^' 
 
 d . 
 
 1 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 Ql 
 
 i 
 
 .^ 
 
 
 'C 
 
 1 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 IE 
 
 
 „^ 
 
 
 Q. 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 rz: 
 
 
 «^» 
 
 »-3 
 
 _c 
 
 
 x^r 
 
 
 CL 
 
 
 ^ - 
 
 !^ 
 
 O 
 
 
 €i 
 
 
 „^ 
 
 
 
 
 $ 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 EH 
 
 (1) 
 
 c 
 •< 
 
 
 m 
 
 0) 
 
 ^' 
 
 % 
 
 -*-* 
 
 ^ 
 
 5 
 
 • 3 
 
 E 
 
 00 
 
 Baptism, . 
 
 
 
 J2 
 
 « 
 
 •^ 
 
 
 tJ 
 
 ^ 
 
 \ 
 
 
 (1> 
 
 s 
 
 ^^ 
 
 
 to 
 0) 
 
 s> 
 
 •^ 
 
 q: 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 .^^ 
 
 
Digitized by the Internet Arciiive 
 
 in 2011 witin funding from 
 
 Princeton Tineological Seminary Library 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/wliyliaveyoubecomeOOpars 
 
WHY HAVE YOU BECOME A P^DOBAPTIST ? 
 
 A DIALOGUE, 
 
 (IN FOUR PARTS,) 
 
 t 
 BETWEEN * j^ '^^ . 
 
 HEZEKIAH HASTIE, A BAPTIST, 
 
 AND 
 
 SIMON SEARCHE, A PiEDOBAPTIST ; 
 
 CONTAINING 
 
 AN ANSWER TO T^^O PUBLICATIONS, 
 
 CIRCULATED IN THE BOROUGH OF STROUD, BY AMATOR VERITATISj 
 THE ONE ENTITLED, 
 
 "BAPTISM DISCUSSED, &c. ;'' 
 
 AND THE OTHER, 
 
 "why have you become A BAPTIST?" 
 
 BY JOHN BULL 
 
 In Veritate Victoria. 
 
 DIALOGUE I. 
 
 PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY B. BUCKNALL, 
 
 AND SOLD BY BRISLEY, BAYLIS, & HARMER, STROUD ; GOUGH, DURSLEY | 
 
 LEA, GLOUCESTER; 
 
 AND BY LONGMAN, fic R. BAYNES, LONDON, 
 
 1835. 
 
 Price Sixpence, 
 
Itt' 
 
 1^ The other Three Dialogues are now ready for publication. 
 Dialogue the Second will be printed immediately, and will contain 
 an examination of our Lord's Commission, as recorded in Matthew 
 and Mark — John's Disciples — Female Communion — Baptism the 
 Answer of a Good Conscience — The Word received gladly on the 
 Day of Pentecost — Saul's Conversion and Baptism — The Baptism 
 of the Corinthians — The Abrahamic Covenant, as explained by Mr. 
 Birt — Mr. Innes on Analogical Reasoning — &c. In this Dialogue, 
 every text advanced by Amator Veritatis will be investigated, and 
 proved to yield no evidence whatever in favour of the Baptist Hy- 
 pothesis. 
 
TO DIALOi 
 
 
 It is not unusual for many of the Members of that Denomiua- 
 tion Trhose sentiments respecting Baptism are here examined, to 
 manifest a considerable degree of irritation, should Paedobaptists 
 venture to assert their principles. 'SVe need not say that such dis- 
 pleasure is as unphilosophic as it is antichristian. Liberty to assert 
 and defend our sentiments is one of those high privileges of which 
 we boast as Protestants; and tlie liberty we use ourselves, we ought 
 to grant to others, being fully assured that Truth can never suffer 
 anything from investigation. To impose silence upon our opponents 
 would betray a great want of confidence in our own system, and the 
 reasons by which it is supported. The writer of the present pub- 
 lication, however, can scarcely displease the most intolerant oppo- 
 nent, because the work which he has examined contains a "challenge 
 to the whole corps of Paedobaptists," and he has therefore merely 
 taken up the gauntlet which was thus publicly thrown down. It 
 was some time before the challenge was accepted, for the arguments 
 advanced by Amator "S'eritatis, were in themselves so destitute of 
 any force that could influence a reflecting mind, and, moreover, had 
 been so repeatedly and triumphantly answered, that it was for a 
 while deemed unnecessary to notice them at all. This silence, how- 
 ever, was construed into a perfect defeat, and the author, Amator 
 Veritatis, is well known to have asserted, that his own work " never 
 
 HAD BEEN ANSWERED, AND NEVER COULD BE ANSWERED !" " His 
 
 cheap desideratum for Baptists" was therefore circulated with fresh 
 spirit, and was epitomized, that, in its still cheaper form, it might 
 have a more extensive range and influence, and scarcely was there 
 a peradventure,that the whole borough would become one vast Bap- 
 tist community. Such doinjs required some notice, and the writer 
 
li PREFACE. 
 
 of the present Dialogue has ventured a reply, in which, if he has 
 done no more, he trusts that he has succeeded in showing that Pse- 
 dobaptists have some reason on their side, and are not entirely, as 
 our opponent intimates, " under the tyranny of custom." The dif- 
 ficulties in the way of sustaining the spirit of a dialogue, would 
 have deterred the author of the following work from throwing it 
 into that form, had not the publication of Amator Veritatis furnished 
 him with arguments for the mouth of his Baptist disputant, and the 
 present mode was deemed the shortest way of quoting the senti- 
 ments of his opponent. The writer is not aware of having, in any 
 instance, mistaken or misquoted the words or sense of his antago- 
 nist, and in every instance the page is given, that his readers may 
 judge. 
 
 The charge of prolixity and tautology may, perhaps with too 
 much propriety, be preferred against the ensuing Dialogues ; still 
 it ought to be remembered, that in following another writer step by 
 step, which is generally the case In an answer, one is compelled to 
 move under restraint, and therefore the irregularity and obliquities 
 of one's movements must be charged upon the leader, whom, in 
 such a case, we are doomed to follow. 
 
 Finally, the present publication is not written with any desire 
 of making proselytes to this or that peculiar form of worship ; never 
 would the writer move a single step, merely to accomplish such an 
 object. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. Still, 
 as he would spurn the act of dictating to another, and especially on a 
 topic concerning which Christians may differ without the least detri- 
 ment to their piety, so will he as firmly oppose the dictation of others; 
 and should the fotto^viiig. pages tend to produce a little of that mode- 
 ration which ought to characterize every believer, and to lower some- 
 what of that claim to Infallibility, which too many of those who 
 dilTer from hl-.a affect, the work will not have been published in 
 vain. 
 
MC. APR188( 
 WHY HAVE YOU BECOME A PiEDOBAPTIST? 
 
 A DIALOGUE 
 
 Between a Baptist and Ptedohaptist, 
 
 Baptist. I was going to say good morning, Mr. 
 Searche, but really I am so surprised and astonished 
 at what I have heard, that I can think of nothing else. 
 Why, sir, I have just heard that you have become a 
 Pa^dobaptist. 
 
 Paedobaptist. Well, Mr. Hastie, I am not ashamed 
 to say that you are rightly informed. I am, sir, from 
 deep conviction and after much enquiry, a Paedobaptist. 
 
 Bap. A Paedobaptist too ! Really, sir, I expected 
 better things of }'ou. If some of our weak-headed 
 people had turned about a little, for alas ! our day is 
 notorious for vacillation, I should not have been sur- 
 prised ; but for you, Mr. Searche, to quit the commu- 
 nity, the holy denomination to which your father and 
 grandfather belonged, and into which you were bap- 
 tized so early, is a fact that has kept me in a state of 
 agitation ever since 1 heard it. 
 
 Paed. I know, Mr. Hastie, my forefathers were 
 Baptists, but you would not give that as a reason why 
 I should be of their creed. What, sir ! if they had 
 been deists, or papists, or even Peedobaptists, I sup- 
 
pose you would not have deemed it very wicked if I had 
 differed from them a little. 
 
 Bap. But, Mr. Searche, you know you early pro- 
 fessed yourself a Baptist, and were baptized quite 
 young ; why, sir, you were not more than twelve years 
 old, were you? *'We sometimes baptize as early as 
 that." 
 
 Paed. I know it, Mr. Hastie, and I often thoaght 
 that my baptism niight have been called infant baptism. 
 It seemed as if my poor father felt instinctively con- 
 scious that he had neglected a duty by not having me 
 baptized in infancy, for I assure you 1 had no rest until 
 I was put under the water. 
 
 Bap. That's nothing to the point, sir, for if your 
 religion then was doubtful, you have since witnessed a 
 good profession. Besides, sir, you know what num- 
 bers of Paedobaptists have lately joined us, persons that 
 in age and judgment are far beyond maturity. 
 
 Pasd. In years they may have passed maturity ; but 
 as to judgment, sir, you would not say a great deal 
 about that, nor even for the motives that infiuenced some 
 of those good women and others that lately became 
 Baptists. 
 
 Bap. Judgment, sir ! why a child may see that we 
 are right. And you know that the Psedobaptists have 
 not a word to say for themselves, and that's one reason 
 why they never scarcely say any thing about it. I wish 
 they would talk and preach more on the subject, for 
 then our churches would overflow. " Argument is 
 ours, sir, popular feeling theirs." Why, as a case in 
 point, there v/as Mr. Good, poor simple man ! not, 
 mind ye, but what Mr. Good can discuss other subjects 
 well enough — indeed 1 have heard him preach sermons 
 on the trinity, on the atonement, and almost every dif- 
 ficult subject, and I only wish every heretic had heard 
 him, for the discourses were unanswerable; but, poor 
 fellow ! when he gets on baptism, there he is lost. 
 What do you think ? Lately he preached on sprinkling, 
 and what they call infant baptism, and the consequence 
 was that stYtra] femuies were dipped the next time we 
 
had baptizing. Bless you, Mr. Searche, they have not 
 a word to say for tiiemselves. 
 
 Pfed. Hold, Mr. Hastie, not so fast, sir; a little 
 modesty would sugg-est, that if Mr. Good can discuss 
 those difficult suhjects you have named, in so satisfac- 
 tory a manner, he probably has arguments in favor of 
 his mode of baptism which are stronger than some may 
 imagine. Indeed you can hardly conclude that Mr. 
 Good has no reason on his side of the question because 
 those Avise women ran away from him the other day. 
 Some, sir, have confessed that they were teased into 
 the water, and since have repeatedly thought that they 
 sinned in allowing themselves to be inveigled. You 
 know well enough what efibrts have been made to in- 
 crease your church at the expense of others, by circu- 
 lating Mr. Waterman's books. I candidly confess, 
 that before I changed my sentiments T never liked it. 
 Such an effort to swell the book of numbers, to rob 
 other churches to increase our own, always appeared to 
 me equally dishonorable and antichristian. Here were 
 persons whose piety and usefulness were already un- 
 cjuestionable, and whom you admitted you could not 
 make better or more useful Christians by plunging them 
 clothes and all under the water for half a second, and 
 yet y^Du must be guilty of spiritual sacrilege from such 
 questionable motives. 
 
 Bap. Mr. Searche, you are wrong ; we are only 
 zealous for the truth. The Peedobaptists are in a grie- 
 vous error, and we wish to reclaim them. We are 
 right, sir, and they ought to join us. All are in duty 
 bound to become Baptists. 
 
 P53ed. What whether they are convinced of it or not > 
 W^ell, sir, you had better turn papist at once. This 
 claim to infallibility would be no disgrace to any fa- 
 ther- Pius or Leo, that ever claimed to be Christ's vicar 
 upon earth. 
 
 Bap. My friend, you are too warm, we don't com- 
 pel any one. We use argument, and I tell you that 
 "argument's ours." Look at Mr. Waterman's books. 
 1 fear you have not read them, yet I could tell that 
 
though one has been circulated in the neighbourhood 
 for four years, it has never been replied to. No, sir, 
 " tke book 7iever has been answered, and never can be 
 answer ed.^^ 
 
 Paed. Too fast again, Mr. Hastie. You must not 
 say that a book is unanswerable because no one under- 
 takes to answer it. AVere the author of Tom Thumb 
 to rise from the dead, he would find that no one had 
 written to prove that the whole tale was a mere fiction. 
 Yet it would be hardly discreet to argue from that fact 
 that Master Thomas was once a distinguished person- 
 age, riding about on a mouse. Some books are not 
 worth answering, and for that very reason are never no- 
 ticed. I tell you, sir, that Mr. Waterman's books have 
 made me a confirmed Peedobaptist. 
 
 Bap. Mr. Waterman made you a Psedobaptist ! 
 Why, in that very book he has " challanged the whole 
 corps of Psedobaptists" to reply, and they have not 
 done it yet, and a good reason why — they dare not. 
 
 Paed. So I have often heard you boast, sir, and I 
 was induced to read it on your recommendation, Mr. 
 Hastie ; and such a production for lofty pretensions, un- 
 sustained by a single argument, I never read. Why, 
 the Baptists are ashamed of it. 
 
 Bap. You say that I am hasty, Mr. Searche, but 
 really you are now renouncing all claim to common dis- 
 cernment. Why, Mr. Waterman's first book is full 
 of proofs and arguments. We have in it '* Scripture 
 principles, precepts, and precedents. ^^ WehB.ve ^* pre- 
 sumptive proofs, uniform proofs, direct proof s,^"* all 
 drawn from the Holy Scriptures. This is what has out- 
 done all our opponents, sir ; they are convicted and 
 rebuked by the word of God, and are struck dumb. 
 
 Paed. One adjective you have used, Mr. Hastie, if 
 you had altered its termination a little, would have done 
 instead of all the rest. You should have called them 
 ** presump/jfOMA^ proofs," for rarely has so great a de- 
 gree of presumption been exemplified. 
 
 Bap. Ah ! sir. Ah ! Mr. Searche, you don't come 
 to investigate the subject with ♦' an humble and docile 
 
disposition," or else your conclusion would be in " uni- 
 son with the divine mind." 
 
 Peed. Of course, Mr. Hastie, none have any humi- 
 lity or docility, as Mr. Waterman insinuates, but the 
 Baptists. Doubtless, they are the people, and wisdom 
 will die with them ! 
 
 Bap. Sir, you ought not to speak thus of a living- 
 author, and a denomination who adhere more closely to 
 Scripture than any other Christians in the known 
 world. Sir, say what you will, hut the Baptists are 
 the most scriptural, and therefore both the wisest and 
 holiest Christians upon earth. You know Mr. Water- 
 man published that book because he considered " a 
 cheap small volume on Baptism a desideratum," and, as 
 he powerfully remarks, " he welcomes as our guide the 
 inspired volume, which is the standard of truth, and 
 umpire of controversy." Page 5. 
 
 Pied. That, sir, is the very thing I said ; you are, 
 you being judges, wiser and better folks than otliers, 
 (mind ye, I except from this self congratulation all 
 that are in reality the wiser and better portion of your 
 denomination,) still I think if IMr. AVaterman had 
 *-' Scripture principles, precepts and precedents," he 
 ought to have produced them, and not to have wasted 
 his own time, and that of his readers upon " presump- 
 tive evidence, circumstantial proofs," and above all, 
 that wonderful letter, the sixth, which contains " A 
 Ueview of Psedobaptism," ought never to have seen 
 the light. 
 
 Bap. Mr. Waterman admits " that men of eqiial 
 eminence have ranged themselves on both sides the 
 baptismal controversy," and surely that is sufficiently 
 candid and charitable. 
 
 Paed. I grant the admission, sir, but am sorry to 
 say that the statement is much of a character with 
 other contradictions with which Mr. Walermari'abook 
 abounds. He says that Peedobaptists are un(jer the 
 " tyranny of custom" — that " they are at issue oh the 
 very essence of religion" — that, " they are pitiable be- 
 ings, who abandon the guidance of truth, and the 
 
chart of heaven" — his book is fraught with this sort 
 of accusation or innuendo, see pp. 12, 17, 57, &c. — 
 " Yet are they," in his estimation, *' men of equal emi- 
 nence !" That is, a man who is a bigot — who is at 
 issue on the very essence of religion — who abandons 
 truth — who has neither common sense to see the plain- 
 est truth in Scripture, nor piety enough to practise 
 it, — is a person of equal eminence as to intelligence 
 and sanctity with one of eminent understanding, li- 
 berality, and piety I Keally, sir, you must su| pose 
 that '* ojd chaos sits umpire" in the cranium of the 
 man who will assent to such contradictions, " such 
 striking discrepancies, such glaring differences^'' as 
 iMr. A^ aterman " forcibly remarks. " Were it not for 
 the wickedness of the insinuations, one could not re- 
 frain from smiling at the oscillations, approaching- al- 
 most to perpetual motion, to which the good man is 
 subject fiom the alternate prevalence of his opposite 
 natures. Scarcely has his candour allowed us a little 
 eminence, ere his bigotry deprives us of common sense; 
 hardly has his charily granted us a small portion of 
 piety, ere his bigotry stands ready to damn us for re- 
 jecting the laws of heaven, and being " at issue," as 
 jVIr. Birt forcibly remarks, " on the very essence of 
 religion." No pendulum, sir, was ever more true to 
 its vocation than is 3Ir. Waterman to the successive im- 
 pulses of chcirity and bigotiy, of candour and uncharit- 
 ableuess. 
 
 Bap. Call it bigotry if you will, Mr. Searche, still 
 you know that Mr. Waterman appeals to the word of 
 God. Turning from every human trihunal, he asks, 
 " What snith the Scripture ?" and assures us he shall 
 make his " appeal unifornily to the infallible standard 
 of truth." Page (5. 
 
 Paed. True. Pilate also, you know, 3Ir. Hastie, 
 asked " What is truth?" hut did not stay for an an- 
 swer. So Mr. Waterman asks, " What sailh the Scrip- 
 ture V and instantly runs away after " presumptive 
 evidence." He |)ronnses " to appeal uniformh/ to the 
 standard of truth," and yet, for one appeal to God's 
 
word, liai^ oiven us twenty appeals to Ituman authors, 
 some of them bishops, cardinals, and indeed the veiy 
 last men -whose authority he would allow a Paedobaptist 
 to mention in the controversy. Why, sir, he has g-jven 
 what he terms direct proofs from Scripture scarcely 
 twenty times, and profane authors upwards of one 
 hundred and forty. 
 
 Bap. But, sir, you know the *' presumptive evi- 
 dence" is combined with " the direct proofs," as Mr. 
 Waterman conceives. Page 7. 
 
 Psed. Well, sir, the conception if not monstrous, 
 is at least perfectly useless. For " direct proofs" and 
 ^'■uniform evidence'* from Scripture can never require 
 presumptive support, and must be rather weakened than 
 streno:thened by such an unhallowed association. Why 
 to support direct Scripture proofs by presumptive evi- 
 dence is like attemjjting- to prop up the universe with 
 a reed. 
 
 Bap. I wish, Mr. Searche, you would only read 
 pa2:e 7 again. There the spirituality of Christianity 
 as a dispensation, and consequently, of all its ordinan- 
 ces, is placed beyond a doul)t, and the absurdity of in- 
 fant baptism set forth in the strongest light by the " for- 
 cible remarks'' of Dr. Cox. Page 7. 
 
 Paed. You should have said, the flippant remaiks 
 of Dr. Cox, for both arijument and reason are set aside by 
 the most flippant assertions. In the former part of this 
 forcible quotation, (page 7) the Doctor, with all the au- 
 thority of doctorship, turns catechist, and proposes a 
 srring of questions, which, however they may be an- 
 swered, cannot in the least degree affect the " direct 
 proofs" furnished by Scripture. And here it seems a 
 little curious that Mr. Waterman, who just before pro- 
 mises to bring Scripture evidence, and asks, '• What 
 saith the Scriptures?" should begin the discussion t)y 
 quoting, not the Scriptures, but Doctor Cox — should 
 begin by telling us w hat Doctor Cox says, or rather what 
 the learned Doctor asks ! Now every one knows that a 
 man may keep noting down in his book question after 
 question, until he had filled a folio, and yet leave the 
 
8 
 
 question in dispute just where he found it. Any child 
 can ask questions, and any one of a larger growth may 
 repeat them, or print them if he likes, still it is not very 
 likely that any difficult point in philosophy or divinity 
 will ever be settled by such juvenile interrogatories. 
 'Tis true that in these '^forcible remarks" the good 
 Doctor has made some assertions, but these are nothing 
 more than misrepresentations, and only calculated to 
 mislead. The Doctor knows, or else he ought not to 
 have written on this subject, that in every instance in 
 which this ordinance is administered by Psedobaptists, 
 whether to infants or adults, it is significant, and sig- 
 nificant of what it is intended to signify in the Chris- 
 tian dispensation. It is true it may not signify every 
 thing that crowds into the fancy of Mr. Waterman or 
 Doctor C. ; but then these gentleman themselves will 
 admit that their imaginations are not th§ New Testa- 
 nient. Both these illustrious Baptists knoiv that infant 
 baptism does " contain a moral obligation," which if 
 attended to will " confer a benefit on the infant recipi- 
 ent." Unless the Doctor and his follow^er can show 
 that an obligation, ratified by a most solemn and sig- 
 nificant sacrament, to train up a child in the nur- 
 ture and admonition of the Lord, when fully dis- 
 charged, " confers no benefit," his declaration is open to 
 the charge of being at the very antipodes to truth. It 
 seems very remarkable, 3Ir. Hastie, that the quotations 
 whith 3Ir. Waterman has so pompously paraded in his 
 book are, almost without exception, the most objec- 
 tionable sentences tnat can be found in the authors to 
 whose authority he bows. Of this we shall have abund- 
 ant evidence in succeeding pages, and the sentence un- 
 der examination is no very unfair specimen. For here 
 we have what he is pleased to term "forcible re- 
 marks," consisting of nothing but interrogatories and 
 misrepresentations. Infant baptism is said to exhibit 
 *' the very reverse of adult immersion, — to be uncon- 
 nected with personal religion, — neither associated with 
 personal obligation, — introductory to personal privi- 
 leges, — agreeable to the spiritual nature of Christi- 
 
anity — nor obligatory on rational and immortal beino^s.'* 
 If Mr. Waterman did not know that these assertions 
 are incorrect, and that the very opposite to all this is the 
 fact, he ought neither to have written books nor preached 
 sermons on a controversy which, as yet, like his coad- 
 jutor Doctor C he does not understand. 
 
 Bap. Say what you will, Mr. Searche, but some of 
 Doctor Cox's forcible remarks are unanswerable. " [ 
 challenge," with Mr. Waterman, " the whole corps 
 of Paedobaptists to reply to such splendid interroga- 
 tories as these, except, as the Doctor himself has re- 
 plied, in the negative. Listen, sir. Infant baptism 
 may be " a momentary indication that the individual 
 receiving it is — What? A disciple? No — A worship- 
 per? No — An heir of glory? No — One buried with 
 Christ, and who rises with him to newness of life ? No, 
 &c." These, sir, are questions asked and answered with 
 a witness ! Page 8. 
 
 Peed. True, sir ; but what if the same witness should 
 turn against the Doctor and his system ! Our dic- 
 tionaries tell us that an " indication" is a mark, sign, 
 kc. And most persons except infidels will agree that 
 God's marks or signs are not deceptive, and surely bap- 
 tism is of God, but if when administered by Baptists it 
 is a mark or sign, it is one on which little reliance 
 can be placed. " A disciple/' in the Baptist accep- 
 tation of the word, means a true Christian, a man born 
 of the Spirit. Any Paedobaptist then may be as Hip- 
 pant as Doctor Cox, or Mr. Waterman, and ask con- 
 cerning Simon Magus, — the false brethren, and others, 
 in apostolic days, — or concerning the numbers that 
 Baptists have dismissed from their churches. Was 
 baptism a mark of Simon, the sorcerer's, being born 
 of the Spirit ^ No — Of his being a worshipper? No— 
 Of his being an heir of glory ? No — Of his being 
 buried with Christ, &c. .' No — for the person who 
 baptized him knew that he might be " the future op- 
 ponent and despiser" of Christ. Page 8. Indeed, Mr. 
 Hastie, you know that the scriptural precedent in the 
 case of Simon exhibits such '• a^larhig contrariety'^ 
 c 
 
10 
 
 to the practice of modern Baptists, that if the apostles 
 lived in these days, and dared to act as they did then, 
 the Baptist Board would call them to order. What 
 modern minister of your denomination would have 
 dared baptize poor Simon for at least six months after 
 his conversion ? So closely, sir, do Baptists follow 
 apostolic precedent ! *' A¥hat saith the Scripture ?" 
 
 Bap. Say what you will, sir, you cannot deny 
 that Christianity is a spiritual economy, and conse- 
 quently all its ordinances must be spiritual." Page 7. 
 
 Pjed. Granted, sir. And this very principle is 
 much more recognised by Peedobaptists than by their 
 opponents. It is what guides them in the sprinkling of 
 infants. They believe that bodily exercise is unpro- 
 fitable, that it is the Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh 
 profiteth nothing. They take the spirit as well as the 
 letter of ordinances. To do otherwise would be 
 Jewish and carnal indeed. But Baptists are continu- 
 ally harping upon the quantity of water and time of its 
 application, although they admit that they cannot 
 make pious Peedobaptists one whit better by dipping 
 them. In fact, by dwelling so incessantly upon this 
 bodily exercise, they become almost carnal — 1 beg 
 pardon, there seems to be little carnality or spiri- 
 tuality in dipping persons, clothes and all, in the 
 water for a mere second. And, it will require more 
 labour than Mr. Waterman or Doctor Cox have be- 
 stowed on this subject, to show that the apostles im- 
 mersed people with their clothes on — or that the mode 
 adopted by Baptists is " significant" of cleansing, or 
 washing, or burying. Surely our persons and clothes 
 would not be very clean if only dipped in the water for 
 a second ! And to suppose that such a momentary 
 plunge bears any resemblance to the solemn carrying 
 of a dead body into a cave or rock, is to allow the 
 imagination to run mad, and to invent analogies where 
 there are none. The apostles, if they did dip at all, 
 would have been astounded to have seen persons come 
 to the ordinance accoutred as is the custom of modern 
 times. If immersion as practised in our day Is correct, 
 
11 
 
 the controversy about the necessary quantity of liquid 
 dwindles into nothing ; for when it is considered how 
 modern candidates are wrapped up in their garments, 
 and the rapidity with which the plunging is performed 
 — the actual square inches of the body touched by the 
 water, in either mode must differ but very little. In* 
 deed, if candidates wear gloves, when immersed, 
 w hich we believe is not objected to, and were all Pa3- 
 dobaptists to pour or even sprinkle rather copiously, 
 the personal application would be as extensive in one 
 mode as in the other. The manner in our day of dres- 
 sing those who are dipped must so effectually exclude 
 their persons from the benelit of the cleansing fluid 
 that, unless we identify person and clothes, modern 
 immersion cannot be called personal baptism, at least if 
 baptism means an application of water to the whole body, 
 or rather an application of the whole body to water. — 
 Baptism by immersion now indicates the dipping of a 
 man's face and hands and clothes in water, yet the 
 very mode is said to accord w^ith the spirituality of the 
 Christian dispensation ! and Peedobaptists are shut out 
 from the Lord's table because they apply so little water 
 to the persons of their converts ! ! 
 
 Bap, Stay, Mr. Searche ; Mr. Waterman, you 
 know, has several letters on the mode which are '* un- 
 answerable," and to which we shall come by and by* 
 But for the present passing that over, you know full 
 well, sir, that baptism is connected with personal re- 
 ligion. The disciples were baptised " for the remission 
 of sins, and Paul was exhorted *' to be baptized to 
 w^ash away his sins." — "It is an emblem of the puriti- 
 cation hi the heart — the sign of the gracious influen- 
 ces of the spirit, which qualify the soul for heaven ; — 
 and as it was invariably administered by the apostles 
 upon a profession of faith, it is connected with the 
 avowal of piety." " Repent, 6cc." said Peter to the 
 multitude. Page 8. 
 
 Psed. Your mention of the last text, sir, reminds 
 me of my own want of consideration in allowing my- 
 self to be misled for so long a period by the interpre- 
 
12 
 
 tations of Baptists. A very little thought will shovr 
 that this text has nothing to do with the dispute, for in- 
 stead of contaihing- "a direct," or even an indirect proof, 
 the aid derived from it by Baptists must be altogether 
 presumptive oy presumptuous. For, first, there is not 
 a word here about infants, yet the controversy is con- 
 cerning infants. The reference in this passage is to the 
 adult baptism of heathens who had never been baptized 
 before. The precedent here furnished is one w^iich, 
 under similar circumstances, Paedobaptists would as 
 rigidly follow as their opponents. Mr. Waterman might 
 with as much propriety have quoted the iirst verse of 
 the tiist chapter of Genesis to demonstrate the error of 
 his brethren as this passage. Xor is it a w^hit better 
 to say, that the text proves " that personal religion is 
 connected with baptism," for unless persons can repent 
 without the Holy Ghost, (a doctrine most abhorred by 
 Mr. W.) these people had not repented when they were 
 baptized. Peter says, " Repent and be baptized every 
 one of you in the name of Jesus Christ /b?' the remis- 
 sion of sins, and ye shall receive the Holy Ghost. 
 For the promise, &c." Here the reception of the 
 Holy Ghost was to follow baptism. And they are bap- 
 tized not because they had put aw^ay their sins, but that 
 they may, through the grace of God, obtain remission 
 of their offences. Now, sir, what analogy is there be- 
 tween the example of the apostles and the practice of 
 modern Baptists ? Peter baptized mentor the remis- 
 sion of sins hereafter ; Baptists baptize persons because 
 their sins are already remitted I The apostles baptized 
 adults to encourage them to expect the baptism of the 
 Holy Ghost, but Baptists w^ont baptize such persons 
 unless they have, in their judgment at \e?i%i, previously 
 received the Spirit of God ! The apostles, as has been 
 customary in the divine economy, gave the ty^e first to 
 lead the people to expect the blessing typified, for to 
 awaken hope and desire, types were instituted, — but 
 Baptists require that people should first have the bles- 
 sing, and the!i they give them the type ! For what 
 purpose they thus invert that divi^ie order, of which 
 
13' 
 
 we have so many direct precedents in the Scriptures, it 
 is tlifficult to divine, unless we charitably conclude with 
 Mr. \Vaterman, that it proceeds from the " tyranny of 
 system." 
 
 Bap. Still, Mr. Searche, you have not proved nor 
 can you prove that the ordinance is not connected with 
 personal reliaion. 
 
 Pied. Nor, sir, do we wish to prove it, we only 
 wish to prove that, in the example quoted, it was not 
 connected with religion, in Mr. Waterman's sense of the 
 terms. He means, or he means nothing, that the per- 
 sons baptized were Christians before they were bap- 
 tized, but the text in question does not furnish the 
 least proof to warrant such an assertion. Look at 
 the persons baptized, they were many of them the 
 murderers of our Lord, for Peter charges them with 
 this crime. They were doubtless the malignant rabble 
 that had been incessant in their clamours against the Savi- 
 our. " Away with him! away with him! Crucify 
 him!" had been their cry, until they saw him nailed 
 to the cross, and even then they mocked and derided 
 him. In this state were they found on the dav. 
 of pentecost at the third hour, or at nine o'clock 
 in the mornino;; yet before evening, in less than nine 
 hours, three thousand of them were baptized. What 
 proof had they given of repentance ? ^^'hat time had 
 they to furnish such a proof ? It is true they appeared 
 gTeatly atfected, and exclaimed, *' What shall we do?" 
 But then the time was a time of excitement, and could 
 a discreet Baptist of these days have been present, he 
 would have suggested to the apostles, " That religious 
 impressions of three or four hours standing could afford 
 but little proof of " personal religion," and that it would 
 be far more prudent, especially considering the outward 
 excitements of the day and the character of the mob, to 
 defer their baptism for at least a month or two," and if 
 the apostles, like modern Baptists, had baptized men 
 because their sins were already remitted, and they were 
 already endowed with the Holy Ghost, they would 
 have followed this prudent counsel. But then these 
 
14 
 
 simple hearted disciples of Christ baptized peisonsybr 
 the remission of siii — that sin in its guilt and influence 
 might be put away — and to accomplish this they ex- 
 horted them to seek the Holy Ghost — they initiated 
 them to the school of Christ by a solemn ordinance — 
 and the element used ty pi tied the blessings they needed 
 and were encouraged to implore. This example then 
 of " baptism connected with personal religion" proves 
 nothing in favor of Mr. Waterman's system, the only 
 evidence it furnishes is on the side of his opponents. 
 Here the ordinance, as is the case with infant baptism, 
 was only prospectively connected with personal reli- 
 gion ; and with this dift'erencc in favor of Piedobapdists, 
 that there is a greater human probability that an infant 
 trained " in the nurture and admonition of the Lord" 
 V, ill be benefited by the use of means than there is that 
 old notorious sinners will " learn to do well." Peter 
 and the Baptists are here utterly at variance, but Peter 
 and the Pjcdobaptists perfectly agree. Peter baptized 
 adults yor the name of Christ. For the same purpose 
 Piedobaptists baptize infants. Peter baptized adults 
 ybr the remission of sins.. For the same purpose Pae- 
 dobaptists baptize infants. Peter baptized adults that 
 they might receive the Holy Ghost. For the same 
 purpose Pc\?dobaptists dedicate infants to Christ — know- 
 ing that '* the promise is to them and their children.^'' 
 
 Bap. Stay, 31r. Searche, the Holy Ghost spoken of 
 by Peter, means the miraculous powers of the Holy 
 Spirit, which persons might receive after they had ex- 
 perienced the converting grace of God. 
 
 Pa^d. But where is the proof of this, Mr. Hastie ? 
 It was said by Peter, "the promise is to you and to 
 your children, and to as many as are afar off, &c." — 
 Mr. Waterman admits that the promise here is the pro- 
 mise of the Holy Spirit ; but are we to conclude that 
 miraculous gifts are j)romised to every creature to whom 
 the gospel is preached ? and that on/i/ miraculous gifts 
 were promised by Peter / and that he baptized people 
 for the remission of sins, and the reception of miracu- 
 lous gifts ? l( this assertion of yours is true, it will 
 
15 
 
 be difficult to prove that the promise in question has 
 ever been veritied since the days of the apostles: at the 
 same time, it is evident that Baptists entirely neg-lect 
 apostolic precedent, for they do not baptize persons, that 
 they may receive the miraculous powers of the Spirit of 
 God, as, according- to this interpretation, the apostles 
 did. 
 
 Bap. My good friend, you know very well that Mr. 
 Waterman has said that baptism is an " emblem of the 
 purification of the heart — the sign of the gracious in- 
 fluences of the Spirit, which qualify the soul for heaven 
 — and it was invariably administered by the apostles 
 upon a profession of faith, and connected with the 
 avowal of piety." Page 8 
 
 Poed. Hold, sir, a little ; these assertions are pre- 
 sumptive with a witness. Not one of the four declara- 
 tions can be proved by any process whatever, and how 
 Mr. Waterman could have temerity to make such a leap 
 in the dark, except by some mental hocus-pocus, un- 
 known to vulgar minds, it is difficult to divine. Let us 
 look at them seriatim ; and 
 
 Firstly. Baptism is an " emblem of the purification 
 of the heart." But how in the world can popping a 
 man or woman clothes and all under the water for half 
 a quarter of a minute, be an emblem of purification, 
 or that the persons are already purified ? For Mr. 
 W^aterman does not mean that it typifies what is to be 
 done, but that it is an emblem of what is done already ! 
 ^ ow it is worthy of remark that this very emblem was 
 furnished by Simon jMaous and thousands of others, 
 whose hearts were never purified. In them it was an 
 emblem of nothing but depravity. True Christian bap- 
 tism then is an emblem of purification, or an emblem of 
 depravity ! W^hat an uncertain emblem ! and it is as 
 unnecessary as it is precarious, for Peedobaptists, on the 
 admission of their opponents, can be as good Christians 
 without it as with it. 
 
 Secondly. Ipse dixit. " It is a sign of the gracious 
 influences of the Spirit, which qualify the soul for hea- 
 ven." Here again Mr. A^^aterman means that it is a 
 
16 
 
 sign of conversion ; and yet, strange to say, it is the 
 last sign on v^liich lie himself would rely, because he 
 knows that thousands have had the sign who never were 
 qualitied for heaven. He also admits that persons may 
 be of equal eminence in piety with any of his im- 
 mersed brethren, although they never exhibit this sign. 
 How, therefore, an emblem and a sign, alike unneces- 
 sary and uncertain, can prove that baptism is an evi- 
 dence of personal religion must require powers far beyond 
 those of any dull Piedobaptist to be able at all to 
 divine. 
 
 Thirdly. " The apostles invariably administered this 
 ordinance on a profession of faith." Here really and 
 truly all is presumptive, or presumptuous. 
 
 There is no mention in the word of God of a profes- 
 sion of faith except in the case of the eunuch, and un- 
 fortunately the whole verse. Acts 8, 37. in which we 
 have this confession, is rejected by the learned, having 
 no better title to a place in the sacred volume than that 
 concernmg the three heavenly witnesses, 1 John, 5, 7. — 
 Now, as no considerate man, whatever might be his 
 private convictions, would produce the latter text to 
 prove the doctrine of the trinity, so it must be equally 
 injudicious and unsatisfactory to rest this broad assertion 
 concerning a profession of faith on a single and a dis- 
 puted passage, seeing none luit the illiterate can be mis- 
 led, and surely Mr. M'aterman will not be so disin- 
 genuous as to take advantage of the ignorance of his 
 readers ; this would be more criminal than for him to 
 be a blind leader of the blind. Besides, Mr. Hastie, 
 were the text allowed to be genuine it could prove no- 
 thing favourable to the principles and practices of mo- 
 dern Baptists. Tor if the eunuch said he believed, he 
 had not been a believer for more than an hour, and what 
 Baptist in our day would immerse a person who has been 
 religious for one hour only ? Such faith might be spu- 
 rious, for the same chapter in which the eunuch is said 
 to believe declares that Simon Magus believed, hut 
 what Baptist now a days would dip a sorcerer who has 
 not vet given twelve hours proof of his conversion ? 
 
17 
 
 Yet, of course, the Baptists follow apostolic precedent 
 even to a particle of water ! This, their boast, reminds 
 one of the old saying, shallow waters make the loud- 
 est noise. Not the least evidence then can be ad- 
 duced that the apostles *' invariably administered this 
 ordinance on a profession of faith ;" nor can one in- 
 ferential proof, which Baptists by no means admit in 
 the case of infants, be advanced to show that they even 
 occasionally demanded such profession. 
 
 Bap. Sir, you wrong Mr. Waterman by insinuat- 
 ino; that he rests his proof on the case of the ' eunuch' he 
 adduced, and with peculiar propriety. Gal. 3, 27. " For 
 as many of yon as have been baptized into Christ have 
 put on Christ." This passage is only explicable upon 
 the principles I have stated— Who are they that '* put 
 on Christ ? Who that wear the badge of his disciples? 
 Who, I enquire, but those that resemble his exalted 
 excellencies ?" ^Yhat, sir! can you conceive that the 
 apostle would have applied the language, " ye have 
 put on Christ," &c. in that general way in which the 
 ordinance is administered by our Psedobaptist brethren? 
 Ah! in what a low and diluted sense, as Dr. Ryland 
 forcibly remarks, must the phrase be used to bear such 
 an interpretation. Was it so from the beginning? No, 
 my friend. The apostle never would have said, ye 
 have put on Christ, of whom he could not also declare, 
 " He that is joined to the Lord is one spirit." Page 9. 
 
 Paed. Oh, Mr. Hastie ! Ah ! my friend Hastie ! 
 Had we Mr. ^A^aterman's vocabulary of inteijections, 
 one might utter a thousand ties upon you, Mr. Hastie, 
 for dragging this quotation into notice. Every Baptist 
 must grieve to read it, because there is not a word of 
 truth in it ; and if the system rests on this kind of pre- 
 sumptive, alias presumptuous proof, then it must fall 
 for ever. Mr. Waterman here contradicts not only the 
 Epistle to the Galatians, but in his zealous pugnacity 
 falls lustily on himself. " The apostle," he says, would 
 not say, ** Ye have put on Christ," to those of whom 
 he could not also declare, " He that is joined to the 
 Lord is one spirit.'' Now, sir, the apostle did say 
 the Galatians were baptized into Christ, and had put 
 
18 
 
 on Christ, and yet the epistle furnished but little evi- 
 dence that they were of " one spirit with the Lord," 
 or that " they resembled his exalted excellencies." 
 He broadly intimates, that " They were bewitched, — 
 that they were disobeying; the truth, — that they were 
 so foolish as to expect perfection from the flesh and from 
 the works of the law — that what they had suffered they 
 had suffered in vain— that they were turned again to weak 
 and beg-ficarly elements — and by observing days and 
 months and times and years, were reduced to a state of 
 bondage — that they accounted the apostle an enemy be- 
 cause he told them the truth — that he travailed again in 
 birth of them until Christ should be found in them — that 
 he stood in doubt of them, and would change his voice to 
 them — he as good as testifies, that they had fallen from 
 grace, and that Christ was become of none effect to 
 them — that they were now biting and devouring one 
 another, &c. &c. ; but in the face of all this, Mr. Wa- 
 terman says that they were *' of one spirit with the 
 Lord" and " resembled his exalted excellencies" — that 
 is, sir, persons who are bewitched — who looked to the 
 observance of days, months, &cc. for justification — and 
 who had not Christ formed in them — '• were of one 
 spirit with the Lord ! and resembled his exalted excel- 
 lencies !" What a splendid example of divine excel- 
 lencies of the spirit of Christ these bewitched, vacil- 
 lating Galatians exhibit ! What infidel but must fall 
 down and adore as he looks at these superlative models 
 of exalted excellence ! Where, sir, is Mr. Waterman's 
 Calvinism and boast of invincible grace, if these poor 
 deluded, half-apostate professors are, or had been of one 
 spirit with the Lord ? He remarks that Doctor Ryland 
 forc}l)Iy remarks ! ! that Paedobaptists lower and dilute 
 the sense of baptism, page 9 ; but their crime is nothing 
 compared with that of Mr. Waterman. They only 
 dilute (?) the water, but he dilutes the grace of God — 
 they only, he being judge, lower the sense of an ordi- 
 nance, but he degrades the whole work of God's Spirit ! 
 for he says that persons bewitched are of one spirit with 
 the Lord and resemble his exalted excellencies ! 
 
 Bap. But, sir, the apostle uttered these words by 
 
19 
 
 inspiration, and Mr. Waterman and the Baptists quote 
 them, and surely we cannot quote a better authority. 
 
 Paed. Stop, sir, instead of sayino- you quote, you 
 should say that some of your folks, who discuss 
 this subject, jumble tog-ether passages of Scripture 
 that have no connexion. At this rate you may 
 make the Scriptures say anything. The g^ospel says, 
 *' Judas hang-ed himself," and the gospel says, " Go, 
 and do likewise ;" but the man ought to be sent 
 to St. Luke's, who should connect these passages to- 
 g-ether, that he might sanction suicide. In the para- 
 firraph in question, Mr. Waterman borrows a general 
 declaration from Corinthians, and, coupling it with a 
 passage in Galatians, makes the apostle sav what "he 
 never did, and never could have intended. The quota- 
 tions also show that Amator Veritatis does not always 
 come to veracious conclusions. " The apostles," he 
 says, " never would have said * Ye have put on Christ' 
 to those of whom he could not have said, He that is 
 joined to the Lord is of one spirit ;" yet the apostle did 
 say that the Galatians had put on Christ, though he 
 never did and never could affirm that they were of ' one 
 spirit with the Lord,' unless persons who are bewitched 
 are of one spirit with Christ. What, sir, can the Bap- 
 tists say for Mr. Waterman's Amor Veritatis, after 
 reading this sentence? 
 
 Bap. Sir, if you impugn this very rational way of 
 expounding Scripture by Scripture, you ought to give 
 a more consistent interpretation to the word. 
 
 Peed. In a minute, Mr. Hastie. The apostles bap- 
 tized adults for the very same reason that Psedobaptists 
 baptize infants. The apostles baptized persons to make 
 them disciples, or to introduce them solemnly to the 
 school of Christ, and for the same purpose infants are 
 baptized. Baptists immerse persons because they are 
 disciples, but the apostles baptized men that they might 
 become disciples. And with this interpretation agree 
 all the texts that refer to the ordinance. In primitive 
 days, persons were baptized /or repentance — for the re- 
 mission of sins— /or the name of the Father, the Son, 
 
20 
 
 and the Holy Ghost— ^or the name of the Lord Jesus — 
 for the death of Christ ; and, in the text in question, 
 the Galatians had been baptized into, or, for Christ ; in 
 each instance the same proposition is used, and the se- 
 veral passages prove that baptism was intended to in- 
 troduce persons, whether adults or infants, in the most 
 solemn manner, to the school of Christ. Consequently 
 the Galatians, by submitting- to this ordinance, had ac- 
 knowledged Christ as their Teacher or Rabbi — in their 
 baptisms had assumed his name, for from that time they 
 were called Christians ; and in this manner, and in this 
 only, as far as the ordinance was concerned, had put on 
 Christ. 
 
 Bap. Sir, you know very well that many who are 
 baptized in infancy, when they grow up *' ridicule his 
 spirit, contemn his religion, despise his service, and 
 neglect his gospel, and how can it be said of such that 
 they have put on Christ ?" Page 9. 
 
 Paed. And, sir, you know what the Galatian profes- 
 sors were. What persons many were to whom Paul fre- 
 quently alludes in his epistles, and what many have be- 
 come who have been baptized in modern days; *' they 
 have ridiculed his spirit, contemned his religion, despised 
 his service, and neglected his gospel ;" this doubtless 
 many of the Galatians did, how then could it be said 
 of such that they had put on Christ ? 
 
 Bap. Alas ! sir, we admit that we sometimes baptize 
 hypocrites, and we know the apostles did the same. 
 
 Psed. But of course you will not admit that there 
 were any hypocrites that had been baptized among the 
 Galatians. 
 
 Bap. Of course, Mr. Searche, if any of the Galatians 
 had not Christ formed in them,— or were bewitched, — 
 or disobeyed the truth, — or sought after justification by 
 works, — they were nothing better than hypocrites. 
 
 Paed. Yet, sir, Paul declares that they had " put on 
 Christ," and Mr. Waterman asserts, that this expression 
 meant that they were of one spirit with the Lord," and 
 resembled (his exalted"' excellencies ;" according to this 
 process of " presumptive proof," hjpocriles are of one 
 
21 
 
 spirit with the Lord, ajid resemble his ejcalted excel- 
 lencies ! 
 
 Bap. Sir, say what you will, you know that *' our 
 dissenting brethren baptize their infants, knowing that 
 they are not the subjects of grace." Page 9. 
 
 Paed. And, sir, you know that this assertion is un- 
 true, for none beside an omniscient God, or those to 
 whom he may communicate such supernatural know- 
 ledge, can ever know that an infant is not the subject 
 of divine gxace. Why, sir, the Baptists do not know, 
 unless they are omniscient, that the adults they baptize 
 are the subjects of divine grace. Mr. Waterman would 
 tremble to make a solemn asseveration on this point, 
 concerning any adult that he has converted or prose- 
 lyted, and yet he declares that the Pgedobaptists *' knoiv 
 that their infants are not the subjects of gTace." If 
 they do know this, then they have supernatural gifts, 
 equal, if not surpassing, those of prophecy or of mira- 
 cles, and far beyond any gift possessed by the Baptists ; 
 for to be able to detect the want of grace in an infant 
 must require nothing less than an immediate and con- 
 stant communication from God; and if thus endowed, 
 —for, if they are not, what shall we say of Amator's 
 Amor Veritatis ? — surely Mr. Waterman might pause, 
 before he writes or preaches against men to whom God 
 has delegated the remarkable faculty of scrutinizing an 
 infant's heart. The very possession of such an unheard 
 of gift would go far towards proving that the men who 
 enjoy it are more than others guided by immediate in- 
 spiration from heaven, and are therefore right in the 
 baptism of infants. But if they are not thus endued, 
 and few beside Mr. Waterman, or Amator Veritatis ! 
 would have temerity enough to make such an assertion, 
 then what shall be said for the veracity of a '* Lover of 
 Truth?" — or the guidance furnished by his "unanswer- 
 able" pamphlet — or the "proofs and precedents and 
 principles," laid down in this cheap '' desideratum'" for 
 Baptists— or the bold flourish of page 43, magna est 
 veritatis, et proevalebit? 
 
 Bap. Well, sir, you are perfectly aware that "bap- 
 
tism is connected with personal obligation/' An act 
 to incur responsibility, and ensure good, must be a dis- 
 tinct arid personal thing-. Remove free agency and the 
 subject becomes passive, so that all value of conduct is 
 entirely destroyed, for there is neither guilt contrat- 
 ed nor praise merited when the person has no choice. 
 Our Psedobaptlst brethren, in administering baptism to 
 infants, destroy^Ve^' agenci/, and consequently remove all 
 ob/ip:ation so far as arises from that observance." P. 10. 
 Psed. Worse and worse, 3Ir. Hastie. Here you have 
 nothing but unfounded assumption and presumptuous 
 proof. Will Mr. Waterman assert, that in order to put 
 a human being under a personal oblisratian, it is neces- 
 sary that he should himself be active in receiving or 
 participating the benefit conferred '^ Why, sir, this 
 islayina the axe at the very root of all obligation. Mr. 
 Waterman only charges the P?edobaptists with annul- 
 ling the obligation arising from baptism ; but, to 
 substantiate this accusation, he annihilates, with one 
 fell swoop, the most powerful reasons of moral or 
 Christian duty. It is generally admitted that our 
 creation imposes on us an obligation to love and 
 serve our Creator, yet we suppose Mr. Waterman 
 will admit that we were rather passive than active in 
 our creation ; and he will scarcely say that our being 
 passive in our creation destroyed all free agency. In 
 the greater part of what belongs to the functions of 
 life we are morally inactive, yet will he say that be- 
 cause, in our great Preserver ** we live and move and 
 have our being," therefore all free agency and all per- 
 sonal obligation are destroyed .''' In the great sacrifice 
 of Christ we were passive, — in the covenant of redemp- 
 tion we were passive, — in the work of the Spirit quick- 
 ening us from the death of sin, — in the resurrection of 
 the dead, — God is the only agent, and man is perfectly 
 passive ; yet, will he say that the covenant of grace — 
 the death of Christ — the work of the Spirit — and the 
 resurrection of the dead— involve wo personal obligation, 
 but rather destroy all free agency ? Again, infants are 
 passive under all the benefit? they receive from their 
 
23 
 
 parents, yet what should we gay of the " principles" 
 of the Diati who would declare that the unconciousness 
 of the babe destroys free agency and all personal obli- 
 gation to his parents ? In circumcision we have a case 
 exactly parallel to baptism. Paul tells us that " he 
 who was circumcised was a debtor to keep the whole 
 law ;" consequently, unless the apostle made a mistake, 
 all who were circumcised were under a pergonal oblig-a- 
 tion ; yet unconcious passive babes, at eight davs old, 
 were put under this personal obligation^ and all this 
 was done without destroying their free agency. To 
 say then, sir, that you cannot put a babe under an obli- 
 gation because it is unconscious or passive, and that to 
 do so would destroy y?ve agency^ proves that the asser- 
 ter neither understands civil, moral, nor evangelical 
 obligation. Isaac's circumcision put him under a per- 
 sonal obligation ; yet, according to Mr. Waterman, it 
 destroyed his free agency ! Poor Jacob and Joseph, 
 and most of the patriarchs, prophets, and apostles, yea, 
 our blessed Lord himself, all, all on Mr. Waterman's prin- 
 ciples, lost their /"ree agency^ for all were circumcised 
 when eight days old, and were put under personal obli- 
 gations at an age when they were perfectly unconscious 
 of what was being done ! But if, notwithstandiuii: the 
 *' presumptive" declaration of Mr. Waterman, the pa- 
 triarchs did not lose theiryV^^ agemy^ by being circum- 
 cised at eight days old, and by being then made debtors 
 to the whole law— if creation, preservation, and re- 
 demption, though in all that coiistitutes their most im- 
 portant blessings, and most weighty obligations, we 
 were perfectly passive — put us under jaer^o^i^^/ obliga- 
 tions without destroying our free asency—then the 
 baptism of infants may impose a personal obligation on 
 them, and yet not destroy their free agency. It is truly 
 astonishing, Mr, Hastie, that you, or any sen^ible B;ip- 
 tisl, should have wished to draw attention to page the 
 10th of " Baptism Discussed" — a paoe as unintcbijrible 
 to the illiterate as it is absurd in the ju'lgmtnt of those 
 who can at all guess at its meaning ; and yet, sir, the 
 book, that contains it is a *' cheap desideratum for 
 Baptists." 
 
24 
 
 Bap. But, sir, Mr. Waterman in this declaration 
 has been misled by Paedobaptists themselves. You 
 know that in page 10th he has quoted 3Ir. Burdcr, and 
 his inference is only a fair deduction from Mr. Burder's 
 assertion. 
 
 Paed. Pray, Mr. Hastie, read the passage ag-ain ; 
 and instead of calling the inference fair, you must admit 
 that a more unjust conclusion was never deduced from 
 a premise. It has not even the acuteness of sophistry 
 to make it plausible. In- the quotation from Dr. Bur- 
 der, there is not a word about '■'free agency or per- 
 sonal obligation." Dr. B. is speaking of relative obli- 
 gation, and Mr. Waterman of personal obligation, and 
 surely no one will say that the terms personal and rela- 
 tive are mere synonyms ; yet if they are not, the quota- 
 tion from Dr. B. if intended as a proof, or illustration, 
 only serves as a climax to other absurdities of the 
 page in question. But, Mr. Hastie, is it not rather strange 
 that a book which is said to contain " Scripture princi- 
 ples, precepts, and precedents," should have almost 
 every paragraph devoted to the patronage of some hu- 
 man authority? 
 
 Bap. Sir, Mr. Waterman has not neglected scrip- 
 tural proof: this very page to which you so much ob- 
 ject, concludes with a quotation from the Acts of the 
 Apostles : " If thou believest with all thy heart, thou 
 mayest be baptized." 
 
 Paed. But surely, sir, this text is not adduced to 
 prove that "infant baptism destroys free agency;" the 
 passage says nothing about free agency, or even infant 
 baptism; it refers to the baptism of an adult, concern- 
 ing which, in such a case^as that of the eunuch, there 
 is not the least difference of opinion between Baptists 
 and those they oppose. To quote this text for such a 
 purpose was less apropos than to quote Dr. Burder. 
 
 Bap. Mr. Searche, you are still wrong. The text 
 is quoted to show the "' tinifonn"' practice of the apos- 
 tles. The requirement was iiniformly made by them 
 of the candidates for baptism—" If thou believest, 
 thou mayest be baptized." Page 10. 
 
25 
 
 Pietl. This, sir, is the only passage in the New 
 Testament that at all intimates that the apostles in any 
 case adopted such an enquiry ; yet this very text is 
 liiven up by scholars as an interpolation, consecpiently 
 Mr. A)'aterman has not a single '* direct proof" for 
 what he declares to have been the " uniform' practice 
 of the apostles ! Here, sir, is assumption, unfounded 
 assumption, with a witness ! It is a query whether a 
 ])assage of equal temerity was ever printed ! Not a 
 document, sacred or profane, can be adduced to prove 
 its veracity ! Without the least sanction from human 
 or divine records, Mr. Waterman, with all the autho- 
 rity of an oracle, positively asserts what was the *' uni- 
 form''' custom of the apostles ! The only plea that 
 can be urged for such unusual, such unwarranted rash- 
 ness, is, that the good man's mind was under ** the 
 tyranny of system." But, sir, should any deny that 
 the text in question is an interpolation, still the proof 
 gained from it will never demonstrate what was the 
 '• uniform"' practice of the apostles. For in the first 
 place it refers to the adult baptism of a man just em- 
 bracing Christianity, and who had never been baptized 
 before — it exhibits a practice concerning which there 
 is no controversy. But what has this to do with in- 
 fant baptism ? And be it remembered, infant baptism 
 alone is the subject of dispute. To say, the apoi»tles 
 baptized heathen adults who expressed a wish to be 
 disciples of Christ — and therefore, they did not bap- 
 tize infants ! is one of the most incoherent conclusions 
 that was ever drawn from a premise. Tis true such a 
 system of reasoning is exceedingly convenient, because 
 the person who adopts it will never be in want of ar- 
 guments, for renouncing all relations between premise 
 and conclusion, he may prove whatever he likes from 
 wlratevpr he likes — the spots on the sun, the mountauis 
 ill the moon, the satellites of Jupiter, the birds in the 
 air, or the tish in the sea, would be just as good evi- 
 dence to him that infant baptism is unscriptural as any 
 mathematical demonstration that could be produced, 
 connection between premise and inference being always 
 E 
 
2G 
 
 a matter of perfect indifference. The only disadvant- 
 age of such a process of proof would be, that it might 
 be adopted by both parties, and what in the mouth of 
 a Baptist would demonstrate infant baptism to be 
 wrong, in the mouth of a Poedobaptist would demon- 
 strate its apostolic origin, it being just as conclusive 
 arguing to affirm, " The apostles baptized adults, 
 therefore they did baptize infants !" as to say, " They 
 baptized adults, therefore they did not baptize infants!" 
 Then, secondly, sir, as we have before remarked, what 
 analogy is there between the baptism of the eunuch 
 about one hour after his conversion and the practice 
 of modern Baptists ? What if Philip did ask the 
 eunuch " Whether or not he believed with all his 
 heart," and the stranger answered in the affirmative, 
 still there was nothing but the bare assertion of the 
 Ethiopian to prove the sincerity of his conversion. If 
 our Lord's criterion is a true one, *' By their fruits ye 
 shall know them," then was it impossible, from the 
 short period of his conversion, for him to exemplify 
 the Christian character — to show that he was '* joined 
 to the Lord and of one spirit with him" — or, that he 
 *' resembled his exalted excellencies." The only rea- 
 son that can be given for his early baptism is the one 
 furnished in the Scriptures, and adduced to sanction 
 infant baptism. He was baptized /or the name of the 
 Father, Son, and Holy Ghost — for repentance — -for 
 remission of sins — for the death of Christ — or in other 
 words he was solemnly introduced to the school of 
 Christ, that he might learn and practice the truths of 
 the gospel. " Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing 
 (or the report that faith receives) is from the word of 
 God." Never then, sir, was there a more illogical in- 
 ference than that which Mr. Waterman draws from the 
 text in question. Here we have the baptism of an 
 adult brought to disprove the baptism of infants — 
 Here we have 07ie solitary example adduced to demon- 
 strate a uniform practice — Here too is a doubtful pre- 
 cedent made the foundation of a confident affirmation !! 
 Bap. Sir, you may rest assured, whatever you 
 
27 
 
 may say to the contrary, that it will require stronger 
 arguments than you, Mr. Searche, can produce to di- 
 vert our attention from the case of the eunuch. Be- 
 cause, sir, if in the particular instance of the Ethi- 
 opian a confession of faith was demanded, it would 
 go very far towards proving that such was the general 
 and uniform practice of the apostles. 
 
 Paed. Not in the least, sir. For granted that it was 
 said to every adult before he submitted to the ordinance 
 " If thou believest thou mayest be baptized," and that 
 he answered in the affirmative, still nothing is gained, 
 because the whole gist of the reasoning rests on the as- 
 sumption that if a heathen, after an hours conversation 
 on the subject of Christianity, should profess himself 
 a believer in Christ, this brief confession would be 
 sufficient to demonstrate that he was of " one spirit 
 with the Lord," and '* resembled his exalted excel- 
 lencies." The argument stands thus : The eunuch af- 
 ter a short conversation with Philip said, " I believe 
 that Jesus Christ is the Son of God," therefore the 
 eunuch was of " one spirit with the Lord," and '' re- 
 sembled his exalted excellencies!" Simon Magus, 
 after hearing Philip preach, said, " I believe that 
 Jesus is the Son of God," therefore, Simon Magus 
 *' was of one spirit with the Lord, and resembled his 
 exalted excellencies !" According to this process of rea- 
 soning, Demas and the incestuous Corinthian, and all 
 the other professors, whose conduct so deeply pained 
 the apostle, were all *' joined to the Lord, and resem- 
 bled his exalted excellencies!" But, sir, to put the 
 matter in a plainer light, let us suppose that at a meet- 
 ing of the Baptist association, when the brethren give 
 in an account of their usefulness, the President and Mr. 
 Waterman should hold the foUowin": dialooue :— 
 
 President. Well, brother Waterman, perhaps you 
 will favour us with some account of your success since 
 we last assembled together. 
 
 Mr. Waterman. With gratitude, sir, I must ac- 
 knowledge that my ministry has of late been attended 
 with the most interesting results, since the last meeting 
 at . 1 liave baptized lifty members. 
 
28 
 
 President. And had you good evidence, brother, 
 that all were savingly converted by the gospel ? 
 
 Mr. W. Most assuredly, sir ; 1 felt no doubt con- 
 cerning one of them. You know, sir, we never bap- 
 tize without such evidence. We follow apostolical 
 precedent ; and, doing this, have the fullest assurance 
 that our members are of " one spirit with the Lord, and 
 resemble his exalted excellencies." 
 
 Pres. I know you will excuse me, brother "Water- 
 man, if I ask whether you knew any thing of this re- 
 markable revival in your congregation when we met 
 six months ago ? 
 
 Mr. W. Six months ago, sir ! I did not know any 
 thing of it last sabbath ! 
 
 Pres. Last sabbath, sir ! I am astonished ! You 
 don't say that you have converted and baptized fifty 
 persons of whose religion you had no idea last sab- 
 bath ? 
 
 Mr. W. Sir, I humbly affirm that such is the case. 
 
 Pres. Then, sir, of course they were persons whose 
 condition was hopeful before this period r 
 
 Mr. W. Not in the least degree, sir. I may say 
 they were the vilest of the vile. 
 
 Pres. Pray, sir, inform myself and your brethren 
 present of the particulars of this very remarkable oc- 
 currence, of which we have never heard any thing si- 
 milar in the whole history of our denomination ; for you 
 know, sir, we are most particular and cautious in ad- 
 mitting members. This is the glory of our churches. 
 What you have done, sir, carries us hack to apostoli- 
 cal days. 
 
 Mr. W. AVell, my friend, I adopt " Scripture 
 principles, precepts, and precedents," and you know I 
 frequently preach out of doors. Last Tuesday, sir, 
 I went to a neighbourhood whose inhabitants were per- 
 fect heathens, — they were as ignorant of the gospel as 
 savages, — were sunk in the most glaring criminality,- — 
 one man among them was a thorough Simon Magus, — 
 to them, sir, I preached Christ. 
 
 Pres. But you don't mean to say that you have 
 baptized such persons since last Sunday ? 
 
29 
 
 Mr. ^^y . Yes, sir, i do ; (or 1 iiad scripturul tvi- 
 flence that they were joined to ^he Lord, which I can 
 at once manifest. As said ahead}', sir, I preached — 
 and the people were deeply interested. i exhorted 
 them to repent and be l)aptized, and out of the con- 
 gregation not less than lifty expressed a wish to par- 
 take at once of that ordinance, among whom was this 
 very sorcerer. ^Vell, sir, I took them all, and that 
 ** veri/ hour'' baptized them. 
 
 Pres. But, sir, how did vou get water ? 
 
 Mr. W. I'here was a pool at hand. 
 
 Pres. But how in the world did they get a change 
 of raiment ? 
 
 Mr. W. I made no enquiry about that, but im- 
 mersed them that " veri/ hour.'" 
 
 Pres. But, sir, did you not demand of them a pro- 
 fession of faith ? 
 
 Mr. W. Of course, sir. I proposed to every one 
 of them the question which Piiiiip proposed to the 
 eunuch, and every one answered in the afMrmative ; 
 and who was I, sir, that I should gainsay what they 
 said ? In the case of the old fortuneteller, who, as 1 
 said before, resembled Simon Magus, for he corrupted 
 the whole neighbourhood, 1 was very particular. — 
 Again and again I asked. If he believed with all his 
 heart ? and as often he assured me that he did. You 
 see then, sir, I went even farther than the apostles in 
 the caution I used. 
 
 Pres. Be that as it may, brother Waterman, I fear 
 your injudicious haste v/ill bring no small reproach 
 upon our denomination. You know we have long 
 made it our glory that we only admit decidedly pious 
 persons to this ordinance, and here you have baptized 
 most notoriously vile characters, who seem never to 
 have known anything of religion until they heard you 
 preach. Why you had better have baptized infants 
 brother, than those people. 
 
 Mr. W. My conscience is clear, sir, I have fol- 
 lowed " apostolic precedent." 
 
 Pres. But, sir, you have understanding, and are to 
 use caution in following any example. 
 
30 
 
 Mr. W. But, Mr. President, if we may differ 
 
 from the apostles as to the subject of baptism, may not 
 the Paedobaptists do the same ? From this neglect of 
 Scripture " principles, precepts and precedents," on 
 our part, they will take similar licence both as to the 
 mode and subjects of baptism. 
 
 Pres. Pray, brother Waterman, do favour myself 
 and the brethren present with the reason that induced 
 you to differ so widely from our general practice. 
 
 Mr. W. Well, my friends, you all know that I have 
 paid particular attention to this subject. I have searched 
 the Scriptures, and have read the works pubHshed both 
 by our denomination and by our opponents. From all 
 this 1 perceived that a '* cheap publication was a desi- 
 deratum^''' and I published two pamphlets on the sub- 
 ject, which have been widely circulated, but never " an- 
 swercd.^^ The title page states, that we have " Scrip- 
 ture principles, precepts, and precedents," for our pe- 
 culiar practice. I laid great stress upon the case of the 
 eunuch, who, as you know, was baptized after hearing 
 one discourse from Philip. You also remember that the 
 same chapter tells us that Simon Magus was baptized 
 because he believed, although at the same time he was 
 in the gall of bitterness. And I need not tell you, sir, 
 that the soldiers, publicans, &c. whom John plunged 
 into much water, were so ignorant, that all, after tliey 
 had been admitted to the ordinance, asked, " What 
 must we do?" Indeed, sir, the three thousand were 
 baptized " the same day," and the jailor, *' the sa7ne 
 hour,'" that he first heard the gospel. Now, sir, as I 
 printed these precedents, I was obliged, inconsistency, 
 to follow them. These then, sir, are my reasons for 
 acting as I have done. 
 
 I need not pursue this subject further, Mr. Hastie, 
 nor stay to guess at what must have been the embarrass- 
 ment felt by all the brethren present, there being no 
 alternative left but to concede either that Mr. Waterman 
 had acted properly with his fifty converts, or that Bap- 
 tists, after all their vaunting, do, more than any other 
 denomination, neglect apostolical " precedent." The 
 
31 
 
 very example of tlie eunuch, which they urge with such 
 apparent confidence, is one, which if any man in our 
 day followed as a general rule, they would deem him 
 mad, and expel him from the pale of their community. 
 Yet, forsooth, they alone are the only apostolical 
 Christians ! 
 
 Bap. Sir, " The apostles urged upon those who had 
 heen baptized the claims of holiness, to which they 
 had voluntarily submitted. " Know ye not," was the 
 address of Paul to the Christians at Rome, " that so 
 many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were 
 baptized into his death. Therefore we are buried with 
 him by baptism into death, that like as Christ was 
 raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so 
 we also should walk in newness of life." There are, 
 you perceive, sir, in our being baptized, additional ob- 
 ligations incurred to consecrate ourselves to God, and 
 to walk as children of the light." Page 11. 
 
 Peed. Now, Mr. Hastie, you are talking scripturallj, 
 though unfortunately for the cause you advocate ; every 
 sentence you have uttered is diametrically opposed to 
 the practice of your denomination. " The apostles," 
 you say, " urged upon those who had been baptized the 
 claims of holiness," &c. But this, sir, does not prove 
 that they did so before they were baptized. There was 
 in most cases little time for this. The jailor was bap- 
 tized the same hour, and so he could have had but little 
 time beforehand to have these claims urged upon him. 
 You may talk as much as you will, sir, about what fol- 
 lows baptism, and Paedobaptists will go hand in hand 
 with you ; still you must be aware that this is nothing 
 to the point, because the matter in dispute is not con- 
 cerning what/b//oM'5, but what precedes the ordinance. 
 Besides, the discussion refers solely to infant baptism; 
 and you, sir, with all your might and main, keep run- 
 ning away from the very point in question, and talking 
 about nothing but adult baptism; and, Mr. Hastie, vou 
 will surely admit, that if this exhortation is to follow 
 the ordinance, then, in due time, it will be just as easy 
 to urge upon children, who have been baptized, " the 
 
32 
 
 claims of holiness," as upon arlult persons ; and as 
 far iis insliunieijt;ility is concerned, we should have 
 more hope of succeeding' with a child whose rea- 
 son just dawns than with such a hardened sinner 
 as Simon Magus, so that your remarks actually fa- 
 vour the system you wish to overturn. Equally unfor- 
 tunate for your own cause, but favourable to your 
 opponents, is your quotation from Romans. We pre- 
 sume, sir, that the Christians at Rome had been bap- 
 tized for a considerable period, when Paul said to them 
 " Know ye not that as many of us as have been bap- 
 tized into Christ," cVc. ; but notiiing in this passage is 
 said conceraiug what the Romans were before ihty were 
 baptized, yet the question hinges on that very point. 
 If this text, or any other in the New 'J'estament, would 
 only prove that the Romans underwent the discipline of 
 one nmnth, or even of one week, previously to their 
 being baptized, why then it would woik wonders for 
 your cause. Bnt, alas ! it proves nothing of the kind ; 
 it only says that they had been baptized into, or, J'or 
 Christ, and consequently for his death, and, bi/, or 
 f/n'oiiiih that baptism for death they had been buried 
 with him. There is therefore nothing in the former 
 part of the text that opposes the belief that they had 
 been baptized, like John's soldiers and publicans, be- 
 fore they uuilerstood w hat holiness or repentance meant, 
 and prohahly, l.ke titose sinners, had been introduced 
 by this solemn ordinance to Christ's school, that they 
 might be disciples or sch.)lars of the Son of God. They 
 were baptized /'or ('hrist, in the same manner as others 
 are said to have been baptized *'' for repentance." The 
 latter part of the text proves nothing, but that this so- 
 lemn ordinance had been made a blessing to them. It says 
 therefore, bi/ that. hii\)\.h\u for death we are buried with 
 him, kc. Here, sir, is an allusion \oresu/ts\\\uchfoUotvcd 
 baptism, and not a single expression about repentance, 
 believing, or any thing else that preceded the ordi- 
 nance. Why, sir, there is not a word in the sentence 
 but what might be said to a pious person who was bap- 
 tized when eight days old, with just as nmch propriety as 
 toa man who was foi ty before he parlook of the ordinaiice. 
 
33 
 
 Bap. I see, Mr. Searche, that you are determined to 
 carry your point by any, or by all means. Here you 
 misquote the words of the text. The passage in our 
 version reads, " baptized into Christ — and iiito his 
 death," but you say, ''for Christ — and/br his death" — 
 and auain, our excellent version reads, " Therefore we 
 are buriedwith him bi/ baptism into death," butyou alter 
 the passage, by quoting it thus, '* Therefore, bi/ that 
 baptism /or death we are buried with him." Wliat 
 an unwarrantable liberty with God's word ! I feel a 
 holy indignation at such presumption. 
 
 Paed. Don't be in the least degree alarmed, Mr. Hastie. 
 I trust I feel as great a reverence as yourself for every 
 word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God, nor is 
 my deference for the inspired records in the least degree 
 impeached by my adhering closely to the very Words of 
 the sacred original. If, sir, you will ask Mr. Water- 
 man, or apply to any scholar, he will tell you that the 
 Greek preposition, eis^ rendered in the text in question 
 by the English word into, originally means motion to a 
 place, clc. (being derived from the verb, po,eimi, to go,) 
 and hence often expresses the end towards which 
 any action or purpose is directed, and consequently, in 
 many sentences is translated by the word ^or, or, unto, 
 as its proper equivalents in our language. It is thus used 
 almost perpetually in connexion with the ordinance of 
 baptism. Persons are baptized unto, or for, the name 
 of the Father, the Son, kc. for the name of Christ, 
 for repentance, for the remission of sins, kc. Now, 
 no one would say that the people were baptized into re- 
 pentance, into the remission of sins ! into Moses ! yet 
 the same preposition is used in each of these texts. Of 
 course, the context and the general analogy of faith 
 must guide us in all these passages, and we are most 
 happy to bring the text in question to these tests ; and 
 feel j)ersna(led, that even Mr. Waterman will give up 
 this quotation, or renounce his doctrinal creed. If the 
 Romans were, by partaking of this ordinance, baj)tized 
 into Christ, then were they not in Chrht previous I (/ to 
 baptism, for if they were, they could not now be 
 f 
 
34 
 
 baptized into him ; but to say that a rite, admitted by 
 Baptists to be nonessential to salvation, has sufficient 
 efficacy to unite us to Christ, is to assert all that is con- 
 tained in the dogma of baptismal regeneration. Ac- 
 cording to this opinion, the Romans were not in Christ 
 before they were baptized, but they were in Christ after 
 their baptism, for they were baptized into him ! What 
 a sudden change ! Then if they were not in Christ be- 
 fore their baptism, they were not believers previously 
 to partaking of the rite, for all true believers are united 
 to Christ by their faith ; and if the Romans were not 
 believers before their baptism, it follows that the apos- 
 tles baptized unbelievers ; and if the apostles baptized 
 unbelieving adults, however heathenish, and made them 
 believers and united them to Christ by the water of bap- 
 tism, then surely we may baptize little infants /br the 
 Lord Jesus Christ, binding ourselves and the whole 
 church by this solemn rite to use all the means in our 
 power to make them his disciples, and conform them 
 to his death and resurrection. After all, sir, there is 
 less of heterodoxy in our system than in yours. No- 
 thing then is more evident than that to give consist- 
 ency to this text, we must render the preposition, eis, 
 by the terms iinto, or, for ; and doing so, we not 
 only give a rational exposition to this passage, but ex- 
 plain every apostolical precedent in reference to this or- 
 dinance. They baptized Simon Magus /or Christ, for 
 repentance. For the same purpose they baptized De- 
 mas, and all the bewitched Galatians. The apostles 
 knew that the school of Christ was the best place for 
 magicians, worldlings, and indeed for all descriptions 
 of characters. No head too dull, no will too stub- 
 born, for the discipline of Christ. Christ's school 
 was the fittest place in all the world for Simon Magus 
 and Judas Iscariot. For *' Who teacheth like the Re- 
 deemer r" These above all men in the universe stood 
 in need of the Holy Spirit — of repentance — and the re- 
 mission of sins. The deeper their crimes and the de- 
 pravity of their hearts the more important was it that 
 they should be most solemnly introduced to the only dis- 
 
35 
 
 cipline upon earth that was likely to benefit them. 
 They more than any men needed to be baptized /or 
 Christ and for his death ; therefore the apostles at- 
 tempted to disciple them, and for the same reason, only 
 with a greater human probability of success, we bap- 
 tize infants. 
 
 As for the transposition of which you complain, the 
 only difference between the one adopted and the English 
 version is, that this little change places the text in a 
 stronger light ; and, being more consonant to the idiom 
 of our language, is more readily understood by all. No 
 Baptist, sir, would say that we are buried into death 
 by baptism, because this would suppose that we either 
 are buried alive, or buried into death after we are dead ! 
 To suppose that inspired men used such unintelligible 
 and gross metaphors as these, is worse than to imagine 
 that popping a person, clothes and all, under the water 
 for half a quarter of a minute, is like solemnly carrying 
 a dead body into^ or up to a cave ! If, then, " bury- 
 ing with Christ into death" is untenable, the only al- 
 ternative is to adopt the sense we have given to the pas- 
 sage, and which the slight transposition employed re- 
 lieves from all obscurity. " Therefore, hy that bap- 
 tism/br death we are buried with Christ." The apostle's 
 meaning is plain. We were baptized for Christ — for spi- 
 ritual instruction and mortification, '* that the body of sin 
 might be destroyed" — (the whole scope of the chapter 
 as well as almost every verse shows that the apostle 
 refers to the mortification of sin,) — and our baptism has 
 not been in vain ; '* God be thanked ye have obeyed 
 the form of doctrine that has been delivered unto you.'' 
 You need not be alarmed, sir, at this translation, be- 
 cause Mr. Waterman will tell you that in this text the 
 aorist is used, which tense very frequently signifies " a 
 perfect action in a past and continued time, the time 
 being uncertain and undefined." Besides the verb, 
 *■ Ye have obeyed," is the aorist tense in the sacred 
 original ; and if the translators were at liberty, in the 
 same verse, to render one aorist or indefinite tense by the 
 perfect, surely we may use the same freedom with the 
 
3C 
 
 other. You ought also* sir, to notice, that the apostle 
 Paul ranks himself with the Romans in this allusion to 
 baptism. He uses the first personal pronoun, and says, 
 '* As many of ws"— " IVe were baptized"—** IVe were 
 buried." Now by comparing Acts the 9th with the 
 first chapter of Galatians, we discover that the apostle 
 himself was baptized before he understood the gospel. 
 8t. Paul therefore was baptized /or Christ and /or his 
 death, and by means of that baptism J'or death — bi/ 
 means of his being thus solemnly introduced to the dis- 
 cipline of the Son of God, he was now cruciiied to the 
 world and the world was crucified to him — he was now 
 buried with Christ, there being no more friendly inter- 
 course between him and the ungodly maxims and prin- 
 ciples of the world than there is between living men 
 and the lifeless bodies that are laid in the sepulchre, yet 
 it was not the act of baptism produced this effect. 
 Consequently, sir, you must admit that there is no- 
 thing in the passage in question which might not be 
 said to a person who was baptized in his infancy, and be 
 said with as much propriety, provided he has since 
 obeyed the gospel, as to one who has submitted to the 
 ordinance since he has arrived at years of maturity. 
 To such a one it might be said, " Know ye not that as 
 many of us as were baptized for Christ (whether at the 
 age of eight days or of forty years) were baptized for 
 his death." And God be thanked our baptism — our in- 
 troduction to Christ's school has not been in vain, for 
 by means of that baptism — of that introduction to evan- 
 gelical discipline — we are buried with Christ, that like 
 as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the 
 Father, so we also should walk in newness of life. 
 
 Bap. '* But," sir, *' \i freedom of choice is essen- 
 tial to obedience, and necessary to ensure the divine 
 approbation, the conclusion is obvious, that the law 
 which enjoins Christian baptism must be peculiar to 
 believers.'^ Page 11. 
 
 P«d. I am rather surprised, sir, that you should 
 have drawn this passage of Mr. Waterman's forward 
 to light, because it not only opposes many passages of 
 
37 
 
 Scripture, but excludes infants, not merely from th^* 
 church below, but from the kingdom of heaven. " Jf 
 freedom of choice is necessary to eiwne the divine ap- 
 probation," then that text must be false which inforiiis 
 us that believers " are saved, and called not according 
 to their works, but according to God's oicn purpose and 
 grace, which was given them in Christ Jesus before the 
 world began. Here Mr. W. and St. Paul are directly 
 at issue, and surely we need not stay lonp; to a«;certaiu 
 which of the two is in the right; for, doubtless, Mr. 
 AVaterman, in spite of his dogmatism, will yield to an 
 inspired apostle. Again, if freedom of choice is neces- 
 sary to ensure the divine approbation," then not a 
 child that dies in infancy can enter the kingdom of hea- 
 ven, for such infants can exercise no freedom of choice 
 at all. According to this doctrine, every child that 
 dies in infancy is inevitably damned. In his zeal to 
 prevent parents and ministers and churches from so- 
 lemnly introducing infants to the school of Christ, and 
 pledging themselves before God to discharge the duties 
 of instructors, your author, sir, runs foul of an in- 
 spired apostle, denies predestination and salvation by 
 ^ace, and actually consigns over to eternal misery 
 every babe that dies before it has the power of exer. 
 cisino^ Free Will, What Mr. Birt, with his usual in- 
 coherence, so unjustly insinuates in the quotation, page 
 40, of Mr. W.'s book, may here he applied to his own 
 denomination; for, on Mr. W.'s principles of reason- 
 ing, we may say, *' The Baptists, with a partial, gloo- 
 my, awful aspect, without making any privileged order 
 among dying babes, without placing a comparatively 
 small number in a state of regeneration, or even, a very 
 few in the covenant of grace, leave the vast and incalcu- 
 lable number of those who die before they can exercise 
 *' freedom oj" choice ' destitute of divine approbation," 
 and of those blessings necessary to their future and 
 eternal felicity." Thus, sir, while on Mr. AV .'s own 
 admission the Psedobaptists allow that some infants may 
 be saved, according to his own argument not an infant, 
 ■whether the child of a Christian, Jew, Turk, or Inh- 
 
38 
 
 del, can ever ebtain the kingdom of God, because none 
 can exercise ^'^ freedom of choice,''' which, says he, is 
 necessary to ensure the divine approbation !" 
 
 Bap. The fact that " baptism introduces us to per- 
 sonal privileges" is of itself presumptive evidence that 
 the ordinance is peculiar to believers. Page 11. 
 
 Panl. The same argument affords not merely pre- 
 sumptive, but direct evidence that the ordinance is 
 equally proper for infants, because it introduces chil- 
 dien into personal privileges, unless Mr. Waterman is 
 prepared to prove that it is not a privilege for parents, 
 together with a whole Christian church, to bind them- 
 selves to bring up infants Avho are baptized " in the 
 nurture and admonition of the Lord." 
 
 Bap. But what use is it for persons to under- 
 take duties which they, in ninety- nine cases out of a 
 hundred, never fulfil ? 
 
 Peed. Surely, JMr. Hastie, you w ill not argue, that 
 the neglect of a duty, which can and ought to be per- 
 formed, is a solid argument against the duty itself. Else 
 you may with equal propriety assert, that swearing, sab- 
 bath breaking, ^'c. are sufficient proofs of the useless- 
 ness of God's commands. On these principles you may 
 prove that all laws are unnecessary, because all laws 
 in some way or other are neglected or violated ! If the 
 neglect of a duty is a good proof against the duty neg- 
 lected, then murder will aftbrd direct evidence against 
 the duties of humanity, and dishonesty will show the 
 worthless character of the eighth command ! 
 
 Bap. But the Baptists and Baptist churches too, 
 pay full as much attention to the young, although they 
 do not sprinkle them, as do their opponents. 
 
 Pa?d. Worse and worse, sir, for your cause. For, 
 if the fact that Baptists, albeit they never sprinkle their 
 children, yet train them in as godly a manner as those 
 do who baptize them in infancy, is valid evidence 
 against administering that ordinance to babes, then the 
 corresponding fact, that Pa.'dobaptists, although they 
 areiiever immersed, are as good Chsistians as the Bap- 
 tists, is equal proof that the baptism of believers is 
 
39 
 
 altogether unnecessary. And you know that Mr, "Wa- 
 terman has admitted, that " There are men of equal 
 eminence" who range themselves on each side of the 
 question. If the Paidobaptist is as pious as his dipped 
 brother, why plunge him clothes and all for a second 
 under the water, seeing he will not come up a better 
 man than he was before ? If Baptists manage their 
 children as well without solemnly dedicating them in 
 this ordinance, so Psedobaptists are as devout and spiri- 
 tual without immersion as their brethren are with it. 
 — Your argument then, sir, sweeps away infant bap- 
 tism and adult baptism at the same time. You slay 
 both parties with the same weapon, and become, as it 
 regards this ordinance, to all intents and purposes a 
 Quaker ! 
 
 Bap. Ah ! my friend. What saith the Scripture ? 
 You ai*e employing human reasoning, and not making 
 the word of God the umpire between us. 
 
 Paed. Sir, I only retort the arguments you put inlo 
 my mouth. If the neglect of a duty is sufficient to an- 
 nul its obligation, then the neglect of immersion, pro- 
 vided it could be shown to be a duty, (which it never 
 can) will be sufficient to justify the Paedobaptists iu 
 their disobedience — and if the Baptists getting on as 
 well without infant baptism as their brethren do with 
 it, proves the ordinance to be unscriptural, then, vice 
 versa, because Paedobaptists are as good Christians 
 without dipping as their brethren are with it, it as natu- 
 rally follows that immersion is likewise unscripiural. 
 Verily you ought not to charge me with using an un- 
 hallowed weapon, seeing I employ the weapons you put 
 into my hands. 
 
 Bap. Well, my friend, let us then go back to the 
 Scriptures. " In the primitive age of Christianity bap- 
 tism was evidently the sign of discipleship — the ujedium 
 by which persons avowed their religious principles and 
 connected themselves with the body of the saints.'' 
 *' Then they that gladly received the word were ha^ 
 tized," &ic. Page 11. 
 
 Paed. If by " discipleship" you mean that the i>er- 
 
4b 
 
 son is noie receiving- or is about to receive instruction 
 ill ihe school of Ciirist, then Psedohaptists will admit 
 that ba|jtisni is a sig-n of discipleship, and the New 
 ■| esti.inent most fnlly countenances such an opinion. 
 But if by disci|tleship yuu intend that the persons were 
 j)reiiously to haptism eitlier theoretically or experi- 
 n.entally acquainted with the truths of relioion, and that 
 l)aptisni was a sign of their real conversion, then no 
 such sentiment is any where found in the sacred volume. 
 Were the soldieis and publicans whom John baptized 
 disciples in this sense of the term ? These did not 
 know what they were to do until after they were bap- 
 tized. A\'ere the Pharisees who came to John true dis- 
 ciples ? The Baptist at the time when he baptized them 
 called them a e:eueration of vipers, and exhorted them 
 to flee from the wrath to come. Did you ever hear a 
 Baptist call those whom he was just about to dip "a 
 race of vipers ?" Yet of course, sir, you follow the 
 very letter of Scripture ! Pray was " baptism a sig"n 
 of discipleship" to Simon INIagus, or " the medium 
 throug-h which he avowed his religious principles '/" 
 Surely, sir, Mr. Waterman could not be very eloquent 
 on the discipleship of that sorcerer, or the relig-ious 
 principles ot a man who was in the gall of bitterness 
 and bond of iniquity, and who at the time of his bap- 
 tism had neither part nor lor in the gospel ! And as to 
 the assertion, that " those who gladly received the word 
 weie baptized," the simple fact, that at the third hour 
 of the morning they were unbelievers, and that they 
 were haptized the same day — that they were baptized 
 he/ore they had any time to prove the genuiness of their 
 repentance; and, on Peter's adiuission, before they hfld 
 leceived the Holy Ghost, is sufficient to prove that, in 
 Mr. Waterman's sense of the term, baptism could not 
 be to the three thousand " a sign of discipleship, nor 
 the medium tlnough which they avowed their religious 
 ]>rinciples.'' Por unless people can ]K)Ssess religious 
 principles before they partake of the Holy Spirit, these 
 peisoiis had as yet no religious principles to avow. Be- 
 ^ide>, Mr. ^^ aterman never admits bn[)tism as a sign of 
 
41 
 
 discipleship, for he himself will not give candidates this 
 sign until they have given him other signs ! What if 
 a man who wished to convince Mr. W. of his piety, 
 should say, " Sir, I am a disciple of Christ.'* 
 
 Mr. W. Well, my friend, give me the sign. 
 
 M. I was baptized by a Baptist when I arrived 
 at adult years. 
 
 Mr. W. Have you any other sign ? 
 
 M. A sign of discipleship, sir, is a sign as you 
 yourself have written, and I follow your book. 
 
 I presume your pastor would not feel very satisfied 
 with this answer. Yet if baptism is a sign of disci- 
 pleship, or, as Mr. Waterman intimates, of real con- 
 version, then it was a sign to Simon Magus, and the 
 incestuous Corinthian. 
 
 Bap. Still going too far. You have no proof that 
 the incestuous Corinthian had been baptized. 
 
 Paed. Only the proof that he was a member of the 
 church, and Mr. W. says, page 11th, that " baptism 
 was the sine qua non, without which persons could not 
 become associated with the people of Christ in reli- 
 gious communion ;" consequently, the incestuous Co- 
 rinthian had been baptized, and "avowed his religious 
 principles," and proved by the sign of baptism, if Mr. 
 Waterman's book is right, that he was "joined to the 
 Lord, and of one spirit with him," this incestuous 
 man, as well as Simon Magus, had received Irom the 
 persons who baptized him " this emblem of the puri- 
 fication of the heart — this sign of the gracious influ- 
 ences of the Spirit which qualify the soul for heaven." 
 See pages 8 and 9. Ah ! my friend, there is more 
 than one absurdity in these "forcible remarks" of Mr. 
 W. For if baptism is "the sign of the gTacious intiu- 
 ences of the Spirit that qualify the soul for heaven," 
 page 8, it follows that one man can give to another by 
 dipping him, for the twinkling of an eye, in water, the 
 evidence of the gracious influences of the Spirit ! Surely 
 sir, you will never after this deride the doctrine of ab- 
 solution, or extreme unction. 
 
 Bap. Circumcision was a sign and a seal, yet men 
 administered it. G 
 
42 
 
 Paed. Not a sign that the people were already con- 
 verted, unless Mr. Birt, whom we will presently ex- 
 amine is wrong. Mr. Waterman intends to say, that 
 baptism is a sign or evidence of piety, for, if he does 
 not mean this, the controversy is at an end, yet this sign 
 is given by one man to another ! ! 
 
 Bap. But was it not proper that this sign should 
 be given to candidates, as a kind of letter of admis- 
 sion to the church ? It was right to require it as a " sine 
 qua non," without which no one was received as a 
 member. 
 
 Pied. I should like to know from what authority 
 ]Mr. Waterman obtained this information — that bap- 
 tism was a " sine qua non, without ivhich a man could 
 not appear as the friend of Christ," page 11 — because 
 the Scriptures no where inform us that the whole of 
 the twelve apostles were baptized with John's bap- 
 tism, and we have no evidence at all that any one of 
 them was baptized with christian baptism. It is then, 
 not merely "presumptive," but presumptuous with a 
 witness, flatly to declare that, in primitive days, bap- 
 tism was the ''sine qua non" of a friend of Christ, 
 and member of the church. " AVhat saith the Scrip- 
 ture ?" Alas, sir, it says nothing about it. And 
 what says fact ? Why, that a man can be a friend of 
 Christ without being dipped, for the Baptists require 
 a man to be a christian, and a friend of Christ, before 
 they dip him, and Baptists also admit that pious Pse- 
 dobaptists are friends of Christ, and " appear his friends, 
 although they have never been dipped, and, conse- 
 quently, are destitute of this sine qua non." As to 
 the propriety of giving the ordinance to persons, as a 
 kind of passport to the Lord's table, it is far more use- 
 ful to make it a solemn initiation to the school of Christ, 
 because, in this case, all parties pledge themselves to 
 do their utmost to instruct the person, whether a babe, 
 or adult, in the doctrines of salvation; but, in making 
 it a sign of discipleship, you demand, as a " sine qua 
 non," of religion, that which thousands of pious men 
 have goiie to heaven without ever possessing, but which 
 Simon Magus, even in the days gf the apostles, (men 
 
48 
 
 of as great discernment as any modem Baptist) pos- 
 sessed, while he was yet in the gall of bitterness, and 
 bond of iniquity. 
 
 Bap. The three thousand continued steadfastly 
 in the apostles' doctrine, Szc. and this is sufficient evi- 
 dence that God had touched their hearts. 
 
 Paed. But this ^yas after their baptism, and not 
 before they partook of that ordinance, and the event fur- 
 nished abundant proof that they were not introduced 
 to Christ's school in vain. Still, what saiih the Scrip- 
 ture ? They were baptized /b;- repentance — they were 
 baptized that they might receive the Holy Ghost, not 
 because they had already received the grace of God, 
 or, as yet, had repented. It is truly surprising that 
 Baptists should ever appeal to this text, seeing they 
 themselves invert its order, eveiy time they require 
 that a person should be renewed by the Holy Spirit, 
 and have his religion exposed to a long test, previ- 
 ously to his being immersed. These were baptized 
 " the same day.'' Besides, as the text refers solely 
 to the adult baptism of persons who had never par- 
 taken of the ordinance before, it can have nothing to 
 do with the subject of infant baptism. It may further 
 be added, that it is just as true to say that thousands 
 of Paedobaptists have, after their baptism, continued 
 steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, as 
 it is to make such an affirmation concerning these pri- 
 mitive christians. 
 
 Bap. Only, sir, read the remarks of Dr. Dwight, 
 There you will find *' a concession that will surprise 
 you, as it can only harmonize with the principles Mr. 
 W. advances." Pages 11, 12. 
 
 Paed. No concession at all. Circumcision was a 
 sign, or seal of the righteousness of faith, set by di- 
 vine authority on babes only eight days old, making 
 the child, without his own free will, " a debtor to do 
 the whole law ;" and this seal was a mark that all the 
 Jews were visibly, or outwardly, God's children, for 
 to all such " belonged the adoption." Now most of 
 those who practice infant baptism, believe that it is 
 
44 
 
 come in the place of circumcision, and that, in many 
 particulars, it is of similar import. And every one 
 must admit, that if the principles of Paedobaptism were 
 reduced to practice, then it would be evident that '* there 
 is more efficacy in infant baptism than can easily be 
 comprehended, and incomparably more than is usually 
 mistrusted, to keep christians united, alive, and active 
 in the duties of religion, and in the great interest of 
 the church of God." page 12. Would not the con* 
 stant, practical recognition of the obligation to observe 
 the whole law, imposed upon the infant Jew in cir- 
 cumcision, have proved very efficacious in keeping him 
 alive, active, &c. in the cause of God? Did it not 
 in thousands of instances, pro/e its efficacy in this 
 manner ? And in every case in which the principles 
 of infant baptism have been carried out into practice, 
 they have proved eminently useful. Here then, sir, 
 is no concession, and that Mr. Waterman should have 
 dreamt that it was a concession can scarcely be cre^ 
 dited, except on the supposition that he was under the 
 tyranny of custom, or at a loss for an argument to up- 
 hold his cause. 
 
 Bap. Sir, if you call infant baptism a seal, it is a 
 seal without an impression ; it has no peculiarity to 
 distinguish genuine christians : but the Baptists, in li- 
 miting the ordinance to the pious, may properly regard 
 it s the sign of true believers, a badge of the friends 
 of Christ, and a public declaration of our being dis- 
 ci] »les." page 12. 
 
 Psed. Stripping your language of metaphor, I ap- 
 prehend that Mr. W. intends by " a seal without an 
 impression," that infant baptism is altogether useless, 
 but it is much easier to make such an assertion than to 
 prove its accuracy. If you can show that it is of no 
 avail for parents — for a whole christian church, together 
 with the minister and deacons, to bind themselves by 
 a solemn ordinance to bring up a child in the nurture 
 and admonition of the Lord — and for the same per- 
 sons conscientiously to observe the duty they thus wil- 
 ingly bound themselves to perform— then we will 
 
45 
 
 admit that the rite applied to babes is " a seal with- 
 out an impression." But we will not yeild until these 
 points are fully cleared, and in attempting to do this, 
 we will not allow you to urge the sinful neglect of any 
 of these parties as evidence in your favour, any more 
 than we would permit you to bring forward the thou- 
 sands who partake of the sacrament unworthily, as a 
 direct, or indirect proof against the propriety of ad- 
 ministrating the Lord's Supper. Besides, sir, it can 
 with equal propriety be shown, that circumcision, which 
 was a seal, was *' a seal without an impression ;" and 
 still more so, that adult baptism is " a seal without 
 an impression," for you expect that religion shall have 
 made its due impression before you administer that 
 ordinance— you would not baptize the man who ex- 
 pected any saving benefit from his immersion — you 
 would not recognize the man as a believer, who would 
 rest the evidence of his piety on his being dipped, or 
 would hold up such' a momentary plunge as " the badge 
 of his being a friend to Christ" — and you allow that 
 Paedobaptists, without ever being dipped at all, with- 
 out having this water-mark, exhibit the genuine signs 
 of true believers, wear the badsfe of Christ's friends, 
 and are men of "equal eminence" with their brethren, 
 whose bodies have been plunged (not washed) in water, 
 What then is adult baptism but " a seal without an 
 impression V 
 
 Bap. "■ These observ'atians" which you so blindly 
 oppose make it evident, *' that the persons baptized 
 by the apostles were believers" — ■ — 
 
 Paid. " Such observations" make nothing evident 
 but the perversion and presumption of the writer's 
 mind. A man who can become a Baptist on such 
 evidence, has, in his own reasoning power, no resource 
 to preserve him from one day embracing the delusions 
 of Mahomet, provided a Baptist should avow them. 
 
 Bap. Pray, Mr. Searche, allow me to finish the 
 sentence before you so fiercely interrupt one. "Such 
 observations make it evident that the persons baptized 
 by the apostles were believers — the very individuals 
 
46 
 
 who became members of the primitive churches, and 
 the qualifications which entitled them to baptism were 
 the only qualifications requisite for christian fellow- 
 ship." Paffe 12. 
 
 "Paid. Then Simon Maffus had all the qualifications 
 which entitled him to baptism, and, consequently, all 
 the qualifications requisite for christian fellowship, 
 at the very time that he was in the gall of bitterness 
 and bond of iniquity, and had no part nor lot in the 
 j^race of the Holy Spiiit! S.irely after thus admit- 
 ting- that Simon lAJagus — die incestuous Corinthian — all 
 the bewitched Galatians — and the three thousand who 
 were baptized that they might aftericavd receive the 
 Holy Spirit — had all the qualifications not only for 
 baptism but for cUristian f el Ion-ship, Mr. Waterman 
 can have little reason to condenm the conduct of his 
 brethren who scripturally believe that infants may be 
 solemnly introduced to the scliool of Christ, that, as 
 soon as possible, they may be taught the doctrines of 
 the gospel. Verily, it is as scripiural, as spiritual, as 
 accordant with tlie gospel, that parents, ministers, and 
 churches, should pledge themselves to traiii up chil- 
 dren in the way they should go, as it is to permit three 
 thousand persons, some of them the bloodiest men that 
 ever lived, for they had gloried in having demanded the 
 life of the Son of God, to participate christian baptism 
 after they had heard but one sermon, and had given no 
 evidence exce|)t the excitement of the moment of sav- 
 ing faith or evangelical repentance. 
 
 Bap. Piedobaptism with a witness *' is most incon- 
 sistent with itself, and its contrariety to the practice of 
 the apostles is obvious ; for while its friends acknow- 
 ledge the importance of personal religion in every other 
 duty, tliey make no requirement of it for baptism, and 
 thus they present the singular occurrence — the affect- 
 ing anomali/ in religion of a duty discharged, without 
 any moral dispositions in the person." Page 12. 
 
 Paed. lleally, sir, it is astonishing that you should 
 continue to bring forth to observation passages such as 
 these which arc distinguished for nothing but their in- 
 
47 
 
 consistency and entire disregard of truth. Far from the 
 practice of Pitdobaptists presenting " a shigulur occur- 
 rence," or an affecting a?zo?«a/^ notliing- is more evident 
 from the New Testament than that the apostles bap- 
 tized persons ^for repentance, &c. — and consequently 
 without moral dispositions. Circumcision also Mas 
 practiced for centuiies under the some circumstances, 
 so that theie can be nothing singular or anomalous in 
 the proceeding. And, however affecting ihefact may- 
 be, yet the numerous hypocrites, (" destitute of couise 
 of moral dispositions,") which Baptists have immersed, 
 prove that in such an occurrence there is nothing " sin- 
 gular or anomalous.'"' AVilh one or two exceptions of 
 persons whose piety was intimated not by their m orks 
 but by immediate revelation, the Scriptures funusli no 
 evidence of the " moral dispositions" (at least in 3Ir. 
 ^Vaterman's sense of the terms) of those wliom the 
 apostles baptized, so that the conduct of inspired apos- 
 tles, whom Baptists profess so deeply to revere, was 
 quite as affecting, as singular, and as anomalous as 
 that of modern Paedobaptists ! 'Tis moving, to be sure, 
 to see ■Mr. Waterman's affeclions so affected, and we 
 would obey the scriptural iujuncticn, " to weep with 
 those who weep," we.e it not that his tears for the er- 
 rors of inspired men seem to us such a superfluity of 
 grief that we can scarcely refrain from laughing. 
 
 Bap. Sir, your errors are enough to make angels 
 weep; for " as Mr. Birt forciohf remarks, "It is the 
 very esence of religion which constitutes the ground on 
 which our brethren are at issue." Page 12. 
 
 Psed. Really this forcible remark is both ^^ singu- 
 lar, affecting and anomalousJ"' " The Essence of Re- 
 ligion" means the very substance, existence, being, of 
 religion, and to be " at issue on the very essence of re- 
 ligion," must mean, to be opposed to the very spirit 
 and life of all religion. 3Iore, sir, you are aware, could 
 not be said of Voltaire, Tom Paine, or any atheist that 
 ever breathed. These men, like their heretical brethren, 
 the Peedobaptists, have only been " at issue with the 
 saints on the essence of relig:ion." But the barefaced 
 
48 
 
 falsehood and calumny of this forcible remark may be 
 passed over ; the sentence only deserves notice for its 
 pure absurdity. How singular, how anomalous, how 
 aftecthig the consideration, that Paedobaptists, who, on 
 31 r. Wtaerman's admission, *' are men of equal emi- 
 nence" with their Baptist brethren, are, after all, like 
 the French infidels, opposed to the very essence or 
 being of religion ! According- to these assertions, men 
 who are equal to atheists, or atheists themselves — "for 
 things that are equal to the same, are equal to one ano- 
 ther" — are men of equal eminence with the Baptists, 
 and therefore. Baptists are also at issue with christians 
 on tlie very essence of all religion, unless it can be 
 proved that to support and to oppose the very essence 
 of religion is equally eminent ! How singular, how 
 anomalous, how affecting the fact that Baptists allow 
 men to pray and preach in their chapels who are at is- 
 sue with them on the very foundalion, the very soul, 
 the very essence of all religion ! To bring this ybrci- 
 ble, this anomalous, this singular absurdity of Mr. 
 Birt to a climax, it need only be remarked that the 
 grand proof of this " forcible" assertion rests on the 
 notorious fact, that Paedobaptists, conceiving it to be 
 scriptural, bind themselves by a most solemn ordinance 
 to do all that means can effect to make their offspring" 
 the servants of Christ ; therefore, therefore, hear it 
 all men to the everlasting honour of Mr. Birt and 3Ir. 
 AVaterman who detected such wickedness, and to the 
 everlasting confusion of the Paedobaptists who prac- 
 tice such folly — Therefore, they are at issue with 
 their bieihren on the very essence of all religion ! !—• 
 How " affecting ! How singular, How anomalous. !" 
 
 Bap. You may deride, Mr. Searche, but you can- 
 not deny the fact that you admit " two religions, the 
 one relative the other personal" — and that you be- 
 lieve " a duty may be discharged without any moral 
 dispositions in the person." Page 12. 
 
 Pa^d. And do Baptists then deny either personal or 
 relative religion? 'J'rue religion, we have been gene- 
 rally taught, comprehends both. And few men, save 
 
41) 
 
 Mr. Birt, ever thought that the one is opposed to the 
 other. It will also require more sagacity thau is dis- 
 played in this " cheap desideratum for Baptists" to de- 
 monstrate that infants themselves are destitute of " mo- 
 ral dispositions,^^ and bringing- them to the ordinance, 
 when done from a pious and scriptural motive, evinces 
 " moral dispositions" in the parents, of no ordinary 
 character, for by this regard to relative religion their 
 own personal piety is strikingly exemplified It must 
 also be observed that real believers never consider that 
 *' the duty is discharged" when the rite is concluded. 
 In the baptism of infants there is a solemn recognition 
 of some of the most weighty and imperative relative du- 
 ties, which, far from being terminated w hen the ordi- 
 nance is performed, are then only publicly acknow- 
 ledged as obligatory. Their full discharge will require 
 much time, and call into exercise, both in the parents 
 and the church, " moral dispositions" of the hig-hest 
 character, and, under the divine blessing, will cherish 
 similar dispositions in the child thus solemnly introduced 
 to the school of Christ. Infant baptism, then, not only 
 contemplates, but combines " personal and relative re- 
 ligion" — it not only exercises, but cherishes '• moral 
 dispositions." Yet to do so, is of course to be at issue 
 with pious Baptists on " the very essence of religion 1" 
 To exert and elicit "moral dispositions" is, according 
 to these worthies, to prove that a duty may be dis- 
 charged without "moral dispositions !" and to combine 
 *' personal and relative religion," is " to maintain a re- 
 ligion which is the work of man, and destitute of all 
 character"! ! And such, sir, is the jargon which Mr. 
 Waterman quotes from the very '■^forcible'''' Mr. Birt, 
 and with which he concludes the presumptive, alias j^r^- 
 sumptuous evidence, adduced in Letter I. 
 
 Bap. Well, Brother Simon, you have said enough 
 about Letter I ; but depend upon it, you will find the 
 next epistle a more difficult task to be mastered. There 
 you shall have " direct proofs" from. Scripture, and I 
 envy not your acumen, if you can defeat the Word of 
 God. "The Commission of Christ, which regulates 
 
$0 
 
 christian baptism may be considered as a direct proof, 
 because it limits it to believers, for if the Commission 
 of Christ limited the ordinance to believers, and if the 
 apostles only baptized persons upon a profession of faith, 
 the conclusion must necessarily follow, that only such 
 persons ought to be baptized." Page 13. 
 
 Psed. I have read th6 whole of Letter II., and, 
 after all its vauntings, have found it as destitute of any 
 evidence, either direct or indirect, in favour of the Bap' 
 list system, as the epistle already examined. With 
 the little, the great " if J' with which it commences, it 
 closes, for not a single sentence from the Word of God 
 does it contain, which either proves " that Christ li- 
 mited the ordinance to believers," or that ** the apostles 
 only baptized persons on a profession of faith." Nor 
 can a text of Scripture be produced, which sanctions 
 either of these assumptions. But, as it is getting late. Bro- 
 ther Hezekiah, we may as well defer the investigation of 
 that letter for the present. On some future period we will 
 resume the subject, and depend upon it, if you can pro- 
 duce a single " direct proof," I will be one of your 
 most zealous Baptists. Farewell. 
 
 Bap. I only hope that you will keep your promise. 
 Farewell. 
 
 END OF DIALOGUE THE FIRST. 
 
WHY HAVE YOU BECOME A PjEDOBAPTIST T 
 
 A DIALOGUE, 
 
 (in four parts,) 
 j^^^ between 
 
 ^^EZEKIAH HASTIE, A BAPTIST, 
 
 AND 
 
 SIMOX SEARCHE, A P^DOBAPTIST; 
 
 CONTAINING 
 
 AN ANSWER TO TWO PUBLICATIONS , 
 
 CIRCULATED IN THE BOROUGH OF STROUD, BY AMATOR VERITATIS; 
 THE ONE ENTITLED, 
 
 "baptism discussed, &c. ;'' 
 
 AND THE OTHER, 
 
 "why have you become A BAPTIST?" 
 
 BY JOHN BULL. 
 
 In Veritate Victoria. 
 
 DIALOGUE II. 
 
 PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY B. BUCKNALL, 
 
 AND SOLD BY BRISLEY, BAYLIS, & HARMER, STROUD; GOUGH, DURSLEY; 
 
 HARPER, CHELTENHAM; LEA, GLOUCESTER; 
 
 AND BY LONGMAN, &C R. BAYNES, LONDON, 
 
 1835. 
 Price Eight-pence, 
 
fj:^ The remaining Two Dialogues will be printed immediately. 
 Dialogue the Third will contain an examination of the following 
 subjects: — The Baptism of Households — Christ's Blessing Little 
 Children — Children Holy — Washing of Regeneration — Born of Wa- 
 ter — Saved by Baptism — Washed, Justified, 6cc. — Prohibition of 
 Infants — Jewish Proselyte Baptism — The whole of that wonder- 
 ful Letter, the Fourth of Amator Veritatis, entitled" A Rf.vievv 
 OF P.^dobaptism" — And a brief Critique on the Works of Dr. Jud- 
 soD and Mr. Penafilly, which the Baptists have brought into the 
 neighbourhood to confute John Bull — From this Critique it will be 
 seen that the affixes D.D. do not always designate doctors in di- 
 vinity, and that Brother Jonathan does not exercise any extraordi- 
 nary degree of discretion in the works he imports from Great Bri- 
 tain ; at least if the stereotyping of Mr. Pengilly's Guide may be 
 taken as a fair specimen of his proceeding. 
 
 N.B. A general errata will be given at the end of Dialogue the 
 Fourth, but the following misprint of a quotation from Amator 
 Veritatis is here corrected : — 
 
 At the bottom of Page 21, for veritatis read Veritas — and for 
 prcevakbit read prcevalebit. 
 
DIALOGUE II. 
 
 Bap. AYell, friend Searche, I am happy to meet 
 you again ; are you still disposed to question the vali- 
 dity of Mr. Waterman's " direct proofs" from the 
 word of God contained in Letter the 2nd of " Baptism 
 Discussed ?" I hope, brother Simon, you are a little 
 calmer than you were when we last examined the sub- 
 ject, and that you perceive from Mr. W.'s " forcible 
 remarks" that the Baptists are the most scriptural 
 denomination in the whole country. 
 
 Paed. I am quite ready, brother Hastie, to enter 
 upon the discussion, and indeed am glad to embrace 
 this opportunity to state what I consider to be the de- 
 ficiencies of Mr. W.'s '* direct proofs." Xot a text 
 has he advanced which has for one moment shaken my 
 sentiments as a Psedobaptist. 
 
 Bap. Sorry am I, my friend, to find that your mind 
 is so invulnerable to the demonstrations of scripture. 
 Ah ! my friend, do read again the last chapter of St. 
 Matthew : " Our Lord as King of Zion thus commis- 
 sions his disciples, " Go ye therefore and teach all 
 nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and 
 of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Such is the 
 record of one evano;elist, and of a similar import are 
 the words of St. Mark : *' Go ye into all the world, 
 and preach the gospel to every creature ; he that be- 
 lieveth and is baptizcvl shall be saved, but he that be- 
 u 
 
M 
 
 mon practice in that language of explaining the verb 
 by the addition of one or more participles, the com- 
 monest observer must perceive that these particples are 
 explanatory of the sense in which our Lord wished the 
 term (matheteusate, " jnake disciples,'') to be under- 
 stood ; and we miglit " challenge the whole corps" of 
 Baptists to prove the contrary, or to give to the words 
 any other consistent interpretation. 
 
 Bap. *' I know Dr. Doddridge thinks that matheteu- 
 sate ought to be rendered by the word '' disciple ;" but 
 then he confesses that it seems to import instruction in 
 the essentials of religion, which it was necessary adult 
 persons should know and submit to^, before they could 
 be admitted to baptism. This translation is, my friend, 
 equally conclusive to its excluding infants." Page 14. 
 
 Pa3d. Still, sir, a little of '* the blinding peculi- 
 arities of a sect" must distort the mind before any man 
 could find in the words of Doddridge any thing about 
 infants. The Doctor says that adults needed instruc- 
 tion previously to their being baptized, and in this sen- 
 timent all parties are agreed; but to conclude that such 
 an admission excludes infants is the strangest logic that 
 ever Avas uttered by a man in his senses. 'Tis impos- 
 sible by any of the legerdemain of bigotry to find the least 
 connexion between premise and deduction. But Pae- 
 dobaptists can, without any of these distortions of the 
 text, find infants in the commission of our Lord. Ve- 
 rily, *' all nations'' must include infants, and our Lord 
 commissioned the apostles " to make disciples of all 
 nations," and he commanded them to do this by " bap- 
 tizing and teaching J" You must observe, sir, the 
 baptizing \^ first, then the teaching was to follow, and 
 this could not be done but in the case of infants. The 
 age of adults rendered it necessary that they should have 
 some instruction before baptism, but this was a neces- 
 sary inversion of our Lord's command, pardonable be- 
 cause necessary ; yet the very necessity of the inver- 
 sion proves, aye, furnishes a '* direct proof" that the 
 commission is not strictly adhered to, except in the 
 baptism of infants, and subsequent instruction. * 
 
55 
 
 Bap. Then, sir, you charge the apostles with trans- 
 gressin;^ the command of their Master. A little more 
 modesty would certainly become an uninspired man, when 
 speakinii: of the conduct of the inspired companions of 
 Jesus Christ. 
 
 Poed. I say no more than what the conduct of the 
 disciples most satisfactorily proves. Our Lord's com- 
 mand was to make disciples by baptizing- and teachino; : 
 in the case of adults, the disciples preached first, and 
 afterward baptized ; their conduct, then, was at variance 
 with their commission, still they were under that ne- 
 cessity which knows no law. They could not baptize 
 persons of a mature a^e, without giving" them instruc- 
 tion sufficient to induce them to submit to the ordi- 
 nance. The example of the apostles, however, shows 
 that they came as near to our Lord's command as pos- 
 sible. How was it that they baptized the three thou- 
 sand so soon — that Simon Magus, the eunuch, and the 
 jailor, were baptized at a period that must quite shock 
 any modern Baptist ? They were baptized the same 
 day — the same hour — immediately after sermon — al- 
 though they had never heard a gospel sermon before ! 
 How v/as it that they were baptized for the name of 
 the Father, kc.Jor repentance, ybr remission, for the 
 Lord Jesus, /or Christ, /or his death, kc. ? How was 
 it that the three thousand were exhorted to he baptized 
 for remission of sins, and that they might receive the 
 Holy Ghost ? Here are examples that Baptists never 
 follow, albeit they vaunt so loudly concerning their 
 literal conformity to apostolic precedent. But how 
 came the apostles to act in this manner ? The only 
 rational, scriptural, consistent answer that can be given, 
 is, that they felt the force of our Lord's command, to 
 hapiize first, and teach after; and, therefore, without 
 a moment's delay, as soon as it w as possible, they bap- 
 tized adults and their families. In the whole of this 
 proceeding-, we see the disciples acting- hke men who 
 felt that, in the case of adults, there was a transgres- 
 sion of our Lord's injunction ; yet, as holy devoted ser- 
 vant* of the Redeemer, they inverted the command not 
 
56 
 
 amoment beyond the necessity of the case ; but, if pos- 
 sible, the very same hour initiated the veriest heathen 
 or vilest sorcerer into the school of Christ, that he 
 mio^ht be taught, and by the ordinance pledged them- 
 selves to use all the means calculated to bring him to 
 repentance, and the full understanding and experience 
 of the i>os}>el of Christ. The apostles were so hasty in 
 making men disciples by this solemn initiation, that 
 their conduct, however it might have been dictated by 
 the comiiiission of the Redeemer, has been the subject 
 of tacit condemnation in every book that Baptists have 
 printed on this topic, as well as in their professed ob=- 
 servance of scripture precedent. In fact, Baptists are 
 the very lust men in the world that ought to refeix to 
 scripture for either command or example to sanction 
 thiir practice. 
 
 Bap. Well, sir, if they are guilty, oa your own 
 showing, they, after all, follow apostles ; for the apos- 
 tles baptized adu/fs, and so do the Baptists. 
 
 Paed. But under circumstances the very opposite to 
 each other. The apostles inverted their Lord's com- 
 mand from dire necessity, but Baptists do it without 
 the least necessity. The apostles baptized persons, 
 &c. the same hour, though they had never heard a ser- 
 n)on before — the Baptists would reprimand, if not dis- 
 miss frojn their body, a frail brother who should dare 
 to break throuo^h the peculiarities of his sect, ajid fol- 
 low scriptural precedent. The apostles baptized adults 
 and their faniilies, (for oikos has that meaning) and did 
 it the same hour that they first heard of Christ — the 
 Baptists never imitate such inspired examples ; and yet 
 sir, f/oM, of course, are the only men in the world that 
 ever follow the very letter, aye, and spirit too, (for you 
 boast of both,) of the sacred oracles ! 
 
 Bap. Mr. Searche, I feel that you are not only re- 
 flecting on our body, but on the inspired disciples. You 
 say they inverted the commission of Christ. If this 
 is not prtjsumptuous, then 1 know not what in the world 
 can deserve the name. 
 
 Pted. Not the least- reflection, Mr. Hastie. There 
 
are <;ases in carryin,^ any law into effect for the ilirst 
 time, in which the spirit, rather than the letter, must 
 be observed. Thus circumcision was to be pert'ormed 
 on the eighth day, yet Abraham was circumcised whtn 
 he was an okl man ; Ismael was thirteen before he re- 
 ceived this seal ; the Israelites that were circumcised 
 after they had crossed Jordan, were many of them full 
 grown men ; and many a proselyte of every age, from 
 infancy to hoary hairs, submitted to that rite. But in 
 these instances, though the letter of tlie law was tran^.- 
 gressed, its spirit was preserved, and there was in each 
 case a necessity for what was done; and, therefore, 
 none sinned in circumcising the matured or grey-headed 
 proselyte. The disciples were placed in the very same 
 circumstances ; and as the Jewish priest circumcised, 
 so they baptized persons of all ages, and did . so in 
 perfect accordance with the spirit of the law and the 
 gospel. The Jews made proselytes, and the apostles 
 made disciples, of persons of every ageand description. 
 
 Bap. More than once you have spoken of disciples 
 made by baptism ; do you intend to say that a man is 
 made a disciple by being baptized ? If so, you may 
 well baptize infants ; it would almost tempt Bap- 
 tists to try the experiment, if such efhcacy couid really 
 be ascribed to the ordinance ! 
 
 P^ed. Had I made such an assertion it would have 
 been supported by ranch stronger evidence than any 
 that Mr. W . has yet produced. For you know that 
 John baptized " Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the 
 region round about Jordan ;" and you also know that 
 "Jesus made, even baptized ?«o; 6' disciples than John, 
 ** for he," (by his disciples) baptized, and«//men came 
 to him." Xow no one will assert that these persons 
 were converted, no one will assert that they were ac- 
 quainted with the truth, because to affirm either would 
 be to say that " Jerusalem, all Judea, and all the re- 
 gion round about Jordan," were well instructed in the 
 doctrines of John and of Christ, and not only in- 
 structed but savingly converted ; but the history of 
 these persons proves the very reverse of all this; yet 
 
58 
 
 all that John baptized were his disciples, all that Jesus 
 baptized were his disciples, and Jesus made and bap- 
 tized 7nore discijdes than John ; consequently some 
 thortsajids of persons were made disciples by Jesus ; 
 and as there is no evidence that these thousa7ids of peo- 
 ple were either duly instructed, or converted, (it is 
 probal)le a Baptist would not have dipped one of them,) 
 it foUoM s that they were 7nade disciples by baptism. 
 Like Simon jMaiiUs end the jailor and his family, they 
 were solemnly introduced to the school of Christ by 
 this ordinance, that they might receive the instruction 
 which Avas likely to produce their conversion ; for you 
 know that the word of God or scriptural instruction is 
 the instrument of regeneration : "Of his own will 
 begat he us by the word of truth." It is therefore 
 as evident as any truth in revelation, that by far 
 the majority of persons who, in the new testament, 
 are called disciples, were made such by baptism, and 
 our Lord's commission exactly agrees with every thing 
 that both John the Baptist and himself had on former 
 occasions enjoined and practised. " Go, and make 
 disciples," make them as you Lave made thousands 
 before, oi-ly coniiiie not your exeitions to the lost sheep 
 of the house of Israel. Make disciples of all nations, 
 and do so by baptizing and teaching. It is then 
 scriptural to call the person a disciple who has been 
 solemnly initiated into Christ's school by baptism ; and 
 surely if our Lord by his apostles baptized thousands 
 of unconverted persons, for he baptized 7nore than 
 John, though Jo'in ba|»tized Jerusalem, and all Judea, 
 Arc. tlien may Pivdobcptists baptize infants. If these 
 adults were converted, how is it that, at our Lord's 
 ascension, the church at Jerusalem consisted of only 
 o?ie hundred and tic cut y names ? AVe therefore con- 
 clude that it is quite as consistent, quite as scriptural 
 for Pttdobaptists to baptize infants as for our Lord to 
 baptize unconverted adults. For as these adults were 
 unconverted, there was abundant proof that they were 
 not partakers of grace ; but no one can i>ay that at the 
 time of performing the ordinance the infants baptized 
 
59 
 
 hare not been sanctified from the womb. Hypocrisy may 
 also induce an adult to come to the ordinance, and as 
 far as means are concerned, a thousand prejudices must 
 be overcome before we can hope for the conversion of 
 such ; but in the breast of an infant there may be nei- 
 ther hypocrisy nor prejudice ; and, therefore, the rea- 
 sons for baptizing- infants are much stronger than any 
 that can be urged for the baptizing of Simon ]Magus— 
 of that generation of vipers, the Pharisees— or the un- 
 converted thousands that our Lord admitted to this 
 ordinance. 
 
 Bap. ** Did the apostles make disciples by indis- 
 criminately baptizing all nations ?" Certainly not. — 
 Baptism never yet made any the friends of Christ. 
 It was through the means of preaching the gospel — 
 the Spirit accompanying the message to the heart, and 
 when the happy effects of grace were witnessed, the 
 primitive converts were instantly baptized." Page 14. 
 
 Paed. Surely by this confusion of language and 
 sentiment Mr. W. can only intend to render abso- 
 lutely obscure the subject he professes to illustrate. 
 He asks if the apostles made disciples by baptism, 
 and supposes he furnishes a complete negative reply, 
 by asserting, that baptism never made any ihe friends 
 of Christ. Now, to maintain any thing like propriety 
 or proportion in the argument, he ought to have used 
 in both passages either the term "^friend,'''' or the term 
 *' disciple. ^^ But to employ '* friend" in the premise, 
 and *' disciple" in the conclusion, is to beg the very 
 question that he promises to establish by direct proof ! 
 Por, of course Mr. Waterman will not say, that in the 
 new testament a " friend of Christ" and a "disciple 
 of Christ" are synonymous ; because Judas Iscariot 
 was a disciple of Christ ; but, though according to Mr. 
 W. he was baptized, yet was he not di friend. What 
 too became of the disciples that went away, and walked 
 no more with Jesus ? Were they friends of Jesus ? 
 And what shall we say for the thousands, the *' all 
 men'' that came to Christ, and were made disciples f 
 Were they his friends ? ** Cert^Jnly not !" How un- 
 scriptural then to declare, that " when the happy ef- 
 
60 
 
 fects of grace were witnessed, the primitive eonverts 
 were baptized !" Did the apostles wait for the happy 
 effects of grace before they baptized the three thou- 
 sand ? Did Simon Magus, the incestuous Corinthian, 
 or the other Corinthians whom Paul thanked God that 
 he himself had not baptized — did the bewitched Ga- 
 latians evince the happy effects of grace before they 
 were baptized ? If so, men may fall from grace, may 
 be incestuous, or in the gall of bitterness, and yet wit- 
 ness the happy effects of grace ! Why, sir, there is 
 scarcely any doctrine in scripture but Mr. Waterman 
 contradicts in his zeal to prevent parents from solemnly 
 dedicating their children to Christ in baptism. Still 
 all this confusion is perfectly natural when a gentleman 
 fights against truth. The text, therefore, which your 
 author brings against infant baptism, instead of op- 
 posing, favours the practice ; for we have shown that 
 our Lord's commission enjoined, that disciples should 
 be made by baptizing and teaching, by baptizing Jirst 
 and teaching aftericards ; and, as *' all nations" are 
 thus to be made disciples, it is evident that the literal 
 order of the command can never be attended to, except 
 in the case of infants. And this interpretation is fully 
 corroborated by the conduct of the apostles ; because, 
 in administering adult baptism, they baptized persons 
 and their families the same hour they first heard of 
 Christ — they baptized them /or Christ, /b?* repentance, 
 &c. ; consequently they came as near to the spirit of the 
 command as possible, and in doing so, exhibit a pre- 
 cedent which no modern Baptist follows. Thus, Mr. 
 Ilastie, the first " direct proof" of the exclusion of 
 infants from baptism, produced by your beloved author, 
 furnishes very satisfactory evidence that our Lord's 
 commission most fully sanctions that practice. 
 
 Bap. Well, sir, 1 can tell you that our " interpre- 
 tation, whicii is most obvious and decisive, is sanctioned 
 by learned Paidobaptists. St. Jerome, Mr. Baxter, 
 and Dr. AVhitby agree that we must first teach, and 
 then baptize. Dr. Whitby, with his usual candour, 
 observes, ' I desire any one to tell me how the apos- 
 
61 
 
 ties could matheteuein, make disciples, without being 
 mathetai, teachers of them.'" Page 15. 
 
 Poed. Pity it is, sir, that in a cheap desideratum, 
 professing to bring nothing but scripture precedents, 
 we should have such a frequent recurrence to human 
 authority. Peedobaptists have no need of such profane 
 aid, nor do they rest this ordinance on the opinion of 
 any mere man, whether Baptist or Paedobaptist. They 
 call neither Jerome, nor Baxter, nor Doctors Whitby 
 and Doddridge, master. Mr. Waterman, then, might 
 as well beat the air as produce the concessions of such 
 men. Still we must think that Mr. W. felt a little dif- 
 fident of his " direct proofs," or he would scarcely 
 have adduced two texts and four profane quotations 
 to establish his first point. His case must be hopeless 
 when he is driven to the expedient of supporting the 
 word of God by the word of Jerome and Whitby. To 
 apply such props to the pillar of truth is like at- 
 tempting to support the pyramids of Egypt with a straw. 
 Besides, in the fine sentence from the "usually candid" 
 Whitby, we have a criticism which required no com- 
 mon lapsus mentis before any author could have been 
 induced to quote it. Poor Whitby, in his own "poor 
 judgment," page 15, — and this his poor judgment 
 made him appear pre-eminently candid in the estimation 
 of your friend — tells us, that mathetai means " tea- 
 chers^' ; that is, Mr. Hastie, putting aside the Greek, 
 scholars or disciples mean teachers ! Now it was 
 scarcely necessary for Whitby to exercise the candour 
 of telling us that "his judgment was poor" : the rery 
 fact of the man's pubfishing that the terms scholar and 
 teacher are synonyms, rendered such a candid avowal 
 absolutely superfluous ; for his judgment must be poor 
 indeed who could impose on himself, or hope to im- 
 pose on others by such confusion. That some of the 
 disciples of Christ were teachers is granted ; but to 
 argue from this that teacher and disciple are words of 
 similar import, is like Jumping to the conclusion, that, 
 because Solomon, the wisest of men, was a kino-, there- 
 fore Solomon means the wisest of men and a king, and 
 
62 
 
 the word kini;r means the wisest of men and a Solomon \ 
 *rhat Mr. Waterman should have called poor Whitby 
 candid for writing such trash, or should himself have 
 quoted such an absurdity in his direct proof, can only 
 be traced to the *' blinding peculiarities of a sect." 
 
 Bap. I perceive, notwithstanding your air of tri- 
 umph, that you have carefully avoided any reference 
 to our Lord's commission, as recorded by St. Mark. 
 There it is said, " He that believeth and is baptized 
 shall be saved — believing, you perceive, is put before 
 baptizing ; perhaps this is the reason, Mr. Searche, 
 that you have passed it over so silently. 
 
 Paed. Xo Peedobaptist, sir, can object to an ex- 
 amination of this passage, for if it refers exclusively to 
 adult baptism, as Baptists assert, then it can have no 
 reference to infants. Besides, if in the former clause 
 of the text, by placing /rt?7/i before baptism, it prohi- 
 bits infants from that ordinance, then, in the latter sen- 
 tence, by placing hoi\i faith and baptism before sal- 
 ration, it must, by the same process of reasoning, ex- 
 clude them from heaven. Again, if not mentioning 
 them in the former instance is " a direct proof that 
 they are not to be baptized, then, not mentioning them 
 in the latter case, is as certainly a " direct proofs 
 that they cannot be saved. Indeed, any person who 
 wished to maintain The Doctrine of Infant Perdition, 
 might, with far greater propriety, adduce this text to 
 exclude babes from heaven, than Baptists can employ 
 it to debar them from baptism. AW parties are agreed 
 that infants cannot believe ; and all must admit, that in 
 the text both believing and baptizing are placed before 
 salvation. Now, if the inability to believe inderdicts 
 them from baptism, then much more the incapacity 
 both for faith and baptism must cut them off" from sal- 
 vation. But Baptists, in order to maintain The Doc- 
 trine of Infant Salvation, assert, that when faith is 
 mentioned in connexion with eternal life, infants must 
 form an exception ; and we with equal reason reply, 
 that when faith is mentioned, in connection with bap- 
 tism, infants must also be excepted. For it appears 
 
63 
 
 a most unaccountable occurrence, that in the very same 
 text, iu one sentence the not mentioning of infants 
 should e.iclude them, and in the very next clause the 
 not metioning them should include them. And if it be 
 said that their tender age is a sufficient reason why 
 faith should not be demanded for their salvation, then 
 their tender age is also a sufficient reason why faith 
 should not be required as a qualification for bap- 
 tism. If. though destitute of faith and altogether unfit 
 for baptism, they may be saved, although our Lord 
 places both faith and baptism before salvation, then 
 may they be solemnly admitted to the church below, 
 to he taught as soon as possible the way of salvation, 
 although as yet they cannot believe. If their not be- 
 ing able to believe is conclusive that the text does not 
 allude to them at all in respect of salvation or damna- 
 tion, then tlie same incapacity proves that the passage 
 does not refer to them in the matter of baptism. Here 
 Mr. Waterman is in his old predicament; for, to afford 
 a " direct proof" of the prohibition of infants from 
 this sacrament, he brings forward a text which, on his 
 own showing, refers e^vclusiveh/ to adult baptism; and 
 this is done in the very face of the com.mission re- 
 corded by St. Matthew, given by our Lord on another 
 occasion, in which infant baptism is explicitly enjoined. 
 
 Bap. I see you take it for granted that the com- 
 mission in Matthew and Mark are not identical, but if not, 
 you ought at any rate to allow the one to explain the other.' 
 
 Psed. Every one who attentively reads the last 
 chapters of the evangelists will perceive that the com- 
 mission recorded in Matthew was given in Galilee, 
 while that of St. Mark was uttered in Jerusalem. But 
 be that as it may, Psedobaptists can have no objection 
 in the world that one text should explain the other, be- 
 cause they have much more reason on their side to ex- 
 plain St. Mark by St. Matthew than Baptists have to 
 limit St. Matthew's commission by that of St. Mark. 
 For, according to our opponents, Mark makes no men- 
 tion of infants, which we have proved that Matthew 
 does ; for he records a command which can never be 
 literally obeyed, (and Baptists must have every thing 
 
64 
 
 lileral) except in the case of infants ; consequently, if 
 Mark be made the expositor of Matthew, then the two 
 commissions must clash with each other ; but if the 
 two commands be taken separately, as given at dif- 
 ferent periods, or even as diiVerent parts of the same 
 command, then there is no contradiction between them. 
 For the fact that Matthew mentions infants, and that 
 JNIark, according to Mr. Waterman, alludes to adults 
 only, can never amount to a contradiction, unless it can 
 be shown that an omission is a contradiction, which 
 would prove that the four gospels contain most contra- 
 dictory statements, nothing being more common in the 
 evangelists than for one to omit what the other records. 
 x\nd, sir, should any one demur at the opinion that the 
 two commands in question were given at different pe- 
 riods, the case will not be at all altered ; for all must 
 allow that both the words of St. Matthew and those of 
 St. Mark were uttered by the Redeemer ; and then the 
 only difference between the two evangelists will be, 
 that the one records what the other has omitted ; and 
 3iark has given us the solemn sanction to our Lord's 
 commission which Matthew had not mentioned. Here, 
 then, if both passages were uttered at the same time, 
 we have different portions of the same divine declara- 
 tions : /Matthew gives us a full edition of our Lord's 
 injunction, *' to make disciples of all nations by bap- 
 tizing and teaching;" and St. Mark furnishes the solemn 
 words which contain the sanction to this command ; 
 " He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, and 
 he that believeth not shall be damned ;" but as the 
 sanction can in the nature of thin&s only refer to those 
 who are capable of faith or unbelief, an ample reason 
 is supplied why St. Mark could refer to adults only; 
 yet the argument remains in full force, that if his not 
 mentioning infants excludes them from baptism, then 
 his not mentioning them must likewise exclude them 
 from salvation. If St. Mark therefore alludes to adnlts 
 only, the controversy, as far as this text is concerned, 
 is at an end ; for Psedobaptists, although they may 
 differ, both among themselves as well as with their op- 
 
0.3 
 
 ponenls, as to the degree of instruction that should be 
 given to an adult, or the evidence of conversion that 
 should be demanded, yet never for a moment question 
 that in such cases some knowledge must be imparted 
 to persons of riper years before they are baptized, be- 
 cause it would be nothing less than a high insult to 
 sprinkle or to dip a number of adult persons without 
 tirst explaining the reason for such a proceeding. But, 
 sir, another very strong objection may be urged against 
 the assumption that, not to mention is to exclude ; for, 
 not only would the argument cut oft' children from the 
 hope of salvation, but it would also eft'ectually pro- 
 hibit females from the Lord's supper. Not a single 
 text can be produced from the whole of the new testa- 
 ment that makes the least mention of female communi- 
 on ; and according to Mr. A^^atcrman, not to men- 
 tion is to interdict, consequently Baptists are guilty of 
 the greatest inconsistency in forbidding the baptism of 
 infants, and yet allowing women to come to the Lord's 
 table ; for, if not being mentioned in the former in- 
 stance, is " direct proof of exclusion, then not being 
 mentioned aftbrds equal evidence in the latter. The 
 arguments are as perfectly parallel as any two lines in 
 geometry can be. " Infants are not mentioned, there- 
 fore tliey are excluded" ! Females are not mentioned, 
 therefore they are also excluded ! " Infants are not 
 mentioned in this very text in reference to baptism, 
 therefore they are excluded " ! *' Infants are not men- 
 tioned in this passage in rel'erence to salvation, therefore 
 they are likewise exclud^d" ! 
 
 Again, Mr. Hastie, it is easy to show that if this 
 text of St. Mark has any-thing to do with the contro- 
 versy, it is far less favourable to your denomination than 
 to Pfedobaptists. The conduct of the apostles most 
 decidedly shows that they did not understand this text 
 in the same sense as modern Baptists ; for your deno- 
 mination insist, that our Lord here speaks of saving 
 taith ; but nothing is more evident than that the apostles 
 never waited even for a moment, that the candidates for 
 baptism might give substantial proofs of a saving faith. 
 
f>6 
 
 They baptized persons the same hour— they baptized 
 them for repentance, &c. — in a word, they baptized 
 individuals, who were in the gall of bitterness and bond 
 of iniquity; consequently, the apostles, who must have 
 had as clear an apprehension of this text as any Bap- 
 tist in our day, could not have understood it in the 
 same manner as your denomination : for, if they did, 
 tliev were sfuiltv of a most wiUul violation of the com- 
 mand of llie Kiiig- of Zion ; ard if this latter sentiment 
 be admitted, then apostolic precedent, to which Mr. 
 AVatermao so confidently appeals, must be destitute of 
 all authority. And, sir, one of the two opinions must 
 be s:< anted : either the apostles uudersiood the text in 
 the same sense as modern Baptists, but violated it in 
 their praciice, or else they did not so understand it; 
 and, consequenily, were not Baptists ; and then the 
 quest'on to be sttlied will be. Who ^s in the right? In- 
 spired apostles or uninspired Baptists? 
 
 Bap. You will not say, Mr. ^earche, that our Lord 
 does not speak of saving" faith in the command which 
 8t. Mark records, for iie expressly declares that the 
 faith he mentiods is necessary to salvation—" He that 
 believeth shall be saved, but he that believeih not shall 
 be damned" — and yet he places this very belief before 
 baptism. 
 
 ^*?ed. Granted, sir; yet you cannot gain anytliing^ 
 by ihe admission, because nothing is more evident than 
 that the apostles never demanded saving' faith as a pre- 
 liminary to baptism. The apostles did believe that 
 evangelical faith was necessary to salvation — they be- 
 lieved that our Lord referred to such faith in this very 
 text — they always taught that such practical faith wa^ 
 essenl'ial to eternal tffe ; yet no one instance can be 
 piodnced of their having asserted that this same de- 
 scription of faith was essential to baptism; nor does 
 the new testament afford a single instance of their hav- 
 ing waited for those evidences of faitli and conversion 
 which Baptists demand before they admit adults to this 
 ordinance. All Baptists, sir, allow that our Lord did 
 not baptize, and tiierefoiT appeal to apostolic prece- 
 
HI 
 
 dent as explanatory of our Lord's injuuctions ; and sA\ 
 parties agree that Mark speaks of saving faith, and that 
 this faith, in the order of the text, is placed before bap- 
 tism; yet the fact remains incontrovertible that they never 
 taui,^ht that baptism was essential to salvation, nor that 
 Savins; faith ivcts necessary to baptism, or that an es- 
 sential grace of the spirit was necessary to the partici- 
 pation of this non-essential ordinance. You will not 
 be shocked, Mr. Hastie, at my calling baptism a non- 
 essential ordinance ; because all Baptists agree in this 
 sentiment, and the contrary opinion would doom to per- 
 dition all those P^dobaptists, who, Mr. Waterman 
 declares, '' are all one in Christy and men of equal 
 eminence with any of his denomination." But, sir, it 
 is a query whether this text of St. Mark does not refer 
 to baptism, as antecedent to faith. A very justifiable 
 alteration in the translation will manifest this fact. In 
 the sacred original two participles are used ; the one 
 active, and the other passive, but both belonging to the 
 aorist, or indefinite tense. Before the first participle 
 an article is placed, but not before the second; showing, 
 according to The Doctrine of the Greek Article, that 
 the two participles refer to the same person ; and this 
 being the case, the copulative, kai, which unites the 
 two words together, should be translated by the term 
 " even,'' rather than by the conjunction " and.'' The 
 sentence, then, pisteuseis kai baptistheis, should be 
 rendered, " He that believeth even he who is bap- 
 tized shall be saved;" or, as participles are frequently 
 used as nouns and adjectives, the passage simply de- 
 clares that, " The believing baptized person, and only 
 the believitig baptizecl person, shall be saved*" Our 
 Lord, who, in the former part of his commission, had 
 enjoined, that in making disciples baptism should pre- 
 cede instruction, distinctly foresaw that persons would 
 rely upon that ordinance, and substitute it for evange-' 
 Heal faith. He was well aware of the propensity of 
 depraved man to place his hopes of eternal life in 
 forms and ceremonies. He knew that baptismal rege- 
 neration would soon be inc«lcated, and that baptism 
 
 K 
 
wtiuM be accouuted a saving ordinauct;, and therefore 
 in tlie sanction to this commission he lays the proper 
 stress upon faith ; he places it first in the sentence, and 
 says, he who beheveth even he that has been baptized, 
 shall be saved, but he that believeth not (although he 
 may have been baptized) shall be damned. The more 
 critically the text is investigated the more the correct- 
 ness of' this interpretation will appear. In the origi- 
 nal, as stated already, two participles of the aorist or 
 indefinite tense are employed. ^Now the most distin- 
 guished scholars are ag^reed, and agreed from observa- 
 tion, that the aorist or indefinite tense refers to past 
 time, and points out an action or event either originated 
 and completed in some indefinite past period, or to such 
 which, though they originated in some indefinite past 
 time, yet the action continues in operation, and extends 
 to the present or the future. In this sanction to our 
 Lord's commission both these senses, from the ^ ery 
 nature of the case, must be taken. In both instai.ces 
 past time is referred to, for both believing and baptiz- 
 ing are spoken of as antecedent to salvation ; and both 
 are past ere the man is saved. And Baptists must 
 admit that the baptism was an action past and finished 
 at once, perhaps in a moment ; for some have boasted 
 of the great number that could be dipped in an hour ; 
 but hflievingy though commencing at some indefinite 
 past period, must continue until faith is lost in vision. 
 I] ere, then, we have the full meaning of the two par- 
 ticiples. The sentence, O ;;/»7f?«5a.<f, he that believes, 
 is active, and expresses an action which, though com- 
 menrinfr in some indefinite past time, must continue in 
 operation until death, for if it ce'ases before that period 
 the man will be damned ; but, huptisilteis, he that is 
 baptized, is passive, and alludes to an action begun at 
 some indefinite time past and also ended at the same 
 period, the text, then, does speak of a faith that 
 must follow baptism — this every Baptist will allow — 
 but no one can prove that it asserts the necessity of 
 saving faith previously to that ordinance; and if we 
 permit npostolic precedent to afford an explanaticu, we 
 
may safely conclude that no such doctrine was intended 
 by our Lord ; for the apostles never deferred baptism 
 until they had decisive evidence of conversion. This 
 explanation is further confirmed by the omission of the 
 article, and the use of the conjunction kai, even, before 
 baptistheis, because it proves that the same person is 
 meant. Every one knows that in the sentence, ** God, 
 even our Father,'' the same person is meant ; and also 
 that the words, The Great God, ^?;<?w our Saviour, refer 
 exclusively to our Redeemer ; yet, in both these pas- 
 sages, and every other of similar import that might be 
 quoted, the first word only has the article, and its omis- 
 sion before the latter is considered as conclusive evi- 
 dence that the terms *' God," and " Father,'" belong 
 to the same person ; and also, that the words " Great 
 God," and " Saviour,'" are both equally applied to 
 Christ. O pisteuseis kai baptistheis, therefore allude 
 to one person, yet no one will say that it was intended 
 to show that baptism iraa as necessary a^ faith to sal- 
 vation : for it is admitted by all parties that persons 
 who believe will be saved, although they may never be 
 baptized ; even Baptists, who will not allow that 
 sprinkling is baptism, and therefore deny that Psedo- 
 baptists are baptized at all, yet admit that they may be 
 '* one in Christ," and may be saved. If, then, the 
 words refer to one and the same person, yet do not 
 poinc out baptism as essential to the salvation of him 
 v/ho believes, then they must prove that faith is abso- 
 lutely necessary to him who has been baptized. Here 
 we have first a broad and general declaration : — pis- 
 teusas, ** he that believes," or whosoever believes — 
 whosoever has an active, persevering faith, that con- 
 tinues till death, " shall be saved;"' and to this general 
 rule even a baptized person is no exception — even bap- 
 tistheis, a baptized person, must believe ; " for he that 
 believeth not shall be damned." What emphasis is 
 here laid upon faith ! Every form and ceremony that 
 would supplant it are shown to be unavailing ; their 
 office being not to substitute, but aid this divine prin- 
 ciple, with which salvation is associated. What a 
 
7e 
 
 •ublime sanction to the gospel commission is here sup-^ 
 plied I To believe is salvation ; to disbelieve, damna- 
 tion. That the words of St. Mark thus contain a most so- 
 lemn sanction to our Lord's command and not the com« 
 raand itself— that it refers to the results of the gospel minis-r 
 try, rather than to the ministry itself — and, consequently, 
 that it alludes to cases from which infants, in the very 
 nature of things, are excepted— is a fact which our op- 
 ponents appear most unaccountably to overlook. " Go 
 ye into all the world," &c. is the commission. " Who-» 
 soever believeth," &c. is the sanction. To the com- 
 mand, *' Go, make disciples," all is future; but to the 
 awful declarations, " shall he saved"—" shall be dam- 
 ned," all is past^-^the faith, the baptism, the unbelief, 
 are all ended ; only the everlasting; results are referred 
 to : and to gather from this solemn conclusion of the 
 whole matter, that faith precedes baptism, would re- 
 quire nothing short of another revelation from heaven ; 
 for if apostolic example be allowed to guide us, all 
 must grant that the order of the words but little influ^ 
 enced the persons to whom they were first uttered. 
 
 Thus, Mr. Hastie, you perceive that a Ptedobaptist 
 can have no possible objection to an examination of 
 St. IMark ; for it is evident that the explanation of the 
 the text in question, which does not make it exclude 
 children from baptism, is the only one which can har- 
 monize the commission recorded by the two evange-r 
 lists— ^and reconcile apostolic precedent wuth the 
 commands of the Son of God — is the only one which 
 does not exclude infants from heaven, and females 
 from the Lord's supper, and which gives to baptism 
 and faith their proper places in the economy of redemp- 
 tion. Yea, it is proved that the text permits the bap- 
 tism of infants, because, though it speaks of believing 
 and baptism in the past tense, yet it also refers to that 
 faith which must foil oiv the ordinance, although it af- 
 fords no evidence of its \\2iV\w^ preceded baptism. The 
 man who is saved may have been baptized at any m- 
 definite period of his life, whether in infancy or after- 
 ward!* the passage does not manifest, nor doc« it 
 
71 
 
 place the emphasis either upon the ordinance or the 
 time when it was performed ; all the stress is laid upon 
 the circumstance of believing until death ; and conse- 
 quently, upon beiievino; after the person has been 
 baptised. The text, therefore, so confidently quoted 
 against the baptism of infants, as far as it can be 
 shown to bear upon the controversy, sanctions rather 
 than condemns the practice ; for the words, '' He that 
 believeth even he who has been baptized shall be saved, 
 but he that believeth not shall be damned," can never 
 settle the point whether the person who believes and is 
 saved, and disbelieves and is damned, was baptized 
 in infancy, or at any other indefinite period of his life. 
 
 Bap. You have all along taken it for granted that 
 females are not mentioned in reference to communion ; 
 but it has been said that in 1 Cor. 1 1 . 28, women are men- 
 tioned. In the sentence *' Let a man examine himself 
 and so let him eat," the word man refers to both 
 sexes ; for in the original, the Greek term, anthropos, 
 is used, and that word includes both sexes. If aner 
 had been employed, the case would have been differ- 
 ent, for this term refers almost exclusively to males. 
 
 Pfed. But, sir, your cause will not be aided by 
 this criticism, unless you can prove that anthropos 
 always includes both genders, which you never can 
 demonstrate until you are prepared to show that the 
 blind man, recorded in John the 9th, was either a man 
 or a woman ; or that when the term is applied to our 
 Lord, it may be what sender you please : for in each 
 of these instances, and numerous others that might be 
 quoted from the new testament and from the Septua- 
 gint, anthropos is used when males, and males ordy^ 
 are meant. On the other hand, aner is frequently used 
 when both sexes are included. Our Lord speaks of 
 the Andres, men of Xineveh ; yet he must have refers 
 red to all the inhabitants, both men and women. And 
 Peter calls the one hundred and twenty disciples, men- 
 tioned Acts the 1st, Andres, men, although the pre- 
 ceding verses tell us that some of the assembly were 
 females. Many other passages of similar import might 
 
72 
 
 be quoted, proving that Baptists have not a thousandth 
 part of the evidence to make anthropos, a man, signify 
 a woman, as Pa^dobaptists have to establish the doc- 
 trine of infant baptism. 
 
 Bap. I'emales may have the quaiitications for com- 
 munion, but *' it is confessed that infants possess neither 
 the capacity nor the grace." Page 15. 
 
 Pasd. But the argument of Baptists is, that we 
 must have a direct command for what we do, and that 
 we must do nothing but what is expressly commanded ; 
 ai;d therefore^ it' their reasoning is g')od, as female 
 communion is not enjoined, we must not allow women 
 to come to the Lord's supper. For, as we are prohi- 
 bited by our opponents from making any use of infer- 
 ence in the case of infants, then it is equally improper 
 to employ iiiferential deductions respectins; lemalos. — 
 Besides, nothina- short of omniscience is required to 
 prove that iufaiits, when baptized, are destitute of g,race. 
 Many are sanctified from the woml) — ail that die in 
 infancy are believed to S"o to heaven ; then of course 
 such may be baptized, for such must have a spiritual 
 capacity, and not only moral, but spiritual dispositions; 
 unless it can be shown that a spirit born of God's Spi- 
 rit is, notwithstanding, destitute of spiritual capacity, 
 dispositions, and grace. But the capacity of children 
 is not the point at issue. The commission of Christ in 
 Matthew enjoins the baptism of infants ; the words of 
 St. Mark allow of the same practice : the apostles did 
 not wait for proofs of savino' faith before they baptized ; 
 and baptism has been proved to be nothing but a solemn 
 introduction to the school of Christ for instruction, for 
 which infants are more proper subjects than the ma- 
 jority of adults admitted by the apostles. For, if "faith 
 comes by hearins," what more likely to elicit faith than 
 the early trainina' of children " in the nurture and ad- 
 monition of the Lord ?" 
 
 Bap. ** Every positive institute must be limited by 
 divine regulations, and such is baptism." Page 15. 
 
 Paed. Such, you ought to have said, is /«/a??f bap- 
 tism ; for our Lord's commission, recorded in Matthew, 
 
73 
 
 by placing baptism before teaching, and the conduct 
 of the apostles in udniinistering it to persons who could 
 not prove that they had saving faith, sutliciently show 
 that the divine regulation can never be literally obser- 
 ved except in the case of infants. 
 
 Bap. Pa:dobaptists " exclude impenitent adults, 
 though commanded to baptize ' all nations,' because 
 they answer not to the law ; and we refuse to baptize 
 infants, because they do not answer to its requirements. 
 The force of this remark has been felt by many P^edo- 
 baptists.'' Page IG. 
 
 Peed. However your opponents may have felt the 
 force of this remark, yet its whole energy lies in its 
 folly ; because it proceeds on the assumption that there 
 is no difference between impenitent adults and uncon- 
 scious infants. If this doctrine be correct, then there 
 is no difference between Herod and Pontius Pilate, who 
 were impenitent adults, and the uncanscious babes 
 whom Baptists admit may go to heaven ! Surely 31 r. 
 AVaterman did not think that any P^.clobaptist would 
 regard this confusion confounded as a " direct proof 
 of the impropriety of infant bajjtism ; and noihing but 
 the blindino" partialities of a sect can be uro:ed as an 
 apology for his own jumping from this wonderful pre- 
 mise to the contident conclusions : — therefore infants are 
 excluded 1 Therefore believers are the only proper sub- 
 jects of baptism ! Tor, should any one ask, " Where- 
 fore ?" the answer is obvious : — because infants ulio 
 have never sinned are on a par w ith Judas Iscariot and 
 other impenitent a<lults; therefore Baptists are right, 
 and Paidobaptists are wrong ! ! 
 
 Bap. "The qualifications required by the apostles 
 of the persons baptized, is a direct proof that believers 
 are only to be admitted to the ordinance. The Church of 
 England Catechism says that repentance and faith are 
 required of persons who are to be baptized. The ad- 
 dress of Peter to the multitude, " Kepent, and be 
 baptized," &:c. and the history of the Ethiopian noble- 
 man, prove that such were the requirements demanded 
 by the apostle*. This is, therefore, the point of the 
 
74 
 
 argumoit ; that as the apostles always required faith 
 and repentance for baptism, we conclude that infants 
 destitute of such principles werenotbaptized." Page 16. 
 Peed. It" this is the poiiit of the argument, then 
 tiie cause of the Baptists is lost for ever ; because no 
 instance can be adduced from the sacred volume of the 
 apostles ever having waited a single hour for proofs of 
 either saving faith or evans'elical repentance. Instead 
 of their always making such a demand, we have no 
 evidence that they did so in ayiy instance. The case 
 of the eunuch has been examined, and found to have 
 no bearing upon the subject. And unless the three thou- 
 sand couid repent^ unaided by the Holy Spirit, they 
 were baptized before they repented : if they had re- 
 pented, and believed previously, then they had remis- 
 sion of sins before they partook of the ordinance ; yet 
 Peter baptized them for the remission, and that they 
 might receive the Holy Ghost. Besides, what time 
 was allowed to this vile assembly to repent and believe? 
 For, if some were "devout Jews," some were the mur- 
 derers of Christ; yet they were all baptized the same 
 day— they were baptized for repentance— ^and, like 
 John's disciples, as they could give no evidence before 
 baptism that they were true penitents^ were exhorted, 
 after baptism, " to bring forth fruits meet for repen- 
 tance." Here then are examples brought forth as " dl* 
 rect proofs,'" which prove nothing but that Baptists, in 
 this ordinance J never follow " Scripture principles, pre^ 
 cepts, and precedents." Mr. Waterman would soon 
 be excluded from his denomination as a heretic, were he 
 to act as Philip did in the case of Simon IMagus and 
 the Samaritans — as John or Jesus Christ did with the 
 thousands that came to them for baptism— or as the 
 apostles did with the multitude on the day of Pente- 
 cost. But yet, take whatever view one may of the 
 piety of these converts, still the texts refer to adults 
 only, and, therefore, have nothing at all to do with in- 
 fant baptism. AYhat in this place Mr. AV aterman calls 
 '* direct proof," is far from attbrding even the slightest 
 indirect evidence in favour of his system. We wonder 
 
75 
 
 too, sir, if your friend has direct evidence that lie 
 should have gone to the Church ot" England Catechism 
 for aid, especially to stoop so low as to quote only a 
 detached portion of that formulary, and consequently 
 to furnish nothing but a partial and unfair specmien of 
 its sentiments on baptism. 
 
 Bap. Sir^ '* the apostles were infallible; theif 
 conduct was right, however others who have professed 
 to follow them may have deviated. Had they then two 
 sacred statutes connected with christian baptism— the 
 first that which regulated the baptism of believers, re- 
 corded as our directory — the second that which referred 
 to infants, and which is not contained in the sacred 
 volume ? Such a supposition, I can easily conceive, 
 a Roman Catholic would adopt, who practices infant 
 baptism, not as sanctioned by the word of God, but 
 as founded on tradition.''' Page 17. 
 
 Paed. This passage, Mr. Hastie, you must confess 
 is exquisitely charitable ! The poor Ptedobaptists are 
 here put on a par with the Roman Catholics ! Justnow, 
 like the French infidels, they were declared to be at 
 issue on the very essence of religion 1 and yet, these 
 popish — these infidel Peedobaptists, are said to be 
 equally as eminent as the pious, protestant, believing 
 Baptists ! 'Tis difficult to know which to admire 
 most in these most candid, christian sentiments — the 
 charity or the consistency. But, sir, were one dis- 
 posed to be as uncharitable as Mr. Waterman, it would 
 be easy to retort this charge of papacy with a vengeance, 
 for Baptists never follow apostolic precedent. If the 
 apostles lived in our days, and acted as they did in pri- 
 mitive times, the Baptists would call them to order, and 
 revile them as papists. To baptize such creatures as 
 the Samaritans, or the three thousand, the same day or 
 the same hour that they heard the first gospel sermon, 
 would shock the whole Baptist board 1 If the apos- 
 tles were infallible, and Paedobaptists most heartily and 
 practically too subscribe to the sentiment, the Bap- 
 tists more than other christians in christendo.m reject 
 their infallible example. Tradition, as the ten or ticenty 
 L 
 
76 
 
 human authorities to one text of scripture, quoted by 
 Mr. Waterman, demonstrate — tradition, or something 
 else, must guide the Baptist, for they have not a sin- 
 g'le sentence of scripture to sanction their practice. 
 The remark then concerning two rules being needed to 
 sanction adult and infant baptism is sufficiently an- 
 swered by the fact, that such duplicate authority would 
 be absolutely useless. One command was enough to 
 sanction infant and adult circumcision ; and the apos- 
 tles found one commission equally conclusive as to in- 
 fant and adult baptism. 
 
 Bap. *' Paedobaptists confess, Mr. Searche, that 
 infant baptism hath neither scripture precept nor pre- 
 cedent, yet such is their inconsistency, they still con- 
 tinue to practice it. Ah, Sir, and how long will custom 
 tyrannize over good men 1" Mr. Waterman " congra- 
 tulates us in being delivered from such an influence, so 
 that we can not only unite in the great protestant doc- 
 trine, but practically exemplify it — the bible, and the 
 bible alone, is the religion of protestants," Page 17. 
 
 Paed. Here, sir, again in this letter, which was to 
 furnish direct proofs, you give us nothing but the most 
 unfounded assertions. For if Paedobaptists confess that 
 they have neither precept nor precedent for their prac- 
 tice, whence did Mr. Waterman obtain the several 
 scriptural arguments which he vainly attempts to an- 
 swer in Letter III ? He must either confess that he 
 forged those arguments for the purpose of making his 
 book larger, or else allow that this sentence is a fiction, 
 fabricated for the purpose of making people believe that 
 his opponents are papists ! Doubtless such a bugbear 
 would frighten crowds into the water, had it not been 
 previously admitted that these papist professors, who 
 are at issue on the essence of religion, are all one in 
 Christ ! However, to tell his dear friend in this letter 
 that Paedobaptists confess that they have neither scrip- 
 ture precept nor precedent for infant baptism, and there- 
 fore are worse than papists, and then to write a letter 
 sixteen pages long, the longest in the whole book, to 
 confute the arguments they adduce from God's word, to 
 
77 
 
 sanction their practice, proves that the title Amator 
 Veritatis, like the whole contents of his cheap desi- 
 deratum for Baptists, is a most gratuitous assumption. 
 The writer of such a passao^e has little reason to con- 
 gratulate himself, or those whom he may mislead, " in 
 being- delivered from the tyranny of custom" under which 
 the popish Predobaptists are prostrate, nor to boast of 
 practically exemplifyino; the sentiment; the bible, and 
 bible alone, is the religion of protestants ; because 
 truth, and nothing but truth, is the religion of the bible. 
 
 Bap. There is one passage we have not yet ex- 
 amined ; and I refer you therefore with delight to the 
 infallible standard, as the sanction of the opinions I ad- 
 vocate. The apostle Peter, in his first epistle, evi- 
 dently recognizes the possession of moral qualities — 
 repentance and faith, as essential to baptism. " The 
 like figure," he remarks, " whereunto baptism doth now 
 save us, not the putting away of the tilth of the flesh, 
 but the answer of a good couscience toward God.'' In 
 this expressive lang-uage, he describes baptism not as 
 the medium of purification, but as the inward testi- 
 mony of the mind. I confess, my friend, I know not 
 how it can be applicable to the baptism of unconscious 
 babes." pp. 17, 18. 
 
 Psed. The latter confession is the most happy ad- 
 mission that Mr. Waterman could have made ; and all 
 that a Paedobaptist could wish him to grant. For if 
 the text does not refer to unconscious babes, then it 
 does not refer to them ; and, consequently, if it does not 
 refer to them at all, and Amator Veritatis, says he 
 does not know how it can, then of course it does not 
 exclude them, unless not to mention is to exclude ; and 
 on that principle children would be excluded from sal- 
 vation, and females from the Lord's table. The text 
 therefore on Mr. W.'s admission afifords neither " direct 
 nof even indirect proof" against infant baptism ; and 
 what a wonder, 3Ir. Hastie, that your friend should have 
 been delighted to quote a text which, he says, has no- 
 thing to do with the subject ! But, sir, it would re- 
 quire little ingenuity to turn this very passage against 
 
78 
 
 the Baptists. The word eperotema means an answer, 
 stipulation, or pledge ; still Peter does not say who fur- 
 nished this pledge, whether the adults [who were bap- 
 tized, or the parents who brought their children to the 
 ordinance, and pledged themselves by this solemn sa- 
 crament to bring up their offspring in the nurture and 
 admonition of the Lord. In referring to the conduct 
 of Peter and his fellow labourers, we find that they ne- 
 ver waited a moment for the people to give satisfactory 
 proofs of faith and repentance previously to baptism ; 
 and, consequently, there would be less danger of baptiz- 
 ing hypocrites in the baptism of infants than in bap* 
 tizing the promiscuous multitudes that John baptized, 
 or that Peter admitted to this ordinance, both before 
 and after the ascension of our Lord. When an adult 
 who had a family, for oikos means a family, was bap- 
 tized, his family was baptized with him ; and by the 
 ordinance he gave a solemn pledge that he would sit 
 as a disciple at the feet of Christ, and do his utmost 
 that his children, whether babes or not, should also 
 be instructed in the school of Christ. And at the 
 same time the deacons and the whole church, by the act 
 of receiving these infants, gave a solemn pledge that they 
 would be fellow helpers in this glorious undertaking. 
 Peter, then, may refer to the pledge of adults, of pa- 
 rents, of bishops, of deacons, and of the whole church, 
 and which pledge never furnished better evidence of a 
 good conscience toward God than when it dedicated the 
 rising generation to the Redeemer, and formed a barrier 
 between them and the world, and solemnly stipulated to 
 train them up in the way they should go. The text, 
 therefore, far from excluding infants from this sacra- 
 ment, most fully admits of their participation. 
 
 Bap. You may very well know, my friend, that many 
 Pa^dobaptists have maintained the moral requirements 
 of Christian Baptism. Superville, Limborch, Saurin, 
 Wolf Capito, Palmer, and Erasmus, have all subscribed 
 to this sentiment. Padobaptists being therefore judges, 
 must conclude that believers are tbe only proper sub^ 
 jocts for baptism, pp. 18, VJ. 
 
79 
 
 Pied. Really, sir, it is a pity that Mr. "Waterman 
 should have cumbered his pages with so many profane 
 authorities, because whatever Aveight human authority 
 and tradition may have with Baptists, Peedobaptists 
 take the bible and the bible alone as their guide. It 
 seems rather remarkable too that Amator Veritatis, 
 after charging" his brethren with tradition and popery, 
 should instantly fly to the aid of such men as Lim- 
 borch the Remonstrant, and Erasmus the Nondescript, 
 and further should put down these half dozen naKies 
 as constituting the ivhole body of his opponents. ^^ hy, 
 too, if Mr. Waterman had direct proofs from scripture, 
 did he run after these objectionable authorities ? As 
 for Limborch and Erasmus, Amator Veritatis would 
 feel indignant at the mention of their sentiments to esta- 
 blish any point on which he may differ from them. 
 Erasmus would be a poor time-server, whose word 
 ought never to be taken ; and Limborch would be 
 classed with the worst of heretics. But here they utter 
 sentiments which he supposes agree with his own, and 
 in such a case, it is all fish that comes to the net ; there- 
 fore Baptists and Paedobaptists, Remonstrants or Car- 
 dinals, are all welcome, provided they will aid the 
 Baptists, so diffident are they of the proofs furnished 
 by scripture. As to the quotations he has given, they 
 are alike unfairly quoted, and chiefly consist of bare 
 assertions, unsupported by even the shadow^ of a proof. 
 Bad indeed must the cause be that stands in need of 
 such profane assistance. 
 
 Bap. Mr. W. had no need of the authority of these 
 men ; for " the uniform conduct of the apostles and 
 primitive ministers, in baptizing only believers, affords 
 direct proof in favour of our position. Notice, my 
 friend, the persons baptized, and they are the direct 
 proofs in favour of our principles — the precedents for 
 our practice. The three thousand " gladly received 
 the word." Cornelius and his house were baptized 
 when the Spirit had descended^ — The apostle of the 
 Gentiles was baptized when he had prayed — The Co- 
 rinthians believed and were baptized— The Samaritans 
 
80 
 
 were baptized, both men and women, when they be- 
 lieved Philip preaching the things concerning the king- 
 dom of God— -and the Ethiopian nobleman submitted 
 to the ordinance as a beUever. Such are numerous ex- 
 amples of persons baptized by various individuals, and 
 in different places ; yet it is evident that there was an 
 entire uniformity in the requirement made by all 
 the administrators of this ordinance." Page 19. 
 
 PjEd. Nothing but ** the tyranny of custom, or 
 the blinding partialities of a sect," or the want of good 
 arguments, or the inability to discover them, would 
 have suffered any one to produce these examples as di- 
 rect proofs, because they have nothing to do with the 
 subject. Here is an allusion to the adult baptism of 
 persons who had never been baptized before ; but this 
 ig not the point of controversy. On this subject Bap- 
 .tists and Peedobaptisls are agreed ; the matter of dis- 
 pute is the baptism of infants, which some of these 
 texts rather sanction than condemn. It is said the 
 *' three thousand received the word gladly;" but this 
 does not prove that they had faith and repentance, for 
 the time was a time of expectation and excitement, 
 and the people were baptized the same day, before 
 there was any space for their ardourto cool, and for 
 them to furnish satisfactory evidence of genuine faith 
 and repentance. From another portion of scripture 
 we learn, that it is possible for persons to receive the 
 word with joy without being converted. Our Lord 
 says, ** He that received the seed into stony places, 
 the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy 
 receiveth itJ" The Galatians felt so much gladness 
 and *' blessedness'^ under the word, that they were 
 j:eady to pluck out their eyes and give them to the 
 preacher ; consequently, Mr. AYaterman must prove 
 that the bewitched Galatians, of whom Paul stood in 
 <loubt, and travailed in birth again, and that the stony 
 ground hearers were truly converted, before this quo- 
 tation can prove any thing. For if to receive the word 
 «ladly was a proof that the three thousand had genu- 
 ine faith and repentance — then, by the same argument, 
 
81 
 
 the Galatians who were fallen from ^ace had sfpnuine 
 faith and rfpontance, for the}' all received the word 
 with even more " frladnes^''' than the three thousand, 
 —and the persons in the parable, who had no root in 
 themselves, were also savingly converted, because they 
 in like manner " heard the word, and anon xjcithjuy 
 received it.'' This " direct proof" then proves too 
 much ; for it demonstrates, according to Mr. W. that 
 people were converted who, accordinpj to our Lord and 
 his apostle, were never converted at all. The case of 
 Cornelius is, unfortunately for the cause it is brought 
 forward to support, completely neutralized by the two 
 other precedents that 3Ir. AV . in this very sentence 
 quotes. For, if the Holy Ghost fell on Cornelius be- 
 fore he was baptized, yet he did not fall upon the Sa- 
 maritans until after they had been baptized — and the 
 three thousand were baptized that they might receive 
 the Holy Ghost. The same thing is said of the disci- 
 ples whom Paul found at Ephesus, who had not heard 
 of the Holy Ghost, and on whom he did not fall until 
 after they had been baptized, and Paul had prayed 
 for them. Now, accordino- to every rational mode of 
 arguing. If the Holy Ghost falling on Cornelius is a 
 direct proof of his being converted before he was bap- 
 tized — then the fact, that the Holy Spirit did not fall 
 upon the three thousand nor upon the Samaritans nor 
 Ephesians until after they were baptized, affords three 
 direct proofs of baptism before conversion. How in 
 the world could Amator Veritatis talk of the uniform 
 practice of the apostles, w hen the precedent their con- 
 duct furnishes, and which he himself quotes, is three 
 to one against his declaration ? The case of Cornelius 
 is a solitary one, and forms an exception to the gene- 
 ral rule of apostolic proceeding ; and the whole history 
 shows that it was unusual for such a thing to take 
 place, and that it occurred in this instance solely to 
 overcome the prejudices of Peter. Nothing is more 
 evident than that the apostle himself was astonished 
 at beholding an event so uncommon. "What " glaring 
 inconsistency" then for a lover of truth, in a book that 
 
82 
 
 professes to advance nothing but scriptural precepts and 
 precedents^ thns unfairly to quote the word of God to 
 adduce one solitary and unusual fact as exhibiting the 
 uniform conduct of the apostles, when the very an- 
 nals to which he appeals demonstrate that the case of 
 Cornelius was an exception to what generally occurred. 
 A^ hat presumption is here. We have one instance of 
 a person receiving the Holy Ghost before he was bap- 
 tized — and several instances of crowds being baptized 
 before they received the Holy Spirit; yet, says the 
 lover of truth, by what logical hiversion, I know not; 
 the one example is the infallible rule, and the many 
 precedents are the exceptions ! How he obtained this 
 knowledge, whether by inspiration, tradition, prejudice, 
 custom, or presumption, we must wait until the printing 
 of his next cheap desideratum for Baptists, to deter- 
 mine. As to the narrative of the Ethiopian nobleman, 
 that has been proved already to have nothing to do 
 with the subject ; and Mr. A\ . well knows that there 
 were reasons for the delay of Paul's baptism. Had it 
 not been that every disciple was afraid to go i.ear him, 
 Saul might have been baptized the same hour, before 
 any opportunity had been given him tor prayer ; and 
 the facts of his history fully intimate that he was bap- 
 tized before he understood the gospel. For his sins 
 were to be washed away — and he went into Arabia to 
 be instructed in the gospel after his baptism. Finally, 
 the faith of the Corinthians and Samaritans, which pre- 
 ceded their baptism, the new testament warrants us to 
 conclude was nothing more than a mere assent to the 
 gospel; for Simon 31agus was one of the Samaritan 
 believers, and the incestuous person whom Paul deli- 
 vers over to satan was among the believers at Corinth. 
 It is well know n that many of the latter believers gave 
 such imperfect proofs of real conversion, that Paul 
 thanks God " that he had baptized none of them." 
 Thus you perceive, sir, that your pugnacious friend, 
 who has sent a challenge to the w hole corps of Pajdo- 
 baptists, never does any thing more than beat the 
 air. 
 
S3 
 
 Bap. ** But why is it that infants are not named? 
 The persons are described as men and women ; and can 
 we account for the silence of the inspired historian re- 
 specting children, when specifying the very candidates, 
 if there were any infants baptized ? The Pi3edobaptist 
 missionary reports usually specify the children as well 
 as the adults that are baptized; and had the apostles 
 maintained similar principles, we should have read of 
 men, women^ and children." Page 20. 
 
 Paed. Still four to one against you, Mr. Hastie. 
 There is only ojte instance in the new testament in which 
 " men and ivomen'"' are mentioned in connexion with 
 baptism ; yet IMr. Waterman brings forward this one 
 example as evidence that the apostles never baptized 
 any but adult persons only. But the inspired narrative 
 assures us that the apostles baptized at least four fa- 
 milies. Now, sir, you can never get over the fact, that 
 the word house is the scripture expression for a family, 
 and repeatedly used for families in which infants were 
 found ; consequently, if the apostles did not baptize in- 
 fants, if the Holy Spirit did not wish infants to partake 
 of this ordinance, then certainly the term house, which 
 any man has a right to interpret as meaning a family in 
 which there were unconscious babes, M^ould never have 
 been used. If infants are excluded, the word of God, in 
 using the term house, is chargeable with ambiguiti/. 
 We leave the Baptists to settle this point as they can ; 
 but, sir, one of the two must be granted; either infants 
 are not excluded, or the Holy Ghost has used ambi- 
 guous language. With respect to tlie report of our mis- 
 sionaries, iMr. Waterman adopts his usual partial and 
 unfair mode of quotation. Let him read all the reports 
 of our missionaries, and he may find the frequent men- 
 tion of families or households. But v.ere this not the 
 case, it would be excusable ; because the term house or 
 household is not in our day so common an expression 
 for a family as among the Greeks and Hebrews. But 
 what in the world does Mr. W. want with missionary 
 reports, if he had " direct proofs ?" Really, this con- 
 stant recurrence to human authorit}' must leave on his 
 
 M 
 
84 
 
 reader's mind no very favourable impression of the con- 
 fidence which the writer himself has in his scripture 
 precedents. What a miserable shift to establish his 
 point ! Paedobaptist missionaries use a periphrasis, in- 
 stead of a scripture expression ; therefore, therefore, 
 infant baptism is wrong ! Pitiable must be the cause 
 that reduced its advocate to such an emergency. — 
 But, by the bye, Mr. Hastie, speaking of missionary 
 reports, may we not turn the tables against you ? How 
 is it that your missionaries never speak of the baptizing 
 of households ? Or how is it, if they did so, that the 
 word house or household would soon be supplanted^ or 
 receive the appendage of a note, to show that no in- 
 fant was included, and that though the new testament 
 may be ambiguous, still Baptist reports are more cau- 
 tiously worded ? Why sir, is this ? But because your 
 folks know full well that the term house, or household, 
 unless limited by the context, may include infants. 
 
 Bap. AVe know " our opponents are fascinated with 
 the word households, but this will be explained ;" in 
 the third letter of 3Jr. Waterman's invaluable book, 
 >vhich, notwithstanding all your cavilling, contains, 
 " popular testimony suited to the capacity of all minds 
 — it is well calculated to settle the dispute — answer the 
 enquiries of the serious, and confirm the pious in their 
 attachment to the ordinances of Christ ! ! With the 
 sentiment of Mr Burder I most cordially — " Page 21. 
 
 Psed. What, another quotation, Mr. Hastie ! Why 
 this is not less than the thirteenth time in this short 
 letter which was to contain direct proofs from scripture 
 that human authority is called in to settle the Baptist 
 controversy ; verily, sir, such testimony is not popular 
 among Peedobaptists, nor can it ever settle the dispute; 
 nor indeed is there a word in this letter that yields a 
 direct proof of any thing but that the author was un- 
 der '' the tyranny of custom, or blinded by the par- 
 tialities of a sect." To suppose, as the writer does, that 
 such arguments as are here pompously brought forward 
 will either settle the dispute, or give universal triumph 
 to the practices of the Baptists, is to anticipate that 
 
85 
 
 mankind will some day be afflicted with lunacy. For 
 some heavy disaster must befall the intellect and the 
 heart of the man who reveres the word of God, ere he 
 will discover in these pages any thing but false conclu- 
 sions, destitute of even the ingenuity of sophistry. 
 
 Bap. Ah, my friend, when you have read the can- 
 did statements with Avhich letter the third commences, 
 you will blush for having indulged such reflections as 
 these. He admits that baptism is a minor topic ; that 
 believers are all one in Christ ; and though he is coming 
 *' more closely into war icifh Pcedobapiists,'^ yet he 
 prays that " grace may be with all who love our Lord 
 Jesus Christ in sincerity." Page '22. 
 
 P«d. You know% sir, that I have before alluded to 
 this charitable effusion merely to show its " glaring 
 inconsistency" with the other parts of the book. In 
 the last letter he calls his opponents almost any thing 
 but gentlemen. He insinuates that they are zealots, 
 blinded by the partialities of a sect; — that they are 
 Roman Catholics ; — yea, more inconsistent than Cath- 
 olics ; he becomes indignant and pugnacious, and strips 
 to fight the " whole corps" of them ; for he declares 
 they are under the tyranny of custom, and at issue witli 
 Baptists on the very essence of religion ; — and he fur- 
 ther insults them, by using arguments which, took for 
 granted, that Peedobaptists were destitute of common 
 sense ; and now he wishes to cover the whole with this 
 tawdry patch of charity ! This is to daub w ith untem- 
 pered mortar the very persons whom, just before, he 
 has done his utmost to bespatter with mud, and whom 
 he is now going more closely to fight after he has knelt 
 dowm and prayed that the grace of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ may be with them. 
 
 Humane capite cervicem pictor equinam 
 Jungere si velit, et varias inducere plumas 
 Undique coUatis membris, ut turpiter atrum 
 Desinat in piscem mulier formossa superne ; 
 Spectatum admissi risum teneatis, amici ? 
 And, by the bye, this third crusade against the poor 
 Piedobaptists is something like Don QuixoUe going af- 
 
ter the windmills, because he tells us in page 16 and 
 17 that Pa^dobaptists have conceded the point already. 
 Why go and wage closer icar with them after they have 
 capitulated, than when they were all up in arms ? 
 It seems that all they will get from the submission 
 proposed by Messrs. Superville, Limborch, Wolf Ca- 
 pito, Saurin, Palmer, and Erasmus, and >vhich Mr. 
 A^^aterman had signed, is a more complete drubbing 
 than ever ; for he is now, after they have yielded, going 
 " to war with them more closely" than ever — at least, 
 as soon as he has said, *' Let us pray," and suppli- 
 cated the grace, wdiich, poor souls ! they will profoundly 
 need, to bear such a thrashing. However, nous ver- 
 rons, you will now oblige, by favouring me with the 
 arsuments for infant baptism which Mr. Waterman has 
 examined. 
 
 Bap. You may smile, sir, at our weapons, but you 
 will find this part of the subject more difficult to conr 
 tend with than any branch of the controversy that has 
 yet come under review. The first argument that Mr. 
 ^Yaterman has examined and confuted is that which 
 Picdobaptists adduce from the Abrahamic Covenant. 
 " This is generally stated to be the covenant of grace ; 
 and as circumcision was a sign or seal of its blessings 
 to Abraham and his seed — circumcision having been 
 abolished, baptism comes in its stead. This is the pil- 
 lar which the Rev. Drs. Dwight, Wardlaw, and Bur- 
 der consider as the chief support of infant baptism— 
 the basis of the system. With Baptist writers it is 
 customary to attack this pillar at its base, and their 
 arguments have not yet, I conceive, been answered." 
 
 Pa^d. And does Mr. W. undertake to prove that 
 the covenant made to Abraham was not the covenant 
 of grace ? 
 
 i3ap. He has availed himself of the labours of Mr. 
 Birt, who " has ably conducted this part of the de- 
 fence." Page 23. 
 
 Pfed. You may leave others to judge of the ability 
 of the defence ; pray let us examine his arguments. 
 
 Bap. Well, my friend, Mr. Birt has nine able ar- 
 guments on this subject ; and. 
 
87 
 
 I. *' The covenant of gjace was in operation and 
 its saving benefits conferred two thousand years before 
 circumcision was in existence, so that there could be 
 no natural and necessary connexion betw^een this rite 
 and the covenant of grace ; but the national promises 
 made to Abraham were accompanied by the institution 
 of circumcision." Page 23. 
 
 Paid. If this is a specimen of Mr. Birt's ability, 
 then, sir, its chief energy seems to consist in being 
 able to give a flat contradiction to scripture. The lirst 
 part of the argument rests on the assumption, that be- 
 cause circumcision came two thousand years after the 
 covenant of grace was promulgated, therefore it cowXA 
 not be a seal afterward attached to it. But it is evi- 
 dent that the time of affixing a seal to an agreement is 
 perfectly arbitrary, and in this case must have de- 
 pended solely on the will of God. It was entirely 
 optional whether to affix this seal the first year, or de- 
 lay doing so for two thousand years. Why this very 
 argument, which is based upon the mere time when 
 the seal was affixed, would do away with the sealing 
 of the covenant altogether. It is granted by all that 
 the true ratification of the covenant of grace was the 
 blood of Christ ; yet, when the Redeemer died, that 
 covenant had been in operation /bz^r thousand yearx. 
 Now if circumcision had no natural or necessary con- 
 nexion with the covenant of grace because it was two 
 thousand years after that covenant befjan to operate, 
 then the blood of Christ had no natural and necessary 
 connexion with the same covenant because it was not 
 shed until four thousand years after that very cove- 
 nant was in operation! The whole argument, then, 
 turns on the simple matter of time. The covenant 
 was not sealed when first promulgated, therefore it 
 could not be sealed two thousand years after, " although 
 a thousand years to the Lord are but as one day," then 
 of course it could not be sealed yb?«r thousand years 
 after. If the space of two thousand years prevented 
 circumcision from ratifying the covenant, then, double 
 the length of time, or four thousand years, prevented 
 
88 
 
 the blood of Christ from ratifying- the covenant ! Again, 
 it must be observed, that if it was not the covenant of 
 ^race which was then ratified, this argument would go 
 far towards preventing circumcision from being a seal 
 to the national blessings promised to the patriarch ; for 
 Abraham was seventy-Jive years old when the promise 
 was made to him, and he was ninety pears old and nine 
 when the seal of circumcision was allixed to it; so that 
 the promise was announced fourteen years before il was 
 sealed ; and as every year is one in Mr. Birt's able de- 
 fence, the natural and necessary connexion between 
 circumcision and the national covenant must have suf- 
 fered a fourteen years diminution. And Abraham's 
 posterity were in a pitial)le case ; for as years increased 
 from the period when the covenant began to operate, 
 the validity of the seal decreased in an equal propor- 
 tion ; so that the son who was born a thousand years 
 after Abraham received a seal which was a thousand 
 times less connected with the national covenant than it 
 had been in the days of the patriarch ! Poor Solomon ! 
 He lived nearly a thousand years after Abraham and 
 Solomon was circumcised, yet the seal was in those 
 -days a thousand times less connected witli the promised 
 blessings than it was a thousand years before ! What 
 an able argument ! At the very period when the Is- 
 raelites were more fully in possession of the land of 
 Canaan than they had ever been, they were a thousand 
 times less likely to have it than was Abraham, to whom 
 *' God gave none inheritance in Canaan, no, not so much 
 «s to set his foot on" ! But the folly of Mr. Birt's rea- 
 soning is far surpassed by his utter disregard of truth 
 and of scripture. The covenant sealed by circumcision 
 was to all intents and purposes the covenant of grace. 
 The sacred narrative informs us that God made two 
 covenants with Abraham : the first referred solely 
 to the laud of Canaan, and is recorded Gen. 15. It 
 was given to the patriarch in answer to the question 
 which he put to Jehovah, " Whereby shall 1 know 
 that 1 shall inlierit the land V and ratified in the usual 
 %vay by the blood of animals. But the covenant con- 
 
89 
 
 firmed by circumcision, ami thus rectified by human 
 hlood, alludes exclusively, with the exception of one 
 verse only, to spiritual blessings, and is so explained 
 in the new testament. The first verses, which speak of 
 Abraham as the " father of many nations," and of the 
 immense multiplication of his seed, the apostle assures 
 us referred to his being' the " father of the faithful,'^ 
 or of believers. He was to be " the father of them 
 that believe though they he not circumcised." Now 
 those who are " not circumcised"' can be none other 
 than new testament believers who are not bound to ob- 
 serve that rite; for neither Jews nor proselytes, who 
 lived previously to Christ, can be intended, be- 
 cause such disobedient persons, by not submitting to 
 circumcision, as long as its observance was obligatory, 
 w^ould have proved that they were not the spiritual 
 children of Abraham. In the same chapter, Rom. 
 4. lo, St. Paul declared that " the promise that he 
 shoukl be the heir of the world ^^as not to Abraham or 
 his seed through the law but through the righteousness 
 of faith." It .is then added, that Abraham " is the 
 father of us allj' according as it is written^ " a father 
 of 7nauij nations have I made thee." And in Gal. 3. 
 •29, it is said, '' If ye be Christ's then are ye Abra- 
 ham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." The 
 same inspired writer, explaining the passage. In Isaac 
 shall thy seed be called, says " they which are the 
 children of the tiesh, these are not the children of God, 
 but the children of promise are counted for the seed." 
 A similar sentiment is contained in the text, '• He is 
 not a Jew who is one outwardly — but he is a Jew who 
 is one inwardly." If there is any meaning at all in 
 language, these passages assert that Abraham was to 
 be the father of all believers — of all who walked in 
 the footsteps of his faith, whether Jews or Gentiles. 
 To declare, that to be the father of those who are not 
 circumcised means that he would be the father of the 
 Jews ! — that a father of many nations only intended a 
 father of the Jews ! — that to be the heir of the world 
 merely signified a father of the Jews ! — tliat the father 
 
90 
 
 of Christ's seed intimated nothing but a father of the 
 Jews I— that to be the father of those who were not 
 the children of his flesh simply asserted that he would 
 be the father of those who are the children of his flesh !— i 
 is the veriest nonsense that ever passed from a human 
 brain to a printing press ; yet Mr. Birt's able defence 
 implies all this contradiction and absurdity. For, if 
 the covenant confirmed to Abraham by circumcision 
 refers to national promises and blessings, then it must 
 refer solely to his natural descendants, because the do- 
 cument that secured Canaan, &c. to the Jews, by that 
 very agreement excluded other nations from the pos- 
 session of these blessings. On the other hand, if the 
 texts quoted prove a relation that was to exist between 
 Abraham and all believers of every age and nation, 
 and that it does refer to such a spiritual relation is de- 
 monstrated from the fact that any other interpretation 
 of these passages would not only set scripture but com- 
 mon sense at defiance, then the covenant that consti- 
 tuted Abraham the father of those who are not circum- 
 cised — the father of many nations — the heir of the 
 world — the father of those who were not his seed after 
 the flesh — the father of all Christ's people — must have 
 been the covenant of grace. These spiritual children 
 are the people whom God foreknew— whom he never 
 casts ofl— the election — the " all Israel," that shall 
 be saved. The blessings secured are spiritual bles- 
 sings ; for what had the Romans or the Galatians to 
 do with the national blessings and promises secured to 
 Abraham? What a driveller the apostle must have 
 been to have told the Romans or Galatians that if they 
 were Christ's they were Abraham's seed, and heirs ac- 
 cording to the promise — What promise, in the world ? 
 The promise of the Land of Canaan, Jewish ritual, 
 tic. <S:c. saith, or rather intimates, Mr. Birt I AVhat 
 a privilege for all Christ's people ! All, all are to 
 go to Palestine, and be neutralized. This is the grand, 
 the gi'eat, the glorious privilege and heirship of all 
 Gentile believers ! 
 
 Bap. But, sir, you allow that one verse in the co- 
 
91 
 
 venant mentioned Genesis 17 alludes to the promised 
 land ; and why seal that which had already been ra- 
 tified. ? 
 
 Peed. Surely, sir, in entering- into this new engage- 
 ment there was no impropriety in stating that the co- 
 venant which had been previously made was not at all 
 affected by it ; that this new covenant, the covenant of 
 g-race, neither altered nor abrog-ated the peculiar na- 
 tional promises already announced. In making new 
 agreements betw^een parties that are bound by a former 
 covenant, if the latter is not to affect the former, the law- 
 yers generally put in a large NOTWITHSTANDING, 
 or some other significant term ; and Jehovah, by thus 
 alluding to the other agreement, only adopted that ex- 
 plicit mode of wording his covenant which the nature of 
 the case seemed to demand ; and no man in his senses 
 would object to such a proceeding. 
 
 Bap. Well, but friend Searche, is it not strange that 
 the covenant should have been in operation two thousand 
 years before it was sealed ? 
 
 P?ed. Not in the least. Because this is the first time 
 that the promise of redemption was delivered in the 
 form of a covenant. 
 
 Bap. The word covenant appears before this period, 
 in the book of Genesis. 
 
 Psed. The term is first used concerning the 
 covenant made with Noah, of which the how in 
 the cloud w^as adopted as the ratifying sign. But 
 then, most of your folks deny that the covenant with 
 Noah was the covenant of grace ; still take it as the 
 covenant of grace, yet as a covenant with that patriarch 
 it required some confirmation, because the very term co- 
 venant supposes some kind of ratification ; for, with- 
 out this, it could be nothing more than an assertion or 
 promise. But what of that ? God may make as ma- 
 ny covenants as he pleases, and may adopt whatever 
 sign or token he chooses as the seal, provided it be one 
 to which all parties may refer ; consequently, the co- 
 venant with Noah could not prevent his making another 
 with Abraham and another with David. And if the 
 
92 
 
 covenant with Noali was the covenant of grace, why 
 should this hinder its being repeated and enlarged and 
 afresh confirmed to Abraham, as it was afterward to 
 David ? Is it any argument against magna charta that 
 it has been repeated and confirmed more than once ? 
 And he it remembered, that the faith which men place 
 in Jehovah is not of so implicit a character as to ren- 
 der the repeated confirmation of his covenant unneces- 
 sary ; nor can it at all reflect on the character of the 
 Eternal, that he is willing more ahwidantly to show 
 unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his coun- 
 sel, and to repeat and confirm it by two or more im- 
 mutable signs or seals. It is therefore sufficient to say, 
 that as soon as the promise of redemption was termed 
 a covenant, it received the common appendage of a sign 
 or seal, and God repeated and sealed or confirmed this 
 covenant as often as he pleased ; and we hope there is 
 nemine, save Messrs. Birt and Amator Veritatis, con- 
 tradicente. 
 
 Bap. You are wrong, my friend ; almost the same 
 words are used concerning Sarah as concerning Abra- 
 ham — surely that would not have been the case if the 
 covenant of grace had been intended. 
 
 Paed. What could prevent it, brother Hastie ? Sa- 
 rah is mentioned as an example of faith ; " by faith she 
 received strength," &c. Sarah is called the free woman, 
 and spoken of as the type of the gospel church — she is 
 called the mother of us all. Tlie apostle says, and 
 says it not to Jew^s but to Gentiles, Jerusalem, above 
 which is the free w oman, is Sarah, the mother of us 
 all — and again : " we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the 
 -children of promise"— " we are children not of the 
 bond woman but of the free." Sarah, in giving birth to 
 Isaac, bears a relation to Messiah and to the w hole gos- 
 pel church, which entitles her to be called, especially 
 if God sees fit to use the designation, " the mother of 
 nations," in the same sense that Abraham is termed 
 the *' father of nations and heir of the world." 
 
 Bap. Well, sir, it will require more tact and 
 skill than you possess, to make Baptists believe 
 
that the covenant with Abraham was the covenant of 
 grace, 
 
 Pa^d. That is not at all incredible ; and I can on- 
 ly say, that I shall be happy if in the wrong to be put 
 in the right way ; but really it seems very strange that 
 your folks should be so tenacious on this point ; it 
 makes one think that there is a greater connexion be- 
 tween the covenant made to Abraham and infant bap- 
 tism than even Pajdobaptists imagine. AYith the ex- 
 ception of the one verse already alluded to, almost 
 every word in the covenant is so explained in the new 
 testament as to prove that it was the covenant of mer- 
 cy. Some of these texts we have examined ; but let 
 us continue the investigation. The apostle tells us that 
 the word seed, mentioned in this covenant, means 
 Christ. His words are, now to Abraham and his seed 
 were the promises made. He saith not, ' And io seeds' 
 as of many, but as of one, ' And to thy seed,' which 
 is Christ. *' And this I say, that the covenant that 
 was conHrmed before of God unto Christ (eis Christon) 
 the law which was four hundred and thirty years after, 
 cannot disaimul, that it should make the promise of 
 none effect." 
 
 Bap. Stop, sir, you are still taking liberties with 
 our excellent translation which I can by no means allow. 
 The text in Galatians says that the covenant was before 
 contirmed of Ood in Christ ; what presumption to ex- 
 change in for unto, and what a material difference it 
 makes in the sense ! 
 
 Paid. It cannot be much liberty to give you as li- 
 teral a translation of the original words as possible, and 
 especially one that so exactly coincides with the con- 
 text. The words used by the Holy Spirit are eis Chris- 
 ton, which every schoolboy knows may be literally 
 rendered to or unto Christ ; and the context shows that 
 this is its proper signification in the passage under in 
 vestigation. The apostle tells us that the term ' seed' 
 means Christ ; and conscrpiently, '^ ?into Christ'' were 
 the promises made by this unalterable covenant. The 
 rendering in our translation not only confounds the pre- 
 
94 
 
 position CIS with en, which ought not to be done unless 
 some strong reascm can be assigned, but also obscures 
 tlie sense. Let it be asked, To whom did God in 
 Christ confirm the covenant ? The answer is, To Abra- 
 harn's seed. Ask ag-ain. But who is Abraham's seed ? 
 The apostle replies, Abraham's seed is Christ ; and 
 then, according to our translation, " God in Christ"—- 
 .God acting by the agency of Christ confirmed the co- 
 venant to Christ ! But the text says no such thing ; 
 it declares that God confirmed the covenant to Abra- 
 ham's seed, which is Christ, or rather confirmed the co- 
 venant to Christ. Now, sir, one would suppose that 
 no Baptist except the able Mr. Birt and his follower 
 would assert that the covenant confirmed to Christ was 
 a national covenant, rather than the covenant of grace. 
 For if it were, what use was it for the apostle to in- 
 troduce it in an epistle to the Galatians, to prove to 
 them that the law had not disannulled the covenant of 
 grace, but had become a schoolmaster to bring us unto 
 that very Christ to whom it was confirmed, not that we 
 might receive the land of Palestine, but that we might 
 be justified by faith, and thus obtain the very blessing 
 which circumcision sealed to all that believe, whether 
 Jews or Gentiles ? And this brings us to the text in 
 Rom. 4, "He received the sign of circumcision, a seal 
 of the righteousness of the faith which he had being yet 
 uncircumcised." In Genesis 17 circumcision is called the 
 token or sign of God's covenant : here it is said that cir- 
 cumcision was a sign or seal of the righteousness of faith, 
 plainly proving that the blessing sealed by circumcision 
 was justification by faith. To show the justness of this in- 
 terpretation, another text may be quoted. Gal. 3. 7, 8. 
 " Know ye therefore that they which are of faith the 
 same are the children of Abraham." And the scrip- 
 ture foreseeing that God would justify the heathen 
 through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abra- 
 ham, saying, " in thee shall all nations be blessed," 
 proving to a demonstration that the expression, '* in 
 |;hee shall nations be blessed," mem^t justijicat ion hy 
 faith ; and no hmguage could have been more appro- 
 
95 
 
 ))riale to set foith this carilinal bUssing of the covenant 
 of grace, because every thing short of justification leaves 
 men unblest, and in a state of condemnation ; on the 
 contrary, justitication not only frees from the wrath of 
 God, but brings every blessing with it. Here, then, 
 we have a covenant confirmed of God unto Christ ; a 
 covenant which nothmg Was to disannul or add thereto, 
 —in which the law, given four hundred years after, 
 made no alteration, but rather was intended as an aux- 
 iliary, a schoolmaster, to bring us to that very Christ 
 to whom the promise was made, and the covenant con- 
 tirmed, that we might be justified by faith. The seal 
 that sealed this covenant was also the seal of rii»hte- 
 ousness or justitication by faith. And the scripture, 
 foreseeing that its chief blessing was justification by 
 faith, and that the blessing Avas for the heathen, m 
 wording the covenant which circumcision sealed, 
 preached before the gospel to Abraham, saying, " In 
 thee shall all the nations of the earth be blessed." 
 With all this evidence before him, the man who asserts 
 that the covenant sealed by circumcision was a national 
 covenant, containing national blessings for the Jews, 
 only gives as flat a contradiction to the plainest words 
 of scripture that it is possible for human language to 
 frame. But there is still another expression in the co- 
 venant, mentioned Genesis 17, which proves that it 
 was not a national covenant. God declared that cir- 
 cumcision was a token of the covenant that " He 
 would be a God to Abraham and his seed;" now these 
 words, "a God to thee and thy seed," can refer only to 
 Abraham's spiritual posterity, to noothercan Jehovah be 
 said to be a covenant God. " I will be to them a God," 
 is the common language of the covenant of grace again 
 and again repeated in the sacred volume. How rer 
 markable it is that in a book, professing to adduce 
 scriptural principles and direct proofs from the word of 
 God, almost every argument brought forward should 
 consist of an utter perversion or open contradiction of 
 holy writ ! If 3Ir. Birt had lived previously to the days 
 of St. Paul, and the holy apostle had written his 
 
m 
 
 epistles with Mr. Birt's book on baptism before him, 
 he could not have more explicitly opposed that " able" 
 Baptist defender. Let us for a moment contrast these 
 writers tog^ether. In St. Paul's language, a father of 
 many nations means a father of all true believers — In 
 Mr. Birt's it means a father of Jews ! In St. Paul, the 
 word *' seed," used in the covenant, means the Lord 
 Jesus Christ — In Mr. Birt it means the Jews ! In St. 
 Paul, the covenant ratitied to Abraham's seed was rati- 
 fied to Christ — In Mr. Birt it becomes a query whe- 
 ther it could be a ratification at all, because it was not 
 given as soon as the covenant was in operation ! — In St. 
 Paul, the woids " In thee shall all nations be blessed," 
 present us with the great doctrine of justification by 
 iaith, and consequently proclaim the whole gospel — In 
 Mr. Birt, the sentence has no connexion with the co- 
 venant of grace, but only a reference to a national 
 blessing belonging to the Jews ! In St. Paul, circum- 
 cision seals the righteousness of faith — In Mr. Birt it 
 seals a national promise ! In the scripture, the expres- 
 sion, *' a God to thee," is a new covenant relation and 
 privilege — In Mr. Birt it is a Jewish promise abrogated 
 by the gospel ! And the grand proof that Mr. Birt 
 and the Ba[)tists are right, and that St. I*aul and the 
 word of God are wrong, is found in the cogent 
 argument — the almost mathematical axiom, that the 
 covenant was not sealed until two thousand years 
 after it was in operation ! ! And the powerful, 
 the sublime reason for thus trampling upon scripture 
 and common sense — the profound, the splendid rea- 
 son which consecrates the deed, is to prevent pa- 
 rents, churches, and ministers from the foolish and un- 
 holy practice of binding themselves, by a solemn ordi- 
 nance, to bring up the rising generation in the nurture 
 and admonition of the Lord ! Still, if St. Paul and the 
 word of God are as good authority as Mr. Birt and 
 Mr. AVaternian, however able they may be, — \( " God 
 is true," and, when there is contradiction, or infidelity, 
 *' man is the liar," — In a word, if there is any sense 
 and harmony in the volume of inspiration — then was 
 
97 
 
 the covenant made with Abraham, and confirmed by 
 circumcision. The covenant of grace, althou<2rh the 
 seal which ratified that covenant was in most cases the 
 blood of infants eight days old ; and iVlr. Birt's " «^/e" 
 defence consists of the most ililog-ical and iiriscriptural 
 deductions that a man, blinded by the partialities of a 
 sect, or fettered by the tyranny of custom, couht utter. 
 Using Mr Waterman's words, we might exclaim^ *' Ah, 
 my friend ! Ah, in what a low and diluted sense Mr. 
 Birt, and the Baptists who agree with him, understand 
 the word of God !" Such is their aversion to the ad- 
 mission of infants to the school of Christ, that to ex- 
 clude them they sacrifice some of the finest and most 
 expressive declarations of the covenant of grace con- 
 firmed to Abraham, and dwindle it, dilute it, (mix it 
 with water, baptize it) into a few national blessinos. 
 Yet these are for ever talking- and boasting of being so 
 much more spiritual than the poor carnal Peedobaptists ! 
 
 Bap. But, friend Searche, whatever do you mean 
 by the words " seal of the rig-hteousness of faith ?" 
 
 Peed. I understand by the word seal, when applied 
 to the covenant of grace, just what the profound Mr. 
 Birt understands by it when applied to the national co- 
 venant. Signs or seals have generally been arbitrary. 
 The only thing demanded to render them valid has been, 
 that the token employed should be one to which all par- 
 ties could appeal, as the given pledge that the contract 
 should be fulfilled. Hence we see the propriety of se- 
 lecting the bow in the cloud, or instituting circumcision 
 as a common memorial. Such signs afforded security far 
 beyond any thing that could be furnished by the affixing 
 of signatures and a little sealing wax to a paper. By 
 a seal then, sir, I understand a scal^ and surely you are 
 not so little acquainted with language or contracts as to 
 need any further explanation. 
 
 Bap. But you don't intend to say that all who were 
 circumcised were justified ! And if not, why seal 
 that which they never had ? 
 
 Peed. The same question might be proposed to those 
 who hold that circumcision was a seal of national bles- 
 
98 
 
 singfs. We mijrht ask, But you don't mean to say that 
 all who were circumcised obtained these national bles- 
 sing's ? And if not, why seal that which they never 
 had ? But this is not coming- to the point. Circum- 
 cision was a sign, a seal, a pled2:e, that ail who 
 walked in the steps of Ahrahajn' s faith should be justi- 
 fied. And here we see a propriety in the institution. 
 It" it had sealed national blessings belonging to the Je^vs 
 only, why circumcise Ismael, Esau, (n* Gentile prose- 
 lytes ? I'o such it was a seal of nothing whatever. 
 But take the view of St. Paul, instead of the interpre- 
 tation of Mr. Birt, and let it be a seal of justification 
 by faith — let it be a divine pledge that all, whether 
 Jews or Gentiles, who have faith resembling that of the 
 father of the faithful, shall be justified, then we have 
 a good reason for circumcising Esau, Ismael, the sons 
 of Keturah, and Gentile proselytes. In this holy rite 
 Ismael carried away into Arabia a pledge that Jehovah 
 would justify himself or any of his posterity who walked 
 in the steps of the faith of Abraham. It gave the same 
 assuiance to Keturah's sons and to Esau. And the 
 poor proselyte, the poor slave, who knew that circum- 
 cision gave him no promise of ever inheriting the land 
 of Canaan, nevertheless received in that rite the seal 
 of the covenant of grace, which assured him that if he 
 followed the example of Abraham he might inherit jus- 
 tilication, and eventually the celestial Canaan. 
 
 Bap. Ah, my friend, what will you do with the 
 fact that males only were circumcised ? Your doctrine 
 would go far towards proving that only males were jus- 
 tified. 
 
 Paid. Good brother Hastie, you jump to conclu- 
 sions amazingly quick, exhibiting, I fear, more nimble- 
 ness than dexterity. Neither you nor Mr. Birt will af- 
 firm, that because females were not circumcised, there- 
 fore tjiey had no title to the national blessings which you 
 admit that institution confirmed ; yet if not being cir- 
 cumcised would exclude ihem from justification or the 
 covenant of grace, then not being circumcised must, by 
 a parity of reasoning, exclude them from the other 
 
99 
 
 blessings secured to Abraham or the national covenant; 
 But if not being- circumcised did not interdict them from 
 the benetits of the national covenant which you imagine 
 that rite confirmed, then not being circumcised could 
 not prohibit them from " the righteousness of faith," 
 which St. Paul assures us that ordinance sealed to all 
 believers, whether circumcised or not. It was by no 
 means necessary that a sign should be adopted to which 
 all must submit, it was quite sufficient that a token 
 was given, a seal furnished, to which all could appeal. 
 Bap. Well, but Jehovah might have instituted an 
 ordinance equally adapted to males and females. 
 
 Peed. He might, brother, have instituted baptism, 
 and have made that the seal of the covenant of grace ; 
 for nothing was required in the pledge but that the 
 token should be of divine appointment, and one to 
 li'hich all could appeal. He chose to seal the co- 
 venant of grace until Christ came with the blood of in-» 
 fants, eight days old, and the blood of adult proselytes, 
 and what right has any one to say to him " what do- 
 est thou ?" The sex that was selected, or the age 
 when it was administered, rested entirely with Jehovah, 
 and yet we may see some reason why females were ex- 
 cluded and male infants selected. From the fall until 
 the birth of Christ females were denied many pri- 
 vileges and honours enjoyed by the other sex ; and 
 this reproach continued until the same sex, which 
 was first in the transgression became the parent 
 of the promised seed, by whom our transgres- 
 sions were to be purged, our woes healed, and 
 paradise restored; but no sooner was Messiah born, 
 than the reproach of woman was taken away, and 
 from henceforth it was predicted that *' all generations 
 should call her blessed •/' and accordingly the gospel 
 dispensation, as contrasted with the Jewish, recog- 
 nizes neither male nor female, but all are one in Christ 
 Jesus. Then as to the choice of male infants to re- 
 ceive the seal of righteousness by taith, or of the co- 
 venant of grace, nothing could be more appropriate 
 From the first, the promise had been given tha* " the 
 o 
 
100 
 
 seed of the woman skould bruise the serpent^s head ;" 
 and this promise embodied the whole covenant of mer- 
 cy. It was generally miderstood that the promised 
 seed was to be a male, and in the days of Abraham 
 the promised seed was termed '* the seed of Abraham, 
 in whom all nations were to be blessed," which the new 
 testament tells us meant " that the heathen would be 
 justified by faith ; and it is added by the same apostle, 
 that this seed, or offspring- of Abraham, is *' Christ." 
 To him the covenant was confirmed ; and the seal which 
 sealed the covenant was the same sign of circumcision 
 which sealed to all believers " the righteousness of 
 faith ;" and nothing- could be more satisfactory than 
 that the blood of Abraham's male posterity, and of 
 every male that desired the blessings of God's people, 
 should be the typical seal, until the promised seed of 
 the woman— ^The seed of Abraham — The Lord our 
 justifier — The Son of Man — should come and really ra- 
 tify the covenant with his own blood. Here all is ex- 
 pressive. The blood that ratified the national covenant, 
 mentioned Gen. 15, is the blood of animals, but the 
 covenant of grace is ratified by human blood and by 
 the blood of a male ; consequently, no female Redeemer 
 could be expected. And the blood thus shed pointed 
 out the incaDiation of the Son of God ; for he who 
 sheds his blood must be a partaker of our nature ; it 
 also represented the full ratification of the covenant of 
 grace by the hlood of Christ (if Mr. Birt Avill allow^ 
 of such an impossibility that God should seal a cove- 
 nant four thousand years after it had been in operation) 
 *' and the washing away of our sins, and our justifi- 
 cation by ihe same blood.'" 
 
 Bap. But why not continue this important seal to 
 the end of time if the seal is so connected with the co- 
 venant of grace, for we live under that covenant now? 
 
 Pffid. God, you know, has abolished it, and that is 
 sufficient ; besides, the blood that it typified has been 
 shed, and it is not very usual with Jehovah to continue 
 types after the blessing is eiijoved. AVhen the sub- 
 stance is come he generally dispenses with the shadow. 
 
101 
 
 Until the blood of Christ was shed, every thing- was 
 purified, every thing ratified with blood; every ordi- 
 nance seemed to say *' behold the blood of the covenant !" 
 But the real, atoning, ratifying, purifying, justifying 
 blood being shed, typical blood is no longer demand- 
 ed. The promised blessing now is the Holy Spirit: 
 he is now the seal, the earnest of our inheritance, and 
 water, the water of baptism, is the emblem by which 
 his benefits are typified ; and as the shedding of a little 
 blood and the sprinkling of a little blood was to be- 
 lievers the pledge of God's covenant that their sin should 
 be washed away in the blood of Christ, so now the 
 sprinkling of water is the typical seal, the typical 
 earnest that God has given to assure us that he will 
 give his Holy Spirit to all that ask him. To the par- 
 ticipation of this ordinance females as well as males 
 are eligible; for in Christ there is no distinction of sex, 
 for there is neither male nor female — and the fact that 
 infants, eight days old, received the seal of the righte- 
 ousness of faith— received the seal of the covenant of 
 grace, is a full guarantee, unless a prohibition can be 
 found, for their now receiving the seal by which Jehovah 
 in these last days represents the seal and earnest of his 
 spirit. If infants received the seal of the covenant of 
 grace in former days — If this made those unconscious 
 babes " debtors to the whole law" — If it was a sign 
 in their flesh of God's covenant of grace — nothing 
 short of an interdict from heaven can exclude them 
 from receiving the new testament pledge and privilege, 
 which, although it may make them debtors to observe 
 the whole gospel, will as little aflfect their free agency 
 as creation or redemption, which existed before their 
 truth and without their consent. 
 
 Bap. You really talk so fast that one can hardly 
 say a word. Remember, Mr. Birt has eight more ar- 
 guments, which prove that the Abrahamic covenant was 
 not the covenant of grace. 
 
 Peed. Let us hear them, Mr. Hastie; if they are 
 as able as the one already examined, PaedobaptisLs 
 won't be much terrified at this " close war" with 
 Mr. Birt. 
 
102 
 
 Bap. You may stop, sir, a little, until you have 
 examined Mr. Birt's other arguments, before you sin;^ 
 of victory. He observes, secondly, that " circumcision 
 Mas not enjoined on the people of God generally, who 
 are all of them equally interested in the covenant of 
 ^race, but on the family of Abraham alone — himself, 
 his male descendents, with their male servants and 
 slaves," kc. Page 23. 
 
 Psed. Still, sir, you proceed on this most unfounded 
 'assumption, that if God adopts a seal to his covenant, 
 he must affix that seal to eieri/ believer. But what 
 can render such a proceeding necessary ? Surely it is 
 enough if the token or pledge is one to which ail could 
 appeal. If the application of the seal to each was es- 
 sential to salvation, then the argument would have 
 some force ; but, as this is not the case, its utter in- 
 coherence with the subject of dispute must be seen by 
 all. What, if God had chosen only to circumcise every 
 tenth son of Abraham, and to have the ordinance ob- 
 served only once in ten years, would the seal have been 
 less a seal, or the securily less valid, than if his whole 
 posterity were circumcised? Surely not. AVhy 3Jr. 
 Birt must have been dreaming when he advanced such 
 a sentence as this, and called it an argument. Besides, 
 if the non-affixing of the seal would exclude those who 
 were passed by from the benefits of the covenant of 
 grace, then, by the same argument, if circumcision 
 sealed the national covenant, those who were uncircum- 
 cised would be excluded from Canaan, and therefore 
 women would have no right to set a foot on the land of 
 Palestine ; but if women participated the national co- 
 venant without being circumcised, and, that they did, 
 the daughters of Zelophehad are witness, then might 
 they partake of redemption without having this exter- 
 nal sign or token. Mr. Birt is also far from the truth 
 when he says that circumcision was not enjoined on the 
 whole people of God. Now nothing is more evident, 
 than that from the time this seal was used until God 
 thought proper it should be superseded, it was obliga- 
 tory on all the male portion of God's people to observe 
 
103 
 
 it. God may use what seal lie pleases — niay use it as 
 long as he pleases — may change his seal when he 
 pleases — without the covenant which it thus coiitirnied 
 being- in the least aftected by these changes. The 
 great seal of a nation may be re-engraved, nsay change 
 its impression, it" the rulers agree to do so, without in 
 the least degree lessening its authority and validity, 
 for all its credit and legal power rest not in its impres- 
 sion being the same that it was a thousand years ago, 
 but on its being the Present Great Seal of the Na- 
 tion ; so in this controversy the point is not whether 
 the seal has always been the same, but whether the 
 seal used was for the time in dispute, one of the Great 
 Seals of Heaven, for if it has the authoriti/ of Je- 
 hovah, we may leave children and infidels to quarrel 
 about the characters engraved on its surface, or which 
 it impresses on the contract. 
 
 Bap. Mr. Birt thirdly remarks, " that the blessing 
 of the covenant of grace without circumcision have 
 been partaken of by persons apart from the Jewish 
 people in all generations, but the blessings peculiar to 
 the covenant with Abraham have in all a^es bclouoed 
 only to the circumcised." Page '23. 
 
 Pved. That cannot be, because Gentile proselytes, al- 
 though circumcised, had no title to Canaan, and St. Paul 
 tells us thatcircumcision sealed the righteousness of faith; 
 and if St. Paul is right, it sealed the blessings of the cove- 
 nant of grace, which have been partaken of by persons 
 apart from the Jewish people in all generations ; and 
 Mr. Birt is at issue with the inspired apostle, for the 
 latter declares that the righteousness of faith is not pe- 
 culiar to the circumcised, but belongs to all believers, 
 whether circumcised or not ; and he advances a proof 
 of this in the fact that Abraham was justified before 
 he was circumcised, " for he received the sign of cir- 
 cumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith 
 which he had yet being zo/circumcised ihat he niiiiht 
 be the father of all them that believe, though they he 
 not circumcised, that righteousness might be imputed 
 to them also, Nothing then, sir, can be more op- 
 
104 
 
 posed than the declarations of Mr. Birtand the apostle 
 Paul. Mr. Birt declares that the blessings of the co- 
 venant sealed by circumcision '* in all ages belonged 
 only to the circumcised ;" but the inspired apostle 
 on the contrary asserts, that it sealed blessings which 
 belonged to those who are not circumcised, provided 
 they believe ; faith, not circumcision, giving a full 
 title to these blessings. Now, sir, whatever hesitation 
 Baptists may feel concerning which authority they 
 shall prefer, you may rest assured that Paedobaptists 
 will give the preference to St. Paul. Besides, Mr. 
 Birt's argument w^ould exclude women from the na- 
 tional covenant, for they were not circumcised ; and he 
 says the blessings of that covenant were peculiar to 
 the circumcised, yet uncircumcised females had a right, 
 and circumcised Gentiles had none ! 
 
 Bap. " In the covenant of grace there never had 
 existed any pre-eminence of sex, but circumcision only 
 respects a part of our common nature, and in this in- 
 stance shows its relation to a very circumscribed eco- 
 nomy." Pag 23, Mr. Birt's 4th argument. 
 
 Pa^d. Still, sir, your able Mr. Birt is at the very 
 antipodes to St. Paul, for the apostle declares that 
 circumcision sealed the righteousness of faith to all be- 
 lievers ; and, therefore, if this inspired man is correct, 
 it sealed the righteousness of faith to all females who 
 believed ; consequently, in dispensing its blessings, it 
 recognized no distinction of sex, nor did it belong to 
 any circumscribed economy, unless it can be proved 
 that the righteousness of faith is the peculiar blessing 
 of a circumscribed economy. At all events, the eco- 
 nomy which it marks is circumscribed only by faith, 
 and not by circumcision, because it sealed justification 
 to those who are not circumcised, provided they be- 
 lieve. Mr. Birt's reasoning not only contradicts St. 
 Paul, but rests upon the fallacy that a seal cannot be 
 a seal unless it is aliixed to each person who partakes 
 the benefit of the contract ; but Ave have demonstrated 
 that nothing more is necessary in a seal or pledge than 
 that it should be one to which all parties may appeal. 
 
105 
 
 Had the righteousness of faith been sealed by a divine 
 rite, enjoined to be observed once in a century only, it 
 would nevertheless have been a valid and authentic 
 seal, and might have ratitied any thing that Jehovah 
 pleased, either a national covenant or covenant of 
 grace. Here, too, it may again be observed that the 
 national covenant regarded not the distinction of sex, 
 for it secured the land of Canaan to females as well as 
 to males. 
 
 Bap. '' Circumcision did not serve to distinguish 
 between the godly and ungodly of Abraham's seed 
 and all other families, but the blessings of the cove- 
 nant of grace have always made a religious discrimi- 
 nation." Page 23, Mr. Birt's 5th argument. 
 
 Paid. Being a token in the flesh only, it was never 
 intended as a mark of God's children; yet this did not 
 prevent its being a seal of God's covenant. The bow 
 in the cloud does not designate God's people, but it is 
 nevertheless a token of God's gTacious covenant not 
 to destroy the earth any more by a deluge. Circum- 
 cision was for the time being God's sign, God's pledge, 
 God's seal, that all who walked in the footsteps of 
 Abraham's faith should have riuhteousness imparted 
 to them ; and therefore, unless 3Ir. Birt can prove that 
 justitication, and the blessing, or making of the nations 
 of the earth happy in Abraham's seed, which is 
 Christ, are not blessings of the covenant of grace, cir- 
 cumcision was a seal of that covenant ; and yet, being 
 a seal attached to an unconscious babe, eight days 
 old, it could not designate a child of God. In this 
 part of 3Ir. Birt's " able" defence he is guilty of the 
 greatest confusion, for he makes no distinction between 
 the 5ea/ and the blessings it sealed. " Circumcision,''' 
 he says, " did not distinguish the godly,'' " but the bles- 
 ing of the covenant did." A^'ell, and what of that? 
 Piedobaptists have never said that the seal and the 
 righteousness sealed are one. They maintain that cir- 
 cumcision was the token or pledge which God gave, 
 to assure the believers of that day that their faith 
 should be honoured with juslilication ; thus demon- 
 
lOG 
 
 stratin^ that faith, not circumcision, was the mark of 
 the cliiklren of God, and which furnished them with 
 personal and individual evidence of their interest in 
 the covenant ot grace; and by this means kept up a 
 proper distinction between the seal and the blessings 
 sealed. God of course might have chosen that for a 
 seal which should have been an evidence of personal 
 religion, but scripture, fact and apostolic declaration as- 
 sure us that he did not choose such a seal. Indeed 
 such a seal was by no means necessary, because it is 
 perfectly optional with Jehovah to select what seal he 
 pleases for the purpose of ratifying aiii/ covenant that 
 he makes with his creatures, whether a national cove- 
 nant or the covenant of grace. To say, that because 
 the blessings designated the people of God, therefore 
 the seal mmt have the same power, is the last degree 
 of absurdity, because it confounds things that gene- 
 rally diifer, and makes the seal and the blessing one 
 and the same. But what should we think of the per- 
 son who would confound the world, which is pre- 
 served from a second deluge, with the bow that is the 
 token of its preservation ? What should we think of 
 the sanity of the man who should tell us that his parch- 
 ment deeds and seals are the same as the houses and 
 lands of which they are the valid title ? Or of the 
 profound divine who would assure us that the mere 
 material blood of Christ which ratified the covenant 
 of grace is the same thing as the glory of heaven 
 which it secures to believers ?— yet on such confusion 
 as tliis the whole force of argument the 5th rests ! 
 
 Bap. " Piety has, with undeviating uniformity, 
 been the only criterion by which men could judge of 
 their interest in the covenant of grace ; but the right 
 to circumcision and the promises peculiar to the cove- 
 nant with Abraham could be established only by car- 
 nal descent from that patriarch, by servitude, or by 
 proselytism." Page 24, Mr. B.'s ()th augument, 
 
 Picd. \Vq have proved already that circumcision 
 sealed the blessings of the covenant of grace to those 
 who had the given criterion of piety, which wio^/aiih 
 
107 
 
 resembling- the faith of Abraham ; but this does not 
 prove that circumcision itself was a criterion of piety, 
 nor was it necessary to constitute a token or seal that 
 it should be such a criterion. The bow in the cloud is 
 not a criterion of piety, hut it is nevertheless a token 
 of God's covenant. And the fact which all will admit, 
 that piety entitled its possessor to the covenant of grace, 
 but national descent, &c. g-ave a right to circum- 
 cision, has nothing to do with the subject; because St. 
 Paul assures us tliat circumcision did seal justification, 
 which is the substance of the covenant of grace, to be- 
 lievers ; yet the same apostle tells us that as a criterion 
 of i>ie;y " circumcision profited nothing ;" and com- 
 mon sense also must convince us that it was not neces- 
 sary that the seal should either be a criterion of piety 
 or the same as the blessings of the covenant it sealed. 
 All that was essential to constitute it an authentic sjo-n 
 or seal was, that it should be of divine appointment, 
 and sufficiently public for all the purposes of reference 
 by either party. To intimate that the seed of a con- 
 tract and a criterion of character must be one and 
 the same, is so very repugnant to scripture and com- 
 mon sense, that the Baptist who quotes such an absur- 
 dity must be sorely driven for an argument, before he 
 could be induced to stoop to such an indignity. 
 
 Bap. " Circumcision so perfectly accorded with 
 other Jewish rites as to admit of its being incorporated 
 with them, and is denominated, by the highest autho- 
 rity, the law of Moses ; the observance of it was essen- 
 tial to the same endj as the breach of it accompanied 
 with the same penalty. But God has in no instance 
 made the performance of any rite essentially necessary 
 to a participation in the covenant and blessings of his 
 grace." Page 24, Mr. Birt's 7th argument. 
 
 Peed. The fact, that this rite was incorporated 
 with the Mosaic code — that it aimed at the same end 
 which that law had in view, which was " to bring us 
 unto Christ, to be justified by faith" — that its neglect 
 was severely punished — can never prove that it could 
 not be a seal to the covenant of grace, or any other 
 
108 
 
 contract to which Jehovah saw fit to affix it, especially 
 as the Holy Spirit has expressly declared that it did seal 
 the rig-hteousness of faith. Your author's cogent argu- 
 ment, then, proceeds on the idle assumption, that a rite 
 whose observance can afterward be enjoined along; with 
 other rites ; that has the sameobjectiii view asother rites 
 —and the same penalty attached to it, cannot be a seal, 
 even if God pleases it should be so, or even should he 
 declare that it is one ! ! Mr. Birt also intimates that 
 it cannot be a seal, because it was called by the highest 
 authority, " the law of Moses !'* as though " the high- 
 est authority" could not denominate his seal by what 
 term he pleases, without its validity being the least af- 
 fected by the appellation ! One might also ask this 
 able Baptist how it is that circumcision can, as he ad- 
 mits, be a seal to a national covenant, aad yet not be a 
 seal to the covenant of grace ? If it may he a seal to 
 the one, why not be a seal to the other, if God should 
 please to make it so ? Then, as to the bold assertion 
 that God has never made the observance of a rite es- 
 sential to salvation, it will be well for Mr. Birt to consider 
 whether a Jew could willfully disobey the law of cir- 
 cumcision, and yet walk at the same time in the steps 
 of Abraham. If the penalty of disobedience was only, 
 temporal, still was not the observance of this rite es- 
 sential to the conduct of a true believer ? And if the 
 ])unishment was eternal, then could a goodmaLnwil/ul- 
 ly violate the command of God so long as its observance 
 was obligatory, without endangering his salvation ? 
 iVnd these remarks are of equal force whatever cove- 
 nant wo may suppose circumcision to have sealed. 
 "Whether it coiifinn<^d the national or the spiritual cove- 
 nant, still the penalty was the same ; and, unless Mr. 
 Birt is prepared to prove that a good man may wilfully 
 transgress a plain and direct command of Jehovah, and 
 yet be a follower of Abraham's faith, his assertion is 
 as rash as it is incoherent. If faith without works, 
 or a faith that disregards the commands of God, is dead, 
 and therefore neither justifying nor saving, then the 
 faith which wilfully neglected circumcision at a period 
 
109 
 
 when God enjoined its observance, was nothing more 
 than a dead faith, and consequently neither jiistiiied 
 nor saved its possessor. Circumcision was for a period 
 prescribed by divine authority — was a token of God's 
 covenant — a seal of the rig-hteousness of faith — an in- 
 stitution intended to support the hopes of God's people 
 until Christ should come — consequently, to intimate that 
 a pious man could wilfully disobey this plain command 
 —reject the seal of righteousness by faith — and refuse 
 to practice a rite which was intended to lead to Christ 
 ami support the faith of God's people, is the rankest an- 
 tinomianism that ever was broached ; and therefore the 
 rite of circumcision, whatever it sealed, could not be 
 neglected by those on whom it was enjoined ; and the 
 transofressors prove at tfie same time that they were 
 partakers of the blessings of the covenant of grace. 
 
 Bap. " When Messiah appeared, the right of cir- 
 cumcision, with the whole Jewish ritual, became ob- 
 solete.'* Page 24, Mr. B.'s 8th argument. 
 
 Peed. And so it might, without at all affecting the 
 covenant it sealed, or annihilating its own former ex- 
 istence as a seal. When the covenant of grace was 
 ratified by the blood of Christ, the blood of infants 
 or adults was no longer demanded, but this can never 
 prove that up to that time the blood of mortals had not 
 been used for that purpose. If the King of Kings 
 sees fit to change the seals he employs, the authority 
 of the former seal for the time during which it was 
 used cannot be diminished by the introduction of ano- 
 ther. The fact that the great seal of England is dif- 
 ferent now from what it was in the days of Edward 
 the Confessor can never prove that Edward's seal 
 ■was not an English or authentic instrument, of suffici- 
 ent authority to give validity to whatever document it 
 was then attached ; yet Mr. Birt argues, that if God 
 has changed his seal, then the contract to which the 
 first was affixed could not be the covenant of grace ! ! 
 That any man in his sober senses should ever have 
 dreamt that between such a premise and such a con- 
 clusion there is the least connexion, is no ordinary 
 phenomenon in the history of absurdity. 
 
110 
 
 Bap. ** The gospel dispensation is the pure ad- 
 ministration of the covenant of grace under the reign 
 of Messiah ; its character is wholly spiritual, while 
 true believers are all born of the Spirit, and shall 
 finally reign with Christ." Page 24, Mr. B.'s 9th 
 argument. 
 
 Paid. Therefore^ I suppose, you intend to say, 
 the Abrahamic covenant was not the covenant of grace. 
 But, sir, what connexion can any one perceive be- 
 tween the sentiments advanced and the inference 
 which your author would make them supply ? The 
 gospel dispensation is allowed to be the pure adminis- 
 tration of the covenant of gTace- — believers are also 
 born of the Spirit — and they hope to reign with Christ— 
 but what can there be in these facts to prevent Jeho- 
 vah from attaching any seal to his covenant that he 
 thinks proper ? Or to prevent his adding to the num- 
 ber of his seals, or changing them at pleasure ? 
 
 Bap. Well, sir, Mr. Waterman says that he re- 
 commends *' such important distinctions to the serious 
 consideration of all who practice infant baptism, and 
 who endeavour to confound what is evidently so dis- 
 tinct, with a view to raise a superstructure upon a base 
 which is not secure, resting only upon sand." Page 24. 
 
 Peed. It is trully marvellous that Mr. Waterman 
 should possess such a peculiar gift for quoting, without 
 detecting the most absurd paragraphs from his revered, 
 authorities. This is the second time that he has called 
 forth his friend Birt, and in both cases has shown, very 
 unwittingly no doubt, how very little attention his fa- 
 vourite rabbi pays to reason, truth, or scripture ! Yea, 
 he reccommends Psedobaptists to peruse these absur- 
 dities— -he declares they are unanswerable — and that 
 their writer is an able defender of the Baptists ! By 
 these weapons Mr. AVaterman comes into close war- 
 fare with Paidobaptists — attacks their *' pillar at the 
 base," — and proves that they build upon sand ! This 
 boasting, sir, is rather out of place ; for really had his 
 opponents built upon sand, had their pillar stood so 
 insecure that the softest zephyr might have blown it 
 
Ill 
 
 down, still it would have had nothinii- to fear from tho 
 artillery of Mr. I3irt. And were Mv. ^Vaterman and 
 his author to be spared till the day of doom, could the 
 ** whole corps" of Baptists be joined with them in their 
 noble enterprize — and were all to toil incessantly " at 
 the base of this pillar," — yet, should they use such jn- 
 nocuous weapons as those which brother Birt forces, 
 the stronoest magnifying power that shall be produce<l 
 Avould not bring to light a single injury which either 
 foundation or superstructure had received from th^ir 
 laborious efforts. That such contradictions of the 
 word of God, such insults> to common sense, should 
 have been printed, approved, and a second time givtn 
 to the public, in the name of arguments, must l)e 
 attributed to the '* blinding partialities of a sect and the 
 tyranny of custom." Ptedobaptists may justly con- 
 gratulate themselves on the results of such opposition, 
 for next to the (f/;'^c^;;roq/!v furnished by the new testa- 
 ment that the covenant sealed by circumcision was the 
 covenant of grace — the fact, that Mr. Birt, who is the 
 little John of his party, when he attempts to overturn 
 this sentiment, has nothing to otfer but the flattest con- 
 tradiction to revelation and reason, is evidence ap- 
 proaching almost to demonstration, that Ptedobaptists 
 are far from having mistaken tlie character of that con- 
 tract which was ratified by the blood of Jewish in- 
 fants. 
 
 Bap. Whatever you may say about 3Ir. Birt's 
 argument, yet you reason from analo;iy, that because 
 circumcision was connected with the covenant of grace, 
 therefore, seeing that rite is abolished, baptism has 
 come in its place; but ** it is a peculiarity to be ob- 
 served in analogical reasoning that the law must be 
 universally applied." The law of circumcision re- 
 quired that not only Abraham and his male chil- 
 dren should be circumcised, but that servants and 
 slaves — and all males should he circumcised upon pe- 
 nalty of death ; for if any Jew or the slave of a pro- 
 selyte refused, " he was to be cut off from the people," 
 which Mr. Innes has proved to signify punishment by 
 
112 
 
 death ; but where is there the Paedobaptist minister 
 that enforces this law upon his congregation, or what 
 power is there to execute it ? The argument therefore 
 fails, the analogy is destroyed, as our opponents have 
 no reason to show why the law should be applied to 
 infants and not to adults. In the case of children, 
 therefore, they urge the Abrahamic covenant, but in 
 reference to adults they are silent. I have often won- 
 dered, sir, to notice the manner in which Padobaptists 
 w^rite upon this subject : they pass by the striking dis- 
 crepancies — the or/aring differences in the application 
 of the law, and the severe penalties connected with 
 neglecting circumcision." pp. '24, 26. 
 
 Psed. Still, sir, at issue, as usual, both with scrip- 
 ture and fact. The new testament does abolish all 
 kind of compulsion in enforcing religion, but the new 
 testament does not prohibit the baptism of infants ; yea, 
 far from interdicting the baptism of children, we have 
 shown, and shall show again, that the new testament 
 most fully sanctions the practice. The Holy Spirit, 
 therefore, and not Psedobaptists, has declared that the 
 law of compulsion and death must not be employed in 
 our day on recusant adults, and he has also permitted 
 the baptism of infants. The Holy Spirit, then, allows 
 us to follow analogy in the one case, but prohibits us 
 from doing so in the other ; and the " striking discre- 
 pancies — the glaring differences in the application of 
 the law" are chargeable upon the word of God, and 
 not upon tliose who solemnly introduce their children 
 to the school of Christ, that they may be brought up 
 in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. It is won- 
 derful, sir, that Mr. Waterman should jump to the 
 conclusion that because compulsion is abolished, there- 
 fore the introduction of children to Christ is abolished 
 too. The one is prohibited, the other is not prohibited; 
 yet ]Mr. W. asserts, that because we have the one pro- 
 hibition, therefore we ourselves are to adopt the other ! 
 We have divine authority for the one, and we are 
 consequently to follow Baptist authority for the other ! 
 God has forbidden force in the case of adults, and 
 
113 
 
 Mr. Innes forbids children being introduced to Christ ; 
 and to be perfect christians, we are to follow the word 
 of God and 3Ir. Innes, the latter being backed by the 
 approbation of Messrs. Birt, Booth, and Waterman. 
 Still there is an analogy between the two ordinances, 
 and which the new testament most fully recognizes. 
 
 Bap. Pray, sir, furnish me with the text to which 
 you refer. 
 
 Paed. In Colossians 2. 11, 12, the apostle calls 
 baptism c/rczancision, which he would not have done 
 had there been no analogy. In that chapter St. Paul 
 is proving to the Colossians that Jewish rites were 
 now abolished or supplanted by the gospel, and among 
 other arguments he reminds them that they were al- 
 ready " circumcised with Christ's circumcision," and 
 consequently there was no necessity for their recciv^- 
 ing the circumcision made with hands which " Christ 
 had taken out of the way." Several reasons assure 
 us that the apostle is alluding to baptism. And, 
 
 1. The persons addressed were Gentiles, and there- 
 fore had not been already circumcised. 
 
 2. If they had been circumcised, St. Paul would 
 not have called the circumcision 7nade ivith hands the 
 circumcision made without hands ! — nor would he have 
 termed it Christ's circumcision — nor have referred to it 
 as a proof that circumcision was abolished. 
 
 3. The text refers to a substitute which rendered 
 Jewish circumcision unnecessary. Unless we grant 
 this fact, the force and propriety of the apostle's argu- 
 ment must be abandoned. But the substitution is in 
 this very text called both circumcision and baptism. 
 For no sooner has the sacred penman said that they 
 were " complete in Christ" than he alludes to the 
 means by which it had been effected. *' By whom," 
 says he, ** ye are circumcised with the circumcision 
 made without hands, by the putting off the body of 
 the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, by 
 that baptism buried with him." Here nothing can be 
 plainer than that baptism is called circumcision, and 
 the four sentences are explanatory of one another. 
 
114 
 
 The circumcision iliade without hands is, " the putting 
 off the body of the sins of the flesh — the circumcision 
 of Christ — the baptism by "which believers are buried 
 with him." This interpretation is fully borne out by 
 the construction of the sacred original. Before the 
 words " circumcision made without hands," the article 
 is omitted, but it is prefixed to each of the follow^ing 
 sentences, which, according to Middleton's doctrine of 
 the Greek article, was customary when the same word 
 or sentiment was repeated. The passage then literally 
 translated reads, " By whom ye are circumcised with 
 the circumcision made w ithout hands — by that putting 
 off the body of the sins of the flesh — by that circum- 
 cision of Christ' — by that baptism buried wifh him by 
 whom," <!tc. Here, as is far from unusual in Greek 
 writers, the article has all the force of the demon- 
 strative primoun, and most emphatically shows, that 
 the circumcision made without hands — the putting off 
 the body of sin— the circumcision of Christ — and bap- 
 tism, are but different expressions for the same ordi- 
 nance, and therefore that baptism is Christ's or chris- 
 tian circumcision. 
 
 Bap. But the baptism here mentioned is the bap- 
 tism of the Holy Spirit, for according to your own 
 interpretation it is synonymous with the putting off the 
 sins of the flesh. 
 
 ^•ddA. This does not prove that it is the baptism of 
 the Holy Spirit ; because baptism by water is typical 
 of the baptism of the Spirit, and consequently of the 
 spiritual purification which is the result of divine influ- 
 ence; and, as the ordinance was intended to lead us to 
 adopt those m<^ans by which sin shall be mortified, it 
 was not more unscriptural to intimate that it puts away 
 sin than it is to afiirm that ministers save both tliem- 
 selves and their hearers. In each case nothing; more 
 is intended than mere instrumentality. The putting off 
 the body of sin is parallel \\ith the sentence that fol- 
 lows — " Buried with him by that baptism" — and this 
 text again is ])ara!lel wilh Hem. (>. 4, '* 'Jl«^refore 
 throi'frh that baplisiijy'or death, or for the mortification 
 
115 
 
 of sin, we are buried with him." Here, the subdu- 
 ing of sin, expressed by the terms " death, burial, 
 or putting off the sins of the flesh," is declared to be 
 the result of baptism, which would not be the case if 
 the people had put off their sins previously to their 
 baptism, unless it can be shown that an effect may pre- 
 cede its cause. Neither can this be done in the ordi- 
 nance of baptism, for that would imply that the mere 
 use of water really regenerates and perfects the chris- 
 tian, because he who has entirely piit oft" the body of 
 sin is perfectly holy. Nor is the baptism of the Spirit 
 the cause of the entire putting otY the sinful body in 
 the present world, for then there could be no room for 
 progressive sanctilication. The putting oft" the body 
 of sin, or the mortification of sin, must therefore re- 
 fer not to an action done andjinished, but to an oper- 
 ation begun at some indefinite past period, and which 
 is to be continued until the christian shall enter hea- 
 ven. This action also must follow both the ordinance 
 of baptism and the gift of the Spiri*, but it cannot 
 precede the baptism of the Holy Ghost, nor does the 
 word of God any where declare that it ought to 
 precede the rite of baptism. Indeed, all the exam- 
 ples furnished by the new testament are, with one or 
 two exceptions, cases of persons who were baptised 
 before they could give any evidence that they were 
 partakers of the Holy Spirit; and, consequently, be- 
 fore they had begun to mortify or put oft' the body of 
 sin. The clause in question then does not by any means 
 prove that the apostle alludes, in " the circumcision 
 made without hands," to the gift of the Spirit rather 
 than to the ordinance which prefigures that communi- 
 cation. An introduction to the discipline of Christ was 
 an introduction to the means which God employs for 
 the subduing of evil propensities, and therefore it was 
 as proper to attribute to the ordinance that eftect \\hich 
 it may be the means of originating as it. is to say that mi- 
 nisters convert sinners, or save them from death. The 
 words also might be addressed v, ith as much propriety 
 to persons who had been baptized in their infancy as 
 Q 
 
116 
 
 to those who had submitted to the ordinance at an 
 adult age. Indeed we find that there were children 
 in the Colossian church, for the apostle says, *' Chil- 
 dren (tekna) obey your parents;" and of course Mr. 
 Waterman will not in this instance follow Limborch's 
 interpretation of tekna, and say that die passage should 
 be read, " Posteriti/ obey your parents." ! 
 
 Bap. But these children might be adults. 
 
 Petd. So they might, but then thei/ might also be 
 children too young for Baptists to baptize. Indeed 
 Baptist churches have no young children in them. 
 
 Bap. Still you cannot prove that this text respecting 
 circumcision favours infant baptism, or even shows that 
 there is any analogy between that ordinance and baptism. 
 
 Paed. Only that the apostle calls baptism cir- 
 cumcision, which he would not have done had there 
 been no analogy. And indeed, little examination is re- 
 quired to perceive that a very striking analogy exists 
 between the two ordinances. Circumcision admitted to 
 the visible church, so does baptism — Circumcision, as 
 has already been proved, was the seal of the covenant 
 of grace until the actual ratification of the blood of 
 Christ, of which ratification it was a type. Baptism 
 is now the type of the baptism of the Spirit, and there- 
 fore represents the purification of the Spirit, and the 
 sealing of the Spirit — Circumcision was a solemn pledge 
 on the part of God, that all who had faith resembling 
 Abraham should be justified — Baptism is as solemn a 
 pledge, that all who seek the Holy Spirit shall obtain 
 his influence — There is then an analogy hetween the 
 two institutions which is not at all affected by the com- 
 pulsory laws which enforced the one, but which God 
 himself has repealed respecting the other. 
 
 Bap. But how do you know that baptism typifies 
 the work of the Spirit ? 
 
 Psed. Simply from the fact, that both are represen- 
 ted by the same terms. Both are called baptism — Bap- 
 tism is called a purification, see John 3. 22, 26, and 
 the work of the Spirit is also a purification — Both are 
 said to regenerate, for a man must be born of water and 
 
117 
 
 the Spirit — Both have the same object in view, for 
 persons were baptized ^^ for repentance — for Christ — 
 for remission of sin," kc. — and the desio^n of the bap- 
 tism of the Spirit is to produce repentance — faith in 
 Christ — the remission of sins, kc— *and therefore is ybr 
 repentance — for Christ — for the remission — the death 
 of sin — putting off the body of the sins, &c. 
 
 Bap. These remarks cannot prove the propriety of 
 infant baptism. 
 
 Psed. They prove that circumcision sealed the cove- 
 nant of grace, and that hahes eight days old received 
 that seal — that baptism is called circumcision — that it 
 is come in the place of circumcision — and, that unless 
 there was a prohibition, this ordinance, as well as its 
 predecessor, ought to be administered to infants. Hn^ 
 man blood, from the days of Abraham, was the seal of 
 the covenant of grace mitil the blood of Christ was 
 shed ; thus directing all to look forward to the sealing 
 of the covenant by Messiah— i»T he great blessing we 
 are now taught to expect, is the gift of that Spirit by 
 whom believers are sealed till the day of redemption ; 
 and baptism by water has been instituted to represent 
 this scriptural baptism. Babes received the former 
 sign, that they might be early directed to look for jus- 
 tilication by faith, of which this seal was a pledge — 
 and, unless God had prohibited it, babes ought to re- 
 ceive the new testament sign, that they may be in- 
 structed in their infant years to seek the Holy Ghost, 
 for surely children in our days stand in as much need of 
 the discipline and prospects of the church, as they did 
 in the days of Abraham. 
 
 Bap. But you administer this ordinance to females, 
 for which you have no sanction from the law of circum- 
 cision. And you require from adults faith and repen- 
 tance, which were not demanded when persons were 
 circumcised. Page 25. 
 
 Paed. It is a query whether as much was not de- 
 manded of full grown persons previously to circumcision 
 as the apostles demanded of any of the adults whom 
 they baptized. And our plain reason for making no 
 
118 
 
 distinction of sex now is, that the apostles baptized 
 females ; and that in the gospel neither male nor female 
 is recognized. Here we have apostolic authority for 
 introducing females to the school of Christ by this so- 
 lemn ordinance; and Mr. Waterman, in a book that 
 professes to contain direct proofs from scripture, ought 
 not to quarrel with his opponents for following the 
 word of God. 
 
 Bap. *' I conceive the apostles never intimated that 
 baptism has succeeded circumcision. No, my friend, 
 had this been the opinion of the apostles, there would 
 have been no controversy in the primitive church res- 
 pecting circumcision, as such a communication would 
 ha\e settled all disputes. " For one thing," remarks 
 Mr. Booth, '* to come in the room of another, and 
 the latter still hold its place, is an odd kind of suc- 
 cession. Admitting the succession pretended, how 
 came it that Paul circumcised Timothy after he was 
 baptized" ? 
 
 l*ccd. Bj other Hastie, you are still travelling as 
 fast as ever in the tract uf mere assumption. Mr. Wa- 
 terman and Mr. Booth intimate, that a mere word on 
 the part of the apostles would have ended all disputes 
 in the primitive church ; but the intimation proves that 
 they pay but little attention to their bibles. Pray did 
 not the apostles declare that the sacrifice of Christ 
 had come in the place of Jewish sacrifices ; and yet, 
 most of the Jews who believed, remained " zealous of 
 the law ?" Did not Christ tell them to preach the gos- 
 pel to every creature, yet Peter would not have gone 
 to the devout Cornelius, nor have eaten bread with 
 him, but for a vision from heaven. And the same 
 Peter, notwithstanding all these intimations from above, 
 afterward vAas guilty of dissembling, and was severely 
 reproved by St. Paul. And you well know what a 
 schooling this very Peter received from christian Jews 
 for his wickedness in goino' to the house of (/t ■' 'ius. 
 Far, then, from a single hint being' enough to sett/c any 
 dispute in the primitive church, the word of God as- 
 sures us tliat a double command from Christ himself 
 
119 
 
 was not always enough to brino; even apostles to re- 
 nounce their prejudices. These tilings might appear 
 very odd to Mr. Booth ; but then there were very odd 
 folks in the primitive church — there were people almost 
 as odd as Mr. Birt, tor they seem to have paid no more 
 attention to scripture when it opposed their prejudices 
 than did that able defender of the Baptist:* in his ex- 
 position of the Abrahamic covenant. Here then, sir, 
 we have again scripture testimony versus Mr. \^'aler- 
 man's cheap desideratum for Baptists ! 
 
 Bap. You are wrong, sir, " for the law of circumci- 
 sion was then in full vigour, and infant baptism was then 
 in its prime. Those favoured infants, therefore, if ever 
 they partook of the holy supper, must, in the language 
 of Psedobaptism, have had the covenant raliiied to 
 them by tliree seals. \ singular privilege this, it must 
 be allowed ! But what becomes of baptism as the 
 successor of circumcision ?'*' Page 26. 
 
 Paed. Affixing three seals to a contract is not s'ui- 
 gular at all. And the sneer which Mr. Waterman 
 quotes is quite as applicable to the covenant of grace 
 as to these favoured infants. For God contirmed his 
 covenant of grace by two immutable things, by more 
 than one oath, and at last ratified it with the blood of 
 his Son. Any scoffer that reads this, may exclaim with 
 a sneer — These fav^oured believers have had the cove- 
 nant confirmed to them by many seals ! " A singular 
 privilege this, it must be allowed" ! ! But then the 
 mockery could never do away with the fact that the 
 covenant has been confirmed more tlian once ; nor 
 are there many persons upon earth who will find any 
 objection to a covenant, in the fact that it has re- 
 ceived the most unexceptionable confirmation. Were 
 this objection of any force, and were it the national 
 covenant that was sealed by circumcision, what room 
 ther 1 uld be for merriment in the fact, that this seal 
 of 1 '' n was used almost as often as a male infant 
 was oorn in a Jewish family. This covenant must 
 have been sealed many millions of times. Why 
 if Abraham Booth had only thought of this circum- 
 stance, he might have almost burst with laughter. 
 
120 
 
 Bap. You may be merry, sir, but that does not 
 answer the question — What becomes of baptism as the 
 successor ot circumcision ? Why such warm endea- 
 vours to support the credit of an ancient ceremony 
 which they themselves must have known to be obso- 
 lete, and for this very reason, " That baptism came 
 in its room" ? Page 27. 
 
 Paed. Your question is easily answered by ano- 
 ther. What becomes of the sacrifice of Christ as 
 fulfilling- and abolishing the Jewish sacrifices ? " Why 
 such warm endeavours to support the credit of ancient 
 ceremonies which they themselves must have known to 
 be obsolete, and for this very reason, that Christ came 
 in their room" ? The only answer is, that either the 
 apostles did not trouble to tell them the truth, or the 
 people were slow to believe. Whichever hypothesis 
 is adopted the fact remains the same, that if Christ's 
 comms: in the room of Jewish sacrifices could not in- 
 duce the primitive professors to abandon them, then it 
 is far more likely that the use of baptism, an ordinance 
 near akin to rites already incorporated with Jewish 
 worship, would not have the least influence to withdraw 
 them from circumcision, an institution handed down to 
 them from Abraham, and confirmed by most of the pro- 
 phets. Using Mr. AYaterman's phraseology, we might 
 exclaim, " What striking decrepancies, what glaring 
 dift'erences" between the premises of your friend and 
 his conclusions. He professes to attack infant bap- 
 tism, but all the time beats the air ; for in no instance 
 does he produce an argument that has the least to do 
 with the subject in dispute. But, sir, you promised 
 some time ago to refer to " households." 
 
 Bap. I am most ready, Mr. Searche, to enter on 
 that subject, but my engagements prevent my doing so 
 at present ; on some future opportunity we will meet 
 again, when I hope I shall perceive that your mijid will 
 be more open to the dictates of truth. Farewell/ 
 
 Pa^d. I still promise to rejoin the Baptists as soon 
 as ever you will produce " one direct fvooj^^ from 
 scripture in favour of your system. Farewell. 
 
 END OF DIALOGUE THE SECOND. 
 
WHY HAVE YOU BECOME A P.EDOBAPTIST? 
 A DIALOGUE, 
 
 (in four parts,) 
 
 BETWEEN 
 
 HEZEKIAH HASTIE, A BAPTIST, 
 
 AND 
 
 SIMON SEARCHE, A P^DOBAPTIST; 
 
 CONTAINING 
 
 AN ANSWER TO TWO PUBLICATIONS, 
 
 CIRCULATED IN THE BOROUGH OF STROUD, BY AMATOR VERITATISJ 
 THE ONE ENTITLED, 
 
 ^'baptism discussed, &c. ;" 
 
 AND THE OTHER, 
 
 *'WHY HAVE YOU BECOME A BAPTIST?" 
 
 BY JOHN BULL 
 
 In Veritate Victoria, 
 
 DIALOGUE III. 
 
 PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY B. BUCKNALL, 
 
 AND SOLD BY BRISLEY, BAYLIS, & HARMER, STROUD ; GOIJGH, DURSLEY; 
 
 HARPER, CHELTENHAM; LEA, GLOUCESTER; 
 
 AND BY LONGMAN, 6c R. BAYNES, LONDON. 
 
 1835. 
 
 Price Eight-pence, 
 
g::^* Dialogue the Fourth and last is in the press, and will coo.- 
 tain a full examination of the arguments of Baptists in favour of 
 immersion, especially those which they deduce from the meaning: of 
 JBapto — Lexicographers — John's baptism — Much water — The Eu- 
 nuch's baptism — Greek prepositions — The three thousand— &c. &c, 
 Leiters V. and VI. of Amator \'entatis will, in this Dialogue, bo 
 elosely inrestigated. 
 
DIALOGUE III. 
 
 Paed. Well, brother Hastie, I hope you are pretty 
 well. 
 
 Bap. Pretty well, thank ye, brother Simon, and 
 quite ready to resume the old bubject of baptism. 
 
 Peed. With all my heart, Hezekiah ; for, though 
 I am not yet convinced that you are right, I shall be 
 happy to be so, if truth, as you say, is on your side. 
 Only you must give me divine and not human autho- 
 rity, or else I cannot believe. Let me see, we last 
 proposed to examine the scriptural account of the bap- 
 tism of households. 
 
 Bap. You shall have scripture word for word, 
 brother ; and if that does not produce conviction in 
 your mind, then I have done. And now to the sub- 
 ject you mention. *' The baptism of households is 
 perfectly in harmony with the sentiments of Baptists, 
 and affords therefore no especial plea, unless it can be 
 proved that infants were baptized, in favour of Pae- 
 dobaptism. And I challenge the whole corps of 
 Paedobaptists to produce a single instance of a babe 
 that was baptized by the apostles." Page 28. 
 
 Paed. AVere we as pugnacious as 31r. Waterman, 
 we might adopt his warlike phrase, and challenge the 
 whole corps of Baptists to produce a single instance of 
 a family baptized in which there were no infants, and 
 that those infants did not partake of this ordinance ; 
 R 
 
122 
 
 and what Baptist, however belligerent, would be hardy 
 enough to attend to the summons? We may also 
 challenge the whole corps of Baptists to produce an 
 instance of women admitted to the Lord's supper, and 
 what can they do but tell us that there is no such in- 
 stance, and that in allowing females to come to the 
 sacrament. Baptists venture to act without apostolic 
 precedent? Paedobaptists, then, have quite as much 
 scriptural authority for administering baptism to infants 
 as Baptists have for either admitting women to the 
 communion or for partaking of the Lord's supper in 
 the morjiinsc. 
 
 Bap. " Mr. P. Edwards, the great opponent of 
 Baptists, observes, that the historical account has not 
 force enough of itself to evince the baptism of infants." 
 Page 28. 
 
 Pad. I must, sir, protest both against this appeal- 
 ing to human authority in a discussion undertaken to 
 ask and to answer, " What saith the scripture ?" as well 
 as against the garbling of the authors quoted. One 
 might suppose from this quotation that Peter Edwards 
 had yielded the point in dispute. Instead of this, it 
 ought to be known that this very Mr. Edwards was 
 once a Baptist minister, and changed his sentiments in 
 consequence of finding his former tenets entirely des- 
 titute of support from the word of God, and the book 
 he wrote in favour of infant baptism is one with whose 
 arguments Baptists are least disposed to grapple. There 
 is scarcely a writer w^hom Mr. ^Vaterman's sect more 
 dread than Peter J^dwards. Every attempt to answer 
 him has utterly failed, and so the fashion now is to 
 rebaptize him, by giving such partial sentences from 
 his book as would make it ap})ear to the ignorant that 
 he has again recanted. 
 
 Bap. Peedobaptists say, *' It is probable infants 
 were baptized. What a basis to support infant bap- 
 tism upon !" Page 28. 
 
 Pad. You know, sir, that it is not rested upon 
 this probability. And the insinuation is here i.ttered 
 for no other purpose but to seduce the unwary. Such 
 
123 
 
 a mancEuvre, however, is altogether unworthy of a 
 lover of truth, especially as he tells us, scarcely a 
 line above, that " Truth requires no such base wea- 
 pons for its defence." 
 
 Bap. Well, look at the families baptized, and see 
 if there were any infants in them. " Cornelius and 
 his house are the first mentioned, and the narrative is 
 sufficient to convince you that they were believers, as 
 they received the Holy Ghost, and on that account 
 submitted to the christian institute, and were received 
 by it, as Doddridge intimates, into the christian 
 church." Page 28. 
 
 Pa^d. Now Doddridge is baptized of course ; yet 
 Mr. Waterman knows that Doddridge has argued the 
 subject of infant baptism in a manner that few of his 
 opponents can gainsay ; but, notwithstanding, a con- 
 cession is quoted, to make the ignorant believe that 
 Doddridge had yielded the point. As to the house of 
 Cornelius, the fact that the Holy Ghost fell upon his 
 family can never prove that there were no infants in it, 
 unless it can be shown that the Holy Ghost is never 
 given to infants. But as the Holy Spirit was given 
 to the infant Samuel, and did really sanctify Jeremiah 
 and the human nature of our Lord from the womb, it 
 is just as likely, when the Spirit comes upon a whole 
 family, that he will sanctify the babes who have never 
 resisted his influence, as that he will have mercy upon 
 rebellious adults. What a cogent argument I The 
 Holy Ghost fell upon the family of Cornelius, there- 
 fore there were no infants in the house ; because, for- 
 sooth, the Heavenly Dove has a perfect antipathy to 
 innocent and unconscious babes ! What logic ! What 
 divinity ! But let us glance at Lydia 
 
 Bap. " Lydia only is mentioned vdth her house- 
 hold ; and Dr. Cox justly remarks, the narrative im- 
 plies the case of an unmarried head of a family. But 
 if they had infants and were married, there is no proof 
 of their being with her at Philippi, which was a con- 
 siderable distance from her native city, Thyatira — nor 
 can it be shown that they were baptized, (even sup- 
 
124 
 
 posing they were with her) from the scriptural use of 
 the term " households," because it is said that Elka- 
 nah and all his house went up to Shiloh, to offer unto 
 the Lord the yearly sacrifice — but Hannah went not 
 up, for she said unto her husband, * I will not go up 
 until the child be weaned.' " Page 29. 
 
 Paed. Here, Mr. Hastie, you must perceive that 
 all is supposition ; and as for the quotation concern- 
 ing Elkanah, it is as opposed to Mr. Waterman's hy- 
 pothesis as any Paedobaptist could wish it. Dr. Cox, 
 notwithstanding his *' just remarks" and suppositions, 
 knows, or else he ought not to be a doctor, that the 
 word oikos, rendered in this verse both by the words 
 household and house, very generally means a family, 
 and exactly accords with the term house, afterward 
 found in the quotation respecting Elkanah, for Eika- 
 nah's house was Elkanah's family, so Lydia's house 
 was Lydia's family, for her house was baptized ; and 
 as there was one infant, if not more, in the family of 
 Elkanah, so there might be in the family of Lydia. 
 Lydia's house or family was with her at Philippi, 
 where it is probable she resided, for her being of Thy- 
 atira may only mean that Thyatira was her native city ; 
 but if", as Mr. Waterman supposes, her home was 
 there, can we believe that she would leave an infant 
 at a considerable distance from herself and family now 
 residing in Philippi ? Besides, the Holy Spirit would 
 not have asserted that her fami/i/ was at Philippi, if, 
 after all, it was at Thyatira. Doubtless at Philippi 
 was her house, family, and home ; and the fact that 
 Mr. Waterman is driven by his system to suspect the 
 correctness oi" the divine narrative, which declares that 
 her family was at Philippi, shows that the text is 
 rather dilhcult for Baptists to answer and explain away ; 
 and this difficulty arises not from the narrative's men- 
 tioning or not mentioning infants, but from the fact, 
 that the sacred penman has used a word which means 
 a family, and consequently very often includes infants. 
 "Now it the Holy Spirit had been as zealous on this 
 point as the Baptists, and Mhy should he not be so. 
 
J 25 
 
 if the zeal of Baptists is of divine orig:iii ? — then would 
 he' have used a word so free from ambiguity that none 
 could have mistaken it; indeed, the Acts of the Apos- 
 tles would have been as cautiously worded as the re- 
 ports and histories of Baptists. They take heed not 
 to use the term family concerning the persons they 
 baptize, although they may immerse several from the 
 same roof ; or if they employed such a term, thej^ 
 would add some clause to let us know that they wree 
 adults only who were baptized. But the holy scrip- 
 ture employs the word house, or family, without aiiy 
 qualifying clause whatever, and in many instances con=- 
 cerning families in which, it is recorded, that there 
 w^ere infants. The house of Elkanah, mentioned by 
 Mr. Waterman, had in it the infant Samuel, and per- 
 haps some infant children of Peninnah ; and the sacred 
 narrator, aware that it would be thus taken, has added 
 the qualifying clause, that Hannah and Samuel stayed 
 at home. If the word house, or family, naturally ex^ 
 eluded infants, why was the exception subjoined ? 
 Every one must have known that the infant Samuel 
 was excepted, if the word house always excluded 
 babes ! The quotation concerning Elkanah is therefore 
 the most unfortunate for the purpose tliat could have 
 been selected, for it proves that the word house, with- 
 out any explanatory phrase, would generally be taken 
 to include the whole family, from the youngest to the 
 oldest. And it must be observed, that in this indefi- 
 nite form the apostles have used the word house in all 
 the instances in which they refer to the baptism of fa- 
 milies. The three or four houses mentioned as having 
 been baptised are the only examples of the bap- 
 tism of whole families recorded in the new testament, 
 yet in each case a word is used, which is calculated to 
 mislead, if infants are not to be the subjects of bap- 
 tism ; for, as the word house very frequently includes 
 infants, any person has a right to explain it in this 
 manner, and indeed, he is in danger of erring should 
 he not give it this interpretation. The fact that the 
 term may be used in cases where the conte.vt intimates 
 
1-2G 
 
 that there were no infants, cannot affect the question 
 at all, because where a general term is used, without 
 anv liuiitation whatever, its general and universal sig- 
 niJicatioH must be adopted in preference to the qualified 
 and limited sense which it may have in some cases in 
 which it is thus circumscribed. The baptism of houses 
 or families, taken in connexion with other parts of the 
 word of God, affords as good evidence as can be de- 
 manded that infants may partake of this ordinance. 
 Our Lord's commission recommended baptism to pre- 
 cede instruction, which can only take place in the case 
 of infants. Our Lord told his disciples that infants 
 were of the kingdom of heaven, which can mean no- 
 thing more nor less than that they had been admitted 
 to the church by the participation of its initiatory or- 
 dinr.Dce — and the apostles baptized adults as soon as 
 possible, showing: that they were anxious to come as 
 near as could be to the literal meaning of our Lord's 
 command, — they baptized yb?' repentance — for remis- 
 sion of sins, <!tc. — and the persons baptized by them, 
 as well as thousands baptized by John and the disci- 
 ples during our Lord's ministry, were much more ex- 
 ceptionable characters than any infant can be. The 
 Abrahamic covenant also enjoined that the very ordi- 
 nance by which persons were admitted to the Jewish 
 chiirch, and which was a religious ordinance, (else why 
 punish its neglect with death ?) should be administered 
 to infants eight days old — these facts, then, taken to- 
 gether, prove that infant baptism is sufficiently coun- 
 tena?:ced by the word of God. If we had read in the 
 scriptures that whole houses were circumcised, we 
 should conclude that infants were circumcised, as no- 
 thiiig but the last degree of rashness could affirm that 
 there were no infants in such families ; and when we 
 read that houses were baptized, we have reason to 
 conclude that the old practice of admitting whole fa- 
 milies, babes and all, to tiie church of God, remains 
 unabrogated, and the justness of this conclusion is 
 evinced from the circumstance, that no text can be 
 produced which announces the prohibition of infants. 
 
127 
 
 Mr. Waterman talks of a hill of diiEeiilties to climb ; 
 but Psedobaptists iiiul no hill at all in the fact that the 
 word house includes all branches of the family, nnd 
 never does exclude infants, except there is some quait- 
 Jying clause m the text or context, as in the narrative 
 concerning- Elkanah. 
 
 Bap. " Dr. AVhitby paraphrases the passage thus : 
 ' And when she and those of her household were in- 
 structed in the christian faith, and in the nature of the 
 baptism required by it, she was baptized and her house- 
 hold.' " Page 29. 
 
 Pted. Sir, it is a waste of time to plead human au- 
 thority with Pa^dobaptists, because they call no man 
 master upon earth, and last of all would they follow Dr. 
 Whitby. The paraphrase of the doctor has just 
 as much authority as his " poor judg-ment" ecu 
 command, and any Paedobaplist has as o-ood a right 
 to paraphrase the words as the learned Whitby. It 
 would be just as proper to g'ive the words the iollowing 
 interpretation : " And when the Lord opened her heart, 
 she and all her family were baptized ;" and, as 3Ir. 
 Waterman has shown by the case of Elkanah, that when 
 the word house or family is followed by no limiting- 
 clause, infants are included ; and as the word house 
 here is not limited, it is probable that there were little 
 children in the house of Lydia, and that they were bap- 
 tized ; for it is said that htr uJiale house partook of the 
 ordinance, although it is not mentioned that any wtre 
 of an ag-e to prove that thtir hearts were opened, ex- 
 cept their mother, Lydia. For if the rest of the fa- 
 mily had been adults, and their hearts had been opened, 
 we may be assured that the sacred penman would not 
 have neg-lected to mention their conversion. Indeed, 
 according to the Baptists, " not to mention is to ex- 
 clude,'' and therefore, if this canon is correct, as no 
 one's conversion but thai of Lydia is recorded, we may 
 rest assured that all her family were unconverted, for 
 only their baptism, and not their conversion, is narrated 
 in the scripture. Then, sir, you know it is said that 
 the house of the jailor also was baptized — and the houses 
 of others 
 
128 
 
 Bap. House of the jailor, Mr. Searche ! I wonder 
 you should refer to it. " Here the sacred narrative is 
 most explicit : 'Paul and Silas spake unto him the word 
 of the l.ord, and to all those who were in his house.' 
 It is added ' he rejoiced, believing in God with all his 
 house, and he and all his were baptized.' " Page 29. 
 
 Pfed. It is a little curious here to observe how Mr. 
 "Waterman has transposed these verses, by placing- the 
 34th before the 33rd. Of course this was done " to 
 serve a purpoi>e ;" because, by thus changing God's own 
 order of the words, the jailor and his family are made 
 to believe and rejoice in God before they were baptized ; 
 hut the sacred penman tells us that they were all bap- 
 tized, before it informs us that this noted sinner either 
 rejoiced in his house or believed in God. It is no wonder 
 tliat a Baptist should wish to make this change; because, 
 the haste of the apostles in baptizing both diis persecutor 
 and all his^ must be truly shocking to every Baptist. 
 Every minute here is one, and only to postpone the 
 baptism till after the apostles had partaken of the pro- 
 vision which he set before them would perhaps give an 
 hour or two more for the developement of their faith 
 and repentance. Instead of this, however, the Holy 
 Spiiit has placed the baptism before this eating and re- 
 joicing and believing, and tells us that they were bap- 
 tized " straightii-ay (parachrema, instantly,) in that 
 very hour." Here is a notorious persecutor and his 
 family waked out of their sleep by an earthcjuake, the 
 man himself just going to commit suicide, but the apos- 
 tles restrain him, and tell him to believe, and he and 
 his house shall be saved. They deliver a short dis- 
 course, and immediately in the same hour baptize him 
 and all his. It is no use to say there were no infants 
 in the family, because if faith and repentance are es- 
 sential to baptism, then there would be much less im- 
 propriety in baptizing infants than in baptizing this 
 ungodly family, whose religion was not of an hour's 
 standing. The sacred narrative also does not tell us 
 that the n-hole family believed — it mentions the faith of 
 the father only, and even that faith was produced un- 
 
129 
 
 der the terrors of an earthquake, and had not existed 
 for an hour when this sinner was baptized. 
 
 Bap. I know that Pcedobaptists dwell upon the 
 words believing and rejoicing, bein^ in the singular 
 number, and also upon the adverb panoiki, rendered 
 in our translation " wuth all his house," but this is a 
 criticism merely designed to serve a purpose, and is 
 unwarrantable. Panoiki is used in the Septuagint, 
 Exod. 1. 1, where it is said, '* Now these are the 
 names of the children of Israel who came into Egypt, 
 (Ekastos panoiki,) each with his house." The term 
 occurs again in Josephus, when speaking of the offer- 
 ings allotted for the priests' .maintenance : he says, 
 ♦' It was appointed that they (panoiki) with their 
 families might eat them in the holy city." Thus it is 
 evident that when a man does any thing, panoiki, he 
 does it in concert with his house, who are equally en- 
 gaged therein with himself." Page 30. 
 
 Paed. You must perceive, brother Hastie, if you 
 will only examine these passages, that, like the quo- 
 tations concerning Elkanah, they greatly favour the 
 very sentiments they are produced to condemn. For 
 we are assured from God's w-ord that the fathers who 
 came into Egypt brought little ones with them, and 
 panoiki includes these infants : and in the family of the 
 priests, their infants, unless it can be proved that the 
 priests never had any infants, as soon as they could 
 eat, partook of the offerings presented for the main- 
 tenance of the priesthood ; so that here again panoiki 
 embraces little children too young, according to our 
 opponents, to believe, or be baptized. In both cases 
 unconscious babes are included, and operations are re- 
 ferred to in which they took a part without any rational 
 exercise of intellect or affection that can bear the least 
 resemblance to faith and repentance. Infants came, 
 or rather wxre brought into Egypt ; infants partook, or 
 rather were fed of the provision made for the priests, 
 and panoiki, the whole family, embraces the^e infants; 
 but to talk of the fathers concerting with these unconsci- 
 ous babes about coming into Egypt, or partaking of 
 s 
 
130 
 
 their daily bread, *Ms a criticisin merely designed to 
 serve a purpose," and isa*^ "unwarrantable" as it is op- 
 posed to tact. We have here then the important truth 
 again proved that oikos and panoiki indicate tamiUes in 
 which there were unconscrt)us babes — that the apostles 
 baptized such families, baptized them before even the 
 adult portion in such houses had heard of Christ for 
 one hour — and these facts are recorded without a single 
 hint bei-Jig dropped that would lead us to conclude that 
 either oikos or panoiki is to be taken in a limited rather 
 than in its general signitication. Both the Septuagint 
 and Josephus, as well as Elkanah, when brought into 
 court, bear witness against the Baptists by whom they 
 had been subpoened. But you are doubtless ready to 
 vindicate the family of Stephanas from the charge of 
 having babes in it. 
 
 Bap. Why St. Paul himself says, that these were 
 " the first fruits of Achaia, and that they had ad- 
 dicted themselves to the ministry of the saints. Here 
 the house, household, or family, were the identical 
 persons who served or ministered to the saints with 
 allectionate assiduity." Page 30. 
 
 P-xA. Here again only a part of the truth is told 
 to the coniiding reader. H-e is not informed that, be- 
 tween the period when this house was baptized and the 
 writing of this epistle, about seven years if not more 
 elapsed — nor is he made acquainted with the fact, that 
 Paul baptized only the oikos, family or children of 
 Stephanas, but it was the oikia, household, including 
 the domestics, Sec. who addicted themselves to minis- 
 tering. It is well known that oikia, household, has 
 generally a more extensive signification than oikos, a 
 man's house or family of children. The former may 
 include the latter, but as it includes domestics, it also 
 refers to a greater number of adults ;- but oikos and 
 panoiki, as we have seen in the case of Elkanah, the 
 fathers who came into Egypt and the priests' families, 
 may refer to houses in which all, except the parents, 
 are infants and little children. Mr. AVaterman, then, 
 alike confounds terms and periods. He makes no dis- 
 
131 
 
 tinction between oikia and oikos — between a family of 
 children and a household of servants. He jumps through 
 seven years without a hint that the periods referred to 
 vary from each other a single minute. His conclusion 
 is wonderful. If the household of Stephanas minis- 
 tered to the saints A.D. 57, then the children of Ste- 
 phanas were all adults in the year 50 ! Equally rash 
 also would it be to affirm, that because the houseliold 
 ministered to the saints therefore there v.ere no infants 
 in it ! A stranger process of reasoning then was never 
 adopted, especially by a writer who in the same page 
 proves to us that oikos and panoiki refer to families in 
 which there were unconscious babes, and in which there 
 may he no children above the age of infants. But havr 
 ing invented and broached this stupendous proof, he 
 leaps to the conclusion, that " there is no evidence of 
 infant baptism in the annals of the apostlts." Doubt- 
 less he has forg-otten that Psedobaptists take the whole 
 scripture as their guide, and never conline themselves 
 to any one isolated passage. In explaining the oikoi, 
 houses or families of children, which the apostles hap- 
 tized, (for it is not said that they 1 aptized any oikiai, 
 households,) they are not unmindful of the conimission 
 of Christ, nor of the fact of his taking children in his 
 arms, Sec. 
 
 Bap. " The condescending character of the Re- 
 deemer we admire in this instance of kindness to child- 
 ren, as he blessed them, and probably healtd their dis- 
 eases ; hut we can by no means suppose that our Lord 
 baptized them. The passage affords presumptive evi- 
 dence against the scriptural character of infant baptism 
 — the apostles knew of no such rite, for " his disciples 
 rebuked those who brought them ;" and can this be 
 supposed, had the Redeemer given them any intimation 
 of such an institute as infant baptism ? Its complexion 
 is entirely opposed to the views of Predobaptiists." 
 Page 31. 
 
 Peed. It will require little effort, sir, to show that 
 Paedobaptists are far from having mistaken this text. 
 As he took these children in his arms, our Lord said, 
 
132 
 
 *' Suffer the little children to come unto me, for of such 
 is the kiiig-clom of heaven ;" and his words could mean 
 neither more nor less than that they had been admitted 
 to his kingdom by its initiatory ordinance. The ques- 
 tion therefore is not what was then done to them, or 
 whether they were then baptized, (it is probable they 
 had partaken of the ordinance previously to this period,) 
 but what does the Saviour sai/ about them ? 
 
 Bap. Said about them ! Why he took advantage of 
 the occasion to show that persons of a childlike dispo- 
 sition were of the kingdom of heaven. 
 
 Pted. But you admit that he uttered those words 
 as a reason for taking the children in his arms, and for 
 rebuking those who forbade their being brought to him. 
 
 Bap. Of course every one must allow his words are 
 a reason for his proceeding. 
 
 Pffid. You will doubtless admit that a person who 
 lias attained to the childlike spirit here intimated is as 
 perfect a christian as the world can behold ? 
 
 Bap. A childlike spirit must be one of implicit con- 
 fidence, of great simplicity, meekness, and humility, 
 and therefore the characteristic of no inferior christian, 
 
 Pfed. Very well, sir, than our Lord's argument 
 stands thus : The kingdom of heaven consists of the 
 most eminent christians, therefore I suffer little child- 
 ren to come unto me ! You see, brother Hastie, that 
 your interpretation either makes our Lord as inconclu' 
 sive a reasoner as Messrs. Waterman and Birt, or else 
 it proves that infants are most eminent christians. Now 
 Baptists will neither admit the former nor the latter ; 
 for the former would deeply dishonour the character of 
 the Son of God, and the latter would entitle infants to 
 baptism; for if their piety is of that description that 
 tliey rank with the most eminent christians, then surely 
 they may be baptized — your interpretation is therefore 
 incorrect. 
 
 Bap. But the v,ords " kingdom of God" may refer to 
 heaven. 
 
 Pred. Still this will not mend the matter, because 
 heaven consists of " the spirits of just men made per- 
 
133 
 
 feet ;" and if children resemble the spirits of those who 
 are perfected and gone to glory, then the church upon 
 earth must be the most appropriate place for such per- 
 fect innocents, and indeed she would be ,2:ailty of a 
 grievous sin to exclude them from her pale, who not 
 only equal the most eminent saints upon earth, but re- 
 semble the glorified in heaven ; because no place is so 
 proper for such exalted piety as the church of God, nor 
 can any other abode be found so suitable to cherish their 
 celestial graces ; or, if they are already perfect, to pre- 
 serve them during their abode in this degenerate world 
 from apostacy. 
 
 Bap. Some have supposed that these children were 
 not very young, they may have been old enough to be 
 baptized, and Baptists baptize very young persons. 
 
 Paed. Such an imagination hardly agrees with our 
 Lord's taking them in his arms, or with the fact of his 
 holding them up as a pattern or model for those who 
 receive the kingdom of God. Most children, as they 
 increase in years, show those tempers and passions which 
 no adult christian could imitate without being childish, 
 and a disgrace to Christianity. Unless babes are meant, 
 the analogy you intimate perfectly fails. 
 
 Bap. But what then did the apostles understand by 
 their being of the kingdom of heaven ? 
 
 Paed. Just what they understood by the expression 
 when they went and preached, " The kingdom of God 
 is at hand." The Jews had always been taught that 
 God was the King of his church, and that Messiah as 
 a King would visit them, and the disciples were sent 
 forth to announce to the people that Shiloh was among 
 them. Of this kingdom of God infants had always been 
 admitted as members, males were admitted by circum- 
 cision, and females by purification and sacrifice. The 
 Saviour therefore rebuked his disciples, and said, " Of 
 such is the kingdom of heaven." Such are the mem- 
 bers of my church, they have been dedicated to me by 
 a solemn ordinance ; they are mine, and as such. I em- 
 brace them in my arms and bless them. The text thus 
 interpreted exhibits its argument in all its force. Our 
 
134 
 
 Lord speaks of such infants generally as are dedicated 
 to him, " Of such is the kingdom of heaven." Now 
 it cannot be said that all infants are eminent christians 
 —it cannot be said that all infants belong to God's spi- 
 ritual kingdom, because many grow up in sin, and die 
 impenitent — it cannot be affirmed that those who are 
 iiever dedicated to him are of his visible kingdom upon 
 earth ; for although such dying in infancy may be saved, 
 yet, in the language of scripture, those only in this 
 world are said to belong to his outward church who either 
 have dedicated themselves, or are dedicated to him ; and 
 therefore, as these infants could not dedicate thenir 
 selves, the Redeemer niirst have meant that they were 
 his, in consequence of having been devoted to him by 
 some ordinance — and as the kingdom of heaven, here 
 intended, is the gospel kingdom, or the new testament 
 church — and the ordinance by which persons are solemnly 
 initiated into that kingdom is baptism, these children 
 had been baptized, or tiie Saviour would not have said 
 that they were of his kingdom, and given this as a rear 
 son why they should not be prohibited from his arms. 
 
 Bap. But it is not said that he baptized them. 
 
 Psed. Of course not ; they were not brought to be 
 baptized, but to be blessed. We have good evidence 
 in the fact that they were of Christ's kingdom, that they 
 had been baptized already — pi*obably at the same time 
 that their parents were, or else as soon after they were 
 fcorn as was dt-emed expedient ; and this might be the 
 reason why the disciples rebuked their parents ; they 
 thought that as they had already been dedicated to God, 
 it was needless at present to bring them again to the 
 Saviour. 
 
 Bap. Mr. Waterman says that the disciples would 
 not have rebuked the parents if they had known that he 
 allowed children to be baptized. Page 31. 
 
 Psed. Mr. Waterman takes the liberty of contradict- 
 ing himself, and also the word of God. He says that 
 our Lord probably healed the diseases of these children ; 
 consequently they were brought to be healed. Xow did, 
 or did not, the disciples know that Christ healed dis- 
 
135 
 
 eases ? His argument is this : — If the apostles had 
 known that Christ allowed children to be baptized, ihe^'' 
 would not have rebuked these parents : they did re- 
 buke these parents, and, therefore, they did not know 
 of such a thing' as infant baptism. But apply this rea- 
 soning to his own supposition, and how does the arou- 
 ment stand? He says the children came not to be bap- 
 tized, but to be healed, and yet the disciples rebuked 
 them; consequently the disciples had never heard thai' 
 our Lord healed diseases ! The proof is as follows : — 
 If the disciples had known that our Lord healed dis- 
 eases, they would not have rebuked those who brought 
 their children to him : they did rebuke the parents who" 
 T)rought their children to be healed ; and, therefore, the 
 disciples had never heard that our Lord healed dis^ 
 eases! Scholium. The healing- of these babes (a thing 
 not mentioned in the word of God) was the tirst in- 
 stance of healing diseases of which the apostles heard ! ! 
 Then, sir, there is another fallacy in the argumentation : 
 'it proceeds on the unwarrantable ground that the dis- 
 ciples never acted contrary to the w ill of Christ, either 
 from ignorance, dullness, or prejudice; when nothing 
 is more evident, than that after his ascension and the 
 outpouring of the Spirit, they refused to go to the na- 
 tions generally and preach the gospel, although once 
 and again he had commanded them to baptize and teach 
 all nations, and had taught them that " no man was 
 common or unclean." In this paragraph Mr. Water- 
 man also fights with a shadow — (was his sense of pro- 
 priety so strong, that he determined to battle a shadow 
 with nothing but shadows?) for he says the children 
 were not baptized, w^hen w^e do not say that they were 
 baptized — they w^ere brought to be blessed ; and both 
 our Lord's w^ords, and his rebuking the disciples, inti- 
 mate that they had already been baptized ; othenvise 
 there would have been no propriety at all in his saying 
 that both these and such like infants were of the king- 
 dom of heaven, and groundmg upon the doctrine an 
 invitation that little children- universally/ should be 
 brought to him. 
 
136 
 
 Bap. But if baptized already, why bring them to 
 Christ now ? 
 
 Peed. I see, sir, if you had lived with the disciples, 
 you would have been very likely to have rebuked these 
 parents. But Mr. Waterman answers your question : 
 he tells you they were brought to be healed, and inti- 
 mates that the disciples did not know that Christ healed 
 diseases ! Piedobaptists have another solution. These 
 children had received the sign, the emblem of spiritual 
 blessings, in baptism; and now the parents desired that 
 they might have the thing signified, and therefore 
 brought them to Christ that he might ♦' take them up in 
 his arms, lay his hands upon them, and bless them." 
 Thus, sir, " the complexion of this text decidedly" 
 favours Paedobaptism. It is highly probable that Pe- 
 ter had it in view when he said, " the promise is to 
 you, and your children," and the aposiles reduced it 
 to practice when they baptized parents and their fami- 
 lies. 
 
 Bap. *' It is lamentable to notice the partial manner 
 in which the promise addressed by Peter to the multi- 
 tude on the day of Pentecost is frequently quoted by 
 the advocates of Paedobaptism, as if their system 
 could not bear the whole truth. In the infallible records 
 we find the clause which our brethren pass by: " And 
 to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God 
 shall call." This sentence is expressive of the great 
 blessing of the gospel, which was to be enjoyed by Jews 
 and Gentiles, with their children or descendants, even 
 as many as the Lord our God shall call hy his grace. 
 pp. 31, 32. 
 
 Pa^d. If Pi^dobaptists are deficient, Mr Waterman 
 is redundant ; and you kaow it is as wicked to add to 
 the word of God as to take from it. The apostle did 
 not say, call, by his grace, but only as many as the 
 Lord shall call. Now, sir, there is a difl^erence between 
 the general call of the gospel, and that call of God^s 
 grace which is termed eftectual calling. The former is 
 addressed to all, and is as extensive as Christ's com- 
 mission to disciple all nations. Mr. Waterman, then. 
 
137 
 
 ought to have proved that effectual calling was meaiil 
 before he jumped to such a rash conclusion. But, sup- 
 posing he had succeeded, still it would have had little 
 to do with the question of infant baptism ; because the 
 apostle told the Jews that the promise was to them and 
 to their children, and it remains for your author to show 
 that the promise is not as extensive when addressed to 
 Gentiles as when addressed to Jews— and, consequently, 
 that the Jews have, under the gospel dispensation, a 
 considerable pre-eminence beyond other nations whom 
 God shall call ; or, in other words, that the middle 
 wall of partition is not yet broken down. 
 
 Bap. You misinterpret the word teckna, rendered 
 children. " Children," Mr. Waterman forcibly ob- 
 serves, *'in this passage mean * descendants;'' and Lim- 
 borch says that teckna, children, was understood not 
 to mean infants, but posterity.'^ Page 32 . 
 
 Pisd. The penning and printing of this passage 
 must have been adopted on the supposition that both 
 Baptists who were pleased with i(, and Paedobaptists 
 who were confuted by it, had lost their wits. Every 
 one knows that a man's descendants and a va^n's pos- 
 terity not only include his children, but his infant chil- 
 dren, unless it can be ascertained that his posterity shall 
 come into the world at an adult age ! To tell a con- 
 gregation that children mean posterity, and, therefore, 
 that posterity does not include children and infants, is 
 the veriest gibberish that ever was uttered. A fortune, 
 >ve will say, is left to a man and his children, and some 
 wiseacre, in turning over a dictionary, discovers that the 
 w^ord children means posterity, and founds an argument 
 on this fact to rob all the little children of their share ; 
 because, forsooth, says this Solomon, the word children 
 means posterity, and posterity excludes infants ! If 
 the sage went into court with this plea, would not every 
 one think that he deserved a strait-waistcoat ? AYhat 
 if Peter had seen Limborch, and when he repeated, 
 ** The promise is to you and your children," he had 
 halted there, and said, " Men and brethren, hear me : 
 1 am an inspired man, and have obtained from heaveu 
 
 T 
 
138 
 
 a new meaning to the word children ; the word means 
 a mail's descendants, that is, a man's posterity, so that 
 when I say, The promise is to you and your children, 
 you will understand that the promise is to you and 
 your descendants — that is, to you and your posterity ; 
 and you will all find, if you will consult Limborch, 
 that posterity and descendants exclude all the infants 
 which may hereafter be born." ! ! You may easily sup- 
 pose, brother Hastie, that if Peter had put this saga- 
 cious gloss upon the word teckna, the people would 
 have had no small reason for concluding that he was 
 more indebted to new wine than to heaven for his wis- 
 dom, and that his instructions more resembled the rea- 
 soning of a drunkard than the words of truth and so- 
 berness which inspired men were wont to utter. But, 
 sir, the people understood by the word '^ children'^ what 
 Abraham had understood by the term " seed.^^ The 
 promise was to Abraham and his seed, or to Abraham 
 and his children, to Abraham and his posterity ; for 
 who beside Mr. Waterman can find any difference be- 
 tween the meaning of these words as they are here 
 used ? 
 
 Bap. " The promise of the gift of the Holy Ghost 
 which Peter had just specified, alludes to the well- 
 known prophesy of Joel. Taking this view of the 
 language, it will be admitted that it has no reference to 
 the covenant promise with Abraham." Page 32. 
 
 Peed. The promise to Abraham was "justification 
 by faith ;" and you know, sir, that the faith which jus- 
 tifies is of the operation of God's Spirit, and therefore 
 the promise to Abraham did include the Holy Spirit, 
 for not a heathen or Jew believed on Christ until he 
 received the Holy Ghost. If God had promised the 
 patriarch to justify the heathen by faith, and had not 
 included in it the gift of the Holy Spirit, the promise 
 would have been useles*;, unless it can be proved that men 
 may repent and believe without the Holy Sbirit. Be- 
 sides, the copious outpouring of the Spirit upon Jews 
 and Gentiles depended upon the sacrifice of the Lord 
 Jesus ; to assert, therefore, that the one has no refer- 
 
ence to the other, is as heterodox a sentiment as it is pos- 
 sible for a man to broach, and shows how easily Mr. 
 Waterman can contradict his own sentiments when he 
 wishes to confute his opponents. Aoain, unless the 
 promise of justification and of the Holy Spirit em- 
 brace infants, all infants must perish, except it can he 
 shown that babes who die in infancy can be saved with- 
 out any interest in the atonement of Christ and grace 
 of the Spirit. 
 
 Bap. But, after all, the text will not prove infant 
 baptism ; '* and Dr. AFhitby in this place remarks, 
 these words will not prove any right of infants to bap- 
 tism, the promise here being that only of the Holy 
 Ghost." Page 32. 
 
 Paed. What a pity, sir, that Mr, Waterman so in- 
 cessantly deals in human authority, because it will have 
 no weight whatever with Pa^dobaptists, for they ap- 
 peal solely to the word of God, and your lover of truth 
 promised to refer to the same infallible guide ; yet, in 
 the last four pages we have had Doddridge twice, Mr. 
 Pool's Continuators, Dr. Cox, Peter Edwards, Lim- 
 borch, and Burder, and AVhitby twice. As to the re- 
 marks of the latter, they are as forcible as the poor 
 doctor's former blunder, in which he told us that a dis- 
 ciple and a teacher mean the same person ! But then 
 after all this human aid, what is proved even that the 
 author proposes to prove ? Absolutely nothing ! There 
 is no text on record which proves, as "SMiitby inti- 
 mates, that the Spirit hates babes ; and the fact remains 
 unaltered that Peter did declare that these people were 
 to receive the Holy Ghost after they were baptized ; 
 and he also assures them that the promise was to them 
 and their children, their descendants, their posterity, 
 and therefore to their infant children. This promise was 
 also made " to all that are afar off," or to the Gentiles 
 who were to be discipled, and consequently to Gentile 
 infants, unless it can be proved that Jewish infants are 
 embraced by the gospel, while Gentile infants are re- 
 jected. But if God promises and gives the Holy Spirit 
 to children, and if he does not, all who die in infancy 
 
140 
 
 must perish, then we shall not greatly err in giving them 
 the emblem ot" divine influence, and bringing them into 
 the church to instruct them to look for the thing signi- 
 fied. Infants eight days old received the seal of the 
 covenant of grace, which both typified the glorious ra- 
 tification of that covenant by the blood of Christ, and 
 at the same time assured all that they might be justi- 
 fied if they were followers of Abraham ; and the type of 
 spiritual influence may now be given to infants, as an as- 
 surance to all that God will give the Holy Ghost to those 
 that ask him, and that babes who die in infancy shall not 
 be left destitute of such an important blessing. For it 
 has already been shown that the commission of Christ 
 — the conduct of the apostles — and our Lord's remarks 
 respecting babes— far from prohibiting, freely sanction 
 their participation of this ordinance; and you knpvv, 
 sir, that children are called "holy." 
 
 Bap. You refer, no doubt, to iCor. 7, 14. " The 
 unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the 
 unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband, else w^ere 
 your children unclean, but now are they holy." Page3'2. 
 
 Paed. Our translators have used the present tense, 
 although the perfect is found in the sacred original. 
 The word should be rendered, " The unbelieving hus- 
 band has been sanctified by the wife, ^c-" — the apostle 
 alludes to what had taken placft, and in verse the 16th 
 intimates that such a thing might take place again. 
 " For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt 
 save thy husband?" &c. This interpretation gives a 
 solid reason why the believer should not separate, un- 
 less absolutely compelled to do so, from an unbelieving 
 consort; and he adds, else your children unclean, but 
 now are they holy. 
 
 Bap. " The original contains the same word in both 
 cases, and ascribes the same holiness to husband, wife, 
 and children ; but Pa^dobaptists plead fpr a relative 
 holiness in the case of the children." Page 32. 
 
 Pa?d. And this difi'erence is far from unusual in the 
 word of God. The term holy is applied to persons, 
 places, sacrifices, animals, and also to Jehovah, and is 
 
sometimes thus used in the very same sentence ; but 
 the holiness ot" a place or animal is relative and very 
 ditferent from the inherent holiness of God, so that 
 Mr. AVaterman cannot complain of such a distinction, 
 should Paedobaptists adopt it in this passage. 
 
 Bap. " The same word unclean, here applied to 
 children, is used by Peter to express unclean food, and 
 the term holy is also applied to food in the Epistle to 
 Timothy. In the Septuagint a term of the same origin 
 is employed to express the putting away of idolatrous 
 wives, which the apostle uses to denote rejecting or re- 
 ceiving certain kinds of food. Mr. Innes remarks '* that 
 opposed to unclean is that which is holy, or that which 
 can be used agreeably to the divine command. The 
 passage therefore sanctions the familiar intercourse of a 
 family. The unbelieving wife is sanctified by the be- 
 lieving husband— rthat is, it is agreeable to the word of 
 God that they should live together. Hence he enjoys 
 the blessing of God in living with her; and, in like 
 manner, the unbelieving husband is sanctitied by the 
 believing wife, otherwise it would not be agreeable that 
 they should thus continue together, as was the case in 
 the days of Ezra, chap. 10. 3. Your children would 
 be unclean, like unclean meat, which you could not 
 use nor enjoy, they would need to be rejected."— 
 pp. 33, 34. 
 
 Peed. That your author should have supposed that 
 the unnatural, the almost inhuman jargon of Mr. Innes 
 gives a clear and consistent meaning to the argument 
 of the apostle, must be attributed to the blinding pecu- 
 liarities of a sect. If this sentence, and the one al- 
 ready quoted, concerning analogy, are fair specimens 
 of that gentleman's discernment, then the Pasdobap- 
 tists have no cause to lament that he has run away 
 from their " corps,'' and written a book. The literal 
 reading of the words of the apostle, already given, 
 proves that Mr. Innes' interpretation of the sanctifica- 
 tion of the husband or wife is any thing but correct. 
 St. Paul simply declares what had been the effect of 
 their both living together. The one had been sancti- 
 
142 
 
 fied, or saved, by means of livinpj with the other, and 
 he intimates that this may take place again. And as a 
 separation would probably injure their offspring, he 
 adds, as an additional motive to induce them to live 
 together, that their children would be holy. But can 
 any one, except Mr Innes and his followers, suppose 
 that a holy child means a child whom a parent can 
 use and enjoy like clean meat, merely because his 
 father or mother has not deserted him ? And 
 that an unholy child means one whom a believing pa- 
 rent *' rejects^' or turns out of doors, and for this sole 
 reason, that he has an tmgodly father or mother? 
 The interpretation is not merely unnatural but inhu- 
 man ! What a picture it gives of primitive Christianity ! 
 The converted man or converted woman become mon- 
 sters, and reject their children as they would ** unclean 
 meat," and for no other cause than that they have 
 impious parents I What if they did separate, it 
 was tlie duty of the believer whose parental sympa- 
 thies were increased and refined by the pure spirit of 
 the gospel — by the bowels of mercy which every Chris- 
 tian puts on — to show double attention to those chil- 
 dren who are become almost orphans through the ha- 
 tred of one parent to Christ. Surely, instead of re- 
 jecting them as " unclean meat," ten thousand times 
 more attention was required from the believer. 
 
 Bap. But it behoves you, my friend, if you reject 
 Mr. Innes' interpretation, to show how they could be 
 holy in consequence of both parents living together. 
 
 P^ed. Simply by being baptized and received into 
 the church by that ordinance. The child that was cir- 
 cumcised was a member of the church, and " holy to 
 the Lord," and so the children that are baptized are al- 
 so in this sense dedicated and holy. And this is the 
 only way in which it can be said that children are ren- 
 dered holy in consequence of their parents. No real 
 purity can be communicated by pious parents to their 
 offspring, and if husbands and wives separated the believ- 
 ing parent could dedicate them to Christ in prayer — and 
 might have opportunities of speaking to them concern- 
 
143 
 
 ing Christ, consequently the holiness here spoken of 
 cannot mean merely praying for children, or speaking 
 to them about Christ, because one parent alone might 
 have an opportunity of doing all this ; but it is highly 
 probable, that when parents felt such opposition to 
 each other as to resolve to part, that in such a case 
 every effort was used by the unbeliever to prevent 
 the children from being dedicated to Christ in baptism, 
 and thus made holy to the Lord. On the contrary, 
 when both parents lived together, prejudice beins; thus 
 far softened, there would be little hesitation in allow- 
 ing the children to be solemnly initiated into Christ's 
 school. 
 
 Bap. But what right have you to give such a sense 
 as this to the word " holy }" 
 
 Peed. Only the right which scripture gives. What- 
 ever was dedicated to God is called holy ; and it is 
 especially said of babes eight days old, *' Every male 
 shall be holi/ to the Lord," Luke 2. 23, and this holi- 
 ness consisted solely in the child being dedicated to 
 Jehovah. Such infants were not always partakers of 
 the Holy Spirit, nor of internal sanctity; many of 
 them grew up reprobates, consequently their entire ho- 
 liness consisted in being introduced to the church 
 by a solemn ordinance. The word sacrifice, in its ge- 
 neral signification, alludes to what is made holy, or 
 dedicated to Jehovah. A holy use of the tongue for 
 the honour of God in the new testament is called the 
 sacrifice of the lips. Benevolencies are termed sacri- 
 Jices of a sweet smell— and believers are to present 
 themselves " living sacrijices^^ — in a word, the gospel, 
 instead of restraining, allows a greater latitude in what 
 is dedicated to the service of God than was permitted 
 by the law. Every place and every thing may now be 
 holiness to the Lord. Such is the tenor of the gospel ; 
 but what say the Baptists ? Every thing may thus be 
 devoted, but your offspring ! Or, if you dedicate these, 
 beware of using any solemn ordinance, which is either 
 calculated to bind you to your duty, or to encourage 
 you to hope for God's, blessing. Had you lived in the 
 
144 
 
 days of the law, yon might have taken the seal of 
 God's covenant and affixed it to your child as the mark 
 of its beins, holy to the Lord, but in this dispensation 
 of oreater light and liberty you must, although God has 
 given no proliibition, avoid any solemn introduction of 
 your offspring to the church of Christ ; or, if you 
 should thus dedicate them to God, you must not call 
 them holy. If you had lived in the times of Moses, 
 you might have viewed your children when thus conse- 
 crated as holy to the Lord ; but the gospel, if it gives 
 no prohibition, yet will riot allow that infants be made 
 holy by the use of a Christian ordinance, although that 
 ordinance bears the same relation to our introduction to 
 the church now that circumcision did in the olden 
 times. 
 
 Bap. You are misrepresenting our body ; Mr. Innes 
 allows that the apostle is correct in calling children 
 holi/, provided the believing and unbelieving parent 
 live together — it is only when they separate that the 
 children become unholy, and are to be rejected. 
 
 Paid. Thank you, Mr. Hastie, for the correction, 
 and the lucid manner in which you have explained Mr. 
 Innes' meaning of the word holy. What if we con- 
 trast it with the sense which Paidobaptists give to that 
 term ! According to the Paedobaptists, then, a holy in- 
 fant would be one who is solemnly dedicated to Jeho- 
 vah in baptism, as infants were of old by circumcision, 
 for of any other holiness of unconscious babes they can 
 have no cognizance unless by revelation from heaven; 
 nor is there any other holiness which can at all depend 
 upon the father and mother being on friendly terms y 
 lor all the holiness which may be supposed to stami 
 connected with a prayful dedication of the child to 
 God — or a pious education— or the work of the Spirit 
 on his heart-^may be produced, although father and 
 mother should live apart. Thus Paedobaptists follow 
 revelation in terming that holy which is consecrated to 
 Jehovah. In opposition to this, let us look at the in- 
 terpretation given by Mr. Innes. According to this 
 Oracle, then, a holy child is one who has a believing 
 
145 
 
 and an unbelieving parent, and these parents living' 
 together ; for, mind ye, should they separate, the child 
 would at once be made unclean^ and indeed so very un^ 
 holy, that even the believing parent must reject and 
 discard it, and do so solely on account of its father or 
 mother running away ; because, if the believer had only 
 lived with the ungodly father or mother, the child 
 would have been holy ! Thus you perceive, sir, that 
 according to Mr. Innes the purity of the children is de- 
 posited as much in the ungodly as in the godly parent, 
 and when the believer and infidel separate, all the holi- 
 ness of the children to which the apostle refers is gone! 
 Surely, if Abraham Booth were alive, he would call 
 this " an odd sort of holiness" ! and might have 
 been as disposed to laugh at it as he was at the idea of 
 a covenant having three seals affixed to it. But then, 
 the venerable Abraham had not the new light which 
 shines into the understanding of Messrs. Innes and 
 Waterman, for the latter tells us, that thus making the 
 friendly intercourse of a believer and unbeliever the 
 source of the children's holiness, gives " a clear and 
 consistent meaning to the argument of the apostle" ! 
 But of course these gentlemen will admit that the like 
 cause would produce like effects in all ages. Let us, 
 then, suppose that among two persons in our day, who 
 were unequally yoked together, a dispute arises con- 
 cerning religion, and the quarrel goes to such a length 
 that the unbeliever separates from wife and children, 
 and goes to America, Then, according to Mr. Innes, 
 in such a case this son of belial would carry away to the 
 other side of the atlantic all the holiness of his (child- 
 ren with him ! and the pious mother, now that not only 
 her husband, but the holiness of the children are gone 
 to America, must reject the children as " unclean meat" 
 (the reader, for Mr. Innes' sake, will forgive the can- 
 nibalism of the metaphor) because their ungodly father 
 has run away with all their apostolical holiness ! To 
 say that such an interpretation is as absurd as it is in- 
 human is quite unnecessary, and yet this is the only 
 legitimate interpretation of Mr. Innes' abstruse arg.u- 
 u 
 
146 
 
 ment and abstruser Eng-lish, quoted with so much appro- 
 bation by Mr. Waterman ! Verily Amator Veritatis 
 and his coadjutors ought to have a patent for inventing 
 a new description of holiness, far surpassing any thing 
 of that sort that was ever dreamt of by any pagan pa- 
 pist or pontiff. 
 
 Bap. But if both parents lived together on good 
 terms, would it not tend to the sanctification of the 
 children ? 
 
 Psed. The apostle cannot mean that two godly parents 
 living together could impart the principles of holiness to 
 their children, because this would alike oppose scripture 
 and experience, for the offspring of such are sometimes 
 found very depraved, although brought up in a godly 
 faniily ; much, less then, could a believing and an un- 
 believing parent by living together make their children 
 holy, and therefore the holiness here referred to intends 
 nothing but the solemn dedication of the children to 
 God in the initiatory ordinance of the christian churchy 
 to which St, Paul attaches so much importance. 
 
 Bap. But cases would occur in which the believing 
 parent might have the children baptized without the 
 leave of the unbeliever. 
 
 Psed. Granted that this might sometimes occur, yet 
 in many instances it would be prevented, especially if the 
 parents separated, and the apostle wishes to guard 
 against its prevention in any case, for doubtless he was 
 solicitous to have children as early as possible intro- 
 duced to the church, and made its especial care. 
 
 Bap. You argue all along as if these holy children 
 were infants; but the word teckna is here used, which 
 Limborch says means '* not infants, hui posterity J" 
 
 Pied. Agreed, sir ; still it will scarcely answer the 
 purpose of good Mr. Waterman to take Limborch in 
 tow just here, because then the text would prove that 
 an ungodly husband and a godly wife living together 
 would sanctify all their jjosterity, their infant descend- 
 ants alone excepted, and would make all these adults 
 hiAynoic, before they are born ; the holiness generated 
 by their living together being kept in reversion, as a 
 
147 
 
 kind of heirloom, for all adults when they become such I 
 But, sir, the apostle must allude to infants, because 
 adults could be baptized or not baptized, and might be 
 holy or unholy without the consent of their parents. We 
 have therefore seen, brother Hastie, that Mr. Water- 
 man's attempt, though aided by the profound criticism 
 of Mr. Innes, to explain away this text, has been per- 
 fectly futile ; for the passage refers to that sanctity 
 which the scriptures attribute to those who are dedi- 
 cated to God, and that holiness here is the holiness of 
 infants who have been introduced to the church by 
 baptism. 
 
 Bap. Well, my friend, if Mr. Innes may have mis- 
 taken the text, yet, you will never get Baptists to be- 
 lieve that infants are holy because they have been bap- 
 tized. 
 
 Paed. And of course they would not believe that a 
 child was holy because he was circumcised ; yet the word 
 of God declares that the babe eight days old, which had 
 been dedicated to Jehovah, was holy. And certainly 
 Baptists will grant that the holiness which arises from 
 dedication to God is quite as scriptural and as good 
 as that which, according to Mr. Innes, is deposited in 
 an ungodly father or mother. 
 
 Bap. At any rate, your explanation makes a 
 great deal too much of infant baptism. You attribute 
 sanctifying influence to a mere rite. 
 
 Psed. The scriptures attribute a great deal to bap- 
 tism. Our Lord speaks of being " horn of ivater ;^' St. 
 Paul declares that the Corinthians were " washed, sanc- 
 tified, and justified ;" and in another place he mentions 
 " the leashing of resreneration, and renewing of the 
 Holy Ghost." And St. Peter says, " that the baptism 
 of water saves us through the resurrection of Christ." 
 The practice of Baptists not only makes it necessary 
 that all these texts should be inverted, but it robs them 
 of any meaning. If the Baptists are right, then our 
 Lord ought to have said, " except a man be born of the 
 Spirit and of water.''' The apostle should have writ- 
 ten, " Ye are sanctified, justified, and washed'' — and 
 
148 
 
 again, *' He saved u^ by the the renewino^ of the Holy 
 Ghost, and the washing of regeneration." The Bap- 
 tists place tlie order of ivords at the very base of their 
 system ; but if they are correct, then their whole fa- 
 bric is baseless ; for the scriptures, instead of putting 
 regeneration before baptism, assert that men are born 
 of water hefore they are born of the Spirit — that they 
 are washed before they are sanctitied or justified — and 
 that the trashing of regeneration precedes the renewinof 
 of the Holy Ghost. The text of St. Peter must also be 
 destitute of any sense whatever, because he asserts that 
 persons are saved by baptism ; but the Baptists require 
 tliat persons should be saved before they are baptized, 
 and therefore baptism cannot be even the instrument 
 of their salvation. The other passages already quoted 
 must on the same principles be destitute of any mean- 
 ing ; for persons can be born again — can be icashed — . 
 or receive the icashing- of regeneration, neither instru- 
 mentally nor actuaUi/, after they are really born again 
 — renewed by the Holy Ghost' — sanctified and justified. 
 In the Baptist system, to be horn of icater-^Xo be 
 trashed before sanctification or justification — to have 
 the irash injur of regeneration before the renewing of 
 the Holy Ghost — is absolutely rejected, and to partake 
 of it after must be absolutely superfluous. 
 
 Bap. I am glad, my friend, that at last you are 
 brought to the old popish doctrine of baptismal rege^ 
 neration. You can no longer reject the charge of po- 
 pery which your system involves, and which gave you 
 so much umbrage, when Mr. Waterman gently hinted 
 that you were worse than the Romanists. 
 
 Peed. The charge of popery could be easily retort- 
 ed, because no persons lay more emphasis upon the 
 observance of a rite and the jnode of administering it 
 than the Baptists, although at the period when they 
 administer the ordinance it is, on their own confession, 
 absolutely useless ; for Pa?dobaptists are as good Chris- 
 tians without being dipped for a second in the water as 
 their brethren are after the momentary wetting of their 
 clothes (not their persons) in the " sacred wave." On 
 
1^ 
 
 the contrary, the admliiisterinff of the ordinance to in- 
 fants and the due observance of its obligations must be 
 eminently useful, and in many cases have been the 
 means of salvation. And this is the light in which 
 our Lord viewed it, in which the apostles viewed it, 
 and in which it is viewed by Psedobaptists. It is one 
 of the means of grace, an ordinance by which infants 
 and heathen adults are introduced to the school of 
 Christ, and the church of Christ is the place in which 
 many " are born." If persons are " born again of 
 the incorruptible seed, the word of God," there dis- 
 pensed — If persons are justified by the faith which 
 comes by hearing — If the regenerating and sanctifying 
 influences of the Spirit are frequently given in the 
 church — If the means of grace enjoyed in the church 
 are to many the means of salvation — then the ordi- 
 nance which introduced to these privileges must 
 be invaluable, and the individuals who have been thus 
 introduced to the church, and to whom the introduc- 
 tion has been attended with the divine blessing, may 
 be said to have been '* horn of icattr and of the 
 Spirit" — to have been '' icashed, Justified, and sancti- 
 fied" — and to have been " savecV by baptism. Bap- 
 tism was the means, regeneration, justification, sancti-^ 
 fication and salvation, the end. People are saved by 
 the preaching of the w^ord- — not that the word inde- 
 pendent on the Spirit of God saves them, but it be- 
 comes the means of their salvation. So persons are 
 born of water and of the Spirit, baptism the means, 
 the Holy Spirit the agent, and regeneration the end. 
 And were the obligations involved in intant baptism 
 always observed, and were all who have been bap- 
 tized to consider the obligation they are under to obey 
 the gospel, we should more frequently see its benefit- 
 cial consequences. Thus, sir, without teaching bap- 
 tismal regeneration, or attributing to it any higher ef- 
 ficacy than what belongs to the means of grace, we 
 can assert that persons are " horn of water and of the 
 Spirit" — that they are " ?faA7/ef/, justified, and sancti- 
 fied" — and that *' haptism saves them," and we 
 
160 
 
 have this advantage over our brethren, that we follow 
 the order laid down in scripture, and that we employ 
 the ordinance when it may be of some use — while on 
 the contrary, their system requires that the words of 
 inspiration should be transposed, and not only so, but 
 they baptize persons to whom the institution can be of 
 no service whatever ; for the persons whom Baptists 
 wash and save by water are required to be previously 
 regenerated, washed, and saved. But perhaps, sir, 
 as you are so confident of being- in the right, you will 
 tell me \Ahether there is any prohibition of infants from 
 the gospel church, because you know they were ad- 
 mitted under the old testament dispensation. 
 
 Bap. You " refer to the covenant with Abraham 
 and his seed to which circumcision was affixed, so that 
 INIr. Waterman's observations, if they establish the 
 point, remove this objection." Page 34. 
 
 Pa^d. You may well say, *' //"they establish the 
 point," because they establish nothing. Every re- 
 mark of Mr, Waterman and Mr. Birt were as diame- 
 trically opposed to the word of God as words could 
 be. There is not a single truth in the new testament 
 demonstrated more clearly, than that the Abrahamic 
 covenant was the covenant of grace. 
 
 Bap. But '* as the connexion originated, as far 
 as infants were concerned, with the establishment of 
 that rite, must it not be acknowledged that the passing 
 away of that economy with all the ceremonies of Ju- 
 daism, and the establishment of another dispensation, 
 Avithits peculiar institutes, necessarily implied that the 
 former was abolished ; and if abolished, why should 
 an absolute prohibition of infant baptism be necessary 
 to limit the ordinance to believers ? JV/if/ indeed 
 necessary?'' Page 35. 
 
 Pccd. Notwithstanding the swell and swagger with 
 which this passage concludes, yet the steady fact re- 
 mains untouched, that *' circumcision sealed the right- 
 eousness by faith; and \i\justiJication by faith has not 
 passed awai/, then the covenant sealed to Abraham 
 and his seed, which St. Paul tells is Christ, is not 
 
151 
 
 abolished, and as that covenant of grace o)ice admit- 
 ted infants to its seal or sign, nothing short of a pro- 
 hibition from heaven can exclude them in our day. 
 The fact that the rite is changed can never prove that 
 the subjects to which it is applied are also changed ; 
 yet this is the wonderful argument of our opponents : 
 The rite is changed, therefore the subjects are changed !! 
 And, further, although they jump to this wonderful 
 conclusion, the word of God is as far from affording 
 them any assistance as the proposition from which 
 they reason. It is no where hinted in the new testa- 
 ment that because the ordinance by which persons are 
 admitted to the church is changed, therefore such an 
 alteration is made respecting the subjects who are ad- 
 mitted that infants are excluded. The Baptists never 
 have and never can produce a single text to prove this 
 alteration respecting infants ; and when they attempt 
 it, nothing is offered with which to convince Ptcdo- 
 baptists but mere quibbles, or assumptions. 
 
 Bap. But Pfedobaptists do not plead " for an 
 absolute prohibition of the sevent/i day sabbath as es- 
 sential to the observance of the Lord's day." Page 35. 
 Paed. To be sure they don't. Because the sab- 
 bath is kept, and every seventh day is kept ; and it is 
 pretty evident, that after our Lord's resurrection the 
 disciples met together on the first day, which both the 
 apostle John and the fathers call the Lord's day. The 
 change of the day involves no neglect of duty, but the 
 rejection of infants from the church involves an awful 
 neglect of duty without the least permission from Je- 
 hovah. But it is rather wonderful, brother, that you 
 should refer to the observance of the^r^^ day of the 
 w^eek, as a sabbath, because the Baptists do Ihis^ 
 without any direct command from Christ; and if Bap- 
 tists observe this day without any command, and yet 
 do not err or sin in such a practice, why then it would 
 follow that Paedobaptists may baptize infants, even if 
 there were no direct command to do so. The tactics 
 of the Baptists are wonderful, when excluding infants 
 they say, " We exclude them because there is no 
 
15^> 
 
 command." AYemiaht reply, " But there is no commancJ 
 to observe the first day of the week as a sabbath." 
 " O," they answer, " we keep the Lord's day because 
 there is no prohibition.^'' " Well," we add, " we 
 may baptize infants because there is no prohibition." 
 " .Vo no," is their rejoinder, though Baptist-^ may 
 observe the first day because there is no prohibition, 
 yet Paedcjbaptists must not baptize infants although 
 there is no prohibitionW Of course thi^ mode of 
 reasoning goes on the assumption that Baptists have a 
 charter of liberties peculiar to their body, so peculiar 
 that their poor dissenting brethren have neither part nor 
 Jot in the matter. 
 
 Bap. But you never require " an absolute prohi- 
 bition of infant communion to limit the Lord's supper 
 to believers." Page 15. 
 
 Peed. Of course not, because the apostle says, 
 *' Let a man examine himself and so let him eat," con- 
 sequently a spiritual exercise is necessary for the 
 Lord's supper, of which children are incapable. But, 
 sir, you must remember that it is no where said. Let 
 a man examine himself and so let him be baptized. 
 On the contrary, our Lord enjoined that persons should 
 l>e baptized and then taught, and he tells us that chil- 
 dren are oi the kingdom of heaven, and that persons 
 are born ot water and of the Spirit ; and his whole 
 ministry shows that the thousands which his disciples 
 baptized were far more objectionable than infants. 
 Nothing less, sir, than an absolute prohibition can 
 therefore neutralize such direct proofs of infant bap- 
 tism. The admission of infants to the church is alike 
 sanctioned by th.e conduct of Christ and his apostles, 
 is supported by the old and new testament, and no- 
 thing but the tyranny of custom could have induced 
 Mr. Waterman to call it a human institution." 
 
 Bap. By some of your new acquaintances infant 
 baptism is styled " Jewish proselyte baptism." But 
 sacred history, the popular writers Josephusand Philo, 
 make no mention of such a rite. Drs. Owen and Jen- 
 nings assert that the practice is destitute of all proba- 
 
153 
 
 bility. The earliest account of it is in themishna and 
 geniara. pp. 35, 36. 
 
 Paed. The fact that Josephus and Philo have not 
 mentioned this practice can never prove that it did not 
 exist, unless it can first be proved that nothing is to 
 be believed but what these gentlemen have recorded. 
 And, as to the sacred history, we know that it does re- 
 cord " divers baptisms," so, that to say the least of it, 
 IMr. Waterman's assertion is exceedingly rash. Be- 
 sides, we know that Arrian does refer to the practice. 
 
 Bap. Arrian speaks of a Jew being baptized, but 
 then by a Jew he means a Christian. Page 36. 
 
 Paed. Much easier said than proved, brother 
 Hastie. St. Paul refers to Jewish baptisms, and he 
 tells us that there were divers of these, and therefore 
 Arrian could with much more propriety call a Jew a 
 baptized person than a Christian. The former was of- 
 ten baptized, and in different ways ; the latter partook 
 of the ordinance but once; besides, could r/?? unclean hea- 
 then proselvte be admitted to the church without ivasliing 
 or sprinkling? Peedobaptists stand in no need of this 
 argument; still, it was worth while to notice it, to show 
 that Mr. Waterman never proves a sin^ile thing that he 
 asserts. Baptists and Paedobaptists, instead of being 
 shown what saith the scripture, must be perfectly 
 contented with what saith Mr. W^aterman, &c. The 
 w^orst of this kind of proof is, that some presumptuous 
 persons will think that they have as good a right to af- 
 firm or deny as your friend ; and while he declares 
 that Arrian meant a Christian, they will declare that 
 he meant a Jea% and who will be able to say which of 
 the two is right ? This temerity of your author must 
 therefore unsettle the minds of the very persons who 
 are already staunch Baptists ; for the whole of this 
 third letter, notwithstanding its length and belligerent 
 preface, is destitute of a single proof, or shadow of 
 a proof, w^hich can in the least degree affect ^he system 
 of his opponents. However, as you may probably 
 liave some very powerful arguments to advance from 
 Mr. W.'s Reveiw of Paedobaptism, let us proceed to 
 w 
 
154 
 
 the examination of Letter the IV. Though I would 
 first premise that from a cursory reading of that pro- 
 duction my conviction is that the epistle ought to have 
 been called any thing rather than a Review of Poedo- 
 baptism, for it is any thing but a revievj. 
 
 Bap. The letter, sir, commences most charitabli^. 
 Paedobaptists are called " estimable persons, and Mr. 
 Waterman reveres them for their pieit/ and talents, and 
 places them amongst the ablest champions of Christi- 
 anity." Page 37. 
 
 Paed. And ends so uncharitahhj , that the conclu- 
 sion forms a perfect contrast to the beginning. How- 
 ever, this trait of the book perfectly agrees with its 
 general character, nothing being more common than a 
 constant vibration between candour and bigotry. 
 
 Bap. "Well, sir, you cannot say that this letter is 
 very bigoted, because it " will present the character 
 of infant baptism as seen in its most zealous advocates, 
 while their contradictory sentiments will lead you, I 
 conceive, to conclude from this internal testimony that 
 it is not recognised by divine authority. Thus we shall 
 see the propriety of Dr. AUix's remark strikingly ex- 
 emplified. ' When men dispute against the truth, 
 what one of them builds up is presently pulled doivn 
 by another.' Observe, sir, that the Pcedobaptists 
 appear to have no common basis, but are most diverse 
 in the grounds of the right of infants to baptism, which 
 is a presumptive evidence against its divine authority." 
 Page 37. 
 
 Peed. The great disadvantage of this argument, 
 Mr. Hastie, is that it is too strong, and may be used 
 with as much propriety and force against every truth in 
 philosophy and religion as against infant baptism. It 
 dethrones the Eternal, and indeed annihilates him with 
 the same ease as it excludes infants from the church. 
 Atheists may say that Theists " have no common basis, 
 but are most diverse in the grounds of their belief in 
 the existence of a Deity ;" which, according to Mr. 
 ^Vaterman, would be presumptive evidence against 
 every authority for believing there is any God at all. 
 
155 
 
 If a diversity of opinion among Pa^dobaptists proves 
 that they have no common base on which to rest their 
 faith, then, a diversity of opinion among Baptists must 
 also prove that they have no ** common base," but are 
 just in the same predicament as their poor dissenting 
 brethren. Now it is a well known fact that some Bap- 
 tists are Hyper-Calvinists, some are moderate Calvi- 
 nists, some are Arminians, some Unitarians, and some 
 Episcopalians ; this must demonstrate, if Mr. Water- 
 man's argument is a true one, that the faith of Baptists 
 has no support whatever from divine authority. It is 
 truly shocking, sir, to find any pious man handling such 
 profane weapons as those which Mr. Waterman 
 has here grasped — weapons which every Atheist, every 
 Infidel, every Papist, is continually emyloying, and 
 has as much right to employ to overturn his opponents 
 as the Baptists have to employ it to overturn these 
 " amiable brethren, whose piety and talents have 
 placed them among the ablest champions of religion." 
 Page 37. 
 
 Bap. " The institution of Christ is the basis of the 
 principles of Baptists ; but the great contrariety which 
 prevails among Pxdobaptists, presenting them as the 
 opponents of each other, is a most glaring unomaly — 
 Cyprian, Austin, Beza, Baxter, Witsius, Luther, 
 Godwin, Hammond, the church of England, Drs. 
 Dwight and AVardlaw, all differ as to the grounds of 
 infant baptism ; so that every argument adduced in its 
 support has been given up, or condemned as insufhcient, 
 by some of its learned adherents." Page 33. 
 
 Peed. It is strange, sir, that 3Ir. Waterman should 
 term this difference of opinion " a glaring anomaly,'^ be- 
 cause nothing is so common and jiroverbial as the 
 difference and '* contrariety' that prevails among the 
 professors of Christianity concerning every truth of 
 revelation, nor is there a single doctrine but some one 
 of them has given up ; and if any individual should re- 
 solve to renounce all the truths that one and another 
 of these have abandoned, not a vestage of the gospel 
 w^ould remain. If Mr. M aterman w^ere to carry this 
 
156 
 
 principle, by which he condemns infant baptism, into 
 general practice, he must become an Atheist, and 
 he might plead the sentiment of Dr. Allix as his au- 
 thority. ** When men dispute against the truth, what 
 one of them builds up is presently pulled down by 
 another," for ^yhat one professor of Christianity has 
 built up, another has pulled down; and therefore if Dr. 
 Aliix's canon is a true one, and is to be taken as an 
 axiom of universal application, then there can be nei- 
 ther Pa^dobaptism nor believers baptism — there can be 
 neither Christianity nor Theism, nor indeed any ground 
 for embracing any religion at all. Of course we must 
 leave Mr. Waterman to choose whether he will renounce 
 this argument as untenable, or else proceed to demolish 
 the gospel altogether ; but one of the two must be 
 adopted, or else he must remain open to the charge of 
 the greatest inconsistency. 
 
 It may also be observed, that, independent of this di- 
 lemma to which he is pushed by his own argument, he 
 has made a most egregious mistake res(jecting the opi- 
 nions of Cyprian and the other P^edobaptists whom 
 he has quoted. It is 7iot true that these divines have 
 coniraiJicted each other respecting " the grounds of in- 
 fant baptism" — far from this, they have adduced dif- 
 ferent arguments in support of the same truth, and as 
 many of their reasons are incontrovertible, they prove 
 bow well their system is delcnded. AVe never heard 
 it hinted till now that a number of bulwarks, differing 
 in form and strength, was a proof ot weakness rather 
 than of power ! But, after all, what if Cypiian and 
 Austin and others should contradict each other, Paedo- 
 baptists generally have nothing to do with their op- 
 posing differences, because they at once appeal to the 
 word of God, and theretore are utterly careless as to 
 what rnay have bten the opinions of Luther or others 
 on this subject. And, further, they pledge them- 
 selves to become Baptists, en masse, when Mr. W. will 
 produce a single text of scripture that will prove them 
 in error. 
 
 Pap. But if you have scripture on your side, the 
 
157 
 
 diversity of opinion as to the grounrs of infant baptism 
 is a most singular iacl, well deserving- the considerutioa 
 of every Paedobaplist — it is entirely unknown in the 
 annals of every truth of relig-ion — so unparalleled, in- 
 deed, that it ought to make its most zealous advocates 
 pause." Page 33. 
 
 Peed. The only answer that is necessary to give to 
 this sentence is, that there is not a word of it that is 
 true. Nothing is so notorious in " the annals of every 
 truth of religion" as the differences and contradictious 
 that have prevailed respecting it. The nature of the 
 Deity, the person of Christ, the doctrine of the aione- 
 ment, the woik of the Holy Spirit, the obligation of 
 the moral law, the immateriality of the soul, &.c. are all 
 in some way or other disputed ; and conrernino: them all, 
 opii.ions, not only diverse, but most contradictory, are 
 entertained : what then could Amator Veritatis be think- 
 ing of when he asserted that a difference of opir.ion con- 
 cerjiing a rt-ligious orciinance was a '* sis/o-ular fact — a 
 tiling entirely Uhknown and unparalleled in the annals 
 of every truth in religion?" He knows, he well knows 
 that the tact is neither ^i»g«/«r, vnkiiown, nor unparal- 
 leled, and, far from preseijting any ^' glaring anomaJi^,"^ 
 is one of the commonest truths in the world. But 1 be- 
 lieve you have a few more arguments to adduce from 31 r. 
 ^Vaterulan's "cheap desideratum." 
 
 Bap. " Secondly," Mr. Searche, " observe that 
 with respect to the children wlio are proper to be bap- 
 tized, .there is a considerahle contrariety of opinion, 
 which is a presumptive eviderice against the scripture 
 character of Pcedobaptism." Page 38. 
 
 Paed. Among Baptists there is a considerahle con- 
 trariety of opinion respecting the persons who may par- 
 take of the sacrament, respecting the persons who may 
 preach the gosjiel, or even be the deacons of their 
 churches; and this contrariety, if Mr. ^Vaterman's se- 
 cond argument is a good one, proves that there is no 
 scripture authority for the sacran:ient, for the gospel 
 ministry, or the office of deacons. l)ne Baptist church 
 will allow a Paedohaotist to sit down at the Lord's table, 
 
158 
 
 while another excludes him from that privilege, although 
 he admits that the brother he rejects is prepared for 
 heaven! *' What a glaring anomaly"! One church 
 will have a learned gifted pastor, while another eschews 
 gifts and learning altogether ! One church must have 
 rich talented deacons, but another prefers the poor and 
 illiterate ! As we review these contradictious, we might 
 fcxclaim with Mr. AVaterman, " "What ! my friend, 
 What would a serious enquirer feel in perusing these 
 contradictory opinions in reference to communicants, 
 ministers, and deacons ? Would he not be stumbled by 
 such a contrariety of sentiment, and led to conclude 
 that there could be no divine injunction respecting these 
 matters ?" Page 39. 
 
 Bap. " Observe, in the third place, that the effects 
 connected with infant baptism, as represented by Pse- 
 dobaptists, appear antiscriptural and contradictory, and 
 thus they form another powerful objection against the 
 system." Page 39. 
 
 Paed. In reply, it may be said, that this third ar- 
 gument, like the two already advanced, may be applied 
 with as much force against Christianity altogether as 
 against the baptism of infants. Xothing is more pro- 
 verbial than the different effects ascribed to the gospel. 
 The Papists tell us that its genuine effect is to make men 
 Papists, — the Episcopalian, that it makes Episcopa- 
 lians, — the Souman, that its rational and proper effect 
 is to make men Soumans, — the Calvinist, that it makes 
 Calvinists, — the Arminian, that it makes Arminians,— 
 the Quaker, that it makes Quakers, — and the Baptist, 
 that its real, full, and perfect effect is seen when it 
 makes men Baptists ! — Here then are different effects 
 ascribed to the same cause ; and " if the different ef- 
 fects' ascribed by Pa?dobaptists to infant baptism is " a 
 poicerful objection against the system," then, by a 
 parity of reasoning, the different effects ascribed by 
 professed Christians to the gospel, must be a powerful 
 objection against Christianity altogether. Thus the wea- 
 pon which Mr. AVaternian employs sweeps away with 
 one fell swoop both infant baptism and the gospel of 
 Jesus Christ. 
 
159 
 
 Bap. But you know what a deal Papists, Episcopa- 
 lians, Mr. Wesley, Mr. Henry, Drs. Williams and 
 Dwight, make of the imagined advantages which they 
 suppose infant baptism confers. 
 
 Peed. And what of all that, Mr. Hastie ; making 
 too much of a good thing can never prove that the thinoj 
 itself is not really good. The Jews laid too much strpss 
 upon circumcision and the ceremonial law ; but that 
 fact does not furnish '* a powerful objection against" 
 the seal of the righteousness of faith, or the patterns 
 of things in the heavens, which were after all the sha- 
 dows of good things to come. Still, no fact is more 
 evident than that Paidobaptists, far from attributing too 
 much to this ordinance, are generally chargeable with 
 the fault of not attaching to it due importance. 
 
 Bap. " What appears so g/arifig- as the inestim- 
 able value of this rite in the creed of Ptedobaptists ? It 
 possesses some mysterious power, admitting the child 
 to covenant blessings, or in regenerating the spirit and 
 associating it with the throne of God, while it leaves 
 all babes, who are not brought to the font, in ?i fearful 
 gloom. The Baptists, however, as Mr. Birt remarks, 
 with grateful confidence, esteem all children who die 
 in infancy to be equally and certainly saved ; whilst 
 Peedobaptism, with ^, partial, gloomy, and awful aspect, 
 makes a privileged order among dying babes, placing 
 a comparatively small number in a state of regeneration, 
 and a few others in the covenant of grace, leaving the 
 vast and incalculable majority destitute of those bles- 
 sings which are essentially necessary to their eternal 
 felicity." Page 40. 
 
 Peed. Here again, sir, instead of " direct proofs" 
 from scripture, we have nothing but direct untruths. 
 Both Mr. Waterman and Mr. Birt know that pious Pse- 
 dobaptists neither believe that baptism regenerates the 
 soul nor places children in the covenant of grace ; nor 
 do they doom unbaptized infants to perdition ; nor i& 
 their system in the least degree chargeable with such a 
 belief. They are persuaded that it is the will of God 
 that children should at an early period be introduced ta 
 
100 
 
 the church by this solemn ordinance. They also kftow, 
 that if the duties iiivolved in the sacrament be duly dis- 
 charg-ed by the parents, the church, and the minister, 
 the children will be greatly benefited, and through God's 
 blessinc; eventually saved ; but there is nothing- in such 
 a creed that either attaches any undue influence to the 
 ordinance, or that dooms dying babes, who have not 
 been thus dedicated to Jehovah, to perdition. What 
 motive could induce a lover of truth to quote what he 
 knew to be a foul misrepresentation of his brethren? 
 The sentiment reflects less upon the persons calumni- 
 ated than upon the head and heart of the very candid 
 ]\Ir. Birt. It required no small degree of uncharitable- 
 ntss, not to say malignity, to im.aiiine that the solemn 
 dedication of a few children to Jehovah should, in the 
 least degree, be thought to affect the salvation of those 
 who are not thus privileged. All that is partial, 
 glooyny, or awful in the aspect of such an ordinance, 
 must exist solely in the partial, gloomy, and awful ima- 
 gination of Mr. Birt and his disciple. ^Vhat if a num- 
 ber of persons ])ledged themselves by a solemn ordi- 
 nance to o^ive their children a good education, and by 
 the help of God to make a comfortable provision for 
 their temporal wants, would such a proceeding wear "a 
 partial, gloomy, and awful aspect" towards those infants 
 whose parents could not or did not choose to put them- 
 selves under such obligations ? And where, then, is 
 the fearful gloom in which Paedobaptism leaves unhap- 
 tized childien? P^dobantists dedicate their children; 
 therefore, say Messrs. Birt and Waterman, ihey " leave, 
 all chddren who are not brought to the font in a fearful 
 gloom ! What conclusive argumentation ! What a 
 charitable insinuation ! How adapted as a bugbear to 
 frighten parents from bringing their infants to Chiist, 
 and pledging themselves to train them up in the nurture 
 and admonition of the Lord 1 
 
 Uap. But " the fancie<l benefits of Paedobaptism 
 are found to be contrary to scripture and to fact, which 
 ought to alarm its warmest frunds. Where is there 
 any information in the pages of the new testament of a 
 
lei 
 
 pfiviieged order of children ? No, sir, the apostlfe' 
 represents all as equally ** the children of wrath — as 
 dead in trespasses and sins," and the fact is confirmed by 
 observation, for '* there is none righteous." pp. 40, 41. 
 Paed. It is worthy of remark, that the epistle 
 tvhich t^lls us that '^ by nature all are children of wrath 
 and dead in tfespasses and sins," at the same time 
 directs that children should be brought up in '* the nur- 
 ture and admonition of the Lord ;" now, unless Mr. 
 Waterman is prepared to prove that it is contrary to 
 fact and to scripture to bring up children in a godly 
 manner, and that it is equally unscriptural to anticipate 
 any benefit from a solemn resolution to observe the apos- 
 tle's injunction to do so, his declaration is incorrect. Tc 
 suppose, that because infants are by nature children of 
 wrath, and dead in trespasses and sin, therefore it is 
 contrary to scripture and fact to dedicate them to the 
 Saviour, ot to pledge ourselves to train them up in the 
 school of Christ, is one of the oddest fancies that ever 
 entered a man's brain, and at the same time it intimates 
 that Christ does not receive sinners or children of 
 wrath ! Far from opposing the doctrine of human de- 
 pravity, the baptism of infants most fuliy recognizes' 
 it, and the fact that children are ^' by nature dead in 
 sin," is with Paedobaptists a powerful motive for the 
 early dedication of their offspring to the Redeemer ;■ 
 and who, except Mr. Waterman or Mr. Birt, would 
 ever have dreamt that because infants are by nature 
 children of wrath, therefore they ought not to be given 
 to him who alone can redeem them from all iniquity ? 
 We knmv ^\\o bus Said, " They that be whole need not 
 a physician,- but they who are sick." 
 
 Bap. But " where is the boasted iitiUty-^ihe ex- 
 alted blessings— the invaluable benefits that answer the 
 glo\ving descriptions of some Peedobaptist writers? 
 Ah r my friend, where are they ? Infant baptism, 
 though so dignified in theory, has hitherto been " a 
 eau^e that in this world produces no effect — a means 
 connected with no end — a cloud that affords no rain— ^' 
 a tree that yields no fruit." Page 41. 
 
 X 
 
162 
 
 Pjed. Again, and again, sir, it has not only been 
 said but proved, that to bring up children in the way 
 they should go, is far from being " useless." In in- 
 fant baptism, pious Paedobaptists acknowledge that their 
 offspring are the entire property of Jehovah, and as 
 such they dedicate them to him— they recognize the 
 ignorance and depravity of their children, and 
 present them to Christ ;-^they also publicly bind 
 themselves by this solemn sacrament to bring them up 
 in the nurture and admonition of the Lord — and where 
 is there the man that will assert that practically to re- 
 cognize these solemn truths and duties is perfectly use- 
 less ? And should it be said that many who have their 
 infants baptized pay no regard whatever to the scriptu- 
 ral character of the service, still this fact can never 
 militate against the ordinance itself. It would be just 
 as correct to argue, that because thousands partake of 
 the Lord's supper miworthihv therefore that sacrament 
 ought to be rejected altogether — or, because thousands 
 pray formally, therefore prayer ought to be entirely 
 prohibited — as to conclude, that because some neglect 
 the design of infant baptism, therefore infants ought not 
 to be baptized. But if infant baptism is useless, with 
 how much more propriety may this be asserted of adult 
 baptism ? It is admitted by Baptists themselves, and 
 it is demonstrated by fact and observation, that Paedo- 
 baptists are as good Christians as their Baptist brethren ; 
 and every one, except a Catholic will allow, that dip- 
 ping a human being, clothes and all, in the water for a 
 second of time, or even for a year, can never add to 
 his Christian character. Indeed, Mr. AVaterman in the 
 commencement of this very letter, has declared that 
 many who have never been immersed have " talents 
 and piety which have placed them among the ablest 
 champions of Christianity, and the most zealous disci- 
 ples of Christ." After such a concession we might say, 
 \Vhy dip them in water, seeing it will not, it cannot 
 improve their piety ? They will not pray the better for 
 such a dipping. They will not preach the better, they 
 will not repent nor believe the better— nor will it make 
 
163 
 
 them more fit for heaven than they are already — and 
 these facts are evident to all ; for the water makes so 
 little difference between a pious Baptist and Piedo- 
 baptist, that, unless it were announced, you might live 
 for years in the same house with them without knowing 
 the one from the other, except by an occasional flash of 
 bigotry, which seems almost inseparable from an immer- 
 sion in the cold flood, as if the -water produced a reaction. 
 It is therefore admitted by Baptists, and demonstrated 
 by the lives of P^edobaptists, that the baptism of be- 
 lievers, " though so dignified in theory, is a cause that 
 neither in this world (nor in another) produces any eff"ect 
 ^a means connected with no end — a cloud that afl:ords 
 no rain — a tree that yields no fruit. Such is its imagined 
 value and useless character." Page 41. But on the 
 contrary, the very reverse of all this is true of infant 
 baptism, and indeed it is only in the baptism of infants, 
 and such adults as those whom the apostles introduced 
 by this ordinance to the school of Christ, that the rea- 
 sonableness, utility, and spiritual design of this sa- 
 sacrament appear. 
 
 Bap. But ** there is a great inconsistency in admit- 
 ing children to the ordinance of baptism, yet excluding 
 them from the Lord's supper ; and this is a proof 
 that it corresponds not with the sacred volume, which 
 represents the persons baptized as the very individuals 
 w^ho joined the primitive church." Page 41. 
 
 Paed. This fourth argument of Mr. Waterman goes 
 on the supposition, that inconsistency in the conduct of 
 those who profess any doctrine is a proof that the doc- 
 trine they profess, or the ordinance they observe, is un- 
 scriptural ; but here again the argument proves too much ; 
 because nothing is so common among Christians as incon- 
 sistency, and if inconsistency in professors can prove that 
 infant baptism is wrono:, then the same inconsistency in 
 professors can prove that adult baptism is wrong- 
 that the gospel is wrong — in a word, that Christianity 
 altogether is wrong. To use such sweeping arguments 
 is to use the besom of destruction with a witness. Still, 
 however, whether the reasoning fs correct or not, your 
 
friend has altogether failed in attempting to jDrodiJce a 
 single proof of inconsistency against his brethren. It is 
 not inconsistent to admit infants to baptism, and yet 
 exclude them from the other sacrament. Baptism is; 
 merely an introduction to Christ^s school, that the can- 
 didate may participate those means of grace which arp 
 adapted to produce repentance, faith, &c. ; and hence the 
 child is baptized for repentance, for the remission of 
 sins— ^or the death and resurrection of Christr-;/br the 
 Father, Bon, and Holy Ghost; but partaking of the 
 sacrament of the Lord's supper is to bp deferred until 
 the person has repented, and believed the gospel. The 
 one is an introduction to the school of Christr—a mere 
 matriculation^ — the enrolling of then' names as the schor 
 lars of Christ: — but the other supposes that we have not 
 been in the school of the Son of God in vain. The 
 apostle, and indeed the Saviour, have given due direc- 
 tions respecting those who come to the sacrament. '' Do 
 this in remembrance of me" firp the words of Christ; 
 and the apostle says, *' Let a man examine himself and 
 so let him eat ; for he that eateth and drinketh unwor- 
 thily, eateth and drinketh dapanation." Pgedobaptists, 
 then, follow the very letter and spirit of revelation, 
 both in the baptizing of infants and in deferring their 
 admission to the Lord's table, until scriptural evidence 
 has been furnished that they have not been baptised in 
 vain. Our Lord commanded that baptism should pre- 
 cede teaching; the apostles followed his directions as 
 closely as possible, and Paedobaptists obey our J^ord's 
 injunction J and imitate the example furnished by the 
 apostles, both in the persons they baptize and in those 
 they admit to the Lord's supper ; and if this is to be in- 
 consistent, they will even glory in their inconsistency \ 
 and if such inconsistency proves that their practice is 
 unscriptural, then it follows that to obpy scripture is tq 
 be unscriptural ! 
 
 J3ap. '* But the analogy between the Lord's supper 
 and the passover is as striking as between circumcision 
 and baptism, and infants were permitted to eat the pass- 
 over. Why not also admit them to t|ie Lord's table?" 
 Page 42. 
 
Pgcf]. T-'orU»i-; very conclusive reason, that tiK- word 
 pf God did command that cliildreu should eat the pa.ss- 
 pver; and the same ivord of God does contain those 
 directioijs concernino; the Lord's supper which e^vclude 
 ^11 persons from the sacrament yntil they have those 
 graces which will enable them to eat and drink worthily. 
 Whatever of inconsistency^ then, there is in the practice 
 of Pa^dohaptists, is chargeable upon the word of God ; 
 and therefore they most willingly bear all the obliquy 
 which Mr. Waterman may deem it necessary to pour 
 upon them for following so divine a guide. 
 
 ]3ap. " Paedobaptists have declared that there is 
 peither ])recej>t nor example in the new testament for 
 the baptisni of infants, which surely is presuniptive 
 proof against its divine character. Calvin, Luther, 
 Bishop Burnet, Cellarius, and Dr. Wall, have all con- 
 peded this point.. And where, my friend, is the au- 
 thority for infant baptism if it has neither divine precept 
 nor apostolic example to sanction it ? Let modern Pze- 
 dobaptists determiners;? with them the problem remains — 
 with us the conclusion is obvious that infant baptism 
 was not divine, Psedobaptists beingjud^es." pp. 42,43. 
 
 P'^d. And such, friend Hastie, is Mr. AVaterman's 
 fifth argument; which, it" it can be imagined to be pos- 
 sible, is far weaker than any of its predecessors. If 
 Panlobaptists are convicted by it, or Baptists satisfied 
 with it, then they must be moon-stricken indeed. It 
 first proceeds on the supposition, that because a few 
 hav€ conceded, therefore all have conceded. Here 
 both the premise and the conclusion are false. Then it 
 takes for granted, that Psedobaptjsts depend entirely 
 upon the worthies here mentioned for their proofs of in-: 
 fant baptism-T-in a word, that they are completely led 
 by the nose by Luther, Calvin, Cellarius, and others. 
 Here again he is wrong, because there is not one Paido- 
 baptist in a thousand that has ever read Luther, or 
 Calvin, or Cellarius, or Bishop Burnet, or Doctor 
 Watts. Paedobaptists read the new testament ; from 
 that divine source they obtain their proofs of infant 
 baptism ; and thereiore, the concessions of these gen- 
 tlemen have no connexion whatever with their prac- 
 
160 
 
 tice. Then, lastly, this splendid argument jumps to 
 the rash conclusion, that if a few men concede a doc^ 
 trine ©f revelation, the doctrine itself must be un- 
 true. This reason, like the four preceding ones, if a 
 good one, would demolish the fabric of Christianity aL 
 together ; for there is scarcely a truth of revelation but 
 what has been abandoned by one or another of the pro- 
 fessors of the gospel. The arguments would stand 
 thus : Some Paedobaptists have made concessions re-- 
 speeting infant baptism — therefore infant baptism is un- 
 scriptural ! Some Christians have made concessions 
 respecting Christianity, therefore Christianity is unscrip- 
 tural I But, sir, the concessions of a/eit? blind mortal's 
 cannot in the least aftect the fabric of divine truth ; so 
 the concessions of a few Paedobaptists cannot for a mo- 
 ment shake the scriptural doctrine of infant baptism. 
 That ortlinance is sanctioned by the command and prac- 
 tice of our Lord and his apostles, and therefore its divine 
 origin is far from being in the least degree problematical 
 to it* adherents ; and nothing but the grossest ignorance 
 of the opinions of the majority of those whose practice 
 he impugns could have led Mr. Waterman to assert the 
 ♦•ontrary. Were any one disposed to retort his argu- 
 ment, what hav;>c he might make of the whole Baptist 
 system by merely naming the concessions of Baptist 
 advocates ! 
 
 Bap. " The sentiments expressed by Paedobaptists^ 
 as illustrative of the nature of baptism, form a pre- 
 sura>ptive objection against the system of infant baptism. 
 Only read what Baxter, Tillotson, and Watts'^ have- 
 said on this subject, pnd you will sec that Baptists are 
 in the right, pp. 43, 44f 
 
 Paed. How many times, brother Hastie, must yoii 
 l)€ told that Paedobaptists care nothing about what 
 Baxter, or Tillotson, or Watts say. We follow the 
 bible, and the bible alone, And if inconststenn/ can prove 
 a book or a system to be wrongs then Mr. Water- 
 man'"s book has not a word of truth in it : for though it 
 pronaises to bring direci proofs from scripture, it has not 
 puoduced even the shadow of a proof from the sacred 
 volume. The three or four texts quoted aided and 
 
167 
 
 established the system they were intended to condemn ; 
 but, observe, though he has been so rigidly sparing- of 
 the word of God, he has aheady produced not less than 
 sixty-seven hiunan testimonies to prove that the Bap- 
 tists are right. What glorious consistency! 
 
 Bap. *' Ah ! and what inconsistency is greater than 
 giving children the badge of discrpleship when they are 
 not only incapable ot being the avowed friends of 
 Christ, but may become his most inveterate enemies," 
 Page 44. 
 
 Paed. And what use was it to gife to babes eight 
 days old the seal of the righteousness of faith ? These 
 children might, and man^ of them did, become the ene- 
 mies of Messiah. Besides, the danger of becoming an 
 inveterate enemy of Christ might deter Baptists from 
 baptizing adults, because many an individual whom 
 they immerse may become the inveterate enemy of 
 Christ. The very danger is with us a reason for using 
 the precaution contained in the ordinance. 
 
 Bap. Well, sir, were' Mr. Waterman's argument 
 " only to engage the attention of Paedobaptists, they 
 would produce reflection, make them pause and recon- 
 sider a tenet so contrary to every other opinion in their 
 creed ."^ Page 44. 
 
 Psed. The only effect of such a pause and recon- 
 sideration would be the confirmation of Paedobaptists 
 in their sentiments ; for if Mr. VYaterman's desideratum 
 contains the chief arguments that can be adduced, tlieii 
 the system of Baptists is without the least foundation 
 either in reason or scripture. 
 
 Bap. That Paedobaptism is without any solid argu- 
 ment, is evident from the fact that ^' ecclesiastical re- 
 cords are entirely silent in reference to infant baptism 
 for the first two centuries, which is another presumptive 
 evidence that it was not apostolical and divine. Bar- 
 nabas and Hermas, Clemens Romanus, Ignatius and 
 Polycarp, who immediately succeeded the apostles, 
 never utter a word, observes Dr. Gill, respecting infant 
 baptism, though many passages might be adduced ok 
 favour of the baptism of believers." Page 45. 
 
16S 
 
 Pw(]. You must know, brother, that this fifth argu- 
 ment is not worth a straw, because it proceeds on the 
 assumption that nothing is to be believed but what is 
 mfiniioned by the fathers ! AcCoi'ding to this worse than 
 popisli doctrine,- the new testament ts a mere idle story,^ 
 of no weio-ht \<'hateter, except in those cases in which the 
 fathers, those Solomons of antiquity, have condescended 
 to aive it the sanction of their authority ; and thus the 
 word of God is made Of none effect for the sake of tra- 
 dition. But it must be remembered, that although Bap- 
 tists attach so much importance ^o the traditions of the 
 elders, Pjedobaptists prefer the plain words of Christ and 
 his apostles ; and therefore, it is vain for Mr. Waterman 
 to substitute the opinions or silence oi Barnabas, Hernias, 
 and others, for the word of God. Not one in twenty thou- 
 sand of Paedobaptists ever read a page of the writings of 
 the fathers ; and they have little need to do so, for the 
 bible is sufficiently explicit on the subject of infant bap- 
 tism ; and such is the deference they feel for the word of 
 God, that they are resolved to abide by the Certain guid- 
 aiice of scripture, though opposed by every christian fa- 
 ther that 3Jr. AVaterman or Dr. Gill are capable of enu- 
 merating. What if a man were about to compose a body 
 of divinity, or a system of church disci plii>e, must he con- 
 sult the fathers to such an extent as not to admit a single 
 doctrine or duty, or ordinance revealed i'» Oie word of God,' 
 unless it has been enforced by the fathers ? Imj)erfect as 
 is Dr. Gill's system of theology, still it would have been 
 more so if he had confined himself to the limits witliin 
 which he wishes to enclose the poor Pcedobaptists. But 
 to be consistent, Mr. Waterman ought to repudiate the 
 sacred volume, and to make the fathers his text book ;• 
 for, if the silence of the fathers affords " presumptive 
 evidence that infant baptism is not apostolic and divine," 
 then their silence concerning any truth must be " pre- 
 sumptive evidence that it is neither apostolic nor divine." 
 Taking this rule as a guide, or rather, as Mr. W. does,^ 
 as an axiom, many texts and many doctrines of scripture! 
 yea, even whole epistles must be given up as altogether 
 destitute of divine authority. 
 
169 
 
 But there is another objection to this fifth arg-ument, 
 and that a very serious one. It is far from being 
 true. The fathers were not silent until the third 
 century concerning infant baptism. Justin Martyr 
 and Irenaeus were born in the first century; TertulHan 
 w^as born in the beginning, and Clemens Alexaudrinus 
 in the middle of the second century ; and each of 
 these fathers refers to infant baptism. Origen was born 
 less than one hundred years after the apostolic age; 
 and he also aserts, " that infants are by the usage of 
 the church baptized.''' In other places he terms the 
 baptizing of infants ** the washing of regeneration," 
 using the very words of the apostle. AVhen Origen 
 thus speaks of the usage of the church, he refers to a 
 fact that every one admitted, and proves that in the year 
 100 after the apostles there was no controversy about 
 infant baptism. Cyprian, who lived at the same time 
 as Origen, assures us that in a council at Carthage, sixty- 
 six bishops, assembled from ditferent provinces of the 
 church, decided that infants might be baptized as soon 
 as they were born. 
 
 Bap. Stay, sir. The convening of this council 
 shows that the propriety of infant baptism was ques- 
 tioned at that period. 
 
 Peed. Not in the least, 3Ir. Hastie ; because the 
 subject of discussion was not whether infants should 
 be baptized at all, but whether they might be bap- 
 tized before they were eight deiys old. All admitted 
 that infants might be baptized after eight days, but 
 some had doubted whether it might be done at an earlier 
 period. Justin 31artyr, forty years after the apostles, 
 asserted that baptism is the spiritual circumcision of 
 which St. Paul speaks. This sentiment, so fully sanc- 
 tioned by the words of St. Paul, was generally held by 
 the fathers ; and hence arose the enquiry whether, 
 as baptism came in the place of circumcision, it ought 
 to be administered on the eighth day. But this was 
 the only point they had to consider, for none in that 
 age appear to have hesitated as to the propriety of in- 
 troducing infants to the church by baptism. 
 
 Y 
 
170 
 
 Bap. Hold, Mr. Searche; Tertullian disputed the 
 propriety. 
 
 Peed. Tertullian advised that the haptism of infants 
 should be deferred, but he also advised that unmarried 
 adults should not partake of the ordinance ; and if his 
 giving this advice proves that infant baptism was an 
 innovation, then it also proves that the baptism of un- 
 married adults was an innovation ; but what havoc 
 must be made of Baptist churches, if, according to 
 Tertullian, they repudiated all unmarried ^eo^\% \ One 
 may further remark, that if infant baptism was an in- 
 novation at, or before the time of Tertullian, it is 
 passing strange that this father, who was half a Bap- 
 tist, did not mention its recent introduction as an ar- 
 gument why it should be laid aside; but, instead of 
 doing so, his words intimate that infant baptism had all 
 along been practised, though in his opinion it was very 
 inexpedient, to baptize either infants, unmarried adults, 
 widows, or ividowers. 
 
 Bap. But you very well know, sir, '' that the first 
 ages of Christianity are passed over, when our opponents 
 refer to antiquity, and the reason is evident, because 
 the earliest fathers mention no such custom." Page 45. 
 
 Peed. If you had only read a little more on the other 
 side of the question, brother, you would have very 
 well known that your present assertion is far from cor- 
 rect. Far from Paedobaptists passing over the first 
 ages of Christianity, they go back to the very words 
 and example of Christ and his apostles. Many writers 
 among them have also noticed the testimony of the fa- 
 thers : nothing, therefore, but an entire ignorance or 
 wilful misrepresentation could induce any one to assert 
 that P^edobaptists pass over the first centuries of the 
 Christian era. 
 
 Bap. But Dr. "Wall himself has given up these 
 early fathers. Page 45. 
 
 P^ed. I know Mr. Waterman has insinuated as much 
 in the page to which you allude ; but the very opposite 
 of this is the fact, as may be seen by all who will con- 
 sult his history of infiuit baptism. The first hundred 
 
171 
 
 pag-es of that work contain the most satisfactory evi- 
 dence concerning the baptism of infants as practiced 
 by the primitive church. 
 
 Bap. Dr. Gale fully examined and answered Dr. 
 Wall, and asserts, that *' for two hundred and fifty 
 years there is not the least colour in any thing yet ad- 
 vanced for infant baptism within that period." Page 46. 
 
 Psed. And Dr. Wall most fully re-examined that 
 answer, and published the third volume of his History 
 of Infant Baptism in reply to Dr. Gale and others; and 
 in that work he has demonstrated that the objections 
 and arguments of his opponents are light as air. In- 
 deed, what could any writer say in reply ? The Doctor 
 had quoted the fathers at large, and the facts he 
 brought forward were stubborn things, Justin Martyr 
 did say that he knew persons " of sixty or seventy 
 years old who were (ematheteusan) discipled to Christ 
 in their infancy." ISow every one knows that the only 
 way in which an injant can be discipled is by baptism. 
 And Origen, who lived less than a hundred years after 
 the apostles, assures us that " it was the usage of the 
 church to baptize infants." These proofs, as well as 
 many others quoted by Dr. W^all, are facts which nei- 
 ther Dr. Gale nor any other writer, without the greatest 
 temerity, can deny. It is therefore evident that if Pae- 
 dobaptists neglected the word of God, and paid as 
 much attention to the voice of the fathers as 3Jessrs. 
 Waterman and Gill, their practice would obtain the 
 highest support that profane history can fui-nish. 
 
 Bap. But surely you will not attach any importance 
 to the testimony of Irenaeus, because it '* rests en- 
 tirely upon the word renascuntur, the literal meaning 
 of which is being born again." Page. 45. 
 
 Paed. The writings of the fathers prove to a de- 
 monstration that they used such terms as renascuntur to 
 express baptism ; and both the words of our Lord and 
 his apostles sanctioned such phraseology. The Re- 
 deemer speaks of being "born of water," and the apostle 
 calls baptism the " laver or washing of regeneration." 
 In this sense x^nascuntur was used by Irenaeus, as is 
 
172 
 
 evident from the context, and other portions of the 
 writings of this father. 
 
 Bap. Stay, sir ; the term infant as used by Irenaeus 
 and others " was of wider extent than is now generally 
 supposed. Servants are called masters' infants. Young 
 persons during their minority were in the middle ages 
 styled infants, as appears from various documents — ' the 
 last will and testament of the little infant, Count Gai- 
 fer,' &c. An inscription of the eighth century, at Na- 
 ples, says, * Basil, the son of Shilibud and Gregoria, 
 lost his life in the twelfth year of his infancy ;' when 
 therefore we read in the early periods of ecclesiastical 
 history of the baptism of infants, it must not be un- 
 derstood of infants as defined by Paedobaptists, but of 
 persons in a state of minority. Mr. Robinson, Bishop 
 Victor, and Cardinal Bellarmine fully sanction this in- 
 terpretation." Page 46. 
 
 P^d. This, sir, is a prodigious quotation ; its ar- 
 gumentation is a logical prodigy, a true monstrum hor- 
 rendum informe ingens cui lumen ademptum. Well 
 might Mr. Waterman conclude this letter with, " mag- 
 na est Veritas," kc. Such profound reasoning must 
 make every man a Baptist, especially when told that 
 this opinion has the illustrious patronage of Bishop 
 Victor and Cardinal Bellarmine I For what man that 
 lays any claim to intelligence would not be proud to sit 
 at the feet of Bishop Victor, Cardinal Bellarmine, and 
 Mr. Robinson ? The only misfortune is, that some will be 
 such simpletons as to think that Cyprian's infant of less 
 than eight days old was not a man of twenty -one ! 
 Others may be so foolish as to conclude, that if the in- 
 fants of Irenseus were persons of perhaps twenty years 
 of age, then what must have been the successive ages 
 of his parvulos, little ones, pueros, children, juvenes, 
 youths, and seniores, elder persons? For he uses 
 these five terms to designate the successive ages of hu- 
 man life. If his infantes, infants, might be persons 
 of twenty, then his parvulos, little ones, might bef)ersons 
 of forty ; and his pueros, children, might be persons of 
 sixty; and his juvenes, youths, might be persons of 
 
173 
 
 eiiihty ; and his seniores, elders, persons of a hundred 
 years old ! Again, some other ignoramus may con- 
 clude, that though in the nineteenth century, as well 
 as in the middle ages, in legal nomenclature, a man is 
 an infant until he is twenty-one, yet it would be the 
 height of absurdity to call infant baptism the bap- 
 tism of anv persons, under the age of tweuty-oiie, 
 but above the age of infancy ! This would metamor- 
 phose the very Baptists into Pcedobapt'ists ; for as of- 
 ten as they baptize any person under twenty-one, they 
 baptize an infant! However, no learned men will 
 dispute with Robinson, that servants are their ^wffs/fr.y' 
 infants, because the Greek word, pais, means both 
 an infant, a servant, and a slave, a son, or a davghlcr. 
 It should also be observed, that half of the term Pcedo- 
 baptist comes from this word, pais, paidos, so that, 
 according to Mr. Waterman, he who baptizes an infant 
 eight days old is not a paido-baptist — but he wlio bap- 
 tizes an adult under twenty-one, thouiih rt^oi-e infancy, 
 is a paido-baptist — and he who baptizes a servant man 
 or woman, or a son, or a daughter of any one, is 
 also a paido-baptist — and he who baptizes a slave, 
 is also a paido-baptist — for servants, whatever may 
 be their age, are their " masters' i«fants," saith INJr. 
 Robinson, and so saith the Greek. This latter dis- 
 covery of Robinson's is of infinite advantage to the Bap- 
 tist controversy, because it proves that a man eighty 
 years old may be an infant', for a man or woman of 
 that age may be a servant, or a slave, a son, or a 
 daughter ; and if so, they are to all intents and pur- 
 poses infants ! Infant baptism, or paido-ba| tism, 
 may therefore mean the baptism of persons of any age 
 above infancy, say from the age of Count Gaifer, or 
 Basil, the sun of Shilibud, to the old slave, or son, 
 or daughter of eighty ! The only persons that infant 
 baptism or psedobaptism excludes, are those which the 
 vulg-ar call infants ; such as St. Cyprian antl the sixty- 
 six bishops, his coUeasues admitted, or the in 'antes, 
 parvulos and pueros, the infants, little ones and ciiil- 
 ilren of Ireuaeus ! By this reasoning, too, all Baptists 
 
174 
 
 are piedo-baptists ! This fact ought to have made 
 Mr. Waterman ''pause,'' before he called Paedobap- 
 tisls so many ugly names, because he was blackballing 
 his own denomination all the time ; for the Baptists 
 are the real paedo-baptists, for they are the persons 
 xh'aX baptize infants only ! The discovery of Robin- 
 son also proves that all are infants w ho are not infants ! 
 and that all are not infants whom the ignorant vulgar 
 call infants ! As for infants, universally so called, 
 they are left without a name ! and the false named 
 p£edO'baptists are in the same predicament, for to bap- 
 tise little children is no longer ptedobaptism, because 
 infants consist solely of persons of any age above 
 ddldhood ! — 
 
 Bap. Stop, sir ; neither Mr. Robinson nor Mr. 
 AYaierman assprts that the term infant refers solely to 
 persons of adult age, they only say that it sometimes 
 designates such persons, and did so in the dark ages. 
 
 Pied. Does it ever then mean a little child, or an 
 unconscious babe ? 
 
 Bap. Of course it does, in our day. 
 
 Peed. But did it ever mean an unconscious babe 
 in the days of Gaifer or Basil, the son of Shilibud ? 
 
 Bap. 1 cannot say that it did not. 
 
 P'ded. Did it ever mean an unconscious babe in the 
 days of Origen, Cypriau, Irenaeus, or the apostles 
 of our Lord ? 
 
 Bap. Of course the term pais, brephos, or infant, 
 jncluded unconscious babes at that time. 
 
 Peed. Did it include all unconscious babes from the 
 inoment of their birth upward, or even before their 
 i>irth ? 
 
 Bap. Certainly. It is applied to John the Baptist 
 before he was born, and to all the children in Beth- 
 lehem, from two years old and under. 
 
 Paed. Is it as usually and commonly applied to 
 adults, as to infants or unconscious babes ? 
 
 Bap. I cannot aflirm that it is. 
 
 Paed. Then the controversy is at an end. For un- 
 less it always signifies your description of sdults, the 
 
I7& 
 
 learning of Mr. Robinson and Mr. Waterman is thrown 
 away. For an infant was an infant or unconscious 
 babe in the days of our Lord — in the days of Iren3eus 
 — in the days of Oiigen — in the days of Count Gaifer 
 and Basil, the son of Shilibud. That the term also 
 expressed a servant or slave, a son or a daughter, has 
 nothing whatever to do with the subject: tor if it 
 generally means an unconscious infant, unless ex- 
 plained otherwise by the context, and that it does all 
 must allow, then Paedobaptists have much more reason 
 to apply it to babes than their opponents have to adoj)t 
 their unnatural and far-fetched interpretation. It is 
 also very strange if Mr. Waterman had " direct proofs 
 from the holy scripture," that he should cumber his 
 book with such a truly ridiculous criticism on the word 
 •' infant." This is to bui!d upon " hay, straw, and 
 stubble,'"' with a witness. The adoption of such a 
 monstrous argument, proves that he felt diffident of 
 all his " direct and indirect evidence from the word 
 ot" God," and at the same time, shows that the cause 
 is yielded, which, in its final struggle, (for this is his 
 last argument) presents so feeble a front to the enemy. 
 Every thing in this letter shows that JMr. W. is only 
 fighting for the look of the thing ; for nothing is more 
 evident, than that not only weapons and ammunition 
 are spent, but that his whole mental energy is gone. 
 
 Bap. Sir, this is not his last aroument; for he 
 again refers to the concessions of Pgedobaptists as 
 *' most decisive. For Bishop Barlow, Curcelleus, and 
 Episcopius, frankly confess that the baptism of children 
 was neither apostolical, nor sanctioned by divine 
 authority. And this opinion exactly harmonizes with 
 Dr. Gill." Page 47. 
 
 Paed. What ! human testimony again, brother ! 
 Why this is about the ninetieth time that we have 
 had '' thus say Papists, Bishops, Remonstrants, dec. 
 ^c." instead of " thus saith the Lord," which was so 
 confidently promised in the beginning of the book. And 
 then, what of these concessions ? they yield no sup- 
 port to his system ; for if concessioQ will prove that 
 
176 
 
 infant baptism is not scriptural— then, concession will 
 also prove that the scriptures are not scriptural ; for 
 nearly every portion of God's word has been conceded 
 by one or another of the professors of Christianity. 
 Mr. ^V aterman is therefore still using the most terrific 
 weapons. For to annihilate infant baptism he employs 
 an engine which would annihilate cluistianity altogether. 
 That your friend deemed such apparatus necessary to 
 demolish the system of his opponents, affords no mean 
 evidence that it rests on the same authority as the word 
 of God. The wielding of this mighty weapon would 
 almost prove that Mr. Waterman was rallying, were 
 it not that its introduction at all betrays a want of 
 discretion. Were Psedobaptists to call in such helps, 
 and especially such auxiliaries, as are here etdisted in 
 the Baptist cause, how Mr. W. would bluster about 
 such " glaring anomalies." He would in a moment 
 become pugnacious, " and challenge the whole corps" 
 of zealots, whose cause should require the support of 
 Bishops, Cardinals, and Heretics. " Bad," he would 
 exclaim. " Ah, my friend, you ought to pause, and 
 take alarm" — for bad must be the cause that requires 
 the aid of such a being as Bishop Victor — of such a 
 temporizing creature as the prelate Barlow — of that 
 heretical remonstrant, Episcopius — or of that Jesuit, 
 Bellarmine ; who bequathed one half his soul to the 
 Virgin Mary, and the other half to Jesus Christ ! 
 Happily, however, it is the system of the Baptists, if 
 Mr. W's book is a desideratum, and not the system of 
 Pgedobaptists, that relies on the aid of such JSishops, 
 Papists, llemonstrants, and ultra Dogmatists. 
 
 Bap. Dr. Gill asserts " throughout these early 
 centuries, there were testimonies borne to adult baptism, 
 and persons rose up and opposed infant baptism." Let 
 Piedobaptists no longer therefore change the Baptists, 
 as a modern sect, whose opinions were formerly un- 
 known, or refer their origin to the wild enthusiasts of 
 Munster, among whom there were Piedobaptists as 
 well as Baptists. To do this, is to cast a calumny 
 upon them, and must proce^^d either from ignorance or 
 
177 
 
 malevolence. The sentiments of the Baptists were 
 evidently exemplified in the annals of the apostles- 
 maintained by the early fathers of the church — defended 
 by some, amidst the thick darkness of popery, which 
 enveloped the nations — stated in some of the confessions 
 of the Waldenses— and revived at the period of the re- 
 formation, and are going on with increasing- success to 
 universal triumph. Magna est Veritas et preevalebit." 
 pp. 47, 48. 
 
 Psed. This is a magnificent flourish, and forms a 
 splendid conclusion to this splendid letter. Some, 
 however, it is to be feared, will think that the author 
 has talked too fast, and reckoned without his host. For, 
 notwithstanding his boast, he has failed to produce a 
 single proof that " the sentiments of Baptists are ex- 
 emplitied in the annals of the apostles." Nor can he 
 produce such evidence, and for a very plain reason, that 
 no such proof exists in the holy scriptures. Then he 
 has furnished no example to prove that the fathers of 
 the church were Baptists. Here all again is perfect as- 
 sumption. And it is well known, that if some of the 
 Waldenses favoured the Baptists, the majority were 
 Psedobaptists. The evidence adduced from this head 
 is therefore more than neutralized. Thus there is a per- 
 fect uniformity between the different parts of this letter. 
 From beginning to end the data and the conclusions are 
 false. He argues, " that a contrariety of sentiment 
 concerning the ground of any truth" — a contrariety 
 of opinion concerning its application — or its effects — 
 inconsistent conduct in those who profess it — the con- 
 cessions of iifew who embrace it — and the silence of 
 the early fathers of the church — are sufficient reasons 
 for rejecting it ! Now, if these arguments are suf- 
 ticiently cogent to overturn Pzedobaptism, then it 
 follows that they can overthrow any system against 
 which they can be brought ; but they are just as appli- 
 cable to history, philosophy, and Christianity in general, 
 as they are to infant baptism. Every Papist, every Pe- 
 lagian, every Unitarian, every Sceptic, Deist, and Atlje- 
 isi may adopt them, and with them demolish every bui- 
 z 
 
178 
 
 wark of truth, as easily as Mr. Waterman excludes in- 
 fants from the church of Christ. After having-'used 
 these weapons, which " a lover of trutli'^ has forged 
 for his hand, and with them successfully swept away all 
 truth from the earth, and established, if such argu- 
 ments could establish any thing, universal Atheism, 
 the Atheist may triumphantly conclude with our oppo- 
 nents' flourish. "Let Theists therefore no longer charge 
 the Atheists as a modern sect whose opinions were for- 
 merly unknown, or refer their origin to the infidel so- 
 phists of Greece, or Germany, or of France, — among 
 whom were Theists as well as Atheists. To do this is 
 to cast a calumny upon them, and must proceed either 
 from ignorance or malevolence. The sentiments of 
 Atheists were evidently exemplified in the annals of an- 
 tiquity— -maintained by ancient sages — defended by some 
 amidst the thick darkness of popery — are demonstrated 
 from the contradictions, inconsistencies, and concessions 
 of even Christians themselves — have been revived in 
 modern times in France, Germany, and Britain — and 
 are going on with increasing success to universal tri- 
 umph." Magna est Veritas et prasvalebit ! Every other 
 description of heretic, or infidel — every Calvinist, Ar- 
 minian, Episcopalian, and Paedobaptist might adopt 
 each one for himself these arguments, for they are alike 
 suited to overthrow every system, and all systems, and 
 to unsettle every thing, and settle nothing — and all who 
 use them may conclude with Mr. Waterman's flourish. 
 So that the reasons relied on in this " Review of Pcedo- 
 haptisni,'" if correct, would establish universal Armini- 
 anism — universal Calvinism — universal Popery — uni- 
 versal Episcopacy — universal Unitarianism — universal 
 Deism — or Atheism! Surely Amator Veritatis ouoht 
 to have *' paused, and taken alarm," before he had thus 
 begun to scatter firebrands and death. We charge him 
 not with the intention of putting a sword into tlie hands 
 of sceptics and infidels, with which to destroy the hope 
 of Israel ; we only mention the fact, that in his ardour to 
 fight " the whole corps of Piedobaptists," he has grasp- 
 ed unhallowed weapons ; the Lord lay not this sin to 
 
170 
 
 his charge. One would charitably hope, to use his 
 owQ words, that he was either under " the tyranny of 
 custom," or that his zeal for his favourite do^jnia car- 
 ried him beyond himself ; and, in the ecstasy of imagined 
 victory, he spake words which he understood not, and 
 which were uot lawful for a man to utter. 
 
 But for what, may any one ask, for what is this 
 mighty effort — this killing the dead — this thrice slaying 
 the slain — this shouting of triumph, kc. ? After kil- 
 ling and slaying his opponents, why belabour their 
 dead bodies with this fourth round of artillery ? Scarcely 
 will any one believe that all this bustle, and bluster, and 
 belligerence have been to exclude a few poor infants 
 from the church, and to establish the opinion that bap- 
 tism should be administered to persons to whom, on 
 his ow^n showing, it cannot bo of the least advantage ! 
 What an effort for such a result ! Who can help repeat- 
 ing the old distich ? 
 
 " The King of France, with fortv thousand men, 
 "Went up the hill, and then came down again !" 
 
 But I believe, Mr. Hastie, that you have some ar- 
 guments to advance respecting the mode of baptism ; 
 for of course, after the triumphant conclusion of letter 
 the fourth, Mr. Waterman will say no more on that 
 subject. 
 
 Bap. I would at once proceed to discuss the mode 
 of baptism, were it not that my engagements prevent 
 me from doing so at present. But, until we meet again, 
 allow me to put into your hands the sermon of Dr. Jud- 
 son, recommended by Dr. Carey, as the best he ever 
 heard on the subject. You will also do well to read 
 ** Pengilly's Scripture Guide." 
 
 Paed. I have read them both, brother Hastie. 
 
 Bap. T^ead them both, and yet oppose the Bap- 
 tists ! Then I 
 
 Paed. Then you pity me, no doubt. 
 
 Bap. That i do, with all my heart. 
 
 Paed. Thank you for your sympathy, Hezekiah. 
 Still, you cannot be surprised at my being unmoved by 
 the arguments of Dr. Judson, because his book is only 
 
180 
 
 the echo of Mr, Waterman's, unless Mr. Waterman's 
 is the echo of the doctor's ; or perhaps it would be more 
 correct to say, that the two works are joint echoes of 
 the same publication. Double echoes are not uncom- 
 mon either in the natural or intellectual world. 
 
 Bap. But Dr. Judson quotes more authorities thau 
 Mr. Waterman. 
 
 Pi^d. More lexicons, perhaps ; although Mr. 
 Waterman's books are as redundant in human autho- 
 rities as they are deficient of scriptural proofs. Never- 
 theless, it must be allowed that the doctor has followed 
 the lexicons as doggedly as any blundering schoolboy 
 would have done. How far such a procedure agrees 
 with the classical acumen which a D.D. ought to ma- 
 nifest, must be left to the doctors in divinity, who re- 
 commended his work, to determine. But, certainly, 
 the whole work so fully sets at nought both every canon 
 of criticism, and the authority of God's word, that the 
 doctor's diploma appears more like a burlesque than a 
 literary honour. It is to be hoped that the doctor did 
 pot take the same liberty with the other parts of God's 
 word that he has with those texts which refer to the 
 Abrahamic covenant ; for if he did, the Christianity of 
 his Burmese converts must but ill accord with the gos:.- 
 pel of Jesus Christ. 
 
 Bap. Sir, the learned Carey has declared that he 
 never heard a better sermon than Judson's on baptism ; 
 and you dare not say that Carey was a novice in lan- 
 guage or in understanding. 
 
 Peed. That Carey should have commended such a 
 puerile production, only shows how much influence pre- 
 judice may have over the mind of an otherwise eminent 
 man. For you must well know, that if Carey had 
 followed Judson's method of settling the meaning of 
 the word baptizo, and, in his numerous translations, 
 had set the context at defiance, and in every instance 
 adopted i\\Qjirst irord that occurred in his dictionaries, 
 he would have made absolute nonsense of the word of 
 God, However, we know that a man may be a lin^ 
 guist, without being a logician, or doctor in divinity. 
 
Pity it is that the Baptists, for jxirty purposes, slionld 
 degTiide Carey, espe^^ially after lie is dead, by employ- 
 ing him to applaud such a produetion as Jiidsoii's sermon 
 on baptism. That the good doctor should have been 
 guilty of such a lapsus mentis is a fact ^vhich every 
 friend of his reputation must very deeply regret. 
 
 Bap. Brother Simon, you ought at any rate to pause 
 before you make so free with the reputation of some of 
 our most venerated missionaries. 
 
 Paed. And what a pity, brother, that your mission- 
 aries themselves did not pause before they took such 
 liberties with their own reputation as to print or re- 
 commend a book Avhich has not a word in it in the form 
 of an argumeni:, but proves that logic, criticism, and 
 scripture were set at defiance! And this is not merely 
 the case with Judson's book ; Pengilly's work is, if 
 possible, even more destitute of a single legitimate ar- 
 gument. 
 
 Bap. Easier said than proved, brother. Pengilly 
 is recommended by three eminent doctors in divinity, 
 by two masters of arts, and by several respectable nii- 
 nisters, both in England and America. 
 
 Psed. Mr. •AVateiman bewails " the tyranny of 
 custom over good men's minds f and Pengilly's book 
 affords a striking — or, as Mr. W. would say, a "glar- 
 ing" — illustration of the fact, Pengilly says that "/«" 
 is the proper rendering of the Greek preposition " cu,'' 
 and the classical doctors ailirm that he is correct ; al- 
 though they know, unless j)rejudice had paralized their 
 memories, that the term " at" or " with'' is as much 
 sanctioned by the context and the lexicons. In Heb. 
 I. 3, Christ is said to have " sat down (e7i) at the 
 right hand of the majesty on high.'' Surely Doctors 
 Campbell, Newman, Sec. &c. will not assert that the 
 text ought to read — He " sat down in the right hand 
 of the majesty on high !" To " baptize icith the Holy 
 Ghost and icith fire," is much better than to say that 
 Christ would " baptize in the Holy Ghost, and iji 
 fire ;" yet the same preposition, en, is here used. 
 
 Pjengilly also declares, that " the evidence of the 
 
182 
 
 fathers, and of modern writers affords — even if the 7iew 
 testament contained no decisive evidence on the sub- 
 ject — indisputable proof tliat immersion was the origi- 
 nal mode of baptism." ! ! This, brother Hastie, is 
 speakino; out, and proves that the writer is on the high 
 road to Rome. For, if the authority of the fathers is 
 sufficient to settle a point on which the new testament 
 furnishes no evidence, then the authority of these fa- 
 thers is just as favourable to popery as it is to the Bap- 
 tists. We therefore presume that his next work will 
 be in favour of popery ; and should he produce it, 
 doubtless the Baptist doctors in divinity and masters 
 of arts will recommend his work ; and of course bro- 
 ther Jonathan will get the Baptist Tract Society to 
 have it stereotyped ; and may we not also presume 
 that St. Pengilly may one day hold no inferior station 
 among the canonized worthies of Home ? Vocabitur 
 hie quoque votis. 
 
 Bap. 'Tis not a little amusing, Simon, to see how 
 you have jumped from the beginning of the book to the 
 end, without even noticing the unanswerable proofs 
 contained in the intervening pages. 
 
 Paed. Pengilly, brother, has not furnished a sin- 
 «cle direct or indirect proof in favour of his hypothesis. 
 Indeed his work, like Judson's, IMr. Waterman's, and 
 nearly all Baptist writings on this subject, is only a mere 
 echo. Although there is no evidence yet published to 
 show that " to immerse," is the original meaning of 
 bapto; and although the new testament, neither in the 
 text, or context, aftords even the shadow of a proof 
 to evince that baptism was performed by dipping, 
 yet Pengilly, and nearly all Baptists, give us a string 
 of quotations from lexicons, fathers, and modern wri- 
 ters, and then assure us that their system is sup- 
 ported by the word of God ! Surely they ought to 
 add, alias the lexicons, alias the fathers, alias mo- 
 dern writers! And this unscholarlike, illogical, and 
 iinscriptural proceeding, is in a moment approved by 
 .English doctors in divinity, and stereotyped in Ame- 
 rica. Surely, after allowing himself to be led by the 
 
183 
 
 nose by *' scripture guides," falsely so called, m which, 
 under a shew of erudition, learning is set at nought, our 
 American brother ought not to be indignant if old 
 England should sometimes doubt whether he has hard- 
 ly as yet attained the summit of Parnassus. 
 
 Bap. The Baptists are more mumerous than any 
 other Protestants in America, and among them Pen- 
 gilly's book has almost an unlimited circulation. 
 
 Psed. So it may, and yet the work itself may be 
 very undeserving of such reputation. Indeed, when 
 we remember that itinerants, who in England could 
 not keep a cottage congregation together, become po- 
 pular preachers on the other side the atlantic, we must 
 be allowed to Cjuery whether American authority ought 
 to have the weight of a feather in this controversy. 
 
 Bap. But Pengilly's work has gone through several 
 editions in England. 
 
 Paed. And so has many a work which ouoht rather 
 to have been committed to the flames ; and I am sure 
 you will admit that this ought to be the fate of every 
 book whose author is reckless of truth. 
 
 Bap. You don't mean to say that this is the case with 
 Pen gill y r 
 
 Paed. I heartily wish that his assertions were such 
 as would free him from suspicion. He says that Paedo- 
 bapiists sliglit and rebel against the authority of Christ. 
 This is untrue ; because the authority of Christ in no 
 instance sanctions immersion, or the exclusion of infants; 
 and Baptists themselves are so far convinced of the wn- 
 truth of his assertion, that they themselves affirm that 
 these rebel Psedobaptists " are persons of equal piety 
 with themselves," and allow them as such to pray in 
 their chapels, and preach in their pulpits. Pengilly 
 charges Pa^dobaptists generally with adopting the sen- 
 timents of the prayer book respecting baptism — this is 
 nntriie. He affirms that " Psedobaptists generally be- 
 lieve that baptism brings their children into the co- 
 venant of grace." This also is untrue; although doc- 
 tors in divinity add their seal to the misrepresentation ! 
 Not every Psedobaptist believes that baptism is a seal; 
 
184 
 
 and those tliat do, merely believe that, like circumcision, 
 it onljf seals salvation to infants, or to such adults as- 
 walk in the steps of our father Abraham. And they 
 further believe, that as the seal of circumcision did not 
 exclude from salvation those infants who were not cir- 
 cumcised, nor those uncircumcised adults who were sin- 
 cere believers, so baptism does not exclude those from 
 salvation who are not baptized. Pengilly intimates, 
 although he is a Caluinlstand Predestinarian^ that *' in- 
 iidels, adulterers, swearers, sabbath-breakers, drunk- 
 ards, and the like, are not in the covenant of grace,"— 
 but if they are not, then such characters never can be 
 saved ; and consequently Pengilly's g-ospel holds out no 
 hope of salvation to sinners of this description ! ! This 
 ag-ain is false ; and yet Baptist masters of arts recom- 
 mend these untruthsj and the American Baptist Reli- 
 gious Tract Society stereotype these errors to give 
 ihem perpetuity. But to enumerate these absurdities 
 and contradictions of Pengilly's or Judson's books would 
 require a volume. Happily, however, the enumeration 
 is altogether unnecessary ; because, in confuting" one 
 you confute all, and consequently the answer to Air. 
 Waterman is an answer to Judson, Pengilly, l^c. kc* 
 We may therefore dismiss these gentlemen, and merely, 
 at our next meeting, examine Amator Veritatis ; when 
 we will discuss at large the mode of baptism ; and till 
 then, brother Hastie, adieu. 
 
 END OF DIALOGUE THE THIRD, 
 
WHY HAVE YOU BECOME A P^DOBAPTISt? 
 A DIALOGUE. 
 
 (in four parts,) 
 
 BETWEEN 
 
 HEZEKIAH HASTIE, A BAPTIST, 
 
 AND 
 
 SIMON SEARCHEi A P^DOBAPTIST ; 
 
 CONTAINING 
 
 AN ANSWER TO TWO PUBLICATIONS, 
 
 CIRCULATED IN THE BOROUGH OF STROUD, BY AMATOR VEltlTATIS J 
 THE ONE ENTITLED, 
 
 '^BAPTISM DISCUSSED, &c.;" 
 
 AND TrtE OTHERi 
 
 "WHY HAVE YOU BECOME A BAPTIST?'* 
 
 BY JOHN BULL. 
 
 In Veritate Victoria, 
 
 DIALOGUE IV. 
 
 PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY B. BUCKNALL, 
 
 AND SOLD BY BRISLEY, BAYLIS, & HARMER, STROUD ; COUGH, DURSLEYj 
 
 HARPER, CHELTENHAM; LEA, GLOUCESTER; 
 
 AND BY LONGMAN, & R. BAYNES, LONDON. 
 
 1836. 
 Price Eight-pence* 
 
DIALOGUE IV 
 
 Bap, Well, Simon, are you prepared to enter upon 
 the mode of baptism ? I think we have said enough 
 concerning the subjects ; and if you are not convinced 
 by what has been advanced already, why then I have 
 no hope of ever seeing you a member of a Baptist 
 church. 
 
 Peed. Still you won't exclude me from heaven, pro- 
 vided I have faith and repentance, although you might 
 tremble to let me sit with you at the sacrament on earth. 
 So much holier is a Baptist church in this frail world 
 than even the kingdom of heaven itself ! What a 
 glorious result of tvater baptism, or rather, of watei- 
 immersion ! for it cannot be proved that immersion is 
 baptism. 
 
 Bap. Don't be too hasty, brother. Mr. Waterman 
 lets P^edobaptists speak for themselves, and out of their 
 own mouth they are condemned. Indeed, "it is rather 
 singular that Pgedobaptist advocates should be charac- 
 terized by the same indefinite sentiments respecting the 
 mode of christian baptism, as appear in their views of 
 its subjects." Page 48. 
 
 Psed. One might reply, that it is rather singular 
 that the " singularities^' with which Mr. Waterman 
 charges his opponents are hardly ever singular. If 
 Peedobaptists have confused notions concerning the sub- 
 jects of baptism, then nothing could be more natural 
 A 2 
 
186 
 
 than that their ideas concerning the mode should be 
 equally indefinite. Far from being singular that they 
 have not clear ideas concerning every thing but the sub- 
 jects of baptism, it would be singularly astoundins; if 
 such confused wits had any clear ideas at all ! But 
 Amator's conclusion is not less false than the assertion 
 on which it is grounded. Instead of being indefinite, 
 the views of Peedobaptists, both concerning the mode 
 and subjects of this ordinance, are perfectly distinct 
 and intelligible to the humblest capacity. If they are 
 not clear, how came Mr. Waterman to understand 
 them ? He ought to have '• paused" before he wrote 
 a book upon a system which is so indefinite that no- 
 body, not even himself, understands. 
 
 Bap. Your views are confused ; for some of your 
 new friends assert that baptism consists in " sprinkling 
 a few drops of water ; others, in pouring water upon 
 the subject ; and others, in the application of that fluid, 
 irrespective of any particular form." The editor of 
 Calmet's Dictionary declares that the term baptism is 
 synonymous with '* sending down, coming, giving, fal- 
 ling, shedding, pouring, sitting or abiding, anointing, 
 filling, sealing, breathing. On the contrary. Baptists in- 
 variably maintain, as Dr.Ryland observes, that baptism, 
 is immersion : but what saith the scripture ?" pp. 48, 
 49, 56. 
 
 Paed. The last expression in your quotation is, 
 doubtless, intended as a mere rhetorical flourish, and 
 placed at the end of the paragraph to give it a fine 
 termination : because it is rather remarkable that Mr. 
 W. fails in producing a single response from revelation 
 to prove that immersion is christian baptism, though 
 the production of such a proof would be sufficient to 
 induce the whole " corps of Picdobaptists" to be 
 dipped. He merely tells us, on the authority of Dr. 
 Jlyland, c^c. that it is " the decided opinion of Bap- 
 tists that baptism is immersion.'''' Xow, as Baptists 
 are not the bible, but only men quite as fallible as their 
 opponents, the proper answer to his assertion is, that 
 it is the decided opinion of Pcrdobaptists, '• that 
 
187 
 
 sprinkling or pouring is baptism ;" and who in the 
 world is to say which decided opinion is right ? The 
 Baptists never have, and never can produce a single 
 example from scripture of aiii/ one person that was bap- 
 tized by immersion. And as for the lexicons, to which 
 they so eagerly turn, that they may give a faithful re- 
 sponse to the question, " What saith the scripture ?" 
 the lexicons are as stubborn as the bible ; for the an- 
 swer which they furnish is more favourable to Paedo- 
 baptists than to their opponents. Then as to the decided 
 opinion of Baptists, their own translations of the words 
 bapto and baptizo prove that their decisions are so ar- 
 bitrary and various, that it is impossible to say what 
 these terms mean. Calmet's editor has given us eleven 
 meanings of the words ; but Baptist writers have given 
 us nearly a hundred modes of translating those self- 
 same terms. Let any one read Drs. Gale and Cox, 
 Messrs. Uyland, Booth, and Gibbs, and he will con- 
 clude that bapto and baptizo either are the most in- 
 dejinite words that any language can furnish, or have 
 been made such by the Baptists. To bathe, daub, 
 drink, dye, besmear, colour, cover, drown, wash, wet, 
 smear, stain, infect, imbue, bury, plunge, immerse, en- 
 tomb, dip, pour, purify, are only a very few of the 
 renderings that these learned Baptists give to the 
 woids in question ! And these gentlemen tell us that 
 their opinion is decided, and have the audacity to taunt 
 their opponents with being destitute of definite ideas ! 
 Every one who knows anything of the controversy, 
 knows that sprinkling or pouring is as deiinitely ex- 
 pressed, and as constantly practised by Peedobaptists, 
 as is dipping, wetting, washing, or plunging, by the 
 other party. And surely, seeing on the admission of 
 Baptists, for they never produce a text to the contrary, 
 the bible is silent respecting the mode, Pasdobaptists 
 have as much right to decide on any one of the variety 
 of words given them by the Baptists, as their brethren 
 have to fix upon immersion. For, after all that has 
 been said, it is only the frail, fallible opinion of Bap- 
 tists that decides on immersion as the only correct 
 mode. 
 
188 
 
 Bap. You are wrong, sir : ♦' the most celebrated 
 lexicographers, and eminent critics, such as Witsius, 
 Yenema, Bossuet, Campbell, Porson, acknowledge 
 that bapto and baptizo always signify a total immersion; 
 and this interpretation is fully borne out by Josephus, 
 Euripides, and Theocritus. On this point, too, Drs. 
 Wall and Ryland agree." pp. 49, 51. 
 
 Psed. Still, sir, this will never answer the question, 
 what saith the scripture ? For this is merely telling 
 us what lexicographers and critics say. Besides, cri- 
 tics and dictionaries are quite as friendly to the Paedo- 
 baptists as to their opponents. Witsius, Orwen, Tur- 
 rettine, Limhorch, Calvin, Beza, Pasor, Cradock, 
 Vossius, Scapula, Stephanus, Suidas, Lightfoot, Tile- 
 nus, Casaubon, Usher, Pictetus, Windelinus, Markius, 
 Waloeus, Micha^lis, Cornelius, Origen, Cyprian, Chem- 
 nitz, Spanhemius, Zanchy, Peter Martyr, Forbescius, 
 Wesley, Fealty, Watts, Pareeus, Musculus, Ursinus, 
 Lactantius, Perkins, Wilson, Pococke, Confessio et 
 Expositio Fidei Christianie, English Rubrick, Liturgia 
 Tigurina, Synod of Dort, &c. &c. all giv^e their " de- 
 cided opinion,'^ that sprinkling or pouring is as much 
 christian baptism as immersion. An appeal to critics 
 and lexicons is, therefore, to betray the cause altoge- 
 ther ; for any Paedobaptist can produce witnesses, of 
 high literary character, and ten to one in number, against 
 Mr. Waterman. Josephus, too, is quite as friendly 
 to pouring and sprinkling, as to immersion ; and 
 Greek writers crowd in abundance to establish the 
 mode adopted by Pa^dobaptists. Aristotle, Homer, 
 Aristophanes, Marcus Antoninus, Plato, Strabo, Plu- 
 tarch, Dion Cassius, Libanus, iElian, Athenseus, t^c. 
 c^c. &c. use the terms bapto and baptizo in a sense 
 that never can be construed to signify dipping or im- 
 mersion. 
 
 Bap. But Dr. Gale and others have examined all 
 these passages, and assert that in each case immersion 
 is implied. 
 
 Paid. True, they have done so ; and the result of 
 their efforts has been to establish the view taken by 
 their opponents. Having the context and common 
 
189 
 
 sense against thera, their most learned criticisms have 
 exhibited nothing- but the veriest quibbhng and so- 
 phistry. 
 
 Bap. You ought at any rate, Mr. Searche, to show 
 a little modesty for such a name as that of Porson. 
 That eminent Greek scholar '* acknowledged to Dr. 
 Newman that bapto and baptizo always signified a 
 total immersion." Page 50. 
 
 Pasd. Without detracting from the fame of Porson, 
 it may, with all due reverence, be said that the word of 
 Porson is not the word of God ; and to tell us what 
 Porson saith is not to answer the question, What saith 
 the scripture ? Besides, in this case Porson and the 
 scriptures are at issue with each other. The Professor 
 saith that bapto and baptizo always signify a total 
 immersion ; but the new testament saith that all the 
 Israelites were baptized into Moses ; and every one 
 knows that they were not totally immersed into Moses. 
 One is tempted to believe that Porson was a little 
 groggy when he uttered this blunder ; for hardly any 
 thing is more notorious than that the Professor's love 
 of Greek was nearly rivalled by his predilection for 
 the bottle. 
 
 Bap. But Porson and the Baptists have most of 
 the lexicons on their side. Look at the dictionaries, 
 and you will see that in most of them immersion is 
 given as \he first signification of baptismos. 
 
 Psed. AVere it possible for you to prove this bold 
 assertion, still it would avail nothing, because it rests 
 on the fallacy, that in translating from Greek into Eng- 
 lish, the first word given in the lexicons is the very 
 best to be used by the translator. But what perfect 
 nonsense would be made of the scriptures and of the 
 Greek classics were this rule to be adopted ! What 
 if logos were always rendered " word,'' or arche 
 " beginnins: .^" AVould any one be able to compre- 
 hend the miserable version that would be produced ? 
 To the latter of these words lexicographers have at- 
 tached eight or ten significations, and to the former 
 nearly thirty. And these are not solitary instances in 
 B 2 
 
190 
 
 the Greek language of one word havino; a variety af 
 interpretations, and each one fully borne out by the 
 context of the writers from which they are quoted. It 
 is far from uncommon for a Greek verb to have ten^ 
 ticenty^ or even thirty significations ; and the Latin 
 language is almost as copious. Hence the study of 
 those tongues is not merely a mechanical exercise, but 
 a highly intellectual pursuit. To say, that in translating 
 the first interpretation of a Vvord is to be taken, and 
 to found an argument upon such a rule is to play the 
 schoolboy with a witness — is to reason from premises 
 which the mere infant, who has just begun his primer 
 or delectus, would deride. In some lexicons, say the 
 Baptists, immersion is the ^r^^ signification of baptizo; 
 therefore^ say they again, baptizo must always mean 
 a total immersion ! By the same reasoning we might 
 also argue : — In some lexicons the term icord is given 
 as the first interpretation of logos ; therefore, logos 
 always means a word ! Let us suppose that Mr. AYa- 
 terman has become a classical teacher ; and one of his 
 new pupils, after having pothered himself with a lexicon, 
 6ic. for some time, and all to no purpose, approaches 
 his instructor, and says : 
 
 Pupil. Please, sir, I don't know how to do this. 
 
 Mr. W. iSot know how to do it ? why it is as plain 
 as A, B, C! 
 
 P. Please, sir, I can't understand it ; 'tis so hard ! 
 
 Mr. W. Well now, just tell me what's the matter. 
 
 P. Please, sir, the dictionaries give so many words 
 for the same word, and I can't tell which is the right 
 one ! 
 
 31r. W. Hum ! its all as easy as to spell your 
 name. Just go to your place, and always take the 
 Jirst word, marked number one in the bock, and never 
 mind the other significations. 
 
 P. Please, sir, I tried that, and I can't make any 
 sense of the book. 
 
 It is impossible to conjecture what reply the ingenuity 
 of the Mr. W. would furnish to the last remark of the 
 'irchin; because it would surpass the skill of all the 
 
191 
 
 doctors in Christendom to make sense of any sacred or 
 profane writer, if this rule were to be followed. 
 
 Bap, In the cases where more than one sig-nification 
 is given, or where the second or third is to be preferred, 
 the preference is rendered necessary by the context ; 
 but what reason is there for doing this in any instanco 
 in which baptizo is used ? 
 
 Paed, The best of all reasons, viz. that baptizo is 
 used in many cases where a total immersion cannot be 
 meant. Believers are baptized with the Holy (jJhost 
 and with fire, but they are not immersed into the Holy 
 Ghost and into fire. Persons are baptized into Clirist ; 
 into his death ; into repentance ; into the remission of 
 sins ; but they are not dipped or immersed into Christ, 
 &c. Besides, there is not a single instance in the new 
 testament of a person's being baptized by immersion. 
 And if there were, it would prove nothing, miless it 
 could be shown that all were immersed, because the 
 apostle speaks of " divers baptisms." 
 
 Bap. " Does the apostle include here every kind of 
 washing ? I assure you, sir, that / believe he does not ; 
 for he evidently uses the term rhantismos, sprinkling, 
 with respect to the manner of applying the blood, wa- 
 ter, and ashes of the heifer, Heb. 9. 13, Num. 19. 17, 
 IvS, distinguishing it from divers baptisms. The apos- 
 tle refers therefore to the divers icashings presented 
 by the law, which were performed by bathing in Avater. 
 And the apostle may call these divers baptisms, because 
 they were performed on different occasions, and for vi- 
 rions kinds of uncleanness. Dr. 31acknight has trans- 
 lated the passage " divers immersions." pp. 51, 52. 
 
 Paed. It is evident from John 3. 22-26, that bap- 
 tism is synonymous with purification ; for the question 
 or dispute referred to in those verses concerning puri- 
 ficntiou was concerning the baptism of John, and 
 ('hrist's baptism ; this being the case, the rhantismos, 
 sprinkling, mentioned Heb. 9. 13, and Num. 19. 17, 
 18, would naturally be called by the apostle a baptism, 
 or " puriiication," and therefore it could not be (iislin- 
 guished from the divers baptisms, or Jewish puriri- 
 
192 
 
 cations, but was one of them. Then there is not the 
 least analogy between the bathinc: in water, enjoined by 
 the law, and modern immersion. The person, as Mr. 
 Waterman admits, bathed himself, and washed his 
 clothes." But in modern dipping, neither is done. 
 Far from the clothes of the individual being washed, 
 a great portion is not wet through ; and as for the per- 
 son himself, scarcely any thing except his face is touch- 
 ed by the water. It is almost amusing to see how fe- 
 males are wrapped up, lest the water should touch them. 
 To compare such a ceremony with a person's washing 
 his clothes, bathing his naked body in water, or with 
 a Jewish immersion, is truly wonderful. Nothing but 
 a mind blinded by the " tyranny of custom," could 
 discoveranyanalogy between the two operations. Again, 
 what shall one say to the splendid conclusion that divers 
 baptisms mean one and the same baptism, administered 
 on " different occasions ^ and for different kinds of un- 
 cleanness ?" We read of the divers gifts of the Holy 
 Spirit, and the same Greek adjective is used in both 
 cases; but what should one think of the sanity of the 
 man who should tell us that the divers ^ifts of the 
 Holy Ghost mean one and the same gift, given to 
 persons on different occasions, and for different pur- 
 poses } What if Mr. Waterman took for a text Rom. 
 12. 6, " Having then gifts differing according to the 
 grace that is given to us." And thus commenced his 
 sermon, *' My christian friends, you will observe that 
 the same Greek adjective diaphoros is used here as in 
 Hebrews, where it is rendered divers baptisms. The 
 question, then, is deserving your consideration ; does 
 the apostle include here every kind of gift ? I assure 
 you that / believe he does not." Gifts differing, or 
 divers gifts, intend the one gift of the Holy Spirit, im- 
 parted ** on different occasions, and for various ends." 
 'Tis true these gifts are called prophesy, jniracles, 
 tongues, &c. &c.— but still, you are not to suppose 
 that all these express divers gifts, as the apostle savs, 
 bnt one and the same gift. For unless you are blinded 
 by the peculiarities of a sect, you must ptrceij^ that 
 
193 
 
 miracles, prophesy, and tongues, are but one ^\(t. 
 To speak with tong-ues is the same thinij as to work 
 miracles ; and to prophesy is the same thing a- to have 
 the interpretation of tong-iies ; and to work miraclHS is 
 the same as to discern spirits. So that there is a sense 
 in which it may he said, that many mendjers of the 
 body mean one and the same body; and in consequence, 
 the whole body is an eye, an ear, a iiand, or a foot ; 
 for as divers or difi'erent baptisms mean baptisms that 
 do not dijfer, so ditierent ^'ifts intend 2:ifts that are 
 perfectly similai- ; and the divers members of the body 
 siofiiify nothing- but one and the same member, used on 
 different occasions, and for various purposes. 1 ^rrant 
 that this is a modern interpretation, but our system re- 
 quires it ; for if we ever allow that divers g^ifts or di- 
 vers members mean gifts or members that actually dif- 
 fer, our opponents, the Peedobaptists, will say, (and 
 have they not a right by analogy of reasoning- ?) that 
 divers baptisms mean different baptisms, and this once 
 admitted, our cause is lost. Ah, my friends, never, 
 never go so far as to yield your principles, by allow- 
 ing that divers baptisms, or gifts, mean different bap- 
 tisms, for there is but one baptism.^'' 
 
 Bap. Stop, sir, you need not speak with so much 
 levity ; that last text which you quoted is sufficient to 
 show that Mr. Waterman is right. Paul says there is 
 '* one baptism ;'' now, sir, " whatsaith the scripture ?" 
 
 Peed. Why it also says, 3Jr. Hastie, tbat there 
 were " divers baptisms.'" 
 
 Bap. That there icere divers baptisms, but it 7ioiv 
 says that there is but one baptism." 
 
 Paed. Granted. Still, this is not the question ; for 
 if the apostle says there were different baptisms, he as 
 much intends different modes of purifying-, as that dif- 
 ferent gifts intimate endowments which actually differ ; 
 and, consequently, that the word baptism had more 
 than one signification. And further, in arg-uing- from 
 the " one baptism,'' of which you boast, you take for 
 granted the thing to be proved. You must demonstrate 
 not only that that one baptism refers to water baptism. 
 
194 
 
 an not the baptism of the Spirit, but also that in apos- 
 tolic days baptism was administered by immersion. 
 And should you succeed in proving the former, still 
 you never can establish the latter, because there is not 
 a single example in the new testament of a person bap- 
 tized by immersion. Baptists are so fully convinced 
 cf this fact, that they all leave the scriptures, and run 
 to critics and lexicographers for evidence. 
 
 Bap. And did not you get your knowledge of Greek 
 from lexicons, Mr. Searche ? 
 
 Pi«d. Little, Mr. Hastie, as I know of Greek, that 
 little w<»uld have been much less if I had always taken 
 Xhejirst word that occurs in a lexicon, and maintained 
 that it was the only true signification of the term to 
 be translated. Yet the whole Baptist theory rests on 
 this assumption. For if it be admitted that the second 
 or tliird interpretation of a term is frecjuently preferable 
 to the first, and in many cases essential to complete the 
 sense, and that the w^ord baptizo forms no exception to 
 this rule, then the controversy is at an end. Besides, 
 a review^ of all the writers w ho use the words bapto or 
 baptiz;o will convince us that no evidence can be pro- 
 duced to prove that immersion is the primary signifi- 
 c.iti<m of these terms. Baptists are, therefore, left 
 without any substantial authority whatever by which 
 to establish their mode of baptizing. The primary 
 siirnification of bapto or baptizo — the examples furnished 
 by the holy scriptures — by lexicographers, critics, and 
 classical authors, atf'ord them no conclusive testimony. 
 All they have any right to say is, that they themselves 
 prefer their own peculiar mode of dipping, and therefore 
 ])ractise it. Be it so; the gospel gives them this liberty, 
 but at the same time directs them to use it with the 
 modesty and charity which Christianity inculcates. For 
 certainly it becomes men, whose writings and criticisms 
 oa this topic betray an equal want of critical, classical, 
 and scriptural erudition, to pause before they venture 
 to dictate to the whole church. 
 
 Bap. Rude as we may be, many of your party are 
 with us. How came Dr. Macknight to render " divers 
 baptisms ' by " divers immersions ?" 
 
195 
 
 Paed. Doubtless it appeared to tlie Doctor, as if does 
 to the Baptists, to be correct. Still, this fact sliows 
 nothiiijE^ more, than that Dr. Macknight for once agreed 
 with the Baptists ; but never can that circumstance 
 prove that either the Doctor, or the Baptists, are in- 
 fallible. And if we have, thus saith Macknight, on 
 one hand, we have, thus say, as great men as Mack- 
 night on the other ; and if human authority were to set- 
 tle the question, Psedobaptists must immediately bear 
 away the palm. A higher authority however than that 
 of man has g-iven us an interpretation of haptism. 'I'he 
 scriptures assure us that baptism and pnrijication are 
 synonymous, and probably this is the only term in our 
 language that conveys its true signiiication when used 
 in reference to this ordinance. 
 
 Bap. You have already made such an assertion, but 
 it is a question whether you are correct. 
 
 Paed. The context is in my favour ; for the whole 
 clause in John 3. 22-26, refers to baptizing. In verse 
 22, it is said that Jesus and his disciples larried in 
 Judea and baptized. " John," it is added, " was bap- 
 tizing in .Enon, near to Saliin, because there was much 
 water there, and they came and were baptized. — 
 Then there arose a question between John's disciples 
 and the Jews, ^honi purifi/lng ^ They therefore came 
 to John, to settle the dispute ; and said to him, ** Rabhi, 
 he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom then bear- 
 est witness, behold the same baptizeth, and all mtu 
 come to him." Nothing can be more evident, than 
 that the dispute was concerning- the two baptisms, which 
 both parties termed a purification. And when we con- 
 sider how many divers baptisms or purifications there 
 were among the Jews, some performed by water, and 
 others by blood, some by immersion, and others by 
 .sprinkling, it was perfectly natural to call both the 
 baptism of John, and that of Christ, a " purification ;' 
 and it is probable that the dispute aros« concerning 
 which of the two was to be preferred, or whether both 
 were necessary. 
 
 Bap. But what can you gain by this interjiretation ? 
 
 Paed. Merely a scriptural interpretation of the word 
 
19G 
 
 baptism, equally applicable to every example in which 
 the word is used in rejerencp. to that ordinance. For, 
 to translate baptizo by baptize, is merely to ansrlicise 
 a Greek word which of itself can convey no meaning- 
 to the illiterate reader. And to call baptism a dipping, 
 a pluniiing, a burying-, an immersion, a sprinkling, 
 a washing, or a pouring, would equally degrade the or- 
 dinance, and leave us destitute of any idea of its real 
 design. Nothing could sound more ridiculous than to 
 say, In those days came John the dipper — John the im- 
 merser — John the sprinkler — John the pourer — John the 
 washer — John the plunger — or John the dyer — preach- 
 ing the dipping, plunging, sprinkling, washing, or 
 dying of repentance, for the remission of sins ! Or, 
 as huri/insr is a favourite term with the Baptists, to 
 call \h^t Baptist John the burier, or John the sexton, 
 preaching the burial, or funeral of repentance for the 
 remission of sins, would be the height of absurdity. 
 Nor would it be endured for any one to talk of a per- 
 son's being washed with the Holy Ghost and with fire — 
 dipped in the Holy Ghost and in fire — buried with the 
 Holy Ghost and with tire ! On the other hand, the word 
 pnrify not only has the authority of being a scriptural 
 interpretation of baptism, but it may always be used 
 where there is any reference either to the baptism of 
 water, or the baptism of the Holy Spirit. John the 
 Baptist, with the utmost propriety, might be termed 
 the purifier. The whole design of his ministry was to 
 prepare a people for the Lord, by bringing them to re- 
 pentance ; and the man who is the instrument of leading 
 a nation to repentance is the means of its purification, 
 and may justly be termed " a Baptist, or purifier.'' 
 This term also w^ould be equally applicable, whatever 
 7?iO(/<' he adopted, whether sprinkling or immersion, be- 
 cause the Jews were accustomed to purification from 
 each of these modes. In some cases they were purified 
 by sprink/iuf^, and in others by washing their clothes, 
 and bathing themselves in water. Still, it must be ob- 
 served, that such a mole of baptizing as that practised 
 in our day by the Baptists v/as never heard of among 
 
197 
 
 them. The term purify will also apply to every in- 
 stance of baptism recorded in the new testament. Ye 
 shall be purified with the Holy Ghost and with fire, is 
 both an elegant and expressive sentiment, which even 
 the most illiterate can understand. Peter alludes to 
 this very signification of baptism, when he says, Acts 
 15. 8, 9, that God gave the Holy Ghost to the Gentiles, 
 and thus purified their hearts by faith ; and, in the 
 eleventh chapter, he calls the same gift or piirijication 
 of the Holy Spirit " the baptism of the Holy Ghost." 
 
 Bap. You are going on too fast, sir. It is not said 
 that their hearts were purified by the baptism of the 
 Holy Spirit, but '* by faiths 
 
 Paed. Still, sir, you must allow that without the 
 baptism of the Holy Ghost there can be no faith that 
 can purify the heart. Peter speaks both of the cause 
 and the effect, and therefore proved himself both a 
 philosopher and a divine. To talk of the heart be- 
 ing purified by faith, without being first baptized with 
 the Holy Ghost, istheextreme of Pelagianism. How- 
 ever, I thank you for the hint, because it more strik- 
 ingly shows the correctness of the interpretation 
 adopted. Baptism by water is a typical purification y 
 and baptism by the Holy Ghost is a real purification. 
 We have therefore no need of Mr. Waterman's hosts 
 of human authorities. His Papists, Bishops, Re- 
 monstrants, Fathers, Jews, Greeks, Pagans, Philo- 
 logers, may rest in their beds or their graves ; the bi- 
 ble, the bible, which is the religion of Protestants, 
 tells us that baptism is a typical or real purif cation, 
 and that there are " divers baptisms,''^ or purifications. 
 
 Bap. Pray, brother Searche, what will you do 
 with that text, " Let Lazarus dip the tip of his finger 
 in water ?" — In the Greek it is, let Lazarus baptize the 
 tip of his finger in water. Surely you would not say, 
 let Lazarus purify his finger in water ! 
 
 Pied. It is a cjuery whether the rich man didjnot 
 in this request pray for purification ; but be that as it 
 may, you are well aware that I have confined my ob- 
 servations to those texts alone in which there is a re- 
 c 2 
 
198 
 
 ference to the ordinance of baptism, or to the effasion 
 of the Holy Spirit ; and it is only for any Baptist to 
 examine them, to discover that there is not one instance 
 in which, without the least detriment to the sense, 
 the term purifi/ might not be used as a substitute for 
 baptism. And this is all that the argument requires. 
 It is sufficient that the Holy Spirit has defined the 
 sense in which the term is used when baptism is intended. 
 More than this it would be unreasonable to expect. 
 
 Bap. Doubtless it is prudent in you thus to confine 
 your observations. 
 
 Peed. Highly prudent, sir, scripturally prudent, 
 and that is the perfection of prudence to think and 
 speak under the direction of God's word, far more 
 prudent, sir, than to follow Bellarmine. Still, you 
 have seen that our cause would lose nothing by calling 
 in the aid of those texts of scripture, or passages of 
 profane authors, in which the word is used without any 
 reference to this ordinance. AVitness the authors al- 
 ready quoted. In Matthew 26. 23, our Lord uses 
 the expression, " He that dippeth his hand with me 
 in the dish." The word rendered dippeth is embapsas, 
 which is even a stronger term than bapsas ; yet no one 
 will suppose that Judas was so filthy as to immerse 
 his whole hand or plunge Ids ichole hand into the dish, 
 even if it had been deep enough for him to do so. We 
 may believe that Judas was a gentleman, although 
 he was a hypocrite and a thief. 
 
 Bap. But " what was our Lord's design in this 
 institute? You will confess it was to enjoin a religious 
 observance — to inculcate a duty which is obligatory 
 upon his people, and that the law of baptism clearly 
 reveals and regulates this duty. Had Christ, therefore, 
 designed sprinkling as the mode of this ordinance, the 
 term employed probably would have been rhantizo; or 
 pouring, ekcheo ; or washing in general, nipto ; but 
 as the word baptize is used, it has equally a definite 
 .signification, and must be understood as expressing 
 immersion.'' Page 52. 
 
 Piud. Let Baptists produce the law, and we will 
 obey. 
 
199 
 
 Bap. The law is contained in the term baptism. 
 
 P'did. That cannot be, because, baptism does not 
 always signify immersion. It cannot be proved that 
 immersion is its primary idea. Xor is there any evi- 
 dence in the new testament of a single individual having 
 been immersed. Baptism is enjoined by our Lord, but 
 the mode is not defined. The fact that our Lord used 
 baptizo, in preference to rhantizo, ekcheo, or nipto, 
 proves that he employed a much better word than either 
 — a word much more comprehensive. Xebiichadnezzar 
 was baptized with dew, which must have been done by 
 sprinklimr. Cornelius was baptized with the Holy- 
 Ghost, which is termed the outpouring of the Spirit, 
 V, hich fell upon him and his family. The Jews did. 
 not eat until they had baptized their hands, which was 
 done by ivashing, or pouring water upon their hands, 
 as Elisha is said, I Kings 3. 11, to have done to the 
 hands of Elijah. There were divers baptisms, divers 
 modes of purifying, and our Lord adopted a term which 
 expresses them all, and which never can be said to 
 signify nothing but immersion, seeing that not a single 
 example of immersion is furnished by the new testa- 
 ment. 
 
 Bap. But the septuagint, to which you have ap- 
 pealed, proves that these three words have difterent 
 significations. In Lev. 4. (J, 7, it is said, " And the 
 priest shall dip (bapsei) his finger in the blood, and 
 sprinkle (prosranei) of the blood seven times before 
 the Lord, and shall pour out (ekcheei) all the blood 
 of the bullock at the bottom of the altar of burnt 
 offering." Page 52. 
 
 Peed. Good. Your quotation from the septuagint 
 is perfectly correct, and yet it proves nothing ; because 
 the very same septuagint tells us that Xebuchadnezzar 
 was baptized with the dew of heaven, and the dew 
 baptizes by sprinkling. We have, then, the septuagint 
 against the septuagint; or rather, we have the septua- 
 gint confirming the words of the apostle, that there are 
 ^'divers baptisms,'' or divers modes of baptizing; and 
 as there is not a single hint in the law of baptism to 
 
200 
 
 direct us to prefer dipping, the Baptist is left without 
 the shadow of an argument from the word of God to 
 confirm his peculiar mode of administering that ordi- 
 nance. Nor has he the least authority for dictating to 
 the church what mode shall be universally adopted. 
 Besides, the text quoted can never prove that the 
 entire finger of the priest was immersed in the blood ; 
 only the end of it was dipped into the blood, so that, 
 even in this boasted clause, baptism does not signify a 
 total immersion ; for a finger but partly imbued with 
 blood was a baptized finger. 
 
 Bap. You have admitted that the Jews baptized 
 their hands ; pray did they not totally immerse their 
 hands in washing them ? 
 
 P^ed. Why, this is a query; for the ceremony was 
 a religious one, and in such cases, pouring water upon 
 their hands was common. In this manner Elisha poured 
 water upon the hands of Elijah. For this purpo>^e the 
 six watering pots were placed in the room where the 
 marria£:e in Cana was celebrated. They were set there 
 according to the Jews' manner of purifying or bap- 
 tizing, d^ml with the water contained in the stone vessels 
 they baptized their hands. Yet we are not to suppose 
 that they plunged their hands into these pots ; for if 
 they had, the people would have been shocked at the 
 idea of drinking from such a polluted source. Nor 
 can we imagine that they made a splutter by regularly 
 washing their hands in the guest chamber : this would 
 suppose that the gentry came to the marriage with 
 dirty hands. The text tells us that this water was for 
 purifying, after the custom of the Jews. The water 
 was '* draivn'^ from the vessels, and poured by the 
 servants upon the hands of the guests. Sir J. K. 
 Porter describes this custom, as practised at the present 
 time in Persia: *' A silver-plated jug," he says, *'with 
 a long spout, accompanied with a basin of the same 
 metal, was carried round to every guest by an attendant, 
 who poured water from the jug on our right hands, 
 which we held in succession over the basin." It is 
 worthy of remark, that Homer and V^irgil repeatedly 
 
201 
 
 mention the very same custom, as practised in their 
 days ; and we know that it as much prevails in Egypt 
 now, as it did in the time ot" Dido. This, then, ac- 
 counts for the wonder that was expressed that our 
 Lord and his disciples did not observe this custom 
 before eating. The Pharisee, mentioned Luke 11. 38, 
 who invited our Lord to dine with him, wondered that 
 he had not first washed ; in the Greek it is, " that he 
 had not fir^t baptized,'' or been purified. The disciples 
 also were complained of as eating "with dejiled (koinos, 
 impure, not filthy) hands," that is, with unwashen 
 (aniptois) hands ; for it is added, that " all the Jews, 
 unless they wash or purity their hands oft, eat not ; 
 and when they come from market, except they wash, 
 (baptisontai, baptize or purify) they eat not." Hence 
 they were surprised that our Lord had not first washed, 
 or, as ebaptisthe is the passive voice, *' been baptized,'' 
 before he dined. These facts, taken together, prove 
 to a demonstration, that to wash the hands, or to have 
 Avater poured upon the hands, was to be baptized, or 
 to be piirijied ; for the water was set in the guest 
 chamber, according to the Jews' custom of purifying. 
 But there is also another important fact proved, namely, 
 that the Jews called the washing or purifying of the 
 hands baptism. Vox, granted that the hands were 
 dipped into a basin, yet the ivhole body ivas not im- 
 jnersed. Water was applied to one portion of the 
 body only ; nevertheless, that was called baptism. If, 
 tiieret'ore, the application of water to the hands was 
 termed baptism, although the whole body was not 
 dipped, then the application of water to the head may 
 be called baptism or purification, although no other 
 part of the body should be touched. In Num. 8. 6, 7, 
 we have a notable instance of purification by the use 
 of a little water : " Take the Levites from among the 
 children of Israel, and cleanse them ; and thus shalt 
 thou do unto them to cleanse them : — sprinkle ivater 
 of purifying upon them, and let them shave all iheir 
 fiesh, and let them wash all their clothes, and so make 
 themselves clean." In allusion to this rite, Jehovah 
 
202 
 
 says, '^' 1 will sprinkle clean (pure or purifyino;) water 
 upon you, and ye shall he clean." Xothing-, then, was 
 more natural than that the Jews should purify by the 
 application of a little water to one part of the body. 
 This they did, and the persons whose hands were thus 
 purified are said by the Holy Ghost to have been 
 baptized. 
 
 Bap. But yon know that Moses washed xVaron and 
 his sons at the door of the tabernacle of the congre- 
 gation, Exod. 20. 4 ; and did not Solomon provide a 
 vast bath for the same purpose ? 
 
 P^ed. You will not suppose that Moses washed 
 Aaron and his sous with his clothes on, or that he strip- 
 ped them naked and scrubbed them well in the presence 
 of the cong-reo-ation. Xor will you hardly conclude 
 that the priests bathed with their clothes on, or in a 
 state of nudity, in Solomon's bath. That brazen sea 
 was too deep for them to bathe in it unless they could 
 swim ; and besides, if they had done so, a fresh sup- 
 ply of clean water would have been required every day. 
 But we are not left to juere conjecture on this subject. 
 In Exod. 40. 30-33, it is said that Moses " set the 
 laver between the tent of the congregation and the 
 altar, and that 3Ioses, Aaron, and his sons, washed 
 their hands and feet therein ;" and Josephus tells us 
 that the water was drawn from the brazen sea of Solo- 
 mon for the same purpose, namely, that the '*• priests 
 might wash their hands and their feet:'' Here then is 
 a |)urification without immersion, from which the Jews 
 generally borrowed their custom of purifying or bap- 
 tizing their hands. And, as in the case of the Levites, 
 puritication was performed by sprinkling, and Nebu- 
 chadnezzar's body was baptized by sprinkling, we may 
 conclude that amons: xh^. divers baptisms the far greater 
 part were performed without immersion. 
 
 Bap. In the case of Nebuchadnezzar, to which you 
 reAtr, the word bapto is to be " taken allusively rather 
 th<iu really. If his body had been immersed it would 
 not have been wetter." Page 53. 
 
 iVcd. Very good. Still, we are not talking about 
 
203 
 
 results, but about tbe mode, and the mode by which 
 the monarch's body became wet was sprinkling. It 
 may also be added, that this Baptist conjecture con- 
 cerning the drenching of Nebuchadnezzar's body with 
 dew is a mere supposition, invented for the occasion. 
 However, the admission on the part of Mr. Waterman 
 that the word bapto refers to a result rather than to the 
 mode by which it was accomplished, is a virtual con- 
 cession of the opinion for which he is contending". For 
 he speaks of a result effected by sprinkling, and that 
 result is termed a baptism. 
 
 Bap. " M'clean observes, that to convert bapto in- 
 to sprinkling or pouring, you make the words of our 
 Lord's commission less plain and determinate than those 
 of the law." Page 53. 
 
 Pa^d. We leave Mr. M'clean to settle the point hoiv 
 it was that our Lord used a term which had more than 
 one meaning. We have to do with tiie fact itself that 
 our Lord did use a Greek word, which, Baptists being 
 judges, has more than one signification. And further 
 we add, that it was next to impossiide for the Saviour 
 to speak Greek or any other language without using 
 terms that have more than one signification. Nothing 
 but the context could have settled the meaning of the 
 words employed by Moses ; for 3Ir. Waterman allows 
 that the active verb bapto means a result, or effect, ac- 
 complished by sprinkling ; and Dr. Cox, quoted by 
 Amator Veritatis, page G6, says that baptism means a 
 " state of repletioii" ! a result neither accomplished 
 by dipping nor sprinkling, but by drinking ! What use 
 then is it to ask how our Lord could adopt a word w hich 
 had more than one interpretation, when they themselves 
 allow that he did employ such a term ? and every critic, 
 lexicon, or profane author to which they appeal, attests 
 the same fact. Even Baptists have given almost a 
 hundred interpretations to these very terms, and it has 
 never yet been proved that a total immersion is the pri- 
 mary signification of bapto ; but if it had, there is not 
 a word in the new testament which can demonstrate 
 that our Lord used it in this particular sense. 
 
204 
 
 Bap. *' Salnmsues says, that baptism is immersion, 
 and that sprinkling- is only rhantism." Pag-e 53. 
 
 P'iCd. But Salmasues is not the bible. The word of 
 God tells us that the Israelites " were baptized (eis) 
 into, unto, or for, Moses"— Our Lord commanded his 
 disciples to baptize the nations (eis) iiito or Jor the 
 Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Persons were 
 to be baptized into repentance, &c ; yet, in neither of 
 these cases could immersion be intended. Nebuchad- 
 nezzar was baptized with dew, but this was not done 
 by immersion. In Levit. 14. 6, 51, the priest was 
 commanded to dip (in the septuagint to baptize) a liv- 
 ius^ bird, scarlet wool, cedar wood, and a bunch of 
 hyssop, in the blood of the slain bird. In this example 
 a total immersion was impossible, yet all were bap- 
 tized in this small portion of blood. The Pharisee 
 wondered that our Lord did not baptize before he 
 dined, yet he hardly expected that a guest would come 
 to baptize at the house of his host, instead of doing 
 so before he left his own abode. For, according to the 
 Baptists, there was a baptistry at every house at 
 which our Lord might have lodged. Persons who 
 washed or baptized their hands before they reclined 
 are said to be baptized, yet the baptizing of the hands 
 could not mean a total immersion of the whole bodi/. 
 In the marriage of Cana, instead of a baptistry, we 
 find sliV loater-jiots for purifying, holding about twen- 
 ty gallons apiece; they were placed in the guest cham- 
 ber, and all the guests had been purified or baptized 
 from them ; yet, we cannot suppose that each person 
 had stripped and been immersed in these pots, or that 
 they had been dipped with their clothes on. For 
 every adult must have been diminished into a Lilli- 
 putian to have been immersed in these jars; and to 
 suppose the w^ater was drawn from them into a bap- 
 tistry, is to suppose that the guests dressed themselves 
 at home for the wedding, but instead of using their 
 own domestic baths;, came and were dipped either in a 
 state of nudity or with their clothes on, at the house 
 of their host. Now these w^ater-pots for purifying , 
 
205 
 
 taken in connexion with the passages in which there is 
 a reference to our Lord and his disciples neglecting to 
 baptize, or to have their hands purified, before they 
 dined, prove to a demonstration, that the word baptize 
 does not always mean a total immersion of the whole 
 body ; and never can it be shown to have that signifi- 
 cation when applied to the ordinance of baptism. So 
 that we may adopt, with a little variation, Mr. Lawson's 
 sentiment, quoted by Mr. W. page 53 : *' Such as 
 immerse or dip have no command from Christ, nor 
 any example among the apostles."" 
 
 Bap. " But Linguists cannot be ignorant that dip- 
 ping and sprinkling are expressed by several words, 
 both in the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew." Page 53, 
 
 Paed. And no true scholar or Linguist can be ig- 
 norant that bapto and baptizoare used to express both, 
 though which of the two significations is the primary 
 or scripture one has never yet been proved. 
 
 Bap. '* In all instances, where baptism is used in an 
 allusive sense, it retains its primary idea of plenitude 
 or abundance. This is the case where our Lord's suf- 
 ferings are called a baptism — where the Israelites are 
 said to be baptized in the sea — where Nebuchadnezzar 
 was baptized with the dew — or the disciples with the 
 Holy Ghost — they v^ere filled with the Holy Ghost." 
 Page 54. 
 
 Paed. Still incorrect, Mr. Hastie. It cannot be 
 said that there was either a total immersion or an 
 allusive plenitude in the living bird, cedar wood, scarlet 
 wool, and hyssop, which, according to the septuagint, 
 were all baptized with the little drop of blood that 
 flowed from the bird that was slain. There is no proof 
 that Xebuchadnezzar was drenched, or that a single 
 drop of water fell upon the Israelites. And if the 
 cloud did wet them, it was by sprinkling, and that 
 very partially ; for, we cannot suppose that Jehovah 
 took the opportunity, when they were in the sea, to 
 drench them with rain. Neither the Israelites were, 
 therefore, dipped into the cloud, nor into the sea, nor 
 were the apostles dipped into the house which was 
 D 2 
 
20G 
 
 filled with the Holy Ghost. Indeed, in the former 
 
 instance, it is not said that Israel was baptized into the 
 cloud, or into the sea, but (eis) into Moses. Then it 
 must be remembered that the question is not concerning 
 effects or results, but concerning the mode. For, were 
 Peedobaptists to adopt the shower-bath, and, instead 
 of employing a small portion of water, to drench their 
 candidates until they had made them ten times as wet 
 as an}^ person is ever made by modern immersion, still 
 the Baptists would not admit that this is baptism ; 
 because, according to their doctrine, immersion, plung- 
 ing, dipphig, is the only scriptural mode, although 
 they admit that Nebuchadnezzar and the Israelites 
 were baptized by sprinkling or pouring ! In another 
 place, page 67, INIr. \yaterman has said that the Israe- 
 lites were baptized without the water touching them 
 at all. *' They had a cloud of water over them, and the 
 sea encompassed them ; therefore they were baptized, 
 although the water was neither sprinkled nor poured 
 upon them, nor were they dipped into it in any form 
 whatever." This is going farther than most Pae- 
 dobaptists go, because it is allowing that there may 
 be baptism without an i/ personal application of water. 
 This admission may make us cease to wonder that 
 candidates for immersion are so closely capped, gloved 
 and shoed, or booted, and so rapidly popped in and 
 out of the water, that the *' sacred wave" hardly touches 
 their persons. It seems that a personal application is 
 far from necessary ; for the Israelites were baptized, 
 although the water did not touch them. From this it is 
 evident that a new mode of baptism might be devised. 
 Were persons on a cloudy day to descend into the lock 
 of a canal, or into the hold of a vessel, so that a cloud 
 hung over their heads, and the waters surrounded them, 
 or were even only on each side of them, this would be 
 a baptism ; for " there would be a cloud over them, 
 and the waters would encompass them." 
 . Bap. You treat the subject with too much levity ; 
 and besides, you misrepresent Mr. Waterman. You 
 know that he says that the Israelites were " meta- 
 phorically'' baptized. 
 
207 
 
 Paed. But who told him that the baptism of the 
 Israelites was only a metaphor ? St. Paul says it 
 was a real baptism (eis) into or for Moses. To call 
 it a metaphor is a Baptist figment, suggested by the 
 peculiar dogma of their sect, but destitute of the least 
 countenance from the word of God. However, Bap- 
 tists are not the only persons that find metaphors in 
 the new testament, when the true meaning of scripture 
 stands in the way of their own peculiar system. As 
 tothe levity of my remarks, you must pardon me, if, 
 in reviewing such a merry writer as Mr. AVaterman, I 
 occasionally become baptized with a portion of his 
 spirit. 
 
 Bap. If you assert that the Israelites were really 
 baptized, then Baptists can " make out as good an 
 argument for silent meditation, to the exclusion of eating 
 and drinking, at the Lord's supper. The question is, 
 they might say, whether eating and drinking denote the 
 receiving of food into the body only, or whether they 
 be general terms, the meaning of which is, to devour, 
 to imbibe, to corrode, or to receive truth into the mind. 
 The words are evidently used in the last sense in John 
 6. 54; and as we are not partial to modes and forms, it 
 is in this sense that we understand and practise them." 
 Page 54. 
 
 Paed. You will allow, sir, that these remarks are 
 not overcharged with gravity, and therefore ought not 
 to be angry if we become as merry as the grave Mr. 
 AVaterman. The argument and illustration you have 
 now advanced are, however, as unfortunate as any that 
 have already passed under review. The cases referred 
 to are perfectly dissimilar. To direct us respecting the 
 ordinance of baptism, we have a term used which can 
 never be proved to signify immersion, to the exclusion 
 of any other mode ; nor does the context, in any in- 
 stance, show that dipping was originally adopted. 
 But, respecting the Lord's supper, every thing is plain 
 and definite. It is said that our Lord "took bread, and 
 blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, ' Take, 
 eat, this is my body.' And he took the cup, and when he 
 
208 
 
 had given thanks, he gave it to them, and they all 
 drank of it." The man, therefore, would be little less 
 than a madman who should assert that all this merely- 
 signified ''silent meditation, or the receiving, imbibing, 
 absorbing, devouring, or corroding of truth into the 
 mind !" But for the mode of baptism to be as ex- 
 plicit as the Lord's supper, it ought to have been left 
 on record, '* that the persons baptized by the apostles 
 were brought to the rivers or baths — that the minister 
 iirst descended into the water, up to his waist or breast 
 — that the candidate next came into the water, and 
 then had his whole body plunged (not i^j^o, but) under 
 the water— and, after being immerged, was emerged 
 from the water, and led out." If language as descrip- 
 tive as this had been used, then it might be affirmed 
 that the mode of baptism is as clearly defined as the 
 Lord's supper. Instead of this, however^ a word is 
 used which is left undefined as to the mode which it 
 expressed ; nor is there a single instance in the word 
 of God in which the context will allow us to affirm 
 that the ordinance was performed by dipping. Every 
 example on record furnishes more evidence that the 
 persons Avere not yliinged under the water than that 
 they were. It is no where said that Christ, or the 
 other persons whom John baptized, went into the water 
 — much less that they went under the water. There 
 is no evidence that Philip or the eunuch even touched 
 the Trater with their feet. The prepositions rendered 
 into, and out of, merely signify that they went to the 
 water, and came jfrom it. If it is said that any persons 
 went down, and came up from the water, nothing more 
 can be concluded from the terms employed in the Greek 
 testament, than that there was a declivity between the 
 persons and the stream or fountain, which they first 
 descended and then ascended. To compare, then, the 
 mode of celebrating the Lord's supper, which is so well 
 defined, with the mode of administering baptism, which 
 is not defined, is worse than asserting, in contradiction 
 of Solomon, that '* the legs of the lame are equal." But 
 as your folks are such sticklers for a mode, it is a 
 
200 
 
 wonder that it never occurrerl to them that they pay 
 no attention to the literal meaning- of the Greek word 
 deipnon, a supper, in administering that sacrament. 
 The word deipnon, a supper, is as clearly defined, and 
 as well understood, as any term in the Greek language. 
 Every one knows that it means a substantial evening 
 meal. To call a morsel of bread and a taste of wine 
 a supper, is one of the greatest abuses of terms that 
 was ever heard of, and without the least sanction from 
 the word of God. Besides, the mode in which our 
 Lord and his disciples partook of the last supper, surely 
 ought to be attended to as rigidly as the mode of bap- 
 tism ; for it is one of the "most glaring hico72sistencies'* 
 on record for persons to lay such stress upon the mode 
 in which baptism is administered, while at the same 
 time thei/ pay no attention whatever to the scriptural 
 example of the mode in which the first sacrament was 
 instituted. It might be termed little less than the 
 grossest hypocrisy for persons to exclude their brethren 
 from the Lord's table, for a supposed deviation from 
 apostolic example in administering baptism, while 
 these very individuals themselves are disregarding one 
 of the very plainest examples that language can furnish 
 of the manner in which the Lord's supper was admi- 
 nistered by the Redeemer. This is "to strain at a gnat 
 and swallow a camel" with a witness — to be so zealous 
 *' to pull the mote out of their brother's eye, as entirely 
 to forget the beam in their own." The sacrament, as 
 celebrated in our day, is neither a meal nor a supper ; 
 nor is it partaken of in a reclining posture, which was 
 the position in which it was at first observed. For this 
 violation of apostolic ?node and precedent, there is not 
 a single sanction in the word of God ; except Me allow 
 that the gospel admits of considerable latitude in the 
 mode of celebrating its ordinances, provided the de- 
 sign is kept in view. 
 
 Bap. Stop, sir. In the first of Corinthians, Paul 
 directs that they should eat at home, and not come hun=- 
 gry to the sacrament. 
 
 Paed. The words of the apostle were only intended 
 
210 
 
 to clieck abuses which had crept into the church in ce- 
 lebrating- this ordinance, but they do not disprove the 
 fact, that the primitive christians partook of the Lord's 
 supper as a meal — or that it was celebrated in the even- 
 i??^, and in a reclining- posture. Yet the Baptists, to 
 whom the mode of observing an ordinance is every 
 tltins;^ without the least sanction from the word of God, 
 venture to differ as far as possible from apostolic ex- 
 ample, and then turn about and lash their fellow ser- 
 vants, and exclude them frotu their Master's table, be- 
 cause they neglect a mode of administering baptism, 
 which has no more authority from the word of God 
 than the use of holy water by the papists. The mode 
 is every thing, although the Baptists, forsooth, are the 
 only spiritual christians who, rejecting- all forms and 
 modes, attend simply and solely to the spirituality of 
 the gospel ! Still, the mode is- every thing. For neither 
 the piety of the administrator of baptism — the purity 
 of the motive that dictates its observance — the deep 
 devotion of the candidate — the presence and blessing of 
 Christ himself on the institution — has the least weight 
 ill the judgment or ciiarity of a Baptist, unless the 
 fjuantity of water has been used, and used in a certain 
 Avay — unless the candidate has been popped clothes and 
 all under the water and out of it again, he must be ex- 
 cluded from the Lord's table, as a heathen man and a 
 publican ! Such is not onlv the value of the water, 
 but of the manner in which it is applied ; that weVe 
 water to be sprinkled or poured upon one of the bright- 
 est ornaments of the" gospel, until his body became as 
 saturated with the sacred wave, as they say 2sebuchad- 
 nezzar's was with the dew, who, by the bye, if drench- 
 ed with dew, was much wetter than Baptists are made 
 by tlie momentary popping of clothes and all into the 
 baptistry, yet, were another apostle to be thus drench- 
 ed by sprinkling- or pouring, still, his more pious and 
 spiritual biethren could not admit him to sit at the same 
 table with them, uiiless he had been plunoed under the 
 water ! In some cases we find the half sanctified Paj- 
 dubaptisls are put to sit at a separate table, not being 
 
211 
 
 worthy to sit at the same hoard with those whose reli- 
 gion has been perfected by water ! For, be it remem- 
 bered, the only reason that the Baptist has to say to 
 his brother " sit by thyself, and come not near me,' for 
 I am holier than thou," arises solely from the circum- 
 stance of his having- been under the water ! This su- 
 perior sanctification is, therefore, only a water sancti- 
 fication. The defiled, rejected brother, may have as 
 much faith, hope, love, purity, &c. as the Baptist — 
 may have, and may yield as many proofs of being- a 
 child of God — yea, if pouring- was the mode adopted 
 in his baptism, may have been literally wetter in per- 
 son than the one wiio has undergone a momentary dip- 
 ping ; yet he must not sit at the Lord's table at all, 
 or else sit at a separate table, unless he has been im- 
 mersed ! Who would believe that these very Baptists, 
 in the other sacrament, dared, without a single ajwstolic 
 example — without the least aid from critics or lexico- 
 graphers, (their favourite authorities) — to change the 
 time, manner, and even quantity of food, used in cele- 
 brating the Lord's supper? Or, could any one suppose 
 that they even ventured to call their brethren papists, 
 for their being too scrupulous about modes and forms? 
 
 Bap. Your mode of reasoning would "not nullify 
 language only, but render some of the most important 
 doctrines incapable of proof from the language of scrip- 
 ture, [n this manner we might undertake to prove, 
 that because the prancing of a horse is called />/?/7z^-/«g, 
 therefore plunging does not mean immersion onli/ : or, 
 because a slight and cursory view^ of a subject is called 
 dipping into it, therefore dipping does not mean im- 
 mersion only : or, because a machine for letting down 
 water upon the head is called a shower-bath, therefore 
 bathing does not mean immersion only : or, because 
 excessive grief is expressed by heins; droivned in tears, 
 therefore drowning does not mean immersion only : or, 
 because a person in a violent perspiration is said to be 
 immersed, therefore immersion does not mean immersion 
 ■only'" ! Page 54. 
 
 Peed. Doubtless, this is very splendid reasoning ; 
 
•212 
 
 the only fault of it is, that it proves the very thing- that 
 it was intended to disprove. Every one knows that 
 neither plunging, dipping, bathing, drowning, nor even 
 immersion, necessarily signifies a total submersion of any 
 body in water ; and to suppose, that iu the instances 
 adduced this is the case, would be the height of absur- 
 dity. Will Mr. Waterman assert, that the plunging of 
 a horse really means the total immersion of his body in 
 water, or in any thing else ? And if the word is used 
 when a total immersion is not intended, then phuiging 
 does not alwaifs mean an immersion. And, surely, he 
 has not the temerity to affirm that'; " dipping into a 
 subject — being sprinkled with a shower-bath — being 
 drowned in tears — or immersed in perspiration," mean 
 the same thing as plunging a person for a second over 
 head and ears in water ! Why, there is not one of these 
 words, taken alone, that signifies what Baptists wish 
 them to express ! Our Lord's garments were dipped 
 (in the Greek, baptized) in blood ; but this does not 
 imply that his garment had been totally immersed in 
 blood, or was bloody from the top throughout. The 
 living bird, scarlet wool, cedar wood, and hyssop, were 
 rfip/j<?(/ (baptized) in the blood of the slain bird ; but, 
 iu this instance, a total immersion, for which Baptists 
 contend, was impossible. Lazarus was to dip, baptize, 
 his finger in water ; the priest was to dip, baptize, his 
 finger in blood ; yet, in neither is a total immersion of 
 even the whole finger intended. Indeed, nothing is so 
 partial as dipping. To dip into a subject is to give it 
 scarcely any attention at all. Nothing is more evident, 
 also, than that bathing drowning, and even immersion 
 itself, do not always signify a total immersion. How 
 many a person has been bathed or drowned, without a 
 total submersion of his whole body. And often is it 
 said that a person is immersed, although it is never in- 
 tended to intimate that he w as sunk over head and 
 ears in water. Of course, all these remarks are irre- 
 levant, because the controversy is not concerning the 
 meaning of the English words dipping, bathing, Sec, 
 but concerning the Greek words hapto and haptizo. 
 
213 
 
 Still, as Mr. Waterman chose to be a little witty on 
 these terms, it was worth while to show that even his 
 English criticis7n can furnish no aid to his cause. 
 
 Bap. " The adversaries of the atonement, &c. 
 proceed in this very way that you adopt. It may be 
 said, that the term everlasting does not mean unlimit- 
 ed duration only ; that the word grace does not al- 
 ways mediW favour to the unworthyy because the grace 
 of God was upon Christ, to whom no unworthiness 
 could attach — and that the word sacrifice does not al- 
 ways signify an atonement." Page 55. 
 
 Paed. The adversaries of divine truth have always 
 adopted Mr. Waterman's mode of neglecting the con- 
 text, or the general tenour of the word of God. The 
 term everlasting does not in every text signify unli* 
 mited duration — the term sacrifice does not always 
 mean an atonement — nor does the word grace always 
 imply favour to the w?iz(JoriAy.— What then must guide 
 us in these circumstances ? not the lexicons — not the 
 critics — or the fathers — but the context, and a diligent 
 comparison of the doubtful expression with the design 
 of the writer and the general analogy of faith. This 
 is what Baptists neglect — but what Pxdobaptists di- 
 ligently observe. Which of the two parties act like 
 the schoolboy, who takes for his translation the first 
 word that occurs in the lexicon — and which, like the 
 critic, the scholar or student of truth, we leave learn- 
 ed Baptists to determine ; but the least consideration 
 will show, that Mr. AYaterman's reasoning from the 
 words grace, sacrifice, and everlasting, is the most un- 
 felicitous argument for his theory that could have been 
 produced. Surely he does not mean to say that these 
 words have always one meaning — that the lexicons, 
 rather than the context, are to settle their signification— 
 or, that because they have more than one legitimate 
 signification, therefore bapto and baptizo have but 
 one signification ! What dreadful havoc this would 
 make of his orthodoxy ! 
 
 Bap. " If we allow your mode of reasoning, it 
 cannot be proved that any person was so much as in 
 e2 
 
214 
 
 the water ; neither on these principles can any other 
 truth be proved, however clearly revealed in the word 
 of God. This is a course of proceeding- that will ne- 
 ver be sanctioned by pious and reflecting minds, who 
 are not swayed by the influence of custom or popular 
 feeling." Page 55. 
 
 Paid. Our system of interpretation, sir, allows the 
 word of God to settle the signification of the terms 
 it employs, and consequently gives to each expression 
 a scriptural latitude. To affirm that such a proceeding 
 will unsettle the meaning of holy writ, is to assert 
 that divine inspiration cannot bear a rational and scrip- 
 tural interpretation. On the contrary, the mode of 
 reasoning adopted by the Baptists would be favour- 
 able to every description of error. B}^ affixing one 
 signification to words, in whatever connexion they may 
 be used, would undermine every doctrine of the gos- 
 pel. Take, for example, the very words sacrifice, 
 grace, and everlasting, and give to them/u'-s one mean- 
 ings wherever they may be found. To say that sa- 
 crifice always means an atonement would place alms- 
 giving on a par with the substitution of Christ ! To 
 say that the terra grace every where signifies favour 
 to the unworthy would imply that the Son of God 
 was a sinner, for it is declared that " the grace of 
 God was upon him." And, to maintain that the word 
 everlasting always refers to unlimited duration, would 
 intimate that the Jewish dispensation is to be perpe- 
 tuated, not only to the end of time, but through eter- 
 nity ; for this very term, or its Hebrew equivalent, is 
 frequently applied to the Levitical economy. And 
 were even the word bapto or bapti<«o to be always 
 translated by his favourite words dip, plunge, immerse, 
 bathe, or bury, many a beautiful sentiment of holy 
 writ would be rendered truly ridiculous. As, therefore, 
 Paedobaptists allow scripture to guide them in the in- 
 terpretation of baptism, their mode of reasoning must 
 be correct ; and, consequently, as Mr. Waterman ad- 
 mits, " it cannot be proved that any person baptized 
 by John, or the apostles, was so much as in the water." 
 
215 
 
 Bap. " Your method of interpretation involves Pae- 
 dobaptisra in uncertainty. See what a number of words 
 the editor of Calmet's dictionary makes synonymous 
 with baptism." Page 56. 
 
 Peed. And yet Baptists, in spite of their own mode, 
 as proved already, give many more significations to bapto 
 and baptizo than do their opponents. 
 
 Bap. " I forbear to enlarge upon the incongruities 
 which are the natural results of 3Jr. Taylor':* princi- 
 ples. But I should not wonder to hear that our breth- 
 ren, fond of variety, should adopt either ' giving, 
 filling, sending down, breathing, anointing,' ike. as 
 well as pouring or sprinkling in baptism." Page 5G. 
 Pad. Asa merry retort, it may be replied, that as 
 our Baptist brethren are sometimes fond of even a 
 greater variety than the Paedobaptists, we shall not be 
 surprised if they adopt Dr. Cox's meaning of baptism, 
 and put their candidates into a " state of repletioji,^' 
 by making them drink most copiously of the sacred 
 stream. Or, rather, if adopting their favourite term 
 *' burf^ they should actually put their candidates in- 
 to a cotfin, and bury them in a grave instead of a bap- 
 tistry ! The latter mode being much more solemn than 
 that of dipping. 
 
 Bap. " Ah, sir, I pity the mariner whose bark is 
 tossed with the tempest, when bereft of his anchor, 
 and exposed to dangerous rocks ; but I grieve more 
 for hini who is led by some extraordinary influence to 
 abandon the guidance of truth, which is the chart of 
 heaven and the revelation of the divine will." Page 57. 
 Pied. Whether Baptists or Paedobaptists most 
 resemble the hapless mariner, and poor wretched he- 
 retic whom Mr. AYaterman so pathetically bewails, 
 may be gathered from the fact, that in fifty-four closely 
 printed pages, very few te^vts of scripture have been 
 quoted, and not one has been advanced which estab- 
 lishes the theory advocated ; but, in the same space 
 human authorities, some of them of the most objection- 
 able character, have been quoted upwards of one hun- 
 dred times ! Paedobaptists would spurn such profane 
 
210 
 
 aid — to them, and to their system, the bible is all-suf- 
 ficient. 'Tis the Baptist, if this '' cheap desideratum" 
 for that denomination is correct, who is anchorless, 
 chartless, and weather-beaten, because, by " some ex- 
 traordinary influence, he has abandoned the guidance 
 of truth— the revelation of the divine will"— and allow- 
 ed himself to be tossed to and fro by the winds of hu- 
 man opinion or prejudice. As Mr. W. then grieves 
 over his poor brethren who take the sound principles 
 of revelation for their guide, they may justly turn to 
 him, and say, " Weep not for us, but for yourself and 
 your children." By the bye, this patch of pathos, ta- 
 ken in connexion with the burst of levity which im- 
 mediately precedes it, shows, in a very striking man- 
 ner, the diff'erent and opposite emotions which swelled 
 the writer's breast when composing his cheap deside- 
 ratum for Baptists ; for, in the same breath, he both 
 sports with his opponents, as the wildest enthusiasts, 
 and deeply wails their condition as heretics, who aban- 
 don the guidance of revelation. 
 
 Bap. " The admirable reynarks of llobinson may 
 be contrasted with the astonishing notions of Taylor." 
 The former observes, '* whether John the Baptist or 
 the apostles baptized by pouring on water, or by 
 bathing in water, is to be determined chiefly, though 
 not icholly, by the meaning of the word baptizo. The 
 word is confessedly Greek, and native Greeks must 
 understand their own words better than foreigners, and 
 they have always baptized by immersion. This is an 
 authority for the meaning of the word baptizo injinitely 
 preferable to that of lexicographers — in this case the 
 Greeks are unexceptionable guides." Page 57. 
 
 Pted. To call these remarks of Robinson admira- 
 ble, is one of those eminent lapsus mentis for which this 
 desideratum is notorious. To " baptize by immersion, 
 because the Greeks doj' ought never to have been 
 printed in a book which professes to appeal solely to 
 scripture precedents ! But the Baptists are as far from 
 following the Greeks as they are from the plain scrip- 
 tural meaning of baptism. The Greeks dip infants three 
 
217 
 
 times, and tlien pour wafer upon them. The word bap- 
 tism, therefore, conveys to them the idea of !X pouring 
 and of a triple immersion. And, says 3lr. W . the 
 Greeks must be better authorities than the lexicogra- 
 phers ! The Greeks also admit that spriuklinn' is bap- 
 tism, and therefore do not rebaptize persons who join 
 their church from other communions, although they 
 have been merely sprinkled. It has been declared by 
 an eye witness that they do not baptize adult converts 
 by immersion, but by pouring only — and the Greeks 
 are '* authorities infiyiitely preferable io European lexi- 
 cographers." I The Greeks, ioo, must understand the 
 word (oikos) a house, far better than Europeans, but 
 the Greeks conclude that oikos si<rnities •dfami/i/ includ- 
 ing unconscious babes, and taking the word in this 
 signification, they baptize infants. Xow, " to do as 
 the Greeks do,'' saith Mr. Robinson, is to follow the 
 most " unexceptionable guides, for their practice in 
 the case of baptism is safe ground for action." ! And 
 if the Greeks are such " unexceptionable guides," 
 why not follow them in other things, as well as in 
 the practice of dipping • Why not dip three times, and 
 then pour water upon those who are baptized ? Why 
 not follow their meaning of oikos, a house or family , 
 and baptize infants ? Why not take their signification 
 of Episcopus, a bishop, of diakonos, a deacon, of 
 Presbuteros, an elder, dec. 1 ^Vhat naughty words 
 Mr. Waterman would have used if his opponents had 
 appealed to the Greeks to establish infant baptism-r? 
 episcopal government-i-or the adoration of angels, &c. 
 He would have declared that the Greeks are ignorant 
 and superstitious to an extreme — that they do not under- 
 stand ancient Greek at all — and that it is worse than 
 popish to fly to such a corrupt, degenerate people for 
 arguments. Thus, in this cheap desideratum, the bible 
 is selected as a guide, and then it is abandoned — cri- 
 tics are selected, then abandoned^-lexicographers se- 
 lected, then abandoned — the fathers selected, then 
 abandoned — Pa^dobaptists selected, then abandoned — • 
 lastly, as the most " unexceptionable guides,'' the 
 
218 
 
 Grreks are selected, and then abandoned ! Yet, this 
 pathetic author " pities the mariner," &c. Page 57. 
 
 Bap. But " it is highly important that the pious 
 should form correct and definite notions of the mode of 
 ])aptisni ; because, if they mistake here, they obey not 
 the command of the Redeemer, but observe a human 
 invention." Pao-e 58. 
 
 Pasd. Pious Psedobaptists have as definite and cor- 
 rect notions of this ordinance as their brethren, and 
 much jrreater countenance from the word of God. Still, 
 sir, as in the Baptist system mode is every thing-, must 
 it not appear strang-e, that, of all the exercises of re- 
 liij-ion, baptism is the only ordinance in which mode is 
 tiie alj)ha and omega ? If, notwithstanding the strict 
 spirituality of the gospel, for which Baptists so strenu- 
 ously contend, still mode is every thing, what a wonder 
 that the mode of praj/er — of preaching — of receiving 
 the Lord's supper — should have been passed over by 
 our brethren, as matters of perfect indifference ! For 
 there must be as great a natural connexion between the 
 manner of praying, preaching, and receiving the sacra- 
 ment, and the spiritual character of those exercises, as 
 there is between the mode and the spiritual character of 
 baptism. But, if a person attends to these services in 
 spirit and in truths the mode is admitted by Baptists 
 themselves to be immaterial, although much more evi- 
 dence can be obtained from the word of God respecting 
 the mode in which our Lord and his apostles observed 
 tiiese duties than can be collected concerning immersion. 
 Srill, in the latter ordinance only is the mode said to be 
 essential to a due performan.^e. Here, so important is 
 it deemed, that if a hypocrite were baptized, and, after 
 a long course of deception and iniquity, became a pious 
 man, r^baptism would be deemed unnecessary, merely 
 because the dire mode was supposed to have been ob- 
 served. On the contrary, were a man, as holy as the 
 patriarch Abraham, to be baptized by sprinkling, and 
 were the ordinance observed with all the spirituality of 
 a glorified spirit, the Baptists would protest that the 
 sacrament was void, because their mode was not attended 
 
219 
 
 to. In the former case, there was no devotion, no piety; 
 but there was the mode, and the mode is eiiouo-h ! Jn 
 the latter, there may have been all the spirituality which 
 the o:ospel demands ; but the mode was not that of the 
 Greek church, and the ordinance is therefore useless ! 
 Yet the Baptists are so spiritual, that they, beyond all 
 other christians, disregard modes and forms ! 
 
 Bap. It is the Redeemer's mode, and not a form of 
 human invention, for which we contend. 
 
 Peed. Never can you prove that Christ was baptized 
 with his clothes on, or inmiersed in any form at all — 
 never can you prove that John or the apostles dipped 
 persons, clothes and all, or that they dipped a shiisfe 
 individual. The ?node adopted by the Baptists is purely 
 of human invention, and is without the least sanctioii 
 from the word of God. 
 
 Bap. " Christian baptism is connected with peculiar 
 felicity.'* Mr. Waterman " adverts to the hallowed sea- 
 son, as the most interesting epoch in his religious liis- 
 tory." Page 58. 
 
 Paed. AVhat ! More interesting- than when he first 
 experienced the power of divine grace, or rejoiced in a 
 crucified Saviour — more interesting than silting at the 
 Lord's table — more interesting than prayer, communion 
 with God, or the preaching of the gospel ? Certainly 
 Mr. Waterman may have a peculiar affinity for the wa- 
 ter, and therefore the very partial application of it to 
 his body, when he was dipped, may have afforded him 
 the highest felicity. Still, the terrors that thousands 
 have experienced at the thought of be'inu: immersed, 
 and the hundreds that have fainted under the operation, 
 could be adduced as a counter argument to this feli- 
 citous one of your friend. It may also be added, tliat 
 if great pleasure m the observance of modes and forms 
 be a solid argument for its divine origin, then the plea- 
 surable experience of papists, pagans, and Turks, 
 might be pleaded in favour of almost every ceremony 
 that superstition has invented. 
 
 Bap. You have said that the mode adopted 'oy 
 Baptists has no sanction from the word of God. Bat 
 
220 
 
 " the circumstances connected with the baptisms re- 
 corded in the new testament afford a circumstantial 
 proot" in favour of immersion, and they cannot be ra- 
 tionally explained upon the supposition of sprinkling' 
 or pouring. John, you read, ' baptized in Jordan,* 
 which was the chief river of Palestine — * they were 
 all baptized of him in the river Jordan' — ' John bap- 
 tized in ^non, because there was much water there'— 
 * Jesus was baptized of John in Jordan, and straightway 
 came up out of the water.' 8uch phraseology must 
 favour immersion — for with what propriety can it be said 
 that John sprinkled in Jordan?" Page 59. 
 
 Paed. Not one of these passages yields even cir- 
 cumstantial evidence that a single person was immer- 
 sed ! Nothing can be more trifling than to lay stress 
 on the fact of the ** much water, '^ either of Jordan 
 or of ^non, because the Baptists themselves, 
 when speaking of the baptism of the three thousand 
 on the day of Pentecost, admit that '* much water'^ 
 is not necessary for the immersion of a multitude. The 
 ** much icater" here referred to was requisite tor the 
 people to drink, and not for their baptism. It is said 
 that John at first *' baptized in the wilderness,'' but 
 finding all Jerusalem and Judea come to him, he moved 
 to a spot where the people might be supplied with 
 water. In those warm countries, it is well known that 
 •water is a chief necessary of life, and the multitudes 
 who came to John, and probably stayed with him for 
 days together to enjoy the benefits of his ministry, 
 would have suffered the greatest privations if he had 
 not chosen a spot where there was " jnuch tvater.'' 
 Common humanity, then, dictated to John to select a 
 place where the people might suffer as little inconve- 
 nience as possible. In 2 Chron. 22. 4, it is said that 
 Hezekiah stopped the fountains, c^c. lest Senacherib 
 should come and " find much water.'' These streams 
 were not needed by the King of Assyria to baptize 
 his army with, but for his troops to drink ; and to 
 cut oft' the supply of water, was deemed the most ef- 
 fectual mode of defeating his purposes, for without 
 
221 
 
 " much water'^ his soldiers must die, and without 
 much water to drink, kc, the multitudes who came to 
 John must have been exposed to the greatest suffering's. 
 To lay emphasis on the terms *' iii Jordan" is also 
 useless. The preposition en, in, may just as well be 
 translated " a^ or with,'''' for when it is said that John 
 baptized " in the wilderness," or *' i7i JEnon,'' no 
 one supposes that the icilderness or jEnon intimates 
 the material he used in baptizing, or that the people 
 were dipped into iEnon, or into the wilderness I AH 
 that the texts assert is, that John baptized the people 
 at the Jordan, or with the water of Jordan. And 
 though it is said " our Lord came up out of the wa- 
 ter," it would be just as good a translation of the Greek 
 terms to say, he " came from the w^ater." Mr. Wa- 
 terman's quotations, then, give no countenance to im- 
 mersion. And even should we allow that the people 
 stood in the water, it does not follow that they were 
 plunged under it. The disciples of John at the pre- 
 sent day baptize by sprinkling. And there are many 
 difficulties in the way of supposing that John baptized 
 by immersion. Did he baptize the people naked? 
 This would have been indelicate. Did he baptize them 
 with their clothes on ? This would have been an un- 
 heard of mode of purifying — besides, we may justly 
 question whether numbers who came to him had a change 
 of raiment. These difficulties all disappear, if the in- 
 terpretation of Psedobaptistsbe adopted. John select- 
 ed a spot where there was " much water," that the 
 multitudes might not suffer from thirst — his baptism 
 was deemed a " purijicatioyi'" — John was a Jewish 
 priest accustomed to purifications hy sprinkling — and 
 adopting this mode, so common to the law, he neither 
 indelicately exposed their persons, nor rendered the 
 want of a change of raiment an inconvenience. 
 
 Bap. Then you would say that he " sprinkled" " i/i 
 J or dan:' \ Page 59. 
 
 Peed. The terms " in, at, or icith Jordan," are 
 elliptical, and must mean in, at, or with the water of 
 Jordan. Now we see no absurdity in the expression, 
 f2 
 
222 
 
 he sprinkled the people at, or with, the water of Jor- 
 dan. But, if we allow God's word to guide us in inter- 
 preting the expressions, we shall say, that " John bap- 
 tized or purified the people icith the water of Jordan." 
 Still, if Mr. Waterman wishes to have a little sport 
 with the phraseology of his opponents, we have John 
 the dipper — John the washer — John the dyer — John 
 the burier — or John the sexton— as a Rowland for his 
 Oliver. 
 
 Bap. But '* no administrator of infant baptism (I use 
 the ter?}i here only in courtesy, not that I admit its 
 propriety) chooses to perform the ceremony in a river- 
 no, my friend, he is wise enough to know that a little 
 water is all that is requisite, and he orders it to be 
 brought to him." Page 59. 
 
 Paed. Thanks to Mr. Waterman for his courteous 
 behaviour. He is a very courteous gentleman, and his 
 book a most courteous book ! Still, this flash of cour- 
 tesy is lost by being out of place. A Baptist ought 
 never to have uttered such a sentence, knowing, as he 
 does, that it is purely out of courtesy that other deno- 
 minations tolerate their arrogant title of " Baptists.'' 
 To that appellation they have not so much claim as 
 their brethren, because they administer the ordinance 
 in a very limited degree. The term Anabaptist is their 
 proper title, although the courtesy of their opponents 
 prevents the use of that obnoxious epithet. To the 
 argument of this sentence it may be replied, that " no 
 administrator of adult baptism goes to a river because 
 there is much water. No, my friend ; he is tvise enoiigh 
 to know that a little water is all that is requisite, and 
 therefore he orders it to be brought to a litt/e baptistry. 
 Peter, when he says, * Can any one forbid water, that 
 these should not be baptized ?' — intimates that it was 
 not unusual to have the water brought, even in apos- 
 tolic days. Whether it was brought in a basin, or to 
 a baptistry, we leave Baptists to decide ; certain it is, 
 that the whole process adopted by our opponents is far 
 more effective in rendering ' the usual lanouage of the 
 sacred volume obsolete and unintelligible,'' than the 
 
223 
 
 mode employed by Paedobaptists, * The practice of 
 the Baptists is neither similar to that of John, nor that 
 of the apostles, which, Mr. W. says, is powerful evi- 
 dence against the system.' " Page 59. 
 
 Bap. *' Calvin, Abbe Houteville, Grotius, and Dr. 
 Towerson, admit that both John and Philip baptized 
 by immersion." pp. 59, 60. 
 
 Poed. And other men, quite as learned as either of 
 these gentlemen, believe that they did not. But when 
 in the world will you cease from appealing to human 
 opinion for the settling of this point ? Paedobaptists 
 are not guided by such fallible authority; they rest 
 their system on the pure word of God. 
 
 Bap. Why did the eunuch and Philip *' go down 
 into the water, except for some purpose ? Allowing 
 that Philip baptized him while in the water, which the 
 historian asserts, and that by immersion, we perceive 
 the propriety of their conduct." Page 60. 
 
 Paed. The historian does not assert that they went 
 into the water, but only that they went to the water. 
 No proof can ever be produced to show that either of 
 them touched the water with their feet — much less, that 
 they were totally immersed. 
 
 Bap. Never was there a more glaring misrepre- 
 sentation of any passage than is seen of this in Dr. 
 Dwight's discoures on baptism. He asserts that 
 Philip was plunged twice and the eunuch three times. 
 Is it possible to read such a gross sophism, such a 
 flagrant violation of known principles, without indig- 
 nation ?" Page 60. 
 
 Pad. Mr. Waterman is not the first person who 
 has been "indignant" at seeing his arguments reduced 
 to an absurdity, and particularly so when it has been done 
 in a legitimate manner, so that the absurdity is inevit- 
 able from the premises. This is exactly the case in 
 the present instance. Never was there a mjre cor- 
 rect deduction from admitted principles than the one 
 of Dr. Dwight, w hich has made your friend so an- 
 gry. The Doctor argues from the premises laid down 
 by Baptists, and from their " mode'' of construing 
 
224 
 
 the words in question. The arguments stand thus :— 
 
 Baptists say, that to go into the water proves that 
 the persons who did so were immersed ! Philip and 
 the eunuch went down into the water — therefore Phi- 
 lip and the eunuch were both immersed ! 
 
 To baptize, say the Baptists, is to immerse the whole 
 body. Philip baptized the eunuch — therefore the 
 eunuch was totally immersed. To come up out o/tlie 
 water, say the Baptists, proves that the persons have 
 been totally immersed. Philip and the eunuch came 
 tip out of the water, therefore Philip and the eunuch 
 were immersed ! But, as the immersion of the eunuch 
 took place between the first going into the water, or 
 first immersion of Philip and the nobleman, and their 
 coming up out of the water, or their second immersion, 
 Philip must have been dipped twice, and the Ethiopian 
 convert three times. It may be almost pardonable for 
 a gentleman, or even a christian, to lose his temper at 
 seeing such an exposure of his splendid reasoning.— 
 Still, if going into the tcater means immersion — if com- 
 ing out of the ivater implies immersion — if between 
 these two immersions one of the persons immersed the 
 other— Dr. Dwight's conclusion from the arguments of 
 his opponents is as just as any demonstration of Eu- 
 clid. Your friend, therefore, ought not to be indig- 
 nant at Dr. Dwight, but at the Baptists, who have 
 laid down as an axiom that the prepositions '* into, 
 and out of,'' imply a total immersion. For if the pre- 
 mises and conclusions are incorrect, then no argument 
 can be drawn from the baptism of the eunuch in fa- 
 vour of immersion. 
 
 Bap. " But why say they H'ent down and came up 
 from the water if they did not go into it ? Besides, 
 Dr. Doddridge has observed that the eunuch must have 
 had water enough with him for the ordinance if it had 
 been administered by sprinkling." Page (31. 
 
 Paed. It might have been a well or a fountain to 
 which they came; and to obtain water thence, it was 
 necessary to descend and ascend a declivity. Nothing 
 in favour of immersion can therefore be gathered from 
 
ti "Jo 
 
 that circumstance. The conjecture of Doddrulge is 
 ecpially useless. The road from Egypt to Syria in the 
 days of Jacob had been so much fiequtnted, and so 
 well supplied with inns, that it was unnecessary for the 
 traveller to encumber himself with water. Tliere were 
 inns on that road in the days of tlie patriarchs, ami the 
 intercourse between the Israelites and the f^liiyptians, 
 during- the ao:es of David, Solonjon, the Antioclii, the 
 Ptolemies, and the Komans, must have rendered that 
 road the most convenient for travelling of any in the 
 East. The conjecture of Doddridge is, then, without 
 any foundation. Besides, if the nobleman did carry 
 water about with him, it is just as likely that it was all 
 gone as that he had any at this time. This might be 
 the fountain at which they were gone to replenish. It 
 is really surprizing that Baptists should perpetually 
 have recourse to suppositions which never cati be veri- 
 fied, and yet boast that their system rests upon the 
 plainest declarations of the word of God. 
 
 Bap. But it is expressly said that it was a " desert'' 
 through which the eunuch was passing. 
 
 Paed. The sacred narrative mentions no such thing ; 
 it merely says that Philip was to go on the road lead- 
 ing from Jerusalem to Gaza, which is desert, meaning 
 the old city of Gaza, which was then in ruins ; a fact 
 mentioned by Strabo, who was almost contemporary with 
 St. Luke, and who uses the very term ere/tios, desert, 
 employed in the Acts of the Apostles, concerning this 
 very Gaza. The eunuch, then, was on the Gaza road, 
 or the road for old Gaza, now in ruins ; but he may 
 not have been a couple of miles from Jerusalem, for 
 Philip was to overtake him, and after leaving him, al- 
 though he rode with him a considerable way, was found 
 at Azotus, a place much nearer Jerusalem than Gaza ; 
 there w as then not the least occasion for the nobleman 
 to load his baggage w ith water at this early part of his 
 journey. For even Gaza, in ruins, if he passed through 
 it, which is quite uncertain, might hove its inn for the 
 traveller. Yet, strange to say, jMr. Waterman blusters 
 about Dr. Dvvight, and boasts of Dr. Doddridge's 
 wonderful conjecture; and thenjunips to this con- 
 
226 
 
 elusion, " Such is the decisive character of the ar- 
 gument derived from this source in favour of immer- 
 sion, and it appears evident that all were thus bap- 
 tized by the apostles," page 61. Jumping over the 
 moon is but a flea-leap compared with this exultation 
 of the author. For, without a particle of evidence, 
 he decides that the eunuch was dipped, and then from 
 the unfounded assumption that one was immersed, 
 waxes bold, and atHrms that all were submersed, al- 
 though the scriptures tell us that there were divers 
 baptisms 1 ! 
 
 Bap. INlr. Waterman confesses that he is not one 
 who rests a christian institute upon a preposition, still 
 their obvious import, when construed with the active 
 Terb baptize, ought to be considered. In defiance of 
 the criticism of our opponents, 1 must maintain that 
 such is their true signification as rendered by our 
 translators. \\ hen it is said, " The righteous go into 
 (eis) life eternal," will Peedobaptists affirm that the 
 righteous go to eternal li:e, but not into the actual en- 
 joyment of it ? And the prepositions ek and apo pro- 
 perly signify " out o/." " I saw a beast," says John, 
 *' rise out of (ek) the sea." pp. 61, 62. 
 
 Fsed. But these criticisms and conclusions, like Mr. 
 Waterman's other arguments, are destitute of any weight 
 whatever. The question is not. Do these prepositions 
 sometimes signify " into and out of f' — but, have they 
 alirai/s this signification, and this signification alone f 
 If they have not, the argument is lost. Now the 
 best scholars among the Baptists have admitted that 
 they cannot ahvays bear this translation, and therefore 
 have decided that they are of no authority in the con- 
 troversy. Our translators, to whom Mr. V^\ appeals, 
 are of the same opinion ; for, instead of always ren- 
 dering eis, apo, and ek, by the terms into and out q/, 
 they liave used " to or unto"' Jive hundred times, as the 
 equivalent of eis — three hundred times at least they 
 have employed '■^ from'''' for apo — and nearly tioo hun- 
 dred times have they adopted the same term '^fro?n,'' 
 as a proper translation for ek ! Indeed to have em- 
 
00- 
 
 ployed ** ififo and out of,'' in every place in which eis, 
 apo, orek are found, would not only have rendered the 
 scriptures unintelligible, but have countenanced almost 
 every absurdity and heresy. Satan led our Lord (eis) 
 into an exceeding" high mountain — Does this mean that 
 he immersed our Lord in the mountain ? The servant 
 fell at (eis) into the feet of his fellow servant — was he 
 immersed into his feet ? Can it be said that the Israel- 
 ites were dipped (eis) into Moses ? This would con- 
 tradict the other part of the narrative, which declares 
 that they were baptized not into Moses, but (en) " in 
 the cloud, and (en) in the sea." How absurd would it 
 appear to read. Flee, a|K), out o/the wrath to come — - 
 come, apo, out of the cross — depart, apo, 021 1 of me, 
 ye workers of iniquity — the angel Gabriel departed, 
 apo, out of her ! He agreed with them, ek, out of a 
 penny— Christ arose, ek, out 0/ the supper — had there 
 been an immersion in the penny or the suppper ? Swear 
 not, en, by heaven, does that signify swear not, en, in 
 heaven ? How futile, then, is it for Mr. Waterman to 
 lay any emphasis upon these prepositions, or to appeal 
 to the translators of the English bible ! Lexicographers, 
 critics, translators, and more than all, the context and 
 common sense mhundreds of instances are against him. 
 
 Bap. But Mr. Waterman speaks of these pre}K»- 
 sitions in connexion with the active verb baptize, and 
 you allow that the context may settle the meaning of 
 a term when lexicographers, &c. cannot. 
 
 Paed. I know that your friend speaks of these terms 
 being " construed with the active verb baptize ;'' but 
 then, unfortunately, there is not a single example of 
 such a construction in the -whole Greek testament. The 
 preposition eis, into, never follows the active verb 
 baptizo, either in the gospels or epistles, where there 
 is any reference to baptism by water. Mr. W^aterraan, 
 therefore, made this assertion without examination, 
 and took it for granted that his readers would be as 
 negligent as himselt". Perhaps he was led into the con- 
 jecture by wishing to prove more than enough ; for, if 
 the word baptize signihes an immersion, what need is 
 
22B 
 
 \ho\e of the adtlitioii of any of tliese prepositions ? To 
 baptize into water must be supertiuous, because bap- 
 tism of itself, say the Baptists, signifies a total im- 
 mersion. ^Vhy encumber the word with such addi- 
 tions, unless some doubt existed of its import when 
 standing- alone ? The same may be said in reference 
 to apn, and ek, for in the new testament the active 
 verb baptize is not construed with them, nor indeed 
 could any Baptist wish it to be so. To baptize a per- 
 son out of the water would be rather a remarkable ex- 
 pression. Mr. Waterman when he was baptized was 
 not washed out of the water — plunged out of the 
 water — dipped out of the water — or buried out of the 
 water. Our friend would hardly like to adopt such 
 language, for as ek, out of, sometimes signifies ivith- 
 out, see Jam. 2, 18, and as apo is frequently used for 
 ek, to baptize out of water might mean to baptize 
 ivithout it ! And by appealing to the septuagint no- 
 thing will be gained; for, in that translation, where 
 eis and apo are used in connexion with bapto or bap- 
 tizo, the one preposition is used for the other ; and 
 even eis, *' into,'''' is employed concerning the dipping 
 of the living bird, scarlet wool, cedar wood, and 
 hyssop, into the blood of the bird that was slain; and 
 consequently, in this instance, to baptize into blood 
 was not a total immersion, for such a submersion was 
 impossible. Thus a full examination of these prepo- 
 sitions clearly proves, that from them no argument can 
 be drawn in favour of immersion ; and, coasequently, 
 the example of the eunuch, as far as baptizo or the 
 prepositions are concerned, is just as favourable to 
 sprinkling as to dipping. 
 
 Bap. •' Would not the very same prepositions have 
 been employed by Greek writers, if the persons had 
 been in the water, and came out of it ? This is all 
 for which I contend, that the phrases are correctly 
 rendered by " going into the water and coming up out 
 of it:' PageG2. 
 
 Pacd. We also reply, ^Vould not the same prepo- 
 sitions have been used by Greek writers, if the persons 
 
229 
 
 had merely gone to the water and come from it ? This 
 is all for which we contend, that the phrases may be 
 correctly rendered *' going to the water and coming 
 from it." And this being allowed, which every scho- 
 lar must allow f the passages in question afford the Bap- 
 tist controversy no aid whatever. Nor can they, even 
 if we grant the full import of into and out of, unless it 
 can be proved that into the water and under the water 
 are phrases of similar import. It may also be affirmed, 
 that if the sacred writer had intended that they went 
 under the water, he would not have used eis, but hupo. 
 
 Bap. I wonder, sir, you have not objected to the 
 immersion of the three thousand. Dr. Dwight and 
 others have thought that it was impossible to immerse 
 so great a multitude on the same day that they were 
 converted. 
 
 Paed. The question is not. Could so great a number 
 be dipped ? but, Were they immersed 9 Of this 
 there is not a particle of evidence. Never can it be 
 proved from the word of God that one of these per- 
 sons was baptized by plunging. 
 
 Bap. ** Venema observes, * it is without contro- 
 versy that baptism in the primitive church was adminis- 
 tered by immersion.' " Page 63. 
 
 Paed. But then Venema is not the word of God, 
 and the word of God says nothing at all on the subject. 
 If " Thus saith Venema" will satisfy the Baptists, 
 Paedobaptists must have. Thus saith the Lord. 
 
 Bap. " Some opponents have asserted, that the jai- 
 lor and his family could not be immersed, because it 
 was in the night, and there was no convenient place. 
 But Alting states, that baths were common both in 
 public places and in private houses. There is a bath 
 in the jail at Calcutta." Page 64. 
 
 Psed. Here again the enquiry is not. Could they 
 be dipped ? but Were they thus baptized ? Of this the 
 sacred volume does not give us the least shadow of evi- 
 dence. It does not help the matter to tell us what 
 Alting says ; we must have chapter and verse from 
 God's word, or else we cannot believe. There might 
 g2 
 
230 
 
 be baths atPhilippi, and yet not one in the jail. Pri- 
 sons were not palaces in those days. To say there is 
 a bath in the jail in Calcutta in the year 1834 is no 
 proof that there was one in the jail at Philippi in 
 A.D. 53 ! Nor is the existence of baths in Calcutta 
 a proof that all persons in that city are baptized by 
 dipping. 
 
 Bap. " I am persuaded, that as the pious seriously 
 reflect upon christian baptism, that immersion, which 
 is becoming more common both in England and in Ameri- 
 ca, will universally prevail, and the ordinance be ob- 
 served as enjoined by Christ." Page 64. 
 
 Psed. Error frequently spreads faster than truth, 
 and if numbers were to settle the religion of mankind, 
 then all must become papists or pagans. Besides, if 
 our Lord has enjoined baptism, it is beyond the power 
 of any Baptist to prove that he has enjoined immersion. 
 Mr. Waterman has written two books upon the subject, 
 and yet has failed to produce a single proof, precept, or 
 example, in favour of dipping. 
 
 Bap. Look at the " various passages where the 
 term baptism occurs, when employed in a metaphorical 
 or allusive sense, and you will perceive that they di- 
 rectly sanction the principles I advocate. Observe the 
 language of Christ : ' I have a baptism to be baptized 
 with, and how am T straitened until it be accomplished.' 
 .Both Doddridge and Sir H. Trelawney allow that these 
 expressions intimate that our Lord was plunged into dis- 
 tress." Page 64. 
 
 Psed. Sir H. Trelawney became a papist, and if his 
 judgment ought to be followed, then Mr. Waterman 
 ought to embrace popery. But if he had not, still Pae- 
 dohaptists would neither pin their faith to him nor to 
 Doddridge. Our Lord's suff'erings are sometimes called 
 a purification. Sin was imputed to him, and by his 
 suft'erings he put it away. It would be therefore just 
 as proper to say, " I have a purification to be purified 
 with;" for, it was by his sufferings that he was conse- 
 crated and perfected as our propitiation, and in this 
 sense he was baptized with blood. Hut omitting this 
 
231 
 
 interpretation, the mode in which our Lord was bap- 
 tized in his death was different from modern immersion ; 
 and, as with the Baptists mode is the alpha and omega 
 of baptizing, no argument can be obtained from this 
 text to favour their pecuHar system ; for the mode in 
 the two cases is perfectly dissimilar. 
 
 Bap. " Paul speaks of our * being burled with 
 Christ in baptism.' Dr. Newcombe, Archbishop 
 Leighton, Bishop Hoadly, and Dr. Whitby, allow 
 that there is in the metaphor an evident allusion to the 
 ?node of baptism." pp. 64, 65. 
 
 Psed. Here we have one pvehendary, one bishop, 
 and two archbishops, brought forward to help the 
 Baptists. But if these dignitaries are such infallible 
 guides, why does not Mr. Waterman follow them in 
 their other decisions, and become an episcopalian ? 
 And he must know that there is quite as much evidence 
 that episcopacy is the doctrine of the new testament 
 as there is that the least analogy exists between an east- 
 ern burial and a modern immersion. Our Saviour's 
 body w^as not let down into the earth, but carried into 
 a cave dug out of a rock. Instead of descending, it 
 is probable that they ascended to our Lord's sepul- 
 chre. The mode, then, is so different, and in this con- 
 troversy mode is every thing, that no one but a Bap- 
 tist, hard driven for an argument, would adopt the 
 blundering commentaries of these bishops and arch- 
 bishops. In England, the terms to bury convey the 
 idea of putting a person under ground, but no such signi- 
 fication is conveyed by the burial of the Redeemer; 
 but, granted that our Lord had been interred in the 
 same manner as people are buried in our own country, 
 even then the argument must be abandoned ; because, 
 between an English burial and a modern immersion, 
 there is no similitude. People are popped under the 
 water as quick as thought, but it is rarely the case 
 that people are so hasty in committing the bodies of 
 their friends to the ground. In a funeral, too, the 
 corpse is allowed to remain in the ground, but in bap- 
 tism the persons are brought out of the water imme- 
 
232 
 
 diately. To bury and to baptize by immersion con- 
 vey to us quite different ideas. In burying:, the body 
 is merely let down, and there it remains ; but in dip- 
 ping, the body is plunged under the Mater, and then 
 brought up again. It may appear childish thus to ar- 
 gue ; but then, our brethren should not find a similitude 
 where there is none, or attempt to support their mode 
 of dipping from the ?7ioc?(? of our Lord's burial, or cA^en 
 from the manner of English funerals. Nor will it mend 
 the matter to say, that the words in question were ad- 
 dressed to Roman christians, because nothing was more 
 common in Rome than first to burn the body, and then 
 enclose the ashes in an earthen vessel, a mode which of 
 course has little analogy to dipping. 
 
 Bap. *' Dr. AVhitby says, that immersion was reli- 
 giously observed by all christians for thirteen centuries." 
 Page 65. 
 
 Paed. So the good Doctor may, yet the ipse dixit of 
 poor Whitby will never prove that the apostles immers- 
 ed a single person. On that point, the word of God 
 is silent, and Baptists will allow that the word of God 
 is as good evidence as the word of this worthy preben- 
 dary. Besides, even Baptists grant that sprinkling was 
 practised as early as the third century — the Baptists 
 and Whitby are therefore at issue ! Dr. Whitby might 
 also have added that martyrs were worshipped, and 
 many a superstition practised for thirteen centuries, 
 still, this would not demonstrate their scriptural cha- 
 racter. 
 
 Bap. " Dr. Cox judiciously observes, that in no one 
 instance is the controverted term (bapto) employed to 
 represent the communication of divine influence. The 
 phrases are, ' Except a man (gennethe) be born of 
 water' — ' When the Holy Ghost (epelthontos) is come 
 upon you' — ' I will (ekcheo) pour out my spirit' 
 — ' The Holy Ghost (epepese) fell upon them.' If 
 the reference in the allusion to the bestowment of 
 the Spirit under the figure of baptism were the mode 
 of communication, it seems inevitable tliat some one 
 of these terms would have been used in the allusive pas- 
 
233 
 
 sagfe ; but neither of them occurs, and a totally different 
 oi.e is introduced. It is expressly said, ' Ye shall be 
 baptized with the Holy Gho?t and with fire,' not, * Ye 
 shall be fallen upon,' ' poured upon,' ' come upon.' The 
 Holy Ghost, like every g-ood and perfect jj:ift,is represent- 
 ed figuratively as descending from above, yet the re- 
 sult of that communication — the state of repletion with 
 those influences is very differently described ; it is called 
 baptism.^' pp. 65, G6. 
 
 Paed. So saith Dr. Cox, but what saith the scripture? 
 Scarcely a moment's examination is requisite to show 
 that these " ;?cf/icio?f5" observations are most injudi- 
 cious ; and that nothing- could have been more injudi^ 
 cious than for Mr. Waterman to quote them. The doc- 
 tor asserts, that in ^^ no one instance'" does the term 
 baptism represent the communication of divine influence ; 
 for if the mode of communication had been intended, 
 " Ye shall be born' — ' ye shall be come upon' — ' fallen 
 upon' — ' poured upon". — would have been used ! But 
 how came the doctor to know that to " be born of the 
 Spirit" refers to the mode of communication rather than 
 to the result ? Is he sure that " coming- upon'—' pour-f 
 ing upon' — ' falling- upon" — are more descriptive of the 
 mode oi communication than the term baptize? The 
 learned doctor's ideas are very gross, and savour not a 
 little of materialism. AVe always thought that the Spi- 
 rit of God is omnipresent^ for the scriptures assure us 
 of this fact, and if that be the case, how can coming- 
 upon, &c. be a better representation of the mode of 
 communication than baptism ? Besides, the doctor is 
 wise above what is written. Christ tells us that we 
 know no more of the7wof/eof the communication of the 
 Holy Spirit than we do of the coming and going- of 
 the wind. What a pity that Nicodemus had not lived 
 in these days, and had Dr. Cox for a Rabbi, in the stead 
 of the Son of God ! Had that doctor in Israel said to 
 his brother doctor of our day, " How can these things 
 be?" his learned friend would have replied, " Ye shall 
 be born — ye shall be come upon — fallen upon — poured 
 upon." These expressions re[.resent the mode by w hitt^ 
 
234 
 
 divine influence may be communicated. And if Dr. 
 Nicodemus had asked again, 
 
 My good doctor, is not the gift of the Spirit called 
 the baptism of the Spirit? 
 
 Dr. Cox. Yes. But then there is a reference to 
 the result, and not to mode. 
 
 Dr. Nicodenius. But liow do you know that gene- 
 ration, pouring, &c. are more expressive of the mode 
 of communication than the word baptism } 
 
 Dr. Cox. Baptism means a " state of repletion.''/ 
 
 Dr. Xic. *' A state of repletion !" Certainly a 
 person may be replcted with the Spirit, but it is very 
 unusual to make repletion and baptism synonymous. 
 
 Dr. Cox. By no means. Is it not said in the sep- 
 luagint, with which you are so familiar, that Nebuchad- 
 nezzar was baptized with the dew ? There you have the 
 idea of plenitude — -he was drenched with dew. 
 
 Dr. Nic. Still, there is a difterence between drench- 
 ing and repleting. The one is external ; the other 
 internal. Repletion hardly ever occurs from drenching, 
 except when persons are drowned. Besides, you have 
 said that ''fulling upon — coming upon,'' represent the 
 jnode of the communication of the Spirit. Now the 
 dewfe/l upon, or came upon, Nebuchadnezzar : why 
 not as proper to call the actual falling of the dew a 
 baptism, and the actual outpouring of the Spirit a bap- 
 tism, as to confine that term to the result 9 
 
 Dr. Cox. Because we are said to be filled with 
 the Holy f^host, and to be filled is to be repleted, and 
 this " state of repletion is baptism." 
 
 Dr. Nic. You admit that the Spirit *' comes upon 
 \i%, IS poured, and/i^/Zs upon us ;" and I can see no 
 reason why you should prefer to call the result, ra- 
 ther than the mode, a baptism. The Jews never heard 
 of such a thing as repletion by baptism ! None of 
 our critics or lexicographers, either Greek or Hebrew, 
 give a '* state of repletion" as synonymous with bap- 
 tism ! Among the Jews, the word baptism is synony- 
 mous with purification, and we have '^divers baptisms 
 or purifications." AVe purify, or baptize, before we 
 
235 
 
 eat, by having water poured upon our hands ; and 
 Moses gave us a command to purify by sprinkling-, and 
 whatever was thus purified by sprinkling was baptized* 
 Hence the term signifies sprinkling or pouring, and is 
 employed in this sense when it is said that Nebuchad- 
 nezzar was baptized, or sprinkled, with dew. In the 
 prophets, also, God is said to " sprinkle clean water 
 upon us," and to " sprinkle many nations f by which 
 expressions he promises purification, or baptism. No* 
 thing, then, can be more arbitrary, than to call baptism 
 a state of repletion. 
 
 Dr. Cox. But people must be repleted with the 
 Spirit, in order that they may be internally purified. 
 
 Dr. Nic. So they must, in order that they may be 
 horn of the Spirit. Yet you affirm that regeneration 
 alludes to the mode, but baptism to the result of divine 
 influence 1 
 
 You perceive, sir, that the two doctors would never 
 be able to agree; for, to call baptism " repletion,'' would 
 astonish the Jewish teacher quite as much as reo^ene- 
 ration itself. And, surely, his wonderment would not 
 have been a little increased, could he have known that 
 this forced and unnatural interpretation was invented 
 to prove that baptism always means a total immersion !! 
 Baptism means a state of repletion ; yet, forsooth, it 
 always means a momentary dipping overhead and ears 
 in water ! Baptism always refers to the mode of oper- 
 ation, yet baptism does not always refer to the mode 
 of operation ! Pajdobaptists may justly conclude, with 
 the judicious doctor, " that this is a virtual conces- 
 sion.''! 
 
 Bap. *' Metaphorical expressions cannot be ex- 
 plained literally ; for who would suppose that God 
 was really * a sun,' or that Christ was ' a vine?* 
 Our brethren are aware that metaphorical language is 
 not literal description." Page 66. 
 
 Paed. All that is very true. But what if we were 
 disputing with a person who doggedly maintained that 
 the term sun always meant " a round body," and that 
 a '* vine always meant a tree loaded with branches V* 
 
230 
 
 surely it wouUl be proper to ply him with the questions, 
 — " Is God literally a circular body ?" or, " Is Christ 
 really a tree loaded with branches?'' And no alter- 
 native is left to the person interrogated, but either to 
 give a negative answer, which must be fatal to his 
 theory, or an affirmative one, which would be absurd. 
 To assert that baptism always means a total immersion, 
 or that immersion is the primary signification of the 
 term, is to set every authority, both human and divine, 
 at defiance. It is just as probable that immersion, as 
 that sprinkling or pouring, is the secondary y allusive, 
 and metaphorical sense of the word baptism, and there- 
 fore should our brethren abandon the metaphorical sig- 
 nification, they would be left without a single prop to 
 lean upon. 
 
 Bap. " The text concerning the Israelites, who were 
 baptized in the cloud and the sea, cannot become a 
 suffrage for the sprinkling of a few drops of water upon 
 the face. Here was no action performed by one person 
 upon another — no contact of the water w^ith their bo- 
 dies, as there must be in christian baptism. It is ob- 
 vious, therefore, that the term is used metaphorically, 
 not absolutely. Witsius and Turretine, however, 
 conclude, that the expressions favour immersion. '^ 
 pp. 66, ()7. 
 
 Pa:d. Yet this was a baptism, although Mr. Wa- 
 terman admits the w^ater was not in contact with their 
 bodies. The Holy Spirit says it was a baptism — not 
 a metaphorical baptism — but a baptism. Here, also, 
 we have the favourite prepositions, en and eis. They 
 were baptized e/.?, into, Moses ; en, in, the cloud ; and 
 en, in, the sea : yet there was " no close contact of 
 the water with their bodies." So it is said, John bap- 
 tized e«, i7i, Jordan ; eis, unto, repentance. Now, if in 
 the former case there was a baptism, and the word of 
 God says there was, although there was " no close 
 contact of the water with their bodies," then, in the 
 latter instance, there might be a baptism, although the 
 people never entered the water. Mr. Waterman asserts, 
 that in christian baptism " the water must be in close 
 
237 
 
 contact with the body ;" but if he is correct, then mo- 
 dern immersion is not christian baptism ; for persons 
 who are dipped are so well clothed, and so suddenly 
 popped under and out of the water, that in many in- 
 stances nothing more than a few drops of water come 
 into immediate contact with their faces. They might 
 be made much wetter by sprinkling. 
 
 Bap. *' Let such as dare assert that there is not a 
 single passage in scripture that warrants immersion, 
 consider what Dr. Wall says. He declares that the 
 primitive christians, in their general and ordinary way, 
 baptized by immersion." Page 67. 
 
 Psed. Witsius, and Turretine, and Wall can never 
 settle the point, seeing the scriptures are silent. Dr. 
 Wall's infinite number of passages from the fathers 
 are not worth a straw, unless supported by the word of 
 God. An infinite number of passages might be quoted 
 from the same authors to prove the antiquity of popish 
 superstitions. Bad must be the cause which rests so 
 much on human opinion, especially on that of the 
 fathers. 
 
 Bap. ** Barnabas, Hermas, Justin Martyr, and Ter- 
 tullian all speak of immersion as the primitive mode 
 of baptism." pp. 67, 68. 
 
 Pied. Barnabas, in the very passages quoted by 
 Mr. Waterman, attributes a saving power to the ordi- 
 nance, and actually declares that the water washes 
 away sin. Still, even Barnabas merely asserts that 
 persons went to the water. He does not say they 
 were immersed, but if he had, it would be of no au- 
 thority. A person who asserted that the water cleansed 
 from sins and pollutions might also mistake the mode. 
 Earlier than Barnabas professors corrupted the Lord's 
 supper, and baptism may have shared a similar fate. 
 In the very passage that precedes the one quoted by 
 your friend, Hermas declares that persons " were liable 
 to death, until they received the seal of baptism ; but, 
 by beino; baptized, they passed from death to life.'* 
 Surely the Baptists will not depend upon Hermas. 
 Justin Martyr calls baptism a regeneration, without 
 h2 
 
238 
 
 which we cannot enter into heaven ! Still, neither the 
 words of Hermas nor of Justin necessarily prove im- 
 mersion. Nor can we depend upon Tertullian — a man 
 who taught that unmarried people, widow s, &c. ought 
 not to be baptized— that people would perish if they 
 died without baptism — and that Easter was the best 
 time for administering that ordinance. Ou any doctrine, 
 concerning which scripture is silent, and this is the fact 
 respecting immersion, the authority of such men is 
 worth nothing, 
 
 Bap. *' The Ebionites and Marcionites practised 
 immersion." Page 68. 
 
 Paed. And a thousand other errors and absurdities 
 you might have added. Glorious leaders these, cer- 
 tainly, for the Baptists to follow ! 
 
 Bap. ** Mosheim says that persons were baptized 
 by immersion in the second century." Page 07. 
 
 Peed, And he adds, that «' after baptism they 
 received the sign of the cross— were anointed — were 
 set apart by imposition of hands-^^and then partook of 
 milk and honey." If Baptists follow this century in 
 the mode of baptism, why not use the sign of the cross 
 — the anointing oil — the imposition of hands — and the 
 milk and honey — seeing the scriptures as/ul/i/ sanction 
 either or all of these latter rites, as they do immer- 
 sion ? Rites and ceremonies so much increased in the 
 Jirst century, that this very Mosheim informs us, that 
 it was difficult to " give an account of the worship, 
 manners, and discipline of ancient christians ;•' and a 
 much higher authority than Mosheim, the apostle Paul 
 himself, complains more than once of the will-worship 
 ^nd superstitions which, in the very presence of the 
 apostles, began to invade the simplicity of the gospel, 
 Pajdobaptists, then, place no confidence whatever in 
 the examples supplied by the fathers, unless supported 
 by the explicit testimony of the word of God, which 
 is not the case concerning baptism by immersion. 
 
 Bap. " The first instance on ecclesiastical record 
 of pouring or sprinkling is that of Novatian, in the 
 year'3-J^- Mr. Robinson says it was then /; a'^ in^ 
 
239 
 
 vented ; but even African catholics, the least enlight^ 
 ened, derided it as no baptism." Page 09. 
 
 Paed. It is scarcely possible to exceed the temerity 
 of this assertion. To argue, that nothing is true, or to 
 be followed, but what is mentioned by the fathers, is 
 to renounce revelation for tradition, and to subject the 
 religion of heaven to the historical decisions of men 
 proverbial for inaccuracy. Such an argument would 
 threaten the canon of scripture itself. It is highly 
 probable that both John and the apostles baptized by 
 sprinkling or pouring. The word baptize fully sanc- 
 tions these modes. Even the prepositions, on which 
 our opponents lay so much stress, furnisli no impedirr 
 ment. Jewish puriji cations^ to which the term is ap- 
 plied — critics — lexicographers — profane writers — the 
 septuagint— the context — and even the inter j>r(^tations 
 of Baptists, fully confirm the sentiment that baptism 
 may be performed by sprinkling. Add to these facts, 
 that there is not a text in the new testament which 
 proves that a single person was baptized by immersion, 
 and what shall we say of the audacity which assertsi 
 that sprinkling was invented in the third century ? 
 Such a reckless disrecard of every principle which 
 ought to regidate the decisions qf critics, scholars, and 
 especially of christians, demonstrates that the cause 
 which requires such effrontery is deperate. If sucii 
 means as these were adopted in Africa to supersede 
 sprinkling by immersion, we do not wonder if " the 
 least enlightened''' of the people were beguiled. StiiJ, 
 Kobinson ought to have known that the derision of the 
 ignorant is not always a test of truth. The Son of 
 God himself was mocked from this very respectable 
 quarter. 
 
 Bap. " Sprinkling is an innovation ; immersion 
 was the ancient mode. This is asserted by Bishop 
 Taylor, Bossuet, J. Mead, and numerous others.'' 
 Page 09. 
 
 Peed. And yet this " innovation''^ is as old as the 
 days of Nebuchadnezzar — yea, as the days ot ?*Ioses. 
 \&*ebiichadnezzar was baptized with \\{i\v^ which mus»t 
 
240 
 
 have been done by sprinkling ; for the argument is 
 respecting- modes, not results, Purijication is an equi- 
 valent for baptism, and Moses instituted purifications 
 by sprinkling. And Israel was baptized into Moses, 
 in the cloud, and in the sea, without an immersion. 
 But enough has already been said to prove that the 
 assertions of Taylor, Bossuet, Mead, &c. are without 
 the least countenance from the Avord of God, and there- 
 fore can have no weight with any, except those who 
 prefer human authority to the voice of revelation, and 
 wish to add its fallible dictations to the more sure 
 w^ord of prophesy. And this, too, is the last, the 
 climax of Mr. Waterman's arguments for adult baptism 
 by immersion ! ISurely, sir, you cannot wonder if I 
 have become a Paedobaptist. From beginning to end, 
 the book is destitute of a single argument fairly drawn 
 from the word of God. Indeed, of that authority he 
 has been extremely sparing, while he has introduced 
 human authority upwards of one hundred and forty 
 times ! Now, sir, it appeared to me, that if the scrip- 
 tures are so very plain on this topic, it would have been 
 much better to have brought forward those texts at 
 once, and then to have left the subject, without any 
 encumbrance from such weak, superstitious authors as 
 many of those Mr. W. has quoted, or any of those 
 garbled sentences which he has so unfairly extracted 
 from Paedobaptists. And further, when I found that 
 his arguments were often of a character that would, if 
 correct, invalidate every description of truth, and even 
 establish universal atheism with the same ease that 
 they supported adult immersion, and that the author, 
 after employing such terrible weapons, became ecstatic, 
 and exclaimed, " Magna est Veritas," &c.— 1 confess 
 that I doubted the authority of this ** cheap deside- 
 ratum" for Baptists, and also the scriptural character 
 of a system which was supported by such unsubstan- 
 tial reasoning. I have read but few of the works of 
 Paedobaptists ; my studies have generally been in the 
 writings of Baptists, and the result has been to confirm 
 the opinion, that modern immersion, and the exclusion 
 
241 
 
 of infants from baptism, have no countenance whatever 
 from the word of God. 
 
 Bap. I perceive, brother Searche, that you have 
 said hut little concerning Mr. Waterman's second 
 book, entitled ** Why have you become a Psedo- 
 baptist?" There are some knotty arguments there. 
 That little book has brought some new members to our 
 church. 
 
 Paed. Mr. Waterman's second publication is only 
 an epitome and echo of the first. The child is the 
 image of its father, and possesses all the imbecility of 
 childhood. The fact that it has had admirers cannot 
 prove its accuracy, because Johanna Southcote and 
 Tom Paine could boast of such a pre-eminence. But 
 apart from such a comparison, it may be safely af- 
 firmed, that Mr. W.'s last publication fails in pro- 
 ducing a single solid argument from the word of God. 
 
 Bap. I pity you, Mr. Searche ; you are prejudiced. 
 I hope some day your eyes will again be opened, and 
 that you will again be numbered with our church, 
 which is the only scriptural church upon the face of the 
 earth. 
 
 Paed. So the pope would say, concerning the 
 church over which he presides, and it seems he is not 
 the only pope that claims infallibility. However, I 
 shall print my remarks on Mr. Waterman's book, and 
 shall be most happy to meet him or you again in this 
 controversy. 
 
 Bap. Depend upon it Mr. Waterman will print aa 
 answer, and overturn all your fancied arguments. 
 
 Paed. Let him do so with scripture, and I will 
 most gladly submit, and will be rebaptized. 
 
 Bap. AVe will not think of rebaptizing you. We 
 never rebaptize those who have been dipped already. 
 
 Paed. Not if I were to turn out a most profligate 
 character, and give full evidence that I was uncon- 
 verted when baptized, — if, after this, I w^ere to be 
 truly converted, would you not rebaptize me then ? 
 
 Bap. Certainly not. One immersion is enough. 
 
 Paed. But if 1 was baptized when unconverted, my 
 
242 
 
 bnptisni was not believers' baptism. And your riot fE- 
 baptizing- me would prove that you do not consider 
 saving faith essential to baptism. According to this, 
 the mode is every thing- ; and were infants dipped, their 
 baptism would be valid, tor the infant may have the 
 principle of faith, while the hypocrite is, like Simon 
 IMagus, in, the gall of bitterness and bond of iniquity; 
 and any p>erson would rather undertake to train the 
 former than the latter. And if the mode, or quantity 
 of water, is all, then it can be shown that many mi- 
 nisters apply quite as much water to the bodies of in- 
 fants by sprinkling as could be done were they dipped 
 with their clothes on. 
 
 Bap. I am sorry you imbibe such sentiments. But 
 I perceive that you are at present unmoved, and there- 
 fore I shall commit 3'ou to Mr. Waterman. Farewell. 
 
 Psed. In such hands I must be safe. Farewell* 
 
 END OF DIALOGUE THE FOURTH. 
 
 ERRATA. 
 
 Page . . 5, line 27, for sixth, read " fourth." 
 
 J j . . . . 22, . . 34, for resurreetiou, read " resurrection." 
 
 45, . . 28, for observatians, read " observations*" 
 
 * 48, . . 5, for Wtaerman, read " "Waterman." 
 
 49, . . 2, for thau, read " than." 
 
 *;.... 39, .. 1, for rectified, read "ratified." 
 
 90, . . 37, for neutralized, read " naturalized." 
 
 i . . . . . 97, . . 2, omit the period after the word " circumcision.' 
 
 101, .. 33, for truth, read "birth." 
 
 125, .. 9, for wree, read " were." 
 
 ...... 138, .. 37, for Sbirit, read " Spirit." 
 
 ,...,. 158, lines 27 and 28, for Souman, read " Socinian." 
 204, lines 1 and 3, for Salmasues, read Salmasius/' 
 
 B. Bucknall, Printer, Stroud,