# 
 
 
 
 •^ 
 
 co 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 JO 
 
 
 ,J^^ 
 
 Ic 
 
 1 
 
 J5r ^ 
 
 Q- 
 
 1 
 
 x^ 
 
 
 
 *S5 ^ 
 
 O 
 
 . 
 
 t^ . . 
 
 $ 
 
 
 "s 5 
 
 (U 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 ^ o 
 
 bfl 
 
 Cs 
 
 >S EH 
 
 
 
 Iz; 
 
 E 
 
 .to 
 
 <i> M 
 
 CJ 
 
 *♦>» 
 
 ^ rt 
 
 CO 
 
 ■^ 
 
 
 :2 
 
 ■ ^ 
 
 o 
 
 >, 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 -o 
 
 =^' 
 
 % 
 
 ■♦-' 
 
 c 
 
 c 
 
 % 
 
 <u 
 
 0) 
 
 
 •^ 
 
 qI 
 
 ^^3 
 ^ 
 
 . 1 
 
 
AN APPEAL 
 
 ®o ti)e CtanDfti of all 2I9enomf nations, 
 
 IN WHICH THE 
 
 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND MODE 
 
 ARE DISCUSSED DT 
 
 HENRY >^LICER, 
 
 Minister of the Methodist E. Church. 
 
 IN ANSWER TO THE 
 
 REV. W. F. BROADDUS, OF VA. AND OTHERS. 
 
 SECOND EDITION, REVISED AND ENLARGED, 
 
 WITH 
 
 A FURTHER APPEAL, 
 
 IN ANSWER TO 
 
 MR. BROADDUS'S LETTERS. 
 
 I speak as unto wise men; judge ye what I say. 1 Cor. x, 15. 
 Hearken to me; I also will show mine opinion. Job xxxii, 10. 
 
 BALTIMORE: 
 ARMSTRONG & BERRY. 
 
 J. W. WOODS, PRINTER. 
 
 1836. 
 
recommendations:^ ^ 
 
 -St^v, 
 
 ^.. 
 
 Extract of a letter from the Rev. James Sewall, to the 
 author, dated 
 
 "Charleston, S. C, Aug. 6/^,1^. 
 
 "I can have no hesitation in recommending your Appeal 
 to my friends. Your plan of arranging and discussing the 
 subject, is at once judicious and perspicuous. Although, at 
 times, you seem disposed to jolt your antagonist, it is be- 
 cause you think he needs settUns; upon the proper foundation. 
 When he shall have answered all your logical and scriptural 
 arguments, he will have the honor of doing that which, it 
 strikes me, none of his brethren could have done for him; 
 indeed, he will have the honor of doing that which cannot 
 be done. If your rejoinder to Mr. B's letters, should be as 
 successful as your appeal, you will have nothing to fear 
 from the bar of an en!i2:htened public. And, if I am not 
 one of the most mistaken men in the world, our Baptist 
 brethren, with Mr. B. at their head, will be secretly sorry 
 for having provoked you to enter the contest. You have 
 fairly gotten both undfr-holds of your opponent, and if he 
 is not wrestled off his sophistical feet, he \<\\\ be the world's 
 wonder. One point will be gained. The unprejudiced 
 W'ill discover that the water cry of our mistaken friends, is 
 not one of the most signiticant cries, in the church, after 
 all. Send me a few copies of your book, when out. Like 
 the "barley cake," I trust it will upset the whole host of 
 Midian. 1 am yours. &c. 
 
 JAMES SEWALL." 
 
 Georgetown, D. C, 15th July, 18.36. 
 Rev. Henry Slicer, 
 
 Dear Sir, — I have read your "Appeal" on the subject 
 of infant bapti-v7i in answer to the Rev. Wm. F. Broaddus, 
 with interest and profit. I think you have succeeded in bring- 
 ing together many important facts, and presenting a strong ar- 
 
gument in favor of what I have always loved and valued as 
 a gospel ordinance, and I have no doubt that the circulation 
 of the "Appeal" among the candid of all denominations, to 
 whom it is addressed, will do much to settle the wavering, 
 and strengthen and confirm those who have already professed 
 their belief in tlie doctrine and practice you advocate. — 
 There are stated sonie few things to which I, as a Presby- 
 terian, do not subscribe; these, however, do not in the least 
 interfere with the general argument. 
 
 I am, dear sir, truly yours, 
 
 JOHN C. SMITH. 
 
 Washington, D. C. Avgmt, 1836, 
 
 Dear Sir — 
 
 Having read youi- Appeal on the subject of Christian 
 Bapiistn, we are fully prepared to say, that the work has 
 afforded us both pleasure and profit. Having known many 
 pious and well meaning persons to be thrown into great 
 trouble and perplexity of mind by the inq-pnious arguments 
 and positive assertion?? oi' the advocates ibr baptism by im- 
 mersion, we rejoice in the belief that your appeal, wherever 
 it shall be carefully read, will settle the doubting mind on 
 the true notion of the important Gospel ordiiiance of which 
 it treats. We conceive that the subject is brought fully into 
 view, and the arguments and objections of opponents fairly 
 stated, and most triumphantly answered and refuted. We 
 should be pleased to know that a copy of the appeal had 
 found its way into the hands of all who wish to have correct 
 opinions on the subject oi" Christian Baptism, 
 
 JAMES M. HANSON, 
 WM. HAMILTON. 
 Rev. H. Slicer. 
 
PREFACE 
 
 TO THE FIRST EDITION. 
 
 When an individual presents himself in the char- 
 acter of a controversial writer, a proper respect for 
 public opinion requires, that, he state the reasons 
 which have induced him to take such an attitude. 
 
 The following pages have not been called forth 
 by a fondness for writing — nor from the want of 
 other important matters, with which to occupy the 
 writer's time, — but by the solicitationsof friends; 
 and by what he at least considers an imperious call 
 of duty, in view of the responsible relation which 
 he sustains to the people of the Potomac District. 
 
 There are times, when silence may become trea- 
 son; and error, unexposed, may be passed off for 
 valid truth. 
 
 Until lately I have had no intention to write on 
 the subject of 'Christian Baptism;' — and even now, 
 ^ should not have written — so numerous and press- 
 
IV 
 
 ing are my engagements — could I have persuaded 
 myself that the circulation of any one of the excel- 
 lent tracts that have been written by others, would 
 have met our peculiar circumstances, in relation to 
 this subject. 
 
 With a district two hundred miles in length; con- 
 taining six or seven thousand church members; with 
 fifty-two large meetings to attend in about forty- 
 eight weeks, and a travel of about 2,500 miles to 
 perform in the same time; I considered that 1 had 
 no time to devote to writing on this subject, without 
 oppressing myself, or neglecting matters, having a 
 prior claim upon me, and possessing a paramount 
 importance. The former I have done, in view of 
 the necessity laid upon me, in order to avoid the 
 latter* At different times and in several places, at 
 the instance of my friends, I have been led to make 
 remarks on the obligation, mode, and subjects of 
 baptism; and have administered the ordinance to 
 hundreds of adults of all ages, from the sire of 70, 
 down to the youth; as well as to infants. With the 
 Baptists, as a people, we have had no quarrel, and 
 for many of them we have had, and do still enter- 
 tain, more than mere respect; and if our views, as 
 expressed in the following pages, should be thought 
 
to be expressed in language too severe, we have only 
 to say, that where we have seemed in the least caus- 
 tic, it was because we considered the case required 
 it. 
 
 We have no interests that we have not laid at the 
 feet of truth; and none that we are not willing to 
 peril in its defence. And we wish it distinctly un- 
 derstood, that we take the whole responsibility of 
 the views herein expressed. 
 
 We have not sought to make proselytes to a party; 
 nor have we even interfered with any who have been 
 awakened at Baptist meetings; we have acted solely 
 on the defensive, in order to save our people from 
 perplexity, and prevent others from "bereaving us 
 of our children." 
 
 Some eighteen months ago, I found a pamphlet 
 circulating in the community, written by Elder W. 
 F. Broaddus, entitled, "Strictures on Mr. Diefien- 
 bacher's doctrine of water baptism, infant baptism," 
 &c. 
 
 I read it, and found a good deal of ridicule and 
 sophistry employed against those who hold infant 
 baptism, and baptism by sprinkling or pouring. I 
 took no public notice of it, until the tenth day of 
 last November, when at Upperville, Va., by request. 
 
VI 
 
 I delivered an argument on baptism, in which 1 re- 
 plied to all the matter contained in the strictures 
 which I thought entitled to notice; but, lest any of- 
 fence should be taken, I purposely avoided the men- 
 tion of Mr. B's name. 
 
 After I had administered the ordinaliCvO to twenty- 
 three adults and some infants, as I preferred to dis- 
 cuss the subject publicly, I made a general offer to 
 debate the matter with any gentleman, minister 
 or layman, within the bounds of my district, at any 
 time and place, which might bo appointed for that 
 purpose. A Baptist minister present, declined the 
 ofier publicly, in tiie presence of about one thousand 
 persons. Mr. Broaddus knew of what had passed, 
 but did not see proper to accept the offer. 
 
 He, however, preached a sermon on the same sub- 
 ject in the same village about three weeks after- 
 wards, which sermon he published after the lapse of 
 about four or five months. I accidentally heard of 
 his intention to preach, two days before the time, 
 and that a rumor, or report was in circulation 
 through the neighborhood, by his friends, that I was 
 expected to be present on the occasion. I wrota 
 immediately to Upperville, informing my friends 
 that I had received no notice of the appointment 
 
VII 
 
 from Mr. B , and in the letter renewed the offer 
 
 to debate the matter, which letter was handed him, 
 by a friend of mine, before he preached. 
 
 About three days after he delivered that sermon 
 I received a letter from him, requesting me to pub 
 lisk my sermon, and very kindly offering to review 
 it, in case I should publish; and offered as an induce 
 ment to me, the following language: "Controversies 
 when properly conducted, must always do good." 
 
 I took no notice of the letter, because I consider 
 ed it a fair decline of my offer; and because I have 
 always believed, that the subject could be brought 
 home to those who are least informed on the sub- 
 ject, (and of consequence most liable to be misled,) 
 better by an oral, than a written argument, and at 
 less expense to the community. In his 'Note to the 
 reader,' and in the commencement of his sermon, 
 he has used my name, and informs the reader that 
 his discourse was occasioned 'by the excitement 
 which my sermon 'produced in the village and neigh- 
 borhood,'' and that I had made "an attempt to prove 
 that infant sprinUing was an ordinance of the New 
 Testament." 
 
 The candid reader will be able to judge how far 
 I have succeeded in the 'attempt'' in the following 
 
VUl 
 
 pages. I think it very likely that the fifty-nine 
 adults haptized by pouring in that place and its vi- 
 cinity, within the few weeks previous, gave that 
 gentleman more uneasiness, than the ^attempi' at 
 proving "infant sprinkling." 
 
 He takes for granted, that he is right in his "un- 
 derstanding and practice" of the ordinance — and 
 that / am ivrong, — and he sets out to 'counteract 
 the wrong impressions'' that I may have made. — 
 This looks a little like begging the question. 
 
 As Mr. B, was so kind as to ofTer to be reviewer 
 for me, and was so kind as to write "strictures" for 
 Mr. D. I suppose, he, least of all, will complain of my 
 performing the like kind ojiceforhim; as one *good 
 turn deserves another'— and I accept on his part the 
 will for the deed. 
 
 If he should think proper to write again, and 
 should produce any arguments that I have not re- 
 plied to, in these pages, I shall answer him in some 
 way. But I give the reader notice that / shall not 
 write again, to answer arguments, or sophistry, that 
 I have already replied to. 
 
 In the discussion I have (so far as I knew them) 
 taken up all the arguments used by the Baptists, and 
 
IX 
 
 have not confined myself to Mr. B's "sermon," and 
 "strictures" alone. 
 
 While I am fully convinced that the Baptists, as 
 a denomination, had their rise in Germany in 1521 
 or '22, under Nicholas Stork, Muntzer, John of 
 Leyden, Knipperdoling, and others, I have forborne 
 giving an account of them, as it is found in Robin- 
 son's Charles the V, and in a view of All Religions, 
 by Ross, published in London, 1664; as I know the 
 matter to be very offensive to our Baptist friends; 
 also believing it to be unrighteous to attribute the 
 'iniquities of the fathers to the children.' Although 
 Mr. B. has labored hard to establish the charge of 
 heresy against the founder of Methodism, in the 
 matter of Baptismal regeneration, a doctrine which 
 he must have known that wise and good man no 
 more held than he believed that "Thomas Stork 
 held communion with God, by means of an angel," 
 yet I will not retaliate by recounting the doctrines 
 and practices of the German Anabaptists. 
 
 Here I take leave of this subject, praying that 
 God may keep us from the by-ways of error, and 
 lead us into the way of truth. 
 
 HENRY SLICER. 
 
 Alexandria, Oct. 7, 1835. 
 
PREFACE 
 
 TO THE SECOND EDITION. 
 
 When tlie Appeal was first put to press, the au- 
 thor was not aware that the demand for the work 
 would be more than to justify the issuing of a small 
 edition; accordingly, a thousand copies were issued, 
 nearly all of which were disposed of in a few weeks, 
 and another edition was demanded, with a request 
 that it should be enlarged in one or two parts. 
 
 The reception with which it met, from the 
 candid and intelligent of different denominations, 
 not excepting the Baptists, (for I never heard of its 
 giving much offence to any one except Mr. B.) and 
 the assurances of its usefulness which reached me 
 from different parts of the country, convinced me of 
 the propriety of revising and enlarging the work, 
 and publishing a second edition. But as I wished 
 to know what course Mr. Broaddus would take in the 
 matter, it was judged best to defer the publication 
 
Xll 
 
 of a future edition, until he should either reply, or 
 decline any tarther controversy on the suhject. 
 After waiting some time for an answer, I learned, 
 through a tViend, that he would reply about Christ- 
 mas: I looked in vain to that period for an answer, 
 fur it passed, and also the long month of January, 
 and the cold month of February, and the winds of 
 March, and the showers of April, all passed, and no 
 answer came; and in the month of June, while I 
 was just about to conclude that Mr. B. had aban- 
 doned the idea of answering, a friend informed me 
 that the reply was then in press. I then began to 
 reason in my own mind, in order, if possible, to find 
 out what could have detained the answer for seven 
 long months, and upon reflection I recollected that 
 the Upperville sermon, althoufrh delivered the Sab- 
 bath before winter, was not issued from the press 
 until the ice and snow of the cold season had all 
 melted, and the singing of birds was heard in the 
 land; and what makes this the more remarkable, is, 
 the fact that his note to the reader is dated Dec'r, 
 1S34: — has this all been the result of accident? or 
 does not Mr. Broaddus know that an argument for 
 immersion stands but little chance of exerting a 
 proselyting influence in mid-winter? But be this as 
 
Xlll 
 
 it may, one would think that if "he found (as he 
 says 1» did) that my bold assertions were likely to 
 pass for sound argument with some, who lacked 
 either capacity or leisure to examine for themselves; 
 while the serious imputations I had cast upon his 
 motives, were likely to awaken suspicions in a com- 
 munity but little acquainted with him, unfavorable 
 to his reputation;'' surely he should have hastened 
 to the rescue of his favorite theory, from the hands of 
 those 'bold assertions' and from those 'who lacked ca- 
 pacity or leisure to examine for themselves,' and es- 
 pecially to have silenced all 'suspicion unfavorable to 
 his reputation;' and more especially, "as he soon 
 found that some of my readers were inclined to attri- 
 bute his silence to a consciousness of guilt," page 59. 
 And yet strange to tell, this gentleman defers his 
 answer for seven months. Perhaps he thought that 
 the impression that my ^hold assertions,'' made last 
 fall with regard to the ordinance, would, with the 
 aid of a little time, become erased from the minds 
 of the good people of Virginia, who were destitute 
 of ^capacity or leisure to examine for themselves' — 
 and that he could repeat over the arguments, I will 
 not say 'bold assertions,' of his strictures and ser- 
 mon, and utter his complaints long and loud, about 
 
XIV 
 
 being 'misquoted, 'misrepresented,' his 'motives 
 impugned,' 'personal defamation,' <^c. &c. and thus 
 hide himself in the smoke of his own raising. And 
 if he did not succeed in slaying 'Goliath,' he would 
 at least show the community, that 
 
 "Although vanquished, he can argue still." 
 
 I promised the candid reader not to answer 'argu- 
 ments or sophistry that I had already replied to.' 
 I shall, in a Further Appeal, however, take such no- 
 tice of Mr. B's twenty-one letters, as I may think 
 them entitled to. 
 
 I confess I expected when I wrote, that 3Ir. B. 
 would reply, for I knew that those who have vanity 
 enough to compare themselves to the warrior David, 
 page 42, would make o show of fg'ht, although 
 there might be, in reality, neither a sling in his 
 hand, nor a -s/nooth stone left in the shepherd's bag;'' 
 they would fancy too, that they heard the death- 
 groan of the giant, and that they had given his 
 head to the host of Israel, and his carcase to the 
 fowls of heaven — to the vultures of course. 
 
 But in all seriousness, (speaking without a figure.) 
 I was surprised that the gentleman should show so 
 much morbid sensibility, and that he should take up 
 so much of his letters in attempts to excite the sym- 
 
XV 
 
 pathy of the public for the much injured man. 
 Could not the candid reader judge, whether my 
 weapons were those of ^personal defamation'' and 
 ^sarcasm,^ or those of scriptural argument, and 
 sober reason? Did Mr. B. fear that the candid 
 reader had not 'capacity' to see that 1 was 'almost 
 a stranger to the use of all weapons, except ^sar- 
 casm and personal defamation,'' that it became ne- 
 cessary for him in his 'note to the reader,' to inform 
 him of it? I sought, (as far as the nature of the 
 case would admit,) to use ^soft words' and '■hard ar- 
 guments.'' If, however, 1 had known that Mr. B. 
 was 'a man of extra-^ ordinary sensibility,^ I might 
 have used ^soft arguments'' and 'hard words,' which 
 might have been more acceptable to the gentleman 
 on several accounts, for certainly the • intelligent 
 reader will see that Mr. B. is no novice in those at 
 the present, and with a little more practice, he 
 might become an adept, both in the use of 'soft 
 arguments^ and 'hard words ' 
 
 But I will not rail, but leave the gentleman to di- 
 gest his own spleen. 
 
 I shall not promise to demonstrate any thing, 
 either in regard to my own innocency, or the good- 
 ness of my cause, I shall leave to the candid reader 
 
XVI 
 
 the task of making up a jiidgiuent for himself, both 
 with regard to the subject and the writer. It may- 
 have been as well for Mr. B. to have put a promise 
 in his ^note to the reader"^ that he will demonstrate 
 his 'own innocency,' and lliat my 'views of bap- 
 tism are altogether without foundation in the word 
 of God' — as it is possible many of his readers may 
 not be able to see the demonstration of either ^ in 
 the body of his work. 
 
 Having carefully read -Mr. B's letters, 1 am more 
 than ever convinced that the views of baptism held 
 by our baptist friends, cannot be maintained. 
 
 All I ask of you, intelligent reader, is a candid 
 examination of this revised and enlarged 'Appeal,' 
 with tlie 'Further Appeal,' and I shall have no 
 anxLety for the issue. 'I speak as uiito wise men — 
 judge ye what I say.' 
 
 HENRY SLICER. 
 
 Georgetown, D. C\ July, 1836. 
 
%-^*^ 
 
 BAPTISM. 
 
 :# 
 
 Tn calling public attention to the subject of Chris- 
 tian Baptism, we wish to declare plainly and fullv, 
 our views, without intending to offend any; and not 
 expecting to give offence to the liberal and candid, 
 who, while they claim the right to think, and ac- 
 cording to their best light entertain and express 
 their opinions, accord to others cordially, the same 
 which they claim for themselves. 
 
 In the arguments which we may adduce on the 
 subject, it is not our design so much to prove that 
 others are not right, as to prove that we are not 
 wrong. 
 
 And if when we have gone through the argu- 
 ment, we shall have failed to convince you that ours 
 is the 'more excellent way,' we shall not think you 
 any the worse Christians, unless in the spirit of 
 bigotry you should unchristian others, who may not 
 agree with you in their doctrines, and usages. For 
 we conceive, that no views of doctrine, or of the or- 
 
IS 
 
 dinances, however correct, can save any man, unless 
 he be spiritually regenerated. For "neither circum- 
 cision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a 
 new creature.'^'' 
 
 Many who have been as orthodox as an apostle, 
 and have received the rite of baptism, have proved 
 themselves to be but "baptized infidels, washed to 
 fouler stains." 
 
 Having said thus much, we shall proceed to speak, 
 First, of the Obligation and Perpetuity — 
 Secondly, of the Subjects — 
 And thirdly, of the Mode of Baptism. 
 
 The Oblig\tiox and Perpetuity of Christian 
 Baptism. 
 
 On this part of the subject, we and our Baptist 
 friends have no controversy — as we agree alike to 
 assert, and maintain the obligation of the ordinance. 
 But there have been many, bearing the name of 
 Christ, who look upon the subject with indifference, 
 and others who argue against it, saying, that it is a 
 ^carnal ordinance,'' and ought long since to have be- 
 come extinct in the church of Christ. And in sup- 
 port of their views they adduce several passages of 
 scripture, and maintain that the baptism of the spirit 
 
19 
 
 supersedes the necessity of water baptism. The 
 views of such have grown, in part, out of the fact that 
 our Baptist friends generally have confounded Chris- 
 tian baptism with the baptism of John, whereas the 
 two should be considered entirely distinct, as we 
 hope to be able to show hereafter. The two passages 
 on which such asdeny the obligation of baptism main- 
 ly rely, are to be found, John iii, 30, — "^e must in- 
 crease, but Imust decrease,''^ and 1 Cor. i, 17, — ^^For 
 Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gos- 
 pel,'''' They conclude from the passage in John, that 
 as he was to decrease as Christ increased, therefore 
 baptism ought to have ceased in the church centuries 
 since. The conclusion is good from the premises, but 
 the premises are false, and the conclusion is therefore 
 good for nothing; for in the same chapter you will 
 find John's disciples informing him that Christ was 
 baptizing, and all men were flocking to him; and 
 John said 'I am not the Christ,' *I came to bear 
 witness of him.' 'He must increase, I must de- 
 crease,' consequently we hear nothing of John's bap- 
 tism after he was beheaded, only that St. Paul re- 
 baptized some at Ephesus, who had previously re- 
 ceived John's baptism. See Acts xix, 1 to 7. John 
 
 received a temporary commission to herald the ap- 
 3* 
 
20 
 
 proach of the Messiah, and his kingdom; and bap- 
 tizing the people with the baptism of repentance, 
 taught them to believe on him who was to come; — 
 i. e. on Christ Jesus. And so little were the dis- 
 ciples at Ephesus acquainted with Christianity in 
 its doctrines or spirit, that they had not so much as 
 heard whether there was any Holy Ghost. 
 
 We request you to refer to the passage and read 
 it attentively, as we shall have occasion to quote it 
 again in the course of the argument. Tiie view we 
 have given of John's baptism, we are happy to find, 
 supported by that able and distinguished minister of 
 the Baptist church, Robert Hall, of England — See 
 his Works, vol. 1st, page 372 — His words are— 
 "No rite celebrated during the ministry of John, is 
 entitled to a place among Christian sacraments.'' 
 It is to be regretted, however, that most of his less 
 intelligent brethren, differ with Mr. Hall in opinion. 
 Some of them have maintained from the pulpit, and 
 others from the press, that John's was Christian 
 baptism. On this point the Rev. Mr. Broaddus 
 seems not as yet, to have made up an opinion. See 
 Sermon, page 34. 
 
 The other passage (quoted from Corinthians) will 
 be found upon examination, not to weigh against the 
 
21 
 
 obligation of the ordinance. A faction had arisen 
 in the church at Corinth, the apostle was informed 
 that they had raised parties, and had used his name, 
 and the names of his friends Apollos and Cephas. 
 He writes them a severe letter, remonstrating 
 against their course, and asks "Is Christ divided ? 
 Was Paul crucified for you ? or were ye baptized in 
 the name of Paul ? I thank God that / baptized 
 none of you, but Crispus and Gaius:'' — And why? 
 he immediately assigns the reason, "Lest any should 
 say that I had baptized in mine own name.'' — " For 
 Christ sent me not to baptize," &;c. (i.e.) my main, 
 and most important business is to preach the gospel 
 He did baptize some as you learn from the context — 
 and it is certain that he baptized others, in other 
 places, as the twelve disciples at Ephesus, &;c. But 
 as a wise master builder, he had learned to give to 
 things severally, the importance due to them. 
 
 Having thus shown that these texts lie not against 
 the obligation of the ordinance, — we must remark, 
 that as Christ gave a command to the apostles, 
 after his resurrection, to disciple all nations, by bap- 
 tizing and teaching them; with the promise to be 
 with them to the end of the world; and as that com- 
 mand has neither been revoked, nor complied with 
 
22 
 
 to its full extent, the obligation still rests upon the 
 ministry to administer the rite, and upon the nations 
 to submit to it. And futhermore, when the apos- 
 tles went forth in obedience to the above command, 
 whenever and wherever the word took effect upon 
 the hearers, and they were willing to receive Christy 
 the apostles dedicated them, if Jews, to Jesus, as 
 the true Messiah, and, if Gentiles, to the true God — 
 Father, Son and Holy Ghost. 
 
 On the day of Pentecost, when the three thousand 
 cried out "Men and brethren what shall we do?" — 
 (although in all probability many of them had been 
 baptized by John;) Peter said, "repent and be bap- 
 tized, 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." 
 
 And when Peter opened the kingdom of heaven 
 to the Gentiles, in the house of Cornelius, as he had 
 done to the Jews, on the day of Pentecost, while he 
 was speaking, the Holy Ghost fell on the congrega- 
 tion. Acts X, 44 to 4S. "Then answered Peter, 
 can any man forbid water, that these should not be 
 baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost, as 
 well as we? And he commanded them to be bap- 
 tized in the name of the Lord." Will any one in 
 
23 
 
 view of this evidence still assert that water baptism 
 is not obligatory. Those who maintain that the 
 baptism of the spirit supersedes the necessity of 
 the baptism of water, differ in judgment with the 
 apostle Peter. And you, my reader, can judge 
 whose opinion is entitled to most deference; the in- 
 spired apostles, who received the command at the 
 mouth of Christ, or one, or many at this late period, 
 who are not under the infallible inspiration of the 
 spirit; as is evident from the fact, that those who 
 deny the obligation of baptism, disagree among them- 
 selves, upon the most important points in Christian 
 theology. 
 
 It will be in vain to say, that the ordinance has 
 been abused, by having too much stress laid upon it; 
 for the abuse of a good thing, is not a. valid argu- 
 ment against its use. "I speak as unto wise men^ 
 judge ye what I say." 
 
 Ox THE Subjects of Baptism. 
 
 We shall now present for your consideration., and 
 judgment, our views in answer to the question, who 
 are the proper subjects of the ordinance ? 
 
 Before I enter fully into this part of the subject, 
 I beg your serious, and candid attention, to two im- 
 
24 
 
 portant prelinjiiiary considerations, namely, that as 
 there is but one true God, and one true faith, so this 
 true God, has never had more than one church in 
 the world, trom the day that pious Abel by faith 
 offered an acceptable sacrifice, to the present hour. 
 I am aware that this principle has been disputed, 
 but I take my firm stand upon the truth of God, and 
 shall maintain this view, without fear of successful 
 contradiction, [n the sermon of Mr. B. page 14, he 
 says, "The truth is, there never was a risible church 
 of Christ on earth, until he came and established it 
 himself" There was a visible Church of Christ be- 
 fore his coming as really, as there has been since; as 
 is evident from Acts vii, 3S — '-This is he that was in 
 the CHURCH in the wilderness, with the axgel," 
 — compared with Exodus xxiii, 20, 21 — "Behold 
 I send an angel before thee, 6:c., provoke him not, 
 for he will not pardon your transgressions,'' — com- 
 pared with 1 Cor. X, 4 and 9 — "And did all drink 
 the same spiritual drink; for they drank of that spir- 
 itual rock that followed them; and that rock was 
 Christ," "Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of 
 them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents." 
 It is clear from these passages, 1st, that God had a 
 church in the wilderness: 2d, that the angel spoken 
 
25 
 
 of as having power to pardon sin, was Christ; 3d, 
 that he was with the church; 4th, that him they 
 tempted, and fell under his retributive administra- 
 tion. 
 
 In all the scriptures of the Old, and New Testa- 
 ments, the province of reading men's hearts, is as- 
 cribed to God alone, and consequently, he alone can 
 tell with infallible certainty, who are, and who are 
 not, members of the invisible church of God. But, 
 so far as man can judge from those actions which 
 are an index to the hearts of men, we should con- 
 clude that such as Zachariah and Elizabeth, Simeon 
 and Anna, under the Jewish economy, were really 
 members, constituting a visible church; especially as 
 we have the testimony of God, to their guileless, and 
 scriptural piety. If Mr. B. means to say, that no 
 church is a visible church, that has unworthy mem- 
 bers in it, then indeed, there never was a visible 
 church of Christ on earth, even in the brightest pe- 
 riod of the church's history. Was the church in the 
 days of the Apostles a visible church of Christ, any 
 more than the Jewish church had been, when among 
 the baptized were seen Judas, Demas, Simon Magus, 
 and others ? But if Mr. B. means to say that the 
 church of God and the church of Christ were two. 
 
26 
 
 then we ask how he can maintain such a view, with- 
 out denying the unity of the Godhead, or the essen- 
 tial divinity of Christ. There was one church pur- 
 chased by the blood of Christ, — x\cts xx, 38 — 
 " Feed the church of God, which he (Christ, the 
 true God) hath purchased with his own blood.'' 
 Which church was this ? I answer the flock of God, 
 embracing his people, in every age, and under every 
 dispensation. 
 
 Hence, Christ is called, "a lamb slain from the 
 foundation of the world.'' See Rev. vii, 9, 16; xiii, 
 8. This church is sometimes called "a temple" or 
 "building," then, Christ is the "corner stone." 
 "The foundation." Eph. ii, 20, and 1 Cor. iii, 11. 
 And we learn from Isaiah, the prophet, who wrote 
 seven hundred years before the opening of the gos- 
 pel dispensation, that this "tried stone," this "pre- 
 cious corner stone,'' was laid in Zion for. a founda- 
 tion — Isaiah xxviii, 16. This is "the stone, elect, 
 precious," on whom whosoever believed, was not 
 confounded. 1 Peter ii, 6. 
 
 This church is again called "a flock" or "sheep- 
 fold" — "He shall feed his flock like a shepherd, and 
 carry the lambs in his bosom.'' In Jeremiah xxiii, 1 
 to 6, this flock is spoken of, and comforted with the 
 
27 
 
 promise of better days, under pastors that should 
 care for them, and feed them. This prediction was 
 fulfilled in the days of the Messiah. And in direct 
 allusion to this, and similar passages, he said, " I 
 lay down my hfe for the sheep:" "other sheep T 
 have which are not of this (Jewish) fold, them must 
 I bring, and there shall be one fold and one shep- 
 herd." You hear one of those sheep saying, under 
 a former dispensation, "The Lord is my shepherd, 
 I shall not want." See Psalm xxii, 1, 2, 3. David's 
 Lord was Christ, see Psalm ex, 1, and Matt, xxii, 
 44, — again the church is called a "family;" — one 
 family^ not two or more. See Eph. iii, 15, — "Of 
 whom the whole family, in heaven and earth is 
 named. Sectarian bigotry, either among Jews or 
 Christians, would like to make partitions in this 
 building of God, — or divisions in this immense fam- 
 ily; but the liberal minded Paul, who had com- 
 pleted his education in the "third heaven," had 
 learned, that the true God had but one family in the 
 universe. In the 11th chap, of Hebrews, we have 
 the names of some of the most distinguished mem- 
 bers of this family, from the first martyr Abel, 
 down to the venerable and faithful Samuel, who from 
 
 a child of three years old, had been actively 
 4 
 
28 
 
 and publicly engaged in the service of this 
 church. 
 
 Jesus, speaking of the Gentiles, says, "They shall 
 come from the east and the west, and shall sit down 
 with Abraham, Isaac and the prophets in the king- 
 dom of God." Whether you interpret the phrase 
 "kingdom of God'' to mean that part of the family 
 which is on earth, or that part which is in heaven, 
 either will answer our purpose. We thank God 
 "Our father who" is "in heaven," that he has but 
 one family, and has constituted of angels and re 
 deemed men, one vast brotherhood. See Rev. vii, 
 9 to 17. 
 
 Again, the church is called in Rom. xi, 24, — "A 
 good olive tree.'' And although some of the 
 branches were broken off, for unbelief, the olive was 
 never rooted up; but on that stock the Gentiles were 
 grafted, and the apostles informed the Jews, that 
 they should be grafted in again, if they abode not in 
 unbelief. We admit, there were, from time to time, 
 circumstiuitial differences in the churcli of God, un- 
 der different dispensations, but her identity has 
 been always maintained. She has been, and still is, 
 substantially the same. She was once a family 
 church, then a national church, and subsequently a 
 
29 
 
 universal churcli. She once looked forth as the 
 morning, was afterwards fair as the moon, and 
 finally, clear as the sun, and terrible as an army with 
 banners. From the dawn of her morning, to her 
 meridian splendor, she leaned upon her beloved 
 "Christ." The furniture of this temple has been 
 altered. Some of the branches of this olive tree 
 broken off. But the temple's beauty is not marred. 
 And the "root and fatness of the olive tree" still 
 remain. 
 
 In conclusion, we remark, from the time the cove- 
 nant of mercy was intimated to Adam and Eve, in 
 the garden of Eden, down to the call of Abraham, 
 and to the confirming of that covenant with him, see 
 Gen. xvii, 2, and Gal. iii, 17, — and from that to the 
 giving of the law 430 years after; and from that to 
 the coming of Christ; and from his advent until 
 noic, men have been justified, sanctified, and for ever 
 saved, in the same way, and under the auspices of the 
 same covenant of mercy. For this is the ^'-covenant 
 confirmed of God in Christ,^'' Gal. iii, 13 to 20. — 
 "He was made a curse for us," "that the blessing 
 of Abraham might come on the Gentiles, through 
 Jesus Christ," that we might receive "the promise 
 of the spirit through faith." Our Baptist friends 
 
30 
 
 contend that this covenant, of which circumcision 
 was the sign and seal, contained only the grant of 
 the earthly Canaan to the natural seed of Abraham. 
 But surely, the apostle understood the matter in an 
 entirely diSerent sense, for he says, the blessing of 
 Abraham was to come on the Gentiles, and that they 
 were to receive the promise of the spirit, by faith. 
 This is precisely w^hat Peter refers to, (i. e.) "the 
 promise of the spirit,'' when on the day of Pente- 
 cost, referring to the charter of the gospel church, 
 he says: "the promise is unto you, and to your 
 children,'' &c. Acts ii, 33 and 39. And in giving 
 an account of the falling of the spirit on Cornelius 
 and his family, he says. Acts xi, 17. "Forasmuch 
 then, as God gave them (the Gentiles) the like gift, 
 as he did unto us, (Jews,) who believed on the Lord 
 Jesus Christ; what was I, that 1 could withstand 
 God?" Here you see in Christ, according to the 
 language of the covenant, all the families of the 
 earth were to be blessed. 
 
 St. Paul says; "The scriptures foreseeing that 
 God would justify the heathen through faith, preach- 
 ed before the Gospel unto Abraham." Gal. iii, 8. 
 This promise, referred to above, the promise of 
 mercy and grace, "I will be a God to t'uee and to thy 
 
31 
 
 seed," was ordained in the hands of a mediator; and 
 when this mediator appeared, we find that a com- 
 pany of Jewish shepherds, and a company of Gen- 
 tile philosopliers, ahke present themselves at his 
 shrine, as the representatives of the two great divi- 
 sions of the family of man; as the "first fruits of 
 the fast coming harvest" of the world to Christ. 
 
 When Jesus looked over the Samaritan people, 
 he said to the apostles, "Say not three months and 
 then Cometh harvest, lift up your eyes and look on 
 the fields, for they are white already to harvest." 
 "Other men (patriarchs and prophets) have labored 
 and ye have entered into their labors." John iv, 35, 
 38. The church has always been "God's hus- 
 bandry" as well as "God's building," and the fields 
 had been under culture for 4000 years. Although 
 the state of morals in the visible church at the com- 
 ing of Christ was greatly sunken, Jesus said to his 
 disciples, "The scribes and pharisees sit in Moses's 
 seat, therefore, whatsoever they command you, that 
 observe and do, but do ye not according to their 
 v)0'rJcs, for they say, and do not." And of this visi- 
 ble church, John the Baptist and Jesus were both 
 members, as also his apostles. For in addition to 
 
 the observance of the right of circumcision, they 
 
 4* 
 
32 
 
 kept the passover, up to the eve of Christ's appre- 
 hension and crucifixion. The true state of the case 
 seems to be this. When the Messiah, "the promis- 
 ed seed," the mediator of the (Abrahamic) cove- 
 nant,'''' "the minister of the true tabernacle," ap- 
 peared and presented his chiims, those of the visible 
 church, who admitted his Messiahship, and were 
 gathered to the Shiloh, were continued in the true 
 and good ohve, and those who rejected him, were 
 broken off. "The children of the visible kingdom 
 were cast out, the rite of circumcision gave way to 
 the rife of baptism and the passover was superseded 
 by the institution of the LorcVs supper. See 1 Cor, 
 v, 7. Our Baptist friends admit this so far as adults 
 are concerned. It is true however, that Mr. B. in 
 his Strictures, pages 4 and 5, intimates very strongly 
 that circumcision has never been discontinued by an 
 "express command,'' His words are "Why not 
 both circumcize and baptize them? You have never 
 had any '•express command'* to discontinue the one, 
 and practice the other." Now, candid reader, al- 
 though Mr. B. may not be able to see in God's word 
 any passage abrogating circumcision, yet you will 
 see one in which it is set forth if you will look at 
 Acts XV, 1, 2, 5, 10, 28, 29. And we learn from 
 
S3 
 
 ActsS xvi, 4, That Paul, Silas, and Timotheus, went 
 through the churches, dehverino; the decrees to them 
 on this suhject; and the decree on the 'discontinuing 
 of circumcision' was the result of the judgment of a 
 council of apostles and elders, confirmed by the 
 Holy Ghost. — See the passage above referred to. 
 
 And in confirmation of the fact, that baptism came 
 in the place of circumcision, the Apostle calls bap- 
 tism the "circumcision of Christ." Colos. ii, 11, 12. 
 And I am supported in this opinion by one of Mr. 
 B's witnesses, 'The great Whitby, (as he calls him, 
 — and I suppose if the testimony o( the witness is 
 good for Air. B., his testimony will be as good for 
 me against Mr. B. — Let us hear the witness,) says, 
 "■The apostle speaking hereof the circumcision made 
 without hands, and of the circnmcision made in bap- 
 tism, and consisting in the putting off the sins of the 
 flesh, cannot, by the circumcision of Christ, mean his 
 own personal circumcision, ivhich was made with 
 hands, but that which he hath instituted in the room 
 of it, viz. baptism. That baptism, therefore., is a 
 rite of initiation to the Christians as circumcision 
 was to the Jeirs.'^'' — See Whitby on the place. 
 
 Who doubts that circumcision was the initiatinxr 
 rite amon<j; the Jews, and in the church, from the 
 
34 
 
 day when Abraham was ninety -nine, and Ishmael, 
 thirteen years old. For as our Lord said, "Circum- 
 cision was not of Moses, but of the fathers." And 
 if baptism is not the initiating rite, the seal and sign 
 of the covenant of mercy, the church, under the 
 Gospel, has no initiatory rite. 
 
 But Mr. B. page 17, supposes that "the coming 
 of the promised seed, (the Messiah,) put an end 
 however, to the Abrahamic covenant, and conse 
 quently to all its ordinances, forever.'' Shocking 
 that men should be willing to disannul the only cov 
 enant of mercy and grace from God to man, a cov 
 enant that embraced the promise of Messiah, and the 
 blessing of all nations through him; in order the 
 more effectually to deprive unoffending infants of 
 the rights Mdiich they had enjoyed unmolested for 
 about 2000 years. — Under what covenant, pray, do 
 such conclude themselves? "Christ was made a 
 curse for us, that the blessing of Abraham, might 
 come on us through faith." — How, then, I ask, can 
 the covenant be done away, and its blessings still en- 
 joyed by Jews and Gentiles? I hope it will not be 
 said, that the blessing of Abraham is the possession 
 of the earthly Canaan. God made two covenant's 
 with Abraham, one before the birth of Ishmael, see 
 
35 
 
 Gen. xv, 7 — 21. In this was contained the grant of 
 the earthly Canaan^ to his natural seed, through the 
 line of Ibaac and Jacob. This covenant was ratified 
 by the passing of a burning lamp, and a smoking 
 furnace, between the pieces of slain beasts which 
 Abram had provided, while a "horror of thick dark- 
 ness fell upon Abram," emblematical, or typical, of 
 the hard bondage which his natural seed should en- 
 dure in Egypt. The metes and bounds of their in- 
 heritance were distinctly marked out. This cove- 
 nant received not its full accomplishment until the 
 days of David. See Acts vii, 45, — 2 Sam. viii, 3, 
 &c. and 2 Chron. ix, 26. 
 
 About 14 years afterwards God changed the 
 name of Abram, to that o^ Abraham; see Gen. xvii, 
 5 — 27, and havinoj said in regard to the first cove- 
 nant, chap, xii, 2, ' I will make of thee a great na- 
 tion,'''' he now says, chap, xviii, 4, 5, "Thou shalt be 
 ?L father of many nations." This last is called by 
 way of eminence, "The Covenant." Of this cov- 
 enant, circumcision was the sign and seal. 
 
 I ask the candid reader to put the statements of 
 Mr. B. on the subject of this covenant, in contact 
 with the testimony of Zacharias, the father of John 
 the Baptist. When John was eight days old, and 
 
they were about to perform upon the ^unconscious 
 infanf the rite of circumcision — about to put upon 
 him the seal of the Ahrahamic covenant, the 
 tongue of Zacharias was loosed, and being filled with 
 the Holy Ghost, he uttered the following language — 
 "Blessed be the Lord God cf Israel, for he hcdh visited and 
 redeemed his people. And hath raised up a horn of sal- 
 vation for us in the house of his servant David; as he 
 spake hy the mouth of his holy prophds, ivhich have been 
 since the ivorld began: that we should be saved from our 
 enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us; to per- 
 form the mercy promised to onr fathers, and to remember 
 his Holy Covenant; the oath which he sware to our fa- 
 ther Abraham, that he loould grant unto us, that we being 
 delivered out of the hand of our enemies, might serve him 
 ivithoutfear, in holiness and lighteousness before him, all 
 the days of our life.''^ Sec Luke i, 67 to 80. 
 
 Do these words even intimate that the advent of 
 the Mesaiah ^would put an end to the Abrahamic 
 covenantV as Mr. B. says above. And does Zach- 
 arias celebrate the abolition of this covenant? Does 
 he not rather bless God for the manifestation of the 
 ^mercy promised'' and the bestowment of those im- 
 portant blessings included in the Abrahamic cove- 
 nant? To remember his holy covenant, as a cove- 
 nant-keeping God, is to give to those who have 'tak- 
 
37 
 
 en hold of his covenant' those immunities vouchsafed 
 in this contract or stipulation. 
 
 The intelligent reader will perceive that Zacha- 
 rias never intimates that the possession of the earth- 
 ly Canaan, was any part of the blessings, embraced 
 in the covenant of circumcision. The -mercy prom- 
 ised to our fathers, embraced all ^spiritual blessings 
 in Christ Jesus: and only embraced temporal good 
 secondarily. 
 
 The temporal advantages connected with circum- 
 cision, were restricted to the seed of Abraham ac- 
 cordino- to tlie llesh, through the line of Isaac. We 
 read that "Abraham took Ishmael, his son, and all 
 that were born in his house, and all that were bought 
 with his money, every male of the family of Abra- 
 ham, and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin, in 
 the self-same day, as God had said unto him." The 
 circumcision of these persons entailed upon them no 
 right to the land of Canaan; nor did the circumcision 
 of slaves in after times, procure them either civil 
 liberty, or landed property; they must therefore have 
 received some spiritual privileges, or they gained 
 nothing by the rite. Mr. B. says, page 16 of his 
 Sermon, ^^We know that Esau and Ishmael, and 
 others, descendants of Abraham ^icere rejected from 
 
38 
 
 the covenant of salvation by Jesus Christ. Then 
 their circumcision was a solemn mockery." 
 
 How can he know this, when, according to his 
 own showing, the covenant of salvation was not of- 
 fered to them, and the only covenant of which they 
 knew any thing, was purely of a temporal nature] 
 Hence he says, page 16 — "Every one of Abraham's 
 natural descendants might have been sons of perdition, 
 and yet all the ends proposed (by the covenant) 
 might have been accomplished." Candid reader, 
 can you credit such views? "1 speak as unto wise 
 men, judge ye what I say." 
 
 That Gentiles derived spiritual privileges from 
 circumcision, is clearly evident from Isaiah Ivi, 6, 
 7, "Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves 
 to the Lord to serve him, — and taketh hold of my 
 covenant; even them will I bring to my holy moun- 
 tain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer; 
 their burnt offerings and sacrifices shall be accepted 
 upon mine altar," &;c. 
 
 As the covenant is called the covenant of circum- 
 cision, no uncircumcised person could take hold of it; 
 nor was it permitted to any one, who had not re- 
 ceived the sign of the covenant, to enter into the 
 temple and engage in its sacred services. The per- 
 
39 
 
 sons mentioned in the text therefore were circurW- 
 cised Gentiles, and all the immunities which they 
 enjoyed, as here enumerated, were of a purely relig- 
 ious nature. 
 
 The apostle Paul, who was well acquainted with 
 this whole subject, has spoken, we think, in a way 
 calculated to settle the question, Rom. iii, 1, 2, 3, — 
 "What PROFIT is there of circumcision?'' — The 
 answer is, — "Much every way; chiefly, because 
 that unto them were committed the oracles of God.'''' 
 We hope our Baptist friends will not make so wide 
 a mistake, as to say, that the oracles of God, are the 
 earthly Canaan. 
 
 Although the Jews had temporal benefits as a na- 
 tion, connected with circumcision, yet the rite was 
 not instituted on that account. "Circumcision verily 
 profteth, if thou keep the law; but if thou be a break- 
 er of the law, thy circumcision is made wncircum- 
 cision." Rom. ii, 25. Here again the profit of cir- 
 cumcision is not made to consist in the enjoyment 
 of temporal blessings; but in keeping the law, or or- 
 acles of God. Surely, this did not regard the earthly 
 Canaan. 
 
 Mr. B. says, page 17 of his Sermon — "While he 
 (that is Abraham,) was literally, the father of the 
 
40 
 
 whole Jewish family, he was, spiritually, the father 
 of none but believers, even among his own offspring: 
 and now, as circumcision was enjoined upon all his 
 natural seed, it follows of course, that the design of 
 it was literal^ and that its benefits were to be looked 
 for in connexion with the literal import of the sev- 
 eral promises which God had made to him: thus, 
 those who were circumcised, should be acknowledg- 
 ed his natural descendants; should be protected by 
 the arm of God, in the enjoyment of the privileges 
 connected with all that arrangement, by which it 
 was designed to keep them a separate nation; and 
 finally should inherit the land of Canaan. A candid 
 observer must perceive, that as the literal provisions 
 of this covenant were confined to Abraham's natu- 
 ral seed, the literal rites of the covenant must also 
 be confined to that people.'' 
 
 The statements made in this quotation are plainly 
 and flatly contradicted by the facts in the case. The 
 three hundred and eighteen men of Abraham's house 
 who were circumcised, were they a part of his nat- 
 ural seed? Gen. xiv, 14. And were those, and Ish- 
 mael, and his seed, kept a separate nation? And 
 did they finally inherit the land of Canaan? Again; 
 were those servants acknowledged his natural de- 
 
41 
 
 scendants? Mr. B. says so. What say you candid 
 reader? The idea that circumcision was designed 
 only as a national badge, (the idea that is so confi- 
 dently advanced by some of our Baptist teachers,) 
 is contradicted by the facts connected with the ori- 
 ginal institution of circumcision, as well as by the 
 facts connected with the history of the institution. 
 For if it was a national badge to the Jews, or de- 
 scendants of Abraham by the line of Isaac and Jacob, 
 it was equally so to the descendants of Abraham by 
 the line of Ishmael and Esau. For the Ishmael- 
 ites, Arabians and Saracens, all practiced the rite; 
 and at this day, circumcision is the initiating rite to 
 the Mahomedan as well as the Jew. 
 
 How can that be a national badge to one nation^ 
 that is practised by many nations? "I speak as 
 unto wise men, judge ye what I say." 
 
 Having shown, (as we trust,) in the foregoing ob- 
 servations, the identity of the church, and that the 
 covenant made with Abraham, (of which circumcis- 
 ion was the sign and seal,) was the covenant of 
 grace, intimated in Eden, to Adam, (when his whole 
 posterity were yet in his loins,) and fully made known 
 under the gospel dispensation; the seed of the wo- 
 man having now bruised the serpent's head, by his 
 
42 
 
 crucifixion on the cross, having "been made a curse 
 for us, that the ^blessing of Abraham,'' might come 
 on all that believe, both Jews and Gentiles; that ac- 
 cording to the stipulations of the covenant, he might 
 be the father of many nations f^^ we shall now 
 proceed to show that, in this covenant, (as understood 
 anciently,) the right of infant church membership 
 was recognized. 
 
 In proof that infants were to be recognized as 
 having membership in the family church, see Gen. 
 xvii, 11, 12, 13, — "And ye shall circumcise the 
 flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be a token of the 
 covenant betwixt me and you. And he that is eight 
 days old, shall be circumcised among you, every 
 male child in your generation; he that is born in 
 the house, or bought with money of an stranger, 
 which is not of thy seed. This was the original 
 constitution of the church of the true God. The 
 original charter of that "Jerusalem which is the 
 mother of us all." Gal. iv, 26. And here the 
 rights of '^unconscious babes'' are acknowledged. 
 
 This charter was in force, observe, four hundred 
 and thirty years before the giving of the law. And 
 St. Paul says, Gal. iii, 17, — The law did not 
 disannul the covenant which was confirmed of 
 
43 
 
 God in Christ four hundred and thirty years be- 
 fore. 
 
 We see the covenant carried into effect in respect 
 to children during the law. We quote in proof, 2 
 Chron. xxxi, 14, 19. In this passage, brethren, 
 wives, sons, daughters, and little ones, are all men- 
 tioned as entering into the house of the Lord. And 
 this extended "through all the congregation," and 
 we are told that Hezekiah in this arrangement of the 
 congregation did that which was right and good he- 
 fore the Lord his God. (v. 20.) Now we never 
 heard it denied, that the Priests and Levites, entered 
 not into the active and official services of the temple, 
 until the age of thirty: we see this illustrated in the 
 case of John the Baptist, who was of the tribe of 
 Levi, and the family of Aaron. Yet we learn from 
 the passage in Chron. that the ^little ofies' of three 
 years old, entered into the 'house of the Lord,' and 
 made a part of the congregation. 
 
 This will throw light on that passage in Deut. 
 xxix, 10, 13, — "Ye stand this day all of you, before 
 the Lord your God, ^your little ones,'' <&c. to enter 
 into covenant with the Lord your God," &;c. Chil- 
 dren of three years old, enter into covenant with 
 
 God? yes, this is their own personal act. Nor are 
 5* 
 
44 
 
 these the only places where little ones are public 
 characters; for Joshua in confirming, or renewing, 
 the national covenant, on Mount Gerizim, "read 
 all the words of the law, the blessings and curs- 
 ings, according to all that is written in the book of 
 the law," to the little awes— to children three years 
 old. Josh, viii, 34, 35, — "It is clear from the pas- 
 sages adduced, that children of three years old were 
 members of the national church; and engaged in the 
 most sacred rites and solemn transactions, equally 
 with their fathers. They were, no doubt, subject to 
 the same preparatory purifications, and were treated 
 on the same ritual principles as their fathers." 
 
 You find from 1 Sam., i, 22, 24, 28, and ii, 11,— 
 That as soon as Hannah weaned Samuel, she 
 brought him and lent him to the Lord, '^And he 
 ministered unto the Lord before Eli the Priest, being 
 a child girded with a linen ephod.^^ 
 
 "Having shown that by the authority of God, in- 
 fants were received into the covenant, and the 
 church; that at three years of age they were public- 
 ly recognized as members of the church, and per- 
 sonally performed public acts of membership, it fol- 
 lows, that the same divine authority which granted 
 the right, must be shown to have cancelled it, be- 
 
45 
 
 fore they can justly be deprived of it; and as no one 
 pretends that God has prohibited the memhership of in- 
 fants under the Gospel, the original grant must remain in 
 fvllforcer 
 
 We shall explain this part of the subject, by an 
 illustration or two. What is called in most of the 
 states of this Union, the common law, is the law of 
 the commonwealth, unless in the particular case, the 
 common law has been repealed by express statute 
 law. Hence it is sometimes a question in the courts, 
 (which cannot be decided without an appeal,) wheth- 
 er the case before the court is actionable at com- 
 mon law, or whether it has been provided for by ex- 
 press statute. Apply the matter. We find the 
 right of infant church membership acknowledged in 
 the Old Testament Scriptures, and in the church of 
 God, for about two thousand years. We take their 
 having had a title, as prima facia evidence, that 
 thry have a title still. We look into the New Tes- 
 tament, (which 1 consider the book of statute law 
 for the church,) to see if there is any precept or pre- 
 cedent, any "Thus saith the Lord,'' for excluding in- 
 fants; any abrogating statute; and we find none. — 
 Take another case: There is now in Virginia, what 
 is called a ^New Constitution;' has any intelligent 
 
46 
 
 citizen of the state, ever entertained an idea that this 
 is any other, than the old constitution amended, by 
 the authority of the state, vested in a convention of 
 the citizens? Are not the privileges of the citizens 
 precisely the same as under the old constitution, ex- 
 cept so far, as that was amended by the direct ac- 
 tion of the convention? Do not the strong features 
 of the constitution remain the same? Were the 
 terms of citizenship altered? or the essential privi- 
 leges of the citizens infringed, by the partial amend- 
 ments which are found to have been made? Or does 
 any citizen infer other amendments, from the fact 
 that he finds some plainly stated in the new charter 
 or constitution? And if a question should arise in the 
 state about implied privileges, or abridged rights, 
 I suppose the gentleman who should indulge his 
 imagination in the case, would be expected to furnish 
 the burden of proof, to support his inferences: he 
 would not be allowed to change the old constitution 
 by inference. Apply the illustration to the case in 
 hand. We call upon our Baptist friends to show, if 
 they can, that there has taken place, under the New 
 Testament dispensation, any essential change in the 
 privileges of the church, or its members. Zion' in- 
 deed has 'enlarged her borders,' but her ^citizens* 
 
47 
 
 and their privileges are substantiaUy the same. 
 Here we might rest tliis branch of the argument, 
 until those who exclude little children from the visi- 
 ble family of God, should produce the statute of re- 
 peal, by which their privileges are taken away. 
 And till this be done, their rights may be safely 
 rested upon the original grant. But we shall show 
 not only that they ivere in the church formerly, but 
 that Christ did not exclude them under the gospel 
 economy. 
 
 I am aware that many objections are urged 
 against the administration of the ordinance to chil- 
 dren: and when argument fails, sneers and ridicule 
 are made to do what argument cannot, and scrip- 
 ture will not, accomphsh. It is called "infant 
 sprinkling," "baby sprinkling." And a^ain it is 
 asked, "what do they know about the ordinance." 
 Take one specimen of many, from IMr. Broaddus's 
 Ser. p. 41, — "Thanks to the ingenuity of pope 
 Stephen III. for an invention which secures the 
 dear little creatures a place in heaven, without the 
 inconvenience and danger of being plunged into a 
 stream or pool of water." It is likely Mr. B. has a 
 better opinion of the papers close communion. 
 Query — can he, or the pope, furnish a "Thus saith 
 
48 
 
 the Lord," for excluding their brethren from the 
 table of our common Lord, and thus "making 
 terms of communion that are not terms of salvation?''^ 
 (see Robert Hall's Works.) Can Mr. B. furnish a 
 "Thus saith the Lord," for the observance of the first 
 day of the week, as the Cliristian Sabbath, instead 
 of the seventh. Yet he, and the whole Christian 
 world, so far as I know, (except the seventh-day 
 Baptists,) agree to adopt it as the Sabbath. I sup- 
 pose that can be managed without an express war- 
 rant, and can be abundantly made out from prece- 
 dent and inference, &c. &c., as it does not stand in 
 the way of "believers' baptism," or "baptism by im- 
 mersion.'' We trust, candid reader, to furnish you 
 evidence, with regard to the subjects of baptism, 
 which shall not with you, (at least,) be set aside by 
 irony or ridicule. 
 
 Proselyte Baptism. 
 
 That Baptism was in existence before the days 
 of John the Baptist, seems evident from the writings 
 of some of the Jews, especially as practised in the case 
 of proselytes. Maimonides holds on this subject the 
 following language: — "/w all ages, when a heathen 
 (or a stranger by nation) was willing to enter into 
 
49 
 
 the covenant of Israel^ and gather himself under the 
 wings of the majesty of God^ and take upon himself 
 the yoke of the laic, he must be first circumcised, and 
 secondly baptized, and thirdly bring a sacrifice; 
 or if the party were a icoman^ then she must be first 
 BAPTIZED, and secondly bring a sacrifice.'''' — 
 (Clarke's Commentary at the end of Mark.) And 
 this fact does not rest on the authority of the Jews 
 alone, for that the practice existed, and was known 
 to the heathens, is clear from the words of Epicte- 
 tus: (he is blaming those who assume the profes- 
 sion of philosophy without acting up to it:) " Why 
 do you call yourself a stoic? Why do you deceive 
 the multitude? Why do you pretend to be a Greek? 
 when you are a Jew, a Syrian, an Egyptian? And 
 when we see one wavering, we are wont to say, this 
 is not a Jew, but acts one. But when he assumes 
 the sentiments of one who hath been baptized and 
 circumcised, then he both really is, and is called a 
 Jew," &c. 
 
 This practice then of the Jews — proselyte bap- 
 tism — was so notorious to the heathens in Italy and 
 Greece, that it furnished this philosopher with an 
 object of comparison. Now, Epictetus lived to be 
 very old — he is placed by Dr. Lardner, A. D. 109; 
 
50 
 
 by Le Clerc, A. D. 1 04. He could not be less than 
 sixty years of age when he wrote this: and he might 
 obtain his information thirty or forty years earlier, 
 which brings it up to the time of the apostles. 
 Those who could think that the Jews could institute 
 proselyte baptism, at the very moment when the 
 Christians were practising baptism as an initiatory 
 rite, are not to be envied for the correctness of their 
 judgment. The rite dates much earlier, probably 
 many ages. I see no reason for disputing the asser- 
 tion of Maimonides, notwithstanding Dr. Gill's rash 
 and fallacious language on the subject. See Facts 
 and Evidences as quoted by Watson — "This bap- 
 tism of proselj^tes, as Dr. Lightfoot has fully shown, 
 was a baptism of families^ and comprehended their 
 infant cJdldren; and the rite was a symbol of their 
 being washed from the pollution of idolatry. Very 
 different, indeed, in the extent of its import and 
 office, was Christian baptism to the Jewish bap- 
 tism; nevertheless, this shows that the Jews were 
 familiar with the rite as it extended to children, in 
 cases of conversions from idolatry; and, as far at 
 least as the converts from paganism to Christianity 
 were concerned, they could not but understand 
 Christian baptism to extend to the infant children of 
 
51 
 
 Gentile proselytes, unless there had been, what we 
 no where find in the discourses of Christ, or the 
 writings of the apostles, an express exception of 
 them.'' Watson on Baptism. 
 
 It is objected to infant baptism, that infants are 
 not capable of believing, and that as the apostles re. 
 ceived a commission to baptize believers, Mark xvi, 
 15, 16, therefore infants ought to be refused the or- 
 dinance. This reason lies equally against infant 
 salvation. An argument that proves too much, (as 
 this does,) proves nothing, only that he who uses it 
 is hard run for an argument. Let us look at this 
 matter a moment. Infants cannot believe, Mere/ore 
 they ought not to be baptized. Infants cannot be- 
 lieve, therefore they must be damned! For the text 
 says — "He that helieveth not shall be damned." Mr. 
 B. says, p. 7, — I will engage to prove, that the com- 
 mission actually excludes all unbelievers, whether 
 unconscious infants or unbelieving adults." "Why 
 tell them to baptize believers, if they were to bap- 
 tize all men indiscriminately?" Why should he thus 
 'beat the air?' He never heard an intelligent pedo- 
 baptist say that ^^all men indiscriminately'''' are to be 
 baptized. Why did he not quote Eph. ii, 8 — "By 
 
 grace are ye saved through faith." But infants have 
 6 
 
52 
 
 no faith; therefore they cannot be saved. Or this; 
 "If any will not work neither shall he eat." Chil- 
 dren cannot work, therefore children should not be 
 allowed to eat; and thus, by his reasoning, furnish 
 a pretext for starving children according to the word 
 of the apostle: — or he might have quoted: "The Lord 
 Jesus shall be revealed from heaven in flaming fire, 
 taking vengeance on them that know not God, and 
 obey not the gospel" — infants know not God, and 
 obey not the gospel, therefore, he will take ven- 
 geance on them, &c. This is a kind of logic that 
 puts more in the conclusion than is in the 'premises, 
 and is therefore a mere sophism. Again, baptism 
 say they, "is the answer of a good conscience, infants 
 cannot have the answer of a good conscience, there- 
 fore they ought not to be baptized.'' Infants have 
 not an evil conscience, and that is more than can be 
 said for many adults, who have been baptized upon 
 a profession of faith. They have innocency to re- 
 commend them; while of Simon Magus, it is said, 
 "Simon himself believed also; and when he was bap- 
 tized," Sec. We soon hear of this man who had re- 
 ceived "believers' baptism,'' that his heart "is not 
 right in the sight of God," "he is in the gall of bit- 
 terness.^^ "Thou hast no part or lot in this matter." 
 And I conclude, Simon's was not a solitary case. 
 
5S 
 
 Mr. B's illustration on p. 7, t think very unfortu- 
 nate; because there is an obvious want of analogy 
 in the case. His words are, "suppose the governor 
 of Virginia should send out recruiting officers, under 
 a commission reading as follows, viz: Go through 
 all the state and call upon all the inhabitants to en- 
 list, in the army, giving them ten dollars each;'' he 
 says "can any one suppose that unconscious infants 
 are included among those who are to receive the 
 ten dollars?" "The cases, (he says,) are precisely 
 parallel." I suppose if infants were as capable of 
 being soldiers, of bearing arms, and marching to the 
 battle field, as they were anciently, and are noiu, of 
 receiving the sign of the covenant, then indeed there 
 might be some analogy; but until that is proved, we 
 shall not allow Mr. B. to pass off assumption for 
 proof, or sophistry for argument, or agree that he 
 shall beg the question where the proof is absent; as 
 he has done more than once in his Strictures and 
 Sermons. 
 
 Again — the wording of the commission, in Matt, 
 xxviii, 19, 20, — is urged against the propriety of ad- 
 mitting children to baptism. We must always try 
 to put ourselves in the circumstances of those who 
 are addressed, and ask what would be the sense 
 
54 
 
 which, in their peculiar circumstances, we would 
 have been likely to put upon the words. Dr. Watts 
 remarks, that we often interpret the meaning of 
 terms from early impressions, made upon us by local 
 circumstances. — Hence says he, "A youth raised in 
 sight of a parish church, that has a steeple on it, 
 always associates in his mind, when he hears the 
 word church, the idea of a house with a steeple,^'' &c. 
 So when a man unacquainted with ancient customs, 
 reads in the New Testament — "men do not put new 
 wine into old bottles, lest the bottles burst," &;c. he 
 is at a loss to understand the matter; for his mind 
 directly recurs to the fact that glass bottles which 
 have been tried, can be better trusted to stand the 
 process of vinous fermentation, than new ones. But 
 there was no difficulty in the minds of those to whom 
 the words were spoken originally; because they 
 knew of no bottles except those made of skins; which 
 were always strongest when new. 
 
 If the original commission to "disciple all nations, 
 baptizing them,'' &c., had been given to Mr. B. or 
 any of his brethren of whom it may be said that "in- 
 fant baptism is their soul's abhorrence,'' 1 frankly 
 confess that it would have been necessary to have 
 given such specific directions to admit the children 
 
55 
 
 to the ordinance with the parents; and it might have 
 been necessary, for aught 1 know, to have wrought 
 a miracle to convince them, that there was any sense 
 or justice in baptizing *'a babe^ — Christ might have 
 found their prejudices as stubborn as were Peter's, who 
 could not discover, that "God was no respecter of 
 persons, until, while in a trance, a sheet was let 
 down from heaven, and a voice said to him three 
 limes, kill and eat;'''' and the spirit said, "Go with 
 the men (of Cornelius) doubting nothing, for I have 
 sent them." Men's pre-judices become very invet- 
 erate, especially when they grow up under a system 
 of exclusiveness. Hear Mr. B. page 27, for the 
 proof of the above. "This species of tyranny over 
 men's consciences (i. e. baptizing infants) would bet- 
 ter suit the avowed doctrines of the church of Rome, 
 than the professed liberality of Protestants. It 
 would be difficult far me to perceive any thing more 
 arbitrary in baplizing adults, at the point of the 
 sword, than in taking unconscious infants, and im- 
 posing upon them submission to a religious rite, 
 with respect to which they have no volition or 
 choice." 
 
 The reader can perceive from this quotation, the 
 
 views and feeling of Mr. B. with regard to infant 
 6* 
 
56 
 
 baptism. I hesitate not to declare, that the doc- 
 trine contained in the above, is calculated to subvert 
 that order and subordination which is necessary to 
 the well-being of society. For if it is tyranny in 
 the parent to dedicate the child to God in baptism, 
 without the child's choice; then is the child's liberty 
 taken away, if the parent requires it to observe the 
 Christian Sabbath; or to go to the house of God, 
 instead of the temple of an idol. The apostle con- 
 sidered it not warring with the liberty of the gos- 
 pel, or of the child to say. Col. iii, 20, "Children 
 obey your parents in all things ^ And to require 
 the parent, Eph. vi, 4, "To bring them up in the 
 nurture and admonition of the Lord." If the judg- 
 ment of the parent is to govern the child in its mi- 
 nority, surely it cannot be a sore evil to the child, 
 to be dedicated to God in baptism, before it is in- 
 structed and admonished in the Lord. Such ^^tyran- 
 nical parents^^ have the example of Abraham, the fa- 
 ther of the faithful to encourage them; and the ex- 
 ample of all the faithful from Abraham down to Jo- 
 seph and Mary, the reputed father and real mother 
 of Jesus; for at eight days old, Jesus was solemnly 
 recognized as a member of the church, by the rite of 
 circumcision. Yet this, according to Mr. B. was 
 
57 
 
 about as arbitrary, as if John, at the age of thirty, 
 had baptized him "at the point of the sword.'' 
 
 From the above it will appear how inveterate are 
 the prejudices of this gentleman, against infant bap- 
 tism. Hence I say, if he, and those who think and 
 feel as he does on this subject, had received the com- 
 mission Peter and his fellow apostles received, the 
 directions to admit infants would, (of necessity,) have 
 been very definite. But as it was, the commission 
 was put into the hands of Jews, who had never known 
 a church that did not admit, and maintain, the right 
 of infant church membership. They, of course, 
 would so understand the commission, as to admit the 
 children with their parents, as was always the case 
 when Gentiles were proselyted to the Jewish relig- 
 ion. Being well acquainted with this practice, they 
 would admit the children unless forbidden to do so. 
 Peter and his brethren had never learned to think 
 of a church that excluded children from member- 
 ship, and of course would not attempt to form a 
 church upon a new model, unless specifically direct- 
 ed so to do. Jewish children were called the "disci- 
 ples of Moses,'' — and when the commission said 
 'Go and disciple all nations, baptizing them and 
 teaching them," &c. they would make disciples 
 
58 
 
 of adults and their children, as the Jewish Missiona- 
 ries had been accustomed lo do from the beginning. 
 They who valued themselves upon being the children 
 of Abraham, would not reject the infant children of 
 the followers of Abraham's faith. "If ye be Chrisfs, 
 then are ye Abraham^ s seed, and heirs according to 
 the promise."— St. Paul. 
 
 It is objected farther, if they are admitted to bap- 
 tism, on the same ground, they ought to be admit- 
 ted to the sacrament of the Lord's supper. This ob- 
 jection is more specious than valid. It is evident 
 to all who reflect, that there is a manifest difference 
 existing in the two ordinances, baptism and the 
 Lord^s supper, — as is obvious from the scriptures, 
 and from the practice of the Baptists themselves. 
 I suppose they do not admit all to the communion, 
 (however unworthy,) who have been once baptized. 
 Now infants have no capacity to "discern the Lord's 
 body," or to examine themselves before approaching 
 the supper. Nor is it ever said of baptism, "He 
 that receives it unworthily, receives it to his own 
 damnation." 
 
 The children of Jewish parents, though regular 
 church members, did not eat of the Passover until a 
 given age. So says Calvin, Institutes, b. iv, ch. 16, 
 
59 
 
 *'The Passover, which has now been succeeded by 
 the sacred supper, did not admit guests of all de- 
 scriptions promiscuously; but was rightly eaten only 
 by those who were of sufficient age to be able to in- 
 quire into its signification." 
 
 Josephus says, Antiq. lib. xii, ch. 4, — "The law 
 forbids the son to eat of the sacrifice^ before he has 
 come to the temple, and there presented an offering 
 to God." 
 
 "Children at the age of twelve years (says Poole) 
 were brought by their parents to the temple; and 
 from that time they began to eat of the Passover, and 
 other sacrifices.'' 
 
 I shall quote but three more authorities on this 
 point. 
 
 "Till a child was twelve years old, he was not 
 obliged to go to Jerusalem at the time of the Pass- 
 over." Stackhouse, hist. bib. b. viii, ch. 1. 
 
 "The males were not brought to the temple, till 
 they were twelve years old, and the sacrifices they 
 ate, were chiefly peace offerings, which became the 
 common food to all that were clean in the family." 
 Dr. Doddridge, lee. p. ix, prop. 155. 
 
 Hence we find, (in Luke ii, 21, 41, 42,) that al- 
 though Jesus was circumcised at eight days old, and 
 
60 
 
 his parents went up every year to the passover feast, 
 yet there is no intimation that Jesus ever kept the 
 feast, until he was twelve years old; " J.nrf when he 
 was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem, 
 after the custom of the feasts The learned Dr. 
 Gill, a Baptist writer, has spoken to the same effect. 
 Gill's Com. on Luke ii, 42. "According to the 
 maxims of the Jews," says he, "persons were not 
 obliged to the duties of the law, or subject to its 
 penalties in case of non-performance, until they were, 
 a female, at the age of twelve years and one day, 
 and a male at the age of thirteen years and one day. 
 But then they used to train up their children, and 
 inure them to religious exercises before. They 
 were not properly under the law until they had ar- 
 rived at the age above mentioned; nor were they 
 reckoned adult church members, until then, nor then 
 neither, unless worthy persons: — for so it is said, 
 "He that is worthy, at thirteen years of age, is 
 called, a 'son of the congregation of Israel.' " 
 
 From the examination of this objection to infant 
 baptism, our views are strengthened; for it appears 
 that although infants were formerly circumcised, 
 they were not required to eat the Passover. And 
 although infants are to be baptized, "«s they may be 
 
61 
 
 the subjects of the renewing of the Holy Ghost, and 
 sprinkUng of the blood of Christ," signified by bap- 
 tism, and can thus be distinguished visibly as the 
 special property of Christ, yet they cannot, in the 
 supper, 'discern the Lord's body,' and partake of it 
 'in remembrance of him;' and are morally and phys- 
 ically incapable of coming to the Lord's table, ac- 
 cording to the meaning of the institution. 
 
 And although at some periods of the history of 
 the church, in some places infant communion was 
 held; yet it was never said to have come down from 
 the days of the apostles, nor did it ever generally 
 prevail in the Christian church. I suppose it came 
 into the church as an innovation, the result of super - 
 atition, and prevailed about as extensively, and stood 
 upon the same footing as the practice of baptizing 
 men and women naked; dipping them three times, 
 and then giving milk and honey to the baptized. 
 
 We shall in the next place try to ascertain how 
 the apostles understood their commission, from the 
 manner in which they executed it, as we find the 
 matter detailed in the Acts of the Apostles. 
 
 We think it cannot be shown that in any case 
 where parents were baptized, their children were 
 left still to be the disciples of Moses, or in an out- 
 
G2 
 
 cast lieathen state. We think the cases of family 
 or household baptism recorded, furnish, at least, very- 
 strong presumptive evidence, for infant baptism; and 
 I suppose presumptive evidence for them, will be 
 considered good; until some counter evidence is 
 produced. 
 
 It is true that Mr. Broaddus says, ser. page 11, 
 ^^ I have myself baptized four households, and not an 
 infant among them.'''' In the whole course of his 
 ministry, I suppose in some twelve or fourteen years, 
 after baptizing hundreds, as I presume; he has bap- 
 tized '■'■four households, and not an infant among them." 
 I really feel a little curiosity to know who they 
 were, and how many souls, the four households con- 
 tained. 1 wonder if there were any married persons 
 among them? I hope if this gentleman should write 
 again, he will give us some information on this ex- 
 traordinary case, for it is surely extraordinary to 
 hear of a Baptist preacher baptizing even onehousB' 
 hold, except perhaps where a man and his wife, or 
 a bachelor and his maiden sister constitute a house- 
 hold. We are thankful to Mr. B. for this piece of 
 information. It seems then, that in the course of 
 his whole ministry, after having baptized hundreds, 
 he has met with and baptized four households, that 
 had no infants in them. 
 
63 
 
 Now in the x\cts of the Apostles, and in the Epis- 
 tles, there are a few families only, mentioned. And 
 in every case where there is mention of a family, 
 there is the total absence of evidence that any part 
 of the family was refused baptism. Li every case 
 where baptism is mentioned in connection with a 
 family, the evidence, as far as it goes, is in favor of 
 the baptism of the parent, and the children. 
 
 We will take first, the case of Lydia, Acts xvi, 15, 
 — "And when she was baptized, and her household. '''' 
 But Mr. B. thinks, page 10, that possibly the house- 
 hold were "Lydia's partners in her mercantile oper- 
 ations," he says, possibly they were ^^journeymen dy- 
 ers'''' "or were they mere travelling companions?" 
 Our Baptist friends are so bent upon cutting off the 
 right of infants to baptism, that they will suppose 
 any thing, however preposterous, to evade the argu- 
 ment drawn from household baptisms. 
 
 They will suppose that even partners in business, 
 with Lydia, £»r '•^journeymen dyers,'''' were baptized, 
 and constituted "brethren," although there is no in- 
 timation that she had so much as one partner or one 
 journeyman; and if she had, (which we think very 
 unlikely,) then they were baptized and made breth- 
 ren, without grace; for the passage makes no men> 
 7 
 
62 
 
 tion of the heart of any person being opened, except 
 LydiaV, and there is no intimation that those jour- 
 neymen either repented or beheved, and of course 
 could not have received "beUever's baptism." I ap- 
 peal to you, reader, to judge, who would be the most 
 fit for baptism, — the children of a believing mother, 
 or a household of graceless ^^journeymen dyers.^^ 
 "I speak as unto wise men." 
 
 God said, "I will be a God to thee and to thy seed^ 
 Peter said, "the promise is unto you and your chil- 
 dren.^^ And Luke says, "Lydia was baptized, and 
 her household.'''' "Judge ye what I say." 
 
 Is there not strong presumptive evidence that the 
 apostles baptized children with their parents? 
 
 But Mr. B. had to suppose, that Lydia had a dy- 
 ing establishment, in order to find a use for 'jour- 
 neymen;' and then he thinks it would have been 
 "unsuitable" and "inconvenient" for her to have 
 brought her infant or infants with her, such a dis- 
 tance, even if she had them at home. He thinks it 
 'very improbable' that she would have them with 
 her. Now, candid reader, I think just the reverse; 
 for if Lydia left Thyatira, and came to Philippi, and 
 set up a dying establishment, that needed journey- 
 men, and went to housekeeping with her 'partners' 
 
65 
 
 or 'journeymen,' or both, then / say, it is extremely 
 improbable that she would have left any 'part of her 
 family at Thyatira, much less her "infant offspring." 
 However inconvenient it might be to a mother to 
 bring her children such a distance, yet with a moth- 
 er'' s hearty she would doubtless find it much more in- 
 convenient to have them so far from her. 
 
 The editor of Calmet, Facts and Evidences, p. 
 13, 14, has proved that (Oikos) the word used in the 
 passage, when spoken of persons, denotes a family 
 of children — and includes children of all ages. And 
 he offers not on\y fifty examples to prove it, but says 
 that ^Hhree hundred instances have been examined, 
 and have proved perfectly satisfactory." 
 
 The same writer says, that when the sacred wri- 
 ters include servants, and the whole domestic estab- 
 lishment, they use the word (Oikia,) and the passage 
 above should be read, "and when she was baptized 
 and her family." Lydia then had a family of chil- 
 dren; and these children were baptized at the same 
 time with their mother. 
 
 Again, as this woman appears not to have been 
 past the meridian of life, the presumption is, that 
 part of those children were young. What Mr. B. 
 says about those persons who constituted Lydia's 
 
60 
 
 tkiiiily, beiiig the brethreu spuken of in the 40 v. 
 who were comforted by Paul and Silas; when exam- 
 ined a little, will appear destitute even of probability. 
 He asks, with an air of triumph, "can these things 
 be said with propriety of unconscious babesi" I 
 answer no, — and there is no necessity that they 
 should be so applied. Reader if j^ou will look at 
 V. 16, 18, you will find that the apostles held public 
 meetings in Phihppi '•'■many days*^ after Lydia's 
 conversion, before they were cast into prison; and 
 during all that time exercised their ministry unmo- 
 lested, until they cast the spirit of divination out of 
 a "girl;" which circumstance led to the imprison- 
 ment of Paul and Silas. There can be no doubt 
 that many were converted at these meetings; espe- 
 cially as Paul in his epistle to this church, repre- 
 sents them as having lived in fellowship in the gospel 
 "from the first day." Philip i, 5. And moreover 
 there were two of the apostolic company who were 
 not in the prison with Paul and Silas, as you will 
 see by examining the context. The company con- 
 sisted at least of — 1st, Timothy; 2d, Paul; 3d, Silas; 
 4th, Luke. They lodged at the house of Lydia, 
 until Paul and Silas were cast in prison. On the 
 day after they were released from their imprison- 
 
67 
 
 ment ^Hhey entered into the house of Lydia: and 
 when they had seen the brethren, they comforted 
 them and departed^ This verse does not so much 
 as intimate that "the brethren" were Lydia's fami- 
 ly. When the intelligence of the release of the 
 apostles from prison, was noised abroad, of course 
 the whole of the brethren, Timothy, Luke, and 
 others, would repair to Paul's lodgings to see him; 
 and when he had given them his farewell benedic- 
 tion, he departed. 
 
 Once more, on this case of family baptism. It 
 will be urged, there is no positive proof that there 
 were infants in the family of Lydia. True, and 
 there is no positive proof that there were any adults 
 besides Lydia herself. "But here is positive proof 
 of the baptism of children, and a family of children, 
 mentioned in connection with the baptism of the 
 parent, without a hint being dropped respecting their 
 faith, conversion, or consent, or even of their at- 
 tending to the things spoken of Paul; though the 
 account contains a detail of the parents' conversion, 
 in such a way, that their conversion could not well 
 have escaped notice had it actually taken place." 
 
 "It will not be contended, we presume, by the Bap- 
 tists, that any adults were baptized of whose faith 
 7* 
 
68 
 
 we have not good proof, for this would destroy the 
 whole fabric of 'believers' baptism.' When, there- 
 fore, we find children baptized, of whose faith we 
 have no proof at all, the conclusion is inevitable, 
 that children were not baptized by the apostles on 
 the same grounds as adults." 
 
 If the sacred writers have taken care to apprize 
 us of the previous faith of all the adults who received 
 baptism, in order that succeeding ministers might 
 not mistake in giving the ordinance to an adult un- 
 believer; did it not equally behove them, if they re- 
 quired the same qualifications in children, to use the 
 same care in notifying their faith, with the record 
 of their reception of the ordinance? And as, in fact, 
 they have not done this, does it not necessarily fol- 
 low, that faith in children is not a necessary qvali- 
 f cation?'''' Dr. Isaac, p. 185. 
 
 In fact, we never should have known that Lydia 
 had a family, were they not incidentally mentioned 
 as accompanying her in baptism; — ^^And when she 
 was baptized and her family.'''' Insert her baptism, 
 we find her family; omit her baptism, she has no 
 family recorded: the act of her baptism, cannot be 
 separated from that of her flimily. Now if her 
 family were of mature age, capable of "attention to 
 
G9 
 
 {\\e word spoken," capable of having their hearts 
 opened, capable of believing, how is it that they are 
 not mentioned together with her, as attending, dec, 
 since they are mentioned together with her as re- 
 ceiving baptism? Surely. Luke did not think their 
 being baptized, a more important fact than their 
 having "their hearts opened," &:c. so that he should 
 mention the one and omit the other: but I shall be 
 told, — we are to infer their repentance and faith 
 from the fact of their baptism. Our opponents are 
 as glad to be allowed an e;j/'ere«ce sometimes as their 
 neighbors. But, if their conversion is to be inferred 
 from the fact of their baptism, then, might the con- 
 version of the mother be inferred from her haptisin, 
 and there was no necessity that Luke should have 
 detailed the circumstances of htr change^ we might 
 have settled the whole matter by inference, as well 
 as a part of it. And, as he detailed the circumstances 
 of the conversion of the mother, and said nothing 
 of the family, only that they were baptized with her, 
 the inference, we think, in the minds of all, who 
 have not a theory to support, by rejecting the evi- 
 dence, must be irresistible, that they did not re- 
 ceive baptism on the same conditions that Lydia 
 did — but were made disciples by baptism, that they 
 
70 
 
 might be taught "the things belonging to the 'king- 
 dom of God.' " 
 
 The cases of the household of Stephanus, 1 Cor. 
 i, 16, and the household of the Philippian jailor, 
 Acts xvi, 33, we shall not dwell upon. One remark 
 or two on this last mentioned case, and we shall 
 proceed. 
 
 Our Baptist friends have often attempted to do 
 away the evidence drawn from this case, as Mr. B. 
 does, Ser. p. 10, by referring to that part of the pas- 
 sage which says, that they spake to him the word of 
 the Lord and to all that were in his house, and that 
 he rejoiced, believing in God, with all his house, &c. 
 The preaching evidently took place in the outer pris- 
 OTiy where Paul and Silas were, before they were 
 thrust into the inner prison; "and they spake to him 
 the word of the Lord and to all that were in his 
 house;" v. 32. Here the word (oikia) is used, 
 which includes the buildings occupied by the ser- 
 vants and prisoners, as well as those appropriated to 
 the use of the family. See Mr. Taylor's Facts and 
 Evidences. When St. Paul says, v. 31, "thou shalt 
 be saved and thy house," he uses another word 
 (oikos) which includes the parents and children. 
 Hence, when he believed, we find, v. 33, "Ae was 
 
71 
 
 baptized, and all his. straightway,''^ And suppose 
 his family did rejoice with him, there might still be 
 infants in it. Have you never read, "out of the 
 mouth of babes and sucklings, thou hast perfected 
 praise?" 
 
 It would be well if our Baptist friends would se- 
 riously consider this case in the light of truth, and 
 the spirit of candor. Though the servants and pris- 
 oners together, must have amounted to several per- 
 sons; and though the family was undoubtedly numer- 
 ous; yet we do not read of any one besides him, and 
 ALL his, being baptized. If we suppose, with a Bap- 
 tist, that the whole of the jailor's family were con- 
 verted under this sermon, it would be one of the 
 most singular circumstances, which the history of 
 the church has furnished, that the work of conver- 
 sion should stop just there; — not one of a?/ his family 
 left; not one of all the rest taken. 
 
 Allotr, the children were baptized on the ground 
 of their father^ s faith, and all the mystery and diffi- 
 culty of the passage vanishes at once. Dr. Isaac, 
 p. 192. 
 
 One thing at least is certain, that the jailor and 
 his family were not baptized according to the prac- 
 tice among the Baptists of modern times. For we 
 
72 
 
 learn from the passage, that "they were baptized the 
 same hour of the night.'' No such case can be 
 found in the history of those who deny infant bap- 
 tism. There are four reasons why a Baptist minis- 
 ter would not have baptized the jailor and his family, 
 as the apostles did, after about half an hour's teach- 
 ing. 
 
 1st. He would not have deemed them sufficiently 
 instructed. They were all idolaters an hour before. 
 
 2nd. They could not have furnished the required 
 evidences of their being the subjects of a gracious 
 change. It is common for Baptists to delay bap- 
 tism for weeks, sometimes for months. 
 
 3d. The concurrence of the church could not be 
 had. Lydia and 'the brethren' must have been con- 
 sulted. 
 
 4th. There was no opportunity for a public pro- 
 fession of Christianity: where the ^'imposing ordin- 
 ance^^ could be witnessed. 
 
 I judge that the 'pattern' St. Paul worked by, dif- 
 fered in several respects, from the pattern of those 
 who hold nothing but believer's baptism. 
 
 Perhaps we could show, (if we were disposed to 
 cavil, and find fault with our neighbors,) that the 
 practice of our Baptist friends differs very widely 
 
13 
 
 li'om the practice of the apostles, as we find their's 
 detailed in the Acts. 
 
 We have dwelt longer on the baptism of families, 
 than we intended. We shall therefore proceed to 
 other evidence for infant baptism. 
 
 We next adduce what our Lord says, Mark x, 13, 
 14, 15, 16; Luke xviii, 15; Matt, xix, 13,— Suffer 
 the little children to come unto me, and forbid them 
 not; for of such is the kingdom of God^ With this 
 passage, Mr. B. seems somewhat perplexed, for he 
 endeavors to make it appear, that those children 
 might have been capable of believing. Ser. p. 13, 
 Strict, p. 8, he says — "I am led to doubt exceed- 
 ingly, whether the children brought to Jesus were 
 unconscious babes, or whether there ever were any 
 2inconscious infants brought to Jesus. ^^ JSTow I sup- 
 pose if they had been capable of 'believing,' as Mr. 
 B. supposes, then neither the disciples or even a 
 Baptist preacher would have rebuked those that 
 brought them, or have forbidden the children;'' as 
 believers are not only capable of being 'blessed,' but 
 have a right to baptism, according to our opponents. 
 Luke says they were 'infants.' I presume their in- 
 fants were about as ^^unconscious''' as our infants 
 How ridiculous it is to see a man come with 'Schre- 
 
74 
 
 velius' Lexicon,' or any other Lexicon in his hand, 
 to tell, or prove to plain people, that, although Mark 
 says they were ^^yoiing children;'''' and Jesus calls 
 them "Zi/^Ze children;''^ and Matthew calls them ^'lit- 
 tle children;'''' and Luke says they were "infants;'*'' 
 and they all say "they were brought''^ to Jesus, and 
 "he took them up in his arms,^^ and put his hands 
 on them, "yet there never were any unconscious in- 
 fants brought to Jesus!'''' "O! shame, where is thy 
 blush!" 
 
 In his Strictures, Mr. B. has tried one mode of 
 evading this case; and in his sermon, another mode, 
 both equally absurd, and going alike to show how 
 very obnoxious the case of those children is to the 
 Baptist cause. 
 
 The phrase "kingdom of God," and "kingdom of 
 heaven," used by the evangelists, Matthew, Mark 
 and Lvke, I hold to mean generally, the church un- 
 der the gospel dispensation; — "The kingdom which 
 (Daniel said) the God of heaven was to set up at the 
 end of the seventy weeks," represented in the vision 
 by the "little stone taken out of the mountain with- 
 out hands." Dan. ii, 44, 45. I am not only sup- 
 ported in this view by critics generally, but also by 
 that famous Baptist preacher, Robert Hall — Hall's 
 
75 
 
 Works, vol. 1, page 372, his words are — "the king- 
 dom of God, a phrase which is constantly employed 
 in scripture, to denote that state of things which is 
 placed under the avowed administration of the Mes- 
 siah.'' Now Christ says, "of such ('infants,' 'little 
 children') is the kingdom of God," and says to the 
 adults, who were present^ "verily I say unto you, 
 whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as 
 a little child, he shall not enter therein.'' It is wor- 
 thy of remark, that while the disciples forbid the 
 children, and rebuked those that brought them, the 
 master "was much displeased" with those knoiving 
 adults, and took the infants in his bosom, and gave 
 them his blessing. A Baptist may ask, "how could 
 an infant be blessed?" they are "unconscious," "why 
 should infants be forced without their choice" to 
 Christ, and have his blessing put upon them "with- 
 out their consent?" "They might choose to reject 
 Christ, when they become adults." These and a 
 thousand other questions might be asked. But the 
 how and the why, is not the matter to be settled by 
 us; here are the facts, "he took them in his arms," 
 "he blessed them," he said, "of such is the kingdom 
 of God." It is very doubtful with me, whether Mr. 
 
 B's "extreme doubts" on the subject, even with the 
 
 8 
 
76 
 
 use of his ^Lexicon/ will invalidate in the minds of 
 my readers, the force of these facts. It is hard to 
 reason against facts. 
 
 But suppose for argument sake, that the "kingdom 
 of God" means the kingdom of glory, our opponents 
 gain nothing by it; then the children are fit for heav- 
 en, and I suppose, are fit for the church on earth. 
 What Mr. B. says in his strictures, about angels 
 being unfit for a place in the gospel church, is alto- 
 gether gratuitous; — where is it written? He admits, 
 Strictures, p. 8, that "the blood of Jesus may be ap- 
 plied to children," fitting them for heaven: and still 
 he says ^Hhey are fitted by an influence that never 
 fits men for the gospel kingdom.'^'' This seems like 
 very strange doctrine. 1 suppose Mr. B. holds the 
 doctrine of original sin, in opposition to Pelagius; if 
 so, infants need an application of the blood of Christ, 
 to purify, or make them holy; then the question oc- 
 curs, how is this blood applied? the scriptures attri- 
 bute the work uniformly to the Holy Spirit: hence 
 the angel said, Luke i, 15, of John the Baptist, that 
 "he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from 
 his mother's womb." Now, candid reader, do you 
 know of any other way, to fit men for the gospel 
 church, or the kingdom of glory, than by an applica- 
 
77 
 
 tion of "the blood of Jesus, through the eternal 
 spirit?" We read of but one song among the re- 
 deemed in heaven; — they all were redeemed by the 
 blood of J esus, and all sing one song. 
 
 Infants, who are in a state of justification, Rom. v, 
 18, consequently not guilty, having never commit- 
 ted actual, or personal transgression, are made the 
 model for adults, "except ye be converted, and be- 
 come as little children;^'' "whosoever shall not re- 
 ceive the kingdom of God, as a little child," &c. 
 Yet our Baptist friends admit the adults, who are 
 formed on the model, and reject the children, who 
 are the model by which the qualifications of the 
 adult are set forth. Strange! passing strange! 
 
 We shall be told, however, "they were not bap- 
 tized, but blessed," — where is the proof? "They 
 were to be received in the name of Christ." "They 
 were not to be forbidden to come to him.'' The 
 Baptists say, all were to come to him in his church 
 by baptism. I, therefore, infer, they were baptized, 
 and I have just as much evidence of the baptism of 
 those children, as any Baptist can find in the New 
 Testament, of the baptism of St. Peter and St. John; 
 for I have never seen any evidence that Christ ever 
 applied water to them, hut once, and then he only 
 
78 
 
 washed their feet. An objector will say — but we 
 infer they were baptized; — very good. You will 
 allow me the same liberty. / infer those children 
 were baptized, for surely, they obtained some grace, 
 when it is said "Ae blessed them.'''' This is more 
 than can be said with truth, of many an adult church 
 member. See Watson's Exp. on Matt, xix, 13, 
 14. 
 
 The Epistles were written to the churches, and 
 were to be read in the churches; and children — young 
 children — are addressed, and appropriate instruc- 
 tion given them, equally with fathers, wives, ser- 
 vants, &c. We shall be told they were not "uncon- 
 scious babes.'' They were so young that they were 
 "5''et to be brought wjo" and were not to be '■^pro- 
 voTced''' by their parents, lest they should be "dis- 
 couraged." They had been "baptized into Christ;" 
 — into his kingdom as subjects, — into his school as 
 scholars, or disciples, — and were to ^^obey their pa- 
 rents in the Lord in all things,^'' and to be ^'■brought 
 up in the instruction and discipline of the Lord." 
 Surely such were not adult believers. When was 
 a Baptist church seen, that had persons in it, that 
 needed bringing up. They rarely baptize any, ex- 
 cept those who have reached adult age. And no 
 
79 
 marvel, when some, at least, of their ministers pub- 
 licly ridicule the practice of teaching children to 
 pray, and scoff at the efforts made in the Sabbath 
 school cause. 
 
 1 never heard, or read of more than two instances, 
 where children were admitted as members of a 
 Baptist church, as early as twelve years of age, — 
 English Bap. Mag. Jan. 1814, — one of those youths 
 was eleven, thejother twelve. Now, are children to 
 be taught, that God will not give them his grace, 
 nor will the church give them her privileges, until 
 they reach that age? If our friends can furnish ex- 
 amples of earlier piety, we shall rejoice in it, but it 
 surely is undeniable, that young people are not as 
 generally pious among those who deny infant bap- 
 tism as among other denom.inations. It ought to be 
 matter of serious inquiry, why it is, that most of the 
 members of Baptist churches, did not become 
 pious, until adult age; while the case is different I 
 believe, in all other churches. There is no prece- 
 dent in scripture, with regard to the particular age 
 at which the ordinance ought to be given, except 
 one. That is the case of Jesus, "who began to be 
 about thirty years of age." We suppose "our 
 
 friends," who talk so much of "following Jesus down 
 
 8^ 
 
so 
 
 to Jordan," and "fulfilling all righteousness,"— would 
 hardly reconimend all persons to defer baptism until 
 the age of thirty— although this is a part of Christ's 
 example. More of this hereafter. When they tell 
 us we cannot find the word "infant" in connection 
 with baptism in the scriptures — and therefore have 
 "no thus saith the Lord" for it — "no scripture pre- 
 cedent," I answer, they cannot find the words, boy, 
 girl, old man, young man, yet, they occasionally bap- 
 tize some of each. This is very much like a man 
 rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity^ because he 
 does not find the word Trinity in the scriptures. 
 
 I shall produce one more evidence from the scrip- 
 tures, 1 Cor. vii, 14, "for the unbelieving husband 
 is sanctified by the wife," &;c. "else were your chil- 
 dren unclean; but now are they holy.'' Mr. B. has 
 given — Ser. p. 1^, 13 — a caricature of the argument 
 of Pedobaptists on this passage — "he says some of 
 them contend that infants ought to be baptized, be- 
 cause they are jmre, and others contend that they 
 need it because they are impure," and then gravely 
 says, "but I cannot see the force of the argument." 
 What argument? if he had taken as much pains to 
 present the Pedobaptist view of the passage, as he 
 has, to give the fanciful and far-fetched exposition of 
 
81 
 
 the Rev. Mr. Dagg — the reader might have had 
 some idea of the argumeat for infant baptism, drawn 
 from the passage. 
 
 In many places in the scriptures, Ex. xix, 6; Lev. 
 X, 10. 2 Chron. xxiii, 6; Chron. xxii,19; Ezek. xxii, 
 26; Luke ii, 23; Acts, x, 28, and xi, 8, 9; Heb. ix, 
 1 3, the word "holy" is applied to things or persons, 
 separated from common, and devoted to religious 
 uses; separated from the world and devoted to God: 
 and is often applied to the visible church, under dif- 
 ferent dispensations. Hence the Jews are called a 
 "holy -people;" and Peter calls the Christian church 
 "a holy nation." They were so, professional ly, 
 being "separated from the world to God," — al- 
 though each individual member, was not '''■intrinsi- 
 cally holy?^ 
 
 While our opponents say, that the word "holy" 
 as applied to the children in the text, signifies that 
 they were "legitimate" children, they do not pretend 
 to furnish a single text from the scriptures, where 
 the word haS that sense; while they expect us to 
 take their interpretation without proof, the good Mr. 
 Baxter has shown, (Baxter's Inf. Ch. Membership,) 
 that in near six hundred 'places in the bible, the 
 word has the sense which I have given it above, 
 
82 
 
 i. e. "« separation to God.'^'' This evidence 1 should 
 think, must be decisive vf\i\\ all, who do not inter- 
 pret scripture by a creed, but are content to take 
 their creed out of the scriptures. If then the chil- 
 dren of Christians are "holy" i.e. "separated to 
 God,-' are they separated to God in the church, or 
 out of it? If it is replied they are separated to him 
 in the church — then they must be church members, 
 and that is what we wish to prove; if on the other 
 hand it be replied, they are "separated to God" in 
 the world, then truly they present an anomalous 
 case, they are truly "peculiar." They do not be- 
 long to the church, they do not belong to the world. 
 "The church is in Christ;''— "the world lieth in the 
 wicked one," but those hapless children are in 
 neither; they neither belong to God, nor the devil! 
 If they are not "unclean" but "holy," the apostle 
 clearly establishes, or asserts, a distinction between 
 the children of heathens, who were unclean, and de- 
 voted to heathen gods, and the children of professing 
 Christians, which were separated and devoted to 
 God. "The unbelieving husband (being one flesh 
 with the believing wife) is sanctified by the wife," 
 and (vice versa) so that the children are not 'un- 
 clean,' or left in a heathen state, but "separated to 
 
83 
 
 God" with the believing parent. I am supported in 
 this opinion by the learned Whitby. His language 
 is — "And though one of the parents be still a hea- 
 then, yet is the denomination to be taken from the 
 better, and so their offspring are to be esteemed, not 
 as heathens, i.e. unclean, but holy, as all Christians 
 by denomination are." See Whitby on the place. 
 Clemens Alexandrinus, held the same view of this 
 passage. "Hence then (says W^hitby) the argument 
 for infant baptism runs thus: If the holy seed among 
 the Jews, was therefore to be circumcised, and be 
 made federally holy, by receiving the sign of the 
 covenant, and being admitted into the number of 
 God's "holy people," because they were born in 
 sanctity, or were seminally holy; for the root being 
 holy., so are the branches also; then by like reason, 
 the holy seed of Christians, ought to be admitted to 
 baptism, and receive the sign of the Christian cove- 
 nant." 
 
 W^hat merit 'Mr. Dagg's exposition' may possess 
 as a whole, 1 am unprepared to say, but the speci- 
 men Mr. B. has given of it, surely does not present 
 it in a very favorable light. Hear him — "If a be- 
 lieving husband must leave his wife because she is 
 an unbeliever, for the same reason your offspring 
 
84 
 
 must be cast off, for they would upon the principle 
 herein involved, he as unclean on account of unbelief, 
 to the believing parents, as an unbelieving husband 
 or wife, would be to the other who is a believer." 
 But perhaps Mr. B. may bring a Lexicon to prove 
 that the term translated children, means 'posterity.' 
 Certainly it does, and so includes the youngest in- 
 fants. Now, although Mr. D. and Mr. B. both talk 
 about infants or children ^heingin unbelief,^ one says 
 they are 'unclean on account of unbelief;' the other 
 says 'infants are baptized in unbelief.' I should like 
 those gentlemen to furnish one single text of scrip- 
 ture, where either children or infants, have unbelief 
 attributed to them, or are said to be 'in unbelief.' 
 There is a manifest discrepancy, not to say a flat 
 contradiction, in the language used by Mr. B. in his 
 Strictures, p. 10, and in his Sermon, p. 7 and 26. 
 When reasoning, in the Strictures, on the salvation of 
 infants, he says — "The gospel cannot condemn them, 
 because they cannot be guilty of the sin of unbelief. ^^ 
 In his Sermon, when he wants to exclude them from 
 the rite of baptism, he says, — "I will engage to prove, 
 my hearers, that the commission, actually excludes 
 all unbelievers, whether unconscious infants, or un- 
 believing adults.'' Again he says — "Thousands of 
 
85 
 
 believers admit (i. e. baptism) because they were 
 baptized while in unbelief / f^^ I think this needs a 
 salvo; there is at least 'a glorious uncertainty'' about 
 it. 
 
 We have seen from the evidence produced above, 
 that the children of those Corinthians were not 'un- 
 clean' but 'holy,' and as no instance can be given of 
 a person being called holy, who was not a member 
 of the visible church of God; the inference is unde- 
 niable that holy infants belonged to the visible church 
 of Christ. 
 
 "Having thus established their membership, I shall 
 take their baptism for granted, till our Baptist breth- 
 ren admit people into their churches without the 
 ordinance." Dr. Isaac, p. 164. 
 
 Mr. B. asks a question on this point which I must 
 say a word in reply to. "Was baptism designed 
 for the benefit of holy beings'? The commission in 
 that case ought to be read, go ye, &;c., and baptize all 
 you find who are holy. Upon that plan, all adults 
 would be excluded, seeing all adults are sinners." 
 He says, Ser. p. 23, — "Baptism brings us, after re- 
 generation, into the visible kingdom of Jesus Christ." 
 Are thay ^regenerated,'' and yet sinners — '■buried 
 with Christ in baptism,' and yet sinners— 'crucified 
 
86 
 
 with Christ, that the body of sin might be destroy- 
 ed,'^ and yet sinners? The apostle says, 'their chil- 
 dren were holy;' and take Mr. B's interpretation of 
 the word, and say they were holy in the longest, 
 broadest, highest sense of that word, even then, I 
 suppose, candid reader, you will admit, that holiness 
 would furnish as valid a reason for baptism as sin 
 especially in view of the fact, that the holiness of the 
 ^holy Jesus'' did not disqualify him for baptism!! 
 
 We remark in evidence farther, the antiquity of 
 the practice of infant baptism, may be considered as 
 strong evidence on the subject. If the baptism of 
 children was not practiced by the apostles, and by 
 the primitive Christians, when and where did the 
 practice commence? 
 
 To this question. Baptist writers generally do not 
 attempt to give an answer, because they cannot. 
 It is an innovation, say they, not upon the circum- 
 stances of a sacrament, but upon its essential princi- 
 ple. And yet its introduction produced no struggle; 
 was never noticed by any general, or provincial 
 council; and excited no controversy; this itself, is 
 strong presumptive evidence of its early antiquity. 
 
 Our Baptist friends, from time to time, have at- 
 tempted to find its origin. Mr. B. says, Ser. p. 27 
 
87 
 
 —It was introduced by the Romish apostacy, and 
 'calls on all candid Pedobaptist Protestants, as they 
 would desire the world to be delivered from the 
 abominations of Popery, to abandon this Popish cer- 
 emony.' This reminds me of the famous argument 
 of some people, against the doctrmes of Christ's di- 
 vinity, and the Trinity of persons in the Godhead; 
 that they ought to be rejected by Protestants, because 
 they were a part of the doctrines of the Church of 
 Rome. Query — Is this the cause why such large bod- 
 ies of men, who have denied infant baptism at dif- 
 ferent periods, in Germany, Poland, &c., have been 
 Socinians?!! See Benedict's Hist, of the Baptists, 
 p. 172 '3 '4 '5. 
 
 I suppose that it is the part of charity and candor, 
 to ^rejoice in the truth,'' whether that truth be 
 found among Protestants, or Catholics — with Luther, 
 or the Pope. Unfortunately for our Baptist friends, 
 however, infant baptism is not only found with Lu- 
 ther, and the Pope, but with the Greek church, 
 that never had any connection with the Pope, from 
 the earliest periods of her history. And if, as the 
 Baptists say, — Benedict's history of the Baptists, page 
 58, 59, 60; infant baptism was introduced in Africa, 
 
 from the first to the middle of the third century; con- 
 9 
 
8S 
 
 fined at first to catechised minors, and in about forty 
 years, decided to be the rite of infants, by an eccle- 
 siastical council, how did it happen, that there was 
 but little more said on the subject until the year 
 416? And how did it happen that although the 
 Vandals overran that part of Africa about "the year 
 429, and the Catholics fled into Europe, carrying in- 
 fant baptism with them," "that its entrance into Eu- 
 rope was of a later date," and "the first ecclesiastical 
 canon in Europe on the subject, was" as late as "the 
 sixth century?" "And the first imperial law on the 
 subject in the eighth century, by the emperor Charle- 
 magne?" 
 
 Mr. Judson supposed, that infant baptism was in- 
 troduced towards the close of the second century — 
 while Mr. Broaddus considers it a relic of Popery; 
 although Popery did not exist, as such, until after 
 the sixth century, — this is only a difference of 
 opinion between two Baptist preachers, each reject- 
 ing infant baptism; one dating its origin only 400 
 years later than the other. No marvel that we should 
 differ from them — when they cannot agree among 
 themselves, on the origin of so great an innovation 
 upon '•'•gospel order.^^ 
 
 Now we would ask Mr. Benedict, and our Baptist 
 
89 
 
 friends — where were the Baptist churches, all this 
 time? The descendants of "their ancient brother," 
 John the Baptist; were there none found faithful 
 among the primitive Christians, to utter the voice 
 of warning, on the subject of this great innovation? 
 There was none found, candid reader, to object, ex- 
 cept Tertullian, and he objected as much to the 
 baptism of "unmarried believers," as he did to in- 
 fants; and admitted the validity of 'infant baptism,' 
 where there was danger of death. Of course then, 
 he was not a Baptist. 
 
 Mr. Benedict says, History, page 92, — "We date 
 the origin of our sentiments, and the beginning of 
 our denomination, about the year of our Lord, 29 or 
 30; for at that period, John the Baptist began to 
 immerse professed believers in Jordan and Enon, 
 and to prepare the way for the coming of the Lord's 
 anointed, and for the setting up of his kingdom." It 
 is generally admitted that John baptized hundreds 
 of thousands. If this was the origin of the Baptist 
 denomination, what became of all those thousands, 
 for about twelve hundred years, that there was none 
 found to demur at infant baptism?! Surely they 
 could not have been in existence in Christendom, or 
 they did not look upon the baptism of 'unconscious 
 
90 
 
 babes' in the same light that modern Baptists do; 
 one or the other of those conclusions we think inev- 
 itably true. Mr. Broaddus, Ser. page 21, 22, at- 
 tempts to dispose of the 'testimony of the fathers' in 
 a very summary manner; and in support of his views, 
 quotes Dr. Hill. Now if the 'testimony of the fath- 
 ers,' having been in the keeping of the church _ of 
 Rome, is sufficient reason, as those gentlemen sup- 
 pose, why it should be rejected, I would ask, if the 
 infidel might not urge the same reason, against his 
 receiving the New Testament scriptures? The 
 classing 'infant baptism' with 'infant communion,' 
 transubstantiation, &c. is altogether gratuitous. It 
 stands on different grounds. 
 
 Let us hear on this subject the sentiment of the 
 intelligent and candid Baptist writer. Dr. Gale; he 
 says — "I will grant it is probable, that what all or 
 most of the churches practised immediately after 
 the apostle's times, had been appointed or practised 
 by the apostles themselves; for it is hardly to be im- 
 agined that any considerable body of these ancient 
 Christians, and much less that the whole, should so 
 soon deviate from the customs and injunctions of 
 their venerable founders, whose authority they held 
 so sacred. New opinions or practices are usually 
 introduced by degrees, and not without opposition. 
 
91 
 
 Therefore, in regard to baptism, a thing of such 
 universal concern, and daily practice, I allow it to 
 be very probable, that the primitive churches kept 
 to the apostolic pattern. I verily believe, that the 
 primitive church maintained, in this case, an exact 
 conformity to the practice of the apostles, which, 
 doubtless, agreed entirely with Christ's institutions.' 
 See Gale's reflections on Wall, page 398. 
 
 I shall adduce, now, two or three testimonies from 
 the fathers, to show what was the practice of the 
 primitive church. 
 
 Justin Martyr, who wrote in the second century, 
 speaks of some who were then sixty or seventy 
 years old, 'who were made disciples' or members 
 *in their infancy.^ But Mr. B. referring to his Lex- 
 icon, says. Strictures, page 7, the word rendered 
 'infant' may be rendered youth. I shall not stop 
 here to dispute about this word. Ireneus, who wrote 
 within 67 years of the apostolic times, says, "Christ 
 came to save all persons by himself; all, I mean, who 
 by him are baptized unto God; infants and little ones, 
 and children and youths," Dr. Wall, In. Bap. vol. 1, 
 ch. 3; he is said to have been personally acquainted 
 with Polycarp, a disciple of St. John, and had heard 
 
 him preach. 
 9* 
 
92 
 
 Origeti, of the Greek church, who was a man of 
 great learning, and acquainted extensively with the 
 church; and who had good opportunity to know the 
 practice of the apostles, as his great grandfather was 
 a Christian, and cotemporary with the apostles, says, 
 'infants, by the usage of the church, are baptized* 
 The church had a tradition, or command, from the 
 apostles, to give baptism to infants;''^ Wall's Defence, 
 page 372, 383, Dr. Doddridge's Lee. p. 9. Mr. 
 Judson tried in vain to overturn this testimony. 
 
 Cyprian, and the council of Ca?'thage, in the year 
 253, where 66 bishops met, not to decide whether 
 infants were to be baptized, but whether they might 
 be baptized before the eighth day; and they were 
 unanimously of opinion, 'that they,' infants, 'might 
 be baptized as soon as they were born.' — Cyprian, 
 Epist. 66. Lord Chancellor King, in his account 
 of the primitive church, remarks, "Here then is a 
 synodical decree for the baptism of infants, as formal 
 as can possibly be expected, which is of more weight 
 than the private judgment of a father, and more au- 
 thentic; as he might give his own opinion only, but 
 this (the decision of a synod,) denotes the common 
 practice and usage of the whole ckurch.'^^ Inquiry 
 into the Constitution, &;c. part ii, ch 3. 
 
93 
 
 Pelagius maintained infant baptism, although the 
 practice made against his heresy. He denied orig- 
 inal sin — and was the author of what is called Pelag- 
 ianism. He lived 300 years after the apostles. 
 He says, 'men slander me, as if I denied the sacra- 
 ment of baptism to infants, I never heard of any, 
 not even the most impious heretic, who denied bap- 
 tism to infants.' Wall's history of In. Bap. p. 62. 
 
 This man had every inducement to deny infant 
 baptism, if he could have found a shadow of evidence 
 to have borne him out. The usage of the church 
 in this respect, was a standing irrefragable argument 
 against his heresy. 
 
 So much for the 'testimony of the fathers.' You 
 can judge, candid reader, whether it is to be passed 
 over as nothing worth, in view of the fact, that those 
 who 'deny infant baptism,' have no evidence to put 
 in bar. 
 
 The Christian church, was early divided in sen- 
 timent, on doctrine, and split into sects, who ever 
 kept upon each other a watchful eye; and the 'pat- 
 tern' could not have been so altered, as to admit the 
 universal prevalence of such an innovation, without 
 an alarm being given. 'I speak as unto wise men, 
 Judge ye what I say.' 
 
94 
 
 Our Baptist friends try to make out their relation- 
 ship with the Waldenses, those witnesses for the 
 truth in the dark ages. I confess, I was a little amus- 
 ed, at the attempt of Mr. Benedict in his history, on 
 this subject. 
 
 That Peter De Bruis, and his followers, (who were 
 only a small fraction of the people called Waldenses,) 
 did deny infant baptism is undeniable, but on differ- 
 ent grounds from our Baptist friends. This man 
 arose in France about 1200 years after Christ, and 
 held, that infants could not be saved, and therefore 
 ought not to be baptized, 'as they could not work out 
 their own salvation.' 
 
 They held about the same proportion to the great 
 body of the Waldenses, who held infant baptism, as 
 the 'Seventh-day' Baptists do, to the great body of 
 the Baptists who hold 'the Lord's-day' as the Sab- 
 bath. If 1 were to report that the Baptists in the 
 United States, keep the 'seventh-day' as their Sab- 
 bath, I should be about as near right, as Baptist 
 writers are, when they say that the Waldenses 'deni- 
 ed infant baptism,' for those who have denied it 
 among them, have been as about one to thirty. Dr. 
 Miller on Bap. p. 40, 41, 42, 43. 
 
 In an expose of the views of the Waldenses, made 
 
95 
 
 as early as the I2tli century, although they oppose 
 many errors of the Romish church — such as praying 
 to saints, purgatory, masses, &:c.; and say that there 
 are but two sacraments, Baptism and the Lord's 
 Supper; yet they utter not one word against 'infant 
 baptism.' Watson's Die. Art. Waldenses. They 
 had bishops among them; "and after the opening of 
 the reformation under Luther, the Waldenses sought 
 intercourse with the Reformed churches of Geneva 
 and France; held communion with them; received 
 ministers from them; acknowledged them as breth- 
 ren in the Lord, &c. Now it is well known, that 
 those churches held infant baptism; and this fact 
 alone, we think sufficient to show that those pious 
 people were Pedobaptists.'' Dr. Miller, p. 43. 
 
 Why should those who deny infant baptism, wish 
 to prove, that the Waldenses were their predeces- 
 sors or ancestors? If they could make this out, they 
 would then be 900 years from the days of John the 
 Baptist; for Mr. Benedict, in his history, can furnish 
 no certain evidence that the Waldenses had any ex- 
 istence earlier than the 9th century. Let our op- 
 posing brethren, give the world 'a thus saith the 
 Lord' for rejecting infants, and then there is an end 
 to the controversy. No doubt, from the earliest his- 
 
96 
 
 tory of the Waldenses, Albigenses, &lc. there has 
 been a difference of opinion among them, on many 
 points, as there is now, among different denomina- 
 tions of Christians, not excepting the Baptists. There 
 may have been some besides the followers of Peter 
 de Bruis^ who differed with the great body of their 
 brethren for some reason, about infant baptism; but 
 surely this does not justify an effort to make out that 
 that people, as a people^ were not Pedobaptists. I 
 know a number of Baptists who are in favor of free 
 communion, and some who have communed with 
 Christians of other denominations, until they endan- 
 gered their membership in their own church thereby; 
 and I might show from the works of that celebrated 
 man, 'John Bunyan,' that he admitted members to 
 his communion, who had been baptized in infancy, 
 and had never received what is called 'believers' bap- 
 tism;' Bunyan's Works, vol. 2, p. 216, 217, 218, 
 219, but would it be fair, and honorable in me, to 
 draw a general conclusion from these particular 
 cases? and then say Hhe Baptists in Virginia are in 
 favor of free communion; and the Baptists in Europe, 
 in the days of Bunyan, admitted persons to church 
 fellowship without believers' baptism?' surely nothing 
 would be more unfair. 
 
97 . 
 
 We have seen from historical evidence, that the 
 church for 1200 years, (not to say for 1522 years,) 
 always held infant baptism, and during all that time 
 none never rejected it, on any such grounds as are 
 now urged by our Baptist brethren. He who can, 
 in view of all this evidence, persist in his opposition 
 to the baptism of children, must, it appears to me, 
 be prepared to make a sacrifice of all historical evi- 
 dence, at the altar of a prejudice that is both deaf, 
 and blind; too deaf to hear the voice of reason, and 
 too blind to see the light of truth. This language 
 is strong; because it is the result of strong convic- 
 tion, on my own mind. I have long since learned 
 that where men can laugh, and sneer, at the consci- 
 entious conduct of people as pious as themselves, be- 
 cause they choose to dedicate their children to God 
 in baptism; and can make sport with the feelings of 
 a mother, who wishes to have her child given to 
 God in his ordinance before it dies, (Mr. B's Ser. p. 
 26,) I say 1 have long since learned, that, with such 
 (at least) no other language will make any impres- 
 sion. You had as well attempt to "draw out levia- 
 thian with a hook." Job, xli. Such in the language 
 of St. Paul, Titus i, 13, need to be 'rebuked sharply;' 
 and though they may not be induced to be ^sound in 
 
98 
 
 faitK' — they may perhaps be taught to treat with 
 Christian courtesy, those who, as Bunyan says, "may 
 not see it their duty, to jump with them.'''' A candid 
 Baptist friend, once said to me, it would not do for us 
 to admit infant baptism. Why? said T; his reply 
 was, "We would be like farmers who cut off their 
 corn while it is young." Thank you for your can- 
 dor, was my reply. You think that if all the chil- 
 dren were baptized in infancy, there would be no 
 corn gathered into the Baptist garner, in adult age. 
 I have often wondered, why the baptism of children 
 should so disturb our "differing brethren." But I 
 perceive, in Mr. B's Sermon, p. 26, a little Hght on 
 this point,— he says, '•it is a positive eviV Why so.^ 
 Look, reader, lower down on the same page, and you 
 will see; because by it, Hhousands who are brought 
 to the knowledge of the truth,' are led to refuse 'be- 
 lievers' baptism.' This, to be sure, is a sore evil; but 
 happily, not so much to the convert, as to those who 
 would proselyte him, by teazing him about 'believers' 
 baptism.' A man goes on in sin, his baptized neigh- 
 bor never reproves him or talks seriously to him, 
 about the 'salvation' of his precious soul; he goes to a 
 Pedobaptist meeting; is awakened and converted to 
 God — -returns home — soon has a visit from his neigh- 
 
99 
 
 bor. He wonders what has brought his friend so 
 early to see him. 
 
 Neighbor. I wish to have a httle conversation 
 with you. 
 
 Convert. Certainly. 
 
 Neighbor. I was pleased to hear that you have 
 '''-found grace''' at the **** meeting; I wish you to 
 tell me your experience. 
 
 The convert proceeds to detail his experience. 
 
 Neighbor. " Very good;'''' "a gospel experience,^'* 
 ^^very inuch like my own;'''' "now all you want is one 
 thing:'' 
 
 Convert. Pray neighbor what is that? I am 
 happy in God; "believing, I rejoice with joy un- 
 speakable." I am not conscious of wanting any 
 thing but ^hnore grace.'''' What do you mean? 
 
 Neighbor. Why — why — the "Master says" "be- 
 lieve and be baptized:'* 
 
 Convert. Oh, is that what you mean? On that 
 subject I have no concern. I was baptized in infan- 
 cy; and I now have the thing signified, i. e. "the re- 
 newing of the Holy Ghost,'' — just as the Jewish 
 
 * I cannot find those words in this form in the New Tes- 
 tament. They remind me of the old colored man's text — 
 "The Lord says, be baptized in much ivater.'" 
 10 
 
100 
 
 children received the seal of the covenant in child- 
 hood, and at adult age^ became 'circumcised in heart.' 
 
 NeAghhor. Well, but you must obey the "com- 
 mandment." 
 
 Convert, Neighbor, my parents were Christians, 
 and you cannot show me a commandment, or a pre- 
 cedent for baptizing the children of Christian pa' 
 rents at adult age. And moreover, I cannot join a 
 church, whose confession of faith I do not believe; 
 and I could not receive believers' baptism, if I wish- 
 ed it J without joining your church. 
 
 Neighbor. Why friend, as for the confession of 
 faith, you ?ieed not mind that, for one of our elders 
 said, "he would not give the confession of faith room 
 in his saddle-bags." And again, we hold nearly the 
 same doctrines those do, among whom you found 
 the Lord; as you may find from our preaching; we 
 may differ a little about falling from grace, — but 
 that is not much you know." 
 
 Convert. Well, friend, I cannot judge so much 
 what men believe in our day, from their preaching 
 as from their confessions of faith. 
 
 Neighbor. I wish you well neighbor. Farewell. 
 
 Convert. I wish you the same — for I trust, aS 
 St. Paul says — ^^tve have been both baptized by one 
 spirit into Christ.''^ 
 
101 
 
 They part, and he, who would have "compassed 
 sea and land" to have made a proselyte of his neigh- 
 bor, says, as he walks mournfully home, filled with 
 disappointment and chagrin, "it is a positive 
 EVIL," that my neighbor was baptized in infancy. 
 
 We have seen, candid reader, in the course of this 
 argument, 
 
 1. God has but one church, and never had more. 
 — Christ was the angel, that was with the church 
 "iw the wilderness; and they tempted Christ.^^ 1 
 Cor. X. 9. 
 
 2. In that church, the right of infants to member- 
 ship was admitted for two thousand years. 
 
 3. That right never was done away by any 
 "statute of repeal." 
 
 4. The only two general covenants that God ever 
 made with man, he made with Adam, in the Garden 
 of Eden,* the covenant of works, which was 
 broken. And the covenant of grace in Christ. 
 
 5. This .covenant of grace, was the same that 
 was confirmed to Abraham, (four hundred and thirty 
 years before the giving of the law,) of which cir- 
 cumcision was then made the seal and sign. 
 
 *il am happy to find this view borne out, by the old Phil- 
 adelphia Baptist Confession of Faith, printed by Benjamin 
 Franklin in 1742,— pa^es 72, 73, 74. 
 
102 
 
 6. This covenant recognized the right of children 
 to membership, and admitted them to the sign of the 
 covenant. 
 
 7. This covenant was fully developed under the 
 gospel dispensation, when Christ became visibly 
 *'the minister of the covenant." 
 
 8. Under the gospel, the children of the Jews 
 were not rejected, because none were broken off from 
 "the true olive," except for "unbelief," of which 
 Jewish infants were incapable. 
 
 9. Christ encouraged the reception of children in 
 his name, and blessed them; and put no clause in the 
 commission of the apostles, to change the order 
 which had existed, ivith regard to children, for 
 thousands of years, 
 
 10. They all, being Jews, would so understand the 
 commission as to admit the children, unless forbid- 
 den so to do. 
 
 11. The baptism of families was practised in the 
 days of the apostles, and it is unreasonable to sup- 
 pose there were no infants among them. 
 
 12. The church practised it for at least twelve 
 hundred years without opposition, except from Ter- 
 tullian, and the Petrobrusians; who opposed it on 
 different grounds than those on which our Baptist 
 friends oppose it. 
 
103 
 
 13. If it had been an innovation upon "gospel or- 
 der,'' or a departure from the ^^original pattern" 
 some Baptist, surely, would have raised his voice 
 against it, in twelve centuries. An innovation of the 
 kind, could not have been introduced without a spirit- 
 ed controversy; the existence of which controversy, 
 no Baptist has ever been able to show. 
 
 14. And finally, that the Waldenses, those oppo- 
 sers of the corruptions of the Romish church, were 
 generally Pedobaptists. 
 
 In concluding this part of the general argument, 
 we say, — he who takes the Baptist view of this sub- 
 ject, has to suppose, on the contrary, that when the 
 gospel dispensation was opened, a dispensation of 
 larger promises and increased privileges and libe- 
 rality, the right of infants to membership was taken 
 away; and that this took place without one hint or 
 reason being given for it; without any single men- 
 tion of Jt in the apostolic writings. Nay, that in- 
 stead of such notice and explanation, a mode of ex- 
 pression was adopted under the '■'■new economy," simi- 
 lar to that used before; calculated to convey the 
 idea, that parents and children stood in their old re- 
 lation; notwithstanding the supposed painful change. 
 
 That parents. Christian parents, saw their children 
 10* 
 
104 
 
 rejected, who always had seen them admitted while 
 they were Jews; and yet no murmur was heard, no 
 explanation asked. Is this credible?!!! This silence 
 "pleads trumpet tongued," against the views of our 
 Baptist friends, and has the weight of an hundred ar- 
 guments /or infant baptism. 
 
 The argument, therefore, is reduced to this; "if 
 infant baptism is an innovation, it confessedly enter- 
 ed the church very soon after the canon of scripture 
 closed;'' and in a few years more, "without a single 
 precept to warrant, or a single example to encourage 
 it; yea with the well known practice of the apostles, 
 and of all the churches they ever planted, directly, 
 openly ^palpably against it; under all these disadvan- 
 tages, it so universally prevailed, that, upon the face 
 of the whole earth, there was not a church found, 
 were it was not performed.'' Yea more; it entered the 
 church, it prevailed, it became universal., without a 
 whisper o^ opposition, without a word of dispute. All 
 parties in the eastern church, and all parties in the 
 western church, confederating to connive at the er- 
 ror, to blot out every trace of it from the page of history, 
 and never to utter a single word, from which it could be 
 discovered that they had departed from the gospel rule;. 
 to that man who believes this, what can be incredi- 
 
105 
 
 hie?!! such surely would make good disciples of the 
 doctrine of transubstantiat ion. For such, we think, 
 could easily take another step; and denying the evi- 
 dence of their senses, swallow a wafer for the real 
 body and blood of Christ. "I speak as unto wise 
 men, judge ye what I say.'' 
 
 A few observations more in reply to the question, 
 who are the proper subjects of baptism'? and we 
 shall close this part of the general argument. 
 
 We readily admit that believers, in the fullest 
 sense of that word are proper subjects, and that the 
 possession of the highest religious experience, fur- 
 nishes no bar to the reception of the outward sign. 
 In reading the Acts of the Apostles, it will be seen, 
 that the ordinance was given both to those that had, 
 and to those that had not, received the Holy Ghost. 
 On the day of Pentecost, when three thousand in- 
 quired what they must do, Peter said, "repent and 
 be baptized every one of you, for the remission of 
 sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy 
 Ghost.'' By what they saw and heard, especially 
 the gift of tongues, by which each was enabled to 
 hear the wonderful works of God in the language in 
 which each was born, they were convinced of the 
 Messiahship of Christ, and saw their own guilt and 
 
106 
 
 danger, and inquired of the apostles the way of es- 
 cape. We presume it will not be said that they had 
 a Christian experience, in the usual sense of that 
 phrase. See Acts ii. 
 
 In the 8th chapter of Acts, we find recorded the 
 case of the Samaritans, who heard Philip "preach- 
 ing the things concerning the kingdom of God, and 
 the name of Jesus Christ, and when they saw the 
 miracles which he wrought, they believed his preach- 
 ing upon the evidence of those miracles, and "were 
 baptized, both men and women." And it was not 
 until "the apostles at Jerusalem had heard that Sa- 
 maria had received the word of God" and had sent 
 down Peter and John, who laid their hands on them 
 and prayed, that the Holy Ghost came on them. 
 Now if our Baptist friends should say, that what they 
 received was not the ordinary, but the extraordinary, 
 gift of the Spirit of God, for the purpose of speak- 
 ing with tongues, &c., they must say it upon their 
 own responsibility, for there is not a shadow of evi- 
 dence of it in the text. And if they should still per- 
 sist in saying that they were genuine converts., expe- 
 rienced believer s,hQ^OTce Peter and John came to them, 
 then they admit that a man may be an experienced 
 Christian without the Holv Ghost; and if one man 
 
107 
 
 or many, (as in this case,) then all mighty and the 
 conclusion would be, there is no need of the Holy 
 Ghost, in constituting men real believers, genuine 
 converts. For Luke says, (v. 15, 16,) "who, when 
 they were come down, prayed for them, that they 
 might receive the Holy Ghost. For as yet he was 
 fallen upon none of them; only they were baptized 
 in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then laid they their 
 hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.' 
 
 But if our Baptist friends should still say that, these 
 people had a religious experience before they were 
 baptized, then they throw themselves into another 
 dilemma; for what is said of their religion, is said 
 also of Simon's; in v. 13, it is said, '''•Then Simon 
 himself believed also; and when he was baptized," 
 &;c. Did Simon obtain the grace of evangelical faith 
 before baptism? then he must have fallen from grace, 
 and fallen foully too, for Peter, said to him, v. 21, 
 23, — 'Thou hast neither part, nor lot in this matter,' 
 ^Thou art in the gall of bitterness.^ 
 
 Then what becomes of the favorite doctrine, 'once 
 in grace always in grace.' But perhaps I shall be 
 told, Simon Magus never had any grace; then he got 
 an experience without grace, or if you like it better, 
 he was baptized without grace, and if he was, so were 
 

 108 
 
 the rest, for what is said of their faith, is said of his, 
 I may be told further, Simon was a reprobate, and 
 never had any thing more than a common call and 
 common grace. Then Philip baptized a reprobate. 
 And even after he had offered to buy the Holy Ghost 
 with money, Peter exhorted him to repentance and 
 prayer, that he might be forgiven. Query — if Si- 
 mon had given heed to Peter's exhortation, (and there 
 is some proof that he did, v. 24, for he asked an in- 
 terest in the apostle's prayers,) and had prayed, re- 
 pented, and become a genuine believer, would our 
 Baptist brethren have tlioughtit necessary tore-bap- 
 tize Simon? If they apply the same reasoning 
 to adults that they do to children, in explaining 
 the commission, or what Mr. Campbell calls 'the 
 law of baptism,' namely, that baptism must always 
 follow faith, and not go before it, in any case, as the 
 commission says, — 'He that believetb and is baptiz- 
 ed;' — did Simon's want of evangelic faith, vitiate, or 
 render his baptism a nullity? if it did, then he ought 
 to have been re-baptized upon his repentance; if it 
 did not, then I cannot see how the baptism of an in- 
 fant is rendered a nullity, by its unbelief, when at 
 adult age. 
 
 The argument attempted to be drawn from the or- 
 
109 
 
 der of the words in the commission, is entirely so- 
 phistical. As much so as if I were to say, that be- 
 cause "John the Baptist, baptized in the wilderness, 
 and preached the baptism of repentance," therefore 
 John always baptized the people ^rsf, and preached 
 the baptism of repentance to them afterwards. 
 
 Having digressed thus far, I remark, this case of 
 Simon's is a very perplexing case, especially to all 
 Calvinist Baptists, for when examined, it is found 
 to endanger one of two of their favorite opinions. 
 From both horns of the dilemma it is impossible to 
 escape. Either Simon had no grace and was bap- 
 tized without an experience, or he had grace when 
 baptized, and afterwards so utterly lost it, that he 
 had no part or lot in the matter. They can take, can- 
 did reader, just which side of the question, just that 
 horn of this dilemma, that may suit them best. It 
 is common of two evils, for men in self-love, to choose 
 the least, and as grace is more valuable than water, 
 even ^mnch icater^ i suppose they will cling to the 
 consolation of the Lord's dear people, "where he be- 
 gins a work of grace, he always carries it on to the 
 end," and will suppose that Philip, some how or other 
 ('although he was full of wisdom and of the Holy 
 Ghost') made a mistake, and baptized an improper 
 candidate in that particular case. 
 
110 
 
 The true state of the case, seems to have been this, 
 Philip entered Samaria, commenced preaching Christ, 
 and to confirm his doctrine, began to 'heal the lame,' 
 *to cure the palsied,' and to cast out unclean spirits, 
 that cried with a loud voice as they came out of 
 those who were possessed of them. Simon, and the 
 Samaritans, heard his message, saw the miracles; 
 were convinced that the message was true; were 
 willing to enter the school of Christ as disciples, by 
 baptism, that they might be made better acquainted 
 with this new religion. 
 
 Christianity was established by miracle, and those 
 who gave it credence in the early part of its history, 
 rested their faith or conviction of its truth, not so 
 much upon a thorough knowledge of its peculiar 
 doctrines, as upon the evidence brought home to their 
 minds, through the medium of their senses; and 
 those senses were powerfully addressed by the mira- 
 cles of our Lord and his apostles. So ignorant were 
 the apostles themselves of the peculiar doctrines of 
 Christianity, that up to the period of the Saviour's 
 crucifixion, "they wondered what the rising from the 
 dead should mean." Eloquent Apollos himself, knew 
 so little of the peculiarities of Christianity, (even 
 after he had convinced the Jews that Jesus was 
 
HI 
 
 Christ,) that it was necessary, a plain mechanic and 
 his wife, should teach him the way of the Lord 
 ^^more perfectly." And so ignorant were the twelve 
 disciples, found by Paul at Ephesus, that they knew 
 not that there was any Holy Ghost. See Acts, ch. 
 19. And those disciples received the Christian bap- 
 tism from the hands of the apostles, in addition to 
 the baptism of John, which they had previously re- 
 ceived; and when they had received water baptism 
 in the name of Jesus, and Paul had laid his liands 
 on them, "the Holy Ghost came on them.'' 
 
 The case of Saul of Tarsus, as found in the Acts, 
 ch. 22, is in point. He was exhorted by Ananias 
 to "arise and be baptized and wash away his sins, 
 calling on the name of the Lord." To this penitent 
 sinner he said, "Why tarriest thou? arise and be bap- 
 tized." It would not look well, to fly in the face of 
 the text, and say that his sins were \vashed away, 
 before he was admitted to the ordinance. 
 
 The Ethiopian eunuch is the only person that we 
 
 find in the Acts, professing to believe with the heart 
 
 unto righteousness, in order to baptism. And his 
 
 faith seems to have had reference to one point alone; 
 
 hs said to Philip, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the 
 
 Son of God." He heard but one sermon, was in com- 
 11 
 
112 
 
 pany with Philip perhaps one hour, and ere they 
 parted, Phihp made a disciple of him by baptism. 
 
 It is true that Cornelius, and those in his house, 
 Acts, ch. 10, did receive the Holy Ghost while Pe- 
 ter was speaking the word; and received Christian 
 baptism subsequently; but the reader will observe, 
 that this was a peculiar case; it was the opening of 
 the gospel dispensation to the Gentiles; when Peter, 
 with the keys which Christ gave him, was to "open 
 the kingdom of heaven to the Gentiles" as he had 
 done previously^ to the Jews. And the same rea- 
 son that made it necessary to show Peter a vision to 
 induce him to go to Cornelius, made it necessary to 
 send upon those Gentiles the Holy Ghost prior to 
 baptism; and by examining the passage, you may 
 observe that the six brethren who came from Joppa 
 with Peter, were astonished when they observed 
 that God had given the Gentiles the Holy Ghost. 
 "Then said Peter, who can forbid waterl^' &c. 
 When the news of this visit reached Jerusalem, they 
 of the circumcision, contended with Peter; and he, 
 in making his defence, adduces this circumstance as 
 his vindication: ^^ While 1 was speaking the Holy 
 Ghost came on them,'''' &c., "and what was I that I 
 could withstand God?" 
 
11;^ 
 
 These doubtless had a religious experience in the 
 fullest sense of the word; but it will appear evident, 
 we think, to all who examine the Gospels and the 
 Acts, that the ordinance was never delayed for the 
 want of an experience of grace. In almost every 
 case, both Christ and his apostles gave the ordinance 
 to all without exception, and without delay ^ who ap- 
 plied to them, and were willing to assume the re- 
 sponsibilities of discipleship. Hence we find in John, 
 ch. vi, 60, 66, — "Many, therefore, of his disciples 
 when they had heard this, said, this is an hard say- 
 ing, who can bear it? &c. and Jesus said, doth this of- 
 fend you? But there are some of you that believe 
 not. For Jesus knew from the begimiing who they 
 were that believed not, and who should betray 
 him." 
 
 Nowi, "here are many disciples, who, of course, 
 were baptized persons, that did not believe. And 
 we are told that ^^ Jesus knew from the beginning''^ 
 that they believed not. They therefore never had 
 believed; and consequently were not believers at the 
 time of their baptism. And they never had faith 
 afterwards; for we read, '^theywent back and walked 
 no more with him.''^ 
 
 In further proof, it may be observed, that of all 
 
114 
 
 (he thousands that Christ baptized before his death 
 from "Jerusalem and ^le region round about," of 
 them, on the day of Pentecost, there were to be 
 found hilt one hundred and twenty disciples, until 
 Ihe conversion of the three thousand. Where were 
 they? Had so many thousand true behevers, with 
 one consent, made shipwreek of faith? No, reader; 
 they had been struck with the splendor of his mira- 
 cles, they offered themselves as disciples, were en- 
 tered into his school by baptism; — but disliking af- 
 terwards his spiritual teachings, and the simplicity 
 of his religion, they *'M)ewi &ac^.'' It is much ea- 
 sier to enter the church of Christ as disciples, by 
 baptism, than to perform those solemn, spiritual and 
 important duties to which we are introduced by 
 taking this badge of discipleship. 
 
 From what we have written above, it will be ga- 
 thered, that, we consider all as fit subjects for bap- 
 tism, who credit the gospel message, are willing to 
 receive Christ as their Saviour, and assume the re- 
 sponsibilities of Christianity. I was informed lately 
 by a minister of the old Baptist church, that a cer- 
 tain Dr. T , who I am told is one of Mr. Camp- 
 bell's preachers, has been engaged lately re-haptiz- 
 ing the members of the old Baptist church, who, 
 
115 
 
 years ago, received what is called ^^helievers' bap- 
 tism.''^ They received believers' baptism before. 
 What are they receiving now? I suppose the Dn 
 is baptizing them "for the remission of sins.'* 
 Query — is not this reversing the order of Christian 
 experience? or tacitly confessing that they were de- 
 ceived before, and only had a false hope? I pre- 
 sume they repented, believed, and were baptized 
 upon an experience of grace. And now do they go 
 back? If they were baptized before, according to 
 Mr. Cs '■''law of baptism,'''' pray what law are they 
 now baptized under? Has Dr. T , in "expound- 
 ing the ancient gospel" to them, added a supplement 
 to the law? This reminds me of the case of a mem- 
 ber of the Baptist church, not one hundred miles 
 from this, who has received baptism three different 
 times. Do men who read their bibles imagine, that 
 they find a "thus saith the Lord," for giving Chris- 
 tian baptism to any man more than once? It is tri- 
 fling with God's ordinance, and has as little authori- 
 ty from God's word, as from common sense. In the 
 close,' suflfer me to repeat the language of Dr. A. 
 Clarke: — "The repetition of Christian baptism I be- 
 lieve to be profane.'''' 
 
 Let us all who have been solemnly dedicated in 
 11* 
 
116 
 
 baptism to God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, 
 recollect that "we are debtors to keep the whole 
 law." And may God, whose we are, "send us help 
 from his sanctuary, and strengthen us out of Zion," 
 that we may walk worthy of our high, holy, and 
 heavenly calling. 
 
 Mode of Baptism. 
 
 On this part of the subject I think Mr. Broaddus's 
 motto or text a very unfortunate one, as he cannot 
 show any analogy between the detailed directions 
 given to Moses for building the tabernacle, and the 
 casual or accidental manner in which baptism is 
 mentioned in the New Testament. For if God had 
 given as specific directions for baptizing as he did 
 anciently for making the tabernacle, it would not 
 have been necessary for Mr. B. to labor through 
 forty-two pages to show the pattern given for bap- 
 tism. He says, (Ser. p. 6,) that he selected that 
 motto ^^as suggesting the vecessitj; of a rigid ad- 
 herence to the exprkssed will of God, especially in 
 relation to institutions,'^^ ^^c.; and then proceeds to 
 assert a fanciful distinction between what he calls 
 ^^moral and positive requirements,'' and says "the 
 manner of performing a moral obligation may be 
 
in 
 
 perfectly indifferent; but declares it is not so with 
 ^^positive institutions." Unfortunately for Mr. B. 
 he has not even attempted to furnish a single proof 
 from God's word in support of this view oi^ positive 
 institutes and moral duties. To be sure he quotes 
 bishop Hoadley in proof. But I cannot perceive that 
 the bishop's words sustain Mr. B's position. Mr. 
 B. says ^positive institutions;^ the bishop says "posi- 
 tive duties.^^ Now positive duties may be institu- 
 tions, or they may not. If Mr. B. had been so good 
 as to tell where this saying of the bishop's is to be 
 found, we should have been better able to tell wheth- 
 er the words will bear that kind of application. So 
 far as we can perceive, the evidence is not to the 
 point, but to be proved. Mr. B. says on the same 
 page, "we may expect to find the word of God very 
 explicit on the subject of positive institutions," and 
 yet his distinction is unsupported by a single text of 
 Scripture. I enter my dissent from his starting po- 
 sition, relative to positive institutions, because it 
 stands opposed to facts. 1 . Circumcision was a posi- 
 tive institute, — and can any man show any detailed 
 explicit direction about the manner of performing the 
 rite? 2. The sacrament of the Lord^s supper is a 
 positive institute. — Do the scriptures give specific 
 
118 
 
 directions about the manner of attending to that? . It 
 was first celebrated in the night, in a reclining pos- 
 ture, with unleavened bread, in an upper room, &c. 
 &c., and yet what intelligent Christian supposes that 
 these things are any more than mere circumstances , 
 or that they are necessary to the acceptable celebra- 
 tion of that supper. Do our Baptist brethren cele- 
 brate it at night? or with unleavened bread? And 
 would not Mr. B. himself as soon receive the sacra- 
 ment of the Lord's supper on the Lord's day, in the 
 house of God, as on Thursday night, in an upper 
 room of a private house? I know there are super- 
 stitious people who regard a mere circumstance in a 
 sacrament, as a matter of great moment. And so 
 there were those of old who thought more of ^^tith- 
 ing iimif^ than they did of the "Zoi'e of Gociy 
 
 Let our Baptist friends apply their own practice 
 with regard to the sacrament of the Lord's supper, 
 to the principle which Mr. B. lays down with regard 
 to ^'positive institutions,'''' and they will see a great 
 want of agreement between his principles and their 
 practice. And say, candid reader, is the institution 
 of baptism more important than that which repre- 
 sents "his broken body," and "Azs shed Mood''' — and 
 shows forth the Lord's death till his coming again? 
 
119 
 
 Why, then, this insisting on a "pattern" for baptism, 
 when no man can show in God's word a ^^pattern'^^ 
 for the sacrament of the Lord's supper? Bread and 
 wine, are spoken of for the one, and water as the ele- 
 ment for the observance of the other. And although 
 Mr. B. says, page 27, "The word of God knows 
 nothing for baptism but immersion? I as unhesitating- 
 ly declare, that the word of God speaks of baptism, 
 where immersion was utterly out of the question. 
 Now, candid reader, I have just placed my assertion 
 along side of J/r. jB's, hoping that you will receive 
 neither the one or the other in this matter without 
 proof. The proof I hope to be able to give you in 
 the following pages: 
 
 Mr. B. commences on the mode, by finding fault 
 with the translators — for leaving the Greek terms 
 untranslated; giving them an English termination, 
 instead of translating them Immerse, Immersed, Im- 
 mersion^ &;c. And both in the Strictures and Ser- 
 mon, king James, the bishops, and translators, are 
 treated without ceremony. 
 
 The impartial reader will judge, whether it is 
 likely that the king, the bishops, and forty-seven 
 translators would form a conspiracy against the 
 truth; and give to the world a translation that did 
 
120 
 
 not express fully what they believed to be the sense 
 of the original term baptizo. I would ask Mr. B., 
 who prevented the Latin and French translators 
 from translating the oriojinaL so far as to favor im- 
 mersion only? And why he did not furnish evidence 
 that Dr. George Campbell in his translation of the 
 gospels — or the great Dutch Reformer, Martin 
 Luther, in his translation of the bible, has translated 
 the original differently from king James's transla- 
 tors? — for he says, Ser. p. 29, that both Dr. Camp- 
 bell and Luther held the original term, as meaning 
 immersion or dipping only. To be sure, Mr. B. 
 says, that Luther calls John the Baptist, "John the 
 Dipper," and gives what he considers the German 
 of Luther's Testament — "Johannes der Taufer" — 
 which Mr. B. (the translator) renders "John the 
 Dipper." Reader, I do not pretend to be able to 
 translate German, but I strongly suspect, that this 
 gentleman has hit as wide of the truth here, as in 
 making baptizo mean immersion only. A friend of 
 mine, who understands and speaks the German, in- 
 forms me, that the English of ''Johannes der Taufer"^ 
 is John the Baptist; and that the German for Dip- 
 per or Immerser is not "Ttt?{/er," but "Tuncker;'' 
 hence the name of that sect of Christians called 
 
121 
 
 ^^TunckerSj''^ or vulgarly '■'•Dimlavrdsj'' who baptize 
 candidates by dipping them three times. 
 
 The translators, in retaining the original word, 
 in the translation, only followed what had been the 
 general practice; for even as far back as the second 
 century, the author of the Peshito, an old Syriac 
 version of the New Testament, the oldest version ex- 
 tant, although the Syriac has a word which signifies 
 to plunge, dip, immerse, has never used that word in 
 the translation to denote baptism, Prof. Stewart, p. 
 78; again — that the precise idea of immersion, can- 
 not apply to baptizing, or that it does not appear 
 that the words baptize and baptism, would be pro- 
 perly rendered by the words immerse, immersion, 
 we may safely conclude from the following conside- 
 ration; the earliest Latin translators did not find the 
 Greek words properly represented by mergo, immer- 
 go, immersio; although these words properly signi- 
 fied to immerse, immersion, and were commonly so 
 used in the Latin language. They saw there was a 
 meaning to the Greek word, which their word de- 
 noting immersion did not fairly represent. And this 
 was at a time, too, when there were no controversies 
 on the subject; and at a time, too, if we believe the 
 Baptists, when every person baptized was immersed. 
 
122 
 
 Yet the Latin translators, if the Baptist system be 
 correct, must first have left a word untranslated, for 
 which they had terms in every respect correspond- 
 ing, and appropriate. And secondly, they must have 
 done this with the rite of baptism continually before 
 their eyes, performed by immersion, on account of 
 which they would be the more inexcusable. But 
 these things are not so. They found the words em- 
 ployed in ^ ceremonial sense; they therefore retained 
 the 07'iginal icords themselves, leaving to the insti- 
 tution itself to make known its mode. They there- 
 fore Latinize the Greek words, and give us baptize, 
 baptisma, and baptismus. However, for doing so, 
 they had high authority; the authority or example 
 of the Holy Spirit; and that, too, in a similar case. 
 The Hebrew word, pesach, is retained by the in- 
 spired writers of the New Testament, in the Greek 
 word pascha. The Latins latinize the same word. 
 Prof. Elliot, pages 81, 62. These cases are parallel, 
 one referring to the institute of the Passover, and 
 the other to the institute of Baptism. 
 
 But Mr. B. tells us, that Dr. Carson, a Baptist 
 writer, says that '-'■Baptizo, in the whole history of 
 the Greek language, has but one meaning. It not 
 only signifies to dip or immerse, but it never has any 
 
123 
 
 €ther meaning.'''' Ser. page 28. MarTc that, candid 
 reader, as I shall, in the course of the argument, 
 place John the Baptist, St. Peter and St. Paul, 
 <ill against this Dr. Carson!! At present, however, 
 I shall only place one Doctor against another. Dr. 
 Adam Clarke, Comm'y. Matt, iii, 6, asks, "Were 
 the people dipped, or sprinkled?'''' for it is certain 
 bapto and baptizo mean both." 'When Greek 
 meets Greek, then is the tug of war.' As these 
 Doctors disagree, I shall call in other witnesses pres- 
 ently. Perhaps, reader, you are ready to ask me, 
 if this is the same Dr. Clarke quoted by Mr. B. 
 (Stric. page 15,) in support of immersion, as the ex- 
 clusive mode? Yes, identically the same., Mr. B. 
 I perceive, has left the Doctor out of his cloud of 
 witnesses, in his Sermon. I suppose he began to 
 suspect he had not treated the Doctor very fairly in 
 the first publication. But it may be. that he may 
 wish to suggest, that Dr. Clarke was a sprinkler^ 
 like the king, bishops, and translators, and that his 
 account of the matter was influenced by his creeds 
 or practice of baptizing. Very good; and Dr. Car- 
 son was a dipper, — his criticism no doubt was in- 
 fluenced by his practice in baptizing; — so in this, at 
 
 least, they are about equal. Which of the Doctors 
 12 
 
124 
 
 was the greater scholar, and consequently best pre- 
 pared to judge, I shall not attempt to decide; I leave 
 that to the reader. 
 
 Dr. Carson, however, has raade a concession on 
 this subject, which will go a great way in destroying 
 the weight of his testimony. While he contends that 
 baptizo always signifies to immerse, he acknowledges 
 that ^'all the lexicographers and commentators are 
 against him in that opinion.''^ Carson Bap. page 79 
 as quoted by Dr. Miller. How far the confidence 
 which, in the face of this acknowledgment he ex 
 presses that they are all icrong, and that his inter 
 pretation alone is right, is either modest or well 
 founded, must be left to the judgment of the impar 
 tial reader. 
 
 Mr. B. says that "Professor Stuart, as a Biblical 
 critic, is perhaps not excelled by an)^ man in the 
 United States;" — and this critic says of Dr. Carson, 
 "He lays down some very adventurous positions, in 
 respect to one meaning, and one only, of words; 
 which, as it seems to me, every lexicon on earth con- 
 tradictSj and always must contradict." Stuart on the 
 Mode of Baptism, page 100. So much for Rev. A. 
 Carson and his translation of baptizo. 
 
 One more remark relative to the translators of the 
 
125 
 
 common version. — It is not only unchristian, to tram- 
 ple upon the ashes of dead men, by impugning their 
 motives and misrepresenting their conduct, — but it is 
 ungenerous to charge them and the bishops with 
 making a translation to favor sp?'inkling, when half 
 the evidence, at least, which the Baptists adduce to 
 favor immersion, is drawn from the manner in which 
 these same translators have rendered the Greek 
 prepositions, — in Jordan — out of the water, dz;c. 
 When, if they had indulged any design to deceive, 
 they might have given them fairly, a different render- 
 ing. Here, as the Baptists will tell you, we have a 
 translation, partly supporting sprinkling, and partly 
 against it. Surely, candid reader, these same 47 
 translators, who produced the common version in 
 1613, were either very stupid, or very honest. I 
 think the latter. 'Judge ye what I say.' 
 
 I shall next take some notice of Mr. B's list of Pe- 
 dobaptist witnesses. Ser. p. 30, 31, and Stric. p. 
 14, 15, 16. Some of these witnesses I shall be oblig- 
 ed to pass by, as I have not their works at hand to 
 refer to. The reader may be able to judge of the 
 fairness, or rather unfairness, with which Mr. Booth 
 and Mr. Broaddus has treated them all) from a spe-i 
 cimen or two which we expect to give. 
 
126 
 
 The reader will bear in mind, that Mr. B's prop- 
 osition, which he wishes to sustain, is, that 'immers- 
 ion, or dipping, is the only proper mode,' or that 
 'baptizo means to dip ow/t/.' — Stric. p. 15. And he 
 brings these Pedobaptist witnesses into court to 
 prove this. We shall see, whether he allows them, 
 in his hands, to tell the whole truth in the case. I 
 hope he will not do, as some people do, in quoting 
 the words of Christ, as a witness for unconditioned 
 perseverance, viz. ^ Of all whom thou hast given me, 
 Ihave lost none;' — so far, the witness seems to sup- 
 port the position; but suffer him to speak on, — 'but 
 the son of perdition.^ Ah, this puts quite another 
 face upon the text; as I hope to do, upon the testimo- 
 my of at least, some oi^ these witnesses. Attend to 
 me patiently, gentle reader, I am in part, pleading 
 the cause of dead men, represented as having lived 
 and died '■inconsistent,'^ and who are not here to speak 
 for themselves, but whose record is on high. I shall 
 begin with Dr. A. Clarke. Mr. B. in his Strictures, 
 page 15, after quoting part of a. sentence from Dr. 
 Clarke's Commentar}'- on Romans vi, 4, says, 'I do 
 think I have proved beyond all question, that baptizo 
 means to immerse, and nothing else.' 'It has but 
 one meaning; — these learned men knew it, and their 
 
127 
 
 candor forced them to acknowledge it.' Reader, 
 does Dr. Clarke acknowledge it? hear him fully on 
 Romans vi, 4, "It is probable that the apostle here 
 alludes to the mode of administering baptism by ifn- 
 mersion; 1 say it is probable — but not absolutely 
 certain that he does so, as some imagine; for in the 
 next verse, our being incorporated into Christ by ho.p' 
 tism, is also denoted by our being planted or graft- 
 ed together in the likeness of his death: and Noah's 
 ark floating upon the water, and sprhikled by the 
 rain from heaven, is a flgure corresponding to bap- 
 tism, 1 Peter iii, 20, 21; but neither of these gives us 
 the same idea of the outward form as burying. We 
 must be careful, therefore, not to lay too much stress 
 on such a circumstance." Does this prove Mr. B's 
 position? I think not. He has taken great liber- 
 ties with this witness, — first he mutilates the sen- 
 tence, — then gives it as a whole, — putting a period 
 in the place of Dr. C's comma, — and then puts the 
 words baptize and immersion, in italics; and the 
 word probable, which the Dr. purposely italicised 
 twice in the note, Mr. B. does not emphasise at 
 all. It is bad enough to take such liberties with 
 living men. 
 
 Mr. Wesley is the next witness we shall call. Mr. 
 12* 
 
128 
 
 B. has treated him with as little candor as he has 
 the Dr. In his Strictures, p. 15, he attempts to 
 quote Mr. W. on Rom. vi, 4, and mutilates the sen- 
 tence; puts a period were Mr. W. has none, and pre- 
 fixes to the note these words — '/if seems the part ofcari' 
 dor to confess,'' when Mr. W. has no such words in 
 his note. It is a pity that Mr. B. should have lost 
 sight of his own candor in attempting to find that 
 quality in Mr. W's notes. 
 
 Mr. Wesley's commentary, on a parallel passage 
 in Col. ii, 12, is often quoted by Baptist preachers, 
 to prove that he favored immersion only. I have 
 heard them do this myself. Although that note is 
 not in Mr. B^s printed sermon, I will give it to the 
 reader to disabuse his mind of any erroneous impres- 
 sion on that subject. This note when made to speak 
 in favor of immersion, is quoted thus — 'The ancient 
 manner of baptizing by immersion is manifestly al- 
 luded to here.' This is only part of the sentence 
 used by Mr. Wesley, and one ivord left out of that. 
 The note, when fairly quoted, proves nothing for the 
 Baptists. Mr. W's words are as follows; "The an- 
 cient manner of baptizing by immersion is as mani- 
 festly alluded to here as the other manner of bap- 
 tizing by sprinkling or pouring of water is; Heb. 
 
129 
 
 X, 22. But no stress is laid upon the age of the 
 baptized, or the manner of performing it, in one or 
 the other place,'' &;c. Candid reader, does either of 
 these passages contain the evidence that Mr. Wes- 
 ley acknowledges immersion as the only mode? 'I 
 speak as unto wise men.' 
 
 Mr. B., Ser. p. 30, quotes two cases from Mr. 
 Wesley's Journal to prove that he ^preferred ini' 
 mersion,^ neither of which proves any such thing. 
 The first is the case of a child which he baptized at 
 eleven days old, according to the 'rule of the church 
 of England,' by immersion; and as Mr. W. happened 
 to mention that the child began to recover from the 
 time of its baptism, Mr. B. infers that by mentioning 
 that circumstance Mr. Wesley intended to recom.' 
 mend immersion. I infer on the contrary, that he 
 meant to recommend infant baptism. 
 
 The other case is the case of Mr. Parker's child, 
 in Georgia, which Mr. W. refused to baptize because 
 its mother refused to let it be dipped, assigning, as 
 his reason that the Rubric of his church required it to 
 be dipped^ unless it were weak or unwell. — Wesley's 
 Journal, Feb. and May, 1736. This was three years 
 before Mr. Wesley formed any Society; while he was 
 a wery young man, and was a priest in the church 
 
130 
 
 of England. He of course, as a conscientious man, 
 felt himself bound to regard the Rubric of his church. 
 He gives this as his reason, and utters no objection 
 to the child being baptized by sprinkling or pouring, 
 by another person. According to Mr. B's own show 
 ing, the grand jury thought Mr. W. justifiable in 
 view of the Rubric. 
 
 Mr. W. could not be supposed to have understood 
 the subject of baptism then as perfectly as he did 
 when he wrote his Treatise on that subject more 
 than tiventy years afterwards. In that Treatise he 
 says — "And as there is no clear proof of dipping, in 
 Scripture, so there is very probable proof of the 
 contrary. It is true, we read of being buried with 
 Christ in baptism. But nothing can be inferred from 
 such a figurative expression. Nay, if it held ex- 
 actly, it would make as much for sprinkling as for 
 plunging; since in burying, the body is not plunged 
 through the substance of the earth, but rather earth 
 is poured or sprinkled upon it." Works, vol. 6, p. 
 13. And finally this witness says — "The greatest 
 scholars^ and most proper judges in the matter, testi- 
 fy that the original term translated baptize, means 
 not dipping, but washing or cleansing" Does this 
 prove Mr. B's assertion true or false? He says Mr. 
 
131 
 
 Wesley ^preferred immersion^ and he would have re- 
 stored immersion if he could.' I think the reader will 
 see a very great want of fairness in the manner in 
 which the gentleman has treated Mr. Wesley. As 
 I am now on the testimony of Mr. W., it may not 
 be amiss to remark, that the attempt which Mr. B. 
 makes, in his Sermon, to prove that Mr. W. held 
 baptismal regeneration, and held even worse views 
 than Mr. A. Campbell, I think unworthy a serious ■ 
 notice. 
 
 His attempt to throw contempt on the Episcopal- 
 ians, Presbyterians, Methodists and others, by at- 
 tributing to them the doctrine of baptismal regener- 
 ation, is one of those stratagems used to mislead the 
 mind of the reader; a part of that finesse, which is 
 used for the purpose of prosely tism — a tub to decoy 
 the whale, until he can be brought within the reach of 
 the ecclesiastical harpoon — an attempt to prove that 
 he is right by proving that others are wrong. 
 
 The next witness I shall call upon in the list of 
 Mr. B's witnesses, is Professor Stuart. He produces 
 the testiiiiony of the Professor to prove immersion as 
 the exclusive mode. Ser. p. 32. He quotes him 
 thus: "Both of these words {baptoanA baptizo) mean 
 *-o dip, plunge or immerge into any thing liquid." 
 
132 
 
 The Professor says, (Stuart on the Mode of Bap- 
 tism, p. 29 and 81:) — "There is then no absolute 
 certainty from usage, that the word (baptizo) when 
 applied to designate the rite of baptism, means, of 
 course, to immerge or plunge. It may mean wash- 
 ing; possibly (but not probably) it may mean copi- 
 ously moistening or bedewing; because words coming 
 from the common root (bap) are applied in both these 
 senses as we have seen above. "iVo injunction is 
 any where given in the New Testament, respecting 
 the manner in which this rite shall be performed. If 
 there be such a passage, let it be produced. This 
 cannot be done. But it will doubtless be said, that 
 'the manner of the rite is involved in the word itself, 
 which is used to designate it, and that therefore this 
 is as much a matter of command as the rite itself.' 
 To this I answer that it would prove a great deal too 
 much." Again Professor Stuart says, p. 98 — "If 
 you say. The classical use of the word abundantly 
 justifies the construction 1 put upon it, my reply is, 
 that classical usage can never be very certain in re- 
 spect to a word in the New Testament. Who does 
 not know that a multitude of Greek words here re- 
 ceive their coloring and particular meanings from 
 the Hebrew, and not from the Greek classics?" The 
 
133 
 
 sentiment of the Professor is confirmed by the prac- 
 tice of the apostle Paul, who well understood both 
 the Hebrew and Greek; for in Heb. vi, 2, he 
 speaks of the 'doctrine of baptism;'' and in ix, 10, of 
 'divers baptisms;^ in both of which places, he doubt- 
 less applies the word to those ceremonial washings 
 or purifications used among the Jews, which, he 
 says in v. 13, 'were performed by sprinkling the 
 unclean.' And we remark here, without fear of suc- 
 cessful contradiction, that wherever an administra- 
 tor and a subject is found under the Jewish regula- 
 tions, or Old Testament arrangements, the one ad- 
 ministering, and the other receiving, any of those 
 'divers baptisms,' the mode was never by immersion. 
 It is true, the Jews washed or bathed themselves and 
 their clothes; but these washings they performed 
 naked, and in private, and never received them from 
 the hands of an administrator. If the reader will 
 refer to Num. xix, 17, 21, he will seethe ceremony 
 detailed to which the apostle refers in Heb, ix, 13, 
 and calls it a baptism; and he will see that the hys- 
 sop was dipped in running water and the person was 
 sprinkled: — it is worthy of remark also, that among 
 the ancient heathens, purification was often performed 
 by sprinkling water upon the unclean, with a branch 
 
134 
 
 ofolive, or other tree. See the account in Potter's 
 Greek Antiquities, p. 200; and an instance also in 
 Virgil's ^neid vi, 229. 
 
 The reader will judge from the testimony we have 
 adduced from Prof Stuart, whether Mr. B. has 
 quoted him fairly. 
 
 That the witness finds immersion practiced in ^ari' 
 cient times'' not by 'the first church,'' as Mr. B. has it, 
 Ser. p. 32, is true, but he finds equal evidence, he says, 
 for baptizing men and women naked, and that by 
 dipping them three times, &c. He says, 'revolting 
 as this custom was, yet it is as certain as testimony 
 can make it;' p. 75. 
 
 Now, candid reader, I leave you to judge, how 
 much reliance is to be placed on the mutilated tes- 
 timonies from Pedobaptist writers, adduced by Mr. 
 B. You can judge of the balance, from those I have 
 examined. I will close this part of the subject with 
 a quotation from that clear and conclusive writer, 
 Peter Edwards, who was himself, for a number of 
 years, a Baptist preacher, and who discovered the 
 weakness of the arguments ofthe Baptists, while read- 
 ing Mr. Booth's book in favor of their views. He 
 says, (speaking of Mr. Booth's eighty witnesses, to 
 which Mr. Broaddus refers,) 'He quotes a numbej 
 
135 
 
 of authors, who, as he says, understood the term 
 'baptize' to mean immersion, pouring and sprink- 
 ling; and these quotations he calls concessions. 
 Concessions of what? That the word meant immers- 
 ion only? If so, he made them concede what they 
 never did concede, and what they had no thought of 
 conceding. It is a shame to abuse the living or the 
 dead, and it is a bad cause that requires it; I doubt 
 whether one of the eighty abused critics, was on his 
 side.'— Edwards, p. 159, 160. 
 
 We shall now proceed to notice the history of the 
 ordinance, as we find it in the New Testament; and 
 see, whether the facts therein detailed favor our 
 views, or the views of the Baptists. We shall first 
 remark upon an allusion of the apostle Paul to a case 
 of baptism of men, women, and children, which oc- 
 curred in an early period of the history of the church; 
 even before what Mr. Booth calls, the '■Ecclesiastico- 
 Political Constitution, had any existence. The 
 case is recorded in Ex. xiv, 19, 22, and is referred 
 to by the apostle, 1 Cor. x, 2 — "And were all bap- 
 tized unto Moses, in the cloud and in the sea;" and 
 yet Moses says — "They went into the midst of the 
 sea upon dry ground.^^ Here I put the apostle Paul 
 
 against Mr. Broaddusand Dr. Carson, as I promised 
 13 
 
13a 
 
 to do. They say "the scriptures know nothing for 
 baptism but immersion." The apostle being judge, 
 here were six hundred thousand men, besides women 
 and children, all baptized while they were on '■dry 
 ground' and all ''dry shod,'' 
 
 The reader must judge between these gentlemen 
 and the apostle. But I shall be told that they were 
 baptized 'in a figure,' as they were surrounded. It is 
 dangerous to be making figures to destroy the plain, 
 obvious meaning of scripture. And moreover, they 
 appear not to have been surrounded, for there was 
 dry land behind them to the shore, and dry land be- 
 fore them to the opposite shore; and the cloud as a 
 pillar of fire between them and the Egyptians; so 
 they only had water on their right and left, as two 
 walls. However many 'figures' there are in the 
 passage, there is no figure of immersion or dipping 
 in the case. The Holy Spirit has seen fit to give us 
 the mode in which these people 'were baptized unto 
 Moses.' In Psalms Ixxvii, 16, 17, where the Psalm- 
 ist refers to God's having 'led his people by the 
 hand of Moses and Aaron,' he has these remarkable 
 words, — "The waters saw thee, O God, the waters 
 saw thee; they were afraid; the depths also were 
 troubled. The clouds poured out water." That 
 
137 
 
 the passage of Israel through the Red Sea is refer- 
 red to here, no man of candor will doubt, who reads 
 the passage with attention. In answer to the ques- 
 tion, how were they baptized in the sea? we remark, 
 — as the action of a natural agent, the wind was em- 
 ployed to make a passage for them, the extreme agi- 
 tation of the waters by it, would occasion a mist or 
 spray, by this, as they passed along, they would be 
 sprinkled; and this I presume is what the apostle 
 means when he says, they were baptized in, or by 
 the sea. But if our Baptist brethren be dissatisfied 
 with this explanation, it is impossible to make the 
 history bend to their views: the Israelites could not 
 be dipped, plunged or overwhelmed in the sea, if the 
 statement be true, that they went through it on dry 
 ground. Here is another indisputable proof that 
 baptism cannot mean immersion only. 
 
 The only immersion on that occasion, was the 
 overwhelming of the Egyptians in the deep, 'who 
 sank like lead in the mighty waters,' and who were 
 seen not again, until they floated up, upon the shores 
 of the Red Sea, as evidences of Jehovah's wrath. 
 
 But we shall be told that the baptism of Israel to 
 Moses, was 'not Christian baptism.' This is grant- 
 ed, and yet that does not invalidate the argument 
 
138 
 
 drawn from the case, — because the greatest scholar, 
 and best critic of all the apostles, St. Paul, calls it 
 baptism. But Mr. B. says, 'The scriptures know 
 nothing for baptism but immersion.' There he is 
 fairly at issue with the apostle Paul. I will not in- 
 sult the reader's piety and good sense, by even inti- 
 mating which of the witnesses is most entitled to 
 credit. 
 
 Most of the evidence which our Baptist friends 
 bring to support their mode of baptism, is brought 
 from what is said of John's baptizing in Jordan, at 
 Enon; from the case of the eunuch, baptized by 
 Philip; and from the passages in Rom. vi, 4, and 
 Col. ii, 12, where the apostle speaks of being buried 
 with Christ by baptism, &c. 
 
 We might refuse, if we thought it necessary, all 
 the evidence brought from John's baptism; as it is 
 clear from the scriptures, and especially from Acts 
 xix, — that '■John's baptism? was essentially different 
 from the ^Christian baptism.'' Of this truth, the 
 celebrated Robert Hall, of the Baptist church, was 
 fully convinced; as the reader may see by a refer- 
 ence to his works, vol. 1, p. 372, 376. 
 
 But as Baptist preachers and people, do not agree 
 among themselves with regard to John's baptism, and 
 
139 
 
 as we wish to allow them all the evidence they can 
 with any fairness claim, we shall not avail ourselves 
 of the advantage above alluded to. 
 
 It is said that John baptized 'in Jordan,' also 'in 
 the wilderness;' — 'in Bethabara, beyond Jordan;' — 
 and 'in Enon near to Salem;' &c. It is allowed on 
 all hands, that the Greek particles, rendered in^ into., 
 out of, <^c., have such latitude of meaning, and are 
 translated so variously, that nothing certain can be 
 inferred in this controversy, from their use. The 
 first sense which Parkhurst in his Greek Lexicon 
 gives to "Apo" is, from. 'He came up from the 
 water.' And that sense is given it in this text, — 
 "Who hath warned you to flee from (not out of) the 
 wrath of God." And "eis" has the sense of, to or 
 unto, in the following scriptures, viz. in Matt, xv, 24, 
 — 'I am not sent but unto (not into) the lost sheep 
 of the house of Israel.' Rom. x, 10, — 'With the 
 heart, man believeth unto (not into) righteousness.' 
 Matt, iii, 11, — 'I indeed baptize you with water unto 
 (not into) repentance;' and Matt, xvii, 27, — 'Go thou 
 to the sea (not into) and cast a hook,' &;c. 
 
 The preposition, "En" rendered in Jordan, is in 
 
 the New Testament, 150 times rendered, luith; and 
 
 more than 100 times rendered at. And the passage 
 13^ 
 
140 
 
 would be fairly rendered at Jordan, or with the 
 water of Jordan. And with regard to the eunuch, 
 they went down to the water, and came up from the 
 water, would be as correct a rendering as into and 
 out of. So we see, that the argument of the Bap- 
 tists drawn from the Greek particles, evaporates at 
 once, and we are left to determme the mode of bap- 
 tism from other evidence. Mr. B. seems to think, 
 that to discuss these particles is a *small business,' 
 but concludes tliat the translators were ^honest'' in 
 translating them, and that 'in their primary signifi- 
 cation they all favor immersion.' This is a sum- 
 mary mode, such as we have on p. 21 of his Sermon; 
 where, although he rejects and ridicules 'the testi- 
 mony of the fathers,' yet declares — "I am perfectly 
 satisfied that the preponderance of that testimony — 
 is most decidedly in our favor." He thinks that John's 
 being at Jordan and Enon, is conclusive evidence that 
 he baptized the people hy immersion. Then I reply, 
 that Annanias baptizing Saul of Tarsus, in a private 
 house, — and Peter baptizing Cornelius, and others, 
 in a private house, is conclusive evidence that nei- 
 ther Saul nor Cornelius were immersed; for, reader, 
 did you ever hear or know of a Baptist preacher im- 
 mersing people in a private house. On the contraiy,- 
 
141 
 
 I have both heard and read, of persons, being bap- 
 tized by pouring, at creeks and rivers. 
 
 It cannot be shown we presume, that one of those 
 who received John's baptism, were in the water as 
 much as ancle deep; as we shall now proceed to 
 show. "The chief weight of many arguments are 
 owing to our inattention to the differences of times, 
 places, circumstances, manners, &c.; modernize, and 
 lay the scene of John's ministry in this country, as 
 most 1 presume do; and then examine your ideas, 
 and see what truth there is in them. You provide 
 him with a large church or meeting house," in a 
 large town, or populous country place; he preaches, 
 his congregation is afTected, and at the close of the 
 service, they request him to baptize them; he 
 marches at the head of them to a river, for this pur- 
 pose. You never see ministers going with either 
 adults, or infants, to a river to sprinkle them, but 
 you see ministers, who call themselves Baptists, 
 going down into rivers to immerse people; and you 
 conclude John the Baptist used immersion. John, 
 however, did not live in a large town, but in the 
 wilderness; he had neither church, nor meeting 
 house, to hold the people who resorted to him; the 
 scene of his ministry is the side of a river; he 
 
142 
 
 preached out of doors. Geographers inform us, that 
 the banks of the river Jordan abounded with trees; 
 and as the climate was hot, he and his congregation 
 would surely take their station under their shade, 
 and enjoy the atmosphere, which would be cool, in 
 consequence of its vicinity to the water. Now sup- 
 pose he used sprinkling, where, under these circum- 
 stances, could he so conveniently and agreeably per- 
 form it, as in the river just at hand?'' Isaacs on 
 Baptism, p, 47. 
 
 "But why," it is asked, "did John take his sta- 
 tion beside a river, or at Enon, where there was 
 much water, if it were not for the convenience of 
 baptizing?'' I answer — 1st. Because it was a cen- 
 tral situation. — "Then went out to him Jerusalem 
 and all Judea, and all the region round about Jor- 
 dan.'' As John did not itinerate much, it was im- 
 portant to select a situation for the exercise of his 
 ministry, at which it would be most convenient for 
 the surrounding inhabitants to attend. 2d. When 
 we look at the immense numbers who resorted from 
 all parts to hear John, it would be absolutelv neces- 
 sary for him to take his station where there was 
 "■much watei''^ supposing but little was needed for 
 baptism. "Then went out unto him all the land 
 
143 
 
 of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and all the region 
 round about Jordan." Mark v, 4; Matt, iii, 5. 
 Make what deductions you will from these state- 
 ments, you cannot make any common sense of the 
 words, if you do not suppose the numbers to have 
 been very great. They would not all come on foot; 
 water would be wanted for drink for the people, for 
 culinary purposes, for their various ablutions, and 
 for their cattle. And as they flocked in vast num- 
 bers to John, many of tliem, no doubt, had to wait 
 for days or weeks before the rite could be adminis- 
 tered to them; and during all this time, in the heat 
 of Palestine, great quantities of water would be ne- 
 cessary for the accommodation of the multitude. In 
 our climate, although much cooler, we always select 
 a place for camp meetings, when such can be had, 
 where there is ^^much water,'''' And we sometimes 
 appoint them near rivers, although we expect not 
 more than five thousand persons to attend them; yet 
 it is not our calculation to immerse one individual of 
 the thousands that attend. 
 
 If the reader will consult 2 Chron. xxxii, 3, 4, he 
 will see a case in point. When Sennacherib inva- 
 ded th'is very country where John was preaching 
 and baptizing, we read that "they stopped all the 
 
144 
 
 fountains, and the brook that ran through the midst 
 of the land, saying, why should the kings of Assyria 
 come and find much water?'''' It was thought the 
 Assyrian army would need much water; but no one 
 ever suspected their king intended to baptize them 
 in it. No, they wanted it for other purposes; and 
 so did the thousands who attended the ministry of 
 John, at Jordan and Enon. 
 
 The reader should bear in mind that while Christ, 
 and the twelve, and the seventy, were going about 
 into the towns, villages, &C., John was comparatively 
 local in his ministry, which made the multitude 
 greater, and required them to come a greater dis- 
 tance; and often to remain longer to accomplish the 
 purpose of their visit. The people came to John; 
 Christ and his ministers went to the people. 
 Again we say, it is utterly incredible that John could 
 have immersed the vast multitudes that came to him; 
 besides doing the preaching and answering the ques- 
 tions put to him, and (according to the practice of 
 modern Baptists,) receiving and judging of the ex- 
 perience of the candidates. I suppose they will not 
 deny, that they gave in an experience to John, espe- 
 cially as Mr. Benedict, in his history of the Baptists, 
 calls John their ^^ancient brother,'*'' 
 
145 
 
 Robert Hall felt the weight of this objection to im- 
 mersion; drawn from the number to be baptized. 
 Hence he says, — "It is by no means certain, howev- 
 er, that John was the only person, who performed 
 that ceremony; indeed, when we consider the prodi- 
 gious multitudes that flocked to him, the "inhabi- 
 tants of Jerusalem, Judea, and all the region round 
 about Jordan," it seems scarcely practicable; he 
 most probably employed coadjutors," &c. Hall's 
 Works, vol. 1. p. 361. 
 
 Now I suppose, reader, that I have as good a 
 right as Mr. Hall, to find a solution to this difficulty. 
 The scriptures do not say one word about a single 
 coadjutor employed by the Baptist. I account for 
 his being able to baptize the '■'•prodigious multi- 
 tudes^^'' as Mr. H. calls them, on another principle, 
 viz: he administered the ordinance by sprink'ling or 
 pouring. This was Mr. Wesley's view, of it. See 
 his notes on Matt. iii. 6 — "It seems," says he, "that 
 they stood in ranks on the edge of the river, and 
 John, passing along before them, cast water on their 
 heads or feces, by which means he might baptize 
 many thousands in a day." 
 
 It is not supposed that John exercised his minis- 
 try more than twelve or eighteen months, and yet 
 
146 
 
 at a moderate calculation he must have baptized one 
 million of people, for Mr. B. supposes, Ser. p. 35 — 
 That Jerusalem alojie "contained a million of peo- 
 ple;'' then take "Judea, and the region round about 
 "Jordan," Etc., and allow, that one-half of the in- 
 habitants received his baptism, which we think not 
 unlikely; then we ask during how many hours in the 
 day could any man preach, and stand in the water, 
 for the purpose of baptizing by immersion? We 
 will admit for the sake of argument, that he could 
 endure this labor six hours each day, for eighteen 
 months. And say, that he baptized as expeditiously 
 as the gentleman in Culpepper did, of whom Mr. B. 
 speaks, Ser. p. 35, — "Who baptized seventy-five 
 persons very decently in twenty-five minutes.'' 1 
 say suppose all this, and when he had accomplished 
 his eighteen months work, at the rate of one thous- 
 and and eighty each day, he would have given the 
 ordinance to a little upwards of half a million. What 
 Mr. B. says about its taking "/io 77iore time to bap- 
 tize by hmnersion, than by sprinklings'' Ser. p. 35, 
 utterly astonishes me. Can you think, gentle read- 
 er, that this carries upon its face the appearance of 
 probabiUty? Again, John as the son of a Jewish 
 priest, would most likely use water in the way in 
 
147 
 
 which it was commonly used among the Jews, i. e. 
 by sprinkling. And if it be said that "John's bap- 
 tism was from heaven;" I reply, so were the divers 
 baptisms among the Jews* Heb. ix, 10, 13. And 
 as the Jewish priests entered upon their work at 
 thirty years of age, so did John. And using, like 
 them, an application of water to the body, as an em- 
 blem of moral purity; it is left to any impartial judg- 
 ment, whether he is most rationally supposed to have 
 plunged men under the water, (a thing unpractised 
 among them,) or whether he only sprinkled or pour- 
 ed water on them, a rite divinely instituted, and 
 every day familiarly practised in that church.'''' 
 Towgood on Baptism, p. 104. And to the fact that 
 John came as the harbinger of the Messiah, about to 
 appear, for whom the Jews were all anxiously look- 
 ing; so much so, that they inquired of him "if he 
 were the Christ;" — I say, to this fact, may be attrib- 
 uted the great and general influx of disciples to 
 John. He applied sacramental water to them, and 
 bid them repent, reform, and look for, and believe on 
 the Messiah, just about to appear, who would apply 
 the Holy Ghost to their souls, as he had applied the 
 purifying element to their bodies; saying to all the 
 
 people, "I indeed baptize you with water; he shall 
 14 
 
148 
 
 baptize you iHth the Holy Ghost.^'' Here is a clear 
 intimation from John himself, that the water was 
 applied to the subject, and not the subject applied to 
 the water. 
 
 What John calls, being baptized with the Holy 
 Ghost, Matt, iii, 11, Christ calls, being baptized 
 with the Holy Ghost, Acts i, 5. And Peter calls it 
 being baptized with the Holy Ghost, Acts ii, 16. 
 And in Acts xi, 17, 33, it is said to be "poured 
 out'' and "shed forth.'' And in Acts x, 44, it is 
 said, the Holy Ghost fell on them; and also in xi, 
 15, Peter says, it fell on them. Now I suppose, 
 that the word baptize in the mouth of John the 
 Baptist, is equal to the word baptize, in the mouth 
 of St. Peter; and equal also to the same word in the 
 mouth of Jesvs Christ. Here I put, not a lexico- 
 grapher, or an army of them, against Dr. Carson 
 and Mr. Broaddus, but what is of infinitely more 
 weight, (for however great the witness of men may 
 be, "the witness of God is greater,") John, Peter, 
 and Christ, all against these gentlemen. I hope, 
 reader, you will never become so learned, as to de- 
 clare that pouring is no baptism, when you have the 
 authority of Christ himself, for using the word in the 
 sense of pouring, viz: "ye shall be baptized with 
 
149 
 
 the Holy Ghost, not many days hence." This is 
 the prediction of Christ: and it had its fulfilment on 
 the day of Pentecost, by the pouring out, and shed- 
 ding FORTH, of the Spirit upon the Apostles. Now, 
 candid reader, was there any thing like immersion 
 here? And if John understood the language which 
 he used, when speaking of the baptism of the spirit, 
 and if the sign is to agree with the thing signified, 
 the shadow with the substance, how could John give 
 water baptism by immersion, when he knew that 
 Christ would pour out or shed forth, the Spirit? 
 "I speak as unto wise men, judge ye what I say." 
 
 But Mr. B., Ser. p. 39, thinks it very "absurd'' 
 to suppose that '=the manner of the immaterial spirit 
 should be represented by the use that is made of a 
 material element.'' How absurd — "strange enough 
 is the argument" drawn from ih^ pouring out of the 
 Spirit. But unfortunately for this gentleman, on the 
 very next page he is guilty of this very absurdity. 
 Hear him in quoting Ezek. xxxvi, 25 — "Then will 
 / sprinkle clean water upon you,'' &c. He says, 
 "The allusion is, unquestionably, to those divine in- 
 fluences by which men are cleansed from their moral 
 defilement." "Divine influences," are they immate- 
 rial? or has Mr. B. found some mode of purifying 
 
150 
 
 men, without the immaterial spirit? — some "divine 
 influences," that are not of the Spirit of God? He 
 quotes the very text that is against him, and says, 
 "God himself is to sprinkle clean water;" and' this 
 clean water to be applied by sprinkling, represents 
 the "divine influences," Mr. B. himself being judge. 
 But then it is "absurd'' to represent the ^Hmmaterial 
 spiriV by the '■''material element water.'' So God 
 himself, is represented here as guilty of this "absur- 
 dity." For if the question be asked, How will God 
 cleanse them from their idols? the answer is, with 
 ^^clean tvater.^^ In what manner will he apply the 
 element? the answer is, "I will sprinkle clean water 
 upon you." It is strange that men should thus talk, 
 not only without book, but against the Book of God. 
 In such cases, they demonstrate nothing but their 
 own folly, or the weakness and hopelessness of their 
 cause. 
 
 The baptism of the Spirit by "pouring," and 
 "shedding forth,'' and "falling upon,'' &;c. has 
 always been very embarrassing to our Baptist 
 friends. Mr. B , Ser. p. 39, labors hard to evade 
 the matter, by attempting to show that the disci- 
 ciples, on the day of Pentecost, were immersed in 
 the Spirit. He asks, "Were they immersed in the 
 
151 
 
 Spirit, when the Spirit filled the room where they 
 were sitting, or were they not? I am willing your 
 common sense should decide." Here, he will have 
 it, that though the Spirit was "poured," it was 
 poured until the room was filled, so that they were 
 immersed in it.^'^ It is strange, that Christian men 
 will persist in tying down the word baptize, to one 
 meaning only, — and that at the expense of the word 
 of God, and even of common sense. For that he 
 has "erred in vision,'' or "stumbled in judgment," — 
 the reader can clearly see, by a reference to Acts ii. 
 Not one word is said there about the Spirit ^^jill- 
 ing the house,'''' nor of its ^^overwhelming the disci- 
 ples." The language in Acts ii, 1, 2, is, "And 
 when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they 
 were all with one accord in one place. And sud- 
 denly there came a sound from heaven as a rush- 
 ing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where 
 they were sitting. And there appeared unto them 
 cloven tongues as of fire, and it sat upon each of 
 them. And they were all filled with the Holy 
 Ghost." If it is said the house was filled, and they 
 were therefore immersed; — the questions may be 
 asked, with what was the house filled? with what 
 
 were they immersed? Jn English, it is expressed 
 14* 
 
152 
 
 by the pronoun "it," — "it tilled all the house;" the 
 Greek has no pronoun. Well, what is the antece- 
 dent to "i^?'' I answer, the word ^'sound.'>' The 
 word in the Greek is, "echos,'' an echo, a reverbe- 
 rating sound. 
 
 So it seems Mr. B. has only erred in vision, so far 
 as to mistake a sound, an echo, for the Spirit of God. 
 Is then a reverberating sound, surrounding the bo- 
 dies of the apostles; and the Spirit of God falling 
 upon their hearts, the same thing? the reader can 
 judge. 
 
 The sound filled the house, — and, if you please, 
 though it sounds rather odd, — they were immersed 
 in the sound. But this is not to be confounded with 
 the cloven tongues, or the Holy Spirit, mentioned in 
 the following verses. '■''They were all filled with 
 the Holy Ghost." The sound filled the place; 
 the Spirit filled the persons; the sound was with- 
 out them; the Spirit was within them. 
 
 The old prophet did not commit such a blunder, as 
 to mistake the sound of wind, for the voice of the 
 Spirit. "And behold, the Lord passed by, and a 
 great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake 
 in pieces the rocks, before the Lord; but the Lord 
 was not in the wind." — 1 Kings xix, 11. As in 
 
153 
 
 this case, the tvlnd came before the Lord spake to 
 the prophet, in "a still small voice;'' — so, on the 
 day of Pentecost, the rushing^ mighty icind came 
 first, and filled the house, — then the Lord poured 
 OUT upon them the Holy Ghost » 
 
 But, granting, for the sake of argument, that the 
 Spirit is intended by the sound; the Baptist manner 
 of administering the ordinance, is not helped by it. 
 For the sound, or Spirit, came down, descending 
 upon them. The baptismal element came upon the 
 subjects. They did not descend into it. The ele- 
 ment was active; the subjects were passive; which 
 exactly corresponds with our mode. In the mode of 
 Mr. B. this order is completely reversed. The view 
 of Mr. Broaddus, on this case, makes against a favo- 
 rite notion of many of his Baptist brethren, — viz: 
 that the baptism promised by Christ, and given on 
 the day of Pentecost, was restricted to the apostles 
 as the subjects; — and to the extraordinary or mira- 
 culous gifts conferred upon them; — and not to the 
 ordinary gift of the Holy Spirit, conferred upon all 
 Christians, For if, as he says, "the wind was the 
 Spirit,'^'' then all present were equally immersed with 
 the apostles; — and we learn from ver. 15, of the 
 preceding chapter, that "the number of the names 
 
154 
 
 together were about a hundred and twenty.''' "And 
 when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they 
 were all, with one accord, in one place." "And 
 suddenly there came a sound from heaven,'' &c. So 
 that they all obtained the extraordinary influences 
 of the Spirit. It is not admitted by those who refer 
 the baptism of the Spirit to its extraordinary in- 
 fluences, that any received it, except the twelve 
 apostles; — yet Mr. B's interpretations of the matter, 
 give miraculous powers to them all, one hundred 
 and twenty in number. Both he and they are wrong, 
 for the mind was not the Spirit; — and the baptism 
 of the Holy Ghost, is not confined to the apostles: 
 for Joel said, "It shall be poured out upon all 
 FLESH," ver. 17; — and Peter said, "The promise is 
 to all, as many as the Lord our God shall call,'''' ver. 
 39. Reader, no man in his senses, ever supposed, 
 that "all flesh,"— "all that the Lord should call," to 
 be Christians, were to receive the extraordinary 
 gifts of the Holy Ghost. You see, then, with what 
 propriety our Baptist friends, attempt to turn into 
 ridicule, the practice of Pedobaptists, praying for 
 the baptism of the Holy Ghost. "Judge ye what I 
 say." 
 In every case where the spirit is spoken of, as 
 
155 
 
 having been given, it is said to have been 'shed 
 
 FORTH,' or 'poured OUT,' 01 'CAME ON THEM,' Or 
 
 'fell ox all THEM, which heard the word.' 'On 
 the Gentiles, also, was poured out the gift of the 
 Holy Ghost." Acts x, 44, 45, — and in xi, 15, 16 — 
 Peter says, "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 ivith 
 water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy 
 Ghost;" there is no wind, or sound, said to have 
 filled the house of Cornelius, when the Holy Ghost 
 was poured out upon the Gentiles. This, notwith- 
 standing, Peter calls a baptism of the Holy Ghost, 
 by pouring out or falling upon them. 
 
 Query — Did Peter give them water baptism by 
 immersion, in full view of the fact, that God had 
 just given them spiritual baptism by pouring? It is 
 utterly incredible. 
 
 It is enough for me, to be satisfied, that I follow 
 the example of him who baptizes with the Holy 
 Ghost; that I apply the vjater to men'^s bodies as he 
 applies the Spirit to their souls. Thus a spiritual 
 baptism, will be administered in the church to the 
 end of time; and this ordinance will be given accord- 
 
156 
 
 ing to the Pedobaptist mode; for it is written, "I 
 will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh. V See Isaacs 
 on Baptism, p. 57, 58. 
 
 So much for Mr. B. and his "immersion in the 
 Spirit." Again — Most of the cases of baptism re- 
 corded in the Acts, furnish strong, not to say, con- 
 clusive evidence, that they were not baptized by im- 
 mersion, but in some other way. 
 
 I am aware that our Baptist friends have a won- 
 derful facility at finding ^streams,'' ^baths,^ Hanlcs,^ 
 Spools,'' 'hogsheads,' (^c, Ser. p. 35, whenever they 
 read of a case of baptism. Unfortunately for their 
 cause, however, they very often cannot agree among 
 themselves, concerning the means or facilities, for 
 giving the ordinance by immersion, in the particu- 
 lar case. Hence, when you ask, where were the 
 three thousand baptized on the day of Pentecost? 
 each sets his imagination to work, to find a baptizing 
 place. Mr. B. says, Ser. p. 38, "The city was wa- 
 tered by the brook Kidron, and the pools of Siloam 
 and Bethesda, which would furnish an abundant sup- 
 ply of water." In the warm season, the brook Kid- 
 ron v/as generally dry, and travellers say that it is 
 dry nine months in the year; and that those 3000 
 were baptized in warm weather, is evident from the. 
 
157 
 
 fact, that the feast of Pentecost took place at the 
 close of wheat harvest. This stream was always 
 inconsiderable y except after heavy rains: and these 
 made the stream muddy and unfit for bathing. Mr. 
 B. says that the filth from the city did not run up 
 stream, and therefore they might have gone above 
 the city for the purpose of immersion. But the 
 reader will recollect that this gentleman has said 
 "Jerusalem contained a million of inhabitants;" and 
 according to Strabo, was about 60 furlongs, or about 
 eight miles in length. Then supposing the preach- 
 ing to have taken place in the temple, as is most 
 likely; and admitting, that temple to have stood in 
 the midst of the city; it would have been a journey 
 of at least four miles, to have gotten to Kidron above 
 the city. Some of our Baptist friends, feeling the 
 difficulty connected with the supposition that they 
 were baptized in Kidron, (especially as, the passage 
 says not one word about their leaving the place of 
 preaching,in order to receive the ordinance,) and their 
 theory requiring them to find some means whereby 
 to immerse the 3000, have supposed, that they were 
 baptized in the ^'brazen laver,^^ — or in the vessels 
 used by the Jews for purification, &;c. The reader 
 will recollect that these public, and private, bathing 
 
168 
 
 places, were in the keeping of the enemies of Christ 
 —those who had been his betrayers and murderers. 
 It is not Hkely that they would allow Peter, and the 
 other apostles, to use them for the baptizing of their 
 converts. If there had been a probability that Pe- 
 ter wished to drown those who had received the 
 doctrine of Christ's Messiahship, then, indeed, he 
 might possibly have been permitted to use their 
 baths. Moreover, the manner of purifying among 
 the Jews must have been, genei'ally^ at least, by 
 sprinkling or pouring, as we may learn from John 
 ii, 6 — "And there were set six vxiter pots of stone, 
 after the manner of the purifying of the Jews." We 
 have no doubt, there was water enough in Jerusa- 
 lem, to immerse ten thousand people, and we should 
 believe they were baptized by that mode, if we had 
 any evidence of it, But, in ihe total absence oi d\\ 
 evidence, we cannot take the suppositions of our 
 Baptist friendsybrproq/*. 
 
 Again, the cases of Cornelius and his family; 
 Saul of Tarsus, and those that Paul met at Ephesus, 
 Acts xix, and the jailor and his family at Philippi, 
 were all cases where the ordinance was administered 
 without so much as a'bath,'' or ^cistern,' being men- 
 tioned. But the immersionists are always ready 
 
159 
 
 with the means to immerse; they find a 'bathing tub' 
 in the house of CorneUus, and a tank, or cistern, in 
 the jail at PhiHppij and a bath in the private house, 
 where Ananias found penitent Saul of Tarsus. 1 
 would just suggest, that if they were to apply the 
 reasoning which they use with regard to 'infant bap- 
 tism' to these cases, it would ruin their own cause. 
 The baptism of Lydia and her family, and of the 
 eunuch, are all the Christian baptisms that were 
 performed out of doors, so far as we have any infor- 
 mation. On the case of Lydia, Mr. B., Ser. p. 37, 
 makes a remark calculated to mislead the reader. — 
 *'lt is worthy of remark," says he, "that the sermon 
 which produced her conversion, was preached by the 
 river side, and that she and her family were bap- 
 tized before they went into her house. As they 
 were at the river side they could readily be immers- 
 ed.'' And 1 say, as they were 7iear the' ivater, they 
 could be readily sprinkled. If the reader will be at 
 the pains to look at Acts xvi, 13, 14, 15, he will see 
 plainly, that Mr. B's remark is unfair, and makes 
 an erroneous impression. The state of the case was 
 simply this: — Paul, Silas, Timothy and Luke, in 
 their travel, came to Philippi; they remained there 
 
 'certain daysj' and when the Sabbath came, they 
 15 
 
160 
 
 walked 'ow^o/^Ae' idolatrous city, and found a few 
 women by the river side holding a prayer meeting. 
 What, it may be asked, induced these women to go 
 out there to worship? Not to receive baptism, can- 
 did reader; that, in all probability, was not in all their 
 thoughts, when they went to the river side. They 
 were either Jews or proselytes, who were not suf- 
 fered to worship the true God within the limits of 
 the heathen city. And when the apostles went out, 
 and, as by accident, fell in with these devout women, 
 they 'sat down and spake to them.' And while 
 Paul was speaking, "the Lord opened Lydia's heart." 
 And he, pursuing the "apostolic pattern," gave the 
 ordinance of baptism just where the word took ef- 
 fect. When the word took effect on the people out 
 o[ doors, they did not go into the house to adminis- 
 ter the ordinance; and when it took effect in the 
 house, they did not go out of doors to give" the ordi- 
 nance! If Paul had been a preacher of the modern 
 Baptist stamp, and had worked by their "pattern," 
 he would not have given Lydia baptism until she 
 had related a 'Christian experience,' such as should 
 be considered "evangelical;" and perhaps, not until 
 she had waited for weeks or months, to be certain 
 that she was not deceived. Paul's practice in this 
 
161 
 
 case was just such as a Pedobaptist's would have 
 been. They never go from water in order to baptize. 
 And he baptized Lydia and her family at the ^river 
 side,'' not ix the river; before they went into the 
 house, or even into the city. 
 
 Reader, this presents a striking contrast with a 
 case, which occurred under the administration of a 
 Baptist preacher, not fifty miles from where Mr. B. 
 now lives. A candidate presented himself in the 
 'church meeting,' related his 'experience;' from 
 which it appeared he had been convicted several 
 years before, and converted some twelve months, or 
 more, prior to his offering himself for baptism. The 
 preacher was highly delighted with the delay; pro- 
 nounced it an 'apostolical experience' — Hhe work not 
 of a few days but ofyears;^ and was admitted to the 
 ordinance. So he understood the 'apostolic pattern.' 
 I leave it to the candor and common sense of the 
 reader, whether the New Testament furnishes any 
 such case as the above! Saul, of Tarsus, was bap- 
 tized on the third day after his conviction, and that 
 is the longest delay we read of. Injustice to Mr. B., 
 I must say, he is not the preacher referred to. 
 
 On the case of the jailor. Acts xvi, 23 to 40, Mr. 
 B., Ser. p. 37, has attempted the most shameful im- 
 
162 
 
 position upon the reader, that I ever recollect to 
 have seen in print. He does indeed 'correct the 
 diction of the spirit by that of the party,' in the lan- 
 guage of Mr. G. Campbell, as quoted by Mr. B. 
 Putting certain words in capital letters, he makes an 
 attempt to prove that the jailor and his family went 
 out to a place where there was water sufficient to 
 immerse them. 1 was more convinced from this 
 part of Mr. B's sermon, than from any other, that 
 he considered his cause in danger. I request the 
 reader to take up his bible, the plain man's lexicon^ 
 and just look at the passage in the spirit of candor, 
 He will see, without the wisdom of Solomon, that 
 this gentleman has attempted to make the passage 
 speak a language, which Luke, the writer, never in- 
 tended. He has put the words '■hrovght^ and 'o?/f,' 
 and '•brought them into his house' in capitals, and 
 says, "As to the facilities for obtaining water, the 
 river Strymon, as geographers tell us, ran through 
 the city, where water could be had, even if the jailor 
 had no bathing cistern on his premises;'' and then 
 says, "I have shown that the jailor, and Paul, and Si- 
 las, went out of the house to administer baptism, and 
 though they should have to go five miles to a river 
 or bath,! will put them to that trouble, before I will 
 
163 
 
 consent that haptho shall be deprived of the mean- 
 ing which Professor Stuart says "all lexicographers 
 and critics of any note, have assigned to it.' " Pro- 
 fessor Stuart says just the contrary, as I have shown 
 in another place. Mr. B. proceeds — "But the truth 
 js, to a mind disposed to be governed by the plain, 
 common sense meaning of the language of scripture, 
 there will be no difficulty in finding water for im- 
 mersion, within reach of the jailor's house, or 
 indeed in his house, prepared for the purpose in a 
 HOGSHEAD, if it wcrc not so fully stated that they 
 were baptized while out of the houseJ^ Baptist 
 preachers heretofore (so far as I am informed) have 
 never dreamed that they were baptized out of the 
 house, but have invented a ^cisterrC or '-tank,^ in the 
 jail. This gentleman has struck out a new course; 
 invented a new salvo for the case. He had just as 
 well have put the words Hhrust them into,'' in verse 
 24, in capitals, to prove that Paul dipped them into 
 the ^Strymon,'' as to have put ^brought them out,' and 
 ^brought them into his house,'' in capitals, to prove 
 that the^ went out to a baptizing place. One would 
 have been as near the truth as the other. And 
 these are the men who stand up and tell the people 
 they only need to look into the New Testament, 
 15* 
 
164 
 
 without note or comment, to see 'the law of baptism,* 
 and the practice of the apostles mider that law. 
 ^The Bible,' say they, 'is the best book on baptism.' 
 
 Most commentators give the text first, and then 
 the explanation, but these reverse this order. They 
 give the Baptist comment j/?rs?, and then the sacred 
 text. The comment is 'the word baptize means to 
 dip or immerse only^ and then if you meet with a 
 text like the one under consideration, where it is 
 difficult to find water for immersion, then you must 
 apply your comment on the ivord ^haptize;^ and 
 have them plunged, any how, even if you immerse 
 them in a figure, 'or immerse them in a wind or 
 sound,^ for the Spirit, or have them go to the river 
 'Strymon,' or even five miles at midnight; and if 
 you cannot see that they were really out of doors, 
 you can immerse them 'in a hogshead' of water, 
 prepared for the purpose. 
 
 I will now give the reader a view of this case as 
 it stands in the passage referred to above. In v. 
 23 we find that 'the magistrates laid many stripes 
 on Paul and Silas, and cast them into prison, charg- 
 ing the jailor to keep them safely.' In v. 24, we 
 find, 'he having received such a charge, thrust them 
 into the inner prison, and made their feet fast in the 
 
165 
 
 stocks.' I ask, where are they now? you say they 
 are in the inner prison, or dungeon. Very good. 
 When God had shaken the jail with an earthquake, 
 V. 26, and the doors flew open, "and every one's 
 bands were loosed," the jailor awakening up, 'call- 
 ed for a ligfft, sprang in, and fell down before Paul 
 and Silas,' and brought them out, and said, sirs, 
 what must I do to be saved? v. 29, 30. I ask, where 
 are they now? you say just where they were before 
 they were put in the inner prison; that is true. 
 Reader you will take notice that the words ^brought 
 them out,^ occur before any thing is said either about 
 believing or baptism, and before there was any 
 preaching. And they said, v. 31, 'Believe on the 
 Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy 
 house.' 'And he took them the same hour of the 
 night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, 
 he and all his, straightway.^ v. 33. 'And when he 
 had brought them into his house, he set meat before 
 them,' &c. v. 34. And the reader will find in v. 
 40, 'That they went out of the prison, and entered 
 into the Kouse of Lydia.' 
 
 Mr. B's version of the matter makes them come 
 out of the house at midnight to preach the gospel, as 
 well as to baptize; for the words brought them outy 
 
166 
 
 are before his 'speaking to them (he word of the 
 Lord,' for they are not said to have been brought 
 into his house, until after the baptizing; he brought 
 them in to give them something to eat. As Mr. B 
 will have them brought out of the jail before the ser- 
 vice took place, and as we have seen they were not in 
 the jailor's apartment until after the baptism; then 
 they must have exhibited the odd spectacle, of per- 
 sons going out of a building to preach at midnight: 
 — unfortunately for Mr. B's theory, w^here the bring- 
 ing out is spoken of, no body is mentioned but Paul, 
 Silas, and the jailor. Yet when the baptizing is 
 mentioned, 'Ae and all his' are 'baptized straight- 
 way.^ The true state of the case was evidently this, 
 — he brought them out of the dungeon^ into the outer 
 prison, and asked, *What must I do to be savedl' 
 The family, children and domestics are assembled 
 to hear the sermon, 'and they spake unto him the 
 word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.'' 
 Here the Greek word ^'■oikia'''' is used, which signi- 
 fies the household, the whole domestic establishment, 
 according to Schrevelius's Lexicon. He interprets it 
 by the Latin word domus, which Cole's Latin Dic- 
 tionary interprets, a house, family ^ household, &;c. 
 When the sermon was over, and the jailor had 
 
167 
 
 received baptism, with all his family, and had wash- 
 ed the stripes of the preachers, 'he took them into 
 his house, and set mesit before them,' &;c. Now, I 
 suppose, in this, as in all large cities, the jailor oc- 
 cupied a part of the same building with the prison- 
 ers. At least, he was so near, that in the midnight 
 hour, when he awaked up, he saw "the prison doors 
 open," and when he drew out his sword to commit 
 suicide, Paul cried to him, "do thyself no harm." 
 — And he 'called for a light, and sprang in.' I ask 
 again, where? into the inner prison. The phraseol- 
 ogy of the passage would leave the impression on 
 the mind of an unbiassed reader, that the jailor's 
 family resided in a part of the same building with 
 the prisoners. The Roman law made prison-keep- 
 ers answerable for the safe keeping of those commit- 
 ted to them: — hence, the precaution this man took, 
 to put the prisoners in the dungeon, and make 'their 
 feet fast in the stocks.' And hence he was about to 
 take his own life, 'when he supposed the prisoners 
 had fled.' We find, from Acts xii, 18, 19, that the 
 keepers of the prison, who let Peter escape, paid for 
 it with their lives. And they were under the same 
 civil jurisdiction, or laws, with the Philippian jailor. 
 I am quite willing to leave it to the decision of 
 
168 
 
 the intelligent reader; in view of the law, — in view 
 of the fact of Peter's escape, and the death of those 
 who suffered him to escape, — in view of its being 
 midnight, and in view of the passage saying not one 
 word about their going aicay from the prison; — 
 whether they went to the "river Strymon," or to 
 any other place, for the -purpose of immersion? So 
 much for Mr. B's '^brought thex out." As it 
 regards a hath or cistern in the prison^ for the com- 
 fort and cleanliness of the prisoners, we would re- 
 mark that such things are not very common, even 
 now, after all the untiring efforts of such men as John 
 Howard, the philanthropist, in behalf of prisoners; 
 and they made no part of the appendages of an an- 
 cient heathen prison. I think it will appear, that 
 the circumstances of this case of baptism, are quite 
 as inflexible against immersion, as Mr. B. is dis- 
 posed to think the Greek word baptizo, is for it. 
 And if he had possessed candor enough to have 
 quoted his Schrevelius on this word, as he did on the 
 word '■'■paidia'''' when arguir.g against the ^infants,'' 
 Ser. p. 13, we should have had a different account of 
 it. It suited his purpose better, to quote Dr. Carson, 
 as he makes the word mean immersion only. And if 
 in the case above referred to, viz. ^^paidia,^^ he had 
 
169 
 
 possessed the candor to have quoted the parallel 
 passage in Luke xviii, 15, he would have found the 
 word *'&re2?^a" the plural of ireja^os, used, which 
 Schrevelius would have informed him signifies "i«- 
 fans,'^^ an '''■infant'''' a ^'-babe.^^ He would have thus 
 been saved from the ridiculous attitude of a Christian 
 teacher attempting to explain away the words of the 
 Holy Ghost, as used by St. Mark. 
 
 The case of the eunuch, found in Acts viii, 26 to 
 39, is considered by our opponents as conclusiv* evi- 
 dence in favor of immersion. But when this matter 
 is sifted a little, the evidence will not appear quite as 
 conclusive as those have thought, who have been 
 taught all their life to consider nothing to be baptism 
 that falls short of dipping or immersion. With re- 
 gard to the prepositions used here, we have shown 
 in another place, that nothing can be gathered from 
 their use in this controversy. Mr. B. seems to 
 concede, that the eunuch's immersion cannot be 
 proved '■''going into''' and ^^coming ouV of the wa- 
 ter. He says, Strict, page 17, and Ser. page 36, 
 "you must not suppose that my argument is founded 
 on going into, and coming out of, the water: for all 
 this, I know, might be done without any immersion; 
 here is the argument — why should they go into the 
 
no 
 
 water, merely to sprinkle?'''* and asks, "Who ever 
 said that going into the water, means immersion? Did 
 any inteihgent man ever say so?" I reply that many 
 men have said so; but as it regards their intelligence, 
 we say nothing. In this case, as in most others, Mr. 
 B. has to resort to his version of baptizo. 
 
 When we refer to the passage, we find that the 
 eunuch was travelling through a country which was 
 'a desert,'^ and, consequently, the water they came 
 to, was not a considerable stream; as is probabloy 
 we think, from the fact that in that country even 
 small streams made the places where they were 
 found, populous, as any person can see by a refer- 
 ence to the map. And, moreover, as the streams 
 where John is said to have administered the ordi- 
 nance, are mentioned by name, it is probable that if 
 this had been a water course, or stream, worthy a 
 name, its name also would have been given. The 
 language of the eunuch is, 'see here is water!' An 
 exclamation, as though he had unexpectedly discov- 
 ered it. The reader may find, by a reference to 
 the passage which he was reading at the time Philip 
 fell in with him, that it stands in intimate connexion 
 with, and is a part of the same prophecy, where 
 Isaiah lii, 15, speaks of Christ 'sprinkling many 
 
171 
 
 nations.^ And indeed there are but six verses be- 
 tween that passage and the text, from which "PhiHp 
 preached unto him Jesus." He no doubt gave him 
 to understand, that, himself and others were acting 
 under a commission to 'disciple all nations, baptiz- 
 ing them,' &;c. and, of consequence, when he be- 
 came willing to receive Christ, he offered himself 
 for baptism. I can see, therefore, how he could 
 readily understand the rite of initiation to be admin- 
 istered by sprinkling. For, whether the passage 
 above quoted was explained by Philip as alluding to 
 baptism literally, or to the thing signified by it, in 
 either case the mode is by " '■sprinliling^ many na- 
 tions.'' So I conclude that he did not give him 
 baptism by immersion, as a symbol of that spiritual 
 washing, that was to be efiected by sprinkling. But, 
 perhaps, an immersionist would like to suggest, that 
 the prophet refers to what Christ would cZo himself; 
 and that, therefore, the prophecy cannot refer to the 
 apostle's making "disciples of the nations by sprink- 
 ling." I reply, that it is very common in Scripture 
 language for God to be represented as doing, what 
 he causes to be done. The reader can find a strik- 
 ing case in point, John iii, 22. "After these things 
 
 came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judea; 
 16 
 
172 
 
 and there he tarried with them and baptized.'''' Com- 
 pare this with the 1st and 2d v. of the next chapter: 
 "When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees 
 had 'heard that Jesus made and baptized more dis- 
 ciples than John.' Though Jesus himself baptized 
 not, hut his disciples.^'' Here is evidently as plain a 
 declaration that ^Christ baptized,'' as the prophet 
 has, 'he shall sprinkle many nations,' and yet we 
 are informed subsequently that ^ Jesus baptized not, 
 but his disciples.' 
 
 How natural then was it, for the eunuch to ask 
 for baptism, if Philip gave him an explanation of the 
 prophecy; as referring to the ordinance of Christian 
 baptism, given by "sprinkling the nations.'' What- 
 ever others may think, I am decidedly of the opin- 
 ion that this is the genuine interpretation of the pas- 
 sage. And that the whole of the 51st, and 52d, chap- 
 ters of Isaiah, refer to what should take place under 
 the gospel; "the sufferings of Christ, and the glory 
 that should follow," in the setting up, and establish- 
 ment of the gospel kingdom; when the Messiah 
 should "see his seed," 'and the pleasure of the Lord 
 should prosper in his hands,' when 'his doctrine' shall 
 'come down' on the nations 'as rain,' under the 
 preaching of his apostles, and their successors., 
 
173 
 
 and when by their hands, he should ^sprinkle many 
 nations.'' 
 
 I conclude from the above, that Philip and the 
 eunuch, came to a spring or run of water; that they 
 both alighted, and going to the water, he received 
 the ordinance, and afterwards went on his way re- 
 joicing. But Mr. B. asks, 'Why should they go 
 into the w^ater in order to sprinkle?'' I reply, for 
 aught that appears to the contrary, they were no 
 more in the ivater, than the sons of the prophets 
 were, ''when they came 'efs' to Jordan to cut down 
 wood," 2 Kings vi, 4; the same proposition is used 
 in the case under consideration. 1 presume the 
 sons of the prophets hardly stood in the river to fell 
 trees. 
 
 The missionary, Mr. Wolf, found a sect of Chris- 
 tians in Mesopotamia, who called themselves 'the 
 followers of John the Baptist, who baptized children 
 at thirty days old, and who performed the rite by 
 sprinkling water upon the child at the edge of a 
 river. See his Journal, vol. 2, p. 311, as quoted 
 by Watson. Mr. Wolf asks, "Why do they bap- 
 tize in rivers?" Answer: 'Because St. John the 
 Baptist baptized in the river Jordan.' "Thus we 
 have in modern times, river baptism without immer^ 
 sion.'^' 
 
174 
 
 We next notice, a favorite argument of our Bap- 
 tist friends, drawn from the supposed immersion of 
 Christ. 'If no body else ever was baptized by im- 
 mersion,' say they, 'surely the Master icas; and we 
 are commanded to take up our cross and follow him.^ 
 We are by no means convinced that Christ was im- 
 mersed. And if it could be shown that he was, I 
 have not been able to find in the New Testament 
 the command, to receive the same baptism that he 
 received. I hold, that the baptism of Jesus Christ 
 was very peculiar; such as no other person ever re- 
 ceived. 1st. He being without sin, could neither re- 
 pent, nor promise amendment of life. 2d. Being 
 the wisdom of God, he could be taught nothing. 3d. 
 Being the Christ, he could not profess that he would 
 believe in him, that should come after him, that is 
 in himself. He therefore was baptized: 1st. To 
 honor the office of his herald: 2d. That he miffht 
 fulfil the righteousness of John's dispensation: and 
 3d. That by this rite he might be inducted into, — 
 installed in his public office, as the 'prophet like to 
 Moses;' as the High Priest over the house of God. 
 The language of Robert Hall is, 'He was inaugu- 
 rated into his office at his baptism, till which period 
 he remained in the obscurity of private life, &€.' 
 See Works, vol. 1, p. 372. 
 
175 
 
 At thirty years of age tlie priests were 'washed 
 with water;' and 'anointed with oil;' Exodus xxix, 4, 
 7, and Leviticus viii, (3, 10, 11, 12. So we find 
 that Christ, at the age of thirty, was washed of John 
 at Jordan; and 'anointed with the Holy Ghost,' and 
 John said, 'I knew him not, but he that sent me to 
 baptize, said, upon whomsoever thou shalt see the 
 spirit descend and light upon him; he it is that bap- 
 tizeth with the Holy Ghost.' 
 
 I suppose jMr. B. will hardly say that while Jesus 
 stood upon the bank of Jordan, the Spirit immersed 
 him; (when the text says, "it descended upon him 
 like a dove.'' John i, 32, 33;) as there is nothing 
 said here about a wind^ or sovnd, filing all out of 
 doors. Those who talk so much of 'following Christ 
 down to Jordan,' and are perpetually teazing the 
 weak, but sincere believer in Jesus, about being im- 
 mersed in imitation of Christ's example, ought to 
 recollect that he was circumcised, as well as bap- 
 tized, and that after his baptism, he fasted forty 
 days and nights, and had a severe rencontre with 
 the great adversary of God and man, before he en- 
 tered upon the discharge of the functions of his high 
 office. They should recollect also, that, he regular- 
 ly kept the Jewish Passover, and his disciples also 
 U6* 
 
176 
 
 kept it with him; he also washed their feet, and said 
 to them, "Do to one another, as I have done to you." 
 Those who would receive the baptism which Christ 
 received from John, (even if this were possible,) 
 would need re-baptizing, in order to be initiated into 
 the Christian church; for we have the authority 
 of St. Paul, Acts xix, and of that distinguished Bap- 
 tist 'preacher, Robert Hall, of England, for saying, 
 that John's was not the Christian baptism. His 
 words are, as quoted in the first part of this discus- 
 sion, "710 rite celebrated at that time, (i. e. during 
 John's ministry,) is entitled to a place among Chris- 
 tian SACRAMENTS, siucc they did not commence 
 with the Christian dispensation." Hall's Works, 
 vol. 1, p. 372. Now if our Baptist friends will. in-' 
 sist that they must go to the water, and do as Jesus 
 did, (i. e. receive John's baptism,) we cannot go with 
 them, for we cannot consent to throw up our right 
 to an interest in the Christian dispensation. Hear 
 the words of our Master, Luke vii, 28, — "Among 
 those that are born of women, there is not a greater 
 prophet than John the Baptist; but he that is least 
 in the kingdom of God is greater than Ae." And 
 Mr. Hall says, that "the phrase kingdom oj God is 
 constantly used to denote that state of things under 
 
177 
 
 the administration of the Messiah." See as 
 above. 
 
 He therefore who would forsake the kingdom of 
 God, or Christian church, and go back to John 
 at Jordan, under the fanciful idea of following Christ, 
 might, with equal propriety, have his male children 
 circumcised, at eight days old. and constantly keep 
 the Jewish Passover; for he could plead the example 
 of Christ in honoring these institutions also. "I 
 speak as unto wise men." 
 
 But I shall be told that the scriptures say, — "And 
 straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the 
 heavens opened." Mark i, 10. It is said in Matt, 
 iii, 16 — "And Jesus, when he was baptized, loent up 
 straightway out of the water." In both these places 
 the Greek word 'apo' is used, the first sense of 
 which (according to Parkhurst's Lexicon) is 'from;' 
 so we see that nothing can be fairly made out from 
 his case, to show that even the mcmner in which he 
 received the ordinance was by plunging. His coming 
 up, and going up, show nothing for immersion; be- 
 cause they imply action, whereas in immersion the 
 subject is always passive. 
 
 We must now call the attention of the candid 
 reader to the favorite argument of our differing breth- 
 ren, drawn from a fanciful interpretation of Rom. vi, 
 
4, — "Therefore we are buried with liiivi by bap- 
 tism into death,'' &c., andColoss. ii, 12. Mr. B., 
 (Ser. p. 10,) seems to consider this allusion of the 
 apostle, as a most conclusive argument for the mode 
 of baptism by immersion. He says, "I pause to ad- 
 mire the wisdom of the Most High, in putting it into 
 the mind of his inspired servant, to describe the or- 
 dinance of baptism, by so familiar an illusion. Let 
 the learned, my brethren dispute about the meaning 
 of Greek verbs and prepositions, you all understand 
 what a burial is, and if Paul called baptism a burial, 
 you will easily decide whether he meant sprinkling, 
 pouring, or immersion.''' Query — Did any of Mr. 
 B's hearers or readers, ever witness a bvrial, ivhere 
 the body was dipped or plunged in the earth? I 
 dare say they have witnessed many, where the body 
 
 had THE EARTH SPRINKLED OR POURED UPON IT. It 
 
 is easy for those who do not think much, to be led 
 away with the sound of a word; but J hope better 
 things of you, intelligent reader. 
 
 There are several serious difficulties which lie 
 against this fanciful argument for immersion; 1st, 
 Although Mr. B. says St. Paul 'describes it by an 
 allusion," (rather a strange method of description, 
 by the way, and that too, in a matter where he says, ' 
 
179 
 
 "we may expect to find the word of God very ex- 
 plicit upon the subject." Ser. p. 6,) yet in all the 
 four gospels, in all that John the Baptist, and Jesus 
 Christ ever said with regard to baptism, there is not 
 one solitary intimation that the ordinance had any 
 reference to a burial; either to the burial and resur- 
 rection of Christ, or any other. Again, in all the 
 Acts of the Apostles, in all that they said, from time 
 to time, on the subject of baptism, there is no such 
 allusion; nor is there in the Epistles, except in the 
 two passages above referred to. 2nd, That St. Paul 
 has reference to the mode of literal baptism in these 
 passages, is exceedingly doubtful; because no such idea 
 was given him at his own baptism, by Ananias, as 
 that he was to ^arise and be baptized, to represent 
 the burial and resurrection of Christ.'' On the con- 
 trary, he said, "Arise and be baptized, and wash 
 AWAY THY si?fs, Calling on the name of -the Lord." 
 He was taught then to consider baptism as repre- 
 senting the WASHING away of sins, and not to con- 
 sider it as representing a grave, the place of loath- 
 someness artd corruption. 
 
 The fine idea that we hear so often advanced about 
 the Hiquid grave,^ the ^expressive rite,' Hhe watery 
 tonih,^ &c. is a modern invention, and has no author- 
 
180 
 
 ity from the word of (Jod. Wlio can see any resemb- 
 lance between a man wading into a creek or river up 
 to his waist or arm-pits, and another dipping the rest 
 of his body under water, and the laying away of the 
 body of Jesus in a sepulchre, above ground, hewn 
 out of a solid rock, there to remain three days? 
 Jonah's being three days and nights in the belly of 
 the fish, was the sign of the burial and resurrection 
 of Christ; hence Jesus told the Jews, "there shall «o 
 other sign be given you, but the sign of the prophet 
 Jonah;" and yet our Baptist friends will have it, that 
 baptism was, and is, the sign or representation of 
 Chrises burial and resurrection. 
 
 But reader, their practice is at war with their theo- 
 ry; for if, as they say, baptism does really represent 
 the burial and resurrection of Christ, then they should 
 not require persons to be baptized before they admit 
 them to the Lord's supper; because in this they require 
 them to shoiv forth the burial and resurrection of 
 Christ before they allow them to obey the command 
 of Jesus, in showing forth his passion and death, in 
 the sacred supper. They thus reverse the order of 
 those important facts, and show the Lord^s resurrec- 
 tion before his death. I have to urge against this 
 interpretation; Sd, That it proves too much; for if, 
 
181 
 
 'being buried,' in the passage, alludes to the mode of 
 baptism, then so does *being planted, or grafted, in 
 the likeness of his death,' allude to the mode of 
 baptism; for the subject is the same in verses five 
 and six as in verse four. And 'being crucified' also 
 must refer to the mode. In the passage in Colos- 
 sians, the 'rising with him' spoken of, is said to be 
 'through the faith of the operation of God.' We can 
 see no good sense in which it can be said; a tnan 
 rises in baptism Hhrough faith,'^ 
 
 If any thing in these passages can be shown to al- 
 lude to the mode of baptism, then imrtial immersion^ 
 as 'planting,' or using the sign of the cross, has as 
 much evidence in their favor as immersion. In con- 
 clusion, we are of opinion that these passages refer 
 to the spiritual baptism spoken of in the word of 
 God, 1 Cor. xii, 13, — 'For by one Spirit are we 
 all baptized into one body, whether we' be Jews or 
 Gentiles-," and we have seen, that the 'one Spirit' is 
 administered, by pouring, falling upon, 8^'c. The 
 passage may be considered, as referring to the 
 mighty energies of the Spirit of God, whereby the 
 believer is regenerated, "crucified with Christ,'' 
 "planted in the likeness of his death;'' and i^ baptism 
 literally is referred to at all, it is only as the instru- 
 
182 
 
 mental cause, the initiating rite, by which we enter 
 the church, where^hy prof ession we are, and in fact 
 ought to be, "dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto 
 God through Jesus Christ " If our Baptist friends 
 will insist still, that, the mode of baptism by immer- 
 sion is referred to, and that the ordinance is intend- 
 ed to represent the burial and resurrection of Christ, 
 I have two questions to ask: 1st, If the rite was in- 
 tended to represent these two things, how did it 
 come to pass, that the disciples were so ignorant of 
 the doctrine of Christ's resurrection up to the eve of 
 his crucifixion, that ^'■They wondered what the ris- 
 ing from the dead should mean?^'' 2d. If this ordi- 
 nance has been instituted to represent the burial and 
 resurrection of Christ, then we ask, where is the 
 Christian rite, that is the emblem of moral purity? 
 Christianity has but two sacraments — baptism and 
 the Lord's supper; the first, emblematical of the 
 *SpiritV influences, and the second commemo- 
 rative of the breaking of the body, and the shed- 
 ding of the blood, of the Son of God. Blood and 
 WATER came forth from tlie pierced side of Jesus, 
 emblematical of atonement and of purity. ^'•By 
 water we a-re jmrified, and pardoned by his blood.^^ 
 "There are three that bear witness in earth; 
 
183 
 
 earth; the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these 
 three agree in owe;" 1st John v, 8. I consider this 
 text as referring to the Spirit of God. The water 
 of baptism, and the blood of Jesus all agreeing io 
 one mode of administration; and that is sprinkling 
 or pouring. 
 
 Mr. B. says, Serm. page 27, "Baptism does not 
 necessarily include the idea of water, at all. We 
 might baptize with meal, with oil, with honey, with 
 Sand; the question is, what action constitutes bap^- 
 tism?'' Query — could a man be immersed in sand? 
 sand or meal might be poured or sprinkled on the 
 subject, but the ^action,'' as he calls it could never 
 be dipping or plunging. The word 'baptizo,' ijbs U 
 occurs in Mark vii, 4, 5, with regard to the wash- 
 ing of hands, cups, tables, &c. cannot be interpreted 
 as signifying the action of dipping, only: for though 
 their hands and cups might have been dipped, yet 
 surely they did not wash or baptize their ^brazen 
 vessels j'* and Hables^^ or 'couches,' by immersion. 
 
 We now notice the argument from antiquity. Mr. 
 
 B. thinks that the practice of the ^ancient church^ 
 
 shows the 'pattern' of baptism, and he quotes 
 
 Mosheim and Robinson, Ser. p. 41, to prove that 
 
 "the patt&rn was by immersion. That immersion was 
 17 
 
184 
 
 practised in the second century, and for some time 
 subsequent, we firmly believe. The Baptist argu- 
 ment OQ this point runs thus: "The Baptists practice • 
 immersion, and so did the ancient church; and, there- 
 fore, so did John the Baptist and the apostles.'' This 
 to them is demonstration. But stop, reader, we 
 must look a little at this argument. The primitive 
 church, in this mode of arguing, is made the con- 
 necting link between the New Testament times, and 
 our own. Let us now try another argument. In 
 the primitive church, the people were immersed 
 naked, both men and women; therefore John, and 
 the apostles, immersed people naked; therefore the 
 Baptists ought to immerse people naked. Again: 
 The primitive church gave milk and honey to the 
 baptized, and used unction, so did John the Baptist 
 and the apostles, so ought the Baptists. Again: The 
 primitive church baptized infants, so did John, and 
 the apostles, so ought the Baptists. If our friends 
 should object to my insisting on the argument being 
 thus pushed to its consequences, I must contend if 
 the pattern is to be found in the second century, 
 they must not alter that pattern: for Mr. B. says, 
 Serm. page 6, ^^ Unless the plan laid down in the 
 PATTERN is implicitly pursued, the thing required 
 
185 
 
 is not performed at all.^^ I will prove by Mr. B's 
 witness, (and he will tell the truth in this matter no 
 doubt, as he is^a Baptist,) that the ancients gave the 
 ordinance, the subjects being in a state of nudity. 
 "The primitive Christians baptized naked. There 
 is no ancient historical fact better authenticated 
 than this.'' Robinson's History of Baptism, page 
 8d. Wall says, "The ancient Christians, when they 
 were baptized by immersion, were all baptized 
 naked; whether they were men, women, or children. 
 They thought it better represented the putting off 
 the old man, and also the nakedness of Christ on the 
 cross. Moreover, as baptism is a washing, they 
 judged that it should be the washing of the body, 
 not of the clothes.^'' Wall, chap, xv, part 2. So 
 they undei'stood the 'pattern. If it were necessary, 
 we could produce an abundance of testimony to con- 
 firm this point. And I leave it to the. intelligent 
 reader to judge, whether they received this pattern 
 ^Hn the mount,''^ — or whether it was the offspring of 
 superstition. "Religion, like the Saviour, is often 
 placed between two thieves; Superstition on the 
 right hand, and Atheis3i on the left, the one makes 
 a puppet of her, sets her out in gaudy accoutre- 
 iDents, and bedaubs her native beauty with paint, 
 
tm 
 
 Sind presents lier not in her matron-like dress; the 
 Atheist strips her naked of her vestments, and ex- 
 poses her to the scorn and contempt of the world. 
 But let these men esteem her as they list, she is 
 nevertheless the fair daughter of the Almighty, the 
 Queen of Heaven, and beauty of the whole earth." 
 And it is known to all that read, and think, that 
 human nature has ahuays been prone to add to the 
 SIMPLE CEREMONIES of Christianity. Imposing or- 
 dinances are no proof of the genuineness of a relig- 
 ion^ under the gospel, where "the true worship- 
 pers worship the Father in spirit an^ in truth." 
 
 The Baptists very often are found vaunting about 
 the uniformity of their views and practice; they will 
 tell you that they have always rejected "infant bap- 
 tism" — and always practiced immersion. If the 
 reader will attend, I will give him a fact or two from 
 a Baptist writer that will prove a small drawback 
 upon these high pretensions. In Benedict's History 
 of the Baptists, vol. i. pages 150, 151, 152, it is said, 
 ^'The American Mennonites, have adopted pourings 
 instead of immersion, and it is probable that viany, 
 and I know not but most of the European Mennon- 
 ites have done the same." The reader will bear in 
 mind that these Baptists have been a numerous sect. 
 
\b1 
 
 in the Netherlands, Upper Saxony, Prussia, Russia, 
 Poland, France, &c. dec. and their leader, or founder, 
 Menno, who died in 1561, — asserted that dipping 
 was the onli/ baptism, acceptable to God.'' "The 
 Dutch Baptists (says Benedict) held to dipping be- 
 lievers at first; they still retain the subjects of the 
 ordinance, but by a surprising change, some, I know 
 not how many, have departed from the apostolic 
 mode." It is surely very surprising that so many 
 Baptists should depart from the apostolic pattern, if 
 cold bathing is as convenient, pleasant, and healthy 
 as Mr. Broaddus seems to think it, Serm. p. 40, and 
 Strict, p. 22, he says, "It often proves beneficial to 
 health,'' &lc. If it could be shown that God has 
 said, all men, who are to be baptized, must be im- 
 mersed — then there should be no demurring^ and 
 although Mr. B. has again and again begged the 
 question, without j)roving the position, we are still of 
 the opinion that those Baptists who have given up 
 immersion; and adopted pouring, have acted wisely. 
 VVe must now say a word on the question of the 
 validity oi ti\e ordinance, as administered by those 
 who have never been immersed, Notliing is more 
 common, than for our differing brethren to object, 
 
 vf\\en we administer the rite bv immersion. We do 
 
 17* 
 
jiof Consider it 'the most excellent waiji but if any 
 prefer that mode, and we cannot convince them that 
 pouring is the better mode, we immerse them; and 
 f^onsider that we have given as valid baptism^ as 
 Elder B. could give. 1 have sometimes asked our 
 Baptist friends, if the vaUdity of the ordinance rests 
 upon the quahfications of the administrator, or 
 otherwise; but I have not found them at all agreed 
 in opinion on that point. If the reader will consult 
 Benedict's History of the Baptists, vol. i, page 475, 
 he will discover, that, the first Baptist church in 
 this country was founded or planted by Roger Wii* 
 liams, in the year 1639, in Providence, Rhode 
 Island. Mr. Benedict gives the following account 
 6f this matter: "Being settled in this place, which 
 from the kindness of God to them, they called Prov- 
 ISEnce, Mr. Williams and those with him, consid- 
 ered the importance of gospel union, and were de- 
 sirous of forming themselves into a church, but met 
 with a considerable obstruction; they were con- 
 vinced of the nature and design of believers' baptism, 
 by immersion; but, from a variety of circumstances, 
 had hitherto been prevented from submission. To 
 obtain a suitable administrator, was a matter of con- 
 sequence: at length, the candidates for communion 
 nominated and appointed Mr. Ezekiel Holliman, a 
 
189 
 
 man of gifts and piety, to baptize Mr. Williams; and 
 who, in return, baptized Mr. Holliman, and the other 
 ten." Here is the origin of the Baptists in these 
 United States; and here was a church, that was no 
 church at all, according to the opinion of many of 
 the Baptists. Mr. Holliman did not pretend to be 
 either a minister or a baptized believer, but he was 
 appointed to give believers^ baptism to Mr. Williams, 
 and then Mr. W. gave believers' baptism to him, 
 and the other ten. 
 
 The intelligent reader may see with what con- 
 sistency, the Baptists attempt to invalidate the ordi- 
 nance as administered by us, even when immersion 
 is the mode, although they may attempt to disguise 
 it, yet there are several circumstances, which go to 
 show that they consider the ordinance given by 
 any but a Baptist preacher as being no baptism, at 
 all. 
 
 1st. They will not admit any such to the Lord's 
 table among them. 
 
 2d. If any such offer to join their church; they 
 do not receive them unless they re-baptize them; 
 and 
 
 3d. If a Methodist minister, gives the ordinance 
 by immersion, they generally hear of the murmur- 
 
190 
 
 ings of the Baptists, 'You have no right to give it,' 
 say they, ^you don't believe in it,'' &lc. But here we 
 have a Baptist church, without behevers' baptism; 
 and who knows how many of tlie present race of 
 Baptist preachers descended from that first church. 
 
 Query, are their ministrations more valid than 
 Mr. Hollimans, if they happen to be in this branch 
 of the succession, as he could give Mr. Williams 
 nothing that he did not himself possess, and as he 
 (Mr. W.) had received no valid baptism, he could 
 give none to the rest. 
 
 This they supposed was the pattern, and they 
 practiced the ^laying on of hands'' in that church 
 after baptism, as did many others in the early part of 
 their history in this country. Now it was hardly 
 very modest in Mr. Benedict, in view of this case, 
 in his own church to attempt to ridicule the prac- 
 tice of the Catholics in appointing laymen to admin- 
 ister baptism to children, or sick people in cases of 
 emergency. 
 
 I have not given this case with any design to in- 
 validate the ordinance as practised by the Baptists. 
 But to let them and the public know, that their boast- 
 ing about the superiority of the ordinance as admin- 
 istered by themj and the idea they put forth about 
 
191 
 
 the identity of their doings, in a literal conformity 
 to all ?Ae CIRCUMSTANCES of a 'positive institute,' 
 are frivolous and vain. 
 
 While they attempt to unchurch their neighbors, 
 whose claim to piety is as good as their own; by 
 representing them as the 'disobedient children' of 
 God, and saying in their confession of faith, chap, 
 xxvii, p. 29, Alexandria edition, 1833: "A visible, 
 or gospel church, consists of those who have believ- 
 ed, been baptized by immersion, given themselves 
 to the Lord, and to each other, as required in the 
 divine word." They ought not to complain if their 
 errors and bigotry, at least, are 'handled without 
 gloves.' 
 
 We have shown, we think, m the course of this 
 argument, on the MODE of baptism: "1st. That 'no 
 law of baptism'' can be found in the Greek word 
 "baptizo," and that the opinion of Mr. B. and Dr. 
 Carson about its meaning immersion only, is contra- 
 dicted by critics and lexicographers; by Professor 
 Stuart, Mr. Wesley, and Dr. Clarke; and what is of 
 more weight still, by John the Baptist, by Jesus 
 Christ, by St. Peter, and by St. Paul, one of the best 
 scholars of his time. Does not the candid reader 
 
192 
 
 think that St. Paul understood Greek as well as the 
 corrupt Greek church? We have shown, 
 
 2d. That Mr. B. has miserably abused his Pe- 
 DOBAPTisT witnesses; and that he has more than in- 
 sinuated that king James, the bishops and translat« 
 ors formed a conspiracy against the truth, in giving 
 the world the common version of the scriptures, 
 without translating the Greek word, so as to mean 
 im7nersion only. We have vindicated the translat- 
 ors, and shown that they followed the common cus- 
 tom, pursued by Luther, the Latin and French 
 translators, and also by Mr. George Campbell. 
 And in this they followed the Spirit of God, shown 
 in the case of the Lord's supper, where the Hebrew 
 word "/)asc^a" is retained by the inspired writers 
 of the New Testament, in the Greek word ^^pascha.^^ 
 We have shown, 
 
 3d. That if the meaning of ^^e word used in apos- 
 itive institute, is to furnish the law and fix all the 
 circumstances, of its observances, then, in the ob- 
 servance of the sacrament of the Lord's supper, we 
 ought to eat a full meal, for the word used in 1 Cor. 
 xi, 20, to designate that ordinance, is '■'•deipnon''' sup- 
 per, which, among the Greeks, the learned tell us, 
 was the word used, not only for a/wZ/ meal, but for , 
 
193 
 
 the principal meal. Yet our Baptist brethren think 
 they have taken the sacrament of the supper, 
 really and fully, when they have taken a little piece 
 of bread, and have sipped of wine. Why cannot 
 
 BAPTISM be performed WITH A LITTLE WATER?!! 
 
 "Judge ye what I say." In this part of the argu- 
 ment I have shown also, the futihty of Mr. B's fan- 
 ciful notion about positive institutes. 
 
 4th. That the divers baptisms among the Jews, 
 appointed of God, were performed by ^sprinkling the 
 unclean,^ and that applying water for purification 
 where an administrator and a subject were found, 
 was never by immersion. 
 
 5th. That it is highly improbable that John could 
 have baptized by immersion, the hundreds of thous- 
 ands, that came to his baptism, and that the Jordan 
 and the ^much water'' were wanted for purposes other 
 than dippino^. 
 
 6th. That the baptism which took place in pri- 
 vate houses, and in the prison, and in the temple, can- 
 not be made by any fair dealing, to favor immers- 
 ion, but to the contrary. And I am strengthened in 
 this view by what Mr. Benedict says about the Men- 
 nonites, learning to baptize by pouring, "where they 
 made proselytes in prison. ^"^ Query — Where were 
 
194 
 
 the Hanks,'' ^baths'* and 'hogsheads,' for immersion, 
 which abounded so much in the days of the apostles; 
 had modern prisons none of thenil 
 
 7th. We have shown that baptism of the spirit 
 WAS BY "pouring," "FALLING UPON," &;c., and that 
 Mr. B. in order to evade this argument, has run into 
 the egregious mistake of making "the rushing wind" 
 and "sound" or echo, that filled the house, to be the 
 Spirit of God, "overwhelming the disciples." And 
 we have shown also, that when it came down upon 
 Cornelius and his company, it was shed forth, with- 
 out an accompanying wind or sound. And that on 
 Christ it came descending 'ZiAre a dove.^ 
 
 8th. We have shown also, that in every case of 
 baptism recorded in the New Testament, the ordin- 
 ance was given without delay, whether it were night 
 or day; and that there is a total absence of evidence 
 that any person ever moved or walked so much as 
 
 ONE HUNDRED YARDS FROM THE PLACE OF PREACH- 
 ING, IN ORDER TO RECEIVE THE ORDINANCE OF BAP.- 
 
 TisM. Let the reader compare this with what takes 
 place in modern times. Who ever in our day, hears 
 of a baptism by immersion, without hearing also, 
 that Elder A. B. or G. went from such a meeting- 
 house to such a creek, run or river, to administeir 
 
195 
 
 baptism to C. D. or F. There is no such thing in 
 the New Testament. John was at Jordan^ and 
 Enon^ and "in the wilderness," but these were 
 his places for preaching. And in the same chapel 
 where he preached, there he gave the ordinance. 
 
 9th. We have shown that nothing can be deter- 
 mined with certainty, from Romans and Colossians, 
 with regard to the mode of baptism, from the allus- 
 ion of the apostle to burying. As the text equally 
 refers to ^planting^ and '■crucifixion,'' as to ^burying,'' 
 and the text has a higher, and more important al- 
 lusion. And that a burial is never performed by 
 dipping or plunging, but by pouring or sprinkling 
 the dust upon the coffin. And that the Baptists 
 blunder most wretchedly when they make baptism 
 represent the burial and resurrection of Christ, 
 instead of the washing away of moral impurity, by 
 the baptism of the Holy Ghost and fire. Thus in 
 order to support a theory they wrest one of the 
 Christian sacraments from its proper place, and 
 make it the representative of that, to which the 
 great law giver never appointed it. With all their 
 clamor about 'the liquid grave,' and 'the significant 
 rite,' many of them have yet to learn, the nature 
 
 and MEANING OF Christian baptism. 
 18 
 
196 
 
 1 
 
 10th. We have shown that the idea of following 
 Christ in John's baptism is more specious than scrip- 
 tural, as Christ's baptism was peculiar and as John 
 did not give Christian baptism to his followers; 
 being the minister of an inferior dispensation. 
 
 11th. We have shown, that if the Baptists will 
 insist on deriving the evidence of immersion from 
 the ancient church in the second, third, and fourth 
 centuries, and will attempt to prove thereby that 
 immersion was the 'apostolic pattern;' then they 
 must take the consequences, and believe that the 
 apostles, the ministers of a religion scrupulously 
 modest, baptized men and women 'naked as Adam 
 and Eve,' before they fell, and that they used salt, 
 milk and honey, oil, immersion three times, white 
 garments for the baptized, &c. &c. As this was the 
 pattern of the ancient church, according to Wall, 
 Robinson, and others. The practice of immersing 
 people with their clothes on is a modern invention, 
 about as far from the 'pattern of the ancient church^ 
 as is our mode by pouring. For if baptism is a 
 washing, as the ancients considered it, then we 
 should consider it rather a novel, senseless thing to 
 see a man attempting to wash his feet with his shoes 
 and stockings on, or his hands with his gloves on.. 
 
197 
 
 They built baptistries to be sure, and endeavored to 
 work by this pattern; but when they found that this 
 child of superstition could not be maintained with- 
 out scandalous occurrences taking place in them, 
 (see Miller on Baptism, p. 105,) the true friends of 
 religion laid aside the practice of baptism by im- 
 mersion upon naked subjects; as the Mennonites 
 have the practice of dipping altogether. And that 
 the administration of the ordinance among our Bap- 
 tist friends now is attended with serious difficulties, 
 is evident from the fact that we hear more said 
 about '•Haking up the cross''' in baptis3i, than in 
 taking up all other crosses; and we know that great 
 alarm, and perturbation of spirit, often accompanies 
 the administration in the case of females especially; 
 which renders devotional feelings out of the ques- 
 tion, at least for the moment. We speak not from 
 theory, but from the undoubted testimony of the 
 parties concerned. 
 
 In conclusion, we remark, that as Christ in apply- 
 ing water to the feet of his disciples, gave Peter to 
 understand that this partial application of the water 
 INDICATED an INTEREST in the Saviour, so we con- 
 clude, that the application of water by pouring or 
 sprinkling it on the head, (a. much more vital, and 
 
198 
 
 jioble part than the feet,) in the name of the 
 Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, answers all the 
 purposes of the ordinance, and IS VALID CHRIS- 
 TIAN BAPTISM. "I speak as unto wise men, 
 judge ye what I say." 
 
A FURTHER APPEAL, 
 
 BY H. SLICER, 
 
 IN REPLY TO THE TWENTY-ONE LETTERS 
 
 ADDRESSED TO HIM BY 
 
 MR. BROADDUS. 
 
 "Speaking the truth in love."'— St. Paul. 
 
 "Truth, like light, always travels in straight lines." — Lacon. 
 
 Candid reader! to you and not to Mr. B., shall I 
 address myself in the review of these letters. I 
 have the consolation to know, that, although the 
 advocate of Pedobaptist views may be weak, the cause 
 is strong, and rests not upon the talents, or inge- 
 nuity of any man, however skilled in argument. 
 
 It would be as fair to infer the incorrectness of 
 the views of Baptists from the evil practices, and 
 visionary theories of Muntzer and the German Ana- 
 baptists, as for Mr. B. to attempt so far, to connect 
 
 me with the Pedobaptist views, as to infer their 
 
 18* 
 
200 
 
 weakness, and unsoundness, from what he is pleased 
 to consider my misrepresentations of his arguments, 
 For the intelhgent reader will perceive, that the gen- 
 tleman arrogates to himself and his views, not only 
 all the argument, but all the scripture authorities 
 also; hear him, page 13 — "i do not blame you, sir^ 
 for not producing any argument in favor of your theory; 
 for arguments there are none, in the ivide compass of 
 creation, to prove that infants are proper subjects of gos- 
 pel baptism,'*'' This is only one of many broad 
 declarations, unsupported by proof, contained in his 
 letters. The reader will perceive, from the above 
 quotation, how little hope is to be entertained of 
 making any impression upon men, who claim to 
 have in possession all the argument in "^/te wide 
 compass of creation'''^ on the subject of Christian 
 baptism. 
 
 What I have written in the following pages, is 
 designed for those who have intelligence, and can- 
 dor, sufficient at least to admit, that they are not too 
 wise to learn, or too knowing to be taught some- 
 thing more, on the subject of this solemn and im- 
 portant ordinance, — and who will weigh in the bal- 
 ances of impartial judgment, what may be advanced, 
 convinced that the cause of truth can never suffer . 
 by investigation. 
 
201 
 
 Some of these letters I shall notice; others I shall 
 barely allude to, as I have answered the points con- 
 tained in them at length, in the first 'Appeal' — and 
 I cannot consent to waste either my own time, or 
 the reader's, in repeating over those parts of my ar- 
 gument which Mr. B. has not seen fit to attempt to 
 answer. It was my aim, in the first reply to him, 
 to condense the matter as much as possible; this I 
 shall still keep in view, convinced that the strength 
 of an argument does not consist in the use of many 
 words, but in 'words fitly spoken.' 
 
 Mr. Broaddus sets out by professing to have no 
 other object in view, "than to maintain the purity 
 of our Lord's institutions," and yet it is manifest 
 in his 'note to the reader,' and throughout his 
 twenty-one letters, that the vindication of his own 
 reputation, which he considered implicated, gave 
 him more concern than any thing else involved in 
 the controversy; and he has fallen upon the strange 
 expedient of proving himself innocent of mutilat- 
 ing, by an attempt to prove me guilty; with how 
 much success, the candid reader will be able to 
 discern. 
 
 In his first letter, page 5, he acknowledges that I 
 had offered "to meet any minister, or layman, in 
 
202 
 
 the bounds of my district," and yet, although he j 
 was fairly included in the offer, he says "he had re- 
 ceived no offer from me." 
 
 Then, fearing, I suppose, that his language was 
 somewhat contradictory, he adds — "jBz/f / will be 
 candid enough to acknowledge^ that if you had formally 
 challenged me to an oral discussion, I should have de- 
 clined it for several reasons.'^'' He then gives three 
 reasons, which may have satisfied that gentleman's 
 understanding and conscience, but the flimsy charac- 
 ter of which, I doubt not, the discerning public will 
 discover. 1 will here set down his reasons. He says: 
 "/n the first place, common fame had informed me, that, 
 you were naturally of a temperament, which must render 
 a debate with you, very disagreeable to a man of ordinaiy 
 sensibility.'''' I had previously learned, indeed, that 
 the gentleman had given the above reason, to some 
 person or persons privately, but I could not fully 
 credit it, at the time. I thought, however, if that 
 was his private reason, he would hardly so far for- 
 get himself, as to put it in print; thus publicly sin- 
 ning against the law of "that charity which cover- 
 eth a multitude of sins;'' ^Halting up a reproach 
 against his neighbor," even though ^^common fame''' 
 might have laid it down at his feet. ^^ Common 
 
203 
 
 fame''' once said of H131 that was pure and spot- 
 less — "/fe hath a devil, and is mad, xchy hear ye 
 him''' — "Ae stirreth up the people^'' — "Ae speaketh 
 blasphemies,'^'' &c. It is enough for the servant, 
 that he fare as his Lord, As Mr. B. would have it 
 understood, that, he is conversant with that book, 
 that gives ^^ correction in righteousness,''^ he will, 
 perhaps, upon reflection, see his error — and may, 
 perchance, perceive that it is hardly modest to talk 
 of the temperament of others, while his letters give 
 such fearful evidence, of a mixture of sanguine and 
 choleric in his own. If he will look at the 'Course 
 of Time, b. viii,' he may possibly learn a lesson 
 from the Christian poet, that will be of service to 
 him in future. Of "common fame,'' Pollok says: 
 'She was so infamous for lies, 
 
 That he, who of her sayings, on his creed, 
 The fewest entered, was deemed wisest man." 
 
 Secondly; (Mr. B. says,) "J doubted whether I 
 should he able, amidst the exciting circumstances of a 
 public debate, to present my own views of the subject in a 
 proper spirit.''^ So it seems he was afraid of him- 
 self, as well as of me. As he has thus referred to 
 himself, I may be permitted to close this point, by 
 saying, he thought, no doubt, a spark of my fire 
 might possibly fall into his tinder-box, and that the 
 
204 
 
 effect might be disastrous to his own cause. 'Pru- 
 dence is the better part of valor;' and he that knows 
 he carries a powder magazine about him, does well 
 to keep at a respectful distance from sparks. So 
 much for his second reason. 
 
 Thirdly — he was afraid to trust the people with 
 an oral argument, thinking they would not be able 
 to judge of its strength. In this, at least, we should 
 have been equal, as they could have judged of the 
 argument, from his lips, as well as from mine, 
 
 I regret the necessity of noticing these things, 
 rather foreign from the merits of the controversy; 
 as they may be deemed somewhat personal in their 
 nature. 
 
 The attempt Mr. B. makes, in his first letter, to 
 show that the passage in the 19th ch. of Acts, does 
 not furnish evidence that Johi's baptism differed 
 from Christian baptism, is truly a lame attempt. 
 How changeable are the views of those who con- 
 tend for immersion as the exclusive mode. The old 
 Anabaptists used to quote this passage to sustain 
 them in re-baptizing. But now Mr. B. seems to 
 suspect that possibly they were not re-baptized at 
 all, He says — "Many eminent men have very 
 
205 
 
 plausibly contended, that, Paul did not re-baptize 
 them." 
 
 "Plausible," as their views are in his judgment, 
 he is not able to make up his mind yet, to contra- 
 dict the plain narrative of St. Luke, but supposes, 
 without any shadow of evidence to support him, 
 that there was some defect in the baptism which the 
 twelve disciples at Ephesus had received, although 
 John's baptism itself was not defective. He says 
 that "various reasons might be assigned for their being 
 rt-baptized, without, in the smallest degree, discrediting 
 John^s as Christian baptism.''^ But the h'arious reasons'' 
 turn out to be one only, and that so meagre, as to 
 be unsupported by any evidence — merely a creation 
 of Mr. B's own imagination! First, he has to sup- 
 pose, that those persons were baptized by some of 
 John's disciples; secondly, that those disciples of 
 John, had not heard of the recent commission given 
 to the disciples of Christ; and thirdly, that the 
 twelve, at Ephesus, were baptized with a defective 
 baptism, being taught to believe on a Saviour yet to 
 come. 
 
 Now, candid reader, all this in Mr. B. is perfectly 
 gratuitous, for there is not a word of it in the chap- 
 ter. He might become a believer in infant baptism 
 
206 
 
 if it would suit him, by a much smaller exercise of 
 his guessing capacity. For instance, in the case of 
 the children mentioned by Matthew, Mark, and 
 Luke, who were taken in the Saviour's arms, if he 
 would only be willing to suppose one thing, instead 
 of three, and say 'possibly' they were baptized, as 
 well as blessed, then we should have him an advo- 
 cate for infant baptism. The intelligent reader will 
 perceive how convenient a thing, our opponents 
 sometimes find an inference to be, in helping them 
 out of a difficulty. 
 
 On page 8, Mr. B. makes another effort to prove 
 that Hhere never was a visible church of Christ in exist- 
 ence, until he came and made arrangements himself, for 
 discerning, hy means of ordinances, between the righteous 
 and the wicked.'''' Here, gentle reader, is a new way 
 of discerning "between the precious and the vile." 
 ^'Ordinances!" — I suppose he means baptism and 
 the Lord's supper!! Was there ever a case known 
 since the opening of the gospel dispensation, in 
 which, by means of these ordinances, it was discern- 
 ed that an individual was an unworthy member of 
 the church of Christ? Did ever the ordinances 
 distinguish, in the Baptist church, between the 
 righteous and the wicked? Mr. B. says in his Dia- 
 
207 
 
 logue, page 117, that "Elder G. and all his churches 
 have been excluded from the Baptist denomination, 
 in consequence of his immorality.''^ Was this immorality 
 discerned hy means of ordinances'? On the same page 
 he gives us the true mode of discerning, where he 
 speaks of an influential "individual, ichose conduct has 
 proved him to be an unworthy member of the church^ 
 So, after all, it seems that the Baptists judge of people, 
 not by the ^ordinances,'' but by Hheir conduct;^ just as 
 the apostles judged of Judas, Demas, Simon the sor- 
 cerer, and the incestuous Corinthian; and just as the 
 priests and ministers did under the Jewish dispen- 
 sation. Mr. B. says, page 8, "No rules were pre- 
 scribed, under the former dispensation, by which to 
 separate the (wicked) from the privileges of those 
 that were worthy." We will appeal from this state- 
 ment "to the law, and the testimony," Ex. xii, 
 15 — *^For whosoever eateth leavened bread, from the first 
 day, until the seventh day, that soid shall be' cut off from 
 Israel." Num. ix, 13 — "But the man that is clean, 
 &c. and forbeareth to keep the passover, even the same 
 soul shall be cut off from his people — that man shall bear 
 his sin." 
 
 See Lev. xxiv, 10 to 23, and Deut. xxix, 21. — 
 These are a few of the many passages, which go 
 
 to show that the church, under the former dis- 
 19 
 
208 
 
 |)ensation, was not that promiscuous assembly of 
 wicked and righteous persons, in the enjoyment of 
 equal privileges, that Mr. B. seems to think it was; 
 but that it was under a rigid discipline, '''-separating 
 the precious from the tn/e." 
 
 The Baptists suppose, because they have been 
 baptized by immersion, that therefore they have a 
 mark upon them, by which they are distinguished 
 from others; whereas, no one could discern from 
 the fict of their having been baptized once, or twenty 
 times, that they were worthy members of the visi- 
 ble church of Christ. They might be 'washed only 
 to fouler stains,' so that after all, Mr. B. says about 
 ^^discerning by ordinances'^ is a mere fancy of his 
 own. 'Judge ye what I say.' 
 
 My argument for the unity of the church of the 
 true God, stands unshaken by any thing T have yet 
 seen from Mr. B. God never had but one churchy 
 and will never have less or more. 
 
 The illustration from Rom. xi, which I used to 
 show the unity of the churchy seems rather to have 
 thrown Mr. B. into a difficulty. "By the root, sap, 
 and fatness of the olive tree, (he says,) no doubt the 
 apostle intends the means of grace, with which 
 they, (the Jewish nation,) had so lonof been blessed. 
 
209 
 
 Such only as believed, retained these blessings, and 
 by the new order of things which Christ had insti- 
 tuted, were united with Gentile believers in partak- 
 ing of them. Here was a visible church of Christ.^^ 
 p. 9. Now, observe, according to this representa- 
 tion, the visible church of Christ enjoys the ^means 
 of graced which the Jewish nation formerly pos- 
 sessed. And the apostle, also, says that when the 
 Jews return from their unbelief, "they shall be graft- 
 ed into their oxen olive tree.^^ In this passage, Mr. 
 B. fairly admits that the believing Jews remained 
 in the possession of their privileges, and that the 
 Gentiles were incorporated with them. And he 
 says, 1 may call the Jewish establishment 'a typical 
 church, or a national church — but not a visible 
 church of Jesus Christ.'' Reader, was not one of 
 the privileges, which they enjoyed, (which he calls 
 'means of grace,') the right of dedicating, their infant 
 offspring to the true God, in an initiatory rite? Now, 
 although Mr. B. acknowledges that the root, and 
 fatness, still remain the same to those that believed, 
 he will have it, that the believing parent, and the 
 child, are deprived of a privilege, which had been 
 long enjoyed. And the anomaly is presented of a 
 mother, a part of whose sons have been recognised 
 
210 
 
 as church members by circumcision, while those 
 born to her, after her reception of the Messiah, 
 are left, so far as any outward sign or rite is con- 
 cerned, in as outcast a condition as the chil- 
 dren of her heathen neighbors. And this, too, un- 
 der a dispensation of increased light, and enlarged 
 privileges! f / 
 
 On page 13, Mr. B. attempts to render my argu- 
 ment ridiculous: After cutting the sentence in two, 
 (the old trade,) putting a period where I had put a 
 cojnma, so as to make it appear that the quotation 
 was a whole sentence, and also leaving out a note of 
 interrogation in the beginning of the paragraph, he 
 says, ^Singular reasoning, truly!'' — did any man 
 ever hear before of such an argument? Mr. B. had 
 said — "^Fe know that Esau and Ishmael, and others, de- 
 scendants of Abraham, were rejected from the covenant of 
 salvation bij Jesus Christ,''' — and I asked — How 
 can he know this? when, according to his own show- 
 ing, the covenant of salvation was not offered to 
 them, and the only covenant of which they knew 
 any thing, was purely of a temporal nature. I still 
 ask: Where is it written that they were excluded 
 from the covenant of salvation? 
 
 The gentleman, after taking the liberties stated 
 
211 
 
 above, with what I had said, complains exceedingly, 
 on the same page, that I had attempted, in quoting 
 him, to make him appear ridiculous in the eyes of 
 my readers; and says, "this seems to be a favorite 
 method with him," (me.) And, after preparing the 
 reader for a display of the very unfair manner in 
 which I had treated him, he sets down two passages 
 in parallel columns, and invites the reader to com- 
 pare them. I have compared them again and again, 
 without seeing that they differ at all in the sense. 
 Thinking, perhaps, I might not be able myself, 
 to see so clearly in the matter, as would a disinter- 
 ested person,! requested ten or twelve intelligent gen- 
 tlemen successively to compare them, to see if they 
 could discover any sense in Mr. B's quotation that 
 is not in mine. So far I have found no one who was 
 sufficiently sharp sighted to see the difference that 
 Mr. B. complains of. As for his complaint, that 
 the word rights, in the last sentence, is put instead 
 of the word rites, as in his quotation, we have only 
 to say, the accidental substitution of that word for 
 the other, did not affect the controversy at all. It 
 was evidently an error of the compositor, I gained 
 nothing by it, and all the harm done was to make 
 
 tautology in the sentence, and give Mr. B. an oppor- 
 19* 
 
212 
 
 t unity to groan, without cause. Although 1 am 
 satisfied that I have done the gentleman no wrong, 
 in quoting him, yet to gratify him, in the revised 
 edition, I have placed his own quotation at length, 
 and I hope the compositor will, in the last sentence 
 of the quotation, get the 7'ight word ^rite.^ So that 
 the gentleman, if he should honor me with any fur- 
 ther notice, will not have this ^straw to catch at^ in 
 supporting his sinking cause, and vindicating his in- 
 jured reputation. 
 
 In his remarks on my 'string of questions,' as he 
 calls them, page 15, he seems quite to have lost his 
 amiability I suppose those interrogatories awoke 
 his ^''ordinary'^'' or ea^fraordinary ''^sensibility.'''' He 
 is at a loss, he says, what to attribute those ques- 
 tions to; — whether to 'a want of common sense,' or 
 to wickedness, in 'intentional misrepresentation.' 
 He will have it, that either my understanding or 
 my heart is defective. He hopes, however, I will 
 'find some explanation that will relieve him.' Now, 
 candid reader, I have no means by which to learn 
 what Mr. B's meaning was, except from the words 
 which he used. If he cannot find means to make 
 himself understood, that is not my fault, and I have 
 no fears that the intelligent reader will understand 
 
213 
 
 his words in any other sense, than the obvious one, 
 which I gave them. He has acknowledged that the 
 statements made in my quotation '•are contradicted 
 by the facts in the case.' Then if the reader shall 
 find that I have quoted him fairly, it will appear that 
 he himself has contradicted the facts, relative to the 
 institution of circumcision in the family of Abraham. 
 My appeal is to you. 
 
 I will here present the reader with a quotation 
 from Mr. B's Strictures, page 4, which may throw 
 some light on the views expressed by him in his Ser- 
 mon, page 17 — "T/ie Ahrahamic dispensation se- 
 cured TO ALL who were circumcised, a portion in 
 THE EARTHLY Canaan." Now, wiU that gentle- 
 man say that this statement is not contradicted by 
 the facts? Ishmael, and Esau, and their seed, were 
 circumcised, and the men of Abraham's house, three 
 hundred and eighteen in number: — and. did all, or 
 any of them, have any portion in the earthly 
 Canaan? I answer no — and every man who is ac- 
 quainted with his bible, and has not 'a theory to sup- 
 port by contradicting facts, will answer no. 'I 
 speak as unto wise men, judge ye what I say.' 
 
 On page 15, in noticing my remarks relative to 
 the New Constitution of Virginia, which I had used 
 
S14 
 
 by way of illustration, Mr. B., instead of giving the 
 illustration as I had stated it, gives just enough of 
 it to make a wrong impression, and answer his own 
 purposes. If he had given all my words in the case, 
 the reader would have seen that I was perfectly 
 correct* I refer the reader to the ^Appeal' for the 
 illustration as I used it. Why did not the gentle- 
 man see fit to give the illustration which I took from 
 the common law? I suppose he thought it best to 
 to keep that out of the view of his readers, as he has 
 most of my arguments. 
 
 Page 18, Mr, B. says, "It is exceedingly unfair 
 to bring the charge of *close communion' against 
 us, when you ought to have known our sentiments 
 upon this subject." Does he mean to deny, that the 
 Baptists hold close communion? His quotation from 
 our Discipline proves just nothing for his cause, be- 
 cause it says not a word about the communicant 
 having been baptized, nor does it say any thing 
 about persons of another denomination. His state- 
 ment about my being as close as he is, if I follow out 
 our constitution, is altogether gratuitous. The dif- 
 ference is only this — / admit all the Christian 
 world to the Lord's table, who are not immoral in 
 their lives, and who acknowledge our Lord Jesus- 
 
215 
 
 Christ as their Saviour; — Mr. B. excludes all the 
 Christian world, however pious, however much the friends 
 of Jesus, exce^it those who have been dipped in bap- 
 tism in adult age. Does the reader think / am as 
 close as Mr. B? 
 
 But he asks, 'suppose the applicant for commu- 
 nion should tell you that he rejects water baptism 
 altogether, would you receive him to the commu- 
 nion?' I should endeavor to convince him of the 
 propriety and obligation of baptism. But if I could 
 not succeed in this, I would not 'smite my fellow 
 servant,' as Robert Hall says the Close Communion 
 Baptists have done; and make for him that a term 
 of C03I5IUIVI0N which is not a term. I would ex- 
 tend to him the lenity which Hezekiah extended to 
 the people in his day. See 2 Chron. xxx, 17, 18, 
 19, 20 — ^^For a multitude of the people had not cleans- 
 ed themselves, yet did they eat the Passover otherwise than 
 it tvas written; but Hezekiah prayed for them, saying, the 
 good Lord pardon every one that prep areth his heart to 
 seek God — though he be not clea>'sed according to 
 the purif cation of the sanctuary. And the Lord hearkened 
 to Hezekiah^''^ <^'c. This king did not feel himself 
 authorized to drive the people of the Lord from the 
 Passover feast; because they had omitted the pre- 
 
216 
 
 paratory purification. And I can see no good rea- 
 son why we sliould debar a sincere believer in the 
 sacrificial death of Christ, from commemorating that 
 solemn event in the sacrament of the supper, be- 
 cause he cannot see it to be his duty to be bap- 
 tized. 
 
 As Mr. B. has quoted our discipline on this sub- 
 ject, and says members of other churches have to 
 undergo an examination, and takes upon himself to 
 suppose, that we would make the matter of baptism 
 a point in the examination of the applicant, I will 
 only say, if he had found it convenient to quote the 
 next sentence, the reader would have seen the ex- 
 planation of the one he did quote. Here it is — "No 
 person shall be admitted to the Lord's supper among 
 us, who is gyiliy of any practice., for which we 
 would exclude a member of our church.'' 
 
 As Mr. B., page 19, has dragged in the subject 
 of female communion, and has declared that '•'■there 
 is a Thus saiih the Lord for it in every passage of 
 scripture that speaks of the Lord's supper at all,''^ it may 
 not be amiss to examine this matter a little. In the 
 first mention of the supper, Luke, xxii, 14 to 20, 
 it is said that Jesus "sat down, and the twelve apos- 
 ties with him." Now, will the gentleman say, that 
 
217 
 
 part of the apostles were fe.^iales? He says in 
 every passage, where the supper is mentioned, there 
 is a "Thus saith the Lord," for female communion* 
 It happens that we have the names of the twelve 
 who were at the institution of the Lord's supper^ 
 and there is no female name among them. But he 
 says '■^disciples met, and we know, without any in^ 
 ference about it, that the females met with them; 
 because we learn that both men and women were 
 made disciples by baptism." "You might as well 
 contend that it is an 'inference' to say that the 
 males met to break bread; yor they are no more spe^ 
 cified than the females.'''' Mr. B, surely pre- 
 sumes very much upon the ignorance, or credulity 
 of his readers, when he makes such sweeping decla- 
 rations as the above. Does he suppose that they 
 are so little acquainted with their bibles — the book 
 he so often calls the 'poor man's lexicon' — that lie 
 expects to pass off on them such unsupported decla- 
 rations? 1 refer the reader to 1 Cor. xi, 28, 29, 
 33 — "But let a man examine himself, and so 
 let HIM eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For 
 HE that eateth and drinketh unworthily- — to him- 
 self, &c. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye 
 come together to eat, <kc. — and yet, Mr. B. says, 
 
218 
 
 7nales are no more specified than females. Our 
 Baptist writers aware that the course of reasoning 
 they pursue with regard to infants, denying them the 
 rite of baptism, because they say there is no precept 
 or precedent for baptizing children, would, if adopted, 
 in the case offemalesy exclude them from the Loj'd^s 
 table, have attempted to furnish a Thus saith the 
 Lord. And they will not allow that there is any 
 inference in the matter. They argue thus; Women 
 were baptized as well as men — women and men 
 constituted the churches — the churches partook of 
 the Lord's supper — therefore women have a right 
 to the Lord's table. But is not this an inference? 
 This is no express vmrrant. It is strange that 
 those who reason thus for women, should yet refuse 
 all inference for the infant children of women. 
 
 As Mr. B., page 20, has concluded, without rea- 
 son, that I had either given vp the argument from 
 proselyte baptism, or had not made up an opinion on 
 that point, and expresses a hope that he will hear no 
 more on the subject, I have introduced a short arti- 
 cle in the enlarged Appeal on proselyte baptism, to 
 which I beg leave to refer the reader. To what I 
 have there said on the subject, I here add a remark, 
 and several authorities. The baptism of proselytes 
 
219 
 
 is generally supposed to have taken its rise from the 
 baptism of the Jews, when passing through the Red 
 sea, to which the apostle refers, 1 Cor. x, 1,2. As 
 they, coming out from idolatrous Egypt, were 'all 
 baptized to Moses,' the Jews considered, in all after 
 ages, that, those who renounced idolatry, and join- 
 ed the church of the true God, should be baptized 
 as well as circumcised. In proof of which, 1 refer 
 to the quotations given below. Calmet's Dictionary, 
 article Proselyte — "The Jews require three things 
 in a complete proselyte; baptism, circumcision, and 
 sacrifice; but for women, only baptism and sacri- 
 fice." 
 
 Witsius, one of Mr. B's witnesses, says — "When 
 a Gentile became a proselyte of righteousness, three 
 ceremonies were used, viz: circumcision, baptism^ 
 and sacrifice." 
 
 Stackhouse, another of Mr. B's witnesses, says« — 
 "The custom of the Jews, in all ages, has been to 
 receive their heathen proselytes by baptism, as well 
 as by sacrifice and circumcision." 
 
 Dr. Wall, another of Mr. B's witnesses, says — 
 
 "Whenever Gentiles were proselyted to the Jewish 
 
 religion, they were initiated by circumcision, the 
 
 offering of a sacrifice, and baptism* They were all 
 20 
 
220 
 
 baptized, males and females, adults and infants. 
 This was their constant practice, from the time of 
 Moses to that of our Saviour, and from that period 
 to the present day." 
 
 Finally, I quote Dr. Adam Clarke^ another of Mr. 
 B's witnesses — "The apostles knew well, that the 
 Jews not only circumcised the children of proselytes, 
 but also baptized them. The children, and e\enin- 
 fants of proselytes were baptized among the Jews. 
 They were, in consequence, reputed clean, and par- 
 takers of the blessings of the covenant.'' 
 
 The apostles, being by birth and education Jews, 
 would, therefore, in 'discipling all nations,' admit 
 the children with the parents, unless forbidden so to 
 do. 
 
 The astonishment expressed at John's baptizing, 
 did not arise from the fact that he practised baptism, 
 but because he declared he was neither the Christ, 
 nor Elias, nor that prophet, at the same time admin- 
 istering the rite of baptism; — that he should, while 
 disclaiming the character of a minister, exercise the 
 functions of one. See John i, 19 to 26. 
 
 The quibble of Mr. B., on page 20, about infants 
 not being saved 'by any thing pertaining to the gos- 
 pel dispensation,' is one among many instances 
 
221 
 
 which prove the non-commital character of his theo- 
 logical views. While he calls upon me to state 
 frankly and plainly what our views are, he studiously 
 avoids giving his own with regard to the condition 
 of infants. He says, "we, or at least /, do not place 
 their salvation upon any thing pertaining to the Christian 
 dispensation,''^ 
 
 On page 29, he says, with regard to infants, "I 
 have not attempted to show, (nor shall I,) how they 
 are fitted for heaven; but I am sure it is not through 
 sanctification of the Spirit, and belief of the truth." 
 Here the reader will perceive, Mr. B. gives no opin- 
 ion about the manner in which infants are saved. 
 Does he believe at all in the salvation of all who 
 die in infancy? 1 do not ask this question because 
 he does not baptize infants, but because he was once 
 an advocate of a system of partial grace; and al- 
 though 'he has changed his manner of preaching,' I 
 have not learned that he has avowed the 'change of 
 his belief m one single item.' 
 
 Now, candid reader, I shall appeal to the Phila- 
 delphia Baptist Confession of Faith, page 45, for 
 evidence that the Baptists formerly held the regene- 
 ration of some infants at least, by Christ through the Spirit, 
 and I suppose the spirit 'pertains to the gospel dis- 
 
222 
 
 pensation.' The words of the Confession are, "Elect 
 infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved 
 hy Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, 
 and where, and how he pleases: so, also, are all elect 
 persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called 
 by the ministry of the word.'' The reader will ob- 
 serve; that they quote the words of Christ to adult 
 Nicodemus, in proof of the position here stated — 
 'Except a man be born again, he cannot see the 
 kingdom of God;' — 'The wind bloweth where it 
 listeth,' &c. — 'So is every one that is born of the 
 Spirit.' It seems then, that, those plain honest peo- 
 ple, loho loere not afraid that the world should know what 
 they held as doctrine, considered that infants were 
 fitted for heaven through the operation of the Spirit. 
 The Confession I quote from, was put forth by the 
 'Elders and brethren, in London and the country,' 
 and adopted by the Association which met at Phila- 
 delphia, in 1742. 
 
 But perhaps I shall be told these views are not 
 entertained noio by the Virginia Baptists. And 
 as Mr. Broaddus sfiys, ' The Baptists generally ac- 
 knowledge no Confession of Faith hit the JVew Testa- 
 ment,'' page 24, I may be referred to the New Tes- 
 tament to learn Baptist views. However, if the Bap- 
 
223 
 
 tists will publish 'Declarations of Faith,' I must be 
 allowed to quote them as authority. In *a Declara- 
 tion of Faith,' published by the United Baptists of 
 Virginia, (or several associations of them,) printed 
 in Alexandria, 1838, they declare, page 14 — "The 
 creature being wholly passive therein, being dead in 
 sins and trespasses, until, being quickened and re* 
 newed by the Holy Spirit, he is thereby enabled to 
 answer this call, and embrace the grace conveyed 
 in it,'' &c. So it seems, candid reader, that, al- 
 though Mr. B. will not state his views, (if he has 
 any,) about the manner in which infants are saved, 
 or fitted for heaven; that in the view of the Confes- 
 sions of Faith quoted above, adults and infants are 
 both 'renewed, or regenerated' by the Holy Ghost. 
 
 Mr. B. affects to believe, that he has found out a 
 wonderful difference between my views and Mr. 
 Wesley's, on the subject of the condition of infants; 
 and he seems so pleased with the discovery, that he 
 drags it forward, for the entertainment of his read- 
 ers, in several different letters. Let us look at it a 
 little. Orf page 32, he says, "Allow me to quot 
 what Mr. Wesley says, and also what you yourselt 
 say. 'Infants need to be washed from original sin.' 
 
 (Wesley's Works, vol. 9, p. 159.) 'Infants have 
 20* 
 
224 
 
 innocency to recommend them.' (Slicer's Appeal, p. 
 20.) » Is not this a disagreement." He adds, "But 
 you even disagree with yourself on this point; for, 
 although youjecommend infants by their innocency, 
 (page 20,) you say, (page 30,) infants need an 
 application of the blood of Christ to purify or 
 make them liolyy Reader, can you suppose that 
 Mr. B. is so destitute of common understanding, 
 that he does not know the difference between inno- 
 cence and moral purity or holiness? A teacher in 
 the Baptist church, and yet affecting not to know 
 that innocency, and the want of purity are compati- 
 ble! I did say that infants had innocency to recom- 
 mend them to baptism, and i explained it by stating 
 they were in a state of justification. In proof of 
 which I quoted Rom. v, 18 — "T/te free gift hath 
 passed upon all, tojustijication of life.''^ I did say 
 that infants needed the application of the blood of 
 Jesus, through the eternal Spirit, to make them 
 holy, and fit them for heaven; — and I gave the same 
 reason for it that Mr, Wesley did, viz: infants need 
 to be washed from original sin,' — My words on page 
 30, are, 'I suppose Mr. B. holds the doctrine of orig- 
 inal sin, in opposition to Pelagius; if so, infants need 
 an application of the blood of Christ to purify or 
 
225 
 
 make them holy," Now you see, intelligent reader, 
 that Mr. B. has taken my words out of their proper 
 connection, that he has brought a passage from page 
 30, and put it opposite a passage on page 20, that re- 
 ferred to another matter, in order to impose upon his 
 readers an impression that I disagree with myself; 
 and, as though he thought he could convince sensible 
 people by this kind of management, says, with an 
 air of triumph, "So glaring are the contradictions, 
 into which this human device of baptizing infants, 
 can lead sensible men." Candid reader, do yon see 
 any disagreement between Mr. Wesley's views and 
 mine? do you see that 7ny own views are unequal? '1 
 speak as unto wise men.' 
 
 1 must now ask a question or two further, to show 
 the management of this gentleman. Do any of Mr. 
 B's members enjoy the blessing of justification? I 
 have no doubt many of them do. Being justified, 
 are they innocent, or are they guilty? Innocent, I 
 suppose, for I have always been taught to believe that 
 justification takes away the guilt of sin. This, 
 too, I find to be the doctrine of the Philadelphia 
 Confession above quoted, where they distinguish 
 justification and sanctification, and speak of them 
 under different heads. Well then, those persons 
 among Mr. B's members who are justified, i. e, de- 
 
226 
 
 iivered from guilt, are they holy in heart also? If 
 they are not, they need the sanctifying operations of 
 the Holy Ghost. Does Mr. B. suppose, that, chil- 
 dren are guilty? He seems to be greatly troubled 
 that I should contend for their innocency. I sup- 
 posed, that the veriest novice in theology would be 
 able to distinguish between personal guilt, arising 
 from actual sin against God's law, and that corrup- 
 tion of nature, whiv-^li every child brings into the 
 world with it, which both Mr. Wesley and myself 
 have called ^original sin,'' and which the Baptist 
 Confession, page 32, calls ^original corruption, from 
 which proceed all actual transgressions.'^ But in 
 this, it seems, I am disappointed, Mr. B. cannot un- 
 derstand it. He says, page 30, 'I acknowledge my- 
 self utterly unable to comprehend.' 'It will require 
 some one better skilled in mystification than myself, 
 to untangle all this jumble of contradictions.' He 
 asks, "How those who are not guilty — in a state of 
 justification — can need an application of the blood 
 of Christ through the eternal Spirit, to purify 
 them?" Page 29, he says also, "What do you 
 mean Mr. S.? Innocency need purifying? I am 
 truly astonished at such views of the subject.'' I 
 suppose he thought, that if he cried out from aston- 
 
221 
 
 ishment, and especially if he could make an impres- 
 sion in the Methodist community, that Mr. Wesley's 
 views and mine were at variance, he might scare 
 some timid soul into the water. Here him, page 21, 
 "Here is the author of the Methodist hook of Discipline, and 
 one of Us authorized expounders, as far apart in their vieivs 
 of a gospel ordinance, as guilt is from innocencyH! You 
 need not toonder, sir, that, under these circumstances, 
 those that have net skill sufficient to iveld cold iron and 
 hot together, should, ivith the bible, (the ''poor man's Lexi- 
 con,^) to guide them., reject both your theory and Mr. JVes- 
 ley's.'^ It may be that, if Mr. B. had a creed, and 
 should make it known to the world, and it should 
 not be too 'gloriously uncertain' to be understood, 
 that some of his views might at least be as objec- 
 tionable even to some of the Baptists, as mine appear 
 to be to him, especially as he has been strongly sus- 
 pected of heresy, by many of 'the baptized.^ Query, 
 is this the reason why the gentleman says, page 23, 
 
 "I HAVE NO CREED NOR CATECHISM FOR THEM TO 
 
 learn!" Mr. Alexander Campbell has no creed^ 
 but he has found it convenient to make a translation 
 of the New Testament to suit his views. When- 
 ever an individual wishes to pull down the fences of 
 established doctrine and discipline, he raises a hue 
 
1 
 
 228 
 
 and cry about creeds and Confessions of Faith, say- 
 ing 'the bible is my creed,' 'the bible is my disci- 
 pline,' — and for what is all this, but to make an im- 
 pression upon the credulous that his views are more 
 in keeping with the scriptures than those of others, 
 in order that he may form a party, and set himself 
 up as its oracle? Thus giving an illustration of the 
 words of the apostle, — "of your own selves shall 
 men arise, speaking perverse things.^ to draw away 
 disciples after them^ Acts xx, 30. 
 
 I here, candid reader, warn you against all lead- 
 ers of parties, who emblazon upon their banners, 
 ^No Creed hut the Bible.'' They practice a kind of 
 ^religious piracy,^ and by 'soft words' and 'fair 
 speeches' delude the simple. 
 
 In the early part of my ministry, I was brought 
 in contact with some who had, professedly, no creed, 
 and no discipline, but the New Testament. They 
 thought this creed taught them to reject infant bap- 
 tism; to hold immersion as the exclusive mode; to 
 deny the doctrine of original sin, and also the divin- 
 ity of the Lord Jesus Christ. How many other er- 
 rors they held, it was difficult to tell, for their sys- 
 tem, as the systems of all such, possessed a kind of 
 
 CHAMELION CHARACTER. I hold the tWO followiilg 
 
229 
 
 axioms to be undeniable, 1st, Men who are intelli" 
 gent will have a well digested system of religious views; 
 and 2d, That men who have moral honesty will not hesi- 
 tate to publish those views to the ivorld. A non-commit- 
 tal course on Christian doctrine, is as unworthy a 
 high minded honorable man, as it is unbecoming the 
 frankness that ought always to mark the course of a 
 religious teacher. If a man be in the ministry, and 
 his mind is unsettled, let him retire until he has 
 satisfied himself, what is truth, and what is error. — 
 Let him not stand up before intelligent men, and 
 reading a few paragraphs from a religious newspaper, 
 say, '■^My friends, these contain my present views of Chris- 
 tian doctrine. J say my present views, I do not say that 
 they will be my views tivelve inonths hence, or one month 
 from now, but they contain my present views.^^ The 
 nineteenth century is not the time of the world to be 
 making, every month, discoveries in Christian doc- 
 trine. 'Judge ye what I say.' 
 
 What did Mr. B. expect to gain, by quoting 
 against infants, page 30, the words of St. Peter, 
 Acts XV, 9? In the first place, he quotes the text 
 wrong. His words are, "Peter says, 'God purifies 
 the heart by faith;' " Peter's words are, "And put no 
 difference between us and them, purifying their 
 
_^30 
 
 hearts by faith.'' Peter's words refer to particular 
 individuals, Hheir hearts.^ They were adult Gentile 
 converts, as the reader may see by referring to the 
 passage. Peter puts adult converts in the premises, 
 and Mr. B. puts children in the conclusion. This 
 is a favourite method of some Baptists. Suppose 
 Peter does say their hearts were purified by faith, 
 does that prove the heart cannot be purified without 
 faith? St. Paul says, Heb. ix, 14, 'That the con- 
 science is purged by the blood of Christ.' And in 
 Titus iii, 5, he says, God saved us 'by the washing 
 of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost,'' 
 I wonder, candid reader, if Mr. B. was aware of the 
 dilemma, into which quoting Peter's words as being 
 against our children, would bring him? Either their 
 hearts can be purified ivithout faith; — they need no 
 purification; — or they cannot go to heaven. If they 
 are born fit for heaven in Mr. B's view, then he is a 
 Pelagian, and holds infant purity. But, on the other 
 hand, if they are born unclean, unfit for heaven, and 
 cannot be purified without faith, and are incapable 
 of believing, then, unless in their purity they can go 
 to a holy heaven, they must, of necessity, be lost. 
 Such are the consequences which follow from this 
 
231 
 
 gentleman'' s method of quoting scripture against in- 
 fants. 
 
 Tlie scriptures say expressly that John the Bap- 
 tist ^did no miracle.'^ Yet Mr. B., page 29, Avill 
 have it, that his being 'filled with the Holy Ghost,' 
 was "altogether 'a miraculous iirfluencej' and sug- 
 gests nothing to us on the subject of the salvation of 
 infants.'' John's hniraculous influence' then, lay 
 dormant all his life, for '■he did no miracle.^ 
 
 On paoe 28, Mr. B. says, with regard to the 
 children that were brought to Christ, and taken in 
 his arms, "1 did not affirm that there never were 
 any unconscious infants brought to Jesus; I only 
 expressed a doubt on the subject: and I still have too 
 much doubt on the subject, to admit of my regulat- 
 ing a gospel ordinance by -it." It may be, if this 
 gentleman should write once or twice more, that he 
 will become a believer at least in the infancy of those 
 children, for he seems to be getting rid of his doubts; 
 and as doubts leave him, I suppose faith will take 
 possession of his mind. In the sermon, page 13, he 
 says, 'I am led to doubt exceedingly,^ I think he 
 is a little ashamed of that now, for in quoting him- 
 self, he says, 'J expressed a doubt, ^ and 'I still have 
 
 too much doubt,'' &;c. And he says, 'he hopes I will 
 21 
 
232 
 
 see the difference between affirming that 'there never 
 were,' and doubting 'whether there ever were.' And 
 adds, "if you can see the difference, you may decide 
 who ought to ^hlusli' in this case." I suppose 
 there is about as much difference between the man 
 who has '•exceeding doubts' about the truth of God's 
 word, and he that 'affirms' that the word is not true, 
 as there is between a well grown boy and a man. 
 They are both of the same family, only one is a little 
 better grown than the other. He that 'exceedingly 
 doubts' God's word, and he that denies its truth, are 
 both ^o^ i\\Q family of unbelief ."^ Reader, do you see 
 the difference? 
 
 Althougli I had called the attention of the reader 
 to the parallel passage in Luke xviii, 15, where it is 
 said, ''They brought unto him also infants,' and had 
 hinted at the unfairness of Mr. B. in quoting the 
 passage from Matthew and Mark, and bringing his 
 'lexicon' to explain paidia in those passages, while 
 he omitted to quote Luke, where the word brepha 
 is used instead of paidia, yet in his 'Letters' he 
 plays the same game. Although Luke, the physi- 
 cian, wrote after Matthew and Mark, and was, pos- 
 sibly, the most learned of the three, and whose men- 
 tion of the case may be presumed to give the fair 
 
233 
 
 explanation of the passage in Matthew and Mark, 
 yet Mr. B. does not refer to Luke at all. Because 
 he knew that the sense of bkepha could not, by any 
 possible construction be explained away. He knew 
 that Schrevelius, to whom he referred for the mean- 
 ing of the original word in Mark, uiterprets the word 
 in Luke to mean, 'a very little child.' And if 
 he had consulted 'Donnegan's Lexicon' on the word, 
 he would have found that it signifies 'a new born 
 BABE,' and not ^hoy, child, youth, servant,"^ &c. as 
 Mr. B. defines the word in Mark to mean. This 
 inflexible word in Luke could not be twisted so as 
 to make against infants, therefore he passed it over 
 in solemn silence! 
 
 What he says, page 29, about children being the 
 'model for adults,' and doves, and sheep, and ser- 
 pents being models also, is far-fetched, and perfectly 
 ridiculous. When Mr. B. furnishes a passage from 
 God's word, where it is said that Christ took sheep, 
 or doves, or serpents Hnto his arms^ 'and blessed 
 them,' and said 'o/" such is the kingdom of God,^ 
 and ^suffer* them to come to me, and forbid them 
 not,'' then, and not till then, will there appear to be 
 some sense in what he calls 'a syllogism.' I know 
 it is often the case that men ojet into the 'visible 
 
234 
 
 church' on earth who have more of the Hhe wisdom 
 of the serpent,^ than the %armlessness of the dove,'' but 
 Christ has neve?- said nf them ^of such is the kingdom of 
 heaven.^ 
 
 After reading elder Dagg's exposition of 1 Cor. 
 vii, 14, as given hy Mr. B. in his seventh letter, I 
 am more fully persuaded of the correctness of the 
 view I had given of the passage in my former argu- 
 ment, to which I beg leave to refer the reader. It 
 would have been better if Mr. B. could have given 
 his readers one text of scripture, only, against my 
 view of the passage, than to have given all the Greek 
 and English of Mr. Dagg's exposition. I quoted 
 several, and referred to nine other texts in support 
 of ray views. 
 
 On page 35, Mr. B. attempts to furnish a salvo 
 for the contradiction I had pointed out between his 
 Sermon and the Strictures? And he asks, 'Are not 
 infants unbelievers?^ 'Surely you will not deny this; 
 and yet they are not guilty of the sin of unbelief, 
 for they are not required to believe.' "All I mean 
 by denominating them unbelievers, is, that they are 
 7iot believers^ neither is it possible they could be. 
 Where now is the discrepancy?" Well, then, it is 
 not possible that children should believe. And yet 
 
235 
 
 he will have it, that they are vnbelievers. Mr. B. 
 is the first man, whose productions I have ever read, 
 who could so far forget or expose himself, as even 
 to ask 'Are not infants imbelieversV A new kind 
 of unbelievers truly!! Suppose, candid reader, T 
 apply a little of Mr. B's logic to this case, in order 
 to show more fully its absurdity. You will observe, 
 after all his vaunting about his acquaintance with 
 the scriptures, and referring me to them to learn 
 Baptist 'customs,' (page 24,) he is exceedingly care- 
 ful not to give us much scripture in support of his 
 views. I think the reader will find that my ar- 
 gument in the 'Appeal' is supported by at least two 
 texts of scripture for every one furnished by him, 
 either in his 'Sermon' or 'Letters.' This by the 
 way, however. — But to the point, 'Are 7iot children 
 unbelievers?'' Where is the text? ^Surely you will not 
 deny this?'' No 1 will not, if God's word'says so. 1 
 will not even ^doubt iC if the bible declares it. 
 Where is the text? It is not to be found. Then I 
 shall surely deny it, for I cannot take it upon Mr. 
 B's mere assertion, when he is in the habit of mak- 
 ing sweeping declarations, and dogmatical asser- 
 tions, unsupported by proof. But the gentleman 
 
 means that 'they are unbelievers, because they 
 21* 
 
are not believers.' Woe to the children if his 
 assertions are correct, and his logic sound. In John 
 iii, 36, it is said, "He that believeth not the Son, 
 shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on 
 him.^^ The commission says, "He that believeth 
 NOT shall be damned^ And in Rev. xxi, 8, 'The 
 unbelieving are classed with murderers and idola- 
 ters,^ and ^shall have their part in the lake burning with fire 
 and brimstone.'' Now for Mr. B's logic. "The 
 commission excludes all unbelievers, whether un- 
 conscious infants, or unbelieving adults.'''' Then if 
 their not believing constitutes them unbelievers, 
 look at the fearful condition in which they are 
 placed by the texts above quoted, ^They shall not 
 see life,'' and be with the vilest characters Hn the 
 lake of fre."* This is the issue to which Mr. B's 
 question, 'Are not infants unbelievers?"^ leads to. 
 'Judge ye what I say.' The scriptures no where 
 attribute faith or unbelief to infants. Because 
 they eac^, and e^j/aZ/?/ require the voluntary exercise 
 of the m'md and heart with regard to what God has 
 spoken; of which infants are incapable. And no 
 man who understands the force of language, will ask 
 such preposterous and silly questions, unless he is 
 
237 
 
 closely wedded to a system which he calculates to 
 help thereby. 
 
 Mr. B., page 36, attempts to make out that I have 
 misconstrued his quotation from Dr. Hill. The 
 reader can see, by referring to my argument, that I 
 have quoted Mr. B. correctly, (if he has not quoted 
 the Doctor correctly that is his look out,) and have 
 given the words their obvious meaning. Mr. B. 
 represents Dr. Hill as saying, "the writings of the 
 fathers have been so long in the keeping of the cor- 
 rupt church of Rome, and have been so altered by 
 pious frauds, &c., that our confidence in them must 
 be greatly weakened indeed." And I asked if the 
 infidel might not urge the same reason against his 
 receiving the New Testament scriptures, as they 
 too, were long in the keeping of the church of Rome? 
 Mr. B. calls this 'an attempt to expose him and Dr. 
 Hill to the wit of infidels.' If he has exposed him- 
 self, that is his misfortune, not my fault. 
 
 His attempt to destroy the credibility of 'Origen' 
 as a witness, by recounting some of his errors, is 
 truly pitiful. What, I ask, had Origen's ^visionary 
 views^ to do with his testimony concerning a plain 
 matter offact7 viz: ^Infants by the usage of the church are 
 baptized." His visionary views had just as much 
 
238 
 
 to do with his testimony in this case, as would the 
 'visionary views' of Stork, of the German Anabap- 
 tists, if he had given testimony in court, or to the 
 world, that John Boccold, the leader of the sect, held 
 polygamy, and had, at one time, fourteen wives. 
 See Ross's History of all Religions, and Robinson's 
 Charles V., vol. 2, p. 301. I suppose in neither 
 case ought the testimony to be rendered invalid, by 
 the visionary views of the witness in some other 
 matters. 
 
 1 am entirely satisfied with the collateral testi- 
 mony for infant baptism, given from the writings of 
 the 'Fathers,' in the former argument, and shall not 
 repeat them here, nor add to the number of the wit- 
 nesses, as I conceive for the candid they are quite suffi- 
 cient, and others would not he convinced by a cloud of wit- 
 nesses. It was to the interest of Demetrius and his 
 silver smiths, when^ 'their craft was in danger,'' to 
 'cry out great is Diana of the Ephesians;' this was 
 more easily done than either to prove the claims of 
 Diana, or to disprove the preaching of St. Paul. 
 
 I had shown that Mr. B. and Mr. Judson differed 
 only about four hundred years, in fixing the origin 
 of infant baptism; Mr. B., page 39, complains that 
 *I have done him great injustice' in this case. He 
 
239 
 
 seems, candid reader, to have been so much hurt, 
 that he does httle beside complain of injustice done 
 him. He not only disagreed with Mr. Judson, but 
 now, in the very paragraph in which he complains, 
 he contradicts himself, as I shall here show. He 
 says first, "the practice of baptizing infants greto 
 out of an opinion very early entertained by the church of 
 Rome, that no unbaptized person could inherit the 
 kingdom of heaven." Then he says, "for although 
 the baptism cf infants ivas invented as early as the close 
 of the second century, the sprinkling of infants was 
 not regularly introduced until 753," &;c. Now, 
 reader, will he say that the church of Rome existed 
 at the close of the second century? If he will con- 
 tinue to display his want of acquaintance with 
 church history, or to say and unsay in the same 
 paragraph, that is not my fault. I shall show the 
 reader before I have done with his -letters, that 
 there are some other things that need a salvo. 
 
 What I said of the Waldenses being Pedobaptists, 
 and the proof 1 adduced, has not been set aside by 
 what Mr. B. has adduced from Mr. Jones and 
 Mosheim. I cannot believe that Mr. B. himself 
 thought the evidence in pomt; for immediately after 
 adducing his testimony, he says, 'Still T do not 
 
240 
 
 build upon this my views of the kingdom of Christ. 
 No: I have a better manual.' Then he refers to the 
 'word of his king," and to the 'commission,' 'He that 
 believeth and is baptized.' He says, 'this puts an end 
 to the controversy in my mind.' This, after all, is the 
 only argument the Baptists have against infant bap- 
 tism. 
 
 Mr. B., page 41, drags in the subject of ordi- 
 nation, and asks with a haughty air, '■'■What right 
 had Mr. Wesley to ordain bishops and priestsV and 
 introduces Dr. Cook's book, as though he believed 
 the doctor's views. Now reader, when Mr. B. and 
 myself are done with the subject of baptism, if he 
 prefers a controversy with me on ordination and suc- 
 cession; then 1 shall think it the most proper time 
 to answer his question relative to Mr. Wesley. Un- 
 til then, I refer him on that subject to Bishop 
 Emory's 'Defence of our Fathers,' and to Dr. Isaac's 
 on 'Ecclesiastical Claims.' 
 
 On page 42, we have another instance of the 
 gentleman's complaining without cause. Instead of 
 quoting my language in the case, he make a despe- 
 rate effort to excite public sympathy in his favor. He 
 says, "I am truly sorry to find that you are willing 
 to sustain your cause by an attack upon my motives." 
 
241 
 
 "You represent me (page 35) as being ^prepared 
 to make a sacrifice of all historical evidence upon 
 the altar of a prejudice that is both deaf and blind,' 
 &c. I represented no such lliing. I did not say a 
 word about his sacrificing at any altar, I did not 
 mention his name or allude to him in the sentence, 
 the latter part of which only he quotes. And, if he 
 had sneered at the conduct and feelings of mothers, 
 who wished to have their children baptized before 
 they died, was it not much worse in him to sneer^ 
 than for me to allude to his having done it? If he 
 had not done it, why did he not deny it, instead of 
 giving his readers a display about 'the talents, and 
 dignity of a presiding elder,' about 'Goliath and 
 David,' and 'policy,' and 'common politeness,' &c. 
 
 Now, candid reader, I never supposed the impor- 
 tant and responsible office which I held, when 1 an- 
 swered Mr. B., gave me any increase of talents or dig- 
 nity. If it did, however, as he intimates, as my 
 term of service, according to our economy, has now 
 expired, he will have the consolation to know, that 
 he contends with one in a different capacity, only an 
 elder, like himself. It is possible Mr. B. may be 
 able to teach me ^policy,^ as 1 do not profess to be 
 an adept in craftiness. I suppose the intelligent 
 
M2 
 
 reader of his letters, will conclude that if I should 
 need lessons in '■common politeness,^ it will be neces- 
 sary for me to seek some other teacher. 
 
 Mr. B. invited me to ivrite on baptism, and I com- 
 plied, perhaps not to his mind or liking. Notwith- 
 standing he invited me to write, and oflered induce- 
 ments to me, he says, page 43, "I neglected my dis- 
 trict, in order to write these eighty pages.'' And 
 gives this in such a way, as to lead his readers to 
 suppose, that he quoted it fi'om the 'Appeal, page 4.' 
 I have only to say, that this is a sin of which I am 
 not guilty, and I have no fears that it will be im- 
 puted to me by those who know me. If Mr. B. can 
 help his cause by any such groundless allegations^ 
 and can find that his conscience will sustain him, in 
 being an 'accuser of the brethren,' he has my full 
 consent to avail himself of it. It will occur to the 
 reader, however, that, that must be a bad cause which 
 needs such support. 'I speak as unto wise men.' 
 
 The case of Simon, the sorcerer, which I dwelt 
 upon in my Appeal, seems to have presented some 
 difficulty in the way of Mr. B's views. He touches 
 it on page 44, and then drops it as though it burnt 
 him. He again comes up to it, page 47, and, after 
 all, blinks the question involved in the case, thinks 
 
243 
 
 ing, I suppose, that it was prudent not 'to follow me' 
 in that case, as it presented *a two-horned dilemma.' 
 
 His affecting, on page 44, not to understand my 
 remarks relative to ApoUos, because as he says, »I 
 have not expressed myself with clearness,' is one of 
 his stratagems of warfare. What I said relative to 
 Apollos, and Saul of Tarsus, I produced plain scrip- 
 ture to support. As it is utterly impossible that his 
 readers can have any tolerable idea of my argument 
 on the subject of adult candidates for baptism, from 
 the manner in which he has represented it in his 
 letters, I beg leave to refer them to the first Appeal, 
 page 42, 43, 44, 45. A dust may be raised to ob- 
 scure the truth, but it is hard to reason successfully 
 against the facts stated in the scriptures of truth. 
 
 Mr. B. says, page 46, 'None are really willing, 
 but those who are really converted.' This has a 
 strong spice of '^'ew divixity.' The apostle Paul, 
 I think in Rom. vii, teaches an opposite doctrine; 
 showing that there may be a will to good, while there 
 is the absence of moral power to perform it, 'For the good 
 that I would, I do not; hut the evil that I would not, that 
 Ido.^ Mr. B. thinks on the same page, that because 
 'Faith comes by hearing, '^ therefore the falling of 
 the Holy Ghost, upon Cornehus, had nothing to do 
 22 
 
244 
 
 with his believing in Christ; he should have recol- 
 lected that faith is said to be 'o/* the operation of 
 God,'' as well as to come by hearing. He says, to 
 be sure, page 43, "I believe that men need the in- 
 fluence of the Spirit, in order to their becoming real 
 believers, genuine converts; but this influence is no 
 where called 'receiving the Holy Ghost.' " Here is 
 truly a distinction, without a difference. Query, is 
 there any difference between 'the Spirit' and 'the 
 Holy Ghost?' Query, can a man be influenced by 
 the Spirit, before he receives the Holy Ghostf But he 
 will have it, that receiving the Holy Ghost, signi- 
 fies his ^extraordinary influence.'' Joel says, 'It 
 shall come to pass in the last days, (saith God.) that 
 I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh;' Joel ii, 
 28, 32. And their 'being filled with the Holy 
 Ghost' on the day of Pentecost, Peter said. Acts ii, 
 16, '■Is that which was spoken by the prophet JoeV Now, 
 the pouring out of the Spirit, in Peter's judgment, is 
 the same as being filled with the Holy Ghost; and 
 Joel, so far from limiting it to the ^extraordinary in- 
 fluence'' of the Spirit, given in primitive times, says 
 'God will pour it out upon all flesh.'' The question 
 to be settled by the reader is a very plain one, viz: 
 is the Spirit in its extraordinary influences poured 
 
245 
 
 out upon all flesh? To ask the question is to answer 
 it. The reader knows that it is not. Then you are 
 to decide between the word of 'the King,' by the 
 mouth of St. Peter, (interpreting the words of Joel,) 
 and the theory of Mr. Broaddus. 
 
 He knew that I had pronounced the 'repetition of 
 Christian baptism to be profane,' page 46, and yet by 
 wresting my words from their proper connection, he 
 attempts to make out that, ^according to my show- 
 ing,^ those who believe, in adult age, are 'fit sub- 
 jects' of baptism, although they may have been bap- 
 tized in infancy. And adds, 'if you refuse to bap- 
 tize him, you may expect him to leave you, and 
 come over to us, without our compassing sea and 
 land to proselyte him;' page 47. After all the at- 
 tempts of such men as Mr. B., and those who, like 
 him, make light of infant baptism, I have known but 
 very few intelligent persons who have been dissatis- 
 fied with their baptism in infancy. Most of those 
 with whom their proselyting eflTorts have succeeded, 
 were those who had never received infant baptism, 
 and had been accustomed to hear it ridiculed, as 
 ^hahy sprinkling,^ 'a relic of popery,'' &c. 
 
 Mr. B. says, page 48, in giving his six reasons for 
 opposing 'infant baptism,' that he would 'rather 
 
246 
 
 grieve over the distress of an affectionate mother, 
 whose tender infants have died without the 'seahng 
 ordinance,' than to 'sneer;' and adds, 'if I sneer at 
 all, it shall be at the conduct of those who require 
 this unscriptural dedication at their hands.' Now, 
 reader, it is to be hoped, that in future he will not 
 sneer at all, and I have some reason to hope that he 
 will quit that mode of argument, at least when he 
 writes. I believe his Letters of ninety pages, con- 
 tain less of the article than his Sermon of forty -two 
 pages. This, however, may have arisen from the 
 fact, that he had himself, and me, to attend to, and 
 had not time to devote to the distressed women, and 
 their dying children. 
 
 One of the principal among his six reasons is, 
 'That it tends to defeat the original design of bap- 
 tism.' He says, "All agree that baptism was de- 
 signed by the great Head of the church, to separate 
 his church from the world. Now, suppose all to be 
 baptized in infancy; then the whole world would be 
 in the church, and the church, instead of being 'a 
 congregation of faithful men,' 'would include infidels 
 and unbelievers of every description;' their right 
 to a place in it being secured to them by their bap- 
 tism.^'' Candid reader, might not a congregation of 
 
247 
 
 Baptists, baptized in adult age, 'contain infidels and 
 unbelievers of every description,' and would that 
 prove aught against 'adult baptism?' Just as much 
 as Mr. B's argument does against infant baptism. 
 But he says baptism separates the church from the 
 world, and that 'a right to a place in the church is 
 secured hij baptism.'' On what ground, then, can 
 the Baptists deprive those who have been baptized 
 of their right of church membership, by expelling 
 them, however immoral or infidel they may be, as 
 baptism has separated them from the ivorld? 
 
 His attempt to connect infant baptism with pope- 
 ry, is a stratagem with which he seems very fa- 
 miliar; and he more than intimates, that the sup- 
 port of infant baptism is traditionary only. He says, 
 "getting their 'pattern' from tradition instead of the 
 bible.'' This is a pitiful attempt to narrow doivn 
 the evidence for infant baptism, to what he knew 
 was considered only as collateral, viz: The testimony 
 of the Fathers, or tbe practice of the church as the 
 Fathers have detailed it. Why does he not allude 
 to the fact, (in connection with this subject,) that 
 the Greek church, having no connection with the Pope, 
 have, notwithstanding, always held and practiced 
 infant baptism? He does not allude to this plainly, 
 22* 
 
248 
 
 because he knows, if he can make an impression 
 on the pubUc mind, that infant baptism is *a reHc of 
 popery,' and supported only by the same kind of 
 evidence as the errors of the Romish church, then 
 he will succeed in exciting a prejudice against it, 
 that will help his cause. Why does not this gen- 
 tleman level his artillery against popery direct? 
 Instead of engaging in this war against our chil- 
 dren, why does he not use his influence in pointing 
 out and reforming the errors of the Romish church, 
 such as transubstantiation, masses, &;c.? As I am 
 not blest with the same power of perceiving the hor- 
 rible evils which this gentleman sees growing out 
 of the practice of infant baptism, the reader will not 
 be surprised that I consider the evils of which he 
 complains, as existing in his own imagination, and 
 not in sober reality. I am still of the opinion that 
 my ^witty dialogue,^ as he is pleased to call it, con- 
 tains 'the head and front' of the offence of this mat- 
 ter. 
 
 On the subject of the 'baptism of households,' Mr. 
 B. and myself are fairly at issus, especially with re- 
 gard to the signification of the term oikos, the orig- 
 inal term used in those passages that contain the. 
 account of the baptism of the households of Crispus, 
 
249 
 
 the jailor, and Lydia in the Acts of the Apostles. 
 I will attend to this matter of difference^ between 
 us, when we have settled some other things. 
 We expressed some anxiety to know something of 
 the ^four households,'' that Mr. B. said he had bap- 
 tized; but he has not had the goodness to follow the 
 example of St. Luke in this matter, and give us the 
 names and residences of his Lydia' s and their house- 
 holds. Surely those remarkable cases might be 
 given with advantasije to the cause, if indeed he is 
 not more blessed in concealing than he would be in 
 publishing them. This by the way. 
 
 On page 2fi, he sajs, "In my Sermon, I did not 
 even conjecture who the}^ ('Lydia's household') were, 
 although you represent me as supposing many things 
 Vith respect to them." How strange it is, that this 
 gentleman will make such unqualified declarations, 
 when the means for his conviction are before the 
 public. In his Sermon, page 10, he says, 'Who 
 then were Lydia's household? Were they partners 
 in her riiercantile operations'? This might be so. Were 
 they 'journeymen dyersl' Possibly they ivere. Or 
 were they mere travelling companions?''' &lc. "They 
 were brethren, whom Paul and Silas comforted 
 when they were about to leave the city; and could 
 
250 
 
 any but believers be brethren capable of being com- 
 forted?" Here, the reader will perceive, is a string 
 of questions, put by this gentleman in his Sermon, 
 for what? why obviously to convey his sentiments 
 to his readers, in the case, or to mislead their minds, 
 and deceive them. And yet, after all these ques- 
 tions asked by him, he says, as you see above, '/ did 
 not even conjecture ivho they we?'e,^ and declares, 'I 
 represent him as supposing many things with res- 
 pect to them.' So I did represent him as supposing 
 some things at least; and if I have misrepresented 
 him in representing that when he asked those ques- 
 tions, and answered them, he honestly meant what 
 he said, instead of intending to trifle with his tq^lA- 
 ers, then I ask pardon for thus misrepresenting the gen- 
 tleman, and hope he will extend it to me as he has 
 kindly offered to do in one of his letters, in another 
 case. The truth is, candid reader, the Baptists have 
 always found it a difficult task to make out a family 
 for Lydia, without supposing that she had children. 
 And, in order to help themselves in the case, some 
 have supposed one thing, and some another. Some 
 have thought that some of the women of whom we 
 read, verse 13, were Lydia's household. Others 
 discovering that the word '-brethrcn^^ occurs in the 
 
251 
 
 40th verse, and finding that it would be hard work 
 to transform those ^women'' into ^brethren,'' have con- 
 cluded that they were 'partners in business' with 
 Lydia, or 'journeymen dyers.' Mr. B.. however, 
 (as he can find an ^express warrant'' for 'female com- 
 munion in every passage where the supper is men- 
 tioned,' and, of course, can find women, in the pas- 
 sage where the apostle says, "Let a man examine 
 himself;" "Wherefore ^my brethren'' when ye come 
 together to eat," &c. &;c. 1 Cor. xi, 28, 33,) one would 
 think, could have found no great difficulty in hold- 
 ing both the above hypothesis, as 'the brethren' com- 
 forted would surely include Lydia's women, and 
 journey?rten dyers also. 
 
 It was not at all necessary for Mr. B. to make 
 such a flourish about his 'little anecdote' as he calls 
 it, and to put his readers to the trouble of examin- 
 ing the scriptures before they could find out his 
 meaning. I did, at Upperville, notice that old pre- 
 scription of the Baptists for findiag a family for 
 Lydia, by supposing she had 'journeymen dyers,' 
 but / did not claim the honor of inventing it, as Mr. 
 B's informant must have known, if he attended to 
 what was said. I gave it as a part of the argument 
 of the Baptists. I presume Mr. B. has heard for 
 
252 
 
 years of this 'choice piece of wit,' as he is pleased 
 to call it, and I will not say, has often used it him- 
 self. The reader will find this supposition about 
 Lydia's dyers, noticed in Watson's Institutes, part 
 4th5 page 394, and to show that J do not claim to 
 be father of this precious creature of the imagina- 
 tion, r will give the words of Mr. Watson. He 
 says, "Then, as if to mark more strikingly the 
 hopelessness of the attempt, to torture this passage 
 to favor an opinion, 'her house' is made to consist of 
 journeymen dyers, 'employed in preparing the pur- 
 ple she sold;' and 'to complete the whole, these jour- 
 neymen dyers, although not a word is said of their 
 conversion, nor even of their existence^ in the whole 
 story, are raised into 'the brethren." 
 
 Mr. B. says, page 27, "That Timothy and Luke 
 could not have been 'the brethren that Paul comfort- 
 ed,' before he departed, because 'Timothy and Luke 
 went with Paul to Beria,' as I may see, he says, by 
 consulting chap, xvii, 10 to 16. I have consulted 
 the passage, and cannot see any such thing, for the 
 best of all reasons, i. e. it is not there to be seen. 
 Mr. Wesley says in his note on the place, 'St. Luke 
 seems to have been left at Philippi.' And if the 
 reader will be at the pains to look at the 20th chap- 
 
253 
 
 ter, 5th and 6th verseo, he will see that Luke does 
 not fall in with Paul until they met at Troas. He 
 leaves off speaking of himself as one of Paul's com- 
 pany, in the 16th chapter, and does not resume that 
 style again until the 20th chapter. So Mr. B. will 
 have to look again, and if he sees clearly, he will 
 then perceive that Paul went from Philippi to 
 Thessilonica, and when a tumult arose there, the 
 brethren sent him and Silas tj Beria. Surely, can- 
 did reader, you will think that a gentleman who 
 blunders as often as Mr. B. does in his statements as 
 facts, ought either to be more careful, or less con- 
 fdent ill making them!! 
 
 x\fter carefully noticing his third effort to explain 
 this case, so as to operate against the baptism of 
 children, I am entirely satisfied that the solution I 
 gave in my 'Appeal' is not to be set aside by Mr. 
 B. at least, as I propose further to demonstrate. 
 
 He has so arranged the words on page 27, as to 
 cause them to make an utterly false impression on 
 the mind of the reader. I do not say that he intend- 
 ed this. I do not speak of his motives, but of the 
 fact. He says, "1 do think, if your 'wise men' will 
 but consider that Paul and Silas went into the house 
 of Lydia, and 'comforted the brethren,' it will ap- 
 
254 
 
 pear to them much more improbable' that they were 
 visiting brethren, than that they belonged to the 
 family of Lydia.'' The reader will observe he 
 puts the words into the house of Lydia, in italics, 
 then connects them with 'comforted the brethren' by 
 the copulative conjunction 'and;' I aver, upon the au- 
 thority of common sense, that no man in reading 
 the passage in Acts, without note, or comment, would 
 ever receive from it any such impression as his man- 
 ner of presenting it gives. The words of Luke are, 
 '•And they went out of the prison, and entered into the 
 house of Lydia: andiohen they had seen the brethren, they 
 comforled them, and departed. Acts xvi, 40. 
 
 I shall now proceed to examine the matter at 
 issue between Mr. B. and Mr. Taylor, the editor of 
 Calmet's Dictionary, as quoted by myself. Mr. B. 
 says he does not know who this gentleman is, nor 
 has he ever heard before of the passage I quoted. 
 Has that gentleman never read the celebrated de- 
 bate between Mr. Alexander Campbell, and Mr. 
 Maccalla, which took place in Kentucky. I should 
 suppose he has, from the great similarity between 
 some of Mr. B's and Mr. Cs criticisms. I:i this 
 debate Mr. Taylor is referred to as authority, and 
 his and Dr. Rice's criticism was adopted by Mr. 
 
255 
 
 Maccalla. Mr. Campbell pronounced the criticism 
 a ^refuge of lies.^ Mr. B. says it is *a palpable 
 misrepresentation.^ This criticism of Mr. Taylor's 
 is not only sustained by Dr. Rice, Mr. Maccalla, and 
 Mr. Ralston, but in substance by Peter Edwards 
 also. I might rest the argument here, with confi- 
 dence of its being satisfactory to the candid; but 
 shall proceed to examine some of the evidence that 
 Mr. B. has produced, in order to show, (as he says,) 
 that Mr. Taylor has led me 'completely astray.' He 
 says, "I will not furnish 'three hundred' instances, 
 nor even 'fifty,' but I will furnish enough to satisfy 
 the most skeptical, that the sacred writers used the 
 two words interchangeably.'' 
 
 The first case he mentions is Luke viii, 41, and 
 51, where there is an account of raising the little 
 daughter of Jairus. In the 41st verse, there is an 
 evident allusion to the family, as the family needed 
 his help, and the word is oikos. In the 51st verse, 
 the dwelling is spoken of, and the word is oikia, 
 confirming Taylor's criticism. Luke x, 5, is Mr. 
 B's next proof, — 'Into whatsoever house ye enter, 
 say, peace be to this house.' Here again in the first 
 part of the verse the dwelling is meant; in the last 
 
 part of the verse the family is meant; because Christ 
 23 
 
256 
 
 did not command his apostles to say, peace be to the 
 timbers, or brick, or stone, that formed the dwelling 
 into which they entered, but peace be to the family, 
 the oikos. This more fully confirms the view given 
 in my former argument. Mr. B. says, 'Jesus calls 
 his father's house both oikos and o'lkia,'' and refers to 
 John ii, 16; xvi, 2. In the first passage the temple 
 is spoken of, and the word is oikos ^ because in this 
 case the container is put for the contained, as the 
 temple was the residence of the congregation, 'the 
 visible family of God.' In the other passage he re- 
 fers to, there is no such word in my bible, and I use 
 the 'common version.' It is possible he made a mis- 
 take, and referred to John xvi, instead xiv, 2, — there 
 the word is oikia, but it refers to heaven, and I sup- 
 pose the reader will conclude that the earthly tem- 
 ple and the invisible heaven are not exactly the same 
 thing. 
 
 The next case he adduces is the case of the oikos 
 of Stephanas, 1 Cor. i, 16, and xvi, 15, — the apos- 
 tle says, ^I baptized also the household [oikos) of 
 Stephanas;' and in the close of that epistle he men- 
 tions the household (oikia) of Stephanas; and says 
 to the Corinthian church, 'ye know the house of 
 Stephanas,' &;c In referring to the baptism of Ste- 
 
257 
 
 phanas and his family, he uses the word oikos, but 
 in referring to the family's having 'addicted them- 
 selves to the ministry of the saints,' he uses the word 
 ' oikia, evidently alluding to the whole domestic es- 
 tablishment. This is the same course pursued by 
 St. Luke in Acts xvi, 32, 'And they spake unto him 
 (the jailor) the word of the Lord, and to all that 
 were in his house,' (oikia,) — doubtless the whole do- 
 mestic establishment were summoned to the preach- 
 ing, and heard the word of the Lord, but there is no 
 mention of any one inquiring about salvation but the 
 jailor. And when the apostle said, 'believe on the 
 Lord Jesus Christ;' he added, 'and thou shalt be 
 saved and thy house' (oiJcos,) — and he and all his 
 were baptized straightway, and he brought Paul and 
 Silas out of the outer prison, where the preaching 
 took place, into his family apartment, called by Luke 
 his oikos. Where the baptism of Lydia's family is 
 spoken of in the 15th verse, the same word is used. 
 'And when she was baptized and her household 
 (oikos,y &c., evidently her family and her children 
 are meant, as scholars have said, and as we shall 
 show more fully hereafter. The next evidence Mr. 
 B. adduces, is John xi, 20 and 31 — where the dwell- 
 ing of Mary and Martha is called both oikos and 
 
258 
 
 oikia; but this is no proof against Mr. Taylor's criti- 
 cism, for he says, 'when oikos is spoken ofpersonSy 
 it denotes a family of children;' but Mr. B's proof 
 does not present a case in point, for the passage re- 
 fers not to ^persons'' but altogether to a dwelling 
 house. I suppose the intelligent reader can see the 
 difference. 
 
 After adducing the above quotations, addressing 
 me, he says, "How conclusively, Mr. S. do these 
 passages show the fallacy of the distinction which 
 your 'editor' makes between oikos and oikia.^^ 
 Then, thinking I presunie, that, conclusive as the 
 evidence he had given already might be, it would 
 not be amiss to 'make certainty more certain,' he 
 adds an evidence or two more. One we will notice, 
 the other is not material, as it proves nothing to 
 the point, and we have noticed it above. The one 
 we remark upon is Matt x, xiii, 'If the house (oikia) 
 be worthy,' &;c. I suppose this refers, as I said 
 above, to the whole domestic establishment. 
 
 In the parallel passage, Luke x, 5, the words 
 are, 'Into whatsoever house (oikia) ye enter, say 
 peace be to this house,' (oikos) — the minister enters 
 the dwelling (oikia) and says peace be to the family, 
 (oikos,) these words differing sonietimes in passages 
 
259 
 
 that are parallel, may have arisen out of the care- 
 j essness of transcribers, for I suppose they could as 
 easily mistake in transcribing, and put one of those 
 words for the other, as Mr. B. could mistake, as the 
 reader has seen above, in referring to a text for 
 oikia, where no such word exists. I do not blame 
 Mr. B., nor would I blame a transcriber, for an un- 
 intentional mistake. Having noticed Mr. B's evi- 
 dence at length, 1 shall now proceed to adduce 
 some additional testimony in favor of my view. 
 
 I do not deny that oikos is used figuratively for a 
 dwelling house, because in such cases, the container 
 is put for the contained, as is very commonly the 
 case in our own language. 
 
 The first proof I shall adduce is from Num. xvi, 
 27 to 32, "And Dathan and Abiram came out, and 
 stood in the door of their tents, and their wives and 
 sons, and their little children. And it came to pass 
 that the earth opened her mouth and swallowed them 
 up, and their houses {oijious.y Swallowed up their 
 little children as part of their houses. 
 
 But it is used to signify infants exclusively. See 
 Deut. XXV, 9. Where the law is alluded to which 
 required a brother to take the widow of his deceas- 
 ed brother, and raise up a family for, or to, his de- 
 23=^ 
 
260 
 
 ceased brother. If he refused to comply according 
 to the law, then the widow was to loose his shoe, 
 spit in his face, and say, "So shall it be done unto 
 that man, that will not build up his brother's house 
 (oikon).^^ But how was the brother's house to be 
 ^built up?^ By his raising a family of children, who 
 were to be esteemed the children of the deceased 
 brother. 
 
 Again, Ruth iv, 11, 12, "The Lord make the 
 woman that is to come into thine house, or dwelling 
 place, like Rachel, and like Leah, which two did 
 build up the house (oikon) of Israel. And let thy 
 house be like the house (oikos) of Phares, which 
 Tamar bare unto Judah of the seed which the Lord 
 will give thee of this young woman." How was the 
 house of Israel built up by Rachel and by Leah? 
 Certainly by the children born to them from time 
 to time? And how was the house of Boaz to become 
 like the house of Phares, but by the infants to be 
 born to him by Ruth, and which are styled 'the 
 seed of this young woman?' One more example 
 from the Old Testament may be quite sufficient, 
 Psalm cxiii, 9, — "He maketh the barren woman to 
 keep house (oikoj) and to be a joyful mother of chil- 
 dren." In this passage every unbiased reader will 
 
261 
 
 see, that the barren woman's heart was to be made 
 glad by infants to be given to her by the Lord, and 
 who were to constitute what is called her ^house' or 
 family. Now, to apply the metaphorical use of the 
 word house^ as an argument for infant baptism. We 
 read in the New Testament of the baptism of Lydia 
 and her house, and of the jailor and his house, and 
 of Stephanas and his house, or household. The 
 question now is, what did the inspired penmen mean, 
 by the word ^house' in the record they have left us 
 of these and other family baptisms? They were 
 well acquainted with the meaning of the term in the 
 Old Testament, as sometimes signifying children se- 
 parate from their parents, and little children^ and 
 infants exclusively. The Jews and Greeks, to whom 
 they wrote, attached the same idea to the word. 
 When the Jews then read that Lydia and her house 
 (oikos) — the jailor and his house (oikos) — and the 
 house (oikos) of Stephanas were baptized, what 
 would they, or what could they understand by the 
 word in those several passages? Would they not 
 understand it according to its most natural import, 
 its most generally received sense? i. e. a man or 
 woman's children by immediate descent or adoption, 
 infants included? But if the system of the Baptists 
 
262 
 
 is scriptural, and infants are not to be baptized, then 
 the inspired penmen have used a word calculated to 
 deceive both Jews and Greeks. This is not to be 
 admitted!! ^ I speak as unto wise men, judge ye what 
 I say.'' 
 
 We shall now adduce a few other texts, from the 
 New Testament, on this point. 
 
 In the Acts of the Apostles, where we find what 
 Mr. Booth and Baptist writers generally call 'the 
 law of baptism,' carried out in the practice of the 
 apostles, the word oikos occurs twenty-three times, 
 and is always the ivord used where families are 
 spoken of as having been baptized. Chap, xi, 12, 
 13, 14, the angel said to Cornelius, "Call for Simon, 
 whose sirname is Peter, who shall tell thee words 
 whereby thou, and all thy house {oikos,) shall be 
 saved.'' See Acts xvi, 15, 31, 34. And in the 18th 
 chapter, it is used in a way calculated to show, that 
 Luke did not consider it as much like oikia as the 
 'English word brothers' is like 'brethren,' 7th and 
 8th verses, "And he departed thence, and entered 
 into a certain man's house {oikia) named Justus, one 
 that worshipped God, whose house {oikia) joined 
 bard to the synagogue." And when he speaks in 
 the next verse of a family, he drops the word which 
 
263 
 
 he had used twice in the 7th verse, and adopts the 
 word which is used in all the cases where family 
 haptism is spoken of. "And Crispus, the chief ruler 
 of the synagogue believed on the Lord, with all his 
 house (oikos:) and many of the Corinthians hearing, 
 believed and were baptized." In Ileb. xi, 7, it is 
 said that "Noah prepared an ark to the saving of 
 his house," (oikos.) We know that Noah and his 
 family only are meant in this passage. 
 
 Having already consumed more time on these 
 words, than I could well spare to a single point in 
 the controversy, I must bring this part of the gene- 
 ral argument to a close. My only apology to the 
 reader, for having said so much on it, is found in the 
 confident air with which Mr. B. denounced this 
 criticism of my ^editor' as he calls him. I cannot 
 do better than close this article in the words of Mr. 
 Taylor, "The natural import of the term oikos, 
 family, includes children of all ages. In proof I 
 offer you fifty examples; i^ fifty are not sufficient, I 
 offer a hundred; if a hundred is not sufficient, two 
 hundred; li two hundred are not sufficient, ybz/r hun- 
 dred. I affirm that oikos very often expresses 
 the presence of infants. Of this I offer you fifty ex- 
 amples, and if you admit classical instances, fifty 
 
264 
 
 more. I tell you also, that somewhat more than 
 three hundred instances have been examined, and 
 have proved perfectly satisfactory." Concluding 
 Facts, (fee, p. 13, 14. 
 
 The intelligent reader can now judge, whether I 
 have built upon '•mere presumption,"^ as Mr. B says I 
 have, (in maintaining 'infant baptism' from the cases 
 of household or family baptism, recorded in the ora- 
 cles of God,) or whether I have built upon the solid 
 foundation of immutable truth, and incontrovertible 
 facts. To all, to every candid parent in the land, I 
 would address myself, and say ^your^ children's ^ad- 
 vocate must be yours.'* 
 
 Before I proceed to the review of Mr. B's letters 
 relative to the 'mode of baptism,' allow me a re- 
 mark upon the closing paragraph of his eleventh let- 
 ter. He says, "I will not sum up what I have writ- 
 ten, lest you should think of my summary, as 1 do 
 of yours." This is in keeping with his first reason, 
 for not being willing to engage in an oral discussion 
 with me. If he had summed up what he had said 
 in his letters, his readers could have seen more 
 easily how small a portion of my argument he had 
 even attempted to answer. But I forget myself 
 when I talk about arguments for Pedobaptist vievis, 
 
265 
 
 Mr. B. sajs, Hhere are none in the wide compass of creation.^ 
 But our readers will not believe this. They will 
 give the word of God its plain, unsophisticated mean- 
 ing, when their sight is not obscured by the dust 
 raised by those who 'darken counsel.' And know- 
 ings as the public do, that the term children means infants 
 as well as larger children; and knowing also, that in any 
 given district of counti-y, a majority of families have in- 
 fants, or young children in them, they naturally conclude 
 that there must have been infants in some of those families 
 baptized by the apostles. 
 
 We shall now proceed to notice some things in 
 the remaining ten letters, in which Mr. B. notices 
 
 the *MODE OF BAPTISM.' 
 
 He begins, on page 51, with the same fancy, 
 (which we replied to in the former argument,) about 
 the distinction between inoral and positive institu- 
 tions, and the explicit and ^minutely defined'' direc- 
 tions for the observance of the latter. He says — 
 "To me it is most obvious, that a. positive institution 
 must be minutely defined by the law-giver, and 
 obeyed to the very letter by the subject, or else it 
 can be of no service whatever." Observe, reader! 
 ^minutely defined.^ He refers to Leviticus, xiv, 
 where the ceremony of cleansing a leper is detailed. 
 Why did he not quote a little more of the ceremony 
 
266 
 
 than tlie ^dipping of the finger of the priest' in the 
 oil? If he had, the reader would have seen a case 
 corroborating our views of the mode of baptism. 
 For, although the leprous man washed his clothes 
 and his person in water, before he was presented at 
 the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, yet 
 this he did himself in private; but when the priest, 
 the minister of God, went to perform the purifica- 
 tion, or cleansing of the leper, both the blood and 
 OIL WERE SPRINKLED, and in the same manner, was 
 a leprous house to be cleansed. See vs. 6, 7, 8, 9, 
 11,16,19,51. 
 
 As I had asked for ^detailed, explicit directions 
 about the manner of performing the positive insti- 
 tutes^ of circumcision and the Lord's supper, Mr. 
 B. seems to feel bound to give them, and sets him- 
 self to work to furnish the explicit directions in both 
 those cases. On the institute of circumcision, he 
 says, "Read Gen. xvii, 11. I hope you will not 
 suppose that any thing would have passed for cir- 
 cumcision, except what is there required." I wish 
 Mr. B. had more frequently given the words of the 
 passages he refers to, and this he might have done 
 (by leaving out soine of his many complaints,) with- 
 out increasing the numbei of pages in his reply^ 
 
267 
 
 Then his letters would have had in them fewer of 
 the words of man, and more of the words of God* 
 This, by the way. As he did not give the reader 
 the words of the law of circumcision, I shall have 
 to do it, here they are — "A/tc^ ye shall circumcise 
 the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token 
 of the covenant betwixt me and you.''"' Here are 
 what he calls *^explicit directions, ^"^ a ^^minutely de- 
 fined" positive institute. Does the reader see any 
 explicitness in the directions? Do they say who is 
 to perform the rite? Perhaps Mr. B. will say the 
 father was to be priest in the case. Very good. 
 Then none other was qualified to perform it, for he 
 says, Hhe law must be obeyed to the very letter;^ 
 but then this will be opposed to the facts. For al- 
 though Abraham performed the rite for Ishmael and 
 the men of his house, v. 23, yet it is evident from 
 V. 24, that he was not the operator in his own case. 
 It is again far more evident, from Ex. iv, 25, and 
 Luke i, 59, that neither Moses nor Zacharias per- 
 formed the rite upon their sons, although the fathers 
 were present in each case. 1 suppose, candid reader, 
 you will hardly receive views that contradict facts. 
 So, it seems this law does not 'minutely define' who 
 
 was to be the operator in keeping the law of circum- 
 24 
 
268 
 
 cision. I ask again, with what kind of instrument 
 was the rite to be performed? Was it a knife? 
 Perhaps I shall be told it was. But then, a knife 
 could not have been necessary to the valid perform- 
 ance of the rite, for the wife of Moses performed 
 the rite upon her sOn with a '■sharp stone.'' Ex. iv, 
 25. I ask again, — Where was the rite to be per- 
 formed, and at what time of the day, or night? The 
 law does not specify; Ishmael received the rite in 
 his father's house; Moses's son received it at an inn, 
 and the people of Israel were circumcised in the 
 camp. Josh, v, 8. Now, I ask the candid reader, 
 what has become of Mr. D's ^minutely defined,'' 
 ^explicit directions,'' of the law of the positive in- 
 stitute of circumcision? They have vanished out of 
 sight, and I incline to think you will not be able to 
 discern them again, without the aid of Mr. B's mi- 
 croscopic glasses. But let us examine a little, his 
 ^explicit directions'' about the Lord's supper. P. 52, 
 he says — "You inquire also, whether the Scriptures 
 give specific directions about the manner of attend- 
 ing to the Lord's supper. I answer, yes, very ex- 
 plicit. Read 1 Cor. xi, 23 to 26, and you will see 
 such a description, as can leave us at no loss what- 
 ever on the subject." In this case also, he does not 
 
269 
 
 favor us with the words that contain the h^ery ex- 
 plicit directions. Here they are from St. Paul, — 
 "/br 1 have received of the Lord, ihat which also I de- 
 livered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in 
 which he was betrayed, took bread: And when he had 
 given thanks, he brake it, and said. Take, eat; this is my 
 body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of 
 me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he 
 had supped, saying. This cup is the JVew Testament in 
 my blood: this do ye, as oft ye drink it, in remembrance 
 of me. For 05 often as ye eat this bread, and drink this 
 cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.''^ Does the 
 reader see any ^very explicit directions'' here? Does this 
 passage specify the posture in which we are to receive 
 the supper? No — hence some take it kneeling, 
 some sitting, and others standing. Does it specify 
 the kind of bread to be used, whether leavened or 
 unleavened, whether wheat or some other kind? I 
 answer, no. Does it specify what kind of wine is 
 to be used, whether red or white, fermented, or un- 
 fermented wine? The reader knows it does not. 
 Does it specify the quantity of each, that is to be 
 used by the communicant? T answer again it does 
 not. And yet our Lord and his Apostle, have said, 
 'This do.' The simple fact, that bread and wine 
 are to be taken, in remembrance of Christ, is all the 
 
270 
 
 specification there is in the passage. Water is to 
 be applied to the subject in the institute of baptism, 
 and bread and wine are to be used in the Lord's 
 supper. So that Mr. B's 'specified directions,' 'mi- 
 nutely defined,' turn out to be of the same character 
 with his 'express warrant,' his Thus saith the Lord; 
 for female communion. I remark, by the way, if 
 the Baptists were never to immerse any person, until 
 they find in the 'law of baptism,' as they call it, 
 ^minutely defined directions' for the observance ©f 
 the rite; we should soon have an end to baptism 
 by immersion* But when they are pressed here, 
 they say the Scriptures know nothing for baptism, 
 but 'believers' immersion,' and when you demand the 
 proof, they fly to the word baptizo^ and tell you 
 gravely, that the ^explicit directions' are all in that 
 word. They take care, however, not to go to the 
 original meaning of deipnon the word used, 1 Cor. 
 xi, 20, for the supper. Because that signifies not 
 simply a meal, but was used for the principal meal 
 among the Greeks. They know there is no con- 
 sistency, in crying out for much water in one sacra- 
 ment, and being content to consider the law of the 
 other sacrament fully complied with, in eating a 
 small piece of bread and lasting wine. We are 
 
271 
 
 told by a certain Baptist writer, who saw the diffi- 
 culty here hinted at; "It is not necessary to take 
 much bread and wine in the Lord's supper, in order 
 to comply with the command, 'Do this' — because 
 the action is the same, in eating, whether we eat 
 little or much.''^ I answer — in baptism it is not ne- 
 cessary to use much water, because the element is 
 the same, whether we use little or much; unless, in- 
 deed, it can be shown, that there is a charm in the 
 elements, used in the sacraments. If this can be 
 shown, then the larger the quantity the better, used 
 in either!!! I suppose, however, this will not be at- 
 tempted, especially by those who profess to be so 
 much afraid of encouraging popish errors!!! 
 
 It might, we think, be easily shown, that accord- 
 ing to the position laid down by Mr. B. relative to 
 ^positive institutes'* and the necessity of a literal 
 compliance ivith every circumstance connected with 
 their institution, that no denomination of Christians, 
 the Baptists not excepted, do at this day, properly 
 observe the sacrament of the Lord's supper. 1. It 
 was instituted at night. 2. Only men were present 
 at it. 3. Unleavened bread doubtless was used, 
 because the Jews kept no other kind in their houses 
 
 at the time of the passover. 4. It was celebrated 
 24* 
 
in an upper room. 5. It was celebrated at a par- 
 ticular time of the year, &c. Now, Mr. B. says — 
 "./^ ^positive institute^ must be minutely defined^ by the 
 lawgiver, and obeyed to the very letter, by the subject, or 
 else it can be of no service whatever" This, the reader 
 will observe, stands opposed to Mr. B's own prac- 
 tice, in the observance of the sacrament of the sup- 
 per. This literal conformity, he did not intend 
 should be pressed against his own practice. He 
 only mentioned it in connection with circumcision, 
 and the Lord's supper, because, in my former argu- 
 ment, I had placed those cases against his theory. 
 So 1 return to the gentleman one of the many com- 
 pliments of his 'letters'— '2%e legs of the lame are not. 
 equal.'' 
 
 Mr. B. repeats a part of what he said in his stric- 
 tures, and sermon, about king James, the bishops, 
 and translators, and says, *the present version, with 
 all its defects, is against sprinkling.^ And adds, *I 
 only complain that it is not more against sprinkling, 
 than it is.' As the Baptists have withdrawn from 
 the 'American Bible Society,' because the board 
 would not appropriate funds to make a different 
 translation in a foreign tongue from the common 
 version, I suppose they will soon have a version of 
 their own, and this gentleman may then be suited.. 
 
273 
 
 It is due to many of the liberal minded Baptists, 
 however, to say, that they disapprove of this mea- 
 sure. I suppose they think well of the 'common 
 version,' as did the learned Drs. Middleton and 
 Doddridge; and Dr. John Taylor, of Norwich, al- 
 though he held a different creed from that held by 
 the bishops. 
 
 I made no charge against Mr. B. relative to the 
 translators and bishops, which is not fully sustained 
 by his own statements. He represented, in the ser- 
 mon, p. 28, that the translators "were so fully convinced 
 that the Greek verb baptizo, ought to be translated im- 
 merse, that we should have had it immerse, in our version, 
 but for the interposition of the bishops." In the Stric- 
 tures, p. 13, he says — "But our translators, bei:>jg all 
 OPPOSED TO IMMERSION, it is no wonder they did not 
 render the word into English." And yet he says — "i 
 have not charged the translators and bishops with making 
 a translation to favor sprinkling." And says of me, 
 that I have, in this case, "dealt freely in the article of 
 misrepresentation." The candid reader will be able to 
 judge, from his words given above, whether / have 
 *borne false witness' against him. Or whether he 
 has not denied his own charge, formerly made against 
 those 'dead men;* "If he is ashamed of it now, it is well!" 
 It would be well also, if he would examine always, 
 
274 
 
 what he has said, before he enters his flat denial of 
 things alleged against him. It is unpleasant to me, 
 to be compelled, in self-defence, thus to expose the 
 gentleman's contradictions of his own statements. 
 
 On p. 54, he says, that the reason why I have 
 found it necessary to preach so often on baptism, is, 
 that 'the people have not learning and ingenuity 
 enough to find sprinkling or pouring for baptism in 
 the present version,' of the scriptures. And con- 
 cludes that, as "many of our people are, at one time m^ 
 another, uneasy about baptism; there must be some ^glo- 
 rious uncertainty,^ about the sprinkling and pouring.'''' 
 And he judged this last sentence so important, that 
 it was necessary to call attention to it, by marking 
 it with two 0:^.=i;;:Q. 
 
 It is true candid reader, that some Pedobaptist peo- 
 ple get uneasy sometimes on the subject of baptism, 
 by immersion; I have not, however, known of many 
 cases of the kind, and when they have occurred, so 
 far as my observation has extended, their uneasiness 
 has not arisen half so often, from reading the Bible, 
 as from having enjoyed the company, or conversation 
 of some Jesuitical immersionist. And where our 
 people have the Bible, and the Spirit of God to guide 
 them, and none to perplex their minds, we hardly 
 
275 
 
 ever find it necessary to speak of the mode of bap- 
 tism. We have passed whole years in some places, 
 without preaching one sermon on the subject; where 
 our people had not been exposed to the 'slight of men' 
 who seek on all occasions to make proselytes to opin- 
 ions about ceremonies, with more zeal than to teach 
 men, how to 'worship God in spirit and in 
 truth!!!' 
 
 He closes his 12th letter, with an anecdote about 
 an Indian, who had a bible given him, by a Pedobap- 
 tist missionary, which became instrumental in his 
 salvation, — the missionary meeting with the Indian 
 afterwards, proposed to have water brought in a pitch' 
 er, to a meeting house, in order to baptize the In- 
 dian, the latter was astonished at the proposition; be- 
 cause as he said the book told him, Hhat they bap- 
 tized in a river,and where there was much water, and 
 were buried in baptism.' And he told the missionary 
 ^he must give him another bookJ* 
 
 Now candid reader, this same Indian story looks 
 very much like it was made for effect, and I strongly 
 suspect that some one of a lighter skin, had some- 
 thing to do with its fabrication. It may have ^Esau's 
 hands' but it certainly '■has Jacob'' s voice,^ and it may 
 impose upon some blind Isaac. Mr. B. says, he 'does 
 
276 
 
 not vouch for the truth of the story.' I judge this 
 Indian story to be of a piece with the 'negro' story 
 which he tells in his letters; and the story about the 
 lady who was visited by several ministers, whose 
 husband finally 'concluded that it was safest for her 
 to be immersed.^ All such stories are but tubs for 
 the whale. T\^e could tell some story too, of an op- 
 posite description, if we did not consider such busi- 
 ness degrading to the understanding of the writer, 
 and an insult to the intelligence of the reader. 
 
 But suppose this 'Indian story' is literally true, 
 what then? — is it not extremely likely, that he had, 
 previouslv to seeinor the missionary at the meetinor 
 house, fallen in w^ith some wandering 'new-light 
 Baptist' in the 'Great Valley,' and had taken a les- 
 son or two from him?'' Or, if it occurred recently, 
 possibly he may have met with a copy of Mr. B's '^/rj'c- 
 /j<re5,' if any copies have, by any means, reached the 
 'Valley' of the Mississippi. For I am very certain 
 that the Indian, reading in the 'book' which the mis- 
 sionary gave him, of the baptisms of the jailor, Saul, 
 and Cornelius and his family, saw nothing about 
 either 'a river,' or 'much water.' And suppose the 
 missionary did propose to have water brought in 'o 
 pitcher,'' he might have pleaded a very good prece- 
 
277 
 
 dent for his practice. For, as early as the middle 
 of the third century, ''when Laurentius was brought 
 to the stake, to suffer martyrdom, a soldier who was 
 employed as one of his executioners, professed to be 
 converted, and requested baptism from the hands of 
 the martyr. For this purpose a pitcher of water 
 was brought, and the soldier baptized at the place of 
 execution.'' See Dr. Wall, as quoted by Dr. Mil- 
 ler. Here we have one of the 'noble army of mar- 
 tyrs' using water from a pitche?' for the purpose of 
 administering the ordinance; and that too, under 
 circumstances so solemn, that none would dare to 
 trifle with this ordinance of God. So much for Mr. 
 B's Indian, pitcher, &;c. 
 
 Mr. B. attempts, page 57, by a quibble, to evade 
 what I had said about his translation of Luther's 
 'Johannes der Taufer;' why did he not deny that my 
 interpretation was correct! instead of saying he 
 could convince my friend, from Luther's bible, that 
 Luther meant John the Dipper? I have been assur- 
 ed by several German scholars, and have found by- 
 consulting a large German and English Dictionary, 
 that my former interpretation was perfectly cor- 
 rect. 
 
 Mr. B. says, page 58, that the creed makers, at 
 
278 
 
 Westminster came within one vote of deciding infa" 
 vor of immersion^ and that but for the casting vote 
 of Dr. Lightfoot, we should have had the Presby- 
 terians contending for 'immersion.' And then alludes 
 to Mr. Campbell's having criticised his sermon from 
 the pulpit for two days. 1 do not know that it is my 
 province to be the defender of the venerable men 
 who composed the Westminster Assembly; I will, 
 however, say, that Mr. B. has misrepresented them 
 in the statement above given. Neal, in his History 
 of the Puritans, says, that "the Directory, (contain- 
 ing the baptismal service,) passed the Assembly with 
 great unanimity,'''' Mr. B. has not given the au- 
 thority upon which he has made his statement. And 
 for a full refutation of it, I refer the reader to Miller 
 on Baptism, pages 147, 148. 
 
 I have now, candid reader, reached that point in 
 Mr. B's letters, page 59, where he attempts to vin- 
 dicate himself upon the charge of having mutilated 
 the writings of Pedobaptist authors. He begins 
 with Dr. Clarke; after reading his vindication of 
 himself, and his attempt to show that I had been 
 guilty of the same thing which I charged upon him, 
 1 thought, at first, perhaps I had committed some 
 oversight in the case. 1 accordingly reviewed the 
 
279 
 
 matter as it stood in the 'Appeal,' and compared it 
 with the Doctor's note on Rom. vi, 4, and find that 
 I have been guilty of not quoting all the Doctor 
 has said in his Commentary on baptism. I have 
 cut no sentence in two; and as for shortening the 
 paragraph, by leaving off two complete sentences at 
 the end of it, that did not in any measure effect the 
 argument, or the sense of the note. What I com- 
 plained of in Mr. B. was that he had given Dr. 
 Clarke as a witness to prove immersion as the ex- 
 clusive mode, and that baptizo means to imm,erse, and 
 nothing else; and that, in attempting to make this 
 to appear, he had cut one of the Doctor's sen- 
 tences in two, by which a different sense was given 
 to the note than the reader would have received in 
 reading the whole of that part of the note that re- 
 ferred to the subject of baptism. Mr. B. seems de- 
 termined now, to make amends for having- given but 
 part of a sentence in his Strictures. He says, 'I will 
 here give the whole sentence^ &;c.; he then proceeds, 
 and quotes, not a whole sentence only, but jive sen- 
 tences. I suppose he thought he had as well give 
 the reader the whole, as / had already given all 
 that was material to the question. He says, on the 
 
 the subject of dividing the sentence, and giving part 
 25 
 
280 
 
 of it as though it were the whole, "As to using a 
 period, I could not close the sentence without it; 
 and I hope you will not require a man to quote all 
 that another writer says, in order to avoid muti- 
 lating.''^ I do not expect a man who quotes a wri- 
 ter to give all he says, but 1 do expect that he shall 
 give enough truly to represent the views of the au- 
 thor. But this gentleman could not close the sen- 
 tence without a period. What he quoted was not a 
 sentence, and, therefore, ought not to have been 
 closed. Surely as this gentleman is a teacher, he 
 knows that a quotation can be finished as well with 
 a colon, semicolon, or comma, as with a period. I 
 ask now again, does Dr. Qlarke's note prove that 
 to immerse is the only sense of baptizo'^ for this is the 
 point that he was brought by Mr. B. to prove, Strictures, 
 page 15. His words are, "J?ui this (baptizo) is an ob- 
 stinate word It has but one meaning — these learned 
 men knew it — and their candor forced them to acknowledge 
 it.^'' I boldly affirm, that they never did acknow- 
 ledge it. Dr. C's language with regard to this word, 
 is Matt, iii, 6, — "Were the people dipped or 
 sprinkled? for it is certain hapto and baptizo 
 mean both." 
 
 Mr. B. may write as many explanations and vin- 
 
281 
 
 dlcations as he pleases, but while his Strictures ex- 
 ist, they will fully sustain all that I have said of him, 
 on this case, in my 'Appeal,' to which I beg leave 
 to refer the reader. 
 
 As it regards what the gentleman says about 
 ^confessing my fully, and asking forgiveness f and about his 
 *being one of the first to forgive me, in the event of 
 my asking forgiveness,' &;c., I would only observe, 
 it is a feature of 'my creed,' that confession is a 
 part of repentance, and that conviction always pre- 
 cedes it. Hence, for the want of conviction^ that I 
 have done any wrong in the premises, I cannot re- 
 pent or ask pardon. The conviction I have at present 
 is, that Mr. B. deserved all he got in my first argu- 
 ment, and that he is now desirous of getting out of 
 the dilemma in the best way he can, under cover of 
 the dust raised by him in his letters. I invite any 
 candid man to take his Strictures and compare them 
 with what 1 have said, for proof of the above. See 
 Strictures, pages 13, 14, 15, — Appeal, from page 122 
 to 130. 
 
 He next attempts to clear himself from the charge 
 with regard to Mr. Wesley, page 61, and begins by 
 confessing that he "had in mistake, put Dr. Dod- 
 dridge's words into Mr. Wesley's mouth in the 
 
282 
 
 Strictures; but that in his Sermon he had given the 
 quotation exact.'' I ask, does that prove the point 
 he had undertaken to make out? He had asserted 
 that Mr. Wesley ^preferred immersion,^ — that 'Ae 
 had acknowledged that baptizo had but one mean- 
 ing.' Whereas, Mr. W. says, 'the greatest scholars, 
 and most proper judges in the matter, testify that 
 the original term {baptizo) means not dipping, but 
 washing or cleansing.' I ask the candid reader, is 
 this an acknowledgment? What I complained of 
 was, that he should take part of a sentence from 
 Mr. W's notes, and the circumstances of Parker's 
 child, and Mary Welch, from his journal, to make 
 out, that Mr. W. favored his views. And with 
 Mr. W's works in his hands, containing positive evi- 
 dence to the contrary^ he should still abuse the 
 minds of his readers, with this partial testimony, 
 concerning that good man's actual sentiments. 
 
 Mr. B. did not quote Mr. Wesley on Coloss. ii, 12, 
 he says, either in his printed Sermon, or whilst de- 
 livering it, 'because he could see no meaning in it.' 
 And he thought he had satisfied 'my friend' of it in 
 the conversation they had after the sermon was 
 preached. This gentleman thinl^s my 'friend' like 
 
283 
 
 Goldsmith's schoolmaster, *though convinced, he can 
 argue still.' Now, I undertake to say, that Mr. B. 
 never did either convince or ^vanquish'' him. I sup- 
 pose he did not like to quote Goldsmith correctly, 
 and say, 'though vanquished he can argue still,' lest 
 those who know the circumstances of that con- 
 versation, should think his boasting unauthorized 
 by the true state of the case. 
 
 Mr. B. says, page 63, that '/ seem to have found it ne- 
 cessai-y to apologize for Mr. Wesley.'' I remark, when Mr. 
 W. is not misrepresented he needs no apologist. And 
 I blush for Mr. B. that he shoidd make it necessary for me 
 to become the vindicator, not the ^apologist,'' of a 
 man whose name is interwoven with that revival of 
 the work of God which commenced in the last cen- 
 tury; and whose fame shall be more imperishable 
 than the foundations of empires. I 'apologise for 
 Mr. John We.sley?!! 'His works bear witness 
 of him.' I only attempted to remove the dust that 
 had been thrown upon his 'fair escutcheon.' 
 
 While I am upon the subject of Mr. W's testi- 
 mony, I would just observe to the reader, that Mr. 
 B. seems to have suspected his readers would '■be 
 surprised at his frequent references to Mr. W.,^ and sets 
 about assigning the reason, viz: Hhatthe large proportion 
 25* 
 
284 
 
 of the congregation^ assembled to hear the sermon^ were 
 Methodists.'* Ser. p. 10. Now, admitting this state- 
 ment to be true, what was to be gained by attempt- 
 ing to prove to Methodists, that Mr. Wesley held 
 one thing on the subject of baptism, and practised 
 another? Was this the quintessence of politeness, 
 to tell a congregation, Hhe large proportion of whom 
 were Methodists,'' that the founder of their sect was 
 an inconsistent man, and that he held ^baptismal re- 
 generation,"* and entertained indeed, 'worse vietvs on 
 baptism than Mr. Alexander Campbelll' And this, 
 too, from a gentleman who writes about ^common po- 
 liteness?//^ This I have written upon the supposi- 
 tion that the statement is true. I now pronounce it 
 to be utterly ivithout foundation, unless this gentle- 
 man has some mode of calculation, that I have never 
 heard of, by which he can make it appear, that fif- 
 teen or twenty Methodists, are Hhe large proportion 
 of a congregation"* of several hundred persons. Per- 
 haps Mr. B. was misinformed about his auditors. F 
 am willing to hope he was. At the same time, I 
 am afraid he is very liable to be imposed upon by 
 those who may imagine they please him, or advan- 
 tage their cause, by repeating silly tales, or things not 
 founded in fact. Of this character is the silly 
 
285 
 
 story of Mr. Toplady, page 80, about, *3fr. WeS' 
 ley^s having immersed a woman in a hogshead.^ He 
 knows, candid reader, that Mr. Toplady was one of 
 Mr. Wesley's bitterest opponents, and that he was 
 quite as much exasperated at Mr. W, as Mr. B. 
 has been at me. Even religious men, under such 
 circumstances, can sometimes consent to gratify one 
 of the worst feelings of human nature, by retailing 
 marvellous stories about an opponent, if they can 
 only get some one else to endorse them, whether 
 they themselves believe them or not. 3Ir, Topla- 
 dy thought that sin coidd not hurt the elect. Query, 
 Is Mr. B. less partial now to this gentleman's views 
 than formerly? 
 
 His next attempt is to show, that he has not mis- 
 represented Professor Stuart's views, and gravely 
 says to me, ^ If you examine his essay,"* &c. Does 
 he suppose 1 have not examined it? He knows / 
 have examined it, quite sufficiently to show the 
 reader that Professor Stuart, so far from confirming 
 Mr. Carson's view of baptizo, says expressly, page 
 100, that 'Mr. Carson lays down some very adven- 
 turous positions in respect to words having one mean- 
 ing only; which as it seems to me, every lexicon on earth 
 contradicts, and always must contradict.'' And yet Mr. 
 
286 
 
 B. persists in making the Professor a witness for 
 immersion as the only sense of baptizo. And says, 
 page 59, that he (Stuart) 'acknowledges, or rather 
 affirms, that all lexicographers and critics, of any 
 note, have assigned to it (baptizo) the same mean- 
 ing that Carson does,' — while Carson, the reader 
 will observe, confesses that ^^all lexicographers 
 and commentators are against him in that opinion.^'' 
 Carson on Baptism, page 79, as quoted by Dr. Mil- 
 ler. 
 
 Here, according to Mr. B., Professor Sfuart con- 
 tradicts Mr. Carson: Stuart says, all lexicogra- 
 phers, of any note, agree with Carson in opinion; 
 Carson says, all lexicographers are against him in 
 opinion. Verily, here is a discrepancy! I beg 
 leave to refer the intelligent reader to my former 
 argument for Professor Stuart's views; and for a ful- 
 ler account of them, to his Essay on the Mode of 
 Baptism. 
 
 In every case which I have examined, of the 
 Pedobaptist authorities quoted by Mr. B., I have 
 found the remark of Peter Edwards to hold good; 
 i. e. 'that those writers are made to concede what 
 they never meant to concede.'' 
 
 On page 69, Mr. B. quotes Dr. Doddridge, 1 think 
 
. 287 
 
 unfairly, in the words following: "It seems the 
 part of candor to confess, that here (Rom. vi, 4,) 
 is an allusion to the manner of baptizing by immer- 
 sion." This, the reader will observe, he makes a 
 full sentence, putting a period in the place where 
 the Doctor has a comma. But the gentleman says, 
 'he cannot close a sentence without a period.'' One would 
 think, he might know how to close part of a sen- 
 tence without one. 
 
 The Doctor's words are, "it seems the part of can- 
 dor to confess, that here is an allusion to the man- 
 ner of baptizing by immersion, as most usual in 
 these early times; but that will not prove this particular 
 circumstance to be essential to the ordinance."— 
 The reader can compare these quotations, and see 
 whether they give the same idea of the Doctor's 
 views. 
 
 When 1 deem it expedient, and have nothing more 
 important to engage my attention, I may. perhaps be 
 at the pains to examine some others of Mr. B's 
 abused critics. I have no doubt they have all been 
 treated pretty much alike. 
 
 On page 65, 66, Mr. B. introduces again the sub- 
 ject of 'baptismal regeneration,' and has made a piti- 
 ful attempt to show his readers that Mr, Wesley 
 
288 
 
 built infant baptism upon that doctrine. Hear him, 
 "^ny man of candor and common sense must see that 
 Mr. Wesley held itj and built infant baptism upon it.^^ 
 And be adds, ^'•and besides this foundation, none other 
 can be laid upon which the baptism of infants can standi 
 Does not the reader see in this an attempt to narrow 
 down the evidence for infant baptism to this single point? 
 He says, / have charged Mr. Wesley, both from the pulpit 
 and the press, with advocating the doctrine of baptismal re- 
 generation. Mark that! Is not this a mere blind? 
 Have ten intelligent men ever dreamed of it, in read- 
 ing Mr. W's treatise of baptism? To take isolated 
 passages from the writings of a man, wresting them 
 from their proper connection, is not a fair way of 
 coming at his true sentiments, on any given point. 
 And indeed, after Mr. B. has adduced his testimony, 
 what does it prove? That we are regenerated by 
 baptism? Not at all. By what then? By grace. 
 Here are the words, ''By baptism we, who were, by 
 nature, children of wrath, are made the children of 
 God. And this regeneration, which our church, in so 
 many places ascribes to baptism, is more than bare- 
 ly being admitted into the church, though commonly 
 connected therewith, being grafted into the body of 
 Christ's church, weareinade the children of God by adop- 
 
289 
 Hon and graced He then adds, This is grounded 
 on the plain words of our Lord, 'Except a man be 
 born of water and of the Spirit,'* &c., and quotes 
 the words of the apostle, where he calls baptism 
 ^the washing of regeneration,^ He then adds, 'nor 
 does she (the church) ascribe it to the outward tvash- 
 ing, but to the imcard grace,'' &c. Query, Has 
 Mr. Broaddus any method by which people can be 
 regenerated, and made children of God, other than 
 *by inward grace,"* Mr. W., in his sermon on the 
 'New Birth,' after quoting the questions and answers 
 in the Church Catechism, says, 'nothing therefore is 
 plainer, than that, according to the Church of Eng- 
 land, BAPTISM IS NOT THE NEW BIRTH.' I refer the 
 reader to his 'Sermons,' and 'Treatise on Baptism,' 
 for further evidence, that Mr. B. in charging Mr. Wesley, 
 from the pulpit and the press, with holding baptismal 
 regeneration, has charged him foolishly. I would advise 
 him, in future, to pay more regard to the 9th com- 
 mandment, Ex. XX, 16, especially when men have 
 gone up to heaven, and cannot answer for them- 
 selves. 
 
 I might accuse the apostle Peter, in the very 
 same way, with holding that ice are ^saved by bap- 
 tism;'' for he says, 'The like figure whereunto, even 
 
290 
 
 baptism doth also now save us.^ But the apostle ex- 
 plains himself, and so does Mr. Wesley. If the 
 candid reader will examine Mr. W's Treatise on 
 Baptism, he will see that he rests infant baptism, not 
 on baptismal regeneration, (as Mr. B. says he does,) 
 but upon sound reason, and scripture evidence. If I 
 could find a dead giant, how I could brandish my 
 sword over him without fear!!! "I have charged Mr. 
 Wesley from the pulpit and the press." Who is this 
 *GiANT WARRIOR?' that ^aims his blows' at the high and 
 the low, and striding along, recklessly treads alike upon 
 the feelings of the living, and the ashes of the ^mighty 
 deadW 
 
 But Mr. B. says, the public want light on the 
 subject of Methodist views of baptism. Does he 
 mean the community at large? or does he mean the 
 Baptist public? Some of them at least, had better 
 use the light they already have, before they *call 
 for more' with regard to our views. Some of them 
 have refused to read the 'Appeal' when it was ofier- 
 ed them gratuitously. It would surely be of no 
 avail to such, however plainly and fully I might 
 answer on this subject. 
 
 I am not aware that, our people, or the 'ruling 
 powers' (as this gentleman calls the ministry,) hold 
 
S91 
 
 the doctrine of 'baptismal regeneration' either in the 
 case of infants or adults. The views of the Meth- 
 odists, as a denomination, have been long before the 
 world; for we have a published creed. If Mr. B's 
 "public" want light, with regard to our views, I beg 
 leave to refer them to our Articles of Religion in 
 our Discipline, and to the ' Wesleyan Methodist Cate- 
 chism,' Nos. 1, 2, 3, published at the Book-room, 
 New York. 
 
 He makes an attempt, p. 71, to explain away the 
 view I gave of the baptism of the Israelites in the 
 Red sea, and will have it, that if water from the 
 cloud, and the sea come on them, they were bap» 
 tized twice. This was a baptism of men, women^ 
 and children, and for a full answer to Mr. B. rela* 
 tive to the mode of its administration, I refer the 
 candid reader to my former argument on this point* 
 He is so much pleased with his fancy,, thsit Mr. 
 Wesley and 1 disagree in our views of the condi» 
 tion of infants, that, on p. 72, he brings it forward 
 again. I deem it unnecessary to add any thing to 
 what I have^aid on that subject, in the former part 
 of this argument. 
 
 In reply to Mr. B's remarks on the Greek prepo- 
 sitions, p. 73, I have but a single observation or two 
 26 
 
to make. My criticism on the preposition has been 
 pronounced ^perfectly correct^'' by a gentleman criti- 
 cally acquainted with the Greek language, and who 
 is less interested in this controversy than either Mr. 
 B. or myself, and therefore, more entitled to credit. 
 For we have seen, in the case of Dr. Carson, how 
 the support of 'a theory' can induce a man to con- 
 tradict "all lexicographers and commentators." The 
 Baptists hold that we are, to he baptized in imitation of 
 Christ; of course, then, if we find any difficulty in un- 
 derstanding the meaning of the prepositions, in any 
 case of baptism, subsequent to his, it will be fair to 
 refer to the pattern given in the case of his baptism, 
 for a solution of the difficulty. Well then, where 
 the baptism of Christ is spoken of, the term Aro, 
 is used, the primary meaning of which, according 
 to Parkhurst's lexicon, is from, away from. 
 
 *And straightway coming up (Apo) out of the wa- 
 ter,' Mark i, 10. Now, as Mr. B. will contend for 
 the primary meaning of prepositions, let him take 
 the primary meaning of Apo, and the evidence for 
 immersion, drawn from the baptism of Christ, van- 
 ishes. Instead of his emerging from beneath the 
 water, it will appear, that he only came up from 
 the river, which he might do, without having wet 
 
293 
 
 so much as the sole of his foot. If the apostles fol- 
 lowed the 'pattern showed' them in the 'Master's' 
 case, we must interpret the prepositions used m the cases 
 recorded in the ^ids of the Apostles, according to the pri- 
 mary meaning of Apo; i. e. from — away from. Thus 
 the reader will perceive, that, the evidence which 
 the Baptists attempt to draw from the preposition, 
 in favor of immersion, is only a fancy of their's to 
 aid in the support of 'a theory.' 
 
 Mr. B. says, p. 73, that he "finds in controversy 
 with some men, he must sometimes consent to do a 
 small business, or else have no business at all." / 
 did not invite any controversy with this gentleman 
 in particular. If he thought me a puny antagonist, 
 prepared only to wage a 'small war,' unworthy his 
 giant strength, why did he invite me into the field of 
 controversy? Was he ambitious to engage in a 
 ^small business?'' to vanquish a mere pigmy oppo- 
 nent? The candid reader knows, that men of true 
 courage never seek to impose on the weak, and to 
 run down those, who are only capable of doing a 
 'small business.' Moreover, what / said of the pre- 
 positions, was only in answer to his use of them. 
 So that, if this business is small, ht has the credit 
 of having commenced it. 
 
294 
 
 He asks on the same page, "Mr S. who told you 
 that Saul of Tarsus and the family of Cornelius were 
 baptized in a house?" 1 answer, the words of St. 
 Luke set forth, that, they tcere in the house when the 
 preaching took place, and do not say that they went 
 out of the house to receive baptism. If Mr. B. will 
 say that they did go out^ for the purpose of receiving 
 baptism, then it is not with me, but with himself to fur- 
 nish the proof of it. In Acts ix, 17, 18, 19, vs. 
 we have the case of Saul, "and Ananias entered into 
 the house; and putting his hands on him, &c. — and he 
 received sight forthwith, and arose, and was bap- 
 tized. And when he had received meat, he was 
 strengthened.'' Now I say, he received baptism in the 
 house. And if this gentleman has any evidence, that 
 he received it out of doors, it would be more becom- 
 ing in him to present his evidence, instead of asking 
 such questions. One would think that the Baptists, of 
 all others, ought to be found in possession of a creed, or 
 catechism,, for they seem, of all people, most prone to 
 get information by asking questions. They remind 
 me in this respect, of the Pharisees and Sadducees of 
 our Lord's time, who did little else in their conver- 
 sations with Christ, and his disciples, than ask ques- 
 tions. The intelligent reader will observe in read* 
 
295 
 
 ing the gospels they rarely advanced any thing them- 
 selves, or affirmed any thing; but pat themselves in their 
 trenches; and said, ^'■why do thy disciples so and so? Doth 
 your master pay trihutcV^ ^^Tell us is it laivfid to pay trib- 
 ute to CcBsarT^ "Master ivhose wife shall she be in the 
 resurrection; for the seventh had her?" ^c. Our Lord 
 said to such ^ye do err, not knowing the scriptures.'^ It is 
 only those who hold systems of error that have need to 
 support them by perpetually asking silly questions 
 of an opponent, as though they had a right to become 
 catechists for all the world. 
 
 On page 7i, Mr. B. again, the third time, intro- 
 duces the case of Mr. G. of Culpepper, who he 
 says baptized by immersion 75 persons, in 25 minutes, as 
 can easily be proved: this was three to a minute; and 
 I am sure I have never seen three sprinkled in one 
 minute, in my life; neither have 1 ever heard of it." 
 After Mr. B. had given the public this Culpepper 
 case in his Strictures and Sermon, I did hope, for 
 the credit of religion he would say no more about it. 
 Here is the absurd spectacle presented of a minister of God 
 administering one of the solemn sacraments of the Gospel, 
 against time, and "several gentlemen of undoubted ve- 
 racity, holding their watches in their hands, and de- 
 claring this to be the result." This seems to be a 
 
 favorite case with our Baptist friends, Elder G. as 
 26* 
 
296 
 
 well as Mr. B. has taken occasion to make use of it. 
 It seems truly, to have been an experiment made in the 
 county of Culpepper for the benefit of the Baptist 
 cause throughout the world, in order to show that 
 Peter and his companions, on the day of Pentecost, 
 could have dipped the three thousand in the short 
 time allowed for the administration of the ordi- 
 nance. Before this case can be made to prove any 
 thing in favor of their cause, it must be shown, that 
 the apostles of our Lord would hurry, as^Mr. G. did, 
 in giving the ordinance. But why need those elders 
 go all the way to Culpepper, to look up this case of 
 baptism, in order to tell the world, how long it re- 
 quires to give the ordinance by immersion? Have 
 they never administered it to a sufficient number at 
 once, to enable them, to form an opinion about the 
 length of time required? I suppose they have never 
 made an experiment. Mr. B. ^never heard of three be- 
 ing sprinkled in one minuteT and we hope he never will; 
 for Pedobaptist ministers do not perform the ordinances of 
 God against time. So much for his Culpepper case. 
 He thinks, the fact, -that Pedobaptists attempt to prove 
 that John's was not Christian baptism, is sufficient 
 evidence that they considered John gave the ordinance 
 <by immersion;' I have only to say, this 'argument 
 proves nothing, because all the views which we take 
 
297 
 
 of the nature of John's baptism are sustained by 
 Robt. Hall in his argument for open communion, and 
 I suppose HE will not be suspected of being influen- 
 ced by Pedobaptist motives, in this case. 
 
 On page 75, after giving a caricature of the prac- 
 tice of Pedobaptists in administering the ordinance, 
 he proceeds to notice the argument for pouring in 
 baptism, drawn from the necessity of a resemblance 
 between the sign and the thing signified. He attempts 
 to make out, that the effects of the Spirit, and not 
 the manner of its communication are to be represent- 
 ed by baptism. This is a new discovery of the gen- 
 tleman's, by which he hopes to evade the argument. 
 He was quite contented to suppose before, that the 
 Spirit was poured out, until the place wdsJilUdy and they 
 were thereby immersed. But after my exploding 
 that fancy in my former argument, he has of course 
 to look out for some other imagination or invention to 
 help the cause. Now he says, *my dear' sir, J hope 
 you will give up this fancy; and be contented to 
 have the effects oHhe Spirit's influences represented by 
 baptism;' and asks 'if the effectsa.Te so partial, as to be 
 better represented by pouring or sprinkling, than by 
 immersion?' I answer the effects of the extraordinary in- 
 Jluence of the spirit, are more truly represented by sprink- 
 ling, than by immersion, and the proof is easy. Al- 
 
298 
 
 though we hear some talk of the fulness^ the pleni' 
 tude of spiritual gifts; yet what says the apostle Paul, 
 to the Corinthian Church? although they had all 
 been baptized with the Spirit, each individual in- 
 stead of having a. fulness of spiritual gifts, possessed 
 only one; "For to one is given, by the Spirit the 
 word of wisdomj to another the word of knowledge; 
 to another faith; to another the gifts of healing; to 
 another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; 
 to another discerning of spirits; to another divers 
 kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of 
 tongues; but all these worketh that one and the self- 
 same spirit, DIVIDING to every man severally as he 
 will." See 1 Cor. xii, 8 — 11. Now a small por- 
 tion of water would be quite sufficient to represent 
 a single spiritual gift. 
 
 He says, page 76, "the baptism of the spirit was 
 only a. figurative baptism. I hope you will not sup- 
 pose that the spirit was literally poured out from 
 heaven! That influence by which the disciples were 
 enabled to speak with tongues, was altogether an in- 
 fluence of mind upon mind. How then, can any ma- 
 terial element, ever represent the manner of it." I 
 do suppose that the spirit was poured out; and that for the 
 best possible reason, (viz. j the word of God says it was. 
 *And I hope never to '■figure' away the plain com- 
 
299 
 
 mon sense meaning of the book of God. If I could not 
 support my cause without that, I would abandon it 
 forever. We do not pretend to explain the manner 
 in which mind, (as he has it,) acts upon mind. We 
 only impHcitl)^ believe what the Holy Ghost declares, 
 (i. e.) "on the Gentiles also, (as well as the Jews,) was 
 POURED OUT the gift of THE HOLY GHOST." And as 
 it is said "It fell on all them, which heard the 
 word," we suppose that, Ht ivas poured out from heuvcnW 
 
 I trust never to be so 'given over to strong delu- 
 sion' as to contradict the plain dictates of 'common 
 sense' as well as the word of divine Revelation, in 
 order to support a favorite theory. Mr. B. in pro- 
 pagating this new fancy, has adopted a mode of ex- 
 pression altogether ybreio-w from theological usage; 
 he calls the spirit of God, "mind;" "an influence of 
 miiid upon mind.^^ 
 
 This same matter of the pouring out of the holy 
 Ghost, on the day of Pentecost, is exceedinoly per- 
 plexing to this gentleman. On page 77, he advances 
 an entirely new view of the matter. He has discov- 
 ered now that there were none of the disciples pres- 
 ent, when the Holy Ghost was poured out, except the 
 twelve apostles. He says, "yow spake as if the 120 
 where in the room when the baptism of the Spirit occuired. 
 
300 
 
 / deny it» Read the last verse of the first chapter, 
 and the first verse of the second> and you will see 
 that none but the tivelve are mentioned as being to- 
 gether." Now candid reader, I have read the pas- 
 sage, perhaps as often as this gentleman, and cannot 
 see any such thing, and how should / see it, when 
 Mr. A. Campbell could not discover that there were 
 only THE TWELVE present. On the contrary he saw 
 120 present. In his debate, page 376, in attempting 
 to give an express warrant for female communion, 
 he says, "the number of the whole was about 120, 
 chap, ii, 1. On the day of Pentecost, they (the 120) 
 were all vjith one accord in one place.'''' How 
 strange, that, two Baptist elders, should differ so 
 much in opinion, about a plain matter of fact ^ and each 
 refer their readers to the same passage for his proof! 
 The reader must take notice, that they were both 
 but trying to evade a different Pedobaptist argument. 
 The intelligent reader however, will conclude that the 
 word of God is not like a heathen oracle, that will 
 give out one answer at one time, and a contrary one 
 at another, just to suit the whims of different priests. 
 The passage says there were 120, when Mr. C. wants 
 an express warrant for female communion: But when 
 Mr. B. wants to evade the difficulty I had presented 
 
301 
 
 in the way of his theory, then the passage says there 
 were but 12 present// This gentleman, however, 
 not only contradicts Mr. Campbell and me, but he 
 contradicts himself also, as the reader can easily dis- 
 cover, by looking at his Ser. page 35. Where he 
 says, ^Hhe 70 no doubt were present''^ at the baptizing. 
 It is a great pity that a man who attempts to sup- 
 port error, should have a bad memory, and should 
 thus be exposed to the danger of unsaying at one 
 time what he has said at another!!! Perhaps he will 
 say, only the twelve were present at the pouring out 
 of the Spirit, and that the seventy came afterwards, 
 to help with, or witness the baptizing. If he should 
 take this course, the reader can consult the first chap- 
 ter of Acts, from the 15th verse to the end, and there 
 he will discover, without the aid of any commentator, 
 
 that ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY DISCIPLES WERE 
 
 present on the occasion. The candid reader can 
 judge, how much credit a system is entitled to, that 
 requires such twisting and turning, and prevarica- 
 tion on the part of its advocates, in order to support 
 it. 
 
 Mr. B. says, that "the influences of the Spirit, by 
 which men are brought to repent and turn to God, 
 are no where in the bible called baptism. I can 
 
302 
 
 never believe a man baptized with the Holy Ghost, 
 in the scripture sense of that expression, unless he 
 confirms his pretensions by speaking in all manner 
 of tongues." Then it will follow, that when John 
 the Baptist said, "I baptize you with water, he shall 
 baptize you with fire and the Holy Ghost,''^ he wish- 
 ed the multitude to understand they should receive 
 the extraordinary influences of the Spirit, and have 
 power to ^speak all manner of tongues;^ for Mr. B. 
 will not admit that they received this baptism, unless 
 this sign followed. Did ever any man, in his sober 
 senses, suppose, that John meant the miraculous poW' 
 ers of the Holy Ghost? 'I speak as unto wise 
 men.' 
 
 On page 77, he says, "T%.e scriptures no where speak 
 of baptism as a representation of the Spirifs influences. 
 It is a representation of the burial and resurrection of 
 Jesus.^^ And referring to Rom. vi, 4; and Col. ii, 
 12, he says, 'St. Paul understood it so.' Then John 
 the Baptist should have said to the multitude. 
 He shall be buried and arise from the dead, therefore, 
 I am come baptizing with water. Let the reader 
 consult John i, 28 to 34, and he will discover that 
 the Baptist gives a diiTerent view of this matter, from 
 that given above by Mr. B. He declares, that, he 
 came baptizing with water, because the Son of Go3 
 
303 
 
 would give a baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost. 
 Christ himself gives the same view, Acts i, 5, " Jo^/» 
 baptized loith water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy 
 Ghost." In Acts xi, 15, 16, Peter gives the same 
 view, 'And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost 
 FELL ON THEM, as ott US at the beginning. Then 
 remembered I the word of the Lord, John indeed 
 baptized ivith water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy 
 Ghost.'^^ The reader can now judge who is most 
 to be credited in this case, Mr. B. or the authorities 
 I have quoted. Added to all this, if baptism re- 
 prssented the burial and resurrection of Christ, how did 
 it happen that the disciples, after witnessing amd per' 
 forming thousands of baptisms, were profoundly ig- 
 norant of the thing represented? For, up to the eve 
 of Christ's crucifixion, yea, even after he had been 
 crucified, they did not understand that he was to arise 
 from the dead. See Mark ix, 10; and John xx, 9, 
 '■They questioned one with another what the rising from 
 the dead should mean. For as yet they knew not the 
 scripture, that he must rise again from the dead.'* But 
 Mr. B. will have it, that, it was represented to them, 
 in every one of the thousands of cases of baptism, 
 which they witnessed. Is it possible, he can so pre- 
 sume upon the credulity of his readers, as to sup- 
 pose, that, one in a thousaud can be made to believe 
 27 
 
304 
 
 in this fancy ^ — this far-fetched conceit, that baptism 
 represented, not the pouring out of the Holy Ghost, but 
 Hhe burial and resurrection of JesusT And that, after the 
 disciples had seen it represented, for more than three 
 years, yet when Christ spoke to them of his rising 
 from the dead, they knew nothing at all about it? 
 They had never heard of this 'figment,' that tells of 
 the '■liquid grave,"* and the ^watery tomb,'^ as it is 
 quite a modern invention. 
 
 The sign must agree with the thing signified, — the sign 
 was water baptism, the thing signified the baptism of the 
 Spirit: God gave the latter by 'pouring out,' 'shedding 
 FORTH,' &c., therefore, the sign was given by pouring 
 the water upon the subject!! '/ baptize you with 
 water; he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.' 
 
 For my view of the baptism of the three thous- 
 and on the day of Pentecost, I beg leave to refer 
 the reader to the former argument. / say again, 
 as I said at first, there is a total absence of all evi- 
 dence that they received the rite by immersion. Mr. 
 B's remarks about my conceding any thing on that 
 point, are perfectly gratuitous; for, although I ad- 
 mitted that there was water enough in Jerusalem, 
 yet I said, the public and private bathing places were 
 in the keeping of Christ's enemies; so that Mr. B's 
 thanks for my liberality^ are entirely out of place. 
 
305 
 
 On page 79, he introduces the case of the jailor, 
 and makes a very pathetic exclamation indeed, — 
 'O Mr. S. when shall I be delivered from the morti- 
 fication,' &;c. He says, 'I could wish, for the sake 
 of the profession to which you belong, that this were 
 a solitary case.' I cannot help this gentleman's mor- 
 tification. If he will persist in attempts to abuse 
 the minds of his readers, I shall feel it my duty to 
 hold up his conduct in its proper colors, that it may 
 meet its merited reprobation. He says, 'I quoted 
 the very language of the scriptures,' &;c. So he 
 did. But he did not quote enough of the language 
 to give the true view of the case. Nor has he now 
 quoted enough. In the Sermon he quoted from the 
 29th verse — in the Letters from the 25th verse. If 
 he had commenced at the 23d verse, as I have 
 shown in the 'Appeal,' the reader would have been 
 saved the danger of being imposed upon by his capi- 
 tals in his Sermon, and the italics in his Letters. 
 He proposes to let St. Luke's words inform the read- 
 er in the premises, and says, "This is Luke's account 
 of the matter, without even the addition of capital 
 letters, and it seems to me to require no little inge- 
 nuity to find in all this any thing inconsistent with 
 the idea of immersion. Let us see — the jailor first 
 
306 
 
 brought them out." Now, why did not the gentle- 
 man accord a little common sense to his readers, and 
 leave them to judge from Liike^s account, without 
 the aid of his italics, instead of going on to repeat 
 certain of Luke's words, putting them in italics? 
 This trickery, I would fain hope, is too manifest, to 
 impose on any, who have not sold themselves to 
 blind devotion to a party. 
 
 I say, in conclusion, that his version of this matter, 
 makes Paul and Silas a couple of arch hypocrites; 
 for it represents that they left the prison at midnight, and 
 went off to the 'river Strymon,' or some other 
 stream; and yet, when the next morning arrived, and 
 the magistrates sent two 'Serjeants, saying, let these 
 men go,' they refused to leave the jail, stating that 
 Hhey would not be thrust out privately;' and added, 
 ^Let the magistrates come themselves and fetch us out.^ 
 And 'the magistrates came and besought them, and 
 brought them out,' &;c. And these are the men 
 who left the prison at midnight privately, of their 
 own accord, who now that it is day, need to be en- 
 treated to leave it, before they will consent to go 
 out!!! This truly, was rather a bad lesson to teach 
 their new converts! But, candid reader, Paul and 
 Silas were not the men to practice duplicity. There- 
 
307 
 
 fore, I say they never left the premises of the Philip- 
 pian jail, until the morning, and the baptizing took 
 place within doors and not at the 'river Strymon.' I 
 refer the reader to my former argument on this case 
 for a full answer to Mr. B. 
 
 He begins his nineteenth letter by saying, "how 
 determined must that man be, 'to support a theory,' 
 who can undertake, by mere 'sifting' to set aside 
 the plain testimony for immersion, which is furnish- 
 ed in the eunuch's case,'' &c. I always consider, 
 that 'sifting'"^ in contr(wersy, is better than 'shift- 
 ing.' That this gentleman has dealt largely in the 
 latter, I presume the reader has discovered during 
 this examination. "What is the chaff to the wheat, 
 saith the Lord,'' and how is the wheat of truth to be 
 separated from the chaff of error, without '■sifting 
 As it regards his strong or plain testimony for im 
 mersion in the case of the eunuch's baptism, they re 
 main to be shown. My former argument on this 
 case he has not met, as the reader can see by com 
 paring the 'Appeal,' pages 68, 69, 70, with his Let 
 ters, pages 81, 82, 83. 
 
 On pag^ 86, Mr. B. gives us quite a short method 
 for disposing of the matter in controversy, he says, 
 "Now, sir, I will tell you what our 'favorite argu- 
 
308 
 
 ment' is, — it is this, the word of our King, through- 
 out, is in favor of immersion. This is my 'favor- 
 ite argument.' 1 find immersion in the pattern; and 
 I find nothing else there." This is begging the 
 question, with a witness. Does the reader see any 
 argument in his ^favorite argument^ 
 
 Why did he not attempt to answer my remarks 
 upon the ^supposed immersion^ of Christ? Also, my 
 exposition of Rom. vi, 4; and Col. ii, 12? The view 
 r took of their argument for immersion, drawn from 
 antiquity, where the rite was performed, (accord- 
 ing to the Baptist historian Robinson,) upon naked 
 subjects, both male and female, he passes over 
 lightly, as though he wished to keep it from the 
 view of his readers. 
 
 Being hard pressed by the case which I gave from 
 Benedict's history of the Baptists, where Roger 
 Williams received baptism by immersion, from the 
 hands of a layman, who never had been dipped himself^ 
 Mr. B. on page 88, has made a concession, that, 
 upon reflection, seems to have alarmed the gentle- 
 man himself, judging from what he wrote imme- 
 diately after. Here it is: "I GRANT, SIR, THAT, 
 IF A MAN HAS NOT BEEN IMMERSED, HE 
 MAY IMMERSE OTHERS, and his neglect of 
 
309 
 
 HIS OWN DUTY, MAY NOT DISQUALIFY HIM FOR AS- 
 SISTING OTHERS IN THE DISCHARGE OF THEIR's." 
 Now, LET IT BE KNOWN TO ALL WHOM IT MAY CON- 
 CERN, THAT, Elder Broaddus being judge, all 
 Pedobaptist ministers are qualified to give 
 the ordinance by immersion!!! 
 
 So that, if you prefer the Methodists, Presbyte- 
 rians, Episcopalians, or any others, to the Baptists, 
 you may receive valid baptism, by immersion, at 
 their hands!! But he was evidently alarmed at his 
 own admission, as I shall show the reader. He 
 says, on the same page, "But 1 have always thought 
 it singular, that those who ridicule immersion, &c. 
 should, after all, consent to immerse those who can- 
 not be convinced that sprinkling or pouring is Hhe 
 more excellent way.' And asks me — "How then 
 
 CAN YOU CONSENT TO IMMERSE?" "HoW Can yOU 
 
 encourage people in their superstition?''^ He then 
 adds — "On the last page of your 'Appe?il,' you call 
 immersion 'the child of superstition.' " This is not 
 as it is there written. I called it no such thing. 
 Why has he wrested my words from their proper 
 connection in this case? He knew that I was speak- 
 ing of baptism, performed upon naked subjects. But 
 he must make the impression, that 1 considered im- 
 
310 
 
 mtrslon, superstitious; and then adds — "SuRELr, 
 hereafter, you will >'0t be found willing to 
 immerse; or if you should, can any consent 
 that you should immerse them, while they 
 
 KNOW that YOU CONSIDER IT A VIOLATION OF THE 
 
 WORD OF God? I TROW NOT." I said, candid 
 reader, above, that the geatlemcin was alarmed at 
 at his own concession. He admits that lam quali- 
 fied, but hopes nobody will consent, that / shall im- 
 merse them. But who told Mr. B. that I consider 
 immersion a violation of the word of God7 Where is it 
 written? He says — ^JFhile they knoic^ I so consider it. 
 Why did he not give the proof, of this allegation? For 
 the best of all reasons, he could not!! We prefer sprink' 
 ling or pouring, in baptism; but we would rather im- 
 merse persons who cannot be convinced of the validity 
 of baptism, after these methods, than they should go 
 where there is 'no confession of faith,' and where 
 scarcely any two, even of the ministers, agree in opinion. 
 We think 'unity of faith,'' and 'the bond of peace' more 
 important, to a religious denomination, than the particu- 
 lar form of an outward ceremx)ny!! 'Judge ye what I 
 say.' 
 
 I have now reached Mr. B's last letter, in which 
 there are some things I intend briefly to notice. I 
 have observed that he seems to be verv much con- 
 
311 
 
 cerned about the existence of different denomina- 
 tions of Christians. And says — "/ think I am ready to do 
 any thing I can safely do, to bring the scattered Jlock of 
 Christ together" And very gravely asks — "Will you 
 do the same? Allow me to hope that you will." 
 Perhaps the reader is ready to ask, what does Mr. 
 B. wish you to give up for the sake of union? Why, 
 gentle reader, he only modestly asks, that we give 
 up infant baptism, and that we cease to baptize adults by 
 pouring or sprinkling, and adopt immersion. Or in other 
 words, that we shall all become Baptists. Well; 
 what does he propose to do for union? Just nothing 
 at all, but be a Baptist still; for he does not even al- 
 lude to any concession to be made on his part. A 
 kind and liberal soul truly!! He makes a proposi- 
 tion which contains really nullification and consoli- 
 dation, in order to union. He would nullify both 
 infant baptism, and baptism by pouring; and then 
 consolidate the whole Pedobaptist world into one 
 great Baptist church, in order, as he says, *to bring 
 the scattered flock of Christ together!!' . 
 
 It would be thought, from what he has said, that 
 those who reject infant baptism, and give the ordi- 
 nance by immersion, are a very united people. For this, 
 the reader perceives is Mr. B^s prescription for union. 
 And so they are united^ in two things, at least; first, to op- 
 
312 
 
 pose infant baptism; and second, to contend f or immersion^ 
 as the exclusive mode. Beyond this, they have few senti- 
 ments in common. The history of the church will show 
 that among those who have rejected the baptism of in- 
 fants, there has been found error of all dimensions: — 
 from old Tertullian, who held it to be improper to bap- 
 tize unmarried people, down to Peter De Bruis, who 
 held that infants could not be saved, and therefore ought 
 not to be baptized; — from the German Anabaptists 
 who held polygamy, and ran through the streets with 
 a bible in one hand, and a sword in the other, cry- 
 ing, 'repent and be baptized,' to the thousands of 
 Europe and America, who, in more modern times, 
 
 HAVE DENIED THE DIVINITY OF ChRIST, and held 
 
 the error of Pelagius, &;c. &c. This gentleman 
 will find it necessary to look out for some other mode 
 of "uniting the flock." 
 
 We go against all pretended "unionSi^ and think 
 genuine Christian concord, may be maintained, 
 without consolidation. Let our Baptist brethren, 
 become more liberal towards other sects, and inore 
 united among themselves, and we shall have a better 
 union of heart and sentiment, than can be brought 
 about by any such consolidation of discordant ma- 
 terials, as is proposed by the plan of Mr. B. I 
 
313 
 
 would beg leave to suggest, that, this gentleman 
 would do well, to give the world an example of the 
 uniting effect of their views of baptism, among them- 
 selves, before he concerns himself about trying his 
 plan upon the Pedobaptist community. True charity 
 always begins at home!!! He alleges ^^That a very 
 great number of our people do not have their infant off- 
 spring baptized,''^ and infers therefrom, "that it is 
 not deemed a matter of great importance.'' 'A very 
 great number oi^ your people.' Mark that! Where 
 do they live? I do not know them. Now if he has 
 stated the truth about the Methodists, it becomes 
 them to see to it. And if they do 'have their in- 
 fant offspring baptized; they will recollect that this 
 gentleman has misrepresented them publicly, in say- 
 ing, that 'a very great number of them' neglect 
 this duty. 
 
 On page 88, Mr. B. says that "/ consider immersion 
 a violation of the word of Godf"* and on page 89, 
 says, that, "/ profess to have no objection to immersion.'''' 
 Now what confidence, candid reader, can the public 
 have in a controversialist, who will thus, to carry 
 his point, blow hot and cold, almost in the same 
 breath? 
 
 When he becomes alarmed, lest some ^should con- 
 
314 
 
 sent^ that / should dip them, he says, "while they 
 know that you consider it a violation of the 
 WORD OF God.'' But when he wishes to bring 
 about his union of ^all sincere believers in one com- 
 munion,^ he says, "You profess to have no objection 
 to immersion — Yor believe it Scriptural bap- 
 tism." Does the intelligent reader suppose, that, 
 the gentleman will be found ingenious enough to re- 
 concile these conflicting statements? And yet he 
 says to me, on the very next page, "/am not aware of mis- 
 representing your views in any instance whatever. If 1 
 could know that any observation, in all these letters, sets 
 your views in an improper light, I would sooner sup- 
 press the wJvole that I have written, than to publish that 
 observation." 
 
 In conclusion I remark, I have observed through- 
 oat his twenty -one 'letters,' a continual disposition 
 manifested to make professions. He commenced by 
 professing to have no object in view, 'but to main- 
 tain the purity of our Lord's institutions,' page 4, — 
 and concludes with the profession which I have 
 given in italics above. Did he expect to impose 
 upon his readers, by confessing his convictions 
 about the ordinance; and professing his innocency in the 
 matter of misrepresentation? &c. This plan may 
 
316 
 
 succeed with such as have committed their un- 
 derstanding and judgment to the keeping of a priest, 
 contented that he shall think, and reason, and judge 
 for them. But I flatter myself, that amidst the light 
 of the nineteenth century, the intelligent and candid 
 of all denominations, will need something more than so- 
 phistry for argument, or assumption for proof, upon bo 
 solemn a subject as the true nature of a Christian 
 sacrament!! 
 
 This gentleman has, more than once in his Letters, 
 intimated a hope that he might convince me of the correct- 
 ness of his views, inviting me to examine the scriptures 
 and his arguments; as though he wished his read- 
 ers to suppose I had never examined the subject; 
 and that by being catechised as a school boy, I 
 might be led to adopt his views of baptism. This 
 is one of the stratagems by which he seeks to con- 
 vince, not me, but others. I wish the reader to un- 
 derstand, that, for the last fifteen years-, more or 
 less, I have been engaged in examining and ^sift- 
 ing,^ by the scriptures, the subject of water baptism 
 and have been led to adopt the conclusions stated in 
 the course df this and the former argument. These 
 views I commend to the candid and careful exami- 
 nation of the intelligent reader, in the fear of 
 28 
 
316 
 
 God, and in view of the righteous retribu- 
 TioNs of the last DAY. "I spcak as unto wise 
 MBS, judge ye what I say.'' 
 
INDEX 
 
 page 
 
 Preface to the first edition, 3 
 
 Preface to the second edition, . . . . .11 
 
 Baptism, 17 
 
 Obligations and perpetuity of Christian Baptism, . 18 
 Christian Baptism confounded with the Baptism of 
 
 John, 19 
 
 Subjects of Baptism, 23 
 
 Visible Church of Christ before his coming, . . 24 
 
 Abrogation of Circumcision, 32 
 
 Baptism in the place of Circumcision, ... 33 
 God's two covenants with Abraham, . . . .35 
 Testimony of Zacharias in the covenant contrasted with 
 
 Mr. B's statements, 36 
 
 Gentiles derived spiritual privileges from circumcision, 38 
 
 Profit of circumcision, by Apostle Paul, . . ^ . 39 
 According to Mr. B., Abraham was the father of none 
 
 but believers, 40 
 
 Facts plainly and flatly contradict this, . . .41 
 
 Infants recognized as members of the family church, 42 
 The Divine authority which gave the right has never 
 
 cancelled it, 44 
 
 Illustration or two from common law, and new consti- 
 tution of Virginia, 45, 46 
 
 Sneerfi and ridicule, made to take the place of argument, 
 
 are specimens by Mr. B 47 
 
 Proselyte Baptism, 48 
 
 Baptism in existence before John the Baptist. Opinion 
 
 from Maimonides, 49 
 
 Baptism of Proselytes, was a baptism of families, em- 
 bracing children; — Dr. Lightfoot, ... 50 
 The objection that infants are not capable of believing, 
 and therefore ought not to be baptized, lies equally 
 against their salvation, . .... 51 
 
318 
 
 page 
 Mr. B's illustration, from Recruiting Infants, very un- 
 fortunate, • . . 53 
 
 Men's views of the meaning of terms, influenced by 
 
 early impressions, 54 
 
 Men's prejudices very inveterate when they grow up 
 
 under an exclusive system, 55 
 
 Mr. B's views, subversive of that order and subordina- 
 tion, which is necessary to the well being of so- 
 ciety, 56 
 
 Commission was put into the hands of Jews who never 
 
 knew a church that rejected infants, ... 57 
 Objection taken from the necessity to admit them alike 
 
 to the Lord's supper, not valid, . . . .58 
 Opinions of Calvin, Josephus, Poole, Stackhouse, and 
 
 Doddridge, 59 
 
 Opinion of Dr. Gill, a Baptist writer, . . . .60 
 How the apostles understood their commission, . 61 
 Mr. B's "four households'" destitute of any infants, . 62 
 In every case of families being baptized, as mentioned 
 in the Acts and Epistles, as far as the evidence goes, 
 is in favor of the baptism of parents and children, 63 
 
 1st. Case of Lydia, ib. 
 
 Her "journeymen dyers" and dying establishment no- 
 ticed, 64 
 
 Oikos, used in this passage, when spoken of persons, 
 denotes a family of children, and includes those of 
 
 all ages, 65 
 
 Opinions of the editor of Calmet, on oikos and oikia, . ib. 
 Further opinions on this case of family baptism, . 67 
 Faith in children not a necessary qualification, . . 68 
 Household of Stephanus and the Philippian jailor, . 70 
 One thing is certain, the jailor and his family were not 
 baptized according to the practice of modern Bap- 
 tists, 72 
 
 Our Lord's evidence for infant baptism, as taken from 
 
 Mark x, 13 to 16, &c 73 
 
 Continued observations on these passages, . . .74 
 
 Infants the model for adults, 77 
 
 Children to be brought in the discipline of the Lord, 78 
 
 Evidence from 1 Cor. vii, 14, 80 
 
 Mr. Dagg's Exposition, 83 
 
 Reply to Mr. B's question, "was baptism designed for 
 
 the benefit of holy beings?" ,85 
 
319 
 
 page 
 The antiquity of infant baptism strong evidence, . 86 
 Mr. B. says it was introduced by the "Romish apos- 
 
 tacy" — ReplVy 87 
 
 Sentiment of the Baptist writer, Dr. Gall, . . 90 
 
 Testimony of Justin Martyr and Ireneus, to show that 
 
 it was the practice of the primitive church, . . 91 
 Testimony of Origen, Cyprian, the council of Carthage, 
 
 and Lord Chancellor King, .... 92 
 Peter De Bruis and his followers rejected infant bap- 
 tism on different grounds from the Baptists, . . 94 
 Dialogue between neighbor and convert, ... 99 
 Summary of this part of the argument, . . . 101 
 
 Conclusion of it, . 103 
 
 Observations in reply to "who are the proper subjects 
 
 of baptism?" 105 
 
 Case of the Samaritans who heard Philip, . . . 106 
 
 Case of Simon Magus, 107 
 
 This case very perplexing to Calvinist Baptists, . . 109 
 Case of Saul of Tarsus, Acts xxii, . . . .111 
 Case of Cornelius, and those in his house, . . . 112 
 Dr. T's rebaptizing the members of the old Baptist 
 
 church, 115 
 
 Mode of Baptism, 116 
 
 Mr. B's "positive institutions," and reply to it, 117, 118 
 Mr. B., King James, and the translators, . . .119 
 
 John the Dipper, 120 
 
 John the Baptist, St. Peter, St. Paul, and Dr. Clarke, 
 
 placed against Dr. Carson, .... 123 
 
 Mr. B. and his Pedobaptist witnesses, .... 125 
 
 Dr. Clarke, 126 
 
 Mr. Wesley, ' . .127 
 
 Professor Stuart, , . . . . . . 131 
 
 Peter Edwards's view, 134 
 
 History of the ordinances found in the New Testa- 
 ment, 135 
 
 Remarks on 1 Cor. x, 2 136 
 
 Greek Particles, 139 
 
 John at Enon, 142 
 
 Robert Hall, and the objection drawn from the number 
 
 baptized by John, 145 
 
 The gentleman in Culpepper, who baptized 75, de- 
 cently, in twenty-five minutes, .... 146 
 
320 
 
 pagp 
 Baptism of the Spirit, by "pouring," "shedding forth," 
 
 and "falling upon," 150 
 
 M. B. and the "sound," ...... 152 
 
 "Streams, baths, tanks, pools, hogsheads," &CC. &,c. . 156 
 
 Case of Lydia and her family, 159 
 
 Case of the Jailor, Acts xvi, 23 to 40, . . . 161 
 Case of the Eunuch, Acts viii, 26, ... . 169 
 Mr. Wolfe found a sect in Mesopotamia, who baptized 
 children at 30 days old, by sprinkling at the edge of 
 
 the river, 173 
 
 Baptists' supposed immersion of Christ, . . . 174 
 Fanciful interpretation of Rom. vi, 4 — and Coloss. ii, 12, 178 
 Two questions asked in view of this interpretation, 182 
 Mr. B. says, "Baptism does not necessarily include the 
 
 idea of water, 183 
 
 Argument from antiquity, 184 
 
 American Mennonites, &c 186 
 
 The validity of the ordinance as administered by those 
 
 who have never been immersed, .... 187 
 
 Roger Williams, Mr. Holliman, &c 189 
 
 Summaiy, 191 
 
 Conclusion, 197 
 
 Further Appeal, in reply to Mr. B's 21 letters, . . 199 
 Mr. B's three reasons for not meeting me in oral dis- 
 cussion, 202 
 
 Mr. B. and xix chap, of Acts, 204 
 
 Mr. B's effort to prove "there never was a visible 
 
 church of Christ," 206 
 
 Elder G. and all his churches, 207 
 
 The unity of the church, 208 
 
 The Abrahamic dispensation and circumcision, . 213 
 
 Baptists and close communion, 214 
 
 Mr. B. and female communion, .... 216 
 
 Proselyte Baptism, 218 
 
 Philadelphia Baptist confession, . . . . 221 
 Charge of disagreement with Mr. Wesley, . . . 224 
 
 "No creed but the Bible," 228 
 
 Mr. B. and Acts xv, 9, 229 
 
 Mr. B. and his doubts, 231 
 
 Mr. B. and "Paidia" and "Brepha," . • . .232 
 
 Absurdity of M. B's logic, 235 
 
 Mr. B. and Dr. Hill; "Origen credibility," &.C. . . 237 
 Mr. B. and Mr. Judson's difference, .... 238 
 
321 
 
 page 
 Mr. B. and Mr. Wesley's ordination, .... 240 
 Mr. B's charge of "neglect" of mv District, . . 242 
 Mr. B. and "New Divinity," . . . . . 243 
 
 Mr. B's six Reasons, 246 
 
 Infant Baptism and Popery, 247 
 
 Household Baptism, 248 
 
 Lydia's household; Journeymen Dyers, &c. &,c. . . 249 
 Mr. B. and the Editor of Calmet's Dictionary, . 254 
 
 "Oikos" and "Oikia," 256 
 
 Proofs from Old Testament, 259 
 
 Proofs from the New Testament, 262 
 
 Mr. B's notice of the mode of baptism, . . . 265 
 
 Mr. B's "explicit directions," 267 
 
 "King James," Bishops," and "Translators," . . 273 
 "Indian," "Bible," and "Pedobaptist Missionary," . 275 
 Luther and John the Dipper, . . . . 277 
 
 "Westminster Assembly, 278 
 
 Dr. Clarke and "Baptizo," 280 
 
 Apology!!! for Mr. Wesley, 283 
 
 Mr. B. and his misrepresentation of Professor Stuart, 285 
 Mr. B. and his misrepresentation of Dr. Doddridge, 287 
 Mr, Wesley and baptismal regeneration, . . . 288 
 Baptism of the Israelites in the Red Sea, . . . 291 
 Greek Prepositions, ... ... 292 
 
 Mr. B's "small business," 293 
 
 Saul of Tarsus and family of Cornelius, . . . 294 
 
 Mr. G. of Culpepper, 295 
 
 The argument from "pouring out of spirit," &c. . . 299 
 The 120, on the day of Pentecost, . . . .300 
 Baptism, "representation of the death and burial of 
 
 Christ," - . .302 
 
 3000, on the day of Pentecost, 304 
 
 Case of the Jailor, 305 
 
 "Siffing" and "Shifting," 307 
 
 Roger Williams baptized by a layman, . . . 308 
 
 Remarks on Mr. B's charge "of calling immersion the 
 
 child of superstition," .... . 809 
 
 Mr. B's "union" of all denominations, . . . 311 
 
 Mr. B's conflicting statements, 314 
 
 Concludine: Remarks, 315 
 
K R R A T A 
 
 On page 38, 2nd line from top, end quotation after the word 'Christ' 
 instead of after 'mocliery.' 
 " 42, 9th line from bottom, end quotation after the word 'seed.' 
 " 66, 9th line from top, instead of 'the temple,' read 'to the 
 
 temple.' 
 " 57, 7th line from top, read 'which Peter and,' instead of 
 
 'Peter and'. 
 " 68, 'Dr. Isaac' should be 'D. Tsaac,' and soon in everyplace 
 
 where Dr. Isaac occurs. 
 " 85, top line, for 'admit' read 'omit it.' 
 " 86, 7th line from top, after each of the words 'baptism' and 
 
 'sin,' there should be ' ' 
 " 88, 2d line from top, for 'rite of infants' read 'right of in- 
 fants.' 
 " 97, 4th line from top, for 'never,' read 'ever.' 
 " 104, 9th line from bottom, for 'vt'ere it was' read 'where it was.' 
 " 1.54, 12th line from S«p, for 'mind,' read 'wind.' 
 " 169, 6th line from bottom, for 'poing into' read 'from eoing into.* 
 " 172, 9th line from bottom, for '.^Ist and 52d,' read '52d and 53d.' 
 " 173, 14th line from bottom, for 'proposition,' read 'preposition.' 
 " 183, 3d line from top, for 'as referring to the spirit of God. 
 The water,' &c. read 'as referring to, the spirit of God, 
 the water of baptism,' &c.— So that the last two sen- 
 tences will be one. 
 " 192, 11th line from bottom, for 'pascha,' read 'pesach.' 
 " 194, 4th line from top, for 'that baptism,' read 'that the bap- 
 tism.' 
 " 214, 9th and 10th lines from top, the word 'to' occurs twice. 
 " 230, 3d line from bottom, for 'purity,' read 'impurity.' 
 " 251, 12th line from top, 'hypothesis,' should be 'hypotheses.' 
 " 254, 5th line from bottom, after the word Kentucky, there 
 
 should be a (?) 
 " 262, 15th line from top, 'simame,' should be 'surname.' 
 " 279, 7th line from top, the word 'effect,' should be 'affect.'