PREFACE.
I cannot refrain to mention the many obstacles that
stood in my way in the matter of my publishing the fol¬
lowing Tract, as also the incentives that moved me to it.
I was wide awake to the prevailing opinion that every
thing had been written on the subject that could be writ¬
ten on both sides, and that by some of the greatest men
in Europe or America.
Again, 1 am and have been bound to the Baptist people
by the ties of brotherly love and christian friendship, and
the more so, because they were the first I mingled with in
Worship, in the first settling of this country—some of
whom have gone to reap their reward. I have, there¬
fore, used my best endeavor to vindicate truth and expose
error without personal invectives; and 1 have struck at
no man's head or heart, but at what I think to be his false
doctrine.
It is with considerable diffidence that I place my name
before the public as an author, yet" I refuse to acknowl¬
edge that this diffidence is occasioned by shame or fearj
a»d if any maa may think proper to reply to my piece,
I shall expect to beg no favors ia point of argument.
•And as to my incentives the following little Tract is of
bumble pretensions, and leaving out much that others
have written, and allowing me to be the judge, 1 have at
tended to some important points omitted by aii the authors
1 have read, and this I offer as my apology for intruding
TREATISE, Ac.
To prove the rite of infant membership is to prows
the rite of infant bap'ism, for ali agree that baptism is
the initiating rite, and anabaptists and pedobaptists all
agree that the infant has been placed in the church by the
special commandment of Godj and indeed to deny it
would be to deny the Bible. Yet the infant's right to
membership in the present day, is a controversy that has
grown to stn enormous height, and thus we see the formi¬
dable counsel on the one side pleading the infant's cause,
and another counsel though not equal in number yet ac¬
cording to number, as much or more zealous and ener¬
getic pleading against it. And while serious and rational
men lock on with feelings of arixiety, and ere the} can
propose terms of reconciliation, the dreadful monster
comes in sight. And when he comes forth he is, in every
way, vile and deformed. Where is he frpm? And what
is his name? Why, he .is from the land of starvation,
and. hie name is Exoulsor. When being interpreted it is
effort and exertion to expel from the church those that
have meter transgressed. An ugly monster indeed, and
6
yet he must appear more' so, for more of his name and
nature must be seen; and so we are led to inquire—Did
God place the infant in the church f and did, he continue
it in the church for many ages? did he at last find out
his error? did he find out it was wrong to have the infant
in the church, and consequently, promptly expel it from
the church?
And doth the counsel that plead against the infant pur¬
pose to answer the question by asking another, i. e. And
did God institute the ordinance of circumcision? Did he
continue it in the church for many ages as the initiating
rite? and did he at last find out his error, and consequently
promptly abandon it?
The infant's counsel in reply, answer, that is all wide^of
the mark; for to take away the right of an individual,
because an ordinance or a law must of necessity be
changed, is contrary to scripture, reason, equity and jus¬
tice, as also the usage, custom and economy of legislative
proceeding.
But doth the counsel that plead against the infant, ask,
Why did God take frorq the church circumcision, if he
did not thereby intend to take away the rite of infant
membership, as that was the initiating rite.
The infant's counsel answer by propounding other ques-
. 7
lions, i. e. Why did God take from the church the pass-
over and consecration? &c. &c. And, in so doing did he
bereave the subjects thereof of their rite? And because
consecration came to an end, did the priesthood come 1©
an end? And because the passover came to an end, did
the means of testing faith in the Saviour come to an end?
And why all this " change in the priesthood and change
in the law?" Why, because there toas an end to bloody
rites. And why was there an end to bloody rites? Why
because the Saviour shed his blood once for all, Now St.
J'aul saysj Hebjx. 22. " Without shedding of blood is no
remission j"' consequently bloody rites, types and figures
continued until the great Messiah shed his blood for the
end and fulfilment—then there was an end to bloody rites.
Now to instance the single case-of the passover, hpw
could the members of the church any longer eat the pas¬
chal lamb as a declaration of their faith, that they be-,
lieved the lamb of God would come to take away the sin
of the world when he had come? And now the passover
was changed to the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, and
consecration to ordination, and circumcision to baptims,
&c,; and all who had a rite retained their rite
But doth the counsel that plead against the infant con¬
tend that they are wrongfully accused, and that their
i»
position and argument is not to expel the infant from the
ehurch but its non-reception into the church; and that the
ugly monster sunken of was not brought up by then;; to
expel a member from the church is one thing, and to re¬
ceive a member into the church is another thing. That
thai $ position is a rcfbsal to take the infant into the
church, and that they demand the counsel on the other
side to show their authority for taking the infant into the
church.
To which the infant's counsel reply, you shall make no
such inroad as that into our territory—it is net your pre¬
rogative to demand cf U3 to show the right of infant
membership. And were we to accede to s»ch piopcaiii >a
wo would do great injustice to the infant's cause. We
would, in so doing, give away part of our strong!h; For
we will have you to know, and most assuredly know,
C£r you must get the infant out of the church befoie you
begin to talk about keeping it out- That Gol has placed
it id the church is granted by yen as veil as us, aud
knowing our indubitable right. vre make our demand that
you show how it was that God turned ths infant out of
the church. And you may fix yiur pleading to lhe day
John the Baptist baptised the firat [erscn,< r on any other
day»agq or dispensation.
0
And whits th.p> ccwis^ that plead against ttsednfiwal e&»
gaged in their hui£; and arduous struggle to show the csr-
e«msl.in<?es of the infant's expulsion, the ihfant's counsel
jreposed in silence. And while they reposed Mr. proxy
fell asleep and dreamed a dream,* he saw in his dream
an exceeding great mountain, Very high and very magni¬
ficent to look on—and on 'either side anc^ round about it
stood a great number of yohng growing trees, some almost
ready to 4^ar fruit, and samp very young. And he saw
in liis dream a numerous household, and the head of the
family ©a a certain day changed his law, and passed a
new decree, which was, that the' elder Children should
continue to share the blessings and benefits of the man¬
sion-house and its provisions, hut t,he young children
should be a cast out. And he saw in his dream a sheep-*
fold, and the old sheep were taken to the inn but the
lambs run out: and he saw in his dream a company cf
men sitting in consultation, whether or no the mountain
he saw in his dream could be moved out of its placej and
the result was, that it could not be done. They then con¬
sulted whether or no those young trees could be changed
to trees of another nature, and the result was that that
could not be done. They then considered the household
he saw in his dream, and the new decree made by the
10
head of the same; and they pronounced him deranged,
and the shepherd they pronounced an idiot. And he savr
in his dream a strange looking fog rise from an adjacent
water, and hover over and round about said company of
men, and that fog was to him a mystery—he awoke and
it was a dream. And when one interpreted his dream
the interpretation was to a rational man reasonable; and
this was the interpretation:
The mountain thou sawest is God's immutability—the
young trees the infantile part of the human family—the
household the church. When compared to the argument
of the counsel that plead against the infant, as also the
sheepfold thou sawest, and the company of men thou
sawest are they that plead against the infant. And where¬
as these men are honest and candid men, they admit that
God cannot change: this is the mountain that could not
be moved; and the young trees that could not be changed
is their honest assent that the infant has not changed since
0
God placed it in the church. And these men are too ra¬
tional to justify the conduct of the head of the household,
as also the shepherd thou sawest in thy dream. Yet,
after all this these man are pleading for the infant's ex¬
pulsion from the church; this is the mystery of the fog
thou sawest.
It
And what of Proxy's dream? The counsel that plead
against the infant answer,'—It is nothing but a fictitious
dream, and it must go for nothing.* To which assertion
wisdom, wide awake, makes the following reply—God
has not changed since he placed the infant in the church,
the infant has not changed since God placed it in the
church; and men may as well try to move the Alleghany
mountain out of its place, as to move the infant from the
place Gdd has put it. And whereas God, by a special
institute, caused the infant to be taken into the spiritual
house and dedicated to himself, calling for thes prayers of
the church in its behalf. God has never, no never cast it
out and cut it off from such blessings.
Now when the counsel that plead against the infant
had gone through in their endeavor to show the circum¬
stances of the infant's expulsion, the following, was the
substance, i. e. the church is compared to a house, or
rather to two houses, one for the prophetic church having
circumcision for its door, and one for the gospel d&y or
church, having baptism for its door. The former of
which is now annulled, but the door of the latter is now
standing open, and the call and invitation to come in at
said door cannot reach the infant owing to its incapability
to perform such works as the adult can and must perform
12
Wore he can eater through said door* And ihus the
building of this new house shuts the infant out of the
church, for it is thus written, Mark "kvi. 16- •' He that
b&Iieveth and is baptised, shall he saved: but he that be-
lieveth not shall be damned.'1 Now over the head of rea¬
son the infant must be chut out of the church and fiom
baptism, because it cannot believe. In reply it is an¬
swered, that position will Starve !h3 infant to death, and
then send it to torment, fox it is thus v/r t'teo, II Thes. ui.
10. "For even when we Were with you, this we com¬
manded you, that if any would not wotk, neithei should
be eat." Ndw, exclude reason and the infant starves to
death.
Again, see the Other passage above recited, "He that
foelieveth and is baptised, shall be saved; but he that be-
Heveth not shall be damned.1' Now exclude reason and
the infant must be damned; and reason says the immuta¬
ble head of the church can receive the infant into the
church in the gospel day without faith and repenianLe,
the same as he did in the prophetic day. Aud reason
i
says that the adult person who has sinned in If" person
and been & practical infidel, (for such all cinnc-s arc)
should bring fruit meet fcr repentance, as a p rc-u^uisi'e
IS
to his baptism, apd yet,- throw no obstacle in the way of
the infant's baptirrry.
Again, the infant's counsel im reply answer, in the
nam© of common sense suppose a lady with a child in her
arms was to go to the house pf a friend. and he kindly
invites her to com© in, but says nothing about the child,
must she leave her child Out of doors because the man
has built a new house, and because he did not say bring
in your child? But this lady's good sense dictates la her
that the new house has .not taken, away the right of hCr
phild, and the invitation embraces her child with herself,
the same as when the, man lived in. the old house.
The foregoing comparison is properly in point, for both'
parties agree that circumcision was the door of the pro*
photic cjhurch, and, that baptism is the door of the gospel
church. Then i it follows of course, and undeniably so,
that baptism had come in the room of circumcision. My
opponent puts baptism in the room of circumcision him*
self, fofhd grants circumcision to bp the door of the pro¬
phetic church, and baptism the door of the gospel church;
unavoidably he put one in room of the other., And as
infant membership had gone on unmolested for many
ages, it was not necessary, that the parents should be told
thai they must bring their children into the church with
14
themselves. The thing was familiar with them, and who
can imagine the matter of coming in\at a different door
could throw any obstacle in their way. But the counsel
that plead the infant's cause is very far from acknowledg¬
ing that no proof is found in the gospel day, for the con¬
tinuation of the infant's membership; but, on the contrary,
they pledge themselves that at the proper place these
proofs shall be recited.
Now among the counsel that plead against the infant
one seems to be a foreman, and as I am on the other side
we will plead it out ourselves. And as this my opponent
resolved to have the infant out of the church, he, over
the head of reason, analogy, inference and implication,
affixes to baptism an explicit warrant, and roundly asserts
that special command or example is the rock on which
his church is built. And notwithstanding we both esteem
each other as men and as christians, yet, when we come
to the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, he says to me
stand off. I ask why? He answers, because your church
is built on presumptive evidence, but mine on explicit
evidence, and in every institute or ordinance we must
have explicit command or example for all we do. As it
respects the subject or the mode in short we must have
"thus sayeth the Lord," for all we do. Although I love
15
you and assume you as a good man, and acknowledge the
love and* friendship you have always manifested toward
me, yet you* church is teo heterodox to hold com¬
munion with mine. My opponent has measured me and
my doctrine by his own rule. I now claim the right to
measure him and his • doctrine partly by my rule, but
principally by his own rule.
First. 1 demand that whereas the infant has been
placed in the church by explicit evidence, and that it re¬
tained its membership for ages, all the while maintained
and supported hy the lively oracles of God. I say I de^
r
mand that scriptural explicit evidence of its expulsion
from the church, be produced here; your " thus saith the
Lord" is required, and as its membership is from explicit
evidence, nothing short of explicit evidence will do for
*
its expulsion—and that cannot be found between the lids
of the bible. My opponent is found too short for this
measure, no explicit proof, no " thus saith the Lord" for
the infant's expulsion.
Second. 1 proceed to try him on the mode, and I de
mand explicit proof for immersion. I demand that in all
the baptism that took place in Jordan in Enon, in the
ease of Phillip and the Eunuch, or in any other case, that
1 + i
they were ia water at any time even ankle deep. Expli-
cit proof for immHrslon cannot be found between the lids
of the bible—hero my opponent is- found too short for hi#
own measure. Now the two main institute? ia baptism
and the sacrament of the Lord's Supper.
Third. And, I proceed to measure my bpponent in this
ordinance. I demand that you show your explicit proof
for your authority for taking about one half of your
members to the sacrament, ta wit—the females. Explicit
proof in this case is not found in all the sacred writingsj
and here my opponent is again found too she rt for hi-t own
measure, He is compelled to go w>th me into the Qui
Testament, and take the circumstance of the won en - d-
ing the pasohal lamb—and then putting the snerau uiit id
room of the passover, and then connecting therewith the
presumptive proofs ia tbe New Testament. So by all thia
T
chain of presumptive evidence we find the woman's
right.)' Now my opponent grants explicit proof in the
Old Testament,, and presumptive proof in the Ne \ for.
the infant's membership, yet he will have it expe.Icl and
take the woman to the sacrament on presumptive
evidence.
But how in the world did it ever come id pass that my
opponent mad© a measure so muchJongcr than himself?
Why, because a shorter one would not answer to get the
17
infant out of the church, and whereas Jhq is a sincere
man, and will not wilfullj do Wrong, and ;hat he may, in
his own judgment, be consistent in the matter of the in¬
fant's expulsion, he is driven to other unavoidable *and
distressing consequences. But these are my assertions,
and they must go for nothing unless I make them appear
as facts* Then I say—<
1st. Show me a man that contends againstinfant mem¬
bership, and I will show you a man that contends against
a larger portion of the4 scripture than other professing
men. For the Old Testament must be discarded far
enough to get the infant out of the churchi
2hd. My opponent is driven to another Consequence
J closely connected with thd foregoing one, and calculated
to increase the miseries of Suffering'humanity. And now
hear the petition of the laboring servant, and, out of the
deep of his hear't he speaks.—Oh do not suffer these men
that plead against the infant, io prevail in pleading against
me, suffer them not to take from m$ the day of rest ray
creator has given me.
3rd. He is driven to another Consequence closely con¬
nected with both the formejr ones,' and calculated to injur©
the cause of religion, and 'that in a material manner.
Now hear the petition of him who faithfully labors in
18
the vineyard of the Lord, and from scripture, reason and
experience, he says—Take not the Sabbath from the
church, for it is my main day to do good, and in taking it
you take from the church one of its main pillars.
4th. We come to thb big petition, and it is from all
the different denominations, and from thousands of can¬
did men of no denomination. It is from almost all the
world except the few that plead against the infant. It is
addressed to all the houses of legislation in' the universe.
Now hear the petition.
To the Honorable House of Representatives assembled:
Your petitioners humbly showeth that they have witness¬
ed the utility and excellency of the laws you have here¬
tofore made concerning the Sabbath day; and whereas
certain men boldly assert that they are only restrained
from manual labor on the Sabbath day by those laws;
your petitioners will ever pray thfit for the sake of the
laboring, fatigued beast—for the sake of the laboring
servant—for Religion's sake, and for the Lord's sake, con¬
tinue your excellent laws; and restrain such men as
scripture^ reason nor conscience do not restrain. So
•prays your petitioners, &c. I say conscience, for I think
if the man thought it was a sin to labor on the Sabbath
day he would not do it; and if a good man cannot be con-
10
vinced of his error so as to refrain from it, the law should
restrain him'from that error that will injure the cause of
religion.
5tb. My.opponent is driven to the consequence of
laying' violent hands on the church, and in order that the
infant's membership may be annulled, he pleads that all
the proofs in favor of its membership in the New Testa¬
ment are presumptive; and all the explicit, proofs for its
membership are in the Old Testament. So he contends
that the infant had lis membership in the prophetic church
but not in the gospel church; that the infant's member¬
ship in the prophetic church: is not to be regarded as a
matter to influence us to admit it in the" gospel church)
owing to a certain circumstance. And what circumstance*
is that? Why,-it is the circumstance of the, prophetic
church being defective and lame, And this he pleads—
1st. From the case of the females initiating rite not
being explicit, and he calls on me to tell him what was
her initiating rite? and whether or no it was a bloody rite?
1 answer, I am under no obligation to answer that question,
it is enough to know they were in the church, (and this
my opponent admits,) but let their initiating rite be what
it might, it had the same identity the males had, even to
thai of being called the seed of Abraham, not only in the
20
prophetic, but also in the gospel church, See Gal. iii. 27,
28,20- " For as many of you as have been baptised into
Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek,
there is neither bond nor free, thefe is neither male nor
female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesust, And if ye bd
Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according
to the promise," Again, Luke, 16. xiii. "And ought not
this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan
hath bound, lo, these eighteen years, be loosed from this
bond on the Sabbath day?"
Now as this woman Jived two thousand years after
Abraham, she was not his daughter, literally. Then how
wa3 she his daughter? Why, her initiating rite gave her
the appellation, and placed her in the Abrahamic cove¬
nant. But will my opponent ask,' why was the initiating
rite of the males a bloody rite, and the females not? I
answer, my position lays me under no obligation to an¬
swer that question, yet I have no objection to give the
outlines oft my private opinion in the case, i. e. It was a
prophetic declaration that a male Messiah could atone for
a female people. But my opponent contends that the pro¬
phetic church was defective and lame.
2nd. Because it was in part a national church; in
reply I answer, suppose the church had been divided am?
21
sub-divided as it now is, would not my opponent take; a
ranker hold oil that circumstance, than that of its being
in part a national chyrch. Bat he must find a better
church in the prophetic day, and one that had no infants
in it,or he must take it as the church of God. I affirm,
and he grants it was the church of God; it was aU the
church there then was, it was that church of which £>t.
Stephen speaks in his last and dying words. Acts, vji.
37, 38. ''This is that Moses which said unto the children
of Israel, a prophet shall the Lord your God raise up
imto you of your brethren, like unto me*; him &hall ye
■hear, This is «he that was in the church in the wilder-
I
nqss," &c.
But I will avail myself of, throwing the argument be¬
tween my opponent and the great head of. t|ie church—he
has spoke fortiis church, let my bpponentspeak against
\ ' i '
it. Again, the* great head of the church has asked the
question, Isaiah, v. 4, " What could have been done-more
to my vineyard, that I have not done in it?" Will my
opponent answer—It was so much .wanting, so much lack¬
ing and so defective, that the confirmation of the infant's
membership in it cannot make a cause or reason why the
infant should have its membership in the gospel church,
not even with the help bf strong presumptive proof for
24
the continuance of its membership found in- the gospel
church-
Now whereas a promise has been given that the proofs,
with the chain of circumstances that prove and confirm
the continuation of the infant^ membership shall be re¬
cited. I come now to recite and remark on said proof.—
First. From prophecy pointing to the gospel era. Se¬
cond. When the gospel shined in its meridian light, even
on the day of penticost and in the first hour of the chris¬
tian baptism, to which the Abrahamic covenant stands
related. 1 And that whereas circumcision was the scale
and initiating rite of that covenant, and that covenant
nor the infant's rite to membership is not annulled.
Third.' ,The general doctrine of baptism as taught in the
scripture, and preached' by John the Baptist and the
Apostles, together with other circumstances, show that
water baptism must precede the baptism of the Holy
Ghost, which will make infant baptism indispensable.
Fourth: The circumstance of whole families being bap¬
tised, when none but the head of the family is mentioned,
and in which it must be presumed there were infants.
Fifth. The circumstance of our Saviour designing to
teach his disciples the great lessons of humility; and how
careful they should be not to'offend a weak brother, and
23
whereas no brother could be weaker than an infant. And
as the infant must be received fn his name over the head
of all that forbid it, they were to learn from that circum¬
stance how they were to act towards a weak brother, and
that the reception of the infant was a church and reli¬
gious relation.Sixth. That whereas the time contended
for as the time of the infant's expulsion, was a time when
Jewish rites* forms and ceremonies were contended for to
a fault. It'must be presumed that the infant could not be
expelled, and the scriptures remain silent about it. Se-
venth. The scriptures.teach in a special manner that the
(
given name of an individual must be confirmed and rati-;
fied in connection with initiation; and scripture and rea¬
son Concur to say it ought to^be in infancy. I come fctow
4 , " ' ■
to recite, and also remark oh the above proofs and Cir¬
cumstances in regular form,
1st. From prophecy pointing to the gospel era—Isaiah,
xlix. 22, "Thus Saith the Lord God, behold, I will
lift up my hand to the Gentiles, and set up,my standard
to the people: and they shall bring thy sons in their arms,
and thy daughters shall be carried upon their shoulders."
Now I contend, and my opponent grants that the plant¬
ing the church among the Gentiles in the gospel day, was
the setting up of this standard—it was the fulfilment of
24
tins prophecy. But my opponent affirms that none may
come to this standard and he recipients only such as can
come in of themselves, and exhibit an approved experi¬
ence.. t answer, then you must cut off two synonymous
words from the text as heing superilous, to wit: the
words bring and carry. Now I ask if the English lan¬
guage could furnish words more in point, ^tnd more ap¬
propriate than the words bring and carry, as a declara¬
tion that the parents must come and bring their infants
to this standard. Again, the baptism of the children of
Israel nnto Moses, I Cor. x., was typical of the christian
baptism; and this is manifest from two considerations:
first, it is granted on all hands arid by all divines that
MosCs Was a type of Christ: second, their baptism was
unto Moses as followers of Moses, So their baptism, in
the strict sense of the word, was typical of the christian
baptism.
i
Now rrly opponent, in doing the best he can to make
this baptism -answer to immersion, argues that the sea
made a wall of water on either side, and the cloud above
made it a figurative baptism answering to immersion.
And the moment he makes it a figurative baptism in that
sense of the word, he makes it also a promiscuous bap¬
tism, for ho is unavoidably driven to that consequence.
2*
And lo, we fi nd thousands of infants here baptised in &
t>aptism that typifies the christian baptism.
2nd* X qoma no& to the full blaze of the gospel day*
even on the day of penticost and to* the first christian
» *
baptism—Acts, ii. 38j 39. "Then Peter said unto them,
repent., and be baptised ey.ery ,one of you in the name of
Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall re¬
ceive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto
you, ami Xo youp children, and to all that are afar bffj
even as many,as the Lord our God fehallcall.1'
Now it wjfll require a thorough -examination! of the
Abrabamic covenant to come to a proper understanding of
this text -r particularly as it respects the promise that re*>
fers to the parents and children. But before we come tq
that investigation, Lpropose ^hat my,opponent and myself
come into close quarters concerning the literal word. I
then ask, if all these persons were adults, ^vhy was it
necessary for St. Peter, in hie counsel, to affix the append*
1 i * 1
age of children to that i of adults? Now if (these werp
adult children this appendage superfluous and vain'-—
and this is a consequence my opponent is driven to. > How
exceedingly awkward did St. Peter appear addressing one
part of his hearers, assuring them in the meanwhile that
the promise wai to the other part also, and that both parts
26
should he baptised. What preacher, in his proper senses,
would address one part -of his congregation through tho
other part, when all were before him? What donor, in
giving to two recipients, would give to one through the
othef when thero was no call for it? My opponent shall
not, unmolested, charge St. Peter with such folly and in¬
consistency as this, for when the Apostle said " the pro¬
mise is to you," he addressed such-as could understand,
and were the parents of such as could not understand.
And thus be said, "the promise is to you and your
children."
But if all were adults/and had brought before St. Peter
and the other Apostles, the evidence of their regeneration
by a recitation of experience answering to my opponent's
-essential pre-requisite to baptism, who can imagine that
childrenJ would have been named on the occasion as
having part or lot in the matter? But they are named as
a part of the subjects of this ordinance, and we are bound
to believe as u. part of the care and concerns of these
parents; and that when they come into the church they
must bring their infant children with themselves—:a prac¬
tice familiar to these Apostles and these parents—and let
not my opponent think to avail himself that the adult
here or elsewhere who has sinned in his person, who has
27
been a practical infidel, and, on that account must bring
fruit meet for repentance, that that can be any barrier to
the infant, for the immutable head of the church receives
the innocent - infant into the church in the gospel day
without faith and repentance, the same as he did, in the
prophetic day.' Anct the call mentioned by St. Peter,go
to those afar off, if it be even from nation to nation, and
from age to age." The promise will always go with th,q
call, for the" doctrine .of waiter baptism has for its promise
the baptism of the Holy-Ghost to cotae.'after if. But
more of this- in its proper place.
But I before said whpn we examine and understand the
Abraha'mic covenant,, we will, understand St1. Jeter's allu¬
sion in. and to this promise.' Now if thjs Covenant be not
I
annulled, the infant's membership is. hot annulled; and if
the foregoing promise be confirmed^as being in connection
with said covenant, then the infant's membership is con¬
firmed. But my opponent^ contends that the covenant
spoken of in the 8th chapter of Hebrews, that waxeth old'
and is ready td vanish, is the Abrahamie covenant—it and
the Horeb and Sinai covenant is all one and the same
covenant, consequently I shall be the more particular to
show—
1. Two distinct and separate covenants,
28
2* The annulled one is {he Horeb and Sinai covenant.
*
3, The, Abrahamic covenant wasmade and confirmed
for ap everlasting covenant.
4* It was confirmed afterwards as! such by prophecy.
5. It Was confirmed as such in the gospel day as we
further see.
6. It was confirmed in Christ.
j
7. The gpspel was preached to Abraham.
8. A promise was given to Abraham that he should
be heir of the world.
9. The great inheritance was not given to Abraham
through the law, but by promise.
10. A high estimate is plaeed en the faith of Abraham
for believing said promise.,
I proceed now to recite and remark on said proofs.
1st. To show tvvp distinct and separate covenants, see
Gal. iv. 23,24. " But he who was of the bond-woman was
born after the flesh; but he of the free-woman was by
>
promise^ Which things ate an allegdry: for these are
the two covenants; the ope from the mount Sinai, which
gendereth to bondage, which is Agar," &c. Here we see
two distinct covenants, and that one is diverse and sepa¬
rate from the other, and for my authority to add to the
word Sinai the wordHoreb, appropriate to said covenant,
29
see Deut. v. 8. " The Lord our God made a covenant
with us in Horeb.'" Now for the tatifieation and seal of
said Horeb and Sinai covenant, see Exodus xxiv. 6, 7, 8.
" And Moses took half of the blood, and put it in basons;
and half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar. And he
took the book of the Covenant, and read in the audience
of the people: and they said, all that the Lord Hath said
will we do, and be obedient. And Moses took the blood,
" . 1
and sprinkled it on the people, ,and said, behold the blood
of\the covenant, which the Lord hath made 'with you,"
&c".. iNow .this covenant was;, made four hundred and
thirty years after the Abrahamic covenant Spoken of in
the 17th chaptet of the . book of Gehesis, and that the
annulled one is not the Abrahamic, but the Horeb and
Sinai covenant*
2nd. See fleb. viii. 8, 9. "For ifindlrfg fault with them,
he saith, behold the days come; saith the Lord, when I
will make a» new covenant with the house of Israel, and
with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant
that I made with their , fathers in the dhy when I took
them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt.1*
Again, see verse 13. " lp that he saith, a new covenant,
he hath made the first old. Ntow that which decajteth
and waxeth old, is ready to vanish away."
30
The Apostle Paul meant the ceremonial part of said
iloreb and Sinai covenant and Jaw. The pew .covenant
here spoken of is none other than the Abrahamic cove¬
nant.' But it is asked, how can that be when St. Paul
wrote this epistle nineteen hundred and eleven years after
the time God made the covenant with Abraham. 1 an¬
swer,, because God gave this covenant to Abraham by
promise, in the fulfilment of which promise the 'great
Messiah shed hie blood once for all; by"virtue of which
its bloody rites were changed to other and new rites, for
hence it is called in the sacred writings the new'covenant.
All of which will fully appear in further investigation.
3rd. That this covenant was made for an everlasting
covenant, see Gen. xtfii. 7. "And I will establish my cove¬
nant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, in
their generations, for pn everlasting covenant,'.' &c.
4th. 1 come now to prove that it was afterwards con¬
firmed as such by prophecj'; see I Chron. xvi. IS, 16j 17,
"Be ye mindful always of his covenant, the word which
he commanded to a thousand generations: even of the
covenant which be made with Abraham, and of his oath
unto Isaac; and hath confirmed the same to Jacob for a
law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant," Again,
Isaiah, lix. 21. "As for me, this is pny covenant with
31
them, saith the Lor.d; my spirit that is upon thee, and my
words which t have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out
of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out
of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the Lord, from
henceforth and forever.
5th. I come now to the first dawning of the jnorning
star in the gospel day; Luke, i, 68 to 73. •' Blessed be the
.Lord GocJ of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his
people, and hath raised up an horn of salvation for.us in
the house of. his servant David; as he spake by the mouth
of his holy prophets, which havei been sinch the world
began; that we should, be saved ftom our enemies, and
from the hand of alt that, hate'us; to perform the mercy
» ' ' f 1 if
promise^ to our fathers, and to remember pis holy cdve-
nant, the oath vvhich he sware to our father Abraham,"'
Here we set} the Abrahamic covenant taking hold in tlje
first link in tho gospel chain.
1 now, come to the full blaze of gospel day, see Acts iii.
25. "Ye, are the children of the prophets, ancj of the
covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto
Abraham, and in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the
earth be blessed." Now if no Other, text was found ip
the New Testament to prove that the Abrahamic cove¬
nant is the gospel and christian covenant, would not this
32
be all sufficient} and what better proof could we have
t!hen for an Apostle to say that the converts in the gospel
day was the children of this covenant.
And when the gospel reached the Gentiles, and they
became the happy subjects of converting grace, it jbecame
necessary for St. Pauf to pxplain to them how they were
the seed of Abraham, though they Were not his seed
literally as was the Jews; see Gal. Hi. 27, 29. "For as
ntany of you as have been baptised kijo Christ have put
On Christ; there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is nei-
ther^ bond nor free, there is neither male n^r female: for
ye are all one in Christ Jesus; and if ye be Christ's>
then are ye Abraham's1 seed, and heirs according to the
promise." Again, see the 14th verse. " That the blessing
of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus
Christ, that we might receive the promise," &c.
6th. I come now to prove that this covenant was con¬
firmed in Christ, see Gal. iih 17. "And this 1 say1, that
the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ,
the law, which Was four hundred and thirty years after,
cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none
effect." Again, verse 15. "Brethren, I speak after the
manner of men; though it be but a mar^s covenant, yet
if it be confirmed, no man disannulled,** Now what
am I contending, (or? why, it is that this covenant is not
annulled. I then ask H Sober, thinking man, if sacred
writ doth not here present two declarations properly in
pointy one a declaration that it is confirmed in Christ—
which makes it the christian covenant, and the other, that
it cannot be disannulled,
7th. leorne next to prove that the gospel was preached
to Abraham; see Gal. iii. 3. " £nd the scripture, fotesGc-
ing that God would justify the heat'hen through faith,
preached before the gospel unto Abraham.'?
8th. For the proof that a promise* was given to Abra¬
ham that he should be heir of the world, See Rom. iv. 13.
i • » j, '
"For the promise, that he should be the heir of the
world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, .through the
law, but through the righteousness of faith.'?
9th. To prove that the greatjinfteritance vras not given
to Abraham through the law, but? by,, promise, dee Gal. iii.
18. " For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no mora
1 • *
of promise: but God gave it,to Abraham by promise."
10th. To prove that a high estimate -is placed on the
faith of-Abraham for believing said promise, see Rom.
4 1
iv. 20, 22. " He staggered not at the promise of God
through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to
God, and being fully persuaded1 that whatGod'had pro*
54
tmsed he was able also to perform. And therefore il was
imputed to him for righteousness." Again, Gal. iii. C, 7.
* »
"Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to
him fot righteousness. Eno\vr ye therefore that they
which are of faith, the same are the children of Abra¬
ham." Again, see our Lord's own words, John viii. 56.
^Youi1 father "Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he
saw it and was glad."
Now as this covenant, as we see, was given to Abra¬
ham by promise^ and as his faith was strcmg in believing
said promise, he unquestionably understood the matters
pmd things off which his faith was predicated; and that his
.covenant would be established as the new aud everlasting
covenant—that its bloody /ites would come to an or7d, and
the Saviour would shed his binoJ once for all—that the
passover would be chaftged to the sacrament of the Lord's
supper—that consecration would be changed to ordination,
and that cirpumpision would be rhaaged to baptism. I
have been the more particular, because I have not talked
,wilh a man in thirty years, whethi r pfeaeher or lay mem¬
ber, who contended against infant membership, who did
not as strenuously contend that the Abrahamic,covenant
was annulled; and this Is a consequence my opponent was
driven to, for the infant's membership is inseparably con¬
nected with said covenant.
35
I before said that after an investigation of the covenant,
we could better understand St. Peter's allusion. And now
whereas it is evident that the covenant was given to
Abraham by promise, to said promise St. Peter" here
alludes, and how striking the similarity. In the promise
it is said, see Gen. xvii. 7. " And'I will establish my cove¬
nant between me and thee, and, thy seed after thee, in
their generations," &c. And in the receptioii/and appli¬
cation it is said, (as expressed by,St. Peter,) 44 for the
promise is unto you'and your children," each stand con¬
nected with an ordinance by which persons were to be
admitted into church membership'—the one by circumci¬
sion the other by baptism.r Both agree in phraseology as
to meaning^ the one 4 to thee and thy seed,' and the other
4 to you and your children.' And whereas it is evident
that parents and in mots were intended in one, we must
rationally infer they were in the other also,.
But the following scriptures, wi 1,1 further explain the
promise to which St, Peter alluded, and that they stood in
relation to the Abrahamic covenant, see* Rom. iV. 16.
, t 1 , . ,
" Therefore it is of faitn, that.it might be by grace; toh
the end the promise might* be sure to alHhe«eed: not to
that on!Y which is of the faw,.btp Jo that also which is of
the faith o( Abraham," &r. Again, Heb. ,vi. 13, "For
86
when God made promise to Abraham, because be could
swear by no greater, heswaro,by himself." Again, verso
17. "Wherein God, willing more abundantly to show
unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his coun¬
sel," &c.
Now the foregoing premise stood related to the Abra-
hamic covenant, and pointed to the gospel day and its ap¬
propriate prdinnnces; and we are to understand St. Peter
as though he had said to the parents then before him,—
'come, and bring your children with you through the new
door into the church, for your right to do so is promised
to you and your children.1 And we are to understand the
ordinance of baptism as having for its promise the gift
of the Holy Ghost. And this brings me to the third thing
proposed, which is to prove that the general doctrine of
baptism, as taught by John the Baptist and the Apostles,
together with other circumstances, show that the baptism
of water must precede the baptism of the Holy Ghost.
Now if I make this appear as a fact, I will overturn the
whole of my opponent's fabric, I a ill show that he parts
asunder what God has joined together. I will show that
he destroys the promise of this ordinance, for he places
the baptism of the Holy Ghost or the new birth, before
water baptism; in this he is tenacious, and requires that
37
the subject give evidence of that f^xct, by" giving an apn
proved experience of grace, to be heard by proper judges.
So when it is believed that he has been baptised by the
Holy Ghost, he may then, and not before then, be baptised
with water: and so he puts the thing promised in the
ordinance be fore'the ordinance itself. Now in reply, and
'to-sustain my position^ f afgue my point first, (in a few
words) frorti reason,- apd sepond, from scripture: 1 then
ask—What is the' nature and design of watbr baptism ^
Why, it is the outward sign of something yet to come—
it is, the sign' of acknowledgement that we need that
which we have not received*, to,wit, the baptism" of the
Holy Ghost, Reason says, a siign must always point for¬
ward and not backward.il come second' to scripture
proof, ,and here I' affirm that~it- Cannot be proved that
John the Baptist required the baptism of the Holy Ghost
# lr , *
to precede his. water baptism, but on the contrary, it can
he plainly proven that tlm doctrine of baptism, as taught
by him, was^ that the ordinance of baptism had for its
promise the, baptism of the Holy Ghost, and vfire as a
subsequent matter/ see Matthew iii. 11. I indeed baptise
you with water unto repentance^:, but he that cometh after
me is mightier than I, whose shoes I airi not worthy to
bear: he shall baptise you with the Holy Ghost, and with
38
fire. Again, Marls i. 0. "1 indeed have baptised you
v/ith water; bat he shall baptise you with the Holy
Ghost." The same in substance is found in Luke, ill. 13.
Acts, xi. 16.
But it is argued that John's day find baptism was pecu¬
liar, because it was just before the miraculous descent of
the Holy Ghost, and on that account he spuke of the
baptism of the, Holy Ghost following after his water
baptism. I answer, this idea, if it he any at all, is set
aside by the Apostle's preaching the same doctrine after
the descent of the Holy Ghost that he did before: see the
passage already recited—Acts, ii. 38, 39. " Then Peter
said unto them? repent, and be baptised every one of you
in the name of Jesuh Christ, for the remission of sins,
and ye shall receive the- gift of the Iloly Ghost; for the
promise is unto you, and to ydur children, and to all that
are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call."
Now one of three things must be granted, i. e. the
above promise stood related to the Abrahamic covenant,
pointing to the gospel day and its ordinances; or the
baptism of water has for its promise the gift of the Iloly
Ghost, or the above mentioned promise has its alfusion to
both. Now if the allusion be to one or all, it overturns
my opponent's scheme. Again, John the Baptist and Peter
39
require baptism, hot that sin had been remitted, but for
the remission of sin, I now descend to particulars, or to
- I
the mention of circumstances that go to show tbnt water
baptism must precede the baptism of the Holy Ghost;
sea Acts, xix. 1 to 7. "And it came to pass, that, while
Apollo3 was at Corinth, Paul, having passed through the
upper coasts, came to Ephesus: and finding .certain
disciples, lie said unto them, Have ye received the Holy
Ghost since ye believed? Add they said unto-him, Wo
have ndt so much as hea/d whether there be any Holy
M 4 ' »
Ghost. And he said uat0 them, Unto' what then, were ye
* '
baptised? And they said,"I,Tnto John's baptism. Then
said Paul, John verily^,baptised with the baptism of re¬
pentance, saying, unto the people, That they should be-
lieve on him which should, come after him, that is, on
Christ Jesus. Wften they heard this, they'were baptised
in the namenf the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid
his hands npon them, the Holy Ghost came on thein; and
they spake with tongues,' and prophesied. ' And all the
men were about twelve."
Now,my opponent affirms that John's is the christian
baptism, and of coufse, done in the name of the Father,
Son and Iloly Ghost, for nOi other is the christian baptism.
I then ask, how did it come to pass that the be foremen-
40
tioned men said, {we have not so much as heard whether
there be any Holy Ghost.' Dots my opponent answer and
say,Johndiad Baptised those twelve men in the name of the
Father,Son and Holy Ghost, but they had all forgot it, but
if wd admit that,we can by no means admit that St, Paul was
under a mistake about it; and if John's was the'christian
baptism bo knew it, and yet re-baptised those persons. If
bo, his conduct ifi that ease was ignorant and wicked, first,
it was ignorant to baptise a second time those that had
been baptised with the christian baptism; second, it was
wicked, it was a manifest violation of tfyat command that
■eays, "thou shalt not take the name bf the Lord thy
God in vain." This is thp opinion of the learned and
wise to a large majority. But how shall we understand
the whole matter? I answer, when John baptised those
persons they were penitential believers, though not re¬
generated and born again, He baptised them with the
baptism of repentance, and Paul baptised them with the
christian baptism, or caused it to be done; although my
opponent objects to these conclusions, he is nevertheless
bound to acknowledge those men received water baptism
before they received the Holy Ghost. And this he must
acknowledge, whether the Holy Ghost that came on them
was the common grace of the spirit, or the extraordinary
41
gift of the spirit, or both together, at the same moment—
it all succeeded baptism. It is said that these menrtvere
*
baptised of Jphti with the baptism Of repentance, and so;
the new birth cannot go before repentance, this was the
* ' ' 1
baptism of repentance, it follows of course that they both
went before the new birth.' Agalp, see Acts, via, 13.
^ Then Simon himself believfeci also,* and when hp was
baptised, he continued with > Phillip,!" &c. We will next
notice St* PelerV wends to this man Simon, rthom Phillip
had a few days before hftptisedj see verse 22.." Repent
therefore pf this thy wickedness, and pray God,/if per¬
haps the thought of thy heart may be forgiven thee. For
I perceive that thou art in tjoe gall of bitterness, and m
the bond of iniquity." But. will we say* Simon was a
hypocrite, arid Phillip baptised.'a wrong man^bping de¬
ceived.- To say thqt is io give St, Lukojihe lie, fo£ if wo
** ' i ' y
were to,admit that Phillip', Peter and-Luke had been
deceived by Simon at firs*t, St. Luke vyas undeceived before
he wrote the history',of the wholo case: aud who will
say1 he told a wilful lie in saying Simon believed when he
knew it was not the case. Also, we,must remember that
the matter 6f Simon's believing was incorporated with the
rest of the men of Samaria, for they'are first mentioned
as believing—and then It Is .added, "Simon himself also
believed, and being baptised," djc.
42
But wo will say Simon was a penitential believer,
though mot regenerated and born again, and as such bap¬
tised; then wo find no jargon in the matter. That ho
was a penitent, is manifest from his calling on the
Apostles to pray for him, after he was reprimanded of
Peter, not* did Peter think his case a hopeless one, or ho
would not have exhorted him to persevere in prayer and
seeking pardon. Again, we are informed that none of the
1 rest of t he men of Samaria received the Holy Ghost until
after their fcpptism. Scd verses 15,16, 17.
Again, I. Cor. x. 2. *'r4nd were all baptised unto Moses
ip the cloud and in the sea," &c. Now St. Paul directs*
that attention be paid to this case, see 1st verse; and when
we examine the contents of this chapter, and the xvi.
chapter of the Book of Numbers,, we will see that one of
four things must.be a stubborn fact, i. e. first, God was a
ci'uel murderer of the righteous; or second, Moses and
St, Paul were notorious liars; or third, a great number of
men fell from grace, and fell finally; or fourth, they were
not regenerated and born again fceforb their baptism, I
pfesume my opponent will choose the latter.
But my opponent afiifms and I grant one plain case,
wherein the giving of the Holy Ghost did precede water
baptism, it being on the ^lay the first gospel sermon was
43
preached to the Gentiles. And here I would say, as St.
Peter said, see Acts, x. 47- "Can any man forbid water,
that these-should not be baptised, which, have received the
f
Holy Ghost as well ns,vrD?" As though he had said it is
out of season, it is contrary to the doctrine of baptism",
yet, of necessity it ought, to be done> As it was with
these Gentiles, so I. think it has been with hundreds of
others who sought and found the Lord, not having a proper
knowledge of the doctrine of baptism, : And if baptism,,
following after the new birth, had'been the standard doc¬
trine and practice of the. Apostles, why wdulcl St- Peter
have propounded any questions,about it?
4tb. I ,cOme' to the circumstance of' whole , families
jr 1 ' ^ . •
being baptised, wherein none but the head of the family
is named,' and in which it must be presumed there were
infants. NoW the eases pro three, i. e. the household of
LycTia-^-the Phillippian jailor—and that of Stephanas, as
expressed I. 'Cop. i. 16„| Act?-, xvi. 14, 15,33. But my
opponent affirms an,d I "grant-that it is possible t'here was
not one infant iri any one of said families. 1 I affirm and
he grahts it possible them was. So then these stand for
i t t , i *-4
me»as presumptive proof, to be made stronger or weaken
by circumstances connected/therewith, in order to which
we may simply inquire for the majority of families with
44
or without infants. N6*v let the'investigation of one
Jamily suffice as a specimen for all in the world, then we
say for instance, a man becomes the head of a family at
the age or -twenty-five, and allow him to have ten children
in twenty years; and then add ten years for Kis youngest
child to come to the age of an adult, then say this father
lives to the age of three score and ten years; hence we
find him the head bf a family of which infants are a part
thirty years, and not a part fifteen years.
Now take the orphan-children that become adopted
children, as a case on one side, and the man and wife that
have no children as a case on "the other side, and we make
or suppose a reasonable balance. We may then proceed
to weigh the proofs -before us in the scale of impartial
justice. Now take one infant out of said ten children,
and whereas we calculate thirty years against fifteen, the
weight of evidence 4ogo in the infant's end of the scale
will be double that of the other. But on an average
calculation, dividing the time among the ten children to
make a proper number answer to the thirty11 years, it will
be found that the number would be three, exclusive of the
deaths that ^night reasonably-happen, that is, three under
the age of adults during the ^hiny years. And as such,
the weight of evidence to go in the infant's end of the
scale would Jie -six times ;he heaviest.
43
Now if the senpture was expressive of only one family
being baptised, fhea the weight of evidence \yould be as
above mentioned, but a second househqjd will bring its
additional weight of* evidence, and alse a third household.
Then as three distinct and separate families.are mentioned,
they all .thrdw their additional wdigh't of evidence into
the infantas end ,of the. scale, making it eighteen times the
heaviest., But as 1 know I can* safely give away a third
'part of mv strength, I will say twelve instead of eighteen,
and if my opponent Could caliall the divines and philoso¬
phers ip the universe" to scrutinize the legality of the
evidence, and then Call all the commissioned arid uncom¬
missioned merchants to .manage dfiq scaled the infant's
end would be at least twelve times the heaviest.
, f
5th- I,come to our Lord's own receptipnof the infant
as expressed in Mat. xviii. 2; xix.13; Mark ix.36; x.13;
Luke ix. 47; xviir. 15. Now I Have heard young and old
contend that it was not infapls, but grown persons of a
child-like temper our Lord took up in^his arms, and to
^hicli the foregoing scriptures refer. And here we see
the result of a bad cause, for my opponent is driven to
the consequence of denying plain explicit scripture, even
the literal word, for1 in Ma{. xviii. we*, have the words
'little child,'and in the xix. chapter the words 'lktle
43
children.' In J.Iark ix, the word 'child,' and x* 'j*01113?
children;* in Luke ix. the word' child,' xix. the word * in¬
fants,'' To say they were grown persons is to literally
contradict the literal word, and reason savs they were
not grown persons frOm the circumstance of our Saviour
taking them up in his arms.
Now in strict obedience and conformity to the example
and counsel of our Lord, we are bound first to receive the
infant—and frorn the circumstance of its being obligatory
with us to receive the infant, we are to learn one import¬
ant arid appropriate lesson, i. e. and whereas no believer
in Christ can be weaker than this infant, yet weak and
ignorant as be may be, our Lord assures us that h were
better a'millstone was huqg about our necks, and we
drowned in the depth of the sea, than that we should
offend one such little one; see Wat- xviii. 6. And let a
minister's natural or acquired abilities be what they may,
or his priestly office bp what it may let him here look
and learn.
Now who dare separate what God has joined together
—-and here hp has joined the infant and also him that
humbleth himself and beepmeth as a little child in these
emphaticai wotds, * he that receiveth such, reqeivoth me;'
and is not th& a religious and church relation.
47
But does my opponent object to rpy Interpretation from
beginning to end, then we n^ust cleave close to the literal
word, nncf I -make my. spiritual demand, i. e. you ftiust
receive the infant oyer the head of all. that forbid it,
otherwise you.ate disobedient to the example and counsel
' ' ' f *
of our Lord.* If you will notm.the reception, baptise it
• t- a 1 '
in the name of,the Lord, you must have Some other insti¬
tute to which you will affix theiname of the Lord. And
. * ■ '
where will he put it2,—In" some remote corner of the
chilrch? Let him put it where he vfill,J he is bound to
receive it. But ,d<?es my opponent/affirm that while the
Saviour had .the infant in his ariys, and said, tfiof such is
the kingdom of Heaven," he meant not the church mili¬
tant but the recepthcle. 'of the disembodied spirits of in¬
fants. In reply I answer, our Lord had not disembodied
spirits in, his &rms,1 ahd I will admit of no inconsistency
in our Lord's words.
Again, my opponent has made a line of distinction and
difference, and on one side he places the elect and! on the
othet* the non-elect; ahd as/all persons must be infants
before they can be'adults, we see infants on both sides of
this linp. I ask my opponent how he gets the infant, that
dies iri infancy, from the reprobate side of the line to
lleavea? And does not my opponent make a double in-
40
consistency in our Lord's words? Now, according to my
opponent's scheme ought not ourLordto have said, (while
he bad the infant in ,hxs arms,) 'the disembodied spirits of
infants on one side of the line are of the kingdom of
Ileaven.9 Now I affirm and my opponent admits that if
our Lord here alluded to the Church militant, -that the
infant's membership is established. And I secondly affirm
and he grants that our Lord meant that the infant's re¬
ception should be in Heavbn or oa earth one or the other.
I thirdly affirm and he grants that while our Lord had
the infant in his arms and said, *of such is the kingdom
of HeaVen,' that he meant ultimate gloTy, or the church
militant one or the other. Now if we say-he meant ulli-,
mate glory then the disciples and all their successors must
Understand our Lord as warning them, that when they
died and got to Ileaven, that they must not be so narrow
contracted and selfish, that when the infant dies and comes
to Heaven, they must not refuse to give ii admittance, hut
they must receive it as one .of their company. To shut
them out would be to shut the Lord out of Heaven,, but to
rfeceive one such little one would be to receive the Lord
into Heaven. We promptly> reject this interpretation.
03** Then the infant's reception must be on earth, and the
kingdom of Heaven, as here expressed, must be the
49"
church militant;;,and this confirms. the .infant's member*-
ship by explicit proof. - Again, it is ^well known that the'
words, Hhe kingdom of Heaven,',and 'the kingdom of <5od?'
in the New Testament most frequently mean, the church...
6th. I come, to the*, time contended for as the time of
the infant's expulsion, being a time-wheri Jewish rites and
forms were contended for to a fault, and that, the infants
expulsion could, not, have>,taken, place. . The scripture,
remain silent about it*
At this crisis among all subjects none was a subject of
so much controversy, as.thatof the, old initiating rite—
circumcision*. ..the Judaiging ,teachers on the one side:
and the Apostles on the,other.;s and at sundry times some
of the converts to Christianity., became advocates .for the
continuance of. the old initiating rite,, and so great was
the controversy that at a certain,time Paul and Barnabas*,
had to go up to, Jerusalem to ^settle this queation. And,
when the. Apostlesi andj Elders, were called together,.the
first conference was held,,-Si.. James, being the President,.,
the old initiating rite was the matter in dispute, and after j
a decision to the nullifying of circumcision, the conference,
knowing of the noise and confusion abroad, determined to.
send chosen men to1 beat letters-to the preachers in dif¬
ferent part's to put down this controversy. See Acts,.xv..
50
Again: St. Paul, when before courts or councils, or a
host of persecutors, reverts to his miraculous call and
conversion as the only means to convert him from his
Jewish prejudices and formsj tbut an entire abandonment
Could not be fully effected, for St. Paul had, in his wis¬
dom, to submit to the circumcision of Timothy.
f ■ «
Now, I ask a sober, thinking and rational man, could
the infants membership be annulled because the old initi-
1
ating rite was annulled; and so much said about the one
and not a word about the other in all this controversy?
-Could a part of the church become acastaway, and not a
word said about it? But suppose the infant's membership
to goon unmolested; then the scriptures would stand as
we find them: that is, entirely silent about it. 'When we
consider all the hue and cry in the midst of hot persecu¬
tion,—every thing was taken hold of and handled to the
utmost extent, against the new doctrine,—When they
would wrangle for a rite quarrel for a fast, and almost
fight for a new mooty would these men have nothing to
pay about the infants expulsion from the church, when
they had the right to plead divine authority, as giving rise
to the practice of their membership. A continuance of
the same practice for almost or about two thousand years,
all maintained and supported by the lively oracles of God.
51
Again1: what would those men have said about the in¬
justice of expelling those who had never transgressed!
In conclnsion, I ask, why does the scripture say nothing
about the infant's expulsion? Why, because it never was
expelled. ' I come
7th. To make it appear that the sqriptures" teach in a
special manner that the given name of an individual must
be confirmed in connection with initiation; and scripture
and reason concur to say it "ought to be done in infancy*
Now, the question is asked by my opponent, What good
will it do an infant to baptise it? I answer, the same that
it can do to baptise the adult. And I will not stop at say-
* - -t1 ' * ^ 1
ing, that my baptism is no fetter than his, as to their
nature, design and meaning. 1st. .As to the, seal of the
covenant, it answers to the infant, as well as the adult.-—
2nd, As to the. initiating rite, it answers to the infant, the
same as the adult. 3d. Baptism is the answer of a good
conscience: and here 1 must leave my opponent behind, as'
I evidently have the advantage. For,, let a person become
incident to a religious concern at any age* if he has been
baptised in his infancy, he has the answer of a good con¬
science. the moment he needs it. This cannot be said of
my opponent's baptism; for sometimes it is prevented for
months, and sometimes for years, and sometimes for life*
52
And many things there are that prevent it; but one id par¬
ticular; i, e. many go frotm the jail to the gallowsr, and;
die without it.
Again: who has ever proved that it does the infant no
good to baptise it? When we take into consideration the
sojemn act of its dedication to God in baptism -and not
only is the responsible bapliser required by all the so¬
lemnity of the sacred institute/ to, pray Heaven's bless¬
ing may rest on the child, butevery father and mother ia
Israel, and every young and zealous soldier of the cross,'
«—yea, that all the church join in prayer for the child,.
I ask, who can prove that God will not hear prayter in
that ease? • Bui my opponent says it is all delusion, and
will prove as no blessing to the child; and so he hews>
them all down together at a stroke; both preacher and
people: for, says he, the infant is incapable of a blessing.
In reply, I answer, fhen the great head of the church
must fall with them; for if the infant is inchpable of a
blessing, then he was under a delusion when he took the-
infant up in his arms to bless it»>
But a great deficiency in my opponents baptism,—and
that it is in the rear of mine—4s that of the omission of
the confirmation of the name of the subject, therewith;—.
3nd this, law,, reason, and scripture require. For how.
53
c&o 'the law take hold of -a man, for the alteration of his
name, so long as his name is uncertain, And with how-
much propriety may the thinking, pious woman say to heir
husband, will you„ give names to our beasts, and names to
ohr children, and shall there be no distinction? JJoes'ndt
reason say, the names, of oun children, that are so dear
to us, should be ratified by. some sacred institute? (In
the meatime this man,in silence, says to himself, I have
given my child a name, and my dog a name, and reason
says there should be a distinction.). Again; may not this
reflecting husband add; it has always, been my design to
support the character of a good citizen, submitting to
every Ordinance of man* for the Load's sake, and the law
contemplates the confirmation of the names of. our chil-
jdren. • And again; shall we dwell in the land of Christ¬
endom. and our chidren remain heathens all the while?
i 1 '
I now come to scripture proof, to be found in the first
chapter of St, Luke's gospel, concerning the distinguished
child, John the Baptist; and taking all the circumstances
in connection, it makes a case altogether in point, and
» » ' r '
adds much to the solemnity and importance to the duty,—
1st. It is said that' the parents of this child, > Zachariah
and Elizabeth, were both righteous before God, walking
in all the ordinances of the Lord blameless; at a time
64
that this faithful Priest was in the act of discharging his
official duty, the angel of the Lord appeared to him, and
told him ''that his wife Elizabeth should hear a son, and
he should call his name John. That he should be dumb,
and not able to speak until the day these things should
be performed." When the day came, it was the self
same day that this excellent child was initiated into the
church,"
But a dispute took place between the mother and rela¬
tives, concerning the name; for it was to be that day rati¬
fied', in connection with initiation, and never afterwards*
altered. The venerable father had to end this dipute, by
writing, as he coul<f not talk, and thus, the name of the
child was established,—the. tongue of the excellent old
man loosed, and he filled with the Holy Ghost.- It. was a
time much observed and long remembered*
Now(, did the angel Gabriel come down to do his Ma¬
ker's will, and what was the intent of his errand? Why*
in part, tq tell Zachariah that this child must be called
John,—and, was he, Zachariah, deaf and dumb a long
time, even untill the day of the child's initiation?—Now,
I ask in the name of sober, honest, good sense, can we
initiate a member into the church, omitting a confirmation
of the namely How can any man disregard, this solemn
55
counsel and example, though he may stand in a river or
. . -H * *
pool, and with an uplifted hand, in solemnity announce,
that in obedience to the command of God, he discharges
this duty? , How can he omit that which the scriptures so
clearly lays before hirn? How can he separate the name
from initiation, when God has joined them together?—
r . ■ 1
Again, see Luke, ch. ii, 21, ''And when eight days were
accomplished for the circumcising' of the child, his name
was called Jesus, which was so nam^d of the angel before
he was conceived in the womb."
A confirmation of the name in connection with initiation,
is a duty that is made exceedingly solemn by the follow¬
ing chain of circumstances. lst.» God sent his holy an-
gel'to give special direction to a father and mother, con¬
cerning the name. 2nd. A holy man of God was deprived
of his speech and hearing, from the time the angel gave
direction concerning the narne, until this venerable: father
established it by a sacred institute—having been deaf and
dumb almost a, year. 3d. On his confirming the name
agreeable to divide instruction, his tongue was loosed and
he praised God. 4th., He was immediately under the in¬
fluence of inspiration, and filled with the Holy Gfhost. He
proceeded to speak, and spake in point, and fastened the
Abrahamic covenant in the first link of the gospel chain,
56
fHe also spoke of the time being, the first dawning of the
morning star of the gospel day. See Luke ch. i, 72—79.
5th. The name in connection with initiation, is confirmed
by the1 name and initiation of the great head of the
church.
But will my opponent contend that our Saviour was not
initiated into the church, until his baptism in river Jordan,
And that was his initiation, and stands as an example for us
in our initiation. In reply, I answer, that will make our
Saviour a vile sinner, for his baptism did not take place
until he was about the age of thirty years. Luke ch. iii,
21, 22, 23 ; and to live out of the church is a well known
sin. Then it is asked, what did his baptism mean? 1 an¬
swer, his consecration to the priestly office; and for this
cause, he lived almost a retired life, until he come to the
age of thirty years; which was the proper age to receive
that ordinance J it being the ordinance spoken of in Ex¬
odus, ch. xi, 12; ch. xxix, 4, after which he went into the
work of the ministry,
,To the reader, and in particular to parents of the child-
Your child is, by nature, unprepared for Heaven, and can
only be prepared by the atoning blood of sprinkling, and
the effusion of the Holy Ghost. It is your duty to ack¬
nowledge this before Him, in \yhom you have explicit
57
confidence and faith, to do these things; and he has
appointed water as the means of your acknowledgment
and faith in him. Will you refuse to dedicate your child
to him, in the sacred institute, by him appointed! and in
this refusal, do you not disregard, and lightly esteem the
i -
T)lood that bought your child's pardon? and the Holy
Ghost, that must wash and purify it?—'Without which it
.cannot-be saved. Nay, have your-child baptised with
Water, as an -acknowledgment that it needs the baptism of
t the Holy Ghost: and although, if your, child dies in infan¬
cy, it will fae-saved, whether baptised-or not,* -iYet, you
• must give an aecount fotf yourself, for- you? unbelief, or
omission of duty.
ONTHEMODE.
X THiNK it a matter settled ia the present day, that the-
word baptise, means water applied by proper authority,
to a proper subject, either by sprinkling, pouring or im¬
mersion. But the great error and inconsistency in my
opponent's argument that should be detected, is, that he
has taken the words buried by baptism, and buried in
baptism, away from their native home and carried them
down to Jordan. I believe that hundreds of men have
been carried away bv the mere sound of the word buried,
for the reason, that it bas been ingeniously incorporated
with the circumstances of going down into, and coining up
out of the water, in the many discourses delivered at the
margin of the river. And it is very probable with me,
no words iq all the sacred writings, have been wrested
from their proper meaning to a greater extent, than the
words, buried by baptism.
Now that my assertions are true, I shall recite and re¬
mark on these words, and those connected with them:—
59
Rom. ch. vi, 2—11. "God forbid. How shall we, that
\
are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Know ye not
that so many of us as were baptised into Jesus Christ,
were baptised into his death? Therefore we are buried
with him by baptism into ,death j that like as Christ was
raised up from the dead by the glory of his Father, even
so, we also should walk in newness of life* For if we
have been planted together in the likeness of his death,
we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: Know¬
ing this, that our old man is crucified with him* that the
body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should
not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin.—
Now, if we be dead with Christ, we belive that we shall
-also live with him: Knowing that Christ, being raised
from the dead, dieth no more; death hath no more do¬
minion over him. For in that he died, he died unto sin
once: but in-that,hej li.veth, he liveth unto God. * Like¬
wise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto
sin," &c.
Now the subject matter of the foregoing verses has no
I
allusion to water baptism, but the happy effects of the'
new birth, as will appear. 1st. When St. Paul speaks of
baptism as in reference to another personage, he has used
two modes of expression, i. e. into, and fmto;as in the;
60
third vers©, "into Chirst';" as in L Cor/ x,2: "unto Moses."
Now> why this difference of1 expression ? Why, because
one is the baptism of water and the other the baptism of
the Holy Ghost. That the baptism unto' Moses as a fol¬
lower Of Moses, who was a type of Christ, was a water
baptism, none deny; and that the baptism into Christ was
a spiritual baptism, is proved by this Apostle using the
" same word (into) in another case, that he himself calls the
baptism of the spirit: See I. Cor. ch. xii, 13.' "For by
one spirit are we all baptised' into ond body," &c. That
is, baptised in that love that embraces the communion of
Saints; to deny" this being the baptism of the spirit, is to
deny the literal word.
Again t Gal. ch. iii, 26.' "For as many of you as have
been baptised inlo1 Christ," dec. 'Here the consequence
will mteet my opponent at the front or back door—for if
he calls this water baptism, he must call its subjects the
seed of 'Abraham: see verse 29. And if that be granted,
the Abrahamic covenant, as being the gospel covenant, is
granted—and if that be granted, the infant's membership
is granted.
1 But why did St. Paul use the word into in one case, and
the Word^nnto in another case? Why, because it was
proper to use the word into, in a case of the inward work
61
of the spirit, and the word unto in a case of an outward
ordinance.
2nd. It is said,', that {,as many as were baptised into*
Christ, were - baptised .into his death;?' that is, into the
blessings .and efficacy of bis death; ,,Can the baptispi of
water answer this great end? No. But the baptism of
the Holy Ghost can.,
3d. It is said,, verse 4,,<{we are buried with him by bap¬
tism unto death,??' Now^I ask) what kind of a depth is this,
we are baptised into? ..My opponentjanswersy, it, 19 a fig*,
urative death,.by a;,burial of the body mnde» ;Water, 1. I
answer; St. Paul don't say so—and .howdara ,we ,take at
position so far from, the literal word,?. And if we cast our-
eye on the 2nd', £thy 7th, 8th & 1 Ithverses, we have this,
death explained:.cthus,w see this is not, a seeming or:
figurative death, but an actual death to sin; and why was
it necessary.for St., Paul to Say, a.-word about a buriai?---
Why,- because he was about to speak.of. the triumphant,;
resurrection in tbe.souhof a, ffian wlio .had received the
baptism: of /the Holy,Ghost and fire;, which: mada.it necesri
sary andt right that '.he should..speaks of. ihei death .and,
burial of sin» > Now,' it. is plainly said that our old man is.
crucified with -him, as that ' we are buried'with '• him by 1
baptism: see verse 6, ■ And St. Paul tells us why it.is nc-
Pessary that all these things should take place in the crea¬
ture. JSee said 6th verse:—"That the body of sin might
be destroyed." I then ask a question appropriate and in
point, i. e.: Which does it require, the baptism of water
or the baptism of the Holy Ghost to destroy the body of
sin?
4th. In verse 5th, this progressive work of grace is
likened to a planting, and my opponent grants that the
earth or spil cannot produce corn or wheat unless the
seed be put in it, He also grants that the heart cannot
produce good fruit unless the seed of grace be planted in
it; then like the plant in the valley, it can grow to a re¬
semblance of the blade, the ear, and full corn in the ear.
Can water baptism produce this vivacity of heart and
soul ? No, nothing short of the baptism of the Holy Ghost
can do it.
5th. The walking in newness of life as expressed in
the 6th verse, and to follow after this baptism, must yet
have its investigation; and here some questions must be
propounded and answered). I then ask, is a walking in
newness of lifej essential to salvation? Yes: for man will
be judged according to his works; to deny this, is to deny
the bible. I then ask another question, i. e. When does
this walking in newness of life commence? My opponent
65
Answers, of course not until after, but immediately after
this death, burial and resurrection. I again ask, what
resurrection, from where, and from what? He answers,.
Why, his resurrection out the water. This, then, makes
immersion essential to salvation, for no man lives the life
of a christian but he that walks in newness of life. And
here we come to the point on which the scale turns. Now
my opponent affirms, and I deny. He says St. Paul meant
water baptism:—I say he meant the baptism of the Holy
Ghostand I affirm and he , grants, that be it which it
may, it is the commencement of a walking in newness of
life.
Then we call our wisdom to answer a question—sup¬
pose a man receives the baptism of the Holy Ghost at a
certain time, and three months afterwards, he receives
water baptism, from and after which does he commence
to walk in newness of life ? Wisdom anwers, he„com-
mences to walk in'newness of life as soon as he becorries
a new creature; it is, the spirit and not the water that ef¬
fects the new birth, and qualification to walk in newness
of life. Now if wisdom answers correctly, St. Paul al¬
luded to the baptism of the Holy Ghost.
Again: what wilt we say about the man who-receives
the baptism of the Holy Ghost, and dies without baptism
64
by immersiobj (and this is the case with thousands;) why-
according to jpy , opponents interpretation of the ahove
scripture and baptism, he must be lost; for he cannot walk
in newness pf life until, he has hi? resurrection put of the
water.,, And to walk, in newness, of Jife, is to walk in the
narrowway that leads,to the straight gate. Now* allow
me to take a word, away from the scope of the subject to
which.it stands, cooneoJpd,, and I will prove the Apostle a
robber. » - So take the words, buried by baptism* away
from ithe portion; of.scripture that stands inseparably
connected [with, them,], and you may strengthen the side
of immersion, and still more so when you not only leave
s
out the proper connection* but in. room thereof connect
with them, Joha's baptising in Jordan, in Enon, and the
baptism of. the eunufih, &c..
Again;t.Poll. ch,,ii*; 12: "Juried with him in baptism,'
wherein,also ye, ,are risen with him through the faith of
the operation,of God, who hath raised him from the dead."
* _ i
Here we are told "we are raised "through the faith of the
+ *
operation of, God;" not up out.of the water by the hands
of the minister.*
Again, in the verse following, and inseparably connect¬
ed, the Apostle portrayed a man dead in tresspass and sin,
and the same man awakened,'quickened and called, and
65
obtaining the pardon of his gins, See verse 13: "And
you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of
your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, haying
forgiven you all trespasses.'"
Now* who dare pall the two foregoing cases, the bap¬
tism of water and not the baptism of the Holy Ghost?—
i shall dismiss them from the argument, assaying noth-
#
ing to do with water baptism.
In treating of the MopE, I shall set down the proofs on
the side of immersion, as also, on titeside of effusion; afrd
then use my best endeavors to weigh, them honestly in
-the scale of impartial justice, I begin with the proofs
•on the side of immersion.
1st. The circumstance of John the Baptist,'baptising
in the river Jordan; Mat. ch, iii, .6,—Mark. ch. i, 5: and
■here it is presumed, that they went to the riyer for the
-sake of immersion.
2nd. The case of John baptising in Enon, near Salem,
because there was much water there; John, cb,,iii, 23:—
here, it is again presumed that JOhp baptised by imnaer-
'sion, because he chose a place of much water.
3d. The baptism of the eunuch, Acts, ch. viii,'38,39, is
presumed to be immersion, from the circumstance that he
and Philip went down into, and came up out of the water .
E
66
Now, the three foregoing cases, stand, each as pre¬
sumptive, but not explicit proof, for immersion; and they
show the place of baptising, but not the mode of baptising
—that must be found out by other searchers—and it must
be granted that all these baptisms might have taken place,
and yet no immersion at last. This uncertainty and doubt
is occasioned because we find proof on the side of effu¬
sion. And he that will honestly search after truth, must
elosely examine all proofs on both sides. 1 And before the
three foregoing proofs can justly go into the immersion
end of the scale, they must be examined, and the more so,
because presumptive proof can be made stronger or
weaker, by circumstances connected therewith. The
foregoing proofs are weakened from the following chain
of circumstances, and show a reason why John baptised
in a river, and in Euon near Salem, and Phillip and the
Eunuch went down into the water, though immersion was
not intended.
#Then first, John lived the life of a hermit, and preached
and baptised in the wilderness: see Luke, i, 80,—"And
the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, and was in the
deserts, till the day of his showing unto Israel." Again,
Mark, i, 4,—"John did baptise in the wilderness, and
preach the baptism of repentance," &c.
Now, on the supposition that John baptised by effusion,
I ask who carried the large vessel out into that wilderness
or to the river Jordan, such' as would have answered to
bring up water from the river, for the baptism of the
multitudes he baptised; and who can prove John would
I
have used it, if it was done? His refusal would be no
more strange, than his refusing fodd and raiment,' which,
it is as likely was offered him; but, for reasons'known to
himself, he was thus singular, abandoning the things 6f
this world. So, of necessity, they went down into the
river, though immersion was not intended. •
But my opponent has indirectly said John poured water
on his subjects, out of a muscle-shell, and this he has
done in the objections he has^ raised against. Mr. Wesly,
for trying to amend opr present translation. Now let my
1 opponent stand up to the position he has1 taken; which is',
to receive our authorised version as it stands, and that
i ^ '
connected with it. 1 hold him to his point, for I will have
' *
him to be El consistent man; then he must receive as a
true representation,'the picture of John pouring water in
order to baptism, out of the muscle-shell. Thus my op¬
ponent indirectly says John baptised by effusion, for he
allows po man to touch any thing tjie men have done, who
\ I •
gave us ouf authorised version; and here four, things com
68
cur to weaken the presumptive proof, on the side of Im¬
mersion.
1st. It may be presumed, that no vessel was furnished
to brihg water up from the river.
2nd. That if it was, there is good ground to believe
John refused to use it.
3d. The great multitude he baptised, made It most con¬
venient to go to the river;
4th, That such was the weight and influence of the
documents of antiquity, that the actual picture of John
pouring water out of the muscle-shell, on his subjects in
baptism, is placed in our authorised and received bibles;
. * » • «
moreover, his using the above instrument, as also it is
said, a part of his time, he used a cow's horn; either of
which, he could have gat in the wilderness, and used in
any way to correspond with the scriptural account we
have of the conduct and character of this holy man of
Godj and it makes a parallel in that of his living on lo¬
custs and wild-honey, to the exclusion of articles and
things connected with a wicked world.
Now, all this chain of circumstances, or nearly so, to
weaken the presumptive proof on the side of immersion,
will also apply in the case of John baptising in Enon, near
■Salem, To which may be added, that history says this
69
place was fifty-three miles north-east from Jerusalem, $
place where John baptised, becanse there were many
springs and rivulets of water there.- See Wood?s History
and Dictionary,of the Bible, vol. 1, page 411; also, Buck^s
Theological Dictionary of the Bible; page 43.
But among the baptisms that took place in Jordan, one
was the baptism of our Lord, and this" is 6ne to be much
observed, and fearfully and carefully investigated. Then!
in order to find out whether it was by immersion or effu¬
sion, we must find out the nature and design of it; hence
we ask—Was it his initiation into the church or was it his
consecration to the priesthood? I apswer, that it Was his
consecration to the priesthood is manifest from seven dis¬
tinct considerations.
1st. ,The scriptures show another time, almost .thirty
< * r t '
years before his baptism, as the time ancf circumstance of
r * ' ? „ ; ' , '
his initiation into the church. See Lute-, ii, 21. To deny"
\ ■ ■■ * . : , ."J '< " ■ ■ ,
this, and contend for the delay o£ his initiation until, his
' r ' ' ' '
baptism, will, as I said before, make pur Saviour a vile
' " " ' >*■ , *
sinner: for it is a well known sin, to live out- of the
* , " - i ,
church:—which he would have done until he was thirty
years old.
2nd. The scriptures show no other, time and circum-,
70
stance, as the case of his consecration to the priestly of¬
fice, but his baptism in Jordan.
3d. The law required all candidates for consecration,
to be thirty years old or upwards:—see Numb, iv, 3; and
he was then about that age. See Luke, iii, 21, 22, 23.
4th. That is the plain reason, his age of thirty years
is mentioned in connection with his baptism. See the
above.
5th. His;refraining to preach before his baptism, and
his commencing jt so soon after, go to show his baptism
was that washing J shall hereafter mention, as preparato¬
ry to his entering on the works of the ministry,
6th. His submission to, and acknowledgment of the
above law, being a righteous law, and that it become him
to fulfil all righteousness.
7th. Our Lord on a certain occasion, Was called on to
show his authority, for that of his acting in the capacity
of a Priest; and who ^ave him that authority. He an¬
swered the question by asking another: i. e.,"The baptism
of John, whence was it, from Heaven pr of man?" See
Matt, xxi, 23,24,25. Here was a question and an an¬
swer in point; and the answer settled the question, for
none dare deny the right of John t<J inaugurate into the
71
Now it seems to me, that the foregoing chain of circum¬
stances,. is all sufficient to show that our Saviour's hap"
tism was his consecration to the priest's office; and it only
remains to carefully examine vyhat ■ was the mode of ap¬
plying water in that ordinance- .But before I recite these
proofs, 1 remark, that we must remember, that the words
wash and laptise are synonomous words; and thus I re¬
cite—Exodus, xxxix, 4: .."And Aaron, and his sons, thou
shalt bring unto the door of the tabernacle of the congre¬
gation, and shalt wash them with water." Now, that this
' *
was an application of water, in consecration, see verse
9th,—"And the priest's office shall be theirs, for a perpeti
ual statute: and thou shajt consecrate,^Aaron and his
sons." Again, ch, xi, 12, 13,—"And thou shalt- bring
Aaron and his sons unto the door of the tabernacle of the
i 1 * 1
congregation, and wash them with water, And thou shalt
i 1. '
put upon Aaron, the holy garments , and anpoint him, and
sanctify him; that he may minister unto me in the priest's
office,"
1 take it for granted, that no.man will contend that an
application of water in this institute, at the door of the
tabernacle was immersion; but does my opponeut_aitL
swer, I will have nothing but the literal word for sprin t-
ling:—then ypu must have it. Numb' viii, 6, 7:—"Take
72
the Le'vites from among the children of Israel, and cleanse*
them. And this thoU shalt do Onto them, to cleanse them;
sprinkle water ot purifying upon them."
Hence, we see our Lord's baptism was the washing or
sprinkling to which the foregoing*scripture alludes; and
if his.baptism was not immersion, and yet in the river
Jordan, We may rationally presume, all the rest in the
river wa3 not immersion. Hence, the foregoing chain of
circumstances go to weaken the presumption that immer¬
sion took place in the river Jordan.
I come next to the baptism of the eunuch, as spoken of
ifl Acts, viii; and "here two things eoncur to weaken the
presumption that his was by immersion.
1st., It took place in a desert place—see verse 26: and
t» and with a man travelling the road on -a journey—see
verse 36; consequently, we have the most rational reason
to believe, that when they came to U certain water,.that
for want of an instrument to bring it up, they went down
to or nto the water, though immersion was not intended.
2nd. The eunuch would not have sued for baptism at
that time and place, had not Philip just then explained to
him the nature and design of it, and that he had a right to-
receive it, though he was of another nation. And this is.
verified by that of Philip explaining to him the prophe-
75
sy. he had Just called on him. to explain; answering to the
question asked by the eunuch, together with that connect¬
ed with it r—all of which may be seen in the 52nd and
f ' '
53d chapter of Isaiah's prophesy, Now let the harmony
of this prophesy, and the circumstance of the eunuch's
baptism be noticed.
In this prophesy it is Said, (see liii, ch. 15 verse,) "So
shall he spritvkle mapy "nations," &c. , Philip, for one,
had received his commission to baptise all nations: and
when they came to a certain water, well might the eunuch
say, "What doth hinder'me tb.be baptised?" If Philip
baptised him under the mode? of sprinkling; -the prophesy
in that instance, and to that extent, was literally fulfilled;
and well might the eunuch go On his way rejoicing, and
bearing the happy news to the people of his nation, that
lhe visible door of the church was open tothem, and he,
for one, had entered through.
But are we left to doubt whether this sprinkling must
be understood to mean the baptism of water,, or the bap¬
tism of the Idoly Ghost? Be it which'it may, it weakens
the side of immersipn; for if it is the baptism of the Holy
Ghost, it^must be resembled the baptism of water, as I
shall hereafter make appear. But we have good reason
to believe that this prophet meant this sprinkling, to be
74
water baptism, and was so understood by Philip end the
eunuch i for the text and substance matter connected with
it, pointed tb the gospel day and ordinances, and opening
of the great effectual door, to many nations, answering to
the very day Philip baptised the eunuch. And be that
will carefully read the two chapters beforb mentioned,
will find this to be a fact; and is altogether reasonable to
believe that this sprinkling bf many nations, is the bap¬
tismal initiatory rite of all nations. Thus we see iirst, a
reason why they went down to or into the water, though
not for,immersion,second, the union; andcommunion with
Philip, the eunuch, .this prophesy,and the eunuch's bap¬
tism, go, very much to weaken the presumption that the
eunuch was baptised by immersion.
Now the strong proof known to be on the side of effu¬
sion, and an honest search after truth, drives me to the
necessity of giving the reasons I have given why John
baptised in Jordan, and in Enon, near Salem, and why
Phillip and the eunuch went down to, and came up out of
the water, though immersion was not intended.
And, now, allowing these three presumptive proofs all
the* weight to which they are still entitled, I place them in
k \ *.
the immersion end of the scale, and proceed to recite and
remark oh proofs on the side of effusion. I. Cor. x, 1., St:
75
"Moreover, brethren, I would riot that ye should be igno¬
rant, how that all our fathers were under" the cloud, and
all passed through the sea; and were all baptised unto
Mosds in the cloud and in the sea." Here it is expressly
said they were baptised, and also that they were under
the cloud. NoW.l ask, why did God place the'cloud over1
them? But before this question is answered, let another
be asked. Why did the people go to the river Jordan to
be baptised? Reason says, because immersion was intend¬
ed:—and in the other case, why was the cloud placed over
the people? Reason sayS, in order that wafer might de¬
scend from it and baptise them by effusion. But in which
case, is the presumption the strongest? Further investi-
gation will answer this question; and now, that Israel,
passed through the Red Sea on dry ground, see Exodus,
xiv, 16:—" And the children of Israel shall go on dry
ground through the midst of the sea." Again, see verse
9:—f'And the Lonjl caused the sea to go back by a strong
east wind all that night, and made the sea dry land,",&c.
-Again, see verse29:—"But the children of Israel walked
jjpon dry land in the midsf of the sea," &c, Again, Heb„
xi, 29:—"By faith thev passed through' the Red Sea, as-
by dry land," &c.
76
Now if my opponent will not agree that water did de~
scend from the cloud and .sprinkle them, I ask,—How,
were they baptised? Will, he say they were by some
, means immersed; then I must have the means plainly
pointed out'. How will he ever make out his immersion
on dry ground? * Will he answer, the sea made a wall on
either side, and the cloud above, made it answer to a figu¬
rative baptism, answering to immersion. I answer, scrip¬
ture and reason allow no such latitude. For the baptism
spoken of in sacred writ* from first to last, in the strict
sense of the word, requires an application of water to the
subject; and water baptism sustains a relation to the bap¬
tism of the Holy Ghost, that will not admit of any such
unwarranted supposition or latitude.
Ffow, whereas, Israel passed through the sea on dry
ground, it was impossible that water baptism, by immer¬
sion, took, place on dry ground: and an investigatien of
this baptism will result in two facts,—one, that immersion
did not take place; and another, that effusion did take
place: and, as immersion did not take place on dry ground,
it now onjy remains, that} rpake it appear, that effusion
did take place;—and this has appealed by-presumptive
prbof—asMie cloud was placed over the people, and to
bring it out explicit proof, it would be required to prove
7 T
that water did descend from the cloud and fall on the peo¬
ple—as the proof of which, see Psalm Ixxvii, 16 to 20 :—
'The waters saw thee, O God, the waters saw thee; they
Were afraid; the depths were also troubled. The clouds
poured out water; the' skies sent out a sound:) thine ar-
J
rows also went abroad. The voice of thy thunder was
in the heaven: the lightnitfgs lightened the world; the
earth trembled and shook. Thy way is in the sea, and
^ *
thy path in the great' waters, and thy footsteps are not
known. Thou leddest thy people like a flock by the hand
of Moses and Aaron''
Now, in the foregoing ease it is evident, first, that bap¬
tism did take place: second, that the subjects of it, were
under the cloud: third, that" the cloud poured out water-
1 askfWhat do we lack here, in seeing explicit proof for
sprinkling? Will my opponent answer, it is still only pre¬
sumptive proof, for the water might have descended part
of the way down towards the people, and then stopped,
or turned off in a horizontal direction, and not reached
one of them. I answer, that is calling in question God's
immutability.' And again, St. Paul, in his strong and ap¬
propriate language has stopped this grip, as also Spoiled
my opponents figurative baptishn; for if he had bnjy^said
they were under the cloud, then my opponent might have
78
ocpupledtwo different grounds. First, he might say the sea
made a wall of water on either side, and the cloud above
afforded him some ground to contend for figurative bap¬
tism. Second, that the Psalmist saying the cloud poured
out water, is no proof that the water descended pll the way
down to the people.. But St. Paul.does not stop at saying
they were under the cloud, but he also says, they were in
the cloud: .and what is better known, than that a man may
be in it, because it descends down to them; and so it was
with the children of Israel. But two quotations will de-
cidethe controversy, i. e. if the people ascended up above
the cloud, and then down into it, then it will answer to im¬
mersion, but on the other hand, if the cloud descended
down to the people, then It will answer to effusion.
Now, after honestly weighing all these things, who can,
with a clear conscience, say they do not result in explicit
propf for effusion? And four things concur to make this
baptism one of special regard and influence.
1st. The great number baptised, for we are told there
were six hundred thousand men; and add to these the
women and children, and we have more than a million of
souls.
2nd, The Lord from heaven was the ,baptiser, though
# *■
at all other times <(he baptised not, but his disciples."
79
3d.^ This baptism was a type of the christian baptism—
and this is acknowledged by all the commentators and di*
vinqs, whether they have said less or more on the subject,
of alt I have read, from first to last.
c
4th. Wefmust regard this baptism because we ard com¬
manded to do so. See I. Cor. xj 1.
Now, if any man have doubts in the foregoirig baptism
terminating in explicit proof for effusion, he surely will,
not hesitate to say it is a close approximation to it. And
as the cloud was over ,the people, and it poured out water
we may think and think again—and search and re-search,
and we can find nothipg to weaken ther presumption for
effusions j or that the cloud "was placed over them for oth^
er reasons.
I come secondly, to> another proof on the side of effu"
sion, i. e. the circumstance of the word baptise} having for
its conjunction, the word, with—that is, with water—as is
seen in a great many places in the sacred writings. Now
if immersion be the true piode, ask, why does not the
word, in water, stand where t,he word, with water stands?
This is a strong case against immersion, for if vpp notice
the etymological meaning of .these words, or the general
Use of them in ancient and modern times, or more especi¬
ally their application and use in the sacred writings: that
80
la all the cases wherein the body, (though net in baptism)
or a part thereof, or any other article or thing was dipped,
we no where find the word with, as appropriate to the case,
and we always find the word in, a£ appropriate: i. e., in
water, and not with' water, as it is in the ease of baptism.
And that the word in, and not with, is used in all other
cases of dipping. See Josh, iii, 15; II. Kings, v, 14; Ps.
Ixviii, 23; John, xiii, 26; If. Kings, yiii, 15,
'Again: in all the cases of bathing, the word with, is
no where used, and the word in, always used. See Levitt
icus, xv, 5, viii, 11, xiii, .21, xxii, 27, xxvi, 28, xvii, lS.v-r
Nnmb, xxix, 7,'viii, 19. Why" cannot these words, with
water, find a place in any of the foregoing cases of dip¬
ping or bathing? Why, because the word with, was not
appropriate, and the word in, was. And, why was it not
so in baptism? Why, because dipping was not the mode.
Now, if two separate rites have the same mode, and that
mode to dip, then in water, should be the phraseology in
both cases.
Again, when wd use the word with, we useit as express¬
ive of a lesser thing, subservient tcr a greatter. So Moses
smote the rock with the rod; and so our Lord anointed the
eyes of the blind man with clay and spittle. But if a man
goeth down into, or suffers himself to be thrown down intp
81
the river, he is subservient to the water. Once more.-;—
Now. take the figures 1, 2 and 3, and say 1 represents the
eubjecit about to receive a rite, and 2 represents the nature
of bringing the element and subject together* Now which
does the figure 2, call for, the word wilh. or in? Why, if
the subject is to be applied to the water, then it, calls for
the word in, but if the water is to, be applied, to the sub¬
ject, then, it cgills for the word with. Then, if we are
baptised with water, and not in Water, our baptism, must
be by effusion.
I now come to some proofs contended for on the side of
immersion. Heb. x, 22: "Let us draw near [with a true
heart,] in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprin¬
kled fronfan evil conscience, and our bodies washed with
pure water." Some think this text favors'immersion, and
contend that it bears a .better resemblance to washing thaa
effusion, for the reason that a" larger portion of, water is
applied. I then ask, what will we do with the case of
baptism wherein no water at all is applied? Why, it is
i 1
no baptism at all, for an application of water is essential
to baptism. I then place before my opponent, not leas
than a million of persons whof were under the cloud, and
baptised unto Moses, &c. . But my opponent, in doing the
bpst he possibly can, to support immersion,, is unfortu?
82
nately driven to the consequence of making this figurative
baptism, for we have heard his argument, and thus, he
says, the sea made a wall of water on either side, and the
cloud above made a figurative baptism answer to immer¬
sion,* consequently,; no application of water. But the
chain of doctrine on the side of effusion has an applicar
tion of water at every point; but a link in that case is
missing in the immersion chain—for here my opponent
will have a washihg, and no water applied.
1 come to another pase often brought up, for the support
bf immersion, and whereas, my opponent; in endeavoring
to make immersion resemble the baptism of the Holy
Ghost, contends that bn the day of Pentecost, the Apos¬
tles were immersed in the Holy Ghost, because it filled
the house where they were sitting. I answer, that is not
the language of the text. See Acts, ii, 2: "And suddenly
there came a sound from heavfen, as ef a rushing mighty
wind, and it (the sound) filled the house where they were
sitting."
Among all men, my opponent should be the last to offer
this text and context; to prove immersion, for he at once
lays himself under obligation to make his water baptism,
in the mode of application, resemble' the application of
the Holy Ghost as expressed in the scripture. But as he
S3
fias cited us to his text, we will notice the text and con¬
text. Now, if this sound had located itself in the form
of a river or poo], and the Apostles had gone down into
it, then vvp would have seen the resemblance of immer-.
\ t i
sion. But the contrary was the fact—for the sound came
down from above. See the text; "And suddenly there
* f •
came a sound from heaveft," &c. If'my opponent con¬
tends that this sound and the Holy Ghost was one.'and the
same thing, i answer, if it be so, the more copious it de¬
scends down to its si^bjects, the stronge r it proves effusion 1
But we must look to mv opponent's demand, and when we
have steadfastly looked, we see the Holly Gh'osl as cloven
tongues of fire,, on the heads of one hundred and twenty
men. Here is a plain case^—here- is the baptism of the
Holy Ghost and fire; and must he resembled in our appli¬
cation of water baptism* But more of'this at the proper
place:—this case is more against immersion than for it,
I proceed to another text used in support of immersion;
I. Cor. xv, 29: ^'Efse what shall they do which are bap¬
tised for the dead, if, the dead rise not at all? Why are
they then baptised for the dead?" I think that St, Paul
here had no allusion to the mode of baptism, but to the
faith manifested in baptism, as though he had said, w e are
baptised for the death of martyrdom, because"our baptism
84
k the public profession of Christianity* for which many
suffered martyrdom.
.That this was the Apostle's meaning is clearly manifest
from what he says in the two following verses. See verse
30:--'And why stand'we in jeopardy every hour?" See
verse 31: "I protest by yourr rejoicing which I have ia
Christ. Jesug our Lord, I die daily."-
, Now, as a strong and powerful argument of the doe-
trine of t,he resurrection} St. Paul here holds up the faith
• of those who have received baptism at the risk of Iheir
lives; as also, that himself and others, rather than deny
the'profession they took on them in baptism, stood, in
jeopardy every hour, and daily looked to suffer the death
of martyrdom. 1,strenuously contend that the 30tb, and
31st verses, destroy the. interpretation immersionists give...
to the 29th verse,*, And it is Hpt the mode of baptism, but
the faith of baptism, the Apostle is speaking of.
* I come to a third proof on the side of effusion. 1 pro¬
ceed .to the great cases of baptism that took place on the
day of Pentecost,, as recorded in the 2nd Chapter of Acts.
And two obvious reasons may.be offered why this baptism
was by effusion: First, there was not time for the im-
i.
mersion of fhree thousand, persons in the. time in. which
i.V had to be done,—not merely because immersion was the.
85
slower way, but because it had its unavoidable conse¬
quences connected with it, one of which is the position my
opponent has taken, and one about which he is very tena¬
cious,' i.e. an experience of grace, must, under all cir¬
cumstances, precede baptism—not a promiscuous experi¬
ence from a promiscuous multitude, but from each individ¬
ual to be heard and received by proper authorty. And on
thfs ground he holds off the infant, and on this condition
he receives the adulfc.
f
Again: my opponent has taken another position found^
ed on the interpretation he,has given, concerning the bap¬
tism of Simon Magus, whom Philip baptised before he was
regenerated and horn again.T-See Acts, viii. How, he
says this hypocrite deceived Philip, and he baptised a
wrong man, being deceived; and now eis my opponent has
taken these positions, I cannot allow him to take an oppo¬
site one, and say the Apostles Were soi infallible, as to
know the hearts of these three thousand persons; and
consequently1", baptise them withoyt their giving in dn ex¬
perience. . But my opponent may dispense with the reci¬
tation of this experience, if he will give up his pre-requi-
sites to baptism) and, not else, And that he must do one
or the othqr, is manifest frormthe circumstance of the case,
Then,say Peter commenced his sermon at the third hoar
86
of the day, answering to our 9 o'clock in the morning,
under which they were awakened. See verse 37; and at
the close of which, they extorted theory, "what shall we
do?"—-and this address was made to Peter and the other
Apostles, N,ow how long these mourners made this in¬
quiry, and ho\y long the Apostles labored with them, in
giving them counsel, we know not; but after this he gave
an exhortation that consisted of many words.—See verse
» k
40. Now after all this is over, three thousand persons
must give in an experience, according tp my opponent's,
scheme, and then be immersed, and all this the work of
one day. EfOre i"s an impossibility granted by all rational
men in christendpm, and my opponent is driven to the
unavoidable consequence of begging the question and the
immersion of these three thousand without his pre-requi-
slte.
Leaving my opponent in this dilemma, 1 proceod to
inquire:—Could thisjmmersion have taken place on that
day, though there was no loss of time in the recitation of
experience? Hero we enter into a sober investigation of
facts—then the day w&s far spent, it will very much de¬
pend on the distance they had t6 travel tp some place of
substantial water, and I grant that at that time, Jerusa¬
lem jibquuded with an ample supply of water for family
37 r
use, which Pilate had brought in, and through the city by
aqueducts or pines; but sve are bound to believe that fam¬
ily use was all that was intended 6r effected by it,-—such
as wO see in the ertieS of our country: and in this or that
day would be a facility for effusion, but not for immfehf^
sion, But if cisterns, answering to um,niersiou,''lwere
even made within the city, they were in the'hands of
those who. were enemies to the Apostles; hence, we have
good reason to^ay such facility did not exist, and if.it
did, it could not be used,' So that if immersion, that day
took place, it was without, the city/; which bed its walls
and gates, and the compass of the city was thirty-three
furlongs. See Josephus1 War Book, book o, chapter iv?
Section 3d/ Now, after the three thousand had passed
)
oat at a certain gate or gates, then where was the water
to which they had to travel? In addition to the 'distance
talready gohe, the river Jordan was eastwardly twenty-
five "miles, the Mediferahean sea w.a's westwardly forty-
two miles, the Dead sea both unsuitable and out of reach;
the brook of^Kedron, that ran fhrough"the valley pf Je-
hosaphat,on' the cast side of the city, was a smklf stream.
See Watson's Djctiohary of the Bible, page 502 and 503*;
also, Wood's Dictionary of the Bible,' vol. ii, page 73; he
says the'brook,Kedron Was a small stream, ^although it
88
received all the rivulets round about Jerusalem. And
this historical account is much confirmed by the circum¬
stance of King Hezekiah having it in his power to stop
'all the fountains of water near Jerusalem, so that the As¬
syrian army under the command of Sennacherib, had not
»a supply of water, when they came to besiege the city.
See II. Chron. xxxii,3,4. Corresponding with the above,
there; is found in the writings of Josephus^ a very strik¬
ing case, wherein he offered the Jews a number of reasons
why they ought'.to surrender to Titus, and one, among
others was, that as a proof that they were then ripe for
J
destruction, and that God was against them, and for their
enemies, was that the .spring of Siloaro, and all the other
springs near Jerusalem, ran more plentiful than they did
before the Roman army came. So that when Titus' army
was camped around the city, God by ah invisible power,
caused thesd springs to run stronger and more powerfully.
And this, Josephu3 speaks of as being necessary, for
both man and beast needed more water, See War Book,
book 5, chapter ix, page 345.
i Now, the time that immersionists claims for this bap¬
tism is unavoidably so. short, that they employ the one
hundred and twenty apostles, to he engaged in the same
hour, in the immersion of the three thousand persons.-—
85
Now, in case it be admitted that all the one hundred ancl
twenty were authorised and thus employed, we ask where
was the water among these spring branches for one bull1-'
dred and twenty men, or half the number to be engaged
ip the act of immersion, at the same time. And if such
facility for ^immersion, was near Jerusalem, I ask, how^
could King Hezekiah have stopped up those springs and
prevented* Sennacherib's army from having a supply of
* ' ' u
water. Again:'if there was not water enough near Je¬
rusalem, to supply both man and beast pertaining to Ti¬
tus's army, jsothat a miracle was wrought to give them
more, I ask a sober, thinking man, where was the water
for the quick immersion of these three thousand persons.
Now, we cannot Suppose that tlie pool near the sheep-
market, at the building Bethseda,' or in other words, the
pool of Siloam,- was used for the purpose of baptism, for
two reasons;—Firs^r we. are bbund to believe it was pe¬
culiarly set apart for healing purposes. Second; the
crowd of impotent folks' that waited an ppportunity to go
into it,'.forbids the idep that it was used for any thing else.
In the days of Hezekiah the King, and Isaiah the Proph¬
et, there was another pool, called the, upper pool, in the
1 ' 1
way to the fuller's field, but it hppears that it 'did not ex¬
ist on the day of pentecost, as the water had been con-
90
veyed into .it by a conduit. See Isaiah, xxxvi, 2. This
artificial work went to ruin in time of the Jews captivity;
and it seems .it was never afterwards repaired, as was the
Other. See Nphemiah, iii. Now, I grant facilities for im¬
mersion at Jerusalem on ordinary occasions, but not fqr
these three, thousand, with all.the circumstances connect-
ed therewith.
2nd. My opponent has exhibited to tfie world1 apromi-
nent4declaration, that this baptism was not by immersion,
by a long and regular course of conductrand the more so,
because -actions .speak louder than words; and he has
shown himself tenacious for one rule, i. e'., he first arrives
.'
at the fact, that a person is to be immersed, and ho then
appoints subsequent day when it is to be done, for the
important reason, that suitable apparel may be procured.
For he is well assured, that no female in particular, should
be immersed in the presence of men, without suitable ap-
pkrel* but more of this in the • proper place. And that
this apparel was not at hand, at this, baptism, is manifest
frotn the history of the case. See Acts, ii, froru 1 to 6:
"jjVnd when thd day of petitecost was fully come,' they
were all with one' accord in one plaee. And suddenly
there came a sound from heaven, as of a mighty rushing
wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting*.
91
And there appeared unto them cloven tongues, like as Of
'fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all
filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with
other tongues, as the ^spirit gave them utterance. And
there was dwelling at Jprusalerti Jews, dev'okt men, out o£
every nation under heaven. Now when this was noised
*
abroad, thd multitude came together," &c., consequently
without previous appointment and previous preparation'
k ' '
of apparel for immersion.".
Again; they Were awakened ujider St. Peter's sermon,
See verse 37;-^-and ex'tortpd the -cry—"What *shall we
do?"—and on the sabie day wgs bap'tised, Hence, we
have two obvious reasons that this baptism took place
i 1 1
without changes - of raiment, or-suitable apparel for the
females. Now' if the Apostles i-bad been .immersipnists,i
they would have1 done as my opponent does—they, wpuld
have deferred this baptism Until another day,.that chang¬
es of raiment might be provided.
1 come (to the fourth proof on 'the side of efFusloqy—
The case of the baptism that first took place among the
Gentiles, as recorded'in the tenth chapter of Acts}. and
here is a second case wherein baptism took place withoUt,
previous 'preparation,-^-Such as' immersion required, in
changes of apparel—and this is manifest from the history
92
'of the case,. lst.lt is said many had come together.-^
See verse 27. 2nd. It is evident that they had not heen
taught to bring changes of raiment—for' this was their
first teaching and first meeting, yet they were the same
day baptised. But another reason may be offered why
they were not baptised by immersion, and that is, St- Pe¬
ter's question in the case^ in that he said: "Can any man
forbid water, that these should not be baptised who have
received the Holy Ghost, as well as we," &c.
Now is it not rationaVand natural to infer that this is
the same as though he hatl said,can any man forbid that
water be brought and applied-
I come to my fifth proof on the side of effusion—the
baptism of the Philippian jailor. Now, that this baptism
was not by immersion, I give the following reasons:
1st. This jailor would have risked his life.
2nd. He would have violated Jhe law of man.
3d. He would have violated, the law of God, as in re¬
ference to the laws of man.
, 4th, St. PauPs conduct would have been hypocritical
Sth. "If this baptism was by immersion we must ex¬
clude reason from the case.
1st. It was then death by the law, for a jailor to let a
prisoner escape. See Acts, xii. Now, it is said the jailor
93
and all his were baptised. If this means his family only^
then only a part, of the prisoners went out of the jail,,
and to the water to administer baptism, .gut if the word
"all his," mean all under his care, then.all the prisoners,
together with his family, went out tp some river or pool
somewherej so we may rationally say, he gave all or a
part of the' prisoners an opportunity tp make their escape,
and the more so because it was the hour of midnight.. I
said he risked his life, I was correct.
2nd. He would haye violated the law of man, if he
voluntarily suffered the prisoners to go out of the prison.
3d. He would have violated the law of God, as in refer¬
ence to the law of man. See Roman xiii, 1,2: "Let
every soul be subject unto the higher powers. * For there
is no power but of God: the powers that beware ordained.
Whosoever therefore .resisteth., the powers, resisteth the
ordinance of God j and they, that tesist shall receive to
themselves damnation." Again: I. Peter, ii,. 13: "Subr
aiit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord1#
sake."
Now we look, at this jailor inquiring what he most do
to be saved? Will he wilfuLIy, at the same time do wrong?
Again, he was under the counsel of the wise^ Apostle
T^jll he at the samq hour,, make a breach in a matter of,
94
public trust? Will he transgress in a matter of official
responsibility, so as to violate the law of .man and the law
bf God, as in reference to the law of man, in letting these
prisoners go out of the prison? A similar reason Can be
y
assigned why St, Paul and Silas did not go out of the pris*
on that night, to some place of suitable water for immer¬
sion; for, who can aclmit that St. Paul would teach such
diligent subjection to the higher power, ^vith the solemn
and awful warning that a breach thereof would bring on
such offender's damnation; and then contradict his teach¬
ing by his example*
' Now; the early stage of Christianity, and the united
ii ( . j
and violent opposition to rt in that city, Is a manifest' dem-
onstralion that no1 baptistry was at that time in the^ jail,
nor even in that heathen country. But it is answered, the
imprisonment of Paul and Silas was unjust: the miracu¬
lous deliverance of St. Peter, at another time, and the
earthquake at this time, and the circumstance of the pris¬
on dOors flying open, and the bands of the prisoners bein§
loosed, gave Paul and Silas a just reason to leave the pris¬
on, as also took the above responsibility off of the jailor.
I answer, that is all wide of the mark, for the higher
power spoken of by St. Paul, and the ordinance -of man,
spoken of by St1. Peter, caO Cnly be justly resisted when
95
we have a positive command from God to do so;—Paul and
Silas had no such'command; for if they had, they would
havp left t{ie jail for good at midnight, or day break, ojr
any other hour in conformity to said command. Nay, Paul
will be consistent,as he taught by precept, so he tyught
by exampfeyand continued in the jail until he Was legally
liberated—and in this matter t he was tenacious. For
when illegal perynisSion was given to leave the jail, he re¬
fused to go out until he was legally liberated. See verse
35—40, Thus, he submitted to the ordinance-of men for
the Lord's sake.
Can any man accuse 'St. Paul with so mnch inconsis¬
tency and hypocricy, as to say that at- thd hour of mid¬
night, he went out to Some pldce of water, in violation of
the ordinance of man, and contrary to his own teaching;
and then in the morning pretend to, so much strictness in
the matter?
5th. EeasOn must be abandoned from-the case, if'this
baptism was by immersion. And here I call on the hon¬
est and wise, to take a deliberate- view of the case, and
then answer my question; i. ei: Would these Apostles; the
jailor, his family, (and perhaps.all the other prisoners,)
have gone out at the hour of midnight, groping through the
dark, or with a lantern or torch, some river or pool, we
96
know not where or how far? (j£r Sober reason says they
would have deferred it till morning.
. The five foregoing proofs against imtnersion in the jai¬
lor's baptism, of course consolidate themselves into a-
weighty proof against immersion; For the jailor would
not have risked his life; violated the law of God and man,
and St. Paul act 'the hypocrite rather than delay his bap¬
tism a few hours. I give my opinion in the whole of the
transaction, and whereas, it was optionary with the jailor
to keep Paul and Silas in the outer or inner prison/ or in
different apartments of the prison, as we see from verse
24 to 34. But we find he thrust theih into the inner pris¬
on, and when he awoke out of sleep, in a two-fold point of
view, he brought them out into the outer prison. And
here the Apostles taught the jailor/ his family, and the
other prisonersr*~and here the jailor washed their stripes,
and here we find the subjects, the,- baptism and water al¬
together. Arid here, 1 firmly believe $e jailor and all his ,
were baptised by effusion. After the divine service was
ended, the jailor took the Apostles into another apartmeot
of the prison where his family resided, and he set meat
beforejthem. Nor did the Apostles or jailor resist the or^.
dinance of man, because they were all the while within:
the walls of the prison, I come to a
97
6th- fyoof on the side of effusion:—and here f affirm
that the doctrine of immersion must fall, or we find in¬
consistency in the great head of the church: that I make
this assertion good, let it be carefully noticed^
iSlow, every thir^g like indecency or vulgarity is forbid¬
den of God, whether in word or deed in common; but very
specifically in worship, or in the sacred rites' of the
church. And that this is forbidden in common'conversa¬
tion, see C.ob iii, 8; Epb. v, 4; James i, 12. Also, con¬
cerning the deed or action,, see i the law given to Moses.
But coming totour duty in oUr acts of Worship, we find
explicit evidence in sacred /writ, thaftthe badge of female
modesty must be worn in thafrpf covering the head in a
worshiping assembly; and a failure in this is forbidden of
God, and counted an unseemly act's see I. Cor. xi, 5, 6,13^
But we' find one broad command, that extends to every
thing in religious duty, or, acts of worship) with all distinct-
' . ' I ,
tion of men; and that, fs, that all things must be done
decently and in order. See 1. Con xiv» Who will
charge God with so much inconsistency, as to say1 he has
placed an indecent ordinance irl his church. The veraci¬
ty of the great head of the church and immersion comes
in contact; 'and it only remains to inquirq^-Is immprsion
indecent or not? I answer it is so mnch so; that in many
G
98
cases we see the old, the middle aged, and the young put
to the blush.1'
Bu£ does my opponent answer, this is all wide of the
mark, for to immerse When suitable apparel (especially
for females) is not at hand,^s an abuse of the ordinance;
and the person baptised and the baptiser are to hlame?
and not the mode. T answer, if immersion he the mode,
then '.he inspired Apostles were to blame; for at sundry
• ► *
times, they baptised when suitable apparel was not at
hand:, and this I have made appear; particularly in the
Pentecost baptism; as alsp, the first that took place among
the Gentiles. So if immersion be the. mode, this inde
|» > *
cency developed itself, in ancient and modern times—in
the Apostolic and present da^ , consequently we must give
up immersion, or grtnt that although the great head of
fthe church; who bds-said all things must be done decently
and in order, has. nevertheless, placed an indecent ordi¬
nance in his church, 1 come to a
7th. Proof on the side of effusion. And it must be
asked, ,has God placed an ordinance in his church calcu¬
lated to injure the health of his creatures, the hairs of
whose head he numbers, and gives his angels charge
concerning them? And are they as guardian angels,
ever about the bed and path of his creatures?
99
Now it cannot be denied that some cases of. im¬
mersion have been fatal to some constitutors. And sup¬
pose the skilful Physician tells me that to immerse a
certain individual, would prove fatal} and, whereas, I
have confidence in this Physician, ! have for my reflection,
immersion and murder. .With a clear conscience, I re¬
solve to do one pf the two things; i. e. to baptise fey effu¬
sion, or omit tl altogether.
8th. Proof on the side of effusion, i. e.^ if the ice, in
the more extreme northern- climates, make not an entirely
* . ■ 1 r
insurmountably difficulty against irpmersion—hundreds
i
of jail houses have done it;• in various climates and coun¬
tries the gallons brought the poor criminal to repentance,
but he had to die without immersion. Now say a man
has been commanded to teach and .baptise, and he has
gone down into, the dark dupgeon.ahd taught the poor
criminal, then must he turn round "and say, O Lord, thou
hast affixed to thine ordinance an impossibility; 1 have
taught, but I cannot immerse. But say the mode is by
effusion, and then I can go through to do as commanded.
Like Pauld and Silas. I can baptise in the jail; antl if
need be, at nUd night.
I come now to the 9th, and most .weighty proof on the
side of effusion ;jknd here I affirm, tmd'my opponent grants
100
that the baptism of water has' for its meaning, the sign,
seal, and acknowledgment that we need the baptism of
the Holy Ghost,. We then in great solemnity and empha¬
sis, sayto'the controverslists husli -sand to the baptiser
/
hold—and look to the baptism of the Holy Ghost,—
whether the subjects thereof,1 are dipped in it, or it is
poured out one them? For his water baptism must be ,a
tru6 resemblance. And here let every man take heed)
lest he put asunder, what God has joined together.—
Now, if there be no explicit proof for the mode of water
ba ptism—and different men have adopted different
modes; but the Holy Ghost is of the Lord, and when his
mode is seen, let all men yield to that in their water bap¬
tism. Hence, it only remains that a few questions are
asked and answered) and on this point, the scale must
turn.
' {
ist. Doth the scripture any where speak of a case or
person being applied, immersed, br plunged in the Holy
Ghost, from the first of Genesis, to the end of Bevelation,
we find not a single instance or case of one individual who
it is said, was thus dipped, immersed, or plunged in the
Holy Ghost. I say we read it not in the Bible.
2nd. But in answer to the opposite question) we find
language and phraseology in point, and that iq a three-fold
101
point of view:—the word 'sprinkle,, the word 'pour? and
the words 'fell on,' and in one case it is htrd to determine
\
whether the,spirit or water is meant, tsaiah hi, 15:—-
"So shall ;he sprinkle many nations." See the harmony
in the fulfilment of this prophesy: Matt, xxviii, 19: "Go
ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptising th^m," &c.
Hence, it is most probable that this, sprinkling is to be
understood, as the sprinkling of water in baplism, as this
prophet was then pointing to the gospel day, ®id of course
its ordinances. Again",' the Scripture speak#of an appli¬
cation of water, when an application of the sJirit is meant
Ezekiel, xxxyi, 25:."Then will L sprinkle c/ean water on
r
you," &c. Again: Heb. x, 22 j' "Let us draw near with
a true heart, in full assurance of faith,' baying our hearts
sprinkled," &c.
3d. I come to the word /pour:'—Acts if, 17; "And it
shall come to pass in the last dajHl, saith God, I will pour
* f H
out of my Spirit upon all flesh:" &c.: verse 18: "And on
my servants, and on rny^kandrmaideffs I-will pouT'out in
those days of-may Spirit:?1 &c* Psalms xlv, 2j Proverbs
j, 23; Isajah xliv, 3; Ezekiel'xxxlixj(29; Joel ii, 28.
4th, I come, now-, to the words 'fell on:1—Acts x, 44:
"While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell
on all them that heard the w.ord." Again; Actsxi,l$
102
16: "And as I began to speak, the Hp>ly Ghost fell tin
them, as on us al the beginning. Then remembered 1 the
word of the Loin, how that he said, John indeed baptised
rfrith water; butye shall be baptised with the Holy Ghost."
Thus we have reter's own words for the baptism of the
.Holy Ghost, lyider the metaphor of effusion bringing to
his recbllectioi John's baptism: and surely that was by
effusion also; for.how could the one bring the other to his
memory, unless it was the same? v Now that a ^olemn
duty devplves^pn us to conform to. the above scriptures, in
our mode of applying water in the' mode of baptism, is
manifest froqathq following passage of scripture: 1. John
v, 8: "And there are three that heir witness'on earth, the
Spirit, the Wstte^ and the Blood: and these three agree
in one."
1st. The dircuristances of the days of Christ's humili¬
ation, and the miracles he wrought, and shed blood on
Calvary, stand as auvitness on earth.—that we regularly
acknowledge "in~thesacrament oTthe"Lord's supper, that
we say the blood "betrs witness on earth.""
2nd. The descent ol the Holy Ghost that became sta¬
tionary on the heads of the one hundred and twenty
Apostles, seen by the naturaleye of hundresor thousands,
and the miraculous outpouring of the spirit on the day of
103
Pentecost, to which may be added,—"the Spirit that bears
witness Vrith our spirits* that we are the children of
God.'' Thus the Spirit, as seen as felt, "bears witness on
earth." But^ how does the water in baptism, bear witness
on earth? Why, because it is the visible and outward
sign of ah inward Vork,, Then let us take heed that we
do not put asunder what God has joined together.
"These three agree in one," for the scriptural discrip-
tion of the application of the blood of atonement, is not
by immersion, but it is so frequently spoken of under the
metaphor of sprinkling, that finally * and at last, St. Paul
and St. Peter speaking iq„ general terms, calls it the blood
of sprinkling. SeeHeb.xii, 24; I. Peter i, 2. And the
scriptural description of the application of the Spirit as
we have clearly made appear, is not by immersion, but
that of pouring, sprinkling, or falling on.
Now apply water in the same way? and we have the
three witnesses on' earth, that St. John speaks of in the
foregoing text, that "agree in one." And, whereas, we
baptise in the name of the-Father, Son, and Holy Ghosty
wo acknowledge the three that bear record in Heaven,
END OP PART THE FIRST,
A
DIALOGUE
between
PARSON ZEALOTES AND PARSON OPPONENT}
on
- several religious subjects:
bet principally on
CLASS MEETINCr.
By ALEXANDER IIcDONALD,
Part II.
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to ajl the flock over
which the Holy Ghost hath mad© you overseer.—Acts, xx, 28.
this part'was published fourteen yearsago
without the authors name.
FE1LD & BROWN, Printers..
Pulaski, Tenn.
" 1838.
PREFACE.
The author of this conversation has no apology tb
offer for intruding it on the public, only his consciousness!
of the great call there is for something of this kind, to
j ustify and defend so inestiitiable a means of grace. Class
Meeting is, and always has beerf, one the grearest objec¬
tions to Methodism I itsopposers have made it the subject
of their sport and' ridicule. Sometimes even from the
pulpit, by some persons who have never been in one, or
never enquired into their nature. ' If the • mafly who op¬
pose it are in the wrong, it is all important they should
know it. ,
He has long looked for some person of more leisure
and greater talents- to write on the subject, but looked in
vain. Short and imperfect as the work is, he flatters
himself that the impartial reader will find such quotations
of appropriate Scripture, and such validity of argument,
as will bear away/his opposition, and cause him to see
the means both useful and scriptural.
He has also to remark, that he has his general objection
to any thing being written by way of dialogue yet it is a
good way.if the_wrlter will be so^ honest as to give all tne^
strength of argument to his opponent, that justly belongs
ta his side;"whether he. has done this or not, it is left to
the candid reader to judge.
THE AUTHOR.
A dialogue between Parson Zealotes and parson oppo¬
nent, on several religious subjects-—but principally
on Class Meetings.
PARSON ZEALOTES. Your correspondent humbly
esteems it an auspicious period'in which we can at least
have a personal interview.
PARSON OPPONENT. I dordially acquiesce, and
at once propose to lay aside' all unnecessary delicacy, and
take upon u«, to endure hardness as good soldiers; using
the plainness of honest, men: and the principal case in
which I wish to adjust our difference is, that of your class
meeting; it being the one on which we widely differ: for
1 have lopg desired to know, where you find scripture? and
reason for its support. ,
P. Z.t ClaSs meeting took its rise like Camp meeting,,
not of men, but of Cod. When I speak of the rise of
each, I mean the rise pf class meetings in Europe, and
the rise of camp meetings in America; though, i hold
that each was an ancient custom, for in the days of our
Lord, he had meetings that lasted sevdral days; and they
were attended by many thousands: and when their pro¬
visions' failed, he sometimes wrought miracles for a sup¬
ply of more: however, I confess there i^some difference
between our Lord's camp meetings, and ours; for he
6
commanded the thousands, they obeyed and sat down on
the ground by companies of hundreds and fifties, and
they did all eat and were filled, not conforming to the fash¬
ion of the world, but were transformed, and similar plain¬
ness at first existed at our camp meetings, but are now
attended with, more pomp and parade.
P. O. I must demand your authority for saying camp
meetings took their rise in America, not of men, but of
God?
• P. Z. My authority for saying so, is this: that no
man, nor set of men, ever devised a plan for one, nor was
any rule or regulation formed for one, until God brought
it into being, which 1 undertake to explain by the follow¬
ing remarks: That as God'prospered his work in the Eas¬
tern States, sacraments and quarterly-meetings were
appointed, many souls were groaning under their' weary
jand heavy laden state, and others for a growth in grace,
that they might appreciate such auspicious privileges, and
enjoy the blessings consequent. They went to the ground
with their provisions and tented thereon,—the utility,
convenience, and advantages thereof, caused others to do
likewise,- and at length camps, or small buildings were
erected out of timber,- so, when the preachers saw what
God had wrought, they unanimously consented that such
means was wonderfully attended by the Divine Being,
and concluded that no obstruction should be thrown in the
way, but let God work in his own way; and thus, appro¬
priate rules were formed, and. they became appointed as
camp meetings* and go on.attended with the presence and
power of God to the present day.
In the latter end of the vear 1739, eight or ten persons
came to Mr. John Wesley in London, who appeared to be
deeply convinced of sin, and earnestly groaning for
redemption, and desired, (as did two or three more the
next day) that he would give them some advice suitable to
their situation; for which purpose they came together,
7
and suctv were the desirable consequences,-that they were
not willing it should be the last, as well as the first, of
such blessed meetings: thus, they went again and again,
while their number increased daily. Finally, Mr. Wes¬
ley discovered the excellency and utility ot the plan, with
the signal displays df divine favor; so that he adopted its
continuance;—and what-haS been its progress? Eighty
years in Europe, and fifty in America, will decide and
prove that Class Meetings and the itinerant plan are thd
very nerves Of our Church.
P. O.' All this is your bare assertion, and I will not
admit that they avail any thing in our argument.
P. Z. I -know they are:'and assertions without proof
will do, if acknowledged by the opposite party; and 1
think your candor will, constrain you to acknowledge the
truth of my assertions.
P. 0. I admit the excellency of your travelling plan,
and I will agree that in your class meetings, you have the
most shouting, and make thd most ado; but I take that as
no mark of a good meeting, for shouting is a thing I al¬
ways abhored.
P. Z. You must take care that you do not die in that
opinion; and ;f you will not allow me to say it will take
you to hell, you must allow me to say, that with it, you
can never get to heaven, for you can never join the sing¬
ing and shouting saints and angels, while you abhor their
employment, f
P. 0. I agree, that angels and men may shout in
heaven, but'not on earth.
P. Z. I cannot tell how many timestingels have shout¬
ed on earth with certainty; but one thing I know, that at
one time, a great host came down from heaven,—and
how long and how loud they shouted', is not for me to say:
yet, I can safely say, they had a great shout while they
stayed on earth: Luke ii, l3? 14: "And suddenly there
was with the angel .a multitude of the heavenly host
praising God, and saying, ^Glory to God in the highest,"
&c. And it is equally clear and plain, that shouting the
praises of God aloud was common among the ancients,
and primitive christians, as will appear from the following
scriptures:—Ezra, iii, 12, 13: "And* many shouted alqud
for joy, qo that the people could not discern the noise of
the shouts of joy, from the noise of the weeping of the
people; for the people shouted with loud shouts and the
noise was heard afar off." Again: Luke xix, 37: "And
when he was come nigh, even now at the descent of the
mount of Olives, the whole multitude of disciples began
to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice." Again: Acts
x, 45, 46: "And they of the circumcision which believed
were astoiiished, as many as came with Peter, because
that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the
Holy Ghost. For they heard them speaking with tongues,
and magnifying God." If Peter and his brethren had
been strangers to, or opposed to the exercise of praising
and magnifying God, they would have been like you, they
would have called it disorder and^confusion. But to the
'reverse; they take it for the external evidence, that they
have received the Holy Ghost. But as this is not the
subject in hand, we will say no more about shouting at
this time: and, consequently require you to show what
you call the external marks of a good meeting.
P. O. Much weeping, and much solemnity in the
countenance of the people; and t confess that I have seen
much of it in general, in all your class meetings when I
Was present—when we withdrew from the promiscuous
congregation, and the doors were shut, it seemed to me a
solemn time,—and hearing the members tell of their ex¬
ercise of mind—and the extraordinary impulse of the
spirit, it seemed to affect me, and all those who were
present; so that I was almost ready to sanction the pro¬
priety of the practice;' but, on a second thought, knowing
that you had no scripture for it, or rather, it being repug-
&
pant to scripture. 1 was compelled to abandon all shadow
of thouglil that it was right: and now If wo are to have
argument of, the subject, 1 wish to take it up without
any, more loss of time in talking about effects or events—
but examine it. and investigate its leading traits by the
plain word of God. which wo will take for, the man of
our ehunsel, * ,
P. Z.' This then shall be our principal ground, nnd
let each party stand fast; and scriptural proofs shall
decide the case in hand, be a criterion by which wo can
judge correctly. 1 begin with Mai, 3. 16. * Then they
that feared the Lord, spake of en one lo another, and the
Lird harkened and heard /t'" $c. Here then is a plain
example that will fully substantiate all 1 contend for; (if
this bo denied, the scriptures hie not taken for the man
of our counsel.) nnd their conversation was expressive of
^their good or bad feelings, or a conversation that was in
some way pertaining to religion.
P. O. To all this I agree. nnd I always rrako it a
point lo urge tny members to talk little about t}io world,
and much about religion at all opportunities.
P. Z, Your system is very good as far as it goes, but
it does not go far enough, if I understand you right, this
is to be done only when business or events call them
together, be that ever so seldom, which is generally the
ease with many of our best professors, especially agricul¬
turists; and we know these in general are the best mem¬
bers of the church of all in the world, and if you will
take the word of God for your guide, nr» apology can
excuse you. The ancient christians performed this duty
often; and so must you at all events, ami you mint have
rule in the government of your church both obligatory
and appropriate to the point, and 'you must see to its
execution.
P. O. As it is not said how often they discharged that
duty, I have no safe precedent by which to form a rule.
10
P. Z. You mlfjht as well sayjts it is not expressly
said, how often tin; apostles and prin.titive Christians took
tho sacrament; We Will omit it altogether, nay, the strong
cord that can never he broken hinds you last "to the flock
over which the Holy Cost'hath made you an overseer,"
nor can you devise any plan whereby you can get Jonse.
The word (often) has its meaning, and if you had rule in
the government of yotrr Church, demanding seldom per¬
formance, you would not take the word of God for the
man of your counsel; hut your Chtirch rule has tio de¬
mand of the kind, lot the word (often) mean what it,may;
no rule demanding conformity to the example once a year,
or once in seven yea is, and suppose you had a rule de¬
manding performance once during' thfe term of the time
last mentioned, it would have no propriety till you had
proved that the h'ernl meaning of the words often and
seldom were synonimmts, and if you had all the divines
in America, and Philosophers in Euiopo to help you, you
could not bring those words together; their immense
distance a part (as to meaning) would remain immovea¬
ble as the mountains; yet far as they are apart from each
►other, they are a thousand times nearer together than
this scripture and the government of your Church;
for if we ask how many times this scripture demand* our
performances in conformity, the answer is often. But if
we ask how many times your Church rule demands per¬
formance in conformity, the answer is never once.
P. O. I think your charge against me is too high,
for although 1 have no obligatory rule in the case, my
doctrine contains instructions to the point.
P. Z. And to what does all that amount? Nothing
more than a mere advice to perlorm that duty, when busi¬
ness or necessity calls them together, he that over so sel¬
dom, and pven then, an omission is not a crime of sufficient
magnitude to call a number to pccount lor the breach of
•o great a command. Thus he may live and die in tho
11
omission of this duly, and yet hi? h is violated no rule in
your Church* And in that I say the adverbs often and
seldom were n thousand times nearer together, than scrip¬
ture and the government of jour Church, I was correct.
P. 0. 1 must acknowledge that scripUtre contains^
very sppcial example; and as the ancient christians ap¬
preciated that privilige, and discharged that duty not
seldom but ofteit, the government of my Church demands
no such thing, ipy candour compells me to acknowledge
it is lacking in that respect.
P. Z. Seeing your willingness and candour to make
all proper acknowledgments, 1 am ihp mure disposed to do
likewise, and lor'the shorter and better method of further
argument, I require you to ,m.ike your demands of other
proof with the order of our argument.
P. O. 1 demand first, that you proic from other
scriptures the thing you contend lor. in which we havo
differed, thai is, that the ancient Christians svho spako
often one to another, and their successor's met together
for that purpose, or was commanded s*>v to do. Secondly,
that each member spake distincUv. Thirdly, that it is
right to do it with closed doors. Fourthly, ihat it is right
to close the doors against o:her denominations : now if
you will answer ail these questions I will confess as much
surprise a*» the Queen of Sheluulid.
P. Z. There can be no comparison between Solomon
and myself m point of Wisdom; vet I apprehend n»
difficulty an answering all your questions, give them in
order, 1 know your indubitable right to reply.
P. O. You are then first to prove that the ancient
Christians that spake often. one to another, and their suc¬
cessors met for that purpose, or were commanded to
(o do.
P. Zf Psalms 29 and 9, ''and in thy temple doth every
one speak of thy glory," not in the yard of the Church
or Temple; not in the field or court yard according to
12
your argument, but in the house of worship, and for this
and other religious exercise they came hit her.
Again Heb. 10. 25. "Not forsaking the assembling of
ourselves together as the manner ol some is; exhorting
one another" &c. VVe here understand the Apostle per- '
petuating a practice which had exis'ed, and not giving
birth to it. And in the preceding verse he tells us the
great utility of a faithful observance of this duiyf i. e. ye
"provoke one another to love and to good works," the
truth of which has been experienced by thousands who
have faithfully attended jo the practice of class meeting.
Again I cor. 14, 23. "If therefore the whole church he
come together into one place, and all speak with tpngues,"
AtC. And again v. 26. "flow is it then brethren ? When
yc come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath
ft doctrine* hath a tongue, hath a revelation," &o. Thus
1 have given you the foregoing proofs; tlte first js a pre¬
sumptive proof, otherwise they would not have met in the
house of worship. 'J he second is an explicit proof, for
they had been in the habit of assembling for that purpose,
and were(commanded not to forsake the practice. And
the third precisely answers, and is strictly applicable to
the case before us. For you say that speaking or.e to
another, isito be done wheh two, three, four or any num¬
ber happens together; but St. Paul ^aith the whole church
came together to one place, and if we cast our eye on v.
26, we plainly see that St. Paul's br^^iren had this for
,parb of their motive in coming together. Thus 1 havje
answered vour first questions. But some of the passages
which 1 have used, are pot to lie neuter; {in the process
of further argument) as having no hiore matter or mean¬
ing in them; this would be doing great injustice; there¬
fore I shall use them agaip to prove a different point only,
wherein it has its inseparable connection with the subject.
P, 0. You bn\e nearly, but not altogether answered,
it; that passage in Psalms is a presumptive proof, and
13
that in St. Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews, is an explicit
proof for assembling together for the purpose of speaking
to each other by way of exhortation, but that in St. Paul's
first Epistle to the Corinthians, is more against you than
for you; for he speaks of them as finding fault with soma
particulars then practised-
,P. Z. Did he find fault of the* whole Or in part ? it
, of the whole, then we abandon the whole; or if part,
then we abandon that part, and take the residue for ex¬
ample; but jf you Say the whole, then it was a fault for
the whole' church to assemble together; also a fault to
speak with 'tongues; to prophesy; lo sing psalmsj to
speak in doctrine; in revelation,aufl interpretation* ' f
P.O.' 1 am very far from saying all ihat was forbid¬
den by St. Paul. '< <
P. Z. Then what part did he find fault oft'
P. O. Jn verso 23, he forbids! the speaking in an un¬
known tongue;* and v. 26, he finds fault of those meetings
where singing p<alrns, speaking in divers tongues,and
interpretation of tongues &c„, ,are all going on together
in a way of confusion, which is very often*the case in
your chiss-meetings.
P. Z. You had better take hack the last part of that
reply, and take a better look at it, before you subject it to
criticism; as you said a while ago, the charge is too high;
if the garment fit, 1 would■ wtjar it; but it does not fit, f6r
you have never seen all these proceedings transpire to¬
gether in any one of my class-meetings in all your life;
especially that of speaking in divers tongues, and inter-1
pretaiion of tongues; but you-say ho , forbids the speak-,
ing in an unknown tongue: I say not; he only says it
must not ho done without an interpreter, and the than is
cxeuseable to omit it, when an interpreter cannot be had;
he then, and only then, may keep silence in the church*
and speak to himself and to Cod, see v. 21;, nor docs he
say the meeting you speak of as resembled by my class*
14
meetings, must be omitted altogether; he directs that more
order be attended to; and it is possible that my members
jieed a little oi' ibis advice, as \Vell as the members of St,
Paulo Hut the whole case of the scripture in this chapter
etauds before us for example, wit It the exhortation to more
order, and when a man cannot speak the same tongue ho
must have an interpreter, the command is plain, your
members ran nil apeak ju a known tongue, nevertheless
the duty as neglected; part of the foregoing remarks are
a confirmation (if the first, and pert of the second, which
is to prove that each member spake distinct v and vocally,
and this shall be more fully pioven by explicit and pre-
eumptive testimony, and as the scriptures no where con¬
tradict the literal sense of that passage, which says they
that feared the Enid spake often one to another: you
have no authority fot saying, it was only a part did so.—
And that passage in Psalms 29, 9. and the-two in St. Paul's
first epistle Jo the Corinthians 14 chapter, are all explicit
proofs. In the Ibrmei-pf these it is not stated that a fete*
a part, or all except one; but it is expressly said, every
one spake of his glory; and in the 23 verso of the latter
chapter, the indefinite adjective pronoun £all] occurs; arid
in the 26th verse, the distributive adjective pronoun {every
one) occurs (singly.) fhus in a way quite appropriate to
the case in hand, we have all, and everv one, ihe English
langagecannot be plainer and more to the point.
\ P. O. I could acquiesce if you Jutd not included the
Women, for the scripture not only leaves them out. but
prohibits them by special command, 1st Cor. 14,34 and
85, ^lict your women kepp silence; but they are com¬
manded to be Under obedience; also ^pith the law. And
if they will learn any thing let them ask their husbands
at home, for it is a shame Air women to speak in ihe
church." The same Aspnstle in his epistle to Timothy
commands that women keep silence in the Church.—
Could, wo find language in all ,lhu English tongue
-i to-
more expressive? Beyond contradiction yoa are con-*
full tided
p. Z. I may here introduce a modern remark, one
story is good lilt another is told. Sutler mp. to bring for¬
ward my preponderating, scriptures and argument and
place ihem in the opposite, scale, 1st. Cor. 11,'5. "But
every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head
uncovered,' dishonoreth her head,"',this is virtually say¬
ing. she may both speak and pfuy in public. Again Phil.
4, 3, "Help those women that laboured with me in the
gospel." Again in the last chapter of Romans, St. Paul
commends h|s sister t«> his brethren with a special declar¬
ation that she had been useful in the Church of God.—<
And in the 3rd of the same .chapter h«> fays "greet Pri-
cilla and Aqufla my helpers, in Christ .[dsus.'J Here the
wife a.sfwpll as-the- husband, is acknowledged, to be ^
helper in the work of the Lord. Add to this, the many
women who went prophetesses, among whom we may
reckon, A mi rain, Dehhrah, Hannah, lluldah, Elizabeth,
the Virgin Mary, Anna and the four daughters* of Philip.
We haVe the case before us with all^hese scriptures, and
whai shall we say ;tis thbre contradiction ip the book of
God ? No. Is St. Paul a plan of inconsistency in say¬
ing the women may? and may not speak in public? No.
VV hen we understand the meaning as we ought, we shall
find the book of God to be perfectly correct, in the sub¬
ject; indeed ( have matured it and.the whole piatter may
be compretieude i from the fallowing remarks, to wit:*—•
The women may not speak in fagis/alice or. executice de¬
partments, hut they may speak in the worshipping dc-
part'iueots of the Church, that is enough'; but we will say
a little more; a woman may net have credentials or li¬
cence to teach or. preach, yet she may speak when moved
bv an yxtraordinary impulse. *
Indeed scripture atid,reason both concur in plain declar¬
ations that a woman has ai goodfa right to teli what God
13
tins done Tor "her soul as n man, dr speak in nnv way ex¬
pressive'of she stale of her soul. This is « duty that
devolves alike on all professors of ielision, lieason
itself will give full sanction to such privileges from the
following considerations, viz : We all are navelling the
same road, and to lite' Same home, drinking out of the
same fountain, and fighting against the same formidable
Cnem5rf and 'if when brethren or sisters for whom God
litis done great things,] spetik of their religious exercise;
or growth in grace, it frequently causes a holy ambition
to riseitl the breasts of others. And here 1 beg leave to ,
• add -a little from the testimony Of my'own experience;
when a brother, and in particular, one with whom I had
particular intimacy, in this way evinces to me* that he is
making a great progress 111 -the Divine life, it has stimu¬
lated me, to lay aside evprv weight, to become faithful,
watchful! and diligent that I* might so run as to obtain the
prize at the end of the rare. (
Thus my experience has taught mp to understand the
words of SolomOn Prov. 27 «and 17. "Irtm sharpeneto
iron, so amansharpeneth the countenance of hislrict ds.*'
And if a member speak of being in heaviness through
manifold temptations, or if he is groaning 10 be delivered
from his weary and heavy laden state; it engages every
feeling and zealous member in prayer to God on his be¬
half. ThuS we understand by expeiienee the injunction
of the Apostle James 5. 16, "Confess your faults one to
another and pray, one for another.'" ' Arid I will further
add, that when all the argument of preaching fail to bring
the man to a discharge of his'duly, he has been brought
to it by a repealed Confession of his faults; the preacher
or leader would ask him if he prayed in his,family night
and morning, he confesses ho lives in the emission of this
duty; he may indeed confess and confess, even to ihn
fifth or sixth time, hut he will scarcely go to |ho seventh
^fore ho will take up the cross.
17
P. O. And is that the way, you whip your members
to make them do their work ?
P. Z. Thai is iho way we provoke or.e another to
good work*.
P. O. This confession of our faults to one another,
is a burthen which 1 do nol intend to take on myself, or
lay on my members. ^ ' '
P. Z. Be very cautious or you wil/ exclude yourself
from all hope of getting to Heaven, for you are as de¬
pendant on the mercy of God, as other men, without
which none ran get to Jleaven. And now harken to
that awful declaration in Holy Writ Which shall tup fall
to the ground though '"heaven and earth fiass away."
Prnv. 23, 13, '"He that eoverelh his sins sball not pros¬
per, but whoso coolesseih and forsaketh tbem shall have
mercy." And the command which I have already resist¬
ed, to wit : Cotifess.yoiir faulty ptlo to ariotlier, is as fir pi
as the one las; recite*/. '
P, O. That, and all the foregoing -arguments may he
dismissed, and 1 will agree that you mfty go,on with your
class meetings, if you will quit that dispisabte practice of
shutting door*. This jsthe hext proposition in coursp,
and the one flint is worse than all the rest put together;
and ! shall at once put every wheel in the machine in
motion, and strain pverv nerve, aiul come against you
with an unobstructed fl >od of argument,, lor 1 have been
both wounded and mortified when1 you have turned the
people cm> and shut doors against them, soine of whpnn
were gentlemen iincl ladies of the first distinction; and
you seemed to do it without the least s.hadow pf regret
or shame, th »' I was a*hum "d ,for yhu.
P* Z. I always try to fender toCcD«ar the .things
which are Caesar's; but 1 will more carefully render to
God the things which are God's; consequently 1 cannot
neglect my class meetings, nor shall a fine Coat, or a fath¬
ered bonnet, smiles or frowns jiecp'tnu from my duty.
10
P O. It wi'l I'" 1'mP pU't"gh10 'he*e assertions
after v«u have proven that, it is your duty to l»«»ld your
bjass meetings with closed doors, and that you cannot do
it till vou can prove that it is right to hide a good thing,
and that will stand for an unahswerable question that wilt
meet you like th« well directed Weapon which smote the
tall self important Philistine in the foifhepd. Ayp, if
your class meeting"1 can do the pcoole any good, for your
crediPs sake, for rHigiru's rake, and for the Lord's sake,
let every hody ha\e jt.—Mue n-ei gh, like Guliuh of
Gatll, you have fallen' to rise no more !
P. Z. I would he more surprised at your desperate
mistake, were it not that 1 have known £o many blunders
against the same rock of ignoramus^sophistry, and they
seem about as confident as \ ou; and the, same imaginary
victorious Argument seems In he in nil tliei: mouths, and
the first dash I get is,iI* it is good, (say they"; why do you
hide it 1 and this they think is Argument sufficient to con¬
fute me. '
P. O. And I think a« ihey do. *
P. Z. But I would advise you to think again, lor I
will have you to know, that if like, Goliah of Gaih. 1
must fall under your mighty hand, the prophet Elijah,
Jous Christ tlie blessed Saviour ami Saint Peter, must
all tail with mc^ lor jl it he Uureservedly wrong to hide
a grod thing, Elijah did wrong in shutting the doors a-
gaiust nil except himself ami the one on whom he
wrought the miracle 2 ll'ngs 4 and 3. Also our blessed
Lofd did wrong in putting part of the people out of the
house when he called the damsel to life lilnrk; 4. 41 —
Also St. Peter did wrong in putting the people out of tlie
' house When he icstnrcd the lite of Tabi'ha. Acts 9. 43.
P- O. If the cases to which you refer hud been a
^ ( a.s.s meeting, you might thep ujtii some propiiety hring
J he in into your argument, but us they are nut you tnay
them aside.
19
P. Z. That would he giving nway part nf my strength
for Utey (at least) go to spoil that mortal weapon* with
which you are to kill me at a stroke; they do prove that'
it is sometimes right to hide a good thing, and that is all
that 1 design to prove hv them.
P. O. When I said it was not right to hide a good
tiling. I meant it was tint rigid in general', only in a lim¬
ited point ot view; for "'certainly a good thing may be hid
fnnn certain persons at certain times '
P. Z. That is coming to the point, and you have lost
half your strength. 1
P. O. I low ijo'you mpke that appettr ?
P. Z. Because you have given up olie part for which
you contended, in that you unreservedly said, a good
thing rnu<t not he hid, and now you say' it may', 1 torn cer¬
tain persons at certain limes; and I now contend the cer¬
tain times are' the times I hold class meeting; and the
certain persons are those I prohibit.
The truth of which I argue front a similarity to a well
digeste 1 plan and rational custom. Thus we recognise
the selected jury of men, who Withdraw themselves tionv
the promiscuous crowd, and go into their room and* with
closed doors ascertain of right and wrong beta ecu man
and. man. Thus my members and myself,may separate
ourselves from the promiscuous congregation on busi¬
ness of more importance. And. if law and reason give'
to two or more persons an indubitable right to withdraw
from company','in order to h ive communication one with
another; the same law and reason will give me and my
members the same right. Having shown the propriety
of my argument from law and reason, 1 now proceed' to
do it from scripture. And first 1 will remark that at Sun¬
dry times after Our Lord had taught the multitude and
sent theut away, he then taught the disciples; and at
manv times lie taught them distinctly and separately
from the Multitude, and also taught them the propriety of
23
heine separate for their instruction. Moreover, wo have
indubiiablu examples loft <»n record, that the disciple* and
primaiive christians made it a point to separate them¬
selves from tlte world,and hold their meetings with closed
doors, and at these meetings in particular, they experien¬
ced peculiar intimations of divine favor, two pf whicfi
meetings verea week apart, and between our Lord's re¬
surrection and ascension will he had in everlasting re-
tnemberanee hy the lovers of class meeting. The doors
heiilg shut their Lord got among them without there be¬
ing opened. This miincu'ous condescension and appro¬
bation of sucji meeting hy the Divine Majesty, weie ver¬
ified hy his standing in the inidst and saying '"peace he
unto you, and make it a pleasingand memorable circum¬
stance.1' Hut unbelief had been the besetting sin of an
individual u ho tvas in the last one of these meetings, and
hero it was that he had his doubts and unbelief removed.
.And if all the Methodists now in America who in like
mariner have had their doubts and unbelief removed hy
spiritually thrusting in their hand into the side, and put¬
ting their finger into the print of the naifs of our Saviour,
and have been tnnde strong in God, and in their accept¬
ance wjih him in class meeting were to stand before yon,
you would seen great and mighty army. Nor did this
practice stop here; nor lit ed 1 refer you to chapter
and ver-e to prove what I have said, or may say in pos¬
itive terms, that it was the practice of the Apostles, as
well as our Lord, to hold their meeting; with closed
doors, which I know you cannot denv.
I\ O. I acknowledge the fact can bo -proven from
tnaujf plain evidences, hut what of all this, anil a thou¬
sand times as many more of the same kind ? They oulv
prove that it was right then, though it he wrong now, and
N,ll litis is easily accounted for; they feared the Jews, |;e-
\*e | er« cut ion was more severe then than it is now.
^ Yuu may twist this into a pretext, or an apolo-
21
gy, lut it will not do for mo, plain srripturo is not to lie
discarded; the same devil is yet "'going to and fro, like a
roaring lion, seeking whom |m may devour.1" Persecu¬
tion is indeed very tar from being extinguished; nor is
the most profane person the worst persecutor.
Thus 1 argue frchn scripture and reason, that we must
not abandon tho apostolic practice, Leenuse there is this
difference as it respects persecution, Rut we must shift
our ground as my point is proven; and you acknowledge
it was once right to hold meetings with closed doors, 1
shall set down and rest myself, and repose in silence, till
you have proven that although it was once right, it is
now wrong.
P. O. Although, the apostolic practieo is in your fa¬
vor, and you may think your system established, arid your
house composed of heavy materials; and though you may
think yourself as strong as I am, and may push against
me with might and main; yet when I bring my next,pas¬
sage of scripture, your towering walls shall as certainly
tumble to the ground, as did t,he walls of Jericho.
Mat. 5, 15. 16, "Neither do men light a candle and
put it under a bushel, hut on a candle slick; and it giveth
light to all that are in the 1)0080," &c. Thus after all
your reason,experience and scriptural evidence,you must
acknowledge that your class meetings are putting the can¬
dle under the, bushel.
P. Z. 1 utterly deny it, and really do put my candlo
on a candle stick, that it may give light to all that are in
the house; and 1 invite you to coma in and see the light
as many as three times; and if you like the light, you
njay come to my house and enjoy it as long as you live; or
you may light another candle from it, and set it up in
your house. But if you do not like the light which is
produced by my candle and will not come to my house for
it, nor have it at home, my request is, that you let my
pantile and people alone. More of this in its proper place.
22
We have another light that is calculated to give light
to the promiscuous world, this is compared to a city set
on a hill; and further. 1 contend that the passage which
especially commands a confession of our faults to another,
hath its peculiar relation to those, wh«f pray one for ano¬
ther; and if we turn to the 9h chap, of Neheininh, we
find explicit proof to this point, verse 2. ''And the seed of
Israel (that is the circumseLeJ or church members) sepa¬
rated themselves, from all strangers, and stood and con¬
fessed their sins,"&eP Again, when David called on the
people to come and hear him tell what'great things the
Lord had done for his soulj his address was to those only
4,wbo feared the Lord.*' Add to this the well known
words of our Lord, Math. 7. 6. "Give noj that which is
holy to the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine,
lest they trample thein under their feet and turn again
and rend you." Now the plain meaning is this: God
gives us certain pearls which must he kept from certain
persons; w ho can deny it 1 And these pearls are a reve¬
lation of holy things from God to us. And how shall I
keep persons (thoughtless as the swine) from trampling
these holy things under their feet; or how shall 1 keep per¬
sons [compared to the voracious dog] from rending the
tender lambs of,the flock. 1 confess, 1 know of no other
way that is better than the. one 1 'have adopted; but let it
be here understood that this illusion is not to the civil, but
to the persecutor.
P. O. 1 am not confuted yet, nor will 1 be with your
inference, or presumptive proofs, nothing but thus saith
the Lord, will do.
P. Z. If nothing else will do, you must have it.Ezek.
45, 9, "Thus saith the Lord God, no stranger uncireum-
cised in heart, nor uncircuincised in flesh, shall enter into
my sanctuary, of any stranger that is among the children
of Jsrael." .
■P. O. You come within one word of your proof,, hut
23
that will forever spoil your whole work, if you eoulj
only transpose thai word sanctuary, into the word class
meeting, your point would be carried.
P. Z. I am glad my work is .so marly finished—the
balance [ can soon do. Of all buildings in'the world, the
temple was the most magnificent, and heie was the place
and period of great rule and order; this excellent struc¬
ture had its several apartment.* and their several uses—
the ouiwa-d court was appropriated to the use of all sorts
of people; the court of ihe Priests, appropriated to the
Priests; The Holy of the Holies was that the part in
which the ark of the eovenenl was kept, in'o which none
entered hut the high pries', and that only on the daws of
atonement; Another apartment called the Sanctuary, is
that part to which I have reference in the 44th chap, of
Ez< kial, and was appropriated to the professors, and them
only—and wherein does my class room differ from this?
very much as this respects the building, but no difference
as it respects the principle. Any thing more on this point
will be needless. Your last is to prove tny justification in
closing the doors against other denominations.
P. O. How remarkably inconsistent ! After uninter¬
rupted habits of intimacy and friendship, [almost,] which
have extended between us; and although you have never
once called in question, the sincerity of my profession,
nor doubted the piety and zeal of many of my members;
but rather on the contrary, you have encouraged us to
the performance of christian duties and works of piety;
yet, we are all debarred from the advantages of class
meeting; most assuredly your course of conduct in that
case is uncharitable in the extreme.
P. Z. And you accuse me of being uncharitable; per¬
mit ifte to ask you one question -how many class meetings
have I given you ?
p. O. You have given me three, and only three,
P. Z. How many have you given me ?
24
P.O. Not one during my life.
P. Z. And yet I am uncharitable I ana J stipposn if I
was dving fur a class meeting you would not give mo
i one.
P. O. A man is not to he blamed f<»r omitting that
which he cannot do; and you know I have no class mee¬
ting to give.
P. Z. ' And why have you not got it to give? could you
not have it on as good terms as 1 havfe it ? Answer the
question |ike an honest man.
P. Q. If I must answer this, honestly; 1 must say, in
the language of Columbia's free horn sons, it is not be¬
cause I canndl have it, but because 1 will not have p.
P. Z. Yon have rightly answered; honesty is admired
by the great and good. You will not have class meeting,
and yet you are complaining of me because 1 do not give
it to you. If <hen the diet is so naucious that you will
not eat it at home, 1 shall as a consistent man, offer you
none at my house.
P. O. If. I and a part of my members have put poison
in the cup, and thereby prevent its being neutritious to us,
why do you withhold it from those who have not done so?
Now part of my members do hold with class meetings in
the strictest sense of the word, and have often urged mq
to adopt it among us, how then do you excuse yourself fof
withholding it from them.
P%Z. in a word, because neither you nor them ever
informed me of it.
P. Oi What would you have done if you hac| been In¬
formed of it ?
P. Z. I would have had my diffiicultes about it t to
give class meeting to a part, would have the appearance
of partiality; and secondly, you and every other person
would look on them as not being pat riot ical, which would
have its bad effects; with many other reasons t m«ght
assign. But 1 propose that we enter Into the following
25
covenant, that we all freely join in every ordinance which
we hold reciprocally.
P. 0. I accord to the proposition.
P. Z. I am further willing to make another proposi¬
tion, that when one of either of our members, is deprived
of the previleges of liis own chuch, by reason of his lo¬
cal situation and place of residence, he may in that case
have his name enrolled in, and become accountable for
his conduct to the other church, and enjoy free and full
previlege of the same; but when circumstances change
and it become convenient, he may resume his membership
if he pleases in his former church.
P. O. I accord to this likewise: and now having ended
our little pleasant debate on class meetings, I want to
point out some dbjections to your church government and
its administration. If a boy of yesterday [come on the
circuit, in which there are many intelligent local preach¬
ers, and experienced members, he has the perfect control
of the whole, and is a sufficient coiirt to try any case,
great or small, and can put down or lift up, whom he will;
surely this is despotism in the extreme 1
P. Z. I have qothing to do in the matter, but acquaint
you of your mistake. See Methodist Discipline, ^hap.
11, sec. 7, Quest. 1st, How shall an accused member be
brought to trial ? Ans. 1st. Before the society of which
he is a member, or a select number of them. This is the
court and not the preacher; he can po more execute rule,
to put down or raise up, without the decision of the socie¬
ty, than the Judge can pass sentence before the decision
of- the Jurors, and if the accused person be dissatisfied
with their decision, he can appeal to Ihe next Quarterly
meeting conference.
. P. 0. If a member or Local preacher has any hand
in executing the rules, they have no hand in making them.
P. Z. By the same parity of reasoning we may say
all the free citizens do not assemble in Congress, or
I
that
26
the Legislature of the state in which they live, have no
hand in making laws. In devising the plan of the gov¬
ernment of the United Slates and each seperate state] as
also the government of the church, all have had to learn
the same lesson, and establish the same rule, (i. e.)
When we cannot do as we would, we must do as we can ,
(or the best we can,) In order to do this men must be
elected to do the business of legislation, for all cannot at¬
tend, and when elected they must not only make laws
themselves, but they must be electors to elect others, to
fill more important stations, as well as some of less im¬
portance; but we must remember that all this election
and appointment starts in the suffrage of the free citizens;
herefore the principle is republican in its nature, so is
the government of our church; the preacher is first
elected by the members of society, and if he graduates
and fills up his probation, he becomes an elector in the
election of members to the General Conference; still the
principle is republican, because his first election was with
the lay members.
P. O. But the Local Preachers cannot get to the Gen¬
eral Conference.
P. Z. We have no law which says they shall not, and
he may if he will come out in the field ,as an Itinerant
preacher.
P. O. But your Bishop has two much power.
P. Z. Not so much ecclesiastically as the President
of the U. S. has Politically, for the President has a ne¬
gative in Legislation, the Bishop has not, nor can a Bishop
ordain a Deacon or Elder until he is duly elected, see
Discip. Chapt. 1st sec. 6 and 7, and he is as much ac¬
countable for his conducr as any member, which may be
seen by refering to Discipline, Chap, i, sec. 4.
THE END