^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 r£ 
 
 
 •^ 
 
 .2 
 
 
 -^ 
 
 Q. 
 
 
 4 
 
 J5 
 
 
 -^-^ 
 
 IE 
 
 ; 
 
 i^ ^ 
 
 Q. 
 
 
 ♦^ 
 
 i.^. 
 
 
 
 s, ^ 
 
 o 
 
 
 , 
 
 t^ 
 
 $ 
 
 
 
 ^ S 
 
 0) 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 - 
 
 w o 
 
 bj) 
 
 
 • 
 
 § i 
 
 3 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^"^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 £ 
 
 
 .^ 
 
 O M 
 
 <0 
 
 
 "kJ 
 
 •g rt 
 
 t/-) 
 
 ■g- 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 « 
 
 -D 
 
 c 
 
 s 
 
 ^ 
 
 CO 
 
 0) 
 
 1 
 
 ^ 
 
 al 
 
 s 
 
 C/ 
 
 ^^S 
 
 ^ 
 
 /(D5 
 
 o^ 
 
 u 
 
 c, I 
 
// 
 
 ^^^ 
 
Digitized by tine Internet Archive 
 
 in 2011 witii funding from 
 
 Princeton Tiieological Seminary Library 
 
 littp://www.arcliive.org/details/appealtocandidofOOsli 
 
AN APPEAL 
 
 TO THE 
 
 CANDID OF ALL DENOMINATIONS t 
 
 IN WHICH THE 
 
 OBLIGATION, SUB.JECTS, AND MODE OF 
 BAPTISM 
 
 ARE DISCUSSED 
 
 BY REV. HENRY SLICER, 
 
 IN ANSWER TO THE 
 
 REV. W. F. BROADDUS, OF VIRGINIA, AND OTHERS. 
 
 WITH 
 
 A FURTHER APPEAL, 
 
 IN ANSWER TO 
 
 MR. BROADDUS'S LETTERS. 
 
 THIRD EDITION, 
 
 REVISED BY THE EDITOR. 
 
 I speak as unlo wise men ; judge ye what I say. — 1 Cor. x, 15. 
 Hearken to me ; I also will sliovv" mine opinion. — Job xxxii, 10. 
 
 NEW-YORK : 
 
 PUBLISHED BY GEORGE LANE, 
 
 For the Methodist Episcopal Church, at the Conference Office, 
 200 Mulberry-street. 
 
 /. Collord, Printer. 
 1841, 
 
Entered according to Act of Congres?, in the year 1841, 
 by George Lane, in the Clerk's Office of the District Court 
 of the Southern District of New-Yorii. 
 
OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND M^^ 
 
 OP '"^ ^^ 
 
 BAPTISM. 
 
 PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. 
 
 When an individual presents himself in the 
 character "of a controversial writer, a proper 
 respect for public opinion requires that he state 
 the reasons which have induced him to take 
 such an attitude. 
 
 The following pages have not been called 
 forth by a fondness for writing, — nor from the 
 want of other important matters with which to 
 occupy the writer's time, — but by the solicita- 
 tions of friends ; and by what he at least con- 
 siders an imperious call of duty, in view of the 
 responsible relation which he sustains to the 
 people of the Potomac district. 
 
 There are times when silence may become 
 treason; and error, unexposed, may be passed 
 off for valid truth. 
 
 Until lately, I have had no intention to write 
 on the subject of Christian baptism ; and even 
 now I should not have written — so numerous 
 
4 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 and pressing are my engagements — could I 
 have persuaded myself that the circulation of 
 any one of the excellent tracts that have been 
 ■written by others would have met our peculiar 
 circumstances in relation to this subject. 
 
 With a district two hundred miles in length ; 
 containing six or seven thousand church mem- 
 bers ; with fifty-two large meetings to attend 
 in about forty-eight weeks, and a travel of 
 about two thousand five hundred miles to per- 
 form in the same time ; I considered that I had 
 no time to devote to writing on this subject^ 
 without oppressing myself, or neglecting mat- 
 ters having a prior claim upon me, and possess- 
 ing a paramount importance. The former I have 
 done, in view of the necessity laid upon me, in 
 order to avoid the latter. At different times and 
 in several places, at the instance of my friends, 
 I have been led to make remarks on the obliga- 
 tion, mode, and subjects of baptism ; and have 
 administered the ordinance to hundreds of adults 
 "^ of all ages, from the sire of seventy, down to 
 the youth; as well as to infants. With the 
 Baptists, as a people, we have had no quarrel, 
 and for many of them we have had, and do still 
 entertain, more than mere respect; and if our 
 views, as expressed in the following pages, 
 should be thought to be expressed in language 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 5 
 
 too severe, we have only to say, that where we 
 have seemed in the least caustic, it was because 
 we considered the case required it. 
 
 We have no interests that we have not laid 
 at the feet of truth ; and none that we are not 
 willing to peril in its defence. And we wish 
 it distinctly understood, that we take the whole 
 responsibility of the views herein expressed. 
 
 We have not sought to make proselytes to a 
 party; nor have we even interfered with any 
 who have been awakened at Baptist meetings ; 
 we have acted soleiy on the defensive, in order 
 to save our people from perplexity, and prevent 
 others from " bereaving us of our children." 
 
 Some eighteen months ago, I found a pam- 
 phlet circulating in the community, written by 
 Elder W. F. Broaddus, entitled, " Strictures oa 
 Mr. Dieffenbacher's doctrine of water baptism, 
 infant baptism," &c. 
 
 I read it, and found a good deal of ridicule 
 and sophistry employed against those who hold 
 infant baptism, and baptism by sprinkling ox 
 pouring. I took no public notice of it, until the 
 tenth day of last November, when at Upper- 
 ville, Va., by request, I delivered an argument 
 on baptism, in which I replied to all the matter 
 contained in the strictures which I thought en- 
 titled to notice ; but, lest any offence should be 
 
6 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 taken, I purposely avoided the mention of Mr. 
 B.'s name. 
 
 After I had administered the ordinance to 
 twenty-three adults and some infants, as I pre- 
 ferred to discuss the subject pubhcly, I made a 
 general offer to debate the matter with any gen- 
 tleman, minister or layman, within the bounds 
 of my district, at any time and place which 
 might be appointed for that purpose. A Bap- 
 tist minister present declined the offer publicly, 
 in the presence of about one thousand persons. 
 Mr. Broaddus knew of what had passed, but did 
 not see proper to accept the offer. 
 
 He, however, preached a sermon on the same 
 subject in the same village about three weeks 
 afterward, which sermon he published after the 
 lapse of about four or five months. I accident- 
 ally heard of his intention to preach, two days 
 before the time, and that a rumour, or report, 
 was in circulation through the neighbourhood 
 by his friends, that I was expected to be present 
 on^the occasion. I wrote immediately to Up- 
 perville, informing my friends that I had re- 
 ceived no notice of the appointment from Mr. 
 B., and in the letter renewed the offer to de- 
 bate the matter, which letter was handed him, 
 by a friend of mine, before he preached. 
 
 About three days after he delivered that ser- 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 7 
 
 mon, I received a letter from him, requesting 
 me to publish my sermon, and very kindly 
 offering to review it, in case I should publish ; 
 and oifered as an inducement to me, the follow- 
 ing language : " Controversies, when properly 
 conducted, must always do good." 
 
 I took no notice of the letter, because I con- 
 sidered it a fair decline of my offer ; and be- 
 cause I have always believed that the subject 
 could be brought home to those who are least 
 informed on the subject, (and of consequence 
 most liable to be misled,) better by an oral than 
 a written argument, and at less expense to the 
 community. In his " Note to the reader," and 
 in the commencement of his sermon, he has 
 used my name, and informs the reader that his 
 discourse was occasioned " by the excitement''^ 
 which my sermon ''''produced in the village and 
 neighbourhood,'^ and that I had made " an at- 
 tempt to prove that infant sprinkling was an 
 ordinance of the New Testament." 
 
 The candid reader will be able to judge how 
 far I have succeeded in the ^^ attempt,'^ in the 
 following pages. I think it very likely that the 
 ffty-nine adults baptized by pouring in that place 
 and its vicinity, within the few weeks previous, 
 gave that gentleman more uneasiness than the 
 ^^ attempt'''' at proving "infant sprinkling." 
 
8 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 He takes for granted that he is right in his 
 " understanding and practice" of the ordinance 
 — and that / am wrong; and he sets out to 
 " counteract the wrong impressions''' that I may 
 have made. This looks a little like begging 
 the question. 
 
 As Mr. B. was so kind as to offer to be rc- 
 viewer for me, and was so kind as to write 
 " strictures" for Mr. D., I suppose he, least of 
 all, will complain of my performing the like 
 kind office for him; as one "good turn deserves 
 another" — and I accept on his part the loill for 
 the deed. 
 
 If he should think proper to write again, and 
 should produce any arguments that I have not 
 replied to in these pages, I shall answer him in 
 some way. But I give the reader notice that 
 / shall not wi'ite again, to answer arguments, or 
 sophistry, that I have already replied to. 
 
 In the discussion 1 have (so far as I knew 
 them) taken up all the arguments used by the 
 Baptists, and have not confined myself to Mr. 
 B.'s " sermon" and " strictures" alone. 
 
 While / am fully convinced that the Baptists, 
 as a denomination, had their rise in Germany 
 in 1521 or 1522, under Nicholas Stork, Munt- 
 zer, John of Leyden, Knipperdoling, and others, 
 I have forborne giving an account of them, as 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 9 
 
 it is found in Robinson's Charles V., and in a 
 View of All Religions, by Ross, published in 
 London, 1664 ; as I know the matter to be very- 
 offensive to our Baptist friends ; also believing 
 it to be unrighteous to attribute the " iniquities 
 of the fathers to the children." Although Mr. 
 B. has laboured hard to establish the charge of 
 lieresy against the founder of Methodism, in the 
 matter of baptismal regeneration, a doctrine which 
 he must have known that wise and good man no 
 more held than he believed that " Thomas Stork 
 held communion with God, by means of an 
 angel," yet / loill not retaliate by recounting 
 the doctrines and practices of the German Ana- 
 baptists. 
 
 Here I take leave of this subject, praying that 
 God may keep us from the by-ways of error, 
 and lead us into the way of truth. 
 
 HENRY SLICER. 
 Alexandria, October 7, 1835. 
 
10 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. 
 
 When the Appeal was first put to press, the 
 author was not aware that the demand for the 
 work would be more than to justify the issuing 
 of a small edition ; accordingly, a thousand 
 copies were issued, nearly all of which were 
 disposed of in a few weeks, and another edition 
 was demanded, with a request that it should be 
 enlarged in one or two parts. 
 
 The reception with which it met from the 
 candid and intelligent of different denomina- 
 tions, not excepting the Baptists, (for I never 
 heard of its giving much offence to any one 
 except Mr. B.,) and the assurances of its use- 
 fulness which reached me from different parts 
 of the country, convinced me of the propriety 
 of revising and enlarging the work, and publish- 
 ing a second edition. But as I wished to know 
 what course Mr. Broaddus would take in the 
 matter, it was judged best to defer the publica- 
 tion of a future edition, until he should either 
 reply, or decline any further controversy on the 
 subject. After waiting some time for an answer, 
 I learned, through a friend, that he would reply 
 about Christmas ; I looked in vain to that period 
 for an answer, for it passed, and also the long 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 11 
 
 month of January, and the cold month of Feb- 
 ruary, and the winds of March, and the showers 
 of April, all passed, and no answer came ; and 
 in the month of June, while I was just aboiit to 
 conclude that Mr. B. had abandoned the idea 
 of answering, a friend informed me that the 
 reply was then in press. I then began to rea- 
 son in my own mind, in order, if possible, to 
 lind out what could have detained the answer 
 for seven long months, and upon reflection I 
 recollected that the Upperville sermon, although 
 delivered the sabbath before winter, was not 
 issued from the press until the ice and snow of 
 the cold season had all melted, and the singing 
 of birds was heard in the land ; and what makes 
 this the more remarkable is, the fact that his 
 note to the reader is dated December, 1834 : — 
 has this all been the replt of accident? or does 
 not Mr. Broaddus know^ that an argument for 
 immersion stands but little chance of exerting 
 a proselyting influence in mid-winter? But be 
 this as it may, one would think that if "he 
 found (as he says he did) that my bold asser- 
 tions were likely to pass for sound argument 
 with some, who lacked either capacity or lei- 
 sure to examine for themselves ; while the se- 
 rious imputations I had cast upon his motives 
 were likely to awaken suspicions in a com- 
 
12 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 munity but little acquainted with him, unfavour- 
 able to his reputation ;" surely he should have 
 hastened to the fescue of his favourite theory 
 from the hands of those " bold assertions," and 
 from those ." who lacked capacity or leisure to 
 examine for themselves," and especially to have 
 silenced all " suspicion unfavourable to his 
 reputation ;" and more especially, " as he soon 
 found that some of my readers were inclined to 
 attribute his silence to a consciousness of guilt," 
 page 59. And yet, strange to tell, this gentle- 
 man defers his answer for seven months. Per- 
 haps he thought that the impression that my 
 ^^hold assertions*^ made last fall, with regard to 
 the ordinance, would, with the aid of a little 
 time, become erased from the minds of the 
 good people of Virginia, who were destitute of 
 ^^ capacity or leisure to examine for themselves" 
 — and that he could repeat over the arguments, 
 I will not say " bold assertions," of his stric- 
 tures and sermon, and utter his complaints long 
 and loud, about being " misquoted," " misrepre- 
 sented," his " motives impugned," " personal 
 defamation," &c., &:c., and thus hide himself in 
 the smoke of his own raising. And if he did 
 not succeed in slaying " Goliath," he would at 
 least show the community that, 
 
 "Although vanquished, he can argue still." 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 13 
 
 I promised the candid reader not to answer 
 " arguments or sophistry that I had already re- 
 plied to." I shall, in a Further Appeal, how- 
 ever, take such notice of Mr. B.'s twenty-one 
 letters as I may think them entitled to. 
 
 I confess I expected when I wrote that Mr. 
 B. would reply, for I knew that those who have 
 vanity enough to compare themselves to the 
 warrior David, page 42, would make a show of 
 fight, although there might be, in reality, neither 
 a sling in his hand, nor a '■''smooth stone left in 
 the shepherd'' s bag;^^ they would fancy, too, that 
 they heard the death-gToan of the giant, and 
 that they had given his head to the host of 
 Israel, and his carcass to the fowls of heaven — 
 to the vultures, of course. 
 
 But in all seriousness, (speaking without a 
 figure,) I was surprised that the gentleman 
 should show so much morbid sensibility, and 
 that he should take up so much of his letters 
 in attempts to excite the sympathy of the public 
 for the much injured man. Could not the can- 
 did reader judge whether my weapons were 
 those of ^'personal d^efamation" and ^'•sarcasm," 
 or those of Scriptural argument and sober rea- 
 son ? Did Mr. B. fear that the candid reader 
 had not " capacity" to see that I was " almost 
 a stranger to the use of all weapons, except 
 
14 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 sarcasm and personal defamation, ^^ that it became 
 necessary, in his " note to the reader," to inform 
 him of it ? I sought (as far as the nature of the 
 case would admit) to use ^'' soft words'*^ and 
 ^^hard arguments.''^ If, however, I had known 
 that Mr. B. was "« man of" extra-^^ ordinary 
 sensibility," I might have used " soft arguments" 
 and ^'■hard words," which might have been more 
 acceptable to the gentleman on several accounts, 
 for certainly the intelligent reader will see that 
 Mr. B. is no novice in those at the present, and 
 with a little more practice he might become an 
 adept both in the use of " soft arguments" and 
 ^'•hard words." 
 
 But I will not rail, but leave the gentleman 
 to digest his own spleen. 
 
 I shall not promise to demonstrate any thing, 
 either in regard to my own innocence or the 
 goodness of my cause — I shall leave to the 
 candid reader the task of making up a judg- 
 ment for himself, both with regard to the sub- 
 ject and the writer. It may have been as well 
 for Mr. B. to put a promise in his "note to 
 the reader" that he will demonstrate his " own 
 innocence," and that my " views of baptism are 
 altogether without foundation in the word of 
 God" — as it is possible many of his readers 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 15 
 
 may not be able to see the demonstration of 
 either in the body of his loork. 
 
 Having carefully read Mr. B.'s letters, I am 
 more than ever convinced that the views of 
 baptism held by our Baptist friends cannot be 
 maintained. 
 
 All I ask of you, intelligent reader, is a can- 
 did examination of this revised and enlarged 
 "Appeal," with the "Further Appeal," and I 
 shall have no anxiety for the issue. " I speak 
 as unto wise men — ^j.udge ye what I say." 
 
 HENRY SLICER. 
 Georgetown^ D. C, July, 1836. 
 
OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND M065. 
 
 " -t 
 
 BAPTISM. 
 
 In calling public attention to the subject of 
 Christian baptism, Ave wish to declare plainly 
 and fully our views, without intending to offend 
 any; and not expecting to give offence to the 
 liberal and candid, who, while they claim the 
 right to think, and according to their best light 
 entertain and express their opinions, accord to 
 others cordially the same which they claim for 
 themselves. 
 
 In the arguments which we may adduce on 
 the subject, it is not our design so much to prove 
 that others are not right, as to prove that we are 
 not wrong. 
 
 And if, when we have gone through the argu- 
 ment, we shall have failed to convince you that 
 ours is the " more excellent way," we shall not 
 think you any the worse Christians, unless, in 
 the spirit of bigotry, you should unchristian 
 others who may not agree with you in their 
 doctrines and usages. For we conceive that 
 no views of doctrine, or of the ordinances, how- 
 ever correct, can save any man, unless he be 
 spiritually regenerated. For " neither circum- 
 2 
 
18 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 cision availeth any thing, nor imcircumcision, 
 but a neio creature^ 
 
 Many who have been as orthodox as an 
 apostle, and have received the rite of baptism, 
 have proved themselves to be but " baptized 
 infidels, washed to fouler stains." 
 
 Having said thus much, we shall proceed to 
 speak, 
 
 First, of the obligation and perpetuity — 
 
 Secondly, of the subjects — 
 
 And thirdly, of the mode of baptism. 
 
 THE OBLIGATION AND PERPETUITY OF CHRIS- 
 TIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 On this part of the subject we and our Baptist 
 friends have no controversy — as Ave agree alike 
 to assert and maintain the obligation of the 
 ordinance. But there have been many, bearing 
 the name of Christ, who look upon the subject 
 with indifierence, and others who argue against 
 it, saying that it is a ^^ carnal ordinance^'' and 
 ought long since to have become extinct in the 
 church of Christ. And in support of their views 
 they adduce several passages of Scripture, and 
 maintain that the baptism of the Spirit super- 
 sedes the necessity of water baptism. The 
 views of such have grown, in part, out of the 
 fact that our Baptist friends generally have 
 confounded Christian baptism with the baptism 
 of John, whereas the two should be considered 
 entirely distinct, as we hope to be able to show 
 hereafter. The two passages on which such 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 19 
 
 as deny the obligation of baptism mainly rely 
 are to be found, John iii, 30, " He must in- 
 crease, but I must decrease ;" and 1 Cor. i, 17, 
 " For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to 
 preach the gospel." They conclude from the 
 passage in John, that as he was to decrease as 
 Christ increased, therefore baptism ought to 
 have ceased in the church centuries since. 
 The conclusion is good from the premises, but 
 the premises are false, and the conclusion is 
 therefore good for nothing ; for in the same 
 chapter you will find John's disciples informing 
 him that Christ was baptizing, and all men were 
 flacking to him ; and John said, " I am not the 
 Christ." " I came to bear witness of him." " He 
 must increase, I must decrease." Consequently 
 we hear nothing of John's baptism after he was 
 beheaded, only that St. Paul rebaptized some at 
 Ephesus who had previously received John's 
 baptism. See Acts xix, 1-7. John received a 
 temporary commission to herald the approach 
 of the Messiah and his kingdom ; and baptizing 
 the people with the baptism of repentance, 
 taught them to believe on him who was to 
 come ; — i. e., on Christ Jesus. And so little 
 were the disciples at Ephesus acquainted with 
 Christianity in its doctrines or spirit, that they 
 had not so much as heard whether there was 
 any Holy Ghost. 
 
 We request you to refer to the passage and 
 read it attentively, as we shall have occasion to 
 quote it again in the course of the argument. 
 The view we have given of John's baptism we 
 
20 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 are happy to find supported by that able and 
 distinguished minister of the Baptist Church, 
 Robert Hall, of England. See liis Works, vol. i, 
 p. 372. His words are, " No rite celebrated 
 during the ministry of John is entitled to a 
 place among Christian sacraments." It is to be 
 regretted, however, that most of his less intel- 
 ligent brethren differ with Mr. Hall in opinion. 
 Some of them have maintained from the pulpit, 
 and others from the press, that John's was 
 Christian baptism. On this point the Rev. Mr. 
 Broaddus seems not, as yet, to have made up 
 an opinion. See sermon, p. 34. 
 
 The other passage (quoted from Corinthians) 
 will be found, upon examination, not to weigh 
 against the obligation of the ordinance. A fac- 
 tion had arisen in the church at Corinth, the 
 apostle was informed that they had raised par- 
 ties, and had used his name, and the names of 
 his friends Apollos and Cephas. He writes 
 them a severe letter, remonstrating against their 
 course, and asks, " Is Christ divided? Was Paul 
 crucified for you ? or M-ere ye baptized in the 
 name of Paul ? I thank God that / baptized 
 none of you, but Crispus and Gains." And 
 why ? He immediately assigns the reason, " Lest 
 any should say that I had baptized in mine own 
 name." " For Christ sent me not to baptize," 
 &c. ; i. e., my main and most important business 
 is to preach the gospel. He did baptize some, 
 as you learn from the context ; and it is certain 
 that he baptized others, in other places, as the 
 twelve disciples at Ephesus, &;c. But as a 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 21 
 
 wise master builder, he had learned to give to 
 things severally the importance due to them. 
 
 Having thus shown that these texts lie not 
 against the obligation of the ordinance, we 
 must remark, that as Christ gave a command 
 to the apostles, after his resurrection, to dis- 
 ciple all nations, by baptizing and teaching 
 them ; with the promise to be with them to the 
 end of the w^orld ; and as that command has 
 neither been revoked nor complied with to its 
 full extent, the obligation still rests upon the 
 ministry to administer the rite, and upon the 
 nations to submit to it. And furthermore, when 
 the apostles went forth in obedience to the 
 above command, whenever and wherever the 
 word took effect upon the hearers, and they 
 were willing to receive Christ, the apostles 
 dedicated them, if Jews, to Jesus, as the true 
 Messiah, and, if Gentiles, to the true God — 
 Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. 
 
 On the day of Pentecost, when the three 
 thousand cried out, " Men and brethren, what 
 shall we do ?" (although, in all probability, 
 many of them had been baptized by John,) 
 Peter said, " Repent and be baptized, every one 
 of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the re- 
 mission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift 
 of the Holy Ghost." 
 
 And when Peter opened the kingdom of 
 heaven to the Gentiles, in the house of Corne- 
 lius, as he had done to the Jews on the day of 
 Pentecost, while he was speaking, the Holy 
 Ghost fell on the conorregation. " Then an- 
 
22 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 svvered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that 
 these should not be baptized, which have re- 
 ceived the Holy Ghost, as well as we ? And he 
 commanded them to be baptized in the name 
 of the Lord," Acts x, 44-48. Will any one, in 
 view of this' evidence, still assert that water 
 baptism is not obligatory? Those who main- 
 tain that the baptism of the Spirit supersedes 
 the necessity of the baptism of water differ in 
 judgment with the apostle Peter. And you, 
 my reader, can judge whose opinion is entitled 
 to most deference ; the inspired apostles, who 
 received the command at the mouth of Christ, 
 or one, or many at this late period, who are not 
 under the infallible inspiration of the Spirit; as 
 is evident from the fact, that those who deny 
 the obligation of baptism disagree among them- 
 selves upon the most important points in Chris- 
 tian theology. 
 
 It will be in vain to say that the ordinance 
 has been abused, by having too much stress 
 laid upon it; for the abuse of a good thing is 
 not a valid argument against its use. " I speak 
 as unto wise men, judge ye what I say." 
 
 ON THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 
 
 We shall now present for your consideration 
 and judgment our views in ansioer to the question, 
 who are the proper subjects of the ordinance? 
 
 Before I enter fully into this part of the sub- 
 ject, I beg your serious and candid attention 
 to two important preliminary considerations, 
 namely, that as there is but one true God and 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 23 
 
 one true faith, so this true God has never had 
 more than one church in the world, from the 
 day that pious Abel by faith offered an accept- 
 able sacrifice, to the present hour. 1 am aware 
 that this principle has been disputed, but I take 
 my firm stand upon the truth of God, and shall 
 maintain this view, without fear of successful 
 contradiction. In the sermon of Mr. B., p. 14, 
 he says, " The truth is, there never was a visible 
 church of Christ on earth, until he came and 
 established it himself." There was a visible 
 church of Christ before his coming as really as 
 there has been since ; as is evident from Acts- 
 vii, 38, " This is he that was in the church in 
 the WILDERNESS with the angel," — compared, 
 with Exodus xxiii, 20, 21, " Behold I send an 
 ANGEL before thee, &c., provoke him not, for 
 he will not pardon your transgressions," — com- 
 pared with 1 Cor. X, 4 and 9, "And did all drink 
 the same spiritual drink ; for they drank of that 
 spiritual rock that followed them ; and that rock 
 was Christ." " Neither let us tempt Christ, 
 as some of them also tempted, and were de- 
 stroyed of serpents." It is clear from these 
 passages, 1st, that God had a church in the 
 wilderness ; 2dly, that the angel spolcen of as 
 having power to pardon sin was Christ ; 3dly, 
 that he was with the church; 4thly, that him 
 they tempted, and fell under his retributive ad- 
 ministration. 
 
 In all the scriptures of the Old and New 
 Testaments, the province of reading men's 
 hearts is ascribed to God alone, and conse- 
 
24 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 quently he alone can tell with infallible cer- 
 tainty who are, and who are not, members of 
 the i?ivisible church of God. But, so far as 
 man can judge from those actions which are 
 an index to the hearts of men, we should con- 
 clude that such as Zachariah and Elizabeth, 
 Simeon and Anna, under the Jewish economy, 
 were really members, constituting a visible 
 church; especially as we have the testimony 
 of God to their guileless and Scriptural piety. 
 If Mr. B. means to say that no church is a 
 visible church that has unworthy members in it, 
 then, indeed, there never was a visible church 
 of Christ on earth, even in the brightest period 
 of the church's history. Was the church in the 
 days of the apostles a visible church of Christ, 
 any more than the Jewish church had been, 
 when among the baptized were seen Judas, 
 Demas, Simon Magus, and others ? But if Mr. 
 B. means to say that the church of God and the 
 church of Christ were tvw, then we ask how he 
 can maintain such a view, without denying the 
 unity of the Godhead, or the essential divinity 
 of Christ ? There was one church purchased 
 by the blood of Christ : " Feed the church of 
 God, which he (Christ, the true God) hath 
 purchased with his own blood," Acts xx, 38. 
 Which church was this ? I answer, The flock 
 of God, embracing his people in every age, and 
 under every dispensation. 
 
 Hence Christ is called " a Lamb slain from 
 the foundation of the world." See Rev. v, 6 ; 
 xiii, 8. This church is sometimes called 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 25 
 
 " a temple" or " building ;" then Christ is the 
 " corner stone," " the foundation," Eph. ii, 20, 
 and 1 Cor. iii, 11. And we learn from Isaiah, 
 the prophet, who wrote seven hundred years 
 before the opening of the gospel dispensation, 
 that this " tried stone," this " precious corner 
 stone," was laid in Zion for a foundation. Isaiah 
 xxviii, 16. This is " the stone, elect, precious," 
 on whom whosoever believed was not confound- 
 ed. 1 Peter ii, 6. 
 
 This church is again called " a flock" or 
 " sheepfold :" " He shall feed his flock like a 
 shepherd, and cany the lambs in his bosom." 
 In Jeremiah xxiii, 1-6, this flock is spoken of, 
 and comforted with the promise of better days, 
 under pastors that should care for them and 
 feed them. This prediction was fulfilled in the 
 days of the Messiah. And in direct allusion 
 to this and similar passages he said, " I lay 
 down my life for the sheep." " Other sheep I 
 have which are not of this (Jewish) fold, them 
 must I bring, and there shall be one fold and 
 one shepherd." You hear one of those sheep 
 saying, under a former dispensation, " The Lord 
 is my shepherd, I shall not want ;" see Psalm 
 xxiii, 1, 2, 3. David's Lord was Christ. See 
 Psalm ex, 1, and Matt, xxii, 44. Again the 
 church is called a " family ;" one family, not 
 two or more. " Of whom the whole family in 
 heaven and earth is named ;" see Eph. iii, 15. 
 Sectarian bigotry, either among Jews or Chris- 
 tians, would like to make partitions in this 
 building of God, or divisions in this immense 
 
26 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 family; but the liberal-minded Paul, who had 
 completed his education in the " third heaven," 
 had learned that the true God had but one 
 family in the universe. In the eleventh chapter 
 of Hebrews we have the names of some of the 
 most distinguished members of this family, from 
 the first martyr, Abel, down to the venerable 
 and faithful Samuel, who from a child of three 
 years old had been actively and publicly en- 
 gaged in the service of this church. 
 
 Jesus, speaking of the Gentiles, says, " They 
 shall come from the east and the west, and shall 
 sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and the prophets 
 in the kingdom of God." Whether you interpret 
 the phrase " kingdom of God" to mean that part 
 of the family which is on earth, or that part 
 which is in heaven, either will answer our pur- 
 pose. We thank God, " our Father who" is 
 "in heaven," that he has but one family, and 
 has constituted of angels and redeemed men 
 one vast brotherhood. See Rev. vii, 9-17. 
 
 Again, the church is called, in Rom. xi, 24, 
 " a good olive tree." And although some of the 
 branches were broken off for unbelief, the olive 
 was never rooted up ; but on that stock the 
 Gentiles were grafted, and the apostles in- 
 formed the Jews that they should be grafted in 
 again, if they abode not in unbelief. We admit 
 there were, from time to time, circumstantial 
 differences in the church of God under different 
 dispensations, but her identity has been always 
 maintained. She has been, and still is, substan- 
 tiallj/the same. She was once a family church, 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 27 
 
 then a national church, and subsequently a uni- 
 versal church. She once looked forth as the 
 morning, was afterward fair as the moon, and 
 finally clear as the sun, and terrible as an army 
 with banners. From the dawn of her morning 
 to her meridian splendour, she leaned upon her 
 beloved, " Christ." The furniture of this temple 
 has been altered ; some of the branches of this 
 olive tree broken off: but the temple's beauty 
 is not marred ; and the " root and fatness of the 
 olive tree" still remain. 
 
 In conclusion, we remark, from the time 
 the covenant of mercy was intimated to Adam 
 and Eve in the garden of Eden, down to 
 the call of Abraham, and to the confirming 
 of that covenant with him; see Gen. xvii, 2, 
 and Gal. iii, 17; and from that to the giving 
 of the law, four hundred and thirty years 
 after ; and from that to the coming of Christ ; 
 and from his advent until now, men have been 
 justified, sanctified, and for ever saved, in the 
 same way, and under the auspices of the same 
 covenant of mercy. For this is tlie " covenant 
 confirmed of God in Christ^'' Gal. iii, 13-20. 
 " He was made a curse for us," " that the bless- 
 ing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles, 
 through Jesus Christ," that we might receive 
 " ikiQ promise of the Spirit through faith." Our 
 Baptist friends contend that this covenant, of 
 which circumcision was the sign and seal, con- 
 tained only the grant of the earthly Canaan to 
 the natural seed of Abraham. But surely the 
 apostle understood the matter in an entirely 
 
28 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 different sense, for he says, the blessing of 
 Ahraham was to come on the Gentiles, and that 
 they were to receive the promise of the Spirit 
 by faith. , This is precisely what Peter refers 
 to, i. e., " the promise of the Spirit," when, on 
 the day of Pentecost, referring to the charter 
 of the gospel church, he says, " The promise is 
 unto you, and to your children," &c., Acts ii, 
 38, 39. And in giving an account of the falling 
 of the Spirit on Cornelius and his family, he 
 says, " Forasmuch, then, as God gave them 
 (the Gentiles) the like gift as he did unto us, 
 (Jews,) who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ ; 
 what was I, that I could withstand God ?" Acts 
 xi, 17. Here you see in Christ, according to 
 the language of the covenant, all the families 
 of the earth were to be blessed. 
 
 St. Paul says, " The scripture, foreseeing 
 that God would justify the heathen through 
 faith, preached before the gospel unto Abra- 
 ham," Gal. iii, 8. This promise, referred to 
 above, the promise of mercy and grace, " I will 
 be a God to thee and to thy seed," was ordained 
 in the hands of a Mediator ; and when this 
 Mediator appeared, we find that a company of 
 Jewish shepherds, and a company of Gentile 
 philosophers, alike present themselves at his 
 shrine as the representatives of the two great 
 divisions of the family of man ; as the " first 
 fruits of the fast coming harvest" of the world 
 to Christ. 
 
 When Jesus looked over the Samaritan 
 people, he said to the apostles, " Say ye not four 
 
iMODE OF BAPTISM. 29 
 
 months, and then cometh harvest ? lift up your 
 eyes and look on the fields, for they are white 
 already to harvest." " Other men (patriarchs 
 and prophets) have laboured, and ye have en- 
 tered into their labours," John iv, 35, 38. The 
 church has always been " God's husbandry" as 
 well as " God's building," and the fields had 
 been under culture for four thousand years. 
 Although the state of morals in the visible 
 church at the coming of Christ was greatly 
 sunken, Jesus said to his disciples, " The 
 scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' seat; there- 
 fore, whatsoever they command you, that ob- 
 serve and do, but do ye not according to their 
 loorks, for they say, and do not." And of this 
 visible church, John the Baptist and Jesus were 
 both members, as also his apostles. For in 
 addition to the observance of the rite of circum- 
 cision, they kept the passover, up to the eve 
 of Christ's apprehension and crucifixion. The 
 true state of the case seems to be this : — When 
 the Messiah, " the promised seed," the Mediator 
 of the (Abrahamic) covenant,'" "the minister of 
 the true tabernacle," appeared and presented 
 his claims, those of the visible church who ad- 
 mitted his Messiahship, and were gathered to 
 the Shiloh, were continued in the true and good 
 olive, and those who rejected him were broken 
 ofi'. The children of the visible kingdom 
 were cast out, the rite of circumcision gave way 
 to the rite of haptism, and the passover was 
 superseded by the institution of the Lord^s 
 supper. See 1 Cor. v, 7. Our Baptist friends 
 
30 OBLIGATIOX, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 admit this, so far as adults are concerned. It 
 is true, however, that Mr. B., in his Strictures, 
 pages 4 and 5, intimates very strongly that cir- 
 cumcision has never been discontinued by an 
 " express command." His words are, " Why 
 not both circumcise and baptize them? You 
 have never had any ' express command'' to dis- 
 continue the one, and practise the other." Now, 
 candid reader, although Mr. B. may not be able 
 to see in God's word any passage abrogating 
 circumcision, yet you will see one in which it 
 is set forth, if you will look at Acts xv, 1, 2, 5, 
 10, 28, 29. And we learn from Acts xvi, 4, 
 that Paul, Silas, and Timotheus went through 
 the churches, delivering the decrees to them 
 on this subject ; and the decree on the " dis- 
 continuing of circumcision" was the result of 
 the judgment of a council of apostles and elders, 
 confirmed by the Holy Ghost. See the passage 
 above referred to. 
 
 And in confirmation of the fact that baptism 
 came in the place of circumcision, the apostle 
 calls baptism the " circumcision of Christ," 
 Col. ii, 11, 12. And I am supported in this 
 opinion by one of Mr. B.'s witnesses : " The 
 great Whitby (as he calls him, — and I suppose, 
 if the testimony of the idtness is good for Mr. 
 B., his testimony will be as good for me against 
 Mr. B. — Let us hear the witness) says, ' The 
 apostle, speaking here of the circumcision made 
 without hands, and of the circumcision made in 
 baptism, and consisting in the putting off the 
 sins of the flesh, cannot, by the circumcision 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 31 
 
 of Christ, mean his own personal circumcision, 
 which was made with hands, but that which he 
 hath instituted in the room of it, viz., baptism. 
 That baptism, therefore, is a rite of initiation 
 to the Christians, as circumcision was to the 
 Jews.' " See Whitby on the place. 
 
 Who doubts that circumcision \vas the ini- 
 tiating rite among the Jews, and in the church, 
 from the day \vhen Abraham was ninety-nine, 
 and Ishmael thirteen years old. For as our 
 Lord said, " Circumcision was not of Moses, 
 but of the fathers." And if baptism is not the 
 initiating rite, the seal and sign of the covenant 
 of mercy, the church, under the gospel, lias no 
 initiatory rite. 
 
 But Mr. B., p. 17, supposes that " the coming 
 of the promised seed (the Messiah) put an end, 
 however, to the Abrahamic covenant, and conse- 
 quently to all its ordinances, for ever." Shock- 
 ing ! that men should be willino- to disannul the 
 only covenant of mercy and grace from God to 
 man, a covenant that embraced the promise of 
 Messiah, and the blessing of all natio7is through 
 him, in order the more effectually to deprive 
 unoffending infants of the rights which they had 
 enjoyed unmolested for about two thousand years. 
 Under what covenant, pray, do such conclude 
 themselves ? " Christ was made a curse for us, 
 that the blessing of Abraham might come on 
 us through faith." How, then, I ask, can the 
 covenant be done away, and its blessings still 
 enjoyed by Jews and Gentiles ? I hope it will 
 not be said that the blessing of Abraham is the 
 
32 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 possession of the earthly Canaan. God made 
 two covenants with Abraham, one before the 
 birth of Ishmael. See Gen. xv, 7-21. In this 
 was contained the grant of the earthly Canaan 
 to his natural seed, through the line of Isaac 
 and Jacob. This covenant was ratified by the 
 passing of a burning lamp and a smoking fur- 
 nace between the pieces of slain beasts which 
 Abram had provided, while a " horror of thick 
 darkness fell upon Abram," emblematical, or 
 typical, of the hard bondage which his natural 
 seed should endure in Egypt. The metes and 
 bounds of their inheritance were distinctly 
 marked out. This covenant received not its 
 full accomplishment until the days of David. 
 See Acts vii, 45 ; 2 Samuel viii, 3, &c. ; and 
 2 Chron. ix, 26. 
 
 About fourteen years afterward God changed 
 the name oi Ahram to that oi Abraham; see 
 Gen. xvii, 5-27 ; and having said in regard to 
 the first covenant, chap, xii, 2, " I will make of 
 thee a great nation^'' he now says, chap, xviii, 
 4, 5, " Thou shalt be k father of many nations." 
 This last is called, by way of eminence, " the 
 covenant." Of this covenant, circumcision 
 was the sign and seal. 
 
 \ ask the candid reader to put the statements 
 of Mr. B., on the subject of this covenant, in 
 contact with the testimony of Zacharias, the 
 father of John the Baptist. When John was 
 eight days old, and they were about to perform 
 upon the " unconscious infant'''' the rite of cir- 
 cumcision — about to put upon him the seal of 
 
MODE OF BAP7ISM. 33 
 
 the Abrahamic covenant — the tongue of Zacha- 
 rias was loosed, and being filled with the Holy- 
 Ghost, he uttered the following language : — 
 " Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he 
 hath visited and redeemed his people. And 
 hath raised up a horn of salvation for us in the 
 house of his servant David ; as he spake by 
 the mouth of his holy prophets, which have 
 been since the world began : that we should be 
 saved from our enemies, and from the hand of 
 all that hate us ; to perform the mercy promised 
 to our fathers, and to remember his holy cove- 
 nant ; the oath which he sware to our father 
 Abraham, that he would grant unto us, that we 
 being delivered out of the hand of our enemies, 
 might serve him without fear, in holiness and 
 righteousness before him, all the davs of oun 
 life ;" see Luke i, 67-80. 
 
 Do these words even intimate that the ad- 
 vent of the Messiah " would put an end to the 
 Abrahamic covenant?''^ as Mr. B. says above. 
 And does Zacharias celebrate the abolition of 
 this covenant ? Does he not rather bless God 
 for the manifestation of the " mercy promised^'' 
 and the bestowment of those important bless- 
 ings included in the Abrahamic covenant ? To 
 remember his holy covenant, as a covenant-keep- 
 ing God, is to give to those who have " taken 
 hold of his covenant" those immunities vouch- 
 safed in tliis contract or stipulation. 
 
 The intelligent reader will perceive that Za- 
 charias never intimates that the possession of 
 the earthly Canaan was any part of the bless- 
 3 
 
34 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 ings embraced in the covenant of circumcision. 
 The mercy promised to our fathers embraced all 
 spiritual blessings in Christ Jesus ; and only 
 embraced temporal good secondarily. 
 
 The temporal advantages connected with cir- 
 cumcision were restricted to the seed of /Vbra- 
 ham according to the flesh, through the line of 
 Isaac. We read that " Abraham took Ishmael, 
 his son, and all that were born in his house, 
 and all that were bought with his money, every 
 male of the family of Abraham, and circumcised 
 the flesh of their foreskin, in the self-same day, 
 as God had said unto him." The circumcision 
 of these persons entailed upon them no right to 
 the land of Canaan ; nor did the circumcision 
 of slaves in after times procure them either civil 
 liberty or landed property ; they must therefore 
 have received some spiritual privileges, or they 
 gained nothing by the rite. Mr. B. says, page 
 16 of his sermon, " We know that Esau and 
 Ishmael, and others, descendants of Abraham, 
 were rejected from the covenant of salvation by 
 Jesus Christ." Then their circumcision was a 
 solemn mockery. 
 
 How can he know this, when, according to 
 his own showing, the covenant of salvation was 
 not ofl^ered to them, and the only covenant of 
 which they knew any thing was purely of a 
 temporal nature? Hence ho says, page 16, 
 ''- Every one of Abraham's natural descendants 
 might have been sons of perdition, and yet all 
 the ends proposed (by the covenant) might have 
 been accomplished." Candid reader, can you 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 35 
 
 credit such views ? " I speak as nnto wise men, 
 judsre ye what I say." 
 
 That Gentiles derived spiritual privileges from 
 circumcision is clearly evident from Isaiah Ivi, 
 6, 7, " Also the sons of the stranger, that join 
 themselves to the Lord to serve him, — and 
 taketh hold of my covenant ; even them will I 
 bring to my holy mountain, and make them 
 joyful in my house of prayer ; their burnt offer- 
 ings and sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine 
 ahar," &c. 
 
 As the covenant is called the covenant of 
 circumcision, no uncircumcised person could 
 take hold of it ; nor was it permitted to any one 
 who had not received the sign of the covenant 
 to enter into the temple and engage in its sacred 
 services. The persons mentioned in the text 
 therefore were circumcised Gentiles, and all the 
 immunities which they enjoyed, as here enume- 
 rated, were of a purely religious nature. 
 
 The apostle Paul, who was well acquainted 
 with this whole subject, has spoken, we think, 
 in a way calculated to settle the question, Rom. 
 iii, 1, 2, 3, "What profit is there of circum- 
 cision ?" The answer is, " Much every way ; 
 CHIEFLY, because that unto them were commit- 
 ted the oracles of Godr We hope our Baptist 
 friends will not make so wide a mistake as 
 to say that the oracles of God are the earthly 
 Canaan. 
 
 Although the Jews had temporal benefits as 
 a nation, connected with circumcision, yet the 
 rite was not instituted on that account. " Cir- 
 
36 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 cumcision \ erily projlieth, if thou keep the law; 
 but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circum- 
 cision is made imcircumcision," Rom. ii, 25. 
 Here, again, the profit of circumcision is not 
 made to consist in the enjoyment of temporal 
 blessings ; but in keeping the law, or oracles 
 of God. Surely this did not regard the earthly 
 Canaan. 
 
 Mr. B. sajrs, page 17 of his sermon, " While 
 he (that is, Abraham) was, literally, the father 
 of the whole Jewish family, he was, spirituall)'-, 
 the father of none but believers, even among his 
 own offspring : and now, as circumcision was 
 enjoined upon all his natural seed, it follows, 
 of course, that the design of it was literal, and 
 that its benefits were to be looked for in con- 
 nection with the literal import of the several 
 promises which God had made to him : thus, 
 those who were circumcised should be acknow- 
 ledged his natural descendants ; should be pro- 
 tected by the arm of God in the enjoyment of 
 the privileges connected with all that arrange- 
 ment by which it was designed to keep them a 
 separate nation ; and finally should inherit the 
 land of Canaan. A candid observer must per- 
 ceive, that as the literal provisions of this cove- 
 nant were confined to Abraham's natural seed, 
 the literal rites of the covenant must also be 
 confined to that people." 
 
 The statements made in this quotation are 
 plainly and flatly contradicted by the facts in 
 the case. The three hundred and eighteen 
 men of Abraham's house who were circum- 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 37 
 
 cised, were they a part of his natural seedl 
 Gen. xiv, 14. And were those, and Ishmael, 
 and his seed, kept a separate nation ? And did 
 they finally inherit the land of Canaan ? Again ; 
 were those servants acknowledged his natural 
 descendants? Mr. B. says so. What say you, 
 candid reader ? The idea that circumcision was 
 designed only as a national badge, (the idea 
 that is so confidently advanced by some of our 
 Baptist teachers,) is contradicted by the facts 
 connected with the original institution of circum- 
 cision, as well as by the facts connected with 
 the history of the institution. For if it was a 
 national badge to the Jews, or descendants of 
 Abraham by the line of Isaac and Jacob, it v/as 
 equally so to the descendants of Abraham by 
 the line of Ishmael and Esau. For the Ish- 
 maelites, Arabians, and Saracens, all practised 
 the rite ; and at this day, circumcision is the 
 initiating rite to the Mohammedan as well as 
 the Jew. 
 
 How can that be a national badge to one 
 nation that is practised by many nations? " I 
 speak as unto wise men, judge ye what I say." 
 
 Having shown, as we trust, in the foregoing 
 observations, the identity of the church, and 
 that the covenant made with Abraham (of which 
 circumcision was the sign and seal) was the 
 covenant of grace, intimated in Eden to Adam, 
 (when his whole posterity were yet in his 
 loins,) and fully made known under the gospel 
 dispensation ; the seed of the woman having 
 now bruised the serpent's head, by his cruci- 
 
38 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 fixion on the cross, having " been made a curse 
 for us, thai the ' blessing of Abraham^ might 
 come on all that believe, both Jews and Gentiles ; 
 that, according to the stipulations of the cove- 
 nant, he might be the ''father of many nations-^'''' 
 we shall now proceed to show that, in this 
 covenant, (as understood anciently,) the right 
 of infant church membership was recognised. 
 
 In proof that infants were to be recognised 
 as having membership in i\ie family church, see 
 Gen, xvii, 11-13: "And ye shall circumcise 
 the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be a 
 token of the covenant betwixt me and you. 
 And he that is eight days old shall be circum- 
 cised among you, every male child in your 
 generation ; he that is born in the house, 01^ 
 bought with money of any stranger, which is not 
 of thy seedy This was the original constit^ition 
 of the church of the true God : the original 
 charter of that " Jerusalem which is the mother 
 of us all," Gal. iv, 26. And here the rights of 
 " unconscious babes''^ are acknowledged. 
 
 This charter was in force, observe, four 
 hundred and thirty years before the giving of 
 the law. And St. Paul says, Gal. iii, 17, The 
 law did not disannul the covenant which was 
 confirmed of God in Christ four hundred and 
 thirty years before. 
 
 We see the covenant carried into effect in 
 respect to children during the law. We quote, 
 in proof, 2 Chron. xxxi, 14, 19. In this pas- 
 sage, brethren, wives, sons, daughters, and little 
 ones, are all mentioned as enterinainto the house 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 39 
 
 of the Lord. And this extended " through all 
 the congregation," and we are told that Heze- 
 kiah, in tliis arrangement of the congregation, 
 did that which was right and good before the 
 Lord his God. Verse 20. Now we never heard 
 it denied that the priests and Levites entered 
 not into the active and official services of the 
 temple until the age of thirty : we see this 
 illustrated in the case of John the Baptist, who 
 was of the tribe of Levi, and the family of 
 Aaron. Yet we learn from the passage in 
 Chronicles, that the " little ones'^ of three years 
 old entered into the " house of the Lord," and 
 made a part of the congregation. 
 
 This will throw light on that passage in 
 Deut. xxix, 10, 13, " Ye stand this day all of 
 you before the Lord your God, ' your little oneSy 
 &c., to enter into covenant with the Lord your 
 God," &c. Children of three years old enter 
 into covenant with God ? Yes, this is their own 
 personal act. Nor are these the only places 
 where little ones are public characters ; for 
 Joshua, in confirming or renewing the national 
 covenant on Mount Gerizim, " read all the 
 words of the law, the blessings and cursings, 
 according to all that is written in the book of 
 the law," to the little ones — to children three 
 years old. Josh, viii, 34, 35. " It is clear from 
 the passages adduced, that children of three 
 years old were members of the national church, 
 and engaged in the most sacred rites and so- 
 lemn transactions, equally with their fathers. 
 They were, no doubt, subject to the same pre- 
 
40 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 paratoiy purifications, and were treated on the 
 same ritual principles as their fathers." 
 
 You find from 1 Sam. i, 22,24,28, and ii, 11, 
 that as soon as Hannah weaned Samuel, she 
 brought him and lent him to the Lord, " And he 
 ministered unto the Lord before Eli the priest^ 
 being a child girded with a linen ephod." 
 
 " Having shown that, by the authority of God, 
 infants were received into the covenant and the 
 church ; that at three years of age they were 
 publicly recognised as members of the church, 
 and personally performed public acts of mem- 
 bership, it follows, that the same divine author- 
 ity which granted the right must be shown to 
 have cancelled it, before they can justly be de- 
 prived of it ; and as no one pretends that God 
 has prohibited the membership of infants under 
 the gospel, the original grant must remain in full 
 forceJ^ 
 
 We shall explain this part of the subject by 
 an illustration or two. What is called in most 
 of the states of this Union the common laio, is 
 the law of the commonwealth, unless in the 
 particular case the common law has been re- 
 pealed by express statute law. Hence it is 
 sometimes a question in the courts, (which 
 cannot be decided without an appeal,) whether 
 the case before the court is actionable at com- 
 mon law, or whether it has been provided for 
 by express statute. Apply the matter. We 
 find the right of infant church membership 
 acknowledged in the Old Testament Scriptures, 
 and in the church of God, for about two thou- 
 
>r<5DE OF BAPTISM. 41- 
 
 sand years. We take their having had a title 
 as prima facie evidence that they have a title 
 still. We look into the New Testament, (which 
 I consider the book of statute law for the 
 church,) to see if there is any precept or pre- 
 cedent, any " Thus saith the Lord," for ex- 
 cluding infants ; any abrogating statute ; and 
 we find none. Take another case : There is 
 now in Virginia what is called a " new constitu- 
 tion f^ has any intelligent citizen of the state 
 ever entertained an idea that this is any other 
 than the old constitution amended, by the au- 
 thority of the state, vested in a convention of 
 the citizens ? Are not the privileges of the citi- 
 zens precisely the same as under the old con- 
 stitution, except so far as that was amended by 
 the direct action of the convention ? Do not the 
 strong features of the constitution remain the 
 same ? Were the terms of citizenship altered 1 
 or the essential privileges of the citizens in- 
 fringed, by the partial amendments which are 
 found to have been made ? Or does any citizen 
 infer other amendments, from the fact that he 
 finds some plainly stated in the new charter or 
 constitution ? And if a question should arise in 
 the state about implied privileges, or abridged 
 rights, I suppose the gentleman who should 
 indulge his imagination in the case would be 
 expected to furnish the burden of proof , to sup- 
 port his inferences : he would not be allowed to 
 change the old constitution by inference. Apply 
 the illustration to the case in hand. We call 
 upon our Baptist friends to show, if they can, 
 
42 OBLIGATION, SUBJEC1V3, AND 
 
 that there has taken place, under the New 
 Testament dispensation, any essential change 
 in the privileges of the church, or its members. 
 Zion, indeed, has " enlarged her borders," but 
 her " citizens]^ and their privileges are substan- 
 tially the same. Here we might rest this branch 
 of the argument, until those who exclude little 
 children from the visible family of God should 
 produce the statute of repeal by which their 
 privileges are taken away. And till this be 
 done, their rights may be safely rested upon the 
 original grant. But we shall show not only 
 that they were in the church formerly^ but that 
 Christ did not exclude them under the gospel 
 economy. 
 
 I am aware that many objections are urged 
 against the administration of the ordinance to 
 children ; and when argument fails, sneers and 
 ridicule are made to do what argument cannot, 
 and Scripture will not, accomplish. It is called 
 " infant sprinkling," " baby sprinkling." And 
 again it is asked, " What do they know about 
 the ordinance ?" Take one specimen of many, 
 from Mr. Broaddus's sermon, p. 41 : " Thanks 
 to the ingenuity of Pope Stephen III. for an 
 invention which secures the dear little crea- 
 tures a place in heaven, wdthout the inconve- 
 nience and danger of being plunged into a 
 stream or pool of water." It is likely iMr. B. 
 has a better opinion of the pope's close commu- 
 nion. Query : Can he, or the pope, furnish a 
 "Thus saitii the Lord," for excluding their 
 brethren from the table of our common Lord, 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 43 
 
 and thus " making terms of communion that are 
 not terms of salvation V See Robert Hall's, 
 Works. Can Mr. B. furnish a " Thus saith the 
 Lord" for the observance of the first day of the 
 week as the Christian sabbath, instead of the 
 seventh ? Yet he, and the whole Christian 
 world, so far as I know, (except the seventh- 
 day Baptists,) agree to adopt it as the sabbath. 
 I suppose that can be managed without an 
 express warrant, and can be abundantly made 
 out from precedent and inference, &lq,., &c., as 
 it does not stand in the way of " believers' 
 baptism," or " baptism by immersion." We 
 trust, candid reader, to furnish you evidence, 
 with regard to the subjects of baptism, which 
 shall not, with you, at least, be set aside by 
 irony or ridicule. 
 
 PROSELYTE BAPTISM. 
 
 That baptism was in existence before the 
 days of John the Baptist seems evident from 
 the writings of some of the Jews, especially as 
 practised in the case of proselytes. Maimonides 
 holds on this subject the following language : — 
 " In ALL ages, vjhen a heathen (or a stranger by 
 nation) was willing to enter into the covenant of 
 Israel, and gather himself under the wings of the 
 majesty of God, and take upon himself the yoke 
 of the law, he must be first circumcised, and 
 secondly baptized, and thirdly bring a sacrifice ; 
 or if the party were a woman, then she must be 
 first BAPTIZED, and secondly bring a sacrificed 
 — Clarke's Commentary at the end of Mark. 
 
44 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 And this fact does not rest on the authority of 
 the Jews alone, for that the practice existed, 
 and was known to the heathens, is clear from 
 the words of Epictetus : (he is blaming those 
 who assume the profession of philosophy with- 
 out acting up to it:) " Why do you call your- 
 self a stoic ? Why do you deceive the multi- 
 tude ? Why do you pretend to be a Greeli, 
 when you are a Jew, a Syrian, an Egyptian ? 
 And when we see one wavering, we are wont 
 to say, This is not a Jew, but acts one. But 
 when he assumes the sentiments of one who 
 hath been baptized and circumcised, then he both 
 really is, and is called a Jew," &c. 
 
 This practice, then, of the Jews — proselyte 
 baptism — was so notorious to the heathens in 
 Italy and Greece, that it furnished this philo- 
 sopher with an object of comparison. Now, 
 Epictetus lived to be very old — he is placed by 
 Dr. Lardner A. D. 109 ; by Le Clerc, A.D. 104. 
 He could not be less than sixty years of age 
 when he wrote this : and he might obtain his 
 information thirty or forty years earlier, which 
 brings it up to the time of the apostles. Those 
 who coidd think that the Jews could institute 
 proselyte baptism., at the very moment when the 
 Christians were practising baptism as an initia- 
 tory rite, are not to be envied for the correct- 
 ness of their judgment. The rite dates much 
 earlier, probably many ages. I see no reason 
 for disputing the assertion of Maimonides, not- 
 withstanding Dr. Gill's rash and fallacious lan- 
 guage on the subject. See Facts and Evi- 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 45 
 
 tlences, as quoted by Watson. " This baptism 
 of proselytes, as Dr. Lightfoot has fully shown, 
 was a haptis7n of families, and comprehended 
 their ufant children; and the rite was a symbol 
 of their being washed from the pollution of 
 idolatiy. Very different, indeed, in the extent 
 of its import and office, was Christian baptism 
 to the Jewish baptism ; nevertheless, this shows 
 that the Jews were familiar wdth the rite as it 
 extended to children, in cases of conversions 
 from idolatry; and, as far at least as the con- 
 verts from paganism to Christianity were con- 
 cerned, they could not but understand Christian 
 baptism to extend to the infant children of Gen- 
 tile proselytes, unless there had been, what we 
 nowhere find in the discourses of Christ, or the 
 writings of the apostles, an express exception of 
 them." — Watson on Baptism. 
 
 It is objected to infant baptism that infants 
 are not capable of believing, and that as the 
 apostles received a comnfiission to baptize be- 
 lievers, Mark xvi, 15, 16, therefore infants ought 
 to be refused the ordinance. This reason lies 
 equally against infant salvation. An argument 
 that proves too much (as this does) proves no- 
 thing, only that he who uses it is hard run for an 
 argument. Let us look at this matter a moment. 
 Infants cannot believe, therefore they ought not 
 to be baptized. Infants cannot believe, there- 
 fore they must be damned ! For the text says, 
 " He that helievcth not shall be damned." Mr. 
 B. says, p. 7, "I will engage to prove, that the 
 commission actually excludes all unl 
 
46 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 Avhetlier unconscious infants or unbelieving 
 adults." " Why tell them to baptize believers, 
 if they were to baptize all men indiscrimi- 
 nately?" Why should he thus "beat the air?" 
 He never heard an intelligent Pedobaptist say 
 that " all men indiscriminately''* are to be baptized. 
 Why did he not quote Eph. ii, 8 ? " By grace 
 are ye saved through faith." But infants have 
 no faith ; therefore they cannot be saved. Or 
 this : " If any will not work, neither shall he 
 eat." Children cannot work, therefore children 
 should not be allowed to eat ; and thus, by his 
 reasoning, furnish a pretext for starving children 
 according to the word of the apostle. Or he 
 might have quoted : " The Lord Jesus shall be 
 revealed from heaven in flaming lire, taking 
 vengeance on them that know not God, and 
 obey not the gospel." Infants know not God, 
 and obey not the gospel, therefore he will take 
 vengeance on them, &c. This is a kind of 
 logic that puts more in the conclusion than is in 
 the premises, and is therefore a 7nere sophism. 
 Again : " Baptism," say they, " is the answer 
 of a good conscience ; infants cannot have the 
 answer of a good conscience, therefore they 
 ought not to be baptized." Infants have not an 
 evil conscience, and that is more than can be said 
 for many adults, who have been baptized upon 
 a profession of faith. They have innocence to 
 recommend them ; while of Simon Magus it is 
 said, " Simon himself believed also ; and when 
 he was baptized," &c. We soon hear of this 
 man who had received "behevers' baptism," 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 47 
 
 that his heart " is not right in the sight of God," 
 " he is in the gall of bitterness" " Thou hast 
 no part or lot in this matter." And 1 conclude 
 Simon's was not a solitary case. 
 
 Mr. B.'s illustration on page 7 I tliink very 
 unfortunate ; because there is an obvious want 
 of analogy in the case. His words are, " Sup- 
 pose the governor of Virginia should send out 
 recruiting officers, under a commission reading 
 as follows, viz. : Go through all the state and 
 call upon all the inhabitants to enlist in the 
 army, giving them ten dollars each ;" he says, 
 *' can any one suppose that imconscious infants 
 are included among those who are to receive 
 the ten dollars ?" " The cases (^he says) a!re 
 precisely parallel." I suppose, if infants were 
 as capable of being soldiers, of bearing arms, 
 and marching to the battle field, as theij were 
 anciently, and are noio, of receiving the sign of 
 the covenant, then indeed there might be some 
 analogy; but until that is proved, we shall not 
 alloAv Mr. B. to pass off assumption for proof, 
 or sophistry for argument, or agree that he shall 
 beg the question where the proof is absent; as he 
 has done more than once in his Strictures and 
 sermons. 
 
 Again : the wording of the commission, in 
 Matt, xxviii, 19, 20, is urged against the pro- 
 priety of admitting children to baptism. We 
 must always try to put ourselves in the circum- 
 stances of those who are addressed, and ask 
 what would be the sense which, in their 'peculiar 
 circumstances, we would have been likely to put 
 
48 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 upon the words. Dr. Watts remarks, tliat we 
 often interpret the meaning of terms from early- 
 impressions made upon us by local circum- 
 stances. Hence, says he, " a youth raised in 
 sight of a parish church, that has a steeple on 
 it, always associates in his mind, when he 
 hears the word church, the idea of a house with 
 a steeple,^^ &c. So when a man unacquainted 
 with ancient customs reads in the New Testa- 
 ment, " Men do not put new wine into old 
 bottles, lest the bottles burst," &c., he is at a 
 loss to understand the matter ; for his mind 
 directly recurs to the fact that glass bottles 
 which have been tried can be better trusted to 
 stand the process of vinous fermentation than 
 7tew ones. But there was no difficulty in the 
 minds of those to whom the words were spoken 
 originally ; because they knew of no bottles ex- 
 cept those made of skins, which were always 
 strongest when new. 
 
 If the original commission to " disciple all 
 nations, baptizing them," &c., had been given 
 to Mr. B., or any of his brethren, of whom it 
 may be said that " infant baptism is their soul's 
 abhorrence," I frankly confess that it would 
 have been necessary to give such specific 
 directions to admit the children to the ordinance 
 with the parents ; and it might have been ne- 
 cessary, for aught I know, to work a miracle 
 in order to convince them that there was any 
 sense or justice in baptizing " a babe.^^ Christ 
 might have found their prejudices as stubborn 
 as were Peter's, who could not discover that 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 49 
 
 " God was no respecter of persons, until, while 
 in a trance, a sheet was let down from heaven, 
 and a voice said to him three times^ Kill and 
 eat ;" and the Spirit said, " Go with the men 
 (of Cornelius) doubting nothing, for I have sent 
 them.'' Men's prejudices become very invete- 
 rate, especially when they grow up under a 
 system of exclusiveness. Hear Mr. B., page 27, 
 for the proof of the above : '' This species of 
 tyranny over men's consciences (i. e., baptizing 
 infants) would better suit the avowed doctrines 
 of the Church of Rome, than the professed libe- 
 rality of Protestants. It would be difficult for 
 me to perceive any thing more arbitrary in bap- 
 tizing adults at the point of tlie sv)ord, than in 
 taking unconscious infants, and imposing upon 
 them submission to a religious rite, with respect 
 to which they have no volition or choice." 
 
 The reader can perceive from this quotation 
 the views and feeling^s of Mr. B. w^ith regard to 
 infant baptism. I hesitate not to declare, that 
 the doctrine contained in the above is calculated 
 to subvert that order and subordination which is 
 necessary to the well-being of society. For if 
 it is tyranny in the parent to dedicate the child 
 to God in baptism, without the child's choice ; 
 then is the child's liberty taken away, if the 
 parent requires it to observe the Christian sab- 
 bath, or to go to the house of God, instead of to 
 the temple of an idol. The apostle considered 
 it not warring with the liberty of the gospel, or 
 of the child, to say, " Children, obey your pa- 
 rents in all things,"" Col. iii, 20 ; and to require 
 4 
 
50 OBLIGATION, KUBJECTS, AND 
 
 tlie parent " to bring them up in the nurture 
 and admonition of the Lord," Eph. vi, 4. If the 
 judgment of the parent is to govern the child in 
 its minority, surely it cannot be a sore evil to 
 the child to be dedicated to God in baptism, 
 before it is instructed and admonished in the 
 Lord. Such ^^ tyrannical imrents''' have the ex- 
 ample of Abraham, the father of the faithful, to 
 encourage them ; and the example of all the 
 faithful, from Abraham down to Joseph and 
 Mary, the reputed father and real mother of 
 Jesus ; for at eight days old, Jesus was solemnly 
 recognized as a member of the church, by the 
 rite of circumcision. Yet this, according to 
 Mr. B., was about as arbitrary as if John, at 
 the age of thirty, had baptized him " at the 
 point of the sword." 
 
 From the above it will appear how inveterate 
 are the prejudices of this gentleman against 
 infant baptism. Hence I say, if he, and those 
 "who think and feel as he does on this subject, 
 had received the commission which Peter and 
 his fellow apostles received, the directions to 
 admit infants would, of necessity, have been 
 very definite. But as it was, the commission 
 Avas put into the hands of Jews, who had never 
 known a church that did not admit, and main- 
 tain, the right of infant church membership. 
 They, of course, would so understand the com- 
 mission, as to admit the children with their 
 parents, as was always the case when Gen- 
 tiles were proselyted to the Jewish religion. 
 
MODE or BAPTISM. 51 
 
 Being well acquainted with this practice, they 
 would admit the children, unless forbidden to 
 do so. 
 
 Peter and his brethren had never learned to 
 think of a church that excluded children from 
 membership, and of course would not attempt 
 to form a church upon a new model, unless spe- 
 cijically directed so to do. Jewish children were 
 called the " disciples of Moses ;" and when the 
 commission said, " Go and disciple all nations, 
 baptizing them and teaching them," &c., they 
 would make disciples of adults and their chil- 
 dren, as the Jewish missionaries had been ac- 
 customed to do from the beginning. They who 
 valued themselves upon being the children of 
 Abraham would not reject the infant children 
 of the followers of Abraham's faith. " If ye be 
 Christ's, then ar^ ye Abraham's seed, and heirs 
 according to the promise." St. Paul. 
 
 It is objected further, if they are admitted to 
 baptism, on the same ground they ought to be 
 admitted to the sacrament of the Lord's supper. 
 This objection is more specious than valid. It 
 is evident to all who reflect, that there is a 
 manifest difference existing in the two ordi- 
 nances, baptism and the Lord's supper, — as is 
 obvious from the Scriptures, and from the prac- 
 tice of the Baptists themselves. I suppose they 
 do not admit all to the communion (however 
 unworthy) who have been once baptized. Now, 
 infants have no capacity to "discern the Lord's 
 body," or to examine themselves before ap- 
 
52 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 preaching the supper. Nor is it ever said of 
 baptism, " He that receives it unworthily, re- 
 ceives it to his own damnation." 
 
 The children of Jewish parents, though regu- 
 lar church members, did not eat of the passover 
 until a given age. So says Calvin, Institutes, 
 b. iv, ch. 16: "The passover, which has now 
 been succeeded by the sacred supper, did not 
 admit guests of all descriptions promiscuously ; 
 but was rightly eaten only by those who were 
 of sufficient age to be able to inquire into its 
 signiiication." 
 
 Josephus says, Antiq., lib. xii, ch. 4, " The 
 ld.w forbids the son to cat of the sacrifice before 
 he has come to the temple, and there presented 
 an ofiering to God." 
 
 " Children at the age of twelve years," says 
 Poole, " were brought by their parents to the 
 temple ; and from that time they hegaii to eat 
 of the passover, and other sacrifices." 
 
 I shall quote but three more authorities on 
 this point. 
 
 " Till a child was twelve years old, he was 
 not obliged to go to Jerusalem at the lime of the 
 passover."— Stackhouse, Hist. Bib., b. viii, ch. 1. 
 
 " The males were not brought to the temple 
 till they were twelve years old, and the sacrifices 
 they ate were chiefly peace offerings, which 
 became the common food to all that were clean 
 in the family." — Dr. Doddridge, Lee, p. 9, 
 prop. 155. 
 
 Hence we find, in Luke ii, 21, 41, 42, that 
 although Jesus was circumcised at eight days 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 53 
 
 old, and his pajr?its went, up evcnj year to the 
 passover feast, yet there is no intimation that 
 Jesus ever kept the feast, until he was twelve 
 years old : " And when he was twelve years 
 old, they went up to Jerusalem, after the custom 
 of the feast," The learned Dr. Gi]l, a Baptist 
 writer, has spoken to the same effect : " Ac- 
 cording to the maxims of the Jews," says he, 
 " persons were not obliged to the duties of the 
 law, or subject to its penalties in case of non- 
 performance, until they were, a female, at the 
 age of twelve years and one day, and a male 
 at the age of thirteen years and one day. But 
 then they used to train up their children, and 
 inure them to religious exercises before. They 
 were not properly under the law until they had 
 amved at the age above mentioned ; nor were 
 they reckoned adult church members until then, 
 nor then neither, unless worthy persons : for 
 so it is said, ' He that is worthy, at thirteen 
 years of age, is called a son of the congrega- 
 tion of Israel.' " — Gill's Com. on Luke ii, 42. 
 
 From the examination of this objection to 
 infant baptism, our views are strengthened ; for 
 it appears that although infants were formerly 
 circumcised, they were not required to eat the 
 passover. And although infants are to be bap- 
 tized, ^^as they may he the subjects of the renew- 
 ing of the Holy Ghost, and sprinkling of the 
 blood of Christ," signified by baptism, and can 
 thus be distinguished visibly as the special 
 property of Christ, yet they cannot, in the sup- 
 per, " discern the Lord's body," and partake of 
 
54 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 it " in remembrance of him ;" and are morally 
 and physically incapable of coming to the 
 Lord's table, according to the meaning of the 
 institution. 
 
 And although, at some periods of the history 
 of the church, in some places infant communion 
 was held ; yet it was never said to have come 
 down from the days of the apostles, nor did it 
 ever generally prevail in the Christian church. 
 I suppose it came into the church as an inno- 
 vation, the result of superstition^ and prevailed 
 about as extensively, and stood upon the same 
 footing, as the practice of baptizing men and 
 women naked ; dipping them three times, and 
 then giving milk and honey to the baptized. 
 
 We shall, in the next place, try to ascertain 
 how the apostles understood their commission, 
 from the manner in which they executed it, as 
 we find the matter detailed in the Acts of the 
 Apostles. 
 
 We think it cannot be shown that in any case 
 where parents were baptized, their children 
 were left still to be the disciples of Moses, or 
 in an outcast heathen state. We think the 
 cases of family or household baptism recorded, 
 furnish, at least, very strong presumptive evi- 
 dence for infant baptism ; and I suppose pre- 
 sumptive evidence for them will be considered 
 good, until some counter evidence is produced. 
 
 It is true that Mr. Broaddus says, (sermon, 
 page 11,) "I have myself baptized four house- 
 holds, and not an infant among them." In the 
 whole course of his ministry, I suppose in 
 
MODK OF BAPTISM. 55 
 
 some twelve or fourteen years, after baptizing 
 hundreds, as I presume, he has baptized "/owr 
 households, and not an infant among them." I 
 really feel a little curiosity to know who they 
 were, and how many souls the four households 
 contained. I wonder if there were any married 
 persons among them? I hope, if this gentle- £ 
 man should write again, he will give us some 
 information on these extraordinary cases, for it 
 is surely extraordinary to hear of a Baptist 
 preacher baptizing even one household, except, 
 perhaps, where a man and his wife, or a hachelor 
 and his maiden sister, constitute a household. 
 We are thankful to Mr. B. for this piece of in- 
 formation. It seems, then, that in the course 
 of his whole ministry, after having baptized 
 hundreds, he has met with and baptized four 
 households that had no infants in them. 
 
 Now, in the Acts of the Apostles, and in the 
 Epistles, there are a few families only men- 
 tioned. And in every case where there is 
 mention of a family, there is the total absence 
 of evidence that any part of the family was 
 refused baptism. In every case where baptism 
 is mentioned in connection with a family, the 
 evidence, as far as it goes, is in favour of the 
 baptism of the parent and the cMldren. 
 
 We will take, first, the case of Lydia, Acts 
 xvi, 15 : " And when she was baptized, and 
 her househcldP But Mr. B. thinks, page 10, 
 that possibly the household were " Lydia's 
 partners in her mercantile operations ;" he says, 
 possibly they were ^^ journeymen diers,'' " or 
 
56 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AXD 
 
 were they mere travelling companions ?" Our 
 Baptist friends are so bent upon cutting off the 
 right of infants to baptism, that they will sup- 
 pose any thing, however preposterous, to evade 
 the argument drawn from household baptisms. 
 
 They will suppose that even partners in 
 business with Lydia, or ^''journeymen diers^* 
 were baptized, and constituted " brethren," al- 
 though there is no intimation that she had so 
 much as one partner or one journeyman; and if 
 she had, (which we think very unlikely,) then 
 they were baptized and made brethren, without 
 grace ; for the passage makes no mention of 
 the heart of any person being opened, except 
 Lydia's ; and there is no intimation that those 
 journeymen either repented or believed, and 
 of course could not have received " believer's 
 baptism." I appeal to you, reader, to judge, 
 who would be the most fit for baptism, — the 
 children of a believing mother, or a house- 
 hold oi graceless ^'■journeymen diersr " I speak 
 as unto wise men." 
 
 God said, " I will be a God to thee and to 
 thy seedr Peter said, " The promise is unto 
 you and your children.^'' And Luke says, " Lydia 
 was baptized, and her household^ " Judge ye 
 what I say." 
 
 Is there not strong presumptive evidence 
 that the apostles baptized children with their 
 parents ? 
 
 But Mr. B. had to suppose that Lydia had a 
 dying establishment, in order to find a use for 
 " journeymen ;" and then he thinks it would 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 57 
 
 have been " unsuitable" and " inconvenient" for 
 her to have brought her infant or infants with 
 her such a distance, even if she had them at 
 home. He thinks it " very improbable" that 
 she would have them with her. Now, candid 
 reader, I think just the reverse ; for if Lydia 
 left Thyatira, and came to Philippi, and set up 
 a dying establishment that needed journeymen, 
 and went to housekeeping with her " partners" 
 or "journeymen," or both, then /say, it is ex- 
 tremely improbable that she would have left any 
 ,part of her family at Thyatira, much less her 
 " infant offspring." However inconvenient it 
 might be to a mother to bring her children such 
 a distance, yet with a mother's heart, she would 
 doubtless find it much more inconvenient to 
 have them so far from her. 
 
 The editor of Calmet, Facts and Evidences, 
 pp. 13, 14, has proved that otKog, the v/ord used 
 in the passage, when spoken of persons, de- 
 notes a family of children — and includes chil- 
 dren of all ages. And he offers not only ffty 
 examples to prove it, but says that " three hun- 
 dred instances have been examined, and have 
 proved perfectly satisfactory." 
 
 The same writer says, that when the sacred 
 writers include servants, and the whole domes- 
 tic establishment, they use the word oiKia, and 
 the passage above should be read, " And when 
 she was baptized and her family." Lydia, then, 
 had a family of children ; and these children 
 were baptized at the same time with their 
 mother. 
 
58 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 Again, as this woman appears not to have 
 been past the meridian of life, the presumption 
 is that part of those children were young. What 
 Mr. B. says about those persons who consti- 
 tuted Lydia's family being the brethren spoken 
 of in the fortieth verse who were comforted by 
 Paul and Silas, when examined a little, will 
 appear destitute even of probability. He asks, 
 with an air of triumph, " Can these things be 
 said with propriety of unconscious babes ?" I 
 answer. No, — and there is no necessity that they 
 should be so applied. Reader, if you will look 
 at A^erses 16, 18, you will find that the apostles 
 held public meetings in Philippi ^^ many days" 
 after Lydia's conversion before they were cast 
 into prison ; and during all that time exercised 
 their ministry unmolested, until they cast the 
 spirit of divination out of a " girl ;" which cir- 
 cumstance led to the imprisonment of Paul and 
 Silas. There can be no doubt that many were 
 converted at these meetings ; especially as Paul, 
 in his epistle to this church, represents them as 
 having lived in fellowship m the gospel " from 
 THE FIRST DAY," Phil, i, 5. And, moreover, 
 there were two of the apostolic company who 
 were not in the prison with Paul and Silas, as 
 you w^ill see by examining the context. The 
 company consisted at least of — 1st, Timothy; 
 2d, Paul ; 3d, Silas ; 4th, Luke. They lodged 
 at the house of Lydia, until Paul and Silas 
 were cast into prison. On the day after they 
 were released from their imprisonment, " they 
 entered into the house of Lydia : and when 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 59 
 
 they had seen the brethren, they comforted them 
 and departed." This verse does not so much 
 as intimate that " the brethren" were Lydia's 
 family. When the intelUgence of the release 
 of the apostles from prison was noised abroad, 
 of course the whole of the brethren, Timothy, 
 Luke, and others, would repair to Paul's lodgings 
 to see him ; and when he had given them his 
 farewell benediction, he departed. 
 
 Once more, on this case of family baptism. 
 It will be urged, there is no positive proof that 
 there Avere infants in the family of Lydia. True, 
 and there is no positive proof that there were 
 any adults besides Lydia herself. " But here 
 is positive proof of the baptism of children, and 
 a family of children, mentioned in connection 
 with the baptism of the parent, Avithout a hint 
 being dropped respecting their faith, conversion, 
 or consent, or even of their attending to the 
 things spoken of Paul ; though the account con- 
 tains a detail of the parents' conversion, in such 
 a way, that their conversion could not well have 
 escaped notice had it actually taken place." 
 
 " It will not be contended, we presume, by 
 the Baptists, that any adults Avere baptized of 
 whose faith Ave have not good proof, for this 
 Avould destroy the Avhole fabric of 'belicA^ers* 
 baptism.' When, therefore, we find children 
 baptized of AA'hose faith Ave have no proof at 
 all, the conclusion is inevitable, that children 
 Avere not baptized by the apostles on the same 
 grounds as adults." 
 
 '.' If the sacred writers have taken care to 
 
60 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 apprize us of the previous faith of all the adults 
 who received baptism, in order that succeeding 
 ministers might not mistake in giving the ordi- 
 nance to an adult unbeliever ; did it not equally 
 behoove them, if they required the same quali- 
 fications in children, to use the same care in 
 notifying their faith, with the record of their 
 reception of the ordinance? And as, in fact, 
 they have not done this, does it not necessarily 
 follow, that faith in children is not a necessary 
 qualification ?" — D. Isaac, p. 185. 
 
 In fact, we never should have known that 
 Lydia had a family, were they not incidentally 
 mentioned as accompanying her in baptism : — 
 " And when she was baptized and her family." 
 Insert her baptism, we find her family; omit 
 her baptism, she has no family recorded : the 
 act of her baptism cannot be separated from 
 that of her family. Now if her family were of 
 mature age, capable of " attention to the word 
 spoken," capable of having their hearts opened, 
 capable of believing, how is it that they are not 
 mentioned together with her, as attending, &c., 
 since they are mentioned together with her as 
 receiving baptism 1 Surely, Luke did not think 
 their being baptized a more important fact than 
 their having " their hearts opened," &c., so that 
 he should mention the one and omit the other : 
 but I shall be told, we are to infer their repent' 
 ance and faith from the fact of their baptism. 
 Our opponents are as glad to be allowed an 
 inference sometimes as their neighbours. But, 
 if their conversion is to be inferred from the fact 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 61 
 
 of their baptism, then might the cotiversion of 
 the mother be inferred from her baptism, and 
 there was no necessity that Luke should have 
 detailed the circumstances of her change; we 
 might have settled the whole matter by inference, 
 as well as a part of it. And as he detailed the 
 circumstances of the conversion of the mother, 
 and said nothing of the family, only that they 
 were baptized with her, the inference, we think, 
 in the minds of all vf\\o have not a theory to 
 support by rejecting the evidence, must be irre- 
 sistible, that they did not receive baptism on 
 the same conditions that Lydia did, but were 
 made disciples by baptism, that they might be 
 taught " the things belonging to the ' kingdom 
 of God.' " 
 
 The cases of the household of Stephanus, 
 1 Cor. i, 16, and the household of the Philip- 
 pian jailer, Acts xvi, 33, we shall not dwell 
 upon. One remark or two on this last men- 
 tioned case, and we shall proceed. 
 
 Our Baptist friends have often attempted to 
 do away the evidence drawn from this case, as 
 Mr. B. does, Sermon, p. 10, by referring to that 
 part of the passage which says, that they spake 
 to him the word of the Lord and to all that were 
 in his house, and that he rejoiced, believing in 
 God, with all his house, &c. The preaching 
 evidently took place in the outer jyrison, w^here 
 Paul and Silas were, before they were thrust 
 into the inner prison; "and they spake to him 
 the word of the Lord and to all that were in his 
 house." Ver. 32. Here the word ocKta is used. 
 
62 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 which includes the buildings occupied by the 
 servants and prisoners, as well as those appro- 
 priated to the use of the family. See Mr. Tay- 
 lor's Facts and Evidences. When St. Paul 
 says, ver. 31, " Thou shalt be saved and thy 
 house," he uses another word, otKog, which in- 
 cludes the parents and children. Hence, when 
 he believed, we find, ver. 33, " he was baptized, 
 and all his, straightway^ And suppose his 
 family did rejoice with him, there might still 
 be infants in it. Have you never read, " Out 
 of the mouth of hahes and sucklings thou hast 
 perfected praise ?" 
 
 It would be well if our Baptist friends would 
 seriously consider this case in the light of truth 
 and the spirit of candour. Though the servants 
 and prisoners together must have amounted to 
 several persons, and though the family was 
 imdoubtedly numerous, yet we do not read of 
 any one besides him, and all his, being bap- 
 tized. If we suppose, with a Baptist, that the 
 whole of the jailer's family were converted 
 mider this sermon, it would be one of the most 
 singular circumstances which the history of the 
 church has furnished, that the loork of conversion 
 should stop just there ; — not one of all his family 
 left ; not one of all the rest taken. 
 
 Allow, the children icere baptized on the ground 
 of their father's faith, and all the mystery and 
 difficulty of the passage vanishes at once. — 
 D. Isaac, p. 192. 
 
 One thing at least is certain, that the jailer 
 and his family were not baptized according to 
 
.MODE OF BAl'TItiM. 63 
 
 tlie practice among the Baptists of modern 
 times. For we learn from the passage, that 
 " they were baptized the same hour of the 
 night." No such case can be found in the 
 history of those who deny infant baptism. 
 There are four reasons why a Baptist minister 
 would not have baptized the jailer and his 
 family, as the apostles did, after about half an 
 hour's teaching. 
 
 1st, He would not have deemed them suffi- 
 ciently instructed. They were all idolaters an 
 hour before. 
 
 2d, They could not have furnished the re- 
 quired evidences of their being the subjects of 
 a gracious change. It is common for Baptists to 
 delay baptism for weeks, sometimes for months. 
 
 3d, The concurrence of the church could not 
 be had. Lydia and " the brethren" must have 
 been consulted. 
 
 4th, There was no opportunity for a public 
 profession of Christianity, where the " imposing 
 ordinance'^ could be witnessed. 
 
 I judge that the " pattern" St. Paul worked 
 by differed in several respects from the pattern 
 of those who hold nothing hut believers^ haptism. 
 
 Perhaps we could show (if we were disposed 
 to cavil and find fault with our neighbours) that 
 the practice of our Baptist friends differs very 
 widely from the practice of the apostles, as we 
 find theirs detailed in the Acts. 
 
 We have dwelt longer on the baptism of 
 famihes than we intended. We shall therefore 
 proceed to other evidence for infant baptism. 
 
64 OBLIGATIOiN, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 We next adduce what our Lord says, Mark 
 X, 13-16 ; Luke xviii, 15 ; Matt, xix, 13 : " Suf- 
 fer the little children to come unto me, and fur- 
 bid them not; for of such is the kingdom of God. ''^ 
 With this passage Mr. B. seems somewhat per- 
 plexed, for he endeavours to make it appear 
 that those children might have been capable 
 of believing. Sermon, p. 13, and Strict., p. 8, 
 he says, " I am led to doubt exceedingly whether 
 the children brought to Jesus were unconscious 
 babes, or Avhether there ever were any uncon- 
 scious infants brought to Jesus." Now / suppose, 
 if they had been capable of " believing," as Mr. 
 B. supposes, then neither the disciples nor even a 
 Baptist preacher woidd have rebuked those that 
 brought them, or have '^forbidden the children ;" 
 as believers are not only capable of being 
 ".blessed," but have a right to baptism, accord- 
 ing to our opponents. Luke says they were 
 " infants." I presume their infants were about 
 as '^'■unconscious" as our infants. How ridicu- 
 lous it is to see a man come with " Schrevelius's 
 Lexicon," or any other Lexicon, in his hand, to 
 tell, or prove to plain people, that although Mark 
 says they were " young children','' and Jesus 
 calls them " little children" and Matthew calls 
 them " little children" and Luke says they were 
 " infants," and they all say " they were brought" 
 to Jesus, and " he took them up in his arms" and 
 put his hands on them, "ye/' there never ivcre 
 any unconscious infants brought to Jesus !" 
 
 In his Strictures, Mr. B. has tried one mode 
 of evading this case ; and in his sermon, another 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 65 
 
 mode, both equally absurd, and going alike to 
 show how very obnoxious the case of those 
 children is to the Baptist cause. 
 
 The phrase " kingdom of God," and " king- 
 dom of heaven," used by the evangelists, 
 Mattkeio, Mark, and Luke, I hold to mean, ge?ie' 
 rally, the church under the gospel dispensation : 
 " The kingdom which (Daniel said) the God of 
 heaven was to set up at the end of the seventy 
 weeks," represented in the vision by the " little 
 stone taken out of the mountain without hands," 
 Dan. ii, 44, 45. I am not only supported ia 
 this view by critics generally, but also by that 
 famous Baptist preacher, Robert Hall. His 
 words are — " The kingdom of God, a phrase 
 which is constantly employed in Scripture to 
 denote that state of things which is placed 
 under the avowed administration of the Mes- 
 siah."— Hall's Works, vol. i, p. 372. Now 
 Christ says, " Of such ('infants,' 'little chil- 
 dren') is the kingdom of God," and says to the 
 adults who were present, " Verily I say unto 
 you, whosoever shall not receive the kingdom 
 of God as a little child, he shall not enter 
 therein." It is worthy of remark, that while 
 the disciples forbid the children, and rebuked 
 those that brought them, the Master " was 
 much displeased" with those knovying adults^ 
 and took the infants in his bosom, and gave 
 them his blessing. A Baptist may ask, " How 
 could an infant be blessed?" they are " uncon- 
 scious," " why should infants be forced without 
 their choice" to Christ, and have his blessing 
 5 
 
66 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 put upon them " without their consent?" " They 
 might choose to reject Christ when they become 
 aduhs." These, and a thousand other questions 
 might be asked. But the how and the lohy is 
 not the matter to be settled by us ; here are the 
 facts, " he took them in his arms," " he blessed 
 them ;" he said, " Of such is the kingdom of 
 God." It is very doubtful with me whether 
 Mr. B.'s " extreme doubts" on the subject, even 
 with the use of his " Lexicon," will invalidate, 
 in the minds of my readers, the force of these 
 facts. It is hard to reason against facts. 
 
 But suppose, for argument sake, that the 
 " kingdom of God" means the kingdom of glory, 
 our opponents gain nothing by it ; then the 
 children are fit for heaven, and, I suppose, are 
 fit for the church on earth. What Mr. B. says 
 in his Strictures about angels being unfit for a 
 place in the gospel church is altogether gratui- 
 tous ; — where is it written 1 He admits. Strict., 
 p. 8, that " the blood of Jesus may be applied 
 to children," fitting them for heaven : and still 
 he says, " they are fitted by an infiuence that 
 never fits men for the gospel kingdom^ This 
 sseems like very strange doctrine. I suppose 
 Mr. B. holds the doctrine of original sin, in 
 opposition to Pelagius ; if so, infants need an 
 application of the blood of Christ, to purify, or 
 make them holy ; then the question occurs, 
 How is this blood applied ? The Scriptures at- 
 tribute the work uniformly to the Holy Spirit : 
 hence the angel said, Luke i, 15, of John the 
 Baptist, that " he shall be filled with the Holy 
 
MODE OF BAI'TISM. 67 
 
 Ghost, even from his mother's womb." Now, 
 candid reader, do you know of any other way 
 to fit men for the gospel church, or the kingdom 
 of glory, than by an application of " the blood 
 of Jesus, through the eternal Spirit V We read 
 of but one song among the redeemed in heaven ; 
 they all were redeemed by the blood of Jesus, 
 and all sino one song. 
 
 Infants, who are in a state of justification, 
 Rom. V, 18, consequently not guilty, having 
 never committed actual or personal transgres- 
 sion, are made the model for adults : " Except 
 ye be converted, and become as little children ;" 
 " whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of 
 God, as a little child," &c. Yet our Baptist 
 friends admit the adults, who are formed on the 
 model, and reject the children, who are the model 
 by Avhich the qualifications of the adult are set 
 forth. Strange ! passing strange ! 
 
 We shall be told, however, " they were not 
 baptized, but blessed;" v/here is the proof? 
 " They were to be received in the name of 
 Christ." " They were not to be forbidden to 
 come to him." The Baptists say, all were to 
 come to him in his church by baptism. I there- 
 fore infer they were baptized, and I have just 
 as much evidence of the baptism of those chil- 
 dren as any Baptist can find in the New Testa- 
 ment of the baptism of St, Peter and. St. John ; 
 for I have never seen any evidence that Christ 
 ever applied water to them hut once, and then 
 be only washed their feet. An objector will 
 say, But we infer they were baptized. Very 
 
68 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 good. You will allow me the same liberty. 
 / infer those children were baptized, for surely 
 they obtained some grace, when it is said, " he 
 blessed thcm.'^ This is more than can be said 
 with truth of many an adult church member. 
 See Watson's Exp. on Matt, xix, 13, 14. 
 
 The Epistles were written to the churches, 
 and were to be read in the churches ; and chil- 
 dren — young children — are addressed, and ap- 
 propriate instruction given them, equally with 
 fathers, wives, servants, &c. We shall be told 
 they were not " unconscious babes." They 
 were so young that they were " yet to be 
 brought up,^^ and were not to be '■'■ provoked''^ by 
 their parents, lest they should be " discouraged." 
 They had been " baptized into Christ ;" — into 
 bis kingdom as subjects, — into his school as 
 scholars, or disciples, — and were to " obey their 
 parents in the Lord i?i all thi?igs" and to be 
 " brought up in the instruction and discipline 
 of the Lord." Surely such were not adult be- 
 lievers. When was a Baptist church seen that 
 had persons in it that needed bringing up ? 
 
 There is no precedent in Scripture with re- 
 gard to the particular age at which the ordinance 
 ought to be given, except one. That is the case 
 of Jesus, " who began to be about thirty years 
 of age." We suppose " our friends," who talk 
 so much of " following Jesus down to Jordan," 
 and " fulfilling all righteousness," would hardlv 
 recommend all persons to defer baptism until 
 the age of thirty — although this is a part of 
 Christ's example. More of this hereafter. 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 69 
 
 When they tell iis we cannot find the word 
 " infant" in connection with baptism in the 
 Scriptures, and therefore have no " Thus saith 
 the Lord" for it — '• no Scripture precedent" — I 
 answer, They cannot find the words boy, girl, 
 old man, young man, yet they occasionally 
 baptize some of each. This is very much like 
 a man rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity, be- 
 cause he does not find the word Trinity in the 
 Scriptures. 
 
 I shall produce one more evidence from the 
 Scriptures, 1 Cor. vii, 14 : " For the unbelieving 
 husband is sanctified by the wife," &c., " else 
 were your children unclean ; but now are they 
 holy." Mr. B. has given. Sermon, pp. 12, 13, 
 a caricature of the argument of Pedobaptists on 
 this passage. He says, " Some of them con- 
 tend that infants ought to be baptized, because 
 they are pure, and others contend that they need 
 it because they are impure ;" and then gravely 
 says, " but I cannot see the force of the argu- 
 ment." What argument ? If he had taken\s 
 much pains to present the Pedobaptist view of 
 the passage as he has to give the fanciful and 
 far-fetched exposition of the Rev. Mr. Dagg, 
 the reader might have had some idea of the 
 argument for infant baptism drawn from the 
 passage. 
 
 In many places in the Scriptures (Exod. xix, 
 6; Lev. X, 10; 1 Chron. xxii, 19; 2 Chron. 
 xxiii, 6 ; Ezek. xxii, 26 ; Luke ii, 23 ; Acts x, 
 28, and xi, 8, 9 ; Heb. ix, 13) the word "holy" 
 is applied to things or persons, separated from 
 
70 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 common, and devoted to religions nses ; sepa- 
 rated from the world and devoted to God : and 
 is often applied to the visible church, under 
 different dispensations. Hence the Jews are 
 called a " holy people ;" and Peter calls the 
 Christian church " a holy nation." They were 
 so, professionally, being " separated from the 
 world to God ;" although each individual mem- 
 ber was not " intrinsically liolyP 
 
 While our opponents say that the word 
 " holy," as applied to the children in the text, 
 signifies that they were " legitimate" children, 
 they do not pretend to furnish a single text from 
 the Scriptures where the word has that sense ; 
 while they expect us to take their interpretation 
 without proof, the good Mr. Baxter has shown, 
 (Baxter's Inf. Oh. Membership.) that in near 
 six hundred places in the Bible, the word has 
 the sense which I have given it above, i. e., " a 
 separation to God" This eyidence, I should 
 think, must be decisive with all who do not 
 interpret Scripture by a creed, but are content 
 to take their creed out of the Scriptures. If, 
 then, the children of Christians are "holy," 
 i. e., " separated to God," are they separated to 
 God in the church, or out of it ? If it is replied. 
 They are separated to him in the church; then 
 they must be church members, and that is what 
 we wish to prove ; if, on the other hand, it be 
 replied. They are " separated to God" in the 
 world ; then truly they present an anomalous 
 case, they are truly " peculiar." They do not 
 belong to the church, they do not belong to the 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 71 
 
 world. " The church is in Christ ;" — " the 
 world lieth in the wicked one," but those hap- 
 less children are in neither ; they neither be- 
 long to God nor the devil ! 
 
 If they are not " unclean" but " holy," the 
 apostle clearly establishes, or asserts, a distinc- 
 tion between the children of heathens, who 1 
 were unclean, and devoted to heathen gods, 
 and the children of professing Christians, which 
 were separated and devoted to God. " The 
 unbelieving husband (being one flesh with the 
 believing wife) is sanctified by the wife," and 
 vice versa; so that the children are not "un- 
 clean," or left in a heathen state, but " separated 
 to God" with the believing parent. I am sup- 
 ported in this opinion by the learned Whitby. 
 His language is — " And though one of the pa- 
 rents be still a heathen, yet is the denomination 
 to be taken from the better, and so their off- 
 .spring are to be esteemed, not as heathens, 
 i. e., unclean, but holy, as all Christians by 
 denomination are." See Whitby on the place. 
 Clemens Alexandrinus held the same view of 
 tliis passage. "Hence, then," says Whitby, 
 " the argument for infant baptism runs thus : 
 If the holy seed among the Jews was therefore 
 to be circumcised, and be made federally holy, 
 by receiving the sign of the covenant, and 
 being admitted into the number of God's ' holy 
 people,' because they were born in sanctity, 
 or were seminally holy ; for the root being holy, 
 so are the branches also; then, by like reason, 
 the holy seed of Christians ought to be admitted 
 
72 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AXD 
 
 to baptism, and receive the sign of the Christian 
 covenant." 
 
 What merit " Mr. Dagg's Exposition" may- 
 possess as a whole, I am unprepared to say, 
 but the specimen Mr. B. has given of it surely 
 does not present it in a very favourable light. 
 Hear him : " If a believing husband must leave 
 his wife because she is an unbeliever, for the 
 same reason your offspring must be cast ofT; 
 for they would, upon the principle herein in- 
 volved, he as unclean, on account of unbelief , to 
 the believing parents, as an unbelieving husband 
 or wife would be to the other who is a believer." 
 But perhaps Mr. B. may bring a Lexicon to 
 prove that the term translated " children" means 
 " posterity." Certainly it does, and so includes 
 the youngest infants. Now, although Mr. D. 
 and Mr. B. both talk about infants or children 
 •' being in unbelief^ one says, they are " unclean 
 on account of unbelief," the other says, " infants 
 are baptized in unbelief" I should like those 
 gentlemen to furnish one single text of Scripture 
 where either children or infants have unbelief 
 attributed to them, or are said to be " in un- 
 belief" There is a manifest discrepancy, not 
 to say a flat contradiction, in the language used 
 by Mr. B. in his Strictures, p. 10, and in his 
 Sermon, pp. 7 and 26. When reasoning, in the 
 Strictures, on the salvation of infants, he says, 
 " The gospel cannot condemn them, because 
 they cannot he guilty of the sin of unbelief '' In 
 his sermon, when he wants to exclude them 
 from the rite of baptism, he says, " I will engage 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 73 
 
 to prove, my hearers, that the commission act- 
 ually excludes all unbelievers, xchether unconscious 
 infants or unbelieving adults." Again he says, 
 " Thousands of believers omit it, (i. e., baptism,) 
 because they were baptized while m unbelief! /" 
 I think this needs a salvo ; there is, at least, " a 
 glorious uncertainty''^ about it. 
 
 We have seen, from the evidence produced 
 above, that the children of those Corinthians 
 were not *' unclean," but "holy;" and as no in- 
 stance can be given of a person being called 
 holy who was not a member of the visible 
 church of God, the inference is undeniable 
 that holy infants belonged to the visible church 
 of Christ. 
 
 " Having thus established their membership, 
 I shall take their baptism for granted, till our 
 Baptist brethren admit people into their churches 
 without the ordinance." — D. Isaac, p. 164. 
 
 Mr. B. asks a question on this point, which I 
 must say a word in reply to. " Was baptism 
 designed for the benefit of holy beings ? The 
 commission in that case ought to be read. Go 
 ye, &c,, and baptize all you find who are holy. 
 Upon that plan, all adults would be excluded, 
 seeing all adults are sinners." He says, Ser- 
 mon, p. 2.3, " Baptism brings us, after regenera- 
 tion, into the visible kingdom of Jesus Christ." 
 Are they " regenerated.,^^ and yet sinners — " buried 
 with Christ in baptism," and yet sinners — " cru- 
 cified with Christ, that the body of sin might be 
 destroyed,^'' and yet sinners ? The apostle says, 
 "their children were holy;" and take Mr. B.^s 
 
74 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 interpretation of the word, and say they were 
 holy in the longest, broadest, highest sense of 
 that word, even then, I suppose, candid reader, 
 you will admit that holiness would furnish as 
 valid a reason for ^^ baptism'^ as "sin" especially 
 in view of the fact that the holiness of the " holy 
 Jesus" did not disqualify him for baptism ! ! 
 
 We remark in evidence, further, the antiquity 
 of the practice of infant baptism may be consi- 
 dered as strong evidence on the subject. If the 
 baptism of children was not practised by the 
 apostles and by the primitive Christians, when 
 and where did the practice commence ? 
 
 To this question Baptist writers generally do 
 not attempt to give an answer, because they 
 cannot. It is an innovation, say they, not upon 
 the circumstances of a sacrament, but upon its 
 essential principle. And yet its introduction 
 produced no struggle ; was never noticed by 
 any general or provincial council ; and excited 
 no controversy. This itself is strong presump- 
 tive evidence of its early antiquity. 
 
 Our Baptist friends, from time to time, have 
 attempted to find its origin. Mr. B. says, Ser- 
 mon, p. 27, it was introduced by the Romish 
 apostacy, and " calls on all candid Pedobaptist 
 Protestants, as they would desire the world to 
 be delivered from the abominations of popery, 
 to abandon this popish ceremony." This re- 
 minds me of the famous argument of some 
 people against the doctrines of Christ's divinity, 
 and the Trinity of persons in the Godhead ; 
 that they ought to be rejected by Protestants, 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 75 
 
 because they were a part of the doctrines of 
 the Church of Rome. Query : Is this the 
 cause why such large bodies of men, who have 
 denied infant baptism at different periods, in 
 Germany, Poland, &c., have been Socinians?!! 
 See Benedict's History of the Baptists, pp. 
 172-175. 
 
 I suppose that it is the part of charity and 
 candour to " rejoice in the truth^'' whether that 
 truth be found among Protestants or Catholics — ■ 
 with Luther or the pope. Unfortunately for our 
 Baptist friends, however, infant baptism is not 
 only foimd with Luther and the pope, but with 
 the Greek Church, that never had any connec- 
 tion with the pope, from the earliest periods of 
 her history. And if, as the Baptists say, (Be- 
 nedict's Hist, of the Baptists, pp. 58-60,) infant 
 baptism was introduced in Africa from the first 
 to the middle of the third century, confined at 
 first to catechised minors, and in about forty 
 years decided to be the right of infants by an 
 ecclesiastical council, how did it happen that 
 there was but little more said on the subject 
 until the year 416? And how did it happen 
 that although the Vandals overran that part of 
 Africa about " the year 429, and the Catholics 
 fled into Europe, carrying infant baptism with 
 them," " that its entrance into Europe was of a 
 later date," and " the first ecclesiastical canon 
 in Europe on the subject was" as late as " the 
 sixth century?" " And the first imperial law on 
 the subject in the eighth century, by the empe- 
 ror Charlemagne ?" 
 
76 OELIGATIOX, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 Mr. Jiidson supposed that infant baptism was 
 introduced toward the close of the second cen- 
 tury — while Mr. Broaddus considers it a relic 
 of popery; although popery did not exist, as 
 such, until' after the sixth century. This is 
 only a differenco of opinion between two Bap- 
 tist preachers, each rejecting infant baptism ; 
 one dating its origin only four hundred years 
 later than the other. No marvel that we should 
 differ from them, when they cannot agree 
 among themselves, on the origin of so great an 
 innovation upon '■'■gospel order P 
 
 Now we would ask Mr. Benedict, and our 
 Baptist friends, where were the Baptist churches 
 all this time? The descendants of "their an- 
 cient brother," John the Baptist ; were there 
 none found faithful among the primitive Chris- 
 tians, to utter the voice of warning on the sub- 
 ject of this great innovation ? There was none 
 found, candid reader, to object, except Tertul- 
 lian, and he objected as much to the baptism 
 of " unmarried believers" as he did to infants ; 
 and admitted the validity of " infant baptism" 
 where there was danger of death. Of course, 
 then, he was not a Baptist. 
 
 Mr. Benedict says. History, page 92, "We 
 date the origin of our sentiments, and the be- 
 ginning of our denomination, about the year of 
 our Lord 29 or 30 ; for at that period John the 
 Baptist began to immerse professed believers 
 in Jordan and Enon, and to prepare the way for 
 the coming of the Lord's anointed, and for the 
 setting up of his kingdom." It is generally 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 77 
 
 admitted that John baptized hundreds of thou- 
 sands. If this was the origin of the Baptist 
 denomination, what became of all those thou- 
 sands for about twelve hundred years, that there 
 was none found to demur at infant baptism ? ! 
 Surely they could not have been in existence 
 in Christendom, or they did not look upon the 
 baptism of "unconscious babes" in the same 
 light that modern Baptists do ; one or the other 
 of these conclusions we think inevitably true. 
 Mr. Broaddus, Sermon, pp. 21, 22, attempts to 
 dispose of the " testimony of the fathers" in a 
 very summary manner ; and in support of his 
 views quotes Dr. Hill. Now if the " testimony 
 of the fathers" having been in the keeping of 
 the Church of Rome is sufficient reason, as 
 those gentlemen suppose, why it should be 
 rejected, I would ask, if the infidel might not 
 urge the same reason against his receiving the 
 New Testament Scriptures ? The classing 
 " infant baptism" with " infant communion," 
 transubstantiation, &c., is altogether gratuitous. 
 It stands on different grounds. 
 
 Let us hear on this subject the sentiment of 
 the intelligent and candid Baptist writer, Dr. 
 Gale. He says, " I will grant it is probable, 
 that what all or most of the churches practised 
 immediately after the apostles' times had been 
 appointed or practised by the apostles them- 
 selves ; for it is hardly to be imagined that any 
 considerable body of these ancient Christians, 
 and much less that the whole, should so soon 
 deviate from the customs and injunctions of 
 
78 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 their venerable founders, whose authority they 
 held so sacred. New opinions or practices are 
 usually introduced by degrees, and not without 
 opposition. Therefore, in regard to baptism, a 
 thing of such universal concern and daily prac- 
 tice, I allow it to be X)ery probable that the pri- 
 mitive churches kept to the apostolic pattern. 
 I verily believe that the primitive church main- 
 tained, in this case, an exact conformity to. the 
 practice of the apostles, which, doubtless, agreed 
 entirely with Christ's institutions." — See Gale's 
 Reflections on Wall, page 398. 
 
 I shall adduce, now, tv/o or tliree testimonies 
 from the fathers, to show^ what was the practice 
 of the primitive church. 
 
 Justin Martyr, who wrote in the second cen- 
 tury, speaks of some who were then sixty or 
 seventy years old, " who were made disciples" 
 or members "in their infancy. '" But jMr. B., 
 referring to his Lexicon, says, Strictures, p. 7, 
 the word rendered " infant" may be rendered 
 youth. I shall not stop here to dispute about 
 this word. Irenseus, who wrote within sixty- 
 seven years of the apostolic times, says, 
 "Christ came to save all persons by himself; 
 all, I mean, who by him are baptized unto God ; 
 infants and little ones, and children and youths." 
 — Dr. Wall, Inf. Bap., vol. i, ch. 3. He is said 
 to have been personally acquainted with Poly- 
 carp, a disciple of St. John, and had heard him 
 preach. 
 
 Origen, of the Greek Church, who was a 
 maa of great learning, and acquainted extea- 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 79 
 
 sively with the church, and who had good op- 
 portunity to know the practice of the apostles, 
 as his great grandfather was a Christian, and 
 coteniporary with the apostles, says, " Infants, 
 by the usage of the church, are baptized. The 
 church had a tradition, or command, fro?n the 
 apostles, to give baptism to infants.'^ — Wall's 
 Defence, pp. 372, 383 ; Dr. Doddridge's Lect., 
 p. 9. Mr. Judson tried in vain to overturn this 
 testimony. 
 
 Cyprian, and the cou7icil of Carthage, in the 
 year 253, where sixty-six bishops met, not to 
 decide whether infants Avere to be baptized, 
 but whether they might be baptized before the 
 eighth day ; and they were unanimously of opi- 
 nion, " that they {infants) might be baptized as 
 soon as they were born." — Cyprian, epist, 66. 
 Lord Chancellor King, in his account of the 
 primitive church, remarks, " Here, then, is a 
 synodical decree for the baptism of infants, as 
 formal as can possibly be expected, which is 
 of more weight than the private judgment of a 
 father, and more authentic ; as he might give 
 his own opinion only, but this (the decision of 
 a synod) denotes the common practice and usage 
 of the whole churchr — Inquiry into the Consti- 
 tution, &c., part ii, ch. 3. 
 
 Pelagius maintained infant baptism, although 
 the practice made against his heresy. He de- 
 nied original sin — and was the author of what 
 is called Pelagianism. He lived three hundred 
 years after the apostles. He says, " Men slan- 
 der me, as if I denied the sacrament of baptism 
 
80 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 to infants. I never heard of any, not even the 
 most impious heretic, who denied baptism to in- 
 fants."— Wall's Hist, of Inf. Bapt., p. 62. 
 
 This man had every inducement to deny 
 infant baptism, if he could have found a shadow 
 of evidence to have borne him out. The usage 
 of the church in this respect was a standing, 
 irrefragable argument against his heresy. 
 
 So much for the " testimony of the fathers." 
 You can judge, candid reader, whether it is to 
 be passed over as nothing worth, in view of the 
 fact, that those v/ho " deny infant baptism" have 
 no evidence to put in bar. 
 
 The Christian church was early divided in 
 sentiment, on doctrine, and split into sects, who 
 ever kept upon each other a watchful eye ; and 
 the " pattern" could not have been so altered as 
 to admit the universal prevalence of such an 
 innovation, without an alarm being given. 
 
 Our Baptist friends try to make out their re- 
 lationship with the Waldenses, those witnesses 
 for the truth in the dark ages. I confess I was 
 a little amused at the attempt of Mr. Benedict, 
 in his history, on this subject. 
 
 That Peter de Bruis, and his followers, (who 
 were only a small fraction of the people called 
 Waldenses,) did deny infant baptism is unde- 
 niable, but on different grounds from our Baptist 
 friends. This man arose in France about twelve 
 hundred years after Christ, and held that infants 
 could not be saved, and therefore ought not to he 
 baptized, " as they could not work out their own 
 salvation." 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 8l 
 
 They held about the same proportion to the 
 great body of the Waldenses, icho held infant 
 baptism, as the "Seventh-day" Baptists do to 
 the great body of the Baptists, who hold "the 
 Lord's day" as the sabbath. If I were to re- 
 port that the Baptists in the United States keep 
 the " seA^enth day" as their sabbath, I should 
 be about as near right as Baptist writers are 
 when they say that the Waldenses " denied 
 infant baptism," for those luho have denied it 
 among them have been as about one to thirty. — 
 Dr. Miller on Baptism, pp. 40-43. 
 
 In an expose of the views of the Waldenses, 
 made as early as the twelfth century, although 
 they oppose many errors of the Romish Church 
 — such as praying to saints, purgatory, masses, 
 &c., and say that there are but two sacraments, 
 baptism and the Lord''s supper — yet they utter 
 not one word against " infant baptism." — Wat- 
 son's Diet., art, Waldenses. They had bishops 
 among them; "and after the opening of the 
 reformation under Luther, the Waldenses sought 
 intercourse with the reformed churches of Ge- 
 neva and France ; held communion ivith them ; 
 received ministers from them ; acknowledged them 
 as brethren in the Lord, (fee. Now it is well 
 known that those churches held infant baptism ; 
 and this fact alone we think sufficient to show 
 that those pious people were Pedobaptists." — 
 Dr. Miller, p. 43. 
 
 Why should those who deny infant baptism 
 wish to prove that the Waldenses were their 
 predecessors or ancestors ? If they could make 
 6 
 
82 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 this out, they Avould then be nine hundred years 
 from the days of John the Baptist ; for Mr. Be- 
 nedict, in his History, can furnish no certain 
 eiddence that the Waldenses had any existence 
 earlier than the ninth century. Let our op- 
 posing brethren give the world a " Thus saith 
 the Lord" for rejecting infants, and then there 
 is an end to the controversy. No doubt, from 
 the earliest history of the Waldenses, Albi- 
 genses, &c., there was a difference of opinion 
 among them on many points, as there is now 
 among different denominations of Christians, 
 not excepting the Baptists. There may have 
 been some, besides the followers of Peter de 
 Bruis, who differed with the great body of their 
 brethren, for some reason, about infant baptism ; 
 but surely this does not justify an effort to make 
 out that that people, as a people, were not Pedo- 
 baptists. I know a number of Baptists who are 
 in favour of free communion, and some who 
 communed with Christians of other denomina- 
 tions, until they endangered their membership 
 in their own church thereby ; and I might show 
 from the works of that celebrated man, John 
 Bunyan, that he admitted members to his com- 
 munion who had been baptized in infancy, and 
 had never received v/hat is called " believers' 
 baptism," — Bunyan's Works, vol. ii, pp. 216-21 9. 
 But would it be fair and honourable in me to 
 draw a general conclusion from these particular 
 cases ? and then say, '' The Baptists in Virginia 
 are in favour of free communion ; and the Bap- 
 tists in Europe, in the days of Bunyan, admitted 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 83 
 
 persons to church fellowship without believers* 
 baptism ?" Surely nothing would be more un- 
 fair. 
 
 We have seen, from historical evidence, that 
 the church, for twelve hundred years, (not to 
 say for fifteen hundred and twenty-two years,) 
 ahvays held infant baptism, and during all that 
 time none ever rejected it, on cm\j such grounds 
 as are now urged by our Baptist brethren. He 
 who can, in view of all this evidence, persist in 
 his opposition to the baptism of children, must, 
 it appears to me, be prepared to make a sacrifice 
 of all historical evidence, at the altar of a pre- 
 judice that is both deaf and blind ; too deaf to 
 hear the voice of reason, and too blind to see 
 the light of truth. This language is strong ; 
 because it is the result of strong conviction on 
 my own mind. I have long since learned, that 
 where men can laugh, and sneer, at the consci- 
 entious conduct of people as pious as themselves^ 
 because they choose to dedicate their children 
 to God in baptism ; and ca.n make sport with 
 the feelings of a mother, who v/islies to have 
 her child given to God in his ordinance before 
 it dies ; (Mr. B.'s Sermon, p. 26 ;) — I say I have 
 long since learned, that with such (at least) no 
 other language vriil make any impression. You 
 had as well attempt to " draw out leviathan 
 with a hook," .Tob xli. Such, in the language 
 of St. Paul, (Titus i, 13,) need to be " rebuked 
 sharply ;" and though they may not bo induced 
 to be " sound in faith^'' they may, perhaps, be 
 taught to treat with Christian courtesy those 
 
84 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 who, as Bunyan says, '• may not see it their 
 duty to jump v:ith iliemP A candid Baptist 
 friend once said to me, " It would not do for us 
 to admit infant baptism." " Why V said I. His 
 reply was, "• We would be like farmers who cut 
 off their corn while it is young." " Thank you 
 for your candour," was my reply. " You think 
 that if all the children Avere baptized in infancy, 
 there would be no corn gathered into the Baptist 
 garner in adult age." I liaAe often wondered 
 why the baptism of children should so disturb 
 our " differing brethren." But I perceive, hi 
 Mr. B.'s Sermon, p. 26, a little light on this 
 point : he says, " It is a positive evil^ Why 
 so ? Look, reader, lower down on the same 
 page, and you will see. Because by it " thou- 
 sands who are brought to the knowledge of the 
 truth" are led to refuse "believers' baptism." 
 This, to be sure, is a sore evil; but, happily, 
 not so much to the convert as to those who 
 would proselyte him, by teazing him about 
 " believers' baptism." A man goes on in sin, 
 his baptized neighbour never reproves him or 
 talks seriously to him about the " salvation" of 
 his precious soul ; he goes to a Pedobaptist 
 meeting ; is awakened and converted to God — 
 returns home — soon has a visit from his neigh- 
 bour. He wonders what has brought his friend 
 so early to see him. 
 
 Neighbour. I wish to have a little conversa- 
 tion with you. 
 
 Convert. Certainly. 
 
 Neighbour. I was pleased to hear that you 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 85 
 
 have ^\found grace'^ at the meeting ; I wish 
 
 you to tell me your experience. 
 
 The convert proceeds to detail his experience. 
 
 Neighbour. " Very good ;'''' '''a gospel experi- 
 rience,'^ " very much like my own ;" " now all you 
 want is one things 
 
 Convert. Pray, neighbour, what is that? I 
 am happy in God ; " believing, I rejoice with 
 joy unspeakable." I am not conscious of want- 
 ing any thing but " more graceP What do you 
 
 Neighbour. Why — why — the " Master says," 
 " Believe and he baptized."* 
 
 Convert. O, is that what you mean? On that 
 subject I have no concern. I was baptized in 
 infancy ; and I now have the thing signified, 
 i. e., "the renewing of the Holy Ghost," — ^just 
 as the Jewish children received the seal of the 
 covenant in childhood, and at adult age became 
 " circumcised in heart." 
 
 Neighbour. Well, but you must obey the 
 " commandment." 
 
 Convert. Neighbour, my parents were Chris- 
 tians^ and you cannot show me a commandment, 
 or a precedent, for baptizing the children of 
 Christian parents at adult age. And moreover, 
 I cannot join a church whose confession of faith 
 I do not believe ; and I could not receive be- 
 lievers' baptism, if I wished it, without joining 
 your church. 
 
 * I cannot find those words in this form in the New 
 Testament. They remind me of the old coloured man's 
 text — " The Lord says, Be baptized in much ivater." 
 
86 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 Neighbour. Why, friend, as for the confession 
 of faitli, you need not inind thaty for one of our 
 elders said, " He would not give the confession 
 of faith room in his saddle-bags." And again, 
 we hold nearly the same doctrines those do 
 among whom you found the Lord ; as you may 
 find from our preaching. We may differ a little 
 about falling from grace ; but that is not much, 
 you know." 
 
 Convert. Well, friend, I cannot judge so much 
 what men believe in our day from their preaching 
 as from their confessions of faith. 
 
 Neighbour. I wish you well, neighbour. Fare- 
 well. 
 
 Convert. I wish you the same ; for I trust, as 
 St. Paul says, " we have been both baptized by 
 one Spirit into Christ.''^ 
 
 They part, and he who would have " com- 
 passed sea and land" to make a proselyte of his 
 neighbour, says, as he walks mournfully home, 
 filed with disappointment and chagrin, "It is a 
 POSITIVE evil" that my neighbour was baptized 
 in infancy. 
 
 We have seen, candid reader, in the course 
 of this argument, 
 
 1. God has but one church, and never had 
 more. Christ was the angel that was with the 
 church " in the loilderness, and they tempted 
 Christ;' 1 Cor. x, 9. 
 
 2. In that church, the right of infants to mem- 
 bership was admitted for tsvo thousand years. 
 
 3. That right never was done away by any 
 " statute of repeal." 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 87 
 
 4. The only two general covenants that God 
 ever made with man, he made with Adam in 
 the garden of Eden,* — the covenant of 
 WORKS, which was broken ; and the covenant 
 of grace in Christ. 
 
 5. This covenant of grace was the same 
 that w^as confirmed to iVbraham, (four hundred 
 and thirty years before the giving of the law,) 
 of which circumcision w^as then made the seal 
 and sign. 
 
 6. This covenant recognised the right of 
 children to membership, and admitted them to 
 the sign of the covenant. 
 
 7. This covenant was fully developed under 
 the gospel dispensation, when Christ became 
 visibly '• the minister of the covenant." 
 
 8. Under the gospel, the children of the Jews 
 were not rejected, because none were broken 
 off from " the true olive," except for *' unbelief," 
 of which Jewish infants were incapable. 
 
 9. Christ encouraged the reception of chil- 
 dren in his name, and blessed them; and put no 
 clause in the commission of the apostles, to 
 change the order which had existed, with regard 
 to children, for thousands of years. 
 
 10. They all, being Jews, would so under- 
 stand the commission as to admit the children^ 
 unless forbidden so to do. 
 
 11. The baptism of families was practised 
 in the days of the apostles, and it is unreason- 
 
 * I am happy to find this view borne out by the old Phi- 
 ladelphia Baptist Confession of Faith, printed by Benjamin 
 Franklin in 1742, pp. 73-74. 
 
88 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 able to suppose there were no infants among 
 them. 
 
 12. The church practised it for at least twelve 
 hundred years without opposition, except from 
 TertuUian and the Petrobrusians ; who opposed 
 it on different grounds from those on which our 
 Baptist friends oppose it. 
 
 13. If it had been an innovation upon " gospel 
 order," or a departure from the " original pat- 
 tern^'' some Baptist, surely, would have raised 
 his voice against it, in twelve centuries. An 
 innovation of the kind could not have been in- 
 troduced without a spirited controversy ; the 
 existence of which controversy no Baptist has 
 ever been able to shov*'. 
 
 14. And finally, that the Waldenses, those 
 opposers of the corruptions of the Romish 
 Church, were generally Pedobaptists. 
 
 In concluding this part of the general argu- 
 ment, we say, He who takes the Baptist view 
 of this subject has to suppose, on the contrary, 
 that when the gospel dispensation was opened, 
 a dispensation of larger promises and increased 
 privileges and liberality, the right of infants to 
 membership was taken away ; and that this 
 took place without one hint or reason being 
 given for it ; without any single mention of it 
 in the apostolic writings. Nay, that instead of 
 such notice and explanation, a mode of expres- 
 sion was adopted under the " new economy,^'' simi- 
 lar to that used before ; calculated to convey the 
 idea that parents and children stood in their old 
 relation, notwithstanding the supposed painful 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 89 
 
 change. That parents, Christian parents, saw 
 their children rejected, who always had seen 
 them admitted while they were Jews ; and yet 
 no murmur was heard, no explanation asked. 
 Is this credible ? This silence " pleads trumpet 
 tongued" against the views of our Baptist friends, 
 and has the weight of a hundred arguments for 
 infant baptism. 
 
 The argument, therefore, is reduced to this : 
 " If infant baptism is an innovation, it confess- 
 edly entered the church very soon after the 
 canon of Scripture closed ;" and in a few years 
 more, " without a single precept to warrant, or 
 a single example to encourage it ; yea, with the 
 well known practice of the apostles, and of all 
 the churches they ever planted, directly, openly, 
 palpably against it; under all these disadvan- 
 tages, it so universally prevailed, that, upon the 
 face of the whole earth, there was not a church 
 found where it was not performed." Yea, more ; 
 it entered the church, it prevailed, it became 
 universal, without a whisper of opposition, without 
 a word of dispute. All parties in the eastern 
 church, and all parties in the western church, 
 confederating to connive at the error, to blot out 
 every trace of it from the page of history, and 
 never to utter a single loord from which it could 
 be discovered that they had departed from the 
 gospel rule ; to that man who believes this, what 
 can be incredible ? Such, surely, would make 
 good disciples of the doctrine of transubstantia- 
 tion. For such, we think, could easily take 
 another step ; and, denying the evidence of their 
 
90 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 se7ises, swallow a wafer for the real body and 
 blood of Christ. 
 
 A few observations more in reply to the 
 question, Who are the proper subjects of bap- 
 tism ? and we shall close this part of the gene- 
 ral argument. 
 
 We readily admit that believers, in the fullest 
 sense of that word, are proper subjects, and that 
 the possession of the highest religious experi- 
 ence furnishes no bar to the reception of the 
 outward sign. In reading the Acts of the 
 Apostles, it will be seen that the ordinance 
 was given both to those that had, and to those 
 that had not, received the Holy Ghost. On the 
 day of Pentecost, when three thousand inquired 
 what they must do, Peter said, " Repent and be 
 baptized every one of you, for the remission of 
 sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy 
 Ghost." By what they saw and heard, espe- 
 cially the gift of tongues, by which each was 
 enabled to hear the wonderful works of God in 
 the language in which each was born, they 
 were convinced of the Messiahship of Christ, 
 and saw their own guilt and danger, and in- 
 quired of the apostles the way of escape. We 
 presume it will not be said that they had a 
 Christian experience, in the usual sense of that 
 phrase. See Acts ii. 
 
 In the eighth chapter of Acts we find re- 
 corded the case of the Samaritans, who heard 
 Philip "■ preaching the things concerning the 
 kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ ; 
 and when they saw the miracles which he 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 91 
 
 wrought, they believed his preaching upon the 
 evidence of those miracles, and ' were baptized, 
 both men and women.' " And it was not until 
 " the apostles at Jerusalem had heard that Sa- 
 maria had received the word of God," and had 
 sent down Peter and John, who laid their hands 
 on them and prayed, that the Holy Ghost came 
 on them. Now if our Baptist friends should 
 say, that what they received was not the ordi- 
 nary, but the extraordinary gift of the Spirit of 
 God, for the purpose of speaking with tongues, 
 (fee, they must say it upon their own responsi- 
 bility, for there is not a shadow of evidence of 
 it in the text. And if they should still persist 
 in saying that they were genuine converts, eocpe- 
 rie7iced believers, before Peter and John came to 
 them, then they admit that a man may be an 
 experienced Christian without the Holy Ghost ; 
 and if one man, or many, (as in this case), theji 
 all might, and the conclusion would be, there is 
 no need of the Holy Ghost in constituting men 
 real believers, genuine converts. For Luke 
 says, verses 15, 16, "Who, when they were 
 come down, prayed for them, that they might 
 receive the Holy Ghost. Far as yet he loas 
 fallen upon none of them ; only they were bap- 
 tized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then 
 laid they their hands on them, and thev received 
 the Holy Ghost." 
 
 But if our Baptist friends should still say that 
 these people had a religious experience before 
 they were baptized, then they throw themselves 
 into another dilemma ; for what is said of their 
 
92 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 religion is said also of Simon's : in verse 13 it 
 is said, " Then Simon himself believed also; and 
 when he was baptized," &c. Did Simon obtain 
 the gTace of evangelical faith before baptism ? 
 Then he must have fallen from grace, and fallen 
 foully too ; for Peter said to him, verses 21, 23, 
 " Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter;" 
 " Thou art in the gall of bitterness" 
 
 Then what becomes of the favourite doctrine, 
 " once in grace, always in grace ?" But perhaps 
 I shall be told, Simon Magus never had any 
 grace ; then he got an experience without grace, 
 or, if you like it better, he was baptized without 
 grace, and if he was, so were the rest, for what 
 is said of their faith is said of his. I may be 
 told further, Simon was a reprobate, and never 
 had any thing more than a common call and 
 common grace. Then Philip baptized a repro- 
 bate. And even after he had offered to buy the 
 Holy Ghost with money, Peter exhorted him 
 to repentance and prayer, that he might be for- 
 given. Query: If Simon had given heed to 
 Peter's exhortation, (and there is some proof 
 that he did, verse 24, for he asked an interest 
 in the apostle's prayers,) and had prayed, re- 
 pented, and become a genuine believer, would our 
 Baptist brethren have thought it necessary to 
 re-baptize Simon 1 If they apply the same rea- 
 soning to adults that they do to children, in ex- 
 plaining the commission, or what Mr. Campbell 
 calls " the law of baptism," namely, that baptism 
 must always follow faith, and not go before it, 
 in any case, as the commission says, " He that 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 93 
 
 believeth and is baptized ;" — did Simon's want 
 of evangelical faith vitiate, or render his baptism 
 a nullity? If it did, then he ought to have been 
 re-baptized upon his repentance ; if it did not, 
 then I cannot see how the baptism of an infant 
 is rendered a nullity, by its unbelief, when at 
 adult age. 
 
 The argument attempted to be drawn from 
 the order of the words in the commission is 
 entirely sophistical. As much so as if I were 
 to say, that because " John the Baptist baptized 
 in the wilderness, and preached the baptism of 
 repentance," therefore John always baptized the 
 people frst, and preached the baptism of re- 
 pentance to them afterward. 
 
 Having digressed thus far, I remark, this case 
 of Simon's is a very perplexing case, especially 
 to all Calvixist Baptists, for, when examined, 
 it is found to endanger one of two of their 
 favourite opinions. From both horns of the 
 dilemma- it is impossible to escape. Either 
 Simon had no grace and vjas baptized without an 
 experience, or he had grace when baptized, and 
 afterward so utterly lost it, that he had no part 
 or lot in the matter. They can take, candid 
 reader, just which side of the question, just that 
 horn of this dilemma that may suit them best. 
 It is common, of two evils, for men in self-love 
 to choose the least ; and as grace is more valu- 
 able than water, even " much xcater^'' I suppose 
 they will cling to the consolation of the Lord's 
 dear people, " where he begins a work of grace, 
 he always carries it on to the end," and will 
 
94 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 suppose that Philip, some how or other, ('' al- 
 though he was full of wisdom and of the Holy- 
 Ghost,") made a mistake, and baptized an im- 
 proper candidate in that particular case. 
 
 The true state of the case seems to have 
 been this : Philip entered Samaria, commenced 
 preaching Christ, and, to confirm his doctrine, 
 began to "heal the lame," "to cure the palsied," 
 and to cast out unclean spirits, that cried with a 
 loud voice as they came out of those who were 
 possessed of them. »Simon and the Samaritans 
 heard his message, saw the miracles, were con- 
 vinced that the message was true, were willing 
 to enter the school of Christ as disciples, by- 
 baptism, that they might be made better ac- 
 quainted with this new religion. 
 
 Christianity was established by miracle, and 
 those who gave it credence in the early part of 
 its history rested their faith or conviction of its 
 truth, not so much upon a thorough knowledge 
 of its peculiar doctrines, as upon the evidence 
 brought home to their minds through the me- 
 dium of their senses ; and those senses were 
 powerfully addressed by the miracles of our 
 Lord and his apostles. So ignorant were the 
 apostles themselves of the peculiar doctrines of 
 Christianity, that up to the period of the Saviour's 
 crucifixion, " they wondered what the rising 
 from the dead should mean." Eloquent Apollos 
 himself knew so little of the peculiarities of 
 Christianity, (even after he had convmced the 
 Jews that Jesus was Christ,) that it was neces- 
 sary a plain mechanic and his wife should teach 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 95 
 
 him the way of the Lord " more perfectly.''^ And 
 so ignorant were the twelve disciples, found by- 
 Paul at Ephesus, that they knew not that there 
 was any Holy Ghost. See Acts, ch. xix. And 
 those disciples received the Christian baptism 
 from the hands of the apostles, in addition to 
 the baptism of John, which they had previously 
 received ; and when they had received water 
 baptism in the name of Jesus, and Paul had 
 laid his hands on them, " the Holy Ghost came 
 on them." 
 
 The case of Saul of Tarsus, as found in the 
 Acts, ch. xxii, is in point. He was exhorted by 
 Ananias to " arise and be baptized and wash 
 away his sins, calling on the name of the Lord." 
 To this penitent sinner he said, " Why tarriest 
 thou ? arise and be baptized." It would not look 
 well to fly in the face of the text, and say that 
 his sins were washed away before he was ad- 
 mitted to the ordinance. 
 
 The Ethiopian eunuch is the only person that 
 we find in the Acts professing to believe with 
 the heart unto righteousness, in order to bap- 
 tism. And his faith seems to have had refer- 
 ence to one point alone ; he said to Philip, " I 
 believe that Jesus Christ is the Son o-f God." 
 He heard but one sermon, was in company with 
 Philip perhaps one hour, and, ere they parted, 
 Philip made a disciple of him by baptism. 
 
 It is true that Cornelius, and those in his 
 house, Acts, ch. x, did receive the Holy Ghost 
 while Peter was speaking the word, and re- 
 ceived Christian baptism subsequently ; but the 
 
96 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 reader will observe that this was a peculiar 
 case ; it was the opening of the gospel dispen- 
 sation to the Gentiles ; when Peter, with the 
 keys which Christ gave him, vi^as to " open the 
 kingdom of heaven to the Gentiles," as he had 
 done previously to the Jews. And the same 
 reason that made it necessary to show Peter a 
 vision to induce him to go to Cornelius, made it 
 necessary to send upon those Gentiles the Holy 
 Ghost prior to baptism ; and, by examining the 
 passage, you may observe that the six brethren 
 who came from Joppa with Peter were asto- 
 nished when they observed that God had given 
 the Gentiles the Holy Ghost. " Then said 
 Peter, who can forbid water ?" &c. When the 
 news of this visit reached Jerusalem, they of 
 the circumcision contended with Peter ; and 
 he, in making his defence, adduces this circum- 
 stance as his vindication : " While I was speak- 
 ing, the Holy Ghost came on them^'' &c., " and 
 what was I that I could withstand God ?" 
 
 These, doubtless, had a religious experience, 
 in the fullest sense of the word ; but it will ap- 
 pear evident, we think, to all who examine the 
 gospels and the Acts, that the ordinance was 
 never delayed for the want of an experience of 
 grace. In almost every case, both Christ and 
 his apostles gave the ordinance to all without 
 exception, and without delay, who applied to 
 them, and were willing to assume the respon- 
 sibilities of discipleship. Hence we find ia 
 John vi, 60, 66, " Many, therefore, of his dis' 
 cipleSy when they had heard this, said, This is 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 97 
 
 a hard saying, who can bear it? &c. And 
 Jesus said, Doth this offend you ? But there 
 are some of you that believe not. For Jesus 
 knew from the beginning who they were that 
 believed not, and who should betray him." 
 
 Now, here are many disciples, who, of course, 
 were baptized persons, that did not believe. And 
 we are told that ^^ Jesus knew from the beginning'^ 
 that they believed not. They therefore never 
 had believed ; and consequently w^ere not be- 
 lievers at the time of their baptism. And they 
 never had faith afterward; for we read, '-^they 
 went back and walked no more with htm.'" 
 
 In further proof, it may be observed, that of 
 all the thousands that Christ baptized before his 
 death from "Jerusalem and the region round 
 about," of them, on the day of Pentecost, there 
 were to be found but one hundred and twenty 
 disciples, until the conversion of the three thou- 
 sand. Where were they? Had so many thou- 
 sand true believers, with one consent, made 
 shipwreck of faith ? No, reader ; they had been 
 struck with the splendour of his miracles, they 
 offered themselves as disciples, were entered 
 into his school by baptism ; but, disliking after- 
 ward his spiritual teachings, and the simplicity 
 of his religion, they " went back.^^ It is much 
 easier to enter the church of Christ as disciples 
 by baptism, than to perform those solemn, spi- 
 ritual, and importaTit duties to which we are 
 introduced by taking this badge of discipleship. 
 
 From what we have written above, it will be 
 gathered that we consider all as fit subjects for 
 7 
 
98 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 baptism who credit the gospel message, are 
 willing to receive Christ as their Saviour, and 
 assume the responsibilities of Christianity. I 
 was informed lately by a minister of the old 
 Baptist Church, that a certain Dr. T., who, 
 I am told, is one of Mr. Campbell's preachers, 
 has been engaged lately re-baptizing the mem- 
 bers of the old Baptist Church, who, years ago, 
 received what is called " believers' baptism.^^ 
 They received believers' baptism before. What 
 are they receiving now ? 1 suppose the doctor 
 is baptizing them " for the remission of sins." 
 Query — Is not this reversing the order of 
 Christian experience ? or tacitly confessing 
 that they were deceived before, and only had 
 a false hope ? I presume they repented, be- 
 lieved, and were baptized upon an experience 
 of grace. And now do they go back ? If they 
 Avere baptized before, according to Mr. C's 
 " law of baptism,^'' pray what law are they now 
 baptized under ? Has Dr. T., in " expounding 
 the ancient gospel" to them, added a supple- 
 ment to the law ? This reminds me of the case 
 of a member of the Baptist Church, not one 
 hundred miles from this, who has received' 
 baptism three different times. Do men who read 
 their Bibles imagine that they tind a " Thus 
 saith the Lord" for giving Christian baptism to 
 any man more than once ? It is trifling with 
 God's ordinance, and has as little authority 
 from God's word as from common sense. In 
 the close, suffer me to repeat the language of 
 
.MODE OF DAPTlti.M. 99 
 
 Dr. A. Clarke : — " The repetition of Christian 
 baptism I beheve to be profaned 
 
 Let us all who have been solemnly dedicated 
 in baptism to God, Father, Son, and -Holy 
 Ghost, recollect that " we are debtors to keep 
 the whole law," And may God, whose we 
 are, " send us help from his sanctuary, and 
 strengthen us out of Zion," that we may walk 
 worthy of our high, holy, and heavenly calling. 
 
 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 On this part of the subject I think Mr. Broad- 
 dus's iruotto or text a very unfortunate one, as he 
 cannot show any analogy between the detailed 
 directions given to Moses for building the taber- 
 nacle, and the casual or accidental manner in 
 which baptism is mentioned in the New Testa- 
 ment. For if God had given as specific direc- 
 tions for baptizing as he did anciently for making 
 the tabernacle, it would not have been neces- 
 sary for Mr. B. to labour through forty-two pages 
 to show the pattern given for baptism. He says. 
 Sermon, p. 6, that he selected that motto '■'■ as 
 suggesting the necessity of a rigid adherence to 
 the EXPRESSED vjill of God, esjoecially in relation 
 to institutions,^'' <^c.; and then proceeds to assert 
 a fanciful distinction between what he calls 
 *' moral and positive requirements," and says, 
 " The manner of performing a moral obligation 
 may be perfectly indifferent ;" but declares it 
 is not so with ^'positive institutions." Unfortu- 
 
100 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 nately for Mr. B., he has not even attempted to 
 furnish a single proof from God's word in sup- 
 port of this view oi positive institutes and moral 
 duties- To. be sure he quotes Bishop Hoadley 
 in proof. But I cannot perceive that the bishop's 
 words sustain Mr. B.'s position. Mr. B. says 
 '■'■positive institutions f^ the bishop says '■^posi- 
 tive duties^ Now, positive duties may he insti- 
 tutions, or they may not. If Mr. B. had been so 
 good as to tell where this saying of the bishop's 
 is to be found, we should have been better able 
 to tell whether the words will bear that kind of 
 application. So far as we can perceive, the 
 evidence is not to the point, but to be proved. 
 Mr. B. says on the same page, " We may ex- 
 pect to find the Avord of God very explicit on 
 the subject of positive institutions," and yet his 
 distinction is unsupported by a single text of 
 Scripture. I enter my dissent from his starting 
 position relative to positive institutions, because 
 it stands opposed to facts. 1. Circumcision was 
 a positive institute ; and can any man show any 
 detailed explicit direction about the manner of 
 performing the rite? 2. The sacrament of the 
 Lord's supper is a positive institute. Do the 
 Scriptures give specific directions about the 
 manner of attending to that ? It was first cele- 
 brated in the night, in a reclining posture, with 
 unleavened bread, in an upper room, &c., &c. ; 
 and yet what intelligent Christian supposes that 
 these things are any more than mere circum- 
 stances, or that they are necessary to the accept- 
 able celebration of that supper 1 Do our Baptist 
 
iMODE OF BAPTISM. 101 
 
 brethren celebrate it at night ? or with unlea- 
 vened bread ? And would not Mr. B. himself as 
 soon receive the sacrament of the Lord's supper 
 on the Lord's day, in the house of God, as on 
 Thursday night, in an upper room of a private 
 house ? I know there are superstitious people 
 who regard a mere circumstance in a sacrament 
 as a matter of great moment. And so there 
 were those of old who thought more of " tithing 
 mint''' than they did of the " love of GodJ^ 
 
 Let our Baptist friends apply their own prac- 
 tice with regard to the sacrament of the Lord's 
 supper to the principle which Mr. B. laj-s down 
 with regard to ^'positive institutions,^' and they 
 will see a great want of agreement between his 
 principles and their practice. And say, candid 
 reader, is the institution of baptism more im- 
 portant than that which represents " his broken 
 body" and '^ his shed blood'' — and shows forth 
 the Lord's death till his coming again ? Why, 
 then, this insistiiig on a " pattern" for baptism, 
 when no man can show in God's word a ^^ pat- 
 tern" for the sacrament of the Lord's supper ? 
 Bread and wine are spoken of for the one, and 
 water as the element for the observance of the 
 other. And although Mr. B. says, p. 27, " The 
 word of God knows nothing for baptism but 
 immersion" I as unhesitatingly declare, that the 
 word of God speaks of baptism where immer- 
 sion was utterly out of the question. Now, 
 candid reader, I have just placed my assertion 
 alongside of Mr. B.'s, hoping that you will re- 
 ceive neither the one nor the other in this matter 
 
102 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 wiihowt pronf. The proof I hope to be able to 
 give yon in the following pages. 
 
 Mr. B. commences on the mode, by finding 
 fault with the translators for leaving the Greek 
 terms untranslated ; giving them an English 
 termination, instead of translating them im~ 
 merse, immersed, immersion, &c. And both in 
 the Strictures and Sermon, King James, the 
 bishops, and translators, are treated without 
 ceremony. 
 
 The impartial reader will judge whether it is 
 likely that the king, the bishops, and forty-seven 
 translators would form a consjiiracy against the 
 truth ; and give to the world a translation that 
 did not express fully what they believed to be 
 the sense of the original term haptizo. I would 
 ask Mr. B., Who prevented the Latin and 
 French translators from translating the original, 
 so far as to favour immersion only ? And v/hy 
 he did not furnish evidence that Dr. George 
 Campbell, in his translation of the gospels — or 
 the great Dutch reformer, Martin Luther, in his 
 translation of the Bible — has translated the ori- 
 ginal differently from King James's translators ? 
 For he says, Sermon, p. 29, that both Dr. Camp- 
 bell and Luther held the original term as mean- 
 ing immersion or dipping only. To be sure, 
 Mr. B. says that Luther calls John the Baptist 
 " John the Dipper," and gives what he considers 
 the German of Luther's Testament — " Johan- 
 nes der Taufer" — which Mr. B. (the translator) 
 renders " John the Dipper." Reader, I do not 
 pretend to be able to translate German, but I 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 103 
 
 Strongly suspect that this gentleman has hit as 
 ivide of the truth here, as in making haptizo mean 
 immersion only. A friend of mine, who under- 
 stands and speaks the German, informs me that 
 the English of ^'■Johannes der Taufer'^ is John 
 the Baptist ; and that the German for Dipper 
 or Immerser is not ^'■Taufer^' but " Tuncker;" 
 hence the name of that sect of Christians called 
 " Tiinckers,^^ or vulgarly ^' Du7ikards" who bap- 
 tize candidates by dipping them three times. 
 
 The translators, in retaining the original word 
 in the translation, only followed what had been 
 the general practice ; for, even as far back as 
 the second century, the author of the Peshito, 
 an old Syriac version of the New Testament, 
 the oldest version extant, although the Syriac 
 has a word which signifies to plunge, dip, im- 
 merse, has never used that word in the transla- 
 tion to denote baptism. Prof. Stewart, p. 78. 
 Again : that the precise idea of immersion can- 
 not apply to baptizing, or that it does not appear 
 that the words baptize and baptism would be 
 properly rendered by the words immerse, im- 
 mersion, we may safely conclude from the fol- 
 lowing consideration : — The earliest Latin trans- 
 lators did not find the Greek words properly 
 represented by mergo, immergo, immersio ; al- 
 though these words properly signified to immerse, 
 immersion, and were commonly so used in the 
 Latin language. They saw there was a mean- 
 ing to the Greek word which their word denoting 
 immersion did not fairly represent. And this 
 was at a time, too, when there were no contro- 
 
104 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 versies on the subject ; and at a time, too, if we 
 believe the Baptists, when every person bap- 
 tized was immersed. Yet the Latin translators, 
 if the Baptist system be correct, must first have 
 left a word untranslated, for which they had 
 terrns in every respect corresponding and ap- 
 propriate. And secondly, they must have done 
 this with the rite of baptism continually before 
 their eyes, performed by immersion, on account 
 of which they would be the more inexcusable. 
 But these things are not so. They found the 
 words employed in a ceremonial sense ; they 
 therefore retained the original wards themselves, 
 leaving to the institution itself to make known 
 its mode. They therefore latinize the Greek 
 words, and give us haptizo, baptisma, baptismus. 
 However, for doing so, they had high authority ; 
 the authority or example of the Holy Spirit ; 
 and that, too, in a similar case. The Hebrew 
 word, pesach, is retained by the inspired writers 
 of the New Testament, in the Greek word 
 pascha. The Latins latinize the same word. — 
 Prof. Elliot, pages 81, 82. These cases are 
 parallel — one referring to the institute of the 
 passover, and the other to the institute of 
 baptism. 
 
 But Mr. B. tells us that Dr. Carson, a Baptist 
 writer, says that " baptizo, in the whole history 
 of the Greek language, has but one meaning. 
 It not only signifies to dip or immerse, but it 
 never has any other meaning." — Sermon, p. 28. 
 Mark that, candid reader, as I shall, in the 
 course of the argument, place John the Bap- 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 105 
 
 TTST, St. Peter, and St. Paul, all against this 
 Dr. Carson ! ! At present, however, I shall only 
 place one doctor against another. Dr. Adam 
 Clarke, Commentary, Matt, iii, 6, asks, " Were 
 the people dipped or sprinkled? for it is certain 
 bapto and haptizo mean both." " When Greek 
 meets Greek, then is the tug of war." As these 
 doctors disagree, I shall call in other witnesses 
 presently. Perhaps, reader, you are ready to 
 ask me, if this is the sa,me Dr. Clarke quoted by 
 Mr. B., Strictures, page 15, in support of im- 
 mersion, as the exclusive mode ? Yes, identically 
 the same. Mr. B., I perceive, has left the doc- 
 tor out of his cloud of iDitnesses, in his sermon. 
 I suppose he began to suspect he had not treated 
 the doctor very fairly in the first publication. 
 But it may be that he may wish to suggest that 
 Dr. Clarke was a sprinkler, like the king, bishopSy 
 and translators, and that his account of the mat- 
 ter was influenced by his creed, or practice of 
 baptizing. Very good ; and Dr. Carson was a 
 dipper — his criticism, no doubt, was influenced 
 by his practice in baptizing; — so in this, at 
 least, they are about equal. Which of the 
 doctors was the greater scholar, and conse- 
 quently best prepared to judge, I shall not at- 
 tempt to decide ; I leave that to the reader. 
 
 Dr. Carson, however, has made a concession 
 on this subject, which will go a great way in 
 destroying the weight of his testimony. While 
 he contends that baptizo always signifies to im- 
 merse, he acknowledges that " all the lexico- 
 graphers and commentators are against Mm in 
 
106 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 that opinion''^ — Carson, Bapt., p. 79, as quoted 
 by Dr. Miller. How far the confidence which, 
 in the face of this acknowledgment, he expresses 
 that they are all icrong, and that his interpreta- 
 tion alone • is right, is either modest or well- 
 founded, must be left to the judgment of the 
 impartial reader. 
 
 Mr. B. says that " Professor Stuart, as a 
 Biblical critic, is perhaps not excelled by any 
 man in the United States ;" and this critic says 
 of Dr. Carson, " He lays down some A^ery ad- 
 venturous positions, in respect to one -meaning, 
 and o?ie only, of words ; which, as it seems to 
 me, €V€7y lexicon on earth contradicts, and always 
 must contradict." — Stuart on the Mode of Bap- 
 tism, p. 100. So much for Rev. A. Carson and 
 his translation of haptizo. 
 
 One more remark relative to the translators 
 of the common version. It is not only unchris- 
 tian to trample upon the ashes of dead men, by 
 impugning their motives and misrepresenting 
 their conduct, but it is ungenerous to charge 
 them and the bishops with making a translation 
 to favour sprinkling, when half the evidence, at 
 least, which the Baptists adduce to favour im- 
 mersion is drawn from the manner in which 
 these same translators have rendered the Greek 
 prepositions, — in Jordan — out o/the water, &.c. 
 When, if they had indulged any design to de- 
 ceive, they might have given them fairly a dif- 
 ferent rendering. Here, as the Baptists will 
 tell you, we have a translation, partly support- 
 ing sprinkling, and partly against it. Surely, 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 107 
 
 candid reader, tliese same forty-seven trans- 
 lators, who produced the common version in 
 1613, were" either very stupid, or very honest. 
 I think the latter. 
 
 I shall next take some notice of Mr. B.'s list 
 of Pedobaptist witnesses. Sermon, pp. 30, 31, 
 and Strictures, pp. 14-16. Some of these wit- 
 nesses I shall be obliged to pass by, as I have 
 not their works at hand to refer to. The reader 
 may be able to judge of the fairness, or rather 
 unfairness, with which Mr. Booth and Mr. 
 Broaddiis have treated them all, from a speci- 
 men or two which we expect to give. 
 
 The reader will bear in mind, that Mr. B.'s 
 proposition which he wishes to sustain is, that 
 " immersion, or dipping, is the only proper 
 mode," or that " baptizo means to dip only.'' — 
 Strictures, p. 15. And he brings these Pedo- 
 baptist witnesses into court to prove this. We 
 shall see whether he allows them, in his hands, 
 to tell the luhole truth in the case. I hope he 
 will not do as some people do, in quoting the 
 words of Christ as a witness for unconditioned 
 perseverance, viz., " Of all lohom thou hast given 
 me, I have lost none ;" — so far, the witness 
 seems to support the position ; but suffer him 
 to speak on, — " but the son of perdition.'' Ah, 
 this puts quite another face upon the text ; as I 
 hope to do, upon the testimony of, at least, some 
 of these witnesses. Attend to me patiently, 
 gentle reader — I am, in part, pleading the cause 
 of dead men, represented as having lived and 
 died ^'■inconsistent," and who are not here to 
 
108 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 speak for themselves, but whose record is on 
 high. I shall begin with Dr. A. Clarke. Mr. B., 
 in his Strictures, page 15, after quoting part of 
 a sentence from Dr. Clarke's Commentary on 
 Romans vi, 4, says, " I do think I have proved, 
 beyond all question, that haptizo means to im- 
 merse, and nothing else." " It has but one 
 meaning; — these learned men knew it, and 
 their candour forced them to acknowledge it." 
 Reader, does Dr. Clarke acknowledge it? Hear 
 him fully on Romans vi, 4 : "It is probable that 
 the apostle here alludes to the mode of admi- 
 nistering baptism by immersion; I say it is 
 PROBABLE — but not absolutely certain that he 
 does so, as some imagine ; for in the next verse, 
 our being incorporated into Christ by baptism is 
 also denoted by our being planted or grafted to- 
 gether in the likeness of his death : and Noah's 
 ark floating upon the water, and sprinkled by 
 the rain from heaven, is ^figure corresponding 
 to baptism, 1 Peter iii, 20, 21 ; but neither of 
 these gives us the same idea of the outward 
 form as burying. We must be careful, there- 
 fore, not to lay too much stress on such a cir- 
 cumstance." Does this prove Mr. B.'s position? 
 I think not. He has taken great liberties with 
 this witness ; first he mutilates the sentence, — 
 then gives it as a whole, putting a period in the 
 place of Dr. C.'s comma, — and then puts the 
 •words baptize and immersion in italics ; and the 
 word probable, which the doctor purposely itali- 
 cised twice in the note, Mr. B. does not empha- 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 109 
 
 size at all. It is bad enough to take such 
 liberties with living men. 
 
 Mr. Wesley is the next witness we shall call. 
 Mr. B. has treated him with as little candour as 
 he has the doctor. In his Strictures, p. 15, he 
 attempts to quote Mr. W. on Romans vi, 4, and 
 mutilates the sentence ; puts a period where 
 Mr. W. has none, and prefixes to the note these 
 words, "/if seems the part of candour to confess,^' 
 when Mr. W. has no such words in his note. 
 It is a pity that Mr. B. should have lost sight 
 of his own candour in attempting to find that 
 quality in Mr. W.'s Notes. 
 
 Mr. Wesley's commentary on a parallel pas- 
 sage in Col. ii, 12, is often quoted by Baptist 
 preachers, to prove that he favoured immersion 
 only. I have heard them do this myself. Al- 
 though that note is not in Mr. B.'s printed ser- 
 mon, I will give it to the reader to disabuse his 
 mind of any erroneous impression on that sub- 
 ject. This note, when made to speak in favour 
 of immersion, is quoted thus : " The ancient 
 manner of baptizing by immersion is manifestly 
 alluded to here." This is only part of the sen- 
 tence used by Mr. Wesley, and one word left 
 out of that. The note, when fairly quoted, 
 proves nothing for the Baptists. Mr. W.'s 
 words are as follows : " The ancient manner of 
 baptizing by immersion is as manifestly alluded 
 to here as the other manner of baptizing by 
 sprinkling or pouring of water is. Heb. x, 22. 
 But no stress is laid upon the age of the bap- 
 
110 OBLIGATiON, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 tized, or the manner of performing it, in one or 
 the other place," &c. Candid* reader, does 
 either of these passages contain the evidence 
 that Mr. Wesle}^ acknowledges immersion as 
 the only mode ? "I speak as unto wise men." 
 
 Mr. B., Sermon, p. 30, quotes two cases from 
 Mr. Wesley's Journal to prove that he ^^ preferred 
 immersion^'' neither of which proves any such 
 thing. The first is the case of a child which 
 he baptized at eleven days old, according to the 
 " rule of the Church of England," by immer- 
 sion ; and as Mr. W. happened to mention that 
 the child began to recover from the time of its 
 baptism, Mr. B. infers that by mentioning that 
 circumstance Mr. Wesley intended to recom- 
 mc?id immersion. I infer, on the contrary, that 
 he meant to recommend infant baptism. 
 
 The other case is the case of Mr. Parker's 
 child, in Georgia, which Mr. W. refused to bap- 
 tize because its mother refused to let it be 
 dipped, assigning as his reason, that the rubric 
 of his Church required it to be dipped, unless it 
 were weak or unwell. — Wesley's Jfournal, Feb. 
 and May, 1736. This was three years before 
 Mr. Wesley formed any society ; while he was 
 a very young man, and was a priest in the 
 Church of England. He, of course, as a con- 
 scientious man, felt himself bound to regard the 
 rubric of his Church. He gives this as his 
 reason, and utters no objection to the child 
 being baptized by sprinkling or pouring, by 
 another person. According to Mr. B.'s own 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. Ill 
 
 showing, the grand jury thought Mr. W. justi- 
 fiable in A'iew of the rubric. 
 
 Mr. W. could not be supposed to have under- 
 stood the subject of baptism then as perfectly as 
 he did when he Vv^-ote his treatise on that sub- 
 ject more than twenty years afterward. In that 
 treatise he says, "And as there is no clear proof 
 of dipping in Scripture, so there is very pro- 
 bable proof of the contrary. It is true, we read 
 of being buried Avith Christ in baptism. But 
 nothing can be inferred from such a figurative 
 expression. Nay, if it held exactly, it would 
 make as much for sprinkling as for phmging; 
 since in burying, the body is not plunged through 
 the substance of the earth, but rather earth is 
 poured or sprinkled upon it."- — Works, vol. vi, 
 p. 13. And finally this witness says, "The 
 greatest scholars, and most proper judges in the 
 matter, testify that the original term translated 
 baptize, means not dipping, but tvashing or 
 cleansing." Does this prove Mr. B.'s assertion 
 true or false ? He says Mr. Wesley ^'preferred 
 immersion, and he v/ould have restored immer- 
 sion if he could." I think the reader will see 
 a very great want of fairness in the manner in 
 which the gentleman has treated Mr. Wesley. 
 As I am now on the testimony of Mr. W., it 
 may not be amiss to remark that the attempt 
 Avhich Mr. B. makes, in his sermon, to prove 
 that Mr. W. held baptismal regeneration, and 
 held even worse views than ]\Ir. A. Campbell, 
 I think un^vorthy a serious notice. 
 
112 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 His attempt to throw contempt on the Epis- 
 copalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, and others, 
 by attributing to them the doctrine of baptismal 
 regeneration, is one of those stratagems used to 
 mislead the mind of the reader ; a part of that 
 finesse which is used for the purpose of prose- 
 lytism — a tub to decoy the whale, until he can 
 be brought within the reach of the ecclesiastical 
 harpoon — an attejnpt to prove that he is right 
 by proving that others are wrong. 
 
 The next witness I shall call upon in the list 
 of Mr. B.'s witnesses is Professor Stuart. He 
 produces the testimony of the professor to prove 
 immersion as the exclusive mode. Sermon, 
 p. 32. He quotes him thus : " Both of these 
 words [bapto and baptizo) mean to dip, plunge, 
 or immerge into any thing liquid." 
 
 The professor says, (Stuart on the Mode of 
 Baptism, pages 29 and 81,) "There is, then, 
 no absolute certainty from usage that the word, 
 (baptizo,) when applied to designate the rite of 
 baptism, means, of course, to immerge or plunge. 
 It may mean washing; possibly (but not proba- 
 bly) it may mean copiously moistening or bedew- 
 ing ; because words coming from the common 
 root (bap) are applied in both these senses, as 
 we have seen above." " No injiuiction is any- 
 where given in the New Testament respecting the 
 manner in which this rite shall be performed. If 
 there be such a passage, let it be produced. 
 This cannot be done. But it will doubtless be 
 said, that ' the manner of the rite is involved in 
 the word itself, which is used to designate it, 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 113 
 
 and that therefore this is as much a matter o£ 
 command as the rite itself.' To this I answer, 
 that it would prove a great deal too much." 
 Again Professor Stuart saj^s, p. 98, " If you 
 say, The classical use of the word abundantly 
 justifies the construction I put upon it; my 
 reply is. That classical usage can never be very 
 certain in respect to a word in the New Testa- 
 ment. Who does not know that a multitude of 
 Greek w-ords here receive their colouring and 
 particular meanings from the .Hebrew, and not 
 from the Greek classics ?" The sentiment of 
 the professor is confirmed by the practice of 
 the apostle Paul, who well understood both the 
 Hebrew and Greek ; for in Heb. vi, 2, he speaks 
 of the " doctrine of baptisms'' and in ix, 10, of 
 " divers baptisms ;" in both of which places he 
 doubtless applies the word to those ceremonial 
 vmshmgs or purifications used among the Jews, 
 which, he says in verse 13, "were performed 
 by sprinlding the unclean." And we remark 
 here, without fear of successful contradiction, 
 that wherever an administrator and a subject 
 are found under the Jewish regulations, or Old 
 Testament arrangements, the one administer- 
 ing and the other receiving any of those " divers 
 baptisms," the mode was never by immersion. 
 It is true, the Jews washed or bathed themselves 
 and their clothes; but these washings they per- 
 formed naked, and in private, and never re- 
 ceived them from the hands of an administrator. 
 If the reader will refer to Num. xix, 17, 21, he 
 will see the ceremony detailed to M'hich the 
 8 
 
114 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 apostle refers in Heb. ix, 13, and calls it a hap- 
 iism ; and he will see that the hyssop was dipped 
 in running water, and the perso7i was sprinkled. 
 It is worthy of remark also, that among the 
 ancient heathens, purification was often per- 
 fonned by sprinkling water upon the unclean 
 with a branch of olive, or other tree. See the 
 account in Potter's Greek Antiquities, p. 200 ; 
 and an instance also in Virgil's iEneid, vi, 229. 
 
 The reader will judge from the testimony we 
 have adduced from Professor Stuart, whether 
 Mr. B. has quoted him fairly. 
 
 That the witness finds immersion practised 
 in " ancient times'''' not by "the jirst church, ^^ as 
 Mr. B. has it, Sermon, p. 32, is true, but he finds 
 equal evidence, he says, for baptizing men and 
 women naked, and that by dipping them three 
 times, &c. He says, " Revolting as this cus- 
 tom was, yet it is as certain as testimony can 
 make it." P. 75. 
 
 Now, candid reader, I leave you to judge how 
 much reliance is to be placed on the mutilated 
 testimonies from Pedobaptist writers adduced 
 by Mr. B. You can judge of the balance from 
 those I have examined. I will close this part 
 of the subject with a quotation from that clear 
 and conclusive writer Peter Edwards, who was 
 himself for a number of years a Baptist preacher, 
 and who discovered the weakness of the argu- 
 ments of the Baptists, while reading Mr. Booth's 
 book m favour oi their views. He says, (speak- 
 ing of Mr. Booth's eighty witnesses, to which 
 Mr. Broaddus refers,) '• He quotes a number of 
 
iMODE OF BAPTISM. 115 
 
 authors, wlio, as he says, understood the term 
 ' baptize' to mean immersion, pouring, and 
 sprinkling ; and these quotations he calls con- 
 cessions. Concessions of what ? That the 
 word meant immersion only ?. If so, he made 
 them concede what they never did concede, 
 and what they had no thought of conceding. 
 It is a shame to abuse the living or the dead, 
 and it is a bad cause that requires it ; I doubt 
 whether one of the eighty abused critics was 
 on his side." — Edwards, pp. 159, 160. 
 
 We shall now proceed to notice the history 
 of the ordinance, as we find it in the New 
 Testament ; and see whether the facts therein 
 detailed favour our views, or the views of the 
 Baptists. AVe shall first remark upon an allu- 
 sion of the apostle Paul to a case of baptism of 
 men, women, and children, v/hich occurred in 
 an early period of the history of the church ; 
 even before what Mr. Booth calls the Ecclesias- 
 iico-Political Constitution had any existence. 
 The case is recorded in Exod. xiv, 19, 22, and 
 is referred to by the apostle, 1 Cor. x, 2, "And 
 were all baptized unto Moses, in the cloud and 
 in the sea ;" and yet Moses says, " They went 
 into the midst of the sea upon dry ground." 
 Here I put the apostle Paul against Mr. Broad- 
 dus and Dr. Carson, as I promised to do. They 
 say, " The Scriptures know nothing for baptism 
 but immersion." The apostle being judge, here 
 were six hundred thousand men, besides women 
 and children, all baptized while they were on 
 " dry ground^'' and all " dry shod.'''' 
 
116 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 The reader ranst judge between these gentle- 
 ^men and the apostle. But I shall be told that 
 they were baptized *' in a figure," as they were 
 surrounded.' It is dangerous to be making 
 figures to destroy the plain, obvious meaning 
 of Scripture. And moreover, they appear not 
 to have been surrounded, for there was dry 
 land behind them to the shore, and dry land 
 before them to the opposite shore ; and the 
 cloud as a pillar of fire between them and the 
 Egyptians ; so they only had water on their 
 right and left, as two walls. However many 
 " figures" there are in the passage, there is no 
 figure of immersion or dipping in the case. 
 The Holy Spirit has seen fit to give us the 
 mode in which these people " were baptized 
 unto Moses." In Psalm Ixxvii, 16, 17, where 
 the psalmist refers to God's having " led his 
 people by the hand of Moses and Aaron," he 
 has these remarkable words : " The waters saw 
 thee, O God, the waters saw thee ; they were 
 afraid ; the depths also were troubled. The 
 clouds poured out water." That the passage of 
 Israel through the Red Sea is referred to here, 
 no man of candour will doubt who reads the 
 passage with attention. In answer to the ques- 
 tion. How were they baptized in the sea 'i we 
 remark. As the action of a natural agent, the 
 wind was employed to make a passage for 
 them ; the extreme agitation of the waters by 
 it would occasion a mist or spray; by this, as 
 they passed along, they v/ould be sprinkled ; 
 and this, I presume, is what the apostle means 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 117 
 
 when he says they were baptized in, or by the 
 sea. But if our Baptist brethren be dissatisfied 
 with this explanation, it is impossible to njake 
 the history bend to their views : the Israelites 
 could not be dipped, plunged, or overwhelmed 
 in the sea, if the statement be true that they 
 went through it on dry ground. Here is an- 
 other indisputable proof that baptism cannot 
 mean immersion only. 
 
 The only immersion on that occasion was 
 the overwhelming of the Egyptians in the deep, 
 " who sank like lead in the mighty waters," and 
 who were seen not again, until they floated up 
 upon the shores of the Red Sea, as evidences 
 of Jehovah's wrath. 
 
 But we shall be told that the baptism of 
 Israel to Moses was " not Christian baptism." 
 This is granted, and yet that does not invalidate 
 the argument drawn from the case ; because 
 the greatest scholar, and best critic of all the 
 apostles, St. Paul, calls it baptism. But Mr. B. 
 says, " The Scriptures know nothing for bap- 
 tism but immersion." There he is fairly at 
 issue with the apostle Paul. I w411 not insult 
 the reader's piety and good sense, by even inti- 
 mating which of the witnesses is most entitled 
 to credit. 
 
 Most of the evidence which our Baptist 
 friends bring to support their mode of baptism 
 is brought from what is said of John's bap- 
 tizing in Jordan, at Enon-, from the case of 
 the eunuch, baptized by Philip ; and from the 
 passages in Rom. vi, 4, and Col. ii, 12, where 
 
118 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 the apostle speaks of being buried with Christ 
 by baptism, &c. 
 
 We might refuse, if we thought it necessary, 
 all the evidence brought from John's baptism ; 
 as it is clear from the Scriptures, and especially 
 from Acts xix, that ^'John's haptisirC'' was essen- 
 tially different from the " Christian haptismy 
 Of this truth the celebrated Robert Hall, of the 
 Baptist Church, was fully convinced ; as the 
 reader may see by a reference to his Works, 
 vol. i, pp. 372, 376. 
 
 But as Baptist preachers and people do not 
 agree among themselves with regard to John's 
 baptism, and as we wish to allow them all the 
 evidence they can with any fairness claim, we 
 shall not avail ourselves of the advantage above 
 alluded to. 
 
 It is said that John baptized " in Jordan," 
 also " in the wilderness ;" — " in Bethabara, be- 
 yond Jordan ;" — and " in Enon near to Salem," 
 &c. It is allowed on all hands, that the Greek 
 particles, rendered in, into, out of, &c., have 
 such latitude of meaning, and are translated so 
 variously, that nothing certain can be inferred 
 in this controversy from their use. The first 
 sense which Parkhurst, in his Greek Lexicon, 
 gives to " apo,'^ is from. " He came up from 
 the water." And that sense is given it in this 
 text : " Who hath warned you to ^qq from (not 
 out of) the wrath of God." And " eis" has the 
 sense of to or unto, in the following scriptures, 
 viz., in Matt, xv, 24, " I am not sent but unto 
 (not into) the lost sheep of the house of Israel." 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 119 
 
 Rom. X, 10, "With the heart, man believeth 
 unto (not into) righteousness." Matt, iii, 11, 
 " I indeed baptize you with water unto (not in- 
 to) repentance." And Matt, xvii, 27, " Go thou 
 to the sea (not into) and cast a hook," &:c. 
 
 The preposition " en," rendered in Jordan, is 
 in the New Testament one hundred and fifty- 
 times rendered with ; and more than a hundred 
 times rendered at. And the passage would be 
 fairly rendered at Jordan, or with the water 
 of Jordan. And with regard to the eunuch, they 
 went down to the water, and came up from the 
 water, "tvould be as correct a rendering as into 
 and out of. So we see that the argument of 
 the Baptists, drawn from the Greek particles, 
 evaporates at once, and we are left to deter- 
 mine the mode of baptism from other evidence. 
 Mr. B. seems to think, that to discuss these 
 particles is a " small business," but concludes 
 that the translators were " honest'''' in translating 
 them, and that " in their primary signification 
 they all favour immersion." This is a summary- 
 mode, such as we have on page 21 of his Ser- 
 mon ; where, although he rejects and ridicules 
 *' the testimony of the fathers," yet declares — 
 *' I am perfectly satisfied that the preponderance 
 of that testimony is most decidedly in our fa- 
 vour." He thinks that John's being at Jordan 
 and Enon is conclusive evidence that he bap- 
 tized the people by immersion. Then I reply, 
 that Ananias baptizing Saul of Tarsus in a pri- 
 vate house, and Peter baptizing Cornelius and 
 others in a private house, is conclusive evidence 
 
120 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, Ax\D 
 
 that neither Saul nor Cornelius were immersed; 
 for, reader, did you ever hear or know of a Bap- 
 tist preacher immersing people in a private house? 
 On the contrary, I have both heard and read of 
 persons being baptized by pouring, at creeks 
 and rivers. 
 
 It cannot be shown, we presume, that one of 
 those who received John's baptism was in the 
 water as much as ankle deep ; as we shall now 
 proceed to show. " The chief weight of many 
 arguments is owing to our inattention to the 
 differences of times, places, circumstances, 
 manners, &c, ; modernize, and lay the scene 
 of John's ministry in this country, as most, I 
 presume, do, and then examine your ideas, and 
 see what truth there is in them. You provide 
 him with a large church or meeting house, in 
 a large town, or populous country place ; he 
 preaches, his congregation is affected, and at 
 the close of the service they request liim to 
 baptize them ; he marches at the head of them 
 to a river for this purpose. You never see 
 ministers going with either adults or infants to 
 a river to sprinkle them, but you see ministers, 
 "who call themselves Baptists, going down into 
 rivers to immerse people, and you conclude 
 John the Baptist used immersion. John, how- 
 ever, did not live in a large town, but in the 
 wilderness ; he had neither church nor meeting 
 house to hold the people who .resorted to him ; 
 the scene of his ministry is the side of a river; 
 he preached out of doors. Geographers inform 
 us that the banks of the river Jordan abounded 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 121 
 
 with trees ; and as the cUmate was hot, he and 
 his congregation would surely take their station 
 under their shade, and enjoy the atmosphere, 
 which would be cool, in consequence of its 
 vicinity to the water. Now, suppose he used 
 sprinkling, where, under these circumstances, 
 could he so conveniently and agreeably perform 
 it as in the river just at hand?" — Isaacs on 
 Baptism, p. 47. 
 
 " But why," it is asked, " did John take his 
 station beside a river, or at Enon, where there 
 was much water, if it were not for the conve- 
 nience of baptizing?" I answer — 1st, Because 
 it was a central situation. " Then went out to 
 him Jerusalem and all Judea, and all the region 
 ROUND ABOUT JoRDAN." As John did not itine- 
 rate much, it was important to select a situation 
 for the exercise of his ministry at which it 
 would be most convenient for the surrounding 
 inhabitants to attend. 2d, When we look at 
 the immense numbers who resorted from all 
 parts to hear John, it would be absolutely ne- 
 cessary for him to take his station where there 
 was " much water^'' supposing but little was 
 needed for baptism. " Then went out unto 
 him ALL the land of Judea, and they of Jerusa- 
 lem, and ALL the region round about Jordan," 
 Mark v, 4 ; Matt, iii, 5. Make what deductions 
 you will from these statements, you cannot 
 make any common sense of the words, if you 
 do not suppose the numbers to have been very 
 great.- They would not all come on foot ; water 
 would be wanted for drink for the people, for 
 
122 OBLIGATIOxN, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 culinary purposes, for their various ablutions, 
 and for their cattle. And as they flocked in 
 vast numbers to John, many of them, no doubt, 
 had to wait .for days or weeks before the rite 
 could be administered to them ; and during all 
 this time, in the heat of Palestine, great quan- 
 tities of water would be necessary for the 
 accommodation of the multitude. In our cli- 
 mate, although much cooler, we always select 
 a place for camp meetings, when such can be 
 had, where there is " much watery And we 
 sometimes appoint them near rivers, although 
 we expect not more than five thousand persons 
 to attend them ; yet it is not our calculation 
 to immerse one individual of the thousands that 
 attend. 
 
 If the reader will consult 2 Chron. xxxii, 3,4, 
 he will see a case in point. When Sennacherib 
 invaded this very coimtry where John was 
 preaching and baptizing, we read that " they 
 stopped all the fountains, and the brook that 
 ran through the midst of the land, saying. Why 
 should the kings of Assyria come and find much 
 water?-'' It was thought the Assyrian army 
 would need much water ; but no one ever sus- 
 pected their king intended to baptize them in it. 
 No, they wanted it for other purposes ; and so 
 did the thousands who attended the ministry of 
 John, at Jordan and Enon. 
 
 The reader should bear in mind, that while 
 Christ, and the twelve, and the seventy, were 
 going about into the towns, villages, &.c.» John 
 was comparatively local in his ministry, which 
 
MODE OF 13APT18M. 123 
 
 made the multitude greater, and required them 
 to come a greater distance ; and often to remain 
 longer to accomplish the purpose of their visit 
 Ihe PEOPLE CAME to Johi ; Christ and Ids mi~ 
 msters ^ve.vt to the people. Again we say, 
 It IS utterly incredible that John could have 
 immersed the vast multitudes that came to him 
 besides domg the preaching and answering the 
 questions put to him, and (according to the 
 practice of modern Baptists) receiving and 
 judging of the experience of the candidates. 
 1 suppose they will not deny that they gave in 
 an experience to John, especially as Mr. Bene- 
 dict, in his History of the Baptists, calls John 
 their " ancient brother^ 
 
 Robert Hall felt the weight of this objection 
 to immersion ; drawn from the number to be 
 baptized Hence he says, " It is by no means 
 certain, however, that John was the only person 
 who performed that ceremony ; indeed, when 
 we consider the prodigious multitudes that flock- 
 ed to him, the 'inhabitants of Jerusalem, Judea 
 and all the region round about Jordan,' it seems 
 scarcehj practicable ; he most probably employed 
 coadjutors," &c.— Hall's Works, vol. i, p. 361 
 
 Now I suppose, reader, that I have as o-ood 
 a right as Mr. Hall to find a solution to'tliis 
 diftculty. The Scriptures do not say one word 
 about a single coadjutor employed by the Baptist. 
 1 account for his being able to bantize the '^pro- 
 digious multitudes^ as Mv. H. calls them, on 
 another principle, viz., he administered the or- 
 dmance by sprinkling or pouring. This was 
 
124 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 Mr. Wesley's view of it. See his notes on 
 Matt, iii, 6. " It seems," says he, " that they 
 stood in ranks on the edge of the river, and 
 John, passing along before them, cast water on 
 their heads or faces, by which means he might 
 baptize many thousands in a day." 
 
 It is not supposed that John exercised his 
 ministry more than twelve or eighteen months, 
 and yet, at a moderate calculation, he must 
 have baptized one million of people ; for Mr. B. 
 supposes, Sermon, p. 35, that Jerusalem alone 
 ' contained a million of people ;" then take 
 " Judea, and the region round about Jordan," 
 &c., and allow that one half of the inhabitants 
 received his baptism, which we think not un- 
 likely ; then we ask, during how many hours 
 in the day could any man preach, and stand in 
 the water, for the purpose of baptizing by im- 
 mersion ? We will admit, for the sake of argu- 
 ment, that he could endure this labour six hours 
 each day, for eighteen months. And say that 
 he baptized as expeditiously as the gentleman 
 in Culpepper did, of whom Mr. B. speaks, Ser- 
 mon, p. 35, " who baptized seventy-five persons 
 very decently in twenty-five minutes ;" — I say, 
 suppose all this, and when he had accomplished 
 his eighteen months' work, at the rate of one 
 thousand and eighty each day, he would have 
 given the ordinance to a little upward of half 
 a million. What Mr. B. says about its taking 
 " no more time to baptize hy immersion than hy 
 sprinkling, ^^ Sermon, p. 35, utterly astonishes 
 me. Can you think, gentle reader, that this 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 125 
 
 carries upon its face the appearance oi proha- 
 hility? Again, John, as the son of a Jewish 
 priest, would most likely use water in the way 
 in which it was commonly used among the 
 Jews, i. e., by sprinkling. And if it be said 
 that " John's baptism was from heaven," I reply, 
 So were the divers baptisms among the Jews. 
 Heb. ix, 10, 13. And as the Jewish priests 
 entered upon their work at thirty years of age, 
 so did John. And using, like them, an applica- 
 tion of water to the body, as an emblem of moral 
 purity ; it is left to any impartial judgment, 
 whether he is most rationally supposed to have 
 plunged men under the water, (a thing unprac- 
 tised among them,) or whether he only sprinkled 
 or poured water on them, a rite divinely insti- 
 tuted, and every day familiarly practised in that 
 church.'^ — Towgood on Baptism, p. 104. And 
 to the fact that John came as the harbinger of 
 the Messiah, about to appear, for whom the 
 Jews were all anxiously looking ; so much so, 
 that they inquired of him " if he were the 
 Christ ;" — I say, to this fact may be attributed 
 the great and general influx of disciples to 
 •John. He applied sacramental water to them, 
 and bid them repent, reform, and look for, and 
 believe on the Messiah, just about to appear, 
 who w^ould apply the Holy Ghost to their souls, 
 as he had applied the purifying element to their 
 bodies ; saying to all the people, " I indeed 
 baptize you loith water; he shall baptize you 
 u-ith the Holy Ghost.^' Here is a clear intima- 
 tion from John himself that the water was ap- 
 
126 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AXD 
 
 plied to the suhject, and not tlie subject applied 
 to the water. 
 
 What John calls being baptized with the Holy 
 Ghost, Matt, iii, 11, Christ calls, being baptized 
 with the Hoi?/ Ghost, Acts i, 5. And Peter calls 
 it being baptized with the Holy Ghost, Acts ii, 
 16. And in Acts xi, 17, 33, it is said to be 
 " POURED out" and " shed forth." And in 
 Acts X, 44, it is said, the Holy Ghost fell on 
 THEM ; and also in xi, 15, Peter says, it fell 
 on them. Now I suppose that the word bap- 
 tize, in the mouth of John the Baptist, is equal 
 to the word baptize in the mouth of St. Peter ; 
 and equal also to the same word in the mouth 
 of Jesus Christ. Here I put, not a lexicographer ^ 
 or an army of them, against Dr. Carson and 
 Mr. Broaddus, but, what is of infinitely more 
 weight, (for, however great the witness of men 
 may be, " the witness of God is greater,") John, 
 Peter, and Christ, all against these gentle- 
 men. I hope, reader, you will never become 
 so learned as to declare that pouring is no bap- 
 tism, when you have the authority of Christ 
 himself for using the word in the sense of 
 pouring, viz., " Ye shall be baptized with the 
 Holy Ghost, not many days hence." This is 
 the prediction of Christ ; and it had its fulfil- 
 ment on the day of Pentecost, by the pouring 
 out and shedding forth of the Spirit upon 
 the apostles. Now, candid reader, was there 
 any thing like immersion here ? And if John 
 understood the language which he used when 
 speaking of the baptism of the Spirit, and if the 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 127 
 
 sign is to agree with the thing signified, the 
 shadoin with the subslance, how could John give 
 water baptism by immersion, when he knew that 
 Christ would pour out, or shed forth, the 
 Spirit ? 
 
 But Mr. B., Sermon, p. 39, thinks it very 
 " absurd" to suppose that " the manner of the 
 immaterial Spirit should be represented by the 
 use that is made of a material element." How 
 absurd — " strange enough is the argument" 
 drawn from the pouring out of the Spirit. But, 
 unfortunately for this gentleman, on the very 
 next page he is guilty of this very ah surdity. 
 Hear him, in quoting Ezek. xxxvi, 25 — " Then 
 will / sprinkle clean water upon you," &c. He 
 says, " The allusion is, unquestionably, to those 
 divine influences by which men are cleansed 
 from their moral defilement." " Divine influ- 
 ences," are they immaterial? or has Mr. B. 
 found some mode of purifying men without the 
 immaterial Spirit ? — some " divine influences" 
 that are not of the Spirit of Gcd ? He quotes 
 the very text that is against him, and says, 
 " God himself is to sprinkle clean water ;" and 
 this clean water to he applied by sprinkling 
 represents the " divine influences," Mr. B. him- 
 self being judge. But then it is " absurd" to 
 represent the " immaterial Spirif' by the " ma- 
 terial element v*^ater." So God himself is re- 
 presented here as guilty of this " absurdity." 
 For if the question be asked. How will God 
 cleanse them from their idols ? the answer is, 
 With " clean water. ^^ In what manner will he 
 
128 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 apply the element ? the answer is, " I will 
 sprinkle clean water ^ipon you." It is strange 
 that men should thus talk, not only without 
 book, but against the book of God. In such 
 cases they demonstrate nothing but their own 
 folly, or the weakness and hopelessness of their 
 cause. 
 
 The baptism of the Spirit by " pouring," and 
 
 " SHEDDING FORTH," and " FALLING UPON," &C., 
 
 has always been very embarrassing to our Bap- 
 tist friends. Mr. B., Sermon, p. 39, labours 
 hard to evade the matter, by attempting to show 
 that the disciples, on the day of Pentecost, were 
 immersed in the Spirit. He asks, " Were they 
 immersed in the Spirit, when the Spirit filled 
 the room where they were sitting, or were they 
 not? I am willing your common sense should 
 decide." Here he will have it, that though the 
 Spirit was " poured," it was poured until the 
 room was filled, so that they luere immersed in 
 it. It is strange that Christian men will persist 
 in tying down the word baptize to one meaning 
 only, and that at the expense of the word of 
 God, and even of common sense. For that he 
 has " erred in vision," or " stumbled in judg- 
 ment," the reader can clearly see, by a refer- 
 ence to Acts ii. Not one word is said there 
 about the Spirit '■''filling the house,''^ nor of its 
 " overwhelming the disciples." The language 
 in Acts ii, 1, 2, is, " And when the day of Pen- 
 tecost was fully come, they were all with one 
 accord in one place. And suddenly there came 
 A sound from heaven as a rushing mighty 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 129 
 
 wind, a7id it filled all the house where they 
 were sitting. And there appeared unto them 
 cloven tongues as of fire, and it sat upon each 
 of them. And they were all filled with the 
 Holy Ghost." If it is said the house was 
 filled, and they were therefore immersed, the 
 questions may be asked, With what was the 
 house filled? With luhat were they immersed? 
 In English, it is expressed by the pronoun 
 " IT,"—" it filled all the house ;" the Greek 
 has no pronoun. Well, what is the antecedent 
 to "zY.?" I answer, the word ^^ sound y The 
 word in the Greek is " echos," an echo, a rever- 
 berating sound. 
 
 So it seems Mr. B, has only erred in vision, 
 so far as to mistake a sound, an echo, for the 
 Spirit of God. Is, then, a reverberating sound, 
 surrounding the bodies of the apostles, and the 
 Spirit of God falling upon their hearts, the 
 same thing? The reader can judge. 
 
 The sound filled the house, and — if you 
 please, though it sounds rather odd — they were 
 immersed in the sound. But this is not to be 
 confounded with the cloven tongues, or the Hohj 
 Spirit, mentioned in the following verses 
 " They were all filled with the Holy Gpiost." 
 The SOUND filled the place ; the Spirit filled 
 the persons; the sound was without them; the 
 Spirit was vnthin them. 
 
 The old prophet did not commit such a 
 
 blunder as to mistake the sound of wind for the 
 
 voice of the Spirit. " x\nd behold, the Lord 
 
 passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the 
 
 9 
 
130 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks, before 
 the Lord ; but the Lord was not in the wind," 
 1 Kings xix, IL As in this case, the wind 
 came before the Lord spake to the prophet in 
 *' a still small voice ;" so, on the day of Pente- 
 cost, the rushing mighty wind came first, and 
 filled the house, then the Lord poured out 
 upon them the Holy Ghost. 
 
 But orantinff, for the sake of arorument, that 
 the Spirit is intended by the sound, the Baptist 
 manner of administering the ordinance is not 
 helped by it. For the sound, or Spirit, came 
 Dowx, DESCENDING upon them. The baptismal 
 element came upon the subjects. They did not 
 descend into it. The element was active ; the 
 subjects were passive ; which exactly corre- 
 sponds with our mode. In the mode of Mr. B. 
 this order is completely reuer^ec?. The view of 
 Mr. Broaddus, on this case, makes against a 
 favourite notion of many of his Baptist brethren, 
 viz., that the baptism promised by Christ, and 
 given on the day of Pentecost, was restricted 
 to the apostles as the subjects; and to the ex- 
 traordinary or miraculous gifts conferred upon 
 them ; and not to the ordinary gift of the Holy 
 Spirit, conferred upon all Christians. For if, 
 as he says, " the mind was the Spirit,^'' then all 
 present were equally immersed with the apos- 
 tles ; and we learn from verse 15 of the pre- 
 ceding chapter, that " the number of the names 
 together were about a hundred and twenty^ 
 " And when the day of Pentecost was fully 
 come, they were all, with one accord, in one 
 
I 
 
 MODE OF BAPTISM. 13^1 
 
 PLACE." " And suddenly there came a sonnd 
 from heaven," &c. So that they all obtained 
 the extraordinary influences of the Spirit. It 
 is not admitted by those who refer the baptism 
 of the Spirit to its extraordinary influences, that 
 any received it, except the twelve apostles ; yet 
 Mr. B.'s interpretations of the matter give mira- 
 culous powers to them all, one hundred and 
 twenty in number. Both he and they are wrong, 
 for the idnd was not the Spirit; and the baptism 
 of the Holy Ghost is not confined to the apos- 
 tles : for Joel said, " It shall be poured out upon 
 ALL FLESH," verse 17; and Peter said, "The 
 promise is to all, as many as the Lord our God 
 shall caU,''^ verse 39. Reader, no man in his 
 senses ever supposed that " all flesh," — " all 
 that the Lord should call''" to be Christians, — 
 were to receive the extraordinary gifts of the 
 Holy Ghost. You see, then, with what pro- 
 priety our Baptist friends attempt to turn into 
 ridicule the practice of Pedobaptists praying 
 for the baptism of the Holy Ghost. 
 
 In every case Avhere the Spirit is spoken of 
 as having been given, it is said to have been 
 
 " SHED FORTH," Or " POURED OUT," Or " CAME 
 
 ox THEM," or " FELL ON ALL THEM Avhich heard 
 the word," " On the Gentiles, also, was poured 
 out the gift of the Holy Ghost." Acts x, 44, 45. 
 And in xi, 15, 16, Peter says, "And as I began 
 to speak, the Holy Ghost fell ox them, as on 
 us at the beginning. Then remembered I the 
 word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed 
 BAPTIZED u-ith WATER ; but ye shall be bap- 
 
132 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 TizED with the Holy Ghost." There is no 
 ivind, or sound, said to have filled the house of 
 Cornelius, when the Holy Ghost was poured 
 out upon the Gentiles. This, notwithstanding, 
 Peter calls a hoptism of the Holy Ghost, by 
 pouring out or falling upon them. 
 
 Query — Did Peter give them loater baptism 
 by immersion, in full view of the fact that God 
 had just given them spiritual baptism by pour- 
 ing? It is scarcely credible. 
 
 It is enough for me to be satisfied that I fol- 
 low the example of hirn who baptizes with the 
 Holy Ghost ; that I apply the water to meji's 
 bodies as he applies the Spirit to their souls. 
 Thus a spiritual baptism will be administered 
 in the church to the end of time ; and this ordi- 
 nance will be given according to the Pedobap- 
 tist mode ; for it is written, " I will pour out my 
 Spirit upon all fteshy — See Isaacs on Baptism, 
 pp. 57, 58. 
 
 So much for Mr. B. and his " immersion in 
 the Spirit." Again : Most of the cases of bap- 
 tism recorded in the Acts furnish strong, not 
 to say conclusive, evidence that they were not 
 baptized by immersion, but in some other way. 
 
 I am aw^are that our Baptist friends have a 
 wonderful facility at finding '^ streams,^' ''baths,^^ 
 ^^tanhs,^^ ^^ pools,'' " hogsheads," &c.. Sermon, 
 p. 35, whenever they read of a case of baptism. 
 Unfortunately for their cause, however, they 
 very often cannot agree among themselves con- 
 cerning the means or facilities for giving the 
 ordinance by immersion in the particular case. 
 
MODE or BAPTIciM. 133 
 
 Hence, when you ask, Where were the three 
 thousand baptized on the day of Pentecost ? 
 each sets his imagination to work to find a 
 baptizing place. 3*Ir. B. says. Sermon, p. 38, 
 "The city was watered by the brook Kidron, 
 and the pools of Siloam and Bethesda, which 
 would furnish an abundant supply of water." 
 In the warm season the brook Kidron was 
 generally dry, and travellers say that it is dry 
 nine months in the year ; and that those three 
 thousand were baptized in warm weather is 
 evident from the fact that the feast of Pentecost 
 took place at the close of wheat harvest. This 
 stream was always inconsiderable, except after 
 heavy rains : and these made the stream muddy 
 and unfit for bathing. Mr. B. says that the filth 
 from the city did not run up stream, and there- 
 fore they might have gone above the city for 
 the purpose of immersion. But the reader will 
 recollect that this gentleman has said " Jerusa- 
 lem contained a million of inhabitants ;" and, 
 according to Strabo, was about sixty furlongs, 
 or about eight miles in length. Then, sup- 
 posing the preaching to have taken place in 
 the temple, as is most likely; and admitting 
 that temple to have stood in the midst of the 
 city; it would have been a journey of at least 
 four miles to have gotten to Kidron above the 
 city. Some of our Baptist friends, feeling the 
 difficulty connected with the supposition that 
 they were baptized in Kidron, (especially as 
 the passage says not one word about their leav- 
 ing the place o( preaching in order to receive 
 
134 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 the ordinance,) and their theory requiring them 
 to find some means whereby to immerse the 
 three thousand, have supposed that they were 
 baptized in the " brazen lavei\'" or in the vessels 
 used by the Jews for purification, &c. The 
 reader v/ill recollect that these public and pri- 
 vate bathing places were in the keeping of the 
 enemies of Christ — those who had been his 
 betrayers and murderers. It is not likely that 
 thei/ would allow Peter, and the other apostles, 
 to use them for the baptizing of their converts. 
 If there had been a probability that Peter wished 
 to drown those who had received the doctrine 
 of Christ's Messiahship, then, indeed, he might 
 possibly have been permitted to use their baths. 
 Moreover, the manner of purifying among the 
 Jews must have been — generally, at least — by 
 sprinkling or pouring, as we may learn from 
 John ii, 6 : *' And there were set six water pots 
 of stone, after the manner of the purifying of 
 the Jews." We have no doubt there was water 
 enough in Jerusalem to immerse ten thousand 
 people, and we should believe they were bap- 
 tized by that mode, if we had any evidence of 
 it. But, in the total absence of all evidence, 
 we cannot take the suppositions of our Baptist 
 friends for proof 
 
 Again, the cases of Cornelius and his family, 
 Saul of Tarsus, and those that Paul met at 
 Ephesus, Acts xix, and the jailer and his 
 family at Philippi, were all cases where the 
 ordinance was administered without so much 
 as a " Ja?/i" or ^^ cistern''^ being mentioned. But 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 135 
 
 the immersionists are always ready with the 
 means to immerse ; they find a " bathing tub" 
 in the house of Cornelius, and a tank, or cistern, 
 in the jail at Philippi, and a hath in the private 
 house where Ananias found penitent Saul of 
 Tarsus. I would just suggest, that if they were 
 to apply the reasoning which they use with 
 regard to " infant baptism" to these cases, it 
 would ruin their own cause. 
 
 The baptism of Lydia and her family, and of 
 the eunuch, are all the Christian baptisms that 
 were performed out of doors, so far as we have 
 any information. On the case of Lydia, Mr. B.. 
 Sermon, p. 37, makes a remark calculated to 
 mislead the reader. " It is worthy of remark," 
 says he, " that the sermon which produced her 
 conversion was preached by the river side, and 
 that she and her family were baptized before 
 they went into her house. As they were at 
 the river side, they could readily be immersedP 
 And I say, as they were near the water, they 
 could be readily sprinkled. If the reader will 
 be at the pains to look at Acts xvi, 13-15, he 
 will see plainly that Mr. B.'s remark is unfair, 
 and makes an erroneous impression. The state 
 of the case was simply this : Paul, Silas, Ti- 
 mothy, and Luke, in their travel, came to Phi- 
 lippi ; they remained there " certain days ;" and 
 when the sabbath came, they "walked " out of 
 the^^ idolatrous city, and found a few women by 
 the river side holding a prayer meeting. What, 
 it may be asked, induced these women to go 
 out there to worship ? Not to receive baptism. 
 
136 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AXD 
 
 candid reader ; that, in all probability, was not 
 in all their thoughts when they went to the 
 river side. They were either Jews or prose- 
 lytes, who were not suffered to worship the 
 true God within the limits of the heathen city. 
 And when the apostles went out, and, as by 
 accident, fell in with these devout women, they 
 " sat down and spake to them." x\nd while 
 Paul was speaking, " the Lord opened Lydia's 
 heart." And he, pursuing the *' apostolic pat- 
 tern," gave the ordinance of baptism just where 
 the word took effect. When the word took 
 effect on the people out of doors, they did not 
 go into the house to administer the ordinance ; 
 and when it took effect in the house, they did not 
 go out of doors to give the ordinance ! If Paul 
 had been a preacher of the modern Baptist 
 stamp, and had worked by their " pattern," he 
 would not have given Lydia baptism until she 
 had related a " Christian experience," such as 
 should be considered " evangelical ;" and per- 
 haps not until she had waited for weeks or 
 months, to be certain that she was not deceived. 
 Paul's practice in this case was just such as a 
 Pedobaptist's would have been. They never go 
 from water in order to baptize. And he bap- 
 tized Lydia and her family at the ^' river side,^* 
 not IN the river, before they went into the 
 house, or even into the city. 
 
 Reader, this presents a striking contrast with 
 a case which occurred under the administration 
 of a Baptist preacher, not fifty miles from where 
 Mr. B. now lives. A candidate presented him- 
 
MODE OF BAl'lISJI. 137 
 
 self in the " church meeting,*' and related his 
 " experience ;" from which it appeared he had 
 been convicted several years before, and converted 
 some twelve months, or more, prior to his offering 
 himself for baptism. The preacher was highly- 
 delighted with the delay; pronounced it an 
 " apostolical experience," — " the work not of a 
 few days, but of years ;^^ and admitted him to 
 the ordinance. So he understood the " apostolic 
 pattern." I leave it to the candour and common 
 sense of the reader, whether the New Testa- 
 ment furnishes any such case as the above !. 
 Saul of Tarsus was baptized on the third day 
 after his conviction, and that is the longest 
 delay we read of. In justice to Mr. B., I must 
 say, he is not the preacher referred to. 
 
 On the case of the jailer, Acts xvi, 23 to 40, 
 Mr. B., Sermon, p. 37, has attempted a strange 
 imposition upon tlie reader. He does indeed 
 " correct the diction of the Spirit by that of the 
 party," in the language of Mr. G. Campbell, as 
 quoted by Mr. B. Putting certain words in 
 capital letters, he makes an attempt to prove 
 that the jailer and his family went out to a place 
 where there was water sufficient to immerse 
 them. I was more convinced from this part of 
 Mr. B.'s sermon than from any other, that he 
 considered his cause in danger. I request the 
 reader to take up his Bible, the plain man's 
 lexicon, and just look at the passage in the 
 spirit of candour, and he will see, without the 
 wisdom of Solomon, that this gentleman has 
 attempted to make the passage speak a language 
 
138 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 which Luke, the writer, never intended. He 
 has put the words ^^ brought''^ and ^'- outp and 
 *■'- brought them into his house^'' in capitals, and 
 says, " As to the facilities for obtaining water, 
 the river Strymon, as geographers tell us, ran 
 through the city, where water could be had, 
 even if the jailer had no bathing cistern on his 
 premises ;" and then says, " I have shown that 
 the jailer, and Paul, and Silas, went out of the 
 house to administer baptism ; and though they 
 should have to go live miles to a river or bath, 
 I will put them to that trouble, before I will 
 consent that baptizo shall be deprived of the 
 meaning which Professor Stuart says ' all lexi- 
 cographers and critics of any note have assigned 
 to it.' " Professor Stuart says just the contrary, 
 as I have shown in another place. Mr. B. pro- 
 ceeds : " But the truth is, to a mind disposed to 
 be governed by the plain, common sense mean- 
 ing of the language of Scripture, there will be 
 no difficulty in finding water for immersion 
 within reach of the jailer's house, or indeed in 
 his house, prepared for the purpose in a hogs- 
 head, if it were not so fully stated that they 
 were baptized while out of the house" Baptist 
 preachers heretofore (so far as I am informed) 
 have never dreamed that they were baptized 
 out of the house, but have invented a ^^cistern^^ 
 or '^tank'^ in the jail. This gentleman has 
 struck out a new course — invented a new salvo 
 for the case. He had just as well have put the 
 words " thrust them into," in verse 24, in capi- 
 tals, to prove that Paul dipped them into the 
 
r 
 
 MODE OF BAPTISM. 1 39 
 
 '^Sfrj/mo7i" as to have put '^brought theni out," 
 and ''brought them into his house,^^ in capitals, 
 to prove that they went out to a baptizing place. 
 One would have been as near the truth as the 
 other. And these are the men who stand up 
 and tell the people they only need to look into 
 the New Testament, without note or comment, 
 to see " the law of baptism." and the practice 
 of the apostles under that law. " The Bible," 
 say they, " is the best book on baptism." 
 
 Most commentators give the text first, and 
 then the explanation, but these reverse this order. 
 They give the Baptist comment first, and then 
 the sacred text. The comment is, " The word 
 baptize means to dip or immerse onlyf^ and 
 then if you meet with a text like the one under 
 consideration, where it is difficult to find water 
 for immersion, then you must apply your com- 
 ment on the word *' baptize ;" and have them 
 plunged, any how, even if you immerse them in 
 a figure, " or immerse them in a wind or sound,^^ 
 for the Spirit, or have them go to the river 
 " Strymon," or even five miles at midnight ; 
 and if you cannot see that they were really out 
 of doors, you can immerse them " in a hogs- 
 head" of water, prepared for the purpose. 
 
 I will now give the reader a view of this case 
 as it stands in the passage referred to above. 
 In verse 23, we find that " the magistrates laid 
 many stripes on Paul and Silas, and cast them 
 into prison, charging the jailer to keep them 
 safely." In verse 24, we find, " he having re- 
 ceived such a charcre. thrust them i7ito the inner 
 
140 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 prison, and made their feet fast in the stocks." 
 I ask, Where are they now? You say they are 
 in. the inner prison, or dungeon. Very good. 
 When God had shaken the jail with an earth- 
 quake, verse 26, and the doors flew open, " and 
 every one's bands were loosed," the jailer 
 awakening up, " called for a light, sprang in, 
 and fell down before Paul and Silas," and 
 brought them out, and said. Sirs, what must I 
 do to be saved ? Verses 29, 30. I ask, Where 
 are they now 1 You say, Just where they were 
 before they were put in the in?ier prison. That 
 is true. Reader, you will take notice that the 
 words " brought them out'''' occur before any thing 
 is said either about believing or baptism, and 
 before there was any preaching. And they 
 said, verse 31, "Believe on the Lord Jesus 
 Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." 
 *' And he took them the same hour of the iiight, 
 and washed their stripes ; and was baptized, 
 he and all his, straightway.'''' Verse 33. " And 
 when he had brought them into his house, he 
 set meat before them," &c. Verse 34. And the 
 reader will find in verse 40, that " they went 
 out of the prison, and entered into the house of 
 Lydia." 
 
 Mr. B.'s version of the matter makes them 
 come out of the house at midnight to preach the 
 gospel, as well as to baptize ; for the words, 
 brought them out, are before his " speaking to 
 them the word of the Lord," for they are not 
 said to have been brought into his house until 
 after the baptizing ; he brought them in to give 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 141 
 
 them something to eat. As Mr. B. will have 
 them brought out of the jail before the service 
 took place, and as we have seen they were not 
 in the jailer's apartment until after the baptism ; 
 then they must have exhibited the odd spectacle 
 of persons going out of a building to preach at 
 midnight. Unfortunately for Mr. B.'s theory, 
 where the bringing out is spoken of, nobody is 
 mentioned but Paul, Silas, and the jailer. Yet, 
 when the baptizing is mentioned, " he and all 
 his" are " baptized straightioay .''^ The true state 
 of the case was evidently this : he brought them 
 out of the dungeon into the outer prison, and 
 asked, " What must I do to be saved ?" The 
 family, children, and domestics are assembled 
 to hear the sermon, " and they spake unto him 
 the word of the Lord, and to all that were in 
 his house.'' Here the Greek w^ord vmia is used, 
 which signifies the household, the whole do- 
 mestic establishment, according to Schrevelius's 
 Lexicon. He interprets it by the Latin word 
 domus, w'hich Cole's Latin Dictionary interprets, 
 a house, family, household, &lc. 
 
 When the sermon was over, and the jailer 
 had received baptism, with all his family, and 
 had washed the stripes of the preachers, " he 
 took them into his house, and set meat before 
 them," &LC. Nov/, I suppose, in this, as in all 
 large cities, the jailer occupied a part of the 
 same building with the prisoners. At least, he 
 was so near, that in the midnight hour, when he 
 av/aked up, he saw " the prison doors open ;" 
 and when he drew out his sword to commit 
 
142 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 suicide, Paul cried to him, " Do thyself no harm." 
 And he " called for a light, and sprang in." I 
 ask again, Where 1 Into the inner prison. The 
 phraseology of the passage would leave the 
 impression on the mind of an unbiassed reader 
 that the jailer's family resided in a part of the 
 same building with the prisoners. The Roman 
 law made prison keepers answerable for the 
 safe keeping of those committed to them : hence 
 the precaution this man took to put the prisoners 
 in the dungeon, and make " their feet fast in 
 the stocks." And hence he was about to take 
 his own life, " when he supposed the prisoners 
 had fled." We find, from Acts xii, 18,19, that 
 the keepers of the prison who let Peter escape 
 paid for it with their lives. And they were 
 under the same civil jurisdiction or laws with the 
 Philippian jailer. I am quite willing to leave 
 it to the decision of the intelligent reader ; in 
 view of the law — in view^ of the fact of Peter's 
 escape, and the death of those who suffered 
 him to escape — in view of its being midnight, 
 and in view of the passage saying not one word 
 about their going away from the prison ; — whe- 
 ther they went to the " river Strymon," or to 
 any other place, for the purpose of immersion ? 
 So much for Mr. B.'s " brought them out." 
 As it regards a bath or cistern in the prison, for 
 the comfort and cleanliness of the prisoners, 
 we would remark that such things are not very 
 common, even now, after all the untiring efforts 
 of such men as John Howard, the philanthropist, 
 in behalf of prisoners ; and they made no part 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 143 
 
 of the appendages of an ancient heathen prison. 
 I think it will appear that the circumstances 
 of this case of baptism are qnite as inflexible 
 against ijnmersion as Mr, B. is disposeid to think 
 the Greek word iSaTrrci^o is for it. And if he 
 had possessed candour enough to quote his 
 Schrevelius on this word, as he did on the word 
 Traidia when arguing against the " infants,''^ 
 Sermon, p. 13, we should have had a different 
 account of it. It suited his purpose better to 
 quote Dr. Carson, as he makes the word mean 
 immersion only. And if, in the case above 
 referred to, viz., Traidia^ he had possessed the 
 candour to quote the parallel passage in Luke 
 xviii, 15, he would have found the word 
 " ,i3fjfda," the plural of jSpecpoc, used, which 
 Schrevelius would inform him signifies "m- 
 fans,'" an " i?fa7it" a " babe." He would thus 
 have been saved from the ridiculous attitude 
 of a Christian teacher attempting to explain 
 away the words of the Holy Ghost, as used by 
 St. Mark. 
 
 The case of the eunuch, found in iVcts viii, 
 26 to 39, is considered by our opponents as 
 conclusive evidence in favour of immersion. 
 But when this matter is sifted a little, the evi- 
 dence will not appear quite as conclusive as 
 those have thought who have been taught all 
 their life to consider nothing to be baptism that 
 falls short of dipping or immersion. With re- 
 gard to the prepositions used here, we have 
 shown in another place that nothing can be 
 gathered from their use in this controversy. 
 
144' OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 Mr. B. seems to concede that the eunuch's im- 
 mersion cannot be proved from ^^ going into" 
 and " coming ouf^ of the water. He says, Stric- 
 tures, p. 17, and Sermon, p. 36, " You must not 
 suppose that my argument is founded on going 
 into, and coming out of, the water : for all this, 
 I know, might be done without any immersion; 
 here is the argument : Why should they go into 
 the water, merely to sprinkle ?" and asks, " Who 
 ever said that going into the water means im- 
 mersion ? Did any intelligent man ever say so ?" 
 I reply that many men have said so ; but as it 
 regards their intelligence, we say nothing. In 
 this case, as in most others, Mr, B. has to re- 
 sort to his version of haptizo. 
 
 When we refer to the passage, we find that 
 the eunuch was travelling through a country 
 which was " a desert,^^ and, consequently, the 
 water they came to was not a considerable 
 stream ; as is probable, we think, from the fact 
 that in that country even small streams made 
 the places where they w^ere found populous, as 
 any person can see by a reference to the map. 
 And, moreover, as the streams where John is 
 said to have administered the ordinance are 
 mentioned hy name, it is probable that if this 
 had been a watercourse, or stream, worthy a 
 name, its name also would have been given. 
 The language of the eunuch is, " See, here is 
 water!" — an exclamation, as though he had 
 unexpectedly discovered it. The reader may 
 find, by a reference to the passage which he 
 was reading at the time Philip fell in with him, 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 145 
 
 that it stands in intimate connection with, and 
 is di part of the ^amc prophecy, where Isaiah, lii, 
 15, speaks ot" Christ " sprinkling many 7iations.'" 
 And hideed there are but six verses between, 
 that passage and the text from which " PhiUp 
 preached unto him Jesus." He, no doubt, gave 
 him to understand that himself and others were 
 acting under a commission to " disciple all na- 
 tions, baptizing them," &c., and, of consequence, 
 when he became willing to receive Christ, he 
 offered himself for baptism. I can see, there- 
 fore, how he could readily understand the rite 
 of initiation to be administered by sprinkling. 
 For, whether the passage above quoted was 
 explained by Philip as alluding to baptism lite^ 
 rally, or to the thing signified by it, in either 
 case the mode is by " ^sprinklings many na- 
 tions." So I conclude that he did not give him 
 baptism by immersion, as a symbol of that spi- 
 ritual washing that was to be effected by 
 sprinkling. But perhaps an immersionist would 
 like to suggest that the prophet refers to what 
 Christ would do himself; and that, therefore, 
 the prophecy cannot refer to the apostle's 
 making " disciples of the nations by sprinkling." 
 I reply, that it is very common in Scripture 
 language for God to be represented as doing 
 Avhat he causes to be done. The reader can 
 find a striking case in point, John iii, 22 : " After 
 these things came Jesus and his disciples into 
 the land of Judea ; and there he tarried with them 
 and baptized.''' Compare this with the first and 
 second verses of the next chapter : " AVhen, 
 10 
 
146 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 therefore, the Lord knew how the Pharisees 
 had ' heard that Jesus made and baptized more 
 disciples than John.' Though Jesus himself 
 baptized not, hut his disciples.'" Here is evi- 
 dently as plain a declaration that " Christ bap- 
 tized,'^ as the prophet has, " he shall sprinkle 
 many nations," and yet we are informed subse- 
 quently that " Jesus baptized not, but his dis- 
 ciples." 
 
 How natural, then,, was it for the eunuch to 
 ask for baptism, if Philip gave him an explana- 
 tion of the prophecy, as referring to the ordi- 
 nance of Christian baptism given by " sprinkling 
 the nations." Whatever others may think, I 
 am decidedly of the opinion that this is the 
 genuine interpretation of the passage. And 
 that the whole of the fifty-second and fifty-third 
 chapters of Isaiah refer to what should take 
 place under the gospel ; " the sufferings of 
 Christ, and the glory that should follow," in 
 the setting up and establishment of the gospel 
 kingdom ; when the Messiah should " see his 
 seed," " and the pleasure of the Lord should 
 prosper in his hands," when " his doctrine" 
 shall " come down" on the nations " as rain," 
 under the preaching of his apostles and their 
 successors, and when by their hands he should 
 *' sprinkle many nations.^' 
 
 I conclude, from the above, that Philip and 
 the eunuch came to a spring or run of water ; 
 that they both alighted, and going to the water, 
 he received the ordinance, and afterward went 
 on his way rejoicing. But Mr. B. asks, " Why 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 147 
 
 should they go into the water in order to 
 sprinkle .'"' I reply, For aiiglit thai appears to 
 the contrar\', they were no more in the water 
 than the sons of the prophets were '• when they 
 came «f* to Jordan to cut down wood," 2 Kings 
 vi, 4 ; the san;e preposition is used in the case 
 under consideration. I presume the sons of the 
 prophets hardly stood in the river to fell trees. 
 
 The missionary, Mr. Wolf, found a sect of 
 Christians in Mesopotamia who called them- 
 selves " the followers of John the Baptist," who 
 baptized children at thirty days old, and who 
 performed the rite by sprinkling water upon the 
 child at the edge of a river. See his Journal, 
 vol. ii, p. 311, as quoted by Watson. Mr. Wolf 
 asks, " Why do they baptize in rivers ?" An- 
 swer : " Because St. John the Baptist baptized 
 ill the river Jordan." " Thus we have in modern 
 times, river baptism without immersion^ 
 
 We next notice a favourite argument of ouv 
 Baptist friends, drawn from the supposed immer- 
 sion of Christ. " If nobody else ever w^as bap- 
 tized by immersion," say they, " surely tJie 
 Master was; and we are commanded to take 
 lip our cross and follovj hi?n.^^ We are by no 
 means convinced that Christ 2cas immersed. 
 And if it could be shown that he was, I have 
 not been able to find in the New Testament 
 the command to receive the same baptism that 
 he received. I hold that the baptism of Jesus 
 Christ was veri/ peculiar; such as no other 
 
 * Etc; ror ~opdav?]v. See vcr-^ion of ihe J,XX. — Ed. 
 
148 OBLIGATfONj SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 person ever received. 1st. He being without 
 sin, could neither repent nor promise amend- 
 ment of life. 2d. Being the wisdom of God, 
 he could be tausfht nothinsf. 3d. Beinsf the 
 
 Go & 
 
 Christ, he could not profess that he v/ould be- 
 lieve in him that should come after him, that is, 
 in Imnsclf. He therefore was baptized, 1st. To 
 honour the office of his herald ; 2d. That he 
 might fulfil the righteousness of John's dispen- 
 sation ; and 3d. Tha.t by this rite he might be 
 inducted into his public office, as the " prophet 
 like to xMoses ;" as the High Priest over the 
 house of God. The language of Robert Hall 
 is, " He was inaugurated into his office at his 
 baptism, till which period he remained in the 
 obscurity of private life," &c. See Works, 
 vol. i, p. 372. 
 
 At thirty years of age the priests were 
 " washed with water," and " anointed with oil," 
 Exod. xxix, 4, 7, and Lev. viii, 6, 10-12. So 
 we find that Christ, at the age of thirty, was 
 washed of John at Jordan, and " anointed with 
 the Holy Ghost ;" and John said, " I knew him 
 not, but he that sent me to baptize said, Upon 
 whomsoever thou shalt see the Spirit descend 
 and light vpon him, he it is that baptizeth with 
 tlie Holy Ghost." 
 
 I suppose Mr. B. vrill hardly say that while 
 Jesus stood upon the bank of Jordan the Spirit 
 immersed him; (when 'the text says, "It de- 
 scended upon him like a dove," John i, 32, 33 ;) 
 as there is nothing said here about a loind, or 
 sound, filling all out of doors. Those who talk 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 141) 
 
 SO much of '' following Christ down to Jordan," 
 and are perpetually troubling the weak, but 
 sincere believer in Jesus, about being immersed 
 in imitation of Christ's example, ought to recol- 
 lect that he was circumcised as well as bap- 
 tized, and that after his baptism he fasted forty 
 days and nights, and had a severe rencontre 
 with the great adversary of God and man, be- 
 fore he entered upon the discharge of the func- 
 tions of his high office. They should recollect 
 also that he regularly kept the Jewish passover, 
 and his disciples also kept it with him ; he also 
 washed their feet, and said to them, " Do to one 
 another as I have done to you." Those who 
 would receive the baptism which Christ re- 
 ceived from John, (even if this were possible,) 
 would need rebaptizing, in order to be initiated 
 into the Christian church ; for we have the 
 authority of St. Paul, Acts xix, and of that dis- 
 tinguished Baptist preacher, Robert Hall, of 
 England, for saying that John's was not the 
 Christian haptism. His words are, as quoted 
 in the first part of this discussion, '■^ No rite 
 celchrated at that time (i. e., during John's mi- 
 nistry) is entitled to a place among Christian 
 sacramexts, since they did not commence with 
 the Christian dispensation." — Hall's Works, 
 vol. i, p. 372. Now if our Baptist friends will 
 insist that they must go to the water, and do as 
 Jesus did, (i. e., receive John's baptism,) we 
 cannot go with them, for we cannot consent to 
 abandon our right to an interest in the Christian 
 dispensation. Hear the words of our Master, 
 
IjO OBLIGAIIOX, SUBJECTS, A\D 
 
 Luke vii, 28: "Among those that are bora of 
 women, there is not a greater prophet than John 
 the Baptist ; but he that is least in the. kiiigdom 
 of God IS greater than heP And Mr. Hall says, 
 that " the phrase kingdom of God is constanthf 
 used to denote that state of things under the 
 administration of the Messiah." See as above. 
 
 He, therefore, who would forsake the king- 
 dom OF God, or Christian church, and go 
 back to John at Jordan, under the fanciful idea 
 of following Christ, might, with equal propriety j 
 have his male children circumcised at eight 
 days old, and constantly keep the Jewish pass- 
 over ; for he could plead the example of Christ 
 in honouring these institutions also. 
 
 But I shall be told that the Scriptures say, 
 *' And straightway coming up out of the water, 
 he saw the heavens opened," Mark i, 10. It is 
 said in Matt, iii, 16, " And Jesus, when he was 
 baptized, locnt up straightway out of the water." 
 In both these places the Greek word a~o is 
 used, the tirst sense of wdiich, according to 
 Parkhurst's Lexicon, is " from ;" so we see 
 that nothing can be fairly made out from his 
 case to show that even the manner in which he 
 received the ordinance was by plunging. His 
 coming up, and going up, show nothing for im- 
 mersion ; because they imply action, whereas in 
 immersion the subject is always passive. 
 
 We must now call the attention o( the candid 
 reader to the favourite argument of our differing 
 brethren, drawn from a fanciful interpretation 
 of Rom. vi, 4, " Therefore we are buried with 
 
f 
 
 MODE OF BAPTISM. 151 
 
 him by baptism into death," &c., and Col. ii, 
 12. Mr. B., Sermon, p. 10, seems to consider 
 this allusion of the apostle as a most conclusive 
 argument for the mode of baptism by immersion. 
 Ho says, *' I pause to admire the wisdom of the 
 Most High, in putting it into the mind of his 
 inspired servant to describe the ordinance of 
 baptism by so familiar an allusion. Let the 
 learned, my brethren, dispute about the mean- 
 ing of Greek verbs and prepositions, you all 
 understand what a hurial is, and if Paul called 
 baptism a hurial, you will easily decide whether" 
 he meant, sprinkling, pouring, or immersion.^'* 
 Query — Did any of Mr. B.'s hearers or readers 
 ever witness a hurial where the hody was dipped 
 or plunged in the earth? I dare say they have 
 tuitncssed many w^here the body had the earth 
 SPRINKLED OR POURED UPON IT. It is casy for 
 those who do not think much to be led away 
 with the sound of a word ; but I hope better 
 things of you, intelligent reader. 
 
 There are several serious difficulties which 
 lie against this fanciful argument for imTnersion : 
 1st. Although Mr. B. says St. Paul " describes it 
 by an allusion''' (rather a strange method of de- 
 scription, by the way, and that, too, in a matter 
 where he says, " We may expect to find the 
 word of God very explicit upon the subject," 
 Sermon, p. 6,) yet in all the four gospels, in 
 all that John the Baptist and Jesus Christ ever 
 said with regard to baptism, there is not one 
 solitary intimation that the ordinance had any 
 reference to a hurial : either to the burial and 
 
152" OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 resurrection of Christ, or any other. Again : in 
 all the Acts of the Apostles, in all that they 
 said, from time to time, on the subject of bap- 
 tism, there is no such allusion ; nor is there in 
 the Epistles, except in the two passages above 
 referred to. 2d. That St. Paul has reference 
 to the mode of literal baptism in these passages 
 is exceedingly doubtful ; because no such idea 
 was given him at his own baptism by Ananias^ 
 as that he was to " arise and be baptized, to 
 represent the burial and resurrection of Christ" 
 On the contrary, he said, "Arise and be bap- 
 tized, and WASH away thy sins, calling on the 
 name of the Lord." He was taught, then, to 
 consider baptism as representing the wash- 
 ing away of sins, and not to consider it as re- 
 presenting a grave, the place of loathsomeness 
 and corruption. 
 
 The fine idea that we hear so often advanced 
 about the " liquid grave,^"* the " expressive rite," 
 the " watery tofnb," &c., is a modern invention, 
 and has no authority from the word of God. 
 Who can see any resemblance between a man 
 wading into a creek or river up to his waist or 
 armpits, and another dipping the rest of his 
 body under water, and the laying away of the 
 body of Jesus in a sepulchre, above ground, 
 hewn out of a solid rock, there to remain three 
 days ? Jonah's being three days and nights in 
 the belly of the fish, ims the sign of the burial 
 and resurrection of Christ ; hence Jesus told the 
 Jews, " There shall 710 other sign be given you 
 but the sign of the prophet Jonah ;" and yet our 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 153 
 
 Baptist friends will have it that baptism was, 
 and is, the sign or representation of Christ's 
 burial and resurrection. 
 
 But, reader, their practice is at izjctr with their 
 theory; for if, as they say, baptism does really 
 represent the burial and resurrection of Christ, 
 then they should not require persons to be 
 baptized before they admit them to the Lord's 
 supper ; because in this they require them to 
 show forth the burial and resurrection of Christ 
 before they allow them to obey the command 
 of Jesus, in showing forth his passion and death 
 in the sacred supper. They thus reverse the 
 order of those important facts, and show the 
 hordes resurrection before his death. I have to 
 urge against this interpretation, 3d, That it 
 proves too much ; for if, " being buried," in the 
 passage, alludes to the mode of baptism, then 
 so does " being planted, or grafted, in the like- 
 ness of his death," allude to the mode of bap- 
 tism ; for the subject is the same in verses 5 
 and 6 as in verse 4. And " being crucified" 
 also must refer to the mode. In the passage 
 in Colossians, the " rising with him" spoken of 
 is said to be " through the faith of the operation 
 of God." We can see no good sense in which 
 it can be said, a man rises in baptism " through 
 faith:' 
 
 If any thing in these passages can be shown 
 to allude to the mode of baptism, then partial 
 irnrnersion, as " planting," or using the sign of 
 the cross, has as much evidence in their favour 
 as immersion. In conclusion, we are of opinion 
 
154 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 that these passages refer to the spiritual baptism 
 spoken of in the word of God, 1 Cor. xii, 13, 
 " For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one 
 body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles ;" and 
 we have seen that the " one Spirit" is adminis- 
 tered, by pouring, falling tipo?i, &c. The pas- 
 sage may be considered as referring to the 
 mighty energies of the Spirit of God, whereby 
 the believer is regenerated, " crucified with 
 Christ," " planted in the likeness of his death;" 
 and if baptism literally is referred to at ail, it is 
 only as the instrumental cause, the initiating 
 rite, by which we enter the church, where by 
 professio?i we are, and in fact ought to be, 
 " dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God 
 through Jesus Christ." If our Baptist friends- 
 will insist still that the mode of baptism by im- 
 mersion is referred to, and that the ordinance 
 is intended to represent the burial and 7'esur- 
 rcction of Christ, I have two questions to ask : 
 1st. If the rite was intended to represent these 
 two things, how did it come to pass that the 
 disciples were so ignorant of the doctrine of 
 Christ's resurrection up to the eve of his cruci- 
 fixion, that " they wondered what the rising from 
 the dead should mean V 2d. If this ordinance 
 has been instituted to represent the burial and 
 resurrection of Christ, then we ask. Where is 
 the Christian rite that is the emblem of moral 
 purity ? Christianity has but two sacraments — 
 baptism and the Lord's supper ; the first, em- 
 blematical of the " Spirit's" influences, and the 
 second commemorative of the breaking of the 
 
MODK OF BAPTISM. 155 
 
 body, and the shedding of the blood, of the Sou 
 of God. Blood and water came forth from 
 the pierced side of Jesus, emblematical of atone- 
 ment and of purity. ^^ By water we are purified, 
 and pardoned by his blood. ''^ " There are three 
 that bear witness in earth ; the Spirit, the water, 
 and the blood ; and these three agree in one," 
 1 John V, 8. I consider this text as referring 
 to the Spirit of God, the water of baptism, and 
 the blood of Jesus, all agreeing in one mode of 
 administration^; and that is sprinkling or pouring. 
 Mr. B. says, Sermon, p. 27, " Baptism does 
 not necessarily include the idea of water at all. 
 We might baptize with meal, with oil, with 
 honey, with sand ; the question is, What action 
 constitutes baptism ?" Query — Could a man be 
 immersed in sand ? Sand or meal might be 
 poured or sprinkled on the subject, but the 
 " action^'' as he calls it, could never be dipping 
 or plunging. The word " baptizo," as it occurs 
 in Mark vii, 4, 5, with regard to the washing 
 of hands, cups, tables, &c., cannot be inter- 
 preted as signifying the action of dipping only : 
 for though their hands and cups might have 
 been dipped, yet surely they did not wash or 
 baptize their " brazen vessels,''^ and " tables," or 
 " couches," by immersion. 
 
 i We now notice the argument from antiquity. 
 Mr. B. thinks that the practice of the " ancient 
 church" shows the " pattern" of baptism, and he 
 quotes Mosheim and Robinson, Sermon, p. 41, 
 to prove that the pattern was by immersion. 
 That immersion was practised in the second 
 
156 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 century, and for some time subsequent, we 
 firmly believe. The Baptist argument on this" 
 point runs thus : " The Baptists practise im- 
 mersion, and so did the ancient church ; and, 
 therefore, so did John the Baptist and the 
 apostles." This to them is demonstration. But 
 stop, reader, we must look a little at this argu- 
 ment. The primitive church, in this mode of 
 arguing, is made the connecting link between 
 the New Testament times and our own. Let us 
 now try another argument. In the primitive 
 church, the people were immersed naked, both 
 men and women ; therefore John and the apos- 
 tles immersed people naked ; therefore the Bap- 
 tists ought to immerse people naked. Again : 
 The primitive church gave milk and honey to 
 the baptized, and used unction ; so did John the 
 Baptist and the apostles, so ought the Baptists. 
 Again : The primitive church baptized infants, 
 so did John and the apostles, so ought the Bap- 
 tists. If our friends should object to my insist- 
 ing on the argument being thus pushed to its 
 consequences, I must contend, if the pattern is 
 to be found in the second century, they must 
 ?iot alter that pattern : for Mr. B. says, Sermon, 
 p. 6, " Unless the plan laid down jn the pattern 
 is iinplicitly pursued, the thing required is not 
 performed at all.'''' I will prove by Mr. B.'s 
 witness, (and he will tell the truth in this mat- 
 ter, no doubt, as he is a Baptist,) that the an- 
 cients gave the ordinance, the subjects being 
 in a state of nudity. " The primitive Christians 
 baptized naked. There is no ancient historical 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 157 
 
 fact better authenticated than this." — Robinson's 
 History of Baptism, p. 85. Wall says, " The 
 ancient Christians, when they v/ere baptized by 
 immersion, were all baptized naked ; whether 
 they were men, women, or children. They 
 thought it better represented the putting off the 
 old man, and also the nakedness of Christ on 
 the cross. Moreover, as baptism is a washing, 
 they judged that it should be the v/ashing of 
 the body, not of tlie clothes^ — Wall, chap, xv, 
 part 2. So they understood the pattern. If it 
 were necessary, vve could produce an abun- 
 dance of testimony to confirm this point. And 
 I leave it to the intelligent reader to judge, 
 whether they received this pattern '^ in the 
 mount,'^ or whether it was the offspring of su- 
 perstition. Religion, like the Saviour, is often, 
 placed between two thieves — Superstition on 
 the right hand, and Atheism on the left. The 
 one makes a puppet of her, sets her out in 
 gaudy attire, and mars her native beauty ; the 
 other strips her naked of her vestments, and 
 exposes her to the scorn and contempt of the 
 world. But let these men esteem her as they 
 list, she is nevertheless the fair daughter of the 
 Almig'hty, the queen of heaven, and beauty of 
 the whole earth. And it is known to all that 
 read and think, that human nature has always 
 been prone to add to the simple ceremonies 
 of Christianity. Imposing ordinances are no 
 proof of the genuineness of a religion, under the 
 gospel, where "the true worshippers worship 
 the Father in spirit and in truth." 
 
158 OBLIGATION. SUBJECTS, AXD 
 
 The Baptists very often are found vaunting 
 about the uniformity of their views and prac- 
 tice ; they will tell you that they have always 
 rejected " infant baptism," and always practised 
 immersion. ■ If the reader will attend, I will give 
 him a fact or two from a Baptist writer that will 
 prove a small drawback upon these high preten- 
 sions. In Benedict's History of the Baptists, 
 vol. i, pp. 150-152, it is said, "The American 
 Mennonites have adopted pouring, instead of im- 
 inersion, and it is probable that many, and I 
 know not but most, of the European Mennonites 
 have done the same." The reader will bear in 
 mind that these Baptists have been a numerous 
 sect, in the Netherlands, Upper Saxony, Prus- 
 sia, Russia, Poland, France, &c., <fec., and their 
 leader, or founder, Menno, who died in 1561, 
 asserted that " dipping was the only haptis?n 
 acceptable to God." " The Dutch Baptists," 
 says Benedict, " held to dipping believers at 
 first ; they still retain the subjects of the ordi- 
 nance, but, by a surprising change, some, I 
 know not how many, have departed from the 
 apostolic mode." It is surely very surprising 
 that so many Baptists should depart from the 
 apostolic pattern, \{ cold bathing is as conveniejit^ 
 pleasant, and healthy as Mr. Broaddus seems to 
 think it. Sermon, p. 40, and Strictures, p. 22, 
 he says, " It often proves beneficial to health," 
 &c. If it could be shown that God has said, 
 All men who are to be baptized must be im- 
 mersed, then there should be no demurring; 
 and although Mr. B. has again and again begged 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM, 159 
 
 the question, without proving the position, we 
 are still of the opinion that those Baptists who 
 have given up immersion, and adopted pouring, 
 have acted wisely. 
 
 We must now say a word on the question of 
 the validity of the ordinance, as administered by 
 those who have never been immersed. Nothing 
 is more common than for our differing brethren 
 to object, when we administer the rite by iminer- 
 sion. We do not consider it " the most excellent 
 way,'' but if any prefer that mode, and we cannot 
 convince them that pouring is the better mode, 
 we immerse them ; and consider that we have 
 given as valid haptism as Elder B. could give. 
 I have sometimes asked our Baptist friends, if 
 the validity of the ordinance rests upon the 
 qualifications of the administrator, or other- 
 wise ; but I have not found them at all agreed 
 in opinion on that point. If the reader will 
 consult Benedict's History of the Baptists, vol. i, 
 p. 475, he will discover that the first Baptist 
 church in this country was founded or planted 
 by Roger Williams, in the year 1639, in Provi- 
 dence, Rhode Island. Mr. Benedict gives the 
 following account of this matter : " Being settled 
 in this place, which, from the kindness of God 
 to them, they called Providence, Mr. Williams, 
 and those with him, considered the importance 
 of gospel union, and were desirous of forming 
 themselves into a church, but met with a con- 
 siderable obstruction ; they were convinced of 
 the nature and design of believers' baptism by 
 immersion, but, from a variety of circumstances, 
 
160 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AXD 
 
 had hitherto been prevented from submission. 
 To obtain a suitable administrator was a matter 
 of consequence : at length, the candidates for 
 communion nominated and appointed Mr. Eze- 
 kiel Holliman, a man of gifts and piety, to bap- 
 tize Mr. Williams ; and who, in return, baptized 
 Mr. Holliman and the other ten." Here is the 
 origin of the Baptists in these United States ; 
 and here was a church, that was no church at 
 all, according to the opinion of many of the 
 Baptists. Mr. HoUiman did not pretend to be 
 either a minister or a baptized believer, but he 
 was appointed to give believers'* baptism to Mr. 
 Williams, and then Mr. W. gave believers' bap- 
 tism to him and the other ten. 
 
 The intelligent reader may see with what 
 consistency the Baptists attempt to invalidate 
 the ordinance as administered by us, even 
 when immersion is the 7node. Although they 
 may attempt to disguise it, yet there are several 
 circumstances which go to show that they con- 
 sider the ordinance given by any but a Baptist 
 preacher as being no baptism at all. 
 
 1st. They will not admit any such to the 
 Lord's table among them. 
 
 2d. If any such offer to join their church, 
 they do not receive them unless they rebaptize 
 them ; and 
 
 3d. If a Methodist minister gives the ordi- 
 nance by immersion, they generally hear of the 
 murmurings of the Baptists : " You have no 
 right to give it," say they ; "3/ow don'^t believe in 
 it,"" (fee. But here we have a Baptist church 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 161 
 
 without believers' baptism ; and who knows 
 how many of the present race of Baptist preach- 
 ers descended from that^r^^ church? 
 
 Query — Are their ministrations more vaUd 
 than Mr. Holliman's, if they happen to be in 
 this branch of the succession., as he could give 
 Mr. Williams nothing that he did not himself 
 possess, and as he (Mr. W.) had received no 
 valid baptism, he could give none to the rest ? 
 
 This they supposed was the pattern, and they 
 practised the " laying on of hands'^ in that church 
 after baptism, as did many others in the early 
 part of their history in this country. Now it 
 was hardly modest in Mr. Benedict, in view of 
 this case, in his own church to attempt to ridicule 
 the practice of the Catholics in appointing lay- 
 men to administer baptism to children, or sick 
 people, in cases of emergency. 
 
 I have not given this case with any design 
 to invalidate the ordinance as practised by the 
 Baptists ; but to let them and the public know, 
 that their boasting about the superiority of the 
 ordinance as administered by them, and the 
 idea they put forth about the identity of their 
 doings, in a literal conformity to all the circum- 
 stances of a "positive institute," are frivo- 
 lous and vain. 
 
 While they attempt to unchurch their neigh- 
 bours, whose claim to piety is as good as their 
 own, by representing them as the " disobedient 
 children" of God, and saying in their confes- 
 sion of faith, chap, xxvii, p. 29, Alexandria edi- 
 tion, 1833, " A visible, or gospel church, consists 
 11 
 
162 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 of those who have believed, been baptized by 
 IMMERSION, given themselves to the Lord, and 
 to each other, as required in the divine word." 
 They ought not to complain if their errors and 
 bigotry, at least, are " handled without gloves." 
 
 We have shown, we think, in the course of 
 this argument on the mode of baptism, — 
 
 1st. That "no law of haptiism'^ can be found 
 in the Greek word paizTi^o, and that the opinion 
 of Mr. B. and Dr. Carson, about its meaning 
 immersion only, is contradicted by critics and 
 lexicographers ; by Professor Stuart, Mr. Wes- 
 ley, and Dr. Clarke ; and, what is of more 
 weight still, by John the Baptist, by Jesus 
 Christ, by St. Peter, and by St. Paul, one of 
 the best scholars of his time. Does not the 
 candid reader think that St. Paul understood 
 Greek as well as the corrupt Greek Church ? 
 We have shown, 
 
 2d. That Mr. B. has miserably abused his 
 Pedobaptist witnesses; and that he has more 
 than insinuated that King James, the bishops, 
 and translators, formed a conspiracy against the 
 truth, in giving the world the common version 
 of the Scriptures, without translating the Greek 
 word so as to mean immersion only. We have 
 vindicated the translators, and shown that they 
 followed the common custom pursued by Lu- 
 ther, the Latin and French translators, and also 
 by Mr. George Campbell. And in this they 
 followed the Spirit of God, shown in the case 
 of the Lord's supper, where the Hebrew word 
 ''''pesacK^ is retained by the inspired writers of 
 
iMODE OF BAPTISM. 163 
 
 the New Testament in the Greek word pascha. 
 We have shown, 
 
 3(3. That if the meaning of the word used in 
 a positive institute is to furnish the law and fix 
 all the circumstances of its observances, then, 
 in the observance of the sacrament of the Lord's 
 supper, we ought to eat a full meal, for the word 
 used in 1 Cor. xi, 20, to designate that ordi- 
 nance, is 6elttvov, supper, \vhich, among the 
 Greeks, the learned tell us, was the word used, 
 not only for a full meal, but for the principal 
 meal. Yet our Baptist brethren think they have 
 taken the sacrament of the supper, really 
 and fully, when they have taken a little piece 
 of bread, and liave sipped of wine. Why cannot 
 baptism be performed with a little avater? 
 In this part of the argument I have shown also 
 the futility of Mr. B.'s fanciful notion about 
 positive institutes. 
 
 4th. That the divers baptisms among the 
 Jews, appointed of God, were performed by 
 '' sprinkling the unclean^'' and that applying wa- 
 ter for purification, where an administrator and 
 a subject were found, was never by immersion. 
 
 5th. That it is highly improbable that John 
 could have baptized, by immersion, the hundreds 
 of thousands that came to his baptism, and that 
 the Jordan and the " much tmter''^ were wanted 
 for purposes other than dipping. 
 
 6th. That the baptism w^hich took place in 
 private houses, and in the prison, and in the 
 temple, cannot be made, by any fair dealing, to 
 favour immersion. And I am strengthened in 
 
164 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 this view by what Mr. Benedict says about the 
 Mennonites learning to baptize hy pourings 
 " where they made proselytes in prison." 
 Query — Where were the ^' tanks," ^' baths" and 
 " HOGSHEADsJ" for immcrsion, which abounded 
 so much in the days of the apostles ? Had 
 modern prisons none of them ? 
 
 7th. We have shown that the baptism of the 
 Spirit was by " pouring," " falling upon," 
 &c., and that Mr. B., in order to evade this 
 argument, has run into the egregious mistake 
 of making " the rushing wind," and " sound," 
 or echo, that filled the house, to be the Spirit 
 of God, " overwhelming the disciples." And 
 we have shown also, that when it came down 
 upon Cornelius and his company, it was shed 
 forth, without an accompanying wind or sound. 
 And that on Christ it came descending " like a 
 dove." 
 
 8th. We have shown also that, in every case 
 of baptism recorded in the Netu Testament, the 
 ordinance was given without delay, whether it 
 were night or day ; and that there is a total 
 absence of evidence that any person ever moved 
 or walked so much as one hundred yards 
 
 FROM the place OF PREACHING IN ORDER TO 
 RECEIVE THE ORDINANCE OF BAPTISM. Let the 
 
 reader compare this with what takes place in 
 modern times. Who ever, in our day, hears of 
 a baptism by immersion, without hearing also 
 that Elder A. B. or G. went from such a meeting 
 house to such a creek, run, or river, to adminis- 
 ter baptism to C. D. or F. There is no such 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 165 
 
 thing in the New Testament. .John was at 
 Jordan, Viud Enon, and "in the wilderness," 
 but these were his places for preaching. And 
 in the same chapel where he preached there he 
 gave the ordinance. 
 
 9th. We have shown that nothing can be 
 determined with certainty, from Romans and 
 Colossians, wdth regard to the mode of baptism, 
 from the allusion of the apostle to burying ; as 
 the text equally refers to '^ planting'^ and "cn^- 
 djixion^ as to " burying,''^ and the text has a 
 higher and more important allusion. And that 
 a burial is never performed by dipping or 
 plunging, but by pouring or sprinkling the dust 
 upon the coffin. And that the Baptists greatly 
 err when they make baptism represent the 
 BURIAL and RESURRECTION OF Christ, instead 
 of the v/ashing away of inoral impurity, by the 
 baptism of the Holy Ghost and fire. Thus, in 
 order to support a theory, they wrest one 
 of the Christian sacraments from its proper 
 place, and make it the representative of that to 
 which the great Lawgiver never appointed it. 
 With all their clamour about " the liquid grave" 
 and "the significant rite," many of them have 
 yet to learn the nature and meaning of Chris- 
 tian baptism. 
 
 10th. We have shown that the idea of follow- 
 ing Christ in John's baptism is more specious 
 than Scriptural, as Christ's baptism was pecu- 
 liar, and as John did not give Christian baptism 
 to his followers, being the minister of an inferior 
 dispensation. 
 
166 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 11th. We have shown, that if the Baptists 
 will insist on deriving the evidence of immer- 
 sion from the ancient church in the second, 
 third, and fourth centuries, and will attempt to 
 prove thereby that immersion was the " apos- 
 tolic pattern," then they must take the conse- 
 quences, and believe that the apostles, the 
 ministers of a religion scrupulously modest, bap- 
 tized men and women "naked as Adam and 
 Eve" before they fell, and that they used salt, 
 milk and honey, oil, immersion three times, white 
 garments for the baptized, &c.,&c.; as this was 
 the pattern of the ancient church, according to 
 Wall, Robinson, and others. The practice of 
 immersing people with their clothes on is a 
 modern invention, about as far from the " pat- 
 tern of the ancient church'^ as is our mode by 
 pouring. For if baptism is a washing, as the 
 ancients considered it, then we should consider 
 it rather a novel, senseless thing to see a man 
 attempting to wash his feet with his shoes and 
 stockings on, or his hands with his gloves on. 
 They built baptisteries, to be sure, and endea- 
 voured to work by this pattern ; but when they 
 found that this child of superstition could not 
 be maintained without scandalous occurrences 
 taking place in them, (see Miller on Baptism, 
 p. 105,) the true friends of rehgion laid aside 
 the practice of baptism by immersion upon 
 naked subjects, as the Mennonites have the 
 practice of dipping altogether. And that the 
 administration of the ordinance among our 
 Baptist friends now is attended with serious 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 167 
 
 difficulties, is evident from the fact that we hear 
 more said about " taking up the cross'^ in bap- 
 tism than in taking up all other crosses; and 
 we know that great alarm and perturbation of 
 spirit often accompanies the administration, in 
 the case of females especially, which renders 
 devotional feelings out of the question, at least 
 for the moment. We speak not from theory^ 
 but from the undoubted testimony of the parties 
 co?icer7ied. 
 
 In conclusion, we remark, that as Christ, in 
 applying water to the feet of his disciples, gave 
 Peter to understand that this partial application 
 of the water indicated an interest in the 
 Saviour, so we conclude that the application 
 of water by pouring or sprinkling it on the 
 head, (a much more vital and noble part than 
 the feet,) in the name of the Father, Son, and 
 HoLV Ghost, answers all the purposes of the 
 ordinance, and is valid Christian baptism. 
 
A FURTHER APPEAL, 
 BY H. SLICER, 
 
 IN REPLY TO 
 
 THE TWENTY-ONE LETTERS ADDRESSED TO HIM BY 
 MR. BROADDUS. 
 
 " Speaking the truth in love."— St. Paul. 
 
 " Truth, like light, always travels in straight lines."— Laron. 
 
 Candid reader ! to you, and not to Mr. B., 
 shall I address myself in the review of these 
 letters. I have the consolation to know that, 
 although the advocate of Pedobaptist views may 
 be weak, the cause is strong, and rests not upon 
 the talents or ingenuity of any man, however 
 skilled in argument. 
 
 I It would be as fair to infer the incorrectness 
 of the views of Baptists from the evil practices 
 and visionary theories of Muntzer and the Ger- 
 man Anabaptists, as for Mr. B. to attempt so 
 far to connect me with the Pedobaptist views 
 as to infer their weakness and unsoundness from 
 what he is pleased to consider my misrepre- 
 sentations of Ids arguments. For the intelligent 
 reader will perceive that the gentleman arro- 
 gates to himself and his views, not only all the 
 argument, but all the Scripture authorities also. 
 Hear him, page 13 : "I do not blame you, sir, 
 for not producing any argument in favour of 
 your theory; for arguments there are none, in 
 
OBLIGATION, ETC., OF BAPTISM. 169 
 
 the wide compass of creation, to prove that 
 infants are proper subjects of gospel baptism " 
 This is only one of many broad declarations, 
 unsupported by proof, contained in his letters. 
 The reader will perceive, from the above quota- 
 tion, how little hope is to be entertained of 
 making any impression upon men who claim to 
 have in possession all the argument in " the 
 wide compass of creation''' on the subject of 
 Christian baptism. 
 
 What I have written in the following pages 
 is designed for those who have intelligence and 
 candour sufficient, at least, to admit that they 
 are not too wise to learn, or too knowing to be 
 taught something more on the subject of this 
 solemn and important ordinance ; and who will 
 weigh in the balances of impartial judgment 
 what may be advanced, convinced that the cause 
 of truth can never suffer by investigation. 
 
 Some of these letters I shall notice ; others 
 I shall barely allude to, as I have answered the 
 points contained in them at length in the first 
 "Appeal," and I cannot consent to waste either 
 my own time, or the reader's, in repeating over 
 those parts of my argument which Mr. B. has 
 not seen fit to attempt to answer. It was my 
 aim, in the first reply to him, to condense the 
 matter as much as possible ; this I shall still 
 keep in view, convinced that the strength of an 
 argument does not consist in the use of many 
 words, but in " words fitly spoken." 
 
 Mr. Broaddus sets out by professing to have 
 no other object in view " than to maintain the 
 
170 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 purity of our Lord's institutions," and yet it is 
 manifest, in his " note to the reader," and 
 throughout his twenty-one letters, that the vin- 
 dication of his oiDJi reputation, which he consi- 
 dered implicated, gave him more concern than 
 any thing else involved in the controversy ; and 
 he has fallen upon the strange expedient of 
 proving himself innocent of mutilating, by an at- 
 tempt to prove me guilty;' with how much suc- 
 cess the candid reader will be able to discern. 
 
 In his first letter, page 5, he acknowledges 
 that I had offered " to meet any minister, or 
 layman, in the bounds of my district," and yet, 
 although he was fairly included in the offer, he 
 says " he had received no offer from me." 
 
 Then, fearing, I suppose, that his language 
 was somewhat contradictory, he adds : " But I 
 will be candid enough to acknowledge, that if 
 you had formally challenged me to an oral dis- 
 cussion, I should have declined it, for several 
 reasons." He then gives three reasons, which 
 may have satisfied that gentleman's understand- 
 ing and conscience, but the flimsy character of 
 which, I doubt not, the discerning pubhc will 
 discover. I will here set down his reasons. 
 He says : " In the first place, common fame 
 had informed me that you were naturally of a 
 temperament which must render a debate with 
 you very disagreeable to a man of ordinary 
 sensibility." I had previously learned, indeed, 
 that the gentleman had given the above reason 
 to some person or persons privately, but I could 
 not fully credit it at the time. I thought, how- 
 
.MODE OF BAPTISM. 171 
 
 ever, if that was his private reason, he would 
 hardly so far forget himself as to put it in print ; 
 thus publicly sinning against the law of " that 
 charity which covereth a multitude of sins ;" 
 " taking up a reproach against his neighbour," 
 even though " common fame^'' might have laid it 
 down at his feet. " Common fame''' once said 
 of Him that was pure and spotless, "He hath 
 a devil, and is mad, why hear ye him ?" — " He 
 stirreth up the people" — " He speaketh blas- 
 phemies," &c. It is enough for the servant that 
 he fare as his Lord. As Mr. B. would have it 
 understood that he is conversant with that book 
 that gives " correction in righteousness^^'' he will, 
 perhaps, upon reflection, see his error ; and 
 may, perchance, perceive that it is hardly 
 modest to talk of the temperament of others, 
 while his letters give such fearful evidence of 
 a mixture of the sanguine and choleric in his 
 own. If he will look at the " Course of Time," 
 book viii, he may possibly learn a lesson from 
 the Christian poet that will be of service to him 
 in future. Of " common fame," Pollok says : 
 
 " She was so infamous for lies, 
 That he, who of her sayings, on his creed, 
 The fewest enter'd, was deem'd wisest man." 
 
 Secondly ; Mr. B. says, " I doubted whether 
 I should be able, amid the exciting circum- 
 stances of a public debate, to present my own 
 views of the subject in a proper spirit." So 
 it seems he was afraid of himself, as well as of 
 me. As he has thus referred to himself I may 
 
172 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AXD 
 
 be permitted to close this point by saying, he 
 thought, no doubt, a spark of my fire might 
 possibly fall into his tinder-box, and that the 
 effect might be disastrous to his own cause. 
 " Prudence is the better part of valour ;" and 
 he that knows he carries a powder magazine 
 about him does well to keep at a respectful 
 distance from sparks. So much for his second 
 reason. 
 
 Thirdly, he was afraid to trust the people 
 with an oral argument, thinking they would not 
 be able to judge of its strength. In this, at 
 least, we should have been equal, as they could 
 have judged of the argument from Ids lips, as 
 well as from mine. 
 
 I regret the necessity of noticing these things, 
 rather foreign from the merits of the contro- 
 versy ; as they may be deemed somewhat per- 
 sonal in their nature. 
 
 The attempt Mr. B. makes, in his first letter, 
 to show that the passage in the nineteenth 
 chapter of Acts does not furnish evidence that 
 John's baptism differed from Christian baptism 
 is truly a lame attempt. How changeable are 
 the views of those who contend for immersion 
 as the exclusive mode ! The old Anabaptists 
 used to quote this passage to sustain them in 
 rebaptizing. But now Mr. B. seems to suspect 
 that possibly they were not rebaptized at all. 
 He says, " Many eminent men have very plau- 
 sibly contended that Paul did not rebaptize 
 them." 
 
 " Plausible" as their views are in his judg- 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 173 
 
 ment, he is not able to make up his mind yet to 
 contradict the plain narrative of St. Luke, but 
 supposes, without any shadow of evidence to 
 support him, that there was some defect in the 
 baptism which the twelve disciples at Ephesus 
 had received, although John's baptism itself 
 was not defective. He says, that " various 
 reasons might be assigned for their being re- 
 baptized, without, in the smallest degree, dis- 
 crediting John's as Christian baptism." But 
 the " various reasons''' turn out to be 07ie only^ 
 and that so meagre as to be unsupported by 
 any evidence — merely a creation of Mr, B.'s 
 own imagination ! First, he has to suppose 
 that those persons were baptized by some of 
 John's disciples; secondly, that those disciples 
 of John had not heard of the recent commission 
 given to the disciples of Christ ; and thirdly, 
 that the twelve, at Ephesas, were baptized with 
 a defective baptism, being taught to believe on 
 ci Saviour yet to come. 
 
 Now, candid reader, all this in Mr. B. is 
 perfectly gratuitous, for there is not a word of 
 it in the chapter. He might become a believer 
 in infant baptism, if it would suit him, by a 
 much smaller exercise of his guessing capacity. 
 For instance, in the case of the children men- 
 tioned by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, who were 
 taken in the Saviour's arms, if he would only 
 be willing to suppose one thing instead of three, 
 and say, " possibly" they were baptized, as well 
 as blessed, then we should have him an advo- 
 cate for infant baptism. The intelligent reader 
 
174 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 will perceive how coiu'cnient a thing our oppo- 
 nents sometimes find an inference to be in help- 
 ing them out of a difficulty. 
 
 On page 8, Mr. B. makes another effort to 
 prove that " there never was a visible church 
 of Christ in existence, until he came and made 
 arrangements himself for discerning, by means 
 of ordinances, between the righteous and the 
 Avicked." Here, gentle reader, is a new w^ay 
 of discerning " between the precious and the 
 vile." " Ordinances !" — I suppose he means 
 baptism and the Lord's supper ! ! Was there 
 ever a case known, since the opening of the 
 gospel dispensation, in which, by means of these 
 ordinances, it was discerned that an individual 
 was an unworthy member of the church of 
 Christ ? Did ever the ordinarices distinguish, in 
 the Baptist Church, between the righteous and 
 the wicked ? Mr. B. says in his Dialogue, page 
 117, that " Elder G. and all his churches have 
 been excluded from the Baptist denomination, 
 in consequence of his immorality." Was this 
 immorality discerned hy means of ordinances ? 
 On the same page he gives us the true mode 
 of discerning, where he speaks of an influential 
 " individual, whose conduct has proved him to' be 
 an unworthy member of the church^ So, after 
 all, it seems that the Baptists judge of people, 
 7iot by the " ordinances," but by " their conduct ;" 
 just as the apostles judged of Judas, Demas, 
 Simon the sorcerer, and the incestuous Co- 
 rinthian ; and just as the priests and ministers 
 did under the Jewish dispensation. Mr. B. says, 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 175 
 
 page 8, " No rules were prescribed, under the 
 former dispensation, by which to separate the 
 (wicked) from the privileges of those that were 
 worthy." We will appeal from this statement 
 " to the law and the testimony," Exod. xii, 15 : 
 " For whosoever eateth leavened bread, from 
 the first day until the seventh day, that soul 
 shall be cut off from Israel." Num. ix, 13: 
 " But the man that is clean, &c.. and forbeareth 
 to keep the passover, even the same soul shall 
 be cut off from his people — that man shall hear 
 his sin.^^ 
 
 See Lev. xxiv, 10-23, and Deut. xxix, 21. 
 These are a few of the many passages which 
 go to show that the church, under the former 
 dispensation, was not that promiscuous assem- 
 bly of wicked and righteous persons, in the 
 enjoyment of equal privileges, that Mr. B. seems 
 to think it was ; but that it was under a rigid 
 discipline, " separating the precious from the 
 viler 
 
 The Baptists suppose, because they have 
 been baptized by immersion, that therefore they 
 have a mark upon them by which they are dis- 
 tinguished from others ; wdiereas no one could 
 discern from the fact of their having been bap- 
 tized once, or twenty times, that they were 
 worthy members of the visible church of Christ. 
 They might be '• washed only to fouler stains," 
 so that after all Mr. B. says about ^^ discerning 
 hy ordinances'^ is a mere fancy of his own. 
 
 My argument for the unity of the church of 
 the true God stands unshaken by any thing I 
 
176 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 have yet seen from Mr. B. God never had but 
 one churchy and will never have less or more. 
 
 The illustration from Rom. xi, which I used 
 to show the unity of the church, seems rather to 
 have thrown Mr. B. into a difficulty. " By the 
 root, sap, and fatness of the olive tree," he says, 
 "no doubt the apostle intends the means of 
 grace with which they (the Jewish nation) had 
 so long been blessed. Such only as believed 
 retained these blessings, and, by the new order 
 of things which Christ had instituted, were 
 united with Gentile believers in partaking of 
 them. Here was a visible church of Christ. ^^ — 
 Page 9. Now, observe, according to this re- 
 presentation, the visible church of Christ enjoys 
 the '■''means of grace ^'' which the Jewish nation 
 formerly possessed. And the apostle, also, 
 says, that when the Jews return from their un- 
 belief, " they shall be grafted into their own olive 
 tree."" In this passage, Mr. B. fairly admits that 
 the believing Jews remained in the possession 
 of their privileges, and that the Gentiles were 
 incorporated with them. And he says, I may 
 call the Jewish establishment '* a typical church, 
 or a national church, but not a visible church 
 of Jesus Christ." Reader, was not one of the 
 privileges which they enjoyed (which he calls 
 " means of grace") the right of dedicating their 
 infant offspring to the true God, in an initiatory 
 rite? Now, although JNIr, B. acknowledges that 
 the root and fatness still remain the same to 
 those that believed, he will have it that the 
 believing parent and the child are deprived of a 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 177 
 
 privilege which had been long enjoyed. And 
 the anomaly is presented of a mother, a part of 
 whose sons have been recognised as church 
 members by circumcision, while those born to 
 her, after her reception of the Messiah, are left, 
 so far as any outward sign or rite is concerned, 
 in as outcast a condition as the children of her 
 heathen neighbours. And this, too, under a 
 dispensation of increased light and enlarged 
 privileges !!! 
 
 On page 13, Mr. B. attempts to render my 
 argument ridiculous. After cutting the sentence 
 in two, (the old trade,) putting a period where I 
 had put a comma, so as to make it appear that 
 the quotation was a whole sentence, and also 
 leaving out a note of interrogation in the begin- 
 ning of the paragraph, he says, " Singular rea- 
 soning, truly I''' — did any man ever hear before 
 of such an argument ? Mr. B. had said, " We 
 know that Esau and Ishmael, and others, de- 
 scendants of Abraham, were rejected from the 
 covenant of salvation by Jesus Christ," — and I 
 asked. How can he know this ? when, accord- 
 ing to his own showing, the covenant of salva- 
 tion was not offered to tliem, and the only cove- 
 nant of which they knew any thing w^as purely 
 of a temporal nature. I still ask, Where is it 
 written that they were excluded from the cove- 
 nant of salvation ? 
 
 The gentleman, after taking the liberties 
 stated above with what I had said, complains 
 exceedingly, on the same page, that I had at- 
 tempted, in quoting him, to make him appear 
 13 
 
178 OELIGATIOX, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 ridiculous in the eyes of my readers ; and says, 
 ** This seeins to be a favourite method with 
 him," (me.) And after preparing the reader for 
 a display of the very unfair manner in which I 
 had treated him, he sets down two passages in 
 parallel columns, and invites the reader to com- 
 pare them. I have compared them again and 
 again, without seeing that they differ at all in 
 the sense. Thinking, perhaps, 1 might not be 
 able myself to see so clearly in the matter as 
 "would a disinterested person, I requested ten 
 or twelve intelligent gentlemen successively to 
 compare them, to see if tkei/ -could discover ^ny 
 sense in Mr. B.'s quotation that is not in mine. 
 So far I have found no one who M^as sufficiently 
 sharp sighted to see the difference that Mr. B, 
 complains of. As for his complaint that the 
 word rights, in the last sentence, is put instead 
 of the word rites, as in his quotation, I have 
 only to say, the accidental substitution of that 
 Avord for the other did ?iot affect the controversij 
 at all. It was evidently an error of the com- 
 positor : I gained nothing by it ; and all the 
 harm done was to make tautology in the sen- 
 tence, and give Mr. B. an opportunity to groan, 
 without cause. Although I am satisfied that I 
 have done the gentleman no wrong in quoting 
 him, yet to gratify him, in the revised edition I 
 have placed his ov\'n quotation at length, and I 
 hope the compositor will, in the last sentence 
 of the quotation, get the right word, " rite.''' So 
 that the gentleman, if he should honour me 
 \v'\i\\ any further notice, will not have this 
 
MODE OK r.APTISM. 179 
 
 *■' straw to catch at,''' in supporting his sinking 
 cause, and vindicating liis injured reputation. 
 
 In his remarks on my '' string of questions,'^ 
 as he calls them, page 15, he seems quite to 
 have lost his temper. I suppose those interro- 
 gatories awoke his " ordinary^' or e.r/'rc/ordinary 
 *' sensibility P He is at a loss, he says, what 
 to attribute those questions ft) ; — whether to " a 
 want of common sense," or to wickedness, in 
 " intentional misrepresentation." He will have 
 it that either my understcmding or my heart is 
 defective. He hopes, however, I will " find 
 some explanation that will relieve him." Now, 
 candid reader, I have no means by which to 
 learn what Mr. B.'s meaning ivas, except from 
 the words which he used. If he cannot find 
 means to make himself imderstood, that is not 
 my fault, and I have no fears that the intelligent 
 reader will understand his words in any other 
 sense than the obvious one which I gave them. 
 He has acknowledged that the statements made 
 in my quotation " are contradicted by the facts 
 in the case." Then if the reader shall find that 
 I have quoted him fairly, it will appear that he 
 himself has contradicted the facts relative to the 
 institution of circumcision in the family of 
 Abraham. My appeal is to you. 
 
 I will here present the reader with a quota- 
 tion from Mr. B.'s Strictures, page 4, which 
 may throw some light on the views expressed 
 by him in his Sermon, page 17 : " The Ahra- 
 hamic dispensation secured to all icho xmre 
 
 CIRCUMCISED, A PORTION IN THE EARTHLY 
 
180 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 Canaan." Now, will tliat gentleman say that 
 this statement is not contradicted by the facts ? 
 Ishmael, and Esan, and their seed, were cir- 
 cumcised, and the men of Abraham's house, 
 three hundred and eighteen in number ; and 
 did all, or any of the?n, have any portion in the 
 EARTHLY Canaan ? I auswer, NO — and every 
 man who is acquainted with his Bible, and has 
 not "« theory to supporC by contradicting facts, 
 will answer, no. 
 
 On page 15, in noticing my remarks relative 
 to the new constitution of Virginia, which I had 
 used by way of illustration, Mr. B., instead of 
 giving the illustration as I had stated it, gives 
 just enough of it to make a wrong impression 
 and answer his own purposes. If he had given 
 all my words in the case, the reader would have 
 seen that I Avas perfectly correct. I refer the 
 reader to the " Appeal" for the illustration as I 
 used it. Why did not the gentleman see fit to 
 give the illustration which I took from the com- 
 mon law ? I suppose he thought it best to keep 
 that out of the view of his readers, as he has 
 most of my arguments. 
 
 As Mr. B. has quoted our Discipline on this 
 subject, and says members of other churches 
 have to undergo an examination, and takes 
 upon himself to suppose that we would make 
 the matter of baptism a point in the examina- 
 tion of the applicant, I will only say, if he had 
 found it convenient to quote the next sentence, 
 the reader would have seen the explanation of 
 the one he did quote. Here it is : "No person 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 181 
 
 shall be admilted to the Lord's supper among 
 us, who is gwlty of any practice for which we 
 would exclude a member of our church." 
 
 As Mr, B., page 19, has dragged in the sub- 
 ject of female communion, and has declared 
 that. " there is a ' Thus saith the Lord' for it in 
 every passage of Scripture that speaks of the 
 Lord's supper at all," it may not be amiss to 
 examine this matter a little. In the first men- 
 tion of the supper, Luke xxii, 14-20, it is said 
 that Jesus " sat down, and the twelve ajjostles 
 w ith him." Now, will the gentleman say that 
 part of the apostles were females ? He says, 
 in every jmssagc where the supper is mentioned 
 there is a " Thus saith the Lord" for female 
 communion. It happens that we have the names 
 of the twelve who were at the institution of the 
 Lord's supper, and there is no female name 
 among them. But he says, '•' disciples met, and 
 we know^, without any inference about it, that 
 the females met with them ; because we learn 
 that both men and women were made disciples 
 by baptism." " You might as well contend that 
 it is an ' inference' to say that \\iQ males met to 
 break bread ; for they are no more specified than 
 the females.''^ Mr. B. surely presumes very 
 much upon the ignorance or credulity of his 
 readers, when he makes such sw^eeping de- 
 clarations as the above. Does he suppose that 
 they aTv'3 so little acquainted with their Bibles — 
 the book he so often calls the "poor man's 
 lexicon" — that he expects to pass off on them 
 such unsupported declarations ? I refer the 
 
182 OBLltfATIOX, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 reader to 1 Cor. xi, 28, 29, 33~" But let a ma:^ 
 examine himself, and so let him eat of that 
 bread, and drink of that cup. For he that 
 eateth and drinketli unworthily — to himself, 
 &c. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come 
 together to eat," &:c. And yet, Mr. B. says, 
 males are no more specijied than females. Our 
 Baptist writers, aware that the course of rea- 
 soning they pursue with regard to infants, deny- 
 ing them the rite of baptism, because they say 
 there is no precept or precedent for baptizing 
 children, would, if adopted, in the case of 
 females, exclude them from the Lord^s table, have 
 attempted to furnish a " Thus saith the Lord." 
 And they will not allow that there is any infer- 
 ence in the matter. They argue thus : Women 
 were baptized as well as men — 'Women and men 
 constituted the churches — the churches partook 
 of the Lord's supper — therefore women have a 
 right to the Lord's table. But is not this an 
 inference ? This is no express warrant. It is 
 strange that those who reason thus for women 
 should yet refuse all inference for the infant 
 children of women. 
 
 As Mr. B., page 20, has concluded, without 
 reason, that I had either given up the argument 
 from proselyte baptism, or had not made up an 
 opinion on that point, and expresses a hope 
 that he will hear no more on the subject, I have 
 introduced a short article in the enlarged Ap- 
 peal on proselyte baptism, to which I beg leave 
 to refer the reader. To what I have there said 
 on the subject I here add a remark, and several 
 
MODE OF BAPTlSlvr. 183 
 
 auihorities. The baptism of proselytes is gene- 
 rally supposed to have taken its rise from the 
 baptism of the Jews when passing through the 
 Red Sea, to which the apostle refers, 1 Cor. x, 
 1,2. As they, coming out from idolatrous 
 Eg}-pt, were " all baptized to Moses," the Jews 
 considered, in all after ages, that those who 
 renounced idolatry, and joined the church of 
 the true God, should be baptized as well as 
 circumcised. In proof of which, I refer to the 
 quotations given below. 
 
 Calmet's Dictionary, article Proselyte : " The 
 Jews require three things in a complete prose- 
 lyte ; baptism^ circumcision, and sacrifice ; but 
 for women, only baptism and sacrifice." 
 
 Witsius, one of Mr. B.'s witnesses, says, 
 " When a Gentile became a proselyte of right- 
 eousness, three ceremonies were used, viz., 
 circumcision, haptism, and sacrifice." 
 
 Stackhouse, another of Mr. B.'s witnesses, 
 says, " The custom of the Jews, in all ages, 
 has been to receive their heathen proselytes 
 by haptism, as well as by sacrifice and circum- 
 cision." 
 
 Dr. Wall, another of Mr. B.'s witnesses, says, 
 *' Whenever Gentiles were proselyted to the 
 Jewish religion, they were initiated by circum- 
 cision, the ofiering of a sacrifice, and haptism. 
 They were all baptized, males and females, 
 adults and infants. This was their consta7it 
 practice, from the time of Moses to that of our 
 Saviour, and from that period to the present 
 dav." 
 
184 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS', AND 
 
 Finally, I quote Dr. Adam Clarke, another 
 of Mr. B.'s witnesses : " The apostles knew 
 well that the Jews not only circumcised the^ 
 children of proselytes, but also baptized them. 
 The children, and even infants, of proselytes 
 were baptized among the Jews. They were, 
 in consequence, reputed clean, and partakers 
 of the blessings of the covenant." 
 
 The apostles, being by birth and education 
 Jews, would, therefore, in " discipiing all na- 
 tions," admit the children with the parents, un- 
 less forbidden so to do. 
 
 The astonishment expressed at John's bap- 
 tizing did not arise from the fact that he prac- 
 tised baptism, but because he declared he was 
 neither the Christ, nor Elias, nor that prophet, 
 at the same time administering the rite of bap- 
 tism ; — that he should, while disclaiming the 
 character of a minister, exercise the functions 
 of one. See John i, 19-26. 
 
 The quibble of Mr. B., on page 20, about 
 infants not being saved " by any thing pertain- 
 ing to the gospel dispensation," is one among 
 many instances which prove the non-committal 
 character of his theological views. While he 
 calls upon me to state frankly and plainly what 
 our views are, he studiously avoids giving his 
 own with regard to the condition of infants. 
 He says, " We, or at least /, do not place their 
 salvation upon any thing pertaining to the Chris- 
 tian dispensation.^^ 
 
 On page 29, he says, with regard to infants, 
 "I have not attempted to show (nor shall I) 
 
MODE OF BAPTlS^f. 185 
 
 how ihey are fitted for heaven ; but I am sure 
 it is not through sanclification of the Spirit and 
 beUef of the truth." Here the reader will per- 
 ceive, !\Ir. B. gives no opinion about the manner 
 in which infants are saved. Does he believe 
 at all in the salvation of all who die in infancy ? 
 I do not ask this question because he does not 
 baptize infants, but because he was once an 
 advocate of a system oi jmrtial grace; and al- 
 though " he has changed his manner of preach- 
 ing," I have not learned that he has avowed the 
 '• change of liis belief in one single item." 
 
 Now, candid reader, I shall appeal to the 
 Philadelphia Baptist Confession of Faith, page 
 45, for evidence that the Baptists formerly held 
 the regeneration of some infants, at least, by 
 Christ through the Spirit, and I suppose the 
 Spirit "pertains to the gospel dispensation." 
 The words of the Confession are — " Elect in- 
 fants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and 
 saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh 
 when, and where, and how he pleases : so, 
 also, are all elect persons, v\dio are incapable 
 of being outwardly called by the ministry of 
 the word." The reader will observe, that they 
 quote the words of Christ to adult Nicodemus, 
 in proof of the position here stated — " Except 
 a man be born again, he cannot see the king- 
 dom of God ;" — " The wind bloweth where it 
 listeth," &LC. ; — " So is every one that is born 
 of the Spirit." It seems, then, that those plain, 
 honest people, who were not afraid that the world 
 should know lohat they held as doctrine, considered 
 
186 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 that infants were fitted for heaven through the 
 operation of the Spirit. The Confession I quote 
 from was put forth by the " elders and brethren, 
 in London and the country," and adopted by the 
 association which met at Philadelphia in 1742. 
 
 But perhaps I shall be told these views are 
 not entertained note by the Virginia Baptists. 
 And as Mr. Broaddus says, " The Baptists 
 generally acknowledge no Confession of Faith 
 but the New Testament," page 24, I may be 
 referred to the New Testament to learn Baptist 
 views. However, if the Baptists will publish 
 " Declarations of Faith," I must be allowed to 
 quote them as authority. In " A Declaration 
 of Faith," published by the United Baptists of 
 Virginia, (or several associations of them,) 
 printed in Alexandria, 1833, they declare, page 
 14, " The creature being wholly passive there- 
 in, being dead in sins and trespasses, until, 
 being quickened and renewed hy the Holy Spirit, 
 he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and 
 embrace the grace conveyed in it," &c. So it 
 seems, candid reader, that although Mr. B. will 
 not state his views (if he has any) about the 
 manner in which infants are saved, or fitted for 
 heaven, that in the Adew of the Confessions of 
 Faith quoted above, adults and infants are both 
 " renewed or regenerated" by the Holy Ghost. 
 
 Mr. B. afTects to believe that he has found 
 out a wonderful difference between my views 
 and Mr. Wesley's, on the subject of the condi- 
 tion of infants ; and he seems so pleased with 
 the discovery, that he drags it forward, for the 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 18? 
 
 entertainment of his readers, in several different 
 letters. Let us look at it a little. On page 32 
 he says, '* Allow me to quote what Mr. Wesley- 
 says, and also what you yourself say. ' Infants 
 need to be washed from original sin.' — Wesley's 
 Works, vol. ix, p. 159. ' Infants have innocence 
 to recommend them.' — Slicer's Appeal, p. 46. 
 Is not this a disagreement ?" He adds : "But 
 you even disagree with yourself on this point ; 
 for, although you recommend infants by their 
 innocence, page 46, you say, page 66, infants 
 need an application of the blood of Christ to 
 purify or make them AoZy." Reader, can you 
 suppose that Mr. B. is so destitute of common 
 understanding, that he does not know the differ- 
 ence between innocence and moral purity or holi- 
 ness 1 A teacher in the Baptist Church, and yet 
 affecting not to know that innocence and the 
 v/ant of purity are compatible ! I did say that 
 infants had innocence to recommend them to 
 baptism, and I explained it by stating they were 
 in a state of justitication. In proof of which I 
 quoted Rom. v, 18, '•' The free gift hath passed 
 upon all, to justification of life." I did say that 
 infants needed the application of the blood of 
 Jesus, through the eternal Spirit, to make them 
 holy, and fit them for heaven ; and I gave the 
 same reason for it that Mr. Wesley did, viz., 
 " Infants need to be washed from original sin." 
 My words on page 66 are, " I suppose Mr. B. 
 holds the doctrine of original sin, in opposition 
 to Pelagius ; if so, infants need an application 
 of the blood of Christ to purify or make them 
 
188 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 holy." Now you see, intelligent reader, that 
 Mr. B. has taken my words out of their proper 
 connection ; that he has brought a passage from 
 page 66, and put it opposite a passage on page 
 46, that referred to another matter, in order to 
 impose upon his readers an impression that I 
 disagree with myself; and, as though he thought 
 he could convince sensible people by this kind 
 of management, says, with an air of triumph, 
 " So glaring are the contradictions into which 
 this human device of baptizing infants can lead 
 sensible men." Candid reader, do you see any 
 disagreement between Mr. Wesley's views and 
 mine ? Do you see that my own vieios are un- 
 equal ? "I speak as unto wise men." 
 
 I must now ask a question or two further, to 
 show the management of this gentleman. Do 
 any of Mr. B.'s members enjoy the blessing of 
 justification ? I have no doubt many of them 
 do. Being justified, are they innocent^ or are 
 \\iey guilty? Innocent, I suppose, for I have 
 always been taught to believe that justification 
 takes away the guilt of sin. This, too, I find 
 to be the doctrine of the Philadelphia Confes- 
 sion above quoted, where they distinguish ^'«.s/i- 
 ficaiion and sanctification, and speak of them 
 under different heads. Well, then, those per- 
 sons among Mr. B.'s members who are justified, 
 i. e., delivered from guilt, are they holy in heart 
 also ? If they are not, they need the sanctifying 
 operations of the Holy Ghost. Does Mr. B. 
 suppose that children are guilty? He seems to 
 be greatly troubled that I should contend for 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 189 
 
 their innocence. I supposed that the veriest 
 novice in theology would be able to distinguish 
 between personal guilt, arising from actual sin 
 against God's law, and that corruption of nature 
 which every child brings into the world with it, 
 which both Mr. Wesley and myself have called 
 " original sin,^' and which the Baptist Confes- 
 sion, page 32, calls " original corruption, from 
 which proceed all actual transgressions." But in 
 this, it seems, I am disappointed — Mr. B. cannot 
 understand it. He says, page 30, " I acknow- 
 ledge myself utterly unable to comprehend." 
 " It will require some one better skilled in 
 mi/ sti feat ion than myself to untangle all this 
 jumble of contradictions." He asks, " How 
 those who are not guilty — in a state of justifi- 
 cation — can need an application of the blood 
 of Christ through the eternal Spirit, to purify 
 them T Page 29, he says also, '' What do you 
 mean, Mr. S. ? Innocence need purify i fig ? I am 
 truly astonished at such views of the subject." 
 I suppose he thought that if he cried out from 
 aiitonishment, and especially if he could make 
 an impression in the Methodist community that 
 Mr. Wesley's views and mine were at variance, 
 he might scare some timid soul into the water. 
 Hear him, page 21: "Here is the author of 
 the Methodist book of Discipline and one of 
 its authorized expounders as far apart in their 
 views of a gospel ordinance as guilt is from 
 innocence ! ! ! You need not wonder, sir, that, 
 under these circumstances, those that have not 
 skill sufficient to weld cold iron and hot together, 
 
190 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 should, with the Bible (the ' poor man's Lexi- 
 con') to guide them, reject both your theory 
 and Mr. Wesley's." It may be that, if Mr. B. 
 had a creed, and should make it known to the 
 world, and it should not be too " gloriously un- 
 certain" to be understood, that some of his views 
 might at least be as objectionable even to some 
 of the Baptists as mine appear to be to him, 
 especially as he has been strongly suspected of 
 heresy by many of " the baptized." Query — Is 
 this the reason why the gentleman says, page 
 
 23, " I HAVE NO CREED NOR CATECHISM FOR 
 
 THEM TO LEARN ?" Mr. Alexander Campbell 
 has no creed, but he has found it convenient to 
 make a translation of the New Testament to 
 suit his views. Whenever an individual wishes 
 to pull down the fences of established doctrine 
 and discipline, he raises a hue and cry about 
 creeds and confessions of faith, saying, " The 
 Bible is my creed," " The Bible is my dis- 
 cipline ;" and for what is all this, but to make 
 an impression upon the credulous that his views 
 are more in keeping with the Scriptures than 
 those of others, in order that he may form a 
 party, and set himself up as its oracle ? thus 
 giving an illustration of the words of the apostle, 
 *' Of your own selves shall men arise, speaking 
 perverse things, to draw away disciples after 
 them,'' Acts xx, 30. 
 
 I liere, candid reader, warn you against all 
 leaders of parties, who emblazon upon their 
 banners, " No creed but the Bible.'' They 
 
.AlODE OF BAPTISM. 191 
 
 practise a kind of " religious piracy.'' and by 
 " soft words" and " fair speeches" delude the 
 simple. 
 
 In the early part of my ministry, I was 
 brought in contact with some who h^d, profess- 
 edly^ no creed, and no discipline, but the New 
 Testament. They thought this creed taught 
 them to reject infant baptism ; to hold immer- 
 sion as the exclusive mode ; to de7iy the doctrine 
 of original sin, and also the divinity of the Lord 
 Jesus Christ. How many other errors they held 
 it was difficult to tell, for their system^ as the 
 systems of all such, possessed a kind q/' chame- 
 leon CHARACTER. I hold the two following 
 axioms to be undeniable : 1st. Men who are 
 intelligent will have a well-digested system of 
 religious views ; and 2d. That men who have 
 moral honesty will not hesitate to publish those 
 views to the world. A non-committal course 
 on Christian doctrine is as unworthy a high- 
 minded, honourable man, as it is unbecoming 
 the frankness that ought always to mark the 
 course of a religious teacher. If a man he in 
 the ministry, and his mind is unsettled, let him 
 retire until he has satisfied himself v:hat is truth, 
 and vjhat is error. Let him not stand up before 
 intelhgent men, and, reading a few paragraphs 
 from a religious newspaper, say, " My friends, 
 these contain my present vieios of Christian 
 doctrine. I say my pi'esent views — I do not say 
 that they will be my views twelve months 
 hence, or one month from now. but thev con- 
 
192 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 tain my present viewsP The nineteenth century 
 is not the age to be making, every month, dis- 
 coveries in Christian doctrine. 
 
 What did Mr, B. expect to gain, by quoting 
 against infants, page 30, the words of St. Peter, 
 Acts XV, 9 ? In the first place, he quotes the 
 text wrong. His words are, " Peter says, ' God 
 purities the heart by faith.'" Peter's words are, 
 " And put no difference between us and them, 
 purifying their hearts by faith." Peter's words 
 refer to particular individuals, " their hearts.'" 
 They were adult Gentile converts, as the reader 
 may see by referring to the passage. Peter 
 puts adult converts in the premises, and Mr. B. 
 puts children in the conclusion. This is a 
 favourite method of some Baptists. Suppose 
 Peter does say their hearts were purified by 
 faith, does that prove the heart cannot be puri- 
 fied without faith ? St. Paul says, Heb. ix, 14, 
 " That the conscience is purged by the blood 
 of Christ." And in Titus iii, 5, he says, God 
 saved us " by the washing of regeneration, and 
 renewing of the Holy Ghost.'''' I wonder, candid 
 reader, if Mr. B. was aware of the dilemma into 
 which qiioting Peter's words as being against 
 our children would bring him? Ehher their 
 hearts can be purified unthout faith, — the?/ need 
 no purijication, — or they cannot go to heaveii. 
 If they are born fit for heaven in Mr. B.'s view, 
 then, he is a Pelagian, and holds infant purity. 
 But, on the other hand, if they are born unclean, 
 unfit for heaven, and cannot he purified without 
 faith, and are incapable of believing, then, unless 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 193 
 
 less in their impurity they can go to a holy hea- 
 ven, they must, of necessity, be lost. Such are 
 the consequences which follow from this gentle- 
 7nan's jnctJiod of quoting Scripture against infants. 
 
 The Scriptures say expressly that John the 
 Baptist " did no miracle.'''' Yet Mr. B., page 29, 
 will have it that his being " filled with the Holy 
 Ghost" was " altogether ' b, miraculous injlue7icej' 
 and suggests nothing to us on the subject of the 
 salvation of infants," John's ^^ miraculous in- 
 fluence," then, lay dormant all his life, for " he 
 did no miracle.'''' 
 
 On page 28, Mr. B. says, with regard to the 
 children that were brought to Christ, and taken 
 in his arms, " I did not affirm that there never 
 were any unconscious infants brought to Jesus ; 
 I only expressed a douht on the subject : and I 
 still have too much douht on the subject to ad- 
 mit of my regulating a gospel ordinance by it." 
 It may be, if this gentleman should write once 
 or twice more, that he will become a believer at 
 least in the infancy of those children, for he 
 seems to be getting rid of his doubts ; and as 
 doubts leave him, I suppose faith will take pos- 
 session of his mind. In the Sermon, page 13, 
 he says, " I am led to douht exceedingly.'''' I 
 think he is a little ashamed of that now, for in 
 quoting himself, he says, " / expressed a douht,^* 
 and " I still have too much douht^'' &;c. And he 
 says, " he hopes I will see the difference between 
 affirming that ' there never were,' and doubting 
 ' whether there ever were.' " And adds, " If 
 you can see the difference, you may decide 
 13 
 
194 OBLIGATIONS, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 who ought to ' hlusK in this case." I suppose 
 there is about as much difference between the 
 man who has " exceeding doubts''' about the truth 
 of God's word, and he that " affirms" that the 
 word is not true, as there is between a well- 
 grown hoy and a man. They are both of the 
 same family, only one is a little larger than the 
 other. He that " exceedingly doubts" God's 
 word, and he that denies its truth, are both " of 
 atiQ family of unbelief .''^ Reader, do you see the 
 difference ? 
 
 Although I had called the attention of the 
 reader to the parallel passage in Luke xviii, 15, 
 where it is said, " They brought unto him also 
 INFANTS," and had hinted at the unfairness of 
 Mr. B. in quoting the passage from Matthew 
 and Mark, and bringing his "lexicon" to ex- 
 plain Trai&ia in those passages, while he omitted 
 to quote Luke, where the word /3pe9r/ is used 
 instead of -acdia, yet in his " Letters" he plays 
 the same game. Although Luke, the physician, 
 wrote after Matthew and Mark, and was, pos- 
 sibly, the most learned of the three, and whose 
 mention of the case may be presumed to give 
 the fair explanation of the passage in Matthew 
 and Mark, yet Mr. B. does not refer to Luke at 
 all : because he knew that the sense of ,<3,o£d>7 
 could not, by any possible construction, be ex- 
 plained away. He knew that Schrevelius, to 
 whom he referred for the meaning of the ori- 
 ginal word in Mark, interprets the word in 
 Luke to mean, " a very little child." And 
 if he had consulted " Donnegan's Lexicon" on 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 195 
 
 the word, he would have found that it signifies 
 " A NEW-BORN BABE," and ROt " boij, cliUd, youth, 
 servant^'' (fee, as Mr. B. defines the word in 
 Mark to mean. This inflexible word in Luke 
 could not be twisted so as to make against 
 infants, therefore he passed it over in solemn 
 silence ! 
 
 What he says, page 29, about children being 
 the " model for adults," and doves, and sheep, 
 and serpents being models also, is far-fetched, 
 ajid perfectly ridiculous. When Mr. B. fur- 
 nishes a passage from God's word, where it is 
 said that Christ took sheep, or doves, or ser- 
 pents ^'- into his arins" "and blessed them," and 
 said, " Of such is the hingdom of God" and, 
 " 'S'i/^<?r them to come to me, and forbid them not''' 
 then, and not till then, will there appear to be 
 some sense in w^hat he calls " a syllogism." 
 I know it is often the case that men get into 
 the " visible church" on earth who have more 
 of the " loisdom of the serpent''' than the " harm- 
 Icssness of the dove,^^ hut Christ has never said 
 of them, " Of such is the kingdom of heaven^ 
 
 After reading Elder Dagg's exposition . of 
 1 Cor. vii, 14, as given by Mr. B. in his seventh 
 letter, 1 am more fully persuaded of the correct- 
 ness of the view I had given of the passage in 
 my former argument, to which I beg leave to 
 refer the reader. It would have been better if 
 Mr. B. could have given his readers one text of 
 Scripture, only, against my view of the passage, 
 than to have given all the Greek and English 
 of Mr. Dagg's exposition. I quoted several. 
 
196 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 and referred to nine otlier texts in support of 
 my views. 
 
 On page 35, Mr. B. attempts to furnish a salvo 
 for the contradiction I had pointed out between 
 his Sermon and the Strictures. And he asks, 
 ^^Are not infants unhelievers V "Surely you 
 will not deny this ; and 5^et they are not guilty 
 of the sin of unbelief for they are not required to 
 believe." " All I mean by denominating them 
 unhelievers is, that they are not believers, neither 
 is it possible they could be. Where now is the 
 discrepancy?" Well, then, it is not possible 
 that children should believe. And yet he will 
 have it that they are unbelievers. Mr. B. is the 
 first man, whose productions I have ever read, 
 who could so far forget or expose himself as 
 even to ask, "^4re not infants unbelievers V A 
 new kind of unbelievers truly ! ! Suppose, can- 
 did reader, I apply a little of Mr. B.'s logic to 
 this case, in order to show more fully its ab- 
 surdity. You will observe, after all his vaunting 
 about his acquaintance with the Scriptures, and 
 referring me to them to learn Baptist " customs," 
 (page 24,) he is exceedingly careful not to give 
 us much Scripture in support of his views. 
 I think the reader will find that my argument 
 in the " Appeal" is supported by at least two 
 texts of Scripture for every one furnished by 
 him, either in his Sermon or Letters. This by 
 the way, however. But to the point, ^^ Are 
 not children unbelievers V Where is the text ? 
 " Surely you will not deny this V No, I will not, 
 if God's word says so. I will not even '^ doubt 
 
MODE Of BAPTISM. 197 
 
 zV," if the Bible declares it. Where is the text? 
 It is not to be found. Then I shall surely deny 
 it, for I cannot take it upon Mr. B.'s mere as- 
 sertion, when he is in the habit of making 
 sweeping declarations and dogmatical asser- 
 tions, misupported by proof. But the gentle- 
 man ?nea?is that " they are unbelievers, because 
 they are not believers." Wo to the children 
 if his assertions are correct, and his logic sound. 
 In John iii, 36, it is said, "He that believeth 
 NOT the Son shall not see life ; but the icrath 
 of God ahideth o?i himy The commission says, 
 " He that believeth not shall be damned." 
 And in Rev. xxi, 8, " The unbelieving are 
 classed with murderers and idolaters,^'' and " shall 
 have their part in the lake burning with jire and 
 brimstone'' Now for Mr. B.'s logic. " The 
 commission excludes all unbelievers, whether 
 unconscious infants or unbelieving adults'"' Then 
 if their not believing constitutes them unbe- 
 lievers, look at the fearful condition in which 
 they are placed by the texts above quoted. 
 " They shall not see life," and be with the vilest 
 characters "m the lake of fire. " This is the 
 issue to which Mr. B.'s question, "Are not in- 
 fants unbelievers ."" leads to. The Scriptures 
 nowhere attribute faith or unbelief to infants. 
 Because they each and equally require the volun- 
 tary exercise of the ?nind and heart with regard 
 to what God has spoken, of which infants are 
 incapable. And no man who understands the 
 force of language will ask such preposterous 
 and silly questions, unless he is closely 
 
198 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 wedded to a system which he calculates to 
 help thereby. 
 
 Mr. B., page 36, attempts to make out that I 
 have misconstrued his quotation from Dr. Hill. 
 The reader can see, by referring to my argu- 
 ment, that I have quoted Mr. B. correctly, (if 
 he has not quoted the doctor correctly that is 
 his look out,) and have given the words their 
 obvious meaning. Mr. B. represents Dr. Hill 
 as saying, " The writings of the fathers have 
 been so long in the keeping of the corrupt 
 Church of Rome, and have been so altered by 
 pious frauds, &c., that our confidence in them 
 must be greatly weakened indeed." And I asked 
 if the infidel might not urge the same reason 
 against his receiving the New Testament scrip- 
 tures, as they, too, were long in the keeping of 
 the Church of Rome ? Mr. B. calls this " an 
 attempt to expose him and Dr. Hill to the wit 
 of infidels." If he has exposed himself, that is 
 his misfortune, not my fault. 
 
 His attempt to destroy the credibility of Ori- 
 gen as a witness, by recounting some of his 
 errors, is truly pitiful. What, I ask, had Ori- 
 gen's " visionary views'*^ to do with his testimony 
 concerning a plain matter of fact, viz., ^^ Infants 
 by the usage of the church are baptized?" His 
 visionary views had just as much to do with his 
 testimony in this case, as would the " visionary 
 views" of Stork, of the German Anabaptists, if 
 he had given testimony in court, or to the world, 
 that John Boccold, the leader of the sect, held 
 polygamy, and had, at one time, fourteen wives. 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 199 
 
 See Ross's History of All Religions, and Robin- 
 son's Charles V., vol. ii, p. 301. I suppose in 
 neither case ought the testimony to be rendered 
 inA-alid by the visionary views of the witness ia 
 some other matters. 
 
 I am entirely satisfied with the collateral tes- 
 timony for infant baptism given from the writings 
 of the fathers in theforjner argument, and shall 
 not repeat them here, nor add to the number of 
 the witnesses, as I conceive for the candid they 
 are quite suficient, and others would not he con- 
 vinced hy a cloud of witnesses. It was to the 
 interest of Demetrius and his silversmiths, when 
 " their craft was in danger,^'' to cry out, " Great 
 is Diana of the Ephesians ;" this was more 
 easily done than either to prove the claims of 
 Diana, or to disprove the preaching of St. Paul. 
 
 I had shown that Mr. B. and Mr. Judson dif- 
 fered only about four hundred years in fixing the 
 origin of infant baptism : Mr. B., page 39, com- 
 plains that " I have done him great injustice" in 
 this case. He seems, candid reader, to have 
 been so much hurt, that he does little beside 
 complain of injustice done him. He not only 
 disagreed with Mr. Judson, but now, in the very 
 paragraph in which he complains, he contradicts 
 himself as I shall here show. He says first, 
 " The practice of baptizing infants grev: out of 
 an opinion very early entertained by the Church 
 of Rome, that no unbaptized person could in- 
 herit the kingdom of heaven." Then he says, 
 " For although the baptism of infants was in- 
 vented as early as the close of the second century. 
 
200 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 the sprinkling of infants was not. regularly in- 
 troduced until 753," &c. Now, reader, will he 
 say that the Church of Rome existed at the 
 close of the second century ?* If he will con- 
 tinue to display his want of acquaintance with 
 church history, or to say and unsay in the same 
 paragraph, that is not my fault. I shall show 
 the reader, before I have done with his Letters, 
 that there are some other things that need a salvo. 
 
 What I said of the Waldenses being Pedo- 
 baptists, and the proof I adduced, has not been 
 set aside by what Mr. B. has adduced from Mr. 
 Jones and Mosheim. I cannot believe that 
 Mr. B. himself thought the evidence in point ; 
 for, immediately after adducing his testimony, 
 he says, " Still I do not build upon this my 
 views of the kingdom of Christ. No : I have 
 a better manual." Then he refers to the " word 
 of his king," and to the " commission," " He 
 that believeth and is baptized." He says, " This 
 puts an end to the controversy, in my mind." 
 This, after all, is the only argument the Baptists 
 have against infant baptism. 
 
 Mr. B., page 41, drags in the subject of ordi- 
 nation, and asks, with, a haughty air, "What 
 right had Mr. Wesley to ordain bishops and 
 priests ?" and introduces Dr. Cook's book, as 
 though he helieved the doctor's views. Now, 
 reader, when Mr. B. and myself are done with 
 
 * By ** the Church of Rome'' \vc understand tlic autlior 
 not to refer to the church at Rome, as it existed in apos- 
 tolic times, but the Roman hierarchy as it has oxistcu for 
 several centuries under the reign of the popes. — En. 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 201 
 
 the subject of baptism, if he prefers a contro- 
 versy with me on ordination and succession, 
 then I shall think it the most proper time to 
 answer his question relative to Mr. Wesley. 
 Until then, I refer him on that subject to Bishop 
 Emory's " Defence of our Fathers," and to D. 
 Isaacs on " Ecclesiastical Claims." 
 
 On page 42 w^e have another instance of the 
 gentleman's complaining without cause. Instead 
 of quoting my language in the case, he makes 
 a desperate effort to excite public sympathy in 
 his favour. He says, " I am truly sorry to find 
 that you are willing to sustain your cause by au 
 attack upon my motives." " You represent me 
 (page 76) as being ' prepared to make a sacri- 
 fice of all historical evidence upon the altar of 
 a prejudice that is both deaf and blind," &c. 
 1 represented no such thing. I did not say a 
 word about his sacrificing at any altar. I did 
 not mention his name or allude to him in the 
 sentence, the latter part of which only he quotes. 
 And, if he had sneered at the conduct and feel- 
 ings of mothers, who wished to have their 
 children baptized before they died, was it not 
 much worse in him to sneer, than for me to 
 allude to his having done it 1 If he had not 
 done it, why did he not deny it, instead of 
 giving his readers a display about " the talents 
 and dignity of a presiding elder," about " Go- 
 liath and David," and " policy," and " common 
 politeness," c^c. ? 
 
 Now, candid reader, I never supposed the 
 important and responsible office which I held, 
 
202 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 when I answered Mr. B., gave me any increase 
 of talents or dignity. If it did, however, as he 
 intimates, as my term of service, according to 
 our economy, has now expired, he will have 
 the consolation to know that he contends with 
 one in a different capacity, only an elder, like 
 himself. It is possible Mr. B. may be able to 
 teach me "po^/cy," as I do not profess to be an 
 adept in craftiness. I suppose the intelligent 
 reader of his Letters will conclude that if I 
 should need lessons in " common politeness,^^ it 
 will be necessary for me to seek some other 
 teacher. 
 
 Mr. B. invited me to write on baptism, and I 
 complied, perhaps not to his mind or liking. 
 Notwithstanding he invited me to write, and 
 offered inducements to me, he says, page 43, 
 " I neglected my district, in order to write these 
 eighty pages." And gives this in such a way, 
 as to lead his readers to suppose that he quoted 
 it from the Appeal, page 6. I have only to say, 
 that this is a sin of which I am not guilty, and 
 I have no fears that it will be imputed to me by 
 those who know me. If Mr. B. can help his 
 cause by any such groundless allegations, and 
 can find that his conscience will sustain him in 
 being an " accuser of the brethren," he has my 
 full consent to avail himself of it. It will occur 
 to the reader, however, that that must be a bad 
 cause which needs such support. 
 
 The case of Simon, the sorcerer, which I 
 dwelt upon in my Appeal, seems to have pre- 
 sented some difficulty in the way of Mr. B.'s 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 203 
 
 views. He touches it on page 44, and then 
 drops it as though it burnt him. He again 
 comes up to it, page 47, and, after all, blinks 
 the question involved in the case, thinking, I 
 suppose, that it was prudent not " to follow me" 
 in that case, as it presented " a two-horned 
 dilemma." 
 
 His affecting, on page 44, not to understand 
 my remarks relative to ApoUos, because, as he 
 says, " I have not expressed myself with clear- 
 ness," is one of his stratagems of warfare. 
 What I said relative to Apollos, and Saul of 
 Tarsus, I produced plain Scripture to support. 
 As it is utterly impossible that his readers can 
 have any tolerable idea of ray argument on the 
 subject of adult candidates for baptism, from the 
 manner in which he has represented it in his 
 Letters, I beg leave to refer them to the first 
 Appeal, pages 90-97. A dust may be raised 
 to obscure the truth, but it is hard to reason 
 successfully against the facts stated in the 
 Scriptures of truth. 
 
 Mr. B. says, page 46, " None are really will- 
 ing, but those who are really converted." This 
 has a strong spice of " new divinity." The 
 apostle Paul, I think in Rom. vii, teaches an 
 opposite doctrine ; showing that there may be 
 a will to good, while there is the absence of moral 
 power to perform it : " For the good that I would, 
 I do not ; but the evil that I would not, that I 
 do." Mr. B. thinks on the same page, that be- 
 cause " faith comes by hearing," therefore the 
 falling of the Holy Ghost upon Cornelius had 
 
204 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 nothing to do with his believing in Christ. He 
 should have recollected that faith is said to be 
 " of the operation of God," as well as to come 
 hy hearing. He says, to be sure, page 43, "I 
 believe that men need the influence of the Spirit^ 
 in order to their becoming real believers, genuine 
 converts ; but this influence is nowhere called 
 'receiving the Holy Ghost.'" Here is truly a 
 distinctiofi without a difference. Query, Is there 
 any difference between " the Spirit" and " the 
 Holy Ghost ?" Query, Can a man be influenced 
 hy the Spirit., before he receives the Holy Ghost 1 
 But he will have it, that receiving the Holy 
 Ghost signifies his " extraordinary influenced 
 Joel says, " It shall come to pass in the last 
 days, (saith God,) that I will pour out my Spirit 
 upon all flesh," Joel ii, 28, 32. And their " being 
 filled with the Holy Ghost" on the day of Pen- 
 tecost, Peter said, Acts ii, 16, "is that which 
 was spoken by the prophet Joel." Now, the 
 pouring out of the Spirit, in Peter's judgment, 
 is the same as being filled with the Holy Ghost ; 
 and Joel, so far from limiting it to the " extra- 
 ordinary influence''^ of the Spirit, given in primi- 
 tive times, says, " God will pour it out upon all 
 flesh." The question to be settled by the reader 
 is a very plain one, viz.. Is the Spirit in its ex' 
 traordinary influences poured out upon all flesh ? 
 To ask the question is to answer it. The 
 reader knows that it is not. Then you are to 
 decide between the word of " the King," by the 
 mouth of St. Peter, (interpreting the words of 
 Joel.) and the theory of Mr. Broaddus. 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 205 
 
 He knew that I had pronounced the " repeti- 
 tion of Christian baptism to be profane," page 
 46 ; and yet, by wresting my words from their 
 proper connection, he attempts to make out 
 that, " according to my showing,^'' those who be- 
 lieve, m adult age, are " fit subjects" of baptism, 
 although they may have been baptized in in- 
 fancy. And adds, " If you refuse to baptize 
 him, you may expect him to leave you, and 
 come over to us, v/ithout our compassing sea 
 and land to proselyte him," page 47. After all 
 the attempts of such men as Mr. B., and those 
 who, like him, make light of infant baptism, I 
 have known but very few intelligent persons who 
 have been dissatisfied with their baptism in in- 
 fancy. ]Most of those with whom their prose- 
 lyting efforts have succeeded were those who 
 had never received infant baptism, and had 
 been accustomed to hear it ridiculed, as " hahy 
 sprbikling,^^ " a relic of popery,^'' &c. 
 
 Mr. B. says, page 48, in giving his six rea- 
 sons for opposing " infant baptism," that he 
 would rather grieve over the distress of an 
 affectionate mother, whose tender infants have 
 died without the " sealing ordinance," than to 
 " sneer ;" and adds, " If I sneer at all, it shall 
 be at the conduct of those who require this 
 unscriptural dedication at their hands." Now, 
 reader, it is to be hoped that in future he will 
 not sneer at all, and I have son;e reason to hope 
 that he will quit that mode of argument, at least 
 when he writes. I believe his Letters of ninety 
 pages contain less of the article than his Sermon 
 
206 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 of forty-two pages. This, however, may have 
 arisen from the fact that he had hi?nse!f and me 
 to attend to, and had not time to devote to the 
 distressed women and their dying children. 
 
 One of the principal among his six reasons 
 is, " that it tends to defeat the original design 
 of baptism." He says, " All agree that baptism 
 was designed by the great Head of the church 
 to separate his church from the Avorld. Now, 
 suppose all to be baptized in infancy, then the 
 whole world Avould be in the church, and the 
 church, instead of being " a congregation of 
 faithful men," " would include infidels and un- 
 believers of every description ;" their right to a 
 place in it being secured to them It/ their bap- 
 tism." Candid reader, might not a congrega- 
 tion of Baptists, baptized in adult age, " contain 
 infidels and unbelievers of every description," 
 and would that prove aught against " adult bap- 
 tism?" Just as much as Mr. B.'s argmnent 
 does against infant baptism. But he says bap- 
 tism separates the church from the world, and 
 that " a right to a place in the church is secured 
 by baptism" On what ground, then, can the 
 Baptists deprive those who have been baptized 
 of their right of church membership, by expelling 
 them, however immoral or infidel they may be, 
 as baptism has separated them from the world? 
 
 His attempt to connect infant baptism with 
 popery is a stratagem with which he seems 
 very familiar ; and he more than intimates that 
 the support of infant baptism is traditionary only. 
 He says, " getting their ' pattern' from tradition 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 207 
 
 instead of the Bible." This is a pitiful attempt 
 to narroiD doivn the evidence for infant baptism 
 to what he knew was considered only as col- 
 lateral, viz., the testimony of the fathers, or 
 the practice of the church as the fathers have 
 detailed it, . Why does he not allude to the fact, 
 (in connection with this subject,) that the Greek 
 church, having no connection luith the pope, have, 
 notwithstanding, always held and practised infant 
 baptism? He does not allude to this plainly, 
 because he knows, if he can make an impres- 
 sion on the public mind that infant baptism is 
 " a relic of popery," and supported only by the 
 same kind of evidence as the errors of the 
 Romish Church, then he will succeed in ex- 
 citing a prejudice against it that will help his 
 cause. Why does not this gentleman level his 
 artillery against popery direct? Instead of en- 
 gaging in this war against our children, why 
 does he not use his influence in pointing out 
 and reforming the errors of the Romish Church, 
 such as transubstantiation, masses, &c. ? As I 
 am not blessed with the same power of per- 
 ceiving the horrible evils which this gentleman 
 sees growing out of the practice of infant bap- 
 tism, the reader will not be surprised that I 
 consider the evils of which he complains as 
 existing in his own imagination, and not in 
 sober reality. I am still of the opinion that my 
 " witty dialogue,^'' as he is pleased to call it, 
 contains " the head and front" of the offence 
 of this matter. 
 
 On the subject of the " baptism of house- 
 
208 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 holds" Mr. B. and myself are fairly at issne, 
 especially with regard to the signification of 
 the term ouiog, the original term used in those 
 passages that contain the account of the baptism 
 of the households of Crispus, the jailer, and 
 Lydia, in the Acts of the Apostles. I will at- 
 tend to this matter of difference between us 
 when we have settled some other things. We 
 expressed some anxiety to know something of 
 the '^four households^' that Mr. B. said he had 
 baptized ; but he has not had the goodness to 
 follow the example of St. Luke in this matter, 
 and give us the names and residences of his 
 Lydias and their households. Surely those re- 
 markable cases might be given with advantage 
 to the cause, if indeed he is not more blessed 
 in concealing than he would be in publishing 
 them. This by the way. 
 
 On page 25 he says, " In my Sermon T did 
 not even conjecture nho they (' Lydia's house- 
 hold') were, although you represent me as sup- 
 posing many things with respect to them." 
 How strange it is that this gentleman will make 
 such unqualified declarations, when the means 
 for his conviction are before the public. In his 
 Sermon, page 10, he says, "Who then were 
 Lydia's household ? Were they partners in her 
 mercantile operations ? This might he so. Were 
 they ' joivrneymen diers ?' Possibly they were. 
 Or were they mere travelling companions?"' (fee. 
 " They were brethren, whom Paul and Silas 
 comforted when they were about to leave the 
 city; and could anv but believers be brethren 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 209 
 
 capable of being comforted ?" Here, the reader 
 will perceive, is a. string of questions, put by 
 this gentleman in his Sermon, for what? Why, 
 obviously to convey his sentiments to his read- 
 ers in the case, or to mislead their minds and 
 deceive them. And yet, after all these ques- 
 tions asked by him, he says, as you see above, 
 " / did not even conjecture loho they iDsre,^^ and 
 declares, " I represent him as supposing many 
 things with respect to them." So I did repre- 
 sent him as supposing some things at least ; and 
 if I have ?nisrepresented him, in representing that 
 when he asked those questions, and answered 
 them, he honestly meant what he said, instead 
 of intending to trifle with his readers, then I ask 
 pardon for thus misrepresenting the gentleman, 
 and hope he will extend it to me, as he has 
 kindly offered to do in one of his letters, in 
 another case. The truth is, candid reader, the 
 Baptists have always found it a difficult task to 
 make out a family for Lydia, without supposing 
 that she had children. And, in order to help 
 themselves in the case, some have supposed 
 one thing, and others another. Some have 
 thought that some of the women of whom we 
 read, verse 13, were Lydia's household ; others, 
 discovering that the word '■^ brethren^'' occurs in 
 the fortieth verse, and finding that it would be 
 hard work to transform those " women^^ into 
 " brethren" have concluded that they were 
 " partners in business" with Lydia, or " jour- 
 neymen diers." Mr. B., however, (as he can 
 find an " express warrant for " female commu- 
 14 
 
210 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 nion in every passage where the supper is men- 
 tioned," and, of course, can find women in the 
 passage where the apostle says, " Let a man 
 examine himself;" "Wherefore, '"my hrethreriy 
 ■when ye come together to eat," &c., &;c., 1 Cor. 
 xi, 28, 33,) one would think, could have found 
 no great difficulty in holding both the above 
 hypotheses, as " the brethren" comforted would 
 surely include Lydia's women, and joumeywze?* 
 diers also. 
 
 It was not at all necessary for Mr. B. to 
 make such a flourish about his "little anec- 
 dote," as he calls it, and to put his readers to 
 the trouble of examining the Scriptures before 
 they could find out his meaning. I did, at 
 Upperville, notice that old lyrescription of the 
 Baptists for finding a family for Lydia, by sup- 
 posing she had "journeymen diers," but I did 
 not claim the honour of inventing it, as Mr. B.'s 
 informant must have known, if he attended to 
 what was said. I gave it as a part of the 
 argument of the Baptists. I presume Mr. B. 
 has heard for years of this " choice piece of 
 wit," as he is pleased to call it, and I will not 
 say, has often used it himself. The reader will 
 find this supposition about Lydia's diers noticed 
 in Watson's Institutes, part iv, page 394 ; and 
 to show that I do not claim to be father of this 
 precious creature of the imagination, I will give 
 the words of Mr. Watson. He says, " Then, 
 as if to mark more strikingly the hopelessness 
 of the attempt to torture this passage to favour 
 an opinion, * her house' is made to consist of 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 211 
 
 journeymen diers, ' employed in preparing the 
 purple she sold ;' and ' to complete the whole, 
 these journeymen diers, although not a word is 
 said of their conversion, nor even of their exist- 
 ence, in the whole story, are raised into ' the 
 brethren.' " 
 
 Mr. B. says, page 27, " that Timothy and 
 Luke could not have been ' the brethren that 
 Paul comforted' before he departed, because 
 ' Timothy and Luke went with Paul to Berea,' " 
 as I may see, he says, by consulting chap, xvii, 
 10-16. I have consulted the passage, and can- 
 not see any such thing, for the best of all rea- 
 sons, i. e., it is not there to be seen. Mr. Wes- 
 ley says, in his note on the place, " St. Luke 
 seems to have been left at Philippi." And if 
 the reader w^ill be at the pains to look at the 
 twentieth chapter, 5th and 6th verses, he will 
 see that Luke does not fall in with Paul until 
 they met at Troas. He leaves off speaking of 
 liimself as one of Paul's company, in the six- 
 teenth chapter, and does not resume that style 
 again until the twentieth chapter. So xMr. B. 
 will have to look again, and, if he sees clearly, 
 he will then perceive that Paul loent from Phi- 
 lippi to Thessalonica, and when a tumult arose 
 there, the brethren sent him and Silas to Berea. 
 Surely, candid reader, you will think that a 
 gentleman who blunders as often as Mr. B. does 
 in his statements as facts, ought either to be 
 more careful, or less confident in making them. 
 
 After carefidly noticing his third effort to ex- 
 plain this case, so as to operate against the 
 
212 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 baptism of children, I am entirely satisfied that 
 the solution I gave in my Appeal is not to be 
 set aside by Mr. B. at least, as I propose further 
 to demonstrate. 
 
 He has so arranged the words on page 60, 
 as to cause them to make an utterly false im- 
 pression on the mind of the reader. I do not 
 say that he intended this. I do not speak of 
 his motives^ but of the fact. He says, " I do 
 think, if your ' wise men' will but consider that 
 Paul and Silas went into the house of Lydia, 
 and ' comforted the brethren,' it will appear to 
 them much more ' improbable' that they were 
 visiting brethren than that they belonged to the 
 family of Lydia." The reader will observe he 
 puts the words, i?ito the house of Lydia, in 
 italics, then connects them with " comforted the 
 brethren" by the copulative conjunction " and." 
 I aver, upon the authority of common sense, 
 that no man, in reading the passage in Acts 
 without note or comment, would ever receive 
 from it any such impression as his manner of 
 presenting it gives. The words of Luke are, 
 " And they went out of the prison, and entered 
 into the house of Lydia : and when they had 
 seen the brethren, they comforted them, and 
 departed," Acts xvi, 40, 
 
 I shall now proceed to examine the matter at 
 issue between Mr. B. and Mr. Taylor, the editor 
 of Calmet's Dictionary, as quoted by myself. 
 Mr. B. says he does not know who this gentle- 
 man is, nor has he ever heard before of the 
 passage I quoted. Has that gentleman never 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 213 
 
 read the celebrated debate between Mr. Alex- 
 ander Campbell and Mr. Maccalla, which took 
 place in Kentucky ? I should suppose he had, 
 from the great similarity between some of Mr. 
 B.'s and Mr. C.'s criticisms. In this debate 
 Mr. Taylor is referred to as authority, and his 
 and Dr. Rice's criticism was adopted by Mr. 
 Maccalla. Mr. Campbell pronounced the criti- 
 cism a '•'-refuge of lies P Mr. B. says it is "at 
 palpable misrepresentaiioi}.'''' This criticism of 
 Mr. Taylor's is not only sustained by Dr. Rice, 
 Mr. Maccalla, and Mr. Ralston, but in substance 
 by Peter Edwards also. I might rest the argu- 
 ment here, with confidence of its being satis- 
 factory to the candid ; but shall proceed to 
 examine some of the evidence that Mr. B. has 
 produced, in order to show (as he says) that 
 Mr. Taylor has led me " completely astray." 
 He says, " I will not furnish ' three hundred' 
 instances, nor even ' fifty,' but I will furnish 
 enough to satisfy the most skeptical that the 
 sacred writers used the two words interchange- 
 ably." 
 
 The first case he mentions is Luke viii, 41 
 and 51, where there is an account of raising 
 the little daughter of Jairus. In the 41st verse 
 there is an evident allusion to the family, as the 
 family needed his help, and the word is oLnog. 
 In the 51st verse the dwelling is spoken of, and 
 the word is oLKta, confirming Taylor's criticism. 
 Luke X, 5, is Mr. B.'s next proof: " Into what- 
 soever house ye enter, say, Peace be to this 
 house." Here, again, in the first part of the 
 
214 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 verse the dweUing is meant ; in the last part of 
 the verse the family is meant ; because Christ 
 did not command his apostles to say. Peace be 
 to the timbers, or brick, or stone, that formed 
 the dwelling into which they entered, but. Peace 
 be to the family, the oLKog. This more fully 
 confirms the view given in my former argu- 
 ment. Mr. B. says, " Jesus calls his father's 
 house both olkoc and olklg^^^ and refers to John 
 ii, 16 ; xvi, 2. In the first passage the temple 
 is spoken of, and the word is oinog, because in 
 this case the container is put for the contained, 
 as the temple was the residence of the congre- 
 gation, " the visible family of God." In the 
 other passage he refers to there is no such 
 word in my Bible, and I use the " common 
 version." It is possible he made a mistake, 
 and referred to John xvi, instead of xiv, 2 ; 
 there the word is oiKta^ but it refers to heaven, 
 and I suppose the reader will conclude that the 
 earthly temple and the invisible heaven are not 
 exactly the same thing. 
 
 The next case he adduces is the case of the 
 oiKog of Stephanas, I Cor. i, 16, and xvi, 15. 
 The apostle says, " I baptized also the house- 
 hold (^oLKoc) of Stephanas ;" and in the close of 
 that epistle he mentions the household (oiKia) 
 of Stephanas ; and says to the Corinthian 
 church, " Ye know the house of Stephanas," 
 &c. In referring to the baptism of Stephanas 
 and his family, he uses the word oikoc, but in 
 referring to the family's having " addicted them- 
 selves to the ministry of the saints," he uses 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 215 
 
 the word oiKia^ evidently alluding to the whole 
 domestic establishment. This is the same 
 course pursued by St. Luke in Acts xvi, 32, 
 " And they spake unto him (the jailer) the word 
 of the Lord, and to all that were in his house," 
 {oiKia) — doubtless the whole domestic establish- 
 ment were summoned to the preaching, and 
 heard the word of the Lord, but there is no 
 mention of any one inquiring about salvation 
 but the jailer. And when the apostle said, 
 " Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ," he added, 
 " and thou shalt be saved and thy house," 
 (^ocKog) — and he and all his were baptized 
 straightway, and he brought Paul and Silas 
 out of the outer prison, where the preaching 
 took place, into his family apartment, ca,lled by 
 Luke his oikoc. Where the baptism of Lydia's 
 family is spoken of in the 15th verse, the same 
 word is used. " And when she was baptized 
 and her household, (^oiko^,)" &c., evidently her 
 family and her children are meant, as scholars 
 have said, and as we shall show more fully 
 hereafter. The next evidence Mr. B. adduces 
 is John xi, 20, 31, where the dwelling of Mary 
 and Martha is called both oiKog and oiKta ; but 
 this is no proof against Mr. Taylor's criticism, 
 for he says, " When oiKog is spoken of persons^ 
 it denotes a family of children ;" but Mr. B.'s 
 proof does not present a case in point, for the 
 passage refers, not to ^^ persons" but altogether 
 to a dwelling house. I suppose the intelligent 
 reader can see the difference. 
 
 After adducing the above quotations, address- 
 
216 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 ing mc, he says, " How conclusively, Mr. S., 
 do these passages show the fallacy of the dis- 
 tinction which your ' editor' makes between 
 otKoc and oiKLaJ'' Then, thinking, I presume, 
 that, conclusive as the evidence he had given 
 already might be, it would not be amiss to 
 *' make certainty more certain," he adds an 
 evidence or two more. One we will notice ; 
 the other is not material, as it proves nothing 
 to the point, and we have noticed it before. 
 The one we remark upon is Matt, x, 13, "If 
 the house (ocKca) be worthy," &c. I suppose 
 this refers, as I said above, to the whole domes- 
 tic establishment. 
 
 In the parallel passage, Luke x, 5, the words 
 are, " Into whatsoever house (oiKia) ye enter, 
 say. Peace be to this house," [oucoc) — the mi- 
 nister enters the dwelling (oiKca) and says. 
 Peace be to the family, (olkoc.) These words 
 differing sometimes in passages that are parallel, 
 may have arisen out of the carelessness of 
 transcribers, for I suppose they could as easily 
 mistake in transcribing, and put one of those 
 words for the other, as Mr. B. could mistake, 
 as the reader has seen above, in referring to a 
 text for ocKia, where no such word exists. I do 
 not blame Mr. B., nor would I blame a trans- 
 criber, for an unintentiGnal mistake. Having 
 noticed Mr. B.'s evidence at length, I shall now 
 proceed to adduce some additional testimony in 
 favour of my view. 
 
 I do not deny that olko^ is used figuratively 
 for a dwelling house, because, in such cases, 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 217 
 
 the container is put for the co7itained, as is very 
 commonly the case in our own language. 
 
 The lirst proof I shall adduce is from Num. 
 xvi, 27-32, "And Dathan and Abiram came 
 out, and stood in the door of their tents, and 
 their wives and sons, and their little children. 
 And it came to pass that the earth opened her 
 mouth and swallowed them up, and their houses 
 (oLKovg.y^ Swallowed up their little children as 
 part of their houses. 
 
 But it is used to signify infants exclusively. 
 See Deut. xxv, 9 ; where the law is alluded to 
 which required a brother to take the widow of 
 his deceased brother, and raise up a family for, 
 or to, his deceased brother. If he refused to 
 comply according to the law, then the widow 
 was to loose his shoe, spit in his face, and say, 
 " So shall it be done unto that man that will not 
 build up his brother's house {otKov.y But how 
 was the brother's house to be " huilt up T' By 
 his raising a family of children, who were to be 
 esteemed the children of the deceased brother. 
 
 Again, Ruth iv, 11, 12, " The Lord make the 
 woman that is to come into thine house, or 
 dwelling place, like Rachel, and like Leah, 
 which two did build up the house {ockov) of 
 Israel. And let thy house be like the house 
 (otKac) of Phares, which Tamar bare unto Judah 
 of the seed which the Lord will give thee of this 
 young woman." How was the house of Israel 
 built up by Rachel and by Leah ? Certainly by 
 the children born to them from time to time. 
 And how was the house of Boaz to become like 
 
218 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 the house of Phares, but by the infants to be 
 born to him by Ruth, and which are styled "the 
 seed of this young woman 1" One more example 
 from the Old Testament may be quite sufficient. 
 Psahn cxiii, 9, " He maketh the barren woman 
 to keep house, (oiku,) and to be a joyful mother 
 of children." In this passage every mibiassed 
 reader will see that the barren woman's heart 
 was to be made glad by infants to be given to 
 her by the Lord, and who w^ere to constitute 
 what is called her " house'^ or family. Now, to 
 apply the metaphorical use of the word house, 
 as an argument for infant baptism. We read in 
 the New Testament of the baptism of Lydia 
 and her house, and of the jailer and his house, 
 and of Stephanas and his house, or household. 
 The question now is. What did the inspired 
 penmen mean by the word " house,'''' in the record 
 they have left us of these and other family bap- 
 tisms ? They were well acquainted with the 
 meaning of the term in the Old Testament, as 
 sometimes signifying children separate from 
 their parents, and little children, and infants 
 exclusively. The Jews and Greeks, to whom 
 they wrote, attached the same idea to the word. 
 When the Jews then read that Lydia and her 
 house [oLKo^) — the jailer and his house [oikoq) — 
 and the house {otKog) of Stephanas, were bap- 
 tized, what would they, or what could they, un- 
 derstand by the word in those several passages ? 
 Would they not understand it according to its 
 most natural import, its most generally received 
 sense ? i. e., a man or woman's children by im- 
 
MODE. OF BAPTISM. 219 
 
 mediate descent or adoption, infants included ? 
 But if the system of the Baptists is Scriptural, 
 and infants are not to be baptized, then the 
 inspired penmen have used a word calculated 
 to deceive both Jews and Greeks. This is not to 
 be admitted ! ! 
 
 We shall now adduce a few other texts, from 
 the New Testament, on this point. 
 
 In the Acts of the Apostles, where we find 
 what Mr. Booth and Baptist writers generally 
 call " the law of baptism" carried out in the 
 practice of the apostles, the word ocKog occurs 
 twenty-three times, and is always the word used 
 where families are spoken of as having been 
 baptized. Chap, xi, 12-14, the angel said to 
 Cornelius, " Call for Simon, whose surname is 
 Peter, who shall tell thee words whereby thou, 
 and all thi/ house, (ockoc,) shall be saved." See 
 Acts xvi, 15, 31, 34. And in the eighteenth 
 chapter it is used in a way calculated to show 
 that Luke did not consider it as much like 
 oLKLa as the '■' English word brothers" is like 
 "brethren." Seventh and eighth verses, "And 
 he departed thence, and entered into a certain 
 man's house (ouua) named Justus, one that 
 worshipped God, whose house {olklo) joined 
 hard to the synagogue." And when he speaks 
 in the next verse of a family, he drops the word 
 which he had used twice in the seventh verse, 
 and adopts the word wliich is used in all the 
 cases \v\iQXQ family haptisrn is spoken of. " And 
 Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, be- 
 lieved on the Lord, with all his house {oiKog :) 
 
220 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 and many of the Corinthians hearing, believed 
 and were baptized." In Heb. xi, 7, it is said 
 that " Noah prepared an ark to the saving of 
 his house," (ocKog.) We know that Noah and 
 his fainily only are meant in this passage. 
 
 Having aheady consumed more time on these 
 words than I could well spare to a single point 
 in the controversy, I must bring this part of the 
 general argument to a close. My only apology 
 to the reader, for having said so much on it, is 
 found in the confident air with which Mr. B. 
 denounced this criticism of my " editor," as he 
 calls him. I cannot do better than close this 
 article in the words of Mr. Taylor : " The na- 
 tural import of the term oLKog, family, includes 
 children of all ages. In proof I offer you fifty 
 examples; li fifty are not sufficient, I offer a 
 hundred; if a hundred is not sufficient, two hun- 
 dred ; if tioo hundred are not sufficient, four 
 hundred. I affirm that ouiog very often ex- 
 presses the presence of infants. Of this I offer 
 you fifty examples, and if you admit classical 
 instances, ^^y more. I tell you also, that some- 
 what more than three hundred instances have 
 been examined, and have proved perfectly satis- 
 factory." — Concluding Facts, &c., pp. 13, 14. 
 
 The intelligent reader can now judge whether 
 I have built upon " mere presumption,^^ as Mr. B. 
 says I have, (in maintaining " infant baptism" 
 from the cases of household or family baptism 
 recorded in the oracles of God,) or whether I 
 have built upon the solid foundation of immutable 
 truth and incontrovertible facts. To all, to every 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 221 
 
 candid parent in the land, I would address my- 
 self, and say, " Your'^ children's ^''advocate must 
 be yours.-' 
 
 Before I proceed to the review of Mr. B.'s 
 letters relative to the " mode of baptism," allow 
 me a remark upon the closing paragraph of his 
 eleventh letter. He says, " I will not sum up 
 what I have written, lest you should think of 
 my summary as I do of yours." This is in 
 keeping with his first reason, for not being will- 
 ing to engage in an oral discussion with me. 
 If he had summed up what he had said in his 
 letters, his readers could have seen more easily 
 how small a portion of my argument he had 
 even attempted to answer. But I forget myself 
 when I talk about arguments for Pedobaptist 
 views. Mr. B. says, " there are none in the wide 
 compass of creation.'''' But our readers will not 
 believe this. They will give the word of God 
 its plain, unsophisticated meaning, when their 
 sight is not obscured by the dust raised by 
 those who " darken counsel." And knowing, 
 as the public do, that the term children means 
 infants as well as larger children ; and know- 
 ing also, that in any given district of country 
 a majority of families have infants or young 
 children in them, they naturally conclude that 
 there must have been infants in some of those 
 families baptized by the apostles. 
 
 We shall now proceed to notice some things 
 in the remaining ten letters, in which Mr. B. 
 notices the " mode of baptism." 
 
 He begins, on page 51, with the same fancy 
 
222 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 (■which we replied to in the former argument) 
 about the distinction between moral and positive 
 institutions, and the explicit and ^'minutely de- 
 fined''^ directions for the observance of the latter. 
 He says, " To me it is most obvious that a 
 positive institution must be minutely defined by 
 the lawgiver, and obeyed to the very letter by 
 the subject, or else it can be of no service what- 
 ever." Observe, reader ! " minutely defined.''^ 
 He refers to Leviticus xiv, where the ceremony 
 of cleansing a leper is detailed. Why did he 
 not quote a little more of the ceremon)' than the 
 " dipping of the finger of the priest" in the oil ? 
 If he had, the reader would have seen a case 
 corroborating our views of the mode of baptism. 
 For, although . the leprous man washed his 
 clothes and his person in water before he was 
 presented at the door of the tabernacle of the 
 congregation, yet this he did himself in pi'ivate; 
 but when the priest, the minister of God, 
 went to perform the purification, or cleansing 
 of the leper, both the blood and oil wkre 
 sprinkled, and in the same manner was a 
 leprous house to be cleansed. See verses 6-9, 
 II, 16, 19,51. 
 
 As I had asked for " detailed, explicit direc- 
 tions about the manner of performing the positive 
 institutes^'' of circumcision and the Lord's sup- 
 per, Mr. B. seems to feel bound to give them, 
 and sets himself at work to furnish the explicit 
 directions in both those cases. On the institute 
 of circumcision, he says, " Read Gen. xvii, 11. 
 I hope you will not suppose that any thing would 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 233 
 
 have passed for circumcision, except what is 
 there required." I wish Mr. B. had more fre- 
 quently given the icords of the passages he 
 refers to, and this he might have done (by- 
 leaving out so?ne of his many complaints) with- 
 out increasing the number of pages in his reply. 
 Then his letters would have had in them fewer 
 of the loards of man, and more of the words of 
 God. This by the way. As he did not give 
 the reader the loords of the law of circumcision, 
 I shall have to do it; here they are : "And ye 
 shall circunwise the flesh of your foreskih ; and 
 it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me 
 and you." Here are what he calls " explicit 
 directions,''^ a " minutely defined^'^ positive insti- 
 tute. Does the reader see any explicitness in 
 the directions ? Do they say loJio is to perform 
 the rite? Perhaps Mr. B. ^Y\\\ say the father 
 was to be priest in the case. Very good. Then 
 none other was qualified to perform it, for he 
 says, " the law must be obeyed to the very letter ;^^ 
 but then this will be opposed to \\iQ facts. For 
 although Abraham performed the rite for Ish- 
 mael and the men of his house, verse 23, yet it 
 is evident from verse 24 that he was not the 
 operator in his own case. It is again far more 
 evident, from Exod. iv, 25, and Luke i, 59, that 
 neither Moses nor Zacharias performed the rite 
 upon their sons, although the fathers were pre- 
 sent in each case. I" suppose, candid reader, 
 you will hardly receive views that contradict 
 facts. So it seems this law does not " minutely 
 define" v:ho was to be the operator in keeping 
 
224 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 the law of circumcision. I ask again, With 
 what kind of instrument was the rite to be per- 
 formed ? Was it a knife ? Perhaps I shall be 
 told it was. But then, a knife could not have 
 been necessary to the valid performance of the 
 rite, for the wife of Moses performed the rite 
 upon her son' with a " sharp stone,^^ Exod. iv, 25. 
 I ask again. Where was the rite to be performed, 
 and at what time of the day or night ? The law 
 does not specify ; Ishmael received the rite in 
 his father's house ; Moses's son received it at 
 a?i inn, and the people of Israel \\^re circum- 
 cised in the camp. Josh, v, 8. Now, I ask the 
 candid reader, what has become of Mr. B.'s 
 " minutely defined,''^ " explicit directions,''' of the 
 law of the positive institute of circumcision ? 
 They have vanished out of sight, and I incline 
 to think you will not be able to discern them 
 again, without the aid of Mr. B.'s microscopic 
 glasses. But let us examine a little his " expli- 
 cit directions''^ about the Lord's supper. Page 52, 
 he says, " You inquire, also, whether the Scrip- 
 tures give specific directions about the manner 
 of attending to the Lord's supper. I answer, 
 Yes, very explicit. Read 1 Cor. xi, 23 to 26, and 
 you will see such a description as can leave us 
 at no loss whatever on the subject." In this 
 case, also, he does not favour us with the words 
 that contain the "very explicit'" directions. Here 
 they are, from St. Paul : " For I have received 
 of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, 
 that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which 
 he was betrayed, took bread : and when he 
 
MODE OF BAPTI&M. 225 
 
 had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, 
 eat ; this is my body, which is broken for you : 
 this do in remembrance of me. x\fter the same 
 manner also he took the cup, when he had 
 supped, saying, This cup is the New Testament 
 in my blood : this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, 
 in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat 
 this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the 
 Lord's death till he come." Does the reader 
 see any " very explicit directions''' here ? Does 
 this passage specify the posture in which we are 
 to receive the supper 1 No : hence some take 
 it kneeling^ some sitting, and others standing. 
 Does it specify the kind of bread to be used, 
 whether leavened or unleavened, whether wheat 
 or some other kind ? I answer. No. Does it 
 specify what kind of wine is to be used, whether 
 red or Avhite, fermented, or unfermented wine ? 
 The reader knows it does not. Does it specify 
 the quantity of each that is to be used by the 
 communicant ? I answer again. It does not. 
 And yet our Lord and his apostle have said, 
 *' This do." The simple fact, that bread and 
 wine are to be taken, in remembrance of Christ, 
 is all the specification there is in the passage. 
 Water is to be applied to the subject in the 
 institute of baptism, and bread and wine are to 
 be used in the Lord's supper. So that Mr. B.'s 
 " specified directions," " minutely defined," turn 
 out to be of the same character with his " ex- 
 press warrant," his " Thus saith the Lord," for 
 female communion. I remark, by the way, if 
 the Baptists were never to immerse any person 
 15 
 
226 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 until they find in the " law of baptism," as they 
 call it, " minutely defined directions''' for the ob- 
 servance of the rite, we should soon have an 
 end to baptism by immersion. But when they 
 are pressed here, they say the Scriptures know 
 nothing for baptism but *' believers' immersion ;" 
 and when you demand the proof, they fly to the 
 word baptize, and tell you gravely that the " eoc- 
 plicit directions'^ are all in that ivord. They take 
 care, however, not to go to the original meaning 
 of dei-nvov^ the word used, 1 Cor. xi, 20, for the 
 supper: because that signifies not simply a 
 meal, but was used for the principal meal 
 among the Greeks. They know there is no 
 consistency in crying out for much water in one 
 sacrament, and being content to consider the 
 law of the other sacrament fully complied with, 
 in eating a small jyiece of bread and tasting wine. 
 We are told by a certain Baptist writer, who 
 saw the difficulty here hinted at, " It is not ne- 
 cessary to take much bread and wine in the 
 Lord's supper, in order to comply with the 
 command, ' Do this,' because the action is the 
 same, in eating, whether we eat little or much." 
 I answer, In baptism it is not necessary to use 
 much water, because the clement is the same, 
 "whether we use little or much ; unless, indeed, 
 it can be shown that there is a charm in the 
 elements used in the sacraments. If this can 
 be shown, then the larger the quantity used in 
 either the better. I suppose, however, this will 
 not be attempted, especially by those who profess 
 to be so much afraid of encouraging pop?Vt errors. 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 227 
 
 It might, we think, be easily shown that, 
 according to the position laid down by Mr. B. 
 relative to ^^ positive institutes'^ and the neces- 
 sity of a literal compliance icith every circumstance 
 connected with their institution, no denomina- 
 tion of Christians, the Baptists not excepted, 
 do at this day properly observe the sacrament 
 of the Lord's supper. 1. It was instituted at 
 night. 2. Only men were present at it. 3. Un- 
 leavened bread doubtless was used, because the 
 Jews kept no other kind in their houses at the 
 time of the passover. 4. It was celebrated in 
 an upper room. 5. It was celebrated at a par- 
 ticular time of the year, &c. Now^ Mr. B. says, 
 " A positive institute must be minutely defined 
 by the lawgiver, and obeyed to the very letter 
 by the subject, or else it can be of no service 
 Avhatever." This, the reader will observe, 
 stands opposed to Mr. B.'s ov^^n practice, in 
 the observance of the sacrament of the supper. 
 This literal conformity he did not intend should 
 be pressed against his own practice. He only 
 mentioned it in connection v.'ith circumcision 
 and the Lord's supper, because, in my former 
 argument, I had placed those cases against his 
 theory. So I return to the gentleman one of 
 the many compliments of his Letters, " The 
 legs of the lame are not equal." 
 
 Mr. B. repeats a part of what he said in his 
 Strictures and Sermon about King James, the 
 bishops, and translators, and says, " The pre- 
 sent version, with all its defects, is against 
 sprinkling.'''' And adds, " I only complain that 
 
228 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 it is not more against sprinkling than it is." As 
 the Baptists have Avithdrawn from the Ameri- 
 can Bible Society, because the board would not 
 appropriate funds to make a different translation 
 in a foreign tongue from the common version, I 
 suppose they will soon have a version of their 
 own, and this gentleman may then be suited. 
 It is due to many of the liberal minded Baptists, 
 however, to say, that they disapprove of this 
 measure. I suppose they think well of the 
 " common version," as did the learned Drs. 
 Middleton and Doddridge, and Dr. .John Taylor 
 of Norwich, although he held a different creed 
 from that held by the bishops. 
 
 I made no charge against Mr. B. relative to 
 the translators and bishops which is not fully 
 sustained by his own statements. He repre- 
 sented, in the Sermon, page 28, that the trans- 
 lators " were so fully convinced that the Greek 
 verb haptizo ought to be translated immerse, that 
 we should have had it immerse in our version, 
 but for the interposition of the bishops." In the 
 Strictures, page 13, he says, "But our trans- 
 lators being all opposed to immersion, it is no 
 M'onder they did not render the word into Eng- 
 lish." And yet he says, " I have not charged 
 the translators and bishops with making a trans- 
 lation to faA^our sprinkling." And says of me, 
 that I have, in this case, " dealt freely in the 
 article of misrepresentation." The candid 
 reader will be able to judge, from his words 
 given above, whether / have " borne false wit- 
 ness" against him ; or whether he has not de- 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 229 
 
 nied his own charge, formerly made against 
 those "dead men ;" '•' If he is ashamed of it noio, 
 it is luell /" It would be well also, if he would 
 examine always what he has said, before he 
 enters his flat denial of things alleged against 
 him. It is unpleasant to me to be compelled, 
 in self-defence, thus to expose the gentleman's 
 contradictions of his own statements. 
 
 On page 54 he says, that the reason why I 
 have found it necessary to preach so often on 
 baptism is, that "the people have not learning 
 and ingenuity enough to find sprinkling or pour- 
 ing for baptism in the present version" of the 
 Scriptures. And concludes that, as " many of 
 our people are, at one time or another, uneasy 
 about baptism, there must be some ' glorious 
 uncertainty' about the sprinkling and pouring." 
 And he judged this last sentence so important, 
 that it was necessary to call attention to it by 
 marking it with two |l3^c=Cl|- 
 
 It is true, candid reader, that some Pedobap- 
 tist people get uneasy sometimes on the subject 
 of baptism by immersion ; I have not, however, 
 known of ma?ij/ cases of the kind ; and when 
 they have occurred, so far as my observation 
 has extended, their uneasiness has not arisen 
 half so often from reading the Bible, as from 
 having enjoyed the company or conversation 
 of some artful immersionist. And where our 
 people have the Bible, and the Spirit of God to 
 guide them, and jione to perplex their minds, we 
 hardly ever find it necessary to speak of the 
 mode of baptism. We have passed whole years 
 
230 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 in some places without preaching one sermon 
 on the subject, where our people had not been 
 exposed to the " sleight of men" who seek on all 
 occasions to make proselytes to opinions about 
 ceremonies, with more zeal than to teach men 
 how to " WORSHIP God in Spirit and in 
 TRUTH !" 
 
 He closes his twelfth letter with an anec- 
 dote about an Indian who had a Bible given 
 him by a Pedobaptist missionary, which be- 
 came instrumental in his salvation. The mis- 
 sionary meeting with the Indian afterward, 
 proposed to have water brought in a pitcher to 
 a meeting house, in order to baptize the Indian. 
 The latter was astonished at the proposition ; 
 because, as he said, the book told him " that 
 they baptized in a river, and where there was 
 much water, and were buried in baptism." 
 And he told the missionary, " he must give him 
 another hook.''^ 
 
 Now, candid reader, this same Indian story 
 looks very much as if it vjas made for effect, and 
 I strongly suspect that some one of a lighter 
 skin had something to do with its fabrication. 
 It may have ^^Esau^s hands,^'' but it certainly 
 " has JacoVs voice,''^ and it may impose upon 
 some blind Isaac. Mr. B. says, he " does not 
 vouch for the truth of the story." I judge this 
 Indian story to be of a piece with the " negro" 
 story which he tells in his Letters ; and the 
 story about the lady who was visited by several 
 ministers, whose husband finally " concluded 
 that it was safest for her to be immersed.^- All 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 231 
 
 such Stories are but tubs for the whale. We could 
 tell some story, too, of an opposite description, 
 if we did not consider such business degrading 
 to the understanding of the writer, and an insult 
 to the intelligence of the reader. 
 
 But suppose this " Indian story" is literally 
 true, what then? Is it not extremely likely that I 
 he had, previously to seeing the missionary at 
 the meeting house, fallen in with some wander- 
 ing " new-fight Baptist" in the " Great Valley," 
 and had taken a lesson or two from him? Or, 
 if it occurred recently, possibly he may have met 
 tuith a copy of Mr. B.^s Strictures, if any copies 
 have, by any means, reached the Valley of the 
 Mississippi. For I am very certain that the 
 Indian, reading in the " book" which the mis- 
 sionary gave him of the baptisms of the jailer, 
 Saul, and Cornelius and his family, saw nothing 
 about either " a river," or " much water." And 
 suppose the missionary did propose to hav-e 
 water brought in " a pitcher^'' he might have 
 pleaded a very good precedent for his practice. 
 For, as early as the middle of the third century, 
 '' when Laurentius was brought to the stake to 
 suffer martyrdom, a soldier who was employed 
 as one of his executioners professed to be con- 
 verted, and requested baptism from the hands 
 of the martyr. For this purpose a pitcher of 
 water was brought, and the soldier baptized at 
 the place of execution." — See Dr. Wall, as 
 quoted by Dr. Miller. Here we have one of 
 the " noble army of martyrs" using water from 
 a pitcher for the purpose of administering the 
 
232 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 ordinance ; and that, too, under circumstances 
 so solemn, that none would dare to trifle with 
 this ordinance of God. So much for Mr. B.'s 
 Indian, pitcher, &c. 
 
 Mr. B. attempts, page 57, by a quibble, to 
 evade what I had said about his translation of 
 Luther's " Johannes der Taufer." Why did he 
 not deny that my interpretation was correct, in- 
 stead of saying he could convince my friend, 
 from Luther's Bible, that Luther meant John the 
 Dipper? I have been assured by several Ger- 
 man scholars, and have found, by consulting a 
 large German and English Dictionary, that my 
 former interpretation was perfectly correct. 
 
 Mr. B. says, page 58, that the creed makers 
 at Westminster came within one vote of deciding 
 in favour of i?nmersion, and that, but for the cast- 
 ing vote of Dr. Lightfoot, we should have had 
 the Presbyterians contending for " immersion." 
 And then alludes to Mr. Campbell's having 
 criticised his sermon from the pulpit for two 
 days. I do not know that it is my province to 
 be the defender of the venerable men who com- 
 posed the Westminster Assembly; I will, how- 
 ever, say, that Mr. B. has misrepresented them 
 in the statement above given. Neal, in his 
 History of the Puritans, says, that " the Direc- 
 tory (containing the baptismal service) passed 
 the assembly with great unanimity" Mr. B. 
 has not given the authority upon which he has 
 made his statement. And for a full refutation 
 of it, I refer the reader to Miller on Baptism, 
 pages 147, 148 
 
iMODE OF BAPTISM. 233 
 
 I have now, candid reader, reached that point 
 in Mr. B.'s Letters, page 59, where he attempts 
 to vindicate himself upon the charge of having 
 mutilated the icritings of Pedohaptist authors. 
 He begins with Dr. Clarke. After reading his 
 vindication of himself, and his attempt to show 
 that I had been guilty of the same thing which 
 I had charged upon him, I thought, at first, per- 
 haps I had committed some oversight in the case. 
 I accordingly revie\ved the matter as it stood in 
 the Appeal, and compared it with the doctor's 
 note on Rom. vi, 4, and find that I have been 
 guilty of not quoting all the doctor has said in 
 his commentary on baptism. I have cut no 
 sentence in two ; and as for shortening the 
 paragraph, by leaving off two complete sen- 
 tences at the end of it, that did not in any mea- 
 sure affect the argument, or the sense of the 
 note. What I complained of in Mr. B. was, 
 that he had given Dr. Clarke as a witness to 
 prove immersion as the exclusive mode, and that 
 BAPTizo means to immerse, and nothing else; 
 and that, in attempting to make this to appear, 
 he had cut one of the doctor's sentences in two, 
 by which a different sense was given to the note 
 than the reader would have received in reading 
 the whole of that part of the note that referred 
 to the subject of baptism. Mr. B. seems deter- 
 mined now to make amends for having given 
 but part of a sentence in his Strictures. He 
 says, " I will here give the whole sentence^'' &c. ; 
 he then proceeds, and quotes, not a whole sen- 
 tence only, but jive sentences. I suppose he 
 
234 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 thought he had as well give the reader the 
 whole, as / had already given all that loas mate- 
 rial to the question. He says, on the subject of 
 diAdding the sentence, and giving part of it as 
 though it were the whole, " As to using a period, 
 I could not close the sentence without it ; and 
 I hope you' will not require a man to quote all 
 that another writer says, in order to avoid muti- 
 latingy I do not expect a man who quotes a 
 writer to give all he says, but I do expect that 
 he shall give enough truly to represent the views 
 of the author. But this gentleman could not 
 close the sentence without a period. What he 
 quoted was not a sentence, and, therefore, ought 
 not to have been closed. Surely, as this gentle- 
 man is a teacher, he knows that a quotation can 
 be finished as well with a colon, semicolon, or 
 comma, as with a period. I ask now again, 
 Does Dr. Clarke's note prove that to immerse 
 is the only sense of haptizo 1 for this is the point 
 that he was brought by Mr. B. to prove, Strictures, 
 page 15. His words are, "But this (baptizo) 
 is an obstinate word. It has but one meaning — 
 these learned men knew it — and their candour 
 forced them to acknowledge it." I boldly affirm 
 that they never did acknowledge it. Dr. C.'s 
 language with regard to this word is, Matt, iii, 
 6, " Were the people dipped or sprinkled ? for 
 it is CERTAIN bapto and baptizo mean both." 
 
 Mr. B. may write as many explanations and 
 vindications as he pleases, but while his 
 Strictures exist, they will fully sustain all 
 that I have said of him, on this case, in my 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 235 
 
 Appeal, to which T beg leave to refer the 
 reader. 
 
 As it regards what the gentleman says about 
 " confessmg my folly, and asking forgiveness,^^ 
 and about his " being one of the first to forgive 
 me, in the event of my asking forgiveness," &c., 
 I would only observe, it is a feature of " mv 
 creed" that confession is a part of repentance, 
 and that conviction alioays precedes it. Hence, 
 for the want of conviction that I have done any 
 wrong in the premises, I cannot repent or ask 
 pardon. The conviction I have at present is, 
 that Mr. B. deserved all he got in my first argu- 
 ment, and that he is now desirous of getting out 
 of the dilemma in the best way he can, under 
 cover of the dust raised by him in his Letters. 
 I invite any candid man to take his Strictures 
 and compare them wdtli what I have said, for 
 proof of the above. See Strictures, pp. 13-15 ; 
 Appeal, from page 104 to 111. 
 
 He next attempts to clear himself from the 
 charge with regard to Mr. Wesley, page 61, and 
 begins by confessing that he " had, in mistake, 
 put Dr. Doddridge's words into Mr. Wesley's 
 mouth in the Strictures ; but that in his Sermon 
 he had given the quotation exact." I ask. Does 
 that prove the point he had undertaken to make 
 out? He had asserted that Mr. Wesley ^^pre- 
 ferred immersion,^'' — ^that " he had acknowledged 
 that haptizo had but one meaning." Whereas 
 Mr. W. says, " The greatest scholars, and most 
 proper judges in the matter, testify that the 
 original term (haptizo) means not dipping, but 
 
236 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 washing or cleansing." I ask tlie candid reader, 
 Is this an acknowledgment ? What I complained 
 of was, that he should take part of a sentence 
 from Mr. W.'s Notes, and the circumstances of 
 Parker's child, and Mary Welch, from his Jour- 
 nal, to make out that Mr. W. favoured his views : 
 and with Mr. W.'s Works in his hands, contain- 
 ing positive evidence to the contrary^ he should 
 still abuse the minds of his readers with this 
 partial testimony concerning that good man's 
 actual sentiments. 
 
 Mr. B. did not quote Mr. Wesley on Colos. 
 ii, 12, he says, either in his printed Sermon or 
 while delivering it, " because he could see no 
 meaning in it." And he thought he had satisfied 
 " my friend" of it in the conversation they had 
 after the sermon was preached. This gentle- 
 man thinks my " friend" like Goldsmith's school- 
 master — " though convinced, he can argue still." 
 Now, I undertake to say that Mr. B. never did 
 eith'er convince or " vanquish'' him. I suppose 
 he did not like to quote Goldsmith correctly, and 
 say, " though vanquished, he can argue still," 
 lest those who know the circumstances of that 
 conversation should think his boasting unau- 
 thorized by the true state of the case. 
 
 Mr. B. says, page 63, that " I seem to have 
 found it necessary to apologize for Mr. Wesley." 
 I remark, when Mr. W. is not misrepresented 
 he needs no apologist. And / blush for Mr. B. 
 that he should make it necessary for me to become 
 the vindicator, not the " apologist, ^^ of a man 
 whose name is interwoven with that revival of 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 237 
 
 the work of God which commenced in the last 
 century; and whose tame shall be more im- 
 perishable than the foundations of empires. 
 I "apologise" FOR Mr. JoH^v Wesley ! ! "His 
 works bear witness of him." I only attempted 
 to remove the dust that had been thrown upon 
 his " fair escutcheon." 
 
 While I am upon the subject of Mr. W.'s 
 testimony, I would just observe to the reader, 
 that Mr. B. seems to have suspected his readers 
 would " be surprised at his frequent references 
 to Mr. W.," and sets about assigning the reason, 
 viz., " that the large proportion of the congrega- 
 tion assembled to hear the sermon were Meth- 
 odists." — Sermon, p. 10. Now, admitting this 
 statement to be true, what Avas to be gained by 
 attempting to prove to Methodists that Mr. 
 Wesley held one thing on the subject of baptism, 
 and practised another ? Was this the quintes- 
 sence of politeness, to tell a congregation, "the 
 large proportion of whom were Methodists," 
 that the founder of their sect was an incon- 
 sistent man, and that he held '■'■ baptismal regene- 
 ration,^'' and entertained, indeed, " loorse views 
 on baptism than Mr. Alexander Campbell ?" 
 And this, too, from a gentleman w^ho writes 
 about '■^common politeness T This I have written 
 upon, the supposition that the statement is true. 
 I now pronounce it to be utterly without founda- 
 tion, unless this gentleman has some mode of 
 calculation that I have never heard of, by which 
 he can make it appear that fifteen or twenty 
 Methodists are " the large proportion of a con- 
 
238 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, Ax\D 
 
 gregatioii" of several hundred persons. Perhaps 
 Mr. B. was misinformed about his auditors. I 
 am willing to hope he was. At the same time 
 I am afraid he is vcr^ liable to be imposed upon 
 by those who may imagine they please him, or 
 advantage tlieir cause, by repeating silly tales, or 
 things not founded in fact. Of this character is 
 the silly story of Mr. Toplady, page 80, about 
 " Mr. Wesley's having immersed a woman in 
 a hogshead." He knows, candid reader, that 
 Mr. Toplady was one of Mr. Wesley's bitterest 
 opponents, and that he was quite as much exas- 
 perated at Mr. W. as Mr. B. has been at me. 
 Even religious men, under such circumstances, 
 can sometimes consent to gratify one of the 
 worst feelings of human nature, by retailing 
 marvellous stories about an opponent, if they can 
 only get some one else to endorse them, whether 
 they themselves believe them or not. Mr. Top- 
 lady thought that sin could not hurt the elect. 
 Query, Is Mr. B. less partial now to this gentle- 
 man's views than formerly ? 
 
 His next attempt is to show that he has not 
 misrepresented Professor Stuart's views, and 
 gravely says to me, " If you examine his essay," 
 &c. Does he suppose I have not examined it? 
 He knows / have examined it, quite sufficiently 
 to show the reader that Professor Stuart, so far 
 from confirming Mr. Carson's view of baptize, 
 says expressly, page 100, that " Mr. Carson 
 lays down some very adventurous positions in 
 respect to words having one meaning only; 
 which, as it seems to me, every lexicon on earth 
 
.MODE OF BAPTISM. 239 
 
 contradicts, and always must contradict.'''' And 
 yet Mr. B. persists in making the professor a 
 witness for immersion, as the only sense of 
 haptizo. And says, page 59, that he (Stuart) 
 " acknowledges, or rather affirms, that all lexi- 
 cographers and critics of an}'- note have assigned 
 to it (haptizo) the same meaning that Carson 
 does," — while Carson, the reader v/ill observe, 
 confesses that " all lexicographers and com- 
 mentators are against him in that opinion." — 
 Carson on Baptism, page 79, as quoted by Dr. 
 Miller. 
 
 Here, according to Mr. B., Professor Stuart 
 contradicts Mr. Carson. Stuart says, all lexi- 
 cographers of any note _a^ree with Carson in 
 opinion ; Carson says, all lexicographers are 
 against him in opinion. Verily, here is a dis- 
 crepancy ! I beg leave to refer the intelligent 
 reader to my former argument for Professor 
 Stuart's views ; and for a fuller account of them, 
 to his Essay on the Mode of Baptism. 
 
 In every case which I have examined of the 
 Pedobaptist authorities quoted by Mr. B., I have 
 found the remark of Peter Edvrards to hold 
 good, i. e., " that those writers are made to con- 
 cede what they never meant to conceded 
 
 On page 69, Mr. B. quotes Dr. Doddridge, 
 / think unfairly, in the words following : " It 
 seems the part of candour to confess, that here 
 (Rom. vi, 4) is an alhision to the manner of 
 baptizing by immersion." This, the reader will 
 observe, he makes a full sentence, putting a 
 period in the place where the doctor has a 
 
240 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 comma. But the gentleman says, " he cannot 
 close a sentence ivithout a period^ Then surely 
 he should not close it at all until he has given 
 the whole, especially if leaving out a part mars 
 the sense. 
 
 The doctor's words are, " It seems the part 
 of candour' to confess, that here is an allusion 
 to the manner of baptizing by immersion, as 
 most usual in these early times ; hut that will not 
 prove this particular circumstance to he essen- 
 tial TO THE ORDINANCE." The reader can 
 compare these quotations, and see whether they 
 give the same idea of the doctor's views. 
 
 When I deem it expedient, and have nothing 
 more important to engage my attention, I may 
 perhaps be at the pains to examine some others 
 of Mr. B.'s abused critics. I have no doubt 
 they have all been treated pretty much alike. 
 
 On pages 65, 66, Mr. B. introduces again the 
 subject of " baptismal regeneration," and has 
 made a pitiful attempt to show his readers that 
 Mr. Wesley built infant baptism upon that doc- 
 trine. Hear him : " Any man of candour and 
 common sense must see that Mr. Wesley held 
 it, and built infant baptism upon it." And he 
 adds, " and besides this foundation, none other 
 can be laid upon which the baptism of infants 
 can stand." Does not the reader see in this 
 an attempt to nairow down the evidence for infant 
 baptism to this single point? He says, " I have 
 charged Mr. Wesley, both from the pulpit and 
 the press, with advocating the doctrine of bap- 
 tismal regeneration." Mark that ! Is not this 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 241 
 
 a mere blind ? Have ten intelligent men ever 
 dreamed of it, in reading Mr. W.'s treatise of 
 baptism ? To take isolated passages from the 
 writings of a man, wresting them from their 
 proper connection, is not a fair way of coming 
 at his true sentiments on any given point. And 
 indeed, after Mr. B. has adduced his testimony 
 what does it prove? That we are regenerated 
 by baptism ? Not at all. By what, then ? By 
 grace. Here are the words : '' By baptism we, 
 who were, by nature, children of wrath, are 
 made the children of God. And this regene- 
 ration, which our church, in so many places, 
 ascribes to baptism, is more than barely being 
 admitted into the church, though commonly con- 
 nected therewith; being grafted into the body 
 ot Christ s church, we are made the children of 
 God by adoption and graced He then adds, 
 Ihis is grounded on the plain words of our 
 Lord "Except a man be born of water and of 
 the Spirit;' &c., and quotes the words of the 
 apostle, where he calls baptism " the washing 
 of regeneration." He then adds, " Nor does she 
 (the church) ascribe it to the outward washing,, 
 but to the mward graced &c. Query, Has Mr 
 Broaddus any method by which people can be 
 regenerated, and made children of God, other 
 than " by inward grace .?" Mr. W., in his ser- 
 mon on the " new birth," after quoting the ques- 
 tions and answers in the Church Catechism, 
 says, " Nothing, therefore, is plainer than that, 
 according to the Church of England, baptism 
 IS NOT THE NEW BIRTH." I refer the reader 
 16 
 
242 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 to his Sermons and Treatise on Baptism, for 
 further evidence that Mr. B., in charging Mr. 
 Wesley, from the pulpit and the press, with 
 holding baptismal regeneration, has charged him 
 falsely. I would advise him, in future, to pay- 
 more regard to the ninth commandment, Exod. 
 XX, 16, especially when men have gone up to 
 heaven, and cannot answer for themselves. 
 
 I might accuse the apostle Peter, in the very 
 same way, with holding that we arc " saved by 
 baptism ;" for he says, " The like figure where- 
 unto, even baptism doth also nova save «a\" But 
 the apostle explains himself, and so does Mr. 
 Wesley. If the candid reader will examine 
 Mr. W.'s Treatise on Baptism, he will see that 
 he rests infant baptism, not on baptismal rege- 
 neration, (as Mr. B. says he does,) but upon 
 sound reason and Scripture evidence. If I 
 could find a dead giant, how I could brandish 
 my sword over him ivithout fear ! ! ! "I have 
 CHARGED Mr. Wesley from the pulpit and the 
 
 press 
 
 f" 
 
 Who is this "giant warrior," that 
 
 " aims his blows" at the high and the low, and 
 striding along, recklessly treads alike upon the 
 feelings of the living, and the ashes of the 
 " mighty dead ?" 
 
 But Mr. B. says, the public w^ant light on the 
 subject of Methodist views of baptism. Does 
 he mean the community at large ? or does he 
 mean the Baptist public ? So?ne of them, at leasts 
 had better use the light they already have, before 
 they " call for more" with regard to our views. 
 Some of them have refused to read the Appeal 
 
:\10DE OF BAPTISM. 243 
 
 M'hen it was offered them gratuitously. It would 
 surely be of no avail to such, however plainly 
 and full}/ I might answer on this subject. 
 
 I am not aware that our people, or the '• ruling 
 powers," (as this gentleman calls the ministry,) 
 hold the doctrine of " baptismal regeneration" 
 either in the case of infants or adults. The 
 views of the Methodists, as a denomination, 
 have been long before the world ; for we have 
 a published creed. If Mr. B.'s " public" want 
 light with regard to our views, I beg leave to 
 refer them to our Articles of Religion in our 
 Discipline, and to the " Wesleyan Methodist 
 Catechism," Nos. 1, 2,3, published at the Book 
 Room, New- York. 
 
 He makes an attempt, page 71, to explain 
 away the view I gave of the baptism of the 
 Israelites in the Red Sea ; and wall have it, 
 that if water from the cloud and the sea came 
 on them, they were baptized twice. This was 
 a baptism of ?/?<???, women, and children; and for 
 a full answer to Mr. B. relative to the mode of 
 its administration, I refer the candid reader to 
 iny former argument on this point. He is so 
 much pleased with his fancy that Mr. Wesley 
 and I disagree in our viewB of the condition of 
 infants, that, on page 72, he brings it forward 
 again. I deem it unnecessary to add any thing 
 to what I have said on that subject in the former 
 part of this argument. 
 
 In reply to Mr. B.'s remarks on the Greek 
 prepositions, page 73, I have but a single ob- 
 servation or two to make. My criticism on the 
 
244 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 preposition has been pronounced " perfectly 
 correct" by a gentleman critically acquainted 
 with the Greek language, and who is less tjite- 
 rested in this controversy than either Mr. B. or 
 myself, and therefore more entitled to credit. 
 For we have seen, in the case of Dr. Carson, 
 how the support of " a theory" can induce a 
 man to contradict " all lexicographers and com- 
 mentators." The Baptists hold that ice are to be 
 baptized in imitatio?i of Christ; of course, then, 
 if we find any difficulty in understanding the 
 meaning of the prepositions in any case of 
 baptism subsequent to his, it will be fair to 
 refer to the pattern given in the case of his 
 baptism for a solution of the difficulty. Well, 
 then, where the baptism of Christ is spoken of, 
 the term airo is used, the primary meaning of 
 which, according to Parkhurst's Lexicon, is 
 FROM, away from . 
 
 " And straightway coining up {^cittq) out of the 
 water," Mark i, 10. Now, as Mr. B. will con- 
 tend for the primary meaning of prepositions, 
 let him lake the primary meaning of a-o^ and 
 the evidence for immersion drawn from the 
 baptism of Christ vanishes. Instead of his 
 emerging from beneath the water, it will appear 
 that he only came up from the river, which he 
 might do, without having wet so much as the 
 sole of his foot. If the apostles followed the 
 " pattern showed" them in the " Master's" ease, 
 we must interpret the prepositions used in the 
 cases recorded in the Acts of the Apostles ac-. 
 cording to the primary meaning of ano, i. e., 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 245 
 
 FROM — away from. Tims the reader will per- 
 ceive that the evidence which the Baptists 
 attempt to draw from the preposition in favour 
 of immersion is only a fancy of theirs to aid in 
 the support of " a theory." 
 
 Mr. B. asks, page 73, " Mr. S., who told you 
 that Saul of Tarsus and the family of Cornelius 
 were baptized in a house ?" I answer. The 
 words of St. Luke set forth, that they were in 
 the house when the preaching took place, and 
 do not say that they went out of the house to 
 receive baptism. If Mr. B. will say that they 
 did go out for the purpose of receiving baptism, 
 then it is not with me, but with Idmself, to furnish 
 the proof of it. In Acts ix, 17-19, we have the 
 case of Saul: "And x\nanias entered into the 
 house; and putting his hands on him, &;c. — 
 and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and 
 was baptized. And when he had received meat, 
 he was strengthened." Now I say, he received 
 baptism in the house. And if this gentleman has 
 any evidence that he received it out of doors, it 
 wsuld be more becoming in him to present his 
 evidence, instead of asking such questions. 
 
 On page 74, Mr. B. again, the third time, in- 
 troduces the case of Mr. G. of Culpepper, who, 
 he says, " baptized, by immersion, seventy-Jive 
 persons in twenty-five minutes, as can easily be 
 proved : this was three to a minute ; and I am 
 sure I have never seen three sprinkled in one 
 minute in my life ; neither have I ever heard 
 of it." After Mr. B. had given the public this 
 Culpepper case in his Strictures and Sermon, 
 
246 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AXD 
 
 I did hope, for the credit of religion, he would 
 say no nore about, it. Here is the absurd spec- 
 tacle presented of a minister of God administer- 
 ing one of the solemn sacraments of the gospel 
 against time, and "several gentlemen of un- 
 doubted veracity holding their watches in their 
 hands, and declaring this to be the result." 
 This seems to be a favourite case with our 
 Baptist friends ; Elder G. as well as Mr. B. 
 has taken occasion to make use of it. It seems, 
 truly, to have been aji experiment made in the 
 county of Culpepper for the benefit of the Bap- 
 tist cause throughout the world, in order to show 
 that Peter and his companions, on the day of 
 Pentecost, could have dipped the three thousand 
 in the short time allowed for the administration 
 of the ordinance. Before this case can be made 
 to prove any thing in favour of their cause, it 
 must be shown that the apostles of our Lord 
 would hurry, as Mr. G. did, in giving the ordi- 
 nance. But why need those elders go all the 
 way to Culpepper to look up this case of bap- 
 tism, in order to tell the world how long.it 
 requires to give the ordinance by immersion ? 
 Have they never administered it to a sufficient 
 number at once to enable them to form an 
 opinion about the length of time required? I 
 suppose they have never made an experiment. 
 Mr. B. ^^ never heard q/" three being sprinkled 
 in one minute /" And we hope he never will; for 
 Pedobaptist ministers do not perform the ordi- 
 nances of God against time. So much for his 
 Culpepper case. He thinks, the fact that Pedo- 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 247 
 
 baptists attempt to prove that John's was not 
 Christian baptism is sufficient evidence that 
 they considered John gave the ordinance " by 
 immersion ;" I have only to say, this argument 
 proves nothing, because all the views which 
 we take of the nature of John's baptism are 
 sustained by Robert Hall in his argument for 
 open communion, and I suppose he will not be 
 suspected of being influenced by Pedobaptist 
 motives in this case. 
 
 On page 75, after giving a caricature of the 
 practice of Pedobaptists in administering the 
 ordinance, he proceeds to notice the argument 
 for pouring in baptism, drawn from the neces- 
 sity of a resemblance between the sign and the 
 thing signified. He attempts to make out that 
 the effects of the Spirit, and not the manner of 
 its communication, are to be represented by 
 baptism. This is a new discovery of the gentle- 
 man's, by which he hopes to evade the argu- 
 ment. He was quite contented to suppose be- 
 fore that the Spirit was poured out until the place 
 was filled, and they were thereby immersed ; 
 but after my exploding that fancy in my former 
 argument, he has of course to look out for some 
 other imagination or invention to help the cause. 
 Now he says, " My dear sir, I hope you will 
 give up this fancy ; and be contented to have 
 the effects of the Spirit's influences represented 
 by baptism ;" and asks "if the effects are so 
 partial as to be better represented by pouring 
 or sprinkling tlfan by immersion?" I answer, 
 The effects of the extraordinary influence of the 
 
248 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 Spirit are more truly represented by sprinkling 
 than by immersion; and the proof is easy. Al- 
 though we hear some talk of the fulness, the 
 plenitude of spiritual gifts; yet what says the 
 apostle Paul to the Corinthian church? Al- 
 though they had all been baptized with the 
 Spirit, each individual, instead of having a ful- 
 ness of spiritual gifts, possessed only one; " For 
 to one is given by the Spirit the word of wis- 
 dom ; to another, the word of knowledge ; to 
 another, faith ; to another, the gifts of healing ; 
 to another, the working of miracles ; to another, 
 prophecy ; to another, discerning of spirits ; to 
 another, divers kind of tongues ; to another, the 
 interpretation of tongues ; but all these worketh 
 that one and the self-same Spirit, dividing to 
 every man severally as he will." See 1 Cor, 
 xii, 8-11. Now, a small portion of water would 
 be quite sufficient to represent a single spiritual 
 
 He says, page 76, "The baptism of the Spirit 
 was only 2i. figurative baptism. I hope you will 
 not suppose that the Spirit was literally poured 
 out from heaven ! That influence by which the 
 disciples were enabled to speak with tongues 
 was altogether an influence of mind upon mind. 
 How, then, can any material element ever re- 
 present the manner of it ?" / do suppose that the 
 Spirit was poured out; and that for the best pos- 
 sible reason, viz., the word of God says it was. 
 And I hope never to ^'- figure'^ away the plain 
 common sense meaning of the book of God. If 
 I could not support my cause without that, I 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 249 
 
 would abandon it for ever. We do not pretend 
 to explain the manner in which mind (as he has 
 it) acts upon mind. We only implicitly believe 
 what the Holy Ghost declares, i. e., " On the 
 Gentiles also (as well as the Jews) was poured 
 OUT the gift of THE Holy Ghost." And as it 
 is said, " It fell on all them which heard 
 the word," we suppose that " it was poured out 
 from heaven.''^ 
 
 This same matter of the pouring out of the 
 Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost is exceed- 
 ingly perplexing to this gentleman. On page 77 
 he advances an entirely new view of the matter. 
 He has discovered now that there were none of 
 the disciples present when the Holy Ghost was 
 poured out, except the twelve apostles. He 
 says, " You spake as if the hundred and twenty 
 were in the room when the baptism of the Spirit 
 occurred. I deny it. Read the last verse of the 
 first chapter, and the first verse of the second, 
 and you will see that none but the twelve are 
 mentioned as being together." Now, candid 
 reader, I have read the passage, perhaps as 
 often as this gentleman, and cannot see any 
 such thing; and how should I see it, when Mr. 
 A. Campbell could not discover that there were 
 only THE twelve present. On the contrary, 
 he saw a hundred and twenty present. In his 
 debate, page 376, in attempting to give an ex- 
 press warrant for female communion, he says, 
 " The number of the whole was about a hun- 
 dred and twenty, chap, ii, 1. On the day of 
 Pentecost, they (the hundred and twenty) were 
 
250 OBLIGATION, SUBJFXTS, AND 
 
 ALL with one accord in one placeT How strange 
 that two Baptist elders should difler so much in 
 opinion about a plain matter of fact, and each 
 refer their readers to the same passage for his 
 proof! The reader must take notice, that they 
 were both but trying to evade a different Pedo- 
 baptist argument. The intelligent reader, how- 
 ever, will conclude that the word of God is not 
 like a heathen oracle, that will give out one 
 answer at one time, and a contrary one at an- 
 other, jVist to suit the whims of different priests. 
 The passage says there were one hundred a7id 
 twenty when Mr. C. wants an express warrant 
 for female communion : but when Mr. B. wants 
 to evade the difficulty I had presented in the 
 way of HIS theory, then the passage says there 
 ivere but twelve present ! This gentleman, how- 
 ever, not only contradicts Mr. Campbell and me, 
 but he contradicts bmself also, as the reader can 
 easily discover, by looking at his Sermon, page 
 35, where he says, " The seventy, no doubt, were 
 present'''' at the baptizing. It is a great pity that 
 a man who attempts to support error should 
 have a bad memory, and should thus be ex- 
 posed to the danger of unsaying at one time 
 what he has said at another ! Perhaps he will 
 say, only the twelve v/ere present at the pouring 
 out of the Spirit, and that the seventy came 
 afterward, to help with, or witness the baptizing. 
 If he should take this course, the reader can 
 consult the first chapter of Acts, from the 
 fifteenth verse to the end, and there he will 
 discover, without the aid of any commentator, 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 251 
 
 that ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY DISCIPLES 
 
 WERE jwesent on the occasion. 
 
 Mr. B. says, that " the influences of the Spi- 
 rit, by which men are brought to repent and 
 turn to God, are nowhere in the Bible called 
 baptism. I can never believe a man baptized 
 w4th the Holy Ghost, in the Scripture sense of 
 that expression, unless he confirms his preten- 
 sions by speaking in all manner of tongues." 
 Then it will follow, that when John the Baptist 
 said, " I baptize you with water, he shall baptize 
 you with fire and the Holy Ghost," he wished 
 the multitude to understand they should receive 
 the extraordinary influences of the Spirit, and 
 have power to '•'■speak all manner of tongues ;'''' 
 for Mr. B. will not admit that they received this 
 baptism, unless the sign followed. Did ever 
 any man, in his sober senses, suppose that 
 John meant the miraculous powers of the Holy 
 Ghost? 
 
 On page 77 he says, " The Scriptures no- 
 where speak of baptism as a representation of 
 the Spirit's influences. It is a representation 
 of the burial and resurrection of Jesus." And 
 referring to Rom. vi, 4, and Col. ii, 12, he says, 
 " St. Paul understood it so." Then John the 
 Baptist should have said to the multitude. He 
 shall be buried and arise from the dead, therefore, 
 I am come baptizing with water. Let the 
 reader consult John i, 28-34, and he will dis- 
 cover that the Baptist gives a different view of 
 this matter from that given above by Mr. B. 
 He declares that he came baptizing with water, 
 
252 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 because the Son of God would give a baptism 
 of fire and the Holy Ghost. Christ himself 
 gives the same view, Acts i, 5, " John baptized 
 with water ; but ye shall be baptized with the 
 Holy Ghost." In Acts xi, 15, 16, Peter gives 
 the same view, " And as I began to speak, the 
 Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the 
 beginning. Then remembered I the word of 
 the Lord, John indeed baptized with water, but 
 ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.^' The 
 reader can now judge who is most to be credited 
 in this case, Mr. B. or the authorities I have 
 quoted. Added to all this, if baptism represented 
 the burial and resurrection of Christ, how did it 
 happen that the disciples, after witnessing and 
 performing thousands of baptisms, were pro- 
 foundly ignorant of the thing represented ? For, 
 up to the eve of Christ's crucifixion, yea, even 
 after he had been crucified, they did not under- 
 stand that he w^as to arise from the dead. See 
 Mark ix, 10, and John xx, 9, " They questioned 
 one with another what the rising from the dead 
 should mean. For as yet they knew not the 
 Scripture, that he must rise again from the 
 dead." But Mr. B. will have it, that it was re- 
 presented to them in every one of the thousands 
 of cases of baptism w^hich they witnessed. Is 
 it possible he can so presume upon the credulity 
 of his readers, as to suppose that one in a thou- 
 sand can be made to believe in this fancy, — 
 this far-fetched conceit, that baptism represented, 
 not the pouring out of the Holy Ghost, but " the 
 burial and resurrection of Jesus V And that, 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 253 
 
 after the disciples had seen it represented for more 
 than three years, yet when Christ spoke to them 
 of his rising from the dead, they knew nothing 
 at all about it ? They had never heard of this 
 "figment," that tells of the ^^ liquid grave,^^ and 
 the " voatery tomb,''' as it is quite a modern inven- 
 tion. 
 
 The sign must agree icith the thing signified — 
 the sign was water baptism, the thing signified the 
 baptism of the Spirit : God gave the latter by 
 
 " POURING OUT," " SHEDDING FORTH," &C., 
 
 therefore the sign was given by pouring the wa- 
 ter upon the subject I " / baptize you with 
 water ; he shall baptize you with the Holy 
 Ghost." 
 
 From ray view of the baptism of the three 
 thousand on the day of Pentecost, I beg leave to 
 refer the reader to the former argument. / say 
 again, as I said at hrst, there is a total absence 
 of all evidence that they received the rite by im- 
 mersion. Mr. B's remarks about my conceding 
 any thing on that point are perfectly gi-atuitous ; 
 for, although I admitted that there was water 
 enough in Jerusalem, yet I said the public and 
 private bathing places were in the keeping of 
 Christ's enemies ; so that Mr. B.'s thanks for 
 my liberality are entirely out of place. 
 
 On page 79 he introduces the case of the 
 jailer, and makes a very pathetic exclamation 
 indeed : " O ! Mr. S., when shall I be delivered 
 from the mortification ?" (fcc. He says, " I 
 could wish, for the sake of the profession to 
 which you belong, that this were a solitary 
 
254 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 case." I cannot help this gentleman's mortiti- 
 cation. If he will persist in attempts to abuse 
 the minds of his readers, I shall feel it my duty 
 to hold up his conduct in its proper colours, that 
 it may meet its merited reprobation. He says, 
 " I quoted the very language of the Scriptures," 
 (fee. So he did. But he did not quote enough 
 of the language to give the true view of the case. 
 Nor has he now quoted enough. In the Ser- 
 mon he quoted from the 29th verse ; in the Let- 
 ters from the 25th verse. If he had commenced 
 at the 23d verse, as I have shown in the Ap- 
 peal, the reader would have been saved the dan- 
 ger of being imposed upon by his capitals in 
 his Sermon, and the italics in his Letters. He 
 proposes to let St. Luke's words inform the read- 
 er in the premises, and says, "This is Luke's 
 account of the matter, without even the addition 
 of capital letters, and it seems to me to require 
 no little ingenuity to find in all this any thing 
 inconsistent Avith the idea of immersion. Let 
 us see : The jailer first brought them out.^'' Now, 
 why did not the gentleman accord a little com- 
 mon sense to his readers, and leave them to 
 judge from Luke's account, without the aid of 
 his italics, instead of going on to repeat certain 
 of Luke's words, putting them in italics ? 
 
 I say, in conclusion, that his version of this 
 matter makes Paul and Silas a couple of arch 
 hypocrites ; for it represents that they left the 
 prison at midnight, and went off to the " river 
 Strymon," or some other stream ; and yet, when 
 the next morning arrived, and the magistrates 
 
MODE OF BAPTIslM. 255 
 
 sent two " sergeants, saying, Let these men go," 
 they refused to leave the jail, stating that ""they 
 icould not he thrust out privately," and added, 
 " Let the magistrates come themselves and fetch 
 us outy And " the magistrates came and be- 
 sought them, and brought them out," &c. And 
 these are the men who left the prison at mid- 
 night privately, of their own accord, who, now 
 that it is day, need to be entreated to leave it 
 before they will consent to go out ! This, truly, 
 was rather a had lesson to teach their new con- 
 verts ! But, candid reader, Paul and Silas were 
 not the men to practise duplicity. Therefore, 
 I say they never left the premises of the Philip- 
 piau jail until the morning, and the baptizing 
 took place ibitldn doors, and not at the " river 
 Strymon." I refer the reader to my former ar- 
 gument on this case for a full answer to Mr. B. 
 He begins his nineteenth letter by saying, 
 "'How determined must that man be 'to sup- 
 port a theory,' who can undertake, by mere 
 ' sifting,' to set aside the plain testimony for 
 innnersion which is furnished in the eunuch's 
 case," &:c. I always consider that '-'■ sifting'' 
 in controversy is better than " SHiFTi>rG." That 
 li.is gentleman has dealt largely in the latter, I 
 presume the reader has discovered during this 
 examination. " What is the chaff to the wheat ? 
 saith th- Lord," and hovv is the wheat of truth 
 to be separated from the chaff of error without 
 " sifting ? ' As it regards his strong or jjlain tes- 
 timony for immersion in the case of the eunuch's 
 baptism, it remains to be shown. My former 
 
256 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 argument on this case he has not met, as the 
 reader can see by comparing the Appeal, pages 
 143-147, with his Letters, pages 81, 82, 83. 
 
 On page 86, Mr. B. gives us quite a short 
 method for disposing of the matter in contro-. 
 versy. He Says, "Now, sir, I will tell you 
 what our ' favourite argument' is — it is this, the 
 word of our Kvig, throughout, is in favour of 
 immersion. This is my ' favourite argument.' 
 I find immersion in the pattern ; and I find no- 
 thing else there." This is begging the question 
 with a witness. Does the reader see any ar- 
 gument in his ^'favourite argument .?" 
 
 Why did he not attempt to answer my re- 
 marks upon the " supposed i?nmersion''^ of Christ ? 
 Also my exposition of Rom. vi, 4; and Col. ii, 
 12? The view I took of their argument for 
 immersion, drawn from antiquity, where the 
 rite was performed (according to the Baptist 
 historian, Robinson) upon naked subjects, both 
 male and female, he passes over lightly, as 
 though he wished to keep it from the view of 
 his readers. 
 
 Being hard pressed by the case which I gave 
 from Benedict's History of the Baptists, where. 
 Roger Williams received baptism by immersio-:* 
 from the hands of a layman, who never had been 
 dipped himself, Mr. B., on page 88, has 'iiade a 
 CONCESSION, that, upon reflection, seem to have 
 alarmed the gentleman himself, jud>;ing from 
 what he wrote immediately after. Here it is : 
 " I GRANT, SIR, THAT, IF A MAN HAS 
 NOT BEEN IMMERSED, HE vIAY IM- 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 257 
 
 MERSE OTHERS, and his neglect of 
 
 HIS OWN DUTY MAY NOT DISQUALIFY HIM FOR 
 ASSISTING OTHERS IN THE DISCHARGE OF 
 THEIRS." Now, LET IT BE KNOWN TO ALL 
 WHOM IT MAY CONCERN, THAT, ElDER BrOAD- 
 DUS BEING JUDGE, ALL PEDOBAPTIST MINIS- 
 TERS ARE QUALIFIED TO GIVE THE ORDINANCE 
 BY IMMERSION ! ! 
 
 So that if you prefer the Methodists, Pres- 
 byterians, Episcopalians, or any others, to the 
 Baptists, you may receive valid baptism, by 
 IMMERSION, at their hands ! But he was evi- 
 dently alarmed at his own admission, as I shall 
 show the reader. He says, on the same page, 
 " But I have always thought it singular, that 
 those who ridicule immersion, &c., should, after 
 all, consent to immerse those who cannot be 
 convinced that sprinkling or pouring is ' the 
 more excellent way.'" And asks me, "How, 
 
 then, can YOU CONSENT TO IMMERSE ?" " HoW 
 
 can you encourage people in their superstition .?" 
 He then adds, " On the last page of your 'x\p- 
 peal' you call immersion the ' child of supersti- 
 tion.' " This is not as it is there written. I 
 called it no such thing. Why has he wrested 
 my words from their proper connection in this 
 case ? He knew that I was speaking of bap- 
 tism, performed upon naked subjects. But he 
 must make the impression that I considered 
 immersion superstitious ; and then adds, " Sure- 
 ly, HEREAFTER YOU WILL NOT BE FOUND WIL- 
 LING TO immerse; OR IF YOU SHOULD, CAN 
 ANY CONSENT THAT YOU SHOULD IMMERSE 
 17 
 
258 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 THEM, WHILE THEY KNOW THAT YOU CONSIDER 
 IT A VIOLATION OF THE WORD OF GOD? I 
 
 TROW NOT." I said, candid reader, above, 
 that the gentleman was alarmed at his own con- 
 cession. He admits that / am qualified, but 
 hopes nobody will consent that / shall immerse 
 them. But who told Mr. B. that I consider im- 
 mersion a violation of the loord of God ? Where 
 is it written ? He says, " While they knoio^ I 
 so consider it. Why did he not give the proof 
 of this allegation ? For the best of all reasons : 
 he could not. We prefer sprinkling or pouring 
 in baptism ; but we would rather immerse per- 
 sons who cannot be convinced of the validity of 
 baptism after these methods, than they should 
 go where there is " no confession of faith," and 
 xohere scarcely any two, even of the ministers, agree 
 in opinion. We think " iniity of faith '^ and " the 
 bond of peace," more important to a religious 
 denomination, than the particular form of an out- 
 ward ceremony ! 
 
 I have now reached Mr. B.'s last letter, ipi 
 which there are some things I intend briefly to 
 notice. I have observed that he seems to be 
 very much concerned about the existence of 
 different denominations of Christians ; and says, 
 " I think I am ready to do any thing I can safely 
 do, to bring the scattered flock of Christ together." 
 And very gravely asks, " Will you do the same ? 
 Allow me to hope that you will." Perhaps the 
 reader is ready to ask, What does Mr. B. wish 
 you to give up for the sake of union? Why, 
 gentle reader, he only modestly asks, that we 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 259 
 
 give up infant baptism, and that loe cease to bap' 
 tize adults by pouring, or sprinkling, and adopt 
 immersion. Or in other words, that we shall 
 ALL BEcojiE Baptists. Well, wliat does he 
 propose to do for union 1 Just nothing at ally 
 but be a Baptist still ; for he does not even allude 
 to any concession to be made on his part. A 
 kind and liberal soul, truly ! He makes a pro- 
 position which contains really nullification and 
 consolidation, in order to union. He would 
 nullify both infant baptism and baptism by pour- 
 ing ; and then consolidate the whole Pedo- 
 baptist world into one great Baptist church, in 
 order, as he says, '• to bring the scattered flock 
 of Christ together." 
 
 It would be thought, from what he has said, 
 that those who reject infant baptism, and give 
 the ordinance by immersion, are a very united 
 people — for this, the reader perceives, is Mr. 
 B.^s prescription for union. And so they are 
 united, in two things, at least ; first, to oppose 
 infant baptism; and, second, to contend for im- 
 ?iiersio?i as the exclusive fnode. Beyond this they 
 have few sentiments in common. The history 
 of the church will show, that among those who 
 have rejected the baptism of infants, there has 
 been found error of all dimensions — from Ter- 
 tuUian, who held it to be improper to baptize 
 W7i//z«mec? people, down to Peter De Bruis, who 
 held that infants could not be saved, and there- 
 fore ought not to be baptized — from the Ger- 
 man Anabaptists, who held polygamy, and ran 
 through the streets with a Bible in one hand 
 
260 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND 
 
 and a sword in the other, crying, " Repent and be 
 baptized I" to the thousands of Europe and Ame- 
 rica, who, in more modern times, have denied 
 THE DIVINITY OF Christ, and held the error 
 of Pelagius, &c. This gentleman will find it 
 necessary to look out for some other mode of 
 " uniting the flock." 
 
 We go against all pretejided " unions, ^^ and 
 think genuine Christian concord may be main- 
 tained without consolidation. Let our Baptist 
 brethren become more liberal toward other sects, 
 and more united among themselves, and we shall 
 have a better union of heart and sentiment than 
 can be brought about by any such consolidation 
 of discordant materials as is proposed by the 
 plan of Mr. B. I would beg leave to suggest, 
 that this gentleman would do well to give the 
 world an example of the uniting effect of their 
 views of baptism, among themselves, before he 
 concerns himself about trying his plan upon the 
 Pedobaptist community. True charity always 
 begins at home ! He alleges " that a very great 
 number of our people do not have their infant 
 offspring baptized," and infers therefrom " that 
 it is not deemed a matter of great importance." 
 " A very great number of our people !" Mark 
 that. Where do they live ? I do not know them. 
 Now, if he has stated the truth about the Metho- 
 dists, it becomes them to see to it. And if they 
 DO " have their infant offspring baptized," they 
 will recollect that this gentleman has misrepre- 
 sented them publicly in saying that " a very 
 great number of them" neglect this duly. 
 
MODE or BAPTISM. 261 
 
 On page 88, Mr. B. says that '* I consider 
 immersion a violation of the word of God ;" and 
 on page 89, says tliat " I profess to have no ob- 
 jection to immersion." Now what confidence, 
 candid reader, can the public have in a contro- 
 versialist who will thus, to carry his point, 
 blow hot and cold almost in the same breath ? 
 
 When he becomes alarmed lest some " should 
 consent"' that /should dip them, he says, " While 
 they know that you coxsider it a violation 
 OF THE word of God." But when he wishes 
 to bring about his union of "aZZ sincere believers 
 in one communion ^^ he says, " You profess to 
 have no objection to immersion — you believe 
 IT Scriptural baptis.m." Does the intelli- 
 gent reader suppose that the gentleman will be 
 found ingenious enou2[h to reconcile these con- 
 jlicting statements ? And yet he says to me on 
 the very next page, " I am not aware of misre- 
 presenting your views in any instance whatever. 
 If I could know that any observation, in all these 
 letters, sets your views in an improper light, 1 
 would sooner suppress the whole that I have 
 written than to publish that observation." 
 
 In conclusion, I remark, I have observed 
 throughout his twenty-one " letters" a continual 
 disposition manifested to make profc^^-zo/i^-. He 
 commenced by professing Xo have no object in 
 view "but to maintain the purity of our Lord's 
 institutions," page 4, and concludes with the 
 profession which I have given above. Did he 
 expect to impose upon his readers by confessing 
 his convictions about the ordinance^ and professing 
 
262 OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, ETC. 
 
 his innocence in the matter of misrepresentation? 
 &c. This plan may succeed with such as 
 have committed their understanding and judg- 
 ment to the keeping of a priest, contented that 
 he shall think, and reason, and judge for them. 
 But I flattet myself, that amidst the light of the 
 nineteenth century, the intelligent and candid of 
 all denominations will need something more than 
 sophistry for argument^ or assumption for proof 
 upon so solemn a subject as the true nature of a 
 Christian sacrament. 
 
 This gentleman has, more than once, in his 
 Letters, intimated a hope that he might convince 
 me of the correctness of his views, inviting mc 
 to examiyie the Scriptures and his arguments, as 
 though he wished his readers to suppose I had 
 never examined the subject, and that by being 
 catechised as a school boy I might be led to 
 adopt his views of baptism. This is one of the 
 stratagems by which he seeks to convince, not 
 me, hut OTHERS. I wish the reader to under- 
 stand that, for the last fifteen years, more or less, 
 I have been engaged in examining and " sift' 
 ing^' by the Scriptures, the subject of water bap- 
 tism, and have been led to adopt the conclusions 
 stated in the course of this and the former ar- 
 gument. These views I commend to the can- 
 did and careful examination of the intelligent 
 reader, in the fear of God, and in view of 
 
 THE RIGHTEOUS RETRIBUTIONS OF THE LAST 
 
i 
 
 ■iV