^-^ 
 
 e6pyl 
 
 
 ■•,>^ f 
 
 ;i--/ 
 
 
# 
 
 CL 
 
 
 .^ 
 
 
 (0 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 *^ 
 
 
 JO 
 
 - 
 
 
 .il^^ 
 
 
 ]£ 
 
 
 
 ss 
 
 •^ 
 
 Dl 
 
 
 
 ^t^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 *S5 
 
 ;^ 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 (U 
 
 
 
 {^ 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 t^ 
 
 o 
 
 bfl 
 
 cC 
 
 »2S 
 
 &H 
 
 < 
 
 :| 
 
 l^ 
 
 
 3 
 
 Sif 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 E 
 
 .«o 
 
 •o 
 
 M 
 
 a 
 
 "•^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 PCI 
 
 CO 
 
 1^ 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 s 
 
 ^ 
 
 1 
 
 « 
 
 
 •♦-• 
 
 c 
 
 s 
 
 ^ 
 
 t 
 
 c/) 
 
 1 
 
 ^ 
 
 CL 
 
 3= 
 
 
REPLY 
 
 &h d Infant §apfem, 
 
 BY ROBERT BOYTE C. HOWELL, D.D., PASTOR OF TKE 
 SECOND BAPTIST CHURCH, RICHMOND, VA. 
 
 Key. L/KOSSEE, A.M. 
 
 OP THE VIRGINIA ANNUAL CONFERENCE. 
 
 " We must abhor the arrogancy of them that frame new engines 
 to rack and tear the church of Christ, under the pretence of obviating 
 errors and maintaining the truth. We must avoid the common con- 
 fusion of speaking of those who make no difference between verbal 
 and real errors, and hate the spirit of those who tear their brethren 
 as heretics before they understand them." — Baxtee. 
 
 RICHMOND, VA.: 
 
 PUBLISHED BY THE AUTHOR. 
 
 1855. 
 
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1856, by 
 L. ROSSER, 
 in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States for 
 the Eas^tern District of Virginia. 
 
 8TEEE0TYPED BY L. JOHNSON & CO. 
 PHILADELPHIA. 
 

 PREFACE 
 
 After the work on Christian Baptism was pre- 
 pared for the press, the treatise of Dr. Howell on 
 the "Evils of Infant Baptism/' whose very title 
 strikes every pious and candid mind with astonish- 
 ment, fell into the author's hand, and at first he 
 resolved to take no special notice of it, as he be- 
 lieved he had written all that was material or 
 required to support the scriptural and rational doc- 
 trine of Infant Baptism, and that, therefore, the 
 refutation of the above treatise was already antici- 
 pated ; but upon mature reflection, and some obser- 
 vation, and from the apprehension that the Doc- 
 tor's book, if unanswered, might produce real evil 
 in various quarters, he resolved to give it a fair 
 and impartial analysis, in the form of a Reply. 
 
 We are most sincere in the opinion, that the 
 1* 5 
 
6 PREFACE. 
 
 treatise before us contains some of the most erro- 
 neous views of Infant Baptism, some of the most 
 illogical arguments in support of those views, some 
 of the most glaring inconsistencies and contradic- 
 tions in argument, some of the most dogmatic and 
 arrogant assumptions of truth, some of the most 
 palpable evidences of ignorance of ecclesiastical 
 history, some of the most painful perversions of 
 the views of Paedo-baptist authors, some of the most 
 uncharitable reflections on the piety and learning 
 of the Pgedo-baptist churches, some of the most 
 insidious assaults upon the common cause of 
 Christianity and the unity of the church, and (if 
 its principles be legitimately applied) some of the 
 most powerful arguments against the salvation of 
 infants, we remember to have seen from the pen 
 of any writer, Christian or infidel. The Doctor 
 seems to have collected and concentrated in one 
 " bold ^' and headlong enterprise against Infant 
 Baptism, all that enthusiasm, exclusiveness and 
 infatuation could furnish him, and, in the expres- 
 sion of his opposition to Infant Baptism, to have 
 used the strongest terms his knowledge of the 
 
PREFACE, 
 
 ' English language could suggest ; unconscious or 
 careless, in the use of such terms, of the suspicions 
 which he casts upon the sincerity and piety of those 
 he is pleased to call ^^ friends" and " brethren. '* 
 I The manner in which he questions the sincerity 
 and piety of his "friends'' and "brethren" fur- 
 nishes them with ample ground on which to ques- 
 tion his own — the doubts he expresses of their 
 having found the " way of salvation" might justify 
 them in doubting whether he has found it — 
 though he has written something about it — the 
 earnest solicitude which he proclaims in their 
 behalf they can but ascribe to a morbid piety, or 
 the effusion of sectarian zeal — and the rules by 
 which he attempts to disprove the soundness of 
 their opinions, are the very criteria by which 
 they demonstrate the falseness and sophistry of 
 his own. 
 
 In many works written by the Baptists against 
 Infant Baptism, an approximation of error has 
 often been made so near to the truth, that strong 
 plausibility at first sight captivated the mind of 
 the incautious reader, and so was confounded with 
 
8 PREFACE, 
 
 sonnd argnment — just as opposite colors in a 
 painting, fading slowly and gradually from the 
 highest intensity in either extreme, shade insensi- 
 bly into each other, till it is impossible for the 
 unskilful eye to designate the nice point or line 
 where they meet and mingle. But a conspicuous 
 and general characteristic of the treatise before us 
 is, that the author introduces his arguments with 
 a statement of general principles or truths, univer- 
 sally admitted by evangelical churches, and then 
 boldly strikes out his course from those truths, to 
 which he never returns, and continues his progress 
 step by step endlessly in the same line of diver- 
 gence, just as a tangent, struck off from the curve, 
 of which it is no part, to which it can never 
 return, and from which it departs interminably. 
 
 To be more particular. He confounds (some- 
 times with a skilful hand, but always in desperate 
 confusion) the corruptions of heretical, with the 
 orthodoxy of evangelical, churches — arguing illo- 
 gically from the abuses of Infant Baptism in the 
 former, to the evils of it in the latter — consider- 
 ing it only as it has been involved in fanciful 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 appendages and absurd ceremonies, and made the 
 occasion of numberless abuses since the days of 
 the apostles — and omitting altogether to notice 
 it in its original apostolic purity and simplicity, 
 which is the only proper light in which to view 
 it. This sophistical and unfair mode of treating 
 the subject runs through his book from beginning 
 to end, which the reader, with a little reflection, 
 may detect in the very first pages, and so expect 
 to find repeated on almost every succeeding page. 
 Dr. Howell, as a Christian minister, may do 
 good, but his book, in our judgment, can produce 
 nothing but evil in his own church, and in other 
 evangelical churches. With him as a Christian 
 minister we have nothing to do — except in cer- 
 tain inconsistencies which are so palpable that, 
 for the sake of reason, they should be noticed, 
 and in certain instances, his motives are so obvious 
 that, in justice to our common Christianity, they 
 should be exposed. But his book, published for 
 the guidance and instruction of "the million," 
 ?nd widely circulated by the indefatigable Bap- 
 tists, we shall arraign before that jurisdiction 
 
10 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 where a candid public alone must judge and 
 decide. 
 
 It bad been well for the general Church of 
 Grod, and vastly promotive of the great interests 
 of Christianity, in this exciting and sectarian age, 
 in which so much of the strength of the evangeli- 
 cal churches is wasted in family broils and contro- 
 versies, had the Doctor imitated the example of 
 Robert Hall, a liberal and learned Baptist of 
 England, and expended his energy in noble efforts 
 to instruct his brethren in the true terms of Chris- 
 tian communion. But alas, the elegance and force 
 with which Eobert Hall attempted to effect this 
 noble object, instead of producing in him the 
 exercise of indulgent love towards his Protestant 
 brethren, seems to have excited a painful appre- 
 hension for the permanence of the Baptists as a 
 separate Christian sect, and probably roused him 
 to write, on the one hand, his " Terms of Sacra- 
 mental Communion" against Eobert Hall, and on 
 the other, his " Evils of Infant Baptism'^ against 
 the Paedo-Baptists. In the former case, his design 
 obviously is, to establish the dogma of ^' close 
 
PREFACE. 11 
 
 commumon ;" in the latter, the dogma of " exclu- 
 sive immersion ," in both, to vindicate the Baptist 
 church as the only true church on earth — not 
 perceiving, doubtless, that the want of charity, in 
 each instance, is ominous of failure in both adven- 
 tures. With the first leisure we shall write an 
 extensive treatise on Open Communion, which we 
 have been requested to do by an intelligent friend, 
 and which the times require. On the subject of 
 Christian Baptism, we have already written, and 
 leave that subject to ablel* hands. It remains for 
 us to repel the charges, and correct the misrepre- 
 sentations, in the "Evils of Infant Baptism,'^ to 
 which we now invite the consideration of the 
 reader. 
 
 L. K. 
 
 NOEFOLK City, Va., December 28, 1854. 
 
^7.\ ^^ ^'j, A 
 
 We shall not proceed with a formal statement 
 chapter by chapter, but merely state and consider 
 the arguments in the order in which the Doctor 
 has arranged them successively in his treatise. 
 
 The title or proposition of the whole treatise^ 
 /^ The Evils of Infant Baptism/^ under which the 
 Doctor arranges twenty-one evils, is false in prin- 
 ciple. He makes no distinction between that 
 which is in itself good and that which is in itself 
 evil, but confounds the one with the other, and 
 this is the ground of all the false conclusions con- 
 tained in his book. That which is good in itself 
 may be abused, and the abuse only is an evil, 
 while the subject of abuse continues good in itself 
 as though it had not been abused in a single in- 
 stance, and had been a blessing only and always 
 to mankind. Life is a good in itself, and yet it is 
 abused lamentably and fatally in a thousand ways. 
 Liberty is a good in itself, and yet it is abused ; 
 2 (13) 
 
14 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 influence is a good in itself, and yet it is often 
 abused ; knowledge is a good in itself, and yet it 
 is oftener abused than improved; the grace of 
 'God is a great good in itself, and yet many receive 
 it in vain ; the Bible is a great good in itself, and 
 yet many neglect it, and others " wrest it to their 
 own destruction/' Christianity is a gTcat good, 
 :and yet many pervert it to sectarian, political and 
 worldly purposes ; the sacraments of Christianity, 
 the Lord's Supper and Baptism, are great bless- 
 ings when properly observed, and yet many dese- 
 crate them to the objects of selfishness and hypo- 
 crisy ', in a word, every thing in the world, good 
 itself, in one form or other, has been abused by 
 man. And so upon the mode of reasoning applied 
 T)y Dr. Howell, we must conclude, that life, liberty,, 
 knowledge, influence, the grace of God, the Bible, 
 Christianity, the sacraments, and all other things 
 in the world, good in themselves, are evils, because 
 ihey have been abused, or are liable to abuse. 
 Indeed, God himself is the supreme, necessarily 
 ■existing, and infinite good, and the source of all 
 good in the universe and in eternity, and yet 
 miserable angels and miserable men exist; so that 
 if we adopt the Doctor's reasoning here, we ^' de- 
 monstrate" that the infinite God is an infinite 
 •€vil; a conclusion sufficiently absurd to demon- 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 15 
 
 strate the supreme folly of his reasoning. It 
 would be proper for the Doctor to prove that in- 
 fant baptism is an evil in itself, and not an evil 
 because of the abuses of which it has been made 
 the occasion by corrupt men : by the latter process 
 he can never prove it to be an evil in itself^ the 
 former he has not done. With this remark we 
 introduce the subject of his book. 
 
 I. "Infant baptism is an evil. I hold myself 
 bound to offer in this, and subsequent chapters, 
 such proofs of its truth as shall be irrefutable. At 
 present I shall show that infant baptism is an evil 
 because it is unsupported by the Word of Grod" 
 (p. 1). This is his first argument, and if he has 
 established this, his work is done, and well done, 
 he need proceed no farther. But this he has not 
 done, as we shall now see. As an "important 
 preliminary to the argument," he adverts to "the 
 great Protestant principle : The Word of God is a 
 perfect rule of faith and practice" (p. 2). This 
 great principle we most cordially adopt. If infant 
 baptism cannot bear the test of this principle, then 
 we shall be compelled to renounce the doctrine. 
 Here is the Doctor's method : "If infant baptism 
 is instituted by God, it must be plainly taught in 
 his Word. The passages therefore which contain 
 the instructions can be produced. But no such 
 
16 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 passages have ever yet been found. They never 
 can be found. They do not exist'' (p. 6). He 
 then concludes : ^' Then it is certain beyond ques- 
 tion, that infant baptism, since it is not enjoined, 
 nor taught, nor authorized in any way, is unsup- 
 ported by the Word of Grod" (p. 7). But it has 
 been proved, again and again, by Pssdo-Baptists, 
 that it is positively enjoined, and authorized, in 
 many ways, in the Word of God ; and if it had 
 not been so proved, a positive denial would be 
 equivalent to the Doctor's ajfirmation. And as 
 the Doctor says, "here, since this conclusion is 
 irrefutable, we might safely close the argument'^ 
 (p. 7), we reply, as our denial of the truth of the 
 conclusion is a sufficient answer, we might here 
 fairly close the review. But mere affirmations or 
 denials are not arguments, and they always leave 
 the question in discussion unsettled. 
 
 In the second argument, he calls attention to 
 "another fact," which he regards as " equally sig- 
 nificant with the preceding, namely : " that no 
 two of the prevailing Paedo-Baptist sects can agree 
 as to their reasons for infant baptism, the class of 
 infants to whom baptism is to be given, or the 
 testimony upon which rests their authority for ad- 
 ministering the ordinance to infants'^ (p. 7). And 
 what of that ? some of them may be right, and 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 17 
 
 others may be wrong, and he has not proved that 
 all are wrong. Others may be right as far as they 
 go, and yet may not go far enough ', and he has 
 not proved that these are wrong as far as they go. 
 Others may have contributed something in support 
 of infant baptism, and he has not proved that what 
 these have contributed is exceptionable, either in 
 a rational or scriptural sense. Apply his rule of 
 logic, and lie overturns his own Church, for it is 
 divided into a multitude of conflicting sects : apply 
 his rule, and the dogma of *^ close communion" is 
 proved to be "unsupported by the Word of Grod," 
 for he and his followers differ from the accom- 
 plished Robert Hall and his followers, in "the 
 terms of communion," as may be plainly seen in 
 his own treatise which he has written on this sub- 
 ject. But this is not all. The Doctor, as is usual 
 with men of his school, shamefully misrepresents 
 the Psedo-Baptist authors whom he arrays against 
 each other in support of his argument. "For 
 illustration," says he, "Wall and others of that 
 school, claim that Jewish proselyte baptism is the 
 broad and ample foundation upon which it [infant 
 baptism] rests" (p. 7). They claim no such thing. 
 Wall says, " Now this [proselyte baptism] gives 
 great light for the better understanding of the 
 meaning of our Saviour, when he bids his apostles 
 2* 
 
18 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 *Go and disciple all nations, and baptize them'^' 
 (Hist. Inf. Bap., vol. 1, p. 21). Again : " The 
 baptism, indeed, of the nations by the apostles 
 ought to be regulated by the practice of John and 
 of Christ himself (who by the hands of his disci- 
 ples baptized many Jews), rather than by any 
 preceding custom of the Jewish nation, if we had 
 any good ground to believe that they did in the 
 case of infants differ or alter anything from the 
 usual way" (Ibid. p. 27). Wall, then, presents the 
 great commission, and the practice of the apostles, 
 as the true ground of infant baptism. Indeed, 
 he positively affirms that the New Testament fur- 
 nishes authority for infant baptism. In his reply 
 to Gale, he says : " Of his untruths, I would be- 
 forehand instance in one flagrant and manifest 
 one (which, as I shall show, he has affirmed above 
 twenty times over), his saying, I have in my book 
 yielded and owned, that there is no Scripture 
 proof for infant baptism ; though near half his 
 book is spent in refuting (as well as he can) those 
 proofs which I brought from Scripture" (Ibid., 
 vol. 4, p. 66). And he observes : " I did bring 
 many proofs from God's Word, which stand as so 
 many evidences of the falsehood of this foul charge 
 against me. I will refer to the places.'' And he 
 mentions Matt. 28 : 19 ; John 3 : 3, 5 ; Col. 2 : 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 19 
 
 11, 12 ; Mark 10 : 13, &c. ; 1 Cor. 7 : 14. And 
 he continues : '^I had also, long before Mr. Gale 
 wrote, published a little treatise on the question 
 of infant baptism, wherein I insist chiefly and 
 almost only on Scripture proof" (Ibid., vol. 4, pp. 
 177, 178, 179. It is questionable whether Doctor 
 Howell has ever read Wall's great work, "The 
 History of Infant Baptism," and if he has, it is 
 unquestionable, that he did not do it with candor. 
 In like manner, he misrepresents "Wesley and 
 his disciples." " Wesley and his disciples insist 
 that children are unholy, and must be baptized to 
 cleanse them from their defilements" (p. 7). And 
 do not Doctor Howell and his brethren believe 
 that children are unholy ? So far they agree with 
 "Wesley and his disciples." But Mr. Wesley and 
 his disciples insist that baptism, in the case of 
 children, is typical of cleansing from their defile- 
 ments, and positively deny that baptism is regene- 
 ration, either in the case of infants or adults; and 
 so far the Baptists agree with them. Now, if 
 these opinions of Mr, " Y/esley and his disciples" 
 are not "supported by the Word of Grod/' then 
 the opinions of the Baptists, including Doctor 
 Howell himself, are not supported by the Word 
 of God. But this is not all. Mr. Wesley has 
 written an able treatise on baptism, in which he 
 
20 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 mentions many passages of Scripture in support of 
 infant baptism. Nor is this all, even granting — 
 which we do not — that Mr. Wesley did believe 
 in infant baptismal regeneration, ^' his disciples/' 
 as the Doctor is pleased to call the Methodists, do 
 not, in England or America, believe in that bap- 
 tismal dogma, as the Doctor himself must know, 
 and so he is reprehensible for the groundless 
 charge above; or being ignorant of their true 
 opinions of infant baptism, he is guilty of that de- 
 gree of presumprion which ignorance and dogma- 
 tism alone can originate and foster. And so he 
 misrepresents other evaugelical divines. For in- 
 stance, says he, " Burder, Dwight, and their class, 
 permit no other infants to be baptized, but those 
 of Christian parents" (p. 7). Granted; but then 
 they permitted these to be baptized because they 
 believed infant baptism to be scriptural, as their 
 works abundantly show. He continues : '^ Baxter, 
 Henry, and those of similar faith, baptize infants 
 to bring them into the Covenant and Church of 
 the Redeemer" (p. 7). G-ranted — but then in a 
 sacramental sense; and so the Doctor baptizes 
 adult believers ; and both have scriptural ground 
 for this, to say nothing of mode. Besides, the 
 Doctor, on the 27th page of his book, presents Mr. 
 Henry as saying, that Acts 2 : 39, " the promise 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 21 
 
 is unto you and your children/^ is "the chief 
 Scripture ground for infant baptism.'^ What in- 
 fatuation, then, is it to attempt to prove that in- 
 fant baptism is "unsupported by the Word of 
 Grod/^ by adducing Pasdo-Baptists who argue in 
 support of infant baptism from the Word of God ! 
 The issue is between the Doctor and his Pasdo- 
 Baptist authors, and hence before he can prove 
 that infant baptism is an evil, he must refute the 
 arguments of his opponents. But he continues : 
 '• Many, however, ingenuously confess that they 
 find no express authority for it, but believe the 
 practice in consonance with Hhe general spirit 
 of religion,' and therefore adopt it. Thus contra- 
 dictory and suicidal are the reasonings of Psedo- 
 Baptists on this subject" (p. 8). Very well, then, 
 some believe the practice to be in consonance with 
 the Bible, and so it is not in opposition to the 
 Bible. But others affirm that there is express 
 authority for the practice in the Bible ; and the 
 others inferentially from the Bible ; and so both 
 support it from the Bible. The " reasonings of 
 Paedo-Baptists," therefore, are not "contradictory 
 and suicidal on the subject" of infant baptism, 
 any more than positive and circumstantial testi- 
 mony can be " contradictory and suicidal" on any 
 subject. 
 
22 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 But the Doctor has another argument, " if pos- 
 sible, still more conclusive," namely, ^^ very many 
 of the most learned and pious biblical critics, them- 
 selves Paedo-Baptists, candidly confess that the 
 practice of infant baptism is not directly enjoined 
 in the Word of Grod" (p. 9). And he adduces 
 Luther, Calvin, Burnett, Hahn, Schleirmacher, 
 Lange, Woods, Stuart, '^all distinguished di- 
 vines," as having made the admission. Granted, 
 and what then? Why these very authors, in a 
 most elaborate and convincing manner, present 
 arguments of an inferential and circumstantial 
 nature, equivalent, indeed, to a positive scriptural 
 injunction; and the Doctor, himself, will not 
 deny, that often an inferential and circumstantial 
 argument is equivalent to 'a positive demonstra- 
 tion. And when the circumstantial arguments 
 are added to the positive scriptural injunctions, 
 adduced by other Paedo-Baptist authors, the prac- 
 tice of infant baptism is supported and established 
 by the mixed and harmonious evidence beyond all 
 refutation. Indeed, any circumstance or fact of 
 ecclesiastical history, in harmony with the circum- 
 stantial and positive arguments drawn from Scrip- 
 ture in favor of infant baptism, must contribute 
 some force to the general evidence. Consequently, 
 the conclusion of the Doctor — "the New Testa- 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 23 
 
 ment is therefore given up'^ (p. 9) — does not 
 follow, because one class of supporters of infant 
 baptism argue from tbe New Testament inferen- 
 tially, and another class positively, and so the 
 New Testament is made the ground of argumen- 
 tation by both classes of Paedo-Baptists. 
 
 His reference to those authors who support in- 
 fant baptism from the Old Testament is likewise 
 unfortunate. He adduces certain "profound" 
 writers as conceding that infant baptism cannot be 
 supported from the Old Testament, and he men- 
 tions Charnock, Starck, Augusti and Jeremy Tay- 
 lor, and says, that "a, hundred similar" witnesses 
 "could, if it were necessary, be produced" (p. 10). 
 Granted; but these very authors, all of them, 
 defend infant baptism upon New Testament 
 ground and from ecclesiastical history, and so the 
 universal conclusion of the Doctor, "the whole 
 Bible is relinquished," does not follow, because a 
 universal conclusion, affirmative or negative, in 
 the nature of things, cannot follow from a particu- 
 lar premise. For instance, the Doctor cannot 
 prove baptism, or immersion, if you choose, from 
 the Old Testament } therefore baptism cannot be 
 proved from the Bible, and so "the whole Bible 
 is relinquished" by the Baptists in defending their 
 opinions of baptism. This is a fair application of 
 
24 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 the use the Doctor makes of the concessions of 
 certain Psedo-Baptists, and to his mind at least 
 must prove the absurdity of his conclusion against 
 infant baptism. But this is not all. While cer- 
 tain Pasdo-Baptists may concede that infant bap- 
 tism cannot be supported in any manner from the 
 Old Testament^ they maintain that it can be sup- 
 ported and established directly and indirectly from 
 the New Testament; and directly from history; 
 and others maintain that it can be supported ana- 
 logically from the Old Testament, and directly 
 and indirectly from the New Testament, and di- 
 rectly from history ; and so both classes maintain 
 the doctrine of infant baptism from the Bible and 
 from history. "What, is not the New Testament a 
 part, yea, the chief part of the Bible ? And thus 
 a doctrine sustained from the New Testament is 
 as well established as if it were supported likewise 
 by every chapter in the Old Testament. But this 
 is not all. The Doctor, in the first case, attempts 
 to prove from the concessions of one class of Paedo- 
 Baptists that infant baptism is not expressly en- 
 joined in the New Testament, and so concludes 
 that the New Testament is to be abandoned. But 
 in this case he omits the analogical arguments 
 which this class draw from the Old Testament, as 
 well as the positive and inferential arguments 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 25 
 
 which others deduce from the New Testament, in 
 support of infant baptism. And ia the second 
 case he attempts to prove, from the concessions 
 of another class of Psedo-Baptists, that infant bap- 
 tism cannot be supported from the Old Testament, 
 and so concludes that the Old Testament is to be 
 abandoned. But in this case he omits the posi- 
 tive and inferential arguments which this class 
 deduce from the New Testament, as well as the 
 analogical arguments which others draw from the 
 Old Testament. That is, he makes the analogy 
 of the Old Testament invalidate the substance of 
 the New, and the positive and inferential argu- 
 ments drawn from the New Testament invalidate 
 the analogical arguments drawn from the Old, 
 while it is evident that analogy can never offset a 
 positive truth, and that the positive and inferen- 
 tial arguments of the New Testament, and the 
 analogical arguments from the Old Testament, 
 mutually Support and strengthen each other, and 
 so establish the general argument in favor of in- 
 fant baptism. Analogy, inference, affirmation, all 
 being in harmony, no matter by whom maintained, 
 are enough to establish the truth of any doctrine. 
 The fair and logical method the Doctor should 
 have pursued is this. One class of his opponents 
 abandoning the Old Testament in the argument, 
 
26 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 but maintaining their views upon inference from 
 the New Testament, he should have thrown the 
 Old Testament out of the discussion with them, 
 and then have fairly met the issue of inference 
 from the New Testament; hut while he has done 
 the former, he has not attempted the latter, but 
 placed the silence of the Old Testament against 
 the inference from the New, which indeed leaves 
 the inference from the New in full force. Again, 
 another class conceding that infant baptism is not 
 expressly enjoined in the New Testament, but 
 maintaining that it is supported by inference from 
 the New Testament, he should have thrown the 
 concession out of the discussion with them, and 
 then have fairly met the argument from inference ; 
 but he has perverted the concession to an entire 
 abandonment of the New Testament, which indeed 
 still leaves the argument from inference in full 
 force. Again, one class of his opponents conceding 
 that infant baptism is not, and another affirmiDg 
 that it is, expressly enjoined in the New Testa- 
 ment; he might have fairly placed these two 
 classes, on the particular issue of positive injunc- 
 tion, against each other, which in the general argu- 
 ment is immaterial ; and this he has indeed done, 
 which is immaterial ; but he has boldly gone far- 
 ther, and placed the argument from inference 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 27 
 
 against the argument from positive injunction, 
 when he should have proved that both are false, 
 since if either be true, infant baptism must be 
 cordially admitted, and if both be true, infant bap- 
 tism is firmly established ; and so indeed he leaves 
 both the argument from inference, and from posi- 
 tive injunction, in full force. The Doctor's method 
 is a novel and summary one, perfectly consistent 
 with " the task he has attempted to execute,^^ but 
 it is as illogical as it is novel, and inconclusive as 
 it is summary, and must appear so to any candid 
 and intelligent mind of " the million" for whom 
 he ^^ writes." 
 
 But the Doctor has another argument, namely, 
 " infant baptism is in truth actually prohibited by 
 the Word of God" (p. 12). His argument is : " Is 
 not infant baptism directly enjoined in the "Word 
 of Grod ? It confessedly is not. Then it is plainly 
 prohibited." And this he attempts to support 
 from Scripture. " It is God who has said : ' What 
 thing soever I command you observe to do it. 
 Thou shalt not add thereto nor diminish from 
 it.' " Stop my candid reasoner j is this a specific 
 prohibition of infant baptism ? This command is 
 from the Old Testament, and referred to the regu- 
 lation of the Jewish government, moral and cere- 
 monial. But will the Doctor maintain that this 
 
28 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 command enjoins observance of the old Jewish 
 ceremonial law now? Certainly not; then the 
 supreme Law-giver himself has annulled this in- 
 junction so far as it once referred to ceremonial 
 obedience. And it remains for the Doctor to 
 prove that God has not enjoined infant baptism in 
 the New Testament, which, we affirm, he has done. 
 And just here it is worthy of observation^ that as 
 God associated infants with the Jewish church, 
 and in the above ^^ command" enjoined that their 
 right be " observed," in circumcision, the formal 
 seal of association with his church, under the 
 Jewish dispensation ; and as he has not excluded 
 infants from his church, the above " command" 
 still enjoins that this right be observed in baptism, 
 the formal seal of association with his church, 
 under the Christian dispensation. And so in fact, 
 the very Scripture the Doctor adduces against in- 
 fant baptism, is a strong vindication of the doc- 
 trine. So much for the first consideration of the 
 Doctor. And he has a second. 
 
 ^^ Infant baptism is prohibited by a second con- 
 sideration, the apostolic commission — '■ Go ye 
 into all the world, and preach the gospel to every 
 creature. He that believeth, and is baptized, 
 shall be saved.' This law is plain and definite. 
 Every positive has its negative. A law to baptize 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 29 
 
 believers necessarily prohibits the baptism of all 
 others than believers. Infants are not believers. 
 Therefore the law prohibits the baptism of infants" 
 Cpp. 12, 13). This argument of the Doctor is fal- 
 iMcious for three reasons. First, it is a particular 
 proposition, referring only to the believer. But 
 infants cannot believe, therefore it does not refer 
 to them, and so cannot prohibit baptism in their 
 case. Secondly, his argument proves too much, 
 and so falls to the ground. Thus : " every posi- 
 tive has its negative." Very well. Infants can- 
 not believe, therefore should not be baptized — 
 this is one " negative." Infants cannot believe, 
 therefore should not be saved — this is another 
 '^ negative." One negative is as legitimate as the 
 other, and to admit the one is to establish the 
 other, and so the Doctor's prohibition involves the 
 damnation of infants ! But it may be replied, 
 " infants are saved without faith " — granted, and 
 for that very reason they should be baptized with- 
 out faith. Thus, the "apostolic commission'' re- 
 fers neither positively nor negatively to infants, 
 and so is not a prohibition of infant baptism. 
 Thirdly, the Doctor gives an improper analysis of 
 the commission. Faith and baptism are made the 
 condition of salvation, not faith the condition of 
 baptism ; and thus, as faith, one part of the con- 
 3* 
 
30 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 dition is dispensed with in the ease of infants, so 
 baptism, the other part of the condition, is dis- 
 pensed with, in order to their salvation. Faith 
 alone secures present salvation in the adult, and 
 baptism then is required of him as expressive of 
 his faith, renunciation of the world, and consecra- 
 tion to God forever. But infants are already in a 
 state of justification, which baptism signifies, im- 
 plying their consecration to God, and, in due 
 time, their obligation to serve him. Now, unless 
 the Doctor can prove that infants are not in a 
 state of justification, he cannot bring the " com- 
 mission'^ against infant baptism. 
 
 The Doctor continues: "The baptism of in- 
 fants is prohibited, thirdly, by the nature and de- 
 sign of baptism itself. In this ordinance you pub- 
 licly profess your faith in Christ, and devote 
 yourself to him in his visible church. This must 
 be an intelligent and voluntary act on the part of 
 every one who is baptized. To those who cannot 
 so act baptism is prohibited. Infants cannot so 
 act. Therefore the baptism of infants is pro- 
 hibited" (pp. 13, 14). The Doctor will not deny 
 that the infant in circumcision was "devoted" to 
 God "in his visible church" — yet he professed 
 no faith in God, and was unable to perform any 
 "intelligent and voluntary act" in the premises. 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 31 
 
 But apply the premises of the Doctor in another 
 respect. Faith is " an intelligent and voluntary 
 act on the part of every one who is'^ saved. " To 
 those who cannot so act'^ salvation '4s prohibited." 
 Infants cannot so act. Therefore the " salvation'' 
 of infants is prohibited. Premises so fatal to the 
 salvation of infants cannot be logical or scriptural 
 when employed against their baptism. But the 
 salvation of infants cannot be forfeited by any 
 blunders of the Doctor's logic, and their right to 
 baptism cannot be disproved by his strongest argu- 
 ments. It is surprising with what coolness and 
 boldness he exclaims, " it is now proved indubita- 
 bly that infant baptism is prohibited. '^ And we 
 reply, upon his principle of reasoning, " it is" also 
 "proved indubitably that infant" salvation *'is 
 prohibited." And so all his conclusions to the 
 end of the chapter may be retorted upon bim. As 
 '■'infant baptism is in truth no baptism at all" 
 (p. 14) — infant salvation is in truth no salvation 
 at all : " infant baptism is a bold attempt to per- 
 fect that which it is vainly imagined God has left 
 deficient" (p. 16) — infant salvation is a bold 
 attempt to perfect that which it is vainly imagined 
 God has left deficient: "infant baptism is a sin 
 against God'' (p. 16) — infant salvation is a sin 
 against God : " thus is infant baptism incontro- 
 
32 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 vertiblj proved to be an evil" (p. 16) — thus is 
 infant salvation incontrovertibly proved to be an 
 evil. And so his earnest deprecation of infant 
 baptism — " from my heart I deprecate it in all 
 its bearings'^ — might just as rationally have been 
 uttered against infant salvation, for his reasons 
 are just as strong against the one as the other, 
 and so it seems at last that the Doctor's logic 
 originated in his heart and not in his head — and 
 thus with a warm heart no doubt the Doctor 
 " writes for the million/' for in right good earnest 
 he exhorts, entreats, interrogates, and warns them 
 to the last words in the chapter. 
 
 II. The second general argument of the Doctor 
 is — " Infant baptism is an evil, because its de- 
 fence LEADS TO THE MOST INJURIOUS PERVER- 
 SIONS OF THE Word of God'' (p. 18). He knows 
 ^'no better plan" to prove this proposition than by 
 ^' examples," and ^' these are so numerous that he 
 knows not where to begin." His first ^^ example" 
 is the perversion of the true meaning of the apos- 
 tolic commission ; but the very ground on which 
 he proves the teachings of Paedo-Baptists a perver- 
 sion, if admitted, would prove the salvation of in- 
 fants absolutely impossible. But even admitting 
 (which we do not) that some Paedo-Baptists per- 
 vert the meaning of the great commission "to 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. S3 
 
 defend infant baptism/' it does not follow that 
 infant baptism is an evil, or naay not be defended 
 by otber Scriptures^ or be proved by otlier Pasdo- 
 Baptists, from the great commission itself. Be- 
 sides, many of " the million'^ may not regard the 
 Doctor's judgment of the Psedo-Baptist interpre- 
 tations as sound, and so these interpretations may 
 not turn out, in their minds, to be ^'^perversions." 
 But that interpretation of the commission, which 
 involves the denial of the right of infants to sal- 
 vation, is, beyond all doubt, a perversion the most 
 repulsive; and such is the Doctor's interpretation: 
 opposition to infant baptism, then, is an evil. 
 But the Doctor adopts a singular way to make out 
 his case of perversions. " When great and good 
 men, such as these, and the thousands of others 
 who agree with them, thus interpret the commis- 
 sion, can we believe that they are really in ear- 
 nest? Do they not know better?" (p. 21.) That 
 is, the Doctor supposes that the Paedo-Baptists do 
 not conscientiously believe what they write and 
 avow, and so they knowingly and willingly per- 
 vert the Word of Grod. This is a grave insinua- 
 tion, and one cannot believe that the Doctor him- 
 self is "in earnest" when he makes it, without 
 believing that he has more confidence in his own 
 judgment, than charity in his heart. But the 
 
34 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 Pagdo-Baptists are in good earnest ; therefore tliey 
 do not pervert the Word of God — and so infant 
 baptism is not an evil — the Doctor, himself, being 
 judge. 
 
 The second example the Doctor cites, is the 
 "striking instance, ^The promise is to you and 
 to your children/ " The argument of the Doctor 
 is, that Peter referred to the prophecy of Joel, 
 and that Joel referred to " sons and daughters," 
 or, in general terms, " posterity" (p. 24). If the 
 Doctor can prove that children are not " sons and 
 daughters" or "posterity," then I grant infant 
 baptism cannot be supported from this text. But 
 he perverts both the meaning of Peter and Joel, 
 as any one acquainted with what they say on the 
 subject must know. 
 
 Besides, the fearful canon of the Doctor, "every 
 positive has a negative," is here again levelled with 
 fatal precision against the salvation of infants. If 
 infants are not included in " the promise," then 
 they are lost. But they are included in the pro- 
 mise ; therefore, they have as good a right to bap- 
 tism, the sacramental seal of "the promise,^' 
 under the Christian dispensation, as the adult 
 believing Jews had on the day of Pentecost. The 
 only plausible argument the Doctor uses is, 
 " babes could not fulfil the conditions upon which 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 35 
 
 the promise was made'' (p. 26). But this is the 
 old stereotyped sophism of the Baptists, and its 
 refutation is stamped a thousand times upon the 
 pages of the baptismal controversy, and may be 
 here repeated. If "babes'^ cannot "fulfil the 
 conditions'' of the promise, and for that reason 
 should not be baptized, then they have no right to 
 the blessings of "the promise" or covenant of 
 salvation, and so all dying in infancy must be 
 lost. But, if they are included in " the promise" 
 unconditionally, then, they have as good a right 
 to baptism unconditionally, as adults have condi- 
 tionally. The Doctor denies that " the promise" 
 here means the covenant of salvation, formally 
 made with Abraham (p. 28), and we have only to 
 reply, then all children, dying in infancy, are 
 lost — such is his perversion of Peter's meaning. 
 The Doctor's theology is as defective as his logic 
 in another respect. It never has been assumed 
 by Paedo-Baptists, that " the G-ospel is a new dis- 
 pensation of the covenant of circumcision" (p. 28). 
 The Gospel is not a new dispensation of the cove- 
 nant of circumcision, but a new dispensation of 
 the same great covenant of salvation, of which cir- 
 cumcision was the sensible, formal seal under the 
 Jewish dispensation. The Doctor does not dis- 
 criminate between the covenant of salvation, which 
 
36 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 is one and the same in all ages of time, and tbe 
 dispensations of the covenant, which are many, 
 and follow in succession at various periods of time. 
 And failing to make this discrimination, it is not 
 surprising that he should not only misrepresent 
 his Pasdo-Baptist authorities, but pervert also the 
 language of prophets and apostles. The same 
 method of misrepresentation and perversion the 
 Doctor pursues to the end of the chapter. And 
 this is the more surprising, as he had said, page 
 9, that '^ very many of the most learned and pious 
 biblical critics, themselves P^edo-Baptists, candidly 
 confess that the practice of infant baptism is not 
 directly enjoined in the Word of God;" whereas, 
 in this chapter, he joins issue with many others 
 who claim several Scriptures, as '^ chief Scripture 
 ground," and "best supports," of infant baptism. 
 Nor is this all. He has omitted some of the 
 strongest and clearest expositions of the very 
 Scriptures examined by him, and these may not 
 be perversions — what then ? Nor is this all. 
 He has perverted the meaning of the authors ad- 
 duced. And so infant baptism cannot be proved 
 to be an evil from the Doctor's perversions, both 
 of his authors and the Scriptures. One can 
 scarcely help smiling at the Doctor's expression 
 of pious regret. "Thus to expose the. errors of 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 37 
 
 our Paedo-Baptist brethren gives me no pleasure 
 — but afflicts me profoundly. The task falls upon 
 me. It shall be faithfully performed" (p. 29). 
 The great Head of the Church, then, has been 
 late in raising up and qualifying the proper man 
 to perform this impo tant task, especially since so 
 many "pious,'' and "learned," and "profound 
 biblical critics and scholars," have preceded this 
 champion for the truth, and still surround him, 
 and smile on his presumption, egotism and vanity. 
 We will give the candid reader one example of 
 the Doctor's perversions of his Paedo-Baptist au- 
 thorities. " You mean that holiness is spiritual, 
 that it is ' ecclesiastical,' and more, you mean that 
 this holiness is produced by hereditary transmis- 
 sion," &c. (pp. 37, 38.) Now we challenge the 
 Doctor to produce any authority in the Protestant 
 or Bomish church by whom this charge can be 
 sustained. It never has been assumed, by Protes- 
 tant or Roman Catholic, that children are born 
 spiritual or holy. So far from it, the Boman 
 Catholic church, and the High Church party in 
 the Church of England, baptize children to make 
 them spiritual or holy, which is absurd in itself, 
 and would be still more absurd, if they baptized 
 children to make them holy, believing at the time 
 that they are already holy. Heretics themselves 
 4 
 
38 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 then deny the charge of the Doctor, and this 
 should cover him with confusion. The Doctor 
 writes for " the million/' but what, after this, can 
 we fairly suppose are his motives, but that he may 
 deceive the ignorant, impose upon the credulous, 
 ;and make proselytes? And surely, ignorance, 
 • credulity, and proselytism, are no proofs of the 
 .evils of infant baptism, unless, to argue as the 
 Doctor does, infant baptism suggested in him these 
 motives. 
 
 III. The third general argument of the Doctor 
 is, "Infant baptism is an evil, because it en- 
 grafts JUDAISM UPON THE GOSPEL OF ChRIST" 
 (p. 40). Under this proposition the Doctor dis- 
 plays more ignorance of his authorities, of the 
 Scriptures, of common sense, and of the plainest 
 rules of reasoning, than we have been able to ex- 
 pose in the preceding pages ', and " if the blind 
 be a leader of the blind, they will both fall into 
 ihe ditch.'' God save "the million." His argu- 
 ment is this : the Paedo-Baptists assume that cir- 
 cumcision and baptism "are substantially the 
 same ordinance," and therefore infant baptism is 
 "the sum and essence of Judaism" (p. 41). And 
 he says, this is what " our brethren are pleased to 
 call" the argument from " analogy" (p. 40). It 
 never has been assumed that baptism is " substan- 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 39 
 
 tially," or circumstantially, the same, in all re- 
 spects, with circumcision, and therefore it cannot 
 be " the sum and essence of Judaism." Baptism 
 has the same spiritual meaning with circumcision, 
 as a sign and seal, and is due to infants, and in 
 these respects only is it substantially the same 
 with circumcision, and of the •' same essence with 
 Judaism" — and the Doctor himself will not deny 
 that Judaism vitally, in many respects, was spi- 
 ritual — unless he deny that Grod was its author, 
 or that he instituted a system of rites and ceremo- 
 nies, commands and precepts, that had no spiritual 
 meaning in them. Circumcision had both a secu- 
 lar and spiritual meaning, which distinction the 
 Doctor fails to make, and so unavoidably must 
 impose upon the ignorance of his readers. Thus : 
 '^ What is Judaism ? It is the intermingling, or 
 the amalgamation, of the doctrines, rites, and wor- 
 ship of the Jews, with the doctrines, rites, and 
 worship of Christianity. Infant baptism is amal- 
 gamated Judaism and Christianity" (pp. 41, 42). 
 But has this been done by the evangelical 
 churches, in the case of infant baptism ? It has 
 not been done. Has anything but what was truly 
 evangelical in Judaism been incorporated in the 
 evangelical churches ? It has not been done. The 
 Doctor might just as well have accused Christ and 
 
40 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 his apostles of amalgamating what they separated 
 from Judaism, and abolished, with what they 
 added and enjoined as evangelical under the 
 Christian dispensation. The spiritual meaning 
 of the passover is the same as that of the Lord's 
 Supper. Is it therefore the " sum and essence of 
 Judaism ?" or " amalgamated Judaism and Chris- 
 tianity r"^ The spiritual meaning of the lamb that 
 bled on the Jewish altar, and of the intercession 
 of the high priest in the holy of holies, is the same 
 as that of the sacrifice of the '' Lamb of Grod," and 
 of the intercession of the Son of God. Is the 
 sacrifice of the Lamb of God, or the intercession 
 of the Son of God, therefore the " sum and essence 
 of Judaism ?" In a word, the spiritual meaning 
 of "the doctrines, rites, and worship of tbe Jews,^' 
 is the same with that of the doctrines, rites, and 
 worship of Christianity. Are the doctrines, rites, 
 and worship of Christianity the " sum and essence 
 of Judaism ?'' So the spiritual meaning of cir- 
 cumcision is the same as that of infant baptism. 
 Is infant baptism therefore the "amalgamation 
 of Judaism and Christianity V The Doctor must 
 assume that circumcision had no spiritual meaning 
 — and then Paul was wrong when he said, " cir- 
 cumcision verily profiteth if thou keep the law — 
 and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 41 
 
 and not in the letter, whose praise is not of men, 
 but of God ;" or he must admit that the spiritual 
 meaning of circumcision is the same with that of 
 infant baptism, since the spiritual meaning of cir- 
 cumcision is seen in the ''profit" of keeping the 
 law in subsequent life, and felt in the " heart" and 
 ^^ spirit" of the Jew who subsequently believed, 
 according to the light of the Jewish dispensation. 
 The Doctor must admit that " the doctrines, rites, 
 and worship" of Judaism had a spiritual meaning, 
 or the Jews believed and practised "the doc- 
 trines," observed the " rites," and conformed to 
 the "worship" of Judaism in vain, and so were 
 all lost. " And the Scripture, foreseeing that God 
 would justify the heathen through faith, preached 
 before the gospel unto Abraham, saying. In thee 
 shall all nations be blessed" (Gal. 3 : 8). This 
 destroys the Doctor's whole argument, in the 
 ^' aggregate," and in its " details." 
 
 We shall now examine some of the conclusions 
 of the Doctor, and they will be found as absurd as 
 his premises. The Episcopalian perceives " in the 
 Jewish church three orders of the ministry — 
 there are therefore three orders in the ministry in 
 the Christian church" (pp. 43, 44). But the 
 Methodists, Presbyterians, and the Baptists them- 
 selves reject the dogma. Besides some Episcopa- 
 4* 
 
42 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 Hans maintain that three orders in the ministry 
 are proved from the New Testament. Again, 
 other Episcopalians maintain, and truly, that but 
 two orders in the ministry can be proved from the 
 New Testament, and so the Doctor's conclusion is 
 his own, and does not touch the question of infant 
 baptism. 
 
 Again, the Doctor argues that the Roman 
 Catholic deduces the office of ^' pope" from that 
 of " the great high priest" in the Jewish church 
 (p. 45). What of that? We all reject the dogma. 
 Besides, the Roman Catholic maintains that the 
 office of pope is derived by "regular succession 
 from St. Peter," and hence originated in St. 
 Peter, and not in the office of the Jewish high 
 priest, and this also we reject. 
 
 In a word, the Doctor employs the most per- 
 nicious perversions in certain cases to make out a 
 specific case of perversion in infant baptism, while 
 there is not the remotest connection or analogy in 
 the cases. The absurdity of this method may be 
 shown by the examination of some of the perver- 
 sions he adduces. ** The Jewish church was a 
 national church, and the Christian church is the 
 same church. Therefore the Christian church 
 must be a national church" (p. 45). But Christ 
 abolished the nationality of the Jewish church, 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 43 
 
 since the Christian church is to embrace " all na- 
 tions.'^ And so " the sacrifice of the mass will 
 probably be agreeable. You have it in the Jewish 
 sacrifices'^ (p. 45). But Christ consummated the 
 " Jewish sacrifices" in his own sacrifice, and so 
 abolished Jewish sacrifices forever. " You want 
 seventy cardinals ? The seventy elders who com- 
 posed the Jewish council will supply you" (p. 45). 
 But the ecclesiastical economy of the Jewish 
 church was abolished by the death of Christ, since 
 its work was now accomplished, and the ecclesias- 
 tical government of the Christian church is to be 
 framed according to the principles and spirit of 
 the New Testament. And so of all the rest of the 
 Doctor's ridiculous irony. And for once we agree 
 with the Doctor, that such arguments are " really 
 available for papists, and for papists only" (p. 43). 
 To make out an analogous case, the Doctor must 
 prove that the Psedo-Baptist churches now prac- 
 tise circumcision. This they do not. The Doctor 
 says, '^ Essays to engraft Judaism upon the gospel 
 of Christ commenced immediately after the ascen- 
 sion of our Redeemer. The Judaism then preached 
 was precisely such as our Paedo-Baptist brethren 
 claim as legitimate in religion. It did not indeed 
 include infant baptism, but advocated instead 
 literal circumcision'' (p. 47). This was Judaism 
 
44 INFANT B APT IS 
 
 engrafted upon Christianity. But this was repu- 
 diated by the apostles themselves, and has been by 
 the Christian church in all ages, as the Doctor 
 himself knows, and himself proves on pages 48, 
 49, 50, 51 and 52, of his own book. In the name 
 of common sense, reason and Scripture, how then 
 can infant baptism be " amalgamated Judaism and 
 Christianity V 
 
 But this is not all. The Doctor himself, unac- 
 countable as it may appear, admits that there is an 
 analogy between the Jewish and Christian church. 
 " There is a beautiful analogy. The Jewish church 
 was a figure, a shadow, a type, of the Christian 
 church" (pp. 53, 54). And he quotes from the 
 epistle to the Hebrews : " The holy places made 
 with hands were figures of the true holy places" — 
 and adds : ^' All the parts of the Jewish church 
 and worship were figures of the Christian church 
 and worship. What is true of all the parts is true 
 of the whole. The whole Jewish church there- 
 fore was a figure or type of the Christian church" 
 (p. 54). That is fair for once. This is all we 
 maintain. And so Webster, his authority, gives 
 our view of the analogy we maintain : " an agree- 
 ment or likeness between things in some circum- 
 stances and efiects, when the things are otherwise 
 entirely diflerent'^ (p. 53). That is, circumcision 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 45 
 
 and infant baptism agree and resemble each otter 
 in " some circumstances and effects/' while they 
 are " otherwise entirely different." As follows : 
 they both are formal, sensible signs and seals of 
 the same covenant of grace, though practised 
 under different dispensations. They both have a 
 spiritual meaning, though one had also a secular 
 meaning, which the other has not under the Chris- 
 tian dispensation. They both imposed obligation 
 to keep the moral and evangelical law of God, in 
 all subsequent life, though the former imposed 
 also obligation to keep the ceremonial law, under 
 the Jewish dispensation, which is abolished under 
 the Christian dispensation. They both formally 
 and sensibly recognise those who are entitled to 
 association with the church of God, though the 
 former also recognised those who were the subjects 
 of God in a civil sense, which civil sense is not 
 contained in baptism, since the civil polity of the 
 Jewish church is abolished under the Christian 
 dispensation. They. both have a sacramental mean- 
 ing,- though they both are "entirely different 
 things" in essential nature, and form, and mode, 
 and natural effects. So much for Mr. Webster. 
 And so the Doctor's " Hermeneutics" are against 
 him. "No external institution or fact in the Old 
 Testament is a type of an external institution or 
 
46 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 fact in the New Testament. External institutions 
 and facts in the Old Testament are invariable 
 types of internal and spiritual institutions and 
 facts in the New Testament^' (p. 55). Granted, 
 most cordially. Then baptism and the Lord's 
 Supper now set forth ^^ internally and spiritually" 
 what circumcision and the passover set forth 
 ^' externally'' in the Old Testament. But this is 
 not all. The Doctor himself specifies certain 
 analogies between circumcision and baptism. "A 
 correspondence exists in several respects between 
 circumcision and baptism. By circumcision the 
 natural seed were recognised as the children of 
 Abraham, and received as members of the Jewish 
 church ; by baptism the spiritual seed are recog- 
 nised as believers in Christ, and received as mem- 
 bers of the Christian church. Circumcision was 
 instituted expressly for literal infants, and it was 
 commanded to be administered to them as soon as 
 they were born ; baptism was instituted expressly 
 for spiritual infants — believers in Christ — and 
 it was commanded to be administered to them as 
 soon as they were born again. Circumcision was 
 an essential preliminary to the Passover; baptism is 
 an essential preliminary to the Lord's Supper" 
 (p. 59). This contains in substance, as far as it 
 goes, all we maintain. Circumcision was adminis- 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 47 
 
 tered to infants, "literal infants," the "natural 
 seed" of Abraham — granted — but it had a spi- 
 ritual meaning at the same time, recognising the 
 infant as being already a member of the spiritual 
 church; so that if he in subsequent life committed 
 a sin or " trespass," unless he repented, that is, 
 conformed with the proper spirit to the specific 
 requisitions of the law, he was to be " cut off from 
 the congregation," or church of God, under the 
 Jewish dispensation, which was the mournful 
 case in many individual and collective instances. 
 "Baptism was instituted expressly for spiritual 
 infants:" that is, "believers in Christ" — granted 
 — but then it is more: it is due to those who 
 have a right to spiritual regeneration, and such 
 are all infants — first, those dying in infancy, and 
 secondly, those living and conforming to the spe- 
 cific requisitions of the gospel ; as in the case of 
 all infants under the Jewish dispensation — first, all 
 dying in infancy, and secondly, those living and 
 conforming to the specific requisitions of the moral 
 and ceremonial law. The Doctor cannot deny this 
 conclusion, without disproving that circumcision 
 imposed spiritual and moral obligations as well as 
 civil. " Circumcision was an essential preliminary 
 to the passover" — granted — but it was adminis- 
 tered to infants ; and infants, when they grew up, 
 
48 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 if they committed sin or trespass, forfeited right 
 to the passover till they repeated as above; so 
 infants, unless they repent in the gospel sense, 
 have no right to the Lord's Supper. 
 
 Let us return for a moment to the Doctor's 
 " Hermeneutics." We give his own quotation 
 from Turretine, " the distinguished successor of 
 Calvin.'^ ^^ A sacrament is an external thing, and 
 whatever is a type of any internal or spiritual 
 thing has no need of any other type by which it 
 may be represented. Two types may indeed be 
 given, similar and corresponding to each other, of 
 one and the same truth, and so far the ancient sa- 
 craments were antitypes of ours ; ' but one type 
 cannot be shadowed forth by another type,' since 
 both are brought forward to represent one truth. 
 So circumstances shadowed forth not baptism, but 
 the grace of regeneration ; and the passover repre- 
 sented not the Lord's Supper, but Christ set forth 
 in the Supper" (p. 55). Very well; then cir- 
 cumcision and the passover had a spiritual mean- 
 ing, which is all we maintain ; and the analogy 
 between the Jewish and Christian sacraments is 
 established so far as their spiritual meaning is 
 concerned ; and so of all the " doctrines, rites and 
 worship" of the Jewish church. And in the 
 language of the Doctor, we observe, ^'the whole 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 49 
 
 subject of analogy is therefore perfectly plain" 
 (p. 58) 
 
 But this is not all. The Doctor admits " there 
 is a beautiful analogy,'' but affirms that " the 
 identity assumed is nothing more or less than 
 naked Judaism" (p. 53). All we maintain is, 
 that the Jewish and Christian churches are spi- 
 ritual as well as external parts of the same church 
 of God, and therefore in a spiritual nature they 
 are identically the same, however they may differ 
 in external form or organization ; and this cannot 
 be denied without proving that that which is true 
 of the whole is not true of the parts, and therefore 
 that the whole Jewish church is lost. Such would 
 however be the calamity if we give a logical mean- 
 ing to the Doctor's propositions. '' The figure and 
 the thing signified by it cannot be one. The type 
 and the reality are not identical. The shadow and 
 the substance are never the same thing. The 
 Jewish church and the Christian church are not 
 therefore the same church" (p. 58). It never has 
 been assumed that they are the same in external 
 nature, but the same in spiritual nature ; and all 
 attempts of the Doctor, however desperate and 
 reckless, to involve the Psedo-Baptists in the ab- 
 surdity of assuming that external Judaism is 
 "amalgamated" with Christianity, are perfectly 
 5 
 
50 INFANT BAPTISM 
 
 gratuitous. From the external typical nature of 
 the Jewish church, it is demonstrable that the 
 Jewish church in spirituality is identical with the 
 Christian church, since as the Christian church is 
 a spiritual church, the Jewish church could not 
 have been a type of the Christian church, unless 
 as a type it contained in it a spiritual meaning. 
 And so, as the Jewish church had a spiritual mean- 
 ing in its types, and precepts, and doctrines, and 
 worship, this spiritual meaning was applicable to 
 the Jewish church. But if the Doctor's conclu- 
 sion, " the Jewish church and the Christian 
 church are not therefore the same," be true, then 
 the Jews were all lost, which being absurd, it fol- 
 lows that his premises are false. 
 
 In farther proof that " infant baptism leads to 
 Judaism,'' the Doctor asserts that " it is at war 
 irreconcilably with the fundamental principles of 
 the gospel of Christ" (p. 60). What are these 
 principles ? " The gospel of Christ teaches as 
 fundamental, that no one is a child of Grod by 
 carnal descent" — granted, but infant baptism is 
 not founded upon carnal descent. " That all, 
 whatever may be their ancestry, or their relations, 
 are by nature the children of wrath" — granted, 
 but all infants are by grace the " children of the 
 kingdom of God." " Nor is their disposition, or 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 51 
 
 their character as such, changed in any manner by 
 their baptism in infancy" — granted, for we do 
 not believe in infant baptismal regeneration. 
 " That faith in our Lord Jesus Christ alone can 
 give a ti 'o !■> no ]• -arded on earth, or in heaven, 
 as til -J t. urcii a' Grod" — granted, so far as 
 adults ire oono(iiied; but then if there be no 
 other £ • 'Ur.(l of salvation for infants than this, 
 then they are all lost : but there is some other 
 ground for their salvation, and therefore there is 
 some other ground for their baptism. " All true 
 religion is personal" — granted, but infants are 
 not responsible for personal religion. Thus, " the 
 fundamental principles of the gospel of Christ,^' 
 specified by the Doctor, do not touch the case of 
 infant baptism. There are other ^^fundamental 
 principles of the gospel,^^ which support the doc- 
 trine of infant baptism, and these the Doctor has 
 not mentioned, and so the argument from analogy 
 remains good. 
 
 The Doctor says, lastly, "this Paedo-Baptist 
 argument [from analogy] is palpably antiscrip- 
 tural" (p. 61). And here is his argument. The 
 " Paedo-Baptists declare that the Jewish and the 
 Christian are the same church, and subsist under 
 the same covenant ! Never was there a conclusion 
 more palpably antiscriptural" (p. 63). Then the 
 
52 INFANT BAPTISM 
 
 Jews are all lost ! But the gospel covenant was 
 preached to the Jews, according to Paul, as has 
 been already proved j and therefore the Psedo- 
 Baptist argument is strictly scriptural. The types, 
 shadows, symbols and sacrifices of the Jewish dis- 
 pensation were founded upon the atonement of 
 Christ, to be made in due time, and so were all 
 confirmed and consummated by his vicarious death ; 
 and thus the rights of children, sacramentally 
 sealed in circumcision, under the Jewish dispensa- 
 tion, were confirmed by Christ's death, for he 
 " came not to destroy, but to fulfil ;" and so the 
 atonement being the foundation of both ^' the 
 Jewish and the Christian church," they must be 
 parts of the same ^'spiritual building" or church. 
 We never doubted that circumcision was a part 
 of the Jewish ceremonial law, but then it was 
 more; a seal of the gracious covenant also, "a 
 seal of the righteousness of fiiith," according to 
 Paul; and according to the Doctor himself, "a 
 iype of regeneration by the spirit" (p. 64) ; and 
 thus it does not follow that "■ the gospel church is 
 in fact built upon the law of Moses" — the Doctor 
 himself being judge. 
 
 IV. The fourth general argument of the Doc-, 
 tor is : ^^The doctrines upon which infant baptism 
 
 rests CONTRADICT THE GREAT FUNDAMENTAL 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 53 
 
 PRINCIPLE OF JUSTIFICATION. BY FAITH^' (p. 66). 
 
 He says, ^'justification is the act of Grod by which 
 he declares a man just and righteous" (p. 67). 
 Very well; then all infants are in a state of justi 
 fication, for Christ himself says, '•'■ of such is tha 
 kingdom of God." Again : " The justified are 
 accepted, and approved, as if they had nevei 
 sinned" (Ibid). Very well; then all infants are 
 justified, for they never sinned, and so are uncon- 
 ditionally justified by the vicarious death of Christ. 
 The Doctor continues, '■'■ The doctrines of infant 
 baptism, on the other hand, are not made known 
 in the Bible." That is not the question now. 
 The doctrine of infant justification is the issue; is 
 that found in the Bible ? Yes. Very well ; being 
 then justified without faith, they have a right to 
 baptism without faith, just as the adult, justified 
 by faith, has a right to baptism because he is jus- 
 tified. 
 
 When he says that "infant baptism finds a 
 place there [in the confessions] sustained by all 
 the doctrines with which popery had surrounded 
 it," this we deny. TFe have nothing to do with 
 those confessions in which infant baptismal justi- 
 tification and regeneration are maintained. The 
 Doctor knows, or ought to know, that the dogmas 
 of Rome on this subject are utterly rejected by 
 6* 
 
54 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 the evangelical churches. The Doctor knows also^ or 
 ought to know, that the clergy of the Church of Eng- 
 land enjoy a latitude in interpreting the baptismal 
 forms of that church, some being strictly high church, 
 and others as strictly Calvinist, and others still Ar- 
 minian. The Doctor know^ialso, or ought to know, 
 that the truly evangelical party in the Protestant 
 Episcopal Church in our country do not agree with 
 the high church party on this subject. The Doctor 
 knows also, or ought to know, that the Methodists, 
 in interpreting their xlrticles and Baptismal Forms, 
 unqualifiedly reject the dogma that the infant "is 
 pardoned, regenerated, adopted, &c., in baptism." 
 His language is, " Methodists aflfirm that by bap- 
 tism the new birth, the forgiveness of sins, and 
 adoption, are all to the child, visibly signed and 
 sealed. The child therefore in baptism is pardoned 
 of sin, is regenerated, is adopted, is received into 
 the church, received into the favor of God, and 
 saved ia heaven" (p. 76). This is popery in its 
 worst form, and the Doctor could not have written 
 this language without the profoundest ignorance, 
 or the most unblushing assumption. The Doctor 
 knows, and he avows again and again his knowledge 
 of the fact, that the truly evangelical churches and 
 the evangelical portions of the Lutheran church, 
 of the Church of England, and of the Protestant 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 55 
 
 Episcopal Church in this country, do not maintain 
 this view of infant baptism ; and yet, in reckless 
 opposition to his own knowledge, and in bold de- 
 fiance of the truth in the case, he deliberately 
 attempts to deceive ^Uhe million." Nor is this all. 
 He gives the particular opinions of some churches, 
 which are heretical, and next of other churches, 
 which are orthodox, and then deduces the general 
 conclusion that all are heretical ; which is absurd. 
 For example, some churches adopt affusion as a 
 proper mode of baptism ; but one very respectable 
 church — his own — adopts immersion as the only 
 proper mode ; therefore all the Christian churches 
 adopt sprinkling and pouring as the only proper 
 modes of baptism — and yet the Doctor knows 
 that but one of the churches — his own — prac- 
 tises immersion as the only proper mode of bap- 
 tism. Again, some of the churches practise open 
 communion ; but one very respectable church — 
 his own — practises "close communion;'' there- 
 fore all the churches practise open communion — 
 and yet the Doctor knows that but one of the 
 churches — his own — practises "close commu- 
 nion." Again, some of the churches practise in- 
 fant baptism ; but one very respectable church — 
 his own — repudiates the practice ; therefore all 
 the churches practise infant baptism — and yet 
 
56 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 the Doctor knows that one of the churches — his 
 own — many in it at least — "abominate'^ the prac- 
 tice, and that he has written a " little volume" on 
 the " evils" of the practice. 
 
 The Doctor continues to pursue this mode of 
 false reasoning. After quoting from the " Con- 
 fessions" and "Articles of Religion" of various 
 Protestant sects, he inquires, with apparent ho- 
 nesty, "Do I deal unjustly with these several 
 sects when I thus represent them as in conflict 
 with themselves?" (p. 77.) And to prove his 
 premises good, he introduces Moehler, a Catholic 
 priest, a false witness, to prove a false charge. 
 Stop, my fair reasoner — hear our own witnesseSy 
 which you yourself have adduced, on this particu- 
 lar point. "Still Protestants of all classes, as 
 everywhere else so among us, in their sermons^ 
 and their conversations^ from the pulpit and the 
 press, continue to protest that they do not attribute 
 to baptism any justifying or saving power" (pp. 
 78, 79). Very well ; and here the Doctor " deals 
 justly" with us, and he must abandon his pre- 
 mises. 
 
 But no; he says, "the Confessions" contain 
 the heresy, and here he applies his logic again to 
 prove it; and we must follow him farther. He 
 introduces, next, certain Paedo-Baptists who main- 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 57 
 
 tain the heresy, and then concludes : ^' These arc 
 the expositions of standard writers among Pgedo- 
 Baptists themselves of all classes, explanatory of 
 the efficacy of baptism as taught in their Confes- 
 sions" (p. 80). But unfortunately for the Doctor, 
 the Psedo-Baptists he adduces, are not " the stan- 
 dard writers" among all Paedo-Baptists — and the 
 Doctor knew they are not, and then his argument 
 is founded in presumption, or he supposed they 
 are, and then his argument is founded in igno- 
 rance. And yet the Doctor does make some ex- 
 ceptions, though in doing so he adds ''insult to 
 injury." "But Presbyterians, Congregationalists, 
 and Methodists, do not surely believe these bap- 
 tismal doctrines ! They all, I admit, roundly deny 
 it ! Grladly would we credit their disavowals" (pp. 
 80, 81). If the Doctor understood the whole sub- 
 ject, he would probably credit the " disavowals," 
 and withdraw the odious charges of inconsistency 
 and heresy. He has read " Goode on Infant Bap- 
 tism," and might have obtained from that work 
 information sufficient to enable him to understand 
 the nature and truth of the disavowals. He ought 
 to know, that while phrases in the Confessions, 
 Catechisms, Articles of Beligion, and Baptismal 
 Forms, of Protestant churches, are interpreted by 
 one party of Psedo-Baptists in favor of baptismal 
 
58 INFANT BAPTISM, 
 
 regeneration, they are interpreted by another 
 party, the truly evangelical^ directly in opposition 
 to the heresy ; and that this is done by the Pres- 
 byterian, Methodist, and the evangelical portion 
 of the Episcopal churches, in this country, and 
 in England : and this he does, in part, himself 
 acknowledge. " The Presbyterian and Methodist 
 churches, however, in this country, and in Eng- 
 land, I am reminded, are in their numerous divi- 
 sions, highly evangelical. In all these, justifica- 
 tion hy faith and infant baptism exist together ^' 
 (p. 82). A more fatal concession to the Doctor's 
 argument under consideration, and to his whole 
 book, is not possible. If this be so — and it is so 
 — and the Doctor admits it to be so — then infant 
 baptism does not contradict the great doctrine of 
 justification by faith. 
 
 The Doctor must have felt very sensibly the 
 force of this concession, for, in the next breath, 
 he endeavors to explain why they "exist toge- 
 ther," and to prove, that the '^destruction of the 
 one by the other is inevitable.'' We give his ex- 
 planation : " The Methodist churches have not 
 existed long enough, to feel the evil effects of 
 infant baptism" (same page). This is a mere as- 
 sumption, totally groundless, while it is a conces- 
 sion, most conclusive, that the Methodist church 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 59 
 
 is pure and sound at present. Time enough ! 
 what length of time, will the Doctor please define, 
 is required to confirm or disprove the truth of his 
 declaration ? Time ! why though organized after 
 the Baptist church in this country by a hundred 
 years, the Methodist church already outnumbers, 
 and overtops her in intelligence, in wealth, in 
 zeal, in success, in pious labors, and in influence. 
 Time ! why infant baptism has been retained in 
 the Methodist church from the beginning, and in 
 all the course of her astonishing progress, she has 
 not yet felt or exhibited " the evil effects of infant 
 baptism ;'' and the presumption is, she never will, 
 so long as she maintains that institution in its 
 original and apostolic purity and simplicity. Time 
 enough ! — this is a singular mode of reasoning — 
 it is in fact begging the question. 
 
 Now follow the Doctor's proofs — that the de- 
 struction of the Methodist church is inevitable, 
 so long as it retains infant baptism. First : ^^ how 
 large the number of their ministers and laymen 
 who annually pass over to episcopacy — to pusey- 
 ism, and to Rome " (same page) I This is a mis- 
 take. The number is small, very small, and even 
 this small number go from worldly motives, or 
 under the impulses of ambition, or to be free from|( 
 the pious restraints of the doctrines we teach, or 
 
60 INFANT BAPTISM 
 
 from groundless objections to our ecclesiastical 
 government^ and not from opposition to infant 
 baptism in our cbureh, for they find that institu- 
 tion degraded from its dignity, and corrupted from 
 its purity, in Puseyite and Romish churches — 
 which is a singular proof that they regarded in- 
 fant baptism as an evil^ or that they regarded the 
 Methodist church as corrupt because it main- 
 tained the doctrine of infant baptism ! Put the 
 Doctor's proof in another form. Because a few 
 Methodists go to Puseyism and Rome — therefore 
 infant baptism in the Methodist church will in- 
 evitably destroy the doctrine of justification as 
 maintained by the Methodists. Let us see the 
 result of this logic applied fairly in other in- 
 stances. Many Methodists annually backslide 
 and return to the world — therefore infant baptism 
 will inevitably destroy the doctrine of justification 
 as maintained by the Methodists ! Again : a 
 large number of persons converted in the Baptist 
 Church annually backslide and return to the world 
 — therefore the Baptist church, though it repu- 
 diates and "abominates" the doctrine of infant 
 baptism, must inevitably perish ! Again : a large 
 number of persons converted in Methodist revi- 
 vals annually go to the Baptist church — therefore 
 the Methodist church must inevitably be de- 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 61 
 
 stroyed by infant baptism ! — though a sufficient 
 number of young converts remain to repair an- 
 nually the loss, and still she outnumbers the Bap- 
 tist church ! In a word, if because a few leave 
 the Methodist church, and go to " Puseyism and 
 Rome," the Methodist church must in time in- 
 evitably perish, then because a large number of 
 persons converted in Methodist revivals annually 
 go to the Baptist church — therefore the Baptist 
 church must be classed with Puseyism and Rome 
 — a conclusion from which the Doctor recoils, but 
 to which his logic drives his church — however un- 
 congenial and disagreeable may be the association. 
 For if the departure of a few Methodists to Pu- 
 seyism and Rome be a sign portentous of the in- 
 evitable corruption and downfall of the Methodist 
 church, then the departure of a few dissatisfied 
 old Methodists and many Methodist young con- 
 verts to the Baptist church, must accelerate the 
 corruption and downfall of the Methodist church 
 — that is, with Puseyism and Rome on one hand, 
 and the Baptist church on the other — the destruc- 
 tion of the Methodist church is inevitable ! This 
 cannot be; for we have not only long survived 
 the double shock, but felt no sensible diminution 
 in strength or numbers, piety or purity, zeal or 
 success, by the attacks or the loss on either hand. 
 6 
 
62 INFANT BAPTISM 
 
 No ; the acquisitions of Puseyism and Rome from 
 us we never deplore as an evidence of our weak- 
 ness or corruption, but as convenient occasions to 
 increase our strength, and preserve our purity, 
 while the large supplies with which we annually 
 furnish the Baptist church afford us the satisfac- 
 tion of believing, that we are promoting the cause 
 of God by strengthening a sister church, however 
 reluctant she may be to own the fact, or acknow- 
 ledge the debt. 
 
 The second proof the Doctor adduces, that the 
 destruction of the Methodist church is inevitable, 
 so long as it maintains the doctrine of infant bap- 
 tism, is : " other causes have been still more in- 
 fluential,^' which he enumerates as follows. ^^ The 
 people have the Bible in their hands, and they 
 read it." That is the very reason why the Metho- 
 dists embrace the doctrine of infant baptism, and 
 oppose the exclusiveness of the Baptists in immer- 
 sion and "close communion ;'' for surely they would 
 do neither the one nor the other, unless they be- 
 lieved they were supported by the Bible ; and so 
 long as they continue to read it properly, and in- 
 terpret it fairly, they will support the doctrine of 
 "justification by faith," and practise infant bap- 
 tism. " The people have the Bible in their hands, 
 and they read it" — thank G-od for it — we want no 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 63 
 
 better safeguard to the institutions and doctrines 
 of Methodism than the Bible. To it we appeal — 
 we appeal to it as it is — we are satisfied with it 
 as it is — we want no " new translation" — on tbe 
 Bible, as it is, we stand or fall. The Bible is a 
 plain book, easily understood, and the Methodists 
 have not been indifferent to its teachings. They 
 are able to judge for themselves in so plain a case 
 as that which refers to themselves and the rights 
 of their children. They are honest, too, in their 
 reading the Holy Scriptures; and so well con- 
 vinced are they of the truth of their opinions, on 
 all material points, that probably no people can be 
 found who are more charitable, or less inclined to 
 controversy, than they are. And of this one thing 
 are they most confident, that their religious views 
 are so conformable to the Bible, that as a church, 
 both in its membership and its ministry, by their 
 preaching, worship, writings, labors, and example, 
 they have been made a very great blessing to 
 other evangelical churches — the Baptist church 
 in particular. Let the Doctor himself then rejoice 
 in this — that the 3Iethodists ^' have the Bible in 
 their hands, and that they read it," 
 
 The Doctor continues: "revivals have been pre- 
 valent." On this a volume might be written. The 
 conversion of a soul is a great event — a revival 
 
64 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 is a mighty work. The apostolic church was a 
 revival church. The Methodist church is a revival 
 church — it is proverbial for its many and mighty 
 revivals. In this, is its great proof that it is the 
 church of God. In this, it gives a convincing 
 evidence that it is founded upon the Bible. In no 
 church, since the days of the Apostles, have revi- 
 vals been so prevalent and extensive as in the 
 Methodist church — this is now admitted on all 
 hands — and it is admitted also on all hands, that 
 no church, since the days of the Apostles, has 
 arisen to such a magnitude, in so short a time, as 
 the Methodist church. To God, the great Builder, 
 be all the glory. Let revivals cease, and the 
 church will cease — nothing will remain but a 
 lifeless formality. But if infant baptism be the 
 all-comprehending evil to a church the Doctor 
 would make it, how will he explain the preva- 
 lency and magnitude of the revivals with which 
 God has favored and honored the Methodist 
 church ? The seal of God is conspicuously affixed 
 to the Methodist church. That is enough. What 
 does this prove? Several things. That infant 
 baptism, as maintained by the Methodists, is not 
 an evil. That it is an evil, for Doctor Howell to 
 write against the Methodist church as he has 
 done. That it is an evil, for any among the Bap- 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 65 
 
 tists, who have read his book, to cherish the 
 opinions of the Methodist church which he does. 
 That it is an evil, to exclude those whom God 
 has sealed as entitled to sacramental communion. 
 Revivals ! what evangelical church in England or 
 America has not enjoyed the blessed effects of 
 Methodist revivals? And the last church in 
 Christendom, to raise a warning voice against the 
 Methodist church, is the Baptist church — Doctar 
 HowelVs own church — for she, of the sister 
 churches, has reaped the largest share of our 
 heaven-sealed and arduous labors. 
 
 The Doctor continues : " the truth has been left 
 free to combat error." That is true : and well 
 has the Methodist church wielded the weapons of 
 truth. Not by systematic and violent controver- 
 sies has she done this, but through millions of 
 converts who have embraced the truth she taught 
 — by the exemplary lives of her members, "epis- 
 tles known and read of all men" — by her in- 
 vigorating and reforming influence upon civil 
 and social society — by her influence upon every 
 department of professional life — by her influence 
 to the extremities of the church and state — and 
 by her influence upon the Baptist church itself. 
 Why then is the Doctor desirous to array his 
 brethren against the Methodist church ? Is it, 
 6* 
 
66 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 indeed, because she nurses in her bosom the sum 
 of evil — infant baptism — the producing cause 
 of "inevitable destruction?" Nay; that it can- 
 not be; for if it was, then she could not have 
 wielded the truth as she has. But this it may be 
 — for such is man — beholding enrolled among 
 the leading laymen and ministers in the Baptist 
 church, and by the thousand among her private 
 members, those who were taught "justification by 
 faith'* under the preaching of the mighty men of 
 Methodism, the Doctor attempts to trace the pre- 
 sent strength of the Baptist church to her own 
 powers alone in wielding the truth — we ascribe 
 it, chiefly, to the use she has made of the in- 
 sidious dogma of exclusive immersion, her sophis- 
 tical opposition to the doctrine of infant baptism, 
 the contact she has had with other churches, and 
 her large contributions from Methodist revivals. 
 She forgets, that she has been gradually com- 
 pelled, by the resistless tide of Methodistic in- 
 fluence, to moderate her violence in maintaining 
 her favorite doctrines of the decrees and final per- 
 severance — that the frenzy on these subjects is 
 now almost wholly confined to diminutive Baptist 
 societies in the obscurity of forest life — and that 
 these characteristics of her faith must be alluded 
 to with extreme caution, with many salvos, and 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 67 
 
 with pious courtesy, in refined and intelligent 
 communities. She forgets, that in England, paedo- 
 baptism and open communion are extending rapidly 
 in her own churches, and practised at her own 
 altars. She forgets, what repulsive and pernicious 
 " errors" of her founders she has abandoned, what 
 disgusting rites and ceremonies of her infancy 
 she has discontinued, what forms and observances, 
 and what truths and institutions, in her progress 
 towards purity and order, she has borrowed from 
 other evangelical churches. She forgets, that since 
 the auspicious time " truth was left free to control 
 error," it combatted her errors — and not in vain 
 for her — and yet not with entire success — for 
 the error of exclusive immersion, and its concomi- 
 tant "close communion," still remain — and it is 
 likely, in this country, she will not easily surren- 
 der these — for on these depend chiefly her sepa- 
 rateness as a Christian community. She forgets, 
 that so strong has been the vindication of " the 
 truth" from the Bible, by the Paedo-Baptist 
 churches, against these, her peculiar tenets, that 
 she has assembled her strong men (who are now 
 employed), to remodel the Bible, and conform it 
 to her errors — a work in which the Bomish 
 church has preceded her. Fortunate was the day 
 for her, when truth unfettered, broke her bonds, 
 
68 INFANT BAPTISM, 
 
 and offered her entire freedom ; and happier had 
 she been, had she thrown away all her chains. 
 Fortunate, too, was that day for the evangelical 
 churches, for they welcomed its increasing light, 
 and extricated Infant Baptism from the abuses to 
 which it had been perverted for centuries by spi- 
 ritual despotism, and restored it to its original 
 apostolic simplicity and purity — from which, so 
 long as '^ truth is left free to combat error,'' it can 
 never be removed, either by the opposition of the 
 Baptists, or the sophistries of Pusey and Rome. 
 
 The Doctor continues : '^ All these churches 
 have been in contact with the Baptists." This is 
 begging — wrenching the question — in the face 
 of positive and opposing facts. It is begging the 
 question, for it is assuming, that the Baptists are 
 right, and that the other evangelical churches are 
 wrong, on the subject of infant baptism — while 
 this has been a subject of controversy ever since 
 the modern Baptist church began. It is begging 
 the question, for it is assuming, that the Baptist 
 church is exerting a reforming influence on the 
 other evangelical churches on the subject of infant 
 baptism, whicb is denied ; for where, in town or 
 country, has this influence made any sensible im- 
 pression upon Paedo-Baptist communities ? It is 
 begging the question, for the Doctor cannot ad- 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 69 
 
 duce a single fact to prove that contact with the 
 Baptist church has improved the other evangelical 
 churches on the subject of infant baptism. It is 
 begging the question, for it is a vain conceit to 
 assume, that contact with his church will ever 
 effect any modification in other churches on the 
 subject of infant baptism. It is begging the ques- 
 tion, for how does the Doctor know, that the con- 
 tact into which the Baptist church has been 
 brought by the providence of Grod with other 
 evangelical churches, will produce material changes 
 in their doctrinal views, and none in his own? 
 and how can he determine that they will not ulti- 
 mately convince his church of the evils of exclu- 
 sive immersion and " close communion ?" and so 
 cause the Baptists to abandon these dogmas ? — 
 as the Baptists are now doing in England. But it 
 is begging the question in the face of positive and 
 opposing facts. 1st. Contact of the Baptist church 
 with the evangelical Psedo-Baptist churches has 
 been the cause of vast improvement to the Bap- 
 tist church ; and if she will break down the iron 
 wall of "close communion," and so come into 
 closer union with them, she will derive a still 
 greater improvement — at least in brotherly love 
 and Christian charities. 2d. Some of the evan- 
 gelical Paedo-Baptist churches existed be/ore the 
 
70 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 modern Baptist church had a being, and they 
 maintain unchanged their Psedo-Baptist views. 
 3d. Since the evangelical churches have been 
 brought into contact with the Baptist church, 
 they have encountered nothing but opposition 
 from the Baptists, on the subject of infant bap- 
 tism, and the mode of baptism; and yet they 
 have steadily increased and flourished — retaining 
 the doctrine of ''justification by faith'^ in its 
 original scriptural purity — maintaining the doc- 
 trine of infant baptism with unabated devotion — 
 and, with a boundless prospect of success before 
 them, proceed to the discharge of their appro- 
 priate work almost careless of the pertinaceous 
 opposition of the Baptists. 4th. What the Doctor 
 calls "contact,'' is in fact conflict — and we re- 
 peat, the Baptists have been taught many im- 
 portant and useful lessons by the conflict. 5th. 
 But we deny that there has ever been any con- 
 tact in the case, in the full sense of the word — 
 for the Baptists have reared a wall — '^ close com- 
 munion" — which eflectually excludes all other 
 evangelical churches from sacramental communion 
 with her, the most intimate communion the church 
 of God can enjoy, and which unites all Christians 
 in the holiest fellowship possible on earth. 6th. It 
 is admitted, that contact with the Baptists, such 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 71 
 
 as it is, has been the occasion of a few erring, for 
 the most part, disaffected members withdrawing 
 from the evangelical Paedo-Baptist churches to 
 unite with the Baptists; but then the methods 
 adopted to gain over these few have not always 
 been manly and honorable, and not in a single in- 
 stance, in our judgment, has an accession been 
 made by the force of unsophisticated truth, or 
 fair argumentation. This much is unquestionably 
 true : the sum total of withdrawal, whether it be 
 few or many, from the evangelical Paedo-Baptist 
 churches — and we can answer for them all — has 
 produced no change whatever in their views of 
 the doctrines of infant baptism and justification by 
 faith. 7th. The contact, in a word, has produced 
 (if it has produced anything), irritation and wrang- 
 ling, hurtful to weak consciences, causing unhappy 
 divisions in families and neighborhoods, and re- 
 pelling the churches to a greater distance from 
 each other. And unless the Baptists moderate 
 the zeal with which they maintain their peculiar 
 tenets, or if other writers among them, like Dr. 
 Howell, shall wage a relentless warfare against the 
 evangelical Paedo-Baptist churches, the evils of 
 division will be aggravated inconceivably, and the 
 last fibre of the bond that now binds them to the 
 Baptists will be severed forever. Inconclusive is 
 
72 INFANT BAPTISM 
 
 the reasoning of the Doctor, that contact with the 
 Baptists perpetuates the doctrine of "justification 
 hy faith" in the evangelical Paedo-Baptist churches ; 
 and vain is the fond hope, should he indulge such 
 a hope, that this "contact" will ever cause them 
 to abrogate the impressive and scriptural institu- 
 tion of " infant baptism." 
 
 The examples which the Doctor gives are alike 
 inconclusive, because inappropriate. " The Refor- 
 mation had its Luthers — Melancthons — Calvins 
 — Zwingles — Ridleys — Latimers? Whence now 
 has infant baptism carried all their evangelical 
 principles ? The same causes will ultimately, in 
 the Presbyterian, Methodist, Congregational, and 
 all other Psedo-Baptist churches, produce the same 
 results" (p. 83). We answer — though these great 
 Beformers are dead, and the churches they founded 
 are mouldered to dust, yet the " evangelical prin- 
 ciples" which they published to the world, and for 
 which Bidley and Latimer suffered martyrdom, 
 still live, because they are imperishable; and to 
 this day they constitute the foundation of all that 
 is truly evangelical in the theological creeds and 
 religious institutions on the continent of Europe 
 and in the kingdom of Great Britain. "Justifi- 
 cation by faith" was the great cardinal " evangeli- 
 cal'' truth with which Luther shook the papal 
 
INFANT BAPTISM 
 
 church to the very foundation, and inflicted a blow 
 upon the supremacy of the Pope, from which he 
 can never recover. " Justification by faith" was 
 the central truth of the Reformation, Does the 
 Doctor affirm, that the ^'evangelical principles" 
 of the Reformation have all passed away ? Yes ; 
 this he roundly asserts in the quotation above; 
 and this the history of the evangelical Paedo-Bap- 
 tist churches since the Reformation palpably con- 
 tradicts. To this day, the Lutheran church main- 
 tains the doctrine of "justification by faith,^' and 
 many other important " evangelical principles" — 
 and Lutheran churches are numerous and flourish- 
 ing on the continent of Europe, in England, and 
 America. And "Presbyterian" churches, who 
 claim " Calvin" as their founder, also, at this day, 
 exist and flourish in the same countries. And let 
 it be observed, that " infant baptism" still exists 
 in all these churches. So it is not true, that 
 "infant baptism has carried away all the evan- 
 gelical principles" of the churches of the Refor- 
 mation — indeed, no cause has done it. And so 
 the conclusion of the Doctor — "the same causes 
 will ultimately, in the Presbyterian, Methodist, 
 Congregational, and all other Paedo-Baptist 
 churches, produce the same results" — falls to 
 the ground. But this is not ail. The apostolic 
 7 
 
74 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 ■cliurcbes had their Pauls^ and Peters, and Johns, 
 and Timothies — and the Doctor assures himself 
 that they never preached, or practised, or allowed 
 infant baptism — and what soon became of the 
 churches they planted, and the " evangelical prin- 
 ciples" they preached ? The churches at Corinth, 
 Ephesus, Philippi, Thessalonica, Sardis, Rome — 
 which the Doctor believes were all Baptist 
 churches — where are they? They, he assumes, 
 Tvere not Paedo-Baptist churches — what, then, 
 "carried away all their evangelical principles?" 
 What causes " ultimately" corrupted the apostolic 
 churches, and produced Popery? Not infant bap- 
 tism as one of them, for the Doctor maintains it 
 did not then exist. If it did exist in them, they 
 became corrupt ; if it did not exist in them, they 
 nevertheless became corrupt. That they did be- 
 come corrupt is a fact of history. But the Doc- 
 tor maintains, it did not exist in them, and yet 
 -they became corrupt ; and therefore '^ causes," in 
 which infant baptism is not to be numbered, de- 
 stroyed them, and "carried away their evangelical 
 principles." Very well; if any of the churches 
 of the Reformation, that maintained infant bap- 
 tism, subsequently degenerated and became hereti- 
 cal, it does not follow, that degeneration and 
 heresy were produced by infant baptism. The 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 75 
 
 same causes, which corrupted the apostolic 
 churches, may have produced the '^same legiti- 
 mate results'' in any of the evangelical churches 
 of the Reformation that have become corrupt — 
 and so may corrupt any evangelical Psedo-Baptist 
 church, in all time — and even the Baptist church 
 itself — for we have proceeded in this argument 
 upon the Doctor's own ground — that the apostolic 
 churches were all the purest sort of Baptist 
 churches. 
 
 The true "causes" which corrupted the apos- 
 tolic churches, or to any extent any evangelical 
 Psedo-Baptist churches of the Reformation, or any 
 evangelical church since the times of the Apostles 
 and the Reformation, we shall state definitely at 
 the proper place. What we have just now stated 
 will suffice to show the fallacy of the Doctor's 
 reasoning. 
 
 However, before we leave the general argument 
 of the Doctor under consideration, we offer the 
 reader two additional remarks. The first is : the 
 Doctor, as most Baptist writers, and all other in- 
 ventors of novel opinions of religious ceremonies 
 and doctrines have done, in his opposition to in- 
 fant baptism, has invented new principles of duty, 
 new axioms of philosophy, and new rulers of logic, 
 alike repulsive to reason, to common sense, to his- 
 
76 INFANT BAPTISM 
 
 tory, and to scripture, as the present section of 
 this reply must have evinced to the candid reader. 
 The second remark is : so far from ^' the princi- 
 ples on which infant baptism is founded (thci 
 Doctor uses the term ^^ predicated/^ a misappli- 
 cation of the term) contradicting the doctrine of 
 "justification by faith/' they are in harmony 
 with it. The principles on which "justification 
 by faith'' is founded, are the principles of grace. 
 The principles on which infant baptism is founded, 
 are the principles oi grace. "Justification," in 
 the adult, is "by faith," "through grace/^ and 
 so justification by faith, through grace, gives him 
 a title to baptism. But "justification" in the in- 
 fant is by grace, without faith, and so justification 
 by grace, without faith, gives the infant a title to 
 baptism. G-race, in the case of infants, dispenses 
 with faith in order to both justification and bap- 
 tism, and, investing them with justification, con- 
 sequently justification in the infant as much enti- 
 tles him to baptism without faith, as justification 
 entitles the adult to baptism by faith. This con- 
 clusion cannot be denied, without denying the 
 right of infants to salvation, for none can be 
 saved who are not justified. The "principles," 
 therefore, which the Doctor assumes "contradict 
 the doctrine of justificntion by faith," are the 
 
INFANT BAPTISM 
 
 principles of grace, and we leave him to review 
 his groujad. 
 
 Y. The fifth general argument of the Doctor is : 
 " Infant baptism is an evil, because it is in di- 
 rect CONFLICT with THE DOCTRINE OF REGENE- 
 RATION BY THE Spirit'^ (p. 85), 
 
 Before the Doctor proceeds to adduce any proof 
 of this " evil,'^ he gives us a strange mixture of 
 candor and misrepresentation. '' Our brethren of 
 all the Protestant denominations, teach that we 
 are regenerated hy the Spirit of God ; and they 
 also teach that we are regenerated by baptism" 
 (pp. 85, 86). _ Again: ^'I am gratified to say, 
 however, that all these denominations have gra- 
 dually acquired, as they became better instructed 
 in the Word of Grod, more distinct and full con- 
 ceptions of the work of the Spirit in regeneration ; 
 and especially is this true of the various classes of 
 Methodists, Congregationalists, and Presbyterians, 
 ill our country and in Europe" (p. 91). And 
 again : " More than this ] they give, in their life 
 and character, most gratifying evidence that they 
 are themselves the subjects of this heavenly reno- 
 vation'^ (p. 91). We will give these honest con- 
 cessions a moment's consideration. 1st. The 
 churches that teach the doctrine of regeneration 
 by the Spirit, teach sound doctrine, and the Doc- 
 7* 
 
78 INFANT BAPTISM 
 
 tor concedes the evangelical P^edo-Baptist churclies 
 teach this; therefore infant baptism in those 
 churches is not in '• conflict with the doctrine of 
 regeneration by the Spirit" — the Doctor himself 
 being the witness. 2d. The Doctor concedes that 
 certain Paedo-Baptist churches have been gra- 
 dually improving in the knowledge of the Word 
 of God and work of the Spirit in regeneration, 
 and that this specially is true of the Methodists, 
 &c. Therefore, infant baptism has not caused 
 these churches to degenerate, as the Doctor 
 asserted in the preceding section. Where, then, 
 is the evil of infant baptism — the Doctor himself 
 being judge. 3d. He concedes, that the evan- 
 gelical Pssdo-Baptist churches, in their life and 
 character^ give the most gratifying evidence that 
 they have been regenerated hy the Spirit Well 
 done, my dear Doctor — where then is the evil of 
 infant baptism ? Have you more gratifying evi- 
 dence that the Baptists have been regenerated by 
 the Spirit ? Would the Apostles themselves have 
 demanded more as a proof of regeneration, and as 
 pre-requisite to sacramental communion? If in 
 " life and character'^ — and more cannot be re- 
 quired — the evangelical Pgedo-Baptist churches 
 " give the most satisfactory evidence" of regene- 
 ration by the Spirit, then incontestably they do 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 79 
 
 not teach regeneration by baptism, because belief 
 in regeneration by the Spirit implies^ that they do 
 not. believe that they were regenerated by baptism 
 in infancy — the Doctor himself being judge. 
 These are the fatal concessions which the Doctor 
 makes with regard to the evangelical Psedo-Bap- 
 tist churches, especially the various classes of 
 Methodists, Congregationalists, and Presbyterians 
 in our country and in Europe." All this is can- 
 did : but he is not content to rest here long : he 
 must find '^ eviF' in infant baptism somewhere, in 
 some churches, and in some form, and we follow 
 him in the pursuit. 
 
 "Yet when infant baptism is to be adminis- 
 tered, or defended, all their evangelical princi- 
 ples are apparently forgotten. Baptism and rege- 
 neration are not now esteemed by them as separate 
 and distinct things, but they declare them essen- 
 tially identified.'^ And this, he says, he "shall 
 sustain by the amplest testimony" (pp. 91, 92). 
 He adduces quotations from the " Augsburg,' ' 
 " the earlier Helvetic and another Lutheran Con- 
 fession," " the Westminster Confession," " the 
 Belgic Confession," " the Heidelburg Catechism, 
 or Confession,^' "the Galilean Confession," "the 
 Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England," 
 and "the Articles of Kelision of the Methodist 
 
80 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 church/' and adds, "the same doctrine is main- 
 tained in the Bohemian, the Saxon, and all the 
 others,^^ and concludes, " the Catechisms and stan- 
 dard writers (p. 96) maintain the same doctrine' ' 
 (pp. 92, 93). This is a startling array of " testimony" 
 surely, if it be testimony. But, in the first place, 
 it will be hard to enable many of "the million" 
 to understand to wJiat Paedo-Baptist churches all 
 these "Catechisms" and "Confessions" belong — 
 to what extent many of them are evangelical — 
 and so much of this " testimony" must be of no 
 weight to them. In the second place, the Doctor 
 misrepresents the Arminian and evangelical por- 
 tion in the above churches, especially in the 
 Church of England, who maintain sound and 
 scriptural views of infant baptism. In the third 
 place, " the various classes of Methodists, Congre- 
 gationalists, and Presbyterians in this country 
 and in Europe," as distinct and entire evangelical 
 churches, maintain sound and scriptural views of 
 infant baptism. To refer particularly to the 
 Methodists alone in this country and in England : 
 they interpret their Articles of Religion in har- 
 mony with regeneration by the Spirit, and their 
 interpretation is what they " teach," when they 
 " administer or defend infant baptism." The 
 " Catechisms" of the Methodists in this country 
 
 i 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 81 
 
 and in England flatly contradict the charge of the 
 Doctor. In the Catechism (written by Richard 
 Watson, " a standard writer'^ of the Methodists) 
 adopted by the entire "Wesleyan Connection ixT 
 England, and the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
 North and South, in this country, the children 
 are taught : 
 
 " What is the outward and visible sign or form 
 of baptism ? 
 
 " The application of water in the name of the 
 Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." 
 (Mat. 28 : 19.) 
 
 " What is the inward and spiritual grace signi- 
 fied by this ? 
 
 " Our being cleansed from sin, and becoming 
 new creatures in Christ Jesus (Acts 22 : 16). 
 Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, 
 calling on the name of the Lord. 
 
 "What are the actual privileges of baptized 
 persons ? 
 
 " They are made members of the visible church 
 of Christ : their gracious relation to him as the 
 second Adam, as the Mediator of the new cove- 
 nant, is solemnly ratified by divine appointment ; 
 and they are thereby recognised as having a claim 
 to all those spiritual blessings of which they are 
 the proper subjects. 
 
82 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 " What doth your baptism in the name of the 
 Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost oblige you 
 to do? 
 
 "My baptism obliges me, first, to renounce 
 the devil and all his works, the pomps and vani- 
 ties of this wicked world, and all the sinful lusts 
 of the flesh; secondly, that I should believe all 
 the articles of the Christian faith; and thirdly, 
 that I should keep God's holy will and command- 
 ments, and walk in the same all the days of my 
 life/^ 
 
 Now, what is the interpretation all the Metho- 
 dists in the world give to these statements ? That 
 baptism is a sign, and not an efficient cause of 
 grace. That cleansing from sin, and becoming 
 new creatures, follow in cases dying in infancy, 
 which is the work of the Holy Spirit, in view of 
 the free grace of God in the vicarious death of 
 Christ, "the second Adam, the Mediator of the 
 new covenant,'^ which baptism solemnly, sensibly, 
 and formally ratifies. That all infants, living and 
 subsequently performing all the conditions of the 
 covenant, have a " claim to all the spiritual bless- 
 ings'' of the covenant, and this prospective claim 
 is formally and solemnly "recognised'^ in infant 
 baptism. And that all infants, living, are 
 " obliged" to renounce the vanities of the world. 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 believe all the doctrines of the Bible, and obey 
 God all the days of their life ; which obligations 
 are set forth prospectively in infant baptism. Not 
 one word in all this, that infants in baptism are 
 regenerated and ''cleansed from the defilements 
 of original sin." 
 
 And in the Catechism composed by Bishop 
 Capers, and published by the Methodist Church, 
 for the use of Methodist Missions, and taught 
 even to thousands of black children on the planta- 
 tions in the Southern country, the children are 
 instructed as follows : 
 
 " What is baptism ? 
 
 ''Baptism is a sign of the grace of God that 
 makes us Christians. 
 
 " Does baptism make us Christians ? 
 
 " No : water cannot make us Christians : grace 
 makes us Christians. 
 
 "Who works that grace in us to make us 
 Christians ? 
 
 "The Holy Ghost." 
 
 Here, then, is a flat denial of the charge, that 
 the Methodists teach in their Catechisms, that in- 
 fants are regenerated m baptism, or li/ baptism. 
 Thus, the premises of the Doctor, such as, " with 
 the Methodists baptism is the means by lofiich 
 their infants are regenerated and born again" — 
 
84 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 '' baptism and regeneration are not esteemed by 
 tbem as separate and distinct things, but essen- 
 tially identical" — being false, bis conclusion — 
 ^'tbe doctrine of infant baptism is consequently in 
 direct conflict witb tbe work of the Holy Spirit in 
 regeneration" — is also false — and so is exhibited 
 the insufi&ciency of his " ample testimony" to 
 make out an ''evil" in infant baptism in the 
 Methodist church. When we " administer or de- 
 fend infant baptism" we neither " apparently" nor 
 really " forget our evangelical principles." In our 
 Catechisms, in our Articles of Keligion, and in 
 our Baptismal forms, we always " esteem baptism 
 and regeneration as separate and distinct things," 
 and never '' declare them essentially identified." 
 Indeed, we forbear to inquire into the spirit or the 
 motives with which the Doctor made the accusa- 
 tion whicli we have just now denied and dis- 
 proved. Whatever may have been his spirit or 
 his motives — if good, they have been perverted 
 — if bad, they have been exposed. That he 
 cannot sincerely believe his accusation to be true, 
 he has "the most gratifying evidence" in his 
 concessions already before the reader ; and that he 
 sincerely believes we teach regeneration hy the 
 Spirit, is demonstrated by his own conduct, for 
 he cheerfully embraces every proper opportunity 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 85 
 
 to immerse every person regenerated by tlie Spirit 
 under the ^^ teaching" and labors of the Methodist 
 churclj, and so initiates all such into his church, 
 authenticated and esteemed as good and true 
 ^' disciples" as any in his own communion. And 
 if he will nurse them well, no matter — only 
 remind them occasionally of their " true mother," 
 lest they forget her — reproach her — despise her 
 — as many old Baptist laymen, and Baptist 
 writers do. Take care of these ^' habes in Christ," 
 Doctor: they are our arguments that you sin- 
 cerely believe we maintain ^^regeneration by "On^ 
 Spirit.^' Take care of these ^Hamhs,^' Doctor: 
 they are our proofs that infant baptism is not an 
 " evil" among the Methodists. Bead these " living 
 epistles," Doctor : they are our ^' testimony" with 
 which to refute your book. 
 
 VI. The sixth general argument of the Doctor 
 is: "Infant baptism is an evil, because, arro- 
 gating HEREDITARY CLAIMS TO THE COVENANT 
 OF GRACE, IT FALSIFIES THE DOCTRINE OF UNI- 
 VERSAL depravity" (p. 98). 
 
 Worse and worse — if we understand the Doc- 
 tor. Let us proceed a few steps farther, that we 
 may clearly understand him. " All the blessings 
 of the gospel of Christ are claimed by our Peedo- 
 Baptist brethren for all their infant children. 
 
86 INFANT BAPTISM 
 
 Such is the doctrine on this subject which uni- 
 versally prevails among Presbyterians, Congrega- 
 tionalistSj and all other Calvinists. By theju it is 
 distinctly avowed; and it is held with more or 
 less ambiguity, by every class of Paedo-Baptists'* 
 (Ibid). He says, "this is the doctrine of the 
 Methodist church in the United States" (p. 100). 
 After making sundry quotations from Paedo-Bap- 
 tist authors to prove that this doctrine is taught 
 ia the Church of England, the Episcopal church 
 in the United States, and by the Presbyterians in 
 England and America, he concludes, " from these 
 expositions we learn, that all children of believers 
 are by hereditary descent entitled to the privileges 
 of membership in the house of God, and to the 
 promises of salvation. These are prerogatives 
 arising exclusively from their hereditary relations. 
 Their parents are holy; therefore their children 
 are holy'^ (pp. 101, 102). In the first place, 
 every author he quotes, places the right of infants 
 to the blessings of the covenant upon the free 
 grace of God, though some of them limit the 
 right to baptism to descent from believing parents ; 
 and this the Doctor knew, as he had read at least 
 one authority, Goode, whom he quoted as au- 
 thority. Consequently none are horn holy. Some 
 Psedo-Baptists, such as Papists and Puseyites, 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 87 
 
 maintain, that all infants, when ho,pt{zed, are 
 regenerated or made holy, but even these corrupt 
 churches never maintained, that any infants are 
 horn holy. Some Pasdo-Baptists in the Church 
 of England maintain, that elect infants, and the 
 infants of elect parents, are regenerated or made 
 holy in baptism ; but none of them maintain, that 
 ani/ infants are born holy. The Doctor certainly 
 can see, that right to baptism, and right to rege- 
 neration, from hereditary descent, are very dif- 
 ferent things. We believe both rights are ground- 
 less. 
 
 The Doctor has also erred egregiously in stating 
 the question. Universal depravity is maintained 
 by all the churches from which he quotes — some 
 of them maintaining that the children of believing 
 parents are entitled to baptism, and that such are 
 regenerated or made holy by the Spirit in baptism 
 — T-of course they were unholy before they were 
 baptized. They maintain, that all infants are 
 depraved; but some, namely, those of believing 
 parents, are entitled to baptism, and in baptism 
 obtain regeneration; but that others, not of be- 
 lieving parents, are not entitled to baptism, and 
 so continue unholy : and hence that all, by na- 
 ture, are unholy, which is the doctrine of univer- 
 sal depravity. Secondly, the Doctor positively 
 
88 INFANT BAPTISM 
 
 contradicts himself. In the two preceding chap- 
 ters of his "evils/' he quotes from these very 
 churches to prove that they maintain that infants 
 are regenerated or made holy in haptism, and 
 consequently that they are not holy in conse- 
 quence of hereditary descent. Hear him. To 
 prove that " infant baptism contradicts the great 
 fundamental principle of justification by faith/' he 
 quotes Wall as saying, " Most Paedo-Baptists hold 
 that Grod by his Spirit does, at the time of^KV- 
 TISM, seal and apply to the infant that is there 
 dedicated to him the promises of the covenant of 
 which he is capable, viz. : adoption, pardon of sins, 
 translation from, the state of nature to that of 
 GRACE." Again : " The justification, regenera- 
 tion, and adoption of little children haptized, 
 confers upon them a state of salvation." Again : 
 " Archbishop Usher writes thus : * The branches 
 of this reconciliation [received by infants in their 
 baptism'] are justification and adoption.' " And 
 the Doctor adds : " So teach all the other divines, 
 and all the Protestant Confessions of Faith and 
 Catechisms" (pp. 67, 68). And after quoting 
 from the "Augsburg/' and "Westminster Confer 
 sion," "The Thirty-Nine Articles," and thr^ 
 " Methodist Articles of Eeligion/' he adds, "And 
 Episcopalians and Methodists affirm that hy hap- 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 89 
 
 t'ism the new birth, tlie forgiveness of sins, and 
 adoption, are all to the child visibly signed and 
 sealed. The child therefore in baptism is par- 
 doned of sin, is regenerated, is adopted, is re- 
 ceived into the church, received into the favor of 
 Grod, and saved in heaven'^ (p. 76). And con- 
 cludes : " These are the expositions of standard 
 writers among Paedo-Baptists, of all classes, ex- 
 planatory of the effica<iy of baptism as taught in 
 their Confessions" (p. 80). Again : to prove that 
 infant baptism "is in conflict with the doctrine 
 of regeneration by the Holy Spirit,'^ he says, 
 "our brethren of the Protestant denominations 
 teach, that we are regenerated by baptism" 
 (p. 86). He quotes one Confession as stating, 
 " Baptism is, by the institution of the Lord, the 
 law of regeneration.^^ Another , " born again by 
 baptism and the Holy Spirit." Another : " rege- 
 neration is offered in baptism.'' And so on. 
 And continues : " with the Methodists baptism is 
 the means by which their infants are regenerated 
 and born again,'' and so of "elect infants" 
 among the Pnesbyterians. And he concludes : 
 " They all teach, therefore, that we are regene- 
 rated in baptism." Here, then, we have a flat 
 contradiction. If the Doctor proves by his Paedo- 
 Baptist authorities, that infant baptism contradicts 
 
 8* 
 
90 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 the doctrines of justification by faith, and regene- 
 ration by the Holy Spirit, then he cannot prove 
 that infant baptism contradicts the doctrine of 
 universal depravity, as is evident from the use 
 the Doctor makes of authorities. Thirdly, the 
 Psedo-Baptist authorities, adduced by the Doctor, 
 prove the doctrine of universal depravity, and so 
 the Doctor's argument is refuted by his own wit- 
 nesses. Fourthly, indeed the Doctor concedes all 
 this himself. "But our [Paedo-Baptist] brethren 
 themselves hold, and emphatically teach universal 
 depravity^^ (p. 103). And he quotes from the 
 Articles of Religion of the Protestant Episcopal, 
 and Methodist Episcopal Churches, in proof of 
 this. And adds, " Calvinism, in all its sects, 
 speaks" the same doctrine ; and concludes, " All 
 other evangelical denominations hold the same 
 principles'' (p. 10 1). These concessions the Doc- 
 tor was compelled to make, and they are fatal to 
 his argument, because it is evident that infant 
 baptism does not " falsify the doctrine of univer- 
 sal depravity." 
 
 When by numerous concession^, and palpable 
 contradictions, the Doctor refutes his own argu- 
 ment, it would be needless to detain the reader in 
 considering additional proof That is, when, by 
 his own concessions, he proves the inaccuracy of 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 91 
 
 his premises, and by Psedo-Baptist authorities 
 refutes his accusations against them, nothing re- 
 mains but to reject the premises as false, and the 
 accusations as untrue. 
 
 The truth is, infant baptism recognises the 
 entire moral depravity of infants, all infants, 
 without exception; and imports, in all cases, 
 dying in infancy, the necessity of regeneration by 
 the Spirit, in order to their qualification for 
 heaven; and living till responsible age, the ne- 
 cessity still of regeneration by the Spirit, which is 
 to be obtained by repentance and faith : all the 
 way, it implies universal depravity." Infant bap- 
 tism, then, is not an "evil" upon the ground 
 which the Doctor assumes — and we pass to the 
 consideration of his seventh general argument. 
 
 VII. "Infant baptism is an evil, because IT 
 
 NECESSARILY ENTAILS CORRUPTIONS UPON THE 
 
 church" (p. 109). 
 
 In endeavoring to sustain this position, the 
 Doctor expends his best energies — but in vain. 
 His first proof is : " Infant baptism corrupts the 
 church in her doctrines.'^ He says, this has been 
 proved " in the preceding chapters" of his book. 
 Not at all; for we have seen, in the preceding 
 sections of this reply, that his " chapters" contain 
 a mass of false issues, misrepresentations, perver- 
 
92 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 sioaSj concessions, contradictions, and illogic^ 
 conclusions, which it is surprising he ever should 
 have published to the world, and which, having 
 reviewed, he did not correct. He refers to the 
 doctrines of "justification by faith,^^ "regenera- 
 tion by the Spirit," and "universal depravit/^ — 
 all of which are maintained uncorrupted by the 
 evangelical Paedo-Baptist churches — and this the 
 Doctor, again and again, as we have seen, con- 
 cedes. 
 
 His next proof is : " Infant baptism also cor- 
 rupts the church in her membership." We reply : 
 in whatever country, and in whatever church, 
 baptized infants are regarded in subsequent life 
 as members of the church of Christ — there infant 
 baptism is a subject of abuse, and is perverted 
 from its original, apostolic design. In truly evan- 
 gelical churches, infants wlio subsequently to their 
 baptism, at the proper time, fail to repent and 
 believe, are not regarded as members of the 
 church (nor do they regard themselves as such), 
 any more than adults are- in the Baptist church, 
 who, after their baptism, commit sin, and back- 
 slide from the faith. The very quotation which 
 the Doctor makes from Dr. Miller proves this. 
 "The only question they can ask themselves is 
 not. Shall we enter the church? but, Shall we 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 93 
 
 continue in it'' — by repentance and faith and 
 obedience, according to the prospective requisi- 
 tions of our baptism in infancy ? What the Doc- 
 tor says about the practice of churches ^^ on the 
 other side of the Atlantic," and of high-churchism 
 in this country, has no more to do with the 
 practice of the truly evangelical Psedo-Baptist 
 churches, than Popery there, and high-churchism 
 here, have to do with the pure doctrines of the 
 evangelical churches there and here, since infant 
 baptism, and other institutions of pure Chris- 
 tianity, are there abused and interwoven with 
 many gross and fatal corruptions. 
 
 His next proof is: ^Mnfant baptism corrupts 
 the church in the spirit hy which she is ani- 
 mated." This he attempts to support as follows : 
 First, '' the spirit with which infant baptism 
 inspires the church is corrupt and unholy." This 
 is but a reiteration of the proposition to be proved. 
 Secondly, "it is fully justified by the history of 
 Popery in all ages." Evangelical Pasdo-Baptist 
 churches have nothing to do with that, since 
 Popery has corrupted the doctrine of the Lord's 
 Supper, justification by faith, and many other 
 evangelical doctrines of Christianity — and there- 
 fore, upon the Doctor's own showing, because 
 Popery has done all this, evangelical churches, 
 
94 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 including the Baptist churchy will do it — a con- 
 clusion from which we recoil, as well as he. 
 Thirdly, "the progressive developments of Pro- 
 testantism increase its force." This we deny — 
 and the denial is equivalent to the affirmation. 
 But we go farther, and prove the affirmation to be 
 false. The progressive developments of sound 
 Protestantism are opposed to all corruption, both 
 in church and state. This has now become an 
 axiom of history. Sound Protestantism, " the re- 
 ligion of the Bible,'' * is the life of the church, 
 and the foundation of our republic. Churches 
 that call themselves Protestant may, it is true, 
 abuse and pervert the doctrine of infant baptism 
 — but evangelical Psedo-Baptist churches are not 
 to be classed with them, any more than the evan- 
 gelical Baptists are to be classed with Camp- 
 bellites. Nor are they to be held any more 
 responsible for the heresies and corruptions of 
 certain so-called Protestant communities, than Dr. 
 Howell is for the heresies and corruptions of 
 Alexander Campbell — and therefore the tendency 
 of evangelical Pasdo-Baptist churches is no more 
 to be determined by the tendency of corrwpt 
 Paedo-Baptist churches, than the tendency of the 
 Doctor's church is to be determined by the ten- 
 
 * Ctiillingwortli. 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 95 
 
 dency of the sect of Alexander Campbell. That 
 is to say, both the Baptists and the Campbeliites 
 practise immersion, but they each give a different 
 meaning to it. And so evangelical and corrupt 
 churches practise infant baptism — the one pre- 
 serving it in its purity and simplicity, and the 
 other subjecting it to abuse and corruption. This 
 is but another example of the Doctor's mode 
 of reasoning — a particular conclusion from uni- 
 versal premises. The question should be stated 
 in this form : Do tbe '' progressive developments" 
 of evangelical Pjedo-Baptist churches '^ increase 
 the force" of the "corruption" to which the Doc- 
 tor refers ? TVe answer — no — not an iota. Place 
 the evangelical Pgedo-Baptist churches upon their 
 own merits, and their whole history, from the 
 beginning to the present, is a refutation of the 
 Doctor's allegation. In them there are no signs 
 of corruption : in evangelical doctrines and insti- 
 tutions they remain unchanged; and in these 
 there are no sources of corruption. Consequently, 
 so long as they continue evangelical, their " pro- 
 gressive developments" can never originate, much 
 less "increase the force of corruption'^ on the 
 subject of infant baptism. Not a single develop- 
 ment of these churches has, in any degree, or in* 
 any respect, impaired the force, or despoiled the 
 
96 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 beauty and purity of infant baptism ; and it is 
 mere assumption to say, that tbeir progressive 
 developments have done either, or will do either 
 in future. Fourthly, "They — the Neology of 
 Lutheranism, the Puseyism of Episcopacy, and 
 the Universalism and Unitarianism of Presbyte- 
 rianism and Congregationalism — are all the legi- 
 timate fruits of infant baptism, but for which 
 they never could have existed'^ (p. 112). A 
 superficial acquaintance with the history of the 
 origin of these corruptions, if he possessed it, 
 ought to have taught the Doctor better than this^ 
 and prevented him from adopting this miserable 
 view of infant baptism. Persons acquainted with 
 the origin of these corruptions know better, and 
 we will not detain the reader with any historical 
 quotations, or specific statements on the subject. 
 But we shall off'er other evidence equally satisfac- 
 tory with what an historical statement would be. 
 It is denied that Neology is a corruption of Lu- 
 theyanism, and Puseyism of Episcopacy, and Uni- 
 versalism and Unitarianism of Presbyterianism ; 
 but for argument's sake, we admit it all. And 
 yef we want the proof that they are " the legiti- 
 mate fruits of infant baptism!' — that, " but for 
 infant baptism, they never could have existed." 
 Let us apply this mode of reasoning to a few 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 97 
 
 examples or facts of history. Many heresies arose 
 in the Apostolic church; therefore they were 
 " the legitimate fruits of infant baptism" in the 
 Apostolic church, and "- but for infant baptism" 
 in the Apostolic church, " they never could have 
 existed." The Doctor's logic demonstrates that 
 infant baptism existed in the Apostolic church, 
 though at the same time it proves that Christ and 
 his Apostles sanctioned a corruption, and the 
 cause of heresies ! However, the Doctor gives us 
 a neio method to determine the Apostolic origin, 
 authority, and prevalence of infant baptism, though 
 we decline the method, and accept the fact. Again : 
 Campbellism arose in the Baptist church — for 
 Alexander Campbell was a Baptist when he con- 
 ceived his heresy, and did immense harm to the 
 Baptist church before he left it — therefore Camp- 
 bellism is '^the legitimate fruit" of immersion, 
 and " but for" immersion it " never could have 
 existed." The Doctor will not admit that this is 
 a ^'legitimate" conclusion — yet in one sense it is 
 true, because without immersion Campbellism 
 could not exist, for Campbellites practise immer- 
 sion as indispensable to salvation. Once more : 
 the celebrated Elnathan Winchester was a Baptist 
 minister, and then became a Universalist preacher, 
 and was the founder of Universalism in this coun- 
 
98 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 try — therefore Universalism is ^Hhe legitimate 
 fruit'* of immersion and dose communioUy and 
 but for these Universalism '^ never could have 
 existed/' These are all "legitimate" conclusions 
 from premises similar to those employed by the 
 Doctor against infant baptism. But their ab- 
 surdity is so palpable that they must be rejected 
 at once — and so also we must reject the Doctor's. 
 But we have another proof of the fallacy of the 
 Doctor's reasoning. The strongest opposers of 
 German " Neology, Puseyism, Universalism, and 
 Unitarianism/' are found in the evangelical Pa3do- 
 Baptist churches — and some of them in the very 
 churches in which, he says, these corruptions 
 arose — which is positive evidence that they have 
 not become corrupted by infant baptism. Finally : 
 a reaction has taken place in Germany, and the evan- 
 gelical Psedo-Baptist party in the controversy, among 
 whom Tholnck is prominent, have triumphed, and 
 Neology there is waning down to fruitless eflforts 
 — Puseyism, in our country at least, is losing 
 ground every day — and Universalism and Unita- 
 rianism are annually diminishing in strength at 
 the North, and are scarcely known at the South, 
 except in some of our populous towns and cities, 
 where they are few and feeble, and vanishing 
 away — while all over the land, from the Canadas 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 99 
 
 to Texas, and from the Atlantic to the Pacific, 
 the evangelical Psedo-Baptist churches, with no 
 mark of decay, decline, or decrepitude, are ex- 
 tending in every direction, with increasing vigor 
 annually, and with increasing numhers, opposing 
 all forms of religious heresies and corruptions, and 
 proclaiming the " glorious gospel of the blessed 
 God," in " the demonstration of the Spirit and in 
 power" — all the time maintaining uncorrupted 
 the Apostolic doctrine of infant baptism. These 
 are facts, and " the million" go for facts in settling 
 the truth or force of an argument. 
 
 Before we close this section, we will notice one 
 of the most extraordinary assumptions upon re- 
 cord. It is incidentally thrown in at a time when 
 the author thinks it will have the most decisive 
 effect upon the "million." Having represented 
 the "alarming and disastrous evils" — these are 
 his words — of infant baptism, and having proved, 
 as he thinks, that the tendency of evangelical 
 Paedo-Baptist churches is to "inevitable destruc- 
 tion," he exclaims, " But the Baptist church 
 cannot thus be corrupted and destroyed" (p. 112). 
 All other churches upon earth have in them the 
 elements of progressive corruption, and are fore- 
 doomed to destruction — but the Baptist church 
 is pure in nature^ and proof against destruction — 
 
100 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 yea, ste cannot be corrupted — she cannot be 
 destroyed : this is the assumption. 
 
 Admitting that the Baptist church is now 
 entirely pure — which we do not — this is as- 
 suming far too much; it is far too much for 
 any church to assume; it is assuming what 
 Christ and his Apostles never assumed for the 
 Christian church which they founded. Angels 
 fell. Adam fell. The patriarchal church became 
 corrupt, and but eight souls of all the ante-delu- 
 vian church remained uncorrupted. The Jewish 
 church, again and again, became corrupt, and at 
 the coming of Christ was in a state of very great 
 corruption. The churches at Jerusalem, Corinth, 
 Rome, Galatia, Ephesus, Philippi, Laodicea, Co- 
 losse, Philadelphia, Sardis, Pergamos, Thyatira, 
 Thessalonica, and all other churches planted by 
 the Apostles, became corrupt, and have long since 
 vanished from the world. 
 
 There are certain causes which, if they exist in 
 any church, will certainly corrupt it, whatever 
 may be the purity of its doctrines and ordinances. 
 We shall mention a few. 
 
 1. An unholy ministry. Such a ministry will 
 be governed by worldly motives, and preach for 
 worldly advantage or popular applause. They 
 will shrink from any duties likely to injure their 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 101 
 
 worldly reputation or worldly interests. They 
 will neglect the business of the church for their 
 own private business. They will not exercise the 
 proper discipline of the church lest the people 
 refuse to pay them their dues. They will sell the 
 cause of Christ, and his honor, and their own 
 souls, and the souls of men, for money. They 
 are barren in the works of charity, and destitute 
 of zeal, and the church of God will languish and 
 die on their hands. 2. An unholy membership 
 will corrupt and destroy the church, especially 
 where an unholy laity have a share in consti- 
 tuting rules and regulations for the government 
 of the church. 3. The spirit of worldly compro- 
 mise, whether in the preachers or the members, 
 will do it. 4. Unauthorized and unscriptural in- 
 novations upon the doctrines and ordinances of 
 pure Christianity, will do it. 5. A general ne- 
 glect of proper church discipline will do it. 
 6. The want of "brotherly love" will do it — 
 and the church become enslaved under the cor- 
 ruptions of bigotry and exclusiveness. In a word, 
 may not temptation corrupt the members, and 
 ambition destroy the rulers of the church? Is 
 the church proof against the seductions of wealth 
 and power in a popular age ? May it not depend 
 more upon its wealth, intelligence, and growing 
 9* 
 
102 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 influence, than spirituality in doctrinej experience, 
 and practice ? May it not exult more in its in- 
 creasing numbers, and worldly power, than in the 
 character of its converts, and the favor of Grod ? 
 May it not soften, as we have said, the rigor of 
 its wise and healthful discipline, observe with in- 
 difference and mere formality its solemn and holy 
 sacraments, compromit the truth of its divine and 
 evangelical precepts and requisitions, and allow 
 the spirit of the world gradually to diffuse itself 
 throughout its membership, till watchfulness, 
 prayer, self-denial, and zeal, are discontinued, and 
 not a vestige of its former simplicity and purity 
 remains? Is the Baptist church — is any church 
 of Christ — inaccessible to intemperance, fashion, 
 love of money, love of pleasure, love of ease, and 
 the love of the world in a thousand forms ? Does 
 the Doctor look down from his pulpit upon a pure 
 and holy church throughout ? Does he not be- 
 moan the presence of many tares — rank tares, 
 from time to time, and here and there? Does he 
 not often lift his waroing voice to arrest the 
 startling progress of corruption in many forms, 
 and rouse from their lethargy those that are '^ at 
 ease in Zion" around him ? Does he not some- 
 times, though not as often as he should, exercise 
 discipline in excluding improper and corrupt 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 103 
 
 members from his church, who were not baptized 
 in infancy, and who, with him, believe infant 
 baptism to be a great and intolerable evil ? If 
 infant baptism were the only cause of corruption 
 to the church, then, it is true, the Baptist church 
 can never become corrupt — so long as it opposes 
 its adoption and practice. But this is not the 
 fact, as we have just seen ; and hence the Doctor 
 assumes too much in defence of the integrity, 
 purity, and perpetuity of the Baptist church — he 
 assumes what is not true. 
 
 Further: as the Baptist church may be cor- 
 rupted and destroyed by causes, among which in- 
 fant baptism cannot be numbered, so evangelical 
 Paedo-Baptist churches may be corrupted and 
 destroyed by the same causes, and then what 
 advantage has the Baptist church over the evan- 
 gelical Paedo-Baptist churches ? Time alone can 
 determine, and time enough has already elapsed 
 since the origin of the modern Baptist church, 
 and the evangelical Paedo-Baptist churches, to 
 demonstrate that the Methodist church at least, 
 in numbers, wealth, intelligence, influence, and 
 pious labors, has surpassed the Baptist church, 
 though it was not founded by John Wesley in 
 England till 1739, nor in America till 1766, 
 under the preaching of Philip Embury, in the 
 
104 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 city of New York, wliile the Baptist cliurcli, the 
 Baptists themselves asserting,* was founded in 
 England in 1602, and in America, at Providence, 
 hj Boger Williams, in 1639. One hundred years, 
 or, if the Doctor chooses, 1800 years (as he claims 
 for his church descent from the Apostles), in ad- 
 vance of the Methodist church as to time, and yet 
 confessedly surpassed by the Methodist church I 
 When the Baptist church shall excel, or even 
 overtake the Methodist church, in these respects, 
 it will be time to examine into the true causes of 
 the astonishing achievement. However, in the 
 consideration of the causes that have operated, 
 and still operate, in the promotion of the pros- 
 perity of the Baptist church, the fruits of Metho- 
 dist revivals, and Methodist preaching, are to be 
 taken. We hesitate not to say, that if a deduc- 
 tion of Methodist converts, now in the Baptist 
 churches, in city, town, country, and island, were 
 fairly made, a very material difference would bo 
 seen in the present result ; and if it were possible 
 to estimate the extent of Methodist influence upon 
 the Baptist church, a more material difference 
 would be seen exisiting between the two churches, 
 standing upon their individual and intrinsic merits. 
 
 * Backus's Chixrcli BUst. c. 1, p. 19. Benedict's Hist, of Baptists, 
 vol. 1, -475. 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 105 
 
 But we are willing to waive the consideration of 
 all the fruits of Baptist proselytism (and this is 
 immense), and all the results of Methodist influ- 
 ence (and this is immense also), upon the Baptist 
 church, and with these helps yielded to the Bap- 
 tist church, submit the question, whether the 
 Methodist church is more liable to corruption 
 than the Baptist ? Does not, therefore, the Bap- 
 tist church, as it now is, owe much of its purity 
 and prosperity to the Methodist church ? Ought 
 not the Baptist church, then, for its own sake, to 
 cultivate a practical spirit of Christian friendship 
 and intercourse with the Methodist church ? Is 
 it good policy, is it reasonable, is it right, for Bap- 
 tist ministers, and Baptist newspapers, and the 
 Baptist Board of Publication, to send forth to the 
 world treatises and pamphlets and articles, in un- 
 compromising hostility to that very church which 
 has contributed, and is still contributing, so much 
 to the preservation and advancement of the Bap- 
 tist church ? Is it wise ? is it grateful ? is it chari- 
 table? is it Christian? What was the motive that 
 originated the conception of the Doctor's book of 
 " Evils ?'' It could not have been to build up, 
 but, at a single stroke, to pull down, the Paedo- 
 Baptist churches, heretical and evangelical, and so 
 enlarge the dimensions of the Baptist church : — •■ 
 
106 INTANT BAPTISM. 
 
 to tave ready a small treatise to place in the 
 hands of young converts in times of revival in 
 other churches, that a strong and certain direction 
 might be given to the Baptist church: — to ex- 
 cite discontent in the minds of many already asso- 
 ciated with other churches, and incline all such to 
 withdraw, and commit themselves to the '' liquid 
 grave,^' and the wide open arms of the Baptist 
 church : — to set up a defence for that which is 
 indelicate in some, and doubtful in all cases — 
 immersion — the foundation of the Baptist church; 
 — to oppose most strenuously that as a source of 
 many "evils,'' namely, infant baptism, which is a 
 most powerful argument against immersion : — to 
 destroy utterly, if possible, that which, so long as 
 it exists, and to the extent it exists, must consti- 
 tute the strongest opposition to the assumptions 
 of the Baptists on the subject of baptism — to de- 
 stroy, we repeat, at a single hlow^ the whole family 
 of evangelical Fdedo-Baptist churches. It was a 
 bold manoeuvre, but badly managed ; and however 
 pure and honest may have been the motive, if 
 such was his motive, frenzy alone must have in- 
 spired him with courage. Infant baptism and the 
 Baptist church can never be reconciled : one or 
 the other must go down in the Doctor's plan ; and 
 he sets himself to work, day and night, torturing 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 107 
 
 his brain witli schemes, collectino- and inventing; 
 materials, and obtaining help from conversation 
 and books, and it may be, from correspondence, 
 not very profound in any case, till he is ready, 
 with the formidable array of " twenty-one" argu- 
 ments, to prepare the people, by ^^ the million," to 
 combine for the utter extinction of the whole 
 family of evangelical Paedo-Baptist churches. Such 
 a motive is itself corrupt in the highest degree — 
 though "the Baptist church can never become 
 corrupted." The very conception of the Doctor's 
 book originated in corruption, or in ignorance, 
 and we need go no farther to prove, that the Bap- 
 tist church, in its ministry at least, is not pro- 
 tected against corruption by its opposition to in- 
 fant baptism. 
 
 But we shall go farther. Admitting the claim 
 of the Baptists — which we do not — that infant 
 baptism did not exist in the Apostolic churches, 
 nor in the early churches, as the Doctor affirms, 
 "till the middle of the third century," up to 
 which time the Baptist church alone existed, how 
 did it happen, that the church became corrupt at 
 all ? In his work on " Terms of Communion," p. 
 181, the Doctor affirms, "In the third century 
 and onwards, the Christian fathers believed and 
 taught that sins were only forgiven in baptism, 
 
108 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 that infacts, by this ordinance, were purged from 
 original pollution, and that all persons dying with- 
 out it were lost/' How came these Fathers so to 
 believe and teach, while they were Baptists, and 
 ^' the Baptist church can never be corrupted?" 
 Besides, if for the first three hundred years the 
 church was Baptist, it would be easy for the Doc- 
 tor to run a line of immersionists back to the 
 days of the Apostles, for it is presumable, as the 
 Doctor has fixed the time of the origin of infant 
 baptism, he can also certainly tell us up to what 
 time, and to what minister or preacher the Baptist 
 church continued in its Apostolic purity, ^^ faith 
 and order." If this can be done, it is surprising 
 it has never been done, since this would have set- 
 tled the baptismal controversy, and established the 
 claims of the Baptist church forever. If the Bap- 
 tist church did exist in the Apostolic age, and 
 continued uncorrupted for two hundred years after 
 the death of St. John (the last of the Apostles), 
 which happened about 100 A. D., the first fact is 
 evident, that the Baptist church, though it was. 
 Apostolic, did become corrupt, which refutes the 
 above arrogant assertion of the Doctor; and the 
 second fact is equally evident, the succession of 
 the Baptist church has been lost in the promis- 
 cuous ruins of ages, which refutes the popular and 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 109 
 
 favorite dogma of some of the Baptists, that ^' im- 
 mersion at the hands of an immersed administra- 
 tor is indispensable to the validity of the ordi- 
 nance :" in the former case, the Baptist church 
 was "corrupted and destroyed;" in the latter 
 case, it does not exist : in either case, the arro- 
 gance of the Baptist church, on the subjects of 
 immersion and infant baptism, is severely rebuked. 
 Thus : if the modern Baptist church is a revival 
 and restoration of Apostolic purity, as is assumed 
 by the Baptists, " corruption" may again ensue 
 in the Baptist church, and the " destruction" of 
 the Baptist church again occur — though it never 
 maintain the doctrine of infant baptism. 
 
 For example : upon the supposition — which we 
 do not admit — that the Apostolic churches were 
 Baptist churches, whence originated the Ebion- 
 ites ? — the Gnostics ? — the Phantastics or Doce- 
 tae ? — the Marcionites ? — the Encratites ? — the 
 Carpocratians ? — the Patripassians ? — the Yalen- 
 tinans ? — the Montanists ? — the Manicheans ? 
 For example again : modern Unitarianism was re- 
 vived in a Baptist church in Scotland, and Uni 
 versalism originated in this country, and perhaps 
 in the world, in a " Baptist church" in Philadel- 
 phia, under the heretical teaching of the celebrated 
 Elnathan Winchester, a Baptist clergyman, who 
 10 
 
110 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 afterwards visited England to disseminate tlie new 
 heresy there. And Walter Balfour, the great 
 leader of Universalism in New England, was a 
 Baptist, and then became a Universalist, and was 
 one of the most dangerous sophists and heretics 
 of our times. And Alexander Campbell, the 
 founder of Campbellism, was a Baptist, and is the 
 most dangerous religious sophist of the present 
 age. Once more : the Baptist church may be 
 distinguished into two denominations, the Par- 
 ticular and General Baptists, and these have but 
 little communication with one another. The Par- 
 ticular Baptists are Calvinistic, whose leading arti- 
 cle is the doctrine of particular redemption. The 
 General Baptists maintain the doctrine of general 
 redemption, and other doctrines of the Arminian 
 system, while they agree with the Particular Bap- 
 tists only on the subject of baptism, worship and 
 church discipline. The General Baptists have 
 recently been distinguished into the Old and New 
 connections. The Old General Baptists have been 
 gradually declining, and under the corrupting in- 
 fiuecice of Socinianism they are likely to become 
 extinct. And then there are the Scottish Bap- 
 tists, of more recent date still, who. differ in various 
 respects from the English Baptists. And then 
 more recently still, there has sprung up in Scot- 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. Ill 
 
 land another sect, called the Tabernacle connec- 
 tion, gathered together by Messrs. James and 
 Haldane, who set out upon the principle of JPsedo- 
 Baptism, and formed churches independent of the 
 parent stock, which " evil'^ has been greatly aggra- 
 vated by another "evil,^^ namely, that "iAe 
 Lord's Supper is not peculiarly a church ordi- 
 nance." And then in the United States there 
 are the ^'Regular or Associated" Baptists, "mode- 
 rately Calvinistic in sentiment." And then there 
 are many smaller bodies of Baptists, such as the 
 "Seventh-day'* Baptists, mostly Calvinistic — the 
 " Free-Will" Baptists, inclined to Arminianism — 
 the " Christians," who, with few exceptions, deny 
 the Trinity — the "Tunkers or Dunkards," found 
 in several parts of our country, and avowed Uni- 
 versalists in sentiment — " Campbellism," that 
 most miserable heresy, or rather jumhle of most 
 rniserahle heresies, so prevalent specially in the 
 West, and which has derived most of its adherents 
 from Baptist churches — the "Anti-Missionary" 
 Baptists, prominent only for their "ignorance and 
 immorality"— the "Hard-ShelF' or " Black-rocJc^' 
 Baptists, whose title is sufficiently significant with- 
 out comment — the " Two-Seed" Baptists, a stinted 
 and waning reproduction of ancient Manicheism — 
 the " Close-Communion Calvinistic" Baptists, an 
 
112 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 amalgamation of Baptist worship and Calvinistic 
 doctrine — the " Free Chri.stian" Baptists, whose 
 doctrines are in general the same as the Free-Will 
 Baptists — the " Six-Principle" Baptists — and 
 the '^Emancipators" — and so on, and so on — 
 and how did '' corruption" originate in any of 
 these? or what has broken and scattered these 
 fragments of the Baptist church in Christendom ? 
 But one example more. In England, at thievery 
 hour, Paedo-Baptum is extending in the Baptist 
 church. The Baptists in this country may stu- 
 diously conceal it from " the million," but such is 
 the fact. And lo ! here we have, upon the Doc- 
 tor's own showing, infant laptism, the sum of 
 ecclesiastical "evils," corrupting the Baptist 
 church itself! How soon, and how far, the exam- 
 ple of the English Baptists may extend its influ- 
 ence to this country, it is impossible to say ; but 
 we see no difi'erence between the two countries, 
 and none between the Baptist church here and 
 there, that can much longer prevent the same re- 
 sult in America ] and added to the growing influ- 
 ence of the evangelical Paedo-Baptist churches 
 upon "the million," we hesitate not to express it 
 as our deliberate conviction, that the forthcoming 
 "new translation" of the Bible will greatly pro- 
 mote this result. 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 113 
 
 But we go still farther. We adduce the Doc- 
 tor's concessions. The sagacious Doctor, con- 
 fronted on every hand by the evangelical charac- 
 ter of certain Psedo-Baptist churches, with appa- 
 rent candor inquires, "But is not this an over- 
 statement of the case ? In our country, at least, 
 do the corruptions alleged exist, if at all, to 
 the extent indicated? Is infant baptism there- 
 fore productive of the evils here charged against 
 it ? / am happy to concede that in this favored 
 land, and with some classes of our Paedo-Baptist 
 brethren, its evils are greatly mitigated" (pp. 113, 
 114). Fatal concession — then why so much 
 pompous swelling, ridiculous dogmatism, and 
 pious cant, about imaginary evils, existing, we are 
 tempted to believe, only in the excessive vanity 
 of a mind whose judgment is contracted by preju- 
 dice and perverted by sophistry ? That we do not 
 ''overstate the case,'^ we invite the reader^s atten- 
 tion to the singular manner in which, in the next 
 paragraph, he attempts to destroy the whole force 
 of this concession. " I shall now prove, however, 
 .that this is the result of peculiar causes" — and 
 he mentions four — modestly placing his own 
 church in front, and conferring the greatest honor 
 upon his own denomination. " These sects," says 
 he, "are still evangelical in consequence of four 
 
 10 'if 
 
114 INFANT BAPTISM 
 
 causes whicli are perpetually acting upon them." 
 We shall give these " causes" a brief examination, 
 in the order in which the Doctor arranges them. 
 '' In the first place, the Baptist churches of this 
 country contain a million of communicants. Five 
 millions more are of their opinion, and under 
 their influence. One-fourth, therefore, of all the 
 population of the United States are strongly Bap- 
 tistical. With them Paedo-Baptists are ever asso- 
 ciated. They thus in a great measure destroy the 
 influence of infant baptism" (p. 114). The evan- 
 gelical purity of the Paedo-Baptist churches 
 ascribed mainly to the influence of the Baptist 
 church! — to the influence of TunkerSj Univer- 
 salistSj UnitarianSj GamphelUtes, Anti- Mission ary^ 
 Hard- Shell J Black-Rock, Two- Seed, Six- Princi- 
 ple, Close- Communion Calvinistic, Open- Commu- 
 nion, No- Communion, Antinomian, Free- Will, 
 Arian, and Trinitarian Baptists, who make up a 
 large proportion of the round " million" aforesaid 1 
 Doctor, it is demonstrable that these sects corrupt 
 TOUR OWN CHURCH, and diffuse the corrupting 
 leaven to such an extent throughout the whole 
 " Baptistical" mass, that the influence of the 
 evangelical Psedo-Baptist churches is required, to 
 a great extent, to preserve what is pure in your 
 own church. It is demonstrable, that the Baptist 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 115 
 
 church has acquired, as a basement, what of evan- 
 gelical purity and activity it at present possesses, 
 from its daily contact with the pure evangelical 
 Psedo- Baptist churches. This is the true state- 
 ment of the case, and the Doctor should have 
 made the candid acknowledgment, and rendered 
 ^' honor to whom honor is due." ^' Secondly, the 
 universal diffusion of the Bible is a potent and 
 ever-acting energy." That is the very reason why 
 the evangelical Psedo-Baptist churches are flourish- 
 ing in an unprecedented manner in our "highly -fa- 
 vored country," in the present age. And this the 
 Doctor himself admits. "All are now in the 
 church*' (p. 126), though he asserts (p. 115), in- 
 fant baptism is a subject of wide-spread neglect 
 everywhere" — two statements positively contra- 
 dictory — and no wonder, because made to prove 
 two positively false and contradictory premises. 
 Indeed, this is the specific character of the Doc- 
 tor's book -^ a combination of false premises and 
 positive contradictions. "Thirdly, many Paedo- 
 Baptist ministers are themselves converted men. 
 They preach the great fundamental doctrines of 
 the gospel, and thus falsify infant baptism, and 
 keep it entirely out of sight." It is admitted then 
 that "many Psedo. Baptist ministers" are evan- 
 gelical in experience and in doctrine — so far 
 
116 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 good : but this is admitting that one of the 
 ^'causes'' of the evangelical purity of the Psedo- 
 Baptist churches is in theinselves, and the cause 
 continuing, the effect must continue; and so ortho- 
 doxy, in the Paedo-Baptist churches, is likely to 
 perpetuate them. But it is a mistake, that Paedo- 
 Baptist ministers "falsify infant baptism, and 
 keep it entirely out of sight'' — as is proved, not 
 only by the many able treatises written on the 
 subject of infant baptism, and opened in sight of 
 Christendom, and the sermons of Paedo-Baptists 
 preached in all parts of the land, and the Cate- 
 chisms used in all the Paedo-Baptist churches, but 
 also, as is usual, by the Doctor TiimseJf, in the 
 vast multitude of quotations which he makes from 
 Paedo-Baptist authorities, of which his "little 
 volume" is principally composed, and to which it 
 is indebted mainly for its size. "We never read an 
 author more dogmatic, or so perfectly self-contra- 
 dictory and so self-refuting as Dr. Howell. And 
 yet this is not surprising. For a mind, either 
 voluntarily disregarding the truth, or naturally 
 unable to construct a logical argument, must, in 
 its progress, clash somewhere with truth and rea- 
 son. " The fourth, and last clause, is found in 
 the revivals which have so long, and so happily 
 prevailed in our country.'' Granted : and this is 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 117 
 
 another cause of evangelical purity existing in the 
 Paedo-Baptist churches themselves, and Grod grant 
 that it may exist, and acquire accumulated vigor, 
 with the progress of time. But the Doctor him- 
 self knows, that the Baptist church has shared, 
 and still shares largely, in the fruits of these evan- 
 gelical Paedo-Baptist revivals, and he should have 
 frankly made this concession also. But the con- 
 clusion of the Doctor is one of the most ludicrous 
 instances of ''begging the question" in his book. 
 " But take away these influences and infant bap- 
 tism will lead here to the same results that it has 
 attained in G-ermany, Spain and Ital/^ — that is — 
 the evangelical Paedo-Baptist churches be "over- 
 whelmed with hopeless corruption." Take away 
 "these influences," that is, excepting the "first," 
 and any church on earth would be overwhelmed 
 with corruption, even though it were admitted on 
 all hands that infant baptism is not an evil. 
 "Take away these influences," and the Baptist 
 church could not long exist, though it is not 
 " corrupted" by the great " evil" of infant bap- 
 tism. What are " these influences ?" Why, the 
 Bible, a lioly ministry, and evangelical revivals. 
 Remove these from any church, and at once it 
 becomes "overwhelmed with corruption." In 
 these respects, the Baptist church occupies the 
 
118 INFANT BAPTIS 
 
 same ground with the Pasdo-Baptist churclies, and 
 tlie Doctor's argument is as good against the con- 
 tinued purity of his own churqh, as against that of 
 the evangelical Paedo-Baptist churches. To say, 
 that "these influences" being withdrawn, then in- 
 fant baptism will " overwhelm the church with cor- 
 ruption/' is also reasoning in a circle," since these 
 influences having been withdrawn, the church is 
 already " overwhelmed with corruption." And to 
 say, that then infant baptism will efi"ect all this 
 corruption, is to leave infant baptism nothing to 
 accomplish as a corrupting cause, but itself to be 
 perverted and abused, as in the history of Popery 
 and Puseyism. 
 
 The Doctor concludes his argument with the 
 assumption, that "it is most evident that no 
 church practising infant baptism can long remain 
 a true church of Christ," and that, " without it, 
 the Roman church, the Greek church, the Lu- 
 theran church, the English church, never would, 
 never could have fallen into their present heresies 
 and corruptions," and that "every other Paedo- 
 Baptist church is following in the same path." 
 Worse and worse. Does not the Doctor know — 
 and we must here repeat — that a thousand cor- 
 ruptions in churches, formerly evangelical, origi- 
 nated in causes entirely diffierent from, and inde- 
 
INTANT BAPTISM. 119 
 
 pendent of, infant baptism ? That then infant 
 baptism was perverted and abused in common 
 with almost every other evangelical institution ? 
 That ambition, bigotry, and cupidity were foun- 
 tains of numberless evils ? That false philosophy 
 was the parent of endless heresies and supersti- 
 tions? That intrigue and worldly policy insidi- 
 ously engrafted upon the church countless innova- 
 tions ? And that in the incipiency and progress 
 of these invasions of the simplicity and purity of 
 the church, she neglected to conform to the Bible, 
 failed to apply rigidly the proper tests of church- 
 membership, and finally wholly neglected the 
 proper exercise of church discipline? Had she 
 done all these faithfully, corruption would have 
 been impossible. And this the Doctor, as usual, 
 admits : — " How can it [the purity of the church] 
 be secured and perpetuated ? It can be done only 
 by a strict conformity to the Divine Word gene- 
 rally, and especially to the laws of membership 
 there revealed and established. Let also a careful 
 discipline be maintained, and every member be 
 promptly separated from the body who is found to 
 be unworthy and cannot be reclaimed Such a 
 church corruption can never approach" (p. 116). 
 Now it does seem evident, notwithstanding the 
 Doctor's repeated and egregious blunders in logic, 
 
120 INFANT BAPTISM 
 
 philosophy, and history, that he has often sagacity 
 enough to discover the true causes of the church's 
 corruption, and the adequate remedies — though 
 this does not require the exercise of a wonderful 
 or extraordinary faculty, since they lie on the sur- 
 face of things. And yet he does evince sadly a 
 want of candor, in not giving these causes and 
 remedies the proper location, attributes and rela- 
 tions. And hence we are inclined to the opinion, 
 that the Doctor discovering, as he progressed in 
 his argument, the true causes of corruption, he 
 could not state them fairly without utterly destroy- 
 ing his argument, and he could not omit them 
 altogether, without exposing himself to the charge 
 of unfairness; for it is inconceivable, how he 
 could so clearly suggest the remedies, without as 
 clearly perceiving the causes of the corruptions to 
 be removed. Indeed, it may be affirmed as an 
 axiom generally applicable to the Doctor's book, 
 that his own admissions are either directly or in- 
 directly sufficient refutations of his assumptions. 
 His assumptions are so extravagant, that the}', 
 require some modifying concessions to render 
 them palatable to ^'the million;" but unfortu- 
 nately the concessions, founded in truth, are so 
 plainly in conflict with the assumptions, that so far 
 from supporting them, they destroy their force 
 altogether. 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 121 
 
 VIII. His next general argument is : " Infant 
 baptism is an evil, because it gives false 
 
 VIEWS OF THE KINGDOM OF ChRIST" (p. 117). 
 
 The reply to this assumption is brief. After a 
 useless effort to prove what every evangelical 
 Paedo-Baptist admits, namely, that the kingdom 
 of Christ " is purely spiritual,^' the Doctor con- 
 cludes, "that only those who are spiritual are 
 capable of citizenship in the kingdom. '^ G-ranted, 
 and Christ says of " little children" — " of such is 
 the kingdom of heaven." What the Doctor says 
 of adults, baptized in infancy, as being still "mewi- 
 hers of the several Psedo-Baptist churches," though 
 they "crowd the haunts of gaiety, dissipation, 
 folly, and even of crime," has no application to 
 the evangelical Psedo-Baptist churches, for by 
 these churches all such baptized persons are not 
 regarded as members of the Christian church, 
 they having forfeited their right to church-mem- 
 bership by actual and repeated transgressions, 
 which they can recover only by evangelical re- 
 pentance and faith. And hence it is not true, as 
 the Doctor states, that " three-fourths of all the 
 children in the United States are members of the 
 churches." We have nothing to do with " Eu- 
 ropean countries where the whole population is, 
 by law, baptized — though this is an abuse, not 
 11 
 
122 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 an "evil," of infant baptism. Thus, the general 
 proposition is not sustained by the facts and prin- 
 ciples in the case, and so falls to the ground. 
 
 IX. The next argument in the Doctor's book 
 is : " Infant baptism is an evil, because it 
 
 DESTROYS THE VISIBILITY OF THE CHURCH" 
 
 (p. 123). The reply to this assumption is also 
 brief, because it is made without qualification and 
 without discrimination. All children are entitled 
 unconditionally to association with the visible 
 church, because they are already unconditionally 
 associated with the spiritual church, and in re- 
 sponsible age, they may continue their connection 
 with the spiritual and visible church by faith and 
 obedience, and so they may dissolve their connec- 
 tion with the spiritual and visible church, by the 
 neglect of these evangelical obligations. The Doc- 
 tor is right when he says, " The doctrine taught 
 by our Paedo-Baptist brethren would hring every 
 child upon earth, as soon as it is born, into the 
 church" (p. 126). And they teach likewise, that 
 every baptized child may voluntarily go out of the 
 visible church as soon as it arrives at responsible 
 age. Baptism recognizes in the child an obligation 
 to discharge, at the proper time, all the conditions 
 of the covenant of grace, and seals unto him, dis- 
 charging those conditions, all the rights, privi- 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 123 
 
 leges, and blessings of the covenant, and one of 
 these is continued association with the visible 
 church. The acknowledgment of the right of an 
 infant, in responsible age discharging these con- 
 ditions, to continued association with the visible 
 church, no more destroys the vidhility of the 
 church, than the acknowledgment of the right of 
 an adult, discharging the same conditions, to asso- 
 ciation with the visible church, destroys the visi- 
 bility of the church. In both cases, regeneration 
 accompanies the discharge of the conditions, and 
 therefore the right to association with the visible 
 church in both cases is the same. Adults, bap- 
 tized in infancy, who subsequently fail to discharge 
 the conditions prospectively implied in their bap- 
 tism, are no more regarded as members of the 
 visible church, than are impenitent adults who 
 were not baptized in infancy. How then is the 
 visibility of the church destroyed by infant bap- 
 tism? Had the Doctor understood the doctrine 
 of infant baptism better, or treated the views of 
 Psedo-Baptists with more candor, he never would 
 have ventured to make the assumption under con- 
 sideration. Hence, the following assertion of the 
 Doctor, " The church is the world, and the world 
 is the church,'^ is the conclusion of his own fancy, 
 and the fruit of his own ignorance. What he 
 
124 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 Bays of the custom in ^^ Germany/* has no more to 
 do with the sound theology of infant baptism in 
 this country, than the neology of Germany has, 
 and has none of the ingenuity and plausibility of 
 the neology of Germany, though he says, ^' such 
 is the testimony of one of their [Psedo-Baptists'] 
 own witnesses to the destructive influence of in- 
 fant baptism," which we deny, and boldly retort, 
 it is no more the testimony of one of our wit- 
 nesses, than Alexander Campbell, on the efficacy 
 of immersion, is one of the Doctor's witnesses. 
 
 The Doctor next assumes the defensive. " Bap- 
 tism and membership in the church must be 
 strictly confined to those who give credible evi- 
 dence of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Baptists 
 alone now maintain these principles." No doubt, 
 these are the principles of the Baptists alone. And 
 yet the Baptists do not go far enough. Baptism 
 should be given to all who have a right to '^ mem- 
 bership in the church :" thus, children have a 
 right to it without " faith," and adults hy " faith." 
 "We therefore," the Doctor continues, "wield 
 the only conservative influence at present existing 
 in the universe." So thought the Millerites most 
 confidently at one time, and some of them are de- 
 luded and vain enough to think so still. The 
 arrogance of the assumption is its own refutation. 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 125 
 
 '^ How exalted, therefore, how sublime our mis- 
 sion ! Every hierarchy and sect, Papal and Pro- 
 testant, has been united for our destruction, and 
 erery government upon earth has pursued us in- 
 cessantly, with fire and sword, but we have lived 
 on through every persecution, and have never 
 failed, however deep our suffering, to bear our 
 testimony as witnesses for God." Every other 
 sect of evangelical Christianity can say the same 
 thing. And so can the Quakers and the Jews. 
 " Our bonds are at last being loosed ; the links of 
 our chain are, one by one, breaking and falling; 
 prosperity has come; and our rapid spread over 
 the earth intimates that God is about to vindicate 
 his gospel, to sweep away from among men the 
 clouds of ignorance and error, and to restore to 
 the world a pure and glorious Christianity." 
 Amen — but not quite all the credit to the Bap- 
 tist church, my enraptured Doctor. The evangeli- 
 cal Paedo-Baptist churches also have a right to 
 participate in the general joy, and indulge also 
 the same glorious hope. The prosperity of the 
 Baptist church is not to be ascribed to her oppo- 
 sition to infant baptism, but to her gradual and 
 manifest improvement in doctrine, in intelligence, 
 in piety, in zeal, in means to enlarge her enter- 
 prises, notwithstanding her restrictions and exclu- 
 11* 
 
126 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 siveness. How much good she accomplishes by 
 her necessary and general co-operation with evan- 
 gelical Psedo-Baptist churches, it is impossible 
 precisely to estimate, though the Doctor makes no 
 account of this. And how much good she pre- 
 vents, by her opposition to infant baptism, her 
 restrictions, her exclusiveness, her limited views 
 of the atonement, her want of entire fellowship 
 and co-operation with other branches of pure 
 Christianity, it is also impossible to estimate. 
 However, we are not willing to concede, that the 
 Baptist church alone could ^^ sweep away from 
 among men the clouds of ignorance and error, 
 and restore to the world a pure and gloriovs Chris- 
 tianity," though the Doctor is enchanted by the 
 vision, and believes that his church has already 
 entered upon this " sublime mission." The '' mis- 
 sion" of his book is, to destroy all the Paedo-Bap- 
 tist churches in the world, and over their mourn- 
 ful ruins, publish among all nations Baptistical 
 views of a pure and glorious Christianity. How 
 much the progress of the gospel would be retarded 
 by this catastrophe, no language can describe. 
 
 X. The tenth general argument of the Doctor 
 is : " Infant baptism is an evil, because its prac- 
 tice PERPETUATES THE SUPERSTITIONS BY WHICH 
 IT WAS ORIGINALLY PRODUCED" (p. 131). If 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 127 
 
 superstition originally produced infant baptism, 
 or as the Doctor says (p. 130), " superstition is 
 the parent of infant baptism/' then infant baptism 
 did not produce all the evil in Christendom. The 
 church then was corrupted by "superstitions" 
 before infant baptism was produced. But before 
 infant baptism was known, if ever there was such 
 a time since the days of the Apostles, the church 
 was wholly Baptist — how then did the Baptist 
 church become superstitious? The Doctor him- 
 self affirms, that during the Apostolic age, and 
 until two hundred years of the church had been 
 told, infant baptism was wholly unknown. The 
 history of that period, whether sacred or profane, 
 makes not the remotest allusion to such a prac- 
 tice" (p. 130). Granted, and then infant baptism 
 was the result of antecedent *^ evils," and these 
 evils must have originated in the Baptist church 
 at this time; and if all the subsequent ^' evils" 
 ascribed by the Doctor to infant baptism, did 
 originate in infant baptism, how great must have 
 been the "evils" in the Baptist church that 
 originated infant baptism ! And so it turns out 
 at last, that infant baptism originated in the Bap- 
 tist church, and originally destroyed the Baptist 
 church ! and infant baptism, or something worse, 
 may do it again ! But we deny altogether the 
 
128 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 assumption of the Doctor, and ajBfirm that "the 
 history of that period makes allusions/' both posi- 
 tive and inferential, to infant baptism, as we have 
 shown (in another work), from the Scriptures, and 
 also from the ecclesiastical history of that period. 
 Says the Doctor, " Origen, who lived in the mid- 
 dle of the third century, was the first who defended 
 it" (p. 132). Yery well; and why? Because 
 Tertullian, his contemporary , was the first who 
 opposed it — in a certain manner — and no sooner 
 do we hear of opposition from Tertullian, than we 
 witness a prompt defence from Origen, who was 
 baptized in infancy, and was descended from 
 Christian parents — his father, grandfather, grand- 
 mother, and great-grandfather, being Christians. 
 Besides, it is true, that Origen '-Hived in the 
 middle of the third century ;" but it is also trne, 
 that he was horn in the year 185, when he was 
 baptized. Why did not the Doctor tell "the 
 million'' that? And he proceeds to give what he 
 calls the true causes of the origin of infant baptism 
 at this early age, all of which are in fact the true 
 causes of the abuse or perversion of infant baptism. 
 Against these corruptions he says, "murmur- 
 ings were doubtless uttered occasionally by those 
 who knew anything of religion as taught in the 
 Word of God. But — they were all silenced — 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 129 
 
 by decrees" — of the corrupt churcli (p. 137). 
 Granted — but the evangelical Psedo-Baptists 
 uttered the ^' murmurings" — denying " that the 
 sacraments are necessary to salvation," or " that 
 they contain the grace they signify." In the one 
 ease, the ahuse of infant baptism originated in the 
 " superstitions" and " corruptions" of the church 
 — in the other case, the restoration of infant bap- 
 tism to its Apostolic purity originated in the 
 opposition of its evangelical defenders in the 
 Psedo-Baptist churches. And so when the Doctor 
 says, "that all the sects of Protestant Psedo- 
 Baptists are under the influence at this moment, 
 to a greater or less extent, of [certain] forms of 
 superstition, is a fact that no man can successfully 
 deny" (p. 142), we boldly reply, that this is an 
 allegation which no man can successfully prove. 
 That superstition exists in certain churches, such 
 as the Romish, and Puseyite, we admit; but it no 
 more therefore follows, that any of the evangelical 
 Paedo-Baptist churches are under its " influence," 
 than because Campbellites are immersionists, there- 
 fore all immersionists are under the " influence" 
 of the Campbellite "superstition" of baptismal 
 regeneration. 
 
 XI. The eleventh general argument of the 
 Doctor is : " Infant baptism is an evil, becanse it 
 
130 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 BRINGS ITS ADVOCATES INTO COLLISION WITH 
 THE AUTHORITY OF ChRIST'' (p. 154). And thuS 
 
 he proceeds. "1. Infant baptism renounces the 
 authority of Christ in regard to the persons to be 
 baptized" (pp. 154, 155). When the Doctor can 
 prove, that Christ has no authority over infants, it 
 will be time enough to consider this strange notion. 
 "What he says about the baptism of infants in 
 " Spain and Italy,'' we admit, is true ; but this has 
 nothing to do with us — no more, in fact, than 
 Alexander Campbell's views of immersion have 
 to do with the Doctor's. The Doctor's assertion, 
 ^'It [infant baptism] baptizes exclusively unbe- 
 lievers, and helievers never," is a sophism, awk- 
 wardly expressed. Unbelievers are voluntary agents : 
 infants are not voluntary agents, and therefore can- 
 not be unbelievers. Besides, if infants are unbe- 
 lievers, then all dying in infancy are lost ! " 2. 
 Infant baptism offers an indignity to the authority 
 of Christ by dispensing with the appointed pro- 
 fession of faith as a condition of baptism" (p. 157). 
 Here is another sophism, as fatal to infants as the 
 preceding. The authority of Christ over infants 
 is formally and solemnly acknowledged in baptism. 
 And to require of infants " profession of faith as a 
 condition of baptismj'^ is to require of them faith 
 as a condition of salvation, which they cannot 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 131 
 
 exercise, and so, from the Doctor's premises, all 
 dying in infancy, must be lost. "3. It also 
 changes the form, and thus wholly abolishes bap- 
 tism itself ^^ (p. 158). Here is a begging of the 
 question^ for the assumption, that immersion is 
 the only proper mode of baptism, is begging the 
 question respecting mere mode. "4. Infant bap- 
 tism prevents the obedience to Christ of believers" 
 (p. 159). This is a misconception of the true 
 import of infant baptism. Infant baptism respects 
 obedience at the proper age, as adult baptism im- 
 poses obedience upon believers now ; and so bap- 
 tism imposes and enforces obedience in both cases. 
 These are the Doctor's proofs — and now he be- 
 comes intensely animated. " In our country, there 
 are large numbers who become enlightened, and 
 consequently unhappy on this subject. They feel 
 as if they must obey Christ, but how can they ? 
 May not every one do what he shall think to be 
 his duty? Ee reject infant baptism ! If he dare 
 essay so bold an act, he is taunted and ridiculed as 
 presuming to be wiser than the thousands of the 
 great and good who have gone before him. Re- 
 proached ! Insulted ! Scoffed ! Upbraided with 
 a want of respect for his parents and friends, who 
 believed in it, and who had him baptized in his » 
 infancy. — Re leave his own church I — Rethink 
 
132 INFANT BAPTISM, 
 
 of uniting with another church ! If he dare he 
 will be at once denounced as weak-minded, vacil- 
 lating and unstable. It will be rung in his ears 
 that not much confidence is to be placed in the 
 religion or intelligence of those ^renegades' who 
 are going from one church to another. He join 
 the Baptist church ! For that church, above all 
 others, he has been taught to cherish disrespect ! 
 He believes its members to be mostly ignorant 
 fanatics, with whom intercourse must always be 
 painful. All this, and only to be baptized ! Had 
 he not better give it up at once ? These are some 
 of the barriers that infant baptism throws in the 
 way of obedience" (pp. 160, 161). Are you in 
 earnest, Doctor? Alas, you have proved too much. 
 You say, these ^Marge numbers'^ have become 
 ^^ enlightened J ' and therefore '' unhappy" — how 
 then can they believe the " members of the Bap- 
 tist church to be mostly ignorant fanatics?" or 
 "think" of joining "the Baptist church, with 
 whom intercourse must always be painful ?" Now 
 the truth is, such persons (and there are not 
 " many") are not " enlightened," and hence th^i/ 
 are rendered "unhappy'^ by the obtrusive zeal, 
 the shameless spirit of proselytism, and the cap- 
 tious sophisms of your own brethren. If these 
 unhappy persons had been better " enlightened," 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 133 
 
 they would have been proof against the sophisms, 
 the false opinions, and the miserable acquisition 
 of a morbid conscience, which inclined them to 
 your way of " obedience/' It is emphatically true, 
 that " large numbers" reared and educated in the 
 Baptist church, when converted in revivals in 
 Paedo-Baptist churches, desire to join these 
 churches — and now what? Are they not "re- 
 proached ? — insulted ? — scoffed ? They join the 
 Ps&do-Baptist churches? — the churches, above all 
 others, for which they have been taught to cherish 
 disrespect f — and so on. The lament of the 
 Doctor is nothing more than the whine and the 
 cant of bigotry, the grumbling of discontent, and 
 the mortification of proselytism. It is the ground- 
 less assumption, that the Baptist church only 
 " obeys Christ," and that the whole family of 
 evangelical Paedo-Baptist churches must be lost, 
 for they all disobey Christ ! The Doctor delibe- 
 rately declares, " I have known many, and from 
 my heart have pitied them, who lamented in 
 secret their inability to act. They were always 
 unhappy. Their consciences were perpetually up- 
 braiding them. But they remained in disobe- 
 dience" (p. 162). Any man who could entertain 
 such opinions of infant baptism as are expressed 
 in the . Doctor's book, if he be honest in his 
 12 
 
134 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 opinions, and sincere in his sympathy, should 
 rather "pit/' the great multitude of Pasdo-Bap- 
 tists, who are guilty of voluntary disobedience, 
 than the "many" among them, who, he says, 
 ^Mament in secret their inability to act/' The 
 :special, heart-felt " pity," therefore, seems to be 
 .rather the grief of a blind and fruitless zeal, than 
 'the sympathizing sorrow of genuine piety. And 
 also the enthusiastic "thanks to Grod," that 
 "there are persons, who rise superior to every 
 restraint, and obey at whatever hazard — and can, 
 and do, burst the bonds of infant baptism,'' is 
 rather the shout of sectarian fervor, and the grati- 
 fication of partizan anxiety, than the exultation of 
 Christian charity, and the "joy in the Holy 
 Ghost." He says, such persons "are character- 
 ized by strong and independent minds, firmness of 
 purpose, deep piety, and a readiness to sacrifice all 
 for Christ" (p. 162). It is surprising, to what an 
 extent bigotry perverts the judgment, and cor- 
 rupts the heart. As far as our observation ex- 
 tends, we never knew one person, educated pro- 
 perly in the evangelical Paedo-Baptist churches, 
 who, possessing the noble attributes of character 
 specified by the Doctor, withdrew and united with 
 the Baptist church — not one — but we have 
 known several, not many, who, either weak in 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 135 
 
 judgment, or fickle in will, or superficial in piety, 
 or ready ,to sacrifice all for self, or governed by 
 worldly whims and motives, or disafiected with 
 their brethren, have withdrawn from our churches, 
 and sought a congenial home in the Doctor's 
 church — just as several have had "independence, 
 firmness, piety, and self-denial" enough to leave 
 our churches, and very many the Doctor's church, 
 and united themselves with the Camphellites. At 
 one time, the Doctor tells us, there is a constant 
 " drain" made upon the evangelical Paedo-Baptist 
 churches by removals to Eomanism and Puseyism, 
 and of course this proves the "independence, 
 firmness, piety, and self-denial" of these seceders I 
 At another time, he tells us, " the numbers" of 
 this noble class in the evangelical churches " are 
 rapidly multiplying," and that " they hnow, and 
 dare do their duty — by joining the Baptist 
 church. But the argument is just as good for the 
 Camphellites, Komanists, and Puseyites, as for the 
 Baptists. And the Doctor may be reminded, that 
 many leave the Baptist church, and unite with 
 the evangelical Pasdo-Baptist churches. Some 
 leave the Baptist church, because they cannot ap- 
 prove the doctrine of restricted communion — and 
 some, because they cannot believe the dogma of 
 exclusive immersion — and some, because they 
 
136 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 think they can innocently unite with their friends 
 in the Psedo-Baptist churches — while others, for 
 these reasons, though brought up in the Baptist 
 church, never join the Baptist church — and yet 
 we lay hut little stress on these facts in the argu- 
 ment against the Baptists, and we place no confi- 
 dence in a similar mode of reasoning against infant 
 baptism. 
 
 XII. The next general argument of the Doctor 
 is: '^Infant baptism is an evil, because of the 
 
 CONNECTION IT ASSUMES WITH THE MORAL AND 
 RELIGIOUS TRAINING OF CHILDREN'' (p. 164). 
 
 The first step of the Doctor is, to defend the moral 
 and religious training of Baptist children, and all 
 he says of them, we say of evangelical Paedo-Bap- 
 tists' children, and so at once flatly disprove the 
 argument of this whole chapter, . The Doctor 
 ridicules the idesi o^ pareiital vows made at the 
 time the children are baptized. What, is there 
 no sin or '' evil" in this ? He who deliberately 
 asserts it, is guilty of the aggravated crime against 
 parental and divine love, and, we fear, this crime 
 the Doctor does commit. " And what do they 
 vow ? Why, that they really tvill do what God 
 Almighty has commanded, and discharge an obli- 
 gation which no vows of any kind can either ab- 
 solve, or render more binding \" (p. 169.) What 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 13 1 
 
 else the Doctor says under this argument is but 
 a repetition of what he had assumed again and 
 again in support of the preceding arguments of 
 his book, and which we have already considered. 
 We will add, that the assumption is positively 
 proved to be false, by the exemplary, prominent, 
 and excellent moral and religious training of 
 Paedo-Baptist children throughout the land ; and 
 the " evils" of such a training, personal or rela- 
 tive, public or private, intellectual, social, moral, 
 religious, official, civil, or national, exist only in 
 the fruitful imagination of the Doctor. 
 
 XIII. The next general argument of the Doc- 
 tor is : "Infant baptism is an evil, because it is 
 
 THE GRAND FOUNDATION UPON WHICH RESTS 
 THE UNION OF CHURCH AND STATE" (p. 176). 
 
 This is a "grand" mistake, as shall be proved 
 from the Doctor's premises. The church and 
 state are not united in our country, and the Doc- 
 tor himself admits, that " three-fourths of all the 
 children in the United States are baptized, and 
 members of the churches" (p. 121). The Doctor 
 himself concedes, that the union of the church 
 and state existed before infant baptism prevailed. 
 " It [the union of church and state] was fashioned 
 upon the principles oi paganism'' (p. 181). After 
 mentioning many " most disastrous results which 
 12* 
 
138 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 immediately arose" from this union, he adds, 
 ^^ another resuU v^^SiS to give prevalence to iV</a/?^ 
 haj)tism" (p. 182). And Mr. Hinton, a Baptist, 
 an author quoted hy the Doctor as follows, cotj- 
 cedes the same thing : " We find it indelibly re- 
 corded on the pages of history, that the practice 
 of baptizing infants did not spread extensively till 
 after Christianity became the state religion of the 
 Roman empire" (p. 182). Very well; then infant 
 baptism was the effect, and not the ^'foundation" 
 of the "union of church and state." But the 
 Doctor is wrong both in his concessions and in his 
 conclusions. Infant baptism existed he/ore the 
 union of church and state occurred, and then, 
 after the union, infant baptism, like the gospel, 
 was abused, and perverted from its original sim- 
 plicity and purity. The gospel itself was so far 
 perverted as to be made the foundation of the 
 union. And therefore when the Doctor says, 
 "Destroy infant baptism and you destroy the 
 union of church and state" (p. 184), we reply. 
 Destroy the gospel, and you destroy the same 
 union. One conclusion is as sound as the other. 
 And therefore the gospel is an " eviV Or 
 destroy the civil constitution, and you destroy the 
 union of church and state. And therefore the 
 civil constitution is an " evil." The Doctor's pre- 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 139 
 
 mises prove too much, and therefore his argument 
 falls to the ground. This is but an example of 
 his mode of reasoning, repeated throughout his 
 book, and in the same manner his whole book may 
 he refuted. 
 
 XIV. We proceed to his fourteenth general 
 proposition, which is: "Infant baptism is an 
 evil, because it leads to religious persecu- 
 tions" (p. 185). His first argument " is found 
 in the nature of Psedo-Baptism itself It brings 
 into the church the whole population of the 
 country where it prevails. And such a church 
 will inevitably be a persecuting church'' (pp. 185, 
 186). What, did not the Jews persecute the 
 Christians, crucify Christ the founder of the 
 Christian church, and kill all the apostles but 
 John ? and the Doctor assumes, that infant bap- 
 tism was unknown at this time. Besides, after 
 the time of Constantino, when the churches perse- 
 cuted each other, it was not upon the ground of 
 opposition to infant baptism, for the Peedo-Bap- 
 tist churches persecuted each other. Nor did the 
 church commence the work of persecution till it 
 became corrupt ; and the Doctor himself concedes, 
 as we have seen, that the church became corrupt 
 before infant baptism generally prevailed. More- 
 over, the world also persecuted the Christian 
 
140 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 clmrch in its infancy, as the early history of the 
 church proves, and when the church becomes un- 
 holy, it will also become persecuting, and hence 
 corruption, and not infant baptism, " leads to per- 
 secution/' And hence, should the Baptist church 
 become corrupt, and the restraints of civil au- 
 thority be removed, *' it will inevitably be a per- 
 secuting church." Because infant baptism is found 
 associated with a persecuting church, is no proof 
 at all that infant baptism is the foundation or 
 source of the spirit of persecution; especially 
 when infant baptism exists in such a church in a 
 perverted and corrupted form ; for infant baptism, 
 like everything originally pure and evangelical, 
 has, in such a case, been modified, abused, and 
 perverted. But this is arguing from the abuse of 
 that which in itself is good ; and so the Doctor 
 might as fairly argue that the Bible itself " leads 
 to persecution." 
 
 The Doctor's " second proof is found in the po- 
 litical connection which, when practicable, infant 
 baptism always assumes" (p. 186). "And," he 
 adds, " the fact is well known that every state 
 church in all ages, and in all countries, has been a 
 persecuting church" (p. 187). We have already 
 considered this, but will add, the Church of Eng- 
 land, and the Church of Scotland, are Paedc' 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 141 
 
 Baptist, and these churches are not persecuting 
 churches^ fiDr it is one of the glories of these 
 countries, that they now exercise a liberal and 
 tolerant spirit to all dissenting sects under the 
 government of Great Britain. Besides, in our 
 country, Paedo-Baptism almost universally prevails, 
 and there is no country on earth so free from per- 
 secution as ours; in which infant baptism does 
 not even " assume" to establish a ^' political con- 
 nection ','' but in which the strongest supporters of 
 infant baptism are the strongest opposers of such 
 a connection. Indeed, the union of church and 
 state can never occur in our country till infant 
 baptism itself is corrupted and abused ; and con- 
 sequently, infant baptism, as it exists in evangeli- 
 cal purity in our land, is one of the strongest bar- 
 riers in Christendom to the union of church and 
 state, and so is one of the firmest safe-guards 
 against " persecution." And the same we say of 
 every other evangelical institution, and every 
 evangelical doctrine, of Christianity. Till these 
 are perverted and corrupted, the union of church 
 and state is impossible in our country ; and pre- 
 served in their purity, they are infallible preserva- 
 tives against the spirit of religious persecution ; 
 for that which preserves and perpetuates the purity 
 of the church, will secure the universal exercise 
 
142 INFANT BAPTISM, 
 
 of the spirit of tolerance and forbearance. It is a 
 question of much more fearful import, whether 
 the very essence of exclusiveness, found in the 
 baptistical dogmas of restricted communion and 
 immersion, may be made the foundation of the 
 union of church and state, and so, upon the Doc- 
 tor's premises, whether the exclusiveness of the 
 Baptist church " leads to persecution." Upon the 
 supposition, that the Baptist church shall possess 
 the majority of the suffrages in our republic, who 
 can say, that the Baptist church would not then 
 proceed to adopt some civil regulations upon the 
 principle of its present religious exclusiveness, with 
 all the cruel and bloody sanctions of '^persecu- 
 tion?'' But we will not pursue this inquiry, 
 since we desire not to assail, but to meet the 
 assaults of the Doctor. 
 
 The Doctor proceeds : "A third proof is derived 
 from the source [Judaism] of the main argument 
 upon which infant baptism relies for support" 
 (p. 188). We have already proved, that this is a 
 false assumption of the Doctor. But granted ; 
 and then pure Judaism itself was a persecuting 
 church, and so God himself was the founder of 
 a persecuting church ! This is but another in- 
 stance of the Doctor's refutation upon his own 
 premises. 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 143 
 
 "In the last place, I appeal to the testimony 
 presented by facts" (p. 188). We will notice the 
 Doctor's facts. " Popery, before the Reformation, 
 poured out upon our Baptist Fathers all the fury 
 of its malignant heart" (p. 188). And so it did 
 after the Reformation, upon the evangelical Psedo- 
 Baptist churches. And what is most surprising, 
 the Doctor himself concedes, that the Baptist 
 church originated in the midst of persecution, 
 " in the centre of the general community, or 
 church within the church. A new baptism (im- 
 mersion),'' says he, " was to be the instrument 
 for gathering congregations, which were to consist 
 exclusively of true believers" (p. 191). Very 
 well; then the Baptist church was not founded 
 till the Reformation. And what is as surprising, 
 the testimony of his " Baptist Fathers" is fatal to 
 the assumption of the Doctor. " The baptism of 
 infants," said they, "is a horrible abomination 
 [which the Doctor says, in a note, is " most true"], 
 a flagrant impiety, invented by the evil spirit, and 
 by Pope Nicholas II." (p. 191.) Granted; and 
 then Popery existed before infant baptism was 
 " invented," and so infant baptism did not " lead 
 to the religious persecutions" of the Romish 
 church. And what is equally surprising, D'Au- 
 bigne, the witness of the Doctor, and quoted as 
 
144 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 follows bj Wm, gives the true cause of the perse- 
 cution of the Doctor's ^^ Baptist Fathers." "Un- 
 doubtedly the spirit of rebellion existed among 
 these Ana-Baptists" &e. (p. 192.) Yes, rehellion 
 against civil law. The Doctor adduces, as another 
 fact, the persecutions in England. But unfortu- 
 nately for this argument, the Baptists were not the 
 only subjects of persecution, nor were they perse- 
 cuted merely because of their opposition to infant 
 baptism, as the Doctor himself ought to know (if 
 he does not know), from the history of the times. 
 Besides, " Cranmer, Kidley, Rogers, and others/' 
 Paedo-Baptists, as the Doctor himself mentions 
 them, were also persecuted, and perished at the 
 stake. The Doctor, again and again, affirms, that 
 the "principal crime" of his ^^ Baptist Fathers" 
 was "the denial of Infant baptism." And this 
 is refuted by the fact, that Psedo-Baptists them- 
 selves, thousands of them, fell in the horrible per- 
 secutions of those times. But the Doctor surren- 
 ders the whole question in the following candid or 
 extorted concession. " The persecutions we have 
 so long suffered are now, in the more enlightened 
 Christian nations, happily beginning to be re- 
 laxed" (p. 198). We might have adduced proofs 
 from history to show, that the Ana-Baptists, the 
 Doctor's "Baptist Fathers," did not suffer mainly 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 145 
 
 "for their denial of infant baptism/' but we are 
 saved this trouble by the Doctor himself in his 
 quotation from D'Aubigne. "'The Ana-Baptists/ 
 aays D'Aubigne, ' did not confine themselves to 
 questions purely religious. They demanded the 
 abolition of tithes/ " &c. To the concluding sen- 
 tence of the Doctor, " And as political liberty ex- 
 tends itself, Baptist principles, and Baptist people, 
 will cover the earth" (p. 200), we reply, that if 
 the Baptists of this country were to adopt and 
 practice the principles of their '^Baptist Fathers/' 
 they would now and henceforth be opposed and 
 put down as rebels, traitors, heretics, in proportion 
 as "political liberty extended itself,'' and so 
 perish from " the whole earth." Indeed, the 
 Baptist church now, in this country, and in every 
 other country, would go as far in persecuting 
 other churches as "political liberty" and public 
 opinion would allow — if the Doctor's book is to 
 be made the standard of opinion of infant baptism, 
 as shall be shown in the following section. 
 
 XV. The fifteenth general proposition of the 
 Doctor is: "Infant baptism is an evil, because 
 
 IT IS CONTRARY TO THE PRINCIPLES OF CIVIL 
 AND RELIGIOUS FREEDOM" (p. 203). His first 
 
 argument is drawn from "Popish countries." We 
 reply again, we have nothing to do with that, and 
 13 
 
146 INFANT BAPTISaJ 
 
 SO the argument goes for nothing; since infant 
 baptism, in Popish countries, is abused; while 
 evangelical Paedo-Baptist churches, in this coun- 
 try, oppose the "Popish" abuse with all their 
 strength. It is preposterous, therefore, to argue 
 from the abuse of infant baptism, against its 
 evangelical purity and important benefits. And 
 the Doctor concludes, " No Popish nation, there- 
 fore, ever has been, or ever can be free" (p. 205). 
 Granted, and nothing is gained for his argument; 
 for no "Popis/i" nation can ever be free till 
 infant baptism is restored to its evangelical purity, 
 and all corruptions, ceremonial and doctrinal, are 
 removed from the Romish church. 
 
 But what is more absurd still, is the universal 
 conclusion which the Doctor draws from particular 
 premises. Having stated, that Popish nations, 
 such as " the states of South America," are not 
 free, he concludes, "Infant baptism is at the 
 foundation of the slavery of the nations" (p. 205). 
 In the first place, infant baptism is not at the 
 foundation of the slavery of Popish nations, 
 though we grant it for the sake of argument. No 
 doubt infant baptism, in its abused and corrupt 
 form, contributed something to confirming the 
 slavery of those nations; but the foundation of 
 slavery was laid before infant baptism was cor- 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 147 
 
 rnpted, and the Doctor himself being judge, hefore 
 infant baptism generally prevailed. Secondly, the 
 nations of Africa generally, and other nations of 
 the earth, among whom infant haptism is not 
 known, are in the most miserable servitude con- 
 ceivable. And thirdly, our nation enjoys the 
 highest civil freedom of the nations of earth. 
 Our nation, by the blessing of Grod, achieved this 
 freedom when it was Paedo-Baptist ; and Wash- 
 ington, the leader of our Psedo-Baptist armies, 
 and the father of our Psedo-BapHst nation, was 
 himself baptized in infancy. And ever since our 
 freedom has been obtained, the nation has been 
 advancing in civil liberty, and the evangelical 
 Psado-Baptist churches in prosperity. The Doctor 
 may reply, this is ascribable to the advancement 
 of the Baptist church; but we retort, the pros- 
 perity of the Baptist church is attributable mainly 
 to the progressive influence of the evangelical 
 Pasdo-Baptist churches in the United States. 
 
 To the assertion, that " infant baptism is con- 
 trary to the principles of religious freedom," we 
 reply farther : there is no country on earth so free 
 in this respect as ours. And it is worthy of ob- 
 servation, that all the fine rules the Doctor gives, 
 by which civil and religious freedom may be pre- 
 served, are the very rules which evangelical Psedo- 
 
148 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 Baptists found upon the sound principles con- 
 tained in the institution of infant baptism; and 
 which they apply in the education of their chil- 
 dren, for the establishment and promotion of civil 
 and religious freedom. The Doctor soon saw this 
 frowning rock against which he was driving, and 
 forthwith attempts to steer clear of it, lest he be 
 dashed in pieces — but in vain — the very effort 
 is destruction. " But these facts and arguments, 
 I am reminded, are predicated of infant baptism 
 as it exists in connection with Popery, and that it 
 does not necessarily follow that they are true of it 
 when practised in connection with Protestantism. 
 In America the very atmosphere we breathe is 
 essentially anti-Paedo-Baptistic. Here infant bap- 
 tism is comparatively a dwarfish and contemptible 
 thing" (pp. 207, 208). Again, the Doctor must 
 refute himself: " Three-fourths of the population 
 of this country are Pcedo-Baptistic." He hoists 
 all sail, and with the shriek of despair rolls upon 
 the rock. And yields — ''It can never flourish 
 here. It is out of its element, and does not pro- 
 duce its mature fruits" (p. 209). Well donej 
 then it does not destroy civil and religious freedom 
 here, though three-fourths of the population are 
 Foedo-Baptistic ! 
 In conclusion, if ''it is true, that infant bap- 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 149 
 
 tism is contrary to the principles of civil and reli- 
 gious freedom" (p. 209), then should the Baptist 
 church ever be able to do it, it should put down 
 Peedo'Baptism as treason, a civil "evil and a 
 curse" (p. 209), and therefore the Psedo-Baptist 
 churches may anticipate persecution from the Bap- 
 tist church, should it ever acquire power enough to 
 revive Ana-Baptism^ or repeat Romanism. How- 
 ever, we feel no apprehension ; for Paedo-Baptism 
 has already overturned Ana-Baptism, and routed 
 B-omanism; and it wiirkeep the Baptist church 
 within proper bounds, wherever it attempts to act 
 upon the Doctor s principles. 
 
 XVI. The sixteenth general argument of the 
 Doctor is : " Infant baptism is an evil, because it 
 
 ARRESTED THE REFORMATION MIDWAY IN ITS 
 
 course" (p. 210). The Reformation rescued 
 infant baptism from much of its Romish corrup- 
 tions, and restored it to comparative simplicity 
 and purity, which the evangelical Paedo-Baptists 
 have since effectually done. Luther rejected tran- 
 substanfiation, but believed in consubstantiation, 
 both of which the evangelical churches utterly 
 reject. The Reformers, with Luther at their 
 head, were Paedo- Baptists, and the Doctor says of 
 the Reformation, '^This was the character of 
 early Protestantism, and it was the character of 
 13* 
 
150 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 the religion of the Apostlps. No other can he true'' 
 (p. 213). Then we need go no farther — the Re- 
 formers were Psedo- Baptists. This is enough. 
 The Doctor's arguments are diminishing in length 
 and not increasing in strength, and our replies are 
 accordingly brief, and less tedious. 
 
 XYII. His seventeenth general argument is : 
 " Infant baptism is an evil, because it injures 
 
 THE CREDIT OF RELIGION WITH INTELLIGENT 
 
 MEN OF THE world" (p. 218). How does it 
 happen, then, that so many intelligent men arc 
 pious and useful members of the evangelical Paedo- 
 Baptist churches? and that so many intelligent 
 men of the world advocate infant baptism, and 
 attend divine service in Paedo-Baptist churches? 
 If they believed it was treason, as the Doctor does, 
 would they do this ? If they believed it was folly, 
 would they do this? If they believed it was 
 heresy, would they do this ? It is enough to say, 
 this proposition is flatly disproved hj facts. And 
 we only add, the Doctor has not only the courage 
 to reflect upon the intelligence of ^^ three-fourths^^ 
 of our enlightened republic, but the efirontery to 
 admonish the intelligent Paedo-Baptist churches 
 in the language of Scripture : '' Cast ye up, cast 
 ye up, prepare ye the way, take up the stumbling 
 block out of the way of my people" (p. 222). 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 151 
 
 Stumbling hloch! one is at once reminded of 
 " dose commuvion" — and we respectfully suggest 
 to tlie Doctor the propriety of shouting this Scrip- 
 ture at the very altar of his own church, as Hall 
 and Noel have done before him. If the Doctor 
 were as zealous in opposing the errors, we will not 
 say "evils" in his own church, as he is in op- 
 posing the truth in the evangelical Paedo-Baptist 
 churches, he might accomplish real good for " the 
 million.'* 
 
 XVIII. His eighteenth general argument is : 
 '^ Infant baptism is an evil, because IT enfee- 
 bles THE POWER OF THE CHURCH TO COMBAT 
 
 error'' (p. 221). And here the Doctor refers to. 
 "P<9piW errors again; against which the evaa-^ 
 gelical Paedo-Baptist churches are contending 
 with all their might ; and they have done nearly 
 all that has been done to convert the world; to 
 emancipate the human race ; they have put down 
 the Ana-Baptists; and, we repeat, they have con- 
 tributed for centuries to make the Baptist church 
 what it is, and are still combatting the errors in 
 the Baptist church, that they may make it still 
 better. This is specially a weak chapter, and we 
 might have omitted it altogether. 
 
 XIX. His nineteenth general proposition is : 
 "Infant baptism is an evil, because IT is the 
 
152 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 GREAT BARRIER TO CHRISTIAN UNION" (p. 229). 
 
 You forget, Doctor, ^^ close communion^' is that 
 •"barrier. And you forget likewise, that you said 
 linfant baptism brings the tohole world into the 
 church — and that is the design of the gospel; 
 and so all being in the church, and in subsequent 
 life becoming Christians, all can enjoy Christian 
 union, and so infant baptism lies at the foundation 
 •of Christian union — the Doctor himself being 
 judge ! We pass on. 
 
 XX. His twentieth general proposition is: 
 ^' Infant baptism is an evil, because it prevents 
 
 THE SALUTARY IMPRESSION WHICH BAPTISM WAS 
 DESIGNED TO MAKE UPON THE MINDS BOTH OF 
 THOSE WHO RECEIVE IT AND THOSE WHO WIT- 
 NESS ITS administration" (p. 233). Our reply 
 is briefer than the proposition. If infant baptism 
 universally prevailed, the indelicacies, inconve- 
 niences, and unhappy influences of immersion 
 would be banished from the world. 
 
 XXI. The twenty-first and last proposition of 
 ihe Doctor is : " Infant baptism is an evil, be- 
 vcause it retards the designs of Christ in 
 
 THE conversion OF THE WORLD"" (p. 238). 
 
 This proposition is so insignificant, that we shall 
 despatch it with a single remark. The Reforma- 
 tion of Luther commenced with evangelical Pdsdo- 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 153 
 
 Baptists. The Weslejan Reformation commenced 
 with evangelical Psedo-Baptists. And it is re- 
 markable that no Beformation has ever com- 
 menced with Baptists. And the world is in a fair 
 way to be converted now, through the instrumen- 
 tality of evangelical Paedo-Baptists, while the 
 Baptist church is gradually improved by, and 
 borne along on the tide with, the evangelical 
 Psedo-Baptist churches. Such is the history of 
 the past and present, and the prospect of the 
 boundless future. 
 
 "We have but a single observation to add, and 
 shall then close this reply with some references 
 to the general character of the book and its 
 author. 
 
 The sophism that runs through the Doctor's 
 whole book, and which is the foundation of his 
 whole book, is this : the Doctor confounds hereti. 
 cat Psedo-Baptist churches with evangelical Paedo- 
 Baptist churches, and holds the latter responsible 
 for all the "evils? and "corruptions'' of the 
 former — a mode of argument that is manifestly 
 unfair and inconclusive. This unfairness is the 
 more remarkable in him, since he pursues a fair 
 method of reasoning, in opposing the views of 
 some of his own denomination who wrote in favor 
 of open communion : " they deal," says he, " in 
 
154 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 generals, discuss arguments, and controvert doc- 
 trines, that do not obtain among us" * — which is 
 the very discrimination he should have made, be- 
 tween corrupt and evangelical churches, and which 
 is the very argument on which they defend them- 
 selves against the conclusions drawn by him against 
 infant baptism. Again : " Were there Baptists 
 among the men of Munster, and is our church 
 therefore responsible for all the excesses of the 
 mass in that scene? But no sensible man will 
 brand a whole denomination with shame, for the 
 follies, or the crimes, of a few individuals who 
 may chance to be ecclesiastically connected with 
 it." f Very well ; why then associate the evan- 
 gelical Pasdo-Baptist churches indiscriminately 
 with corrupt Paedo-Baptist churches, and then 
 " brand with shame" the former for all the " fol- 
 lies," and ''■ crimes," and " evils" of the latter ? 
 It is evident, at least, that the Doctor could make 
 the proper discrimination when upon the defensive, 
 and justice and candor required the same of him 
 when upon the offensive. 
 
 * Howell on Communion, p. 13. t ^^^ V- 18. 
 
CONCLUSION 
 
 The " concluding addresses'' are the exhorta- 
 tions of prejudice, the ebullitions of uncharitable- 
 ness, the jugglery of proselytism, the scheme of 
 schism, and the crowning " evils" of the volume. 
 From beginning to end the book is evil, and the 
 only consolation of the pious heart is, that " the 
 million" will detect, on every page in it, the 
 elements of its own conclusive refutation The 
 author displays a mind, whose character is hatred 
 to infant baptism, and whose ultimate object is its 
 extermination. x\nd yet, in the attempt, he min- 
 gles neither the subtlety of sophistry, nor the 
 solidity of reasoning. Instead of obtaining enrol- 
 ment among the defenders of truth as the reward 
 of courage and victory, he is to be associated with 
 the opposers of Protestantism as the recompense 
 of temerity and defeat, and the price of the 
 
 (155) 
 
156 INFANT BAPTISM 
 
 calumnies whicli he has thrown upon illustrious 
 men and evangelical churches. He has written in 
 a spirit inconsistent with the dignity of the Chris- 
 tian ministry, and indulged in a tone of severity 
 unsurpassed by the most malignant champions of 
 infidelity and heresy in any age, and hence his 
 work can contribute nothing to the advancement 
 of " baptistical'^ dogmas, much less of true piety. 
 He seems to be ignorant of the most obvious 
 truth, that violence only strengthens opposition 
 and confirms prejudices; and is equally incapable 
 of overturning the truth and suppressing error. 
 Of an ardent spirit, without penetration, the 
 Doctor fails to discriminate between true courage 
 and rashness, modesty and boldness, courtesy and 
 rudeness, zeal and vehemence, meekness and 
 dogmatism, charity and asperity. And of an 
 exclusive bias, he confounds abuses with evils, 
 truth with error, the sanctities of Christianity 
 with the profanations of Popery, the institutions 
 of Grod with the inventions of men, and the 
 purity of the church with the corruptions of the 
 world. His book is a libel on Christendom, 
 ascribing to infant baptism, one of its institu- 
 tions, every thing horrible, abominable, scanda- 
 lous, seditious, infectious, treasonable, schismati- 
 cal, heretical, detestable and destructive; a libel 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 157 
 
 to which Christian charity can never affix her seal, 
 and Christian forbearance can hardly be extended. 
 It is the sound of the tocsin of religious battle 
 against Christendom, calling "the million' ' to 
 arms, and the dismal note is given with a pecu- 
 liar, undefinable joy, which is at once the luxury 
 and reproach of a bigoted and ungenerous spirit, 
 originating in the combined force of the elements 
 of human nature, ill-regulated religious zeal, and 
 misconceptions of the genius and vital doctrines 
 and institutions of Christianity. If we are to 
 believe the Doctor, he has entered, as he states 
 in his preface, upon a great reformation. But he 
 displays neither the abilities nor the qualifica- 
 tions requisite for such a work. There is not, in 
 his whole book, one argument of the persuasive, 
 sober majesty of truth. In his attack upon what 
 he calls "evils,'' he displays neither vivacity 
 nor energy, but presumption and dogmatism. 
 His reasonings being little more than pompous 
 flourishes, or ludicrous conceits, are without evi- 
 dence or solidity. His style is simple, without 
 force, beauty, or elegance. He is endued with 
 neither the acuteness, nor the force of genius, 
 nor the learning, nor the piety, nor the candor, 
 to place him among reformers, much less at the 
 head of them. He is neither a theologian, nor 
 14 
 
158 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 logician, nor philosopher, nor scholar ; for he pos- 
 sesses neither the grasp of intellect, nor the 
 extent of attainments, nor the purity of spirit, 
 that constitute those elevated characters. With- 
 out liberality, his expositions seem to have origi- 
 nated in considerations of a party nature, and 
 possess nothing of that comprehensiveness of 
 design resembling the amplitude of the sacred 
 Scriptures. It is true, he indulges in a spirit 
 of free inquiry and independence, but not that 
 which is essential to the character and work of a 
 great reformer, but characteristic of an enthu- 
 siast, pursuing a chimera, as if it were the greatest 
 achievement of the age, and the greatest blessing 
 to be transmitted to the future ; while his labor 
 is virtually anti-Christian, and, in fact, contro- 
 versial suicide, since in every step of his argu- 
 ment he betrays a criminal ignorance of that 
 which, in infant baptism, belongs essentially to 
 our common Christianity, and that which properly 
 belongs to the general mass of the corruptions 
 and profanations of systematic heresy. Had he 
 accurately and with delight surveyed the heavenly 
 land, and the whole field of polemic theology, 
 he never would have returned with such a temfic 
 report; his book would never have appeared. 
 A Reformer ! On him can never be fixed the 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 159 
 
 admiring gaze of posterity; to him can never 
 be awarded the wages of laborious piety; and 
 from him can never be transmitted that brilliant 
 and useful light which imparts heat and life to 
 distant ages. But in the presence of the in- 
 tense and intensely increasing light now in the 
 heavens, his book, not as a splendid orb that 
 gilds the clouds and mountain tops as it rises, 
 but as an inferior star that wanes upon its first 
 appearing, is to be blotted out from the moral 
 firmament. And a reformer, if required, would 
 be a martyr, and by his martyrdom accelerate 
 the march of mind from superstition, and error, 
 and slavery, to the pure worship, and truth, and 
 freedom of primitive Christianity, and, so, by his 
 blood, strengthen the cement that unites the 
 church of God indissolubly, and establishes it 
 immovably upon the Eock of Ages; and not, 
 by amassing imagined ^' evil" upon "evil," at- 
 tempt to overturn the church, in order to pro- 
 mote the prosperity of interested communities, 
 and aggrandize and immortalize himself. Like 
 men of an inferior spirit, advocating a bad cause, 
 he is warm and vigorous in the first attack, but 
 fainter and weaker to the close of the contest, 
 where his spirits wholly evaporate; like the an- 
 cient Gauls, who, in the beginning of battle, 
 
160 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 were more than men, but in the end were less 
 than women. Nothing can be more ludicrous 
 than self-sufficiency in men of inferior abilities, 
 and nothing can be fairer than modesty, which, 
 in men of superior abilities, like the flame, trem- 
 bles as it aspires. 
 
 THE END.