^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 c2 
 
 
 
 .^ 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 i? 
 
 
 -9* 
 
 
 
 <^ 
 
 
 a» 
 
 
 
 ^^^ 
 
 
 IE 
 
 1 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 Q. 
 
 I 
 
 
 x^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 "A 
 
 o 
 
 ; 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 $ 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 (U 
 
 
 
 c^ 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 «^ 
 
 O 
 
 ^ 
 
 rv 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 < 
 
 13 
 
 3 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^"^ 
 
 
 
 |Zi 
 
 E 
 
 .«0 
 
 
 <<> 
 
 M 
 
 (<j 
 
 •vi 
 
 
 j^ 
 
 rt 
 
 CO 
 
 1^ 
 
 
 -*-*' 
 ^ 
 
 PM 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 Ct 
 
 
 2^ 
 
 5i 
 
 
 % 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 2i 
 
 1 
 
 
 V> 
 
 CL 
 
 1= 
 
 . 
 
 1 
 
 
Digitized by tine Internet Arcinive 
 
 in 2011 with funding from 
 
 Princeton Tiieological Seminary Library 
 
 http://www.arcliive.org/details/es9aysonbaptistc00rene 
 
ESSAYS 
 
 ♦ . /V 
 
 OR, AN 
 
 EXAMINATION OF THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF 
 
 BAPTISM: 
 
 TOGETHER WITH THE RIGHT OP ALL DENOMINATIONS TO 
 THE PRIVILEGE OF 
 
 / 
 
 By RUSSELL REXEAU. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA: 
 HIGGIXS k PERKIXPIXE, 40 N. FOURTH ST. 
 
 1856. 
 
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1856, by 
 
 RUSSELL RENEAU, 
 
 in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States for the 
 
 Eastern District of Pennsylvania. 
 
 STEREOTYPED BY L. JOHNSON Ic CO. 
 PHILADELPHIA. 
 

 PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. 
 
 The following Essays were first published in 1846. 
 They were written to meet a local necessity, and the 
 idea that a reprint would ever be called for was not in 
 the mind of the author at all. Although the work has 
 been out of print for nine years, it is still called for. 
 It is now revised, and sent out once more. 
 
 The sentiment expressed near the close of the work — 
 that the existence of sects in the church is no evil — is 
 to be received in a qualified sense. For sixteen cen- 
 turies the church has been governed too much, espe- 
 cially igi matters of conscience, of which God alone is 
 the rightful arbiter. Separate sects have been organ- 
 ized by minorities solely on account of the oppres- 
 sions and usurpations of majorities. These evils, in 
 the providence of God, do good by counteracting each 
 other, just as one poison is an antidote for another. In 
 a few months the author expects to have ready for the 
 press a new work, to be entitled ^'The Reign of Satan," 
 in which many of the evils of the church and the 
 state will be discussed with the greatest freedom, — 
 
 3 
 
4 PREFACE. 
 
 among which sectarianism will receive the attention 
 its merits demand. 
 
 The author has no desire to believe any thing but the 
 truth himself, and surely does not desire to inculcate 
 any thing which is untrue. It was his aim to write 
 these Essays in conformity with this sentiment, and he 
 hopes he has succeeded in showing that such was his 
 intention throughout the entire work. He prays the 
 blessing of God upon the work and upon its readers. 
 
 Russell Reneau. 
 
 March, 1856. 
 
ESSAYS 
 
 BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 
 
 ESSAY I. 
 
 ON CONTROVERSIAL DISCUSSIONS. 
 
 ^' It was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you 
 that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was 
 once delivered unto the saints." Jude 3. 
 
 As no man can know every thing, and as the 
 wisest and best of us are but erring, fallible 
 creatures, ever liable to be mistaken, so is it 
 unavoidable that men, from ignorance, weak- 
 ness, and surrounding circumstances, should 
 reach conclusions, even on plain subjects, to- 
 tally different from each other. However diffi- 
 cult the acquiring of truth may be, it is never- 
 theless a treasure that enriches the mind and 
 elevates the affections; while error and false 
 doctrine can only deceive, impoverish, and ruin 
 all who trust in them. 
 
 Wlien a doctrine claims admittance into our 
 creed, we should patiently examine the argu* 
 
 1* 9 
 
6 ESSAYS ON THE 
 
 ments used by its friends in its favor; and also 
 those used by its enemies for its refutation. 
 We are tben to decide upon which side the 
 weight of testimony lies, and whether the doc- 
 trine be true. Those who investigate in this 
 way will not often be deceived, unless the sub- 
 ject be too great for them, or they suffer their 
 prejudices to blind their understandings. 
 
 This being the only safe way of arriving at 
 a kniowledge of the truth, it, of necessity, must 
 be the surest method of imparting it to others. 
 Hence, controversy is unavoidable, whether the 
 world will have it so or not. Controversy pre- 
 supposes the existence of opposing parties, both 
 of which cannot be right. If there be any virtue 
 in maintaining religious truth and opposing 
 error, there is the greatest propriety in contro- 
 versial preaching. Concerning this, however, 
 there is a great variety of opinion. Some men 
 seem to be so fond of peace that they wish all 
 controversy banished from the church. Some 
 others will barely allow a little controversy in 
 self-defence, provided a direct assault is made 
 upon us; and provided we only bring argu- 
 ments to support our own doctrines, without 
 saying any thing against the doctrines of our 
 assailants. The war must be defensive alto- 
 gether. This is a popular form of controversy ; 
 or it is, at least, much less offensive than that 
 
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 7 
 
 which assails the doctrine of our opponents. 
 If, however, it be our duty to maintain what we 
 believe to be true, it is equally our duty to dis- 
 jplace, as far as we can by fair means, what we 
 believe to be error. Hence it is our duty to 
 defend our own doctrines, and we have the 
 right to assail the doctrines of our opponents. 
 
 "WHiile it is our undoubted right to refute, as 
 far as we can, every doctrine we honestly be- 
 lieve to be false, yet we have no right to assail 
 the feelings of those who hold such doctrines. 
 Their doctrines and arguments should be fairly 
 stated and fairly met. Xo caricatures should 
 be resorted to. These are \qtj offensive, and 
 do not advance the cause of truth ; but, rather, 
 they do gender strife. Severity of animadver- 
 sion is no just cause of offence, where there is 
 no misrepresentation. It is impossible, how- 
 ever, to avoid giving offence in controversial 
 discussions, though they may be so conducted 
 as to avoid 2i\iy just cause. This giving offence 
 is surely an evil, the avoiding of which is very 
 desirable. But it would be a much greater evil 
 to abandon all discussion, which would be to 
 place truth and falsehood upon equal footing. 
 Since, then, controversy must exist, let every 
 controversialist state the question honestly, 
 argue it fairly, and do all in the spirit of Chris- 
 tian kindness, and much good will be the result. 
 
O ESSAYS ON THE 
 
 A man who believes a doctrine to be true, 
 not because he has scriptural reasons for it, but 
 because his party or denomination believes it, 
 or because he was taught it by his parents, will 
 be apt to be displeased at your attacking his 
 doctrine, whether you do it kindly or othenvise. 
 Having made up his opinion regardless of proof, 
 he dislikes to hear any thing against such 
 opinion. 
 
 He that thinks it is sufficient to know that 
 respectable writers have advocated his doctrine, 
 will be oft'ended at controversy, because he 
 thinks those writers have settled and have the 
 right to settle all such differences, and every- 
 body ought to embrace their opinion and join 
 their party. 
 
 He that thinks it is better to embrace a ready- 
 made opinion, though it be false, than to in- 
 vestigate the subject and form one of his own, 
 will be offended at controversy, because, being 
 too lazy to search out the reason of things, he 
 dislikes to be disturbed in the enjoyment of his 
 borrowed creed. 
 
 He that believes that a falsehood, advocated 
 by respectable men, and honestly believed by 
 their dupes, is as good as the truth, without 
 such auxiliary, will be displeased, because he 
 likes to be quiet in good company. 
 
 He that thinks it is better to hold doctrines in 
 
BAPTIST COInTROVERSY. 9 
 
 concealmeut, because of their real or supposed 
 want of popularity, will be displeased, because 
 he dislikes exposure. It may, he fears, prevent 
 the accomplishment of his by-ends. He wants 
 to have a popular creed. 
 
 The prejudiced man is unwilling to submit 
 his opinions to investigation, because he would 
 rather support them, true or false, than to learn 
 the truth from the opinions of others. It is not 
 strange, therefore, that he should be opposed to 
 controversy, and displeased with the man who 
 preaches it. 
 
 The man who prefers the truth to his own 
 opinions, or to the opinions of any, or of all 
 others, is pleased to see his doctrines put to the 
 test. He knows truth will always bear exa- 
 mination ; and however unpopular it may be, 
 it is, nevertheless, worth more than the most 
 reputable falsehood by whomsoever advocated. 
 He will not shun controversy, because some 
 silly ones may, perchance, be offended at it. 
 
 To controversy it is objected, that it destroys 
 the peace and harmony of the different denomi- 
 nations. To which we may answer, a peace 
 that can be maintained only by the abandon- 
 ment of truth, is not worth having; and har- 
 mony in error is the harmony of perdition. 
 The true state of the case, conceal it who may, 
 teaches us that men are not agreed in their 
 
10 ESSAYS ON THE 
 
 religious belief; and to pretend they are, is to 
 act more like knaves than Christians. Peace 
 men would have us throw aivay our doctrines, 
 for peace' sake, or cease to advocate them, which 
 is the same thing in the sight of God, and in 
 its practical results. Suppose, for example, an 
 Arminian brother proposes to a Calvinist as 
 follows: ""Well, brother, on the subject of final 
 apostasy, we have never been able to agree; 
 but have, sometimes, felt warm when talking 
 about it, and more especially when our preach- 
 ers have been arguing on the subject; and as 
 peace is worth more than every thing else, if 
 you will abandon yours, I will ihroiu away my 
 opinion, for peace' sake. ' ' To this the brother Cal- 
 vinist answers, " I am decidedly of your opinion, 
 I will make any sacrifice for peace' sake. I am 
 opposed to controversy any how. I will dis- 
 countenance, if you say so, all controversial 
 preachers, for peace' sake. ' ' "Will any be so hardy 
 as to suppose these brethren would not gain 
 peace by such a bargain ? But what do such 
 peace men propose to do with their doctrines? 
 Why, just throw them away for peace' sake. 
 That is all. They think so much of their no- 
 tions, that the spirit of war rises, and they get 
 mad whenever they hear arguments urged 
 against them. But then again, they love peace 
 so well, that they will, each, give up this pre- 
 
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 11 
 
 cious prize, rather than fight for it. But is 
 this the peace of God ? 
 
 Though the view we have just taken of such 
 peace measures makes the whole look ridicu- 
 lous enough, yet, ridiculous as it is, the public 
 conduct of many in the present day is equally 
 ridiculous. I do not say or believe as much of 
 their private conduct. For really, while they 
 jpuhlicly declaim against controversy, they jpri- 
 vately advocate their own doctrines, and assail 
 other people's, taking care icho is ]present for 
 peace' sake. Then, even among peace men, we 
 have the real war ; privately^ it is true, for peace' 
 sake. They really assail each other's doctrines 
 in private. The great difference between such 
 peace men and public controversialists is, the 
 peace men give each other no opportunity of 
 defence, it all h^mg private for peace' sake. They 
 stab each other in the dark /or peace' sake. They 
 pretend peace while war is in their habitations. 
 The whole plan is deceptive ; and the man who 
 practises it is a hypocrite. Dare any one say 
 we misrepresent facts ? Or do we draw erro- 
 neous conclusions? He who can only love me 
 because I think as he does, or be at peace with 
 me while I either pretend so to think, or hold 
 the diflerence in concealment, does not intend 
 to esteem me as a Christian at all. He who is 
 himself a sincere Christian, and regards me as 
 
12 ESSAYS ON THK 
 
 such, loves me on that account ; our agreement 
 or non-agreement being of but little import- 
 ance. He will neither require me to conceal 
 nor abandon my opinions for the sake of his 
 friendship. Should he do so, I assure him he 
 requires of me a much greater sacrifice than I 
 am willing to make, and a much higher price 
 for his friendship than I ask for mine. 
 
 To controversy it is objected again, that it 
 prevents the union of the different denomina- 
 tions in their efforts to promote the glory of the 
 kingdom of Christ. If by union be intended 
 amalgamation, it is entirely illusive. I have 
 been acquainted with many of these union 
 men. They are of all denominations. They 
 wish all others to adopt their peace measures, 
 and unite with them, i. e. join them. This is 
 all a chimera. Men will be able to think alike 
 when their faces are made to look alike. All 
 this parade about union and amalgamation is 
 more the evidence of hypocrisy than of Chris- 
 tian charity. Since men have the right to think 
 for themselves, and to advocate their opinions, 
 we should all love one another regardless of 
 our sectarian peculiarities. There would be 
 about as much wisdom in withholding my 
 Christian res^ard from a brother because he was 
 unable to think as I did, as there would be in 
 withholding it because his nose was not made 
 
BAPTIST CONTROVERgT. 13 
 
 like mine. If a man sincerely believes himself 
 to be in the right, while he as honestly believes 
 me to be wrong, I would think more of him, 
 while he honestly tried to convince me of my 
 error, than I would of a thousand peace men, 
 ^who are equally opposed to me in sentiment; 
 but for reasons best known to themselves, were 
 always controverting, in my absence, the pro- 
 priety of controversy. I hold all such in utter 
 detestation. 
 
 The author of these essays preaches contro- 
 versy for conscience' sake, believing that his 
 heavenly Father has called him to this work. 
 In doing this, he takes no greater liberty with 
 the doctrines of other men than he allows them 
 to take with his. He would, however, thank 
 those gentlemen who have no doctrines of 
 their own that they think worth defending, 
 and have found no error in this naughty world 
 large enough to be worth opposing, and are so 
 very much opposed to all controversy that they 
 cannot do any of it publicly, to cease contro- 
 verting so privately his controversial preaching. 
 If controvert you must, do it a little more pub- 
 licly, that the assailed may defend his own 
 course, while he "contends earnestly for the 
 faith which was once delivered unto the saints." 
 
14 ESSAYS ON THE 
 
 ESSAY n. 
 
 ON THE PREROGATIVES OF CHRIST. 
 
 **2%e Lord is our Judge, the Lord is our Lawgiver, the Lord 
 is our King; he will save us." — Isa. xxxiii. 22. 
 
 The three component parts of government 
 are the Legislative, the Executive, and Judi- 
 cial. These are clearly set forth in the above 
 text. Of Jesus it is said, "The government 
 shall be upon his shoulder." Isa. ix. 6. Jesus 
 says of himself, "All poiver is given unto me 
 in heaven and in earth." Matt, xxviii. 18. This 
 government is called the kingdom of God — the 
 kingdom of heaven. All the power there is in 
 this kingdom, whether in heaven or in earth, 
 is given to Jesus. The whole weight of it rests 
 ■upon his shoulder : — a weight, this, too heavy 
 for any other than the " mighty God, the ever- 
 lasting Father." True allegiance to Christ re- 
 quires that we acknowledge his prerogatives as 
 herein set forth. 
 
 Seeing all power is primarily in the Lord 
 Jesus Christ, our King, it will chiefly concern 
 us, at present, to ascertain what powers he has 
 delegated to men. It is a question of very 
 great importance, whether the church possesses 
 any legislative authority or not. We advocate 
 
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 15 
 
 the negative. Power has indeed been dele- 
 gated. But this power is executive only. The 
 power of discipling the nations has been dele- 
 gated to God's ministers ; but they are, in doing 
 this, to teach them to observe all things what- 
 soever Christ has commanded them. They are 
 not allowed to exact obedience to human laws. 
 "We may add that the church not only has no 
 legislative authority, but she is absolutely for- 
 bidden to exercise it. "If any man shall add 
 unto these things, God shall add unto him the 
 plagues that are written in this book : And if 
 any man shall take away from the words of the 
 book of this prophecy, God shall take aicay his 
 part out of the book of life, and out of the holy 
 city, and from the things which are written in 
 this book." Eev. xxii. 18, 19. 
 
 Thus, it is plain that no human being has 
 the authority to enact any law for church ob- 
 servance; nor has any the power to repeal, 
 modify, or change, any law of the kingdom 
 whatever. There is one lawgiver. James iv. 12. 
 .The holy Bible contains the laws of Christ's 
 kingdom. An attempt to add to this or take 
 from it is nothing short of high treason against 
 the government of the King, our blessed Lord. 
 God will punish this treason with the severest 
 penalties. He will take the traitor's part out 
 of the book of life, and add to him the plagues 
 
16 ESSAYS ON THE 
 
 written in the book. Members are to be ad- 
 mitted into the church in the observance of 
 Christ's laws alone. They are to be admitted 
 to all church privileges in the same way; and 
 in obedience to the same authority they are to 
 be expelled, when that thing is done. 
 
 What, then, will we say of those who expel 
 their members for joining temperance societies ? 
 What of those who expel their members for 
 taking the sacrament with other denominations? 
 Are not these things, with some others of the 
 same or similar character, done in obedience to 
 human laws ? It does not do away the error 
 of introducing the commandments of men, to 
 urge the goodness of the motives which prompted 
 their introduction. For men have no more 
 power to enact good laws for the church than 
 bad ones. They have not the authority to 
 enact any, of any sort. "By every word that 
 proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord doth 
 men live." Deut. viii. 3; Matt. iv. 4. We are 
 not, then, to live by obeying men. Obedience 
 to men is vain and hateful in the sight of God. 
 *'But in vain they do worship me, teaching for 
 doctrines the commandments of men.'' Matt. xv. 9. 
 
 When, from thirst of power, doctrines and 
 practices which are contrary to God's word 
 are introduced into the church, its faith is sub- 
 verted and its practice corrupted in exact pro- 
 
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 17 
 
 poi-tion to tlie triumph of human tradition over 
 the commandments of God. For this crime 
 the Jews have been driven to the four winds 
 for near two thousand years. 
 
 The hatefuhiess of this high treason against 
 the kingdom of Christ cannot be more clearly 
 set forth than in his own words. He says : — 
 
 " Thus have ye made the commandment of 
 God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypo- 
 crites ! well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, 
 This people draweth nigh unto me with their 
 mouth, and honoureth me with their lips ; but 
 their heart is far from me. But in vain they 
 do worship me, teaching for doctrines the com- 
 mandments of men. And he called the multi- 
 tude, and said unto them, Hear and understand : 
 IS'ot that which goeth into the mouth defileth a 
 man ; but that which cometh out of the mouth, 
 this defileth a man. Then came his disciples, 
 and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pha- 
 risees were offended, after they heard this say- 
 ing ? But he answered and said, Every plant 
 which my heavenly Father hath not planted 
 shall be rooted up. Let them alone : they be 
 blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind 
 lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch." 
 Matt. XV. 6-14. 
 
 In this passage our Lord alludes to Isa. xxix. 
 13, where the prophet represents the Lord a« 
 
 B 2* 
 
18 ESSAYS ON THE 
 
 complaining that the Jews taught " their fear 
 towards him by the precepts of men.'' K it be 
 possible to condemn the introduction of human 
 laws and tests into the church, here that con- 
 demnation is set forth in language we cannot 
 misunderstand. Those who blindly lead a de- 
 luded multitude into the observance of human 
 tradition, instead of the commandments of 
 Christ, shall, with their followers, fall into the 
 ditch. God shall add to them the plagues 
 written in the book. This making void the 
 law of God by human laws is the sin of Rome. 
 Sooner or later, God will overthrow her by the 
 sword of his mouth. Let every Protestant ad- 
 here to the Bible, which, we once heard Bishop 
 Janes say, ^'was older than the fathers, — wiser 
 than councils, — truer than tradition, — more ortho- 
 dox than creeds, — more infallible than popes, — 
 more authoritative than priests, — more saving than 
 ceremonies." It is the infallible word of God. 
 It is the religion of the Protestants. Let all 
 follow its teaching and believe in its Christ. 
 
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 19 
 
 ESSAY ni. 
 
 ON THE TERMS OP DISCIPLESHIP. 
 
 The term ''Disciple," so frequently used in 
 the IN'ew Testament, is simply tlie appellation 
 of a learner. The twelve were called his dis- 
 ciples because they learned of Christ the doc- 
 trines he taught. For the same reason those 
 who learned of John were called his disciples. 
 Students in the ancient schools were called dis- 
 ciples. Thus, the church is a religious school, 
 instituted by the great Teacher for the purpose 
 of teaching and making disciples of all nations. 
 The ministers are subordinate teachers, sent 
 out to teach all nations the importance of ob- 
 serving all things whatsoever Christ had com- 
 manded them. In this school men are to be 
 taught, or schooled, till they become wise unto 
 salvation, — till they come fully to the know- 
 ledge of the truth as it is in Jesus. This school 
 is a labor school. AYhile students learn, they 
 labor in connection with others, like oxen in a 
 yoke, and bear a burden, like travellers far from 
 home who carry their own equipage. 
 
 All who desire admission into this school 
 will naturally enough wish to know what cha- 
 racters the great Master admits, and also the 
 
20 ESSAYS ON THE 
 
 terms upon wliicli he admits them. These we 
 shall examine carefully. "We will quote from 
 the laws of the school, as laid down by the 
 Master. 
 
 "If any man wdll come after me, let him 
 deny himself^ and take up his cross daily, and 
 follow me." Luke ix. 23. 
 
 Here we have, lirst, the character pointed out. 
 He desires "to come after Christ," — to flee from 
 the wrath to come: plainly, he desires to be a 
 Christian. Two things are to be done : — 
 
 1. He must deny himself. 
 
 2. He must take up his cross daily. 
 
 The only thing mentioned in the character 
 of this applicant for admission is simply that 
 he wills to come after Christ. He is therefore 
 a seeker. When a man denies himself and 
 takes up his cross, he must, of course, join the 
 church. 
 
 Therefore, it is plain, according to this law, 
 that seekers may join the church. We will 
 quote from the law again : — 
 
 "Come unto me, all ye that labor and are 
 heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take 7ny 
 yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek 
 and lowly in heart : and ye shall find rest unto 
 your souls. For 7ny yoke is easy, and my burden 
 is light.'' Matt. xi. 28, 30. 
 
 Here again we have the character of a seeker 
 
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 21 
 
 plainly laid down. Of him it is said, lie labors 
 and is heavy laden, and that he has no re-s^ to 
 Ms soul. He labors. He struggles hard with 
 sin This labor was rendered doubly hard with 
 those that wore the Jewish yoke. This yoke 
 was hard. The Jewish burden was heavy. This 
 added greatly to that heavy load of guilt under 
 which the penitent groaned, bewailing the days 
 of his folly. He could find no rest in that hard 
 yoke which gendereth to bondage, (Gal. iv. 24,) 
 because it could not relieve him of his burden, 
 seeing it had no commandment that could give 
 life. Such in modern times would be denomi- 
 nated seekers, mourners, or anxious persons. 
 Jesus c^iiiiands these seekers to take upon them 
 his easy yoke, or join the church. 
 
 Lest, however, a remaining doubt may linger 
 in the mind of any of my readers, I will remark 
 further upon the command," Take my yoke," &c. 
 
 Every one knows that a yoke, literally, is 
 that which unites two oxen in the same labor. 
 It is used in the above text to represent that 
 w^hich unites men in the labor of religion. 
 Thus circumcision was the yoke of the Mosaic 
 dispensation. All who took upon them this 
 yoke were debtors to do the whole law. Gal. 
 V. 3. It was a yoke of bondage. Gal. v. 1. 
 Peter calls it a "yoke which neither our fathers 
 nor we were able to bear." Acts xv. 10. The 
 
22 ESSAYS ON THE 
 
 Jews were obliged to conform to this law, per- 
 form its labors, and bear its burdens ; all which 
 required united efforts, and, as such, that insti- 
 tution which united them together was pro- 
 perly called a yoke. This was circumcision. 
 From this yoke Christ has made us free. We 
 should, therefore, stand fast in that liberty. Cir- 
 cumcision is the hard yoke to which Jesus doubt- 
 less alludes when he says, "My yoke is easy.'' 
 It now remains to be seen what his easy yoke is. 
 That something was in use called a yoke, in 
 the days of the apostles, is evident. Paul calls 
 a brother a "true yoke-fellow." Phil. iv. 3. 
 The great end of the gospel was to get men to 
 forsake their sins and to live in obedience to 
 the law of Christ. Baptism obliges its subjects 
 to walk in newness of life. In this ordinance 
 the vows of the gospel are taken upon us. 
 This ordinance has taken the place of circum- 
 cision, and must, therefore, be the easy yoke 
 of the gospel dispensation. "Take my yoke 
 upon you," is then, plainly, a command to be 
 baptized, or join the church. That baptism 
 was Christ's easy 3^oke is the more probable, 
 if not certain, from the connection between 
 wearing the yoke and becoming a learner. 
 " Take mjyoke upon you and learn of we" is equal 
 to saying, " Submit to my baptism and become 
 my disciple." If we have not misapprehended 
 
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 23 
 
 these passages it is plainly the law of Christ 
 that seekers are to be received into the church ; 
 that it is their duty to join ; and that ministers 
 are bound to teach them to observe this plain 
 command of our great Lawgiver. 
 
 It may not be amiss to make a remark or two 
 upon the obligation of taking up the cross daily. 
 The death of the cross, though too scandalous 
 to be inflicted on a citizen, be his crime what 
 it might, was so common among the Eomans 
 that affliction and trouble of every sort came to 
 be called crosses. To this use of the term our 
 Lord undoubtedly alludes when he says, "Let 
 him take up his cross daily and follow me." 
 The cross to be borne is a quiet submission to 
 persecution, and a patient endurance of the sor- 
 rows and afflictions which come upon men on 
 account of their allegiance to Christ. Baptism 
 pledges us to the endurance of such things ; for 
 by it we are planted into even the likeness of 
 his death. Rom. vi. 5. 
 
 From what has been said, we think one who 
 labors, is heavy laden, has no rest to his soul, 
 and TVills or desires to come after Christ, must 
 be a seeker of religion : it also appears that when 
 such a seeker is commanded to come to Christ, 
 to submit to his easy yoke, to learn of him, to 
 deny himself, to take up his cross daily, and to 
 follow Jesus, he must be commanded to join 
 
'24 ESSAYS OX THE 
 
 the church, unless we suppose that all these 
 can be done as well out of the church as in it, 
 which would be to deny that the church rela- 
 tion w^as worth any thing at all. 
 
 Seeing, then, that seekers are commanded to 
 join the church, to forbid them to do so is to 
 make void the commandments of God by the 
 doctrines and commandments of men. If the 
 master himself has indeed guaranteed to the 
 humble but sincere seeker the right to join the 
 church, such a one has, by necessary conse- 
 quence, the right to all the ordinances secured 
 by that relation. Many, very honestly, I allow, 
 feel strong opposition to this view of the sub- 
 ject, and oppose it with a zeal worthy of the 
 best of causes. Such opposition, however 
 honestly and zealously made, no more proves 
 it to be wrong than the indignation of the 
 Jews proves that it was wrong for the Lord to 
 eat and drink with publicans and sinners. 
 
 An examination of a few examples left us by 
 our Lord and his apostles will, we think, esta- 
 blish the view we have taken of the law of 
 Christ. Let it be remembered that many sects 
 in the present day contend that none but truly 
 regenerated persons have any right to join the 
 church. These have introduced the practice of 
 hearing the experiences of those who wish to 
 join the church, in order that they may be able 
 
BAPTIST CONTKOVERSY. 25 
 
 to determine whether such applicants have the 
 right to join or not. ]^ow, for this practice 
 there is either the law of Christ or it is from 
 man only. If there he a law of Christ author- 
 izing the church to receive members by making 
 a decision upon their religious experience, that 
 law can be found in the Xew Testament, or, at 
 least, what I admit would be equal to it, the 
 evidence that Christ or his apostles received 
 members in that way. But, if neither Christ 
 nor his apostles received members by expe- 
 rience, and left no command for us to receive 
 in that way, it is manifest the law requiring it 
 is a human law, by the observance of which 
 men make void those commandments of Christ 
 which we have already brought to view, by the 
 traditions of men. Unless this law^, or the evi- 
 dence of its observance, can be found in the 
 "New Testament, it is in itself a nullity, and 
 those who exact obedience to it act without 
 law, above law, and contrary to law, having no 
 other than human authority. If Christ be the 
 only lawgiver in his own kingdom, as we most 
 strenuously contend he is, those who enacted 
 this man-made law usurped the divine preroga- 
 tive by assuming the law^-making power. 
 
 Let us now see what we can learn from Scrip- 
 ture example. Yf e will first see how the Lord 
 received his twelve disciples. 
 
26 ESSAYS ON THE 
 
 "From that time Jesus began to preach, alid 
 to say, Repent : for the kingdom of heaven is 
 at Kand. And Jesus, walking by the sea of 
 Galilee, saw two brethren ; Simon called Peter, 
 and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the 
 sea : for they were fishers. And he saith unto 
 them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers 
 of men. And they straightway left their nets, 
 and followed him. And going on from thence, 
 he saw other two brethren, James the son of 
 Zebedee, and John his brother, in a ship Tvith 
 Zebedee their father, mending their nets ; and 
 he called them. And they immediately left 
 the ship and their father, and followed him." 
 Matt. iv. 17-22. 
 
 "And as he passed by, he saw Levi the son 
 of Alpheus sitting at the receipt of custom, and 
 said unto him. Follow me. And he arose and 
 followed him." Mark ii. 14. 
 
 All the Evangelists have given us the account 
 of the call of these disciples, l^one but Luke 
 records any fact omitted in the account given 
 by Matthew as quoted above. Here is the fact 
 alluded to. It is in regard to Peter. He said, 
 "I am a sinful man, Lord." Luke v. 8. We 
 conclude that we have all the material facts be- 
 fore us, — at least a sufliciency to enable us to 
 determine whether Christ received these disci- 
 ples by experience or in some other way. There 
 
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 27 
 
 is uo mention made of any of tliem relating 
 their experience, the reason of which, doubt- 
 less, is, no such thing took place. If not, it is 
 because Christ did not receive disciples in that 
 way. 
 
 "We would ask the advocates of this modern 
 usage whether Simon Peter could have given 
 in, as it is called, a Christian experience? He 
 said he was a sinful man. If he told the truth, 
 he had no experience to relate ; if not, he was 
 guilty of falsehood, for which he should have 
 been expelled, if he had been in previously. 
 So far, the law we have examined in the former 
 part of this essay, and the examples now before 
 us, correspond exactly. Let us see how the 
 apostles practised under their view of the di- 
 vine law. 
 
 Every one would expect to find something 
 explicit from the apostles as to their mode of 
 receiving members. It will be interesting to 
 follow the accounts of their revivals. The 
 most interesting account is the first one. On 
 the day of Pentecost three thousand were re- 
 ceived into the church. In the reception of 
 these we may learn the apostolic mode of re- 
 ceiving members. 
 
 "l!^ow, when they heard this, they were 
 pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and 
 to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, 
 
28 ESSAYS OX THE 
 
 what shall we do ? Then Peter said unto them, 
 Repent, and he baptized every one of you in 
 the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of 
 sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy 
 Ghost." Acts ii. 37, 38. 
 
 1^0 regular comment on this passage is neces- 
 sary. The multitude must have been under 
 great excitement, many of them truly awakened. 
 From these the general cry was, "What shall 
 we do?" At the time this solemn inquiry was 
 made, no experience of grace could have been 
 related; and, at the same time, Peter directed 
 them to be baptized for the remission of sins. It 
 seems that baptism was to precede remission ; 
 consequently, there was no place for this new 
 method. If the apostles ever intended to in- 
 troduce this law, the day of Pentecost was a 
 favorable time for it. I cannot think the 
 account of this would have been omitted if it 
 had taken place. There were too many to be 
 received by experience in one day. " The same 
 day there were added unto them about three 
 thousand soids." Acts ii. 41. Who can believe 
 that the apostles heard an account of conviction 
 and conversion from three thousand, and then 
 baptized the same number, in one day? No 
 man living, we imagine, either does or can be- 
 lieve any such thing, let his prepossessions be 
 what they may. We insist these three thou- 
 
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 29 
 
 sand did not join by experience, not only be- 
 cause the thing appears to be impossible, but 
 because not one word is said about their join- 
 ing in that way: the reason of which most 
 obviously is, no such thing took place. If not, 
 it was because the apostles did not receive in 
 that wa}^ They understood the law of Christ 
 differently and better. 
 
 It is supposed the case of the Ethiopian 
 eunuch is an example in favor of the new law. 
 Mr. Howell, a leading Baptist writer, has the 
 following reckless assertions on the subject: — 
 
 "So scrupulous was this evangelist in his 
 determination to conform to the commission 
 by baptizing believers, and believers only, that, 
 on another memorable occasion, although pre- 
 viously divinely instructed as to his character, 
 when the treasurer of Candace, Queen of the 
 Ethiopians, had been taught by him, had avowed 
 himself a convert, and had made application 
 for baptism, he paused to question him on his re- 
 ligious experience^ and replied to his request, 
 Acts viii. 38, by saying, <If thou believest 
 with all thy heart thou mayest' be baptized." 
 — Sacramental Communion^ 2'- 1^4. 
 
 How Mr. Howell could find it in his con- 
 science to pen the above is truly astonishing. 
 It only shows what fanaticism will drive great 
 
 3* 
 
30 ESSAYS ON THE 
 
 men to. All that St. Luke lias said on that 
 point is the following: — 
 
 "And Philip said, If thou believest with all 
 thy heart, thou mayest. And he answered and 
 said, I believe thai Jesus Christ is the Son of God,'* 
 Acts viii. 37. 
 
 So far as the proof goes, Philip did not ques- 
 tion him on his "religious experience;" nor did 
 he relate any. Instead of any such, he tells the 
 applicant for admission into the church that, if 
 he believed, he might. Upon a profession, not 
 of conversion, Mr. Howell, but of faith, he bap- 
 tized him. But what did the eunuch believe ? 
 Did he believe himself regenerated ? He doubt- 
 less did, if such were the fact. But was he 
 baptized upon a profession of this faith? Or 
 was he baptized upon a profession of his faith 
 in the Messiahship of Christ? These inquiries 
 are easily answered. 
 
 But to this it will be objected that such faith 
 as Philip required and the eunuch professed 
 implies a regenerate heart. If this be so, it 
 will upset all we have said about it. Let the 
 Bible answer this objection. "Then Simon 
 himself believed also." Acts viii. 13. IS"ow, 
 what did Simon the sorcerer believe ? Did he 
 believe himself regenerated? K he did, he be- 
 lieved a lie, unless he fell from grace before 
 Peter arrived; for Peter said to him, "I per- 
 
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 31 
 
 ceive tliou art in the gall of bitterness, and in 
 the bond of iniquity." Acts viii. 23. It is not 
 said what Simon believed ; but we may suppose 
 that he "believed that Jesus Christ was the 
 Son of God." I am aware that some consider 
 Simon Magus as a pretended believer; but of 
 this there is not the least evidence. If he had 
 the required faith when he was baptized, — and 
 this we cannot deny without flatly contradict- 
 ing the Bible, — then is it certain that either the 
 apostles did not require those they baptized to 
 believe themselves regenerated, or that Simon 
 was truly regenerated when Philip baptized 
 him, but apostatized before Peter arrived. But 
 this latter cannot be, for he had never received 
 the Holy Ghost. The conclusion is inevitable. 
 Here then is believers' baptism without any ex- 
 perience to tell. This is the case with all these 
 Samaritans baptized by Philip ; they believed 
 his preaching, but the Holy Ghost had fallen 
 on none of them till Peter and John came 
 down and laid their hands upon them. 
 
 Let us not be told that these Samaritans de- 
 ceived Philip ; for of this there is no proof. I 
 cannot receive conjecture. I must learn what 
 apostolic usage was by what the Bible says, 
 not by what interested sectarians say. The 
 truth must be that Simon gave in no experience 
 when he received baptism; not any more 
 
32 ESSAYS ON THE 
 
 than Judas. J^ow, Mr. Howell, as you know 
 so much about Philip, and the eunuch, it may 
 be that you could tell us something about Judas. 
 If you can, I would be glad the next book you 
 write on Sacramental Communion, you would 
 answer the following questions: — When Christ 
 received the twelve, did he "question them on 
 their religious experience?" If Judas was 
 "questioned on his religious experience," and 
 gave satisfaction, did he profess a lie, or the 
 truth? If the truth, did he retain his grace, 
 and die in the divine favor? If a lie, did he 
 deceive Christ ? Or did Christ receive him with 
 a lie in his mouth, knowing such to be the fact ? 
 If you can answer these questions satisfactorily, 
 many would be obliged to you. 
 
 Saul of Tarsus, (Acts ix. 18,) and the com- 
 pany at the house of Cornelius, (Acts x. 44-48,) 
 could have given a true gospel experience if it 
 had been required ; but there is not the least 
 evidence that they did it, or that they were re- 
 quired to do it. Far from it. 
 
 On the supposition that the apostles received 
 by experience, is it not strange that the whole 
 New Testament furnishes no example of any 
 one relating an experience as evidence of fit- 
 ness for baptism? Experiences are recorded, 
 which shows they were considered of great im- 
 
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 66 
 
 portance, but neither law nor precedent for the 
 relation of them preparatory to baptism. 
 
 The conclusion to which our examination 
 has brought us in regard to the practice of the 
 apostles is that they baptized all who pro- 
 fessed to believe that Jesus Christ was the true 
 Messiah, and, by consequence, the Sa\iour of 
 the world. It is altogether probable that the 
 receiving by experience is quite a modern 
 practice, having no other than the authority 
 of human tradition. Where this usage has 
 obtained, we insist a change in the terms of 
 discipleship has taken place. We are not 
 alone in this. 
 
 Dr. Mosheim may be considered against us 
 as to the 'propriety of the change in the order 
 of recei\'ing members into the church ; but he 
 amply sustains our position as to the reality of 
 such change. See his Ecclesiastical History, 
 book i. part ii. century i. chapter iii. section v. 
 He says: — 
 
 " In the earliest times of the church, all who 
 professed firmly to believe that Jesus was the only 
 jRedeemer of the world, and who, in consequence 
 of this profession, promised to live in a manner 
 conformable to the purity of his holy religion, 
 were immediately received among the disciples of 
 Christ. This icas all the preparation for bap- 
 tism THEN required; ar^d a more accurate in- 
 c 
 
M ESSAYS U^• THK 
 
 struetion in the doctrines of Christianity wasi 
 to be administered to them after their receiving 
 that sacrament. But when Christianity had 
 acquired more consistence, and churches rose to 
 God and his eternal Son almost in every na- 
 tion, THIS CUSTOM WAS CHANGED, for the wisest and 
 most solid reasons. Then none were admitted to 
 baptism but such as had been previously in- 
 structed in the principal points of Christianity, 
 and had also giveji satisfactory proofs of pious dis- 
 positions and upright intentions.'' 
 
 I^ow, according to the doctor, "from the 
 earliest times," during the first century, or 
 "times" of the apostles, members were re- 
 ceived into the church ^'immediately,'' without 
 examining into the "satisfactory proofs of 
 pious dispositions and upright intentions." Ko 
 such thing as receiving by experience was then 
 known. This improvement was left for the 
 wisdom of after times, when men had leisure 
 to become wise above what was written. 
 
 I agree that in the "times" of the apostles, 
 which were "the earliest times" to which the 
 learned doctor alludes, "a firm belief that 
 Jesus was the only Redeemer of the world," 
 and a promise to conform to the purity of his 
 religion, was all the preparation required for 
 baptism; and I also agree that this scriptural 
 ^* custom was changed:" but when the doctoy 
 
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 85 
 
 says this change was for "the wisest and most 
 solid reasons," I disagree with him altogether. 
 These reasons, be they what they may, can 
 neither be wise nor solid, since they make void 
 the law of Christ. The reality of this change 
 is further confirmed by Dr. Ruter in his Church 
 History, Century I. chapter iii. p. 27. He 
 says : — 
 
 " The initiatory rite of baptism was permitted 
 to all who acknowledged the truths of the 
 gospel and promised conformity to its laws. 
 The introduction of unworthy and disorderly 
 persons into the church, from this easiness of 
 admission, naturally narrowed the terms of com- 
 munion ; and baptism was afterward confined to 
 those who had been 2^'f^ei'iousli/ instructed in reli- 
 gious knowledge and py-oved the sincerity of 
 their profession by the regularity of their lives. 
 The probationers for admission into the society 
 of Christians took the humble name of cate- 
 chumens, while those who were already conse- 
 crated by baptism were distinguished by the 
 superior title of believers,'''' 
 
 Very little comment on this passage is ne- 
 cessary. Dr. Ruter, instead of giving his opinion 
 of either the wisdom or the solidity of the 
 reasons for this change, gives the reasons them- 
 selves. These were the "introduction of un- 
 worthy and disorderly persons into the church,'* 
 
86 ESSAYS ON THE 
 
 which, as he says, '^naturally narrowed the 
 terms of communion," &c. This "narrowing" 
 may, fo^r what I know, have been '* natural," 
 but it surely was unscriptural; it set aside the 
 apostolic "easiness of admission," and made 
 void the law of Christ by the commandments 
 of men. ^N'arrowing the terms of communion 
 has not cured the evil: disorderly persons are 
 still received into the church. By such de- 
 partures the church has wandered very far 
 from the laws of the kingdom. May she 
 speedily return ! 
 
 According to the quotation from Dr. Enter, 
 "those who were already consecrated by bap- 
 tism were distinguished by the superior title 
 of believers." Thus, it is plain, they were 
 called believers on account of their submitting 
 to baptism, without any reference to the state 
 of the heart. This explains the case of Simon 
 the sorcerer, concerning whom we have else- 
 where spoken. The term believer did not in 
 those times imply, necessarily, a regenerate 
 heart, as it has been made to do in modern 
 times. It is more than probable that they 
 were so called, not because they believed them- 
 selves regenerated, but because they believed 
 that Jesus was the Son of God. All who be- 
 lieved this were entitled to baptism, whether 
 they believed themselves regenerated or not. 
 
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 37 
 
 In the profession of this faith and the recep- 
 tion of baptism, the pagan Gentiles renounced 
 their idols, as did the Jews their Judaism. It 
 is, therefore, natural that even a seeker who 
 has been baptized should be called a believer. 
 Two classes of believers seem to have received 
 baptism in the days of the apostles : — 1. Regene- 
 rated believers, such as Saul and the converts 
 at the house of Cornelius ; and, 2. Those who 
 w^ere seekers only, such as the three thousand 
 on the day of Pentecost and those whom Philip 
 baptized in Samaria. Acts viii. 12, 13. Of 
 these Samaritans, we are expressly told that 
 they had not received the Holy Ghost, only 
 they were baptized in the name of the Lord 
 Jesus. Acts viii. 15, 16. It may not be amiss 
 to remark that there are two general classes of 
 unbelievers who are not entitled to baptism: — 
 1. Such as have examined Christianit}^, more or 
 less, and have rejected the evidence which con- 
 vinces others that Jesus w^as the true Messiah, 
 and have settled down in unbelief; 2. Such as 
 have cared nothing about it,. consequently ex- 
 amined nothing concerning it; whose god is 
 their bell}", and their end destruction. 
 
 Having, as we believe, proved from the Bible 
 itself that the law of Christ authorizes seekers 
 to join the church, and that the apostles re- 
 ceived them without their relating any experi- 
 
 4 
 
38 ESSAYS ON THE 
 
 ence of grace whatever, we shall now proceed 
 to show, if we can, that the professed object of 
 receivmg by experience is not, nor can it ever 
 be, realized. 
 
 The avowed object of receiving members in 
 this way is, that the church may be composed 
 entirely of regenerate persons. To show that 
 this object is not attained, it is only necessary 
 to mention it. There is not a sect in all the 
 land that thinks that it has accomplished any 
 such thing. We know of no denomination 
 that has come any nearer the attainment of 
 this object than the Methodists, who receive 
 seekers, and who examine the experience of 
 none, as preparatory to baptism. If we are 
 right in this, those who practise upon this man- 
 made law accomplish nothing at all by such 
 practice. This complete and entire failure is 
 no mean comment upon the wisdom of the 
 measure. This failure is not only complete 
 now, but it must continue to be a failure until 
 man can look upon the heart "Man looketh on 
 the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on 
 the heart.'' 1 Samuel xvi. 7. Now, who can de- 
 termine the state of the heart without looking 
 into it? If you say, No one, then you acknow- 
 ledge that tha relation of an experience is use- 
 less so far as that matter is concerned. If you 
 wiy, The church, then I ask how a church made 
 
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 39 
 
 up of those who do not know whether their 
 own hearts are regenerated could decide upon 
 a brother's experience? For let it be remem- 
 bered, that most of those who advocate this 
 mode of receiving members hold that a man 
 may have religion without knowing it; and 
 some of them hold that no one can know it. 
 One would suppose that such a set would be 
 poor judges of such matters. How often the 
 church hears and decides, gives the right hand 
 of fellowship, and then shortly confesses that 
 she was deceived ! Yes, brethren, you know the 
 church is often deceived in that matter ; and I 
 would afiectionately remind you that candidates 
 for admission can be, and, in my opinion, often 
 are, deceived. The church cannot decide, 
 understandingly, such a matter. If not, she 
 should not attempt it. She should not, because 
 there is danger of an inexperienced man's be- 
 lieving himself converted, without any other 
 reason for it than the decision of the church 
 on his case. K so, no decision of the church 
 can ever make his conversion real. If not, no 
 such decision ought to be made, or any step 
 taken to delude him, to confirm him in his de- 
 lusion. This is rather a serious business. A 
 man thus deluded may consider himself safe 
 when he has never felt the power of God's con- 
 verting grace. This delusion is the more 
 
40 ESSAYS ON THE 
 
 hazardous, seeing that those denominations 
 which make such decisions teach their people 
 that they can never fall from grace, and also that 
 they may have religion and not know it. To 
 settle men down in this way is dangerous in 
 the extreme. 
 
 This is a painful part of the subject, but I 
 dare not pass it. If the evidences of a rege- 
 nerate heart be so superficial that a man may 
 experience that great work and not know it, 
 must they not be too superficial to enable those 
 who do not know their own hearts to be right 
 to make up a correct judgment upon the work? 
 "We object not to the relation of experiences 
 for the purpose of edifying and comforting one 
 another. What we object to is the requiring 
 a relation of them as a prerequisite to baptism. 
 Wliere this is the case, there are frequently 
 many temptations to receive upon very super- 
 ficial experiences, — so superficial, indeed, that 
 frequently they are heard privately. Some de- 
 nominations have what they call church ses- 
 sions, who always receive privately. The 
 object of receiving thus privately is very ob- 
 vious. The Baptists usually hear these dreams 
 and the like publicly. It is only when they 
 have a special case that they hear it privately, 
 and then get some one, that is better up to it, 
 to tell it to the church. Very good people 
 
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 41 
 
 sometimes allow themselves to become very 
 anxious for those to join the church about 
 whom they feel special concern. In such case, 
 there is great danger of deceiving and being 
 deceived. Thus men are persuaded that they 
 are converted when they are not. "We should 
 never persuade a man that he has religion. 
 We may persuade him to join the church as a 
 means of conversion, without running the risk 
 of deceiving him. When a man realizes that 
 great work, he needs no persuasion of it. He 
 knows it himself. "Every one that loveth is 
 born of God, and hioweth God,'' 1 John iv. 7. 
 "He that believeth on the Son of God hath the 
 witness in himself.'' 1 John v. 10. Let no man 
 consider this matter settled till the "Spirit 
 itself bear witness with his spirit that he is a 
 child of God." Kom. viii. 16. Such a one will 
 need no persuasion to induce him to believe 
 himself converted. Our inability to judge cor- 
 rectly is a sufficient reason why we should not 
 judge at all. By this hearing, guessing, and 
 judging, we can only deceive ourselves, and 
 settle down irreligious men under the most 
 fearful delusion. An economy that so con- 
 stantly exposes us to this great evil cannot be 
 the economy of the lN"ew Testament. The Lord 
 alone can look upon the heart. 
 
 Our views are now before the reader. Let 
 
42 ESSAYS ON THE 
 
 the whole be examined in the fear of God. 
 Let nothing but the truth be received. Let 
 the Bible be followed. I ask no more. 
 
 ESSAY IV. 
 
 ON THE RIGHT OF INFANTS TO CHURCH MEM- 
 BERSHIP. 
 
 The Abrahamic covenant secured the right 
 of infants to church membership ; and that right 
 must of necessity remain as long as that cove- 
 nant remains in full force. Hence the great 
 question to be settled is, whether that covenant 
 is done away or yet remains. "We contend 
 that the Abrahamic covenant is not done away, 
 
 1. Because it is the promise of salvation through 
 the Messiah, 
 
 This we prove by the following passages : — 
 "Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; 
 though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be 
 confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto. 
 !N"ow to Abraham and his seed were the pro7nises 
 made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many ; 
 but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ, 
 And this I say. That the covenant that was con- 
 firmed before of God in Christy the law, which 
 
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 43 
 
 was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot 
 disannul, that it should make the promise of none 
 effecV Gal. iii. 15, 17. In this quotation the 
 word "covenant" is used twice, the word "pro- 
 mise" twice. They are used interchangeably, 
 the one for the other, and, therefore, mean the 
 same thing. But w^hat was the "promise" here 
 called a "covenant"? "And in thy seed (thy 
 Christ) shall all the nations of the earth be 
 blessed." Gen. xxii. 18. We insist that this 
 covenant is not abrogated, 
 
 2. Because Christians are called the children 
 of it. 
 
 "Ye are the children of the prophets, and of 
 the covenant which God made with our fathers, 
 saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed (thy 
 Christ) shall all th£ kindreds of the earth be 
 blessed.'* Acts iii. 25. Here the promise of 
 Christ is called the covenant which God made 
 with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, &c. 
 How dare any one to say this covenant is done 
 away ? It is not done away, 
 
 3. Because Abraham is called the father of be- 
 lieving Christians. 
 
 "The father of all them that believe." Rom. 
 iv. 11. It is not done away, 
 
 4. Because Christians are called the children of 
 Abraham. 
 
 "Know ye, therefore, that they which are of 
 
44 ESSAYS ON THE 
 
 faith, the same are the children of Abraham.** 
 Gal. iii. 7. It is not done away, 
 
 5. Because the proclamation of it is called 
 preaching the gospel. 
 
 "And the Scripture, foreseeing that God 
 would justify the heathen through isiith, preached 
 before the gospel unto Abraham, saying. In thee 
 shall all nations be blessed.'' Gal. iii. 8. 
 
 From this passage we learn that Abraham 
 was fully instructed in the nature of the bless- 
 ing promised through Christ. How else could 
 the gospel be preached to him? When this 
 gospel was preached to Abraham, he "believed 
 God, and it was counted to him for righteous- 
 ness." Rom. iv. 3. 
 
 If the promise of a Messiah be indeed the 
 covenant of the Lord, established with Abra- 
 ham, then are the privileges and blessings of 
 the church such as flow from such promise. 
 Salvation was the chief blessing promised 
 through Christ. It was justification through 
 faith, (Gal. iii. 8;) the "righteousness of faith." 
 Kom. iv. 11. There were two ways of repre- 
 senting these blessings : — The offering of sacri- 
 fices, typifying the blood of Christ shed for our 
 pardon ; Circumcision, a seal of the righteous- 
 ness of faith, secured by the application of the 
 merit of that blood by the Spirit. All who 
 were interested in this promised atonement 
 
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 45 
 
 were required to be circumcised. It being in 
 the mind of God to save children, he made the 
 promise of it to them, and enjoined their cir- 
 cumcision, which secured religious training. 
 **For I know him, that he will command his 
 children and his household after him," &c. Gen. 
 xviii. 19. If infants were fit subjects to be 
 made partakers of eternal life, it was suitable 
 to give them the outward sign of the Spirit's 
 work. Infants were circumcised because they 
 were interested in the Saviour. Their right to 
 the church was founded on their right to salva- 
 tion. It will be hard to prove that they have 
 lost the one while the other is retained. While 
 their right to salvation through the Saviour re- 
 mains, their right to the church, in which they 
 are to be trained for bliss, must remain ; they 
 should, therefore, be inducted into the church 
 by its distinguishing ceremony, baptism. 
 
 The essentials of religion have never changed ; 
 nor can they change. They are the same they 
 have always been. "We have seen that the 
 covenant which secured the right of church- 
 membership to infants contained those essen- 
 tials, and that infants are interested in them, 
 on which account, no doubt, the right was se- 
 cured. If religion be ever the same, and the 
 covenant an everlasting covenant in which 
 God has promised to be a God to us and our 
 
46 ESSAYS ON THE 
 
 children, (Gen. xvii. 7,) then should we keep the 
 covenant, we and our children, in our genera- 
 tions: Gen. xvii. 9. 
 
 The true state of the case seems to he this: — 
 Circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of 
 faith, i. e. a seal of the plan of salvation. The 
 plan is unchangeably, from first to last, salva- 
 tion by faith in Christ, and is not done away. 
 Nor is it without a seal. The seal has been 
 changed by our great Law^giver from circum- 
 cision to baptism: for "he that believeth," i. e, 
 obtains the righteousness of faith, " and is bap- 
 tized," ^. e. takes on him this easy seal, ^' shall 
 be saved.'' The changing of the seal, or sign, 
 by no means argues a change in the religion 
 of the Lord. 
 
 Let us see if circumcision under the old dis- 
 pensation, and baptism under the new^, are not 
 used for the same purpose. 
 
 1. Circumcision represents *the work of the 
 Holy Ghost in the heart. 
 
 "And the Lord thy God will circumcise thy 
 heart, and the heart of thi/ seed, to love the 
 Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all 
 *hy soul, that thou mayest live." Deut. xxx. 6. 
 But " the love of God is shed abroad in our 
 hearts by the Holy Ghost given unto us." 
 Rom. V. 5. Therefore, circumcision represents 
 
hAFXIST CONTKOVEKSY. 47 
 
 the baptismal influence of the Holy Ghost. 
 Again : — 
 
 "He is not a Jew which is one outwardly; 
 neither is that circumcision which is outward 
 in the flesh : but he is a Jew which is one in- 
 loardly, and circumcision is that of the heart, in the 
 spirit, and not in the letter ; whose praise is not 
 of men, but of God." Rom. ii. 28, 29. This 
 heart-work must be the work of the Holy 
 Ghost. The apostle calls it the work of the 
 heart, in the spirit He also calls it the circum- 
 cision of the heart. Outward circumcision avail- 
 eth nothing, if it be without the inward cir- 
 cumcision, by which a man becomes a new 
 creature. The circumcision of the heart must 
 be what our Lord calls the new birth. 
 
 A Baptist brother once said, in my hearing, 
 that the baptism of the Spirit came in the room 
 of circumcision. That brother, and all of his 
 faith, would do well to remember that the bap- 
 tism of the Spirit has always stood in its own 
 place. 
 
 Having shown that circumcision represented 
 the baptismal influence of the Holy Ghost, we 
 shall now proceed to see whether baptism does 
 not represent the same influence. 
 
 2. Baptism represents the work of the Holy 
 Ghost in the heart. 
 
 ^^I indeed baptize you with water, but he 
 
48 ESSAYS ON THE 
 
 shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost." Matt, 
 ill. 11. *' John truly baptized with water, but 
 ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not 
 many days hence." Acts i. 5 ; Acts xi. 16. Paul 
 calls baptism "the washing of regeneration," 
 (Titus iii. 5,) " the washing of water." " Wash 
 away thy sins." This washing of regeneration 
 has taken the place of circumcision. 
 
 Circumcision was the seal of the righteous- 
 ness of Abraham's faith. Rom. iv. 11. So 
 Paul's baptism represented the washing away 
 of his sins. Acts xxii. 16. The righteousness 
 of faith was the same in the patriarch and the 
 apostle. In one it was represented by circum- 
 cision; in the other, by baptism. The right- 
 eousness of faith never has changed, and never 
 will change. Seals have changed, but the 
 righteousness of that faith which takes hold 
 of the great atonement has not changed, and 
 never can change till the government of God 
 changes. The church of God yet stands un- 
 changed. The good olive-tree yet remains. 
 Some of its branches — the Jews and their chil- 
 dren — have been broken oft'; and branches from 
 the wild olive-tree — the Gentiles and their chil- 
 dren — have been grafted into it. The Lord's 
 vineyard has not been turned out to the wild 
 beasts ; but it has been taken from the Jews 
 and given to the Gentiles. Infants have a 
 
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 49 
 
 divine right to church privileges, clearly, under 
 the Old Testament times. The church being 
 the same under all dispensations, that right 
 remains unimpaired, unless their Christ has 
 deprived them of it. If he has not done so, no 
 other has the power to do it, nor can it be done 
 without making void the commandments of 
 God by the traditions of men. 
 
 We are sometimes told that circumcision was 
 simply intended to distinguish the Israelites 
 from all other people. This it did not do. 
 The Ishmaelites, the Edomites, the descendants 
 of the sons Abraham had by Keturah, the ser- 
 vants born in his house, and the Egyptians, 
 were all circumcised. We are also told that it 
 was a sort of political pledge that God would 
 give to Abraham's posterity the land of Ca- 
 naan. This could not be. The Ishmaelites, 
 the sons of Keturah, and the Edomites, were 
 all the posterity of Abraham, but never did re- 
 ceive any part of that land. These were, there- 
 fore, circumcised for something else. Similar 
 difficulties occur in making it a pledge that the 
 Messiah should descend from them. This it 
 could not be to any but his immediate pro- 
 genitors. Put the pledge of this promise upon 
 Ishmael, and you put the pledge of a falsehood 
 upon him. We must look, therefore, for some- 
 thing in which the Ishmaelites, the Edomites, 
 
50 ESSAYS ON THK 
 
 the children of K^eturah, and Abraham's ser- 
 vants, were all interested. ^N'ow, what was 
 that? "In thy seed (in thy Christ) shall all 
 the nations of the earth he blessed." Gen. xxii. 
 18. This makes it all plain. Christ has come 
 and ordered the blessing to be proclaimed to 
 all nations. Abraham believed in Christ, and 
 God counted it to him for righteousness. He 
 then received circumcision as a seal of that 
 righteousness. Faith in nothing but the atone- 
 ment of Christ could make Abraham or any 
 one else righteous. If not, the whole is plain. 
 Children were circumcised because the promise 
 was made to them. For the same reason they 
 should be baptized: for the apostle says, "The 
 promise is unto you and your children," &c. 
 
 Having shown that infants were admitted to 
 a place in the only church God ever instituted, 
 upon the authority of God himself, and that no 
 other than Christ can have any authority to de- 
 prive them of that right, we shall now j)roceed 
 to show that Christ not only has not deprived 
 our children of a place in his kingdom, but 
 that he has confirmed their right to it, and 
 sanctioned, if not commanded, their reception. 
 Take the following : — 
 
 "At the same time came the disciples unto 
 Jesus, saying, Wlio is the greatest in the king- 
 dom of heaven f And Jesus called a liiile child 
 
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 51 
 
 unto him, and set him in the midst of them, 
 and said, Verily, I say unto you, Except ye be 
 converted, and become as little childrc7i, ye shall 
 not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Who- 
 soever, therefore, shall humble himself as this 
 Utile childy the same is greatest in the kingdom 
 of heaven. And whoso shall receifx one such 
 little child in my mime receiveth me." Matt, 
 xviii. 1-5. 
 
 1. This "little child" was literally an infant. 
 "We are aware that some believe that a young 
 convert is meant by the expression ^'' little child.'' 
 That even old converts are sometimes called 
 "little children" we do not deny; but that 
 any sort of an adult is called by that appella- 
 tion in the text now under consideration is 
 what no man, living or dead, ever did or ever 
 will prove. When we consult the parallel pas- 
 sage in Mark's account, the whole is plain: — 
 "And he took a child, and set him in the midst 
 of them : and when he Jiad talcen him in his arms, 
 he said unto them, Whosoever shall receive one 
 of such little children in my name receiveth me : 
 and whosoever shall receive me receiveth not 
 me, but him that sent me." Mark ix. 36, 37. 
 Here we are informed explicitly that this "little 
 child" was "taken in his arms," which proves 
 beyond successful contradiction that it was a 
 little infant, and not a young convert. N'othing 
 
52 ESSAYS ON THE 
 
 further, it is presumed, need be said on this 
 head. 
 
 2. The kingdom of heaven, in this passage, 
 means the church on earth. This we argue as 
 follows : — 
 
 The disciples had so far misunderstood the 
 nature of the kingdom of heaven, then near at 
 hand, that they supposed it to be secular, and 
 so fell into a dispute about which of themselves 
 should be the greatest man in it. This gave 
 Christ an opportunity of informing them that 
 none of them were entitled to be in it, much 
 less to be the greatest of all that were in it, 
 except they should be converted from these 
 notions of worldly power and greatness, and 
 become as little children, to feel their weakness 
 and helplessness. 
 
 3. Infants, or little children, are to be re- 
 ceived into this kingdom of heaven. This the 
 text itself declares : — "And whoso shall receive 
 one such little child [into the kingdom of hea- 
 ven] in my name receiveth me." 
 
 4. Infants are not only to be received into 
 the church, but the Saviour has there made 
 them the models to the likeness of which 
 adults are to be converted before they are en- 
 titled to enter into this kingdom. This the 
 text also declares: — "Except ye be converted, 
 
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 53 
 
 and become as little children, ye shall not enter 
 into the kingdom of heaven." 
 
 If that conversion which causes an adult to 
 resemble a little child makes him a proper sub- 
 ject to be received into the church or to enter 
 into the kingdom of heaven, must not the little 
 child himself be a fit subject to enter into that 
 kingdom ? On the supposition that infants are 
 not proper subjects to be received, how could 
 an adult that had become as a little child be 
 properly received ? 
 
 It was a severe reproof to tell his worldly- 
 minded disciples, who were proudly looking 
 forward to their future greatness when their 
 Master should sit upon the throne of an earthly 
 monarch, making all nations tributary to them, 
 that, to become the greatest in his coming 
 kingdom, they must humble themselves as the 
 little child he had in his arms; and that they 
 were not only to be humble like a child in order 
 that they might enter into it, but that the chil- 
 dren were also to be received in his name, and 
 be as great as any adult could be. Upon the 
 whole, we think it clear enough that by the 
 kingdom of heaven, in this text, is meant the 
 Christian church, and that infants are to be re- 
 ceived into it in the name of Christ. We pro- 
 ceed then to examine his declaration on another 
 occasion : — 
 
 5» 
 
54 ESSAYS ON THE 
 
 "And they brought young children to him, 
 that he should touch them; and his disciples 
 rebuked those that brought them. But when 
 Jesus saw it he was much disjdeased, and said 
 unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto 
 me, and forbid them not : for of such is the king- 
 dom of God. Yerily I say unto you, Whosoever 
 shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little 
 child, he shall not enter therein. And he took 
 them up in his arms, put his hands upon them^ 
 and blessed them." Mark x. 13, 16. 
 
 Here we have : — 
 
 1. Infants, "young children," presented to 
 the Master for his blessing. 
 
 2. Those who brought these infants to Christ 
 were rebuked. 
 
 3. At this rebuke, Christ, the lawgiver, 
 was displeased, and revoked it with his own 
 authority. 
 
 4. He ordered the disciples to allow them to 
 come to him, and never forbid them any more. 
 
 5. He declares that of such children was the 
 kingdom of God. 
 
 6. He declares them to be the model after 
 which adults were to be received. They were 
 to receive the kingdom just as little children 
 receive it. 
 
 7. He ordained them, by the imposition of 
 tiis own hands, and prayer, (Matt. xix. 13, 15,) 
 
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 55 
 
 to the rights, privileges, and "blessings" of that 
 kingdom of which he declared them the sub- 
 jects. 
 
 By "the kingdom of God" in this passage is 
 certainly meant the Christian church. This is 
 the only kingdom the keys of which (Matt, 
 xvi. 19) were ever given to the apostles who 
 had now shut the door against these little chil- 
 dren. Into this kingdom we are commanded 
 to suffer the little children to come, and to for- 
 bid them not. This command is given for the 
 best of reasons : — " Of such is the kingdom of 
 God." But how are they to receive the king- 
 dom of God ? Just as an adult does : — by bap- 
 tism, without giving in any experience. If we 
 have rightly interpreted these passages of God's 
 word, we have the sanction of the Saviour for 
 infant baptism most clearly set forth and esta- 
 blished. 
 
 Will our opponents give us the true expo- 
 sition of these texts if we have not done it? 
 "Will they show that the phrases "kingdom of 
 God" and "kingdom of heaven" do not mean 
 the Christian church, as we have set forth? 
 K they mean any thing else, what is that other 
 thing ? "Will they show that the apostles could 
 "receive little children in the name of Christ," 
 and that little children could receive the king- 
 dom of God -without baptism ? These questions 
 
56 HSSAVS Ox\ THE 
 
 they will never answer. Tliey, as usual, will 
 give tliem the go by. 
 
 "He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.'' John 
 xxi. 15. 
 
 1. These lambs are little children. We argue 
 this from adult Christians being called sheep in 
 the 16th and 17th verses of the chapter. 
 
 2. These children are called Christ's lambs. 
 They must therefore have been " received in his 
 name" into his kingdom ; and they must also 
 have received his mark in their foreheads. 
 Ezek. ix. 4; Kev. vii. 3. 
 
 3. These lambs are to be fed. This explains 
 the pastoral labors spoken of by the prophet : — 
 " Gather the children, and those that suck the 
 breasts." Joel ii. 16. But why would the pro- 
 phet have these lambs gathered into the fold 
 of Christ? We answer, that they might be 
 fed ; that they might be trained up in the way 
 they should go, or in the church. 
 
 We must now proceed to notice the view the 
 apostles took of the law of Christ. The first 
 clue we get to this part of our subject is found 
 in Acts ii. 38, 39. ''Repent and be baptized, 
 every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, 
 for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive 
 the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise 
 is unto you, and to your children, and to all that 
 are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God 
 
BAPTIST COJsTKOVERSV. 57 
 
 shall call." The promise which is here said to 
 be made to them and their children is, doubt- 
 less, the one made at the first institution of 
 circumcision: — "And I will establish my cove- 
 nant between me and thee, and thy seed after 
 thee, in their generations, for an everlasting 
 covenant, to be a God unto thee and to thy 
 seed after thee." Gen. xvii. 7. For the mean- 
 ing of this " everlasting covenant," see Acts iii. 
 25, Gen. xii. 3, where it is proven to be the 
 promise of a Saviour, — the right promise to 
 renew with children at the inauguration of the 
 apostles, unless they have lost their interest in 
 the Messiah. See Acts xvi. 31, where the pro- 
 mise is made to the jailer and to all his house. 
 We must look further to the practice of the 
 apostles for their faith in the validity of infant 
 baptism. They baptized the household of 
 Lydia, (Acts xvi. 14, 15,) of the jailer, (33,) of 
 Stephanas, (1 Cor. i. 16.) I am aware that it is 
 said there were no infants in any of these 
 households. But this is asserted without any 
 evidence or probability to sustain it. We pur- 
 pose no regular comment upon these household 
 baptisms. It must be owned on both sides 
 that the Bible does not say whether there were 
 any infants in any of them. We are only 
 informed that whole families were baptized. 
 There is one circumstance which throws light 
 
58 ESSAYS ON THE 
 
 upon the subject, connected with the case of 
 both Ljdia and the jailer : — that is, the account 
 proves the conversion of the head of the family 
 only. Their famihes seem to have been bap- 
 tized on account of the faith of the parent. 
 
 The presumption is therefore strong, that 
 there were infants among them. And what 
 increases the probability in the case of the 
 jailer is, the apostolic answer to his question, 
 " What must I do to he saved r To this Paul 
 and Silas answ^ered, " Believe on the Lord Jesus 
 Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.'' 
 Acts xvi. 31. Here is a positive promise that 
 his house should partake of the privileges and 
 benefits of his faith. The similarity in this 
 promise to the one on the day of Pentecost 
 must appear to all. 
 
 The reader may judge whether these texts 
 throw light on this subject or not. They 
 teach, to our mind, a very interesting lesson. 
 Whether there were infants in these house- 
 holds, or not, is of no consequence, if we feel 
 satisfied that children were baptized on the 
 faith of their parents, just as they were circum- 
 cised on such faith. 
 
 The case in the 7th chapter of 1st Corinthians 
 throws some light on the subject. They seem 
 to have gotten into numerous difliculties, which 
 induced them to w^rite to the apostle for advice, 
 
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 59 
 
 (ver. 1.) They were perplexed to know whether 
 the Christian husband should continue to live 
 with an unconverted wife ; to which Paul an- 
 swered, '''Let not the husband put away his ivife,'' 
 (ver. 11.) To a Christian wife having a heathen 
 husband, he says, "Let not the wife depart 
 from her husband," (ver. 10 ;) "let her not leave 
 him," (ver. 13.) There seems likewise to have 
 been a doubt whether the promise was made 
 to children, unless both father and mother 
 were Christians; to which the apostle an- 
 swers, " The unbelieving husband is sanctified 
 by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sancti- 
 fied by the husband: else were your children 
 unclean; but now are they holy," (ver. 14.) 
 jSTow, everybody knows that the Jews considered 
 all other nations unclean; and there is little 
 doubt that there was enough of Jewish influ- 
 ence at Corinth to produce all this difficulty 
 about the uncleanness of children who had but 
 one Christian parent. The very existence of 
 the difficulty proves much. How could there 
 be any seiious difficulty about the children 
 unless there had been objections to their being 
 baptized on account of one of their parents 
 being in unbelief? This accounts for the whole 
 difficulty ; while on any other supposition it is 
 wholly unaccountable. This view is further 
 strengthened from Paul's calling the children 
 
60 ESSAYS ON Tilt: 
 
 ^^holyy He must have intended to teach that 
 they were ceremonially holy, and so there was 
 nothing in the way of their receiving baptism. 
 He could not have meant they were personally 
 holy; for such a state is noway connected with 
 the moral character of the parent. It could be 
 of no consequence whether the parents believed 
 or not; they were by nature the children of 
 wrath. But when we consider them holy, in 
 reference to their parents, it must be considered 
 in view of the promise which is made to the 
 children of pious parents : Acts ii. 39, xvi. 31 ; 
 Gal. iii. 16, 17 ; Gen. xvii. 7. If they were thus 
 holy, they had a right to be partakers of the 
 promise in the ordinance of baptism : Acts xvi. 
 33. Once more : — 
 
 "Moreover, brethren, I would not have you 
 ignorant, how that all our fathers were under 
 the cloud, and all passed through the sea ; and 
 were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and 
 in the sea; and did all eat the same spiritual 
 meat; and did all drink the same spiritual 
 drink; for they drank of that spiritual rock 
 that followed them: and that rock was Christ." 
 1 Cor. X. 1-4. 
 
 "Now these things were our examples,'* 
 (ver. 6.) But who were they that w^ere baptized 
 for "our examples" ? " Six hundred thousand 
 on foot that were men, besides children,'* Ex. 
 
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 61 
 
 xii. 37. This army of Israelites who were "all 
 baptized unto Moses for an example" to the 
 Christian church had many "children." Here 
 we not only have the proof that the children 
 were baptized, but, likewise, that it was done 
 as an example to us. 
 
 We have seen that baptism came in the stead 
 of circumcision, and that God's church had 
 children in it from the days of Abraham, upon 
 divine authoriti/, and that, instead of depriving 
 them of this divine right, our blessed Lord ex- 
 pressly declares them to be the subjects of his 
 kingdom, and also sanctions the reception of 
 them in his name. We have likewise seen, 
 that when the Christian church was fully organ- 
 ized under the new dispensation, the pro- 
 mise to children was distinctly renewed. We 
 have also seen that whole families were bap- 
 tized without any evidence that any but the 
 parents were converted or consulted. How 
 can we escape the conclusion that infants were 
 baptized by the apostles in the name of Christ 
 and upon his authority ? 
 
 As we flatter ourselves that we have esta- 
 blished our point, we shall close this part of our 
 subject with this remark: — God never has had 
 a church since the days of Abraham, in heaven 
 above or on earth below, that had no infants 
 in it; nor do we believe he ever will. When 
 
 6 
 
62 ESSAYS ON THE 
 
 we sjDeak of God's church, we do not mean a 
 sect. We are aware that several sects not only 
 exclude children from their pale and from the 
 churchy but also make a great deal of sectarian 
 noise because others suffer the little children to 
 come. 
 
 ESSAY V. 
 
 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 
 
 We propose in this Essay to state and answer 
 some of the objections most commonly urged 
 against infant baptism. 
 
 1. Infants cannot believe; therefore, they should 
 not he baptized. 
 
 Let us put this in the form of a syllogism, 
 thus : — 
 
 Baptism has reference to faith ; 
 But infants cannot exercise faith ; 
 Therefore, infants should not be baptized. 
 This argument takes for granted what is not 
 true ; — that is, that baptism can be of no benefit 
 till the subject can act faith. It is an ad- 
 vantage to a child to be raised up under church 
 discipline, and should be esteemed a very high 
 privilege. We therefore answer: — 
 
 J 
 
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 63 
 
 Baptism entitles us to church privileges ; 
 Infants need such privileges ; 
 Therefore, they should be baptized. 
 But let us try this objection on a kindred 
 subject. 
 
 Circumcision is a seal of the righteousness 
 of faith ; 
 
 Infants cannot believe ; 
 Therefore, they should not be circumcised. 
 But if we do not take care, we will make void 
 the commandments of God by our reasoning. 
 Again : — 
 
 He that believeth shall be saved ; 
 Infants cannot believe ; 
 Therefore, they cannot be saved. 
 Again : — 
 
 He that will not work should not eat; 
 But infants cannot work ; 
 Therefore, they should not eat. 
 This shows the force of all such objections, 
 and need not be pursued. 
 
 2. It is objected that infant baptism deprives 
 our children of the right of choosing what de- 
 nomination they will join. 
 
 To this we reply, that those who have been 
 baptized can make as judicious and as free a 
 choice as those who have not. Baptism does 
 not take away their understanding, nor does 
 it deprive them of Christian liberty. It is very 
 
64 ESSAYS ON THE 
 
 easy to run away with the idea of the supposed 
 right of choosing. Will any one contend that 
 our children have a right to choose before they 
 are cajmble of judging between truth and error? 
 Do any take more pains to prepossess their 
 children in favor of their own sectarian dog- 
 mas than the Baptists do ? Everybody knows 
 that, when parents wish to proselyte their chil- 
 dren to their own sectarian views, they never 
 think of relying upon their baptism, but upon 
 a different thing. Moreover, the child is not 
 by its baptism constituted a member of any 
 sect. It does connect him with the catholic or 
 general church, but not with any particular 
 sect. But suppose it did ; does it follow, there- 
 fore, that children should be taught to consider 
 themselves as having nothing to do vnth the 
 religion of the gospel. Are they to think only? 
 Or are they to act P 
 
 We are required to "^^ train up our children 
 iri the way they shoidd go : and when they are old 
 they will not depart from it.'' Prov. xxii. 6. By 
 this we learn that parents and guardians are to 
 choose the loay in which children are to go, and 
 train them up in it. But if we train up our 
 children in any way, w^e must first put them in 
 thai 'way before we can so train them. The 
 church is the school of Christ, in which our 
 minds are to be disciplined to the service of 
 
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 65 
 
 the Lord. If we would train our children to 
 serve God, w^here could we train them better 
 than in his church? Where can they labor 
 better than in the Lord's vineyard ? If early 
 habits have an almost omnipotent control over 
 us in after-life, is it not of great importance 
 that we should endeavor to have as many reli- 
 gious habits formed in childhood as possible ? 
 But where can children learn this sort of habit 
 so readily as in the church ? We might as well 
 argue against the teaching of children indus- 
 trious habits that they may get along in the 
 world, as to argue against teaching them reli- 
 gious habits that they may be prepared for the 
 world to come. To train up a child in idle- 
 ness in regard to domestic affairs is to prepare 
 him to be a vagabond in human society. If a 
 child be trained in a total neglect of religion, 
 he is apt to live a wicked life and die in his 
 sins. 
 
 3. It is objected that it does a child no good 
 to baptize it ; therefore, it should not be bap- 
 tized. 
 
 To which we might reply that it does them 
 as much good as it does an adult; but this 
 would be to answer one assertion with another. 
 Let us, therefore, examine the case carefully 
 and in the light of God's word. To object to 
 infant baptism is to object to infant religion^ as 
 
66 ESSAYS ON THE 
 
 I understand it, unless we intend our children 
 to be Quakers. I understand the objections 
 of our Baptist brethren to be against infant 
 religion as much or more than against infant 
 baptism. They object, as we understand them, 
 to the Quakers as much as to us. The Quakers 
 connect their children with religious duty 
 ^vithout baptism, and we by baptism. Then, 
 if we mistake not, the objections are not so 
 much to their being baptized as to their being 
 religious. All must admit, who admit baptism 
 at all, that, if children may be religious, they, 
 by necessary consequence, may be baptized. 
 If one child has ever been religious, that one 
 demonstrates that the thing is possible. John 
 THE Baptist ivas ''filled ivith the Holy Ghost from 
 his birth,'' Luke i. 15. "And the hand of the 
 Lord was with him," (verse 66.) "And the 
 child grew, and w^axed strong in spirit," (verse 
 80.) Thus, it appears that the only baptism ever 
 received by John the Baptist was received in 
 infancy. Strange, that a sect who claim to be 
 descended from this same John should deny 
 infant baptism altogether! John would be 
 everyway disqualilied to take the sacrament 
 with modern Baptists : for he was never bap- 
 tized, only in his infancy, w^iich they say is no 
 baptism at all ; and even then he was not im- 
 mersed. How could they give him the sacra- 
 
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 67 
 
 ment of the Supper? If John were to come 
 down from heaven, everybody knows where he 
 would have to go for the holy communion. 
 They know where, too, he could not get it. 
 
 If it can be proven that a child ever did serve 
 God, then is it proven that the service of God 
 is suitable for children. "And the child did 
 minister unto the Lord before Eli the priest." 
 1 Sam. ii. 11. "And the child was young." 
 1 Sam. i. 24. The age of Samuel is supposed 
 to have been three years when he commenced 
 the service of God. At any rate, it was when 
 his mother weaned him. Of this child his 
 mother said, " I will give him unto the Lord 
 all the days of his life." 1 Sam. i. 11. " Then I 
 will bring him, that he may appear before the 
 Lord, and there abide forever." 1 Sam. i. 22. 
 
 The lesson to be learned from the history of 
 Samuel is, that his mother dedicated him to 
 God even before his birth, and God made him 
 one of the most eminent of all the prophets. 
 Our faith in the promise made to our children 
 (Acts ii. 39) should be greatly strengthened from 
 the success of Hannah with her little Samuel. 
 If God blessed her son on account of her piety 
 in giving him to the Lord, so will he bless 
 mine, and yours, and all who may be thus 
 piously given to him. 
 
 We might enumerate many such objections; 
 
68 ESSAYS ON THE 
 
 but, really, it is a small business. But one 
 more will be noticed : — 
 
 4. Baptism entitles those who are baptized, 
 infants as Avell as adults, to the sacrament of 
 the Lord's Supper. Mr. Howell, a late Baptist 
 writer, thus reproaches us on this subject: — 
 
 " We most cheerfully sit down at the table 
 of the Lord with all those, if they have not 
 forfeited their claims by heresy or immorality, 
 whom we believe to be baptized. Do our 
 pedobaptist brethren act with the same libe- 
 rality? Yeiy far from it. Their public pro- 
 fessions would lead us to conclude that this is 
 their practice, but when brought to the point 
 they positively refuse ! Is proof of this state- 
 ment needed ? I ask, then, do they not believe 
 their infants are baptized? Most certainly. 
 Are they either heretical or immoral ? i^either 
 is pretended. Do they commune with them ? 
 Ko, never. Thus they at once exclude two-thirds 
 of the members of their own churches from 
 the Lord's table!" (Sacramental Communion, 
 page 265.) 
 
 All this depends on the assumption that all 
 who have been baptized are entitled to the 
 sacrament of the Supper. Although Mr. H. 
 works this assumption on our infant mem- 
 bers, yet he furnishes in almost the same 
 breath the proof that he himself holds that 
 
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 69 
 
 Bometliing else is necessary. According to 
 the above extract, he can commune with bap- 
 tized persons "?/ they have not forfeited their 
 claim by heresy or immorality.''' Then Mr. 
 Howell would exclude baptized adults, under 
 certain circumstances, from the holy commu- 
 nion. IN'ow, we exclude baptized infants from 
 the communion because they are not capable 
 of doing it in remembrance of Christ. In 
 this we follow the example the Lord set us in 
 regard to the Passover. He was circumcised 
 the eighth day, which entitled him to that 
 feast, as much as baptism can to the Supper, 
 yet he attended no such feast until he was 
 twelve years old. Luke ii. 41, 42. Though we 
 were to admit that all wdio approach the holy 
 communion must be baptized, it does not fol- 
 low that all who are baptized should commune. 
 There is nothing in this, therefore, against in- 
 fant baptism. 
 
 ESSAY VI. 
 
 ON THE TESTIMONY OF THE PRIMITIVE FATHERS 
 IN FAVOR OF INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 Our argument, thus far, has sought no other 
 evidence of infant baptism, as a Christian in- 
 stitution, than the Holy Scriptures. In this 
 
70 ESSAYS ON THE 
 
 Essay we shalf attempt to show that it was in 
 universal use during the second, third, and 
 fourth centuries, no one objecting. We may 
 remark that no serious opposition was ever 
 made, so far as we can learn, to the validity 
 of infant baptism, until the twelfth century. 
 If there was, who made it ? Will our oppo- 
 nents answer ? We do not quote the fathers 
 for any other purpose than to show what was 
 the practice of the church in their day. If the 
 practice was universal in the second and third 
 centuries, it is worthy of our consideration. 
 
 Justin Martyr, who wrote about forty years 
 after the death of St. John, says : — 
 
 "We also, who by him have had access to 
 God, have not received this carnal circum- 
 cision, but the spiritual circumcision which 
 Enoch, and those like him, observed. And we 
 have received it by baptism, by the mercy of 
 God, because we were sinners : and it is en- 
 joined upon all persons to receive it in the 
 same way." Again: — 
 
 "We are circumcised by baptism with 
 Christ's circumcision." (Dialogue with Try- 
 pho, a Jew.) Again : — 
 
 "Many persons among us, of sixtu and seventy 
 years old, of both sexes, who were discipled to 
 Christ in their childhood, do continue uncor- 
 rupted." (Apologia Prima.) 
 
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 71 
 
 It is quite clear that this father believed bap- 
 tism had taken the place of circumcision, and 
 that, like circumcision, it was to be used in 
 childhood^ with the exception, it was to be ap- 
 plied to ''both sexes." 
 
 Let it be remembered that we do not intro- 
 duce Justin to prove the validity of infant bap- 
 tism, but to show the antiquity of the custom, 
 that our readers may consider for themselves 
 where and from whom the practice was de- 
 rived. A few things we will notice : — 
 
 Justin wrote within forty 3'ears of St. John, 
 and was converted some eight or ten years 
 previous to the time of his writing. He was 
 so near the apostolic times as to make it diffi- 
 cult to see how he could speak in truth of 
 '''many persons sixty and seventy years old, of both 
 sexes, who were discipled to Christ in their child- 
 hood,'' without making it certain that these old 
 disciples were baptized from twenty to thirty 
 years before the death of St. John ; and tJiai in 
 their childhood. It is likewise difficult to ac- 
 count for his calling baptism Christ's circum- 
 cision, at that early period, without believing 
 that the apostles had taught them that baptism 
 had taken the place of that ordinance ; in 
 which case, infant baptism must follow as mat- 
 ter of course. Well might Origen, who was 
 born A. D. 185, about eighty-five years after the 
 
72 ESSAYS ON THE 
 
 death of St. John, say " the church received from 
 the aioostles a tradition even to give baptism to in- 
 fants.'' (Comment on the Epistle to the Ro- 
 mans.) 
 
 That infant baptism was in use at the time 
 Justin wrote there is not, we think, a reason- 
 able doubt. It was done either in obedience 
 to the teaching of the inspired apostles, or 
 was a human invention, introduced at that 
 early period, by which that teaching was made 
 void. But if it be a human invention, as mo- 
 dern Baptists constantly insist, this invention 
 was introduced from twenty to thirty years 
 before the death of the beloved disciple, John. 
 "VVhy is it then that we have nothing against it 
 from any writer of those times ? Justin ^vi'ote 
 about the year 140. He spake of some, seventy 
 years old, who had been baptized in infancy or 
 childhood. Then, in this historical fact, we 
 are compelled to date infant baptism as early 
 as A. D. 70, — twenty-six years before John ^Tote 
 the book of Revelation ; twenty years before 
 the writing of his three Epistles ; four years 
 after the writing of the Epistles of Jude, 2 Pe- 
 ter, and 2 Timothy ; ^yq years after 1 Timothy, 
 and the Epistle to Titus ; six years after the 
 Epistle to the Ephesians, Philippians, Colos- 
 sians, Philemon, and the Hebrews ; and only 
 ten years after the Epistle to Romans, 2 Corin- 
 
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 73 
 
 thians, as well as the Epistle of James and 
 1 Peter. We may also remark, as John wrote 
 the Gospel about a. d. 97 or 98, that infant 
 baptism must have been in practice twenty- 
 seven or twenty-eight years before that period. 
 If so, is it unnatural to believe it had apostolic 
 sanction ? We may rest assured, if the apostles 
 were as zealous against infant baptism as mo- 
 dern Baptists are, they would have made the 
 stoutest opposition to it. 'Naj, we would have 
 heard this, in the book of Revelation, ranked 
 with the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which 
 thing the Lord hates. Is it probable that John 
 would have made no mention of this innova- 
 tion, even in his Gospel, when it had been in 
 existence twenty-eight years, if he had been 
 as hostile to it as some of the moderns are ? 
 Now, according to Justin, the church baptized 
 children thirty years before the death of St. 
 John. Why did that holy apostle never op- 
 pose it ? This is a question the Baptists will 
 not answer. There may be some who question 
 the veracity of Justin, as he was not a Baptist, 
 and, therefore, incapable of giving testimony 
 against Mr. Howell's old church, which, he 
 says, is 1800 years old. This Justin must have 
 been a sincere man, as he proved his sincerity 
 by his martyrdom. If Justin told the truth, 
 here is pedobaptism in the days of the 
 
74 ESSAYS ON THE 
 
 apostles without opposition. We shall pro- 
 ceed to show that shortly after we have others 
 bearing important testimony. 
 
 Irenaeus was born about the time of the death 
 of John, in the same country where the Evan- 
 gelist died. He was well acquainted with the 
 sainted Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna in Asia, 
 according to Eusebius ; and the same that St. 
 John calls the Angel of the church in Smyrna. 
 Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History, book iv. chap. 
 14) represents Irenseus as giving the following 
 account of Polycarp : — 
 
 "And Polycarp, a man who had been in- 
 structed by the apostles, and had familiar inter- 
 course with many that had seen Christ, and 
 also been appointed bishop by the apostles in 
 Asia, in the church at Smyrna, whom we also 
 have seen in our youth, for he lived a long 
 time and to a very advanced age, when, after 
 a glorious and most distinguished martyrdom, 
 he departed this life. He always taught what 
 he had learned from the apostles, what the 
 church had handed down, and what is the only 
 tnie doctrine." 
 
 This is the Polycarp who, at his martyrdom, 
 when the governor urged him to revile Christ, 
 replied, ''Eighty and six years have I served 
 him, and he never did me wrong ; and how can 
 
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 75 
 
 I now blaspheme my King that has saved me?" 
 (Eusebius, book iv. chap. 15.) 
 
 Eusebius (book v. chap, xx) records a letter 
 Irenseus addressed to Florinus, in which Ire- 
 naeus thus speaks of Poly carp and himself: — 
 
 "For I saw thee, when I was yet a boy, in the 
 Lower Asia with Polycarp, moving in great 
 splendor at court, and endeavoring by all 
 means to gain his esteem. I remember the 
 events of those times much better than those 
 of more recent occurrence. As the studies of 
 our youth growing with our minds unite with 
 it so firmly that I can tell also the very place 
 w^here the blessed Polycai-p was accustomed to 
 sit and discourse ; and also his entrances, his 
 w^alks, the complexion of his life and the form 
 of his body, and his conversations with the 
 people, and his familiar intercourse with John, 
 as he was accustomed to tell, as also his fami- 
 liarity with those that had seen the Lord. 
 How also he used to relate their discourses, 
 and what things he had heard from them con- 
 cerning the Lord. Also, concerning his mira- 
 cles, his doctrine ; all these were told by Poly- 
 carp, in consistency with the Holy Scriptures, 
 as he had received them from the eye-witnesses 
 of the doctrine of salvation. These things, by 
 the mercy of God, and the opportunity then 
 afforded me, I atteMtively heard^ noting down, not 
 
76 ESSAYS ON THE 
 
 on paper, but in my heart; and these same facts 
 I am always in the habit, by the grace of God, 
 to recall faithfully to mind.'' 
 
 The reader knows now enough of Irenasus, 
 the Bishop of Lyons, to appreciate the follow- 
 ing declaration in favor of infant baptism : — 
 
 " For he came to save all persons by himself: 
 all, I say, who by him are regenerated to God; 
 infants and little ones, and children, and youth, 
 and elder persons." (Second book against 
 heresies.) 
 
 Where this father speaks of infants, little 
 ones, and children being regenerated to God, 
 he means they were baptized to God. A mul- 
 titude of quotations might be brought forward 
 to prove that the fathers were accustomed to 
 use baptism and regeneration as meaning the 
 same thing. We shall introduce but one. 
 
 Justin Martyr, in his first Apology, has the 
 following : — 
 
 "We bring them to some place where there 
 is water, and they are regenerated by the same 
 way of regeneration by which we were regene- 
 rated ; for they are ivashed with writer in the 
 name of God the Father and Lord of all things, 
 and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the 
 Holy Sjnrit.'' 
 
 What Irenseus says does not prove that in- 
 fant baptism is right, for he was not inspired : 
 
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 77 
 
 but it does prove that it was in use in his day ; 
 and, although he wrote against heresy, he did 
 not write against infant baptism ; nor did any 
 other in those times write against it, which 
 they most assuredly would if they had been 
 opposed to it. "What the reader will please 
 remember is that Polycarp was the disciple of 
 St. John, and Irenseus the disciple of Polycarp. 
 As to the probability of his being in error, every 
 one will form his own opinion. 
 
 Origen, w^ho was born a. d. 185, about eighty- 
 five years after the apostle John, says : — 
 
 "Besides all this, let it be considered what 
 is the reason that, whereas the baptism of the 
 church is given for forgiveness of sins, infants 
 also, according to the usage of the church, are 
 ha])tized; when, if there were nothing in in- 
 fants that wanted forgiveness and mercy, the 
 grace of baptism would be superfluous to 
 them." (Eighth homily on Leviticus.) 
 
 '^Infants are baptized for the remission of 
 sins. Of what sins? Or when have they 
 sinned ? Or how can any reason of the laver 
 in their case hold good but according to that 
 sense we mentioned even now: — ^None is free 
 from pollution, though his life be but the 
 length of a single day upon the earth' ?" (Ho- 
 mily on Luke.) 
 
 " For this the church received from the apostles 
 
 7* 
 
78 ESSAYS ON THE 
 
 a tradition even to give baptism to infants. For 
 they to whom the divine mysteries were com- 
 mitted knew that there is in all persons the 
 natural pollution of sin, which ynitst he done away 
 hy water ayid the Spirit.'' (Comment on Ep. to 
 the Eomans.) 
 
 Eusebius, who WTote in the fourth century, 
 informs us that Origen was '•' conversant with 
 the Holy Scriptures even when a child. He 
 had been considerably trained in them by his 
 father, who, besides the study of the liberal 
 sciences, had also carefully stored his mind 
 Avith these." (Book vi. chap. 2.) 
 
 The same author informs us of the martyr- 
 dom of his father when he was about seven- 
 teen years old. Some have alleged that his 
 grandfather and great-grandfather were Chris- 
 tians. How this may be we pretend not to 
 know. It is, however, well established that he 
 was raised a Christian. He is considered on 
 man}^ accounts among the most eminent of the 
 fathers. When he tells us that "^Ae church 
 received from the aj^ostles a tradition to give bap- 
 tism to infants,'' although we admit that this 
 does not necessarily prove that it did so receive 
 it, yet it must prove that Origen thought so. As 
 to the probability of his being mistaken, every 
 one has a right to his own opinion. The 
 reader will bear in mind that Origen never 
 
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 79 
 
 bad any controversy on the subject of infant 
 baptism, nor did any one in his day; his 
 declaration is therefore to be understood as 
 voluntary, and also as being the general opi- 
 nion of the church in his day. Is it probable 
 that the whole church was deceived on this 
 point within two hundred years from the death 
 of Christ? 
 
 Origen tells us with whom infant baptism 
 originated. K he does not tell the truth about it, 
 will the Baptists give us the true account ? Mr. 
 Howell, can you tell us how the eighteen-hun- 
 dred-years' old Baptist church came to have 
 pedobaptism in it from the times of the apostles, 
 nem con., to the days of Peter de Bruis? But 
 Mr. Howell has said one truth, (Sac. Com. p. 
 202 :) "Testimonies proving that "^ * the church 
 considered baptism essential to salvation 
 abound everywhere." But there is doubt 
 about the following, (pp. 202, 203 :) " This error 
 originated two others equally egregious. The 
 former was the administration of haiotism to in- 
 fants in cases of danger of death." "The 
 latter error was substitution of a more agree- 
 able form than immersion." 
 
 IS'ow, that the error of which Mr. Howell 
 speaks — namely, the considering of baptism 
 necessary to salvation— did exist in the second 
 and third centuries, no one doubts, ^or is 
 
80 ESSAYS ON THE 
 
 there any reason to doubt that such error would 
 lead to superstition in various ways. But that 
 this error ''originated'' the administration of 
 baptism to infants in or out of the danger of 
 death, is what no living man can prove. Mr. 
 H. does not — he dare not — try to prove it other- 
 wise than by broad assertion, at which he is 
 good — very good. Mr. H. evidently intends to 
 produce the impression that infant baptism at 
 first was only administered to such as were 
 sick, though he does not directly say so. 
 Reckless as he frequently is, he dare not say so. 
 
 As to whether this error "originated" "a 
 more agreeable form than immersion," we 
 shall consider in a future essay. 
 
 We will now lay before the public the an- 
 swer of the Council at Carthage to a letter 
 addressed to that body by Fidus. This coun- 
 cil was composed of sixty-six bishops, and con- 
 vened A. D. 253, a little more than two hun- 
 dred years from the crucifixion, and about one 
 hundred and fifty years from the death of St. 
 John. 
 
 The following is the answer : — 
 
 " Cyprian, and the rest of the bishops who 
 are present at the council, in number sixty-six, 
 to Fidus, our brother, greeting : 
 
 " We read your letter, most esteemed brother, 
 in which you write of one Victor, a priest, &c. 
 
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 81 
 
 But to the case of infants : — Wliereas you judge 
 * that they must not be baptized within two or 
 three days after they are born, and that the 
 rule of circumcision is to be observed, so that 
 none should be baptized and sanctified before 
 the eighth day after he is born,' we were all in 
 our assembly of a contrary opinion. For, as for 
 what you thought fitting to be done, there was 
 not one that was of your mind ; but all of us, on 
 the contrary, judged that the grace and mercii of 
 God is to he denied to no person that is horn. For 
 whereas our Lord, in his gospel, says, 'The 
 Son of man came not to destroy men's souls, 
 but to save them,' as far as lies in us, no soul, 
 if possible, is to be lost. So that we judge that 
 no person is to be hindered from obtaining the 
 grace by the law that is now appointed, and 
 that the spiritual circumcision ought not to be 
 impeded by the circumcision that was accord- 
 ing to the flesh, but that all are to be admitted 
 to the grace of Christ ; since Peter, speaking in 
 the Acts of the Apostles, says, ' The Lord has 
 shown me that no person is to be called com- 
 mon or unclean.' 
 
 "K any thing could be an obstacle to per- 
 sons against their obtaining the grace, the 
 adult, and grown, and aged would be rather 
 hindered by their more grievous sins. K, 
 then, the greatest offenders, and those that 
 
82 ESSAYS ON THE 
 
 have grievously sinned against God before, 
 have, when they afterward come to beheve, 
 forgiveness of their sins, and no person is pro- 
 hibited from baptism and grace, how much less 
 reason is there to refuse an infant, who, being 
 newly born, has no sin save that, being de- 
 scended from Adam according to the flesh, he 
 has from his very birth contracted the contagion 
 of the death anciently threatened, who comes 
 for this reason more easily to receive the for- 
 giveness of sins, because they are not his own, 
 but others' sins that are forgiven him ! 
 
 " This, therefore, most esteemed brother, was 
 our opinion in the assembly : — that it is not for 
 us to hinder any person from baptism and the 
 grace of God who is merciful and kind and 
 affectionate to all. Which rule, as it is to 
 govern universally, so we think it more espe- 
 cially to be observed in reference to infants and 
 persons newly born ; to whom our help and 
 the divine mercy is rather to be granted, because, 
 by their weeping and wailing at their first en- 
 terance into the world, they do intimate nothing 
 so much as that they implore compassion. 
 
 "Dearest brother, we wish you always good 
 health." (Cyprian's epistle to Fidus.) 
 
 If we had introduced this epistle to settle 
 matters of opinion, it would settle several, so 
 far as such a General Conference of Arminians, 
 
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 83 
 
 as they undoubtedly were, could settle them. 
 But in it we have the unanimous consent of 
 sixty-six bishops to infant baptism. This is the 
 fact we wish to establish, — namely, that in two 
 hundred years after Christ the practice was 
 universal, no one disputing its validity. Fidus 
 had nothing to say against its validity. He 
 only wished to prohibit them till they were 
 eight days old. l!^ot an hour longer. Another 
 fact in the case is this : — this council founded 
 their argument in favor of the right of infants 
 to baptism from their birth upon their right to 
 salvation in the Redeemer. In whatever else 
 they were wrong, they were right in this. " The 
 promise is unto you and to your children. ' ' " For 
 of such is theTvingdom of God." 
 
 "We would hazard nothing in asserting that 
 not the first scrape of the pen can be found 
 against the validity of infant baptism while the 
 doctrine of a general atonement was the doctrine 
 of the whole church, which was the case until 
 after the above council, ^ay, the doctrine of 
 a partial atonement was taught centuries before 
 much opposition was made to infant baptism. 
 One followed the other in process of time. 
 Men will have their own opinion as to the con- 
 nection between the two. If I believed there 
 were non-elect infants, I would join the Baptists 
 at once. At any rate, I would reject infant bap- 
 
84 ESSAYS ON THE 
 
 tism. Not being of this faith, I shall not only 
 consider our children fit subjects for the king- 
 dom of heaven, — i. e. the church, — but also a 
 proper model after which to fashion adults. 
 
 Passing many of the primitive fathers, all to 
 the same purpose with those already noticed, 
 we will make some extracts from St. Austin, 
 or St. Augustin, (as he is called by both names,) 
 with but little comment. He lived about three 
 hundred years after the apostles, and no doubt 
 sets forth the universal practice in his day. He 
 says: — ^'So that many persons, increasing in 
 knowledge after their baptism, and especially 
 those who have been baptized either lohen they 
 were infants, or when they were youths," &c. 
 
 Again: — 
 
 "And as the thief, who, by necessity, went 
 without baptism, was saved, because by his 
 piety he had it spiritually ; so, where baptism is 
 had, though the party by necessity go without 
 that which the thief had, yet he is saved; 
 which, being handed down to them, the uni- 
 versal church holds with respect to infants who are 
 baptized, who certainly cannot yet believe with 
 the heart to righteousness or confess with the 
 mouth to salvation, as the thief could ; nay, by 
 their crying and noise, while the sacrament is 
 being administered, they disturb the holy 
 
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 85 
 
 mysteries ; and yet no Christian loill say they are 
 baptized to no purpose." 
 
 Had there been any such Baptists as we have 
 in these times, they would have said these ciy- 
 ing children were baptized to no purpose. 
 There being "?zo Christian'' that would say so 
 proves there were none such in being. But 
 we continue our quotations. 
 
 "And if any one do ask for divine authority 
 in this matter, though that which the universal 
 church practises, which has not been instituted 
 by councils, but has always been observed, is 
 most justly believed to be nothing else than a 
 thing delivered by the authority of the apostles, 
 yet we may, besides, take a true estimate how 
 much the sacrament of baptism does avail in- 
 fants, by the circumcision which God's former 
 people received." (Fourth book against the 
 Donatists; Baptism.) 
 
 Here he declares the authority to baptize in- 
 fants was from the apostles. "We cannot ques- 
 tion the sincerity of this declaration. The 
 apostles either did deliver such authority, or 
 St. Austin was mistaken. Concerning this we 
 wdll think our own thoughts. Again : — 
 
 "The whole church has of old constantly 
 held baptized infants do obtain remission of 
 original sin by the baptism of Christ." "For 
 my part, I do not remember that I ever heard any 
 
86 ESSAYS ON THE 
 
 other thing from any Christians that received 
 the Old and New Testaments, neither /romswc A 
 as were in the Catholic church, nor yet from 
 such as belonged to any sect or schism. I do 
 not remember that / ever read otherwise in ayiy 
 writer J treating of these matters, that followed 
 the canonical Scriptures or did mean or pretend 
 80 to do.'' 
 
 Kow, if St. Austin never heard of any Chris- 
 tian, Catholic, sectarian, schismatic, nor any 
 writer that followed or pretended to follow the 
 Scriptures, denying infant baptism, there must 
 have been an entire new class of all these come 
 into being since his day. For no writer could 
 say such things in the present day without 
 being guilty of the most glaring falsehood. 
 !N'or is St. Austin the only one who bears this 
 sort of testimony. Hear Pelagius, in a letter to 
 the Bishop of Rome, not far from the time St. 
 Austin wrote : — 
 
 He says, "Men do slander me, as if I de- 
 nied the sacrament of baptism to infants," &c. 
 Again, "He never heard even an impious heretic 
 who would affirm this concerning infants." 
 He asks — 
 
 "For who is so ignorant of the reading of 
 the evangelists as to attempt (not to say to 
 establish this, but) to speak of it heedlessly, or 
 even have such a thought ? In fine, who can 
 
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 87 
 
 be so impious as to hinder infants from being 
 baptized, and born again in Christ, and thus 
 cause them to miss the kingdom of heaven? 
 since our Saviour has said that none can enter 
 into the kingdom of heaven that is not born 
 again of water and the Holy Spirit. Who is 
 there so impious as to refuse to an infant, of 
 what age soever, the common redemption of 
 mankind, and to hinder him that is born to an 
 uncertain life from being born again to an 
 everlasting and certain one ?" (Letter to Inno- 
 cent, A. D. 417.) 
 
 We might have added many more quotations 
 from the fathers, all going to show what the 
 usage of the church during the first four hun- 
 dred years was; but it is thought these are 
 sufficient. If infant baptism was in universal 
 use up to the commencement of the fifth cen- 
 tury, it is fair to conclude that the usage com- 
 menced in apostolic times. This presumption 
 is much stronger when we consider that Irenseus, 
 Epiphanius, Philastrius, St. Austin, and Theo- 
 doret, all wrote historical accounts of the difierent 
 sects and heresies which had made their appear- 
 ance in those times, and not one of them men- 
 tions a single sect or heretic that denied it, 
 with the exception of an impious sect that de- 
 nied baptism altogether. 
 
 It may not be amiss to make a remark or 
 
88 ESSAYS ON THE 
 
 two about Tertullian — the only one that even 
 seems to write against it. He did not, how- 
 ever, write against infant baptism any more 
 than against adult baptism. He thought it 
 best to delay baptism till old age, so that there 
 would be less danger of contracting pollution 
 after baptism. He never said one word against 
 the validity of infant baptism. 
 
 Before we close this essay we w^ill call atten- 
 tion to what we believe to be the first rejection 
 of infant baptism. This took place about a. d. 
 1128, under the teaching of Peter Bruis. The 
 ground on which the Petrobruisians rejected 
 infant baptism w^as, that all infants dying in 
 that state luere lost, and should not therefore be 
 baptized. It is not very strange that the whole 
 Christian world considered it an entire new 
 doctrine. We quote the following from Mr. 
 Hibbard, on infant baptism, p. 323, which he 
 quotes from Wall's History, partii. c. vii. sec. 5. 
 
 " Christ sending his disciples to preach," say 
 the Petrobruisians, ''says in the gospel, 'Go ye 
 into all the world, and preach the gospel to 
 every creature. He that believeth, and is bap- 
 tized, shall be saved ; but he that believeth not 
 shall be damned." From these words of our 
 Saviour it is plain that none can be saved un- 
 less he believe and be baptized : — that is, have 
 both Christian faith and baptism. For not one 
 
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 89 
 
 of these, but both together, doth save. So that 
 infants, though they be by you baptized, yet, 
 since by reason of their age they cannot be- 
 lieve, are not saved. It is, therefore, an idle and 
 vain thing for you to wash persons with water, 
 at such a time when you may indeed cleanse 
 their skin from dirt in a carnal manner, but 
 not purge their souls from sin. But we do 
 stay till the proper time of faith ; and when a 
 person is capable to know his God and believe 
 in him, then we do (not, as you charge us, 
 rebaptize him, but) baptize him. For he is to 
 be accounted as not yet baptized who is not 
 washed with that baptism by which sins are 
 done away." 
 
 The Petrobruisians give a very effectual argu- 
 ment against infant baptism, if it were true ; 
 — that is, the impossibility of infant salvation. 
 K they could not be saved, then, and then only, 
 they should not be baptized. But since the 
 promise is made to children as well as adults, 
 and since the promise is to be realized by the 
 use of means, we cannot commence the use of 
 those means too soon. 
 
 This Petrobruisian heresy, which contains 
 the first opposition to the validity of infant 
 baptism left upon record that we have been 
 able to find, lasted about thirty years, and 
 perished under the authority of his holiness. 
 
 8* 
 
90 ESSAYS ON THE 
 
 Nothing more was beard of anti-pedobaptism 
 till about the year 1522, the time the Anabap- 
 tists rose in Germany. Since that date we 
 have had boasting, wind, and rant. "We have 
 opposition sufficient to satisfy all who desire 
 such things. 
 
 We have now gone through our remarks 
 upon infant baptism. With the hope of having 
 convinced some one who has hitherto wavered, 
 we dismiss the subject. 
 
 ESSAY vn. 
 
 ON THE MEANING OF THE WORD BAPTISM, AND 
 THE MODE. 
 
 The word baptism has been so variously de- 
 fined by theological writers that the Christian 
 public is literally bewildered. Lexicographers, 
 being uninspired, are wholly unable to settle 
 the controversy that continually harasses the 
 church in the present day. It has, therefore, 
 been left to the critics, who have found as 
 much as they could do to keep up with one 
 another, without trying much to find out the 
 real truth about the matter. One great ob- 
 stacle in the way of settling this controversy is, 
 that most of those who engage in it make up 
 
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 91 
 
 no particular issue upon the subject itself, but 
 upon the whether baj^UzOy the Greek word for 
 baptism, means immersion and nothing else. 
 "Now, these criticisms may be useful to some 
 men, but we object to making them the main 
 proof We object to it more, because nine out 
 of ten of those who surfeit the country with 
 their Greek know really very little about that 
 language. In the present day there are many 
 who spit Greek on their congregations that do 
 not know the alphabet of that language. It is 
 to be feared that, even among those critics 
 w^ho can read the Greek Testament, there is a 
 greater desire to make a show of their learning 
 than to exhibit the truth. 
 
 The author of these sheets makes no great 
 pretensions to learning. But learned men 
 will allow that the true definition of any word 
 is to be learned by ascertaining the use writers 
 and speakers have made of it. For example, 
 to know the use John the Baptist made of the 
 word baptism, you have to examine his dis- 
 courses, allusions, kc. in which he has used 
 the word; and so of any other writer or 
 speaker. It is believed that such investiga- 
 tion can be more easily made in the English 
 translation, if not more correctly. This mil be 
 apparent when we consider that the word bap- 
 tism in the English means precisely the same 
 
92 ESSAYS ON THE 
 
 that baptizo in Greek does. If baptizo means 
 to immerse, baptize means tlie same thing. 
 The very same argument that will prove the 
 Greek word to mean immersion will prove 
 the English to mean the same mode. Why- 
 then carry this controversy out of our own 
 language ? The Bible must furnish the means 
 of ascertaining the sense in which its terms 
 are used. This, then, being God's own lexi- 
 con, we shall consult this and no other. Our 
 Greek lexicons, some of them made by infidels 
 and wicked men, furnish every sort of defini- 
 tion of baptism. Some of these definitions 
 favor our views, and, as such, following the ex- 
 ample of others, w^e might use them. But we 
 desire none of their man-made assistance. If 
 we cannot ascertain from the Bible the mean- 
 ing of the word baptism, it must be a failure : — 
 that's all. 
 
 When the Bible uses different words one 
 for another, those different words mean the 
 same thing and mutually explain each other. 
 Allowing this, it will be easy to show that bap- 
 tism is a generic word, and means purification. 
 
 This we proceed to prove. "After these 
 things came Jesus and his disciples into the 
 land of Judea ; and there he tarried with them, 
 and baptized. And John also was baptizing in 
 -^non, near to Salim, because there was much 
 
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 93 
 
 water there ; and they came and were baptized. 
 For John was not yet cast into prison. Then 
 there arose a question between some of John's 
 disciples and the Jews about purifying. And 
 they came unto John, and said unto him, Eabbi, 
 he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom 
 thou bearest witness, behold the same baptizeih^ 
 and all men come to him." John iii. 22-26. 
 
 "Wlien, therefore, the Lord knew how the 
 Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized 
 more disciples than John, (though Jesus himself 
 baptized not, but his disciples,) he left Judea, 
 and departed again into Galilee." John iv. 1-3. 
 
 This dispute between " the Jeivs arid some of 
 John's disciples about purifying'' was a dispute 
 about John and Christ's baptizing. The fol- 
 lowing seems to be the correct view of the 
 subject: — 
 
 The Jews had looked at the doings of John 
 with admiration, ''musing in their hearts whe- 
 ther he were the Christ," Luke iii. 15 ; and, as 
 was natural, when Jesus and his disciples came 
 into the same country, baptizing and making 
 disciples, some of the Jews, inclining to prefer 
 Jesus for a leader, raised a dispute with the 
 disciples of John about their master continu- 
 ing to baptize after a superior personage had 
 commenced making disciples. These disciples 
 knew that John himself had told them that 
 
94 ESSAYS OX THE 
 
 Jesus was entitled to the pre-eminence, that he 
 was scarce worthy to loose his shoes as a ser- 
 vant ; and, consequently, they knew not what 
 to say to the Jews, and so they came and told 
 their master that Jesus was making and bap- 
 tizing disciples, and all the people are going 
 to him, and the Jews had disputed with them, 
 and gotten them into a difficulty about it. 
 John heard of the success of Jesus with joy; 
 he informed his disciples that his joy was now 
 full, &c. To prevent his popularity from in- 
 juring the ministry of John, Jesus retired into 
 Galilee. Manifestly, then, the dispute was about 
 these extraordinary personages each one bap- 
 tizing. K so, the words purifying and baptiz- 
 ing are used interchangeably, the one for the 
 other, and therefore mean the same thing. 
 
 Of Jesus it is said: — "And he shall sit as a 
 refiner and purifier of silver; and he shall 
 purify the sons of Levi," &c. Mai. iii. 3. In 
 the preceding verse the prophet says, "He is 
 like a refiner's fire, and like fullers' soap." 
 John the Baptist says, "He shall baptize you with 
 the Holy Ghost, and with /re." Matt. iii. 11. Paul 
 says, " That he might redeem us from all in- 
 iquity, and purify unto himsdf a peculiar 
 people," &c. Tit. ii. 14. There is no doubt what 
 Malachi and Paul call purify John calls baptize: 
 these words, therefore, mean the same thing. 
 
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 95 
 
 Baptism being a purification, it is also called 
 a washing ; which is a kindred word in mean- 
 ing. " That he might sanctify and cleanse it 
 with the washing of ivaier by the word." Eph. 
 V. 26. "Be baptized, and icash away thy sins." 
 Acts xxii. 16. 
 
 Wherever the word baptism is used in re- 
 gard to the work of the Spirit or to the wash- 
 ing of water, the word purification can be sub- 
 stituted for it without at all changing the 
 meaning of the passage where it is used. 
 Take the following, for example : — " I indeed 
 jpurify you with water; he shall purify you with 
 the Holy Ghost." "Teach all nations, purify- 
 ing them," &c. "He that believeth and is 
 purified,'" &c. "Eepent, and be purified every 
 one of you," &c. "Jesus made and purified 
 more disciples than John," &c. "They were 
 purified, both men and women." This mode 
 of illustration might be carried to a great ex- 
 tent. The reader can get his Bible and try it 
 till he is perfectly satisfied. The very word 
 purification carries a charm with it, it agrees 
 so well with the whole gospel scheme. To be 
 purified with water and the Spirit is to be born 
 again — to be baptized Tvdth water and the Holy 
 Ghost. 
 
 Two purifications pervade the teachings of 
 the Old and New Testaments. The great work 
 
96 ESSAYS ON THB 
 
 in the heart performed by the energy of the 
 divine Spirit is the principal one, the other is 
 ceremonial and representative. It consists in 
 the external application of water. We have 
 seen that the word baptism, in the IN'ew Testa- 
 ment, is mostly nsed in reference to both these 
 purifications. We shall now proceed to ex- 
 amine the modes of purification or baptism, 
 both of the Holy Ghost and of water. Before 
 entering upon this investigation, however, it 
 will be proper to remind the reader that our 
 Baptist brethren insist that baptism always 
 means immersion and nothing else. Indeed, this 
 view governs their whole system. Mr. Howell, 
 a standard writer among them, says, "In the 
 whole history of the Greek language it has but 
 one meaning ; it not only means to dip or im- 
 merse, but it never has any other meaning." 
 "If, therefore, any respect is due to the mean- 
 ing of words used to describe actions, Christian 
 baptism is confined to immersion." (Sac. Com. 
 p. 172.) Their ministers, writers, and people 
 generally, say the same thing. 
 
 If baptism, in Greek, alwaj^s means immer- 
 sion and nothing else, it always means the 
 same thing in English and nothing else. "We 
 propose, therefore, no issue about Greek or any 
 other language ; we wish no foreign issue. We 
 join issue on the mode. We care not what word 
 
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 97 
 
 is used, provided it be consistent with the Bible. 
 I now advertise my readers that I do not eon- 
 cede to the Baptists that no mode is pointed 
 out in the Bible, as pedobaptist writers usually 
 do. Although I believe a change of mode 
 would not invalidate the ordinance, yet I do 
 not believe the Scriptures have left us in the 
 dark on the subject. 
 
 The baptism of the Holy Ghost being the 
 principal one, we will examine its mode first. 
 John the Baptist says of Jesus, " He shall bap- 
 tize you with the Holy Ghost." Matt. iii. 11. 
 Jesus said, in regard to this same baptism, 
 " John truly baptized with water, but ye shall 
 be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days 
 hence." Acts i. 5. No one will deny that 
 ^'not many days hence' alluded to the day of 
 Pentecost. When they were baptized with the 
 Holy Ghost on that day, Peter, under its in- 
 fluence, preached a sermon, taking for his text 
 a prediction of this baptism from the prophet 
 Joel. In this text he gives us the mode by 
 which this baptism was performed, in these 
 words: — ^' I will pour out of my Spirit upon all 
 flesh.'" Acts ii. 17. Here, what Jesus and John 
 the Baptist call "baptize" Peter and Joel call 
 ''pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh." 
 
 To pour upon, then, is to baptize ivith. 
 
 At the house of Cornelius we have this bap- 
 
98 ISSAYS ON THK 
 
 tism of the Holy Ghost repeated. " While Peter 
 yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all 
 them which heard the word. And they of the 
 circumcision which believed were astonished, 
 as many as came with Peter, because that on 
 the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the 
 Holy Ghost." Acts x. 44, 45. Peter commanded 
 these Gentiles to be baptized, (verse 48,) for 
 which the apostles and brethren at Jerusalem 
 contended with him, (xi. 1, 2.) Peter, in his 
 defence, related the providential occurrences 
 which brought him to the place, and then re- 
 hearsed the effect of his preaching in the fol- 
 lowing words : — ''And as I began to speak, the 
 Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the begin- 
 ning. Then remembered I the word of the 
 Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized 
 with water, but ye shall be baptized with the 
 Holy Ghost." Acts xi. 15, 16. Mark the ex- 
 pressions — " jTAe Holy Grhost fell on all them which 
 heard," ^'Poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost,'* 
 '•'The Holy Ghost fell on them as on us," &c., on 
 the day of Pentecost, when all agree the '^ Spi- 
 rit was poured out.'' How^ could these pourings 
 and fallings upon cause Peter to remember the 
 word of the Lord in regard to baptism, if he did 
 not understand baptism and pouring to mean 
 the same thing ? 
 
 Now, Mr, Howell, you say "baptism, in 
 
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 99 
 
 GreeJc, not only means to dip or immerse, but 
 it never has any other meaning." Here we 
 have seen John and Christ speaking of a work 
 they call baptism ; Joel, Peter, and Luke, call 
 the very same v^ov^i pouring. This is the way 
 it is in English. IN'ow, Mr. Howell, if the Greek 
 word always means immersion and nothing 
 else, immersion must always be meant when 
 the baptism of the Spirit is spoken of. Let us 
 see how that is : if it always means immersion, 
 it will not change the meaning to use that word 
 in every instance. We will then have it thus : — 
 
 " The Holy Ghost immersed all them which 
 heard the word." '' The Holy Ghost immersed 
 them as it did us at the beginning." I give it 
 over to your Greek. The English Bible won't 
 answer the purpose at all. 
 
 My reader will please bear in mind that, to 
 sustain the Baptists, baptism must always mean 
 immersion and nothing else. The proof that it 
 ever means to pour, even in one solitary in- 
 stance, overturns the whole Baptist system of 
 exclusiveness. Though it might be proven 
 that immersion was sometimes the meaning, 
 yet they would be defeated. If we have proven 
 that the word, in several places, means to pour, 
 — as we think we have done most clearly, yea, 
 to POUR and nothing else, so far as mode or action 
 is concerned, — then must the doctrine of exclu- 
 
100 ESSAYS ON THE 
 
 sive immersion be false, as well as restricted 
 communion, without any thing to support it. 
 
 "We now hazard the assertion that the word 
 baptism, in every place in the ITew Testament 
 where the baptism of the Spirit is intended, 
 means to poiLv and nothing else, so far as mode 
 or action is concerned. The whole Baptist 
 world cannot refute it. They dare not try. 
 
 I^ow we proceed to examine the subject of 
 water baptism. Does Paul mean immersion 
 when he says they "were all baptized unto 
 Moses in the cloud and in the sea" ? 1 Cor. x. 2. 
 The place where this baptism occurred forbids 
 that it should have been by immersion. " The 
 children of Israel walked upon diy land in the 
 midst of the sea ; and the w^aters were a wall 
 unto them on their right hand and on their 
 left." Ex. xiv. 29. The Baptists try to get clear 
 of this by making it a figure. But what evi- 
 dence is there that baptism in this text was a 
 figurative baptism more than any other? Was 
 eating the same spiritual meat a figure also ? 
 Was drinking of that spiritual rock that fol- 
 lowed them a figure too ? As well might we 
 say the baptism of our Lord was a figure. But 
 what was the mode of this baptism in the cloud 
 and in the sea? ''The clouds j^oured out water.*' 
 Ps. Ixxvii. 17. About the xQvy same affair, 
 Paul says "they were baptized;" Moses says it 
 
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 101 
 
 was "on dry ground;'' and David says "the 
 clouds poured out rain." Then, what Paul 
 calls baptism David calls ^^ pouring out rain.'* 
 You must try your Greek again, my Baptist 
 friends. You perceive the English Bible makes 
 baptism, in this place, mean to pour and no- 
 thing else. 
 
 Let us next hear from Isaiah. " I will pour 
 tuater upon him that is thirsty^ and floods upon 
 the dry ground: I WiM pour my spirit upon thy 
 seed," &;c. Isa. xliv. 3. Here we have a pro- 
 phet writing about the Christian dispensation, 
 representing our Lord as saying, " I will pour 
 water;" "I will pour out my spirit." How 
 much this resembles the language of another 
 prophet: — "I indeed baptize you with water, 
 {pour it on you;) he shall baptize you with 
 the Holy Ghost, {pour it upon you.'') But 
 when did the Lord pour out his spirit? On the 
 day of Pentecost, we answer. When did he 
 pour water on him that was thirsty ? On the 
 day of Pentecost. Three thousand were thirsty ; 
 and there is no reason to doubt that water was 
 poured upon them at that time, according to 
 the prediction of the prophet. And we may 
 add that water was poured by John, for he 
 says, "I indeed baptize you with water;" and 
 there is no reason to doubt his doing it in the 
 same way the baptism of the spirit was per- 
 
102 ESSAYS ON THE 
 
 formed, which, we have seen, was by pouring, 
 certainly. 
 
 Il^ow, whether we are right in making this 
 pouring of water refer to baptism, as set forth 
 in the l^ew Testament, men will and ought to 
 think for themselves. We may challenge the 
 whole Baptist world to produce such a pre- 
 diction from any of the prophets in favor of 
 immersion. K we are not right in our inter- 
 pretation, will the Baptists set us right ? We 
 have now given reasons from the Bible itself 
 for believing that baptism sometimes means to 
 pour, and that the apostles so understood and 
 practised. We believe no reasons equally 
 strong can be brought from the same source in 
 favor of immersion; much less can it be shown 
 that it always means to immerse and nothing 
 else. 
 
 That baptism was administered by sprinkling 
 there is yet more abundant proof. Let us first 
 hear the prophets. 
 
 "Behold, my servant shall deal prudently; 
 he shall be exalted and extolled, and be very 
 high. As many were astonished at thee, his 
 visage was so marred more than any man, and 
 his form more than the sons of men : so shall 
 he sprinkle many nations ; the kings shall shut 
 their mouths at him : for that which had not 
 been told them shall they see, and that which 
 
BAPTIST GOKTROVERSY. 108 
 
 they bad not heard shall they consider." Isa. 
 lii. 13-15. 
 
 No one will deny that this passage is spoken 
 of the Messiah. It may be paraphrased thus : — 
 
 My servant, the Lord Jesus Christ, shall deal 
 prudently, or prosper, (as in the margin ;) among 
 the nations, he shall be exalted and extolled on 
 account of his divine prudence. Many people 
 were astonished at thee on account of the 
 cruelty of thy treatment, under which his 
 visage was so marred more than any man, 
 even those guilty of sedition and murder, and 
 his form more than the sons of men, or more 
 than can happen to any citizen : as the nations 
 were astonished at thee, on account of th}' 
 cruelty to him, so, to thy astonishment, shall 
 he sprinkle many nations, bringing them into 
 the church by baptism, and granting them 
 equal privileges with you : for this he will be 
 opposed b}' principalities and powers ; but the 
 kings shall shut their mouths at him, when 
 they see for themselves the exercise of that 
 divine authority of which they had never 
 heard, but which they will then consider. 
 
 Let any one read this whole chapter atten- 
 tively, with the following two, and he must see 
 that our paraphrase is just and in accordance 
 with the whole. The baptizing of the nations 
 agrees well with the declaration, " All the ends 
 
104 ESSAYS ON THE 
 
 of the earth shall see the salvation of our O^od." 
 Isa. Ixii. 10. 
 
 But is it water or blood that was to be 
 sprinkled upon the Gentile nations? Upon 
 this inquiry we may observe : — 
 
 1. The sprinkling of blood (Heb. ix. 13) re- 
 presents the blood of Christ, (Heb. ix. 14,) with- 
 out which there is no remission, (Heb. ix. 22,) 
 and by virtue of which their consciences were 
 •purged. By virtue of this blood we have our 
 hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, by the 
 power of the Holy Ghost, in token of which 
 inward cleansing we have our bodies washed 
 with pure water (Heb. x. 22) or baptized with 
 pure water. 
 
 2. The sprinkling of the ashes of a heifer 
 (Heb. ix. 13) was connected with the cleansing 
 of' those typical atonements by which the un- 
 clean was sanctified or cleansed. But how 
 was this done ? The following Scripture will 
 show : — 
 
 "And for an unclean person they shall take 
 of the ashes of the burnt heifer of purification 
 for sin, and running water shall be put thereto 
 in a vessel: and a clean person shall take 
 hyssop, and dip it in the water, and sprinkle it 
 upon the tent, and upon all the vessels, and 
 upon the persons that were there, and upon 
 him that touched a bone, or one slain, or one 
 
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 105 
 
 dead, or a grave: and the clean person shall 
 sprinkle upon the unclean on the third day, and 
 on the seventh day: and on the seventh day 
 he shall purify himself and wash his clothes, 
 and bathe himself in water, and shall be clean 
 at even." Lev. xix. 17-19. 
 
 The ashes of a burnt heifer, mixed with run- 
 ring water, made the water of purification, to 
 the sprinkling of which the apostle undoubt- 
 edly alludes in Heb. x. 32, which we paraphrase 
 thus : — 
 
 Let us draw near to Jesus, having our hearts 
 sprinkled from an e\^l conscience through the 
 merits of his blood and by the power of the 
 Holy Ghost, and our bodies washed in bap- 
 tism with pure or clean water, which is 
 sprinkled upon them as the antetype of the 
 water of purification. 
 
 Thus we have before us the sprinkling of 
 both blood and water. To one of these Isaiah 
 certainly alludes when he informs us that "-lie 
 shall sprinkle many nations.'' "We believe he 
 speaks of the sprinkling of water,. for the fol- 
 lowing reasons : — 
 
 The prediction is concerning the times of the 
 gospel, under which the sprinkling of blood 
 was to cease. When he speaks of sprinkling 
 the Gentiles, therefore, he could not mean that 
 they were to be sprinkled with blood. Again : — 
 
106 ESSAYS ON THE 
 
 We have a very circumstantial prediction of 
 the return of the Jews to their own land, and 
 of their conversion to Christianity, and also 
 their being baptized by sprinkling clean water 
 upon them. If, then, the "many nations" 
 were to be sprinkled in the same way the Jews 
 were upon their return to their own land, the 
 whole is plain enough. Let us see how that is. 
 
 " For I will take you from among the heathen, 
 and gather you out of all countries, and will 
 bring you into your own land. Then will I 
 sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be 
 clean: from all your filthiness, and from all 
 your idols, will I cleanse 3^ou. A new heart 
 also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put 
 within you : and I will take away the stony 
 heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a 
 heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within 
 you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and 
 ye shall keep my judgments, and do them. 
 And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to 
 your fathers ; and ye shall be my people, and 
 I will be your God." Ezek. xxxvi. 24-28. 
 
 We hope the time is near at hand when the 
 house pf Israel will all return to. their own land, 
 and again be grafted into the good olive-tree 
 by God's giving them a new heart and baptiz- 
 ing them by sprinkling clean water upon them ; 
 so that they may become his people again, and 
 
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 107 
 
 he be their God. This event must happen as 
 sure as there is any truth in prophecy. Let 
 the Gentiles be baptized as they may, it is 
 certain the Jews will be sprinkled when they 
 are converted. Since Tsaiah says many na- 
 tions shall be sprinkled, it is not unreasonable 
 to believe that it is to be done with clean water. 
 If so, the Scriptures require the ordinance to 
 be administered in that way. This is the con- 
 clusion to which God's lexicon, the Bible, con- 
 ducts us. Where is the proof that baptism 
 always means to immerse and nothing else ? 
 
 Having now shown clearly, as we believe, 
 that the Scriptures do point out the mode or 
 modes of baptism, and that those modes are 
 sprinkling and pouring, and that there is no 
 evidence that the word baptize " means to im- 
 merse and nothing else," as the Baptists con- 
 stantly affirm, we shall attempt to illustrate 
 the whole from examples recorded in the j^ew 
 Testament. In doing this, we shall keep a 
 Baptist antagonist constantly before us, making 
 his objections. We will commence with the 
 baptism of our Lord. 
 
 " Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan 
 unto John, to be baptized of him. But John 
 forbade Jwn, saying, I have need to be baptized 
 of thee, and comest thou to me ? And Jesus, 
 answering, said unto him, Suffer it to he so now. 
 
108 ESSAYS ON THE 
 
 for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteous- 
 ness. Then he suffered him. And Jesus, when 
 he was baptized, went straightway out of the 
 water : and, lo, the heavens were opened unto 
 him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending 
 Hke a dove, and lighting upon him : and, lo, a 
 voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved 
 Son, in whom I am well pleased." Matt. iii. 13 
 -17. 
 
 In this account there is supposed to be very 
 strong evidence of immersion. But, after a 
 very careful examination of the subject, we 
 must confess, if there be any proof of it, we are 
 wholly unable to perceive it. The passage 
 certainly says not one word about immersion, 
 nor does it give the remotest hint of any such 
 thing. We are simply told that " when he was 
 baptized he came straightway out of the water," 
 &c. This proves no more in favor of one mode 
 than another ; for it says not one word about 
 mode. If the mode is ascertained, it must be 
 found somewhere else. ISTow, brother, where 
 will you find the proof that the Saviour was 
 immersed? Oh, say you, I think John must 
 have immersed him when he had him in Jor- 
 dan. But stop, brother, you do not offer your 
 thoughts as Scripture proof, do you ? You ask, 
 What did he go into Jordan for ? If I were to 
 answer, I do not know, would you dare to say 
 
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 109 
 
 that you do know ? The only probability of 
 such a thing deducible from the history of the 
 transaction is that he went into Jordan to be 
 baptized. But as to the mode not one syllable 
 is uttered anyway. 
 
 But then, you say, there is proof that he was 
 baptized, and the word, in Greek, means im- 
 mersion. Brother, that is the very thing we 
 dispute about. I fear you have had sand 
 thrown in your eyes about Greek. You may 
 rest assured, if the word means immersion in 
 Greek, it means the same thing in English. 
 But who told you that it means that and no- 
 thing else in Greek ? Did the Bible tell you 
 so ? K not, I cannot admit your testimony. 
 "We must look to the Bible, and to the Bible 
 alone, for proof; and neither you nor I have 
 any right to believe any thing on the subject 
 that is not taught in the Bible. But you say 
 you cannot see what he was in the water for 
 unless it was to be immersed. That may be. 
 A thousand others may be unable to see why 
 he was there ; but neither will their ignorance 
 nor your inability to see ever prove that he 
 was immersed. 
 
 But now, brother, I will give you my reasons 
 for thinking he was sprinkled and not im- 
 mersed. He informs us it was done to "fulfil 
 all righteousness." Then it must have been 
 
 10 
 
110 ESSAYS ON THE 
 
 required by that law which he came not to 
 destroy but to "fulfil." That law does not re- 
 quire immersion ; but it does require sprink- 
 ling expressly; and that frequently. It is not 
 hazardous to believe that he was sprinkled ac- 
 cording to the law. 
 
 Let us now inquire more particularly what 
 the Bible does teach on the subject. It proves — 
 
 1. That Christ was a priest : — " Thou art a 
 priest forever, after the order of Melchisedec." 
 Heb.vii. 17-21; Psa. ex. 4; Heb. v. 6, 10. 
 
 2. That he was a high-priest: — "Consider 
 the Apostle and High-Priest of our profession, 
 Christ Jesus." Heb. iii. 1, iv. 14, 15. 
 
 He is a coyisecrated priest: — "Who is conse- 
 crated for evermore." Heb. vii. 28. He was 
 made a priest "like unto his brethren." Heb. 
 ii. 17. It was done in accordance with the law. 
 "And no man taketh this honor unto himself 
 but he that was called of God ; as was Aaron.'' 
 Heb. V. 4. 
 
 Let us next see how Aaron was consecrated 
 to the office of high-priest. In this we will 
 probably learn the meaning of the words, 
 " thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness^' 
 
 " But Aaron and his sons thou shalt bring 
 unto the door of the tabernacle of the con- 
 gregation, and shalt wash them with water J" 
 Ex. xxix. 4. 
 
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. Ill 
 
 " And Moses brought Aaron and his sons, 
 and washed them with water.'' Lev. ^aii. 6. 
 
 2. " Then shalt thou take the anointing oil, 
 and pour it upon his head, and anoint him." 
 Ex. xxix. 7. 
 
 "And he poured of the anointing oil upon 
 Aaron's head, and anointed him, to sanctify 
 him." Lev. viii. 12. 
 
 3. The third thing in the consecration of 
 Aaron and his sons is the offering for an 
 atonement. The description of this part of the 
 ceremony is too lengthy for insertion here. 
 Those who wish to examine it vAW find the 
 account in the 29th chapter of Exodus and the 
 8th chapter of Leviticus. 
 
 The Aaronic priesthood was only typical of 
 a better. It was but the shadow of good things 
 to come. If so, its consecration is only typi- 
 cal ; the law requiring it must be fulfilled and 
 have its end in the high-priesthood of the 
 Lord Jesus Christ. The ivashing of Aaron, 
 then, typifies the washing or baptizing of 
 Christ ; the anointing of Aaron points to the 
 descent of the Holy Ghost upon the Saviour ; 
 the offering of sacrifices looks to the great 
 offering of himself for sin. The sprinkling of 
 blood points to the shedding of that blood by 
 which he entered into the holiest of all. 
 
112 ESSAYS ON THE 
 
 "We, however, at present, are chiefly con- 
 cerned with the washing with water. 
 
 The mode by which Aaron was washed is 
 now to be considered. It could not be by im- 
 mersion, seeing it was done at the door of the 
 tabernacle. The term "wash" is not determi- 
 nate as to mode : we must therefore examine 
 other passages to determine what the mode 
 was. The reader will please remember, the 
 whole tribe of Levi was set apart to the ser- 
 vice of the tabernacle, though not to the high- 
 priesthood. In their consecration what we 
 believe to be a similar washing was used. 
 
 "And thus shalt thou do unto them, to 
 cleanse them : sprinkle water of purifying 
 upon them," &c. I^umbers viii. 7. 
 
 From all this it appears that Aaron was 
 sprinkled. The law required it. If neither 
 "jot nor tittle" (Matt. v. 18) can "in anywise 
 pass from the law till all be fulfilled," then 
 is it apparent that Jesus must have been 
 sprinkled at some time. And when we con- 
 sider that his baptism was to "^o fulfil all 
 righteousness," even the righteousness of the 
 law, and especially as the law nowhere re- 
 quires immersion, it must be clear that Jesus 
 was sprinkled, and not immersed, in his bap- 
 tism. If our opponents cannot show that the 
 law required immersion, they can hardly tell 
 
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 113 
 
 what righteousness the Saviour's baptism ful- 
 filled. Consequently, they usually evade the 
 discussion of this point. The only account I 
 have either seen or heard from them on this 
 point is the unsupported and insupportable 
 assertion that he was baptized as an example 
 for our imitation. Hence they make much 
 noise about following the Saviour into his 
 watery grave. They know how to make capital 
 among the ignorant with such things. Let 
 them first prove that Jesus was ever in a 
 watery grave, by the Bible ; and then from the 
 Bible let them prove that Christ designed his 
 baptism as an example for us to follow. In 
 this they will find enough to do. 
 
 Although I am not willing to make Greek 
 criticisms of my own, yet I could have quoted 
 from various authors of ability, such as the Bap- 
 tists have never answered, showing that it is at 
 least doubtful whether Christ was ever in 
 Jordan or not. This I have chosen not to do ; 
 not, indeed, because I thought them of no use, 
 but because I do not wish the reader's attention 
 led ofi' upon foreign issues. The main issue 
 is not whether Jesus was in Jordan or out of 
 Jordan, but whether he was immersed. If it 
 were proven by the Bible that the Jordan was 
 a mile wide, and that the Saviour was baptized 
 in the middle of it, still it would not be proved 
 
 H 10* 
 
114 ESSAYS ON THE 
 
 thereby that he waa immersed. Any man that 
 will take the trouble to think about it will be 
 compelled to see that the Bible does not say 
 any thing about his being immersed. That our 
 Baptist brethren believe he was I do not ques- 
 tion; but do they believe it upon conjecture or 
 upon Scripture testimony ? If proving that he 
 was baptized and conjecturing that it was done 
 by their mode proves immersion, then have 
 the Baptists proven that Christ was immersed. 
 
 Let the reader carefully weigh what has been 
 said. If he still believes he can see evidence of 
 his immersion, I shall not complain. Let him 
 reflect, however, there are many who cannot. 
 
 The next circumstance relied on by our op- 
 ponents is the following : — 
 
 "And John also was baptizing in ^non, 
 near to Salim ; because there was much water 
 there.'* John iii. 23. 
 
 Although I do not believe John's baptism to 
 have been the Christian, yet I do believe them 
 to have been the same in one respect, — that is, 
 the mode. Since, then, the mode is what we 
 are now considering, the above passage merits 
 our consideration. The Baptists usually take 
 for granted — 1. That Mwon was a river; 2. That 
 the "much water" was wanted for the adminis- 
 tration of baptism ; and 3. That immersion took 
 place at JEnon. But this is taking for granted 
 
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 115 
 
 what ought to be proven. According to the 
 maps of that country, ^non was not a river, 
 but a town. That it was a well-watered place 
 there is not any doubt ; but, whether the " muck 
 water' ' was in a river, creek, spring, or even in 
 wells, we are not told. 
 
 Much water would be necessary for the ac- 
 commodation of such multitudes, whether bap- 
 tism was administered at all or not. I would 
 not hesitate to guess that the mucli ivater Avas 
 needed to cook their provision, to drink, and 
 to wash themselves, as well as for the adminis- 
 tration of the ordinance. This would be to 
 adopt the mode of argumentation used by our 
 opponents : — i. e. prove what I could, and guess 
 at the balance. 
 
 As to the guess that immersion took place at 
 ^non, we admit that it is possible. If the 
 reader will reflect that, though we were to 
 prove that ^non was a river, and that John 
 baptized in the middle of it, still immersion 
 would remain to be proved. But neither of 
 these have been proven. All the proof there 
 is in this world that John immersed in ^non 
 is, the Baptists say so. The Bible says nothing 
 of the sort. 
 
 K my- Baptist brother ask me what John 
 wanted with much water, if not to immerse, 
 I answer promptly, I do not know. Dare you, 
 
116 ESSAYS ON THE 
 
 brother, say that you know? But perhaps you 
 say you cannot see what he wanted with much 
 water, unless it were to immerse in. That all 
 may be. But your seeing or not seeing is no 
 proof either way, unless your powers of percep- 
 tion were inspired. You must bring Scripture 
 proof or give up your exclusiveness. This way 
 of proving people out of the church by con- 
 jecture will not do. Take another Scripture : — 
 
 "And they both went down into the water, 
 both Philip and the eunuch ; and he baptized 
 him. And when they were come up out of 
 the water," &c. Acts viii. 38, 39. 
 
 This passage certainly proves that the eunuch 
 was baptized, and that they went into the 
 water to do it, according to our version. But 
 as to the mode, all is conjecture; for not one 
 word is said about it. Some ignorant, super- 
 stitious people prove by this very passage that 
 they ought to wade into the water, and there 
 be sprinkled. I admit the passage does not 
 certainly sustain them. But I must say it 
 proves as much for them as it does for the 
 Baptists. 
 
 ^t^ow, brother, you cfuess they went into the 
 water for the purpose of immersion; I guess 
 they went into the water because they 'had no- 
 thing to get it in. But this is all guess-work. 
 I frankly confess I do not know. You must 
 
BAPTIST CONTKOVERSY. 117 
 
 likewise acknowledge that you do not know. 
 If you do not know, you ought not to require 
 me to ahide by your guess. 
 
 " Therefore we are buried with him by bap- 
 tism into death," &c. Eom. vi. 4; Col. ii. 12. 
 
 It does seem to me that any one who had 
 no sectarian purpose to answer would under- 
 stand these passages to refer to the baptism of 
 the spirit, and not water-baptism at all. To 
 make this manifest, we will examine the pas- 
 sage from Colossians. 
 
 "And ye are complete in him which is the 
 head of all principality and power: in whom 
 also ye are circumcised with the circumcision 
 made without hands, in putting ofl' the body of 
 the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ : 
 buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are 
 risen with him through the faith of the opera- 
 tion of God, who hath raised him from the 
 dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the 
 uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened 
 together with him, having forgiven you all 
 trespasses," &c. Col. ii. 10-13. 
 
 Xo one is at a loss to understand the ex- 
 pressions, "being dead in sin;" "the uncir- 
 cumcision of the flesh ;" "the body of the sins 
 of the flesh." All understand these expressions 
 to refer to their moral state, and not to their 
 church relation or their connection with ex- 
 
118 ESSAYS ON THE 
 
 ternal ceremonies. Why not understand the 
 following to refer to their moral state also? 
 "You hath he quickened;" " circumcised with- 
 out hands;" "buried with him in baptism;" 
 which is "Christ's circumcision." This bap- 
 tism which quickens, circumcises, buries our 
 old man with all his deeds, and forgives all 
 trespasses, must be the baptism of the Spirit. 
 
 But, if we adopt Mr. Howell's exposition of 
 the Greek word, as contained in the following 
 quotation, we will have some difficulty in mak- 
 ing immersion out of this burial in baptism. 
 
 "It has also been said that it is a generic 
 word, and, without respect to mode or exclu- 
 sion of all modes, denotes any application of 
 water. This idea is wholly fanciful. Except 
 w^hen the word signifies to die, it denotes mode 
 and nothing else." (Sac. Com. p. 171.) 
 
 "If, therefore, any respect is due to the 
 meaning of words used to describe actions, 
 Christian baptism is confined exclusively to 
 immersion." (Sac. Com. p. 172.) 
 
 JSTow, according to this rule of interpretation, 
 the word baptism "-denotes mode and nothing 
 else:" — mode of action. Well, what is the 
 mode of action in a burial ? It is the sprinkling 
 and pouring of the earth upon the dead body. 
 Then, if in a burial " it denotes mode and no- 
 thing else," it denotes sprinkling and pouring. 
 
BAPTIST COTfTTROVERSY. 119 
 
 Now, I have no special confidence in this ap- 
 plication of Mr. Howell's rule. I should not 
 have noticed it at all, but we are frequently 
 told that baptism does not consist in the thing 
 done, but in the action, mode, or manner of 
 doing it. I guess, likewise, the Baptists will 
 not soon abandon this position. K so, it is fair 
 to work their own doctrines upon them. 
 
 "We have now gone through a hasty, but, it is 
 hoped, a sufficient, examination of the mode of 
 baptism. If we have taken a correct view of 
 the subject, immersion cannot be defended 
 from the inspired record. And, in fact, the 
 advocates of that mode, in the present day, 
 seem to be aware that the English Bible does 
 not prove it : they therefore rely upon learned 
 and unlearned appeals to the Greek. They 
 find fault with the commonly-received version 
 of the Bible. They censure without mercy the 
 translators. They even inform us that King 
 James prohibited them from translating the 
 word bapiizo. 
 
 Even Mr. Howell does not hesitate to cen- 
 sure the bishops and the king after the follow- 
 ing manner : — 
 
 "The bishops, with the consent of King 
 James, prohibited, therefore, the translation of 
 all the old ecclesiastical words, among which, 
 with others, baptism was found. The}^ re- 
 
120 ESSJiYS ON THK 
 
 quired that the original Greek words should be 
 transferred, only changing them so much as to 
 give them an English termination. Thus the 
 term baptism obtained admission into the ver- 
 sion, and immersion, the true rendering, w^as 
 excluded from our Bible.*' (Sac. Com. p. 181.) 
 
 The reader will be surprised to learn that 
 neither the bishops nor the king could have 
 any motive to prompt them to this great wicked- 
 ness, seeing the established church baptized by 
 immersion as well as by pouring. I copy the 
 following from the book of Common Prayer. 
 In the baptism of infants, the minister is re- 
 quired to "say to the godfathers and god- 
 mothers, 
 
 ^^Name (his child; 
 
 **And then, naming it after them, he shall 
 dip it in the water discreetly, or shall pour 
 water upon it, saying, 
 
 "N., I baptize thee, in the name," &c. 
 
 The same occurs in the baptism of adults : — 
 
 *' Then shall the minister take each person 
 to be baptized by the right hand, and, placing 
 him conveniently by the font, according to his 
 discretion, shall ask the godfathers and the 
 godmothers the name ; and then shall dip him 
 in the water, or pour water upon him, saying, 
 
 ''K, I baptize thee," &c. 
 
 Here it will be observed that ''dip'' comes 
 
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 121 
 
 first, in both instances. It must, therefore, 
 stand on equal footing with '"''^pour,'' if it have 
 not the preference. !N"ow, vAiy should Mr. H. 
 talk so piteously about the injustice of the king 
 and bishops ? 
 
 Mr. Howell, after garbling and much insinua- 
 tion, although he was unable to bring the first 
 extract to prove this war by king and bishops 
 upon immersion, breaks out in the following 
 very pious exclamation : — 
 
 "But when the temporal interests of men 
 come in conflict with any portion of divine 
 truth, how prone is poor human nature to sacri- 
 fice the latter to advance the former !" (p. 182.) 
 
 All the crime of which the translators were 
 guilty was giving us the word baptism instead 
 of immersion. He pretends to quote authority 
 to show corruption on the part of the translators. 
 His quotations, however, prove no such thing. 
 The truth is, Mr. H. is greatly dissatisfied with 
 our present Bible, and wishes to have one that 
 will 'prove immersion. I must say, however, 
 this is rather a convenient mode of establishing 
 a doctrine : — that is, when the Bible does not 
 prove it, alter it till it will. 
 
 Perfectly fanatical on this subject, Mr. H. 
 pounces on the British and Foreign and the 
 American Bible Societies, (p. 183,) for '*engraft> 
 11 
 
122 ESSAYS ON THE 
 
 ing on their Foreign Translation these pedo- 
 baptist corruptions." 
 
 The Baptists, since the formation of their 
 Bible Society, in 1837, have been very free in 
 their censures of King James ; who, they say, 
 would not let the translators translate the 
 word bapiizo. A great portion of this country 
 is, at this moment, of opinion that, had the 
 king allowed it, we should have had the word 
 baptism left out of the Bible, and the word im- 
 mersion in its place. It happens that the direc- 
 tions given by the king to the translators are 
 printed and preserved. Here they are : — 
 
 "1. The ordinary Bible read in the church, 
 commonly called the Bishops' Bible, to be fol- 
 lowed, and as little altered as the original will 
 permit. 
 
 " 2. The names of the prophets and the holy 
 writers, with the other names in the text, to be 
 retained as near as may be, according as they 
 are vulgarly used. 
 
 " 3. The old ecclesiastical words to be kept, 
 as the word church not to be translated con- 
 gregations. 
 
 " 4. When any word hath divers significations, 
 that to be kept which hath been most com- 
 monly used by the most eminent fathers, being 
 agreeable to the propriety of the place and the 
 analogy of faith. 
 
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 123 
 
 " 5. The division of the chapters to be 
 altered either not at all, or as little as may be, if 
 necessity so require. 
 
 " 6. 1^0 marginal notes at all to be affixed, 
 but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or 
 Greek words, which cannot, without some cir- 
 cumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed 
 in the text. 
 
 " 7. Such quotations of places to be margin- 
 ally set down as shall serve for the fit refer- 
 ences of one Scripture to another. 
 
 " 8. Every particular man of each company 
 to take the same chapter or chapters; and 
 having translated, amended them severally by 
 himself, where he thinks good ; all to meet to- 
 gether, to confer what they have done, and 
 agree for their part what shall stand. 
 
 "9. As any one company hath despatched 
 any one book in this manner, they shall send 
 it to the rest, to be considered of seriously and 
 judiciously, for his majesty is very careful in 
 this point. 
 
 " 10. If any company, upon the review of 
 the book so sent, shall doubt or differ upon 
 any places, to send them word thereof, to note 
 the places, and therewithal to send their rea- 
 sons ; to which if they consent not, the differ- 
 ence to be compounded at the general meet- 
 
124 ESSAYS ON THE 
 
 ing, which is to be of the chief persons of each 
 company, at the end of the work. 
 
 " 11. When any place of special obscurity 
 is doubted of, letters to be directed by author- 
 ity, to send to any learned in the land for his 
 judgment in such a place. 
 
 "12. Letters to be sent from every bishop 
 to the rest of his clergy, admonishing them of 
 this translation in hand, and to move and 
 charge as many as, being skilful in the 
 tongues, have taken pains in that kind, to 
 send their particular observations to the com- 
 pany, either at Westminster, Cambridge, or 
 Oxford, according as it was directed before in 
 the King's letter to the archbishop. 
 
 "13. The directors in each company to be 
 the Deans of Westminster and Chester for 
 Westminster, and the King's Professors in 
 Hebrew and Greek in the two Universities. 
 
 "14. These translations to be used, when 
 they agree better with the text than the 
 Bishop's Bible, viz.: — Tindal's, Coverdale's, 
 Matthew's, Whitchurch's, Geneva. 
 
 "15. Besides the said directors before men- 
 tioned, three or four of the most ancient and 
 grave divines in either of the Universities, not 
 employed in translating, to be assigned by the 
 vice-chancellor, upon conference with the rest 
 of the heads, to be overseers of the translation, 
 
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 125 
 
 as well Hebrew as Greek, for tlie better obser- 
 vation of the 4th rule above specified." 
 
 I have copied the whole of the king's direc- 
 tions to the translators, from Home's Intro- 
 duction, vol. ii., for the purpose of disabusing 
 the public mind on the subject. My readers, 
 I am sure, will say with me that the instruc- 
 tions not only do not prohibit the translation 
 of bapiizo or any other zo, but are as clear of 
 any thing to be complained of as human na- 
 ture is capable of producing. 
 
 I wish I could cover with the mantle of 
 charity these palpable misrepresentations of 
 matters of fact. This I can easily do with the 
 ignorant ; but some of them are not of this class. 
 If the king and bishops did prevent the trans- 
 lation of haptizo, the proof can be produced. 
 Let them produce it. This they will never do. 
 I challenge them to produce it. Let them 
 cease this endless whining about a correct 
 translation, or show their authority. 
 
 In the year 1837 the Baptists, with some few 
 honorable exceptions, withdrew their patron- 
 age from the American Bible Society, and 
 formed one of their own, assigning as the rea- 
 son for that step the incorrectness of the Bible 
 published by the American Bible Society. 
 Their great concern to furnish the world with 
 a correct Bible seems, however, so far, to ex- 
 11* 
 
126 ESSAYS ON THE 
 
 haust itself on their foreign missions. The 
 people of our own country are left to struggle 
 with the common version, with all its '' pedobap- 
 tist corruptions. ' ' Let that Society publish such 
 a version of the Kew Testament in English, as it 
 has in some other languages, if it dare. There 
 is little doubt they will work the heathen, to 
 whom they send their translations, into the 
 water. This course may all be correct. Many, 
 however, doubt it. 
 
 I had intended to introduce many extracts 
 from documents in my possession, showing the 
 history, doings, &c. of their Society. But 
 these essays are already becoming tedious. 
 In the next we will examine a different subject, 
 — viz. : Eestricted Communion, 
 
 ESSAY vin. 
 
 ON RESTRICTED COMMUNION. 
 
 Are the Baptists justifiable in restricting Sacra^ 
 mental Communion to their own sect ? 
 
 In maintaining the negative of this question, 
 we shall endeavor to establish a free com- 
 munion by considering — 
 
 1. The unity and identity of the church. 
 
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 127 
 
 That there is but one church is clearly set 
 forth in the Holy Scriptures. It is equally 
 clear that there never has been but one, nor can 
 there ever be. To support our position, we 
 rely upon the following, with many other pas- 
 sages of God's word : — 
 
 ^^Now ye are the body of Christ, and members 
 in particular." 1 Cor. xii. 27. 
 
 "For, as the body is one, and hath many mem- 
 bers, and all the members of that one body, 
 being many, are one body: so also is Christ. 
 For by one spirit are we all baptized into one 
 body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether 
 we be bond or free, and have been all made to 
 drink into one spirit. For the body is not one 
 member, but many." 1 Cor. xii. 12-14. 
 
 "But now are they many members, yet but 
 07ie body.'' 1 Cor. xii. 20. 
 
 " For, as we have many members in one body, 
 and all members have not the same office, so 
 we, being many, are one body in Christ, and 
 every one members one of another." Rom. 
 xii. 4, 5. 
 
 From these plain quotations it is manifest 
 that the church is one body, and that it must 
 remain one as long as Christ is one. It is also 
 clear that we are constituted members of that 
 one body, not by water-baptism, but by the bap- 
 tism of one spirit. Hence we argue that the 
 
128 ESSAYS ON THB 
 
 whole church, gathered together under one ad- 
 ministration or scattered abroad under divers 
 administrations, must recognise in each of its 
 members the right to commune. That every 
 member of this one body has the right to com- 
 mune we are not left to inference alone. 
 
 The apostle says, "I speak as to wise men; 
 judge ye what I say. The cup of blessing 
 which we bless, is it not the communion of the 
 blood of Christ? The bread which we break, 
 is it not the communion of the body of Christ? 
 For we, being many, are one bread and one 
 body ; for we are all partakers of that one bread. 
 1 Cor. X. 15-17. 
 
 In this quotation the apostle argues that the 
 church is 07ie body, from the fact that they had 
 all been partakers of that one bread. We design 
 by this passage to prove that the right to com- 
 mune at the Lord's table belongs to every 
 member of that one body. If it establish this 
 right, then does it follow that a restricted com- 
 munion cannot be maintained without a viola- 
 tion of the children's rights, where such chil- 
 dren are acknowledged to exist. As long, 
 therefore, as our Baptist brethren acknowledge 
 there are Christians among other denomina- 
 tions, so long do they deprive such Christians 
 of their acknowledged right; so long are the 
 
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 129 
 
 heirs of God disinherited in their Father's 
 house. 
 
 To get clear of this reasoning, the advocates 
 of restricted communion must contend either 
 that other denominations constitute no part of 
 the body of Christ, or that the church has been 
 divided and its unity destroyed. And it is 
 possible that they suppose that each fragment 
 has become a church itself, and has in itself 
 its own peculiar unity and identity. There has 
 been lamenting, therefore, about the division of 
 the church. It is an interesting question, 
 whether, indeed, the church has been divided. 
 K it be divided, it can, and will, I fear, be 
 destroyed: but if, on the other hand, she has 
 maintained her identity and remained united 
 in one body for near six thousand years, we 
 need not now feel any alarm at all at the hate 
 of Satan and the malice of wicked men. She 
 will present one hroad front to the armies of the 
 prince of darkness. 
 
 We deny most strenuously that any division 
 has ever taken place. As reasons against this 
 division of the church, we submit the follow- 
 ing:— 
 
 1. Christ pledges himself that no such thing 
 shall take place. 
 
 "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, 
 and upon this rock I will build my church; 
 I 
 
180 ESSAYS ON THl 
 
 and the gates of hell shall not prevail against 
 it." Matt. xvi. 18. We say of this founda- 
 tion, after the apostle, 'Hhat Rock was ChrisC* 
 1 Cor. X. 4. If there ever was a church huilt 
 upon any other foundation, it was not a true 
 church. On this foundation there can be built 
 but one church. There has, therefore, never 
 been any but one church since the world began. 
 
 2. Christ took his church from the Jews and 
 gave it to the Gentiles. 
 
 " Hear another parable : There was a certain 
 householder, which planted a vineyard, and 
 hedged it round about, and digged a winepress 
 in it, and built a tower, and let it out to hus- 
 bandmen, and went into a far country. And 
 when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent 
 his servants to the husbandmen, that they 
 might receive the fruits of it. And the hus- 
 bandmen took his servants, and beat one, and 
 killed another, and stoned another. Again he 
 sent other serv^ants more than the first; and 
 they did unto them likewise. But last of all 
 he sent unto them his son, saying, They vrill 
 reverence my son. But when the husbandmen 
 saw the son, they said among themselves, This 
 is the heir; come, let us Idll him, and let us 
 seize on his inheritance. And they caught 
 him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and 
 slew him. When the lord therefore of the 
 
BAPTIST eONTROVERST. 131 
 
 vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those hus- 
 bandmen P They say 111110 him, He will miser- 
 ably destroy those wicked men, and will let out 
 his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which 
 shall render him the fruits in their seasons. 
 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the 
 Scriptures, The stone which the builders reject- 
 ed, the same is become the head of the corner : 
 this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in 
 our eyes ? Therefore say I unto you, the king- 
 dom of God shall be taken from you, and given to 
 a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof Matt, 
 xxi. 33-43. 
 
 In this parable, the wicked husbandmen were 
 doubtless the Jews; the vineyard, the church, 
 or "the kingdom of God." Those other hus- 
 bandmen, " a nation bringing forth the fruits 
 thereof," were the Gentiles, who are now the 
 people of God. Then the veiy same vinegar dy 
 let out to the wicked Jews, is now among the 
 Gentiles. The Lord did not destroy the old 
 vineyard and plant another. He only built a 
 new fence around the old one. Seeing a new 
 fence, many have supposed it was a new vine- 
 yard. They forget that it stands upon the one 
 only foundation w^hich has been laid in Zion. 
 
 In the lltli chapter of the Epistle to the 
 Romans, Paul represents the church under the 
 figure of a good olive-tree. The Jews he call* 
 
13*2 ESSAYS ON THE 
 
 the natural branches, which, he says, were 
 broken off. The Gentiles he styles branches, 
 taken from a wild olive-tree and grafted into 
 the good one, — the same one off of which the 
 Jews were broken. No digging up the old 
 olive-tree and planting a new one. 
 
 If, then, the vineyard was the same under 
 the old covenant that it continued to be under 
 the new, and it could pass through a change 
 of dispensations from one nation to another 
 without change or division, are we to suppose 
 that it has been divided since that period ? Im- 
 possible ! It is still one body. All should, 
 therefore, be allowed to commune. 
 
 3. Christ prayed for the unity of the church. 
 
 "Holy Father, keejp through thine own name 
 those whom thou hast given me, that they may 
 he one, as we are." John xvii. 11. " Neither pray 
 I for these alone, but for them also which shall 
 believe on me through their word: that they 
 all may he one; as thou. Father, art in me, and 
 I in thee, that they also may he one in us : that 
 the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 
 And the glory which thou gavest me I have 
 given them; that they may he one, even as we 
 are one — I in them, and thou in me ; that they 
 may he made perfect in one, and that the world 
 may know that thou hast sent me, and hast 
 loved them as thou hast loved me." John xvii. 
 
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. ISS 
 
 20-23. Jesus never trusted the unity of the 
 church to men, but to the Father. This unity 
 is not found in water-baptism, by any mode, 
 but in that of the Spirit. 
 
 Mr. Howell (p. 287) asks, " How is this union, 
 for the blessed consummation of which all 
 hearts must glow with anxious desire, to be 
 produced?" "It must be a union in the truth^ 
 otherwise it would not deserve the name." Mr. 
 H. can always solve a difficulty of this sort. 
 He says, (p. 288,) " It can be attained only by 
 a return to original gospel principles." The 
 plain English of this is. We can all join the 
 Baptists, whether we believe their doctrines 
 and usages or not. There are many of us who 
 would think we were leaving " original gospel 
 principles." What then ? Mr. H. can fix all 
 this. " This they can easily do without violat- 
 ing their consciences in any particular," (page 
 288.) He goes on, (same page,) "A believer as 
 the candidate, and immersion as baptism, all 
 confess to be legitimate." To this intelligent 
 pedobaptists can, with as good conscience, con- 
 fine themselves. Beyond this we cannot — wo 
 dare not — go. Our conscience will not permit 
 us. Thus far all perfectly harmonize. Here 
 let us pause, meet, and unite, and the results will 
 gloriously accelerate that concord to which 
 prophecy has taught us to look forward, when 
 
134 ESSAYS ON THB 
 
 " every one shall see eye to eye and speak the 
 same thing." 
 
 In what does Mr. Howell suppose that all 
 would see eye to eye if they were to join the 
 Baptists? Evidently in adult baptism. He 
 does not pretend they would see eye to eye in 
 any thing else more than they now do. It is 
 evidently set forth in our quotations from Mr. 
 H. that he thinks Christ's prayer for the union 
 of his people has not been answered, nor will 
 it be until all join the Baptists. But why, Mr. 
 IL, has this prayer never been answered ? Have 
 " the pedobaptists brought in and kept up the 
 impediment?" 'Now, I call in question this 
 whole scheme. "When it is said that the Chris- 
 tians are not one, those who say it do nothing 
 less than contradict the apostle flatly. What 
 would one naturally think to sit down and read 
 the Saviour's prayer that all that should believe 
 on his name should be one, and then, some 
 thirty or forty years after the prayer was 
 uttered, hear the apostle say, Ye are the " body 
 of Christ," ^'ye are all baptized into one body 
 by one spirit," &c.? Could he conclude that the 
 prayer was not answered ? To suit Mr. Howell's 
 view, the apostle should have said, We are all 
 baptized into one body by one mode of baptism. 
 I^ow Mr. H. does not pretend that we are not 
 baptized by the Spirit ; yet we cannot see eye 
 
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 18$ 
 
 to eye ; we cannot be one at all. But, if we 
 just let a Baptist preacher immerse us, (all 
 which he says we could do without injuring 
 our conscience,) we would then "gloriously 
 accelerate that concord to which prophecy has 
 taught us to look forward, when every one shall 
 see eye to eye," &c. Thus, if Mr. H. has 
 clearly set forth his own principles, he believes 
 that immersion has more virtue than the baptism 
 of the Hol}^ Ghost, — that is, when it is done by 
 a Baptist : it would be no better than sprink- 
 ling if it were performed by a Methodist or 
 Presbyterian. To make the brethren " see eye 
 to eye," a Baptist administrator is indispensable. 
 With this, all would be perfect harmony — all 
 baptized into one body — the Saviour's prayer 
 would be answered — we would all get into the 
 old church, "which is neither Catholic nor 
 Protestant, but apostolic." 
 
 It is little less than impious to suppose that 
 our Lord's prayer for union did not prevail. 
 If it did prevail, then the church is one, and 
 should therefore commune together. 
 
 4. I argue for a free communion on the 
 ground that we all come in at the right door. 
 
 "I am the door of the sheep." John x. 7. "I 
 am the door. By me if any man enter in, he 
 shall be saved," &c. John x. 9. How does Je- 
 BUS bring disciples into the fold? "He shall 
 
136 ESSAYS ON THE 
 
 baptize you with the Holy GhosV Matt. iii. 11. 
 "-By one Spirit we are all baptized into one body.'* 
 1 Cor. xii. 13. If the baptism of the Holy 
 Ghost, administered by Jesus, will not entitle 
 us to commune at the Lord's Table, will im- 
 mersion, administered by a Baptist, give such 
 right? Or which of the two has the most 
 virtue ? 
 
 Having gone through the argument as far as 
 we intended in favor of a free communion, it 
 • now remains for us to attempt the refutation 
 of our opponents. 
 
 The Baptists defend their restricted com- 
 munion by asserting that baptism must go be- 
 fore communion, and that nothing is baptism 
 but immersion. From these premises they 
 conclude that no one has a right to commune 
 who is not immersed. If these could both be 
 proven, then they would be correct. But where 
 is the proof of either? In what chapter and 
 verse is the passage requiring baptism by any 
 mode, as being an indispensable prerequisite 
 to the Lord's Supper, to be found? Or is that 
 a human tradition ? 
 
 If the law of Christ require baptism before 
 the Lord's Supper, the command can be found 
 in the Kew Testament. Mr. Howell devotes 
 two chapters to this subject. The first one is 
 his Scriptural argument. I call it Scriptural only 
 
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 137 
 
 because he quotes many passages. He says 
 these passages prove that baptism must go be- 
 fore communion. But I confess, if there be the 
 least proof in any of them I am too dull to 
 perceive it. For example, he tries to prove it 
 by the commission Christ gave the disciples. 
 Everybody knows that the commission says 
 not one word about it. The whole chapter is 
 a perfect failure. It would be quite an easy 
 task to answer every thing in it. He succeeds, 
 however, much better in his second chapter on 
 the subject. 
 
 I shall content myself with giving a list of 
 his witnesses, introduced in his last effort. 
 Here is the list : — Justin Martyr, Jerome, Aus- 
 tin, Bede, Theophylact, Bonaventure, Fried. 
 Spanheim, Lord- Chancellor King, Wall, Dod- 
 dridge, Manton, Dwight, all the catechisms and 
 confessions of faith, and Robert Hall. If he 
 had added l^Ir. Benedict, or himself, then the 
 list would have been complete. Is it not a 
 little strange that a man who professes to go 
 by the Bible alone, constantly insinuating that 
 all other denominations go by some other au- 
 thority, would resort to the opinions of men so 
 frequently? All the refutation necessaiy in 
 regard to such proof is to state that it is unin- 
 spired men giving testimony. K Mr. Howell 
 thinks he can prove us all out of the true 
 
 12* 
 
138 ESSAYS ON THB 
 
 church in this way, he will find himself mis- 
 taken. 
 
 Since Mr. Howell cannot get proof from the 
 Bible to sustain the affirmative, we will try if 
 we cannot prove something on the other side. 
 The first Supper was administered to the 
 twelve by the Master himself. Ten of these, 
 we insist, never were baptized in any way ex- 
 cept by the Holy Ghost. Two of them had 
 been the disciples of John previously, (John i. 
 35, 37,) and it is fair to conclude that they had 
 been baptized by him. These two are the only 
 ones of the twelve that we have the least evi- 
 dence of their baptism. The mentioning of 
 these two as being John's disciples proves that 
 the others were not. If so, John never bap- 
 tized them. If he did not, who did? The 
 only inducting ceremony to which the ten had 
 submitted was that of circumcision. If their 
 circumcision did not supply their want of bap- 
 tism, then is it certain that nothing of that sort 
 is necessary, since the ten were not baptized. 
 That baptism seems to have usually gone be- 
 fore the Supper I freely admit, but, so far as the 
 proof goes, the ten form an exception. Were 
 it not for this exception, I would be ready to 
 conclude the general observance of that order 
 was evidence of a law from the Master, although 
 the law is not recorded. I need not concede 
 
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 139 
 
 this ground, which is good against them, unless 
 our Baptist friends will agree that baptism 
 came in the place of circumcision. The very 
 moment that is done, I must abandon it. Will 
 they concede it ? 
 
 It must, however, be admitted on all hands 
 that the Bible does not require by any plain 
 command that baptism should always precede 
 the Supper. 
 
 As to the other part of their assumption, — 
 that nothing is baptism but immersion, — we 
 have elsewhere remarked, and need not repeat 
 it here. 
 
 In this discussion the church has been con- 
 sidered one and indivisible under all dispensa- 
 tions and circumstances. What, then, we will 
 be asked, about the different denominations? 
 Is there no schism in their case ? !N'one at all. 
 They are but so many captains' companies in 
 the same great army. The division among 
 them is sectarian, which is not inconsistent 
 with the unity of the church. This will appear 
 as soon as we examine what is necessary to 
 constitute a sect. The church is composed of 
 those who are united to Christ. Those who 
 are mystically united to him by the baptism of 
 the Spirit, which, and which alone, can do it, 
 are members of the Catholic invisible church 
 under all dispensations. 
 
140 ESSAYS ON THE 
 
 Those who are baptized with water are 
 thereby made members of the Catholic church 
 visible under the Christian dispensation. The 
 same was accomplished by circumcision under 
 the old covenant. 
 
 A sect, though in the church, is a very dif- 
 ferent thing from it. While the church is 
 united in the essentials of religion^ a sect, as such, 
 is only united in matters of opiyiion. 
 
 Hence, a man may be a member of a sect 
 and not be a member of the body of Christ: so 
 may he be a member of the church without 
 being united to a sect. 
 
 It will be asked whether the author of these 
 essays considers sectarian division an evil in 
 the church? To which he replies promptly, 
 he does not. By the existence of different 
 sects, intrigues with the church becomes much 
 more difficult than it would otherwise. Men 
 need watching. The existence of a party out 
 of power, to watch those that are in, prevents 
 much corruption in civil government. If all 
 sectarian division were done away, it would 
 not be so specially the interest of any one to 
 prevent corrupt political intrigues, — such in- 
 trigues as politicians are usually ready to make. 
 As it is, as soon as one denomination could get 
 rightly under way, others would sound the 
 alarm. Let there be but one denomination in 
 
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 141 
 
 the United States, and very soon the people 
 will find themselves jpaying tithes. 
 
 Christ manages the affairs of his own king- 
 dom. I am no convert to the idea that our 
 blessed Lord planted a church in the world 
 and then abandoned it to its own management. 
 "Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of 
 the world." 
 
 CONCLUSIOK 
 
 In the preceding pages we have seen that, 
 according to the Bible, Jesus alone has a right 
 to give laws to his people. Hence, all human 
 laws are null and void, and of no force. Under 
 this head we have marked as human laws the 
 requiring of members to join the church by 
 experience. We have seen that it is of very 
 mischievous tendency and without any counte- 
 nance in God's word. We have endeavored 
 to show the nature and use of circumcision, 
 the right of infant baptism, and of a free com- 
 munion at the Lord's Supper. With all these 
 we have endeavored to disprove the necessity 
 of immersion in the ordinance of the baptism. 
 I have now to request that my readers receive 
 
142 E5SAY5 ON THE BAPTIST CONTROVERSl. 
 
 no more of these essays than shall be found in 
 accordance with God's word. 
 
 Believing the doctrines herein set forth, the 
 author rejoices in the prospect of the final 
 triumph of the truth. He rejoices in the belief 
 that the Bible will finally be followed by all. 
 
 June 11, 1846. 
 
 THE END. 
 
 BTKB£OTTPKt> BT L. JOBMBON AND CO. 
 PBau>HLPHlA.