urge upon them to repent of their sins 
 and bring forth fruits meet for repentance, but he assures 
 them that it must be done speedily^ for noiv " the axe is 
 laid unto the root of the trees, and every tree which 
 bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down and cast 
 into the fire." He informed them that he baptized 
 them ev vdari, — m water (when properly rendered) ; but 
 that Jesus Christ, who was coming after him, should 
 baptize them ev Uvevfiari ayio) a aai nvgt^ in the Holy 
 Ghost, and i?ifire: his fan — his dividing instrument — 
 was in his hand, and he would thoroughly purge his 
 floor, and gather his wheat — the righteous, or those who 
 should receive the testimony which was given — into his 
 garner — his kingdom ; and the chaff — the wicked, or the 
 unbelievers — should be burned in unquenchable fire, 
 referring to their future condition when cast into the 
 *' lake that burneth with fire and with brimstone." 
 
 While this servant of God was proclaiming the mes- 
 sage with which he was commissioned, that there might 
 be no question with regard to the divine approbation 
 resting upon his act, we find the Messiah himself ap- 
 pearing, that he may receive at the hands of his servant 
 the ordinance which he was administering. And around 
 this lovely scene there hovers the whole Trinity : God 
 the Son submits to this ordinance, and as he emerges 
 out of the liquid grave, his body having been laved 
 with the waves of Jordan, heaven is opened, and God 
 the Father, with an audible voice, declares, " This is 
 my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased ;" while 
 the Holy Spirit, in a bodily shape like a dove, folds her 
 bright wings and rests upon the immaculate Son. Be- 
 fore this harbinger, who had introduced Jesus Christ as 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 29 
 
 " the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the 
 world," had closed his ministry, we find this divine 
 Redeemer ensras^ed in a similar work. John was in- 
 formed that Jesus made more disciples than he did, 
 and that his disciples baptized them. John and Jesus 
 Christ IV ere performing a similar work. 
 
 That there might be no question with regard to the 
 authority of Jesus Christ to enact those laws which 
 should govern his kingdom, we find him present- 
 ing, hefore a chosen company of witnesses, an unmis- 
 takable evidence, in addition to that already given, that 
 he was the Shiloh who should come. Upon the Mount 
 of Transfiguration, while he was in the presence of Peter, 
 James, and John, there was a display of G-od's power, 
 and of his approhation, that left no question in the minds 
 of those who beheld it. Go with me, if you please, to 
 that mount for a moment. "Who are the actors upon 
 that scene? Here is Moses, who had declared — "A 
 prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you, like 
 unto me : him shall ye hear in all things." He is the 
 representative of the legal dispensation. Here is Elias, 
 a distinguished prophet, who comes forth to represent 
 the prophetic dispensation. Each has had its day : the 
 laio its day, and prophecy its day. They have accom- 
 plished the work which God gave them to do, and now 
 come to bear testimony to Jesus Christ, as the long- 
 promised one, who is now the sole King in Zion. When 
 the divine light enshrouded those upon that mount, Pe- 
 ter and James and John were overwhelmed by it, and, 
 falling upon their faces, heard a voice from heaven pro- 
 claiming — " This is my beloved Son, in whom I am 
 well pleased ; hear ye him." "When those disciples 
 arose, expecting, no doubt, to see Moses and Elias, as 
 
30 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 they had seen them a few moments before, '' they saw 
 no man, save Jesus only^ Moses and Elias, having 
 home their testimony to him, as the one of whom they 
 had spoken and written, have now retired, and left Jesus 
 Christ, the great gospel representative, alone to carry 
 forward the great work that they had introduced. This 
 was a fit preparation for the events that were soon to 
 transpire. 
 
 Shortly after this, Jesus accomplished in his own 
 person the great work for which he had come into the 
 world. He died upon the cross. When he was laid in 
 the tomb, the hopes of his disciples seemed to be buried 
 with him. They had hoped " it had been he which 
 should have redeemed Israel." These hopes were now 
 destroyed. But, not being able to hold him, the grave 
 yields up the bright jewel that had occupied it. And 
 now we see this risen Saviour collecting around him 
 the disciples whom he had before instructed, that he 
 might impart to them ''the great commission" un- 
 der which they were to act, and under which all 
 their successors are to act, until time shall cease to be. 
 He prefaces this with the assurance that " All power is 
 given unto me in heaven and in earth." There is no 
 division of this power ; there is no sharing- of this glory. 
 Moses and the prophets wrote of me ; they testified of 
 me ; but now, having introduced me, they have retired 
 from view, and all power is mine. " Go ye, therefore, 
 and teach all nations, baptizing them into \hQ name of 
 the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost : 
 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have 
 commanded you ; and lo, I am with you always, even 
 unto the end of the world." 
 
 If there be strength in unity of diversity, not only is 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 31 
 
 that strength found in the unity of diversity between the 
 evangelists who record this commission, but the one is 
 a most beautiful commentary upon the other, Mark 
 records it: " Gro ye into all the world, and preach the gos- 
 pel to every creature : he that believeth and is baptized 
 shall be saved ; but he that believeth not shall be 
 damned." Matthew tells us "to teach all nations." 
 Mark tells us how we are to teach all nations ; to wit : by 
 preaching ^Hhe gospel to every creature.'''' If you will 
 turn to your Greek Testament, you will find, that while 
 in the English^ the commission, as given by Matthew, 
 has the word teach twice used, in the Greek there are 
 two different words thus translated. The word rendered 
 teach is fm^rjrevaare ; the word rendered teaching is 
 diddoKovreg. While these words are of very similar im- 
 port, there is, nevertheless, a distinct difference between 
 them. Ma^rjTevoare enjoins the imparting such informa- 
 tion as will enable those who receive it to recognize 
 Jesus Christ as their Saviour, and to trust in him. 
 AidaGKovTsg enjoins the imparting all those instructions 
 which are necessary for the guidance of the Christian 
 through future life. 
 
 Dr. Adam Clarke, one of the ablest commentators — 
 the ablest commentator, I think I may safely say — be- 
 longing to the " Methodist Episcopal Church,^^ says, 
 upon the nineteenth verse of the twenty-eighth chapter 
 of Matthew : 
 
 " Go ye therefor e\ Because I have the authority afore- 
 said, and can send whomsoever \ will, to do whatsoever 
 I please : teach, [la'&rjrevaaTe, make disciples of all 
 nations^ bring them to an acquaintance with God, who 
 brought them, and then baptize them in the name of the 
 
 9 
 
32 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 Father. It is natural to suppose that adults were the 
 first subjects of baptism ; for, as the gospel was in a 
 peculiar manner sent to the Gentiles, they must hear 
 and receive it, before they could be expected to renounce 
 their old prejudices and idolatries, and come into the 
 bonds of the Christian covenant." 
 
 Mr. Barnes, another Pedobaptist writer, says, upon 
 the same passage : '* This word properly means disciple, 
 or, make disciples of, all nations. This was to be done, 
 however, by teaching them, and by administering the 
 rite of baptism." On the commission, as given by 
 Mark, the same author says : " Faith and baptism are 
 the beginnings of a Christian life : the one the beginning 
 of piety in the soid ; the other, of its manifestation he- 
 fore men, or, of a profession of religion." 
 
 I have here, also, a commentary upon the New Tes- 
 tament, by Patrick, Lowth, Arnold, Whitby, and Low- 
 man — a bright constellation of Pedobaptist authors. 
 On this passage they say : 
 
 " Ver. 19 : MaeTjrevaare iravrara Idvri : Teach all na- 
 tions.] UaSrjreveiv here is, ' to preach the gospel to all 
 nations,' and to engage them to believe it, in order to 
 their profession of that faith by baptism ; as seems ap- 
 parent from the parallel commission, Mark xvi. 15. . . . 
 If here it should be said, that I yield too much to the 
 anti-probaptists, by saying, that to be made disciples 
 here is to be taught to believe in Christ, that so they 
 might be his disciples ; T desire any one to tell me how 
 the apostles could iia^rireveiv ^ " make a disciple," of a 
 heathen or unbelieving Jew, without being r]aS7]ralj or 
 *' teachers" of them, whether they were not sent to 
 preach to those that could hear, and to teach them to 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 33 
 
 whom they preached, that ' Jesus was the Christ,' and 
 only to baptize them when they did believe this? This 
 is so absolutely necessary in the nature of the thing, till 
 a Christian Church among the heathens or the Jews was 
 founded, and so expressly said by Justin Martyr to have 
 been the practice in the first ages of the Church, that 
 to deny what is confirmed by such evidence of reason 
 and church history, would be to prejudice a cause 
 which, in my poor judgment, needs not this interpreta- 
 tion of the word fj^a^rj-evetv ; nor need it be asserted 
 that infants are made disciples, any more than that 
 they are made believers by baptism, but only that they 
 are and ought to be admitted into the Christian Church 
 and kingdom of God, and. into the new covenant, by 
 baptism, if they be children of believing parents. Now, 
 against this, I presume it is no objection, that the unbe- 
 lieving Jews and. Gentiles were first to be taught and 
 believe the Christian faith, before they were baptized, 
 and could not be baptized without it, or that infants 
 cannot be taught or believe while they continue such." 
 
 Dr. George Campbell, a distinguished Scotch Presby- 
 terian, on page 150, vol. 2, of his " Four Gospels," says : 
 
 *' There are manifestly three things w^hich our Lord 
 here distinctly enjoins his apostles to execute, with 
 regard to the nations, to wit : iiadrirEveiv, f^aTTrl^eLv, 
 didcLGKeLv : that is, to convert them to the faith, to initi- 
 ate the converts into the Church by baptism, and to 
 instruct the baptized in all the duties of the Christian 
 life." 
 
 I think these authorities are sufficient to show that 
 the view I advanced upon this subject is sustained by 
 the most ample testimony ; testimony drawn from high 
 
 2# 
 
34 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 authority, and that, too, from men who occupy a posi- 
 tion, so far as church relation is concerned, similar to 
 that occupied by my opponent upon this occasion. It 
 would not be necessary, if there were no controversy 
 upon this subject, to dwell so long upon an instrument 
 so plain as the commission under which we are acting. 
 But as there is controversy about it, we shall dwell 
 more at length upon it. 
 
 All men are, by nature, in a state of moral darkness. 
 The light which is to guide them from this world of sin, 
 of sorrow, and of suffering, to the realms of unfading 
 glory, is found in God's revelation of his will to man. 
 Until they understand this revelation, it must be apparent 
 to all that they are wholly unprepared to embrace the 
 doctrines contained in it. The idea that men would 
 believe a gospel which they had never heard, obey com- 
 mands which they had never under stood, and make a 
 profession of that which they had never embraced, could 
 only have arisen from a disordered brain. Paul, when 
 addressing the Church at Rome, assured them that 
 *' whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall 
 be saved." But then he raises a difficulty in their way : 
 " How, then, shall they call on him in whom they have 
 not believed?'''' And then another question: "And how 
 shall they believein him of whom they have not heard .^" 
 And still another : *' And how shall they hear without a 
 preacher?''' — "And how shall they preach, except they 
 be sc't?^^ And, finally, he sums up the whole by de- 
 claring that ^^ faith cometh by hearing", and hearing" 
 by the ivord of Gody Man, as a rational creature, at 
 once falls in with the correctness of this theory. He 
 does not expect obedience from those who know not 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 35 
 
 what tliey are to obey. And hence there can be no con- 
 flict between a rightly-ordered mind and the teaching 
 of this commission: "Go ye, therefore, and teach all 
 nations." That is the first duty to be performed. Teach 
 them — unfold to them so much, at least, of the gospel 
 of Jesus Christ as will enable them to understand that 
 they are by nature sinners against Grod ; that " Grod so 
 loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son, that 
 whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have 
 everlasting life ;" that he requires all those who desire 
 to escape the wrath to come, to repent of their sins, and 
 to receive Jesus Christ as their only refuge from the ire 
 of God's wrath. Do as Paul did. He declares : " I de- 
 livered unto you, first of all, that which I also received, 
 how that Jesus Christ died for our sins, according to the 
 Scriptures ; that he was huried, and that he rose again 
 the third day, according to the Scriptures." When you 
 have made known to them these truths ; when you have 
 followed Mark's instructions : " Preach the gospel to 
 every creature ;" and when they believe this testimony, 
 what evidence shall they give that they believe in the 
 Lord Jesus Christ ? — Be baptized " into the name of 
 the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." 
 But leave them not, when you have performed this ordi- 
 nance upon them ; but instruct them with regard to 
 the duties of their subsequent life. " Teach them to 
 observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.*' 
 If this be not the plain, rational view that any unbi- 
 ased mind would take of this commission, then, my 
 hearers, I concede that I have wholly misapprehended it. 
 Now, to show you that others, in addition to those 
 whose authority I have already presented, agree with 
 
36 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 me in regard to this, I will read you a passage on the 
 233d page of a Avork by Dr. Geo. D. Armstrong, of the 
 Presbyterian Church, one of the most determined sup- 
 porters of infant sprinkling, whose writings I have 
 read. Determined as he is to maintain his theory, 
 he yet says, with regard to this commission (of Jesus 
 Christ) : 
 
 " He is speaking of such, and such only, as he sends 
 his disciples to preach his gospel to ; the case of infants 
 is in no way referred to in his declaration respecting 
 either faith or baptism. If his disciples are to believe 
 (as the Baptists, in common with ourselves, think they 
 are) Ihat infants are saved without faith, he has taught 
 that doctrine on some other occasion, and he does not 
 recall that teaching here. If his disciples are to believe 
 that infants may properly be baptized without faith, he 
 has taught it on some other occasion, and he does not 
 recall that teaching here. The two cases are precisely 
 similar, and our interpretation of them must stand or 
 fall together." 
 
 I next read from the 176th page of Hibbard upon 
 Baptism. Rev. Freeborn Gr. Hibbard, of the G-enesee 
 Conference, is a -minister of high standing in the Metho- 
 dist Episcopal Church. He says : 
 
 " The words of the commission, as given by Matthew, 
 chap, xxviii. 19, 20, run thus : ' G-o ye therefore and 
 teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the 
 Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost : teach- 
 ing them to observe all things whatsoever I have com- 
 manded you.' It is well known that our English ver- 
 sion does not give a satisfactory view of this passage. 
 The word rendered teach^ in the nineteenth verse, is alto- 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 37 
 
 gether a diffevent word in the Grreek text from that which 
 is rendered teach in verse 20. It should read : " Go ye 
 therefore and disciple''' — that is to say, make concerts to 
 Christianity of (imdj]T£voaTe) all nations, baptizing 
 them,' &c. ; ' teaching" (didaoKovreg) them to observe, 
 &c. Here it is to be observed, first, certain things are 
 enjoined, viz. : to disciple, to baptize, and to teach ; 
 secondly, these things are enjoined in a certain order, 
 viz. : the order in which they stand in the divine com- 
 mission. The apostles were first required to persuade 
 the people to forsake heathenism and Judaism, and em 
 brace Christianity. This being done, the next injunc- 
 tion in order of their commission was, to baptize them 
 Being thus brought into church relationship with one 
 another, and with a visible relation to Christ, they were 
 to be taught to observe all things whatsoever Christ had 
 commanded." 
 
 Here you discover that the view I have presented is 
 sustained by those whose actions upon this subject are 
 wide of what they themselves teach. I may be callea 
 upon to explain this reunarkable inconsistency — that 
 men who can write and preach so clearly and fluently, 
 should, in the next moment, contradict by their actions 
 what they have been constrained to acknowledge to be 
 the teachings of the word of God. But I leave men who 
 act thus to reconcile their own inconsistencies. You, 
 my hearers, have heard from the respondent, on a former 
 occasion, that while he recognizes a different act as the act 
 enjoined by Jesus Christ to initiate his followers into his 
 visible kingdom, he ivill, nevertheless, if the iveaiher be 
 pleasant — " not too co/cZ" — and the water not too deep, 
 immerse those who may differ with him. He will surely 
 
88 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 be a very proper defender of those who can act with 
 such inconsistency as the men to whom I have referred 
 do. I presume he has studied their inconsistencies, and 
 will reconcile, if he can^ that sort of ethics which justi- 
 fies a man in teaching one doctrine^ and practising' an- 
 other. 
 
 In a note at the bottom of page 347, vol. 3, of 
 Olshausen's Biblical Commentary — and remember that 
 he is likewise an able Pedobaptist ; the work is also 
 edited and published by Pedobaptists — the editor says : 
 
 " In the words describing the institution of baptism 
 in Math, xxviii. 19, the connection of na-dTjreveiv^ dis- 
 ciplining, with fSaTTTL^sLv, baptizing, and dtSdonetv^ 
 teaching, appears quite positively to oppose the idea, 
 that the baptism of children entered at first into the 
 view of Christ." 
 
 I think the remarks I have made (with the author- 
 ity I have presented to show that those remarks are 
 correct), upon the commission under which the servants 
 of G-od proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ, are suffi- 
 cient to satisfy all present that we have formed correct 
 views of that commission. And until their correctness 
 be questioned, I shall proceed with other evidences that 
 believers are the o^ilp scriptural subjects of apostolic or 
 Christian baptism. 
 
 It will scarcely be denied by any one that the apostles 
 understood the commission given them by their Master. 
 I presume that no affectionate child ever hung with 
 more eager interest upon the last words of a dying pa- 
 rent, than did these disciples upon the last instructions 
 or directions which they received from their risen and 
 about-ascending Redeemer. And you will notice another 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 39 
 
 thing, that when they received the commission to " go 
 and preach the gospel to every creature," they were not yet 
 qualified to enter upon the discharge of that duty. They 
 were yet to wait for other preparation — to "tarry at 
 Jerusalem until they should be imbued with power from 
 on high" — until the Holy Ghost should fully qualify 
 them to go forward, not only in the name^ but in the 
 spirit and power ^ of their divine Master. The whole 
 machinery must be brought into active exercise, before 
 the visible kingdom of Jesus Christ be established. 
 The days of the kings of whom Daniel had spoken 
 to Nebuchadnezzar, had now come. A Csesar sat upon 
 the throne of the " kingdom stronsf as iron." The time. 
 therefore, for setting up the kingdom of Shiloh had fully 
 arrived. 
 
 Bear in mind, there is a manifest difference between 
 restoring^ repairins;^ or continuing a kingdom already 
 in existence, and setting up a kingdom. If I say to a 
 workman, I want you to repair my house — he under- 
 stands that I wish him to perform some labor upon a 
 house that has already been built. If I say to him, I 
 want you to put up a house — he understands that I 
 wash him to build me a new edifice. The Grod of heaven 
 does not say, I will continue. I will restore^ I will repair 
 a kingdom — but, after naming a kingdom that should 
 arise, inferior to the one over which Nebuchadnezzar 
 presided, and then a "third kingdom of brass, that 
 should have rule over all" — beautifully fulfilled when 
 Alexander, having conquered the whole world, wept 
 because there were not other nations that he could con- 
 quer ; and then a fourth kingdom, " strong as iron" — 
 the Roman empire ; "in the days of these kings shall 
 
40 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 the Grod of heaven set up a kingdom :" bring into exis- 
 tence a kingdom never before visible to man. He had 
 been preparing for it from his first promise given to 
 Adam down to this time ; he continued that preparation 
 until " the fulness of the time was come." And then he 
 " sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the 
 law, that he might redeem them that were under the 
 law." That time had now come. " The law and the 
 prophets were until John." Mark represents this as 
 "the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ." The 
 whole machinery of this kingdom was brought into ac- 
 tive exercise on the day of Pentecost. The divine power 
 which had been promised descended, and under his 
 mighty influence the apostles began to preach that glo- 
 rious gospel committed to their charge. What do they 
 behold, as they preach their first sermon under the com- 
 mission ? Their hearers " were pricked in their heart," 
 and cried out, " Men and brethren, what shall we do ?" 
 Peter, who acted as spokesman on that occasion, ex- 
 horted them to " Repent and be baptized, every one of 
 you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of 
 sins ; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost ; 
 for the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to 
 all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God 
 shall call." What was the result of this preaching ? 
 " They that gladly received his word were baptized ?" 
 They that gave evidence that they rejoiced in the assur- 
 ance made by Peter of God's willingness to extend to 
 them pardon and salvation, evinced their hearty recep- 
 tion of it by being buried with him in baptism. 
 
 Olshausen, vol. 3, page 209, in his remarks upon this 
 passage, says : " With this repentance baptism is then 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 41 
 
 connected, which necessarily presupposes faith, because 
 it requires an acknowledgment of Christ as the Mes- 
 siah." *^ 
 
 Barnes says, upon the same passage : " They that 
 gladly received.] The word rendered gladly means 
 freely^ cheerfully^ joyfully. It implies that they did it 
 without compulsion and with joy. Religion is not com- 
 pulsion. They who become Christians, do it cheerfully, 
 and do it, rejoicing in the privilege of becoming recon- 
 ciled to G-od through Jesus Christ." " Were baptized.] 
 That is, those who professed a readiness to embrace the 
 offers of salvation. The narrative plainly imphes that 
 this was done the same day. Their conversion was 
 instantaneous. The demand upon them was, to yield 
 themselves at onoe to G-od. And their profession was 
 made, and the ordinance which sealed their profession 
 administered without d.elay." 
 
 I feel constrained to believe that the most skeptical'man 
 upon the doctrine of believer's baptism, will not be able to 
 convince any of this audience that the, first administration 
 of that ordinance by the apostles, after they had received 
 their commission from their divine Master, favored any 
 other than believer's baptism in the slightest degree. 
 Lowth and his coadjutors paraphrase the 38th and 39th 
 verses thus : " Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and 
 be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus 
 Christ, for the remission of (your) sins {which by this 
 baptism ivill be ivashed away^ xxii. 16), and [then) ye 
 {also) shall receive the gift of the Holy G-host, for the 
 promise {of him mentioned, Joel xii. 28) is {made) 
 unto you and your children, and {7iot to them only, but 
 also) to all that are afar off: (that is to say, the Gen- 
 
42 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 tiles:) even [to) as many as the Lord our God shall 
 call." In his comments on these verses, he says : 
 " Thirdly, these words will not prove a right of infants 
 to receive baptism. The promise mentioned here being 
 that only of the Holy G-host, mentioned in verses 16-18, 
 and so relating only to the times of the miraculous efTu- 
 sion of the Holy Ghost, and to those persons who by 
 age were made capable of these extraordinary gifts." 
 
 The next case of baptism to which I call your atten- 
 tion is recorded in the eighth chapter of the Acts of the 
 Apostles, 12th and ISth verses : " When they believed 
 Philip, preaching the things concerning the kingdom 
 of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were bap- 
 tized." Wlio were baptized ? The evangelist is here 
 very particular in telling who were baptized ; and we 
 would suppose that here, at least, if there was any 
 place authorizing the baptism of infants, we should find 
 it. Does it say. They were baptized, men, women, and 
 children? By no means. But, "when they believed 
 Philip, preaching the things concerning the kingdom of 
 God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, 
 both men and womeny I certainly need not say any- 
 thing in explanation of that. 
 
 In the thirty-seventh verse of the same chapter, we find 
 Philip using this language to the eunuch who desired to 
 be baptized of hini : " And Philip said. If thou believcst 
 with all thy hearty thou mayest. And he answered and 
 said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 
 And he commanded the chariot to stand still, and they 
 went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; 
 and he baptized him." Mr. Barnes says, upon this 
 passage : 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 43 
 
 " This was then stated to be the proper qualification 
 for making a profession of religion. The terms are, 
 (first,) faith : that is, a reception of Jesus as a Sa- 
 viour; yielding the mind to the proper influences of the 
 truths of redemption (see note, Mark xvi. 16) ; (sec- 
 ond,) there is required not merely the assent of the 
 understanding, but a surrender of the heart, the will, 
 the affections, to the truth of the gospel. As these 
 were the proper qualifications then, so they arc now. 
 Nothing less is required." 
 
 As he refers to the note on Mark xvi. 16, to explain 
 what he means, I will give you that again : 
 
 ^^ Faith and baptism are the beginnings of the Chris- 
 tian life: the one, the beginning of piety in the soul; 
 the other, of its manifestation before men, or of a jpro- 
 fession of religion." 
 
 Patrick, Lowth, &c., say of the baptism of the eu- 
 nuch: 
 
 " Four things are hence observable : ( I) that baptism 
 was here performed by a fcard(3aGLg, or descent of the 
 baptized person in the water ; (2) that upon this 
 faith, that Jesus Christ was the Son of Grod, and that 
 he died for our sins, which was the thing which Philip 
 preached to the eunuch, adult persons, who before 
 owned one G-od and the spirit of prophecy, as the eu- 
 nuch, were received to that baptism, in which they were 
 taught, and by which they were obliged to observe all 
 thini^s that Jesus had commanded ; for, though the be- 
 lief that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God, was 
 the great article propounded and first preached to every 
 convert, yet the end of baptism being the remission of 
 sins, and the effect of it justification, or the absolution 
 
44 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 of the baptized person from his past sins, and this justi- 
 fication and remission of sins being declared to he ob- 
 tained only through faith in his blood, it is certain that 
 believing in the Lord Jesus must include faith in his 
 meritorious death and passion, or, as the Scripture saith, 
 * faith in his blood.' " 
 
 The next case of baptism to which I call your 
 attention is that of Saul of Tarsus, in Acts ix. 17 
 and 18. 
 
 '' And Ananias went his way, and entered into tho 
 house : and putting his hands on him, said, Brother 
 Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee as 
 thou earnest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive 
 thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. And im- 
 mediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales ; 
 and he received sight forthwith, and arose and was 
 baptized." 
 
 I think that none will deny that that was " believer'' s 
 baptism.'''' The next you will find in Acts x., from 44th 
 to 48th verses. It is a record of the baptism of Corne- 
 lius and his household. And mark you, my hearers, 
 the same course is here pursued in the introduction of 
 the gospel among the G-entiles, that was pursued in the 
 proclamation of it to the Jews in the first sermon 
 preached by the apostles after the reception of their 
 commission. They first preached to them Jesus Christ; 
 and him crucified ; and — " While Peter yet spake these 
 words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the 
 word ; and they of the circumcision which believed, 
 were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because 
 that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the 
 Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISiVI. 45 
 
 and magnify G-od. Then answered Peter, Can any man 
 forbid water, that these should not be baptized which 
 have received the Holy Ghost as well as we ? And he 
 commanded them to be baptized in the name of the 
 Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days." 
 
 Explanation would be superfluous upon a passage 
 which so clearly explains itself. I will, however, give 
 you one authority, which expresses my views upon it. 
 Olshausen says upon this passage : 
 
 "We must suppose, in the case of Cornelius, that 
 regeneration took place before baptism, as, indeed, the 
 baptizing of adults always presupposes faith." 
 
 On the 301st page of the same volume, there is this 
 note by the editor : 
 
 " He [Olshausen] seems, in general, to regard regener- 
 ation as a consequence of baptism ; and yet in this para- 
 graph he allows that the inward change of regeneration 
 should at least be begun before the outward rite of bap- 
 tism takes place." 
 
 Although the doctrines of these men, with respect to 
 the design of baptism, were different from those which 
 the view here given seems to justify, yet, in explaining 
 this and other passages, they are bound to acknowl- 
 edge that they mean what we claim to be their mean- 
 ing. Again : 
 
 *' It is plain, too, from his remarks on Lydia, xvi. 15, 
 that he considers the very first inclination of the mind 
 to Grod as the result of the divine influence. Faith, 
 and a change of heart, then, ought to go before baptism. 
 They are the proper preparation for it ; and if they are 
 wanting, baptism will be found altogether unable to pro- 
 duce them. Baptism will never, of itself, regenerate the 
 
46 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 soul. The author seems to overlook the distinction between 
 the ordinary and extraordinary influence of the Spirit. 
 There were ordinary influences, such as Lydia experi- 
 enced, which were absolutely necessary to the very first 
 right feeling, and which, of course, must precede the faith 
 and baptism of adults, and not follow them. But there 
 was also, in primitive times, an extraordinary influence 
 of the Spirit, which displayed itself in a palpable manner, 
 and which was often exhibited after baptism. This 
 extraordinary influence, though following baptism, was 
 not connected with it, our author allows, by any internal 
 necessity, but depended altogether upon the will of Grod. 
 And much less could the ordinary influence that pro- 
 duced faith, and that, of course, preceded baptism, be 
 itself, in any sense, a consequence of baptism. The 
 regeneration of faith should always go before baptism, 
 and it is in vain to look to baptism for it." 
 
 The next case is that of Lydia, recorded in Acts xvi. 
 13, 14, 15 : 
 
 " And on the Sabbath we went out of the city by a 
 river side, where prayer w^as wont to be made ; and we 
 sat down and spake with the women which resorted 
 thither. And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller 
 of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped 
 God, heard us : whose heart the Lord opened, that she 
 attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul. 
 And wdien she was baptized, and her household, she 
 besought us, saying. If ye have judged me to be faith- 
 ful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. 
 And she constrained us." 
 
 Perhaps the claim, that has been so often asserted, 
 that here is presumptive evidence for infant baptism, 
 
SUBJECTS uF Baptism. 47 
 
 may be set up on the present occasion. To show how 
 utterly groundless such a claim is, I refer you, not 
 simply to what I say upon the subject, but 1 expect to 
 sustain all that I say by proper authority — not quoted 
 simply from memory, and which my opponent has no 
 opportunity of examining and replying to — but from 
 works which I have here before you, about which no 
 question can be raised, and which he has every opportu- 
 nity of replying to, if he desires it. Dr. Clarke — and I 
 understand that young Methodist preachers are required 
 to study Dr. Clarke as a book of reference upon Bible 
 interpretation, for four years before they are considered 
 fully fledged — Dr. Clarke says : 
 
 ^'' She attended unto the things.] She believed them 
 and received them as the doctrines of God, and in this 
 faith she was joined by her whole family, and in it they 
 w^ere baptized." 
 
 Olshausen, vol. 3, page 347, 348, says : 
 " It is highly improbable that the phrase olko<; avr^g^ 
 her household, should be understood as including infant 
 children : relatives, servants, grown children, might be 
 baptized along with her, for they would be at once car- 
 ried away by the youthful power of her new life of faith. 
 There is altogether wanting any conclusive proof-pas- 
 sage for the baptism of children in the age of the apos- 
 tles, nor can the necessity of it be deduced from the 
 nature of baptism." — [Time expired.] 
 
 MR. COULLING'S FIRST REPLY. 
 
 Mr. CouLLiNG : The issue between Mr. Massey and 
 myself is simply this : he affirms that believers only are 
 
48 debat'e on the 
 
 scriptural subjects of apostolic or Christian baptism. I 
 affirm, in opposition to that, that infants are scriptural 
 subjects of baptism. 
 
 In the debate, as far as it has now progressed upon 
 the other side of the question, Mr. Massey has confined 
 himself simply and only to this proposition : believers 
 ought to be baptized. And I suppose that if any person 
 had come into this congregation after the subject for 
 discussion had been read by our mutual friend. Dr. 
 Woods, and had tried to gather what we were to contend 
 about from what Mr. Massey said, the impression would 
 inevitably be made, that I was expected to advance the 
 doctrine that people ought to be baptized without know- 
 ing anything upon the face of God's earth about religion ; 
 that I intended to come here and teach that every adult 
 person ought to be baptized before they believed in any 
 such thing as religion. That is the sum and substance 
 of everything that he has said. He has advocated a point 
 that no Pedobaptist in the world, who understands any- 
 thing about the subject, would ever deny. And he has 
 brought Pedobaptist after Pedobaptist up here, and read 
 them as agreeing with him. And yet, marvellous to 
 tell, he is astonished that Pedobaptists should agree with 
 him, and affirms most emphaticall}^ that there is a con- 
 flict between Pedobaptist teaching and conduct. Did 
 you ever hear of a Pedobaptist, since the \vorld was 
 made, baptizing an infidel, or a man who did not believe 
 in Christ ? 
 
 I wish the gentleman had given himself the trouble 
 to tell us what he meant by believing. I suppose, and 
 I gather from quotations that he has made approvingly 
 from the works introduced, and I gather from the tenor 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 49 
 
 of what he says, that by believinp^, he means that a 
 man must believe in such a way as to be a Chris- 
 tian. And he quotes the case of CorneUus, where the 
 apostle cries out: *' Can any man forbid water, that 
 these should not be baptized, which have received the 
 Holy Ghost as well as we ?" I suppose he means that 
 they shall become personally interested in Jesus Christ, 
 shall become Christians, before they are fit subjects for 
 baptism. (Turning to Mr. Massey.) Will you tell me 
 if that is your idea of the word believing ? Tell me 
 that, and it will save me a little trouble : whether or 
 not, by the word believing^ you mean to convey the 
 idea that before a person is a fit subject for baptism, he 
 shall believe in such a manner that he shall receive 
 (Christ in his heart, and therefore be regarded as a fit 
 subject for baptism ? 
 
 Mr. Massey : I am a little astonished at the confu- 
 sion of mind my brother is laboring under ; but for this, 
 he certainly would have understood, as all this audience 
 understood, that my position is, that to become a fit sub- 
 ject for Baptism a person must have that faith which 
 enables him to receive Jesus Christ as the promised 
 Saviour, as his Saviour ; and that that faith must, in 
 every instance, precede baptism. 
 
 Mr. CouLLiNG : That is all I wanted. Now it is a 
 plain course ; we understand each other. He affirms 
 now, that a man before he ought to be baptized must 
 receive the remission of his sins ; must be a Christian ; 
 must have received Christ. Do you all understand him 
 so? What meaneth this passage of Scripture : "Arise, 
 and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on 
 the name of the Lord," Acts xxii. 16 ? The sins are 
 
 3 
 
50 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 not forgiven there. What means this : " When they 
 heard these sayings, they were pricked in their hearts. 
 And Peter said, Repent, and be baptized for the remis- 
 sion of sins, and ye shall receiA^e the gift of the Holy 
 Ghost"? Now these are two passages of Scripture 
 which, according to Mr. Massey's definition of the word 
 believe^ are as point-blank against that definition as pos- 
 sible. If he had been less broad in his definition, and 
 had said that a man should understand that he was a 
 sinner, and should assent that Christ had come into 
 the world to forgive men's sins, then, as a peni- 
 tent, he might be a proper subject for baptism, 
 there would be no doubt of that, even before he had 
 received the evidence in himself of the remission of 
 sins. 
 
 Now, there are points in Mr. Massey's discourse that 
 I propose to consider just as I proceed, in an argument 
 of my own. He has said very little, indeed, about the 
 dear little children. He seems to think, that because 
 in the commission it is said : '' G-o, teach all nations, 
 and baptize them," " He that believeth, and is baptized, 
 shall be saved" — because it is said there, you must be- 
 lieve, all baptisnis must conform to that. There is the 
 foundation, he says ; there is the beginning ; and it is 
 wrong for you to baptize anybody at all that does not 
 believe, because the commission says : " He that be- 
 lieveth, and is baptized, shall be saved." If he had 
 paid a little attention to the original of that text, he 
 would have found that there was not so much strength 
 after all, in that assertion. That which is translated 
 he that believeth^ is in the aorist participle active ; and 
 the force of the aorist tense is past time, completed action. 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 51 
 
 It does not mean that the individual is believing just at 
 this time, but that the individual has believed at some 
 time, and has been baptized at some time. For the other 
 word rendered is baptized is in the aorist passive 
 participle. And then, when the individual has be- 
 lieved, and has been baptized, he shall be saved at 
 the end of life. The passage does not mean to put 
 the believing in the present tense : that is not the idea 
 at all. 
 
 Now, in opposition to what he has intimated (not 
 what he has said — for with nine tenths of what he has 
 said I most cordially agree, and so do all the Pedobap- 
 tists here — for nobody ever doubted that when an adult 
 person is baptized^ he must believe ; but now, when he 
 comes here to argue that a question that he has raised 
 is scriptural — how many passages has he quoted [other 
 than those that are self-evidently inapposite] to comment 
 upon, or to get Pedobaptists to comment upon ? and he 
 depends more upon their comments than upon the pas- 
 sages themselves). When God established the Church 
 by express enactment, he declared that children should 
 receive the sign and seal of the benefits of that Church, 
 and he has never repealed that enactment. Now, to 
 make that appear (and if I do, all that he has intimated 
 against infant baptism is like throwing darts against a 
 brazen wall), when did God establish his church ? I af- 
 firm, and I think I can give good reason for the affirma- 
 tion, that that Church was established with Abraham. 
 There was the commencement of God's Church upon 
 the earth, and I will show you that the Saviour and his 
 apostles so regarded it. If you will turn to the twelfth 
 chapter of Genesis, first, second, and third verses, you 
 will find that thing very plainly stated there : 
 
52 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 " Now the Lord had said unto Abram, Get thee out 
 of the country, and from thy kindred, and from thy 
 father's house, unto a land that I will show thee : and 
 I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, 
 and make thy name great ; and thou shalt be a bless- 
 ing ; and I will bless them that bless thee, and curse 
 him that curseth thee ; and in thee shall all families of 
 the earth be blessed." 
 
 You will find that in the second verse of this chapter 
 one promise is made, and in the third verse there is an- 
 other promise made. In the second verse God's prom- 
 ise is : "I will make of thee a great nation, and I will 
 bless thee, and make thy name great ; and thou shalt 
 be a blessing :" and in the third verse he says : ''I will 
 bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth 
 thee ; and in thee shall all families of the earth be bless- 
 ed." Now^, the promise made in the second verse refers 
 to the temporal blessings that God bestowed upon the 
 children of Israel. And you will find that that covenant 
 was confirmed in the fifteenth chapter of Genesis, verses 
 eight to twenty-one. I wish to read to you what is said 
 in that fifteenth chapter : 
 
 " And he said. Lord God, whereby shall I know that 
 I shall inherit it ? And he said unto him. Take me a 
 heifer of three years old, and a she-goat of three years 
 old, and a ram of three years old, and a turtle dove, and a 
 young pigeon. And he took unto him all these, and di- 
 vided them in the midst, and laid each piece one against 
 another ; but the birds divided he not. And when the 
 fowls came down upon the carcasses, Abram drove them 
 away. And when the sun was going down, a deep sleep 
 fell upon Abram : and lo, a horror of great darkness fell 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 53 
 
 upon him. And lie said unto Abram, Know of a surety 
 that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, 
 and shall serve them ; and they shall afflict them four hun- 
 dred years : and also that nation whom they shall serve, 
 will I judge : and afterward shall they come out with 
 great substance. And thou shalt go to thy fathers in 
 peace ; thou shalt be buried in a good old age. But in the 
 fourth generation they shall come hither again ; for the 
 iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full. And it came 
 to pass that when the sun went down, and it was dark, 
 behold a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp, that 
 passed between these pieces. In that same day the 
 Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying. Unto thy 
 seed have I- given this land, from the river of Egypt 
 unto the great river, the river Euphrates : the Ke- 
 nites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites, and 
 the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims, 
 and the Canaanites, and the G-irgashites, and the Jebu- 
 sites." 
 
 Now, at that time, in that place, did God make a 
 covenant, and give to Abram and his seed the prom- 
 ised land ? No, no, say some : circumcision was the 
 sign of that covenant. Let us see. In the twelfth 
 chapter, third verse, God says to Abram : ''I will bless 
 them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee ; 
 and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed." 
 Now, if you will turn to Gen. xvii. 10-12, you will find 
 how that covenant was sealed : 
 
 " This is my covenant which you shall keep between 
 me and you, and thy seed after thee : Every man-child 
 among you shall be circumcised. And ye shall cir- 
 cumcise the flesh of your foreskin : and it shall be a 
 
54 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 token of the covenant betwixt me and you. And he 
 that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, 
 every man-child in your generations, he that is born in 
 the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which 
 is not of thy seed." 
 
 This is Grod's covenant with Abram, to give him all 
 the blessings of the gospel. Now, that this is so, I 
 wish to call your attention to a few passages of Scrip- 
 ture, to show what was the import of circumcision. 
 What did it mean ? what did Grod mean by it ? To 
 give to him the promised land, the very land that he 
 gave him by that covenant, the sealing of which I have 
 just read to you in the fifteenth chapter of G-enesis ? 
 No. To this end allow me to read to you a few pas- 
 sages that I have marked here. The first I refer to, you 
 will find in Romans iv. 8, 4, 10, 12 : 
 
 " For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath 
 whereof to glory, but not before Qod. For what saith 
 the Scripture ? Abraham believed God, and it was 
 counted unto him for righteousness. . . . How was it 
 then reckoned ? when he was in circumcision, or in un- 
 circumcision ? Not in circumcision, but in uncircum- 
 cision? And he received the si^n of circumcision, a 
 seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had, yet 
 being uncircumcised : that he might be the father of all 
 them that believe, though they be not circumcised ; that 
 righteousness might be imputed unto them also." 
 
 Now, talk about circumcision being the seal of the 
 covenant of temporal privileges, with an inspired writer 
 affirming that. Another passage, in the nineteenth chap- 
 ter of Exodus, fifth and sixth verses, will throw some 
 light upon this subject : 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 55 
 
 " Now, therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, 
 and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar trea- 
 sure unto me above all people ; for all the earth is mine : 
 and ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and a 
 holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt 
 speak unto the children of Israel." 
 
 ''A holy nation." Does not that look something like 
 spiritual benefits ? Again, Numbers xi. 1, 3 : 
 
 "And when the people complained, it displeased the 
 Lord ; and the Lord heard it, and his anger was kin- 
 dled ; and the fire of the Lord burnt among them, and 
 consumed them that were in the uttermost parts of the 
 camp. And the people cried unto Moses : and when 
 Moses prayed unto the Lord, the fire was quenched. 
 And he called the name of the place Taberah : because 
 the fire of the Lord burnt among them." 
 
 Why ? These were (rod's people : he had entered 
 into covenant with them. And when they violated that 
 covenant they angered G-od, and God's anger burned 
 against them. Now, I wish you to compare Psalms 
 Ixxviii. 20-23 : 
 
 " Behold, he smote the rock, that the waters gushed 
 out, and the streams overflowed ; can he give bread 
 also ? can he provide flesh for his people ? Therefore 
 the Lord heard this, and was wroth : so a fire was kin- 
 dled against Jacob, and anger also came up against 
 Israel : because they believed not in G-od, and trusted 
 not in his salvation, though he had commanded the 
 clouds from above, and opened the doors of heaven." 
 
 There is another passage in point-blank proof that 
 this covenant was a covenant looking to the spiritual 
 blessings of the gospel, tjie very highest spiritual bless- 
 ings men were capable of enjoying. 
 
56 
 
 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 In 2d Chronicles xxx. 18, 19, occurs a passage 
 which I think will throw more light upon this subject : 
 
 " For a multitude of the people, even many of Ephraim 
 and Manasseh, Issachar and Zehulon, had not cleansed 
 themselves, yet did they eat the passover otherwise than 
 it was written ; but Hezekiah prayed for them, saying, 
 The good Lord pardon every one that prepareth his heart 
 to seek G-od, the Lord God of his fathers, though he he 
 not cleansed according to the purification of the sanc- 
 tuary." 
 
 So that, in the midst of a system of ritual services, 
 yet the preparation of the heart was the thing principally 
 looked to. My good brother admitted this, in his com- 
 ment upon the severe rebuke that the blessed Saviour 
 administered to the Scribes and Pharisees — that they 
 paid especial attention to the externals of the law. I 
 will not quote other passages from the Old Testament 
 Scriptures. But I thought it was proper that I should 
 show what was the idea in those times about this mat- 
 ter. I will now go over to the eleventh chapter of Ro- 
 mans, where you will find a passage which I think is 
 somewhat to the point. Mark me, I am trying now to 
 ascertain what circumcision is. Is it a seal of temporal 
 or spiritual blessings? I have brought some seven or 
 eight passages to show directly that it referred to the 
 highest spiritual blessings in the world. I now refer to 
 Romans xi. 20, 21 : 
 
 "Well; because of unbelief they were broken off; 
 and thou standest by faith. Be not high-minded, but 
 fear : for if God spared not the natural branches, take 
 heed lest he also spare not thee." 
 
 The Jews were broken off, because of unbelief, and 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 57 
 
 now the Gentiles stood by faith. Therefore, they should 
 not be high-minded, but fear. The Grentiles had gotten 
 into the place of the Jews. In G-alatians v 3, is a 
 passage I would call attention to in this connection : 
 
 " For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, 
 that he is a debtor to do the whole law." 
 
 To obey G-od's commandments in every respect. Not 
 to inherit the promised land, but is a debtor, and binds 
 himself to obey God's commands. Now, I will collate 
 the seventh verse of the seventeenth chapter of Genesis, 
 with two other passages of Scripture, that will show, I 
 think, that I am not far from the correct view of this 
 subject : 
 
 "And I will establish my covenant between me and 
 thee, and thy seed after thee, in their generations, for 
 an everlasting covenant : to be a God unto thee, and to 
 thy seed after thee." 
 
 Now this is the very chapter in which is recorded the 
 covenant made with Abram. Turn now to Acts ii. 39, 
 and what do we find ? — 
 
 " For the promise is unto you, and to your children, 
 and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord 
 our God shall call." 
 
 What promise ? The promise recorded in the seventh 
 verse of the seventeenth chapter of Genesis. And in 
 the thirty-eighth verse of the same chapter of Acts, it is 
 recorded that — 
 
 '' Then Peter said unto them, Repent and be baptized 
 
 every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the 
 
 remission of sins ; and ye shall receive the gift of the 
 
 Holy Ghost?" 
 
 Why is this blessing bestowed ? 
 
 3# 
 
58 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 '' For the promise is unto you, and to your children^ 
 and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord 
 our Grod shall call." 
 
 What promise ? The promise made to Abraham. 
 When fulfilled ? Here, on the day of Pentecost, Peter 
 being the judge. Again, this covenant made with Abra- 
 ham, in the twelfth chapter, third verse of G-enesis, and 
 confirmed in the seventeenth chapter, eleventh and 
 twefth verses, of Genesis, is called the gospel by the 
 inspired writers, and is identified as the same preached 
 by the apostles. This very covenant is called the gospel. 
 I turn now to the* third chapter of Acts, twenty-second 
 and twenty-fifth verses inclusive, in confirmation of this : 
 
 " For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet 
 shall the Lord your Grod raise up unto you, of your 
 brethren, like unto me ; him shall ye hear in all things, 
 whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come 
 to pass, that every soul wdiich will not hear that prophet 
 shall be destroyed from among the people. Yea, and all 
 the prophets from Samuel, and those that follow after, 
 as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these 
 days. Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the 
 covenant which Grod made with our fathers, saying unto 
 Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the 
 earth be blessed." 
 
 Is not that directly to the point? Does not that 
 prove, beyond refutation, that when G-od made that 
 covenant with Abraham, it was a covenant of spiritual 
 blessings ? and does not Peter identify that with the 
 Gospel dispensation ? 
 
 " Unto you first, God having raised up his Son Jesus, 
 sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you 
 from his iniquities." 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 59 
 
 In the fulfilment of his covenant this is done. Again, 
 in Romans iv. 2, 3, I think I have some good ground to 
 stand upon : 
 
 " For if Ahraham were justified by works, he hath 
 whereof to glory, but not before G-od. For what saith 
 the Scripture ? Abraham believed G-od, and it was 
 counted unto him for righteousness." 
 
 And in the tenth verse of the same chapter I find : 
 
 " How was it then reckoned ? when he was in cir- 
 cumcision, or in uncircumcision ? Not in circumcision, 
 but in uncircumcision. And he received the sign of cir- 
 cumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which 
 he had, yet being uncircumcised ; that he might be the 
 father of all them that believe, though they be not cir- 
 cumcised ; that righteousness might be imparted unto 
 them also : and the father of circumcision to them who 
 are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in 
 the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he 
 had, being yet uncircumcised. For the promise, that 
 he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, 
 or to his seed through the law, but through the right- 
 eousness of faith." 
 
 I think that is very decidedly conclusive to the point 
 to which I quoted it. The sixteenth and seventeenth 
 verses of the same chapter read thus : 
 
 " Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace ; 
 to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed ; 
 not to that only which is of the law, but to that also 
 which is of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of 
 us all," [us, Roman Christians,] " (as it is written, I have 
 made thee a father of many nations,) before him who 
 believed, even Grod who quickeneth the dead, and calleth 
 those things which be not, as though they were." 
 
60 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 Again, in Galatians iii. 7, 8, we have two passages of 
 Scripture very much of the same import: 
 
 " Know ye, therefore, that they which are of faith, the 
 same are the children of Abraham." 
 
 Identifying the Christian here, under the gospel dis- 
 pensation, with Abraham, in a variety of expressions 
 which cannot be mistaken. 
 
 "And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would jus- 
 tify the heathen through faith, preached before the gos- 
 pel unto Abraham, saying. In thee shall all nations be 
 blessed." 
 
 What ! the gospel ! Are you not mistaken upon that 
 subject ? No : the gospel was preached unto Abraham. 
 What was said ? " In thee shall all nations be blessed." 
 That is a synopsis, that is an epitome of the gospel. 
 You see, the Scriptures talk very differently from some 
 Pedobaptists even. 
 
 Mr. Massey : That they do. 
 
 Mr. CouLLiNG : That they do. In the fourteenth verse 
 of this same chapter, it is said : 
 
 *' That the blessing of Abraham might come on the 
 Gentiles through Jesus Christ ; that we might receive 
 the promise of the Spirit through faith." 
 
 Again, in the sixteenth and seventeenth verses : 
 
 " Now, to Abraham and his seed were the promises 
 made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many : but as 
 of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ." 
 
 Mark that, " the law which was 4^30 years after" 
 (the law given from Mount Sinai), "cannot disannul, 
 that it should make the promise of none effect." 
 
 So that the law coming in between these different 
 states of the affairs of the Church, does not destroy its 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 61 
 
 character as a Church, and does not disannul and make 
 the promise of none effect. In the twenty-sixth verse of 
 the same chapter we read : 
 
 " For ye are all the children of Grod by faith in Christ 
 Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized 
 into Christ, have put on Christ. There is neither Jew 
 nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is nei- 
 ther male nor female ; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 
 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and 
 heirs according to the promise." 
 
 Now, does not St. Paul sustain the position with 
 which I started out, as strongly and as positively as if 
 he had anticipated that this issue would be made, and 
 had determined to put a quietus to it forever ? So far, 
 I have attempted to show you, that, upon the authority 
 of the Sacred writers, circumcision was given as a seal 
 to a covenant that bound those receiving it to an obser- 
 vance of the law of God, and that secured to the 
 recipients of it the highest spiritual blessings in the 
 world. 
 
 According to inspired authority, I have shown you 
 that the benefits of that covenant are identified with 
 the gospel of the Son of God ; and that those w^ho are 
 enjoying the benefits of that gospel, are only enjoying 
 the benefits of that covenant that God made with Abra- 
 ham, at the very time that he introduced children 
 into its benefits, and gave them the seal of their title 
 to it. 
 
 Now I come one step farther, and in confirmation of 
 what T have already said, I affirm (and shall prove it, 
 as I have proved the other position) that our Lord Jesus 
 Christ and his disciples spoke of the Church as already 
 
62 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 existing. My brother says, he did not come to repair 
 or continue an old Church, but to build a new one. 
 Now, if he is wiser than the apostles, and can prove 
 that, we will yield to him. He takes the position, that 
 it is not scriptural to baptize children. I am trying to 
 prove that it is ; — not according to Pedobaptist authori- 
 ties, but according to the word of God. In Matthew 
 xviii. 15-lS, we find: 
 
 " Moreover, if thy brother shall trespass against thee, 
 go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone : 
 if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained a brother. But 
 if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two 
 more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every 
 word may be established." 
 
 This is the direction given by the blessed Saviour, I 
 suppose, for immediate action. 
 
 "And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto 
 the Church ; but if he neglect to hear the Church, let 
 him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican." 
 
 There is a Church already in existence : " the Church. '"* 
 In farther confirmation of that, turn to Acts vii. 37, 38 : 
 
 " This is that Moses which said unto the children of 
 Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your Grod raise up unto 
 you of your brethren, like unto me : him shall ye hear. 
 This is he that was in the church in the wilderness, 
 with the angel which spake to him in the Mount Sina, 
 and with our fathers ; who received the lively oracles to 
 give unto us." 
 
 Ao;ain, in Romans xi., beginning with the seventeenth 
 verse, there is a passage which perhaps will throw some 
 light on this point : 
 
 "And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 63 
 
 being a wild olive-tree, wert graffed in among them, 
 and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the 
 olive-tree ; boast not against the branches. But if thou 
 boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee." 
 
 Of whom is he speaking? Of the Christians at 
 Rome : not the Jews. I will show you, by his own 
 authority, I think, to whom this is written : 
 
 " Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an 
 apostle separated unto the gospel of G-od .... to ail that 
 be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints ; grace 
 to you, and peace from God our Father, and the Lord 
 Jesus Christ." 
 
 Those are the persons to whom he is writing. He 
 says : 
 
 " Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, 
 thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. Thou wilt 
 say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be 
 graffed in. Well : because of unbelief, they were broken 
 off, and thou standest by faith. Be not high-minded, 
 but fear ; for if God spared not the natural branches 
 [the Jews], take heed lest he also spare not thee. Be- 
 hold, therefore, the goodness and severity of God : on 
 them which fell, severity ; but toward thee, goodness, if 
 thou continue in his goodness : otherwise thou shalt also 
 be cut off. And they also, if they abide not still in un- 
 belief, shall be graffed in : for G-od is able to graff them 
 in again. For if thou wert cut out of the olive-tree 
 which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to 
 nature into a good olive-tree : how much more shall 
 these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into 
 their own olive-tree?" 
 
 Here is the Church of Jesus Christ called the Jews' 
 
64 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 "own olive tree." I think that is right clear : I cannot 
 conceive, for my life, how there can be any dispute 
 or doubt about it. Again, I wish to read you a passage 
 from Acts ii. 47 : 
 
 " Praising Grod, and having favor with all the people. 
 And the Lord added to the Church daily such as should 
 be saved." 
 
 There is a Church already established, on the day of 
 Pentecost. There it was : there was no council called 
 to establish one ; it was already in existence, for " the 
 Lord added to the Church daily such as should be 
 saved." Again, in the gospel of St. Matthew, twenty- 
 first chapter, beginning with the thirty-third verse, there 
 is a passage which struck me, a short time since, as 
 very conclusive upon this subject. The blessed Saviour 
 says : 
 
 " Hear another parable : There was a certain house- 
 holder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round 
 about, and digged a wine-press in it, and built a tower, 
 and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far coun- 
 try ; and when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent 
 his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive 
 the fruits of it. And the husbandmen took his servants, 
 and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another. 
 Again, he sent other servants more than the first : and 
 they did unto them likewise. But last of all he sent 
 unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son. 
 But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among 
 themselves. This is the heir ; come, let us kill him, 
 and let us seize on his inheritance. And they caught 
 him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew 
 him. When the lord, therefore, of the vineyard cometh, 
 
^SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 65 
 
 what will he do unto those husbandmen? They say 
 unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, 
 and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, 
 which shall render him the fruits in their seasons. Je- 
 sus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the Scrip- 
 tures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same 
 is become the head of the corner : this is the Lord's 
 doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes ? Therefore say 
 I unto you. The kingdom of God shall be taken from 
 you [the Jews], and given to a nation bringing forth the 
 fruits thereof. And whosoever shall fall on this stone 
 shall be broken : but on whomsoever it shall fall^ it will 
 grind him to powder. And when the chief priests and 
 Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he 
 spake of them." 
 
 You see, '' spake of them ;" and from them the Lord 
 takes the kingdom of G-od, which he gives to the Gen- 
 tiles. That is what he promised to do, and the facts of 
 history prove that he did it. I refer you now to He- 
 brews iii,, beginning with the first verse : 
 
 " Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly 
 calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our pro- 
 fession, Christ Jesus : who was faithful to him that 
 appointed him, as also Moses was faithful in all his 
 house. For this man was counted worthy of more glory 
 than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house 
 hath more honor than the house. For every house is 
 builded by some man ; but he that built all things is God. 
 And Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a ser- 
 vant, for a testimony of those things which were to be 
 spoken after : but Christ as a Son over his own house ; 
 whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and 
 the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end." 
 
66 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 In the very house in which Moses was a servant, 
 Christ was '' as a son over his own house." Is it possi- 
 ble f , . skepticism itself to deny that that covenant made 
 with Abraham w^as the very covenant that Jesus Christ 
 confirmed and fulfilled on earth : the very covenant, too, 
 that demanded that children should receive the evidence 
 and sign and seal of their title to its benefits and bless- 
 ings. I refer you also to Hebrews iv., beginning with 
 the first verse : 
 
 " Let us therefore fear, lest a promise being left us of 
 entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come 
 short of it. For unto us [the Jews] was the gospel 
 preached, as well as unto them ; but the w^ord preached 
 did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them 
 that heard it. For we which have believed do enter 
 into rest ; as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if 
 they shall enter into my rest : although the works were 
 finished from the foundation of the world." 
 
 And I will call your attention to the whole of the 
 eleventh chapter of Hebrews, made up of little obituary 
 notices, of persons who had died before Jesus Christ 
 came into the w^orld. And there is not a man or woman 
 upon this ground who, if his friend should die, could 
 turn to this eleventh chapter of Hebrews and state of 
 him what Paul says of those, would not feel satisfied 
 that their friend had gone to heaven. One single pas- 
 sage from this eleventh chapter : 
 
 " By faith Noah, being w^arned of God of things not seen 
 as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of 
 his house ; by the which he condemned the world, and 
 became heir of the righteousness which is by faith." 
 
 Is not that a commendation, and a commentary, too, 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 67 
 
 apropos to the position I have taken ? And just in per- 
 fect accordance with it — not to prove it, for I hold that 
 upon these subjects affirmations do no good ; the proof 
 is the thing — I wish to read an extract from the twenty- 
 sixth page of Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History. He was 
 writing about A. D. 425 : 
 
 *' Should any one, beginning from Abraham, and 
 going back to the first man, pronounce those who have 
 had the testimony of righteousness. Christians in fact, 
 though not in name, he would not be far from the truth. 
 For as the name Christian is intended to indicate this 
 very idea, that a man, by the knowledge and doctrine of 
 Christ, is distinguished by modesty and justice, by pa- 
 tience and a virtuous fortitude, ami by a profession of 
 piety toward the one and only true and supreme God ; 
 all this was not less studiously cultivated by them than 
 
 by us Hence you will find also these pious persons 
 
 honored with the name of Christ, as in the following 
 expression : ' Touch not my anointed ones [my, Christ's], 
 and do my prophets no harm.' Whence we should 
 plainly suppose, that the first and most ancient religion 
 known, that of the pious men that were connected with 
 Abraham, is the very religion lately announced to all in 
 the doctrines of Christ." 
 
 I give you that as the opinion of an ancient and 
 learned writer, living before a controversy of this kind 
 was known upon the face of the earth. If there had 
 been any, my opponent here, with all his books, can 
 show when it occurred. 
 
 Now I go on to say, that having shown you by all 
 this testimony from the Scriptures, that when God 
 made the promise to Abraham, "In thee shall all 
 
68 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 nations of the earth be blessed," he founded, began what 
 is called either the gospel, or the Church, of God : and 
 I do not care which term you apply to it, for the apostles 
 applied both. There was the beginning, the very foun- 
 dation of the Church. And at that time God, by posi- 
 tive enactment, required that children should receive 
 the seal and sign of their title to the privileges conferred 
 by this covenant. That I have shown, if there can be 
 such a thing as proving anything, by passages of Scrip- 
 ture, in clear, emphatic language. And now I will go 
 on and say, that when the Saviour came, he did not ab- 
 rogate a single principle laid down in the Church. My 
 good brother — and I am very glad he did it — pointed 
 you, with a great deal of force, to the severe manner in 
 which Christ rebuked the Scribes and Pharisees. And 
 for doing what ? Acting in accordance with the prin- 
 ciples of the covenants ? No : but for not doing so ; 
 because they lost the substance in pursuit of the shadow, 
 and forgot the spirit in the form. He called them hypo- 
 crites, whited sepulchres, outwardly very beautiful, but 
 inwardly ravenous wolves ; a generation of vipers. 
 Why ? Because they kept the law of Moses ? Because 
 they kept to the old dispensation now passing off? No : 
 but because they had not lived according to it. And if 
 you wish a comment upon the principles of the prece- 
 ding dispensation, clear, beautiful, grand, read the fifth, 
 sixth, and seventh chapters of Matthew's Gospel, known, 
 the world over, as the Sermon on the Mount, and there 
 you will find a confirmation and commentary upon all 
 that preceded, which establishes, beyond controversy, 
 that Christ came into the world not to destroy, but to 
 fulfil the law, every jot and tittle of it. Some things 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 
 
 69 
 
 he did: he made some alterations in the externals of 
 the Church; he did that either in person, or by his 
 apostles. For instance— and I will not refer to any 
 passage of Scripture to prove it, for I know my friend will 
 deny none but one change— the blessed Redeemer estab- 
 lished the Lord's Supper in place of the Passover. Hav- 
 ing finished the Passover, he then established his own 
 sacrament: ''Eat this bread, drink this wine, until I 
 come again :" laying aside the Passover. You know, 
 that after he rose from the dead, instead of celebrating 
 the seventh day of the week, as the Jews do, the first 
 day of the week was observed in honor of his resurrec- 
 tion. You know, that after he rose from the dead, just 
 before his ascension, he— though not formally, yet in 
 fact— did lay aside the priests and Levites, as ministers 
 of the sanctuary, there being no longer any necessity 
 for them, and he called other men and qualified them by 
 the baptism of his own spirit, to do what ? To go and 
 preach the gospel to every nation on the earth. One other 
 change he made, and that is the one my good brother will 
 perhaps deny. But I affirm that he put Baptism in the 
 place of circumcision. I state that simply as a question 
 of fact, not as matter of opinion. 
 
 Prior to the coming of the Saviour, if a man wished 
 to be introduced into the Church of G-od, to come out 
 from heathendom, and professes faith in God, how was 
 he to do it ? By being circumcised : there was no other 
 way possible. I suppose nobody will dispute that point. 
 But if a heathen man were to come here now, and my 
 good brother wanted to get him into the Church of God, 
 how would he do it ? He would baptize him. Suppose, 
 my hearers, I were to say that the boots and shoes you 
 
70 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 wear now had not taken the place of the old sandals ; 
 would you believe it ? Or that my coat had not taken 
 the place of the old Roman toga : would you believe it? 
 No : it is a fact. And if the brother gets up here and 
 says that Baptism has not taken the place of circum- 
 cision — 
 
 Mr. Massey : Do you expect me to prove a negative ? 
 You must prove the affirmative. 
 
 Mr. CouLLiNG : I have proved it already. It is a fact 
 standing out upon the face of things. The bare annun- 
 ciation of it is enough to prove it. I have just stated 
 the simple facts ; the inference can be drawn by any 
 one. If I say that two and two are added together, 
 everybody can see that they make four. If circumcision 
 once was the door of entrance into the Church of Grod ; 
 if it was the only manner in which a man could pub- 
 licly profess his faith in Grod, then baptism is now the 
 only way to enter the Church : that is plain. And the 
 brother does not wish people to commune with him 
 until they have been baptized, and in his way, too ; 
 because they are not in the Church, according to his 
 theory. 
 
 Now that I am right in all this, I wish to call your 
 attention to one or two passages of Scripture. In 
 Matthew xviii. 19, 20, and Mark xvi. 15, 16, are two 
 passages that my brother has commented upon, and 
 which none of you have forgotten : 
 
 " Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing 
 them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and 
 of the Holy Ghost ; teaching them to observe all things 
 whatsoever I have commanded you," &c. 
 
 " Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to 
 
SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM. 71 
 
 every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall 
 be saved," &c. 
 
 There is no doubt about it ; the Saviour did establish 
 Baptism. Now if you will turn to Acts xv. 6, 23-29, 
 inclusive, you will find the following : 
 
 "And the apostles and elders came together to con- 
 sider of this matter." 
 
 If you wish to know what matter, when you go home 
 turn to the fifteenth chapter of Acts and read it. It does 
 not affect my argument : 
 
 " And they wrote letters by them after this manner : 
 The apostles, and elders, and brethren send greeting 
 unto the brethren which are of the Grentiles in Antioch, 
 and Syria, and Cilicia. Forasmuch as we have heard, that 
 certain which went out from us, have troubled you with 
 words, subverting your souls, saying. Ye must be cir- 
 cumcised and keep the law : to whom we gave no such 
 commandment : it seemed good unto us, being assembled 
 with one accord, to send chosen men unto you, with our 
 beloved Barnabas and Paul : men that have hazarded 
 their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We 
 have sent, therefore, Judas and Silas, who shall also tell 
 you the same things by mouth. For it seemed good to 
 the Holy G-host, and to us, to lay upon you no greater 
 burden than these necessary things : that ye abstain 
 from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from 
 things strangled, and from fornication ; from which 
 if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye 
 well." 
 
 Here is a controversy with reference to circumcision, 
 whether or not the G-entiles should be circumcised. And 
 they tell them in that twenty -ninth verse what they 
 
72 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 should do, omitting circumcision, thereby annulling it 
 and repealing it. The Saviour gives Baptism, and the 
 disciples annul circumcision, for it is not needed. I now 
 desire to read you a passage from Philippians iii. 3, &c. : 
 
 " For we are the circumcision, which worship G-od in 
 the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no con- 
 fidence in the flesh : though I might also have confi- 
 dence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh he hath 
 whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more : circum- 
 cised the eighth day," &c. 
 
 He rejects all that, and yet says, " We are of the cir- 
 cumcision, which worship Grod in the spirit," &c. That 
 will be explained by reference to Colossians ii. 11 : 
 
 " In whom also ye are circumcised with the circum- 
 cision made without hands, in putting ofl" the body of 
 the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ." 
 
 Now spiritual Baptism is there called distinctly, " the 
 circumcision of Christ." Christ's mode of baptizing the 
 people, is Christ's circumcising the people, is cleansing 
 them. Now, with 'reference to the objection my good 
 brother urged — (he did not bring it out fully, but he 
 stated it sufficiently, I think, to make an impression) — 
 he says the Saviour did not come to build up an old 
 Church, to repair one, but to set up a new one. His 
 idea was that he came to lay the very foundation of one. 
 And if a Church had commenced the very moment be- 
 fore Christ came into the world, it was not the right 
 Church, merely because it is written, " The kingdom of 
 Grod is at hand" — the kingdom shall come. Now, we 
 are taught to pray, " Thy kingdom come " The idea 
 he seeks to impress upon your minds is, that if a king- 
 dom started before that time, it was not the kingdom, 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 73 
 
 I will only say that the passages of Scripture I have 
 read, the emphatic, unequivocal, plain declarations of 
 the word of G-od, give a complete denial to all that sort 
 of argument, showing that it will not bear the light of 
 revelation, will not bear the light of the word of G-od : 
 God says otherwise. 
 
 I intended — but if I do, I will probably anticipate a 
 little — to pursue a train of thought, which I will not 
 therefore pursue just at this time in the order in which 
 I had intended to do it. I will endeavor to notice some 
 other things. I will notice an objection just here ; and 
 I notice it here merely because it has been already 
 brought forward. You are not to baptize any one at 
 all, unless he be a believer, because the Scriptures say : 
 " G-o preach the gospel to every creature ; he that be- 
 lieveth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that be- 
 iieveth not shall be damned." Then, if a person is 
 incompetent to believe, he is incompetent to be bap- 
 tized. Is not that the argument ? 
 
 If he cannot believe, you have no right to baptize 
 him. That argument is applied to infants. Infants 
 cannot believe, and therefore they have no right to be 
 baptized. Infants cannot be taught ; and not being able 
 to be taught, they are not able to believe, and therefore 
 they are not to be baptized. Now, I suppose, if that is 
 a right mode of reasoning upon one clause of this pas- 
 sage, it is upon another. And if infants cannot believe, 
 they cannot be saved. Now, I do not say that is the 
 meaning of the text, for I do not believe it. And if 
 that is his argument, he must get over it himself. This 
 commission is a circle, prescribing everything that we 
 are to do. "We are bound up and hemmed up by it. 
 
 4 
 
74 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 Very well ; if you do not go outside of that circle, if 
 that is the argument, you will consign to everlasting 
 ruin all infants who die in infancy. If infants cannot 
 be baptized because they cannot believe, upon the same 
 principle they are to be damned because they cannot 
 believe. And there are men in the world who have been 
 driven to unbelief by that sort of argument ; and others 
 who have held that Infants who die are annihilated, be- 
 cause, they say, a good and merciful God could not 
 damn them forever. I have seen that in print. I do 
 not say my brother believes that. I believe he is as 
 much opposed to it as I am. But he cannot come to 
 any other logical conclusion except that, if he argues 
 as he has done. 
 
 MR. MASSEY'S SECOND ADDRESS. 
 
 Mr. Massey : I am very forcibly reminded, by the 
 course pursued by Mr. Coulling, of a story I once heard. 
 A gentleman discovered a man riding backw^ard and 
 forward at a very rapid rate. At last he went to him 
 and inquired the cause of his travelling over that same 
 piece of road so much. " Why," says the man, ^' I 
 have been travelling a long time, and this is the only 
 trotting-ground I have yet found, and I am determined 
 to enjoy it." Perhaps the gentleman is somewhat like 
 a lawyer who wrote off his speech, just as he seems to 
 have written his, but who found, upon examination of 
 his testimony, that it w^as all foreign to what he had 
 written. When he commenced his speech, the judge 
 reminded him that he had mistaken the testimony ; the 
 lawyer, after an embarrassed pause, replied, " May it 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 75 
 
 please your honor, it is in my speech, and I must 
 speak ity 
 
 Seriously, however, there has been a course pursued 
 here which must strike every one as anomalous, unfair, 
 and not courteous. You remember that, on a former 
 occasion, when the respondent on this proposition had 
 the affirmative, he did not discuss it ten minutes before 
 he said that the proposition he affirmed did not make an 
 issue ; and he so changed his position as to place him- 
 self on the negative. "When I found that that discus- 
 sion would not be reported and published, I, through 
 courtesy, yielded to what he seemed to look upon as a 
 dire necessity, in order that he might be able .to make 
 even a show of argument in favor of sprinkling and pour- 
 ing. Upon the present occasion I am the affirmant. 
 And I trust I may never be under the necessity of say- 
 ing to an audience like this, that a proposition of my 
 oiun framing does not make an issue, or to show so 
 plainly that I am unable to sustain my own proposi- 
 tion. I have led in this discussion in a manner which, 
 I think, must strike every one as the correct manner for 
 obtaining clear and correct information of the teachings 
 of the word of G-od upon this subject. But the gentle- 
 man, finding that he was unable to follow, has presented 
 a course upon this subject that will cause the report, 
 whenever published, to read very much as though we 
 were addressing two distinct congregations, and having 
 but little, if any, connection between our arguments. 
 
 I am glad to find, however, that there seems to be 
 one good reason for the course he pursues. He assures 
 you that he and all Pedobaptists agree loith nine tenths 
 of all that I have said. Then, nothing additional is 
 
76 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 needed to sustain what I have thus far said. By way 
 of returning the compliment, I must say to him that I 
 disagree with about nine tenths of what he has said. 
 Anomalous and unexpected as the course pursued by the 
 gentleman was, in leaving the subject-matter under dis- 
 cussion as presented by the affirmant, I confess I was 
 more surprised at the awkward and clumsy manner in 
 which he introduced his argument. If you had not, by 
 previous information, been apprized of his design, you 
 would not have discovered, until very near the close of 
 his address, what his object was. Instead of presenting 
 the propositions he wished to establish in a clear and 
 lucid manner — in such a manner as "the sw?z," or even 
 one of " his satellites,'''' might have been expected to pre- 
 sent it — there has been a degree of clumsiness, awk- 
 wardness, and ambiguity, about his position and argu- 
 ments, that renders it extremely difficult to produce 
 anything like order out of what he has said ; yet I have 
 noted the gentleman closely. I have taken down every 
 reference he has given, and when he shall have com- 
 pleted his argument upon the unity of the covenants ; 
 upon circumcision yielding to baptism ; and all that per- 
 tains to that matter, I pledge you, if it be possible to 
 bring order out of chaos, I will set before you an argu- 
 ment upon this subject that will show you that he is 
 just as wide of the mark as he supposed me to be on a 
 former occasion, when he said I was as far from the 
 subject as the distance between the earth and the sun. 
 
 Not intending, therefore, at the present time, to at- 
 tempt any reply to what he has said, I will proceed to 
 the argument direct, and come up with him when he 
 shall, as I before remarked, have gotten through with 
 his argument. 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 77 
 
 I was a little disposed to look at the book whicli my 
 good brother said he read, not as " affirmation," but as 
 ''joroq/*." 
 
 Mr. CouLLiNG : No, sir : not as proof ; but simply as 
 giving an expression of the opinion of a wise man, liv- 
 ing at an early day. I had plenty of Bible proof with- 
 out that. 
 
 Mr. Massey : I supposed it was to prove the correct- 
 ness of his opinion, that he introduced this witness ; 
 but it seems he only wanted the luitnessh opinion. I 
 find he has called to the stand, as a witness, one whose 
 opinions he wishes to give — opinions^ not statements of 
 fficts. This witness does not state facts ; he is not 
 brought forward '' as proof," but merely to give his 
 opinions. I find that this book is "published by T. 
 Mason & G-. Lane, /or the Methodist Episcopal ChurchP 
 Well, I expect the gentleman finds opinions there that 
 agree with his own very well. 
 
 Mr. CouLLiNG : Is the book written by a Methodist ? 
 
 Mr. Massey : It is published by Methodists, for the 
 use of Methodists. 
 
 Mr. CouLLiNG : It is an old history ; that is all. 
 
 Mr. Massey : The gentleman makes one honest con- 
 fession, as he goes along; that is, that the Bible differs 
 very materially from Pedobaptist authors. Well, I am 
 glad he made that confession — there will be no neces- 
 sity for proof to establish it. That is a truth that I 
 endorse. The Bible and Pedobaptists do differ. 
 
 Mr. CouLLiNG : I did not say that the Bible and all 
 Pedobaptists differ. I said that the Bible and some 
 Pedobaptists [pointing to a book there that the gentle- 
 man had quoted from] — that they differed. There is a 
 
78 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 great difference between saying that the Bible and Pedo- 
 baptists, and the Bible and some Pedobaptists, differ. 
 
 Mr. Masse Y : I will take the gentleman's explanation. 
 Now, to which book did he refer ? I have been present- 
 ing his own Church authorities — the strongest array of 
 testimony : brought not only from Pedobaptist ranks 
 generally, but from the most able men in the " Methodist 
 Churchy Now, is the gentleman's explanation designed 
 to throw light upon the subject, or is it an effort to parry 
 the confession he made, and to mislead the judgment 
 of the audience ? 
 
 But, to return to the direct argument. The next case 
 of baptism to which I will call your attention* is found 
 in Acts xvi. 32-34. It is here that we find the account 
 of the baptism of the jailor and his household : 
 
 *' And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and 
 to all that were in his house. And he took them the 
 same hour of the night, and washed their stripes ; and 
 was baptized, he and all his, straightway. And when 
 he had brought them into his house, he set meat before 
 them, and rejoiced, believing in G-od, with all his house." 
 
 Dr. Clarke, one of these " some Fedohaptists^^^ says 
 on this passage : 
 
 " Verse 31. Believe on the Lord Jesus.] Receive the 
 religion of Christ, which we preach, and let thy house- 
 hold also receive it, and ye shall be all placed in the 
 sure way to final salvation." 
 
 This is what Paul and Silas taught the jailor and his 
 house. Dr. Clarke continues : 
 
 " Verse 32. And they spake unto him the ivord of the 
 Lord.] Thus, by teaching him, and all that were in 
 his house, the doctrine of the Lord^ they plainly pointed 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. ^9 
 
 out to them the way of salvation. And it appears that 
 he and his whole family, who were capable of receiving 
 instructions, embraced this doctrine, and showed the sin- 
 cerity of their faith by immediately receiving baptism." 
 Now look, if you please, at the singular remarks made 
 by the gentleman in his commencement. He said that 
 I argued this proposition as though the simple question 
 was, whether adults must exercise faith before they 
 were baptized. I am sure that nothing short of the 
 confusion which the gentleman appears to have been 
 laboring under, prevented him from observing that I 
 started out with the proposition, and have from then 
 till the present time maintained, that faith was a pre- 
 requisite to baptism in every case of its administration 
 under divine authority. If he wants broader ground 
 than that, I cannot accommodate him. I assert again, 
 that in every case where we find baptism administered 
 in the New Testament, we find that faitli v/as required 
 as a pre-requisite. Let me turn back for a moment to 
 the commission. Baptism is a positive institution of 
 the gospel, deriving all its authority from him who insti- 
 tuted and enjoined it. It does not arise, as a moral 
 obligation, from certain relationships, or the nature of 
 things. But the duty of the believer to submit to it 
 arises wholly from the fact that Jesus Christ, the King 
 in Zion^ instituted the ordinance, and enjoined its ob- 
 servance upon all Mb followers. 
 
 , Again : a command to baptize believers, is virtu- 
 ally a prohibition to baptize anybody else. Suppose 
 that some of you gentlemen were appointed to act as 
 commissioners of election, and you were to find in the 
 law bestowing the right of suffrage such directions as 
 
80 
 
 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 these : " Every white male citizen, twenty-one years of 
 age, who has been a resident of the county, city, or elec- 
 tion district in which he proposes to vote, for twelve 
 months next preceding the time of offering his vote, 
 shall be entitled to the right of suffrage." Would you 
 not understand that you were forbidden by that language 
 to allow anybody else to vote ? Suppose some man comes 
 to you and says : " Sirs, by this restriction you reflect 
 upon my patriotism, or upon my intelligence ; I am 
 twenty years and ten months of age, and you certainly 
 do not suppose that the w^ant of two months is a proper 
 reason why I should be debarred from the exercise of 
 this privilege." You point him to your commission, 
 and say to him : " I am acting under positive authority ; 
 you must inquire of the legislators why they did not 
 make provision for you ; my duty is to observe the regu- 
 lations which they have enacted." Another man says 
 to you: "I am forty-five years old; I have borne arms 
 in my country's defence ; I have bared my bosom to the 
 storm ; I have shed my blood — ^here are the honorable 
 scars of patriotism which I bear I I have resided in the 
 county for the last eleven months, and do you presume 
 to deny me the right of elective franchise ?" You would 
 say to him : " I appreciate your valor and your patriot- 
 ism ; I do not question your intelligence ; but I am act- 
 ing under positive authority : the law says I shall allow 
 all to vote who are twenty-one years old, and have resided 
 in the county for twelve months preceding the election ; 
 I have no right to do either 7nore or less.''^ Who would 
 question the correctness of your decision? Now, why is 
 it th it common men, men of ordinary intelligence in 
 the I ffairs of life, can understand so plainly, and yet the 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 81 
 
 would-be-great divines, men who are said to ''shed the 
 rays of the sun's light upon the subjects they discuss," 
 are so perfectly befogged when they come to inspired 
 writings that they cannot understand the plainest lan- 
 guage ? 
 
 Jesus Christ had before authorized some of his disci- 
 ples to "go into the cities, not of the Samaritans, nor 
 in the way of the Grentiles, but rather to the lost sheep 
 of the house of Israel." But now he gives them the 
 commission to go and teach all men, then baptize them, 
 and then to teach them all the duties of subsequent life. 
 Is there any ambiguity about this ? Not a particle of 
 it. (A good brother before me bows assent, and I know 
 he is an ultra Methodist.) I ask you, then, does not the 
 subject, as it is presented before you, commend itself to 
 the understanding of every rational being ? And if it 
 were not to serve a purpose — to sustain a theory unsup- 
 ported by any authority in this commission — by any 
 authority in the word of God, from alpha to omega^ 
 would there be any controversy about it ? The gentle- 
 man says, here was a man [Eusebius] who wrote before 
 there was any controversy about this subject. If he 
 wrote before the third century, he did, for there certainly 
 was no controversy about infant baptism before that 
 time, as no such thing as infant baptism had ever been 
 heard of. I will show you the time when, and the cir- 
 cumstances under which, it was introduced. And if the 
 gentleman will only go with me through the subject, I 
 will then go back with him over all the various pas- 
 sages he has quoted, and show him that he has quoted 
 passages that, when rightly understood, will completely 
 overthrow his whole theory, 
 
82 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 I am sorry the gentleman has placed me under the 
 necessity of taking back many of the complimentary 
 remarks I made of him at the close of our former dis- 
 cussion. He has read passages of Scripture which, 
 when properly understood, are as diametrically opposite 
 to his views of the subject as the north is to the south. 
 
 Now let us see what Pedobaptists say of the baptism 
 of the jailor and his household. Mr. Barnes' note is 
 long, but I will give it you : 
 
 "■Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.] This was a sim- 
 ple, a plain, and an effectual direction. They did not direct 
 him to use the means of grace, to pray, or to continue to 
 seek for salvation. They did not advise him to delay, or 
 to wait for the mercy of Grod. They told him to believe at 
 once ; to commit his agitated and guilty and troubled spirit 
 to the Saviour, with the assurance that he should find 
 peace. They presumed that he would understand what 
 it was to believe ; and they commanded him to do the 
 thingP 
 
 My good brother seems not to understand what I 
 mean by beliefs or to think that anybody here knows 
 what I mean when I say believe. Yet Mr. Barnes sup- 
 posed that the jailor and his household would understand 
 what was meant, when he was told to believe on the 
 Lord Jesus Christ, and he should be saved. Mr. Barnes 
 continues : 
 
 "And this was the uniform direction which the early 
 preachers gave to those inquiring the way to life. See 
 note. Matt. xvi. 16 ; Comp. note. Acts viii. 22. 
 
 '"''And thy house.] And thy family. That is, the same 
 salvation is equally adapted to and offered to your fam- 
 ily. It does not mean that his family would be saved 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 83 
 
 simply by Ids believing ; but that the offers had refer- 
 ence to them as well as to himself ; that they might be 
 saved as well as he. His attention was thus called at 
 once, as every man's should be, to his family. He was 
 reminded that they needed salvation, and he was pre- 
 sented with the assurance that they might unite with 
 him in the peace and joy of redeeming mercy. Comp. 
 note, chap. ii. 39. It may be implied here, that the 
 faith of a father may be expected to be the means of the 
 salvation of his family. It often is so in fact ; but the 
 direct meaning of this is, that salvation was offered to 
 his family, as well as to himself : implying, that if they 
 believed, they also should be saved. 
 
 " To all that were inliis house.]- Old and young, they 
 instructed them in the doctrines of religion, and, doubt- 
 less, in the nature of the ordinances of the gospel, and 
 then baptized the entire family." 
 
 The gentleman talks about proving from the book. I 
 very much wish he had brought his authorities with 
 him, that they could be examined. I conclude that if 
 his authorities had been such that he was willinsf to 
 submit them to examination, he would have them here. 
 I brought mine with me : questions may arise about the 
 correctness of quotations, and I do not intend to quote 
 from mere memory, but to bring forward the authorities 
 I quote, and to subject them to the examination of my 
 opponent, to assure him that every quotation I make is 
 correct. And I verily believe it would be a just course, 
 if the moderators were to rule out all testimony that is 
 not presented in legitimate form. And I believe if I 
 were to raise the point, that a man should have here the 
 authorities from which he quotes, it would be sustained. 
 
84 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 Mr. CouLLiNG : Have I brought any such testimony 
 at all to-day ? 
 
 Mr. Massey : If you have brought any at all^ you 
 have. You certainly have not read from authorities 
 here. I have remarked to you, over and over again, 
 my hearers, that while I might bring a host of Baptist 
 works to establish the position I occupy, I have brought 
 Pedobaptist works : works of those who have been 
 constrained to admit, upon every passage I present, 
 the correctness of my views. Such testimony is the 
 strongest that can be presented — testimony from the op- 
 posite ranks : proving the correctness of my views. Do 
 you want stronger testimony ? I now refer you to 01s- 
 hausen, vol. 3, page 351 : 
 
 " The remark in verse 32, that Paul preached not only 
 to the jailor, 'but also to his house (ev t§ olKia avrov)^ 
 is plainly not favorable to the view that infant children 
 are included under this expression, for Paul could deliver 
 no discourse to them." 
 
 This man had, doubtless, read Paul's declaration that 
 " faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of 
 God." And he understood, as every intelligent man 
 ought to understand, that before men have the capacity 
 to believe, they must be capable of hearing and under- 
 standing testimony. And hence Paul, as says Mr. 01s- 
 hausen, addressed no argument^ delivered no discourse 
 to infant children. 
 
 [Intermission.] 
 
 Mr. CouLLiNG : Before proceeding to the train of 
 thought that I was trying to pursue at the time that 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 85 
 
 the hour allotted to me expired, I wish to refer to a few 
 things suggested by the remarks of my friend who last 
 addressed you. As to the confusion in the train of 
 thought that I was endeavoring to present — as to the 
 awkward and clumsy manner in Avhich those thoughts 
 were presented, I am willing to leave all that to you. 
 
 The argument attempted to be introduced just at this 
 point claims my attention, because it is an argument^ 
 intended to be such. It is affirmed, that in every case 
 in which baptism is mentioned in the Bible, belief or 
 faith is made a prerequisite to baptism. It is again 
 affirmed that the commission requiring the apostles to 
 baptize those that believe, necessarily excludes all others 
 than those who do believe, from the privilege of receiv- 
 ing baptism. Well, these were two bold assertions, 
 unsupported by argument, and unsupported by evidence. 
 They form what logicians call di petitio principii ; it is 
 taking for granted the very thing that we are here to 
 discuss, that he is here to prove. Now, if you will 
 allow me to argue in that way, and just assume the 
 points at issue between us, I can cut the Grordian knot 
 in a moment, and just say that infants ought to be bap- 
 tized, and that will be proof of it. But he will say he 
 does not like that way of arguing, and when it comes 
 from him, I do not like it myself. When he says that 
 the command is, " Gro and disciple all nations" (as he 
 seems to think it should read) — the question between 
 us is, Did the blessed Redeemer intend to confine that 
 discipling to those who hear the gospel and receive it, 
 and those, therefore, who could believe the gospel ? Or 
 did he intend to include others ? How are we to find 
 that out? Matthew does not tell us in these few words: 
 
86 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 nor does Mark affirm that much. And we are compelled 
 to go to other portions of the Bible to find that informa- 
 tion. That was the very thing I was trying to do ; 
 the very thing (notwithstanding all the confusion that 
 happened to be about some persons), that it was clear 
 to very many of you that I was doing, and doing to 
 right good purpose, when I stopped. 
 
 This illustration was attempted : suppose the com- 
 missioners appointed to superintend elections were to 
 exclude a young man twenty years and ten months old — 
 would not permit him to vote. He says : Do you intend 
 to reflect upon me ? Well, they say, we know nothing 
 about it : we act according to the law. The special 
 enactment of the legislature, or, if you choose, of the 
 court — for I believe that sometimes the court appoints 
 the commissioners — the legislature could, at any rate ; 
 the legislation, prescribing the prerequisites of the voter, 
 is compared with this commission. Now, is there any- 
 thing in all that analogous to this ? And suppose they 
 are analogous. The gentleman says he refers the young 
 man to the legislators. That is the reference I am 
 making ; I go to the very source of information, to the 
 Scriptures, upon that point : and I hear them answering 
 in a very different tone, and to a very different purpose, 
 from the assumption the gentleman makes, as to what 
 the commission means. And then, again, he says I seek 
 to '' serve a purpose, unsupported by the Bible from 
 alpha to omega." 
 
 Mr. Massey : Did you understand me to say that of 
 you personally? 
 
 Mr. CouLLiNG : I did. 
 
 Mr. Massey : I disclaim it. 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 87 
 
 Mr. CouLLiNG : I am very glad of it. 
 
 Mr. Massey: I am incapable of making a personal 
 reflection of that kind. 
 
 Mr. CouLLiNG : Then I will say nothing more about 
 that. In the course of the argument I was making, 
 1 had come down to this point : I had been en- 
 deavoring to prove that when the Church was estab- 
 lished, it had its origin with Abraham. I had brought 
 forward numerous passages of Scripture that clearly 
 showed that circumcision, which was the seal of the 
 covenant to the seed of Abraham, was the seal of a 
 covenant that granted to those embraced in it spiritual 
 blessings, and that Paul and Peter not only alluded to it, 
 but pointing to it in the most direct manner you can 
 conceive of, identiiied with the very covenant made with 
 Abraham the gospel they were then preaching. I do not 
 ask you to believe that : that is what the Bible says, what 
 the apostles say. I did not ask you to take one single 
 thing for granted, but quoted chapter and verse. I 
 went on then to show you that the blessed Redeemer 
 and his disciples, when they came into the world, spoke 
 of the Church as already existing, and I proved it be- 
 yond controversy. It is so : there is no doubt about it.- 
 I shall now proeeed to show you another thing : that if 
 the proposition, or the expression, that is the subject of 
 discussion here to-day, is to be taken literally, " that 
 no one is to be baptized unless he believes^'''' then, I ask, 
 who is capable of administering the rite of baptism? 
 Philip went out baptizing, and he baptized a Simon 
 Magus. Was he a fit subject for baptism ? Or is 
 Philip to be blamed for baptizing him ? Who does not 
 knov/ that it is a possible case for any man to be im- 
 
88 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 posed on in this manner ? And if you say I am not to 
 baptize anybody until I know that that person does be- 
 lieve, who am I to baptize ? how am I to know it ? 
 Now the gentleman does not say a profession of faith, 
 but believers^ "those known to be believers ;" that is the 
 term he employs. And when you ask him to define the 
 term, he defines it to mean not only one who believes in 
 Christ and in the gospel, but he narrows it down, and 
 says that he is not to baptize anybody who is not a con- 
 verted man. How is it possible to know that? Simon 
 Masfus was not a converted man : he was in the bonds 
 of iniquity, actuated by improper motives at the very 
 time he was baptized. Now, I confess this much, that 
 I would not baptize an adult person (and I do not know 
 a Pedobaptist that would) who would come to me and 
 say, I do not believe a word in the Bible ; it is all a cun- 
 ningly-devised fable ; and then ask me to baptize him. 
 
 Mr. Massey : "Would you baptize any adult who makes 
 7io profession of religion ? 
 
 Mr. CouLLiNG : Philip baptized Simon without that. - 
 
 Mr. Massey : Simon certainly made a profession of 
 faith. 
 
 Mr. CouLLiNG : How was it made, then ? Show it, if 
 you can. He asked, after he was baptized, to have the 
 power to confer the Holy Ghost, and offered money, say- 
 ing, " Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I 
 lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost." 
 
 Mr. Massey pointed to the thirteenth verse of the 
 eighth chapter of Acts, which reads: " Then Simon him- 
 self believed also," &c. 
 
 Mr. Coulling: Simon Magus himself believed also. 
 That makes the matter a little stronsfer, and still a little 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 89 
 
 more difficult for us to decide. For here a man may 
 believe — may have a measure of faith, and yet that man 
 may be "in the gall of bitterness and bonds of iniquity. 
 The devils believe and tremble." Would the gentleman 
 baptize believing devils ? 
 
 Mr. Massey : I certainly would not baptize unhelieY- 
 ing devils. 
 
 Mr. CouLLiNG : Would you baptize believing devils ? 
 So that the little blunder I made strengthens the position 
 I assumed. But it may be inquired, What good will it 
 do to baptize children ? Little, unconscious things^ and 
 you baptize them. I have read — I have never heard as 
 much — I have read a book treating upon this subject, 
 in which the author endeavored to exhaust all his inge- 
 nuity to make the scene presented by the baptism of 
 children the most ridiculous and absurd that could be 
 conceived ; and suppose I admit that there may be 
 some force in the objection. Its force is not against me 
 or my cause. If I baptize a child, and thereby give 
 him the sign and the seal of the covenant of Christ, 
 under which we live — a covenant that confers salvation, 
 through Jesus Christy upon everybody that will com.ply 
 with the terms of the covenant, and confers salvation 
 also on every child that is incapable of complying with 
 its terms. Is there any more difficulty in doing that, 
 than there was in giving the seal and sign of the very 
 same covenant to children (the covenant I have proven 
 from the word of God to be the very same) ? What 
 good did circumcision do the children ? If there be a 
 difficulty about it, it does not lie against those who as- 
 sume the position upon the authority of the word of 
 God, but it lies against the great Author of that system. 
 
90 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 The wisdom of G-od is called into question. His judg- 
 ment upon that subject is that which is questioned by 
 that objection, and not the judgment and wisdom of 
 those who are simple enough, and confused enough, to 
 take the plain word of God as the '^ light to their feet 
 and the lamp to their path." What do children know 
 about the covenant? it is sometimes asked. Well, I 
 answer that I don't know whether they know anything 
 about it or not, and I don't care. God entered into 
 covenant with them. And to grove that he did so, I 
 propose to call your attention to several passages of 
 Scripture. In the twenty-ninth chapter of the book of 
 Deuteronomy, and the tenth and eleventh verses, you 
 read this : 
 
 " Ye stand this day all of you before the Lord your 
 God ; your captains of your tribes, your elders, and your 
 officers, with all the men of Israel, your little ones, your 
 wives, and thy stranger that is in thy camp, from the 
 hewer of thy wood unto the drawer of thy water." 
 
 " Little ones" entered into covenant with God. In 
 the second chapter of the book of Joel, fifteenth, six- 
 teenth, and seventeenth verses, inclusive, is this : 
 
 *' Blow the trumpet in Zion, sanctify a fast, call a 
 solemn assembly: gather the people, sanctify the con- 
 gregation, assemble the elders, gather the children, and 
 those that suck the breasts ; let the bridegroom go forth 
 of his chamber, and the bride out of her closet : let the 
 priests, the ministers of the Lord, weep between the 
 porch and the altar, and let them say, Spare thy people, 
 Lord, and give not thy heritage to reproach, that the 
 heathen should rule over them ; wherefore should they 
 say among the people, Where is their God ?" 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 91 
 
 In G-alatians v. 3, a text I had occasion to use at an- 
 other time to-day, the apostle says : 
 
 ^' For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, 
 that he is a debtor to do the whole law." 
 
 Here is a child that is circumcised, but I am not 
 responsible for that. In 2 Chronicles xx. 12, 13, we 
 read this : 
 
 " our Grod, wilt thou not judge them ? for we have 
 no might against this great company that cometh against 
 us ; neither know^ we what to do : but our eyes are upon 
 thee. And all Judah stood before the Lord, with their 
 little ones, their wives, and their children." 
 
 Now, in these several passages of Scripture, I have 
 shown you that God has called these children to take 
 part in the covenant, and become, in part at least, re- 
 sponsible for the very thing that he calls upon adults to 
 be responsible for. And would it not be strange if it 
 were otherwise ? In Grod's dealings with us, in his 
 providences, are not our children intimately connected 
 with us in every respect ? If we refer to the providen- 
 tial covenants that Grod makes with men, do we not find 
 that the children are interested in every one of them ? 
 What man in this community, or anywhere else, that 
 pursues a course of conduct that will give him a high 
 moral position, does not elevate his children in precisely 
 the same ratio in which he himself is elevated ? "What 
 man who degrades himself, does not cast an imputation 
 and a shadow upon his children ? If, in all the dispensa- 
 tions of Providence, we find our children blended with 
 us, is it strange that God should link our children with 
 us in this dispensation, where more light shines upon 
 the world than from any other dispensation — where the 
 
92 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 gospel is more fully revealed than ever before? And 
 will you have your children participate in the benefits 
 of the gospel under Moses, which was a dispensation of 
 the gospel, administering blessings by figures and cere- 
 monies and sacrifices ; and here, with the gospel fuller 
 and freer, breaking down the middle wall of partition 
 between the Jew and G-entile, say it shall not embrace 
 the children, but they are to be excluded ? 
 
 I think the probability is, that a great part of the 
 errors of this view lies in a misapprehension of what 
 baptism is. Circumcision was a seal of the righteous- 
 ness that Abraham had, being yet uncircumcised : it 
 was an expression to the world of that righteousness ; it 
 was showing it out. Now there must be some way in 
 which the line of demarkation, the distinction, shall be 
 made between the man of the world and those who 
 are in covenant with G-od. And what must that be ? 
 what is it to be ? Jesus Christ says it shall be baptism. 
 But what is baptism ? Well, it is a sign, and it is a 
 seal. Of what ? Of the righteousness that God prom- 
 ises to the world in the greatest covenant of human 
 redemption. Now, who are embraced in that covenant ? 
 Every adult man and woman that believes, they say : 
 none others. Every child before he passes the line of 
 accountability, is justified freely through the redemp- 
 tion that is in Christ : so that when these little children 
 die, we have no doubt upon our minds as to their des- 
 tiny and condition ; none at all. That they are fit for 
 the Church, or for the kingdom of Grod (and I do not 
 care which of these expressions you use) , I think can be 
 very easily proven. And I will call your attention to a 
 few passages of Scripture for that purpose. In Acts ii. 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 93 
 
 30, you have : " The promise is unto you, and to your 
 children." In the eighteenth chapter of Matthew, begin- 
 ning with the first verse, you find the following : 
 
 "At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, 
 saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven ?" 
 
 ''Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven ?" 
 Not, who shall be the greatest, when the kingdom 
 comes, hut who is now the greatest in the kingdom of 
 heaven ? 
 
 "And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set 
 him in the midst of them, and said, Yerily, I say unto 
 you. Except ye he converted, and become as little chil- 
 dren, ye shall not enter the kingdom of heaven. Who- 
 soever, therefore, shall humble himself as this little child, 
 the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And 
 whoso shall receive one such little child in my name, 
 receive th me." 
 
 In Mark ix. 33, &o., we have a similar passage ; 
 
 " And he came to Capernaum : and being in the 
 house, he asked them. What was it that ye disputed 
 among yourselves by the way ? But they held their peace : 
 for by the way they had disputed among themselves 
 who should be the greatest. And he sat down, and 
 called the twelve, and saith unto them. If any man de- 
 sire to be first, the same shall be last of all, and servant 
 of all. And he took a child, and set him in the midst 
 of them ; and when he had taken him in his arms, he 
 said unto them. Whosoever shall receive one of such 
 children in my name, receiveth me : and whosoever 
 shall receive me, receiveth not me, but him that sent 
 me." 
 
 And again, in the tenth chapter, thirteenth to six- 
 teenth verses : 
 
94 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 "And they brought young children to him, that he 
 should touch them : and his disciples rebuked those 
 that brought them. But when Jesus saw it, he was 
 much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little 
 children to come unto me, and forbid them not ; for of 
 such is the kingdom of Grod. Verily I say unto you, 
 Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of Grod as a 
 little child, he shall not enter therein. And he took 
 them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and 
 blessed them." 
 
 And in one place he says : " Their angels do always 
 behold the face of your Father which is in heaven." Here 
 these little children are brought to Christ ; Christ re- 
 ceives them ; and receives them as what ? As fit for 
 his kingdom, regards them as occupying a place in that 
 great covenant that he made with the worl i. Now, if 
 you ask me why I baptize a child, I unhesitatingly say, 
 I feel a great deal more confidence in baptizing a child 
 than an adult. If I am to baptize an adult upon his 
 profession of faith that he does believe, or anything else, 
 it is because that faith has wrought in that man a cer- 
 tain moral character ; because he is entitled, by the ex- 
 ercise of that faith, to that which is represented by that 
 baptizing — the purifying influences of the Holy Ghost. 
 And therefore I can baptize him. But the little child 
 has that already. The Saviour tells you he is already 
 fitted for it. Here is the standard I must measure to. 
 You measure me by that standard when you baptize me, 
 and when I do measure up to it, you give me the sign 
 and seal that I have the moral character required. And 
 yet you refuse it to a little child ! I am sure that if 
 my Saviour will receive them into his kingdom above, 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 95 
 
 he will not be very much displeased with me, if I receive 
 them into his Church here, according to his teachings 
 in the gospel. 
 
 MR. MASSEY'S THIRD ADDRESS, 
 
 Mr. Masse Y : I have but a single word to say in allu" 
 sion to the supposed personal reflection cast by me upon 
 the brother who has just addressed you, in my remarks 
 that, had there not been a purpose to serve, a theory to 
 sustain, which was untaught and unjustified by the com- 
 mission, or by the practice of those who acted under it, the 
 passages of Scripture v/hich have been brought to bear 
 upon this subject never would have been introduced 
 into the controversy, I did not think for a moment 
 that the gentleman would suppose that I intended to 
 cast a reflection upon him personally ; and I take pleas- 
 ure in saying to all who understood me as he seems to 
 have done, that they did not understand me as I de- 
 signed to be understood. I did not mean it as any per- 
 sonal reflection. In presenting our arguments extempo- 
 raneously, we may sometimes, in our manner of address^ 
 seem to be more earnest, and perhaps even more censo- 
 rious, than those who do not exactly admire our argu- 
 ments, because they are against them, may fancy. But, 
 at the same time, let it be borne in mind that all these 
 arguments, all that is said, and, I trust, all that is 
 felt, is in the kindest spirit. I assure you that, so far 
 as I am concerned, and, I trust, so far as the other 
 side is concerned, that it is so. I can handle the gen- 
 tleman's argument ; I can comment upon his course; 
 I can express myself warmly and decidedly, with re- 
 
96 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 gard to my approbation or disapprobation of the mode 
 he may choose to pursue in conducting an argument 
 on this subject ; and at the same time deal with hira as 
 gently as I would with '' a sucking dove^ 
 
 The brother seems to have been greatly at a loss 
 to find an exception to the general rule that I have 
 established. I had proven that the commission given 
 by Jesus Christ authorized the baptism of believers, 
 and of believers only. I have used such arguments 
 as will make this apparent to the minds of this au- 
 dience. I gave an illustration which the gentleman 
 will find hard to set aside. I then presented, as evi- 
 dence of the correctness of my construction of the 
 commission, the action of the apostles under that com- 
 mission, taking every act in its regular consecutive 
 order. I showed that faith was required, in every in- 
 stance, before baptism. Now, the brother asks if this be 
 true, who is capable of administering the ordinance of 
 baptism? Where is the ditHculty ? We cannot, it is 
 true, see into the heart, and a man may make a false 
 profession. That is with him and his Grod, and not with 
 the administrator of the ordinance. A man comes to 
 these commissioners of election, and proposes to vote. 
 They ask him, '^Are you of legal age?" They require 
 him to make oath that he is ; they have thus exonerated 
 themselves from all censure, having complied with the re- 
 quisitions of the law. If the man swears falsely, that is 
 a matter for himself, and not for the commissioners. If 
 a man makes a profession of faith in Christ Jesus, giv- 
 ing such evidence as satisfies me that he is a new crea- 
 ture, it becomes my duty to baptize him ; but not until 
 then. The gentleman denied that there was any evi- 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 97 
 
 denoe that Simon professed faith, and if I had not shown 
 it to him quite so soon, he would have gone on in an elo- 
 quent strain, verily believing that there was no profes- 
 sion of faith made by this Simon : whom he called Si- 
 mon Magus. The word of Grod does not give him that 
 title. I do not know -^ere he gets the Magus from. 
 The Bible says, " Simon himself believed also." 
 
 He made some remarks about taking the plain, sim- 
 ple word of G-od. That is what I take. The word of 
 Grod teaches me plainly that Simon' believed. And he 
 was baptized. But the brother tells you that a little 
 while after he was in the gall of bitterness and bonds of 
 iniquity. That is a perfectly plain case, according to 
 Methodist doctrine. Has poor Simon no right to fall 
 from grace ? I venture to say the brother has used that 
 incident more than once, to prove the doctrine of falling 
 from grace. If he has not, now that I have given him 
 the key, he will be sure to use it hereafter. Some of 
 you will hear him reasoning after this manner, one of 
 these days : " The word of G-od says he believed, and 
 that afterward he w^as in the gall of bitterness and 
 bonds of iniquity ; and who would dare question the 
 word of Grod ?" Now, I think the case is plainly this : 
 Simon prof esse i to believe ; the apostles supposed him 
 to be honest and sincere ; they baptized him, and then 
 found, as we often find, to our sorrow, that they were 
 mistaken with regard to the genuineness of his profes- 
 sion. Mr. Clarke says upon this passage : 
 
 " Simon himself believed also.] He was struck with 
 the doctrines and miracles of Philip — he saw that these 
 were real ; he knew his own to be fictitious. He be- 
 
 5 
 
98 * DEBATE ON THE 
 
 lieved, therefore, that Jesus was the Messiah, and was 
 in consequence baptized." 
 
 I am endeavoring to show you the general law of bap- 
 tism. And when I show, as I have done, that that gen- 
 eral law requires faith in all who receive baptism, if the 
 brother hopes to sustain the negative, he must show a 
 plain exception to this rule. The difficulty he finds in 
 producing an exception to it, may be justly inferred 
 from his relying upon such a passage as this. He illus- 
 trates the old adage, " Drowning men will catch at 
 straws." 
 
 I will proceed with the argument that I was present- 
 ing before, until I shall have established all that I have 
 said with regard to the general law. I will then turn 
 back to the gentleman. 
 
 In Acts xviii. 8, we read : 
 
 "And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, be- 
 lieved on the Lord, with all his house ; and many of the 
 Corinthians hearing, believed, and were baptized." 
 
 I do not suppose the brother will call for any com- 
 ment upon that. The order observed there, is precisely 
 the order of the law of baptism. 
 
 Another evidence that I present to you, of the correct- 
 ness of our view upon this subject, is drawn from the 
 language of Paul, in his epistle to the Romans, sixth 
 chapter, beginning with the first verse : 
 
 " What shall we say then ? Shall we continue in sin, 
 that grace may abound? God forbid: how shall we, 
 that are dead to sin, live any longer therein ? Know 
 ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus 
 Christ, were baptized into his death ? Therefore we are 
 buried with him by baptism into death: that like as 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 99 
 
 Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the 
 Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 
 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of 
 his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resur- 
 rection." 
 
 The argument that I draw from this is, that the 
 apostle declares the reason why we are baptized, to be, 
 that we have died to sin. This can only be predicated 
 of those who exercise repentance toward God^ and faith 
 toivard our Lord Jesus Christ. There is a beautiful 
 anaiogy here. After a death, we expect a burial ; after 
 a burial, we expect a resurrection. You do not ask, 
 when you witness a burial^ is that man or that woman 
 dead? The very fact that they are being buried^ car- 
 ries the conviction to your mind that those who bury 
 them suppose them to be dead. According to the diffi- 
 culty of our brother, who would be capable of burying 
 a man ? because cases have occurred where men, sup- 
 posed to be dead, were shrouded and laid in their coffins, 
 who were afterward ascertained not to be dead. Yet 
 we never bury our loved ones until we believe them to 
 he dead. That is the conviction that fastens itself upon 
 every mind beholding such a scene in a civilized land. 
 The apostle argues the same way : there is, he says in 
 substance, something unnatural in the idea that those 
 who have professed to be dead to sin^ and therefore 
 have been buried in the likeness of the burial of Jesus 
 Christ, and raised up out of the water ^ in likeness of his 
 resurrection, should continue longer in sin. They were 
 dead to sin, and therefore buried from the world. They 
 are recognized as alive in Jesus Christ, when they 
 emerge from the watery grave, and are then prepared 
 
100 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 to form or unite with a new organization. Upon this 
 passage, Dr. Clarke says : 
 
 " Every man who believes the Christian religion, and 
 receives baptism as the proof that he believes it, and has 
 taken up the profession of it, is bound thereby to a life 
 of righteousness. To be baptized into Christy is to re- 
 ceive the doctrine of Christ crucified, and to receive bap- 
 tism as a proof of the genuineness of that faith, and an 
 obligation to live according to its precepts." 
 
 I now read you from an " Exposition of the Epistle 
 to the Romans," by Robert Haldane, Esq., from the fifth 
 Edinburgh edition, page 247 : 
 
 " In the verse before us, the apostle proves that Chris- 
 tians are dead to sin, because they died with Christ. 
 The rite of baptism exhibits Christians as dying, as 
 buried, and as risen with Christ. Know ye not. He 
 refers to what he is now declaring as a thing well 
 known to those whom he addresses. Baptized into Jesus 
 Christ. By faith believers are made one with Christ : 
 they become members of his body. This oneness is 
 represented emblematically by baptism. Baptized into 
 his death. In baptism they are also represented as dy- 
 ing with Christ. This rite, then, proceeds on the fact 
 that they have died with him who bore their sins." 
 
 On the fourth verse, he says : 
 
 " The death of Christ was the means by which sin 
 was destroyed, and his burial the proof of the reality of 
 his death. Christians are therefore represented as buried 
 with him by baptism into his death, in token that they 
 really died with him ; and if buried with him, it is not 
 that they shall remain in the grave, but as Christ arose 
 from the dead, they should also rise. Their baptism, 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 101 
 
 therefore, is the figure of their complete deliverance from 
 the guilt of sin, signifying that G-od places to their 
 account the death of Christ as their own death ; it is 
 also a figure of their purification and resurrection for the 
 service of Grod." 
 
 "What more is needed to prove the correctness of our 
 views of the teachings of inspiration, when such men 
 as these are found declaring their solemn conviction that 
 this is the teaching of the word of God ? And, to parry 
 the blow^ my brother asks if I would baptize believing' 
 devils I "Whenever he will show me a commission from 
 God, commanding me to preach the gospel to devils j 
 and to baptize those of them who believe^ I will do it I 
 Show me a commission from my divine Master, and I 
 will try to comply with its directions. If he has any 
 such commission as this, I must leave the work in his 
 hands : I know of no such commission ! I find a com- 
 mission commanding me to preach the gospel to men, 
 to all men — '•'• every creature^'' and to baptize those who 
 believe that gospel. 
 
 Olshausen, vol. iii., page 594, says, upon the passage I 
 have- just read : 
 
 " In proof of The above affirmation, Paul appeals to 
 the consciousness of his readers with regard to their own 
 experience. They had gone through, he says, in bap- 
 tism, the death, nay, the burial, of Christ with him, as 
 also the awakening to a new life. In this passage, also, 
 we are by no means to refer the baptism merely to their 
 own resolutions, or see in it merely a figure, in w^hich 
 the one half of the ancient baptismal rite, the submer- 
 sion, merely prefigures the death and the burial of the old 
 man ; the second half, the emersion, the resurrection of 
 the new man," 
 
102 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 I will now read from the first volume of " Apostolic 
 Epistles," by James McKnight, D. D., an able Presbyte- 
 rian, author of the " Harmony of the Gospels," &c. 
 Upon this passage he says : 
 
 " In baptism, the rite of initiation into the Christian 
 Church, the baptized person is buried under the water, as 
 one put to death with Christ on account of sin, in order that 
 he may be strongly impressed with a sense of the malig- 
 nity of sin, and excited to hate it as the greatest of evils : 
 ver. 3. Moreover, in the same rite, the baptized person 
 being raised up out of the water, after being washed, 
 he is thereby taught that he shall be raised from the 
 dead with Christ, by the power of the Father, to live 
 with him forever in heaven, provided he is prepared for 
 that life by true holiness : ver. 4, 5. Farther, by their 
 baptism, believers are laid under the strongest obliga- 
 tions to holiness, because it represents their old man^ 
 their old, corrupt nature, as crucified with Christ, to 
 teach them that their body, which sin claimed as its 
 property, being put to death, was no longer to serve sin 
 as its slave." 
 
 I am sure that no individual can properly study this 
 passage without seeing that the argument of the apostle 
 is predicated upon the fact, that those who received the 
 ordinance of baptism were supposed to be dead to sin, 
 and alive to righteousness by the exercise of genuine 
 repentence toward God, and of a living faith in the 
 Lord Jesus Christ. In 1 Corinthians i. 16, we have 
 an account of the baptism of Stephanas' household : 
 
 "And I baptized also the household of Stephanas; 
 besides, I know not whether I baptized any other." 
 
 Who were the household of Stephanas ? It may be 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 103 
 
 claimed that it may have had infants in it. In the six- 
 teenth chapter and fifteenth verse of the same epistle, we 
 find Paul speaking of the same family : 
 
 '^ I heseech you, brethren (ye know the house of Ste- 
 phanas, that it is the first fruits of Achaia, and that 
 they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the 
 saints)." 
 
 Showing, by the course of conduct pursued by them 
 immediately subsequent to their baptism, that they were 
 then capable not only of instruction, of receiving it and 
 acting upon it, but also of ministering' to the wants and 
 necessities of the saints of God. Olshausen, vol. iv., page 
 211, says upon this passage : 
 
 *' For infant baptism, nothing is to be adduced from 
 the word olfcog, as already observed at Acts xvi. 14, 15, 
 for the adult members of the family, or even the slaves, 
 might be exclusively signified by it." 
 
 I have, perhaps, anticipated an argument not yet in- 
 troduced. Supposing that my arguments would be fol- 
 lowed, as is the usual and regular course of discussion, 
 and that the cases I might present would be examined 
 as I introduced them, I made references to all the cases 
 of baptism usually referred to upon this part of the bap- 
 tismal controversy. 
 
 McKnight, vol ii., page 23, says : 
 
 *' Theophylact says, ' Stephanas was a person of note 
 among the Corinthians.' The family of Stephanas 
 seems all to have been adults when they were baptized. 
 For they are said (chap. xvi. 15) to have devoted them- 
 selves to the ministry of the saints.'^'' 
 
 In 1 Corinthians xv. 29, in speaking of the resurrec- 
 tion of the dead, Paul says : 
 
104 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 '' Else what shall they do, which are baptized for the 
 dead, if the dead rise not at all? "Why are they then 
 baptized for the dead ?" 
 
 The argument of the apostle in this passage seems to 
 be this : "If there be any doubt in your mind of the 
 resurrection of the dead, why do you by your baptism 
 declare your belief in the doctrine ? Why do you pro- 
 fess, in this ordinance, that you are dead, and that you 
 therefore desire to be buried, and to be raised from the 
 dead, if you do not believe in the resurrection from the 
 dead ? This is evidently the doctrine of the text. 
 
 Dr. McKnight says upon this passage : 
 
 " Baptism being a metaphysical representation of the 
 death, and burial, and resurrection, not only of Christ, 
 but of all mankind (Rom. vi. 4), it was fitly made the 
 rite of initiation into the Christian Church ; and the 
 person who received it, thereby publicly professing his 
 belief of the resurrection of Christ, and of the dead, 
 might, with the greatest propriety, be said to have been 
 baptized for the dead : that is, for his belief of the res- 
 urrection of the dead." 
 
 In 1 Peter iii. 21, we have this passage : 
 
 " The like figure whereunto, even baptism, doth also 
 now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the 
 flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward Grod),' 
 by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." 
 
 I do not know that I fully comprehend the idea which 
 my brother, who has addressed you, wished to convey 
 by his comments upon being baptized and v/ashing 
 away their sins. If I were to understand him simply 
 from his remarks upon that point, I should understand 
 him to mean that in baptism there was a literal washing 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 105 
 
 away of the sin. I do not think, however, this is the 
 view which he entertains, taking his remarks here in con- 
 nection with all he has said. And hence I am at a loss to 
 know why he introduced this passage. Am I to suppose 
 the brother capable of introducing a passage of Scrip- 
 ture to sustain a view which he knows it does not sustain ? 
 And yet I am unwilling, as that seems to be a sore point, 
 to present the only other alternative, and that is, that 
 in his confusion of ideas, he presented this to enable 
 him to get out of a dilemma. I suppose, that when we 
 come to the design of baptism, it will be time enough 
 to meet him upon that issue. But let none go away 
 from here without understanding that the doctrine 
 which ought to have been understood from the passage 
 he quoted was, that baptism was a figurative washing 
 away of the sins, not a literal washing away of sins ; 
 that by the burial in the water there was a figurative 
 burial of the old man that was dead ; and by the rais- 
 ing up out of the water, there was a figure of the rising 
 to newness of life. But it was not the baptism that 
 literally washed away the sins. Does the gentleman 
 intend to teach that doctrine ? Does he love Alexander 
 Campbell and his followers so well as to feast them 
 upon so fine a nut as this ? 
 
 The passage of Scripture which I last introduced, 
 presents something of similar import to the one intro- 
 duced by the brother, upon which he made the remarks 
 to which I have just referred. Dr. McKnight, vol. v., 
 page 476, says upon this passage : 
 
 " Thus, also, the water of baptism is here called the 
 antitype of the water of the flood, because the flood was 
 a type or emblem of baptism in the three following par- 
 
106 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 ticulars : 1. As by building the ark and entering into 
 it, Noah showed a strong faith in the promise of God, 
 concerning his preservation by the very water which was 
 to destroy the antediluvians for their sins, so, by giving 
 ourselves to be buried in the water of baptism, we show 
 a like faith in Grod's promise, that though we die and 
 are buried, he will save us from death, the punishment 
 of sin, by raising us from the dead at the last day. 
 2. As the preserving of Noah alive, during the nine months 
 he was in the flood, is an emblem of the preservation of 
 the souls of believers, while in the state of the dead, so 
 the preserving believers alive, while buried in the water 
 of baptism, is a prefiguration of the same event. 3. As 
 the water of the deluge destroyed the wicked antedilu- 
 vians, but preserved Noah, by bearing up the ark in 
 which he was shut up, till the waters were assuaged, 
 and he went out of it to live again on the earth, so bap- 
 tism may be said to destroy the wicked, and to save the 
 righteous, as it prefigures both these events : the death 
 of the sinner it prefigures by the burying of the baptized 
 person in the water ; and the salvation of the righteous, 
 by raising the baptized person out of the water, to live 
 a new life." 
 
 I have here the original or first Pedobaptist sermon 
 on baptism. I very much doubt whether anything 
 original has been taught by Pedobaptists upon the sub- 
 ject since the writing of '' Watson's Institutes." He 
 gave the key note, and all who have followed him have 
 sung the tune to his metre. On page 433, after ex- 
 plaining the figure, he says : 
 
 " And for this reason baptism is called by St. Peter, 
 without any allegory at all, but in the sobriety of fact. 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 107 
 
 ' the antitype' of this transaction : the one exactly an- 
 swering to the other, as an external profession of faith 
 in the same objects and the same promises. 
 
 " But the apostle does not rest in this general repre- 
 sentation. He proceeds to express, in a particular and 
 most forcible manner, the nature of Christian baptism — 
 ' not the putting away of the filth of the flesh ; but the 
 answer of a good conscience toward G-od, by the resur- 
 rection of Jesus Christ.' Now, whether we take the word 
 eTcepG}T7][j,aj rendered in our translation, ' answer,' for a 
 demand or requirement, or for the answer to a question 
 or questions, or in the sense of stipulation — ^the general 
 import of the passage is nearly the same. If the first, 
 then the meaning of the apostle is, that baptism is not 
 the putting away the filth of the flesh, not a mere ex- 
 ternal ceremony, but a rite which demands or requires 
 something of us, in order to the attainment of a ' good 
 
 ^conscience.' What that is, we learn from the words of 
 the Lord — it is faith in Christ : ^ He that believeth and 
 is baptized, shall be saved ;' which faith is in the reli-, 
 ance of a penitent upon the atonement of the Saviour, 
 who thus submits with all gratitude and truth to the 
 terms of the evangelical covenant. If we take the sec- 
 ond sense, we must lay aside the notion of some lexicog- 
 raphers and commentators, who think that there is an 
 
 . allusion to the ancient practice of demanding of the can- 
 didate for baptism, whether they renounced their sins 
 and the service of Satan, with other questions of the 
 same import ; for, ancient as these questions may be, 
 they are probably not so ancient as the time of the 
 apostles. We know, however, from the instance of 
 Philip and the eunuch, that there was an explicit re- 
 
108 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 quirement of faith^ and as explicit an answer or confes- 
 sion : 'And Philip said, If thou believest with all thy 
 heart, thou may est ; and he answered, I believe that 
 Jesus is the Son of God.' Every administration of bap- 
 tism, indeed, implied this demand ; and baptism, if we 
 understand St. Peter to refer to this circumstance, was 
 such an ' answer ' to the interrogations of the adminis- 
 trator, as expressed a true and evangelical faith. If 
 we take the third rendering of ' stipulation^ which has 
 less to support it critically than either of the others, still, 
 as the profession of faith was a condition of baptism, 
 that profession had the full force of a formal stipulation, 
 since all true faith in Christ requires an entire subjec- 
 tion to him as Lord^ as well as Saviour." 
 
 We find, that while "some Pedobaptists^'' differ mate- 
 rially from the Bible, "some Pedobaptists " are never- 
 theless constrained, when giving an explanation of these 
 teachings, to talk very much as the Bible talks. And I . 
 will make this declaration just here. I will guarantee 
 to the brother that he shall not present one single pas- 
 sage in the New Testament, relied upon to sustain in- 
 fant baptism, which I will not, by authority of the first 
 order from Pedobaptist ranks, show has been surren- 
 dered. I noiv offer him this challenge : Let him bring 
 from the New Testament one single passage of Scrip- 
 ture that is claimed by Pedobaptists to sustain infant 
 baptism, and I will shoiv, by as good authority, that 
 that passage has been surrendered, and all claim ari- 
 sing from it extinguished. It is somewhat like the Mus- 
 sulman's hog : all agreed that there was some part of 
 the hog that was not to be eaten ; but when they came 
 to decide what part that was, they could not agree. One 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 109 
 
 said, '^ This part is not objected to ; I will eat this. An- 
 other said, " The part you have eaten is the part objected 
 to." Thus one eats one part, and another a different 
 part ; and so, finally, the whole hog was devoured. And 
 so it is here : one Pedobaptist pins his faith to one pas- 
 sage. Another one says : " I cannot find infant baptism 
 there ; I will give that up, and claim it here." Another 
 says : " I cannot find infant baptism here, and will give 
 this up." And thus, between them all, I am prepared to 
 show, if the gentleman will give me the opportunity, if 
 he will accept my challenge, that he cannot bring for- 
 ward one passage that I cannot prove has been given 
 up by the ablest Pedobaptist writers. 
 
 I have noticed all the passages he has referred to, and 
 will in due time refer to authorities upon them. He 
 says I have said very little about the dear children : I 
 promise, before I close this discussion, to give him 
 *' mercy to babes" with a very liberal hand. I will do 
 this in due time. I have here a " Cyclopsedia of Bib- 
 lical Literature, edited by John Kitto, D. D., F. S. A., 
 editor of,' The Pictorial Bible,' author of ' The History 
 of Physical Geography of Palestine,' &c., &c." And 
 many of you know something of Kitto's " Daily Bible 
 Illustrations." Upon page 288 of his Cyclopsedia he 
 says : 
 
 " To be admitted to baptism in the apostolic age, 
 there needed no farther development of Christian knowl- 
 edge than a professed belief that Jesus was the prom- 
 ised Messiah. To be baptized in his name meant, to 
 receive baptism in the belief that the power and dignity 
 contained in the idea of a Messiah were realized in Jesus. 
 The profession of faith (I Pet. iii. 21) probably was such 
 
110 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 as to convey this idea ; and next also, the formula of 
 baptism in the name of Christ, or, according to Matthew 
 xxviii. 19, of the Father, Son, and Holy Grhost, when 
 the whole body was immersed in water." 
 [Tme expired.] 
 
 MR. COULLING'S THIRD REPLY. 
 
 Mr. CouLLiNG : I very much like the teachings of 
 these Pedobaptist authorities. I have been brought up 
 with that book in my hand, and it is a great book. I 
 subscribe to everything that Mr. Watson said — all that 
 has been said here. But, did it never strike you, my 
 hearers, that Mr. Massey is trying to prove that believers 
 only are fit subjects for baptism ? Yet not one single 
 authority he has quoted has said that. They have said 
 that believers ought to be baptized : nobody doubts that. 
 But he has not brought one single one to prove that 
 none but believers should be baptized. All admit 
 that adult believers should be baptized. I admit that, 
 and admitted it at first. . But he continued to read from 
 Watson, and Kitto, and others, that believers should be 
 baptized. That is very good Bible doctrine : I am glad 
 he has given himself so much trouble to enlighten your 
 darkness upon that subject : perhaps, though, you are 
 not quite so dark as this formidable array upon this sub- 
 ject might induce some to believe. I suppose you have 
 always believed that doctrine. 
 
 Now, the object is to try to find out from the word of 
 God, whether that commission does shut me up like a 
 wall, like a brazen enclosure, that I cannot get out. 
 That is the question, and we are to find out that. How ? 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. Ill 
 
 By reading continually from this commission, and seek- 
 ing the views of other men ? What if Kitto, and "Wat- 
 son, and thousands of others thought so : will that make 
 it so ? There is not a heresy that has been introduced 
 into the world since the days of Christ, but what, if a 
 man would take the trouble of my friend here, and hunt 
 up the books and haul them to this place, but can be 
 proved : you can prove anything you choose. I read a 
 book the other day, and I suppose, if there was one 
 there were one hundred authors cited — to prove what ? 
 Why, that I did not have an immortal soul ; that when 
 this body fell into the grave, the spirit would vanish 
 into thin air, and there never w^ould be any more of me, 
 as long as time and eternity lasted. 
 
 Mr. Massey called you here to discuss what were the 
 scriptural subjects of baptism. And he says that every 
 passage of Scripture that I can bring up here for my 
 view, Pedobaptists have given up. What does all that 
 amount to ? That some Pedobaptists, in looking at the 
 Bible, have come to a passage and said : " I do not think 
 this is very plain here ; but I think it is self- evidently 
 taught in some other place, and I will give this up." If 
 I choose, I can bring forward authors who give up a 
 great many points that the gentleman does not choose 
 to give up, and which he will not give up. And the 
 fact that all these passages have been surrendered, be- 
 cause one man surrendered one, and another another, if 
 it have any force upon his mind, will not certainly have 
 any force on your mind as an argument : not a particle. 
 
 Now, I think I have noticed the points that affect the 
 subject, as far as he has brought it forward, in these 
 few general remarks, and I shall proceed with my argu- 
 
112 
 
 ment. Again, I wish to call your attention to the force 
 of the argument. The question is, whether or not in- 
 fants ought to be baptized ? I started with this propo- 
 sition : that when the Church of God was organized by 
 express authority, the rite that has been substituted by 
 baptism was administered to children, and a rite, too, 
 that had spiritually the very same import that baptism 
 has. That, I think, is almost a self-evident proposition, 
 lying upon the very surface of 'the Scriptures. Nobody 
 who reads the Bible can doubt that. Children were to 
 be circumcised, and that circumcision was the seal of 
 the righteousness of faith ; and baptism has taken the 
 place, under the new dispensation, of that circumcision. 
 Now Jesus Christ nowhere said that children should not 
 be baptized ; that is nowhere to be found in the book. 
 If it could be, that would settle the matter. Nowhere 
 is it said that we ought not to baptize children. I have 
 shown you clearly, that this Church under which we 
 live was the very Church established with Abraham ; and 
 the gospel of Peter and Paul was the very sa-me gospel 
 before preached to Abraham. I have taken up the ob- 
 jections urged to the baptism of infants, as, for instance, 
 that they did not understand it, did not comprehend it, 
 and it did not do them any good. I have shown you 
 that that very objection laid with as much force against 
 circumcision, which, there is no doubt, was administered 
 to children ; and consequently the objection lies not 
 against me, but against him who instituted the rite. 
 And I think I have established that by the Scripture. 
 It is true I brought forward Eusebius's " Ecclesiastical 
 History." 
 
 Mr. Massey : The brother speaks very frequently of 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 113 
 
 scriptural testimony, as if he wishes to make you be- 
 lieve that I had not proven my position by the word of 
 God ; while he knows that from the beginning 1 have 
 been tracing the Scripture history of this subject. 
 
 Mr. CouLLiNG : No doubt he did that, and then read 
 a comment, and relied upon that instead of the passage. 
 
 Mr. Massey : No, sir, I oifer the testimony of others, 
 to show that my views are correct. 
 
 Mr. CouLLiNG : It may be so about an obscure pas- 
 sage, that he took the commentary to sustain his view. 
 I have not read any commentary upon these passages ; 
 they were all plain and distinct, and you could not mis- 
 understand them. 
 
 I now come to one other point. Let us suppose that 
 one of the apostles had undertaken to exclude children 
 from the Church. To appreciate the force of that view 
 of the subject, let me ask you to consider, for one mo- 
 ment, that every Jew who heard the apostles preach, 
 had been nurtured and educated in a Church that em- 
 braced their children with them, and they were regarded 
 as members of the Church with themselves — in the 
 same covenant. Will anybody deny that? Now, let 
 me refer you to one passage of Scripture, to show you 
 how sensitive the Jewish mind was upon that subject. 
 I will read to you from the twenty-first chapter of Acts, 
 beginning with the eighteenth verse : 
 
 " And the day following Paul went in with us unto 
 James ; and all the elders were present. And when he 
 had saluted them, he declared particularly what things 
 Grod had wrought among the G-entiles by his ministry. 
 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and 
 said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands 
 
114 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 of Jews there are which believe ; and they are all zeal- 
 ous of the law : and they are informed of thee, that thou 
 teachest all the Jews which are among the G-entiles to 
 forsake Moses, saying. That they ought not to circum- 
 cise their children, neither to walk after the cus- 
 toms ? What is it, therefore ? the multitude must 
 needs come together ; for they will hear that thou art 
 come. Do therefore this that we say to thee : We 
 have four men which have a vow on them ; them take, 
 and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with 
 them, that they may shave their heads : and all may 
 know that those things whereof they were informed 
 concerning thee, are nothing : but that thou thyself also 
 walkest orderly, and keepest the law." 
 
 Here is the argument : it is reported that Paul will 
 not let the children go along with the parents. Well, 
 that is an outrage ; there are a great many Jews who 
 believe, and they are offended with thee. Now, Paul, 
 take this course prescribed, and let the people know this 
 is not so. Suppose he had refused to baptize the chil- 
 dren, would they not have made some fuss ? Could 
 you have broken in upon the habits of a nation that had 
 lived under this custom I do not know how long, and 
 all at once a new dispensation rolling in, and a cherished 
 and loved custom be at once abrogated, and not a single 
 note of dissent come down through all the ages to tell 
 us that such a thing had been done? Can anybody 
 believe that ? Does anybody believe that ? Is it not 
 the most marvellous thing that has ever happened in the 
 history of our world, where all the habits of a nation 
 have been abruptly, suddenly, ruthlessly, broken down, 
 and you hear no controversy about it ? Would men 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 115 
 
 who were Jews, the sons of a Jew, who could trace their 
 genealogy away back to remote ages, to which the mem- 
 ory of man runneth not, quietly and submissively yield, 
 and you hear nothing in the world of controversy among 
 friends or enemies ? I affirm, that if there were no 
 other argument in favor of infant baptism, this would 
 be as hard to answer as most things that you hear. 
 
 And, again, who were these apostles? who were the 
 very men whom Christ selected and sent out ? Jews : 
 with all the prejudices of Jews, fond of their nation, 
 fond of their customs. And that they were true men 
 and good, that they had hearts, and their hearts in the 
 right place, and that they had feelings, and feelings, 
 too, that elevated them above the ordinary vulgar walks 
 of human life, read their character, and see it and know 
 it. "Who were these men ? Jews, who had taken their 
 children in their arms, and carried them to the temple, 
 and had there the sign and seal of the covenant, made 
 with their father Abraham, placed upon them. Bring 
 these men now into the Christian Church, and tell 
 them to leave their children behind, and yet they say 
 nothing about it! Look at their teachings, and con- 
 trast two or three passages, and if you choose, take pen- 
 cil and paper, and note them, and when you go home, 
 read them over at your leisure. Deuteronomy iv. 9 : 
 
 " Only take heed to thyself, and keep thy soul dili- 
 gently, lest thou forget the things which thine eyes have 
 seen, and lest they depart from thy heart all the days of 
 thy life ; but teach them thy sons, and thy sons' sons." 
 
 Yery good wholesome doctrine is this for Christian 
 parents to tell their children what they have heard, and 
 let it sink deep into their hearts. And again, Ephesians, 
 
116 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 vi. 1, 4 : you would be at a loss to tell under which dis- 
 pensation you were, in reading first the one and then 
 the other : 
 
 '' Children, obey your parents in the Lord : for this is 
 right. Honor thy father and mother (which is the first 
 commandment with promise)." 
 
 When was that commandment given? Yonder at 
 Mount Sinai : 
 
 " That it may be well with thee, and thou may est 
 live long on the earth. And ye fathers, provoke not 
 your children to wrath : but bring them up in the nur- 
 ture and admonition of the Lord." 
 
 Then compare that with Colossians iii. 19, 20 : 
 
 " Children, obey your parents in all things : for this 
 is well-pleasing unto the Lord. Fathers, provoke not 
 your children to anger, lest they be discouraged." 
 
 My object in quoting these passages is just this : to 
 show you that, under the Mosaic or Jewish dispensation, 
 as under the Christian dispensation, the very same 
 moral duties rested upon parents and children. Under 
 the one dispensation the sign and seal of the covenant — 
 circumcision — was given. Now, 1 ask, in the name of 
 common sense, when everything else is in accordance, 
 why not give the children the same sign ? It is the 
 same covenant, under a different dispensation, just as 
 this Old Dominion is the same State under its new con- 
 stitution, as it was before its constitution was ever 
 altered, though that constitution has been altered sev- 
 eral times. This is the same covenant, identical with 
 the other : the Bible says so. 
 
 Now I will go on and notice what the apostles said 
 when they went out to preach. My good brother has 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 117 
 
 been calling your attention to the comments upon some 
 of these passages : I will call your attention to these 
 passages themselves. I will refer you first to Acts xvi. 
 14, 15 : the same to which you have been referred sev- 
 eral times already, and to which I have no doubt you 
 will be referred again. I suppose this may be one of 
 the passages that some Pedobaptists have given up. I 
 do not care how many have given it up. "What does the 
 passage teach ? — 
 
 "And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of pur- 
 ple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped G-od, 
 heard us : whose heart the Lord opened, that she at- 
 tended unto the things which were spoken of Paul. And 
 when she was baptized, and her household, she besought 
 us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the 
 Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she 
 constrained us." 
 
 Now, my brother has laid it down as a subject of de- 
 bate at this time, that none but believers were to be 
 baptized. Lydia is the only individual said to have 
 believed. Well, we have no right to assume that any- 
 body else believed ; he is to take the word as it is. L}'- 
 dia believed, and on her faith her household were bap- 
 tized. If they were adults, they were baptized without 
 faith. For if he assumes that they did believe, I have 
 an equal right to assume that they were children, have 
 I not ? And with a great deal more certainty ; for the 
 very first translation that was ever made, was made 
 about the last of the first century, or about the begin- 
 ning of the second century, about forty-five or forty-six 
 years after the resurrection of the Saviour, and almost 
 coeval with St. John. The apostles had hardly died 
 
118 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 then. That Peshito Syriac edition — so called because 
 it was so accarate — that edition an intimate friend of 
 mine, of the town of Norfolk, had in his hand. I asked 
 him to turn over and read that passage about Lydia ; 
 he did so. What was it? "Lydia and the children 
 of her household were baptized." That is the informa- 
 tion given me by him, and not only by him, but by half 
 a dozen other scholars who have read the Syriac Scrip- 
 tures. " Lydia and the children of her household were 
 baptized." Olfcog was the word used there, to embrace 
 the persons baptized. OUla is the word used for all per- 
 sons, servants and all ; olfcog is the word used in the case 
 of children. In the case of the jailor, the otKia heard 
 the preaching, and then the jailor and all his were 
 baptized. "Ah!" says one — and I think Dr. Fuller 
 says that — " those that were baptized must have been 
 believers, because they rejoiced with the jailor." I was 
 surprised to see that in Dr. Fuller, for, turning over to 
 the Greek Testament, I found that the word rendered 
 rejoice is in the singular number, and shows that the 
 jailor rejoiced, not the others. 
 
 So now, you see, that when the blessed Redeemer 
 comes into the world, he recognizes the Church as al- 
 ready in existence ; he sends out his apostles to preach 
 the gospel : they go forth and preach it, and when they 
 baptize a believer, they baptize his ottcog — his household. 
 It does not say a word about their believing : they bap- 
 tized the children, who could not believe ; and if they 
 were not baptized, then men and women who did not 
 believe, according to these passages, were baptized, and 
 Mr. Massey's proposition falls through, according to his 
 own admission, if that be the position he assumes. 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 119 
 
 I wish now, just at this point, to call your attention 
 to some other things. I hold here in my hand — " Prim- 
 itive Christianity ; or, the Religion of the Ancient Chris- 
 tians in the Ages of the G-ospel. In three parts. By 
 William Cave, D. D. (Grreek and Latin motto.) The fifth 
 edition. London : Printed for R. Chiswell, at the Rose 
 and Crown, St. Paul's Churchyard. MDCXCYIIL" 
 This is a pretty old book. I wish to read you a passage 
 or two from the 202d page of that book : 
 
 " From the persons ministtring we proceed to the 
 persons upon whom it was conferred, and they were of 
 two sorts, infants and adult persons. How far the bap- 
 tizing of infants is included in our Saviour'' s institution, 
 is not my work to dispute ; but certainly, if in contro- 
 verted cases the constant practice of the Church, and 
 those who immediately succeeded the apostles, be (as 
 no man can deny it is) the best interpreter of the laws 
 of Christ, the dispute, one would think, should be at an 
 end : for that it always was the custom to receive the 
 children of Christian parents into the Church by bap- 
 tism, we have sufficient evidence, for the greatest part 
 of the most early writers, Ireneus, Tertullian, Origen, 
 Cyprian, &c., whose testimonies I do not produce, be- 
 cause I find them collected by others, and the argument 
 thence so forcible and conclusive, that the most zealous 
 opposers of infant baptism know not how to evade it ; 
 the testimonies being so clear, and not the least shadow, 
 that I know of, in those times, of anything to make 
 against it. There was, indeed, in Cyprian's time, a 
 controversy about the baptizing of infants, not ivhether 
 they ought to be baptized (for of that there was no 
 doubt), but concerning the time when it was to be ad- 
 
120 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 ministered, whether on the second or thirds or whether, 
 as circumcision of old, to be deferred till the eig'hlh day. 
 For the determining of which, Cyprian^ sitting in coun- 
 cil with sixt3^-six bishops, writes a synodical epistle to 
 Fidus, to let him know that it was not necessary to be 
 deferred so long, and that it was their universal judg- 
 ment and resolution, that the mercy and grace of God 
 was not to be denied to any, though as soon as he was 
 boi'n: concluding that it was the sentence of the coun- 
 cil, that none could be fgrbidden baptism and the grace 
 of God : which, as it was to be observed and retained 
 toward all men, so much more toward infants and new- 
 born children. And that this sentence of theirs was no 
 novel doctrine, S. Augustine assures us, where speaking 
 concerning this synodical determination, he tells us, 
 that in this Cyprian did not make any new decree, but 
 kept the faith of the Church most firm and true. 
 
 " I shall only take notice of one place more out of 
 Cyprian, which methinks evidently makes for this pur- 
 pose, where describing the great wickedness and miser- 
 able condition of the lapsed, such as, to avoid persecu- 
 tion, had done sacrifice to the idols, he urges this as one 
 of the last and highest aggravations, that by their apos- 
 tasie their infants and children were exposed to ruine, 
 and had lost that which they had obtained at their first 
 coming into the worldP 
 
 Now, that is the testimony of the history of the 
 Church. Another testimony I shall adduce, just at 
 this place, is this : I hold in my hand Justin Martyr's 
 "Apology," and on the thirty-fifth page of that you 
 find this : 
 
 "And for good reason; because the inward desires 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 121 
 
 as well as the outward action, are equally manifest to 
 God. And I can produce abundance of both sexes, who 
 have from 'their childhood, been discipled with Christ, 
 and lived in a constant course of spotless virginity to 
 sixty and seventy years of age ; and I cannot but glory 
 in being able to produce so many instances of Christian 
 purity out of every nation." 
 
 He is here giving an apology to his sovereign for his 
 Christianity, and says he can produce numberless in- 
 stances from every nation, where, from their childhood, 
 persons have been disciples of Grod, and lived to old age 
 according to his requirements. In Taylor's ^'Apostolic 
 Baptism," which I hold in my hand, and which I had 
 occasion before to speak of, and also of the high character 
 and extensive erudition of Mr. Taylor — he has given him- 
 self the trouble, in looking for arguments upon this 
 question, to collect and collate a great many facts. On 
 the lOSth page, he tells you lihat the word neophytus — 
 newly-planted, was applied to children who v/ere bap- 
 tized. You find it corroborated in a great many Church 
 histories, that children, and persons who were baptized, 
 received names drawn sometimes from one view of bap- 
 tism, and sometimes from another. Now, in the cata- 
 combs at Rome, you find epitaphs left upon the grave- 
 stones of a great many who have died. Let me read to 
 you some of them that Mr. Taylor has collected : 
 
 '' Rufillo, newly-baptized^ who lived two years and 
 forty days. Quintillian, the father, places this to the 
 memory of his son, who sleeps in the peace of Christ. 
 
 "To Domitius, an innocent, newly baptized, w^ho lived 
 three years and thirty days. 
 
 ^'Valerius Decentius, the father, places this to his son) 
 
 6 
 
122 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 newly baptized, who lived three years, ten months, and 
 fifteen days. 
 
 ^' To Pisentus, an innocent soul, who lived one year, 
 eight months, and thirteen days. Newly baptized ; 
 buried on the ides of September, in peace. 
 
 " To Jovius, son of Callistus, who lived six years, ten 
 months, and nineteen days. Newly baptized ; he died 
 in peace. 
 
 " To Leoni, newly baptized, who lived six years, 
 eight months, and eleven days. He reposed the sixth 
 of the nones of July, Phillippus and Sallia being con- 
 suls. 
 
 " To Aristus, who lived eight months ; newly bap- 
 tized ; he went off the first of the nones of June : 
 Timasius and Promoter as being consuls." 
 
 Now let me, if I can in the few moments left me, 
 propound this question in debate. The issue between 
 my friend and myself is this : he affirms that none but 
 believers have a right to baptism : I affirm that children 
 have a right to it, a scriptural right to it. To prove 
 that, I have tried to show you, and I think I have done 
 it, that the covenant of grace, the gospel, the Church 
 under which we live, was established with Abraham, 
 and has been continually in force from that day to the 
 present. Now, if you will turn to the Old Testament 
 Scriptures, and read the first twelve chapters of G-ene- 
 sis, what will you find ? There was no Church on earth 
 then. Each individual who served G-od was individually 
 responsible ; the father was the priest of the family 
 (Enoch walked with G-od, a single light shining in dark- 
 ness), until G-od called Abraham and his seed and estab- 
 lished a Church, and that Church has been in the world 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 123 
 
 ever since. It is true that different dispensations have 
 come over that Church : different dispensations prior to 
 the coming of Christ, and dispensations quite as differ- 
 ent since the coming of Christ. What comparison is 
 there between the Church when the Pentecostal influ- 
 ences of the Holy G-host was poured out without meas- 
 ure, and the Church in the dark ages, when almost 
 every ray of the gospel light was shut out of the hearts 
 of men? Were not tliose different dispensations, that 
 under Moses, under our Redeemer, that of John the 
 Baptist, when he came to prepare the way, and that 
 dispensation that ushered in the pouring out of the Holy 
 Ghost on the day of Pentecost? And there will be dif- 
 ferent dispensations until the end of time. Are we not 
 all praying for the time to come, when ^' every one shall 
 know the Lord, from the least to the greatest ?" Will 
 not that be a different dispensation from the one under 
 which we live ? Yet under all those different dispensa- 
 tions there has been an identity preserved through them 
 ail. When we speak of it, we speak of it as the Church, 
 as the G-ospel. When St. Paul speaks of it, he tells the 
 Jews and the Gentiles, in very emphatic language, that 
 it is the same Church. He says to the Gentiles : '* If 
 you, contrary to nature, are grafted into a good tree, do 
 not boast : if those which have been broken off shall re- 
 pent, how much more shall they be grafted into their 
 own olive-tree 7^'' Showing that these "Christians at 
 Rome, called to be saints," this very Church established 
 at Rome, was the very Church that God established with 
 Abraham and his seed, was the Church of the Jews — 
 their own olive-tree. Then, if you will look, you will 
 find that the apostles, in the cases of Lydia, and Stepha- 
 
124 
 
 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 nas, and the jailor, baptized households. My good 
 brother says, if you will refer to the sixteenth chapter, 
 you will find that the household of Stephanas could not 
 have been infants, because they ministered to the 
 saints — they served the saints. The apostle says they 
 were the first fruits of Achaia. Now, what time 
 elapsed between the preaching of Paul in Achaia, 
 and the time this was written? Probably thirty or 
 forty years ; at least fifteen or twenty years, for his 
 preaching in Achaia was soon after his convei'sion, and 
 his epistle to the Corinthians was written twenty or 
 thirty years after that. And he might have baptized 
 the household of Stephanas ; and these very children, 
 whom he had taken in his arms and baptized, being 
 brought up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, 
 as Timothy had been, would afterwards minister to the 
 saints. For you generally find men who pay attention 
 to the education of their children, bring^ them to the 
 altar of Grod and dedicate them to him in holy baptism 
 in youth — carry out the solemn purposes they then form 
 — you generally find them bringing up very good chil- 
 dren. Now and then you will find men and women 
 who neglect their children, and after they have them 
 baptized, let them run riot and wild. But when a man 
 dedicates his chihlren in baptism to God, invokes his 
 benediction upon them, and follows that up properly, 
 he will have a household of faith, and they will be con- 
 secrated to God. 
 
 [Close of the First Daijs Discussion.] 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 
 
 125 
 
 Second Day's Discussion. 
 
 Wednesday, July 11, 1860. 
 
 MR. MASSEY'S FOURTH ADDRESS. 
 
 Mr. Massey: — Messrs. Moderators, Ladies, and Gen- 
 tlemen : "While I purpose reserving my reply to the ar- 
 guments of my opponent, drawn from the Old Testa- 
 ment Scriptures, until he shall have concluded them, I 
 purpose, now, to notice his remarks upon several pas- 
 sages of the New Testament, hefore proceeding with the 
 argument which I was presenting yesterday. I must 
 say, in the beginning, that there was one remark made 
 by the gentleman, to which I find myself at a loss to 
 reply, without seeming acrimoniousness. (It will only, 
 however, I trust, be seeming.) That is, that while / 
 called your attention to the comments, he would call 
 your attention to the passages of Scripture themselves. 
 Did the gentleman mean, by that remark, to convey to 
 this audience the idea that / had not presented you with 
 ivhat the Scriptures say upon this subject ? I can but 
 suppose that this was his intention ! Yet I can scarcely 
 suppose that he persuaded himself that he could con- 
 vince this intelligent audience that such was the fact ! 
 He KNOWS, as every observing hearer here knows, that I 
 took the history of baptism from its introduction, as 
 presented in the word of God, and followed it down, 
 presenting every case of baptism recorded in the divine 
 volume ; that I read what the ivord of God said with 
 regard to each one of these cases ; that I presented my 
 views upon each one of them in their regular order ; 
 and that I then brought up able authority from the 
 
126 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 Pedobaptist ranks, to show that my views were correct^ 
 according to their interpretation of the same texts of 
 Scripture. These are facts that must be known to him 
 as well as to you^ and I feel persuaded that if there be 
 any expectation that by reiterating such remarks as 
 these, he can make the impression upon the minds of 
 this audience that I have not presented you with suffi- 
 cient Scriptural authority upon this subject, he will fail, 
 and I think I shall be able to show you, before the close 
 of this argument, that the whole of his yesterday's 
 labor was lost. His whole argument has been predicated 
 upon a mistaken theory. 
 
 Another thing to which I wish to make allusion, is 
 the argument he presents from the commission, or the 
 deduction which he seems to have drawn from my expo- 
 sition of it. Faith is prerequisite to baptism ; infants 
 cannot exercise faith, says he, and therefore they ought 
 not to be baptized. 
 
 Mr. CouLLiNG : Did you understand me to present 
 that argument ? 
 
 Mr. Massey : Certainly ; as a deduction from my 
 views upon the subject — from my argument upon the 
 commission. 
 
 Mr. CouLLiNG : I took it up as your argument. 
 
 Mr. Massey : That was your deduction. 
 
 Mr. CouLLiNG : No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Massey : Do you withdraw the deduction ? 
 
 Mr. C GULLING : No, sir ; I affirmed that that was his 
 argument; not my deduction ; nor my argument, but 
 his argument ; and I commented upon his argument, as 
 I understood 4t. Now if he is dissatisfied with his ar- 
 gument, he can withdraw it. 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 127 
 
 ' Mr. Massey : I will show you, my hearerS) that the 
 gentleman is mistaken. He drew this deduction from 
 the argument, and I will satisfy even him that he did it. 
 The commission, according to his (my) view, said he, 
 requires faith before baptism. Infants cannot believe ; 
 therefore, they cannot be baptized. The same commis- 
 sion, he declares, requires faith as a prerequisite to sal- 
 vation. '' He that believeth not, shall be damned." 
 Infants cannot believe, and therefore, according to that 
 mode of argument, infants will be lost. 
 
 Mr. CouLLiNG : That is the deduction ? 
 
 Mr. Massey : Certainly ; that is what I said, and 
 you denied. Now, I ask, what does such a deduction 
 as this amount to ? What is it worth ? I will give 
 you a deduction from the commission, which is perfectly 
 legitimate. Here is my theory upon the subject. None 
 to whom the gospel is addressed, can be saved without 
 faith. Infants are saved ivithout faith ; therefore, the 
 gospel is not addressed to infants. That is the proper 
 view of the subject. The commission does not authorize 
 the apostles of Jesus Christ to address infants. I think 
 the brother will hardly claim that infants were lost prior 
 to this gospel dispensation. If not,^ how were they 
 saved ? I Ihink he will hardly deny that they were 
 saved before circumcision was introduced. How were 
 they then saved ? I believe in the salvation of all who 
 die in a state of infancy. But, if their salvation de- 
 pended upon their compliance with the commission, as 
 given by Jesus Christ to the apostles, they never would 
 be saved. Their salvation depends not upon their exer- 
 cise of faith. You must look for infant salvation some- 
 where else, and it will be time enough to do so, when 
 
128 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 that subject comes under consideration. I simply state 
 my own belief about infant salvation, to show that the 
 deduction of the brother is wholly unwarranted by any- 
 thing I said. 
 
 And then another thing in regard to the commission. 
 He says that the Greek word, nLGrevaag^ rendered in 
 Mark believelh^ is in the aorist tense, which conveys 
 the idea of completed action. What does the gentleman 
 undertake to teach by that criticism ? Does he pretend 
 for a moment to claim that the apostles, going out to 
 preach, the gospel where it had never been preached^ 
 found men already believing that gospel before they had 
 .ever heard it ? When missionaries go to the heathen, 
 will they have nothing to do but to baptize them, be- 
 cause they will fmd them already believing ? If he 
 will look intu the subject a little more carefully, he will 
 find that the exercise of faith must be completed prior to 
 baptism, but not prior to instruction. He will find him- 
 self as unfortunate by that criticism as some others he 
 has presented. If the gentleman understands the force 
 of his own criticism, I can see but one object for making 
 it. It does convey the idea that there must be the exer- 
 cise of faith prior to the ordinance of baptism, but not 
 prior to that instruction which leads to the exercise of 
 that faith. If the gentleman did not wish to mystify 
 this subject by this criticism, I do not see what his ob- 
 ject was. He cannot believe that men are believers 
 before they hear the gospel. If they are, then what 
 need is there to preach the gospel ? 
 
 He drew an argument from the silence of the Jews 
 with regard to the neglect of infants : he is surprised 
 that, having been accustomed to circumcise their in- 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 129 
 
 fants, they should make no ''sth'" about it, if no rite 
 was given as a substitute for that. The Jews, no doubt, 
 understood that the gospel presented them something 
 different from what they had before. The fact that they 
 did so understand it, may account for their great opposi- 
 tion to it. Nothing but divine power could subdue their 
 enmity to the gospel, and lead them to embrace it. 
 There seems to me to be a strange inconsistency in his 
 reading, in connection with that argument, this passage 
 from Acts xxi., commencing with the twenty-first verse : 
 
 *'And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest 
 all the Jews which are among the G-entiles to forsake 
 Moses." 
 
 Is there no stir about it? Mr. Coulling seemed to 
 think that there was a ^reat stir about it, and that 
 brother Paul took it back. Now what did Paul take back ? 
 
 ''And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest 
 all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake 
 Moses, saying. That they ought not to circumcise their 
 children, neither to walk after the customs. What is it, 
 therefore ? the multitude must needs come together : 
 for they will hear that thou art come. Do therefore 
 this that we say to thee : We have four men which 
 have a vow upon them ; them take, and purify thyself 
 with them, and be at charges with them, that they may 
 shave their heads : and all may know, that those things 
 whereof they were informed concerning thee, are noth- 
 ing, but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and 
 keepest the law. As touching the Gentiles which be- 
 lieve, we have written, and concluded that they observe 
 no such thing." 
 
 Many of the Jews had not rightly comprehended 
 
 6# 
 
130 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 the great gospel scheme. Judaizing teachers had 
 gone forth, and taught that the Gentiles who became 
 believers should not only be baptized but circumcised 
 also. Here a question arises. A " stir" is created; 
 they hear that Paul teaches that this was not an 
 appendage of the gospel. And hence the Jews were 
 disposed to question Paul's conducting himself orderly 
 according to the law. But do we find Paul attempting 
 for one moment to justify the circumcision of their chil- 
 dren ? or for a moment teaching the idea that baptism 
 is given in place of circumcision ? Read his defence in 
 the twenty. second chapter of Acts, and you w^ill see that 
 he lets them understand that his business was not to 
 preach Moses. That while he walked orderly and main- 
 tained the law as a good citizen, his mission was to 
 preach to the G-entiles, Christ, and him crucified. " Grod 
 sent me," said he, " to preach the gospel.'''' 
 
 I again call your attention to Acts xvi. 14, 15 — the 
 case of Lydia, alluded to by Mr. Coulling on yesterday: 
 
 *' And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of pur- 
 ple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, 
 heard us : whose heart the Lord opened, that she at- 
 tended unto the things which were spoken of Paul. And 
 when she was baptized, and her household, she besought 
 us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the 
 Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she 
 constrained us." 
 
 The brother " infers'^ that there were infants in the 
 house of Lydia ; but this inference is unsustained by 
 anything in the text, or anything in her history. There 
 is not the slightest evidence that she was the mother of 
 either grown or infant children. For aught we know 
 
SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM. 
 
 131 
 
 to the contrary, she was, and ever had been, a single 
 woman. AVe find, from the last verse of this chapter, 
 that Paul and Silas " went out of the prison and enter- 
 ed into the house of Lydia ; and when they had seen 
 the brethren, they comforted them and departed." Now, 
 whoever those were that belonged to Lydia's household, 
 they were capable of receiving comfort and consolation 
 from the instructions of the apostles. 
 
 I presume, as 1 have given you the text., I may now 
 read what Dr. Clarke says upon this passage. 
 
 *' She attended unto the things^ &c.] She believed 
 them, and received them as the doctrines of God ; and 
 in this faith she was joined by her whole family, and in 
 it they were all baptized." 
 
 Now, who her family were, it is not for me to say. 
 They may have been domestics, or aids in her merchan- 
 dising. She was from Thyatira, three hundred miles 
 distant, a seller of purple, on a trading mission. But 
 whoever heard of anything so remarkable as the effort, 
 from such remote inferences as these, to set aside the 
 commission, and all the plain acts of the apostles under 
 that commission ? I have shown you, that in every 
 single case of baptism recorded in the word of G-od, 
 faith is a pre-requisite. My brother says, that he agrees 
 that nine tenths of these cases were those of adults. 
 Now, will he point me to the cases of infants ? These 
 are all the cases / can find, and not one infant among 
 them. If there are any cases of infant baptism record- 
 ed there, surely the gentleman can find them. / can- 
 not refer to a single case. 
 
 Dr. Empie says: Empie on Baptism, p. 131. ^^ All 
 the recorded instances of baptism (in the New Testa- 
 
132 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 ment) are cases of adults.''^ Professor Stewart says, that 
 he finds " neither command nor precept for baptizing 
 infants in the word of God." • And so with other au- 
 thorities. To predicate infant baptism upon the bare 
 presumption that Mrs. Lydia (?) was the mother of a large 
 family of infant children, shows how hard our opponents 
 are pressed to find it in the word of G-od. And yet it 
 was her house, and she had entire control of affairs ; Mr. 
 Lydia had nothing to do with matters there. I would 
 like to be introduced to Madame Lydia's "i6?6>r5er half." 
 Bear in mind I am not merely calling your attention to 
 the comments ; I have read the passage of Scripture, 
 and given my views, and now I will show that Pedo- 
 baptists sustain these views. And I will say here, as 
 reference has been made to oiKog and okm, that no ar- 
 gument can be drawn in favor of infant baptism from 
 oltiog or olnia. These terms are used interchangably in the 
 word of G-od. A few years ago, when this hypothesis 
 was first brought to my notice, I examined every place 
 in the Greek Testament, where olnog and okm, and their 
 cognates occur, and satisfied myself that they were not 
 only used interchangeably, but that no argument, based 
 upon these words, could be made by Pedobaptists in sup- 
 port of infant baptism. Donnegan's Greek Lexicon 
 gives this meaning of olKog, ov, 6: a house ; a chamber : 
 a tent ; a household ; property belonging to a family ; a 
 family; a race." OlKLa,ag,ri: a house; a dwelling; but 
 especially, sl family ; the persons of a household." 
 Grove's Greek Lexicon, gives oUbg this meaning. '' A 
 house, a mansion, dwelling, abode ; a house of God, 
 temple ; a palace, court ; an apartment, a home ; a 
 family, household ; lineage, descent ; property, sub- 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 133 
 
 stance." " 0km, from ohbg, he defines a house, dwell- 
 ing, residence, abode ; a household, family." 
 
 Olshausen (vol. iii., page 347) says upon this passage : 
 
 " It is highly improbable that the phrase ohog avrrjg, 
 he?' Iiouseholdj should be understood as including infant 
 children : relatives, servants, grown children might be 
 baptized along with her, for they would at once be car- 
 ried away by the youthful power of her new life of faith. 
 There is altogether wanting any conclusive proof-pas- 
 sage for the baptism of children in the age of the apos- 
 tles ; nor can the necessity of it be deduced from the 
 nature of baptism." 
 
 And at the bottom of the page, is the following note 
 by the editor : 
 
 " In the words describing the institution of baptism, 
 in Matth. xxviii. 19, the connection of liadrireveiv ^ dis- 
 cipling, with (Sairri^eLv^ baptizing, and dcSdoKeiv^ teaching, 
 appears quite positively to oppose the idea, that the bap- 
 tism of children entered at first into the view of Christ." 
 
 I think, my hearers, these evidences and arguments 
 are enough to satisfy this audience, with regard to what 
 was said by the gentleman upon these passages. 
 
 I now come to the argument that I was presenting on 
 yesterday, to show that believers are the only scriptural 
 subjects of apostolic or Christian baptism. I have 
 gone through all the cases of baptism recorded in the 
 word of G-od. I have shown you, I think, beyond ques- 
 tion, that all these cases were cases of adult baptism — 
 cases of baptism of professed believers in the Lord Jesus 
 Christ. I now come to arguments drawn from history. 
 I will show you that Church history establishes the fact 
 
134 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 that infant baptism was unknoivn in the early ages of 
 the Church. The baptism of believers was the universal 
 practice of the Christian Church, until the corruptions 
 of the third century. 
 
 I have here Dr. Mosheim's " Church History/' trans- 
 lated from the original Latin, with notes, chronological 
 tables, and an appendix, by Dr. Maclaine. He comes, 
 not as a theologian, but as a historian, to record facts: 
 a Pedobaptist historian. He will certainly not make a 
 record against himself, unless he be compelled to do so 
 hy facts. In vol. 1, page 38, we find the following: 
 
 " Nor, in this first century, was the distinction made 
 between Christians of a more or less perfect order, which 
 took place afterward. Whoever acknowledged Christ 
 as the Saviour of mankind, and made a solemn profes- 
 sion of his confidence in him, was immediately baptized 
 and received into the Church. But when the Church 
 began to flourish, and its members to increase, it was 
 thought prudent and necessary to divide Christians into 
 two orders, distinguished by the name of believers and 
 catechumens. The former were those who had been 
 solemnly admitted into the Church by baptism, and, in 
 consequence thereof, were instructed in all the mysteries 
 of religion, had access to all the parts of diyine worship, 
 and were authorized to vote in the ecclesiastical assem- 
 blies. The latter were such as had not yet been dedi- 
 cated to Grod and Christ by baptism, and were, there- 
 fore, neither admitted to the public prayers nor the holy 
 communion, nor to the ecclesiastical assemblies." 
 
 On page 69, he says (of the second century) : 
 
 *' The sacrament of baptism was administered pub- 
 licly twice every year, at the festivals of Easter and 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 135 
 
 Pentecost or Whitsuntide, either by the bishop, or, in 
 conseqaence of his authorization and appointment, by 
 the presbyters. The persons that were to be baptized, 
 after they had repeated the Creed, confessed and re- 
 nounced their sins, and particularly the devil and his 
 pompous allurements, were immersed under water, and 
 received into Christ's kingdom by a solemn invocation 
 of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, according to the express 
 command of our blessed Lord." 
 
 On page 91 (speaking of the third century), he says : 
 
 " There were, twice a year, stated times when bap- 
 tism w^as administered to such as, after a long course of 
 trial and preparation, offered themselves as candidates 
 for the profession of Christianity." 
 
 I now invite your attention to Dr. Augustus Neander, 
 another distinguished Pedobaptist Church historian. In 
 vol. 1 , page 305, he says : 
 
 " We shall speak first of baptism. At the beginning, 
 when it was important that the Church should rapidly 
 extend itself, those who confessed their belief in Jesus 
 as the Messiah (among the Jews), or their belief in one 
 Grod, and in Jesus as the Messiah (among the Grentiles), 
 were immediately baptized, as appears from the New 
 Testament." 
 
 On page 306, he says : 
 
 "Some traces of a confession Of faith, ^hich was 
 made at baptism, are to be found even in the New Tes- 
 tament. Such confessions of faith were afterward more 
 fully drawn out, in opposition to Jews, to pagans, and 
 to heretics. These confessions were intended to embrace 
 those essentials of Christianity wherein all the Churches 
 were agreed. It was believed that the doctrine expressed 
 
136 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 in these confessions of faith proceeded from the apostles ; 
 that it was the doctrine which they preached in living 
 words and in their writings ; but it was by no means 
 the opinion in the beginning, that the apostles had drawn 
 up any such confession in words." 
 
 On page 807, he says : 
 
 *' This confession was put into the hands of the cate- 
 chumens, as a document which contained the essentials 
 of Christianity. Many who had been led to embrace 
 the faith after much inquiry, after consulting different 
 religious writings and reading the Scriptures for them- 
 selves, of course did not need it to keep them in the 
 
 knowledge of Christianity Others, however, 
 
 obtained their first knowledge of Christianity from the 
 instruction contained in the confession of faith, and im- 
 parted in connection with it, without finding themselves 
 in a situation, till sometime afterward, of comparing 
 with the Scriptures what they had thus received from 
 human tradition. It was of these the Gnostic Heracleon 
 remarked : ' They are led first to believe on the Saviour 
 by the testimony of men ; but when they come to his 
 own words, they believe no longer on the ground of hu- 
 man testimony alone, but for the sake of the truth it- 
 self ;' and, in reference to the same class, Clement of 
 Alexandria says : ' The first saving change from heath- 
 enism is faith. That is, a compendious knowledge of 
 all that is necessary to salvation.' " 
 
 On page 311, he says : 
 
 " Baptism was administered, at first, only to adults, 
 as men were accustomed to conceive baptism and faith 
 as strictly connected. We have all reason for not deriving 
 infant baptism from apostolic institution, and the recog- 
 
SUBJECTS OF' BAPTISM. l'^7 
 
 nition of it, which followed somewhat later, as an apos- 
 tolic tradition, serves to confirm this hypothesis." 
 
 I have here a work written by a Baptist : but what I 
 purpose reading to you will be quotations which he has 
 made from Pedobaptist authorities ; hence it does not in 
 anywise change the fact that it is still Pedobaptist tes- 
 timony. In " The Evils of Infant Baptism," by Dr. 
 Howell, on page 20, we find these quotations : 
 
 " Martin Luther, the great father of the Reformation, 
 says : ' It cannot be proved by the Scriptures that infant 
 baptism was instituted by Christ, or begun by the first 
 Christians after the apostles." [Apud Yan. Inf. Bapt., 
 part 2, p. 8.] John Calvin testifies thus : ' It is nowhere 
 expressly mentioned by the evangelists that any child 
 was by the apostles baptized.' — (Institutes of Eeligion, 
 Liber 4, &c., &c.) Bishop Burnet avers — ' There is no 
 express precept or rule given in the New Testament^ for 
 the baptism of infants.' — (Expos. 39 Arts., Art. 18.) 
 Strarck says : ' The connection of infant baptism with 
 circumcision deserves no consideration, since there were 
 physical reasons for circumcising in infancy.' — (Hist. 
 Bap., p. 11.) Augusti says : ' The parallel between 
 circumcision and baptism is altogether foreign to the 
 New Testament.'— (Works, vol. 7, p. 329.) Bishop 
 Jeremy Taylor thus writes : ' For the argument from 
 circumcision, it is invalid from infinite considerations. 
 Figures and types prove nothing, unless a command go 
 along with them, or some express [declaration] to signify 
 such to be their purpose.' — (Liberty of Prophesying, 
 pp. 228-246.) Dr. Woods, of Andover, remarks : ' It 
 is a plain case that there is no express precept respect- 
 ing infant baptism in our sacred writings. The proof. 
 
138 DEBATE ON THE J 
 
 then, that it is a divine institution, must be made out 
 in some other way.' — (Lect. on Inf. Bapt., p. 11.) Prof. 
 Stuart says : ' Commands, or plain and certain examples 
 in the New Testament, relative to it, [infant baptism,] I 
 do not find.'— (Biblical Repository, 1833, p. 385.) And 
 finally. Dr. Neander declares: 'As baptism was closely 
 united with a conscious entrance on Christian commu- 
 nion, faith and baptism were always connected with one 
 another ; and thus it is in the highest degree probable, 
 that baptism was performed only in instances where 
 both could meet together, and that the practice of infant 
 baptism was unknown to the apostolic age.' — (Planting 
 and Training, p. 101.)" 
 
 I will now read from Neander, vol. ii. page 319 ; (He 
 is speaking of the period from 212 to 590.) He says : 
 
 " It was still very far from being the case, especially 
 in the Greek Church, that infant baptism, although ac- 
 knowledged to be necessary, was generally introduced 
 into practice. Partly, the same mistaken notions which 
 arose from confounding the thing represented by bap- 
 tism with the outward rite, and which afterwards led to 
 the over-valuation of infant baptism, and partly, the 
 frivolous tone of thinking, the indifference to all higher 
 concerns, which characterized so many who had only 
 exchanged the Pagan for a Christian outside — all this 
 together, contributed to bring it about. That among 
 the Christians of the East, infant baptism, though in 
 theory acknowledged to be necessary, yet entered so 
 rarely and with so much difficulty into the Church life 
 during the first half of this period." 
 
 We see that although they had commenced to intro- 
 duce it, and to propagate the theory that led to it, they 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 139 
 
 found great difficulty in introducing it, and it was in- 
 troduced very gradually. G-ieseler, another Church his- 
 torian, Doctor of Philosophy and Theology, and Professor 
 of Theology in Grottingen, says, on page 294 : 
 
 " The baptism of infants did not become universal 
 until after the time of Augustine." 
 
 (Augustine died about the year 430.) Here are 
 " Christian Antiquities," by Dr. Riddle. I need not tell 
 you what this work is ; the brother will endorse it him- 
 self, as he brought it here. On page 444 of Christian 
 Antiquities, you will find the following : 
 
 " The general adoption of the practice of infant bap- 
 tism, has so far affected the regulations of the Church, 
 concerning the qualifications and admission of candi- 
 dates for this sacred ordinance, that what was formerly 
 the rule in this respect, has become the exception. The 
 institutions of the Church during the first five centu- 
 ries, concerning the preparations for baptism, and all the 
 laws and rules which existed during this period, relating 
 to the acceptance or rejection of candidates, necessarily 
 fell into disuse when the baptism of infants was not 
 only permitted, but enjoined as a duty, and almost uni- 
 versally observed. The old rule w^hich prescribed cau- 
 tion in the admission of candidates, and a careful pre- 
 paration for the rite, was applicable for the most part 
 only to Jewish, heathen, and other proselytes, after the 
 sixth century." 
 
 I think I have presented you with sufficient testi- 
 mony, to show what the practice of the Church in the 
 early ages of Christianity was. The brother was very elo- 
 quent yesterday, when he spoke of the " stir " that 
 would have been made, if the apostles and Christians 
 
140 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 had begun to neglect infants, or had not given them 
 baptism. Here, we find that there was great difficulty, 
 according to Church historians, in introducing infant 
 baptism even after the corruptions of the age had evolv- 
 ed the theory from which the practice sprung. 
 
 Now, in regard to the little children that were brought 
 to Christ. As I have but little time left, I will refer at 
 once to what Dr. Olshausen says upon the subject. It 
 is upon Matthew xix. 1, 3, and 4 verses ; where they 
 brought little children to Jesus, that He might lay his 
 hands upon them and bless them, and the disciples re- 
 buked them ; but Jesus said, " Suffer little children to 
 come unto me and forbid them not, for of such is the 
 Kingdom of Heaven." The idea which the brother 
 seems to draw from this is, that this justifies the con- 
 clusion that infants were proper subjects for the king- 
 dom of Heaven, and therefore^ proper subjects for bap- 
 tism. If you should see any one bringing an infant to 
 me to be baptized, and should hear my Baptist brethren 
 objecting to their coming to me, the natural conclusion 
 would be that I was not accustomed to baptizing in- 
 fants. No Methodist would raise such an objection to 
 your taking them to brother Coulling. for he is accus- 
 tomed to it. Suppose that Jesus Christ had been accus- 
 tomed to baptizing infants, would the disciples have re- 
 buked those who brought them to him ? Christ's disci- 
 ples were certainly not Methodists. Dr. Olshausen 
 says, vol. ii. p. 106 : 
 
 *' Of that reference to infant baptism, which it is so 
 common to seek in this narrative, there is clearly not 
 the slightest trace to be found. The Saviour sets the 
 children before the apostles as symbols of spiritual re- 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 141 
 
 generation, and of the simple childlike feeling therein 
 imparted. (But infant baptism stands connected with 
 regeneration, only in so far as we view it, in combina- 
 tion with the personal and conscious reception of the 
 Grospel — an act which confirmation is intended to repre- 
 sent). On the part of the parents, however, when they 
 brought their children, there w^as evidently nothing more 
 intended, than to have a spiritual blessing bestowed 
 upon them, and this the little ones received by the lay- 
 ing on of Christ's hands. Being conveyed to them 
 through the accompanying prayer, it could not fail to 
 exercise a beneficent spiritual influence." 
 
 Though this man advocates infant baptism, yet when- 
 ever we bring forward any portion of the word of G-od, 
 where it is claimed that infant baptism is to be found, 
 he admits, in almost every case, that it is not there. 
 He takes the plain, common sense, rational view of the 
 text, and finds no infant baptism in it ; and it is the 
 view all of us would take from the w^ord of G-od. No 
 man would think of seeking infant baptism in that pas- 
 sage, if he had not a theory to support, which was in 
 desperate need of a prop ; but this case, so far from 
 teaching infant baptism, is in direct conflict with the 
 idea that infant baptism was known to the Apostles. 
 [Time expired.] 
 
 MR. COULLmG'S FOURTH REPLY. 
 
 Mr. CouLLiNG : It would suit me, just at this time, to 
 begin where my good brother left off. He wants to 
 make the impression upon your minds that I adduced 
 this passage which he last quoted from Matthew, to 
 
142 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 prove infant baptism, and reads Mr. Olshausen there as 
 evidence to that effect. Now I submit to you, if I in- 
 troduced it for any such purpose. 
 
 Mr. Massey : I said you introduced it to show that 
 they were fit subjects for the kingdom of Heaven, and 
 therefore fit subjects for the Church. 
 
 Mr. CouLLiNG : But you said I tried to adduce infant 
 baptism from it. 
 
 Mr. Massey: I would be glad to know what you 
 introduced it for, ii not to sustain Infant Baptism? 
 
 Mr. CouLLiNG : I introduced it to show that infant 
 children were introduced by, the Redeemer to show the 
 moral character believers should have. Again, he says 
 that the introduction of it proves the very reverse of 
 what I introduced it for ; that the fact was, that the Sa- 
 viour was not in the habit of doing such things, and the 
 apostles did not like it, because it was an innovation 
 upon the Saviour's habits. Is that so ? What did the 
 Saviour say ? This is the import of what he said : I am 
 surprised that you have not yet caught the spirit of my 
 teachings : SufTer little children to come unto me, and 
 forbid them not. The brother says they knew all the 
 Saviour did, and all his feelings upon the subject, and 
 they repelled them, as he would ; but I, being accus- 
 tomed to such things, would receive them. Now, does 
 the text, or the context, teach any ^uch idea, or justify 
 any such deduction? It proves that the disciples were 
 very slow, like a great many other people in the world, 
 to learn their Lord's will upon the subject. And it 
 proves, ihat under the impulse of those natural feelings 
 of revulsion to the will of God, they repelled the chil- 
 dren from the blessed Saviour: just as they wanted to 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 143 
 
 call down fire from heaven to consume the people, be- 
 cause they did not do as they thought right : just as 
 they said, We forbade those who cast out devils in thy 
 name ; but the Master said, You ought not to have done 
 it. Now, let me take up those passages, to prove that 
 because Jesus Christ was ift the habit of calling down 
 fire from heaven, his followers also called it down ; be- 
 cause Jesus Christ was in the habit of repelling chil- 
 dren, therefore the apostles repelled them, and you will 
 have the force of his argument. Now, is not that 
 enough upon that point ? Does it not stand where I put 
 it, in spite of all he has said to the contrary ? And 
 does it not prove just what I brought it forward to 
 prove ? 
 
 Now, I will go back to the beginning. He, I think, 
 misunderstood me ; and unintentionally, I think, seemed 
 to make the impression, at any rate, that I had done 
 him injustice in what I said last evening, in reference 
 to his appeal to commentaries. What I did say was 
 this — and I repeat it, and I leave it to you to judge be- 
 tween us ; and I do it altogether in a spirit of kindness. 
 I said this, in proving the several positions that 1 had 
 sustained, that I chose to look to the texts of Scripture, 
 and take them and bring them together. I thought 
 that was reasonable, because the proposition said Scrip- 
 ture. The Bible was to me the last resort. But I said, 
 while he referred to passages of Scripture, he relied upon 
 the comments upon those passages for his proof, not 
 upon those passages themselves as they stood, but upon 
 the understanding of those passages by the commenta- 
 tors. Is not that so ? That is just the impression that 
 I intended to make. He brings forward a passage of 
 
144 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 Scripture : that passage may be doubtful, ambiguous, not 
 such as exactly to suit his purposes, as a great many of 
 them do not. Then he brins^s forward a commentator who 
 happens to view the subject in some light that seems to 
 favor the view that he wishes to sustain. He reads that 
 commentary, and relies upcm it and not upon the text. 
 Js that not so? I do not blame him for it, for it is a 
 dire necessity of the case. If the text proved it, he 
 would not want a commentary ; but as it does not, ho 
 relies upon the commentary. That is the sum and sub- 
 stance of what I wished to say. 
 
 Again, he introduced what he called my deduction 
 from his argument upon the commission. I think, the 
 probability is, that at the time I made that remark, he 
 was engaged in some way : I would not be surprised if 
 he was writing, or something of the kind : and his mind 
 was not exectly fixed upon what I said. For, some- 
 times when I have asked him something he has said, 
 he has replied : " Well, really, I was engaged, and did 
 not understand you." So with myself, when I am tak- 
 ing notes of his argument, I do not always hear all that 
 he says. Hence the want of clearness in his apprehen- 
 sion — at least, in the manner in which he seemed to 
 express it. Now, here is the fact, as I understand it. 
 He argues here that the commission given by the blessed 
 Redeemer is our charter to administer baptism ; that 
 beyond the limits and confines of that commission we 
 have no right to go. Do you not all understand him so ? 
 That the commission, saying expressly that you must 
 believe before you are baptized, shuts us up to what he 
 calls believer's baptism only. Now, I affirm that if that 
 mode of reasoning is correct, it follows, that because in- 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 145 
 
 fants cannot believe, therefore they cannot be baptized ; 
 that the very commission which says, according to 
 him, believe and be baptized, says also, believe and be 
 saved ; and if incapacity to believe excludes from bap- 
 tism, the argument proves that it excludes them from 
 salvation. Then, to meet that argument right there, 
 he comes right out and breaks down the fence that he 
 £as labored for two days to put up, and lets out infant 
 salvation and infant baptism ; and, according to him, 
 you must go somewhere else to prove infant salvation, 
 and, of course, we can go somewhere else to prove infant 
 baptism. And certainly, according to the gentleman's 
 own admission, this commission is not full instruction 
 in reference to children, for it does not teach how chil- 
 dren are to be saved. 
 
 Mr. Massey : It does not teach anything about them. 
 
 Mr. CouLLiNG : Then, if I can prove from other pas- 
 sages that children are brought into the Church of Christ 
 and the covenant of God, this commission does not shut 
 me out from it. I think I have removed the great bar- 
 rier which he has erected, for he opens the gate him- 
 self, and lets me out foot-loose, and says that the com- 
 mission does not say a word about children ; though he 
 said, this morning, I never could get away from it. 
 
 Another criticism that he urged, with reference to 
 that commission. I do not think that you have exactly 
 caught my idea with reference to the criticism that I 
 suggested, from my good brother's representation of the . 
 force of the two participles that are used. Mark gives 
 the version thus : " And he said unto them, Gro into all 
 the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He 
 that believeth and is baptized," &c. Now the English 
 
 7 
 
146 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 scholar — the person who has only learned the English 
 languge, from reading that — if he were asked to parse 
 the word believeth, would regard it probably as in the 
 present tense ; and the following verb, baptized, as the 
 perfect of the indicative passive. Therefore, the Eng- 
 lish version seems to say, first you are to believe, and 
 then, following as a consequence, you are to be bap- 
 tized : whereas the Greek authorizes no such construc- 
 tion. Now let me read it as the Greek gives it: •' He 
 that has believed, and has been baptized, shall be saved." 
 Not that believing and baptizing are predicated the one 
 of the other, or as one preceding the other ; but simply 
 that both are required to be performed, and then the 
 man that continues faithful unto death, believing in 
 God, shall be saved. That is the idea. He that has be- 
 lieved, and he that has been baptized — no matter which 
 comes first : that is not stated in the text at all- — I mean 
 the Greek text — while it seems to be stated in the Eng- 
 lish text. That is the point to which I wish to call 
 attention. The idea which is attempted to be conveyed, 
 and which is derived solely from the English transla- 
 tion, has no foundation whatever in a correct compre- 
 hension and construction of the original. 
 
 Turn, now, to Acts xxi. 18 and 25 ; I wish to make 
 some allusion to some remarks offered upon that subject. 
 You will recollect that I introduced this passage yester- 
 day in this connection ; I was attempting to show that 
 it would be one of the most marvellous things in this 
 world, if the children of a whole nation, that from time 
 immemorial, had been in the habit of having their infants 
 with them in their own church-communion, should be 
 expelled — it would be the strangest thing, I say, that 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 147 
 
 this should occur, and there be no stir made upon the 
 subject. And to prove that and to show it, I showed 
 you what a stir was made, here, in Jerusalem, 1 think 
 it was, but no matter where, when it was reported that 
 St. Paul had refused to comply with the requirements of 
 the old Church. Now, say the apostles to him, in sub- 
 stance, '' Now, Paul, you will have a terrible ado here." 
 He affirmed that there had been a stir produced ; he 
 affirmed that the people were dissatisfied, because St. 
 Paul would not comply with these old requirements ; 
 and then the brother asks this : " Did St. Paul consent to 
 or countenance any such thing ? Did he do it ?" and 
 then he quotes a passage found in a different connection, 
 altogether, and left the impression upon your minds that 
 St. Paul did not countenance this stir. Now, just read 
 the 26th verse of this chapter : 
 
 " Then, Paul took the men, and the next day purify- 
 ing himself with them, entered into the temple, to sig- 
 nify the accomplishment of the days of purification, 
 until that an offering should be offered for every one of 
 them." 
 
 So, that so far from St. Paul repudiating it, the 26th 
 verse confirms everything that I stated, and St. Paul 
 entered into their plan to quiet the people. I mention 
 that, not because it was material to the purpose for 
 which I introduced it, as it was fully met even with his 
 criticisms upon it ; but, just to show you that in the 
 effort to avoid that inference a slight blunder was made, 
 a slight mistake occurred ; the brother did not read quite 
 far enough. Again, in that passage, that it seemed sur- 
 prising that I had forgotten — and I think it is a little 
 surprising that I had forgotten that the baptism of 
 
148 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 Lydia is recorded in this sixteenth chapter of Acts— the 
 argument is attempted to be adduced here, that these peo- 
 ple who were baptized, this household of Lydia, were 
 adults, and the brother affirms positively that there were 
 no infants there ; just as positively as if he had been 
 there and seen Lydia's family, and knew all about it. 
 Though, he says he does not know anything about Mr. 
 Lydia. 
 
 Mr. Masse Y : I denied that there was any sort of 
 authoritative evidence, to show that there were infants. 
 You affirmed that there were, and it devolves upon yon 
 to prove it. You affirm a position, and then require me 
 to prove that it is not so ; you affirm that there were 
 infants^ and then call upon me to prove that there were 
 not. 
 
 Mr. CouLLiNG : I knew he would deny it. 
 
 Mr. Masse Y : Because you knew I did not say it. 
 
 Mr. CouLLiNG : I did not say you did. I knew that 
 he would deny it, and that is all that I said — that he 
 most positively denies it, most emphatically denies it. 
 Now, if there were no infants — and I suppose he would 
 be good authority for that as far as it goes — then, ac- 
 cording to the text, what becomes of " believers bap- 
 tism- .^" There were people here baptized who, he says, 
 were not infants. They then must have been adults, I 
 suppose, one of the two ; and there was then baptism 
 of adults without faith. Then, what becomes of his 
 main proposition ? Gone to the four winds ; blown up 
 as high as Haman was hung ; no doubt about that. 
 He affirms most positively that there were no infants 
 there, and says it devolves upon me to prove it. What 
 stronger proof will you ask than what I have already 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 149 
 
 given ? Why does he not say that the Peshito-Syriac 
 edition is incorrect, though made almost in the very 
 days of the apostle, and which says — Lydia, and the 
 children of her household were baptized ? Why does 
 not he, from among all the learned men who have writ- 
 ten upon this subject, bring forward some proof against 
 the accuracy of that translation, made at the very 
 time when the people understood something about it ? 
 I have not proved it I Why, that is proof, " demon- 
 stration strong as Holy Writ ;" that is proof that is 
 irrefragable ; that is a species of proof that not one of 
 the writers upon the subject that I have ever read (I 
 have not read every one of them, and would not for a 
 pretty thing) — that is proof that not one of them will 
 grapple with. And then, what of the proof of the 
 obituary notices from the tombstones of little children ? 
 Let him bring forward some supposition that will relieve 
 his " believer's baptism only" from the dilemma in 
 which he has placed it by his own interpretation of 
 Lydia's baptism. What is he going to do ? To sup- 
 pose that those people did believe ? If he can put his 
 supposition in the text, is it not just as lawful, and a 
 little more so with all this evidence, to put my supposi- 
 tion in there, .that there were infant children ? And 
 although I do not know Mr. Lydia, nor Mrs. Lydia, ex- 
 cept what this text tells us, yet I know as far as testi- 
 mony goes that Lydia had children. " Oh, no," says he ; 
 *' turn to the 40th verse, and you will find that which is 
 proof positive against it." 
 
 " And they went out of the prison, and entered into 
 the house of Lydia ; and when they had seen the breth- 
 ren, they comforted them, and departed." 
 
150 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 Who departed ? If the brother had just given him- 
 self the trouble to read a chapter or two before, I will 
 tell you what he would have found out. He would 
 have found out, that Paul and Luke and Silas were 
 travelling together ; and hence you find he and ive and I 
 used in the whole context. When Paul and Silas and 
 Luke met with brother Timothy, they took him along 
 with them. And then they all went to Philippi, and 
 there went to preaching out on the seashore. Paul got 
 up and preached a sermon, and delivered an exhortation, 
 and G-od opened the heart of Lydia, and she received 
 the teachings of Paul, and Lydia was baptized, and her 
 children with her. And Lydia said, " If you have judged 
 me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house 
 and abide there." Who went into her house ? Paul, 
 Silas, Luke, and Timothy. Paul, a few evenings after- 
 ward, rebuked the spirit of divination which was in a 
 young girl, and which brought her masters much gain. 
 And when they saw that the hope of their gains was 
 gone, they caught Paul and Silas, and had them thrown 
 into prison. Luke and Timothy were still at the house 
 of Lydia, and when Paul and Silas got out of prison, 
 they went to Sister Lydia's house and comforted the 
 brethren. What brethren ? Why, Luke and Timothy, 
 who were still staying there. Read this whole chapter, 
 and you will find that this is all so. I have read it over 
 carefully, two or three times, and I have it all noted 
 down, here. They were the brethren who were in sister 
 Lydia's house. So that that strong argument, which 
 nobody can meet, does not happen to be an argument at 
 all ; it is just a slight mistake, occurring from a want 
 of examination of this passage in the Acts of the Apos- 
 tles. That is about the simple English of it. 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. I 
 
 No positive argument, says he, can be deduced from 
 the use of ohog and oUia ; and then he turns in and 
 favors you with a long string of definitions of both of 
 those words from Donnegan and G-rove. Well, Donne- 
 gan and G-rove, according to my hearing, and I think I 
 heard accurately, sustained precisely the very position 
 which I occupy upon this subject. And that is, that 
 while oUbg and olnia have various meanings, as most 
 words have ; one of the meanings is, a family, the chil- 
 dren of a family. They both sustain that position. 
 That is all I want. That those words, under different 
 circumstances, may have different meanings, is just 
 what is true of every other w^ord ; and all he says about 
 them does not infringe upon the force of my argument, 
 not a jot or a tittle. And that these words do carry ar- 
 gumentative force, I have the pleasure of knowing, from 
 the fact that some of the ripest Greek scholars in Eu- 
 rope and in America understand them and argue from 
 them as, not only having force, but as having a force 
 that I say very few who understand the argument, will 
 oppose and grapple with. " And they said, Believe on 
 the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved and thy 
 house." " And he spake to him the word of the Lord, 
 and to all (e^ r^ olda avrov) that were in his house." 
 ^' And he took them the same hour of the night and 
 washed their stripes and was baptized, he and all 
 (ol dvTov TTav-eg) his." "Thou shalt be saved (fcat 6 
 olKog gov) and thy house." Now, tell me, why that dif- 
 ference in the use of terms constantly recurring ? 
 Wherever you find the baptism of a household spoken 
 of, it is in those terms. No force! No argument I ]s 
 that so ? If these men understood the language that 
 
152 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 they wrote, did they use this language at haphazard ? 
 And yet no argument deducible from it ! It is a strong 
 collateral argument, and I refer to it simply as col- 
 lateral. 
 
 I come next to another point that he stated. He 
 affirms that he has shown that all the cases to which he 
 has referred, are cases of adult baptism, and nothing 
 else. Now, I just wish to submit that to you. The 
 arguments I have urged are all before you ; and all that 
 he has urged are before you. Now, has he done that to 
 the satisfaction of this audience ? Has he shown that 
 in every case of baptism to which he has referred, there 
 was nothing in the world but adult baptism ? Has he 
 shown it in the case of Lydia's household, and the 
 household of Stephanas, and the household of the jailor ? 
 Has he done it ? 
 
 Now to another argument. He promised to give us 
 history, as I undc^rstood him, to prove that none but 
 believers are to be baptized. He started out with that 
 proposition ; he has brought forward abundance of ar- 
 guments to prove that believers ought to be baptized : 
 a thing that nobody ever did doubt. But he has yet to 
 prove his great proposition to which he has committed 
 himself, that only believers are to be baptized. He 
 brings forward quotation after quotation from Church 
 history. I wish now to refer you to Alosheim, page 38, 
 this is one of his Church histories, to prove that none 
 but believers were to be baptized : 
 
 "Nor, in the first century, was the distinction made 
 between Christians of a more or less perfect order, which 
 took place afterward. Whoever acknowledged Christ 
 as the Saviour of mankind, and made a solemn profes- 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 153 
 
 sion of his confidence in him, was immediately baptized 
 and received into the Church." 
 
 Does he say no others but those were baptized and 
 received into the Church ? No : no such intimation : 
 
 " But when the Cliurch began to flourish, and its 
 members to increase, it was thought prudent and neces- 
 sary to divide Christians into two orders, distinguished 
 by the names of believers and catechumens. The for- 
 mer were those who had been solemnly admitted into 
 the Church by baptism, and, in consequence thereof, 
 were instructed in all the mysteries of religion, had 
 access to all the parts of divine worship, and were au- 
 thorized to vote in the ecclesiastical assemblies. The 
 latter were such as had not yet been dedicated to Grod 
 and Christ by baptism, and were, therefore, neither ad- 
 mitted to the public prayers, nor to the holy communion, 
 nor to the ecclesiastical assemblies." 
 
 Then, all that Mosheim says here, everything about 
 it is, that when adult persons wanted to get into the 
 Church, after the first century, they were required to 
 become catechumens before they were to be baptized. 
 And a very good reason for it. The gospel spread into 
 heathen lands, getting hold of men who knew nothing 
 of religion, Judaism, or anything else ; and the preach- 
 ers did not introduce them immediately into the Church, 
 but made them catechumens. Just precisely as any 
 denomination of Christians in this land would do at the 
 present day, if they were to go among heathen people. 
 They would instruct those heathen people before they 
 admitted them to baptism, let them say what they may, 
 or seem what they may. That is all natural, all right. 
 
 There is nothing here in conflict with my opinion, or to 
 
 7# 
 
154 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 support the " only believer's baptisQi " that my good 
 brother has been speaking of. Again, from page 69 of 
 Mosheim, he read the following : 
 
 "The sacrament of baptism was administered pub- 
 licly twice every year, at the festivals of Easter and 
 Pentecost, or Whitsuntide, either by the bishop, or, in 
 consequence of his authorization and appointment, by 
 the presbyters. The persons that were to be baptized, 
 after they had repeated the Creed, confessed and re- 
 nounced their sins, and particularly the devil and his 
 pompous allurements, were immersed in water and re- 
 ceived into Christ's kingdom by a solemn invocation, of 
 Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, according to the express 
 command of our blessed Lord." 
 
 It does not once say that none others ; not one single 
 word about it : silent as the grave upon the very point, 
 the only point of controversy. And yet this is brought 
 forward to prove nothing but immersion. From page 
 91 another quotation is made : 
 
 " Those who were in a penitential state, and those 
 also who had not received the sacrament of baptism, 
 were not admitted to this holy supper ; and it is not dif- 
 ficult to perceive that these exclusions were an intima- 
 tion of what was practised in the heathen mysteries." 
 
 And further on : 
 
 " It was also more frequently repeated in some 
 churches than others ; but was considered in all as of 
 the highest importance, and as essential to salvation : 
 for which reason it was even thought proper to adminis- 
 ter it to infants.". 
 
 I suppose he is speaking of the sacrament of the Lord's 
 Supper. 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 155 
 
 Again, he says : 
 
 " There were, twice a year, stated times when bap- 
 tism was administered to such as, after a long course of 
 trial and preparation, offered themselves as candidates 
 for the profession of Christianity." 
 
 Again silent : does not say a word ahout believers 
 only. And as I have repeated it until 1 am tired of say- 
 ing it — as I have no doubt you are all tired of hearing 
 it — all this proves very conclusively what never was 
 disputed, what is not in debate at all, and falls very far 
 short of proving the only point of controversy between 
 us. Another quotation is from Neander, vol. i., page 
 305: 
 
 "We shall speak first of baptism. At the beginning, 
 when it was important that the Church should rapidly 
 extend itself, those who confessed fheir belief in Jesus 
 as the Messiah (among the Jews), or their belief in one 
 Grod, and in Jesus as the Messiah (among the G-entiles), 
 were immediately baptized, as appears from the New 
 Testament." 
 
 Well, who ever doubted that? And what does it 
 prove ? What, I again say, has never been in contro. 
 versy. 
 
 '' This confession was put into the hands of the cate- 
 chumens, as a document which contained the essentials 
 of Christianity. Many who had been led to embrace 
 the faith after much inquiry, after consulting different 
 religious writings, and reading the Scriptures for them- 
 selves, of course did not need it to keep them in the 
 knowledge of Christianity." 
 
 The same thing : it utterly fails to prove the very 
 point in controversy. Again: 
 
156 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 " Baptism was administered at first only to adults ; 
 as men were accustomed to conceive baptism and faith 
 as strictly connected. We have all reason for not de- 
 riving infant baptism from apostolic institution ; and 
 the recognition of it that followed somewhat later as 
 apostolic tradition, serves to confirm this hypothesis." 
 
 That is the opinion of Mr. Neander. Now I wish to 
 call your attention to a few facts. Here is a note here 
 in Latin (Neander), and I have a great mind to give 
 you a translation of it. But it probably will not be 
 worth while, as we will get the same thing from other 
 sources. And just in keeping with the last quotation, 
 were several quotations made from Dr. Howell's work on 
 Baptism. Nowhere is the idea : here are men who have 
 given their opinion simply upon the subject. Now, I 
 want to bring you 'some history. I refer you to page 
 202 of Cave's "Primitive Christianity:" 
 
 " From the persons ministering, we proceed to the 
 persons upon whom it was conferred, and they were of 
 two sorts, infanU and adult persons." 
 
 This is an assertion of Mr. Cave's ; let us see how he 
 proves it : 
 
 " How far the baptizing of infants is included in our 
 Savioufs institution, is not my work to dispute ; but, 
 certainly, if in controverted cases the constant practice 
 of the Church, and those who immediately succeeded 
 the apostles, be (as no man can deny it is) the best in- 
 terpreter of the laws of Christ, the dispute, one would 
 think, should be at an end ; for that it always was the 
 custorn to receive the children of Christian parents into 
 the Church by baptism, we have sufficient evidence, for 
 the greatest part of the most early writers, Irenceus, Ter- 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. , 157 
 
 tttllian^ Origen^ Cyprian^ &c., whose testimonies I do 
 ^ not produce, because I find them collected by others, 
 and the argument thence so forcible and conclusive, 
 that the most zealous opponents of Infant Baptism know 
 not how to evade it. " 
 
 There is the opinion of a man, not given as this man's 
 (Neander's) opinion, without reference to authority, but 
 given upon the authority of Irenus, TertuUian, Origen, 
 Cyprian : these are the men who support it. Let us go 
 on a little farther : 
 
 " The testimony being so clear, and not the least shadow 
 that I know of, in these times, of anything to make against 
 it. There was, indeed, in Cyprian's time, a controversy 
 about the baptism of infants, not ivhether they ought to 
 be baptized (for of that there was no doubt), but con- 
 cerning the time when it was to be administered, 
 whether on the second or thirds or whether, as circum- 
 cision of old, to be deferred till the eighth day. For the 
 determining of which, Cyprian, sitting in council with 
 sixty-six bishops, writes a synodical epistle to Fidus, to 
 let him know that it was not necessary to be deferred 
 so long." 
 
 (And here he quotes from Fidus' letter.) 
 
 MR. MASSEY'S FIFTH ADDRESS. 
 
 Mr. Massey : One would have supposed, had he 
 arrived here just before the close of the gentleman's 
 argument, that this (Cave) was the only Church history 
 that had been presented here to-day. He speaks of 
 Mosheim, and Neander, and G-ieseler, as giving their 
 opinions, and says : " Now I want to bring you some 
 
158 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 history y It requires a pretty good degree of faith 
 and charity to appreciate such an argument as this, 
 if it may be called an argument, without losing some 
 appreciation of the arguer. And then another thing 
 in connection with these histories. These Church 
 histories are acknowledged by the Christian Church 
 throughout the length and breadth of the land, to be 
 the most able and faithful Church histories that have 
 ever been written. Now, Mr. CouUing tells you that 
 they have only spoken of adults^ and argues that their 
 silence with regard to infants justifies the conclusion 
 that infants were baptized. Now, if infants were bap- 
 tized^ and these men gave no account of it, were they 
 faithful historians? Did they state what took place? 
 They declare that in the first, second, and third centu- 
 ries, baptism was preceded by a profession of faith. 
 He says this was only in reference to adults. I know it 
 is in reference to adults, because infant baptism ivas 
 unknown to the age. He knows these historians state 
 all the practice of the Church with regard to the admin- 
 istration of baptism ; and that the reason why they give 
 no account of infant baptism is, that infant baptism was 
 not practised. I really pity the languishing cause that 
 requires such a defence. And I felt for the gloomy fore- 
 bodings of those who have endeavored to cheer by smiles 
 and bows and expressions of approbation, when they saw 
 their champion endeavoring to sustain his theory by 
 such sophistry as this. Unless the gentleman is more 
 ignorant of Church history than I could have supposed 
 him to be, he knows that not one single trace of infant 
 baptism can be found earlier than the middle of the sec- 
 ond century. 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 159 
 
 With regard to his criticism upon the commission, 
 nothing more need be said. If I were to tell any of you 
 to go and bring me a man^ you would understand that 
 that direction gave you no authority to bring me a child, 
 I have already shown you that baptism is a positive 
 institution, deriving all its authority from the insti tutor 
 himself. And when he gives directions to baptize per- 
 sons who give evidence that they possess the qualifica- 
 tions he prescribes, and says nothing of others, and as 
 no authority to baptize at all was given until he gave it 
 to his disciples, they have only authority to baptize 
 those mentioned ; none others. He told them to bap- 
 tize believers^ and they must follow his directions. 
 
 The gentleman asks why I have not said anything 
 about the Peshito-Syriac edition. I suppose some of 
 you, my hearers, were as much startled as I was yester- 
 day at the great sensitiveness of the gentleman when I 
 spoke about quoting from memory. I did not mean for 
 a moment that the gentleman would misquote any por- 
 tion of history or any commentary. But, remembering 
 that he and I, as all other men, are liable to make mis- 
 takes, and to misquote unintentionally when quoting 
 from memory, I spoke of the importance of having the 
 witnesses present. And I was rather surprised to find 
 the gentleman taking as a personal reflection what I 
 certainly did not so intend. But what a change has a 
 single day produced ! No one need ask, " Upon what 
 food hath this modern Caesar fed, that he hath grown so 
 great ?" He says he not only saio, but actually " con- 
 versed with a man who had had the Peshito edition in 
 his hand V And then he presents to you, as '' demon- 
 stration strong as Holy Writy^^ this mere hearsay of 
 
160 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 what is in the Peshito edition as sustaining his view 
 of Lydia and her family. He gives it to you, not even 
 as a quotation from memory^ hut upon his memory 
 of the say-so of some one else, '• lolio actually had the 
 Peshito edition in his hand, and who talked ivith him^ 
 Now, is this Peshito edition of any more authority 
 than the original from which it was translated ? Is it 
 hetter than the translation of King James, which has 
 been eulogized as the best translation of the word of 
 God extant? He not only brings you here hearsay 
 testimony, differing entirely from both the Greek 
 and English Scriptures, but pronounces it '' demon- 
 stration strong as Holy Writ ! I /" He says that 
 some of the ripest Grreek scholars in Enrope and 
 America understand olKog and oUta as he does. 'Well, 
 I do not know who they are. He has affirmed this as a 
 fact ; but has not brought any testimony to prove it. 
 He has simply affirmed it. He talks a great deal about 
 proof and not affirmation ; and yet he is very fluent in 
 ''^affirmations''^ himself. I cannot meet his "ripe 
 scholars," for they are not here ; he has not even given 
 me their names. When I present testimony, I have it 
 here for him to examine. He rather complains of my 
 bringing these " tomes of books," as he calls them ; 
 these commentaries and authorities. Here are passages 
 of Scripture about which he and I differ. Who are to 
 determine which of us is right ? I say a passage means 
 one thing, and I bring all the light I can from the Word 
 of Grod to sustain my construction of it. He says it 
 means another thing, and brings forward what he can to 
 sustain his construction of it. When we still differ as 
 to its teaching, I bring my witnesses, and show that 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 161 
 
 these able scholars and theologians — Pedobaptists like 
 himself — say that / am right. Suppose two of you go 
 before arbitrators to settle some question between you ; 
 one of you states one thing, and the other another. 
 The arbitrators say, " We cannot decide between you ; 
 you must bring your testimony." When it is brought, 
 the decision of the question will be determined by the 
 preponderance of that evidence. If this question be 
 settled by the weight of testimony, either Divine or hu- 
 man, infant baptism is gone to the winds. 
 
 Having noticed the gentleman's last address, I pro- 
 ceed with the arguments I was presenting. 
 
 Infant baptism originated in and is sustained by erro- 
 neous vieivs of baptismal efficacy. This reminds me of 
 another of the gentleman's authorities, which I will no- 
 tice before proceeding. The gentleman introduced Tay- 
 lor ; a most ultra advocate of infant baptism, and quotes 
 from him different "obituary notices" from the tomb- 
 stones in the Catacombs at Rome. The earliest date I 
 see given to any of them, is 367. Suppose it to be true, 
 that those relics of papal superstition were all genuine 
 records ; What of it ? I have shown you, from the best 
 ecclesiastical histories known to the world, that infant 
 baptism was introduced among other corruptions of the 
 Church, in the third century. And he gives you what 
 he terms obituary notices from tombstones, made after 
 that time. That is a most beautiful mode, indeed, of 
 showing what the Apostolic practice was. Is that the 
 Scriptural authority of the gentleman ? 
 
 Having shown you ivhen infant baptism originated, 
 I will now show you ivhy and how it originated. Here 
 is the Encyclopedia Americana, a work of no denomi- 
 
162 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 national character, but designed to give information 
 upon almost every question of history in the past ages 
 of the world. On page 558, vol. i., we find this piece 
 of history, which I hope, with others that I shall give, 
 will even satisfy the gentleman upon a point upon which 
 he seems so poorly informed, and upon which he calls 
 so loudly for information, viz., that professed believers 
 only were baptized in the first centuries : 
 
 ''In the first centuries of the Christian era, when, 
 generally speaking, adults only joined the new sect, the 
 converted [catechumens, q. v.] were diligently instructed ; 
 the power of this sacrament to procure perfect remission 
 of sins was taught, and, while some converts delayed 
 their baptism from a feeling of sinfulness not yet re- 
 moved, others did the same from the wish to gratify 
 corrupt desires a little longer, and to have their sins for- 
 given all at once. But the doctrine of St. Augustine, 
 that the unbaptized were irrevocably damned, changed 
 all this delay into haste, and made the baptism of chil- 
 dren general." 
 
 That was what originated infant baptism : the idea 
 that the unbaptized would be damned, led them to bap- 
 tize children. Neander, vol. i., page 313, says: 
 
 " The error became more firmly established, that 
 without external baptism no one could be delivered from 
 that inherent guilt — could be saved from the everlasting 
 punishment that threatened him, or raised to eternal 
 life ; and when the notion of a magical influence, a 
 charm connected with the sacraments, continually gained 
 ground, the theory was finally evolved of the uncondi- 
 tional necessity of infant baptism^ 
 
 When this doctrine gained ground — that baptism and 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 163 
 
 salvation were connected, that no unbaptized person 
 could be saved — they evolved the theory of the neces- 
 sity of infant baptism. Kitto's " Cyclopaedia of Biblical 
 Literature," page 287, says : 
 
 "Infant Baptism was established by neither Christ 
 nor the apostles. In all places where we find the neces- 
 sity of baptism notified, either in a dogmatic or histor- 
 ical point of view, it is evident that it was only meant 
 for those who were capable of comprehending the word 
 preached, and of being converted to Christ by an act of 
 their own will. A pretty sure testimony of its non-exis- 
 tence in the apostolic age may be inferred from 1 Cor. 
 vii. 14, since Paul would certainly have referred to the 
 baptism of children for their holiness. — (Comp. Neander, 
 Hist, of the Planting, &o., vol. i., page 206.) But even 
 in later times, several teachers of the Church, such 
 as Tertullian (De Bapt. 18) and others, reject this cus- 
 tom ; indeed, his Church in general (that of North 
 Africa) adhered longer than others to the primitive reg- 
 ulations. Even when baptism of children was already 
 theoretically derived from the apostles, its practice was 
 nevertheless for a long time confined to a maturer age." 
 
 Who can possibly desire clearer testimony upon this 
 point ? The same erroneous views arose as to giving 
 the '' Lord's Supper" to infants. (My brother inadver- 
 tently read some testimony I had noted upon that point, 
 and therefore I need not read it.) This practice was 
 continued up to the twelfth century, and then it was 
 abolished because they had the idea of a peculiar eiFi- 
 cacy connected with this sacrament, and they feared 
 that infants would waste some of the Eucharist as it 
 was presented to them. And for this reason they 
 
164 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 introduced the custom of dipping the bread into the 
 wine and giving it to the baptized infants. Finally, 
 they abolished infant communion altogether. . 
 
 Again : Infant baptism rests upon the doctrine of '' bap- 
 tismal regeneration^'''' and casts suspicion upon the doc- 
 trine of infant salvation. Infant salvation is a doctrine 
 dear to every Baptist heart. We cannot look with toler- 
 ation, even, upon anything that casts suspicion or doubt 
 upon the salvation of those who die in infancy. And 
 is it not marvellous that those who manifest so much 
 concern about '' the dear little children," are daily, by 
 their doctrines and practices, casting suspicion upon this 
 very doctrine ? They are saying, virtually^ "The in- 
 fant is not safe where Jesus Christ has placed it, and 
 ive must perform some act upon it before salvation can 
 be secured to it." To show that my construction of 
 their doctrine and practice is correct, I will begin at the 
 fountain liead^ and trace infant baptism along in its 
 resjular order. I will read first from the " Grolden Man- 
 ual," a Roman Catholic ritual, showing the manner of 
 administering the rite of baptism in that Church. On 
 page 553 we read : 
 
 " The moment having arrived in which another hu- 
 man being is to become a child of G-od and a member 
 of the body of Christ, the priest, to denote that sorrow 
 is about to be changed into joy, changes his stole, and 
 instead of the violet, puts on a white one. 
 
 " Then follows the profession of faith, after which the 
 sacrament of regeneration is thus administered : while 
 the godfather and godmother both hold or touch their god- 
 child, the priest pours the baptismal water on his head 
 three times in the form of a cross, repeating the sacra- 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 165 
 
 mental words in such manner, that the three pourings 
 of the water concur with the pronouncing of the three 
 names of the Divine Persons. The water is poured three 
 times, while the words are pronounced but once, to show 
 that the Three Persons unite in the reo^eneration of man 
 
 o 
 
 in holy baptism." 
 
 At the renewal of the vows by the person who has 
 been baptized, this is the prayer to be offered (p. 564) : 
 
 "Above all, I thank Thee for this grace of holy Bap- 
 tism, which hath preserved and sanctified in me all thy 
 gifts, and surpasseth man's understanding. By baptism I 
 was admitted into the bosom of the Church : I was made 
 thy child : the gates of heaven were opened unto me." 
 
 Who denies that baptismal regeneration is taught 
 there ? 
 
 I now invite your attention to the Prayer-Book of the 
 Protestant Episcopal Church, page 105 : 
 
 " Almighty and immortal G-od, the aid of all who 
 need, the helper of all who flee to thee for succor, the 
 life of those who believe, and the resurrection of the 
 dead : we call upon thee for this infant, that he, coming 
 to thy holy Baptism, may receive remission of sin, by 
 spiritual regeneration." 
 
 Page 107: 
 
 " Seeing now, dearly beloved brethren, that this child 
 is regenerate, and grafted into the body of Christ's 
 Church, let us give thanks unto Almighty Grod for these 
 benefits, and with one accord make our prayers unto 
 him that this child may lead the rest of his life accord- 
 ing to this beginning." 
 
 Page 115 : 
 
 ^^ Question. Who gave you this name? 
 
166 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 ^^Ansiver. My sponsors in Baptism ; wherein I was 
 made a member of Christ, the child of Grod, and an in- 
 heritor of the Kingdom of heaven." 
 
 Now, I ask if the doctrine of baptismal regeneration 
 can be more plainly taught than it is taught in both of 
 these works ? To show you that I give a correct con- 
 struction of this language, I invite your attention to a 
 work called " Mercy to Babes." It is written by William 
 Adams, Presbyter of the Protestant Episcopal Church, 
 in the diocese of Wisconsin. On page 68 he says, in 
 reference to those passages which I have quoted : 
 
 " But the reader will say, Who believes them as they 
 stand, without any salvo, in the plain, evident sense of 
 them ? Who believes that baptism is for the remission of 
 sins ? Who believes that it is a saving ordinance ? Who 
 believes that we are buried with him by baptism ; or, 
 that therein we are born of water and the Spirit ? 
 
 " The reader will remember that I am a clergyman 
 of the Episcopal Church, and that I come before him in 
 no disguise of affected candor, word, liberality, or monk- 
 meekness, but as what I am, a clergyman of the Church, 
 and as such I say I do. I say, moreover, that it would 
 seem by the next paragraph, that, as a clergyman of 
 the Church, I must be either very dishonest, very stu- 
 pid, or very much influenced by prejudice, if I do not, 
 owing to the book we use, take these in the literal and 
 manifest sense. 
 
 *' When I catechize children, I ask them, ' Who gave 
 you your name ?' and they reply, ' My sponsors in 
 baptism, wherein I was made a member of Christ, a 
 child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven.' 
 An answer manifestly consistent with the literal sense 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 167 
 
 of these texts : manifestlj inconsistent with the other 
 notions. In the service for baptism, of infants or adults, 
 after baptism, I declare to them, that they ' are now- 
 born again, and made heirs of everlasting life.' Or, in 
 that of adults, that ' these persons are regenerate, and 
 grafted into the body of Christ's Church.' In a solemn 
 prayer before the whole congregation, I implore God to 
 give the holy Spirit, ' that these persons, being born 
 again and made heirs of everlasting salvation, may con- 
 tinue his servants.' i\.nd likewise I apply most plainly 
 the passage in St. Peter, asserting ' baptism to be a sav- 
 ing ordinance.' And lastly, in the solemn Creed, in 
 which both minister and people, with one voice together, 
 confess upon the days of communion, I plainly declare 
 myself to believe ' in one baptism for the remission of 
 sins.' " 
 
 On page 70, he says : 
 
 " This is the case with the twelve hundred clergy of 
 the Church in this country : the eighteen thousand of 
 the English Church. And this, I will say, before Lu- 
 ther was, was the opinion of the Church from Christ 
 downward ; and more than this, the ordinary common- 
 sense man, when he comes to think of it, will see is 
 
 the plain doctrine of the Scriptures The doctrine, 
 
 then, w^hich I say, is the doctrine of the Scriptures upon 
 this matter, and most plainly the doctrine of the texts 
 that I have quoted, is this : that in baptism received 
 upon repentance with living faith, we ' are born of water 
 and the Spirit.' And this embraces the following con- 
 sequences : first, the remission of sins ; second, the be- 
 ing introduced into the kingdom of heaven, that is, the 
 Church of G-od ; third, the gift of sufficient grace ; 
 
168 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 fourth, the dwelling of the Holy Spirit in us ; fifth, the 
 mystical union of Christ our Lord with man, whereby 
 we are made partakers of his life and resurrection — 
 power; and sixth, that the baptized are in the commu- 
 nion of saints, having a participation in all the prayers 
 and spiritual blessings of the holy on earth and the holy 
 departed, and are also under the immediate guardian- 
 ship and care of the holy angels, whereby he ministers 
 to them that love him. 
 
 " All these gifts are to him who, being of mature 
 years, received baptism in faith ; or, to the helpless and 
 innocent babe, gifts conveyed through God's grace, by 
 his sacrament of baptism. If this be a true statement, 
 are there not reasons enough for the baptism of infants, 
 as well as those of maturer years? Is it not sufficiently 
 manifest, that the forgetting these truths is the reason 
 why infants are not baptized ?" 
 
 On page 139, he says : 
 
 " Now, although actual guilt and actual stain be not 
 in infants, still there is a stain of nature, and this may 
 be blotted out, this may be cleansed, this may be washed 
 in Christ^s blood. And this being remitted or blotted 
 out, the term remission is truly and really applied to 
 infants who have not committed actual sin. Infants, 
 then, are baptized for the remission of original sin, that 
 that they may be washed in the blood of Christ, that 
 being born the children of wrath, they may be made 
 the children of grace." 
 
 I could read you similar extracts from various other 
 pages, but I fear my time will expire before I bring this 
 argument to a conclusion. I have shown you that thi§ 
 is the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church and of 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 169 
 
 the Episcopal Church. I now present you a work called 
 " Doctrinal Tracts,^^ " published by order of the G-en- 
 eral Conference :" a Methodist publication, from which 
 I will show you that the same doctrine is taught by 
 Methodists, In this work is a treatise written by 
 John "Wesley, the founder of the " Methodist Society. "^^ 
 It is now published by the " General Conference of the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church,'''' in a volume of tracts 
 setting forth their doctrines for the instruction of their 
 own people. I will read from page 246 of this treatise 
 by the father of Methodism : 
 
 " What are the benefits we receive by baptism? is 
 the next point to be considered. And the first of these 
 is, the washing away the guilt of original sin by the 
 application of the m^erits of Christ's death. That we 
 are all born under the guilt of Adam's sin, and that all 
 sin deserves eternal misery, was the unanimous sense of 
 the ancient Church, as it is expressed in the Ninth Ar- 
 ticle of our own." 
 
 This was the Episcopal Church : the Methodists have 
 now adopted this v^ork, and it becomes their doctrine. 
 
 " And the Scripture plainly asserts that we were 
 ' shapen in iniquity, and in sin did our mother conceive 
 us ;' that ' we were all by nature children of wrath, and 
 dead in trespasses and sins ;' that ' in Adam all die ;' 
 that ' by one man's disobedience all were made sinners ;' 
 that ' by one man sin entered into the world, and death 
 by sin : which came upon all men, because all had 
 sinned.' This plainly includes infants, for they too die ; 
 therefore they have sinned, but not by actual sin ; there- 
 fore by original ; else what need have they of the death 
 of Christ ? Yea : ' death reigned from Adam to Moses, 
 
 8 
 
170 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 even over those who had not sinned " actually" accord- 
 ing to the similitude of Adam's transgression.' This, 
 which can relate to infants only, is a clear proof that 
 the whole race of mankind are obnoxious both to the 
 guilt and punishment of Adam's transgression. But, 
 *as by the offence of one, judgment came upon all men 
 to condemnation ; so by the righteousness of one, the 
 free gift came upon all men to justification of life.' And 
 the virtues of this free gift, the merits of Christ's life 
 and death, are applied to us in baptism. 'He gave him- 
 self for the Church, that he might sanctify and cleanse 
 it with the washing of water by the word,' Eph. v. 25, 
 26 : namely, in baptism, the ordinary instrument of our 
 justification. Agreeably to this, our Church prays in 
 the baptismal office, that the person to be baptized may 
 be ' washed and sanctified by the Holy Ghost, and, be- 
 ing delivered from God's wrath, receive remission of 
 sins, and enjoy the everlasting benediction of his heav- 
 enly w^ashing;' and declares in the rubric at the end of 
 the office, ' It is certain, by God's word, that children 
 who are baptized, dying before they comm.it actual sin, 
 are saved.' And this is agreeable to the unanimous 
 judgment of all the ancient fathers. By baptism we 
 enter into covenant with God ; into that everlasting 
 covenant which he hath commanded forever." 
 
 What becomes of 2/?zbaptized infants, " dying before 
 they commit actual sin ?" Are they not saved? 
 
 On page 248 he says : 
 
 " By baptism w^e are admitted into the Church, and 
 consequently made members of Christ, its head. The 
 Jews were admitted into the Church by circumcision, 
 so are the Christians by baptism. For ' as many as are 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. l7l 
 
 baptized into Christ,' in his name, ' have' thereby ' put 
 on Christ,' G-al. iii. 27 ; that is, are mystically united 
 to Christ, and made one with him. For ' by one Spirit 
 we are all baptized into one body,' 1 Cor. xii. J 3, 
 namely, the Church, ' the body of Christ,' Eph. iv. 12. 
 From which spiritual, vital union with him proceeds 
 the influence of his grace on those that are baptized : as 
 from our union with the Church, a share in all its priv- 
 ileges, and in all the promises Christ has made to it." 
 
 " By baptism, we who were ' by nature children of 
 wrath,' are made the children of G-od. And this re- 
 generation which our Church in so many places ascribes 
 to baptism, is more than barely being admitted into the 
 Church, though commonly connected therewith ; being 
 ' grafted into the body of Christ's Church, we are made 
 the children of God by adoption and grace.' This is 
 grounded on the plain words of our Lord. ' Except a 
 man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he can- 
 not enter into the kingdom of Grod.' John iii. 5. By 
 w^ater, then, as a means, the water of baptism, we are 
 regenerated or born again ; whence it is also called by 
 the apostle, ' the washing of regeneration,' " Page 250. 
 " In all ages the outward baptism is a means of the 
 inward." P. 251. " If infants are guilty of original 
 sin, then they are proper subjects of baptism ; seeing, 
 in the ordinary way, they cannot be saved, unless this 
 be washed away by baptism." 
 
 If the doctrine of baptismal regeneration was ever 
 more plainly taught by any being on God's earth, I 
 have never seen it. I now present you a work upon 
 the subject of baptism, by Thomas 0. Summers, pub- 
 lished by John Early for the " Methodist Church 
 
172 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 South." I am bringing the gentleman directly home — 
 tracing' him to his very door. On page 48, he says : 
 
 *' What if the thought of your pious concern for 
 them, even while they were hanging upon the breast, 
 should in after life, rouse their moral sense, and quicken 
 them into religious feeling, and lead to their salvation, 
 are you quite sure that their baptism would have 
 nothing to do with their salvation ? Are you indeed 
 certain that they would be saved without it ?" 
 
 Does that cast no suspicion upon the doctrine of infant 
 salvation ? On page 155, he says : 
 
 '' Baptism ratifies our title to the covenant blessings 
 which it symbolizes, and pledges our discharge of cor- 
 responding obligation. The federal character of the 
 ordinance implies this. It is not merely a sign to denote 
 the blessings and obligations of the covenant, but also 
 a signum confirmans, a seal or pledge confirming to us 
 the bestovvment of the former, and binding us to the 
 performance of the latter. # # * # ^ Everything, 
 therefore, necessary to our salvation, and especially sanc- 
 tifying grace, is pledged to us on the part of Grod in this 
 covenant ; and baptism is a pledge by which it is 
 guaranteed to us." 
 
 Suppose an infant is 7iot baptized ; then, according to 
 this doctrine, he has no guarantee of the blessings of 
 this covenant. Mr. Wesley says that his Church holds 
 that baptized infants, dying in infancy, are saved. 
 Does not that lead to the conclusion that w?^baptized 
 infants are not saved? Who dees not see that such 
 doctrines cast suspicion upon the doctrine of infant sal- 
 vation ? This erroneous, I may say, superstitious doc- 
 trine — the doctrine that the unbaptized will be irrevoca- 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 173 
 
 bly lost, is the vef'p source from which infant baptism 
 
 sprung-, and the verj/ foundation upon which it stands. 
 
 [Time expired.] 
 
 MR. COULLING'S FIFTH REPLY. 
 
 Mr. CouLLiNG : I was in the midst of an argument, 
 which I had not concluded, when my time expired. I 
 referred to some testimonies that had been offered here, 
 and said they were the opinions of those several writers. 
 For instance, Mosheim, in the place quoted from, is not 
 giving history, but his ideas of what he has got from 
 history. Do you know how a man writes history ? He 
 sits down and examines all the fragmentary matter he 
 can get, in every possible shape, from every possible 
 source. He gets all the information he can, and then 
 sits down and writes his own views. Take up Hume's 
 History of England, and then Macaulay's History of 
 England, and see what a different representation these 
 men make of identically the same transactions, and you 
 will be struck with the most profound astonishment. 
 A man will take up all the fragments he can find from 
 every source, as Mosheim did, and then he will sit down 
 and write his own views of the matter. That is what I 
 mean. Now, I read you from Cane's history, and I said 
 I will read you history, because he quotes from those 
 old writers. It was a fact of history that Cyprian called 
 a synod of sixty-six bishops, to decide that ever since 
 the apostles, infants had been baptized. That is not 
 Cane's opinion, but history. But Mosheim gives his 
 opinion. The gentleman says these men were giving 
 
174 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 the whole account of the history of baptism — that 
 Mosheim gives the whole of it ; and I can find passage 
 after passage in Mosheim, directly to the point, so far as 
 opinion is concerned, that from the time of the apostles 
 to this time, the baptism of children has been practised 
 in the Church. 
 
 Mr. Massey : T defy you to find one such passage ! 
 
 Mr. CouLLiNG : Probably no historian is more clear 
 upon the subject. 
 
 Mr. Massey : Just shoiv it, then ! 
 
 Mr. C CULLING : I have no time, now. 
 
 Mr. Massey : Then take two hours more. 
 
 Mr. CouLLiNG : No, sir ; I will take it all back, for I 
 do not want it. Take this history I have brought here ; 
 according to this history, from the days of the apostles, 
 the baptism of children was always practised in the 
 Church. Let me show how. Cyprian, sitting in coun- 
 cil with sixty-six bishops, writes a synodical letter to 
 Fidus. 
 
 Mr. Massey : At what period was that ? 
 
 Mr. CouLLiNG : I do not recollect the date. 
 
 Mr. Massey : I would like to know at what time this 
 council was held. 
 
 Mr. CouLLiNG : I don't know ; I cannot tell. Cyprian 
 writes a synodical letter to Fidus-^ 
 
 '' to let him know that it was not necessary to be 
 
 deferred so long [baptism, until the eighth day], and 
 that it was their universal judgment and resolution that 
 the mercy and grace of Grod was not to be denied to any, 
 though as soon as he was born ; concluding that it was 
 the sentence of the council that none could be forbidden 
 baptism and the grace of G-od, which, as it was to be 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 175 
 
 observed and retained toward all men, so much more 
 toward infants and new-horn children. And that this 
 sentence of theirs was no novel doctrine, St. Augustine 
 assures us, where speaking concerning this synodical 
 determination, he tells us that in this Cyprian did not 
 make any new decree, but kept the faith of the Church 
 most firm and true. 
 
 '' I shall only take notice of one place more out of 
 Cyprian^ which methinks evidently makes for this pur- 
 pose, when describing the great wickedness and miser- 
 able condition of the lapsed^ such as, to avoid persecu- 
 tion, had done sacrifice to the idols, he urges this as 
 one of the last and highest aggravations, that by their 
 apostasie their infants and children were exposed to 
 ruine, and had lost that ivhich they had obtained at their 
 first coming' into the worldP 
 
 My friend turned to page 444 of Riddle's " Christian 
 Antiquities," and read an extract. I will just read on a 
 little : 
 
 '' It appears, by the testimony of the earliest Chris- 
 tian writers, that the Church at first regarded all per- 
 sons, without any restriction as to nation, sex, or age^ 
 as capable of baptism. And it is evident that children 
 were not excluded" from a participation in this rite, from 
 a celebrated passage of Irenseus, as well as from allu- 
 sions to the prevailing practice of the Church in the 
 writings of Tertullian (who disapproved of infant bap- 
 tism) and Cyprian, as well as from the controversy 
 which arose on the subject in the African Church. But, 
 although from a very early period high notions were en- 
 tertained respecting the supernatural powers and efficacy 
 of baptism, and this sacrament was supposed to imprint 
 
176 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 an indelible character upon the soul, the Church did not 
 lose sight of its moral tendency and virtue, or cease to 
 regard it as an important branch of discipline. And, 
 accordingly, the standing rule of baptizing all appli- 
 cants was subject to certain limitations and exceptions." 
 
 And he goes on here and excepts idiots and dead per- 
 sons, and some other characters. There is testimony 
 upon the subject, of 'just precisely the same character 
 which has been brought here by my friend : directly at 
 issue with what he has read, except that his authorities 
 simply express unsupported opinion, while this man 
 brings Cyprian, TertuUian, and others, to support the 
 truth of what he says. Again, he says that I complained 
 of him that he did not bring forward anything but proof 
 of adult baptism. He says he cannot do it, because 
 there was no other sort of baptism. Just the same as- 
 sumption of the thing to be proved that I complained of 
 yesterday. And then he reads this from one man, and 
 that from another, and that from another, while the only 
 way to get at what they really mean is to read all that 
 they say upon the subject, which would take ten times 
 as long as you would sit here and listen. It is just as 
 impossible to get at all that a man says upon a subject by 
 reading a single paragraph, as it is to read a whole book 
 through by reading one passage from it. He read the 
 following from the " Encyclopssdia Americana :" 
 
 " In the first centuries of the Christian era, when, 
 generally speaking, adults only joined the new sect, the 
 converted (catechumens, q. v.) were diligently instructed : 
 the power of this sacrament to procure perfect remission 
 of sins, was taught, and, while some converts delayed 
 their baptism from a feeling of sinfulness not yet re- 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 177 
 
 moved, others did the same from a wish to gratify cor- 
 rupt desires a little longer, and to have their sins all 
 forgiven at once." 
 
 That was the error of Tertullian, and the reason why 
 he opposed infant haptism. He supposed that haptism 
 operates to the remission of sins, and that persons should 
 not be baptized until they were old, about to die, so as 
 to have all their sins forgiven at once. And then he 
 introduced another heresy, that sins committed after 
 baptism could not be forgiven. 
 
 Neander, vol. i., page 313, was referred to by the 
 brother : 
 
 " The error became more firmly established, that 
 without external baptism no one could be delivered from 
 that inherent guilt — " 
 
 That was the error ; not that the baptism of children 
 was the error : 
 
 " could be saved from the everlasting punishment 
 
 which threatened him, or raised to eternal life ; and 
 when the notion of a magical influence, a charm con- 
 nected with the sacrament, continually gained ground, 
 the theory was finally evolved of the unconditional neces- 
 sity of infant baptism^ 
 
 Not of the necessity of infant baptism, but of the 
 unconditional necessity of infant baptism ; and the full 
 term is italicized. Prior to that time they did not hold 
 that if a child died while unbaptized it would be lost. But 
 now the error had gone so far that it was held, that if 
 he was not baptized, he would not be saved ; and, there- 
 fore, they set up the idea of the unconditional necessity 
 of infant baptism. 
 
 Reference is also made to Kitto, page 287 ; 
 8# 
 
178 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 '' Infant baptism was established neither by Christ 
 nor the apostles. In all places where we find the neces- 
 sity of baptism notified, either in a dogmatic or histori- 
 cal point of view, it is evident that it was only meant 
 for those who were capable of comprehending the word 
 preached, and of being converted to Christ by the act of 
 their own will. A pretty* sure testimony of its non- 
 existence in the apostolic age may be inferred from 
 1 Cor. vii. 14, since Paul would certainly have referred 
 to the baptism of children for their holiness. — (Comp. 
 Neander, Hist, of the Planting, &c., i., page 206.) 
 But even in later times, several teachers of the Church, 
 such as Tertilllian {De Bapt., 18), and others, reject 
 this custom ; indeed, his Church in general (that of 
 North Africa) adhered longer than others to the primitive 
 regulations. Even where baptism of children was al- 
 ready derived theoretically from the apostles, its prac- 
 tice was, nevertheless, for a long time confined to a 
 maturer age." 
 
 That is not history, but Mr. Kitto's opinion upon the 
 subject ; directly' in opposition to the positive testimony 
 of Cyprian, Tertullian, Fidus, and sixty bishops, a long 
 time before him. 
 
 Mr. Massey : I would be very glad if you would let 
 the audience know when those sixty bishops met. 
 
 Mr. CouLLiNG : The gentleman says that infant bap- 
 tism casts an imputation upon infant salvation. Now, 
 if we contended, as he says the Roman Catholics do in 
 the Grolden Manual, for baptismal regeneration, if this 
 congregation, who have been, some of them, listening to 
 Methodist preachers ever since they can recollect, believe 
 that Methodists ever did preach baptismal regeneration, 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 179 
 
 there would be some force ia that argument. If bap- 
 tism is to do that good to a person, we then do cast that 
 imputation. But as long as we say, and as our Church 
 says, and as the ministers of the Church always have 
 said — except Mr. "Wesley, and I will explain that pre- 
 sently — that baptism is not essential to salvation, nei- 
 ther of the adult nor of th^ infant, how do we cast an 
 imputation upon the salvation of infants ? What is the 
 meaning of baptism ? It is a seal and sign, is it not ? 
 Article 17 of our faith reads : 
 
 '' Baptism is not only the sign of profession to mark 
 the difference whereby Christians are distinguished from 
 others that are not baptized, but it is also a sign of re- 
 generation, or a new birth. The baptism of young chil- 
 dren is to be retained in the Church." 
 
 There is the article of our faith, telling us what we 
 are to believe. No ijitimation of baptismal regenera- 
 tion in it. Again, you are referred to the Episcopal 
 Prayer-Book. The Episcopal Church does not need my 
 defence. It is a known fact, that those of that Church 
 present will not deny, that there are some in that Church 
 who believe in baptismal regeneration. There is no 
 doubt about that. You can find writers in that Church 
 who do believe in that. Mr. Wesley believed in it, and 
 the very passage read from that doctrinal tract, was 
 written while Mr. Wesley was preaching as a presbyter 
 in the Church of England ; and I doubt not, that 
 tract was written before Mr. Wesley ever thought of 
 forming his United Societies. Oh ! but you have adopt- 
 ed that book ! Kow, that is the strangest idea of my 
 friend, I ever heard. Every book in which you can find 
 the imprint of the Methodist publishing house, or with 
 
180 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 a Methodist name in it — why, we adopt them all ? Be- 
 cause these tracts were published at 200 Mulberry 
 street, I am to be held responsible for the crossing of 
 every t and the dotting of every /, and everything that 
 is in it. Will he be held responsible for everything that 
 writers upon his side have said ? No ; and I would not 
 attempt to make him so.^ I would not pretend to oc- 
 cupy your time and your attention with what would re- 
 coil upon myself, and what you all would say was mani- 
 fest injustice. "We publish Mr. Wesley's sermons. 
 What for ? Because of their intrinsic excellence. Is 
 there a Methodist in all this congregation that believes 
 in the resurrection of the brute creation ? Yet Mr. 
 Wesley teaches it. Do any of you believe it ? Not 
 one ; I never saw one since I was born that did. Mr. 
 Wesley, in his early days, did believe in the doctrine of 
 baptismal regeneration ; that is, with his interpretation 
 of it. Not baptismal regeneration, in the ordinary ac- 
 ceptation of that term — not what the gentleman and I 
 mean by it at this day — but a high metaphysical dis- 
 tinction, which it would require probably a full hour to 
 explain. Not what he and I mean by it at all ; but a 
 different thing altogether. If the gentleman will give 
 himself the trouble to read a few essays upon the sub- 
 ject, he will fmd altogether a different phase put upon 
 the subject. There are expressions used, metaphysical 
 expressions, and, I admit, not to be easily understood ; 
 and you will be very apt to do them injustice by taking 
 only a superficial view of the subject. Admit that he 
 did at that time believe it. Take up Mr. Wesley's ser- 
 mons ; read his sermon on regeneration ; his sermon 
 upozi salvation by faith ; read fifty other sermons, and 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 181 
 
 you will find that if in this passage baptismal regenera- 
 tion is taught, as my good brother says it is, as clearly 
 as it ever was taught, baptismal regeneration is repudi- 
 ated in other places with a force of argument, and a 
 force of logic, that would require a giant mind to grap- 
 ple with ; and w^hich, I venture to say, no man has yet 
 successfully answered. When Mr. Wesley was a young 
 man, he was a very different man in all his doctrinal 
 views from what he was when an older man ; and 
 everybody, who has given himself the trouble to read 
 his life, knows the change that took place in his senti- 
 ments from the time he left England for Greorgia, until 
 the time he commenced the establishment of his Socie- 
 ties. There are men here who know that I speak 
 the truth, and measure out even-handed justice to that 
 man. 
 
 Thomas 0. Summers is cited, and the following, frora 
 page 155 of his works, was read : 
 
 " Baptism ratifies our title to the covenant blessings 
 which it symbolizes, and pledges our discharge of cor- 
 responding obligations. The federal character of the 
 ordinance implies this. It is not merely a sign to denote 
 the blessings and obligations of the covenant, but also a 
 signum confinnans, a seal or pledge confirming to us 
 the bestowment of the former, and binding us to the 
 performance of the latter." 
 
 I think that is about as innocent as anything I have 
 heard. Is there anything of baptismal regeneration 
 taught in that ? That good brother, before he is done 
 here, will contend for everythuig that in spirit is taught 
 in that : that God is good, this is a sign and seal, and 
 the giving of it confirms to the world the blessings of 
 
182 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 the covenant. This is the sum and substance of it. 
 Thomas 0. Summers does not believe in baptismal 
 regeneration any more than he or I do. How then, in 
 the name of reason, can the baptism of infants imply, 
 how can it constructively prove, that we do not believe 
 that infants are saved unless they are baptized? So 
 far from that being a proof of it, it is the very reverse. 
 Every Methodist preacher that does his duty, every one 
 of them that baptizes infants, baptizes them because, as 
 I have proved to you, they are fit to be baptized. They 
 are saved by the merits of Christ ; they are in a state of 
 salvation, as my brother himself affirms them to be ; 
 and we only give them a seal, an outward sign of that 
 fact. And when we baptize a child, we say that that 
 same Saviour who died for the parent, died for the child. 
 Just as circumcision was the sign and the seal of the 
 righteousness possessed by Abraham, before he received 
 the sign and seal, and he never could have gotten it, if 
 he had not had the righteousness first. And the child 
 ought not to be baptized until he is fit to be saved. If 
 you doubt his going to heaven, do not baptize him. If 
 I was in a council, and this subject was before me, I 
 would move this resolution : that a man who believes 
 that a child who dies in infancy will be lost, he shall be 
 excused from having his child baptized. But how a 
 man can object to baptizing a child, when he thinks and 
 says he is fit for heaven and will be saved, I cannot con- 
 ceive ; and then to bring it up against us, as encouraging 
 a heresy, is the strangest thing I ever heard of in my life 
 [Intermission.] 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 183 
 
 MR. MASSEY'S SIXTH ADDRESS. 
 
 Mr. Massey : The only note I took of the last address 
 was with reference to the responsibility of the Methodist 
 Church for the statements of its writers. Mr. Coulling 
 inquires if he is to be held responsible for the writings 
 of Pedobaptists, or of the members of his Church. 
 By what means do you determine the doctrines of any 
 denomination? He appeals to this audience, to know 
 whether Methodist preachers have preached to them the 
 doctrine of baptismal regeneration. Now, I do not de- 
 termine the doctrines of any Church hy the sermons 
 that any particular individual may preach. The proper 
 mode of determining the doctrines of a Church is to ascer- 
 tain what their standard writers teach as their doctrines. 
 And allow me, in this connection, to remark, that I have 
 not the slightest idea of making an unkind reflection 
 upon any denomination whose writings I read here. I 
 take it for granted that men are honest when they pub- 
 lish their doctrines ; that they believe them to be correct. 
 And, if this be the case, they can take no exception to 
 my making known what those doctrines are. Certainly 
 every denomination ought to be glad for all to know 
 just what doctrines they hold. When I take up the 
 standard authors in the Episcopal, Methodist, Presbyte- 
 rian, or any other Church, to show what they declare to 
 be the doctrines of their Church, I am simply stating 
 or presenting to you what they declare, and no one can 
 take exception to it, or suppose that any unkind reflec- 
 tion is intended. 
 
 Now, let us examine the difficulty in which the gen- 
 tleman seems to find himself, about these *' Doctrinal 
 
184 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 Tracts." He says I hold him responsible before this 
 audience for everything I find published by the Metho- 
 dist Conference. Well, %vho is responsible for the doc- 
 trines published by the Methodist Conference ? If Meth- 
 odists are not responsible for them, ivho is responsible? 
 He tells you that the treatise from which I read was 
 Avritten by Mr. Wesley prior to his organizing his " sep- 
 arate societies." I do not care if it had been written 
 in the year one. The Methodist Conference publishes it 
 to the world as their doctrine, in a volume which they 
 denominate their " Doctrinal Tracts^ And here is 
 what they say in reference to it : 
 
 " Several of the following Tracts were formerly pub- 
 lished in the form of Discipline ; but as this undergoes 
 a revision once in four years, the General Conference of 
 1812 ordered these Tracts to be left out of the Dis- 
 cipline ; and, that they might still be within the reach 
 of every reader, directed them to be published in a sepa- 
 rate volume. They have been accordingly prepared and 
 published in this form, in a stereotyped edition. 
 
 " Several new Tracts are included in this volume, and 
 Mr. Wesley's ' Short Treatise on Baptism' is substituted 
 in the place of the extract from Mr. Edwards on that 
 subject." 
 
 Why was 3Ir. Wesleyh treatise substituted in place 
 of Mr. Edwards', if not for the reason that they recog- 
 nized this as teaching what they believe w,ore distinctly 
 than the extracts from Mr. Edwards, which they before 
 published ? I do not care by whom it was written — if 
 it had been written by a man making no profession of 
 religion at all. The Methodist Church takes it up, 
 adopts it, publishes it, and they are responsible for it. 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 185 
 
 How do they do it? As '•'Doctrinal Tracts of the 
 Methodist Episcopal Churchy The gentleman says he 
 is not responsible for this. I do not hold him personally 
 responsible for it. Bat if he stands here as the repre- 
 sentative of the Methodist Churchy then I do hold him 
 responsible J and through him^ I hold the ivhole Methodist 
 Church responsible for it. 
 
 If I were to follow the gentleman through all his wan- 
 derings, you would have a good illustration of a sigQ 
 upon a mechanic's shop I once heard of, viz.: "J.// man- 
 ner of twisting and turning done hereP When witnesses 
 are introduced, arguments presented, deductions and 
 conclusions drawn, that are irresistible, he, finding him- 
 self unable to refute them, rises and repudiates both 
 writers and their doctrines. Now, these men have gen- 
 erally been esteemed good men, true men ; they have 
 also been thought to know something, to be both schol- 
 ars and theologians of the first order among Pedobap- 
 tists; but it has been reserved for the Rev. Mr. Coulling 
 to write their epitaphs, setting them all down as igno- 
 ramuses, or, as univorthy of confidence. Poor men! 
 how I pity them 1 
 
 As the gentleman has himself presented the ^'Dis- 
 cipline of the Methodist Church South ^^^ I suppose he 
 will consider that authoritative. On page 159 we find 
 the minister's address prior to the baptism of infants. 
 It is in these words : 
 
 '' Dearly beloved, forasmuch as all men are conceived 
 and born in sin, and that our Saviour Christ saith. Ex- 
 cept a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he can- 
 not enter into the kingdom of God, I beseech you to 
 call "Upon God the Father, through our Lord Jesus 
 
186 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 Christ, that of his bounteous mercy he will grant to 
 this child that which by nature he cannot have ; that he 
 may be baptized with water and the Holy Ghost, and 
 received into Christ's holy Church, and be made a lively 
 member of the same." 
 
 This is liis prayer : 
 
 ''Almighty and everlasting Grod, who of thy great 
 mercy didst save Noah and his family in the ark from 
 perishing by water ; and also didst safely lead the children 
 of Israel, thy people, through the Red Sea, figuring 
 thereby thy holy baptism : we beseech thee, for thine 
 infinite mercies, that thou wilt look upon this child : 
 wash him and sanctify him with the Holy Grhost ; that 
 he, being delivered from thy wrath, may be received 
 into the ark of Christ's Church, and being steadfast in 
 faith, joyful through hope, and rooted in love, may so 
 pass the waves of this troublesome world, that finally he 
 may come to the land of everlasting life : there to reign 
 with thee, world without end, through Jesus Christ our 
 Lord. 
 
 "0 merciful God, grant that the old Adam in this 
 child may be so buried, that the new man may be raised 
 up in him. 
 
 " Grant that all carnal affections may die in him, 
 and things belonging to the spirit may live and grow 
 in himP 
 
 My friend says, he baptizes infants because they are 
 fit subjects for the kingdom of heaven, and therefore fit 
 subjects for baptism. But here is something different. 
 I thought yesterday I should have to hand him over to 
 Mr. Campbell, because he contended so earnestly for the 
 washing' away of sins by baptism. But that is not the 
 music he is willing to face to-day. He claims that in- 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 187 
 
 fants are already fit for heaven, and yet his own author- 
 ity seeks tfe qualify them for it by baptism. But to 
 continue : 
 
 " G-rant that he may have power and strength to have 
 victory, and to triumph against the devil, the world, and 
 the flesh. 
 
 '^ Grant that whosoever is dedicated to thee by our 
 office and ministry, may also be endued with heavenly 
 virtues, and everlastingly rewarded through thy mercy, 
 blessed Lord Grod, who dost live and govern all things, 
 world without end. 
 
 " Almighty, every-living G-od, whose most dearly- 
 beloved Son, Jesus Christ, for the forgiveness of our sins, 
 did shed out of his most precious side both water and 
 blood, and gave commandment to his disciples that they 
 should go teach all nations, and baptize them in the 
 name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
 Ghost; regard, we beseech thee, the supplications of 
 thy congregation ; and grant that this child, now to be 
 baptized, may receive the fulness of thy grace, and ever 
 remain in the number of thy faithful and elect children, 
 through Jesus Christ our Lord." 
 
 Now turn to page 27, and you will find : 
 
 " Baptism is not only a sign of profession and mark 
 of difference, whereby Christians are distinguished 
 from others that are not baptized ; but it is also a sign 
 of regeneration, or the neiv birth. The baptism of 
 young children is to be retained in the Church." 
 
 Now, I submit to any intelligent person in this audi- 
 ence, if this is not solemn mockery ; if it does not mean 
 that in the baptism of infants there is a recognition of 
 their regeneration. If that be not its meaning, it is an 
 
188 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 imposition on all Christendom, to use language which 
 would be recognized everywhere else as meaning this. 
 Should you find this language anywhere else, you would 
 he constrained to acknowledge such to be its import ; 
 and I dare say that the founder of the '' Methodist Socie- 
 ties" transmitted a little of his doctrine, as well as de- 
 nominational relations to his posterity. If this doctrine 
 be not taught here, then ivhat is ? They pray to Grod 
 that this child, now about to be baptized, may be re- 
 generated. They declare that in this act there is " a 
 sign of regeneration.'^'^ Now, they do one of two 
 things ; they either say to the world, when they apply 
 water to an infant, that they believe the child to be re- 
 generated, or they apply a false sign, a sign of some- 
 thing which they do not believe to exist. Which horn 
 of the dilemma will they take ? I do not say that fill 
 Methodists believe this ; f do not believe they do. But 
 I want you to understand the doctrines of your own 
 Church, and to see how foreign they are from the doc- 
 trines of the word of God. I do not believe that men 
 of intelligence will be much longer led blindly by lead- 
 ers, who try to cast all manner of mists and clouds 
 around these things, to prevent them from being under- 
 stood in their true naked character. 
 
 I wish, in conclusion of this argument, to present you 
 a few extracts from an article in the North British Re- 
 view, No. 34, August, 1852. It is a letter to the Right 
 Honorable Lord John Russell, member of Parliament, 
 by a member of the Middle Temple, London, 1851, in 
 which is discussed the Liturgy of the Church of Eng- 
 land. It reads : 
 
 " We are now brought to the last and most important 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 189 
 
 topic of our inquiry ; the service for infant baptism. 
 This is the great battlefield between Tractarians [a term 
 applied to the writers of the Oxford tracts in favor of 
 Puseyism] and Evangelicals, High- Churchmen and 
 Low- Churchmen, Catholics and Protestants, within the 
 Church of England. In the view taken of the nature 
 and effects of infant baptism, the vital distinction be- 
 tween Protestantism and every form of so-called Cath- 
 olic principles, is brought to light. To this service 
 Anglo- Catholicism appeals as a distinct recognition of 
 the sacerdotal (priestly) doctrine. ' It is the especial 
 province of Christian laymen at this time,' says the 
 author of the pamphlet, whose title we have prefixed to 
 this article, ' to protest against that noxious principle 
 of sacerdotal assumption which has been the fruitful 
 source of every superstitious perversion of gospel truth. 
 It is a fundamental error, and a root of almost in- 
 exhaustible fertility.' Most true is the remark. This 
 is the melancholy moral furnished by ecclesiastical his- 
 tory, from the second centary down to the nineteenth. 
 This is the fatal poison imbibed from the combined in- 
 fluences of Judaism and heathenism, which has con- 
 taminated the pure stream of the Christian faith, and, 
 preying on its vitals, has rendered it comparatively pow- 
 erless to realize those glorious hopes which its bright 
 dawn ushered into the world. This has been the prolific 
 seed of almost every corruption ; the dark and brooding 
 cloud which has obscured the brilliant ideal of Christian 
 truth, which has debased the standard of its purity ; and 
 by the interposition between (rod and the Christian of a 
 mediator as helpless and as sinful as himself, has striven 
 to obliterate the grand characteristic of his faith — his 
 
190 DEBATE OiN THE 
 
 belief of a personal union with Him who is both God 
 and man. This corruption strikes its roots into the low- 
 est depths of human nature ; and most hard is it to 
 eradicate. 
 
 " Sacerdotalism, unable to derive the smallest support 
 from the Christian Scriptures, invented the sacramental 
 theory as a basis on which to sustain itself. In the ab- 
 sence of all authority from revelation, it was felt that 
 the doctrine of a priesthood would be more easily accept- 
 ed, if functions could be devised which appeared to call 
 for the creation of an order of priests. Priests were not 
 needed for the purely ministerial functions of presiding 
 over public worship and ruling the Christian people. 
 But, if men's souls were to be saved by the eating of 
 bread and wine, converted by human operations into 
 the very body and blood of the Lord, and their sins 
 were to be washed away by the sprinkling of water, 
 what could be more natural than that such an awful 
 power over human destiny should be entrusted to a pe- 
 culiar and separate order of officers. It was no longer 
 in the depths of the human spirit, that the feelings, af- 
 fections, and character of man were to be renewed and 
 purified ; they were to be reached through the body. 
 An external agency was now needed ; and since on that 
 external agency, by a mysterious law, the state of the 
 soul depended, it seemed to require a special class of 
 men commissioned to wield its mighty influence. The 
 two parts of the theory exactly fitted together ; the soul 
 to be acted on through the body, and priests to adminis- 
 ter this action." 
 
 Again : 
 
 " If a spiritual effect has been produced on the soul of 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 
 
 191 
 
 the infant, it must have been produced wholly, on marl's 
 side, by the agency of the priest : his outward act has 
 altered the mind of the baptized person without any 
 consciousness of his own. This is a superstition which 
 contradicts directly the very idea of Christianity ; but it 
 is also the essence of sacerdotalism. It is indisputable^ 
 that if the term ' regeneration' expresses any spiritual 
 effect on the soul, the baptismal service countenances 
 the sacramental system and the priestly theory. And 
 precisely the same result follows also, if (as some High 
 Churchmen, who hesitated to ascribe to the sprinkling 
 of the baptismal water a transforming power on the 
 soul, have imagined) the effect of baptism is limited to 
 the washing away of original sin. This supposition im- 
 plies that an infant, who had the misfortune of dying 
 before baptism, necessarily retains the burden of original 
 guilt, and, as Augustine and many others have believedj 
 falls under eternal condemnation. How any person who 
 had obtained the faintest insight into the meaning of the 
 Christian religion, could have brought himself to believe 
 that God consigns an unconscious and helpless being to 
 eternal happiness or eternal misery, according as an ex- 
 ternal and purely mechanical operation has been per- 
 formed upon him by the instrumentality of others, is 
 what we have never been able to conceive. But cer- 
 tainly, if life or death, and that forever, depends upon 
 an outward rite, without the slightest mental concur- 
 rence on the part of the recipient, the fundamental idea 
 of a priesthood, the intervention of a human mediator 
 between Grod and man, is established : sacerdotalism has 
 gained its principle : it will have an easy victory over 
 every other impediment. 
 
192 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 *' But, thank God, there is not one word in the New 
 Testament which in the shghtest degree sanctions so 
 terrible a doctrine : we are spared the pain, to say tlie 
 least, of seing the Christian Scriptures contradicting 
 their own ideal of Christianity. The origin of the mis- 
 chief is plain. The doctrine of the baptismal service is 
 true : the unconsciousness of the infant is the real fons 
 mail. The baptismal service is founded on Scripture ; 
 but its application to an unconscious infant is destitute of 
 any express Scriptural warrant. Scripture knows nothing 
 of the baptism of infants. There is absolutely not a 
 single trace of it to be found in the New Testament." 
 
 On page 210, he says : 
 
 ^' History confirms the inference drawn from the sa- 
 cred volume. Infant baptism cannot be clearly traced 
 higher than the middle of the second century ; and even 
 then it was not universal." 
 
 After stating the history of the subject, he presents 
 you with the conclusion drawn from its study. 
 
 '' Some, indeed, have argued that in the silence of 
 Scripture, it is fair to presume that a custom whose 
 existence is seen in the second century must have de- 
 scended from the apostles." 
 
 That is about the argument that you have heard here ; 
 that silence justifies our taking for granted that that 
 was the practice. Upon the same principle I can take 
 anything else for granted, which I may wish to teach, 
 and upon which the Bible is silent. He continues : 
 
 " But the presumption is wholly the other way. 
 Baptism appears in the New Testament avowedly as the 
 rite whereby converts were incorporated into the Chris- 
 tian society ; the burden of the proof is entirely on 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 
 
 19; 
 
 those who afFirm its applicability to those whose minds 
 are incapable of any conscious act of faith." 
 
 But my brother would have me prove that infants 
 were not baptized. I assert that believers ivere baptiz- 
 ed^ and believers only, I show you that every case of 
 baptism in the New Testament is a recognition of this 
 principle — of believer's baptism. He attempts to show 
 that others were entitled to it. He affirms that infants^ 
 as well as believers^ are entitled to it. It devolves upon 
 him to establish his affirmation. But, you have seen 
 that he has not removed a single peg that I have driven 
 upon the subject. 
 
 But to continue the quotation : 
 
 " But a brighter day is dawning. Dr. McNeile, Mr. 
 Litton, we may almost add, the Archbishop of Canter- 
 bury, are perceiving that the practice of infant baptism 
 is not found in Scripture. When the fact is universally 
 recognized, the controversy will assume a new form. 
 The ground will be completely cut away from beneath 
 the sacramental theory ; and Protestants will have the 
 full benefit of their own principle — the appeal to Scrip- 
 ture as the form of religious truth." 
 
 Hear him again : 
 
 "A spiritual blessing of necessity implies a spiritual 
 recipient. This momentous truth — Avhich lies at the 
 foundation of the Christian faith — has been forgotten by 
 those who hold that infant baptism is a complete sacra- 
 ment. They have been betrayed into this forgetfulness 
 by the belief that infant baptism was expressly of apos- 
 tolical origin, and by the consequent pressure of the lan- 
 guage of Scripture. They found spiritual blessings 
 attached to baptism in Scripture ; but they found also 
 
 9 
 
194 
 
 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 spiritual conditions imposed upon the recipient. The 
 belief that infant baptism was the institution there 
 spoken of involved them in a hopeless dilemma, from 
 which they vainly endeavored to extricata themselves 
 by overlooking the spiritual state of the infant, and at 
 the same time supposing that God, in some mysterious 
 manner, communicated some equally mysterious bless- 
 ing to his soul. The very essence of sacerdotalism was 
 involved in this belief. But a mere examination of 
 Scripture has made all clear. The language of the 
 apostolic Church does not apply to infant baptism, and 
 is consequently free from every taint of the priestly 
 theory." 
 
 Now to the points before you. I have said that infant 
 baptism casts suspicion upon the doctrine of infant sal- 
 vation. Is it not claimed by Pedobaptists in their gen- 
 eral writings, that baptized children occupy a position 
 not occupied by those unbaptized? When they speak 
 of baptized children, they speak of them as " children 
 of the covenant," as having peculiar privileges, as being 
 entitled to favors that children in common are not enti- 
 tled to. Is there no difference, in their opinion, between 
 a baptized and an ^^/^baptized child ? If not, why such 
 language ? and why appropriate an ordinance to them 
 which Grod designed for betievers only? And if there 
 be any difference, vjhat is it ? What is the benefit 
 which the baptized child receives ? The very moment 
 the gentleman gets out of this net, he will find, himself 
 without any grounds at all for infant baptism. If it be 
 a mere /orm, conveying no spiritual blessings, why ad- 
 minister it, without any authority from the word of 
 God ? He admits that believer'' s baptism is taught in 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 195 
 
 the word of God. Suppose we all become Pedobaptists, 
 will not that abolish believer's baptism entirely ? 
 
 Again : by infant baptism you take away the liberty 
 of the child. If children are all baptized in infancy^ 
 will you ?*ebaptize them when they become believers? 
 If not, where would you have any believer'' s baptism ? 
 It is taught in the Bible, and in the Baptist Church, 
 but where else will it be found ? You would thereby 
 make void the commandment of God by the traditions 
 of men. 
 
 I think I have gone through all the argument that is 
 necessary to establish in your mind this fact : that Jesus 
 Christ authorized the baptism of none but believers. 
 His apostles so understood, and so practised. The 
 Christian Church, until about the middle of the third 
 century, continued the same practice : about that time, 
 the corrupting idea of baptismal regeneration originated 
 infant baptism, and it gradually progressed, until we 
 find it where it now is. No authority can be found in 
 the word of God to sustain any other baptism than be- 
 liever^s baptism. 
 
 I now turn my attention to the remarks of the gen- 
 tleman upon the Old Testament Scriptures. And I 
 must say, that I have been struck with tv/o peculiar 
 facts. In the first place, I have been struck with the 
 remarkable familiarity of the gentleman with the wan- 
 derings of the children of Israel, and with much that 
 pertains to the Old Testament dispensation : and then, 
 with the absence of that famiharity with the New Tes- 
 tament writings, which I should have expected a man 
 who had been preaching as long as he has, to possess. 
 Just here, upon this point, let me make a single remark 
 
196 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 The gentleman was going off in a perfect flourish about 
 the baptism of Simon, claiming it as a case of baptism, 
 where no profession of faith was made. And I, without 
 thinking — too speedily, perhaps — ^just laid the passage 
 before him, that said, " Simon believed and was bap- 
 tized." And then he had to back down from his high 
 position. In another argument, he said, that in Acts ii., 
 and, I think, the forty-first verse, it is said that, " the 
 same day were added to the Church about 3000 souls." 
 If he will look into that passage, he will find that the 
 word '' Church" is not there ; that is all his own imagi- 
 nation. He was endeavoring to show that the Church 
 was organized prior to that time — he would like to have 
 it so — and thought, no doubt, it was so ; but he was 
 simply mistaken. The passage reads : " The same day 
 there were added unto them [the disciples of Jesus 
 Christ] about three thousand souls." Hence, he is minus 
 a Church. 
 
 Now, to his first argument with regard to the cove- 
 nants, circumcision, etc., I wish him to observe them 
 as I state them, and see if I state them correctly. His 
 first argument was : — The covenant of redemption and 
 the covenant of circumcision are one and the same. Is 
 that a correct statement ? 
 
 Mr. CouLLiNG : No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Masse Y : That is what you said. 
 
 Mr. CouLLiNG : No, sir ; I never said that. 
 
 Mr. Massey : Did you not say that the gospel cove- 
 nant and the covenant of circumcision were the very 
 same ? 
 
 Mr. CouLLiNG : No, sir. Just repeat what you said 
 my argument wa^ ? 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 197 
 
 Mr. Massey : The covenant of redemption and the 
 covenant of circumcision are one and the same. 
 
 Mr. CouLLiNG : Will you allow me to state my propo- 
 sition ? 
 
 Mr. Massey : Certainly, I will. Of course, my time 
 is to be saved. 
 
 Mr. CouLLiNG : No, sir : It is for your own henefit. 
 But I can do it afterward. 
 
 Mr. Massey : Is the gentleman afraid to allow me two 
 minutes of my oivn time, that he wishes to occupy in 
 explanations^? 
 
 Mr. CouLLiNG : No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Massey : The gentleman's whole argument in the 
 first place, was predicated, unless I have more misun- 
 derstood him than I have misunderstood anything else 
 that has been said upon this ground, that the covenant 
 made with Abraham, 430 years before the giving of the 
 law, was the covenant of circumcision. Am I right 
 there ? 
 
 Mr. CouLLiNG : Go on ; I will answer you when it is 
 my turn. 
 
 Mr. Massey : Yery well. There are two dispensa- 
 tions, said he, in his second address, but both under the 
 same covenant. (I am willing to submit the correct- 
 ness of that statement to this audience, or to the report 
 of this discussion.) Now, I have but a brief review to 
 make of his arguments. 
 
 My first objection to his view of the subject, that is 
 Paul, in Galatians iv. 24, declares that there were tivo 
 covenants. He says of Agar and Sarah, that these 
 were an allegory representing the tioo covenants ; the 
 one from Mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, 
 
198 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 and the other from Jerusalem, which is the mother of 
 us all. 
 
 Another objection to the position that the covenant of 
 redemption and the covenant of circumcision are the 
 same, is found in the fact, that the covenant of redemp- 
 tion was made with Abraham, 430 years before the giv- 
 ing of the law ; while the covenant of circumcision was 
 made but 406 years before that event ; twenty-four 
 years after the covenant of redemption. You will find 
 this established by the reference to Galatians, which I 
 have already made, and by the following passages in 
 Grenesis. 
 
 Now, let us turn to these covenants, themselves. In 
 the twelfth chapter of G-enesis, third verse, you find 
 G-od saying to Abraham, " In thee shall all families of 
 the earth be blessed." In Gren. xxii. 18, renewing the 
 same promise, G-od says : "And in thy seed shall all the 
 nations of the earth be blessed." Whom did he mean 
 by this "seed?" Paul says: "He saith not, and to 
 seeds, as of many, but as of one, and to thy seed, which 
 is Christy Then G-od meant here to say, that in Christ, 
 who should descend from Abraham, according to his hu- 
 man nature, " shall all families of the earth be blessed." 
 In G-enesis xvii. 7-14 inclusive, we find the establish- 
 ment of the covenant of circumcision : 
 
 "And I will establish my covenant between me and 
 thee, and thy seed after thee, in their generations, for 
 an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to 
 thy seed after thee. And I will give unto thee, and 
 to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a 
 stranger, all the land of Canaan for an everlasting pos- 
 session ; and I will be their God. And God said unto 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 199 
 
 Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou 
 and thy seed after thee, in their generations. This is 
 my covenant, which ye shall keep between me and thee, 
 and thy seed after thee : Every man-child among you 
 shall be circumcised. And ye shall circumcise the flesh 
 of your foreskin ; and it shall be a token of the covenant 
 betwixt me and you. And he that is eight days old 
 shall be circumcised among you, every man-child in 
 your generations ; he that is born in thy house, or bought 
 with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. 
 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought 
 with thy money, must needs be circumcised : and my 
 covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting cove- 
 nant. And the uncircumcised man-child, whose flesh 
 of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut 
 off" from his people ; he hath broken my covenant." 
 
 Now, having to present you these covenants, I call 
 your attention to some references to them in the New 
 Testament. Remember, if you please, that here are 
 two covenants ; the covenant of redemption^ and the 
 covenant oi ^circumcision. Now, to which of these does 
 this apply? Romans iv. 8-11 : 
 
 " Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not im- 
 pute sin. Cometh this blessedness then upon the cir- 
 cumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also ? for 
 we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteous- 
 ness. How was it then reckoned ? when he was in cir- 
 cumcision, or in uncircumcision ? Not in circumcision, 
 but in uncircumcision. And ho received the sign of cir- 
 cumcision ; a seal of ihe, righteousness of the faith which 
 he had, yet being uncircumcised." 
 
 Bear in mind, that here circumcision is declared to be 
 
200 DEB AT K ON THE 
 
 " a seal of the righteousness of the faith" which Abraham 
 had ; you frequently hear it stated that it is the seal of 
 righteousness to all his posterity, or to all ivho receive it. 
 But you find nowhere in the word of God such an idea. 
 It was ''a seal of the righteousness of the faith which 
 he [Abraham] had, yet being' uncircumcised, that he 
 might be the father of all them that believe" — that he 
 might have a spiritual connection, might be recognized 
 as sustaining a spiritual relationship to all believers — 
 " the father of all them that believe, though they be not 
 circumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to 
 them also." 
 
 Again, in Romans xi., beginning with the seven- 
 teenth verse : 
 
 "And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, 
 being a wild olive-tree, wert graffed in among them, and 
 with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive- 
 tree : boast not against the branches ; but if thou boast, 
 thou bearest not the root, but the root thee." 
 
 They did not sustain Abraham, but they were graffed 
 into that same faith that Abraham had, yet being uncir- 
 cumcised. What is the argument ? 
 
 " Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, 
 that I might be graffed in." 
 
 Why were they broken off? 
 
 ''Well, because of unbelief they were broken off" 
 How do those who are graffed in stand ? Were they 
 graffed in by circumcision? No I " Thou standest by 
 faithP This is the very doctrine I have been contend- 
 ing for : the Gentiles stood by faith. Now, I think it 
 is very clear that Paid did not recognise the two cove- 
 nants as one and the same, under different dispensations. 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 201 
 
 I think that Brother Paiil^ or Brother Coidling^ one or 
 the other ^ is mistaken. And as Brother Paul lived a little 
 nearer to the time of the promulgation of these covenants 
 than Brother Coulling does, I take it for granted that 
 Brother Paul knows as mach about it as Brother Coul- 
 ling does. Then, the covenant of redemption^ and the 
 covenant of circumcision, are not the same, but two sep- 
 arate and distinct covenants. 
 
 The second argument of the hrother is, that the Chris* 
 tian Church is a continuation of the Jewish Church : in 
 other words, that the churches are the same, only under 
 different dispensations. Was not this the argument of 
 the gentleman all the way through ? I will not appeal 
 to the gentleman again, to know whether I have rightly 
 stated his position. (I am sorr}' he wished to occupy????/ 
 time in stating his position, and then was so unchari- 
 table as to deny me the time he occupied.) His whole 
 argument was based upon the assumption that the Jew- 
 ish Church and the Christian Church are the same ; or, 
 that the "Christian Church" was but a continuation of 
 the " Jewish Church." 
 
 T object to this, first : that G-od declared to Daniel his 
 purpose to set up a new kingdom in the days of the 
 Caesars. '' In the days of these kings will the Grod of 
 heaven set up a kingdom." Here was a plain dec- 
 laration of Grod's purpose to establish an organization 
 that then had not an existence. If the kingdom of Jesus 
 Christ was established prior to this time, then Daniel 
 has not presented us with a correct prophecy. If it was 
 not estabhshed at this time, then the prophecy has fallen 
 short of fulfilment. 
 
 In the next place, I object to it, that when Peter 
 9* 
 
202 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 (Matthew xvi. 16) declared Jesus to be "the Christ, 
 the Son of the livmg God," Jesus declared " Upon this 
 rock will I build my Church" — upon this declaration 
 of faith in him should the Church of Christ be built or 
 established ; not merely continued. Now, as to what my 
 brother said yesterday about the directions given in the 
 eighteenth chapter of Matthew: "If thy brother tres- 
 pass against thee tell it to the Church." I need 
 
 only say, this kingdom was being set up, and these in- 
 structions were for the government of the Church when 
 properly organized. The gospel, in its first development, 
 was gradually unfolded, and these directions were pre- 
 paratory for the guidance of Christians, after Jesus 
 Christ should ascend to the right hand of the Majesty 
 on high. The brother surely understands this. 
 
 Again : all those baptized on the day of Pentecost, 
 and all the Jews baptized at any time, were members 
 of the Jewish Church before baptism, and became mem- 
 bers of the Christian Church after baptism. Now, my 
 hearers, take a candid view of this subject. If a man- 
 child among the Jews was not circumcised, he was to 
 be cut off. They all had been circumcised, and hence 
 they were all members of the Jewish Church. And the 
 brother says (I think he will "take that back," or say, 
 '*I did not exactly mean that") that on the day of Pen- 
 tecost 3,000 were added to the Church. According to 
 his theory, were they not all members of the Church 
 already ? If baptism had taken the place of circum- 
 cision, and the two Churches were the same, what need 
 had they of a second initiation ? And yet we find the 
 apostles going forth in the Jewish Church.^ to establish 
 another Church. If I were to go into the Methodist 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 203 
 
 Church, and endeavor to establish a Baptist Church, 
 you would say, that I did not recognize the Methodist 
 Church and the Baptist Church as the same. Eut, 
 mark you, the apostles go forth to establish a neiv 
 Church, and of whom ? According to the hypothesis of 
 the brother, to establish it of those who were ah'eady 
 members of the same Church. Was there ever such an- 
 other absurdity? 
 
 Another objection to this theory is, that no moral 
 qualification was requisite for membership in the Jew- 
 ish Cliarch — none at all ; all that were bought with 
 their money, or born in their house, regardless of age or 
 character, w^ere entitled to receive circumcision, and be- 
 came members of the Jewish Church. Now, Saul of 
 Tarsus was once breathing out threatenings and slaugh- 
 ter against the Church. He had been circumcised, and 
 was consequently a member of the Jewish Church. 
 Saul became converted, a changed man, and w^as bap- 
 tized. The brethren were doubtful about receiving him, 
 which, however, they did, after they were satisfied of 
 his conversion and baptism. Now, was Paul a member 
 of the same Church after baptism as before ? Paul 
 says, he verily thought he was doing God service, while 
 he was persecuting the Church (as many seem to think 
 to this day). But now he becomes a converted man, 
 and submits to the ordinance of baptism, and yet is, 
 according to the brother's theory, in the same Church — 
 receives two " seaW^ of the same covenant, two *' signs 
 of regeneration," and two rites of initiation into the same 
 Church! I! 
 
 [Time expired.] 
 
204 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 MR. COULLING'S SIXTH REPLY. 
 
 Mr. CouLLiNG ; My Brother Massey seems to be ex- 
 ceedingly anxious to make me responsible for all the 
 books written by Methodists. He does not know how, in 
 the name of reason, you can get at the doctrines of a 
 Church, unless you go to the standards of the Church. 
 Now, I do not know that anybody looks upon Thomas 
 0. Summers' book upon baptism as a standard, critically 
 speaking. We have standard works : Watson's Theological 
 Institutes is a standard work in the Church ; Watson's 
 Dictionary is also a standard work. But even in those 
 works, I suppose, you will find doctrines about which 
 people will differ. Thomas 0. Summers writes a book 
 upon baptism. Some of his friends go to him and say, 
 " You had better publish it." He has not the money him- 
 self — for Methodist ministers generally do not deal much 
 in that article — and he goes to the publishing house 
 and gives them the copyright ; and they publish it, be- 
 cause they think it is a very good book, and will meet 
 some errors. I confess that, so far as I now understand 
 Thomas 0. Summers, I am willing to stand up to what 
 he says. 
 
 The brother read froi^ Mr. Wesley's tract again, and 
 wishes to hold us responsible, and hold me responsible, 
 as representing the Church here, for everything that Mr. 
 We3ley says in that tract. And he does so, why ? Be- 
 cause that tract, as he finds from the preface, has been 
 substituted in the place of a work upon baptism by a man 
 of the name of Edwards. They thought, probably, that 
 Mr. Wesley's tract conveyed more of truth, and less of 
 what is objectionable, than that of Edwards. In pub- 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 205 
 
 lishing the tracts compiled before 1812 with the Dis- 
 cipline, they accordingly put Mr. Wesley's tract in place 
 of Mr. Edwards'. That is the whole of it. 
 
 1 think that everything that he says about the Dis- 
 cipline can be answered here. He read to you our 
 excellent and beautiful baptismal service for children. I 
 ask you if there is a particle of baptismal regeneration 
 in it ? I get down upon my knees, and pray the bless- 
 ing of God upon the little child, and it is baptismal re- 
 generation. Oh, no ! he says ; but the fact that I pray 
 that ics carnal nature may be taken out of it, presup- 
 poses that it has a carnal nature, and is in contradiction 
 to my former position. Is my brother, in the middle of 
 the nineteenth century, about to embrace the heresy of 
 Socinius and Arian? That is their heresy. Now, we 
 are constantly taught that these little children were con- 
 taminated by the fall ; but as it took place without their 
 co-operation, and as they were brought passively into 
 this condition, the benefits of the atonement of Christ 
 are conferred upon them passively. And we pray that 
 w^hen these children shall grow up, and these evils are 
 developed, the spirit of G-od may eradicate them. A 
 very excellent prayer, a good prayer. And I have no 
 doubt my brother prays that for his children. Because 
 he believes his children are safe now, does he never in- 
 voke the blessing of God upon them ? that his spirit 
 will lead them aright ? That is all that we do — every- 
 thing that this baptismal service does. I appeal to you 
 who know it, and have heard it, and been familiar with 
 it all your days, is it not too late in the day to bring an 
 accusation of this kind against a Church that, if it has 
 distinguished itself fdr anything in the world, it is for 
 
206 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 battling against this whole army of errors about bap- 
 tism, no matter whether it concerns the subject or na- 
 ture of baptism. 
 
 He appeals to you to know if you will let leaders 
 throw a mist over your eyes. Do you know any one 
 who is trying to do it ? Who does so ? And who are 
 you, that you can be thus easily mystified ? A very 
 nice compliment, verily, to the intelligence of those about 
 whom it is said. T bring you what the Bible says. If 
 there is any mist about that, I do not perceive it. The 
 mist is somewhere else. 
 
 It was very soundly asserted this morning, upon very 
 high authority, that baptism originated about the mid- 
 dle of the third century. This evening, another author- 
 ity, introduced with the highest sort of compliments, 
 steps back just one hundred years, and proves to you, if 
 the authority is worth anything, if his own witness is 
 reliable, that, so far from its originating in the middle 
 of the third century, it was w^ell established in the mid- 
 dle of the second century. About what time was that ? 
 One hundred years, or a little more, after the people 
 died who have conversed with the apostles. That is 
 carrying it right low down, as far as history is concerned. 
 You will recollect that the very first man who ever wrote 
 history, brought it up to 425 — Eusebius, who died 445. 
 In the very introduction to his history, he says : " I am 
 travelling an untrodden path." Eusebius collects mat- 
 ter, and shows that infant baptism was well established 
 two hundred and fifty years after Christ came, and one 
 hundred years after the very people who associated with 
 the apostles died. 
 
 The gentleman was right anxious, this morning, to 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 207 
 
 know when that council was held. I could not recol- 
 lect then. But I turn to a book, which I think is worthy 
 of some respect : I do not know what the people may 
 think. But I do not see what temptation a man can 
 have, in making out a catalogue from history, to fabri- 
 cate it. And in the chronological list of the principal 
 councils mentioned in this book — and there is*an alpha- 
 betical list of the same councils — I find, that the council 
 under Cyprian was held 256. Now that is within about 
 one hundred years of the very period when people lived 
 who had conversed with the apostles. Those sixty-six 
 bishops, learned men, say that it had never been known, 
 from the days of the apostles, that infants were excluded 
 from baptism. 
 
 Mr. Massey: Have you the authority, stating that 
 they made that statement ? 
 
 Mr. CouLLiNG : I read you the authority this morning, 
 from Cave, and I will read it again. I do not recollect 
 precisely the language of it : 
 
 " From the persons ministtring we proceed to the 
 persons upon whom it was conferred, and they were of 
 two sorts, infants and adult persons. How far the bap- 
 tizing of infants is included in^ur Saviour'' s institution, 
 is not my work to dispute ; but certainly, if in contro- 
 verted cases the constant practice of the Church, and 
 those who immediately succeeded the apostles, be (as 
 no man can deny it is) the best interpreter of the laws 
 of Christ, the dispute, one would think, should be at an 
 end : for that it always was the custom to receive the 
 children of Christian parents into the Church by bap- 
 tism, we have sufficient evidence, for the greatest part 
 of the most early writers, Irenceus, Tertullian, Origen, 
 
208 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 Cyprian^ &c., whose testimonies I do not produce, be- 
 cause I find them collected by others, and the argument 
 thence so forcible and conclusive, that the most zealous 
 opposers of infant baptism know not how to evade it — " 
 
 And they cannot, except by flat denial : 
 
 — " The testimonies being so clear, and not the least 
 shadovv^ that I know of, in those times, of anything to 
 make against it. There was, indeed, in Cyprian'' s time, 
 a controversy about the baptizing of infants, not ivhether 
 they ought to be baptized (for of that there was no 
 doubt), but concerning the time when it was to be ad- 
 ministered, whether on the second or thinly or whether, 
 as circumcision of old, to be deferred till the eighth day. 
 For the determining of which, Cyprian^ sitting in coun- 
 cil with sixty -six bishops, writes a synodical epistle to 
 Fidus^ to let him know that it was their universal judg- 
 ment and resolution, that the mercy and grace of God 
 was not to be denied to any, though as soon as he was 
 born : concluding that it was the sentence of the coun- 
 cil, that none could be forbidden baptism and the grace 
 of God : which, as it was to be observed and retained 
 toward all men, so much the more toward infants and 
 new-born children." 
 
 If that is not conclusive, right to the point, I cannot 
 conceive what is : I do not understand what is. So that, 
 in accordance with this, the practice of the early Church, 
 from the days of the apostles, confirms, beyond success- 
 ful contradiction, that the commission did not restrict 
 the admission of children into the Church by baptism. 
 
 Just at this point, according to my notes, the brother 
 insisted upon it, that I had not removed a peg that he 
 had put down. Now, the only peg that 1 have known 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM, 209 
 
 him to stick, in this whole controversy, is one with which 
 I agree with him most fully : that when you come to 
 baptize an adult person, you must see that he is fit to 
 he baptized. He has proved, most conclusively, that I 
 ought not to baptize every infidel, or introduce into my 
 Church, or recognize as a Christian, an outrageously- 
 wicked sinner. Now, if you will reflect a moment, 
 you will recollect this : that at the time these old histo- 
 rians refer to, the apostles did not preach to civilized 
 people, as we do, for the most part ; but to heathen 
 nations, pagans, men who worshipped false gods. And 
 the simple reception of truth, as a matter of theory, was 
 not to be regarded as a sufficient reason for baptizing 
 them. For instance, if the apostles were preaching at 
 this day, they would not receive those who believed 
 the gospel, as everybody on this ground does. And 
 when they went to nations who knew nothing about the 
 gospel, and developed to them the truth of the gospel, 
 and this man and that man said, '' I believe Jesus Christ 
 was the Son of G-od," that would not be enough. Hence 
 those catechumens who were to be instructed. And when 
 they found that they were proper subjects, and had em- 
 braced the religion of the Bible, not theoretically, but 
 in heart, they were regarded as fit subjects for baptism. 
 Now, I do not want to remove that peg : I want it 
 fastened ; it is good doctrine. And he has stopped 
 short of the point between us, and I have no doubt he 
 W'ill fail of reaching that point. For, although he has 
 said, once or twice, that he has proven it, I ask you to 
 decide that. It is for you, and not for me, to say. 
 
 He then repeats that infant baptism casts a reflection 
 upon infant salvation. I think that was his idea, if not 
 
210 
 
 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 his words. I again say, that if we taught that salva- 
 tion depended upon baptism, and we baptized a child to 
 confer salvation upon it, the argument would be an un- 
 answerable one, that in baptizing him, we admitted 
 that he was not safe, and we tried to save him by bap- 
 tism. I again ask you, if you ever understood any 
 Pedobaptist as teaching any such doctrine, unless it was 
 an extreme high-churchman of the Church of England, 
 and probably a few extreme Puseyites in this country. 
 The whole Protestant Episcopal Church, as far as I am 
 conversant with it — at least, in Virginia — rejects that 
 doctrine. And while I said before, there is a sense in 
 which baptismal regeneration is used, it is not in the 
 sense in which we use the term regeneration in our or- 
 dinary conversation upon the subject. 
 
 And there is a dilemma into which he thinks we have 
 gotten, and which is to him a very serious matter. 
 And I have no doubt it would be, if what he anticipates 
 and seems so seriously to fear should ever take place. 
 And take place it will, I have no more doubt of it than 
 I have that I stand here. And the horrible sprite that 
 rises before his mind, and causes his spirit to shudder, 
 is prophetic of what will be, and that before long I have 
 no doubt. And that is, that all people will be baptized 
 in infancy, and there will be no believer's baptism, and 
 away will go the Church, that believes nothing but 
 believer's baptism. What a catastrophe ! What a sad 
 end that will be ! I hope to live to see it. However, I 
 cannot say that, for it is said that hope is made up of 
 expectation and desire ; and I cannot expect that. 
 But I have no doubt that the day is coming when peo- 
 ple will understand their duty, and dedicate their chil- 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 211 
 
 dren to G-od in early baptism, and say to the world that 
 those children belong to Jesus Christ ; and act in ac- 
 cordance with what they say in that sacred rite. And 
 then believer's baptism will have no further place in the 
 world ; for the plain and simple reason, that there will 
 no longer be rebels against G-od, with gray hairs upon 
 their heads, and there will no longer be occasion for 
 believer's baptism. Jesus Christ has said " that the day 
 shall come when all men shall see the Salvation of God, 
 when Christ shall sway the sceptre over a world re- 
 deemed. When that day shall come, the gospel of the 
 Son of G-od w^ill have accomplished its glorious mission 
 among the children of men, and the Kingdom of our 
 G-od shall be established in the top of the mountains- 
 He may well be alarmed at an anticipation of that 
 kind ; but it does not annoy and alarm Pedopaptists 
 much. 
 
 He marvels at my familiarity with the Old Testament, 
 and my want of familiarity with the ^New Testament. 
 I do not know — I have not given myself the trouble to 
 count ; but I verily believe 1 quoted quite as many 
 verses of Scripture out of the New Testament, as I did 
 out of the Old Testament. But what of import in that ? 
 Is the Old Testament to be discarded ? Does it not suit 
 his purpose ? And is a reflection to be cast upon me, 
 because I derive authority from the very source from 
 which my blessed Lord derived it ? He taught out of 
 the Prophets, and out of the Psalms, and out of the 
 books of Moses, did he not ? There was no other Scrip- 
 ture in his day. He said unto them : " Search the 
 Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life : 
 they are they that have testified of me." I can prove 
 
212 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 things from the Old Testament as wel'l as from the New 
 Testament. And these passages from the Old Testa- 
 ment were so bothering, that the only way to get out of 
 it was to say : "Well, it is not New Testament: it is 
 Old Testament." Well, I believe in the Old Testament : 
 I believe in the Bible, from Genesis to Malachi, and from 
 Matthew down to Revelations ; all of it is Grod's Book. 
 And whatever God teaches, whether in Ezra, Malachi, 
 Isaiah, Mark, Romans, Corinthians, — anywhere, it is 
 my Lord's book, and 1 get the truth from that. I am 
 vastly familiar with the Old Testament, he says. Well, 
 I am glad I know somethmg. 
 
 Again, he says, I made a slight blunder, and he says 
 I did it innocently, too. He says I quoted from the 
 second chapter of Acts, that there were added to the 
 Church three thousand souls ; and that I made a mis- 
 take, that the word church was not in the passage, but 
 that I would like to have it in it, and therefore I sup- 
 plied it. That would be a blunder indeed, when I had 
 the book before me. I will give you the word in the 
 original. The English Scriptures read thus — "Praising 
 God, and having favor with all the people ; and the 
 Lord added to the Church, daily, such as should be 
 saved." In the original it says — " The Lord added 
 
 Mr. Massey : Was that the passage you quoted ? 
 
 Mr. CouLLiNG : Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Massey: You said — about three thousand soul 
 were added to the Church. 
 
 Mr. CouLLiNG : This is the verse I had marked. Peo- 
 ple will make mistakes, sometimes, and I do not pre- 
 tend to be infallible. But I do not think, verily, that I 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 213 
 
 made a mistake here, and I think I can satisfy myself 
 of that in a moment. [Looking at his book of notes.] 
 
 Mr. Massey : It was in your comments on the bap- 
 tism upon the day of Pentecost. 
 
 Mr. CouLLiNG : I might have said that in the debate. 
 I have it here in my notes — Acts ii. 47, — under this 
 leading head — 'Hhe Lord Jesns speaks of the Church as 
 already existing." 
 
 He now comes to a review of my argument. I wish, 
 just here, to state the various positions that I assumed, 
 and that I attempted to establish. My first position is : 
 that when the Church of Grod was organized, infants 
 received the sign and seal of their title to the benefits of 
 that Church, or of the covenant ; and Grod has never 
 repealed that act that entitled them to receive it. That 
 was the first proposition I laid down. I attempted to 
 prove that by showing to you, that the promise made to 
 Abraham, saying," In thy seed shall ail nations of the 
 earth be blessed," was recognized by the inspired writers, 
 by the blessed Redeemer himself, as being the source 
 and the origin of the gospel ; that it was called the gos- 
 pel of the Son of God. Now, my brother has stated 
 one difficulty in the way of that. And that difficulty 
 he finds in what ? He finds it in the fourth chapter of 
 Galatians, twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth verses. Now, 
 I wish to read them, and see if there is the slightest 
 conflict. And if there be, that I am not responsible for it, 
 I think I can show very clearly. He says that he thinks 
 that St. Paul knew a great deal more about these things 
 than I do ; and I most earnestly and heartily agree with 
 him. And St. Paul's teachings upon this subject, I think, 
 agree with me precisely, and are in conflict with him. 
 In the tv/enty-fourth verse, St. Paul says : 
 
214 DEBATE ON THK 
 
 " Whioh things are an allegory, for these are the two 
 covenants; the one from the Mount Smai, which gen - 
 dereth bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is Mount 
 Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now 
 is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem 
 which is above is free, which is the mother of us all." 
 
 Now, here are two covenants made with Abraham. 
 One made when ? Made yonder, 430 years before the 
 giving of the law. And this very same passage says 
 that that covenant made at Sinai could not annul the 
 former covenant. So far there is no conflict between 
 the two. God makes a covenant with Abraham, grant- 
 ing him a special promise : "In thy seed all nations of 
 the earth shall be blessed." (rod sees fit, 430 years 
 afterward, to get the people together, and give them a 
 body of laws, carrying out the covenant, and over and 
 above, a ritual — St. Paul says it was a very onerous one — 
 all carrying out the very same covenant, however. Yet 
 Paul speaks of the covenant made with Abraham as iden- 
 tical with the covenant made at the present time, and 
 one in existence at that time. 
 
 The brother commented upon the covenant of redemp- 
 tion and the covenant of circumcision. Now, I. am at 
 a loss to know the difference ; I cannot conceive it : they 
 are identically the same covenant. The brother tells 
 us that circumcision — and he quoted St. Paul to prove 
 it — was a seal of the righteousness of that faith that 
 Abraham had before he was circumcised — was intended 
 to illustrate and show forth that very righteousness, the 
 result of which was the redemption of Abraham. And 
 yet he says it was a different covenant. One is simply 
 an effect and consequence of the other ; and he extends 
 and makes two of what is simply one. 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 215 
 
 Again : he introduces a prophecy from Daniel, and 
 endeavors to make the impression that Daniel's predic- 
 tion, that in a certain age of the world God would set 
 up a kingdom, is in direct conflict with the train of ar- 
 gument that I have introduced. I just wish to know 
 if that appears so to the mind of any of these persons ? 
 Is there any conflict here ? God has introduced into 
 the world the glorious system of redemption, and he 
 predicts that in a certain period — a period that is shown 
 forth in high metaphor and trope — that the people who 
 emhrace this redemption should he collected together. 
 And he calls it a kingdom ; and somewhere else it is 
 called a Church, and the people of the Lord, and half 
 a dozen other epithets, hut all tending to the same thing. 
 "When it is varied, they say it is something else. It is 
 the same thing. So far from there heing a conflict, it 
 is an ahsolute and positive fulfilment. The Lord has 
 done identically what Daniel said he would do. He has 
 not destroyed either covenant, or introduced another. 
 If he has, let my brother show it. "Where is the cove- 
 nant in existence now, that diflers from the covenant 
 that God made with Abraham ? If there is one, let 
 him show the difference between the two. Let him 
 come face to face with Paul, in his Epistle to the Ro- 
 mans and the Galatians, and let him there correct this 
 master teacher in Israel. And when he knows more 
 than the very chiefest of the apostles, then this audience 
 will believe him. 
 
 He refers to Matthew xvi. beginning with the 16th 
 verse. 
 
 " And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the 
 Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered 
 
216 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona : 
 for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee. But 
 my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto 
 thee,' That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will 
 build my church ; and the gates of hell shall not pre- 
 vail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of 
 the kingdom of heaven : and whatsoever thou shalt bind 
 on earth, shall be bound in heaven : and whatsoever 
 thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven." 
 
 Well, I do not know what exposition he would give 
 of the text. But this much I think you will all agree 
 to : that if it is to be interpreted according to Protes- 
 tantism, it means that Peter's confession of faith was 
 the foundation upon which the Church of G-od is built : 
 that that was the corner-stone ; that that was the sum 
 and substance of it, and it does not conflict at all with 
 my position, not a jot or tittle. It does not come in the 
 slightest degree (that I can for my life see) in opposi- 
 tion to what I have said. 
 
 Another difficulty that he states is, that J have con- 
 tended that the Churches are the same ; and yet on the 
 day of Pentecost the very people who were received into 
 the Church by baptism, were, according to me, already 
 in the Church ; and being already in the Church by the 
 rite of circumcision, with what consistency can they 
 now be put into the Church by the rite of baptism. 
 "Well, I confess that that does seem more like a diffi- 
 culty than anything that I have heard, touching the 
 subject ; really that does seem more like a difficulty, 
 while it is in fact no difficulty at all. Now, mark this : 
 here was the gospel dispensation in full force. These 
 people who had rejected Christ, had rejected him until 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 217 
 
 he was crucified, now came out for the first time and 
 received him. Before that time they were the opposers 
 of Christ. A new dispensation had come in. How 
 were they to get into the Church, except by baptism ? 
 Let him answer this question, when he gets up to make 
 his argument. Why were not the five hundred brethren 
 that saw the Saviour, baptized ? Why were not the 
 seventy-two that were sent out, baptised ? 
 
 Mr. Masshy : Do you deny that they were baptized ? 
 
 Mr. CouLLiNG : Will you tell me when and where 
 they were baptized ? Where were those baptized, who 
 were the disciples, w^hen they cast lots for Matthias ? 
 AVhen and where were the twelve apostles baptized with 
 Christian baptism ? Let him answer those questions. 
 They had been introduced into the Church of Christ by 
 circumcision. Christ came to his own. They were his 
 own people. The others rejected him until a new dis- 
 pensation dawned upon the world ; and when that came, 
 they living u,nder it must conform to it. But that is not 
 the only answer. My good brother seems to have for- 
 gotten some things that he has read in this precious 
 book. I will refresh his memory ; " stir up his pure 
 mind by way of remembrance." Now, let me read you 
 two or three verses from the second chapter of Acts. 
 He thought it marvellous that I did not know in what 
 part of the Bibile the baptism of Lydia was to be found. 
 And is it not marvellous, that here, in this second chap- 
 ter of Acts, he should not have seen this ? 
 
 " And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout 
 men, out of every nation under heaven, .... and 
 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in 
 Mesopotamia, and in Judea and Cappadocia, in Pontus 
 
 10 
 
218 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in 
 the parts of Lybia aLout Cyrene, and strangers of 
 Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians." 
 
 All these were gathered at Jerusalem. All those that 
 were converted were not necessarily Jews, and might 
 not have been circumcised. They were collected there 
 at Jerusalem. But admit that all who were convened 
 were Jews. They were under a new dispensation, and 
 were baptized for the very reason that Saul of Tarsus 
 was baptized, when he professed faith in Christ ; be- 
 cause he had not complied with the terms of his circum- 
 cision ; and therefore, under the new dispensation he 
 had to receive the rite of baptism. That is an answer 
 to the whole matter, and there is not a particle of diffi- 
 culty in the way. 
 
 [Time expired.] 
 
 MR. M ASSET'S SEVENTH ADDRESS. 
 
 Mr. Massey : It is not difficult to perceive that a mis- 
 take may very honestly be made in an extemporaneous 
 address. And I accept the brother's explanation, that 
 he had in his view the forty-seventh verse of the sec- 
 ond chapter of Acts, when he quoted from that passage 
 which said that three thousand w^ere added to the77i on 
 the day of Pentecost. He need not have brought up his 
 G-reek Testament to show that ecclesia means church; 
 for the word church was not there. It reads : 
 
 " Then they that gladly received his word were bap- 
 tized ; and the same day there were added unto them 
 about three thousand souls. And they continued stead- 
 fastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in 
 breaking of bread, and in prayers." 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 219 
 
 I will now show you an organization taking place 
 after the day of Pentecost. 
 
 ''And fear came upon every soul ; and many won- 
 ders and signs were done by the apostles. And all that 
 believed were together, and had all things in common ; 
 and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to 
 all men, as every man had need. And they, continuing 
 daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread 
 from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness 
 and singleness of heart, praising Grod, and having favor 
 with all the people. And the Lord added to the Church 
 daily such as should be saved." 
 
 This is a very different view of the subject from that 
 which was presented by the gentleman. 
 
 The brother wants me to tell him when the five hun- 
 dred brethren and the seventy- two disciples were bap- 
 tized. If he will deny that they ivere baptized^ it will 
 then be time enough for me to reply to him. "When he 
 takes that position, or when 1 meet him upon the sub- 
 ject of the Lord's Supper, I will tell him when they 
 were baptized. I will give him a hint now. In Acts 
 i. 21, it is said : " Of these men who have companied 
 with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and 
 out among us, beginning from the baptism of John," &c. 
 He will find no difficulty when he turns to it, in deciding 
 when these men were baptized. But what has that to 
 do with the present subject ? 
 
 A word with regard to the work from which he 
 has quoted, the work by Dr. Cave, published in 1698. 
 "We find here a Pedobaptist^ writing for the purpose 
 of sustaining infant baptism. And he asserts that 
 certain fathers taught this doctrine, but does not" 
 
220 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 present the statements of these fathers, or any evidence 
 to prove his bare assertion. And yet the brother tells 
 you, ''^ here is history V^ — this man and that man, says 
 he, taught infant baptism. But he does not give you 
 their language, or any testimony from them. It is sheer 
 nonsense to call this work a Church history. It is 
 wholly unworthy the appellation. I deny his assump- 
 tions — for they are but assumptions. He cannot show 
 a trace of infant baptism in the writings of the fathers, 
 earlier than 250 years after Christ. He speaks of this- 
 council of sixty-six bishops, which assembled to decide 
 at what age infants might be baptized. Infant baptism 
 was such a novelty, just beginning to be introduced, 
 that nothing was understood about it ; hence the call 
 for this council, which assembled in 256 : and to deter- 
 mine what ? A question with regard to an institution 
 which had been established by Jesus Christ, and prac- 
 tised by his Church for more than two hundred years ? 
 No, sir ! but, to settle a question with regard to a prac- 
 tice which had just been foisted upon the Churchy along 
 with many other corruptions of that day. 
 
 I will simply read the dedication of this book, and 
 leave it : 
 
 " To the Right Reverend Father in God, Nathaniel, 
 Lord Bishop of Oxford, and Clerk of the Court to His 
 Majesty : 
 
 *' My Lord : When I first designed these papers should 
 take sanctuary at your lordship's patronage, the Hebrew 
 proverb presently came into my mind. Keep close to a 
 great man, and men will reverence thee. I knew no 
 better way (next to the innocency, and, if it may be, 
 'usefulness of the subject I have undertaken) to secure 
 myself from the censures of envy and ill-nature, than 
 
 J 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 221 
 
 by putting myself under your protection, whose known 
 evcpvaj the sweetness and obligingness of whose temper, 
 is able to render malice itself candid and favorable." 
 
 He seemed to have had the idea himself that the state- 
 ments he was about to make would not pass current, 
 unless he got " close to a great man," and to think that 
 by this he would lead men to the conclusion that he 
 wanted to lead them to. This is partial testimony ^ 
 brought by the gentleman from his own side of the ques- 
 tion. The author is simply arguing the question to 
 sustain his theory — not giving facts as an historian. It 
 is not history. 
 
 I wonder if the brother intended to make the impres- 
 sion upon the minds of this audience, that any of those 
 baptized upon the day of Pentecost were not Jews? 
 Did you intend to do that? Your manner of reading 
 that narrative, and your comments upon it, justify that 
 conclusion. He does not answer. And, according to 
 his theory, that the Bible being silent upon the subject, 
 justifies infant baptism, his silence is to be taken as con- 
 sent. Now, he ought to know that the Urst introduc- 
 tion of the gospel among tlie Gentiles was when it was 
 carried to the house of Cornelius. His argument is, 
 that these men, having been gathered from every nation 
 that is mentioned there, may not have been circumcised ; 
 and in that way the difficulty I had presented might be 
 removed. He will find, however, that he has placed 
 himself in a worse difficulty than before. He knows 
 these men were Jews. 
 
 ■ I object to the position that the Jewish Church and 
 the Christian Church are the same, in the next place, 
 because of the great hostility of the former to the latter. 
 
222 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 We even find the very high priests of the Jewish Church 
 clamoring for the blood of Jesus Christ, and stirring up 
 the multitude to demand the crucifixion of Jesus and 
 the liberation of Barabbas. Does this look anything 
 like identity of the two Churches ? Take these two 
 arguments together, and they will satisfy any unbiased 
 mind that the Christian Church and the Jewish Church 
 were two entirely different organizations ; not only were 
 they under different dispensations and different cove- 
 nants — the one the covenant of circumcision, and the 
 other the covenant of redemption — but they were com- 
 posed of entirely different subjects — the one deadly hos- 
 tile to the other. 
 
 His next argument upon this subject was, that bap- 
 tism had taken the place of circumcision ; and that, as 
 infants were admitted into the Jewish church, by cir- 
 cumcision, they ought, therefore, to be admitted into the 
 Christian Church by baptism. 
 
 I object to this hypothesis, first : that circumcision 
 was a permanent mark in the j^esA, distinguishing the 
 Jews from all other nations. Now, mark you : God 
 had declared his purpose to send a Eedeemer, and that 
 Abraham should be the father of the Messiah-^that 
 through him he should come. Then it was narrowed 
 do^n to Jacob ; then to Judah ; then to David, &o. 
 
 Among other arrangements, a mark of distinction 
 was instituted, by which the descendants of Abraham 
 should be distinguishable from all other nations. And 
 as long as there was any danger of their mingling with 
 other nations, this was preserved. Does the sprinkling a 
 few drops of water upon an infant give a mark by which 
 you can distinguish him from those who have not had 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 223 
 
 water sprinkled upon them ? Wherever the Jew goes 
 throughout the world, he can be known as a Jew to 
 this day. But baptism leaves no distinguishing mark 
 observable even in the Christian. 
 
 "While the Jews sojourned in the wilderness for forty 
 years, the rite of circumcision \yas neglected. There 
 was no danger of their mingling with other nations 
 then, and there was, therefore, no necessity for their 
 being circumcised. If you will turn to Joshua, 5th 
 chapter and 5th verse, you will find that the rite of 
 circumcision had been neglected from the time they 
 came out of the land of Egypt. And only two of the 
 men who had been circumcised before leaving Egypt, 
 entered the land of Canaan. But now, as they were 
 about entering into the land of Canaan, where there was 
 danger of their mingling with other nations, Joshua 
 was directed of God to circumcise all the males born in 
 the wilderness, for they had not been circumcised during 
 the forty years they had been in camp. 
 
 Again, I object to the gentleman's hypothesis, that 
 circumcision and baptism are seals of the same covenant, 
 securing the same or similar blessings, upon the ground 
 that circumcision was desis^ned to secure to those who 
 received it, temporal blessing. There was the promise 
 of the land of Canaan ; a rich heritage ; an earthly 
 blessing ; an earthly possession. In four hundred and 
 thirty years from the call of Abraham, his descendants 
 were to return to enjoy this land. The iniquity of the 
 Amorites was not then complete, and the Jews were to 
 sojourn in Egypt for four hundred years. After this 
 they were to return and enjoy this land. Does baptism 
 secure to you temporal blessings ; an earthly Canaan, 
 
224 
 
 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 or any blessings of that character ? There is neither 
 identity nor analogy here. 
 
 I object to it again, because circumcision required no 
 moral qualification. Neither membersliip in the Jewish 
 church nor circumcision required any moral qualifica- 
 tion. The gentleman says he would not baptize an un- 
 believing adult. But the Jew would circumcise an 
 unbelie-ving adult. As soon as a man became a mem- 
 ber of the Jewish confederacy, all his male servants — 
 " all that were bought with his money, or born in his 
 house," old and young, were to be circumcised. "Would 
 the gentleman be willing to baptize all the servants, 
 old and young, of any man here,,upon the faith of their 
 master ? If not, then he must not contend that bap- 
 tism has taken the place of circumcision ; or that they 
 occupy a similar position. 
 
 I object to it again, upon the ground, that under the 
 covenant of circumcision, males only were to be cir- 
 cumcised, whether children or servants. Ishmael and 
 Esau, with all their male posterity and servants, were 
 circumcised, regardless of their age or their character. 
 By what authority does the gentleman baptize females, 
 if baptism takes the place of circumcision ? If his hy- 
 pothesis be correct, he has transcended his authority. 
 
 I object to it again, upon the ground that the same 
 persons were both circumcised and baptized. Mr. Conl- 
 ling seeks to evade the force of this difficulty, by ask- 
 ing how those individuals who had rebelled against 
 God, could be brought back into the Church of Christ ? 
 If a man is once in his church, and then acts so as 
 to justify his exclusion, hoio does he receive him back 
 again? Does he baptize him again? Or does he 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 225 
 
 receive him upon his confession of his wrong, and his 
 promise of amendment ? Tlie gentleman should, upon 
 the same grounds, when infants, who have been baptiz- 
 ed, grow up to maturer years, and show themselves to 
 be rebels against Grod, rebaptize them when they be- 
 come converted. See, how he has caught himself in his 
 own snare ! Again (while I think of it) I will notice 
 another remark of the gentleman. He says, that when 
 all infants are baptized, there will be no gray-haired 
 rebels against God, Is not that baptismal regenera- 
 tion? Are there no gray -haired rebels against G-od, 
 who were baptized in infancy ? Are they all made chil- 
 dren of Grod — new creatures, by being baptized in in- 
 fancy ? Are they all regenerated ? If not, when those 
 '^ gray -haired rebels" become converted and come to 
 him, will he rebaptize them ? If not, his whole argu- 
 ment is worthless. Paul was " circumcised on the 
 eighth day,''"' and yet, when he was converted he was 
 baptized. And all the males baptized among the Jews, 
 had been circumcised. Two seals to the same cove- 
 nant ! two rites to bring them into the same Church ! 
 and yet these rites are the same ! What sophistry I 
 
 Now, I must say to the brother, that there is a vast 
 difference between a man's being so familiar with the 
 Old Testament, that he can quote texts from it, and his 
 understanding the texts when quoted. The whole of 
 his argument has been based upon a wrong theory. 
 His premises being unsound.^ his conclusions must of 
 necessity be false. He has misconceived the ivhole 
 ground. He has formed an incorrect idea of the cove- 
 nants, and all that flows from them ; and hence his 
 vjhole theory is wrong. He may quote all the passages 
 
226 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 in the word of Grod, from Grenesis to Revelations ; and 
 unless he understands them better than he has shown 
 here, it will be productive of no good. 
 
 I object to his theory again, upon the ground, that in 
 the fifteenth chapter of Acts, we find a council of the 
 " apostles and elders, with the whole Church," called 
 together to consider the question, whether believers 
 among the Gentiles must be circumcised. Had Elder 
 Coulling been there, he might have saved them much 
 labor. He would have said to them : '' You, apostles 
 and elders, have failed to comprehend the point : Do you 
 not know that baptism has come in the place of cir- 
 cumcision ? You need not trouble yourselves at all 
 about circumcision : those who have received baptism^ 
 have received circumcision, and have thus obeyed Moses' 
 law, and the gospel at the same time." But this coun- 
 cil did not so understand it. They did not have any 
 such view of the subject. Here was the time, if ever, 
 for them to present that view, if they entertained it. 
 The brother says, these disciples here annulled circum- 
 cision. Yet, after this council adjourned, Paul circum- 
 cised Timothy. Why, Brother Paul! you must be a 
 very refractory sort of man I your brother apostles have 
 annulled circumcision (and perhaps you were there 
 too), and you go on to administer the rite they have an- 
 nulled ! Circumcision annulled I The Jews to this day 
 continue its practice ; but Jesus Christ never intended 
 that the Christian Church should have any connection 
 with it ; at least, there is no such connection found in 
 the word of G-od. 
 
 Having shown you that the premises of the brother 
 are all incorrect, it follows, as a natural consequence, 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 27 
 
 that Ills conclusions are false : they cannot be sustained. 
 He has built his argument upon false premises, and 
 hence the whole fabric must fall to the ground. The 
 New Testament law of. the subject 1 have shown you. 
 He has endeavored to present an exception to the gene- 
 ral rule by introducing circumcision. I have shown 
 you that that supposed exception is utterly ivithout 
 foundation. And now he consoles himself with the 
 thought that there is some gloomy foreboding arising in 
 my mind relative to the future baptism of all infants, 
 which, he says, w^ill be the end of beiiever^s baptism. 
 Well, I do not know what the gentleman's imagination 
 has depicted before his mind. 1 should not wonder if 
 he, like old father Wesley, has seen ghosts and hobgob- 
 lins rising before him. For he discovers that his most 
 intelligent brethren acknowledge that infant baptism is 
 not found in the word of G-od. There are now con- 
 tinual complaints, in their own journals, of the neglect 
 of infant baptism among their oivn members. Yery 
 few, compared with former times, are now baptized. 
 Very many Methodists, Presbyterians, and others, admit 
 that they do not believe in infant baptism, and that it 
 takes away from the child the privilege of deciding for 
 himself, when he becomes a believer in Jesus Christ. 
 If he becomes a believer in after years, he must do one 
 of two things : either neglect his duty to be baptized 
 as a believer in Christ Jesus, or turn away from all his 
 family connections, to another denomination that will 
 administer the ordinance to him rightly. 
 
 I think the arguments offered upon both sides will 
 present the conclusion to the minds of all present, who 
 are willing to let truth have its full force, that the word 
 
228 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 of God does not sanction any other baptism than that 
 of believers in the Lord Jesus Christ. I shall then 
 submit this question, so far as my argument is concern- 
 ed, for your own further action. It is not for me to de- 
 termine what shall be the course pursued by any one 
 else. I can only present to you the truth as it is in 
 Christ Jesus, and then leave every one of you to act 
 upon that truth as you will loish to have acted, when 
 you stand at the judgment bar of God. " Let every 
 man be persuaded in his own mind." But let that mind 
 receive all the light of divine truth upon the subject. 
 
 The effort has been made by my opponent to produce 
 the impression, that I have endeavored to present some- 
 thing else rather than the Bible ; that I have not given 
 that the most prominent place ; and he talks about his 
 believing in the Old Testament Scriptures I Who 
 questions that they are just as much the word of God 
 as the New Testament ? Who questions that they are 
 to be believed, and to be conformed to, as far as con- 
 formity to them is required under the Gospel dispensa- 
 tion 7 The brother, I suppose, has forgotten where I 
 commenced. I thought I had begun far enough back in 
 the Old Testament Scriptures, when I took you to the 
 very first interview that God had with man, after his 
 fall from his primeval estate ; and traced on the regular 
 flow of promises of the Messiah, from that time until, 
 " when the fulness of the time had come, God sent 
 forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, 
 to redeem them that were under the law." " The Iqjlv 
 was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ." We are now 
 permitted to go to the Messiah himself; to look to him; 
 not through types and shadows ; not to be governed by 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 229 
 
 old rituals that simply prefigured the Saviour. But, to 
 look to a Saviour that has come^ who has given himself 
 a ransom for our sins ; who has expired upon the cross ; 
 has lain in the tomb ; has risen from the dead ; has 
 given his commission to his disciples ; and has reascend- 
 ed to the right hand of the Majesty on high. And we, 
 as his disciples, find it obligatory upon us to go forth 
 and " teach all nations, baptizing them in the name 
 of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ;" 
 " preaching the gospel to every creature," with the as- 
 surance that " he that believeih and is baptized shall 
 be saved : he that believeih not shall be damned^ 
 [Time expired.] 
 
 MR. COULLING'S SEVENTH REPLY. 
 
 Mr. CouLLiNG : I thought I had been right clear in 
 affirming that the baptism of those on the day of Pen- 
 tecost, though they had been sealed with circumcision, 
 had been rendered necessary from the fact that a new 
 dispensation had been introduced. Jesus Christ had then 
 risen from the dead, and that was the very first time 
 that his apostles acted under the great commission that 
 he gave to them to go and baptize people. Now, here are 
 a set of Jews and Gentiles — whatever they may be : I 
 don't care what — a set of men who have rejected Christ, 
 who have refused to yield to him ; some of whom, per- 
 haps, lingered about the cross at the time that he bowed 
 his head and said, " It is finished ;" and consented to 
 his death. And now the apostles get up and preach the 
 gospel to these people, and they befieve. How are they 
 then to come out and identify themselves with the cause 
 
230 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 of Christ, except by conforming to the requisition of Christ 
 himself? So, where is the difficulty that the gentleman 
 sees ? And, in all that he says about baptism having 
 taken the place of circumcision, where is the difficulty 
 that he has put in the way of it ? I propose to notice 
 some that he seems to think are difficulties in the way. 
 
 He objects to it, he says, because the high priests 
 clamored for the blood of the blessed Jesus. He there- 
 fore argues that the Jewish Church could not have been 
 anything like the Christian Church ; that the covenant 
 that God made with Abraham must have been a differ- 
 ent covenant from that which was put into exercise and 
 enjoyed after Christ rose from the dead. And why ? 
 Because the Jews rejected Christ. "Well : St. Paul says 
 it was the same covenant ; St. Peter says it was the 
 same Church ; the blessed Saviour recognizes the exist- 
 ence of the Church. Those that had received Christ 
 did not receive baptism after Christ rose from the dead, 
 according to any account that we have, because Christ 
 came to his own. Those that received him, he received 
 as his. Those that did not receive him then, when they 
 did receive him, received the sign and seal of the new 
 covenant. The fact that the high priests rejected Christ, 
 was what might have been expected. And it is no 
 argument, not one jot or tittle, against what I have 
 asserted. I cannot imas^ine what connection that can 
 have with it. 
 
 Again : he thinks that circumcision was not a title to 
 spiritual benefits, but a title to the promised land. 
 Then, of course, everybody that received circumcision 
 had a right to the promised land. And then. I wonder 
 what became of the Ishma elites and the Edomites that 
 received circumcision ? 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 231 
 
 Mr. Massey : Did they receive any spiritual blessings ? 
 
 Mr. CouLLiNG : They received circumcision, and they 
 were, and continue yet, excluded from the promised 
 land. 
 
 Mr. Massey : Does the gentleman claim that those to 
 whom he refers received spiritual^lessings after circum- 
 cision ? 
 
 Mr. CouLLiNG : I am not arguing that question, but 
 meeting the argument which the gentleman himself 
 urges, that circumcision was intended to give a title to 
 the promised land. 
 
 Mr. Massey: I amwrilling that the gentleman should 
 introduce new matter in the final negative, if he will 
 allow me to reply. 
 
 Mr. CouLLiNG : I do not intend to say anything more 
 upon that subject, except just to meet the gentleman's 
 own argument : nothing else. According to that, I hold 
 that circumcision was not a title to the promised land : 
 there is no doubt about that. 
 
 I have already brought forward this argument — an 
 argument that he has not met: that the apostle him- 
 self has distinctly stated that circumcision was a sign 
 and seal of righteousness. I have brought forward pas- 
 sage after passage from the Old Testament and the New 
 Testament Scriptures, showing that circumcision involved 
 an obligation to keep the law of G-od; that it was to 
 signify and represent the circumcision of the heart, and 
 was a title to spiritual benefits. Is not that the teach- 
 ing of Paul in Romans, G-alatians, or wherever the 
 doctrine is taught at all. The idea of circumcision not 
 being a seal to spiritual benefits, is probably as queer a 
 ught as I ever heard of. 
 
2i2 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 He thinlvs that I have gotten into a terrible difficulty, 
 and that I have certainly fallen into an egregious blun- 
 der in contending for infant baptism, because, in meet- 
 ing his first objection, that if everybody was baptized in 
 infancy, believer's baptism, in his sense of the term, 
 would be entirely destroyed. I went on to show that, 
 according to my theory, people would just arrive at that 
 state, finally, that God had promised to bring the world 
 and Church into. Suppose there be gray-headed men 
 who were baptized in infancy, who are gray-headed sin- 
 ners. Can you not find gray-headed sinners who have 
 been baptized in adult age ? Are all who have been 
 baptized in adult age all that they ought to be ? Are 
 there not very many people who have been baptized by 
 pouring, sprinkling, and immersion, when they were 
 adults, that are not a whit better after baptism ? I did 
 not state, nor did my words justify the deduction, that 
 because children were baptized they were therefore made 
 just what they ought to be. But I held, that when the 
 parent does his duty to his child, and recognizes his obli- 
 gations to his child, and all the benefits that the gospel 
 confers upon the world and upon his child, and recollects 
 that the promise of Grod is not only to him but to his 
 children, and then gives him the seal of the covenant, 
 and acts according to his obligation to his child, if 
 anything will bring about the millennium, that will do 
 it. And the time will come when the prophecy of the 
 Bible will be fulfilled, and men will everywhere see the 
 salvation of God. And what denomination, what class 
 of people, stands the best chance to urge on and bring 
 about that desirable condition ? Those who take the 
 young child from its infancy, and try to indoctrinate it 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 233 
 
 into the principles and spirit of the gospel of Jesus 
 Christ, or those who do not recognize their lot and part 
 in the covenant in this way ? I am willing to leave that 
 to as intelligent an audience as this. If there is any 
 import in the external form, it is to exhibit his confi- 
 dence in this thing. Then the parent that recognizes 
 this is much more apt to recognize the other than those 
 who do not. I do not intend to cast any reflection upon 
 my brethren, and say that they do not recognize their 
 duty. And I call you to witness that I do not, and have 
 not, cast any imputation upon the motives of those who 
 differ from me. I am only trying to present the truth, 
 and I think I have done it. And I think that, so far 
 from my premises being wrong, I have demonstrated 
 the correctness of my position to the satisfaction of this 
 audience. The brother admits that if my premises are 
 right, my conclusions are very good indeed. And I have 
 no doubt that my premises and conclusions are admitted 
 by the most of you very cordially. I am glad that he 
 thinks that something I say and something that I do are 
 right. 
 
 He affirms that in the estimation of the intelligent, 
 infant baptism is going out of repute ; that, in our Pedo- 
 baptist papers, a great many complaints are coming up 
 that parents do not have their children baptized. "Well, 
 that is complained of sometimes. And I think that it is 
 a very just complaint, and one that is very easily ac- 
 counted for. I came into this district* two and a half 
 years ago. I was asked by my brethren at Louisa Court- 
 house to deliver a sermon upon the subjects and modes 
 of Christian baptism. And I was told by two or three 
 persons who heard me then, " We have been members of 
 
234 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 the Church a long time, and this is the first time in our 
 lives we ever heard a Methodist preach upon baptism." 
 I was invited then to preach at different points. And 
 from that time to this I have never made an appointment 
 myself to preach a sermon on baptism. Generally, two 
 or three weeks before I have gone to my appointments, I 
 have received a request to preach upon the subject of bap- 
 tism. I received a letter, two or three days ago, from a 
 man whom I do not know, asking me to preach a sermon 
 upon the subject of baptism. And I received letters 
 from brethren who have said, I could judge of the pro- 
 priety of preaching on the subject myself, when I Avould 
 get to the place. But 1 have never preached a sermon on 
 the subject of baptism, but I have been told by some that 
 they never heard a sermon on that subject before from a 
 Methodist. And how many times have these very Meth- 
 odists, who object to infant baptism, heard, again and 
 again that the vScriptures did not warrant it, while they 
 have never heard anything to the contrary. I know that 
 whenever I have preached upon this subject, I have 
 been asked, and my brethren upon the circuit have 
 been asked, to baptize their children. Since this con- 
 troversy began, I have baptized one. And when this 
 subject is understood, and the Bible view of the subject 
 is presented, you will no longer see these complaints in 
 our papers. 
 
 Mr. Massey : Have you baptized a child since we 
 have been discussing the subjects of baptism ? 
 
 Mr. CouLLiNG : I said, since this controversy began. 
 I do not wonder at the complaints ; not at all. It would 
 be a very strange thing, when heretofore the discussion 
 of this subject has been all on one side, if there were 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 235 
 
 not a good many people, who have not the time to study 
 the subject for themselves, who should entertain some 
 doubts about it. But I will venture to say, that when 
 this subject is discussed and understood, these complaints 
 will cease. It is one of the most natural things in the 
 w^orld : it addresses itself to the best feelings of the hu- 
 man heart. No parent can help feeling a deep interest 
 in his child. And when that parent is told that that 
 child is a participant in the very covenant that embraces 
 him — that the promise is unto him and to his children, 
 there is no doubt that that parents' heart will leap w^ith 
 gladness, and that he will accept the terms. » 
 
 There is another objection that he urges, that I do 
 not exactly see the force of. He says that it deprives 
 the child of his natural rights. Natural rights ? What 
 natural rights ? God gives to me, providentially, the 
 care of a child. I honestly believe a certain theory, or 
 a certain set of doctrines ; and I would be recreant to 
 my duty and to my trust, if I did not teach that child , 
 what I thought was right. But, upon that principle, I 
 ought not to teach my child anything in the world upon 
 the subject of religion, as it would deprive the child of 
 his natural rights, but let him grow up untamed and 
 wild as the partridge on the mountains. Now, when I 
 come to teach that child, what am I to tell him ? Why, 
 what I really think and believe to be right. Then bring 
 up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old 
 he will not depart from it. You will not find much dif- 
 ficulty on the part of your children, if you teach them 
 aright. Point them to the Bible : show them what G-od 
 says in that book, and there will be no trouble with 
 them, no disturbances in their minds. You will find, 
 
236 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 that while depriving them of their natural rights, it will 
 only be a natural right to do wrong, or think wrong, in 
 some way : at least according to your ideas of right and 
 wrong. 
 
 Now, just in conclusion, I wish to say this much. I 
 have introduced for your consideration what I honestly 
 believed to be a correct view of this subject. I have 
 introduced an argument that I believe to be perfectly 
 conclusive. Let me epitomize it. I have attempted to 
 prove to you, and if plain, distinct passages of Scripture 
 can prove it, I think I have done so, that the covenant 
 that God entered into with Abraham was perpetuated 
 under different dispensations until the dispensation of 
 the gospel was ushered in ; that it is spoken of by the 
 inspired writers as identically the same. "When that cove- 
 nant was instituted, God gave the command that children 
 should receive the sign and seal of the blessing of that 
 covenant. It has not been repealed, there is no place in 
 the Bible, or in the history of the Church, where children 
 are formally expelled from it. There is one thing cer- 
 tain, then, and my good brother has not made the con- 
 trary appear, that although I might be mistaken — and 
 though I say that, I do not believe I am, I do not intend 
 to admit it or concede it in the slightest degree — one 
 thing is certain : I am guilty of no violation of the law 
 of God in baptizing infants. And another thing is quite 
 certain, that if believer's baptism is administered because 
 the person who believes is a proper character to receive 
 it, children are proper characters to receive it ; for before 
 believers can be fit to receive baptism, they must be- 
 come as little children. Another thing is quite certain, 
 that the little child is said by the blessed Saviour to be 
 
 i 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 237 
 
 fit for heaven ; and if so, I am s\ire he has the right, and 
 certainly the fitness, to receive the sign of that fitness 
 for the benefits conferred upon him by the gospel. Is 
 there anything irrational in that ? 
 
 I think I have shown you by the very clearest and 
 strongest arguments that can be introduced, that the 
 divine Redeemer and his apostles spoke of the Church 
 as already in existence. The Saviour is giving direc- 
 tions to his disciples. He says : '' If thy brother tres- 
 pass against thee" — '' go and tell it to the Church." 
 There is nothing anticipative in that ; but plain direc- 
 tions for present action, at that very moment of time. 
 And had any one of them had a controversy at that 
 time with his brother, this would have been the direc- 
 tion by which to govern himself. I think that is plain 
 from the passage. And what does Peter say ? He says, 
 that the blessed Saviour was with the ecclesia, the 
 Church in the wilderness. 
 
 Mr. Massey : As that is new matter, I will ask the 
 brother if he claims that ecclesia means what he under- 
 stands to be a Christian Church, in that passage ? 
 
 Mr. CouLLiNG : That is a different question. The 
 gentleman mooted that point, and I have been waiting 
 for it until the present time. I made that quotation 
 before. 
 
 Mr. Massey : It is well known by every G-reek scholar, 
 that the word ecclesia means assembly. 
 
 Mr. CouLLiNG : Yery well ; I will not debate that 
 point. Many of you will recollect that that is the very 
 passage I quoted from the Acts of the apostles. That 
 is not all. I went on to show you that when the disci- 
 ples started out to preach, they baptized adult people, as 
 
238 ' DEBATE ON THE 
 
 has been proved over and over again, no doubt. They 
 baptized them after they repented of their sins, and 
 after they believed in Christ. No doubt about that. 
 And then they baptized households. 1 stated in refer- 
 ence to the baptism of Lydia, that she believed, and 
 w^ith her household was baptized. My good brother 
 quoted the 40th verse of that chapter, to show that 
 there were brethren there. And I showed you that 
 those brethren were Brother Luke and Brother Timothy, 
 who had gone with brothers Paul and Silas, and lodged 
 with Lydia at her especial invitation. When brothers 
 Paul and Silas were put in jail, brothers Luke and 
 Timothy still remained at Lydia's house ; and when 
 Paul and Silas came out of the jail, they went to 
 Lydia's house and rejoiced with them. That is a per- 
 fectly plain and simple explanation of all that. If that 
 is not the explanation, then there were persons in the 
 house of Lydia baptized without a profession of faith ; 
 according to the Scripture, there was no profession of 
 faith except by Lydia. Now, as I do not believe that 
 the apostles ever did baptize adult people without a pro- 
 fession of faith — because my good brother says here 
 distinctly that in the baptism of adults they should be- 
 lieve, and I admit that — therefore, infants must have 
 been baptized. And he has helped me to that conclu- 
 sion right nicely by his own arguments. 
 
 Now, therefore, after all this, and the patient and 
 quiet manner in which you have listened to it, you are 
 all prepared to make your own decision upon the subject. 
 I leave the matter with you. If you agree with me, 
 so well, and so good. If you agree with my brother 
 Massey, I have no controversy with you : none in the 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 239 
 
 world. I am glad I am under the stars and stripes, 
 that I can worship G-od according to the dictates of my 
 own conscience ; none daring to molest me or make me 
 afraid. Thank God, I have never been afraid of any- 
 body in my life. I have been afraid, sometimes, that I 
 should be doing something wrong myself. But I never 
 saw that man yet I was afraid of. I am glad the laws 
 of my country protect me, and permit me to worship 
 God as I please. And I am glad in my heart of hearts 
 that I can accord the same privilege to others. And if 
 I could get you to think with me in any other way than 
 by fair argument, I should hate myself for it. You do 
 not forfeit ray respect or Christian love, by differing 
 with me on this or any other subject. Do it fearlessly 
 and honestly with all your heart, and the more earnestly 
 you carry out your principles, the more will I respect 
 you. 
 
 I think I need not detain you a moment longer. I 
 leave the subject with you, and leave you in the hands 
 of a good Providence. 
 
 [Close of the Second Day^s Discussion.] 
 
240 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 DEBATE ON THE DESIG-N OF BAPTISM. 
 Third Dai/s Discussion. 
 
 Thursday, July 12, 1860. 
 MR. MASSET'S FIRST ADDRESS. 
 
 Mr. Massey: — Messrs. Moderators, Ladies, and Gen- 
 tlemen : The subject that claims our attention to-day is 
 by no means inferior, in point of importance, to either of 
 the subjects which we have discussed in your hearing. 
 If I should express an opinion in regard to their relative 
 merits, I should say that this was of the first impor- 
 tance. The reasons ivhy men submit to the ordinance 
 of baptism, are. as a matter of course, questions of grave 
 importance. The ^proposition I affirm upon this subject 
 is this : 
 
 " Christian baptism is designed to show the faith of 
 the subject in the death, burial, and resurrection of Je- 
 sus Christ : as the procuring cause of his pardon and 
 salvation." 
 
 All who desire fellowship with Christians are required 
 to give some evidence of their faith in the death, burial, 
 and resurrection of Jesus Christ. To claim a "bright to 
 Christian associations and Christian ordinances, without 
 any recognition of our obligations to the author of Chris- 
 tianity, would be wholly inconsistent. 
 
 There are two parts of this subject that claim our 
 attention : first, the element used ; secondly, the act per- 
 formed ; from which, placing the two together, the de- 
 sign may be determined. Water, the element used, 
 fitly represents the purification of those who are plunged 
 in the consecrated stream, and readily conveys to the 
 
DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 241 
 
 mind of the beholder the impression that he who sub- 
 mits to this ordinance acknowledged himself to be defiled, 
 and, therefore, needed to be cleansed. In the second 
 place, that he professes to have been cleansed by the 
 blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, appropriated to him by 
 faith. These are the ideas conveyed to the mind of the 
 beholder when he sees an individual, upon a profession 
 of his faith, washed in the element referred to. 
 
 While the element teaches this lesson, the act per- 
 formed and submitted to shows or declares the faith of 
 the subject in the great prominent fundamental truths 
 of the gospel. Those truths are, that " Jesus Christ 
 died for our sins ; that he was buried, and that he rose 
 again for our justification." The atonement of Jesus 
 Christ occupies a position in the Christian system simi- 
 lar to that occupied by the sun in the solar sys- 
 tem. It is the great centre of the w^hole. Christ cruci- 
 fied was the great theme of apostolic preaching. This 
 is the great doctrine or truth to be believed and relied 
 upon by those who desire the benefits of the atonement 
 of Jesus Christ. In baptism there is a declaration by 
 the subject, who comes willingly^ cheerfully^ joyfully 
 to submit to it, of his faith in these great ^.w^ important 
 truths. Baptism declares our faith in the death of 
 Christ, and our claim to be dead with him. A burial 
 always presupposes a death. If we were to pass by a 
 graveyard and see a body being lowered to its last rest- 
 ing-place, we might ask of what disease that individual 
 died, and when he died ; but we would never ask if he 
 loere dead. The fact that we beheld those who loved 
 him most tenderly, committing him to the narrow con- 
 fines of the tomb, would be conclusive evidence to our 
 
 11 
 
242 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 minds that they recognized him as dead. His burial, 
 then, presupposes his death. So, in the ordinance of 
 baptism, the burial of the individual in baptism presup- 
 poses that he claims to be dead to sin — to be dead with 
 Christ. And he evinces that by being buried in like- 
 ness of Ihe burial of Christ. 
 
 As I wish, mider the circumstances which will cer- 
 tainly preclude us from a protracted discussion upon this 
 subject, to lay the basis of a plain, simple argument 
 upon the subject so clearly that I shall not be misunder- 
 stood, it will be necessary for me very briefly to show^ 
 what baptism is, to satisfy you that I am not mistaken 
 when I represent baptism as the figure of a burial. I 
 claim that baptism is the putting the subject under 
 water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and 
 of the Holy Ghost. I claim this upon the ground (the 
 only ground that I shall now take), that baptizo, the 
 word used to designate the ordinance, means to dip, to 
 plunge, to inwierse. 
 
 Mr. CouLLiNG : Allow me to raise a point of order. "We 
 have already debated that question, and I submit to the 
 moderators if it is lawful to reopen it now. 
 
 Mr. Massey: I hope that a third moderator will be 
 called to the stand before that point is decided. 
 
 Mr. CouLLiNG : I have no objection to that. 
 
 [The two moderators then present, Drs. Woods and 
 Anderson, called upon Mr. David Hansborough to act as 
 umpire, which he consented to do, and accordingly took 
 his seat upon the stand.] 
 
 Mr. CouLLiNG.: My point of order is one which I feel 
 no personal interest in at all. And I make it merely to 
 save the time of the congregation. You know that we 
 
DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 243 
 
 have already debated the mode of baptism, and Mr. 
 Massey, in attempting to establish his position in the 
 present argument, alludes to the very gist of that de- 
 bate. If you feel disposed to let him proceed, of course 
 I will have an opportunity to respond in precisely the 
 same direction. But I think if you do it you will open 
 the door of discussion just as wide as possible to the 
 renewal of the whole of that discussion, if he chooses to ' 
 follow in that track. I submit this point of order for 
 your decision. 
 
 Mr. Massey : So far as the question of time is con- 
 cerned, I suppose the gentleman need give himself no 
 concern ; our time is already determined. If I choose 
 to occupy my time in this way, it will be iny loss of 
 time (if it be a loss). So far as regards the propriety 
 of this mode of argument, I will only say that I simply 
 desire, by very brief testimony, to show, as I am refer- 
 ring to a figurative act^ that that figure is correctly 
 drawn from the substance. It is an argument upon the 
 design of baptism, and does not relate, necessarily, to 
 any former subject of debate. I claim that it is per- 
 fectly legitimate for me to pursue this line of argument. 
 He will have the right to respond to me in the same 
 way. 
 
 [After consultation, the moderators decided Mr. Mas- 
 sey to be in order, and permitted him to proceed.] 
 
 Mr. Massey : I propose, then, as the basis of my ar- 
 gument, to show what baptism is — what baptizo liter- 
 ally means, by a few quotations. And I shall then 
 proceed with my argument to show that the figure is 
 correctly drawn from the substance. To do this, I 
 present you the 'authority of all the lexicons used in 
 
244 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 the memorable discussion between the Rev. Alexander 
 Campbell and the Rev. N. L. Rice. A more learned 
 or able discussion has never taken place in our country. 
 Each man brought all he could find to sustain his side of 
 the subject. And I present the lexicons introduced by 
 each of them, that there shall be no charge of unfairness 
 against me for introducing those on one side only. I 
 will refer first to those introduced by Mr. Campbell : 
 
 ^''Scapula, a foreign lexicographer, of 1579. On bapto, 
 the root, he gives : mergo, immergo, item tingo (quod 
 sit immergendo) — to dip, to immerse ; also, to dye, be- 
 cause that may be done by immersing. Of the passive, 
 baptomai^ he says: 'Merger item lavor' — to be im- 
 mersed, to be washed. Oibaptizo : * mergo seu immer- 
 go, item submerge, item abluo, lavo' — to dip, to immerse ; 
 also, to submerge or overwhelm, to wash, to cleanse. 
 
 " Ne-xt, Henriciis Stephanus, of 1572: Baplo and 
 baptizo. ' Mergo seu immergo, ut quae tingendi aut 
 abluendi gratia aqua immergimus,' to dip or immerge, 
 as we dip things for the purpose of dyeing them, or im- 
 merge them in water. 
 
 ''^Thesaurus of Robertson, Cambridge, 1676: Merino 
 and lavo^ to immerse, to wash. 
 
 ^^ Schleusne?' (Glasgow ed., 1824): First, ' Proprie, 
 immergo ac intingo, in aquam immergo' — properly, it 
 signifies, I immerse, I dip, I immerse in water ; second, 
 it signifies, I wash or cleanse by water (quia haud rare 
 aliquid immergi ac intingi in aquam solet ut lavetur), 
 because, for the most part, a thing must be dipped or 
 plunged into water, that it may be washed." 
 
 It escaped my observation, in our former discussion, 
 that I had here the definition given by Schleusner, when 
 
DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 245 
 
 my brother quoted it from memory, as one of the three 
 lexicons in the University of Virginia. I stated to you 
 then — and I now make good my promise — that I would 
 examine into the authorities referred to by the gentle- 
 man, and see what they did teach. I have examined 
 them carefully. And now, by way of showing how far 
 they teach that baptizo means to sprinkle or to pour, 
 instead of giving you simply from memory what they 
 teach, I have given it to you from a printed statement 
 of it, and you can compare it with the book, and then 
 compare both with the definition given by Mr. Coulling. 
 
 To continue the quotations : 
 
 '•''Pasor (London ed., 1650) : ' Bapto et baptizo — 
 mergo, immergo tingo quod sit immergendo, differt a 
 dunai quod est profundum petere est penitus submergi.' 
 Again he adds : ' Comparantur afflictiones gurgitibus 
 aquarum quibus veluti merguntur qui miseriis et calam- 
 itatibus hujus vitse conflictantur ita, tamen merguntur 
 ut rursus emergant.' In English, ' to dip, to immerse, 
 to dye, because it is done by immersing ; it differs from 
 dunai, which means, to sink to the bottom and to be 
 thoroughly submerged. Metaphorically, in Matthew, 
 afflictions are compared to a flood of waters, in which 
 they seem to be immersed, who are overwhelmed with 
 the misfortunes and miseries of life : yet only so over- 
 whelmed, as to emerge again.' 
 
 ''^Parkliurst, in his lexicon for the New Testament, 
 gives primarily for baptizo, to dip, to immerse, or plunge 
 in water ; but in the New^ Testament it occurs not 
 strictly in this sense, unless so far as this is included in 
 ' — ' to wash one's self, be washed, wash the hands by 
 immersion, or dipping them in w^ater.' " 
 
246 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 The idea, I suppose, is, that in the New Testament it 
 is used to denote the application of water, and that this 
 was done at the same time by dipping or immersing in 
 water. I had Donnegan with me before. He is here 
 quoted, and I had no necessity to bring him again : 
 
 ^^ Donnegan gives, ' Baplizo, to immerse repeatedly in 
 a liquid, to submerge, to sink thoroughly, to saturate ; 
 metaphorically, to drench with wine, to dip in a vessel 
 and draw. Baptismos — immersion, submersion, the act 
 of washing or bathing. Baptistes (a baptist), one who 
 immerses, submerges. Baptisma — an object immersed, 
 submerged, washed, or soaked.' 
 
 ^^Rev. Dr. John Jones^ of England, defines bapto, ' I 
 dip, I stain ;' baptizo, ' I plunge, I plunge in water, dip, 
 baptize, bury, overwhelm.' 
 
 ''''Greenfield J the editor of the ' Comprehensive Bible,' 
 the ' Polymicrian New Testament,' &c., says : ' Bap- 
 tizo means, to immerse, immerge, submerge, sink.' In 
 the New Testament : ' To wash, to perform ablution, 
 cleanse, to immerse, baptize, and perform the rite of 
 baptism.' 
 
 ''''Professor Rost, a German linguist, in his standard 
 German Lexicon, defines bapto by words indicating, to 
 plunge, to immerse, to submerge. 
 
 '^Bretschneider, another G-erman lexicographer, affirms 
 that ' An entire immersion belongs to the nature of 
 baptism.' He defines it, ' Proprie, ssepius intingo, sse- 
 pius lavo,' and adds, ' this is the meaning of the word ; 
 for in bapiizo is contained the idea of a complete immer- 
 sion under water ; at least, so is baptisma^ in the New 
 Testament.' ' In the New Testament bapiizo is not 
 used, unless concerning the sacred and solemn submersion 
 
DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 247 
 
 which the Jews used, that they might ohlige an individ- 
 ual to an amendment of life, or that they might release 
 him from the guilt of his sins. In the New Testament, 
 without any adjunct, it means, I baptize in water in 
 the solemn rite (as the Latin fathers use i(). Actively, 
 I haptize one ; passively, I am immersed into v/ater in 
 the solemn ordinance, I am initiated hy baptism — Matt, 
 iii. 16; Mark i. 4; Rom. vi. 2. Baptis7na, immersion, 
 submersion. In the New Testament it is used only con- 
 cerning the sacred submersion, which the fathers call 
 baptism. It is used concerning John's baptism.' 
 
 "5^55, an English lexicographer for the New Testa- 
 ment, gives, baptizo, ' to dip, inmierse, to plunge in 
 w^ater, to bathe one's self; to be immersed in sufferings 
 or afflictions.' 
 
 ^^Slokius, who has furnished us with a Greek clavis 
 and a Hebrew clavis — one for the Hebrew and one for 
 the Grreek Scriptures, in his Leipsic edition of 1752, 
 says : ^ Bapitizo, generally, and by the force of the word, 
 indicates the idea of simply dipping and diving ; but 
 properly, it means to dip or immerse in water.' " 
 
 These thirteen lexicons were introduced by Mr. Camp- 
 bell. The following were introduced by Mr. Rice ; some 
 of them were the same that were used by Mr. Campbell, 
 and I give what each debater said of each lexicon : 
 
 '^ Scapula^ one of the old lexicographers to whom Mr. 
 Campbell appealed, thus defines the word baptizo : 
 * Mergo, sen immergo ; item tingo : ut quse tingendi aut 
 abluendi gratia aqua immergimus — item mergo, submer- 
 ge, abruo aqua — item abluo, lavo (Mark vii. ; Luke ii. 4) : 
 to dip or immerse — also, to dye — as we immerse things for 
 the purpose of coloring or washing them; also, to plunge. 
 
248 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 submerge, to cover with water ; also, to cleanse, to wash.' 
 (Mark viL ; Luke ii.) Baptismos he thus defines: ' Mer- 
 sio, lotio, ablatio, ipse immergendi, item lavandi seu 
 abluendi actus.' (Mark vii., &c.) Immersion, washing, 
 cleansing, the act itself of immersing ; also, of washing 
 or cleansing. (Mark vii. 4.) 
 
 '^Hedericiis thus defines baptizo : 'Mergo, immergo, 
 aqua, abruo ; (2) Ablao, lavo ; (3) Baptizo, significatu 
 sacro :' To dip, immerse, to cover with water ; (2) to 
 cleanse, to wash ; (3) to baptize in a sacred sense. 
 
 ^^Stephanus defines it thus: ' Mergo, seu imraergo, 
 ut qu8B tingendi aut abluendi gratia aqua immergimus. 
 Mergo, submergo, abruo aqua ; abluo, lavo :' To dip, 
 immerse, as we immerse things for the purpose of color- 
 ing or washing ; to merge, submerge, to cover with 
 water ; to cleanse, to wash. 
 
 ^^ Schleusner defines baptizo, not only to plunge, im- 
 merse, but to cleanse, wash, to purify with water (abluo, 
 lavo, aqua purgo). 
 
 '"^Parkliurst defines it: 'To immerse in or wash with 
 water, in token of purification.' 
 
 '^Robinson defines it: 'To immerse, to sink; for ex- 
 ample, spoken of ships, galleys, &c. In the New Testa- 
 ment, to wash, to cleanse by washing ; to wash one's self, 
 to bathe, perform ablution, &c.' 
 
 '^ Schriuellius defines it: 'Baptizo, mergo, abluo, lavo, 
 to baptize, to immerse, to cleanse, to wash.' " 
 
 Schrivellius is another of the three lexicons upon which 
 the brother relied, on the former occasion, to sustain sprink- 
 ling and pouring. Now bear in mind, my hisarers, that 
 while I presented authority from twenty-two Greek lex- 
 icons, he quoted from but three, and those from memory. 
 You noiu see hoiv far they siistain his views ! 
 
DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 249 
 
 *' Groves : * To dip, immerse, immerge, plunge ; to wash, 
 cleanse, purify. Baptizomai, to wash one's self, bathe, &c.' 
 
 " Bretschneider: ' Proprise, sepius intingo, sepius lavo ; 
 deinde (1) lavo,. abluo simpliciter — medium, &c. ; lavo 
 me, abluo me :' ])roperly, often to dip, often to wash ; 
 then, (1) .simply to wash, to cleanse ; in the middle 
 voice, ' I. wash or cleanse myself.' 
 
 " Suidas defines baptizo, not only to sink, plunge, im- 
 merse, but to wet, wash, cleanse, purify, «Scc. (madefa- 
 cio, lavo, abluo, purgo, mundo). 
 
 ^^Wahl defines it: first, to wash, perform ablution, 
 cleanse ; secondly, to immerse, &c. 
 
 '•'Greenfield defines it: to immerse, immerge, sub- 
 merge, sink ; and in the New Testament, to wash, per- 
 form ablution, cleanse ; to immerse." 
 
 Here are definitions of baptizo from twenty-one Greek 
 Lexicons. Here is another Grreek Lexicon, Liddell and 
 Scott, a work of high authority, prepared to enable the 
 student to read G-reek from the days of the earliest poets 
 down to the present time. It gives : 
 
 ''Baptizo^ to dip repeatedly, of ships, to sink them : 
 passive, to bathe : third, to baptize, New Testament ; 
 hence baptists^ a dipping, bathing, a washing, a draw- 
 ing water ; baptism. Eccl." 
 
 Now mark you, he says that in the New Testament 
 it means to baptize. And then he tells you what bap- 
 tisis means ; hence he says, '' a dipping, a bathing, wash- 
 ing, drawing water, baptism." 
 
 " Baptisma, that which is dipped. Bajjtisterion, a 
 bathing-place, swimming-bai h : the baptistry of a church. 
 Eccl. BaptisteSj one that dips, a dyer, a baptizer. Bap- 
 tos, dipped, dyed : bright colored, drawn like water." 
 
250 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 He gives you figurative as well as literal meanings. 
 There is but one lexicon \Yhich has been quoted in the 
 whole discussion by either of us ; the definition from 
 w^hich I have not presented. That is Stephens' The- 
 saurus. That is not here, nor was it here when the 
 gentleman quoted from it before. I am willing that my 
 statements as taken down by the reporter, shall be com- 
 pared with that book, when it can be examined here- 
 after ; and I assert that that book gives no more sup- 
 port to sprinkling or pouring, than those from which I 
 have quoted. 
 
 I have now introduced the strongest testimony that 
 can be presented, to lay the foundation upon which 
 to build the superstructure. If a scholar were seeking 
 to ascertain the meaning of any other word, Greek 
 or English, and, after finding such a collection of tes- 
 timony upon it as this, should go away dissatisfied, ] 
 should say that there was a fastidiousness about him 
 that would convince me that there was a screio loose 
 in his upper story. Here are twenly-two Greek lexi- 
 cons ; all giving to dip, to plunge, to immerse, as the 
 meaning of baptizo, and not one giving to sprinkle, or 
 pour, as even a secondary meaning of it. 
 
 Having now shown you that the literal meaning of 
 baptizo is to dip, plunge, immerse, submerge, I will pro- 
 ceed with my argument. Now, bear in mind that when- 
 ever these lexicons speak of the act, they speak of it as I 
 have indicated. When they speak, secondarily, of the 
 effect of the act, they speak of a wetting, a moistening, 
 a washing, a dyeing, &c., because those things are done 
 by immersion or dipping. 
 
 Now, I wish to satisfy your minds, that I have rightly 
 
DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 251 
 
 concluded from these premises, that when an individual 
 is buried in the liquid grave in baptism^ he represents 
 himself as having died with Christ the ^Saviour. I will 
 not simply present my argument, my oivri views. I 
 propose to show you that if I am mistaken, 1 am in the 
 very best of company. In other words, to show you 
 that the most able men concur with me in these views. 
 I will read you, first, what Paul says upon this point. 
 In Romans vi. 2, &c., you will find this : 
 
 " How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer 
 therein ? Know ye not that so many of us as were 
 baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death?" 
 
 Dr. McKnight, vol. i., page 287, paraphrases this pas- 
 saoje. thus : 
 
 " Our baptism teaches us, that we have died by sin. 
 For are ye ignorant^ that so many of us as have by 
 baptism become ChrisVs disciples, have been baptized 
 into the likeness of his death (verse 5), have been buried 
 under the water, as persons who, like Christ, have been 
 killed by sin (verse 10)." 
 
 He says before this, p. 283 : 
 
 " In baptism, the rite of initiation into the Christian 
 Church, the baptized person is buried under the water, 
 as one put to death with Christ on account of sin, in 
 order that he may be strongly inrpressed with a sense of 
 the malignity of sin, and excited to hate it as the great- 
 est of evils, verse 3. Moreover, in the same rite, the bap- 
 tized person being raised up out of the water, after being 
 washed, he is thereby taught that he shall be raised 
 from the dead with Christ, by the power of the Father, 
 to live with him forever in heaven', provided he is pre- 
 pared for that life by true holiness, verses 4, 5. Far- 
 
252 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 ther, by their baptism, believers are laid under the 
 strongest obligations to holiness, because it represents 
 their old man, their old corrupt nature, as crucified with 
 Christ, to teach them that their body, which sin claimed 
 as its property, being put to death, was no longer to 
 serve sin as its slave, verse 6." 
 
 I might have commented upon the third and fourth 
 verses of this chapter, before reading this exposition, but 
 I scarcely considered it necessary, as I endorse this view, 
 and take it as my own comment — that when an indi- 
 vidual is buried with Christ in baptism, it shows that 
 he professes that his old man, his old nature, is dead, 
 and therefore he wishes to bury it ; and that he is alive 
 to true holiness and to Jesus Cbrist, and therefore he 
 wishes, in likeness of his resurrection, to be raised up 
 with him to a new life. Patrick, Lowth, &o., say upon 
 the same passage : 
 
 " We are buried luitli him in baptism^ It being so 
 expressly declared here, and Col. ii. 12, that " we are 
 buried with Christ in baptism, by being buried under 
 water ; and the argument to oblige us to a conformity 
 to his death, by dying to sin, being taken hence, and 
 this immersion being religiously observed by all Chris- 
 tians for thirteen centuries, and approved by our Church, 
 and the change of it into sprinkling, even without any 
 allowance from the author of this institution, or any 
 license from any council of the Church, being that- 
 which the Romanist still urgeth to justify his refusal of 
 the cup to the laity, it were to be wished that this cus- 
 tom might be again of" general .use, and aspersion only 
 permitted, as of old, in case of the clinici, or in present 
 danger of death." 
 
DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 253 
 
 Robert Haldane says : 
 
 " 111 the verse before us the apostle proves that Chris- 
 tians are dead to siq, because they died with Christ. 
 The rite of baptism exhibits Christians as dying, as 
 buried, and as risen with Christ. Kyinw ye not — He 
 refers to \that he is now declaring as a thing well known 
 to those whom he addresses. Baptized into Jesus Christ 
 — By faith believers are made one with Christ, they 
 become members of his body. This oneness is repre- 
 sented emblematically by baptism. Baptized into his 
 death — In baptism, they are also represented as dying 
 with Christ. This rite, then, proceeds on the fact that 
 they have died with him who bore their sins." 
 
 On the 4th verse, he says : 
 
 •' The death of Christ was the means by which sin 
 was destroyed, and his burial the proof of the reality of 
 his death. Christians are therefore represented as buried 
 with him by baptism into his death, in token that they 
 really died with him ; and if buried with him, it is not 
 that they shall remain in the grave, but as Christ arose 
 from the dead they should also rise. Their baptism, 
 then, is the figure of their complete deliverance from 
 the guilt of sin, signifying that God places to their ac- 
 count the death of Christ as their own death : it is also 
 a figure of their purification and resurrection for the 
 service of God." 
 
 Olshausen, vol. iii., page 594, says upon the same 
 passage : 
 
 " In proof of the above affirmation, Paul appeals to 
 the consciousness of his readers with regard to their own 
 experience. They had gone through, he says, in bap- 
 tism, the death, nay, the burial of Christ with him, as 
 
254 DEBATE Ox\ THE 
 
 also the awakening to a now life. In this passage, 
 also, we are by his means to refer the baptism merely to 
 their own resolutions, or see in it merely a figure, in 
 which the one half of the ancient baptismal rite, the 
 submersion^ merely prefigures the death and burial of the 
 old man — the second half the emersion, the resurrec- 
 tion of the new man.'^ 
 
 These are the testimonies 1 propose to submit to 
 you upon that point. I submit the question to you, if 
 the plain teachings of the word of ^Tod do not justify 
 the conclusion to which all these writers, in common 
 with my humble self, have come, especially when we 
 have, as a basis, such a foundation as is laid by the 
 Greek lexicographers. 
 
 In the next place, he whoj in accordance with his 
 own desire, and upon his profession of faith in Jesus 
 Christ, is put under the water and raised-'up out of it, 
 declares, by these acts, his firm belief that Jesus Christ 
 not only died but that Ho was buried and rose again. 
 This I affirm to be the representation, or declaration, of 
 the act. Paul entertained this view of it when he was 
 arguing the question of the resurrection from the dead. 
 Many persons of that time denied the resurrection of the 
 dead. Paul met them with such arguments as these : 
 
 *' If Christ be not risen from the dead, then is our 
 preaching vain, and your faith is also vain." He seems 
 here to recoi^nize believins^ in the resurrection of Jesus 
 Christ, as the turning-point in all the claims to Christi- 
 anity. Jesus Christ had declared that He would be put 
 to death ; that He would be buried and remain three 
 days in the grave, and that He would arise from the 
 dead. The Jews understood this. You hear them say- 
 
DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 2o5 
 
 ing, that " this babbler said, while he was yet living, 
 that He would rise again." . They desired a band of 
 soldiers to guard the tomb, and prevent His disciples from 
 stealing away His body, and then claiming that He had 
 risen as^ain. All understood that the whole scheme de- 
 pended upon the asiswcr to the question, did Christ rise 
 from the dead according to His declaration ? Paul, 
 arguing in favor of the resurrection, says : " If the dead 
 rise not, why are they then baptized for the dead ?" You 
 will find this in the fifteenth chapter of 1 Corinthians, 
 and the twenty-ninth verse. The argument of this pas- 
 sage (to ray mind) is this : In every administration of 
 baptism, there is a symbolical representation of a burial 
 and a resurrection. This betokens the faith of the sub- 
 ject in the burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Why 
 do yoic thus act ? Paul asks, irhy do you continue this 
 witness, if you do not believe his testimony ? Why do 
 you say, by your baptism, when you are put under the 
 water, that you believe that Jesus Christ died and was 
 buried, and that you have died ivith Him ; why do you 
 say, by being raised up out of the water, that you be- 
 lieve Jesus Christ rose from the dead, if you do not be- 
 lieve it ? Your baptism would be a wholly unmeaning 
 ceremony if Christ had not risen. This is my opinion 
 of the argument Paul used. 
 
 In this opinion I am sustained by Pedobaptist writers 
 of the highest standing. 
 
 Dr. Adam Clarke says upon this point : 
 
 " The doctrine of the resurrection of our Lord was a 
 grand doctrine among the apostles ; they considered and 
 preached this as the demonstration of the truth of the 
 gospel. 2. The multitudes who embraced Christianity. 
 
256 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 became converts on the evidence of this resurrection. 
 
 3. This resurrection was considered the pledge and proof 
 of the resurrection of all believers in Christ, to the pos- 
 session of the same glory into which he had entered. 
 
 4. The baptism which they received, they considered as 
 an emblem of their natural death* and resurrection. 
 This doctrine St. Paul most pointedly preaches, Rom. vi., 
 8, 4, 5. Know ye not that so many of us as ivere bap- 
 tized into Jesus Christ ivere baptized into his death ? 
 Therefore ive are buried with him by baptism into 
 death ; that like as Christ ivas raised up from the dead, 
 even so we also should walk in newness of life ; for 
 if we have been planted together in the likeness of his 
 death, we shall be also in his resurrection. 5. It is evi- 
 dent from this, that all who died in the faith of Christ, 
 died in the faith of the resurrection.'''' 
 
 Passing by other remarks, I read : 
 
 '' 10. The sum of the apostle's meaning appears to 
 be this : If there be no resurrection of the dead, those 
 who, in becoming Christians, expose themselves to all 
 manner of privations, crosses, severe sufferings, and a 
 violent death, can have no compensation, nor any motive 
 sufficient to induce them to expose themselves to such 
 miseries. But as they receive baptism as an emblem of 
 death, in voluntarily going under the water, so they re- 
 ceive it as an emblem of the resurrection unto eternal 
 life, in coming up out of the water ; thus they are bap- 
 tized for the dead, in perfect faith of the resurrection.*' 
 
 Mr. Barnes says, upon the same subject : 
 
 " The other opinion, therefore, is, that the apostle 
 here refers to baptism as administered to all believers* 
 This is the most correct opinion ; is the most simple, and 
 
DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 257 
 
 best meets the design of the argument. According to 
 this, it means that they had been baptized with the hope 
 and expectation of a resurrection of the dead. They 
 had received this as one of the leading doctrines of the 
 gospel when they were baptized. It was a part of their 
 firm and full belief that the dead would rise. The argu- 
 ment^ according^ to this interpretation, is, that this was 
 an essential article of the faith of a Christian ; that it 
 was embraced by all ; that it constituted a part of their 
 very profession ; and that for any one to deny it was to 
 deny that which entered into the very foundation of the 
 Christian faith." 
 
 Dr. McKnight says upon this passage : 
 " Baptism being an emblematical representation of 
 the death and burial and resurrection, not only of Christ, 
 but of all mankind, Rom. vi. 4, it was fitly made the 
 right of initiation into the Christian Church ; and the 
 person who received it, thereby publicly professino^ his 
 belief of the resurrection of Christ and of the dead, 
 might with the greatest propriety be said to have been 
 baptized for the dead, that is, for his belief of the resur- 
 rection of the dead." 
 
 I have another work to refer to upon this passage, but 
 I think these are sufficient to show that if my views of 
 the meaning of this portion of divine truth are incorrect, 
 I have fallen into a mistake into which the most able 
 Pedobaptist authors have also fallen. I do not bring 
 you here a collection of testimonies from Baptists ; there 
 is one general agreement with them upon this point. I 
 bring you no partial testimony. You cannot suppose 
 that men whose partialities are on the other side would 
 make admissions in my favor, unless they were con- 
 
258 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 strained to do it by an honest and conscientious convic- 
 tion. Sach is the meaning of the text, and they are 
 bound to declare it. They could not go contrary to this 
 interpretation or construction of the plain word. 
 
 Again : Baptism stands as a commemorative ordi- 
 nance. It is one of the three living witnesses that tes- 
 tify to all, and will continue to testify through all re- 
 maining ages of the world, of the glorious truths which 
 it symbolizes. " There are three that bear record in 
 heaven, the Father, the AVord, and the Holy Ghost ; and 
 these three are one." '^ There are three that bear record 
 on earth, the spirit, the water and the blood, and these 
 three agree in one." When the spirit, my brother, en- 
 tered your heart and bore witness with your spirit that 
 you were born of G-od, you had within yourself a living 
 witness of the great and glorious truth that the gospel 
 of Jesus Christ was of divine origin. When you were 
 buried with Christ in baptism, there was another living 
 witness standing out and testifying to all who beheld it, 
 that you believed Jesus Christ died for your sins, and 
 rose again for your justification. When you meet 
 around the sacred board to partake of the emblems 
 of the broken body and shed blood of Jesus Christ, 
 there is a iJiird witness, and all three agree in the same 
 testimony. 
 
 Suppose some foreigner, who had never heard that we 
 were once under British rule, enters our land on the 
 Fourth of July, and, seeing our great military displays, 
 w^hile the stars and stripes are floating above us, asks 
 what this means? You would say to him, it is the 
 celebration of a great and wonderful event : it is the 
 comme7noratio7i of the declaration by the American coIo- 
 
DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 259 
 
 nists, that they were, and of right ought to be, free and 
 independent. He might ask, is it true they ever made 
 any such a declaration? You \Yould say, " Sir, can 
 you conceive that men would commemorate an event 
 ichich never took place? If you will begin, sir, and 
 trace back our history, you will find that this same day 
 has been celebrated every year from the birth of our 
 national independence until the present time." 
 
 "Would not this be strong-, if not conclusive evidence, 
 that these people were once under different rule, and 
 that they declared and maintained their independence ? 
 It may be, and God grant that it 77iay be so ; that gene- 
 rations yet unborn shall rise up and rejoice, as my brother 
 did yesterday, that they live under the stars and stripes. 
 
 And just here allow me to say, (as it was in his last 
 address, and I had no opportunity to reply to it — it is 
 a digression, I know, from the present argument), I 
 couJd not but feel curious to learn who dared make 
 mouths at my brother ichile he was under my c§re. 
 What could have called forth those declarations oi fear- 
 lessness and valor ? I felt almost like saying : my 
 brother, make yourself perfectly easy ; you shall not be 
 hurt while you are with me ; I have determined for the 
 residue of your stay in this district, to pay attention to 
 you ; to observe your movements, and as long as you 
 behave yourself as a modest man ought to do, nobody 
 shall hurt you ; but if you become saucy and conceited, 
 and ofive another s^eneral challens^e to " all the world 
 and the rest of mankind," to discuss these things with 
 you, I will take you in hand again, and teach you to be 
 a little more careful and cautious. But, may God grant 
 that thousands of years may see the. stars and stripes 
 
260 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 floating over our unsevered union I And should this he 
 the case, and should any ask, a thousand years from 
 this time, what is the Fourth of July celebrated for ? 
 the answer will teach the same lessons it taus^ht the 
 very first time it was celebrated. It is a cominemora- 
 tion of events dear to us as a nation, — hence we ob- 
 serve it. 
 
 And so we regard baptism. It is a commemoration 
 of events far back in the world's history. More than 
 eighteen hundred years have rolled around, and yet it is 
 just as true to-day that Jesus Christ died for our sins, 
 and rose for our justification, as it was eighteen hun- 
 dred years ago. And the very same truth is presented 
 to our mind by this commemoration ; by this burial 
 ivith Christ in baptism, as when it was first adminis- 
 tered. By it, we say, as emphatically as those who 
 were buried with Christ in baptism in the days of the 
 apostles did, that loe believe that Jesus Christ died for 
 ou^ sins, and that we profess to be dead to sin. By our 
 being raised up out of the water, ive declare our belief 
 that Jesus Christ arose fro^n the dead, for our justifica- 
 tion ; and that we are now, in likeness of his resurrec- 
 tion, raised up out of the liquid grave. AVe declare to 
 the world, that we believe that Jesus Christ lives to die 
 no more; and that ive, being new creatures, possessed 
 of a never-ending life^ of an eternal inheritance, having 
 once died, are now risen with Christ through faith in 
 Grod's dear Son, to enjoy an everlasting life. We de- 
 clared our belief in these truths, by submitting to this 
 ordinance. Baptism has not washed away our sins ; it 
 has not killed our old man. We do not bury a man to 
 kill him ! We bury him because he is dead. We do 
 
DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 261 
 
 not baptize a man to kill sin in him or to make him a 
 Christian ; but because he is a Christian., and wishes, 
 "by this declarative act, by this act of obedience to Jesus 
 Christy to declare his faith in the deaths burial., and 
 resurrection of Jesus Christ as the procuring cause of 
 his pardon and salvation. This is the declaration 
 made by every proper administration of the ordinance of 
 baptism. 
 
 [Time expired] 
 
 MR. COULLING'S FIFTH REPLY. 
 
 Mr. CouLLiNG : If I have been fortunate enough to 
 receive the views that my good brother has endeavored 
 to present, I understand him to teach this doctrine : that 
 in the sixth chapter of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans 
 we are told that we ought to be baptized into death, and 
 that passage teaches us that our baptism is intended to 
 represent — I think he used that term^ — that it is intended 
 to symbolize — another term that he used — that it is in- 
 tended to show — the term he employs in the proposition 
 he is debating — the death, and burial, and resurrection, 
 of Jesus Christ. If I did not misunderstand him, he 
 said that baptism is intended to symbolize that. His 
 proposition is that baptism is intended to show the faith 
 of the person in the death, burial, and resurrection of 
 Christ, as the procuring cause of his pardon and salva- 
 tion. His argument is that baptism is intended to rep- 
 resent the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus 
 Christ. That is his argument. He states one point, and 
 argues another. 
 
262 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 Mr. Massey: I stated all along that it was to show his 
 faith in those truths. 
 
 Mr. CouLLiNG : Is it to represent his faith in those 
 truths, or is it to represent those truths ? which is it ? 
 However, never mhid that ; we W' ill try to eliminate his 
 meaning. 
 
 Before I proceed to notice what he has referred to, I 
 wish to call your attention to the very solid foundation 
 upon which he has erected this superstructure ; the 
 foundation upon which he stands with the utmost confi- 
 dence, for which he congratulates himself. And yet, 
 pray, what is that foundation ? In the first place he 
 refers to lexicographers to prove that baptizo means only 
 immerse ; and one half of the very lexicons cited hy 
 Alexander Campbell, that he read, give to baptizo more 
 meanings than immerse. Almost every one that was 
 cited by Dr. Rice, does identically the same thing. So 
 that it is a notorious fact, from Dan to Beersheba, that 
 baptizo has not one meaning only. The brother is right 
 fond of quoting Pedobaptist authorities. Now allow me 
 to quote an immersionist authority. He certainly can- 
 not object to Dr. Alexander Carson, one of the very 
 strongest men upon that subject that I know anything 
 about. I will read a sentence or two from the 55th 
 page of his work on Baptism : 
 
 " Having viewed bapto in every light in which it can 
 assist us on this subject, I shall now proceed to exhibit 
 the examples of the occurrence of baptizo itself, which, 
 to the utter exclusion of the rest, is applied to the 
 Christian rite. It has been generally taken for granted, 
 that the two words are equally applicable to baptism, 
 and that they both equally signify to dye. Both of them 
 
DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 263 
 
 are supposed, in a secondary sense, to signify to wash or 
 moisten. I do not admit this with respect to either. I 
 have ah'eaily proved this with respect to bapio ; the proof 
 is equally strong Avith respect to baptizo. My position 
 IS, that it ahvays signifies to clip ; never expressing' 
 anytliing but mode. IN^ow, as I have all the lexicogra- 
 phers and commentators against me in this opinion, it 
 will be necessary to say a w^ord or two with respect to 
 the authority of lexicons." 
 
 Now, there'is iho, testimony of a man who adjusted him-* 
 self to the task (and I tell you it is a herculean task) 
 to prove that baptizo means nothing in the world but 
 to immerse ; that is the confession he makes. 
 
 1 quoted, my friend says, from three lexicons in the 
 former debate. I quoted from nineteen. I quoted from 
 memory, you are told. I went to the University library — 
 
 Mr. Massey : Nineteen here,. or at Mount Moriah ? 
 
 Mr. CouLLiNG : Nineteen yonder at the stand. I have 
 them here in my book. 
 
 Mr. Massey : I must have been deaf when you did 
 it. 
 
 Mr. CouLLiNG : I cannot answer for your ears ; I know 
 I did read them. It is said I quoted from memory. I 
 wish to make one remark. I went to Mr. Holcombe, the 
 librarian of the University of Virginia, and asked hi'm 
 to let me see several Greek lexicons ; among the rest 
 were Stephens' Thesaurus, and Passow's G-reek and 
 Grerman Lexicon. The correctness of my definition has 
 been proved by Passow from Homer, Hesiod, and Herod- 
 otus, who used baptizo to signify to pour ; and no man 
 can gainsay that, unless he can file an objection to Pas- 
 sow, which will destroy his authority as a scholar. 
 
264 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 Let me tell you what I copied from Schleusner's lexicon, 
 which has been dwelt upon here with a great deal of 
 emphasis. Schleusner gives these meaningsk : merg-o, 
 or immergo, mergo -^means to merse, and immergo to 
 immerse. And he adds immediately : " but never in 
 this signification in the New Testament." I stopped 
 when I put that down, because it was all that I wanted. 
 That is in the University library, and any one can find it 
 there, if he chooses to go there to look for it. Now, I 
 say, there is the corner-stone, and almost all around the 
 foundation of the good brother's position. 
 
 Now to makeup the rest of the foundation what does 
 he do ? He applies to a set of men, of w^hom he affirms 
 most pointedly, that if they do not agree with him, that 
 baptizo means nothing but to immerse, after all that he 
 has said, there is a screw loose somewhere. And every man, 
 then, has a screw loose somewhere. That is his founda- 
 tion. If he is mistaken, he says, he is mistaken in very 
 good company. Well, that may be. Error after error 
 has been handed down through ages, until, hoary with 
 those ages, its very deformities have become attractive. 
 And this is one of those hoary errors. Let any man take 
 up any history of the Church — I do not care which it is 
 — and just read the notions and views that have been 
 variously entertained upon almost every subject in the- 
 ology, and he will not then be astonished at anything. 
 Now so much for the foundation of this theory, the 
 foundation of this superstructure. 
 
 Now let us look at the superstructure itself. It is a 
 singular affair, I assure you. In one place he tells you 
 that w^e are to be buried, and we are to be buried, why ? 
 well, because we are alive to Christ ; we have professed 
 
DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 
 
 265 
 
 our faith in Christ, and we are to be buried. In another 
 place he tells you that our old man is to be buried, and 
 then we are to be raised up. What becomes of the old 
 man ? Does it stay there in the water ? There is a 
 want of consistency in the theory. The idea itself is 
 not very distinct or very plain, but I will attempt to give 
 it. It is, I think, that going down into the water repre- 
 sents the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. 
 These little inconsistencies do not appear at first. But 
 when you come to look at it after the fog clears off, you 
 will find that it changes its appearance altogether. 
 
 Now, I want to look at his own definition for a few 
 moments. He says that baptism is intended to show the 
 faith of the subject in the death, burial, and resurrection 
 of Jesus Christ. This is his profession of faith. Now, 
 I want to know one or two things that are not expressed 
 here. I want to know who intends baptism to show 
 that ? Mr. Massey, or the good Lord ? He does not 
 Tell us. If Mr. Massey tells me that he intends to show 
 that forth, I say, go on and show it : I have no sort of 
 objection to that, I have no sort of concern what he 
 means by baptizing anybody. He has a right to express 
 precisely what he chooses. But if he intends to say that 
 the Lord intended baptism to show that, why not tell 
 us where the Lord said so ? Is there any mistake about 
 what the Lord's Supper is intended to show ? No. 
 Why ? Because the blessed Saviour says, according to 
 Matthew: "Take, eat; this is my body. And then he took 
 the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, 
 Drink ye all of this, for this is the blood of the new 
 testament, which is shed for many for the remission of 
 sins." St. Paul, in commenting upon that, says : 
 
 12 
 
266 
 
 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 " That the Lord Jesns, the same night in which he 
 was hetrayed, took bread : and when he had given 
 thanks, he brake it, and said : Take, eat ; this is my 
 body, which is broken for you : this do in remembrance 
 of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, 
 when he had supped, saying. This cup is the new testa- 
 ment in my blood : this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in 
 remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, 
 and drink this cup, ye do. show the Lord's death till he 
 come." 
 
 There we have divine authority for that. I say that 
 the blessed Lord intended the sacrament of the Lord's 
 Supper to be commemorative. I say it, because the 
 Lord says so. Where is there a " thus saith the Lord," 
 that baptism was so intended? It is not to be found, 
 or the industry, the indefatigability and research of that 
 good brother would have brought it up here and nailed 
 the subject fast. Where does the idea come from? 
 Well, he quoted this very sixth chapter of Romans to 
 prove that baptism was to be performed by immersion. 
 Now, he assumes that baptism is to be performed by 
 immersion, and then brings this very quotation to illus- 
 trate what he has been arguing to-day. And thus he 
 makes this poor text do double duty, double service. 
 
 Let us go on a little farther. He says baptism is in- 
 tended to represent the faith of the subject. Faith is a 
 very ethereal thing ; thoughts are exceedingly slim, thin 
 things. How can you represent them ? What repre- 
 sents a thought ? Can you tell me ? I am thinking 
 now of what ? You cannot tell me, and I could not tell 
 you, to save my life, unless I were to speak a word, and 
 then probably I could give you some idea of it. I want 
 
DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 267 
 
 you to represent your thoughts. How do you do it ? 
 Represent faith. How can you doit? AVhat sort of a 
 thing will the representation be? Oblong, square, cate- 
 cornered, or a diamond? What sort of thing will the 
 pure idea of the mind be ? But he intended to say that 
 baptism was intended to represent the object of the 
 faith, not the faith itself. The object of the 'faith, he 
 says, is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus 
 Christ. That is the object. He does not mean to say 
 that baptism represents simply the existence of these 
 things, does he ? He does not intend to say, that when 
 I believe in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus 
 Christ, I believe that Jesus Christ did die, was buried, 
 and did rise again ? There are hundreds of men in the 
 world who believe that, and my good brother would not 
 immerse them, for the plain and simple reason that they 
 do not answer to the character that he requires. They 
 would not be acceptable in the sight of Grod, and there- 
 fore would not be accepted by him. Baptism, then, 
 does not represent these facts, but, according to his own 
 definition, it is intended to represent the faith of the 
 individual in these things as the procuring cause — he 
 says, the procuring cause — of his pardon and salvation. 
 Now, he is evidently mistaken in that. He just now 
 said, half a dozen times, that he did not believe that bap- 
 tism produced any such effect at all. He said that the 
 Holy Spirit changed the heart. And then he turned 
 around and said to a good brother there, '' When the 
 Holy Spirit came into your heart, you had a living wit- 
 ness." That is what he said. Does baptism bury a 
 man, or raise a man from the dead, literally ? No, cer- 
 tainly not. The object of the man's faith is a powerful 
 
268 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 operation of the Holy G-host, secured to the man through 
 the atonement of Christ, through that as the meritorious 
 cause, and the Spirit is the procuring and efficient cause. 
 So that, if you take his own proposition, you will find 
 that that knocks down his own superstructure and all 
 around it. Not a single particle of foundation in the 
 lexicons.* And as for these poor Pedobaptists, they have 
 a screw loose somewhere. And if he cannot trust them 
 upon one point, how can he upon another ? They made 
 a mistake, a grand universal blunder, right upon the 
 foundation of the affair, and he brings them here now, 
 what for? Why, poor fellows ! to prove that they made 
 another blunder. They were wrong, once ! Certainly. 
 I think that is as clear as a sunbeam. 
 
 I never wondered more in my life than I have at the 
 course pursued with reference to these Pedobaptist au- 
 thorities. Is it possible that we are to be told here that 
 here are good men, that here are trustworthy men, and 
 we are to take their views upon this subject, when their 
 conduct is point-blank against those very views ? Now, 
 must there not be, upon the very surface of the thing, 
 some misapprehension ? The good brother takes up an 
 isolated passage from these men, and reads their com- 
 ments, when they are probably giving their comments 
 without any sectarian or controversial notion whatever, 
 and following out trains of thought upon a thousand dif- 
 ferent things, without any bearing upon any particular 
 subject at all. And when they come to look at this 
 subject, they are Pedobaptists in everything. Yet, ac- 
 cording to his showing, they are dishonest men. every 
 one of them, giving countenance and support to what 
 they do not believe, and in which they are acting con- 
 
DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 269 
 
 trary to all their convictions of duty. Do you believe 
 it? Is this audience prepared to helieve it? I trow 
 not. 
 
 Let us go a step farther upon this proposition. I 
 stated that this was Mr. Massey's confession of faith : 
 that when he baptizes a person, he says he baptizes him 
 that he may show his faith in the death, burial, and 
 resurrection of Jesus Christ as the procuring cause of his 
 pardon and salvation. Well, is this all that a man be- 
 lieves whom he receives into the Church? It is not 
 the half. There is not a single man that does not be- 
 lieve. He believes himself, as firmly as T do, that the 
 blessed Redeemer, whose sufferings and death, he says 
 — and says without a particle of authority from God — is 
 represented by that act, he knows that that blessed Re- 
 deemer lived eternally with God, and he believes in his 
 pre-existence as firmly as I do. He believes in his im- 
 maculate conception. He believes not only in his death, 
 his burial, and resurrection, but he believes in his glorious 
 ascension ; and he believes, as firmly as I do, in his 
 prevalent, constant intercession. Now, pray tell me 
 upon what authority, without any express command at 
 all, can he bring baptism here to express only three 
 things out of a thousand things that are predicable of 
 this very same Redeemer just as well ? That is making 
 a selection, it seems to me, without any very good rea- 
 son. I cannot understand it, to save my life. I do not 
 see why, for another reason : that when my blessed Re- 
 deemer took the last supper he gave an act to commem- 
 orate his death. Here another one should be introduced, 
 and by whom ? I do not know, and I doubt very much 
 whether it would not puzzle the world to find out who 
 
270 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 introduced it. God did not do it : certainly he did not 
 do it. The Saviour assumed the prerogative of appoint- 
 ing a commemorative act to show forth his death. Does 
 not the man who sets up another act for the same pur- 
 pose, step too high, and assume the prerogative the Lord 
 assumed ? I want a " thus saith the Lord'- for it. The 
 bare deduction from a passage of Scripture — which, 
 when you come to look at it in the light of a sound rea- 
 son, so far as it means anything, means something else 
 — cannot support a dogma like this. 
 
 Again, there is another serious difficulty to my mind. 
 It may not seem so to him : I do not suppose it will. 
 But, " I baptize you in the name of the Father, of the 
 Son, and of the Holy Ghost ?" What do you mean by 
 that ? Do you mean to represent the death, the burial, 
 and resurrection of but one person in the whole Trinity? 
 Why, then, ''the name of the Father?" Why, then, 
 "the name of the Holy Ghost?" Can you tell me? 
 Not a single reference to either of the other persons in 
 the adorable Trinity, according to the good brother's 
 confession of faith, in this, act of baptism. He is not a 
 Unitarian, or a Deist. T\o : he is as genuine a Trinita- 
 rian as I am. And yet, w^hen he baptizes in the name 
 of the Trinity, according to his own definition of bap- 
 tism, it is downright TJnitarianism, Deism, in its very 
 essence, because it makes allusion to but one person of 
 the adorable Trinity. He does not mean it, never upon 
 this earth; he could not be capable of making such a 
 blunder as that. These are, however, the necessary logi- 
 cal deductions. I speak as unto wise men : judge what 
 I say. These are difficulties he has gotten himself into : 
 I did not put him there ; he has brought himself there. 
 
DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 271 
 
 There is another difficujty in this passage of Scripture 
 that he quotes. This is the foundation of the whole idea. 
 And if one or two words had been altered in this sentence, 
 probably it never would have suggested itself. I will 
 read the whole of the passage from the sixth of Romans : 
 
 " What shall we say then ? Shall we continue in 
 sin, that grace may abound ? Grod forbid : how shall 
 we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Know 
 ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus 
 Christ, were baptized into his death ? Therefore we are 
 buried with him by baptism into death : that like as 
 Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the 
 Father, even so should we also walk in newness of life. 
 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of 
 his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resur- 
 rection : knowing this, that our old man is crucified 
 with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that 
 henceforth we should not serve sin." 
 
 Now, I leave it to any well-ordered mind to take these 
 six verses and read them together, and then answer this 
 plain and simple question, whether or not the apostle is 
 not endeavoring in that passage to call the attention of 
 Christians to the high spirituality of the religion which 
 they profess? And not only to its spirituality, but also 
 to the powerfully renewing and regenerating influences 
 that that Christianity was intended to confer. And how 
 does he argue it ? " Know ye not, that so many of us 
 as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into 
 his death ?" Baptized! does he mean water baptism? 
 Certainly not : he has denied that. How baptized ? 
 " Baptized into Christ." How are you baptized into 
 Christ? Paul shall answer: I will give you his very 
 words from 1 Corinthians xii. 13 : 
 
272 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 '' For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, 
 whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or 
 free ; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. 
 For the body is not ojie member, but many." 
 
 Then ye are buried with him by baptism. By water 
 baptism ? Buried with him by the baptism of the 
 Holy Grhost. Look at another idea contained in the 
 very same passage from Romans. Not only buried 
 with him, but you are crucified with him ; not only 
 crucified with him, but you are planted with him ; and 
 not only buried, crucified, and planted with him, but 
 risen with him. How ? By water baptism ?' Never ; 
 never ; he himself denies it, discards the idea that the 
 apostle meant water baptism here. It is the baptism of 
 the Holy Ghost upon the heart of the man ; and that 
 very moment that you make it water baptism, you 
 make water baptism his Saviour, and not the cross of 
 Jesus Christ. So then, the apostle, so far from counte- 
 nancing this idea, actually and positively is not talking 
 about water baptism at all. And if you had asked the 
 apostle how that Spirit was to be granted to you, he 
 would have told you just as John the Baptist would 
 have told you. That is, that the Spirit is granted — 
 never baptized, never immersed — always possessed, 
 always sprinkled with the Spirit. I have no more idea 
 that the apostle had any such thought in his head, than 
 I believe I coincide in the brother's notions upon this 
 subject, and I know I don't. 
 
 That is not all of itj though. The difficulties about 
 this subject thicken, and thicken very rapidly. Sup- 
 pose that it should be contended that it was water bap- 
 tism. I have one passage of Scripture that will bring 
 
DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 273 
 
 one of the inspired writers into very great difficulty then. 
 If water baptism does all this, he will not contend for 
 it, I know that he will not — but if he do, I would like 
 to know what he would say to St. Paul. Paul says, 1st 
 Corinthians, 1st chapter, and 14th verse : 
 
 " I thank God that I baptized none of you but Cris- 
 pus and Gains, * * * and I baptized also the house- 
 hold of Stephanas ; besides I know not whether I bap- 
 tized any other." 
 
 Oh, yes, says an immersionist, why not give the rea- 
 son ? "Well, here it is ! 
 
 " Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine 
 own name." 
 
 And does he not also say : 
 
 " For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the 
 gospel." 
 
 And when I say to you, and say everywhere, when I 
 do say anything on this subject, that I regard all this 
 controversy as amounting to nothing at all, for there is 
 no reason why Christians should fall out with each 
 other, to fall out by the way, I shelter myself under 
 the broad armor of St. Paul, and say : God did not 
 send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel. I don't 
 like to baptize ; to immerse. I don't like to go down 
 into cold water and immerse people. I don't like to do 
 it in cold weather, and I won't do it, I think 1 have 
 St. Paul's authority for that. Paul said, Christ sent 
 me not to baptize, therefore I can look out, and view 
 the brother's opinions upon this subject with the utmost 
 composure and the utmost unconcern. Why ? Be- 
 cause I think they are all foreign to the man, cutane- 
 ous, lying on the outside ; every bit of it. 
 
 12# 
 
274 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 Again (and I want your especial attention to this, 
 for I think it is an important view of the subject, and 
 one, perhaps, wl:iich some of you never have taken be- 
 fore) : The apostle, in this passage of Scripture, intend- 
 ed to introduce the very strongest views upon the sub- 
 ject of spiritual religion that I think can be evinced 
 from the following collection of passages of Scripture. 
 I will call your attention now to a few of them. The 
 first one I have already read from the twelfth chapter 
 of 1st Corinthians, and 13th verse. And I will read it 
 again, just to make this comment. 
 
 " For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body." 
 
 Now mark you, there is no allusion, and I do not sup- 
 pose my good brother will say there is any allusion here, 
 to water baptism, for it says distinctly, " by one Spirit 
 are we all baptized." 
 
 " For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, 
 whether we be Jews or Grentiles, whether we be bond 
 or free ; and have been all made to drink into one 
 Spirit." 
 
 Do you not see hov7 the one reflects upon the other 
 passage ? Again, in Gralatians, second chapter, 20th 
 verse : 
 
 " I am crucified with Christ : nevertheless, I live ; 
 yet not I, but Christ liveth in me ; and the life which 
 I now live in the flesh, I live by the faith of the Son of 
 God, who loved me, and gave himself for me." 
 
 Now, here is one of the very figures — crucify — em- 
 ployed in this verse that is employed in the sixth chap- 
 ter of Romans. And the brother can see that it has no 
 allusion whatever to baptism. Another passage in point 
 is in Gralatians iii. 27 : 
 
DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 275 
 
 " For as many of you as have heeii baptized into 
 Christ, have put on Christ." 
 
 Certainly, not by water baptism. 
 
 " There is neither Jew nor Grreek, there is neither 
 bond nor free, there is neither male nor female ; for ye 
 are all one in Christ Jesus." 
 
 Another passage to which I wish to call your atten- 
 tion is, Ephesians, second chapter, beginning with the 
 first verse : 
 
 " And you hath he quickened, who were dead in tres- 
 passes and sins ; wherein in time past ye walked ac- 
 cording to the course of this world, according to the 
 prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now work- 
 eth in the children of disobedience : amons^ whom also 
 we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of 
 the flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the 
 mind ; and were by nature the children of wrath, even 
 as others. But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great 
 love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in 
 sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace 
 ye are saved :)" 
 
 Not by water baptism. 
 
 "And hath raised us up together, and made us sit to- 
 gether in heavenly places, in Christ Jesus ; that in the 
 ages to come he mis^ht show the exceedinsf richness of 
 his grace in his kindness towards us through Christ 
 Jesus." 
 
 No less than two of the very terms that are employed 
 in the sixth chapter of Romans, are employed in this 
 sentence. Again, Philippians iii. 8-10, occurs : 
 
 " Yea, doubtless, and I count all things but loss for 
 the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: 
 
276 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do 
 count them but dung, that I may win Christ, and he 
 found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which 
 is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, 
 the righteousness which is of God by faith : that I may 
 know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the 
 fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable to 
 his death." 
 
 Will anybody deny that the apostle in this very pas- 
 sage is arguing precisely as he did in the sixth chapter 
 of Romans? Again, in Colossians ii. 11, &c. : 
 
 " In whom also ye are circumcised with the circum- 
 cision made without hands, in putting off the body of 
 the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ : 
 buried with him in baptism, wherein ye are also 
 risen with him through the faith, of the operation of 
 G-od— " 
 
 Not through the operation of the minister's hands : 
 
 — " through the faith of the operation of God, who 
 hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead 
 in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath 
 he quickened together with him, having forgiven you 
 all trespasses ; blotting out the hand-writing of ordi- 
 nances that was against us, which was contrary to us, 
 and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross." 
 
 Another passage, and the last, is from Colossians 
 iii. 1-4 : 
 
 " If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things 
 which are above, where Christ sitteth at the right hand 
 of God. Set your affections on things above, not on 
 things on the earth. For ye are dead, and your life is 
 hid with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life, 
 
DESIGx\ OF BAPTISM. 277 
 
 shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in 
 glory." 
 
 Now there are half a dozen passages of Scripture, 
 showing that in this sixth chapter' of Romans the very 
 same train of thought is followed out that is followed 
 out in them. And, according to the brother's own ad- 
 mission, water baptism is not alluded to in it or expressed 
 by it — or rather, it is alluded to in it, but not expressed 
 by it, for I will not make him say w^hat he does not say. 
 One would suppose, that if any reference at all to bap- 
 tism is made in this passage of Scripture, it is to the 
 baptism of the Holy Spirit ; and that if you were to 
 argue anything of the mode of baptism from this sixth 
 chapter of Romans, that mode would be indicated by the 
 manner in which the Spirit, the great efficient agent 
 in this work, carries on his work. That seems to be the 
 strength of the argument. 
 
 And another thing that ^Ye will notice just here. Ac- 
 cording to the view taken of this question, we are to 
 predicate immersion, because immersion is to represent 
 the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. Now, Mr. 
 Carson, in his work on baptism, says "it is symbolical, 
 and if symbolical, there ought to be a likeness between 
 the mode of baptism, and the death, and burial, and res- 
 urrection of Jesus Christ." My friend' perceived the dif- 
 ficulty in the way, and he said that it represented the 
 death, because a burial was presumptive of a death. So 
 that he himself admits, that in baptism, though it be by 
 immersion, there is no positive representation of death 
 at all. Of course, that is evident. And it only construc- 
 tively, inferentially represents death, because, forsooth, 
 men do not bury people until they are dead. But if 
 
278 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 they should happen to make a mistake, and bury a man 
 who was not dead, what would go with the presump- 
 tion ? So tliat^there would be difficulty enough right 
 there to spoil the figure. 
 
 But look at another thing. We say that it is intended 
 presumptively — not actually, not positively — to repre- 
 sent the death of the Saviour. And then, I suppose, it 
 is intended by this mode of baptism to represent actu- 
 ally the burial of a person, and the resurrection of a per- 
 son. Now, let us see if it does that thing. Why, so 
 far from doing that, my own impression is that there 
 are some very strong points of contrast between the two. 
 In the first place, there is a very strong point of contrast 
 in the materials in which the burial takes place. The 
 one was in stone, the other is in water. And there is a 
 direct contrast between the administrators. In the one 
 case it was Joseph of Arimathea, a private person ; while 
 your baptism cannot be performed except by a minister. 
 And then it is an official act on his part, for I do not 
 suppose the brother would allow his lay members to go 
 and baptize people everywhere. Another point of con- 
 trast is to be found in the fact that Christ was buried 
 because he was dead ; but the brother will not bury 
 any one in baptism unless he is alive. Because he is 
 a believer, he says, he baptizes him. He says baptism 
 represents the burial of the old nature, and that the new 
 man must rise out of the grave. I do not understand 
 that: I cannot get that straight. Again, another point 
 of contrast is found in the fact that the Saviour laid in 
 the grave three days, and his subjects of baptism do not 
 lay in the watery grave three seconds. 
 
 Another point of contrast is this — and here he helps 
 
DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 279 
 
 me himself. He says that water represents purification ; 
 and yet, from time immemorial, the grave has represented 
 pollution. I suppose that in the estimation of Paul, 
 nothing could pollute more than the grave. And the 
 idea of the educated Paul using such a figure as that, 
 blending together the very emblem of purification with 
 the synonym of all that was impure and corrupt! The 
 Saviour himself looked upon the grave as symbolical of 
 impurity, when he says: "outwardly ye are as whited 
 sepulchres, but inwardly ye are full of rottenness and 
 dead men's bones." Again, the Saviour rose from the 
 dead by his own power. And, sometimes, I am told 
 that it takes very considerable strength to raise up the 
 candidate who has been immersed. 1 think there is a 
 contrast there. And then I think there would be a 
 stronger contrast between the appearance of raiy Lord 
 when he rose from the grave, and the appearance of 
 those who have been submersed in water! a stronger 
 contrast there ! 
 
 And then again, it seems to me that this is a pure 
 question of fact, as he has presented it. It is narrowed 
 right down to this : is there any similarity between 
 leading a man into the water up to his waist, and then 
 throwing his head and shoulders back into the water, 
 and raising him up again, and the burial of Christ ? 
 Suppose it was a modern burial. There would be a 
 grave six feet by two and a half, and four or five feet 
 deep ; and the corpse would be let down into the grave, 
 and the dirt poured in upon it. There is no similarity 
 there. Look at the burial of the blessed Redeemer, and 
 you will find that Joseph of Arimathea went to Pilate 
 and craved the body of Jesus, which Pilate granted, and 
 
280 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 he took it from the cross and laid it in his own nev/ 
 tomb, he^Yn out of a rock. And wdien on the Sabbath 
 morning the two Marys went to see the Lord, to their 
 surprise they found that the stone was rolled away from 
 the mouth of the tomb, and the body was not there. 
 And they went back to tell the disciples, and met Peter 
 and the other disciple whom Jesus loved. And they ran 
 to the sepulchre, and the other disciple did outrun Peter, 
 and came first to the sepulchre, and saw the linen clothes 
 lying there, but went not in. But Peter looked in, and saw 
 the place where the Lord laid, and two angels, one at the 
 head and the other at the foot. And what else ? The 
 grave-clothes laid on one side. Suppose a man were now 
 to make a grave to represent that, to leave room for a 
 person to sit in it at the head and at the foot of the body, 
 it would have to be about twelve or fifteen .feet long, in- 
 stead of six feet. Lay a person in such a grave, and 
 roll an immense stone up against it, and come away. 
 But how did the Lord rise ? You and I will know when 
 we see him at his second comins^ : never before. 
 
 Now, I ask, in the name of reason, is there any simi- 
 larity whatever in taking a man down into a pool of 
 water, and putting his head and shoulders under that 
 water, and then raising him up laboriously out of the 
 water ; and the taking of the Saviour's lifeless body down 
 from the cross, and laying it in that new tomb, and going 
 away and leaving him there, and his triumphantly ris- 
 ing the third day ? I do declare to you that it is one of 
 the strangest imaginings T ever conceived of, that any 
 serious, sober, thinking man should think of such a 
 thing. And these great men would never have gotten 
 .into that error, but for errors co-existent with that — 
 
DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 281 
 
 errors, too, which he deplores as much as I do — which 
 have hrought evils upon the Church which it has never 
 been freed from to this day. Now, is there any founda- 
 tion for it in fact ? 
 
 I regret that I cannot say all that I intended to say 
 before my time expires. But I will just say this in con- 
 clusion, reserving, of course, what else I have to say — 
 for I have not said all — until after we shall have had our 
 intermission and he called together again, when we will 
 take up the subject again. Allow me, here, just to call 
 your attention to one or two points. I noticed, first, the 
 solid foundation upon w^hioh all this superstructure is 
 built, and then I called your attention to some of the 
 symmetry of that superstructure. There are one or two 
 pieces, as I have shown you, which have got cross-jostled, 
 and I cannot get them straight. I suppose it will be all 
 straight in the course of time. But so far as I can un- 
 derstand the foundation for the supposition, which my 
 good brother has made (I do not see any force in the sup- 
 position after the foundation is laid — if, peradventure, it 
 be possible to lay it) — I can see no use to grow out of 
 it, unless it be that the cause of immersion does so much 
 need another prop, that this must be resorted to to give 
 it that prop. 
 
 [Intermission.] 
 
 MR. MASSEY'S SECOND ADDRESS. 
 
 Mr. Massey : The first point to which I wish to call 
 
 your attention is the reference made to Dr. Carson, and 
 
 that portion of his book that was read in your hearing. 
 
 I will submit to you, my hearers, when T shall have 
 
282 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 read, in connection with that which was read this morn- 
 ing by the respondent, what Dr. Carson himself says, 
 whether you will not agree with me that while there 
 was no statement of anything which was not fact, there 
 was a suppressio veri. Dr. Carson was placed in a false 
 position before you. An impression was made upon your 
 minds, and would have been made upon any mind, that 
 Dr. Carson never would have made if fully heard. And 
 this I call — I will not say what I call it. In connection 
 with what was read this morning, Dr. Carson says : 
 
 " With respect to the primary meanmg of common 
 words, I can think of no instance in which lexicons are 
 to be suspected. This is a feature so marked, that any 
 painter can catch, and faithfully represent. Indeed, I 
 should consider it the most unreasonable skepticism to 
 deny that a word has a meaning, which all lexicons give 
 as its primary meaning. On this point I have ho quar- 
 rel with. the lexicons. There is the most complete har- 
 mony among them, in representing dij) as the primary 
 meaning of bapto and baptizo. Except they have a 
 turn to serve, it is impossible to mistake the primary 
 meaning of a word commonly used. Accordingly, Bap- 
 tist writers have always appealed, with the greatest confi- 
 dence, to the lexicons of even Pedobaptist writers. On 
 the contrary, their opponents often take refuge in the 
 supposed sacred or Scriptural use, that they may be 
 screened from the fire of the lexicons." 
 
 That is where the brother took refuge to-day. He 
 agrees that Schleusner gives the meaning that Mr. 
 Campbell and Mr. Rice state, and then adds, " but 
 never so in the New Testament." Mr. Schleusner, as a 
 scholar^ says baptizo means to dip, to immerse ; as a 
 
DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 283 
 
 theologian, lie says that in the New Testament it may 
 mean something else. A beautifal idea that. That 
 house spell house when used in any other book ; but 
 when found in the New Testament they spell /t^/cZ or 
 garden. That is the idea. You are not to determine 
 the meaning of words in the New Testament by their 
 common use or import. That is where the brother has 
 taken refuge from the fire of the lexicons. Dr. Carson 
 adds : 
 
 "It is in giving secondary meanings, in which the 
 lines are not so easily discovered, that the vision of the 
 lexicographers is to be suspected. Nor is it with re- 
 spect to real secondary meanings that they are likely to 
 be mistaken. Their peculiar error is in giving, as 
 secondary meanings, what are not properly meanings 
 at all." 
 
 Have we not discovered the very thing that Dr. Car- 
 son speaks of? They give the meaning of the word, and 
 then give as a secondary meaning that which is but the 
 effect of the first, such as to wet or moisten. Take, for 
 instance, Passow, to which allusion has been made. 
 A question arose about Liddell and Scott. The gentle- 
 man had been travelling the land over with the first 
 American edition of Liddell and Scott, which gave as a 
 secondary meaning of baptizo, " tct pour upon." He 
 brought that, he affirmed, " from the University of Vir- 
 ginia," and would fain have us to believe that such was 
 the teaching of that great luminary of learning. I showed 
 you that in the English edition of Liddell and Scott no 
 such meaning was found. Bat that it) the first Ameri- 
 can edition, the American editor put to pour upon as one 
 of the secondary meanings. His attention was imme- 
 
284 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 diately called to it, and he promised it should never ap- 
 pear in another edition, and in the second edition of the 
 work it is not to be found. My brother attempted to get 
 out of that difficulty by asserting that the lexicon from 
 which I quoted was an '• abridgment of the one from 
 which he quoted — a much smaller one.'''' I turned to the 
 preface, and showed him that it was an enlargement of 
 the first edition. He then backed down, and said he 
 was mistaken. The question then arose as to the mean- 
 ing in Passow. Two gentlemen took the question to the 
 Professor of modern languages at the University, and it 
 come back with this definition — [looking among his 
 papers.] 
 
 Mr. CouLLiNG : What are you looking for ? 
 
 Mr. M ASSET : For the definition that came from the Uni- 
 versity. But, no matter, (I do not pretend to quote the 
 exact language, for I do it from memory). " To dip, to 
 dip into, to dip under; hence, to wet, to moisten, to 
 sprinkle." 
 
 Mr. CouLLiNG : [Handing a paper.] Here it is. 
 
 Mr. Massey : [Reading.] " To dip into, to dip under : 
 hence., to moisten, to sprinkle, to draw water, to baptize." 
 These secondary meanings are such as Mr. Carson speaks 
 of — really no m.eanings at all, but simply effects of the 
 meaning — wetting "is an effect of dipping. I submit 
 to any scholar, if that is not the correct view of it. In 
 the English edition of Liddell and Scott, neither pour 
 nor sprinkle is given at all. The first is to dip ; second, 
 to draw water ; third, to baptize. Now you see that 
 Mr. Carson, so far from being placed in a proper light 
 before you, is represented as saying that he claims that 
 
DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 
 
 285 
 
 baptizo means to dip, and always signifies mode, and 
 that in giving baptizo this meaning he had all the lexi- 
 cographers against him. That is an outrage upon Mr. 
 Carson, which should never be perpetrated upon any 
 man ; especially one who is in his grave. He never 
 meant to say it ; he never did say it ; it is not the mean- 
 ing he indicated. When Dr. Carson speaks for himself, 
 and explains his position, he shows that, as far as regards 
 the meaning of the word, there is perfect harmony be- 
 tween him and the lexicons. 
 
 I wish now to account for a mistake into which the 
 gentleman has fallen. I think I can do it in a manner 
 which will show that it is a mistake of memory — no 
 intended mistake. He has preached so repeatedly, 
 and at so many places, upon the subject of baptism, 
 that it is very easy for him to confound what he has 
 said at one time and place with what he said at an- 
 other time and place. He thinks he quoted from nine- 
 teen lexicons here. I would like for him to tell me 
 ivhich they ivere ; ivill you give me their names ? I 
 have not found any individual who remembers them. 
 I recollect that after the former discussion was over, I 
 said to some persons, rather playfully, that I felt very 
 much disposed to offer a reward for twenty -six Grreek 
 lexicons, either " strayed^ stolen, or Zos^," somewhere be- 
 between Mount Moriah and Shiloh. I had learned that 
 the brother there claimed that twenty-nine Grreek lexi- 
 cons sustained his definition of baptizo ; and when he 
 claimed but three here, the natural conclusion was that 
 somebody had purloined twenty-six of them, and I really 
 felt anxious to aid him in recovering possession of his 
 lost property. But (pleasantry aside) I reassert, in the 
 
286 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 most emphatic manner^ that the three lexicons to which 
 I have referred, to wit : Schleusner, Schrivellius and 
 Stephens' Thesaurus (Passow having heen introduced as 
 I have ah'eady shown) were the only lexicons introduced 
 by the gentleman upon that stand. If he choose to 
 make that a question of veracity between us he can do so. 
 I say emphatically they w^ere all that iv ere introduced by 
 him, and I leave it to this audience to determine between 
 us. I say this in all good feeling to the brother on the 
 other side — 
 
 Mr. Anderson (moderator) : In my opinion, this is 
 not in order. 
 
 Mr. Massey : Is that the opinion of all the moder- 
 ators ? 
 
 Mr. Woods bowed assent. 
 
 Mr. Hansborough did not respond. 
 
 Mr. Massey : Yery well. Perhaps if you will refer 
 back you will remember the contradiction of the gentle- 
 man to the assertion I made, and find there the diver- 
 gence from order. I made the assertion that there were 
 but three lexicons quoted from by him, and he contra- 
 dicted my statement. 
 
 Mr. Anderson : He represented you as being mistaken. 
 
 Mr. Massey : / represented him as being mistaken. 
 
 Mr. Anderson : You make it a question of veracity 
 between you and him. 
 
 Mr. Massey : I said if he chose to make it a question 
 of veracity between us he could do so. 
 
 Mr. Anderson : You made a banter to him to make it 
 a question of veracity. 
 
 Mr. Massey : / did not make it a question of veracity. 
 However, I will proceed with the argument. 
 
DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 287 
 
 I wish you to bear in mind, my hearers, that there is 
 a material difference between a man's meeting an argu- 
 ment lefritijuatelT/ -a-nd logically, and his introducing into 
 the premises of his opponent what he himself did not in- 
 troduce there, and then answering that. That is the 
 course that has been pursued throughout this discussion. 
 The gentleman finds it difiicult to meet the arguments 1 
 advance — to meet the issue really presented. And hence 
 he changes, to a very great extent, the premises, and 
 meets other issues which he makes. One who does not 
 critically observe these things, may think he is answer- 
 ing what /said, while, in reality, he is answering what 
 he himself said. He said that I did not tell you who it 
 was that meant baptism to show the faith of the sub- 
 ject ; whether myself or the Lord. If he will turn to 
 the proposition, he will find there stated as my convic- 
 tion of what the word of God teaches, that Christian 
 baptism is designed — designed by ivhom ? It will not, 
 I think, require very strong reasoning on the part of any 
 one to understand it as designed by the Institutor of the 
 ordinance — designed to show the faith of the subject in 
 the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ as the 
 procuring cause of his pardon and salvation. 
 
 To establish that proposition, I gave you the testi- 
 mony of a divinely inspired loriter, Paul, who represents 
 baptism as a burial, and gives as the reason lohy we are 
 buried, that we are dead to sin, and that therefore we 
 are buried ; and that, having been planted in the like- 
 ness of the death of Jesus Christ, we shall be also in 
 the likeness of his resurrection. I presented you also 
 with various other portions of divine truth, and then 
 gave the testimony of the most able commentators, to 
 
288 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 show that I had formed a correct opinion of them. 
 Now, the gentleman says that these views never would 
 have heen entertained but for the fact that other errors 
 crept into the Church along with them. I do not know 
 what he means by the " other errors that crept into the 
 Church" with the truth that Paul here taught, that 
 baptism was to represent the death, burial, and resur- 
 rection of Jesus Christ. Paul taught that doctrine, 
 and I think that he was about as sound as almost any 
 other theologian ; not even excepting brother Coulling. 
 A large portion of his address was devoted to the effi- 
 cacy and the importance of spiritual regeneration. 
 I will just say to you, my brother — you could have 
 saved all your labor and arguments upon that subject ; 
 there is not one whit of contest upon that. We claim 
 that there must be a regeneration jnior to baptism. 
 We protest against infant baptism, because it ignores 
 that truth. It ignores the truth, that we claim the word 
 of Grod teaches that there must be a change of hearty 
 before any one is entitled to the ordinance of baptism. 
 Baptism is a declarative act. Man claims to be saved 
 by the atoning blood and righteousness of Jesus Christ. 
 The foundation upon which all his hopes must rest, is 
 Christ crucified. He claims that the merits of Christ's 
 life and death are applied to him by faith, which he 
 must exercise. AVlien he has exercised that faith which 
 secures to him the blessings of the atonement of Jesus 
 Christ, he then., by this act, declares these facts. The 
 gentleman asks — where is there a " thus saith the Lord" 
 for this ? Why, the very foundation is laid with a 
 " thus saith the Lord.^'' I appealed to the brother over 
 and over again for a " thus saith the Lord" for infant 
 
DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 289 
 
 baptism ; to show me one single passage of the New 
 Testament that taught it, or for a single text upon 
 which he or his friends relied, that had not heen given 
 up by Pedobaptists. I showed him from Pedobaptist 
 authority, that every passage upon which he relied, to 
 sustain infant baptism, had been given up. Has he 
 attempted to meet that ? Not to this hour I And for 
 the very reason that Jack, a naughty boy, ivould not 
 eat his supper. Poor boy ! He did not have the supper 
 to eat. He wants to know where the word of Grod says, 
 ''^ in so many words,'''' that the design of baptism is to 
 represent the burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, or 
 to declare the faith of the subject in those doctrines. I 
 would like to ask him a question. I suppose it is fair 
 for both sides. I find in the Methodist discipline, on 
 page twenty-seven, it is said that '' baptism is not only a 
 sign of profession — mark the words — whereby Chris- 
 tians are distinguished from others that are not baptiz- 
 ed, but it is also a sign of regeneration or the neiv 
 birth.'''' "Will he shov7 me a '' thus saith the Lord'''' for 
 that ? 
 
 He next argues thus : " Suppose that men should be 
 mistaken, and bury a man who is not dead, then the 
 whole figure is gone." Suppose he makes a mistake, 
 and applies water to an infant who has not been re- 
 generated. Why then, the whole sign is lurong ; or 
 suppose we apply it to a grown man who has not been 
 regenerated — they say "it is a sig7i of regeneration'^ 
 — then the whole sign is wrong there. According to the 
 gentleman's own showing, there is no sort of argument 
 in all that he said upon that point. I ask you, is bap- 
 tism a sign of regeneration when applied to infants ? 
 
 13 
 
290 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 Do you find that Pedobaptists^ children are better than 
 the children of Baptists ? Are the children of Baptists 
 either more innmoral or less religious than those of Pedo- 
 baptists ? I am willing to show figures with them 
 whenever they choose to meet the issue. The gentle- 
 man inquires Avhat importance is to be attached to these 
 Pedobaptist authors, whose conduct, he says, is directly 
 opposed to what they say ? Well, that is a beautiful 
 mode of meeting a difficulty, indeed ! If these men 
 were to practise just what they say the word of God 
 teaches^ they would all be Baptists, and then he would 
 say — " you cannot introduce them because their testi- 
 mony is one-sided testimony : they are Baptists, and 
 of course, will teach Baptist doctrines." Where shall 
 we go to find our witnesses ? . We find that men in the 
 Pedobaptist ranks, who are taken as standards by Pe- 
 dobaptist churches, when they come to explain these 
 passages, admit that they mean what we claim to be 
 their meaning. He talks about reading one part of a 
 man's statement and leaving out another ! When I 
 come to a passage that relates to baptism, you cannot 
 expect me to give you all they say about everything 
 else. I give what they say about baptism, and their 
 testimony overthrows the argument of my opponent. Do 
 you want a stronger mode of proving anything than 
 this ? If they are not to be relied upon, then let my 
 brother apologize for them along with himself. One 
 trouble will answer for both. 
 
 If he believes that the New Testament authorizes him 
 ■fe) go down into the water and immerse a man, I ask 
 you, with what sort of consistency he can refuse to bap- 
 tize a believer who applies to him ? He says, he leaves 
 
DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 291 
 
 it to every man's conscience. A man comes to him and 
 says, Sir, I want to be immersed. He replies, with a 
 shudder, " The weather is too cold! I cannot go into 
 the zvater.^^ Now, if it is enjoined by the word of God — 
 if God has made it his duty to baptize at all — personal 
 comfort ought not to be the controlling consideration. If 
 it is not enjoined, and he performs it as an act of Chris- 
 tian worship, as a minister of Jesus Christ, then I 
 ask, by what authority he administers it? One or the 
 other is wrong ; both cannot be right. What! preach 
 against an ordinance, and then administer it ! ! Then, 
 again, he will not administer it, because the iveather is 
 cold! ! What kind of consistency is that? If our Di- 
 vine Master had acted thus with reference to his comfort 
 and convenience, you and I would perish in our sins ! 
 He would never have left the shining realms of heaven 
 to suffer for our sins, to expire upon Calvary, to save 
 you and me. But he did not so act. He came not to 
 do his own will, but the will of him that sent him. If 
 it be the will of Grod that my brother should immerse 
 when a proper candidate asks it at his hands, he is re- 
 creant to his duty if he does not administer it. And if it 
 is not the will of Grod that he should do it, then he is 
 exceeding his authority if he does it at all. 
 
 "Why, he asks, do we baptize in the name of the 
 Trinity^ when only one died? Now, is that logical 
 argument, or is it sophistry ? 
 
 Mr. CouLLiNG : Will you allow me to correct you ? 
 
 Mr. Massey : Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. CouLLiNG : I did not say, when only one died. 
 
 Mr, Massey : What did you say, then ? 
 
 Mr. CouLLiN^G : I said, why baptize in the name of 
 
292 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 the Trinity, when you say that in that baptism you rep- 
 resent only the death, burial and resurrection of one of 
 the Trinity ? 
 
 Mr. Massey : We claim that there is one who died for 
 us ; and that in our baptism we declare our faith in the 
 glorious truth, that Jesus Christ died for us, that he was 
 buried, and that he rose again. And, because of this, 
 the deduction of the brother is, that it is '^ Unitarian- 
 ism^ and leads to rank infidelity l^"* We are baptized 
 into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Grhost. 
 Why? Because we believe that Jesus Christ, Grod's 
 only Son, died upon the cross for us, was buried, and 
 rose again ; and that he designed that we, by this ordi- 
 nance, should manifest our faith in these glorious truths, 
 and we do it under the authority of Father, Son, and 
 Holy G-host. All three combined to approbate this divine 
 ordinance. So far from its being a denial of it, it is one 
 of the clearest recognitions of the doctrine of the Trin- 
 ity. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of 
 the Holy G-host, I perform one act — by which I say that 
 these three constitute one God. So far from its being 
 an argument against the Trinity, it is an argument 
 for it. 
 
 I do not know whether it was expected that the argu- 
 ments made \vith regard to the burial of Jesus Christ — 
 the manner of his burial as contrasted with the manner 
 of baptism — would be regarded by this audience as 
 claiming any notice from me, or whether they were used 
 merely to consume time. Just look at it. Jesus Christ 
 said that he would be buried. From the exposition 
 given by the brother, Jesus Christ was not buried at all. 
 " He was borne into a sort of chamber by several per- 
 
DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 293 
 
 sons, and laid in a rock.^^ Now, I do not care whether 
 he was buried in a rock, in the earth, or in the water. 
 We speak of a man's being ^^ buried in' the sea,'''' '•''buried 
 in the ruins of a house,'''' " buried in the earth,'''' &c. It 
 is the /ac^ of a burial, and not a question as to the ele- 
 ment or material in which he was buried. He compares 
 the two, and would have you to think that there should 
 be a strict resemblance in every particular. *' They 
 must stay three days under the water," &o. I should 
 be guilty of almost as great folly, if I were to offer a 
 serious reply to these remarks, as the brother was in 
 making them : hence I shall pass them by without fur- 
 ther notice. 
 
 Christ said of the bread and wine, " this is my body," 
 " this is my blood." Luther, in his controversy with 
 Zuinglius upon the question of transubstantiation, wrote, 
 ^'•hoc est corpus meum,''^ before him, as a text which he 
 never would yield. " This is my body," said he, and upon 
 that he based the doctrine of transubstantiation. The 
 meaning of the text is, ' ' This represents my body." Now, 
 take a piece of bread, and find a strict resemblance be- 
 tween it and the body of Jesus Christ : take a little wine, 
 and find a strict resemblance between that and the blood 
 of Jesus Christ. Yet Jesus Christ chose these materials 
 as emblems of his body and of his blood. And he chose 
 baptism as a symbolical representation of what I have 
 already spoken of. Now, with regard to the idea that there 
 must be an exact resemblance, in the length of time, in 
 the place, in the putting the body in the grave, in the 
 pouring in of the earth, &c., I have nothing to say. I 
 will not so far reflect upon your intelligence as to offer 
 any comments upon such s®phistry. 
 [Time expired.] 
 
294 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 MR. COULLING'S SECON'D REPLY. 
 
 Mr. CouLLiNG : One simple preliminary remark. I 
 never saw the day when under these, or any similar cir- 
 cumstances, I could raise, or debate, a point of ve- 
 racity. Those are questions I never discuss. 
 
 With reference to my misrepresenting Mr. Carson, I 
 wish to say just this much. I protest that, if I am com- 
 petent to judge, I have done Mr. Carson not the slightest 
 injustice ; and I will submit it to any intelligent man 
 who will read Mr. Carson's work. So far from (like a 
 hyena) infringing upon the sacred rest of the grave, I 
 would say it to Mr. Carson, if he was a living, breath- 
 ing man, right before me, what I quoted from his book J 
 and if I misrepresented him, I did it by using simply 
 his own language. A misunderstanding is a very com- 
 mon, and, I am glad to know, a very innocent thing. I 
 frequently feel thankful that I am not responsible for all 
 the blunders I make — I mean to a good Grod. I honestly 
 try to keep right ; I never expect to be able to keep from 
 making blunders, until 1 get out (if this wicked world. 
 I am liable to them, as I feel every day. But I have not 
 made them here, I think. 
 
 But I think some have been made with regard to 
 secondary meanings. You hear it said that baptizo 
 means primarily to immerse ; and that if it means 
 to wash, or anything else, that is a secondary meaning, 
 and grows out of the fact that to wash is the effect of 
 immerse, and thus they seek to destroy the character of 
 ihe second meaning ; and whenever water is to be ap- 
 plied it is to be applied by immersion. Now, I will try 
 to show you the error of this, and am going to do it by 
 the very man I have persecuted so relentlessly. I am 
 
DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 295 
 
 going to read from the forty-fourth page of Alexander 
 Carson's work on Baptism, and then you will see if I 
 can be justly accused of misrepresenting Mr. Carson : 
 
 " Nothing, in the history of words, is more common 
 than to enlarge or diminish their signification. Ideas not 
 originally included in them are affixed to some words, 
 while others drop ideas originally asserted in their appli- 
 cation. In this way bapto^ from signifying mere mode, 
 came to be applied to a certain operation usually per- 
 formed in that mode. From signifying to dip^ it came 
 to signify to dye by dippings because that was the way 
 in which things were usually dyed^ and afterward, from 
 dyeing by dippings it came to denote dyeing in any man- 
 ner. A like process might be shown in the history of a 
 thousand other words." 
 
 Now, according to this very same poor, persecuted 
 scholar, here the very root bajpto has lost its original 
 signification altogether, which was to dip; and comes to 
 have the meaning to dye. And in another place he says 
 it means to sprinkle. I take up baptizo that was in use 
 eight hundred years before Jesus Christ came into the 
 world. • I look into Passow's Grreek lexicon, and I find 
 that Passow, in trying to find out the meaning of baptizo, 
 refers to Homer and Hesiod, living eight hundred years 
 before Christ, and Herodotus, living four hundred years 
 before,* and there he finds that baptizo means to pour. 
 Rev. Messrs. Brown and G-ranberry, with the aid of Pro- 
 fessor Scheie, examined Passow's Grreek lexicon, and found 
 that it gives as the meaning of baptizo, first, to dip into, 
 to dip under: hence, to moisten, to sprinkle; secondly, 
 to draw water ; third, to baptize. Now it is contended 
 that, because that little word, hence, is put in there, ^it 
 
296 
 
 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 only means sprinkle, because baptizo originally meant to 
 dip ; that is to say, it is a secondary meaning flowing 
 out of the original. It means to bathe, he said, because 
 originally bathing was done by dipping. It means in 
 this place sprinkle, because originally sprinkling was 
 done by dipping. That is the mode of argument. The 
 truth is this ; The word begins with one meaning, and 
 then one thing and another changes its meaning, and 
 finally its original meaning is lost altogether. And, just 
 as Mr. Carson says, that bapto once meant nothing but 
 to dip, and afterward to dye, with no reference to dip- 
 ping ; hence he says, it means to dip, and afterward it 
 means to sprinkle. It may be said that that is the 
 secondary meaning, because the word hence is in there. 
 
 Again : I am charged with placing Mr. Carson in an 
 improper position. How? Mr. Carson affirms distinctly 
 in his own words, that all the lexicographers are against 
 him, in the position he takes, that baptizo means noth- 
 ing but to dip. I refer to the lexicographers, and I find 
 that every word that Mr. Carson says is just as true as 
 the gospel. It does mean more than to dip. That 
 is all I contend for ; that is everything I care for. I 
 care for nothing but that. I have a word then, which, 
 according to the very highest Baptist authority — if there 
 is anybody higher than Alexander Carson, I will try to 
 get him, and I have no doubt (it will be a marvel if I do 
 not) — that I will find just such concessions in every other 
 author. 
 
 Again : reference has been made to Liddell and Scott. 
 All that I contend for is the correctness of the quotation 
 I made from a lexicon lying in my lap, and I read it 
 out then. They say that I quoted from the first Ameri- 
 
DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 297 
 
 can edition, and that I ought not to do that. I want to 
 know why ? I turn to the original, and I find that it 
 means there to sprinkle ; the first translation of the 
 original is the same ; and it is Liddell and Scott's pur- 
 pose to give a translation of Passow, with what ? "With 
 addenda, with additions, with amendments ? If it be a 
 translation of Passow, and Passow says it means to pour, 
 or to sprinkle, or anything else, and the translators do not 
 give it, is that my fault ? If the man Avho brought out 
 that edition of the lexicon, and for any reason, I don't 
 care what, keeps in that book that English preface in 
 it, and does not give an accurate translation of Passow, he 
 ought to put a little nota bene in it, and give his rea- 
 sons for it. He owes it to himself and to the world to 
 do that. But I do not care anything about that ; I have 
 gone beyond that ; I have gone to his father, who knew 
 more about Greek than he did. 
 
 An advertisement was about to have been offered for 
 twenty-six lost or strayed Greek lexicons. A very inno- 
 cent and a very natural error. In the discourse that I 
 delivered at Mount Moriah, I think my brother said — 
 and I think those who heard me then will recollect — I 
 called attention to a collection of versions of the Scrip- 
 tures. A Scotchman of the name of Gotch had col- 
 lected, and a writer upon the subject of immersion in- 
 serted them from his work, and from which work I 
 copied them. And in examining the words into which 
 the original has been translated, I find twenty-nine of 
 these thirty-eight versions on my side of the question. I 
 asserted that at Mount Moriah. But that I asserted any- 
 thing about twenty-nine lexicons — why, I will say just 
 this much : I confess to fa libility, but I certa,inly do not 
 
 3* 
 
298 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 recollect it. I have had twenty lexicons collated here 
 in this book, and have read, again and again, eighteen 
 or twenty for the last eighteen months, and I read almost 
 every one of them in the discussion in that grove a few 
 weeks ago. That is just as clear in my mind as 
 that I was there. And I suppose a dozen gentlemen, 
 during the intermission to-day, told me that they recol- 
 lected it. They said : "I understood that it was re- 
 ported that you quoted from but three lexicons, and I 
 am exceedingly glad you said what you did." And 
 these twenty-nine versions were on my side, I affirm. 
 And if it was proper, I think I could demonstrate that, 
 to the satisfaction of most people — to some, I am sure. 
 
 My brother says, I asked him for a "thus saith the 
 Lord," for the proposition that baptism was intended to 
 represent the faith of the subject in the death, burial, 
 and resurrection of Christ. And he says he brought up 
 an inspired commentator to testify to that fact. An in- 
 spired commentator upon what? Upon his opinion. 
 Well, that is strange. He tjuotes from the sixth chapter 
 of Romans as the foundation of that very opinion, and 
 then gives it as the comment at the same time. Does 
 it answer both purposes ? Well, this is a remarkable 
 text of Scripture. It is proven by it that baptism by 
 immersion is the only proper mode of baptism, and bap- 
 tism by immersion is proven by it to be the representa- 
 tion of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. 
 And {St. Paul, while giving that passage, gives a com- 
 ment too. I do not comprehend that. That is another 
 piece of timber in the edifice, that has gotten so crooked 
 that I cannot place it straight. 
 
 He says, he asked me for a " thus saith the Lord," for 
 
DESIGN OF BArTISxAI. 299 
 
 infant baptism, and that to this moment I. have not 
 given it. A brother told me, daring the intermission, 
 that he thought one single passage of Scripture that I 
 quoted set that subject at rest forever. And I know a 
 great many thought so too. And that one passage of 
 Scripture, though it did not in so many v^ords say, the 
 Lord says so and' so, yet it proved the baptism of infants 
 so plainly that they saw it was there in the book, and 
 they are satisfied it is there in the book ; and it will be 
 a hard matter to dissatisfy them upon that subject. 
 
 Pedobaptists don't act as they believe, and I have put 
 them in an awful predicament. Oh, no ! that is a mis- 
 take. I say, that if my brother's comments upon what 
 they say are correct, then they are put in a right bad 
 situation. It takes him and me together to put them 
 in that situation : not either of us alone. And I do 
 not think that he could very easily do that ; for if he 
 were to read many things they say, I would not wonder 
 much if he changed his opinions about many things in 
 the world. I am sure I have no intention at all of re- 
 flecting upon them in the slightest degree. 
 
 A right strong appeal is made to this congregation, 
 to know whether I was in earnest, or whether I wa« 
 speaking against time, in presenting some very forcible 
 views, as I really and honestly thought, against the 
 hypothesis of my good brother. His hypothesis is, that 
 because in Romans you find it written, you are buried 
 with him by baptism into death, therefore G-od designed 
 that baptism should represent the death, burial, and 
 resurrection of Jesus Christ. ' Well, I was arguing 
 against what ? Against his interpretation of that. And 
 just at this point I will bring forward another argu- 
 
300 
 
 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 ment. The Saviour instituted baptism after his resur- 
 rection. From that period until the writing of the epis- 
 tles to the Romans, I think something like twenty-five 
 years intervened. 1 think this passage was written in 
 58, and the Saviour was crucified in 33, according to 
 the general account. Now, from A. D. 33 to A. D. 58, 
 is twenty-five years, and from the institution of baptism 
 by our beloved Saviour, for twenty-five years people 
 were baptized, and, from anything in the Scriptures, 
 did not know what they were baptized for, until Paul, 
 twenty-five years afterwards, wrote his Epistle to the 
 Romans. Well, they must have been very much obliged 
 to that good old man for telling them what they had 
 been baptized for ; for the Bible was as silent as the 
 grave as to the import of baptism until that time, if my 
 good brother is correct in his hypothesis. Now, I do not 
 say that is the import ; he says so : I am on the defen- 
 sive ; I am not to prove anything. All that I have to 
 do is, if he goes wrong, to try and keep him straight. 
 That is all my duty, unless I voluntarily go out of that 
 path and present to you what I think the Bible teaches 
 upon that subject. If I have time, I will do so : I do 
 not know that I will have time. 
 
 He says, the blessed Saviour predicted that he would 
 be buried, but according to my representation of the 
 case, he was not buried at all. I do not^^know what in 
 the world I said, to lead him to make that remark. I 
 described his burial — yes, positively described it. No : 
 the difficulty in the way is, that the burial, as I described 
 it, did not exactly suit his hypothesis : that was the 
 difficulty. And because it is not just such a burial as 
 he desires it to be, it is no burial at all : I suppose that 
 
DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 301 
 
 must be the conclusion. The Saviour was buried : I do 
 not deny that hypothesis, though I have now a paper 
 upon the subject that did deny it. I never embraced 
 that opinion, and the brother has begged me a great 
 many times to bring forward no such argument as 
 that. I do not intend to do it. I believe the Saviour 
 was buried. That was one of the articles in the Creed 
 I learned when I was a boy. Nothing that I said could 
 cast any doubt upon his burial, though I think what I 
 did say w^as felt by a great many people to destroy ut- 
 terly and entirely the idea sought to be conveyed here, 
 that baptism by immersion is like it. I think I did 
 that. 
 
 Again, he asks, where is the resemblance between the 
 body and blood of Christ, and the Lord's Supper ? Well, 
 I am not responsible for that. I think that there is a 
 great error in the world at the present day upon that 
 subject. You know the Catholic Church believes there 
 is a resemblance between the bread and wine, and the 
 body and blood of Christ ; not only a resemblance, but 
 they contend that when the prayer of consecration has 
 been offered over them, they lose their natural character 
 entirely, and become to all intents and purposes part 
 and parcel of the body and blood of Jesus Christ. That 
 is the doctrine of the Catholic Church, and that the 
 wafer having been converted by transubstantiation into 
 the body and blood of Christ, the wafer only is given to 
 the laity, while the ministry take both the wafer and 
 the cup. Now, it seems to me, that if the fault of too 
 rigid a parallelism lies anywhere, it does not lie upon 
 my side of the question. 
 
 I believe these are all the points my good brother 
 
302 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 made, and it does not seem to me that he has got any- 
 where near sustaining his position yet, that baptism is 
 intended to represent the faith of the subject in the 
 death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. 
 
 Now, I will go on as long as I have time, and call 
 your attention to some other difficulties that occur to 
 my mind with respect to this view of the subject. He 
 wants me to receive Christian baptism to signify my 
 faith, to be symbolical of, and to represent the death, 
 burial, and resurrection of Christ. I before remarked 
 that the blessed Saviour instituted one ordinance to 
 represent his death. I need not repeat that. The dis- 
 ciples themselves in the establishment of the first day 
 of the week as the Sabbath instead of the seventh day, 
 commemorated his resurrection. We have divine au- 
 thority for these two, and we have these institutions to 
 represent these two events. And the idea of represent- 
 ing the burial of Christ is to my mind one of the greatest 
 novelties I ever heard of in my life. "We commemorate 
 the birth of persons, and we commemorate their great 
 deeds, and we commemorate their death. But who ever 
 before heard of commemorating the burial of a person ? 
 Is not that the first time in the annals of the world's 
 history that it has been done ? Is it not unparalleled ? 
 Did anybody ever hear of such a thing before ? Re- 
 presenting the burial of our Saviour ! And yet a great 
 many good Christian people are blamed and regarded as 
 Popish. Why ? Because it is said that without divine 
 authority they celebrate Christmas in commemoration 
 of the birth of the Saviour ; that it is a Popish thing. 
 They celebrate the Epiphany in commemoration of the 
 appearance of angels to the wise men in the east. All 
 
DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 303 
 
 Popish ! And they celebrate the crucifixion of Christ 
 upon Grood Friday ; that is a very Popish thing, an 
 outrageous affair. And because they celebrate Lent in 
 commemoration of the forty days' fast in the wilderness, 
 it is a very wicked thing ; no authority for it at all. 
 And yet without any authority at all from the word of 
 Grod, without parallel in the history of the world, we 
 are called upon gravely to celebrate and symbolize, and 
 commemorate the burial of the blessed Saviour. Now, 
 is not that anomalous ? is not that strange ? And pray 
 put your finger upon a passage of Scripture, that refers 
 to the burial of the Saviour as conferring any especial 
 benefit upon the world. He died for our sins ; he rose 
 again for our justification ; he ascended into heaven to 
 make intercession for us. But what passage from Gene- 
 sis to Malachi, in the prophecy of God, or from Matthew 
 to Revelations, is there that lays one single particle of 
 emphasis upon the burial of Christ ? Will you tell me 
 that ? And yet you gravely call upon me to represent 
 in a Christian ordinance the burial of the Saviour. The 
 brother says that God says so. Well, I confess that I 
 have never seen it. 
 
 If I can, I wish now to present to you what I regard 
 to be the Scripture view of this subject. By reference 
 to the following passages of Scripture, and collating them 
 together, we may perhaps derive some idea of what the 
 inspired writers affirm of this doctrine of baptism ; what 
 it means. The first passage which I will refer you to, 
 is in Joel, second chapter, 28th and 29th verses : 
 
 " And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour 
 out my spirit upon all flesh ; and your sons and your 
 daughters shall prophecy ; your old men shall dream 
 
304 DBATE ON THE 
 
 dreams ; your young men shall see visions : and also 
 upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days 
 will I pour out my spirit." 
 
 We shall find that prediction verified, presently, when 
 I get to it. That is a prediction, and a prediction of 
 baptism, of Christian baptism. In Proverbs, first chap- 
 ter, 23d verse, we find : 
 
 *' Turn you at my reproof ; behold I will pour out 
 my spirit upon you ; I will make known my words unto 
 you." 
 
 In Isaiah, forty-fourth chapter and third verse : 
 
 " For I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and 
 floods upon the dry ground ; I will pour my spirit upon 
 thy seed, and my blessing upon thine offspring." 
 
 There is a prediction ; pouring water, and pouring the 
 spirit in immediate connection, in this forty- fourth chap- 
 ter of Isaiah. In the thirty-second chapter and fifteenth 
 verse we have another passage : 
 
 " Until the spirit be poured out upon us from on high, 
 and the wilderness be a fruitful field, and the fruitful 
 field be counted for a forest." 
 
 Most all these are predictions. In the fifty-second 
 chapter, fifteenth verse, w^e find : 
 
 " So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall 
 shut their mouths at him ; for that which had not been 
 told them shall they see ; and that w^hich they had not 
 heard shall they consider." 
 
 In Zechariah, twelfth chapter, tenth verse : 
 
 " And I wall pour upon the house of David, and upon 
 the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of 
 supplications ; and they shall look upon me whom they 
 have pierced, and they shall mourn for him as one 
 
DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 305 
 
 mourneth for an only son, and shall be in bitterness for 
 him, as one that is in bitterness for his first born." 
 i In Ezekiel, thirty-sixth chapter and twenty-fifth verse, 
 is the last passage I will read now, as my time is most 
 out : 
 
 " Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye 
 shall be clean ; from all your filthiness, and from all your 
 idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give 
 you, and a new spirit will I put within you ; and I will 
 take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will 
 give you a heart of flesh." 
 
 Now, these are the predictions of the Old Testament 
 Scriptures. Their fulfilment will be considered when I 
 have an opportunity to address you again. 
 
 [Time expired.] 
 
 MR. MASSEY'S THIRD ADDRESS. 
 
 Mr. Massey : After hearing the explanation made by 
 the gentleman to the moderators, I am free to say I 
 would not have expressed myself as strongly as I did, 
 had /understood him as thep seemed to understand him 
 with regard to the question of veracity. My language 
 will clearly indicate what my views were. I had stated 
 that the gentleman quoted from but three lexicons on a 
 former occasion. I understood him to contradict my 
 statement flatly, I inquired of various persons who 
 heard him, whether their recollection and mine corres- 
 ponded, and I have not found a single exception to it. 
 I then restated what I had said, with the addition, that 
 if he chose — (as I understood him to make that issue) — if 
 he chose to make it a question of veracity, he was at 
 
306 
 
 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 liberty to do so. Had I understood the matter as tl\e 
 moderators understood it, I should not have expressed 
 myself so strongly. 
 
 If^ in the course of my remarks, I used the word di- 
 vine commentator instead of divine writer^ when speak- 
 ing of Paul, (which I do not think I did,) I made a ver- 
 bal mistake. That I leave as a matter of no moment — 
 as all others understood my meaning. 
 
 The next point T desire to notice in the gentleman's 
 address is, that " Jesus Christ was buried, because he was 
 dead ; and we bury a man in baptism because he is alive!''' 
 I think my remarks are sufficiently in the minds of all who 
 heard me. They understood me to declare, that a burial 
 evi?ices the fact, or presupposes the fact of a death, and 
 I will not occupy your time in noticing that further. 
 
 I was a little amused at the remark of the gentleman, 
 that the raising the body of Jesus Christ was by the 
 power of Grod ; and the raising of the subject of bap- 
 tism was by the power of man, and that it was very 
 hard work to raise the subject out of the water. I take 
 it for granted that my brother has not practiced that 
 much. I have baptized some pretty large persons, some 
 that weighed over two hundred and twenty-five pounds, 
 and I did it with perfect ease. I never yet found any diffi- 
 culty in administering the ordinance of baptism. And if 
 the brother will practise it until he understands it and en- 
 joys it, he will find no difficulty. But, I will tell you what 
 is difficult. That work that goes against the will is always 
 hard, and I doubt not that he finds it rig'ht hard ivork to 
 baptize believers after the New Testament plan. He re- 
 fers again to Liddell and Scott, and says, that betakes up 
 the translation, and finds in it to sprinkle ; and he turns to 
 
DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 307 
 
 the original, and tinds in that to sprinkle. The English 
 edition, as translated from the Grerman, has no such thing 
 as sprinkle in it. The first American edition — the very 
 one from which the brother quoted — has no such thing 
 in it. It has " to pour upon" as a secondary meaning 
 of baptizo, but not to sprinkle. 
 
 The second Arherican edUion — the enlarged and cor- 
 rected edition — has neither to sprinkle nor to pour in it. 
 He is mistaken there again. Now, to shoAV that this 
 son was not exactly copying after his father, as the gen- 
 tleman would have you believe he was, we find that the 
 American edition, which claims to be a copy of the Eng- 
 lish translation from the Grerman, gives a meaning not 
 found in either of the others. 
 
 The gentleman turns to the prophecy of Joel for a pre- 
 diction of Christian baptism. Any one listening to him 
 to-day, would very readily come to the conclusion that 
 he ignored water baptism altogether. The various prophe- 
 cies he has referred to have nothing whatever to do with 
 water baptism. They are declarations of the profusion 
 with which the holy spirit should be dispensed to men. 
 Predictions that the time should come when the spirit 
 of Grod should come in such profusion that men should 
 be '' filled with the Holy Ghost." It is said that the 
 Holy Ghost was " shed down" — was " poured out," &c. 
 We know that these are merely metaphorical terms. 
 The Holy Ghost is the third Person in the Trinity^ not 
 a material thing to be literally poured out. His influ- 
 ence shall come down upon us, and enter into our hearts. 
 The prophecy of Isaiah, with regard to the sprinkling of 
 man}' nations, has no reference whatever to the ordi- 
 nance of baptism — not the slightest allusion to it. Wlio 
 
308 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 shall sprinkle many nations ? Did Jesus Christ baptize 
 any ? He never administered the rite of baptism to any 
 human being I Grod speaks here of what He will do 
 Himself. There is also a question (of which the gentle- 
 man, no doubt, is aware) as to the correctness of the 
 rendering of the passage he read. It is claimed by high 
 authority, and it can be sustained, that the proper render- 
 ing of it is, " So shall he (thaumasontai) astonish many 
 nations ; the kings shall shut their mouths at him," &c. 
 The idea of baptism has no connection whatever with 
 the subject. 
 
 As my time is limited, I must proceed to the direct 
 argument. And then (if I have time) I will notice some 
 other things the gentleman has said. I have already 
 called your attention to a passage in 1 John v. 8 :; 
 
 ^'And there are three that bear witness in earth, the 
 Spirit, and the w^ater, and the blood ; and these three 
 agree in one.'' 
 
 I have affirmed, as my view of this passage, that it 
 represents baptism as a living witness of the truths to 
 which I have called your attention. To show you that 
 I am not alone in this exposition, I might quote various 
 authorities, but, as I have not the time, I will only call 
 your attention to what Dr. McKnight says upon this 
 passage. In his "Apostolic Epistles," he says: 
 
 *'TAe water: that is, the rite of baptism regularly 
 administered in the Christian Church to the end of the 
 world, witnesseth continually on earth that G-od hath 
 given us eternal life, through his Son. For baptism be- 
 ing instituted in commemoration of Christ's resurrection, 
 and to be an emblematical representation of our owm 
 resurrection, the continued administration of it in the 
 
DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 809 
 
 name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is a solemn 
 assurance of our obtaining eternal life through the Son. 
 So St. Paul informs us, Rom. vi. 4: "TFe have been 
 buried together with him by baptism into his deaths 
 that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the 
 glory of the Father^ even so we also shall walk in a 
 new life.'''' 
 
 ^' And the blood. As the water signifies the rite of bap- 
 tism continually administered in the Church, in com- 
 memoration of Christ's resurrection, and for a pledge of our 
 own resurrection to eternal life, so the blood signifies that 
 commemoration of the shedding of the blood of Christ for 
 the remission of sin, which is daily made in the Lord's 
 Supper. Wherefore as the remission of sin will be fol- 
 lowed with the gift of eternal life, the blood, that is the 
 Lord's Supper, often celebrated throughout the Christian 
 world, is a continual witness on earth, that Grod hath 
 given us eternal life through his Son." 
 
 And yet Mr. CouUing thinks it an exceedingly novel 
 d(fctrine — one (you would suppose from what he said) 
 that was introduced but yesterday. 
 
 Another passage which was referred to, is Colossians 
 ii. 11-13, 
 
 " In whom also ye are circumcised with the circum- 
 cision made without hands, in putting off the body of 
 the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ : 
 buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen 
 with him through the faith of the operation of God, 
 who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being 
 dead in your sins and the unoircumcision of your flesh, 
 hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven 
 you all trespasses." 
 
310 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 Now, observe that the apostle here presents the very 
 idea for which I am contending : that there is in the 
 heart that circumcision which is inward in the spirit^ 
 not outward in the flesh: there is a change of heart 
 wrought, by which the man is declared to have put off 
 the old man with his deeds, and to have become a new 
 creature in Christ Jesus. When this has been effected, 
 then follows — " buried with him in baptism, wherein 
 also ye are risen with him, through the faith of the 
 operation of Grod, who hath raised him from the dead." 
 Dr. Clarke says : 
 
 *^ Buried with him in baptism.] Alluding to the im- 
 mersions practised in the case of adults, wherein the 
 person appeared to be buried under the water, as Christ 
 was buried in the heart of the earth. His rising again 
 the third day, and their emerging from the water, was 
 an emblem of the resurrection of the body, and, in them, 
 of a total change of life." 
 
 And yet my brother, who had to study this as a book 
 of reference on Bible interpretation, for four years before 
 he received holy orders — 
 
 Mr. CouLLiNG : No, sir ; it was not the law of the 
 Church then. 
 
 Mr. Massey : Is it not now ? 
 
 Mr. CouLLiNG : No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Massey : Are not your young men required to 
 study " Clarke's Commentaries" now? 
 
 Mr. CouLLiNG : I will say to the gentleman that I am 
 obliged to him for calling my attention to this, because 
 a great many people do not understand it. The young 
 men who join the itinerancy are required to pursue a 
 course o^ study appointed year after year by the bishops 
 
DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 311 
 
 of the Church. They will have, for instance, doctrines 
 with reference to the Bible, one year ; and then some 
 other studies, Clarke's Commentaries, "Wesley's Notes, &c. 
 I suppose that, one year out of the four. Dr. Clarke is a 
 reference book in that way. I do not know that I looked 
 into it, except occasionally, while I was a probationer. 
 
 Mr. Massey : I was sincerely stating what I under- 
 stood to be the law of his Church. It appears that this 
 was not the law when Mr. Couiling was a young man : 
 hence he has not looked into it — has not studied it prop- 
 erly ; if he had studied it a little more^ I think he would 
 have heard of this doctrine before, which he seems to 
 think is so new and novel now. It is known to many 
 others in the Church, and it was fair to premise that 
 he, as a teacher in Israel, knew what his own teachers 
 taught. 
 
 Here is an exposition of the passage by Dr. McKnight, 
 a commentator still older than Dr. Clarke : 
 
 " Being buried with Imn in baptism.] Christ began 
 his ministry with receiving baptism from John, to show, 
 in an emblematical manner, that he was to die, and to 
 rise again from the dead. And after his resurrection, he 
 commanded his disciples to initiate mankind into his 
 religion, by baptizing them, as he himself had been 
 baptized ; to show\ that although they shall die, like 
 him, through the malignity of sin, yet, as certainly as 
 he rose from the dead, believers shall be raised at the 
 last day, with bodies fashioned like to his glorious body. 
 Wherefore, his disciples having been baptized, as he 
 was, and for the very same purpose, they are fitly said 
 to be buried with Christ in baptism ; and in baptism to 
 be raised with him." 
 
312 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 It is remarkable that other men can see so clearly the 
 teaching of these passages ; and yet, that the gentle- 
 man seems to look upon it as something novels extraor- 
 dinary^ wonderful beyond all conception^ that such an 
 idea could ever he deduced from the plain passages of 
 divine inspiration ! It is not my business to account for 
 that. I cannot tell why he has not comprehended the 
 truth taught in those passages. I have no authority to 
 confer upon him ability to understand what other men 
 understand so clearly. I must leave him to grapple 
 with that misfortune as best he can. I not only show 
 you what I believe the word of God teaches, but that 
 my views of it are sustained by the ablest commenta- 
 tors in his own Church. If he takes issue with them^ 
 I am perfectly willing for him to do so. 
 
 Colossians iii. 1-3 reads : 
 
 "If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things 
 which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand 
 of G-od. Set your affections on things above, not on 
 things on the earth. For ye are dead, and your life is 
 hid with Christ in God." 
 
 Dr. McKnight says upon this passage : , 
 
 " In the 12th verse of the preceding chapter the apos- 
 tle had told the Colossians, that they had been buried 
 with Christ in the water of baptism as dead persons, in 
 token of their relinquishing their former principles and 
 practices ; and that in baptism likewise, they had been 
 raised out of the water with Christ, as an emblem and 
 pledge of their resurrection with him to eternal life. 
 The former of these doctrines the apostle had applied, 
 chapter ii. 20, to show the Colossians the absurdity of 
 subjecting themselves to the ritual precepts, from which 
 
DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 
 
 313 
 
 they had been freed by their death with Christ. And 
 now, as the application of the latter doctrine, he told 
 them in the first verse of this chapter, that since they 
 had been raised with Christ out of the water of bap- 
 tism, and thereby had professed their hope of being 
 raised with him to an eternal life in the body, they were 
 bound to do their utmost, by faith and holiness, to ob- 
 tain the possession of the joys of heaven, where Christ 
 now sitteth at the right hand of God, vested with full 
 power to bestow these joys on all who are capable of 
 receiving them." 
 
 While I think of it, I will mal^e a single remark upon 
 the comments of the gentleman with regard to Paul's 
 saying — " Jesus Christ sent me not to baptize, but to 
 preach the gospel." There were strifes and divisions in 
 the Church to which he was writing. And Paul said 
 — " I thank Grod that I baptized none of you but Cris- 
 pus and Grains ; lest any should say that I had baptized 
 in mine own name." He did not wish to be connected 
 with the divisions and contentions then prevailing ; 
 there were false doctrines going forth, and it might be 
 charged that he had given encouragement to them ; 
 hence he says, '' Christ sent me not to baptize but to 
 preach ;" or, as Dr. Clarke explains it, " not so much 
 for baptizing as for preaching." The great and princi- 
 pal work of the Christian ministry is to preach the gos- 
 pel, as I endeavored to show you before ; to '' Go, and 
 teach all men ;" and then, when they shall have receiv- 
 ed proper instruction (though baptism may be a small 
 matter when compared with the other), baptize them, 
 and then teach them all things necessary for their future 
 observance. Baptism is a very small part of the duty 
 
 14 
 
314 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 of a minister, it is true ; nevertheless, it is. part of that 
 duty, and he has no right to neglect it, even though the 
 weather may be cold ! 
 
 The gentleman refers to 1 Corinthians, twelfth chap- 
 ter, 13th verse : 
 
 " For by one spirit are we all baptized into one body, 
 whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond 
 or free ; and have been all made to drink into one spirit. 
 For the body is not one member, but many." 
 
 The apostle is arguing the unity of the members of 
 the body of Christ. By the operation of the Holy Spirit 
 upon the heart, we are buried, as it were, or merged in 
 Jesus Christ. It is said we " are dead, and our life is 
 hid with Christ in G-od." By what agency ? By the 
 Spirit which operates upon the heart, crucifying the 
 body of sin, and bringing us into union with Christ. 
 
 " For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in 
 God. When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then 
 shall ye also appear with him in glory." Here the spirit 
 is the agent by which this is done. It is not that we 
 are baptized into the spirit : but by the spirit we are 
 baptized into Christ. 
 
 The apostle argues the same to the Ephesians. He 
 says : " There is one body, and one spirit, even as ye 
 are called in one hope of your calling ; one Lord, one 
 faith, one baptism." Here he brings in the whole in 
 regular order. That is, we must, of course, exercise 
 faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. " One Lord, one faith," 
 and then, " one baptism." By faith we are brought into 
 union with Jesus Christ. By baptism we are brought 
 into union with his Church. "One God and Father of 
 all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." 
 
DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 315 
 
 The arguments of my opponent based upon these ref- 
 erences are utterly worthless (in thf present discussion), 
 because they are made to apply to a subject to which 
 they were not designed by the insph'ed writers to have 
 application. He has wholly misconceived the teach- 
 ing of this portion of G-od's word. 
 
 Now, consider for a moment the beautiful harmony of 
 the gospel. It is the most perfect system ever present- 
 ed to man. Take any part from it, and you impair its 
 beauty, its order, and its efficiency. So also, if you add 
 to it. Hence Jesus Christ says : '* If any man shall 
 add unto these things, God shall add unto him the 
 plagues that are written in this book ; and if any man 
 shall take away -from the words of the book of this 
 prophecy, Grod shall take away his part out of the book 
 of life." In the subjects that we have been discussing 
 before you, we behold the action, the subjects, and the 
 design of baptism all harmonizing in the most beauti- 
 ful manner. It is wonderful that Mr. Coulling seems 
 so astonished that I bring up the same passages of 
 Scripture to explain each one of these subjects. A cor- 
 rect understanding of them will remove his astonish- 
 ment. Paul teaches us that we are baptized, because 
 we are dead to sin. To explain what the action of bap- 
 tism is, he terms it, in the same passage, a burial. To 
 explain the design of this burial he says, all in the same 
 passage, we are buried with Christ by baptism, that we 
 have been planted in the likeness of his death, and 
 that we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection. 
 Here we see the actio7i, the subject, and the design, in 
 the same passage. 
 
 A child knows that sprinkling or pouring a handful 
 
316 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 of dirt upon a corpse does not constitute a burial. 
 Neither does sprinkling or pouring a few drops of water 
 upon a man represent a burial. 
 
 I now leave those who have heard, and those who 
 shall read what I have said, to decide whether I have 
 sustained, from the word of Grod, the proposition I affirm- 
 ed upon this subject. 
 
 [Time expired.] 
 
 MR. COULLIXG'S THIRD REPLY. 
 
 Mr. CouLLiNG : My good brother has concluded his argu- 
 ment upon this subject, and I propose in the time now 
 allowed me, to attempt to review those points of it that 
 I deem necessary, so far as this discussion is concerned. 
 I wish to say this much : that if any individual have 
 differed from me upon this subject, I have no sort of 
 objection to it. 
 
 My good brother proposed this proposition to me, to be 
 discussed with him : that baptism was designed to show 
 the faith of the subject in the deaths burial^ and resur- 
 rection of Jesus Christ. That was his proposition. I 
 started the inquiry, who designed it ? He seemed to 
 think that that was a marvellously strange question. 
 And yet I leave it to you to decide if it be not a proper 
 question. He did not say who designed it, I think, 
 though he subsequently comes out and affirms that God 
 designed it. I urged several objections to it, growing 
 out of a criticism, that, in my humble judgment, was a 
 lawful criticism upon the verbiage that was employed. 
 And I certainly think, for it appeared clear to my mind, 
 that there was not left one square inch of ground for his 
 hypothesis to stand upon. 
 
DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 317 
 
 He has noticed one or two issues that I made with 
 him. But as far as I have been able to catch what he 
 says, he has not actually grappled with one of the gravest 
 difficulties that I alleged to his theory. If I under- 
 stood him, his entire foundation rests upon the lexicog- 
 raphers ; and I am willing to submit to you how firm a 
 foundation he stands upon, when he steps upon G-reek 
 lexicons. His next reliance is upon a set of men whose 
 universal conduct throughout the world is diametrically 
 opposed to his theory. He says they are witnesses 
 brought here, and he has cross-examined them. I did 
 not summon them, and no examination in chief has 
 been had. The only thing upon which he has interro- 
 gated these men is their views in reference to particular 
 passages of scripture ; and they have given out their 
 views without any reference whatever to this or any 
 other controversy. That is the simple statement of the 
 matter, and, probably, if you were to meet me in the 
 road to-morrow, and ask me to define some term in the- 
 ology, and I should give you a critical definition of it? 
 if you were to put that down in my creed, and ask me to 
 stand to it, I should ask to be excused, for the words I 
 used may have more than one meaning. 
 
 As to the passages that have been quoted from 
 McKnight, Clarke, and others, he says that I could not 
 ^'have had the law in my young days." Really, I do 
 not know when I learned what Clarke and McKnight 
 say. I was a little surprised he did not bring "Wesley's 
 notes with him, for he is opposed to us in some respects* 
 "Why ? Because these men lived m an age of the world 
 when, for the most part, immersion was the constant 
 practice of the Church of England. For, according to 
 
S18 
 
 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 one of his own witnesses, Mr. Stuart, baptism by im- 
 mersion was practised in England until the seventeenth 
 century. I mark that to cover the time of the transla- 
 tion of King James, and I know that when Wesley was 
 in Greorgia, he refused- to baptize a little child there, 
 because he said the child was not sick enough to justify 
 it. Now, these writers from whom he quotes, and 
 upon whom he relies, so far from being cross-examined 
 by him, have had no examination in chief. They hav^ 
 given out a few utterances without any sort of referenc 
 to this subject, and I have no sort of doubt that if Adam 
 Clarke, Thomas McKnight, John Wesley, and all those 
 men, lived at this day, they would be very apt to give 
 a very different verdict upon that subject. 
 
 I desire to notice the several points he made as he 
 went along. He affirms that I could not be very much 
 accustomed to baptizing people by immersion ; and that 
 I had fallen into the very common error, that it is very 
 hard work to do it. It is true I have baptized only a few 
 people by immersion ; I have done it once or twice. 
 And here let me explain a remark that I made, more in 
 pleasantry than otherwise, for, I think, I am incapable 
 of showing any disrespect to what any human being, 
 even a servant, looks upon with love and veneration. I 
 did it, I say, in a spirit of pleasantry ; I said I would 
 baptize people if it were not cold weather. I meant to 
 express what the brother has expressed so repeatedly, 
 that baptism is a secondary matter. And, I think, being 
 a secondary thing, if he can give his subjects a little 
 time in which to get ready — appoint a day two or three 
 weeks hence, when they shall have gotten their clothes 
 ready, and fix upon a convenient place — if he can do 
 
DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 319 
 
 that, I certainly should be excused, if in cold weather, 
 when I think my health would be endangered by it, I 
 should put it off' a little while. I have a brother who is 
 a Baptist preacher, and some time ago he baptized some 
 persons, and went home and went to bed with a very 
 severe chill. I do not think it was necessary for him to 
 do it ; and there is no doubt that going into the water 
 gave him that chill. And I think it would do the same 
 for me, for I have not as much faith in it as he seems to 
 have, not I. I do not think that is the very best way of 
 doing it. And not thinking so, if a person asks me to 
 do it, I will tell him, when it is perfectly convenient to 
 me and to him, I will do it, and I will do it with pleas- 
 ure. He thinks it a marvellously wonderful thing, if 
 God makes it my duty to immerse, that I should study 
 any personal convenience. And then he goes on with 
 an eloquent description of the humility of the Redeemer, 
 and contrasts that with my argument. Does he pretend 
 to say that if I believed, as some do, that a man's salva- 
 tion depended upon it, I would let the world stop me? 
 No ; I would not let a cannon stop me. If he thinks it 
 is right and his duty, and his subject is suffering for it, 
 if he does not do it, then break the ice ; yes, if it be as 
 ■thick as the ice of the North Pole, and get down into it. 
 But when a man comes to me, and proposes to me to 
 administer the ordinance to him, I do not believe I am 
 to be like Pius IX., and say to him: " I do not believe in 
 that way of doing the thing — you must do it in my way.'' 
 I think here is a subject upon which every man ought 
 to be fully persuaded in his own mind. And because a 
 man differs from me upon that subject, T do not say to 
 him, "You have no right to be in the Church of Jesui 
 
320 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 Christ." When I do say that, then I will assume the posi- 
 tion he seems to think I ought to assume upon this very 
 point, when he presents it to me as a truth from the 
 word of G-od, that baptism means nothing in the world 
 but immersion, and G-od designed that I should perform 
 it in that way and in that manner only. When he con- 
 vinces me of that, I will do it, but not until then. And 
 when I see so many respectable and intelligent people 
 attending upon this discussion, and see men of intelli- 
 gence, of weight, of character, and of great piety, dif- 
 fering upon this subject, I do not feel called upon to 
 decide ex cathedra upon their consciences. That is my 
 position. 
 
 He seemed to feel the force of the quotation I made 
 from Corinthians, where Paul said, " Christ sent me not 
 to baptize, but to preach the gospel." And he went to 
 one of these men, who, he says, is a great man some- 
 where, to get him to fix it up for him. There was a 
 screw loose in the text, and he got a man who had a 
 screw loose to put a screw in it. It was a very good 
 way, and I admired his ingenuity very much, if it could 
 have saved him ; but I do not think it did. 
 
 He speaks of the beautiful harmony existing in the 
 gospel, between what he calls the action of baptism, the 
 nature of baptism, and the subjects of baptism. The 
 action of baptism, iminersion ; the nature of baptism, 
 to represent the deaths burial^ and resurrection of Christ; 
 the subjects of baptism, those that are dead. He said 
 that^ I think : those that are dead. And then wound 
 up by the exclamation, that I wondered what became 
 of the old body. Well, he happened to make a mistake- 
 He said the old man was buried, and we were raised up. 
 
DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 321 
 
 The difficulty that arose in my mind was, that the thing 
 that was buried was not raised up. We were raised up, 
 but the old man was buried. It was simply a criticism 
 I made upon his own position. The truth is, I think 
 this harmony is more in his imagination than in the 
 word of Grod. It is a very nice harmony for his notion 
 of things, and his notions of things harmonize the one 
 with the other, to some extent. But where is the foun- 
 dation for it in the word of Grod ? There is the difficulty 
 about the whole subject. If I began where he does, 
 and went on with him, I should probably come out at 
 about the same place he comes out at. But when we 
 start, we start in different directions, keep in different 
 directions, and we will keep on going different directions, 
 I expect. 
 
 The children of Israel, he tells us, were baptized into 
 Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and paraphrases that 
 by saying that they were baptized into the faith of 
 Moses ; that is, when they went into the Red sea, they 
 thereby manifested their faith in Moses. Well, that 
 may be ; but I do not know what became of the little 
 children that went along. Did they exercise faith, too ? 
 But unfortunately for him, it jars the harmony of his 
 very beautiful system, because they could not have been 
 baptized by immersion, for they went over dry shod, 
 every man of them, and it could not have been an im- 
 mersion exactly. So the^'e is rather a jar in the harmony 
 of his system. 
 
 Mr. Massey : I think it proper to explain, that the 
 gentleman must certainly have understood me to repre- 
 sent it, not as a literal baptism, but as a simple meta- 
 phor, drawn from the idea of baptism. 
 
 14# 
 
322 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 Mr. CouLLiNG : No doubt about that, that it is a fig- 
 urative baptism ; none at all ; but it is nevertheless a 
 baptism. If it be a figurative baptism, it would fio[ure 
 something ; and if it figures a good baptism, a true 
 baptism, the figure must be something like a real bap- 
 tism ; and therefore the real baptism cannot be immer- 
 sion, unless it is a badly-drawn figure. And if the fig- 
 ure is badly drawn, then, of course, you might get any 
 mode in it. And if it be a properly-drawn figure, it will 
 be like the original, and will not be immersion. 
 
 When I was interrupted, I was going on to show you 
 what 1 regarded the Scriptures to teach as to the nature 
 of baptism. That instead of its being a representation 
 of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, 
 it represented no such thing. And going through the 
 prophecies, I quoted various places where there was di- 
 rect reference made to it ; first, in Joel, where it is said, 
 <« I will pour out my spirit upon you." And I told you, 
 that when we came to notice the passages in the New- 
 Testament, you would find that commented upon, and 
 its import decided. Now, let us go on and notice some 
 passages in the New Testament Scriptures. The first 
 will be in Acts x. — 
 
 Mr. Massey : Did you introduce this in your former 
 address ? 
 
 Mr. CouLTJNG : I did not. 
 
 Mr. Massey : If I am not to be allowed to reply to it, 
 I must object to your introducing. Your remarks have 
 not been germain to the subject heretofore, and I will 
 leave it to the moderators, if you can introduce this 
 now. 
 
 Mr. CouLLiNG : I will leave it to the moderators^ if I 
 
DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 323 
 
 have not been all the time speaking closely to this view 
 of the subject. But the gentleman is right : I have no 
 right to add these passages from the New Testament. 
 
 Mr. Massey : I am willing for you to go on as you 
 choose. But I do not wish new matter introduced, 
 when I cannot reply to it. 
 
 Mr. CouLLiNG : I have been commenting upon your 
 own quotations and remarks. But, as I am not permit- 
 ted to prosecute that line of argument any farther, I 
 will confine myself now to the plain and simple presen- 
 tation of the points that I have made, and see whether 
 or not I have been diverted from the point. His posi- 
 tion, I repeat, is this : ^Hhat baptism is intended to rep- 
 resent the faith of the subject in the deaths burial, and 
 resurrection of Jesus Christ^ I have stated, in oppo- 
 sition to that, that in the estimation of St. Paul, the 
 design of baptism could not have been to represent the 
 death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, for these 
 reasons : first, that the death of Christ was represented 
 by authority, by the Lord's Supper ; secondly, the resur- 
 rection of Christ was represented, and is still represented, 
 by the holy Sabbath day. These two being by Divine 
 authority, St. Paul could not, without giving us some 
 notice, have introduced another commemorative act to 
 cornmemorate the same things that were already com- 
 memorated. 
 
 I stated another difficulty ; that it was a novelty in 
 the world's history to commemorate a man's burial. I 
 stated another difficulty that the gentleman has not 
 met — that there was no similarity between the burial 
 in water and the burial of the Saviour. And, therefore, 
 that could not have been intended as a representation, 
 
324 
 
 DEBATE UN THE 
 
 when in reality there was no representation in it. I 
 could not have been intended to figure it, when in reality 
 there was no correspondence between the original and the 
 figure. I think these objections to his proposition are 
 ample, and are unanswerable. And I think that very 
 many of you are fully impressed with the fact, that 
 they are unanswerable objections to that hypothesis. 
 
 Another difficulty that I stated to this view of the 
 subject was that, to establish a commemorative act, and 
 to allege that that was established by Grod, some text 
 of Scripture ought to have been adduced to prove it. 
 He refers to Romans as the text to enlighten the world 
 as to the meaning of baptism ; and I showed you that 
 baptism was practised twenty-five years before this light 
 ever shone upon the world. 
 
 Mr. Massey also quoted 1 John v. 8 : 
 
 " There are three that bear witness in earth : the 
 spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three agree in 
 one." The spirit bears witness, and the water bears wit- 
 ness, and the blood bears witness. But then there is an 
 immense chasm here to be filled up. Does the Scripture 
 say they bear witness that baptism represents the death, 
 burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ ? Does the text 
 say so ? I admit it is a witness ; I never doubted that 
 in my life ; I do not now doubt it. But I very seriously 
 doubt whether it is a witness to that fact ; and certainly 
 this text fails at the very point where the subject needs 
 assistance most. So that I say again, there is no au- 
 thority in the Word of God for that. But even admit- 
 ting that that was authority, there is this difficulty, 
 that this passage was written even later than the Epis- 
 tle to the Eomans ; so that the world, instead of being 
 
DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 
 
 325 
 
 twenty-five years without the knowledge of its meaning, 
 was nearly sixty years without that knowledge. So 
 that the baptism of those that preceded this epistle 
 was a meaningless baptism as far as this book is con- 
 cerned, according to his illustration and the interpreta- 
 tion of the matter. Then you have the disciples going 
 about for twenty-five years, preaching and baptizing the 
 people, without the import and meaning that Paul reveals 
 twenty-five years after baptism was iDstituted. So, of 
 course, all that time nobody was baptized, whatever 
 might have been their understanding of the matter, 
 with this view of it ; for they certainly could not have 
 understood this, for the Bible was as silent as the grave 
 for twenty-five years as to what baptism meant. But 
 they knew what they did, all that time, when they took 
 the Lord's Supper. 
 
 Now, I wish to say this much in conclusion : we 
 have investigated this subject to-day ; I have presented 
 to you the simple difficulties that occurred to my mind. 
 If any of you think that I have not stated difficulties 
 enough to show you that there are errors in his position, 
 it is no offence to me. I have no sort of objection to 
 your thinking so. I have done what I have done with a 
 full and firm persuasion that I was right. I believed it, 
 and I believe it after looking at the subject in a hundred 
 different aspects ; after looking at the opinions of some 
 of the strongest intellects which have written on this 
 subject, and I am perfectly satisfied to leave the views I 
 have expressed, with those of my brother, for you to de- 
 cide upon, and I have very little concern how you de- 
 cide it. 
 
 [Close of the third day's discussion.] 
 
326 DEBATE ON THE 
 
 QUESTION OF OEDER. 
 
 Fourth Day's Discussion. 
 
 Friday, July 13, 1860. 
 
 Before commencing the discussion to-day, Mr. Massey 
 requested the moderators to reconsider their decision in 
 calling him to order on yesterday. He claimed that the 
 call had been improperly made, and proposed that the 
 moderators would request the reporter to read from his 
 short-hand notes all that was said by all parties, and ex- 
 pressed his willingness to abide by the report as then 
 given. 
 
 Mr. Anderson (moderator) opposed any reconsidera- 
 tion of the question. Mr. Woods and Mr. Hansborough, 
 the other moderators, thought justice to Mr. Massey re- 
 quired them to reconsider it. Mr. Anderson then proposed 
 to the other moderators to retire for consultation. When 
 they returned, Mr. Massey asked the result of their de- 
 liberations. Mr. Anderson rephed, " I will state that to 
 the audience.'''' Mr. Anderson then said to the audience, 
 " The moderators have decided the question submitted 
 to them by Mr. Massey in this way : the moderators de- 
 cide that Mr. Coulling was out of order in his remarks ; 
 the moderators were not in order when they failed to call 
 him to order, and Mr. Massey when they called him to 
 order, was decidedly out of order." 
 
 Mr. Massey inquired of the other moderators if that 
 was a correct statement of their decision. They replied 
 it was not — that they had decided that Mr. Coulung was 
 first out of order — that the moderators neglected their 
 duty when they failed to call him to order, and were, 
 
DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 327 
 
 therefore, themselves out of order, and that he (Mr. 
 Massey) was out of order in his reply to Mr. Coulling. 
 
 Mr. Massey proposed to explain to the audience. 
 
 Mr. Anderson objected to his doing so. 
 
 Mr. Massey submitted it to the other moderators. 
 They told him to go on and make his explanation. 
 
 Mr. Massey requested the reporter not to incorporate 
 what he was about saying in his report, until the mod- 
 erators should endorse it, and then said to the audience : 
 This is the first time during the discussion that any 
 speaker has been called to order. I felt aggrieved at being 
 called to order when I believed that I was legitimately 
 replying to what had been said by the respondent. I 
 felt that injustice had been done me, though not inten- 
 tionally, and appealed to the moderators to examine my 
 language as taken down by the reporter, and to recon- 
 sider their decision. That is the way the question came 
 up this morning. Now, Dr. Anderson says that I was 
 decidedly out of order. He used different language 
 when he spoke of Mr. Coulling. I appeal to the other 
 moderators to know if he has correctly stated their de- 
 cision. I wish them to say whether they did not place 
 Mr. Coulling and myself on equal footing in the matter ? 
 
 Mr. Hansborough : That was our decision this morn- 
 ing. "We did not decide that you were decidedly out 
 of order. 
 
 Mr. Anderson : I am willing that the word decidedly 
 shall be taken out of the statement I made. I announced 
 that Mr. Coulling was out of order, and Mr. Massey 
 was out of order, too. 
 
 Mr. Massey : I am perfectly willing to rest the mat- 
 ter there. I want nothing but simple justice. 
 
328 RELATIVE ORDER OF 
 
 RELATIVE ORDER OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. 
 
 MR. COULLING'S FIRST ADDRESS. 
 
 Mr. CouLLiNG : The proposition to be discussed this 
 morning is, " The scriptural right to partake of the Lord's 
 Supper is not restricted to those who have ^received a 
 valid Christian baptism." The converse of this proposi- 
 tion is in these words : " None but those who have re- 
 ceived a valid Christian baptism have a Scriptural right 
 to partake of the Lord's Supper." 
 
 I cannot say, because I do not perceive it, as my 
 brother Massey said yesterday, in the introduction of 
 his debate upon the question then to be discussed, that 
 this is one of the most important questions involved in 
 this controversy. I doubt not but there are considera- 
 tions of importance attached to it. But it is manifestly 
 chiefly important to those who hold, who advocate it. 
 While I doubt not that every member of every Church 
 present would rejoice in their hearts, if the barrier be- 
 tween their Christian communion with immersionist 
 Churches were broken down, yet I am not quite sure 
 that the success or the prosperity of the Presbyterian, of 
 the Episcopalian, or of the Methodist Church, depends 
 very materially upon the adjudication of this question, 
 settle it ia your minds as you may. "While it may be a 
 source of regret, it probably will not be a source of any 
 very serious injury to those who may differ from them. 
 I presume that my good brother desires me to give him 
 an opportunity to justify his Church in the course that 
 they feel themselves allowed — and in some sense, shut 
 
329 
 
 up — to pursue. And I am here to show, as far as I 
 may be able, such objections to the course that they 
 pursue, as wiU give him an opportunity to justify that 
 course before you. 
 
 The first objection, and it seems to me that it lies 
 on the surface, is this : that the Sacrament of the Lord's 
 Supper was instituted before Christian baptism was in- 
 stituted. If you will turn to the Scriptures, you will 
 find two or three passages which I will read to you. In 
 the twenty-sixth chapter of Matthew, beginning with 
 the twentieth verse, you have an account of the Last 
 Supper that the blessed Redeemer had with his disci- 
 ples : 
 
 " Now, when the even was come, he sat down with 
 the twelve. And as they did eat, he said, Yerily I say 
 unto you, that one of you shall betray me. And they 
 were exceeding sorrowful, and began every one of them 
 to say unto him, Lord, is it I ? And he answered and 
 said. He that dippeth his hand with me into the dish, 
 the same shall betray me. The Son of man goeth, as 
 it is written of him ; but wo unto that man by whom 
 the Son of Man is betrayed : it had been good for that 
 man if he had not been born. Then Judas, which be- 
 trayed him, answered and said. Master, is it I ? He 
 said unto him. Thou hast said. And as they were eat- 
 ing, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and 
 gave it to the disciples, and said. Take, eat, this is my 
 body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave 
 it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it." 
 
 This is the establishment of the Lord's Supper, the 
 night upon which the Saviour was betrayed : before, 
 consequently, he was crucified ; before he rose from the 
 
330 RELATIVE ORDER OF 
 
 dead. If you will turn to the twenty- eighth chapter of 
 Matthew, nineteenth and tw^entieth verses, you will find 
 the commission to baptize : 
 
 " Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing 
 them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of 
 the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things 
 whatsoever I have commanded you," &;c. 
 
 Now I hold that that is a pretty conclusive argument 
 upon the point to which I have cited it. Here is the 
 institution of the Lord's Supper : here is the great com- 
 mission. And my good brother told you here the other 
 day, that this commission contains our warrant, our spe- 
 cific warrant, to baptize. I think, though, he has fur- 
 nished me with another argument upon this subject, 
 that he himself can hardly object to, and the correctness 
 of which I suppose he will not question. In the first 
 proposition, he affirmed that the immersion of the proper 
 subject in water is the only apostolic or Christian bap- 
 tism. • 
 
 Mr. Massey: Allow me to ask the brother whether 
 or not he means to affirm, that upon the first proposition 
 I was the affirmant. I know he changed the issue, 
 and placed himself upon the negative^ as he has done 
 to-day. Does he claim, as his language imports, that I 
 was the affirmant, upon the first proposition. 
 
 Mr. CouLLiNG : No, sir : only that you affirmed that 
 doctrine. 
 
 Mr. Massey : State what you were bound to prove, 
 and what I denied. 
 
 Mr. CouLLiNG : That is his doctrine, and he will not 
 deny it. 
 
 Mr. Massey : That is a different thing. 
 
THE lord's supper. 331 
 
 Mr. CouLLiNG : He has asserted that again and again. 
 
 Mr. Massey : I admit that is my doctrine ; but that 
 was not the issue between us. 
 
 Mr. Coulling: That is enough : I will not debate any 
 question that has been debated already. I take this, 
 then, as a matter granted, that my friend admits that 
 the only valid Christian baptism is immersion in the 
 name of the holy Trinity. Now, I hold — I say, I hold 
 — that the baptism of the disciples — even admitting 
 that the baptism of the disciples can be proved, which I 
 do not admit ; but if I were to admit the baptism of the 
 disciples by John the Baptist to be proved, it would not 
 be Christian baptism. "Why ? Could John have bap- 
 tized in the name of the holy Trinity, when, in the nine- 
 teenth chapter of Acts, you find that there were some 
 men who had not so much as heard whether there be 
 any Holy Grhost ; and St. Paul commanded them to be 
 rebaptized. 
 
 And I have another argument, I think, drawn from 
 another position upon which the gentleman himself is 
 the affirmant. He says — he said it yesterday — that 
 baptism is intended to represent the faith of the subject 
 in the death, the burial, and the resurrection of Jesus 
 Christ. And I leave it to you to say, whether those 
 men who did not believe that Christ had risen from the 
 dead, when he had risen, could ever have been baptized 
 into that faith ? Did they anticipate it ? Did not the 
 disciples say. This was he who we had hoped would 
 restore the sceptre to Israel ? Did they not anticipate 
 him as a temporal ruler, to restore the glory of Solomon's 
 day ? And were not all their hopes prostrated by his 
 unjust condemnation and his crucifixion ? Could they 
 
332 RELATIVE ORDER OF 
 
 have been baptized in the faith of his death, burial, and 
 crucifixion? And if not, did they receive, according to 
 my friend's definition, a valid Christian baptism ? Could 
 it have been possible ? 
 
 I am not alone in the opinion I entertain upon this 
 subject. And as my good brother has all along favored 
 you with a great many opinions from Pedobaptist wri- 
 ters, and has brought forward no immersionist authors, 
 it is nothing but fair, I think, that both sides of the 
 question should be heard. And that, I think, is proba- 
 bly the best course I could pursue, to refer you to his 
 own brethren ; as he cannot object to them. They are 
 men who have no screw loose, as he thinks Pedobaptists 
 have. We bring men who are screwed up all right, and 
 are of right minds, especially upon the main question. 
 I hold in my hand a little book, of which I will read 
 the title page : 
 
 " Open Communion ; or. The principles of restricted 
 Communion, examined and proved to be unscriptural 
 and false, in a series of letters to a friend. By S. W. 
 Whitney, A. M., late pastor of the Baptist Church, West- 
 port, N. Y. ' This do in remembrance of me. Drink ye 
 all of it.' Second edition. Published by L. M. Lee, 
 Richmond, Ya., 1854." 
 
 I want to read you from the 70th and 71st pages of 
 this book : 
 
 " But let us see what the Saviour's immediate follow- 
 ers thought of the supposed indispensableness of bap- 
 tism to a place at the sacramental table. Besides the 
 few who were present at the first supper, there were, in 
 the apostles' days, numbers who communed steadfastly 
 without ever having made a baptismal profession of 
 
333 
 
 Christianity. They were those who had embraced 
 Christ previous to the day of Pentecost ; all who were 
 reckoned as members of the Christian Church, when the 
 apostolic commission was issued. They consisted of 
 ' about five hundred brethren,' at least. (1 Cor. xv. 6.) 
 These, of course, ' had not received Christian baptism 
 before the Saviour's resurrection ; the ordinance not then 
 being instituted.' And ' from the total silence of Scrip- 
 ture, and from other circumstances that might be ad- 
 duced, it is difficult to suppose that they submitted to 
 that rite after his resurrection.' " 
 
 I think that is a pretty good comment upon the view 
 I have just now expressed. The next quotation that I 
 shall offer, is from the celebrated Dr. Hall : " The 
 Works of the Rev. Robert Hall, M. A." This is pub- 
 lished by Harper Bro's, 1857. I turn to the first vol- 
 ume, pp. 303 and 304 : 
 
 " Before I dismiss this part of the subject, which has 
 perhaps already detained the reader too long, I must beg 
 leave to hazard one conjecture. Since it is manifest 
 that the baptism of John did not supersede the Chris- 
 tian ordinance, they being perfectly distinct, it is natu- 
 ral to inquire who baptized the apostles, and the hun- 
 dred and twenty disciples assembled with them at the 
 day of Pentecost. My deliberate opinion is, that, in 
 the Christian sense of the term, they were not baptized 
 at all. From the total silence of Scripture, and from 
 other circumstances which might be adduced, it is diffi- 
 cult to suppose they submitted to that rite after our 
 Saviour's resurrection ; and previous to it, it has been 
 sufficiently proved that it was not in force. It is almost 
 certain that some, probably most of them, had been 
 
334 RELATIVE ORDER OF 
 
 baptized by John, but for reasons which have been 
 aheady amply assigned, this will not account for their 
 not submitting to the Christian ordinance. The true 
 account seems to be, that the precept of l)aptism had no 
 retrospective bearing ; and that, consequently, its obli- 
 gation extended only to such as were converted to Chris- 
 tianity subsequently to the time of its promulgation. 
 Such as had professed their faith in Christ from the 
 period of his first manifestation, could not, without pal- 
 pable incongruity, recommence that profession, which 
 would have been to cancel and annul their former reli- 
 gious pretensions. With what propriety could the apos- 
 tles of the Lord, ivho had continued ivith him in his 
 temptations^ place themselves on a level with that mul- 
 titude which, however penitent at present, had recently 
 demanded his blood with clamorous importunity — not 
 to insist that they had already received the baptism of 
 the Holy Grhost, of which the sacramental use of water 
 was but a figure ? They were not converted to the Chris- 
 tian religioh subsequently to their Lord's resurrection, 
 nor did the avowal of their attachment to the Messiah 
 commence from that period ; and therefore they were 
 not comprehended under the baptismal law, which was 
 propounded for the regulation of the conduct of persons 
 in essentially different circumstances. When St. Paul 
 says, * As many of us as were baptized into Christ have 
 put on Christ,' his language seems to intimate that there 
 were a class of Christians to whom this argument did 
 not apply. 
 
 " Having proved, I trust, to the satisfaction of the can- 
 did reader, that baptism, considered as a Christian insti- 
 tution, had no existence during the personal ministry of 
 
THE lord's supper. «• 335 
 
 our Saviour, the plea of our opponents, founded on the 
 supposed priority of that ordinance to the Lord's sup- 
 per, is completely overruled ; whatever weight it might 
 possess, supposing it were valid, must be wholly trans- 
 ferred to the opposite side, and it must be acknowledg- 
 ed, either that they have reasoned inconclusively, or 
 have produced a demonstration in our favor. It now 
 appears that the original communicants at the Lord's 
 table, at the time they partook of it, were, with respect 
 to Christian baptism, precisely in the same situation 
 with the persons they exclude." 
 
 Now, these two passages that I have read, one from 
 Whitney, and one from Hall, very clearly go to establish, 
 I think, the correctness of the views that I have ex- 
 pressed. They not only reiterate them, but do so with 
 a force of argument, with an expression and clearness, 
 that it seems to me, is perfectly unanswerable, perfectly 
 irresistible. I now call your attention to another quota- 
 tion from Dr. Hall, vol. ii, pages 218 and 219 : 
 
 " Thus much may suffice for apostolic precedent. 
 There is still one more view of the subject to which the 
 attention of the reader is requested for a moment. It 
 remains to be considered whether there is any peculiar 
 connection between the two ordinances of baptism and 
 the Lord's Supper, either in the nature of things or by 
 divine appointment, as to render it improper to adminis- 
 ter the one without the other. That there is no natural 
 connection is obvious. They were instituted at different 
 times and for different purposes ; baptism is a mode of 
 professing our faith in the blessed Trinity ; the Lord's 
 Supper as a commemoration of the dying love of the 
 Redeemer ; the former is the act of an individual, the 
 
336 
 
 RELATIVE ORDER OF 
 
 latter of a society. The words which contain our war- 
 rant for the celebration of the Eucharist, convey no allu- 
 sion to baptism whatever ; those which prescribe bap- 
 tism, carry no anticipative reference to the Eucharist ; 
 and as it is demonstrable that John's baptism was a 
 separate institution from that which was enacted after 
 our Lord's resurrection, the Lord's Supper is evidently 
 anterior to baptism, and the original communicants con- 
 sisted entirely of such as had not received that ordi- 
 nance. To all appearance the rites in question rest on 
 independent grounds. But, perhaps, there is a special 
 connection between the two, arising from divine appoint- 
 me7it. If this be the case, it will be easy to point it 
 out. Rarely, if ever, are they mentioned together, and 
 on no occasion is it asserted, or insinuated, that the 
 validity of the Sacrament depends on the previous ob- 
 servation of the baptismal ceremony. That there was 
 such a connection between circumcision and the pass- 
 over we have from the explicit declaration of Moses, who 
 asserts that " no uncircumoised person shall eat thereof." 
 Let a similar prohibition be produced in the present in- 
 stance, and the controversy is at an end. 
 
 The late excellent Dr. Fuller, in a posthumous pam- 
 phlet on this subject, labored hard to prove an instituted 
 connection between the two ordinances ; but his conclu- 
 sion from the premises is so feeble and precarious, that 
 we strongly suspect his own mind was not fully made 
 up on the subject. His reasoning is certainly very little 
 adapted to satisfy an impartial inquirer. The whole 
 performance appears more like an experiment of what 
 might be adduced in favor of a prevailing hypothesis, 
 than the result of deep and deliberate conviction. 
 
337 
 
 On this point our opponents are at variance with each 
 other. Mr Kinghorn roundly asserts that baptism has 
 no more coimection with the Lord's Supper, than with 
 every other part of Christianity. Thus what Mr. Ful- 
 ler attempts to demonstrate as the main pillar of his 
 cause, Mr. Kinghorn abandons without scruple. What 
 a fortunate position is that to which men may arrive 
 who proceed in the most opposite directions — a sort of 
 mental antipodes, which you will reach with equal cer- 
 tainty whether you advance by the east or by the west. 
 From the title of Mr. Kinghorn's book, which is, " Bap- 
 tism, a Term of Communion," we should be led to ex- 
 pect that it was his principal obieot to trace some specific 
 relation which these riojhts bear to each other. No such 
 thing ; he denies there is any such relation ; baptism, 
 he declares, is no otherwise connected with the Lord's 
 Supper, than it is with every other part of Christianity 
 But on his hypothesis it is essential to the Eucharist, 
 and, consequently, it is essential to every part of Chris- 
 tianity ; so that the omission of it, from whatever cause 
 is such an error in the first concoction, that it vitiates 
 every branch of religion, disqualifies for all its duties, 
 and incurs the forfeiture of all its privileges. This is 
 the statement of a man who makes loud professions of 
 attachment to our Pedobaptist brethren ; nor can he es- 
 cape from this strange dilemma but by retracing his 
 steps, and taking his stand with Mr. Fuller on a sup- 
 posed instituted relation between the two ordinances. 
 Meanwhile, it is instructive to observe in what labyrinths 
 the acutest minds are entangled which desert the high 
 road of common sense in pursuit of fanciful theories. 
 Now it seems to me that the passages of Scripture 
 
 15 
 
S38 RELATIVE ORDER OF 
 
 that I have read, from the comments of these men that 
 I have read — cool, deliberate, thinking men, men who 
 agree with my brother on the main point — their opinions 
 and their arguments are perfectly conclusive on this whole 
 subject — I cannot for my life see how, in view of these 
 facts, any one can sustain the opposite ; I cannot under- 
 stand that. 
 
 Another difficulty in the way of this doctrine is this : 
 that the commission is silent upon this subject ; per- 
 fectly silent. My good brother would not permit me to 
 introduce infant baptism into the commission, because 
 he says it is not there. Has he the right to introduce 
 close communion into the commission ? It is not there. 
 I think that the very difficulty that he tried to press me 
 "with there, presses upon him quite as hard here ; just as 
 hard ; and he will find it just about as difficult a matter 
 to get close communion inside of the narrow confines 
 of that commission, that he fenced around and fenced 
 up so high the other day, and then threw the fences all 
 down, as he thought it was difficult for me to get infants 
 in there. I now want you to hear Mr. Hall's views upon 
 this subject again. On the 304th and 305th pages, vol. 
 ]., of Dr. Hall's works, we have this : 
 
 " The commission which the apostles received after 
 our Lord's resurrection was in the following words : ' All 
 power is given to me in heaven and on earth. Go, ye, 
 therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the 
 name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
 Ghost : teaching them to observe whatsoever I have 
 commanded you.' From baptism being mentioned ^jas^ 
 after teaching, it is urged that it ought to be adminis- 
 tered immediately after effectual instruction is imparted 
 
339 
 
 and consequently before an approach to the Lord's table. 
 Whence it is concluded, that to communicate with such 
 as are unbaptized is a violation of divine order. 
 
 It may assist the reader to form a judgment of the 
 force of this argument adduced on this occasion, if we 
 reduce it to the following syllogism : 
 
 The persons who are to be taught to observe all things 
 given in charge to the apostle, are the baptized alone ; 
 
 But, the Lord's Supper is one of these things ; 
 
 Therefore, the ordinance of the Lord's Supper ought 
 to be enjoined on the baptized alone. 
 
 Here, it is obvious, that the conclusion rests entirely 
 upon this principle, that nothing' which the apostles were 
 commissioned to enjoin on believers is to be recommended 
 to persons not baptized ; since as far as this argument 
 is concerned, the observation of the Lord's Supper is 
 supposed not to belong to them, merely because it forms 
 a part of these precepts. It is obvious, if the reasoning 
 of our opponents be valid, it militates irresistibly against 
 the inculcation of every branch of Christian duty, on 
 persons who, in their judgment, have not partaken of 
 the baptismal sacrament ; it excludes them, nor merely 
 from the Lord's Supper, but from every species of in- 
 struction appropriate to Christians ; nor can they exhort 
 Pedobaptists to walk worthy of their high calling, to 
 adorn their Christian profession, to cultivate brotherly 
 love, or to the performance of any duty resulting from 
 their actual relation to Christ, without a palpable viola- 
 tion of their own principles, in all such instances they 
 would be teaching them to observe injunctions which 
 Christ gave in charge to the apostles for the regulation 
 of Christian conduct, while they deem it necessary to 
 
340 RELATIVE ORDER OF 
 
 repel them from the sacrament, merely on account of 
 its forming a part of those injunctions. Nor can they 
 avoid the force of this reasoning by objecting that 
 though it may be their duty to enjoin on unbaptized 
 believers some parts of the mind of Christ respecting 
 the conduct of his mystical members, it will follow that 
 they are to be admitted to the Lord's table ; that the 
 meaning is, that it is only subsequently to baptism that 
 all thing's ought to be enforced on the consciences of 
 Christians. For if he once admitted that the clause on 
 which so much stress is laid is not to be interpreted 
 so as absolutely to exclude unbaptized Christians from 
 the whole of its import, to what purpose is it alleged 
 against their admission to the Eucharist ? or how does 
 it appear that this may not be one of the parts in which 
 they are comprehended ?" 
 
 So, you see, that, upon this point, too, as my good 
 brother said yesterday, if I am in error, I am in error in 
 good company, and with his brethren. Another diffi- 
 culty that will occur to every one, is, that there is no 
 scriptural warrant for excluding unbaptized persons, 
 even from the Lord's sacrament ; no scriptural warrant 
 for it. Now, the position here is, that none but those 
 who are validly baptized have a scriptural right — a scrip- 
 tural right. I affirm that there is no scriptural warrant 
 for that position. I wish to give you the views of Mr. 
 Hall again. I read from the first volume of his works, 
 page 306 : 
 
 '' Whether, in such circumstances, the attention of a 
 candidate for Christian communion should first be di- 
 rected to baptism, is not the question at issue ; but what 
 conduct ought to be maintained toward sincere Chris- 
 
THE lord's supper. 341 
 
 tians, who, after previous examination, profess their 
 conviction of being baptized ah-eady, or who, in any 
 manner whatever, are withheld by motives purely con- 
 scientious from complying with what we conceive to be 
 a Christian ordinance. To justify the exclusion of such 
 from the Lord's table, it is not sufficient to allege the 
 prescribed order of the institutions ; it is necessary also 
 to evince such a dependence of one upon the other, that 
 a neglect of the first, from involuntary mistake, annuls 
 the second. Let this dependence be once clearly pointed 
 out, and we give up the cause. It has been asserted, 
 indeed, and with much confidence, that we have the 
 same authority for confining our communion to baptized 
 persons, as the ancient Jews for admitting none but 
 such as have been circumcised to the passover ; a simple 
 recital, however, of the words of the law, with respect 
 to that ancient rite, will be sufficient to demonstrate the 
 contrary : ' When a stranger shall sojourn with thee, 
 and will keep this passover to the Lord, let all his males 
 be circumcised, and then let him come and keep it, and 
 he shall be as one born in the land ; for no uncircum- 
 cised person shall eat thereof.' But where, let me ask, 
 is it asserted in the New Testament that no unbaptized 
 person shall partake of the Eucharist ? So far from this, 
 it has been, I trust, satisfactorily shown, that of the 
 original communicants at its first institution, not one 
 was thus qualified." 
 
 Again, lower down on the same page : 
 
 " The deoree of blame which attaches to the conduct 
 of those who mistake the will of Christ Vv^ith respect to 
 the sacramental use of water, we shall not pretend to 
 determine ; but we feel no hesitation in affirming, that 
 
342 RELATIVE ORDER OF 
 
 the practice of comparing it to a presumptuous violation 
 and contempt of divine law, is equally repugnant to the 
 dictates of propriety and candor. Among the innumer- 
 able descendants of Abraham, it is impossible to find 
 one, since the departure from Egypt, who has doubted 
 of the obligation of circumcision, of the proper subjects 
 of that rite, or of its being an indispensable prerequisite 
 to the privileges of the Mosaic covenant. Among Chris- 
 tians, on the contrary, of unexceptional character and 
 exalted piety, it cannot be denied that the subject, the 
 mode, and the perpetuity of baptism, have each supplied 
 occasion for controversy ; which can only be ascribed to 
 the minute particularity with which the ceremonies of 
 the law were enjoined, combined to the concise brevity 
 which characterizes the history of evangelical institutes. 
 We are far, however, from insinuating a doubt on the 
 obligation of believers to submit to the ordinance of bap- 
 tism, or of its being exclusively appropriated to such ; 
 but we affirm, that in no part of Scripture is it calcu- 
 lated as a preparation to the LorcVs Supper, and that 
 this view of it is a mere fiction of the imagination." 
 
 Now I think, that from these passages that I have 
 just quoted, two or three things are perfectly apparent. 
 And I am right glad that I stand in company with such 
 men as Robert Hall, remarkable for his piety, remark- 
 able for the breadth of his Christian charity, remarkable 
 for his intellect, remarkable for his accurate information. 
 And he, with perhaps as many reasons to induce him to 
 agree with those who differ from us as they themselves 
 have for their course, comes deliberately to the conclu- 
 sion, that whatever else may teach restricted commu- 
 nion, the Bible is as silent as the grave upon that sub- 
 
343 
 
 ject, and that the commission does not authorize it. In 
 farther evidence of this, I wish to call your attention 
 again to this little book of Mr. Whitney. I turn now to 
 pages 43 and 44 : 
 
 " My dear friend : We are now to examine the ground 
 upon which you profess to have your practice of restrict- 
 ing the Lord's Supper from members of other denomina- 
 tions ; namely, the position that Christian baptism, or, 
 as we always mean by this, an immersional profession 
 of Christianity, is a divinely-prescribed term of commu- 
 nion. If this were so, then your practice, so far at least 
 as restricting the Supper from the unimmersed is con- 
 cerned, would not merely be right and justifiable ; it 
 could not lawfully be otherwise. But as it is, I regard 
 it as the paltriest of assumptions, which, if stripped of 
 all its sophistry and of the authority and influence of a 
 few great names, would shrink in shame from pub- 
 licity." 
 
 One of his own brethren : that is his idea upon the 
 subject. Again, on pages 90 and 91 of this little book, 
 I wish to read you Mr. Whitney's views : 
 
 '' Such are the reasons you and others assign for re- 
 garding baptism as a divinely-prescribed sine qua non 
 for communion. But a man of your good sense must see 
 that really none of them support the idea, while several 
 of them testify directly against it. The position, that 
 the want of baptism is a divinely-recognized barrier to 
 communion, as though the Lord's table belonged to none 
 among us but the immersed, is one that cannot be sus- 
 tained. The best attempts to defend it only show to 
 what weaknesses Christian men are liable. For, in view 
 of the utter irrelevancv and the suicidal character of 
 
344 RELATIVE ORDER OF 
 
 these attempts, how ridiculously dogmatic and painfully 
 destitute of truth are such asseverations as these : ' Chris- 
 tian baptism is one of the divinely-ordained and un- 
 changeable terms of communion.' — (Howell on Com., 
 p. 50. ) ' In the apostles' days it was constantly required 
 as a preparation for the communion.' — [Ibid, p. 45.) 
 * God's regulations forbid the unbaptized [i. e., the Pedo- 
 baptists] to partake of the Supper.' — (R. Fuller on Bapt. 
 and Com., p. 195.) 'He orders that the baptized only 
 shall communicate ; who will dare to abrogate this 
 order V—(Ibid, p. 198.) That is, Grod orders that Pedo- 
 baptists, that all professing Christians who have not 
 made their profession by immersion, shall not commem- 
 orate their Lord's death ! If this is not teaching for 
 doctrines the commandments of men, I know not what 
 is. As to any express ' order' to restrict the Lord's Sup- 
 per to ' the baptized only,' I challenge all Christendom 
 to produce it. As Mr. Kinghorn says : ' The New Tes- 
 tament does not prohibit the unbaptized from receiving 
 the Lord's Supper.' And, what is more than this, neither 
 does the voice of the Christian Church, nor the commis- 
 sion, nor the practice of the apostles, nor the meaning 
 of the ordinances, nor the supposed analogy between the 
 terms of admission to the passover and the terms cf the 
 communion, afford the least shadow of a reason for in- 
 ferrins: that such a restriction is consonant with the 
 mind of Christ, but to the contrary." 
 
 On the 93d page he goes on to say : 
 
 '• Nay, more, I consider it unworthy of any intelli- 
 gent man, and beneath the dignity of the Christian re- 
 ligion, to descend at any time, much more at such a 
 time, to the inquiry how a disciple, eminent he may be 
 
THE lord's supper. 345 
 
 for high piety and usefulness, has made his profession 
 of Christianity. Such a course ill becomes a follower 
 of Christ." 
 
 Stop a man at the Sacrament of the Lord's table and 
 ask him how he made his profession of Christianity ! 
 
 Again, according to Mr. Massey's own hypothesis, I 
 think a very serious difficulty is in the way of making 
 the right to commune depend upon our baptism. He 
 says, that Christian baptism is the expression of the 
 faith of the person in the death, burial, and resurrection 
 of Jesus Christ as the procuring cause of his pardon 
 and salvation. Now just let us look at this. They 
 will not baptize a man until he believes ; and then when 
 they do baptize him it is as an expression of his faith ; in 
 what ? In the burial of Christ, is it not ? Now, he 
 will make him express his faith in the burial before he 
 is qualified to express his faith in his death ; for you in 
 the sacrament of the Lord's Supper commemorate his 
 death. And he must express his faith in his burial be- 
 fore he expresses it in his death. And that is not the 
 worst. He must express his faith in his resurrection 
 before he does in his death. And that is not all ; he 
 must be qualified to express his faith in the burial of 
 Christ before he is qualified to express his faith in the 
 death of Christ. For, according to his own theory, he 
 is qualified to express his faith in the death of Christ in 
 one ordinance, and is not qualified to do so in another 
 ordinance. These are a few more of the harmonies we 
 heard of last evening. Unfortunately, I am one of 
 those who have a screw loose somewhere and cannot 
 hear these harmonies. I am seriously told that I am 
 not fit to commune, because I am not baptized. What 
 
346 RELATIVE ORDER OF 
 
 do you mean by baptism ? It is an expression of your 
 faith in the death and burial of Christ. And yet I am 
 qualified to express it in that way, and not in the other. 
 That is his own view of the subject ; what he himself 
 affirms. And when he brings one affirmation and puts 
 it alongside another affirmation, if there is harmony be- 
 tween the two, this ear has lost its sense of hearing ; I 
 hear it not ; I perceive it not ; I feel it not ; I believe 
 it not. 
 
 Another objection to it is this : that in assuming the 
 ground that none but those who agree with them have 
 a right to partake of the Lord's Supper, they assume 
 the prerogative of sitting in judgment upon my con- 
 duct, upon my conscience, and exclude me from a privi- 
 lege that I honestly believe I have as much right to as 
 they have. Now, I do not wish to be misunderstood 
 right there. I do not wish you to understand me as 
 saying that I believe that this brother, or members of 
 immersionist churches generally, exclude me from the 
 Christian Church. I do not believe that. I believe they 
 recognize me as a Christian. He has called me brother 
 here right often. He did express a faint hope that per- 
 adventure the clemency of Grod would take my excuses 
 at the bar of Grod, for substituting sprinkling for im- 
 mersion. And I thank him for that much charity. 
 Neither he nor his brethren deny the Christian charac- 
 ter of Pedobaptists. Let me give you a little authority 
 upon this subject. I read from Dr. Fuller's work on 
 baptism. The work is entitled " Baptism and Commu- 
 nion, by Dr. Fuller." I shall read from the 179th page, 
 and I want you to listen to this, if you please. I ad- 
 rnire Dr. Fuller's character in a great many particulars. 
 
347 
 
 I think, from all that I have heard of him, that he is a 
 man that has a great many admirable traits. And I 
 think you will agree with me that here is as full a gush- 
 ing forth of the true Christian character, as you often 
 meet with. He says : 
 
 " The Spiritual ' body of Christ' is indeed a ' glori- 
 ous body.' This is the Catholic or Universal Church. 
 To this belong none but the truly regenerate ; they are 
 the members of this Society, knit together by a union 
 not imaginary, but most sweet, and dear, and imper- 
 ishable. Against this Church the gates of hell shall 
 never prevail. We rejoice in the hope that, in all the 
 visible churches of different denominations, there are 
 those who are united with us in this spiritual Church. 
 We delight to feel ourselves one with them ; one in 
 spirit, one in aim, one in ' a good hope through grace ;' 
 in short, one in Christ. The communion of this body, 
 however, is not in material emblems, as bread and wine ; 
 it is spiritual ; it is the fellowship of soul with soul ; 
 nor can walls, nor mountains, nor oceans, nor ages, sepa- 
 rate those w^ho are thus cemented. On the other hand, 
 where this union does not exist, vainly do we speak of 
 spiritual fellowship. People may worship in the same 
 edifice, and sit side by side at the Lord's table, but there 
 is a world between them ; in fact they belong to two 
 difTerent worlds." 
 
 Now, that is just what I wanted to say to put all 
 that right. I have no sort of doubt that Dr. Fuller ex- 
 presses the sentiments of a large majority of those who 
 differ with us ; they believe that we are Christians. I 
 will give you a little more information upon that sub- 
 ject, from Mr. Whitney, page 46 : 
 
348 RELATIVE ORDER OF 
 
 *' Says one, ' The New Testament does not forbid the 
 unbaptized from receiving the Lord's Supper.'' (King- 
 horn, as quoted by Hall.) Another says, ' Does a Pedo- 
 baptist honestly believe, after an impartial examination 
 of the best evidences to which he can gain access on the 
 subject, that he has received Christian baptism, and that 
 he has truly entered the congregation of Christ in the 
 way of divine appointment ? -Let him prosecute the 
 course he has adopted. All the Lord's children have an 
 undoubted right to his table, because whatever is his is 
 theirs.' (Howell on Com., pages 99, 107.) Says a 
 third — ' Undoubtedly all Christians,' and Pedobaptists 
 among them, * are entitled, in the strictest sense of the 
 term^ not only to the Lord's supper, but to all the privi- 
 leges of the Christian Church. Sincerely believing they 
 have entered the visible Church in the way of divine 
 appointment, their title to its peculiar privileges inevita- 
 bly follows, since every Christian is under a sacred obli- 
 gation to recognize what he sincerely believes to be the 
 divine will. Tliey do right in partaking of, the Lord's 
 supper, though in our opinion unbaptized.' (J. Gr. Ful- 
 ler, on Com. Conversation, iii.) And another, more re- 
 cent still, says, ' There is no reason why we should 
 breathe a murmur against them because they take the 
 Lord's supper, in their own churches.' (Curtis on Com., 
 page 190.) Now, with what sincerity can you allow 
 that persons whom you regard as destitute of Christian 
 baptism, are entitled to the Lord's supper, and may law- 
 fully commune among themselves, while you contend 
 that Christian baptism is a divinely prescribed qualifi- 
 cation for communion ? What regard for G-od's require- 
 ments, or jealousy for his will, is there in such a course 
 
THE lord's supper. 349 
 
 as this ? It seems to me neither more nor less than a 
 downright tampering with the mind of God, to believe 
 baptism to be a divinely required preliminary to com- 
 munion, and yet allow that persons do right to com- 
 mune without it, and that there is no reason why we 
 should breathe a murmur against them for so doing." 
 
 Now, recollect all that is not my language ; it is not 
 the language of Pedobaptists ; it is the language of men 
 who are thoroughly immersionists in their notions. 
 That is their view of this subject. Upon this subject I 
 have a little more that I wish to read from Hall's work, 
 vol. ii., pages 226 and 227 : 
 
 '' The first effects necessarily resulting from it, is a 
 powerful prejudice against the party which adopts it ; 
 when all other denominations find themselves lying under 
 an interdict, and treated as though they were heathens 
 or publicans, they must be more than men not to resent 
 it ; or if they regard it with a considerable degree of 
 apathy, it can only be ascribed to that contempt which 
 impotent violence is so apt to inspire. We are incompe- 
 tent judges of the light in which our conduct appears to 
 those against whom it is directed, but the more fre- 
 quently we place ourselves in their situation the less will 
 be our surprise at the indications of alienation and dis- 
 gust which they may evince. The very appellation of 
 Baptist, together with the tenets by which it is desig- 
 nated, become associated with the idea of bigotry ; nor 
 will it permit the mind which entertains that prejudice 
 to give an impartial attention to the evidence by which 
 our sentiments are supported. With mingled surprise 
 and indignation they behold us making pretensions 
 which no other denomination of Protestants assume, 
 
850 RELATIVE ORDER OF 
 
 placing ourselves in an attitude of hostility toward the 
 whole Christian world, and virtually claiming to be the 
 only Church of Christ upon earth. Fortified as it is by 
 claims to antiquity and universality, and combining in 
 its exterior whatever is adapted to dazzle the imagina- 
 tion and captivate the senses, there is yet nothing in the 
 Church of Rome that has excited more indignation and 
 disgust than this very pretension. What, then, must 
 be the sensation produced, when, in the absence of all 
 these advantages, a sect comparatively small and insig- 
 nificant, erects itself on a solitary eminence, whence 
 it repels the approach of all other Christians ?" 
 
 That is Mr. Hall's view of the subject. I wish just 
 here to say that I am not to be understood as applying 
 all these sentiments to the immersionists, or to the re- 
 stricted communionists. I honestly believe, as I believe 
 that I stand here, that there are men who advocate this 
 doctrine just as honestly as I oppose it. They take not 
 this view of the subject ; they view not this subject in 
 this light. And I have taken advantage of this occasion 
 to bring these views before them, because these are the 
 natural, these are the most palpable views that can be 
 taken of it. And 1 will venture the assertion that about 
 nine out of ten men, unsophisticated, unprejudiced men, 
 would adopt and advance identically these very senti- 
 ments. 
 
 Another difficulty in the way of this theory is that 
 the principle itself, upon w^hich close communionists act, 
 is not strictly carried out. Well, I say this, and I sug- 
 gest it, so that my good brother may put you right upon 
 this point, if I am misinformed. I do not pretend to 
 know, I will give him my authority for saying so, and 
 
THE lord's supper. 351 
 
 it may go for what it is worth. I turn now again to 
 "Whitney, pages 108 and 109, where 1 find this : 
 
 " But, if the Lord's Supper be really a devotional 
 ordinance, as you would have it, why all this ado that 
 you make about baptism as being a term of commu- 
 nion ? where is the force of it, when a believer's quali- 
 fiedness turns not on the question, * Has he been bap- 
 tized V nor on the question, ' Is he a member of some 
 sister Church of like faith and order ?' The practice 
 that restricts the Lord's Supper from any baptized be- 
 liever of irreproachable life, is an open abandonment of 
 the ground on which you and all restricted communion- 
 ists professed to act. Dr. Howell, for example, the great 
 American champion, lays it down in language that ad- 
 mits of no ambiguity, that * repentance toward God, 
 faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, and baptism in the name 
 of the Holy Trinity, are incontrovertibly the terms of 
 the communion, appointed and established by the King 
 in Zion, and from which we are forbidden, by the most 
 sacred obligations, at any time, for any purpose, or 
 
 UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE, TO DEPART, ' what thing SOCVer 
 
 I command you,' saith the Lord Jehovah, ' observe to 
 do it.' Thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from 
 it.' " Again : " ' Repentance toward G-od, faith in the 
 Lord Jesus Christ, and baptism in the name of the 
 Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, are in- 
 dispensable terms of approach to the Lord's table, and 
 
 to which those who have OBSERVED THESE PRELIMINARIES 
 CANNOT AFTERWARD BE DEBARRED OF ACCESS, BUT IN CON- 
 SEQUENCE OF A FORFEITURE OF CHRISTIAN CHARACTER BY 
 
 IMMORALITY OR HERESY.' This is language which strikes 
 a death-blow at the restriction you practise ; and re- 
 
352 RELATIVE ORDER OF 
 
 member that it is not merely the language of Dr. 
 Howell, but of the American Baptist Publication Society, 
 by whom the work is endorsed and issued. And yet, 
 neither is Dr. Howell, nor are the members of the Pub- 
 lication Society, nor are our brethren generally, regulated 
 in their practice by this rule, any more than you, your- 
 self are. The restricted communion of Baptist Churches^ 
 the United States over^ makes neither more nor less than 
 membership in churches of like faith and order, the 
 qualification for communion with them. Apologize for 
 it, and seek to vindicate it as much as you may, still 
 the fact remains the same, and it cannot be denied that 
 this is what is really made the one and all-embracing 
 pre-requisite for a seat at the Lord's table, by the ' regu- 
 lar Baptists in this country.' Such being the case, to 
 what purpose, I say, is all this verbiage about ' repent- 
 ance, faith, and baptism, being the divinely-ordained and 
 unchangeable terms of communion,' as Dr. Howell ex- 
 presses it? Why not at once deny the Sacramental 
 Table to be the Lord's, and honestly and avowedly con- 
 tend for its being a denominational table ? If it be 
 true, as the practice of restricted communion from one 
 end of the land to the other says, that the qualification 
 for communion is not repentance, faith, and baptism 
 merely, but simply a place in the Baptist denomination, 
 then let us hear no more about not communing with 
 others, on the ground of their not being baptized. For 
 the truth's sake let us have consistency and honesty. 
 Let it be frankly and fearlessly asserted that the com- 
 munion table is not the Lord's, nor for his people, but a 
 denominational table for those only who are of our de- 
 nomination. If the system is justifiable there is noth- 
 
353 
 
 ing to gain by urging false pleas in its iDehalf. and cloak- 
 ing its deformities under falsehoods, nor anything to be 
 feared by placing it on its true basis, and attempting to 
 defend it as it is. Should it fall \Yhen placed there, and 
 left to stand without the fictitious props which now sup- 
 port it, let it fall. It is unworthy to stand, and the 
 sooner it falls the better, as well for those who practise 
 it as for the Church at large, and for the general ad- 
 vancement among men of the pure and ennobling prin- 
 ciples of the gospel of the Son of God." 
 
 Now, I cannot say that that is or is not a true repre- 
 sentation of their course. But I do say that if it be, it 
 is placing themselves in an attitude of hostility to other 
 denominations of Christians, and other people, whom 
 they admit to be good, whom they admit to be intelli- 
 gent, whom they admit to be honest, whom they admit 
 to be as capable of arriving at the truth with as many 
 motives to arrive at the truth, as they themselves are. 
 Now, if there were no other reason whatever, I should 
 object to close communion for that very reason, that I 
 should thereby undertake to sit in judgment and decide 
 upon the moral qualifications of my fellow -man ; that I 
 thereby say to him, " You are either too ignorant to find 
 out your duty, or you are not honest enough to find it 
 out ; you are wrong, and so wrong that I cannot and 
 dare not countenance your error." Who calls upon you 
 to do it, my friend ? What makes it your duty to do it ? 
 By what authority do you thus arraign yourself against 
 your brother ? Some may affirm, in opposition to this, 
 that the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper is intended for 
 each denomination of Christians ; that as a Pedobaptist 
 Church, we have our sacrament ; as an immersionist 
 
354 RELATIVE ORDER OF 
 
 Church you have your sacrament ; and Ihat your sacra- 
 ment may be hmited or confined, just as you choose. 
 
 MR. M ASSET'S FIRST REPLY. 
 
 Mr. Massey: — Messrs. Moderators, Ladies, and Gten- 
 TLEMEN : I need scarcely inform you that the gentleman 
 who has just addressed you, has a much more happy facil- 
 ity for making objections than he has for making an ar- 
 gument. If I understood him correctly, he (in his very 
 outset) spoke of himself as being here to give me an 
 opportunity of advocating the doctrines of my Church, 
 and says that he is here to present objections to our 
 views of the administration of the Lord's Supper. But 
 for the simple fact that he addressed you first, you never 
 would have conceived that he was the affirmant upon 
 this proposition. The proposition before you, of his oion 
 selection^ is this : " The scriptural riglit to partake of 
 the Lord's Supper is not restricted to those who have 
 received Christian baptism.'^ To sustain this proposition, 
 we had the right to expect that he would endeavor to 
 show that there is authority in the word of God for 
 administering the Lord's Supper to those who had not 
 received Christian baptism. This you would have recog- 
 nised as the proper course for him to establish his nega- 
 tive proposition. I am here to deny the proposition he 
 affirms: to deny that the scriptural right to partake of 
 the Lord's Supper is not restricted to those who have 
 received Christian baptism. 
 
 And I want you to bear in mind another fact : the 
 gentleman has spent a large portion of his time in draw- 
 
THE lord's supper/ 355 
 
 ing distinctions between John's baptism and Christiaij 
 baptism, and has evaded the true issue between him and 
 myself. If he has not designedly^ he has at least clearly, 
 I think, left the impression upon the great majority of 
 this congregation, that the issue between us is, not 
 whether baptism according to his view of it, but accord- 
 ing to my view of it, is a prerequisite to the Lord's Sup- 
 per. Bear in mind, that in his proposition he takes the 
 broad ground that no baptism ivhatever is a prerequisite. 
 I am not raising the question now whether sprinkling, 
 pouring, or immersion, is baptism : that question has been 
 discussed. One proposition at a time. The question 
 now is, whether baptism, according either to my views 
 or the views of Pedobaptists, is a prerequisite to the 
 Lord's Supper : whether any act recognized by Christian 
 men as baptism, is to be performed before there arises 
 the right to receive the Lord's Supper. That is the 
 question before us at this time. 
 
 Mr. CouUing has said a great deal about charity : he 
 seems to be very fluent when talking about it. I greatly 
 prefer that charity which proves itself by deed, to that 
 which consists only in ivord. He seems very much dis- 
 posed to dodge the issue between us. He knows that 
 he has placed himself in opposition to all Pedobaptist 
 Churches; that he stands here arrayed, upon that prop- 
 osition, against Episcopahans, Presbyterians, and the 
 standards of his oiun Church. There is no difference 
 between Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and myself, with 
 regard to this question. We all agree that baptism is a 
 prerequisite to the Loi'd's Supper. We differ as to ivhat 
 baptism is ; but yet we agree perfectly that that rite, 
 which we severally recognize as baptism, must be re- 
 
356 RELATIVE ORDER OF 
 
 oeived before the right to the Lord's Supper is possessed. 
 Now, bear this in mind, and you will be prepared to 
 judge of the gentleman's argument, and to understand 
 his effort to evade the real issue. 
 
 I shall not attempt to discuss the question, whether 
 John's baptism and Christian baptism are one and the 
 same thing. That has nothing to do with my present 
 purpose. It is by no means important to the discussion 
 of the subject before us. I might ask the gentleman, 
 in the language of Jesus Christ himself, " The baptism 
 of John, whence was it ? From heaven, or of men ?" 
 And I leave him just where Christ left his predecessors, 
 who found they would be in a dilemma, answer that 
 question whichever way they would. I scarcely need 
 tell you that Mark gives the baptism of John as the 
 beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ ; that Jesus 
 Christ declared that " the law and prophets were until 
 John, but since then the gospel is preached unto you." 
 I need not present you so many assurances of what Jesus 
 Christ and his disciples recognized John's baptism to be. 
 I care not what it is, so far as this question is concerned. 
 If he argues that baptism administered prior to the cru- 
 cifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ v/as but a pre- 
 paratory act, and was not, therefore, Christian baptism, 
 by the same mode of reasoning I can show you that the 
 observance of the Lord's Supper, prior to the crucifixion 
 of Jesus Christ, was a preparatory act, instructing his 
 disciples how they were to receive and administer it 
 after they should be organized into Christian Churches. 
 Whatever he says upon that point of one ordinance, may 
 be said of both, and hence the whole of his argument 
 may be laid aside. Whatever he does with the one^ he 
 does also with the othei'. 
 
THE lord's supper. 357 
 
 The gentleman has introduced what he terms an array 
 of the testimony from Baptist authorities. Now, there 
 is not a man, I suppose, who is at all conversant with 
 religious literature, who is not aware of the fact that 
 there are two distinct branches of the Baptist Church, 
 the one recognized as open communionists, and the other 
 as restricted communionists. And that whatever is said 
 by the one upon that subject is by no means recognized 
 as authority with the other. I might just as well blend 
 Protestant Methodists with Episcopal Methodists, and, in 
 arguing against episcopacy, read what Protestant Meth- 
 odists urge against three orders in the ministry, and say, 
 '' Here is your oivn authority against you." Mr. Coul- 
 ling w^ould say, " That is a different Church: we do not 
 recognize that as our Church." Robert Hall was a great 
 and good man. All felt themselves honored in honoring 
 him, because of his greatness and goodness ; yet, what 
 Robert Hall says upon this subject is no authority with 
 us. The gentleman may adopt it as argument, if he 
 be short of argument of his own, and wants some one 
 else to farnish it for him. But the idea of its being evi- 
 dence, brought from Baptist ranks against Baptists, has 
 not the weight of a feather. And then he brought for- 
 ward Whitne}^, who occupies a still worse position. Is 
 this Baptist authority ? The brother talked yesterday, 
 and before, about my holding him responsible for lohat- 
 ever lu as published by the Methodist General Conference. 
 He would, doubtless, have thought it 77iore strange if I 
 had held him responsible for what was published by a 
 Baptist General Association, or by Baptist authority- 
 Where did this book of "Whitney's come from ? '''•Pub- 
 lished by L. M. Lee of Richmond.'''' Did any of you 
 
358 RELATIVE ORDER OF 
 
 ever hear of Dr. L^roy M. Lee f Who is he ? Is he the 
 Secretary of the Baptist Publication Society, editing the 
 ivorks published by Baptists ? Dr. Leroy M. Lee once stood 
 as the great Ajax of 3Iethodism — editor of the " Rich- 
 mond Ciiristian Advocate." Some of you will remember 
 that he was badly used up in a controversy between him- 
 self and Dr. Howell, upon the subject of Infant Baptism ; 
 and that a lady then took him in hand and scored him 
 most beautifully . He had the sad misfortune to be worsted 
 in a controversy hy a. woman, and retired from the editorial 
 chair soon after. I do not say this caused him to retire. 
 There may have been some other cause for it. This is 
 the " Baptist auihority^^ that the gentleman has intro- 
 duced. Now let us examine it. He says this man 
 refers to Howell. Let us see hoiv he refers to him. He 
 says that Howell says : 
 
 " Does a Pedobaptist honestly believe, after an impar- 
 tial examination of the best evidences to which he can 
 gain access on the subject, that he has received Christian 
 baptism, and that he has truly entered the congregation 
 of Christ, in the way of divine appointment ? Let him 
 prosecute the course he has adopted. All the Lord's 
 children have an undoubted right to his table, because 
 whatever is his is theirs." 
 
 And then the brother, as he says I call him, and I'll 
 still call him so, he is too charitable to object to it — the 
 brother became exceedingly eloquent in his wondering 
 astonishment that Dr. Howell could advocate such senti- 
 ments as these, and then practise so differently. He was 
 utterly astonished that a man should advocate such sen- 
 timents, and practise so inconsistently with ihem. A few 
 days ago he turned to my " tomes of books," as he 
 
THE lord's supper. 359 
 
 termed them, and asked, " What importance is to be at- 
 tached to the authority of these men, who say one thing 
 and act another ?" He^ by his own showing, sets his 
 authority all aside. If Dr. Howell does teach one thing 
 and practise another, he is an inconsistent man, just as 
 Mr. CouLLiNG charges that these Pedobaptists are incon- 
 sistent, and as Mr. Coulling himself is when he preaches 
 against immersion and then administers it. Now let us 
 see what Dr. Howell did say, and whether he has been 
 fairly quoted by Dr. Lee's protege. I read from Howell 
 on Communion, page 98 : 
 
 " Those Christians who sincerely and conscientiously 
 exclude baptism from their system, may act in the mat- 
 ter to please themselves." 
 
 What Christians are those who conscientiously ex- 
 clude baptism from their system ? My Episcopal friends, 
 my Presbyterian friends, my Methodist friends, do not 
 exclude baptism from their system. J do not deny their 
 conscientiousness. I do not claim that those who do 
 not believe with me are dishonest and insincere. If I 
 go to an Episcopalian and ask him, " Sir, have you been 
 baptized ?" and he tells me " yes," I do not deny that 
 he believes he has been baptized — that he believes the 
 rite to which he submitted was baptism. And so wdth 
 the Presbyterian ; so with others. Now remember that 
 Mr. Coulling has taken the ground that no baptism is a 
 prerequisite to the Lord's Supper. Dr. Howell con- 
 tinues : 
 
 " Those Christians who sincerely and conscientiously 
 exclude baptism from their system, may act in the mat- 
 ter to please themselves It is no concern of ours 
 
 To their own master they stand or fall. They have, it 
 
360 RELATIVE ORDER OF 
 
 may be, ' conscientiously mistaken the mind of Christ.' 
 They govern themselves, individually and as churches, 
 by their own convictions of obligation. Bat am I, be- 
 cause such is the state of the case, required, or if I felt 
 inclined to do so, am I parmitted to infringe inspired in- 
 junctions by recognizing their sincerity in error as a sub- 
 stitute for the practice of the truth, and that, too, for 
 no other reason than to prove that ' I entertain for them 
 a very high Christian regard' ?" 
 
 They claim to be conscientious, and they admit that 
 I am. / think they are mistaken ; they \h\vi\i I am. If 
 I should sacrifice my conscientious principles, I would 
 forfeit their confidence^ just as they ivould forfeit mine 
 by acknowledging that they were not conscientious. 
 
 " Am I told that I have nothing to do with the faith 
 of another ? that he is accountable alone to G-od ? All 
 this is true as long as he makes no pretensions to con- 
 nect himself with me in Church fellowship. But apply 
 the doctrine to Church discipline, that we have no right 
 to inquire into the faith of our associates, and whom 
 could you ever exclude for heresy. Unitarians, Mor- 
 mons, Universalists, and all other defamers of evangeli- 
 cal piety, might fix themselves upon you like an incubus, 
 and you would be destitute of any remedy whatever. 
 
 So, when an individual enters the Church, he declares 
 his union with the faith of the Church. Does a Pedo- 
 baptist honestly believe, after an impartial examination 
 of the best evidence to which he can gain access on the 
 subject, that he has received Christian baptism, and that 
 he has truly entered the congregation of Christ, in the 
 way of the divine appointment ? Let him prosecute the 
 course he has adopted. Bat, certainly, he has no right to 
 
THE lord's supper. 361 
 
 expect me, oa that account, to abandon my own convic- 
 tions, and to unite with him in those practices which he 
 may have thought proper to adopt. I am guided by my 
 own faith, and not by the faith of any other man. Bap- 
 tism, without a profession of faith, is justified as readily 
 as the administration of the Lord's Supper without bap- 
 tism. They have no Scriptural authority for either, but 
 they do both. They act upon their own belief, and upon 
 their own responsibility. But in neither case may tha 
 dictates of their consciences be the directory for my ac- 
 tions. It is no more a consequence that, because on 
 their own principles they are entitled to approach the 
 Lord's table, that, therefore, it is my duty to unite with 
 them in that ordinance, than that, because on their own 
 principles they are obliged to baptize their infants, that, 
 therefore, I am required to unite with them in that cere- 
 mony." 
 
 Now Whitney, going first to the 99th and then to the 
 107th page, and taking some from each, throws them 
 together without informing us that he is blending dis- 
 jointed sentences together, and makes Dr. Howell seem to 
 say what he does not say. He is replying to an objec- 
 tion, and says : 
 
 " Yes, it is the Lord's table. All his children have an 
 undoubted right to it, because what is his is theirs. We 
 are not permitted to preclude them. We make no such 
 pretensions. But has the Lord established no laws for 
 the government of the feast ? If it should appear that 
 He has not, w^e will admit of none. Were it our table, 
 we would invite all our friends, and rejoice in their 
 society. It is not ours ; it is the Lord's table. All 
 confess, too, that He has enacted laws for its govern- 
 
 * 16 
 
362 RELATIVE ORDER OF 
 
 merit, and that they are paramount. What these laws 
 are we have ah'eady been sufficiently informed. AVe 
 need not repeat them. Pedobaptists themselves fully 
 concur with us in relation to some of them. Dr. S. D. 
 Griffin, the late learned President of Williams' College, 
 in his well-known Letter on Communion, embodies 
 them in a small compass. ' I agree,' says the erudite 
 President, ' with the advocates of close communion, in 
 two points : ffi'st, that baptism is the initiatory ordi- 
 nance that introduces us into the visible Church ; and, 
 second, that we ought not to commune with those who 
 are not baptized, and, of course, not members of the 
 Church, even if we regard them as Christians." 
 
 Now, this is the position occupied by Pedobaptists, as 
 well as by Baptist authorities. I am not showing 
 tvliat baptism is. But is baptism a prerequisite to the 
 LoriVs Supper I That is the question to be deter- 
 mined. Mr. CouLLiNG declares that the right to partake 
 of the Lord's Supper is not restricted to those who have 
 received Christian baptism. Has he shown you any- 
 thing in the Word of G-od to support his theory ? Until 
 he does that^ he fails to sustain his position. If he fails 
 to sustain it, his failure gives my cause all the support 
 that is necessary. But I will not leave this subject so 
 bare of interest as it would stand if I were simply to 
 act on the defensive. I am willing to advance argu- 
 ments — to lead as well as to follow. Mr. Coulling has 
 labored, and that with a right good will, to convince 
 this congregation that baptism has taken the place of cir- 
 cumcision. Upon that ground alone he baptizes infants. 
 Yet he declared to you that no uncircumcised person 
 was to partake of the Passover — he ivas to be cut off. 
 
363 
 
 He said something the other day about my cutting the 
 throat of my argument, and the blood gushing forth. 
 Now I do not think that much blood will flow here, for 
 it is too ivatery an argument to admit of much evidence 
 of vitality ; but if he does not Jet out what little life 
 there ivas in his whole argument on infant baptism, I 
 do not see how he can possibly sustain his present 
 hypothesis. One or the other must give up the ghost. 
 The support of one is death to the other. 
 
 Having answered all that the gentleman has said in 
 his speech of an hour and a quarter that deserves my 
 attention, I must now either wait until he advances an 
 argument for me to reply to, or I must advance argu- 
 ments against the proposition he lays down. I shall en- 
 deavor deliberately to present to you such a train of ar- 
 gument, such reasons, and such evidences from the 
 word of G-od, as will show that he is wrong, when he 
 asserts that the Scriptural right to partake of the Lord's 
 supper is not restricted to those who have received Chris- 
 tian baptism. 
 
 I will submit to you a few plain propositions, which I 
 think must commend themselves to your favor. My 
 propositions are : 
 
 1st. Some acknowledgment of allegiance to gov- 
 ernmental authority must be made, before the right to 
 the protection and privileges of the government can be 
 claimed. This rule is applicable everywhere, and to 
 every government, whether of human or of divine institu- 
 tion. No one can rightfully claim the protection of the 
 government, and the privileges enjoyed under it, without 
 some acknowledgment of allegiance to that government. 
 
 Secondly : This acknowledgment must be such as the 
 
364 RELATIVE ORDER OF 
 
 supreme authority recognizes and approbates. A man 
 who comes from a foreisfn shore to our land and claims 
 the protection of our flag, and a right to all the privi- 
 leges of our citizens, while he refuses to give any sort 
 of evidence of allegiance to our government, evinces 
 a want of correct information with regard to the differ- 
 ence to he expected from a government to the citizen, 
 and to an individual who is not a citizen. 
 
 For a man to claim that he is entitled to all the 
 rights of citizenship, hecause he has made some ack- 
 nowledgment which in his mind is sufficient, hut 
 which is not recognized by the government as suffi- 
 cient, would by no means remove the difficulty. He, 
 as the subject, must not determine what act of his 
 shall satisfy the government of his loyalty. The gov- 
 ernment must determine hoio he shall declare his alle- 
 giance, and he must conform to its requirements. 
 
 Now, apply these principles to the subject under con- 
 sideration, and it will be manifest in the first place, that 
 no one has a right to the privileges to which the disci- 
 ples of Jesus Christ are entitled, without making some 
 ackyiowledgment of allegiance to the King in Zion, 
 and in the next place, that the character of that ac- 
 knowjedgment of allegiance must be determined by him 
 ivho governs, and not by him who desires to secure the 
 benefits which the Kingdom of Jesus Christ grants. 
 Thirdly : The Lord's Supper is a social ordinance. By 
 this I mean that it is not, like baptism, an ordinance in 
 which a single individual is concerned. Dr. Hall, as 
 read by the gentleman to-day, admits that fact. "We 
 do not administer the Lord's Supper to a single individ- 
 ual only. It is a social ordinance, in which a Church 
 
365 
 
 unites ; not an ordinance standing at the beginning of 
 the Christian life, but one to be observed through all 
 the future of the life of the disciple of Jesus Christ. 
 My next proposition is, that while it is a social ordi- 
 nance, it should not be participated in by an indiscrimi- 
 nate association of persons, but by such as acknowledge 
 subjection to Christ. Suppose a company of men, mak- 
 ing no profession of fellowship with Jesus Christ, should 
 meet together, and partake of bread and wine, would 
 it be a proper observance of the Lord's Supper ? It is 
 not only a social ordinance, but to render its observance 
 acceptable to G-od, the association must be of a proper 
 character. 
 
 The question which arises from these premises is, by 
 ivhat act shall " aliens from the commonwealth of Is- 
 rael, and strangers from the covenants of promise," de- 
 clare their allegiance to the Lord Jesus Christ ? A man 
 may publish his faith m, or his allegiance to, Christ in 
 the newspapers ; or he may proclaim it to a congrega- 
 tion. There are many ways by which he may choose to 
 make known his allegiance. Bat is any one of these 
 the plan that God has ordained, by which we shall con- 
 fess our allegiance to him ? That is the question. When 
 John, the harbinger of Jesus Christ, came preaching 
 the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, it 
 was declared of him, that there was a man ^^ sent from 
 God whose name was John." He came for an express 
 purpose. The question has often been asked, vjho bap- 
 tized John ? • John stood, not entering into this new 
 kingdom, but, as the usher er, inducting others into it by 
 God's oivn appointment. "When John preached the gos- 
 pel, what followed ? '' They ivere baptized of him, con- 
 
366 RELATIVE ORDER OF 
 
 fessing their sins.^^ Here was the act, by which they 
 declared their allegiance to this Messiah of whom John 
 spoke. I am not left to infe?' this. Jesus Christ settles 
 that question definitely. Turn to Luke vii. : 29 and 30, 
 and you w^ill find : 
 
 " And all the people that heard him (John), and the 
 publicans, justified God, being baptized with the bap- 
 tism of John." The?/ acknoiuledged their allegiance to 
 Jesus Christ by " being baptized with the baptism of 
 JohnP Here was the evidence that they justified God, 
 that they believed the testimony of John, and acknowl- 
 edged their allegiance to the promised Messiah. 
 
 " But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel 
 of God against themselves, not being baptized of him." 
 
 The divine Master himself has settled the question, 
 that the ivay by which men must acknowledge their al- 
 legiance to the Messiah, is by being baptized, and that 
 their refusal to be baptized, is a refusal to acknowledge 
 their allegiance to the Lord Jesus Christ. Here is, then, 
 direct, positive demonstration that this is the act by 
 which men must acknowledge their allegiance to the 
 Lord Jesus Christ. Now look, if you please, at another 
 passage. You will find in the first chapter of Acts, that 
 the eleven apostles, after the apostaoy of Judas, assem- 
 bled together to select a successor to him. The number 
 of disciples who were present, it is said, were about a 
 hundred and twenty. And Peter stood up in the midst 
 of them, and said : 
 
 " Men and brethren, the Scriptures must needs have 
 been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of 
 David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide 
 to them that took Jesus. For he was numbered with us, 
 and had obtained part of this ministry." 
 
THE lord's supper. ^67 
 
 *' Wherefore of these men which have companied with 
 us, all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out 
 among us, beginning from the baptism of Jolm, unto 
 that same day that he was taken up from us, must one 
 be ordained to be a loitfiess with us of his resurrection.''^ 
 
 The gentleman seems at a great loss to know ivhen 
 and ivhere these disciples, and the five hundred, and va- 
 rious others, were baptized, or whether they were bap- 
 tized at all. Why were the apostles so careful to select 
 a successor to Judas from those baptized of John, if they 
 themselves luere unbaptized ? Another question : when 
 Jesus Christ was selecting the witnesses of his resurrec- 
 tion^ the pillars of his Church, the heralds of his cross, 
 who should be the first to bear the glad tidings of salva- 
 tion to others : from whom did he select them ? Noth- 
 ing can be more absurd than the idea that he selected 
 them from those Vv^ho "rejected the counsel of God 
 against themselves." What I send forth to proclaim his 
 truth those w^ho rejected that truth ! Never ! He se- 
 lected those who "justified God." But, how do we 
 know who '^justified God ?" They were baptized vnth 
 the baptism of John. Jesus Christ declared this fact, 
 and settles forever that question ; establishing, beyond 
 a rational doubt, the fact that none ivere recognized as 
 the disciples of Jesus Christ, until they declared their 
 allegiance to him by being baptized. 
 
 The gentleman seeks to make capital of the fact that 
 the Lord's Supper was instituted prior to the giving of 
 the commission under which we are -acting as servants 
 of Jesus Christ. He ought to know that Christianity, in 
 its first introduction, was progressive. That Jesus Christ 
 unfolded truths to, and urged duties upon, the minds of 
 
368 RELATIVE ORDKR OF 
 
 his disciples, just as they were prepared to receive them. 
 He gradually led them along, giving them instruction as 
 it became necessary. Hence baptism, being not only the 
 first act of Christian obedience, but the ordinance in which 
 those who had become Christ's disciples in heart, were 
 to declare their discipleship to the world, lay at the'very 
 threshold of the Christian life, and was, therefore, the 
 first Christian ordinance instituted. But, as the " Lord's 
 Supper" derives all its beauty and significance from the 
 sufferings and death of Jesus Christ, and could be of no 
 utility until after the " breaking of his body and the 
 shedding of his blood," it was not instituted until the 
 very night on which he was betrayed. The time had 
 then fully arrived for the institution of this last ordi- 
 nance. Fit indeed was the occasion for so solemn a ser- 
 vice. Events of the most solemn and trying character were 
 clustering around the '' Master of the feast." He was 
 soon to pass through the agonies of Gethsemane, and 
 the still more bitter agonies of the cross. "Having loved 
 his own which were in the world, he loved them to the 
 end." And now, as a father, whose life has been devoted 
 to the welfare of his children, and whose heart still 
 yearns over them, gathers them around his dying couch, 
 that he may give them his last parting admonition, Jesus 
 Christ gathers around him those who had attested 
 their faith in him, and their love and obedience to him, 
 by submitting to his first ordinance, baptism, that he 
 may give them another ordinance, by the observance of 
 which, through all future time, they were to "show 
 forth the Lord's death till he come." 
 
 Is there in this entire audience one single individual 
 who believes that any but the professed friends, the pro- 
 
369 
 
 fessed disciples of Jesus Christ, were asseraHed with 
 him upon this solemn occasion ? I think I can safely 
 assume that no such person is in this congregation. 
 
 Furthermore, after what has been said, are not every- 
 one of you satisfied that all who were present had proven 
 their discipleship by being baptized ? Do you not all 
 concur with me, when I affirm that the evidence is con- 
 clusive that no unbaptized person was present on that 
 occasion ? I believe you do. 
 
 Having shown you that all who partook of the Lord's 
 Supper before the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, were bap- 
 tized before they received it, I will now show you that, 
 according to the commission, the same order must still 
 be observed, and that the apostles themselves so under- 
 stood it, and so practiced and taught. 
 
 Jesus Christ, after declaring that all power in heaven 
 above and in earth beneath was given unto him, said to 
 his disciples : " G-o ye, therefore, and teach all nations, 
 baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the 
 Son, and of the Holy G-host : teaching them to observe 
 all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And lo ! 
 I am with you always, even unto the end of the world." 
 
 All men to whom the gospel was to be preached, after 
 this commission was given, as I have shown upon a 
 former occasion, must of necessity hear the gospel before 
 they could believe it and receive it. They rmx^t first be 
 taught and instructed. This is learned from the order 
 in which these things are laid down. The first duty 
 enjoined upon believers — the one that stands at the very 
 threshold of their Christian life — is, to be baptized im- 
 mediately upon their exercising faith in the Lord Jesus 
 Christ. The gentleman is fond, perhaps, of Methodist, 
 
 16* 
 
870 RELATIVE ORDER OF 
 
 as well as Baptist authority; though I think he likes 
 the authority of Hall and Whitney rather better than 
 that we had been having before. I really think, accord- 
 ing to his views, the Methodists will have to rub out and 
 commence afresh ; they will have to lay aside Clarke, 
 Wesley, and Hibbard ; repudiate McKnight, Stuart, 
 and every other v/riter that they or other Pedobaptists 
 have ever received instruction from — wipe them all out, 
 and get the Rev. Mr. Coulling- to write one great com- 
 mentary/ upon the Bible. Methodism must date, hence- 
 forth, from the year 1860. For if he lays aside all these 
 writers, he will have very little to claim for the support 
 of his Church. He must reject them, for he asks, 
 " What sort of importance ought to be attached to the 
 authority of those who say one thing and do another ?" 
 — who say that immersion was the apostolic mode of 
 baptism, and then adopt or practise sprinkling- ; who 
 say that believers are the proper subjects of baptism, 
 according to the Bible, and then baptize infants. I 
 hope that at the next conference these things will be 
 inquired into. When the question comes up, "Is there 
 anything against Brother Clarke, or Father Wesley ?" 
 " Yes,"" Brother Coulling will respond: "/ object to 
 them- seriously ; they have admitted a great many things 
 that the Baptists have used against us, and I have no 
 confidence in men who preach one thing and practise 
 another ; though / often preach against immersion 
 with all my power, and will yet administer it rather 
 than lose a member, provided the iveather is not too 
 cold.'''' " And how about the Episcopalians?" " I ob- 
 ject to them too, because they acknowledge that none 
 but the members of a Church, those who have been bap- 
 
THE lord's supper. 371 
 
 tized^ are entitled to the Lord's Supper : while I say 
 that the right to partake of the Lord's . Supper is not 
 restricted to those who have received Christian bap- 
 tism." "How about the Presbyterians?" "Why, I 
 object to them too ; for they claim, among other absurd- 
 ities, that the giving the Lord's Supper to the unbapiized 
 is not right. And I claim that they are all ivrong.'''' 
 Every Church, every denomination, according to Mr. 
 CouUing, has fallen into a great error, and he has risen as 
 the great sun of the nineteenth century to shed neio lights 
 and to set them all right. I hope he will never again 
 suppose that I charge him with having " a screw loose." 
 I now present you " Christian Baptism : its mode, obli- 
 gation, import, and relative order, by Rev. Freeborn G-. 
 Hibbard, of the Grenesee Conference," "Published by 
 G-. Lane and P. P. Sandford, for the Methodist Episco- 
 pal Church, at the Conference Office, 200 Mulberry- 
 street." I will cross-examine this witness. But Mr. 
 CouLLiNG says he does not understand that sort of cross- 
 examination. Let me illustrate the position of these 
 witnesses : Suppose that some man is charged with the 
 commission of an offence, and, to establish that charge, 
 I summon his father, his brothers, and his bosom com- 
 panions. They come into court and testify to the 
 guilt of the party accused. You will say that these 
 men must have spoken what they conscientiously 
 believed to be trut. All their partialities and preposses- 
 sions w^ould prompt them to a different course. And 
 yet, notwithstanding this, they acknowledge, their son, 
 brother, and companion, to be guilty of the charge! Now 
 these men have been the expounders of the views advo- 
 cated by the opposite side from time immemorial — No ! 
 
372 RELATIVE ORDER OF 
 
 I will take that back ; that would run hack beyond 
 the existence of Methodism. We will take him from 
 his boyhood up; that will not require us to go back 
 further than the last hundred years. These men have 
 been held up as the expounders of Methodism^ and the 
 advocates of its cause from its origin till 7iow. They 
 are their witnesses^ published by their Conference^ and 
 sent abroad over the land to prove what they believe. 
 Now let us hear Dr. Hibbard. On page 174, he says : 
 
 '• Before entering upon the argument before us, it is 
 but just to remark that in one principle the Baptist and 
 Pedobaptist Churches agree. They both agree in re- 
 jecting from communion at the table of the Lord, and 
 in denying the right of Church fellowship to all who 
 have not been baptized. Valid baptism they consider 
 as essential to constitute visible Church membership. 
 This, also, we hold." 
 
 Who holds this ? We, the Methodist Church. Does 
 brother Coulling stand here to-day as the great ex- 
 pounder of Methodism, and say, that baptism is not to be 
 required before receiving the liord's Supper ? You have 
 not so learned Methodism, my old Methodist friends. The 
 gentleman repudiates your oivn doctrine, discipline, and 
 everything else. He marks out a new course for him- 
 self; sets up a 7ieiv order of things. I wonder if you 
 will not build him a monument. His witness says : 
 
 " The only question, then, that here divides us, is, 'what 
 is essential to valid baptism V The Baptists, in passing 
 the sweeping sentence of disfranchisement upon all 
 other Christian Churches, have only acted upon a principle 
 held in common v/ith all other Christian Churches, 
 viz. : that baptism is essential to Church membership." 
 
I^THE lord's supper. 873 
 
 Who says this ? Why, brother Coulling^s brother 
 Hibbard. 
 
 " They have denied oar baptism, and, as unbaptized 
 persons, we have been excluded from their table. That 
 they err greatly in their views of Christian baptism, we, 
 of course, believe." [We are not discussing what bap- 
 tism is now ; we have done that.] " But, according to 
 their view of baptism, they certainly are consistent in 
 restricting thus their communion. We would not be 
 understood as passing a judgment of approval upon their 
 course ; but we say, their views of baptism force them 
 upon the ground of strict communion, and herein they 
 act upon the same principles as other Churches, i. e,, 
 they admit only those whom they deem baptized persons 
 to the communion table. Of course, they rnust be their 
 own judges as to what baptism is." 
 
 Now, I think he is just as charitable as brother Coul- 
 ling. He allows each to decide for himself. Baptists, 
 I suppose, may have the privilege, under the stars and 
 stripes, to decide for themselves, as the brother thinks 
 that no man dares molest Mm under them. 
 
 Let us hear this Methodist D. D. a little further. He 
 talks well : 
 
 " It is evident that, according to our views of bap- 
 tism, we can admit them to our communion ; but, with 
 their views of baptism, it is equally evident, they can 
 never reciprocate the courtesy. And the charge of close 
 communion is no more applicable to the Baptists than to 
 us. [Who says this ? ' Published by the General Con- 
 ference of the Methodist Episcopal Church.'^] i\.nd the 
 charge of close communion is no more applicable to the 
 Baptists than to us, inasmuch as the question of Church 
 
874 RELATIVE ORDER OF 
 
 fellowship with them is determined by as liberal prin- 
 ciples as it is with any other' Protestant Church; so 
 far, I mean, as the present subject is concerned ; i. e., 
 it is determined by valid baptism." 
 
 Now, that is right good. Let us have a little more 
 of him : 
 
 " The first argument under this head is based upon 
 the order of the apostolic commission." 
 
 Mr. Hibbard quotes Robert Hall, and replies to him, 
 so I need have no trouble about him. Mr. Hibbard re- 
 phes to him for me. He seems to have anticipated that 
 brother Coulling would fall out of the Methodist traces, 
 read out all the Pedobaptist divines, and bring up brother 
 Hall to sustain him ; and, he seems to say, " /will be 
 there, and eorrect the gentleman as he goes along." 
 
 Look out, my brother ! A Methodist Doctor of Di- 
 vinity is after you I How dare you to '' disseminate 
 doctrines contrary to o^*r Articles of Religion ?" Listen 
 to this instruction : 
 
 " The first argument under this head is based upon 
 the order of the apostolic commission. The words of 
 the commission, as given by Matthew, (chap, xxviii., 19, 
 20.) run thus : ' Gro ye, therefore, and teach all nations, 
 baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the 
 Son, and of the Holy G-host ; teaching them to observe 
 all things whatsoever I have commanded you,' &c. It 
 is well known that our English version does not give a 
 satisfactory view of this passage. The word rendered 
 teach in the nineteenth verse, is altogether a different 
 word, in the Greek text, from that which is rendered 
 teach^ in verse twenty. It should read : ' Go ye,' there- 
 fore, and disciple,' i. e., make converts to Christianity 
 
375 
 
 of {}iadr]T£vaare) all nations, baptizing them,' &o., . . . 
 teaching' (SidaaKovreg) them to observe,' &c. Here it is 
 to be observed : first, certain things are enjoined, viz. : 
 to disciple, to baptize, and to teach ; secondly, those 
 things are. enjoined in a certain order, viz. : the order in 
 which they stand in the divine commission. The apostles 
 were first required to persuade the people to forsake 
 heathenism and Judaism, and embrace Christianity. 
 This being done, the next injunction in order, in their 
 commission, was to baptize them. Being thus brought 
 into a Church relationship with one another, and to 
 visible relation to Christ, they were to be taught to 
 observe all things whatsoever Christ had commanded." 
 
 Now, does not that strike every one of you as a ra- 
 tional, common-sense view of the plain teachings of the 
 Word of God ? But to go on : 
 
 " Our second argument is drawn from apostolic pre- 
 cedent. It will be more satisfactory to inquire, Hovv^ 
 did the apostles understand their commission with re- 
 spect to the relative order of the Christian institutes? 
 The argument from apostolic precedent is undeniably 
 important. They were commissioned to teach the con- 
 verted nations ' to observe all things whatsoever' Christ 
 had commanded. This was the extent, and this the 
 
 limit of their authority What, then, did the 
 
 apostles teach and practise, with respect to the time and 
 relative order of baptism ?" 
 
 I am glad they were not quite so inconsistent as 
 Pedobaptists (as represented by Mr. Coulling) are, to 
 preach one thing and practise another. The apos- 
 tles taught and practised the same things. They 
 must have been Baptists, for they were very consistent. 
 
376 RELATIVE ORDER OP 
 
 " On the day of Pentecost," says Dr. Hibbard, " when 
 the people inquired of the apostles, ' Men and brethren, 
 what shall we do?' Peter answered, 'Repent and be 
 baptized, every one of you.' " 
 
 That is Ihe first dnty enjoined. Now, it is fair 
 to suppose that the apostles were as capable of under- 
 standing the commission under which they acted, as 
 men of modern days who even have no loose screw. 
 Men of the brightest intellects will scarcely claim to 
 understand it better than the apostles did. And bear in 
 mind, my hearers, I make this reference to a screw 
 being loose, simply because the brother has so often 
 quoted it, as though I had applied it to him, which I 
 never did, and which I never intended to do. I simply 
 refer to it because he has referred to it, as though he 
 had received that impression, and not replying to it 
 might leave that impression upon others. I have not 
 the slightest idea of being discourteous to him in any 
 ivay ivhatever, as long as he keeps ivithin the bounds of 
 right. I am very sorry that either of us made it neces- 
 sary for the moderators to call us to order. But they 
 agreed this morning that we occupied similar ground ; 
 first, one was out of order in his statement, and then 
 the other was out of order in replying to it. 
 
 Mr. Anderson : (Moderator). I think you are not 
 now in order. 
 
 Mr. Massey : I submit to the moderators, if apolo- 
 gizing for anything that might bo construed as discour- 
 teous is out of order ? 
 
 Mr. Anderson : It is not the point under discussion. 
 
 Mr. Massey : (To the other moderators). Is it out of 
 order to apologize for what may have seemed to be 
 discourteous ? 
 
377 
 
 Mr. Hansborough : It may not be appropriate to the 
 subject under discussion, but I do not consider it out of 
 order, or in any ivay disorderly. 
 
 Mr. Masse Y : I was not arguing it as appropriate to 
 the subject under discussion, but simply apologizing 
 for ^Yhat might have seemed, under the circumstances, to 
 offend against good taste. (To the congregation). I ivill 
 make no more apologies, as one of the moderators ap- 
 pears to be very sensitive. 
 
 Mr. Anderson : I will keep you in m*der, if I can. 
 
 Mr. Massey (AVithout replying to this remark, pro- 
 ceeded) : Before reading farther what Mr. Hibbard 
 says, I again remark, it is fair to presume that the apos- 
 tles had a correct understanding of the commission 
 under which they acted. Let us see hoiv they acted 
 under it. Mr. Hibbard furnishes us with this collection 
 of their acts : 
 
 "Luke sums up the glorious results of that memor- 
 able day (Pentecost), thus : ' Then they that gladly 
 received the word were baptized ; and the same day 
 were added to the Church about three thousand souls, 
 and they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine 
 and fellowship, and in breaking of bread gwid in prayers.' 
 Acts ii. 41, 42. This was the first occasion on which 
 the apostles were called upon to exercise their high com- 
 mission. It was only ten days after they had received 
 that commission, and the freshness of that event, and 
 the plenary inspiration of the Holy Spirit now received, 
 all combined to render it certain that on this occasion 
 they would not act under the influence of any mistaken 
 views as to their duty, or the powers of their office. 
 And here, indeed, we are called upon to notice particu- 
 
378 RELATIVE ORDER OF 
 
 larly the order in which they enforced the divine pre- 
 cepts. Upon their adult, penitent hearers, they enjoin- 
 ed, first repentance, then baptism, then the duty of 
 Church fellov^^ship, then ' breaking of bread,' or the 
 Lord's Supper. Comparing the order here observed 
 with the order of the words of their original commis- 
 sion, we are struck with admiration at the prompt 
 fidelity of the apostles. 
 
 Acts viii. 12 : ' When the Samaritans believed Philip, 
 they were baptized, both men and women.' 
 
 Verse 13 : Simon believed and was baptized. 
 
 Verses 36-38 : The eunuch was baptized immediately 
 after professing faith in Christ. 
 
 Acts ix. 18 : Saul received his sight, and arose and 
 was baptized. Although Saul was evidently weak 
 through long fasting, as appears from the next verse, 
 still he was baptized before he took meat. It is worthy 
 of notice that Paul, in rehearsing the matter afterward 
 before a large and tumultuous concourse of Jews, repre- 
 sents Ananias as chiding a little delay in coming to bap- 
 tism, after his conversion ; ' and now, ivhy tarriest thou ? 
 Arise and be baptized.' 
 
 Acts X. 47,' 48 : After the Holy Spirit had descended 
 upon Cornelius and his household, Peter ' commanded 
 them to be baptized ' on the spot. 
 
 Acts xvi. 14, 15 : ' The Lord opened Lydia's heart 
 that she attended unto the things which were spoken 
 by Paul, and when she was baptized, she besought 
 us,' &c. 
 
 Verse 33 : When the jailor believed, ' he was bap- 
 tized, he and all his straightway.^ 
 
 Acts xviii. 8 : ' And many of the Corinthians hear- 
 ing, believed, and were baptized.' 
 
379 
 
 The above quotations need no comment to make them 
 plainer in their teaching, respecting the relative order of 
 baptism. They bear an unequivocal testimony to the 
 point, that baptism was commanded and administered 
 as the right act of religious duty after conversion. This 
 was apostolic practice ; and if we suppose them not to 
 have transcended, nor to have fallen short of the in- 
 structions of Christ, and the powers of their commis- 
 sion, but, on the contrary, to have acted upon divine 
 authority in all those important matters which relate to 
 the administration and order of the Christian institutes, 
 we must admit the authority of their practice to be 
 valid ground of action for us, and that, to depart from 
 their practice, is, to say the least, a doubtful and dan- 
 gerous policy. It will not be doubted that what the 
 apostles enjoined upon their converts is equally binding 
 upon the disciples of Jesus in all ages. Peter com- 
 mands Cornelius to be baptized ; and this command, 
 originally addressed to the centurion, is admitted, under 
 all similar circumstances, to have the same authority 
 over us that it had over the faith and practice of the 
 Roman. On this ground we shall have no controversy 
 with any person who admits the obligation of external 
 ordinances." 
 
 So I think. But when a man says there is no ohliga- 
 Hon to he baptized before admission to the Lord's Sup- 
 per, there will be a question not only between him and 
 Baptists, but between him and every orthodox Pedo- 
 baptist. 
 
 " But why may we not suppose, also, that the same 
 order of duty is now binding on every adult candidate 
 for baptism ? Is not baptism binding upon us, as the 
 
380 RELATIVE ORDER OF 
 
 next duty in order after conversion, as much as it was 
 upon Cornelius, or the converts on the day of Pentecost ? 
 Suppose Cornelius had withstood Peter on the question 
 of the order of baptism ? Suppose he had desired Peter 
 to defer baptism till after he had communed at the 
 Lord's table, or to some indefinite period ? Would he 
 not, in this instance, have arrayed himself against a 
 positive command of G-od ?" 
 
 Certainly he ivould ; but according to the theory of 
 Mr. Coulling, he would not. According to this theory, 
 Cornelius might with propriety have said, when Peter 
 commanded him to be baptized — " Stop ! I will com- 
 mune first : the order in which Grod has enjoined these 
 ordinances is not to govern 7ne ; I will take them in any 
 order I pleased Again, to Mr. Hibbard : 
 
 *' The command was, to be baptized. This was en- 
 joined as the next act of religious duty after conversion. 
 The time and relative order of the institution were 
 points of palpable and direct obligation, as well as the 
 ordinance itself in the abstract ; and to invert this order, 
 or defer baptism, would have been to oppose the divine 
 arrangement The argument from apostolic pre- 
 cedent we consider fairly deduced, and of sufficient 
 
 authority to decide this controversy Herein their 
 
 practice was the same in all countries, among all nations 
 and classes of men, in all climates, and at all times. 
 So universal a practice can be regarded in no other light 
 than as forming an apostolic precedent, and if so, it fur- 
 nishes an authoritative rule of faith and practice to the 
 Christian Church in all ages of the w^orld." 
 
 One point, I think, is established ; that is, that bap- 
 tism is the first act of obedience required at the hands 
 
3S1 
 
 of the believer. It is the ordinance instituted by divine 
 authority by which we publicly profess our allegiance to 
 the King in Zion. It stands at the threshold of the 
 Christian Church. It is the initiative ordinance into 
 that Church. An unbaptized person cannot be a mein- 
 ber of a Christian Church. Then it follows as a natural 
 deduction, the Lord's Supper being a Church ordinance, 
 being a social ordinance to be partaken of by the Church 
 of Jesus Christy as a Churchy that none but those who 
 are members of the Church have a right to partake of it. 
 None but those ivho are members of a Church have a 
 right to partake of the Lord''s Supper, and none can be 
 members of the Church ivithout baptism. Are not these 
 fair deductions from the arguments presented, and from 
 the evidence from the word of God ? We read that 
 " on the first day of the week the disciples came to- 
 gether to break bread." Who were the disciples ? My 
 brother, when commenting upon the commission, verged 
 very closely upon the idea, that the apostles w(?i-e to 
 make disciples of all nations by baptizing them ; that 
 baptizing and discipling were about the same ; that 
 they were to make disciples by teaching and by baptiz- 
 ing. The disciples, then, even according to his theory, 
 were those who were baptized. The exercise of faith 
 in Jesus Christ is produced by the operation of the 
 Spirit of <3-od upon the heart. Our spiritual union with 
 him, and our entrance into the spiritual Kingdom, are by 
 spiritual regeneration. Our union with the Church is 
 by a visible act. That act is baptism. "We become dis- 
 ciples in our hearts by the operation of the spirit of Grod 
 upon those hearts. We become disciples in a public, 
 visible manner, by publicly and visibly acknowledging 
 
382 RELATIVE ORDER OF 
 
 allegiance to his authority ; and the mode of doing that 
 is baptism. This whole matter is settled by Divine au- 
 thority. From this decision there can be no appeal. 
 
 Some have supposed it an uphill business to establish 
 our views upon communion. Bat it is an easy matter. 
 They are as clear as plain, logical arguments, and the teach- 
 ings of the word of God can make them. I am sure I will 
 not be considered arrogant and presumptive for making 
 this declaration, for I declare what nearly all Christians 
 in all ages of the world have declared. I must have a 
 charity unbounded indeed, if I could so far compromise 
 principle as to agree with Mr. CouUing's views, 
 in opposition to all the Christian world besides. 
 Upon this ground I stand to-day, not simply as the 
 defender of the views of the Baptist Chm'ch. I stand 
 upon broad ground., defending the correctness of the 
 views and doctrines and usages of all orthodox Chris- 
 tians in our land^ and in all other lands. If there 
 be a Jew who choose to depart from the views enter- 
 tained by their own denominations, and set themselves 
 up as leaders, and guides, and teachers in Israel — teach- 
 ing contrary to all that the word of God teaches, and 
 all that men of different persuasions teach, I glory that 
 I can stand up against them in defence of all those who 
 hold that you must observe the ordinances of the gospel 
 in the order in which they are enjoined by him ivho can- 
 not err. 
 
 MR. COULLING'S SECOND ADDRESS. 
 
 Mr. CouLLiNG : I have half an hour allotted to me, 
 in which to review what has been said upon this subject. 
 My good brother seemed to think that an individual 
 
THE lord's supper. 383 
 
 coming into this congregation, not understanding the 
 proposition announced, would never in the world have 
 supposed that I was on the affirmative of the question. 
 "Why he thinks so, I suppose, is because I had not time 
 to get through my argument. There are more ways of 
 arguing a question than one. A man may state argu- 
 ments directly to the point ; or, if he choose, he may go 
 on and state objections to the point against which he is 
 arguing, or go on in favor of the position he seeks to 
 sustain. That is precisely what I was trying to do. 
 He does me the justice to say that my position, while it 
 is formally affirmative, is a really negative position ; 
 and my mode of argument was adapted to the nature 
 of the position that i occupied : in form, affirmative ; 
 really, in its nature, negative. The true affirmative is 
 that baptism is a prerequisite to communion. The gen- 
 tleman complained that I avoided the issue. I am sorry 
 that we differ so widely in our notions about logic, and 
 about the mode of reasoning. I have given some little 
 attention to the subject, and I am following the best 
 lights that I have. Bat if I ever avoided an issue, I 
 assure you I do not know it. And if I have avoided 
 meeting, squarely and fully, any issue that has been 
 raised here, it has been in an unfortunate moment, when 
 my mind was, and still is, utterly oblivious of any such 
 course. 
 
 He thinks that, instead of trying to prove that bap- 
 tism is not a prerequisite to the Lord's Supper, I am 
 urging that rebaptism is non-essential. Now, what is 
 the proposition ? That no one, except a person baptized, 
 has a right to partake of the Lord's Supper : that is his 
 proposition. My proposition is, that baptism is not a 
 
3S4 
 
 RELATIVE ORDER OF 
 
 prerequisite. He says, that a person unbaptized has 
 not a scriptural right to the Lord's supper. Therefore I 
 have gone to the Scriptures. I want to see where in the 
 Scriptures he can find authority to exclude a man from 
 the sacrament of the Lord's table. I took you to the 
 commission. I found a commission given to baptize 
 people after the Lord's Supper was introduced. Li an- 
 swer to that point, what does he say ? That Christianity 
 was progressive, and that the blessed Saviour gave in- 
 struction to the disciples just as they were prepared to 
 hear it. Now I leave it to you, if Jesus Christ did not 
 instruct his disciples to take the sacrament of the Lord's 
 Supper, before he even gave them a word of instruction 
 in reference to Christian baptism? Then, if he is to 
 follow his Lord, and that is to be his criterion, and Jesus 
 Christ understood what he was about, and gave instruc- 
 tion progressively, and the Church is progressive, accord- 
 ing to that, ought he not to give the sacrament first? 
 Then he states, that perhaps I made a little blunder a 
 day or two ago, in quoting from Matthew, in reference 
 to the existence of the Church, and thus I had cut the 
 throat of my own argument. What did I argue ? That 
 Jesus Christ said to his disciples, if your brother trespass 
 against you, go and tell it to the Church, recognizing 
 the existence of the Church at that time ; and the tense 
 of the verb employed showed that it was an immediate 
 duty enjoined upon them. But, says he, Matthew did 
 not write his gospel until a long time afterwards. And 
 then, as if he had thought, just in time to save himself, 
 he said, the Lord was there, and they had no need of 
 the Church to go to ; and if our Lord was with us, we 
 w^ould not have any need to go to the Church now. 
 
THE 
 
 385 
 
 Is he wiser than the Lord ? The Lord told them to 
 go to the Church, and he was present with them, right 
 there. 
 
 The gentleman affirms that the sacrament was a 
 preparative act. What he means by that he will have 
 an opportunity to explain when he answers me. I con- 
 fess that I cannot eliminate any idea from the expres- 
 sion, that the sacrament was a preparative act, why it 
 was a commemorative act ; it is a sacramental act. For 
 what did it prepare ? Is there anything in the book 
 about it anywhere, saying it was preparatory ? And, sup- 
 pose I admit it, what does he gain by it ? Anything at 
 all ? Does it come in conflict with anything I have 
 said ? Does it meet a single issue I have made ? Not 
 one, that I can conceive of — not a single one. 
 
 He does not intend to impugn the motives of any of 
 his Pedobaptist brethren. He believes that they were 
 baptized. He gives them credit for being honest in 
 believing that they were baptized. He does not impugn 
 our motives ; we are all right ; have all been baptized ; 
 no doubt about that. He concedes the fact, that we 
 have been baptized. Upon his own hypothesis : suppose 
 baptism is a prerequisite to the Lord's Supper, and he 
 concedes that honestly we have been baptized, how can 
 he exclude us ? 
 
 Mr. Massey : I admitted that I supposed you^ that is, 
 Pedobaptists, believed you had been baptized ; but I did 
 not say I thought so. 
 
 Mr. CouLLiNG : That is all I want ; that is precisely 
 what I think I have just stated. He believes that I 
 believe conscientiously that I have been baptized. That 
 is the very gist and point of the whole controversy 
 
 17 
 
386 
 
 RELATIVE ORDER OF 
 
 right there. I arn a Christian man. Dr. Fuller says 
 so, and the gentleman admits it. I venture the asser- 
 tion, that whatever a few may say, the majority of im- 
 mersionists will, with one accord, say that their Pedo- 
 baptist brethren are Christians. Honest, are they ? If 
 they are Christians, they are honest. They think them 
 intelligent, do they not ? They must accord them some 
 intelligence. 1 should think that my brother thought 
 that when Pedobaptists died, wisdom w^ould die, too, from 
 the implicit confidence he seems to place in their writings. 
 They are intelligent men ; they have as much intelli- 
 gence as any other class of men. They are as remark- 
 able for close, candid investigation as any other men. 
 And now here are two men, and I admit the two 
 men to be equal in every respect, morally and intellect- 
 ually, and equal in education. An issue comes up. Now 
 which of these two men has been baptized ? As a 
 Pedobaptist I will say, " I will not decide the question." 
 Pedobaptists universally say that. We have no right to 
 take the place of Pope Pius IX., and fulminate a bull 
 against you because you differ from us. I accord to you 
 sincerity and honesty, and I will give you the right- 
 hand of fellowship, and will recognize you as Christians 
 under all circumstances whatever. "Why ? Because I 
 believe you are honest. There is the gist of the con- 
 troversy ; there is the very point. But what do close 
 communionists say ? You do not agree with us ; we 
 do not believe you are right. We admit that you are 
 honest. But, then, I have no authority ; it is my Lord's 
 table, and he has fenced it about, and I have no author- 
 ity to let you come in. Who gave you authority to de- 
 cide this question between me and my G-od ? Who 
 
THE lord's supper. 387 
 
 asked ycu to do it ? I will admit that he and every 
 Church has a right to raise the standard, and exclude 
 from the Church everything that is immoral. But when 
 you come to sit in judgment upon my conscientious con- 
 victions, we deny your authority. Here is a question 
 that has been debated throughout the ienojth and breadth 
 of the countr}^, upon which some of the best men in the 
 world differ. And for one denomination to assume the 
 prerogative of excluding every other denomination from 
 the Lord's table, and, I think, thereby from the Church 
 of G-od, is assuming a position which has no warrant in 
 the Bible, or reason, or from any source. There is 
 the issue ; there is the point ; keep that in mind. I 
 will meet some other points, presently ; but just keep 
 that in mind. Let my brother come up and tell you 
 how, as a close] communionist, he can say to you, " you 
 shall not come to this communion !" Vv^hy ! he calls 
 me brother. " I hope to meet him in heaven," says he ; 
 " I hope that, peradventure, God will pardon him his 
 faults and mistakes." And yet he goes into his Church, 
 and draws the line around the sacramental table, and 
 says to all the world, " None but those of you who have 
 been immersed have a right to partake of the Lord's 
 Supper." There is the issue ; there is the point ; the 
 only point in this whole subject of close communion. 
 I stated, and he has not met the statement, that there 
 was no authority in the Word of God for a Church to 
 do that ; not a particle. Suppose that I was to admit 
 some sort of baptism was prerequisite to the Lord's Sup- 
 per. Is that authority to him to decide what sort of 
 baptism it shall be ? Does the one admission necessa- 
 rily involve the other ? Can it do it ? Is it possible 
 
388 RELATIVE ORDER OF 
 
 that it should do it ? Is it not utterly absurd to sup- 
 pose that it would do it ? Utterly so. Talk ahout all 
 Pedobaptists agreeing ! We will come to that presently. 
 Let me follow my notes as far as I can. 
 
 He objects to some rules that I laid down. I could 
 not, at the time he made the objection, recall any : I 
 cannot now. And I will be obliged to him to make a 
 note right there ; and when he gets up to speak again, 
 to let me know what rules they were that I laid down, 
 for I am utterly at a loss to conceive what they were. 
 He then goes on with sundry propositions in the argu- 
 ment in chief, to support what ? To support the propo- 
 sition, that he has a right to exclude a man who differs 
 from him upon the subject of baptism, from the Lord's 
 table ? No, What then ? To support the position that 
 baptism is essential to the communion, and that^ right 
 in the face of the plain, palpable declaration of G-od to 
 the contrary. His first position is, that some acknowl- 
 edgment must be made to the government. Well, I 
 can admit that, and yet I cannot admit the other. Pray 
 tell me, did not the disciples make some acknowledg- 
 ment to the government of Christ ? — and the five hun- 
 dred brethren also ? And yet they never were baptized ; 
 certainly never received Christian baptism. Dr. Hall 
 says that is demonstrable, and I think I have demon- 
 strated it two or three times, so plainly that nobody can 
 fail to see it, and everybody must feel its force. John's 
 baptism. Christian baptism ? No, ho would not take 
 that position ; though, afterwards, he threw in a sort of 
 insinuation that way, and quoted from Acts, and seemed 
 to say that the disciples had been baptized by John's 
 baptism, and therefore they had a right to commune at 
 
389 
 
 the sacrament of the Lord's Sapper. He did not come 
 right out, holdly, and say that ; but that was the im- 
 pression he sought to make. Suppose I admit it ; is it 
 Christian baptism ? No ; and the controversy is in ref- 
 erence to Christian baptism. The disciples took the sac- 
 rament long before ; forty days before Christ instituted 
 baptism, and he cannot get over it to save his life. And 
 if it be progressive, as he says, and the Saviour knew 
 what first to institute, the Saviour introduced the Lord's 
 Supper before baptism. That is true ; the Bible proves 
 that ; and no form of logic can prove the contrary, with- 
 out denying what the Bible positively says. 
 
 The next argument is, that this acknowledgment 
 must be such as the government shall prescribe. Sup- 
 pose I admit that. It i& only admitting a plain, simple 
 truism, that nobody at all will deny. And it does not 
 reach the point he is seeking to reach, that the prescrib- 
 ing power has laid down immersion, and immersion 
 only ; and therefore, those who have not been immersed 
 have not the right to commune ; thereby assuming a 
 prerogative to decide the question over the heads of 
 others quite as intelligent, and obedient, and competent 
 to decide, as himself. That is coming up to the other point- 
 Again, he goes on to say that the Lord's Supper is a 
 social ordinance ; baptism is an individual ordinance. 
 And the riext proposition he links on to that is, that we 
 ought to be very particular what sort of society we take 
 it in. And I do not doubt that a sinsfle moment. But 
 if he intended to make the impression that we Metho- 
 dists, Presbyterians, or Episcopalians, were not particu- 
 lar, he just made a slight mistake; that is all. They 
 «av that we break down all barriers around the table 
 
390 RELATIVE ORDER OP 
 
 of the Lord, and, as a member of an immersionist 
 Church told me some time ago, that I invited sinners to 
 commune w^ith me, that there was no limit at all. How 
 do men hear, who have ears to hear ? What are men 
 thinking about? It does seem to me that the question 
 is so perfectly plain and simple that nobody in the world, 
 who will give himself the trouble to look at it for a mo- 
 ment, can misunderstand it. I will state it to you. Turn 
 to the book of Disciphne, and on the fourteenth page you 
 will find the order for the administration of the Lord's 
 Supper. After some passages of Scripture collated here, 
 comes the invitation that the Church gives to communi- 
 cants. It is in these words : 
 
 ^' Ye that do truly and earnestly repent of your sins, 
 and are in love and charity with your neighbors, and 
 intend to lead a new life, following the commandments 
 of Grod, and walking from henceforth in his whole ways, 
 draw near with faith." 
 
 There is the invitation. We do not sit in judgment 
 upon a man, and ask him how he got into the Church. 
 YIq do not profess to have discernment to know whether 
 or not he is a fit subject, but we leave it to his con- 
 science to judge of that matter. What! stop a man, 
 whom I never saw before, just as he was coming up to 
 the altar, and say to him, How did you get into the 
 Church? Is that right or proper ? Or say to that man. 
 Unless you believe some dogma that I believe, you can- 
 not commune with me. And if you can put in baptism, 
 why not put in any other subject upon the face of the 
 earth, and make it a conscientious matter ? And then say 
 that your conscience will not permit you to think as I do. 
 
 The Episcopal Church has, almost word for word, the 
 
THE lord's supper. 391 
 
 very same invitation that I have just now read. And, 
 in conversation with a member of that communion, and 
 one, I suppose, who knows all about it, says, he very 
 frequently heard the minister invite formally all Chris- 
 tian denominations to come up and join with them. 
 And because of the breadth and excellency of this invi- 
 tation some of them deem it unnecessary to add a single 
 word to the invitation, but simply read it. The Pres- 
 byterian Church is about to have a communion, and 
 the minister gets up, and always, when I have had thfe 
 pleasure — and I have enjoyed it whenever I could — I 
 have heard him invite members of all sister denomina- 
 tions to come and commune with them ; and pleasant 
 communion have I had with them. Do they stop you, 
 and ask you if you have been baptized ? Certainly not. 
 I asked a minister in Charlottesville, the other day — 
 knowing that this very point would be discussed here : 
 " When you give an invitation for persons to take the 
 communion with you, do you stop and ask them if they 
 have been baptized in any way?" "No," says he. 
 Suppose I was to take in a probationer in my Church, 
 for instance, the fourth Sunday in the month. The 
 third Sunday may be the regular Sabbath for baptism ; 
 the first Sunday is communion Sunday. That young 
 man, or young girl, just professing religion, heartfull 
 and warm with the faith of the gospel, would you go up 
 to her and say, "Have you been baptized?" No, sir; 
 I would not say a word about it, not a syllable. And 
 what right has any minister of any denomination to stop 
 a member of another denomination, and interrogate that 
 member in any way as to that thing ? Your conscience t 
 "What business has your conscience with my acts ? Who 
 made you your brother's keeper? Yfill you tell me? 
 
892 RELATIVE ORDER OF 
 
 "Where is your warrant, your authority ? Who put you 
 up to guide and guard the purity of the Church, and 
 thereby constructively reflect upon the intelligence and 
 purity of every branch of the Christian Church ? There 
 is the point, and there is the issue right there. 
 
 A long chapter was read from my Brother Hib- 
 bard ; and, of course, as it is always supposed, on the 
 introduction of a Pedobaptist authority, I am to take as 
 law and gospel everything that a Pedobaptist writes. I 
 cannot introduce, he thinks. Baptist authority, and hold 
 him responsible for that, because they w^ere Baptists, 
 because there is a split in the Church upon that question. 
 Well, I did not know that before, and I am very glad to 
 hear it. I am glad there are some that begin to see 
 things in their right light ; and I hope to see the day 
 when many more will join them. I have no doubt they 
 will. That information encourages me very much, in- 
 deed. I knew a great many did not like it. T suppose 
 I have been told by five hundred, since I have been in 
 the ministry, " Oh ! I so much dislike the close commu- 
 nion in my Church." J do not know how it is here. 
 But 1 have not taken a round in my district — not once 
 since I have been on the district — that I did not admin- 
 ister the ordinance of the Lord's Supper to Baptists. And 
 I never go around, but what some go away from the 
 Church, regretting that they cannot participate with us. 
 But there is a split among them, so that the truth is 
 progressing. I do not know how such men as Robert 
 Hall, Baptist Noel, and Spurgeon, and I do not know 
 how many others, can write as they do without having 
 some effect. The truth will have some effect. But 
 what I was going to say was this : I do not hold my 
 
3Q3 
 
 good brother responsible for what Mr. Hall says, for 
 anythmg that Mr. "Whitney says ; not at all. He did 
 not write it : if he had written it, or said it here, I 
 would have held him responsible for it, as I do for what 
 he says baptism is, and what baptism means. I hold 
 him responsible for that. 
 
 MR. MASSEY'S SECOND EEPLY. 
 
 Mr. Massey : I am afraid that I shall not be allowed 
 to ascertain that the gentleman who last addressed you 
 is upon the affirmative of the pro']30sition. He assigned 
 as a reason for my not having ascertained it before, that 
 he had not " gotten" through with his argument. He 
 has now spent an hour and three quarters, having only a 
 h^lf an hour left, and has not yet got to his point. I 
 must wait till he does get there before I can reply to 
 him. 
 
 He says he wants Scriptural authority for excludins; 
 persons from the Lord's Supper. He must find author- 
 ity to invite ih.Qm there. The Lord's Supper is a ^ose- 
 tive institution ; instituted by Jesus Christ, the great 
 Master of assemblies. He has given permission to cer- 
 tain individuals, or to individuals of a certain character, 
 to receive it, and has prescribed the manner in which 
 they shall approach the Lord's table. Upon this sub- 
 ject I am prepared to go with him in search of informa- 
 tion. He ao-ain referred to Matthew xviii.. and slated 
 that I said, upon this point, he had cut the throat of his 
 argument. Yom will bear in mind that I eaid in refer- 
 erence to his hypothesis, that " baptism had taken the 
 place of circumcision ; that he had cut the throat of his 
 
 17^ 
 
394 RELATIVE ORDER OF 
 
 argument in support of infant baptism." He has not 
 undertaken to heal it, and I will not undertake it for 
 him. 
 
 He admits so much that I have said, and has left my 
 address so untouched, that I am very forcibly reminded 
 of an event recorded in the life of Henry Clay. He v^as 
 once, when a candidate for Congress, canvassing with 
 his opponent in a certain district. Some old Kentuckian 
 said he could not support him, unless he proved him- 
 self a good marksman with a rifle. Mr. Clay found 
 himself in a dilemma, for he had never practised with a 
 rifle much. But with the readiness that always charac- 
 terized him, he showed no hesitation, but look up the 
 rifle and fired, hitting the target precisely in the centre. 
 His opponent cried out, " That was a chance shot, and 
 Mr. Clay must fire again — he would not undertake to 
 fire against that shot." But Mr. Clay said, "No, sir; 
 I will wait until you beat that^ and then I will try 
 again." And when the gentleman shakes any part of 
 my superstructure, or any part of the foundation on 
 wdiich it is built, I will show him that I can lay and 
 erect them again. He admits that every Church ha^ a 
 right to raise a standard of admission — 
 
 Mr. CouLLmo : Let me correct that. I said that every 
 Church had a right to prevent immoral persons from 
 entering it ; immoral persons. But the Bible gave no 
 right where, honest diflerences of opinion accrued, for 
 one to exclude the other. 
 
 Mr. Massey : The gentleman would have been saved 
 the necessity of explaining, if he had waited. He said 
 that the Church had a right to raise a standard, and 
 then stated what he meant by a standard. I was going 
 
 m 
 
395 
 
 to state that as he did. Here is an acknowledgment of 
 the principle that there must be some test by which 
 you shall determine a man's right to receive the sacra- 
 ment of the Lord's Supper. I take issue with him upon 
 the point, that a Church has a right to raise a standard. 
 I say, the Head of the Church — the Divine Lawgiver 
 only has a right to do that. I claim, as well as he does, 
 that all immorality and wickedness are excluded ; but 
 that does not cover all. There may be moral men, against 
 whose morality you cannot say a word, who should be 
 excluded ; but, if men establish a standard, how far will 
 they go ? One will have one standard, another will have 
 another, and a third party will have a third standard. 
 Our duty is to ascertain what standard the Greed Mas- 
 ter of assemblies has erected, and to conform to that. 
 I have shov/n you that he has made baptism the act by 
 which we acknowledge our allegiance to him in a pub- 
 lic manner before the world. And now just see how the 
 gentleman has changed the issue. I pity him ; he is be- 
 tween two difficulties. If he admits baptism to be a pre- 
 requisite to the Lord's Supper, I have him upon this pro- 
 position. And having taken the position that baptism is 
 not a prerequisite to it, he feels it is rather •' a hard road 
 to travel^''' to run in conflict w^ith all the standards of 
 his oivn denomination and of all other denominations. 
 Hence he brings up the question as to whether immer- 
 sion must precede the ordinance of the Lord's Supper. 
 I tell that gentleman, that if he is disposed to meet me 
 and discuss the mode of baptism again, so that it can 
 be taken down by the reporter with the residue of this 
 discussion, " here is at him until moryiing^^ I will go 
 with him at any time^ and to any place., to discuss that 
 
396 RELATIVE ORDER OF 
 
 again. But here is another question before us. If he 
 thinks, as he very likely does, that I have demonstrated 
 that immersion is the only apostolic baptism^ he may 
 feel some reluctance to trying it again. 
 
 But the question here is, not what is baptism ; or 
 that whether sprinkling, pouring, or immersion, is bap- 
 tism ; but the simple, bare, naked question, whether 
 baptism^ according to his views of it, or anybodifs views 
 of it, is a prerequisite to the Lord's Supper. He says, 
 suppose he was to admit that some sort of baptism was 
 necessary ; and then, seeing that that would be fatal 
 to his cause, he dodges ofT, and will not admit even 
 that. He is very eloquent upon the invitations of 
 Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and Methodists, to other 
 sister Churches, and to members of all Christian 
 Churches, to partake with them of the Lord's Supper. 
 And he says, " As they come up, would you go up to 
 them and ask them if they had been baptized ?" Why, 
 no I What is the fair presumption ? Does not every 
 man know that when you invite members of other 
 Churches, you invite those whom you suppose to have 
 been baptized ? How do men get into the Methodist 
 Church ? Upon page 110 of the Discipline, you find 
 this : (My copy of the Discipline was printed at the 
 " Southern Methodist Publishing House, Nashville, 
 Tenn., 1859.") 
 
 ^^ Let none be received into the Churchy until they 
 are recommended by a leader ivith ivhom they have 
 met at least six months on trial, and have been bap- 
 tized:' 
 
 Now, when Presbyterians and Episcopalians invite 
 Methodists to commune with them, do they not act upon 
 
397 
 
 the jiresumption that they have been baptized? And if 
 they have not been, they falsify their Discipline, and 
 practise an imposition upon all other Churches. 
 
 I cannot account for the brother's not having heard 
 that there was a difference among Baptists upon the 
 subject of communion. I really should never have 
 charged him with the ivani of that information, if he 
 had not himself avoioed ic. I should never have charged 
 him with never having heard of that "to this day" — 
 never having heard that Robert Hall laas an open-com- 
 munion Baptist! or, that there were two distinct organ- 
 izations among Baptists. I wonder, therefore, that he 
 was able to trace the succession along so well ; to talk 
 so smoothly about "Baptist Noel," and "SpurgeonI" 
 How did he becojue so familiar ivith their writings, if 
 he knew nothing about it to this day ? Wonderful ! I ! 
 That is all of his last speech that requires notice. 
 
 Now Paul, in writing to the 1 Corinthians xi. IS, 
 says to them, when speaking about a participation in 
 this ordinance : " When ye come together in the Church." 
 And then he gives them directions how to act. How do 
 \YQ get into the Church? The '"' Methodist Discipline" says, 
 they must be baptized first. Then here is a recognition 
 of the very truth for which I contend, and the very fact 
 which he denies. Paul goes on to give directions, and 
 says : 
 
 "For I have received of the Lord that which also I 
 delivered unto you. That the Lord Jesus, the same 
 night in which he was betrayed, took bread ; and when he 
 had given thanks, he brake it, and said. Take, eat ; this 
 is my body, which is broken for you ; this do in remem- 
 brance of me. After the same manner also he took the 
 
398 RELATIVE ORDER OF 
 
 cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new 
 testament in my blood : this do ye as oft as ye drink of 
 it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this 
 bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death 
 till he come." 
 
 Now here are directions given to those who shall 
 " come tosrether in the Church.'^^ And in order for them 
 to get into the Church, the Methodist Discipline says, 
 they must be baptized. Then the proper conclusion is, 
 that no ?^?2baptized person has a right to partake of 
 the Lord's Supper — the Church ordinance. You cannot 
 carry the ordinance of the Church out of the Church ; 
 and a man cannot get into the Church until he has 
 "been baptized^ 
 
 Now, I want to show you that I have the concurrence 
 in these opinions of men in different ages of the world. 
 I quote from the " Christian Review," vol. xxiii.. No. 
 92, April, 1858, a collection of quotations from different 
 authors : 
 
 " Justin Martyr wrote about A. D. 150, not more than 
 fifty years after the death of the apostle John. On the 
 subject before us, Apol. 2, p. 162, apud Suicerus, he 
 says : ' This food is called by us the Eucharist, of which 
 it is not lawful for any to partake, but such as believe 
 the things that are taught by us to be true, and have 
 been baptized.' 
 
 *' Jerome, confessedly one among the most learned 
 and candid of the Fathers, wrote about A. D. 400. He 
 says, in cap. 6, Epist. 2, ad Corinth. : ' Catechumeni 
 communicare non possunt,' &c. — ' Catechumens cannot 
 communicate at the Lord's table, being unbaptized.' 
 
 " Augustine, who wrote about A. D. 500, maintaining 
 
399 
 
 the absolute necessity of administering the Lord's Supper 
 to infants, Epist. ad Bonaf., epist. 106, remarks : ' Quod 
 nisi babtizati,' &c. — ' Of which certainly they cannot 
 partake unless Ihey are baptized.' " 
 
 Now, when infant baptism was introduced, or shortly 
 after it, infant communion was also introduced, and it was 
 continued until the twelfth century. Infant communion 
 went hand in hand with infant baptism. And yet here 
 it is declared, even by the men who contended for infant 
 communion, that none were to receive it until they were 
 baptized. I can refer you to Church histories Jthat I 
 have with me, if these statements are questioned. To 
 continue : 
 
 " Bede flourished about A. D. 700. In his Hist. EccL, 
 lib. 2, cap. 5, p. 63, he narrates the following incident : 
 ' Three young men, princes of the Eastern Saxons, see- 
 ing a Bishop administer the Sacred Supper, desired to 
 partake of it as their royal father had dons. To whom 
 the Bishop replied : If you will be baptized in the salu- 
 tary fountain as your father was, you may also partake 
 of the Lord's Supper even as he did ; but if you despise 
 the former, ye cannot, in any wise, receive the latter.' " 
 
 Now, having given the ancient authors, I give you 
 the more modern ones : 
 
 " Theophylaot, in a work — Cap. 4 Mat., p. 83 — pub- 
 lished about A. D. 1100, remarks : ' No unbaptized per- 
 son partakes of the Lord's Supper.' 
 
 " Bonaventure, who wrote about 1200, observes — Apud 
 Forbesium, Instruct. Historic. Theolog., lib. 10, cap. 4, 
 sect. 9: 'Faith, indeed, is necessary to all the sacra- 
 ments, but especially, to the reception of baptism, be- 
 cause baptism is the first among the sacraments, and 
 the door to the sacraments.' 
 
400 RELATIVE ORDER OF 
 
 " Frid. Spanheim, who flourished about A. D. 1600, 
 on the point before us asserts (Hist. Christian, Col. 6215) : 
 ' Subjecta ad eucharistiam,' &c. — ' None but baptized 
 persons are admitted to the Lord's table.' 
 
 *' Lord Chancellor King wrote about A. D. 1700. He 
 says (Enq. part 2, p. 44) : * Baptism was always prece- 
 dent to the Lord's Supper ; and none (ever) were ad- 
 mitted to receive the Eucharist till they were baptized. 
 This is so obvious to every man that it needs no proof.' " 
 
 Now, we will give the views of several recent Pedo- 
 bapti.^ writers : 
 
 " Dr. Wall avers (Hist. Inf. Bap., part 2, ch. 9 : " No 
 Church ever gave the communion to any persons before 
 they were baptized. Among all the absurdities that ever 
 were held, none ever maintained that any person should 
 partake of the communion before they were baptized.' 
 
 '' Dr. Manton observes (Supp. to Morn. Exer., p. 199) : 
 * None but baptized persons have a right to the Lord's 
 table.' 
 
 "Dr. Doddridge says (Lectures, p. 510): 'It is cer- 
 tain that Christians in general have always been spoken 
 of, by the most ancient Fathers, as baptized persons. 
 And it is also certain that, as far as our knowledge of 
 primitive antiquity extends, no unbaptized person re- 
 ceived the Lord's Supper.' 
 
 " Dr. Dwight thus expresses his opinion (Sys. Theol. 
 Serm., 160) : 'It is an indispensable qualification for 
 this ordinance, that the candidate for communion be a 
 member of the visible Church of Christ, in full standing. 
 By this I intend, that he should be a person of piety ; 
 that he should have made a public profession of religion ; 
 and that he should have been baptized.' 
 
THE lord's supper. 40t 
 
 " The distinguished Dr. Qriffin remarks : ' I agree 
 with the advocates for close communion in two points : 
 1. That baptism is the initiating ordinance which intro- 
 duces us into the visible Church : of course, where there 
 is no baptism, there are no visible Churches. 2. That 
 we ought not to commune with those who are not bap- 
 tized, and, of course, are not Church members, eve^i if we 
 regard them as Christians^ Should a pious Quaker so 
 far depart from his principles, as to wish to commune 
 with me at the Lord's table, while he yet refused to be 
 baptized, I could not receive him ; because there is such 
 a relationship established between the two ordinances 
 that I have no right to separate them ; in other words, 
 I have no right to send the sacred elements out of the 
 Church.' " 
 
 Now this supposed case of Dr. Grriffin actually occurred 
 in the city of Richmond with Bishop Moore. A pious 
 Quaker came forward, when he gave the invitation to 
 other denominations to commune with them, to partake of 
 the Lord's Supper. Bishop Moore, in the most delicate 
 manner, to save the feelings of this pious Quaker, and 
 yet to maintain his conscientious principles, went to him 
 and said : " Retain your place where you are : you 
 know our views, that we cannot administer the Lord's 
 Supper to any unbaptized person. But if you will retain 
 your position, we will pass you by, and it will not be 
 noticed, and your feelings will not be wounded." I do 
 not claim to have given his exact words, but if you will 
 refer to Taylor's work on Communion, pages 23, 24, and 
 25, he will give you these facts, with the statement that 
 he received them from Bishop Moore himself. 
 
 The Presbyterian Confession of Faith makes the Lord's 
 
.402 RELATIVE ORDER OF 
 
 Supper an ordinance " z « the Church.,'''' and "baptism 
 a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained "by Jesus 
 Christ, for the solemn admission of the party baptized 
 into the visible Church."— See chap. 28, 1 ; 29, 1. 
 
 I will now state my farther propositions, and present 
 the arguments upon them, in ilie next address, as I can- 
 not introduce any new matter then. My next proposition is, 
 that none should evjoy the rights and privileges of the 
 Church, 10 ho are not amenable to its government. To 
 claim rights and privileges belonging to any class of men, 
 and at the same time deny their right to hold you ame- 
 nable for the discharge of the duties which devolve upon 
 them in that relation, is contrary to all right reasoning. 
 
 First, under this proposition : No Church can consist- 
 ently admit to her communion those whom she ivould not 
 receive as members of her body. Suppose a man should 
 desire admission into any Church whose character, or 
 whose heterodox notions are such that the Church would 
 be unwilling to admit him as a member, would there 
 not be a direct inconsistency in their permitting him to 
 commune with them at the Lord's table, while they 
 would not receive him into membership ? Now suppose 
 this man, who is refused admission into your Church, 
 goes the next Sabbath and offers himself as a candidate 
 to some other Church, and that that Church receives him, 
 not having the same objections to him that you have ; 
 and, the Sabbath after, he comes back as a member of 
 a sister Church, and takes his seat among you — the 
 very people who objected to having him among you. 
 Will you sincerely ivelcome him ? That is but one of 
 the beauties of unrestricted communion. 
 
 Secondly, No Church should admit those to the Lord''s 
 
403 
 
 Supper loho are guilty of conduct for ivhich they would 
 exclude their oivn members. I need not argue that. 
 The Methodist Disciplinej on page 155, teacties that 
 doctrine very clearly : 
 
 ^' No person shall be admitted to the Lord's Supper 
 among us, ivho is guilty of any practice for which we 
 would exclude a member of our own ChurchP 
 
 They do undertake to sit* in judgment upon mem- 
 bers of other Churches it seems, after all the gentle- 
 man's apparent horror of sucH a course. How do they 
 get at it ? For what will they exclude a member of 
 their oz///i Church ? Is it simply for grossly immoral 
 conduct ? Let us look at page 129 of the Discipline : 
 
 ^' Question 5. What shall be done with those minis- 
 ters or preachers who hold and disseminate, publicly or 
 privately, doctrines which are contrary to our Articles of 
 Religion ? Answer. Let the same process be observed 
 as in the case of gross immorality." 
 
 According to this view, there is not an Episcopal 
 minister, there is not a Presbyterian minister, there is 
 not a Baptist minister, who would not be excluded from 
 the Methodist Church if he continued to preach the 
 same doctrines while in it that he does now. They dis- 
 seminate doctrines very different from the " Articles" of 
 the Methodist Church. And " what must be done with 
 thern ?" "Deal with them as with those guilty of 
 grossly immoral conduct .^" Well, well I that is beauti- 
 ful ! And yet no person shall be admitted to their com- 
 munion who is guilty of conduct for which they would 
 exclude one of their own members. If the gentleman 
 can tell you by what sort of logic he can bring himself 
 to the point to invite me to the Lord's table after this 
 
404 RELATIVE ORDER OF 
 
 discussion^ he will do what I cannot now perceive. 
 I have been " disseminating doctrines" different from 
 those of his Church, and have been taking issue with 
 him all along. He thinks he is very charitable toward 
 me, while / am very uncharitable toward him. Here is 
 the argumentum ad hominuni. I dare you to say any- 
 thing against Methodisin — against the " Articles of our 
 religion," if you are members of the Methodist Church, 
 if yoQ do not want to be excluded. And if you are not 
 members of the " Methodist Church," and are guilty of 
 conduct for which you would be excluded if you ivere 
 members of it, you cannot come to their communion. 
 Very charitable to those who agree with them^ but 
 differ from them if you dare I Is there anything more 
 exclusive than that ? Here is a Church that sets her- 
 self up to decide about what men shall teach or dissem- 
 inate, and yet the gentleman, a presiding elder in that 
 Churchy and the Secretary of the Virginia Conference, 
 asks us, ^^ By ivhat right do you set yourselves up as 
 judges about what men should believe about baptism ? 
 They set themselves up as judges of men who go against 
 the doctrines of the ''^Methodist Church^^ and say they 
 will deal with them as with men guilty of grossly im- 
 moral conduct. And yet he charges 21s with want of 
 charity I ! man, great is your faith, if you expect 
 intelligent men to be influenced by such sophistry ! 
 
 Having laid down my propositions, I now ask you to 
 hear Hibbard upon Baptism, page 184 : 
 
 '' Baptism, from is nature, stands at the opening of 
 the visible career. It is a badge of the Christian pro- 
 fession — the seal of the gospel covenant — the ordinance 
 of admission into the visible Church of Christ. Pre- 
 
THE lord's supper. 405 
 
 viously to baptism, the individual has no right in the 
 visible Church. Setting aside, for the present, communion 
 at the Lord's table as a mooted right of the unbaptized, 
 they have no privileges as the members of Christ's mys- 
 tical body. No society of Christians would receive an 
 unbaptized person into their community, and tender to 
 him the privileges of their body. So far as proper 
 Church rights and privileges are concerned, he is re- 
 garded in the same light as any unconverted man." 
 
 [Time expired.!^ 
 
 MR. COULLING'S THIRD ADDRESS. 
 
 Mr. CouLLiNG : I am right glad that I have gotten to 
 the point for once. And I am very glad my good 
 brother has been brought to it for once. The point I 
 had just made at the time I sat down was — What right 
 have they to exclude me from the communion, while 
 they admit me to be a good man, and an honest man ? 
 Because I differ from them. That is the point. Now, 
 to meet it he refers to two or three passages in the 
 Methodist Discipline. I wish to thank him for giving 
 me the reference, for I looked for it and could not find 
 it. I do not know the Discipline by heart, but I love it 
 very much. He turns to the 110th page, and reads 
 there that before a person can be received into the 
 Church, they must be recommended- by a leader with 
 whom they have met, at least, six months on trial, and 
 have been baptized. And that, he says, is the door into 
 the Church. Now, he forgets that they have been six 
 months probationers in the Church, and have taken the 
 
406 RELATIVE ORDER OF 
 
 Sacrament every time it has been administered during 
 that period. He did not know that. He insists upon it, 
 too, that with this they must be baptized, and turns to 
 Corinthians to show that when you come together in the 
 church to take the Sacrament, you must be baptized. 
 He would have them all baptized twice a Sunday, and 
 then once a week besides. For the meaning of the pas- 
 sage is just the same as if you were to say — meet to- 
 gether in Shiloh church-building. Now that does not 
 mean joining the Church any more than I do by saying 
 I am in the Church, when 1 am in the building. x\c- 
 cording to his argument, then, he would have a bap- 
 tistry right at the door of the Church, and every time a 
 man steps into the Church he would have to be baptized. 
 That is his argument. 
 
 Then he makes one of the most remarkable argu- 
 ments that I ever listened to in my life. I have heard 
 of people talking in that way, and I hear it now with 
 my own ears ; but I never heard it before. Look at the 
 argument. He tarns to our Discipline, and sees that no 
 person is to be admitted to the Sacrament of the Lord's 
 Supper, who is guilty of that for which we would turn 
 out a member of our Church. He then turns to the 
 rules for the trial of ministers, and if he had known it, 
 he could have turned to the rules for the trial of mem- 
 bers; and found almost identically the same language 
 there — that when a member of the Church inveighs 
 against the doctrines of the Church he does wrong, and 
 in doing this is guilty of an immorality. And because 
 it is an immorality in me to preach against the doctrines 
 of the Church, for I have pledged myself to preach the 
 doctrines of the Methodist Church — because it is an im- 
 
407 
 
 morality in me to get up and preach Universal ism, or 
 Deism, or anything else, trying to pull down the Church 
 committed to my care, is it immorality for him to 
 preach his conscientious doctrines ? Whoever heard of 
 such reasoning before, since the world was made ? 
 What ! The Methodist Church set in judgment upon 
 him, and say that he is wrong for preaching as he con- 
 scientiously believes ? The Church never said so, and 
 does not believe so. I cannot invite a Baptist, Presby- 
 terian, or Episcopalian to my altar, because they differ 
 from me ! Are they guilty of immoral conduct, because 
 they differ from me ? I should want to leave the world, 
 if I believed that. I would not wish to stay among 
 men, if I had to stop and ask them — Are you Metho- 
 dists ? — before I could give them my hand or my confi- 
 dence. And putting the Methodist Church in such a 
 posture as that, is the strangest thing I ever heard 
 of. But it shows — Well, no : I will not say what it 
 shows. 
 
 One admission he made ; and I was glad that he did. 
 He says the question here is not at all as to the mode of 
 baptism. The simple question before us is, is it right to 
 admit a person to commune before he has been baptiz- 
 ed ? To sustain that position, he has read to you many 
 things, and says they are from the ancient Fathers. 
 One was in 1700, another in 1600; not generally re- 
 garded as very ancient. And then he went on to give 
 the opinions of a good many of modern times. If he 
 will let me argue in this way, I will argue him into any 
 one of half a dozen things that he would not subscribe 
 to or consent to for his life. I would make him believe 
 that his Church has no sort of government, because it 
 
408 RELATIVE ORDER OF 
 
 has no bishops. According to these very men from 
 whom he quotes, from the days of the apostles down to 
 this day, there have been bishops in the Church. Is not 
 that so ? Can I not do that ? 
 
 A YoicE : Yes, you can. 
 
 Mr. Massey : That is a new witness, and I claim the 
 right to cross-examine the witnesses you introduce. 
 
 Mr. CouLLiNG : I need no witnesses upon the subject. 
 There are a hundred responses right before me, welling 
 up in their hearts, that say I can do it. Witnesses ? 
 No, sir : I do not need them. I am to take precisely 
 what these men say upon this point, and a point, too, 
 upon w^hich it is known that more heresies were intro- 
 duced into the Church, and especially in the early ages 
 of the Church, than perhaps upon any other subject. Is 
 that logic ? Is that meeting the point ? And that, too, 
 in view of his own proposition that it is Scriptural to 
 exclude a man, not according to '' the Fathers," as he 
 chooses to term them, or according to modern Pedobap- 
 tists, but according to the Bible. And where has he put 
 his hand upon it ? He shows that a great many per- 
 sons who were disciples, were baptized, and ate their 
 supper. To be sure they did ; and they went to sleep, 
 and ate their breakfast, and ate their dinner, and then 
 ate another supper. Does it follow that because a poor 
 man could not get his supper before he went to sleep, 
 that he should not eat breakfast, if he could get it ? 
 There is as much argument in the one as in the other. 
 Let him bring a " thus saith the Lord " to compel him 
 to exclude me from the Lord's Supper, because I do not 
 believe it is my duty to go down into the water. 
 
 He says that is not the question. What is the ques- 
 
409 
 
 tion ? He says that I am honestly baptized. How then 
 does he sit in judgment upon me ? Because I do not 
 say '' Shibboleth" as he would have me say it, I shall 
 not say it at all. That is the only point at issue between 
 us. Hall and "Whitney make that issue distinctly ; and 
 so does Dr. Fuller. Let me read what Dr. Fuller says. 
 It is on page 195 of his work : 
 
 "What, in effect, is the remonstrance we continually 
 address to our brethren? It is, that they are unbap- 
 tized. The more we admire their character, so much 
 the more do we lament that they throw their influence 
 on the side of error, and continue in disobedience. 
 Now, in not inviting them to the Supper, our conduct 
 only repeats this remonstrance ; repeats it silently, and 
 kindly, but emphatically. To invite them would really 
 be a want of love, for it would be an admission that 
 they are baptized ; and thus, in the strongest manner, 
 we would contradict our declarations, and confirm them 
 in error." 
 
 I will give you another authority. I turn to the 
 memoir of Dr. Carson, written, I think, for the Baptist 
 Publication Society, by G. C. Moore, on page 36 : 
 
 " The Church at Tubbermore became Baptist by de- 
 grees. Some of the members were baptized before the 
 pastor. Owing, probably, in part to this circumstance, 
 they have never regarded an obedience to this ordinance 
 as an indispensable condition of admission to the Lord's 
 Supper. Indeed, they have carried the principle of open 
 communion to the utmost extent, by receiving members 
 into their body simply upon evidence of their conversion, 
 with but little inquiry whether they agreed with them 
 on the subject of baptism, expecting that whenever they 
 
 18 
 
KLAIVE ORDER OF 
 
 became convinced of their duty to be immersed, they 
 would attend to it. 
 
 ** To the great majority of Baptists it will appear, 
 that this practice, together with their open communion, 
 was not in accordance with the example of those primi- 
 tive Churches, which, in other points, it was Mr. Car- 
 son's delight to imitate ; and that its tendency must be 
 to throw into the shade an ordinance prominent in the 
 New Testament, and to dissever baptism from the Gos- 
 pel of which it is so expressive an emblem." 
 
 Now, there is the meaning of it. Have I misstated 
 the point ? Have I avoided the point ? Have I evaded 
 the issue ? Is not that the very issue I joined this morn- 
 ing ? Have I not kept it unblinkingly before me all the 
 time ? And every argument I have urged, too, has been 
 regarded as unworthy of notice, except the one that was 
 attempted to be answered in the very strange way I have 
 just alluded to. 
 
 It is affirmed that none should claim the rights of a 
 Church that are not amenable to that Church. That struck 
 me as being a queer position. If I claimed the right to go 
 into his Church and aid in governing it, aid in controlling 
 it, in any way, I certainly ought to be amenable to it. If 
 I enter into your family as a member of your family, 1 
 ought to conform myself to all your regulations and 
 rules ; and if I did not do that, you ought to put me 
 out. But I am passing along the road, a weary traveller, 
 and you invite me in there, and I don't know much 
 about your rules, or anything about your house. You 
 invite me to take dinner, or supper, or to stay over night ; 
 and then ask me to be amenable to your regulations. Is 
 there any courtesy there ? Should every man whom you 
 
411 
 
 invite to partake of the Lord's Supper be amenable to the 
 Church ? AVhoever heard anything of the kind ? The 
 sacran:ient of the Lord's Supper seems to me, of all 
 others in the world, to be the place where we should for- 
 get everything else, but the common link that binds us 
 together. The idea that none but Methodists, or Pres- 
 byterians, or Episcopalians should commune with each 
 other, is passing strange. Why, where is your authority 
 for that ? Put your finger upon the passage in the New 
 Testament Scriptures, and find Church organizations 
 there, under the name and style of the Church organi- 
 zations of the present day. Can you find that ? Dr. 
 Fuller says you cannot. He says there was the Church 
 at Mesopotamia, at Rome, &c., but no Baptists, no 
 Methodists, or Presbyterians there. To whom did Christ 
 give the sacrament ? To the Baptist Church ? Did He 
 not give it to those who love him ? The gentleman ad- 
 mits that he loves Christian people — has a great deal of 
 sympathy and kind feeling for them. Well, what will 
 he do ? He will say to you : You will not do the Lord's 
 will, and you cannot take the sacrament with me. Or, 
 as Dr. Fuller says, " read him a remonstrance, a silent, 
 kind, but an emphatic remonstrance, every opportunity 
 he can get, and say to us, you are not baptized ; you 
 have not obeyed the law." Now, that is the only point 
 betvv^een us. You affirm that, and the proof of the 
 affirmation is upon you. Upon the subject of exclusion 
 from the Lord's table upon the ground of not being bap- 
 tized, the Scriptures are as silent as the grave. All 
 he has proved is, that when the apostles found a man 
 who was penitent they preached to him, and when he 
 was converted he was baptized. But in everything said 
 
 t 
 
412 RELATIVE ORDER OF 
 
 ia the New Testament about baptism, not a word is said 
 about not giving a man the Sacrament before he is bap- 
 tized. Not a word. 
 
 I have shown you distinctly that proposition, and 
 assuming the very ground he himself has assumed, say- 
 ing that the controversy is not about the mode, but the 
 act of baptism itself. I have shown you he has no 
 Scriptural authority for what he affirms, that the Scrip- 
 tures authorize him to do no such thing. 
 
 Again : he states that no one should admit one to 
 commune with him that he would not admit into Church 
 fellowship. Well, that is a canon that he lays down for 
 himself. But I would like him to show me any au- 
 thority, either in the word or principles of the Gospel, to 
 justify any such canon. There is a man who may be a 
 peculiar man in a great many respects in his notions ; 
 so peculiar that we know that if he goes into a church he 
 will do injury ; Ihat he will be a mischievous man. He 
 comes forward to the altar and gives us his name ; I 
 receive it as the pastor of the Church ; I turn to the 
 people and ask, is there any objection to this man's be- 
 coming a probationer in the Church. One brother gets 
 up and says, I object — he cannot be received. I ask 
 the brother why he cannot be received ? He says, I 
 think he is a very good sort of man, but I think he 
 would be a troublesome member, and I think it would 
 be better for one man to suffer than for many to be in- 
 jured. But because I have a right to do that, I ask, in 
 the name of reason, should every Church sit in judg- 
 ment upon the membership of every other Church ? In- 
 stitute an inquisition before you administer the Sacra- 
 ment ! 
 
THE lord's supper. 413 
 
 Again : it is affirmed that there is a marked difference 
 between Christian fellowship and Church fellowship. 
 You may have a great deal of Christian fellowship for a 
 man, and not be able to have Church fellowship with 
 him. Suppose a case of this kind : here are two mem- 
 bers of the Church ; one is fully convinced in his ovv^n 
 mind that the other member is an unprincipled, wicked 
 sinner, but he cannot prove it. 
 
 And yet he has distinctly that impression on his mind : 
 he believes it, and has no Christian feilov/ship for him. 
 That man must commune with the other one ; they are 
 both members of the same Church. There is another 
 man, a member of another Church, as pure and spotless 
 a man as there is in the world. But because he does 
 not agree with you in every particular, you will take 
 that foul, wicked wretch that you have no confidence in, 
 and sit down and commune with him, and say to the 
 good man : "I cannot commune with you. I want 
 authority for that ; because, if it is your duty to do it, 
 it is my duty to do it ; it is the duty of every Church to 
 do it." I ask him to illumine my darkness, and if I 
 should swell out of all proportions, and become the big 
 man he thinks I may become, I may remodel my Church, 
 and make it square with his notions upon that subject, 
 and perhaps upon some other subjects. And I think 
 my getting so big is about as probable as my agreeing 
 with him. 
 
 I have a few minutes left, and in that time I may 
 perhaps be enabled to say a few things more, and only 
 a few things. I introduced the controversy upon this 
 point this morning by remarking that, as far as I was 
 individually concerned, and as far as my Church was 
 
414 RELATIVE ORDER OF 
 
 concerned, this was comparatively an unimportant sub- 
 ject to us. I wish to say this much; that if my good 
 friends think it is promotive of their interest as a Church, 
 if the advancement or stability of their Church depends 
 upon pursuing such a course toward all Christendom, 
 and, as Br. Hall says, elevate themselves upon a point, 
 and from that point repel all other Christians from them 
 — I will not complain of them. I have never said a 
 word in my discourses upon baptism, that I recollect of 
 — (1 will not say it positively, because memory is right 
 treacherous, sometimes) — but I do not recollect of say- 
 ing a word complaining of anything that my baptist 
 brethren do upon this subject. I may have made the 
 remark, that if I felt disposed to complain of anything, 
 it would be of that. But that is a matter with them, a 
 matter of taste, a matter of principle with them. And, 
 as far as I am concerned, they have my hearty consent 
 to do it, just as long as they choose to do it. But do not 
 try to compel me to do it. Do not say it is my duty to 
 do it. Do not say I pursue identically the same course 
 with yourselves, when the world knows that I pursue 
 no such course. Do not say that I sit in judgment upon 
 other people, and exclude them from the Lord's table, 
 and cannot invite ministers and members of other 
 Churches to commune with me, because they do not 
 subscribe to my creed. Do not say that. I do not like 
 to be placed in such a category : I protest against it. 
 
 You have the argument, as far as I am concerned, 
 before you. My good brother may insist upon it again 
 — and I have no doubt but that he will, because he finds 
 it written in the Bible that they were baptized, and then 
 they took the Lord's Supper. And because it says in 
 
. THE lord's supper. 415 
 
 the commission, believe and be baptized, and seme time 
 afterward they took the Supper; and because you do 
 not find it anywhere written that they took the Supper 
 before they were baptized, he may say you are bound 
 by this regular succession of words to observe it. Now 
 I want the Scripture rule for it ; and the law for it ; and 
 a ''thus saith the Lord." He says, the controversy is 
 not about the mode of baptism, and that we honestly 
 believe that we are baptized. Yet he does not tell us 
 how he is to exclude us from the Lord's table. I sup- 
 pose he will do that before he is done : unless that is 
 new matter to be brought into a closing argument. 
 
 MR. MASSEY'S CLOSING REPLY. 
 
 Mr. Massey: — Messrs. Moderators, Ladies, and Gen- 
 tlemen : If I have been so fortunate as to impart to the 
 gentlemen some information with regard to the difference 
 between open communion and restricted communion 
 Baptists, he seems resolved to reciprocate the compli- 
 ment. 
 
 I never learned, until to-day, that ecclesia means a 
 house ; I had learned that oikos means liouse^ and that 
 ecclesia means an assembly ; and that the character of 
 that assembly must be determined by the context. Ec- 
 clesia is rendered church in the passage to which I called 
 your attention, in the eleventh chapter of 1 Corinthians. 
 Paul was addressing the assembled disciples of Christ, 
 and giving them instruction with regard to the proper 
 manner of partaking of the Lord's Supper, and he recog- 
 nizes thera, thus assembled, as a church. Mr. CouUing 
 
416 RELATIVE ORDER OF 
 
 explains the passage to mean, merely going into a house : 
 " Just like," he said, " I would say when you come into 
 shiloh, meaning the meeting-house.^^ If his definition 
 of ecclesia be correct, then, when Paul wrote to the 
 churches at Corinth and G alalia., he wrote to the houses 
 at those places, and not to the Christian assemblies — the 
 Churches. But these are not all of the beauties of this 
 wonderful criticism. When Paul says to the Corinth- 
 ians, "Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, 
 with the Church that is in their house ;^^ to the Colos- 
 sians, " Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and 
 Nymphas, and the Church which is in his house ; and 
 when he addresses Philemon and the Church that is 
 in his house, does he mean to speak of and salute 
 houses that are within these houses ? The gentleman 
 must know that he referred to Christian assemblies which 
 were accustomed to hold their meetings, for the worship 
 of Grod, and the transaction of such business as required 
 to be transacted by them as Churches, in the houses of 
 the persons mentioned. 
 
 I am glad that we are able to agree in one thing at 
 least. He says he does not complain of Baptists for en- 
 tertaining their views. I assure him I will not complain 
 of him for not complaining of them. We will agree 
 there at least. 
 
 He appears to be rather surprised that I did not say 
 something about the privileges enjoyed by probationers 
 in the Methodist Church. He wonders that I did not 
 know that probationers enjoyed all the privileges of full 
 members. It is rather surprising that the gentleman 
 should expect me to know the polity of the Methodist 
 Church which they have not recorded in their discipline^ 
 
417 
 
 while he does not seem to know what is recorded in it. 
 I do not undertake to learn the polity of a Church by lis- 
 tening 1o a few of her preachers, but by examining their 
 standard works ; and the gentleman acknowledges that 
 their '*^ Discipline'^ is a standard work. The Lord's Sup- 
 per is a Church ordinance, and in the " Methodist Dis- 
 cipline" I learn that none can be members of the Church 
 without being baptized. If he chooses to say that his 
 Church has no boundary^ no luall^ no restriction^ that 
 those out of the Church have all the privileges of those 
 in it, I am willing for it to have all the credit that such 
 a defence will entitle it to. But I cannot recognize it 
 as a Church of Christ. It may be a society^ but hardly 
 an organization : certainly not a regularly organized 
 Church. No Church of Christ would dare extend such 
 privileges. 
 
 There is not another point in the gentleman's ad- 
 dresses that needs to be referred to. He has advanced 
 no new matter. And I am not permitted to introduce 
 new matter in a closing address. I have, therefore, 
 to address you upon those things already presented, if I 
 address you at all. I am very much disposed to do that 
 thing. And hence, painful and unpleasant as it seems 
 to be to the gentleman, I must again recur to the views 
 of Methodists with regard to communion. He does not 
 like to be placed in company, even, of those who set 
 themselves up as judges of other men's consciences. 
 
 Look at the consistency of the gentleman : a man 
 wants to join his Church ; " Ae may he a very good sort 
 of a fellow.''^ I do not know just what he means by that 
 expression. Does he mean that a good, kind-hearted, 
 clever " sort of a fellow" can join his^Church, though he 
 
4 IS 
 
 RELATIVE ORDER OF 
 
 has not been converted ? That he would receive such 
 " a fellow" but for the objection of some member ? If 
 he claims that this man is a Christian — one who has 
 been made a new creature in Christ Jesus, by spiritual 
 regeneration, and yet refuses to permit him to become a 
 member of his Church, simply upon the ground that he 
 has some little peculiarity, he sets himself up as a judge 
 of the most arbitrary character. He not only sits in 
 judgment upon the man's conscience^ but upon both head 
 and heart. 
 
 The applicant " may be a very good sort of fellow," 
 and a true believer in the Scriptural sense, and yet if he 
 decides that he is '' <z sort of queer genius^ a singular 
 sort of fellow ^"^ one who does not agree with him in all 
 his notions — does not agree to all his rules and articles 
 of religion, the door of his Church is hermetically sealed 
 or barred against him. Yet, wonderful to tell I the gen- 
 tleman is perfectly shocked at the thought of being 
 placed in company even with those who undertake to de- 
 cide upon the qualifications of those whom they invite 
 to partake with them of the most solemn rite of the 
 Christian Church ! If the gentleman claims that the 
 man whom he refuses to receive into his Church is not a 
 Christian^ then by what right does he administer to him 
 a Christian ordinance ? Or carry an ordinance of the 
 Church out of the Church, and give it to a man of the 
 world ? If he be an unregenerate man, by what au- 
 thority do you give him the " children's bread ?" What 
 enjoyment can such a man have in partaking of this 
 commemoration of the death of a risen Saviour ? Will 
 a stranger who gazes upon a portrait, the original of 
 which he never knew, enjoy the pleasing associations 
 
THE lord's supper. 419 
 
 that cluster around it, as the son will ^Yho beholds in it 
 the features of his own devoted father ? The stranger 
 may look upon it as a beautiful picture, and he may ad- 
 mire the artistic skill displayed in it ; but there is noth- 
 ing of personal interest in it to him. The father may 
 have said to the son when presenting him this portrait, 
 just before leaving this world, " This is my portrait. 
 As often as you look upon this, think of me ; of my love 
 to you ; my instructions, and my care." The affection- 
 ate son never beholds this portrait without having all 
 , these instructions revived in his memory. 
 
 This portrait — the Lord's Supper, in which we "show 
 forth the Lord's death till he come," was given by Jesus 
 Christ to his children upon the eve of his departure, and 
 none but his children have a right to it, nor can any 
 others enjoy it. But a man may be a child of G-od, and 
 yet, if Mr. Coulling's views be correct, Methodists 
 would refuse him the privilege of Church membership, 
 because he is a little peculiar in his notions. Is there 
 anything more ludicrous than the ivonderful sensibility 
 of the gentleman at the bare thought of heing suspected 
 of deciding other men's cases after this exposition of his 
 views ? " No judge of other men^s consciences .'" Not 
 he ! But a very nice judge of their heads ! The gen- 
 tleman says that my view of the " Methodist Disci- 
 pline is the strangest sort of a thing he ever heard of since 
 he was born !" Let us see if I have not given the cor- 
 rect view of it. This "Discipline" says, ^' No person 
 shall be admitted to the Lord^s Supper among- us ivho is 
 guilty of any practice for which ive would exclude a 
 member of our Church.''^ Now^ for what will they ex- 
 clude a member of their Church ? This same disci- 
 
420 RELATIVE ORDER OF 
 
 pline declares in the most unequivocal language, that any 
 member of their Church, (the gentleman says it is the 
 same with both ministers and private members ;) any 
 member of their Church who holds and disseminates 
 either publicly or privately, doctrines contrary to their 
 articles of religion, shall be dealt with as they deal with 
 those guilty of gross immorality. How will they deal 
 with those who are guilty of gross immorality ? I sup- 
 pose the gentleman w^ill claim, from self-respect, that 
 they exclude such from their fellowship. Now, bear in 
 mind, that no man shall be invited to commune with 
 them, who is guilty of any practice for which they would 
 exclude a member ; and if you can put two and two 
 together and make four, you can put these together and 
 see that no man who disseminates doctrines different 
 from their '' Articles of Religion" can be admitted to 
 their communion, without a violation of their Disci- 
 pline. He cannot get out of that dilemma. There is a 
 wall surrounding him, which he will find himself unable 
 to overleap. 
 
 Now, in conclasion, I have a few remarks to make 
 with regard to the deductions proper to be made from 
 these arguments. Jt has been clearly established that 
 haptism is a prerequisite to the Lord's Supper. It has 
 not been contended that each Church shall not deter- 
 mine for itself what baptism is. I do not undertake 
 to determine that for Methodists, Presbyterians, or 
 Episcopalians. They must settle that in their own 
 minds, .according to their own conscientious views of the 
 Word of Grod. And, when they have settled, in the 
 first place, that baptism is a prerequisite to the Lord's 
 Supper, and then what constitutes baptism, I will never 
 
421 
 
 complain of them for inviting all whom they recognize 
 as baptized to partake with them. I suppose the 
 brother's great liberality^ and wonderful charity toward 
 *' all the world and the rest of mankind^^'' will at least 
 cause him to extend to me^ as he claims to be so much 
 more charitable than I am, the same privilege that I ex- 
 tend to all others ; and say that Baptists must, accord- 
 ing to this principle, determine what they consider the 
 Word of Grod to teach upon this subject. If they con- 
 sider baptism a prerequisite to the Lord's Supper, you 
 certainly will not complain of them. And when they 
 decide from the Word of God that immersion is the only 
 -apostohc baptism, you cannot complain if they only in- 
 vite all whom they recognize as baptized to partake with 
 them of this ordinance. You surely will not have me 
 believe that my^ Pedobaptist brethren desire me to go 
 against my conscientious convictions^ and invite those 
 whom I do not belitve^ from all the light which the Word 
 of G-od gives me upon the subject, have been baptized, 
 while they claim the right to exercise their consciences, 
 and rejoice that ''no man dares to molest them, or to make 
 them afraid." Whe7'e, then, is there any foundation for 
 charging us with selfishness or bigotry ? Where is the 
 ground upon which our Pedobaptist brethren can com- 
 plain of the viev/s entertained by Baptists upon this sub- 
 ject ? If they are sustained by the Word of God — if 
 Dr. Hibbard and Dr. Griffin are warranted by this au- 
 thority in saying, that " the Baptists are no more liable 
 to the charge of close communion than others who stand 
 upon the same principle — valid baptism — and invite 
 those whom they believe to have received valid baptism," 
 which is all that the Baptists do, where is that of which 
 
422* RELATIVE ORDER OF 
 
 the gentleman " would be disposed to complain," if he 
 were not so forbearing that he ivill not even complain 
 of this ? 
 
 I will not state to you what baptism is. That might 
 be considered new matter. I need not indeed do so, as 
 I declared our views upon this subject in a former dis- 
 cussion, and think I sustained them by the word of G-od. 
 We have shown you luhat baptism is, and who are the 
 proper subjects of baptism — who have the proper quali- 
 fications for receiving that ordinance. We have stated 
 what we believe to be the design of the ordinance of 
 baptism, as instituted by the great head of the Church, 
 and I have now shown you that there is not a shadoiv of 
 proof in the word of Grod — (though being" upon the 
 negative, I was not required to do this) — of authority to 
 invite anybody to partake of the Lord's Supper ivho has 
 not received valid baptism. A great cry has been made 
 about the difTerence between John's baptism and Chris- 
 tian baptism. And the gentleman seems disturbed be- 
 cause I did not occupy a large portion of my time in re- 
 plying to him. I told him in the commencement that 
 whatever views he might take of that question, it did 
 not touch the merits of the question before us in the 
 least degree. I have aimed to present you an un- 
 broken chain of argument, drawn from the word of Grod 
 itself. 
 
 I now submit the whole of these questions to you. 
 Though I differ from many present, and have endeavored, 
 in the most unflinching manner, to advocate the doc- 
 trines that I believe the word of God to teach, I do 
 not, for a moment, allow these differences of opinion to 
 lessen my kind feelings for those who differ from me. 
 
THE lord's supper. 423 
 
 My great and earnest desire is, that we may all under- 
 stand the truth as it is in Christ Jesus. And if I am 
 mistaken, that I may, by all the light that can be shed 
 upon it, be brought to understand it. If I am in error, 
 I will thank any man who will shed light upon my path, 
 and enable me to comprehend more clearly the truth in 
 Jesus Christ. And I say to every man : — if you prize 
 your religious enjoyments upon earth, if you desire the 
 approbation of your Heavenly Father, and to enjoy the 
 glories of the eternal world, strive to make your lives as 
 the word of God would have them. Strive to do the 
 will of God. Say from your heart, " Speak, Lord, thy 
 servant heareth." Let your motto be : 
 
 " Througli ^00^5 and flames if Jesus lead, 
 ril follow -wliere He goes ; 
 Hinder me not, shall be my cry, 
 Though earth and hell oppose." 
 
Boohs Published hy Sheldon <& Co, 
 
 THE LIFE AND LETTERS OP 
 
 MRS. EMILY 0. JUDSON, 
 
 (Fannt Forrester,) 
 
 Third wife of the Rev. Adoniram Judson, D.D., Missionary to Burmab. 
 
 By A. C. Kexdrick, Professor of G-reek in the University of Rochester. 
 
 1 voL 12 mo., with a steel-plate Likeness of iLrs. Judson. 
 
 Price $1 25. 
 
 " The narrative is carefully and beautifully ■written." — Commercial Advertiser, 
 
 " This ' Life and Letters' must take a high rank among the religious biography of oul 
 country." — li'ew Bedford Mercury. 
 
 "Not least among the many chai-ms of this delightful bit of biography will be re- 
 cognized several sunny letters from N. P. Willis, to his literary protege, \vhich present 
 the Rome Journalist in a most pleasing light." — Cor. Boston Post. 
 
 "It is a biography nncommonly rich with all the materials which a gifted and devoted 
 woman could supply from the stores of her well-spent life. The world and the Church 
 should both be grateful for these records of genius, and these triumphs of Christian faith, 
 contained within the pages of this charming book." — Christian Intelligencer. 
 
 " Her correspondence is marked by frankness and an intensity of passion, and its peru- 
 sal gives the reader an insight into her character, which he feels to be as truthful and 
 positive as a personal acquaintance of considerable familiarity could afford. As a biog- 
 raphy, the volume occupies the first rank. It is full of unpretending pathos, and will be 
 widely read, valued, and treasured as a beautiful and thrilling history of one of the most 
 talented, unselfish, noble, heroic, and devoted of women." — (Joiigregationalist. 
 
 " In biography, this is the book of the season — and of many seasons. "We confess to 
 having always felt, in spite of our reluctance, an unpleasant degree of misgiving as to the 
 fitness of ' Fanny Forrester' for the Avork of missions ; but us Dr. Kendrick has por- 
 trayed her character and recorded her life, she carries our sympathy — our admiration — 
 our reverence, by storm. Henceforth we place her among the heroines and martyrs of 
 Christianity. Not because we forgive ' Alderbrook' for the sake of 'Bat Castle' — our 
 old way of thinking was somewhat in that style — but because we see now how the spirit 
 of unselfish consecration to the happiness of others runs through both, and makes them 
 'parts of one harmonious whole.' Her 'Life and Letters' are worthy of an immense 
 sale, and will have it. How 'a digger among Greek roots' could write such a fresh, 
 appreciative, glowing memoir of 'a sensitive child of genius and song,' passes our com- 
 prehension ; and we can not forbear the remark, that Mrs. Judson does not rise more 
 in our esteem as a Christian woman, than Dr. Kendrick as an author." — lieligious Her- 
 ald, Hichmond. 
 
 "The correspondence is particularly attractive. Sweetness, simplicity, affectionata- 
 ness, and humor are its characteristics. The volume will raise even the high estimate 
 which the public has formed of Mrs. Judsou. The nearer it conducts us to the most 
 secret feelings of her heart and most cherished convictions of her mind, the more genial, 
 loveable, and noble she appears." — Boston Transcrij^t. 
 
 "The letters of Dr. Judson throw new light upon his loving, genial nature, and show 
 how thoroughly his last marriage was one of affection, and how happy it proved. For 
 her faithfulness to every duty, her self-sacrificing generosity to her family, her devotion 
 to ner husband, the maternal love which knew no difference between his children and 
 her own, and the ever-growing beauty of her spiritual life, Mrs. Emily C, Judson deserves 
 a large place in the public heart." — Boston Journal. 
 
Books Published hy Sheldon c& Co. 
 
 ADONIKAM JUDSON. 
 
 A Memoir of the Life and Labors of the Rev. Adoniram Judson, D.D., 
 By Francis Wayland, D.D, 
 
 Illustrated with a fine Portrait of Dr. Judson. Two volumes 12 mo. Price $2. 
 Or two volumes in one. Price $1.25. 
 
 " "We are glad to seo this valuable biography of one of the most remarkable men ol 
 tlie age in which he lived, in ono volume, and at a price so low that its circulation must 
 be very extensive. Dr. Judson was a man of undaunted resolution, wonderful natural 
 gifts, high attainments, and earnest and self-denying piety. He was exposed to many 
 dangers, and passed through many perils for the love he bore to his Saviour, and the 
 Bouls of men. When Judson first went out to India, many regretie<l that one of such 
 3no abilities should engage in such a work. But his name will never disappear from the 
 history of the world, and only eternity can reveal the eflfcctsof his labors in the salvation 
 of souls, and in awakening the missionary spirit in the churches."— P/'es&yfe/'. Banner. 
 
 " This biography is so well known that we need only say of the copy now before us, that 
 It is a cheap edition, giving the two volumes in one, and thus placing the book within the 
 reach of all. None interested in missionary enterprise, none able to appreciate the life 
 of a great man doing a great work nobly, ably, and with much self-denial, should fail to 
 read iV— Philadelphia Jotirnal. 
 
 " It is one of the noblest monuments to true worth that the world has ever produced. 
 Though dead, yet in these pi-inted volumes his spirit will live and speak to this and 
 coming generations, in strains of power and eloquence such as his own tongue could 
 never give birth to. It is an occasion of gladness to all the friends of missions, that one 
 so well qualified for the task has embalmed all this on the printed page. A sublimer 
 theme could not be furnished any man since the apostles. Let the Memoir find ita 
 way to every family in the land, and it will not fail to create new sympathies, and enlist 
 fresh zeal in that cause to which Judson gave his all." — Philadelphia C. Chronicle. 
 
 SEKMONS TO THE CHURCHES. 
 
 By Francis Watlaxd, D.D. 1 vol. 12mo. Price 85 cents. 
 CONTEITTS. 
 
 V. — Slavkrt to PrTBLic Opinion. 
 VI. — TiiK Perils of KionES. 
 VII. — Pp.evalext Prayek. 
 VIII. — Resp wsibility for the MosAi 
 Condition of Others. 
 
 1. — The Apostolic Ministry. 
 II. — TuE Church a Society for the Con- 
 version OF the World. 
 III. — Christian Worship. 
 IV. — A Consistent Piety the Dejiand of 
 the Age. 
 
 "It grapples with living evils and errors, and will make a practical impression."— 
 Cincinnati Christian Herald. 
 
 " This is a book truly worth printing, and worth reading. They are discourses on im- 
 portant topics, admirably written by a noble Christian." — American Presbyterian. 
 
 "Dr. Wayland is a clear thinker, and a strong and elegant writer. His Sermons are 
 
 models worthy of study." — Christian Intelligeiicer. 
 
 "They are emphatically sermons for the times. The plowshare of Christian truth and 
 duty is driven with unrelenting hand into the festering evila of our popular Christianity, 
 anl there are some passages which should make the ears of professing Christians tingleu^ 
 —Southern Presbyterian. 
 
JBoofCs Published by Sheldon <jb Co. 
 
 MARY BUNYAlSr, 
 
 THE DREAMER'S BLIND DAUaHTER. 
 
 A Tale of religious persecution. By Mrs. S. Rochester Ford, of Louisville. 
 
 1 vol., 12mo., 488 pages, Illusirated. Price $1 00. 
 
 From the ITeio Torh Examiner. 
 
 " The numerous readers of ' Grace Trnman' have here another work on a topic of deep 
 and thrilling interest, from the author of that highly popular book. Mary Bunyan, the 
 blind daughter of the immortal dreamer, is referred to repeatedly in his autobiography 
 and other works. She was about twelve years of age when Bunyan was imprisoned in 
 Bedford jail, and his anxiety on her behalf was one of his principal causes of distress 
 ^in his long imprisonment. 
 
 " As drawn by Mrs. Ford, her character seems to have been one of great modesty and 
 loveliness, and the story of her love for William Dormer, and of his death for the "cause 
 of civil and religious freedom, has much of the pathetic element in it. Mrs. Ford is evi' 
 dently thoroughly aufait in the incidents of Bunyan's family history, and in the topog> 
 raphy of Bedford and Elstow. We can safely predict for the work aii extensive sale." 
 
 From the New Torh Evangelist. 
 
 " The simple incidents of Bunyan's life, his protracted imprisonment, his heroic endur 
 ance and lofty faith, are of themselves full of the deepest and most thrilling interest. It 
 needed only the picture of his blind daughter Mary, in her gentleness and patience under 
 sore misfortune, to give completeness to the trasric yet noble scenes in which Bunyan 
 figures, so modestly yet gi-andly conspicuous. The author of the volume before us "has 
 carefully gathered up such historical facts — and they are fortunately numerous and well 
 authenticated — as could throw light upon her subject, and has employed them with great 
 sagacity and effect in the construction of her story." 
 
 From the American Baptist., N. Y. 
 
 " The announcement of a new work from the accomplished authore?;s of ' Grace Tru- 
 man,' will send a thrill of delight through thousands of hearts. This book will be read 
 with an enthusiasm rarely equaled. Think of the subject, the persecution of John Bun- 
 yan, his family and the times. Who does not know him ? Who does not want to hear 
 him as he pleads his cause before unjust judges, and members of churches? his wife, as 
 she seeks his release from the gloomy prison cell ? his poor blind daughter, as she tries 
 to help her weeping mother bear the burden of her bereavement ? It is by no means 
 untimely at this day, when so many shrink from suffering for truth and liberty of speech. 
 There will be many a moistened eye over the beautiful pages of touching scenes in the 
 history of one whom all know only to love. Before it was out of the i)ress five thou- 
 sand copies had been ordered, and we doubt not it will have an i.mmense sale. It con- 
 tains a few cuts illustrative of the scenes." 
 
 From the PittHburg Chronicle. 
 
 " This is the last product from the pen of a lady whose writings are rapidly becoming 
 popular. Her last work, 'Grace Truman,' had a sale of over 30,000 copies, and this one 
 is said to be a better and a more interesting book. It is a very pleasing tale of fiction, 
 the scene of which is in ' Merrie England,' and the chief character, the immortal and 
 never-to-be-forgotten John Bunyan, writer of the Pilgrim's Progi-ess." 
 
Books Published by Sheldon d; Co. 
 
 PEINCIPLES AND PKACTICES OF BAPTISTS. 
 
 By Francis Wayland, D.D. 1 vol 12mo. Cloth $1 00. 
 
 From the Christian Chronicle, Philadelphia. 
 
 " Dr. %Yayland reviews our whole Baptist polity, commends whei'e he sees cause for it, 
 and reproves aud suggests the remedy where he seys cause tor this. All our Princij^les 
 and Practices as a church he considers and discusses with great simplicity and earufst- 
 ness. * * » We hope the book will find its way into every family in every Baptist 
 Church in the land, and should he glad to know it was generally circulated in the families 
 of other churches." 
 
 From the North American Review. 
 
 " We do not remember to have met anywhere, in the same space, with so much prac- 
 tical wisdom on sermon-making, on the delivery of sermons, aud on the manner of the 
 pulpit, as is condensed into the last fifty pages of this book." 
 
 From the Xew York Observer. 
 " We regard it as one of the most interesting features in modern Baptist history, that 
 one to whom the whole body defers with so much and so deserved respect, has consecrated 
 the evening of a long and well-spent life, and the maturity of a cultivated and profound 
 intellect, and the treasures of much laboriouG study, to the preparation of these essays, 
 whicii will be received, not by the denomination only, but by the Christian public, as a 
 most valuable contribution to ecclesiastical literature." 
 
 VIRGINIA BAPTIST MINISTERS. 
 
 By James B. Taylor, D.D. 
 
 With an introduction by J. B. Jeter, D.D. 
 
 In two Series. 12mo. Price of each volume $1.26. 
 
 From the Mississippi Baptist. 
 "This is the third edition of a work which has been in our library for several years. 
 It consists of brief sketches of the deceased Baptist Ministers of Virginia. It was first 
 published in one volume. Its author has extended it in the present edition to two 
 volumes of over 400 pages each. It contains many sketches that were not in previous 
 editions, in all 225. The author has done a good work, by thus preserving in a perma- 
 nent form, memorials of these godly men. Virginia is not only the mother of many 
 eminent statesmen, but it may be said without disparaging any other State, that she has 
 been the mother of many ministers too, as eminent fur their piety, as for their usetulness. 
 Of these, the work before us contains short, plain, and truthful records. The book should 
 be read by all Baptists, especially all Baptist Ministers. 
 
 WAT MAEKS to 
 
 APOSTOLIC BAPTISM; 
 
 Or, Historical Testimonies demonstrating the Original Form of thb 
 
 Rite as ordained by our Lord Jesus Christ, and administered 
 
 By his Holy Apostles. 
 
 1 vol. 18mo. Price, 35 cents. 
 
 From EioiiARD Fuller, D.D., of Baltimore. 
 " As a brief compendium of argument which might fill a large treatise it may be em- 
 ployed most effectually. The arrangement seems to be very Judicious, and the author 
 has shown very I'are talents. He is concise, and his arguments have been carefully au- 
 thenticated." 
 
 From D. R. Campbell, D.D., President of Georgetoion (Ktj.) College. 
 " I deem it a perfect Thesaurus of testimony on the subject of which it treats. It will 
 be invaluable in the hands of the people and the great body of our ministers." 
 
 From J. B. Jeter, D.D., of Richmond, Va. 
 "It is worthy of general circulation, and especially of a place in the library of every 
 Baptist minister who has not access to the numerous and rare works from which its con* 
 tentfl are selected.*' 
 
Books Published hy Sheldon c6 Co. 
 
 FIFTY YEAES AMONG THE BAPTISTS. 
 
 By Datid Benedict, D.D., author of " Benedict's History of the Baptists." 
 1 vol. 12 mo. Price $1. 
 
 From the, Watch7nan and Reflector . 
 " About a year ago the venerable and excellent author of the present volume was privi 
 leged with a'goodly number of friends to celebrate ' his golden weilding,' — an occasion 
 ■\vliich declares the existence of the marriage tie unbroken by death for half a century, 
 it will be seen, therefore, that when he essays to write of ' Fifty Years among the Bap- 
 tists,' he is but going over the term of his married life. The book is divided into five 
 decades, forming for it a natural and fitting division. Under each of these is given, in an 
 easy, familiar style, a fund of observation, of experience and information relating to the 
 Baptist denomination, its leading men, its enterprises, and out-gro,vth during these pe- 
 riods. Few men, as compared with Dr. Benedict, have enjoyed the facilities of collect- 
 ing, observing, memorizing so much that is worthy of preservation and record. The 
 book should find its ready way into every Baptist library." 
 
 From the Christian Chronicle, Philadelphia. 
 "Dr. Benedict, in his fifty years' travel with the Baptists has a wonderful history to 
 unfold. His brethren will rejoice as they read these page-s that he has been spared long 
 enough to tell this eventful, interesting, and instructive story." 
 
 From the I^ew York Examiner. 
 " These reminiscences abound in illustrations of the condition of our churches and 
 ministers as they were long ago, and also indicate the origin and prosress of most of our 
 institutions of benevolence and learning. The volume contains much j)leasant reading, 
 and will prove a useful addition to our materials for Baptist history." 
 
 BENEDICT'S HISTOKY OF THE BAPTISTS. 
 
 A General History of the Baptist Denomination in America, and other Parts 
 
 of the World. By David Benedict. 
 Containing 9t0 large octavo pages in one volume, bound in library sheep. 
 
 With STEEL PORTRAITS OF EOGBR "WILLIAMS AND THE AUTHOR. PriCB $3. 
 
 This complete and valuable History of the Baptist Denomination is well deserving tlia 
 large sale it has among the members of our church. 
 
 COMPENDIUM OF THE FAITH OF THE 
 BAPTISTS. 
 
 * Paper. Price, j)er dozen, 50 cents. 
 
 Every church should get a supply for its members. 
 
 THE YOUNG MEN OF AMEKICA, 
 
 A Prize Essay, By Sa^iuel Batchelder, Jr. 1 vol. 12mo. Price 40 cents. 
 From tlie Boston Gazette. 
 " His essay is well written and practical; free from visionarj- ideas or sentimentality, 
 but with an earnest purpose in view. Its tone is healthy, its style clear and chaste, and 
 ^it can be read both with pleasure and profit." 
 
 From the Presbi/terian. 
 " It is worthy of the distinction it has attained, and deserves the consideration of young 
 
Books Published hj Sheldon d' Co. 
 SEKMONS. 
 
 By Richard Fuller, D.D., of Baltimore. 
 
 1 voL 12mo, muslin. Price $1. 
 
 From the New York Examiner. 
 " The Sermons, thougli almost exclusively on practical topics, and seldom invading the 
 realms <3f metaphysics, will compare favorably \rith any volume of sermons in cm 
 knowledge. In thorough mastery of the topics which they treat, in brilliancy of meta- 
 phor, in fertility and appropriateness of illustration, in entire freedom from bombast or 
 stilted phrase, and what is of far greater importance than all else, in the clearness and 
 fullness with which they illustrate the character, the mission, the purposes, and the attri- 
 butes of the Divine Redeemer, we regard them as a most valuable contribution to our 
 pulpit literature." 
 
 From the Lutheran Observer, Baltimore. 
 
 " There is nothing of a controversial or denominational caste in them, and they will be 
 read with interest and profit by all Christians. It is an encouraging sign of the times 
 that the demand for books like this is so general and growing, and these plain, earnest 
 and searching discourses will be read by thousands. The book will be a valuable acquisi- 
 tion to any man's library." 
 
 From the South Western Baptist. 
 
 " Dr. Fuller has a reputation as a pulpit orator unsurpassed. Until the appearance of 
 this volume, but few of liis sermons have ever been committed to the press. The enun- 
 ciation of a volume of sermons from such a source will be quite gratifying to the reading 
 public." 
 
 From the New York Chronicle. 
 
 " It is, indeed, rarely that so noble a volume appears on our table. Let those who 
 would be built up to manly strength and Christian stature, feed upon such books as this ; 
 whose earnestness, vigor, and density of style, combine with devout piety and doctrinal 
 purity to rank it near to Robert Hall. Amid the mass of fluctuating and enervating lit- 
 erature, much of which, for a certain pious intent which prevails in it, we must doubt- 
 fully commend, such a strong and healthy book as this stands like a tall and steadfast 
 rock, whose summit men may see from afar, and to which they may presently anchor." 
 
 LIFE OF SPENCER H. COKE, D.D. 
 
 "With a fine Steel Plate Engraving. 
 1 vol. l2mo. Price, $1 25. 
 
 *' "Whose heart is not heavy with the swelling emotions of sorrow, as he seeks in vain 
 in Ms wonted place for that beloved form, whose very presence in our meetings was a 
 strength and a joy; and the thought rises that he shall 'see his face no more' — no more 
 hear that familiar voice which ever rung like a clarion-peal in defense and advocacy of 
 the highest and holiest truth, and in cheer and encouragement to its faithful friends, and 
 whose very name was a guaranty of success to every enterprise and principle to which he 
 gave his heart and coul ? May God have mercy on the man who can cherish anght but 
 honor, love, and gratitude for the character and services of S-^encer H. Cone." — Bible 
 Union Quarterly. 
 
 " As this work has been prepared under the immediate inspection of the family of Dr. 
 Cone, there is every reason to beliere that it will be a complete, accurate, and in every 
 way reliable memoir of our lamented brother, and we fc«lieve all of our readers ttUI wiri 
 to posaess H."— ¥ew York Ohrordde. 
 
Books Published by Sheldon c& Co, 
 
 THOENTON^S FAMILY PKAYERS ; 
 
 PEAYEES ON THE TEN COMMANDMENTS, Etc. 
 To WHICH IS ADDED A FAMILY COMMENTARY OX THE SeRMON" ON THE MOUNT, 
 
 By the late Henry Thornton, M.P. Edited by Bishop Eastburn. 
 1 voL 12mo. Plain, 15 cents. Fine edition, red edges, $1. 
 
 From the Episcopal Recorder, PhiladelpMa 
 
 "This collection of family prayers is placed in England as the most faithful and reliable 
 that can be used, and we cheerfully anite in this opinion. The present edition is neat and 
 complete." 
 
 From the Christian Witness, Boston. 
 
 "This is a new and neat edition of one of the best volumes of family prayers which has 
 been published. It has been long and favorably known in this country. Probably no 
 published volume of family prayers has ever been the vehicle of so much heartfelt devo- 
 tion as these. They are Tvhat prayers should be — fervent, and yet perfectly simple." 
 
 From the Echo, Toronto. 
 "The prayers .ire expressive of deep piety tempered with a sound judgment, the lan- 
 guage being forcible and concise, keeping always within the limits of sober humility, and 
 never intiated, or running into exaggeration. They appear to express what most Christiana 
 would desire to say when kneeling before the throne of grace, and what most would 
 deem appropriate to their daily wants and circumstances both of body and soul." 
 
 THE PEICE OF SOUL LIBERTY, 
 
 AND WHO PAID IT. 
 
 By Henry C. Pish, D.D. 
 
 1 Tol. 18mo. Price, 40 cents. 
 
 From, the Kew York Chronicle. 
 " This little book contains a condensed record of the various cases in which the Baptists 
 have in various ages suffered for their radical idea of religion, as a ' matter of intelligent 
 con^;iction and voluntary choice.' As % denomination, they have from the apostolic age 
 repelled the idea of a religion imposed from without, by the act of parents, by hereditary 
 succession, priestly manipulation, or any thing apart from the personal individual self of 
 the actor or worshiper, in repenting, believing, and consecrating his life and services to 
 Christ, by a voluntary submission to baptism. This view of Christianity has in all ages 
 been the great antagonism to Church and State establishments, restraint upon personal 
 freedom in matters of worship or of belief, and to the union of those born after the flesh 
 and tliose born of the Spirit in outward Church organizations, as the great source of 
 corruption and apostacy to the so-called Christian woVld. And as the opponents of this 
 Baptist view of soul-liberty have always been, and are to this day in the majority, our 
 denomination has in every age suffered persecution, and are still the objects of general 
 dislike and distrust. Though the book is a compilation, it is none the less valuable, and 
 we coramen^ it to the universal and impartial attention of the public." 
 
 THE WOBDS OF JESUS AND THE FAITHFUL 
 PROMISEE. 
 
 By the Author of " Morning and Mght "Watches." 
 1 vol. ISmo. Price, S8 centa. 
 
BooJcs Published hy Sheldon c& Co. 
 
 GKACE TKUMAN; 
 
 OR, LOVE AND PRIXCIPLE. 
 
 By Sallie RocnESTER Ford. With Steel Portrait of the Authoress. 
 
 1 vol., 12mo. Price $1. 
 
 " "We have read the book with uncommon interest. The tale is well told, and its de- 
 velopment is natural. It is intended to illustrate the trials and triumphs of a young wife 
 in maintaining her principles against the intolerance of the open communion friends of 
 her husband ; and this is done so as to preserve unfailing freshness in the narrative, and 
 to throw a flood of light on the principles and practices of the Baptist denomination. ' We 
 expect to hear that the book will have multitudes of readers." — Xmo York Examiner. 
 
 " This is truly a delightful book. Mrs. Ford has thrown around a young bride— the 
 Christian heroine of this fascinating romance — such severe, and yet such life-like trials 
 that we at once become deeply interested in her behalf, and watch, with great solicitude' 
 the result of the struggle between Love and Principle, as we follow her through some of 
 the most trying scenes." — Xew York Chronicle. 
 
 " This work, we predict, will create a sensation in this country srch as has attended 
 the issue of few books for a long time, and its popularity must exceed that of any other 
 work of a similar kind that has recently appeared. What is more important still, it is a 
 book which can not fail to do good wherever it is circulated." — Western Watchman. 
 
 " ' Grace Truman' is another religious novel, founded on facts, as any one may see who 
 is familiar with denominational prejudice. It is written to show how many difficulties 
 one may meet, and how much actual persecution they may endure, in the attempt to fol- 
 low out what they conscientiously may believe to be right., when their friends, relatives, 
 and social connections believe a different way. Mrs. Ford has skillfully drawn a picture 
 of what she has seen and known. The work is true to real life, and therefore it wiU be 
 read." — Mothers" Journal. 
 
 " We have been borne through the perusal of this book with unflagging interest. Like 
 ' Theodosia Ernest,' it is designed for the illustration and defense of our denominational 
 principles ; and without detracting in the slightest from the enviable reputation of that 
 work, we do not hesitate to pronounce this more ornate in style, more artistic in plot, 
 more thrilling in incident. It can not fail of a wide popularity and an extensive circula- 
 tion." — Relifiious Herald. 
 
 " We must not overlook, as occupying no minor position among the dramatis 2^'>^sonce 
 of the story. Aunt Pefjgij, an old, pious, shrewd domestic, and a Baptist all over, inside 
 and outside, with strong faith in the promises and providence of God. She talks, looks, 
 and acts like a pious slave of an elevated Chinstian character, and is allowed great liberties 
 with Chi-istian people. Talk about the negro caricatures in 'Uncle Tom's Cabin!' ^ The 
 authoress of ' Grace Truman' was born and brought up with this race, and enjoying a 
 chastened as well as a hixuriant imagination, has drawn truthful and life-like characters 
 in all her portraits. This book should be extensively eirculated. Pastors should see to 
 it that it goes into every Baptist family." — Rev. John M. Peck., D.D. 
 
 SONGS AND BALLADS FOE THE HOME 
 AND HOUSEHOLD. 
 
 By Sidney Dyer. 
 1 volume. With Steel Portrait. Price 75 cents. 
 
 "A book of mark in the field of poesy." — Correspondent of Watchman an(P Reflector. 
 
 " Mr. Dyer is evidently a poet — not a poet on stilts — nor a poet without common senso 
 brains, nor does he fly away from every-day life on the wings of imagination— but sings 
 of things familiar — things of the household, such as come to the heart and affections of us 
 aU. Mr. Dyer has added to the stock of our Uterary vrea.lth.'" -^Chicago Democrat. 
 
 " Excellent of its kind. They grow out of the experience of life, and teach us to do 
 bravely in the battle of life." — Chicago Tribune. 
 
 " We have read with the keenest enjoyment many of the pieces in the volume, some of 
 them with a tear standing in our eye." — Western Christian Advocate. 
 
 "• These sweet lyrics of Dyer ought to be in every family. They are so pure and musical 
 •—so full of home affections and memories — that they renew within us the feelings and 
 joys of childhood. Taking up this volume after the toils of the day, late in the evening, 
 we went on reading and reading, unconscious of the passing hours, until, roused from a 
 sweet reverie, we found it was past the hour of midnight We most heartily thank the 
 pablishers for sending us this volume of songs and ballads." — Lutheran Home Jownal. 
 
>