Price Bockbtore,!^. 
 I80N. Second St , % 
 hor above Vvne> P^^i^:% 
 
 ff 
 
 03 
 
 
 '$ 
 
 
 tf 
 
 
 /? 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 OS 
 
 
 1 
 
 .i.^ 
 
 
 IE 
 
 
 
 r-s» 
 
 •^ 
 
 Q. 
 
 
 
 ^-i^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <-+- 
 
 
 
 'Sj 
 
 iz; 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 $ 
 
 
 
 
 l^"^ 
 
 a> 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 c 
 
 
 1 
 
 «-► 
 
 o 
 
 tJ) 
 
 rv 
 
 5 
 
 E-i 
 O 
 
 
 5>r 
 
 
 |Zi 
 
 E 
 
 .§ 
 
 <<> 
 
 M 
 
 (0 
 
 ■S 
 
 J7^ 
 
 rt 
 
 CO 
 
 1^ 
 
 
 fM 
 
 s 
 
 ^4 
 
 o 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 % 
 
 
 c 
 
 s 
 
 ^ 
 
 0) 
 to 
 
 1 
 
 ^ 
 
 CL 
 
 1 
 
 
 \ . 
 
 
f- 
 
 / • • 
 
PREFACE, 
 
 My apology for offering these few pages to the 
 oublic, is found in the history of the recent gloriows 
 revival of rehgion in this city. Soon after I came to 
 :his place, God poured out his Spirit upon the Baptist 
 church and congregation, and many were converted. 
 The first Lord's day in April, I baptized 27 ; the sec- 
 ond, 54, and so on, until near 200 were added by bap- 
 iism, and 20 or 30 by letter. At this time, sprinkling, 
 pouring, dipping, and close communioa became the to- 
 pic among our opponents. To put a stop to this, and 
 turn the attention of the people to the Bible. I made 
 public this proposition : " I will put myself under legal 
 bonds, to pay as a free reward, $3000, for finding in 
 any of the received versions of the Bible, sprinkling or 
 pouring for the action, and infants for the subjects of 
 baptism, — $1000 to be paid on finding each of the 
 above. To decide this impartially, the texts supposed 
 to contain the doctrine shall be submitted, without de- 
 bate, to Dr. Taylor, of Yale College, and two learn- 
 ed pious Quakers. This proposition must be accept- 
 ed by some clergyman or respectable member of one 
 of the churches of this city. '" No one accepted the 
 offer : but directly, pulpits, presses, pamphlets and 
 nev/spapers. like so many guns from a common batte- 
 ry, were made to bear upon the Baptist church and 
 her doctrines, and every movement in the religious 
 community indicated a war of words. I made appli- 
 cation to respond through the '•- Chronicle," but was 
 promptly -refused. These, with other circum^stances 
 and events of the time, furnish at once an occasion 
 and an apology for my present effort. 
 
It IS obvious" that error often changes its connection^ 
 assumes new positions, and accommodates itself to 
 • prevailing customs and prejudices ; therefore we must 
 be ready to meet it with weapons corresponding with 
 the mode of attack. For instance, the editor of the 
 Chronicle, professing to be wise, gives us the m.eaning 
 
 Oi the word (^ami'Zio, thus : ^anTiCo) : ^ge;(U), to wet: "/TiOis- 
 
 ten. bedew. In turn. I will give him the meaning of 
 the phrase, "Editor of the Chronicle." thus: " Rdi- 
 TOR OF THE Chronicle :"' Bat : a fiying motive; 
 a qiiadj^iiped weighing about one ounce. See John 
 lii. 19, 20'. ' ' 
 
 h\ judicial controversies, much depends on good ev- 
 idence. Suppose there were two associations or com- 
 panies of men in this city, of ten each, which were 
 obliged to appeal to a legal tribunal to establish their 
 respective claims, and all the evidence they have is 
 within themselves, You will see at once there can 
 be nothing done, on the principles of law or equity, 
 except one company can draw testimony from the ad- 
 verse party. This principle of jurisprudence must be 
 carried into all polemic religious discussions. Novtr 
 the world is divided into Baptist and Pedobaptist bo- 
 dies, and the line of demarcation is visible, and testi- 
 mony to sustain their respective claims to evangelical 
 truth must be drav/n from one or the other of these 
 bodies. Reason says, 7iot from our own, but from the 
 adverse. I have been amused, however, v/hile exam- 
 ining the course pursued by our pedobaptist brethren; 
 they never quote Baptist evidence to prove that pour- 
 ing and sprinkling are baptism, and infants the sub- 
 jects ; and for the best of reasons: they can find no 
 such concessions. The testimony which they urge, 
 is the faith and practice of Roman Catholics and mod- 
 ^ era pedobaptists ; but while they preseat me with no- 
 thing but pedobaptist evidence, they only prove to mc 
 that their cause i^ indefensible In proving that be 
 
lievers are the only subjects, and immersion the only- 
 action of Christian baptism, we design not to introduce 
 one modern Baptist evidence. We will accept of no tes- 
 timony, but Divine revelation, and the most popular 
 pedobaptists. If these show the Baptists to be right, 
 and exclusively right, I shall rest satisfied. Should 
 we appear with self-interested testimony, we must fail 
 at every impartial tribunal ; but if we present ample evi- 
 dence from the Scriptures, and from the adverse body, 
 we must secure our claims, or impeach the judge. No 
 man is compelled to bear testimony against himself; 
 but when imen, free from duress, make concessions in 
 favor of truth, we can not pass it in silence, and do 
 justice to the cause we sustain. 
 
 Replying to any individual pedobaptist, is a mat- 
 ter of secondary importance ; for when w^e have done 
 v/ith one, a second appears, with not only a new, 
 but an opposite theory. This is evident from the 
 two last productions of this city ; and if the one 
 that follows this is not different from both the pre- 
 ceding, I shall think the laws of motion in the pedo- 
 baptist world are reversed. When the Savior was on 
 earth, the Scribes and Pharisees took two methods to 
 put down his doctrine : 1st, they charged him with 
 teachmg and practicing contrary to the law of God ; 
 :M, being stung with his truth, which they could not 
 answer, they resorted to ridicule. Had they convict- 
 ed him of the first, his cause would have suffered ; but 
 their practice of the second did but injure their own. 
 The Ignorance of that age was an apology for them : 
 but the light of M/5, demands sound argument. 
 
 Much has been said about brotherly love, charity, 
 and Christian union. The substance of these is a 
 heaven-born treasure ; but their shadow is a mere il- 
 lusion. Sho!ild Christians and ministers act kindly 
 toward each other, by frequently exchanging pulpits, 
 and entering into a work of revival in a neighboring 
 1* 
 
sanctuary as they would in their own, irrespective of 
 denominational differences, — having the glory of God 
 and the salvation of souls for their motive; their 
 ^practice would go further to promote Christian union, 
 and remove stumbimg-blocks from the path of the un- 
 converted, than many pompous sermons on Christian 
 charity, without such example. 
 
 I. ROBORDS. 
 Neio Haven. August, X838.- 
 
Ay 
 
 THE 
 
 CONVERT'S GUIDE 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 SECTION I. 
 
 A Brief Review of "A Critical Dissertatioit 
 on the Scriptural Mode of Baptism, proving the 
 Exclusive Divine Authority of Affusion and 
 Sprinkling. By Leicester A. Sawyer." 
 
 I wish it distinctly understood, that I undertake 
 this review at the request of Mr. Sawyer. 
 
 Mr. Sawyer says, p. 1, " There is a scriptural mode 
 of baptism, which is capable of being fuJly ascertain- 
 ed and triumphantly established. It can not for a 
 moment be supposed that this matter is left in impene- 
 trable darkness. Such a supposition is inconsistent 
 with the perfection of the word of God as a rule of 
 action, and annihilates the institution of baptism 
 itself, in as much as we can not be bound to do what 
 we can not learn how to do." 
 
 This statement is truth in its native simplicity ; and 
 the God of truth on earth and at the last judgment 
 will show it to be such. 
 
 1. The testimony of the Lord. 
 
 "The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the 
 soul ; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise 
 the simple." — Psalm xix. 7. 
 
 2. The testimony of the apostles. 
 
 " All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and 
 
is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, 
 for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God 
 may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good 
 works."— 2 Tim. iii. 16, 17. 
 
 3. The testimony of pedobaptists. 
 
 " The Supreme Judge, by whom all controversies 
 of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of 
 Councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, 
 and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose 
 sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy 
 Spirit speaking in the Scriptures. Matt. xxii. 29 — 31." 
 — Presbyterian Confession of Faith, Chap. 1, ^ec. 10. 
 
 " We ought not to worship God with any other ex- 
 ternal worship than what himself has commanded 
 and appointed us in his holy word. The Scripture 
 has set us our bounds for worship, to which we must 
 not add, and from which we ought not to diminish ; 
 for whosoever does either the one or the other, must 
 needs accuse the rule either in defect of things neces- 
 sary, or of superfluity in things unnecessary, which is 
 an high affront to the wisdom of God, who, as he is 
 the object of all worship, so he is the prescriber of all 
 that worship which he will accept and reward." — 
 Bishop Hopkins^ Works, p. 107. 
 
 But notwithstanding this, some men positively deny 
 what Mr. Sawyer says above: yes, Mr. S. himself 
 palpably contradicts it before he gets through ; for on 
 p. 19 he says, " As no specific directions are given in 
 the New Testament respecting the mode of baptism 
 the early Christians, like many in modern times, may 
 have thought themselv^es at liberty to baptize in what 
 mode they pleased." Again, he says in his second 
 pamphlet, p. 20, " The mere mode of administering 
 established rites, where the directions respecting the 
 MODE are not supposed to be specific." 
 
 Such gross mistakes are not the fruit of ignorance, 
 for Mr. S. is a man of erudition; but it is the legiti- 
 
9 
 
 mate result of attempting to run between the com- 
 mands of God and human mstitutions. He sometimes 
 falls in with one, and then with the other. Now God 
 either has made a revelation of his will to ns, or he 
 has not : if he has not, then we are wholly without a 
 :^uide ; if he has, then the Bible is his will and our 
 guide. If the Bible is his will respecting our duty, 
 then it is complete, or it is not : if it is complete, then 
 our duty is clearly expressed. If it is not complete, 
 then it is so because God v\^ould not, or could not, 
 maks it complete : but to say that he could not, limits 
 omnipotence ; and to say he would not, impeaches his 
 goodness. The conclusion is evident, the Bible is a 
 ful:. and complete rule of faith and practice. 
 
 SECTION II. 
 
 The next position of Mr. Sawyer's which I shall 
 notice, is that in order to establish his doctrine, he de- 
 nies the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures ; charges 
 the Greeks, as a nation and a church, with not under- 
 standing their own language ; the apostles and primi- 
 tive church with ignorance and error; and the trans- 
 lators of our English version with error and want of 
 ability to accomplish m their whole effort even as 
 much as he has done m his little book of 24 pages. 
 
 1. Ke denies the plenary inspiration of the Scrip- 
 tures. On p. 2 he says, " The English verb baptize 
 corresponds to the Greek ^anTi'coj, from which it is de- 
 rived. The noun baptism corresponds to the Greek 
 ^artzca^uoc and ^annafiog, both of which are applied to 
 denote the rite of baptism in the New Testament.-- — 
 The language of the Septuagint is Hebraistic, not strict- 
 ly classic ; that is, it differs from the language used by 
 native Greek writers, by being, in many instances and 
 particulars, conformed to the Hebrew, of which it is a 
 
10 
 
 translation, and by being used to express ideas and de- 
 note objects unknown to Grecian literature." On p. 3 
 he says. "i^aTrn^w, as used by the classic Greek writers, 
 siafniHes to dip, to immerse in a liquid." On p. 8 he 
 says, "In adopting the Greek language, and applying 
 It to describe their own peculiar institutions, it was not 
 possible for the Jews to use all the words of that lan- 
 guage III senses previously established by Grecian 
 usage." 
 
 Thus Mr. S. argues through his whole book, to 
 prove that the writers of the New Testament, either 
 from choice, or ignorantly, or for want of language, 
 did adopt and use a classic Greek word, the meaning 
 of which is universally known to be dip, while they 
 by using this word intended to teach the whole church 
 of God to sprinkle. Now Mr. S. has proved his point, 
 or he has not. If he has not proved that Christ and 
 the apostles were all mistaken in the use of the word 
 SciTtiCoj, then his whole scheme is gone at a dash ; for 
 he concedes that the legitimate meaning of that word 
 i^ dip. But if he has established the point that the 
 waiters of the New Testament fell into the same error 
 with v\^hich he charges the translators of the Septua- 
 a^mt, then it is obvious that he denies the inspiration 
 of their writings. Mr. S. would make us believe, that 
 he IS only arguing the difference between classic an4 
 Hebraistic Greek, while he evidently aims to fix on thd 
 mind of the reader, that the language of the Scrip- 
 tures was not inspired. What if the translators of the 
 Septuagint before Christ's incarnation mistook 1 and 
 what if the translators of the English version were 
 mistaken '? If Christ and his apostles 'are correct in 
 their use of the word ^a^TTtioi and its coo:nates, this is 
 all we wish to know. The distinction between classic 
 and Hebraistic Greek has nothing to do with this argu- 
 ment. The question that Mr. S. has introduced is 
 concerning plenary inspiration : that is, were the words 
 
11 
 
 as well as the sentiments of the Bible dictated by the 
 Holy Spirit ? or were the apostles and the whole prim- 
 itive church left to use a classic Greek word, calculat- 
 ed to mislead themselves, and the churches in succeed- 
 ing ages ? On this important point we n^d li^ht;,- 
 
 1. The testimony of our Lord, ^^' 
 '•'And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord.'" — 
 
 Exodus xxiv. 4. " I have also spoken by the pro- 
 phets." — Hose a xii. 10. "For he whom God hath 
 sent speaketh the words of God." — Joh?i iii. 34. See 
 also Deut. xxxi. 13 : Prov. i. 23, &c. dec. 
 
 2. The testimony of the apostles. '"; 
 " For I testify to every one that heareth the words 
 
 of the prophecy of this book;- and if any man shall 
 
 take away from the loords of the book of this prophe- 
 cy." — Rev. xxii. 18, 19. " Which things also we speak, 
 not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth. but 
 which the Holy Ghost teacheth."—! Cor. ii. 13. " Take 
 ye no thought how or what thing ye shall answer, or 
 what ye shall say ; for the Holy Ghost shall teach you 
 in the same hour what ye ought to say." — Luke xii. 11. 
 12. See also Acts v. 20 : John xvii. 14 : Rev. i. 3 : 
 xxii. 18 : xxi. 5 : Heb. iv. 12. 
 
 3. The testimony of pedobaptists. 
 
 " And this is the most literal, and no doubt the most 
 correct, rendering of nolla vdara, the Greek words 
 whicH were dictated by the Holy Ghost." — Evangel. 
 Mag., Hartford, Ct., June, 1836. 
 
 " In the text we are presented, among other things, 
 with a commission given to the apostles and others, 
 Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to ev- 
 ery creature ; he that believeth and BaTiTiadsig, (is bap- 
 tized,) (fee. Their preaching therefore was a business 
 of mere delegation ; or in other words, Christ preach- 
 ed the gospel by their instrumentality. Can he who 
 
 came to publish the will of God to mankind concern- 
 ing this immensely important subject have left it to be 
 
12 
 
 chiefly published under his authority, by the mere 
 force of human memory, and mixed with human frail- 
 ty and human opinions, and thus necessarily have be- 
 come a mass of truth and falsehood, so blended that 
 those who read their writings could never be able to 
 separate the falsehood from the truth ? Does any hu- 
 man legislature suffer its own laws to be published in 
 such a manner 7 Was Christ possessed of less wis- 
 dom, or less integrity, or less benevolence, than hu- 
 man legislators ? -The same truth is evident, from 
 
 the promise given to the apostles by our Savior in his 
 
 last discourse, of the descent of the Holy Ghost. 
 
 That he (the Holy Ghost) should bring up to the full 
 view of the memory the things which Christ had taught 
 them. It will be evident to the slightest attention, that 
 the things here promised contain whatever is involved 
 in the plenary inspiration of the apostles. If it was ful- 
 filled, then the apostles wTote and preached the gospel 
 under the plenary inspiration of the Holy Ghost, because 
 the promise assures them of such inspiration, in the am- 
 plest terms conceivable. If it was not fulfilled, then 
 Christ was a false prophet. The apostles testify di- 
 rectly, that the gospel which they preached was reveal- 
 ed to them from God, 'which things also we speak net 
 in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which 
 the Holy Ghost teacheth, comparing spiritual things 
 with spiritual ;' or as the last phrase is rendered by 
 Dr. Macknight, explaining spiritual things in spiritual 
 words.'' — Dicighfs Theology^ Sermon 48. 
 
 " But God has given us his word to this very end, 
 that it may be our rule ; and therefore he has so or- 
 dered it that it may be understood by us ; and strict- 
 ly speaking this is our only rule. If we join any 
 thing to it, as making it our rule, we do that which 
 we have no warrant for ; yea, that which God has 
 forbidden. Deut. iv. 2 : Prov. xxx. 6.'' — PresU Ed- 
 wardsj vol. 4, p. 482. 
 
13 
 
 Should Mr. Sawyer read Pres't Edwards' works, 
 vol. 1, from p. 128 to 341, I think it would relieve 
 him from his present embarrassment. 
 I close this head, by quoting Mr. Dick : 
 •• It is manifest, with respect to many passages of 
 Scripture, that the subjects of which they treat must 
 have been directly revealed to the writers. They 
 could not have been known by any natural means, 
 nor was the knowledge of them attainable by a simple 
 elevation of the faculties. With the faculties of an 
 angel we could not discover the purposes of the Divine 
 mind. In fact, by denying that they v/ere constantly 
 under infallible guidance, it leaves us utterly at a loss 
 to know when we should or should not believe them. 
 If they could blend their own stories with the revela- 
 tions made to them, how can I be certain that they 
 have not, on some occasions, published, in the name 
 of God, sentiments of their own, to which they were 
 desirous to gain credit and authority ? Who will as- 
 sure me of their perfect fidelity in drawing a line of 
 distinction between the divine and the human parts of 
 their writings ? The denial of the plenary inspiration 
 of the Scripture tends to unsetttle the foundations of 
 our faith, involv^es us in doubt and perplexity, and 
 leaves us no other method of ascertaining how much 
 we should believe, but by an appeal to reason. But 
 when reason is invested with the authority of a judge, 
 not only is revelation dishonored, and its author in- 
 sulted, but the end for which it was given is complete- 
 ly defeated. No man could write an intelligible dis- 
 course on a subject which he does not understand, 
 unless he were furnished with the words as well a5 
 the sentiments ; and that the penmen of the Scrip- 
 tures did not always understand what they wrote, is 
 intimated by Peter, when he says, that the prophet? 
 ^ inquired and searched diligently what, and what man- 
 mer of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did 
 2 
 
14 
 
 signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of 
 Christ, and the glory that should follow.' 1 Pet. i. 10, 
 11. And in another place, having observed that 'eye 
 had not seen, nor ear heard, neither had entered into 
 the heart of man the things which God had prepared for 
 them that love him,' he adds, ' But God hath revealed 
 them unto us by his Spirit.' See Rev. i. 1 : Gal. i. 12 : 
 Eph. ii. 5 : 1 Cor. ii. 9) 10. Paul affirms that he and 
 the other apostles spoke 'not in the words which 
 man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost 
 taught,' 1 Cor. ii. 13 ; and this general assertion may 
 be applied to their writings as well as to their sermons. 
 Besides, every person who hath reflected upon the 
 subject, is aware of the importance of a proper selec- 
 tion of words in expressing our sentiments ; and knows 
 how easy it is for a heedless or unskillful person not 
 only to injure the beauty and weaken the efficacy of 
 a discourse by the impropriety of his language, but 
 by substituting one word for another, to which it 
 seems to be equivalent, to alter the meaning, and per- 
 haps render it totally different. If, then, the sacred 
 writers had not been directed in the choice of ivords, 
 how could we have been assured that those v/hich 
 they have chosen were the most proper ? Is it not pos- 
 sible, nay, is it not certain, that they would have some- 
 times expressed themselves inaccurately, as many of 
 them were illiterate; and by consequence would have 
 obscured and misrepresented the truth? In this case, 
 how could our faith have securely rested on their tes- 
 timony? Would not the suspicion of error in their 
 writings have rendered it necessary, before we receiv- 
 ed them, to try them by the standard of reason ? and 
 would not the authority and the design of revelation 
 have thus been overthrown? We must conclude, 
 therefore, that the words of Scripture are from God, 
 as well as the matter; or we shall charge him with a 
 want of wisdom in transmitting his truths through & 
 
15 
 
 ciiaiinei by which they mi^ht have been, and most pro- 
 bably have been, polluted.'' 
 
 In view of the above, it is not only the inspired 
 writers who stand charged with the use of misguiding 
 classic Greek words ; but the Holy Spirit also. How- 
 ever, the holy apostles and primitive church having 
 been led astray by the use of this word, it is reasona- 
 ble to suppose that they should wish to retract; and 
 iti view of the entire absence of any thing of the kind, 
 we will SUPPOSE a confession : 
 
 ^IXtXttiS it has recently come to our knowledge, 
 that a little handful of people, caUing themselves Bap- 
 tists, who, under a pretense of keeping our Savior's 
 law, following our example, and keeping the ordinan- 
 ces as we delivered them to the primitive churches, 
 do constantly affirm that the word ^ami'Cfa does mean 
 to immerse, and that our practice did conform to this 
 use of the word, — therefore urging that sprinkling is 
 not baptism ; and whereas these Baptists have been 
 supposed to cause much trouble and dispute on earth, 
 and probably will cause still more, unless there is a 
 new revelation on this point :— Noto UttOt) th^ttfdre, 
 that we, the sacred penmen, do freely confess^ that we 
 have been the sole cause of all this trouble. It was 
 not designed by us, but was purely a mistake. At 
 tlie time we wrote the Scriptures, we were ignorant 
 Jews, and did not understand the Greek of the age ; 
 besides this, we had before us the Septuagint, a Greek 
 translation of the Hebrew text, which used the word 
 ^a.TTt^cj with reference to the Jewish washings ; and 
 we being familiar with that, and yet wholly ignorant 
 of the true use of the Greek language, and being left 
 to our own judgment as to the choice of words in com- 
 municating what the Holy Spirit taught us, we did 
 iiill into the mistake of using the word ^uTn^lia (im- 
 merse) instead of the word Pavni^b) (sprinkle,) and even 
 went so far as to submit to immersion ourselves, (which 
 
16 
 
 fully proves our honesty in this matter.) The primi- 
 tive churchj following our example, were immersed 
 also ; and the Greeks, who were a very ignorant and 
 stupid race, understanding only the classic use of their 
 own language, fell into this error, and finally the whole 
 church for about 1300 years. But in as much as 
 sprinkling has made its appearance, and disturbed the 
 churches in the western part of your world for about 
 three or four hundred years, [see Mr. S., first page.] 
 and as the world is getting wiser and still wiser, and 
 
 especially as a certain Rev. Mr. has recently 
 
 outstripped all others, going beyond Lexicons^ Trans- 
 lators^ Councils, and the judgment of the whole church 
 for century upon century past, and a large majority 
 of the church at the present day, diving into the very 
 bowels of the divinely inspired original, [see p. 21 of 
 Mr. S.] and found out and triumphantly established 
 the truth ; [see his first page ;] therefore we stand 
 fully convicted J and do herewith send orders, that the 
 word B<x7tT(,tib> (immerse) be removed from the New 
 Testament, and the word PavxilM (sprinkle) take its 
 place. This, with five other alterations suggested 
 by Mr. S., [pamphlet, p. 18,] will correct the whole, 
 and henceforward prove that immersion is a mere 
 nullity. [Signed, «fcc.] 
 
 2. On p. 19, Mr. S. sets aside the judgment of the 
 first Christian churches after this manner : " Most of 
 the early Christians were unacquainted with the He- 
 braistic Greek dialect, being familiar with the usage 
 of the classic ; and being in a great measure ignorant 
 of that which prevailed among the Jews, the great 
 mass of the ancient Christians would easily have fallen 
 into error on this subject, and have understood the 
 Scriptures as teaching immersion, where they really 
 taught sprinkling ; besides, most of them were illite- 
 rate," &c. Poor church ! you are set aside, en masse. 
 S. On p. 21, Mr. S. overthrows the judgment of the 
 
iy.'"'^:Th( 
 
 whole Greek cburchj without ceremony. ^ The same 
 remarks apply to the hnmersions of the Greek church. 
 The native (creeks, and others who derive their knovv- 
 jedge of the Greek language from the classics and 
 from native Greek usage, have in every age been liable 
 to err in the interpretation of the Greek Scriptures." 
 Poor Greeks ! 
 
 4. On p. 21, he says, "Some are unwilling to look 
 beyond the common English version of the Scriptures, 
 for information on religious subjects, which, however 
 faithful and correct in the main, is confessedly imper- 
 fect ajid inadequate in many particulars. It is espe- 
 cially so in relation to the mode of baptism, as has 
 Ijeen demonstrated in the foregoing pages." Fooe. 
 TRANSLATORS ! what a pity they had not the light of 
 Mr. Sawyer's pamphlet to guide them. 
 
 But why does Mr. S. condemn Lexicons, the Septu- 
 a^rint, the judgment and practice of the apostles, and 
 of the whole Greek church and nation, eil the primi- 
 tive Cliristians, and all the translators? The true an- 
 swer is, because he finds them all Opposed to his views. 
 
 It is a well known fact, that the Greek language is 
 tii3 most copious and eloqceiK in t\m world ; and it 
 was the special design of God that this should be the 
 language by which the sacred oracles should be pub- 
 lished. 
 
 ^' Homer watered the tongue, and in succeeding ages 
 il flourished till it grew ripe in the New Testament. 
 As Athens in old times was called the Grecia of Gre- 
 cia, so the New Testament may be styled the Greek 
 of Greek.''—/. Lighlfoot, D. I), vol. 1,^. 101.5. 
 
 "As to that doubtfulness that some have taken up 
 abouf the original tongue of this epistle, (i. e. to the 
 Hebrews,) as thinking it strange that he (Paul) should 
 write in the Greek tongue to the Hebrews, especially 
 to the Hebrews of Judea, w^e need no better satisfaction 
 than whi^t the Hebre^ys themselves, yea, the Hebrews 
 
 r 
 
18 
 
 of Jndea give as ; I mean the Jerusalem GemaristSy 
 from several passages that they have about the Greek 
 language. In Megillah, fol. 71, col. 2, they say thus : 
 ' There is a tradition from Ben Kaphra, God shall en- 
 large Japhet, and shall dwell in the tents of Sem.' 
 The Babylonian Geniara, on the same treatise, fol. 9, 
 col. 2, resolves us what tongue of Japhet is meant; 
 for having all along before spoken of the excellency 
 and dignity of the Greek tongue, Rabbi Jonathan of 
 Beth Gubrin saith there are four languages brave for 
 the world to use, viz : the Vulgar, the Roman, the 
 ^Syrian, and the Hebrew. Now the question is, what 
 tongue he means by the Vulgar. Heason will name 
 the Greek ; and Midras Tillin makes it plain, for fol, 
 '^5, col. 4j speaking of this very passage, he nameth 
 the Greek. Observe then, that the Hebrews call the 
 Greek the. Vulgar tongue. They proceed, fol. 25, coL 3: 
 It is a tradition, Simeon Ben Gamaliel saith, in books 
 they permitted not that they should write but only in 
 the Greek ; they searched and found that the law he 
 interpreted completely but only in the Greek. And 
 the same Talmud, in Sotah, fol. 21, col. 2, hath this 
 record : Rabbi Levi went to Cesarea, and heard them 
 rehearsing their phykicterias in the Greek language ; 
 a passage very well worth observing; for in Cesa- 
 rea were as learned schools as any in the nation, and 
 if the phylacteries, (picked sentences out of the law,) 
 which might above all things have challenged their 
 rehearsal in the Hebrew tongue, as their own writers 
 show, yet they say them over in Greek, — Paul might 
 very well write to the Hebrews in Judea in the Greek 
 tongue, when that tongue was in so common use even 
 in the university of Judea itself We should consider 
 how that tongue (i. e. the Hebrew) was now a stranger 
 to all but scholars, (yes, as much as it is to us at this 
 day,) and how God in his providence had dispersed 
 and planted the Greek tongue throughout all the world, 
 
19 
 
 by the conquest of Alexander, (331 years before Christ,) 
 and had brought the Old Testament into Greek." — ib, 
 vol. 1, p. 340. 
 
 Thus we find that although the Savior, the apos- 
 ties, and the members of the first church, were Jews 
 in blood, yet they, and all their fathers for more than 
 three hundred years, were Greeks by education ; that 
 by law they were obliged to write and teach in the 
 Greek language only ; and their learned Rabbi, Simeon 
 Ben Gamaliel, (who lived at the time, and must have 
 known as much about it as Mr. S. does,) searched and 
 found that the law was interpreted completely but 
 onl^ in the Greek. See with how good a face Mr. S, 
 condemns the Septuagint. 
 
 Thus generation after generation had passed by 
 since the Hebrew language was dead, and the Greek 
 in use, in school and out of school, in the public ser- 
 vices of the synagogues, and in all the business of life, 
 wherever they had need of language ; and yet Mr. S. 
 attempts to show this enlightened community that 
 they were all so Hebraistic that they did not under- 
 stand the Greek language then, as well as he does at 
 the present time, — and ventures to raise his whole su- 
 perstructure of sprinkling on this one point. Well 
 might the apostle say, " Beware lest any man spoil 
 you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tra- 
 dition of men. after the rudiments of the world, and 
 not after Christ ;" Colos. ii. 8 ; when he was about to 
 teach the truth concerning baptism as at ver. 12 : "Bu- 
 ried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risea 
 with him.'' 
 
 SECTION III 
 
 In this section I shall briefly review Mr. Sawyer^i 
 second pamphlet, named *' A Critical Dissertation on 
 
20 
 
 the Ecclesiastical Relations and Privileges of Children, 
 clearly establishing their Scriptural Title to Baptism." 
 Leaving all classical and other minute criticisms to be 
 considered under their respective heads. 
 
 I. The singular view that he takes of John's mis- 
 sion and work. Page 1 : " John exercised the author- 
 ity of a prophet duly authorized to modify and change 
 the religious institutions of his time;" pp. 1. 2, '-of 
 initiating persons into a religious society, of which he 
 was the founder, and which professed to receive his 
 doctrines and submit to his discipline, as of Divine 
 authority. Those who embraced the doctrines, and 
 submitted to the discipline of John, were entitled to 
 his baptism, as a seal oi their faith in himP 
 
 Upon these assertions of Mr. S. I would remnrk. 
 that none appears more glaringly anti-scriptural, than 
 that John required the people to believe in himself. 
 and baptized them on a profession of such faith. It 
 is obvious to every Sabbath School scholar, that John 
 required the people to believe in Jesus Clirist. and be 
 baptized on this condition. ]\Iark i. 1 — S: Jolin's 
 preaching and baptizing is called " the beginning of 
 the gospel of Jesus Christ." See also Matt. iii. 10 — 12: 
 Luke iii. 15—20: John i. 19—28,35—42: Acts xix. 
 1 — 7. These passages do not favor Mr. S's new doc- 
 trine, but all to the reverse. But lest he should not 
 rest satisfied, I will quote a iew pedobaptists. 
 
 John i. 22—25. '* The right and power of baptiz- 
 ing Jews, and of collecting them by baptism into a 
 new religion^ was confined to the Messiah and his 
 precursor in establishing his terrestrial monarchy. "'■ — 
 Lightfoot^ RosenmueUer^ and Kuinoel, in co7npre- 
 hensive comment on the place. 
 
 " Such as professed repentance and made confession 
 of their sins, he (John) baptized with water, charging 
 them to believe on the Messiah^ who was to be imme- 
 diately revealed." — Brown^s Bible Dictionary, under 
 John. 
 
21 
 
 '•The beginning of the gospel history of Jesus 
 Christ, the only begotten Son of God, as it is recorded 
 by the evangelist Mark, thus takes its rise from tlje 
 opening of John's ministry. It was this John that 
 came under the character of the great forerunner of 
 the Messiah, as it is written in the prophets, and par- 
 ticularly in Mai. iii. 1 : ' Behold I send my messenger 
 before thy face, O my anointed son, who shall prepare 
 thy way before thee, and as a harbinger appointed to 
 proclaim thy coming.' shall with remarkable solemnity 
 make it the business of his ministry to introduce thy 
 kingdom.''' See also, Isa. xL 3.— — "And while he 
 (John) was thus urging his exhortation, and saying 
 ' repent ye,' he pleaded with them a very new and im- 
 portant argument ; for, said he, the long expected 
 kingdom of heaven is now approaching, and God is 
 about to appear in an extraordinary manner, to erect 
 that kingdom spoken of by Daniel, ii. 44, and viii. 13, 
 14, as the kingdom of the God of heaven, which he 
 
 would set up and give to the Son of man. Dr. 
 
 Sykes, in his essay on the truth of the Christian reli- 
 gion, chap. 3, has largely proved that this phrase re- 
 fers to those texts in Daniel, quoted in the paraphrase. 
 It properly signifies the gospel dispensation, in which 
 subjects were to be gathered to God by his Son, and a 
 society formed which was to subsist, first in more im- 
 perfect circumstances on earth, but afterwards to ap- 
 pear complete in the world of glory." — Doddridge's 
 Expositoi^^ Sec. 15. 
 
 '• John indeed administered the baptism of repent- 
 ance, and came to prepare the way of the Lord, telling 
 the people that they should believe in him that was to 
 come after him, that is in Jesus Christ, whose servant 
 he (John) professed himself to be, and so much inferi- 
 or to him as not to be worthy to loose or bear his 
 shoes." — Doddridge on Acts xix. 1 — 7. 
 
 '• John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Ghost 
 
22 
 
 from his birth ; he was great in the sight of God. and 
 one of the most excellent of men ; yet he was nothing 
 hut the voice of a herald to proclaim the Savior's glo- 
 ry, unworthy even to loose the latchet of his shoes. 
 He knew that Jesus was before him as the Eternal 
 Word : that he ^vould for ever be preferred before him 
 and all creatures, and that he alone could pardon sin 
 or baptize with the Holy Ghost. He thought he could 
 not enough abase himself or exalt the Lord; he only 
 desired to prepare his way^ and manifest him to Israel. 
 Their light is darkness, and their wisdom madness, 
 who exalt themselves and degrade Christ." — Scotfs 
 ChmmenL 
 
 From the above it is evident that John did not com<5 
 to set up a dispenstition of his own, requiring people 
 to believe in him, and receive his baptism as a seal of 
 such faith. This statement, and that John was duly 
 Authorized to modify and change the religious institu- 
 tions of his time, only prove that Mr. S. knows how 
 to make assertions. 
 
 n. I notice the result of his argument. 
 
 On pp. 1, 2, Mr. S. says, "that the Mosaic baptisms, 
 which were of daily occurrence, especially so in the 
 z».^e of Pharisaical strictness and formality which 
 characterized the cotemporaries of Christ, was the 
 &aine baptism which John adopted and used for the 
 purpose of initiating persons into the religious society 
 of which he was the founder, and as a seal of their 
 faith in him,-' (John.) Nov/ I ask was .Tesus Christ 
 baptized merely with John's Mosaic pharisaical Xvash- 
 ing, on condition of his faith in John^ to make him 
 a member of John's society 7 Let men of sense 
 judge. 
 
 Again, Mr. S. assures us on p. 2, " that the first no- 
 tice we have of Christian baptism is at John iii. 22,"' 
 long after Christ had been baptized of John ; and on 
 p. 3 he says " that all who believed in Christ were 
 
23 
 
 baptized with his baptism and thus initiated into his 
 society of professed followers, — and that nothing can 
 be more certain than that this was required of them 
 all, as an initiating act." In view of the above, Jesus 
 Christ never was a member of his own church, oth- 
 erwise he was an anabaptist, (i. e. twice baptized.) 
 Such, O such, are the reasonings of men who will 
 not anoint their eyes with eye salve that they may 
 see. Rev. iii. 18. 
 
 III. I close by noticing Mr. S's singular method of 
 sustaining his thesis. 
 
 1. He supposes that the old Jewish body politic 
 and the church of Christ are one and the same thing. 
 viuder different dispensations. 
 
 2. He takes it for granted that the Mosaic wash- 
 ings and Christian baptism are the same thing, only 
 used for different purposes. 
 
 3. He admits on pp. 2, 3, 4, 9, that there is neither 
 precept or example in the New Testament for infant 
 sprinkling. 
 
 4. He supposes that infants are to be members of the 
 church of Christ, because they were, as he supposes, 
 of the Jewish body. 
 
 5. He therefore' supposes strongly^ that they are 
 to be baptized. 
 
 I was amused when running over his " Critical Dis- 
 sertation," to see how often Mr. S. employs this kind 
 of proof, — suppose^ or take it for granted^ viz : On p. 
 1 twice, p. 2 three times, p. 3 once, p. 4 once, p. 5 
 twice, p. € once, p. 7 once, p. 8 once, p. 9 twice, p. 10 
 once, p. 12 once, p. 14 once, p. 15 once, p. 18 once, p. 
 19^ three times, p. 21 once, and pp. 23 and 24 are 
 wholly suppositions. While making this examina- 
 tion I was forcibly reminded of the remark of Presi- 
 dent Edwards, " The business of an argument is to 
 prove, and not to suppose or take for granted the 
 very thing which is to be proved." This supposins^ 
 
24 
 
 and taking things for granted is a mere rope of sand ; 
 it never can convince strong, well disciplined minds ; 
 they must have more than this, or remain unmoved. 
 Allow me such a string of suppositions, and I can 
 prove the doctrine of trarisubstantiation, or any other 
 point of faith and practice of the Romish church. 
 God says to us distinctly, Jeremiah xxiii. 28, " The 
 prophet that hath a dream, let him tell a dream, and 
 he that hath my word, let him speak my word faith- 
 fully ; what is the chaff to the wheat, saith the Lord ?" 
 The following facts will illustrate the fallacy of rest- 
 ing upon such arguments : 
 
 In A. D. 1813, Russell Colvin, Jesse Boorn, and 
 Stephen Boorn, lived in Manchester, Yt. Colvin left, 
 and none of his friends knew where he was for years. 
 September, 1819, the two Boorns were arrested for the 
 supposed murder of Colvin. From Oct. 27 to Nov. 1 
 they were under trial ; Judge Doolittle presided ; 
 attorneys, L. Sargeant and R. Skinner for the prison- 
 ers, and C. Sheldon, States Attorney, for the State. 
 
 Evidences. 1. A Mr. Boorn "dreamed that R. Col- 
 rin came to his bedside and told him that he had been 
 murdered, and he must follow him, and he would take 
 him to the spot where he was buried." 
 
 2. "A little dog dug out of a hollow stump some 
 bones and toe nails, (partly burnt) which were pro- 
 nounced human." 
 
 3. Colvin's ghost appeared to a man and declared 
 that the Boorns killed him, and pointed out the spot 
 where he was buried ; the place was an old potatoe 
 hole, where they found a knife, a button, and near by 
 an old hat, all which were proved to be Colvin's." 
 
 4. " Jesse Boorn said that Stephen Boorn had con- 
 fessed to him that he did kill Colvin." 
 
 5. " Stephen wrote a full confession that he did 
 kill Colvin, and stated the circumstances at length, and 
 ^ye it to the sherif." 
 
25 
 
 6. '• A person in the jail swore that Stephen made 
 fthe same confession to him." 
 
 7. " Silas Merril swore to the same." 
 
 A jury of twelve (I could name them all) found them, 
 guilty. Judge Doolittle sanctioned it, and Judge 
 Chase pronounced the sentence, that they be hung, 
 Jan. 28, 1819. The Vermont Legislature was peti- 
 tioned to remove or commute the sentence ; but they 
 refused at first by 104 against 31, and finally 97 
 against 42. Dec. 22d, Mr. Whelply, of New Jersey, 
 arrived at Manchester, Yt. with Colvin, affirming that 
 Colvin had lived in Dover, N. J. since 1813. The 
 prisoners were set at liberty, and the day was kept as 
 a jubilee by the whole town. Such was the result 
 of proving murder by supposed testimony and 
 dreams. Judges, jury, great lawyers, the Legislature 
 and the whole community were deceived. Such has 
 been the uniform result of attempting to prove infant 
 sprinkling from Roman Catholic relics, tied together 
 with a string of inferences and suppositions. Many 
 men — good men and great men — have been and can 
 be led astray by the arguments of the age, while it re- 
 mains a fact that pedobaptism is as destitute of proof 
 as the murder of Colvin. Isa. viii. 19, 20, 
 
26 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 THE COVENANTS. 
 
 SECTION I. 
 
 On pp. 18 and 19, Mr. Sawyer has said sortiething 
 of the covenants; but, as usual for pedobaptists, they 
 are only mentioned that an inference may be drawn 
 from them. The word covenant means, first, an 
 lagreement between two or more parties, on certain 
 terms ; and secondly, a promise made by one party to 
 another. A specimen of the first is that national cov- 
 enant made with the Jews at Sinai ; of the second is 
 at Gen. viii. 21—22: ix. 9—17. The word em- 
 ployed in the Old Testament is m^z — in the New, 
 JmOii^rj, rendered covenant, law, promise, command, 
 <fec. There are several covenants in the Scriptures : 
 One with Noah, Gen. ix. 8 — 17 ; with Abraham, Gen. 
 xvii. ; with the whole nation of Israel, Ex. xix. — xxiv.; 
 with Phinehas, Numb. xxv. 10 — 13 ; with David, 2 
 Samuel, vii. 5 — 29 ; the covenant of works, Rom. iii. 
 27 ; of redemption. Gen. xxii. and Psa. Ixxxix. &c. 
 
 Pedobaptists say that the Abrahamic covenant and 
 God's covenant with the gospel church is one ; that 
 God made but one covenant with Abraham, and cir- 
 cumcision was the seal of it. But the Bible speaks 
 plainly of a plurality of covenants. There is the cov- 
 enant of God concerning Christ, (as McKnight ren- 
 ders it,) Gal. iii. 13 — 18, 430 years before the giving 
 of the law, Gen. xii. 1 — 4 ; and the covenant of cir- 
 cumcision, made 24 years after that. Gen. xvii. ; and 
 the covenant of Horeb, made 406 years after this,- — 
 the law of Moses being called a covenant, at Jer. xxxi. 
 SI, 32: Zech. xi. 10—11: Heb. ix. 4. God also 
 speaks definitely of a plurality of covenants, at Rom. 
 ix. 4 : Gal. iv. 24 : Eph. ii. 12. Here are three cove- 
 nants, at least. Now we ask, which of these cove- 
 
27 
 
 nants was made 430 years before the giving of the 
 law? for this is the covenant by which the blessing 
 of Abraham comes on the Gentiles through Christ. 
 Gal iii. 14. The time here given is of much impor- 
 tance, and is thus computed by Dr. Macknight : " To 
 the birth of Isaac, 25 years, Gen. xxi. 5 ; to the birth 
 of Jacob, 60 years, for Isaac was 60 years old when 
 Jacob was born. Gen. xxv. 26 ; Jacob went down into 
 Egypt when he was 130 years old, and according to the 
 Septuagint the Israelites sojourned in Egypt 215 years,, 
 for thus they translate Ex. xii. 40. Now the sojourning, 
 of the children of Israel in the land of Egypt and in 
 the land of Canaan was 430 years." Now reverse the 
 reckoning. They sojourned in Egypt 215 years : Jo- 
 sephus, book 2, chapt. 15, sec. 2 ; the age of Jacob 
 when he entered Egypt was 130, Gen. xlvii. 9 ; from 
 the birth of Jacob to the birth of Isaac 60 years ; and 
 from the birth of I^aac to the covenant of circumcisioD, 
 which was made when Abraham was 99, Gen. xvii. 
 1, is but one year ; for Isaac was born when Abraham 
 was 100, Gen. xxi. 5 ; making it but 406 years to the 
 covenant of circumcision. The full time of 430 would 
 carry us back just 25 years before the birth of Isaac, 
 making Abraham 75 years old at the time when God 
 made the covenant with him (see Gen. xii. 4) spoken 
 of at Gal. iii. 13 — 18. Hence the evidence is con- 
 clusive, that the covenant of Abraham, Gal. iii. 
 13 — 18, and other places in the New Testament, and 
 the covenant of circumcision, are two distinct things, 
 made 24 years distant from each other, and with re- 
 ference to different things. 
 
 It is manifest that the blessing of which the apostle 
 speaks, Gal. iii. 14, was not by the law of Moses ; and 
 it is equally evident it was not by the covenant of cir- 
 cumcision, for the PROMISE of the Holy Spirit, 
 which is the blessing named, was by faith to the gen- 
 tiles, just as it was given to Abraham. Horn. iii. 26 — 
 
28 
 
 ^31 : iv. 4 — 14. And that covenant being confirmed 
 of God concerning Christ, 430 years before the cove- 
 nant of Sinai, and revealed to Abraham 24 years before 
 the covenant of circumcisionj is equally distinct and 
 independent of both ; for the prominent blessing in 
 Gen. xii. is of blessing all nations in Christ the seed 
 of Abraham : and the distinguishing characteristics of 
 the covenant, Gen. xvii., are the inheritance of Ca- 
 naan and the muhiplying of Abraham's posterity. 
 Circumcision was not attached to the promise, Gen, 
 xii., but to that in the 17th chapter, 24 years after- 
 ward. This covenant concerning Christ was after- 
 ward confirmed with an oath. Gen. xxii. 16 — 18. See 
 also Heb. vi. 16 — IS. 
 
 Eight years after the covenant at Gen. xii., God 
 made another covenant with Abraham, Gen. xv., res- 
 pecting the land of Canaan. Sixteen years after this. 
 Gen. xvii., he made another covenant, called by Ste- 
 phen, Acts vii. 8, the covenant of circumcision. And 
 yet we are gravely told, that there was but one cove- 
 nant made with Abraham, — that circumcision was the 
 seal of it, — that this covenant and the covenant of 
 grace is the same covenant, under different dispensa- 
 tions, with the form of the seal changed to baptism. 
 Admit, for the sake of argument, all of this, and then 
 inquire what were the promises of the Abrahamic cov- 
 enant ? 
 
 1. '■ I will make thee a great nation." 2. "I will 
 bless thee." 3. " I will bless the families of the earth 
 in thy seed." 4. " Unto thy seed have I given this 
 land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river Eu- 
 phrates." 6. "I will make thee the father of many 
 nations," 6. "I will be a God unto thee, and thy 
 seed after thee." 7, '' I will make kings to come out 
 of thee." 8. " Thy seed shall possess the gate of its 
 enemies." 9. " My covenant shall be in your flesh 
 for an everlasting covenant." 
 
29 
 
 These are the blessings given to Abraham, in the 
 i2ih, 15th, 17th and 22d chapters of Genesis. If this 
 is the covenant of Christ's church, then the church, 
 and each individual member of it who receives bap- 
 tism as the seal of the Ahrahamic covenant^ may 
 confidently look for each and all of the above things ; 
 for God has sealed them to him, on pedobaptist prin- 
 ciples. And if God made but one covenant with Abra- 
 ham, of which circumcision was the seal, then that 
 which is recorded, Gen. xxii., is a mere aliquem in 
 niimerum aggregare^ forgotten or otherwise neglect- 
 ed when the covenant was sealed and delivered, Gen. 
 xvii., and not added until about 30 years after. Will 
 pedobaptists admit all this, to get proof for infant 
 baDtism ? 
 
 SECTION II. 
 
 The Covenant of Redemption. 
 Thi3 covenant is brought to view in the following 
 Scriptures: '-'And I will put enmity between thee and 
 the woman, and between her seed and thy seed, and 
 it (Hebrew He) shalt bruise thy head and thou shalt 
 bruise his heal.'"' Gen. iii. 15. " I will bless them 
 that bless thee and curse them that curse thee, and in 
 thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed." 
 Gen. xii. 3. '' In blessing I will bless thee," &c. Gen. 
 xxii. 17, 18. ''Now to Abraham and his seed were 
 the promises made ; he saith not and to seeds as of 
 many, but as of one : and to thy seed^ which is 
 Christ." Gal. iii. 16. Isa. liii. 10—12 : Eph. i. 4 ; 
 Zee. vi. 13 ; Psa. ii. 6 — 8. " Thou speakest in vis- 
 ion to thy Holy One and said," <fec. Psa. Ixxxix. 
 19 — 36. From the above Scriptures it is evident that 
 this covenant was made by the persons of the God- 
 h^dA with reference to the salvation of men, and must 
 
 r 
 
so 
 
 have existed eteraaiiv. Although it was not made 
 with any man, yet God was pleased to reveal it to 
 Adam, Abraham, David, Isaiah, Zechariah, and all 
 th@ patriarchs and prophets of old. But the most 
 glorious and full revelation that we find is to Da- 
 vid. Psa. ii. 4—8 : Ixviii. 14 — 18 : Ixxxix. : xci. with 
 others. This is a ^racioi^^ covenant^ but not the cov- 
 enant OF GRACE. 
 
 SECTION III. 
 
 The Cove?iant of Grace. 
 This covenant is made and exists between God 
 and each Christian ; and this being made with a man, 
 he t,s in grace and grace in him. It is brought to 
 view at Gal. i. 6 ; Eph. i. 7 : ii. 5 — 10: Gen. xil 
 1_„4; Tit. iii. 7; 1 Cor. i. 4, "Incline your ear 
 and come unto me ; hear and your soul shall live ; 
 and 1 will make an everlasting covenant with you, 
 cvGU the sure mercies of David." Isa. Ixv. 3. This 
 claijs of Scriptures does not refer to the covenant of 
 redemption J for they speak of a co^^enant made with 
 tiie- man who will incline his ear and hear God. 
 These Scriptures can not refer to the covenant of cir- 
 ciuncision, for they are addressed alike to Jew and 
 Gentile. But circumcision was not given to the 
 C^ontiles, and the Jews had already been circumcised 
 at eight da.ys old, (See Gen. xVii. 9 — 14.) and the in- 
 dividual who became interested in this covenant was 
 id enjoy the salvation of God. But the covenant of 
 circumcision gave no such promise ; therefore, the 
 •covenant spoken of in Isaiah Iv. 3, was the covenant 
 of grace. This covenant does not exist between God 
 aod the unregenerate. Gen. vi. 5 : Mat. xv. 19 : 
 John viii» 44 : Kom. iii. 10^-18 : viii. 4 : Prov. i. 24 : 
 Mai. XXV. 46.. This view of the subject does not 
 
31 
 
 militate against the salvation of infants. We have 
 no doubt that all who die in infancy are saved. Since 
 the days of Origenj however, there has been much 
 doubt of this. The churches at Alexandria, Rome, 
 and in Africa were led into error on this doctrine, and 
 some denominations in this age are not free from per- 
 plexities. " God doth not leave all men to perish in 
 the estate of sin and misery into which they fell by 
 the breach of the first covenant, commonly called the 
 covenant of works, but of his mere loye and mercy 
 he delivereth his elect out of it. Baptism is not to he 
 administered to any out of the visible church, and so 
 strangers to the covenant of promise, till they profess 
 their faith in Christ and obedience to him. But in- 
 fants descending from parents either both or hut one 
 of them professing faith in Christ and obedience to 
 him, are in that respect within the covenant, and are 
 to be baptized." Presbyterian Confession of Faith, 
 pp. 156 — 287. I see no consitency in raising a 
 scheme to save the infants of church members, and 
 not those of persons out of the church. An infant 
 is an infant^ and by nature they are all equal ; and I 
 can not believe that the infant child of my neighbor 
 IS lost, because its parent is not a member of the 
 church. See Matt. xix. 14. God makes the covenant 
 of 2:race with each individual at the instant he is re- 
 £:eaerated or believes. John iii. 18: vi. 53, 54: Rom, 
 lx. 4 : iv. 9 — 13. I can not give an account of all the 
 persons with whom God has made the covenant of 
 grace, but would present a few instances only. " By 
 faith Noah — by faith Abel — by faith Enoch — by faith 
 Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place 
 which he should after receive for an inheritance, 
 obeyed." Heb. xi. 4 — 8. Here the Holy Spirit dates 
 the particular time when Abraham exercised faith and 
 began to obey God. This faith is the fruit of regen- 
 eration} aud regeneration is the act by which men are 
 
32 
 
 brought into the covenant of grace with God. It 
 should never be forgotten that the account of Abra- 
 ham's entering into the covenant of grace is not re- 
 corded, as pedobaptists say, at the 12th, 15th, 17th and 
 22d chapters of Genesis, but at Gen. xii. 1 — 4. Pre- 
 vious to this he was a pagan, but here he possessed 
 (Rom. iv. 11,) '' the righteousness of the faith which he 
 had, yet being uncircumcised.'''' At Isa. Iv. 3, God 
 speaks of making the covenant of grace with David, 
 and at 2 Sam. xxiii. 5, David speaks of the same 
 transaction: "Although my house be not so with 
 God, yet he hath made with me an everlasting cov- 
 enant, ordered in all things and sure." The strong 
 faith of Abraham, David, Noah, Moses and others, is 
 often spoken of in the New Testament, not that these 
 men could believe for us that we might be saved by 
 proxy, but they are set forth as examples for us. Sea 
 Mat. iii. 9 : Luke xix. 9 : Rom. iv. 16 : Gal. iii. 6—9. 
 The New Testament saints entered into the covenant 
 of grace for themselves in precisely the same manner 
 that Abraham did at Genesis xii. 1 — 4. God called ; 
 they believed and obeyed, and the work was done. 
 
 This view of the subject is fully sustained by what 
 is said at Jer. xxxi. 31 — 33 : " Behold the days come 
 that I will make a new covenant with the house of L 
 rael ;" and when Paul was urging the Jews to believe 
 on Christ and enter into the covenant of grace, he 
 took this prophecy for his argument. Heb. viii. 7 — 13. 
 
 I have dwelt sufficiently on this to show you that 
 the covenant of grace is a separate and distinct thing 
 from the covenant of redemption and the covenant of 
 circumcision. It is not made with nations, but with 
 individuals. It is not made by proxy, but in person ; 
 not with Abraham for all his seed, nor with gentile 
 2iarents for all our children, but must be made be- 
 tween God and every soul that enters heaven. John 
 iii. 3. Therefore if you should be taught that \% is. 
 
33 
 
 needful to have your children baptized in order to bring 
 them into the Ahrahamic covenant of grace, just ask 
 the teacher to explain himself, and show you if he 
 means that baptizing the infant brings it into the cov- 
 enant of redemption; which is between the persons of 
 the Godhead, and made with no man ; or into the cov- 
 enant of circumcision, (Gen. xvii. 9 — 14,) which had 
 no promise of salvation, and belongs exclusively to 
 the Jews; or into the covenant of grace made with 
 Abraham, (Gen. xii. 1 — 4,) and with all other saints 
 at the time of regeneration, and with no others. A 
 iQW such questions would unravel the a7nhiguity of 
 their teaching, and learn them to talk philosophically. 
 
 SECTION IV. 
 
 The Covenant of Circumcision, 
 
 I. This covenant is found recorded in the 17th 
 chapter of Genesis. Some of our pedobaptist breth- 
 ren esteem it the foundation of infant baptism. How- 
 ever, it is a well known fact that some whole church- 
 es have renounced infant baptism, other churches are 
 awfully divided, others agree to let each member do 
 as he feels inclined: thus acting on what is called the 
 accommodation plan. But, if the rite is from God, 
 and so vastly important, as they say it is, how can 
 the church license her members to neglect it ? There 
 is no middle ground ; infant baptism is wrong, or it 
 is right. Many contend that it is right, and say that 
 it had its origin in this covenant. Therefore, we will 
 review the argument. 
 
 II. The Covenants of Grace and Circumcision not 
 the same. — The Presbyterian Confession of Faith, 
 after extolling the Abrahamic covenant,- page 38, says, 
 ''There are not, therefore, two covenants of grace, 
 differing in substance, but one and the same, under 
 
different dispensations." I cheerfully admit that thr 
 covenant of grace existed in Abraham's day. Hence 
 the apostle says, "The Scriptures, foreseeing that God 
 would justify the heathen through faith, preached be- 
 fore the gospel unto Abraham^ saying, In thee shall 
 all the nations of the earth be blessed. Gal. iii. 8. 
 But I positively deny its being the same as the cove- 
 nant of circumcision. A man may be under two or 
 more sets of law at the same time. As a citizen of 
 New Haven, I am under its corporation laws. At the 
 same time I am under the laws of this State, of the 
 United States, and the laws of God ; but who will say, 
 therefore, that these laws are one ? Abraham, Isaac, 
 Jacob, David, Isaiah and Daniel were in the covenant 
 of grace. They were also in the covenant of cir- 
 cumcision, but this does not prove these covenants 
 one. Christ, the evangelists and apostles were in the 
 covenant of circumcision, and at the same time in the 
 gospel. This does not prove them both the same. 
 The fact is that the covenants of grace and circum- 
 cision are as distinct as the gospel and the law of Mo- 
 ses. The Jews attempted to identify them, but Paul 
 labored to keep a line of demarcation plain between 
 them, while writing to the Hebrews, Romans, Gala- 
 tians and others. See Gal. v. 2 — 6 : 1 Cor. vii. 19 : 
 Rom. iv. 9, 10 : iii. 1, 2 : ii. 25 : Acts xvi, 1 — 3 : 
 Col. iii. II: 1 Cor. vii. 18. 
 
 Circumcision was a national mark ; and a man 
 might be in the covenant of grace and be circumcis- 
 ed, or he might be circumcised and not be in the cov- 
 enant of grace ; for they are not only separable^ but 
 in fact never were identified, although they might 
 meet in the same subject. 
 
 Wm. F. Hamilton says : " Nor is this covenant the 
 same as the covenant of grace ; i. e. it does not con- 
 vey a promise of salvation to Abraham and the speci- 
 fied seed, in this covenant, nor to either of them. Of 
 
^5 
 
 this covenant circumcision was the original seal, 
 Tfow we all know that to whomsoever any covenant 
 or contract is sealed, that seal actually secures to him 
 the full benefit of all the stipulations contained in that 
 covenant. If, then, this covenant be the same as the 
 covenant of grace, since circumcision was God's seal, 
 not man's, then every circumcised person must have 
 been infallibly sure of salvation. The ancient 
 Jews held this opinion, but the language of Christ and 
 the apostles has taught us differently." — Anabapiism 
 Disproved, p. 19. 
 
 III. The Subjects of Circumcision. — "And ye shall 
 circumcise the flesh of your foreskin." Gen. xvii. 11. 
 This makes it binding on Abraham, and no other. 
 Hence the law has to be enlarged : "Every man child 
 in your generation." ver. 12. Here is authority to 
 circumcise his children. "He that is born in thy 
 house or bought with thy money." This opens a 
 larger door ; for (Gen. xiv. 14,) Abraham had three 
 hundred and eighteen soldiers, able to bear arms, all 
 born in his house. And, froiri this time forward, he 
 was to circumcise all others who were thus born or 
 bought. This is the extent of the law ; and, whether 
 they were saints or infidels, if they sustained the 
 above relations they must be circumcised. In the 
 apostolic age there were some Judaizing teachers who 
 fell into the same mistake which modern pedobaptists 
 entertain ; i. e. that being circumcised was making a 
 profession of religion, and that the gentiles as well as 
 the Jews were bound to attend to it. In the 15th 
 chapter of Acts,we are informed that Paul and Barna- 
 bas brought tidings to Jerusalem that many of the 
 gentiles were converted : verses 5, 6, " There arose up 
 certain of the sect of the pharisees v/ho believed, say- 
 ing that it was needful to circumcise them and com- 
 -mand them to keep the law of Moses ; and the apos- 
 tles came together to consider this matter," After de- 
 
36 
 
 liberation upon the question, they came to this result ; 
 (verses 28, 29,) " For it seemed good to the Holy 
 Ghost and to us, to lay upon you (gentile converts,) 
 no greater burden than these necessary things : that 
 ye abstain from meats oSered to idols; from blood, 
 aqd from things strangled, and from fornication : 
 From which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. 
 Fare •ye well." They arrived at this conclusion be- 
 cause circumcision was never binding on the gentiles, 
 and because to the Jews it was never abrogated. For 
 Christ was circumcised ; (Luke ii. 21,) and all the 
 Jews, whether believers or infidels, continued the 
 practice: "This, therefore, is what Herodotus saith. 
 that the Syrians which are in Palestine are circum- 
 cised, but there are no inhabitants of Palestine cir- 
 cumcised excepting the Jews. — Josephus against Ap- 
 ion, book 1, sec. 22. 
 
 IV. Is circtimcision the same to all loho receive it 
 that it was to Abraham? — [ wish to consider this 
 question, because pedobaptists say that "circumcision, 
 and baptism its substitute, is the seal of the covenant 
 of grace : it was so to Abraham, and is so to all who 
 receive it ;" and to sustain themselves quote Rom. iv. 
 11: " And he received THE 5i^^ of circumcision; a 
 seal of the righteousness of his faith which he had 
 yet being uncircumcised.^^ But it is evident that cir- 
 cumcision or baptism could not be a seal of the right- 
 eousness of the faith of an infant eight days old. The 
 gentile proselyte could not claim the promises made 
 to Abraham, Gen. xvii. 6 : " I will make thee exceed- 
 ing fruitful, and will make nations of thee, and kings 
 shall come out of thee." But he could claim. Gen. 
 xvii. 8 : "I will give unto thee and unto thy seed af- 
 ter thee, the land," &c., which Abraham could not 
 claim. Acts vii. 5 : " And he gave him (Abraham) no 
 inheritance in it; no, not so much as to set his foot 
 ©H.^ See Gen. xxiii. 4 — 20. 
 
37 
 
 Mr. Cowles says, " That which St. Paul meant by 
 taWing circiimcisioQ the seal of the righteousness of 
 his faith, is simply this: That the promptitude and 
 dieerfiihiess with which he received and obeyed this 
 self-denyinof duly was a seal, or token, or confirming 
 evidence of the sincerity of his faith." 
 
 "It appears to be conceded by pedobaptists, that 
 there were peculiarities belonging to the covenant 
 with Abraham, although it be considered as the cove- 
 nant of grace, and that it is not made wilk other be- 
 lievers in Ike same form, or to the same extent. In- 
 deed, this is too obvious to be denied. But these pe- 
 culiar items are called appendages to the covenant 
 of sfi'iice. i. e. sornethinof added ov annexed to it. 
 
 "But this notion is manifestly without a foundation. 
 They were not appendages to the Abrahamic cove- 
 nant, but component and essential parts of it, as 
 much so as an,?/ item of a/iy covenant, or will, or deed, 
 whatever, belongs to the instrument itselj] and dis- 
 tinguishes it from all other covenants, wills or deeds. 
 
 "This covenant, therefore, when properly analyzed 
 and defined, does not contain any prenjises from 
 which the baptisui of believers can be justly inferredj 
 in as much as Abraham's case was peculiar, and the 
 same covenant is not made with otirer believers, es- 
 pecially with gentile believers ; and m as much as 
 baptism, provided it be designed to answer any of 
 the ends of circumcision, cannot be pretended to an- 
 swer all of them ; nor can it be considered as a seal 
 of the same covenant." — /. Cltadiuidc's Essay on 
 Baptism,, page i 10. 
 
 V. The Design, of Circumcision. — 
 
 1. Circumcision was desitrned for a bond of un- 
 ion, to keep the Jews separate from otlier nations, G^n, 
 xxxiv. 14: "We can not do this thing, to give our 
 isister to one that is uncircnmcised." Dent. vii. 3: 
 4 
 
38 
 
 "Neither shalt thou make marriages with them.* 
 Ezra ix. 1, 2 ; Acts x. 28. 
 
 2. And as a consequence that Christ should come 
 of the seed of Abraham. Gen. xxii. 17, 18: Gal. iii. 
 16 : Heb. ii. 16. 
 
 3. To point them to the virtue of his blood and the 
 necessity of regeneration. Deut. x. 16 : Jer. iv. 4 : 
 Rom. ii. 29: Col. ii. 11. ♦ 
 
 4. To keep them from idolatry, Gen. xvii. 7: "I 
 will be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee.** 
 Ex. xxxiv. 14: "For thou shalt worship no other 
 God.' 
 
 6. That they should keep the oracles of God. Rom, 
 iii. 1, 2: Deut. iv. 7, S: Vs. Ixxviii. 5: Eph. ii. 12. 
 
 6. To give them an everlasting title to the land of 
 Canaan. Gen. xvii. 8. *• And I will give unto Ihee, and 
 to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a 
 stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting 
 possession." 
 
 As God here made an everlasting covenant-deed of 
 conveyance of this land to Abraham and his seed, he 
 sealed it with an everlasting seal or token, and 1 have 
 no evidence that Abraham, or God himself, lias ever 
 made any other conveyance of that land. It is true 
 that the Romuns overcame the Jews, and possessed it 
 by force; but the face of the dekd, and the token or 
 SEAL, stand immutable. Gen. xvii. The Jews are 
 thrown out of the use of it by rebellion, (Dciit. iv. 27: 
 xxviii. 25 — 64 : Jer. iv. 11—18 : xviii. 16, 17.) but still 
 they continue to circumcise all their males; iind it ia 
 right they should, for if they neglect this, they lose the 
 title to their land. Gen. xvii. 14. " The uncircumcised 
 man child, whose flesh of Ins foreskin is nol circumcis- 
 ed, that soul shjjil be cut off (not from fiis God, but) 
 from his people ; he hath broken my covenant.'' 
 
 Hence all who are circumcised are in this covenant 
 with God, whether believer or injidel ; and we look 
 
39 
 
 for the time when he will bring them to possess Pales- 
 tine ao:ain. Dr. Ely completely demonstrated this 
 fact, in his production respecting the Jews; and the 
 word of God is full on this point. 1 do not now refer 
 to those prophecies which speak of the Jews' return 
 from the Babylonish captivity; but to those which 
 speak of things which have never been, and therefore 
 remain to be fulfilled to the Jews. See Kzek. xi. 17 
 —20: xvi. 61: xxxvi. 21—28: Jer. xxxi. 34: Heb. 
 viii. 6—13: Ezek. xx. 37—44: Micah vii. 15—20 1 
 Rom. xi. 25—27: 2 Cor. iii. 15, 16: Heb. x. 15—17. 
 This class of Scriptures speak of the Jews all being 
 converted to Christ, and dwelling, in the peaceable en- 
 joyment of the Christian religion, in Palestine. This 
 was not their condition when they returned from Bab- 
 ylon, nor has it been at any other time; it remains 
 yet to be accomplished. But to whom are these pro- 
 mises made? Not to the uncircomcised Jew ; for he 
 has broken the covenant ; Gen. xvii. 14; hui exclu- 
 sively to the circumcised. Biit is it a fact, that bap- 
 tism will entitle them to their land, and all the promis- 
 es of the covenant of circumcision? If so, where is 
 the Scripture to warrant the belief? Some writers,, 
 however, to susttiin pedobaptism, &c., make it simply a 
 seal of the covenant of, and door of admittance into, the 
 true church of God. This glaring anti-scriptural sen- 
 timent is advanced by nearly all of them who have 
 written upon baptism. Mr. Cowles says, " Circum- 
 cision was the door of admittance into the ancient 
 
 church. The same cpialifications were required for 
 
 membership in the Jev/ish as in the Christian church." 
 — Essay ^ pp. 11, 53. 
 
 Mr. Sawyer says, "While circumcision was the 
 initiatory rite of the true church, and seal of subjection 
 to God, it answered the same purpose as the corres- 
 ponding Christian rite. Judaism and Christianity 
 
 therefore are two successive dispensations of the same 
 
40 
 
 relio^ion.- Both the Jewish and Christian churches 
 
 v/ere constituted of professed believers and professed 
 >vorshipers of God, and required faith and obedience 
 of all their adult subjects." pp. 14, 17. 
 
 Upon the thesis of these gentlemen, this ancient 
 church was organized in Abraham's family, for here 
 began what they call the initiatory rite. But were all 
 who were circumcised such believers as Christ and 
 the apostles described ? Did circurr;cision introduce 
 them to church relation and priviIeo;es? Was Ish- 
 mael a member of the true church 7 See Gen. xxi. 9 : 
 Gal. iv. 28 — 30. Were the tbree hundred and eighteen 
 adults who v/ere born in Abruham's house, (Gen. xiv. 
 14,) and circumcised, (xvii. 27,) admitted to church 
 membership on a profession of evangelical faith ? Had 
 the thousands that perished under the wrath of God, 
 (Ex. xxxii. 27, 28: Num. xvi. 35: 2 Sam. xxiv. 15: 
 2 Chron. xiii. 17.) received Jeiiovah's seal of the im- 
 mutable covenaut of graced ^Vere the Jews who 
 murdered the Lord, and were not the children of Abra- 
 ham, but of the devil, (John viii. 25 — 59,) all members 
 of the same church with Christ and his apostles? See 
 Mr. S., p. 14. 
 
 Without a particle of evidence to sustain themselves, 
 these gentlemen assert the above for truth; but the 
 truth is, circumcision is not a door into tlie church, 
 nor was it at any former period ; and if Abraham's 
 family wcvq organized as a chnrch, there appears but 
 one believer to three hundred and eighteen unconvert- 
 ed men. If this is the model after which Presbyteri- 
 an churches are built, it accounts for the present con- 
 dition of their General Assembly, but is wholly unlike 
 their refusing to baptize their slaves and other do- 
 mestics. 
 
 VI. Is circumcision abrogated 7 
 
 1. Testimony of the Lord. " I will establish my 
 covenant between me and thee, and thy seed aftej^ 
 
41 
 
 thee, in their generations, for an everlasting cove- 
 nant.''^ Gen. xvii. 7. " Thou shall keep my covenant, 
 therefore, thou and thy seed after thee, in all their 
 generations.'' Gen. xvii. 9. See also. Gen. xxvi. 3: 
 1 Chron. xvi. 15-18. 
 
 2. Testimony of the apostles. 1. The apostles de- 
 chire circumcision indifferent in the Christian religion, 
 which tliey could not have done if it had been abro- 
 gated. '-Is any man called, being circumcised, let 
 him not become uncircumcised ; is any man called 
 in uncircumcision, let him not b^ circumcised; cir- 
 cumcision is nothing) and imcirciimcision is nothings 
 but the keepinof of the commandments of God." 1 Cor. 
 vii. 18, 19. See also, Col. iii. 11: Gal. ii. 3—25: v. 
 6: vi. 12: Rom. iv. 9, 10. If God had not abolished 
 circumcision, the Jews could not have kept his com- 
 mandments and neo^lected it; Gen. xvii. 14; and if 
 God had abolished it, they could not have kept his 
 commandments and still practiced il. 2. The Jews 
 advocated its perpetuity. Acts xv. 1. Paul taught 
 that circumcision was still binding. Rom. iii. 1, 2. 
 Converted Jews in the Christian church continued to 
 practice it tlirouo:h the whole New Testament. Jesus 
 Christ was circumcised; Luke ii. 21 ; He was a min- 
 iSTER. of the circumcision. Rom. xv. 8. Paul was 
 circumcised. Phil. iii. 5. Paul circumcised Timothy, 
 after he had been baptized. Acts xvi. 3. See also, 
 Rom. iii. 30 : Gal. ii. 7, 8: Col. iv. 11. But it is said 
 that Paul forbid circumcision at Gal. v. 2 — 4. Dr. 
 Wardlaw says, " i/" ye be circumcised Christ shall 
 profit you nothing, is equivalent to saying, If ye em- 
 brace this doctrine Christ shall profit you nothing. 
 This is clear from the circumstance that being circum- 
 cised in the one verse, corresponds to h^'m^ justified by 
 the law in the other." — Essay on Baptism, p. 32. 
 
 3. It is said that Paul was arraigned and tried for 
 preaching ac^ainst circumcision. "And they are aR 
 
 4* 
 
42- 
 
 informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which? 
 are among the gentiles, to forsake Moses, saying they 
 ought not to circumcise their children." Acts xxi. 21. 
 It is true that Paul was apprehended upon this charge^ 
 and brought before the Sanhedrim; hut after a full 
 examination, even the Pharisees said, (Acts xxiii. 9,) 
 "we find no fault in this man." Paul did teach that 
 the Jews need^ not keep the law of Moses, for that was 
 abolished, and that the gentiJes need not circumcise 
 their children; (see Acts xxi. 25;) but he did not 
 teach that the Jews need not circumcise their infants, 
 for he knew that this was binding on them by the law 
 of heaven. 
 
 The Jews and modern pedobaptists embrace simi- 
 lar errors. The Jews suppose that the covenant of cir- 
 cumcision is identified with their Mosaic religion ; and 
 pedobaptists suppose it to be identified with their Chris- 
 tian religion ; but it is as independent of the one as 
 the other. The Jews esteem both the covenant of cir- 
 cumcision and the Mosaic covenant, now obligatory; 
 the pedobaptists esteem them both abrogated ; while 
 the fact is, the Mosaic covenant is broken and abol- 
 ished ; Jer. xxxi. 31- -33 : Zech. xi. 10, 1 1 : Heb. viii. 
 4 — 13; but the covenant of circumcision is an ever- 
 lasting covenant, (Gen. xvii. 13,) and binding on ev- 
 ery male of Alrrahanvs seed to this day. 
 
 3. The testimony of pedobaptists. 
 
 ^' The covenant of circumcision, so far from being 
 a part of tlie law and partaking of its terrjporary na- 
 ture, was a covenant which existed long before it, 
 which could not be disannulled either by its introduc- 
 tion or its cessation, but which continues to this day." 
 — Dr. Wardiaw on Baptism^ p. 28. 
 
 "Besides, as circumcision never was obligatory on 
 the gentiles in their separate national capacity, and 
 never was abrogated to the Jews^ but remains in full 
 force to them, there can be no ground to consider bap- 
 
4^ 
 
 lism as a substitute. As the- case is, such a thing; 
 could not be." — Chadwick on Baptism, p. 23. 
 
 VII. Is baptism a substitute for circumcision? 
 It certainly is not; for as the rite was enjoined upon 
 the Jews and never was abrogated, the original stands^, 
 and no substitute is required or can be ; and, as we 
 are not Jeivs, but gentiles, we need no substitute for a 
 rite which never belonged to us. There is not a pas- 
 saofe in the whole Bible that even hints at this doctrine.. 
 It depends alone on pedobaptist assertions for it foun- 
 dation,' and that of the more ignorant and illiterate 
 part ; for well read pedobaptists say as follows : 
 
 Dr. Emmons, "Can we, therefore, justly conclude 
 that it is the duty of believers now to circumcise their 
 children or even to baptize them, because it was once 
 the duty of the Jews to circumcise theirs. The truth, 
 is, we must learn the particular duties of believers 
 under the present dispensation of the covenant of 
 grace, from the dispensation itself, which enjoins all 
 the peculiar duties which belong to it." 
 
 *' In every view of the case, therefore, the argu- 
 ment for infant baptism, grounded on the Abrahamic 
 covenant, or any covenant or promise in the Bible,, 
 fails, and ouo^ht never to be plead." — Chadwick on 
 Baptism., p. 128. 
 
 Dr. J. Owen, "No aro^ument can be drawn from 
 the ceremonial law to the gospel, because we are not 
 under the obligation of that law." 
 
 " Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, 
 ordained by Jesus Christ." — Presbyterian Confession 
 of Faith, p. 120. 
 
 "Arguments drawn, from the types and figures con= 
 elude not, unless they be types ordained of God to 
 Buch use ; neither are the sacraments of the gospel 
 to be squared according to the patterns of the ceremo- 
 nial law. ' We also deny that the ceremonies of the 
 IfkW are figures and types of our sacraments ; but both 
 
44 
 
 ikeir sacraments and ours are figures and represen- 
 tatiojis of Christ." — Dr. Willei, Synopsis of Papism^ 
 p. 643. 
 
 "As God, by virtue of the said engagement with 
 Christ, has uiade distinct covenants with men, al- 
 though they have all one leading feature ; and as it is 
 manifest from the very iiistriiments themselves, that 
 there is a distinction not only between the new cove- 
 nant under the gospel and the Sinai covenant, but al- 
 so between M/^ and the Abrahamic coveAVdiW'^ it is 
 manifestly not consistent to consider baptis^mas a sub- 
 stitute for circumcision. It does not belong to the 
 same covenant^ and, therefore, can not be a substitute. 
 Neither is it appointed for the same ends; certainly 
 not for all of them; which it must have been to make 
 it a proper substitute. Neither are -we any "where 
 told in tlie scriptures that it is a substitute. We con- 
 clude, therefore, that infant baptism was not known in 
 the days of the apostles, nor the succession of baptism 
 in the place of circumcision." — Chadwick on Baptisniy 
 p. 113. 
 
 SECTION v. 
 
 T/ie Mosaic Covenant. 
 The law of Moses is called a covenant. Ex. xxxiv. 
 28: Lev. xxvi. 15: Deut. iv. 13: xxix. 1. It is im- 
 portant to examine this covenant, as here is the origin 
 and constitution of what Stephen calls ^r^ lyxXr.aiq iv t^ 
 Igrifia, translated "the church in the wilderness." Some 
 pedob«ptists say that ^/te/y church originated in Abra- 
 ham's family, Gen. xvii., 406 years before the law of 
 Moses; but if making a covenant with God, offering 
 Bacrifices, prayers, &c. constitutes a church, (hen not 
 only Abraham and his family became a church, but 
 we find many such. Noah, who was a preacher of 
 
45 
 
 righteousness, 2 Pet. ii. 5. and offered sacrifices and 
 prayers to God, with all his family, entered into cove^ 
 nant, Gen. ix. 9 — 17, in which God gave to him and 
 his seed, not simply the hind of Canaan, but the whole 
 world, with many other blessino^s, and the rainbow as 
 a token or seal of that covenant; and not simply pro- 
 misinof that he would remove the present possessors, 
 but did remove them at once by an universfil flood. 
 Josiah, his family, and the whole nation, eniered into 
 covenant. 2 Kinofs xxiii. 1 — 30. Asa, his family, 
 and all the nation, entered into covenant. 2 Chron. xv» 
 8 — 19. To the covenant with Noah and Abrahans, 
 God gave each equally a token or seal. Gen. ix, 12: 
 xvii. 11. Bur still, the Mosaic covenanters only are 
 known as the ''^^'p, Uy.hjUiu^ or cono^re^ation. All Jew- 
 ish covenants, subsequent to the Mosaic, are but trans- 
 actions of the Mosaic organization : and all previous 
 covenants and organizations are not only destitute of the 
 name, but of nearly every essential of a church. Abra- 
 ham's posterity, previous to the Sinai covenant, had 
 no church, no Bible, no Sabbath, no priests or elders, 
 no sanctuary, no baptism, no passover, no sin<ring, no 
 discipline, but simply existed as any other nation does 
 where there are one thousand unregeneraie souls to 
 one true child of God; and we could as consistently 
 call the whole French nation the chnrch of God, as 
 the Jews. But when they left Egypt, there was a for- 
 mal organization of the whole nation into not " th© 
 church of God," but a pedahaptist congregation. 
 
 The word txxhjaia is formed of c;^, out, and xai^«> 
 call, — ^nxXrjuta, called out ; lience a couvoealion. In 
 considering the Mosaic church, we notice, 
 
 1. They were a people called out (of Egypt) by 
 God himself Acts xiii. 17 : Ex. vi. 6 : xii. 31 : Pent. 
 iv. 33-35. 
 
 2. They were all baptized. 1 Cor. x. 1, 2. " AU 
 our fathers were under the cloudy and all passed thrc^ 
 
46 
 
 the sen, and were all baptized unto Moses." Ex. xiv, 
 21,22: Num. xxxiii. 8. 
 
 (I.) The subjects of baptism, Ex. xii. 37 ; "Six 
 hundred thousand on foot that were men, besides chil- 
 dren." This was pedobaptisra, for the cono^regatioQ 
 consisted of men. women and children. Ex. xv. 20 : 
 Lev. xxvii. 5 : Num. xxx. 3. 
 
 (2.) The mode ; they VzD, dipped their bodies in 
 water. 2 Kings v. 14. They T;72D, poured out ashes^ 
 Lev. iv. 12, and ?T)3, sprinkled with blood Lev.xvi. 14. 
 
 3. They had the passover ; Ex. xii. 2 — 27 ; and as 
 this Jewish pedobaptist church was a type, Col. ii. 17: 
 Heb. viii. .5, of the church of God, Acts xx. 28: I Tim. 
 iii. 5, God aave them the passover before their formal 
 organization, as he did the eucharist to the church of 
 God before its formal organization. Matt, xx vi. 26 — 30. 
 
 4. They entered into a church covenant with God 
 and each other. Ex. xxiv. 7—8 : Gal. iv. 24, 25. 
 
 .5. They had the oracles of God. or Bible given to 
 them. J^uke xxiv. 27: Rom. iii. 2: Ex. xvii. 14: 
 xxiv. 4. 
 
 G. God now gave them a sanctuary. Ex. xxv. S, 
 he commanded it to be made, and xxxix. 40—43 : xL 
 S3 — 38, it was finished. 
 
 7. God gave them priests and elders. Ex. 28, 29. 
 
 8. God gave them a Sabbath. Gen. ii. 2, 3, God 
 made a Sabbath for himself; but we have no scriptu- 
 ral evidence that the Jews ever had a Sabbath till in 
 the wilderness, Ex. xvi. 23 — 25 ; for Pharaoh knew 
 neither God nor Sabbath, Ex. v. 2, nor did the Jews 
 as a nation till they left Egypt. 
 
 9. They received a form of church discipline, and 
 began to practice it. Ex. chapters 20, 21, 22, (fee. 
 
 10. Here also they began singing; for we have no 
 account of it till at Ex. xv. 21, after they had crossed 
 the Red Sea. 
 
 11. The word bnp, which Stephen rendered ixxXtTutJx^ 
 
47 
 
 ! Acts vii. 38, and King- James rendered church, is never 
 i used with reference to Abraham's posterity, till the Mo- 
 saic organization, Ex. xii. 6, prospectively, and Ex. 
 Xxix. 10, with reference to the body existing. 
 
 12. This Mosaic organization is called the chnrch 
 by our version of the Scriptures, Acts vii. 38. So we 
 are not left to name it; and at Numbers xii. 7, it ia 
 called the house of God ; and at Heb. iii. 2. it is call- 
 ed the house of Moses. Hence this church, house of 
 God, and house of Moses, is all one thing, and its or- 
 ganization agrees with what pedobaptistscall a church. 
 See Presbyterian Confession of Faith, p. 347. 
 
 13. The religion taught and practiced by the 
 Scribes, Pharisees, and Jadaizing teachers, in Christ's 
 time, was precisely that of Moses ; und Luke xvi. 29 
 — 31, father Abraham, from heaven, lays no claim to 
 it, but calls the whole dispensation '•^ Moses and ths 
 prophets ^'^ Mat. xxiii. 2, the Scribes and Phnriseea 
 set in [not Abraham's, but] Moseses seat. John ix. 
 23, " we are [not Abraham's, but] Moses's disciples.** 
 Acts XV. 21, *' For Moses of old tiujc hath in every 
 city them that preach him." Gal. iii, 24, " Where- 
 fore the law is o:jr nia5uyjiyo;y teacher^ or schoolmas- 
 ter, [to brino^ us] unto Christ." Rom. ii. 17: ix. 32: 
 John i. 17: vii. 19. 
 
 14. Modern pedobaptists, especially presbyterians, 
 say they are the same church witli the above, organ- 
 ized under the same coveruint, maintuining the same 
 faith and practices, excepting some of the non-essen- 
 tial externals. Therefore, Jadalsm ;uid pcdobaptist 
 religion, are two successive dispensations of the samo 
 religion. 
 
 Testimony of pedobaptists. Mr. Cowles, '• 7'h.e Si- 
 nai covennnt was the constitiitio7i of the Jewish church, 
 until the death of Christ." — Essay on Baplisw,^ p. 12. 
 
 Mr. Sawyer says, " The institution of baptism has 
 existed from the time of Moses, The Mosaic bap- 
 
48 
 
 tlsms were administered to the disciples of Most s^ in- 
 tluding^ till after the cruciiixion, those of John and 
 
 Christ. He (John) did not, however, adopt «-\ rite 
 
 entirely new, but apphed one that already existed^ 
 
 and was in high repute among the Jews. From 
 
 the fact that children were at that time the snljectsof 
 the Mosaic baptism, The promise of the divine fa- 
 vor to those who hear the gospel is eqnall}?^ extensive 
 
 with that which was made under the law. It [i. e. 
 
 Mr. Sawyer'c> pedobaptist church] was organized with- 
 in the Jewish church, and contmued to be a branch of 
 
 it, &,c. Judaism and Chrisdanili/, therefore, aro 
 
 two successive dispensations of the sa/ne religion.'''* — 
 Critical Dissertation^ pp. I, 2, 7. 13, 14. 
 
 From the above it is obvious that before the cove- 
 nant of Moses the Jews had no church. Melchisedec 
 was a g(^ntile priest at Salem, Gen. xiv. 18 : Heb. vii. 1. 
 Pharao'i had pagan priests, Gen. xlvii. 22. 'Tfie Mid- 
 ianites hud priests, Ex. ii. 16. ; but the Jeus had no 
 priests, no sanctuary, no oracles, no Sabhalh, nor any 
 of the above named essentials of a church, (ilU.rgan- 
 ized at Sinai. That there were believers scattered 
 among the Jews, is true. And so ihcre were jiri^ong 
 other naiinns at the same time, and long before the 
 birth or beinir of Abi'aham or the Jews. But what 
 we say i'^, that God never organized a body of people 
 which h(; called a churcli, nnlil the Jews leil Egypt. 
 Now remove from the Park street C^hurch, 1. i\\\ her 
 called; 2. her bapiism, snl)jects and modes ; 3. her 
 passover, or Lord's supper ; 4. her church covenant 
 and anw'J.^s of f.iith ; 5. her or;icles, or Bible; 6. her 
 sanciUH- y ; 7. her priest and elders; 8. her Sal)balh j - 
 9. her discipline ; 10, her singing; 11. her doclrines 
 and practices, tausfht by the written word of God ; 12. 
 the chmcii ; and then how much of a church would 
 Mr. S.iwyer have left? An.swer. Just as much as 
 the Jews had before the Mosaic covenant. 
 
49 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 THE CHURCH. 
 
 SECTION I . 
 
 The Church of God. 
 
 The word church is not found in the Old Testa- 
 ment, and but once in the New Testament with refer- 
 ence to the Oldj Acts vii. 38, " This is he who was in 
 the assembly in the wilderness. I follow Beza He- 
 insius and the Prussian translators in rendering exxh- 
 «r«a, assembly^ as our translators do, (Acts 19,) because 
 I am persuaded it refers not in the general to their be- 
 ing incorporated into one church, in the appropriate 
 sense of that word, but to their being assembled round 
 ihe mountain on the solemn day when the law was 
 given. Ex. xix. 17." — Doddridge's Expos. Note. 
 
 The word church is very indefinite without an ad- 
 jective. Hence we say the brick church, the white 
 church, the Baptist church, the church of England, 
 <fec. So with the enxXT^uia^ concio, &c. of other lan- 
 guages. In the Bible it means 1. simply a convoca- 
 tion of people, of any character, for any purpose, good 
 or bad. Acts vii. 38: xix. 32, 39, 41. 2. When 
 pointed out by the connection of its history, or by ad- 
 jectives to that effect, it means a number of Christ's 
 disciples, jointly believing and practicing his revealed 
 will, as at Acts xx. 28, " Feed the Church of God.*' 
 1 Cor. i. 2: x. 32 : xi. 22 : xv. 9: Gal. i. 13 : 1 Tim. 
 iii. 5: Mat. xvi. 18: Acts ii. 47: Eph. iii. 10: v. 
 24. 3. In some few instances it refers to all of the re- 
 deemed, as at Eph. v. 25—33: Col. i. 18—24: but 
 those theological terms, church militant, church tri- 
 umphant, mystical church, &c., are not found in the 
 Bible, and only tend to confuse and lead the mind 
 •astray. The words kingdom, kingdom of God, king- 
 5 
 
50 
 
 dom of heaven, &c., have different meanings. Sorne^ 
 times they refer to heaven, as at Mat. xiii. 43 : Mark 
 X. 14 : 1 Cor. xv. 50 : and sometimes they mean the 
 church of God, as at Dan. ii. 44: vii. 22: Mat. iii. 2 : 
 Luke xii. 32 ; and at other times they refer to Christ 
 and his disciples on earth, without any reference to 
 their organization as a church, and are thus often us- 
 ed with reference to them before the church of God 
 had its visible organization. Mat. xi. 12 : xii. 28 : 
 xxiii. 13: Luke xi. 20: xvii. 2L 
 
 In further noticing the Church of God, I shall 
 speak, — 
 
 1. Of Jesus Christ, the Head^ Priest and King. 
 It is beyond the limits and design of this work to no- 
 tice the supreme divinity and glorious attributes of our 
 common Savior. I only call your attention to Jesus 
 at this time, to correct one gross error which pedobap- 
 tists have published ; i. e. that he was a Jewish priest, 
 and was therefore baptized at the age of 30, to in- 
 duct him into that office; affirming that this was the 
 age at which the Jewish priests were set apart to 
 their work. BiU the Scriptures declare that Jesus 
 Christ was not a Jewish priest, Heb. vii. 11, 12, but 
 a priest after the order of Melchisedec, Heb. v. 6 — 10. 
 Only three of the sacred penmen speak of Melchise- 
 -i^-Oj viz : Moses, David and Paul. At Gen. xiv. 18, 
 when Abraham returned from the battle with Chedor- 
 laomer, *' Melchisedec, king of Salem, brought forth 
 bread and wine ; and he was the priest of the Most 
 High God." Here we have the time when he lived : 
 in Abraham'' s da^^ 1911 before Christ ; and his place 
 of residence and temporal office, king of Salem ; 
 his spiritual office, priest of the Most High God. 
 
 Thus we find that God had an established priest- 
 hood 3700 years since, and at least 420 years before 
 the* Aaronic priesthood began. 1490 years before 
 Christ, God established the Jewish priesthood. Aaro« 
 
51 
 
 was high priest, and his sons subordinates, Lev. 
 viii. From this time there wa^ a succession of priests 
 and high priests among the Jews. There was also 
 another order of officers called LeviteSj whose duty 
 it was to serve as burden bearers in the tabernacle of 
 the congregation. Num. i. 50— .^4. They were to be- 
 gin an apprenticeship at the age of 25 years, Num. 
 viii. 24, and be fully inducted at the age of 30, Num. 
 iv. 23, and continue in office to the age of 50, and no 
 longer. Num. iv. 23 : viii. 25. This law belonged 
 exclusively/ to the Levites ; for Aaron was made a 
 priest at the age 83, Ex. vii. 7, and officiated till he 
 died at the age of 123. Num. xxxiii. 39. 
 
 Thus we could show you from Scripture that Ele- 
 azer, Pkineasj and all the priests successively, did 
 not begin at the age of 30, or leave at 50. Hence, 
 those who say that Jesus was baptized at the age of 
 SO to consecrate him to a Jewish office, make him a 
 mere Leoite — a servant and burden-bearer of the con- 
 gregation. While the Aaronic priesthood was in its 
 glory, their royal prophet, David, said, Psa. ex. 4, 
 *^ The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, thou art 
 a priest forever, after the order of Melchisedec." This 
 is the second place where Melchisedec is spoken of in 
 the Bible, and evidently refers to what Christ should 
 be in his priesthood. The third and last who speaks 
 of Melchisedec is Paul, at Hebrews v. 6 — 10 : vi. 20 : 
 vii. 1, 2, 10, 11, 15, 17, 21. Paul's argument in 
 these three chapters is based upon the fact that Jesus 
 Christ was not a Jewish priest, but of an order which 
 God established nearly 400 years before Moses or Aa- 
 ron had birth or being. It is true that our Savior 
 was a Jew, John iv. 22, and attended to all the cer- 
 emonies of the Mosaic religion until they were ab- 
 rogated. But when he entered upon his public min- 
 istry he left the Mosaic religion, and was ordained a 
 priest after the order of Melchisedec's gentile priest- 
 
52 
 
 hood, Heb. vii. 11 — 17 ; and if he had wished tc^ 
 be a Jewish priest, their law forbade it, for "he 
 sprang out of Judah, of which tribe Moses spake 
 nothing concerning the priesthood." Heb. vii. 14, 
 When he officiated he never clothed himself with their 
 priestly robes. He never officiated in their temple as 
 a priest. He never claimed or received the emolu- 
 ments of a priest. The Jews would not receive hi& 
 i\ew kind of religion, but " rejected the counsel of 
 God against themselves, being not baptized" with the 
 same baptism which Christ received. Luke vii. 30. 
 The whole Jewish priesthood opposed him, and he 
 opposed them, and frankly and constantly told them if 
 they did not forsake their religion and embrace his, 
 Ihey would all go to hell. Mat. xxiii. 13—33: Luk-e 
 xi. 44 — 49 : John viii. 21. Christ was introduced 
 into the priestly office without any of the Levitical cer- 
 emonies, but xona dvvafiiv (by virtue of) an endless 
 life; and the oath of God. Heb. vii. 16—21. When 
 he had instituted his own religion, which was adapt- 
 ed to the wants of both Jews and Gentiles, he abol- 
 ished the Jewish priesthood, Jer. xxxi. 32: Zech. 
 xi. 10 — 14 : 2 Cor. iii. 13 : Eph. ii. 15, and practiced 
 exclusively his own, which was after the order of 
 Melchisedec, which was as independent of the Mo- 
 saic when Christ officiated, as it was in the days of 
 Melchisedec, 400 years before Moses ; and this Jesus 
 Christ, who is God's high priest, was not ordamed 
 to offer Jewish sacrifices, but to offer himself as the 
 great substance of which the Mosaic sacrifices were 
 but shadows, and has established a new and more ex- 
 cellent ministry, by a new covenant with (not the old 
 Jewish, but) the church of Godj Heb. viii. 2 — 13, which 
 is the body of which he is head. Eph. i. 20 — 23 : iv, 
 15 : Col. i. 18. 
 
 2. When was the Church of God set up ? 
 
 The Scriptures must determine this. We shali 
 
63 
 
 here notice the prophecies on this point, Compare 
 Deut. xviii. 15, with Acts iii. 22 — 24, and Psa. ii. 6, 7, 
 with 1 Tim. vi. 15, and Isa. vii. 14, with Mat. i. 22, 
 23, and Isa. viii. 14—18, with Mat. xi. 25 : xxi. 42-- 
 46 : Heb. ii. 11 — 18, and Isa. x. 21, with Rom. xi. 
 5, and Isa. xxviii. 16, with Eph. ii. 20—22, and Isa. 
 xl. 11, with John x. 11 — 16, and Joel ii. 28, with Acts 
 ii. 14—47, and Micah iv. 8, with Acts ii. 39—41 ; but 
 the most conchisive prophecy is at Daniel ii. 44, 45 : 
 ix. 24 — 27. The passage in the second chapter is an 
 interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar's dream by the inspi- 
 ration of God. That in the ninth chapter was a vision 
 from heaven, explained by Gabriel. Dan. ix. 21 — 23» 
 These passages, as is acknowledged by all the 
 Christian world, point out the time when the Church 
 of God was set up. To give an explanation of them 
 in as few words as possible, we will introduce the 
 views of Dr. Adam Clark. '' Dan. ii. 44, " A king- 
 dom which shall never be destro^^ed. The extensive 
 
 and extending empire of Christ. The dream. 1. 
 
 The head was of fine gold. 2. The breast and arms 
 of silver. 3. The belly and thighs of brass. 4. The 
 legs of iron, and the feet and toes of iron and clay. 
 5. A stone cut out of the mountain without hands, 
 smites the image. 1. The head of gold. This was 
 the first monarchy, begun by Nimrod, B. C. 3233, and 
 ended with the death of Belshazzar, B. C. 538. 2. 
 The breast and arms of silver. This was the Medo- 
 Persian empire, which properly began under Darius 
 the Mede ; allowing him to be the same with Cyaxa- 
 res, the son of Astyages, who, by the capture of Bab- 
 ylon, B. C. 538, terminated the Chaldean empire, and 
 on the death of his father, and his uncle Cyaxares, B. 
 C. 536, became sole governor of the Medes and Per- 
 sians. 3. The belly and thighs of brass, is the Ma- 
 cedonian or Grecian empire, founded by Alexander the 
 Great, B. C 331. After his death, B. C. 323, th« 
 5* 
 
54 
 
 empire became divided among his generals, Cassan- 
 der, Lysiraachns, Ptolemy Lagus, and Seleucus Nic- 
 anor. 4. The legs of iron and feet of iron and clay. 
 This means in the first phice the kingdom of Lagi- 
 dai, in Egypt ; the kingdom of Seleucus in Syria, and 
 secondly the Roman empire, which was properly com- 
 posed of them. Ptolemy began his kingdom in Egypt 
 B. C. 312, which continued to B. C. 30. Seleucus 
 began his kingdom of Syria B. C. 312, which contin- 
 ued till B. C. 65. The former was overthrown by 
 Octavius, the latter by Pompey, and these two were 
 absorbed in the Roman government. 5. A stone cut 
 out of the mountain v/ithout hands. Christ is often 
 called a stone in the Scriptures; but, this stone has 
 reference to his church, which is represented with 
 Christ the rock as its foundation and its top sione. It 
 strikes the feet and not only ruins them, but the brass, 
 the silver and the gold. And this stone itself be- 
 comes a great mountain and fills the whole earth." 
 
 Dan. ix. 24 — 27. ''Seventy weeks are determin- 
 ed, &c. The above 70 weeks or 490 years, are di- 
 vided (ver. 25) into three distinct periods ; to each of 
 which particular events are assigned. To the first 
 seven weeks, the restoration and repairing: of Jerusa- 
 lem are referred, and so long were Ezra and Nehe- 
 miah employed ; for this work lasted 49 years after 
 the commission given by Artaxerxes. The second 
 period is 62 weeks or 434 years, at the end of which 
 the prophet says the Messiah should come ; njaking in 
 all, from the time of the ^oing- fonh of tho command- 
 ment of Artaxerxes, 483 years. 3. Jle .shall confirm 
 the covenant with many for one week, i. e. seven years. 
 This confirmation of the covenant '/must take in the 
 ministry of John the Baptist, with that of our Lord. 
 comprehendino^ the time of seven years, during the 
 whole of which he might be said to confirm or ratify 
 the covenant with mankind. These seven years ad- 
 
55 
 
 ded to the 483, complete the 490. So the whok 
 prophecy has been fulfilled to the very letter." Now 
 if this prophecy has been fulfilled to the very letter ^ 
 then the kingdom of God was set up at the end of 
 these 70 weeks ; or when Christ ceased to confirm 
 the covenant, which he continued to do to the day of 
 his ascension. 
 
 Dr. Scott says, "the Jews unanimously agree, that 
 by the stone, is here meant the Messiah's Kingdom. 
 
 The stone was certainly distinct from the image, 
 
 nay, directly opposite to it, and all its interests; it 
 must mean therefore, the kingdom set zip by the power 
 of God without the concurrence of human policy or 
 force, and in opposition to all the authority and com- 
 bined efforts of the princes of this world, {especially 
 those of the old Jewish church,) and the kingdom of 
 Christ was evidently intended." 
 
 It should ever be remembered, that these prophe^- 
 cies were given while the Jewish church was stand- 
 ing ; and Daniel, who was a member of this 
 church, said that the Babylonish golden kingdom, 
 should yield to the Persian silver kingdom, and the 
 Persian, to the Grecian brass kino^dom, and the Gre- 
 cian, to the Roman iron kingdom; and in the days of 
 the Roman iron Caesars, the God of heaven should 
 get up a ?ieiD spiritual kingdom, distinct from any that 
 had existed before. But the old Jewish church or 
 kin:<dom could not be set up then, for it had already 
 been set np, and existed 888 years before this prophe- 
 cy was uttered. But here was a new klv.gdo??i, a 
 stone cut out of this great iron mountain, without 
 hands, and put in motion by divine power, destined 
 to move, and roll, till it should break in pieces a// other 
 kingdoms, the old Jewish kingdom or church not ex- 
 cepted. 
 
 Had the prophet said that the God of heaven would 
 remodel the old Jewish church, and given her Chris- 
 
66 
 
 tian ordinances instead of Jewish rites, it would have 
 met pedobaptist philosophy ; but as it is, these proph- 
 ecies are fatal to their whole scheme. But prophe- 
 cies do not cease with the Old Testament, we pass to 
 the New. At Matt, xvi 18, the Lord promises Peter, 
 that at a future time, he would build his church on 
 tliat truth which he confessed; and at Matt, xviii 15 
 —18, the Savior ^ave his disciples a rule of disciphne 
 to be observed after the master of the house had left 
 them. These are the only instances where the word 
 church is used in the Bible till at Acts ii. But the 
 word kingdom^ in the following instances evidently 
 mean the same thing. John the Baptist says. Matt, 
 iii. 2, " the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Matt. iv. 
 
 17, Christ the great prophet repeats the same. Matt. 
 X. 7, he taught his apostles to say the same. Now no- 
 tice the expression ; not that the kingdom of God had 
 come^ but was coming, " w at ha/idJ^ Malt. xi. 11, 
 John the Baptist, though greater than a prophet, was 
 not in the kingdom of heaven, for that kingdom had 
 not yet been set up. Matt. xvi. 18, -'upon this rock 
 I will build m,y church." Therefore it was not yet 
 built. Mark ix. 1, " verily 1 say unto you that there 
 be some of them that stand here which shall not taste 
 death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come 
 with power." See dlso Matt. xvi. 28 : Mark i. 15. 
 Thus the great prophet taught his disciples that they 
 had not yet seen the kingdom of God, but it should 
 come in time for some of them to see it before they 
 tasted death. Luke xii. 32, " Fear not little flock, for 
 it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the 
 kingdom." They had not yet recieved it. Lukexxii. 
 
 18, "I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the 
 kingdom of God shall come." Luke xxii. 29 — 30, 
 ^i xafojd la Tide fiat ifity, (and I promise to you) a king- 
 dom, as my Father hath appointed unto me, that y« 
 may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom^ an«R 
 
57 
 
 sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.'^ 
 Matt. xix. 28, " verily I say unto you that ye which have 
 followed me. In the naUyylvia^a^ renovation (or great 
 day of reformation,) when the Son of Man shall sit on 
 the throne of his glory ; ye also shall sit upon twelve 
 thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." But the 
 captain of our salvation, and the chief corner sione of 
 the building, must be made perfect through suffermg^ 
 before he could sit on the throne of his glory. Heb. ii 
 10. He therefore bowed his head and said it is fin- 
 ished ; John xix. 30. Then he who came forth from 
 the Father, left his suffering, serving state, and went to 
 his Father ; John xvi. 28 ; and was seated on the right 
 hand of the throne of the majesty in the heavens ; 
 Heb. viii. 1 ; and as the King of Kings, his head was 
 crowned with many crowns; Rev. xix. 12; having 
 thus ascended on high and led captivity captive, h® 
 recieved gifts for men ; Psa. Ixviii. 18 : Eph. i. 20 — 
 22 : Heb. ii. 7 ; and poured out the promise of the Fa- 
 ther upon the disciples : the house was filled with the 
 Holy Spirit; Acts ii. 1, 2; the cloven flame crowned 
 the twelve as kings and priests of God; Acts ii. 3; 
 and they, sitting upon Xwoiwe spiritual thrones ^hegSiii 
 to pronounce sentences of truth and judgment upon 
 the twelve tribes of Israel ; Acts ii. 5 — 36. In this 
 unparalleled day of regeneration, we find 3C00 Jewish 
 church members not only regenerated, but baptized and 
 added, not to the old Mosaic congregation, to which 
 they formerly belonged, but to the church ; Acts ii. 41 — 
 47. Here, (and not before this,) we find the church of 
 God spoken of as an existing body ; here the disciples. 
 sat, and ate^ and drank, at his table in his kingdom^ 
 while the Son of Man sat on the throne of his glory. Be- 
 fore the Lord ascended to the throne of his glory, he 
 assembled his apostles. Acts i. 4, and commanded them 
 to remain at Jerusalem until they should receive the 
 Holy Ghost, Acts i. 8. The 81 Apostles, eleven of 
 
68 
 
 whom were appointed Matt. x. 1 — 5, and the other 70, 
 Luke X. 1, beheld the Lord as he ascended, and a cloud 
 recieved him out of their sight. These returning to 
 Jerusalem with 39 others, began a prayer meeting 
 which continued to the Pentecost. Acts i. 14. Daring 
 this 8 days meeting we find something like a church 
 in embryo ; these 120 disciples having all been bap- 
 tized by John the Baptist, Acts i. 21, 22, had their 
 names registered. Acts i. 15, and by a vote of that 
 body, numbered Matthias among the twelve. Acts i. 26. 
 In this unfinished state their church rested till the 
 next blessed morning,when their kingjfromthe throne of 
 his glory, poured upon them the promise of the Father, 
 not only to sanction what they had done, but to guide 
 Ihem in completing their organization. They were 
 Koon made the instruments of converting 3000 Jews, de- 
 vout men. (not infants,) and before the day was past they 
 had a church of 3120 baptized believers. It is thus evi- 
 dent that the God of heaven did set up his kingdom 
 {not in the days of Moses or Abraham, but) in the days 
 of the Caesars, and gave it to the saints of the Most 
 High. Dan. vii. 18. From this time there were ad- 
 ded to this church, daily, such as should be saved. 
 Acts ii. 47. It does not appear that the 500 brethren, 
 I Cor. XV. 6, and the multitude of others who had 
 been baptized from time to time, were at first consti- 
 tuted members of this church ; but it is probable they 
 were brought in among the daily additions. Acts ii. 
 47. At Acts vi. 5, 6. this church appoints her dea^ 
 cons ; and this is the first place where the Bible speaks 
 of such a class of officers : and a, solid reason for which 
 is, that before the church at Jerusalem, there was no 
 church of God for deacons to officiate in. And, it is 
 also evident that this church remained for some time 
 the alone organization of the kind ; for when Paul 
 was converted and baptized, at Damascus, he traveled 
 to Jerusalem to join himself to tho church. But this 
 
59 
 
 cautious body would not receive him on the relation 
 of his own experience, till they had full testimony 
 from the brethren that he was truly converted, Acts 
 ix. 26, 27; and there is no mention made of any other 
 church until after the disciples were scattered abroad 
 upon the persecution that arose about Stephen. Acts 
 xi. 19. But then the blood of the martyrs became the 
 ieed of the church, and by divine appointment. Matt. 
 Xxviii. 19. 20, churches were planted in many places. 
 
 " As to his kingdom, he took possession when the 
 Lord said unto him, Sit thou on my right hand, 
 Christ, as the Son of God, was ever at God's right 
 hand, equal to him in might and majesty ; but, as 
 man, was exalted to honor, not before his glorious as- 
 cension. Acts ii. 34 : Eph. i. 20."— Z^r. Clark*s An- 
 alysis of ] 10/^ Psalm. 
 
 "After the death of Jesus, a great number of his 
 disciples collected at Jerusalem, celebrated there to- 
 gether, and in his name, the feast of Pentecost, and 
 thus formed thejirsi community oi Christians which 
 had taken place." — VillerSj on the Reformation^ page 
 174. 
 
 "Now, indeed, was formed acommunity of the dis- 
 ciples which was called a church." — Dr. CampbelVs 
 Lectures on Ecclesiastical History. Lee. 2. 
 
 "Our Savior, first speaking of it, mentions it as 
 that which then was not, but afterwards was to be, 
 when he spake to Peter, And upon this rock / will 
 build my church. But, when he ascended into heav- 
 en, and the Holy Spirit came down ; when Peter was 
 made an instrument of the conversion of 3000 souls^ 
 which were added to the former disciples, then there 
 was a church. For, after that, we read, the Lord 
 added to the church daily." — Dr, Pier sons ^ on ths 
 Creed. 
 
60 
 
 SECTION II 
 
 3^e Jewish Church and Church of God not am 
 and the same. 
 
 Wm. T. Hamilton says, " The sameness of the 
 ehurch under the Old Testament and the New Tes- 
 tament economy is a vital pointy it is indeed the turn- 
 ing point oi the whole controversy." — Essay on Bap- 
 (ism, p. 36. 
 
 Mr. Sawyer asserts their identity on pp, 12, 13^ 
 14, 15 ; but this assertion is not only a logical but a 
 theological error. However this question may be 
 treated in this age, it is evident that Christ and the 
 apostles never did attempt to prove Judaism and 
 Christianity to be one. The question before us is not 
 can we find a society which resembles the Jews or 
 Mahomedans? but is the Jewish church and the 
 church of God the same ? 
 
 1. The Jewish church was a type of the church 
 of God. " Then verily the first covenant had also 
 ordinances of divine service and a worldly sanctuary, 
 which stood only in meats and drinks and divers 
 washings, and carnal ordinances imposed on them 
 until the time of reformation." — Heb. ix. 1 — 10. *'For 
 the law having a shadow of good things to come, and 
 not the very image of the things," (fee. — Heb. x. 1. 
 1. " There were typical persons, as Adam, Abel, Enoch, 
 Abraham, <fec. 2. Typical places, as Canaan, Zion. 
 the Temple, <fec. 3. Typical classes of persons, us 
 Israelites, (fee. 4. Typical utensils, as the Ark, Shew 
 Bread, Candlesticks, (fee. 5. Typical offerings. 6, 
 Typical seasons. 7. Typical purifications, (fee." 
 Browne's Bible Dictionary. 
 
 *' I would understand it not merely as if he had 
 said that this similitude of comparison may be prop- 
 erly used in this present time, as to the temple of Je- 
 rusalemt which has its holy of holies, as the Mosaic 
 
61 
 
 tmhernacle had ; but that the constitution before de- 
 scribed was a figurative representation of the Chris- 
 tian Dispensation." — Doddridge^ s Expos. Heb. ix. 9. 
 
 "That nation was a typical nation. There was 
 then, literally, a land that was the dwelling place of 
 God, which was a type of heaven, the true dwelling 
 place of God, and an external city of God, which 
 was a type of the spiritual city of God. and an exter- 
 nal temple of God, which was a type of his spiritual 
 temple. So there was an external people and fam- 
 ily of God^ by carnal generation^ which was a type 
 of his spiritual progeny ; and the covenant by which 
 they were made a people of God, was a type of 
 the covenant of grace." — Fresident Edvcrd^s inqui- 
 ry into the qualifications for communion., page SS. 
 
 Now when pedobaptists have identified a substance 
 »ind its shadow — a type and its antitype — they will have 
 identified the two churches, and not before. They 
 can find neither precept or example for infant church 
 membership; therefore they undertake to make out a 
 warrant for tlieir practice by calling the whole Jew- 
 ish nation a church, and because there were infants 
 in that nation, and God (as they say) has not forbid- 
 den infant baptism, it is rioht to practice it. But 
 why not carry out this reasoning, and make it our du- 
 ty to abstain from, and practice all, that the Jews did, 
 if not expressly tautrht otherwise in the New Testa- 
 ment? Why do pedobiptists eat swines' fiesh ? Lev, 
 xi. 7 : Isa. Ixv. 4, and refuse to take the brother's 
 widow? Matt. xxii. 24. Why do they keep company 
 with any but of their own church ? Acts x. 28. Why 
 do they not continue all the Jewish feasts, sacrifices, 
 Ac. &,c. ? 
 
 Again. 1. The Jews had an High Priest, there 
 
 fore W3 must have a Pope. 2. This High Priest by 
 
 Urim and Thummin, was infallible ; so our Pope 
 
 must be. 3. The number seven was sacred^ thus : 
 
 6 
 
62 
 
 seventh day, seven clean beasts, <kc. ; therefore w« 
 must have seven sacred things or sacranaents. 4. Th© 
 Jews united their civil and ecclesiastical affairs in one 
 code of laws ; so we must submit to the Cambridge 
 and Saybrook platforms, which are after this model, 
 5. As the Jewish government had a right to tax all 
 the people one tenth for the support of the clergy, 
 ice. ; so priests now should have power not only to 
 tax and distress indiscriminately, but also to impris- 
 on, whip, banish or kill Quakers. Baptists, witches 
 and other heretics. 6. We ought to sprinkle water 
 on both male and female, at any age when conven- 
 ient, (pedobaptists say,) because the Jews circumcis- 
 ed their males at the age of eight days, and the Nev 
 Testament has- not forbidden it. I wish to see pe- 
 dobaptists consistent with themselves : for, while 
 they exert every power to prove that Christ baptized 
 infants, and yet fail, it is obvious that they have his 
 example for several of the Mosaic customs, which 
 they utterly neglect. 
 
 Mr. Sawyer has found eight points of similarity be- 
 tween the nation of the Jews and the church ; he, there- 
 fore, boldly asserts their identity. But I will pledi^e my- 
 self to find fifty stronger similarities between a mouse 
 and a horse. Thus : the one has flesh, blood, bones, 
 Rkin. hair, head, two eyes, two ears, four legs, — eats 
 oats, drinks water, &c. &c., — is called beast, brute, 
 creature, animal, &c. ; all of which is true of the 
 other. Is a mouse, therefore, a horse? " Is every 
 thing which is like another in any respect, to be called 
 ny the same name? Is a man an elephant, because 
 both have the faculties of hearina: and seeing?"— 
 President Day on the Will, page 130. See also 
 Locke, on Identity and Diversity. 
 
 Does diversity loose its power of destroying identi- 
 ty when it comes in contact with pedobaptism ? Ju- 
 daism still exists, and can be conipared with the 
 
63 
 
 diurch of God without the aid of history ; and, aw 
 the Jewish synagogues in the city of New York, &c. 
 the same as Christian churches? If we appeal to 
 the Bible, the difference is equally clear. 1. Th« 
 Jewish Sabbath was the seventh day ; the Christian is 
 the first. 2. Jews reject the New Testament as a 
 dangerous fable ; we receive it as of divine inspiration. 
 3. If a Jew believed in Christ, he was cast out of th« 
 synagogue as a heretic, John ix. 22 — 24 ; but we ac- 
 knowledge such only as church members. 4. Jews 
 required neither faith or repentance for admission in- 
 to their church ; we require both. 5. Jews would 
 not and do not receive baptism as a substitute for cir- 
 cumcision ; but pedobaptists do. 6. Jews did and 
 still do eat the passover of bread and meat; Chris- 
 tians do not observe this institution. 7. The Jews 
 hold their traditions more sacred than the laws of 
 Christ, Mark vii. 8, 9j but honest Christians "^iW 
 yield their traditions to divine revelation. 8. The 
 Jews denied the divinity of Christ, John v. vi. vii. ; 
 but Christians believe him divine. 9. The Jewish 
 4:hurch was set up by Moses, Ex. xix. xxiv. ; the 
 Christian by Jesus Christ, Acts i. ii. 10. Jewish 
 males only received their circumcision ; Christians of 
 both sexes receive bap<ism. 11. The charter of the 
 Jewish church was annihilated by divine authority ; 
 but that of the Christian church is perpetual. 12. 
 The Jews as a nation and by the authority of their 
 Sandhedrim, did not receive Christ, but scandalized, 
 persecuted and killed both him and his followers. 
 See Matt. xxi. 28: xxvii. 22: Luke iv. 29: xiii. 31: 
 xxii. 2 : John v. 16 : vii. 10—20 : viii. 42—52 : x. 
 20, &c. 
 
 ^' A saying of Justin Martyr casts some light on 
 
 this. He asserts that the Jews not only cursed them 
 
 ' in their synagogueSj but they sent out chosen men 
 
 isom Jerusalem to acquaint the world, and particularly 
 
64 
 
 the Jews, every where, that the Christians were aft 
 atheistical and wicked sect, which should be detested 
 and abhorred by all mankind. So the Jews in every 
 place persecuted the Christians, and show truly that 
 they are rather the posterity of Hagar than of Sarah." 
 — Dr. darkens Comment. 
 
 Dr. LiGHTFOoT makes the following quotation 
 from the writings of a learned Rabbi. "In the days 
 of Rabban Gamaliel heretics increased in Israel, (by 
 heretics he meaneth those that turned from Judaism 
 to Christianity ^) and they troubled Israel and per- 
 suaded them to turn from their religion. He seeing 
 this to be a matter of exceeding great consequence, 
 more than any thing else, stood up, he and his Sand- 
 hedrim, and appointed a prayer, in which there was 
 a petition to God to destroy those heretics ; and this 
 he set among the common prayers, and appointed it 
 to be in every man's mouth, so that they daily prayed 
 against Christians and Christianity." On this Dr. 
 Lightfoot remarks : "The Jews had their emissa- 
 ries every where abroad, that to the uttermost cried 
 down the gospel, preached against it, went about to 
 confute it, and blasphemed it, and Christ that gave it. 
 Of this there is testimony abundant in the New Tes- 
 tament. It is needless to instance their derision 
 
 and detestation of Christ and Christianity, their blas- 
 phemy against his blessed name, their hatred and 
 mischievousness against the professors of it. Their 
 writings proclaim their impiety. They had continu- 
 al opposings among themselves, yet they all agreed ^ 
 like Simeon and Levi, brethren in evil, to oppose, vil- 
 ify, and blaspheme the gospel." — Lightfoofs Works^ 
 Vol. 1, pp. 289, 371. 
 
 An attempt to identify the Jews and the church of 
 God, must arise from ignorance of the New Testa- 
 ment, or from a wilful determination to pervert the 
 truth, and is looked upon by intelligent men as one of 
 
65 
 
 the w^eakest of pedobaptist sophisms. It makes the 
 Bible account of Paul's conversion, the pentecostal 
 and other reformations, to be simply proselyting mem- 
 bers from one church to another of the same denomi- 
 nation ; and our faith, hope, charity, baptism and TiOrd's 
 Supper, to be only the Jewish circumcision, washings, 
 altars, priests, sacrifices, vestments, views and actions 
 continued, But it is evident that the old Mosaic 
 church covenant or constitution, and consequently all 
 that it demanded and promised, was not carried into 
 the church of God, but abolished. Jer. xxxi. 31, 
 32, " Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I 
 will make a new covenant with the house of Israel 
 and with the house of Judah ; not according to the 
 covenant that I made with their fathers in the day 
 that I took them by the hand to bring them out of 
 the land of Egypt." See Heb. viii. 6—13. At Zee. 
 xi. 10, 11, we are informed that God broke his cove- 
 nant which he had made with all the people ; ver. 13 
 it was done when they weighed thirty pieces of sil- 
 yer for the price of the Shepherd ; ver. 14, and at 
 this time the bond of brotherhood between Judah and 
 Israel was broken and destroyed ; vers. 15, 16, after 
 all this was done, then the great Shepherd took his 
 gathering instrument, and gathered his Jlock ; not the 
 unconverted Jews, but his sheep. John x. 11 — 18. 
 But the Jews, as a people, would not hear his voice 
 or be his sheep ; for they hated the Shepherd and 
 the flock. John x. 26—31 : Rom. viii. 36—39. Thus 
 by divine authority, the Mosaic church covenant was 
 annihilated; and as Dr. M. Henry 5^ays, "Me 
 Jews tvere unchurched" and the apostle could say 
 with propriety, Heb. xiii. 10, " We have an altar 
 whereof they have no right to eut, which serve the 
 tabernade.^'^ While the pedobaptists are so certain 
 that the inspired writers are silent as to infant church 
 membership, and they are therefore at liberty to prac- 
 
66 
 
 tice what is not forbidden^ (see Mr. Sawyer^ page 
 2,) we will select one more divine prohibition, Gal. 
 iv. 21 — 31. Martin Luther says, " This is a won- 
 derful allegory. Abraham is a figure of God, which 
 had two sons ; that is t6 say, two sorts of people, rep- 
 resented by Ishmael and Isaac. These two are born 
 unto him by Hagar and Sarah ; the which signify the 
 two Testaments, the old and the New. Therefore 
 Hagar, the bondmaid, bringeth forth bond servants. 
 Ishmael then is not the heir, although he be the nat- 
 ural son of Abraham, but reraaineth a bond servant. 
 As Paul a little before made Hagar Sinai ; so now of 
 Jerusalem, he would gladly make it to be Sarah ; but 
 he dare not, neither can he do so, but is compelled 
 to join Jerusalem to mount Sinai. But Jerusalem 
 which is above, that is to say the spiritual Jerusalem, 
 is Sarah ; that true lady and free woman, which is 
 the mother of us all, and gendereth us unto liberty. 
 Now this heavenly Jerusalem, which is above, is the 
 
 CHURCH. The Pope hath in a manner quite 
 
 overthrown it, and made the church subject to man's 
 tradition and cer€?no)iies.'' — Luther on Galatians. 
 It would be well for the church of God if the Pope 
 were alone in this matter. With Luther, I would 
 say this is a wonderful allegory. 
 
 1. The law, in verse 21, and the covenant in the al- 
 legory, is one and the same. 
 
 2. Abraham had two wives, Hagar and Sarah. 
 These represent the two covenants, verse 24. 
 
 3. Ishmael and Isaac resemble the people under 
 these two covenants. Ishmael was born a slave ; so 
 the old covenant Hagar, or the Mosaic covenant, be- 
 gat nothing but bondmen, and this earthly Jerusalem, 
 i. e. the Jews, were these bondmen, ver. 25. But 
 Isaac resembles the children of the new covenant, 
 who are Christ's freemen, and the Jerusalem from 
 above is the church of God, ver. 26, 
 
67 
 
 4. Ishmael was not the child of promise, but tha 
 natural branch of Abraham, Rom. xi. 24, and represent- 
 ed the literal children of the Jews, the constituents 
 of their visible church, by birthright membership. 
 But Isaac, who was the child of promise, represented 
 the members of the church of God, who are not 
 born church members, but became such by hhing 
 born as Isaac was, bi/ faith in God's promises, and 
 by baptism. 
 
 5. As the children of the deserted woman, Sarah, 
 were more than Hagar's, who had the husband, so 
 the children of the covenant of grace and church of 
 God, are to be more numerous than the bondmen of 
 the old Mosaic covenant. 
 
 6. As Ishmael, who was the child of the flesh, per- 
 secuted Isaac, who was born after the spirit ; even so 
 in the apostle's day, and at this time also, do those 
 who plead for church membership on birthright, and 
 other principles, not including regeneration, persecute 
 and try to pull down the children of faith and sons of 
 the new covenant. 
 
 7. But what saith the Scriptures 7 Cast out. 
 Gen. xxi. 10. Here is positive law. Cast out. 
 Gal. iv. 30. This does not look like silence on the 
 part of the inspired writers. Yes, from heaven we 
 have the law : Cast out the bond woman^ the old 
 covenant Hagar, which is the constitution of the 
 Jewish church. Nor is this all ; but again, cast out 
 also the son of Hagar, i. e. all the children of this cove- 
 nant^ i7Tespective of age^ sexes^ sect or condition ; for 
 the God of heaven has said once and again that these 
 sons of this bond woman shall not be heirs with 
 THE SONS OF thbJ FREE WOMAN. This is an unlim- 
 ited, positive prohibition, which forbids admitting any 
 person to church membership, except those who are 
 born of the Spirit. And, they who baptize, or other- 
 wise admit persons to church membership before they 
 
68 
 
 ean give evidence of their conversion, are guilty, not 
 only of practicing without a thus saith the Lord, but 
 of doing that in the name of the Lord which God has 
 positively forbidden. Prohibitions and instructions like 
 the above are found in a numerous class of texts, but I 
 must close by simply referring: you to a few of them. 
 John viii. 33—37 : Acts iii. 22—26 : Rom. viii. 14, 
 15: ix. 6— 11: Gal. iii. 21— 29: v. 1—4: Heb. xii. 
 18-22 : Rev. iii. 12 : xxi. 2—10 : Mat. xxviii. 16— 
 20 : Mark xvi. 14—20 : Luke xxiv. 45—49. 
 
 SECTIONIII. 
 
 Having briefly noticed the church of God, and 
 shown the marked difference between it and the 
 Mosaic church, the constitution and covenant of 
 which was the law, by the faith and deeds of which 
 no flesh could be justified ; Rom. iii. 20: iv. 5: vii. 
 7 : Gal. ii. 16 : iii. 10; we pass to notice the origin of 
 some of the existing denominations. By the perse- 
 cution at Jerusalem, Acts xi. 19 — 26, the disciples 
 were scattered, and went every where preaching the 
 word and planting churches. At this time the Ro- 
 man empire was in its glory, and governed not only 
 Palestine, but a large portion of the world. The Ro- 
 mans were pagans, and their religion was so intimate- 
 ly connected with their government that the progress 
 of the gospel alarmed both their pagan and their politi- 
 cal fears. It is probable that the gospel was first preach- 
 ed in the city of Rome, A. D. 34 or 35, and a church 
 formed there soon after this ; for Paul in his epistle, 
 Rom. i. 8, A. D. 60, speaks of them as a church gen- 
 erally known. The management of the Jews was 
 committed^ to Roman governors, therefore Caligula 
 and Claudius suffered them to persecute Christians by 
 the instrumentality of the Jews. But when Nero 
 
69 
 
 came to the throne, A. D. 64, he took the sword into 
 his own hand, and from the time he set fire to the city 
 of Rome and charged it to the Christians. July 10, A^ 
 D. 64, to the time he beheaded Paul, A. D. 66, and fi- 
 nally, up to the time of his death, A. D. 63, he continu- 
 ed to imprison and destroy Christians. Here began 
 the pagan persecuiio?i. Passing over the conduct of 
 Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Vespasian and Titus, in the 
 14lh year of Domitian's reign, A. D. 9-5, we find 
 2iim engaged in a merciless persecution, in which the 
 evangelist John was banished to the island of Patmos, 
 where he wrote the Revelation. The short reign of 
 Emperor Nerva was mild, but when Trajan can3e to 
 the throne, A. D. 98, his edicts drenched the eartli 
 with Christian blood ; and Adrian, although petition- 
 ed by Quadratus. Aristides and Serenus Granianus, 
 to have mercy on the church, made its condition but 
 little better. Durinof the reio-n of Antoninus Pins 
 and Marcus Antoninus, i. e. from A. D. 142 to A. D. 
 180, there weie great persecutions in Asia. Here 
 Polycarp, the pastor at Smyrna, suffered martyrdom, 
 A. D. 166. Toward the close of the rei.2n of iVl. Art- 
 toninus, say A. D. 177, the persecution began in 
 France; Lyons, Vienne and other places suffered inhu- 
 man tortures and bloodshed. Passing by the reigns of 
 Commodus, Pertinax, Julianus, Niger and Aibinus, 
 we find Severus, A. D. 202. waging war with Chrij&- 
 tians in Africa ; and, soon after, Asia, Egypt, ami 
 most of the nations in Europe were fields of slaugh^ 
 ter. From the death of Severus, A. D. 211, to the 
 reign of Decius, the church had a little rest ; but from 
 A. D. 250 to the close of the Dioclesian persecution, 
 A. D. 311, the church was hunted and killed with 
 greater eagerness than the worst of wild beasts. Th« 
 mischief done in this persecution will only be known 
 at the last Judgment. It consisted in burning the 
 books and writings of the church ; in banishing and 
 
70 
 
 killing, indiscriminately, men, women and children, 
 beyond all account. Godeau, a French writer, says 
 ^at not less than 17,000 were put to death in on© 
 month ; and within one year 150,000 were slain in 
 Egypt, besides all that suffered in other places. 
 
 Thus the fair churches which had been planted 
 in Palestine, Egypt, Greece, Africa, Italy, France, 
 England, Spain and otlier places, were scattered by 
 the hand of its enemy. At the death of Constantius. 
 A. D. 305, Constantine became Emperor of the West, 
 and at the death of Maximinus Galerius, A. D. 311, 
 Maxentius became Emperor of the East. An edict 
 was now published which equally tolerated Christian- 
 ity and paganism. Soon after this a civil war began 
 between the two Emperors, in which Maxenlius fell 
 at Rome, A. D. 312, and Constantine became the sole 
 governor of the empire. While he was marching hi« 
 army from France into Italy, he profe^ssed to have seen 
 at mid day, a luminous cross in the sky, with this in- 
 ficription on it, "fiy this conquer.''^ The sight so affect- 
 ed his mind that it resulted in his conversion, and sooQ 
 after he was master o( Rome, he prohibited paganism, 
 and used every laudable means to gather and estab- 
 lish the churches. Having removed the seat of gov- 
 ernment to Byzantium, and changed its name to Con- 
 stantinople, he there, as well as elsewhere, opened th© 
 cJiurches and closed the pagan temples. He assum- 
 ed the name of Bishop, and claimed the power of 
 controlling and regulating all the temporalities of the 
 church. From this time Constantine continued to 
 use his property and every power to defend, enlarge^ 
 and enrich the church, until he died. May 22, A. D. 
 237. 
 
 His church, havinor become very rich and fashion- 
 able, their pomp and preferments soon drew multi- 
 tudes of unworthy members into her communion. 
 Her discipline and devotion fled, and in a few yeora 
 
71 
 
 the church of Rome became dogmatical, insoleat, anti 
 a mere synagogue of Satan, corrupt in faith, and 
 worse in practice ; they not only descended to i\m 
 level of the ungodly world, but even practiced par 
 ganism and Judaism^ and heaven-daring sins in their 
 nominal holy Catholic Church. — Milner, Jones, Cam 
 and Moshiem, 
 
 While these things existed, many of the most godlj 
 members withdrew from them, and established purer 
 churches, or lived alone, as circumstances dictated. 
 During the long and bloody pagan oppression, the 
 spirit o^ persecution had become interwoven with the 
 very nature of the Romans ; but as Christianity 
 had become th^ religion of the nation, they found 
 no vent for this principle, until a violent quarrel 
 took place between Milchiades, Bishop of Rome, 
 and Coecilianus, Bishop of Carthage. Many minis^ 
 ters and churches took sides in thiscontroversy ; and.., 
 finally a council was assembled at Aries, in France^ 
 in which they condemned the Carthagenians and 
 treated them accordingly. Soon after this another 
 dispute began at Alexandria in Egypt. This was 
 the beginning of the Arian controversy, which final- 
 ly affected nearly all Christendom. A council was 
 assembled at Nice, A. D. 325, when Arius and his 
 followers were condemned, excluded and analhema-^ 
 tized, which resulted in a division of the church at 
 Alexandria, and many others. 
 
 From that time, the church of Rome found vent 
 for htiv peculiar spirit of persecution, and the same 
 gpirit which pagan Rome had manifested against 
 Christians, was now exhibited by Christian Rome 
 against, not only Ariaus, but all others who did not 
 fellowship her abominations. Terlullian, who flour- 
 ished from A. D. 194, to A. D. 220, separated him- 
 self frorii the pollutions of the Romish church at Cai- 
 tliage. And Novatian, a man of great learning a»4 
 
72 
 
 piety, established a church on apostolic principles, in 
 Rome, A. D. 251, and held no communion with the 
 Judaised and paganised catholics ; his followers were 
 called cathari^ (i. e. puritans.) This church became 
 large, and not only attracted the persons of the virtu- 
 ous, but the persecutions and anathemas of lh6 
 Catholics. Thus divisions multiplied until A. D. 
 660, when a body of pure Christians arose, whom 
 the Romans nicknamed Paulicans and afterward 
 Manichaeans, &c., and turned upon them as severe 
 a persecution as that of Dioclesian. This barbarous 
 persecution continued until after what is called the 
 reformation. The first pastors or bishops of Rome, 
 lived subject to the government of the empire, and 
 simply officiated as ecclesiastical teachers, as baptist 
 ministers do now. But when Constantine was con- 
 verted and assumed the name of Bisfiop, and took the 
 control of the churches in his empire, he appeared 
 somethina: like a Pope, although he laid no claim to 
 the gospel ministry. Sylvester, who was pastor of 
 the cliurch of Rome from A. D. 313 to 335, and those 
 who succeeded him up to A. D. 590, made no preten- 
 sions to universal bishopship. A. D. 5S8 the church 
 at Constantinople had a pastor called John the faster^ 
 and Pelagius was pastor at Rome at the same time. 
 Pelagius attempted to exercise some authority over 
 John the faster ; and the church at Constantinople, 
 to show a suitable resentment, called a council and 
 declared .lohn Universal Bishop. This exas- 
 perated Pelagius and his party, and a dreadful quarrel 
 ensued ; but Pelagius soon died, and Gregory the 
 Great succeeded him, A. D. 590. Gregory took not 
 only the place but the spirit of Pelagius. He wrote 
 a letter to Mauricius, Emperor of Constantinople, 
 setting forth the blasphemous wickedness of John's 
 assuming the name of Universal Bishop. Mauricius 
 paid no favorable attention to Gregory's letter, and 
 
73 
 
 the result was that the anger, pride and revenge of 
 the church of Rome lifted Gregory to the Papal 
 Chair; not in the name of a Pope, but in spirit and 
 authority he was equal to a Pope. Gregory died A. 
 D. 604, and was succeeded by a weak bishop, named 
 Sabinianus, who continued but one year, and was 
 succeeded by Boniface III. 
 
 In A. D. 602, a nobleman of Chalcedania, named 
 Phocas, determined to murder Mauricius, Emperor of 
 Constantinople, and reign in his place. Assisted by 
 Boniface, he iiiiled Mauricius, his six sons and two 
 daughters, and took the crown. When Phocas was 
 enthroned, to reward Boniface he declared him Pope^ 
 and the Church of Rome the head of all other 
 churches^ A. D. 606. Not content with being head 
 of the Church, the Pope soon aspired for the Empe- 
 rorship. I nA. D. 732, Gregory III. excommunicated 
 Emperor Leo, Isaurin of Constantinople, because he 
 opposed image worship. Leo fitted out a fleet to seek 
 redress of Gregory by force of arms ; but Leo's ships 
 were wrecked in the Adriatic sea, and in this hour of. 
 calamity Gregory seized the imperial power, and com- 
 menced acting, in all respects, as the sovereign oi the 
 people. 
 
 The Pope now assum.ed the name of Sovereign 
 Pontiff, Prince of the Apostles, Prince over 
 ALL Nations and Kingdoms, Master of the Uni- 
 versal World, His Holiness, God on Earth, 
 Light of the World, Most High, King of Kings 
 AND Lord of Lords, Most Holy and Most Bless- 
 ed, Lord God the Pope ! ! ! and declared that Je- 
 sus Christ had granted a twofold power to the church, 
 i. e. the spiritual and temporal sword, and subjected 
 the whole human race to the authority of the Roman 
 Pontiff, — and whoever dare disbelieve it were deem- 
 ed heretic, and stood excluded from all jpossibiliti/ 
 of salvation-, — and that in good sense and judgment 
 7 
 
74 
 
 Christ hath given to Peter and consequently to the 
 Pope, the power of making that to be sin which was 
 no sin, and that which was sin to be no sin, for the 
 Pope holdeth the place on earth, not simply of man 
 but of TRUE God. See First Book of Gregory, De- 
 cret 9, Chap. 3, and Corpus Juris Canon Extrava- 
 gants, Com. Lib. 1. 
 
 Thus he had power, as God on earth, not only to 
 make and pardon sin, but to make and dethrone kings 
 and emperors, to make and change church ordinan- 
 ces, and the church itself into another thing, — and 
 bind her members under anathema to believe '* that 
 it was not only lawful, but even praise-worthy to de- 
 ceive and to use the expedient of a lie in order to ad- 
 vance the cause of truth and piety y — Moshiem's 
 Church History^ Vol. 1, p. 198. 
 
 At the head of an army, falsely called a church, 
 fixed in the faith just described, the Pope went on to 
 denounce, not only churches, but whole nations as 
 heretics, and with his two-fold power they were con- 
 verted to his faith and service or inhumanly murder- 
 ed. In the valley of Piedemont alone, it is supposed 
 that more than a million of the Waldenses and Albi- 
 genses were put to death. In France, within the 
 space of thirty years, 39 Princes, 148 Counts, 234 
 Barons, 147,518 gentlemen, 760,000 persons of a low- 
 er rank were destroyed as heretics. Thus loars. mur- 
 der^ burnings banishing and disgrace have been 
 dealt out to the defenceless lambs of Christ in Italy, 
 Palestine, Germany, Bohemia, Greece, England, 
 France, Spain, Portugal, Africa, &c,, for centuries 
 past, by the hand of this enemy of God and man. 
 Her motto has been, " On pain of anathema, permit 
 not the heretics to have houses in your districts, or 
 enter into contracts, or carry on commerce, or enjoy 
 the comforts of humanity with Christians." — Bull of 
 Pope Martin, V., A. D. 1418. And to effectually hard- 
 
75 
 
 en their hearts, Cajetan, on the authority of Clement 
 YI., published, that '' as one drop of Christ's blood 
 was sufficient to redeem the whole human race, the 
 remaining quantity, that was shed in the garden and 
 on the cross, was left as a legacy to the church, to t^e 
 a treasure from whence indulgences were to be drawn 
 and administered by the Roman Pontiff." But as the 
 Pope and his Catholic church could not have been 
 fighting shadows from A. D. 606 to A. D. 1600, we 
 therefore ask what denomination of Christians sustain- 
 ed these sufferings ? 
 
 Certainly not the Lutherans, for Martin Luther, 
 the founder of this sect was born at Isleben, in Sax- 
 ony, Nov. 10, A. D. 1483. Both he and his followers 
 were persecuting Roman Catholics till A. D. 1517, 
 when he began to oppose John Tetzel for selling in- 
 dulgencies in Germany. The Pope's bull against 
 Luther bears date June 15, A. D. 1520, and Dec. 10, 
 A. D. 1520, Luther burnt the bull, decretals and can- 
 ons at Wittemberge, and began preaching his new 
 doctrine. Their confession of faith was composed by 
 Luther and Melancthon, A. I). 1530. Their number 
 in the United States, A. D. 1836, was 62,266. 
 ' It was not the Preshyterians^ for John Calvin, the 
 founder of this sect, was born in Noyon, in Prance, 
 July 10, A. D. 1509. He, and his associates were 
 persecuting Catholics till A. D. 1534, when he was 
 converted atid fled from the Catholics to Geneva, and 
 established his church there about A. D. 1536. Chris- 
 tianity had flourished in Scotland from the third to the 
 fi^th century, at which time the Pope sent Palladius 
 to convert those Scotch Christians, whom he called 
 Culdees to papacy, which from this time continued to 
 be the religion of the nation till A. D. 1560. Resby, 
 Hamilton, Wishart, Mill, and others, opposed papacy 
 in their time: but at A. D. 1559, when John Knox 
 returned from Geneva, he introduced John Calvin's 
 
. 76 
 
 doctrines, and A. D. 1560 Calvinism was established 
 by law as the religion of the kingdom. From that 
 time and place, Calvinism (which we call Presbyteri- 
 anism,) spread first into England, then into America. 
 The Presbyterians formed a union and opened com- 
 munion with the CongregatJonalists, at Saybrook, 
 Sept. 9, A. D. 1708, which continued to May, A. D. 
 1837, when they excluded the CongregatJonalists. 
 A. D. 1835 they numbered 274,048 ; but A. D. 1838, 
 the denomination divided and went to law for their 
 rights, and which party will finally bear the name, or 
 what will be their number, we can not say. 
 
 It certainly was not the Co7igregationalists. for 
 the Browfiists began under the labors of Robert 
 Brown, at Middleburgh, in Zealand, A. D. 1590 ; and 
 John Robinson, of Norfolk, England, began Brown - 
 ism in his place, A. D. 1616. and they called them- 
 selves Independents. When they were persecuted in 
 England they fled to Holland, and from there to Amer- 
 ica, A- D. 1620; and when they organized churches 
 in this country, they denominated themselves Con- 
 gregationalists. Their first confession of faith was 
 dated Cambridge, A. D. 1648, and their second Say- 
 brook, A. D. 1708. Their present number is about 
 150,000 members. 
 
 Neither were the persecuted the Episcopaliatis. 
 Christianity was planted in England about A. D. 60, 
 and flourished till A. D. 597, when the Pope sent Austin, 
 the Monk, with about forty others, who, by fraud and 
 threats, brought a majority of the British churches 
 under the papal yoke and kept them there. A. D. 
 1200, John, King of England, interfered with the Pa- 
 pal influence, and Innocent III. laid an interdict upon 
 the kingdom. In A. D. 1211, the Pope excommuni- 
 cated King John ; and A. D. 1212, he dethroned him, 
 and gave Philip Augustus, King of France, authority 
 to take the kingdom. Pandulf. the Pope's legate, took 
 
77 
 
 John's crown and kept it five days, and when John 
 was sufficiently humbled, it was given to him as a 
 present from the Pope. Henry VIII. was a Ro- 
 man Catholic, and during the reformation he so bit- 
 terly opposed Martin Luther, that Pope Leo X. 
 declared him Defender of the Faith^ A. D. 1521. 
 But, after this, Henry VIII. fell in love v/ith Anna 
 Bullen, and petitioned Pope Clement VII. to divorce 
 him from his wife Catharine ; and, because Clement 
 would not, he broke communion with the church of 
 Rome, and declared himself head of the church of 
 England, A. D. 1534. Henry died, A. D. 1547, and 
 Edward VI., his son, reigned to A. D. 1553. Then 
 Mary, his sister, who was a violent Roman Catholic, 
 took the throne, and during her reign protestants suf- 
 fered great persecution. She died A. D. 1558, and 
 Elizabeth, the daughter of Henry VIII., by Anna 
 Bullen, reigned to 1603. During her reign the Epis- 
 copal church was established. Thus England was 
 under Catholicism 960 years ; and the principal 
 change that took place when they reformed, or that 
 exists now, is that they reject the Pope's authority and 
 some of his external ceremonies. They plead that their 
 priests and church order are one and the same with 
 the Roman Catholics ; and so far from being ashamed 
 of it, they are proud to defend it ; and, they are so 
 certain of it, that they will not exchange jnilpits with 
 any others. They have about 850 churches in the 
 United States. 
 
 The sufferers were not Methodists^ (see Methodist 
 Discipline, page 1,) for they originated in England, 
 A. D. 1737, and in A. D. 1766 they came to America. 
 Their first meeting house was built in John-street, N. 
 York, A, D. 1769. They numbered in A. D. 1835, 
 (counting their probationers, &c.,) 566,957 whites, and 
 83,135, colored. 
 
 From the above it is obvious that it was not the 
 7* 
 
78 
 
 Lutherans, the Preshyteriafis^ the Episcopalians. 
 the Congregationalists or the Methodists^ who en- 
 dured the Romish persecutions; for none of these 
 denominations existed earher than A. D. 1560. 
 Hence the oldest of these sects is but 318, and the last 
 mentioned but 101 years old. From these unassailable 
 facts you will perceive how vain it is for either of the 
 above denominations to plead that they are the first 
 true church. The Mormons, or any other sect that 
 has sprung up within five or ten years past, could as 
 well attempt to trace the chain of their history to Christ 
 and the apostles. Whenever they have attempted it, 
 they all uniformly acknowledge themselves the recent 
 offspring of that church which they call the mother 
 of harlots and enemy of God ; and in attempting to 
 prove their faith and practices correct, they quote her 
 laws and usages as authority. 
 
 It is not expected that we should give a church 
 history in this limited essay. All that will be done 
 i^ to glance at the existence of the church in each 
 successive century ; and we shall only be able to notice 
 where the true church flourished in one or two places 
 at the same time. For instance, in giving the histo- 
 ry of the Baptists in this century, it would be requi- 
 site, in order to a correct view of the denomination, 
 to notice its existence and condition in Europe and 
 Asia; but the limits of this work will only allow me 
 to mention that of our own country. It is acknowl- 
 edged that there is a people in America called Bap- 
 tists, and that they have at present 409 associations, 
 7,135 churches, 4,160 ordained ministers, and that 
 their additions by baptism in A. D. 1837, was 23,070, 
 and that their present number of communicants is 
 518,126, and that the first Baptist church in America 
 was organized by Roger Williams, in Providence, R. 
 I., A. D. 1639. Since that time the Baptists have 
 been well known ; but in tracing their history through 
 
79 
 
 preceding ages, we are obliged to learn their existence 
 and condition mostly from the concessions of Roman 
 Catholics, and other oppos.ers; for, during the Pagan 
 and Papal persecutions, which continued from A. D. 
 66, to A. D. 1700, it was the constant aim of the 
 Catholics and their allies to destroy the writings^ as 
 well as the persons of the true church. 
 
 Owing to the different languages of those nations 
 where the followers of Christ have lived, and to the 
 asperities of their opposers, the church has been known 
 by the name of Baptists, Anabaptists, Wickliffites, Lol- 
 lards, Hugonots, Mennonites, Hussites, Petrobrusians, 
 Albigenses, Waldenses, Paulicans, &c. ; and to op- 
 pose image worship, infant baptism, transubstantia- 
 tion, and the unwarrantable power of the Pope, have 
 ever been characteristics of this people. Therefore 
 Roman Catholics have heaped upon us names as 
 above, and persecuted us as heretics ; and the pedo- 
 baptists, who are the offspring of the Romish church, as 
 we have shown, have adopted the same course, re- 
 alizino^ that if the true church can be traced down to 
 the apostles, independent of the Romish church, it 
 will set the origin of their denominations in no favor- 
 able light. Hence the calumny and reproach which 
 Milner, Cave, Moshiem,&;c., have cast upon Servetus^ 
 Wickliff, Muncer, Huss, Jerome, Waldo, Hugo, Claude, 
 Constantino, Tertulian, Novatian, &c., and the un- 
 warrantable encomiums which they constantly heap 
 on Martin Luther and John Calvin, who were but 
 im'perfect iTuitators of the above named reformers. 
 
 In order to appreciate the writings of these pedo- 
 baptist authors, the reader should just consider how 
 the Baptists in this age would be represented were our 
 opponents (say Mr. Chapin,) to write a church histo- 
 ry. Is it not evident that we should be wholly neg- 
 lected or grossly misrepresented ? And such has been 
 the conduct of pedobaptist writers of past ages. To 
 
80 
 
 obtain correct knowledge of the true church, I would 
 refer you to the histories written by Perrin, Ivemy, 
 Jones, Backus, Benedict, Robinson's researches, and 
 Moreland's history of the Waldenses, &c. As it can 
 be proved that all the dissenting pedobaptist churches 
 arose in and since the sixteenth centurj^, they have 
 made a mighty effort to fix our origin at about the 
 same time. Hence their endeavors to make the un- 
 learned believe that the Baptists had their origin in 
 the Rustic war, or Munster rebellion. It is a fact 
 that in A. D. 1524, there was much uneasiness among 
 the German peasants because of the oppressions of 
 the feudal system and Catholic tythes ; and the Cath- 
 oHcs of Saubia rebelled, but this was soon suppressed. 
 
 In A. D. 1520, Luther published, in the German 
 language, a tract on Christian liberty, and during the 
 winter of A. D. 1524-5 this tract was industriously 
 circulated in Saubia, Munster, and vicinities; and the 
 spirit of reformation had so kindled through Germany 
 that in the spring of A. D. 1525, about 300,000 men, 
 not exclusively Lutherans, Catholics, Baptists or non- 
 professors, but of all sorts collectively, arose for liber- 
 ty. One Thomas Muncer, a disciple of Luther, 
 whom the people called Luther's curate, and Luther 
 called him his Absalom, had now become a Baptist, 
 and after the Munster revolt had been going on for 
 some time, he drew up a memorial or manifesto for 
 the revolutionists, which was a mild, pacific and reli- 
 gious document. That there were some Baptists en- 
 gaged in that affair is evident, but "it is certain that 
 the disturbance in Munster was commenced by Ber- 
 nard Rotman, a Lutheran priest, and that several oth- 
 er Lutheran priests assisted in it for several months 
 before Muncer visited the place." — Ivemy^ p. 16. 
 
 '•The Catholics uniformly say that Luther's doc- 
 trine led to the rebellion, and that his disciples were 
 the prime movers of it, and affirm that 130,000 Lu- 
 
81 
 
 therans fell in the Rustic war. This, they s&jj is the 
 fruit of the new doctrine; this is the fruit of Luther's 
 gospe].''—Mibier, vol. 5, pp. 320, 327. 
 
 It is thus evident, by referring to the Cathohcs, who 
 equally hated the Lutherans and the Baptists; and, 
 tiierefore, were impartial judges, that the Munster af- 
 fair did not originate the Baptists, or the Baptists the 
 Munster affair ; but, that it was an effort for Christian 
 liberty, moved on by the Lutherans, — and, had they 
 been successful, no doubt but Luther would have ap- 
 peared at the head, for it is evident he was at the bot- 
 tom of it. But, as it failed, and therefore was inglo- 
 rious, Luther disclaimed his connectioi], and modern 
 pedobaptists have attempted to charge it to the Bap- 
 tists. 
 
 But, leaving this, as none but the ignorant can be 
 made to believe that the Baptist church had its origin 
 in the sixteenth century, we pass to notice that, in A. 
 D. 1764, there was a history of religion published in 
 London, in four volumes, in which it was written : — 
 "It is clear from many authors that Wickl iff rejected 
 infant baptism, and that on this doctrine his followers 
 agreed with modern Baptists." His followers were 
 called Lollards, and Waldenses, and persecuted as 
 heretics. In the eighteenth century we find John 
 Howard, the philanthropist, and multitudes of others 
 in England and other nations of Europe, decided 
 Baptists. About A. D. 1655, the Duke ojf Savoy 
 dreadfully persecuted the Baptists in the South of 
 France and the vallies of Piedmont, whom he called 
 Waldenses, Yaldenses and heretics. At this time Oliver 
 Cromwell was Protector of England, and John Milton, 
 the poet, was Secretary of State. The intelligence 
 of the Waldensian massacre reached London, May 20, 
 A. D. 1655, upon which Milton wrote a thrilling son- 
 net, of which this first verse is a specimen : 
 
82 
 
 " Avenge, O Lord, thy slaughtered sainls, whose bones, 
 - ^ Liescatfered on the Alpine mountains cold: 
 - Even them who kepi thy truth so pure of old, 
 Jj^ When all our fathers worshipped slocks and stones." 
 
 That Cromwell and Milton favored the Waidenses, 
 or Baptists, in sentiment, is equally evident from the 
 letters which Milton wrote to the Christian Princes of 
 Europe, (see Jones' Church History, vol. 2, pp. 319 — 
 336,)the influence of which moved the Duke of Savoy 
 to stop the persecution ; but he renewed it again A. I). 
 1663, and thus persecutions continued until A. D. 
 1686, when he issued orders to remove or kill all the 
 V/aldenses in his territory, which resulted in destroy- 
 ing many and removing more into Switzerland and 
 other countries. See Burnett's Letters from Italy, 
 Letter 1, pp. 57. 58. 
 
 But, as it is well known that the Baptists were nu- 
 merous in all Europe and America in the sixteenth 
 century, we pass to notice that, in this century Martin 
 Luther. John Calvin and some others, broke off from 
 the Catholics. Luther took with him the doctrine of 
 coiisubstantiation, which is but another name for tran- 
 substantiation, and the doctrine of infant baptism, to- 
 gether with other errors; and Calvin brought with 
 him not only the doctrine of infant baptism, but the 
 spirit o{ persecution, which was too manifest in the 
 murder of Ser^etus and other acts of the kind. From 
 A, D. 1250, up to A. D. 1400, the Waidenses suffered 
 dreadful persecutions in France, Germany and Neth- 
 erlands; and a small number of them fled to Cala- 
 bria, where they formed a church and lived in the 
 apostolic faith until A. D, 1560, when the Calabrian 
 Waidenses formed a union with the Calvinists at 
 Geneva, and so far conformed to the Romish religion 
 that they baptized their infants. To this, with a few 
 instances of the kind, modern pedobaptists refer, to 
 prove that the Waidenses were not Baptists ; but we 
 
83 
 
 could as well say because one Baptist church in 
 America became corrupt in faith, therefore they all 
 had. The few individuals who were drawn into in- 
 fant baptism and the like errors, by Luther and Cal- 
 vin, are but slight exceptions. 
 
 Dr. MosHiEM says, " The sect in England which 
 reject the custom of baptizing infants, are not distm- 
 guished by the title of Anabaptists, but by that of 
 Baptists. It is, however, probable, that they derived 
 their origin from the German and Dutch Mennon- 
 
 ites.- From their confession of faith, which was 
 
 published in A. D. 1643, it appears plain that their re- 
 ligious sentiments were the same then that they are 
 
 at this day. The true origin of that sect which 
 
 acquired the denomination of Anabaptists, by admm- 
 istering anew the rite of baptism to those who came 
 over to their communion ; and derived that of Men- 
 nonites from the famous man to whom they owe the 
 greatest part of their present felicity, is hid in the re- 
 mote depths of antiquity^ and is of consequence diffi- 
 cult to be ascertained. '■ The modern Mennon- 
 
 ites not only consider themselves as the descendants 
 of the Wa-ldenses, who were so grievously oppressed 
 and persecuted by the despotic heads of the Romish 
 church, but pretend, moreover, to be the purest off- 
 spring of those respectable sufferers. The 
 
 Mennonites are not entirely mistaken when they 
 boast of their descent from the Waldenses, Petrobru- 
 sians, and other ancient sects, who are usually consid- 
 ered as witnesses of the truth in times of universal 
 darkness and superstition. Before the rise of Luther 
 and Calvin, there lay concealed in almost all the 
 countries of Europe, particularly in Bohemia, Moro- 
 via, Switzerland and Germany, many persons who 
 adhered tenaciously to the following doctrines, which 
 the Waldenses, and Wickliffites, and Hussites had 
 maintained, some in more disguised, and others in 
 
84 
 
 more open and public manner, viz: That the king*- 
 dom of Christ, or the visible church which he had 
 established upon earth, was an assembly of true and 
 real saints, and ought therefore to be inaccessible to 
 the wicked and unrighteous, and also exempt from 
 all those institutions which human prudence suggests 
 to oppose the progress of iniquity, or correct or re- 
 form transgressors. The religious opinions 
 
 which still distinguish the Mennonites from all oth- 
 er Christian communities, flow directly from the an- 
 cient doctrine of the Anabaptists concerning the na- 
 ture of the church. It is in consequence of this doc- 
 trine that they admit none to the sacrament of bap- 
 tism, but persons that have come to the full use of 
 their reason, because infants are incapable of binding 
 themselves by a solemn vow to a holy life, and it is 
 altogether uncertain whether or no in mature years 
 
 they will be saints or sinners. Before the rise 
 
 of Luther and Calvin, there lay concealed in almost 
 all the countries of Europe, persons who had adhered 
 tenaciously to the principles of the Dutch Baptists." — 
 Church History, cent. 16th, sec. 3, part 2. 
 
 In A. D. 1530, Buflinger, in the preface to his ser- 
 mon on the Revelation, says, " for 400 years and 
 more, m France, Italy, Germany, Bohemia and other 
 countries, throughout the world, the Waldenses have 
 sustained their profession of the gospel of Christ." — 
 Perrin's History, chapt. 6. 
 
 A. D. 1533, Luther published the confession of faith 
 of the Waldenses, with a preface of his own, in which 
 he acknowledges them the true church of God. Be- 
 za, in his treatises of "the famous pillars of learning^ 
 and religion," says, " as for the Waldenses, 1 may be 
 permitted to call them the very seed of the primitive 
 and pure Christian church." — Mor eland's History of 
 the Churches of Piedmont, p. 58. 
 
 Jacob Merringus says "that he had in his pos- 
 
85 
 
 session a confession of faith, in the German lanoiiage, 
 of the Baptists called Waldenses, which asserts that 
 in thu beo:inningof Christianity there was no baptiz- 
 ing of infants, and that their forefathers practiced no 
 such thing." — Hisiojy, part2, p.73S. 
 
 LiMBORCH says, " To speak candidly what I think 
 of all the modern sects of Christians, the Dutch Bap 
 tists most resemble the Albigenses and Waldenses.'*— 
 History of the Inquisition^ vol. 1, cliapt. 8. 
 
 A. D. 1530, George Moreland published a history 
 of the Waldensian churches, in which he says that 
 "at that time there were more than 800,000 communi- 
 cants." See Moreland's Evangelical Churches, p. 224. 
 
 A. D. 1400, Henry IV., King of England, enacted 
 a law for the burning of Waldensian heretics, and 
 from that time up to April 11, A. D. 1612, when Ed- 
 ward VVightman was burnt at Litchfield, there were 
 mnltitndes who suffered imprisonment and death for 
 refusing to believe infant baptism, and other Romish 
 traditions. A. D. 1415, John Huss and Jerome of 
 Prague, two timious Baptist ministers, and leaders of 
 the reformation in Bohemia, were bnrnt, by order of 
 the Popish council of Constance. Wickliff's writings 
 were destroyed, and his bones dug up and burnt. 
 William Sawter, Thomas Badby, and Sir John Old- 
 castle, and a number of the stars of the true 
 church fell during this century, but still the Baptist 
 church flnurislied and multiplied throughout the 
 world. It was in A. D. 1365, that John Wickliff be- 
 gan to be popular as a reformer, and great multitudes 
 followed him. During his labors nearly all England 
 was awakened. He translated the Bible into Eng- 
 lish, and wrote many books. His followers were 
 called Lollards, after Walter Lollard, a Dutch Bap- 
 tist, who came from Germany into England, A. D. 
 1315. Lollard was so active, and blessed of God, 
 that it was with much difficulty that the Catholics 
 8 
 
86 
 
 kept the kingdom from a religious revolnlion. Dr, 
 Hurd snys, *' it is pretty clear, from the writings of 
 many learned men, that Dr. John V\ ickliff, the first 
 English reformer, either considered infant baptism un- 
 lawful, or at least unnecessary." — Ivemy^ Hist. p. 56- 
 
 A. D. 1382, July 12, Richard II., King of Eng^ 
 land, published an order for the bishops to seize and 
 imprison all f)ersons suspected of Lollardiem; and, 
 during this persecution. Hereford, Rapyngdon, Aysh- 
 toa and many others suffered. Reinerius says that 
 "in A. D. 1259. the Paterine (another nickname for 
 true Christians,) churclj at Alba, had n^ore than 500 
 members; and, that at Coneorezzo, more than 1500, 
 and many others were very large." A. D. 1254, the 
 Popish council of Alba condenjned the Waldenses as 
 heretics, and because there were many of them in and 
 about that place, they called them Albigenses. A. D. 
 1229, during the French persecution, the Waldenses 
 spread themselves throughout Italy, atid Reinerius 
 Bays that about A. D. 1250 they had churches in A!- 
 binia, Lombardy, Milan, Roniagna. Vencenza, Flor- 
 ence, (fcc, and in A. D. 1280, thtjy were quite plenty 
 in Sicily." — Peirin^s History^ book 2, chapt. 1(5. 
 
 A. D. 1215, the Bishop of Aiies wrote to Pope In- 
 nocent III., complaining that his pbice was tronblcd 
 with a great many VValdensian heretics, who said it 
 was to no purpose to baptize children." — Opera In- 
 nocent, tertii torn 2, p. 776. A. D. 1110, Peter Bruis, 
 and A. I). 1147, Henry wrote a2:ainst the Catliolics, 
 and in reply, Peter, the Catholic Abbot of Clugny, 
 wrote ao^ainst the Petrobrusians and Henricians, and 
 charged them with holding the following errors, "that 
 infants are not baptized or saved by the faith of an- 
 other, or that baptism, without their own faith, does 
 not save, and that those that were baptized in infancy, 
 when grown up, should be baptized again, — nor aro 
 
87 
 
 they then rebaptized, but rather rightly baptized.'* — 
 Hist. Eccl Mag. cent. 12, chapt. 5, p. 332. 
 
 Dr. Stennet quotes the fol lowing: words from 
 Cassanion^s history of the Waldenses : *' Some writers 
 have affirmed that they approved not of the baptism 
 of infants, and I can not deny that the greatest part 
 were of that opinion; but the truth is, they did not 
 reject the sacrament of baptism, but only accounted it 
 unnecessary to infants, because they are not of age to 
 beHeve, or capable of givincif evidence of their faith." 
 — Appendix lo Stennet^ pp. 81, 82. 
 
 Dr. Wall admits that the Waidenses were antipe- 
 dobaptists. (See Wall's History of Baptism, p. 171.) 
 As the Catholics baptized by immersion, the ancient 
 Baptists had no difficulty with them about the mode. 
 Hence, image worship, infant baptism, transubstantia- 
 tion and the Pope's authority, were the chief subjects 
 of contention ; and, for opposin^^ tliese, they suffered 
 persecution. A. D. 116(3, thirty Waldenses suffered 
 martyrdom at Oxford, England ; and, during the per- 
 secution in the South of France, thc^e were so many 
 of them came into Enjrland, that in the reign of Henry 
 IIJ. the ordcjrs of the Friars Minorites were intro- 
 duced, to suppress the Waldensian heresy.'' — Arck 
 Bishop Usher, in Iveiny, vol. l^p. 59. 
 
 A. D. 1160, Peter Waldo was a famous Baptist 
 preacher; and, some have supposed, the Waldenses 
 derived their name from him, but it is evident that 
 they were at first called Valdenses, from their being 
 in the vallies of Piedmont, and tliat Valc/efises was fi- 
 nally changed into Waldenses; and Reinerius Sac- 
 cho, the Inquisitor, who wrote but 80 years after Pe^- 
 ter Waldo, assures us that the Albisjenses, or Wal- 
 denses had flourished more than 500 years before 
 Waldo's tiras. S^eDr. Rankin's History of France, 
 vol. 3, p. 198-202. 
 
 A. D. 1160, and forward for about 20 years, Waldo 
 
88 
 
 was persecuted by the Catholics; hut yet as a faithful 
 reformer, lie preached boldly agaiust Popish fjower, 
 image worship, infant baptism and transubstaiitiation, 
 in Dauphiny, Picardy, Germany, and finally in Bo- 
 hemia, where he died, 1179. Wherever he preached 
 multitudes were converted to God. The woik of re- 
 vival did not stop at his death, but extended into Bul- 
 garia, Croatia, Dalmatiaaiid Hungary, and mullitudes 
 of Baptist churches were planted, which flourished 
 through the thirteenth century. In A. D. 1315, it is 
 calculated there were not less than 80,000 of ihese an- 
 tipedobaptist Christians in Bohemia. See Perrin's 
 History, chapt. 1, 2. 
 
 A. D. 1154, a small society of tliese Waldensian 
 Christians came into England, and William, of Neu- 
 burgh, a Monkish historian, says that "ihey came 
 from Gostynen, (in Poltind,) where they weieas nu- 
 merous as the sand of the sea, and that they had sore- 
 ly infested France, Spain and Italy." Dr. Henry's 
 history of England spenks of the dreadful persecution 
 of this people, on page 33S. 
 
 A. D, 1147, St. Bernard, in his letter to the Earl 
 of St. Gyles, says that one of the errors of the Henri- 
 cians was " that the infants of Christiuns are hindered 
 from the life of Christ, the grace of baptism being deni- 
 ed them ; [and he adds,] they laugh at us for baptiz- 
 ing infants." 
 
 A. b. 1140, Henry, an Italian Baptist, became very 
 popular, and his followers were called Henricians. He 
 sustained the sentiments of the denomination, and 
 preached successfully in Switzerland, Mans, Bour- 
 deaux, and A, D. 1147, in Toulouse. He was finally 
 condemned at the Council of Rheims, and died in 
 prison, A. D. 1158. 
 
 A. D. 1140, Evervinus, a Catholic priest of Ger- 
 many, wrote to St. Bernard concerning a great num- 
 ber of heretics in his neighborhood, who cheerfully 
 
89 
 
 suffered death rather than give up their doctrine ; and, 
 amonof other heresies, he said '' they do not hold to 
 the haptisrn of infants, alledginof as a proof of their 
 sentiinents, Mark xvi. 16, he that believeth and is 
 baptized.. <Sf*c. These in our country we call Cath- 
 arl, in Flanders they call them Pip/iles, in France 
 Tisseratids^ and Egbert the Monk says they are in- 
 creased to great multitudes^ throuoffiout all coun- 
 tries." See Dr. Allix's remarks, pp. 150. 152. 
 
 A. D. 1139, Arnold, of Brisci-i, roused the people of 
 his charofe to active opposition against the awful cor- 
 ruptions of the church of Rome, and Pope Innocent 
 II. summoned the Lattcran Council, and anathematiz- 
 ed and condemned Arnold to perpetual silence, as a 
 Waldensian heretic, because he preached against tran- 
 substantiation, infant baptism, (fee. But, so far from 
 beiuij silent, he entered Rom.e and preached with such 
 success that nearly all the city arose against Popery; 
 and it is a well known fact that Pope Eugenius was 
 consecrated in a fortress without the city, to escape 
 the violence of the people, but by force of arms Ar- 
 nold was finally taken and burnt, A. D. 1155. See 
 Edinburo^h Encyclopedia, article Arnold, and Dr. Al- 
 lix, p. 169. 
 
 A. D. 1120, the Waldenses published a treatise con- 
 cerning antichrist, which contp.ins several sermons of 
 their ministers of that age. In this work they prefer 
 several charges against the Pope, as the antichrist, the 
 third of which is '-'•that he baptizes children^ See 
 Perrins' history, pp. 60, 6^. 
 
 A. D. 1110, "Peter de Bruis labored with great 
 success in the South of France, and m.ultitudes became 
 his disciple^, who were called Petrobrusinns. They 
 strenuously advocated that baptism was to be admin- 
 istered only to adiilts." See Moshiem's Church His- 
 tory, cent. 12, part 2, chapt. 5. 
 
 A. D. 1110, " Peter de Bruis, and his disciple Hen- 
 8* 
 
90 
 
 ry, taught that infants on^ht not to be baptized, and 
 they made many converts." — Du Piri, vol. 3, p. 702. 
 
 A. D. IIOI), "the Waldenses spread themselves 
 throngh Poland and Lithuania, and ever since that 
 they have been propagating their doctrine there, which 
 differs bnt little from the modern Baptitts." See Le 
 SieurdeLi Popeliniere. history of France. 
 
 A. D. 1066, William the Conquerer ascended the 
 throne of Britain, and durino- his reign many Wal- 
 denses from F'rance, Germany and Holland, came into 
 England. They remained m the peaceful possession 
 of Christian liberty, and ofreatly raultiplii^d, until A. D. 
 1218, when there was a Popish order sent to the Bish- 
 ops of Englnnd to suppress the Waldensian, heresy. 
 
 About 1050, Berengarius arose, and greatly oppos- 
 ed the Popish doctrines. 'He was principal of the 
 Academy at Tours, in France. In A. F). 1055, a 
 Council was assembled at Tours by Pope Lio IX., to 
 examine the heresy of Berengarius, and another at 
 Rome, A. D. 1078. But. after preaching successfully 
 against image worship, infant b.iptism and Papal pow- 
 er, he died in peace, A. D. 1088. "During this cen- 
 tury the Emperors of Germany and Kino:s of Eng- 
 land opposed the Pope's dominion. Vast num- 
 bers about Orleans, in France, and in Flaiiders, testi- 
 fied against transubstantiation, purgatory, penance, 
 relics, traditions, <fcc. And some good histori- 
 ans assert that ahnost all the French, Italians and 
 English were infected with this opinion." — Biown's 
 Bible Dictionary., p. 153. 
 
 "Amid the shocking ignorance and wickedness of 
 the tenth century, numbers in Germany, France and 
 Britain, still opposed the VAor-hip ot" imaoes, <fcc. A, 
 D. 909, the Council of Soissons, in France, publish- 
 ed a confession, (of faith,) mostly the s;ime in sub- 
 stance with those of the protesttint churches. (The 
 difference was that this confession disapproved of in- 
 
91 
 
 fant baptism, which pedobaptists practice) The 
 Council of Rheims declared ihe Popes censurable if 
 they did amiss. Many churches refused lo part with 
 the use of the Scriptures in their own hmguage. 
 Athelstan, Kinor of England, caused them to be trans= 
 lated into the huis^uage of his Anolo-Saxon subjects. 
 Heriger, the Abbot of Lobes, with Affric and Wulfin, of 
 England, opposed transubstantiation. Florus, Pru- 
 dentins, Tricassin. Lupus, Servatus and other noted 
 clergymen, opposed, <fec." — Brown^s Bible Diction- 
 ary^ p. 153. 
 
 This century did not afford many reformations. 
 The life and prosperity of the church, as to means, 
 depended more on the influence of men in the preced- 
 ing century, especially that of Claude. However, 
 from A. D. 950, to A. D. 1U50, the Baptist church was 
 active; and, notwithstanding the perse( utions, they 
 continued to increase. Turin, the capital of Pied- 
 mont, was formerly the residence of the King of Sar- 
 dinia, and in A. I). 1798, it had 100.000 inhabitants, 
 A. D. 817, Claude was promoted to the See of Turin. 
 He soon began to bear testimony against Romish pol- 
 huions, and continued his labors in Turin for about 
 20 years; and the vallies of Piednjont, which belong- 
 ed to the bishopric of Turin, received their religion 
 from him, — and it is abuiidantly proved that the 
 churches in Piedmont, Milan, Turin, &c., held no 
 communion with the church of Rome, but were of the 
 same faith with the modern Baptists and ancient 
 Paulicans. 
 
 "Claude, Bishop of Turin, in his numerous writ- 
 inofs, maintained that all the apostles were equal to Pe- 
 ter — that .Jesus Christ was the only head of the 
 church — that the church is fallible, and no traditions 
 ought to be regarded in religion— that no prayers 
 ought to be made for the dead, uor images of saints or 
 angels to be worshiped — that all superstitious pil- 
 
92 
 
 grimaces nnd penance ought to belaid aside — that the 
 eiemenis of the Lord's Supper are but means of rep- 
 resenting the body and blood of Clirist to believers.** 
 -wBrown's Bible Dictionary^ p. 1 52. 
 
 Claude may be properly called the Apostle of the 
 reformation, while Luther and Calvin were but tTni- 
 tators of this great man : and, had they followed him 
 fully, and left infant baptism and other Romish no- 
 tions behind, they would have bet-n greater blessings 
 to the world. It is true that the ninth was a dark 
 century, and that Romish doctrines greatly covered 
 the world ; but the reason why they did was because 
 theRo[nans were powerful in arms.und when they sub- 
 dued a nation or people, they com[)el!ed them to submit 
 to their religion; thus infant baptism spread ly physi- 
 cal and not by moral power. Meanwhile Nicepho- 
 ras, Leo V., Michael IJL, Emperors of the East, with 
 nearly all the Greek Bishops, opposed these Catholic 
 innovations in religion ; and Rh<mji£ius, Bishop of 
 Lyons, and Valentine and the Lingonensian, and 
 Chrisiians known by other names, stood fust on apos- 
 tolic grounds. 
 
 A. D. 726, Leo Lsaurian, the Greek Emperor, who 
 resided at Constantinople, but by ri^rht governed Italy 
 as well as what is now called the Ottoman Rmpire, 
 discovering that the church at Rome was beginning 
 image worship, issued an edict against the practice. 
 At this time Gregory II., who was Pope or Bishop of 
 Rome, violently opposed the edict, and continued to 
 do so until lie died, A. D. 731, and Gres^ory III., par- 
 takin<r the spirit of his predecessor, excluded Leo, A. 
 D. 732. The great majority of the inhabitants of 
 Italy, agreeinof with Gregory, were carried on by the 
 tide of popular feeling, to embrace not only image 
 worship and infant baptism, but sunk into other errors 
 to which they had been strangers until this time. It 
 was in this contest that the Italian provinces separated 
 
93 
 
 from the Greek empire, and the Greek and Roman 
 churches ceased to fellowship each other. Whateve-r 
 defects may have characterized the Greek church in 
 this age, it is evident that they maintained the sub- 
 stance of Scripture doctrines and practices, and were 
 the very churches which had arisen successively out 
 of those planted by the apostles ; and that their num- 
 ber at this time was much larger than those that had 
 followed Gregory. Among these Greek churches th« 
 Paulicans appeared as reformers, as the Waldenses did 
 among the Romans. 
 
 A. D. 660, the Paulicans arose, in the town of Ma- 
 nanalis, in the vicinity of Somosata. Here lived a 
 man by the name of Constantine. who entertained al 
 his house a deacon of a church in Syria, who had been 
 carried away cnplive by the Mahometans, and was 
 now on his return. From this passing stransrer Con- 
 stantine received a copy of the New Testament, in the 
 Greek language. He studied it with care, and began 
 to publish its contents, and soon a Christian church 
 was collected. In a little time several individuals 
 arose among them qualified for the ministry, and ma- 
 ny churches were collected in Armenia and Cappado- 
 cia. Their public appearance attracted the notice of 
 the Catholic party, who immediately began to perse= 
 cute them, calling them Manicheans and Paulicans. 
 Constantine continued his labors, and Pontus and 
 Cappadocia, and all Asia Minor to the west of the Eu- 
 phrates, had pure religion revived again. As they in= 
 creased and spread to the west, they were often identi- 
 fied with the Waldenses, because they opposed image 
 worship, infant baptism and the power of the Pope, 
 which were the common characteristics of both. We 
 can trace the history of the church by the persecutions 
 which they suffered under the nanie of Paulicans, to 
 A. I). 810.-/0/255' Church Bisiort/j vol. 1, page9 
 384-387. 
 
94 
 
 But why shonlfl we stay to trace the history of th« 
 Baptist church in that age, by the sufferings of Chris- 
 tians bearing one name. "There have tetn whole 
 nations of martyr Sy who, after witnessing a good con- 
 fession before men and angels, have been sacrified by 
 
 thousands to the bhnd rage of superstition. 
 
 It would be an unpardonable omission to pass entire- 
 ly unnoticed that venerable and prinniive peoptey 
 'Vho were the depository of Christ ia?f InUk durirtg^ 
 so many ages, when darkness covered the earth, and 
 gross darkness the people. The Paulic.ans in ihe East 
 and the Waldknsks in the West, divide this praise. 
 The Patjh'cans preceded the public appearance of the 
 
 Waldenses. '^i^hey appeared in Cappadocia 
 
 and Armenia about the njiddle of the seventh century, 
 
 and the name of their founder was Constaniine. 
 
 He became a preacher of righteousness, and was 
 
 soon surrounded by a numerous band of disciples, 
 who endeavored in all things to conform themselves 
 to scriptural precepts. This sect, in general, re- 
 ceived the natn3 of Paulicans, from the great veneration 
 which they professed for the epistles of Paul. Their 
 progress was rapid, and the light of truth had nearly 
 spread over Asia Minor, when the fearful storm of 
 
 persecution descended upon them. These 
 
 Christians, now generally called Waldenses, were 
 scattered through different countries, and were known 
 by various names in different situations, though a 
 general agreement of doctrine and practice prevailed 
 amon<r them." — Christian Martyrs, by the American 
 S. S. Union, pp. 102- -106. 
 
 In many instances, in this and succeeding ages, the 
 Baptist church was charged with Arianism, because 
 they did not admit that the consecrated wafer was the 
 real body of Christ \ and modern pedobaptists, adopt- 
 ing the language of the Catholics, still coniinue to 
 
95 
 
 stigmatize those true disciples with the same opprobn- 
 ous epithet. , 
 
 We have hastily glanced at the existence of the 
 church through successive ages, until we have arriv- 
 ed at the time when the church of Rome assumed her 
 antiscriptural power, and properly became the mother 
 of harlots and the abomination of the earth. We 
 could here leave our cause, believing that every can- 
 did mind would be satisfied that from this timedow'^ 
 to the apostles, the churches were <renerally built on 
 Scriptural grounds. But to do justice to his charac- 
 ter, and show that the Romish church had become 
 corrupt even earlier than this. I would remnrk that 
 A. D. 251, Novalian separated himself from ihe cor- 
 ruptions of the church of Rome, and estnblished a 
 church on apostolic principles. " No vaiitUi was an 
 elder in the church of Rome, a man of extensive learn- 
 ing, holding the same doctrine as the church. His 
 address was eloquent, and his morals irreproachable^ 
 In seasons of prosperity many persons rushed into the 
 church; in titnas of persecution they denied the faith; 
 when the squall was over they came {igain to the 
 church. The Bishops, forid of proselytes, encourag- 
 ed all this, and also heo^an to exchange the Christian 
 virtues for a vain show at Easter. Cornelius, who 
 had often countenanced such practices, was riominat- 
 ed for Bishop at the death of Fabian. Novalian be- 
 ing unreconciled to their half 'paganism and half 
 Judaism'^ opposed his election ; and when Cornelius 
 was finally elected, Novatiau and many others, with- 
 drew and established a church by themselves. Greai 
 multitudes followed his example, and all over the em- 
 pire puritan churches were coistiiuted, which flour- 
 ished ihrouxhout the succeeding two hundred years. 
 Tertuliau had left the church at Carthage near fifty 
 years bef)re this, for the same reasons; and Privatus, 
 and several more had repeatedly remonstrated againal 
 
96 
 
 the alterations taking place in the church. The Rev 
 man Catholics charge Novjjtian wiih being the parent 
 of an innumerable multitude of congregntions of ;y?<ri- 
 tans, all over the empke.^'—Robinson^sEcc. Research- 
 eSy p. 126. 
 
 That iXovatian, and the puritans of that a<re. had 
 the same views of a gospel church and the subjects of 
 baptism that the Baptists have now, is too obvious to 
 admit of debate. Indeed, the Roman Catholics them- 
 selves, notwithstanding ail other corruptions, had not 
 yet introduced infant baptism. It remained for after 
 and darker ages to originate this antiscriptural prac- 
 tice, as we siiall presently show. We have not in- 
 troduced the puritans of that age because the true 
 church was confined to them, but simply to show that 
 the church of Rome early became so corrupt that good 
 men tied from her influence. It is a well known fact, 
 that during the third, fourth and fifth centuries, there 
 were njultiiudes of churches beside those who were 
 the immediate followers of Novatian, in nearly all the 
 kingdoms of Europe and a great part of Asia, that 
 still kept the ordinances as the apostles had delivered 
 them. With regaid to the first two centuries after 
 the apostles, tliere can be no doubt that the churches 
 were purely Baptist. Dr. Moshiem, a violent oppos- 
 er of the Baptist denomination, admits that "the sacra- 
 ment of baptism was administered publicly twice eve- 
 ry year, at the festivals of Easter and Pentecost, or 
 Whitsunday, by the Bishop or Presbyters, in conse- 
 quence of his authorization and appointment. The 
 persons that were to be baptized, after ilicy had re- 
 peated the creed, confessed and renounced their siris, 
 and particularly the devil in his pompous allurements, 
 were immersed under water, and received into Christ's 
 kingdom by a solemn invocation of the Father, Son, 
 and Holy Ghost, according to the express command 
 of our blessed Lord." — Eccl. Hist. cent. 2, sec. 13. 
 
97 
 
 Again. "The sacrament of baptism was admin- 
 istered in this century without the public assembhes, 
 in places appointed and prepared for the purpose, and 
 was performed by immersion of (he vjhole body in 
 the baptismal font." — MosheinCs Ecc. hist. cent. I, 'part 
 2, sec. 8. 
 
 We have thus hastily traced the church down to the 
 apostolic age, and find that although we are now sur- 
 rounded by many denominations, yet they are of so re- 
 cent origin, that previous to the rise of Lutheranism, 
 A. D. 1517, it was vastly diiferent; and as we ap- 
 proach the apostolic age, their number appears still 
 less, until we arrive at A. D. 32.5, when the first gen- 
 eral division took place at Alexandria, respecting the 
 doctrine of Arius. From that time, down to the or- 
 ganization of the first church at Jerusalem, A. D. 33, 
 there was but one denomination, which has since been 
 called by various names : First, Disciples^ then 
 Christians^ and in after ages several nicknames, as 
 we have seen ; and at present it is known by the name 
 of the Baptized Churchy to distinguish it from those 
 churches which merely sprinkle. Thus evident it is, 
 that the Bible and impartial history sustain our claim 
 to apostolic church origin ; and that not only John 
 Huss, Jerome of Prague and John Wickliff, were mar- 
 tyrs of our church, but equally demonstrates that Ig- 
 natius, Clement, Polycarp, and the multitudes who 
 have sealed their faith with their blood since them, 
 were Baptists. 
 
 We should keep in mind that nearly every question 
 has two sides ; and while the controversy between us 
 and the pedobaptists respects church origin, we are 
 happy to have their full concession that they are re- 
 cent dissenters from the Roman Catholics ; and that 
 the Baptist church is not only the true church of God, 
 but that for her " it is easy to trace a succession ot 
 9 
 
98 
 
 witnesses for Jesus Christ against his rival at Rome." 
 — Brown's Bible Dictionary ^ p. 152. 
 
 There are four kinds of Baptists in the United Slates, and the Am. Almanac for 
 1839 gives the following statistics: 
 
 Reifular Baptists, 452,(X)0 communicants ; Free-will do., 33,876; 7(h day do., 4,503; 
 Six-principle do , 2,117 :— Total population, 4,300,000. 
 
 Regular Presbyterians, 274.034 communicants ; Cinnberland do., 50.000; Asso- 
 ciate do, 16,000; Reformed do., 3,000; Associate Reformed do., 12,000 :— Total 
 population, 2,175,000. 
 
 Congregationalists, 160,000 communicants:— Population, 1,400,000 
 
 Episcopal Methodists, 650,103 communicants ; Protestant do. 50,00a-total pop- 
 ulation 3,000,000. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 
 
 SE CT 10 N I . 
 
 Of Moral and Positive Law. 
 
 Moral law is the eternal rule of right, founded in 
 the nature and fitness of things, which is, was and 
 e\rer will be binding upon all rational creatures, wheth- 
 er good or evil ; a summary of which was given to 
 Moses, Ex. XX. 3 — 17. It never was identified with 
 the Mosaic covenant, though like the covenant of cir- 
 cumcision, it existed with it; and when Christ came, 
 it was not abolished with the ritual services, but ex- 
 plained and enforced by the precepts and examples of 
 the Savior, so that it forms a great part of the gospel. 
 Matt. V. 17 : xxiii. 23 : John vii. 19 : Matt. xxii. 36 
 —40: Lukex. 26— 28: 1 Cor. xiii. 1 — 13. This 
 law is given in o:eneral rules, and from them many of 
 our particular duties are inferred. But an invariable 
 rule respecting inferences is, that we are never to do 
 less than the expressed law requires. 
 
 Positive law differs mostly from moral in these four 
 particulars : 
 
99 
 
 1. The moral law, from the very nature of it, can 
 never be revoked ; but positive law may be abolished 
 at anytime. But, " It requires the same strength to 
 dissolve as to create an oblis^ation." — Blackstone's 
 Commentary on the Laws of England^ vol. 1, hook 
 
 1, chapt. 2. 
 
 2. Positive law is only oblio^atory on the persons 
 immediately referred to, and expressed in the law. 
 Thus, when God commanded Abraham to circumcise 
 every man child born in his house and bought with 
 his money, it did not make it his duty to circumcise 
 all the females and gentiles ; so v/hen Christ com- 
 manded the apostles to baptize believers, it did not 
 authorize them to baptize infants and unbelievers. 
 The letter of positive law is the measure of our duty. 
 
 3. Positive law does not originate simply in the na- 
 ture and fitness of things, but rests solely on the plai?i, 
 expressed will of God, without respect to any other 
 reason for it. Thus the moral law, ^'■thoushalt love 
 the Lord thy God^^ and the reason is because he is 
 infinitely lovely; and the positive law says, Gen. xxii. 
 
 2, " Take now thy son, and ofier him for a burnt of- 
 fering," Acts ii. 38, " Be baptized ;" and the reason is 
 because God commands it, — and the time, place and 
 instruments must be expressed, if they make any part 
 of the service required. Thus, Gen. xxii. 2, " In the 
 land of Moriah, upon one of the mountains which I 
 will tell thee of " John i. 33, "He that sent me to 
 baptize ( qv 'vdaxt, ) in water." Matt, xxviii. 19, " Bap- 
 tizing them." 
 
 4. Positive law d lifers from moral, because the rule 
 is definite, and no inference drawn from it can make 
 any part of our duty. My son is under obligation to 
 reverence me, whether I command him to or not ; 
 but he is not therefore under obligations to burn up 
 my refuse papers, till I command him ; and when I 
 
100 
 
 have ordered him to burn them, he is not at liberty to 
 infer that he should burn my hbrary also. 
 
 But, this view of moral and positive law is not a 
 matter of difference between the Baptists and pedobap- 
 tists ; for I could quote hundreds of the most able pe- 
 dobaptist authors who speak as definitely as the fol- 
 lowing: "The positive law is what we know to be 
 the will of God by his express word onlyP — Reeve^s 
 Apology, vol. 2, p. 2. " Positive institutions are the 
 free effects of the will of God, depending originally 
 and solely on revelation." — Dr. Owen, on the Holy 
 tSpirit, hook l,chapt. 3, sec. 3. " Sacraments are posi- 
 tive precepts which are to be measured only by the in- 
 stitution, in which there is not room for us to carry 
 them any further." — Bp. Burnetfs Expos, of the Ar- 
 ticles, p. 279. "Positive precepts depend wholly on 
 the will of the lawgiver, being actually limited to this 
 specification, this manner, this matter, this institu- 
 tion. Whatsoever comes besides it hath no founda- 
 tion in the will of the legislator, and therefore can have 
 no warrant or authority. That it be obeyed or not 
 obeyed is the question, and all the variety." — Dr. 
 Dubit, book 2, chapt. 3, sec. 14. 
 
 " What man dare go in a way which has neither 
 precept nor example, from a way that has a full cur- 
 rent of both. Who knows what will please Gcd, but 
 himself? and has he not told us what he expects from 
 us? Can that be obedience which has no comm,and 
 for it ? O the pride of man's heart ! that in- 
 stead of being a law-obeyer will be a law-maker. — / 
 should tremble to add or diminish." — R. Baxter^s 
 Plain Scripture Proofs, p. 24. 
 
 "A catholic spirit is not speculative latitudinari- 
 anism. It is not an indifference to all opinions; this 
 is the spawn of hell, not the offspring of heaven ; this 
 unsettled state of thought ; this being driven to and 
 
101 
 
 /Vo, and tossed about by every wind of doctrine, is a 
 preat curse, not a blessing. A man of a true catholic 
 fpirit does not lialt between two opinions, nor vainly 
 endeavor to blend them into one. Observe this, you 
 that know not what spirit you are of; who call your- 
 selves of a catholic spirit only because you are of a 
 muddy understanding ; you think you are got into 
 the very spirit of Christ, when in truth you are near- 
 er the spirit of Antichrist." — Rowland HilVs Full Art- 
 swer to J. Wesley, p. 40, 41. 
 
 But the question is now asked, are we not to follow 
 our feelings as a guide ? J answer yes, if they agree 
 with the Bible ; but positive law must be obeyed, at 
 the expense of all feelings beside. Thus Abraham in 
 offering his Isaac, Gen. xxii. 2 — 14, and thus Christ 
 taught, Matt. xix. 29, '• If any man will come after me, 
 let him deny himself and take up his cross," <fec., but 
 what self-denial is there in following your own feel- 
 ings ? 
 
 But can we not take conscience for a guide ? I an- 
 swer, what is conscience, but a creature of education? 
 The Hindoo mother gives her infant to the wheels of 
 Juggernaut to satisfy her conscience, while the Chris- 
 tian mother would act exactly opposite to please hers. 
 Thus conscience measures our actions, and declares 
 them good or bad, in view of some received rule ; but 
 in order to have a good conscience we must take God's 
 word for the standard. Heb. xiii. 18. 
 
 But are we not to follow our own understanding or 
 reason? I answer, the use of these in religion is to 
 discern between truth and error. Eph. v. 7, "Where- 
 fore be not unwise, but understanding what the will 
 of the Lord is." Pro v. iii. 5, " Trust in the Lord 
 with all thy heart, and lean not unto thine own tmder- 
 standing." Prov. ix. 10 : Job xxviii. 28 : xxxiv. 16. 
 
 But are we to follow the Spirit of God? I answer 
 yes, Rom. viii. 14, "For as many as are led by tb« 
 
102 
 
 Spirit of God, they are the sons of God." But, 1 Cor. 
 iii. 18, "Let no man deceive himself." 1 John iv. 1, 
 "But try the spirits whether they are of God ;" and 
 as, 2 Tim. iii. 16, "All scripture is given by inspira- 
 tion of God," and is a complete rule of faith and prac- 
 tice, the Bible is the standard by which we are to try 
 the spirits that influence us. Isa. viii. 20. 
 
 But it is plead that we can not all understand the 
 Bible alike, "it is an essential article that the words 
 of the laws excite in every body the same ideas. Tho 
 laws ought not to be subtle, for they are designed for 
 comm.on understanding ; not as an art of logic, but as 
 the plain reason of a father to a family." — Barron 
 Montesquieu^ Spirit of Laivs^ book 29, p. 16. 
 
 Now is it probable that our heavenly Father would 
 give us laws that we cannot understand, and then call 
 us to an account for disobedience? See Acts xvii. 30; 
 Lev. iv. 2 : and v. 15 : Isa. liii. 8 : Eph. i v. 18 : 1st Cor. 
 iii. 12 — 15: John vii. 17 : the confusion concerning 
 Baptism, the Lord Supper &c., exists because the lea- 
 ders have taken liberty to change God's ordinances, 
 and puzzle the people with sophistry. 
 
 "The Church of Rome frankly acknowledges, by 
 her delegates assembled in the council of Trent, that 
 our sovereign Lord, when he instituted the Holy Sup- 
 per, administered in both kinds, and that it was so ad- 
 ministered for some time. She however expressly 
 claims an authority to dispense with that order." See 
 council of Trent, Session 21, Chapters 1--3. 
 
 "Wherefore the church did g-reat liberty to herself 
 since the beginning, to change the rites somewhat, ex- 
 cepting the substance. Some dipped them thrice, 
 gome but once; wherefore there is no cause why we 
 should be so straight laced in matters which are of 
 00 such weight." — John Calvin^s comment on Acts 
 ▼iii. 38. 
 
 "Every particular church may or<fai«, change ot 
 
103 
 
 abolish rites and ceremonies^ so that all things may be 
 done to edification." — Methodist Epis. Di^cvpliiie^ 
 Article of Religion 22. 
 
 " The heifer, whose ashes were to make the waters of 
 Eeparation, (Num. xix. 2,) the color was no circum- 
 stance : but, made by God's command a substantial 
 part of the service ; to be red was as much as to be a 
 
 heifer for though the things in themselves be small, 
 
 yet His authority is great. If any of Christ's institu- 
 tions seem necessary to be broken, it will be necessary- 
 first, to decry them as 'poor^ low, inconsiderable, cir- 
 cumstantial, and fill the people's heads with a noise 
 and din that Christ lays little stress on them; and in 
 order hereto, call them non-essentials, the accidentals, 
 the Tninutes, so that the conscience may not kick at 
 contemning them." — Vincent Ahop^s Sober Enquiry, 
 p. 289. 
 
 "Positive duties stand on a moral foot. To obey 
 God, in whatever he commands is the first moral law, 
 and the fundamental principle of allmorality." — Dr^ 
 Waterland's Scripture Vindication part 3. p. 37. 
 
 SECTION II. 
 
 I HAVE been amused to see how pedobaptists at- 
 tempt to prove their scheme. They will first affirm 
 that infant sprinkling is laioful; when we tell them 
 that the Pope has no control over this land, and that 
 the law of New England which enforced pedobaptism 
 is repealed, therefore this argument is not adapted io 
 this country, they will then assert that the Scriptures 
 prove infant sprinkling right. Thus, the word in- 
 fant is found at Isa. Ixv. 20 : Job iii. 16 : and Luko 
 xviii. 15 : and Sprinkle at Ex. ix. 8 : Ez. xxxvi. 25 : 
 and Heb. x. 22 : and the word right at Gen. xviii. 25 : 
 and Amos v. xii : therefore the Bible proves Infant 
 
104 
 
 sprinkling right. They will next assert^ infanis 
 are church members, and therefore subjects of bap>- 
 tism ; and to prove this, they say, that infants by God's 
 ftppointment, were made members of the Jewish 
 church ; and the law, authorizing their membership, 
 has not been abrogated. This argument reminds rao 
 of Mr. John Cotton's* reply to Roger Williams ; Aboul 
 A. D. 1651 Mr. Williams complaintd of the deadly 
 persecutions that he was suiferi ng from Mr. Cotton, 
 ftnd said that the civil sword was not appointed as a 
 remedy in such cases: to which Mr. Cotton replied, 
 '*It is evident that the civil sword was appointed as a 
 remedy in this case, Deut. xiii, and appointed it was 
 by the Angel of God's presence, whom God promised 
 lo send with his people, Ex. xxxiii. 2 — 3, and that 
 Angel was Christ, 1st Cor. x. 9, therefore it cannot be 
 said that the Lord Jesus never appointed the civil 
 eword as a remedy in such cases, for he did expressly 
 appoint it in the Old Testament, wor did he ever abro- 
 gate it in the New. Thou shalt svrely kill him be- 
 cause he hath sought to thrust thee away from the 
 Lord thy God. This reason is moral, that is, of uni- 
 versal and perpetual equity, to put to death any apos- 
 tate, seducing idolater or heretic." — Backus' History^ 
 Vol I, p. 165,166. 
 
 This is the very course that Mr. Sawyer has taken 
 to prove sprinkling and infant church membership; 
 for thus he says, "Moses adopted washing as a Jew- 
 ish rite, and John the Baptist adopted the same Mo- 
 saic washing:. The seal of the Ahrahamic covenant 
 was circumcision, and not only Abraham, but his 
 seed were initiated into the church by it. Paul bap- 
 tized disciples, and Christ took little children in his 
 arms and blessed them. The church under the Old 
 Testament economy, recognized their infants as mem- 
 bers, and infant church membership has not been alh 
 
 *A celebrated Cougrcfatloaal miaiater. 
 
105 
 
 rogated in the New ; therefore infant baptism i» 
 fully proved.*' When Mr. Sawyer takes Mr. Cotton's 
 civil sword, and compels us to believe his logic sounds 
 we shall say amen, to his assertions, and not before. 
 Take a parallel to Messrs. Cotton and Sawyer's argu- 
 ments ; Mark X. 13 — 16. They broug^ht young chil- 
 dren to Christ, and he took them up in his arms and 
 blessed them, (which must have been done by speak- 
 ing to them ;) but Jesus Christ was God ; Isa. ix. 6 : 
 and John x. 35, he called them Gods unto whom the 
 word of God came. What must each of these chil- 
 dren have been therefore ? But few men are sensible 
 how far asjibile infidel, or a designmg learned Chris- 
 tian can wrest the Scriptures without detection, until 
 they have carefully compared their writings with the 
 inspired text. 
 
 SECTION III. 
 
 The Baptism of John. 
 
 1. The testimony of our Lord. 
 
 John i. 6, " There was a man sent from God, whose 
 name was John." Luke iii. 3, "And he came into all 
 the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of re- 
 pentance for the remission of sins." Mark i. 1, 2, " The 
 beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, 
 as it is written in the prophets, behold I send my mes- 
 senger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way 
 before thee." Matt, iii. 5, 6, " Then went out to him 
 Jerusalem, and all Judea, and the region round about 
 Jordan, and were baptized of him in Jordan, confess- 
 ing their sins." John well understood his commis- 
 sion ; he was sent to prepare a people for the Lord, 
 (i. e. for the Lord's church.) He therefore, in accord- 
 ance with his commission, required of the people 
 1. Confession of sin. Matt. iii. 6 : Mark, i. 5. 2. Re- 
 pentance. Matt. iii. 2 ; Mark i. 4 : Luke iii. 8, &c. 
 
106 
 
 3. Faith in Jesus Christ. Actsxix. 4 : Matt. iii. 11 : 
 Marki. 7, 8 : Luke iii. 15—18 : Actsxiii. 25 : John i. 29 : 
 Mark i. 15, &c. And those who would not comply 
 with these conditions he did not baptize, but rebuked 
 them sharply for offering themselves as candidates for 
 baptism, while unprepared. Matt. iii. 7 — 12 : Luke iii. 
 7 — 14. But. with these facts before him, Mr. Sawyer 
 says, p. 2, " Whether the children of believers were in- 
 cluded with their parents among the subjects of John's 
 baptism, we are not particularly informed ;" but if 
 Mr. Sawyer has failed to discover that infants are not 
 capable of faith^ rapentance^ and confession of sin^ I 
 am happy that many of his pedobaptist brethren have 
 honestly confessed that all the subjects of John's bap- 
 tism were adult Christians. I could quote hundreds, 
 but these few must suffice. 
 
 2. Pedobaptist testimony. 
 
 " John Baptist admitted men to baptism, confessing 
 and bevvaihno^ their sins." — Cambridge Platform^ 
 chapt. 12, sec. 2. 
 
 ^^ Adult Jews, professing repentance, and a disposi- 
 tion to become Messiah's subjects, were the only per- 
 sons, as far as we can find, whom John admitted to 
 his baptism." — Dr. Scotfs Family Bible. 
 
 " ORiGENsays we ought necessarily to observe that 
 both St, Matthew and St. Mark say that upon confes- 
 sion of their sins, all Jerusalem, (fee, were baptized." 
 — Dr. GaWs Reflections^ j)- '^^^' 
 
 The disinterested testimony of the great Jewish his- 
 torian is important: "John, that was called the Bap- 
 tist, was a good m.an, and commanded the Jews to ex- 
 ercise virtue, both as to righteousness toward one an- 
 other and piety toward God, and so to come to bap- 
 tism- ; for that the washing would be acceptable to 
 Him, if they made use of it, not in order to the put- 
 ting away of some sins, but for the purification of the 
 
107 
 
 body, supposmg still that the soul loas thoroughly 
 purified heforehayid by righteousness." — Josephus' 
 Antiquities^ book 18, chapt. 5, sec, 2. 
 
 SECTION IV. 
 
 The Baptism of our Savior. 
 
 That the Lord was baptized is evident, from Matt, 
 iii. 13—17 : Mark i. 9—12 : Luke iii. 21, 22 : John 
 i. 31 — 34. Thus we have the Savior's example in 
 this institution ; but it is abundantly evident that he 
 never did practice baptism, from the fact that there is no 
 record of it, and because the Holy Spirit says express- 
 ly, John iv. 2, " Jesus himself baptized not''^ This 
 is fatal to all the pedobaptist volumes written to prove 
 that Christ baptized infants ; and as Dr. Taylor says, 
 when remarking upon Matt. xix. 13 — 15 : Mark x. 
 13 — 16: Luke xviii. 15 — 17, "Using these words to 
 prove infant baptism, proves nothing so much as the 
 want of a better argument." — Dr. Jeremy Taylor. 
 
 Having noticed the example and practice of the 
 Lord, we pass to his comm^ands. ^ Matthew xxviii. 
 19, 20, " Go ye therefore and teach all nations, bap- 
 tizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, 
 and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all 
 things whatsoever I have commanded you." Markxvi. 
 16, " He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, 
 but he that believeth not, shall be damned." The last 
 dying words of a friend, sink deep into the hearts of 
 survivors. The Savior regarding this fact, purposely 
 reserved the law of preaching and baptizing, for the 
 last, and with well selected words, arranged in an or- 
 der which strictly agrees with the gospel economy, 
 he pronounced the command^ and ascended to his 
 throne in the heavens. I am happy that Mr. Saw- 
 
108 
 
 yer has saved his friends from that mortification which 
 they must have felt, had he attempted to prove infant 
 baptism from this scripture. He frankly says, (p. 6.) 
 "The^r5^ thing commanded, is io j)roselyte all na- 
 tions to the Christian religion. The second is to hajj- 
 tize them, and the third and last thing, here enjoined 
 is, to teach them to observe all the ordinances of 
 Christ.'' " The action is baptizing or immersing in 
 water. The subjects thereof, those persons of every 
 nation, whom the ministers can by their instructions, 
 render disciples, that is, such as do sincerely believe 
 the truth." — Dr, Barrow^s works, Vol. 1 p. 518. 
 
 . " In the primitive church, instruction preceded bap- 
 tism, agreeable to the order of Jesus Christ, go teach 
 unto all nations, baptizing them." — Saurin^s Sermoiis^ 
 vol 1, p. SOI. 
 
 " Because Christ requires teaching before baptism, 
 and will have believers only adm^iittd to baptism^ 
 baptism does not seem to be rightly administered ex- 
 cept faith precedes." — John Calvin, Harmony of the 
 Evangelists. 
 
 *'They could not make disciples unless by teach- 
 ing. By that institution were disciples brought to the 
 faith before they were baptized." — Limborch^s Insti- 
 tutes, chapt. 67, p. 7. 
 
 " Matt, xxviii. 19, Go ye, threfore, &c. This is not 
 like some occasional historical mention of baptism,but is 
 the very commission of Christ to his apostles, and pur- 
 posely expresseth their several works in their several 
 places and orders. The first work is by teaching to 
 make disciples, which are called by Mark, xvi. 16, 6c- 
 lievers. Their second work is to baptize them; the 
 third work is to teach them all other things which are 
 to be learned in the school of Christ. To contemn 
 this order, is to renounce all rules of order ; for where 
 can we expect to find it if not here. I profess my coti- 
 
109 
 
 science fully satisfied from this ie:sJ. that it is one sort 
 of faith, evsn savings that must go before baptism." — 
 Baxter's Disp. of right to sacraments^ pp. 149, 150. 
 
 " A limited commission implies a prohibition of 
 such things as are not contained in it, and positive 
 laws imply their negative." — Appendix to Walkers 
 Debate, p. 209. 
 
 Therefore, when the Lord commanded his disci- 
 ples to baptize believers, and the commission ceasing 
 there, it was precisely the same as forbidding them to 
 baptize infants and unbelievers ; and Abraham could 
 as well expect to please God by circumcising females, 
 or infants before they were eight days old, as pedo- 
 baptists by sprinkling infants before they believe m 
 Christ. 
 
 But the question arises, was John's baptism and 
 Christian baptism the same. Pedobaptists have as- 
 serted that they were not, because they know that 
 John uniformly immersed ; therefore they try to de- 
 stroy his baptism altogether, that there may be less 
 scripture to oppose their sprinkling. Thus Mr. Saw- 
 yer asserts, p. 2, 3, " The first notice of Christian bap- 
 tism, and all the notice of it which occurs in the 
 gospel history previous to the crucifixion, is in the fol- 
 lowing passages : John iii. 22 — 26 : John iv. 1, 2." 
 Now what a shameless statement this is ; that Chris- 
 tian baptism, which derived both its existence and 
 name from Jesus Christ, did not exist until adminis- 
 tered by the disciples, long after the Lord was baptiz- 
 ed. The identity of Christian and John's baptism is 
 evident from Scripture ; see Matt. xi. 7 — 15 : Mark 
 i. 1—8 : Luke iii. 3—6 : Acts i. 21—23 : Rom. vi. 4, 5 : 
 Eph. iv. 3 — 6 : Col. ii. 12 ; and is conceded by able 
 pedobaptists. " By this he intended to do an honor to 
 John's ministry, and conform, himself to what he ap- 
 pointed to his followers." — Dr. Doddridge^s Note on 
 
110 
 
 "In John's preaching and baptizing^ there was 
 the beginnina: of the gospel doctrines d^na ordinances, 
 and the first fruits of them." — Dr, M. Henry's Com- 
 ment on Mark i. 1. 
 
 "It is certain that the ministry of John was pre- 
 cisely the same as that which was afterward commit- 
 ted to the apostles. The sameness of their doc- 
 trine shows their baptism to have been the same. I 
 grant that the baptism which they (the twelve, at Acts 
 xix. 1 — 7,) had receix^ed was the true baptism of John, 
 and the very same with the baptism of Christ ; but 
 I deny that they were baptized again." — Calvin's In- 
 stitutes^ book 4, chapt. 15, sec. 7, 8. 
 
 " I must say a few words in support of the identity 
 of these baptisms. The baptism of John and the bap- 
 tism of Christ were the same in their divine origin ; 
 and the same as it respects the element, and the mode 
 of applying it. In both, the parties baptized did pro- 
 fess their faith in Christ ; Acts xix. 4, and also their 
 repentance, Luke iii. 3. The baptism of John was 
 the baptism of the gospel. It v/as in practice after 
 ' the beginning of the gospel.' Mark i. 1. It testified 
 of Christ actually come. The Prophets prophesied, 
 and the ceremonial law was in force until John^ Matt, 
 xi. 13. In him they were fulfilled. And in him, of 
 course, the shadows ceased. Hence it is obvious that 
 John's baptism was a New Testament rite. But the 
 baptism of the New Testament "is one," Eph. iv. 5. 
 Therefore the baptism of John and of Christ are the 
 same. Some critics have conceived that they have 
 discovered proofs of John's disciples having again 
 been baptized. But there is no evidence of this in 
 the New Testament. In Acts xix. 1 — 6, the inquiry 
 which St. Paul made of the disciples was not whether 
 they were baptized, but whether * they had received 
 the Holy Ghost' i. e. in his miraculous gifts, since 
 they believed. Water baptism was not the subject of 
 
Ill 
 
 the conference ; and, upon hearing their answer that 
 '■ they had not so much as heard of the outpouring of 
 the Holy Ghosty^ Paul laid his hands upon them and 
 the Holy Ghost came upon them. The 5th verse is 
 not a part of the narrative of St. Luke. It is the con- 
 tinuation of St. Paul's address ; and what his disci- 
 ples did. ' Whe7i they^' the disciples of John, ^ heard 
 ihis^' i. e. .John's doctrine respecting Christ, ' they 
 were baptized,'' i. e. by John, ^ in the name of Christ.'' 
 Tiiis is the opinion of the ablest critics and fathers of 
 the reformation. Turretine on the indentity of the 
 two baptisms, vol. 3, p. 444. Ber. de Moore, vol. v, 
 pp. 396—402: vol. vi. p. 802 ; and on the last point 
 see Tar. iii. p. 448. Beza Marnixius, Coccius, &c. 
 J. Mark, Medul. and Comp. in B. D. Moore, vol. v. 
 p. 401, &-C., who gives Mark's/oz/?' arguments against 
 the anabaptism of John^s disciples. 
 
 Dile?nma 1. 'If the baptism of John was not the 
 baptism of the New Testament, then our Lord was 
 not baptized — and hence he wanted that toward the 
 New Testament church, v/hich, by circumcision, he 
 had toward the Old Testament church. 
 
 2. ' Hence the argument of St. Paul is evaded, One- 
 Lord, one faith, one baptism,' Our Lord had not one 
 of the bonds of union and communion said here to ex- 
 ist between each saint and himself. 
 
 3. ' Hence there can be no meaning in our Lord's 
 words when he came to be baptized. If not of the 
 New Testament, it could not be a part of his right- 
 eousness to be fulfilled.' See also Dr. Lightfoot, vol. 
 1, p. 467." — Dr. Wm. C. Broionlee, work against the 
 religious principles of the Quakers. 
 
 Such is the langaage of the loell informed 'part of 
 the pedobaptist community; and thus clear itis,from 
 reason and revelation, that Christian baptism is the 
 same, whether administered- by John the Baptist, Paul 
 the apostle, or a Christian niinister of the 19th century. 
 
112 
 
 SECTION V. 
 
 The baptism of the Apostles, 
 The Acts of the Apostles, written by Luke, is the 
 first book of Baptist church history, and of course, it 
 is needless to look for any intimations of infant bap- 
 tism here ; for " they baptized only the adult or aged, 
 whether Jews or Gentiles, whereof we have instances 
 in Acts ii,, viii., x., xvi., and xix. ; but as to the bap- 
 tizing of infants, we have no example. As to the 
 manner of baptizing, it was by dipping or plunging 
 into water, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, 
 and of the Holy Ghost, according to the allusions con- 
 tained in Rom, vi. and Col. ii." — Magdeburg Centu- 
 riators. 
 
 The first account of baptism administered, except- 
 ing by John the Baptist, is at John iii. 22 — 26, and iv. 
 1, 2. With reference to these passages, Mr. Sawyer 
 says, paoe 3, that " nothing is said respecting the chil- 
 dren of believers, and the oinission of any notice of 
 them^'^ &c. The next passage noticed by Mr. Sawyer 
 is Acts ii. 37 — 40, by which he thinks infant baptism 
 is sustained ; but he has evidently mistaken the sense 
 of the text in the following particulars. 
 
 1. He wholly mistakes the meaning of the word 
 children^ in the 39th verse ; Tex^ot? js ^ noun derived 
 from the verb 'f^^^'^, and is the dative plural of li^vov. 
 That it does not mean infants, is clear, from the fol- 
 lowing facts. The Greeks have three words which 
 they use with reference to their posterity, ^Q^^posj^i^babe) 
 see Luke i. 41, 44, and Luke ii. 12, 16 ; ^ot^^^ov [child) 
 see Matthew ii. 8, and Johu xxi. 5 ; and ti^vov{son or 
 daughter,) the meaning of which can be learned from 
 those texts where it is used. See Matt. x. 21 : xv. 
 26 : xxi. 28 : Mark vii. 27 : x. 24 : xiii. 12 : Luke i. 17 : 
 ii. 48 : xv. 31 : Acts ii. 39 : v. 21 : 2 Cor. vi. 13 : Eph. 
 ri. 1 : Col. iii. 20 : 1 Thess. ii. 11 : Titus i. 6 : 2 
 
113 
 
 John i. 4. Now every English scholar can see that 
 Mr. Sawyer was mistaken in the meaning of the word, 
 and all learned pedobaptists are against hina. " By 
 rixvoc the Apostle understands, not infants, but children 
 
 or posterity. Whence it appears that the argument 
 
 which is very commonly taken from this passage for 
 the baptism of infants, is of no force, and good for 
 nothing, because it certaiuly departs from the design 
 of Peter." — Limhorch's Comment on Acts ii. 39. 
 
 "If any have made use of that very unconcludent 
 argument, (Acts ii. 39,) I have nothing to say in de- 
 fense of them, I think that the word children there, 
 is really the fosterity of the Jews, and not peculiarly 
 their infant children." — Dr. Hammond's Works. Vol. 
 I, p. 490. 
 
 " The opinion of those who maintain that the Jew- 
 ish rites were adopted every where in the Ghristiaa 
 churches, by order of the apostles or their disciples, 
 is destitute of all foundation." — Moshiem'S Ch. Hist., 
 Part 1, Cha'pt. 4. 
 
 Mr. Sawyer's second error has reference to the 
 promised blessing. He would make it read, "for the 
 promise of baptis?n is to you and your children, "where- 
 as the Spirit's sanctifyin,o; and saving influences are 
 evidently meant. " Considering that the gift of the 
 Spirit had been mentioned just before, it seems most 
 natural to interpret this as a reference to that passage 
 in Joel, which had been so largely cited above, verses 
 17, &C.J where God promised the effusions of the Spir- 
 it on his sons and daughters." — Dr. Doddridge's note 
 on Acts ii. 39. 
 
 " These words will not prove a right of infants to 
 receive baptism, the promise here being that of the 
 Holy Ghov-st, mentioned ver. 16 — 18 ; and so relating 
 to the times of the miraculous effusion of the Holy 
 Ghost, and to those persons who by age were made 
 10* 
 
114 
 
 capable of these extraordinary gifts."— Dr. Whitley, 
 Annot. on Acts ii. 39. 
 
 The third mistake of Mr. Sawyer is that he makes 
 the word call, in the text, to mean simply hearing the 
 gospel preached, p. 7, " all, however remote, to whvm 
 the gospel tnay he preached ;" whereas the word call 
 is used here in the same sense as at Romans viii. 30. 
 "Moreover, whom he did predestinate, them he also 
 called^ and whom he called, them he also justified, and 
 whom he justified, them he also glorified." See also 
 Rom. i. 6 : viii. 28: ix. 24 : 1 Cor. i. 24. " To this 
 general, the following limitation must refer : Even 
 as many of them, as many particular persons in each 
 nation, as the Lord our God shall call effectually into 
 fellowship of Jesus Christ.'^ — Dr. M, Henry, Expos. 
 of Acts ii. 39. 
 
 "Baptism is, as it were, the appendix to faith, and 
 therefore posterior in order ; and then if it be admin- 
 istered without ftuth, of which it is a seal, it is both 
 an injurious and gross profanation." — John Calvin, 
 Comment, on Acts viii. 36. 
 
 I would say it pleasantly, yet I do say it positively y 
 that Mr. Sawyer knew he was not giving the true 
 sense of Acts ii. 37 — 40. Will he baptize all who 
 ever heard him " preach the gospel .?" If not, he con- 
 demns his own theory. 
 
 Mr. Sawyer lays much stress on the three house- 
 hold baptisms, which he names, Acts xvi. 25 — 34, 
 the Jailor, Acts xvi 14—15 Lydia, and 1st Corr. i. 16 
 Stephanas ; but as believing precedes baptism, we 
 shall deviate a little from his course, and inquire firs* 
 for household faith. The^r^^ household of faith thaf 
 we shall mention, is that of Zacharias, Luke i. 5 — 7, 
 " and they were both righteous before God;" the sec- 
 ond is at John iv. 53, "And himself believed, and his 
 whole house ;" the third is at John xi. 5, " Now Jesus 
 
115 
 
 lo/ed Martha and her sister Mary and Lazarus ;" the 
 fourth is that of Cornelius, Acts x. 2, and xi. 14, " A 
 devout man, and one that feared God with all his 
 
 house Thou and all thy house shall be saved." 
 
 " In the first plantation of Christianity among the Gen- 
 tiles, such only as were of full age, after they were in- 
 structed in the principles of the Christian religion, were 
 admitted to baptism." See Wall's Hist, of Infant bap- 
 tism, Vol. 2, Chapt. 2, Sec. 14. 
 
 The fifth, is at Actsxvi. 14—40. "Lydia, a seller 
 of purple, of the city of Thyatira, wliich worshiped 
 
 God and entered into the house of Lydia; and 
 
 when they had seen the brethren, they comforted 
 them." "Whether she was a Jewess or Gentile we 
 know not ; but she and her family being converted 
 to, and baptized in the Christian faith, Paul upon her 
 entreaty, lodged at her house. Acts xvi. 14 — 40." — ^ 
 Brown^s Bible Dictionary, at Lydia. 
 
 " Whose heart the Lord opened ; as she was a sin- 
 cere worshiper of God, she was prepared to recieve 
 the heavenly truths spoken by Paul and his compan- 
 ion ; she believed them, and received them as the doc- 
 trines of God ; and in this faith, she was joined by 
 her whole family, and in it they were all baptized. — 
 Dr. A. Clark's comment on Acts xvi. 
 
 The sixth, is that of the Jailor, Acts xvi. 25 — 34, 
 who " rejoiced, believing in God with all his house ;" 
 '' and was baptized, he and all his." 
 
 " Luke commends the pious zeal of the jailor, be- 
 cause he dedicated his whole house to the Lord, ia 
 which also the grace of God illustriously appeared, 
 because it suddenly brought the whole family to a 
 pious consent." — John Calvin's com^ment on Acts xvi. 
 35—34. 
 
 " There was none in the house that refused to be 
 baptized, and so made a jar in the ceremony; but they 
 were unanimous in embracing the gospel^ w^hich added 
 
116 
 
 much to the joy." — Dr. M. Henry's comment on Acts 
 xvi. 25—34. 
 
 " Receiving instruction embraced this doctrine, and 
 showed the sincerity of their faith by immediately 
 receiving baptism." — Dr. A. Clark's comment on Acts 
 xvi. 25—34. 
 
 The seventh household of faith, is at Acts xviii. 8 ; 
 '•And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believ- 
 ed on the Lord, with all his house." 
 
 The eighth, is that of Acts xviii. 2 — 26 ; "Aquila, 
 born in Pontas, lately come from Italy with his wife 
 PrisciHa- — -whom when Aqiiila and Priscilla had 
 heard, they took him Unto them, and expounded unto 
 him the way of God." 
 
 " They took him (ApoUos) with them to their house 
 and there explained to him the way of God, in a more 
 complete and perfect manner." — Dr. Doddridge's 
 comment on Acts xviii. 26. 
 
 The ninth is at 1 Cor. i. 16: xvi. 15: "And I 
 
 baptized the household of Stephanas ye know the 
 
 house of Stephanos, that it is the first fruits of Achaia, 
 and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry 
 of the saints." 
 
 "And I further beseech you, my brethren, that for 
 as much as ye know the household of Stephanas, that 
 it is the first fruits of Achaia, he and they being 
 among the first that were converted to Christianity in 
 
 all your country this sfeems to imply that it was 
 
 the generous care of the whole family, to assist their 
 fellow Christians; so that there was not a member of 
 it, which did not do his part." — Dr. Doddridge'' s com- 
 ment and note on 1 Cor. xvi. 15. 
 
 Now Mr. Sawyer thinks that three of the above 
 named families were baptized. Well sir, suppose they 
 all were ; did they do more than their duty ? There 
 are now eleven whole households of communicants in 
 the First Baptized Church in this city, which are two 
 
117 
 
 more than we find in the Bible, except there were 
 whole families baptized with the 5000 men, Acts iv. 4. 
 
 Driven to the last extremity, Mr. Sawyer has con- 
 fessed, pp. 2, 3, that there is no scripture precept or ex- 
 ample for infant baptism ; and to gloss his opposite 
 assertions, he attempts to make out a warrant for the 
 practice, with the following beggarly arguments : p. 3, 
 " The incidental manner in which the subject (bap- 
 tism) is referred to, and the brevity of the reference, 
 preclude the mention of infants.'' But v/hy were the 
 Scriptures made so contracted ? It could not have 
 been for the want of ink, paper, or time, that they 
 made but such incidental and limited records of bap- 
 tism ; for the ordinance is spoken of 72 times in the 
 New Testament, and the word infant, including its 
 eorrelatives, occurs 627 times in the Bible. Thus, 
 child 81 times, children 391, sucklings 7, babe 13, in- 
 fants 5, offspring 11, seed 119 ; and in each of these 
 627 places, the subject matter of record is of less im- 
 portance than Mr. Sawyer makes infant baptism, when 
 he says, p. 19, " The blessings of that covenant (of 
 grace) qxq forfeited by a neglect to practice infant bap- 
 tism." 
 
 It is a reasonable thought, that in the hundreds of 
 instances where these words are used, even chants 
 would have thrown infant and baptism together, had 
 not design kept them asunder; but no such instance 
 occurs. When children are meant to be included in 
 commands, or the narration of facts, they are expressly 
 mentioned. See Deut. ii. 34: xxxi. 12: 1st Sam. 
 XV. 3 : xxii. 19 : Est. iii. 13 : viii. 11 : Jer. xl. 7 : Matt. 
 X. 21 : xiv. 21. But where children are not included 
 they are not mentioned. See Ex. xxxv. 22 : Acts i. 
 14: V. U: viii. 3—12 : ix. 2 : xiii. 50: xvii. 4— 12: 
 xxii. 4. Had Luke been a pedobaptist, he would have 
 said, Acts viii. 12, " They were baptized, both men 
 and women," (and children,) and the brevity of the re • 
 
118 
 
 fereace would not have prevented, if the Holy Ghost 
 had thus dictated. It is therefore obvious, that God 
 has immutably separated the words infant and baptism. 
 
 Another of Mr. Sawyer's arguments is, pp. 18, 19, 
 that God gave to Jewish infants the rite of circumcis- 
 ion, therefore there must be a corresponding rite to 
 our inmnts. " But for that idnd of arguing, ihat God 
 has been wanting tons in his institutions, if he has not 
 instituted this or that, and therefore he has instituted 
 it, i leave to those whose conclusions need it ; very 
 much desiring them to consider what a cause that 
 must be, which drives them to such hold reasonings 
 as these are." — Dr. Claggefs 'preservative against 
 Popery, Title 7, p. 93. 
 
 Another of Mr. Sawyer's arguments is this. Page 
 6, " Faith is the duty of adults, not of infants, there- 
 fore the want of it in the case of the latter cannot lay 
 them under any moral disabilities, or be any obstacle 
 to their baptism." " I reply, neither were the Jews 
 forbidden to circumcise females. Besides, we are not 
 expressly forbidden to baptize unbelievers, nor our 
 meeting houses and bells ; but will it do hence to bap- 
 tize them. Surely this kind of reasoning will not do." 
 — J. Chadwlck on hapt. p. 128. 
 
 Another of his arguments is, page 4, " The rule ob- 
 served in respect to infants, whether in favor of baptiz- 
 ing them or not, and many other things relative to 
 baptism, not expressly recorded, were no doubt clearly 
 explained by Christ, and perfectly understood at the 
 time by his disciples ; these primitive explanations are 
 now lost.^^ 
 
 "This has always appeared to me, ground, hardly 
 consistent with manly fairness and candor, and calcu- 
 lated to enfeeble rather than strengthen ; to expose to 
 a sneer, rather than reccommend to acceptance, the 
 cause it is meant to support." — Dr. Wardlaw on 
 Bapt.f p. 19. 
 
119 
 
 When Capt. Syms declared that this earth was hol- 
 lo vr, and inhabited inside as well as out, if he had been 
 informed that this account of the world was not re- 
 corded in the Bible, we presume he would have said, 
 ail these things " were no doubt clearly explained by 
 Christ, and perfectly understood by Moses ; but these 
 primitive explanations are now lost.''^ 
 
 It may satisfy the ignorant, to tell them that the 
 New Testament is so brief a work, that the Holy Spirit 
 could not mention infants in the 72 instances where it 
 speaks of baptism ; or that the law of infant baptism 
 was undoubtedly given, but is noio lost. But men of 
 erudition must look upon such statements, as a bur- 
 lesque on common sense. What Romish tradition, 
 what heresy could we not support in this way. Isa. 
 viii.20. 
 
 Pedobaptists formerly plead, that their children 
 were holy, and therefore ought to be baptized; (Pres- 
 byterian confession of faith, p. 336,) but this argument 
 IS becoming stale and obsolete. However, it is well 
 to notice the texts of Scripture which they have urged 
 to prove their doctrine. Rom. xi. 16, " If the root be 
 holy, so are the branches." The argument made 
 from this text and its connexion, is briefly this. Be- 
 cause we^ the root, are holy, our children^ the branches 
 are holy, and because our children are holy, they 
 ought to be baptized. But still, they do not admit 
 these holy baptized infant church memhers to the 
 Lord's Supper, and other church privileges ; evident- 
 ly making a difference which the Apostle strictly for- 
 bids at Rom. X. 12 : Gal. iii. 26—29. *' For there is 
 
 no difference^ &c. For as many as have been 
 
 baptized into Christ, have put on Christ ; there is nei- 
 ther Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there 
 is neither male nor female ; for ye are all one in Christ 
 Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's 
 seed, and heirs according to the promise." 
 
120 
 
 The other text urged to this end, is I Cor. vii. 14. 
 " The unbelieving husband, is sanctified by the wife ; 
 and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband. 
 Else were your children unclean ; but now are they 
 holy." To plead that holiness is generated with our 
 being, is to overthrow the doctrine of regeneration, and 
 stands opposed to Gen. vi. 5 — 12 : Psa. li. 5 : Job 
 liv. 4 : Psa. Iviii. 3 : Isa. xlviii. 8 : Rom. iii. 10 — 18 : 
 John iii. 3 — 10: Rom. v. 12. "As by one man sin 
 entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death 
 passed upon all men. for that all have sinned" — " All 
 
 are born with a sinful nature there has never 
 
 been one instance of an immaculate human soul, since 
 the fall of Adam. Through his transgression all come 
 into the world with the seeds of death and corruption 
 in their own nature ; all are sinful — all are mortal — 
 all must die." — Dr. A. Clark^s comment on Bom. v. 
 12, 13. 
 
 "Original sin is the fault and corruption of the na- 
 ture of every man, and therefore, in every person born 
 into this world, itdeserveth God's wrath." — Church of 
 Eng. Conf. of Faith, Art. 9. 
 
 " Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam. 
 (as the Pelagians do vainly talk,) but it is the corrup- 
 tion of the nature of every m,an, that naturally is 
 engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby man is 
 very far gone from original righteousness, and of his 
 own nature inclined to evil, and that continually." — 
 Epis. Meth. Disc. Art. of Rel. 7. 
 
 But if the infants of believers were really sinless, 
 there is no better authority for baptizing them, than, 
 " The infants of one or both believing parents are to 
 be baptized, and these only." — Sayhrook Platform, 
 ehapt. 29, sec. 4. 
 
 "I think Dr. Reynolds, in his meditations on the 
 Lord's Supper, has summarily exposed the common 
 judgment of Calvinists in these strong lines of his. 
 
121 
 
 The sacrament is but a seal of the covenant, and the 
 covenant essentially includes conditions, and the con- 
 dition on our part is faith. No faith, no covenant ; 
 no covenant, no seal ; no seal, no sacrament. — Pres. 
 Edwards'' Works, vol. 4, p. 435. 
 
 In view of these facts, if your minister says you 
 should have your children baptized because they are 
 in the covenant, just ask him what covenant. 
 
 " We can not allow that baptized infants wheth- 
 er sanctified or unsanctified, belong to the visible 
 church ; for 1, they can not belong to it by virtue of 
 their own act, for they can neither make nor accept 
 any proposals ; 2, they can not belong to it by virtue 
 of their parents' act ; believing parents can not cove- 
 nant with God for them , (and) in stating the 
 
 nature of covenanting, we have endeavored to prove 
 that it lies not within the province of Divine soveriegnty 
 to take any of the human race into covenant, without 
 their own personal knowledge and consent." — Dr, 
 Ewjmon's work, and Mather''s Magfialia, p. 19. 
 
 By examining the following references, the candid 
 inquirer will be fully satisfied that infant baptism 
 makes no part of Divine record. 
 
 1. John's baptism ; Matt. iii. 1 — 16 : xxi. 25 : 
 Mark i. 1—6 : xi 31—33 : Luke iii. 3—22 : xx. 4 
 —8 : John i. 28—31 : Acts i. 5—22 : x. 37: xiii. 24 : 
 xviii. 25 : xix. 1 — 7. 
 
 2. The baptism of Jesus Christ ; Matt. iii. 13—17; 
 Mark i. 9-11 : Luke iii. 21, 22 : John i. 32-34. 
 
 3. Christ baptizing by his disciples in Judea ; John 
 iii. 22-26: iv. 1-3. 
 
 4. John's last baptizing in Enon ; John iii. 23. 
 
 5. An account of John's success ; Luke vii. 29, 30. 
 
 6. Christ's sufferings, represented under the figure 
 of baptism ; Matt. xx. 22, 23 : Luke xii. 50. 
 
 7. Our Lord's commission ; Matt, xxviii. 18-20 ; 
 Mark xvi. 15, 16. 
 
 II 
 
122 
 
 8. Baptism at the Pentecost; Acts ii. 37-42. 
 
 9. Phillip's baptizing; Acts viii. 12, 13. 
 
 10. The eunuch's baptism ; Acts viii. 36-39. 
 
 11. The baptism of St. Paul ; Acts ix. 17, 18 : xxii. 
 16 : Rom. vi. 3-5. 
 
 12. The baptism of Cornelius and friends: Acts 
 X. 37-48. 
 
 13. The baptism of Lydia and her household : Acta 
 xyi. 13-15. 
 
 14. Baptism of the jailer and his household ; Acts 
 xvi. 29-34. 
 
 15. Paul's baptizing at Corinth ; Acts xviii. 8 : 
 1 Cor. i. 13-17: xvi. 15. 
 
 16. Instances where the word is used, from which 
 some light may be gathered. Col. ii. 12 : Eph. iv. 6 : 
 1 Cor. xii. 13: xv. 29: Gal. iii. 27: Heb. vi. 1, 2: 
 1 Cor. X. 1, 2 : 1 Peter iii. 20, 21. 
 
 And to assist the reader while he investigates the 
 sacred Scriptures, we will lay before him some com- 
 ments from the most eminent pedohaptist divines. 
 
 " It is evident from the addresses of the different 
 inspired Epistles, what manner of persons they were, 
 who ought to have been received and retained as mem- 
 bers. They are beloved of God ; called to be saints ; 
 sunctified in Christ Jesus ; saints and faithful in 
 Christ Jesus. Such as had obtained the like preciou.s 
 faith with the Apostles. — Rom. i. 7 : Eph. i. 1 : 2 Pe- 
 ter i.l, <fec." — Wardlaw on bapt. p. 145. 
 
 "All traces of infant baptism which one will find 
 in the New Testament, must first be put into it. Our 
 creeds treat of it, wathout regard to history, and at- 
 tempt to justify it in itself. But the manner in which 
 they do it is unsatisfactory, and upon grounds that 
 essentially destroy each other." — Schl€iermacher*g 
 Theology, p. 383. 
 
 ^' Regeneration is the thing, without which, a lille 
 
123 
 
 to the sacraments is not to be pretended." — Cotton 
 Mather^ in Backus' Ch. hist. vol. 2, p. 1, 2. 
 
 " Formerly no person was brought to the holy baptism 
 till he was of adult age, and when he both understood 
 what that mystical water meant, and desired to be 
 washed in it." — Litdovicus Vives^ com., Lib. 1, 
 ehapt. 27. 
 
 "All attempts to make out infant baptism from the 
 New Testament, fail. It is totally opposed to the 
 spirit of the Apostolic ao^e, and to the fundamental 
 principles of the New Testament." — Prof. Lange's 
 work on hapt. p. 101. 
 
 " The primitive church did not baptize infants, and 
 the learned Grotius proves it in his Annotations on 
 the Gospels." — Stemiett''s answer to Russen, p. 188. 
 
 "Rheinhard, Morus, and Doderlein, say infant bap- 
 tism is not to be found in the Bible." — Bretschnei- 
 der's Theology, vol. 2, p. 758. 
 
 " Tt cannot be proved by the sacred Scriptures, that 
 infant baptism was instituted by Christ, or begun by 
 the first Christians after the Apostles." — M. Luther in 
 Booth Pedo. exam. Vol. 2, p. 4. 
 
 '•Baptism obligates a man to a Christian life ; But 
 how can one who is unconscious, (an infant,) obligate 
 himself to anything." — Hase^s Theology, p. 449. 
 
 " The baptism then used by John, and Christ's dis- 
 ciples, was only the baptism of repentance, and faith 
 in the Messiah which was for to come : (Acts xix. 4,) of 
 both which, infants were incapable."- — Whitby's An- 
 no, on Matt. xix. 13, 14. 
 
 " There is not a single example to be found in the 
 New Testament, where infants were baptized." — 
 Starke'' s hist, of infant bapt. p. 11. 
 
 '• Children are not expressly mentioned in the com 
 mand to baptize, or in the accounts of baptisms, con- 
 tained in the New Testament." — Dr. Wood^s Led. on 
 bapt., p. 107. 
 
124 
 
 "Christian baptism can be given only to adults, not 
 to infants. — Prof, hinder on the Supper^ p. 123. 
 
 " As to the baptism of infants, it is a mere human 
 tradition, for which neither precept nor practice is to 
 be found in all the Scriptures." — R, Barklay ( Qua- 
 ker) Apology^ p. 409. 
 
 "A Congregational church, is by the institution of 
 Christ, a part of the militant visible church, consisting 
 of a company of saints hy callings united in one 
 
 body by an holy covenant. The things which 
 
 are requisite to he found in all church members^ are 
 repentance from sin, and faith in Jesus Christ.''^ 
 Cambridge Platform, chapt. 2, sect. 6, and chapt. 12, 
 sec. 2. 
 
 " The visible church of Christ, is a congregation 
 of faithful men, in which the pure word of God is 
 preached, and the sacraments duly administered ac- 
 cording to Christ's ordinance." Epis, Meth. disci. 
 Art. of Relig. 13. 
 
 The above rather disproves infant church member- 
 ship. As infant baptism is not a Bible doctrine, when 
 was it originated ? 
 
 To show this, we will notice the church which in- 
 vented it. Dr. Moshiem says, " The greatest part of 
 the Christians who lived in Palestine, to prevent their 
 being confounded with the Jews, abandoned entirely 
 the Mosaic rites, and chose a bishop named Mark, a 
 foreigner by nation. This step was highly shock- 
 ing to those whose attachment to the Mosaic rites was 
 
 violent. These, therefore separated themselves 
 
 from the brethren, and formed at Pera, a country of 
 Palestine, and in the neighboring parts, particular as- 
 semblies, in which the law of Moses maintained its 
 primitive dignity, authority and luster. TPiis body 
 oi Judaizing Christians, which set Moses and Christ 
 upon equal foot in point of authority, was afterwards 
 divided into two sects distinguished by the namds 
 
125 
 
 of Nazarenes and Ebionites. They (Ebionites) 
 
 moreover asserted that the ceremonial law instituted 
 by Moses was not only obligatory upon the Jews, but 
 also upon all others^ and that the observance of it was 
 
 essential to salvation. They went still farther, 
 
 and received with an equal degree of veneration the 
 superstitions of their ancestors, and the ceremonies 
 and traditions which the Pharisees presumptuously 
 
 added to the law. Cerdo the Cyrian, and Marcion 
 
 the son of the bishop of Pontus, belonged to the Asiat- 
 ic sect, though they began to establish their doctrine 
 
 at Rome. Yalentine -his sect, which took its 
 
 rise in Rome, grew up to a state of consistency and 
 vigor, in the isle of Cyprus, and spread itself through 
 Asia, Africa, and Europe. These were succeed- 
 ed by one in which ignorance reigned, and which 
 was the mortal enemy of philosophy and letters, ft 
 was formed by Montanus, an obscure man, without 
 capacity or strength of judgment, and who lived in a 
 Phrigian village called Pepiiza. This weak man 
 was foolish and extravagant enough to take it into his 
 head that he was the Paraclete or Comforter which the 
 
 Divine Savior promised to send to his disciples." 
 
 — Moshiem^s Ch. Hist. cent. 2, part 2, chapt. 3 — 5. 
 
 This Pepuzian branch of the Ebionite Gnostics, 
 continued to exist as a little corrupt church, and in A. 
 D. 204, v/e find it conducted by several prophetesses, 
 or female bishops^ of whom (iuintillia was chief; 
 hence they were commonly called Q,uintillianists : 
 but they denominated themselves Artotyrites, (bread 
 and cheese eaters.) It was in this church, and at 
 this time, that children's baptism was invented, and it 
 was this Q,uintillia, who wrote to Tertulian, inquiring 
 if children could not be baptized on condition they 
 asked for it, and brought proper sponsers. Tertuli- 
 an's reply, which was in the negative^ forms a tract of 
 less than six folio pages, (See Tertulian on baptism, 
 11* 
 
126 
 
 chapter 18, ag'ainst Q,uintillia,) and it is very evident 
 that these children were not mere infontSj but young 
 people; for Q^uintillia represents them as asking for 
 baptism; and Tertu'ian in reply recommends that 
 they be classed with widows and other unmarried v/o- 
 men, and kept on trial till they give full evidence of 
 piety, before they come to baptism. We hear nothing 
 more of this Pepuzian doctrine, for about half a ccn- 
 tiiry* However, it might have been practiced in 
 some few cases among the poor Africans in this sect 
 ^ of gnostics ; for in A. D. 253, one Fidus, an ignorant 
 African, inquired of Cyprian, the bishop of Carthage^ 
 if children might be baptized be?bre they were eight 
 days old. And this is the ^r^/f Airi^ of infant baptism 
 that can be found in all the records in the universe^ 
 whether inspired or uninspired, Cyprian submitted 
 the question of Fidus to a council convened at Car- 
 thage, A. D. 253, and that assembly decided that in- 
 fants might be baptized, not for reasons which pedo- 
 baptists now plead, but because an infant is equal to 
 a ?nan. Their decree is as follovv^s ; " Did not Eli- 
 sha lay upon a child, and put bis month upon liis 
 mouth, and his eyes upon his eyes, and his hands 
 upon his hands ; now the spiritual sense of this is^ 
 that infants are equal to men. But if you refuse to 
 baptize them, you d'estroy this equality, and are par- 
 tial." — Cf/p. Epist. 66, ad Fidum. 
 
 From this time and circiimstance, we admit that 
 infant baptism began to s^rv^^c'l in the Roman Catho- 
 lic churches in Africa, but Vv-hether female bishops 
 were multiplied to take care of them, history saith not. 
 
 To sustain the practice," some' liave quoted the 
 words of Irenaus, Lib. 2, 22, 4, '' Christ came to save 
 all persons by himself, all J say who are renascuntur 
 in Deum^ (rea:enerated unto God.) infants and little 
 ones, and children and youths, and elder persons." 
 If Irenaus meant baptisna by reaascunturj and thus 
 
127 
 
 said that Christ came to save all who are ba'piized, 
 he was too great a heretic to be quoted. But if he 
 meant by it regeneration, which is ihe fact , then his 
 words have no reference to baptism. 
 
 They have also quoted the v/ords of Justin Martyr; 
 " There were many of both sexes, some sixty, some 
 seventy years old, who were made disciples to Christ 
 etc Ttaiduiv from their childhood. The word he uses is 
 i(m6r,Teo0i](f(xv, they were proselyted or made disciples. 
 
 As the phrase an naidcov may relate to children 
 
 who have come to years of understanding as well as to 
 infants, I am satisfied on a review of tne testimony of 
 Justin, that it can not well be urged as conclusive in 
 fovor of pedobaptism." — Wardlaio on bapt., p. 112. 
 
 '• The defenders of infant baptism, attempt to prove 
 it from Justin Martyr and Irenaus ; but neither of 
 them say what is attributed to them." — tStarcPc's hist, 
 of bapt,, p. 50. 
 
 " All the arguments put together, do not prove 
 that renasci in Deuni means, to be baptized." — Ross- 
 lers Library of Christian, Fathers, vol. 1, p. 11. 
 
 " The imm.ediate occasion of infant baptism, it can- 
 not be denied, was extravagant ideas of its necessity 
 to salvation." — Dresslefs doctrine of the Sacraments j 
 p. 137. 
 
 " For this cause, the church has received a tradi- 
 tion from the Apostles, even to give baptism unto in- 
 fants." — Origen^s coin, ad Roman, Lib. ^^fol. 178. 
 
 " Origen's words in that age, cannot have much 
 weight, for whatever was regarded as important, was 
 alleged to come from the Apostles." — Dr. Neandefs 
 Ch. hist., vol. 1, part 2, p. 367. 
 
 '' Those Latin works we have, are translated by 
 Rafinus and others with so much liberty, that it is a 
 difficult matter to discern what is Origen's, from what 
 has been foisted in by interpreters." — Du Pin^ voM^j 
 p. 108. "" 
 
128 
 
 This is the kind of testimony that pedobaptists at- 
 tempt to sustain themselves with, after they have con- 
 fessed that there is no scripture to prove infant baptism. 
 While they esteem the traditions and assertions of 
 Roman Catholics of this age as most fabulous and ri- 
 diculous, how can they go back to the darkest ages of 
 Romish superstitions, and credit their falsehoods? Can 
 this end of the same stick be rotten bass wood, and 
 that end be sound hickory? But it is in proof that 
 infant baptism did not prevail, even in the Romij^h 
 church, till long after Cyprian's council, for, 
 
 It is abundantly evident, that many persons who 
 were born of Christirm parents, and educated in tha 
 Christian faith, were not baptized until they came to 
 adult years, and made a personal profession. 
 
 Helena the mother of Constantine, was a very de- 
 vout and zealous Christian, yet he was not baptized 
 upon her faith. Nor did he dedicate his own childrra 
 to God in baptism by virtue of his faith : for we are in- 
 formed by Socrates, that his son Constantius, who suc- 
 ctided his father in the empire, Vv^ as baptized by Euzo- 
 ius when he was preparing for his expedition against 
 Juiianus, and immediately after ended his life at Mop- 
 sucrenia twenty-five years after the death of his father. 
 — Eccl. Hist. Lib. 2, chapt. 47. 
 
 Basil; the son of Basil, Bishop of Nicene, was bap- 
 tized in Jordan when far advanced in years. 
 
 Gregory the great, the son of Gregor^^, bishop of 
 Nazianzen, was born while his father was bishop, and 
 yet not baptized until he was twenty, some say thirty, 
 years old. See Osander's book. Cent. iv. L. 3, and Rob- 
 inson's Hist. p. 250. 
 
 Grotius says, that Chrysostom was born of believ- 
 ing parents, and was educated by Melitius, a bishop, 
 yet not baptized till the age of twenty-one. 
 
 Erasmus testifies, that Jerom was born in the city 
 of Stridon, of Christian parents, was brought up iu 
 
129 
 
 the Christian religion, and was baptized in the thirti- 
 eth year of his age. 
 
 Vossius affirms, that Nectarius was chosen bishop of 
 Constantinople before he was baptized. 
 
 Theodosius, the emperor, was born in Spain ; his 
 parents were both Christians, and from his childhood 
 had been trained up in the Nicene faith ; was bap- 
 tized at Thessalonica by Achalio,when he was upwards 
 of thirty years old, — Vide Junius, Junior^ p. 68. Roh. 
 p. 250, Eccl. Hist. Lib. v. Cliap. vi. 
 
 Add to this the fact, that in the 3d, 4th, and 5th 
 centuries, there were large and numberless schools of 
 catechumen, (the children of church members.) who 
 were under a course of instruction preparing for bap- 
 tism, and that as infant baptism increased, catecheti- 
 cal schools vanished ; and the evidence is incontro- 
 vertable, that infant baptism was not practiced by the 
 Apostolic churches, or those which immediately suc- 
 ceeded them. 
 
 *'All the earlier traces of infant baptism are very 
 nncertain. Tertulian is the first who mentions ii, 
 and he censuresvit." — Von Coin, vol. 1, p. 469. 
 
 " The first traces of infant baptism are found in the 
 Western church, after the middle of the second centu- 
 ry." — -Rkie aw aid's works, p. 313. 
 
 "In the first two centuries, no documents are found 
 which clearly show the existence of infant baptism at 
 that time." — Matkies on bapt., p. 187. 
 
 Dr. Neander says, " It was only in the course of 
 the third century, that infant baptism was acknow- 
 ledged as au Apostolic institution." — Judd^s reply to 
 Stewart, p. 19S. 
 
 "Neither in the Scriptures, nor during the first 
 hundred and fifty years, is a sure example of infant 
 baptism to be found, and we must concede that the 
 numerous opposers of it can not be contradicted on 
 gospel ground." — Prof. Hahn^s Theology, p. 556. 
 
130 
 
 It is thus clear, that all the writers of the first and 
 second centuries, inspired and uninspired, speak of a 
 believer as the only subject, and of immersion as the 
 only baptism. In the third century infant baptism 
 was introducedjbut only in certain cases ; tliat Jerome, 
 Athanasius, Epiphanius, the Council of Laodicea, of 
 Niocesaria, in the fourth century ; Chrysostom, Faus- 
 tus, Regiensis, and Evegrius in the fifth ; Gregory and 
 the Council of Agatha in the sixth ; the Bracaren's 
 Council, and that of Toletanus, Paulinus, and his as- 
 sociates in England, in the seventh; Bede, Haime, the 
 Council of Paris, and that of Laodicea, in the eighth ; 
 Rabanus and Albinus in the ninth : Smaragdo in the 
 teuth, Anslem, the Waldenses and Albigenses. Peter de 
 Bruis and his numerous associates in the eleventh ; 
 Alburtus Magnus, Thomas Aquinas in the twelfth ; 
 Jacob Merningus records that many in Poland, Lora- 
 biirdy, Germany, and Holland in the thirteenth ; Car- 
 ious, bishop of Meyland, the Thaborites, and many Bo- 
 far^.aii.ins in the fourteenth ; the Hungarians and Wal- 
 denses in their confession of fi\ith, A. D. 1521 and hosts 
 ill the IGth century have advocated the Baptists' sen- 
 timents and practice. 
 
 When thus completely driven off from both Bible 
 and hisiory.the last resort of the pedobaptists is, to plead 
 that infant baptism is a church custom, ond as it does 
 HO harm, it is well enough to practice it ; but we reply, 
 it IS not harmless, for, 
 
 1. It is a mere act of will worship, which is po^i- 
 tirely forbidden, Gol. ii. 11—23 : Isa. i. 12, 13 : Malt. 
 xy. 3 — 9 : John xv. 14 : 2 John 6. 
 
 2. It destroys believers baptism, and should infant 
 baptism universally prevail, believers baptism could 
 CO lono:er exist. 
 
 3. However sincerely and devotionally some parents 
 may offer their children in baptism, it is evident, that 
 with the 'priests^ the whole fabric of infant baptism is 
 
131 
 
 a mere proselyting scheme. They sprinkle infants, 
 and call them church members, that when they are 
 converted they may the more effectually resist their 
 uniting with any other church. But should I put a 
 pen into the hand of an unconscious babe, and move 
 that hand to sign a legal quitclaim to its temporal in- 
 terests, would that be an honest conveyance? No 
 more does the priest's or parent's act of sprinkling, 
 destroy the convert's claim to believers baptism. 
 
 4. Baptism is said to be, 1 Peter iii. 21, •' The an- 
 swer of a^ood conscience towards God." But infant 
 baptism destroys all this. 1. The minister knows he 
 is acting without the least divine authority ; therefore 
 he can have no good conscience toward God in the 
 act. 2. The infant is totally unconscious. 3. And 
 a s^reat majority of the parents act, one to please the 
 other, or both to please the clergyman, while they are 
 wholly indifferent or totally opposed. 
 
 5. The legitimate result of the practice is to make 
 invidious distinctions in the same family, or baptize 
 unbelievers. Suppose a family of ten unconverted 
 children from the age of one to twenty years. The 
 parent is converted and unites with the church. Now 
 if none of these children are baptized and joined to 
 the church, then the law of the church is broken ; if 
 all are baptized, &c., then the law of God is broken ; 
 if a part only is to be baptized, who will draw the line 
 of separation. I could relate facts, arising from such 
 dilemmas, too shocking^ to publish. 
 
 6. "It goes to establish the sword of contention m 
 
 the same house not long since and not far from 
 
 where the author lives, (Rochester N. Y.) a respecta- 
 ble member of the church, went to his wife in the coa- 
 gregation, for the purpose of getting his child from 
 her arms to have it baptized ; but she had such a 
 Hiigfhty conscieHce upon the subject, that she obstinately 
 
132 
 
 refused to give it up, and her husband had the morti- 
 fication of a defeat." — E. House on hapt. p. 74. 
 
 7. " The adoption of the plan of infant church mem- 
 bership under the gospel, is attended with another dif- 
 ficulty, viz : it naturally leads to the membership of 
 the wife upon the faith of her husband, as well as of 
 the children ; for in the Jewish church the member- 
 ship of the former was as fully determined as that of 
 the latter ; the husband, if a native Jew, was in the 
 church with his whole family ; if a proselyte, he en- 
 tered with his whole flimily, wife, children and ser- 
 vants. This is too evident to be denied." — Chaduick 
 on bapt.j p. 133. 
 
 " Let every parent who has presented his child to 
 God in baptism, bear this in mind, whether he intend- 
 ed it or not, he did in that act, openly declare the 
 Lord to be his God, and acknowledge himself bound 
 to obey all of God's commands. Can he after this, re- 
 fuse to sit down to the Lord's table?" — W. T. HoTn- 
 ilton on hapt., p. 110. 
 
 8. However desirable Christian union is, those who 
 practice infant baptism are the immediate cause of 
 existing divisions in the church of God ; and while 
 they know that the true church can not fellowship pe- 
 dobaptism, yet they will not abandon it, that we may 
 unite. Rom. xvi. 17 : 1 Cor. i. 10 : iii. 3 : xi. 18, 19. 
 
 9. The Roman Catholics are making fearful inroads; 
 yet pedobaptist opposition is powerless, for when they 
 attempt to prove the falacy of purgatory, prayers for 
 the dead, holy water, image worship, prayers to the 
 saints, infant communion, the sign of the cross, exor- 
 <#ism, salt, spittle, Peter pence, indulgences, auricu- 
 lar (Confession, <fec., the papists uniformily, and justly 
 reply, we have as much Bible for each and all of 
 these, as yOu have for infant baptism ; and our "Saints 
 and Fathers whom you quote as sound authority^, 
 
133 
 
 show that all of the above came from the Apostles, 
 and were in practice as early as pedobaptism. 
 
 10. Finally, as there are no directions in the Bible 
 respecting infant baptism, each one makes his own 
 rules. Hence the schisms and dissensions among 
 the defenders of it. One says it ought to be adminis- 
 tered only to the children of believers; another says 
 it may be given to children when but one of the pa- 
 rents is a professor; a third says, it may be adminis- 
 tered on the faith of the grandfather ; a fourth says it 
 may be given to any infant, if sponsors will appear for 
 it; a fifth, says that all infants are born holy, there- 
 fore they should be baptized irrespective of parents or 
 eponsors. Some say that baptism saves the infant's 
 soul ; others deny this. Some say that Roman Cath- 
 olic baptism is valid, others will rebaptize them. Some 
 say that infants should be baptized, because they are 
 members of the church ; others say they should be 
 baptized to make them church members ; and these, 
 as every man of reading knows, are but an index to the 
 angry and endless debates, which arise from infant 
 baptism. " Thus saith the Lord, stand ye in the 
 ways and see ; and ask for the old paths, where is 
 the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find 
 rest for your soiils^ — Jeremiah vi. 16. 
 
 While it is thus evident that infant sprinkling is 
 not an institution of heaven, nor a means of grace, 
 and therefore not to be practiced ; we would exhort 
 you to dedicate your children to God by solemn 
 prayer and Christian instruction, according to the New- 
 Testament; and in view of an approaching judgment, 
 and the worth of their souls, we would intreat you 
 to labor early and faithfully for their salvation. 
 
 12 
 
134 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 THE ACTION OF BAPTISM. 
 
 SECTION I . 
 
 Prepositions. 
 
 Mr. Sawyer says that hg ano ex iv have power to 
 change j^aTTTw into %i(o lovco QttvTit,a) ; his argument in 
 plain English is this : the prepositions out. from, in, 
 into, have power to change the verb dip, into dip, 
 pour, wash, or sprinkle. To prove that ^utitm iig ( dip 
 intOj) means dip into, he quotes from the Septuagint 
 Lev. iv. 6 : ix. 9: xiv. 6 : and he might have added 
 from the New Testament, Matt, xxviii. 19: Mark i. 9: 
 Acts viii. 16—38 : Acts xix. 3—5 : ICor. xii. 13. 
 
 Mr. S. says, page 3 — 17, " that ano does not mean?» 
 and out o/, but fro?3i and ivith. Hence when this prep- 
 osition follows the verb ^ann'co) it shows that the liquid 
 employed, is used in some other way than by dip- 
 ping." To prove that ano does not mean out ofj he 
 quotes Matt. iii. 16. '-Jesus when he was baptized 
 went up straightway ano {out of) the water." Mark 
 i. 10; "Jesus was baptized of John in Jordan, and 
 straightway coming up ano out of the water." But if 
 these passages prove any thing, they prove Mr. Saw- 
 yer sadly mistaiven. To show that ano does not mean 
 in, and that it even has power to change (ianmt, dip, 
 into sprinkle, he quotes four texts from the Septua- 
 gint, in which he says the word ^aniM is followed by 
 OTTO. Ex. xii. 22, " And ye shall take a bunch of hys- 
 
 sop xat ^aipavTig ano lov aifiaTOU.aud dip it in the blood.** 
 Lev. IV. 17, ^^aai ^uip6i> 6 *t60ivg tov daiCTvXop ano lov ai/uaTOg^ 
 
 and the priest shall c//*/; his finger?!?/, [some] of the blood.* 
 
 Lev. xiv. 16, '' xai ^aipst TOV daxTvXov top deploy ano ttw 
 
 sXawu, and the priest shall dip his right finger in the 
 oil." Deut. xxxiii. 24, " ^a^e» ev eXauu tov noda avu» 
 
135 
 
 dip his foot in oil." It is obvious that ^aipsi is not 
 followed by ano in Deut. xxxiii. 24, but by sv] hence 
 this text is not only nnisrepresented, but misquoted, 
 and in the other three, the inviolate ujeaning of ^aTtrw 
 dip, is preserved, and ano rendered in : and it is a sin- 
 gular fact, that at Lev. xiv. 15, 16, the three words 
 pour, dip and sprinkle occur in succession, to describe 
 three distinct acts of the same service; thus showing 
 their contradistinction in Hebrew and Greek, as well 
 as in Enolish. We presume Mr. Sawyer made the 
 best selection he could, yet so far from disproving in>- 
 mersion, he has altoirether sustained it ; for the six 
 texts quoted by him read, -'dip in, dip in, dip in, dip 
 in, went up out of the water, coming up out of the wa- 
 ter." 
 
 Mr. Sawyer has made equally wretched work with 
 «» and si>. (See his Critical Dissertation, p. 14 
 —17.) He assures us that ev means a^or v)ith ; hence 
 baptizing sv toodavrivund sv vdait, means bei^Uziug with 
 Jordon, and baptizing ai water. But as he admits, p. 
 3, that the meaning of (SWrt^w is to dip, it must be ob- 
 vious to every reader, that dipping with Jordan, and 
 dipping at water, is as foreign from scripture language, 
 as it is from common sense. To reply in particulai 
 to each of Mr. Sawyer's errors, would swell this vol- 
 ame beyond its design ; therefore we say, the English 
 language has about fifty preposi«tions, to each of which 
 have been given from five to thirty different mean- 
 ings, and the law of languages allows the use of one 
 preposition for another. Thus, " I lodge at the City 
 Hotel. That is, I lodge in, not in the street by the 
 side of the Hotel." The Greeks have but eighteen 
 prepositions. ft is therefore more necessary that otie 
 should often be changed for another, and that each 
 should be used in several varieties. Still, every pre- 
 position has its appropriate use. The primary mean- 
 iug of B7C is oui of; but it has five other meanings ; •r 
 
136 
 
 is irij but it has eleven other meanings ; cig means into^ 
 yet it has eleven others. Still, all grammarians say 
 that each preposition has but one primary meaning, 
 into which all the other significations arising from 
 figurative or analogical relations may be resolved. 
 
 But as Mr. Sawyer prefers deciding the meaning of 
 words by the inspired text, (see p. 2,) we will examine 
 a few chapters of the Septuagint, where baptism is not 
 the subject matter of discourse. Genesis i. 1: sv oq^j 
 ^^in, not near to the beginning ;" verse 11, " Whose 
 seed is ev avico, in, not at or near by ;" verse 12, '-Whose 
 seed was ev avxm^ in^ not at itself:'' verse 14, "And 
 God said. Let there be lights ev tw uieqbifiaii^ i?i, not ai 
 the firmament. It is true that our translators have 
 rendered ev with, at Matt. iii. 11: Mark i. 8: and a 
 few other places ; and it is equally true, that in doing 
 «o they have taken the twelfth meaning instead of its 
 primary. Gen. vii. 1 : Come thou and all thy house 
 Big rt]v xif^ujwv^ i?ito, not on or bi/ the ark. Psa. ix. 17 : 
 The wicked shall be turned etg, into, not ai or near 
 by hell. Pro v. iii. 4 : Who hath ascended up eig, into, 
 not on or bi/ heaven. Dan. vi. 16 : Daniel was cast 
 cKj into, not towards the lion's den. Jonah i. 12 : Jo- 
 nah was cast e^g, into, not neai' to the sea. Matt. v. 13 : 
 And the herd ran violently down a steep place eig ti?^ 
 daXaggav, and were choked in, not at or by the sea, on 
 dry ground. Matt. xxv. 46 : These shall go away «»«, 
 into, not upon everlasting punishment, and the right- 
 eous eig, into, not tou-ards life eternal. Mark i. 9: 
 Jesus was baptized of John eig, into, not by or toioards 
 Jordan. Acts viii. 39: Philip and the eunuch came 
 up ex Tov idoLTog, out of the water. But enough has 
 been said, to show that Mr. Sawyer's views of Greek 
 prepositions would ruin the Bible. 
 
137 
 
 SECTION II. 
 
 Mosaic Baptisms, 
 
 2 Kings V. 10 : Elisha said unto Naantian, Go and 
 tVln^^,Xovial, bathe in Jordan seven times. The word 
 here used in Hebrew and Greek is one which definite- 
 ly means to wash the whole body, in distinction from 
 those words used to denote washing of clothes or parts 
 of the body, as hands, face, or feet. Verse 14: Then 
 went he down and b-U, dipped himself seven times in 
 Jordan, accoixUng to the saying of the man of God. 
 Parallel cases of washing by dipping constantly occur 
 in the Old Testament, and frequently in the New. 
 
 Acts xxii. 16 : Arise and ^aniiaat xai> anoXovgai, be 
 
 immersed, and ivash away thy sins. Rom. vi. 4: 
 Therefore we i:vveTacp}]fiev, are buried ivith him by 
 baptism. The plural pronouns, we and us, evidently 
 include Paul with others baptized. So Paul declares 
 that he was immersed. Had Naaman and Paul un- 
 derstood ri:^m and lovgai. as Mr. Sawyer does, (p. 5,) 
 " the joint action of pouring and affusion," they would 
 not have been b:3£2, Hvvdunioj, imfjiersed, buried in 
 water. 
 
 The Jews so far from understanding h^o and ^aTtriru 
 to mean pouring or sprinkling, even understood HiiJTn, 
 bathe, and Xovm, wash, to mean immerse, as is evident 
 from their best ancient authors, and the concessions of 
 able pedobaptists. 
 
 "Every person baptized or dipped, whether he 
 were washed from pollution, or baptized unto prose- 
 lytism, must dip his whole body at one dipping; and 
 wheresoever in the law washing of the body or gar- 
 ments is mentioned, it means nothing else." — Maimo- 
 nides Mikvaot, chapt. 3. 
 
 " Although the baptism practiced by John and the 
 apostles did not in all circumstances resemble those 
 12* 
 
138 
 
 Jewish washings to which I have now adverted, yet 
 it was precisely Uke them in that main particular of 
 immersion in water." — / /. Gurney on ike pecul. of 
 Fr lends y j9. 61. 
 
 " Whenever, in the law of washing, the flesh or 
 clothes is mentioned, it means nothing else than the 
 dipping of the whole body in the bath ; for if any one. 
 dips himself all over except the tip of his little finger, 
 he is still in his uncleanness." — Maimonides Hilch. 
 Mikva^ chapt. 1, sect. 2. 
 
 " Dipping, among the Jews, was a national custom." 
 — Lig/itfoofs Works, vol. 1, p. 585. 
 
 Mr. Sawyer next quotes Judith xii. 7 : " She abode 
 in the camp three days, and went out in the night into 
 the valley of Bethulia, and s^annlsTo {dipped) sv t^ 
 
 nagsjuSoh] em Trjg mj-p]; tov vdaw;, washed herself in a 
 
 fountain of water by the camp ;" and remarks, that 
 " fanrt'cw, baptize, expresses ceremonial cleansing, by 
 some mode differins: from immersion." 
 
 Maimonides, the great Jewish author, who ought to 
 know as much concerning the langu nge and customs 
 of the Jews as Mr. Sawyer does, says. '-A menstruous 
 woman, as also all other unclean persons, were wash- 
 ed in some confluence of waters, in which so much 
 water ought to be as may serve to wash the whole 
 hody at one dipping-. Our wise men have esteemed 
 this to be a cubit square, and three cubits deep, and 
 this measure contains 40 seahs (80 gallons) of water." 
 — Lightfoofs Works, vol. 2, p. 119. 
 
 '' In the days of R. Joshua Ben Levi, some endeav- 
 ored to abolish this dipping, for the sake of the vwmen 
 of Galilee, because by reason of the cold, «fec. R. Josh- 
 ua Ben Levi said unto them, Do you go about to take 
 away that which hedges in Israel from transgress- 
 ion V—Hleros Beracoth, fol. 6, 3. 
 
 " The baptism of John was by phinging the bod 
 after the same manner of the washing of unclean per- 
 
' 139 
 
 sons, and the baptism of proselytes." — Lighifoot's 
 Works, vol. 2, p. 121. 
 
 That Judith washed, is probable ; but it is not con- 
 tained iu the text. Does it follow, because bciptisnn is 
 performed for the purpose of loasliing^ that baptism 
 and washing are the same thing? Mr. Sawyer might 
 just as well give cool as the rendering of ^utttCo), be- 
 cause hot iron is ^a7tTit,a), (dipped.) to cool it. Judith's 
 washing or cleansing was but an eifect of immersing 
 herself; and it is a notorious fact, that fountains in 
 that hot climate were uniformdy provided with conven- 
 iences for bathing ; and if she simply wished to sprin- 
 kle her feet, or wash her hands, why did she go under 
 the cover of niglu ? 
 
 Ecclesiasticus xxxiv. 25: "He that ^uTtTi'coftsiog arm 
 vsicgov washeth himself after the touching of a dead 
 body, if he toucheth it again, what availeth his wash- 
 ing ?" Mr. Sawyer says, p. 7, •' The mode of cleansing 
 designated is that prescribed by Ttloses, Numb. xix. 19, 
 and consists ofsprinkling and washing, but not imer- 
 sion or dipping." But that this ceremonial bathing' 
 was total immersion, is evident from the fact that it is 
 denoted by binu) dip or imxmsrse, in the Hebrew. 
 
 "The baptisms with the Jews were not by sprink- 
 ling. The Hebrew b^it: dip cannot possibly signify 
 sprinkle ; baptism is never in the New Testament 
 compared with Levitical sprinklings, but with the 
 death and resurrection of Christ.'' — jSUirck^s Hist.'of 
 Bapt. p. 8. 
 
 That sprinkling is named at Numb. xix. 19, is true ; 
 and so is bathing. These were two distinct actions, 
 and both were enjoined : first sprinkle with the water 
 of purification; and then immerse in water. We do 
 not contend that the Levitical sprinklings were immer- 
 sions; but that their bathings were, is evident, not 
 only from this text, but also from Levit. xv. 5, 8, 11, 
 13,21,22,27: xvi. 26— 28: xvii. 15, 16: Numb. xix. 
 
140 
 
 r, 8, 19: Levit. xiv. 9: xvi. 4, 24 : xxii. 6 : Deut 
 
 xxiii. 11: 2 Chion. iv. 6. 
 
 "Unclean persons were immersed, and purified by 
 spviuk\in'y"-^Theodo7'et com. on Heh. ix. 10. 
 
 "In proselyte baptism, the male after circumcision is 
 led into the water, and completely immerses himself.** 
 — Schneckenhurger, Pros. Bapt. ]?. 141. 
 
 "As in the Jewish custom the persons stood in the 
 water, and having been instructed, and entered into a 
 covenant to renounce all idolatry and take the God of 
 Israel tor their God, then plunge themselves under 
 the water; it is probable that the rite was thus per- 
 formed at Enon." Dr, A. Clarices cG?nme?it on John 
 iil 23. 
 
 Mr. Sawyer next quotes Mark vii. 3, 4: "For the 
 Pharisees arid all the Jews, except they vn^ijjvTut,, {wash 
 their hands.) oil, eat not, holding the traduions of the 
 elders ; and (when they came) from the market, ex- 
 cept tliey ^uTzngoivmi, (im??ierse themselves,) they eat 
 not; and many other things there be, which they have 
 received to hold, as the ^itmig^ovg (immersing) of cups 
 and potSjbrazen vessels and o[ xli,vo)v,(J)eds.) Mr. Saw- 
 yer says, p. 10, that these persons and things were not 
 immersed, but sprinkled, and assigns as a reason, "the 
 unreasonableness of baptizing beds." But on this 
 principle he could as well decide that, Gen. vii. 15, 
 " two of all flesh wherein is breath of life" did not go 
 into the ark; and, Col. ii. 9, the fullness of the God- 
 head bodily did not dwell in Jesus Christ. The fact 
 that ^urcii;^o}i'Tai {Uiey immerse) is used in the 4th verse 
 to distinouish the action from vnpb)VTav, [they wash 
 hands^) in the 3d verse, fully proves that they did im- 
 merse themselves. 
 
 Again, this washing of hands was done by all the 
 Jews., young and old, male and female, at each time of 
 matins: ; while the immersion (verse 4) was only per- 
 formed by the individual who had been at the market, 
 
141 
 
 which probably did not occur more than once a week j 
 and in addition to etymology and circumstances, we 
 have the testimony of the most able Jewish writers, 
 who were eye witnesses to the Jewish ceremonies. " If 
 the Pharisees touched but the garments of the common 
 people, they were defiled all one as if they had touch- 
 ed a profluvious person, and needed immersion?^ — 
 Misna Chagi, chap, 2, sec. 7. 
 
 " In a laver which holds forty seahs of water, every 
 defiled man clips himself, except a profluvious man; 
 and in it they dip all unclean vessels." — Mai?nonides 
 Hilch. Mikvaotj chap. 9, sec. 5. 
 
 " Mark vii. 4 : They bathed their whole persons." — 
 Vatabiiis Prof, of Hebrew in Paris. 
 
 "John ii. 6 : There were set there six water pots, (fet . 
 They were placed there, some of them for the cleans- 
 ing of cups and tables, and others for such purifica- 
 tions as required the immersion of the whole body," — 
 Dr. Mack nigh fs Harmony^ sec. 19. 
 
 Tiidt the cups, pots, Szc. were immersed, is evident. 
 "He that buys a vessel for the use of a feast, of a gen- 
 tile, v^rheiher a molten or orlass vessel, 'i'-"* -^^ ihei/ dip 
 them in the waters of the laver, and after that they 
 may eat and drink in them ; and such as they use for 
 cold things, as cups and pots and jugs, they wash 
 them, T^'^SLJ^T a?id dip them and they are free for use ; 
 and such as they use for hot things, as cauldrons and 
 kettles, (brazen vessels.) they heat them with hot wa- 
 ter, and. scour them, tb'^iu^T and immerse ihem.^^ — 
 Maimonides Hilch. Abot, Hatvmaot, chap. 12, sec. 6 
 
 Jewish beds were very different thin^rs from our 
 beds. They were such as a uvcu just recovered from 
 the palsy could take under his arm and carry home 
 with him. Matt. ix. 2—6 : Mark ii. 9 : Johnv. 11, 12; 
 and that they were immersed there can be no doubt. 
 Jewish writers, who ought to understand their own 
 laws and language as well as Mr. Sawyer, say, 
 
142 
 
 "A bed that is wholly defiled, if ^rVrtilTi he dips it 
 part by part, it is pure." — Misna celim, chap. 18, sec. 5, 
 
 ''ti'QJzr m 12 b^riDn if he dips the bed in it, (the pool 
 of water,) although its feet are plun2:ed into the thick 
 clay, (at the bottom of the pool.) it is clean. 
 
 nODMT "iDJi a pillow or bolster of skin, when a man 
 lifts up the euds or month of them out of the v/ater, 
 the water which is within them will be drawn ; what 
 fihall he do? t^'int:^ hs must dip them, and lift them 
 op by their friui^e." — Misna Mikvaot, chap. 7, sec. 7. 
 
 The original law for immersing all these things is 
 at Levit. xi. 32 : xiv. 6— 8 : Numb. xxxi. 23, 24 ; buJ 
 lo this law many traditions were added. 
 
 The above immersions of persons, vessels and beds, 
 fully explain Heb. ix. 10 : dia(poQoig (?«7rnc^o*c, diver$ 
 washings; which were not different actions, as pour- 
 ing, sprinkling, and immersing, but immersions on di- 
 Ters subjects and different occasions. That §uniia^oiq^ 
 Terse 10, does not mean or include sprinkling, but 
 ■lands opposed to it, and means immersion, is evident 
 from the fact that Paul drops ^anngua, immerse^ and 
 iind use: gavniot^ sprinkle , verses 13, 19, 21, of the 
 fame chapter. 
 
 " Divers immersions and ordinances concerning 
 the fl(:;sh." — Macknighfs Translation. 
 
 " Jewish baptism is a solemn rite, instituted by God, 
 in which proselytes of both sexes, in the presence of 
 three credible witnesses, are dipped in water." — Re%9- 
 kius. 
 
 The Talmud Tract, Repudii, speaking of Jethro, 
 Moses' father-in-law, says, " he was made a proselyte 
 by circumcision and immersion in water." 
 
 Mr. S;nvyer's effort, p. 12, to identify bst: dip, nisn*^ 
 toash^ and tiT: sprinkle, is as unsuccessful as his at^ 
 tempt, p. 13, to find ^umt^oj in the Septuagint, at Ex. 
 xxix. 4 : Levit. viii. 6 ; xiv. 4 — 9 : Numb, viii, 6 : 
 jcix. 17—19. 
 
143 
 
 SECTION III. 
 
 Waters of Palestine. 
 
 Mr. Sawyer says, p. 11, "During a lar^e part of 
 the year, and in many parts of the country, water ia 
 extremely scarce," so that immersion could not be per- 
 formed. Deut. viii. 7 : "For the Lord thy God bring- 
 eth thee into a good land, a land of brooks of water, 
 of fountains and depths, that spring out of the valleys 
 and hills." Palestine is about 200 miles long and 80 
 wide ; bounded on the west by the Mediterranean sea. 
 The springs of Jordan lie west of the city of Dan, in 
 the north of Palestine. The lake Phila is 12 miles 
 south of Dan ; 15 miles further south is lake Same- 
 chon, 7 miles long and 4 wide : 2S miles further south 
 is the sea of Galilee, 13 miles long and 5 wide; and 
 still further south is the Dead Sea, 76 miles long and 
 18 wide, (Josephus' War, Book 4, chap. 8, sec, 4.) or 
 24 miles long and 7 wide, (Brown's Bible Dictionary.) 
 
 The Rivers of Palestine are the Jordan^ 160 miles 
 long, 30 yards wide, and so deep that a miracle wa& 
 wrought to let the Jews cross it ; Joshua iii. 14 — 16: 
 2 Kings ii. 14; the river Kishon Judges iv. 7 — 13 j 
 the river Aaron, Deut. iii. 16 ; the river Gad, 2 Sam. 
 xxiv. 5; the river Jabock, Joshua xii. 2. The 
 Brooks Cherit/i, 1 Kings, xvii. 3 ; Eschol, Numb, 
 xiii. 23, 24; Jtruel, 2 Chron. xx. 16: Besor, 1 
 Sam. XXX. 10 ; Kidron, 2 Sam. xv. 23 : John xviii. 
 I; Gaash, 2 Sam.. xxiii. 30; Kishon, 1 Kings xviiL 
 40. " And in a country so abounding with hilli 
 as Canaan, it is probable that valleys and brooks 
 were seldom separate." (Brown's Bible Dictionary.) 
 There were also many Pools, as the Pool of Samaria, 
 I Kings xxii. 38; the Upper Pool, 2 Kings xviii. 17: 
 the King's Pool, Neh. ii. 14 ; the Lower Pool, Isa. xxii. 
 9; the Old Pool. Isa. xxii. 11 ; the Pool of Bethesda^ 
 
144 
 
 John V. 2, which Maundrell says is 120 paces long 
 and 40 wide ; and the Pool of Siloam, John ix. 7 — 11, 
 nearly the size of Bethesda. " Besides all these pub- 
 lic conveniences for immersion, there were many mik- 
 waoth or collections of water in the form of hathin^- 
 houses, for the puriScation of unclean persons and 
 vessels, required by the law of Moses, (See Levit. xv. 
 16: Numb. xix. 7, 8,) which was always by immer- 
 fiion." — J. S. C. F. Frey^ a Jewish JRabbi, Essay on 
 Bapt. p. 1U9. 
 
 " The Spring (Siloe) issues from a rock, and the 
 pool, or rather two pools of the same name, (Siloam) 
 are quite close to the spring; here you find a village 
 called Siloam. At the fool of this village is another 
 fountain, denominated in Scripture, Rogel ; opposite 
 to this is a third which receives its name from the 
 
 blessed Virgin we have nothing left of the 
 
 primitive architecture of the Jews at Jerusalem, ex- 
 cept the pool of Bethesda. This is still to be seen 
 near St Stephen's Gate, and it bounded the Temple 
 on the north.'' — Chaieaubriand^s travels, p. 311, 31Q 
 —353. 
 
 Dr. Gill has conclusively proved that there were 
 twelve large reservoirs for immersing, within the 
 Temple. These, together with the pool of Bethesda, 
 adjoininof the Temple, and other waters above named, 
 not only served for the baptizing of converts on the day 
 of Penterost, A. D. 33, but were absolutely necessary 
 for the muititude of Jews assembled (Acts ii. o — 11) to 
 bathe in, acGording to the law of Moses ; (Lev. xvi. 4: 
 xvii. 14 — 16: xxii. 6: Dent, xxiii. 11;) which bath- 
 ings Mr. Sawyer assures us, p. 1, " were of daily occur- 
 rence among the Jews, in every period of their nation- 
 al existence." Hence he who pleads that Jerusalem 
 and the surrounding country was so destitute of wa- 
 ter that immersion could not be performed, must bo 
 ignorant of Bible and geography ; for both represent 
 
145 
 
 Palestine bountifully furnished with conveniences 
 for immersion, and it is certain that the Apostles and 
 John used them ,' for we find them baptizing in Jordan, 
 and at Eanon, because there was ■6daTa noUa, much wa- 
 ter there. And we have no evidence that the water 
 was brought to the candidate in a boiol or basin ; but 
 the candidate went to, and into the water, as the Bap- 
 tists do now. Matt. iii. 16 : John iii. 23 : Mark i. 10 : 
 Acts viii. 36—39. 
 
 SECTION IV. 
 
 Of Sprinkling and its Origin. 
 
 The word Pavn'c^o) from Paivw, is translated sprin- 
 kle. Therefore if this were the action of baptism, we 
 should have it in plain English, Matt, xxviii. 19, '' Go 
 teach all nations, sprinkling them, &c ;" but the word 
 sprinkle, is in no instance connected with baptizing, 
 nor is the sprinkling of water without putting ashes, 
 blood, or some other substance in it, found in the Bible, 
 Blood, Lev. vii. 2 : xiv. 7 — 51 : xvi. 14 : Heb. ix, 13 
 —19 : xi. 28 : xii. 24 : 1 Peter i. 2. Ashes, Ex. ix. 
 8 — 10. Ashes and water mixed, Num. xix. 13 — 18, 
 19, 20, 21. Oil, Lev. xiv. 16—27. Dust, Job ii. 12. 
 Not 7ianied, Isa. Iii. 15 : Heb. x. 22. Water, (Spirit 
 of God,) Ez. xxxvi. 25. The Spirit and its gra- 
 ces are represented by water at Isa. Iv. 1 : John iv. 
 14 : vii. 37, 39 : Rev. xxii. 17. The first appearance 
 of pouring for baptism, was in the eighth century, 
 when baptism was considered necessary to salvation 
 by all the Roman Catholics. As there were frequent 
 cases of unbaptized clinics, (sick persons,) who were 
 much distressed, lest dying unbaptized they should be 
 lost, the monks invented pouring water on them. 
 
 A. D. 753, Pope Stephen III. was driven from Rome 
 13 
 
14(5 
 
 by Astulphus, king of tie Lombardsj and put himself 
 under the protection of Pepin, king of France. Dur- 
 ing Stephen's residence in the monastery of St. Dennis, 
 some monks of Cressy, in Brittany, proposed to him 
 19 questions, one of which was, '• If pouring water on 
 the head of the sick and dying would be baptism?" 
 To which he replied, that " In such cases of necessity, 
 pouring should be baptism." From this decision 
 arose the private baptism of the sick by pouring, but 
 immersion, trine or single, was still universally ad- 
 ministered to the healthy. But it soon became a 
 question what degree of sickness should prevent immer- 
 sion ; and as many infants died scon after they were 
 born, and some even before, the doctrine of baptismal 
 salvation drove the priests and monks among the m.id- 
 wives, and introduced indecencies which 1 forbear to 
 mention. The want of water at hand, and the want 
 of suitable tubs to dip in, tosfether with other circum- 
 stances not necessary to name, led the priests to plead 
 for pouring instead of dipping ; but this doctrine of Ban- 
 tizing was so repugnant to the feelings of the Catho- 
 lics themselves, that they never obtained a public act 
 in favor of it, till A. D. 1311, when the council of Ra- 
 vena, (in Italy.) by the Pope's authority, declared 
 dipping or sprinkling, indifferent. While the Catho- 
 lics had the control of Englnnd, they uniformly im- 
 mersed ; and the Episcopal Rubric which was estab- 
 lished by law in Elizabeth's reign, reads, " Then the 
 priest shall take the child into his hands and shall say 
 unto the Godfather and Godmother, name this child. 
 And naming it after them, if they certify that the 
 child may well endure it, he shall dip it in the wa- 
 ter, discreetly and warily, saying, N., I baptise thee in 
 the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the 
 Holy Ghost, amen. But if they certify that the child 
 is weak, it shall suffice to pour water upon it. — Brit- 
 ish Rubric, under baptism. 
 
147 
 
 During the bloody persecution of Mary, Queen of 
 England, A. D. 1554—8, many English and Scotch 
 Protestants iled to Germany for refuge, and there form- 
 ed a society. In A. D. 1556, Calvin published a 
 book for the benefit of these Protestants, entitled, "The 
 form of prayers, and administration of the Sacraments, 
 appro\Aed by the famous and Godly learned man, John 
 Calvin." The form of baptism prescribed by this 
 was, " The priest shall take the water in his hand 
 and lay it on the child's forehead, sayings, I baptize thee, 
 dbc." 
 
 John Knox with other refugees, returned to Scot- 
 land, A. D. 1559, and brouj^ht with them Calvin^s 
 book and new doctrine of sprinkling, and it was estab- 
 lished by law with the rest of their creed, A. D. 1560 ; 
 snd from Scotland it spread into England and Ameri- 
 ca. But still the law of the church of England en- 
 joined dipping, and in the Presbyterian assembly of 
 49 Divines, convened at Westminster, (near London,) 
 A. D. 1043, the subject Vv^as keenly debated for several 
 days, and finally decided hj a vote of twenty-five for 
 sprinkling, and twenty-four for immersion. And even 
 this small majority was obtained at the earnest request 
 of Dr. Lightfoot, who had acquired great influence in 
 that assembly."- — Dr. Brevjster^s Ed. En. Art. Bapt. 
 
 " The custom of sprinkling children instead of dip- 
 ping them in the fount, which at first vv^as allowed on- 
 ly in case of weakness or sickness of the infant, has so 
 far prevailed, that immersion is at length quite exclu- 
 ded. Yv^hat principally tended to confirm the practice 
 of eifusion or sprinklino;, was that several of our Pro- 
 testant Divines, flying into Germany and Switzerland 
 during the bloody reign of Q,Lieen Mary, and returning 
 home when Elizabetii came to the crov/n, brouo:htback 
 with them a great zeal for the Protestant churches be- 
 yond the sea, where they had been received and shel- 
 tered ; and having observed that at Geneva and soma 
 
148 
 
 other places, baptism was administered by sprinkling, 
 they thought they could not do the church of England 
 a greater piece of service, than to introduce a practice 
 dictated by so great an oracle as Calvin. This, to- 
 gether with the coldness of our northern climate, 
 was what contributed to banish entirely the practice 
 of dipping infants in the fount. — Enc. Perth. Vol. 3, 
 p. 256. 
 
 "The practice of aspersion or sprinkling, was bro't 
 into the church by the Popish school m.en ; and our 
 dissenters have it from them. The schoolmen em- 
 ployed their thoughts how to find out a reason for the 
 alteration to sprinkling ; and brought it into use in the 
 twelfth century." ■ — John Floyer. Essay on bapt. p. 58. 
 
 All the Nations of Christians that do now, or for- 
 merly did submit to the Bishops of Rome, do sprinkle ; 
 and though the English received not this custom till 
 after the decay of Popery, yet they have since re- 
 ceived it from such neighboring nations as had began 
 it in the time of the Pope's power. But all other 
 Christians in the world, who never owned the Pope's 
 usurped power, do, and ever dlp.^^ — Dr. Wally hist, of 
 infant bapt. part 2, p. 477. 
 
 SECTION V. 
 
 Versions of the Bible. 
 
 The old Syriac or Peshito, was translated from the 
 original in the beginning of the second century, and 
 in the very country where the Apostles Uved, and by 
 persons who understood both languages, and within a 
 few years past, it has been reprinted by the British 
 and foreign Bible Society, and is used by all Christians 
 in Syria and the East. In this version, ^ann'ro) is ren- 
 dered (.i^ii amadj immerse. The Ethiopic or Aby- 
 
149 
 
 ian in the Gheez, was translated from the origineil, 
 about the middle of the fourth century. In this ver- 
 sion §a7ir^t,(.o is t-ranslated by p^t3 Tamak, immerse. 
 The Amharic in the common dialect of Ethiopia, was 
 translated by Mr. Abraham, a learned Ethiopian, and 
 was published by the British and Foreign Bible Soci- 
 ety, A. D. 1822, in which ^umitoi is rendered p^S3 Ta- 
 mak, immerse. The ancient Armenian version was 
 made by Miesrob, and the patriarch Isac, in the begin- 
 ning of the fifth century, in which 8anTi^co is rendered 
 mugurdel^ itninerse. See Mekitar Vartabed Diction- 
 ary of the Armenian Language, Yenice, A. D. 1749, 
 and Home's Introduction, Yol. 2, p. 208. 
 
 The modern Armenian version, printed and circu- 
 lated by the Russian, and British and Foreign Bible 
 Societies, translate ^utxto'co}, miigurdel, immerse. The 
 Georgian version, made in the eighth century by Eu- 
 phemius, renders §ami';o)^ nathlistemad^ im7nerse. — 
 RohinsGri's hist, of Bapt. p. 7. 
 
 The Coptic, made in the fifth century, and used in 
 Lower Egypt, renders ^aTtn'Qw.TSlMC^ tomas, immerse. 
 — See Louis Picques, in Le Long Biblioth, Sac. Pars 
 1, p. 287, and the anual report of the English Baptist 
 Mission Society, for A. D. 1834, p. 32. 
 
 The several Arabic versions of the New Testament 
 which were made between the seventh and eleventh 
 centuries, render j9a;rTt^c.j,cA4.c amad cajo tzabag or 
 iviAA2Jhi gatas, dij)^ 'plunge^ immerse. The Persian 
 four gospels, were translated by J.J. Al Tabrizi, A. D. 
 1341, and the whole New Testament, by Meer Seyd 
 Ali, A. D. 1812, and published at Petersburgh, Lon- 
 don and Calcutta. This version renders ^amiloi 
 T^S»J!L^uj Shustgah^ \j^L ghusl, and the derivative 
 of iXfJO. a?7iad, ablution, immerse. The Turkish 
 Tersion of the New Testament, written by Albertus 
 Boboosky, and published by the British and Foreign 
 Bible Society, A. D. 1819, renders ^amti^co <-X^c am- 
 13* 
 
150 
 
 ady immerse. The Orenberg Tartar, published hy 
 the Russian Bible Society, renders ^anttt^co^ L\^c am- 
 ad, immerse. The first Hebrew version of the New- 
 Testament, translated by Elias Hutter. A. D. 1599, 
 renders §anTvroi, ^^t: taval^ immerse. The old Latin 
 Italic version, adopted the word ^anTiroo without trans- 
 lating it ; but that they understood it immerse, is evi- 
 dent from the fact that the MSS. Codex Vercellensis, 
 and Codex Veronensis, uniformily construct ^amitpt 
 with the accusative case. Thus, Matt. iii. 6, Cod. 
 
 Tercel, " et baptizaban- ab illo io Jordanen." Cod. 
 
 Veron, '■ et baptizabantur danen," and were bap- 
 tized by him into the Jordan. Verse 11, Cod. Yeron., 
 " baptizo Yos in aquam,'' I baptize you into water. 
 Yerse 13, Cod. Yeroo., "Tunc A^enit Jesus a Galilaea 
 ajd Johannen ut baptizaretur ab eo in Jordanen," 
 Then came Jesus from Galilee to John, that he might 
 be baptized by him into the Jordan." — See Evangelia- 
 rum Quadruplex ed J. Blanchini, Rome A. D. 1749. 
 Jaspis, an eminent German scholar, renders ^arcTita 
 by immergo, immerse, or lingo, to dip. The Goth- 
 ic, was translated from the Greek by Uphilas in the 
 fourth century. Of this version, we have only the 
 four gospels, and a part of the Epistle to the Romans. 
 But in these, he renders §amilb), daupyan, to dip. 
 He renders Mark vii. 4, on which there has been some 
 dispute, '•' ni daupyand," unless they dip : and many 
 other things there be, which they have received to 
 hold, as "daupeinins," the dippings of cups, and 
 pots, and brazen vessels, and couches. The German 
 translation, from the Latin Yulgate, printed in 1466, 
 and Luther's translation which was published in sev- 
 eral parts or numbers, between 1522 and 1532, and 
 the translation of Caspar Ulenburg in 1630, all render 
 ^anTit.M, .taufen, dip. Gesenius classes taufen, with 
 ,ttie Gothic doufan, (daupyan,) the Ital. tuff are and 
 
151 
 
 other words signifying to dip^ and says it is identical 
 inform with the Heb. taval, to dip^ to immerse. 
 
 M. Luther says, " the Germans call baptism, iauff, 
 from depth, which in their language they call tieff^as 
 it is proper that those who are baptized should be deep- 
 ly immersed." The German Swiss or Helvetic ver- 
 sion, made by John Piscator, in 1604. and the transla- 
 tion made by Jo. Henry Reizius, in 1703, both render 
 ^(XTtTi'Qiji taufen^ and explain it in the margin by eir^ 
 tauchen^ and use the same word at Mark vii. 4 : Luke 
 xi. 38 : Heb. vi. 2 : ix. 10 : thus making it certain 
 that these texts teach dipping. The Jewish German 
 translation, pubhshed at London a few years since, 
 renders ^ami^oi taiifen^ dip. The Belgian or Flem- 
 ish translation made from the Latin Vulgate in 1475, 
 republished by the Synod of Dort in 1637, renders 
 §tt7tTv'Qo) doopen, dip. The Danish version, made from 
 tile Latin vultrate, as well as that which was translated 
 from Luther's version, by order of Christian HI. kin^ 
 of Denmark, in 1550, and the version made by order 
 oi Christian IV. king of Denmark, from the original 
 Greek, in 1607, all render ^urcTirw dobe, dip. The 
 Swedish Bible was made from Luther's version, at Up- 
 sal, in 1541, and was afterwards revised and made to 
 conform with the original, by order of Charles XO. 
 king of Sweden, in 1703. This version renders ^an- 
 %i,'Q(x) dopa, dip. The Welsh translation of the New 
 Testament was first made by order of Parliament, in 
 1567. During the reign of James 1. it was corrected 
 and republished by Dr. Parry, in 1620. In this version 
 §(xnTit,(a is rendered bedyddiojimmcr^e. Edward Lhuyd, 
 a learned Welshman, says, "Bedydd, the Welsh word 
 for baptism, is derived from suddiant, a British word, 
 which is well known to signify dippings or immer- 
 sion^ and the verb of which is suddo." — (See articU 
 Baptisma, in Lhuyd's Arch. Brit. comp. vocab. Ed. in 
 1707. 
 
152 
 
 The Sclavonian, or Old Russian translation of the 
 New Testament, was made by Cyril and Methodius, 
 in 1570. The Russian being a branch of the Greek 
 -church, uniformly practiced immersion, but they add- 
 ed the sign of the cross, which they considered the es- 
 sential part of baptism ; therefore they tranlated ^avt- 
 xito) krestit, to cross. Thus, Matt. iii. 5, 6 : " There 
 went out unto him Jerusalem, and all the region round 
 about Jordan, and were crossed by him in Jordan." 
 The New Testament made by order of emperor Alex- 
 ander, in 18J.6j which was finished at Moscow in 1822, 
 retains krestit^ yet every reader knows that the Rus- 
 sian church uniformly dips. 
 
 The Romanese language is divided into two dialects. 
 The Churivelsche is spoken by those of Engadine, a 
 valley of Switzerland; and the Ladiniche by those 
 v/ho live on the confines of Italy. In each of these 
 versions they have adopted the word §amir^(o without 
 translating it. 
 
 Of the English versions we can only say, WickliiFe's 
 was made in 1380, TindaPs in 1526, Coverdale's in 
 1535, Mathew's in 1537, Cranmer's in 1539, Tonstal's 
 in 1541, Geneva in 1560, Bishops' in 1568. All these 
 versions followed the Latin vulgate in adopting ^umiito 
 only changing the Greek w omega for the Roman e. 
 dueen Elizabeth was immersed in infancy; still, she 
 ordered all Baptists to leave the kingdom, and allowed 
 two of them to be burnt at Smithfield, July 22d, 1575. 
 About this time the English bishops began to practice 
 gprinkling, having borrowed it of the Scotch ; and in 
 the time of this rage for Baptist blood and Calvin's 
 sprinkling, our version of the Bible was made. King 
 James I. succeeded Elizabeth in 1603, and although 
 immersion was still established by law, yet sprinkling 
 in practice was constantly gaining the ascendency. 
 A. D. 1610, James made our version ; and April 11th, 
 1613, he burned at Litchfield Mr. Edward Wightman 
 
153 
 
 of Barton upon Trent, for being a Baptist. Such was 
 the spirit of the monarch who ordered the forty-seven 
 translators to " conform as nearly as possible to the 
 Bishops' Bible, and to adopt and not translate the old 
 ecclesiastical words," such as ^Xag(p7]ixsca, blaspheme : 
 afi7]v, amen ; ayyslog, angel ; 'Qr/log, zealous ; Bi^log, Bi- 
 ble ; rsvegig, Genesis ; exy.X}]gia, congregation ; rnXogy 
 title; xog^av, COrhan ; cpdogocpi^a, philosophy; xaorxxxriq^ 
 character ; ^pal-aog psalms ; « and w, alpha and omega; 
 orvvayojyrj, synagogiie ; 2a§§aTov, Sabbath ; ^ia^ry^,martyr; 
 itadoliKog, catholic ; apadsuuTtXco, anathematize ; pfajTrt^w, 
 baptize. To some of these words we have given ap- 
 propriate significations in English ; while blaspheme, 
 corban, alpha and omega, synagogue, church, anathe- 
 matize, and especially baptize, are constantly perplex- 
 ing the unlearned. 
 
 Persons who have not thought extensively on ths 
 subject, look upon our version as the only Bible ; or, 
 if they know there are other translations, they suppose 
 them all the same. But each Christian nation has 
 the Bible in its own language. Some are translations 
 from the originals ; others are translations from trans- 
 lations. Some have translated all the original words ; 
 others have not. In all entire translations, ^{XTtn^oo is 
 rendered dip, or an equivalent. In oar Bible, unfor- 
 tunately, the word ^arrri^a}, is not translated ; and pedo- 
 baptists have seized this circumstance to puzzle the ig- 
 norant and sustain their sprinkling. But suppose nei- 
 ther of Peters words were translated at Acts ii. 38. 
 fisxavorjgaTs, Repent, xai.) and ^aTtxiaOrjjbJj be baptizedj 
 and thousands of designing men should rack their 
 brains for criticisms to prove that fisTavosoj, repent, nei- 
 ther means to turn away from sin, nor he sorry for it; 
 what would be the result ? They might dupe the ig- 
 norant ; but would the world be improved by their la- 
 bors ? 
 
 Pedobaptists treat ^anxta and its cognates precisely 
 
154 
 
 tts the Universallsts do atwv, eternal ; and the latter 
 can as easily prove future punishment limited, as the 
 former that (9a7rT«tw, baptize, means to sprinkle: and 
 when pedobaptists encounter Universallsts, they are 
 oblio^ed to adopt correct principles of interpretation, or 
 he defeated. 
 
 SECTION VI. 
 
 Direct Arguni cuts for ImmersiGn. 
 
 The Greeks have several words which they employ 
 with reference to the use of water. PavTi'^o), from 
 p/xtj/fti, to sprinkle ; yeo)., and cK/fw, pour, to pour out ; 
 ayvitw^ to purify ; xadumtM, to cleanse ; vinjo), to wash 
 the hsiuds, face or feet ; aovw, to bathe the body ; nlvyM, 
 to wash clothes ; and ^,a7XTi'co>, from ^anTco. to dip or im- 
 merse. In the English Bible, the word 5/? rtn/jZe occurs 
 sixty-two times. In 31 instances it is a translation from 
 ^aivci); in 23 instdnces from the compounds of /ew; in 
 8 instances from other words; but in no instance is 
 it from ^anro) or ^a7Tziti». To pour, with its derivatives, 
 occurs 152 times. In 94 instances it is translated 
 from /ew and its compounds ; and 58 times from other 
 words and phrases, amounting to 27 varieties; but in 
 no instance from Bunroj or ^utitiIo). To wash occurs 
 139 times; 33 times it is a translation of vmro) ; 49 
 times lovo) ; 44 times qaivb) ; 3 times yeoi ; and 5 times 
 Punxm or fjanii'co}, as the effect of immersion — as at 
 Mark vii, 4. 
 
 To dip. with its derivatives, occurs 22 times. Once 
 it is from fwXui-u), slain, as when Joseph's coat was dip- 
 ped in blood— Gen. xxxvii. 31 ; the other 21 times it 
 is from ^uttto) or punn'Cfx) ; L'ut never from quivo), x^^^ 
 V 1,7110), kovco J nlvfbi, or any of their compounds or deriva- 
 tives. To plunge occurs but once, and there it is 
 ^amio. The Hebrew woi d bra occurs in the Old Tes- 
 
155 
 
 tarnent 17 times. In the Septuagint it is 16 times ren- 
 dered ^utttojoi §aTiTiX,u)^ and once (.lolwu)^ to dye. Jun- 
 ius and Tremmeliui translate it into Latin 16 times by 
 tirigo, immergOj and denier go ; and our English ver- 
 sion translates it 16 times to dip or 'plunge^ and once 
 dyed. 
 
 Thus we find that in Hebrew, Greek. Latin, and 
 English, the definite and immutable meaning of the 
 word is to dip, to immerse^ to plunge. 
 
 Now if to baptize is simply to purify or cleanse, as 
 Mr. Sawyer says, p. 1, then ayn'ru}, to purify^ or 
 xaOugt'^bj, to cleanse, would have been the verb used. 
 If sprinkling was the action, then qavxi'^^oj would have 
 been used. If pouring were the action commanded, 
 then /scj would have been the word, and to sprinkle 
 water on the feet, or pour it in the mouih, would have 
 been equally valid baptism. If to wash the clothes 
 were the actioii, then ttAww would be the word. If 
 washing the hands, /«ce or feet were the action of bap- 
 tism, then viTiTbi v/ould be the word. If bathing the 
 body, by applying the water to wash or cleanse had 
 been the action commanded, then lovo) would have 
 bee'n the word. But as dipping or immersing is the 
 action which God commanded, ^amit^o) is used in eve- 
 ry instance where the action of baptism is spoken of; 
 Qnd I ask proof to the contrary. 
 
 Mr. Sawyer says, p, 2, •• ^uuti'^q), baptize, is a fre~ 
 quejitative verb, derived from §um(a, and according to 
 its derivative form denotes frequency or repetition of 
 the action signified." We reply, there are about 19,000 
 verbs in the Greek language, and about 3,400 of these 
 end in rw ; yet probably not a dozen frequentatives 
 can be found in the whole. Therefore if this verb 
 has a frequentative meaning, it is not derived from th* 
 law of formation ; and if derived, from special usage, 
 it is of modern invention. Would the limits of this 
 work allow it, we could quote hundreds of emineat 
 
156 
 
 scholars, to prove that repeated baptisms are not re- 
 quired by the force of the word. Tertuhan says, — 
 *' Thence we are thrice immersed, [ ter mei^gitamur,] 
 fulfilUng somewhat more [amplius aliquid responden- 
 tes] than the Lord has decreed in the gospel." — Ter- 
 tulian corona Militis, chapt. 3. 
 
 And as Mr. Sawyer allows ^ann'Qu) to be the word 
 employed, if he could prove it to be a frequentative, 
 he would only show that baptism, whatever the actiojQ 
 iSf should be repeated. 
 
 Having clearly shown that the derivatives of ^amoii 
 are the only words used in the Bible to denote baptism, 
 and that baptism is one unchangeable action : to de- 
 termine the meaning of ^unno, fanTi'Qcx). 6unTi,ciua,^amiS- 
 
 fmgj (fee, we introduce the following testimony : 
 I. — Lexicons. 
 
 Mr. Sawyer says, p. 2, " The mode of baptism i« 
 not to be determined by a hasty reference to Greek 
 lexicons, or the testimony of professed Greek scholars 
 and Professors. It requires an investigation of the ori- 
 ginal words applied to denote this rite, in the writings 
 where they occur. By this means we ascend be- 
 yond THE LEXICONS, and are enabled to judge for 
 ourselves." When Mr. S. says he ascends beyond the 
 lexicons, he must mean that he ascends beyond the 
 authors of the lexicons. It is possible, however, that 
 some of these Greek authors and Professors^ who 
 were the ablest of native Greek scholars, would scarce- 
 ly be willing to learn the meaning of Greek verbs at 
 Mr. Sawyer's feet. The fact that pedobaptist lexicons 
 render ^anTc'ro inunerse, is an evidence that popular 
 literature lives above sectarian prejudices. 
 
 "We appeal to the vocabulary and lexicon for the 
 meaning of the term. We have the literal meaning 
 of it fixed by all Greece ; and if any other baptism 
 had been intended by our Lord, the intentional depar- 
 ture from the common acceptation of the word would 
 have been frankly and honestly stated." 
 
 Dr. W. C. Brownlee tgainat CluakcWfc 
 
157 
 
 'If the meaning of the word is immerse, then im- 
 mersion and nothing else will do ; for it would be folly 
 fcr me to attempt to immerse a man by sprinkling him.' 
 
 Edward Beecher, President of Jacksonville College. 
 
 We shall now see why Mr. Sawyer feared the lexi- 
 cons. 
 
 ^panTitfa, properly immergo ac inlingo in aquam 
 mergo ; to immerse, to dip, to plunge into water.' 
 
 Schleusner's Le», 
 
 ^ ^anxi^Q), in its primary and radical sense ; I cover 
 with water. It is used to denote, 1st, I plunge or sink 
 completely under water.' Ewing'sLex. 
 
 ^^otTTTt^w, plunge, to plunge in water, to dip.' 
 
 John Jones' L«m. 
 
 ' fianii-Qoi, mergo, immergo.' g. v^^tnck's Lex. 
 
 * Baptisirum, a bath into which persons are plung- 
 
 ^"* A. Adams' Lex. 
 
 * Baptisma and baptismus, ^aTtro)^ tlife tSUffe/ 
 
 A. Buchener'sLcj:. 
 
 'Baptism in theology is formed from the Greek 
 
 ^a7tTcl;a), I dip, I plunge.' Dr. Reese's cyclopedia. 
 
 * Baptism, formed of §amiCfi), of ^amm ; I dip, or 
 plunge. In primitive times the ceremony was perform- 
 ed by immersion.' e. Chalmer's cyclopedia. 
 
 ^§anut,<a, to dip, to plunge, to immerse in water.' 
 
 J. Parkhurst's Lex. 
 
 * Baptism, ^amiguoq, to dip or immerse.' 
 
 Calmet's Diat 
 
 */?a7rTt^Q>;m.ergo, immergo.' b. nedrici Lex. 
 
 * Mergo, to dip, plunge.' Cole'3 Latin Diet. 
 
 * Immergo, to plunge, or dip over head and ears.' 
 
 W. Young's English and Latin Diet. 
 
 < Mergo, to d ip, to sink.' ^^^^^,^ ^^^-.^ Diet. 
 
 *^a7tTi^(»)^ proprie saepius intingo submerge in aquam, 
 
 immergo. q q Bretschneider'sLex. 
 
 * Intingo, to dip in, to steep in, or color.' 
 
 W Young's English and Latin Diet, 
 
 ' Mergo, I dip, immergo, I dip in, plunge over head.* 
 
 C. Cellario, Latin Diet, 
 •BaptizO, to dip all over.' w. Young's Latin and English^DwK. 
 
 «^«7rr*$a>, to dip, immerse, submerge, sink.' 
 
 Pickering's Lmi, 
 
 14 
 
158 
 
 ^Baptism, that is dipping, immersing, from tbs 
 
 dreek ^ann'ra}.^ American Encyclopedia. 
 
 ^^anwj, to dip, to plunge into water; §amitfi), to !m- 
 
 merse. j Donegan's Lex. 
 
 ' Baptism, in the apostolic age, was performed by 
 
 immersion. Edinburgh Encyclopedia. 
 
 ^ ^anii'roj, to dip, to piiuige into; as what for the 
 sake of dyeing or washing we plunge into wate^'^ 
 
 Scapul* ^ej^ 
 '|9a;Tn.>, mergO, laVO.' SchrevellusLex. 
 
 '^aTTu^w, immergo, mergo, intingo.' 
 
 BudoeiisandConstanline'a Le» 
 
 '^ttTrrt^w, immergo ; j^a^rrtc/./o;, inimersio.' 
 
 Hadrian Junius Lex. 
 
 ^ ^amix). to dip in, to immerse ; ^ann'Qoj, to submerg-e, 
 
 Mnk. E.Robinson's Lex. 
 
 ^ ^anToi^ to dip, plunge, immerse ; ^aTin^b), to immerse, 
 
 submerge, sink.' g. Greenfield's Lcx. 
 
 ^ ^anzi'Qw has but one signification ; it signifies lite- 
 rally and invariably to plunge.' stourdzaLex. 
 
 These and hundreds more must come to Mr. Saw- 
 yer, and learn the meaning oi ^crcji'QM ] for he has as- 
 oended far beyond them^ and has found out that bap- 
 tize means to sprinkle. 
 
 11. — Classical use of §amM. 
 
 "As when a smith to harden an iron hatchet or 
 pole-ax, BoiTnEi, [dips) it in cold water.' 
 
 Hornet's Odissey, book 9, line 392i. 
 
 'An Egyptian considers the touch of a swine so 
 polluting, that if he com.es in contact with one he 
 goes immediately to the river and B^aipe, ['plunges) 
 himself with his clothes.' Herodotus, 2, 47 
 
 ' Let the food be cakes e^ ^amo^evoi [dipped) hot ta 
 
 sour wine. Hippocrates de Vict. rat. page 104 
 
 ' The bucket must first be §a:r\pat^ dipped^ th«a 
 
 drawn up. AristoMle Quaest MccIi. chapl. 29. 
 
 I could quote thousands who thus us© the w«r«L 
 
159 
 
 ill. — Classic use of ^annl^cj. 
 ^a7tTtt,(o baptize, as used by the classic Greek wri- 
 ters, signifies to dip, to immerse in a liquid. 
 
 L. A. Sawyer's CraxicAi, Dissertation, p. 3. 
 
 * The yonno- man was sent to Jericho, and there ae- 
 eording to his (Herod^s) order, ^anTitousvog being dip- 
 ped in a pool till became to his end.' 
 
 Joseplius' war, book 1, chapt. 22, sec. 3. 
 
 * Killing some on the land and ^anii'copTojy plunging 
 others in the Lake, neiiodorus' Ethiopia, lib. i, chapt. so, p. 55. 
 
 'For it does not befall the things which can not 
 swim fluTiTCsgdai, to be immersed ; but they swim oa 
 the su rllice like wood.' ^,,^^^,^ ^eog , nb. 9, p. 421. 
 
 ' Such a storm suddenly pervaded all the country, 
 that the ships that were in the Tiber were immersed 
 
 or sunk tu ttoIoiu svtijj Ti,^eo idv ^a7iTigdi]i'ai.^ 
 
 Dion Cassius, vol. 1, p. 148. 
 
 Great effort is made by pedobaptists to show that 
 faTtn';ui means sometliing else beside immerse. But if 
 this could be done, what would be gained. Our Eng- 
 lish word DIP, has about twenty different meanings, 
 yet when the word is used in reference to baptism, 
 both baptists and pedobaptists fix a definite meaning 
 to it. But the word ^aTtnt^ia baptize^ has but on© 
 meaning ; hence not only use, but the etymology of 
 the word compel us to render it immerse and nothing 
 else. 
 
 ly. — The Sacred use of ^anro}. 
 
 farvTco bapto, as used in the septuagint, is generally 
 » translation of the Hebrew word Vit: taval, and sig- 
 nifies to dip, to immerse.' 
 
 L. A. Sawyer's Critical Dissertation, p. 3. 
 
 Luke. xvi. 24 ; ' Send Lazarus that he may ^ay^ 
 dip the tip of his finger.' 
 
 John xiii. 20 : 'Fie it is to whom I will give the 
 sop when I have (?«(//«? dipped it.' 
 
 Matt. xxvi. 23 ; ' He that ef^^aipas dippeth his hand 
 with me in the dish.' 
 
160 
 
 Rev. xix. 13 : * clothed with a vesture §e^a(i6v^w 
 dipped in blood.' 
 
 Thus we find ^ajiia) rendered dip in every instance 
 ia the New Testament. 
 
 V. — The Sacred use of ^amt^o). 
 As this word is not translated in the New Testar 
 ment, we will let our pedobaptist bretheren say what 
 it means. O^^anTi'Qat Mr. Sawyer says, ' 2 Kings v. 14 
 where it is a translation of V-t: taval, to dip.'' 
 
 Critical Dissertation, p. 4. 
 
 ^ It is a matter of indifference whether one is wash- 
 ed in a pool, river, fountain, lake or bath, nor is there 
 any diiference between those whom John immersed 
 (tinxit) in the Jordon, or Peter in the Tiber. 
 
 Tertulian Militis, eect.4 
 
 ^ You were asked, dost thou believe in God Al- 
 Almighty? thou saidst, I believe; and thus thou 
 
 (mersisti) wast immersed.' AmbroseDegacr.lib. 2,chapt.7. 
 
 'The word ^artTt'rco, both in sacred authors and 
 in classical, signifies to dip, to plunge, to immerse.' 
 
 Campbell's 4 Gosjiels, note on Matt. iii. IL 
 ' TO ^ajiTigjua ev jqiql aaTudv^Egt T6?.siTut baptism is pCT- 
 
 formed by three immersions.' Theophyiact'scomm. onMarka 
 'The Apostolic church baptized only by immersion.' 
 
 Bretsclmeider's Theol. Vol. 2, p. 684. 
 
 'It can not be denied that the nati\re signification of 
 the word ^annev and ^anxitsiv is to plunge, to dip.' 
 
 Witsius' Econ. of Cov., Lib. 4, chapt. 16, Sect. 13. 
 
 ' The Greek church in all its branches, does still 
 
 use immersion. y)v. Wall's hijt. of infant bapt., vol. 2. p. 376. 
 
 '^aTTTw is a perfect immersion; ^amitoj is to sink 
 aearly to the bottom in water. Kaiser Bib. Theoi voi.2,p lei. 
 
 'Matt. iii. 6, A great part of these who went out to 
 hear John, were baptized, that is dipped in Jordan.' 
 
 Pool's AnnoiatioD* 
 
 'Baptism was originally by immersion.' 
 
 Dr. Neander's ch. hist, vol 1. part 2, p. 361> 
 
 'Trine immersion represents the three days burial 
 
 M OnriSt. Leo, Bishop ofRome.Decret 9. 
 
 'That the Apostles immersed whom they baptized, 
 
161 
 
 there is no doubt ; and that the ancient church fol- 
 lowed their example is very clearly evinced by innu- 
 merable testimonies of the Fathers. 
 
 G. I Vossius De bapt. 1 sect, ft 
 
 *I admit that the original signification oi §amilot '\s 
 
 Immersion.' p^. janeways letters oa bapt. 
 
 'Acts viii. 38, probably he pkmged himself under 
 (he water, as this was the plan generally followed by 
 
 the Jews. Dr. a. Clark's comment. 
 
 ' The person, in great simplicity is let down into tb© 
 water, and with a few words said is dipped.' 
 
 Tertulian De Baptismo, chap. 1% 
 
 * The word ^amiQu} signifies to dye by dipping.' 
 
 Beza on Matthew iii. 11, 
 
 ' The act of baptizing is the immersion of believers 
 in water; this expresses the force of the word: thui 
 also it was performed by Christ and his apostles.' 
 
 Viiringa's Theol. Aphoris. 88t 
 
 'The original and naturcil signification of the word 
 ^artTi'Qoj, imports to dip, to plunge.' 
 
 Ridgley's Body of Divinity. 
 
 *The Greeks defend immersion as is manifest, and 
 has been frequently observed by learned men.' 
 
 Biifldeus Theol Do^m. lib. 5, chap. 1, see. & 
 
 'In the primitive church baptism was a total im- 
 mersion, or burial as it were.' 
 
 Bechmann's Theol. p. 632, A. D. 1696. 
 
 'Howbeit the very word of baptizing signifieth to 
 dip, and it is certain that the manner of dipping was 
 
 used of the old church.' Calvin'sIn..t.p.650,London,A.D. leii. 
 
 'Christ commanded us to be baptized, by which 
 word it is certain immersion is sio^nified.' 
 
 Beza's Epist. 2 Anotation on Mark vii. 4. 
 
 ' It is certain that both John the baptist and Jesus 
 Christ practiced immersion, whose example was fol- 
 lowed by the ancient church, as Vossius has shown by 
 producing many testimonies from the Greek and Latin 
 
 writers, witslus' Econ. of Gov. lib. 4, chap. 16, sec. 13. 
 ^ ^anil'QOi, to dip. Encyclopedia Biitanica. 
 
 * famt^caj to dip, to plunge, to immerse.' 
 
 A. Rees' Encyelopadta. 
 
 14* 
 
162 
 
 ^This was the ancient rite of baptizing, that they 
 should be immersed in water, which even the word 
 ^nitt^BLv sufficiently declares.' 
 
 I. Causabon in Wbitaker'sTesEament, A. D. 1633. 
 
 'Baptism by immersion was undoubtedly the apos- 
 
 tOUC practice. Bowers' Hist, of Ihe Popes, vol. 2. p. 110. 
 
 'Matt. iii. 1, izmtv }zUlmm 3^^\nnmBt^tt 
 
 Gauffer.) in those days came John the dipper.' 
 
 'The persons to be baptized, after they had repeated 
 the creed, (fee. were immersed under water, and received 
 into Christ's kingdom by a solemn invocation of the 
 Father, Son and Holy Ghost, according to the express 
 command of our blessed Lord.' 
 
 Mosheim's Churcli Hist. cent. 2, part 2, sec. 13, 
 
 'Being thrice overwhelmed in the water and again 
 raised from it, we imitate tlie burial and resurrection 
 
 01 Christ. Gregory NyssenOrat. cat. 35. 
 
 'The Greek word j^MTiTt'^oj signifies im-mergo^ that is 
 to plunge, and dip in, and that v/as the proper use of 
 water baptism amongthe Jews, and also by John and 
 the primitive christians.' R.Barkiey's Apoi.p.44o. 
 
 'The custom of ancient churches was not to sprin- 
 kle, but immersion, in pursuance to the sense of the 
 word ^a7TTi';oj^ in the command and example of ouf 
 
 Saviour, d^. i_ Taylor's Bib. Infant Bapt. p. 603. 
 
 'The name baptism is a Greek word and may be 
 termed a dipping : as when we dip something in water 
 that it may be v/holly covered.' 
 
 M. Luther's Latin Essay on Bapt. tome 1, fol,71. 
 
 'The Germans learned effusion, ond afterwards 
 changed it further from the primitive mode of immer- 
 sion, into mere sprinkling.' ^ ^r. waii's Defence, p. 403. 
 
 'The original mode of adminstering Christian bap- 
 tism, was the same that had obtained among the Jews 
 in the baptizing of proselytes ; that is, by washing or 
 immersing the whole body in water.' 
 
 B. Becbury, bishop of Cenu. Dieceitrs* p. ML 
 
163 
 
 * We represent our Lord's sufferings and ascensfou 
 by baptism in a pool.' j^,^;^ M^^.^y,.^ q^, ,io 13. 7. 
 
 'By three immersioas we represent the death of 
 
 Christ. Basil the Grert, De Spintu Sancto 19. 
 
 ' Acts ii, 33 : And be bjiptized ; that is, let every 
 one of you, struck witli a sorrow for your sins, be 
 plunged in the water ; because that sacred immersion 
 has been established by Clirist.' 
 
 C. M Da Veil's Latin Works, Claude's transIatJoik 
 
 * The FiUgUsh Ciiurch practiced immersion down 
 to the beo^inning- of the 17th century, when a change 
 Co the method of sprinkling gradually took pkice, and 
 in conlirmation of this, see the first Litur2:y published 
 in 1547, which enjoins trine immersion.' 
 
 I. Fiover's Essay on banlism, j). 50, 
 
 'Feb. Saturday 2lst, 1736, Mary Welch ;!ged elev- 
 en days, was baptized accordin^g; to the custom of the 
 first church and the rule of the churc!) of Ei.'g'jmd, by 
 immersion. ^Yeduesday May 5th, 173G, J was asked 
 to baptize a child of Mr. Parker, second balif ofSavari^ 
 nah. But Mrs. Parker said, neither me nor Mr. Pai- 
 ker will consent to its beins^ dipped. I answerd, if 
 you will certify that the child is weak it will suffice, 
 (the Rubric says.) to pour water on it. She replied, 
 nay, the child is not weak; but I am resolved that 
 it shall not be dipped. So I went home, and the 
 child was baptized by anot'ier percoii.' 
 
 J. Wes.iley's Joiu-nal in 'uis vv'odis, Vol. 1, pp. 25— 30. 
 
 'Immersion Vv^as practiced by the clvtirch for 1000 
 years, except in cases of daiiirerous iiiuess.' 
 
 Bishop Smiih's Sein^.on, Lexin^jton, Z?[entiick:y, in 1S8 
 
 * We no where read in Scripture of any ones being 
 baptized but by immersion; and from acts of councils 
 and ancient Rituals, several authors have proved that 
 this manner of immersion continued as much a;: possi- 
 ble to be used for 1300 years after Christ.' 
 
 Stachhoufce' hist, ofisible, Booi: 8, Chapt 1 
 
 * We follow the example of the Apostles, who ioi' 
 iHcrsed the candidate under water.' 
 
 Critopulas Confetsloa of Faith, efaftp& 7. 
 
164 
 
 ^ In the Greek Church, baptism is performed by 
 
 iitimersioD, and it is repeated three times. The 
 
 Greeks so firmly believe that sprinkling of water on 
 the head among us is not sufficient for baptism, that 
 they rehaptize the Latins who embrace their commun- 
 
 ion. Tourneforts Voyages, Vol. 1, p. 132. 
 
 '■ Baptism is administered among the Armenians by 
 
 immersion . Toumefort's Voyage au Levant, Vol. 3, p. 247. 
 
 'Baptism relates to the death of Christ; the water 
 answers to the grave, the immersion represents our 
 dying with him, the emersion our rising with him.' 
 
 Apostolic constitutions, Lib. 3, Chapt. 17. 
 
 ' Baptism is an entire action, to wit, a dipping ; and 
 the pronouncing of these words, I baptize thee in the 
 
 name of the Father &C.* g^^^^n Conf of raitl., by Melanc in 1551. 
 
 'All the Christians in Asia, all in Africa, and about 
 one third part of Europe immerse.' 
 
 Dr. Wall's hist, of Bapt. Part 2, Chapt. 9, p. 477. 
 
 'I have heard a disputant of this stamp, in defiance 
 of etymology and use, maintain that the word ren- 
 dered baptize means more properly to sprinkle than to 
 plunge. One who argues in this manner never fails, 
 with persons of knowledge, to betray the cause they 
 would defend ; and though with respect to the vulgar, 
 bold assertions succeed as well as arguments, yet can- 
 did minds will disdain to take the help of a falsehood 
 even in support of truth.' 
 
 Br. Campbell's Lecture on Pnlpit Eloquence, p. 488. 
 
 ' Baptising in ancient times was by immersion ; thig 
 is so plain and clear, from an infinite number of pas- 
 sages, thai one can not but pity the v/eak endeavors of 
 «uch pedobaptists as would maintain the negative of it.' 
 
 Dr. Vvairs Zlislory of Baptism, vol, 2, p. 351. 
 
 ' No ho7iest man who understands the Greek lan- 
 guage can deny the word {^ann'Qo)) to signify to dip.' 
 
 Dr. Owen's Po5-Jhuaioiis Works, p. &S1. 
 
 'The disciples of our Lord could understand his 
 tommand in no other manner than as enjoining ira- 
 mersion, for the baptism of John, to which Jesus him- 
 
165 
 
 self submitted, and also the earlier baptism of the dis- 
 ciples of Jesus, were performed by dipping the subjett 
 into cold water, as is evident from Matt. iii. 6 : e^ocTrr^ 
 lovTo ev TO) logdavi], were baptized in Jordan. Matt. iii. 16^. 
 
 fsgov; avB^i] evdug ano tov vduio;, JesUS ascended OUt of 
 the water.' sjorrs' Bib. TheoL 
 
 SECTION VII. 
 
 Baptism a burial. 
 
 That baptism is explained as a burial and planting 
 by God himself, is fatal to the sprinkling scheme ; for 
 how can a man be bnried by putting a little water oa 
 his face. The Saviour foreseeing that some men would 
 fall into this error, determined to leave them without 
 excuse, therefore Paul was inspired to make two faithful 
 comments on ^anit'^bi and its derivatives. That Rom. 
 vi. 3 — 5, and Col. ii. 12, are such inspired explanations, 
 is conceded by all intelligent pedobapizots, of v/hich 
 the following are specimens: — ^:sjvOc(nTO}, to be buried 
 as another has been buried, Rom. vi. 4, 2:vvsiu(pri^sv ow 
 
 avT(x) dia TOV ^anTigijaios si; tov Ouvutov aviov. Col. ii. 12, 
 
 Swezacpsvieo aviu) ev to* ^anTiguazi,. He here compares th« 
 baptism of Christians, in which they were probably 
 immersed in water ^ to the burial of Jesus, and as Jesus 
 rose from the grave to a new and more exalted state of 
 existence than he exhibited on earth, so their rising 
 
 from the water,' &C. e. Robinson's Lex. :^vvOo:uTixU 
 
 * Anciently those who were baptized, were immersed 
 and buried in water to represent their death to sin, and 
 then did rise up out of the water, to signify their en- 
 trance upon a new life, and to these customs the apos- 
 tle alludes, Roni. vi. % — 6.' 
 
 Archbishop TillotBon'a Works, vol, I, f, IT8. 
 
166 
 
 'The plunging- into water sis:nifieth that we die and 
 are hurled with Christ as concerning the old life of sin.' 
 
 Wm. T>rnJairs Obedience of a Christian Man, p. 143. 
 
 *It seems the part of candor to coniess that here is 
 an allusion to the manner of baptizing by immersion,^ 
 
 Dr. Dfidfiridge's Exposition, Ronjans vi. 3—4. 
 
 ^Immersion was religiously observed by all Christians 
 for thirteen cenruries, and was changed into sprinkling 
 without any authority from the author of this institu- 
 tion. It vrere to be wished that this custom were again 
 
 in general use. Dr. Vv'hiiliy's comment, on Romans, vi. 4. 
 
 'Rom. vi. 4. There is li^re plamiy a reference to 
 tlie ancient mode of baptism by immersion, and 1 agree 
 •with Koppe and Rosen muller tliat there is reason to 
 reorret it should have been abandoned by most christian 
 
 enUrctlCS. Kioomfield's Critical Digest. 
 
 *In baptism, by a kind of analogy or resemblance, 
 while our bodies are under the water we may be said 
 to be buried with l]im.' 
 
 fiishop Kicliolson's E.tposition of Cburcb Catechism, p. 174 
 
 ^ That baptism was performed not by sprinkling but 
 by immersion is evident not only from the nature of 
 the wordj but from Rom. vi. 4.' 
 
 Prof. Fritsche's Comment, on Matthew lii. & 
 
 ECTION VIII 
 
 The Savlor^s Baptism an Example for Believers* 
 
 'If the baptism of Jesus Christ was intended as an 
 examph for Christians you ought to follow it.' 
 
 Win. T. Iliiniilton's Anabapli^m Di.«proved, p. 10. 
 
 'Baptism was instituted aiid consecrated by God, 
 and the first that baptized was JoIju who dipped Christ 
 in the water in Jordan.' 
 
 Hel»e:ia Corif. Faith, written by Eiicer, A. D. 153G: repub Zurich, A. D. 1566. 
 
 'Jesus submitted to be baptized, that is buried under 
 the water, by John, and to be raised out of it again, as 
 an emblem of his future death and resurrection.' 
 
 Mackniglit's Apostolic Epietles, note on Rom. vi. 4» 
 
167 
 
 *Our Lord would be baptized that he might coneiV 
 late authority to the baptism of John, that by his es^ 
 ample he might commend and sanctify our baptism.' 
 
 Wirsiut. 
 
 'Matt. iii. 15, Thus it becometti iis, &c. We never 
 find that Jesus spake of himself in the 'plural nnmberj 
 and we must therefore allow he meant John also, and 
 all God's servants. It became Christ, our surely and 
 example, perfectly to fulfil all righteousness : and it 
 becometh us to walk in God's commandments without 
 
 exception, ^j.. Scott's comment. 
 
 Some persons think they must v/ait a v/hile after they 
 are converted, to see if they can live like a Christian, 
 before they are baptized'. But this is evidently v/rong ; 
 for how can we live like a Christian in disobedienca. 
 In the Savior's commands there is no duty enjoined 
 between believing and being baptized : Matt, xxviii. 19, 
 'Teacli all nations, baptizing then.].' Mark xvi. 16, 
 'He that believeth and is baptized.' According^ly ia 
 the practice of the apostles there are cxjiiiples of "pei^ 
 sons being baptized the same hour of tlie night in 
 which they believed ; and there is no example of any 
 waiting as long as three days, excepting Paul, Acts ix. 
 8 — 19: verse 9, 'And he was three d:iys without 
 sight; and neither did eat nor drink;' yet Ananias se- 
 verely rebuked him for delaying his baptism so long: 
 Acts xxii. 16, 'Now v/hy tarriest thou, arise and be, 
 baptized and wash away thy sins.' Acts ix. 18 — 19, 
 *And immediati^ly there fell from his eyes as it had 
 been scales, and he received sight forthwith, and aros« 
 and was baptized, and when he had received meat he 
 vas strengthened.' Paul's being blind and so ill as 
 not to take any food, would appear like an apology for 
 his delaying baptism ; yet the Holy Spirit moved 
 Ananias to make no allowance, but to rebuke his delay : 
 ' Now why tarriest thou.'' In all other instances where 
 the ©rdinancc is mentioned w» find that the convert 
 
168 
 
 was baptized the same day that he believed : Acts it 
 S8, ' Repent and be baptized/ Acts ii. 41, ' Then they 
 that gladly received his word were baptized, and the 
 same day there were added about three thousand 
 aouls.' Acts viii. 35 — 38, 'The Eunuch was baptized 
 immediately.' Acts xvi. 15, 'Lydia did not delay.' — 
 Acts xvi. 33, ' The jailor was baptized the same houi 
 of the night.' Acts xviii. 8, 'Many of the Gorii> 
 thians hearing, believed and were baptized.' Hence 
 ^is joining a six month class paper, or being propounded 
 for one, two, or three months, is without any Bible 
 precept or example, and is wholly opposed to the scrip- 
 tares. It should be rem.embered that we are account 
 able for sins of omission as well as commission : Matk 
 V. 19, ' Whosoever, therefore, shall break one of these 
 least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall 
 be called the least in the kingdom of heaven : but 
 wiioever shall do and teach them, the same shall be 
 ealled great in the kingdom of heaven.' 
 
 1st John ii. 6, 'He that saith he abideth in him 
 <mght himself also so to walk, even as he walked.' — 
 John xiv. 15, ' If ye love me keep my commandments.' 
 Luke vi. 46, ' Why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do 
 not the things which I say.' 2 John 6, ' This ia 
 love, that ye walk after his commandments.' Luko 
 riv. 33, ' Whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not 
 ell that he hath, he can not be my disciple.' Matt. xix. 
 89, 'And every one that hath forsaken houses, o» 
 brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, oj 
 children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receiy* 
 an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.' — 
 Mark viii. 34, ' Whosoever will come after me, let htto, 
 €eny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.' 
 Luke xiv. 27, ' And whosoever doth not bear his crow, 
 and come after me^ can not be my disciple.' 
 
169 
 
 8ECTI0W IX. 
 
 Baptism a Saving Ordinance. 
 
 It has been said that Baptists esteem immersion a 
 saving ordinance. We reply, no ordinance saves.— 
 Jesus Christ alone saves, by grace, through faith ; and 
 the Baptists are so far from believing this ordinance 
 iaving, that none are admitted to it but those who give 
 satisfactory evidence of piety. But the following ex- 
 tracts will show what efficacy pedobaptists give to 
 sprinkling : 
 
 'Whoever denies that infants by Christian baptism 
 are delivered from perdition^ and brought to eternal 
 salvatioUj let him be anathema.^ 
 
 Council of Carthage, Wall's Hist. Bapt. part 1, p. 957. 
 
 ^If any one shall say that baptism is not necessary 
 to salvation, let him be anathema.'' 
 
 Council Tiiddent Session 7, Caan.6. 
 
 * Christ has nothing to do with any man, nor any 
 man with Christ, till he is baptized with water. Ail 
 power in heaven and earth is in baptism. He that is 
 not baptized has no interest in Father, Son, nor Spirit. 
 He who is baptized is as white and clean from sin as 
 
 God can make him. Lewelyn's Treatise on Bapt. pp. 5, H, 23. 
 
 'In baptism we are regenerated, justified and sacc- 
 tified while yet infants.' 
 
 Faitii of the Church of England, New-York Evangelist, Sept. 8, VSSi. 
 
 'From this it follows of course, agreeably to the 
 terms of that covenant, (the covenant of grace,) that 
 infants are entitled to baptism; and that the blessiftg* 
 ^ that covenant are forfeited by a neglect to practice 
 
 mtant baptlSfll. l a. sawyer's Critical Dissbrtation, p. 19. 
 
 'By baptism, we, who are by nature the children of 
 wrath, are made the children of God.' 
 
 John Wesley's Works, vol. 6, p. 14. 
 
 'It was the sprinkling of the blood of the Paschal 
 hsmh oa the door posts of their houses which preserved 
 
 1.G 
 
170 
 
 the Israelites from the destroying angel. So baptism 
 when truly received saves from everlasting ruin/ 
 
 Brtn.Mag. (preabjterian) Hartford, June 1836, p. 647. See, also, Fresbjteiia* 
 €V>nf. Faith, pp. Ill, 112, and Episcopal Book of Commua Prajer, under Pvblic 
 ~'~^nai of lafanis and tbe Catechism. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 THE LORD»S SUPPER. 
 
 The word communioa is used in connection with 
 tlie Lord's Supper but in one instance : 1 Cor. x. 16, 
 * The cup of blessing, which we bless, is it not the 
 communion of the blood of Christ?" and here it ia 
 not used to denote the Lord's Supper, but \\\q fellow- 
 ship which Christians have with the blood and body 
 of Christ, in partaking of the supper, xvgiaxov dempowy 
 Lord's Supper, at 1 Cor. xi. 20 ; is entirely a different 
 thing from xotvavta, commimiorij 1 Cor. x. 16. This 
 latter word means, and is most usually rendered fel- 
 lowship : as at Acts ii. 42: 1 Cor. i. 9 : 2 Cor. viii. 4 : 
 Gal. ii. 9: Eph. iii. 9: Phil. i. 5 : ii. 1 : iii. 10; 
 1 John i. 3 : communion is used to denote a friendly 
 interchange and unity of sentiments : Gen. xxiii. 8, 
 Abraham and the sons of Heth : Gen. xlii. 24, Joseph 
 and his brethren : 1 Saml. xviii. 22, Saul's servants 
 and David : 1 Saml. xix. 3, Jonathan and Saul : Job 
 \j. 2, Job and Eliphaz: Psl. Ixiv. 5, David^s enemies : 
 Luke vi. 11, The pharisees : Luke xxii. 4, Judas and 
 the chief priests: Acts x::iv. 26, Felix and Paul: ac- 
 cording to the inspired use of the word communion^ 
 elose communion is only applicable to such Christians 
 as decline all friendly intercourse; and how far this is 
 applicable to pedobaptists we leave the reader to judge ; 
 •pen communion an4 close communion are not scrip- 
 ^ral terms: but as their measing is generally knowio, 
 we shall use them to avoid circumlocution. Chriftiaa 
 ibllowskip and Church fellowship are two thm js : the 
 
171 
 
 former may be perfect where the latter does not exist, 
 and no denomination has church fellowship for another 
 distinct sect, ahhough they may have Ciiristian fellow- 
 ship for each of its members. 'In the Westminster 
 confession they distinguish between church commun- 
 ion and Christian communion. By the first, viz. 
 church communion, they understand communion with 
 a church in her social character as organized under a 
 particular form of doctrine, government, and worship. 
 By the second, viz. the communion of saints, or Chris- 
 tian communion, they understand that communion 
 which subsists between Christians as individuals with- 
 out reference to their church connexion at all.^ 
 
 Dr. J. M. Mason's plea, pp. 225, 2». 
 
 There are several religious duties which are the acts 
 of individual Christians : such as preaching, prayer, 
 eiaging, alms giving-, visiting, &c. ; others are church 
 acts and can not be performed by individuals: as li- 
 censing and ordaining ministers, ordaining deacons, 
 administering and receiving the Lord's supper^ re- 
 ceiving, disciplining and excluding members, settling 
 and dismissing pastors. &c. ! no pedobaptist denomin- 
 ation invites other sects to join with them in all these 
 church acts. But shall we therefore call them bigoted 
 and close communion. If I should appear at a Meth- 
 odist ordination, or a Congregational church meeting, 
 and insist on taking an active part, alledging that it 
 was the Lord's church meeting, and the Lord's min- 
 ister to be ordained ; I should act as consistent as they 
 do who urge open communion for the same reason. 
 
 The elements of the Lord's supper must be bread 
 and wine ; Matt. xxvi. 26, 29: 1 Cor. xi. 23, 26.— 
 The command and example of Christ is the law of thi« 
 institution from which no church is at liberty to depart. 
 We are not directed how often to repeat this sacrament, 
 but 1 Cor. xi. 26, ' As often as ye do eat this bread and 
 drink this cup.' In baptism the burial and resurrec- 
 
172 
 
 tion of the Savior is set forth : and the Lord^s supper 
 represents his sufferings and death : thus in the two 
 sacraments we commemorate the sufferings, death, 
 burial, and resurrection of the Lord. The communi- 
 cants must be baptized believers regularly admitted to 
 church fellowship: as also the administrator: * The 
 primitive Christians never received the Lord's supper 
 but from the hands of their bishop, or from one ap- 
 pointed by him.' Tertunaode Corona MUitis p. 338. 
 
 Some persons suppose that they can partake of the 
 Lord's supper with sects holdingerroneous sentiment?, 
 and not thereby fellowship their errors, and say that 
 partaking with them is only joining in that one action. 
 But 'as the sacramental supper is the act of a church 
 in her social character, we do by the very fact of com- 
 muning with her, acknowledge her as a whole: and 
 thus by implication at least, put the seal of our appro- 
 bation to whatever belongs to her as a church.' 
 
 Dr. J. M. Masoo's Plea, p. 236. 
 
 Hence partaking with a church is publicly declaring 
 a fellowship for the whole faith and practice of that 
 church. 
 
 The custom of giving the Lord's supper to infants 
 originated at Alexandria, in Egypt, in the third cent- 
 ury, and continued in use till the Council of Con- 
 stance, June 14, 1415. The scholastic divines sup- 
 posed it was essential to salvation, from a wrong inter- 
 pretation of John vi. 53, 54. They administered it by 
 mixing the bread and wine in a spoon, and uniformly 
 gave it to all they baptized : for the Catholics, using 
 common sense, saw that if the candidate was fit for on« 
 he was for both sacraments. 
 
 •In the ancient church those two sacraments were 
 never separated the one from the other. Infants in the 
 third century were generally admitted to baptism and 
 
 theLord'sSUpper.' Venema.«HiBt.Ecclesia«t..eca,.2.«ct. 1(0. 
 
 < It is manifest that in the ancient church it was u«ual 
 
173 
 
 to give the eucharist to infants, which custom aro»e 
 about the third century. 
 
 Badeus' Theol. Dogm. book 5, chapter 1, section 19. 
 
 *No objection can be made to this custom but what 
 may with equal force be made to the custom of baptiz- 
 ing infants.' 
 
 Dr. Prestly'B Adilress on Gi»ing the Lord's Supper to Children, p. 31. 
 
 *The visible church consists of all that profess the 
 true religion, too^ether with their children^ and is the 
 kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ ; out of which there 
 is no ordinary possibility of salvation ; the parties bap- 
 tized are solemnly admitted into the visible church; 
 baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of 
 the visible church ; but infants descending from parents 
 both or but one of them professing faith in Christ and 
 obedience to him, are in that respect within the cove- 
 nant and are to be baptized. All baptized persons are 
 members of the church, are under its care, and subject 
 to its discipline ; and when they have arrived at the 
 years of discretion they are bound to perform all tht 
 ditties o( cbxiivch members. Children born within the 
 pale of the visible church, and dedicated to God in bap- 
 tism, are under the inspection and government of the 
 church, and when they come to years of discretion, if 
 they be free from scandal, appear sober and steady, and 
 have a sufficient knowledof'e to discern the Lord's body, 
 they ought to be informed that it is their duty and their 
 privilege to come to the Lord's suppei.' 
 
 Presbyterian Confession of Faith, pp. 1 H, 287, 392, 436. 
 
 * During their minority which reaches till they are 
 more than thirteen years, according to the example of 
 Ishmael, and till about sixteen years of age, they are 
 really members to such intents and purposes as that 
 if their parents are dismissed to other churches, their 
 children ought to be put into the letters of dismission 
 
 with them. i>r. j. Ootloa'* itssay oo the HoIimm of Oh. Members, p. If. 
 
 •The above doetTioe having been fully preached in a preabf- 
 itriaa church ia the state of New- York, and the children not 
 
174 
 
 'It is objected further that all baptized persons are 
 by that class of Christians to whom I have attached 
 myself, considered as members of the Christian church ; 
 yet those who are baptized in infancy, are not treated 
 as if they possessed that character; particularly, they 
 are not admitted to the sacramental supper : nor made 
 objects of ecclesiastical discipline. As this objection 
 has in my own view, a more serious import than any 
 other which has been alledofed, it deserves particular 
 consideration. In the first place, I acknouledge with- 
 out hesitation, that the conduct of those with whom 
 I am in immediate communion, and so far as I know 
 their opinions also, with regard to this subject, are in 
 a greater or less degree erroneous awd indefensible.' 
 
 Dwight'sTheol. Sermon, 167. 
 
 From the above it is obvious that infant commun- 
 ion was the practice of the Romish church; and that 
 pedobaptists have adopted the sentiment in their con- 
 fessions of faith, but refuse to reduce it to practice. — 
 ^ee also Zornius' Hist. Euchar. Infantum : Robinson's 
 Claude: Watt's Ruin and Recovery: Edwards on 
 Original Sin : and Ridgeley's Bod Divi. vol. I. While 
 there was but one denomination the Lord's supper was 
 administeied to all its members; but when Arius and 
 his party went off, the true Church refused to con>- 
 mune with them ; when the church of Rome became 
 corrupt, the true church refused to commune with 
 them; when the Lutherans and Calvinists loft the 
 Roman catholics, the Romish church refused to ccr> 
 niane with them, and they refused to commune ii^ilii 
 the church of Rome, and the true church refused to 
 eommune with all these sects. *In a letter, in loSrJ, 
 
 inrited to the Lord's table, on one sacramental occasion, in A. 
 D. 1832, while the chuich was celebrating the Lord's supper, 
 a number of these young church members assembled in the gal- 
 lery, and attended to the communion amoDg themselves, by a^ 
 ministering and receiving pieces of 'pumpkin in the name of tfe« 
 Lord. 
 
175 
 
 to the brethren of the Waldenses (the true church) in 
 Bohemia, Melancthon thus writes, ' Since we agree in 
 the principal articles of Christian doctrine let us em- 
 brace each other.' Dr. J M. Mason's Plea, p. W. 
 
 But the Waldenses positively refused to communi- 
 cate with these heterodox sects. 
 
 The council of Trent, which continued from 1547 
 to 1564, thus paraphrased the Savior's words, Luke 
 xxii. 19, * This do^^ * That is receive the power of 
 convertinor these elements of bread and wine, into the 
 true and proper substance of my body and blood : and 
 offering them up to my Father, a propitiatory sacrifice 
 for the living and the dead;' this is called transub- 
 stantiation. 
 
 Council Trideut, sess. 13, chapt. 1, can 4. sees. 22, can. 2,3. 
 
 The Lutherans invented the doctrine of consub- 
 stantiation, which affirms that ' with the bread is ex- 
 hibited that body of Christ which was delivered for 
 us ; and with the v/ine is exhibited that blood which 
 is the basis of the new testament.' But this was so 
 oiensive to the Calvinists (Pres]:)yterians) that thej 
 would not commune with the Lutherans. 'John 
 Knox accepted at Frankfort on the Maine, the charg« 
 of a congregation of English exiles : and when th« 
 congregation had agreed io adopt the order of the 
 Geneva church, and requested him to proceed to ad- 
 minister the communion accordins: to it, althonofh h« 
 approved of that order he declined to carry it intov 
 
 effect. Dr T K. ilason'fi Ilea, p.lSX 
 
 A pious Scotcl^man, now residing in this city, who 
 was a membor g<^ t:.s Scotch church for many years, 
 Bays * In k^ccliand there eua the following pedobaptitt 
 deiiomiDit:ons. vijI, the /^Qtabliched church, the Cov§- 
 nanters, the Relief church, the church of England, th« 
 Bergers and the Anti-Beigers, (novv iiiQ United Ceces- 
 fiion church,) the Independents, the Wesleyan Metho- 
 dist, and the Independent MethodivSt. Each of the&t 
 
176 
 
 Beets is close communion in every sense of the word. 
 They never partake of the Lord's supper together ; 
 they all say, if we have reason to divide into difi'erent 
 sects we can not unite in the Lord's supper, which is 
 the most essential act of church fellowship.' It is thus 
 evident that the Presbyterian churches in Scotland are 
 emphatically close communion, and ever have been 
 since the days of John Knox. 
 
 A question being asked president Edwards relating 
 to the practice of European pedobaptists, in the use of 
 the Lord's supper, he answers, ^ The divines of Scot- 
 land. I find in many of their sermons, and other dis- 
 courses, declare themselves to strictness in admission 
 to the Lord's supper. — I might bring much to this 
 purpose from Mr. Andrew Gray's book of sermons, 
 1716. So from Ebenezer Erskine's Synod ical Sermon, 
 1732 ; and his discourse on fencing the tahle^ annexed 
 to his sermon on John xiv. 15. So from Mr. Williams' 
 Synodical Sermon, 1733, where he sets down a variety 
 of searchinof questions, no less than twenty-seven, 
 which he advises to *be put to proponents, and their 
 answers waited for before they are admitted, (to th« 
 Lord's table.) And now to pass over to England : Mr. 
 Baxter in his five disputations has much that runs i& 
 tlie same strain ; so in his reformed liturgy, and in his 
 Christian concord, where v/e have his brethren joining 
 Cheir testimony v/ith bis. Likewise. Mr. Charnock in 
 his discourse on tho Lord's supper. Mr. Palmer in 
 his scriptitre rail to the iiOrd's table. Mr. Saunders 
 in his Antidiatribe. Mr. Longley, Mr. Doolittle, Mr. 
 Henry, i>r. E?.t], ?nd others, in their books on the 
 
 Lord's supper.' i^residentEJward's'. 'orks,vo], 4, pp. 437,439. 
 
 America was settled by different sects of pedobap- 
 6sts, and that they vrerc all closs communion is evident 
 from the heads of agreement entered into by the Pre^ 
 byterians and Congregationalists at Saybrook, Sept. 9, 
 1708, established by law at New-Haven» Oct. 14, 1708, 
 
177 
 
 •nd printed at New-Londoo, 1710, in which ihey 
 provide, chapt. 4, sect. 3, for opening communion, in 
 these words, ♦ That known members of particular 
 churches, constituted as aforesaid, may have occasional 
 communion with each other in the ordinances of the 
 gospel, viz. the word, prayer, sacrament, and singing 
 psalms: 'Such an event, it is believed, had never 
 before occured in the United States. The Presbyterian 
 church in North America sprung immediately from 
 the established church in Scotland; the associate re- 
 formed church, also, was founded in the union of 
 aiinisters and people from the two branches of the 
 cecession in Scotland, and from the reformed presby- 
 tery ; when they emigrated to this country it was not 
 So be expected that the espirit du corpus, their char- 
 . Rcteristic feeling, should perish in the Atlantic : and 
 accordingly like the mother churches, they maintafied 
 not only separate communions, but much of their old 
 reserve and distance,' ^r j m m 
 
 Or- J. M. Mason-e Pica. 
 
 Ine colonies of Massachusetts and Connecticut, 
 called a General Council, to discuss and settle a sys- 
 tem of faith and practice, which convened at Boston, 
 June 4, 1657. Among the questions discussed, the 
 second was this, ' Whether communion of churches 
 as such, be not warrantable by the word of God.— 
 Reoords of Conn.'' ™, , „. ,,. 
 
 ^,J^, / Trumbull's History, vol. 1. pp. 301, 303. 
 
 ine first mmisters of Connecticut and New-Eng- 
 land maintained that all the pastors' office power wes 
 confined to his own church and con^rec^ation, and thj^t 
 the administering of baptism and theLord's suppm, 
 m other churches, was irregular.— //oo^•6/•'5 Survey 
 
 part 2, pp. 69, 68.' Tr„.b«irs History, vol. 1, p. 2S3. 
 
 When the pedobaptists in America forsook the 
 I practice of their close communion mother churches 
 j in Europe, and establisned their united religion by 
 jlaw, it is evident that their design in uniting had not 
 io much reference to their opening communion among 
 
178 
 
 themselves, as to uniting their forces to persecute the 
 Baptists and duakers. New England, and especially 
 New Haven, is the most unhappy place for pedobap- 
 lists to plead for communion with the Baptists. There 
 are so many Presbyterian blue laws and blue practices 
 fresh in recollection, that it is blushing work for them 
 to name close communion. The first man that ad- 
 vocated 'Baptist sentiments in America, was the firs^t 
 that suffered violence. Roger Williams was banished 
 from Salem, Mass. in 1634, by pedobaptist force and 
 arms. 
 
 In 1639, some Baptists attempted to organize a 
 church at Weymouth, 14 miles east of Boston. For 
 this offense, the pedobaptists arrested John Smith. 
 John Spur, Richard Sylvester, Ambrose Morton, 
 Thomas Macpeace and Robert Lenthal, who were tn- 
 ^ before the General court at Boston, March ISth, 1639 
 and fined from £20 to 20s. each, and threatened with 
 banishment ifthey persisted. Benedict's Hist. p. 356. 
 
 The subsequent persecutions which the Baptists 
 su9r)red in that section was under the following pedo- 
 baptist law, enacted by the General Court of Mass., Nov. 
 13, 1644. *' It is ordered and agreed that if any person 
 within this jurisdiction shall either openly condemn 
 or oppose the baptizing of infants, or go about secret- 
 ly to seduce others from the approbation or use there- 
 of, or shall purposely depart the congregation at the 
 administration of the ordinance, every such person or 
 persons, shall be sentenced to BANISHMENT. See 
 Records of Mass. General Court. Benedict'sHi«.p3 59 
 
 October 17th, 1643, Samuel Gorton, John Wickes, 
 Randal Kolden, Robert Potter, Richard Carder, Fran- 
 cis Weston, and John Warner, were tried by the Gen- 
 eral Court at Boston, for being Baptists, and sentenced 
 to be shut up in seperate prisons, and there to be set 
 at work, and to wear such holts or irons as may hjn- 
 
179 
 
 der their escape. These men were kept in priso* 
 until March 7th, 1644, and then BANISHED by order 
 of the General Court, and forbidden to return under 
 the penalty of suffering death. b,^j,„,, ^jat. voi. i, p- i26-i «. 
 
 In 1644, a pedobaptist named Painter, who belong- 
 ed to Hingham, turned Baptist, and refused to have 
 his child sprinkled, for which offense by order of the 
 dourt he was tied up and whipt. b,,,,^,, ^^,^ ^^j, i^ p. ^g,. 
 
 In July, 1651, three Baptist clergymen named^ 
 Clark, Holmes, and Moody, were arrested at L^ni 
 ten miles north-east of Boston, while Clark was preacb- 
 ingjon the Lords day, and sent to the prison in Boston, 
 where they lay two weeks, and were fined, one £30, one 
 £20 and one £5, and sentenced to be publicly whif^- 
 ped if they refused to pay. How Moody got out we 
 do not learn; Clark's fine was paid, but Holmes wa« 
 whipt. John Spur and John Hazel, who were specta- 
 tors, showed signs of sympathy at Holmes' bloody 
 whipping, which led the pedobaptists to suspicion that 
 Spur and Hazel were Baptists, and they were arrested 
 at Boston, and each sentenced to pay 40 shillings and 
 be publicly whiped, Benedict's hi«t. p. s&i-sre. 
 
 In 1655, Thomas Gould, Thomas Osborne, Edward 
 Drinker, John George, Richard Goodall, William 
 Turner, Robert LamlDert, Mary Goodall, and Mary 
 Newel, were imprisoned, some of whom were whip- 
 ed, and others left to dreadful sufferings for denyiB|^ 
 infant baptism, and attempting to establish a Bap- 
 tist Church in Boston. Jn May 1665, Thomn 
 Gould, William Turner, and John Farnum, wire 
 BANISHED by sentence of the General Court, at 
 Boston, and tbsy refusing to leave the country, wer© 
 imprisoned again. Through all these persecutioBt, 
 th« Baptists persevered and obtained a house to wcr- 
 thip in. But the General Court passed a law to shut it 
 ap, And the Baptists found the following note on tho 
 ^!oor. " All persons cro to tak;^ notice th«it by ord«r 
 
180 
 
 of the Court the doors of this house are shut up ; and 
 that they are inhibited to hold any meeting, or to open 
 the doors thereof without license from authority, -till 
 the General Court take further order, as they will 
 answer the contrary at their peril. Dated at Boston, 
 8th of March 1680. Edward Rawson, Secretary. 
 
 Benedict's hist. 383—400. 
 
 Between the years 1727 and 1733, there were 28 
 Baptists, 2 duakers, and 2 Episcopalians imprisoned 
 at Bristol, Mass., (now R. I.) for Presbyterian priest 
 
 tax. Benedict's hist. p. 443. 
 
 In 1751, the Rev. Mr. Mouiton was arrested for 
 preaching Baptist sentiments in Sturbridge, Mass., and 
 by public authority shut up in prison, and finally 
 BANISHED as a vagrant and vagabond, and his dea- 
 con, Mr. Fisk, and bretheren, John Corey, Jeremiah 
 Barstow, Josiah Perry, and John Draper, were impris- 
 oned in Worcester Jail. The follov/ing property be- 
 longing to the members of that Baptist church, was ta- 
 ken and sold by authority, to pay the salary of ihe 
 Rev. Caleb Rice, a Congregational priest. Cash, $36, 
 7 cows, 1 heifer, 2 steers, 2 oxen, a flock of geese, 20 
 pewter plates, 1 tankard, 1 saddle, a trammel and 
 Mooks, shovel, tongs, and andirons, 1 pot, 1 kettle, 1 
 warming pan, and one broad axe. 
 
 Benedict's hist, p.432. 432. 
 
 In 1770, about 400 acres of land, belonging to 
 the members of the Baptist church, in Ashfield, were 
 •old at auction, to pay Congregational priest tax. 
 
 Benedict's hist. p. 43P 
 
 So much for Puritan inquisition, and Massachusetts 
 epen communion. 
 
 We pass to Connecticut, and shall glance at her !<► 
 gflilized persecutions. The following law was enact- 
 ed by the General Court of Connecticut, in October, 
 1656. * That no tE)wn within this Jurisdiction shall 
 entertain any Quakers, Ranters, Adamites, or such 
 lik« notorious heretics, aor suffer thsm to contiaue fa 
 
181 
 them above the space of 14 days, upon the penalty of 
 
 ' In 1658, the Court of New Haven made a similar 
 law increasing the penalties and prohibiting all con- 
 versation of the common people with any of those her- 
 etics (duakers, Baptists, &;c.) and all persons from giv- 
 ing them any entertainment npon penalty of £5.' 
 
 Trumbull's hist. ofCt. Vol. 1, p. 299, 300. 
 
 'And it is farther enacted by the authority aforesaid, 
 that whatsoever person not being a lawfully allow- 
 ed {Congregational) minister of the gospel shall pre- 
 sume to profane the holy sacraments by administering 
 or making a show of administering them to any person 
 or persons whatsoever, and being thereof convicted be- 
 fore the county court in such county where such oiFense 
 shall be committed, shall incur the penalty of £10, for 
 every such oifense. and suffer corporeal punishment by 
 whipping, not exceeding thirty stripes for each of- 
 
 lense. Records of the State of Conn. Vol. 5, May 1723. 
 
 Truml)ull's hist., vol. 2, p. 3S. 
 
 In 1738, the Congregational church in Milford. 
 Conn., divided; and one part employed Mr. Finley, a 
 Presbyterian minister, as their pastor; but the Con- 
 gregational part were so enraged at his Presbyterian- 
 ism, that they transported him to New- Jersey, as a 
 vagrant ; (and I believe that the two churches in Mil- 
 ford, do not commune together to this day.) 
 
 Trumbull's Hi-story, vol. 2, p. 177. 
 
 In December, 1740, John Merriman, pastor of the 
 Baptist church in Wallingford, invited the Rev. Phil- 
 emon Robbins, pastor of the Congregational church 
 in Bran ford, to preach for him. Mr. Robbins accepted 
 the invitation, and preached to the Baptist church in 
 Wallingford, January 6, 1741 ; for this offense^ the 
 New-Haven Congregational Association laid Mr, Rob- 
 bins under censnre, and finally deposed him from the 
 ministry. A majority of the church at Branford de- 
 ciding with their pastor, rather than with the New- 
 
 16 
 
182 
 
 Haven Association, renounced the Saybrook and 
 adopted the Cambridge platform : for this act the 
 New-Haven Association held the Branford church un- 
 der censure till 1748. Trumbull'8 History, vol. 2, pp. 196, 232. 
 
 In 1741, Rev. Mr. Humphreys, of Derby, Conn., a 
 Congregational minister, had preached to a Baptist so- 
 ciety, and on that account was soon after deprived of 
 a seat in the New-Haven association. 
 
 Trumbull's History, rol. 2, p. 196. 
 
 In May 1742, the General Assembly of Connecti- 
 cut enacted a law, of which the following is an ex- 
 tract : 
 
 '• Whereas this assembly did by their act, made in 
 the 27th year of Queen Anne, establish and confirm a 
 confession of faith, and an agreement for ecclesiastical 
 discipline, made at Saybrook in 1708, by the Rev. El- 
 ders and Messengers delegated by the churches in this 
 
 colony ; —therefore be it enacted by the Gover- 
 
 nor,Counci], and representatives in General Court as- 
 sembled and by the authority of the same, that if any 
 ordained minister, or any other person licensed as a- 
 foresaid to preach, shall enter into any parish not im- 
 mediately under his charge, and shall there preach and 
 exhort the people, he shall be denied and excluded 
 
 the benefit of any law of this colony: and it is 
 
 further enacted by the authority aforesaid- — ^ — that 
 every such preacher, teacher, or exhorter, shall be 
 sent as a vagrant person, by warrant from any assist- 
 ant or justice of the peace, from constable to constable, 
 out of the bounds of the colony." 
 
 Records of the Colony of ConD.,1742. Trumboire hist ofConn.,*©!. 2, p,162-165. 
 
 In February, A. D. 1744, fourteen persons were 
 arrested at Sayville, in the town of Saybrook, for 
 holding a Baptist mee ting : the charge brought against 
 them was : ''^for holding a meetings contrary to law, 
 on God's holy Sahhath-dayP They were arraigned, 
 tried, fined, and driven on foot, through a deep mud, 
 to New-London jail, a distance of 25 miles, where 
 
183 
 
 they were thrust into prison, without food, fire, or 
 beds, and kept in dreadful sufferings for several weeks : 
 and probably would have perished had not some Bap- 
 tist brethren, residing at New-London, Great Neck, 
 carried them provisions. One of the imprisoned was 
 an infant, carried in her mother's arms ; which infant 
 afterwards became the wife of Mr. Stephen Webb, of 
 Chester. Another was an unconverted man by the 
 name of Job Buckley; the prayers, and Christian pa- 
 tience, with which these Christians bore their sufferings 
 in jail, were blessed to his conversion ; when they 
 v/ere released they formed a church at Sayville, plac- 
 ing his name first on the list of the constituent mem- 
 bers. 
 
 In 1744, the Congregational church in Canterbury, 
 under the care of Rev. James Cogswell, divided : and 
 a part organized on the Cambridge platform. John 
 Cleaveland and Ebenezer Cleaveland, who were stu^ 
 dents in Yale College, visited Canterbury and attended 
 the Cambridge meeting, and /or this offense they were 
 both expelled from college, Nov. 19, 1744. 
 
 Trumbull's History, vol. 2, pp. 178, 182. 
 
 November 23, 1744, the Rev. Mr. Humphreys, of 
 Derby, Rev. Mr. Leavenworth, of Waterbury, and 
 the Rev. Mr. Todd, of Northbury, ordained the Rev. 
 Jonathan Lee, of Salisbury, who had adopted the 
 Cambridge instead of the Saybrook platform. Mr. 
 Lee was a man of distinguished abilities and piety ; 
 but his embracing the Cambridge platform, was so 
 great an offense, that the New-Haven Association not 
 only refused to fellowship him, but actually suspended 
 the three above clergymen who ordained him. from 
 all associational communion. 7r„mbaii'sHistory,voi.2,p.i96. 
 
 It should be remembered that the whole colony was 
 divided into parishes, and that the law had established 
 the Saybrook platform as the religion of each parish; 
 m that the Baptist was not only deprived of all enter- 
 
184 
 
 tainment, however willing to pay for it, and from all 
 conversation with the people, but they could not preach 
 the gospel or baptize in any part of the colony with- 
 out preaching in a Congregational parish, and thus ex- 
 pose themselves to a fine of £10, a whipping of thirty 
 stripes, and BANISHMENT from the colony as va- 
 grants. 
 
 But notwithstanding all that we have suffered, and 
 , still suffer from our pedobaptist brethren, our refusing 
 to commune with them is not a retaliation : but arises 
 from a fear of deviating from the law of our Savior, 
 which regulates this institution ; and our design in 
 publishing these facts is not to injure our persecutors, 
 but simply to inquire who has the greatest cause to 
 complain of close communion, and, where in reality 
 is the practice found. 
 
 i When the church of England broke off from the 
 Ex)nian Catholics they ceased to commune with tlieni 
 and all other sects. A pious Englishman residing in 
 this city, has furnished me with the following inform- 
 ation and documents : ' The church of Entrjand will 
 not partake of the Lord's supper with any person who 
 can not produce a certificate of his birth and bnptij?m, 
 from under the hand of the parish officer where he 
 was born : and the baptism must have been adminis- 
 tered by an Episcopal minister, and no other; the 
 church must also have proof that the communicant 
 has been confirmed in the Episcopal church, if not he 
 can not be admitted to the Lord's supper. A certificate 
 of birth and baptism from a dissenter will not be ac- 
 cepted, nor can any one gain admittance to the church- 
 man's communion by it. 
 
 [copy of register.] 
 No. These are to certify that N. son of N. N. 
 
 and S., kis wife, who was daughter of N. N., was born 
 at No. in street, in the parish of 
 
185 
 
 in the county of the day of in the 
 
 year 18 at whose birth we were present. J. C, 
 S. W., K. R. Registered at this day of 
 
 18 L. D., Register. 
 
 [copy of a churchmans' certificate.] 
 N., son of N. N. and S., his wife^ was born the 
 day of 18 and baptized the day of 
 
 18 as appears by the register of births 
 
 and baptisms, belonging to the parish of Wit- 
 
 ness my hand, this day of 18 
 
 S. G., Curate.' 
 
 The Episcopal confession of faith says : 'And there 
 
 shall no?ie be admitted to the holy communion until 
 
 such time as he be confirmed, (by one of the 
 
 Episcopal bishops,) or he be ready and desirous to be 
 
 COniirmeGl. Book cfCommoE Prayer, under rCoafirmatioa. 
 
 'Confirmation seemed to give as it were the last 
 stroke to perfection, and to lay on the top stone by 
 which a person was counted worthy of the name of a 
 Christian, and a participation of the Eucharist : he 
 therefore that was not confirmed, icas not e?itiUed or 
 'admitted to the Eucharist.' 
 
 J. Hanmer's Treatises on ConSrmatioB, p. 21. 
 
 Hence Episcopal confirmation is an indispensible 
 qualification for communing with them; and if they 
 admit those whom they have not confirmed they vio- 
 late their creed. The Episcopalians pretend that they 
 have a regular succession of ministers from the apos- 
 tles ; and, therefore, they have the only true priesthood 
 and church order; they look on the Presbyterians, 
 Methodists, &c. as not authorized to preach the gospel 
 or administer its sacraments, and therefore will not 
 even admit them to preach in Episcopal pulpits ; and 
 the British churches will not commune with the Amer- 
 ican EpiscopalianSo Or. J. Milner, went to England 
 in 1836, and Br. F. L. Hawks, in 1837, but neither af 
 fthem were permitted to preach in EpisjC0j)al J)ulpitg 
 
186 
 
 because they had not been ordained by British Episco- 
 pal hands. We are the only true church, says the 
 American Episcopahan, and if the different sects 
 wish to partake of the Lord's supper from our priests^ 
 hands, thereby acknowledging us right, we will not 
 prevent them ; but we will not go and commune with 
 Methodist and Presbyterian errors, neither can we, for 
 their ministers are not lawfully ordained and prepared 
 to administer. But after all their boasted Episcopal 
 succession of bishops, they are obliged to acknowledge 
 themselves dissenters from the Roman Catholics, as late 
 as 1558 ; and if the Episcopalians are^he true churcJi^ 
 because of their apostolical ordinations, then for the 
 same reason the Roman Catholics are the true church, 
 yea, Tnore than the true church, for the Episcopalians 
 are mere dissenters from the Roman Catholics. But 
 even the Catholics fail of their succession of bishops, 
 for 'One extraordinary event afforded in the ninth 
 century, a ludicrous interruption to the boasted suc- 
 cession of regular bishops from the days of St. Peter, 
 the election of a female Pope, who is said to have ably 
 governed the church, for three years, till detected by 
 
 the birth of a child.' Tytler'a General History, p. 119. 
 
 Whatever pretensions Episcopalians make to open 
 communion, it is certain that their creeds and tenets 
 bind them to close communion, and other pedobaptists 
 know it and treat them accordingly : 'Our readers 
 have noticed that when we spoke of the ground as- 
 sumed by the leading papers of the Episcopal church, 
 in this country, in denying the ordinations of other 
 churches, we have always said except the Catholics; 
 and have also considered the doctrine of diocesan 
 Episcopacy, and a distinction of ranks in the Chris- 
 tian ministry as the radical principle op popery.' 
 
 New-York Evangelist, August Q, 1838. 
 
 Can Presbyterians commuae with the radical prin- 
 eiple^ of Popery? 
 
187 
 
 The Episcopal Methodists are clo^ commanion. — 
 For information on this point, we are not to apply to 
 some ignorant individual; or to the disorganizing prac- 
 tice of their churches; but to their discipline, pub- 
 hshed by authority; to illustrate the facts contained 
 in their discipline, we will suppose that myself and 
 wife resolve to partake of the Lord's supper with the 
 Methodists : we go with thdr discipline in hand, open 
 at chapt. 1, sect. 22. ' Of the Lord's Supper. — Ques- 
 tion. Are there any directions to be given concerning 
 the Lord's supper? Ans. 2, Let no person that 
 IS NOT A MEMBER OP OUR CHURCH be admitted to the 
 communion without exaTninat'wny and some token 
 given by an elder or deacon.^ ¥/e submit to the ex- 
 amination, and then ask what they mean by the word 
 token. Ans. • This may certify that my understand- 
 ing of that clause m the discipline which requires an 
 examination, and some token to be given by an elder 
 or deacon, to entitle a person, not of our churchy to 
 commue with us^ is that a ticket, or certificate 
 should be given to such persons : signifying that he 
 or 8he is considered worthy, and therefore is permitted 
 to come to the communion table.^ New-York, Oct. 
 2j 1834, (signed,) N. Bangs. With this instruction, 
 we go to one of the elders, and petition for a token or 
 ticket] he being faithful to his charge, opens the dis- 
 cipline and reads chapt. 2, sect. 6, ' Of Dress. — 
 (Question, Should we insist on the rules concerning 
 dress 1 Ans. By all means; this is no time to give 
 any encouragement to superjfiuity of apparel; there- 
 fore give no tickets to any till they have left off su- 
 perfluous ornaments — allow no exempt cases, better 
 one suffer than many— givQ no tickets to any that 
 wear high heads ^ enormous bonnets j rifffies, or rings? 
 Finding ourselves defeated, by reason of my wife's 
 dress, she puts on a plain Quaker suit and returns, we 
 meet the Methodist, and he now opens the Discipline 
 
188 
 
 at chapt. 1. sect. 22, Aus. 3, and reads, ' A^ perstm 
 shall be admitted to the Lord's supper among us, who 
 IS guilty of any practice for which we would exclude 
 a member of our church,' I nov\^ inquire, for what 
 will you exclude your members? The Methodist 
 inquires of me, ^Sir, art thou a Ba^ptist minister?' I 
 reply, I am. He then reads from 'the Discipline, chapt. 
 J, sect. 18, Quest. 3, * What shall bedone with those 
 fniiiisters^ or preachers, v/ho ht)ld and disseminate 
 j5ublicly, or privately^ doctrines, which are contrary 
 10 OUR articles of religio^i? Ans. Let the same pro- 
 cess be observed as in cases of gross immorality.'' — 
 The Discipline then proceeds to show how they must 
 be dealt with, and if they do not repent, and embrace 
 Methodism, they must -be expelled from the church. — 
 The Methodist now lifts up his eyes and asks me, 
 ^Have you ever been guilty of holding or dissemin- 
 ating doctrines which are contrary to our articles of 
 religionV I reply, yes, sir, repeatedly; and am con- 
 scientiously bound to continue. The Methodist re- 
 plies, then our Discipline says, chapt. 1, sect. 22, ans. 
 3. ' You can not have a seat at the Lord's table among 
 us, for you are guilty of the same practices, for which 
 we exclude our ministers.' My wife renews her re- 
 quest, and the Methodist opens the Discipline at chapt. 
 2, sect. 7, ans. 3, ' If a member of our church shall 
 be clearly convicted of endeavoring to sow dissention, 
 in any of our societies, by inveighing, against either 
 our doctrine or discipline : such person so offending^ 
 shall be first reproved by the senior minister, or 
 •preacher of the circuit, and if :he persist in such per- 
 nicious practice he shall be expelled from the church.' 
 Madam, says the Methodist €id you ever speak against 
 the Methodist doctrine, or ^discipline? My wife re- 
 plies, I have repeatedly^ ^and shall again. Well, says 
 the Methodist, our Discipline says, chapt. 1, sect. 22, 
 ans, 3. ^ You can aat be. admitted to the Lord's suppef 
 
189 
 
 among us.' Thus the letter of the Discipline, shuts 
 us out, and, not only us, but all persons who do not 
 believe^ preachy and dress like the Methodist. Again, 
 to illustrate the fact that the Methodist Discipline is 
 close communion : say, let a perfect Methodist sister 
 put on an ^enormous bonnet^ ruffles^ and riiigs^^and 
 carry a high, head f let her also embrace and declare 
 the following doctrines:. 'God, from all eternity, did 
 by the most wise and holy counsel, of his own will, 
 freely and unchangeably, ordain whatsoever corner to 
 pass; by the decree of God, for the manifestation of 
 his ^lory, some men and angels were predestinated 
 UBto everlasting life, and others foreordained to death, 
 these angels and men, thus predestinated and foreor- 
 dained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, 
 and their number is so certain and definite that it can 
 not be either increased or diminished ; neither are any 
 others redeemed by Christ, effectually^ called, justified, 
 adopted, sanctified and saved, but the elect only ; the 
 rest of mankind, God was pleased to pass by, and t© 
 ordain them to dishonor and wrath, for tflieir sins, to 
 tU.e praise of his glorious justice.' 
 
 Presbyterian Confession of Paith, pp. 1-5, 19. 
 
 The Methodist must, ao;reeabie to their Discipliin', 
 (chapt. 2, sect. 6 and 7.) exclude her, and at her expul- 
 sion, shall read to her from the Discipline, (chapt. 2, 
 sect. 7.) ''After such forms oi trial and expulsion, 
 sireh persons siiall have no privileges of society or of 
 ^Sacraments in our churchy without contrition^ coftfcss- 
 ion, and proper trials The sister being expelled 
 for embracing Presbyterian doctrine, and wearing a 
 fashionable dress, immediately unites with the Presby- 
 terian church, and taking a certificate of her standirjg, 
 siie returns next Lord's day, and offers to commune 
 with the Methodists. They ask her if she is sorry 
 that she embraced such wicked doctrine, and put on 
 such apparrel ? She says no. They ask if she will 
 
190 
 
 come Oft ?ria/ for six months ? She says no. Will 
 they now admit her to the Lord's table ? If they do, 
 they break their discipline ; if they do not, it can only 
 be because she is a Presbyterian.; and if they can not 
 admit her, how can they admit the whole Presbyteri- 
 an church ? If ever a Methodist should ask you to 
 commune with them, it would be an appropriate reply 
 to say, your Discipline Jorbids it. However open 
 communion some churches tire in practice, it is still 
 evident that such practice at once violates their own 
 Greed and the laws of Christ, The principal differ- 
 ence between the Baptists and pedobaptists in this mat- 
 ter is, that the Baptists adhere to the Bible and their 
 creedjwhile the pedobaptists discard both for the sake of 
 open communion. 
 
 In the Lord's commission he determined the order 
 of administering the two Sacraments. Matt, xxviii 
 18 — 20 : '"' Go ye therefore and /uadi^rvgare make disci- 
 ples of all nations §a7ixit,ovTe.z immersing them. &c., 
 teaching: them to observe all things, whatsoever I have 
 commanded you." Matt. xxvi. 26: "Take, eat, this 
 is my body, (kc." l^he first work is to make disciples, 
 the second ic> immerse them, the third to teach them 
 to do as Christ had commanded the Apostles ; that is, 
 to partake of the Lord's Supper among other duties. 
 In addition to this law we have Christ's example. 
 The Savior was immersed, Matt. iii. 13 — 17: but 
 he did not cat the supper till Matt. xxvi. 26 — 30: 
 about three years after. We have no authority for 
 changing the order or substantial elements of the Sac- 
 rameiits. If we should change the breaid and wine 
 for cheese and water, or administer the wine before 
 the bread, would pedobaptists join with us in these in- 
 novations? If it were a Baptist or a pedobaptist ta- 
 ble, we might make new rules for its administration. 
 But it is the Lord's table, and we must observe the 
 l.^aD'5 LAWS respecting it. All churches require 
 
in 
 
 some qualifications in the candidate for the Lord^s 
 Supper, and consider them indispensible. Hcnc«, to 
 consistently commune among themselves, even pedo- 
 baptists must agree as to the number and kind of pre- 
 requisites. How can two walk together except they 
 be agreed ; (Amos iii. 3.) And how can they agree; 
 except they unitedly follow the inspired rule. '' It is 
 an indispensible qualification for this ordinance, that 
 the candidate for communion be a member of the visi- 
 ble church of Christ, in full standing. By this I in- 
 tend that he shall be such a member of the church as 
 1 have formerly described, to wit : That he should be 
 a person of piety, that he should have made a public 
 profession of religion, and that he shonld have been 
 
 DaptlZed. Dwight's Theol., Sermon lee. 
 
 Mr. Sawyer says, p. 21, 'Sprinkling is baptism, and 
 immersion is not.' Hence, those who are immersed 
 are not qualified to partake at his communion table. — 
 The Baptists say, that immersion is baptism, and those 
 who are only sprinkled are not qualified for commun- 
 ion' at the Lord's table. Here is an obstruction to our 
 union, and the only way to remove it is to let the 
 scriptures decide what is Baptism. For 'the question 
 concerning a church in order to communion, ought to 
 be, what is her substantial character, has she the 
 truth, the ordinances , the spirit of Christ.^ 
 
 Dr. J. M. Mason's Plea, p. 342. 
 
 The practice of the Apostles is a faithful comment 
 on the Savior's law ; as the Lord's supper is a church 
 act, it was not administered by the Apostles till after 
 the church was organized: Acts ii. 42. The 120 at 
 Acts i. 15 — 22, were all baptized believers. When Peter 
 preached, Acts ii. 14 — 36, many were convicted or 
 pricked in their heart, and cried out, Acts ii. 37, what 
 shall we do? Peter said, repent and be immersed.— 
 Then they that gladly received his word or believed 
 in Christ, Acts ii. 41, were immersed aad added t» 
 
192 
 
 them, and they continned steadfastly in the apostles' 
 doctrine and fellowship, and iu breaking of bread.— 
 Here, several things are expressed and practiced. 1- 
 We find a church of one hundred and twenty baptized 
 believers. 2. We find three thousand converted. 3. 
 These three thousand are baptized. 4. They are 
 added to the church. 5. They agree in faith with 
 the church. 6. They are acknowledged in church 
 fellowship. 7. They partake of the Lord's supper. 
 As these are apostolical prerequisites we dare not add 
 or diminish ; therefore, this is, and ever has been the 
 creed of the true church : ' The fellowship of the 
 apostles is linked to the apostles doctrines^ and to their 
 breaking oj bread and prayers, Acts ii. 42 ; and \i a 
 church defects from the same, it sets other churcl os 
 loose in like manner from communion with them. — 
 Unity of faith binds them mutually to observe the 
 rules of fraternal communion, and a defection in faith 
 gives discharge from them.' j. Kiuieweirs works, voi. 2, p. ew. 
 
 'I agree with the advocates of close communion in 
 two points : 1. That baptism is the initiating ordi- 
 nance, which introduces us into the visible church; 
 of course where there is no baptism there are no vis- 
 ible churches. 2. That we ought not to commune 
 with those who are not baptized, and of course are 
 not church members, even if we regard them as Chris- 
 tians. Should a pious Cuaker so far depart from his 
 principles, as to wish to commune with me at the 
 Lord's table, while he yet refused to be baptized, I 
 could not receive him ; because there is such a rela- 
 tionship established between the two ordinances that I 
 have no right to separate them. The only question 
 then is, whether baptism by sprinkling is valid bap- 
 tism . Dr. Griffin's fPresident of William's College,) Letter on Baptism. 
 
 Pedobaptists justify close communion by their own 
 practice. Suppose here are thirty unbaptized converts, 
 the father, mother, brothers, sisters, (fee, of Mr. Saw- 
 
193 
 
 ycr. The Lord's supper is to be administered m hk 
 church, and all these converts go to commune with 
 Mr. Sawyer, will he admit them while unbaptized ? 
 certainly not: but, suppose he sprinkles ten of them, 
 and they partake of the supper, the remaining twenty 
 refusing to be baptized are not admitted. The next 
 Lord's day the whole thirty offer themselves to our 
 communion, but we can not admit any of them, be- 
 cause they are not baptized ; suppose that ten of those 
 who were not sprinkled are now immersed, and admit- 
 ted to fellowsnip in the Baptist church, the remaining 
 twenty can not be admitted, although ten have been 
 sprinkled. The remaining ten unite with the Quakers. 
 Now none of these sects can partake of the Lord's 
 supper together ; for neither the Baptist, nor the pedo- 
 baptist will partake with the (Quakers. By this illus- 
 tration it is evident, that Mr. Sawyer will not commune 
 with his own father, &c. whatever evidence they may 
 give of piety, until, in his judgment they are baptized. 
 Pedobaptists say that we put up the bars, by not ad- 
 mitting them to commune with the Baptists. But sup- 
 pose that the two sacraments are to be administered in 
 the Baptist church ; the elements are prepared, and a 
 pedobaptist appears, saying, Sir. I wish to commnne 
 with your church. We ask, what do you mean by 
 co77imu7iing 7 He replies, to partake of one of the 
 sacraments. We ask, how many sacraments are there 
 in Christ's church ? He replies, two : baptism and 
 the Lord's supper. We ask, which is to be received 
 first? He replies, baptism. We ask, will you partake 
 with us in the first ? He replies, no ; baptism is a mere 
 non-essential ; I will have nothing to do with it except 
 to ridicule and throw contempt upon it, and on those 
 who practice it ; but I wish to commune with you 
 in the second sacrament, the Lord's supper. We re- 
 ply, if you can not partake with us in the first sacra- 
 ment, we can not invert and break the divine rules t& 
 
 ir 
 
194 
 
 ^ve you the second. The pedobaptist replies then, 
 you put up the bars against me. We reply, no, if 
 there are any bars they are put up by the pedobaptists, 
 for while you refuse to commune with us in the first 
 sacrament how can we partake with you in the second. 
 When we ask the pedobaptists to come and partake with 
 us in the first sacrament, they say we are proselyting, 
 and obstinately refuse ; but when they ask us to partake 
 with them in the second ordinance, if we decline, they 
 say we are bigoted and close communion ; but we 
 have as much ground for complaining because pedo- 
 baptists will not come and be baptized with us, as they 
 have to be troubled because we will not partake of 
 the Lord's sapper with them. 
 
 A short time since a pedobaptist brother of this 
 city related to me an occurrence respecting a certain 
 baptist minister, refusing to admit a Presbyterian lady 
 to the Lord's supper. She being about to leave the 
 town, and reside where she could not have church 
 privileges. While 1 was amused with his weakness, 
 I pitied his ignorance, and left him. The actors in 
 this scene, to which he had reference, were not a Bap- 
 tist minister and a Presbyterian lady, but J. M. Mason, 
 D. D., a Presbyterian minister in the city of New- 
 York in 1810, and a female member of the Dutch 
 Reformed Church ; an account of which you will find 
 in Dr. Mason's Plea, p. 6, as related by the publisher 
 of that work in 1816. Dr. Mason, said, 'one of these 
 occasions it was impossible for him to forget ; he had 
 been distributing tokens of admission to the Lord's 
 supper ; after the congregation had retired he perceived 
 a young woman at the lower end of an aisle, reclining 
 in a pensive attitude ; as he approached her she said, 
 Sir, I am afraid I have done wrong. Doctor. Why 
 have you done wrong? Lady. I went up with the 
 communicants and received a token, but am not a 
 member of your church, and I could not be at rest riU 
 
195 
 
 I had spoken to you about it. Dr. To what church 
 do you belong? L. The Dutch Reformed church, 
 and if you wish it I can satisfy you of my character 
 and standing there. Dr. But what made you come 
 for a token without mentioning the matter before ? 
 L. I had not an opportunity, as I did not know in 
 time that your communion was to be next Lord's day ; 
 I am sorry if I have done wrong, but I expect to leave 
 the city on Tuesday, and to be absent I can not tell 
 how lonof, in a part of the country where I shall have 
 no opportunity of communing, and I wished once 
 more before I went away to join with Christians in. 
 showing forth my Savior's death. He (Doctor) con- 
 suhed a moment with the church officers, who were 
 sfill present, and it was thought most expedient not 
 to grant her request ; he communicated this answer, 
 as gently as possible, to the modest petitioner. She 
 said not another word, but, with one hand giving back 
 the token, and with the other putting up her kerchief 
 to her eyes, turned away, struggling with her anguish 
 and the tears streaming down her cheeks.' 
 
 But, it is asked, why are churches so close commun- 
 ion ? We reply, the scriptures require it, and their 
 whole precept and example are opposed to open com- 
 munion. There is not an instance recorded in the 
 Bible of two denominations partaking of the Lord's 
 S!ipper together. John^ the Baptist^ was not a Meth- 
 odist, or Presbyterian ; and as Christ and the apostles 
 were baptized by him, they all belonged to the same 
 denomination: and it is evident, from their inspired 
 writings, that the apostolic denomination was elost 
 communion. 2 Thess. iii. 6, ' Now we command you, 
 brethren, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that 
 ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walk- 
 eth disorderly, and not after the naqadogiv {tradition or 
 instruction) which he received of us.' See also Matt. 
 v 33, 24 : Rph. ii. X9— 22 : I Cor. i. 9, 10 : Heb. xiii. 
 
196 
 
 9, 10. We solemnly believe that infant sprinkling and 
 open communion is disorderly walk, for we have no 
 such traditions or instructions, from the apostles' pre- 
 cept or example ; and therefore we can neither practice 
 such things ourselves, nor countenance them in others. 
 Pedobaptists say they will commune with all be- 
 lievers. If this is true, they make faith the only qual- 
 ification for the Lord's supper, and all with whom 
 they refuse to communicate are not pious. But there 
 are about one hundred and thirty denominations of 
 Christians, and no pedobaptist will commune with 
 more then eight or ten of them. ' Those v;ho have 
 been educated in Arianism and Socinianism and are 
 not yet brought off from these fundamental errors, are 
 by no means admitted to the Lord's supper.' 
 
 President Edwards' Woik^, vol. 4, p. 409. 
 
 If pedobaptists admit those to their communion who 
 condemn and ridicule their confession of faith, it 
 proves that they esteem their creed of no value. And 
 what is £:ained by open communion ? Partaking of 
 the Lord's supper changes no man's faith ; nor does it 
 in the least unite the different denominations. The 
 Presbyterian leaves the Lord's table, saying, ' Gcd has 
 foreordained whatsoever comes to pass, wnecfitT stu 
 or kolifiess.^ And the Methodist leaves the same table 
 saying, ' He tvho is a child of God to-day may be a 
 child of the Devil to-morrow, "^ — (Methodist Discipline, 
 1808 edition, p. 92.) 
 
 The Methodists, Presbyterians, and Episcopalians 
 have professed open communion for many years. Yet 
 they harmonize no more than the Baptists and Pres- 
 byterians do. But it is said we must have charity 
 for those who err in faith, and lay aside our creeds 
 and sectarian feelings when we come to the Lord's 
 table ; but is it that same charity which prompts the 
 different denominations to take up their creeds and 
 condemn all sects but their own, when they have left 
 
1^ 
 
 the Lord's table? If it is I am constrained to say, that 
 it ia not that charity which thinketh no evil. Is there 
 no way of exercising charity but by open communion? 
 Charity and open comtiiunion are not the same thing, 
 if they were the apostle's writings could be thus trans- 
 lated : 1 Cor. xiii. 13: 'Now abideth faith, hope, and 
 <xy(x7trj open communion^ these three; but the greatest 
 of these is ayam] open communion.'' Col. iii. 12 — 14: 
 * Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and be- 
 loved, bowels of mercy, kindness, humbleness of mind, 
 meekness, long suffering, forgiving one another as 
 Christ forgave you ; and above all these things, put 
 on open communion which is the bond of perfectness.' 
 Gal. V. 6: 'Neither circumcision availeth any thing, 
 nor uncircumcision, but faith which walketh hy ctyanrjq 
 open communion.^ John xiii. 35 : * By this shall ail 
 men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have ayamjv 
 open communion one to another.' Gal. v. 14 : * For 
 ail the lav/ is fulfilled in one word, aynrjgng, open com- 
 munion.^ 
 
 The word ayanij occurs 112 times in the New 
 Testament. In 23 instances it is translated charity^ 
 as at 1 Cor. xiii. 4, 8, 13. In one instance dear^ CoL 
 i. 13. And in 88 instances love, as at Luke xi. 42: 
 John V. 42 : xv. 9, 10, 13 : xvii. 26 : Rom., v. 5, 8 : 
 viii. 35. 39 : Eph. i. 4: ii. 4. Hence charity is love ; 
 not love to error and sin, but love to God, to his laws, 
 to good order, and to holiness for holiness' sake. — 
 Charity is not a fool^ but readily distinguishes truth 
 from error, for although, 1 Cor. xiii. 4, 6 : ^ Charity 
 suffereth long and is kind ; yet it thinketh no evil, re- 
 joiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truthJ 
 And while it is the spirit of charity to love all good 
 men. and good things; yet God, the author of charity, 
 hates sin, reproves error, and has no fellowship with 
 such as do not the truth. And the great apostle Paul, 
 who has often been quoted as a pattern of charity^ 
 17* 
 
198 
 
 ^ accommodated himself to all classes of men, and all 
 their customs, whenever such customs did not imply 
 a surrender of truth ; about custoins, as customs, he 
 strove not; yet this same condescending, accommo- 
 dating Paul, who went every length, consistent with 
 the safety of substantial principles, would not stir a 
 hair's breadth at the hazard of injuring them ; here 
 he was unyielding, unmanageable, inexorable as death.' 
 
 Dr. J. M. Mason's Plea, \<. 54 
 
 Pedobaptists say. we shall all commune together in 
 heaven, and why not on earth : the Lord communes 
 with, blesses, and multiplies the numbers of the Bleth- 
 odists, Presbyterians, &;c., and yet the Baptists will not 
 commune with us. 
 
 That the Lord blesses, and multiplies the number of 
 Baptists and Roman Catholics is equally true; yet 
 this common blessing does not prove the faith and prac- 
 tice of either sect correct, and as to our communing 
 together in heaven, we must recollect that there is not 
 a literal table of bread and wine above the skies. 
 Rom. xiv. 17 : ' For the kingdom of God is not meat 
 and drink, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in 
 the Holy Ghost.' ^ 
 
 That the Baptists will have lost all their errors, 
 should they be found in heaven at last, is evident, and 
 it is equally evident, that there must be a great change 
 in the spirit and practice of the Methodists and Pres- 
 byterians, before they have much feoce and joy in the 
 Holy Ghost among themselves. And as to the asser- 
 tion, that the Lord communes v/ith them, they can not 
 mean that He eats the bread and drinks the wine of 
 the eucharist, but they must refer to the fact that God 
 is with them, and assists them in preaching, praying, 
 singing, and other labors for the salvation of souls. 
 In all these labors the Baptists rejoice to commune 
 with the pedobaptists, and will ever pray for a recipro- 
 cation. 
 
199 
 
 The Baptists can not adnriit that sprinkling is bap- 
 tism, or pourino^ is baptism; hence they can not par- 
 take of the Lord's supper with the pedobaptists, for the 
 Bible and all enlightened Christians affirmj that bap- 
 tism must precede the eucharist. 
 
 'No church ever gave the communion to any per- 
 son before they were baptized. Among all the absurd- 
 ities that ever were held, none ever maintained that any 
 person should partake of the communion before he 
 
 was baptized . ^^ W U's History of Infant Baptism, chapt. 9, sect. 2. 
 
 'The supper of the Lord ouoht not to be adminis- 
 tered to persons that are unbaptized, for before baptism 
 men are not considered as members of the visible 
 
 church.' Bpnj pictet's TheoL Hist. p. 959. 
 
 'If this ordinance be thus holy in its nature and 
 hallowed in its titles, it clearly follows that no ignorant, 
 no unbaptizedj no wicked person can be allowed to 
 approach the table.' 
 
 Methodist Guide to the Lord's Supper, by J. Sutcliflf. p. 28. 
 
 ' This food is called by us the eucharist, of which 
 it is not lawful for any to partake but such as believe 
 the things that are taught by us to be true and have 
 
 been baptized.' j^,gfi„ Martyrs Apol. 2, p. 162. 
 
 But it is said the want of baptism is not the objec- 
 tion, for the Baptists will not commune with all Chris- 
 tians who are baptized. We admit that it is not the 
 onli/ obstacle ; yet this is an insurmountable one. 
 Suppose, for example, that ten immersed members of 
 a pedobaptist church propose to unite in communion 
 with a Baptist church ; these individuals, though bap- 
 tized th^^l^^-lves, habitually commune with unbaptized 
 churches, and thus constantly sanction the practice of 
 communion in an unbaptized state. Now we insist 
 that whatever would be considered unscriptural and a 
 disciplinable offense in our own members, and would 
 if persisted in exclude them from our fellowship, m.ust 
 equally debar the individuals in question. But if ha- 
 
200 
 
 bitnal intercommunion with unbaptized chiinches 
 would not exclude an individual member of oirr church 
 then it would be riofht for «S all to practice it ; and 
 if it is rii2:ht for us to sanction the practice of com- 
 munion in an nnbaptized state, then it would be right 
 for 113 as clmrches to practice communion without bap- 
 tism : and right to remove an institution of Jesus 
 Christ from the position he has assigned it; right to 
 ■deviate from the original pattern of church organiza- 
 tion designed by infinite wisdom, and repeatedly pre- 
 seiited by the inspired wrivers for our imitation. We 
 shall therefore be comipelled either to abandon the po- 
 sition that baptism is a prerequisite to the Lord's sup- 
 per, or debar alike from our church fellowship those 
 who practice communion without baptism, and those 
 who by intercommunion with them sanction the prac- 
 tice. There is no alternative, there is no middle 
 ground; if the premises are true, the consequences must 
 inevitably follow. 
 
 It is offered as a reason for extending church fel- 
 lowship to immersed niembers of pedobaptist church- 
 es, that such a course would have a tendency to pro- 
 mote the practice of immersion among pedobaptists, 
 inasmuch as many of them would be induced to be 
 immersed from the consideration that it would secure 
 to them the privilege of communing with the Baptist 
 churches. But this would really ^ be doing evil that 
 good might come^ and besides this, the influence 
 would have directly an opposite tendency. Can we 
 think to win others to the observance of Christ's 
 laws, by virtually receding from his laws ourselves? 
 The most effectual way to teach others to revere the 
 institutions of Christ, is to revere them ourselves. 
 In refusing to commune with baptized persons, we 
 only come upon common ground with the Presbyteri- 
 ans, &c. ; for they will not commune with all whorn 
 Shey acknowledge baptized. The Arians and Uni- 
 
201 
 
 yersalists immerse, and the Socinians and Roman Cath- 
 olics sprinkle, but orthodox pedobaptists will not com- 
 mune with any of them, although they admit that ma- 
 ny of them are Christians. In the case of the Bap- 
 tist, as in the case of pedobaptist churches, the want of 
 baptism is a defect in the candidate; but the funda- 
 mental difficulty is the candidate's error in faith, of 
 which his external actions, as sprinkling, <fcc., are but 
 evidences; and so long as the man is erroneous in 
 faith he will continue to act wrong, and advocate er- 
 ror; consequently no consistent church can receive 
 him. Some defects in faith, such as falling from grace, 
 sprinkling for baptism, open communion and infant 
 church membership, are not as fatal as Arianism and 
 Universalism; yet they equally destroy church fellow- 
 ship. If a man should be immersed^ and yet believe 
 the peculiar sentiments of the pedobaptists, this defect 
 in fiiith would be incompatible with his good st<inding 
 in a Baptist church. Hence our care in exaniining 
 candidates for church fellowship, and our discipline 
 when church members become defective in faith. 
 
 Now if we refuse to receive, and do discipline and 
 exclude such as arp, in our judgment, holding errors, 
 (and what church does not?) how can we give the 
 Lord's supper, which is the highest act of church fel- 
 lowship, to such as we refuse to receive as members, 
 and would expel if they were members with us ? The 
 fact of their having united with a pedobaptist church, 
 has by no means removed the ground of our oujection. 
 If regeneration and immersion are the only qualifica- 
 iions for communion, then we must commune with ma- 
 ny of our excluded members; for while we have lost 
 church fellowship for them, and are obliged to exclude 
 them, we still have a Christian fellowship for them: 
 and, when they repent of that particular offense for 
 which they were expelled, we receive them into church 
 
202 
 
 fellowship again without requiring anew experience, 
 or a new baptism. 
 
 The Bible requires us all to be united in faith as 
 well as in practice ; and if ever there is a time when 
 we should be perfectly of one mind, it is when we 
 commemorate the death of our Savior: 1 Cor. i. 10, 
 ' Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our 
 Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same things 
 and that there be no divisions among you, but that ye 
 he perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in 
 the same judgment.' 1 Cor. x. 16. 17, ' The cup of 
 blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of 
 the blood of Christ ? the bread which we break, is it 
 not the communion of the body of Christ ? for we be- 
 ing many are one bread, and one body ; for we are 
 all partakers of that one bread.^ The apostle here 
 offers strong reasons why we should all be of one 
 mind when we come to the Lord's table. The bread 
 which we break, though made up of many particles, 
 is one loaf; and we, being many, are, at the commun- 
 ion table, all one body; and by partaking of that one 
 loaf, we say to each other and to the world, that we 
 are all of one mind; and if we are not, we make a 
 false representation in communing. Hence Christ 
 says, Matt. v. 23, 24, " Therefore, if thou bring thy 
 gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy broth- 
 er hath aua^ht against thee, leave there thy gift before 
 the altar, and go thy way, first be reconciled to thy 
 brother, and then come and offer thy gift ;' and Paul 
 says, Rom. xvi. 17, 'Now I beseech you, brethren, 
 mark them which cause divisions and offenses contra- 
 ry to the doctrine which ye have learned, and avoid 
 them.' See also John xvii. 21 — 23 : Rom. xii. 5 : 1 
 Cor, xii. 20: Col. i. 24: Eph. iv. 15, 16—25: Matt. 
 xii. 2.5. 
 
 There are but two things which keep all Christians 
 from being united — first the want of union in faith. 
 
203 
 
 and secondly the want of union in practice. But out 
 practice is the result of our faith, and we can not hon» 
 estly join in practice, any further than we agree in 
 faith. This principle is acted upon by the Baptist at 
 the communion table, and by the pedobaptist in many 
 other religious matters. The Rev. J. W. Eaton, pas- 
 tor of the Baptist church in Bridgeport, Conn., was 
 conducting a protracted meeting in his church, and 
 wishing assistance, addressed aline to the Rev. J. H. 
 Hunter, affectionately soliciting him and his church 
 to unite in the work of laboring for the salvation of 
 souls, and received in reply a letter bearing date Feb. 
 12, 1839; of which the following is an extract : 
 
 'There is one consideration, which, to my mind, 
 creates an impediment in the way of my co-operating 
 with you in the manner you have suggested. If the 
 Baptist church and her ministry, within this place or 
 elsewhere, while they believed and maintained that in 
 administering baptism by immersion, and withholding 
 the ordinance from infants, they followed a more excel- 
 lent way — were still willing to concede that the adminis- 
 tration of the ordinance by sprinkling is a valid and 
 sufficient baptism ; and that in applying the rite to 
 children, we do not abuse and pervert it from its ori- 
 ginal design — the way would be open, so far as I can 
 perceive, for concerted action in other respects. I do 
 not insist upon the bar of close communion, for here I 
 conceive that you are at least consistent with your 
 other principles, in reference to baptism. Since lean 
 not agree with the celebrated Robert Hall in his de- 
 fense of open communion, who supposes that baptism 
 is not an essential preliminary for admission to the 
 Lord's supper.' 
 
 I remark First. This is true pedobaptist ground. 
 They usually refuse to unite with the Baptiss in la- 
 borin<7 for the salvation of souls : and the reason, as 
 Mr. Hunter says, is because we differ in faith and 
 
204 
 
 practice respecting baptism. With this in mind, how- 
 can they complain of our declining to partake of the 
 Lord's supper with them, for the same reason. 
 
 tSecondly. It is known that 'n\ Europe and Ameri- 
 ca there is a sect of Christians denominated Open 
 Communion Baptists. This sect and the regular Bap- 
 tists, are as distinct as the Presbyterians and Episco- 
 palians. Pedobaptists, who have not read extensively, 
 have supposed that Robert Hall and others conceded 
 that sprinkling was as valid baptism as immersion, 
 and therefore admitted pedobaptists to the Lord's sup- 
 per as baptized persons. But this is not correct. The 
 position of Mr. Hall, and other Open Communion 
 Baptists is, that immersion is baptism, and sprinkling 
 is not ; but they do not consider baptism an essential 
 preliminary to the Lord's supper, as the Rev. Mr. Hun- 
 ter says. They therefore commune with pedobaptists 
 as unhaptized Christians. 
 
 Thirdly : As the Rev. Mr. Hunter says, this open 
 communion Baptist sentiment is evidently iticonsist- 
 ent ; for it is a well known fact, that all Baptist chur- 
 ches do baptize all sprinkled Christians that join them. 
 Now while we believ^e with the pedobaptists, that bap- 
 tism is an essential prerequisite to the Lord's supper, 
 suppose we should admit to the communion one who 
 was only sprinkled, and afterwards that same person 
 should be convinced that his sprinkling was not bap- 
 tism, and request to be immersed ; would the Baptists 
 appear consistent to baptize one whom they had al- 
 ready admitted to the Lord's supper. 
 
 Fourthly : Since the Rev. Mr. Hunter has intro- 
 duced Robert Hall, we will remark on two other po- 
 sitions of his. Mr. Hall says, " If a man is fit for 
 the kingdom of heaven, he is fit for all the ordinances 
 this side." This we readily admit ; but still we do 
 insist that God has established the order in which they 
 should be received; and we should be as willing to 
 be ruled by Christ's laws as saved by his grace ; but 
 
205 
 
 he who communes without being immersed, partakes 
 m disobedience. 
 
 Again. Mr. Hall says, " It is the Lord's table, and 
 all the Lord's people should come to it." We admit 
 it is the Lord's table, and so is the church the Lord's 
 house ; and if we are obliged on this account to re- 
 ceive to communion all who wish to partake with us, 
 whether we think they ha\re the requisite qualifica- 
 tions or not, we must for the same reason receive to 
 membership all who wish to join the church, whether 
 we esteem them qualified or not : for if they are en- 
 titled on this ground to a seat at the Lord's table with 
 us, they must be equally entitl(3d to permanent mem- 
 bership. But no church on earth acknowledges this 
 principle in the reception of members, nor can they 
 consistently act on it in admitting persons to the com- 
 munion. That pedobaptists consider themselves bap- 
 tized, does not alter the case as it respects our duty ; 
 for unless ive deem them ba'ptized, we cannot consci- 
 entiously commune with them. 
 
 Although pedobaptists will give the Lord's supper 
 to those onl^/ whom they esteem baptized, and thus 
 are opposed to Open Communion Baptist principles, 
 yet they have fallen into other errors equally great : 
 for while they will exclude their own members for 
 discarding infant sprinkling, they cheerfully invite 
 to their communion the Baptists, who totally and con- 
 stantly oppose it. 
 
 " New-England churches will suffer no man to con- 
 tinue a member of their communion who scruples in- 
 fant baptism, or refuses to be present at the adminis- 
 tration of it ; and he that opposes infant baptism, or 
 purposely departs the congregation at the administra- 
 tion of that ordinance, is liable, by their laws, to sen- 
 tence of BANISHMENT." Dr.Lightfoot'sWork«.Tol.2.p,531. 
 
 Although Congregationalists will exclude from their 
 churches, and banish from the country, those who op- 
 18 
 
206 
 
 pose infant sprinkling, still they say they wish for a 
 Christian union with the Baptists. We can assure 
 them that we are desirous of an union on gospel 
 grounds ; but while baptism in faith and practice is 
 the great bar between us, it devolves on pedobaptists 
 to remove it. This they can do, consistently with 
 themselves and the Bible, while we can not ; for they 
 plead that immersion, pouring, and sprinkling, are 
 equally valid baptism. Now all they have to do is 
 to drop their sprinkling and pouring, and practice im- 
 mersion 07ili/j and this difficulty is removed ; and 
 while it is just as far from us to the pedobaptists as it 
 is from the pedobaptists to us, if they wish an union, 
 why not come over ; especially, as they can do it 
 without any sacrifice of principle. But we can not go 
 over to the pedobaptists without a sacrifice of princi- 
 ple ; for if we commune with them before they re- 
 nounce their sprinkling, we either grant that sprink- 
 ling is baptism, or that baptism is not a prerequisite to 
 communion. 
 
 Pedobaptists say they will commune with all such 
 persons as they hope to meet in heaven ; but still they 
 refuse to administer baptism to the inftints of persons 
 who are not members of their church. '■- The infants 
 of one or both believing parents are to be baptized, 
 
 and those Only.^^ Saybrook Platform, chap. 29, sec. 4. 
 
 Here they declare that the infants of unconverted 
 per-sons are not saved, or confess themselves close 
 communion and close baptism too, for they withhold 
 both ordinances from these infants; and even their 
 own baptized infant church members, to whom they 
 say the blessings of the covenant of grace are sealed, 
 (among which blessings must be the Lord's supper,) 
 are not admitted to the communion, and many pedo- 
 baptists have complained of this close communion 
 conduct. '^ I confess myself yet unsatisfied as to any 
 coavincing argument whereby it can be proved that 
 
207 
 
 ?.ny were denied admission to the Lord's supper, who 
 were owned as members." Dr.Liohtfoot'sWorks,voi.ii.p.433. 
 
 " If infants are capable of admission to the cliurch 
 above, they must be equally fit subjects of that on 
 earth : whom God receives as subjects of his grace, 
 we have no right to exclude from the visible fellow- 
 ship of his people." ^ a sawyer's critical DissertatioB, p. 12. 
 
 The reason why pedobaptists have such struggles 
 of conscience about infant communion, is because 
 they know that Christ has said, Matt. xix. 14, " Siiffer 
 the little children, and forbid them not to come unto 
 me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven.'''' Mark 
 X. 14 ; Luke xviii. 16. But they are keeping these in- 
 faat church members /row Christ and his sacrament 
 of the supper, to which they are as justly entitled as 
 they are to baptism ; and how can a mother feel re- 
 coiieiied ia receiving the elements from the hands of 
 a priest who is so close coramunion that he will not 
 allow her to give a bit of the sacramental bread to her 
 own baptized infant which she holds in her arms. — 
 It is replied by some, that infants are incapable of ex- 
 amining themselves, and therefore should not eat : 
 But they are equally incapable of believing , and there- 
 fore should not be baptized. If the Bible warrants 
 giving one ordinance, it does both. Matthew xix. 6, 
 ^- What therefore God hath joined together, let not 
 man put asunder." 
 
 Pedobaptists plead that they are sincere in believ- 
 ing that sprinkling is baptism, therefore it is right. — 
 But if sincerity makes a practice right, then the Bap^ 
 tists are right also, for we sincerely believe that im- 
 mersion is baptism and sprinkling is not: and while 
 communion is a church act, we can not extend it be- 
 yond church government and fellowship: for how can 
 we commune with those over whose conduct we have 
 OQ control 
 
208 
 
 In speaking of the immersion of females, Mr. Saw- 
 yer says, page 23, '• There is often a severe struggle 
 in their minds between propriety and duty, and if the 
 latter prevails, as agreeably to their belief it ought, it 
 prevails at the expense of the former. Effusion and 
 sprinkling are free from any objections of this kind, 
 and are adapted to excite only the purest and most 
 spiritual affections." I could reply, by relating many 
 substantial facts, one of which must suffice : — 
 
 In Monroe county, New- York, there lived a Mrs. 
 
 , who believed that im.mersion was baptism, 
 
 but did not believe in close communion : to get clear 
 of the latter, she concluded to exchange the former for 
 sprinkling, and accordingly united with the Presbyte- 
 rians. At the time she was sprinkled the Spirit re- 
 proved her, and she knew she was doing wrong ; but 
 for the sake of enjoying open communion she submit- 
 ted to it, and took her seat at the Lord's table. "When 
 the bread was approaching her conscience told her 
 that she was not baptized, and therefore ought not to 
 commune: she was much distressed, and declined. — 
 When the wine was passed she was still more dis- 
 tressed, and refused to partake. She now looked 
 round upon the communicants, and realized that they 
 were all partaking without being baptized, and she 
 said the place appeared horrible to her. She arose 
 and left the house, and like Peter, she went out and 
 wept bitterly, and remained out until the congregation 
 was dismissed. She stepped into the carriage, bidding 
 farewell to the place, and a few days after this she re- 
 lated these exercises, together with her religious expe- 
 rience, to us, and I baptized her ; and she often af- 
 terwards referred to this effectual and practical cure 
 ef open communion. 
 
 I shall close these remarks in the language of Dr 
 Lightfoot. " This new notion of occasional com- 
 munion in some parts of worship, (Lord's supper.) ex- 
 
209 
 
 clusively to others, (exchanging pulpits, church dis 
 cipline, 6cc.) is disowned by all sorts of (consistent 
 churches, and is a late fancy ^ taken up purposely U 
 
 avoid the charge of superstition. — Why 
 
 should not those general rules of approving the things 
 that are most excellent, and holding fast that which is 
 good, persuade such a man that it is not lawful to leave 
 the best communion, merely to show what defective 
 and tolerable churches he can communicate with ; 
 which is as if a man should forsake his rauskmellon to 
 let others see what pumpkins he can swallow." 
 
 Dr. Ltghtfoot's Worts, toI. ii. p, 531. 
 
 BAPTISM OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 
 
 This expression is sometimes written simply, He 
 shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit^ ivllveifiaT^aytw; 
 as Mark i. 8 : Acts i. 5 : John i. 33— sometimes fuliy^ 
 in the Holy Spirit and fire ^ sv llvs^ffzaTiaymxatTtvgt; 
 as Matt. iii. I] : Luke iii. 16. This phraseology cor- 
 responds exactly with the Greek, and is supported by 
 nearly all the ancient versions, as well as by many 
 eminent critics. lIvEVjLiaaYtotxaiTivQj Uhe Holy Spirit 
 and fire,' is put for nvg nvev^arog aytov, the fire of the 
 Holy Spirit, or nvsvfia ayiov nvQog, the Holy Spirit of 
 fire. Compare 1 Kings xix. 12, Heb. ' stillness and 
 a voice,' for a still voice. Ex. xiv. 20, ' a cloud and 
 darkness,' for a dark cloud. Matt. iv. 16, ;^aj^ xa* gxia 
 davaiov, ' the region and shadow of death,' for x^aqa gxiag 
 daruTov, the region of the shadow of death, as some 
 MSS. actually read in Isa. ix. 2 : Luke xxi. 15, gxa/ia 
 
 x«« goq)ia, ' a mOUth and wisdom,' for grdfia aocpiag, a 
 
 mouth of wisdom, perhaps equivalent to Xdyog ao<ptag, 
 1 Cor. xii. 8. Compare also Acts vi. 10, go(pia xut 
 jfyfiv^, * wisdom and spirit,' with Eph. i. 17, nvev^ 
 9o<fMMs, i^pirit of wisdom. IIi^, Jirc, is taken for the 
 18* 
 
210 
 
 element of light. Some oriental nations at the pres- 
 ent day, in metaphorical expressions, use the term^re 
 for light. 
 
 It was predicted that the reign of the Messiah should 
 be distinguished by the prevalence of spiritual light of 
 knowledge. Dan. xii. 4, Many shall run to and fro, 
 and knowledge shall be increased. Isa. liv. 13, And 
 all thy children shall be taught of the Lord. Jer. 
 xxxi. 34, And they shall teach no more every man 
 his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know 
 the Lord ; for they shall all know me, from the least 
 of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord. 
 Compare Heb. viii. and 1 John v. 20. Agam it is 
 said, Isa. xlij. 6, 7, I will give thee (i. e. the Messiah) 
 for a light of the Gentiles ; to open the blind eyes, to 
 bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that 
 sit in darkness out of the prison-house. Isa. Ix. 1, 
 Arise, shine ; for thy light is come, and the glory of 
 the Lord is risen upon thee. Accordingly in the New 
 Testament Christ is called the light of the worid, and 
 his people, the children of light, iioi q^wxt;. They 
 were once darkness ; but ore now light in the Lord. 
 They were blind, but God hath shined in their hearts. 
 The eyes of their understanding are enlightened. — 
 They have received the Spirit of God, that they may 
 know the things that are freely given to them of God. 
 Thus the reign of the Messiah is generally distin- 
 guished as a dispensation of light : and in the apos- 
 tolical age. Christians, especially the teachers of Chris- 
 tianity, enjoyed the miraculous influence of the Spirit. 
 Hence, to denote how universally their mind was per- 
 vaded with spiritual light, they were said to be haj)- 
 tized, i. e. immersed, in the Spirit of light. Baptizo 
 just as clearly signifies immersion in this connection, 
 as it does in any other. The Greek fathers could not 
 have been mistaken as to the meaning of the expres- 
 sion ; and they certainly understood it in this sense. 
 
211 
 
 Theophylact, commenting on the wordsj ' Be shall 
 baptize you in the Holy Spirit,^ etc. Matt. iii. 11 : saj^s, 
 ' That is. Me shall inundate you, toutcst*, xaTaxlvgst' v/xac, 
 abundantly with the gifts of the Spirit.' Cyril of Je- 
 rusalem, Cateches. 17j 8j says : ' For as he that goes 
 down into the water and is baptized, is surrounded on 
 all sides by the water, so the apostles were totally bap- 
 tized (immersed) by the Spirit. The water surrounds 
 the body externally, but the Spirit incomprehensibly 
 baptizes (immerses) the soui within.' 
 
 That ' baptism in the Spirit and fire,' is sproken of 
 the illuminating influences of the Spirit, 'will appear 
 from several considerations. The prophecy of Joel, 
 quoted by Peter, Acts ii. 17, 18., naturally leads us to 
 this conclusion. Dreams and visions were the usual 
 means by which God revealed his will ; and these 
 terms taken figuratively, denote here the extraordinary 
 communications of spiritual knowledge which his 
 servants should enjoy under the gospel dispensation. 
 
 The design of this baptism conducts to the same 
 view of the .subject. The introduction of the gospel 
 was the most remarkable event in the annals of time ; 
 it was the commencement of a mighty revolution, or 
 the moral regeneration of the v/orld ; (Matt. xix. 28 ;) 
 and the point of time occupied by the first Christian 
 teachers, was one of infinite importance. The bigoted 
 Jew and the superstitious Gentile, were equally and 
 inveterately hostile to the cause. Hence it was need- 
 ful for them to be endued with clear and accurate per- 
 ceptions of divine truth, as well as with an intellectual 
 energy and moral courage, and the gifts of the Spirit 
 were designed to furnish them with these qualifica- 
 tions. Accordingly Jesus told the apostles not to pre- 
 meditate when they were brought before magistrates 
 and kings ; for the Holy Ghost should teach them 
 what to say — that the Comforter, the Holy Ghost, 
 should teach them all things, and bring all things to 
 
212 
 
 their remembrance which he had said to them— and 
 that they should receive power after the Hol^ Ghost 
 v/as come upon them; and should be witnesses for 
 him, both in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and in Sama- 
 ria, and unto the uttermost parts of the earth. 
 
 Some persons have supposed that regeneration and 
 the baptism of the Holy Spirit is one and the same 
 th mo;^, but this is evidently a mistake ; for we find ma- 
 ny Christians spoken of in the Bible who were never 
 baptized with the Holy Ghost, while others in distinc- 
 tion from them are spoken of as being thus baptized.- 
 The baptism of the Holy Spirit was a miracle, and 
 usually conferred to prepare the subject of it for some 
 njiraculous work, as prophecying, speaking with 
 tongues, 6oc. ; and of course ceased when the Scrip- 
 tures were all written, as other miracles did. It was 
 not only a distinct action from regeneration, but usual- 
 ly subsequent to it. Thus Jesus Christ, who never 
 was regenerated, was baptized with the Holy Ghost. 
 Luke iii. 22: Isa. xlii. I: Ixi. 1. John baptized p)en- 
 itent believers in water, but these were to be subse- 
 quently baptized with the Holy Ghost by Jesus Christ. 
 Matt. iii. 11. The apostles were baptized with the 
 Holy Ghost long after they were regenerated and call- 
 ed to the apostleship. John xx. 22 : Acts i. 5 — 8 : 
 ii. 4 : iv. 8. The promise of the gift of the Holy 
 Ghost, Acts ii. 38, was on condition that they should 
 first repent and be baptized. The disciples at Sama- 
 ria believed, Acts viii. 12, and were baptized with wa- 
 ter ; but afterwards, when the apostles came down, 
 they were baptized with the Holy Ghost. Aets viii. 14 
 
 17. Paul received the Holy Ghost after he was 
 
 converted. Acts ix. 17. Cornelius, who feared God 
 with all his house^ Acts x. 2, was baptized with all 
 his house and spake with tongues, Acts x. 44 — 47 : 
 XI 15_17. The twelve believers whom John had 
 baptized, Acts xix. 2 — 6, were baptized with the Holy 
 
213 
 
 Ghost and spake with tongues and prophecied ; and 
 the uniform testimony of the Scriptures are, Eph. i. 
 13, ^^ After that ye believed ye were sealed with that 
 Holy Spirit of promise," and all the recorded effects of 
 this baptism go to confirm this idea. It seems proba- 
 ble from Acts ix. 17, that Paul received the baptism 
 of the Spirit immediately after liis conversion. Noth- 
 ing, however, is here said of the effects ; but from 
 other passages we learn that he • spake with tongues,' 
 ' wrought miracles,' etc. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 Preface, - » . . 3 
 
 Review of Mr. Sawyer on the action of Baptism, 7 
 
 Do. on the subjects of Baptism, - -=19 
 
 The Covenants, . . „ , 26 
 
 1 Covenant of Redemption, - - - 29 
 
 2 Covenant of Grace, - - - 30 
 
 3 Covenant of Circumcision, - - - 33 
 
 4 The Mosaic Covenant, - - - 44 
 
 The Church of God, - - - 49 
 
 1 Christ'^ Priesthood not Jewish, - - 50 
 
 2 The Jewish Church and the Church of God not one 
 
 and the same, - - - - 60 
 
 4 The origin of the Arians, - - - 71 
 
 3 Pagan Persecutions, - - - - 68 
 
 5 The origin of the Roman Catholics and Papal per- 
 
 secutions, - - - - -72 
 
 3 The origin of the Lutherans, - - 75 
 
 7 The origin of the Presbyterians, - - 75 
 
 @ The origin of the Congregationalists, - 76 
 
 9 The origin of the Episcopalians, - - 76 
 
 10 The origin of the Methodists, - - 77 
 
 11 The origin of the Baptists, - - - 76 
 
 Subjects of Baptism, - - - 98 
 
 1 The Baptism of John, - - - 106 
 
 2 The Baptism of our Savior, - - 107 
 
 3 John's Baptism and Christian Baptism the same, 109 
 
 4 Tlie Baptism of the Apostles, - - - 112 
 
 5 The origin of Infant Baptism, - - 124 
 
 6 The evils of Infant Baptism, - - - 130 
 
 The action of BAPTisat, (prepositions,) - 134 
 
 1 Mosaic Baptisms, - - - - 137 
 
 2 The waters of Palestine, - - - 148 
 
 3 Tlie origin of Sprinkling, - - - 145 
 
 4 Versions of the Bible, - - - 146 
 
 5 Direct arguments for Immorsion, - - 1&4 
 
 6 Lexicons, ... - - IM 
 
 7 The classic use of §«^mm, - - - 15$ 
 
216 COlfTEKTS. 
 
 Pape 
 
 8 The classic use of §amtZfo, - - - 159 
 
 9 The Sacred use of ^anioi^ . - - 159 
 
 10 The Sacred use of §amttfa, . . - 160 
 
 11 Baptism a burial, - - ^ - 165 
 
 12 The Savior's Baptism an example for believers, 166 
 
 13 Baptism a saving ordinance, - .- *• 169 
 
 The Lord's Supper, - - . -^ . 170 
 
 1 Infant Communion, - - - - 172 
 
 2 Scotch Churches Close Communion, - - 175 
 
 3 Saybrook Platform, - - - - 176 
 
 4 The Baptist persecuted in America, - - 178 
 
 5 The Church of England Close Communion, 184 
 
 6 The Methodist Close Communion, - ^ - 187 
 
 7 The Scriptures prove Close Communion, - 190 
 
 8 Pedobaptist objections ansvi^ered, - - 192 
 
 Baptism op the Holy Spirit, - - - 209 
 
 ERRATA. 
 
 In some copies, page 97, read Ireneatis instead of Clement. 
 
 Page 102, did grant liberty, instead of great liberty. 
 
 Page 113, for saving read miraculous. 
 
 Page 114, for Whitley, read Whitby, 
 
 Page 135, for Deut. xiv, 15, 16, read Lev. xiv. 15, 16. 
 
 Page 153, for congregation, re'ad church. 
 
 Mr. Chapin, page 79, is an Episcopal minister and tditor 
 of the Chronicle. 
 
 Entered according to act of Congress, in tke year 1838? 
 by Israel Robosds, in the Clerk's office in the District ©f 
 <!Jonnecticut.